Today's Laws & Customs:• "The Three Weeks"
During the Three Weeks, from 17th of Tamuz to the 9th of Av, we commemorate the conquest of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Holy Temple and the dispersion of the Jewish people.
Weddings and other joyful events are not held during this period; like mourners, we do not cut our hair, and various pleasurable activities are limited or proscribed. (The particular mourning customs vary from community to community, so consult a competent halachic authority for details.)
Citing the verse (Isaiah 1:27) "Zion shall be redeemed with mishpat [Torah] and its returnees with tzedakah," the Rebbe urged that we increase in Torah study (particularly the study of the laws of the Holy Temple) and charity during this period.
Links:
Today in Jewish History:• Passing of Rabbi Avraham Chaim Na’eh ( 1954)
Rabbi Avraham Chaim Na'eh (1890-1954) was born in Hebron to Rabbi Menachem Mendel Na'eh, a Lubavitcher chassid and dean of the Magen Avot, a yeshiva founded by the S'dei Chemed. With the outbreak of World War One, the Turks, who controlled the Land of Israel at the time, expelled anyone who was not a Turkish citizen. Most of the exiled Jews, including Rabbi Avraham Chaim, gathered in Alexandria, Egypt. During his time there, Rabbi Avraham Chaim founded Yeshivat Eretz Yisrael and wrote the halachic work Shenot Chaim, a concise digest of halachah for Sephardic Jews. In 1918, he returned to Palestine to work for the Edah HaChareidit (a prominent Orthodox communal organization), under Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld.
Rabbi Na'eh best known for his halachic works Ketzot ha-Shulchan and Shiurei Torah("measurements of the Torah"), in which he converted archaic halachic measurements into modern terms. Contemporary halachic authorities follow his measurements to this day.
Daily Quote:And the living shall take to heart[Ecclesiastes 7:2[Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash with Rashi
Parshat Pinchas
In Israel: Matot
• Numbers Chapter 26
52The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: נבוַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־משֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר:
53You shall apportion the Land among these as an inheritance, in accordance with the number of names. נגלָאֵ֗לֶּה תֵּֽחָלֵ֥ק הָאָ֛רֶץ בְּנַֽחֲלָ֖ה בְּמִסְפַּ֥ר שֵׁמֽוֹת:
You shall apportion the Land among these: And not to those below age twenty, although they reached the age of twenty before the allocation of the Land-for the conquest took seven years, and the allocation took seven [years]-no one other than these six hundred and one thousand took a portion in the Land, and if one of them had six sons, they received only their father’s portion. - [Sifrei Pinchas 2, B.B. 117a] לאלה תחלק הארץ: ולא לפחותים מבן עשרים, אף על פי שבאו לכלל עשרים בטרם חלוק הארץ, שהרי שבע שנים כבשו ושבע חלקו, לא נטלו חלק בארץ אלא אלו שש מאות אלף ואלף, ואם היה לאחד מהם ששה בנים, לא נטלו אלא חלק אביהם לבדו:
54To the large [tribe] you shall give a larger inheritance and to a smaller tribe you shall give a smaller inheritance, each person shall be given an inheritance according to his number. נדלָרַ֗ב תַּרְבֶּה֙ נַֽחֲלָת֔וֹ וְלַֽמְעַ֕ט תַּמְעִ֖יט נַֽחֲלָת֑וֹ אִ֚ישׁ לְפִ֣י פְקֻדָ֔יו יֻתַּ֖ן נַֽחֲלָתֽוֹ:
To the large you shall give a large inheritance: To the tribe with a large population you shall allocate a larger portion. Although the portions were unequal-since the portions were divided according to the size of the tribes-they were decided by lot, and the lot was determined by the Divine Spirit, as it is stated explicitly in [Tractate Bava Bathra [122a]: Eleazar the kohen was clad with the Urim and Thummim, and he said while inspired with the Divine Spirit, “If such-and-such a tribe is drawn, then such-and-such a territory will be allocated to it.” The tribes were inscribed on twelve slips, and the twelve territories on [another] twelve slips. They mixed them in a box and the chieftain [of a tribe] placed his hand inside and drew out two slips. In his hand came a slip bearing the name of his tribe and a slip [inscribed] with the territory designated for it. The lot itself cried out, saying, “I am the lot drawn for such-and-such a territory for such-and-such a tribe” as it says, “according to lot” (verse 56) [lit. by the mouth of the lot] (Mid. Tanchuma Pinchas 6). Since some areas were superior to others, the Land was not divided [solely] according to measurements, but it was assessed; an inferior piece of land sufficient to sow a kor was equivalent to a superior piece sufficient to sow a seah [a thirtieth of a kor]; it all depended on the value [of the soil]. — [Sifrei Pinchas 7] לרב תרבה נחלתו: לשבט שהיה מרובה באוכלוסין נתנו חלק רב, ואף על פי שלא היו החלקים שוים, שהרי הכל לפי רבוי השבט חלקו החלקים, לא עשו אלא ע"י גורל, והגורל היה על פי רוח הקודש, כמו שמפורש בבבא בתרא (קכב א) אלעזר הכהן היה מלובש באורים ותומים, ואומר ברוח הקדש אם שבט פלוני עולה, תחום פלוני עולה עמו. והשבטים היו כתובים בי"ב פתקין, וי"ב גבולים בי"ב פתקין, ובללום בקלפי והנשיא מכניס ידו לתוכה ונוטל שני פתקין, עולה בידו פתק של שם שבטו, ופתק של גבול המפורש לו, והגורל עצמו היה צווח ואומר אני הגורל עליתי לגבול פלוני, לשבט פלוני, שנאמר על פי הגורל, ולא נתחלקה הארץ במדה, לפי שיש גבול משובח מחברו, אלא בשומא, בית כור רע כנגד בית סאה טוב, הכל לפי הדמים:
55Only through lot shall the Land be apportioned; they shall inherit it according to the names of their fathers' tribes. נהאַךְ־בְּגוֹרָ֕ל יֵֽחָלֵ֖ק אֶת־הָאָ֑רֶץ לִשְׁמ֥וֹת מַטֽוֹת־אֲבֹתָ֖ם יִנְחָֽלוּ:
according to the names of their fathers’ tribes: This refers to those who came out of Egypt. Scripture treats this inheritance differently from all other inheritances [mentioned] in the Torah. For in the case of all other inheritances, the living inherit the dead, whereas here, the dead inherit the living. How is this? Two brothers who came out of Egypt who had sons that entered the Land-one had one [son] and the other had three. The one received one portion, and the three received three, as it says, “You shall apportion the Land among these” (verse 53). The inheritance [of these four] reverts to their grandfather [who left Egypt] and they divided everything equally. This is the meaning of what is stated,“they shall inherit it according to the names of their fathers’ tribes.” For after the sons received it, it was divided up according to the fathers who had left Egypt, whereas had they apportioned it originally according to the number who came out of Egypt, these four would not have received four but only two portions. Now, however, they received four portions. — [B.B. 117a] לשמות מטות אבותם: אלו יוצאי מצרים. שינה הכתוב נחלה זו מכל הנחלות שבתורה, שכל הנחלות החיים יורשים את המתים וכאן מתים יורשים את החיים. כיצד, שני אחים מיוצאי מצרים, שהיו להם בנים בבאי הארץ, לזה אחד ולזה שלשה, האחד נטל חלק אחד, והשלשה נטלו שלשה, שנאמר לאלה תחלק הארץ, חזרה נחלתן אצל אבי אביהן וחלקו הכל בשוה. וזהו שנאמר לשמות מטות אבותם ינחלו. שאחר שנטלו הבנים חלקוה לפי האבות שיצאו ממצרים, ואלו מתחלה חלקוה למנין יוצאי מצרים לא היו נוטלין אלו הארבעה, אלא שני חלקים, עכשיו נטלו ארבעה חלקים:
Only through lot: Heb. א-ַבְּגוֹרָל [The word אַ] excludes Joshua and Caleb [from this method of allocation]. And so it says, “They gave Hebron to Caleb as Moses had spoken” (Jud. 1:20), and it further says,“According to the word of the Lord, they gave him the city he had requested” (Josh. 19:50). - [Sifrei Pinchas 6] אך בגורל: יצאו יהושע וכלב, וכן הוא אומר (שופטים א) ויתנו לכלב את חברון כאשר דבר משה, ואומר (יהושע יט) על פי ה' נתנו לו את העיר אשר שאל:
of their fathers’ tribes: Excluding proselytes and [gentile] slaves. — [Sifrei Pinchas 7] מטות אבתם: יצאו גרים ועבדים:
56The inheritance shall be apportioned between the numerous and the few, according to lot. נועַל־פִּי֙ הַגּוֹרָ֔ל תֵּֽחָלֵ֖ק נַֽחֲלָת֑וֹ בֵּ֥ין רַ֖ב לִמְעָֽט:
According to lot: Heb. עַל-פִּי הַגּוֹרָל, lit. by the mouth of the lot. The lot spoke out, as I explained above (verse 54). This tells us that it was divided by the Divine Spirit. (This is why it says, “in accordance with the Lord’s word” [Josh. 19:50].) על פי הגורל: הגורל היה מדבר, כמו שפירשתי, מגיד שנתחלקה ברוח הקודש, לכך נאמר על פי ה':
57These were the numbers of the Levites according to their families: the family of the Gershonites from Gershon, the family of the Kohathites from Kohath, the family of the Merarites from Merari. נזוְאֵ֨לֶּה פְקוּדֵ֣י הַלֵּוִי֘ לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם֒ לְגֵֽרְשׁ֗וֹן מִשְׁפַּ֨חַת֙ הַגֵּ֣רְשֻׁנִּ֔י לִקְהָ֕ת מִשְׁפַּ֖חַת הַקְּהָתִ֑י לִמְרָרִ֕י מִשְׁפַּ֖חַת הַמְּרָרִֽי:
58These were the families of Levi: the family of the Libnites, the family of the Hebronites, the family of the Mahlites, the family of the Mushites, the family of the Korahites and Kehat begot Amram. נחאֵ֣לֶּה | מִשְׁפְּחֹ֣ת לֵוִ֗י מִשְׁפַּ֨חַת הַלִּבְנִ֜י מִשְׁפַּ֤חַת הַֽחֶבְרֹנִי֙ מִשְׁפַּ֤חַת הַמַּחְלִי֙ מִשְׁפַּ֣חַת הַמּוּשִׁ֔י מִשְׁפַּ֖חַת הַקָּרְחִ֑י וּקְהָ֖ת הוֹלִ֥ד אֶת־עַמְרָֽם:
These were the families of Levi: Missing here are the family of the Shimeites, the family of the Uzzielites, and part of the family of the Izharites (Exod. 6:17, 18). אלה משפחת לוי: חסר כאן משפחת השמעי והעזיאלי וקצת מן היצהרי:
59The name of Amram's wife was Jochebed the daughter of Levi, whom [her mother] had borne to Levi in Egypt. She bore to Amram, Aaron, Moses, and their sister Miriam. נטוְשֵׁ֣ם | אֵ֣שֶׁת עַמְרָ֗ם יוֹכֶ֨בֶד֙ בַּת־לֵוִ֔י אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָֽלְדָ֥ה אֹתָ֛הּ לְלֵוִ֖י בְּמִצְרָ֑יִם וַתֵּ֣לֶד לְעַמְרָ֗ם אֶת־אַֽהֲרֹן֙ וְאֶת־משֶׁ֔ה וְאֵ֖ת מִרְיָ֥ם אֲחֹתָֽם:
Whom [her mother] had borne to Levi in Egypt: Her birth took place in Egypt, but not her conception (Sotah 12a, B.B. 120a, 123b). She gave birth to her as they entered the walls, and she completed the number of seventy, for if you count them individually you will find only sixty-nine (seeGen. 46:8-27). - [Gen. Rabbah 94:9 , Num. Rabbah 13:20] אשר ילדה אתה ללוי במצרים: לידתה במצרים ואין הורתה במצרים. כשנכנסו לתוך החומה ילדתה, והיא השלימה מנין שבעים, שהרי בפרטן אי אתה מוצא אלא ששים ותשע:
60Born to Aaron were Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. סוַיִּוָּלֵ֣ד לְאַֽהֲרֹ֔ן אֶת־נָדָ֖ב וְאֶת־אֲבִיה֑וּא אֶת־אֶלְעָזָ֖ר וְאֶת־אִֽיתָמָֽר:
61Nadab and Abihu died when they offered up an unauthorized fire before the Lord. סאוַיָּ֥מָת נָדָ֖ב וַֽאֲבִיה֑וּא בְּהַקְרִיבָ֥ם אֵשׁ־זָרָ֖ה לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָֽה:
62And those counted of them were twenty three thousand, every male aged one month and upward, for they were not counted among the children of Israel, since no inheritance was given them among the children of Israel. סבוַיִּֽהְי֣וּ פְקֻֽדֵיהֶ֗ם שְׁלשָׁ֤ה וְעֶשְׂרִים֙ אֶ֔לֶף כָּל־זָכָ֖ר מִבֶּן־חֹ֣דֶשׁ וָמָ֑עְלָה כִּ֣י | לֹ֣א הָתְפָּֽקְד֗וּ בְּתוֹךְ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל כִּ֠י לֹֽא־נִתַּ֤ן לָהֶם֙ נַֽחֲלָ֔ה בְּת֖וֹךְ בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל:
they were not counted among the children of Israel: who were counted from the age of twenty and upward. For what reason?… כי לא התפקדו בתוך בני ישראל: להיות נמנין בני עשרים שנה, ומה טעם:
since no inheritance was given them: And those who were counted from the age of twenty were recipients of an inheritance, as it says, “each person shall be given an inheritance” (verse 54). כי לא נתן להם נחלה: והנמנין מבן עשרים שנה היו בני נחלה, שנאמר איש לפי פקודיו יותן נחלתו:
63This was the census of Moses and Eleazar the kohen, who counted the children of Israel in the plains of Moab, by the Jordan at Jericho. סגאֵ֚לֶּה פְּקוּדֵ֣י משֶׁ֔ה וְאֶלְעָזָ֖ר הַכֹּהֵ֑ן אֲשֶׁ֨ר פָּֽקְד֜וּ אֶת־בְּנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בְּעַרְבֹ֣ת מוֹאָ֔ב עַ֖ל יַרְדֵּ֥ן יְרֵחֽוֹ:
64Among these there was no man who had been [included] in the census of Moses and Aaron when they counted the children of Israel in the Sinai desert. סדוּבְאֵ֨לֶּה֙ לֹא־הָ֣יָה אִ֔ישׁ מִפְּקוּדֵ֣י משֶׁ֔ה וְאַֽהֲרֹ֖ן הַכֹּהֵ֑ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר פָּֽקְד֛וּ אֶת־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בְּמִדְבַּ֥ר סִינָֽי:
Among these there was no man…: But the women were not included in the decree [enacted in the aftermath] of the spies, for they cherished the Land. The men said, “Let us appoint a leader and return to Egypt!” (14:4), whereas the women said,“Give us a portion” (27:4). This is why the passage of Zelophehad’s daughters follows here. — [Mid. Tanchuma Pinchas 7] ובאלה לא היה איש וגו': אבל על הנשים לא נגזרה גזרת המרגלים, לפי שהן היו מחבבות את הארץ. האנשים אומרים (במדבר יד ד) נתנה ראש ונשובה מצרימה, והנשים אומרות (במדבר כז, ד) תנה לנו אחוזה. לכך נסמכה פרשת בנות צלפחד לכאן:
65For the Lord had said to them, "They shall surely die in the desert," and no one was left of them but Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun. סהכִּֽי־אָמַ֤ר יְהֹוָה֙ לָהֶ֔ם מ֥וֹת יָמֻ֖תוּ בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר וְלֹֽא־נוֹתַ֤ר מֵהֶם֙ אִ֔ישׁ כִּ֚י אִם־כָּלֵ֣ב בֶּן־יְפֻנֶּ֔ה וִֽיהוֹשֻׁ֖עַ בִּן־נֽוּן:
Numbers Chapter 27
1The daughters of Zelophehad the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph, came forward, and his daughters' names were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. אוַתִּקְרַ֜בְנָה בְּנ֣וֹת צְלָפְחָ֗ד בֶּן־חֵ֤פֶר בֶּן־גִּלְעָד֙ בֶּן־מָכִ֣יר בֶּן־מְנַשֶּׁ֔ה לְמִשְׁפְּחֹ֖ת מְנַשֶּׁ֣ה בֶן־יוֹסֵ֑ף וְאֵ֨לֶּה֙ שְׁמ֣וֹת בְּנֹתָ֔יו מַחְלָ֣ה נֹעָ֔ה וְחָגְלָ֥ה וּמִלְכָּ֖ה וְתִרְצָֽה:
of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph: Why is this said? Has it not already said, “the son of Manasseh”? But to inform you that Joseph cherished the Land, as it says, “and you shall bring up my bones… ” (Exod. 13:19), and his daughters cherished the Land, as it says, “Give us a portion” (verse 4) (Sifrei Pinchas 10), [hence they were of Joseph’s family in spirit], and to teach you that they [who are mentioned in the verse] were all righteous, for anyone whose deeds and whose father’s deeds are not clearly described, but Scripture specifies one of them to trace his genealogy for praise, he is a righteous man the son of a righteous man, but if it traces his genealogy for shame, as for example, “Ishmael the son of Nethaniah the son of Elishama came” (II Kings 25:25), it is known that all those mentioned with him were wicked people. — [Sifrei Pinchas 9] למשפחת מנשה בן יוסף: למה נאמר, והלא כבר נאמר בן מנשה, אלא לומר לך יוסף חבב את הארץ, שנאמר (בראשית נ כה) והעליתם עת עצמותי וגו', ובנותיו חבבו את הארץ, שנאמר (במדבר כז, ד) תנה לנו אחוזה. וללמדך שהיו כולם צדיקים, שכל מי שמעשיו ומעשה אבותיו סתומים ופרט לך הכתוב באחד מהם ליחסו לשבח, הרי זה צדיק בן צדיק. ואם יחסו לגנאי כגון (מלכים ב' כה כה) בא ישמעאל בן נתניה בן אלישמע, בידוע שכל הנזכרים עמו רשעים היו:
Mahlah, Noah…: Later (36:11) it says, “Mahlah, Tirzah… were” [in a different order]. This teaches us that they were all equal-one to the other; therefore, Scripture changes the order. — [Sifrei Pinchas 11] מחלה נעה וגו': ולהלן הוא אומר (במדבר לו יא) ותהיינה מחלה תרצה, מגיד שכולן שקולות זו כזו, לפיכך שנה את סדרן:
2They stood before Moses and before Eleazar the kohen and before the chieftains and the entire congregation at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, saying, בוַתַּֽעֲמֹ֜דְנָה לִפְנֵ֣י משֶׁ֗ה וְלִפְנֵי֙ אֶלְעָזָ֣ר הַכֹּהֵ֔ן וְלִפְנֵ֥י הַנְּשִׂיאִ֖ם וְכָל־הָֽעֵדָ֑ה פֶּ֥תַח אֹֽהֶל־מוֹעֵ֖ד לֵאמֹֽר:
before Moses and before Eleazar: This [statement that they stood before Eleazar] informs us that they stood before them only in the fortieth year, after Aaron’s death. — [Sifrei Pinchas 12] לפני משה ולפני אלעזר: מגיד שלא עמדו לפניהם אלא בשנת הארבעים, אחר שמת אהרן:
before Moses: And afterwards, “before Eleazar”? Is it possible that if Moses did not know [the law] and Eleazar did know? But transpose the verse and expound it [as if it were written, “before Eleazar and before Moses”]. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. Abba Chanan said in the name of R. Eleazar: They were sitting in the study hall and they stood before all of them. — [Sifrei Pinchas 12, B.B. 119b] לפני משה: ואחר כך לפני אלעזר, אפשר אם משה לא ידע אלעזר יודע, אלא סרס המקרא ודרשהו, דברי רבי יאשיה. אבא חנן משום רבי אלעזר אומר בבית המדרש היו יושבים, ועמדו לפני כולם:
3"Our father died in the desert, but he was not in the assembly that banded together against the Lord in Korah's assembly, but he died for his own sin, and he had no sons. גאָבִ֘ינוּ֘ מֵ֣ת בַּמִּדְבָּר֒ וְה֨וּא לֹֽא־הָיָ֜ה בְּת֣וֹךְ הָֽעֵדָ֗ה הַנּֽוֹעָדִ֛ים עַל־יְהֹוָ֖ה בַּֽעֲדַת־קֹ֑רַח כִּֽי־בְחֶטְא֣וֹ מֵ֔ת וּבָנִ֖ים לֹא־הָ֥יוּ לֽוֹ:
but he was not…: Since they were going to say that “he died for his own sin,” they had to say that it was not for the sin of those who grumbled, and [that he was] not in Korah’s company who incited [the people] against the Holy One, blessed is He, but he died for his own sin alone, ad he did not cause others to sin with him (B.B. 18b, Sifrei Pinchas 13). R. Akiva says, He was the wood gatherer [see 15:32], and R. Shimon says: He was among those who ascended [the mountain] defiantly [see 14:44]. — [Shab . 96b] והוא לא היה וגו': לפי שהיו באות לומר בחטאו מת, נזקקו לומר לא בחטא מתלוננים ולא בעדת קרח שהצו על הקב"ה, אלא בחטאו לבדו מת, ולא החטיא את אחרים עמו. ר' עקיבא אומר מקושש עצים היה. ור' שמעון אומר מן המעפילים היה:
4Why should our father's name be eliminated from his family because he had no son? Give us a portion along with our father's brothers. " דלָ֣מָּה יִגָּרַ֤ע שֵֽׁם־אָבִ֨ינוּ֙ מִתּ֣וֹךְ מִשְׁפַּחְתּ֔וֹ כִּ֛י אֵ֥ין ל֖וֹ בֵּ֑ן תְּנָה־לָּ֣נוּ אֲחֻזָּ֔ה בְּת֖וֹךְ אֲחֵ֥י אָבִֽינוּ:
Why should our father’s name be eliminated: We are instead of a son, and if females are not considered offspring, let our mother be taken in levirate marriage by her brother-in-law. — [Sifrei Pinchas 13] למה יגרע שם אבינו: אנו במקום בן עומדות, ואם אין הנקבות חשובות זרע, תתיבם אמנו ליבם:
because he had no son: But if he had a son, they would have made no claim at all. This teaches us that they were intelligent women. — [Sifrei Pinchas 15, Sifrei Pinchas 13] כי אין לו בן: הא אם היה לו בן לא היו תובעות כלום. מגיד שחכמניות היו:
5So Moses brought their case before the Lord. הוַיַּקְרֵ֥ב משֶׁ֛ה אֶת־מִשְׁפָּטָ֖ן לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָֽה:
So Moses brought their case: The law eluded him, and here he was punished for crowning himself [with authority] by saying, “and the case that is too difficult for you, bring to me” (Deut. 1:17) (Mid. Tanchuma Pinchas 8). Another interpretation: This passage ought to have been written through Moses, but Zelophehad’s daughters were meritorious, so it was written through them. — [Sanh. 8a] ויקרב משה את משפטן: נתעלמה הלכה ממנו וכאן נפרע על שנטל עטרה לומר (דברים א, יז) והדבר אשר יקשה מכם תקריבון אלי. דבר אחר ראויה היתה פרשה זו להכתב על ידי משה, אלא שזכו בנות צלפחד ונכתבה על ידן:
Daily Tehillim - Psalms
Chapters 97-103
• Chapter 97
1. When the Lord will reveal His kingship, the earth will exult; the multitudes of islands will rejoice.
2. Clouds and dense darkness will surround Him; justice and mercy will be the foundation of His throne.
3. Fire will go before Him and consume His foes all around.
4. His lightnings will illuminate the world; the earth will see and tremble.
5. The mountains will melt like wax before the Lord, before the Master of all the earth.
6. The heavens will declare His justice, and all the nations will behold His glory.
7. All who worship graven images, who take pride in idols, will be ashamed; all idol worshippers will prostrate themselves before Him.
8. Zion will hear and rejoice, the towns of Judah will exult, because of Your judgments, O Lord.
9. For You, Lord, transcend all the earth; You are exceedingly exalted above all the supernal beings.
10. You who love the Lord, hate evil; He watches over the souls of His pious ones, He saves them from the hand of the wicked.
11. Light is sown for the righteous, and joy for the upright in heart.
12. Rejoice in the Lord, you righteous, and extol His holy Name.
Chapter 98
This psalm describes how Israel will praise God for the Redemption.
1. A psalm. Sing to the Lord a new song, for He has performed wonders; His right hand and holy arm have wrought deliverance for Him.
2. The Lord has made known His salvation; He has revealed His justice before the eyes of the nations.
3. He has remembered His kindness and faithfulness to the House of Israel; all, from the farthest corners of the earth, witnessed the deliverance by our God.
4. Raise your voices in jubilation to the Lord, all the earth; burst into joyous song and chanting.
5. Sing to the Lord with a harp, with a harp and the sound of song.
6. With trumpets and the sound of the shofar, jubilate before the King, the Lord.
7. The sea and its fullness will roar in joy, the earth and its inhabitants.
8. The rivers will clap their hands, the mountains will sing together.
9. [They will rejoice] before the Lord, for He has come to judge the earth; He will judge the world with justice, and the nations with righteousness.
Chapter 99
This psalm refers to the wars of Gog and Magog, which will precede the Redemption.
1. When the Lord will reveal His kingship, the nations will tremble; the earth will quake before Him Who is enthroned upon the cherubim,
2. [before] the Lord Who is in Zion, Who is great and exalted above all the peoples.
3. They will extol Your Name which is great, awesome and holy.
4. And [they will praise] the might of the King Who loves justice. You have established uprightness; You have made [the laws of] justice and righteousness in Jacob.
5. Exalt the Lord our God, and bow down at His footstool; He is holy.
6. Moses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among those who invoke His Name, would call upon the Lord and He would answer them.
7. He would speak to them from a pillar of cloud; they observed His testimonies and the decrees which He gave them.
8. Lord our God, You have answered them; You were a forgiving God for their sake, yet bringing retribution for their own misdeeds.
9. Exalt the Lord our God, and bow down at His holy mountain, for the Lord our God is holy.
Chapter 100
This psalm inspires the hearts of those who suffer in this world. Let them, nevertheless, serve God with joy, for all is for their good, as in the verse: "He whom God loves does He chastise." The psalm also refers to the thanksgiving sacrifice-the only sacrifice to be offered in the Messianic era.
1. A psalm of thanksgiving. Let all the earth sing in jubilation to the Lord.
2. Serve the Lord with joy; come before Him with exultation.
3. Know that the Lord is God; He has made us and we are His, His people and the sheep of His pasture.
4. Enter His gates with gratitude, His courtyards with praise; give thanks to Him, bless His Name.
5. For the Lord is good; His kindness is everlasting, and His faithfulness is for all generations.
Chapter 101
This psalm speaks of David's secluding himself from others, and of his virtuous conduct even in his own home.
1. By David, a psalm. I will sing of [Your] kindness and justice; to You, O Lord, will I chant praise!
2. I will pay heed to the path of integrity-O when will it come to me? I shall walk with the innocence of my heart [even] within my house.
3. I shall not place an evil thing before my eyes; I despise the doing of wayward deeds, it does not cling to me.
4. A perverse heart shall depart from me; I shall not know evil.
5. He who slanders his fellow in secret, him will I cut down; one with haughty eyes and a lustful heart, him I cannot suffer.
6. My eyes are upon the faithful of the land, that they may dwell with me; he who walks in the path of integrity, he shall minister to me.
7. He that practices deceit shall not dwell within my house; the speaker of lies shall have no place before my eyes.
8. Every morning I will cut down all the wicked of the land, to excise all evildoers from the city of the Lord.
Chapter 102
An awe-inspiring prayer for the exiled, and an appropriate prayer for anyone in distress.
1. A prayer of the poor man when he is faint [with affliction], and pours out his tale of woe before the Lord.
2. O Lord, hear my prayer, let my cry reach You!
3. Hide not Your face from me on the day of my distress; turn Your ear to me; on the day that I call, answer me quickly.
4. For my days have vanished with the smoke; my bones are dried up as a hearth.
5. Smitten like grass and withered is my heart, for I have forgotten to eat my bread.
6. From the voice of my sigh, my bone cleaves to my flesh.
7. I am like the bird of the wilderness; like the owl of the wasteland have I become.
8. In haste I fled; I was like a bird, alone on a roof.
9. All day my enemies disgrace me; those who ridicule me curse using my name.1
10. For I have eaten ashes like bread, and mixed my drink with tears,
11. because of Your anger and Your wrath-for You have raised me up, then cast me down.
12. My days are like the fleeting shadow; I wither away like the grass.
13. But You, Lord, will be enthroned forever, and Your remembrance is for all generations.
14. You will arise and have mercy on Zion, for it is time to be gracious to her; the appointed time has come.
15. For Your servants cherish her stones, and love her dust.
16. Then the nations will fear the Name of the Lord, and all the kings of the earth Your glory,
17. when [they see that] the Lord has built Zion, He has appeared in His glory.
18. He turned to the entreaty of the prayerful, and did not despise their prayer.
19. Let this be written for the last generation, so that the newborn nation will praise the Lord.
20. For He looked down from His holy heights; from heaven, the Lord gazed upon the earth,
21. to hear the cry of the bound, to untie those who are doomed to die,
22. so that the Name of the Lord be declared in Zion, and His praise in Jerusalem,
23. when nations and kingdoms will gather together to serve the Lord.
24. He weakened my strength on the way; He shortened my days.
25. I would say: "My God, do not remove me in the midst of my days! You Whose years endure through all generations.”
26. In the beginning You laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.
27. They will perish, but You will endure; all of them will wear out like a garment; You will exchange them like a robe, and they will vanish.
28. But You remain the same; Your years will not end.
29. The children of Your servants will abide; their seed shall be established before You.
FOOTNOTES
1.When swearing, they would say, “If I am lying, may I become like the miserable Jews” (Metzudot).
Chapter 103
David's prayer when he was ill, this psalm is an appropriate prayer on behalf of the sick, especially when offered by the sick person himself while his soul is yet in his body. He can then bless God from his depths, body and soul. Read, and find repose for your soul.
1. By David. Bless the Lord, O my soul; and all my being, His holy Name.
2. My soul, bless the Lord; forget not all His favors:
3. Who forgives all your sins, Who heals all your illnesses;
4. Who redeems your life from the grave, Who crowns you with kindness and mercy;
5. Who satisfies your mouth with goodness; like the eagle, your youth is renewed.
6. The Lord executes righteousness and justice for all the oppressed.
7. He made His ways known to Moses, His deeds to the Children of Israel.
8. The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and of great kindness.
9. He will not contend for eternity, nor harbor ill will forever.
10. He has not dealt with us according to our transgressions, nor requited us according to our sins.
11. For as high as heaven is above the earth, so has His kindness been mighty over those who fear Him.
12. As far as the east is from the west, so has He distanced our transgressions from us.
13. As a father has compassion on his children, so has the Lord had compassion on those who fear Him.
14. For He knows our nature; He is mindful that we are but dust.
15. As for man, his days are like grass; like a flower of the field, so he sprouts.
16. When a wind passes over him, he is gone; his place recognizes him no more.
17. But the kindness of the Lord is forever and ever upon those who fear Him, and His righteousness is [secured] for children's children,
18. to those who keep His covenant, and to those who remember His commands to do them.
19. The Lord has established His throne in the heavens, and His kingship has dominion over all.
20. Bless the Lord, you His angels who are mighty in strength, who do His bidding to obey the voice of His speech.
21. Bless the Lord, all His hosts, His servants who do His will.
22. Bless the Lord, all His works, in all the places of His dominion. My soul, bless the Lord!
Tanya: Igeret HaTeshuva , middle of Chapter 4
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Tuesday, 20 Tammuz, 5776 · 26 July 2016
• Igeret HaTeshuva , middle of Chapter 4
• ככה ממש, על דרך משל, המבדיל הבדלות לאין קץ
Precisely so in the analogy [of Creation], allowing for the infinite differentiations involved [between Creator and created],
יש הפרש עצום מאד למעלה
there exists a prodigious difference Above,
בין כל צבא השמים, ואפילו המלאכים, שנבראו מאין ליש
between all the hosts of heaven, even the spiritual beings like angels, who were created ex nihilo, [and the soul of man].
וחיים וקיימים מבחינת חיצוניות החיות והשפע שמשפיע אין סוף ברוך הוא להחיות העולמות
They derive their life and existence from the external aspect of the life-force issuing forth from the Infinite One to vitalize creation.
ובחינה זו נקראת בשם רוח פיו, על דרך משל, כמו שכתוב: וברוח פיו כל צבאם
his [external] aspect of the life-giving power is called the “breath of His mouth,” as it were, as the verse states:1 “By the breath of His mouth all their hosts [were created].”
והיא בחינת חיות המלובשת באותיות שבעשרה מאמרות
This is the creative power embodied in the letters of the Ten Utterances
שהן בחינת כלים והמשכות וכו׳, כמו שכתוב בלקוטי אמרים חלק ב׳ פרק י״א
(2these letters being in the nature of vessels, and a drawing down and so forth of the life-force, as explained in Likutei Amarim, Part II, ch. 11).
ובין נשמת האדם שנמשכה תחלה מבחינת פנימיות החיות והשפע שמשפיע אין סוף ברוך הוא
In contrast, the soul of man derives initially from the innermost dimension of the life-force and flow issuing from the Infinite One,
כמו שכתוב: ויפח וגו׳
as in the verse quoted above, “And He blew….”
As mentioned earlier, this verb indicates the internal aspect of the Divine flow of life-force, for “he who blows, does so from his innermost being.”
Thus, the soul originated in the internal aspect of the life-force and flow issuing from G‑d. It is only afterwards, in order to enable it to be invested within the body, that the soul descended to a more external level, as the Alter Rebbe now goes on to say.
ואחר כך ירדה בסתר המדרגה, גם כן על ידי בחינת האותיות שבמאמר: נעשה אדם וגו׳
It then descended through ever more concealing planes, also (like the angels who were created by means of “letters”) by means of the letters that comprise the Divine Utterance,3 “Let us make man...,”
כדי להתלבש בגוף עולם הזה התחתון
in order that it could eventually be invested in a body in this inferior, [physical] world.
This, then, is the difference between souls and angels: Souls derive from the innermost aspect of G‑dliness, the Tetragrammaton, while angels are rooted in the external aspect of G‑dliness, the Divine Name Elokim, as is now explained.
ולכן נקראו המלאכים בשם אלקים בכתוב
For this reason Scripture calls the angels “Elokim”,
וכמו שכתוב: כי ה׳ אלקיכם הוא אלקי האלקים גו׳
as4 in the phrase,5 “For the L‑rd your G‑d, 6He is the G‑d of G‑ds (Elokim).,” the last word here referring to angels,
הודו לאלקי האלקים גו׳
[and likewise],7 “Praise the G‑d of G‑ds (Elokim).,” once again referring to angels by the name “Elokim”,
ויבואו בני האלקים להתייצב גו׳
and (in yet another reference to angels),8 “The sons of G‑d (Elokim) came to present themselves….”
The Name Elokim is applied to angels:
לפי שיניקת חיותם היא מבחינת חיצוניות, שהיא בחינת האותיות לבד
Because they derive their nurture from the external degree [of G‑dliness], which is merely the state of “letters”.
ושם אלקים הוא בחינת חיצוניות לגבי שם הויה ברוך הוא
Similarly, the Name Elokim is an external state relative to the Tetragrammaton.
אבל נשמת האדם, שהיא מבחינת פנימיות החיות, היא חלק שם הויה ברוך הוא
But the soul of man, deriving from the internal aspect of the G‑dly vivifying power, is a part of the Tetragrammaton,
כי שם הויה מורה על פנימיות החיות, שהיא למעלה מעלה מבחינת האותיות
for the Tetragrammaton indicates the innermost dimension of the life-giving power, which far transcends the state of letters.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Tehillim 33:6. |
| 2. | Parentheses are in the original text. |
| 3. | Bereishit 1:26. |
| 4. | The Rebbe notes that the Alter Rebbe cites three verses to adduce that angels are called Elokim, possibly in order to allude to the three general categories of angels — in the Worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah. The angels closest to souls (souls having “arisen in the Divine thought”) are those of the World of Beriah, the World of Thought. They are alluded to in the first verse, which states that “Your G‑d,” i.e., the G‑d of souls, is “the G‑d of angels.” The second verse, which mentions neither “Your G‑d” nor the Tetragrammaton, may be said to refer to the angels in the World of Yetzirah. The final verse, which speaks of the angels who give testimony with regard to the worldly affairs of man, may be said to apply to the angels of the nethermost world, the World of Asiyah. |
| 5. | Devarim 10:17. |
| 6. | In line with Scripture, the Rebbe restored the word “He” to the paraphrase in the text. |
| 7. | Tehillim 136:2. |
| 8. | Iyov 1:6. |
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
• Tuesday, 20 Tammuz, 5776 · 26 July 2016
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
• Tuesday, 20 Tammuz, 5776 · 26 July 2016
• Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 247
Withholding Monies Owed
"You shall not defraud your neighbor"—Leviticus 19:13.
It is forbidden to withhold monies owed to another. As opposed to theft or robbery, which involve monies that came into a person's possession in an unlawful manner, this prohibition is addressed to the individual who has not obtained property illegally, but refuses to pay money owed. Examples include an employer who withholds wages and a debtor who refuses to repay a loan.
This prohibition includes flat refusal to pay as well as well as postponing payment employing deceptive methods.
Full text of this Mitzvah »• Withholding Monies Owed
Negative Commandment 247
Translated by Berel Bell
The 247th prohibition is that we are forbidden to withhold payment of debts we owe — holding on to the money instead of paying it back.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Do not withhold (lo sa'ashok) that which is due your neighbor."
[The distinction between the various forms of theft is as follows:] geneivah refers to taking someone else's property through scheming and in secret. It is prohibited by the phrase, "lo tignovu," as explained previously.2 Gezel refers to taking someone else's property against his will and with open force, as highway robbers do. It is prohibited by the phrase, lo sigzol.3 Oshek refers to a case where you owe someone a certain amount of money — i.e. you have in your possession and control money — and you withhold it and do not hand it over. [This applies] whether or not force was involved, even just through pushing him off and deception. This too is prohibited, by G‑d's statement (exalted be He), "Do not withhold that which is due your neighbor."
The Sifra says: "The prohibition lo sa'ashok refers to withholding money. In which case? Such as holding back a worker's wages" and anything similar. A worker was picked as an example since it involves a fixed debt that you owe, but he did not give you any money and no money came to you from him. Nevertheless, since you owe him money, you are prohibited from withholding it.
This prohibition is repeated4 using this very example: "Do not withhold the wages due a worker who is poor and destitute." This means that you may not withhold his wages because he is poor and destitute, similar to the verse,5 "[You must give him his wage on the day it is due,] and not let the sun set with him waiting for it, because he is poor."
The Sifri says, " 'Do not withhold the wages due a worker who is poor and destitute.' But the Torah already said, 'Do not steal' (lo sigzol)! This teaches that anyone who withholds wages due a worker transgresses 'do not withhold,' 'do not steal,' 'do not go to sleep before paying your worker,' and 'pay your worker on that same day.' " There it clearly explains why the verse mentions the "poor and destitute" — because G‑d said, "I administer punishment swiftly when the victim is poor and destitute."
The punishment for one who transgresses this prohibition (lo sa'ashok) is identical to that of a robber.6 [We see this from] G‑d's statement7 (exalted be He), "...if he lied to his neighbor regarding an article left for safekeeping, a business deal, robbery (gazel), withholding payment (oshak) from his neighbor..."8
FOOTNOTES:
1.Lev. 19:13.
2.N244.
3.N245.
4.Deut. 24:14.
5.Ibid., 24:15.
6.See N245.
7.Lev. 5:21.
8.The following verses describe the punishment: that he must remedy the misdeed by returning the proper amount, add one-fifth, and bring a sacrifice.
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 247
Withholding Monies Owed
"You shall not defraud your neighbor"—Leviticus 19:13.
It is forbidden to withhold monies owed to another. As opposed to theft or robbery, which involve monies that came into a person's possession in an unlawful manner, this prohibition is addressed to the individual who has not obtained property illegally, but refuses to pay money owed. Examples include an employer who withholds wages and a debtor who refuses to repay a loan.
This prohibition includes flat refusal to pay as well as well as postponing payment employing deceptive methods.
Full text of this Mitzvah »• Withholding Monies Owed
Negative Commandment 247
Translated by Berel Bell
The 247th prohibition is that we are forbidden to withhold payment of debts we owe — holding on to the money instead of paying it back.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Do not withhold (lo sa'ashok) that which is due your neighbor."
[The distinction between the various forms of theft is as follows:] geneivah refers to taking someone else's property through scheming and in secret. It is prohibited by the phrase, "lo tignovu," as explained previously.2 Gezel refers to taking someone else's property against his will and with open force, as highway robbers do. It is prohibited by the phrase, lo sigzol.3 Oshek refers to a case where you owe someone a certain amount of money — i.e. you have in your possession and control money — and you withhold it and do not hand it over. [This applies] whether or not force was involved, even just through pushing him off and deception. This too is prohibited, by G‑d's statement (exalted be He), "Do not withhold that which is due your neighbor."
The Sifra says: "The prohibition lo sa'ashok refers to withholding money. In which case? Such as holding back a worker's wages" and anything similar. A worker was picked as an example since it involves a fixed debt that you owe, but he did not give you any money and no money came to you from him. Nevertheless, since you owe him money, you are prohibited from withholding it.
This prohibition is repeated4 using this very example: "Do not withhold the wages due a worker who is poor and destitute." This means that you may not withhold his wages because he is poor and destitute, similar to the verse,5 "[You must give him his wage on the day it is due,] and not let the sun set with him waiting for it, because he is poor."
The Sifri says, " 'Do not withhold the wages due a worker who is poor and destitute.' But the Torah already said, 'Do not steal' (lo sigzol)! This teaches that anyone who withholds wages due a worker transgresses 'do not withhold,' 'do not steal,' 'do not go to sleep before paying your worker,' and 'pay your worker on that same day.' " There it clearly explains why the verse mentions the "poor and destitute" — because G‑d said, "I administer punishment swiftly when the victim is poor and destitute."
The punishment for one who transgresses this prohibition (lo sa'ashok) is identical to that of a robber.6 [We see this from] G‑d's statement7 (exalted be He), "...if he lied to his neighbor regarding an article left for safekeeping, a business deal, robbery (gazel), withholding payment (oshak) from his neighbor..."8
FOOTNOTES:
1.Lev. 19:13.
2.N244.
3.N245.
4.Deut. 24:14.
5.Ibid., 24:15.
6.See N245.
7.Lev. 5:21.
8.The following verses describe the punishment: that he must remedy the misdeed by returning the proper amount, add one-fifth, and bring a sacrifice.
• Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day
Tum'at Met - Chapter 10
• Tum'at Met - Chapter 10
• Tum'at Met - Chapter 10
1
What is meant by a beit hapras? A place where a grave was plowed over. Since, in such a situation, the bones of the corpse are crushed and dispersed throughout the field, our Sages decreed that any field where a grave was plowed over is impure. This applies even if one plowed over a coffin and even when the corpse was placed under stone tablets or rocks. Even if there two stories high of earth above a coffin, since one plowed over the grave, the field is considered as a beit hapras.
How large an area is considered as a beit hapras? 100 cubits by 100 cubits from the place of the grave.
א
איזהו בית הפרס זה המקום שנחרש בו קבר שהרי נתדקדקו עצמות המת בתוך העפר ונתפרסו בכל השדה וגזרו טומאה על כל השדה שנחרש בה הקבר אפילו חרש על גבי הארון ואפילו היה מושקע ברובדין ובאבנים ואפילו היה על גבי הארון רום שתי קומות הואיל וחרש על קבר ה"ז עושה בית הפרס עד כמה הוא נעשית בית הפרס מאה אמה על מאה אמה ממקום הקבר:
2
All of this square, which is an area in which four se'ah of grain can be sown is a beit hapras. Its earth imparts impurity when it is touched or carried, as we explained. It does not impart impurity because of ohel. Similarly, one who stands over a beit hapras is pure.
ב
כל המרובע שהוא בית ארבעת סאין הרי הוא בית הפרס ועפרו מטמא במגע ובמשא כמו שביארנו ואינו מטמא באהל וכן המאהיל על בית הפרס הזה טהור:
3
If one began to plow and plowed over a grave, and while continuing to plow, before he completed the 100 cubits, shook out the plow or knocked it against a rock or a fence, he makes the dield a beit hapras only to that point. The remainder of the 100 cubits are pure, because he did not reach it while continuing to plow.
If he plowed 50 cubits or more and then continued plowing until he completed the 100 cubits, the entire area is considered a beit hapras. If he continued plowing beyond the 100 cubits, the area beyond 100 cubits is pure, because the bones in the grave will not be carried more than 100 cubits.
ג
התחיל לחרוש את הקבר והיה חורשו והולך וקודם שיגמור מאה אמה ניער את המחרישה או שהטיח בסלע או בגדר עד שם הוא עושה בית הפרס בלבד והשאר טהור שהרי לא הגיע אליו במשוך המחרישה חרש כמו חמשים אמה או יתר וחזר וחרש עד שהשלים המאה הכל בית הפרס היה חורש והולך חוץ למאה אמה ממאה אמה ולחוץ טהור שאין עצמות קבר מגיעות ליתר ממאה:
4
We operate under the assumption that bones that were buried are human unless it is known that they came from an animal. Conversely, we operate under the assumption that any bones that are openly revealed are from an animal unless it is known that they are human.
When there was a trench filled with human bones or there were human bones piled on earth, and one plowed these bones together with a field or one plowed a field in which a grave was lost or one in which a grave was discovered, a beit hapras is not created. For our Sages deemed impure only a field in which a grave whose identity was definitely known was plowed. Similarly, when one plows the body of a corpse together with a field, it is not deemed a beit hapras. The rationale is that all these are uncommon situations and our Sages instituted their decree only with regard to a field that was plowed, for this is a common situation.
ד
חזקת העצמות המכוסות שהן של אדם עד שיודע שהן של בהמה וחזקת העצמות המגולות שהן של בהמה עד שיודע שהן של אדם היה שם חריץ מלא עצמות אדם או שהיו עצמות אדם צבורות על גבי קרקע וחרש עצמות אלו עם השדה או שחרש שדה שאבד בה [או שנמצא בה] קבר ה"ז אינו עושה בית הפרס שלא גזרו טומאה אלא על שדה שנחרש בה קבר ודאי וכן החורש את המת בשדה אינו עושה בית הפרס שכל אלו דבר שאינו מצוי הוא ולא גזרו אלא בקבר שנחרש שהוא דבר המצוי:
5
When a person plows a grave in a field that does not belong to him, he does not create a beit hapras, because a person cannot cause an article that does not belong to him to become forbidden. Even a partner, a sharecropper, or a guardian does not create a beit hapras.
When a person plowed over a grave in a field which belongs to him and to a colleague as one, he creates a beit hapras in his portion, but not in the portion belonging to his colleague.
ה
החורש את הקבר בשדה שאינה שלו אינו עושה בית הפרס שאין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו אפילו שותף או אריס או אפוטרופוס אינו עושה בית הפרס חרש קבר בשדה שלו ושל חבירו כאחד שלו עושה בית הפרס ושל חבירו אינו עושה בית הפרס:
6
When a gentile plows a grave in his field, he does not create abeit hapras, because the concept of a beit hapras does not apply with regard to gentiles.
ו
עכו"ם שחרש קבר בשדהו אינו עושה בית הפרס שאין בית פרס לעכו"ם:
7
When there is a field which is a beit hapras above and a field that is pure below and rain washes the earth from the beit hapras to the pure field, it remains pure. These laws apply even the earth of the lower field was red and it became white or it was white and it became red. The rationale is that a beit hapras does not make a second beit hapras and impurity was decreed only on the earth in its original state.
ז
שדה בית פרס למעלה ושדה טהורה למטה ושטפו גשמים מעפר בית הפרס לטהורה אפילו היתה אדומה והלבינה או לבנה והאדימה טהורה שאין בית פרס עושה בית פרס ולא גזרו טומאה אלא על גוש כברייתו:
8
It is permitted to plant any tree or bush in a beit hapras, because their roots extend below three handbreadths and the area below three handbreadths in a beit hapras is pure, for the bones from the grave are spread out over the surface of the field. We do not, by contrast, sow in it any seeds from which grow crops that are not reaped.
If one sowed crops in such a field and harvested them by uprooting them, one must collect the grainheap in that field and sift the grain with two sifters - and if one grew beans, with three sifters - lest one find a bone the size of a barley corn. One must burn the chaff of the grain and beans there. This is a decree lest there be a bone the size of a barley corn among it. If one were allowed to benefit from the chaff, he would take it out of the field and sell it and thus spread the impurity.
ח
בית הפרס הזה מותר לנטוע בו כל נטע לפי שהשרשים יורדים למטה משלשה:
ולמטה משלשה בבית הפרס טהור שהרי הקבר נפרס על פני השדה אבל אין זורעין בתוכה אלא זרע הנקצר ואם זרע ועקר צובר את גרנו בתוכו וכובר את התבואה בשתי כברות ואת הקטניות בג' כברות שמא יש בהן עצם כשעורה ושורף את הקש ואת העצה שם גזירה שמא יהיה בהן עצם כשעורה ואם תתיר לו בהנייה מוציאו ומוכרו ונמצא מרגיל את הטומאה:
9
When there is a field that is presumed to be a beit hapras, we continue to operate under this assumption even if it is large enough to grow four kor of grain, even if it is to the side of a place of soft mud which is not plowed, and thus does not become a beit hapras, and even if a pure field surrounds it on all four sides.
ט
שדה שהוחזקה שהיא בית הפרס אפילו היא בית ד' כורין ואפילו משוכה ממקום הטיט הרך שאינו נחרש ולא נעשה בית הפרס ואפילו שדה טהורה מקפת אותה מד' רוחותיה הרי היא בחזקתה:
10
When a person discovers a field that has been designated and does not know what the nature of the problem is, he should follow these guidelines. If it has trees in it, he should assume that a grave was plowed over in it. If it does not have trees, he should assume that a grave was lost in it, as has been explained. The above applies provided there is an elder or a Torah scholar in this place, because not every person is knowledgeable concerning such matters and is not aware that it is permitted to plant in this type of field and forbidden to plant in another.
י
מצא שדה מצויינת ואין יודע מה טיבה אם יש בה אילן בידוע שנחרש קבר בתוכה אין בה אילן בידוע שאבד קבר בתוכה כמו שביארנו והוא שיהיה באותו מקום זקן או תלמיד חכם שאין כל אדם בקיאין בכך ויודעין שמותר לנטוע בזו ואסור לנטוע באחרת:
11
When a person walks through a beit hapras on stones that do not wobble under a person's feet when he is walking on them or he enters it when he is riding on a person or an animal of formidable strength, he is pure. If, however, he walks on stones that usually shake while he treads upon them, even if he was careful and walked so that they would not shake, he is impure, as if he walked upon the ground itself. Similarly, if he was riding on a person who was not strong to the extent that his knees would knock against each other and his thighs would shake when he carried him or on an animal which was not strong to the extent that it would defecate when it carried him, he is impure as if he had walked on the field with his feet.
יא
המהלך בבית הפרס על גבי אבנים שאין מתנדנדין תחת רגלי אדם בשעה שמהלך עליהן או שנכנס לה והוא רוכב על גבי אדם ובהמה שכחן יפה הרי זה טהור אבל אם הלך על גבי אבנים שמזדעזעין בשעת הילוך אף על פי שנשמר ולא נתנדנד ה"ז טמא כמי שהלך על העפר עצמו וכן אם הלך על גבי אדם שכחו רע עד שתהיינה ארכובותיו נוקשות זו לזו ושוקיו מרעידות כשהוא נושאו או על גבי בהמה שכחה רע עד שתטיל גללים בשעת רכיבה ה"ז טמא וכאילו הלך ברגליו:
12
When a person purifies a beit hapras, he must purify it in the presence of two Torah scholars.
How does he purify it? He gathers together all the earth that he can move from the surface of the entire field and places it in a sieve with small holes. He breaks the earth into small pieces and removes any bone that is the size of a barley-corn. Alternatively, it is pure if he places three handbreadths of earth from another place upon it or removed three handbreadths of earth from its entire surface.
If he removed three handbreadths of earth from half the field and placed three handbreadths of earth over the other half, it is pure. If he removed a handbreadth and a half from its surface and placed another handbreadth and a half of earth from another place upon it, his actions are of no consequence. Similarly, if he leveled it and checked it from above and below while removing the rocks, his actions are of no consequence. If he paved it with stones that will not shake when a man walks upon it, it is pure.
יב
המטהר בית הפרס צריך לטהרו במעמד שני תלמידי חכמים וכיצד מטהרין אותו כונס את כל העפר שהוא יכול להסיטו מעל כל פני השדה ונותנו לתוך כברה שנקביה דקין וממחה ומוציא כל עצם כשעורה הנמצא שם ויטהר וכן אם נתן על גביו שלשה טפחים עפר ממקום אחד או שנטל מעל כל פניו שלשה טפחים ה"ז טהור נטל מחציו אחד ג' טפחים ונתן על חציו האחר ג' טפחים ה"ז טהור נטל מעל פניו טפח ומחצה ונתן עליה טפח ומחצה עפר ממקום אחר לא עשה כלום וכן אם עזקו ובדק בשעת עזוק מלמטה ומלמעלה לא עשה כלום רצפו באבנים שאינן מתנדנין מהילוך אדם ה"ז טהור:
• Rambam - 3 Chapters: Gezelah va'Avedah Gezelah va'Avedah - Chapter Four, Gezelah va'Avedah Gezelah va'Avedah - Chapter Five, Gezelah va'Avedah Gezelah va'Avedah - Chapter Six
• Gezelah va'Avedah - Chapter Four
1
Our Sages penalized robbers and gave the person whose property was taken the prerogative of taking an oath to support his claim regarding the value of the goods taken. He may then collect that money from the robber, provided that there are two witnesses who testify that this person robbed him.
א
קנס קנסו חכמים לגזלנין שיהיה הנגזל נשבע על כל מה שיטעון ונוטל מן הגזלן. והוא שיהיה זה מוחזק שגזלו בשני עדים:
2
What is implied? A person came into a colleague's home to collect collateral. He was observed by two witnesses. When he entered he was not carrying anything under his cloak, and when he departed he was carrying utensils under his cloak, but the witnesses were not able to discern what the utensils were, and the owner of the home states: "He robbed me of this and this."
Regardless of whether the robber claimed: "I never entered his home and I did not take anything," "I entered his home as the witnesses observed, but I did not take anything. The utensils under my cloak were mine," or he said: "I took this utensil," and the owner claims that he took another utensil besides the one he admits - in all instances the owner of the home must take an oath while holding a sacred article to affirm his claim. He may then collect everything that he claims.
ב
כיצד הרי שנכנס לתוך בית חבירו למשכנו בפני עדים ולא היה כלום תחת כנפיו ויצא וכלים מוטלין לו תחת כנפיו ולא ידעו העדים מה הן ובעל הבית אומר כך וכך גזלתני. בין שאמר הגזלן מעולם לא נכנסתי ולא נטלתי כלום. בין שאמר נכנסתי למשכן כמו שראו העדים אבל לא נטלתי ולא היה תחת כנפי אלא כלים שלי. בין שאמר נטלתי כלי זה ובעל הבית טוען שנטל זה וכלי אחר הרי בעל הבית נשבע בנקיטת חפץ ונוטל כל מה שיטעון:
3
When does the above apply? When the owner claims that the robber took articles that one might assume that he owned or that it was possible that such goods would be entrusted to him for safekeeping, and it was possible for those articles to be taken out by the robber under his cloak, as the witnesses testify.
ג
במה דברים אמורים בשטען דברים שהוא אמוד [א] בהן או שהוא אמוד שמפקידין אצלו אותן דברים שטען וטען בדברים שאפשר שינטלו תחת הכנפים כמו שהעידו העדים:
4
Different rules apply, however, when witnesses observe a person enter a colleague's home to take collateral, but do not see him depart, or they see him depart without appearing to be carrying any utensil under his cloak. Although the owner claims that the defendant took such and such, the defendant is not held liable. This applies even if the defendant denies entering the home and thus contradicts the testimony of the witnesses.
The rationale is that if he claimed: "I entered his home but I did not take anything," he would be required to support his claim with a Rabbinic oath, and then he would be exonerated. For it is possible that he entered with the intent of committing robbery, but did not.
ד
ראוהו עדים שנכנס למשכן את חבירו ולא ראוהו בעת שיצא או שיצא ואין נראה תחת כנפיו כלום ובעל הבית טוען ואומר כך וכך נטל. אפילו אומר מעולם לא נכנסתי שהרי מכחיש את העדים הרי זה פטור שאם אמר נכנסתי ולא נטלתי נשבע שבועת הסת שלא נטל כלום והולך. שאפשר שיכנס [ב] לגזול ולא גזל:
5
Different rules apply when one witness testifies that a person entered a colleague's home and removed utensils under his cloak, but the witness was unable to recognize which utensils were taken, and the person who entered states: "I did not take anything," or he says, "I took goods that you gave to me because of a debt." The person who entered must take an oath while holding a sacred article that he did not commit robbery. He is given this prerogative because he is not considered to be a robber unless two witnesses testify against him.
ה
היה עד אחד מעידו שנכנס ונטל כלים תחת כנפיו ואינו יודע מה הן. והוא אומר לא גזלתי כלום או שאמר בחובי נטלתי. הואיל ואין העד יודע מה היה תחת כנפיו הרי זה נשבע בנקיטת חפץ שלא גזל. שאינו מוחזק בגזלנות אלא בשני עדים:
6
Just as the owner of a home is entitled to take an oath and collect his due from the robber in the instances mentioned in Halachot 1-3, so too, a watchman appointed by the home owner, or even the wife of a watchman, may take such an oath, stating that the person took goods. This obligates the robber to pay.
ו
כשם שבעל הבית נשבע ונוטל מן הגזלן כך שומר של ג בעל הבית אפילו אשתו של שומר נשבעת שזה נטל כך וכך ומשלם הגזלן:
7
If, however, the robber was observed by merely a worker or a harvester of the homeowner, they are not given the prerogative of taking an oath to allow the homeowner to collect against his claim. The person whose property was taken is not given the prerogative of taking the oath, because he was not at home at the time of the robbery. The witnesses are not able to identify the articles that the robber took under his cloak, so their testimony does not obligate him to make restitution. Nor is the robber given the opportunity to clear himself by taking an oath, for we suspect that he might take a false oath.
ז
היה שם לקיטו או שכירו של בעל הבית אינן נשבעין ונוטלין. ואין הנגזל יכול לישבע שהרי לא היה בביתו בשעה שנגזל ואין העדים יודעים מה נטל תחת כנפיו כדי לחייב הגזלן להחזיר. ואין משביעין את הגזלן מפני שהוא חשוד על השבועה:
8
How is this matter resolved? The home owner has a ban of ostracism issued against any person who took goods from his home and does not admit the matter to a court.
Even if the robber admits to having taken certain articles, he is required to return only what he admits, for the owner cannot lodge a definite claim against him.
ח
וכיצד עושים בדין זה מחרים בעל הבית חרם סתם על מי שנטל מביתו כלום ואינו מודה בבית דין. ואפילו הודה הגזלן שגזל קצת מחזיר המקצת שהודה בה בלבד שהרי אין בעל הבית טוענו טענת ודאי:
9
The following rules apply when a person robs one of five people, but does not know whom he robbed, and each of the five claims that it was he whom he robbed. Although there are no witnesses that this person robbed, each of the plaintiffs may take an oath, and then the robber is obligated to pay each the amount he admits.
This is also a penalty enforced by the Sages because he transgressed and robbed. According to Scriptural Law, however, he has no obligation to pay, because the identity of the person whom he robbed is a matter of doubt.
ט
הגוזל אחד מחמשה ואין ידוע מי הוא הנגזל וכל אחד ואחד מהן תובעו ואומר לי גזלת אע"פ שאין שם עדים שגזל הרי כל אחד מהן נשבע שזה גזלו ומשלם [ג] גזלה לכל אחד ואחד. אף דבר זה קנס הוא שקנסוהו חכמים מפני שעבר עבירה וגזל. אבל דין תורה אינו חייב לשלם מספק:
10
The following laws apply when a person tells two colleagues, "I robbed one of you" - or "...one of your fathers..." - "of a maneh, but I don't know whom." If he desires to fulfill his moral and spiritual obligation, he must pay the full amount of the robbery to each of the persons. The law, however, requires only that he give the value of the robbery, and they divide it among themselves.
The rationale is that neither of them knows that he has been robbed; it is the robber himself who is notifying them. Our Sages did not impose a penalty in this instance, because no one is lodging a claim against the robber.
י
אמר לשנים גזלתי אחד מכם או אביו של אחד מכם ואיני יודע איזהו. אם בא לצאת ידי שמים חייב לשלם גזלה לכל אחד ואחד. אבל בדין אינו נותן אלא גזלה אחת והן חולקין אותה ביניהן שהרי אין אחד מהן יודע שנגזל אלא זה בא והודיעם. ולא קנסו חכמים בדבר זה מפני שאין לו תובע:
11
The following laws apply when a person lodges a claim against a colleague, saying: "You robbed me of a maneh." If the defendant replies: "I did not rob from you," he is required to take a sh'vuat hesset, as is the case with regard to any defendant.
If he admits that he robbed him of 50 zuz, he must pay the fifty he admits owing and take an oath required by Scriptural Law with regard to the remainder, as is the case with regard to any person who admits a portion of a claim. He is allowed to take this oath because witnesses did not establish that he was a robber.
Similarly because it was not established that a person was a robber, he is given the benefit of the doubt in the following situation: a person claimed that a colleague entered his home and stole utensils from him. The colleague replied that he took the utensils as collateral for a debt that that person owed him. The owner of the home denied the debt. Although the colleague admitted that he took the collateral without permission, since there are no witnesses who testify that he committed robbery, he is permitted to take an oath and collect the debt he claims from the collateral. For the very mouth that created the problem, rationalized it. Since he is taking an oath and collecting money, he must take an oath while holding a sacred article, as will be explained in Hilchot To'en.
יא
הטוען את חבירו ואמר לו גזלתני מאה. אם אמר לא גזלתי נשבע שבועת היסת כדין כל נתבע. ואם הודה שגזלו חמשים משלם ונשבע שבועת התורה על השאר כדין כל מודה במקצת שהרי לא הוחזק גזלן בעדים. וכן הטוען את חבירו שנכנס לביתו וגזלו כלים והוא אומר דרך משכון לקחתי בחובי שיש לי אצלך ובעל הבית אומר אין לך בידי כלום אע"פ שהודה שמשכנו שלא ברשות הואיל ואין שם עדים שמעידים שגזל הרי זה נשבע [ד] וגובה חובו מן המשכון שהפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר. והואיל והוא נשבע ונוטל הרי זה נשבע בנקיטת חפץ כמו שיתבאר בהלכות טוען:
12
The following laws apply when witnesses observe a person enter a colleague's home when the owner is not home, and take utensils. These laws apply even when he does not conceal the utensils, and even when the owner of the home frequently sells his household articles.
If the owner claims: "He robbed them from me," and the defendant claims: "I entered with your permission, and you sold them to me," "...you gave them to me," or "I took them as payment for a debt you owe me," the defendant's claim is not accepted. The rationale is that whenever a person enters a colleague's home when he is not present and takes utensils and removes them in the presence of witnesses, we presume that he is a robber.
Therefore, he must return the utensils to the homeowner. The homeowner is not even required to take an oath, for the witnesses saw that the intruder committed robbery. After the defendant returns the utensils, he may lodge a suit against the homeowner according to his claims, and the judgment will be rendered according to law.
יב
ראוהו עדים שנכנס לתוך בית חבירו [ה] שלא בפני בעל הבית ונטל משם כלים אע"פ שהוציאן מגולין ואע"פ שבעל הבית הזה עשוי למכור את כליו. אם טען ואמר דרך גזל לקחן והלה אומר ברשותך באתי ואתה מכרתם לי או נתתם לי או בחוב שיש לי אצלך תפשתים אינו נאמן שכל הנכנס לבית חבירו שלא בפניו ונטל כלים משם והוציאן בפני עדים הרי זה בחזקת גזלן. לפיכך מחזיר הכלים לבעל הבית ואין כאן שבועה שהרי העדים ראו מה גזל. ואחר שיחזיר חוזר ותובע את בעל הבית בכל מה שיטעון והדין ביניהן:
13
Similarly, if only one witness observed the intruder taking the article, and the homeowner claims that the intruder robbed him of the article, while the defendant claims that he purchased it, he took it as payment for a debt, or it was his and was entrusted to the homeowner for safekeeping, the intruder is obligated to return the article to the homeowner, and the homeowner is not even required to take an oath.
The rationale is that if two witnesses had observed the matter, the defendant would have been obligated to pay. Since there is only one witness, the defendant is required to take an oath. And in this instance he cannot take the oath, because he does not deny the statement of the witness. Therefore, we follow the principle: Whenever a person is obligated to take an oath and cannot take that oath, he must pay.
Accordingly, different rules apply if the defendant denied the matter, saying: "I never entered his house, nor did I take anything." Since there is only one witness, and the defendant denies his testimony, he is obligated to take an oath mandated by Scriptural Law, stating that he did not take anything from the home. With this, he is exonerated.
יג
וכן אם ה היה שם עד אחד בלבד ובעל הבית טוען שגזול הוא כלי זה בידו והלה אומר לקוח הוא בידי או בחוב גביתיו או שלי היה ופקדון הוא אצלך הרי זה חייב להחזיר הכלי לבעליו בלא שבועה שאילו היה שם שני עדים היה חייב לשלם ועכשיו שאין שם אלא עד אחד חייב שבועה ואינו יכול לישבע שהרי אינו מכחיש את העד וכל המחוייב שבועה ואינו יכול לישבע משלם. לפיכך אם [ו] כפר ואמר לא נכנסתי לביתו ולא נטלתי כלום הואיל ואין שם אלא עד אחד והוא מכחישו הרי זה נשבע שבועת התורה שלא לקח מביתו כלום ונפטר:
14
The following incident occurred. A person took a slab of silver from a colleague in the presence of one witness. The person who took the silver said: "Yes, I took it; and it was mine." Our Sages obligated him to return the silver, because the testimony of the witness obligates him to take an oath. He cannot take the oath, because he admits to what the witness says.
Had there not been a witness involved, he would have been able to take a Rabbinic oath that the silver he seized belonged to him.If he denied the statements of the witness and said, "I never took the silver," he would be required to take an oath required by Scriptural Law that he did not take it. This judgment should be followed universally in all analogous cases.
יד
מעשה באחד שחטף לשון של כסף [ז] מיד חבירו בפני עד אחד. ובא החוטף ואמר חטפתי ושלי חטפתי וחייבוהו חכמים להחזיר מפני שהוא מחוייב שבועה בעד זה ואינו [ח] יכול לישבע שהרי הודה כמו [ט] שאמר העד. ואילו לא היה שם עד כלל היה נשבע שבועת היסת ששלו חטף ואילו הכחיש העד ואמר מעולם לא חטפתי היה נשבע שבועת התורה שלא חטף. וכדין זה דנין בכל כיוצא בזה בכל מקום:
15
The following rules apply if a person seizes gold coins from a colleague and the act was observed by one witness. The defendant says: "I seized my own money. There were twenty gold coins." Although the witness does not know how many coins there were, the defendant must pay twenty coins, for the witness knows that he took gold coins. If two witnesses had observed him, he would have been obligated to pay the full amount. Thus, when there is one witness, he is obligated to take an oath, but cannot, as explained above.
טו
חטף ממנו זהובים [בעד אחד] והוא אומר שלי חטפתי ועשרים היו אע"פ שאין העד יודע כמה חטף הרי זה משלם העשרים שהרי ידע בודאי שזהובים חטף ואילו היו שנים היה חייב לשלם ונמצא בעד אחד מחוייב שבועה ואינו יכול לישבע כמו שביארנו:
16
There are opinions that maintain that the following rule applies when, in the above situation, the person who took the coins said: "I seized twenty gold coins; they were mine," while the person who was robbed says, "He took 100." The defendant must pay the twenty he admitted to having taken, and take an oath required by Scriptural Law with regard to the remainder, for he was obligated for a portion of the plaintiff's claim. My opinion is that he is required merely to take a Rabbinic oath, for he did not admit any liability. Instead, he said that he took what belonged to him.
טז
אמר החוטף עשרים חטפתי ושלי הן והנגזל אומר מאה חטף הואיל ואין העד יודע מניינן הרי משלם העשרים שהודה בהן שחטפן ונשבע שבועת התורה על השאר שהרי נתחייב במקצת. [י] ודעתי נוטה בזה שישבע היסת שהרי לא הודה כלום אלא אמר שלי חטפתי:
17
The following rules apply when a person enters a colleague's home when he is not present and takes utensils, while observed by one witness. The witness does not know how many utensils were taken. The owner claims that he had twenty utensils in his home, while the person who took them states: "I took only ten, and they were my own."
The defendant is required to return the ten, for he is obligated to take an oath, but cannot. He is not required to take even a Rabbinic oath concerning the remainder, because the owner cannot issue a definite claim against the robber.
יז
נכנס לביתו של חבירו שלא בפניו ונטל משם כלים בפני עד אחד ואין העד יודע כמה נטל (הרי) בעל הבית אומר עשרים כלים היו בביתי והגוזל אומר לא נטלתי אלא עשרה והם שלי חייב להחזיר העשרה מפני שהוא מחוייב שבועה ואינו יכול לישבע. ואינו נשבע על השאר אפילו שבועת היסת מפני שאינו יכול לטעון על הגזלן
Gezelah va'Avedah - Chapter Five
1
It is forbidden to purchase an object obtained by robbery from the robber. Similarly, it is forbidden to assist him in changing its nature, so that the robber will acquire it.
Whoever acts in this manner or the like assists transgressors and violates the prohibition Leviticus 19:14: "Do not place a stumbling block before the blind."
א
אסור לקנות דבר הגזול מן הגזלן ואסור לסעדו על שינויו כדי שיקנהו שכל העושה דברים אלו וכיוצא בהן מחזק ידי עוברי עבירה ועובר על ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול:
2
It is forbidden for anyone to benefit from an article obtained by robbery even after its rightful owner has despaired of its return, if one knows for certain that this object was obtained through robbery.
What is implied? If one knows for certain that a particular animal was obtained by robbery, it is forbidden to ride on it or plow with it.
ב
אסור ליהנות בדבר הגזול ואפילו לאחר יאוש והוא שידע בודאי שדבר זה הוא הגזלה עצמה. כיצד ידע בודאי שבהמה זו גזולה אסור לרכוב עליה או לחרוש בה:
3
When a person obtains a house or a field by robbery, it is forbidden to pass through it or enter it. This applies even merely to seek shade or shelter from the rain. If he lives in another person's home, he must pay rent to the legal owners, as mentioned above with regard to a person who lives in a colleague's courtyard without the owner's knowledge.
If a person cuts down palm trees and constructs a bridge from them, it is forbidden for anyone to pass over it. The same applies with regard to other similar situations.
ג
גזל בית או שדה אסור לעבור בתוכה או ליכנס בה בחמה מפני החמה ובגשמים מפני הגשמים. ואם דר בתוכה חייב להעלות שכר לבעלים כדין הדר בחצר חבירו שלא מדעתו. גזל דקלים ועשה מהן גשר אסור לעבור עליו וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
4
If a person transgressed and ate an object obtained by robbery after the owners despaired of its return, he is not liable to compensate the owners.
If he ate the article before the owners despaired of its return the owners must be compensated. They may collect from the person who ate the article, for it is still in their possession. Or if they desire, they may collect from the robber.
ד
מי שעבר ואכל הגזלה אחר יאוש פטור [א] מלשלם. ואם אכל קודם יאוש ורצו הבעלים לגבות מן האוכל גובין שעדיין ברשותן היא. ואם רצו גובין מן הגזלן:
5
The following rules apply when a person commits robbery and dies. There is no difference if he fed the object he obtained by robbery to his sons after the owner despaired of its return, or rather than feed it to them he sold it or it was lost.
If the robber left landed property, his heirs must reimburse the original owner. According to Talmudic law, they need not, by contrast, reimburse him if he left only movable property. For the value of the object obtained by robbery is considered to be a debt owed by the robber, and movable property is not placed on lien to a creditor after the principal's death.
ה
[ב] הגוזל ומת בין שהאכיל את הגזלה לבנים אחר יאוש בין שלא האכילם אלא מכרה או אבדה. אם הניח קרקע חייבין לשלם. אבל מן המטלטלין אינן חייבין לשלם. שדמי הגזלה חוב הן על הגזלן ואין המטלטלין משתעבדין לבעל חוב:
6
The Geonim have already ordained that a debt owed a creditor can be expropriated from the movable property in the estate. This applies even to a loan supported by a verbal commitment alone. Therefore, in the above instance, the heirs are liable to reimburse the owners from either the landed property or the movable property in the robber's estate, regardless of whether or not the heirs ate the article obtained by robbery, and whether or not the owners despaired of its return.
ו
כבר תקנו [ג] הגאונים לגבות בעל חוב מן המטלטלין ואפילו במלוה על פה. לפיכך חייבין לשלם בין אכלו בין לא אכלו. בין נתייאשו בין לא נתייאשו. בין מן הקרקע בין מן המטלטלין שהניח:
7
The laws applying to a person who purchases movable property from a robber are the same as those applying to one who purchases from a thief. If the reputation of the robber was a matter of public knowledge, our Sages did not grant any leniency. If the robber's reputation was not public knowledge, our Sages ordained leniency to enable uninhibited trade in the marketplace, and required the original owner to pay a purchaser the price he paid for the article taken by robbery. He may then take the article and sue the robber for the price of the article.
If the owner already despaired of the article's return, the purchaser is considered to have acquired the article itself and is not required to return it.
ז
דין הלוקח מטלטלין מן הגזלן כלוקח מן הגנב. אם גזלן מפורסם הוא לא עשו בו תקנת השוק. ואם אינו מפורסם עשו בו תקנת השוק ונותן הנגזל דמים שנתן ולוקח גזילתו וחוזר ותובע הגזלן בדמי הגזלה. ואם כבר נתייאשו הבעלים קנה לוקח עצמה של גזילה ואינו מחזירה:
8
It is forbidden to benefit from a robber's property.If even a minor portion of his property was legitimately his, one is allowed to benefit from his property, unless one is certain that the article from which one is benefiting was obtained by robbery.
ח
אסור ליהנות מן הגזלן ואם היה מיעוט שלו אע"פ שרוב [ד] ממונו גזול מותר ליהנות ממנו עד שידע בודאי שדבר זה גזול בידו:
9
It is forbidden to benefit from the property of people whom we can assume to be robbers, when all of their property can be assumed to have come from robbery, for their profession is based on robbery - e.g., customs-collectors and highwaymen.
We may not change money from their cash-box, for all their money can be assumed to have come from robbery.
ט
בני אדם שחזקתן גזלנין וחזקת כל ממונן מן הגזל מפני שמלאכתן מלאכת גזלנין כגון המוכסין ג והליסטים אסור ליהנות מהן שחזקת מלאכה זו שהוא גזול ואין מצטרפים דינרים מן התיבה שלהן שהכל בחזקת גזלה:
10
If a customs-collector takes a person's garment and then returns another one to him, or he takes a person's donkey and returns another one to him, the person may keep the one returned. This is considered to be a transaction, and we can assume that the original owner despaired of its return. Moreover, we do not know for certain that this object was obtained by robbery. If the recipient is diligent and is wont to be stringent concerning his personal gain, he should return the object to its original owner.
י
נטלו מוכסים כסותו והחזירו לו אחרת (נטלו חמורו והחזירו לו חמור אחר) הרי [ה] אלו שלו מפני שזו כמכירה היא וחזקתה שנתייאשו הבעלים ממנה ואינו יודע בודאי שזו גזילה. ואם היה ותיק ומחמיר על עצמו מחזירן לבעלים הראשונים:
11
When does the statement that a customs-collector is considered to be a highwayman apply? When the customs collector is a gentile, is self-appointed, or was appointed by the king but is given unlimited jurisdiction and takes whatever he wants and leaves whatever he wants.
If, however, the customs-collector was appointed by the king to take a third, a fourth or any fixed amount of the subjects' goods or their value, the customs collector appoints a Jew to collect this sum for the king, and it is known that this person is faithful and does not add anything beyond what the king decreed, this person is not considered a robber. For the law established by the king is binding law. Indeed, anyone who does not pay this tax transgresses, for he is taking what is due the king. This applies whether the king is Jewish or gentile.
יא
במה דברים אמורים ד שהמוכס כליסטים בזמן שהמוכס עכו"ם או מוכס העומד מאליו או מוכס העומד מחמת המלך ואין לו קצבה אלא לוקח מה [ו] שירצה ומניח מה שירצה. אבל מכס שפסקו המלך ואמר שיקח שליש או רביע או דבר קצוב והעמיד מוכס ישראל לגבות חלק זה למלך ונודע שאדם זה נאמן ואינו מוסיף כלום על מה שגזר המלך אינו בחזקת גזלן לפי שדין המלך דין הוא. ולא עוד אלא שהוא עובר המבריח ממכס זה מפני שהוא גוזל מנת המלך בין שהיה המלך עכו"ם בין שהיה המלך ישראל:
12
Similarly, if a king imposes a tax on all the inhabitants of a city, a fixed annual head tax or a fixed annual property tax, or decrees that anyone who violates a particular law will have all his property confiscated by the king, or decrees that anyone who is found in a field at the harvest time must pay the tax on it whether or not he is the owner of the field, or any similar decree, it is not considered to be robbery.
A Jew who collects these duties on behalf of the king is not considered to be a robber. On the contrary, he is considered of upright character, provided he does not add to or change the king's levy in any way, nor take any for himself.
יב
וכן מלך שמשים מס על בני העיר או על כל איש ואיש דבר קצוב משנה לשנה או על שדה ושדה דבר קצוב. או שגזר שכל מי שיעבור על דבר זה ילקחו כל נכסיו לבית המלך. או כל מי שימצא בשדה בשעת הגורן הוא יתן [ז] המס שעליה בין שהיה הוא בעל השדה בין שאינו בעל השדה. וכל כיוצא מדברים אלו אינו גזל וישראל שגבה אותן למלך אינו בחזקת גזלן והרי הוא כשר. והוא שלא יוסיף ולא ישנה ולא יקח לעצמו כלום:
13
Similarly, if a king becomes angered with a servant or an attendant who is one of his subjects and confiscates his field or his courtyard, it is not considered to be robbery, and one is permitted to benefit from it. If a person purchases it from the king, it becomes his and the original owners cannot expropriate it from him. For this is the law exercised by all kings: to confiscate all the property of their attendants if they become angered by them.
Thus, it is the king who annulled the ownership over this courtyard or field, making it ownerless. Therefore, the person buying it from the king legally acquires it.
If, however, a king confiscates a courtyard or a field from one of the subjects of his country in a manner that is not in accordance with the laws that he enacted, he is considered to be a robber, and the owners may expropriate the property from the person who purchased it from the king.
יג
וכן מלך שכעס על אחד מעבדיו ושמשיו מבני המדינה ולקח שדהו או חצירו אינה גזל ומותר ליהנות בה והלוקחה מן המלך הרי היא שלו ואין הבעלים מוציאין אותה מידו. שזה דין המלכים כולם ליקח כל ממון שמשיהם כשכועסין עליהם והרי המלך הפקיע שעבודן ונעשית חצר זו או שדה זו כהפקר וכל הקונה אותה מן המלך זכה בה. ב אבל מלך שלקח חצר או שדה של אחד מבני המדינה שלא בדינין שחקק הרי זה [ח] גזלן והלוקח ממנו מוציאין הבעלים מידו:
14
The general principle is: Any law that a king decrees to be universally applicable, and not merely applying to one person, is not considered robbery. But whenever he takes from one person alone in a manner that does not conform to a known law, but rather seizes the property from the person arbitrarily, it is considered to be robbery.
Therefore, when the king's tax collectors and enforcement officers sell fields because the owner did not pay the fixed tax for the field, the sale is binding. A head tax, however, is the personal responsibility of each person and it may not be collected from his property. Thus, if a field was sold because an individual was delinquent in paying the head tax, the sale is not binding, unless this is the law enacted by this particular king.
יד
כללו של דבר כל דין שיחקוק אותו המלך לכל ולא [ט] יהיה לאדם אחד בפני עצמו אינו גזל. וכל שיקח מאיש זה בלבד שלא כדת הידועה לכל אלא חמס את זה הרי זה גזל. ג לפיכך גבאי המלך ושוטריו שמוכרים השדות במס [י] הקצוב על השדות ממכרן ממכר. אבל מס שעל כל איש ואיש אינו גובה אלא מן האדם עצמו ואם מכרו השדה במס שעל הראש הרי זה אינו ממכר אלא אם כן היה דין המלך כך:
15
The following rules apply when the law of a king is that whoever pays the tax for a particular field acquires ownership of that field. If the owner of a field flees to avoid paying the property tax, and another person pays this tax to the king and derives benefit from that field, it is not considered to be robbery.
The one who paid the taxes may reap the benefit of the field provided he continues to pay the taxes until the owners return and pay this duty. For the law of a king is binding, as stated above.
טו
מלך שהיו דיניו שכל שלא יתן המס שעל השדה תהיה השדה לנותן המס וברח בעל השדה מפני המס ובא זה ונתן מס שעליה למלך ואכל פירותיה אין זה גזל אלא [כ] אוכל פירות ונותן המס עד שיחזרו הבעלים שדין המלך דין הוא כמו שאמרנו:
16
Similarly, if a king decrees that whoever pays a head tax for a person who has not paid acquires the delinquent person as a servant the decree is binding. If one Jew comes and pays a head tax for another indigent, he may compel him to work beyond ordinary limits, for the laws of a king are binding. He may not, however, have him toil as a slave.
טז
וכן מלך שגזר שכל מי שיתן מס הקצוב על האיש ישתעבד בזה שלא נתן ובא ישראל ונתן המס שעל ישראל זה העני הרי זה עובד בו [ל] יותר מדאי שדין המלך דין אבל אינו עובד בו כעבד:
17
When a king cuts down trees belonging to private people and uses them for a bridge, one is permitted to cross over it. Similarly, if he destroys homes in order to construct a road or a wall, it is permitted to benefit from it. The same principle applies in all analogous situations, because the laws of a king are binding.
יז
מלך שכרת אילנות של בעלי בתים ועשה מהן גשר מותר לעבור עליו. וכן אם הרס בתים ועשאן דרך או חומה מותר ליהנות בה וכן כל כיוצא בזה שדין המלך דין:
18
When does the above apply? When the coins issued by a king are the tender of the land. This indicates that the inhabitants of that land have accepted him and consider him to be their leader and themselves to be his subjects.
If, however, the coins he issues are not the tender of the land, he is considered to be a robber who takes by the force of arms. He and his servants are like a band of armed thieves, whose laws are not binding. Such a king and his servants are considered to be robbers in all respects.
יח
במה דברים אמורים במלך שמטבעו יוצא באותן הארצות שהרי הסכימו עליו בני אותה הארץ וסמכה דעתן שהוא אדוניהם והם לו עבדים. אבל אם אין מטבעו יוצא הרי הוא כגזלן בעל זרוע וכמו חבורת ליסטים המזויינין שאין דיניהם דין וכן מלך זה וכל עבדיו גזלנין לכל דבר:
Gezelah va'Avedah - Chapter Six
1
The following rules apply when a river washes away beams, stones, wood and the like. If the owners despaired of their return, it is permitted for the finder to keep them, and they become his property. If, however, the finder does not know whether or not the owners have despaired, he is obligated to return the objects. Needless to say, this applies if the owners are pursuing the article.
א
קורות ואבנים ועצים וכיוצא בהן ששטפם הנהר אם נתייאשו הבעלים מהן הרי אלו מותרין והן של מצילן ואם אינו יודע אם נתייאשו אם לא נתייאשו חייב להחזיר ואין צריך לומר אם היו הבעלים מרדפין אחריהם:
2
Therefore, the same principle is applied when a person saves an article from the bed of a sea, from a flooding river, from gentiles, from a fire, from a lion, from a bear, from a tiger or from a leopard. If one knows that the owners have despaired of the article's return, it may be kept by the finder. If one does not know, one must return it.
ב
לפיכך
3
When a person saves an article from a Jewish robber, he may keep it, for we assume that the owners despaired of its return. If, however, he knows that they did not despair of its return, he is obligated to return it.
When, by contrast, a person saves an article from a gentile robber, he is obligated to return it, for we do not assume that the owners despaired of its return. If, however, he knows that they did despair of its return, he may keep it.
Why do we say with regard to Jewish robbers that we can assume that the owners despair, while with regard to gentile robbers we do not assume that they despair? Because the owners know that the gentile authorities will require a robber to return an article obtained by robbery, although there are no witnesses that he committed robbery. Circumstantial evidence and probability are sufficient.
ג
המציל מיד ליסטים ישראל הרי אלו שלו מפני שסתם הדבר שנתייאשו הבעלים. ואם ידע שלא נתייאשו חייב להחזיר. אבל המציל מיד לסטים עובד כוכבים או מוכס עכו"ם חייב להחזיר שסתם הדבר שלא נתייאשו הבעלים. ואם ידע בודאי שנתייאשו הרי אלו שלו. ומפני מה סתם ליסטים ישראל נתייאשו הבעלים וסתם העכו"ם לא נתייאשו. מפני שהבעלים יודעים שהעכו"ם מחזירין מיד הגזלן אף על פי שאין שם עדים שגזל אלא בראיות רעועות ובאומד הדעת:
4
It is not considered robbery to take fresh cress that grows among flax, because it harms the flax belonging to the owner of the field. If the cress has become dry, taking it is considered robbery, because it has already caused whatever damage it might cause.
If it grows on the border of the rows of flax, it is forbidden to be taken even if it is fresh.
ד
שחליים הצומחים בתוך הפשתן המלקטן כשהן לחין אין בו משום גזל מפני שהן מפסידין הפשתן של בעל השדה. ואם יבשו אסורין משום גזל שכבר הפסידו מה שהפסידו. ואם היו על הגבול אסורין אפילו כשהן לחין:
5
We have stated in Hilchot Nizkei Mammon that taking straw and hay that a person has placed in the public domain is not considered robbery. If, however, a piece of feces is placed in the public domain, whether during the time when taking out wastes is permitted or at other times, taking it is considered to be robbery.
ה
כבר ביארנו בנזקי ממון שהמוציא תבנו וקשו לרשות הרבים אין בהם משום גזל. אבל המוציא הגלל לרשות הרבים בין בשעת הוצאת זבלים בין שלא בשעת הוצאת זבלים חייבין עליהם משום גזל:
6
When a person's clothes were exchanged for those belonging to another person at a house of mourning or a place of celebration,he should not use the article in his possession unless the owner comes and returns the original article and takes his own.
Slightly different rules apply if a person's articles become exchanged for another's in the home of a craftsman. If the craftsman's wife or children gave him the articles, or the craftsman gave him the articles and told him: "Take your articles," the person should not use the articles in his possession unless the owner comes and returns the original articles and takes his own.
If, however, the craftsman tells him: "Take this article," he may use it until the owner comes and returns the original articles and takes his own. For it is possible that the article belongs to the craftsman, or that the owner of the article told the craftsman to sell it for him. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
ו
מי שנתחלפו לו כליו בכלים אחרים בבית האבל או בבית המשתה הרי זה לא ישתמש בהן עד שיבא הלה ויחזיר ויטול את שלו. נתחלפו לו בבית האומן אם אשתו ובניו של אומן נתנו לו או שנתן לו האומן ואמר לו טול כליך הרי זה לא ישתמש בהן עד שיבא הלה ויחזיר ויטול את שלו. אמר לו האומן טול כלי זה הרי זה ישתמש בו עד שיבא הלה ויחזיר ויטול את שלו שמא כליו של אומן הוא או בעל הכלי צוה את האומן למכרו לו וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
7
Our Sages forbade many acts, classifying them as robbery - e.g., one who sets doves into flight or plays dice. If a person transgresses these prohibitions, he is considered a robber by Rabbinic decree.
What is meant by setting doves into flight? A person should not set doves into flight in a settled area, because he will take property belonging to others unjustly. For he will send out a male and it will bring a female from another dovecote; he will send out a female and it will bring a male.
This does not apply to doves alone. Instead, anyone who performs a like act with regard to other fowl, beasts or domesticated animals is considered to be a robber by Rabbinic decree.
ז
דברים הרבה אסרו חכמים משום גזל והעובר עליהן הרי זה גזלן מדבריהם. כגון מפריחי יונים והמשחקים בקוביא. מפריחי יונים כיצד. לא יפריח אדם בתוך היישוב שהרי לוקח ממון אחרים שלא כדין מפני שמשלח זכר ויביא נקבה משובך אחר או נקבה ותביא זכר. ולא יונים בלבד אלא כל העושה כזה בשאר עופות או חיה ובהמה הרי זה גזלן מדבריהם:
8
Similarly, our Sages forbade snaring doves within a settled area, for we can assume that the doves belong to others. One may not set a snare for doves unless one places a distance of fourmilbetween the snare and the settled area. Moreover, if the settled area is composed of vineyards, one should not set a snare even within 100 mil, for the doves belong to the owners of the vineyards.
Similarly, a person should not set a snare among dovecotes even if he owns those dovecotes, or they belong to a gentile or are ownerless, even if the dovecotes are more than 100 mil from the settled area, for the doves from the settled area will come to the area of the dovecotes.
ח
וכן אסרו חכמים לצוד יונים בתוך היישוב מפני שהן של אחרים ואין פורשין נישובין ליונים אלא אם כן הרחיק מן היישוב ארבעה מילין. ואם היה יישוב כרמים אפילו מאה מיל לא יפרוש שהיונים של בעלי כרמים הם. וכן לא יפרוש בתוך השובכין אע"פ שהן שלו או של עכו"ם או של הפקר ואף על פי שהרחיק מן היישוב מאה מיל מפני שהיונים [ב] באות ליישוב השובכין:
9
When constructing a dovecote, a person should position it at least 50 cubits from the village. Similarly, a person should not construct a dovecote in his field unless he owns the property in a radius of 50 cubits on all sides, so the doves will not be drawn forth and damage the fields of others by eating their produce.
If a person purchased a dovecote from another person, he may continue using it even if there is only a distance in which a quarter of a kav of grain can be sown between the dovecote and the beginning of his colleague's field. We do not require him to move it further away.
ט
מרחיקין את השובך מן העיר חמשים אמה ולא יעשה אדם שובך [ג] בתוך שדהו אלא אם כן יש לו חמשים אמה לכל רוח כדי שלא ימשכו הגוזלות ויפסידו בשדות ויאכלו משל אחרים. ואם לקחו מאחר אפילו היה בינו ובין תחילת שדה חבירו בית רובע בלבד הרי הוא בחזקתו ואין מחייבין אותו להרחיק:
10
What is meant by dice players? People who play with pieces of wood, pebbles, bones or the like and establish a condition that whoever will better a colleague in this sport is entitled to take a certain amount of money from him. This is robbery according to Rabbinic decree. Although the person himself consents to the other person's taking his money, since he is taking it for nothing, as part of the frivolous sport, it is considered to be robbery.
Similarly, those who gamble with regard to domesticated animals, beasts or fowl, making a condition that whosoever's animal will vanquish or outrace the other one's is entitled to take a certain amount of money from him - this and all forms of gambling are forbidden and considered to be robbery by Rabbinic decree.
י
המשחקין בקוביא כיצד. אלו שמשחקים בעצים או בצרורות או בעצמות וכיוצא בהן ועושים תנאי ביניהם שכל הנוצח את חבירו באותו שחוק יקח ממנו כך וכך הרי זה גזל מדבריהם. אע"פ שברצון הבעלים לקח הואיל ולקח ממון חבירו בחנם דרך שחוק והתול הרי זה גוזל. וכן המשחקים בבהמה או בחיה או בעופות ועושים תנאי שכל שתנצח בהמתו או תרוץ יותר יקח מחבירו כך וכך וכל כיוצא בדברים אלו הכל אסור וגזל מדבריהם הוא:
11
When a person plays dice with gentiles, he does not violate the prohibition against robbery. He does, however, violate the prohibition against occupying oneself with empty matters. It is not fitting for a person to spend any of his days occupied in anything other than words of wisdom or pursuits that lead to a stable world.
יא
והמשחק בקוביא עם העכו"ם אין בו איסור גזל אבל יש בו איסור עוסק בדברים בטלים שאין ראוי לאדם שיעסוק כל ימיו אלא בדברי חכמה
12
The following principle applies with regard to snares for beasts, fowl and fish: If an animal falls into such a snare and another person takes it, this is considered robbery by Rabbinic law. It is not considered to be robbery by Scriptural law because they have not as yet entered the possession of the person who acquires them.
יב
מצודות חיה ועופות ודגים שנפלו מיני החיה לתוך המצודה ובא אחר ונטלן הרי זה גזל מדבריהם מפני [ד] שעדיין לא הגיעו ליד הזוכה בהן:
13
A river and a stream that flow belong to all people.
When a poor person climbs to the top of an olive tree and beats the branches so that olives that have been forgotten by their owner will fall, he is entitled to them. If another poor person takes them, it is considered robbery by Rabbinic decree.
If the poor person collects them in his hand and then throws them to the earth, taking them is full-fledged robbery, for they have entered the possession of the person who acquires them.
יג
נהר המושך ומעיינות הנובעין הרי הן של כל אדם. עני המנקף בראש הזית זיתים של שכחה ובא עני אחר ונטלן מעל הארץ הרי זה גזל [ה] מדבריהם. ואם היה העני מקבץ בידו בראש הזית ומשליך לארץ הרי זה גזל גמור שהרי הגיעו ליד הזוכה בהן:
14
Unlike chickens and ducks, bees are not considered the private property of a person according to Scriptural law. Nevertheless, it is possible to acquire them according to Rabbinic law.
A person who steals a swarm of bees or prevents their owner from taking them if the swarm comes into his domain is considered a robber by Rabbinic decree. Thus, if a swarm of bees leaves a person's property and comes to rest in a colleague's property, the owner of the bees has the right to enter his colleague's field and proceed until he takes his bees. If in his progress he damages his colleague's field, he must reimburse him for the damages. He may not, however, cut down a branch with the intent that later he will reimburse the owner for the damages.
יד
הדבורים אינן ברשותו של אדם כמו תרנגולים ואווזים ואף על פי כן יש בהן קניין מדבריהם. והגוזל נחיל דבורים או שמנעו מבעליו אם בא לרשותו הרי זה גזל מדבריהם. לפיכך מי שיצא נחיל של דבורים מרשותו ושכן ברשות חבירו יש לבעל הנחיל להלך בתוך שדה חבירו עד שיטול את נחילו ואם הזיק משלם מה שהזיק. אבל לא יקוץ את שוכה על מנת ליתן דמים:
15
We accept the statements of a woman or a minor who says, "this swarm of bees left this property," provided that the statements are made in the course of conversation and the owners are pursuing the swarm and asking "Where did it come to rest?"
Although a woman or a minor is not generally accepted as a witness, since the ownership of bees is a matter of Rabbinic law, their testimony is accepted in this case.
טו
נאמנת אשה או קטן לומר מכאן יצא נחיל זה והוא שיהיו משיחין לפי תומן ויהיו הבעלים מרדפין אחר הנחיל ושואלים היכן חונה. ואע"פ שאין אשה או קטן בני עדות הואיל וקניין דבורים מדבריהם האמינו אותם בו:
16
Whenever a person is in possession of property that is considered to be robbed according to Rabbinic law, it cannot be expropriated by judges.
Similarly, if the person denied possession of it and took a false oath to that effect, he is not required to add a fifth, as he is with regard to property acquired by full-fledged robbery.
טז
כל מי שיש בידו גזל של דבריהם אינו יוצא מידו בדיינין. וכן אם כפר בו ונשבע אינו מוסיף חומש כמו שמוסיף על הגזל הגמור:
Hayom Yom: Today's Hayom Yom
• Tuesday, 20 Tammuz, 5776 · 26 July 2016
• "Today's Day"
• Friday Tamuz 20 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Pinchas, Shishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 97-103.
Tanya: Precisely so (p. 357) ...or articulation. (p. 357).
There are three forms of hitbon'nut (contemplation, meditation):
(a.) Study-meditation: After mastering the concept thoroughly, one meditates on its profundity, until the intellectual element shines forth for him.
(b.) Meditation before davening: This is directed toward sensing the vitality of the concept learned, in contrast to sensing the intellectual element emphasized in study-meditation.
(c.) Meditation in davening: To sense the "G-dly element" in the concept learned.
These three are rungs on the ladder of sensitivity. It is only by G-d's kindness towards us that we may occasionally sense G-dhood spontaneously, without any avoda at all. This comes about by virtue of the quality of Ultimate Essential G-dhood1 within the soul. For avoda by one's own efforts, however, these three forms of meditation are essential.
FOOTNOTES
1.Atzmut.
• Daily Thought:
Heritage
The history of the Jewish people is not just one of rise and fall. It is a process, a purification, a sieve of many filters, a smelting furnace that refines the raw ore again and again until only the purest gold remains.
That is why today we are able to do a mitzvah today in a world so foreign to mitzvahs; to fill our lives with that which filled our great-grandparent’s and raise children that way; to go against the stream of the culture around us and be the Jew inherent within.
It is not with our own power, or with our own minds. It is with a hidden memory, an indestructible force that survived as our heritage.
Torah lessons: Chumash: Pinchas, Shishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 97-103.
Tanya: Precisely so (p. 357) ...or articulation. (p. 357).
There are three forms of hitbon'nut (contemplation, meditation):
(a.) Study-meditation: After mastering the concept thoroughly, one meditates on its profundity, until the intellectual element shines forth for him.
(b.) Meditation before davening: This is directed toward sensing the vitality of the concept learned, in contrast to sensing the intellectual element emphasized in study-meditation.
(c.) Meditation in davening: To sense the "G-dly element" in the concept learned.
These three are rungs on the ladder of sensitivity. It is only by G-d's kindness towards us that we may occasionally sense G-dhood spontaneously, without any avoda at all. This comes about by virtue of the quality of Ultimate Essential G-dhood1 within the soul. For avoda by one's own efforts, however, these three forms of meditation are essential.
FOOTNOTES
1.Atzmut.
• Daily Thought:
Heritage
The history of the Jewish people is not just one of rise and fall. It is a process, a purification, a sieve of many filters, a smelting furnace that refines the raw ore again and again until only the purest gold remains.
That is why today we are able to do a mitzvah today in a world so foreign to mitzvahs; to fill our lives with that which filled our great-grandparent’s and raise children that way; to go against the stream of the culture around us and be the Jew inherent within.
It is not with our own power, or with our own minds. It is with a hidden memory, an indestructible force that survived as our heritage.
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment