CHABAD - TODAY IN JUDAISM: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 - Today is: Wednesday, Tishrei 10, 5776 · September 23, 2015 - Yom Kippur
Today's Laws & Customs:
• Yom Kippur Observances
Yom Kippur is the holiest day of the year -- the day on which we are closest to G-d and to the quintessential core of our own souls. It is the "Day of Atonement" -- "For on this day He will forgive you, to purify you, that you be cleansed from all your sins before G-d" (Leviticus 16:30).
For twenty-six hours, from several minutes before sunset on Tishrei 9 to after nightfall on Tishrei 10, we "afflict our souls": we abstain from food and drink, do not wash or anoint our bodies, do not wear leather shoes, and abstain from marital relations.
When the Holy Temple stood in Jerusalem, the Yom Kippur service included the High Priest's entry into the "Holy of Holies" to offer the ketoret -- the only time that anyone entered the Temple's innermost chamber -- and the "casting of lots" over two goats, one to be offered to G-d and the other to carry off the sins of Israel to the wilderness. Today, we spend the day in the synagogue garbed in a white garment called a kittel to resemble the sin-free angels and to waken thoughts of repentance by reminding us of the day of our death. In the course of the day we hold five prayer services: Maariv, with its solemn Kol Nidrei service, on the eve of Yom Kippur; Shacharit; Musaf, which includes a detailed account of the Temple service; Minchah, which includes the reading of the Book of Jonah; and Ne'illah, the "closing of the gates" service at sunset. We say the Al Chet confession of sins ten times, and recite Psalms every available moment.
The day is the most solemn of the year, yet an undertone of joy suffuses it: a joy that revels in the spirituality of the day and expresses the confidence that G-d will accept our repentance, forgive our sins, and seal our verdict for a year of life, health and happiness. When the closing Ne'illah service climaxes in the resounding cries of "Hear O Israel... G-d is one" and a single blast of the shofar, the joy erupts in song and dance (a Chabad custom is to sing the lively niggun known as "Napoleon's March"), followed by the festive after-fast meal, making the evening following Yom Kippur a Yom Tov (festival) in its own right.
See also: More Yom Kippur laws & customs; an overview of the Yom Kippur services
• Links
A Yom Kippur anthology
About Yom Kippur (from JewishNewYear.com)
• Ten Days of Repentance
The 10-day period beginning on Rosh Hashanah and ending on Yom Kippur is known as the "Ten Days of Repentance"; this is the period, say the sages, of which the prophet speaks when he proclaims (Isaiah 55:6) "Seek G-d when He is to be found; call on Him when He is near." Psalm 130, Avinu Malkeinu and other special inserts and additions are included in our daily prayers during these days.
The Baal Shem Tov instituted the custom of reciting three additional chapters of Psalms each day, from the 1st of Elul until Yom Kippur.On Yom Kippur the remaining 36 chapters are recited, thereby completing the entire book of Psalms. Click below for the break-down of the Psalms.Before Kol Nidrei chapters 115-123</ br> Before retiring for the night chapters 124-132 </ br> After the Musaf prayer chapters 133-141</ br> After the Neilah final prayer chapters 142-150
Links: About the Ten Days of teshuvah; Voicemail; more on teshuvah
• Sanctification of the Moon
Once a month, as the moon waxes in the sky, we recite a special blessing called Kiddush Levanah, "the sanctification of the moon," praising the Creator for His wondrous work we call astronomy.
Kiddush Levanah is recited after nightfall, usually on Saturday night. The blessing is concluded with songs and dancing, because our nation is likened to the moon—as it waxes and wanes, so have we throughout history. When we bless the moon, we renew our trust that very soon, the light of G‑d's presence will fill all the earth and our people will be redeemed from exile.
Though Kiddush Levanah can be recited as early as three days after the moon's rebirth, the kabbalah tells us it is best to wait a full week, till the seventh of the month. When sanctifying the moon of the month of Tishrei, it is customary to wait till the night after Yom Kippur.
Once 15 days have passed, the moon begins to wane once more and the season for saying the blessing has passed.
Links:
Brief Guide to Kiddush Levanah: Thank G‑d for the Moon!
More articles on Kiddush Levanah from our knowledgebase.
Today in Jewish History:
• Rebecca Born (1677 BCE)
Birth of Rebecca (1677-1556 BCE), wife of Isaac, mother of Jacob and Esau, and one of the Four Matriarchs of Israel.
Links: Isaac & Rebecca (the biblical account); Whom to Marry; Faking It
• 2nd Tablets; Day of Forgiveness (1313 BCE)
On the 10th of Tishrei of the year 2449 from creation, 82 days after the people of Israel betrayed their newly entered covenant with G-d by worshipping a Golden Calf and after Moses twice spent 40 days atop Mount Sinai pleading on their behalf, "G-d restored His goodwill with the Jewish people gladly and wholeheartedly, saying to Moses 'I have forgiven, as you ask', and gave him the Second Tablets" -- thereby establishing the day as a time for atonement, forgiveness and teshuvah for all generations.
Link: The 120-Day Version of the Human Story
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Ha'Azinu, 4th Portion Deuteronomy 32:19-32:28 with Rashi
• Chapter 32
19And the Lord saw this and became angry, provoked by His sons and daughters. יטוַיַּרְא יְהֹוָה וַיִּנְאָץ מִכַּעַס בָּנָיו וּבְנֹתָיו:
20And He said, "I will hide My face from them. I will see what their end will be, for they are a generation of changes; they are not [recognizable] as My children whom I have reared. כוַיֹּאמֶר אַסְתִּירָה פָנַי מֵהֶם אֶרְאֶה מָה אַחֲרִיתָם כִּי דוֹר תַּהְפֻּכֹת הֵמָּה בָּנִים לֹא אֵמֻן בָּם:
I will see what their end will be: [i.e., I will see] what will befall them in the end. מה אחריתם: מה תעלה בהם בסופם:
for they are a generation of changes: i.e., they change My good will into anger. כי דור תהפוכות המה: מהפכין רצוני לכעס:
they are not [recognizable]… whom I have reared: Heb. אֵמֻן. My rearing [them] is not recognizable in them, for I taught them a good way, but they deviated from it. לא אמון בם: אין גדולי נכרים בהם, כי הוריתים דרך טובה וסרו ממנה:
reared: אֵמֻן is an expression related to“And he reared (אֹמֵן) [Hadassah]” (Esther 2:7), nourriture in French. Another explanation of אֵמֻן : It is an expression of אֱמוּנָה, faithfulness , which is how the Targum renders it [literally, “children who have no faithfulness”]. At Sinai, they said, “We will do and we will hear,” and a short while later, they broke their promise and made the golden calf!"- [Sifrei 32:20] אמן: לשון (אסתר ב, ז) ויהי אומן נורריטור"ה בלע"ז [חינוך]. דבר אחר אמון לשון אמונה, כתרגומו. אמרו בסיני (שמות כד, ז) נעשה ונשמע, ובשעה קלה בטלו הבטחתם ועשו העגל:
21They have provoked My jealousy with a non god, provoked My anger with their vanities. Thus, I will provoke their jealousy with a non people, provoke their anger with a foolish nation. כאהֵם קִנְאוּנִי בְלֹא אֵל כִּעֲסוּנִי בְּהַבְלֵיהֶם וַאֲנִי אַקְנִיאֵם בְּלֹא עָם בְּגוֹי נָבָל אַכְעִיסֵם:
have provoked my jealousy: They kindled My anger. קנאוני: הבעירו חמתי:
with a non-god: With something that is not a god. בלא אל: בדבר שאינו אלוה:
with a non-people: With a nation that has no name, as Scripture states, “This land of the Chaldeans-this people was not” (Isa. 23:13). And regarding Esau, Scripture states, “You are very despised” (Obad. 1:2). בלא עם: באומה שאין לה שם, שנאמר (ישעיה כג, יג) הן ארץ כשדים זה העם לא היה, ובעשו הוא אומר (עובדיה א, ב) בזוי אתה מאד:
I will… provoke their anger with a foolish nation: These are the heretics. So Scripture states,“The fool (נָבָל) said in his heart, There is no God!” (Ps. 14:1). - [Sifrei 32: 21] בגוי נבל אכעיסם: אלו המינים, וכן הוא אומר (תהלים יד, א) אמר נבל בלבו אין אלהים:
22For a fire blazed in My wrath, and burned to the lowest depths. It consumed the land and its produce, setting aflame the foundations of mountains. כבכִּי אֵשׁ קָדְחָה בְאַפִּי וַתִּיקַד עַד שְׁאוֹל תַּחְתִּית וַתֹּאכַל אֶרֶץ וִיבֻלָהּ וַתְּלַהֵט מוֹסְדֵי הָרִים:
blazed: Heb. קָדְחָה, burned. קדחה: בערה:
and burned: within you, to the very foundation. ותיקד: בכם עד היסוד:
It consumed the land and its produce: i.e., your land and its produce. ותאכל ארץ ויבלה: ארצכם ויבולה:
setting aflame: Jerusalem, which has her foundations set upon the mountains, as Scripture states:“Jerusalem is surrounded by mountains” (Ps. 125:2). - [Sifrei 32: 22] ותלהט: ירושלים המיוסדת על ההרים, שנאמר (שם קכה, ב) ירושלים הרים סביב לה:
23I will link evils upon them. I will use up My arrows on them. כגאַסְפֶּה עָלֵימוֹ רָעוֹת חִצַּי אֲכַלֶּה בָּם:
will link evils upon them: Heb. אַסְפֶּה, I will link evil upon evil. [This expression is] similar to the verse,“join (סְפוּ) year upon year,” (Isa. 29:1) and,“add (סְפוֹת) the punishment of the unintentional sins,” (Deut. 29:18) and,“Add (סְפוּ) your burnt-offerings to your sacrifices.” (Jer. 7:21). Another explanation: אַסְפֶּה means, I will consume. This is similar to the verse,“lest you be consumed (תִּסָּפֶּה)” (Gen. 19:15) [thus, our verse here would mean: “I will use up all evils on them”]. אספה עלימו רעות: אחביר רעה על רעה לשון (ישעיה כט, א) ספו שנה על שנה, (לעיל כט, יח) ספות הרוה, (ירמיה ז, כא) עולותיכם ספו על זבחיכם. דבר אחר אספה אכלה, כמו (בראשית יט, טו) פן תספה:
I will use up my arrows on them: I will finish up all My arrows on them [i.e., until there are no arrows left, as it were]. This curse, according to [the usual way] retribution [is expressed], is really a[n implied] blessing, namely: [God says,]"My arrows may come to an end, but Israel will not come to an end [i.e., they will never be annihilated]. חצי אכלה בם: כל חצי אשלים בהם. וקללה זו לפי הפורענות לברכה היא, חצי כלים והם אינם כלים:
24They will sprout hair from famine, attacked by demons, excised by Meriri. I will incite the teeth of livestock upon them, with the venom of creatures that slither in the dust. כדמְזֵי רָעָב וּלְחֻמֵי רֶשֶׁף וְקֶטֶב מְרִירִי וְשֶׁן בְּהֵמֹת אֲשַׁלַּח בָּם עִם חֲמַת זֹחֲלֵי עָפָר:
They will sprout hair from famine: Heb. מְזֵי רָעָב. Onkelos renders this as: “swollen from famine,” but I have no evidence from Scripture for this [translation]. In the name of Rabbi Moses Hadarshan of Toulouse, however, I heard that the expression מְזֵי רָעָב is equivalent to שְׂעִירֵי רָעָב, “hairy from famine,” for an emaciated person grows hair on his skin. מזי רעב: אנקלוס תרגם, נפיחי כפן, ואין לי עד מוכיח עליו. ומשמו של רבי משה הדרשן מטולושא שמעתי שעירי רעב, אדם כחוש מגדל שער על בשרו:
hair: מְזֵי is Aramaic for hair, as the term מַזְיָא [in the clause]: דַּהֲוָה מְהַפֵּךְ בְּמַזְיָא, meaning “turning over his hair.” - [Meg. 18a] מזי: לשון ארמי שער מזיא, דהוה מהפך במזיא:
attacked by demons: Heb. וּלְחֻמֵי רֶשֶׁף. Demons fought (לחם) against them, as Scripture states: “and flying creatures (בְּנֵי רֶשֶׁף) fly upwards” (Job 5:7). These are demons. ולחמי רשף: השדים נלחמו בהם, שנאמר (איוב ה, ז) ובני רשף יגביהו עוף, והם שדים:
excised by Meriri: Heb. וְקֶטֶב מְרִירִי, and excision caused by a demon named מְרִירִי. Heb. קֶטֶב means excision, similar to, “I will decree the grave upon you (קָטָבְךָ)!” (Hos. 13:14) [In Hebrew, the word for decree is גְּזֵרָה, the root of which is גזר, to cut. Hence, its primary meaning is “to cut.” There are many such roots in Hebrew, in the Bible, the Mishnah, and the Targum. They all bear the first meaning of cutting, and the second meaning of a final, permanent decision or ruling. Among them are the following: פסק, חקק, גזר, צמת, חרץ, כרת, חלט.] וקטב מרירי: וכריתות שד ששמו מרירי. קטב כריתה, כמו (הושע יג, יד) אהי קטבך שאול:
the teeth of livestock: It indeed once happened that sheep were biting people to death. — [Sifrei 32:24] ושן בהמות: מעשה היה והיו הרחלים נושכין וממיתין:
with the venom of creatures that slither in the dust: Heb. זֹחִלֵי עָפָר, the venom of snakes, which crawl on their bellies on the dust. — [Sifrei 32:24] [They crawl] just as the water flows (זחל) upon the ground. The word זְחִילָה denotes the slithering action of water upon the dust [of the ground], and similarly, the way anything slithers and shuffles across the ground to move along [is described as זְחִילָה]. חמת זוחלי עפר: ארס נחשים המהלכים על גחונם על העפר, כמים הזוחלים על הארץ. זחילה לשון מרוצת המים על העפר, וכן כל מרוצת דבר המשפשף על העפר והולך:
25From outside, the sword will bereave, and terror from within; young men and maidens, suckling babes with venerable elders. כהמִחוּץ תְּשַׁכֶּל חֶרֶב וּמֵחֲדָרִים אֵימָה גַּם בָּחוּר גַּם בְּתוּלָה יוֹנֵק עִם אִישׁ שֵׂיבָה:
From outside, the sword will bereave: Outside the city, the sword of hostile troops will bereave them. מחוץ תשכל חרב: מחוץ לעיר תשכלם חרב גייסות:
and terror from within: When you flee, escaping from the sword, the inner recesses (חֲדָרִים) of your heart will pound within you out of terror, and you will gradually die from this. — [Sifrei 32:25] Another explanation [וּמֵחֲדָרִים אֵימָה]: Within your house, there will be the terror of [impending] fear of plague, as Scripture states, “For death has come up into our windows” (Jer. 9:20). Onkelos renders this in this way. Another explanation of “Outside, the sword will bereave”- [They will be killed by the sword] on account of what they did in the streets (חוּצוֹת), as Scripture states, “Corresponding to the number of streets in Jerusalem, you set up altars to the shameful thing.” (Jer. 11:13) [And along the same lines,] וּמֵחֲדָרִים אֵימָה means: On account of that which they did in the innermost chambers of their houses, as Scripture states, “[Have you seen] what the elders of the house of Israel are doing in the darkness, each one in his paved chambers?” (Ezek. 8:12) - [Sifrei 32:25] ומחדרים אימה: כשבורח ונמלט מן החרב חדרי לבבו נקופים עליו מחמת אימה והוא מת והולך בה. דבר אחר ומחדרים אימה שבבית תהיה אימת דבר, כמו שנאמר (ירמיה ט, כ) כי עלה מות בחלונינו, וכן תרגם אונקלוס. דבר אחר מחוץ תשכל חרב על מה שעשו בחוצות, שנאמר (ירמיה יא, יג) ומספר חוצות ירושלים שמתם מזבחות לבושת, ומחדרים אימה על מה שעשו בחדרי חדרים, שנאמר (יחזקאל ח, יב) אשר זקני בית ישראל עושים בחשך איש בחדרי משכיתו:
26I said that I would make an end of them, eradicate their remembrance from mankind. כואָמַרְתִּי אַפְאֵיהֶם אַשְׁבִּיתָה מֵאֱנוֹשׁ זִכְרָם:
I said that I would make an end of them: Heb. אַפְאֵיהֶם. I said in My heart, “I will make an end (אַפְאֶה) of them.” One may also explain אַפְאֵיהֶם to mean: I would make them as פֵּאָה [the corners of one’s field which are left as ownerless for the poor to collect]; i.e., I will cast them away as ownerless. We find a similarity to this [expression] in Ezra (Neh. 9:22), “And You gave them kingdoms and peoples, and You separated them as ownerless things (לְפֵאָה).” Menachem [ben Saruk] (Machbereth pp. 29, 140) also classified it in this way. [Note that Nehemiah is officially part of the book of Ezra, as in San. 93b. Note also that Menachem’s interpretation is not identical with Rashi’s.] Others, however, explain the expression according to the rendition of the Targum: My wrath (אַף) will fall upon them [thereby assuming that the word אַפְאֵיהֶם stems from the root אף, anger]. But this is incorrect, for if this were so, our verse should have been written: אֲאַפְאֵיהֶם [with two alephs], one aleph to serve [as the pronominal prefix for “I will,”] and the other aleph as a root letter, like, “I will strengthen you (אֲאַזֶּרְךָ)” (Isa. 45:5); and, “I would encourage you (אֲאַמִּצְכֶם) with my mouth” (Job 16:5). Moreover, the aleph in the middle of the word אַפְאֵיהֶם is completely inappropriate there. [Thus, we can see that Onkelos, in rendering his translation here, could not have meant that the word is simply a form of the stem אף. So how does he justify this translation?] Onkelos rendered this expression in accordance with the explanation of the Baraitha [a talmudic source not included in the canon of the Mishnah], which is taught in Sifrei (32:26). This Baraitha divides the word אַפְאֵיהֶם into three separate words, to read: אַף אֵי הֶם, which has the meaning, “I said in My anger (אַף) that I would make them as if they were naught,” so that those who behold them would say about them, “Where are they אַיֵּה הֵם?” אמרתי אפאיהם: אמרתי בלבי אפאה אותם. ויש לפרש אפאיהם אשיתם פאה להשליכם מעלי הפקר. ודוגמתו מצינו בעזרא (נחמיה ט כב) ותתן להם ממלכות ועממים ותחלקם לפאה, להפקר. וכן חברו מנחם. ויש פותרים אותו כתרגומו יחול רוגזי עליהן, ולא יתכן, שאם כן היה לו לכתוב אאפאיהם אחת לשמוש ואחת ליסוד, כמו (ישעיה מה, ה) אאזרך, (איוב טז, ה) אאמיצכם במו פי, והא' התיכונה אינה ראויה בו כלל. ואונקלוס תרגם אחר לשון הברייתא השנויה בספרי החולקת תיבה זו לשלש תיבות אמרתי אף אי הם, אמרתי באפי אתנם כאילו אינם, שיאמרו רואיהם עליהם איה הם:
27Were it not that the enemy's wrath was heaped up, lest their adversaries distort; lest they claim, "Our hand was triumphant! The Lord did none of this!" כזלוּלֵי כַּעַס אוֹיֵב אָגוּר פֶּן יְנַכְּרוּ צָרֵימוֹ פֶּן יֹאמְרוּ יָדֵנוּ רָמָה וְלֹא יְהֹוָה פָּעַל כָּל זֹאת:
Were it not that the enemy’s wrath was heaped up: Heb. אָגוּר. Were it not that the enemy’s wrath was heaped up (אָגוּר) against them to destroy them, and if the enemy would succeed in overtaking them and destroying them, he would attribute the greatness to himself and to his deity, but he would not attribute the greatness to Me [says God]. This, then, is the meaning of “lest their adversaries distort” (Heb. פֶּן יְנַכְּרוּ צָרֵימוֹ): lest they misconstrue the matter by attributing their might to an alien (נָכְרִי), to whom the greatness does not belong. לולי כעס אויב אגור: אם לא שכעס האויב כנוס עליהם להשחית ואם יוכל להם וישחיתם יתלה הגדולה בו ובאלהיו ולא יתלה הגדולה בי, וזהו שנאמר פן ינכרו צרימו, ינכרו הדבר לתלות גבורתי בנכרי, שאין הגדולה שלו:
lest they claim, Our hand was triumphant…!: For that nation is one “devoid of counsel.” פן יאמרו ידנו רמה וגו': כי אותו גוי אובד עצות המה:
28For they are a nation devoid of counsel, and they have no understanding. כחכִּי גוֹי אֹבַד עֵצוֹת הֵמָּה וְאֵין בָּהֶם תְּבוּנָה:
and they have no understanding: For if they were wise people, they would understand this, namely: “How could one [person] pursue [a thousand…]?” (verse 30). ואין בהם תבונה: שאילו היו חכמים ישכילו זאת, איכה ירדוף וגו':
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 55 - 59
• Special Custom for the Month of Elul and High Holidays
The Baal Shem Tov instituted a custom of reciting three additional chapters of Psalms each day, from the 1st of Elul until Yom Kippur (on Yom Kippur the remaining 36 chapters are recited, thereby completing the entire book of Psalms).
Chapter 55
David composed this psalm upon escaping from Jerusalem in the face of the slanderers, Doeg and Achitofel, who had declared him deserving of death. David had considered Achitofel a friend and accorded him the utmost honor, but Achitofel betrayed him and breached their covenant. David curses all his enemies, so that all generations should "know, and sin no more."
1. For the Conductor, with instrumental music, a maskil by David. 2. Listen to my prayer, O God, do not hide from my pleas. 3. Pay heed to me and answer me, as I lament in my distress and moan - 4. because of the shout of the enemy and the oppression of the wicked; for they accuse me of evil and hate me passionately. 5. My heart shudders within me, and the terrors of death have descended upon me. 6. Fear and trembling penetrate me, and I am enveloped with horror. 7. And I said, "If only I had wings like the dove! I would fly off and find rest. 8. Behold, I would wander afar, and lodge in the wilderness forever. 9. I would hurry to find shelter for myself from the stormy wind, from the tempest.”10. Consume, O Lord, confuse their tongue; for I have seen violence and strife in the city.1 11. Day and night they encircle her upon her walls, and iniquity and vice are in her midst. 12. Treachery is within her; fraud and deceit never depart from her square. 13. For it is not the enemy who taunts me-that I could bear; nor my foe who raises himself against me, that I could hide from him. 14. But it is you, a man of my equal, my guide and my intimate. 15. Together we took sweet counsel; we walked with the throng to the house of God. 16. May He incite death upon them, let them descend to the pit alive; for there is evil in their dwelling, within them. 17. As for me, I call to God, and the Lord will save me. 18. Evening, morning and noon, I lament and moan-and He hears my voice. 19. He redeemed my soul in peace from battles against me, because of the many who were with me. 20. May God-He who is enthroned from the days of old, Selah-hear and humble those in whom there is no change, and who do not fear God. 21. He extended his hands against his allies, he profaned his covenant. 22. Smoother than butter are the words of his mouth, but war is in his heart; his words are softer than oil, yet they are curses. 23. Cast your burden upon the Lord, and He will sustain you; He will never let the righteous man falter. 24. And You, O God, will bring them down to the nethermost pit; bloodthirsty and treacherous men shall not live out half their days; but I will trust in You.
Chapter 56
David composed this psalm while in mortal danger at the palace of Achish, brother of Goliath. In his distress David accepts vows upon himself.
1. For the Conductor, of the mute dove1 far away. By David, a michtam, 2 when the Philistines seized him in Gath. 2. Favor me, O God, for man longs to swallow me; the warrior oppresses me every day. 3. My watchful enemies long to swallow me every day, for many battle me, O Most High! 4. On the day I am afraid, I trust in You. 5. [I trust] in God and praise His word; in God I trust, I do not fear-what can [man of] flesh do to me? 6. Every day they make my words sorrowful; all their thoughts about me are for evil. 7. They gather and hide, they watch my steps, when they hope [to capture] my soul. 8. Should escape be theirs in reward for their iniquity? Cast down the nations in anger, O God! 9. You have counted my wanderings; place my tears in Your flask-are they not in Your record? 10. When my enemies will retreat on the day I cry out, with this I will know that God is with me. 11. When God deals strictly, I praise His word; when the Lord deals mercifully, I praise His word. 12. In God I trust, I do not fear-what can man do to me? 13. My vows to You are upon me, O God; I will repay with thanksgiving offerings to You. 14. For You saved my soul from death-even my feet from stumbling-to walk before God in the light of life.
Chapter 57
David composed this psalm while hiding from Saul in a cave, facing grave danger. Like Jacob did when confronted with Esau, David prayed that he neither be killed nor be forced to kill. In the merit of his trust in God, God wrought wonders to save him.
1. For the Conductor, a plea to be spared destruction. By David, a michtam, when he fled from Saul in the cave. 2. Favor me, O God, favor me, for in You my soul took refuge, and in the shadow of Your wings I will take refuge until the disaster passes. 3. I will call to God the Most High; to the Almighty Who fulfills [His promise] to me. 4. He will send from heaven, and save me from the humiliation of those who long to swallow me, Selah; God will send forth His kindness and truth. 5. My soul is in the midst of lions, I lie among fiery men; their teeth are spears and arrows, their tongue a sharp sword. 6. Be exalted above the heavens, O God; let Your glory be upon all the earth. 7. They laid a trap for my steps, they bent down my soul; they dug a pit before me, [but] they themselves fell into it, Selah. 8. My heart is steadfast, O God, my heart is steadfast; I will sing and chant praise. 9. Awake, my soul! Awake, O harp and lyre! I shall awaken the dawn. 10. I will thank You among the nations, my Lord; I will praise You among the peoples. 11. For Your kindness reaches till the heavens, Your truth till the skies. 12. Be exalted above the heavens, O God; let Your glory be over all the earth.
Chapter 58
David expresses the anguish caused him by Avner and his other enemies, who justified Saul's pursuit of him.
1. For the Conductor, a plea to be spared destruction; by David, a michtam. 2. Is it true that you are mute [instead of] speaking justice? [Instead of] judging men with fairness? 3. Even with your heart you wreak injustice upon the land; you justify the violence of your hands. 4. The wicked are estranged from the womb; from birth do the speakers of falsehood stray. 5. Their venom is like the venom of a snake; like the deaf viper that closes its ear 6. so as not to hear the voice of charmers, [even] the most skillful caster of spells. 7. O God, smash their teeth in their mouth; shatter the fangs of the young lions, O Lord. 8. Let them melt like water and disappear; when He aims His arrows, may they crumble. 9. Like the snail that melts as it goes along, like the stillbirth of a woman-they never see the sun. 10. Before your tender shoots know [to become] hardened thorns, He will blast them away, as one [uprooting] with vigor and wrath. 11. The righteous one will rejoice when he sees revenge; he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked. 12. And man will say, "There is indeed reward for the righteous; indeed there is a God Who judges in the land."
Chapter 59
This psalm speaks of the great miracle David experienced when he eluded danger by escaping through a window, unnoticed by the guards at the door. The prayers, supplications, and entreaties he offered then are recorded here.
1. For the Conductor, a plea to be spared destruction, By David, a michtam, when Saul dispatched [men], and they guarded the house in order to kill him. 2. Rescue me from my enemies, my God; raise me above those who rise against me. 3. Rescue me from evildoers, save me from men of bloodshed. 4. For behold they lie in ambush for my soul, mighty ones gather against me-not because of my sin nor my transgression, O Lord. 5. Without iniquity [on my part,] they run and prepare-awaken towards me and see! 6. And You, Lord, God of Hosts, God of Israel, wake up to remember all the nations; do not grant favor to any of the iniquitous traitors, Selah. 7. They return toward evening, they howl like the dog and circle the city. 8. Behold, they spew with their mouths, swords are in their lips, for [they say], "Who hears?”9. But You, Lord, You laugh at them; You mock all nations. 10. [Because of] his might, I wait for You, for God is my stronghold. 11. The God of my kindness will anticipate my [need]; God will show me [the downfall] of my watchful foes. 12. Do not kill them, lest my nation forget; drive them about with Your might and impoverish them, O our Shield, my Master, 13. [for] the sin of their mouth, the word of their lips; let them be trapped by their arrogance. At the sight of their accursed state and deterioration, [people] will recount. 14. Consume them in wrath, consume them and they will be no more; and they will know that God rules in Jacob, to the ends of the earth, Selah. 15. And they will return toward evening, they will howl like the dog and circle the city. 16. They will wander about to eat; when they will not be sated they will groan. 17. As for me, I shall sing of Your might, and sing joyously of Your kindness toward morning, for You have been a stronghold to me, a refuge on the day of my distress. 18. [You are] my strength, to You I will sing, for God is my stronghold, the God of my kindness.Tanya: Iggeret HaKodesh, middle of Epistle 20
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson Wednesday, Tishrei 10, 5776 · September 23, 2015
Iggeret HaKodesh, middle of Epistle
|
| ||
והנה כמו כן מזיווג זו״ן דבי״ע, נבראו מאין ליש כל הנבראים והנוצרים והנעשים
Similarly, by the union of Za and Nukva of Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah, there were created — as yesh from ayin — all the beings that were created in the World of Beriah, formed in the World of Yetzirah and made in the World of Asiyah,
As explained above, Malchut of Atzilut as well as the union of Zu’n (Za and Nukva) of Atzilut creates the souls and angels of the World of Beriah, creatures which are created in a manner of yesh. And as explained above, this comes about through the power of the Ein Sof and the Kav that is vested in Malchut in general and in the union of Zu’n in particular.
So, too, the union of Zu’n of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah results in the creation of the beings that pertain to these worlds (and, as the Alter Rebbe will conclude, here too there is a vestiture of a glimmer of the Kav, the infinite Ein Sof-light).
על ידי אור הנשמה שבתוכן, שהיא אלקות מהכלים דיו״ד ספירות דמלכות דאצילות
by the light of the Neshamah within them — for it (the Neshamah) is Divinity of the kelim of the Ten Sefirot of Malchut of Atzilut.
The ten kelim of Malchut of Atzilut descend into the Sefirot of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah to serve as the Neshamah and Divinity of the Sefirot of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah.
וגם בתוכה, הארת הקו דאור אין סוף
In it, within Malchut of Atzilut, there is also present the radiation of the Kav from the [infinite] Ein Sof-light,
Since the light of the Kav is similar to its source, the Luminary, it can bring about the creation of yesh from ayin, as explained above.
המלובש באצילות עד הפרסא
which is vested in Atzilut as far as the Prassa, the curtain or veil that screens off Atzilut from Beriah, so that the light of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah will be utterly different from the essence of the G‑dly light in Atzilut.
והארת הקו, שהיה מאיר בכלים דיו״ד ספירות דמלכות
This radiation of the Kav, that radiated in the kelim of the Ten Sefirot of Malchut of Atzilut,
בקע הפרסא עמהם, ומאיר בהם, בבריאה יצירה עשיה, כמו באצילות ממש
pierced the Prassa together with them, and radiates in them — in the thirty kelim of Malchut of Atzilut that becomes a Neshamah for Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah — in Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah, just as in Atzilut itself.
This aspect of the illumination of the Kav that previously radiated within the kelim of Atzilut, remains constant even beyond the Prassa between Atzilut and Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah, that causes the light of the latter three worlds to be completely different from that of Atzilut. For the thirty kelim of Malchut of Atzilut pierce the Prassa and hence retain their Divine characteristics, becoming the light and soul of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah. The same is therefore true of the ray of the Kav that is within them and thus also pierced the Prassa together with them, so that it too radiates within the light of the soul of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah, thereby creating and animating the beings that populate those three worlds.
וכן גם הקו בעצמו, המלובש בסיום וסוף נצח הוד יסוד דאדם קדמון
The same is the case (not only with the ray of the Kav that is vested within the kelim of Atzilut, but) also with the Kav itself, which is vested in the conclusion and end of the Netzach, Hod and Yesod of Adam Kadmon (abbreviated in the Hebrew original as נה״י דא״ק),
שהוא סוף רגלי היושר שלו המסתיימים במלכות דעשיה
i.e., the end of [the Kav’s] “feet of Yosher” which conclude in Malchut of Asiyah:
הנה הארת הקו מאירה משם, ומתלבשת באור הנשמה דיו״ד ספירות דבריאה יצירה עשיה, שהוא אלוקות
a radiation from the Kav radiates from there — from Netzach, Hod and Yesod of Adam Kadmon — and vests itself in the light of the Neshamah of the Ten Sefirot of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah, which is Divinity.
Adam Kadmon (lit., “Primordial Man”), “Who observes and looks to the end of all generations”), represents the first Divine thought concerning and encompassing all of creation. The particulars that are found within this thought serve as the basis of life for all of creation.
Within this level are to be found two modes of emanation, called Iggulim (lit., “circles”) and Yosher (lit., “straightness”). The former (transcendent) mode of emanation encompasses all of creation equally, while the latter (immanent) mode of emanation animates the various levels of creation by permeating each according to its particular rank.
The concluding level of Yosher (the “feet” of Yosher) of Adam Kadmon comes to an end in the very last level of the lowest World (which is Asiyah), i.e., at the Sefirah of Malchut of Asiyah. It is with regard to this level that the Alter Rebbe states above that the radiation from the Kav that illuminates even as far as Malchut of Asiyah “vests itself in the light of the Neshamah of the Ten Sefirot of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah, which is Divinity.”
(The fact that it does so is not due to its vestiture in the kelim of Atzilut, but because of the Kav that radiates within Adam Kadmon, and as such is to be found within all levels of creation, even as far as the last level of Malchut of Asiyah. For Malchut of Asiyah too derives from the primordial thought of Adam Kadmon.)
והארה דהארה מתלבשת בנפש רוח דיו״ד ספירות דבריאה יצירה עשיה
And a radiation from [this] radiation [of the Kav] vests itself (not only in the light of the Neshamah of the Ten Sefirot of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah, but also) in the Nefesh-Ruach of the Ten Sefirot of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah,
ואף גם בכל הכלים שלהם
and also in all their kelim (i.e., in the kelim of the Sefirot of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah),
Though these kelim are not actual Divinity, they are nevertheless irradiated by a glimmer of a glimmer of the Kav. It is not the investment of the Kav within the kelim of Atzilut that brings this about, for Atzilut only illuminates and is vested within that which may be called Divinity. Rather, the Primordial Thought of Adam Kadmon causes the Kav itself (which transcends Atzilut) to irradiate a glimmer of a glimmer of its light even within the kelim of the Sefirot of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah.
והארה דהארה דהארה הוא בכל הנבראים ונוצרים ונעשים
while a radiation of [that] radiation of the [original] radiation is immanent in all the beings that were created in the World of Beriah, formed in the World of Yetzirah and made in the World of Asiyah,
This enables all created beings to be imbued with the Divine purpose of their creation, a purpose which is to be fulfilled by them. This intent, which originates in the Primordial Thought of Adam Kadmon, is the animating force of all created beings.
The meaning of “a radiation of a radiation of the radiation” is as follows: While a radiation of something is not the same as the object itself, nevertheless it is of the same nature. For example, the radiation of the Kav is still basically Divinity; it is of the same mahut (“essential nature”). By contrast, “a radiation of a radiation” (such as “a radiation of a radiation of the Kav”) differs from the Kav in essence, though still resembling it in the manner of its external manifestation; its metziut is the same.
This is why the “radiation of the radiation” vests itself in the Nefesh-Ruach of the Sefirot of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah. For they are not of the same mahut as their antecedent Sefirot in Atzilut, inasmuch as the Sefirot in Atzilut are actual Divinity while they are not. However, the Sefirot of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah are similar to the Sefirot in Atzilut, for they have in common the spiritual manifestation (the metziut) of kelim and Sefirot. True, they are not actual Divinity, but neither are they a manifestation (a metziut) of created beings.
Proceeding one step further, “a radiation of a radiation of the radiation” does not even share the metziut, the outward man-ifestation, of the original radiation. Thus, “a radiation of a radiation of the radiation” of the Kav vests itself within all created beings — within all entities that are yesh — which were “created, formed and made.”
כמו שכתוב: הימים וכל אשר בהם, ואתה מחיה את כולם
as it is written,1“The seas, and all that they contain [were made by You], and You give life to them all.”
I.e., life-force is drawn down from “You” — from the [infinite] Ein Sof-light — into all of creation, by way of “a radiation of a radiation of the radiation” of the Kav.
***
וכל זאת בבחינת התפשטות החיות, להחיותם
Now all this is by way of an extension of the vital force to animate them.
With regard to this indirect mode of illumination there is a difference in the manner of vestiture — in Atzilut; in the light of the Neshamah of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah; in the Nefesh-Ruach and the kelim of the Ten Sefirot of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah; and ultimately, in all created beings.
אמנם מציאותו ומהותו של אור האין סוף אינו בגדר מקום כלל
However, the essence and nature of the [infinite] Ein Sof-light is in no way subject to space; hence it cannot be said that this light is to be found in Atzilut in one manner, and in another manner in the lower three worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah and all their ramifications:
וסובב כל עלמין בשוה
rather, it encompasses all worlds equally.
ואת השמים ואת הארץ אני מלא, בהשוואה אחת
ולית אתר פנוי מיניה, אף בארץ הלזו הגשמית
רק שהוא בבחינת מקיף וסובב
[The Divine light is present,] however, [only] in an “encompassing” and “encircling” manner — not in a palpable indwelling, but in a concealed transcendence,
וכמו שכתוב הפירוש בלקוטי אמרים
as this concept (i.e., makkif, or Sovev Kol Almin) is explained in Likutei Amarim.4
ולא התפשטות והתלבשות החיות, להחיותם ולהוותם מאין ליש
As to the presence in the worlds of the very essence and nature of the [infinite] Ein Sof-light, this is not by way of an extension and investment of the life-force, thereby animating them and bringing them into being from ayin to yesh.
For even creation ex nihilo, though it involves a concealed power of the Ein Sof-light, is by definition an act of revelation and expansion that takes place by means of the Sefirot and spiritual levels that draw down and reveal this concealed power. This cannot result directly from the essence of the Ein Sof-light that is utterly concealed within creation.
כי אם על ידי הארה דהארה דהארה וכו׳ מהקו, כנזכר לעיל
Rather, [this extension of life-force and creative power emanates] only by means of a radiation from a radiation of the radiation, etc., from the Kav, as discussed above.
וגם מאור הסובב ומקיף לארבע עולמות, אצילות בריאה יצירה עשיה, בשוה
Also, from the [transcendent Ein Sof-] light that “encircles” and “encompasses” the Four Worlds — Atzilut, Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah — uniformly,
מאיר אל הקו הפנימי, דרך הכלים דיו״ד ספירות דבי״ע
there is a radiation to the inner Kav, by way of the kelim of the Ten Sefirot of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah. The kelim thus encompass and transcend the light that is vested within them.
ובהארתו תוך הכלים, נותן בהם כח ועוז לברוא יש מאין
By its radiation within the kelim, it endows them with power and strength to create yesh from ayin.
It has already been explained that the creation of the respective beings of each of the Four Worlds comes about through the kelim of the Sefirot of that particular world. Their ability to create yesh from ayin (which can come about only from the essence of the Ein Sof-light that encompasses all worlds) results from the radiation of the encompassing light within them.
ומאחר שהבריאה היא על ידי הכלים
Now, because creation takes place by means of the kelim, which are finite and diverse, and the infinite light radiates within and through them,
לזאת הם הנבראים בבחינת ריבוי והתחלקות וגבול ותכלית
created beings are numerous and diverse, limited and finite,
ובפרט על ידי האותיות, כנזכר לעיל
especially since [the Divine radiation which brought them into being is revealed] by means of the letters, as explained above, for these letters (of speech) are even more finite and more diverse than the kelim.
To summarize: Both the indwelling aspect (the Kav) and the transcendent (“encompassing”) aspect of the [infinite] Ein Sof-light are present not only within the Sefirot, the Neshamah, Nefesh-Ruach and the kelim, of each of the worlds, but also within all the created beings of these worlds. The difference lies only in the degree of manifestation — whether it be a “radiation”, a “radiation of a radiation,” or a “radiation of a radiation of a radiation.”
When the creative light is present at the first and most direct level (“radiation”), though it is not the essence of the [infinite] Ein Sof-light that is manifest, the light will still be of the same nature; it retains the same mahut. When it manifests as a “radiation of a radiation,” the creative light will be essentially different, and merely bear some external resemblance to its source in the manner of its manifestation; only its metziut remains Divine. When, however, it is manifest as a “radiation of a radiation of a radiation,” as is the case with all created beings, it does not retain even the metziut of the original radiation; the Divine radiation merely descends into the metziut of the created being.
***
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Nechemiah 9:6 |
| 2. | Yirmeyahu 23:24 |
| 3. | Tikunei Zohar 57:91b. |
| 4. | Tanya, ch.48. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
Today's Mitzvah
Wednesday, Tishrei 10, 5776 · September 23, 2015
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot" Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Positive Commandment 245Transactions
"And if you sell something to your neighbor..."—Leviticus 25:14.
We are commanded regarding the various methods that effect transactions, i.e., the ways to transfer property from one individual to another (or, in the case of a guardian of an object, the transfer of jurisdiction).
Transactions
Positive Commandment 245 Translated by Berel Bell
The 245th mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding the laws of buying and selling, i.e. the ways in which purchases and sales between the buyers and the sellers become legally binding.
The Torah taught about one method in G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "When you sell something to your neighbor, [or buy something from your neighbor's hand...]" Our Sages said,2 "[The word 'hand' teaches that the sale] refers to something which can pass from one hand to another," i.e. meshichah [physically moving the object].
It is explained that in Biblical law, transfer of money is sufficient to complete the transaction, and meshichah is necessary only by Rabbinic decree, as is mesirah [giving the vehicle of control, e.g. the reins of a horse, to the buyer] and hagba'ah [lifting the object].
The Gemara3 explicitly says, "Just as our Sages enacted a requirement of meshichah in order for a sale to be valid, so too they required meshichah in order for a watchman relationship to become valid." It is therefore clear that the requirement of meshichah in buying and selling is of Rabbinic origin, as explained in the relevant place.However, other methods of acquiring land, etc., i.e. by means of a document or chazakah4 are traced5 to Biblical verses [and are therefore of Biblical, not Rabbinic, origin].
The details of this mitzvah — i.e. the manners of finalizing a sale in each category — are explained in the 1st chapter of tractate Kiddushin, the 4th and 8th chapters of Bava Metzia, and the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th chapters of Bava Basra.
FOOTNOTES 1. Lev. 25:14. 2. Bava Metzia 47b. 3. Ibid., 99a. 4. Such as building something on the land. 5. See Kiddushin 26a Full text of this Mitzvah »
• 1 Chapter: Ma'achalot Assurot Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 2
Hayom Yom:
• Wednesday, Tishrei 10, 5776 · 23 September 2015
"Today's Day"
Shabbat Tishrei 10, Yom Hakippurim 5704
Torah lessons: Chumash: B'racha, Shevi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 55-59. Before Kol Nidrei: 115-123. Before going to sleep: 124-132. After Musaf: 133-141. After Ne'ila: 142-150.
Tanya: And from this (p. 511) ...the world to come." (p. 513).
Yom Kippur eve begin Hashem malach tageil etc. The verse Or zarua is said once, aloud. (p. 296) Al daat hakahal...is said three times, softly. Ki hinei kachomer is not repeated. Bedtime sh'ma as every Shabbat and Festival. Avinu malkeinu z'chor rachamecha etc. is said in every tefilla. On Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy (p. 183) are recited when the Scrolls are removed from the Ark, even on Shabbat. The daily Tehillim is said after Musaf.
Haftora at Mincha: Va'yhi d'var until uv'heima raba, then Mi Keil kamocha etc. L'David ori said at Mincha too. Open the Ark for Ne'ila service at Ashrei, and it remains open until after the entire Ne'ila Service. Kaddish in Ne'ila - l'eila ul'eila. Ein k'Elokeinu, Aleinu, no blessing by the kohanim.
Hayom yifneh is said even after dark. She'assa li kol tzorki (p. 8) is not said until tomorrow.
On Yom Kippur it works out that we actually fast 26 hours.1
FOOTNOTES1. Corresponding to the Divine Name Havayeh, numerically equivalent to 26. See Sefer Hasichot 5705 p. 21. See Likutei Sichot 16, p. 522.
Daily Thought:You came on stage with a script in your hand. The script tells of you, the hero of the story, bringing light into places of darkness, repairing that which is broken, healing that which has fallen ill, creating beauty from scattered fragments of everyday life.
Your soul is tied to that script. Without it, you have no reason to be here. For you were conceived within that context, born to fill that role.
And should you fail to perform according to script, what then?
Then you must write your own script, one that can heal even that which you yourself have broken.
And your Creator who conceived you and conceived this entire plan, what will He think of this new script you have composed?
He will laugh in delight, exclaiming, “Look at my child! She has written her own script!”[Rosh Hashanah 5737, Sicha 2.]
____________________________
Wednesday, Tishrei 10, 5776 · September 23, 2015
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot" Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Positive Commandment 245Transactions
"And if you sell something to your neighbor..."—Leviticus 25:14.
We are commanded regarding the various methods that effect transactions, i.e., the ways to transfer property from one individual to another (or, in the case of a guardian of an object, the transfer of jurisdiction).
Transactions
Positive Commandment 245 Translated by Berel Bell
The 245th mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding the laws of buying and selling, i.e. the ways in which purchases and sales between the buyers and the sellers become legally binding.
The Torah taught about one method in G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "When you sell something to your neighbor, [or buy something from your neighbor's hand...]" Our Sages said,2 "[The word 'hand' teaches that the sale] refers to something which can pass from one hand to another," i.e. meshichah [physically moving the object].
It is explained that in Biblical law, transfer of money is sufficient to complete the transaction, and meshichah is necessary only by Rabbinic decree, as is mesirah [giving the vehicle of control, e.g. the reins of a horse, to the buyer] and hagba'ah [lifting the object].
The Gemara3 explicitly says, "Just as our Sages enacted a requirement of meshichah in order for a sale to be valid, so too they required meshichah in order for a watchman relationship to become valid." It is therefore clear that the requirement of meshichah in buying and selling is of Rabbinic origin, as explained in the relevant place.However, other methods of acquiring land, etc., i.e. by means of a document or chazakah4 are traced5 to Biblical verses [and are therefore of Biblical, not Rabbinic, origin].
The details of this mitzvah — i.e. the manners of finalizing a sale in each category — are explained in the 1st chapter of tractate Kiddushin, the 4th and 8th chapters of Bava Metzia, and the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th chapters of Bava Basra.
FOOTNOTES 1. Lev. 25:14. 2. Bava Metzia 47b. 3. Ibid., 99a. 4. Such as building something on the land. 5. See Kiddushin 26a Full text of this Mitzvah »
• 1 Chapter: Ma'achalot Assurot Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 2
Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 2
Halacha 1
Since it is written [Deuteronomy 14:6]: "Any animal that has split hooves, [whose foot] is divided into two hoofs and chews the cud, [this may you eat],"1one may derive that any animal that does not chew its cud and have split hoofs is forbidden. A negative commandment that comes as a result of a positive commandment is considered as a positive commandment.2
With regard to the camel, the pig, the rabbit, and the hare, [Leviticus 11:4]3states: "These you may not eat from those which chew the cud and have split hoofs." From this, you see that they are forbidden by a negative commandment, even though they possess one sign of kashrut. Certainly, this applies to other non-kosher domesticated animals and wild beasts that do not have any signs of kashrut.4 The prohibition against eating them involves a negative commandment in addition to the positive commandment that is derived from "This may you eat."
With regard to the camel, the pig, the rabbit, and the hare, [Leviticus 11:4]3states: "These you may not eat from those which chew the cud and have split hoofs." From this, you see that they are forbidden by a negative commandment, even though they possess one sign of kashrut. Certainly, this applies to other non-kosher domesticated animals and wild beasts that do not have any signs of kashrut.4 The prohibition against eating them involves a negative commandment in addition to the positive commandment that is derived from "This may you eat."
Halacha 2
Therefore anyone who eats an olive sized portion5 of the meat of a non-kosher domesticated animal or wild beasts is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law. This applies whether he partook of the meat or the fat. For the Torah did not distinguish between the meat and fat of non-kosher animals.6
Halacha 3
With regard to humans: Although [Genesis 2:7] states: "And the man became a beast with a soul," he is not included in the category of hoofed animals. Therefore, he is not included in the [above] prohibition.7 Accordingly, one who partakes of meat or fat from a man - whether alive or deceased - is not liable for lashes. It is, however, forbidden [to partake of human meat] because of the positive commandment [mentioned above].8 For the Torah [Leviticus 11:2] lists the seven species of kosher wild beasts and says: "These are the beasts of which you may partake." Implied is that any other than they may not be eaten. And a negative commandment that comes as a result of a positive commandment is considered as a positive commandment.
Halacha 4
When one partakes of an olive-sized portion of a non-kosher fowl, he is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Leviticus 11:13] states: "These shall you detest from the fowl. You shall not partake of them." And he violates a positive commandment, as [Deuteronomy 14:11] states: "You may partake of all kosher fowl." Implied is that the non-kosher may not be eaten.
Anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of a non-kosher fish is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Leviticus 11:11] states: "They shall be detestable for you. Do not partake of their meat." And he violates a positive commandment, as [Deuteronomy 14:9] states: "All that possess fins and scales, you may eat." Implied is that those that do not possess fins and scales may not be eaten. We thus learn that anyone who partakes of a non-kosher fish, domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl nullified a positive commandment and violated a negative commandment.9
Anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of a non-kosher fish is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Leviticus 11:11] states: "They shall be detestable for you. Do not partake of their meat." And he violates a positive commandment, as [Deuteronomy 14:9] states: "All that possess fins and scales, you may eat." Implied is that those that do not possess fins and scales may not be eaten. We thus learn that anyone who partakes of a non-kosher fish, domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl nullified a positive commandment and violated a negative commandment.9
Halacha 5
A non-kosher locust is included among [the category of] flying teeming animals.10 One who partakes of an olive-sized portion11 of flying teeming animals is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Deuteronomy 14:19] states: "All flying teeming animals are non-kosher for you. They may not be eaten."12
What is meant by a flying teeming animal? For example, a fly, a mosquito, a hornet, a bee, or the like.
What is meant by a flying teeming animal? For example, a fly, a mosquito, a hornet, a bee, or the like.
Halacha 6
When one partakes of an olive-sized portion of a teeming animal of the land, he is liable for lashes, as [Leviticus 11:41] states: "Any teeming animal that swarms on the ground is detestable to you. It should not be eaten."13
What is meant by a teeming animal of the land? Snakes, scorpions, beetles, centipedes, and the like.
What is meant by a teeming animal of the land? Snakes, scorpions, beetles, centipedes, and the like.
Halacha 7
The eight teeming animals that are mentioned in the Torah14 are: the weasel, the mouse, the ferret, the hedgehog, the chameleon, the lizard, the snail, and the mole. A person who eats a lentil-sized portion of their meat is liable for lashes. The minimum measure that one is prohibited to partake of their meat is the same as the minimum measure that conveys ritual impurity. They all may be combined together to reach the measure of a lentil.
Halacha 8
When does the above apply? When one partakes of them after they have died.15 If, however, one cuts off a limb from a living creature from one of these species and eats it, he does not receive lashes unless he [partakes of] an olive-sized portion of meat. They all may be combined together to reach the measure of an olive.
One who eats an entire limb of a teeming animal after it dies does not receive lashes unless it contains a lentil-sized amount of meat.16
One who eats an entire limb of a teeming animal after it dies does not receive lashes unless it contains a lentil-sized amount of meat.16
Halacha 9
The blood of these eight teeming animals and their flesh can be combined to reach the minimum measure of a lentil, provided the blood is still attached to their flesh.17 Similarly, the blood of a snake18 is combined with its flesh to reach the measure of an olive and one receives lashes for it. The rationale is that its flesh is not separate from its blood, even though it does not impart ritual impurity.19 Similar concepts apply with regard to other teeming animals that do not convey ritual impurity.
Halacha 10
When a person collects the blood of teeming animals that has been separated [from their bodies] and partakes of it, he receives lashes if he partakes of a portion the size of an olive.20 [This applies] provided he was warned against partaking of it because [of the prohibition against partaking of] a teeming animal. If, however, he is warned against partaking of it because [of the prohibition against partaking of] blood, he is not liable. For we are liable only for the blood of domesticated animals, wild beasts, and fowl.21
Halacha 11
All these measures - and the distinctions between them22 - are halachot received by Moses at Sinai [and transmitted via the Oral Tradition].
Halacha 12
One who partakes of an olive-sized portion of a aquatic teeming animal is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Leviticus 11:43] states: "Do not make your souls detestable [by partaking] of any teeming animal that swarms... and do not become impure because of them." Included in this prohibition are teeming animals of the land, that fly, and of the water.23
What is meant by a aquatic teeming animal? Both small creatures like worms and leeches that inhabit the water24 and larger creatures that are beasts of the sea. To state a general principle: Any aquatic creature that does not have the characteristics of a fish, neither a non-kosher fish or a kosher fish, e.g., a seal, a dolphin, a frog, or the like.
What is meant by a aquatic teeming animal? Both small creatures like worms and leeches that inhabit the water24 and larger creatures that are beasts of the sea. To state a general principle: Any aquatic creature that does not have the characteristics of a fish, neither a non-kosher fish or a kosher fish, e.g., a seal, a dolphin, a frog, or the like.
Halacha 13
The species that come into existence in garbage heaps and the carcasses of dead animals, e.g., maggots, worms, and the like which are not brought into being from male-female [relations],25 but from filth that decays and the like are called "those which creep on the earth." A person who partakes of an olive-sized portion [of these creations] is liable for lashes,26 as [Leviticus 11:44] states: "Do not make your souls impure with any teeming animal that creeps on the earth," even thought they do not reproduce. Teeming animals that swarm on the earth, by contrast, are those that reproduce from male-female [relations].
Halacha 14
[The following laws apply with regard to] species that come into being from fruits and other foods.27 Should they depart from [the source from where they came into being] and go to the earth,28 a person who partakes of an olive-sized portion of them is liable for lashes,29 as [Leviticus 11:42] states: "With regard to any teeming animal that swarms on the earth, [do not eat them]." This forbids those that departed to the earth, even though they returned to the food. If, however, they did not depart, it is permitted to eat the fruit together with the worm in it.
Halacha 15
When does the above apply? When the food became worm-ridden after it was uprooted from the earth.30 If, however, it became worm-ridden while it was connected [to its source of nurture], that worm is forbidden as if it became departed to the earth. For it was created on the earth. One is liable for lashes [for partaking of it]. If there is a doubt, it is forbidden.
Therefore all fruits that commonly become worm-ridden31 when connected [to their source of nurture] should not be eaten until one checks the fruit from its inside,32 for perhaps it contains a worm. If the fruit remains twelve months after being severed [from its source], it may be eaten without being inspected. For a worm inside of it will not endure for twelve months.33
Therefore all fruits that commonly become worm-ridden31 when connected [to their source of nurture] should not be eaten until one checks the fruit from its inside,32 for perhaps it contains a worm. If the fruit remains twelve months after being severed [from its source], it may be eaten without being inspected. For a worm inside of it will not endure for twelve months.33
Halacha 16
If [the worm] departed to the atmosphere, but did not reach the earth, or only a portion of it reached the earth, it departed after it died, the worm was found on the seed on the inside, or it departed from one food to another, [in] all these [situations, the worm] is forbidden because of the doubt, but lashes are not administered [if one partakes of it].
Halacha 17
A worm found in the stomach of a fish, in the brain within the head of an animal, and one found in meat are forbidden. When, however, salted fish becomes worm-ridden, the worms in it are permitted.34 This is comparable to fruit which has become worm-ridden after it has been separated from the earth. It is permitted to eat them together with the worm that is in them.
Similarly, if water35 in a utensil produces teeming animals, those teeming animals are permitted to be drunken together with the water, as [can be inferred from Leviticus 11:9]: "All that possess fins and scales in the water, seas, and rivers, they you may eat." Implied is that you may eat those that possess [fins and scales] in the water, seas, and rivers and those that do not possess them, you may not eat. But those creatures [that come into existences] in utensils are permitted whether they possess [fins and scales] or not.
Similarly, if water35 in a utensil produces teeming animals, those teeming animals are permitted to be drunken together with the water, as [can be inferred from Leviticus 11:9]: "All that possess fins and scales in the water, seas, and rivers, they you may eat." Implied is that you may eat those that possess [fins and scales] in the water, seas, and rivers and those that do not possess them, you may not eat. But those creatures [that come into existences] in utensils are permitted whether they possess [fins and scales] or not.
Halacha 18
[Since the water found] in cisterns, trenches and caves is not flowing water, but instead is collected there,36 it is comparable to water found in containers. [Hence], aquatic teeming animals that are created [in these places] are permitted. A person may bend down and drink37 without holding back even though he swallows these flimsy teeming animals when drinking.38
Halacha 19
When does the above apply? When the teeming animals did not depart from the place where they came into being. If they did, even though they later return to the container or the cistern, they are forbidden. If they went out to the walls of the barrel and then fell back into the water or the beer, they are permitted.39 Similarly, if they went out to the walls of the cistern and the cave and returned to the water, they are permitted.
Halacha 20
When a person strains wine, vinegar, or beer and eats the insects, bugs, and worms that he strains, he is liable for lashes for partaking of an aquatic teeming animal or [for partaking of] a flying teeming animal and an aquatic teeming animal.40 [This applies] even if they returned to the container after they were strained, for they departed from the place where they came into existence. If, however, they did not depart, one may drink without holding back, as we explained.41
Halacha 21
When, in this chapter, we have spoken about partaking of an olive-sized portion, [the intent is that] one ate an olive-sized portion of a large creature or one collected some from one species and some from another similar species42 until one partakes of an olive sized portion. If, however, one eats an entire forbidden creature by itself, one is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law even if it is smaller than a mustard seed.43
[This applies] whether one partook of it after it died or while it was alive. Even if the creature decayed and lost its form,44 one is liable for lashes since one consumed it in its entirety.
[This applies] whether one partook of it after it died or while it was alive. Even if the creature decayed and lost its form,44 one is liable for lashes since one consumed it in its entirety.
Halacha 22
Halacha 23
[The following laws apply if] a particular creature is [included in the categories of] a flying teeming animal, an aquatic teeming animal, and a teeming animal of the earth, e.g., it has wings, it walks on the earth like other [earthbound] teeming animals, and it reproduces in the water. If one partakes of it, he is liable for three [sets of] lashes.47
If, in addition to the above, it is one of the species which are brought into being in the earth in fruit, he is liable for a fourth [set of] lashes. If it is one of the species that reproduce,48 he is liable for a fifth [set of] lashes. If it also can be considered as a non-kosher fowl in addition to being considered a flying teeming animal,49 he is liable for six [sets of] lashes: [for partaking of] a non-kosher fowl, a flying teeming animal, a teeming animal of the earth, an aquatic teeming animal, an animal that swarms on the earth, and a worm from fruit.
[This applies whether] he partook of the entire creature or he partook of an olive-sized portion of it. Therefore one who eats an ant that flies that breeds in the water is liable for five [sets of] lashes.
If, in addition to the above, it is one of the species which are brought into being in the earth in fruit, he is liable for a fourth [set of] lashes. If it is one of the species that reproduce,48 he is liable for a fifth [set of] lashes. If it also can be considered as a non-kosher fowl in addition to being considered a flying teeming animal,49 he is liable for six [sets of] lashes: [for partaking of] a non-kosher fowl, a flying teeming animal, a teeming animal of the earth, an aquatic teeming animal, an animal that swarms on the earth, and a worm from fruit.
[This applies whether] he partook of the entire creature or he partook of an olive-sized portion of it. Therefore one who eats an ant that flies that breeds in the water is liable for five [sets of] lashes.
Halacha 24
When one crushed ants, added another complete ant to those that were crushed so that the entire quantity was equal to an olive-sized portion, and partook of it, he is liable for six [sets of] lashes: five [for partaking of] the one ant50 and an additional one, because he partook of an olive-sized portion of dead non-kosher animals.51
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Similar verses are also stated in that passage with regard to fish, fowl, and locusts. Like verses are also stated in Leviticus, except that in Leviticus, there is no such commandment with regard to a kosher fowl. To include that as well, the Rambam refers to the passage in Deuteronomy. |
| 2. | I.e., it does not have the severity of a negative commandment. Hence its violation is not punishable by lashes. The Rambam is explaining that the Torah is not commanding us to eat kosher species, for there is no obligation to partake of them. Instead, it is commanding us to take precautions - through checking distinguishing signs - against partaking of non-kosher ones. See Sefer HaMitzvot (General Principle 6) where the Rambam elaborates in the explanation of the concept of a prohibition derived from a positive commandment. See also Chapter 1, Halachah 1, and notes which deals with this issue. |
| 3. | Here the Rambam cites the verses from Leviticus - although like verses also appear in Deuteronomy - for Leviticus comes first in the Torah. |
| 4. | The commentaries have raised a question concerning the Rambam's statements. There is a general principle (Pesachim 24a, et al): "We do not issue a warning on the basis of logical deduction." Implied is that a person is not given lashes when a prohibition is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, but instead derived through logic. Why then, these commentaries ask, are lashes given for partaking of non-kosher species other than the four mentioned specifically by the Torah? The Rambam offers a resolution to this question in his Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 172). There he explains that in this instance, we are not deriving the prohibition on the basis of logic, for it is already stated in the positive commandment. We are using logic only to derive that this prohibition is also included in the negative commandment. |
| 5. | Approximately, an ounce in contemporary measure. |
| 6. | Such a distinction is made with regard to the meat and fat of kosher animals. With regard to non-kosher animals, by contrast, the two are included in the same category and the same prohibition applies to both of them. |
| 7. | For the prohibition mentions the animal's hoofs. |
| 8. | The Ra'avad and the Rashba differ with the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that there is no prohibition at all against partaking of meat from a human. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 80:1) follows the Rambam's ruling. The Maggid Mishneh explains the Rambam's position, noting that - as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 2, and in Chapter 6, Halachot 1-2 - there is no Scriptural prohibition against partaking of milk and blood from a human. Now these leniencies are derived from the exegesis of verses from the Torah. Were the meat of a human not to be forbidden, why would it be necessary to teach that his milk and blood are permitted? Who would have thought otherwise? |
| 9. | Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 172, 173, 174) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 154, 156, 157) include these among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. |
| 10. | I.e., there is no separate commandment not to partake of a non-kosher locust. Instead, this is included in the general prohibition against partaking of non-kosher teeming animals. The Lechem Mishneh and others note that, in contrast, to the previous halachot, the Rambam does not mention the fact that there is a prohibition against partaking of locusts that results from the positive commandment to partake of them. |
| 11. | Or an entire teeming animal even if it is smaller than an olive; see Halachah 21. |
| 12. | Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 175) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 471) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. As explained in the halachot that follow and summarized in Halachah 23, there are five prohibitions in the Torah that refer to teeming animals. The categories are not mutually exclusive and it is possible that one particular creature may be included in several - or all - of these categories. |
| 13. | Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 176) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 162) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. |
| 14. | Leviticus 11:29-30. The translation of the names of these eight species is a matter of debate among both Torah commentaries and zoologists. Our translation is taken from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's Living Torah. Consult the notes there for a detailed discussion of the matter. The Torah singles these teeming animals out from others and states that they convey ritual purity. It does not mention anything about them with regard to the prohibition against partaking of their flesh. Nevertheless, since this quantity of their flesh is significant in another halachic context, it is also considered significant with regard to this prohibition (Meilah 16b). This explains why the minimum measure for which they are liable is less than that associated with other prohibitions. |
| 15. | For their flesh only conveys ritual impurity after they have died. |
| 16. | Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTumah 4:3 states that there is no minimum measure with regard to the limbs of a teeming animal within the context of ritual impurity. A person who touches an entire limb of a such an animal after its death becomes impure even if the limb is smaller than the size of a lentil. Nevertheless, we do not rule that one is liable if he eats such a limb. Meilah, loc. cit., explains that although the limbs of other animals also convey ritual impurity no matter what their size, one is not liable unless he partakes of an olive-sized portion. Hence, there is no reason to extend the stringency that applies with regard to these teeming animals any further. |
| 17. | If not, one is not liable until he partakes of an olive-sized portion, as stated in the following halachah. |
| 18. | Which is not one of the teeming animals explicitly mentioned by the Torah. |
| 19. | In contrast to the blood of the eight teeming animals that were singled out by the Torah. |
| 20. | The Maggid Mishneh (in his gloss to Halachah 9) states that this applies even to the eight teeming animals mentioned explicitly in the Torah. Once their blood is separated from their bodies, the minimum measure is the same as that of other species. |
| 21. | As stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 1. |
| 22. | That for some one is liable for an olive-sized portion and for others, for a lentil-sized portion. |
| 23. | Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 179) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 164) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. As obvious from the Rambam's words here and as explained in greater length in Sefer HaMitzvot, this is not a specific commandment relating to aquatic teeming creatures, but a general commandment relating to all teeming animals. Accordingly, when a person partakes of a teeming animal of the land or a flying teeming animal, he is liable for two transgressions. The Ramban (Hasagot to Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 9) and the Maggid Mishneh differ with the Rambam and maintain that this is not considered as a separate mitzvah. |
| 24. | See Halachot 18-19. |
| 25. | The Rambam is stating - based on Midrashic and Talmudic sources - that there are creatures which spontaneously regenerate. It is not our place to defend these concepts against the findings of science. It must, however, be said that many Rabbinical leaders who are aware of the work of Pasteur and others did not doubt the teachings of the Torah and accepted these laws. |
| 26. | Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 177) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 165) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. |
| 27. | See Halachot 18-19. |
| 28. | The Rambam's wording is borrowed from the prooftext cited. Even if these crawling animals do not reach the earth, but merely appear on the surface of the fruit, they become forbidden., as stated in Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 178). Note, however, Halachah 16. |
| 29. | Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 178) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 163) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. |
| 30. | Or removed from its tree. |
| 31. | This is a halachic issue that is given much attention today. We find certain Jewish groups who have taken it upon themselves to grow vegetables without any exposure to insects. There is a heightened consciousness with regard to the need to check and many books and tools have been produced with this purpose in mind. It must be emphasized, however, that although there are no vegetables that are absolutely insect and larvae free, the common halachic approach is not to show concern for any insects and/or larvae that are not visible to the naked eye. Conversely, we assume that all insects we discover came from male-female relationships or came into being while the fruit was connected to its source and do not permit any because they might have come from the fruit itself after it was detached. |
| 32. | I.e., an external search is not sufficient and one must cut the fruit or vegetable open and search from the inside. |
| 33. | Since a crawling animal will not live for more than twelve months inside produce and the produce has been detached for more than twelve months, it follows that the animal came into being from the produce itself and thus the produce and the animal can be eaten together. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 84:8) states that the produce should be checked lest there be crawling animals that have left the produce. One of the ways to select grains, legumes, and the like is to soak them first. Any ones with holes will float to the top. They should be discarded, lest they be worm-ridden. |
| 34. | Provided they have not departed from the fish itself (Maggid Mishneh). The Maggid Mishneh explains the Rambam's approach as follows: All worms that are found in both meat and fish while the animals are alive are forbidden, for we assume that they entered from the outside. Even after a fish dies, we can assume that the worms in its stomach were swallowed when it was alive. Similarly, those in an animal's brain can be assumed to have entered its nose from the outside and are hence, forbidden. Those found in the body of a fish are considered to have been spontaneously generated are hence permitted. Those found in the meat of an animal are not permitted. The rationale is that anything that comes from an animal is permitted to be eaten only after it has been slaughtered according to law. Even though the animal itself was slaughtered, since that slaughter preceded the existence of the worms, they are not permitted. The Ra'avad and many other Rishonim differ with the Rambam's understanding and permit worms that came into being in meat from animals that were ritually slaughtered, e.g., in meat that was salted to be used at a later time. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 84:16) quotes both views, but appears to favor the more lenient one. The Rama states that it is customary to follow the more lenient view. In practice, in the present age, this problem is far less prevalent, for because of refrigeration and freezing, it is less likely for worms to exist in meat. |
| 35. | Or other beverages (Siftei Cohen 84:1). This is evident from Halachot 19-20. |
| 36. | I.e., water that is stored in storage compartments dug into - or naturally found within - the earth. The Maggid Mishneh states that irrigation ditches and breeding ponds which water flows through are not included in this category, because - in contrast to water found in containers - the water in them does not stand still. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 84:1) quotes a difference of opinion on this issue. |
| 37. | Commenting on the citation of this ruling by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 84:2), the Rama states that if one finds worms in a bucket of water drawn from such bodies, the worms are forbidden, because we fear that the worms came from the bucket and not from the water. |
| 38. | Or other beverages (Siftei Cohen 84:1). This is evident from Halachot 19-20. |
| 39. | For the walls are still considered as "the place where the teeming animals came into existence." |
| 40. | If the insect has the characteristics of both the prohibited species, as stated in Halachah 23. |
| 41. | Halachah 18. I.e., he need not worry that perhaps they became separated (Maggid Mishneh). |
| 42. | For the portions of forbidden insects to be combined, they need not be of the same species. They must, however, be included in the same prohibition. See Chapter 4, Halachah 17. |
| 43. | This is a general principle applying in many contexts in the laws of kashrut. The creature must, however, be visible to the naked eye. |
| 44. | If, however, it has decayed to the extent that it is no longer fit for human consumption, one is not liable, as stated in Chapter 14, Halachah 11. |
| 45. | For it is no longer considered as a complete creation. |
| 46. | This phrase refers to the previous halachah. |
| 47. | The Rambam's statements are based on Makkot 16b: "If one eats a potisa, one is liable for four [sets of] lashes, an ant, five [sets of] lashes." As he explains in Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 179), the intent is not that one is liable for additional sets of lashes because several prohibitions are stated with regard to a particular creature. Instead, the intent is that if one creature falls into several forbidden categories, one is liable for a set of lashes for every forbidden category. See Maggid Mishneh. It must be emphasized that the Ra'avad, Rav Moshe HaCohen, the Ramban, and other Rishonim do not accept the Rambam's interpretation and instead, maintain that the prohibitions mentioned in Makkot, loc. cit., refer to the repetition of prohibitions concerning a single creature. |
| 48. | I.e., although this particular creature was spontaneously generated, it was brought into being in a manner that it could reproduce and bear offspring. |
| 49. | In Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.), the Rambam is sensitive to the question that might arise and states: "Do not wonder how it is possible for a fowl to come into being from the decay of fruits, for we have seen this take place frequently." In that source, he also explains that it is possible for a single creature to have the characteristics of a non-kosher fowl and a flying teeming animal. |
| 50. | As stated in the previous halachah. |
| 51. | The Rambam is not referring to the prohibition against partaking of an animal that is not ritually slaughtered. For that prohibition applies only with regard to kosher animals, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 2. For this reason, the Maggid Mishneh (in his gloss to that halachah) raises questions with the Rambam's statement here. The Kessef Mishneh and others attempt to offer resolutions |
Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter Five
Halacha 1
When a person enters into a partnership agreement without making any stipulations, he should not deviate from the local custom followed with regard to that merchandise. He should not take the merchandise and travel to another place, enter into a partnership with other individuals, be involved with other merchandise, sell it on an extended payment plan unless it is ordinarily sold in such a manner, nor should it be entrusted to others unless a stipulation to that effect was made at the outset or he did so with the consent of his colleague.
If a partner transgresses, and performs one of the above activities without the knowledge of his colleague, but when he informs him afterwards of what he did the other partner agrees, he is not liable. A kinyan is not necessary to formalize a partner's consent to any of the above matters; a verbal commitment is sufficient.
If a partner transgresses, and performs one of the above activities without the knowledge of his colleague, but when he informs him afterwards of what he did the other partner agrees, he is not liable. A kinyan is not necessary to formalize a partner's consent to any of the above matters; a verbal commitment is sufficient.
Halacha 2
When one of the partners transgresses and sells merchandise on credit, takes it on a sea voyage, travels with it to another place, does business with other merchandise at the same time, or the like, he alone is liable to pay for any loss that occurs because of his activity. If he profits from his activity, the profit should be split between the partners according to their stipulations regarding profit.
For this reason, the following rules apply when a person gives a colleague money to purchase wheat as part of a partnership agreement and the partner purchases barley, or he gives him money to purchase barley and he purchases wheat: if there is a loss, it is suffered by the one who transgressed. If there is a profit, it is split.
Similarly, if a partner entered into partnership with another person using funds belonging to the partnership, if there is a loss, the persons suffers it alone. If there is a profit, it is split. If, however, he entered into a partnership with another person with his own money: if there is a loss, the persons suffers it alone. If there is a profit, he alone receives the profit. If a stipulation was made between the partners, everything is concluded according to that stipulation.
For this reason, the following rules apply when a person gives a colleague money to purchase wheat as part of a partnership agreement and the partner purchases barley, or he gives him money to purchase barley and he purchases wheat: if there is a loss, it is suffered by the one who transgressed. If there is a profit, it is split.
Similarly, if a partner entered into partnership with another person using funds belonging to the partnership, if there is a loss, the persons suffers it alone. If there is a profit, it is split. If, however, he entered into a partnership with another person with his own money: if there is a loss, the persons suffers it alone. If there is a profit, he alone receives the profit. If a stipulation was made between the partners, everything is concluded according to that stipulation.
Halacha 3
When a person gives a colleague money to purchase produce with the profits to be divided in half, the person given the money is permitted to purchase more of that produce for himself. When he sells the produce, he should not sell the two together. Instead, he should sell the produce owned jointly separately, and his own produce separately.
Similarly, he should not purchase wheat for himself and barley for his colleague.Instead, he should purchase wheat for the entire amount, or barley for the entire amount, so that the funds of them both should be equal in case of loss.
Similarly, he should not purchase wheat for himself and barley for his colleague.Instead, he should purchase wheat for the entire amount, or barley for the entire amount, so that the funds of them both should be equal in case of loss.
Halacha 4
When one of the partners says: "Let's take the merchandise to this and this place, where it is highly priced, and sell it there," the other partner may prevent him from doing so even if the first partner accepts responsibility for any loss by factors beyond his control or depreciation that may occur. The rationale is that the second partner may tell the first: "I do not desire to give you the money that is in my possession and then have to pursue you and bring you to court to expropriate it from you." Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 5
If one of the partners desires to let the produce age until the time when it is known to sell that produce, his colleague cannot prevent him from doing so. If there is no set time to sell this type of produce, his colleague can prevent him from aging the produce.
Halacha 6
When partners evaluated their produce, and then established a partnership with them, the laws of ona'ah apply to each of them. If they mixed their produce together without evaluating it, sold it, and then did business with the profits, they should evaluate the worth of the produce at the time the partnership was established, and appraise the profit or the loss accordingly.
Halacha 7
When custom collectors waived a fee from partners, each is granted an equal share. If the collectors say: "We waived the fee because of so and so," he alone is granted the value of the waiver.
The following rules apply when partners were traveling on the road and were attacked by thieves, who sought to steal the merchandise carried by the caravan.If one of the partners saved the goods from being taken, all the partners receive an equal share in what he saved. If he says: "I am saving it for myself," he has saved it for himself alone.
The following rules apply when partners were traveling on the road and were attacked by thieves, who sought to steal the merchandise carried by the caravan.If one of the partners saved the goods from being taken, all the partners receive an equal share in what he saved. If he says: "I am saving it for myself," he has saved it for himself alone.
Halacha 8
When property is known to belong to the partnership, it is assumed that both partners have a share in its ownership throughout the entire duration of the partnership. This applies even though the property was located in the domain of only one of the partners. The partner in whose domain it is located may not claim that he purchased it from the other partner, or that he gave it to him as a present. In such an instance, we do not follow the principle: When a person desires to expropriate property from a colleague the burden of proof is on him. Instead, the property is assumed to belong to both partners unless one of them brings proof otherwise.
Halacha 9
When one of the partners desires to dissolve the partnership without the knowledge of his partner, he should divide the assets in the presence of three people. They may even be unlearned people, provided they are trustworthy and able to evaluate property. If a partner divides the assets in the presence of fewer than three people, his actions are of no consequence.
When does the above apply? When he divides produce. If, however, the partnership's assets were money, the money is considered as if it had been already divided. The partner may therefore divide the money outside the presence of a court and then deposit his colleague's share with the court for safe-keeping.
When does the above apply? When all the money is of one currency and of equal value. If, however, some coins are new and others old - and needless to say if some are considered desirable and others considered undesirable - the money is also considered as produce and should not be divided outside the presence of a court of three.
When does the above apply? When he divides produce. If, however, the partnership's assets were money, the money is considered as if it had been already divided. The partner may therefore divide the money outside the presence of a court and then deposit his colleague's share with the court for safe-keeping.
When does the above apply? When all the money is of one currency and of equal value. If, however, some coins are new and others old - and needless to say if some are considered desirable and others considered undesirable - the money is also considered as produce and should not be divided outside the presence of a court of three.
Halacha 10
It is forbidden for a person to enter into partnership with a gentile, lest his colleague be obligated to take an oath to him and he swear in the name of his false deity.
We have already explained in the appropriate place that it is forbidden to do business with produce that grows in the Sabbatical year, nor with firstborn animals, nor with animals that are trefah, nor with meat from dead animals, nor with produce that is terumah, nor with crawling or teeming animals. If a person transgresses and invests money belonging to a partnership in these, the profit should be divided among the partners. It appears to me that if he loses, he must bear the loss himself. This ruling is granted because he transgressed.
We have already explained in the appropriate place that it is forbidden to do business with produce that grows in the Sabbatical year, nor with firstborn animals, nor with animals that are trefah, nor with meat from dead animals, nor with produce that is terumah, nor with crawling or teeming animals. If a person transgresses and invests money belonging to a partnership in these, the profit should be divided among the partners. It appears to me that if he loses, he must bear the loss himself. This ruling is granted because he transgressed.
Halacha 11
When one of the members of a partnership or an investment agreement dies, the partnership or the investment agreement is nullified. This applies even if the agreement was originally made for a specific time. The rationale is that the money has already been transferred to the domain of the heirs. The Geonim ruled in accordance with this decision.
Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter Six
Halacha 1
When two partners both do business with the money belonging to the partnership, even if the money was originally invested by only one of them, their relationship is referred to as a partnership. If they lose or they profit, the loss or the profit is divided equally, or they may stipulate any other division of the profits or the losses, as we have explained.
If, however, only one of the partners was doing business with the money belonging to the partnership, even if the money was originally invested by both of them, this type of partnership is called an esek (an investment agreement). The person who does the buying and selling is called an administrator, for he alone is the one involved in the transactions. And the partner who is not involved in the business dealings is referred to as the investor.
If, however, only one of the partners was doing business with the money belonging to the partnership, even if the money was originally invested by both of them, this type of partnership is called an esek (an investment agreement). The person who does the buying and selling is called an administrator, for he alone is the one involved in the transactions. And the partner who is not involved in the business dealings is referred to as the investor.
Halacha 2
Our Sages ordained that whenever a person entrusts money to a colleague to use for business purposes, half of the money should be considered a loan. The administrator is responsible for this money even if it is destroyed by forces beyond his control. The second half is considered an entrusted object, and the investor is responsible for it. If the half that is considered an entrusted article is stolen or lost, the administrator is not liable to pay. Therefore, any profit that is earned by this half of the investment will belong to the investor.
According to this construct, the profit or the loss of the entire investment should not be equally divided between the investor and the administrator. For if this were the case, the investor would receive a profit for the half of his money that is an entrusted object without doing anything for it. The administrator is working for the sake of the half of the investment that was an entrusted article, because of the money that he was lent. Thus, this brings the two to avak ribit, the shade of interest.
What should be done if they desire that the profit or the loss be equally shared? The investor should pay the administrator the wages to be paid to an unemployed laborer of the profession in which he was involved. If the administrator has any other occupation in which he is involved aside from caring for this investment, the investor does not have to pay him a daily wage. Instead, even if he paid him only one dinar for the entire time of the partnership, this is sufficient. If the partnership lost or gained, the loss or profit should be divided equally.
Similarly, if the investor told the administrator: "In addition to the portion that is divided, you will receive one third or one tenth of the profit," since he has another occupation, it is permitted. If there is a loss, the loss is divided equally.
If the administrator is a sharecropper working the fields of the investor, and he has another business, he is not required to pay him any other wage at all. For a sharecropper is obligated to take care of the interests of the owner of the field.
According to this construct, the profit or the loss of the entire investment should not be equally divided between the investor and the administrator. For if this were the case, the investor would receive a profit for the half of his money that is an entrusted object without doing anything for it. The administrator is working for the sake of the half of the investment that was an entrusted article, because of the money that he was lent. Thus, this brings the two to avak ribit, the shade of interest.
What should be done if they desire that the profit or the loss be equally shared? The investor should pay the administrator the wages to be paid to an unemployed laborer of the profession in which he was involved. If the administrator has any other occupation in which he is involved aside from caring for this investment, the investor does not have to pay him a daily wage. Instead, even if he paid him only one dinar for the entire time of the partnership, this is sufficient. If the partnership lost or gained, the loss or profit should be divided equally.
Similarly, if the investor told the administrator: "In addition to the portion that is divided, you will receive one third or one tenth of the profit," since he has another occupation, it is permitted. If there is a loss, the loss is divided equally.
If the administrator is a sharecropper working the fields of the investor, and he has another business, he is not required to pay him any other wage at all. For a sharecropper is obligated to take care of the interests of the owner of the field.
Halacha 3
Our Sages also ordained that whenever a person gives a colleague money to use for a business and the investor did not desire to pay the administrator a wage, and they did not make any stipulation with regard to the division of the profits and the losses, the profit or the loss should be divided as follows: The wage of the administrator for handling the half of the investment that is considered an entrusted article is one third of the profit of that half, which is one sixth of the profit of the entire investment.
Therefore, if a profit is made, the administrator should receive two thirds of the profit: half of the profit stemming from the half of the investment that was a loan, and the sixth of the profit that is his wages for handling the money considered as an entrusted article. Thus, he receives two thirds of the profit.
If there is a loss, the administrator should bear a third of the loss. This figure is reached as follows: He is liable for half the loss because of the half [of the original investment that was a loan. He deserves a sixth of the loss as his wage for handling the half of the investment that was considered an entrusted article. Thus, his responsibility is one third of the loss. The investor must bear two thirds of the loss.
Therefore, if a profit is made, the administrator should receive two thirds of the profit: half of the profit stemming from the half of the investment that was a loan, and the sixth of the profit that is his wages for handling the money considered as an entrusted article. Thus, he receives two thirds of the profit.
If there is a loss, the administrator should bear a third of the loss. This figure is reached as follows: He is liable for half the loss because of the half [of the original investment that was a loan. He deserves a sixth of the loss as his wage for handling the half of the investment that was considered an entrusted article. Thus, his responsibility is one third of the loss. The investor must bear two thirds of the loss.
Halacha 4
There is an opinion that makes an error, maintaining that when a person makes an investment without making any stipulations with regard to the division of profits and losses, they should be divided as follows: If there is a profit, the administrator should receive half, but if there is a loss, he must bear only a third of the loss. This is not the rule unless they made an explicit stipulation to this effect.
Similarly, if they stipulated that if there be a loss the administrator should suffer half the loss, and if there be a profit he should be granted two thirds of the profit, this is permitted. Similarly, if they stipulated that if there be a profit, the administrator should receive one ninth and if there be a loss, he should lose one tenth, this stipulation is binding. The rationale is that they made a stipulation that the administrator should receive a greater share of the profit than his share of the loss, and he is granted this additional amount because of his work.
My teachers ruled that such a conditional agreement is not effective unless the administrator has another occupation. If he does not have another occupation, the profit that the administrator can receive must be at least a sixth more than the loss he could suffer, as we have explained. They maintain that a prohibition is involved, and the stipulation cannot supersede it. This ruling does not appear correct to me.
Similarly, if they stipulated that if there be a loss the administrator should suffer half the loss, and if there be a profit he should be granted two thirds of the profit, this is permitted. Similarly, if they stipulated that if there be a profit, the administrator should receive one ninth and if there be a loss, he should lose one tenth, this stipulation is binding. The rationale is that they made a stipulation that the administrator should receive a greater share of the profit than his share of the loss, and he is granted this additional amount because of his work.
My teachers ruled that such a conditional agreement is not effective unless the administrator has another occupation. If he does not have another occupation, the profit that the administrator can receive must be at least a sixth more than the loss he could suffer, as we have explained. They maintain that a prohibition is involved, and the stipulation cannot supersede it. This ruling does not appear correct to me.
Halacha 5
My teachers ruled that if a stipulation was made that the administrator should receive three fourths of the profit and the investor only one portion, only one fourth of the money will be considered an entrusted article and three fourths will be considered a loan. Therefore, if there is a loss, the administrator should bear three fourths of the loss, minus a twelfth. The investor should suffer a fourth of the loss plus a twelfth - i.e., one third of the entire loss.
What is implied? The investor gave the administrator 100 dinarim according to this stipulation, and they lost 24 dinarim, the investor should lose eight, and the administrator sixteen.
These ratios should be followed at all times. Whenever there is a profit, the investor should receive the share of the profit that was stipulated. If there is a loss, he should bear that same proportion of the loss, but should be given one third of the investor's portion. Thus, according to this approach, if it was agreed that the administrator would receive a fourth of the profits, he does not lose anything if there is a loss. For in place of the fourth of the loss that he is required to bear, he is due one third of the portion of the owner - i.e., one fourth. And so, one cancels out the other.
These authorities maintain that similar principles apply if a stipulation was made regarding losses without mentioning profits. If a loss was incurred, the administrator must bear the loss as stipulated. If a profit was made, the administrator should receive the share of the loss that he was supposed to bear, plus one third of the portion to be received by the investor.
What is implied? If a stipulation was made that in the event of a loss, the administrator should bear one fourth of the loss. If there is a loss, he must pay the investor one fourth. If there is a profit, the administrator receives half the profit.
Although the rules that they issued are words of logic, if these principles are followed, it is possible for the administrator to cause a loss and yet receive profit.
What is implied? It was stipulated that the administrator should receive one seventh of the profit. A loss was incurred. Thus, the administrator should receive as a wage one seventh in addition to this loss.
How is this illustrated? They suffered a loss of seven dinarim. The administrator will tell the investor: "I owe you one dinar according to our stipulation, but you owe me two dinarim, which is one third of the portion of the entrusted article." Thus, the investor is obligated to pay him a dinar as wages for losing seven dinarim. And if he had lost fourteen dinarim, the investor would have to pay him two dinarim as wages. This is an unfathomable matter, which cannot be accepted by logic. To me, it appears like a dream.
Instead, the proper approach and the true law appears to me as follows: If there is a loss, the administrator should bear as a loss two thirds of the percentage he would receive if there were a profit. Similarly, if they made a stipulation concerning a loss and they profited, the administrator should receive the portion he would lose in the event of a loss, plus a third of the share of his colleague. Thus, according to this approach, if a stipulation was made that the administrator should receive one fourth of the profit and he incurred a loss, he should pay one sixth of the loss. And if a stipulation was made that he should lose a fourth and he profited, he should receive a half. Following this approach will not lead to unthinkable results, and there will be expressed a law that is just.
What is implied? The investor gave the administrator 100 dinarim according to this stipulation, and they lost 24 dinarim, the investor should lose eight, and the administrator sixteen.
These ratios should be followed at all times. Whenever there is a profit, the investor should receive the share of the profit that was stipulated. If there is a loss, he should bear that same proportion of the loss, but should be given one third of the investor's portion. Thus, according to this approach, if it was agreed that the administrator would receive a fourth of the profits, he does not lose anything if there is a loss. For in place of the fourth of the loss that he is required to bear, he is due one third of the portion of the owner - i.e., one fourth. And so, one cancels out the other.
These authorities maintain that similar principles apply if a stipulation was made regarding losses without mentioning profits. If a loss was incurred, the administrator must bear the loss as stipulated. If a profit was made, the administrator should receive the share of the loss that he was supposed to bear, plus one third of the portion to be received by the investor.
What is implied? If a stipulation was made that in the event of a loss, the administrator should bear one fourth of the loss. If there is a loss, he must pay the investor one fourth. If there is a profit, the administrator receives half the profit.
Although the rules that they issued are words of logic, if these principles are followed, it is possible for the administrator to cause a loss and yet receive profit.
What is implied? It was stipulated that the administrator should receive one seventh of the profit. A loss was incurred. Thus, the administrator should receive as a wage one seventh in addition to this loss.
How is this illustrated? They suffered a loss of seven dinarim. The administrator will tell the investor: "I owe you one dinar according to our stipulation, but you owe me two dinarim, which is one third of the portion of the entrusted article." Thus, the investor is obligated to pay him a dinar as wages for losing seven dinarim. And if he had lost fourteen dinarim, the investor would have to pay him two dinarim as wages. This is an unfathomable matter, which cannot be accepted by logic. To me, it appears like a dream.
Instead, the proper approach and the true law appears to me as follows: If there is a loss, the administrator should bear as a loss two thirds of the percentage he would receive if there were a profit. Similarly, if they made a stipulation concerning a loss and they profited, the administrator should receive the portion he would lose in the event of a loss, plus a third of the share of his colleague. Thus, according to this approach, if a stipulation was made that the administrator should receive one fourth of the profit and he incurred a loss, he should pay one sixth of the loss. And if a stipulation was made that he should lose a fourth and he profited, he should receive a half. Following this approach will not lead to unthinkable results, and there will be expressed a law that is just.
Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter Seven
Halacha 1
When a person gives money to a colleague to use for business purposes without making any stipulation, or explicitly states that they will share the profit and the losses equally, and the money is lost, there is an opinion that states that if only a portion of the money is lost, the administrator should pay the investor one third, as we have explained. It appears to me, however, that the administrator should pay the half that is a loan. Our Sages' statement that he should bear one third of the loss applies when the loss is not great enough for the investor to receive less than half of his money.
What is implied? Reuven gave Shimon 120 dinarim to invest in a business. Shimon did business with the money and lost ninety dinarim. Shimon should pay 30. Thus, Reuven receives 60.
If, however, Shimon lost 105 dinarim, we do not say that Shimon must pay only 35 dinarim. For if so, Reuven will receive only 50, and Reuven should never receive less than 60.
For this reason, if a legal document recording an investment contract involving the deceased father of orphans was presented against them, the possessor of the contract must take an oath. Afterwards, he is entitled to collect the half that is a loan. This applies even though we always advance arguments in support of an heir. Thus, we can derive from this that an investor never receives less than half.
Why do I not say that the extent of the loss the administrator must bear should be reduced in consideration of his wage for taking care of the portion of the investment considered as an entrusted article? Because the entire half considered as an entrusted article was lost, and no portion remained. Hence, it is not appropriate to say that if he does not receive a wage, his efforts will appear as interest. For all that he receives is the portion that he gave as a loan.
Similarly, if it is stipulated that the administrator would receive one fourth of the profit, in the event of the loss of the entire investment, he must pay the entire fourth that was given to him as a loan. If, however, enough of the money remains so that if the administrator adds one sixth of the loss to the small portion that remains, the investor would receive a fourth or more of his original investment, the administrator is required to pay only one sixth of the loss, because of the reasons we have explained.
What is implied? Reuven gave Shimon 120 dinarim to invest in a business. Shimon did business with the money and lost ninety dinarim. Shimon should pay 30. Thus, Reuven receives 60.
If, however, Shimon lost 105 dinarim, we do not say that Shimon must pay only 35 dinarim. For if so, Reuven will receive only 50, and Reuven should never receive less than 60.
For this reason, if a legal document recording an investment contract involving the deceased father of orphans was presented against them, the possessor of the contract must take an oath. Afterwards, he is entitled to collect the half that is a loan. This applies even though we always advance arguments in support of an heir. Thus, we can derive from this that an investor never receives less than half.
Why do I not say that the extent of the loss the administrator must bear should be reduced in consideration of his wage for taking care of the portion of the investment considered as an entrusted article? Because the entire half considered as an entrusted article was lost, and no portion remained. Hence, it is not appropriate to say that if he does not receive a wage, his efforts will appear as interest. For all that he receives is the portion that he gave as a loan.
Similarly, if it is stipulated that the administrator would receive one fourth of the profit, in the event of the loss of the entire investment, he must pay the entire fourth that was given to him as a loan. If, however, enough of the money remains so that if the administrator adds one sixth of the loss to the small portion that remains, the investor would receive a fourth or more of his original investment, the administrator is required to pay only one sixth of the loss, because of the reasons we have explained.
Halacha 2
When an administrator loses money and then labors until he profits, he cannot tell the investor: "Let us first calculate the loss that we suffered originally, of which you will bear two thirds. And then we will calculate the profit that we accrued at the end, of which you will receive only a third." Instead, we calculate only the profit or the loss that was ultimately arrived at. And the administrator receives only a share of the profit that he gained beyond the principal.
Halacha 3
When an investor gives an administrator 200 curtains for 200 dinarim in an iska agreement, and composes two separate legal documents concerning the partnership, the administrator may calculate each legal document as a separate investment. The investor caused himself a loss.
If he gave him 100 curtains for 100 dinarim and then gave him another investment of 100 barrels of wine for 100 dinarim, but wrote one investment contract for 200 dinarim, they must consider it a single contract. The administrator caused himself a loss.
What is implied? If he sold the 100 curtains for 130 dinarim and the hundred barrels for 70, the investor receives the entire amount, because one contract was composed, and the administrator did not make any profit. If, however, he had left them as two separate investments as they originally were, the administrator would have earned a profit of 20 dinarim in the deal involving the cloth, and would have lost 10 in the deal involving the barrels. Thus, he would have earned a total profit of 10 dinarim. The same principles apply in all analogous situations.
If he gave him 100 curtains for 100 dinarim and then gave him another investment of 100 barrels of wine for 100 dinarim, but wrote one investment contract for 200 dinarim, they must consider it a single contract. The administrator caused himself a loss.
What is implied? If he sold the 100 curtains for 130 dinarim and the hundred barrels for 70, the investor receives the entire amount, because one contract was composed, and the administrator did not make any profit. If, however, he had left them as two separate investments as they originally were, the administrator would have earned a profit of 20 dinarim in the deal involving the cloth, and would have lost 10 in the deal involving the barrels. Thus, he would have earned a total profit of 10 dinarim. The same principles apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 4
An administrator may not divide the money or the merchandise he was entrusted, saying; "I will take the half that I was given as a loan for myself and do business with it, and I will place the half that is considered an entrusted object in the court for safekeeping." For he was given this money solely with the intent that he do business with the entire amount. If he dissolved the investment contract and did the above, even if he entrusted the money to the nation's highest court, his actions are of no consequence. The profit or the loss should be divided among them according to the principles we have explained.
Halacha 5
When an administrator gives other people a present from movable property belonging to the investment agreement or from money belonging to the investment, and the investor brings clear proof that this movable property or this money belongs to the investment, it may be expropriated from the recipient. Even if the recipient changed it, sold it or gave it away as a present to others, or destroyed it, the administrator is obligated to pay for it, provided the investor brings definite proof that the recipient was given property or funds belonging to the investment.
We have already explained that if the administrator dies, the investor may take an oath and collect half of the money invested. If there are witnesses who testify that merchandise was purchased with the money of the investment, the investor may take it without taking an oath. Similarly, no other creditors or wives of the administrator may expropriate anything from these goods unless there was a profit. For the portion of the profit belonging to the deceased belongs to his heirs, and from that portion, his creditors and wives may expropriate money that is due them.
We have already explained that if the administrator dies, the investor may take an oath and collect half of the money invested. If there are witnesses who testify that merchandise was purchased with the money of the investment, the investor may take it without taking an oath. Similarly, no other creditors or wives of the administrator may expropriate anything from these goods unless there was a profit. For the portion of the profit belonging to the deceased belongs to his heirs, and from that portion, his creditors and wives may expropriate money that is due them.
Halacha 6
When a person gives a colleague money to purchase produce, with the profits to be split among them, and the colleague fails to do so, all the investor has against him are complaints. If he has definite proof that he purchased produce and then sold it, he may expropriate the profit from him against his will.
Halacha 7
When a person gives a colleague money to purchase produce with the profits to be split among them, the colleague may purchase any type that he desires. He should not, however, buy garments, wood or the like.
When a person hires a colleague to run a store with the profits to be split among them, if the person hired as the storekeeper is a craftsman, he should not work at his craft, for his attention is not focused on the store while he is working at his craft. If, however, his partner was present in the courtyard at that time, it is permitted. The person hired as the storekeeper should not purchase and sell other merchandise. If he does, the profit should be split
When a person hires a colleague to run a store with the profits to be split among them, if the person hired as the storekeeper is a craftsman, he should not work at his craft, for his attention is not focused on the store while he is working at his craft. If, however, his partner was present in the courtyard at that time, it is permitted. The person hired as the storekeeper should not purchase and sell other merchandise. If he does, the profit should be split
• Wednesday, Tishrei 10, 5776 · 23 September 2015
"Today's Day"
Shabbat Tishrei 10, Yom Hakippurim 5704
Torah lessons: Chumash: B'racha, Shevi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 55-59. Before Kol Nidrei: 115-123. Before going to sleep: 124-132. After Musaf: 133-141. After Ne'ila: 142-150.
Tanya: And from this (p. 511) ...the world to come." (p. 513).
Yom Kippur eve begin Hashem malach tageil etc. The verse Or zarua is said once, aloud. (p. 296) Al daat hakahal...is said three times, softly. Ki hinei kachomer is not repeated. Bedtime sh'ma as every Shabbat and Festival. Avinu malkeinu z'chor rachamecha etc. is said in every tefilla. On Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy (p. 183) are recited when the Scrolls are removed from the Ark, even on Shabbat. The daily Tehillim is said after Musaf.
Haftora at Mincha: Va'yhi d'var until uv'heima raba, then Mi Keil kamocha etc. L'David ori said at Mincha too. Open the Ark for Ne'ila service at Ashrei, and it remains open until after the entire Ne'ila Service. Kaddish in Ne'ila - l'eila ul'eila. Ein k'Elokeinu, Aleinu, no blessing by the kohanim.
Hayom yifneh is said even after dark. She'assa li kol tzorki (p. 8) is not said until tomorrow.
On Yom Kippur it works out that we actually fast 26 hours.1
FOOTNOTES1. Corresponding to the Divine Name Havayeh, numerically equivalent to 26. See Sefer Hasichot 5705 p. 21. See Likutei Sichot 16, p. 522.
Daily Thought:You came on stage with a script in your hand. The script tells of you, the hero of the story, bringing light into places of darkness, repairing that which is broken, healing that which has fallen ill, creating beauty from scattered fragments of everyday life.
Your soul is tied to that script. Without it, you have no reason to be here. For you were conceived within that context, born to fill that role.
And should you fail to perform according to script, what then?
Then you must write your own script, one that can heal even that which you yourself have broken.
And your Creator who conceived you and conceived this entire plan, what will He think of this new script you have composed?
He will laugh in delight, exclaiming, “Look at my child! She has written her own script!”[Rosh Hashanah 5737, Sicha 2.]
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment