Chabad - Today in Judaism - TODAY IS: Wednesday, 11 Kislev, 5775 • 3 December 2014

Chabad - Today in Judaism - TODAY IS: Wednesday, 11 Kislev, 5775 • 3 December 2014
Today's Laws & Customs:

Today in Jewish History:
DAILY QUOTE:
DAILY STUDY:

CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: Parshat Vayishlach, 4th Portion (Genesis 33:6-33:20) with Rashi
• Chapter 33
6. And the maidservants and their children drew near and prostrated themselves. ו. וַתִּגַּשְׁןָ הַשְּׁפָחוֹת הֵנָּה וְיַלְדֵיהֶן וַתִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶיןָ:
7. And Leah and her children drew near and prostrated themselves, and after [them], Joseph and Rachel drew near and prostrated themselves. ז. וַתִּגַּשׁ גַּם לֵאָה וִילָדֶיהָ וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ וְאַחַר נִגַּשׁ יוֹסֵף וְרָחֵל וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ:
Joseph and Rachel drew near: In all cases, the mothers drew near before the sons, but in Rachel’s case, Joseph preceded her. He said, “My mother has a pretty figure. Perhaps that scoundrel will set his eyes on her. I will stand in front of her and prevent him from gazing upon her.” Because of this deed, Joseph merited the blessing (below 49:22), “over the eye” [meaning that he stood up in front of Esau’s eyes]. — [from Pesikta Rabbathi , ch. 12; Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel]
נגש יוסף ורחל: בכלן האמהות נגשות לפני הבנים, אבל ברחל יוסף נגש לפניה, אמר אמי יפת תואר, שמא יתלה בה עיניו אותו רשע, אעמוד כנגדה ואעכבנו מלהסתכל בה, מכאן זכה יוסף לברכת (מט כב) עלי עין:
8. And he said, "What is to you [the purpose of] all this camp that I have met?" And he said, "To find favor in my master's eyes." ח. וַיֹּאמֶר מִי לְךָ כָּל הַמַּחֲנֶה הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר פָּגָשְׁתִּי וַיֹּאמֶר לִמְצֹא חֵן בְּעֵינֵי אֲדֹנִי:
What is to you [the purpose of] all this camp: Who is all this camp that I have met, which is yours? That is to say, why is it yours? The simple meaning of the verse is [that Esau asked] about those who brought the gift. Its midrashic interpretation is that he (Esau) encountered groups of angels, who were shoving him and his men and asking them, “To whom do you belong?” and they responded, “We belong to Esau.” They (the angels) said [to one another], “Hit [them], hit [them]!” These [men of Esau] would say, “Leave them alone! He is Isaac’s son.” But [the angels] would pay this no heed. [Esau’s men then retorted,] “He is Abraham’s grandson.” But they (the angels) would pay this no heed. [Esau’s men again retorted,] “He is Jacob’s brother.” [The angels] then said to them, “If so, he is one of ours.” - [from Gen. Rabbah 78: 11]
מי לך כל המחנה: מי כל המחנה אשר פגשתי שהוא שלך, כלומר למה הוא לך. ופשוטו של מקרא [נאמר] על מוליכי המנחה. ומדרשו כתות של מלאכים פגע, שהיו דוחפין אותו ואת אנשיו, ואומרים להם של מי אתם, והם אומרים להם של עשו, והן אומרים הכו הכו, ואלו אומרים הניחו בנו של יצחק הוא, ולא היו משגיחים עליו, בן בנו של אברהם הוא, ולא היו משגיחים, אחיו של יעקב הוא, אומרים להם אם כן משלנו אתם:
9. But Esau said, "I have plenty, my brother; let what you have remain yours." ט. וַיֹּאמֶר עֵשָׂו יֶשׁ לִי רָב אָחִי יְהִי לְךָ אֲשֶׁר לָךְ:
let what you have remain yours: Here he acknowledged his (Jacob’s) right to the blessings (Gen. Rabbah 78:11).
יהי לך אשר לך: כאן הודה לו על הברכות:
10. Thereupon Jacob said, "Please no! If indeed I have found favor in your eyes, then you shall take my gift from my hand, because I have seen your face, which is like seeing the face of an angel, and you have accepted me. י. וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב אַל נָא אִם נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ וְלָקַחְתָּ מִנְחָתִי מִיָּדִי כִּי עַל כֵּן רָאִיתִי פָנֶיךָ כִּרְאֹת פְּנֵי אֱלֹהִים וַתִּרְצֵנִי:
Please no!: Please do not say this to me. [from Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel]
אל נא: אל נא תאמר לי כן:
If indeed I have found favor …shall take my gift from my hand, because I have seen your face, etc.: It is worthy and proper for you to accept my gift, because I have seen your face, and to me this is tantamount to seeing the face of the angel, for I saw your prince [guardian angel], and furthermore [you should take my gift], because you have consented to forgive my offense. Why did he (Jacob) mention that he saw the angel? In order that he [should] fear him and say,“He saw angels and was saved. From now on, I will not be able to prevail against him.” - [from Gen. Rabbah 75:10]
אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניך ולקחת מנחתי מידי כי על כן ראיתי פניך וגו': כי כדאי והגון לך שתקבל מנחתי על אשר ראיתי פניך, והן חשובין לי כראיית פני המלאך שראיתי שר שלך, ועוד על שנתרצית למחול סורחני. ולמה הזכיר לו ראיית המלאך, כדי שיתירא הימנו ויאמר ראה מלאכים וניצול, איני יכול לו מעתה:
and you have accepted me: You have become reconciled with me. Likewise, every [instance of] רָצוֹן in Scripture is an expression of appeasement, apayement in Old French, e.g.,“for it will not be for an appeasement (לְרָצוֹן) for you” (Lev. 22:20),“The lips of a righteous man know רָצוֹן. They know how to placate and appease (לְרַצוֹת)” (Prov. 10:32). [from Targum Onkelos]
ותרצני: נתפייסת לי, וכן כל רצון שבמקרא לשון פיוס, אפיימינ"ט בלע"ז [פיוס] (ויקרא כב כ) כי לא לרצון יהיה לכם, הקרבנות באות לפייס ולרצון, וכן (משלי י לב) שפתי צדיק ידעון רצון, יודעים לפייס ולרצות:
11. Now take my gift, which has been brought to you, for God has favored me [with it], and [because] I have everything." He prevailed upon him, and he took [it]. יא. קַח נָא אֶת בִּרְכָתִי אֲשֶׁר הֻבָאת לָךְ כִּי חַנַּנִי אֱלֹהִים וְכִי יֶשׁ לִי כֹל וַיִּפְצַר בּוֹ וַיִּקָּח:
my gift: Heb. בָּרְכָתִי. This gift, which is given for an audience and after an interval [of not seeing a person], is intended only as a greeting, as is every [instance of] בְּרָכָה for an audience. It is similar to:“And Jacob blessed (וַיְבָר‏ֶ) Pharaoh” (Gen. 47:7);“Make peace (בְרָכָה) with me” (II Kings 18:31), mentioned in connection with Sennacherib, and,“to greet him and to bless him וּלְבָרְכוֹ ” (II Sam. 8:10), mentioned in connection with Toi, king of Hamath. All are expressions of greeting, called in Old French saluder. This, too, viz. בִּרְכָתִי means mon salud, my greeting.
ברכתי: מנחתי, מנחה זו הבאה על ראיית פנים ולפרקים אינה באה אלא לשאילת שלום, וכל ברכה שהיא לראיית פנים, כגון להלן (מז י) ויברך יעקב את פרעה, (מ"ב יח לא) עשו אתי ברכה, דסנחריב. וכן (ש"ב ח י) לשאול לו לשלום ולברכו, דתועי מלך חמת, כולם לשון ברכת שלום הן שקורין בלע"ז שלוצי"ר [לשאול בשלום], אף זו ברכתי מו"ן שלו"ד [שאלתי שלומי]:
which has been brought to you: You had no trouble with it, but I have toiled to bring it until it came into your hand. — [from Gen. Rabbah 78:12]
אשר הבאת לך: לא טרחת בה, ואני יגעתי להגיעה עד שבאה לידך:
has favored me: Heb. חַנַנִי. The first “nun” has a “dagesh,” because it serves instead of two “nuns”. It should have been חִנָנַנִי since there is no instance of the root חנן without two “nuns.” The third one is a suffix, similar to“He [did not] make me (עָשָׂנִי)” (Isa. 29:16),“has given me (זְבָדַנִי)” (above 30:20).
חנני: נו"ן ראשונה מודגשת לפי שהיא משמשת במקום שתי נוני"ן, שהיה לו לומר חננני, שאין חנן בלא שתי נונין, והשלישית לשימוש כמו עשני, זבדני:
I have everything: All my necessities. Esau, however, spoke haughtily,“I have plenty,” [meaning] much more than I need. — [from Tanchuma Vayishlach 3]
יש לי כל: כל ספוקי, ועשו דבר בלשון גאוה (פסוק ט) יש לי רב, יותר ויותר מכדי צרכי:
12. Thereupon, he said, "Travel and we will go, and I will go alongside you." יב. וַיֹּאמֶר נִסְעָה וְנֵלֵכָה וְאֵלְכָה לְנֶגְדֶּךָ:
Travel: Heb. נִסְעָה, similar to:“hear (שְׁמָעָה), forgive (סְלָחָה)” (Dan. 9:19), like שְׁמַע, סְלַח. Here, too, נִסְעָה is like נְסַע, and the“nun” is part of the radical. Therefore, Onkelos renders: טוּל וּנְה‏ַ. Esau said to Jacob, “[You] travel from here and we will go.”
נסעה: כמו (תהלים קל ב) שמעה, שהוא כמו שמע, אף כאן נסעה כמו נסע, והנו"ן יסוד בתיבה. ותרגומו טול ונהך, עשו אמר ליעקב נסע מכאן ונלך:
and I will go alongside you: Even with you. I will do you a favor and I will lengthen my traveling time to go as slowly as you require. That is the meaning of“alongside you,” even with you.
ואלכה לנגדך: בשוה לך, טובה זו אעשה לך שאאריך ימי מהלכתי ללכת לאט כאשר אתה צריך, וזהו לנגדך, בשוה לך:
13. And he said to him, "My master knows that the children are tender, and the flocks and the cattle, which are raising their young, depend upon me, and if they overdrive them one day, all the flocks will die. יג. וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אֲדֹנִי יֹדֵעַ כִּי הַיְלָדִים רַכִּים וְהַצֹּאן וְהַבָּקָר עָלוֹת עָלָי וּדְפָקוּם יוֹם אֶחָד וָמֵתוּ כָּל הַצֹּאן:
which are raising their young, depend upon me: The sheep and cattle, which are raising their young, depend on me to lead them slowly.
עלות עלי: הצאן והבקר שהן עלות מוטלות עלי לנהלן לאט:
which are raising their young: Heb. עָלוֹת raising their young (עוֹלָלֵיהֶן) , an expression of“infant (עוֹלֵל) and suckling” (Lam. 2:11),“ a youth (עוּל יָמִים)” (Isa. 65:20),“and two nursing (עָלוֹת) cows” (I Sam 6:7), and in French, enfantes, rearing, suckling.
עלות: מגדלות עולליהן, לשון (איכה ב יא) עולל ויונק, (ישעיה סה כ) עול ימים, (שמואל א' ו י) שתי פרות עלות, ובלע"ז אינפנטיי"ש [שיש להן ולדות]:
and if they overdrive them one day: to tire them on the road by running, all the flocks will die.
ודפקום יום אחד: ליגעם בדרך במרוצה, ומתו כל הצאן:
and if they overdrive them: Heb. וּדְפָקוּם, lit., and if they knock them, like“Hark! My beloved is knocking (דוֹפֵק)” (Song 5:2), knocking at the door.
ודפקום: כמו (שה"ש ה ב) קול דודי דופק, נוקש בדלת:
14. Now, let my master go ahead before his servant, and I will move [at] my own slow pace, according to the pace of the work that is before me and according to the pace of the children, until I come to my master, to Seir." יד. יַעֲבָר נָא אֲדֹנִי לִפְנֵי עַבְדּוֹ וַאֲנִי אֶתְנַהֲלָה לְאִטִּי לְרֶגֶל הַמְּלָאכָה אֲשֶׁר לְפָנַי וּלְרֶגֶל הַיְלָדִים עַד אֲשֶׁר אָבֹא אֶל אֲדֹנִי שֵׂעִירָה:
Now, let my master go ahead: Please, do not lengthen the days of your traveling. Go ahead according to your speed, even if you will distance yourself [from me].
יעבר נא א-דני: אל תאריך ימי הליכתך, עבור כפי דרכך ואף אם תתרחק:
and I will move: Heb. אֶתְנַהִלָה, [like] אֶתְנַהֵל, the “hey” is superfluous, like“I will descend (אֵרְדָה)” (above 18:21),“I shall hear (אֶשְׁמְעָה)” (Ps. 85:9).
אתנהלה: אתנהל, ה"א יתירה כמו (לעיל יח כא) ארדה, (במדבר ט ח) אשמעה:
my own slow pace: Heb. לְאִטִי, my slow pace, a term denoting gentleness, [like]“that flow gently (לְאַט)” (Isa. 8:6),“Deal gently (לְאַט) with the lad for my sake” (II Sam. 18:5). [In the word] לְאִטִי, the“lammed” is a radical, [meaning] my slow pace, and it is not a prefix. I will move [at] my own slow pace.
לאטי: לאט שלי, לשון נחת (ישעיה ח ו) ההולכים לאט, (ש"ב יח ה) לאט לי לנער. לאטי הלמ"ד מן היסוד ואינה משמשת, אתנהל נחת שלי:
according to…the work: According to the need made by the pace of the feet of the work [cattle] that I am obliged to lead.
לרגל המלאכה: לפי צורך הליכת רגלי המלאכה המוטלת עלי להוליך:
and according to the pace of the children: Heb. וּלְרֶגֶל, according to their feet, how [fast] they can walk.
ולרגל הילדים: לפי רגליהם שהם יכולים לילך:
until I come to my master, to Seir: He told him of a longer journey, although he intended to go only as far as Succoth. He said [to himself], “If he intends to harm me, he will wait until I come to him,” but he did not go [to Seir]. (Gen. Rabbah 78:14) So when will he go? In the days of the Messiah, as it is said (Obadiah 1:21): “And saviors shall ascend Mt. Zion to judge the mountain of Esau.” There are [also] many midrashic interpretations to this section.
עד אשר אבא אל א-דני שעירה: הרחיב לו הדרך, שלא היה דעתו ללכת אלא עד סכות. אמר אם דעתו לעשות לי רעה ימתין עד בואי אצלו, והוא לא הלך. ואימתי ילך, בימי המשיח, שנאמר (עובדיה א כא) ועלו מושיעים בהר ציון לשפוט את הר עשו. ומדרשי אגדה יש לפרשה זו רבים:
15. Thereupon Esau said, "Let me leave with you some of the people who are with me." But he said, "Why [do] that? May I find favor in my master's eyes." טו. וַיֹּאמֶר עֵשָׂו אַצִּיגָה נָּא עִמְּךָ מִן הָעָם אֲשֶׁר אִתִּי וַיֹּאמֶר לָמָּה זֶּה אֶמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינֵי אֲדֹנִי:
But he said, “Why [do] that…”: [Why] should you do me a favor that I do not need?
ויאמר למה זה: תעשה לי טובה זו שאיני צריך לה:
May I find favor in my master’s eyes: And now you shall not pay me any reward.
אמצא חן בעיני א-דני: ולא תשלם לי עתה שום גמול:
16. So Esau returned on that day on his way to Seir. טז. וַיָּשָׁב בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא עֵשָׂו לְדַרְכּוֹ שֵׂעִירָה:
Esau returned on…his way: (Gen. Rabbah 78:15) Esau alone, the four hundred men slipped away one by one. Where did the Holy One, blessed be He, recompense them? In the days of David, as it is said: “[and none of them escaped] except four hundred young men who rode on the camels” (I Sam. 30:17).
וישב ביום ההוא עשו לדרכו: עשו לבדו וארבע מאות איש שהלכו עמו נשמטו מאצלו אחד אחד. והיכן פרע להם הקב"ה, בימי דוד, שנאמר (ש"א ל יז) כי אם ארבע מאות איש נער אשר רכבו על הגמלים:
17. And Jacob traveled to Succoth and built himself a house, and for his cattle he made booths; therefore he named the place Succoth. יז. וְיַעֲקֹב נָסַע סֻכֹּתָה וַיִּבֶן לוֹ בָּיִת וּלְמִקְנֵהוּ עָשָׂה סֻכֹּת עַל כֵּן קָרָא שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם סֻכּוֹת:
and built himself a house: He stayed there eighteen months: summer, winter, and summer. “Succoth” denotes summer. “A house” denotes winter, and [again]“succoth” denotes summer. — [from Gen. Rabbah 78:16]
ויבן לו בית: שהה שם שמונה עשר חדש, קיץ וחורף וקיץ. סכות קיץ, בית חורף, סכות קיץ:
18. And Jacob came safely [to] the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Padan aram, and he encamped before the city. יח. וַיָּבֹא יַעֲקֹב שָׁלֵם עִיר שְׁכֶם אֲשֶׁר בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן בְּבֹאוֹ מִפַּדַּן אֲרָם וַיִּחַן אֶת פְּנֵי הָעִיר:
And Jacob came safely: Heb. שָׁלֵם, lit., whole, unimpaired in his body, for he was cured of his limp and whole with his money. He did not lose anything because of that entire gift that he had given Esau. [He was also] whole with his Torah, for he had not forgotten [any of] his studies in Laban’s house. — [from Gen. Rabbah 79:5, Shab. 33b]
שלם: שלם בגופו, שנתרפא מצליעתו. שלם בממונו, שלא חסר כלום מכל אותו דורון. שלם בתורתו, שלא שכח תלמודו בבית לבן:
the city of Shechem: Heb. עִיר, [meaning] the city of Shechem, like לְעִיר, to the city, and similar to this,“until they came to Bethlehem לֶחֶם) (בֵּית” (Ruth 1:19).
עיר שכם: כמו לעיר, וכמוהו (רות א יט) עד בואנה בית לחם:
when he came from Padan-aram: Like a person who says to his companion, “So-and-so came out from between the teeth of lions and returned safely.” Here too, he came whole from Padan-aram, from Laban and from Esau, who had come to attack him on the way.
בבאו מפדן ארם: כאדם האומר לחבירו יצא פלוני מבין שיני אריות ובא שלם, אף כאן ויבא שלם מפדן ארם, מלבן ומעשו שנזדווגו לו בדרך:
19. And he bought the part of the field where he had pitched his tent from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem, for a hundred kesitas. יט. וַיִּקֶן אֶת חֶלְקַת הַשָּׂדֶה אֲשֶׁר נָטָה שָׁם אָהֳלוֹ מִיַּד בְּנֵי חֲמוֹר אֲבִי שְׁכֶם בְּמֵאָה קְשִׂיטָה:
kesitas: [This is a coin known as] a ma’ah. Rabbi Akiva said,“When I traveled to the cities by the sea, they called a ma’ah, kesita.” (The Targum renders it חוּרְפָן, good, acceptable everywhere, like [above 23:16] “accepted by the merchant”). [from Rosh Hashanah 26a]
קשיטה: מעה. אמר רבי עקיבא כשהלכתי לכרכי הים היו קורין למעה קשיטה (ותרגומו חורפן, טובים, חריפים בכל מקום, כגון עובר לסוחר):
20. There he erected an altar, and he named it "God is the God of Israel." כ. וַיַּצֶּב שָׁם מִזְבֵּחַ וַיִּקְרָא לוֹ אֵל אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
and he named it, “God is the God of Israel.”: Not that the altar is called “the God of Israel,” but since the Holy One, blessed be He, had been with him and saved him, he named the altar because of the miracle. That is to say: He Who is God that is the Holy One, blessed be He-He is God to me, whose name is Israel. We find something similar in connection with Moses: “and he named it Hashem Nissi” (Exod. 17:15). Not that the altar was called Hashem, but because of the miracle he named the altar thus, to mention the praise of the Holy One, blessed be He: “The Lord is my miracle.” Our Rabbis (Meg. 18a) interpreted it to mean that the Holy One, blessed be He, called Jacob God [rendering: and the God of Israel called him God]. The words of Torah are“like a hammer that shatters a rock” (Jer. 23:29). They divide into many meanings, but I have come to establish the simple meaning of the verse.
ויקרא לו אל אלהי ישראל: לא שהמזבח קרוי אלהי ישראל, אלא על שם שהיה הקדוש ברוך הוא עמו והצילו קרא שם המזבח על שם הנס, להיות שבחו של מקום נזכר בקריאת השם, כלומר מי שהוא אל הוא הקב"ה הוא לא-להים לי ששמי ישראל, וכן מצינו במשה (שמות יז טו) ויקרא שמו ה' נסי, לא שהמזבח קרוי ה', אלא על שם הנס קרא שם המזבח, להזכיר שבחו של הקב"ה, ה' הוא נסי. ורבותינו דרשוהו שהקב"ה קראו ליעקב אל. ודברי תורה (ירמיה כג כט) כפטיש יפוצץ סלע, מתחלקים לכמה טעמים, ואני ליישב פשוטו ושמועו של מקרא באתי:
___________________________
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: Kuntres Acharon, middle of Essay 4
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
Wednesday, 11 Kislev, 5775 • 3 December 2014
Kuntres Acharon, middle of Essay 4
והטעם: משום דחב״ד דעשיה דבחינת נשמה, הוא מקור החיות דחב״ד דנפש רוח
The reason for this transcendence is that the ChaBaD of Asiyah of the state of Neshamah is the source of life of ChaBaD of Nefesh-Ruach
ותולדותיהן והתהוותן מאין ליש עם תולדותיהן, עד סוף העשיה, היא הארץ וכל צבאה
and their offspring, and their coming into being ex nihilo with their offspring, unto the ultimate stage of Asiyah, namely the earth and all its hosts.
The ChaBaD of Asiyah (in the state of Neshamah) is thus a source for created beings.
אבל חב״ד דהלכות וטעמיהן, שבמלכות דבריאה ויצירה
But as to the ChaBaD of the laws with their rationales, that are in Malchut of Beriah and Yetzirah,
This level of ChaBaD is not a source of created beings; rather:
ענין החכמה היא בתיקון פרצופי האצילות
the function of the Chochmah [within them] is the rectification of the visages of Atzilut,
שבהן תלוין כל טעמי המצות
upon which are dependent all the rationales of the commandments —
מצות עשה בה׳ חסדים, ומצות לא תעשה בה׳ גבורות
[the rationales of] the positive commandments [depend] on the five attributes of Kindness of Za of Atzilut, and [the rationales of] the prohibitions in the five attributes of Severity of Za of Atzilut.
ומשום הכי נמי כשירדו להתלבש בנבראים
Therefore, even when they descended to be clothed in created beings,
Even when the rationales for the laws, that essentially derive from visages of Atzilut, descended to become rationales for laws for created beings, —
הן במלכות דבריאה ויצירה, דבחינת נשמה דוקא, שהוא מכלים דאצילות
they are in Malchut of Beriah and Yetzirah of the specific [G‑dly] state of Neshamah, which is of the vessels of Atzilut — for the thirty vessels of Zu”n of Atzilut become a Neshamah for Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah,
ולא בבחינת נפש רוח
and not of the degree of Ruach and Nefesh; the rationales for the laws did not vest themselves within Ruach and Nefesh, which are created beings.
ואף דחב״ד דבריאה יצירה דבחינת נשמה, שגבהה מאד מעלתן על בחינת מלכות דבריאה יצירה דנשמה
Now though ChaBaD of Beriah-Yetzirah of the state of Neshamah by far transcend Malchut of Beriah-Yetzirah of the state of Neshamah, for ChaBaD is the highest of the Sefirot of the world, while Malchut is the lowest,
ואף על פי כן, הן מקור לחב״ד דבריאה יצירה של בחינת נפש רוח, שהן המלאכים
still, [the ChaBaD of Beriah and Yetzirah] are the source for ChaBaD of Beriah-Yetzirah of the state of Nefesh-Ruach, namely the angels.
How do we then say that Malchut of Beriah and Yetzirah of the state of Neshamah cannot descend to become a source for created beings, when ChaBaD of Beriah and Yetzirah of the state of Neshamah that is far loftier than Malchut does serve as a source for created beings?
לא קשיא מידי
This is not a question at all.
דבאמת המלאכים והנשמות אינן אלא מטפה הנמשכת מחב״ד דנשמה ליסוד ז״א, וניתן לנוקבא
For in truth, the angels and souls that are created of ChaBaD of Beriah and Yetzirah are only of a drop drawn from ChaBaD of the Neshamah to the attribute of Yesod of Za, and then transmitted to nukva, i.e., to Malchut,
ומשם יצאו בבחינת לידה
and from there they (the souls and angels) went forth in a state of “birth” — a new entity resulted.
Thus, this is not a mere emanation from ChaBaD, as is the case with laws, for such an emanation cannot in fact serve as a source of created beings. Rather, it resembles the drop that brings about a birth. For this reason it is possible that created beings should result even from ChaBaD of Beriah and Yetzirah.
כי אף אם תמצי לומר שנבראו מהארת הכלים דנוקבא דאצילות, הרי הם היורדים ונעשים נשמה
For even if it is proposed that they are created from the radiance of the vessels of nukva of Atzilut, nevertheless, they themselves descend into Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah and become Neshamah unto them.
אבל עצמות חב״ד דנשמה מתפשט בו׳ קצוות דזו״ן
But the essence of ChaBaD of Neshamah extends into the “six directions” of Zu”n,
ושם הם שיתא סדרי משנה וגמרא
and there they are the Six Orders of Mishnah and the Gemara — the laws of the Torah.
The essence of ChaBaD thus descends specifically within the laws of the Torah, which are Divinity. Torah, in turn, descends within the level of Neshamah, which is also Divinity.
____________________________

Rambam: 
Daily Mitzvah P180 Sefer Hamitzvot
Today's Mitzvah
Wednesday, 11 Kislev, 5775 • 3 December 2014
Positive Commandment 180
Punishing False Witnesses
"You shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother"—Deuteronomy 19:19.
We are commanded to punish false witnesses by sentencing them to the exact punishment they wished to impose upon their innocent fellow. If their testimony was intended to expropriate money, they must pay the amount they wished the other to lose. If their testimony was intended to impose upon the defendant corporeal or capital punishment, they are the ones flogged or put to death.
Punishing False Witnesses
Positive Commandment 180
Translated by Berel Bell
Positive Commandment 181
The 180th mitzvah is that we are commanded to punish witnesses who have testified falsely with the same consequence they tried to accomplish with their testimony.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "You must do the same to them as they plotted to do to their brother."
This is the law regarding eidim zom'mim: if their testimony would have resulted in someone losing money, we take that amount from them. If they testified in a case where the defendant would be executed, we kill them with that form of execution. If they testified in a case where the defendant would be lashed, we administer lashes to them.
The details of this mitzvah, the various questions which have been raised regarding it, and how it is proven that the witnesses are zom'mim to be punishable under this law are explained in tractate Makkos.
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 19:19.

________________________________________

Rambam:

• 1 Chapter a Day: Melachim uMilchamot - Chapter 1
Melachim uMilchamot - Chapter 1
HILCHOT MELACHIM U'MILCHAMOTEIHEM
THE LAWS OF KINGS AND THEIR WARS
This text includes 23 mitzvot; ten positive commandments and thirteen negative commandments. They are:
1) The obligation to appoint a king in Israel;
2) The prohibition against appointing a convert as king;
3) The prohibition against the king marrying many wives;
4) The prohibition against the king accumulating many horses;
5) The prohibition against the king amassing too much silver and gold;
6) The obligation to destroy the seven nations living in the Land of Canaan;
7) The prohibition against allowing any one of them to remain alive;
8) The obligation to destroy the descendents of Amalek;
9) The obligation to remember what Amalek did;
10) The prohibition against forgetting Amalek's evil deeds, including his ambush against the Israelites during their journey from Egypt to Israel;
l l) The prohibition against dwelling in Egypt;
12) The obligation to offer peace to the inhabitants of a city when besieging it; to carry out the laws governing the siege as prescribed in the Torah, in particular, the laws applying if the enemy agrees to surrender and those applying if it refuses;
13) The prohibition against offering peace to Ammon and Moab, in contrast to other nations, when besieging them;
14) The prohibition against destroying fruit-bearing trees during a siege;
15) The obligation to set up a latrine outside an army camp;
16) The obligation to carry a spike to dig with;
17) The obligation to anoint a priest to speak to the troops in the event of war;
18) The obligation to allow those who have consecrated wives, built houses, or planted vineyards to rejoice in their new status for a complete year, while releasing them from military conscription;
19) The prohibition against asking those mentioned in the previous category to perform any duties, including handling the needs of one's city or providing supplies to the troops during that year;
20) The obligation not to become frightened, nor to flee in the midst of battle;
21) The prohibitions and obligations regarding a yefat toar, a Gentile woman with whom the Torah allows relations in wartime;
22) The prohibition against selling a yefat toar;
23) The prohibition against subjugating her to perform menial duties after having relations with her.
These mitzvot are explained in the coming chapters.
Halacha 1
Israel was commanded to fulfill three mitzvot upon entering the Promised Land:
a) To choose a king, as Deuteronomy 17:15 states: 'Appoint a king over yourselves;'
b) To wipe out the descendents of Amalek, as Deuteronomy 25:19 states: 'Erase the memory of Amalek;'
c) To build God's Chosen House, as Deuteronomy 12:5 states: 'Seek out His Presence and go there.'
Halacha 2
The appointment of a king should precede the war against Amalek. This is evident from Samuel's charge to King Saul (I Samuel 15: l-3): 'God sent me to anoint you as king ... Now, go and smite Amalek.'
Amalek's seed should be annihilated before the construction of the Temple, as II Samuel 7:1-2 states: 'And it came to pass, when the king dwelled in his palace, and God gave him peace from all his enemies who surrounded him, the king said to Nathan, the prophet: 'Look! I am dwelling in a house of cedar, ... but the ark of God dwells within curtains.'
Since it is a mitzvah to appoint a king, why was God displeased with the people's request of a king from Samuel? Because they made their request in a spirit of complaint. Rather than seeking to fulfill the mitzvah of appointing a king, they were simply intent on rejecting the Prophet Samuel as implied by God's reply to him (I Samuel 8:7): 'It is not you, but Me they have rejected.'
Halacha 3
As an initial and preferred option, a king may be appointed only by a court of 70 elders, together with a prophet, as Joshua was appointed by Moses and his court, and as Saul and David, were appointed by Samuel of Ramah and his court.
Halacha 4
A king should not be appointed from converts to Judaism. This applies even if the convert's ancestors had been Jewish for many generations, unless his mother [or father1] is a native-born Israelite, as Deuteronomy 17:15 states: 'You may not appoint a foreigner who is not one of your brethren.'
This does not apply to the monarchy alone, but to all positions of authority within Israel. A convert may not serve as an army commander, a leader of fifty, or as a leader of ten. He may not even supervise the allocation of water from a stream to various fields.
Needless to say, a judge or a nasi should only be a native-born Israelite, as it is stated (ibid.): 'Appoint a king over you from among your brethren.' This implies that all appointments must only be 'from your brethren.'
Halacha 5
We may not appoint a woman as king. When describing the monarchy, the Torah employs the male form of the word king and not the female.
This principle also applies to all other positions of authority within Israel. Only men should be appointed to fill them.
Halacha 6
Neither a butcher, barber, bath-attendant, nor a tanner should be appointed king or High-Priest. This is not because of an inherent fault, but because their professions are less prestigious, and the people will always treat them lightly.
A person who has served in one of these professions for even one day, is disqualified for the monarchy.
Halacha 7
When a king is appointed, he is anointed with oil reserved for this purpose, as I Samuel 10:1 states: 'And Samuel took the cruse of oil and poured it over his head. Then, he kissed him.'
Once a king is anointed, he and his descendents are granted the monarchy until eternity, for the monarchy is passed down by inheritance, as Deuteronomy 17:20 states 'Thus, he the king and his descendents will prolong their reign in the midst of Israel.'
If the king leaves only a young son, the monarchy should be held for him until he matures, as Yehoyada did for Yoash. The order of inheritance of the monarchy is the same as that governing the inheritance of property. An older son is given precedence over a younger one.
Not only the monarchy, but all other positions of authority and appointments in Israel, are transferred to one's children and grandchildren as inheritances forever.
The above applies if the knowledge and the fear of God of the son is equivalent to that of his ancestors. If his fear of God is equivalent to theirs but not his knowledge, he should be granted his father's position and given instruction. However, under no circumstance should a person who lacks the fear of God be appointed to any posi-tion in Israel, even though he possesses much knowledge.
Once David was anointed king, he acquired the crown of kingship. Afterwards, the kingship belonged to him and to his male descendents forever, as II Samuel 7: 16 states: 'Your throne shall be established forever.' Nevertheless, his acquisition of the monarchy was conditional, applying only to the righteous among his descendents, as Psalms 132:12 states: 'If your children will keep My covenant... their children shall also sit on your throne forever.'
Despite this condition, God assured David that the monarchy would never be taken from his descendents forever, as Psalms 89:31-38 states: "lf his children will forsake My Torah and cease walking in My statutes ... I will punish their transgressions with the rod and their sins with plagues. Nevertheless, I will not utterly remove My grace from him.... His throne shall be ... established forever.'
Halacha 8
If a prophet appoints a king from any other tribe of Israel and that king follows the path of Torah and mitzvot and fights the wars of God, he is considered as a king, and all the commandments associaed with the monarchy apply to him.
Although the kingship was primarily given to David and one of his descendents will be serving as king, there is halachic legitimacy to the rule of other kings. Behold, Achiyah of Shilo appointed Jeroboam and told him (I Kings 11:38): 'And it shall be that if you obey all that I command you... I will build you a faithful house as I built for David.' Similarly, Achiyah told him (ibid.: 36): 'To his (David's) son, I will grant one tribe, so that David, My servant, will always have sovereignty before Me in Jerusalem.'
Halacha 9
The kings of the Davidic dynasty will prevail forever (II Samuel 7:16): 'Your throne shall be established forever.' In contrast, should a king arise from other Israelites, the monarchy will eventually cease from his descendents. For behold, Jeroboam was told: I Kings 11:39 'I will afflict the House of David.... but not forever.'
Halacha 10
Kings of Israel are not anointed with the special anointing oil, but with Afarsimon oil. Only a descendent of David may be appointed as king in Jerusalem. And only descendents of David are anointed with the special anointing oil.
Halacha 11
The kings of the Davidic dynasty should only be anointed near a spring.
Halacha 12
A son who succeeds his father as king is not anointed unless he assumes his position amid a dispute over the inheritance or during a civil war. Under these circumstances, he should be anointed in order to remove all disagreement.
Therefore, they anointed Solomon because of the claim of Adoniyahu, Jehoash, because of the usurpation of Atalyah, and Jehoachaz, because of [the claim of his brother, Jehoyakim.
FOOTNOTES

1.Tosafot (Yevamot 102a) explain that if a person's father is a native-born Israelite, he may be appointed to positions of authority, regardless of his mother's origins. Alternatively, a king's yichus is questioned only at the beginning of a dynasty. Once the dynasty has been established, a son may assume his father's position, even if his mother is a convert (Noda B’Yehudah, Choshen Mishpat, Responsum l).
____________________________
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters a Day: Edut - Chapter 20, Edut - Chapter 21, Edut - Chapter 22
Edut - Chapter 20
Halacha 1
Lying witnesses are neither executed, given lashes, or required to make financial restitution unless both of them were fit to serve as witnesses and they were both disqualified through hazamah after the judgment was rendered.
If, however, only one of them was disqualified through hazamah, they were both disqualified through hazamah before the judgment was rendered, or after the judgment was rendered, one of them was disqualified because of family connections or because he was unfit to serve as a witness, the witnesses are not punished, even though they are disqualified through hazamah and no longer acceptable to deliver testimony in all matters of Scriptural Law.
Halacha 2
Although according to Talmudic logic one might differ, if the person against whom they testified was executed and then they were disqualified through hazamah, they are not executed. This is derived from Deuteronomy 19:19: which speaks of: 'what they conspired to do.' Implied is that it was not already done. This rule is part of the Oral Tradition.
If, however, the person against whom they testified was lashed, they are lashed. Similarly, if money was expropriated from one person and given to another, it is returned to its owner and the witnesses are required to pay the penalty.
Halacha 3
The following laws apply if there were three or even 100 witnesses. If the witnesses deliver testimony in court one after the other, each one testifying immediately after his colleague and several of them were disqualified through hazamah, they do not receive punishment until all of them are disqualified through hazamah.
If, however, the interval between testimonies was greater than the time it takes a student to greet a teacher, the testimonies are divided and the two who were disqualified through hazamah are punished. The two who testified after there was such an interlude between their testimony and that of the first pair are not punished. This applies even though the entire testimony is disqualified because all of the witnesses are considered as one group and when the testimony of part of a group is disqualified, the entire testimony is disqualified.
Halacha 4
When one witness delivers testimony, that testimony is investigated, and the second witness states: 'I also testify like him,' 'Yes, this is what happened,' or the like, they are both executed, lashed, or subjected to a financial penalty if they are both disqualified through hazamah. The rationale is that any witness who says 'Yes, this is what happened' after his colleague testified is considered as having testified and responded to cross-examination as his colleague did.
There is no concept of inadvertent transgression with regard to lying witnesses, because the transgression does not involve a deed. Therefore there is no need for a warning as we explained.
Halacha 5
Just as two witnesses can disqualify 100 witnesses through hazamah if the 100 testify at one time; so, too, they can disqualify them through hazamah if they testify as 50 groups, coming two by two.
What is implied? A group of witnesses testified that Reuven killed Shimon in Jerusalem. Two witnesses came and disqualified that group through hazamah. Another group came and delivered that same testimony, that Reuven killed Shimon in Jerusalem and these same two witnesses arose and disqualified that group through hazamah. This happened a third time and a fourth time. Even if it happens 100 times, all the other witnesses are executed on the basis of the testimony of these two.
Halacha 6
When one group of witnesses testify that Reuven killed Shimon in Jerusalem and a second group come and disqualify the first group through hazamah, the lying witnesses should be executed and Reuven's life saved. If a third group come and disqualify the second group through hazamah, the second group and Reuven should be executed and the lives of the first group saved.
If a fourth group come and disqualify the third group through hazamah, the third and the first groups should be executed and the lives of Reuven and the second group saved. Similarly, even if there are 100 groups, each one disqualifying the testimony of the previous through hazamah, one group's testimony is accepted and the other group's testimony is disqualified.
Halacha 7
When witnesses testify that a person who is trefe murdered a person and then the witnesses are disqualified through hazamah, the witnesses are not executed. The rationale is that even if they had killed him with their hands, they would not be executed, because he is trefe.
Similarly, if witnesses who were trefe testified concerning a matter punishable by execution by the court and were disqualified through hazamah, they are not executed. The rationale is that if their testimony was disqualified through hazamah, and the testimony of the witnesses who testified against them was disqualified through hazamah, those witnesses would not be executed, for they disqualified only a person who was trefe.
Halacha 8
The following rule applies when witnesses testify against another person and have him convicted in a matter that does not involve lashes, capital punishment, or a financial obligation and then the witnesses are disqualified through hazamah. They are given lashes even though they did not conspire to have the defendant lashed or to obligate him financially.
What is implied? Witnesses testified that a priest was a challal, e.g., they testified that his mother was divorced or released through chalitzah in their presence in this-and-this place on this-and-this date. If the witnesses are disqualified through hazamah, they are punished by lashing.
Similarly, if they testified that a person inadvertently killed a colleague and they are disqualified through hazamah, they are punished by lashing; they are not exiled. And if they testify that a person's ox killed another person and they were disqualified through hazamah, they receive lashes and are not required to pay an atonement fine. If they testify that a person was sold as a Hebrew servant and they were disqualified through hazamah, they receive lashes. These four rulings are part of the Oral Tradition.
Halacha 9
With regard to the above matters, our Sages received the following tradition: When two people cause a righteous person to be condemned and a wicked person to be vindicated through their testimony and two others come and disqualify their testimony through hazamah vindicating the righteous person and condemning the wicked, the first pair of witnesses receive lashes even though their condemnation of the righteous person would not have had him subjected to lashes.
If, however, witnesses testify that a person partook of milk and meat or wore shaatnez, they are punished by lashes, as implied by Deuteronomy 19:19: 'You shall requite him as he conspired.'
Halacha 10
When two witnesses testify that Reuven committed adultery with the daughter of a priest, Reuven was sentenced to death by strangulation and the daughter of the priest was sentenced to be burnt to death, and afterwards the witnesses were disqualified through hazamah, they should be executed by strangulation and not burnt to death. This is part of the Oral Tradition.
1. If one of them is unacceptable as a witness, their testimony is no loner effective. Hence they are not punished (Kessef Mishneh).
2. The second pair of witnesses states that one, but not the other of the first pair were with them in a different place at the time they claim that the event transpired.
3. For the punishment was prescribed only for a pair of witnesses (Rashi, Makkot 5b).
4. As described in Chapter 13.
5. As described in Chapters 10-12.
6. As stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 4. They are, however, acceptable in matters where leniency is granted with regard to the acceptance of testimony, e.g., testimony concerning the death of a woman's husband.
7. Our translation is based on the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh who states that the fundamental principle the Rambam is trying to convey with this phrase is that capital punishment is not given unless it is explicitly stated in the Torah. A logical proof is not sufficient.
What is the logic here? If a person who conspires to have a person executed should be executed, should not one who actually caused him to be executed.
8. From the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah and from the gloss of the Radbaz, it appears that although they are not executed, they should be punished by the court.
9. I.e., what they conspired.
10. I.e., the Torah prescribes punishment only in such a situation.
11. The Ra'avad and the Kessef Mishneh question the Rambam's source for this distinction. The Kessef Mishneh explains that it is possible to say that since judgment is ultimately in God's hands, had the executed party not been guilty, God would not have allowed him to be executed. Hence the lying witnesses need not be punished. Alternatively, he can be explained that the punishments inflicted by the courts are not goals in their own right, but means to bring a person to atonement. It is not fitting to give lying witnesses who had a person executed the opportunity to achieve such atonement. Since lashes is not as severe a punishment, neither of these explanations apply.
12. I.e., the plaintiff is required to return it.
13. For financial penalties are established based on Talmudic logic (Kessef Mishneh).
14. As the Rambam continues to explain, the Hebrew term translated as 'immediately after,' toch kidei dibur, has a specific meaning: The time it takes a student to greet a teacher, saying: Shalom alecha rabbi (Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:17).
15. The Ra'avad questions: Since these witnesses were not disqualified through hazamah, why would one think that they should be punished? The Radbaz answers that the very fact that they appeared together with lying witnesses implicates them.
The Lechem Mishneh explains that the Rambam's intent is that even if the second pair of witnesses were also disqualified through hazamah, they are not punished. The rationale is that since their testimony was separated from that of the first pair and by the time they testified the defendant could have been executed because of the testimony of the first pair, their testimony is of no consequence. Hence they are not punished.
16. Thus even if there is no difficulty at all with the testimony of the last pair of witnesses, the defendant is not punished. 17. Because they saw the event together and appeared together in court.
18. The rationale for this distinction can be explained as follows: With regard to the disqualification of witnesses, everything is dependent on the testimony of the witnesses in court. Hence if their testimony is separated, they are not considered as a single group. Their classification as a single group, by contrast, depends on their coming to court together. Since they came together with the intent to testify, they are considered as a single group (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).
The Ra'avad (and Rashi, in his commentary to Makkot 6a) do not accept the Rambam's approach and maintain that even though the first pair of witnesses should be executed, if the testimony of the second pair is validated, the defendant should also be executed.
19. I.e., he is cross-examined by the court, as explained in Chapter 2.
20. I.e., despite the fact that he did not actually testify, it is considered as if he did as the Rambam proceeds to explain. See also Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 2:8 which states that making such statements is equivalent to actually testifying in court.
21. I.e., they receive punishment even if they committed the transgression without knowing that it was forbidden.
22. The Radbaz explains that Numbers 15:29, the source for the laws of inadvertent transgression mentions 'one who acts inadvertently' (see Hilchot Shegagot 1:2). In this context (in contrast to blasphemy), speaking is not considered as an act. Hence they are not held liable.
Nevertheless, the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer a different rationale why these witnesses are punished without a warning: They desired to have the defendant punished although he did not receive a warning. Therefore, they should be punished without a warning.
23. See Chapter 18, Halachah 4.
24. For the entire purpose of a warning is to distinguish between a transgression committed willfully and one committed inadvertently (Hilchot Sanhedrin 12:2).
25. See Chapter 18, Halachah 3.
26. We do not say that they are lying and have resolved to testify against anyone who delivers testimony in this matter (Rashi, Makkot 5a).
27. Because the testimony of the second group exonerates him from the onus of the testimony of the first group.
28. The second group should be executed as lying witnesses who sought to have the first group executed. Reuven should be executed, because once the testimony of the second group has been disqualified, the testimony of the first group is then reinstated.
29. Because the disqualification of the second group exonerates them.
30. I.e., he has a physical ailment that will cause him to die within 12 months.
31. Seemingly, through their testimony, they are trying to have the defendant executed. Nevertheless, despite the fact they testify that the person who is trefe committed a murder, he is not executed. The rationale is that testimony must be able to be disqualified through hazamah. Since it is impossible to punish the witnesses 'as they conspired to do to their brother,' for they conspired to have a sick person executed and they are healthy, the concept of hazamah is not relevant, as stated in Hilchot Rotzeach 2:9.
32. And a person who kills a colleague who is trefe is not liable for execution. For it is as if he killed a dead person (Sanhedrin 78a; Hilchot Rotzeach 2:8).
33. Here also, it would appear that the intent is that since they are seeking to have the person executed, one might think that they should be executed. In fact, however, their testimony is not effective in having the defendant sentenced to death. Since they are trefe, there is no possibility of requiting them 'as they conspired to do to their brother.' For they conspired to have a healthy person executed and they are sick.
Accordingly, the Kessef Mishneh explains that we are speaking about a situation where the court did not recognize that the witnesses were trefe when it accepted their testimony.
34. Thus the punishment is not 'as they conspired to do to their brother.'
35. For the reasons mentioned by the Rambam in the following halachah.
36. I.e., the descendant of a priest who is not considered as a member of the priesthood, because he was conceived in relations forbidden to his father. See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 19:5.
37. Thus making his mother forbidden to his father.
Rabbi Akiva Eiger raises a question, noting that a woman who underwent chalitzah is only forbidden to a priest by Rabbinic decree. Hence the Ramban and others rule that lashes should not be given. Rabbi Akiva Eiger himself states that since the defendant is being disqualified according to Rabbinic decree through the testimony of the witnesses, and by giving that false testimony, they violate a Scriptural commandment, it is appropriate that they be punished by lashing.
38. We do not say that the witnesses should be considered as challalim themselves. This applies even if the witnesses are priests. Makkot 2b explains this based on Deuteronomy 19:19: 'And you shall requite him as he conspired to do to his brother.' The obligation is to requite him, not to requite his descendants and having him declared a challal would be a punishment against his descendants as well as him.
39. The lying witnesses are not exiled "as they conspired to do to" the defendant. The rationale is that Deuteronomy 19:5 says with regard to a person convicted of inadvertent murder: 'He shall flee to one of these cities.' Makkot, loc. cit., states: ...He,' and not those who conspire against him.'
40. For an atonement fine is not a monetary assessment, but rather a fine designated to bring atonement for the death of the victim. These witnesses do not need that type of atonement, for their ox did not cause death (Rashi, Makkot, loc. cit.; see also Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 10:4-5).
See also the Ketzot HaChoshen 38:2 which explains that even though the witness also caused the ox to be sentenced to death and no benefit to be derived from it. Nevertheless, the witnesses are lashed and not subjected to these penalties. See also the Ramban who differs and maintains that the witnesses are required to make financial restitution and are not lashed.
41. The Nimukei Mahari (based on Makkot, loc. cit.), explains that the intent is that the witnesses testify that the person stole and did not have the money to make restitution for the theft.
42. Although Makkot, loc. cit., outlines how each of these concepts is derived from the exegesis of a verse, since the concepts are not derived through the Thirteen Principles of Biblical Exegesis, the exegesis is considered as only an asmachta. The binding obligation to fulfill these directives stems from the fact that they were transmitted through the Oral Tradition (Radbaz).
43. The Rambam is borrowing the wording of Deuteronomy 25:1-2: 'And they shall validate the righteous and condemn the wicked. If the wicked man is deserving of being beaten...' which continues to speak of the punishment of lashing.
'Condemning the righteous' refers to a situation where lying witnesses caused judgment to be rendered against a righteous person.
44. In this situation, we follow the instructions of the continuation of the verse and punish the person by lashes. Delivering false testimony violates the prohibition 'Do not deliver false testimony against your colleague.' Nevertheless, one might think that since that prohibition does not involve a deed, it is not punishable by lashes. Hence the exegesis of the above verse is necessary. See Makkot 4b (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).
45. As in the four cases mentioned in the previous halachah.
46. I.e., since the lying witnesses delivered testimony concerning a transgression punishable by lashes, there is no need for a special teaching to instruct us to give them that punishment. They are requited in this manner, because this is what they 'conspired to do to their brother' (Kessef Mishneh).
47. See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 3:3 which states that the two parties to this transgression are given different punishments.
48. Sanhedrin 90a derives this from Deuteronomy 19:19 which speaks of requiting a lying witness, 'as he conspired to do to his brother,' his brother and not his sister. This, however, is an asmachta.
Rabbi Akiva Eiger questions what the ruling would be in a situation where the witnesses claim to have given a warning to the woman, but not to the man. He supposes that even in such a situation, they should be executed by strangulation, not burning.
Edut - Chapter 21
Halacha 1
The following rule applies when witnesses testify that so-and-so divorced his wife and did not pay her the money due her by virtue of her ketubah and, afterwards, these witnesses were disqualified through hazamah. Now either today or tomorrow, when the husband divorces his wife, he must pay her the money due her by virtue of her ketubah. Hence we calculate how much a person would pay for the right to collect the money due this woman by virtue of her ketubah in the event she would be widowed or divorced and the witnesses are required to pay this amount.
When calculating this amount, we take into consideration the state of the woman and the amount of her ketubah. If the woman is sick or old or there is peace between her and her husband, the value for which her ketubah will be sold will not be the same if she is young and healthy or there is strife between the couple. For such a woman is more likely to be divorced and less likely to die.
Similarly, the amount to be received for a large ketubah is not the same as for a small ketubah. For example, if her ketubah is for 1000 zuz, it might be sold for 100. If it is for 100, it will not be sold for 10 but for less. These matters are dependent on the estimates of the judges.
Halacha 2
Similar principles apply in the following situation. Witnesses testify with regard to a person, saying that he is obligated to pay so-and-so 1000 zuz in 30 days. The borrower admits the debt, but says that it is not due until five years and 30 days. If the witnesses are disqualified through hazamah, we evaluate how much a person would pay to have 1000 zuz available to him for five years. This is the sum paid to the borrower. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 3
When witnesses testify that a person's ox gored another ox and afterwards, the witnesses were disqualified through hazamah, they are required to pay half the damages. If the ox is not worth half the damages, they are required to pay only the value of the ox. For the fine of half of the damages must be paid only from the body of the goring ox itself. Therefore if they testified that the ox consumed produce or broke utensils while walking, the witnesses are required to pay the full amount of the loss. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 4
When witnesses testify that a person knocked out the tooth of his servant and then blinded the servant's eye, if afterwards, the witnesses were disqualified through hazamah, they are required to pay the master the value of the servant and the value of his eye.
A different rule applies if they testified that the master blinded the servant's eye and afterwards knocked out his tooth, the witnesses were disqualified through hazamah, and it was later discovered that the events occurred in the opposite order, the master knocked out his tooth and afterwards blinded him. The witnesses must pay the worth of the eye to the servant. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 5
When witnesses who testified that a woman was warned by her husband not to enter into privacy with another man or who testified that she disobeyed the warning and entered into privacy with him are disqualified through hazamah, they are punished by lashes. If one witness comes and testifies that she committed adultery after she was warned and entered into privacy, and that witness was disqualified through hazamah, that witness is required to pay the money due her by virtue of her ketubah.
If there were two witnesses and they served as the witnesses for the warning, that she entered into privacy, and that she committed adultery, should they be disqualified through hazamah, they are required to pay the money due her by virtue of her ketubah; they do not receive lashes. Why are they not executed - they gave testimony with regard to adultery? Because they did not warn the woman.
Halacha 6
If the lying witnesses testified that a person stole and slaughtered or sold the stolen animal, should they be disqualified through hazamah, they are required to pay the entire amount. If two witnesses testify that the person stole and two others that he slaughtered or sold the animal, and both pairs of witnesses are disqualified through hazamah, the first witnesses are required to pay twice the animal's worth, and the second pair, two or three times its worth.
If the second pair alone were disqualified through hazamah, the thief is required to make a double payment to his victim. The later witnesses must pay the remainder of the four and five time payment. If one of the last witnesses is disqualified through hazamah, the entire last testimony is negated. If one of the first witnesses is disqualified through hazamah, the entire testimony is negated. For if there is no theft, slaughtering it or selling the animal does not obligate the person to pay anything.
Halacha 7
When two witnesses testify that a person benefited from the produce of a field for three years and are disqualified through hazamah, they must pay the worth of the field to its owner. If two witnesses testify that a person benefited from the produce of a field for one year, two others testified that he benefited from its produce for a second year, and two others testified that he benefited from its produce for a third year, should they all be disqualified through hazamah, they divide the value of the field among themselves. For although the testimony concerning the establishment of the claimant's right to the field involves three separate testimonies, they are one testimony with regard to disqualification through hazamah.
For this reason, when there are three brothers and one other person, that person may join together with all three of the brothers and testify with regard to one of the years. Although they are three testimonies, they are considered as one testimony with regard to disqualification through hazamah. If they are all disqualified through hazamah, the three brothers must together pay half the value of the field and the person who joined together with each of them must pay the other half of its value.
Halacha 8
Different rules apply when an ox is declared to have a tendency to gore on the basis of the testimony of three groups of witnesses. If the first and the second pair of witnesses are disqualified through hazamah, all of the witnesses are released from liability. If all three sets of witnesses are disqualified, they are all obligated to pay for the entire damages even though half-damages are paid for an ordinary ox.
When does the above apply? When the witnesses are all motioning to each other, or they appear directly after each other, or they know the identity of the owner of the ox, but do not recognize the ox itself. If none of these factors are present, the first and the second group of witnesses are not liable, for they will say: "We came only to obligate him to pay half-damages. We did not know that subsequently another group would come and cause the ox to be deemed as a goring ox."
Halacha 9
The following law applies when two people testified with regard to a "wayward and rebellious son" with regard to the first testimony and two others came afterwards and testified with regard to the second testimony which would cause him to be executed. If they are both disqualified through hazamah, the first group is lashed and not executed. The rationale is that they can say: "We came to have him lashed." The second group, however, is executed, because it is their testimony that causes him to be executed. If the second group consisted of four witnesses: Two said: "In our presence, he stole," and two said: "In our presence, he feasted," should they all be disqualified through hazamah, they are all executed.
If two witnesses testify that a person kidnapped a Jewish person and sold him, and they were disqualified through hazamah, they should be executed by strangulation. If two witnesses testified that a person kidnapped a fellow Jew and another two testified that he sold him, whether the witnesses who testified that he kidnapped or those who testified that he sold were disqualified through hazamah, either group which is disqualified through hazamah are executed. The rationale is that kidnapping is the beginning of the conviction and condemnation to death of the defendant.
If two witnesses testify that a person sold a fellow Jew and were disqualified through hazamah, but there were no witnesses that he kidnapped him, the witnesses are not liable. The rationale is that even if they were not disqualified through hazamah, the defendant would not have been executed, because he could have excused himself saying: "I sold my servant."
If witnesses who testify to the sale come after the disqualification of the witnesses who testified concerning the kidnapping, they are not executed. This applies even if we see that they are motioning to each other.
Halacha 10
The following laws apply if a person spreads a libelous report about his wife, bringing witnesses that she committed adultery after she had been consecrated. If her father brought witnesses who disqualified the witnesses brought by the husband through hazamah, those witnesses are executed. If the husband brought witnesses who disqualified the witnesses brought by the father through hazamah, those witnesses are executed and are required to make financial restitution to the husband. They are executed, because the witnesses brought by the husband were condemned to death on the basis of their testimony. They must pay a fine, because the husband was held liable to pay a fine because of their testimony. Thus they are obligated to be executed because of this person and obligated financially, because of another person.
Similarly, when two people testify that a person engaged in relations with a consecrated maiden and they are disqualified through hazamah, they are executed and are not required to make a financial payment. If they said: "He engaged in relations with the daughter of so-and-so," and they are disqualified through hazamah, they are executed and are required to pay the fine to her father.
If witnesses testify: "So-and-so sodomized an ox," and they were disqualified by hazamah, they are executed, but not held liable financially. If they said: "the ox belonging to so-and-so," they are executed and required to pay the value of the ox to its owner. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Edut - Chapter 22
Halacha 1
The following rules apply when two groups of witnesses contradict each other. If one witness from one group came together with one witness from the other group and they both delivered testimony concerning another matter, the testimony is of no consequence. For certainly one of them lied, but we do not know which one.
If one of these groups comes alone and gives testimony and the other group comes alone and gives testimony regarding another matter, we accept the testimony of both groups individually.
Halacha 2
Reuven produced two promissory notes against Shimon: one for a maneh and one for 200 zuz. Shimon denied being obligated for either of the promissory notes. The witnesses to one of the promissory notes were one of the groups whose testimonies contradicted each other and the witnesses to the other were the second group. Shimon is required to pay only a maneh, for the bearer of the promissory note has the position of lesser strength. He must take an oath concerning the remainder.
It appears to me that he must take this oath concerning the remainder while holding a sacred article, as is required of a person who admits a portion of the claim lodged against him. For there are two acceptable witnesses who testify concerning a portion of the money which he denied owing entirely. And the statements of his own mouth should not have greater legal power than the testimony of witnesses as we explained.
Halacha 3
Reuven sued Levi, producing a promissory note signed by one of these groups of witnesses. Shimon also sued Levi and produced a promissory note signed by the other group. Although Levi denies both debts, both Reuven and Shimon are given the option of taking an oath and collecting what they claim. The rationale is that certainly one of them has a viable claim against him. The oath required is a Rabbinic institution as is required of a storekeeper who takes an oath to collect a claim supported by his ledger.
Halacha 4
Reuven sued Shimon producing a promissory note signed by one of these groups of witnesses and sued Levi, producing a promissory note signed by the other group. If both defendants deny the debts, we follow the principle: 'A person who seeks to expropriate money from a colleague must prove his claim.' Since Reuven cannot validate either of these legal documents, both the promissory notes are like shards. Both of the defendants are required to take merely a sh'vuat heset and they are released of obligation.
When does the above apply? When the two groups of witnesses come to testify at the same time. Otherwise, whenever a person produces a legal document containing testimony of one of these two groups, he may expropriate property based upon it. Afterwards, if either he or another person produce a legal document with testimony from the other group, it can be used to expropriate property whether from the first borrower or from any other person. The rationale is that it is as if each of the two groups came alone and testified.
Halacha 5
The following rules apply when a person brings witnesses, their testimony is investigated, they were disqualified through hazamah, and then he brought other witnesses concerning the same claim and they were also disqualified through hazamah. Even if he brings 100 groups who are disqualified, if afterwards, he brings other witnesses regarding that same claim and the testimony of these witnesses is found to be accurate, the case is adjudicated on this basis. Even though the plaintiff can be presumed to bring lying witnesses, we do not operate under the presumption that these witnesses are lying.
When, by contrast, there is a legal document concerning which a protest has been sustained, i.e., two witnesses came and said that the plaintiff told them to forge this legal document, we never use that legal document to expropriate property even if the authenticity of the signatures of the witnesses is validated.
It appears to me that if the witnesses to the legal document came and testified concerning their signature, the legal document may be used to expropriate money.
Blessed be God who provides assistance.
____________________________
Hayom Yom:
Wednesday, 11 Kislev, 5775 • 3 December 2014

"Today's Day"
Wednesday, Kislev 11, 5704
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayishlach, Revi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 60-65.
Tanya: The reason is (p. 615)...and the Gemara. (p. 615).
(At this point there appears in the Hebrew text emendations to the Siddur-With-Chassidus, that have meaning only in the Hebrew original. Translator).
Compiled and arranged by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 5703 (1943) from the talks and letters of the sixth Chabad Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, of righteous memory.
____________________________
Daily Thought:
Financial Planning
Here is how to make an honest living, with confidence and minimal worry:
Determine how much you need to provide for your family needs.
Next, get into a business that can make that sum of money.
Now, put your best foot forward to do whatever needs to be done.
But no more than that. More will get you less.
Then pray for compassion, and trust in the One who provides all life to provide your livelihood as well.
You’ve put out your bucket just the right size in the rain. Now trust that heaven will fill it to the brim.[Derech Mitzvosecha, Taglachat Metzora; Hayom Yom, 16 Adar II. 5 Tamuz.]
____________________________