| |||||
- Chabad.org of New York, New York, United States -
- ב"ה - Today in Judaism - Today is Tuesday, Av 30, 5777 · August 22, 2017 - Rosh Chodesh ElulTorah Reading:Rosh Chodesh: Numbers 28:1-3; Numbers 28:3-15
Numbers 28:1 (v) Adonai said to Moshe, 2 “Give an order to the people of Isra’el. Tell them, ‘You are to take care to offer me at the proper time the food presented to me as offerings made by fire, providing a fragrant aroma for me.’ 3 Tell them, ‘This is the offering made by fire that you are to bring to Adonai: male lambs in their first year and without defect, two daily as a regular burnt offering.; Numbers 28:3 Tell them, ‘This is the offering made by fire that you are to bring to Adonai: male lambs in their first year and without defect, two daily as a regular burnt offering. 4 Offer the one lamb in the morning and the other lamb at dusk, 5 along with two quarts of fine flour as a grain offering, mixed with one quart of oil from pressed olives. 6 It is the regular burnt offering, the same as was offered on Mount Sinai to give a fragrant aroma, an offering made by fire for Adonai. 7 Its drink offering is to be one-quarter hin for one lamb; in the Holy Place you are to pour out a drink offering of intoxicating liquor to Adonai. 8 The other lamb you are to present at dusk; present it with the same kind of grain offering and drink offering as in the morning; it is an offering made by fire, with a fragrant aroma for Adonai.
9 “‘On Shabbat offer two male lambs in their first year and without defect, with one gallon of fine flour as a grain offering, mixed with olive oil, and its drink offering. 10 This is the burnt offering for every Shabbat, in addition to the regular burnt offering and its drink offering.
11 “‘At each Rosh-Hodesh of yours, you are to present a burnt offering to Adonai consisting of two young bulls, one ram and seven male lambs in their first year and without defect; 12 with six quarts of fine flour mixed with olive oil as a grain offering for the one ram; 13 and two quarts of fine flour mixed with olive oil as a grain offering for each lamb. This will be the burnt offering giving a fragrant aroma, an offering made by fire for Adonai. 14 Their drink offerings will be two quarts of wine for a bull, one-and-one-third quarts for the ram, and one quart for each lamb. This is the burnt offering for every Rosh-Hodesh throughout the months of the year. 15 Also a male goat is to be offered as a sin offering to Adonai, in addition to the regular burnt offering and its drink offering.
Today's Laws & Customs:
• Rosh Chodesh Observances
Today is the first of the two days of Rosh Chodesh (“Head of the Month”) for the month of Elul (when a month has 30 days, both the last day of the month and the first day of the following month serve as the following month’s Rosh Chodesh).
Special portions are added to the daily prayers: Hallel (Psalms 113-118) is recited—in its “partial” form—following the Shacharit morning prayer, and the Yaaleh Veyavo prayer is added to the Amidah and to Grace After Meals; the additional Musaf prayer is said (when Rosh Chodesh is Shabbat, special additions are made to the Shabbat Musaf). Tachanun (confession of sins) and similar prayers are omitted.
Many have the custom to mark Rosh Chodesh with a festive meal and reduced work activity. The latter custom is prevalent amongst women, who have a special affinity with Rosh Chodesh—the month being the feminine aspect of the Jewish calendar.
Links: The 29th Day; The Lunar Files
• Practice shofar blowing; L'David Hashem OriSome of the special Elul practices (see entries and links for tomorrow, Elul 1) begin today. The psalm L'David Hashem Ori (Psalm 27) is recited at the end of the morning and afternoon prayers; this special addition is recited throughout the month of Elul and the High Holiday season, until Hoshanah Rabbah (Tishrei 21) -- a total of 50 days. And although the daily shofar sounding of Elul officially begins on the 2nd Rosh Chodesh, it is customary to practice sounding the shofar (ram's horn) on the 1st Rosh Chodesh, introducing the Elul atmosphere of soul-searching and repentance.
Links: About the shofar; Psalm 27, The High Holiday Anthem
Today in Jewish History:
• Second Tablets hewn (1313 BCE)
On the last day of Av of the year 2448 from creation (1313 BCE), Moses carved, by G-d's command, two stone tablets -- each a cube measuring 6x6x6 tefachim (a tefach, "handbreadth", is approximately 3.2 inches) -- to replace the two divinely-made tablets, on which G-d had inscribed the Ten Commandments, which Moses had smashed 42 days earlier upon witnessing Israel's worship of the Golden Calf.
Links: The 120-Day Version of the Human Story
Daily Quote:
He struck the rock, and out came water [[From the "Prayer for Rain" in the Sukkot festival prayers]
Daily Torah Study:
Chumash: Shoftim, 3rd Portion Deuteronomy 18:1-18:5 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation
• Video Class
• Daily Wisdom (short insight)
Today's Laws & Customs:
• Rosh Chodesh Observances
Today is the first of the two days of Rosh Chodesh (“Head of the Month”) for the month of Elul (when a month has 30 days, both the last day of the month and the first day of the following month serve as the following month’s Rosh Chodesh).
Special portions are added to the daily prayers: Hallel (Psalms 113-118) is recited—in its “partial” form—following the Shacharit morning prayer, and the Yaaleh Veyavo prayer is added to the Amidah and to Grace After Meals; the additional Musaf prayer is said (when Rosh Chodesh is Shabbat, special additions are made to the Shabbat Musaf). Tachanun (confession of sins) and similar prayers are omitted.
Many have the custom to mark Rosh Chodesh with a festive meal and reduced work activity. The latter custom is prevalent amongst women, who have a special affinity with Rosh Chodesh—the month being the feminine aspect of the Jewish calendar.
Links: The 29th Day; The Lunar Files
• Practice shofar blowing; L'David Hashem OriSome of the special Elul practices (see entries and links for tomorrow, Elul 1) begin today. The psalm L'David Hashem Ori (Psalm 27) is recited at the end of the morning and afternoon prayers; this special addition is recited throughout the month of Elul and the High Holiday season, until Hoshanah Rabbah (Tishrei 21) -- a total of 50 days. And although the daily shofar sounding of Elul officially begins on the 2nd Rosh Chodesh, it is customary to practice sounding the shofar (ram's horn) on the 1st Rosh Chodesh, introducing the Elul atmosphere of soul-searching and repentance.
Links: About the shofar; Psalm 27, The High Holiday Anthem
Today in Jewish History:
• Second Tablets hewn (1313 BCE)
On the last day of Av of the year 2448 from creation (1313 BCE), Moses carved, by G-d's command, two stone tablets -- each a cube measuring 6x6x6 tefachim (a tefach, "handbreadth", is approximately 3.2 inches) -- to replace the two divinely-made tablets, on which G-d had inscribed the Ten Commandments, which Moses had smashed 42 days earlier upon witnessing Israel's worship of the Golden Calf.
Links: The 120-Day Version of the Human Story
Daily Quote:
He struck the rock, and out came water [[From the "Prayer for Rain" in the Sukkot festival prayers]
Daily Torah Study:
Chumash: Shoftim, 3rd Portion Deuteronomy 18:1-18:5 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation
• Video Class
• Daily Wisdom (short insight)
Deuteronomy Chapter 18
1The Levitic kohanim, the entire tribe of Levi, shall have no portion or inheritance with Israel; the Lord's fire offerings and His inheritance they shall eat. אלֹא־יִֽ֠הְיֶ֠ה לַכֹּֽהֲנִ֨ים הַֽלְוִיִּ֜ם כָּל־שֵׁ֧בֶט לֵוִ֛י חֵ֥לֶק וְנַֽחֲלָ֖ה עִם־יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל אִשֵּׁ֧י יְהֹוָ֛ה וְנַֽחֲלָת֖וֹ יֹֽאכֵלֽוּן:
the entire tribe of Levi: whether whole-bodied or blemished. — [Sifrei]
כל שבט לוי: בין תמימין בין בעלי מומין:
no portion: i.e., in the spoils.
חלק: בביזה:
or inheritance: in the land. — [Sifrei]
ונחלה: בארץ:
the Lord’s fire-offerings: The holy sacrifices of the Temple. (Other editions: The holiest sacrifices.)
אשי ה': קדשי המקדש [קדשי קדשים]:
and His portion: These are the holy things of the boundaries, [i.e. those eaten throughout the entire land, namely,] the terumoth and the tithes, but he shall have no absolute inheritance among his brothers. In Sifrei [18:41], our Rabbis expound as follows:
ונחלתו: אלו קדשי הגבול תרומות ומעשרות. אבל נחלה גמורה לא יהיה לו בקרב אחיו. ובספרי דרשו,
2But he shall have no inheritance among his brothers; the Lord is his inheritance, as He spoke to him. בוְנַֽחֲלָ֥ה לֹא־יִֽהְיֶה־לּ֖וֹ בְּקֶ֣רֶב אֶחָ֑יו יְהֹוָה֙ ה֣וּא נַֽחֲלָת֔וֹ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֖ר דִּבֶּר־לֽוֹ:
But he shall have no inheritance: This refers to the “inheritance of the remainder.”
ונחלה לא יהיה לו : זו נחלת שאר:
among his brothers: this refers to the “inheritance of the five.” I do not know what this means. It appears to me, however, that across the Jordan and onwards is called “the land of the five nations,” and that of Sihon and Og is called “the land of the two nations,” namely, the Amorites and the Canaanites. Now the expression, “inheritance of the remainder,” is meant to include the [remaining three nations of the ten whose land God promised to Abraham, namely] the Kenites, the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites (Gen. 15:19). The Sifrei in the section dealing with the [priestly] gifts specified for Aaron expounds this in a similar fashion, on the verse (Deut. 10:9), “Therefore, Levi has no portion or inheritance,” to admonish [the Levite to take no portion in] the inheritance of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites. It has since been found in the words of Rabbi Kalonymus that the proper version of this passage in Sifrei reads as follows:
בקרב אחיו: זו נחלת חמשה. ואיני יודע מה היא. ונראה לי שארץ כנען שמעבר הירדן ואילך נקראת ארץ חמשה עממין, ושל סיחון ועוג, שני עממין אמורי וכנעני. ונחלת שאר לרבות קיני וקנזי וקדמוני. וכן דורש בפרשת מתנות שנאמרו לאהרן על כן לא היה ללוי וגו' (דברים י, ט) להזהיר על קיני וקנזי וקדמוני. שוב נמצא בדברי רבי קלונימוס הכי גרסינן בספרי
And he will have no inheritance: This refers to the “inheritance of the five.”
ונחלה לא יהיה לו: אלו נחלת חמשה
among his brothers: This refers to the “inheritance of the seven.” [Rashi now explains this version of the Sifrei:] [The first reference is to] the inheritance of five [of the twelve] tribes [of Israel]. [The second, is to] the inheritance of [the remaining] seven tribes [of Israel]. Now Moses and Joshua apportioned inheritance only to five tribes: Moses, to Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh; Joshua, to Judah, Ephraim, and [the other] half of the tribe of Manasseh. The remaining seven tribes took their inheritance by themselves after Joshua’s demise. Thus, because of this [distinction between these five former tribes and the seven latter ones], the Sifrei mentions five and seven separately.
בקרב אחיו: אלו נחלת שבעה. נחלת חמשה שבטים ונחלת שבעה שבטים. ומתוך שמשה ויהושע לא חלקו נחלה אלא לחמשה שבטים בלבד, שכן משה הנחיל לראובן וגד וחצי שבט מנשה, ויהושע הנחיל ליהודה ואפרים ולחצי שבט מנשה, ושבעה האחרים נטלו מאליהן אחרי מות יהושע, מתוך כך הזכיר חמשה לבד ושבעה לבד:
as He spoke to him: i.e., to Aaron [saying],“You shall not inherit in their land… I am your portion [and your inheritance, among the children of Israel].”- [Num. 18:20]
כאשר דבר לו: [לאהרן] בארצם לא תנחל וגו' אני חלקך (במדבר יח כ):
3And this shall be the kohanim's due from the people, from those who perform a slaughter, be it an ox or a sheep, he shall give the kohen the foreleg, the jaws, and the maw. גוְזֶ֡ה יִֽהְיֶה֩ מִשְׁפַּ֨ט הַכֹּֽהֲנִ֜ים מֵאֵ֣ת הָעָ֗ם מֵאֵ֛ת זֹֽבְחֵ֥י הַזֶּ֖בַח אִם־שׁ֣וֹר אִם־שֶׂ֑ה וְנָתַן֙ לַכֹּהֵ֔ן הַזְּרֹ֥עַ וְהַלְּחָיַ֖יִם וְהַקֵּבָֽה:
from the people: But not from the kohanim [i.e., a kohen is exempt from these dues]. — [Sifrei , Chul. 132b]
מאת העם: ולא מאת הכהנים:
be it an ox or a sheep: But not [from the category of] beast (חַיָּה) .
אם שור אם שה: פרט לחיה:
the foreleg: from the carpus to the shoulder blade, called espaldun, espalde, or espaleron in Old French. — [Chul. 134b]
הזרוע: מן הפרק של ארכובה עד כף של יד שקורין אשפלדו"ן [עצם השכם]:
the jaws: together with the tongue. Those who interpret the symbolism of Biblical verses say, the זְרוֹעַ [which is, in effect, the “hand” of the animal, became the due of the kohanim , as a reward] for the “hand” [which Phinehas, the kohen , raised against the sinners], as it is said, “and he took a spear in his hand” (Num. 25:7); the jaws [as a reward] for the prayer [he offered], as it is said,“Then Phinehas stood and prayed” (Ps. 106:30); and the maw (הַקֵּבָה) , as a reward [for his action against the sinning woman], as it said,“[And he stabbed both of them, the man of Israel] and the woman in her stomach (קֵבָתָהּ)” (Num. 25:8). - [Chul. 134b].
הלחיים: עם הלשון. דורשי רשומות היו אומרים, זרוע, תחת יד, שנאמר ויקח רומח בידו (במדבר כה ז). לחיים, תחת תפלה, שנאמר ויעמוד פינחס ויפלל (תהלים קו ל). והקבה, תחת האשה אל קבתה (במדבר כה ח):
4The first of your grain, your wine, and your oil, and the first of the fleece of your sheep, you shall give him. דרֵאשִׁ֨ית דְּגָֽנְךָ֜ תִּירֽשְׁךָ֣ וְיִצְהָרֶ֗ךָ וְרֵאשִׁ֛ית גֵּ֥ז צֹֽאנְךָ֖ תִּתֶּן־לֽוֹ:
The first of your grain: This refers to terumah ; and although the verse does not state a required amount, our Rabbis set an amount for it [ranging from a sixtieth to a fortieth of the total produce as follows]: A generous [person] gives one fortieth of the crop, a miserly [person] one sixtieth, and [a person of] average generosity one fiftieth. They base [this ruling] that one should not give less than one sixtieth on what is said, “[This is the offering that you shall set apart: a sixth of an ephah from a homer of wheat,] and you shall separate a sixth of an ephah from a homer of barley” (Ezek. 45:13). [Since an ephah is equivalent to three se’ah ,] a sixth of an ephah is equivalent to half a se’ah . [Now the “homer” mentioned in the verse is the same as a kor .] When you give [one sixth of an ephah from a homer , which we now know to be] one half of a se’ah for a kor , this amounts to one sixtieth because a kor is thirty se’ah . — [Yerushalmi , Terumoth 4:3]
ראשית דגנך: זו תרומה, ולא פירש בה שיעור, אבל רבותינו נתנו בה שיעור, עין יפה אחד מארבעים, עין רעה אחד מששים, בינונית אחד מחמשים. וסמכו על המקרא שלא לפחות מאחד מששים, שנאמר וששיתם האיפה מחומר השעורים (יחזקאל מה יג) ששית האיפה, חצי סאה. כשאתה נותן חצי סאה לכור, הרי אחד מששים, שהכור שלשים סאין:
and the first of the fleece of your sheep: When you shear your sheep each year, give the first of it [the wool] to the kohen . And [although the verse] does not mention a required amount, our Rabbis set an amount, namely, one sixtieth. And how many sheep [are the minimum to] be liable to the law of “the first of the fleece?” At least five sheep, as it is said, “[Then Abigail… took…] and five prepared (עֲשׂוּיוֹת) sheep” (I Sam. 25:18). [The עֲשׂוּיוֹת here, is interpreted as meaning that five sheep compel their owner and say to you, as it were,“Get up and fulfill the commandment of 'the first of the fleece.’”] Rabbi Akiva says: [that the minimum number of sheep liable to this commandment is derived from our verse here]: The phrase רֵאשִׁית גֵז denotes two sheep; צֹאנְךָ [an additional two, making] four, and תִּתֶּן-לוֹ denotes one more, which is a total of five sheep. - [Chul. 135a, 137a; Sifrei]
וראשית גז צאנך: כשאתה גוזז צאנך בכל שנה תן ממנה ראשית לכהן. ולא פירש בה שיעור. ורבותינו נתנו בה שיעור אחד מששים. וכמה צאן חייבות בראשית הגז, חמש רחלות, שנאמר וחמש צאן עשויות (שמואל א' כה, יח). רבי עקיבא אומר ראשית גז שתים, גז צאנך ארבע, תתן לו הרי חמש:
5For the Lord, your God, has chosen him out of all your tribes, to stand and serve in the name of the Lord, he and his sons, all the days. הכִּ֣י ב֗וֹ בָּחַ֛ר יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ מִכָּל־שְׁבָטֶ֑יךָ לַֽעֲמֹ֨ד לְשָׁרֵ֧ת בְּשֵֽׁם־יְהֹוָ֛ה ה֥וּא וּבָנָ֖יו כָּל־הַיָּמִֽים:
to stand and serve: From here we learn that [the Temple] service is performed only when standing. — [Sifrei , Sotah 38a]
לעמוד לשרת: מכאן שאין שירות אלא מעומד:
Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 145 - 150
• Hebrew text
• English text
Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 145 - 150
• Hebrew text
• English text
Chapter 145
One who recites this psalm three times daily with absolute concentration is guaranteed a portion in the World to Come. Because of its prominence, this psalm was composed in alphabetical sequence.
1. A psalm of praise by David: I will exalt You, my God the King, and bless Your Name forever.
2. Every day I will bless You, and extol Your Name forever.
3. The Lord is great and exceedingly exalted; there is no limit to His greatness.
4. One generation to another will laud Your works, and tell of Your mighty acts.
5. I will speak of the splendor of Your glorious majesty and of Your wondrous deeds.
6. They will proclaim the might of Your awesome acts, and I will recount Your greatness.
7. They will express the remembrance of Your abounding goodness, and sing of Your righteousness.
8. The Lord is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and of great kindness.
9. The Lord is good to all, and His mercies extend over all His works.
10. Lord, all Your works will give thanks to You, and Your pious ones will bless You.
11. They will declare the glory of Your kingdom, and tell of Your strength,
12. to make known to men His mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of His kingdom.
13. Your kingship is a kingship over all worlds, and Your dominion is throughout all generations.
14. The Lord supports all who fall, and straightens all who are bent.
15. The eyes of all look expectantly to You, and You give them their food at the proper time.
16. You open Your hand and satisfy the desire of every living thing.
17. The Lord is righteous in all His ways, and benevolent in all His deeds.
18. The Lord is close to all who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in truth.
19. He fulfills the desire of those who fear Him, hears their cry and delivers them.
20. The Lord watches over all who love Him, and will destroy all the wicked.
21. My mouth will utter the praise of the Lord, and let all flesh bless His holy Name forever.
Chapter 146
This psalm inspires man to repent and perform good deeds while still alive. Let him not rely on mortals who are unable to help themselves, and who may suddenly pass on. Rather, one should put his trust in God, Who is capable of carrying out all He desires.
1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord, O my soul.
2. I will sing to the Lord with my soul; I will chant praises to my God while I yet exist.
3. Do not place your trust in nobles, nor in mortal man who has not the ability to bring deliverance.
4. When his spirit departs, he returns to his earth; on that very day, his plans come to naught.
5. Fortunate is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope rests upon the Lord his God.
6. He makes the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them; He keeps His promise faithfully forever.
7. He renders justice to the oppressed; He gives food to the hungry; the Lord releases those who are bound.
8. The Lord opens the eyes of the blind; the Lord straightens those who are bowed; the Lord loves the righteous.
9. The Lord watches over the strangers; He gives strength to orphan and widow; He thwarts the way of the wicked.
10. The Lord shall reign forever, your God, O Zion, throughout all generations. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 147
This psalm recounts God's greatness, and His kindness and goodness to His creations.
1. Praise the Lord! Sing to our God for He is good; praise befits Him for He is pleasant.
2. The Lord is the rebuilder of Jerusalem; He will gather the banished of Israel.
3. He heals the broken-hearted, and bandages their wounds.
4. He counts the number of the stars; He gives a name to each of them.
5. Great is our Master and abounding in might; His understanding is beyond reckoning.
6. The Lord strengthens the humble; He casts the wicked to the ground.
7. Lift your voices to the Lord in gratitude; sing to our God with the harp.
8. He covers the heaven with clouds; He prepares rain for the earth, and makes grass grow upon the mountains.
9. He gives the animal its food, to the young ravens which cry to Him.
10. He does not desire [those who place their trust in] the strength of the horse, nor does He want those who rely upon the thighs [swiftness] of man.
11. He desires those who fear Him, those who long for His kindness.
12. Praise the Lord, O Jerusalem; Zion, extol your God.
13. For He has strengthened the bolts of your gates; He has blessed your children in your midst.
14. He has made peace within your borders; He satiates you with the finest of wheat.
15. He issues His command to the earth; swiftly does His word run.
16. He dispenses snow like fleece; He scatters frost like ashes.
17. He hurls His ice like morsels; who can withstand His cold?
18. He sends forth His word and melts them; He causes His wind to blow, and the waters flow.
19. He tells His words [Torah] to Jacob, His statutes and ordinances to Israel.
20. He has not done so for other nations, and they do not know [His] ordinances. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 148
The psalmist inspires one to praise God for His creations-above and below-all of which exist by God's might alone.
1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens; praise Him in the celestial heights.
2. Praise Him, all His angels; praise Him, all His hosts.
3. Praise Him, sun and moon; praise Him, all the shining stars.
4. Praise Him, hea-ven of heavens, and the waters that are above the heavens.
5. Let them praise the Name of the Lord, for He comman-ded and they were created.
6. He has established them forever, for all time; He issued a decree, and it shall not be transgressed.
7. Praise the Lord from the earth, sea-monsters and all [that dwell in] the depths;
8. fire and hail, snow and vapor, stormy wind carrying out His command;
9. the mountains and all hills, fruit-bearing trees and all cedars;
10. the beasts and all cattle, creeping things and winged fowl;
11. kings of the earth and all nations, rulers and all judges of the land;
12. young men as well as maidens, elders with young lads.
13. Let them praise the Name of the Lord, for His Name is sublime, to Himself; its radiance [alone] is upon earth and heaven.
14. He shall raise the glory of His people, [increase] the praise of all His pious ones, the Children of Israel, the people close to Him. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 149
1. Praise the Lord! Sing to the Lord a new song, [recount] His praise in the assembly of the pious.
2. Israel will rejoice in its Maker; the children of Zion will delight in their King.
3. They will praise His Name with dancing; they will sing to Him with the drum and harp.
4. For the Lord desires His people; He will adorn the humble with salvation.
5. The pious will exult in glory; they will sing upon their beds.
6. The exaltation of God is in their throat, and a double-edged sword in their hand,
7. to bring retribution upon the nations, punishment upon the peoples;
8. to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with iron fetters;
9. to execute upon them the prescribed judgment; it shall be a glory for all His pious ones. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 150
This psalm contains thirteen praises, alluding to the Thirteen Attributes (of Mercy) with which God conducts the world.
1. Praise the Lord! Praise God in His holiness; praise Him in the firmament of His strength.
2. Praise Him for His mighty acts; praise Him according to His abundant greatness.
3. Praise Him with the call of the shofar; praise Him with harp and lyre.
4. Praise Him with timbrel and dance; praise Him with stringed instruments and flute.
5. Praise Him with resounding cymbals; praise Him with clanging cymbals.
6. Let every soul praise the Lord. Praise the Lord!
Tanya: Iggeret HaKodesh, end of Epistle 9
• English Text (Lessons in Tanya)
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class
Tuesday, Menachem Av 30, 5777 · August 22, 2017
Today's Tanya Lesson
Iggeret HaKodesh, end of Epistle 9
AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES
• VIDEO CLASS: Rabbi Yehoshua B. Gordon Watch • Listen
• AUDIO CLASS: Rabbi Manis Freidman Listen • Download MP3
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvot:
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
Today's Mitzvah
Tuesday, Menachem Av 30, 5777 · August 22, 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
Positive Commandment 246
Laws of Claims
"In every case of trespass...in which one can say: 'This is it'"—Exodus 22:8.
We are commanded to adjudicate monetary cases between litigants [according to the laws outlined in the Torah].
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Laws of ClaimsTanya: Iggeret HaKodesh, end of Epistle 9
• English Text (Lessons in Tanya)
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class
Tuesday, Menachem Av 30, 5777 · August 22, 2017
Today's Tanya Lesson
Iggeret HaKodesh, end of Epistle 9
AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES
• VIDEO CLASS: Rabbi Yehoshua B. Gordon Watch • Listen
• AUDIO CLASS: Rabbi Manis Freidman Listen • Download MP3
על כן אהוביי אחיי
Therefore, my beloved ones, my brethren:
שימו נא לבבכם לאלה הדברים הנאמרים בקצרה מאד
Direct your hearts to these words which are expressed very briefly,
ואם ירצה ה׳, פנים אל פנים אדבר בם בארוכה
(1and face to face, please G‑d, I will speak of them at length) —
איך היות כל עיקר עבודת ה׳ בעתים הללו, בעקבות משיחא, היא עבודת הצדקה
how in these times, when the approaching footsteps of Mashiach are close upon us, the principal service of G‑d is the service of charity.
כמו שאמרו רז״ל: אין ישראל נגאלין אלא בצדקה
As our Sages, of blessed memory, said:2 “Israel will be redeemed only through charity.”
ולא אמרו רז״ל: תלמוד תורה שקול כנגד גמילות חסדים
Our Sages, of blessed memory, did not say that the study of Torah is equivalent to the performance of acts of lovingkindness,
The Mishnah states in Peah:3 “The study of Torah is equivalent to them all,” i.e., to all the mitzvot previously enumerated in the Mishnah, and these include gemilut chassadim, the performance of acts of lovingkindness,
אלא בימיהם
except in their own days.
שתלמוד תורה היה עיקר העבודה אצלם, ועל כן היו חכמים גדולים, תנאים ואמוראים
For with them the principal area of divine service was the study of the Torah, which is why at that time there were great scholars: tannaim and amoraim.
מה שאין כן בעקבות משיחא
However, in a time when the approaching footsteps of Mashiach are close upon us,
שנפלה סוכת דוד עד בחינת רגלים ועקביים, שהיא בחינת עשיה
as “the Sukkah of David has fallen” to a level of “feet” and “heels”, i.e., to the level of Asiyah,
I.e., the Sefirah called Malchut of Atzilut, the Shechinah that vests itself in the lower Worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah — also known as the “Sukkah of David,” for David, as the King of Israel, was a merkavah to Malchut of Atzilut — has fallen to the lowest level of Asiyah.
אין דרך לדבקה בה באמת
there is no way of truly cleaving unto it, i.e., to the Shechinah,
ולהפכא חשוכא לנהורא דילה
and transforming the darkness of the world into its light,4
כי אם בבחינת עשיה גם כן
except through a corresponding category of action, and not through intellect and speech alone, as in Torah study,
שהיא מעשה הצדקה
namely, the act of charity.
But why is charity unique among all the many commandments that involve action?
כידוע למשכילים, שבחינת עשיה באלקות היא בחינת השפעת והמשכת החיות למטה מטה, למאן דלית ליה מגרמיה כלום
As is known to the scholarly, “action” with reference to Divinity is the diffusion and downward flow of vitality to the lowest depths — to him who has nothing of his own.
Among the currents of Divine influence that descend into the various worlds, there are those that are called “thought” and “speech”. The flow of vitality to the very lowest level — to the World of Asiyah, where G‑dliness is not at all manifest — is called “action”.
The act of giving tzedakah thus truly corresponds to the spiritual level of Asiyah, inasmuch as it too provides beneficence to one “who has nothing of his own.”
וכל הזובח את יצרו בזה
And whoever sacrifices his impulse in this respect, i.e., with respect to charity,
ופותח ידו ולבבו
and opens his hand and heart,
אתכפיא סטרא אחרא
[thereby] causes5 “the other [i.e., evil] side” of the universe to be subjugated,
ומהפך חשוכא לאור ה׳ יתברך, השוכן עלינו בבחינת עשיה בעקבות משיחא
and6 “converts the darkness into the light” of G‑d, blessed be He, Who, in the time when the footsteps of Mashiach are close upon us, dwells over us in a state of action;
ויזכה לראות עין בעין, בשוב ה׳ ציון כו׳
moreover, he will merit to7 “behold Eye to eye, G‑d returning to Zion....”
At that time the physical eye, though yet retaining its physicality, will behold G‑dliness as it is beheld by the Supernal Eye. Thus, within the physicality of the World of Asiyah, there will be revealed the level of certainty in spiritual perception which is called vision — a level that far surpasses the furthest attainments of the intellect.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Parentheses are in the original text. |
| 2. |
Note of the Rebbe: “See Rambam, Hilchot Matnot Aniyim, beginning of ch. 10; quoted in Tur, Yoreh Deah, beginning of sec. 247. The above quotation does not refer to the similar teaching in the Talmud (Shabbat 139a; Sanhedrin 98a), for there the verb is נפדה [whereas our text reads נגאלין]. Very often, as is well known, the commentators {(the Radbaz and the Kesef Mishneh and the Glosses on the Tur) who give the teaching of Ulla in the Talmud(loc. cit.) as Rambam’s source} do not intend to quote the exact wording of a particular teaching, but rather to cite its content. See also the halachah that immediately follows this statement in the Rambam, and the above-named commentaries on it.“
As to Mesoret HaShas and the other authorities who argue that the Rambam had before him the text ‘Israel’ (in place of ‘Jerusalem’) in the Talmud, they speak only of the one word ‘Israel’, and such a variant reading is to be found elsewhere — in Ein Yaakov. A version that would include nigalin, however, I have yet to find in the Talmud or in Yalkut Shimoni.
Moreover, it is more improbable to postulate that the Rambam had a variant reading that is not at all extant, than to assume that the Rambam is more explicit than the Talmud, for which reason he very understandably writes nigalin.”
|
| 3. | 1:1. |
| 4. | V.L.: לנהורא דיליה (“to his light”). |
| 5. | Cf. Likkutei Amarim, Part I, ch. 27. |
| 6. | Cf. Likkutei Amarim, Part I, ch. 27. |
| 7. | Yeshayahu 52:8. |
• Sefer Hamitzvot:
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video ClassToday's Mitzvah
Tuesday, Menachem Av 30, 5777 · August 22, 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
Positive Commandment 246
Laws of Claims
"In every case of trespass...in which one can say: 'This is it'"—Exodus 22:8.
We are commanded to adjudicate monetary cases between litigants [according to the laws outlined in the Torah].
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Positive Commandment 246
Translated by Berel Bell
The 246th mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding claims and counterclaims [in lawsuits.]
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "In every case of dishonesty... [and the watchman] said that this is it."
In the words of the Mechilta: "The phrase 'that this is it' refers to partial admission to the claim."2
This mitzvah includes anything that can arise from the claims people have against one another involving admission and denial.
The details of this commandment are explained in the 3rd chapter of Bava Kama, the beginning of Bava Metzia, and the 5th, 6th, and 7th chapters of Shavuos. Many questions regarding this subject are spread throughout the Talmud.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ex. 22:8.
2.Since he has made a partial admission, he is required to take an oath regarding the rest of the claim.
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter A Day: Edut Edut - Chapter 20
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
Edut - Chapter 20
1
Lying witnesses are neither executed, given lashes, or required to make financial restitution unless both of them were fit to serve as witnesses and they were both disqualified through hazamah after the judgment was rendered.
If, however, only one of them was disqualified through hazamah, they were both disqualified through hazamah before the judgment was rendered, or after the judgment was rendered, one of them was disqualified because of family connections or because he was unfit to serve as a witness, the witnesses are not punished, even though they are disqualified through hazamah and no longer acceptable to deliver testimony in all matters of Scriptural Law.
א
אין עדים זוממין נהרגין ולא לוקין ולא משלמין עד שיהיו שניהם ראויין לעדות ויזומו שניהם אחר שנגמר הדין אבל אם הוזם אחד מהן בלבד או שהוזמו שניהם קודם גמר דין או אחר גמר דין ונמצא אחד מהן קרוב או פסול אין נענשין אף על פי שהוזמו ונפסלו לכל עדות שבתורה:
2
Although according to Talmudic logic one might differ, if the person against whom they testified was executed and then they were disqualified through hazamah, they are not executed. This is derived from Deuteronomy 19:19: which speaks of: 'what they conspired to do.' Implied is that it was not already done. This rule is part of the Oral Tradition.
If, however, the person against whom they testified was lashed, they are lashed. Similarly, if money was expropriated from one person and given to another, it is returned to its owner and the witnesses are required to pay the penalty.
ב
נהרג זה שהעידו עליו ואחר כך הוזמו אינן נהרגין מן הדין שנאמר כאשר זמם לעשות ועדיין לא עשה ודבר זה מפי הקבלה אבל אם לקה זה שהעידו עליו לוקין וכן אם יצא הממון מיד זה ליד זה בעדותן חוזר לבעליו ומשלמין לו:
3
The following laws apply if there were three or even 100 witnesses. If the witnesses deliver testimony in court one after the other, each one testifying immediately after his colleague and several of them were disqualified through hazamah, they do not receive punishment until all of them are disqualified through hazamah.
If, however, the interval between testimonies was greater than the time it takes a student to greet a teacher, the testimonies are divided and the two who were disqualified through hazamah are punished. The two who testified after there was such an interlude between their testimony and that of the first pair are not punished. This applies even though the entire testimony is disqualified because all of the witnesses are considered as one group and when the testimony of part of a group is disqualified, the entire testimony is disqualified.
ג
היו העדים שלשה אפילו מאה אם העידו בבית דין זה אחר זה והעיד כל אחד מהן אחר חבירו בתוך כדי דבור והוזמו מקצתן אין נענשין עד שיוזמו כולן אבל אם היה הפסק בין זה לזה יתר מכדי דבור שהוא כדי שאלת שלום תלמיד לרב הרי נחלקה העדות והשנים שהוזמו נענשין והשנים האחרים שהיה בין דבריהן ודברי הראשונים הפסק אין נענשין ואף על פי שבטלה העדות כולה מפני שהן כת אחת הואיל ונפסלה מקצתה נפסלה כולה:
4
When one witness delivers testimony, that testimony is investigated, and the second witness states: 'I also testify like him,' 'Yes, this is what happened,' or the like, they are both executed, lashed, or subjected to a financial penalty if they are both disqualified through hazamah. The rationale is that any witness who says 'Yes, this is what happened' after his colleague testified is considered as having testified and responded to cross-examination as his colleague did.
There is no concept of inadvertent transgression with regard to lying witnesses, because the transgression does not involve a deed. Therefore there is no need for a warning as we explained.
ד
העיד האחד ונחקרה עדותו ואמר השני אף אני כמוהו או שאמר הן כיוצא בזה והוזמו שניהן הרי שניהן נהרגין או לוקין או משלמין שכל עד שאמר אחר עדות חבירו הן הרי זה כמי שנחקר והעיד כמו שהעיד חבירו ואין לעדים זוממין שגגה לפי שאין בה מעשה לפיכך אין צריכים התראה כמו שבארנו:
5
Just as two witnesses can disqualify 100 witnesses through hazamah if the 100 testify at one time; so, too, they can disqualify them through hazamah if they testify as 50 groups, coming two by two.
What is implied? A group of witnesses testified that Reuven killed Shimon in Jerusalem. Two witnesses came and disqualified that group through hazamah. Another group came and delivered that same testimony, that Reuven killed Shimon in Jerusalem and these same two witnesses arose and disqualified that group through hazamah. This happened a third time and a fourth time. Even if it happens 100 times, all the other witnesses are executed on the basis of the testimony of these two.
ה
כשם שהשנים מזימין את המאה אם העידו המאה בבת אחת כך הן מזימין אותן אפילו היו חמשים כת ובאו שנים אחר שנים כיצד כת שהעידה על ראובן שהרג את שמעון בירושלים ובאו שני עדים והזימוה ובאת כת שניה והעידה אותה עדות עצמה שראובן הרג שמעון בירושלים ועמדו אותן השנים והזימוה גם זו הכת השניה וכן השלישית וכן הרביעית אפילו מאה כולן הן נהרגין על פי אלו השנים:
6
When one group of witnesses testify that Reuven killed Shimon in Jerusalem and a second group come and disqualify the first group through hazamah, the lying witnesses should be executed and Reuven's life saved. If a third group come and disqualify the second group through hazamah, the second group and Reuven should be executed and the lives of the first group saved.
If a fourth group come and disqualify the third group through hazamah, the third and the first groups should be executed and the lives of Reuven and the second group saved. Similarly, even if there are 100 groups, each one disqualifying the testimony of the previous through hazamah, one group's testimony is accepted and the other group's testimony is disqualified.
ו
כת שהעידה על ראובן שהרג את שמעון בירושלים ובאה כת שניה והזימה את הכת ראשונה יהרגו העדים הזוממין וינצל ראובן באה כת שלישית והזימה את הכת השניה תהרג הכת השניה וראובן ותנצל הכת ראשונה באה כת רביעית והזימה את הכת שלישית תהרג הכת השלישית והראשונה וינצל ראובן והכת השניה וכן אפילו הן מאה כת זו מזימה את זו כת נכנסת וכת יוצאת:
7
When witnesses testify that a person who is trefe murdered a person and then the witnesses are disqualified through hazamah, the witnesses are not executed. The rationale is that even if they had killed him with their hands, they would not be executed, because he is trefe.
Similarly, if witnesses who were trefe testified concerning a matter punishable by execution by the court and were disqualified through hazamah, they are not executed. The rationale is that if their testimony was disqualified through hazamah, and the testimony of the witnesses who testified against them was disqualified through hazamah, those witnesses would not be executed, for they disqualified only a person who was trefe.
ז
עדים שהעידו על איש טרפה שהרג והוזמו אין נהרגין שאפילו הרגוהו בידיהן אין נהרגין לפי שהוא טרפה וכן העדים שהיו טרפה והעידו בדבר שחייבין עליו מיתת בית דין והוזמו אין נהרגין שאם יוזמו זוממיהן אין זוממיהן נהרגין שלא הזימו אלא טרפה:
8
The following rule applies when witnesses testify against another person and have him convicted in a matter that does not involve lashes, capital punishment, or a financial obligation and then the witnesses are disqualified through hazamah. They are given lashes even though they did not conspire to have the defendant lashed or to obligate him financially.
What is implied? Witnesses testified that a priest was a challal, e.g., they testified that his mother was divorced or released through chalitzah in their presence in this-and-this place on this-and-this date. If the witnesses are disqualified through hazamah, they are punished by lashing.
Similarly, if they testified that a person inadvertently killed a colleague and they are disqualified through hazamah, they are punished by lashing; they are not exiled. And if they testify that a person's ox killed another person and they were disqualified through hazamah, they receive lashes and are not required to pay an atonement fine. If they testify that a person was sold as a Hebrew servant and they were disqualified through hazamah, they receive lashes. These four rulings are part of the Oral Tradition.
ח
עדים שהעידו על אחד והרשיעוהו רשע שאין בו לא מלקות ולא מיתה ולא חיוב ממון ואח"כ הוזמו הרי אלו לוקין אע"פשלא זממו להלקות זה ולא לחייבו ממון כיצד העידו על כהן שהוא חלל כגון שהעידו בפנינו נתגרשה אמו או נחלצה במקום פלוני ביום פלוני והוזמו הרי הן לוקין וכן אם העידו על אדם שהרג בשגגה והוזמו לוקין ואינן גולין העידו על שורו של זה שהרג הנפש והוזמו הרי הן לוקין ואין משלמין את הכופר העידו עליו שנמכר בעבד עברי והוזמו לוקין וארבעה דברים אלו מפי הקבלה הן:
9
With regard to the above matters, our Sages received the following tradition: When two people cause a righteous person to be condemned and a wicked person to be vindicated through their testimony and two others come and disqualify their testimony through hazamah vindicating the righteous person and condemning the wicked, the first pair of witnesses receive lashes even though their condemnation of the righteous person would not have had him subjected to lashes.
If, however, witnesses testify that a person partook of milk and meat or wore shaatnez, they are punished by lashes, as implied by Deuteronomy 19:19: 'You shall requite him as he conspired.'
ט
כך קבלו חכמים ששנים שהרשיעו את הצדיק והצדיקו את הרשע בעדותן ובאו עדים אחרים והזימום והצדיקו את הצדיק והרשיעו את הרשע הרי עדים הראשונים לוקים אף על פי שלא הרשיעו הצדיק להלקותו אבל אם העידו עליו שאכל בשר בחלב או שלבש שעטנז הרי אלו לוקין משום שנאמר ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם:
10
When two witnesses testify that Reuven committed adultery with the daughter of a priest, Reuven was sentenced to death by strangulation and the daughter of the priest was sentenced to be burnt to death, and afterwards the witnesses were disqualified through hazamah, they should be executed by strangulation and not burnt to death. This is part of the Oral Tradition.
י
שנים שהעידו על ראובן שנאף עם בת כהן ונגמר דין ראובן ליחנק ודין הנואפת לשריפה ואחר כך נמצאו זוממין הרי אלו נחנקין ולא נשרפין ודבר זה מפי הקבלה:
Rambam:• 3 Chapters A Day: To`en veNit`an To`en veNit`an - Chapter 1, To`en veNit`an To`en veNit`an - Chapter 2, To`en veNit`an To`en veNit`an - Chapter 3
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
To`en veNit`an - Chapter 1
Introduction to Hilchos To`en veNit`an
It contains one mitzvah, the laws when a person issues a claim against a colleague and he either admits or denies the claim. This mitzvah is explained in the following chapters.
רמב"ם הלכות טוען ונטען - הקדמה
הלכות טוען ונטען. מצות עשה אחת היא והיא דין טוען ומודה או כופר. וביאור מצוה זו בפרקים אלו.
1
When a person who issues a claim against a colleague with regard to movable property, and the defendant acknowledges a portion of the claim, he must pay what he acknowledged, and take an oath with regard to the remainder. This is a Scriptural obligation, as Exodus 22:8 states: "That this is it."
Similarly, if the defendant denies the entire obligation and says: "Such a thing never happened," and one witness testifies that the defendant is obligated to the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated by Scriptural Law to take an oath. The Oral Tradition teaches: Whenever two witnesses would obligate the person to pay money, one witness obligates him to take an oath.
Similarly, it was derived through the Oral Tradition that one witness shall not rise up against any man for any iniquity or any sin. He may, however, rise up against him to obligate him to take an oath.
א
הטוען את חבירו במטלטלין והודה לו במקצת הרי זה משלם מה שהודה בו ונשבע על השאר מן התורה שנאמר אשר יאמר כי הוא זה, וכן אם כפר בכל ואומר לא היו דברים מעולם ועד אחד מעיד [שהוא חייב לו] הרי זה נשבע מן התורה, ומפי השמועה למדו שכל מקום ששנים מחייבין אותו ממון אחד מחייבו שבועה, וכן למדו מפי השמועה שעד אחד לכל עון ולכל חטאת אינו קם אבל קם הוא לשבועה.
2
There are only three individuals who are obligated by Scriptural Law to take an oath: a person who denied a portion of a claim of movable property, a person obligated by one witness, and a watchman. For with regard to a watchman, Exodus 22:10 states: "The oath of God shall be between them." We have already explained the oath required of watchman in Hilchot Sechirut.
Each of these three individuals takes an oath and becomes free of his obligation to pay. In contrast, those who take an oath and collect the money they claim, e.g., an employee, a person who was injured, a person who impairs the legal power of his promissory note and the like, and similarly, those who take an oath because there is a possibility of a claim being lodged against them, e.g., partners and sharecroppers, all take oaths because of our Sages' ordinances. Although all these oaths were ordained by Rabbinic decree, they all resemble a Scriptural oath, and all must be taken while holding a sacred article.
ב
אין לך מחוייב שבועה מן התורה חוץ משלשה, מי שהודה במקצת המטלטלין, ומי שחייבו עד אחד, והשומר, שהרי נאמר בשומר שבועת ה' תהיה בין שניהם, וכבר ביארנו שבועת השומרין בהלכות שכירות, וכל אחד מן השלשה נשבע ונפטר מלשלם, אבל כל הנשבעין ונוטלין כגון שכיר ונחבל ופוגם את שטרו וכיוצא בו, וכן כל הנשבעין בטענת ספק כגון השותפין והאריסין כולן נשבעין בתקנת חכמים, וכל אלו השבועות אע"פ שהן מדברי סופרים הרי הן כעין של תורה בנקיטת חפץ.
3
A defendant is not liable to take a Scriptural oath when a colleague claims that he owes movable property and the defendant:
a) denies the entire matter, saying: "Such a thing never occurred";
b) admitted a portion of the claim and gave it to him immediately, saying: "This is all I owe you; here it is";
c) admits that he had originally owed the plaintiff the debt, but claims that the plaintiff waived payment, gave him the object claimed as a present, or that he already returned the debt;
d) admits owing barley, while the plaintiff claims wheat.
Nevertheless, the Sages of the Gemara ordained that in all these situations, the defendant should take a sh'vuat heset, before being freed of liability. This oath does not resemble a Scriptural oath, because one need not hold a sacred article while taking it. We have already described the process of taking a Scriptural oath and that of taking a sh'vuat heset in Hilchot Sh'vuos.
ג
הטוען מטלטלין על חבירו וכפר בכל ואמר לא היו דברים מעולם, או שהודה במקצת ונתנו מיד ואמר אין לך בידי אלא זה והילך, או שאמר אמת שהיה לך אצלי אבל מחלת לי או נתת לי או מכרת לי או החזרתי לך או שטענו חטים והודה לו בשעורים בכל אלו פטור משבועת התורה, אבל חכמי הגמרא תקנו שישבע הנתבע בכל אלו שבועת היסת ויפטר, ואינו כעין של תורה לפי שאין בהן נקיטת חפץ, וכבר ביארנו דרך שבועה של תורה ודרך שבועת היסת בהלכות שבועות.
4
Whenever anyone is required to take an oath by Scriptural Law, he may take the oath and free himself of obligations. If he does not desire to take the oath, we attach his property and expropriate everything the plaintiff claims. For the plaintiff will say: "I will not budge from the Torah's ruling. Either take the oath or pay me." He may, however, have a conditional ban of ostracismissued against anyone who makes a false claim. He must then pay.
Different laws apply when, by contrast, a person is obligated to take an oath by Rabbinic degree. If he was one of those who must take an oath and collect his due, he cannot reverse the oath and require the defendant to take it. For the defendant will tell him: "Take the oath and collect as the Sages ordained for you." If he does not desire to take an oath, he should depart.
My masters ruled that if the plaintiff says: "I do not desire the ordinance which the Sages ordained on my behalf. Instead, I am no different than any other plaintiff," he may require the defendant to take a sh'vuat heset. If the defendant desires to reverse this oath and require the plaintiff to take it, we obligate the plaintiff to take the oath or to depart.
ד
כל מי שנתחייב שבועה מן התורה הרי זה נשבע ונפטר, ואם לא רצה להשבע יורדין לנכסיו וגובין מהם כל מה שתבע חבירו עליו, שהרי התובע אומר לו איני זז מדין תורה או השבע או תן לי, ויש לו להחרים על מי שטען עליו דבר שאינו כן ונותן, אבל מי שנתחייב שבועה מדבריהן אם היה מן הנשבעין ונוטלין אינו יכול להפך את השבועה שהרי הנתבע אומר לו השבע וטול כמו שתקנו לך, ואם לא רצה להשבע ילך לו, והורו רבותי שאם אמר התובע איני רוצה בתקנה זו שתקנו לי חכמים אלא הריני כשאר התובעים הרי זה משביע את הנתבע היסת, ואם רצה להפכה על התובע מחייבין את התובע להשבע או ילך לו.
5
If a defendant was obligated by Rabbinic decree to take an oath to be released from responsibility, e.g., those who must take an oath because of a doubt or those required to take a sh'vuat heset, and he did not want to take an oath, he is placed under a ban of ostracism for 30 days. If he does not come and seek to be released from his ban, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.
Similarly, whenever a person has been placed under a ban of ostracism for 30 days, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct and then his ban is lifted. His property is not attached, because he is not required to take an oath by Scriptural Law.
ה
היה מחוייב שבועה מדבריהם מן הנשבעין ונפטרין כגון הנשבעין על טענת ספק או מן הנשבעין היסת ולא רצה להשבע משמתין אותו שלשים יום אם לא בא ולא תבע נידויו מלקין אותו מכת מרדות, וכל מי שחלה עליו שמתא שלשים יום מכין אותו מכת מרדות ואחר כך מתירין נדויו, ואין יורדין לנכסיו לפי שאינו מחוייב שבועה מן התורה.
6
Whenever a person is obligated to take a sh'vuat heset, if he desires, he may reverse the oath and obligate the plaintiff. The plaintiff may take the sh'vuat heset and then collect his claim from his colleague.
There is no other person who takes a sh'vuat heset and collects his claim from his colleague except this person for whom the obligation to take a sh'vuat heset. A Scriptural oath and a Rabbinic oath that resembles a Scriptural oath may not be reversed.
ו
כל המחוייב שבועת היסת אם רצה להפוך השבועה על התובע הרי התובע נשבע היסת ונוטל מחבירו, ואין לך מי שנשבע היסת ונוטל מחבירו אלא זה שנהפכה עליו שבועת היסת, ואין לך שבועה שתהפך אלא שבועת היסת בלבד, אבל שבועה של תורה או של דבריהם שהיא כעין של תורה אין הופכין שבועתן.
7
A person cannot be required to take a sh'vuat heset unless a definite claim is lodged against him. If, however, the plaintiff's claim is doubt, the defendant is not liable for the oath.
What is implied? The plaintiff says: "It appears to me that you owe me a maneh," "I lent you a maneh, it appears to me that you did not repay me," "My father said that you owe me a maneh, "My father declared to me in the presence of witnesses that you owe me a maneh," "A certain article was stolen from my house. You were the only person there. In my eyes, it is likely that you stole it," "I calculated the money I have and I found that I was lacking some. Perhaps you caused me to err in the accounting," and to all these complaints, the defendant states: "I do not owe you anything," he is not liable even for a sh'vuat heset. The same applies in all analogous situations.
ז
אין משביעין שבועת היסת אלא על טענת ודאי אבל על טענת ספק פטור, כיצד כמדומה לי שיש לי אצלך מנה או שאמר מנה הלויתיך וכמדומה לי שלא פרעתני, אמר לי אבא שיש לי אצלך מנה או צוה לי בפני עדים שיש לי אצלך מנה, דבר פלוני נגנב מביתי ולא היה שם אלא אתה קרוב בעיני שאתה גנבתו, חשבתי מעות ומצאתי חסר שמא אתה הטעיתני בחשבון, והנתבע אומר אין לך בידי כלום הרי זה פטור אף משבועת היסת וכן כל כיוצא בזה. 1
8
The defendant is required to take a sh'vuat heset in the following situations. The plaintiff claims: "You definitely owe me a kor of wheat," and the defendant replies: "I don't know. Maybe I owe you, maybe I do not owe you," the defendant must take a sh'vuat heset that he does not know of the obligation. He is then released. He is not liable, because he did not definitely obligate himself. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Similarly, if the plaintiff claims: "You definitely owe me a kor of wheat," and the defendant replies: "I don't know whether I owe you a kor of wheat or barley," the defendant must take a sh'vuat heset that he does not know and pay the plaintiff a kor of barley. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
ח
כור חטים יש לי בידך בודאי והנתבע אומר איני יודע שמא יש לך שמא אין לך הרי הנתבע ישבע שבועת היסת שאינו יודע ונפטר, לפי שלא חייב עצמו בודאי וכן כל כיוצא בזה, כור חטים יש לי בידך בודאי והנתבע אומר איני יודע אם חטים הוא או שעורים הרי זה נשבע היסת שאינו יודע ומשלם שעורין וכן כל כיוצא בזה. 2
9
Different rules apply when the plaintiff claims: "You definitely owe me a maneh," and the defendant replies: "I did owe you a maneh. I do not know, however, if I returned it to you or did not return it to you yet." The defendant is obligated to pay. The plaintiff is not obligated to take an oath at all, not even a sh'vuat heset.
The rationale is that the defendant knows that he was liable and the plaintiff is lodging a definite claim against him, and he does not know whether he fulfilled his obligation or not. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
This stringency does not apply if there is no plaintiff, i.e., on his own initiative, the defendant said: "I stole from you...", "You lent me a maneh...", "Your father entrusted me with a maneh, and I do not know if I returned it to you or not, he is not liable at all. If he desires to fulfill his moral and spiritual obligations, he is liable to make restitution.
ט
מנה יש לי בידך בודאי והנתבע אומר כן היה לך בידי אבל איני יודע אם החזרתי לך או עדיין לא החזרתי לך חייב לשלם ולא ישבע התובע כלל אפילו שבועת היסת, מפני שהוא יודע בודאי שהוא חייב והרי זה טוען אותו טענת ודאי ונסתפק אם נפטר או לא נפטר וכן כל כיוצא בזה, אבל אם אין לו תובע והודה מעצמו ואמר גזלתיך או הלויתני מנה, אביך הפקיד אצלי מנה ואיני יודע אם החזרתיו או לא החזרתיו, אינו חייב לשלם, ואם בא לצאת ידי שמים חייב לשלם.
10
As mentioned above, a sh'vuat heset can be reversed. Thus if a plaintiff claims: "You owe me a maneh," and the defendant responds: "I do not owe you anything," the plaintiff may tell him: "Take a sh'vuat heset and go on your way." And the defendant may respond: "You take the sh'vuat heset and collect your claim." If the plaintiff says: "I do not desire to take the oath," the defendant may tell him: "Either take the oath and collect your claim or go away without anything." The obligation to take the oath may not be reversed again. The plaintiff may, however, have a conditional bill of ostracism issued against anyone who owes him money and refuses to pay.
י
מנה לי בידך אין לך בידי כלום השבע היסת ולך השבע אתה היסת וטול, ואמר התובע איני רוצה להשבע הרי הנתבע אומר לו השבע וטול או תלך בלא כלום, ואין שם הפוך אחר ויש לו להחרים סתם על מי שהוא חייב לי ולא יתן לי.
11
My masters ruled that anyone who is obligated to take an oath - whether a Scriptural oath or a Rabbinic oath, even a sh'vuat heset - may, before taking the oath, have a conditional ban of ostracism issued against anyone who lodges a claim against him for money which he does not owe so that he will have to take an oath unnecessarily. The person requiring him to take the oath must answer Amen. Afterwards, the defendant must take that oath.
This is a proper ordinance for litigants so that they will refrain from making false claims and not cause God's name to be mentioned for no purpose, thus preventing them from lodging spurious suits.
יא
הורו רבותי שכל מי שנתחייב שבועה בין של תורה בין של דבריהם אפילו היסת, יש לו להחרים סתם קודם שישבע על מי שיטעון עליו דבר שאינו חייב בו כדי שישביע אותו בחנם ויענה המשביע אמן ואחר ישבע, ותקנה טובה לבעלי דינין כדי שימנעו מטענת שקר ולא יגרמו להוציא שם שמים לבטלה ולא ישיאו שמע שוא.
12
Whenever a person is required to take an oath - whether a Scriptural oath or a Rabbinic oath - the plaintiff can require him to include in his oath a denial of any other claim that he desires which would obligate the defendant financially.
To what extent can he be forced to include a claim? Until the plaintiff has him include in the oath that he was not sold to the plaintiff as a Hebrew servant and is still under his bond.
As mentioned, a worker who is required to take an cannot be forced to include other claims in that oath.
יב
כל מי שנתחייב שבועה בין של תורה בין של דבריהם מגלגל עליו המשביע כל מה שירצה מדברים שאם יודה בהן יתחייב ממון, ועד היכן כח גלגול עד שיאמר ובכלל שבועה זו שלא נמכרת לי בעבד עברי ועדיין עבדי אתה, וכבר ביארנו שאין מגלגלין על השכיר.
13
The following principle applies whenever a person is obligated to take an oath, even a sh'vuat heset, and the plaintiff begins to demand that he include in the oath matters which were not included in the original claim. If the defendant sees this and says: "I do not desire to take the oath. Instead, I will pay the original claim whose denial obligated me to take the oath," we do not accept his request. Instead, we tell him: "Either pay all the definite claims he asked you to include in the oath or take the oath and be released of responsibility."
יג
מי שנתחייב שבועה אפילו היסת והתחיל התובע לגלגל עליו דברים אחרים שלא טען אותם, וראה הנתבע כך ואמר איני רוצה להשבע אלא הריני משלם הטענה הראשונה שנתחייבתי על כפירתה שבועה, אין שומעין לו אלא אומרים לנתבע או תן לו כל מה שגלגל עליך מטענות הודאיות או השבע והפטר. 3
14
When a person lodges many claims against a colleague, the defendant cannot be forced to take an oath on each claim individually. Instead, he includes all the claims in one oath. If a person was obligated to take two oaths on two different claims, one lenient and one more severe, he is required to take the more severe oath and include in it the other claims based on the principle of gilgul sh'vuah.
יד
הטוען את חבירו טענות הרבה אין משביעין אותו על כל טענה וטענה אלא שבועה אחת על הכל, נתחייב שתי שבועות על שתי טענות קלה וחמורה, משביעין אותו על החמורה ומגלגלין בה שאר דברים.
15
When a person lodges a claim against a colleague which would not result in a financial obligation if he would acknowledge its truth, even if the defendant denies the claim, we do not require him to take a sh'vuat heset, nor do we issue a conditional ban of ostracism.
What is implied? The plaintiff claims: "You promised to give me a maneh," and the defendant states: "That never happened," the defendant is not required to take a sh'vuat heset, nor is a conditional ban of ostracism issued against him. The rationale is that even were he to have acknowledged making such a promise, he would not be obligated to fulfill it. Similarly, if a plaintiff claimed: "You cursed me," or "You spread a disparaging report about me," and the defendant replied: "That never happened," a ban of ostracism is not issued in such a situation. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
טו
כל הטוען את חבירו טענה שאם הודה אינו חייב לשלם ממון, אע"פ שכפר אין מחייבין אותו שבועת היסת ולא חרם סתם, כיצד אמרת שתתן לי מנה לא היו דברים מעולם אין משביעין אותו היסת ולא חרם שאילו הודה בדבר זה אינו חייב כלום, אתה קללת אותי אתה הוצאת עלי שם רע לא היו דברים מעולם אין מחרימין על זה, וכן כל כיוצא בזה מדברים אלו.
16
If a plaintiff claims: "You injured me," and the defendant states: "That never happened," the defendant is required to take a sh'vuat heset. The rationale is although the defendant is not liable to pay a k'nas because of his own admission alone, he would be liable to pay the injured party for his unemployment, his medical expenses, and the embarrassment he suffered.
The following rule applies when a plaintiff claims: "You embarrassed me," and the defendant states: "That never happened." If they were in a place where claims involving k'nasot were collected, the defendant is required to take a sh'vuat heset, for if he would acknowledge the truth of the claim, he would be required to pay for the embarrassment he caused.
טז
אתה חבלת בי לא היו דברים מעולם, הרי זה נשבע היסת שאע"פ שאינו משלם קנס על פי עצמו משלם שבת ורפוי ובשת, אתה ביישתני לא היו דברים מעולם, אם היו במקום שגובין בו קנסות הרי זה נשבע היסת, שאילו הודה היה משלם הבושת. 4
17
When do we apply the above statement: "A person who admits his guilt with regard to a claim involving a k'nas is not liable"? When the defendant says: "I injured this person."
If, however, the defendant says: "I injured this person. He brought witnesses against me in court and it obligated me to pay so and so much for his damages," he is liable. Accordingly, were the plaintiff to claim that a court obligated the defendant to pay him 100 dinarim because he injured him, and the defendant denied the claim, the defendant would be required to take a sh'vuat heset. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
יז
במה דברים אמורים שהמודה בקנס פטור כשהודה בדבר שחייב עליו קנס כגון שאמר חבלתי בזה, אבל אם אמר חבלתי בזה והביא עלי עדים בבית דין וחייבוני ליתן כך וכך בנזקי הרי זה חייב לשלם, לפיכך אם טען הטוען שבית דין חייבוך לשלם לי מאה דינרין משום שחבלת בי והוא אומר לא היו דברים מעולם, הרי זה נשבע היסת וכן כל כיוצא בזה..
FOOTNOTES
1.אין משביעין וכו' עד וכן כל כיוצא בזה. א"א בזה איני מודה לו כי היא טענת ברי ועל זו אמר ר"א בן יעקב פעמים שאדם נשבע על טענת עצמו שהעמיד אותה בבא בטענת עצמו והוא שאמר כך צוה לי אבא שאם אמר ברי לי שאני יודע על זה אמרו מה לי הוא מה לי אביו ואפילו לרבנן עכ"ל.
2.כור חטים יש לי בידך וכו' עד וכן כל כיוצא בזה. א"א זה אינו שאינו משלם שעורים והיינו דרבה בר נתן אלא א"כ תפס ואיכא דדחו לה דכיון דהאידנא איכא שבועת היסת אי אשתבע דלא ידענא אי חטים הוו או שעורים הוו הא אודי הודאה גמורה דאית ליה כל דהוא ולא דחייה הוא הילכך משלם ויש לו פנים אבל הוא היה צריך לגלות עכ"ל.
3.מי שנתחייב שבועה וכו' עד השבע והפטר. א"א ואם זה שנתחייב היסת ורואה שמגלגלין עליו הרבה והפך השבועה אם נאמר כבר פטר עצמו מן השבועה או נאמר לו או השבע לו על הכל או תהפך עליו את הכל שישבע ויטול שהרי אתה חייב לו שבועת היסת אף על הגלגולים כמו על הטענה הראשונה, זה המחבר האריך וקיצר ואני רואה כי זה הוא הדין או ישבע על הכל או יהפך על הכל וישבע זה ויטול ולא יפטר בהפוכו מן הגלגולים ואם אמר הנתבע על הגלגולין אני נשבע ונפטר ועל הטענה הראשונה השבע וטול הרשות בידו עכ"ל.
4.אתה חבלת וכו' עד משלם שבת ורפוי ובשת. א"א איני מוצא קנס בחבלות ואם מפני שאין דנין חבלות בבבל גם שבת ורפוי ובשת אין דנין ועוד שהרי בית דין מנדין עד שיפייס בעל דינו עכ"ל.
To`en veNit`an - Chapter 2
1
Whenever it is suspected that a person might take a false oath,no oath - neither a Scriptural oath, a Rabbinic oath, nor a sh'vuat heset - is administered to him. Even if the plaintiff desires that he take this oath, we do not heed his request.
א
כל חשוד על השבועה אין משביעין אותו לא שבועת התורה ולא שבועה מדבריהם ולא שבועת היסת, ואפילו רצה התובע אין שומעין לו.
2
A person who took a false oath - whether a sh'vuat bitui, a sh'vuat edut, or a sh'vuat hapikadon - or an unnecessary oath, he is considered suspect to take a false oath.
Similarly, a person who is not acceptable to serve as a witness because he committed a transgression, whether disqualified because of a Scriptural prohibition, e.g., a person who lends at interest, one who eats meat from an animal that was not ritually slaughtered, or a thief, or because of a Rabbinic prohibition, e.g., a dice-player or a dove racer, is considered suspect to take a false oath and we do not administer an oath to him.
ב
אחד הנשבע לשקר שבועת בטוי, או שבועת עדות, או שבועת הפקדון, או שבועת שוא, הרי הוא חשוד על השבועה, וכן כל הפסול לעדות משום עבירה בין פסלנות של תורה כגון בעלי רבית, ואוכלי נבלות, וגזלנין, בין פסלנות של דבריהם כגון משחק בקוביא ומפריחי יונים הרי הוא חשוד על השבועה ואין משביעין אותו.
3
A person is not deemed suspect to take a false oath until witnesses testify that he violated the transgression for which he is disqualified. Different rules apply, however, if a person himself admits that he is suspect to take a false oath, because he committed a transgression that disqualifies him.
We consider him under suspicion and it is not appropriate to make him a witness at the outset. Nevertheless, if he is obligated to take an oath, we administer that oath. For we tell him: "If you are telling the truth, take the oath. The fact that you committed a sin does not make it forbidden for you to take a truthful oath. And if you are lying, acknowledge the other litigant's claim." When a person is deemed suspect because of the testimony of witnesses, we do not believe that he will take a truthful oath.
ג
אין אדם נעשה חשוד עד שיבאו עליו עדים שהוא עבר עבירה שנפסל בה, אבל המודה מפי עצמו שהוא חשוד ושעבר עבירה שנפסל בה, אע"פ שחוששין לו ואין ראוי לעשותו עד בתחלה, אם נתחייב שבועה משביעין אותו שהרי אומרים לו אם אמת אתה אומר השבע ולא מפני שעברת עבירה אסור לך להשבע באמת, ואם שקר אתה אומר הודה לבעל דינך, אבל הנחשד בעדים אין אנו מאמינים אותו שישבע.
4
Our Sages ordained that whenever a person who is suspect to take a false oath is obligated to take a Scriptural Oath because of a definite claim, the plaintiff is given the option of taking a Rabbinic oath and may then collect what he claims.
If they were both suspect, the responsibility for taking the oath returns to the one obligated to take it, i.e., the defendant. Since he cannot take the oath, he is required to pay.
If the person who was suspect was a watchman who claims that the entrusted article was lost or stolen, the plaintiff cannot take an oath, because he does not have a definite claim that the watchman consumed it. Therefore, if the owner of the entrusted object claims: "He used my entrusted article for his own purposesin my presence," or "I know that he was negligent," the plaintiff may take an oath as ordained by our Sages and collect the money he claims.
ד
תקנת חכמים היא שכל המחוייב שבועה מן התורה על טענת ודאי, אם היה חשוד הרי התובע נשבע מדבריהם ונוטל מה שטען, היו שניהם חשודין חזרה שבועה למחוייב לה שהוא הנתבע ומתוך שאינו יכול לישבע משלם, היה החשוד שומר וטען שאבד הפקדון או נגנב שכנגדו אינו יכול להשבע וליטול שהרי אינו טוענו ודאי שאכלו, לפיכך אם טען בעל הפקדון ואמר בפני שלח יד בפקדוני או פשע בו הרי התובע נשבע בתקנת חכמים ונוטל.
5
The following laws apply if the person suspect to take a false oath was liable to take a Rabbinic oath. If he is one of those who takes an oath and collects, he may not take the oath and collect. Instead, the defendant is allowed to take a sh'vuat heset and then is freed of liability.
Similarly, when a person who is suspect impairs the legal power of his promissory note or the like and the borrower claims to have paid and requires the plaintiff to take an oath, the defendant is given the option of taking the oath, and in that way becoming released from the obligation of the promissory note.
ה
נתחייב החשוד שבועה מדבריהם אם היה מן הנשבעין ונוטלין אינו יכול להשבע וליטול אלא הנתבע שכנגדו ישבע היסת ויפטר, וכן פוגם שטרו וכל כיוצא בזה שהיה חשוד וטען הלוה שפרעו ואמר ישבע לי הרי הנתבע נשבע היסת ויפטר מן השטר. 1
6
If the person who is suspect was one of those who is required to take an oath because of an indefinite claim, he is not allowed to take the oath, nor does the plaintiff take the oath. The rationale is that the defendant was not obligated to take an oath by Scriptural Law and the plaintiff is not lodging a definite claim against him that he could support with an oath.
ו
היה החשוד מן הנשבעין בטענת ספק אינו נשבע ואין שכנגדו נשבע לפי שלא נתחייב זה שבועה מן התורה, ולפי שאין התובע טוענו טענת ודאי כדי שישבע על טענתו.
7
When a person who is suspect becomes obligated to take a sh'vuat heset, the plaintiff is not given the option of taking the oath and collecting what he claims. The rationale is that a sh'vuat heset is itself a measure ordained for the benefit of the plaintiff. Therefore we did not ordain a second measure for his benefit. Instead, the defendant is released from liability without taking an oath.
ז
נתחייב החשוד שבועת היסת אין שכנגדו נשבע ונוטל, ששבועת היסת עצמה תקנה היא ולא עשו לה תקנה אחרת שישבע התובע אלא הרי הנתבע נפטר בלא שבועה.
8
When a person is obligated to take a sh'vuat heset and the plaintiff is suspect to take a false oath, the defendant does not have the option of reversing the responsibility to take the oath. For the plaintiff is unable to take the oath. Instead, the defendant must pay the claim or take a sh'vuat heset.
We do not accept his request to make the judgment dependant on an impossible factor. This is comparable to a person who seeks to reverse the responsibility of an oath and place it upon a minor. We do not heed him. Instead, he must either take a sh'vuat heset or pay.
ח
מי שנתחייב שבועת היסת והיה התובע חשוד, אין הנתבע יכול להפוך עליו השבועה שהרי אין יכול להשבע, אלא ישלם או ישבע היסת, ואין שומעין לזה לתלות בדבר שאי אפשר, והרי זה כמי שהפך שבועתו על הקטן שאין שומעין לו אלא או ישבע היסת או ישלם.
9
The following principle applies when a person was obligated to take an oath - whether of Scriptural or Rabbinic origin - and he took the oath and either collected his claim or was released and afterwards, witnesses came and testified that he was suspect to take a false oath. The oath which he took is of no consequence. The other litigant may expropriate the money which the person who was suspect collected from him or the other litigant may take an oath and collect his claim.
ט
מי שנתחייב שבועה בין של תורה בין של דבריהם ונשבע ונטל או נשבע ונפטר, ואחר כך באו עליו עדים שהוא חשוד, אין שבועתו שנשבע כלום ויש לבעל דינו להוציא מידו מה שנטל או ישבע זה שכנגדו ויטול ממנו.
10
These principles are applied with regard to a person suspect of taking a false oath until he receives lashes in court. If there are witnesses that he received lashes and repented, his status is restored and he is acceptable both as a witness and to take an oath.
י
לעולם כזה דנין לחשוד עד שילקה בבית דין, אם היו עליו עדים שלקה ועשה תשובה יחזור לכשרותו בין לעדות בין לשבועה.
11
The following rules apply when a person lodges a claim against a colleague, the defendant denies the claim and supports his denial by taking either a Scriptural oath or a Rabbinic oath. If afterwards, witnesses come and testify that he took a false oath, he must pay the claim and is deemed suspect of taking a false oath.
We already explained in Hilchot Sh'vuot, that anyone who takes a false oath with regard to money belonging to his colleague and repents must add an additional fifth.
יא
מי שטען על חבירו וכפר בו ונשבע בין שבועת התורה בין שבועת היסת, ואחר כך באו עדים והעידו עליו שעל שקר נשבע הרי זה משלם והוחזק חשוד על השבועה, וכבר בארנו בשבועות שכל הנשבע על ממון חבירו ועשה תשובה חייב להוסיף חומש.
12
The following rule applies when a plaintiff claims that a defendant owes him a debt which was undertaken in the presence of witnesses and affirmed by a kinyan, and the defendant agrees that originally this was so, but claims to have paid the debt, or the defendant says: "I do not owe you anything," and takes an oath to support either of these claims. If, afterwards, witnesses to the kinyan testify or the plaintiff produces a promissory note and verifies its authenticity, the defendant is obligated to pay. He is not, however, considered as suspect to take a false oath. For the witnesses did not testify that he did not pay. And the defendant did not say: "This never happened." Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
יב
טענו שיש לו חוב אצלו בעדים וקנין ואמר כן היה ופרעתיך, או שאמר איני חייב לך כלום ונשבע ואחר כך באו עדי הקנין, או הוציא השטר ונתקיים הרי זה משלם ואינו חשוד, שהרי לא העידו שלא פרעו ולא אמר הנתבע לא היו דברים מעולם וכן כל כיוצא בזה.
FOOTNOTES
1.וכן פוגם שטרו וכו' עד ויפטר מן השטר. א"א איני מודה בזה אלא שנוטל בלא שבועה שאין פוסלין שטר מקויים מפני שבועה דרבנן ואם תאמר הא דרב ושמואל היא אמרינן הבו דלא לוסיף עלה עכ"ל.
To`en veNit`an - Chapter 3
1
A person who admits a portion of a claim is not liable to take a Scriptural oath until he admits an obligation of a p'rutah or more and denies owing two silver me'in or more.
How much is a p'rutah worth? The weight of half a barleycorn of pure silver. How much is two me'in worth? The weight of 32 barleycorns of pure silver.
א
אין מודה במקצת חייב שבועה מן התורה עד שיודה בפרוטה או יתר ויכפור בשתי מעין כסף או יתר, וכמה היא פרוטה משקל חצי שעורה של כסף נקי, וכמה הם שתי מעין משקל שתים ושלשים שעורות כסף מזוקק.
2
Whenever the Torah speaks of kessef it refers to a holy shekel which is worth 20 me'in. Whenever the term kessef is used with regard to Rabbinic law, the intent is a coin used in Jerusalem referred to as a sela. This coin was one eighth silver and the remainder copper as we explained. A meah, by contrast, even in Jerusalem was pure silver; it was the smallest silver coin used in Jerusalem in that era.
Since the requirement that the claim denied be two measures of silver is Rabbinic in origin, the Sages established it as two silver coins of Jerusalem, i.e., two me'in, rather than two "holy" shekalim. This is the interpretation that appears correct with regard to the amount of money from the claim that must be denied for an oath to be required.
My teachers ruled that the amount of money from the claim that must be denied for an oath to be required is 19 and ½ barleycorns of silver. I have several proofs to refute the path of reasoning they adopted which led to their arriving at this figure. I think that it is an error.
ב
כל כסף האמור בתורה היא שקל הקדש והוא עשרים מעה וכל כסף של דבריהן ממטבע ירושלים שהיה הסלע שלהן אחד משמנה בו כסף והשאר נחושת כמו שבארנו, אבל המעה היא היתה כסף נקי אפילו בירושלים והיא כסף של ירושלים, ולפי שזה שהצריכו להיות כפירת הטענה שתי כסף היא מדבריהם עשו אותה שתי כסף של ירושלים שהן שתי מעין ולא עשו אותה שני שקלים בשקל הקדש, זהו הדבר הנראה בשעור כפירת הטענה, ורבותי הורו שכפירת הטענה הוא משקל תשע עשרה שעורות וחצי שעורה מן הכסף, ויש לי כמה ראיות לסתור אותה הדרך שתפסו עד שיצא להם זה החשבון, ויראה לי שהוא טעות.
3
When the plaintiff claims: "You owe me two me'in and a p'rutah," and the defendant responds: "I owe you only two p'rutot," he is not obligated to take this oath. The rationale is that he denied owing less than two me'in.
When the plaintiff claims: "You owe me a maneh," and the defendant responds: "I owe you only half a p'rutot," he is not obligated to take this oath. The rationale is that whenever a person acknowledges a debt of less than a p'rutah, it is as if he did not acknowledge any debt at all.
ג
שתי מעין ופרוטה יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא פרוטה חייב, אין לך בידי אלא שתי פרוטות פטור מפני שכפר בפחות משתי מעין, מנה לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא חצי פרוטה פטור שכל המודה בפחות מפרוטה כאילו לא הודה בכלום.
4
When the plaintiff claims: "You owe me 100 dates," and the defendant responds: "I owe you only ninety," we make calculations. If the ten dates that he denies are worth two me'in, he must take an oath. If they are not, he is not liable.
When the plaintiff claims: "You owe me five or six nuts," and the defendant responds: "I owe you only one," we make calculations. If the nut that he admits owing is equivalent to p'rutah, he must take an oath. If it is not, he is not liable. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
ד
מאה תמרים יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא תשעים, רואים אם היו שוין שם העשר שכפר בהן שתי מעין נשבע ואם לאו פטור, חמשה או ששה אגוזים יש לי בידך אין לך [בידי] אלא אגוז אחד רואין אם שוה האחד פרוטה נשבע ואם לאו פטור וכן כל כיוצא בזה.
5
When does the above apply? With regard to money, merchandise, produce, or the like. With regard to utensils, by contrast, we do not evaluate their worth. Even when ten needles are being sold for a p'rutah, if a plaintiff claims two needles and the defendant admits owing one and denies owing the other, he is liable to take an oath.
This is derived from Exodus 22:6 which speaks of "money or utensils...." Implied is that all utensils are like money.
The following rules apply when the plaintiff claims that he is owed both money and utensils and the defendant admits owing the utensils, but denies owing the money. If the money he denies is equivalent to two me'in, he is obligated to take this oath. If not, he is under no obligation. Conversely, if he admits owing the money, but denies owing the utensils, he is liable if he admits owing a p'rutah. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
ה
במה דברים אמורים בכסף או במיני סחורות ופירות וכיוצא בהן, אבל הכלים אין משערין את דמיהן ואפילו הן עשר מחטין בפרוטה וטענו שתי מחטין הודה באחת וכפר באחת חייב, שנאמר כסף או כלים כל הכלים ככסף, טענו כסף וכלים והודה בכלים וכפר בכסף אם יש בכפירה שתי מעין חייב ואם לאו פטור, הודה בכסף וכפר בכלים אם הודה בפרוטה חייב וכן כל כיוצא בזה.
6
When one witness testifies against a colleague, stating that he owes money, he is required to take an oath even when he denied owing only a p'rutah. The rationale is that whenever the testimony of two witnesses would require a person to make a payment, the testimony of one witness obligates him to take an oath.
What is implied? The plaintiff claims: "You owe a p'rutah," or "...merchandise worth a p'rutah," the defendant responds: "I don't owe you anything," and a witness testifies that he does owe the plaintiff, he is required to take an oath.
Similar concepts apply with regard to an oath taken by a watchman. Even if a person entrusted a p'rutah or the worth of a p'rutah to a colleague and that person claimed that it was lost, he is required to take an oath. Anything less than a p'rutah is not financially significant and the court does not concern itself with it. Similarly, all those who take oaths and collect their claim, they take their oaths and collect any claim equivalent to a p'rutah or more.
ו
העיד עליו עד אחד אפילו לא כפר אלא פרוטה הרי זה נשבע שכל מי ששנים מחייבים אותו ממון אחד מחייבו שבועה, כיצד פרוטה או שוה פרוטה יש לי בידך אין לך בידי כלום ועד אחד מעיד שיש לו הרי זה נשבע, וכן בשבועת השומרים אפילו הפקיד אצלו פרוטה או שוה פרוטה וטען שאבדה נשבע, וכל פחות מפרוטה אינו ממון ואין בית דין נזקקין לו, וכן כל הנשבעין ונוטלין נשבעין ונוטלין מפרוטה ומעלה.
7
My teachers' ruled that a person who takes an oath and collects his claim does not have to issue a claim equivalent to two silver me'in. I differ and maintain that the defendant must deny a claim equivalent to two silver me'in for the plaintiff to be required to take an oath as ordained by the Sages to collect his claim. The rationale is that those who must take an oath because of a claim concerning which doubt exists are not required to take that oath unless there is a sum equivalent to two silver me'in which is denied.
ז
הורו רבותי שהנשבעין ונוטלין אינן צריכין טענת שתי כסף, ואני אומר שצריך הנתבע שיכפור בשתי מעין ואחר כך ישבע התובע בתקנת חכמים ויטול, שהרי הנשבעין בטענת ספק צריך שיהיה ביניהם כפירת שתי מעין ואחר כך ישבע מספק. 1
8
A person who admits a portion of a claim is not obligated to take an oath unless the admission is of the same nature as the claim.
What is implied? The plaintiff claims: "You owe me a kor of wheat." If the defendant responds: "I only owe you a letach of wheat," he is liable to take the oath. If, however, the defendant responds: "I only owe you a kor of barley," he is not liable. The rationale is that the defendant did not admit owing the species which the plaintiff claimed, and the plaintiff did not claim the species which the defendant admitted owing.
If the plaintiff claims: "I gave you golden dinarim for safekeeping," and the defendant responds: "You entrusted me only with silver dinarim," or the plaintiff claims: "I gave you a silver meah for safekeeping," and the defendant responds: "You entrusted me only with a p'rutah, the defendant is not liable, because the plaintiff claimed one species and the defendant admitted owing another.
Similarly, if the plaintiff claims: "I gave you 10 Egyptian dinarim for safekeeping," and the defendant responds: "You entrusted me only with Tyrian dinarim," he is not obligated to take an oath. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
ח
אין מודה במקצת חייב שבועה עד שתהיה הודיה ממין הטענה, כיצד כור חטים יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא לתך חטים חייב, אבל אם אמר לו אין לך בידי אלא כור של שעורים פטור שהמין שטענו לא הודה לו בו והמין שהודה לו בו לא טענו, דינר זהב יש לי בידך פקדון לא הפקדת אצלי אלא דינר כסף, מעה כסף הפקדתי אצלך לא הפקדת אצלי אלא פרוטה פטור שטענו מין אחד והודה לו במין אחר, וכן אם אמר לו עשרה דינרים מצריות הפקדתי אצלך לא הפקדת אצלי אלא עשרה צוריות פטור וכן כל כיוצא בזה.
9
If the plaintiff claims: "You have a large lamp of mine," and the defendant responds: "I have only a small lamp of yours," he is not liable. If, however, the plaintiff claimed a lamp weighing ten liter, and the defendant admitted owing a lamp weighing five liter, he is considered as one who has admitted a portion of a claim. The rationale is that one can cut away the larger lamp and cause it to weigh only five.
Similarly, if the plaintiff claimed being owed a large belt, and the defendant replied: "I have only a small belt," he is not liable. If he claimed a curtain that was 20 cubits long and he admitted owing a curtain ten cubits long, he is required to take an oath, because it can be cut and limited to ten. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
ט
מנורה גדולה יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא מנורה קטנה הרי זה פטור, אבל אם טענו מנורה בת עשר ליטרין והודה לו במנורה בת חמש ליטרין הרי זה מודה במקצת מפני שיכול לגררה ולהעמידה על חמש, וכן אם טענו אזור גדול ואמר לו אין לך בידי אלא אזור קטן פטור, אבל אם טענו יריעה בת עשרים אמה והודה לו ביריעה בת עשר אמות הרי זה נשבע מפני שיכול לחתכה ולהעמידה על עשר וכן כל כיוצא בזה.
10
If the plaintiff claims: "You have a kor of wheat of mine in your possession," and the defendant answers: "I have only a kor of barley," he is not liable, not even for the barley. The rationale is that the plaintiff states: "You do not owe me barley." Thus the situation resembles one in which a person tells a colleague in court: "I have a maneh of yours," and that colleague replies: "You do not owe me anything." In such a situation, the court does not require the person making the admission to pay his colleague anything.
If the plaintiff who claims the wheat seizes possession of the barley, we do not expropriate it from him.
י
כור חטים יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא כור שעורים פטור אף מדמי שעורים, שהרי אומר לו אין לי בידך שעורים ונמצא זה דומה למי שאמר לחבירו בבית דין מנה לך בידי ואומר לו האחר אין לי בידך שאין בית דין מחייבין אותו ליתן לו כלום, ואם תפס התובע דמי השעורים אין מוציאין מידו.
11
When a person claims that a colleague owes him two types of produce and the colleague admits owing only one, his admission is considered as the same type of the claim and he is required to take an oath. What is implied? The plaintiff claims: "You have a kor of wheat and a kor of barley of mine in your possession," and the defendant answers: "I have only a kor of wheat," he is liable.
The following rules apply when the plaintiff begins saying: "You have a kor of wheat in your possession," and before the plaintiff can complete his statements and add: "And you have a kor of barley of mine in your possession," the defendant answers: "I have only a kor of barley." If it appears to the judges that the defendant is seeking to deceive, he is required to take the oath. If it appears, that he acted in good faith, he is not liable.
יא
הטוען את חבירו שני מינין והודה באחד מהן הרי ההודיה ממון /ממין/ הטענה ונשבע, כיצד כגון כור חטין וכור שעורין יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא כור חטין חייב, התחיל הטוען ואמר כור חטין יש לי בידך וקודם שישלים דבריו ואמר כור שעורים יש לי בידך אמר לו הנטען אין לך בידי אלא כור שעורים, אם נראה לדיינין שהנטען הערים חייב שבועה, ואם לפי תומו פטור.
12
Different rules apply if the plaintiff does not issue both claims at once. For example, he claims: "You have a kor of wheat of mine in your possession," and the defendant answers: "Yes." And then he says: "and a kor of barley," to which the defendant replies: "I have no wheat of yours." He is not considered as admitting a portion of the claim unless the defendant makes these statements at one time. For an oath to be required, the plaintiff must claim: "You have a kor of wheat and a kor of barley of mine in your possession," and the defendant must answer: "I have only a kor of barley." Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
יב
כור חטין יש לי בידך אמר לו הן וכור שעורים אמר לו אין לך בידי שעורין, הרי זה פטור ואין זה מודה במקצת עד שיאמר לו בבת אחת כור חטים וכור שעורין יש לי בידך ואמר לו הנטען אין לך בידי אלא כור שעורים וכן כל כיוצא בזה.
13
Similarly, the defendant is not held liable for an oath when the plaintiff claims: "You have a quantity of oil large enough to fill ten jugs of mine in your possession," and the defendant answers: "I owe you only ten empty jugs." The rationale is that the plaintiff claimed oil and the defendant admitted owing only earthenware.
Different rules apply if the plaintiff claimed: "You have ten jugs of oil of mine in your possession," and the defendant answers: "I owe you only ten empty jugs." The defendant is liable to take an oath. The rationale is that the plaintiff claimed both jugs and oil and the defendant admitted owing the jugs. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
יג
מלא עשרה כדין שמן יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא עשרה כדין בלא שמן פטור, שהרי טענו שמן והודה לו בחרסים, עשרה כדין שמן יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא עשרה כדין ריקנין חייב שבועה שהרי טענו הכדין והשמן והודה לו בכדין וכן כל כיוצא בזה.
14
My teachers ruled that the defendant is considered as admitting a portion of a claim and is required to take an oath when the plaintiff claims: "You owe me a maneh which was given to you as a loan," and the defendant answers: "That never happened. I never borrowed from you. I do, however, owe you 50 dinarim which you entrusted to me for safekeeping," "...because of damages," or the like. The rationale is that the plaintiff claimed that the defendant owed him 100 and the defendant admitting owing 50. What difference does it make to me if he became liable because of a loan, as a trustee of an entrusted article, or because of damages? I also favor this approach.
יד
מנה לי אצלך הלואה לא היו דברים מעולם ולא לויתי ממך אבל חמשים דינרין יש לך בידי פקדון או משום נזק וכיוצא בו הורו רבותי שזה מודה במקצת וישבע, שהרי טענו שהוא חייב לו מאה והודה לו שהוא חייב חמשים ומה לי נתחייב לו משום הלואה או משום פקדון או משום נזק, ולזה דעתי נוטה. 2
15
When a plaintiff claims: "You owe me a maneh and a utensil" and the defendant responds: "I owe you only the utensil. Here it is," the defendant is not required to take a Scriptural oath. He must, however, take a sh'vuat heset that this is all he owes him.
If the owner of the utensil claims that the utensil the defendant seeks to give him is not his own, the defendant must include in his oath that the utensil belongs to the plaintiff. If the defendant admits that this utensil is not the plaintiff's, but was exchanged for it, he is obligated to take an oath.
Whenever we have mentioned above that the defendant is not obligated, the intent is that he is not obligated to take a Scriptural oath. He is, however, obligated to take a sh'vuat heset as we explained on several occasions.
טו
מנה וכלי יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא הכלי והא לך, הרי זה פטור ונשבע היסת שאין לו אצלו אלא זה, אמר בעל הכלי אין זה הכלי כולל בשבועתו שזה כליו, הודה הנטען שאין זה כליו ונתחלף לו באחר הרי זה חייב שבועה, כל מקום שנאמר בענין זה פטור הרי זה פטור משבועת התורה וחייב שבועת היסת כמו שבארנו כמה פעמים.
FOOTNOTES
1.הורו רבותי שהנשבעין וכו' עד ישבע מספק. א"א ומה יעשה השכיר העני שהשכיר עצמו במעה או בפונדיון ילך בפחי נפש, אבל הדמיון שדימה והלמוד שלמד מן הנשבעין בטענת ספק שהצריכו להם כפירת שתי כסף אינו דמיון כלל שזה נשבע להפטר ועל כרחו הוא נשבע וזה שנשבע ליטול מדעתו הוא נשבע כדי ליטול ואפילו על פרוטה ואולי אפילו היה שכרו פחות מפרוטה עכ"ל.
2.מנה לי אצלך וכו' עד ולזה דעתי נוטה. א"א ואני מורה ובא שאם טענו מנה מלוה ומנה פקדון והודה באחד וכפר באחד אין זה מודה במקצת הטענה שהלואה ופקדון שתי טענות הן ויש בידי ראיה על זה וה"ה שאין בזה מקצת הודאה עכ"ל.
Hayom Yom:• English Text | Video ClassTuesday, Menachem Av 30, 5777 · 22 August 2017
"Today's Day"
Tuesday, Menachem Av 30, Rosh Chodesh, 5703
Begin saying L'david ori (p. 81). The custom in the Rebbe's home1 is to practice sounding the shofar during this day. On the second day of Rosh Chodesh begin sounding the shofar after davening.
Torah lessons: Chumash: Shoftim, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 145-150.
Tanya: X. After greetings (p. 439) ...souls took flight..." (p. 441).
The Alter Rebbe at first used to say brief maamarim. For example, the maamar Zecher rav tuvcha and its amplification, published in the Siddur,2 was said in six sequential sections, at somewhat greater length than in its printed version.
FOOTNOTES
1.And the general Chabad custom.
2.The reference is to the Siddur with chassidic discourses.
Daily Thought:
Not Is
How could it be?
How could a human ego know it is nothing but a figment of a greater mind—and yet remain a human being?
How could a physical eye see infinite light—and yet remain an eye?
How could a stone scream out that there is nothing else but G‑d—and yet remain a stone?
It must be that the true reality of all things is not to be, but to know.
There is nothing else but knowing that there is nothing else but G‑d. [Hemshech 5672, part 2, p. 1003; Maamar Asher Bara 5739.]
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment