Saturday, June 9, 2018

TODAY IN JUDAISM: Sivan 26, 5778 - Shabbat, June 9, 2018 Chabad.org ב"ה Today in Judaism Today is Shabbat, Sivan 26, 5778 · June 9, 2018

ב"ה

TODAY IN JUDAISM: Sivan 26, 5778 - Shabbat, June 9, 2018 Chabad.org ב"ה Today in Juda ism Today is Shabbat, Sivan 26, 5778 · June 9, 2018
Today's Laws & Customs
• Blessing the New Month
This Shabbat is Shabbat Mevarchim ("the Shabbat that blesses" the new month): a special prayer is recited blessing the Rosh Chodesh ("Head of the Month") of upcoming month of Tammuz, which falls on Wednesday and Thursday of next week.
Prior to the blessing, we announce the precise time of the molad, the "birth" of the new moon.Click here for moladtimes.
It is a Chabad custom to recite the entire book of Psalms before morning prayers, and to conduct farbrengens(chassidic gatherings) in the course of the Shabbat.
Links:
On the Significance of Shabbat Mevarchim
Tehillim (the Book of Psalms)
The Farbrengen
• Ethics of the Fathers: Chapter 3
During the summer months, from the Shabbat after Passover until the Shabbat before Rosh Hashahah, we study a weekly chapter of the Talmud's Ethics of the Fathers ("Avot") each Shabbat afternoon; this week we study Chapter Three.
Link: Ethics of the Fathers, Chapter 3
Daily Torah StudyChumash: Shlach, 7th Portion Numbers 15:27-15:41 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation
• Video Class
• Daily Wisdom (short insight)

Numbers Chapter 15

27But if an individual sins inadvertently, he shall offer up a she goat in its first year as a sin offering.		כזוְאִם־נֶ֥פֶשׁ אַחַ֖ת תֶּֽחֱטָ֣א בִשְׁגָגָ֑ה וְהִקְרִ֛יבָה עֵ֥ז בַּת־שְׁנָתָ֖הּ לְחַטָּֽאת:
sins inadvertently: By worshipping idols. - [Sifrei Shelach 41]		תחטא בשגגה: בעבודה זרה:
she-goat in its first year: For any other transgression an individual could bring [either] a ewe-lamb or a young she-goat, but in this case Scripture designates a she-goat for it. - [Sifrei Shelach 40]		עז בת שנתה: שאר עבירות יחיד מביא כשבה או שעירה ובזו קבע לה שעירה:
28And the kohen shall atone for the erring soul which sinned inadvertently before the Lord, so as to atone on his behalf, and it shall be forgiven him.		כחוְכִפֶּ֣ר הַכֹּהֵ֗ן עַל־הַנֶּ֧פֶשׁ הַשֹּׁגֶ֛גֶת בְּחֶטְאָ֥ה בִשְׁגָגָ֖ה לִפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה לְכַפֵּ֥ר עָלָ֖יו וְנִסְלַ֥ח לֽוֹ:
29One law shall apply to anyone who sins inadvertently from the native born of the children of Israel and the proselyte who resides among them.		כטהָֽאֶזְרָח֙ בִּבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְלַגֵּ֖ר הַגָּ֣ר בְּתוֹכָ֑ם תּוֹרָ֤ה אַחַת֙ יִֽהְיֶ֣ה לָכֶ֔ם לָֽעֹשֶׂ֖ה בִּשְׁגָגָֽה:
30But if a person should act highhandedly, whether he is a native born or a proselyte, he is blaspheming the Lord, and that soul shall be cut off from among its people.		לוְהַנֶּ֜פֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר־תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֣ה \| בְּיָ֣ד רָמָ֗ה מִן־הָֽאֶזְרָח֙ וּמִן־הַגֵּ֔ר אֶת־יְהֹוָ֖ה ה֣וּא מְגַדֵּ֑ף וְנִכְרְתָ֛ה הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ הַהִ֖וא מִקֶּ֥רֶב עַמָּֽהּ:
highhandedly: Intentionally. — [Jonathan ben Uzziel, Onkelos (See Mechokekei Yehudah)]		ביד רמה: במזיד:
is blaspheming: Heb. מְגַדֵּף, reviles (מְחָרֵף), as in“it shall be a reproach (חֶרְפָּה) and a taunt (וּגְדוּפָה) ” (Ezek. 5: 15);“which the servants of the King of Assyria have blasphemed (גִּדְפוּ)” (Is. 37:6). Furthermore, our Sages (Ker. 7b) derived from here that someone who blasphemes [lit., blesses] the Name [of God] is subject to spiritual excision.		מגדף: מחרף, כמו (יחזקאל ה, טו) והיתה חרפה וגדופה, (ישעיה לז, ו) אשר גדפו נערי מלך אשור. עוד דרשו רבותינו מכאן למברך את השם שהוא בכרת:
31For he has scorned the word of the Lord and violated His commandment; that soul shall be utterly cut off for its iniquity is upon it.		לאכִּ֤י דְבַר־יְהֹוָה֙ בָּזָ֔ה וְאֶת־מִצְוָת֖וֹ הֵפַ֑ר הִכָּרֵ֧ת \| תִּכָּרֵ֛ת הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ הַהִ֖וא עֲו‍ֹנָ֥ה בָֽהּ:
the word of the Lord: The warning against idolatry was [heard directly] by the word of the Divine; the rest was by the word of Moses. - [Hor. 8a]		דבר ה': אזהרת עבודה זרה מפי הגבורה, והשאר מפי משה:
its iniquity is upon it: During the time the iniquity is with him, namely, if he has not repented. — [Sanh. 90b, Sifrei Shelach 51]		עונה בה: בזמן שעונה בה שלא עשה תשובה:
32When the children of Israel were in the desert, they found a man gathering wood on the Sabbath day.		לבוַֽיִּהְי֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר וַיִּמְצְא֗וּ אִ֛ישׁ מְקשֵׁ֥שׁ עֵצִ֖ים בְּי֥וֹם הַשַּׁבָּֽת:
[When the children of Israel] were in the desert, they found: Scripture speaks disparagingly of Israel, for they had kept only one Sabbath, yet on the second one, this man came and desecrated it. — [Sifrei Shelach 52]		ויהיו בני ישראל במדבר וימצאו: בגנותן של ישראל דבר הכתוב, שלא שמרו אלא שבת ראשונה, ובשניה בא זה וחללה:
33Those who found him gathering wood presented him before Moses and Aaron and before the entire congregation.		לגוַיַּקְרִ֣יבוּ אֹת֔וֹ הַמֹּֽצְאִ֥ים אֹת֖וֹ מְקשֵׁ֣שׁ עֵצִ֑ים אֶל־משֶׁה֙ וְאֶל־אַֽהֲרֹ֔ן וְאֶ֖ל כָּל־הָֽעֵדָֽה:
Those who found him gathering: [This redundant clause means to say that] they warned him, but he did not stop gathering even after they found him and warned him. — [Sanh. 90a, Sifrei Shelach 55]		המצאים אתו מקושש: שהתרו בו ולא הניח מלקושש אף משמצאוהו והתרו בו:
34They put him under guard, since it was not specified what was to be done to him.		לדוַיַּנִּ֥יחוּ אֹת֖וֹ בַּמִּשְׁמָ֑ר כִּ֚י לֹ֣א פֹרַ֔שׁ מַה־יֵּֽעָשֶׂ֖ה לֽוֹ:
since it was not specified what was to be done to him: With which method he should be executed. But they did know that one who desecrates the Sabbath is put to death. — [Sifrei Shelach 57]		כי לא פרש מה יעשה לו: לא היו יודעים באיזו מיתה ימות, אבל יודעים היו שהמחלל שבת במיתה:
35The Lord said to Moses, The man shall be put to death; the entire congregation shall pelt him with stones outside the camp.		להוַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהֹוָה֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה מ֥וֹת יוּמַ֖ת הָאִ֑ישׁ רָג֨וֹם אֹת֤וֹ בָֽאֲבָנִים֙ כָּל־הָ֣עֵדָ֔ה מִח֖וּץ לַמַּֽחֲנֶֽה:
pelt: Heb. רָגוֹם, ‘doing,’ [which] in French [is], faisant. Similarly, ‘going,’ in old French, allant. Likewise, זָכוֹר, remember, (Exod. 20:8), and שָׁמוֹר, keep (Deut. 5:12)		רגום: כמו עשה פיישנ"ט בלע"ז [בעשות] וכן הלוך אלנ"ט [בהלוך] וכן זכור ושמור:
36So the entire congregation took him outside the camp, and they pelted him to death with stones, as the Lord had commanded Moses.		לווַיֹּצִ֨יאוּ אֹת֜וֹ כָּל־הָֽעֵדָ֗ה אֶל־מִחוּץ֙ לַמַּֽחֲנֶ֔ה וַיִּרְגְּמ֥וּ אֹת֛וֹ בָּֽאֲבָנִ֖ים וַיָּמֹ֑ת כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶת־משֶֽׁה:
took him outside: From here we derive that the place of stoning was outside, and distant from the courthouse. — [Sifrei Shelach 59]		ויציאו אותו: מכאן שבית הסקילה חוץ ורחוק מבית דין:
37The Lord spoke to Moses, saying:		לזוַיֹּ֥אמֶר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־משֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר:
38Speak to the children of Israel and you shall say to them that they shall make for themselves fringes on the corners of their garments, throughout their generations, and they shall affix a thread of sky blue [wool] on the fringe of each corner.		לחדַּבֵּ֞ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ וְאָֽמַרְתָּ֣ אֲלֵהֶ֔ם וְעָשׂ֨וּ לָהֶ֥ם צִיצִ֛ת עַל־כַּנְפֵ֥י בִגְדֵיהֶ֖ם לְדֹֽרֹתָ֑ם וְנָֽתְנ֛וּ עַל־צִיצִ֥ת הַכָּנָ֖ף פְּתִ֥יל תְּכֵֽלֶת:
that they shall make for themselves fringes: Heb. צִיצִת, [so named] because of the threads suspended from it, as in,“he took me by a lock of (בְּצִיצִת) my hair (lit., by the fringes of my head)” (Ezek. 8:3) (Men. 42a). Another interpretation: [It is called] צִיצִת because of the [command], “you shall see it” (verse 39), as in,“peering (מֵצִיץ) from the lattices” (Song 2:9).		ועשו להם ציצת: על שם הפתילים התלוים בה, כמו (יחזקאל ח, ג) ויקחני בציצית ראשי. דבר אחר ציצית על שם וראיתם אותו, כמו (שה"ש ב, ט) מציץ מן החרכים:
blue: The green-blue dye obtained from the chillazon [See Aruch Hashalem under חִלָּזוֹן, Yehudah Feliks, Nature & Man in the Bible (New York: Soncino Press, 1981, pp. 18-20].		תכלת: צבע ירוק של חלזון:
39This shall be fringes for you, and when you see it, you will remember all the commandments of the Lord to perform them, and you shall not wander after your hearts and after your eyes after which you are going astray.		לטוְהָיָ֣ה לָכֶם֘ לְצִיצִת֒ וּרְאִיתֶ֣ם אֹת֗וֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם֙ אֶת־כָּל־מִצְוֹ֣ת יְהֹוָ֔ה וַֽעֲשִׂיתֶ֖ם אֹתָ֑ם וְלֹֽא־תָת֜וּרוּ אַֽחֲרֵ֤י לְבַבְכֶם֙ וְאַֽחֲרֵ֣י עֵֽינֵיכֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁר־אַתֶּ֥ם זֹנִ֖ים אַֽחֲרֵיהֶֽם:
you will remember all the commandments of the Lord: because the numerical value of the word צִיצִית is six hundred (צ = 90, י = 10, צ = 90, י = 10, ת = 400). [Add to this the] eight threads and five knots, and we have [a total of] six hundred and thirteen [the number of commandments in the Torah]. - [Num. Rabbah 18:21]		וזכרתם את כל מצות ה': שמנין גימטריא של ציצית שש מאות, ושמונה חוטים וחמשה קשרים הרי תרי"ג:
and you shall not wander after your hearts: Heb. וְלֹא תָתוּרוּ, like“from scouting (מִּתּוּר) the Land” (13:25). The heart and eyes are the spies for the body. They are its agents for sinning: the eye sees, the heart covets and the body commits the transgression. - [Mid. Tanchuma 15]		ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם: כמו (לעיל יג כה) מתור הארץ. הלב והעינים הם מרגלים לגוף ומסרסרים לו את העבירות, העין רואה והלב חומד והגוף עושה את העבירות:
40So that you shall remember and perform all My commandments and you shall be holy to your God.		מלְמַ֣עַן תִּזְכְּר֔וּ וַֽעֲשִׂיתֶ֖ם אֶת־כָּל־מִצְו‍ֹתָ֑י וִֽהְיִיתֶ֥ם קְדשִׁ֖ים לֵאלֹֽהֵיכֶֽם:
41I am the Lord, your God, Who took you out of the land of Egypt to be your God; I am the Lord, your God.		מאאֲנִ֞י יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶ֗ם אֲשֶׁ֨ר הוֹצֵ֤אתִי אֶתְכֶם֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם לִֽהְי֥וֹת לָכֶ֖ם לֵֽאלֹהִ֑ים אֲנִ֖י יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶֽם:
I am the Lord: Faithful to pay reward. — [Sifrei Shelach 75]		אני ה': נאמן לשלם שכר:
your God: Faithful to exact punishment. — [Sifrei Shelach 75]		אלהיכם: נאמן ליפרע:
Who took you out: I redeemed you on condition you accept My decrees upon yourselves. - [Sifrei Shelach 73]		אשר הוצאתי אתכם: על מנת כן פדיתי אתכם שתקבלו עליכם גזרותי:
I am the Lord, your God: Why is this repeated? So that the Israelites should not say, “Why did the Omnipresent say this? Was it not so that we should perform [the commandments] and receive reward? We will not perform [them] and not receive reward!” [Therefore, God says,] “I am your King, even against your will.” Similarly, it says, “[As I live, says the Lord God,] surely with a strong hand…will I reign over you” (Ezek. 20:33). Another interpretation: Why is the exodus from Egypt mentioned? It was I who distinguished between the drop [of sperm] of a firstborn and of that which was not of a firstborn. So in future will I distinguish and punish those who attach indigo-dyed [fringes, which is extracted from a vegetable] to their garments, claiming that it is sky-blue [dye extracted from the chillazon]. - [B.M. 61b] From the commentary of R. Moshe Hadarshan [the preacher] I transcribed [the following:] Why is the passage of the wood gatherer juxtaposed with the passage addressing idolatry? To inform [you] that one who desecrates the Sabbath is regarded as one who worships idols, for it [namely the Sabbath] too [just like the prohibition against idolatry] is as important as [the sum of] all the commandments. So Scripture says in Ezra (Neh. 9:13-14, which is strictly part of Ezra. See Rashi on Neh. 1:1), “You descended upon Mount Sinai… and you gave Your people the Law and the commandments (sic). And Your holy Sabbath You made known to them.” Likewise, the passage of fringes; why is it juxtaposed with these two [passages]? Since it too is equally important as [the sum of] all the commandments, as it states, “and perform all My commandments.”		אני ה' אלהיכם: עוד למה נאמר, כדי שלא יאמרו ישראל מפני מה אמר המקום, לא שנעשה ונטול שכר, אנו לא עושים ולא נוטלים שכר, על כרחכם אני מלככם. וכן הוא אומר (יחזקאל כ, לג) אם לא ביד חזקה וגו' אמלוך עליכם. דבר אחר למה נאמר יציאת מצרים, אני הוא שהבחנתי במצרים בין טפה של בכור לשאינה של בכור, אני הוא עתיד להבחין ולהפרע מן התולה קלא אילן בבגדו ואומר תכלת הוא. ומיסודו של רבי משה הדרשן העתקתי למה נסמכה פרשת מקושש לפרשת עבודה זרה, לומר שהמחלל את השבת כעובד עבודה זרה, שאף היא שקולה ככל המצות, וכן הוא אומר בעזרא (נחמי' ט, יג - טו) ועל הר סיני ירדת ותתן לעמך תורה ומצות ואת שבת קדשך הודעת להם, ואף פרשת ציצית לכך נסמכה לאלו לפי שאף היא שקולה כנגד כל המצות, שנאמר ועשיתם את כל מצותי:
on the corners of their garments: Corresponding to [the verse said in connection with the exodus from Egypt]“I carried you on the wings (כַּנְפֵי) of eagles” (Exod. 19:4). On the four corners, but not on a garment of three or five [corners]. [This] corresponds to the four expressions of redemption that were said in Egypt:“I will take you out…I will save you…I will redeem you…I will take you” (Exod. 6:6-7). - [Mid. Aggadah]		על כנפי בגדיהם: כנגד (שמות יט, ד) ואשא אתכם על כנפי נשרים. על ארבע כנפות ולא בעלת שלש ולא בעלת חמש, כנגד ארבע לשונות של גאולה שנאמר במצרים (שמות ו, ו - ז) והוצאתי והצלתי וגאלתי ולקחתי:
a thread of sky-blue [wool]: Heb. פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת, so called because of the bereavement [suffered by the Egyptians] over the loss of their firstborn. The Aramaic translation of שִׁכּוּל, bereavement, is תִּכְלָא [a word similar to תְּכֵלֶת]. Moreover, the plague struck them at night, and the color of תְּכֵלֶת is similar to the color of the sky, which blackens at dusk; its eight threads symbolize the eight days that Israel waited from when they left Egypt until they sang the song at the [Red] Sea. - [Mid. Aggadah]		פתיל תכלת: על שם שכול בכורות. תרגומו של שכול תכלא. ומכתם היתה בלילה וכן צבע התכלת דומה לצבע רקיע המשחיר לעת ערב. ושמונה חוטים שבה, כנגד שמונה ימים ששהו ישראל משיצאו ממצרים עד שאמרו שירה על הים:

Tehillim: Chapter 119, Verses 97-176
• Hebrew text
• English text

Verses 97-176

97. O how I love Your Torah! All day it is my discussion.

98. Your commandments make me wiser than my enemies, for they are ever with me.

99. From all my teachers I have gained wisdom, for Your testimonies are my discussion.

100. I will be more perceptive than elders, because I have guarded Your precepts.

101. I have restrained my feet from every evil path, that I might keep Your word.

102. I have not turned away from Your judgments, for You have instructed me.

103. How sweet are Your words to my palate, [sweeter] than honey to my mouth!

104. From Your precepts I gain understanding, therefore I hate every path of falsehood.

105. Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.

106. I have sworn-and I will fulfill it-to keep Your righteous judgments.

107. I am afflicted to the extreme; grant me life, O Lord, according to Your promise.

108. Accept with favor, O Lord, the offerings of my lips, and teach me Your laws.

109. My soul is in danger always, yet I have not forgotten Your Torah.

110. The wicked laid a snare for me, yet I have not strayed from Your precepts.

111. I have taken Your testimonies as an eternal heritage, for they are the joy of my heart.

112. I have inclined my heart to perform Your statutes, forever, to the last.

113. I despise vain thoughts, but I love Your Torah.

114. You are my refuge and my shield; I place hope in Your promise.

115. Turn away from me, you evildoers, and I will keep the commandments of my God.

116. Support me according to Your promise, and I will live; let me not be shamed because of my hope.

117. Sustain me, and I will be saved, and I will be engrossed in Your statutes always.

118. You trample all who stray from Your statutes, for their ploy is a lie.

119. You have purged all the wicked of the earth like dross, therefore I love Your testimonies.

120. My flesh bristles from fear of You, and I am in awe of Your judgments.

121. I practiced justice and righteousness; leave me not to my oppressors.

122. Guarantee Your servant goodness; let not the wicked exploit me.

123. My eyes long for Your salvation, and for the word of Your righteousness.

124. Treat Your servant according to Your kindness, and teach me Your statutes.

125. I am Your servant; grant me understanding, that I may know Your testimonies.

126. It is time to act for the Lord; they have abrogated Your Torah.

127. Therefore I love Your commandments more than gold, even fine gold.

128. Therefore I affirmed all Your precepts; I have hated every path of falsehood.

129. Your testimonies are wondrous, therefore does my soul guard them.

130. Your opening words illuminate, enlightening the simple.

131. I opened my mouth and swallowed, because I craved Your commandments.

132. Turn to me and favor me, as is [Your] law for those who love Your Name.

133. Set my steps in Your word, and let no iniquity rule over me.

134. Deliver me from the oppression of man, and I will keep Your precepts.

135. Let Your face shine upon Your servant, and teach me Your statutes.

136. My eyes shed streams of water, because they do not keep Your Torah.

137. Righteous are you, O Lord, and Your judgments are upright.

138. You commanded Your testimonies in righteousness and great faithfulness.

139. My zeal consumes me, because my enemies have forgotten Your words.

140. Your word is very pure, and Your servant cherishes it.

141. I am young and despised, yet I do not forget Your precepts.

142. Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Your Torah is truth.

143. Trouble and anguish have taken hold of me, yet Your commandments are my delight.

144. Your testimonies are righteous forever; give me understanding, that I may live.

145. I call out with all my heart; answer me, O Lord; I will keep Your statutes.

146. I call out to You; save me, and I will observe Your testimonies.

147. I rose before dawn and cried out; my hope is in Your word.

148. My eyes preceded the night watches, that I may discuss Your word.

149. Hear my voice in keeping with Your kindness; O Lord, grant me life as is Your practice.

150. Those who pursue mischief draw near; they are far from Your Torah.

151. You are near, O Lord, and all Your commandments are truth.

152. From the beginning I discerned from Your testimonies that You had established them forever.

153. Behold my affliction and deliver me, for I have not forgotten Your Torah.

154. Wage my battle and redeem me; grant me life for the sake of Your word.

155. Salvation is far from the wicked, for they seek not Your statutes.

156. Your mercies are great, O Lord; grant me life as is Your practice.

157. My pursuers and my enemies are many, yet I did not turn away from Your testimonies.

158. I saw traitors and I quarreled with them, because they do not keep Your words.

159. Behold how I love Your precepts; grant me life, O Lord, according to Your kindness.

160. The beginning of Your word is truth, and forever are all Your righteous judgements.

161. Princes have pursued me without cause, but it is Your word my heart fears.

162. I rejoice at Your word, like one who finds abundant spoil.

163. I hate falsehood and abhor it, but Your Torah I love.

164. Seven times a day I praise You, because of Your righteous judgments.

165. There is abundant peace for those who love Your Torah, and there is no stumbling for them.

166. I hoped for Your salvation, O Lord, and I performed Your commandments.

167. My soul has kept Your testimonies, and I love them intensely.

168. I have kept Your precepts and Your testimonies, for all my ways are before You

169. Let my prayer approach Your presence, O Lord; grant me understanding according to Your word.

170. Let my supplication come before You; save me according to Your promise.

171. My lips will utter praise, for You have taught me Your statutes.

172. My tongue will echo Your word, for all Your commandments are just.

173. Let Your hand be ready to help me, for I have chosen Your precepts.

174. I long for Your salvation, O Lord, and Your Torah is my delight.

175. Let my soul live, and it will praise You, and let Your judgment help me.

176. I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek out Your servant, for I have not forgotten Your commandments.

Tanya: Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, beginning of Chapter 8
• English Text (Lessons in Tanya)
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class

Sivan 26, 5778 · June 9, 2018

Today's Tanya Lesson

Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, beginning of Chapter 8

AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES

• VIDEO CLASS: Rabbi Yehoshua B. Gordon Watch• Listen

• AUDIO CLASS: Rabbi Manis Freidman Listen •Download MP3

Creation effected absolutely no change in the Creator, neither in His Unity nor in His knowledge. This we learn from the verse, “I,Havayah, have not changed,” as the Alter Rebbe explained in the preceding chapter. Though one might assume that by bringing created beings into existence G‑d’s knowledge was supplemented — in that only after their creation did he become aware of them, so to speak — this in fact is not so, for G‑d’s knowledge is wholly one with G‑d Himself.

G‑d’s knowledge is thus entirely unlike man’s. Acquired knowledge constitutes an addition to a mortal soul, which is a compound, not a simple and perfect unity. G‑d’s Unity, by contrast, is perfect, without any superaddition. Accordingly, His unique manner of knowledge is such that by knowing Himself He knows all of creation, which derives from Him.

This knowledge of self existed before G‑d brought created beings into existence. By knowing them, therefore, nothing at all was added to His previous knowledge. And such a manner of knowledge, concluded the Alter Rebbe, is beyond the comprehension of man.

In the chapter before us, the Alter Rebbe goes on to explain that Maimonides‘ statement that “He is the Knowledge” applies not only to G‑d’s knowledge, but also to all His other attributes and Names, including HisChochmah and will. They are all completely united with G‑d Himself.

והנה מה שכתב הרמב״ם ז״ל, שהקב״ה, מהותו ועצמותו ודעתו, הכל אחד ממש, אחדות פשוטה ולא מורכבת כלל

Now, what Maimonides (of blessed memory) has said1 — that the Holy One, blessed be He, His Essence and Being, and His knowledge are completely one, a perfect unity and not a composite at all, —

כן הענין ממש בכל מדותיו של הקב״ה, ובכל שמותיו הקדושים, והכנויים שכינו לו הנביאים וחז״ל, כגון: חנון ורחום וחסיד וכיוצא בהן

this applies equally to all the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, and to all His holy Names, and the designations which the Prophets and Sages, of blessed memory have ascribed to Him, such as Gracious, Merciful, Beneficent, and the like.

וכן מה שנקרא חכם, דכתיב: וגם הוא חכם וגו׳

This is also true with respect to His being called Wise, as it is written,2 “And He is also wise,...”;

וכן רצונו: כי רוצה ה׳ את יראיו, וחפ׳ חסד הוא, ורוצה בתשובתם של רשעים ואינו חפ׳ במיתתם וברשעתם, וטהור עינים מראות ברע

and likewise with respect to His will, [as it is written,3] “G‑d desires those who fear Him,” and4 “He wishes to do kindness,” and5“He desires the repentance of the wicked and does not desire their death and wickedness,” — thus we have verses indicating both what He finds desirable and undesirable;[so, too,6] “Your eyes are too pure to behold evil” — yet another thing that He does not desire.

From the above verses, then, we see that emotions, wisdom and will are all ascribed to G‑d. Nevertheless:

אין רצונו וחכמתו ומדת חסדו ורחמנותו ושאר מדותיו מוסיפים בו ריבוי והרכבה חס ושלום במהותו ועצמותו

His will and His wisdom and His attribute of kindness and His mercy and His other attributes do not add plurality and composition (G‑d forbid) to His Essence and Being,

אלא עצמותו ומהותו ורצונו וחכמתו ובינתו ודעתו, ומדת חסדו וגבורתו ורחמנותו ותפארתו הכלולה מחסדו וגבורתו

but His Being and Essence and His will and wisdom and understanding and knowledge, and His attribute of kindness and His might and mercy and beauty, [the last of] which is composed of His kindness and might,

וכן שאר מדותיו הקדושות, הכל אחדות פשוטה ממש, שהיא היא עצמותו ומהותו

and likewise His other holy attributes, — allthe above, comprising his Being and Essence, and his will, and the Sefirot ofChaBaD and the middot,constitute an absolutely perfect unity, which is His very Being and Essence.

וכמו שכתב הרמב״ם ז״ל, שדבר זה אין כח בפה לאמרו, ולא באזן לשמעו, ולא בלב האדם להכירו על בוריו

And as Maimonides (of blessed memory) stated,7 “This [form of unity] wherein G‑d’s knowledge and so on is one with G‑d Himself is beyond the capacity of the mouth to express, beyond the capacity of the ear to hear, and beyond the capacity of the heart of man to apprehend clearly.”

כי האדם מצייר בשכלו כל המושכלות שרוצה להשכיל ולהבין, הכל כמות שהם בו

For man visualizes in his mind all the concepts which he wishes to conceive and understand — all as they are within himself.

כגון שרוצה לצייר בשכלו מהות הרצון, או מהות חכמה או בינה או דעת, או מהות מדת חסד ורחמים, וכיוצא בהן

For instance, if he wishes to envisage the essence of will, or the essence of wisdom or of understanding or of knowledge, or the essence of the attribute of kindness and mercy and the like,

הוא מצייר כולן כמות שהן בו

he visualizes them all as they are within himself.

Just as this is so with regard to envisaging one’s own intellect and emotions, so, too, regarding an individual’s desire to apprehend Divine Intellect and emotions: he endeavors to do so by envisaging intellect and emotion as they are found within himself.

אבל באמת, הקב״ה הוא רם ונשא וקדוש שמו

But in truth, the Holy One, blessed be He, is8“high and exalted” and “holy is His Name”; i.e., His Name, too, is “holy” and set apart (for this is implied by the root קדש ).

כלומר, שהוא קדוש ומובדל ריבוא רבבות עד אין ק׳ ותכלית מדרגות הבדלות למעלה מעלה מערך וסוג ומין כל התשבחות והמעלות שיוכלו הנבראים להשיג ולצייר בשכלם

That is to say, He is Holy and separated many myriads of degrees of separationsad infinitum, above the quality, type or kind of praises and exaltation which creatures could grasp and conceive in their minds.

It is for this reason that G‑d is called the Holy One, blessed be He, for the degree to which He transcends the created universe defies mortal conception.

FOOTNOTES
1.	Yad HaChazakah, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, 2:10.
2.	Yeshayahu 31:2.
3.	Tehillim 147:11.
4.	Michah 7:18.
5.	Cf. Yechezkel 18:23; Liturgy,Neilah.
6.	Chavakuk 1:13.
7.	Loc. cit.
8.	Liturgy, Morning Prayer

Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvot:
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class

Daily Mitzvah

Positive Commandment 236

VIDEO & AUDIO CLASSES

Mendel Kaplan - Sefer HaMitzvot: Day 256 (17:10)
Watch Listen Download
Berel Bell - Day 256 of 339 (15:18)
Listen Download

EnglishHebrew

Positive Commandment 236 (Digest)
Personal Injury

"If men quarrel, and one strikes the other..."—Exodus 21:18.

The courts are commanded to adjudicate cases that involve personal injury caused by one person to another. [Monetary penalties are assessed to compensate for devaluation of the injured individual, pain sustained, medical bills, unemployment due to the injury, and shame incurred.]

Only an ordained court in the Land of Israel can adjudicate such cases [with the exception of medical bills and unemployment, that can be adjudicated by all rabbinical courts no matter the location].

« Close

The 236th mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding someone who wounds another person.

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1(exalted be He), "[This is the law] when two men fight, and one hits the other..." These laws are called dinei k'nasos ["the laws of fines"].

There is one general verse which includes all these laws, namely G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "[If one maims his neighbor,] whatever he did must be done to him in return." The Oral Tradition explains that [it does not mean that he is literally to be harmed in return, but that] he must pay the monetary equivalent of the damage he has caused to the other person. Even if he merely shamed him, he must pay appropriate damages.

You should be aware that all these laws involve damage that one person causes to another. They may be judged and determined only by a High Court which was ordained in Israel. The same applies for cases when an animal damages a person or another animal.

The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 8th chapter of tractate Bava Kama.

Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.

From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.

FOOTNOTES

1.

Ex. 21:18.

2.

Lev. 24:19.

Translation of (the unabridged text of) Sefer Hamitzvot by Rabbi Berel Bell, member of the Rabbinical Court of Montreal and director of Teacher Training for the Jewish Learning Institute

• 1 Chapter A Day: Sotah Sotah - Chapter One

English Text | Hebrew Text

Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class

Sotah - Chapter One

Introduction to Hilchos Sotah

They include three mitzvot: one positive commandment and two negative commandments. They are:

1) To treat a sotah according to the laws governing the jealousy admonition, as prescribed by the Torah;
2) Not to place oil on her sacrifice;
3) Not to place frankincense upon it.

These mitzvot are explained in the chapters that follow.

הלכות סוטה - הקדמה

יש בכללן שלש מצות. אחת מצות עשה. ושתי מצות לא תעשה וזהו פרטן:

א) לעשות לסוטה כתורת הקנאות הסדורה בתורה:
ב) שלא ליתן שמן בקרבנה:
ג) שלא ליתן עליה לבונה:

וביאור מצות אלו בפרקים אלו:

The admonition of jealousy1 stated in the Torah [Numbers 5:14], "And he will adjure his wife," means the following. He tells her in the presence of witnesses: "Do not enter into privacy with this and this man."

This applies even if the man [under suspicion] is her father, her brother, a gentile, a servant or a man who is impotent and incapable of having an erection or fathering a child.2

קינוי האמור בתורה וקנא את אשתו הוא שיאמר לה בפני עדים אל תסתרי עם איש פלוני. אפילו היה אביה או אחיה או עכו"ם או עבד או שחוף הוא האיש שאינו מתקשה ואינו מוליד:

The term "enter into privacy" mentioned in the Torah [Ibid.:13] refers to entering into privacy with the man concerning whom she was warned, in the presence of two witnesses, not to enter into privacy.3

If she remains with him long enough to engage in relations - i.e., the amount of time necessary to roast an egg and swallow it,4 she is forbidden to her husband5 until she drinks the bitter water, and [her faithfulness] is checked. In an era when [the probe of] the waters of the sotahis unavailable, she is forbidden to her husband forever and is divorced without receiving the [money due her by virtue of] her ketubah.6

הסתירה האמורה בתורה ונסתרה הוא שתסתר עם אותו האיש שאמר לה אל תסתרי עמו, בפני שני עדים. או שהתה עמו כדי טומאה שהוא כדי לצלות ביצה ולגמעה הרי זו אסורה על בעלה עד שתשתה מי המרים ויבדק הדבר. ובזמן שאין שם מי סוטה תאסר עליו לעולם ותצא בלא כתובה:

If [a husband] warns his wife with regard to two men at the same time, telling her: "Do not enter into privacy with so and so, and so and so," she is forbidden [to her husband] until she drinks [the waters] if she enters into privacy with the two men at the same time,7 and remains there long enough to engage in relations. [This applies] even if [the two men] are her two brothers or her father and her brother.

קונא לה על שנים כאחד ואמר לה אל תסתרי עם פלוני ופלוני. ונסתרה עם שניהן כאחד ושהתה כדי טומאה. אפילו הם שני אחיה או אביה ואחיה הרי זו אסורה עד שתשתה:

If he told her in the presence of two [men]: "Do not speak to so and so," this is not considered to be a warning. Even if she enters into privacy with him in the presence of witnesses and remains there long enough to engage in relations, she is not forbidden to [her husband], nor can she be required to drink [the bitter water] because of such a warning.

אמר לה בפני שנים אל תדברי עם פלוני אין זה קינוי. ואף ע"פ שנסתרה עמו בעדים ושהתה כדי טומאה לא נאסרה עליו ואינה שותה בקינוי זה:

Similarly, if he told her, "Do not enter into privacy with him," and witnesses saw her speaking with him, she is not considered to be having entered into privacy. She is not forbidden to [her husband], nor can she be required to drink [the bitter water].

Similarly, if she was not warned at all, and two witnesses came and testified that she entered into privacy with a man and remained long enough to engage in relations, she is not forbidden to [her husband],8 nor can she be required to drink [the bitter water].

וכן אם אמר לה אל תסתרי עמו וראוה מדברת עמו אין זו סתירה. ולא נאסרה ולא שותה. וכן אם לא קדם קינוי ובאו שנים והעידו שנסתרה עם זה ושהתה כדי טומאה לא נאסרה על בעלה ואינה שותה:

If he told her: "Do not enter into privacy with so and so," and named a boy below the age of nine,"9 or he told her: "Do not enter into privacy with this animal," this is not a [binding] warning.

[These laws are derived as follows:] The Torah [ibid.] states: "And a man had relations with her." This excludes a minor and an animal. She is not forbidden to her husband because of them.

אמר לה לא תסתרי איש פלוני והיה קטן פחות מבן תשע שנים ויום אחד. או שאמר לה אל תסתרי עם בהמה זו אין זה קינוי שנאמר ושכב איש אותה פרט לקטן ולבהמה שאין אוסרים אותה עליו:

When a husband forgoes a warning before his wife enters into privacy with [the man in question], the warning is nullified, and it is as if he had never issued a warning to her [regarding him]. If, however, he forgoes the warning after she enters into privacy with him, the warning cannot be nullified.10

If he divorces his wife, it is as if he has nullified the warning. If he remarries her, he must issue a second warning [for her to be bound by it].

בעל שמחל על קינויו קודם שתסתר קינויו מחול וכאילו לא קינא לה מעולם. אבל אם מחל אחר שתסתר אינו יכול למחול גירשה ה"ז כמי שמחל ואם החזירה צריך לקנאות קינוי אחר:

If [the husband] issued a warning to [his wife] in the presence of two [witnesses] and then saw her enter into privacy with the man concerning whom she was warned, and she remained long enough to engage in relations, she becomes forbidden to him. He must divorce her and pay her [the money due her by virtue of her] ketubah.11

Similarly, if he hears people gossiping about her after she has been warned, that she entered into privacy with the man in question, to the extent that the women who weave at night by the moonlight chatter about her, saying that she committed adultery with the man concerning whom she has been warned, her husband is forbidden to remain married to her and must instead divorce her and pay her [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah.12

קינא לה בפני שנים וראה אותה שנסתרה עם זה שקנא לה עליו ושהתה כדי טומאה הרי זו אסורה עליו ויוציא ויתן כתובה. שאינו יכול להשקותה ע"פ עצמו. וכן אם שמע העם מרננין אחריה אחר הקינוי והסתירה עד ששמע מהנשים הטוות לאור הלבנה נושאות ונותנות בה שזינתה עם האיש שקינא לה עליו הרי זה אסור לקיימה ויוציא ויתן כתובה:

[The following rules apply when] one witness comes and testifies that, after a warning was issued, she entered into privacy with the man concerning whom she was warned and remained long enough to engage in relations. If [the husband] considers [the witness] to be faithful, and he relies on him, he must divorce her and pay her [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah.13 If [he does] not [rely on that person], his wife remains permitted to him.14

בא עד אחד והעיד לו שנסתרה עמו אחר קינוי ושהתה כדי טומאה. אם הוא נאמן לו ודעתו סומכת עליו יוציא ויתן כתובה ואם לאו הרי אשתו מותרת לו:

The court should issue a warning to the following women [who are suspected of immodest behavior]: a woman whose husband has become a deaf-mute or has lost control of his mental faculties, one whose husband is overseas or one whose husband is imprisoned. The intent is not to have [such a woman] drink [the bitter water],15 but rather to disqualify her from receiving [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah.16

ואלו שבית דין מקנין להן. מי שנתחרש בעלה או שנשתטה או שהיה במדינה אחרת או שהיה חבוש בבית האסורין לא להשקותה אלא לפסלה מכתובתה:

What is implied? If the court hears that people are gossiping about [a particular woman], they call her and tell her: "Do not enter into privacy with so and so." If witnesses come afterwards and testify that she entered into privacy with the man concerning whom she was warned, and remained long enough to engage in relations, the court prohibits her [from engaging in relations] with her husband forever and tears up her marriage contract.

When her husband returns, regains his health or is released from prison, he must give her a get.17 He cannot require her to drink [the bitter water], because he did not administer the warning himself.

יא

כיצד שמעו בית דין שהעם מרננין אחריה קוראין אותה ואומרין לה אל תסתרי עם איש פלוני. באו עדים אחר כך שנסתרה עמו ושהתה כדי טומאה בית דין אוסרין אותה על בעלה לעולם וקורעין כתובתה וכשיבוא בעלה או יבריא או יצא מבית האסורין נותן לה גט ואינו יכול להשקותה מפני שלא קינא לה הוא:

[The following rules apply if a woman was required to] drink the bitter water [because of her husband's suspicion of a particular man] and did not die as a result of them, and afterwards, her husband gave her a warning with regard to that same man. If she enters into privacy with him, he cannot make her drink because of him a second time. Instead, she becomes forbidden to her husband forever and must be divorced without receiving [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah.18

If, however, her husband issued a warning to her regarding another man, and she entered into privacy with him in the presence of witnesses, she can be forced to drink the waters again. Indeed, this can happen several times, provided each time her husband has her drink because of another man.

יב

שתת מי המרים ונקתה מהן וחזר וקינא לה עם האיש שהשקה על ידו ונסתרה עמו אינו יכול להשקותה על ידו פעם שנייה אלא תאסר עליו לעולם ותצא בלא כתובה. אבל אם קינא לה עם אחר ונסתרה עם האחר בעדים משקין אותה פעם שנייה ואפילו כמה פעמים. והוא שישקה אותה בכל פעם בגלל איש אחר:

If a woman's husband had her drink [the bitter water] because of a specific man and then divorced her and she remarried, her second husband can issue a warning to her with regard to the same man. If she enters into privacy with him, her husband can make her drink [the bitter water], because he is her second husband. Even if a hundred men married this woman one after the other, they can all have her drink [the bitter water] because of this same man.

יג

השקה אותה וגירשה ונשאת לאחר וקינא לה עם האיש שהשקה אותה הבעל הראשון בגללו ונסתרה עמו בעדים. הרי הבעל השני משקה אותה על ידו מפני שהוא בעל שני. ואפילו מאה ונשאת לזה אחר זה משקין אותה על ידי איש אחד. ואין אומרין ודאי שהוחזקה לזה וטמאה עד שיהיה שם עד:

[The following laws apply if] a woman was warned by her husband and then entered into privacy [with the man in question] after the warning, thus causing her to be required to drink [the bitter water]. If [even] one witness comes and states that she engaged in sexual relations with the man regarding whom she was warned in his presence, the woman is forbidden to her husband forever. She may not drink [the bitter water],19 and must be divorced without receiving [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah. This applies even if the witness who testifies concerning her adultery is also one of the witnesses who testifies that she entered into privacy with [the man regarding whom she was warned].20

[This ruling is derived from Numbers 5:13]: "There is no witness against her."21

יד

האשה שקינא לה בעלה ונסתרה אחר הקינוי עמו בעדים והרי היא עומדת לשתות ובא עד אחד והעיד עליה שנבעלה בפניו עם זה שקינא לה עמו הרי זו אסורה על בעלה לעולם. ואינה שותה ויוצאת בלא כתובה. ואפילו היה עד טומאה זה אחד מעדי הסתירה שנאמר ועד אין בה והרי כאן עד:

Even a woman, a servant, a maid-servant or someone disqualified from testifying because of [the transgression of] a Rabbinic prohibition, and even a relative,22 may testify with regard to a woman suspected of infidelity, saying that she committed adultery. This causes her to be forbidden to her husband forever, to be prevented from drinking [the bitter water] and to be divorced without receiving [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah.

[The rationale is] that since the Torah accepts the testimony of one witness with regard to [the woman's] adultery [we see that the formal laws of testimony do not apply]. Therefore, anyone's testimony is accepted with regard to this matter.

Even the five women who we assume hate each other23 can offer testimony regarding each other,24 saying that they committed adultery [in these circumstances]. Their testimony is accepted with regard to causing her to be forbidden to her husband and not [to compel her] to drink [the bitter water]. It is not a sufficient basis to cause her to forfeit [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah. Instead, she collects [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubahand leaves [his household].25

טו

אפילו אשה ועבד ושפחה ופסול לעדות בעבירה מדברי סופרים. ואפילו קרוב נאמן לעדות סוטה להעיד עליה שזינתה ותאסר על בעלה לעולם. ואינה שותה ותצא בלא כתובה. הואיל וקדם הקינוי והסתירה בעדים כשרים והתורה האמינה עד אחד בטומאה הרי כולן כשרין לעדות טומאה. אף חמש נשים ששונאות זו את זו מעידות זו על זו לומר שנטמאת. ונאמנת עליה לאוסרה על בעלה ושלא להשקותה. אבל לא להפסידה מכתובתה. אלא נוטלת כתובתה ויוצאה:

If one acceptable witness comes and says that the woman committed adultery, she is not required to drink [the bitter water], as we stated. If another witness comes and contradicts his testimony, saying: "She did not commit adultery," the statements [of the second witness] are disregarded.26

[The rationale is] with regard to a sotah, [the testimony of] one witness is considered equivalent to [that of] two [witnesses in ordinary matters]. Thus, the testimony of the second witness cannot nullify the testimony of the first witness, which is considered to be equivalent to [that of] two witnesses.27

טז

בא עד אחד כשר ואמר נטמאת הרי זו אינה שותה כמו שבארנו. בא עד אחד והכחישו ואמר לא נטמאת אין שומעין לו. שעד אחד בטומאת סוטה כשנים. ואין דבריו של אחרון דוחין דברי הראשון שהוא כשנים:

If, however, both come at the same time28 and one says: "She committed adultery," and the other says, "She did not commit adultery,"29 or one says: "She committed adultery," and two others say, "She did not commit adultery,"30she must drink [the bitter water].

יז

באו שניהן כאחד זה אומר נטמאת וזה אומר לא נטמאת. או שאמר אחד נטמאת ובאו שנים אחרים ואמרו לא נטמאת הרי זו שותה:

When one acceptable witness and many women or unacceptable witnesses come at the same time, and the acceptable witness says that the woman committed adultery, while the women or the unacceptable witnesses say that she did not, she is required to drink [the bitter water].31 [The rationale is that the testimony of] one acceptable witness and [that of] many unacceptable witnesses are considered to be of equal weight.

יח

בא עד אחד כשר ונשים רבות או פסולין רבים כאחד. העד אומר נטמאת והנשים או הפסולין אומרים לא נטמאת הרי זו שותה. שעד אחד ופסולין רבים כמחצה על מחצה הם:

If all the witnesses are unacceptable, the ruling depends on the majority.

What is implied? If two women say she committed adultery, and three say she did not, she must drink [the bitter water]. If three say she did not commit adultery and four say that she did, she is not required to drink. If an equal number of women espouse each position, she must drink [the waters].32

יט

היו כולן פסולין הלך אחר הרוב. כיצד שתי נשים אומרות נטמאת. ושלש אומרות לא נטמאת ה"ז שותה. שלש אומרות לא נטמאת וארבע אומרות נטמאת הרי זו אינה שותה. היו מחצה על מחצה הרי זו שותה:

In all instances that we said that a sotah should not drink [the waters] because of testimony that she committed adultery, she is forbidden to her husband forever and must be divorced without receiving [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah, for she was forbidden because [she received a] warning and entered into privacy [with the said man]. And she is prevented from drinking the waters, [which could] cause her [to be] permitted, because of the presence of the witness, as we explained.33

כל סוטה שאמרנו שאינה שותה מפני עידי טומאה הרי זו אסורה על בעלה לעולם ותצא בלא כתובה שהרי נאסרה בקינוי וסתירה. והשתייה שתתירה נמנעה שהרי יש בה עד כמו שבארנו:

FOOTNOTES

קנא usually has the connotation of jealousy. There are, however, instances where it has the meaning "warning," as in Joel 2:18.

The intent in all these examples is that it is unlikely that the woman would engage in adultery with such a man: the father and the brother because of the family connection, the gentile or the servant because we assume that a modest Jewish woman would not associate with such people, and the impotent man because of his physical condition. By citing such examples, the Rambam implies that surely such a warning can be given with regard to any ordinary man.

These can be the same two witnesses in whose presence the warning was administered (Hilchot Edut 21:5).

We suspect that she committed adultery.

As stated in Hilchot Gerushin 11:14, a woman who commits adultery is forbidden to her husband. Since we suspect that this woman committed adultery, she is forbidden until her faithfulness is proven.

For it is her immodest behavior that caused her to become forbidden (Hilchot Ishut 24:24).

Even though in general a woman is allowed to enter into privacy with two men of established moral standing, in this instance, since the husband expressed his disapproval, such an act warrants drinking the bitter water.

Entering into privacy (yichud) with another man is forbidden (Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah, ch. 22). Nevertheless, Kiddushin 81a states that as long as a warning was not given, such an act is not sufficient cause for a woman to be forbidden to her husband.

Implied is that the warning is effective after a boy reaches the age of nine, for from the age of nine a boy is fit to engage in sexual relations, as explained in Hilchot Ishut 11:3. Rav Ovadiah of Bertinoro (Sotah 4:4) differs and maintains that a youth must attain majority before a warning is effective. There are several Midrashic sources for the Rambam's ruling.

10.

And she must drink the bitter water.

The rationale for this ruling is that as long as the woman has not entered into privacy with the other man, the husband's warning has not been reinforced by her conduct. Accordingly, since he has authority over his warning, he can withdraw it. When, however, she has already entered into privacy with the other man, she is already required by the Torah to drink the bitter water. Her husband has no authority over the Torah's requirement, and thus, he can no longer withdraw his warning (Likkutei Sichos, Vol. IV). See also the gloss of the Tzafnat Paneach to this halachah.

11.

In this instance, the husband is required to pay his wife the money due her by virtue of her ketubah because, although he is bound by the evidence of his own eyes, it is not sufficient to require his wife to drink the bitter water. For that, the testimony of two witnesses is necessary.

12.

The Rambam is speaking about an instance when, despite the gossip generated about the woman, there is no (or only one) witness who can testify about her entering into privacy with the man involved. Hence, because of her immodest conduct, he must divorce her. He must, however, pay the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, because, as stated in Sotah6b, the bitter water will not test the chastity of a woman whose immodest conduct has become public knowledge.

13.

Since the testimony of one witness is not sufficient to require her to drink the bitter water, and yet the husband relies on the testimony of the witness, she is forbidden to the husband, but he must bear the financial burden of the prohibition. (See Hilchot Ishut 24:17.)

14.

For a woman does not become forbidden until two witnesses testify that she entered into privacy with the man in question.

15.

For that is possible only when a warning was administered by the husband, as stated in the following halachah.

16.

Since the men in question are incapable of acting on their own, the court takes the initiative on their behalf. The court's action has two objectives: to maintain the moral standard of the Jewish people, and if that fails, to protect the husband's interest and cause a woman who acts immodestly to pay the penalty for her conduct.

17.

From the commentaries, it appears that he is required to do so; he does not have an option.

18.

In this instance as well, entering into privacy with the man is considered an immodest act, sufficient cause for the woman to forfeit the money due her by virtue of her ketubah.

19.

Even if she desires to in an attempt to prove her innocence.

20.

If, however, the other witness who saw the man and the woman enter into privacy says that they did not engage in relations, the woman does not forfeit the money due her by virtue of her ketubah (Beit Shmuel 178:12).

21.

Implied is that even if there is one witness, she is not to be tested by the bitter water. Generally, the Torah requires two witnesses for all matters involving marital law (Sotah 31b). In this case, an exception was made because the fact that a warning was issued and disobeyed is an indication of immodesty.

22.

All the individuals mentioned are normally not accepted as witnesses. Nevertheless, an exception is made in this instance, as the Rambam explains. The testimony of witnesses who have violated prohibitions of Scriptural origin is not accepted, because we suspect that they will lie.

23.

As stated in Hilchot Gerushin 12:16, these women are the woman's mother-in-law, her mother-in-law's daughter, her husband's other wife, her yevamahand her husband's daughter from another marriage.

24.

The Rambam's wording refers to the following concept. Generally, because of the bad feelings that characterize the relationship between these pairs, testimony is also disqualified in the reverse of the above situations. For example, if the husband of the daughter of a woman's husband is missing, the woman may not testify about the matter, although she has no natural reason to hate the other woman.

25.

The testimony of these women is accepted because through it, the woman is granted the money due her by virtue of her ketubah. We assume that these women would desire to discredit her entirely and cause her to forfeit this money. Since without their testimony, the woman is forbidden to her husband until she drinks the bitter water and forfeits the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, their testimony abets her position rather than harms it. (Indeed, note the gloss of Rabbi Akiva Eiger, who questions why the testimony of these women is accepted at all.)

26.

In most instances, when the statements of one witness are countered by the statements of another, the two are considered to be of equal weight, and thus the statements of the first witness are no longer considered.

27.

This principle applies not only with regard to a sotah, but with regard to all instances in which one witness's testimony is considered equivalent to that of two witnesses (Sotah 31b) - e.g., testimony regarding the death of a woman's husband (Hilchot Gerushin 12:18).

28.

I.e., one testified directly after the other.

29.

Since the testimony of the first witness was never established, it is not given more weight than it would ordinarily. Since the woman's fidelity is in doubt, she is required to drink the bitter water. The principles in this and the following halachot are paralleled in Hilchot Gerushin, Chapter 12.

30.

In this instance, the testimony of the pair of witnesses balances the testimony of the witness who said that she committed adultery, even if that witness's testimony had already been established in court.

31.

Compare to Hilchot Rotzeach USh'mirat HaNefesh 9:16.

32.

Since the woman's fidelity remains in doubt, she must drink the waters to clarify the situation.

33.

See Halachah 14.

• 3 Chapters A Day: Chovel uMazzik Chovel uMazzik - Chapter One, Chovel uMazzik Chovel uMazzik - Chapter Two, Chovel uMazzik Chovel uMazzik - Chapter Three
English Text | Hebrew Text

Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class

Chovel uMazzik - Chapter One

Introduction to Hilchos Chovel uMazzik

They contain one positive mitzvah: the law [requiring payment when] a person injures a colleague or damages his property.

This mitzvah is explained in the chapters [that follow].

הלכות חובל ומזיק - הקדמה

מצות עשה אחת. והוא דין חובל בחבירו או מזיק ממונו:

וביאור מצוה זו בפרקים אלו:

When a person injures a colleague, he is liable to compensate him in five ways: the damages, his pain, his medical treatment, his loss of employment and the embarrassment he suffered. All these five assessments must be paid from the highest quality of property that he owns, as is the law with regard to payment for damages.

החובל בחבירו חייב לשלם לו חמשה דברים ואלו הם. נזק וצער ורפוי ושבת ובושת. וחמשה דברים אלו כולן משתלמים מן היפה שבנכסיו כדין כל המזיקין:

What is meant by "the damages"? If a person cuts off the hand or the foot of a colleague, we theoretically consider the injured colleague as a servant being sold in the market place and evaluate his value before the injury and his value afterwards. The person who caused the injury must pay the depreciation in value.

This is alluded to in Exodus 21:24: "An eye for an eye." The oral tradition interprets תחת, translated as "for," as an indication that the verse requires financial recompense.

נזק כיצד. שאם קטע יד חבירו או רגלו רואין אותו כאילו הוא עבד נמכר בשוק כמה היה יפה [אז] וכמה הוא יפה עתה ומשלם הפחת שהפחית מדמיו. שנאמר עין תחת עין. מפי השמועה למדו שזה שנאמר תחת לשלם ממון הוא:

The Torah's statement Leviticus 24:20: "Just as he caused an injury to his fellowman, so too, an injury should be caused to him," should not be interpreted in a literal sense. It does not mean that the person who caused the injury should actually be subjected to a similar physical punishment. Instead, the intent is that he deserves to lose a limb or to be injured in the same manner as his colleague was, and therefore he should make financial restitution to him.

This interpretation is supported by the verse, Numbers 35:31: "Do not accept a ransom for the soul of the murderer." Implied is that no ransom may be paid for a murderer alone, but a ransom may be paid for causing a loss of limb or other injuries.

זה שנאמר בתורה כאשר יתן מום באדם כן ינתן בו אינו לחבול בזה כמו שחבל בחבירו אלא שהוא ראוי לחסרו אבר או לחבול בו כאשר עשה ולפיכך משלם נזקו. והרי הוא אומר ולא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח לרוצח בלבד הוא שאין בו כופר אבל לחסרון איברים או לחבלות יש בו כופר:

Thus, the statement Deuteronomy 25:12 with regard to a person who injures a colleague and causes him damage, "Do not have compassion," means "Do not have compassion in evaluating the amount he is required to pay." You should not say, "He is poor and did not intentionally mean to injure him; therefore, I will have mercy upon him. For this reason, it is written: "Do not have compassion."

וכן זה שנאמר בחובל בחבירו ומזיקו לא תחוס עינך שלא תחוס בתשלומין שמא תאמר עני הוא זה ושלא בכוונה חבל בו ארחמנו לכך נאמר לא תחוס עינך:

How do we know that the intent of the Torah's statement with regard to the loss of a limb, "An eye for an eye," is financial restitution? That same verse continues "a blow for a blow." And with regard to the penalty for a giving a colleague a blow, it is explicitly stated Exodus 21:18-19: "When a man strikes his colleague with a stone or a fist... he should pay for his being idled and for his medical expenses." Thus, we learn that the word תחת mentioned with regard to a blow indicates the necessity for financial restitution, and so one can conclude that the meaning of the same word with regard to an eye or another limb is also financial restitution.

ומנין שזה שנאמר באיברים עין תחת עין תשלומין הוא. שנאמר בו חבורה תחת חבורה ובפירוש נאמר וכי יכה איש את רעהו באבן או באגרוף וגו' רק שבתו יתן ורפא ירפא. הא למדת שתחת שנאמר בחבורה תשלומין. והוא הדין לתחת האמור בעין ובשאר איברים:

Although these interpretations are obvious from the study of the Written Law, and they are explicitly mentioned in the Oral Tradition transmitted by Moses from Mount Sinai, they are all regarded as halachot from Moses. This is what our ancestors saw in the court of Joshua and in the court of Samuel of Ramah, and in every single Jewish court that has functioned from the days of Moses our teacher until the present age.

ואע"פ שדברים אלו נראין מענין תורה שבכתב וכולן מפורשין הן מפי משה רבינו מהר סיני. כולן הלכה למשה* הן בידינו וכזה ראו אבותינו דנין בבית דינו של יהושע ובבית דינו של שמואל הרמתי ובכל בית דין ובית דין שעמדו מימות משה רבינו ועד עכשיו:

What is the source that teaches that a person who injures a colleague must pay independently for the pain that he caused? With regard to a maiden who has been raped Deuteronomy 22:29 states that payment is imposed: "because he oppressed her." the same law applies to anyone who causes a colleague bodily pain. He is required to give him financial recompense for the pain he caused.

ומנין שמזיק בחבירו חייב בצער בפני עצמו [א] שהרי נאמר באונס תחת אשר ענה. והוא הדין לכל המצער את חבירו בגופו שהוא חייב לשלם דמי הצער:

What is the source that teaches that he is liable for the victim's unemployment expenses and medical expenses independently? It is written Exodus 21:19: "He should pay for his being idled and for his medical expenses."

ומנין שהוא חייב בשבת בפני עצמו וריפוי בפני עצמו שנאמר רק שבתו יתן ורפא ירפא:

What is the source that teaches that he is liable for the embarrassment suffered by the victim independently? Deuteronomy 25:11-12 states: "... And she extends her hand, grabbing his private parts. You must cut off her hand." The same law applies to anyone who embarrasses another person.

ומנין שהוא חייב בבושת בפני עצמו שהרי נאמר ושלחה ידה והחזיקה במבושיו וקצותה את כפה בכלל דין זה כל המבייש:

A person who causes embarrassment is not liable unless he acts intentionally, as implied by the phrase: "And she extends her hand." If, by contrast, a person embarrassed a colleague without intent, he is not liable. Therefore, if a person who was sleeping or the like embarrassed a colleague, he is not liable.

המבייש אינו חייב על הבושת עד שיהיה מתכוין שנאמר ושלחה ידה אבל המבייש חבירו בלא כוונה פטור. לפיכך ישן וכיוצא בו שבייש פטור:

A man is considered mu'ad at all times - whether acting intentionally or unintentionally, whether asleep or awake or intoxicated. If he injures a colleague or damages a colleague's property, he must always reimburse him from his choicest property.

When is a person who causes damage while asleep required to make restitution? When they both went to sleep at the same time, and one turned over and injured his colleague or tore his garment. If, however, a person was sleeping and a colleague came and lay down next to him, only the one who lay down afterwards is considered mu'ad. If the person sleeping injures the one who came afterwards, he is not liable.

Similarly, if a person places a utensil next to a person who is sleeping, and the one who is sleeping breaks it, he is not liable. For the one who placed the article down was the one who was mu'ad and who acted with negligence.

יא

אדם מועד לעולם בין שוגג [ב] בין מזיד בין ער בין ישן בין שכור אם חבל בחבירו או הזיק ממון חבירו משלם מן היפה שבנכסיו. במה דברים אמורים שהישן חייב לשלם בשנים שישנו כאחד ונתהפך אחד מהן והזיק את חבירו או קרע בגדו. א אבל אם היה אחד ישן ובא אחר ושכב בצדו. זה שבא באחרונה הוא המועד ואם הזיקו הישן פטור. וכן אם הניח כלי בצד הישן ושברו פטור שזה שהניחו הוא המועד שפשע:

If a person fell from a roof because of an ordinary wind and caused damage, he is liable for four assessments, but is not liable for the embarrassment he caused. If he fell because of an exceptional wind, he is liable only for the injury, but not for the other four assessments. If, however, he turned over so that he would fall on a person to soften the blow he would receive, he is liable even for the embarrassment he caused. For whenever a person intentionally causes injury, he is liable for the embarrassment he caused, even though he did not have the intent of embarrassing the other person.

יב

מי שנפל מן הגג ברוח מצויה והזיק חייב בארבעה דברים ופטור מן הבושת. נפל ברוח שאינה מצויה חייב בנזק בלבד ופטור מארבעה דברים. ואם נתהפך חייב בכל אף בבושת שכל המתכוין להזיק אע"פ שלא נתכוון לבייש חייב בבושת:

When two people injure another person at the same time, they are both liable and they divide the assessment between themselves. If one of them acted intentionally and the other acted unintentionally, the one who acted unintentionally is not liable for the embarrassment that was caused.

יג

שנים [ג] שחבלו באחד כאחד שניהם חייבין ומשלשין ביניהן. היה אחד מתכוין ואחד שאינו מתכוין זה שאינו מתכוין פטור מן הבושת:

If a person intended to embarrass a minor and instead embarrassed an adult, he is required to pay the adult what he would pay for embarrassing a minor.

If a person intended to embarrass a servant and instead embarrassed a free man, he is required to pay the free man what he would pay for embarrassing a servant.

יד

המתכוין לבייש את הקטן ובייש את הגדול נותן לגדול דמי בושתו של קטן. נתכוון לבייש העבד ובייש את בן חורין נותן לבן חורין דמי בושתו של עבד:

If a stone was placed in a person's bosom - regardless of whether he had never known about it, or he had known about it and forgotten it - and when he stood up, the stone fell and caused damage, he is liable only for the injury, but not for the other four assessments.

Similarly, if he intended to throw a stone two cubits, and he throw it four cubits and it caused an injury, or if he caused an injury while sleeping, he is liable only for the injury, but not for the other four assessments.

טו

היתה לו אבן מונחת בחיקו בין שלא הכיר בה מעולם בין שהכיר בה ושכחה ועמד ונפלה והזיקה חייב בנזק בלבד ופטור מארבעה דברים. א וכן אם נתכוון לזרוק שתים וזרק ארבעה והזיק או שהזיק כשהוא ישן חייב בנזק ופטור מארבעה דברים:

Whenever a person injures a colleague, he is liable for the five assessments. Even if a person enters a colleague's domain without permission and the owner injures him, the owner is liable. For he has permission to remove the intruder from his domain, but he does not have permission to injure him.

If, however, the person who entered bumps into the owner and is injured, the owner is not liable. If the owner bumps into him and is injured, the person who entered is liable, for he entered without permission.

If they both had permission to be in that domain, or neither had permission to be in that domain, and one bumps into the other and is injured, neither is liable.

טז

המזיק את חבירו בכוונה בכל מקום חייב בחמשה דברים. ואפילו נכנס לרשות חבירו שלא ברשות והזיקו בעל הבית חייב שיש לו רשות להוציאו ואין לו רשות להזיקו. אבל אם הוזק זה שנכנס בבעל הבית הרי בעל הבית פטור. ואם הוזק בו בעל הבית חייב מפני שנכנס שלא ברשות. היו שניהם ברשות או שניהם שלא ברשות והוזקו זה בזה שניהם פטורין:

In all of the situations to be described, the person who caused the injury is liable for four assessments, but not for the embarrassment he caused: He was chopping wood in the public domain, and a piece of wood took flight and caused injury in the private domain. He was chopping wood in a private domain and caused injury in a public domain. He was chopping wood in a private domain and caused injury in another private domain. A person entered a carpenter's store - whether with permission or without permission - and a block of wood was propelled and hit him in the face.

יז

המבקע עצים ברשות הרבים ופרח עץ מהן והזיק ברשות היחיד. או שבקע ברשות היחיד והזיק ברשות הרבים. או שבקע ברשות היחיד והזיק ברשות היחיד אחר. או שנכנס לחנותו של נגר בין ברשות בין שלא ברשות ונתזה בקעת וטפחה על פניו. בכל אלו חייב בארבעה דברים ופטור מן הבושת:

Just as an evaluation is made with regard to death, so too, an evaluation is made with regard to damages.

What is implied? If he strikes a colleague with a small stone that is not large enough to cause injury, or a small sliver of wood and causes an injury that this article is not ordinarily capable of causing, he is not liable. This concept is alluded to by Exodus 21:18, which speaks of "a man strik(ing) a colleague with a stone or a fist" - i.e., an entity that is capable of causing injury. He is, however, liable for the embarrassment that he caused. [For even if he merely spat on his colleague's person, he is liable for the embarrassment that he caused.

Accordingly, the witnesses have to know the article that caused the injury. This article should be brought to the court, and an evaluation is made concerning it, and a reckoning.

If the article that caused the injury was lost and the person who caused the injury claims: "It was not sufficient to cause the injury. The injury occurred because of forces beyond my control," and the person who was injured claims: "It was sufficient to cause the injury," the person who was injured should support his claim with an oath and collect his due, as will be explained.

יח

כשם שאומדין למיתה כך אומדין לנזקין. כיצד הרי שהכה חבירו בצרור קטן שאין בו כדי להזיק או בקיסם של עץ קטן וחבל בו חבלה שאין חפץ זה ראוי לעשותו הרי זה פטור. שנאמר באבן או באגרוף דבר הראוי להזיק. אבל חייב הוא בבושת בלבד אפילו רקק בגופו של חבירו חייב בבושת. לפיכך צריכין העדים לידע במה הזיק ומביאין החפץ שהזיק בו לבית דין עד שאומדין אותו ודנין עליו. א ואם אבד החפץ ואמר החובל לא היה בו כדי להזיק וכמו אנוס אני. והנחבל אומר היה בו כדי להזיק ישבע הנחבל ויטול כמו שיתבאר:

A metal object is never evaluated to see whether it can cause injury. Instead, we assume that it can, for even a small needle is capable of killing and surely of causing injury.

When a person throws a stone, and afterwards another person extends his head out from a window and is struck by it, the one who threw the stone is not liable at all. This is derived from Deuteronomy 19:5, which speaks of the head of an axe coming loose and "strik(ing) a colleague." This excludes one who causes himself to be stricken.

יט

הברזל אין לו אומד אפילו מחט קטנה ראויה היא להמית ואין צריך לומר להזיק. הזורק אבן ולאחר שיצא מתחת ידו הוציא הלה את ראשו מן החלון וקבלה פטור מכלום שנאמר ומצא את רעהו פרט לממציא את עצמו:

Chovel uMazzik - Chapter Two

When a person injures a colleague in a manner that warrants payment of all five assessments, he is required to pay all five. If he injures him in a manner that warrants the payment of only four, he is required to pay only four. If three, three; if two, two; and if one, one.

החובל ב בחבירו חבלה שהוא ראוי לשלם החמשה דברים כולם משלם חמשה. הזיקו נזק שאין בו אלא ארבעה משלם ארבעה. שלשה משלם שלשה. שנים משלם שנים. אחד משלם אחד:

What is implied? If a person cuts off a colleague's hand or foot, or a finger or a toe, he must pay all five assessments: the damages, his pain, his medical treatment, his loss of employment and the embarrassment he suffered.

If he struck him on his hand and it swelled, but it will ultimately return to size; on his eye and displaced it, but it will heal; he should pay four assessments: his pain, his medical treatment, his loss of employment and the embarrassment he suffered.

If he struck him on his head and it swelled, he should pay three assessments: his pain, his medical treatment and the embarrassment he suffered.

If he struck him on a place where the blow cannot be seen - e.g., he struck him on his knees or on his back - he should pay two assessments: his pain and his medical treatment.

If a person swats a colleague with a handkerchief he was holding, a document or the like, he should pay only one assessment: embarrassment.

כיצד קטע ידו או רגלו או אצבע מהן או שסימא עינו משלם חמשה נזק וצער וריפוי ושבת ובושת. הכהו על ידו וצבתה וסופה לחזור. על עינו ומרדה וסופה לחיות. משלם ארבעה צער ורפוי ושבת ובושת. הכהו על ראשו וצבה משלם שלשה צער ורפוי ובושת. הכהו במקום שאינו נראה כגון שהכה על ברכיו או בגבו משלם שנים צער ורפוי. הכהו במטפחת שבידו או בשטר וכיוצא באלו נותן אחת והיא הבושת בלבד:

If a person burned a colleague with a spit or a nail on his fingernails - i.e., in a place where a wound is not made - and that does not prevent the person from working, he should pay only for pain.

If one causes a colleague to drink a drug or anoints him with a drug that changes the color of his skin, he is required to pay merely for the medical expenses necessary until his skin returns to its original color.

כוואהו בשפוד או במסמר על צפורניו במקום שאינו עושה חבורה ולא מעכב מלאכה משלם הצער בלבד. השקהו סם או סכו סם ושינה מראה עורו משלם לו רפוי בלבד עד שיחזור מראהו כשהיה. אסרו בחדר נותן לו דמי שבת בלבד. וכן כל כיוצא באלו:

When a person shaves the head of a colleague, all that it is necessary for him to pay is for the embarrassment, for his hair will grow back. If he removes his hair with a potion or burns his head so that his hair will never grow back, he is liable for all five assessments: damages, pain and medical attention, because his head was heated by the burn or by the potion, and this will cause headaches. He must also pay him unemployment, because previously he was fit to dance and shake the locks of his hair, and he is thus prevented from performing this type of work. And he must be paid for embarrassment, because there is no greater embarrassment than this.

המגלח שיער ראש חבירו נותן לו דמי בשתו בלבד מפני שסופו לחזור. גלחו בסם או שכוואהו עד שאין סוף השיער לחזור חייב בחמשה דברים. בנזק בצער ורפוי שהרי יתחמם ראשו מן הכויה או מן הסם ונמצא חש בראשו. ומשלם לו שבת שהרי הוא ראוי לרקד ולנדנד דלת ראשו בשעת רקוד ונמצא בטל ממלאכה זו. ובושת שאין לך בושת גדול מזה:

Thus, this indicates that whenever a person causes a colleague a loss of limb that will not grow back, he is liable for all five payments. Even if he knocked out a tooth, he is liable for all five payments. For it is impossible that he will not suffer pain in his mouth for a certain amount of time because of the loss. And although there is no medical treatment for the tooth itself, the gums require medical treatment.

הא למדת שכל המחסר חבירו אבר שאינו חוזר חייב בכל החמשה דברים. אפילו הפיל שינו חייב בכל שאי אפשר שלא יחלה פיו שעה אחת. אע"פ שהשן אין לו רפואה בשר השינים צריך רפואה:

Even if he causes him to lose a piece of flesh merely the size of a barleycorn, he must pay all five assessments. He must pay for the permanent damage, because the skin will never return; instead, scar tissue will form. Thus, if a person injures a colleague, cuts his flesh and causes him to bleed, he is liable for all five assessments.

אפילו חסרו כשערה מעור בשרו חייב בחמשה דברים. שהעור אינו חוזר אלא צלקת. לפיכך החובל בחבירו וקרע העור והוציא ממנו דם חייב בחמשה דברים:

A person who scares a colleague - even if the fright causes him to fall ill - is not liable according to the judgments of an earthly court; he does, however, have a moral and spiritual obligation to compensate him. This applies, however, only when he did not touch him, but merely shouted behind him, appeared before him in the darkness or the like.

Similarly, if a person shouted in a colleague's ear and caused him to become deaf, he is not liable according to the judgments of an earthly court; he does, however, have a moral and spiritual obligation to compensate him.

If, however, a person grasped hold of a colleague and blew a horn in his ear and caused him to become deaf, touched him and/or pushed him when he frightened him, took hold of his clothes or the like, he is obligated to pay compensation even according to an earthly court.

המבעית חבירו אע"פ שחלה מן הפחד הרי זה פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים. והוא שלא נגע בו אלא כגון שצעק מאחוריו או שנתראה [לו] באפילה וכיוצא בזה. וכן אם צעק באזנו וחרשו פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים. אחזו ותקע באזנו וחרשו או שנגע בו ודחפו בעת שהבעיתו. או שאחז בבגדיו וכיוצא בדברים אלו חייב בתשלומין:

It appears to me that if the injured party claims to have been deafened or blinded and thus cannot see or hear, his claim is not accepted on faith, lest he attempt to deceive. For we have no evidence about the matter. Instead, he is not entitled to compensation unless he will be observed for an extended period of time, and it will be established that he lost his sight or his hearing. Only then, must the person who caused the damage pay.

יראה לי שהנחבל שאמר נתחרשתי או נסמית עיני והרי איני רואה או איני שומע אינו נאמן. שהרי אין אנו מכירין הדבר שמא יערים. ואינו נוטל הנזק עד שיבדק זמן מרובה ויהיה מוחזק שאבד מאור עיניו או נתחרש ואח"כ ישלם זה:

What compensation must be paid for pain? It all depends on the nature of the injured party. There are certain people who are delicate, spoiled and wealthy, and would not bear even a slight amount of pain for a large amount of money. And there are people who are heavy laborers, strong and poor, and will bear much suffering for a single zuz. These are the factors that are taken into consideration when evaluating and determining the compensation for pain.

כמה הוא הצער הכל הוא לפי הניזק. יש אדם שהוא רך וענוג מאד ובעל ממון ואילו נתנו לו ממון הרבה לא היה מצטער מעט. ויש אדם שהוא עמלן וחזק ועני ומפני זוז אחד מצטער צער הרבה. ועל פי הדברים האלה אומדין ופוסקין הצער:

How is the pain evaluated when there is a loss of limb?If a person cut off a colleague's hand or finger, we evaluate how much such a person would give to have this limb amputated with a potioninstead of having it cut of with a sword, if the king decreed that his hand or foot must be cut off. We evaluate the difference between the two, and the one who caused the injury is required to pay that amount.

כיצד משערין הצער במקום שחסרו אבר. הרי שקטע ידו או אצבעו אומדים כמה אדם כזה רוצה ליתן בין לקטוע לו אבר זה בסייף או לקטוע אותו בסם אם גזר עליו המלך לקטוע ידו או רגלו. ואומדין כמה יש בין זה לזה ומשלם המזיק:

How is the unemployment assessment evaluated? If he did not cause the person to lose a limb, but instead caused him to become sick and invalid, or his arm swelled but it will return to its original size, the person who caused the injury must pay the victim for his unemployment for each day, like an unemployed worker of the trade in which he is employed.

If he caused him to lose a limb or cut off his hand, he must pay him full compensation for his hand; this being "damages." In this instance, we judge him as if he were a guard at a patch of squash. We evaluate how much such a guard would earn each day and calculate the number of days he will be incapacitated. This is the amount the person who caused the injury must pay.

Similarly, if a person cut off a colleague's legs, we calculate a wage as if he were a door guard. If he blinded him, we calculate a wage as if he worked in a mill. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

יא

כיצד משערין השבת. אם לא חסרו אבר אלא חלה ונפל למשכב או שצבתה ידו וסופה לחזור נותן לו דמי שבתו של כל יום ויום כפועל בטל של אותה מלאכה שבטל ממנו. ואם חסרו אבר או שקטע ידו נותן דמי ידו שהוא הנזק ושבת רואין אותו כאילו הוא שומר קישואים ורואין כמה הוא שכר שומר קישואין בכל יום ועושין חשבון כל ימי חליו של זה ונותן לו. וכן אם קטע רגלו רואין אותו כאילו הוא שומר על הפתח. סימא עינו רואין אותו כאילו הוא טוחן ברחיים וכן כל כיוצא בזה:

If a person hits a colleague on his ear or blows a horn into his ear and causes him to become deaf, he must pay his entire worth, for the victim is no longer fit to perform any work.

יב

הכה את חבירו על אזנו או אחזו ותקע באזנו וחרשו נותן לו דמי [א] כולו שהרי אינו ראוי למלאכה כלל:

The following law applies when a person blinded a colleague, and before the damages were evaluated cut off his hand, and before those damages were evaluated cut off his leg, and before those damages were evaluated caused him to become deaf. Since an evaluation was not made for each of the damages and ultimately, the person who caused the injury was required to pay the victim's entire worth, that is all that he is obligated to pay.

If an evaluation was made for each of the previous damages and then an evaluation was made for his entire worth, the court collects only the injured's entire worth from the person who inflicted the injury. If, however, the injured seizes payment for every injured limb and for his entire worth from the property of the person who inflicted the injury, it is not expropriated from him.

יג

סימא את עינו ולא אמדוהו קטע את ידו ולא אמדוהו וקטע את רגלו ולא אמדוהו ואחר כך חרשו הואיל ולא אמדוהו לכל נזק ונזק נותן לו דמי כולו. אמדוהו לכל נזק ונזק ואחר כך אמדוהו לכולו אין גובין ממנו אלא דמי כולו בלבד. ואם תפש הניזק נזק כל אבר ואבר ודמי כולו אין מוציאין מידו:

How is the assessment for medical bills evaluated? We estimate how many days this ailment will last and what will be required to treat it. The person who caused the injury is required to give this sum immediately. We do not require him to make payments day by day. This is an enactment in favor of the person who caused the injury.

יד

כיצד משערין הריפוי. אומדין כמה ימים יחיה זה מחולי זה וכמה הוא צריך ונותן לו מיד. ואין מחייבין אותו ליתן דבר יום ביומו. ודבר זה תקנה היא למזיק:

Similarly, the unemployment assessment is evaluated and must be paid immediately.

If the injured party's ailment develops complications and becomes extended beyond the amount originally estimated, the person who caused the injury is not required to pay him more. Conversely, if he becomes healed immediately, the assessment is not reduced.

טו

וכן השבת אומדין אותה ונותן הכל מיד. אם היה מתגלגל בחליו והולך וארך בו החולי יתר על מה שאמדוהו אינו מוסיף לו כלום. וכן אם הבריא מיד אין פוחתין לו ממה שאמדוהו:

When does the above apply? When the person who caused the injury agrees, for this enactment is to his benefit. If, however, the person who caused the injury says: "I do not desire that this enactment be followed; instead, I will pay his medical bills day by day" - he is given that prerogative.

טז

במה דברים אמורים בשרצה המזיק שזו תקנה היא לו. אבל אם אמר המזיק אין רצוני בתקנה זו אלא ארפאנו דבר יום ביומו שומעין לו:

If the person who suffered the injury says: "Assess my injury and give me the money. I will heal myself," his request is not accepted. For the person who caused the injury can say: "Perhaps you will not be successful in healing yourself, and I will be viewed as responsible for the injury." Instead, he must pay his medical expenses day by day, or pay an assessment for the entire amount and give the money for his medical expenses to the court on his behalf.

יז

אמר לו הניזק פסוק עמי ותן על ידי ואני ארפא את עצמי אין שומעין לו שהרי אומר לו שמא לא תרפא עצמך ואחזק אני כמזיק אלא נותן לו דבר יום ביומו. או פוסק על הכל ונותן דמי הריפוי על ידי בית דין:

If the person who caused the injury says: "I will heal you," or he says: "I have a physician who will heal you without charge," his words are not heeded. Instead, he is required to bring a professional physician who charges for healing him.

יח

אמר לו המזיק אני ארפא אותך או יש לי רופא שמרפא בחנם אין שומעין לו אלא מביא רופא אומן ומרפאהו בשכר:

If an assessment was not made at the outset, for the person who caused the injury chose to pay the medical bills day by day, if an infection arose because of the wound, or if the wound opened again after it began to heal, he is required to pay for the medical expenses and for unemployment.

If an infection arose that was not caused by the wound, he is obligated to pay for the medical expenses, but is not obligated to pay for unemployment.

If the person who was injured disobeyed the physician's instructions and the severity of the ailment increased, the person who caused the injury is not obligated to heal him.

יט

הרי שלא פסק עמו אלא היה מרפא יום ויום ועלו בו צמחים מחמת המכה. או נסתרה המכה אחר שחיתה חייב לרפאותו ולתת לו דמי שבתו. עלו בו צמחים שלא מחמת המכה חייב לרפאותו ואינו נותן לו דמי שבתו. עבר על דברי רופא והכביד עליו החולי אינו חייב לרפאותו:

When the court arrives at an assessment and obligates the person who caused the injury to pay, the entire amount is expropriated from him immediately. We do not grant him time to sell his property.

If he became obligated for embarrassment alone, we grant him time to sell his property, for he did not cause the victim a financial loss.

כשפוסקין בית דין על המזיק ומחייבין אותו לשלם גובין ממנו הכל מיד ואין [ב] קובעין לו זמן כלל. ואם נתחייב בבושת בלבד קובעין לו זמן לשלם שהרי לא חסרו ממון:

Chovel uMazzik - Chapter Three

How is the assessment for embarrassment evaluated? Everything depends on the character of the person who causes the embarrassment and that of the one who is embarrassed. For the embarrassment caused by a child cannot be compared to the embarrassment caused by a respected adult, since the embarrassment caused by the ignoble one is greater.

כיצד משערין הבושת. הכל לפי המבייש והמתבייש. אינו דומה מתבייש מן הקטן למתבייש מאדם גדול ומכובד שזה שביישו זה הקל בשתו מרובה:

A person who embarrasses someone who is naked, or who is in the bathhouse is not liable. If the wind blew and raised a person's clothes up against his face, revealing his nakedness, and then another person removed more of his garments, the latter is liable for causing embarrassment. Nevertheless, the embarrassment caused to this person whose nakedness was revealed cannot be compared to the embarrassment of a person who was not naked at all.

Similarly, if a person lifted up his clothes to go down to a river or to ascend from a river, and another person embarrassed him, that person is liable. Nevertheless, the embarrassment caused to this person cannot be compared to the embarrassment of a person who was fully clothed.

המבייש את הערום או מי שהוא במרחץ [א] פטור. נשבה הרוח והפכה שוליו על פניו והרי הוא ערום והוסיף זה בהפשטתו חייב בבושת ואינו דומה מבייש את זה שנעשה ערום למבייש את שאינו ערום. וכן אם הגביה בגדיו לירד לנהר או שעלה מן הנהר וביישו חייב. ואינו דומה מבייש זה למבייש את המכוסה בבגדיו:

When a person embarrasses a colleague who is sleeping, he is liable for the embarrassment he caused. If the person died in his sleep and never became aware that this person had embarrassed him, the assessment for embarrassment should not be expropriated from the person who caused the embarrassment. If, however, the embarrassed person's heirs seized this amount from the property of the person who caused the embarrassment, it is not expropriated from them.

המבייש את הישן חייב בבושת. ואם מת בתוך שנתו ולא הקיץ ולא הרגיש בזה שביישו אין גובין בושת זה מן המבייש. ואם תפשו היורשין אין מוציאין מידן:

A person who embarrasses a mentally incompetent person is not liable. A person who embarrasses a deaf mute is liable.

A person who embarrasses a convert or a servant is liable. The following rules apply when a person embarrasses a minor: If the minor becomes embarrassed when he is shamed, the person is liable. If the minor does not feel the shame, the other person is not liable.

Even when he is liable, the liability for embarrassing a minor cannot be compared to the liability for embarrassing an adult, nor can that required for embarrassing a servant be compared to that required for embarrassing a free man, nor can that required for embarrassing a deaf mute be compared to that required for embarrassing a mentally competent person.

המבייש את השוטה פטור. והמבייש את החרש חייב. המבייש את הגר או את העבד חייב. המבייש את הקטן אם כשמכלימין אותו נכלם חייב ואם לאו פטור. ומכל מקום אינו דומה המבייש את הקטן למבייש את הגדול. ולא ב המבייש את העבד למבייש את בן חורין. ולא מבייש חרש למבייש פקח:

When a person embarrasses a colleague with words, or he spits on his clothing, he is not liable for a financial penalty. The court should, however, impose appropriate restraints concerning such matters in every place and time.

If a person embarrasses a Torah scholar, he is liable to pay him for the full measure of embarrassment, even though he embarrassed him only by verbal abuse. The rule has already been ordained that anyone who embarrasses a Torah scholar, even with mere verbal abuse, is penalized and is required to pay 35 gold dinarim - i.e., the weight of 8 and 3/4 sela'im. It is an accepted tradition, that this penalty is exacted in all places, in Eretz Yisrael and in the diaspora.

המבייש את חבירו בדברים או שרקק על בגדיו פטור מן התשלומין. ויש לבית דין לגדור בדבר בכל מקום ובכל זמן כפי שיראו. ואם בייש תלמיד חכם חייב לשלם לו בושת שלימה אע"פ שלא ביישו אלא בדברים [ב] כבר נפסק הדין ג שכל המבייש תלמיד חכם אפילו בדברים קונסין אותו וגובין ממנו [ג] משקל שלשים וחמשה דינר מן הזהב שהוא משקל תשע סלעים פחות רביע וקבלה היא בידינו שגובין קנס זה בכל מקום בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ:

There have continually been instances of this in our community in Spain. There are some scholars who have waived this payment, and this is praiseworthy of them. There are those who demand payment and reach a compromise. The judges, however, tell the person who caused the embarrassment: "You are obligated to pay him a pound of gold."

מעשים היו אצלנו תמיד בכך בספרד ויש תלמידי חכמים שהיו מוחלין על זה וכך נאה להם. ויש שתובע ועושין פשרה ביניהן. אבל הדיינים היו אומרין למבייש חייב אתה ליתן לו ליטרא זהב:

Although a person who embarrasses someone else verbally is not liable for a financial payment, it is a grave sin. Only a wicked and foolish person abuses and insults people. The Sages of the earlier generations said: "Whoever embarrasses a proper Jewish person in public with words does not have a share in the world to come."

אע"פ שהמבייש שאר העם בדברים פטור מן התשלומין עון גדול הוא. ואינו מחרף ומגדף לעם אלא רשע שוטה. ואמרו חכמים הראשונים שכל המלבין פני אדם כשר מישראל בדברים אין לו חלק לעולם הבא:

There are many types of blows that involve embarrassment and a small amount of pain, but no permanent damage. Our Sages have already ordained specific payments for these types of blows. Whoever strikes a colleague with one of these blows must pay this specified amount. These are all considered k'nasot.

The specific amount that the person must pay is the assessment for pain, embarrassment, medical attention and unemployment. Whether or not the injured requires medical attention and loses employment, this is the amount that must be paid.

יש הכאות רבות שיש בהן ביזוי וצער מעט ואין בהן נזק. וכבר פסקו להם חכמים דמים קצובים. וכל המכה לחבירו הכאה מהן משלם אותו הממון [ד] הקצוב וכולן קנסות הן. ואותו הממון הקצוב הוא דמי הצער והבושת והריפוי והשבת. בין צריך לרפואה ושבת בין לא צריך כזה הוא [ה] משלם:

How much must be paid? A person who kicks a colleague with his foot must pay five sela'im. If he butts him with his knee, he must pay three sela'im. If he hits him with a fist, he must pay thirteen sela'im. If he slams his colleague with his palm, he must pay a sela. If he slaps him in the face, he must pay fifty sela'im. If he slaps him in the face with the back of his hand, he must pay 100 sela'im.

Similarly, if he twists his ear, pulls his hair, spits at him and the spittle touches his body, removes a man's garment or a woman's head covering, he must pay 100 sela'im.

He must pay this amount for every blow he gives. What is implied? If he kicks his colleague four times - even if he kicks him in immediate succession, he must pay him twenty sela'im. If he slaps him in the face twice, he must pay him 100 sela'im. The same rule applies with regard to the other payments.

וכמה הוא משלם. א הבועט בחבירו ברגלו משלם חמש סלעים. הכהו בארכובתו משלם שלש סלעים. קבץ אצבעותיו כמו אוגד אגודה [ו] והכהו בידו כשהיא אגודה משלם שלש עשרה סלעים. [ז] תקע את חבירו בכפו משלם [ח] סלע. סטרו על פניו משלם חמשים סלעים. סטרו מאחורי ידו משלם מאה סלע. וכן אם צירם באזנו או תלש בשערו או שרקק והגיעו [הרוק בבשרו או העביר טלית מעליו ופרע ראש האשה] משלם מאה סלע. וכזה הוא משלם על כל מעשה ומעשה. כיצד כגון שבעט בחבירו ארבע בעיטות אפילו זו אחר זו משלם עשרים סלעים. סטרו על פניו שתי סטירות משלם מאה סלע וכן בשאר:

All the sela'im mentioned in this context refer to the silver coins used in Eretz Yisrael at that time. Every selawas composed of half a dinar of pure silver and three and a half dinarim of copper. Therefore, if a person became liable to pay a colleague 100 sela'im because of such blows, he is liable to pay him twelve and a half sela'im of pure silver.

כל אלו הסלעים הם מכסף ארץ ישראל באותו הזמן. שהיה בכל סלע [ט] חצי דינר כסף ושלשה דינרין ומחצה נחשת. לפיכך מי שנתחייב בהכאות אלו לשלם מאה סלע הרי זה משלם שתים עשרה סלע ומחצה כסף נקי:

When are these assessments imposed? When a distinguished person is involved. If, however, an ignoble person is involved - one who is not particular about these things or the like - he receives only the amount of money that is appropriate for him, as assessed by the judges.

For there are base people who are not concerned with being shamed and will demean themselves in any humiliating manner for foolishness and frivolity, or to receive a p'rutah from the fools who jest with them.

יא

במה דברים אמורים במכובד אבל אדם שהוא מבוזה ואינו מקפיד בכל אלו הדברים וכיוצא בהן אינו נוטל אלא לפי מה שראוי לו וכמו שיראו הדיינים שהוא ראוי [י] ליטול. לפי שיש בני אדם כעורין שאין מקפידין על בושתם וכל היום מבזים עצמן בכל מיני ביזוי דרך שחוק וקלות ראש או כדי ליטול פרוטה אחת מן הלצים המשחקים עמהם:

Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class

Daily Study: Hayom Yom

VIDEO & AUDIO CLASSES

Moshe Steiner - Reflections on "Hayom Yom": Sivan 26 (6:03)
Watch Listen Download

EnglishHebrew

Tuesday	Sivan 26	5703
Torah lessons:	Chumash: Korach, Shlishi with Rashi.
	Tehillim: 119, 97 to end.
	Tanya: And this is also (p. 315)...in actual reality. (p. 317).

"They went down to the pit alive"1 - even in the grave they think they are alive.

There is a blessing contained in "They went down to the pit alive," as with "the sons of Korach did not die,"2 - "a place was established for them3 and they repented." For teshuva, repentance, is effective only while one is still alive. This, then, is the blessing - that even in the pit they will live, and they will be able to effect teshuva.

Compiled and arranged by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 5703 (1943) from the talks and letters of the sixth Chabad Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, of righteous memory.

FOOTNOTES

Bamidbar 16:30.

Ibid. 26:11.

In Gehinom ("the pit," Purgatory for the soul); Megilla 14a. See Supplementary Footnotes.

***

Missionary Renegade