Today's Laws & Customs:
Today in Jewish History:
• Passing of Methuselah (1656 BCE)
Methuselah, the longest-lived human being of all time, died at the age of 969 years on the 11th of Cheshvan of the year 1656 from creation (2105 BCE) -- exactly seven days before the beginning of the Great Flood. Methuselah was Adam's great-great-great-great-great-grandson and Noah's grandfather.
• Passing of Rachel (1553 BCE)
The matriarch Rachel died in childbirth on the 11th of Cheshvan of the year 2208 from creation (1553 BCE) while giving birth to her second son, Benjamin.
Rachel was born in Aram (Mesopotamia) approximately 1585 BCE. Her father was Laban, the brother of Jacob's mother, Rebecca. Jacob came to Laban's home in 1576 BCE, fleeing the wrath of his brother Esau. He fell in love with Rachel and worked for seven years tending Laban's sheep in return for her hand in marriage. But Laban deceived his nephew, and on the morning after the wedding Jacob discovered that he had married Rachel's elder sister, Leah. Laban agreed to give him Rachel as a wife as well in return for another seven years' labor.
Rachel was childless for many years, while her elder sister and rival gave birth to six sons and a daughter in succession. Finally, in 1562 BCE, she gave birth to Joseph. Nine years later, while Jacob and his family were on the road to Jacob's ancestral home in Hebron (after a 22-year absence), she gave birth to a second son, but died in childbirth. Jacob buried her by the roadside, in Bethlehem; there, "Rachel weeps over her children, for they are gone [in exile]" (Jeremiah 31:14). Her tomb has served as a place of prayer for Jews for more than 35 centuries.
• Passing of R. Nachum of Chernobyl (1797)
Rabbi Nachum of Chernobyl was a disciple of the second leader of the Chassidic movement, Rabbi DovBer of Mezeritch, and the founder of the Chernobyl dynasty of Chassidic Rebbes.
DAILY QUOTE:
One whose wisdom is greater than his deeds, what is he comparable to? To a tree with many branches and few roots; comes a storm and uproots it, and turns it on its face... But one whose deeds are greater than his wisdom, to what is he compared? To a tree with many roots and few branches, whom all the storms in the world cannot budge from its place.(Ethics of the Fathers 3:17)
DAILY STUDY:• Passing of Methuselah (1656 BCE)
Methuselah, the longest-lived human being of all time, died at the age of 969 years on the 11th of Cheshvan of the year 1656 from creation (2105 BCE) -- exactly seven days before the beginning of the Great Flood. Methuselah was Adam's great-great-great-great-great-grandson and Noah's grandfather.
• Passing of Rachel (1553 BCE)
The matriarch Rachel died in childbirth on the 11th of Cheshvan of the year 2208 from creation (1553 BCE) while giving birth to her second son, Benjamin.
Rachel was born in Aram (Mesopotamia) approximately 1585 BCE. Her father was Laban, the brother of Jacob's mother, Rebecca. Jacob came to Laban's home in 1576 BCE, fleeing the wrath of his brother Esau. He fell in love with Rachel and worked for seven years tending Laban's sheep in return for her hand in marriage. But Laban deceived his nephew, and on the morning after the wedding Jacob discovered that he had married Rachel's elder sister, Leah. Laban agreed to give him Rachel as a wife as well in return for another seven years' labor.
Rachel was childless for many years, while her elder sister and rival gave birth to six sons and a daughter in succession. Finally, in 1562 BCE, she gave birth to Joseph. Nine years later, while Jacob and his family were on the road to Jacob's ancestral home in Hebron (after a 22-year absence), she gave birth to a second son, but died in childbirth. Jacob buried her by the roadside, in Bethlehem; there, "Rachel weeps over her children, for they are gone [in exile]" (Jeremiah 31:14). Her tomb has served as a place of prayer for Jews for more than 35 centuries.
• Passing of R. Nachum of Chernobyl (1797)
Rabbi Nachum of Chernobyl was a disciple of the second leader of the Chassidic movement, Rabbi DovBer of Mezeritch, and the founder of the Chernobyl dynasty of Chassidic Rebbes.
DAILY QUOTE:
One whose wisdom is greater than his deeds, what is he comparable to? To a tree with many branches and few roots; comes a storm and uproots it, and turns it on its face... But one whose deeds are greater than his wisdom, to what is he compared? To a tree with many roots and few branches, whom all the storms in the world cannot budge from its place.(Ethics of the Fathers 3:17)
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: Vayeira, 3rd Portion Genesis 19:1-19:20 with Rashi
• Chapter 19
1. And the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom, and Lot saw and arose toward them, and he prostrated himself on his face to the ground. א. וַיָּבֹאוּ שְׁנֵי הַמַּלְאָכִים סְדֹמָה בָּעֶרֶב וְלוֹט ישֵׁב בְּשַׁעַר סְדֹם וַיַּרְא לוֹט וַיָּקָם לִקְרָאתָם וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ אַפַּיִם אָרְצָה:
the…angels: But elsewhere (18:2) Scripture calls them men! When the Shechinah was with them, it calls them men. Another explanation: In connection with Abraham, whose power was great, and the angels were as frequently with him as men, it calls them men, but in connection with Lot, it calls them angels. — [from Gen. Rabbah 52; Tan. Buber, Vayera 20]
המלאכים: ולהלן קראם אנשים, כשהיתה שכינה עמהם קראם אנשים. דבר אחר אצל אברהם שכחו גדול והיו המלאכים תדירין אצלו כאנשים קראם אנשים, ואצל לוט קראם מלאכים:
in the evening: Now did the angels tarry so long from Hebron to Sodom? But they were angels of mercy, and they were waiting, perhaps Abraham would succeed in his defense for them [the cities]. — [from Gen. Rabbah 50:1]
בערב: וכי כל כך שהו המלאכים מחברון לסדום, אלא מלאכי רחמים היו, וממתינים שמא יוכל אברהם ללמד עליהם סניגוריא:
and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom: [The word יֹשֵׁב is written without a“vav” so that it can be read יָשַׁב “he sat,” in the past tense]. On that very day, they had appointed him judge over them. — [from Gen. Rabbah 50:3]
ולוט ישב בשער סדום: ישב כתיב אותו היום מינוהו שופט עליהם:
and Lot saw: From Abraham’s house he learned to look for wayfarers. — [from Tan. Buber, Vayera 15]
וירא לוט וגו': מבית אברהם למד לחזור על האורחים:
2. And he said, "Behold now my lords, please turn to your servant's house and stay overnight and wash your feet, and you shall arise early and go on your way." And they said, "No, but we will stay overnight in the street." ב. וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֶּה נָּא אֲדֹנַי סוּרוּ נָא אֶל בֵּית עַבְדְּכֶם וְלִינוּ וְרַחֲצוּ רַגְלֵיכֶם וְהִשְׁכַּמְתֶּם וַהֲלַכְתֶּם לְדַרְכְּכֶם וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹּא כִּי בָרְחוֹב נָלִין:
Behold now, my lords: “ Behold you are now lords to me since you have passed beside me.” Another explanation: “Behold now you must pay heed to these wicked men, that they should not recognize you,” and this is sound advice.
הנה נא א-דני: הנה נא אתם אדונים לי אחר שעברתם עלי. דבר אחר הנה נא צריכים אתם לתת לב על הרשעים הללו שלא יכירו בכם. וזו היא עצה נכונה:
please turn: Take a circuitous path to my house, in a roundabout way, that they should not recognize that you are entering there. That is why it says: “turn.” (Gen. Rabbah 50:4).
סורו נא: עקמו את הדרך לביתי דרך עקלתון, שלא יכירו שאתם נכנסין שם לכך נאמר סורו, בבראשית רבה (נ ז):
and stay overnight and wash your feet: Now is it customary for people to first stay overnight and afterwards to wash? Moreover, Abraham said to them first, “and wash your feet!” But so did Lot say (i.e., he reasoned), “If, when the people of Sodom come, they will see that they have already washed their feet, they will invent false accusations against me and say, ‘Two or three days have already passed since they came to your house, and you did not let us know!’” Therefore, he said, “It is better that they remain here with the dust on their feet, so that they should appear as though they had just arrived now.” Therefore he said, “Stay overnight” first and afterwards, “wash.” - [from Gen. Rabbah 50:4]
ולינו ורחצו רגליכם: וכי דרכן של בני אדם ללון תחלה ואחר כך לרחוץ, ועוד שהרי אברהם אמר להם תחלה (יח ד) ורחצו רגליכם. אלא כך אמר לוט אם כשיבאו אנשי סדום ויראו שכבר רחצו רגליהם, יעלילו עלי ויאמרו כבר עברו שני ימים או שלשה שבאו לביתך ולא הודעתנו, לפיכך אמר מוטב שיתעכבו כאן באבק רגליהם שיהיו נראין כמו שבאו עכשיו, לפיכך אמר לינו תחלה ואחר כך רחצו:
And they said, “No…”: But to Abraham they said,“So shall you do…” From here [we learn] that one may refuse an offer by a person of lesser importance, but should not refuse an offer by a great man (Gen. Rabbah 50:4).
ויאמרו לא: לאברהם אמרו (יח ה) כן תעשה, מכאן שמסרבין לקטן ואין מסרבין לגדול:
but we will stay overnight in the street: Heb. כִּי. This כִּי is used to mean “but,” for they said, “We will not turn in to your house, but we will stay overnight in the street of the city.”
כי ברחוב נלין: הרי כי משמש בלשון אלא, שאמרו לא נסור אל ביתך אלא ברחובה של עיר נלין:
3. And he urged them strongly, and they turned in to him, and came into his house, and he made them a feast, and he baked unleavened cakes, and they ate. ג. וַיִּפְצַר בָּם מְאֹד וַיָּסֻרוּ אֵלָיו וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל בֵּיתוֹ וַיַּעַשׂ לָהֶם מִשְׁתֶּה וּמַצּוֹת אָפָה וַיֹּאכֵלוּ:
and they turned in to him: They took a circuitous path toward his house. — [from Gen. Rabbah 50:4]
ויסרו אליו: עקמו את הדרך לצד ביתו:
and he baked unleavened cakes: It was Passover.
ומצות אפה: פסח היה:
4. When they had not yet retired, and the people of the city, the people of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, the entire populace from every end[of the city]. ד. טֶרֶם יִשְׁכָּבוּ וְאַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר אַנְשֵׁי סְדֹם נָסַבּוּ עַל הַבַּיִת מִנַּעַר וְעַד זָקֵן כָּל הָעָם מִקָּצֶה:
When they had not yet retired, the people of the city, the people of Sodom: It is interpreted in Gen. Rabbah (50:5) as follows: When they had not yet retired, the people of the city were the topic of conversation of the angels, for they were asking Lot about their character and their deeds, and he told them that most of them were wicked. While they were still speaking about them, “And the people of the city,” etc. The simple meaning of the verse, however, is: “and the people of the city, people of wickedness, surrounded the house.” Because they were wicked, they are called people of Sodom, as Scripture states (above 13:13): “And the people of Sodom were very evil and sinful…”
טרם ישכבו ואנשי העיר אנשי סדום: כך נדרש בבראשית רבה (נ ה) טרם ישכבו ואנשי העיר היו בפיהם של מלאכים, שהיו שואלים ללוט מה טיבם ומעשיהם, והוא אומר להם רובם רשעים. עודם מדברים בהם ואנשי סדום וגו'. ופשוטו של מקרא ואנשי העיר, אנשי רשע, נסבו על הבית. על שהיו רשעים נקראים אנשי סדום, כמו שאמר הכתוב (יג יג) ואנשי סדום רעים וחטאים:
the entire populace from every end: From one end of the city to the other, for not one of them protested, because there was not even one righteous man among them. — [from Gen. Rabbah 50:5]
כל העם מקצה: מקצה העיר עד הקצה, שאין אחד מהם מוחה בידם, שאפילו צדיק אחד אין בהם:
5. And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, and let us be intimate with them." ה. וַיִּקְרְאוּ אֶל לוֹט וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ אַיֵּה הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר בָּאוּ אֵלֶיךָ הַלָּיְלָה הוֹצִיאֵם אֵלֵינוּ וְנֵדְעָה אֹתָם:
and let us be intimate with them: homosexually, as in (verse 8):“who were not intimate with a man.” - [from Gen. Rabbah 55:5]
ונדעה אתם: במשכב זכר, כמו (פסוק ח) אשר לא ידעו איש:
6. And Lot came out to them to the entrance, and he shut the door behind him. ו. וַיֵּצֵא אֲלֵהֶם לוֹט הַפֶּתְחָה וְהַדֶּלֶת סָגַר אַחֲרָיו:
7. And he said, "My brethren, please do not do evil. ז. וַיֹּאמַר אַל נָא אַחַי תָּרֵעוּ:
8. Behold now I have two daughters who were not intimate with a man. I will bring them out to you, and do to them as you see fit; only to these men do nothing, because they have come under the shadow of my roof." ח. הִנֵּה נָא לִי שְׁתֵּי בָנוֹת אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדְעוּ אִישׁ אוֹצִיאָה נָּא אֶתְהֶן אֲלֵיכֶם וַעֲשׂוּ לָהֶן כַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם רַק לָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵל אַל תַּעֲשׂוּ דָבָר כִּי עַל כֵּן בָּאוּ בְּצֵל קֹרָתִי:
these: Heb. הָאֵל, like הָאֵלֶּה. [from Targumim]
האל: כמו האלה:
because they have come: Heb. כִּי עַל כֵּן. Do this favor in my honor, because they have come into the shade of my roof [lit. my beam]. The Targum renders: בִּטְלֵל שָׁרִיתִי, in the shade of my beam. The Targum of קוֹרָה, beam, is שָׁרוּתָא.
י על כן באו: כי הטובה הזאת תעשו לכבודי על אשר באו בצל קורתי, תרגום בטלל שרותי, תרגום של קורה שרותא:
9. But they said, "Back away." And they said, "This one came to sojourn, and he is judging! Now, we will deal even worse with you than with them." And they pressed hard upon the man Lot, and they drew near to break the door. ט. וַיֹּאמְרוּ | גֶּשׁ הָלְאָה וַיֹּאמְרוּ הָאֶחָד בָּא לָגוּר וַיִּשְׁפֹּט שָׁפוֹט עַתָּה נָרַע לְךָ מֵהֶם וַיִּפְצְרוּ בָאִישׁ בְּלוֹט מְאֹד וַיִּגְּשׁוּ לִשְׁבֹּר הַדָּלֶת:
But they said, “Back away.”: Heb. גֶּשׁ הָלְאָה, “Get yourself away over there”; i.e.,“Draw near to the sides and distance yourself from us.” And similarly every [instance of] הָלְאָה in Scripture is an expression of distancing, as in (Num. 17:2) “Scatter away (הָלְאָה)”; (I Sam. 20:22, 37) “Behold, the arrows are beyond you (וָהָלְאָה).” Thus, גֶּשׁ הָלְאָה, means “Back away,” in Old French: trete de nos, go away from us. This is a word of rebuke, as if to say. “We don’t care about you,” and similar to it is (Isa. 65:5) “Keep (קְרַב) to yourself; do not come near me”; and so (ibid. 49:20): “Move aside (גְּשָׁה) so that I may dwell,” meaning, “Draw aside for my sake so that I will dwell beside you.” [The Sodomites were saying as follows]: “You intercede for the wayfarers? How dare you?!” In response to what he said to them about his daughters, they said to him, “Go away,” a mild expression, but in response to what he said in defense of the wayfarers, they said, “This one has come to sojourn.” You are the only stranger among us, for you have come to sojourn here, “and he is judging,” [meaning] and you have become our chastiser!?
ויאמרו גש הלאה: קרב להלאה, כלומר התקרב לצדדין והתרחק ממנו, וכן כל הלאה שבמקרא לשון רחוק, כמו (במדבר יז ב) זרה הלאה, (ש"א כ כב) הנה החצי ממך והלאה. גש הלאה המשך להלן, בלשון לע"ז טרי"י טי"י ד"י נו"ש [משוך את עצמך ממנו], ודבר נזיפה הוא לומר אין אנו חוששין לך, ודומה לו (ישעיה סה ה) קרב אליך אל תגש בי, וכן (ישעיה מט כ) גשה לי ואשבה, המשך לצדדין בעבורי ואשב אצלך. אתה מליץ על האורחין, איך מלאך לבך. על שאמר להם על הבנות, אמרו לו גש הלאה, לשון נחת, ועל שהיה מליץ על האורחים אמרו האחד בא לגור, אדם נכרי יחידי אתה בינינו שבאת לגור, וישפוט שפוט ונעשית מוכיח אותנו:
the door: Heb. הַדֶּלֶת. The door, which swings to lock and to open.
הדלת: דלת הסובבת לנעול ולפתוח:
10. And the men stretched forth their hands, and they brought Lot to them to the house, and they shut the door. י. וַיִּשְׁלְחוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים אֶת יָדָם וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶת לוֹט אֲלֵיהֶם הַבָּיְתָה וְאֶת הַדֶּלֶת סָגָרוּ:
11. And the men who were at the entrance of the house they struck with blindness, both small and great, and they toiled in vain to find the entrance. יא. וְאֶת הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר פֶּתַח הַבַּיִת הִכּוּ בַּסַּנְוֵרִים מִקָּטֹן וְעַד גָּדוֹל וַיִּלְאוּ לִמְצֹא הַפָּתַח:
the entrance: That is the space through which they enter and exit.
פתח: הוא החלל שבו נכנסין ויוצאין:
with blindness: Heb. בַּסַּנְוֵרִים, a plague of blindness. — [from Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 25]
בסנורים: מכת עורון:
both small and great: (Gen. Rabbah 50:8) The young ones started to sin first, as it is said (above verse 4): “both young and old”; therefore, the punishment began with them.
מקטן ועד גדול: הקטנים התחילו בעבירה תחלה, שנאמר (פסוק ד) מנער ועד זקן, לפיכך התחילה הפורענות מהם:
12. And the men said to Lot, "Whom else do you have here? A son-in-law, your sons, and your daughters, and whomever you have in the city, take out of the place. יב. וַיֹּאמְרוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים אֶל לוֹט עֹד מִי לְךָ פֹה חָתָן וּבָנֶיךָ וּבְנֹתֶיךָ וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר לְךָ בָּעִיר הוֹצֵא מִן הַמָּקוֹם:
Whom else do you have here?: The simple meaning of the verse is: Whom else do you have in this city besides your wife and your daughters who are at home?
עוד מי לך פה: פשוטו של מקרא מי לך עוד בעיר הזאת חוץ מאשתך ובנותיך שבבית:
A son-in-law, your sons, and your daughters: If you have a son-in-law or sons and daughters, take them out of this place.
חתן ובניך ובנותיך: אם יש לך חתן או בנים ובנות הוצא מן המקום:
your sons: The sons of your married daughters. According to the Midrash Aggadah (Gen. Rabbah 50:5) the interpretation of עֹד is: “Still, after they have committed such a disgraceful deed, do you still have an excuse to defend them?” For the whole night he [Lot] was speaking in their favor. This may be read עֹד מִי לְךָ פֶּה: Do you still have a mouth? (i.e., Do you still have anything to say to justify them?)
ובניך: בני בנותיך הנשואות. ומדרש אגדה עוד מאחר שעושין נבלה כזאת מי לך פתחון פה ללמד סניגוריא עליהם, שכל הלילה היה מליץ עליהם טובות, קרי ביה מי לך פה:
13. For we are destroying this place, because their cry has become great before the Lord, and the Lord has sent us to destroy it." יג. כִּי מַשְׁחִתִים אֲנַחְנוּ אֶת הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה כִּי גָדְלָה צַעֲקָתָם אֶת פְּנֵי יְהֹוָה וַיְשַׁלְּחֵנוּ יְהֹוָה לְשַׁחֲתָהּ:
14. So Lot went forth and spoke to his sons-in-law, the suitors of his daughters, and he said, "Arise, go forth from this place, for the Lord is destroying the city," but he seemed like a comedian in the eyes of his sons-in-law. יד. וַיֵּצֵא לוֹט וַיְדַבֵּר | אֶל חֲתָנָיו | לֹקְחֵי בְנֹתָיו וַיֹּאמֶר קוּמוּ צְּאוּ מִן הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה כִּי מַשְׁחִית יְהֹוָה אֶת הָעִיר וַיְהִי כִמְצַחֵק בְּעֵינֵי חֲתָנָיו:
his sons-in-law: He had two married daughters in the city.
חתניו: שתי בנות נשואות היו לו בעיר:
the suitors of his daughters: to whom those in the house were betrothed. — [from Gen. Rabbah 50:9]
לוקחי בנותיו: שאותן שבבית היו ארוסות להם:
15. And as the dawn rose, the angels pressed Lot, saying, "Get up, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you perish because of the iniquity of the city." טו. וּכְמוֹ הַשַּׁחַר עָלָה וַיָּאִיצוּ הַמַּלְאָכִים בְּלוֹט לֵאמֹר קוּם קַח אֶת אִשְׁתְּךָ וְאֶת שְׁתֵּי בְנֹתֶיךָ הַנִּמְצָאֹת פֶּן תִּסָּפֶה בַּעֲוֹן הָעִיר:
pressed: Heb. וַיָאִיצוּ, as the Targum renders: “and they pressed” [meaning] “they rushed him.”
ויאיצו: כתרגומו ודחיקו, מהרוהו:
who are here: who are ready at hand in the house for you to save them. There is also a midrashic explanation, but this is the proper way to explain the verse.
הנמצאות: המזומנות לך בבית להצילם. ומדרש אגדה יש, וזה ישובו של מקרא:
perish: You will be destroyed. [The verse] “until all the generation expires” (Deut. 2:14) is rendered by Targum as,“until the entire generation perished.”
תספה: תהיה כלה. (דברים ב יד) עד תום כל הדור, מתורגם עד דסף כל דרא:
16. But he tarried, and the men took hold of his hand and his wife's hand, and the hand of his two daughters, out of the Lord's pity for him, and they took him out and placed him outside the city. טז. וַיִּתְמַהְמָהּ | וַיַּחֲזִיקוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים בְּיָדוֹ וּבְיַד אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבְיַד שְׁתֵּי בְנֹתָיו בְּחֶמְלַת יְהֹוָה עָלָיו וַיֹּצִאֻהוּ וַיַּנִּחֻהוּ מִחוּץ לָעִיר:
But he tarried: in order to save his possessions. — [from Gen. Rabbah 50:11]
ויתמהמה: כדי להציל את ממונו:
took hold: Heb. וַיַחִזִיקוּ [in the plural form] (Gen. Rabbah 50:11). One of them was an emissary to save him and his companion was to overturn Sodom; therefore, it is stated: “and he said: Flee…,” and it is not stated, “and they said.”
ויחזיקו: אחד מהם היה שליח להצילו, וחבירו להפוך את סדום, לכך נאמר (פסוק יז) ויאמר המלט, ולא נאמר ויאמרו:
17. And it came to pass, when they took them outside, that he said, "Flee for your life, do not look behind you, and do not stand in the entire plain. Flee to the mountain, lest you perish." יז. וַיְהִי כְהוֹצִיאָם אֹתָם הַחוּצָה וַיֹּאמֶר הִמָּלֵט עַל נַפְשֶׁךָ אַל תַּבִּיט אַחֲרֶיךָ וְאַל תַּעֲמֹד בְּכָל הַכִּכָּר הָהָרָה הִמָּלֵט פֶּן תִּסָּפֶה:
Flee for your life: Let it suffice for you to save lives. Do not worry about possessions. — [from Tosefta Sanh. 14:1]
המלט על נפשך: דייך להציל נפשות, אל תחוס על הממון:
do not look behind you: You dealt wickedly together with them, but in Abraham’s merit you are saved. You do not deserve to see their punishment while you are being saved. — [from obscure midrashic source]
אל תביט אחריך: אתה הרשעת עמהם, ובזכות אברהם אתה ניצול, אינך כדאי לראות בפורענותם ואתה ניצול:
in the entire plain: the plain of the Jordan.
בכל הככר: ככר הירדן:
Flee to the mountain: Flee to Abraham, who dwells on the mountain, as it is said (above 12:8): “And he moved from there to the mountain.” And even now, he was dwelling there, as it is said (above 13:3): “until the place where his tent had previously been.” And although it says (ibid. verse 18): “And Abram pitched his tents, etc.,” he had many tents, and they extended until Hebron.
ההרה המלט: אצל אברהם ברח, שהוא יושב בהר, שנאמר לעיל (יב ח) ויעתק משם ההרה. ואף עכשיו היה יושב שם, שנאמר (יג ג) אל המקום אשר היה שם אהלו בתחלה, ואף על פי שכתוב (שם יח) ויאהל אברם וגו', אהלים הרבה היו לו ונמשכו עד חברון:
Flee: Heb. הִמָּלֵט. An expression of slipping away, and so is every [instance of] הַמְלָטָה in Scripture, asmuzer in Old French, to escape, slip away. And so (Isa. 66:7): “She delivered (וְהִמְלִיטָה) a male child,” meaning that the fetus was released from the womb; (Ps. 124:7): “escaped (נִמְלְטָה) like a bird”; (Isa. 46:2): “they could not deliver (מַלֵּט) the burden,” i.e., to release the burden of the excrement in their orifices.
המלט: לשון השמטה, וכן כל המלטה שבמקרא אישמוציי"ר [להינצל] בלע"ז וכן (ישעיה סו ז) והמליטה זכר, שנשמט העובר מן הרחם, (תהלים קכד ז) כצפור נמלטה, (ישעיה מו ב) ולא יכלו מלט משא, להשמיט משא הרעי שבנקביהם:
18. And Lot said to them, "Please, do not, O Lord. יח. וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹט אֲלֵהֶם אַל נָא אֲדֹנָי:
“Please do not, O Lord”: Our Sages said (Shev. 35b) that this name is holy (referring to God), because it is stated in its context (verse 19): “to sustain my soul,” referring to He Who has the power to cause to die and to cause to live. And the Targum [similarly] renders: Please now, my Lord.
אל נא א-דני: רבותינו אמרו שם זה קדש, שנאמר בו להחיות את נפשי, מי שיש בידו להמית ולהחיות. ותרגומו בבעו כען ה':
Please, do not: Do not tell me to flee to the mountain.
אל נא: אל נא תאמר אלי להמלט ההרה:
Please: Heb. נָא, an expression of request.
נא: לשון בקשה:
19. Behold now, Your servant has found favor in Your eyes, and You have increased Your kindness, which You have done with me, to sustain my soul. But I cannot flee to the mountain, lest the evil overtake me, and I die. יט. הִנֵּה נָא מָצָא עַבְדְּךָ חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ וַתַּגְדֵּל חַסְדְּךָ אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ עִמָּדִי לְהַחֲיוֹת אֶת נַפְשִׁי וְאָנֹכִי לֹא אוּכַל לְהִמָּלֵט הָהָרָה פֶּן תִּדְבָּקַנִי הָרָעָה וָמַתִּי:
lest the evil overtake me: When I was among the people of Sodom, the Holy One, blessed be He, saw my deeds and the deeds of the people of the city, and I appeared righteous and worthy of being saved. But when I shall come alongside a righteous man, I shall be considered a wicked man. And so did the woman of Zarephath say to Elijah (I Kings 17: 18): “Have you come to me to cause my sins to be remembered?” Before you came to me, the Holy One, blessed be He, would see my deeds and the deeds of my people, and I was a righteous woman among them, but since you have come to me, compared to your deeds, I am wicked. — [from Gen. Rabbah 50:11]
פן תדבקני הרעה: כשהייתי אצל אנשי סדום היה הקב"ה רואה מעשי ומעשי בני העיר, והייתי נראה צדיק וכדאי להנצל, וכשאבא אצל צדיק אני כרשע. וכן אמרה הצרפית לאליהו (מ"א יז יח) כי באת אלי להזכיר את עוני, עד שלא באת אצלי היה הקב"ה רואה מעשי ומעשי עמי ואני צדקת ביניהם, ומשבאת אצלי לפי מעשיך אני רשעה:
20. Behold now, this city is near to flee there, and it is small. Let me please flee there. Is it not small? And my soul will survive." כ. הִנֵּה נָא הָעִיר הַזֹּאת קְרֹבָה לָנוּס שָׁמָּה וְהִוא מִצְעָר אִמָּלְטָה נָא שָׁמָּה הֲלֹא מִצְעָר הִוא וּתְחִי נַפְשִׁי:
this city is near: (Shab. ch. 1, 10b) Its settlement is near [in time], meaning that it was recently settled. Therefore, its measure is not yet full. And how recently was it settled? From the Generation of the Dispersion, when the people commenced to disperse, and they started to settle, each one in his place, and that took place in the year of Peleg’s death. And from then until now, there were 52 years, for Peleg died when Abraham was 48 years old. How so? Peleg lived after he had begotten Reu, 209 years (above 11:19). Subtract from them 32 [years] when Serug was born, and 30 years from [the birth of] Serug until Nahor was born, totaling 62 years. And from [the birth of] Nahor until Terah was born were 29 years, totaling 91 years. And from then until Abraham was born were 70 years, totaling 161 years. Add 48 years to them, and the total is 209 years, and that was the year of the Dispersion. (See above 10:25). When Sodom was destroyed, Abraham was 99 years old. Hence, from the Generation of the Dispersion until now were 52 years. The settlement of Zoar took place after the settlement of Sodom and its companions by one year. That is the meaning of“Let me please (נָא) flee there.” נָא has the numerical value of 51.
העיר הזאת קרובה: קרובה ישיבתה נתיישבה מקרוב, לפיכך לא נתמלאה סאתה עדיין. ומה היא קריבתה, מדור הפלגה שנתפלגו האנשים והתחילו להתישב איש איש במקומו, והיא היתה בשנת מות פלג, ומשם ועד כאן חמשים ושתים שנה, שפלג מת בשנת ארבעים ושמונה לאברהם. כיצד, פלג חי (לעיל יא יט) אחרי הולידו את רעו מאתים ותשע שנה, צא מהם שלשים ושתים כשנולד שרוג, ומשרוג עד שנולד נחור שלשים, הרי ששים ושתים, ומנחור עד שנולד תרח עשרים ותשע, הרי תשעים ואחת, ומשם עד שנולד אברהם שבעים, הרי מאה ששים ואחת, תן להם ארבעים ושמונה הרי מאתים ותשע, ואותה שנה היתה שנת הפלגה, וכשנחרבה סדום היה אברהם בן תשעים ותשע שנה, הרי מדור הפלגה עד כאן חמשים ושתים שנה, וצוער איחרה ישיבתה אחרי ישיבת סדום וחברותיה שנה אחת, הוא שנאמר אמלטה נא, נא בגימטריא חמשים ואחת:
Is it not small?: Are not its iniquities few? Therefore, you can leave it alone.
הלא מצער היא: והלא עונותיה מועטין, ויכול אתה להניחה:
And my soul will survive: therein. This is its midrashic interpretation. But the simple meaning is [as follows]: It is a small city with a small population. You do not have to care if you spare it and my soul survives therein. — [from Targum Onkelos]
ותחי נפשי: בה, זה מדרשו. ופשוטו של מקרא הלא עיר קטנה היא, ואנשים בה מעט, אין לך להקפיד אם תניחנה ותחי נפשי בה:
___________________________
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 60 - 65
• Chapter 60
This psalm tells of when Joab, David's general, came to Aram Naharayim for war and was asked by the people: "Are you not from the children of Jacob? What of the pact he made with Laban?" Not knowing what to answer, Joab asked the Sanhedrin. The psalm includes David's prayer for success in this war.
1. For the Conductor, on the shushan eidut. A michtam by David, to instruct,
2. when he battled with Aram Naharayim and Aram Tzovah, and Joab returned and smote Edom in the Valley of Salt, twelve thousand [men].
3. O God, You forsook us, You have breached us! You grew furious-restore us!
4. You made the earth quake, You split it apart-heal its fragments, for it totters!
5. You showed Your nation harshness, You gave us benumbing wine to drink.
6. [Now] give those who fear You a banner to raise themselves, for the sake of truth, Selah.
7. That Your beloved ones may be delivered, help with Your right hand and answer me.
8. God said with His Holy [Spirit] that I would exult; I would divide Shechem, and measure out the Valley of Succot.
9. Mine is Gilead, mine is Menasseh, and Ephraim is the stronghold of my head; Judah is my prince.
10. Moab is my washbasin, and upon Edom I will cast my shoe; for me, Philistia will sound a blast [of coronation].
11. Who will bring me into the fortified city? Who will lead me unto Edom?
12. Is it not You, God, Who has [until now] forsaken us, and did not go forth with our legions?
13. Grant us relief from the oppressor; futile is the salvation of man.
14. With God we will do valiantly, and He will trample our oppressors.
Chapter 61
David composed this prayer while fleeing from Saul. The object of all his thoughts and his entreaty is that God grant him long life-not for the sake of pursuing the pleasures of the world, but rather to serve God in awe, all of his days.
1. For the Conductor, on the neginat, by David.
2. Hear my cry, O God, listen to my prayer.
3. From the end of the earth I call to You, when my heart is faint [with trouble]: Lead me upon the rock that surpasses me!
4. For You have been a refuge for me, a tower of strength in the face of the enemy.
5. I will dwell in Your tent forever; I will take refuge in the shelter of Your wings, Selah.
6. For You, God, heard my vows; You granted the inheritance of those who fear Your Name.
7. Add days to the days of the king; may his years equal those of every generation.
8. May he sit always before God; appoint kindness and truth to preserve him.
9. Thus will I sing the praise of Your Name forever, as I fulfill my vows each day.
Chapter 62
David prays for the downfall of his enemies. He also exhorts his generation that their faith should not rest in riches, telling them that the accumulation of wealth is utter futility.
1. For the Conductor, on the yedutun,1 a psalm by David.
2. To God alone does my soul hope; my salvation is from Him.
3. He alone is my rock and salvation, my stronghold; I shall not falter greatly.
4. Until when will you plot disaster for man? May you all be killed-like a leaning wall, a toppled fence.
5. Out of their arrogance alone they scheme to topple me, they favor falsehood; with their mouths they bless, and in their hearts they curse, Selah.
6. To God alone does my soul hope, for my hope is from Him.
7. He alone is my rock and salvation, my stronghold; I shall not falter.
8. My salvation and honor is upon God; the rock of my strength-my refuge is in God.
9. Trust in Him at all times, O nation, pour out your hearts before Him; God is a refuge for us forever.
10. Men are but vanity; people [but] transients. Were they to be raised upon the scale, they would be lighter than vanity.
11. Put not your trust in exploitation, nor place futile hope in robbery. If [corrupt] wealth flourishes, pay it no heed.
12. God spoke one thing, from which I perceived two: That strength belongs to God;
13. and that Yours, my Lord, is kindness. For You repay each man according to his deeds.
Chapter 63
Hiding from Saul, and yearning to approach the place of the Holy Ark like one thirsting for water, David composed this prayer on his behalf and against his enemy.
1. A psalm by David, when he was in the Judean desert.
2. O God, You are my Almighty, I seek You! My soul thirsts for You, my flesh longs for You; [like one] in a desolate and dry land, without water,
3. so [I thirst] to see You in the Sanctuary, to behold Your might and glory.
4. For Your kindness is better than life; my lips shall praise You.
5. Thus will I bless you all my life, in Your Name I will raise my hands [in prayer].
6. As with fat and abundance my soul is sated, when my mouth offers praise with expressions of joy.
7. Indeed, I remember You upon my bed; during the watches of the night I meditate upon You.
8. For You were a help for me; I sing in the shadow of Your wings.
9. My soul cleaved to You; Your right hand supported me.
10. But they seek desolation for my soul; they will enter the depths of the earth.
11. They will drag them by the sword; they will be the portion of foxes.
12. And the king will rejoice in God, and all who swear by Him will take pride, when the mouths of liars are blocked up.
Chapter 64
The masters of homiletics interpret this psalm as alluding to Daniel, who was thrown into the lion's den. With divine inspiration, David foresaw the event and prayed for him. Daniel was a descendant of David, as can be inferred from God's statement to Hezekiah (himself of Davidic lineage), "And from your children, who will issue forth from you, they will take, and they (referring to, amongst others, Daniel) will be minesters in the palace of the king of Babylon."
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. Hear my voice, O God, as I recount [my woes]; preserve my life from the terror of the enemy.
3. Shelter me from the schemes of the wicked, from the conspiracy of evildoers,
4. who have sharpened their tongue like the sword, aimed their arrow-a bitter word-
5. to shoot at the innocent from hidden places; suddenly they shoot at him, they are not afraid.
6. They encourage themselves in an evil thing, they speak of laying traps; they say: "Who will see them?”
7. They sought pretexts; [and when] they completed a diligent search, each man [kept the plot] inside, deep in the heart.
8. But God shot at them; [like] a sudden arrow were their blows.
9. Their own tongues caused them to stumble; all who see them shake their heads [derisively].
10. Then all men feared, and recounted the work of God; they perceived His deed.
11. Let the righteous one rejoice in the Lord and take refuge in Him, and let them take pride-all upright of heart.
Chapter 65
This psalm contains awe-inspiring and glorious praises to God, as well as entreaties and prayers concerning our sins. It declares it impossible to recount God's greatness, for who can recount His mighty acts? Hence, silence is His praise.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David, a song.
2. Silence is praise for You, O God [Who dwells in] Zion; and to You vows will be paid.
3. O Heeder of prayer, to You does all flesh come.
4. Matters of sin overwhelm me; You will pardon our transgressions.
5. Fortunate is [the nation] whom You choose and draw near, to dwell in Your courtyards; may we be sated with the goodness of Your House, with the holiness of Your Sanctuary.
6. Answer us with awesome deeds as befits Your righteousness, O God of our salvation, the security of all [who inhabit] the ends of the earth and distant seas.
7. With His strength He prepares [rain for] the mountains; He is girded with might.
8. He quiets the roar of the seas, the roar of their waves and the tumult of nations.
9. Those who inhabit the ends [of the earth] fear [You] because of Your signs; the emergences of morning and evening cause [man] to sing praise.
10. You remember the earth and water it, you enrich it abundantly [from] God's stream filled with water. You prepare their grain, for so do You prepare it.
11. You saturate its furrows, gratifying its legions; with showers You soften it and bless its growth.
12. You crown the year of Your goodness [with rain], and Your clouds drip abundance.
13. They drip on pastures of wilderness, and the hills gird themselves with joy.
14. The meadows don sheep, and the valleys cloak themselves with grain; they sound blasts, indeed they sing.
____________________________
Tanya: Iggeret HaKodesh, beginning of Epistle 27
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
Tuesday, 11 Cheshvan 5775 • 4 November 2014
Iggeret HaKodesh, beginning of Epistle 27
Part (a)
The Alter Rebbe wrote this letter of condolence to his chassidim in 1788 after the passing of his colleague and mentor, the saintly R. Mendele of Vitebsk (or Horodok), who had settled in the Holy Land in 1777. It concludes by rousing them to the mitzvah of tzedakah in general, and particularly of maintaining the family of R. Mendel.
The Alter Rebbe is here addressing chassidim who in the past had benefited from their connection with the tzaddik both through his advice and blessings on material matters, and through his guidance in matters of the spirit. He comforts them, therefore, with the teaching of the Zohar that a tzaddik is to be found in this world after his passing to a greater extent than while he was physically alive. His disciples are thus able to receive his guidance in their Torah study and divine service to an even greater degree than before. Materially, too, the tzaddik protects this world after his passing even more effectively than he did during his lifetime.
מה שכתב ליושבי ארצנו הקדושה, תבנה ותכונן במהרה בימינו, אמן
This letter was written [by the Alter Rebbe] to the [chassidic] inhabitants of the Holy Land (May it speedily be rebuilt and reestablished in our own days, Amen!),1
לנחמם בכפליים לתושיה
to console them with redoubled support2
על פטירת הרב הגאון המפורסם, איש אלקים קדוש, נר ישראל, עמוד הימין, פטיש החזק, מורנו הרב ר׳ מנחם מענדל, נשמתו עדן
over the passing of the celebrated rabbi and Gaon, holy man of G‑d,3 “lamp of Israel, pillar of the right hand, mighty hammer,”4 our mentor R. Menachem Mendel (May his soul rest in Eden!).
* * *
אהוביי אחיי ורעיי אשר כנפשי כו׳
My beloved, my brethren and friends, who are [as dear] and so forth [to me] as my soul.
Likkutei Haggahot on Tanya likens the opening three terms of address to the three Scriptural terms of endearment successively addressed by a king to his beloved daughter in the parable cited by the Midrash:5 “My beloved” recalls the paternal love expressed by the phrase “my daughter”; “my brethren” recalls the fraternal love expressed by the phrase “my sister”; and “my friends” recalls the filial love expressed by the phrase “my mother.” The further phrase “as my soul” indicates the love that one has for his own life, as in the phrase of the Zohar,6 “he called her by his own name”; while “and so forth” indicates a love even greater — a bond with the ultimate soul-level of Yechidah.
ה׳ עליהם, יחיו חיים עד העולם
May [the Name of] G‑d be upon you,7 and may you live forever,
According to the above interpretation of Likkutei Haggahot, the Alter Rebbe’s blessing that “the Name of G‑d be upon you” is intended to elicit a transcendent mode of Divine benevolence, while the blessing “may you live forever” is intended to draw down this transcendent benevolence so that it can be internalized within its finite recipients. (Or, in the terms of Chassidut, it is intended “to be mamshich the makkif into the pnimi.”)
וצאצאיהם אתם, זרע אמת
and your children with you, the seed of truth;
ברוכי ה׳ המה, מעתה ועד עולם
may you be blessed by G‑d for evermore.
אחרי דרישת שלומם, כמשפט לאוהבי שמו
Having first duly inquired after the welfare of those who love [G‑d’s] Name,
באתי לדבר על לב נדכאים, הנאנחים והנאנקים, ולנחמם בכפליים לתושיה
I have come to speak to the heart of the smitten, who are sighing and groaning over the passing of R. Mendele, and to console you with redoubled support
אשר שמעה אזני, ותבן לה
with what my ear has heard from others and with what I have understood myself,8
על מאמר רז״ל, דשבק חיים לכל חי
regarding the idiom used by our Sages9 to signify the passing of a tzaddik, “He has left life for all the living.”
If this simply means that others have remained alive after his passing, what are we to make of the expression “left life”? Did he leave them life? Surely, the life they are living is their own.
The Alter Rebbe will explain below that the idiom means quite literally that the tzaddik left something of his own life to others. For the true core of a tzaddik’s life is not fleshly; rather, it comprises the spiritual qualities of faith, awe and love of G‑d. When a tzaddik departs from this world he leaves over his faith, fear and love to all those who are bound to him, so that they will be able to receive even more than they received from him while he lived his physical life together with them. All three qualities are alluded to as “life” in the verses enumerated below:
כי צדיק באמונתו יחיה
For10 “a tzaddik lives by his faith,”
וביראת ה׳ לחיים
and by11 “the awe of G‑d [which leads] to life,”
וברשפי אש שלהבת אהבתו מחיים
and by12 the flashing and fiery sparks of his love [for G‑d, that is even greater] than life,
לכל בהן חיי רוחו [ונשמתו] כל ימי חלדו
investing in them — in his faith and awe and love — the life of his Ruach [13V.L.: and, moreover, of his Neshamah] throughout his life.
As the Alter Rebbe will soon say, disciples receive their influence from the soul-level of the tzaddik which is called Ruach. In addition, as explained in Likkutei Haggahot, those disciples who are also [as close as] children receive their influence from the higher soul-level called Neshamah.
ויהי בהעלות ה׳ רוחו
When, at the time of his passing, G‑d elevates his Ruach
ונשמתו אליו יאסוף
and gathers up his soul unto Himself14
ויעלה בעילוי אחר עילוי, עד רום המעלות
and he ascends from one elevation to the next, to the very highest of levels,
שבק חיי רוחו
he [then] leaves over the life of his Ruach,
פעולתו אשר עבד בה לפנים בישראל
the deeds in which he has formerly labored with Israel, i.e., the faith, fear and love which he drew down to them from his Ruach,
On a less literal level, the Hebrew word lefanim (here translated “formerly”) can also be understood to mean “to the inwardness”; i.e., the tzaddik infused and integrated this faith, fear and love into the innermost core of his disciples, this being׳—
פעולת צדיק לחיים
“the labor of a tzaddik for life,”15
Or, less literally, “a tzaddik’s labor for the living,” to provide them with life. At any rate, at the time of his passing, the tzaddik bequeaths the fruit of his lifelong labors —
לכל חי, היא נפש כל חי
to every living being, that is, to the soul of every living being who lives a life of Torah and mitzvot,
הקשורה בנפשו בחבלי עבותות אהבה רבה ואהבת עולם, בל תמוט לנצח
who is bound to his soul by the thick ropes of a magnanimous love, and an eternal love, that will not be moved forever.
אשר מי האיש החפץ חיים, לדבקה בה׳ חיים
For any man who eagerly desires life16 [and who seeks] to cleave to the living G‑d,
בעבודתו תדבק נפשו
through his service (i.e., through the divine service of the tzaddik) his soul will cleave
והיתה צרורה בצרור החיים את ה׳
and will be bound up in the bond of life with G‑d,17
בחיי רוח אפינו
in the life of the Ruach (literally, the life-giving “breath”) of our nostrils
אשר אמרנו: בצלו נחיה בגוים
of which we have said, “In its [protective] shadow we shall live among the nations.”18
This alludes to the Chayah of the tzaddik, the soul-level which is even loftier than the soul-level called Neshamah, and which infuses the followers of the tzaddik with a transcendent mode of life-force which enables them to withstand challenges from non-Jewish (i.e., unholy) sources.
אשר שבק לנו, בכל אחד ואחד
[This] he left unto us, in each and every individual,
כפי בחינת התקשרותו באמת, ואהבתו אהבת אמת הטהורה, מקרב איש ולב עמוק
corresponding to the degree of his genuine alliance with the tzaddik and his true and pure love of him, from the innermost core of man and from the depths of his heart.19
To the extent of each individual’s bond with the tzaddik, so does the tzaddik share with him his Ruach, and his faith, fear and love of G‑d.
כי כמים הפנים וכו׳
For20 “as in water, face [answers to face, so is the heart of man to man]”: the individual’s love for the tzaddik reflects back to him, eliciting a love of the tzaddik for him,
ורוח אייתי רוח ואמשיך רוח
and21 “spirit rouses spirit and brings forth spirit” — the spirit of love that one has for the tzaddik draws down the Ruach, the superior spirit of the tzaddik.
ורוחו עומדת בקרבינו ממש
For his Ruach remains truly in our midst, within those of us who are bound to him,
כי בראותו ילדיו, מעשה ידיו בקרבו, יקדישו שמו יתברך
when he sees his children, i.e., his disciples,22 who embody the work of his hands, sanctifying [G‑d’s] blessed Name.
אשר יתגדל ויתקדש, כאשר נלך בדרך ישרה אשר הורנו מדרכיו
For [His Name] is magnified and sanctified when we walk in the straight path that he has shown us of his paths,
ונלכה באורחותיו נצח סלה ועד
and we will walk in his ways forevermore.
With regard to the above sentence, the Rebbe notes that the Zohar (Part II, p. 215a; and Part III, end of Parshat Kedoshim) distinguishes between a “path” (derech) and a “way” (orach). “Path” signifies a well-trodden track which the tzaddik has cleared for common use, while “way” suggests a trail that is presently being blazed, according to the spiritual needs of the individual’s divine service. The Rebbe refers the reader to Likkutei Torah, Shir HaShirim (12b).
The reason that the Alter Rebbe characterizes the tzaddik’s life as consisting of faith, fear and love, is that (as explained in the very first Epistle in this series) faith is the underpinning, the “loins” that support the entire body of a man’s divine service, and this finds expression in his fear and love of G‑d, his “arms”.
* * *
FOOTNOTES
1. The Rebbe notes in his Luach HaTikkun that this letter was in fact written to chassidim in the Diaspora. The introductory statement that it was written “to the inhabitants of the Holy Land” is a copyist’s error, “since the conclusion of this letter (published in Ginzei Nistarot — Or Rav, ch. 6) urges his readers not to diminish, ‘Heaven forfend, the sacred monies that they sanctify to G‑d annually...for our masters in the Holy Land.’ He continues, moreover, that the money should be ready to be sent promptly to the Holy Land.”
In a later addendum the Rebbe concludes: “The difficulty with all the above is readily understandable, for this introductory statement is found in all the editions and was seen by the Rebbeim over the generations, beginning with the author’s children and the Tzemach Tzedek.“
It would therefore seem that both things are true: The appropriate section (that which is printed here, minus the line about ‘the bearer of this letter,’ from which we also understand that this letter was edited for publication) was sent to the Holy Land, while the letter in its entirety was sent to the ‘heartbroken...of our country.’ For in any event it is reasonable to assume that the Alter Rebbe wrote a letter of consolation to the ‘heartbroken...of the Holy Land.”’
2. Cf. Iyov 11:6.
3. Cf. II Melachim 4:9.
4. Cf. Berachot 28b.
5. Shmot Rabbah, end of Parshat Pekudei.
6. I, 154b.
7. Following the conventions of classical Hebrew, the original letter addresses its readers indirectly in the polite third person; here, for clarity’s sake, this has been rendered in the second person.
8. Cf. Ezekiel 9:4.
9. Often used in halachic responsa. Addendum of the Rebbe: “Likewise in Rambam, Hilchot Yibum, end of ch. 4, in the text of a get chalitzah and a ketubbat yevamin, [the deceased is referred to as having] ‘left life to our Rabbis and to all of Israel.’”
10. Chavakuk 2:4.
11. Mishlei 19:23.
12. Cf. Shir HaShirim 8:6, where the connection with “life” is implied by the context.
13. Brackets are in the original text.
14. Iyov 34:14.
15. Mishlei 10:16.
16. Cf. Tehillim 34:13.
17. Cf. I Shmuel 25:29.
18. Note of the Rebbe: “Quoting Eichah 4:20.”
19. Cf. Tehillim 64:7.
20. Mishlei 27:19.
21. Zohar II, 166b, et al.
22. Sifrei (quoted in Rashi) on Devarim 6:7.
____________________________
Rambam:
Daily Mitzvah N242, N242 Sefer Hamitzvot
Today's Mitzvah
Tuesday, 11 Cheshvan 5775 • 4 November 2014
Daily Mitzvah N242, N242 Sefer Hamitzvot
Today's Mitzvah
Tuesday, 11 Cheshvan 5775 • 4 November 2014
Negative Commandment 241
Taking Collateral from a Widow
"Nor shall you take a widow's garment as security"—Deuteronomy 24:17.
It is forbidden for a creditor to take collateral for a debt from a widow—whether she is wealthy or poor.
aking Collateral from a Widow
Negative Commandment 241
Translated by Berel Bell
The 241st prohibition is that we are forbidden from taking a security deposit from a widow, regardless of whether she is rich or poor.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not take a widow's garment as security for a loan."
In the words of the Mishneh:2 "One may not take a security deposit from a widow, regardless of whether she is rich or poor, as the verse says, 'Do not take a widow's garment as security for a loan.' "
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 9th chapter of tractate Bava Metzia.
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 24:17.
2.Bava Metzia 115a.
Taking Food Preparation Utensils as Collateral
"One shall not take the upper or lower millstone for a pledge, for he is taking a life as a pledge"—Deuteronomy 24:6.
It is forbidden for a creditor to take food preparation utensils – e.g., grinders, kneading bowls, pots, and knives – as collateral for a debt.
Taking Food Preparation Utensils as Collateral
Negative Commandment 242
Translated by Berel Bell
The 242nd prohibition is that we are forbidden from taking as security any objects that are used in food preparation, such as those used for grinding, kneading, cooking, slaughtering animals, or any other type of food preparation.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Do not take an upper or lower millstone as security for a loan, since that is like taking a life as security."
In the words of the Mishneh,2 "The verse does not refer only to millstones, but to anything used in food preparation, as the verse says, 'since that is like taking a life as security.' "3
We now need to explain the statement of our Sages,4 "A person transgresses for both items, as the verse says, 'Do not take an upper or lower millstone.' " From this, one could be mislead into thinking that they count as two mitzvos. This is indicated even more strongly in their statement,5 "One transgresses one prohibition for the upper millstone and one for the lower millstone."
The explanation of these statements is as follows: if a person takes an object used for food preparation as security, he transgresses this prohibition, as we explained. If he took many articles, of which all are used for preparing food — such as one article that is used for grinding, another that is used for baking, and a third that is used for kneading — he would be committing a separate transgression for each article. This is [obvious and] unnecessary to explain. It is as if the person took one garment as security from Reuven's widow, one from Shimon's widow, and one from Levi's widow, in which case he would be guilty of 3 transgressions.
The explanation of the phrase "both items," is that it refers to a case where both items are used in preparing food, and one cannot be used without the other. In this case, since they are only effective when used together, we would be uncertain whether to count them as one case; or, since they are two articles, to count them as two transgressions. Therefore, our Sages explained to us that the person is punished for two transgressions, even though the act can only be done with the two together — such as the upper and lower millstone, where one cannot be used to grind without the other. If a person took these millstones as security, it would be as if he took a kneading trough and a slaughtering knife, each of which are used for different acts. This is the intention of the phrase, "A person transgresses for both items" — not that they count as two separate mitzvos.
The language of the Sifri regarding this that I've just explained: "Just as the upper and lower millstones are two articles that are used for a single act, and nevertheless each counts as a separate prohibition; so too for any two articles that are used for a single act, each counts as a separate prohibition." This means that although they are used for a single act, each one nevertheless counts as a separate prohibition.
If one transgresses this prohibition and takes the object as security, we take it back from him and return it to the poor person.6 If the object was lost or burned before he was able to return it, he receives lashes. The same applies to taking a widow's garment as security.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 9th chapter of tractate Bava Metzia.
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 24:6.
2.Bava Metzia, ibid.
3.From this phrase we see that the verse does not care only about millstones, but about anything that involves sustaining life, i.e. food preparation.
4.Bava Metzia 115a.
5.Ibid., 116a.
6.See Kapach, 5731, footnote 31. Following the Rav Kook version, Chavel translates, "owners."
________________________________________
Taking Collateral from a Widow
"Nor shall you take a widow's garment as security"—Deuteronomy 24:17.
It is forbidden for a creditor to take collateral for a debt from a widow—whether she is wealthy or poor.
aking Collateral from a Widow
Negative Commandment 241
Translated by Berel Bell
The 241st prohibition is that we are forbidden from taking a security deposit from a widow, regardless of whether she is rich or poor.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not take a widow's garment as security for a loan."
In the words of the Mishneh:2 "One may not take a security deposit from a widow, regardless of whether she is rich or poor, as the verse says, 'Do not take a widow's garment as security for a loan.' "
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 9th chapter of tractate Bava Metzia.
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 24:17.
2.Bava Metzia 115a.
________________________________________
Negative Commandment 242Taking Food Preparation Utensils as Collateral
"One shall not take the upper or lower millstone for a pledge, for he is taking a life as a pledge"—Deuteronomy 24:6.
It is forbidden for a creditor to take food preparation utensils – e.g., grinders, kneading bowls, pots, and knives – as collateral for a debt.
Taking Food Preparation Utensils as Collateral
Negative Commandment 242
Translated by Berel Bell
The 242nd prohibition is that we are forbidden from taking as security any objects that are used in food preparation, such as those used for grinding, kneading, cooking, slaughtering animals, or any other type of food preparation.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Do not take an upper or lower millstone as security for a loan, since that is like taking a life as security."
In the words of the Mishneh,2 "The verse does not refer only to millstones, but to anything used in food preparation, as the verse says, 'since that is like taking a life as security.' "3
We now need to explain the statement of our Sages,4 "A person transgresses for both items, as the verse says, 'Do not take an upper or lower millstone.' " From this, one could be mislead into thinking that they count as two mitzvos. This is indicated even more strongly in their statement,5 "One transgresses one prohibition for the upper millstone and one for the lower millstone."
The explanation of these statements is as follows: if a person takes an object used for food preparation as security, he transgresses this prohibition, as we explained. If he took many articles, of which all are used for preparing food — such as one article that is used for grinding, another that is used for baking, and a third that is used for kneading — he would be committing a separate transgression for each article. This is [obvious and] unnecessary to explain. It is as if the person took one garment as security from Reuven's widow, one from Shimon's widow, and one from Levi's widow, in which case he would be guilty of 3 transgressions.
The explanation of the phrase "both items," is that it refers to a case where both items are used in preparing food, and one cannot be used without the other. In this case, since they are only effective when used together, we would be uncertain whether to count them as one case; or, since they are two articles, to count them as two transgressions. Therefore, our Sages explained to us that the person is punished for two transgressions, even though the act can only be done with the two together — such as the upper and lower millstone, where one cannot be used to grind without the other. If a person took these millstones as security, it would be as if he took a kneading trough and a slaughtering knife, each of which are used for different acts. This is the intention of the phrase, "A person transgresses for both items" — not that they count as two separate mitzvos.
The language of the Sifri regarding this that I've just explained: "Just as the upper and lower millstones are two articles that are used for a single act, and nevertheless each counts as a separate prohibition; so too for any two articles that are used for a single act, each counts as a separate prohibition." This means that although they are used for a single act, each one nevertheless counts as a separate prohibition.
If one transgresses this prohibition and takes the object as security, we take it back from him and return it to the poor person.6 If the object was lost or burned before he was able to return it, he receives lashes. The same applies to taking a widow's garment as security.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 9th chapter of tractate Bava Metzia.
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 24:6.
2.Bava Metzia, ibid.
3.From this phrase we see that the verse does not care only about millstones, but about anything that involves sustaining life, i.e. food preparation.
4.Bava Metzia 115a.
5.Ibid., 116a.
6.See Kapach, 5731, footnote 31. Following the Rav Kook version, Chavel translates, "owners."
________________________________________
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter a Day: Edut Edut - Chapter 15Edut - Chapter 15
Halacha 1
Whenever a person will benefit from giving testimony, he may not give such testimony for it is as if he is testifying concerning himself. Therefore when a person comes to the inhabitants of a city with a complaint concerning the public bathhouse or thoroughfare, none of the inhabitants of the city can testify regarding this matter nor serve as a judge regarding this matter until they undertake a contractual act removing themselves from any connection to the property in question. Afterwards, they may testify or serve as a judges.
Halacha 2
The following rules apply when a communal Torah scroll is stolen from the inhabitants of a city. Since it is intended to be listened to by all the members of the community, it is impossible for a person to withdraw his share of ownership of it. Hence, the matter should not be adjudicated by the judges of the city, and the inhabitants of the city may not testify to prove the city's ownership. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 3
When a person says: "Give a manah to the poor people of my city," the matter may not be adjudicated by the judges of that city and the inhabitants of the city may not testify to prove that the pledge was made.
When does the above apply? When the poor people depend upon them and they allocate charity to them. In such a situation, even if two members of the city promised: "We will give the fixed amount required of us regardless; let us testify," we do not heed their request. For they receive benefit from the fact that these poor people become wealthier for the poor are dependent on the inhabitants of the city. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 4
The following rules apply when a person raises a protest and seeks to expropriate land that is owned by two partners from the possession of one of the partners. The other partner may not testify on behalf of his partner concerning the land unless he withdraws from ownership of the land and undertakes an act of contract affirming that he gave his portion to his partner and committing himself to reimburse him for its value if his own creditor expropriates it from his partner. After undertaking such an agreement, he may testify concerning the field. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 5
The following rules apply when a person protests the ownership of a field. If it contains produce, a sharecropper may not testify with regard to it. For the sharecropper wishes it to remain in the possession of the owner so that he will receive his portion of the crops. If there is no produce in the field, he may testify concerning it.
Different rules apply with regard to a renter. If he brings the rent with him and says: "Let whoever is established as the owner of this field take this," he may offer testimony. If, however, he already paid the rent to the owner of the field he may not testify. For if the field is expropriated by the claimant, he would have to pay him rent for all the years he dwelled in it. Hence, he may not offer testimony. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 6
The following rules apply if Shimon borrowed money and Reuven guaranteed the debt. Yehudah entered into litigation against Shimon and sought to expropriate landed property from his possession. If Shimon possesses another field equal in value to the debt guaranteed by Reuven, Reuven may testify with regard to the land, asserting that it belongs to Shimon. He does not derive any benefit from this, for even if Yehudah would expropriate the field, Shimon possesses another field from which the creditor could derive payment.
Similarly, a person who purchased a field may testify on behalf of another person who purchased a field from the same seller and affirm that the field is his. This applies provided the seller owns a field that is not on lien that is equivalent to the value of the field acquired by the first purchaser. In such a situation, the first purchaser does not derive any benefit from the field remaining in the possession of the second purchaser, for even if the field he purchased is expropriated from him, he may seek reimbursement from the seller and the seller possesses another field from which he could expropriate his due.
____________________________
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters a Day: Malveh veLoveh Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 13, Malveh veLoveh Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 14, Malveh veLoveh Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 15
Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 13
Halacha 1
The following laws apply when a lender comes to expropriate property on the basis of a promissory note in his possession and the borrower is not present: If it is possible to send a messenger to the borrower and notify him so that he can confront the lender in judgment, we send a messenger and notify him.
If it is impossible to notify the borrower speedily, we instruct the lender to take an oath, and then to expropriate property belonging to the borrower, either landed property or movable property. We do not consider the possibility that the borrower repaid the debt and the lender gave him a receipt.
This law is an ordinance of the Sages, enacted so that people at large would not take money belonging to a colleague and go to dwell in another city. For this would hinder the possibilities of loans being granted in the future
Halacha 2
The lender must bring proof of three matters to the court before he can expropriate property from the borrower outside his presence:
a) he must verify the authenticity of the promissory note in his possession; b) he must prove that the debtor is in another city and is not present to defend himself in court;
c) he must prove that the property that he wishes to expropriate belongs to so-and-so, the borrower.
Halacha 3
The following rules apply when a lender comes to the court, bringing security that is in his possession" and says: "This security belongs to so-and-so, and I desire to sell it to receive payment of the debt he owes me." The court does not take action and does not tell him: "Wait until the borrower comes and lodges his claim." The rationale is that had the lender desired to say that the security had been purchased his word would be accepted. The court advises him to sell the security in the presence of witnesses, so that the borrower will know for how much the security was sold.
Similarly, when a person gives a loan to a colleague and receives security in return, and then both the borrower and the lender die - regardless of whether the borrower or the lender dies first the lender's heirs may take an oath and collect the debt.
The lender's heir must take an oath holding a sacred object, before he takes payment from the security, as is done by all those who take an oath and collect their due. His word is accepted, because he is taking payment from property that is in his physical possession. Had he desired, he could have said that he had purchased the property.
Why is the creditor not required only to take a sh'vuat hesset? Because he is not taking an oath that the security is his, but rather that the money is owed him. If he lodged a claim concerning the article itself, saying "You sold it to us," or "You gave it to us," he would be able to take a sh 'vuat hesset and be freed of responsibility. If, by contrast, there were witnesses who would testify that this article was given to the lender as security, but they did not know for what amount, he would be able to collect the money only after taking an oath. Since there are no witnesses, the lender would be able to claim: "It is mine." Therefore, we accept his word when he says: "So-and-so much money is owed to me and this is security for that debt," provided that he takes the same oath he would take if there were witnesses who would testify that the article was given as security.
We do not free him of the responsibility of the oath, because we do not employ the principle of miggo to free a person of the responsibility to take an oath, but only to free him of financial responsibility - i.e., he is not required to return the security before he takes what he claim.
Halacha 4
The following rules apply when a person lends money to a colleague and receives security for the loan. Should the security be lost or stolen in a manner that is not beyond the lender's control, the lender is liable for the value of the security, as explained. If the lender says: "I lent you a sela for that security, but it was worth only two dinarim" and the borrower says: "You lent me a sela for that security, and it was worth a sela" the lender must first take the oath taken by watchmen that the article is not in his possession. The borrower then must take a sh'vuat hesset that the security was worth the amount of the debt, and he is freed of responsibility.
If the lender says: "I lent you a sela for that security, but it was worth only two dinarim" and the borrower says: "You lent me a sela for that security, and it was worth three dinarim" the lender must first take an oath that the article is not in his possession. Afterwards, the borrower must take a Scriptural oath how much the article was worth; this is required because he acknowledged a portion of the plaintiff's claim.33 He then pays the dinar that he admits to owing.
If the borrower says: "You lent me a sela for that security, and it was worth two sela'im" and the lender says: "I lent you a sela for that security, and it was worth a sela" the lender must take an oath that the article is not in his possessions and include in that oath that the security was worth only the amount of the debt.
If the borrower says: "You lent me a sela for that security, and it was worth two sela'im," and lender says: "I lent you a sela for that security, and it was worth only five dinarim, the lender must take an oath that the article is not in his possession and include in that oath that the security was not worth more than five dinarim. He must then pay the dinar.
If the lender says: "I lent you a sela for that security, but it was worth only two dinarim" and the borrower says: "I do not know how much it was worth," the lender must take an oath that the article is not in his possession and include in that oath that the security was worth only two dinarim. The borrower must then pay the remainder of the debt. The rationale is that he definitely knows that he is liable for the two dinarim and does not know whether or not he repaid the debt.
If the borrower says: "You lent me a sela for that security, and it was worth two sela'im" and lender says: "I lent you a sela for that security, and I do not know how much it was worth," the lender must take an oath that the article is not in his possession and include in that oath that he does not know that the security was worth even a p'rutah more than the debt. He is then freed of responsibility, because he did not obligate himself at all. If, however, the lender said; "I know that the security was worth more than the loan, but I do not know how much more," he must pay everything that the borrower demands; the borrower is not even required to take an oath. This resembles an instance when a plaintiff lodges a claim for a 100 zuz, and the defendant responds: "I owe you 50, but I do not know whether or not I owe you the other 50." Such a person is obligated to take an oath, but cannot take the oath. Therefore, he must pay, as will be explained. He may, however, have a ban of ostracism issued against anyone who makes a false claim.
Halacha 5
When a person lends money to a colleague and establishes a date when the loan must be repaid, even though he does not affirm the matter with a kinyan, he may not demand payment until the conclusion of that period of time. This applies regardless of whether the loan is supported merely by an oral commitment, by a promissory note, or by security, or whether the borrower or the lender dies.
When no other term is mentioned, the term of a loan is 30 days. This applies regardless of whether the loan is supported merely by an oral commitment, by a promissory note or by security. If the lender stipulated that he could demand payment whenever he desires, he has the right to demand payment even on the day the loan was given. The rationale is that this is a stipulation involving monetary issues.
Halacha 6
If the lender claims: "Today is the conclusion of the term I established for the loan," and the borrower responds: "You granted me another ten days," the borrower must take a sh'vuat hesset to support his claim. If there is one witness who testifies that the loan was due that day, the borrower must take a Scriptural oath, as is the law with regard to other claims.
If the lender claims: "There are only five days left before the loan is due," and the borrower responds: "There are ten days left," we tell the lender: "Wait until the end of the five days and then have the borrower take an oath that five days remain."
Halacha 7
If the loan was supported by a promissory note and the borrower claims: "You established a time for me to pay the debt," it appears to me that the creditor should take a sh'vuat hesset that he did not place any time limit on the loan. He may then collect the loan immediately.
Halacha 8
Payment for a loan may be demanded in any place.
What is implied? When a person lends money to a colleague in a settled place and demands payment from him in a desert, the borrower may not postpone payment. Instead, he is obligated to pay him wherever he demands payment.
If the borrower seeks to repay the loan in the desert, the lender is given the option. If he desires, he may accept payment. If he desires, he may tell him: "Pay me back only in a settled area, just as I gave you the money in a settled area." The money then remains the borrower's responsibility until he pays the lender in a settled area.
Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 14
Halacha 1
In the following situations, despite the fact that he possesses a promissory note, a lender may collect payment only after taking an oath that resembles one required by Scriptural Law:
a) a person who impairs the legal power of a promissory note;
b) a person who produces a promissory note that one witness testifies has been paid.
c) a person who seeks to collect payment outside the borrower's presence;
d) a person who expropriates property from purchasers;
e) a person who seeks to collect a debt from heirs, whether below majority or above majority.
When such a person comes to take the oath, we tell him: "Take the oath and collect your due." If the loan was not due until a specific time, and he demands payment on the day the loan was due, he may collect payment without taking an oath. Once the day the loan is due has passed, he may collect payment only after taking an oath.
Halacha 2
The following rules apply when a person demands payment from a colleague for a debt recorded in a promissory note, the borrower claims that he paid this promissory note, and the possessor of the note claims that he did not pay anything. The court tells the borrower: "Pay him."
If the borrower demands: "Have him take an oath for me that I did not pay him and then collect the debt," the court requires the lender to take an oath while holding a sacred object, that he did not pay him at all or that he paid him only such-and-such. Afterwards, he may collect his claim. If the lender is a Torah scholar, the court does not require him to take an oath.
Halacha 3
There is a difference of opinion among the Geonim in the following situation. The lender produces a promissory note whose authenticity has been verified. The borrower claims: "This promissory note is false, I never wrote it," "This promissory note involves interest," "... or a shade of interest," "It was given on faith," "I wrote it with the intention of borrowing, but I never took the loan" - i.e., he issues a claim that if acknowledged by the lender would nullify the promissory note. The lender maintains that the promissory note is genuine and that the borrower is issuing a false claim. The borrower demands that the lender take an oath before collecting.
There is one opinion that rules that the holder of the promissory note is obligated to take an oath that resembles a Scriptural oath, just as when the borrower claimed that he paid the debt. My teachers by contrast ruled that the lender should not be compelled to take an oath unless the borrower claims that he paid him. The rationale is that he acknowledged the validity of the promissory note, and that debt is fit to be repaid. We do not, by contrast, accept the borrower's word with regard to all these other claims to nullify the legal power of a promissory note whose authenticity has been verified. Instead, the borrower should pay, and afterwards lodge any claim against the lender that he desires. If the lender acknowledges the claim, he will return the money to him. If he denies it, he will take a sh'vuat hesset. My opinion also leans towards this view.
Halacha 4
Our Sages issued these rulings in the following situation: A lender produced a promissory note, demanding payment from a colleague. He claims that he was not paid at all. The borrower claims that he repaid half the debt, and witnesses testify that the entire debt was repaid. The borrower must take an oath and then pay the other half. The rationale is that he admits to owing a portion of the debt. He is not considered to be comparable to a person who returns a lost object, because the promissory note causes him to be afraid. The lender may expropriate this half of the debt only from landed property that is within the borrower's possession. He may not attach property that has been sold. The rationale is that the purchasers will say: "We rely on the testimony of the witnesses and they have nullified the legal power of this promissory note."
Halacha 5
The following rules apply when a lender produces a promissory note whose authenticity he is not able to verify, and the borrower says: "It is true that I wrote this promissory note, but I repaid it," "It was given on faith," "I wrote it with the intention of borrowing, but I never took the loan," or another claim of this nature. Since the borrower could have claimed, "This never happened," and our acceptance of the promissory note is dependent on his statements, his word is accepted. He may take a sh'vuat hesset and be freed of responsibility.
If the lender is able to verify the authenticity of the promissory note afterwards in court, it is considered as any other promissory note.
Halacha 6
The lender's claim is not accepted in the following situation. The lender produces a promissory note whose authenticity has been verified, and the borrower claims: "It is a forgery, and I never wrote it," or "It was given on faith." The lender states: "That is true, but I had an acceptable promissory note and it was lost." Although it was the lender who invalidated his promissory note, and had he desired, he could have said: "It is not a forgery," for its authenticity was verified by the court, he cannot use it to expropriate property at all. Instead, the borrower may take a sh'vuat hesset and be freed of responsibility, for the promissory note is likened to a shard.
Halacha 7
When a promissory note was used for a loan and then repaid, it may not be used again. For the lien it created was already waived, and it is likened to a shard.
Halacha 8
The following laws apply when the lender produces a promissory note whose authenticity has been verified demanding payment from a colleague, the borrower replies: "Did I not pay you," and the lender answers: "You did, but I returned the money to you and then lent it to you a second time." The promissory note that he repaid is nullified, and it is likened to a shard.
If, however, the lender says: "I returned the money to you, because the coins were not good so that you could exchange them," he did not nullify the promissory note, and the lien it created still exists.
Halacha 9
A promissory note is disqualified in the following situation. A lender produces a promissory note whose authenticity has been verified that indicates that the borrower owes him a maneh. The borrower states: "Did I not pay in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so." Those witnesses come and testify that the borrower indeed repaid the lender, but did not mention the promissory note. The lender replies: "It is true that you paid me, but you repaid me for another debt that you owed me." The lender's word is not accepted, and the promissory note is nullified.
When does the above apply? When the witnesses testify that the borrower gave the lender the money as repayment of a debt. If, however, they saw him give him money, but did not know whether it was given as repayment of a debt, for safekeeping or as a present different rules apply.
If the possessor of the promissory note says: "He never repaid me," he is established as a liar, and the promissory note is nullified. If he says: "It was payment for another debt," his word is accepted. He must take an oath and then he may collect the money mentioned in the promissory note. The rationale is that the borrower did not repay him in the presence of witnesses. Hence, since the borrower can claim: "You gave them to me as a present," his word is accepted if he says that the money was given him as repayment for another debt.
A promissory note is, by contrast, nullified in the following situation. The borrower told the lender: "This promissory note was composed for the price of a steer that I purchased from you, and you collected the money for its meat already." The lender replied: "Yes. The promissory note was composed for that purpose, but I collected the money for that debt with the understanding that the promissory note would apply to another debt that you owe me." The rationale is that the lender himself admitted that the debt mentioned in the promissory note was for the meat of the steer, and that he received payment for that debt. This applies even if there are no witnesses that the money was given for the payment of that debt. Hence, all that is necessary is that the borrower take a sh'vuat hesset that he paid the debt. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 10
When a lender produces a promissory note that is signed by one witness and the borrower claims that he paid the debt, the borrower is obligated to take an oath. And since he cannot take that oath, he must make financial restitution.
If the borrower demands of the lender: "Take an oath that I did not pay the debt," he must take the oath. The rationale is that even if two witnesses were signed on the promissory note and the borrower demanded: "Take an oath that I did not pay the debt," the lender would be obligated to take that oath, as we have explained.
Halacha 11
Similarly, my teachers ruled that when a person denies a loan supported by an oral commitment in a court, and one witness testifies that he borrowed the money, the defendant is required to take a Scriptural oath. If the defendant reversed his position and said: "Yes, I took the loan, but I repaid it," "... the lender waived payment in my favor," or "... owes me money because of another matter," we consider him to be a person who is required to take an oath, but who cannot take the oath, and must therefore make financial restitution.
Halacha 12
The following rules apply when a defendant claims that he paid a promissory note, but says: "Let the lender take an oath. If he does, he can collect the debt." We tell the defendant: "Bring your money to the court. Then he will take the oath and collect the debt." If the defendant does not have the funds to pay, we require him to take an oath, as ordained by the Geonim, that he has no financial resources. When he acquires resources, he must pay the creditor, but first he may require him to take an oath that the debtor did not repay him previously. Afterwards, the debtor must pay him.
Halacha 13
The following laws apply when a person is owed a debt by a colleague that is supported by a promissory note, the promissory note becomes lost, but the witnesses are still present. Even though the debt was affirmed in the presence of the witnesses by a kinyan, if the borrower claims that he paid the debt, he is required only to take a sh'vuat hesset.
My teachers ruled that even if the debt was given for a specific time, and the due date had not yet arrived, when a promissory note was written, it is no longer in his possession and the borrower claims that he repaid the debt, the borrower's word is accepted provided that he takes an oath that he paid the lender. The rationale is that we suspect that he paid him and for that reason he tore the promissory note or destroyed it by fire.
Similarly, my teachers ruled that even if the promissory note is in the possession of another person and the borrower claims: "It fell from my possession after I paid it," he must take a sh'vuat hesset, and then he is released from all obligations. This applies even if the due date of the promissory note has not arrived. Since the promissory note is not in the possession of the lender, we do not operate under the presumption that the debt is outstanding.
Halacha 14
The following laws apply when both the borrower and the lender are holding on to the promissory note, and the lender says: "It is mine and I took it out to demand payment from you," and the borrower says: "I repaid you and it fell from my possession." If the authenticity of the promissory note can be verified, both claimants are each required to take an oath that no less than half the value of the promissory note belongs to them. The borrower then pays half. If the authenticity of the promissory note cannot be verified, the borrower must take a sh'vuat hesset, and then he is released from all obligations.
Halacha 15
Our Sages ordained that precautions be adopted to protect the borrower's interest in the following situation. A person claims of his colleague: "You owe me a maneh." The colleague responds: "I do not owe you anything" or "I paid you." The plaintiff demands: "Take a sh'vuat hesset for me," and the borrower responds: "You have a promissory note concerning this debt. You want to compel me to take an oath first and then produce the promissory note and use it to collect payment."
We tell the lender: "Produce the promissory note." If the lender says: "I never had a promissory note against this person," or "I had a promissory note and I lost it," my teachers ruled that we tell the lender: "Nullify the legal power of any promissory note you possess until the present time. Afterwards, you can require him to take a sh'vuat hesset. Alternatively, have a conditional ban of ostracism issued and go and seek until you find the promissory note.
Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 15
Halacha 1
When a person lends money to a colleague in the presence of witnesses and tells the borrower: "Do not repay me outside the presence of witnesses," the borrower must repay him in the presence of witnesses because of this stipulation. This applies whether he made this stipulation at the time the loan was given or after the loan was given.
If the borrower claims: "I fulfilled the stipulation and repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, and they journeyed overseas or died," his word is accepted. He may take a sh'vuat hesset, and then he is freed of responsibility.
Similarly, if the lender states: "Repay me only in the presence of Torah scholars," or "... in the presence of doctors," and the borrower claims: "I repaid you in their presence, but those witnesses in whose presence I repaid you died or journeyed overseas," his word is accepted. He may take a sh'vuat hesset, and then he is freed of responsibility.
If, however, the lender stipulates: "Do not repay me except in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so and so," and the borrower claims: "I repaid you in the presence of other witnesses, and they died or journeyed overseas," his word is not accepted. Indeed, the lender stipulated: "Do not pay me except in the presence of Reuven and Shimon," who are standing with him, so that the borrower will not rebuff him, saying: "I repaid you in the presence of other people, and they journeyed away."
Halacha 2
There are versions of the Talmud that state that when a person tells a colleague: "Do not repay outside the presence of witnesses," and the borrower claims: "I fulfilled the stipulation and repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, and they journeyed overseas or died," his word is not accepted. This is a scribal error. For this reason, the halachic authorities erred because of those texts. I have researched ancient versions of the text and I found that they state that the borrower's word is accepted. In Egypt, a portion of an ancient text of the Talmud written on parchment, as was the custom in the era approximately 500 years before the present era, came to my possession. I found two versions of this law among those parchments. Both state: "If he claims: 'I fulfilled the stipulation and repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, and they journeyed overseas or died,' his word is accepted."
Because of the error that occurred with regard to some texts, there are several Geonim who ruled that if the lender stipulates: "Do not repay me except in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so," and the borrower repaid him in the presence of others, the borrower's word is not accepted even if he brought witnesses, and they testify that he paid him in their presence. This is also a great mistake. The true law is that if witnesses come and testify that he paid the lender in their presence, the borrower is freed from responsibility; there is no place for suspicion.
This ruling also stems from those texts that state with regard to a lender who tells his colleague: " 'Repay me in the presence of witnesses who study Torah law,' and the borrower repaid him in the presence of ordinary witnesses...." This is also a scribal error. In the above-mentioned parchments, I found it written: "And he went and paid him in private."
Although these texts have been carefully edited, this appears to be the ruling based on the judgment of the Talmud. Moreover, these concepts make sense: "What should the borrower do? The lender told him: "Do not repay me except in the presence of witnesses," and he repaid him in the presence of witnesses. Should he have locked the witnesses in prison for their entire lives so that they do not depart? Besides, what could he do if they died? Thus, the borrower will be forced to pay the lender time after time until he brings witnesses to court. This makes this testimony equivalent to testimony recorded in a legal document. Thus, by saying: "Do not repay except in the presence of witnesses," the lender endows the loan with the strength of a loan recorded in a promissory note. There is no one who would think that this is correct.
Instead, certainly, if the lender stipulated: "Do not repay me except in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so," the borrower caused himself a loss if he repaid the loan in the presence of other witnesses who departed. If, however, these witnesses come and testify that he repaid the debt, there is no question that the borrower should not be held responsible. This is the manner in which judgment should be rendered and instruction should be given.
Halacha 3
If the lender had the borrower agree to the stipulation that the lender's word would be accepted whenever he claimed that the borrower did not pay him, he may collect the debt without taking an oath. This applies even though the borrower claims that he paid him. If, however, the borrower brings witnesses who testify that he paid him, the lender is not entitled to expropriate any funds.
Halacha 4
If the lender had the borrower agree to the stipulation that the lender's word would be accepted as the testimony of two witnesses, even if the borrower brings witnesses who testify that he paid him, he may collect the debt without taking an oath. For he accepted his word as that of two witnesses. ) This law applies even if the borrower brought 100 witnesses that he paid the lender, for the legal power of two witnesses is the same as that of 100 witnesses.
If, however, the borrower told the lender: "I accept your word as that of three witnesses," since he mentioned a number, if the borrower pays the lender in the presence of four witnesses, we consider the debt to be paid. When a person accepted the lender's word as equivalent to that of two witnesses, how can he correct the matter? When he pays, he should have the promissory note ripped up, the lender testify that he nullifies every promissory note he has against so-and-so, the borrower, or the lender give testimony against himself outside the presence of the borrower that he received payment for all debts owed to him by so-and-so the borrower.
Halacha 5
If the borrower pays the lender, the lender claims that he was not paid, and the borrower paid him a second time because of the stipulation, the borrower can lodge a suit against the lender claiming: "You owe me such and such, because I paid you twice." If the lender acknowledges the borrower's claim, he must repay him. If he denies the claim, he is required to take a sh'vuat hesset, stating that the borrower paid him only once. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 6
When the borrower had the lender agree to the stipulation that the borrower's word would be accepted whenever he claimed that he paid the debt, the lender may not collect this debt on the basis of this promissory note - neither from the borrower's heir, nor from a person who purchased property from him. Moreover, even if the borrower said: "I did not pay this debt," the lender may not use this promissory note to expropriate property from a person who purchased property from the borrower. The rationale is that we suspect that the lender and the borrower perpetrated an act of deception to take the purchaser's property.
If the borrower claims to have paid a portion of the debt recorded in this promissory note, and the lender claims that he did not pay anything, the borrower is required to pay the portion that he admitted to owing. With regard to the remainder, he is required to take a sh 'vuat hesset. The rationale is that the lender accepted his word. If he originally stipulates that his word would be accepted without having to take a sh'vuat hesset, he is not required to take that oath.
Halacha 7
If the lender stipulates that his word will be accepted without his having to take an oath, he may collect the debt without taking an oath. If, however, he must collect the debt from the borrower's heirs, he must take an oath; only afterwards may he collect the debt. If, however, he stipulated that he would also be able to collect from the heirs without taking an oath, he may collect the debt from them without an oath.
Similarly, if the lender stipulates that he will be able to expropriate the most valuable property owned by the borrower, he may expropriate that property, even from the heirs. The rationale is that any stipulation made with regard to financial matters is binding.
If the lender comes to collect from a person who purchased property from the borrower, he may expropriate the property only after taking an oath. The rationale is that the borrower may not accept a stipulation that will cause a colleague a loss.
____________________________
Hayom Yom:
Tuesday, 11 Cheshvan 5775 • 4 November 2014
"Today's Day"
Tuesday, Cheshvan 11, 5704
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayeira, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 60-65.
Tanya: XXVII. My beloved (p. 563) ...his paths forevermore. (p. 565).
(At this point there appears in the Hebrew text emendations of Torah Or on this week's sedra, meaningful only in Hebrew. Translator).
The maamar Patach Eliyahu has glosses1 by my father that he began writing in the winter of 5652 (1891-2).
FOOTNOTES
1. They have since been published by Kehot Publication Society, 5741.
____________________________
Daily Thought:
Prison
Torah has no concept of prison as a punishment. Why? Because prison is a futile place. A place where you are told, "You must be here, but you must not change what this place is. You will grow older, but you must not take charge of your life. You will live, but you must not give life."
But a living human being must make change in his world, must take charge of his life, must give life to others.[18 Elul 5710:3; Purim 5736:4; Tzav 5736: 2.]
____________________________
Tuesday, Cheshvan 11, 5704
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayeira, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 60-65.
Tanya: XXVII. My beloved (p. 563) ...his paths forevermore. (p. 565).
(At this point there appears in the Hebrew text emendations of Torah Or on this week's sedra, meaningful only in Hebrew. Translator).
The maamar Patach Eliyahu has glosses1 by my father that he began writing in the winter of 5652 (1891-2).
FOOTNOTES
1. They have since been published by Kehot Publication Society, 5741.
____________________________
Daily Thought:
Prison
Torah has no concept of prison as a punishment. Why? Because prison is a futile place. A place where you are told, "You must be here, but you must not change what this place is. You will grow older, but you must not take charge of your life. You will live, but you must not give life."
But a living human being must make change in his world, must take charge of his life, must give life to others.[18 Elul 5710:3; Purim 5736:4; Tzav 5736: 2.]
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment