Chabad - Today in Judaism - TODAY IS: Wednesday, 5 Cheshvan 5775 • 29 October 2014

Chabad - Today in Judaism - TODAY IS: Wednesday, 5 Cheshvan 5775 • 29 October 2014
Today's Laws & Customs:

Today in Jewish History:
DAILY QUOTE:
Torah and mitzvot are the wedding ring with which G‑d betrothed the people of Israel and obligated Himself to provide them with sustenance and livelihood(Hayom Yom, Tishrei 28)

DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: Lech-Lecha, 4th Portion Genesis 14:1-14:20 with Rashi
• Chapter 14
1. Now it came to pass in the days of Amraphel the king of Shinar, Arioch the king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer the king of Elam, and Tidal the king of Goyim. א. וַיְהִי בִּימֵי אַמְרָפֶל מֶלֶךְ שִׁנְעָר אַרְיוֹךְ מֶלֶךְ אֶלָּסָר כְּדָרְלָעֹמֶר מֶלֶךְ עֵילָם וְתִדְעָל מֶלֶךְ גּוֹיִם:
Amraphel: This is Nimrod, who said (אָמַר) to Abram, “Fall (פּוֹל) into the fiery furnace.” (Gen. Rabbah) [from Mid. Tan., Lech Lecha 6; Er. 53a, Targum Jonathan]
אמרפל: הוא נמרוד שאמר לאברהם פול לתוך כבשן האש:
the king of Goyim: There is a place named Goyim, because [people] from many nations (גּוֹיִם) and places assembled there, and they crowned over them a man named Tidal (Gen. Rabbah 42:4).
מלך גוים: מקום יש ששמו גוים, על שם שנתקבצו שמה מכמה אומות ומקומות והמליכו איש עליהם ושמו תדעל:
2. That they waged war with Bera the king of Sodom and with Birsha the king of Gomorrah, Shineab the king of Admah, and Shemeber the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar. ב. עָשׂוּ מִלְחָמָה אֶת בֶּרַע מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם וְאֶת בִּרְשַׁע מֶלֶךְ עֲמֹרָה שִׁנְאָב | מֶלֶךְ אַדְמָה וְשֶׁמְאֵבֶר מֶלֶךְ צְבוֹיִם וּמֶלֶךְ בֶּלַע הִיא צֹעַר:
Bera: He was evil (רַע) to Heaven and evil to people. [from Tan. Lech Lecha 8]
ברע: רע לשמים ורע לבריות:
Birsha: He was elevated in wickedness (רֶשַׁע). [cf. Tan. Lech Lecha 8]
ברשע: שנתעלה ברשעו:
Shineab: He hated (שׂוֹנֵא) his Father (אָב) in Heaven. [from Tan. ad loc.]
שנאב: שונא אביו שבשמים:
Shemeber: He made (שָׂם) wings (אֵבֶר) to fly and to spring and to rebel against the Holy One, blessed be He. [from Tan. ad loc.]
שמאבר: שם אבר לעוף ולקפוץ ולמרוד בהקב"ה:
Bela: the name of the city.
בלע: שם העיר:
3. All these joined in the valley of Siddim, which is the Dead Sea. ג. כָּל אֵלֶּה חָבְרוּ אֶל עֵמֶק הַשִּׂדִּים הוּא יָם הַמֶּלַח:
the valley of Siddim: This was its name because there were many fields (שָׂדוֹת) in it, and there are many Aggadic midrashim. [from Targum Onkelos]
עמק השדים: כך שמו, על שם שהיו בו שדות הרבה:
which is the Dead Sea: Afterwards, the sea flowed into it, and it became the Dead Sea. The Midrash Aggadah (Gen. Rabbah 42:6), however, states that the rocks around it split, and rivers flowed into it.
הוא ים המלח: לאחר זמן נמשך הים לתוכו ונעשה ים המלח. ומדרש אגדה אומר שנתבקעו הצורים סביבותיו ונמשכו יאורים לתוכו:
4. For twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and for thirteen years they rebelled. ד. שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה עָבְדוּ אֶת כְּדָרְלָעֹמֶר וּשְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה מָרָדוּ:
For twelve years they served: These five kings [served] Chedorlaomer.
שתים עשרה שנה עבדו: חמשה מלכים הללו את כדרלעומר:
5. And in the fourteenth year, Chedorlaomer came, and the kings who were with him, and they smote the Rephaim in Ashteroth Karnaim and the Zuzim in Ham, and the Emim in Shaveh Kiriathaim. ה. וּבְאַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה בָּא כְדָרְלָעֹמֶר וְהַמְּלָכִים אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ וַיַּכּוּ אֶת רְפָאִים בְּעַשְׁתְּרֹת קַרְנַיִם וְאֶת הַזּוּזִים בְּהָם וְאֵת הָאֵימִים בְּשָׁוֵה קִרְיָתָיִם:
And in the fourteenth year: of their rebellion, Chedorlaomer came. Since the matter concerned him, he bore “the heavier side of the beam” [i.e., he bore a major part of the responsibility]. [from Gen. Rabbah 42:6]
ובארבע עשרה שנה: למרדן, בא כדרלעומר, לפי שהוא היה בעל המעשה נכנס בעובי הקורה:
and the kings: These are the three kings.
והמלכים: אלה שלשה מלכים:
and the Zuzim: These are the Zamzumim. See Deut. 2:20.
הזוזים: הם זמזומים:
6. And the Horites in their mountain Seir, until the plain of Paran, which is alongside the desert. ו. וְאֶת הַחֹרִי בְּהַרֲרָם שֵׂעִיר עַד אֵיל פָּארָן אֲשֶׁר עַל הַמִּדְבָּר:
in their mountain: Heb. בְּהַרְרָם, in their mountain. [from Targum Onkelos]
בהררם: בהר שלהם:
the plain of Paran: Heb. אֵיל. According to its Aramaic translation, it means a plain. I say, however, that אֵיל does not mean a plain, but rather, that the plain of Paran was named Eil, and that [the plain] of Mamre was named Elonei, and that [the plain] of the Jordan was named Kikkar, and that [the plain] of Shittim was named Abel, אָבֵל הַשִּׁטִּים (Num. 33:49). And similarly, Baal-gad [was a plain] named Baal. [Though] they are all translated מִישׁוֹר, a plain, each one has its name accompanying it.
איל פארן: כתרגומו מישור. ואומר אני שאין איל לשון מישור, אלא מישור של פארן איל שמו, ושל ממרא אלוני שמו, ושל ירדן ככר שמו, ושל שטים אבל שמו אבל השטים, וכן בעל גד בעל שמו, וכולם מתורגמין מישור, וכל אחד שמו עליו:
alongside the desert: Heb. עַל, alongside the desert, like (Num. 2:20): “and alongside them (וְעָלָיו) was the tribe of Manasseh.” - [from Targum Onkelos]
על המדבר: אצל המדבר, כמו (במדבר ב כ) ועליו מטה מנשה:
7. And they returned and came to Ein Mishpat, which is Kadesh, and they smote the entire field of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites who dwelt in Hazezon Tamar. ז. וַיָּשֻׁבוּ וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל עֵין מִשְׁפָּט הִוא קָדֵשׁ וַיַּכּוּ אֶת כָּל שְׂדֵה הָעֲמָלֵקִי וְגַם אֶת הָאֱמֹרִי הַיּשֵׁב בְּחַצֲצֹן תָּמָר:
Ein Mishpat, which is Kadesh: lit. the fountain of judgment. [It was thus called] because of the future, for Moses and Aaron were destined to be judged there concerning matters [that would occur at] that fountain, viz. the waters of Meribah (Tan. Lech Lecha 8). Onkelos, however, rendered it according to its simple meaning, the place where the people of the province would assemble for all litigation.
עין משפט הוא קדש: על שם העתיד, שעתידין משה ואהרן להשפט שם על עסקי אותו העין, והם מי מריבה. ואונקלוס תרגמו כפשוטו, מקום שהיו בני המדינה מתקבצים שם לכל משפט:
field of the Amalekites: Amalek had not yet been born, but it was given this appellation because of the [name it would bear] in the future. [from Tan. ad loc.]
שדה העמלקי: עדיין לא נולד עמלק ונקרא על שם העתיד:
in Hazezon Tamar: This is Ein-Gedi. This is an explicit verse in (II) Chronicles (20:2) concerning Jehoshaphat.
בחצצון תמר: הוא עין גדי, מקרא מלא (דה"י ב' כ ב) ביהושפט:
8. And the king of Sodom and the king of Gomorrah and the king of Admah and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar, came forth, and they engaged them in battle in the valley of Siddim. ח. וַיֵּצֵא מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם וּמֶלֶךְ עֲמֹרָה וּמֶלֶךְ אַדְמָה וּמֶלֶךְ צְבוֹיִם וּמֶלֶךְ בֶּלַע הִוא צֹעַר וַיַּעַרְכוּ אִתָּם מִלְחָמָה בְּעֵמֶק הַשִּׂדִּים:
9. With Chedorlaomer the king of Elam and Tidal the king of Goyim and Amraphel the king of Shinar and Arioch the king of Ellasar, four kings against the five. ט. אֵת כְּדָרְלָעֹמֶר מֶלֶךְ עֵילָם וְתִדְעָל מֶלֶךְ גּוֹיִם וְאַמְרָפֶל מֶלֶךְ שִׁנְעָר וְאַרְיוֹךְ מֶלֶךְ אֶלָּסָר אַרְבָּעָה מְלָכִים אֶת הַחֲמִשָּׁה:
four kings against the five: Nevertheless, the few were victorious. This is to inform you that they were mighty men. Despite this, Abram did not hesitate to pursue them. [from Gen. Rabbah 42:7]
ארבעה מלכים את החמשה: ואף על פי כן נצחו המועטים, להודיעך שגבורים היו, ואף על פי כן לא נמנע אברהם מלרדוף אחריהם:
10. Now the valley of Siddim was [composed of] many clay pits, and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled and they fell there, and the survivors fled to a mountain. י. וְעֵמֶק הַשִּׂדִּים בֶּאֱרֹת בֶּאֱרֹת חֵמָר וַיָּנֻסוּ מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם וַעֲמֹרָה וַיִּפְּלוּ שָׁמָּה וְהַנִּשְׁאָרִים הֶרָה נָּסוּ:
many clay pits: There were many pits there from which they took earth for the clay for building (Targum Onkelos). The Midrashic explanation (Gen. Rabbah ad loc.) is that the clay was kneaded in them [i.e., in the pits], and a miracle was wrought for the king of Sodom that he escaped from there, because some of the nations did not believe that Abraham had been saved from Ur of the Chaldees, from the fiery furnace, but since this one escaped from the clay, they believed in Abraham retroactively.
בארת בארת חמר: בארות הרבה היו שם שנוטלין משם אדמה לטיט של בנין. ומדרש אגדה שהיה הטיט מוגבל בהם, ונעשה נס למלך סדום שיצא משם, לפי שהיו באומות מקצתן שלא היו מאמינין שניצל אברהם מאור כשדים מכבשן האש, וכיון שיצא זה מן החמר האמינו באברהם למפרע:
fled to a mountain: [Meaning]: They fled to a mountain. The word הֶרָה is the same as לְהַר. Any word that requires a lamed at the beginning, may have a hey added to it at the end [instead]. But there is a difference between הֶרָה and הָהָרָה, for the hey at the end of the word takes the place of the lamed at the beginning [of the word], but it does not take the place of a lamed vowelized with a pattach under it. Now הֶרָה is like לְהַר or like אֶל הַר, [to a mountain,] but it does not specify to which mountain, for each one fled to whichever mountain he found first. But when the letter hey is placed at the beginning, by writing הָהָרָה, or הַמִּדְבָּרָה, it is to be interpreted as אֶל הָהָר, or like לְהָהָר, [to the mountain], and it refers to that mountain that is known and specified in the chapter.
הרה נסו: להר נסו. הרה כמו להר, כל תיבה שצריכה למ"ד בתחלתה הטיל לה ה"א בסופה. ויש חילוק בין הרה לההרה שה"א שבסוף התיבה עומדת במקום למ"ד שבראשה, אבל אינה עומדת במקום למ"ד ונקודה פת"ח תחתיה, והרי הרה כמו להר, או כמו אל הר, ואינו מפרש לאיזה הר, אלא שכל אחד נס כאשר מצא הר תחלה, וכשהוא נותן ה"א בראשה לכתוב ההרה או המדברה, פתרונו כמו אל ההר או כמו לההר, ומשמע לאותו הר הידוע ומפורש בפרשה:
11. And they took all the possessions of Sodom and Gomorrah and all their food, and they departed. יא. וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת כָּל רְכֻשׁ סְדֹם וַעֲמֹרָה וְאֶת כָּל אָכְלָם וַיֵּלֵכוּ:
12. And they took Lot and his possessions, the son of Abram's brother, and they departed, and he was living in Sodom. יב. וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת לוֹט וְאֶת רְכֻשׁוֹ בֶּן אֲחִי אַבְרָם וַיֵּלֵכוּ וְהוּא ישֵׁב בִּסְדֹם:
and he was living in Sodom: What brought this about to him [that he was taken captive]? His living in Sodom. [from Gen. Rabbah ad loc.]
והוא יושב בסדום: מי גרם לו זאת, ישיבתו בסדום:
13. And the fugitive came and he told Abram the Hebrew, and he was living in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, the brother of Eshkol and the brother of Aner, who were Abram's confederates. יג. וַיָּבֹא הַפָּלִיט וַיַּגֵּד לְאַבְרָם הָעִבְרִי וְהוּא שֹׁכֵן בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא הָאֱמֹרִי אֲחִי אֶשְׁכֹּל וַאֲחִי עָנֵר וְהֵם בַּעֲלֵי בְרִית אַבְרָם:
And the fugitive came: According to its simple meaning, this was Og, who escaped from the battle, and that is what is referred to (in Deut. 3:11): “Only Og survived from the rest of the Rephaim.” And that is the meaning of “survived,” that Amraphel and his allies did not kill him when they smote the Rephaim in Ashteroth-Karnaim [Midrash Tanchuma (Chukkath 25)]. The Midrash Gen. Rabbah [explains]: This is Og, who escaped from the Generation of the Flood, and this is the meaning of “from the rest of the Rephaim,” as it is said: (above 6:4): “The Nephilim were on the earth, etc.” And he [Og] intended that Abram should be killed and he would marry Sarah (Gen. Rabbah 42:8).
ויבא הפליט: [מדרשו] לפי פשוטו זה עוג שפלט מן המלחמה, והוא שכתוב (דברים ג יא) כי רק עוג נשאר מיתר הרפאים, וזהו נשאר שלא הרגוהו אמרפל וחבריו כשהכו את הרפאים בעשתרות קרנים, תנחומא (חקת כה). ומדרש בראשית רבה (מב ח) זה עוג שפלט מדור המבול, וזהו מיתר הרפאים שנאמר (ו ד) הנפלים היו בארץ וגו' ומתכוין שיהרג אברהם וישא את שרה:
the Hebrew: Heb. הָעִבְרִי. [So called] because he came from the other side (מֵעֵבֶר) of the [Euphrates] river (Gen. Rabbah 42:8).
העברי: שבא מעבר הנהר:
Abram’s confederates: lit. the masters of Abram’s covenant. Because they made a covenant with him. (Other editions add: Another explanation of [בַּעֲלֵי בְּרִית]: They gave him advice concerning circumcision (Aggadath Bereishith 19:3), as is explained elsewhere) (below 18:1). [According to Aggadath Bereishith, the covenant mentioned is that of circumcision.]
בעלי ברית אברם: שכרתו עמו ברית (דבר אחר שהשיאו לו עצה על המילה כמו שמפורש במקום אחר):
14. And Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, and he armed his trained men, those born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and he pursued [them] until Dan. יד. וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָם כִּי נִשְׁבָּה אָחִיו וַיָּרֶק אֶת חֲנִיכָיו יְלִידֵי בֵיתוֹ שְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר וּשְׁלשׁ מֵאוֹת וַיִּרְדֹּף עַד דָּן:
and he armed: Heb. וַיָּרֶק, like its Aramaic translation: וְזָרֵיז, [and he armed], and similarly (Lev. 26:33): וַהִרִיקֹתִי אַחֲרֵיכֶם חָרֶב [which Onkelos renders]: “and I will arm Myself with My sword against you,” and similarly (Exod. 15:9): “I will arm myself (אָרִיק) with my sword,” and similarly (Ps. 35:3): “And arm Yourself (וְהָרֵק) with a spear and ax.” - [from Gen. Rabbah 43:2]
וירק: כתרגומו וזריז, וכן (ויקרא כו לג) והריקותי אחריכם חרב, אזדיין בחרבי עליכם, וכן (שמות טו ט) אריק חרבי, וכן (תהלים לה ג) והרק חנית וסגור:
his trained men: Heb. חֲנִיכָיו. It is written חֲנִיכוֹ [in the singular], his trained man (other editions: It is read). This is Eliezer, whom he had trained to [perform the] commandments, and it [חֲנִיכָיו] is an expression of the initiation (lit. the beginning of the entrance) of a person or a utensil to the craft with which he [or it] is destined to remain, and similarly (Prov. 22: 6): “Train (חֲנֹךְ) a child”; (Num. 7:10): “the dedication of (חֲנֻכַּת) the altar”; (Ps. 30:1): “the dedication of of (חֲנֻכַּת) the Temple,” and in Old French it is called enseigner [to instruct, train].
חניכיו: חנכו כתיב זה אליעזר שחנכו למצות והוא לשון התחלת כניסת האדם או כלי לאומנות שהוא עתיד לעמוד בה, וכן (משלי כב ו) חנוך לנער, (במדבר ז יא) חנכת המזבח, (תהלים ל א) חנכת הבית ובלע"ז קורין לו אנציניי"ר [לחנוך]:
three hundred and eighteen: Our Sages said (Gen. Rabbah 43:2, Ned. 32a): It was Eliezer alone, and it [the number 318] is the numerical value of his name.
שמונה עשר ושלש מאות: רבותינו אמרו אליעזר לבדו היה, והוא מנין גימטריא של שמו:
until Dan: There he became weak, for he saw that his children were destined to erect a calf there (Sanh. 96a). The reference is to I Kings 12:29: “And he (Jeroboam) placed one in Beth-el, and the other he placed in Dan.”
עד דן: שם תשש כחו, שראה שעתידין בניו להעמיד שם עגל:
15. And he divided himself against them at night, he and his servants, and smote them, and pursued them until Hobah, which is to the left of Damascus. טו. וַיֵּחָלֵק עֲלֵיהֶם | לַיְלָה הוּא וַעֲבָדָיו וַיַּכֵּם וַיִּרְדְּפֵם עַד חוֹבָה אֲשֶׁר מִשְּׂמֹאל לְדַמָּשֶׂק:
And he divided himself against them: According to its simple meaning, transpose the verse:“And he divided himself, he and his servants, upon them at night,” as is customary for pursuers, who divide themselves after the pursued when they flee, one here and one there.
ויחלק עליהם: לפי פשוטו, סרס המקרא, ויחלק הוא ועבדיו עליהם לילה כדרך הרודפים שמתפלגים אחר הנרדפים כשבורחים זה לכאן וזה לכאן:
at night: i.e., after nightfall he did not refrain from pursuing them. The Midrash Aggadah (Gen. Rabbah 43:3) states, however, that the night was divided, and in its first half, a miracle was wrought for him, and its second half was preserved for the [miracle of] midnight in Egypt.
לילה: כלומר אחר שחשכה לא נמנעו מלרדפם. ומדרש אגדה שנחלק הלילה ובחציו הראשון נעשה לו נס, וחציו השני נשמר ובא לו לחצות לילה של מצרים:
until Hobah: There is no place named Hobah, but Dan is called Hobah [culpable] because of the idolatry which would be practiced there [in the future]. [from Tan. Lech Lecha 13]
עד חובה: אין מקום ששמו חובה, אלא דן קורא חובה על שם עבודה זרה שעתידה להיות שם:
16. And he restored all the possessions, and also Lot his brother and his possessions he restored, and also the women and the people. טז. וַיָּשֶׁב אֵת כָּל הָרְכֻשׁ וְגַם אֶת לוֹט אָחִיו וּרְכֻשׁוֹ הֵשִׁיב וְגַם אֶת הַנָּשִׁים וְאֶת הָעָם:
17. And the king of Sodom came out toward him, after his return from smiting Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, to the valley of Shaveh, which is the valley of the king. יז. וַיֵּצֵא מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם לִקְרָאתוֹ אַחֲרֵי שׁוּבוֹ מֵהַכּוֹת אֶת כְּדָרְלָעֹמֶר וְאֶת הַמְּלָכִים אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ אֶל עֵמֶק שָׁוֵה הוּא עֵמֶק הַמֶּלֶךְ:
to the valley of Shaveh: That is its name, and the Targum renders: to the clear plain. It was clear of trees and of every obstacle.
עמק שוה: כך שמו כתרגומו למישר מפנא, פנוי מאילנות ומכל מכשול:
the valley of the king: [Onkelos renders:] the king’s race course; one race course was thirty rods long, which was designated for the king to play there. The Midrash Aggadah (Gen. Rabbah 42:5, 43:5), however, [explains that it was] a valley where all the nations concurred (הֻשְׁווּ) and crowned Abram over them as a prince of God and as an officer.
עמק המלך: בית ריסא דמלכא, בית ריס אחד שהוא שלשים קנים, שהיה מיוחד למלך לשחק שם. ומדרש אגדה עמק שהושוו שם כל האומות והמליכו את אברהם עליהם לנשיא א-להים ולקצין:
18. And Malchizedek the king of Salem brought out bread and wine, and he was a priest to the Most High God. יח. וּמַלְכִּי צֶדֶק מֶלֶךְ שָׁלֵם הוֹצִיא לֶחֶם וָיָיִן וְהוּא כֹהֵן לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן:
And Malchizedek: The Midrash Aggadah (Targum Jonathan, Ned. 32b, Mid. Ps. 76:3) states that he was Shem, the son of Noah.
ומלכי צדק: מדרש אגדה הוא שם בן נח:
bread and wine: This is done for those weary from battle, and he [Malchizedek] demonstrated that he bore no grudge against him [Abram] for slaying his sons (Tan. Lech Lecha 15). And according to the Midrash Aggadah (Gen. Rabbah 43:6), he hinted to him about the meal offerings and the libations, which his [Abraham’s] children would offer up there.
לחם ויין: כך עושים ליגיעי מלחמה, והראה לו שאין בלבו עליו על שהרג את בניו. ומדרש אגדה רמז לו על המנחות ועל הנסכים שיקריבו שם בניו:
19. And he blessed him, and he said, "Blessed be Abram to the Most High God, Who possesses heaven and earth. יט. וַיְבָרֲכֵהוּ וַיֹּאמַר בָּרוּךְ אַבְרָם לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ:
Who possesses heaven and earth: Heb. קֹנֶה, like (Ps. 115:15): the Maker of heaven and earth. By making them, He acquired them to be His.
קונה שמים וארץ: כמו (תהלים קלד ג) עושה שמים וארץ, על ידי עשייתן קנאן להיות שלו:
20. And blessed be the Most High God, Who has delivered your adversaries into your hand," and he gave him a tithe from all. כ. וּבָרוּךְ אֵל עֶלְיוֹן אֲשֶׁר מִגֵּן צָרֶיךָ בְּיָדֶךָ וַיִּתֶּן לוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר מִכֹּל:
Who has delivered: Heb. מִגֵּן, Who has delivered, and likewise, (Hosea 11:8): “I shall deliver you (אֲמַגֶּנְךָ), O Israel.”
אשר מגן: אשר הסגיר, וכן (הושע יא ח) אמגנך ישראל:
and he gave him: [i.e.,] Abram [gave Malchizedek] a tithe from all that was his because he was a priest. [from Gen. Rabbah 44:7]
ויתן לו: אברם, מעשר מכל אשר לו לפי שהיה כהן:
___________________________
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 29 - 34
• Chapter 29
The Name of God appears eighteen times in this psalm, corresponding to which our Sages established eighteen blessings-the Amidah. The entire psalm can be interpreted as referring to the giving of the Torah and the ingathering of the exiles.
1. A psalm by David. Render to the Lord, children of the mighty, render to the Lord honor and strength.
2. Render to the Lord the honor due to His Name; bow down to the Lord in resplendent holiness.
3. The voice of the Lord is over the waters, the God of glory thunders; the Lord is over mighty waters.
4. The voice of the Lord resounds with might; the voice of the Lord resounds with majesty.
5. The voice of the Lord breaks cedars; the Lord shatters the cedars of Lebanon.
6. He makes them leap like a calf, Lebanon and Sirion like a young wild ox.
7. The voice of the Lord strikes flames of fire.
8. The voice of the Lord makes the desert tremble; the Lord causes the desert of Kadesh to tremble.
9. The voice of the Lord causes the does to calve, and strips the forests bare; and in His Sanctuary all proclaim His glory.
10. The Lord sat [as King] at the Flood; the Lord will sit as King forever.
11. The Lord will give strength to His people; the Lord will bless His people with peace.
Chapter 30
This psalm teaches one not to be distressed if God visits suffering upon him in this world, for only through suffering can one enter the World to Come. Even one of great spiritual stature should realize that his stability is not guaranteed, but that all is in the hands of God.
1. A psalm, a song of dedication of the House, by David.
2. I exalt You, Lord, for You have uplifted me, and did not allow my enemies to rejoice over me.
3. Lord, my God, I cried out to You, and You healed me.
4. Lord, You have brought up my soul from the grave; You have kept me alive, that I should not descend to the pit.
5. Sing to the Lord, you His pious ones, and praise His holy Name.
6. For His wrath endures but for a moment, when He is conciliated there is [long] life; when one retires at night weeping, joy will come in the morning.
7. In my security I thought, "I shall never falter.”
8. Lord, by Your favor You have made my mountain stand strong; when You concealed Your countenance I was alarmed.
9. I called to You, O Lord, and I made supplication to my Lord:
10. What profit is there in my death, in my going down to the grave? Can dust praise You? Can it proclaim Your truth
11. Lord, hear and be gracious to me; Lord, be a help to me.
12. You have turned my mourning into dancing; You have undone my sackcloth and girded me with joy.
13. Therefore my soul shall sing to You, and not be silent; Lord my God, I will praise You forever.
Chapter 31
Composed by a destitute and oppressed David, running from Saul while placing his trust in God, this psalm instructs man to put his trust in God alone.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. In You I have taken shelter, O Lord, I shall never be shamed; rescue me in Your righteousness.
3. Turn Your ear to me, save me quickly; be to me a rock of refuge, a fortress to deliver me.
4. For You are my rock and my fortress; for the sake of Your Name, direct me and lead me.
5. Remove me from the net they planted for me, for You are my stronghold.
6. I entrust my spirit into Your hand; You will redeem me, Lord, God of truth.
7. I despise those who anticipate worthless vanities; but I trust in the Lord.
8. I will rejoice and delight in Your kindness, for You have seen my affliction; You know the troubles of my soul.
9. You have not delivered me into the hand of the enemy; You have set my feet on spacious ground.
10. Be gracious to me, O Lord, for I am in distress; my eye wastes away from vexation-my soul and my stomach.
11. For my life is spent in sorrow, my years in sighing; my strength fails because of my iniquity, and my bones are wasted away.
12. Because of my adversaries I have become a disgrace-exceedingly to my neighbors, and a dread to my friends; those who see me outside flee from me.
13. Like a dead man, I was forgotten from the heart; I became like a lost vessel.
14. For I have heard the slander of many, terror on every side, when they assembled together against me and plotted to take my life.
15. But I trusted in You, O Lord; I said, "You are my God.”
16. My times are in Your hand; save me from the hands of my enemies and pursuers.
17. Shine Your countenance upon Your servant; deliver me in Your kindness.
18. O Lord, let me not be ashamed, for I have called You; let the wicked be shamed, let them be silent to the grave.
19. Let the lips of falsehood-which speak insolently against the righteous, with arrogance and contempt-be struck dumb.
20. How abundant is Your good that You have hidden for those who fear You; in the presence of man, You have acted for those who take refuge in You.
21. Conceal them from the haughtiness of man, in the shelter of Your countenance; hide them in a shelter from the strife of tongues.
22. Blessed is the Lord, for He has been wondrous in His kindness to me in a besieged city.
23. I said in my panic, "I am cut off from before Your eyes!" But in truth, You heard the voice of my pleas when I cried to You.
24. Love the Lord, all His pious ones! The Lord preserves the faithful, and repays with exactness those who act haughtily.
25. Be strong and fortify your hearts, all who put their hope in the Lord!
Chapter 32
This psalm speaks of forgiveness of sin, and of the good fortune of one who repents and confesses to God wholeheartedly.
1. By David, a maskil.1Fortunate is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
2. Fortunate is the man to whom the Lord does not reckon his sin, and in whose spirit there is no deceit.
3. When I was silent, my limbs wore away through my wailing all day long.
4. For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me; my marrow became [dry] as the droughts of summer, Selah.
5. My sin I made known to You, my iniquity I did not cover. I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the Lord," and You have forgiven the iniquity of my transgression forever.
6. For this let every pious man pray to You, at a time when You may be found; indeed, the flood of many waters will not reach him.
7. You are a refuge to me; protect me from distress; surround me with songs of deliverance forever.
8. I will enlighten you and educate you in the path you should go; I will advise you with what I have seen.
9. Be not like a horse, like a mule, senseless, that must be muzzled with bit and bridle when being adorned, so that it not come near you.
10. Many are the agonies of the wicked, but he who trusts in the Lord is surrounded by kindness.
11. Rejoice in the Lord and exult, you righteous ones! Sing joyously, all you upright of heart!
Chapter 33
This psalm teaches the righteous and upright to praise God. For the more one knows of the Torah's wisdom, the more should he praise God, for he knows and understands His greatness.
1. Sing joyously to the Lord, you righteous ones; it is fitting for the upright to offer praise.
2. Extol the Lord with a harp; sing to Him with a ten-stringed lyre.
3. Sing to Him a new song; play well with sounds of jubilation.
4. For the word of the Lord is just; all His deeds are done in faithfulness.
5. He loves righteousness and justice; the kindness of the Lord fills the earth.
6. By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their hosts.
7. He gathers the waters of the sea like a mound; He places the deep waters in vaults.
8. Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world tremble before Him.
9. For He spoke, and it came to be; He commanded, and it endured.
10. The Lord has annulled the counsel of nations; He has foiled the schemes of peoples.
11. The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the thoughts of His heart throughout all generations.
12. Fortunate is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people He chose as a heritage for Himself.
13. The Lord looks down from heaven; He beholds all mankind.
14. From His dwelling-place He looks intently upon all the inhabitants of the earth.
15. It is He Who fashions the hearts of them all, Who perceives all their actions.
16. The king is not saved by a great army, nor a warrior rescued by great might.
17. The horse is a false guarantee for victory; with all its great strength it offers no escape.
18. But the eye of the Lord is directed toward those who fear Him, toward those who hope for His kindness,
19. to save their soul from death and to sustain them during famine.
20. Our soul yearns for the Lord; He is our help and our shield.
21. For our heart shall rejoice in Him, for we have put our trust in His Holy Name.
22. May Your kindness, Lord, be upon us, as we have placed our hope in You.
Chapter 34
This psalm tells of when David was in grave danger while at the palace of Achish, brother of Goliath. David acted like a madman, letting spittle run down his beard, and writing on the doors: "Achish, king of Gath, owes me one hundred thousand gold coins," leading Achish to eject him from the palace. In his joy, David composed this psalm in alphabetical sequence.
1. By David, when he feigned insanity before Avimelech,1 who then drove him away, and he left.
2. I bless the Lord at all times; His praise is always in my mouth.
3. My soul glories in the Lord; let the humble hear it and rejoice.
4. Exalt the Lord with me, and let us extol His Name together.
5. I sought the Lord and He answered me; He delivered me from all my fears.
6. Those who look to Him are radiant; their faces are never humiliated.
7. This poor man called, and the Lord heard; He delivered him from all his tribulations.
8. The angel of the Lord camps around those who fear Him, and rescues them.
9. Taste and see that the Lord is good; fortunate is the man who trusts in Him.
10. Fear the Lord, you His holy ones, for those who fear Him suffer no want.
11. Young lions may want and hunger, but those who seek the Lord shall not lack any good thing.
12. Come, children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord.
13. Who is the man who desires life, who loves long life wherein to see goodness?
14. Guard your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking deceit.
15. Turn away from evil and do good, seek peace and pursue it.
16. The eyes of the Lord are directed toward the righteous, and His ears toward their cry.
17. The wrath of the Lord is upon the evildoers, to excise their memory from the earth.
18. But when they [repent and] cry out, the Lord hears, and saves them from all their troubles.
19. The Lord is close to the broken-hearted, and saves those with a crushed spirit.
20. Many are the afflictions of a righteous person, but the Lord rescues him from them all.
21. He protects all his bones; not one of them is broken.
22. Evil brings death upon the wicked, and the enemies of the righteous are condemned.
23. The Lord redeems the soul of His servants; all who take shelter in Him are not condemned.
____________________________
Tanya: Iggeret HaKodesh, middle of Epistle 26
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
Wednesday, 5 Cheshvan 5775 • 29 October 2014
Iggeret HaKodesh, middle of Epistle 26
והנה המובן מהשקפה ראשונה לכאורה מלשון זה המאמר לחסירי מדע
Now, at first glance, what the words of this passage imply to those who lack understanding1
שלימוד איסור והיתר וסדר טהרות, הוא מאילנא דטוב ורע
is that the study of [the laws of] ritual prohibition and permission, and the Order of Taharot, where the laws of purity and impurity are found, relates [only] to the Tree of [Knowledge of] Good and Evil.
מלבד שהוא פלא גדול מחמת עצמו
Now this is most surprising in itself, that a particular area within the Torah should be designated as the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, thus relating it to kelipat nogah, which is an admixture of good and evil;
וסותר פשטי הכתובים ומדרשי רבותינו ז״ל, שכל התורה הנגלית לנו ולבנינו נקראת: עץ חיים למחזיקים בה, ולא ספר הזהר לבד
moreover, this contradicts the plain meaning of Scripture and the teachings of our Sages, of blessed memory, that the entire Torah that has been revealed to us and to our children, i.e., the dimension of nigleh, is called2 “A tree of life to those who hold fast to it,” and not only the Book of the Zohar.
ובפרט שהיה גנוז בימיהם
This is especially so, since [the Zohar] was [still] concealed in their days;
וגם כל חכמת הקבלה היתה נסתרה בימיהם, ונעלמה מכל תלמידי חכמים, כי אם ליחידי סגולה
indeed, the whole wisdom of the Kabbalah was hidden in their days and concealed from all the Torah scholars, except for a select few,
ואף גם זאת, בהצנע לכת ולא ברבים, כדאיתא בגמרא
and even then, [it was studied] in a concealed manner and not publicly, as stated in the Gemara.3
וכמו שכתב האריז״ל, דדוקא בדורות אלו האחרונים, מותר ומצוה לגלות זאת החכמה, ולא בדורות הראשונים
Thus R. Isaac Luria, of blessed memory, wrote4 that it is only in these latter generations that “it is permitted and obligatory to reveal this wisdom” — i.e., the Kabbalah, which illuminates the esoteric dimension of the Torah — but not in the earlier generations.
On this entire subject, see the introduction of R. Chayim Vital to Shaar HaHakdamot, which also appears as the first addendum to Kuntres Etz Chayim by the Rebbe Rashab (in the Kehot edition entitled Otzar HaChassidim), as well as the introduction of the Rebbe Rayatz to this Kuntres.
וגם רבי שמעון בר יוחאי אמר בזהר הקדוש, שלא ניתן רשות לגלות רק לו ולחביריו לבדם
R. Shimon bar Yochai, too, stated in the sacred Zohar5 that permission to reveal [the secrets of the Kabbalah] was only granted to himself and his associates.
ואך גם זאת פליאה נשגבה
Now this, too, is a remarkable wonder.
דלפי זה
For if so, i.e., according to a superficial reading of the above quotation from Ra’aya Mehemna, from which it would appear that only the Zohar is called the Tree of Life, while the revealed plane of the Torah is considered the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil,
לא היה לימוד איסור והיתר, וכל שכן דיני ממונות, דוחין מצות תפלה
then the study of [the laws of] ritual prohibition and permission, and surely [the study of] civil laws, such as litigation on monetary matters,6 should not override the obligation of prayer,
שנתקנה על פי סודות הזהר ויחודים עליונים, ליודעים
which is set out according to the secrets of the Zohar and on the Supernal Unions (of the various Divine Names and Supernal Sefirot), for those who are familiar with them,
כרבי שמעון בר יוחאי וחביריו
such as R. Shimon bar Yochai and his associates.
וזה אינו
But this is not the case. In fact, the study of the laws of what is ritually prohibited or permitted, and even the study of civil law, does override the obligation to pray at fixed times.
כדאיתא בגמרא, דרבי שמעון בן יוחאי וחביריו, וכל מי שתורתו אומנותו, אין מפסיקין לתפלה
As stated in the Gemara,7 R. Shimon bar Yochai and his associates, and likewise any others whose Torah study is their sole occupation, do not interrupt [their Torah study] for prayer.8
ואפילו כשעוסק בדיני ממונות, כרב יהודה, דכולהו תנויי בנזיקין הוי
[This applies] even when one is occupied with the study of civil law, like Rav Yehudah, all of whose studies were in the Order of Nezikin9 (lit., “damages”);
ואפילו הכי, לא הוי מצלי אלא מתלתין יומין לתלתין יומין, כד מהדר תלמודא, כדאיתא בגמרא
nevertheless, in order not to interrupt his studies, he prayed only every thirty days10 when reviewing his studies, as stated in the Gemara.11
ובירושלמי, פרק קמא דברכות, סבירא ליה לרבי שמעון בר יוחאי דאפילו לקריאת שמע אין מפסיקין, כי אם ממקרא ולא ממשנה, דעדיפי ממקרא, לרבי שמעון בר יוחאי
Also, in the Talmud Yerushalmi, in the first chapter of Berachot,12 R. Shimon bar Yochai is of the opinion that even for the Reading of Shema one interrupts only the study of Scripture, but not of Mishnah, the Oral Torah, the study of which is superior to the study of Scripture,13 according to R. Shimon bar Yochai.
ולא חילק בין סדר זרעים ומועד וקדשים, לטהרות ונזיקין
He did not differentiate between [studying] the Orders of Zera’im, Moed and Kodashim, and [studying] the Orders of Taharot and Nezikin.14
He thus holds that even when studying the monetary laws in the Order of Nezikin one should not interrupt one’s studies for the Reading of Shema.
(וסותר דעת עצמו ברעיא מהימנא בכמה מקומות, דמשנה איהי שפחה כו׳
(15Actually, he [here] contradicts his own opinion, given in a number of instances in Ra’aya Mehemna,16 that Mishnah (relative to Scripture) is termed a “handmaiden” (Heb.: shifchah), and so on;
והמקרא, שהוא תורת משה, ודאי עדיפא מקבלה, דאיהי מטרוניתא ברעיא מהימנא שם
and Scripture, the Torah of Moses, is surely superior to the Kabbalah, which is termed a “queen” (Aram.: matrunita) in the above-quoted passage in Ra’aya Mehemna,
ותורה שבכתב הוא מלכא
while the Written Torah is termed a “king” (Aram.: malka).
Thus, according to the last-quoted set of terms from R. Shimon bar Yochai, Scripture is superior even to Kabbalah and surely to Mishnah. From the previous passage, however, as cited in the Talmud Yerushalmi, it would seem that he maintains that Mishnah is superior to Scripture, for one does not interrupt one’s study of Mishnah in order to read Shema at its prescribed time, though one does interrupt one’s study of Scripture.
Here the Alter Rebbe interpolates a Kabbalistic definition of the term malka (“king”):
(דהיינו יסוד אבא, המלובש בזעיר אנפין, כמו שכתב האריז״ל))
(17This is the Yesod of Abba vested in Z’eir Anpin, as stated by R. Isaac Luria, of blessed memory.18))
To resume the discussion of R. Shimon bar Yochai:
וגם פלפול הקושיות ותירוצים, דמסטרא דרע ורוח הטומאה, אשכחן ברבי שמעון בר יוחאי, דעסק ביה טובא
Moreover, we find that R. Shimon bar Yochai dealt considerably (not only with the mere statements of law in the Mishnayot, but) also with the argumentation of problems and solutions, which (according to the original quotation from Ra’aya Mehemna) derive from the side of evil and from the spirit of impurity.
גם בהיותו במערה
[This he did] even when he was in the cave, where legal adjudication, especially in civil suits, was obviously uncalled for.
ואדרבה, בזכות צער המערה זכה לזה
Indeed, the very fact that he underwent anguish [when forced to hide] in the cave made him worthy of these attainments.
כדאיתא בגמרא, דאמר לרבי פנחס בן יאיר אכל קושיא, כ״ד פירוקי
For, as stated in the Gemara,19 he countered every problematic query posed by R. Pinchas ben Yair with twenty-four solutions,
ואמר ליה: אלמלא לא ראיתני בכך כו׳
and [R. Shimon] said to him: “If you had not seen me like this,” in this sorry state in the cave, [“you would not have found me like this”].
(וגם באמת, על כרחך עיקר עסקיהם במערה היה תורת המשניות, ת״ר סדרי שהיה בימיהם עד רבינו הקדוש
(20In fact, their principal occupation in the cave — the principal occupation of Rashbi and his son, R. Eliezer — must have been with the teachings of the Mishnayot, i.e., the six hundred Orders extant in those days21 until the time of our holy Master, R. Yehudah HaNasi, who compiled the Mishnayot in six Orders.
דאילו ספר הזהר והתיקונים היה יכול לגמור בב׳ וג׳ חדשים, כי בודאי לא אמר דבר אחד ב׳ פעמים)
For he could have completed the Zohar and the Tikkunim, the Tikkunei Zohar, in two or three months; for surely he did not repeat the same subject twice.22)
Surely, then, he was occupied almost the entire time with the study of the six hundred Orders of the Mishnah.
גם אמרו רבותינו ז״ל: מיום שחרב בית המקדש אין לו להקדוש ברוך הוא אלא ד׳ אמות של הלכה בלבד
Moreover, our Sages, of blessed memory, have taught23 that “Since the day the Temple was destroyed, the Holy One, blessed be He, has only the four cubits of Halachah.” The study of Torah law thus takes the place of the Holy Temple.
How, then, can we possibly say, as the above passage from Ra’aya Mehemna might superficially indicate, that the study of the laws of ritual permissibility, and the like, is designated as the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and thus related to kelipat nogah, which is an admixture of good and evil?
FOOTNOTES
1. Following early editions of the Tanya, the correct Hebrew text here reads chaseirei (spelled with a resh), meaning “those who lack.” Other editions appear to read chassidei (spelled with a daled), and have led to some mistranslation.
2. Mishlei 3:18.
3. Chagigah 11b; 13a.
4. See Shaar HaGilgulim, end of Introduction XV; et al.
5. Note of the Rebbe: “See beginning of Idra Rabbah (Zohar III, 127b ff.) and many other places in the Zohar where Rashbi expresses himself similarly.”
6. Note of the Rebbe: “It could be suggested that civil law is singled out, for in this field the law of the Torah [sometimes] takes into account ‘the custom of local merchants’ or ‘the law of the land’ or a waiver by one of the parties to a transaction; and so on.” [Hence the most “remarkable wonder” would be that the study of such a seemingly mundane level of law should override the seemingly more spiritual occupation of prayer.]
7. Shabbat 11a.
8. Note of the Rebbe: “Many have asked: ‘If so, how were the Supernal Unions (yichudim) usually effected by daily prayer, accomplished [by them]?’ For an answer, see Torah Or 38d, 69a, et al. [where it is explained that these holy Sages were so self-effacing and so G‑d-fearing that their Torah study bore spiritual results which others can only achieve through prayer].”
9. Berachot 20a.
10. Note of the Rebbe: “Many have asked: ‘If so, how were the Supernal Unions (yichudim) usually effected by daily prayer, accomplished [by them]?’ For an answer, see Torah Or 38d, 69a, et al. [where it is explained that these holy Sages were so self-effacing and so G‑d-fearing that their Torah study bore spiritual results which others can only achieve through prayer].”
11. Rosh HaShanah 35a.
12. End of Law 2.
13. Note of the Rebbe: “It could be suggested that the Alter Rebbe adds the reason, since the reason too is part of the question, as is soon stated. Note that Mishnah is the revealed level of the Torah, while Scripture is related to Kabbalah (see the commentary in Likkutei Torah on the maamar beginning Lo Tashbit). But see Hilchot Talmud Torah of the Alter Rebbe, beginning of sec. 2, [from which it would seem that Kabbalah is related to the Oral Torah, not to Scripture].”
14. Note of the Rebbe: “The Alter Rebbe omits the Order of Nashim, etc. (See Likkutei Levi Yitzchak on Tanya.)”
[Explaining this omission, the father of the Rebbe states there that the Alter Rebbe’s point could not be proved from the fact that the study of Nashim (which deals with marriage and divorce, etc.) overrides the Reading of Shema. For, as the Gemara says regarding the erasing of the Divine Name in the course of the purification of a sotah (the woman suspected of adultery), G‑d is even willing to allow the Divine Name to be erased, so long as this will restore peace between a husband and his wife. It is thus to be expected that the Reading of Shema, whose essence is the affirmation of the unity of the Divine Name, should defer to the study of this particular Order.
Other Kabbalistic reasons are offered there as well.]
15. These parentheses/brackets are in the original text.
16. Note of the Rebbe: “This requires further examination and research [to find where Rashbi actually states this in Ra’aya Mehemna]. See Zohar I, 27b (and in the Introduction to Tikkunei Zohar XIV, foot of p. 71 ff.); also Biurei HaZohar there [by the Mitteler Rebbe], (as well as by the Tzemach Tzedek, Volume II).”
17. These parentheses/brackets are in the original text.
18. Shaar HaMitzvot, Parshat Vaetchanan; et al.
19. Shabbat 33b.
20. These parentheses/brackets are in the original text.
21. Chagigah 14a and Rashi there.
22.  The author of Minchat Elazar poses the following question (Divrei Torah 8:70):
The study of the Mishnayot would likewise not have taken more than several months, if they did not debate all the legal problems and solutions involved. We can thus say the same for their study of the Zohar and Tikkunei Zohar: while several months would suffice for the bare-bone text itself, even thirteen years would not suffice for discussing and plumbing its depths!
The Rebbe answers this by noting that the Alter Rebbe anticipated this question in this very letter.
He prefaces the fact that it took the compiler of the Gemara, R. Ashi, a full ten years to study the first and second editions of the Talmud which then comprised only six Orders. R. Shimon, who was of far greater stature (see Eruvin 54a) and studied the six hundred Orders of the Mishnah in much greater depth, propounding twenty-four solutions to every problem, surely was fully occupied in the cave with the study of the Mishnah.
With regard to the Zohar and Tikkunei Zohar, however, since the Alter Rebbe here quoted the Ra’aya Mehemna to the effect that they contain “no problematic query, which emanates from the side of evil, and no controversy, which emanates from the spirit of impurity,” there were then no questions nor disputations. Surely, then, this took no more than several months.
23. Berachot 8a.
____________________________

Rambam: 
Daily Mitzvah P244 Sefer Hamitzvot
Today's Mitzvah
Wednesday, 5 Cheshvan 5775 • 29 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 244
The Borrower
"And if a man borrows from his neighbor..."—Exodus 22:13.
We are commanded [to follow all the laws outlined in the Torah] regarding one who borrows an object from his fellow.
The Borrower
Positive Commandment 244
Translated by Berel Bell
The 244th mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding the law of a borrower.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "If a person borrows something from another..."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 8th chapter of tractate Bava Metzia and the 8th chapter of Shavuos.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ex. 22:13.

________________________________________

Rambam:

• 1 Chapter a Day: Edut Edut - Chapter 9
Edut - Chapter 9
Halacha 1
There are ten categories of disqualifications. Any person belonging to one of them is not acceptable as a witness. They are:
a) women;
b) servants;
c) minors;
d) mentally or emotionally unstable individuals;
e) deaf-mutes;
f) the blind;
g) the wicked; h) debased individuals;
i) relatives;
j) people who have a vested interest in the matter; a total of ten.
Halacha 2
Women are unacceptable as witnesses according to Scriptural Law, as Deuteronomy 17:6 states: "According to the testimony of two witnesses." The verse uses a male form and not a female form.
Halacha 3
A tumtum and an androgynus are also unacceptable, for there is an unresolved doubt whether they are considered as women. Whenever there is an unresolved doubt whether or not a person is acceptable as a witness, he is not accepted. The rationale is that a witness is coming to expropriate money from a defendant based on his testimony or to cause a defendant to be held liable for punishment. And according to Scriptural Law, money may not be expropriated when there is a doubt involved, nor do we inflict punishment when there is a doubt involved.
Halacha 4
Servants are not acceptable to offer testimony according to Scriptural Law, as can be inferred from Deuteronomy 19:19: "And you shall do unto him as he conspired to do unto his brother." Implied is that his brother is like him. Just as his brother is a member of the covenant; so, too, the witness must be a member of the covenant.
By extension, we can infer that a gentile is certainly not acceptable. If servants who are obligated in certain mitzvot are unacceptable, certainly, this would apply with regard to gentiles.
Halacha 5
A person who is half a servant and half a free man is not acceptable as a witness.
Halacha 6
Whenever a servant has been freed, but he has not been given his bill of release, he is not acceptable as a witness. Only after the bill of release reaches his hand, he immerses himself in the mikveh, and he becomes a member of the covenant may he give testimony.
Halacha 7
Minors are unacceptable as witnesses according to Scriptural Law. This concept is derived as follows: With regard to witnesses, Deuteronomy 19:17 states: "And the two men will stand." Implied is "men," and not minors. Even if the minor was understanding and wise, he is not acceptable until he manifests signs of physical maturity after completing thirteen full years of life.
If he reached the age of 20 without manifesting signs of physical maturity and on the contrary manifests physical signs of a lack of sexual potency, he is classified as a eunuch and may testify. If he does not manifest such signs, he may not testify until he completes the majority of his life, as we explained in Hilchot Ishut.
Halacha 8
When a minor passes the age of thirteen and manifest signs of physical maturity in his upper body, he need not be checked to see whether he manifested signs of physical maturity in his lower body. If he does not manifest the upper signs of maturity, we do not accept him as a witness until he is inspected. When a child is thirteen years and one day and manifests signs of physical maturity, but is not very familiar with business dealings, his testimony is not accepted with regard to landed property. The rationale is that he is not precise about such matters because of his unfamiliarity. With regard to movable property, we accept his testimony since he has reached majority.
Halacha 9
A person who is mentally or emotionally unstable is not acceptable as a witness according to Scriptural Law, for he is not obligated in the mitzvot. We are not speaking about only an unstable person who goes around naked, destroys utensils, and throws stones. Instead, it applies to anyone whose mind is disturbed and continually confused when it comes to certain matters although he can speak and ask questions to the point regarding other matters. Such a person is considered unacceptable and is placed in the category of unstable people.
An epileptic in the midst of a seizure is unacceptable as a witness. When he is healthy, he is acceptable. This applies both with regard to an epileptic who has seizures only infrequently and one who continuously has seizures without having a fixed time for them, provided his mind is not continuously confused. For there are epileptics whose minds are disturbed even when they are healthy. One must ponder much before accepting testimony from epileptics.
Halacha 10
People who are very feeble-witted who do not understand that matters contradict each other and are incapable of comprehending a concept as it would be comprehended by people at large are considered among those mentally unstable. This also applies to the people who are continually unsettled, tumultuous, and deranged. This matter is dependent on the judgment of the judge. It is impossible to describe the mental and emotional states of people in a text.
Halacha 11
A deaf-mute is equivalent to a mentally unstable person, for he is not of sound mind and is therefore not obligated in the observance of the mitzvot. Both a deaf person who can speak and a person who can hear, but is mute is unacceptable to serve as a witness. Even though he sees excellently and his mind is sound, he must deliver testimony orally in court or be fit to deliver testimony orally and must be fit to hear the judges and the warning they administer to him.
Similarly, if a person loses the ability to speak, even though his intellectual faculties have been checked as a husband is checked with regard to a bill of divorce, he testifies in writing, and his testimony is to the point, it is not accepted at all, except with regard to releasing a women from marriage, for leniency was granted so that women will not be forced to live alone.
Halacha 12
The blind, although they can recognize the voices of the litigants and know their identities, are not acceptable as witnesses according to Scriptural Law. This is derived from Leviticus 5:1: "And he witnessed or saw," which implies that one who can see may serve as a witness.
A person who is blind in one eye is fit to serve as a witness.
____________________________
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters a Day: She'elah uFikkadon She'elah uFikkadon - Chapter 3, She'elah uFikkadon She'elah uFikkadon - Chapter 4, She'elah uFikkadon She'elah uFikkadon - Chapter 5
She'elah uFikkadon - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
When a person borrows a cow from a colleague and the colleague sends it to him with his own son, his agent or his servant, and it dies before it enters the borrower's domain, the borrower is not liable. This law applies even if the owner sends it with the son, the servant or the agent of the borrower.
If the borrower tells the owner: 'Send it to me with my son,' 'with my servant,' or 'with my agent,' or even 'with your Hebrew servant,' or 'with your agent,' the borrower is liable. This law also applies if the owner tells the borrower: 'I am sending it to you with your son,' 'with your servant,' 'with your agent,' 'with my son,' 'with my Hebrew servant,' or 'with my agent,' and the borrower agrees, the borrower is liable if he sends it and it dies on the way.
If the owner sends the cow with his own Canaanite servant, the borrower is not liable if the cow dies on the way after it is sent. This law applies even if the borrower consents. The rationale is that the servant is considered to be an extension of his master's physical person. Thus, the cow has never left its owner's domain.
Halacha 2
The following rules apply when a person borrows a cow from a colleague, the borrower tells the owner: 'Switch it with a stick, and it will come on its own accord,' and the owner follows his instructions. The borrower is not liable until the cow enters his domain. If it dies on the way, he is not liable.
Similar laws apply when the borrower returns the animal to its owner. If he sends it with another person and it dies before it enters the owner's domain, he is not liable, because it is still the borrower's responsibility. If he returned it with another person with the consent of the owner and it died, he is not liable. If he returned it with his own Canaanite servant, and it died on the way, he is liable, even if the owner consented. The rationale is that the servant is considered an extension of his master's physical person. Thus, the cow has never left the borrower's domain.
When does the above apply? When the borrower returned the animal during the time for which it was lent out. If, however, he returns it after the end of the time for which it was lent out, he is not liable if it dies on the way. For once the time for which it was lent out has concluded, the laws of borrowing no longer apply, and the person who had borrowed the animal is considered a paid watchman. Therefore, if the animal is taken captive or dies after the period for which it was lent out has concluded, the person who had borrowed the animal is not liable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 3
The following rules apply when a person borrows a cow from a colleague, the animal dies, and a dispute arises between the owner and the borrower concerning the circumstances of its death. For example, he borrowed it for half a day and rented it for half a day, borrowed it for one day and rented it for one day, or he borrowed one animal and rented another and one of the animals dies. The owner says: 'The borrowed animal died,' 'It died on the day it was borrowed,' or 'It died during the time it was borrowed,' and the borrower says: 'I don't know,' we follow the principle: When a person desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him. This principle also applies if the borrower says: 'The rented ox died,' 'It died on the day it was rented,' or 'It died during the time it was rented,' and the owner said: 'I don't know,' or they both said: 'I don't know.'
If the owner cannot bring proof that the borrowed ox died, the renter must take an oath that the rented ox died or that he does not know, and he is freed of liability.
If the owner claims that the borrowed ox died, and the the watchman claims that the rented ox died, the watchman must take an oath that the rented ox died in an ordinary manner as he claims. Because of the convention of gilgul sh'vuah, he must also include in his oath that it was the rented ox that died.
Halacha 4
The following rules apply when a person borrows two cows from a colleague, borrowing them for half the day and renting them for half the day, and the cows die. If the owner claims 'They died during the time that they were borrowed,' and the watchman replies: 'One did die during the time it was borrowed, but I don't know about the other one," since the watchman is not able to take an oath that denies the owner's claim, he must make restitution for the two cows.
Similar rules apply if the owner gave the watchman three cows, two were borrowed and one was rented and two cows died. If the owner claims: 'It was the two borrowed cows that died,' and the watchman replies: 'Certainly, one of the borrowed cows died, but I do not know whether the second cow that died was the borrowed one or the rented one,' since the watchman cannot take an oath that denies the owner's claim - for he says that he does not know which one died - he must make restitution for the two cows.
In Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an, it is explained how and for which reasons a defendant is required to pay in this law and in all similar cases where a defendant is not able to take an oath.
She'elah uFikkadon - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
The following law applies when a person entrusts an article to a colleague without charge, and it is lost or stolen. The watchman is required to take an oath that the entrusted article was lost or stolen. He is then freed of liability, as Exodus 22:6-7 states: 'If it is stolen from the person's house..., the owner of the house shall approach the court and take an oath that he did not extend his hands to his colleague's undertakings.'
When he takes that oath, based on the convention of gilgul sh'vuah,the watchman must also include in the oath:
a) that he was not negligent, but rather guarded the article in the ordinary manner watchmen do, and
b) that he did not use the article for his personal use before if it was stolen. For if the article was stolen after he used it for his own purposes, he is responsible for it.
Halacha 2
Since the Torah freed an unpaid watchman from responsibility when an article was stolen, we can certainly infer that he is freed of responsibility when the entrusted object is destroyed by major factors beyond the watchman's control; for example, an animal was injured, taken captive or died.
This leniency applies provided that the watchman does not misappropriate the entrusted article. If, however, he misappropriates the entrusted article, he is liable even though it is destroyed by forces beyond his control.
What is meant by 'in the ordinary manner watchmen do'? Everything depends on the entrusted article. There are certain entrusted articles that the manner in which they are watched is by placing them in a gatehouse - for example, beams and rocks. There are other entrusted articles that the manner in which they are watched is by placing them in a courtyard - for example, large packages of flax and the like. There are other entrusted articles that the manner in which they are watched is by placing them in a house - for example, dressings and garments. There are other entrusted articles that the manner in which they are watched is by placing them in a locked chest or a locked cabinet - e.g., silk clothes, silver objects, golden objects, and the like.
Halacha 3
When a watchman placed an object in an inappropriate place and it was stolen from there or lost, he is considered negligent and is required to make restitution. This law applies even if it was destroyed by forces beyond the watchman's control - e.g., a fire broke out and consumed the entire house . It makes no difference whether the watchman placed the entrusted article together with his own property or not. If the place is fit for safekeeping, he is not liable. If it is not fit for safekeeping, he is liable. He may be careless with his own property. He does not have the right to treat another person's property in that manner.
Halacha 4
The only appropriate way of guarding silver coins and dinarim of gold is to bury them in the ground, placing at least a handbreadth of earth over them, or to hide them in a wall within a handbreadth of the ceiling.
They should not be hidden in the midst of the wall, lest the thieves check thereand steal them. Even if a person locked them securely in a chest or hid them in a place where a person would not recognize or be aware of them, he is considered negligent and is liable to make restitution.
Several men of understanding have ruled that the same rules apply with regard to any object that is light and will not be destroyed speedily in the ground - e.g., slabs of silver. Needless to say, this applies to slabs of gold and to jewels. The only appropriate way of guarding such objects is in the ground. I tend to support this ruling.
Halacha 5
When a person entrusts money to a colleague on Friday afternoon between the setting of the sun and the appearance of the stars, the watchman is not obligated to undertake the difficulty of burying it until Saturday night. If, however, he delayed burying it on Saturday night and before he buried it that night, it was stolen or destroyed by factors beyond his control, he is liable. If he is a Torah scholar, the watchman is not liable if he waits until after havdalah to bury it.
Halacha 6
When a person entrusts money to a colleague on a journey to bring to his home, or sends money with him from one place to another, the money must be bound in a packet and held in the watchman's hand or tied on his stomach opposite his faceand carried in this fashion until he reaches his home and buries it in the appropriate manner. If he did not tie it in this manner, even if the money was lost because of factors beyond the watchman's control, he is liable. The rationale is that at the outset, he was negligent.
An incident once occurred concerning a person who entrusted money to a colleague. The colleague placed the money in a partition made from reeds. The money was hidden in the midst of the partition and was stolen from there. When the matter was brought to the Sages, they said: Although this is an excellent manner of guarding to prevent theft,it is not a proper place to guard money in the event of fire. Since he did not bury it in the ground or the walls of a building, he is considered negligent. Whenever a person is negligent in his care for the article at the outset, even if it is ultimately destroyed by forces beyond his control, he is liable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 7
The following law applies when a person entrusts either articles or money to a colleague. Should the owner demand of the watchman: 'Give me my entrusted article,' and the watchman tells him: 'I do not know where I placed the entrusted article,' or 'I do not know where I buried the money. Wait; I will look for it, find it and return it to you,' he is considered negligent and is required to make restitution immediately.
Halacha 8
Whenever a person entrusts either articles or money to a colleague, he entrusts them with the understanding that they may be placed in the care of the person's wife, children or other members of his household who are above the age of majority. If, however, the watchman gave the entrusted article to his sons or the members of his household who are below majority, his servants - whether they are above or below majority - or one of his relatives who does not dwell in his home and is not dependent on his larder - needless, to say, this applies if he gives the article to a stranger - he is considered negligent and is required to make restitution, unless the second watchman brings proof that he was not negligent, as we have explained.
An incident occurred with regard to a person who entrusted money to a colleague. The watchman gave the money to his mother, who hid it but did not bury it. Our Sages ruled: The watchman is not liable to pay, because he gave the money to his mother, and whenever a person entrusts an article to a colleague, he entrusts it with the understanding that it may be placed in the care of his sons or the members of his household.
Even though the watchman did not tell his mother that the money was not his, but had been entrusted to him, he is not liable, for he could claim: 'Certainly, she would have cared for it more carefully if she thought it belonged to me.' Similarly, his mother is not liable, because he did not tell her that the money was entrusted to him.
Our Sages ruled: The watchman must take an oath that the money that was entrusted to him was the money that he gave his mother, and the mother must take an oath that she hid it and it was stolen. Afterwards, they are both absolved of liability. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 9
From the above, one may conclude that should a watchman give an entrusted article to his wife or to the members of his household and inform them that it was an entrusted article, if they did not guard it in a manner appropriate for a watchman, they are liable to pay the owner, and the person originally appointed as a watchman is not liable. The rationale is that whenever a person entrusts either articles or money to a colleague, he entrusts them with the understanding that they may be placed in the care of the person's wife or children.
An incident occurred with regard to a person who entrusted hops to a colleague. That colleague had other hops in his possession. The colleague told his attendant: 'Place these hops into the beer.' The attendant erred and took the hops that had been entrusted instead.
The Sages ruled that the attendant is not liable, because the watchman did not tell him: 'Place these hops, and do not place those hops.' Therefore, the attendant thought that he was merely recommending one pile, but not insisting on it. The owner is also not liable, because he instructed him to take the hops from his own pile. He is required to make restitution only for the benefit he received. Therefore, if the beer becomes vinegar, he is not liable to pay anything. Regardless of the outcome, the watchman is required to take an oath that these in fact were the circumstances. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
She'elah uFikkadon - Chapter 5
Halacha 1
If money designated to be given to the poor or to be used for the redemption of captives was given to a person, he was negligent in guarding it and it was stolen, the watchman is not liable. This is derived from Exodus 22:6, which states: "If a man gives money or articles to his colleague to watch...." The wording implies that obligations determined by the verse apply when the money or the article was given to watch, but not when it was given to divide among the poor. This decision is rendered, because there is no one to claim the money as his own.
Even if the thieves attacked the person and he saved himself by giving them the money designated for the redemption of captives, he is not liable. There is no greater redemption of captives than this.
When does the above apply? When the money was not entrusted to him for the sake of the poor people of a particular place or a designated group of captives. If, however, the money was designated for a particular group of poor people or captives, and is thus set aside for them, it is considered to be money that people can claim. Therefore, the watchman must pay if he was negligent, or take an oath that he was not negligent, as is required of all watchmen.
Halacha 2
The following rules apply when a person entrusts money or valuable articles to a colleague, thieves come and attack him and he gives them the entrusted article before offering any of his other property to save himself. If the person has the reputation of being wealthy, he is liable. The rationale is that we may presume that the thieves came because of the watchman. Thus, he is saving himself with money belonging to a colleague. If the watchman does not have the reputation of being wealthy, we presume that the thieves came only because of the entrusted article. Hence, the watchman is not liable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 3
The following rules apply when a person entrusts articles or fruit to a colleague. If thieves come and steal the entrusted article in his presence and he remains silent, he may be held liable. If people would have come and rescued the entrusted article had he called out, he is considered negligent for remaining silent and he is obligated to make restitution. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 4
The following laws apply when two people entrusted money to a colleague, one 100 zuz and the other 200 zuz, both claim to have entrusted the 200 zuz, and the watchman does not recall which one deposited 200, and which one 100. Each of the claimants must take an oath that he was the one who deposited the 200 zuz He may then collect the money he claims,14 as is the law with regard to any person who takes an oath and collects his due. The watchman must pay each claimant 200, losing 100 zuz from his own resources. The rationale is that he was negligent, for he should have written down the name of each person on the packet that he entrusted.
Therefore, if the two people together brought him the 300 zuz in a single packet, and afterwards each claims that the 200 belongs to him, the watchman is not considered negligent if he does not remember who brought the larger sum. He should give each one a maneh, and the balance should remain in the watchman's possession forever, or until one of them acknowledges the other's claim.21 The rationale is that the watchman can explain: "I saw that you two were not precise with each other, as indicated by the fact that you brought the money to me in a single packet. Therefore, I did not trouble myself to know and continuously remember who owned 100 and who owned 200."
Similar laws apply if two people entrusted one watchman with two utensils, one large and one small, each one claimed to be the owner of the larger utensil, and the watchman did not remember to whom it belonged. Each of the claimants must take an oath supporting his claim. The watchman must then give one of them the larger utensil, and the value of the larger one to the other. The smaller utensil remains his.If the two brought the two in a single container, he should give the smaller utensil to one and the worth of that utensil to the other. He may keep the remainder in his possession until one claimant acknowledges the other's claim or until eternity.
Similar laws apply if only one article was entrusted, and two people claim it as their own and the watchman says, "One of you is the owner, but I do not know which one." He must pay both of them. Similarly, when two people each entrust an animal to a shepherd, and one animal dies, if the watchman does not know whose animal died, he must make restitution to both of them. If they placed them in his herd without informing him, he may place one animal between them and depart. That animal shall remain until one acknowledges the other's claim or until they desire to divide it.
Halacha 5
When a person entrusts produce to a colleague, the watchman should not mix it together with his own produce. The following rules apply if the watchman transgressed and mixed the produce together. He should calculate the quantity of produce entrusted to him, see how much produce was lacking from the entire amount and estimate the amount of loss suffered by the entrusted produce. He should return this amount to the owner after he takes an oath.
If the watchman made use of the combined quantity of produce and did not know how much he used, he should subtract the standard norm before returning the produce. For example, for wheat and for shelled rice, he should subtract four and a half kabbin for every kor; for barley and for millet, he should subtract nine kabbin for each kor; and for buckwheat, flax seeds in their stalks and unshelled rice, he should subtract three se'ah for each kor.
When does the above apply? When the original measurement of the produce was made at harvest time, and it was returned during the harvest time. If, however, the watchman returns the produce in the rainy season, he should not make a deduction because of spoilage, for the produce swells.
Similarly, a watchman may deduct a sixth of a quantity of wine entrusted to him and three lugin for every 100 lugin of oil entrusted to him, one and half lugin for dregs and one and a half lugin for absorption. If the oil was refined, the watchman should not make a deduction for dregs. If the containers are old, he should not make a deduction for absorption.
Halacha 6
When a person entrusts produce that has not been measured to a watchman, and the watchman mixes it together with his own produce without measuring it, the watchman is considered negligent.
If the owner of the fruit says, "There was this and this amount of produce entrusted," and the watchman says, "I don't know how much there was," he is liable. For he is obligated to take an oath and yet cannot take the oath. My teachers, Rav Yosef HaLevi and his teacher, ruled in this manner.
Similarly, whenever a watchman is obligated to pay, but does not know how much he is obligated to pay, if the owners say: "It was worth such and such," they may collect this amount without taking an oath. This law applies provided the owner claims a sum or an object that he can be presumed to possess. The watchman may have a ban of ostracism issued against anyone who expropriates more than his due.
What is the rationale for this law? Consider: The owner entrusted a purse full of gold coins to the watchman, and the watchman was negligent. The owner says, "It contained 200 dinarim, and the watchman says, "It certainly contained dinarim, but I do not know how much it contained." Thus, a claim is being issued for 200. The watchman admits a portion of the claim, and does not know about the remainder of the claim. He is thus obligated to take an oath, but cannot. Hence, he is required to pay, as will be explained.
Halacha 7
The following rules apply when a person's father died, leaving him a closed sack. The heir entrusted it to a colleague for safekeeping, the colleague was negligent in its care, and it was destroyed. The depositor says, "I don't know what it contained. Maybe it contained pearls." Similarly, the watchman states: "I don't know how much I am obligated to pay. Maybe it was filled with pieces of glass."
I maintain that the ruling in this instance is that, as our Sages required, the watchman should take an oath that the entrusted object is no longer in his domain. He should include in this oath that he does not know whether it was worth more than a specific amount. He must then pay the amount that he admits that it was worth. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
An incident occurred concerning a person who entrusted a closed sack to his colleague. The latter was negligent in its care, and it was lost. The owner said, "It contained gold jewelry, pearls and the like." The watchman replied: "I don't know. Perhaps all it contained were pieces of scrap metal or sand."
Our Sages ruled: "The owner of the entrusted article may take an oath supporting his claim, and then collect the sum he claims, provided he claims a sum that he could be presumed to have entrusted to him.
Why must the owner of the entrusted article take an oath in this instance?Because in this instance, the watchman is not obligated to take an oath. For even if the watchman were to admit and say: "I am definitely certain that it contained scrap metal," and the owner claimed: "It contained pearls," the watchman could take a sh'vuat hesset and be freed of obligation. This resembles a case where the plaintiff demands wheat and the defendant admits owing barley. The same laws apply in all analogous situations. The fundamental principles upon which these laws revolve will be explained in Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an.
____________________________
Hayom Yom:
Wednesday, 5 Cheshvan 5775 • 29 October 2014

"Today's Day"
Wednesday, Cheshvan 5, 5704
Torah lessons: Chumash: Lech L'cha, Revi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 29-34.
Tanya: Now, at first (p. 551) ...cubits of Halacha. (p. 553).
The Jewish people are compared to the stars twinkling in the high heavens. By their light, even he who walks in the darkness of night shall not blunder.
Every Jew, man or woman, possesses enough moral and spiritual strength to influence friends and acquaintances, and bring them into the light.
____________________________
Daily Thought:
Pressurized Escape
Your soul, before she came here below, stepped higher and higher each day. So why did she descend below? What did she gain by coming here?
Because your soul is a divine being of unbounded potential. When you have the power of the infinite, stepping higher each day is standing still. It is a prison of “being that.”
Unchallenged, the soul knows no better. She must descend below, and here, within the ultimate confines, she will learn to leap, to break out of all boundaries, to escape the prison of being. To be “not that.”(Torat Menachem 5744, vol. 2, pp. 725, 1031.)
____________________________