Missionary Renegade: TODAY IN JUDAISM: Tammuz 8, 5777 - Sunday, July 2, 2017 - Chabad.org in New York, New York, United States - - ב"ה - Today in Judaism - Today is Sunday, Tammuz 8, 5777

Sunday, July 2, 2017

TODAY IN JUDAISM: Tammuz 8, 5777 - Sunday, July 2, 2017 - Chabad.org in New York, New York, United States - - ב"ה - Today in Judaism - Today is Sunday, Tammuz 8, 5777 · July 2, 2017

ב"ה

TODAY IN JUDAISM: Tammuz 8, 5777 - Sunday, July 2, 2017 - Chabad.org in New York, New York, United States - - ב"ה - Today in Judaism - Today is Sunday, Tammuz 8, 5777 · July 2, 2017
Today in Jewish History:
• Spanish Inquisition Abolished (1834)
On July 15, 1834, the Office of the Spanish Inquisition was abolished by the Queen Mother Maria Christina, after nearly three and a half centuries. However, the right of public worship (including permission to mark places of worship and advertise religious services) was not granted to the Jews until 1967.
Links:
The Inquisition
• Jews expelled from Genoa (1567)Having become a virtual vassal of Spain, the Republic of Genoa expelled the Jews at the behest of their Spanish overlords.
Daily QuoteA person does not comprehend the mind of his teacher until the end of forty years [Talmud, Avodah Zarah 5b]
Daily Torah Study:

Chumash: with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation
• Video Class
• Daily Wisdom (short insight)

Numbers Chapter 22

2Balak the son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites. בוַיַּ֥רְא בָּלָ֖ק בֶּן־צִפּ֑וֹר אֵ֛ת כָּל־אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂ֥ה יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לָֽאֱמֹרִֽי:

Balak… saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites: He said, “These two kings whom we relied on could not resist them; we certainly cannot.” Consequently, “Moab became terrified.” - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 2, Num. Rabbah 20:2]

וירא בלק בן צפור את כל אשר עשה ישראל לאמורי: אמר אלו שני מלכים שהיינו בטוחים עליהם לא עמדו בפניהם, אנו על אחת כמה וכמה. לפיכך ויגר מואב:

3Moab became terrified of the people, for they were numerous, and Moab became disgusted because of the children of Israel. גוַיָּ֨גָר מוֹאָ֜ב מִפְּנֵ֥י הָעָ֛ם מְאֹ֖ד כִּ֣י רַב־ה֑וּא וַיָּ֣קָץ מוֹאָ֔ב מִפְּנֵ֖י בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל:

[Moab] became terrified: [Heb. וַיָּגָר is] a term denoting dread, as in,“Fear (גּוּרוּ) for yourselves” (Job 19:29). - [Machbereth Menachem p. 59, third def.]

ויגר: לשון מורא, כמו (איוב יט, כט) גורו לכם:

Moab became disgusted: They became disgusted with their own lives, as in“I am disgusted (קַצְתִּי) with my life” (Gen. 27:46). This is an abbreviated verse.

ויקץ מואב: קצו בחייהם:

4Moab said to the elders of Midian, "Now this assembly will eat up everything around us, as the ox eats up the greens of the field. Balak the son of Zippor was king of Moab at that time. דוַיֹּ֨אמֶר מוֹאָ֜ב אֶל־זִקְנֵ֣י מִדְיָ֗ן עַתָּ֞ה יְלַֽחֲכ֤וּ הַקָּהָל֙ אֶת־כָּל־סְבִ֣יבֹתֵ֔ינוּ כִּלְחֹ֣ךְ הַשּׁ֔וֹר אֵ֖ת יֶ֣רֶק הַשָּׂדֶ֑ה וּבָלָ֧ק בֶּן־צִפּ֛וֹר מֶ֥לֶךְ לְמוֹאָ֖ב בָּעֵ֥ת הַהִֽוא:

to the elders of Midian: But did they not always hate each other, as it says, “who defeated Midian in the field of Moab” (Gen. 36:35), when Midian came against Moab in battle? However, because of their mutual fear of Israel they made peace with each other. And what did Moab see to take counsel with Midian? Since they saw that Israel was supernaturally victorious [in their battles], they said, “The leader of these [people] was raised in Midian. Let us ask them what his character is.” They told them, “His strength is solely in his mouth.” They said,“We too will come against them with a man whose strength is in his mouth.” - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 3, Num. Rabbah 20:4]

אל זקני מדין: והלא מעולם היו שונאים זה את זה, שנאמר (בראשית לו, לה) המכה את מדין בשדה מואב, שבאו מדין על מואב למלחמה. אלא מיראתן של ישראל עשו שלום ביניהם. ומה ראה מואב ליטול עצה ממדין, כיון שראו את ישראל נוצחים שלא כמנהג העולם, אמרו מנהיגם של אלו במדין נתגדל, נשאל מהם מה מדתו. אמרו לו אין כחו אלא בפיו. אמרו אף אנו נבא עליהם באדם שכחו בפיו:

as the ox eats up: Whatever the ox has eaten up no longer contains blessing [because the ox uproots the plants it eats (Da’ath Zekenim)]. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 3, Num. Rabbah 20:4]

כלחוך השור: כל מה שהשור מלחך אין בו ברכה:

at that time: He was not entitled to the monarchy. He was one of the Midianite nobles [according to some: of the nobles of Sihon (Josh. 13:21)], and when Sihon died, they appointed him over them on a temporary basis. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 4, Num. Rabbah 20:4]

בעת ההוא: לא היה ראוי למלכות. מנסיכי מדין היה, וכיון שמת סיחון מנוהו עליהם לצורך שעה:

5He sent messengers to Balaam the son of Beor, to Pethor, which is by the river of the land of his people, to call for him, saying, "A people has come out of Egypt, and behold, they have covered the "eye" of the land, and they are stationed opposite me. הוַיִּשְׁלַ֨ח מַלְאָכִ֜ים אֶל־בִּלְעָ֣ם בֶּן־בְּע֗וֹר פְּת֠וֹרָה אֲשֶׁ֧ר עַל־הַנָּהָ֛ר אֶ֥רֶץ בְּנֵֽי־עַמּ֖וֹ לִקְרֹא־ל֑וֹ לֵאמֹ֗ר הִ֠נֵּ֠ה עַ֣ם יָצָ֤א מִמִּצְרַ֨יִם֙ הִנֵּ֤ה כִסָּה֙ אֶת־עֵ֣ין הָאָ֔רֶץ וְה֥וּא ישֵׁ֖ב מִמֻּלִֽי:

to Pethor: Heb. פְּתוֹרָה, like this money changer, to whom everyone rushes coins, so did all the kings rush their letters to him [asking him for advice]. [In Aramaic, פְּתוֹרָא means table, denoting the counter over which currency transactions take place. This is synonymous with the Hebrew שֻׁלְחָן, table.Thus, a money changer is שֻלְחָנִי]. According to the simple meaning of the verse, it [Pethor] is a place-name. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 4, Num. Rabbah 20:7]

פתורה: כשולחני הזה שהכל מריצין לו מעות, כך כל המלכים מריצין לו אגרותיהם. ולפי פשוטו של מקרא כך שם המקום:

the land of his people: [I.e.,] Balak’s [people]. He came from there. This one [Balaam] prophesied, telling him, “You are destined to rule.” If you ask, “Why did God bestow His Shechinah on a wicked gentile?” [The answer is] so the nations should not have an excuse to say, “Had we had prophets we would have repented.” So He assigned them prophets, but they breached the [morally] accepted barrier, for at first they had refrained from immorality, but he [Balaam] advised them to offer themselves freely for prostitution. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 1, Num. Rabbah 20:1]

ארץ בני עמו: של בלק. משם היה, וזה היה מתנבא ואומר לו עתיד אתה למלוך. ואם תאמר מפני מה השרה הקב"ה שכינתו על גוי רשע, כדי שלא יהא פתחון פה לאומות לומר אלו היו לנו נביאים חזרנו למוטב, העמיד להם נביאים והם פרצו גדר העולם, שבתחלה היו גדורים בעריות וזה נתן להם עצה להפקיר עצמן לזנות:

to call for him: This invitation was for him, [i.e.,] for his benefit, for he promised him a large sum of money. - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 4, Num. Rabbah 20:7]

לקרא לו: הקריאה שלו היתה ולהנאתו, שהיה פוסק לו ממון הרבה:

A people has come out of Egypt: And should you ask,“How does it harm you?”

עם יצא ממצרים: ואם תאמר מה מזיקך:

“behold, they have covered the ‘eye’ of the land”: Sihon and Og, who were our guardians-they attacked them and killed them. - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 4, Num. Rabbah 20:7]

הנה כסה את עין הארץ: סיחון ועוג שהיו שומרים אותנו עמדו עליהם והרגום:

and they are stationed opposite me: Heb. מִמֻּלִי. It [the word מִמֻּלִי] is spelled defectively [lacking a 'vav’]; they are close by, ready to cut me down, as in“for I will cut them down (אֲמִילֵם)” (Ps. 118:10). - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 4, Num. Rabbah 20:7]

והוא יושב ממלי: חסר כתיב, קרובים הם להכריתני, כמו (תהלים קיח, י) כי אמילם:

6So now, please come and curse this people for me, for they are too powerful for me. Perhaps I will be able to wage war against them and drive them out of the land, for I know that whomever you bless is blessed and whomever you curse is cursed." ווְעַתָּה֩ לְכָה־נָּ֨א אָֽרָה־לִּ֜י אֶת־הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֗ה כִּֽי־עָצ֥וּם הוּא֙ מִמֶּ֔נִּי אוּלַ֤י אוּכַל֙ נַכֶּה־בּ֔וֹ וַֽאֲגָֽרְשֶׁ֖נּוּ מִן־הָאָ֑רֶץ כִּ֣י יָדַ֗עְתִּי אֵ֤ת אֲשֶׁר־תְּבָרֵךְ֙ מְבֹרָ֔ךְ וַֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר תָּאֹ֖ר יוּאָֽר:

Perhaps I will be able to wage war against them: Heb. נַכֶּה. I with my nation will wage war against them [hence the first person plural form of נַכֶּה]. Another interpretation: It נַכֶּה is a mishnaic term, as in,“he deducts (מְנַכֶּה) from the price for him” (B.M. 105b) [so the meaning here is,] to diminish them somewhat. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 4, Num. Rabbah 20:7]

נכה בו: אני ועמי נכה בהם. דבר אחר לשון משנה היא (ב"מ קה ב) מנכה לו מן הדמים, לחסר מהם מעט:

for I know: through the war of Sihon [against Moab] you helped him defeat Moab. - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 4, Num. Rabbah 20:7]

כי ידעתי וגו': ע"י מלחמת סיחון שעזרתו להכות את מואב:

7So the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian went, with magic charms in their hands, and they came to Balaam and conveyed Balak's message to him. זוַיֵּ֨לְכ֜וּ זִקְנֵ֤י מוֹאָב֙ וְזִקְנֵ֣י מִדְיָ֔ן וּקְסָמִ֖ים בְּיָדָ֑ם וַיָּבֹ֨אוּ֙ אֶל־בִּלְעָ֔ם וַיְדַבְּר֥וּ אֵלָ֖יו דִּבְרֵ֥י בָלָֽק:

with magic charms in their hands: All types of charms, so he could not say,“I don’t have my tools with me.” Another interpretation: The elders of Midian took this omen (קֶסֶם) with them, saying, “If he comes with us this time, there is something to him, but if he pushes us off, he is useless.” Thus, when he said to them, “Lodge here for the night” (verse 8), they said, “He is hopeless” ; so they left him and went away, as it says, “The Moabite nobles stayed with Balaam” (ibid.), but the Midianite elders left. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 5, Num. Rabbah 20:8]

וקסמים בידם: כל מיני קסמים, שלא יאמר אין כלי תשמישי עמי. דבר אחר קסם זה נטלו בידם זקני מדין, אמרו אם יבא עמנו בפעם הזאת יש בו ממש, ואם ידחנו אין בו תועלת, לפיכך כשאמר להם לינו פה הלילה, אמרו אין בו תקוה, הניחוהו והלכו להם, שנאמר וישבו שרי מואב עם בלעם, אבל זקני מדין הלכו להם:

8He said to them, "Lodge here for the night, and I will give you an answer when the Lord speaks to me." So the Moabite nobles stayed with Balaam. חוַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲלֵיהֶ֗ם לִ֤ינוּ פֹה֙ הַלַּ֔יְלָה וַֽהֲשִֽׁבֹתִ֤י אֶתְכֶם֙ דָּבָ֔ר כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר יְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֵלָ֑י וַיֵּֽשְׁב֥וּ שָׂרֵֽי־מוֹאָ֖ב עִם־בִּלְעָֽם:

Lodge here for the night: The Divine Spirit rested on him only at night, and the same applied to all gentile prophets. So it was with Laban, [God came to him] in a dream at night, as it says,“God came to Laban the Aramite in a dream at night” (Gen. 31:24), like a man going to his concubine in secret. — [Mid. Lev. Rabbah 1:13]

לינו פה הלילה: אין רוח הקודש שורה עליו אלא בלילה, וכן לכל נביאי אומות העולם, וכן לבן בחלום הלילה, שנאמר (בראשית לא, כד) ויבא א-להים אל לבן הארמי בחלום הלילה. כאדם ההולך אצל פלגשו בהחבא:

when the Lord speaks to me: If He advises me to go with people like you, I will go with you. But perhaps it is beneath His dignity to allow me to go with anyone but higher ranking nobles than you.

כאשר ידבר ה' אלי: אם ימליכני ללכת עם בני אדם כמותכם אלך עמכם, שמא אין כבודו לתתי להלוך אלא עם שרים גדולים מכם:

stayed: Heb. וַיֵּשְׁבוּ, a term denoting remaining. - [Onkelos]

וישבו: לשון עכבה:

9God came to Balaam and said, "Who are these men with you?" טוַיָּבֹ֥א אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶל־בִּלְעָ֑ם וַיֹּ֕אמֶר מִ֛י הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֥ים הָאֵ֖לֶּה עִמָּֽךְ:

Who are these men with you: It came to delude him. [Rashi means: “the ways of the Lord are straight, and the righteous shall walk in them, and the rebellious shall stumble on them” (Hosea 14:10). By asking, “Who are these men with you,” God meant to enter into a conversation with him, as Rashi states in the section Bereishith (3:9) on the word, “Where are you?” But it came to Balaam to delude him, for he erred.] He [Balaam] said,“Sometimes, not everything is revealed before Him, for He is not always omniscient. I will find a time when I am able to curse, and He will not realize it.”- [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 5, Num. Rabbah 20:9]

מי האנשים האלה עמך: להטעותו בא. אמר פעמים שאין הכל גלוי לפניו, אין דעתו שוה עליו, אף אני אראה עת שאוכל לקלל ולא יבין:

10Balaam said to God, "Balak the son of Zippor the king of Moab has sent [them] to me, [saying]: יוַיֹּ֥אמֶר בִּלְעָ֖ם אֶל־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֑ים בָּלָ֧ק בֶּן־צִפֹּ֛ר מֶ֥לֶךְ מוֹאָ֖ב שָׁלַ֥ח אֵלָֽי:

Balak the son of Zippor: Although I am not important in Your eyes, I am considered important in the eyes of the kings. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 5, Num. Rabbah 20:9]

בלק בן צפור וגו': אף על פי שאיני חשוב בעיניך, חשוב אני בעיני המלכים:

11"Behold the people coming out of Egypt, a nation, has covered the 'eye' of the earth. Come and curse them for me, perhaps I will be able to fight against them and drive them out." יאהִנֵּ֤ה הָעָם֙ הַיֹּצֵ֣א מִמִּצְרַ֔יִם וַיְכַ֖ס אֶת־עֵ֣ין הָאָ֑רֶץ עַתָּ֗ה לְכָ֤ה קָֽבָה־לִּי֙ אֹת֔וֹ אוּלַ֥י אוּכַ֛ל לְהִלָּ֥חֶם בּ֖וֹ וְגֵֽרַשְׁתִּֽיו:

curse it: Heb. קָבָהלּי. [This expression used by Balaam] is stronger than אָרָהלּי [used by Balak in verse 6], for it specifies and details [the curse]- [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 5, Num. Rabbah 20:9]

קבה לי: זו קשה מארה לי, שהוא נוקב ומפרש:

and drive it out: of the world. Balak said only, “and I will drive him out of the land” (verse 6). [His intention was:] I want only to get them away from me, but Balaam hated them more than did Balak. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 5, Num. Rabbah 20:9]

וגרשתיו: מן העולם. ובלק לא אמר אלא ואגרשנו מן הארץ, איני מבקש אלא להסיעם מעלי, ובלעם היה שונאם יותר מבלק:

12God said to Balaam, "You shall not go with them! You shall not curse the people because they are blessed." יבוַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־בִּלְעָ֔ם לֹ֥א תֵלֵ֖ךְ עִמָּהֶ֑ם לֹ֤א תָאֹר֙ אֶת־הָעָ֔ם כִּ֥י בָר֖וּךְ הֽוּא:

You shall not go with them: He said to Him, “If so, I will curse them in my place.” He replied to him, “You shall not curse the people.” He said, “If so, I will bless them.” He replied, “They do not need your blessing, ‘for they are blessed.’ ” As the saying goes, “We say to the wasp (Other editions: the bee), ‘Neither your honey, nor your sting.’ ” - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 6, Num. Rabbah 20:10]

לא תלך עמהם: אמר לו אם כן אקללם במקומי. אמר לו לא תאור את העם. אמר לו אם כן אברכם. אמר לו אינם צריכין לברכתך, כי ברוך הוא. משל אומרים לצרעה לא מדובשיך ולא מעוקציך:

Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 44 - 48
• Hebrew text
• English text

Chapter 44

The psalmist cries and laments painfully over this bitter exile, where we and our Torah are shamed daily, when the nations say that God has exchanged us for another nation, and where we are considered as sheep for the slaughter, as a byword and taunt. It is therefore fitting that God redeem us, for the sake of His great Name that abides with us in exile.

1. For the Conductor, by the sons of Korach, a maskil.1

2. God, with our ears we have heard, our fathers have told us, of the deeds You wrought in their days, in the days of old.

3. You drove out nations with Your hand, and planted [Israel in their place]; You afflicted peoples and banished them.

4. For not by their sword did they inherit the land, and their own arm did not save them, but by Your right hand, Your arm and the light of Your countenance-for You favored them.

5. You are my king, O God; decree the salvation of Jacob.

6. Through You will we gore our adversaries; with Your Name we will trample our opponents.

7. For I do not trust in my bow, and my sword cannot save me.

8. For You have delivered us from our foes, and You shamed those who hate us.

9. In God we glory all day, and forever thank Your Name, Selah.

10. Though You abandon and disgrace us, and do not go forth with our armies;

11. You cause us to retreat from the oppressor, and those who hate us plunder for themselves;

12. You deliver us like sheep to be devoured, and scatter us among the nations;

13. You sell Your nation without gain, and do not set a high price upon them;

14. You make us a disgrace to our neighbors, the scorn and derision of those around us;

15. You make us a byword among the nations, [a cause for] nodding the head among the peoples;

16. all day long my humiliation is before me, and the shame of my face covers me

17. at the voice of the reviler and blasphemer, because of the foe and avenger-

18. all this has come upon us, yet we have not forgotten You, nor have we been false to Your covenant.

19. Our hearts have not retracted, nor have our steps strayed from Your path.

20. Even when You crushed us in the place of serpents, and shrouded us in the shadow of death-

21. did we forget the Name of our God, and extend our hands to a foreign god?

22. Is it not so that God can examine this, for He knows the secrets of the heart.

23. For it is for Your sake that we are killed all the time; we are regarded as sheep for the slaughter.

24. Arise! Why do You sleep, my Lord? Wake up! Do not abandon [us] forever!

25. Why do You conceal Your countenance and forget our affliction and distress?

26. For our souls are bowed to the dust, our bellies cleave to the earth.

27. Arise! Be our help, and redeem us for the sake of Your kindness.

FOOTNOTES

1.A psalm intended to enlighten and impart knowledge(Metzudot).

Chapter 45

The psalmist composed this psalm referring to Moshiach. He describes his greatness, his attributes, his glory, his wealth, and his reign; and states that Israel anticipates him, remembering and saying in every generation, "When will King Moshiach come?"

1. For the Conductor, upon the shoshanim,1 By the sons of Korach; a maskil,2 a song of love.

2. My heart is astir with a noble theme; I say, "My composition is for the king;3 my tongue is the pen of a skillful scribe.”

3. You are the most handsome of men, charm is poured upon your lips; therefore has God blessed you forever.

4. Gird your sword upon your thigh, O mighty one-it is your majesty and splendor.

5. And with your splendor, succeed and ride on for the sake of truth and righteous humility; and your right hand will guide you to awesome deeds.

6. Your arrows are sharpened-nations fall beneath you-[the arrows fall] into the hearts of the king's enemies.

7. Your throne, O ruler, is forever and ever, [for] the scepter of justice is the scepter of your kingdom.

8. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore has God, your God, anointed you with oil of joy above your peers.

9. Myrrh, aloes and cassia are [the fragrance] of all your garments, which are from ivory palaces that bring you joy.

10. Daughters of kings visit you, and the queen stands erect at your right hand, adorned in the fine gold of Ophir.

11. Hear, O daughter, and observe, incline your ear; forget your people and your father's house.

12. Then the king will desire your beauty. He is your master-bow to him.

13. The daughter of Tyre, the wealthiest of nations, will seek your favor with a gift.

14. All the glory of the princess is within; her clothing surpasses settings of gold.

15. In embroidered garments she will be brought to the king; the maidens in her train, her companions, will be led to you.

16. They will be brought with gladness and joy, they will enter the palace of the king.

17. Your sons will succeed your fathers; you will appoint them ministers throughout the land.

18. I will cause Your Name to be remembered throughout the generations; therefore will the nations praise You forever and ever.

FOOTNOTES

1.A musical instrument shaped like a shoshana, a rose (Metzudot).

2.A psalm intended to enlighten and impart knowledge(Metzudot).

3.Reffering to the Messiah. (Metzudot).

Chapter 46

This psalm tells of the Gog and Magog era (the Messianic age), when man will cast aside his weapons, and warfare will be no more.

1. For the Conductor, by the sons of Korach, on the alamot,1 a song.

2. God is our refuge and strength, a help in distress, He is most accessible.

3. Therefore, we will not be afraid when the earth is transformed, when mountains collapse in the heart of the seas;

4. when its waters roar and are muddied, and mountains quake before His grandeur, Selah.

5. The river2-its streams will bring joy to the city of God, the sacred dwelling of the Most High.

6. God is in her midst, she will not falter; God will help her at the approach of morning.

7. Nations clamor, kingdoms stumble; He raises His voice and the earth dissolves.

8. The Lord of Hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our stronghold forever.

9. Go and see the works of the Lord, Who has wrought devastation in the land.

10. To the end of the earth He causes wars to cease; He breaks the bow, snaps the spear, and burns the wagons in fire.

11. Stop [waging war]! And know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, exalted upon the earth.

12. The Lord of Hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our stronghold forever.

FOOTNOTES

1.A musical instrument (Rashi)

2.Flowing from Eden (Rashi)

Chapter 47

Following the battle of Gog and Magog (in the Messianic era), war will be no more. God will grant us salvation, and we will merit to go up to the Holy Temple for the festivals, Amen.

1. For the Conductor, a psalm by the sons of Korach.

2. All you nations, clap hands; sound [the shofar] to God with a sound of jubilation.

3. For the Lord is most high, awesome; a great King over all the earth.

4. He subdues peoples under us, nations beneath our feet.

5. He chooses our heritage for us, the glory of Jacob whom He loves eternally.

6. God ascends through teruah, the Lord-through the sound of the shofar.

7. Sing, O sing to God; sing, O sing to our King.

8. For God is King over all the earth; sing, O man of understanding.

9. God reigns over the nations; God is seated on His holy throne.

10. The most noble of the nations are gathered, the nation of the God of Abraham; for the protectors of the earth belong to God; He is greatly exalted.

Chapter 48

The psalmist prophesies about the Messianic era, singing the praises of a rebuilt Jerusalem and the sacrifices brought there. At that time Israel will say, "As we heard from the mouths of the prophets, so have we merited to see!"

1. A song, a psalm by the sons of Korach.

2. The Lord is great and exceedingly acclaimed in the city of God, His holy mountain.

3. Beautiful in landscape, the joy of the whole earth is Mount Zion, on the northern slopes, the city of the great King.

4. In her citadels, God became known as a tower of strength.

5. For behold, the kings assembled, they advanced in concert [to invade her].

6. They saw [the wonders of the Almighty] and were astounded; they were terror-stricken, they hastened to flee.

7. Trembling seized them there, pangs as of a woman in the throes of labor;

8. [they were crushed as] by an east wind that shatters the ships of Tarshish.

9. As we have heard, so have we seen, in the city of the Lord of Hosts, in the city of our God; may God establish it for all eternity.

10. God, we have been hoping for Your kindness [to be revealed] within Your Sanctuary.

11. As Your Name, O God, [is great,] so is Your praise to the ends of the earth; Your right hand is filled with righteousness.

12. Let Mount Zion rejoice, let the towns of Judah exult, because of Your judgments.

13. Walk around Zion, encircle her, count her towers.

14. Consider well her ramparts, behold her lofty citadels, that you may recount it to a later generation.

15. For this God is our God forever and ever; He will lead us eternally.

Tanya: Igeret HaTeshuva , end of Chapter 1
• English Text (Lessons in Tanya)
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class
Sunday, Tammuz 8, 5777 · July 2, 2017
Today's Tanya Lesson
Igeret HaTeshuva , end of Chapter 1
AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES
• VIDEO CLASS: Rabbi Yehoshua B. Gordon Watch • Listen
• AUDIO CLASS: Rabbi Manis Freidman Listen • Download MP3

והנה מצות התשובה מן התורה היא עזיבת החטא בלבד

Now the mitzvah of repentance1 as required by the Torah is simply the abandonment of sin

כדאיתא בגמרא ,פרק ג׳ דסנהדרין, ובחושן משפט, סוף סימן ל״ד, לענין עדות

(2cf. Sanhedrin, ch. 33; Choshen Mishpat, end of Sec. 34,4 regarding testimony5), where it is stated that if a potential witness simply abandons and does not repeat the transgression that had previously disqualified him, he is once again able to testify.6

דהיינו שיגמור בלבו בלב שלם לבל ישוב עוד לכסלה, למרוד במלכותו יתברך

This means that he must resolve in perfect sincerity never again to revert to folly, to rebel against G‑d’s rule;

ולא יעבור עוד מצות המלך, חס ושלום, הן במצות עשה הן במצות לא תעשה

he will never again violate the King’s command, G‑d forbid, neither a positive command7 nor a prohibition.8

וזהו עיקר פירוש לשון תשובה: לשוב אל ה׳ בכל לבו ובכל נפשו, לעבדו ולשמור כל מצותיו

This is the basic meaning of the term teshuvah (“repentance”) — to return to G‑d with all one’s heart and soul, to serve Him, and to observe all His commandments.

כמו שכתוב: יעזוב רשע דרכו ואיש און מחשבותיו, וישוב אל ה׳ וגו׳

For so does Scripture state:9 “Let the wicked abandon his path, and the sinful his thoughts, and return to G‑d….”

ובפרשת נצבים כתיב: ושבת עד ה׳ אלקיך ושמעת בקולו וגו׳ בכל לבבך וגו׳

In the Torah portion of Nitzavim10 it is likewise written:11 “You shall return unto the Lord your G‑d and hearken to His voice…with all your heart….”12

שובה ישראל עד ה׳ אלקיך וגו׳, השיבנו ה׳ אליך וגו׳

[So, too:]13 “Return, O Israel, unto the L‑rd your G‑d...”; [and elsewhere:]14 “Bring us back, O L‑rd, unto You….”

Repentance, then, entails returning to G‑d, performing his commandments and refraining from sin.

ולא כדעת ההמון שהתשובה היא התענית

This differs from the popular conception that repentance is synonymous with fasting on account of one’s sins.

ואפילו מי שעבר על כריתות ומיתות בית דין, שגמר כפרתו היא על ידי יסורים

Even in the case of sins punishable by excision or execution, where atonement is made complete by suffering, as previously quoted from the Beraita in Yoma,

היינו שהקב״ה מביא עליו יסורים

this means that it is G‑d Who brings suffering upon the sinner, in order to complete his atonement.

וכמו שכתוב: ופקדתי בשבט וגו׳, ופקדתי דייקא

(15as the verse clearly specifies, “With a rod shall I remember [their sin]”).

והיינו: כשתשובתו רצויה לפניו יתברך, בשובו אל ה׳ בכל לבו ונפשו מאהבה

That is to say: When G‑d finds his repentance acceptable, as he returns to Him with all his heart and soul, out of love,

אזי באתערותא דלתתא וכמים הפנים וכו׳, אתערותא דלעילא, לעורר האהבה וחסד ה׳ למרק עונו ביסורים בעולם הזה

then following the initiative undertaken from below, and16 “as water reflects the countenance...,” there is an awakening Above, arousing G‑d’s love and kindness, to scour his sin and entirely cleanse him of it through affliction in This World,

וכמו שכתוב: כי את אשר יאהב ה׳ יוכיח

in the spirit of the verse,17 “For he whom the L‑rd loves He chastises….”

This is something quite different from any fasts or afflictions that an individual undertakes himself.

ולכן לא הזכירו הרמב״ם והסמ״ג שום תענית כלל במצות התשובה, אף בכריתות ומיתות בית דין

It is for this reason that the Rambam and Sefer Mitzvot Gadol18 make no mention whatever of fasting as related to the mitzvah of repentance, even in the case of sins punishable by excision or capital sins.

I.e., fasting is not required even with regard to those sins whose atonement is completed through suffering.

רק הוידוי ובקשת מחילה, כמו שכתוב בתורה: והתודו את חטאתם וגו׳

They cite only confessing [verbally] and requesting forgiveness; as the Torah prescribes,19“They shall confess their sin….”

Why are confession and requesting forgiveness indeed part of repentance?

Every sin consists of a body and a soul. The actual misdeed itself is the “body” of the sin, and the bodily pleasure and ensuing desire with which it was committed are its “soul”. Repentance involves eliminating both these elements.

The “soul” of the sin is eradicated by the earnest regret of the individual, who is mortified and pained by his past. Inasmuch as pain is the opposite of pleasure, it negates the pleasure which had earlier aroused his desire to sin, and thereby obliterates the “soul” of the sin.

But the “body” of the sin also needs to be nullified. Simply refraining from further transgression lacks the action that would negate the sinful act itself, its “body”. This is accomplished through verbal confession, for20“verbalization is also considered to be an action.”

At any rate, verbal confession is thus a component of repentance — while fasting is not.

ומה שכתוב ביואל: שובו עדי בכל לבבכם, ובצום ובבכי גו׳

As to what we find in the Book of Yoel,21 “Return to Me with all your hearts, and with fasting and weeping...,” which would seem to indicate that fasting is in fact part of return and repentance,

היינו לבטל הגזרה שנגזרה, למרק עון הדור על ידי יסורים בארבה

this was to nullify (Note inserted by the Rebbe: ‘…something which relates to the future, while repentance involves forsaking the past’) the heavenly decree that had been issued, to expunge the sin of the generation through the affliction of locusts; it was not part of the act of repentance.

וזהו הטעם בכל תעניות שמתענין על כל צרה שלא תבא על הצבור

This is the rationale for all fasts undertaken for any trouble threatening the community, their purpose being to avert the impending harsh edict,

וכמו שכתוב במגלת אסתר

as in the Book of Esther,22 where we find that the Queen asked that a fast be proclaimed in order to nullify Haman’s evil decree.

ומה שכתוב בספרי המוסר, ובראשם ספר הרוקח וספר חסידים, הרבה תעניות וסיגופים לעובר על כריתות ומיתות בית דין

Now the classic Mussar works, particularly the Rokeach and Sefer Chassidim, specify numerous fasts and mortifications23 for sins punishable by excision and execution;

וכן למוציא זרע לבטלה, שחייב מיתה בידי שמים, כמו שכתוב בתורה גבי ער ועונן

likewise numerous fasts are prescribed for the wasteful emission of semen — a sin punishable by death by divine agency, as the Torah recounts of Er and Onan,24

ודינן כחייבי כריתות לענין זה

and a sin whose retribution is identical in this respect to that of sins punishable by excision,and hence the numerous fasts prescribed.

All this might lead us to assume that the purpose of fasts is suffering — this being the manner through which atonement is brought to completion by those who are guilty of sins punishable by excision. But it has been previously stated that the suffering which completes atonement is specifically that which comes from Above, and not manmade suffering incurred through fasting and the like. The Alter Rebbe answers this seeming contradiction by stating:

היינו: כדי לינצל מעונש יסורים של מעלה, חס ושלום

These above-prescribed fasts and mortifications are intended to avert the punishment of suffering at the hand of heaven, G‑d forbid. (Note of the Rebbe: “This too relates to the future, unlike repentance, which relates to the past.”)

This means that if, G‑d forbid, the punishment of suffering had been decreed upon an individual, he is able to exempt himself from it through these self-imposed fasts.

וגם כדי לזרז ולמהר גמר כפרת נפשו

Another reason [for these fasts] is to urge on and expedite the conclusion of his soul’s atonement.

וגם אולי אינו שב אל ה׳ בכל לבו ונפשו מאהבה, כי אם מיראה

Also, perhaps he is not returning to G‑d with all his heart and soul out of love, but only out of fear.

Such a penitent would not enjoy the Divine reaction that comes “as water reflects the countenance,” and would not be granted the completion of his atonement through suffering. Accordingly, he might undertake these fasts in order to secure this alone. Essentially, however, the suffering that brings about complete atonement (for those guilty of sins punishable by excision and death by Divine agency) is not meant to be self-inflicted, but rather — heaven forfend — imposed from Above.

FOOTNOTES
1.	Note of the Rebbe: “The Alter Rebbe speaks of ‘the mitzvah of repentance’ (rather than ‘the content of repentance’ or simply ‘repentance,’ and the like, recalling the expression of the Rambam in Hilchot Teshuvah 2:2). This would seem to indicate his stand on the basic content of repentance — that abandoning sin is a command of the Torah. This is so even according to the Rambam and the Semag, whose opinions he follows here (see Sefer HaMitzvot of the Tzemach Tzedek, beginning of Mitzvat Vidui U‘Teshuvah) and not only according to the Ramban (on Nitzavim30:11, quoted in Likkutei Torah on that verse). ”In the preamble to Hilchot Teshuvah in Sefer HaYad (and it would seem that these introductory headings were written by the Rambam himself) we [likewise] read: ’One positive command: That the sinner return from his sin before G‑d and confess.‘ Possibly this preamble also serves as the source for the words of theTzemach Tzedek, loc. cit. [So too] in Sefer HaMitzvot of the Rambam: ’The seventy-third mitzvah is that He commanded us to confess [our transgressions] and to articulate them penitently (lit., ‘with teshuvah’).“
2.	Parentheses are in the original text.
3.	25b.
4.	Sub-section 29ff.
5.	Note of the Rebbe: ”It will be noted that the Alter Rebbe does not cite TractateKiddushin (49b) and the section of the Shulchan Aruch entitled Even HaEzer(38:31) with regard to marriage, even though these two sources respectivelyprecede Tractate Sanhedrin and Choshen Mishpat (see also Minchat Chinuch, Mitzvah 364). [The Gemara in Kiddushin teaches that even if an utterly wicked individual betrothed a woman on condition that he was a tzaddik, the betrothal is valid — for at that moment he could have repented in his heart; the Shulchan Aruch in Even HaEzer determines that such a betrothal has a degree (albeit uncertain) of legal validity; and the Minchat Chinuch in fact cites the above-quotedGemara to demonstrate that the abandonment of sin in itself constitutes teshuvah. Why, then, did the Alter Rebbe not draw on these sources?] “It could be suggested by way of explanation that he prefers to adduce proof from fiscal law, where any particular case is not determined by a majority of instances. This is to say, that it is not only in the majority of instances [but in all instances] that abandonment of sin alone suffices.”
6.	The Rebbe notes that the Alter Rebbe’s point here is that the main element of repentance is not fasting, as he goes on to prove, but the abandonment of sin. However, the text also makes it clear that verbal confession is not essential to repentance (as is demonstrated by the citation from Choshen Mishpat, where verbal confession is not mentioned). It is only that when one does confess verbally and ask for forgiveness, these steps are incorporated in his repentance and enhance it — for which reason Rambam speaks of them. Fasting, however, is a totally separate thing, as the Alter Rebbe explains at the end of this chapter and the beginning of the next — for which reason (as he goes on to say) “the Rambam and the Semag make no mention whatever of fasting as related to the mitzvah of repentance.”
7.	Note of the Rebbe: “Though this requires action on his part, nevertheless he so resolves.”
8.	Note of the Rebbe: “For by transgressing a negative command rebelliousness is evident — which is not the case when he fails to perform a positive command.”
9.	Yeshayahu 55:7.
10.	Note of the Rebbe: “The Alter Rebbe cites the parshah [Nitzavim] rather than simply stating that the quoted verse is found ‘in the Torah’ as he does later on, in order to make it clear that he is not referring the reader toParshat Va-etchanan (Devarim 4:30), for there the Torah merely relates events, as we see from the beginning of the text, ‘I call as witnesses against you....’ Furthermore, and more importantly (for it could be pointed out that even from a narrative in the Torah we could learn what is considered repentance), there the verse does not specify that it be done ‘with all your heart.’”
11.	Devarim 30:2.
12.	The Rebbe suggests that the reason the Alter Rebbe quotes the Prophets (Yeshayahu) before the Torah(Devarim) is that the Prophet explicitly states that repentance involves the abandonment of sin. The Rebbe adds: “See Rambam, Hilchot Teshuvah 2:2.”
13.	Hoshea 14:2.
14.	Eichah 5:22.
15.	Parentheses are in the original text.
16.	Mishlei 27:19.
17.	Ibid. 3:12.
18.	Positive Command 16.
19.	Devarim 5:7.
20.	Sanhedrin 65a.
21.	2:12.
22.	4:16.
23.	“Especially problematic here is the mention of mortifications, for in the context of averting a decree the sources speak only of fasts, as in the Books of Esther and Yoel cited above. An alternative explanation must therefore be found.” (— Note of the Rebbe.)
24.	Bereishit 38:6-7.

Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvot:
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
Today's Mitzvah
Sunday, Tammuz 8, 5777 · July 2, 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 266
Coveting
"You shall not desire your neighbor's house"—Deuteronomy 5:18.
It is forbidden to entertain thoughts regarding devising plots on how to acquire a coveted item that belongs to a fellow.
Full text of this Mitzvah »

Coveting

Negative Commandment 266

Translated by Berel Bell

The 266th prohibition is that we are forbidden to occupy our thoughts with our desire for someone else's property and to develop a craving for it, and dwell upon it, since this will lead us to carry out a plan to acquire it.

The expression used for this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not desire (lo sisaveh) your neighbor's house."

These two prohibitions [lo sach'mod and lo sisaveh] do not have the same goal.2 The first prohibition, lo sach'mod, forbids buying someone else's belongings, whereas the second, lo sisaveh, prohibits even having the feeling of desire and envy.

The Mechilta says, "Here it says 'Do not envy [lo sach'mod] your neighbor's house,' and later it says, 'Do not desire [lo sisaveh] your neighbor's house.' This makes the desire and the envy separate prohibitions." It also says there, "How do we know that a person's desire will lead him to envy? Since the Torah says 'Do not desire' [lo sisaveh] and 'Do not be envious' [lo sach'mod]. How do we know that if he is envious he will ultimately commit robbery? Since the Torah says,3 "They envied fields and robbed them."

The explanation of this passage is as follows: If one sees a fine object that belongs to his brother, and allows his thoughts to gain control over him, and develops a desire for it, he transgresses G‑d's statement (exalted be He), "Do not desire" [lo sisaveh].

Then his love for the object will become stronger and he will carry out a plan to acquire it — coaxing him and pushing him to sell it or to trade it for something better and more expensive. Should he reach his goal, when he acquires it, he also transgresses the prohibition, "Do not be envious," since by pushing and scheming he acquired his friend's object even though he had no intention of selling it. At this point, he has transgressed two prohibitions, as we have explained.

If, however, the owner, because of his love for the object, refuses to sell or trade it, then his great desire for it will cause him to take it by force and violence. At that point he also transgresses the prohibition, "Do not commit robbery." Think about this in relation to the story of Achav and Navos.4

We have therefore explained the difference between lo sisaveh and lo sach'mod.

FOOTNOTES

1.Ibid., 5:18.

2.In which case they would not count as separate mitzvos. See the Ninth Introductory Principle.

3.Michah 2:2.

4.Kings I, Ch. 21.

Rambam:
• 1 Chapter A Day: Nachalot Nachalot - Chapter 6
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class

Nachalot - Chapter 6

Although all that is involved is money, a person may not give property as an inheritance to a person who is not fit to inherit, nor may he exclude a rightful heir from inheriting. This is derived from the verse in the passage concerning inheritance, Numbers 27:11: "And it shall be for the children of Israel as a statute of judgment."

This verse implies that this statute will never change, and no stipulation can be made with regard to it. Whether a person made statements while he was healthy or on his deathbed, whether orally or in writing, they are of no consequence.

אין אדם יכול להוריש למי שאינו ראוי ליורשו ולא לעקור הירושה מן היורש אע"פ שזה ממון הוא, לפי שנאמר בפרשת נחלות והיתה לבני ישראל לחוקת משפט לומר שחוקה זו לא נשתנה ואין התנאי מועיל בה, בין שצוה והוא בריא בין שהיה שכיב מרע בין על פה בין בכתב אינו מועיל.

Therefore, if a person states: "So-and-so is my firstborn son, he should not receive a double portion," or "My son so-and-so should not inherit my estate together with his brothers," his statements are of no consequence. Similarly, if he says: "Let so-and-so inherit my estate" when the dying man has a daughter, or "Let my daughter inherit my estate" when he has a son, his statements are of no consequence. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

If, however, he had many heirs - e.g., many sons, brothers, or many daughters - and he says while on his deathbed: "Of all my brothers, only my brother so-and-so should inherit my estate," or "Of all my daughters, only my daughter so-and-so should inherit my estate," his words are binding. This applies whether he made these statements orally or in writing.

If, however, he states: "My son so-and-so should be my sole heir," different rules apply]. If he made this statement orally, his words are binding. If, however, he had a document composed stating that his entire estate should be given to one son, he is considered merely to have appointed him as a guardian, as explained.

לפיכך האומר איש פלוני בני בכורי לא יטול פי שנים, איש פלוני בני לא יירש עם אחיו לא אמר כלום, איש פלוני יירשני במקום שיש לו בת, בתי תירשני במקום שיש לו בן לא אמר כלום וכן כל כיוצא בזה, אבל היו לו יורשין רבים כגון בנים רבים או אחים או בנות ואמר כשהוא שכיב מרע פלוני אחי יירשני מכלל אחי או בתי פלונית תירשני מכלל בנותי דבריו קיימין בין שאמר על פה בין שכתב בכתב, אבל אם אמר פלוני בני יירשני לבדו אם אמר על פה דבריו קיימין, אבל אם כתב כל נכסיו לבנו לא עשהו אלא אפוטרופוס כמו שביארנו.

If a person states: "So-and-so my son should inherit half my estate and my other sons should inherit the other half," his words are binding. If, however, he states: "My firstborn should inherit as an ordinary son," or "My firstborn should not receive a double portion among his brothers," his words are of no consequence. This is derived from Deuteronomy 21:16-17: "He cannot give the firstborn rights to the son of the beloved instead of the firstborn, the son of the hated. Instead, he shall recognize the firstborn, the son of the hated."i4

אמר פלוני בני יירש חצי נכסי ושאר בני החצי דבריו קיימין, אבל אם אמר הבכור יירש כפשוט או שאמר לא יירש פי שנים עם אחיו לא אמר כלום שנאמר לא יוכל לבכר את בן האהובה על פני בן השנואה הבכור כי את הבכור בן השנואה יכיר.

If the person desiring to bequeath his estate was healthy, he may not increase or decrease either the portion of the firstborn or that of any other heirs.

ואם היה בריא אינו יכול להוסיף ולא לגרוע לא לבכור ולא לאחד משאר היורשין.

When does the above apply? When the person making the bequest uses the expression "inherit." If, however, he gives a present, his statements are binding.

Accordingly, when a person apportions his estate verbally to his sons on his deathbed, his statements are binding even though he gave a greater portion to one, reduced the portion of another and equated the portion of the firstborn with that of his other sons. If, however, he used wording that speaks of "inheritance," his statements are of no consequence.

במה דברים אמורים כשאמר בלשון ירושה, אבל אם נתן מתנה דבריו קיימין, לפיכך המחלק נכסיו על פיו לבניו כשהוא שכיב מרע ריבה לאחד ומיעט לאחד והשוה להן הבכור דבריו קיימין, ואם אמר משום ירושה לא אמר כלום.

If, when apportioning his estate, a person wrote that he is giving his estate as a present, whether at the beginning, the middle, or the end, his statement is binding even though he also spoke of an inheritance.

What is implied? The person said: "Have this-and-this field given to so-and-so, my son, and let him inherit it," "Let him inherit this-and-this field, have it given to him and let him inherit it," or "Let him inherit it and have it given to him." Since he mentioned a present, even though he spoke of an inheritance at the beginning and/or at the end of his statements, his words are binding.

Similarly, if he was apportioning three fields to three different heirs, and he said: "May so-and-so inherit this-and-this field. This-and-this field should be given to so-and-so, and so-and-so should inherit this-and-this field," the intended recipients acquire the gifts even though wording indicating an inheritance was used with regard to one individual, and wording indicating a present was used with regard to another.

This applies provided that the person making the bequest did not make a significant pause between his statements. If, however, he paused, he must mention giving a present with regard to all three individuals.

כתב בין בתחלה בין באמצע בין בסוף משום מתנה אף על פי שהזכיר לשון ירושה בתחלה ובסוף דבריו קיימין, כיצד תנתן שדה פלוני לפלוני בני ויירשנה, או שאמר יירשנה ותנתן לו ויירשנה, או יירשנה ותנתן לו, הואיל ויש שם לשון מתנה אע"פ שהזכיר לשון ירושה בתחלה ובסוף דבריו קיימין, וכן אם היו שלש שדות לשלשה יורשין ואמר יירש פלוני שדה פלונית ותנתן לפלוני שדה פלונית ויירש פלוני שדה פלונית קנו, אע"פ שזה שאמר לו בלשון ירושה אינו זה שאמר לו בלשון מתנה, והוא שלא ישהה בין אמירה לאמירה כדי דבור, אבל אם שהה צריך שיהא לשון המתנה מעורב בשלשתן.

What is implied? If the wording mentioning a present was in the middle, he should say: "So-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so, should inherit this-and-this field, this-and-this field, and this-and-this field that I gave them as a present, and they should inherit it."

If the wording mentioning a present was in the beginning, he should say: "May this-and-this field, this-and-this field, and this-and-this field be given to so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so, and they should inherit it."

If the wording mentioning a present was at the end, he should say: "May so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so, inherit this-and-this field, this-and-this field, and this-and-this field that I gave to them as a present."

כיצד אם היה לשון המתנה באמצע יאמר פלוני ופלוני יירשו שדה פלוני ופלוני שנתתים להן במתנה ויירשום, ואם היה לשון המתנה בתחלה יאמר תנתן שדה פלוני ופלוני לפלוני ופלוני ויירשום, ואם היה לשון המתנה בסוף יאמר יירש פלוני ופלוני (ופלוני) שדה פלוני ופלוני (ופלוני) שנתתים להן במתנה.

Although a husband's right to inherit his wife's estate is a Rabbinic decree, our Sages reinforced their words and gave them the strength of Scriptural Law. Hence, a stipulation in which the husband waives his right to her inheritance is not effective unless he made this stipulation while the woman was consecrated, as we have explained in Hilchot Ishut.

ירושת הבעל אע"פ שהיא מדבריהם עשו חזוק לדבריהם כשל תורה, ואין התנאי מועיל בה אלא אם כן התנה עמה כשהיא ארוסה כמו שביארנו בהלכות אישות.

According to Scriptural Law, a gentile inherits his father's estate. With regard to other inheritances, we allow them to follow their own customs.

העכו"ם יורש את אביו דבר תורה, אבל שאר ירושותיהן מניחין אותו לפי מנהגם.

A convert does not inherit the estate of his father, a gentile. Nevertheless, our Sages ordained that he be able to inherit the estate as he was entitled previously, lest he return to rebellion against God.

It appears to me that a stipulation can be made with regard to this inheritance, for a gentile is not obligated to accept our Sages' ordinances.

A gentile does not inherit the estate of his father, a convert, nor does one convert inherit another convert's estate, neither according to Scriptural Law nor according to Rabbinic Law.

והגר אינו יורש את אביו העכו"ם אלא מדבריהם תקנו לו שיירש כשהיה שמא יחזור למרדו, ויראה לי שתנאי מועיל בירושה זו הואיל ואין העכו"ם מחוייב לעמוד בתקנת חכמים, ואין העכו"ם יורש את אביו הגר ולא גר יורש את גר לא מדברי תורה ולא מדברי סופרים.

Our Sages did not derive satisfaction from a person who gives his property to others, taking it away from his heirs. This applies even when the heirs do not conduct themselves properly toward him. Nevertheless, the recipients acquire everything that was given to them.

It is an attribute of piety for a pious person not to act as a witness with regard to a will in which property is being taken from an heir. This applies even when the property is being taken from a son who does not conduct himself properly, and being given to a brother who is wise and who conducts himself properly.

יא

כל הנותן נכסיו לאחרים והניח היורשין, אע"פ שאין היורשין נוהגין (בו) כשורה אין רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו, וזכו האחרים בכל מה שנתן להן, מדת חסידות היא שלא יעיד אדם חסיד בצוואה שמעבירין בו הירושה מן היורש אפילו מבן שאינו נוהג כשורה לאחיו חכם ונוהג כשורה.

Although a Jew converts out of the faith, he retains the right to inherit the estates of his Jewish relatives as before. If, however, the court sees fit to make him forfeit his money and penalize him by preventing him from receiving the inheritance so as not to strengthen his hand, they have that power. If he has children " among the Jewish people, the inheritance due their father, the apostate, should be given to them. This is the custom that is always followed in the West.

יב

ישראל שהמיר יורש את קרוביו הישראלים כשהיה, ואם ראו בית דין לאבד את ממונו ולקנסו שלא יירש כדי שלא לחזק את ידיהם הרשות בידן, ואם יש לו בנים בישראל תנתן ירושת אביהן המומר להן, וכן המנהג תמיד במערב.

Our Sages commanded that a person should not differentiate between his children in his lifetime, even with regard to a small matter, lest this spawn competition and envy as happened with Joseph and his brothers.

יג

צוו חכמים שלא ישנה אדם בין הבנים בחייו אפילו בדבר מועט שלא יבואו לידי תחרות וקנאה כאחי יוסף עם יוסף.

Rambam:• 3 Chapters A Day: Gezelah va'Avedah Gezelah va'Avedah - Chapter Ten, Gezelah va'Avedah Gezelah va'Avedah - Chapter Eleven, Gezelah va'Avedah Gezelah va'Avedah - Chapter Twelve
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class

Gezelah va'Avedah - Chapter Ten

The following law applies when a powerful and violent gentile took over property belonging to a Jew by force, seizing his field because the owner owed him a debt, caused him damages or caused him financial loss. If, after taking possession of the field, the gentile sold it to another Jew, the owner cannot expropriate it from the purchaser.

עכו"ם בעל זרוע שאנס נכסי ישראל וירד לתוך שדהו מחמת שהיה לו חוב על בעל השדה או מחמת שיש לו נזק ביד זה הישראל או מחמת שהפסיד ממונו. [א] ואחר שתקף לו את השדה מכרה לישראל אחר אין הבעלים יכולין להוציא מיד הלוקח:

When does the above apply? When the owner admits that the gentile who sold the property told the truth, or when two Jewish witnesses substantiate the truth of the gentile's claims.

Similarly, if there was a king or a ruler in that locale who could summon the gentile to court, and the owner did not lodge a claim against him, he cannot expropriate the property from the person who purchased it from the gentile. This applies even though the owner does not admit the truth of the gentile's claim, and even though there are no witnesses that the gentile told the truth. For the purchaser can tell the owner: "If the gentile is a robber, why did you not sue him according to the laws of the land?"

במה דברים אמורים בשהודו הבעלים שאמת טען העכו"ם [המוכר או יעידו עדי ישראל שהאמת טען העכו"ם המוכר]. וכן אם היה שם מלך או שר באותו מקום שיכול לכוף את העכו"ם שמכר לדין ולא תבעו הבעלים את העכו"ם אינן יכולין להוציא מיד הלוקח מן העכו"ם אע"פ שאין מודין לעכו"ם ואע"פ שאין שם עדים שאמת טען העכו"ם שהרי אומר הלוקח לבעלים אם גזלן הוא העכו"ם למה לא תבעתם אותו בדיניהם:

The following laws apply with regard to gentiles who oppress the Jewish people and seek to kill them, unless they ransom themselves from the gentiles by ceding title to a field or a home, and giving it to the gentiles in return for their release.

When the oppressor desires to sell this land and the owner has the means to purchase the property, he is given priority over all others. If the owner does not have the means to purchase the property, or the property has remained in the possession of the oppressor for more than twelve months, whoever comes first and purchases the property from the oppressor acquires it.

The purchaser must, however, give the original owner a fourth of the land or a third of the funds. For the oppressor sells the land cheaply; since the land is not his, he will sell it for approximately a fourth less than its value. This portion belongs to the original owner, because the reason it was sold cheaply was that it belonged to him.

Therefore, a person who acquires it from the oppressor for 30 zuzmust pay 10 to the original owner or give him one fourth of the land. If this is done, the purchaser acquires full title to the land. If he fails to do this, the quarter of the land is considered to be property obtained by robbery.

העכו"ם המציקים לישראל ומבקשים להרגם עד שיפדה עצמו מיד העכו"ם בשדהו או בביתו ויתננה למציק ואחר כך יניחנו. כשירצה המציק למכור אותה הקרקע אם יש ביד הבעלים ליקח מן המציק הן קודמין לכל אדם. ואם אין ביד הבעלים ליקח או ששהה הקרקע ביד המציק שנים עשר חדש כל הקודם ולקח מן המציק זכה. ובלבד שיתן לבעלים הראשונים רביע הקרקע או שליש המעות מפני שזה המציק מוכר בזול הואיל וקרקע שאינה שלו הוא מוכר הרי זה מוכר בפחות רביע או קרוב לו וזה רביע של בעלים שהרי מחמת שהיא שלהן מוכר בזול. לפיכך הלוקח מן המציק בשלשים נותן לבעלים עשרה או נותן להם רביע הקרקע ואחר כך יקנה הכל. ואם לא נתן הרי רביע הקרקע כגזל בידו:

The following rules apply if a squatter enters a field belonging to a colleague without permission and plants trees there. If the field was one appropriate for trees to be planted, we evaluate how much a person would be willing to pay for trees to be planted in this field, and he collects this amount from the owner of the field. If this field is not suitable for planting, the squatter's improvement of the field should be evaluated, and he is judged at a disadvantage.

היורד לתוך שדה חבירו שלא ברשות ונטעה אם היתה שדה העשויה ליטע אומדין כמה אדם רוצה ליתן בשדה זו ליטעה ונוטל מבעל [ב] השדה. ואם אינה עשויה ליטע שמין לו וידו על התחתונה:

Moreover, if the owner of the field tells the squatter: "Uproot your tree and go," the owner's wishes are heeded.If the squatter says: "I want to uproot my tree," his wishes are not heeded, because uprooting trees weakens the fertility of the land.

אמר לו בעל השדה עקור אילנך ולך שומעים לו. אמר הנוטע הריני עוקר אילני אין שומעין לו מפני שמכחיש את הקרקע:

Courtyards are considered to be appropriate for construction and to add homes and lofts. Therefore, the geonim ruled that a squatter who builds in a colleague's courtyard without his consent is regarded like a person who plants trees in a field appropriate for planting. If the building is useful and is appropriate for that courtyard according to the local custom, we evaluate how much a person would give to have such a building constructed and require the owner to pay that sum to the squatter.

החצרות הרי הן ראויין לבנין ולהוסיף בהן בתים ועליות. לפיכך הורו הגאונים שהבונה בחצר חבירו שלא מדעתו הרי זה כנוטע שדה העשויה ליטע ושמין לו כמה אדם רוצה ליתן בבנין זה לבנותו. והוא שיבנה בנין המועיל הראוי לאותה חצר כמנהג אותו מקום:

When a person enters a colleague's field with the latter's permission, his improvement of the field should be evaluated, and he should be given the advantage in evaluating the amount of money due him. This applies even if he planted trees in a field that was unfit for planting.

If his expenses exceed the field's increase in value, he is reimbursed for his expenses. If the field's increase in value exceeds his expenses, he is reimbursed for the field's increase in value.

A husband who tills property belonging to his wife, and a partner who tills a field in which he owns a share are considered to have been given permission to enter the land. Their improvement of the field should be evaluated and they should be given the advantage in evaluating the amount of money due them.

היורד לשדה חבירו ברשות אפילו נטע שדה שאינה עשויה ליטע שמין לו וידו על העליונה. שאם היתה ההוצאה יתר על השבח נוטל ההוצאה ואם השבח יתר על ההוצאה נוטל השבח. ובעל בנכסי אשתו [ג] והשותף בשדה שיש לו חלק בה כיורד ברשות הן ושמין להם וידם על העליונה:

When a squatter enters a field belonging to a colleague without permission and plants trees or builds there and the owner of the field comes afterwards and completes the building or guards the trees planted, or performs any other activity that indicates that he is pleased with the squatter's activity and considers it desirable, the squatter's improvement of the field should be evaluated and he should be given the advantage in evaluating the amount of money due him.

היורד לשדה חבירו שלא ברשות ונטע או בנה ואחר כך בא בעל השדה והשלים הבנין או ששמר הנטיעות וכיוצא באלו הדברים שמראין שדעתו נוטה למה שעשה זה וברצונו בא הדבר שמין לו וידו על העליונה:

When a squatter enters a ruined building belonging to a colleague and rebuilds it without permission, the improvement he has brought about should be evaluated, and he is judged at a disadvantage.

If the owner of the building says: "I am taking my stones and wood," his words are heeded with regard to a house,but this principle is not applied with regard to a field, for building and destroying a structure in a field weakens the fertility of the land.

If the owner of the land tells him: "Remove what you built,"his words are heeded.

היורד לתוך חרבתו של חבירו ובנאה שלא ברשות שמין לו וידו על התחתונה ואם אמר בעל הבנין עציי ואבניי אני נוטל. בבית [ד] שומעין לו. בשדה אין שומעין לו מפני שמכחיש את הקרקע. אמר לו בעל הקרקע טול מה שבנית שומעין לו:

Whenever the improvements a person brought about are evaluated - whether he is judged at an advantage or at a disadvantage - he is not entitled to collect any money unless he first takes an oath while holding a sacred object, with regard to the amount of his expenses.

If he says: "Let the judges come and evaluate the expenses. Whatever I spent is in the open. Let them evaluate the worth of the wood, the stones, the mortar, and the wages of the workers according to the lowest standards," his request is accepted, and he is entitled to collect his due without taking an oath. Similarly, if a person collects only the value of the improvement of the property, and he is judged at an advantage, he is not required to take an oath.

כל מי ששמין לו בין שהיתה ידו על העליונה בין שהיתה ידו על התחתונה אינו נוטל כלום עד שישבע בנקיטת חפץ כמה הוציא. ואם אמר יבואו הדיינים ויעשו שומת ההוצאה והרי היא גלויה לעיניהם וישערו העצים והאבנים והסיד ושכר האומנין בפחות שבשערים שומעין לו ונוטל בלא שבועה. וכן זה שנוטל השבח בלבד והיתה ידו על העליונה אין צריך שבועה:

The following rule applies whenever the improvements a person made are to be evaluated and he is entitled to collect money, and the owner of the field claims to have paid him, and the person who tilled the field claims that he did not receive anything. The claim of the person who tilled the field is accepted. He must take an oath that he did not receive anything, and he is entitled to collect his due. For we tell the owner of the field: "An evaluation of what he is due was not made yet. Thus, you did not know how much you were obligated to give. How could you have paid him?"

A different rule applies, however, if the evaluation was already made and the owner of the field was told to pay a specific amount to the person who tilled it. If the owner of the field claims to have paid him, although the person who tilled the field has not taken an oath yet, the claim of the owner is accepted. The owner must take a Rabbinic oath that he paid, and then he is freed of liability. The rationale is that land is always considered to be in the domain of its rightful owner.

יא

כל ששמין לו ב ונוטל שטען בעל השדה ואמר נתתי והיורד לשדה אומר לא נטלתי. היורד נאמן ונשבע שלא נתן לו כלום ונוטל שהרי אומרין לבעל השדה עדיין לא שמו לך ולא ידעת כמה אתה חייב ליתן היאך נתת. אבל אם שמו לו ואמרו לבעל השדה תן לו ואמר נתתי אע"פ שעדיין לא נשבע היורד הרי בעל השדה נאמן וישבע שבועת היסת שנתן ויפטר שהקרקע בחזקת בעליה:

The following laws apply when a husband brings sharecroppers to till property belonging to his wife and then he divorces her. If the husband is himself a sharecropper, their involvement is also terminated when the husband's involvement with the land is terminated, for they agreed to work the field on the husband's invitation. Their improvement of the field should be evaluated, and they are judged at a disadvantage.

If the husband is not a sharecropper and they agreed to work the field because it was necessary, they receive the share that is usually given to a sharecropper.

יב

בעל שהוריד אריסין בנכסי אשתו ואחר כך גירשה. אם הבעל עצמו אריס נסתלק בעל נסתלק אריסיו שלא ירדו לה אלא על דעת הבעל ושמין להם וידם על התחתונה. ואם אין הבעל אריס על דעת הקרקע ירדו ושמין להם כאריס:

Gezelah va'Avedah - Chapter Eleven

It is a positive commandment to return an object lost by a fellow Jew, as Deuteronomy 22:1 states: "And you shall certainly return it."

A person who sees an object lost by a fellow Jew and ignores it, leaving it in its place, transgresses a negative commandment, as it states Ibid.:4: "Do not see your brother's ox... and ignore it." He also negates the fulfillment of a positive commandment. If he returns the object, he fulfills the positive commandment.

השבת ג אבידה לישראל מצות עשה שנאמר השב תשיבם. והרואה אבידת ישראל ונתעלם ממנה והניחה עובר בלא תעשה שנאמר לא תראה את שור אחיך והתעלמת מהם ובטל מצות עשה. ואם השיבה קיים מצות עשה:

If a person takes a lost object and does not return it, he negates the fulfillment of a positive commandment and transgresses two negative commandments: "You may not ignore it" Ibid.:3 and Leviticus 19:13: "Do not rob."

Even if the owner of the lost object is wicked and eats non-kosher meat for his own satisfaction and the like, it is a mitzvah to return an object that he lost. If, however, he eats non-kosher meat as a conscious act of rebellion against God, he is considered a non-believer. And just as it is forbidden to return a lost object belonging to a gentile, it is forbidden to return a lost object belonging to a Jew who is a non-believer, heretic, idol-worshiper or violator of the Sabbath in public.

לקח את האבידה ולא השיבה בטל מצות עשה ועבר על שני לאוין על לא תוכל להתעלם ועל לא תגזול. אפילו היה בעל האבידה רשע [א] ואוכל נבילה לתיאבון וכיוצא בו מצוה להשיב לו אבידתו אבל אוכל נבילה להכעיס הרי הוא אפיקורוס והאפיקורוסים ועובדי עכו"ם ומחללי שבת בפרהסיא אסור להחזיר להן אבדה כעכו"ם:

It is permissible to keep an object lost by an idolater, for Deuteronomy 22:3 speaks of returning "an object lost by your brother." Indeed, if one returns such an article, one transgresses a prohibition, for one strengthens the power of the wicked peoples of the world. If, however, one returns it to sanctify God's name, so that others will praise the Jewish people and know that they are trustworthy, this is praiseworthy.

When there is a possibility of the desecration of God's name, it is forbidden to keep an object lost by an idolater, and it must be returned. As part of "the ways of peace," we should always bring in their utensils from the outside, lest they be taken by thieves, as we do for utensils owned by Jews.

אבידת עובד עכו"ם מותרת שנאמר אבידת אחיך והמחזירה הרי זה עובר עבירה מפני שהוא מחזיק יד רשעי עולם. ואם החזירה לקדש את השם כדי שיפארו את ישראל וידעו שהם בעלי אמונה הרי זה משובח. ובמקום שיש חלול השם אבידתו אסורה וחייב להחזירה. ובכל מקום מכניסין כליהם מפני הגנבים ככלי ישראל מפני דרכי שלום:

A mistake in accounts made by a gentile is considered like a lost article, and it is permissible to benefit from it. This applies if he makes the mistake himself. It is, however, forbidden to cause him to make a mistake.

טעות העכו"ם כאבידתו ומותרת והוא שטעה מעצמו אבל להטעותו [ב] אסור:

What is implied? A gentile made an account and made an error in a Jew's favor. The Jew must tell him: "Look, I am relying on your account. I know only what you tell me." In an instance like this, if the gentile does not correct himself, it is permitted to take advantage of his error. If, however, one does not tell him this, it is forbidden. It is possible that the gentile's intent is to check the Jew's honesty. By keeping the money, one may cause God's name to be desecrated.

כיצד כגון שעשה העכו"ם חשבון וטעה. וצריך שיאמר לו ישראל ראה שעל חשבונך אני סומך ואיני יודע אלא מה שאתה אומר אני נותן לך כגון זה מותר. אבל אם לא אמר לו כן אסור שמא יתכוין העכו"ם לבודקו ונמצא שם שמים א מתחלל:

The following rules apply in a town in which both Jews and gentiles live. If half the inhabitants are Jews and half are gentiles, and a person finds a lost object, he should take it and announce its discovery. If a Jew comes and describes marks by which the object can be identified, the finder is obligated to return it.

עיר שישראלים ועכו"ם דרין בה ומחצה עכו"ם ומחצה ישראל ומצא בה אבדה נוטל ומכריז. ואם בא ישראל ונתן סימניה חייב להחזיר:

Different rules apply if the majority of the inhabitants of the city are gentiles. If a Jew finds a lost object in a place where most of the people located there are Jewish, he is obligated to announce its discovery.

If he finds it on a public thoroughfare, a public market place or in a synagogue or a house of study where gentiles are often found, or in any place where many people are found, the finder may keep the object he discovers.

This applies even when another Jew comes and describes marks with which the object can be identified. We assume that the owner despaired of its return when it fell, for he will say: "A gentile found it."

Although a person is entitled to keep a lost article that he discovers, one who wishes to follow a good and an upright path should go beyond the measure of the law and return the lost article to a Jew, if he describes marks with which the object can be identified.

היה רוב העיר עכו"ם אם מצא במקום מן העיר שרוב המצויים שם ישראל חייב להכריז. אבל אם מצא בסרטיא ופלטיא גדולה בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות שהעכו"ם מצויין שם תמיד ובכל מקום שהרבים מצויין שם הרי המציאה שלו. ואפילו בא ישראל ונתן סימניה. שהרי נתייאש ממנה כשנפלה מפני שהוא אומר עכו"ם מצאה אף על פי שהיא שלו, הרוצה לילך בדרך הטוב והישר ועושה לפנים [ג] משורת הדין מחזיר את האבדה לישראל כשיתן את סימניה:

If a person finds a jug of wine in a city where the majority of the inhabitants are gentile, it is forbidden to benefit from the wine; the container is permitted as is a lost object. If a Jew comes and describes marks with which the container can be identified, the wine is permitted to be drunk by the person who discovered it.

מצא בעיר זו שרובה עכו"ם חבית של יין יינה אסור בהנאה וקנקנה מותר משום אבדה. ואם בא ישראל ונתן סימניה מותר בשתייה לזה ישראל שמצאה:

When a fowl takes a piece of meat and casts it into another field, it is permitted to be kept as is a lost object. This applies even when most of the inhabitants of the town are Jewish, for the owners will have despaired of its return.

עוף שחטף בשר והשליכו בחצר אחרת אע"פ שרוב העיר ישראל הרי זה מותר משום אבידה שהרי נתייאשו הבעלים ממנו:

A person who finds a lost article on the bed of the sea or in a flooding river that does not cease may keep it. This applies even if the article has a mark with which it can be identified.

This concept is derived from Deuteronomy 22:3, which commands us to return "an article that one loses and is found," thus excluding an instance as the one above in which the article is lost not only to its owner, but to all men. In such an instance, the owner has surely despaired of its return.

המוצא אבידה בזוטו של ים ובשלוליותו של נהר שאינו פוסק אע"פ שיש בה סימן הרי זו של מוצאה שנאמר אשר תאבד ממנו ומצאתה. מי שאבודה ממנו ומצויה היא אצל כל אדם יצאת זו שאבודה ממנו ומכל אדם שזה ודאי שנתייאש ממנה:

When a person intentionally abandons his property, there is no need to help him regain it.

What is implied? A person placed his cow in a cowshed that did not have a door. He did not tie it there and he left. Or he tossed his wallet away in the public thoroughfare and left. In all instances of this nature, he is considered to have intentionally abandoned his money. Although the person who saw this is forbidden to take the property himself, he is not obligated to return it.

This is implied by Deuteronomy 22:3, which states: "So shall you do with regard to every lost article belonging to your brother that he loses." The seeming redundancy in the verse excludes an article that is not lost accidentally, but rather intentionally abandoned.

יא

המאבד ממונו לדעת אין נזקקין לו. כיצד הניח פרתו ברפת שאין לה דלת ולא קשרה והלך לו. השליך כיסו ברשות הרבים והלך לו וכל כיוצא בזה. הרי זה אבד ממונו לדעתו. ואע"פ שאסור לרואה דבר זה ליטול לעצמו אינו זקוק להחזיר שנאמר אשר תאבד פרט למאבד לדעתו:

When a lost article is not worth a p'rutah, the finder is neither obligated to concern himself with it, nor to return it.

יב

אבידה שאין בה שוה פרוטה אינו חייב להטפל ולא להחזירה:

The following rule applies when a person finds a sack or a large basket. If he is a sage or a respected elder, who would not usually carry such articles himself, he is not obligated to concern himself with them.

He should judge his status in the following way. If the article were his own and he would return it, so too, is he obligated to return an article belonging to a colleague. If, however, he would not forgo his honor even if the article were his own, he is not obligated to return a similar article belonging to a colleague.

The following rules apply when he would take such articles in a field, but not in a city. If he finds it in a city, he is not obligated to return it. If he finds it in a field, however, he is obligated to return it to its owner's domain, even though in doing so he will pass through a city, where it is not his habit to carry such articles.

יג

מצא שק או קופה אם היה חכם או זקן מכובד שאין דרכו ליטול כלים אלו בידו אינו חייב להטפל בהן ואומד את דעתו אילו היו שלו אם היה מחזירן לעצמו כך חייב להחזיר של חבירו. ואם לא היה מוחל על כבודו אפילו היה שלו כך בשל חבירו אינו חייב להחזיר. היה דרכו להחזיר כלים כאלו בשדה ואין דרכו להחזירן בעיר ומצאן בעיר אינו חייב להחזיר מצאן בשדה חייב להחזירן עד שיגיעו לרשות הבעלים ואע"פ שהרי נכנס בהן לעיר ואין דרכו בכך:

Similarly, if a person finds an animal and spurs it on, he becomes obligated to concern himself with it and to return it - even if doing so is not appropriate for his honor - for he began the performance of the mitzvah.

If a person returned an animal and it bolted away, he is obligated to return it again, even if this occurs 100 times. This is alluded to by Deuteronomy 22:1, which states: "And you shall certainly return it." The word השב implies that one must return it even 100 times.

A person who finds a lost animal must care for it until he returns it to a place where it is secure in its owner's domain. If he returns it to a place that is not secure - e.g., the person's garden or his ruin and it becomes lost again - he is responsible for the animal.

יד

וכן אם מצא בהמה והכישה נתחייב להטפל בה ולהחזירה אף על פי שאינה לפי כבודו שהרי התחיל [ד] במצוה. החזירה א וברחה אפילו מאה פעמים חייב להחזיר שנאמר השב תשיבם השב אפילו מאה פעמים משמעו. לעולם הוא חייב להטפל בה עד שיחזירנה לרשות בעליה למקום המשתמר אבל אם החזירה למקום שאין משתמר כגון גינה וחורבה ואבדה משם חייב באחריותה:

If a person who discovered a lost article returns it in the morning to a place where its owners enter and leave each morning, he is not obligated to concern himself with it any more. For the owner will certainly see it. This applies even if it is placed in a location that is not secure.

When does the above apply? To any article that is not alive. A live animal, by contrast, must be cared for by the finder until it is returned to a secure place in the owner's domain. The owner need not be notified.

טו

החזיר את האבדה בשחרית למקום שהבעלים נכנסין ויוצאין שם בשחרית אינו חייב להטפל בה שהרי הבעלים רואין אותה אע"פ שהוא מקום שאינו משתמר. במה דברים אמורים בדבר שאין בו רוח חיים אבל בבעלי חיים לעולם חייב להטפל בה עד שיכניסה לרשות הבעלים המשתמרת. ואינו צריך דעת בעלים:

If a person sees an animal that has escaped from its corral and he returns it to its place, he has fulfilled the mitzvah. The owner need not be notified.

טז

ראה בהמה שברחה מן הדיר והחזירה למקומה הרי זה קיים המצוה ואינו צריך דעת הבעלים:

A person who seeks to follow a good and upright path and go beyond the measure of the law should return a lost article at all times, even if it is unbecoming to his dignity.

יז

ההולך בדרך הטוב והישר ועושה לפנים משורת הדין מחזיר את האבדה בכל מקום אע"פ שאינה לפי כבודו:

When a priest sees a lost object in a cemetery, he should not make himself impure so that he can return it. The rationale is that at the time the priest would fulfill the mitzvah of returning a lost object, he would nullify the positive commandment "Be holy" Leviticus 21:6 and transgress the negative commandment: "A man may not defile himself for a corpse among his people ibid.:4." And the observance of a positive commandment never supersedes a negative commandment that is reinforced by a positive commandment.

יח

כהן שראה האבדה בבית הקברות אינו מטמא להחזירה שבעת שקיים מצות עשה של השב אבדה מבטל עשה של קדושים יהיו ועובר על לא תעשה של לא יטמא בעל בעמיו ואין עשה דוחה את לא תעשה ועשה:

If a person sees a lost object and his father tells him "Do not return it," he should return it instead of obeying his father. For by obeying his father and fulfilling the positive commandment "Honor your father" Exodus 20:12, he nullifies the positive commandment "And you shall certainly return it," and transgresses the negative commandment "You may not ignore it."

יט

ראה את האבדה ואמר לו אביו אל תחזירנה יחזיר ולא יקבל ממנו. שאם קבל מאביו נמצא בעת שקיים מצות עשה של כבד את אביך ביטל עשה של השב תשיבם ועבר על לא תוכל להתעלם:

When a person sees flood waters coming that will ruin a building or a field belonging to a colleague, he is obligated to put up a barrier before them to check the waters. This is implied by the mention (Deuteronomy 22:3) of "All objects lost by your colleague." "All" also includes the devastation of landed property.

הרואה מים שוטפין ובאין להשחית בנין חבירו או שדהו. חייב לגדור בפניהם ולמנעם שנאמר לכל אבדת אחיך לרבות אבדת קרקעו:

Gezelah va'Avedah - Chapter Twelve

The following rules apply when a person loses an article and then discovers his own lost article and that belonging to a colleague. If it is possible for him to return both, he should return both. If it is possible for him to return only one, his lost object takes priority, even over a lost object belonging to his father or his teacher. His own lost object takes priority over that of any other person.

מי שאבדה לו אבדה ופגע באבדתו ואבדת חבירו אם יכול להחזיר את שתיהן חייב להחזיר שתיהן ואם אינו יכול להחזיר אלא אחת מהן אבדתו קודמת ואפילו לאבדת אביו או של רבו שלו קודם לכל אדם:

The following rules apply when a person discovers both a lost article belonging to his teacher and one belonging to his father and is capable of returning only one of them. If his father is equal in wisdom to his teacher, his father's lost object takes precedence. If not, his teacher's takes precedence. This applies provided we are speaking about his primary teacher, the one from whom he gained the majority of his Torah wisdom.

פגע באבדת רבו עם אבדת אביו [א] אם היה אביו שקול כנגד רבו של אביו קודמת ואם לאו של רבו קודמת והוא שיהיה רבו מובהק [ב] שרוב חכמתו של תורה ממנו למד:

If a person ignores his own lost article and instead returns the article belonging to his colleague, he is entitled only to the wage due him for his efforts.

What is implied? A river washed away his donkey and a donkey belonging to a colleague. His donkey was worth 100 zuz, while his colleague's was worth 200. If, instead of saving his own, he saved his colleague's, he should be reimbursed only for the wages due him for his efforts.

If he told his colleague - or made this condition in the presence of a court - "I will save your donkey, but you must reimburse me for my own," the colleague is obligated to reimburse him for his donkey. This applies even if the other donkey ascends from the river afterwards on its own. Since its owner did nothing to help it, the other person should be awarded the sum that he stipulated.

הניח אבדתו והחזיר אבדת חבירו אין לו אלא שכר הראוי לו. כיצד שטף נהר חמורו וחמור חבירו שלו יפה מנה ושל חבירו מאתים הניח את שלו והציל את של חבירו אין לו אלא שכרו הראוי לו. ואם אמר לו אציל את שלך ואתה נותן לי דמי שלי או שהתנה בפני בית דין חייב ליתן לו דמי שלו ואע"פ שחמורו עלה מאליו. הואיל ולא נתעסק בו זכה במה שהתנה עמו:

If the owner of the other donkey attempted to save the more valuable donkey, but was not successful, he should be given only the wage fit to be paid him.

Similarly, if a person was occupied with his work, and he negated work that was worth a dinar to return a lost article worth 100 dinarim, he may not tell the owner: "Give me the dinar that I lost," but rather the owner should pay him as an unemployed worker of the trade in which he is employed. If he stipulated to the owner or in the presence of a court that he should receive the amount that he lost, and they agreed, he may collect it. If the owner or a court is not present, his own concerns take precedence.

ירד להציל ולא הציל [ג] אין לו אלא שכרו הראוי לו. וכן ג אם היה עוסק במלאכה ובטל ממלאכתו ששוה דינר והחזיר אבדה ששוה מאה דינר לא יאמר לו תן לי דינר שהפסדתי אלא נותן לו שכרו כפועל בטל שיבטל מאותה מלאכה שהיה עוסק בה. ואם התנה עם הבעלים או [ד] בפני בית דין שיטול מה שיפסיד והרשוהו הרי זה נוטל. ואם אין שם בעלים ולא בית דין שלו קודם:

Similar laws apply when two people are progressing on a road, and one was carrying a jug of wine, and the other a jug of honey. If the jug of honey cracks and before the honey spills to the ground, the other person pours out his wine and collects the honey in his jug, he should be given only the wage he is fit to be paid.

If he tells the owner of the honey: "I will save your honey, if you pay me for my wine," or he makes such a stipulation in the presence of a court, the owner of the honey is obligated to pay him.

If the honey spills to the ground, it is considered ownerless, and whoever takes it, takes it as his own.

וכן שנים שהיו באים בדרך זה בחבית של יין וזה בכד [ה] של דבש ונסדק הכד של דבש וקודם שישפך הדבש לארץ שפך זה את יינו והציל את הדבש לתוך החבית אין לו אלא שכרו הראוי לו. ואם אמר אציל את שלך ואתה נותן לי דמי שלי או שהתנה בפני בית דין הרי זה חייב ליתן לו. ואם נשפך הדבש לארץ הרי זה הפקר וכל המציל לעצמו מציל:

Different rules apply if one person is carrying a jug of honey and his jug cracks, while another person was carrying empty jars. If the owner of the empty jars tells the owner of the honey: "I will not save this honey with my jars unless you give me half," "... a third," or "... so and so many dinarim," the owner of the honey is not obligated to keep this agreement. Even if he agrees, he is considered to have spoken facetiously and is not obligated to pay him more than the wage he is fit to be paid. The rationale is that he did not cause him any loss.

היה זה בא בכד של דבש וזה בא בקנקנים ריקנים ונסדקה כד הדבש ואמר לו בעל הקנקנים איני מציל לך דבש זה בקנקניי עד שתתן לי חציו או שלישו או כך וכך דינרין וקבל עליו בעל הדבש ואמר לו הן הרי זה שחק בו ואינו נותן לו אלא שכרו הראוי לו שהרי לא הפסידו [ו] כלום:

Similar rules apply if a person was fleeing from prison and there was a raft near him. If he told the owner of the raft: "Take me across the river and I will pay you a dinar," and the raft owner takes him across the river, the fugitive is required to pay the raft owner only the wage he is fit to be paid.

If the raft owner was a fisherman, and the fugitive told him, "Stop fishing and take me across the river," the fugitive must pay him whatever he stipulates. The same principles apply in all analogous situations.

וכן מי שברח מבית האסורים והיתה מעבורת לפניו ואמר לו העבירני ואני נותן לך דינר והעבירו אין לו אלא שכרו [ז] הראוי לו. ואם היה צייד ואמר לו בטל מצודתך והעבירני נותן לו כל מה שהתנה עמו וכן כל כיוצא בזה:

The following rules apply when a caravan was traveling in a desert and they were confronted and attacked by an armed force. If the travelers cannot rescue their property from that force and one of them exerts himself and rescues everyone's property, he has rescued it for himself.

If the other members of the caravan can rescue their property, and one of them exerted himself and rescued all the property first, it should be divided among its rightful owners. This applies even if the one who rescued the property stated: "I am rescuing it for myself."

שיירא שהיתה הולכת במדבר ועמד עליה גייס וטרפה אם אינן יכולים להציל מידם ועמד אחד מהן והציל הציל לעצמו. ואם יכולין הן להציל מידם וקדם אחד מהן והציל אע"פ שאמר לעצמי אני מציל הציל לאמצע:

Different rules apply if it was possible for the owners to rescue their property with difficulty. If one person rescues all the property, it should be divided among its rightful owners. But if the one who rescues the property states: "I am rescuing it for myself," he is allowed to keep it as his own.

The rationale is that the other owners heard him say: "I am rescuing it for myself." Accordingly, they should have exerted themselves to rescue their property. Since they chose to sit still and not attempt to rescue it, we may conclude that they had despaired of its recovery.

היו יכולין להציל על ידי הדחק כל המציל מציל לאמצע אלא אם כן אמר לעצמי אני מציל הרי זה מציל לעצמו. שכיון ששמעוהו אומר לעצמי אני מציל היה להן לדחוק עצמן ולהציל וכיון שישבו ולא הצילו הרי נתייאשו מן הכל:

Similarly, if two partners were traveling with goods and were attacked, and one of them rescues the goods, the property still belongs to the partnership. If he states: "I am rescuing it for myself," he has dissolved the partnership and is allowed to keep the goods as his own.

By the same logic, if a person hires a worker to rescue goods from a situation of certain loss, whatever he rescues belongs to the employer. If the worker says: "I am rescuing it for myself," he is terminating his employment. Whatever he rescues after making this statement belongs to him.

היו שני שותפין והציל אחד מהן הציל לאמצע. ואם אמר [ח] לעצמי אני מציל הרי זה חלק מחבירו והציל לעצמו. וכן השוכר את הפועל להציל כל שיציל הרי הוא למשכיר ואם אמר לעצמי אני מציל הרי זה חוזר בו מן השכירות וכל שיציל אחר שאמר כן הרי הוא שלו:

The following rule applies when a caravan was camped in the desert and an armed force was poised to attack them. If they agreed to pay a ransom to the armed force, the ratio of each person's payment should be determined according to the value of the person's goods and not levied equally by head.

If they hired a guide to lead them on the journey, both the value of the persons' goods and the number of people should be considered when determining everyone's share of his wage. One should not, however, deviate from the standard practice followed by donkey-drivers.

יא

שיירא שחנתה במדבר ועמד עליה גייס [ט] לטרפה ופסקו עם הגייס ממון ונתנו לו, מחשבין לפי ממונם ואין מחשבין לפי נפשות. ואם שכרו תייר לפניהם להודיעם הדרך מחשבין שכרו לפי ממון ולפי נפשות. ואל ישנו ממנהג החמרים:

Donkey-drivers may make an agreement among themselves saying that if one of the members of a caravan loses his donkey, the entire caravan must combine to provide another donkey for him. If he was negligent, and therefore it was lost, they are not obligated to provide a donkey for him.

יב

רשאין החמרים להתנות [י] ביניהן כל מי שתאבד ממנו חמור מבני השיירא מעמידין לו חמור אחרת. ואם פשע בה הוא ואבדה אין חייבין להעמיד לו:

If a person's donkey was lost and he said: "Pay me its value. I do not want another donkey. I will, however, guard together with you as if I had one," his request is not heeded. Instead, another donkey is purchased for him so that he will be diligent and guard his donkey.

Even if he already owns another donkey in the caravan his request is not heeded. The rationale is that the diligence shown by a person watching one donkey cannot be compared to that of a person watching two.

יג

אבדה חמורו ואמר תנו לי דמיה ואני רוצה ליקח חמור והריני שומר עמכם אין שומעין לו אלא מעמידין לו חמור אחרת כדי שיזדרז עצמו וישמור בהמתו ואפילו היתה לו בהמה אחרת בשיירא אינו דומה שומר אחת לשומר שתים:

When a ship was traveling in the sea and a decision was made to reduce its cargo because waves threatened to sink it, the calculation is made according to the weight of each person's goods and not their value. One should not, however, deviate from the standard practice followed by seamen.

יד

ספינה שהיתה מהלכת בים ועמד עליה נחשול לטובעה והקילו ממשאה. מחשבין לפי משאוי ואין מחשבין לפי ממון. ואל ישנו ממנהג הספנים:

Boatmen may make an agreement among themselves saying that if one of them loses his boat, they will combine to provide another boat for him. If he was negligent and therefore it was lost, or he sailed his boat in a region where boats do not travel at that time of year, they are not obligated to provide a boat for him.

טו

רשאין הספנים להתנות ביניהן כל מי שתאבד לו ספינה מעמידים לו ספינה אחרת. פשע בה ואבדה או שפירש למקום שאין הספינות הולכות בו באותו הזמן אין חייבין להעמיד לו:

Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class

Sunday, Tammuz 8, 5777 · 2 July 2017

"Today's Day"

Sunday, Tamuz 8, 5703

Torah lessons: Chumash: Balak, first parsha with Rashi.

Tehillim: 44-48.

Tanya: In truth, however, (p. 335) ...is explained elsewhere. (p.337).

We find that G-d's love for our father Avraham was mainly because "...he will command (yetzaveh) his children and his household."1 Yetzaveh here connotes "bring into a communion (with G-d)." All of Avraham's towering avoda in the tests to which he was subjected,2 cannot be compared to his commanding others and bringing them into communion, i.e. to his bringing merit to others.

FOOTNOTES

1.Bereishit 18:19.

2.Pirkei Avot 5:3.

Daily Thought:

Sharing the Workload

In every venture, divide the workload between yourself and your Partner Above.

Where is the dividing line? That depends on the sort of venture.

When it comes to anything to do with money, health, or anything material, the dividing line is that point at which you become emotionally obsessed. Up until there, do your job as best you know how. Anything necessary past that line is best left in His trust.

In spiritual matters, take whatever He gives you and fire it up with all you’ve got. [Kuntres Umayan, Maamar 17; Maamar Mayim Rabim 5738.]

-------

Missionary Renegade

Sunday, July 2, 2017

TODAY IN JUDAISM: Tammuz 8, 5777 - Sunday, July 2, 2017 - Chabad.org in New York, New York, United States - - ב"ה - Today in Judaism - Today is Sunday, Tammuz 8, 5777 · July 2, 2017

Nachalot - Chapter 6

Gezelah va'Avedah - Chapter Ten

Gezelah va'Avedah - Chapter Eleven

Gezelah va'Avedah - Chapter Twelve

No comments:

Post a Comment