- ב"ה - Today in Judaism - Today is Friday, Tammuz 6, 5777 · June 30, 2017 - Candle Lighting - Light Candles before sunset ––:–– Today in Jewish History:
• Entebbe Rescue (1976)
Jewish hostages held by Arab terrorists at Entebbe Airport, Uganda, were rescued by Israeli commando units in 1976.
Links:
More on the Entebbe Rescue
Daily Quote:
Against your will you are formed, against your will you are born, against your will you live, against your will you die... [Ethics of the Fathers 4:22]
Daily Torah Study:
Daily Torah Study:
Chumash: Chukat, 6th Portion Numbers 21:10-21:20 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation
• Video Class
• Daily Wisdom (short insight)
• Hebrew text
• English text
• English Text (Lessons in Tanya)
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class
Friday, Tammuz 6, 5777 · June 30, 2017
Today's Tanya Lesson
Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, end of Chapter 12
AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES
• VIDEO CLASS: Rabbi Yehoshua B. Gordon Watch • Listen
• AUDIO CLASS: Rabbi Manis Freidman Listen • Download MP3כי הן, דרך משל, דוגמת אור המאיר בלילה באר׳ מן הירח, ואור הירח הוא מהשמש
For they (the substituted letters), by way of illustration, resemble the light that shines upon the earth at night from the moon — and the moonlight is from the sun,
ונמצא אור שעל האר׳ הוא אור האור של השמש
hence, the light which is on the earth is a light [reflected] from the light of the sun.
וככה ממש, דרך משל, האותיות שבמאמרות הן כוללות המשכת החיות והאור והכח ממדותיו של הקב״ה
Exactly so, allegorically speaking, the letters comprising the Utterances are the aggregate flow of the life-force and the light and the power [that issue] from the attributes of the Holy one, blessed be He,
לברוא העולמות מאין ליש, ולהחיותן ולקיימן כל זמן משך רצונו יתברך
to create the worlds from nothingness and to give them life and sustain them as long as such shall be His blessed Will.
The general life-force thus emanates from the Utterances themselves.
ומכללות המשכה והארה גדולה זו
From this aggregate flow and mighty radiation of the Utterances themselves,
האיר ה׳ והמשיך ממנה תולדותיה כיוצא בה וענפיה
G‑d caused its similar derivations and its offshoots to shine and issue forth,
שהן תולדות והמשכת האור מהאותיות
these being derivations and effluences of the light from the letters.
והן הן חילופי אותיות ותמורותיהן, וברא בהן ברואים פרטים שבכל עולם
And these derivations and offshoots are the substitutions of letters and their transpositions, with which He created the particular creatures of each world.
וכן האיר ה׳ עוד והמשיך והוריד הארה דהארה דהארה מהארות האותיות
Likewise, G‑d projected the light from the letters in another manner, and caused a radiation of a radiation of a radiation to issue forth and descend from the diffusions of light from the letters;
In the earlier analogy, the moon’s reflected light was a radiation of the sun’s radiation. The Alter Rebbe now speaks of a descent one generation further removed — merely a radiation of a radiation of a radiation.
וכן המשיך עוד והוריד עד למטה מטה בבחינת השתלשלות
and likewise He further caused [the radiation of the radiation etc.] to issue forth and descend to the lowest level in the chain of descents,
עד שנברא הדומם ממש, כאבנים ועפר
until completely inanimate beings, such as stones and earth, were created.
ושמותיהן אבן ועפר הם חילופים דחילופים כו׳ ותמורות דתמורות כו׳ כנ״ל
And their names אבן and עפר — the names being each object’s life- force, as mentioned in ch. 1 — are substitutions of substitutions, etc., and transpositions of transpositions, etc., as mentioned above.
Thus, the life-force and existence of every created being are the letters of a particular Divine Utterance, and to this the created being is utterly nullified. In this manner, all of creation is nullified to G‑d and united with Him.
CONCLUSION OF THE SECOND PART, WITH THE HELP OF G-D, MAY HE BE BLESSED AND EXALTED.
Commentary of the Rebbe on Chapter Twelve
The Rebbe notes that the Alter Rebbe omitted many details when quoting the Sages1 concerning the characteristics of each of the seven heavens. (Indeed, the Gemara begins with the heaven called Vilon, proceeds toRakia, and only then speaks of Shechakim, the heaven with which the Alter Rebbe begins.)
Briefly, the explanation is as follows: The Alter Rebbe desires to show how a multitude of created beings — these seven heavens with all their hosts — are essentially united insofar as they all proceed from a single Divine Utterance. For this reason, once the Alter Rebbe has said that the Utterance, “Let there be a firmament.,” brought about the creation of the seven heavens, there is no need for him to repeat them again by name, as detailed below.
The Alter Rebbe omitted the heaven called Vilon for “it serves no particular purpose,” i.e. (as the Gemarastates there), it does not contain created beings. Even according to the opinion of Tosafos that light emanates fromVilon, light was created and continues to exist by virtue of a different Divine fiat, namely, “Let there be light.” (For all light — not only that created during the first day and then concealed — owes its creation and existence to the Utterance, “Let there be light.”2)
The Alter Rebbe also omitted Rakia, in which are found the sun, moon, stars and constellations (as theGemara states), for they were all created by the Utterance, “Let there be luminaries in the firmament of the heaven….”
With regard to Shechakim, the Alter Rebbe quotes the Gemara at length to the effect that this is the heaven “in which stand millstones that grind manna for the tzaddikim,” for since its function is an ongoing one, this heaven illustrates his point that the heavens all “live and exist” — in the present, too, and not only in the time of the Jews in the wilderness — “through the aggregate words of the Utterance, ‘Let there be a firmament….’”
Concerning Zvul, the Alter Rebbe omits the detail that the Angel Michael brings an offering upon its heavenly altar, because there is an opinion3 that angels were created during the fifth day of creation. According to this view, the creation and existence of Michael derive not from the Utterance that ordained, “Let there be a firmament.,” but from the words, “and birds shall fly.”
For the same reason the Alter Rebbe makes no mention of Maon, where flights of angels sing by night the praises of their Maker.
Concerning Machon the Alter Rebbe does not speak of the “rising of dew,” the “storms and tempests” and “fire”, for these were all created during the first day and thus are not connected to the Utterance, “Let there be a firmament….”4
Also omitted is Aravos, the abode of “righteousness and justice” (as the Gemara states there), for these are Divine attributes. The souls of the tzaddikim which are also found in this heaven are likewise not mentioned, for they were created by the Utterance, “Let us make man….” So too the Throne of Glory, which had existed before G‑d had decreed “Let there be a firmament.”; indeed, before Creation had begun.5
Yet once more, concludes the Rebbe, we are able to see how meticulous is the wording of Tanya, encumbered by no superfluous word and lacking no necessary word, for, as we see here, each phrase omitted from the Talmudic citation has its specific reason. Accordingly, to follow the counsel of the Mishnah concerning the study of the Torah:6 “Delve in it over and over again, for everything is in it.”.
FOOTNOTES
1. Chagigah 12b.
2. See ch. 11, above.
3. Bereishit Rabbah 3:8.
4. Chagigah 12a, and elsewhere; cf. Rambam, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, beg. of ch. 4.
5. Pesachim 54a.
6. Avot 5:21.
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvot:
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
Today's Mitzvah
Friday, Tammuz 6, 5777 · June 30, 2017
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES
• VIDEO CLASS: Rabbi Mendel Kaplan Watch • Listen
• AUDIO CLASS: Rabbi Berel Bell Listen • MP3 Download
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 »
Rambam:
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation
• Video Class
• Daily Wisdom (short insight)
Numbers Chapter 21
10The children of Israel journeyed on and camped in Oboth. יוַיִּסְע֖וּ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וַיַּֽחֲנ֖וּ בְּאֹבֹֽת:
11They journeyed from Oboth and camped in the wasteland passes in the wilderness, which faced Moab, toward the rising sun. יאוַיִּסְע֖וּ מֵֽאֹבֹ֑ת וַיַּֽחֲנ֞וּ בְּעִיֵּ֣י הָֽעֲבָרִ֗ים בַּמִּדְבָּר֙ אֲשֶׁר֙ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י מוֹאָ֔ב מִמִּזְרַ֖ח הַשָּֽׁמֶשׁ:
the wasteland passes: Heb. בְּעִיֵּי הָעֲבָרִים. I do not know why they were called עִיּים, wastelands. The word עִי denotes a ruin; something swept aside with a broom. Only the letter ‘ayin’ in it belongs to the root; it derives from the word עִי“shovels” (Exod. 27:3), [and as in] וְיָעָה בָרָד,“and hail shall sweep away” (Isa. 28:17). - [Machbereth Menachem p. 135]
בעיי העברים: לא ידעתי למה נקרא שמם עיים. ועי לשון חורבה הוא דבר הטאוט במטאטא, והעי"ן בו יסוד לבדה והוא מלשון יעים, (ישעיה כח, יז) ויעה ברד:
passes: This was the route for those crossing Mount Nebo on the way to the Land of Canaan, which separates the land of Moab from the land of Amorites.
העברים: דרך מעבר העוברים שם את הר נבו אל ארץ כנען, שהוא מפסיק בין ארץ מואב לארץ אמורי:
facing Moab toward the rising sun: To the east of the land of Moab.
על פני מואב ממזרח השמש: במזרחה של ארץ מואב:
12From there they journeyed, and they encamped along the stream of Zered. יבמִשָּׁ֖ם נָסָ֑עוּ וַיַּֽחֲנ֖וּ בְּנַ֥חַל זָֽרֶד:
13From there they journeyed, and they encamped on the other side of the Arnon, which was in the desert, extending from the Amorite border, for Arnon was the Moabite border between Moab and the Amorites. יגמִשָּׁם֘ נָסָ֒עוּ֒ וַיַּֽחֲנ֞וּ מֵעֵ֤בֶר אַרְנוֹן֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּמִּדְבָּ֔ר הַיֹּצֵ֖א מִגְּבֻ֣ל הָֽאֱמֹרִ֑י כִּ֤י אַרְנוֹן֙ גְּב֣וּל מוֹאָ֔ב בֵּ֥ין מוֹאָ֖ב וּבֵ֥ין הָֽאֱמֹרִֽי:
from the Amorite border: Heb. מִגְּבֻל הָאֱמֹרִי, the boundary at the edge of their territory. Similarly,“the border of Moab (גְּבוּל מוֹאָב),” a term denoting an edge and an end.
מגבול האמורי: תחום סוף מצר שלהם, וכן (דברים ב, יח) גבול מואב, לשון קצה וסוף:
on the other side of the Arnon: They circled the southern and eastern [sides] of the land of Moab, until they came to the other side of the Arnon [river] in the middle of the Amorite territory, to the north of the land of Moab.
מעבר ארנון: הקיפו ארץ מואב כל דרומה ומזרחה עד שבאו מעבר השני לארנון בתוך ארץ האמורי בצפונה של ארץ מואב:
extending from the Amorite border: A strip of Amorite territory protrudes from the Amorite border into Moabite territory [reaching] until Arnon, which is the Moabite border. The Israelites camped there, without entering the border of Moab, (for Arnon was the Moabite border, and they did not allow them to pass through their land. Even though Moses did not state this explicitly, Jephthah did explain it), as Jephthah said, “Also to the king of Moab he sent, but he was unwilling” (Jud. 11:17). Moses, however, alludes to it: “Just as the children of Esau who dwell in Seir, and the Moabites who dwell in Ar, did for me” (Deut. 2:29). [He meant to say:] Just as these [children of Esau] did not permit them to pass through their lands, but they circled around them, so did Moab too.
היוצא מגבול האמורי: רצועה יוצאה מגבול האמורי והיא של אמוריים ונכנסת לגבול מואב עד ארנון, שהוא גבול מואב ושם חנו ישראל, ולא באו לגבול מואב, כי ארנון גבול מואב, והם לא נתנו להם רשות לעבור בארצם. ואף על פי שלא פירשה משה, פירשה יפתח, כמו שאמר יפתח (שופטים יא, יז) וגם אל מלך מואב שלח ולא אבה. ומשה רמזה (דברים ב, כט) כאשר עשו לי בני עשו היושבים בשעיר והמואבים היושבים בער, מה אלו לא נתנום לעבור בתוך ארצם אלא הקיפום סביב, אף מואב כן:
14Concerning this it is told in the account of the Wars of the Lord, "What He gave at the [Sea of] Reeds and the streams of Arnon. ידעַל־כֵּן֙ יֵֽאָמַ֔ר בְּסֵ֖פֶר מִלְחֲמֹ֣ת יְהֹוָ֑ה אֶת־וָהֵ֣ב בְּסוּפָ֔ה וְאֶת־הַנְּחָלִ֖ים אַרְנֽוֹן:
Concerning this it is told: Concerning this encampment, and the miracles that happened there, “it is told in the account of the wars of the Lord”: when they relate the miracles that happened to our forefathers, they will relate: “What He gave….”
על כן: על חניה זו ונסים שנעשו בה יאמר בספר מלחמות ה', כשמספרים נסים שנעשו לאבותינו יספרו את והב וגו':
What He gave: Heb. אֶת וָהֵב, like אֶת יָהֵב [which is the Aramaic root meaning to give]. Just as from [the root] יעד we say ועד so from יהב ‘to give’ [we get] והב, and the “vav” is [part of] the root. That is to say, what He gave (יהב) them and wrought many miracles at the Red Sea. — [Onkelos]
את והב: כמו את יהב, כמו שיאמר מן יעד ועד, כן יאמר מן יהב והב. והוי"ו יסוד הוא, כלומר את אשר יהב להם הרבה נסים בים סוף:
and the streams of Arnon: Just as we recount the miracles of the Red Sea, so should we recount the miracles that happened at the streams of Arnon, for here too, many great miracles were performed. What were those miracles?…- [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 20, Num. Rabbah 19:25]
ואת הנחלים ארנון: כשם שמספרים בנסי ים סוף, כך יש לספר בנסי נחלי ארנון, שאף כאן נעשו נסים גדולים. ומה הם הנסים:
15And the spilling of the streams that turned to settle at Ar and leaned toward the border of Moab. טווְאֶ֨שֶׁד֙ הַנְּחָלִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָטָ֖ה לְשֶׁ֣בֶת עָ֑ר וְנִשְׁעַ֖ן לִגְב֥וּל מוֹאָֽב:
The spilling of the streams: The Aramaic translation of שֶׁפֶךְ,“spilling,” is אֶשֶׁד -the spilling of the streams, for [there] the blood of the Amorites who were hidden there was spilled. The mountains were high and the gorge deep and narrow, and the mountains were so close to each other, that a man standing on the mountain on one side [of the gorge] could speak to his fellow standing on the mountain on the other side. A road passed along [the floor of] the gorge. The Amorites said, “When the Israelites enter the land by passing through the gorge, we will come out of the caves in the mountains above them and kill them with arrows and stones shot from catapults.” There were clefts in the rock on the Moabite side [of the canyon], and directly opposite those clefts, on the mountain on the Amorite side, there were protrusions, [appearing] like horns and breasts. When the Israelites prepared to pass through, the mountain of the Land of Israel trembled, like a maidservant going out to greet her mistress, and moved toward the mountain of Moab. Then those breastlike protrusions entered the clefts, killing them [the Amorites]. This is the meaning of, “that turned to settle at Ar.” The mountain swung from its place and moved toward the side of the Moabite border, and attached itself to it. Thus, “[it] leaned on the border of Moab.” - [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 20, Num. Rabbah 19:25]
ואשד הנחלים: תרגום של שפך אשד. שפך הנחלים שנשפך שם דם אמוריים שהיו נחבאים שם, לפי שהיו ההרים גבוהים והנחל עמוק וקצר וההרים סמוכים זה לזה, אדם עומד על ההר מזה ומדבר עם חבירו בהר מזה, והדרך עובר תוך הנחל. אמרו אמוריים כשיכנסו ישראל לתוך הנחל לעבור, נצא מן המערות בהרים שלמעלה מהם ונהרגם בחצים ואבני בליסטראות. והיו אותן הנקעים בהר של צד מואב ובהר של צד אמוריים היו כנגד אותן נקעים כמין קרנות ושדים בולטין לחוץ, כיון שבאו ישראל לעבור נזעדזע ההר של ארץ ישראל, כשפחה היוצאת להקביל פני גבירתה, ונתקרב לצד הר של מואב ונכנסו אותן השדים לתוך אותן נקעים והרגום. וזהו אשר נטה לשבת ער, שההר נטה ממקומו ונתקרב לצד גבול מואב ונדבק בו, וזהו ונשען לגבול מואב:
16From there to the well; that is the well of which the Lord said to Moses, 'Gather the people, and I will give them water.'" טזוּמִשָּׁ֖ם בְּאֵ֑רָה הִ֣וא הַבְּאֵ֗ר אֲשֶׁ֨ר אָמַ֤ר יְהֹוָה֙ לְמשֶׁ֔ה אֱסֹף֙ אֶת־הָעָ֔ם וְאֶתְּנָ֥ה לָהֶ֖ם מָֽיִם:
From there to the well: From there the flow [of blood] came to the well. How? The Holy One, blessed is He, said, “Who will inform My children of these miracles?” The proverb goes, “If you give a child bread, inform his mother” (Shab. 10b). After they passed through, the mountains returned to their places, and the well descended into the stream, and brought up the blood of the slain, their arms, and their limbs, and carried them around the camp. The Israelites saw them and sang a song. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 20, Num. Rabbah 19:25]
ומשם בארה: משם בא האשד אל הבאר. כיצד, אמר הקב"ה מי מודיע לבני הנסים הללו. המשל אומר נתת פת לתינוק הודיע לאמו. לאחר שעברו חזרו ההרים למקומם והבאר ירדה לתוך הנחל והעלתה משם דם ההרוגים וזרועות ואיברים ומוליכתן סביב המחנה וישראל, ראו ואמרו שירה:
17Then Israel sang this song: "'Ascend, O well,' sing to it! יזאָ֚ז יָשִׁ֣יר יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶת־הַשִּׁירָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את עֲלִ֥י בְאֵ֖ר עֱנוּ־לָֽהּ:
Ascend, O well: from the stream, and bring up what you are to bring up. How do we know that the well informed them? For it says, “From there… the well.” Was it [really] from there? Was not [the well] with them since the beginning of the forty years? However, it descended to proclaim the miracles. Similarly, “Then Israel sang this song,” was said at the end of forty [years], but the well was given to them at the beginning of the forty [years]. Why was it [the song] written here [instead of earlier]? Because the subject [of the song] is explained in connection to what precedes it in the above text. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 20, Num. Rabbah 19:25]
עלי באר: מתוך הנחל והעלי מה שאת מעלה. ומנין שהבאר הודיעה להם, שנאמר ומשם בארה. וכי משם היתה, והלא מתחלת ארבעים שנה היתה עמהם, אלא שירדה לפרסם את הנסים, וכן אז ישיר ישראל. השירה הזאת נאמרה בסוף ארבעים, והבאר נתנה להם מתחלת ארבעים, ומה ראה ליכתב כאן, אלא הענין הזה נדרש למעלה הימנו:
18A well dug by princes, carved out by nobles of the people, through the lawgiver with their staffs, and from the desert, a gift. יחבְּאֵ֞ר חֲפָר֣וּהָ שָׂרִ֗ים כָּר֨וּהָ֙ נְדִיבֵ֣י הָעָ֔ם בִּמְחֹקֵ֖ק בְּמִשְׁעֲנֹתָ֑ם וּמִמִּדְבָּ֖ר מַתָּנָֽה:
A well dug out: this is the well dug out by princes, Moses and Aaron. — [See Mid. Lekach Tov, Mid. Hagadol, Mid. Aggadah]
באר חפרוה: זאת היא הבאר אשר חפרוה שרים משה ואהרן:
with their staffs: Heb. בְּמִשְׁעֲנֹתָם, with the staff [upon which the Explicit Name was engraved (Reggio edition)]. — [See Targum Jonathan, Exod. 4:20]
במשענותם: במטה:
from the desert: it was given to them [as a gift]. — [Onkelos]
וממדבר: נתנה להם:
19From the gift, to the streams, and from the streams to the heights. יטוּמִמַּתָּנָ֖ה נַֽחֲלִיאֵ֑ל וּמִנַּֽחֲלִיאֵ֖ל בָּמֽוֹת:
From the gift, to the streams: As the Targum renders it [since it was given to them, it descended with them to the streams].
וממתנה נחליאל: כתרגומו:
20From the heights to the valley in the field of Moab, at the top of the peak, that overlooks the wastelands." כוּמִבָּמ֗וֹת הַגַּיְא֙ אֲשֶׁר֙ בִּשְׂדֵ֣ה מוֹאָ֔ב רֹ֖אשׁ הַפִּסְגָּ֑ה וְנִשְׁקָ֖פָה עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַיְשִׁימֹֽן:
From the heights to the valley in the field of Moab: For there Moses died and the well ceased. Another interpretation: A well dug out by princes - When they encamped each tribal chieftain took his staff and drew it toward his division and his camp. The waters of the well were drawn after that mark, and came in front of the camping place of each tribe - [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 21, Num. Rabbah 19:25].
ומבמות הגיא אשר בשדה מואב: כי שם מת משה ושם בטלה הבאר. דבר אחר כרוה נדיבי העם כל נשיא ונשיא כשהיו חונים נוטל מקלו ומושך אצל דגלו ומחנהו ומי הבאר נמשכין דרך אותו סימן ובאין לפני חניית כל שבט ושבט:
through the lawgiver: Through Moses, who was called lawgiver, as it says, “for there the portion of the lawgiver is concealed” (Deut. 33:21). But why is Moses not explicitly mentioned in this song? Because he was smitten through the well. And because Moses’ name is not mentioned, the Name of the Holy One, blessed is He, is not mentioned. This can be compared to a king who was invited to a banquet. He said,“If my friend is there, I will be there, but if not, I am not going.” - [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 21, Num. Rabbah 19:26]
במחקק: על פי משה שנקרא מחוקק, שנאמר (דברים לג, כא) כי שם חלקת מחוקק ספון. ולמה לא נזכר משה בשירה זו, לפי שלקה ע"י הבאר. וכיון שלא נזכר שמו של משה לא נזכר שמו של הקב"ה. משל למלך שהיו מזמנין אותו לסעודה, אמר אם אוהבי שם אני שם, ואם לאו איני הולך:
at the top of the peak: Heb. רֹאשׁ הַפִּסְגָּה, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders,“the top of the height.”
ראש הפסגה: כתרגומו ריש רמתא:
the peak: Heb. פִּסְגָּה, a term denoting height. Similarly, פַּסְּגוּ אַרְמְנוֹתֶיהָ (Ps. 48:14), raise high its palaces.
פסגה: לשון גובה, וכן (תהלים מח, יד) פסגו ארמנותיה, הגביהו ארמנותיה:
that overlooks: That peak [overlooks] a place called Jeshimon, a word which describes a desert, which is a desolate place (שָׁמֵם). Another interpretation: The well can be seen from the Jeshimon, for the well was hidden in the Sea of Tiberias [Kinnereth], and anyone standing on the wastelands [above the sea] can look down and see a kind of sieve in the sea, and that is the well. In this manner R. Tanchuma explained it. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 21, Num. Rabbah 19:25]
ונשקפה: אותה הפסגה על פני המקום ששמו ישימון, והוא לשון מדבר שהוא שמם. דבר אחר ונשקפה הבאר על פני הישימון שנגנזה בימה של טבריה והעומד על הישימון מביט ורואה כמין כברה בים והיא הבאר, כך דרש רבי תנחומא:
Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 35 - 38• Hebrew text
• English text
Chapter 35
This psalm is an awe-inspiring and wondrous prayer about David's enemies-that they be as chaff before the wind, chased by the angel of God. It also declares that everything comes about through God's help.
1. By David. Fight my antagonists, O Lord, battle those who battle against me.
2. Take hold of shield and armor and arise to help me.
3. Draw a spear, and bar the way before my pursuers; say to my soul, "I am your deliverance.”
4. Let those who seek my life be shamed and disgraced; let those who devise my harm retreat and be humiliated.
5. Let them be as chaff before the wind; let the angel of the Lord thrust them away.
6. Let their path be dark and slippery; let them be chased by the angel of the Lord.
7. For without cause have they laid their nets in the pit for me; without cause have they dug [pits] for my soul.
8. Let darkness come upon him unawares; let the very snare that he hid trap him, in darkness he will fall in it.
9. And my soul shall exult in the Lord, rejoice in His deliverance.
10. My entire being shall declare: Lord, who is like You? Who saves the poor from one stronger than he, the poor and the destitute from one who would rob him.
11. Corrupt witnesses rise up [against me], they demand of me things of which I do not know.
12. They repay me evil for good, death for my soul.
13. But I wore sackcloth when they were ill; I afflicted my soul with fasting. Let my prayer return upon my own bosom.
14. As if it were my friend, my brother, I went about; like a mother in mourning, I was bent over in gloom.
15. But when I limped, they rejoiced and gathered; the lowly gathered against me-even those whom I do not know; they laugh and cannot be quiet.
16. With flattery and scorn, for the sake of a meal,1 they gnash their teeth at me.
17. My Lord, how long will You look on? Restore my life from their darkness; from young lions, my soul.
18. I will thank You in a great congregation, amidst a mighty nation I will praise You.
19. Let not those who hate me without cause rejoice over me; [let not] those who despise me without reason wink their eye.
20. For they speak not of peace, rather they scheme deceitful matters against the broken of the land.
21. They opened their mouths wide against me, they said, "Aha! Aha! Our eyes have seen [his misfortune].”
22. You saw, Lord, be not silent; my Lord, be not distant from me.
23. Rouse and awaken Yourself to my judgement, to my cause, my God and my Lord.
24. Judge me according to your righteousness, Lord my God; let them not rejoice over me.
25. Let them not say in their hearts, "Aha! We have our desire!" Let them not say, "We have swallowed him!”
26. Let them be shamed and disgraced together, those who rejoice at my trouble; let them be clothed in shame and humiliation, those who raise themselves arrogantly over me.
27. Let those who desire my vindication sing joyously and be glad; let them say always, "Let the Lord be exalted, Who desires the peace of His servant.”
28. My tongue will speak of Your righteousness, Your praise, all day long.
FOOTNOTES
1.These men flatter Saul in order to obtain free meals (Rashi).
Chapter 36
This psalm is a message to those who follow their evil inclination, that tells them, "Do not place the fear of God before you," and brings them to sin by beautifying evil deeds in their eyes. For so is his way: "He descends (to earth) and corrupts, then goes up (to the Heavenly Court) and prosecutes."
1. For the Conductor, by the servant of the Lord, by David.
2. [I think] in my heart: Sin says to the wicked, "There is none [who need place] the fear of God before his eyes.”
3. For Sin makes itself appealing to him, until his iniquity be found and he is hated.
4. The speech of his mouth is evil and deceit; he fails to reason, to improve.
5. On his bed he contemplates evil, he stands in a path that is not good; he does not despise evil.
6. O Lord, Your kindness is in the heavens; Your faithfulness is till the skies.
7. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, Your judgements extend to the great deep; man and beast You deliver, O Lord.
8. How precious is Your kindness, O God; man takes shelter in the shadow of Your wings.
9. They will be filled by the abundance of Your house; from the stream of Your Eden, You will give them to drink.
10. For the source of life is with You; in Your Light do we see light.
11. Extend Your kindness to those who know You, and Your righteousness to the upright of heart.
12. Let not the foot of the arrogant overtake me; let not the hand of the wicked drive me away.
13. There1 the doers of evil fell, thrust down, unable to rise.
FOOTNOTES
1.In the very place they intended to persecute me (Metzudot).
Chapter 37
King David exhorts his generation not to be jealous of the prosperity of the wicked, for it may lead to falling into their ways. Rather, put your trust in God, conduct yourselves with integrity, and God will take care of everything.
1. By David. Do not compete with the wicked; do not envy doers of injustice.
2. For like grass they will be swiftly cut down; like green vegetation they will wither.
3. Trust in the Lord and do good; then will you abide in the land and be nourished by faith.
4. Delight in the Lord, and He will grant you the desires of your heart.
5. Cast your needs upon the Lord; rely on Him, and He will take care.
6. He will reveal your righteousness like the light, your justness like the high noon.
7. Depend on the Lord and hope in Him. Compete not with the prosperous, with the man who invents evil schemes.
8. Let go of anger, abandon rage; do not compete with [one who intends] only to harm.
9. For the evildoers will be cut down; but those who hope in the Lord, they will inherit the earth.
10. For soon the wicked one will not be; you will gaze at his place and he will be gone.
11. But the humble shall inherit the earth, and delight in abundant peace.
12. The wicked one plots against the righteous, and gnashes his teeth at him.
13. My Lord laughs at him, for He sees that his day will come.
14. The wicked have drawn a sword and bent their bow to fell the poor and destitute, to slaughter those of upright ways.
15. But their sword shall enter their own hearts, and their bows shall break.
16. Better the little of the righteous, than the abundant wealth of the wicked.
17. For the strength of the wicked will be broken, but the Lord supports the righteous.
18. The Lord appreciates the days of the innocent; their inheritance will last forever.
19. They will not be shamed in times of calamity, and in days of famine they will be satisfied.
20. For the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord are as fattened sheep: consumed, consumed in smoke.
21. The wicked man borrows and does not repay; but the righteous man is gracious and gives.
22. For those blessed by Him will inherit the earth, and those cursed by Him will be cut off.
23. The steps of man are directed by God; He desires his way.
24. When he totters he shall not be thrown down, for the Lord supports his hand.
25. I have been a youth, I have also aged; yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his offspring begging bread.
26. All day he is kind and lends; his offspring are a blessing.
27. Turn away from evil and do good, and you will dwell [in peace] forever.
28. For the Lord loves justice, he will not abandon his pious ones-they are protected forever; but the offspring of the wicked are cut off.
29. The righteous shall inherit the earth and dwell upon it forever.
30. The mouth of the righteous one utters wisdom, and his tongue speaks justice.
31. The Torah of his God is in his heart; his steps shall not falter.
32. The wicked one watches for the righteous man, and seeks to kill him.
33. But the Lord will not abandon him in his hand, nor condemn him when he is judged.
34. Hope in the Lord and keep His way; then He will raise you high to inherit the earth. When the wicked are cut off, you shall see it.
35. I saw a powerful wicked man, well-rooted like a vibrant, native tree.
36. Yet he vanished, behold he was gone; I searched for him, but he could not be found.
37. Watch the innocent, and observe the upright, for the future of such a man is peace.
38. But sinners shall be destroyed together; the future of the wicked is cut off.
39. The deliverance of the righteous is from the Lord; He is their strength in time of distress.
40. The Lord helps them and delivers them; He delivers them from the wicked and saves them, because they have put their trust in Him.
Chapter 38
A prayer for every individual, bewailing the length of the exile. One who is in distress should recite this psalm, hence its introduction, "A psalm... to remind" (to remind us to recite it in times of distress). One can also derive many lessons from it.
1. A psalm by David, to remind.
2. O Lord, do not rebuke me in Your anger, nor chastise me in Your wrath.
3. For Your arrows have landed in me, Your hand descended upon me.
4. There is no soundness in my flesh because of Your rage, no peace in my bones because of my sin.
5. For my iniquities have flooded over my head; like a heavy load, they are too heavy for me.
6. My wounds are rotted; they reek because of my foolishness.
7. I am bent and extremely bowed; all day I go about in gloom.
8. My sides are inflamed; there is no soundness in my flesh.
9. I am weakened and extremely depressed; I howl from the moaning of my heart.
10. My Lord, all that I desire is before You; my sighing is not hidden from You.
11. My heart is engulfed, my strength has left me; the light of my eyes they, too, are not with me.
12. My friends and companions stand aloof from my affliction; my intimates stand afar.
13. The seekers of my life have laid traps; those who seek my harm speak destructiveness; they utter deceits all day long.
14. But I am like a deaf man, I do not hear; like a mute that does not open his mouth.
15. I was like a man that does not perceive, and in whose mouth there are no rebuttals.
16. Because for You, O Lord, I wait; You will answer, my Lord, my God.
17. For I said, "Lest they rejoice over me; when my foot falters they will gloat over me.”
18. For I am accustomed to limping, and my pain is constantly before me.
19. For I admit my iniquity; I worry because of my sin.
20. But my enemies abound with life; those who hate me without cause flourish.
21. Those who repay evil for good resent me for my pursuit of good.
22. Do not forsake me, O Lord; do not be distant from me, my God.
23. Hurry to my aid, O my Lord, my Salvation.
Tanya: Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, end of Chapter 12• English Text (Lessons in Tanya)
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class
Friday, Tammuz 6, 5777 · June 30, 2017
Today's Tanya Lesson
Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, end of Chapter 12
AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES
• VIDEO CLASS: Rabbi Yehoshua B. Gordon Watch • Listen
• AUDIO CLASS: Rabbi Manis Freidman Listen • Download MP3כי הן, דרך משל, דוגמת אור המאיר בלילה באר׳ מן הירח, ואור הירח הוא מהשמש
For they (the substituted letters), by way of illustration, resemble the light that shines upon the earth at night from the moon — and the moonlight is from the sun,
ונמצא אור שעל האר׳ הוא אור האור של השמש
hence, the light which is on the earth is a light [reflected] from the light of the sun.
וככה ממש, דרך משל, האותיות שבמאמרות הן כוללות המשכת החיות והאור והכח ממדותיו של הקב״ה
Exactly so, allegorically speaking, the letters comprising the Utterances are the aggregate flow of the life-force and the light and the power [that issue] from the attributes of the Holy one, blessed be He,
לברוא העולמות מאין ליש, ולהחיותן ולקיימן כל זמן משך רצונו יתברך
to create the worlds from nothingness and to give them life and sustain them as long as such shall be His blessed Will.
The general life-force thus emanates from the Utterances themselves.
ומכללות המשכה והארה גדולה זו
From this aggregate flow and mighty radiation of the Utterances themselves,
האיר ה׳ והמשיך ממנה תולדותיה כיוצא בה וענפיה
G‑d caused its similar derivations and its offshoots to shine and issue forth,
שהן תולדות והמשכת האור מהאותיות
these being derivations and effluences of the light from the letters.
והן הן חילופי אותיות ותמורותיהן, וברא בהן ברואים פרטים שבכל עולם
And these derivations and offshoots are the substitutions of letters and their transpositions, with which He created the particular creatures of each world.
וכן האיר ה׳ עוד והמשיך והוריד הארה דהארה דהארה מהארות האותיות
Likewise, G‑d projected the light from the letters in another manner, and caused a radiation of a radiation of a radiation to issue forth and descend from the diffusions of light from the letters;
In the earlier analogy, the moon’s reflected light was a radiation of the sun’s radiation. The Alter Rebbe now speaks of a descent one generation further removed — merely a radiation of a radiation of a radiation.
וכן המשיך עוד והוריד עד למטה מטה בבחינת השתלשלות
and likewise He further caused [the radiation of the radiation etc.] to issue forth and descend to the lowest level in the chain of descents,
עד שנברא הדומם ממש, כאבנים ועפר
until completely inanimate beings, such as stones and earth, were created.
ושמותיהן אבן ועפר הם חילופים דחילופים כו׳ ותמורות דתמורות כו׳ כנ״ל
And their names אבן and עפר — the names being each object’s life- force, as mentioned in ch. 1 — are substitutions of substitutions, etc., and transpositions of transpositions, etc., as mentioned above.
Thus, the life-force and existence of every created being are the letters of a particular Divine Utterance, and to this the created being is utterly nullified. In this manner, all of creation is nullified to G‑d and united with Him.
CONCLUSION OF THE SECOND PART, WITH THE HELP OF G-D, MAY HE BE BLESSED AND EXALTED.
Commentary of the Rebbe on Chapter Twelve
The Rebbe notes that the Alter Rebbe omitted many details when quoting the Sages1 concerning the characteristics of each of the seven heavens. (Indeed, the Gemara begins with the heaven called Vilon, proceeds toRakia, and only then speaks of Shechakim, the heaven with which the Alter Rebbe begins.)
Briefly, the explanation is as follows: The Alter Rebbe desires to show how a multitude of created beings — these seven heavens with all their hosts — are essentially united insofar as they all proceed from a single Divine Utterance. For this reason, once the Alter Rebbe has said that the Utterance, “Let there be a firmament.,” brought about the creation of the seven heavens, there is no need for him to repeat them again by name, as detailed below.
The Alter Rebbe omitted the heaven called Vilon for “it serves no particular purpose,” i.e. (as the Gemarastates there), it does not contain created beings. Even according to the opinion of Tosafos that light emanates fromVilon, light was created and continues to exist by virtue of a different Divine fiat, namely, “Let there be light.” (For all light — not only that created during the first day and then concealed — owes its creation and existence to the Utterance, “Let there be light.”2)
The Alter Rebbe also omitted Rakia, in which are found the sun, moon, stars and constellations (as theGemara states), for they were all created by the Utterance, “Let there be luminaries in the firmament of the heaven….”
With regard to Shechakim, the Alter Rebbe quotes the Gemara at length to the effect that this is the heaven “in which stand millstones that grind manna for the tzaddikim,” for since its function is an ongoing one, this heaven illustrates his point that the heavens all “live and exist” — in the present, too, and not only in the time of the Jews in the wilderness — “through the aggregate words of the Utterance, ‘Let there be a firmament….’”
Concerning Zvul, the Alter Rebbe omits the detail that the Angel Michael brings an offering upon its heavenly altar, because there is an opinion3 that angels were created during the fifth day of creation. According to this view, the creation and existence of Michael derive not from the Utterance that ordained, “Let there be a firmament.,” but from the words, “and birds shall fly.”
For the same reason the Alter Rebbe makes no mention of Maon, where flights of angels sing by night the praises of their Maker.
Concerning Machon the Alter Rebbe does not speak of the “rising of dew,” the “storms and tempests” and “fire”, for these were all created during the first day and thus are not connected to the Utterance, “Let there be a firmament….”4
Also omitted is Aravos, the abode of “righteousness and justice” (as the Gemara states there), for these are Divine attributes. The souls of the tzaddikim which are also found in this heaven are likewise not mentioned, for they were created by the Utterance, “Let us make man….” So too the Throne of Glory, which had existed before G‑d had decreed “Let there be a firmament.”; indeed, before Creation had begun.5
Yet once more, concludes the Rebbe, we are able to see how meticulous is the wording of Tanya, encumbered by no superfluous word and lacking no necessary word, for, as we see here, each phrase omitted from the Talmudic citation has its specific reason. Accordingly, to follow the counsel of the Mishnah concerning the study of the Torah:6 “Delve in it over and over again, for everything is in it.”.
FOOTNOTES
1. Chagigah 12b.
2. See ch. 11, above.
3. Bereishit Rabbah 3:8.
4. Chagigah 12a, and elsewhere; cf. Rambam, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, beg. of ch. 4.
5. Pesachim 54a.
6. Avot 5:21.
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvot:
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video ClassToday's Mitzvah
Friday, Tammuz 6, 5777 · June 30, 2017
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES
• VIDEO CLASS: Rabbi Mendel Kaplan Watch • Listen
• AUDIO CLASS: Rabbi Berel Bell Listen • MP3 Download
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.
• 1 Chapter A Day: Nachalot Nachalot - Chapter 4
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
Nachalot - Chapter 4
1When a person says: "This is my son," "This is my brother," "This is my uncle," or identifies a person as any of his other heirs, his word is accepted and that person inherits his estate. This applies even when he makes this acknowledgment concerning people who are not recognized to be his relatives. And it applies whether he made such a statement when he was healthy or when he is on his deathbed. Even if he lost his power of speech and identified a person as his heir in writing, his word is accepted, provided we test his powers of understanding as we test a man with regard to divorce.
א
האומר זה בני או זה אחי או זה אחי אבי או שאר היורשין אותו, אע"פ שהודה באנשים שאינן מוחזקין שהן קרוביו הרי זה נאמן ויירשנו בין שאמר כשהוא בריא בין שאמר כשהוא שכיב מרע, אפילו נשתתק וכתב בכתב ידו שזה יורשו בודקין אותו כדרך שבודקין לגיטין.
2When one person is recognized to be another person's brother or cousin, and the latter says: "He is not my brother," or "He is not my cousin," his word is not accepted. His word is accepted, however, with regard to a person who is recognized to be his son. If he says he is not his son, he does not inherit his estate.
It appears to me that even if the son already fathered children - although at that point, the father's word is no longer acceptable with regard to the determination of his lineage, and we do not consider him a mamzer because of his father's statement - his father's word is, nevertheless, accepted with regard to the concept of inheritance. He should not inherit his father's estate.
ב
היינו מוחזקין בזה שהוא אחיו או בן דודו ואמר אינו אחי ואין בן דודי אינו נאמן, אבל נאמן הוא על מי שהוחזק שהוא בנו לומר אינו בני ולא יירשנו, ויראה לי שאפילו היו לבן בנים אע"פ שאינו נאמן עליו לומר אינו בני לענין יחוס ואין מחזיקין אותו ממזר על פיו, נאמן הוא לענין ירושה ולא יירשנו.
3When a person states: "This is my son," and afterwards, says: "He is my servant," his latter statement is not accepted.
If he states: "He is my servant," and afterwards, says: "He is my son," his latter statement is accepted. This applies even though the "son" serves himlike a servant. We interpret his statement that he is his servant to mean that he relies on him like a servant. Nevertheless, if people would call this individual "A slave worth 100 zwz" or the like - i.e., expressions that are appropriate only for servants - the deceased's retraction is not accepted.
ג
האומר זה בני וחזר ואמר עבדי הוא אינו נאמן, אמר עבדי וחזר ואמר בני אע"פ שהוא משמשו כעבד נאמן שזה שאמר עבדי כלומר שהוא לי כעבד, ואם היו קורין לו עבד בן מאה זוז וכיוצא בדברים אלו שאין אומרין אותן ביחוד אלא לעבדים הרי זה אינו נאמן.
4If a person had to pass through customs and identified an individual as his son, but afterwards identified him as a servant, his later statement is accepted. We assume that he identified him as his son only to avoid paying customs duty. If, however, in customs, he identified a person as his servant, and afterwards identified him as his son, his word is not accepted.
ד
היה עובר על בית המכס ואמר בני הוא זה וחזר אחר כך ואמר עבדי נאמן, שלא אמר בני אלא להבריח מן המכס, אמר בבית המוכס עבדי הוא וחזר ואמר בני הוא אינו נאמן.
5A person should not call a servant Papa Joe or a maidservant Mama Sarah lest this lead to an undesirable outcome and a blemish be placed on his lineage. Therefore, if there were servants or maidservants who were very distinguished personages, their reputations are well known, and everyone in the community recognizes them and the children and servants of their master - e.g., the servants of the nasi - it is permitted for the children of that household to refer to the servants in the above manner.
ה
העבדים והשפחות אין קורין להן אבא פלוני ואימא פלונית שלא יבא מן הדבר תקלה ונמצא זה הבן נפגם, לפיכך אם היו העבדים והשפחות חשובין ביותר ויש להן קול וכל הקהל מכירין אותן ואת בני ועבדי אדוניהם כגון עבדי הנשיא הרי אלו מותר לקרות להן אבא ואימא.
6The following rules apply when a person had a maidservant and fathered a son with her, and he would treat the son as one treats a son or said: "He is my son and his mother was freed." If the person involved is a Torah scholar or an honorable person whose conduct has been scrutinized and he is found to be precise in the observance of the details of the mitzvot, the "son" may share in the inheritance of his estate. Nevertheless, this "son" may not marry a Jewish woman until he brings proof that his mother was freed before she gave birth. The rationale for this stringency is that it has been established for us that the woman is a maidservant. If the person is one of the ordinary people - and needless to say, if he is one of those who act loosely in this manner - the "son" is presumed to be a servant with regard to all matters. His paternal brothers may sell him. If his father does not have any children other than him, the father's wife must undergo the rite of yibbum.
This is the law as it appears to me, for it follows the fundamental principles of the received tradition. There are, however, authorities who do not make a distinction between honorable people and people at large, except with regard to the ruling that his brothers may not sell him. ' And there are others who rule that this "son" may even inherit his father's estate, so that a distinction is not made with regard to Jews. It is not appropriate to rely on this ruling.
ו
מי שהיתה לו שפחה והוליד ממנה בן והיה נוהג בו מנהג בנים, או שאמר בני הוא ומשוחררת היא אמו, אם תלמיד חכם הוא או אדם כשר שהוא בדוק בדקדוקי מצות הרי זה יירשנו, ואעפ"כ אינו נושא בת ישראל עד שיביא ראיה שנשתחררה אמו ואחר כך ילדה שהרי הוחזקה שפחה בפנינו, ואם משאר הדיוטות הוא ואין צריך לומר אם היה מן המפקירין עצמן לכך הרי זה בחזקת עבד לכל דבר ואחיו מאביו מוכרין אותו, ואם אין לאביו בן חוץ ממנו אשת אביו מתייבמת, וזה הוא הדין שיראה לי שהוא הולך על עיקרי הקבלה, ויש מי שלא חלק בין כשרים לשאר העם אלא לענין שלא ימכרוהו אחיו בלבד, ויש מי שהורה שאפילו ליורשו לא נחלוק בישראל ואין ראוי לסמוך על דבר זה. 1
7All the heirs may inherit on the basis of the prevailing presumption that they are the deceased relatives. What is implied? When witnesses testify that the prevailing presumption is that a person is an individual's son or his brother, the former may inherit the latter's estate on the basis of this testimony, even though the witnesses do not testify concerning the person's lineage, nor do they possess indubitable knowledge concerning his lineage.
ז
כל היורשין יורשין בחזקה, כיצד עדים שהעידו שזה מוחזק לנו שהוא בנו של פלוני או אחיו, אע"פ שאינן עדי יחוס ולא ידעו אמתת היוחסין הרי אלו יורשין בעדות זו.
8A person's statements regarding his relatives affect his share of an inheritance, but not that of his brothers. To illustrate by example: Jacob died and left two sons: Reuven and Shimon. The prevailing presumption was that he did not have any sons other than these two.
Reuven took Levi from among people at large and said: "He is also our brother." Shimon replied: "I don't know." Shimon is granted half the estate. Reuven is given a third, for he acknowledged that they are three brothers, and Levi is given a sixth.
If Levi dies, that sixth is returned to Reuven. If other property had been acquired by Levi, it should be divided between Reuven and Shimon, for Reuven acknowledges Shimon's claim to a portion of the estate, because Levi is their brother.
Different rules apply if the sixth that Levi was given increased in value on its own accord and then Levi died. If the increase were crops that were almost ready to be reaped - e.g., grapes that are ready to be harvested - they are considered to be property acquired from others and should be divided among the two brothers. If they are not ready to be reaped, they belong to Reuven alone.
If Shimon said explicitly: "Levi is not my brother," and Levi received part of Reuven's share, as explained above, and then died, Shimon should not inherit any part of his estate. Instead, Reuven should inherit both the sixth from his share and any other property that Levi left. These principles apply with regard to any other heirs when a portion of them acknowledge the existence of other heirs that the remaining portion do not acknowledge.
ח
יעקב שמת והניח ראובן ושמעון ולא הוחזק לו בן אלא שניהם, תפס ראובן לוי מן השוק ואמר גם זה אחינו הוא ושמעון אומר איני יודע, הרי שמעון נוטל חצי הממון וראובן שליש שהרי הודה שהם שלשה אחין ולוי נוטל שתות, מת לוי יחזור השתות לראובן, נפלו ללוי נכסים אחרים יחלקו אותן ראובן ושמעון שהרי ראובן מודה לשמעון שלוי זה אחיהן, השביח השתות מאליו ואחר כך מת לוי אם שבח מגיע לכתפים הוא כגון ענבים שהגיעו להבצר, הרי השבח הזה כנכסים שנפלו לו מאחרים ויחלקו בהן, ואם עדיין לא הגיעו להבצר הרי הן של ראובן לבדו, אמר שמעון אין לוי זה אחי ונטל לוי בחלק ראובן כמו שביארנו ואחר כך מת לוי לא יירש שמעון ממנו כלום אלא ראובן לבדו יירש השתות עם שאר נכסים אחרים שהניח לוי, והוא הדין בכל היורשין שיודו מקצתן ביורשין אחרים שלא יודו מקצתן.
FOOTNOTES
1.מי שהיתה לו שפחה וכו' עד על דבר זה. א"א בגמרא לא מצאנו בה עיקר דבר זה אבל קצת הגאונים מפולפלים חלקו בין שפחת אחרים לשפחה שלו וגאון אחר חולק עמו מכל מקום לא מצאנו חלוקתם אלא שבעל סתם אבל אם העיד עליו שאמרו משוחררת לא דברו ולענין ירושה יירשנו עכ"ל.
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters A Day: Gezelah va'Avedah Gezelah va'Avedah - Chapter Four, Gezelah va'Avedah Gezelah va'Avedah - Chapter Five, Gezelah va'Avedah Gezelah va'Avedah - Chapter Six
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
Gezelah va'Avedah - Chapter Four
1Our 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:
2What 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:
3When 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:
4Different 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:
5Different 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:
6Just 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:
7If, 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:
8How 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:
9The 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:
10The 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:
12The 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:
13Similarly, 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:
14The 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:
15The 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:
16There 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:
17The 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 טענת ודאי:
Gezelah va'Avedah - Chapter Five
1It 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:
2It 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:
3When 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:
4If 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:
5The 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:
6The 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:
7The 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:
8It 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:
9It 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:
10If 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:
11When 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:
12Similarly, 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:
13Similarly, 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:
14The 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:
15The 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:
16Similarly, 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:
17When 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:
18When 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
1The 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:
2Therefore, 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 המציל מן הנהר ומזוטו של ים ומשלוליתו של נהר ומן העכו"ם ומן הדליקה ומן הארי ומן הדוב ומן הנמר ומן הברדלס. אם ידע בודאי שנתייאשו הבעלים הרי אלו שלו. ואם לא [א] ידע יחזיר:
3When 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:
4It 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:
5We 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:
6When 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:
7Our 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:
8Similarly, 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 four milbetween 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:
9When 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:
10What 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:
11When 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 וביישובו של עולם:
12The 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:
13A 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:
14Unlike 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:
15We 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:
16Whenever 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:
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video ClassGezelah va'Avedah - Chapter Four
1Our 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:
2What 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:
3When 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:
4Different 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:
5Different 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:
6Just 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:
7If, 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:
8How 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:
9The 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:
10The 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:
12The 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:
13Similarly, 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:
14The 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:
15The 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:
16There 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:
17The 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 טענת ודאי:
Gezelah va'Avedah - Chapter Five
1It 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:
2It 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:
3When 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:
4If 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:
5The 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:
6The 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:
7The 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:
8It 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:
9It 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:
10If 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:
11When 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:
12Similarly, 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:
13Similarly, 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:
14The 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:
15The 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:
16Similarly, 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:
17When 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:
18When 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
1The 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:
2Therefore, 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 המציל מן הנהר ומזוטו של ים ומשלוליתו של נהר ומן העכו"ם ומן הדליקה ומן הארי ומן הדוב ומן הנמר ומן הברדלס. אם ידע בודאי שנתייאשו הבעלים הרי אלו שלו. ואם לא [א] ידע יחזיר:
3When 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:
4It 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:
5We 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:
6When 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:
7Our 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:
8Similarly, 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 four milbetween 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:
9When 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:
10What 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:
11When 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 וביישובו של עולם:
12The 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:
13A 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:
14Unlike 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:
15We 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:
16Whenever 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:
• English Text | Video Class
Friday, Tammuz 6, 5777 · 30 June 2017
"Today's Day"
Friday, Tamuz 6, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Chukat, Shishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 35-38.
Tanya: For example, (p. 331) ...attributes at all." (p. 333).(The effect of) each particular mitzva-act is called forth by (doing) those (other) mitzva-acts which are makif - general and all-encompassing in nature. The mitzva of tzedaka, for example, is one of those all-encompassing makif mitzvot, as evident from the reference to all mitzvot by the term "tzedaka." For this reason it is most appropriate to give a coin to tzedaka before performing any mitzva. This has the effect of bringing the general makif-aura into the p'nimi, the "inner aspect," (the particular mitzva). Nonetheless, this type of makif is a "close aura," whereas the makif of Torah1is a "distant aura," whose effect is superior.
FOOTNOTES
1. The meaning here is probably "Torah-study" which, like tzedaka, is a makif-mitzva. (A host of terms can be used to translate makif, but in this context we suggest: "All-encompassing," "all-comprehensive," "all-inclusive," "general") A suggested explanation: When a particular mitzva is studied as part of Torah-learning, the effect of that Torah-study on the mitzva is superior to the effect engendered by giving tzedaka prior to the mitzva. For Torah is a more distant (i.e., higher) makif - relative to the particular mitzva - than is tzedaka. Viz. Sefer Hamaamarim Basi Legani p. 194:5 (end).
-------
• English Text | Video Class
Friday, Tammuz 6, 5777 · 30 June 2017
"Today's Day"
Friday, Tamuz 6, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Chukat, Shishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 35-38.
Tanya: For example, (p. 331) ...attributes at all." (p. 333).(The effect of) each particular mitzva-act is called forth by (doing) those (other) mitzva-acts which are makif - general and all-encompassing in nature. The mitzva of tzedaka, for example, is one of those all-encompassing makif mitzvot, as evident from the reference to all mitzvot by the term "tzedaka." For this reason it is most appropriate to give a coin to tzedaka before performing any mitzva. This has the effect of bringing the general makif-aura into the p'nimi, the "inner aspect," (the particular mitzva). Nonetheless, this type of makif is a "close aura," whereas the makif of Torah1is a "distant aura," whose effect is superior.
FOOTNOTES
1. The meaning here is probably "Torah-study" which, like tzedaka, is a makif-mitzva. (A host of terms can be used to translate makif, but in this context we suggest: "All-encompassing," "all-comprehensive," "all-inclusive," "general") A suggested explanation: When a particular mitzva is studied as part of Torah-learning, the effect of that Torah-study on the mitzva is superior to the effect engendered by giving tzedaka prior to the mitzva. For Torah is a more distant (i.e., higher) makif - relative to the particular mitzva - than is tzedaka. Viz. Sefer Hamaamarim Basi Legani p. 194:5 (end).
-------
Daily Thought:
Synergy
Not only is there is no conflict between your work and your time for study, meditation and prayer—on the contrary, they complement one another:
When you start your day by connecting it to Torah, the day shines and all its parts work in synchronicity.
And when you work honestly, carrying the morning’s inspiration in your heart, your work itself rolls out the Torah before your open eyes.
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment