TODAY IN JUDAISM: Tammuz 10, 5778 - Shabbat, June 23, 2018 Chabad.org Calendar ב"ה Today in Judaism

View Online ב"ה

Today in Judaism

TODAY IN JUDAISM: Tammuz 10, 5778 - Shabbat, June 23, 2018 
Chabad.org Calendar ב"ה  Today in Judaism
Today is Shabbat, Tammuz 10, 5778 · June 23, 2018
Today's Laws & Customs
• Ethics of the Fathers: Chapter 5
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 Five.
Link: Ethics of the Fathers, Chapter 5
Today in Jewish History
• King Zedekiah captured (423 BCE)
When the Babylonians breached the walls of Jerusalem on the 9th of Tammuz, King Zedekiah fled the city. He was captured by Babylonian troops in the plains of Jericho on the 10th of Tammuz and was taken to King Nebuchadnezzar, who forced him to witness the slaughter of his sons, and then ordered his eyes gouged out.
Links:
Zedekiah - The Last King of Israel
The Destruction of the First Holy Temple
Daily Torah StudyChumash: Chukat, 7th Portion Numbers 21:21-22:1 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation
• Video Class
• Daily Wisdom (short insight)

Numbers Chapter 21

21Israel sent messengers to Sihon the king of the Amorites, saying:		כאוַיִּשְׁלַ֤ח יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ מַלְאָכִ֔ים אֶל־סִיחֹ֥ן מֶֽלֶךְ־הָֽאֱמֹרִ֖י לֵאמֹֽר:
Israel sent messengers: Elsewhere, the sending [of messengers] is ascribed to Moses, as it says, “So I sent messengers from the desert of Kedemoth” (Deut. 2:26). Similarly, “Moses sent messengers to the king of Edom…” (above. 20: 14), but concerning Jephthah it says, “Israel sent messengers to the king of Edom…” (Jud. 11:17). These verses supplement each other; one holds back [information by not informing us who authorized the sending of the messengers] and the other reveals [that Moses sent them]. Moses is Israel, and Israel is Moses, to teach you that the leader of the generation is equal to the entire generation, because the leader is everything. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 23, Num. Rabbah 19:28]		וישלח ישראל מלאכים: ובמקום אחר תולה השליחות במשה, שנאמר (דברים ב, כו) ואשלח מלאכים ממדבר קדמות, וכן (במדבר כ, יד) וישלח משה מלאכים מקדש אל מלך אדום, וביפתח הוא אומר (שופטים יא, יז) וישלח ישראל מלאכים אל מלך אדום וגו', הכתובים הללו צריכים זה לזה, זה נועל וזה פותח, שמשה הוא ישראל וישראל הם משה, לומר לך שנשיא הדור הוא ככל הדור, כי הנשיא הוא הכל:
22"Let me pass through your land. We will not turn into fields or vineyards, nor drink well water. We shall walk along the king's road, until we have passed through your territory."		כבאֶעְבְּרָ֣ה בְאַרְצֶ֗ךָ לֹ֤א נִטֶּה֙ בְּשָׂדֶ֣ה וּבְכֶ֔רֶם לֹ֥א נִשְׁתֶּ֖ה מֵ֣י בְאֵ֑ר בְּדֶ֤רֶךְ הַמֶּ֨לֶךְ֙ נֵלֵ֔ךְ עַ֥ד אֲשֶׁר־נַֽעֲבֹ֖ר גְּבֻלֶֽךָ:
Let me pass through your land: Even though they were not commanded to offer them peace, they nevertheless sought peace from them. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 22, Num. Rabbah 19:27]		אעברה בארצך: אף על פי שלא נצטוו לפתוח להם בשלום בקשו מהם שלום:
23But Sihon did not permit Israel to pass through his territory, and Sihon gathered all his people and went out to the desert toward Israel. He arrived at Jahaz and fought against Israel.		כגוְלֹֽא־נָתַ֨ן סִיחֹ֥ן אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל֘ עֲבֹ֣ר בִּגְבֻלוֹ֒ וַיֶּֽאֱסֹ֨ף סִיחֹ֜ן אֶת־כָּל־עַמּ֗וֹ וַיֵּצֵ֞א לִקְרַ֤את יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ הַמִּדְבָּ֔רָה וַיָּבֹ֖א יָ֑הְצָה וַיִּלָּ֖חֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵֽל:
But Sihon did not permit: Since all the Canaanite kings paid him tribute for protecting them against marauding armies, when Israel said to him, “Let me pass through your land,” he said to them, “My very presence is only to protect them from you, so how can you suggest such a thing?” - [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 23, Num. Rabbah 19:29]		ולא נתן סיחון וגו': לפי שכל מלכי כנען היו מעלין לו מס שהיה שומרם שלא יעברו עליהם גייסות, כיון שאמרו לו ישראל אעברה בארצך אמר להם כל עצמי איני יושב כאן אלא לשמרם מפניכם ואתם אומרים כך:
went out… toward Israel: Had Heshbon been full of gnats, no creature could have conquered it, and had Sihon been [living in] a weak village, no man could have conquered it. How much more so [was it invincible] since he [Sihon] was in Heshbon. The Holy One, blessed is He, said, “Why should I trouble My children to besiege every city?” He gave all the warriors the idea to leave the cities, and they all gathered in one place, where they were slain. From there Israel proceeded to the cities, where there met with no opposition, since only women and children were [left] there. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 23, Num. Rabbah 19:29]		ויצא לקראת ישראל: אילו היתה חשבון מלאה יתושין, אין כל בריה יכולה לכבשה, ואם היה סיחון בכפר חלש אין כל אדם יכול לכבשו, וכל שכן אלו שהיה בחשבון. אמר הקב"ה מה אני מטריח על בני כל זאת לצור על כל עיר ועיר, נתן בלב כל אנשי המלחמה לצאת מן העיירות ונתקבצו כולם למקום אחד, ושם נפלו. ומשם הלכו ישראל אל הערים ואין עומד לנגדם כי אין שם איש, אלא נשים וטף:
24Israel smote him with the sword, and took possession of his land from Arnon to Jabbok, as far as the children of Ammon, for the border of the children of Ammon was strong.		כדוַיַּכֵּ֥הוּ יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לְפִי־חָ֑רֶב וַיִּירַ֨שׁ אֶת־אַרְצ֜וֹ מֵֽאַרְנֹ֗ן עַד־יַבֹּק֙ עַד־בְּנֵ֣י עַמּ֔וֹן כִּ֣י עַ֔ז גְּב֖וּל בְּנֵ֥י עַמּֽוֹן:
for…strong: What was its strength? The warning of the Holy One, blessed is He, Who said to them [Israel],“neither distress them [Ammon]” (Deut. 2:19). - [Mid. Aggadah]		כי עז: ומהו חזקו, התראתו של הקב"ה, שאמר להם (דברים ב, יט) אל תצורם וגו':
25Israel took all these cities, and the Israelites dwelt in all the cities of the Amorites, in Heshbon and all its villages.		כהוַיִּקַּח֙ יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֵ֥ת כָּל־הֶֽעָרִ֖ים הָאֵ֑לֶּה וַיֵּ֤שֶׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בְּכָל־עָרֵ֣י הָֽאֱמֹרִ֔י בְּחֶשְׁבּ֖וֹן וּבְכָל־בְּנֹתֶֽיהָ:
its villages: Heb. בְּנֹתֶיהָ, lit. her daughters, the villages near it.		בנתיה: כפרים הסמוכים לה:
26For Heshbon was the city of Sihon, king of the Amorites, and he had fought against the first king of Moab, taking all his land from his possession, as far as Arnon.		כוכִּ֣י חֶשְׁבּ֔וֹן עִ֗יר סִיחֹ֛ן מֶ֥לֶךְ הָֽאֱמֹרִ֖י הִ֑וא וְה֣וּא נִלְחַ֗ם בְּמֶ֤לֶךְ מוֹאָב֙ הָֽרִאשׁ֔וֹן וַיִּקַּ֧ח אֶת־כָּל־אַרְצ֛וֹ מִיָּד֖וֹ עַד־אַרְנֹֽן:
and he had fought: Why was it necessary to write this? For it says,“Do not distress the Moabites” (Deut. 2:9), and Heshbon belonged to Moab, Scripture writes that Sihon had taken it from them, and through him it was made permissible for Israel. — [Chul. 60b]		והוא נלחם: למה הוצרך להכתב, לפי שנאמר (דברים ב, ט) אל תצר את מואב, וחשבון משל מואב היתה, כתב לנו שסיחון לקחה מהם ועל ידו טהרה לישראל:
from his possession: Heb. מִיָּדוֹ, lit. from his hand, [meaning] from his possession. — [B.M. 56b]		מידו: מרשותו:
27Concerning this, those who speak in parables say, "Come to Heshbon, may it be built and established as the city of Sihon.		כזעַל־כֵּ֛ן יֹֽאמְר֥וּ הַמּֽשְׁלִ֖ים בֹּ֣אוּ חֶשְׁבּ֑וֹן תִּבָּנֶ֥ה וְתִכּוֹנֵ֖ן עִ֥יר סִיחֽוֹן:
Concerning this: Concerning that war, which Sihon waged against Moab.		על כן: על אותה מלחמה שנלחם סיחון במואב:
those who speak in parables say: [This refers to] Balaam, about whom it says, “He took up his parable” (23:7).		יאמרו המשלים: בלעם, שנאמר בו (במדבר כג, ז) וישא משלו:
those who tell parables: Balaam and [his father] Beor. They said…. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 24, Num. Rabbah 19:30]		המשלים: בלעם ובעור. והם אמרו:
Come to Heshbon: because Sihon could not conquer it. So he went and hired Balaam to curse it. This is what Balak [meant when he] said to him,“For I know that whoever you bless is blessed” (22:6). - [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 24, Balak 4, Num. Rabbah 19:30, 20:7, Mid. Aggadah]		באו חשבון: שלא היה סיחון יכול לכבשה והלך ושכר את בלעם לקללו, וזהו שאמר לו בלק (שם כב, ו) כי ידעתי את אשר תברך מבורך וגו':
built and established: Heshbon under the name of Sihon, to be his city.		תבנה ותכונן: חשבון בשם סיחון להיות עירו:
28For fire went forth from Heshbon, a flame from the city of Sihon; it consumed Ar of Moab, the masters of the high places of Arnon.		כחכִּי־אֵשׁ֙ יָֽצְאָ֣ה מֵֽחֶשְׁבּ֔וֹן לֶֽהָבָ֖ה מִקִּרְיַ֣ת סִיחֹ֑ן אָֽכְלָה֙ עָ֣ר מוֹאָ֔ב בַּֽעֲלֵ֖י בָּמ֥וֹת אַרְנֹֽן:
For a fire went forth from Heshbon: After Sihon had conquered it.		כי אש יצאה מחשבון: משכבשה סיחון:
it consumed Ar of Moab: The name of that country was called Ar in Hebrew, and Lechayath in Aramaic. — [Onkelos]		אכלה ער מואב: שם אותה המדינה קרוי ער בלשון עברי, ולחיית בלשון ארמי:
Ar of Moab: Heb. עָר מוֹאָב, Ar, which belonged to Moab. — [Onkelos]		ער מואב: ער של מואב:
29Woe is to you, Moab; you are lost, people of Chemosh. His sons he has given over as refugees and his daughters into captivity, to Sihon, king of the Amorites.		כטאֽוֹי־לְךָ֣ מוֹאָ֔ב אָבַ֖דְתָּ עַם־כְּמ֑וֹשׁ נָתַ֨ן בָּנָ֤יו פְּלֵיטִם֙ וּבְנֹתָ֣יו בַּשְּׁבִ֔ית לְמֶ֥לֶךְ אֱמֹרִ֖י סִיחֽוֹן:
Woe is to you, Moab: [Meaning] that they cursed Moab that it be delivered into his hand. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 24, Num. Rabbah 19:30]		אוי לך מואב: שקללו את מואב שימסרו בידו:
Chemosh: The name of Moab’s god. — [I Kings 11:7]		כמוש: שם אלהי מואב:
He has given over: The one who has given over his sons, that is, [not his own sons but] the sons of Moab.		נתן: הנותן את בניו של מואב:
refugees: who flee and escape the sword, and his daughters into captivity, etc.		פליטם: נסים ופליטים מחרב ואת בנותיו בשבית וגו':
30Their kingdom is destroyed from Heshbon; it has been removed from Dibon; we laid them waste as far as Nophah which is near Medeba."		לוַנִּירָ֛ם אָבַ֥ד חֶשְׁבּ֖וֹן עַד־דִּיבֹ֑ן וַנַּשִּׁ֣ים עַד־נֹ֔פַח אֲשֶׁ֖ר עַד־מֵֽידְבָֽא:
Their kingdom: Heb. וַנִּירָם, their kingdom.		ונירם: מלכות שלהם:
is destroyed from Heshbon, it has been removed from Dibon: The kingdom and dominion that Moab had over Heshbon terminated from there. Similarly, עַד דִּיבֹן -the Targum of סַר ‘removed’ is עַד, that is to say, the kingdom was removed from Dibon. [The word] נִיר is a term denoting kingship and dominion [resulting from] the rule of man, as in “so that there be dominion for David My servant” (I Kings 11:36). - [Onkelos]		אבד חשבון עד דיבון: מלכות ועול שהיה למואב בחשבון אבד משם, וכן עד דיבון. תרגום של סר עד, כלומר סר ניר מדיבון. ניר לשון מלכות ועול וממשלת איש, כמו (מלכים א' יא, לו) למען היות ניר לדוד עבדי:
we laid them waste: Heb. וַנַּשִּׁים. The [letter] Heb. שׁ is punctuated with a dagesh [thus indicating a missing “mem,”], denoting ‘waste’ Heb. (שְׁמָמָה). Thus say those who tell parables: וַנַּשִּׁים אוֹתָם עַד נֹפַח, “we laid them waste as far as Nophah.”		ונשים: שי"ן דגושה לשון שממה, כך יאמר המושלים ונשים אותם:
31Israel settled in the land of the Amorites.		לאוַיֵּ֨שֶׁב֙ יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל בְּאֶ֖רֶץ הָֽאֱמֹרִֽי:
32Moses sent [men] to spy out Jaazer and they captured its villages, driving out the Amorites who lived there.		לבוַיִּשְׁלַ֤ח משֶׁה֙ לְרַגֵּ֣ל אֶת־יַעְזֵ֔ר וַיִּלְכְּד֖וּ בְּנֹתֶ֑יהָ וַיּ֖וֹרֶשׁ (כתיב ויירש) אֶת־הָֽאֱמֹרִ֥י אֲשֶׁר־שָֽׁם:
Moses sent [men] to spy out Jaazer: The spies captured it. They said, We shall not do like the first group. We have [such] confidence in the power of Moses’ prayer that we are able to do battle. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 24, Num. Rabbah 19:31]		וישלח משה לרגל את יעזר: המרגלים לכדוה. אמרו לא נעשה כראשונים, בטוחים אנו בכח תפלתו של משה להלחם:
33Then they turned and headed north toward the Bashan. Og, the king of Bashan, came out toward them with all his people, to wage war at Edrei.		לגוַיִּפְנוּ֙ וַיַּֽעֲל֔וּ דֶּ֖רֶךְ הַבָּשָׁ֑ן וַיֵּצֵ֣א עוֹג֩ מֶֽלֶךְ־הַבָּשָׁ֨ן לִקְרָאתָ֜ם ה֧וּא וְכָל־עַמּ֛וֹ לַמִּלְחָמָ֖ה אֶדְרֶֽעִי:
34The Lord said to Moses, "Do not fear him, for I have delivered him, his people, and his land into your hand. You shall do to him as you did to Sihon the king of the Amorites who dwells in Heshbon.		לדוַיֹּ֨אמֶר יְהֹוָ֤ה אֶל־משֶׁה֙ אַל־תִּירָ֣א אֹת֔וֹ כִּ֣י בְיָֽדְךָ֞ נָתַ֧תִּי אֹת֛וֹ וְאֶת־כָּל־עַמּ֖וֹ וְאֶת־אַרְצ֑וֹ וְעָשִׂ֣יתָ לּ֔וֹ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשִׂ֗יתָ לְסִיחֹן֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ הָֽאֱמֹרִ֔י אֲשֶׁ֥ר יוֹשֵׁ֖ב בְּחֶשְׁבּֽוֹן:
Do not fear him: Moses was afraid to fight [against him] lest the merit of Abraham advocate for him, as it says, “The refugee came” (Gen. 14:13) -this was Og who had escaped from the Rephaim, who were smitten by Chedorlaomer and his allies at Ashteroth Karnaim, as it says, “only Og, the king of Bashan, was left of the remnant of the Rephaim” (Deut. 3:11). - [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 24, Num. Rabbah 19:32]		אל תירא אותו: שהיה משה ירא להלחם, שמא תעמוד לו זכותו של אברהם, שנאמר (בראשית יד, יג) ויבא הפליט, הוא עוג, שפלט מן הרפאים שהכו כדרלעומר וחביריו בעשתרות קרנים, שנאמר (דברים ג, יא) כי רק עוג מלך הבשן נשאר מיתר הרפאים:
35They smote him, his sons and all his people, until there was no survivor, and they took possession of his land.		להוַיַּכּ֨וּ אֹת֤וֹ וְאֶת־בָּנָיו֙ וְאֶת־כָּל־עַמּ֔וֹ עַד־בִּלְתִּ֥י הִשְׁאִֽיר־ל֖וֹ שָׂרִ֑יד וַיִּֽירְשׁ֖וּ אֶת־אַרְצֽוֹ:
They smote him: Moses slew him, as it says in [Tractate] Berachoth, in [the chapter beginning] Haroeh (54b): He uprooted a mountain of three parasangs [intending to throw it at the Israelites and crush them]….		ויכו אותו: משה הרגו, כדאיתא בברכות בהרואה (דף נד ב) עקר טורא בת תלתא פרסי וכו':

Numbers Chapter 22

1The children of Israel journeyed and encamped in the plains of Moab, across the Jordan from Jericho.

אוַיִּסְע֖וּ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וַיַּֽחֲנוּ֙ בְּעַרְב֣וֹת מוֹאָ֔ב מֵעֵ֖בֶר לְיַרְדֵּ֥ן יְרֵחֽוֹ:

Tehillim: Chapters 55 - 59
• Hebrew text
• English text

Chapter 55

David composed this psalm upon escaping from Jerusalem in the face of the slanderers, Doeg and Achitofel, who had declared him deserving of death. David had considered Achitofel a friend and accorded him the utmost honor, but Achitofel betrayed him and breached their covenant. David curses all his enemies, so that all generations should "know, and sin no more."

1. For the Conductor, with instrumental music, a maskil by David.

2. Listen to my prayer, O God, do not hide from my pleas.

3. Pay heed to me and answer me, as I lament in my distress and moan -

4. because of the shout of the enemy and the oppression of the wicked; for they accuse me of evil and hate me passionately.

5. My heart shudders within me, and the terrors of death have descended upon me.

6. Fear and trembling penetrate me, and I am enveloped with horror.

7. And I said, "If only I had wings like the dove! I would fly off and find rest.

8. Behold, I would wander afar, and lodge in the wilderness forever.

9. I would hurry to find shelter for myself from the stormy wind, from the tempest.”

10. Consume, O Lord, confuse their tongue; for I have seen violence and strife in the city.1

11. Day and night they encircle her upon her walls, and iniquity and vice are in her midst.

12. Treachery is within her; fraud and deceit never depart from her square.

13. For it is not the enemy who taunts me-that I could bear; nor my foe who raises himself against me, that I could hide from him.

14. But it is you, a man of my equal, my guide and my intimate.

15. Together we took sweet counsel; we walked with the throng to the house of God.

16. May He incite death upon them, let them descend to the pit alive; for there is evil in their dwelling, within them.

17. As for me, I call to God, and the Lord will save me.

18. Evening, morning and noon, I lament and moan-and He hears my voice.

19. He redeemed my soul in peace from battles against me, because of the many who were with me.

20. May God-He who is enthroned from the days of old, Selah-hear and humble those in whom there is no change, and who do not fear God.

21. He extended his hands against his allies, he profaned his covenant.

22. Smoother than butter are the words of his mouth, but war is in his heart; his words are softer than oil, yet they are curses.

23. Cast your burden upon the Lord, and He will sustain you; He will never let the righteous man falter.

24. And You, O God, will bring them down to the nethermost pit; bloodthirsty and treacherous men shall not live out half their days; but I will trust in You.

FOOTNOTES

1.

Jerusalem.

Chapter 56

David composed this psalm while in mortal danger at the palace of Achish, brother of Goliath. In his distress David accepts vows upon himself.

1. For the Conductor, of the mute dove1 far away. By David, a michtam, 2 when the Philistines seized him in Gath.

2. Favor me, O God, for man longs to swallow me; the warrior oppresses me every day.

3. My watchful enemies long to swallow me every day, for many battle me, O Most High!

4. On the day I am afraid, I trust in You.

5. [I trust] in God and praise His word; in God I trust, I do not fear-what can [man of] flesh do to me?

6. Every day they make my words sorrowful; all their thoughts about me are for evil.

7. They gather and hide, they watch my steps, when they hope [to capture] my soul.

8. Should escape be theirs in reward for their iniquity? Cast down the nations in anger, O God!

9. You have counted my wanderings; place my tears in Your flask-are they not in Your record?

10. When my enemies will retreat on the day I cry out, with this I will know that God is with me.

11. When God deals strictly, I praise His word; when the Lord deals mercifully, I praise His word.

12. In God I trust, I do not fear-what can man do to me?

13. My vows to You are upon me, O God; I will repay with thanksgiving offerings to You.

14. For You saved my soul from death-even my feet from stumbling-to walk before God in the light of life.

FOOTNOTES

1.

David having fled from Jerusalem, is silenced by fear (Rashi/Metzudot).

2.

A psalm that was especially precious to David

Chapter 57

David composed this psalm while hiding from Saul in a cave, facing grave danger. Like Jacob did when confronted with Esau, David prayed that he neither be killed nor be forced to kill. In the merit of his trust in God, God wrought wonders to save him.

1. For the Conductor, a plea to be spared destruction. By David, a michtam, when he fled from Saul in the cave.

2. Favor me, O God, favor me, for in You my soul took refuge, and in the shadow of Your wings I will take refuge until the disaster passes.

3. I will call to God the Most High; to the Almighty Who fulfills [His promise] to me.

4. He will send from heaven, and save me from the humiliation of those who long to swallow me, Selah; God will send forth His kindness and truth.

5. My soul is in the midst of lions, I lie among fiery men; their teeth are spears and arrows, their tongue a sharp sword.

6. Be exalted above the heavens, O God; let Your glory be upon all the earth.

7. They laid a trap for my steps, they bent down my soul; they dug a pit before me, [but] they themselves fell into it, Selah.

8. My heart is steadfast, O God, my heart is steadfast; I will sing and chant praise.

9. Awake, my soul! Awake, O harp and lyre! I shall awaken the dawn.

10. I will thank You among the nations, my Lord; I will praise You among the peoples.

11. For Your kindness reaches till the heavens, Your truth till the skies.

12. Be exalted above the heavens, O God; let Your glory be over all the earth.

Chapter 58

David expresses the anguish caused him by Avner and his other enemies, who justified Saul's pursuit of him.

1. For the Conductor, a plea to be spared destruction; by David, a michtam.

2. Is it true that you are mute [instead of] speaking justice? [Instead of] judging men with fairness?

3. Even with your heart you wreak injustice upon the land; you justify the violence of your hands.

4. The wicked are estranged from the womb; from birth do the speakers of falsehood stray.

5. Their venom is like the venom of a snake; like the deaf viper that closes its ear

6. so as not to hear the voice of charmers, [even] the most skillful caster of spells.

7. O God, smash their teeth in their mouth; shatter the fangs of the young lions, O Lord.

8. Let them melt like water and disappear; when He aims His arrows, may they crumble.

9. Like the snail that melts as it goes along, like the stillbirth of a woman-they never see the sun.

10. Before your tender shoots know [to become] hardened thorns, He will blast them away, as one [uprooting] with vigor and wrath.

11. The righteous one will rejoice when he sees revenge; he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked.

12. And man will say, "There is indeed reward for the righteous; indeed there is a God Who judges in the land."

Chapter 59

This psalm speaks of the great miracle David experienced when he eluded danger by escaping through a window, unnoticed by the guards at the door. The prayers, supplications, and entreaties he offered then are recorded here.

1. For the Conductor, a plea to be spared destruction, By David, a michtam, when Saul dispatched [men], and they guarded the house in order to kill him.

2. Rescue me from my enemies, my God; raise me above those who rise against me.

3. Rescue me from evildoers, save me from men of bloodshed.

4. For behold they lie in ambush for my soul, mighty ones gather against me-not because of my sin nor my transgression, O Lord.

5. Without iniquity [on my part,] they run and prepare-awaken towards me and see!

6. And You, Lord, God of Hosts, God of Israel, wake up to remember all the nations; do not grant favor to any of the iniquitous traitors, Selah.

7. They return toward evening, they howl like the dog and circle the city.

8. Behold, they spew with their mouths, swords are in their lips, for [they say], "Who hears?”

9. But You, Lord, You laugh at them; You mock all nations.

10. [Because of] his might, I wait for You, for God is my stronghold.

11. The God of my kindness will anticipate my [need]; God will show me [the downfall] of my watchful foes.

12. Do not kill them, lest my nation forget; drive them about with Your might and impoverish them, O our Shield, my Master,

13. [for] the sin of their mouth, the word of their lips; let them be trapped by their arrogance. At the sight of their accursed state and deterioration, [people] will recount.

14. Consume them in wrath, consume them and they will be no more; and they will know that God rules in Jacob, to the ends of the earth, Selah.

15. And they will return toward evening, they will howl like the dog and circle the city.

16. They will wander about to eat; when they will not be sated they will groan.

17. As for me, I shall sing of Your might, and sing joyously of Your kindness toward morning, for You have been a stronghold to me, a refuge on the day of my distress.

18. [You are] my strength, to You I will sing, for God is my stronghold, the God of my kindness.Tanya: Igeret HaTeshuva, beginning of Chapter 3• English Text (Lessons in Tanya)

• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class

LESSONS IN TANYA: Shabbat, June 23, 2018

Chabad.org Daily

to me
8 hours ago

Details

ב"ה

Lessons In Tanya

Tammuz 10, 5778 · June 23, 2018 Today's Tanya Lesson Igeret HaTeshuva , beginning of Chapter 3 AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES     • VIDEO CLASS: Rabbi Yehoshua B. Gordon   Watch• Listen   • AUDIO CLASS: Rabbi Manis Freidman   Listen •Download MP3 Though fasting is not at all necessary for attaining atonement, it was explained above that nevertheless it has a salutary effect as a substitute for the olahoffering. In Temple times this sacrifice was offered (even) for transgressing a positive command, in order to make the former offender once again acceptable and beloved of G‑d. Accordingly, theAriZal derived from theKabbalah the number of fasts to be undertaken for numerous transgressions, even those that are not subject to the punishment of excision or death by Divine decree. והנה חכמי המוסר האחרונים נחלקו במי שחטא חטא אחד פעמים רבות The latter Mussarsages — those who lived after the Ari — were divided in their opinions about one who repeated a sin many times. דיש אומרים שצריך להתענות מספר הצומות לאותו חטא פעמים רבות, כפי המספר אשר חטא Some contend that he must fast the number of fasts appropriate to that sin according to the number of transgressions. כגון המוציא זרע לבטלה, שמספר הצומות המפורש בתיקוני תשובה מהאריז״ל הן פ״ד תעניות For example, the number of fasts prescribed in the penances of the AriZalfor wasteful emission of semen is eighty-four. ואם חטא בזה עשר או עשרים פעמים, על דרך משל, צריך להתענות עשר או עשרים פעמים פ״ד If someone commits this sin ten or twenty times, say, he must fast ten or twenty times eighty-four, and so on in all instances. דומיא דקרבן חטאת, שחייב להביא על כל פעם ופעם This is comparable to the chatat offering(Note of the Rebbe: “i.e., allthe chatat offerings”)required for every instance of violation. ויש מדמין ענין זה לקרבן עולה, הבאה על מצות עשה Others compare these fasts to the olahoffering brought for neglect of a positive command.1 דאפילו עבר על כמה מצוות עשה, מתכפר בעולה אחת, כדאיתא בגמרא, פרק קמא דזבחים The violation of a number of positive commands is atoned for and the individual finds favor in G‑d’s eyesby one olah, as theTalmud explains in Tractate Zevachim, ch. 1.2 והכרעה המקובלת בזה להתענות ג׳ פעמים כפי מספר הצומות דחטא זה, דהיינו רנ״ב צומות על הוצאות שכבת זרע לבטלה, וכן בשאר חטאים ועונות The accepted decision in this dispute is to undertake three times the number of fasts prescribed for that particular sin, i.e., 252 fasts (three times eighty-four) for wasteful emission, and similarly for other sinsoft repeated. והטעם הוא על פי מה שכתוב בזוהר הקדוש, סוף פרשת נח: כיון דחב בר נש קמיה קודשא בריך הוא, זמנא חדא עביד רשימו כו׳ This is based on a teaching in the Zohar,at the end of Parshat Noach:3 “As soon as mortal man sins once against the Holy One, blessed be He, he makes an impression [Above; should he sin a second time, the impact of his sin is even greater]; זמנא תליתאה, אתפשט ההוא כתמא מסטרא דא לסטרא דא כו׳ the third time he commits the sin, the stain penetrates from one side through the other;...“ לכן צריך מספר הצומות גם כן ג׳ פעמים וכו׳ therefore the number of fasts ought also be three. FOOTNOTES 1. Note of the Rebbe: “As distinct from other olahofferings; see the various types of offerings in Maimonides‘ preface to his Commentary on theMishnayot of TractateKodashim.” 2. 5b, 6a, 7b. 3. 73b

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

Today's Mitzvah Tammuz 10, 5778 · June 23, 2018 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 Important Message Regarding This Lesson The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track. Negative Commandment 253Cheating a Convert "Do not distress him"—Exodus 22:20. It is forbidden to cheat a convert in the course of commerce [by deceptively overcharging or underpaying for merchandise]. Though it is forbidden to cheat anyone, one who cheats a convert transgresses this additional prohibition, too. Full text of this Mitzvah »

Cheating a Convert

Negative Commandment 253

Translated by Berel Bell

« Previous

Negative Commandment 252

Next »

Negative Commandment 254

The 253rd prohibition is that we are forbidden from causing financial damage to a convert.

The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not oppress him."

In the words of the Mechilta: "The verse 'Do not oppress him' means to do so financially."

It has already been explained in tractate Bava Metzia2 that one who [verbally] causes distress to a convert transgresses the prohibitions "V'lo sonu one another"3 and "Do not wrong a convert."4 One who oppresses him [financially] transgresses the prohibition, "Do not oppress him," in addition to the general prohibition that includes all Jews, ona'as mamon.5

« Previous

Negative Commandment 252

Next »

Negative Commandment 254

FOOTNOTES

1.

Ex. 22:20.

2.

59b.

3.

N251.

4.

N252.

5.

N250.

Rambam:

• 1 Chapter A Day: Issurei Biah Issurei Biah - Chapter Eleven
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class

Issurei Biah - Chapter Eleven

1

All of what was said with regard to [the laws of] niddah, zivah, and childbirth applies with regard to Scriptural Law. [The Jews] would follow these laws when the Supreme Sanhedrin held sessions and it included great sages who were familiar with [the types of] blood. If a doubt arose [for the lesser judges] with regard to the discovery of blood or the days of niddah and zivah, they could ascend to the Supreme Sanhedrin and ask them. As the Torah promised concerning them [Deuteronomy 17:8]: "If a matter of judgment is unknown to you concerning one type of blood or another, or one judgment and anotherו [you shallו ascend to the place that Godו shall choose]."1

["Concerning one type of blood or another"] means "between the blood of niddah and the blood of zivah. In that era, Jewish women would be careful concerning this matter and would pay attention to their monthly patterns and would always count the "days of niddah" and the "days of zivah."

א

כל שאמרנו בנדה וזבה ויולדת הוא דין תורה וכמשפטים אלו היו עושין כשהיו ב"ד הגדול מצויין והיו שם חכמים גדולים שמכירים הדמים ואם נולד להם ספק בראיות או בימי נדה וזיבה יעלו לב"ד וישאלו כמו שהבטיחה תורה עליהן שנאמר כי יפלא ממך דבר למשפט בין דם לדם בין דין לדין בין דם נדה לדם זיבה ובאותן הימים היו בנות ישראל נזהרות מדבר זה ומשמרות וסתותיהן וסופרות תמיד ימי הנדה וימי הזיבה:

2

It is very difficult to keep track of the counting of the dates. Many times doubts will arise. For even if a woman discovered bleeding on the day she was born, she must begin counting the "days of niddah" and the "days of zivah," as we explained.2 Therefore a girl cannot become impure as a zavah until she is ten days old. For if she discovered bleeding on the day that she was born, she would be a niddahfor seven days. [Then to be a zavah, she would have to discover bleeding] on the three days directly following the "days of niddah." Thus [she would be] ten days [old].

Thus we learned that she begins counting the "days of niddah" and the "days of zivah" from the first time she discovers uterine bleeding throughout her entire life. [This applies] even if [the first time] she discovers bleeding is when she is a minor.

ב

וטורח גדול יש במנין הימים ופעמים רבות יבואו לידי ספק שאפילו ראתה הבת דם ביום הלידה מאותו היום מתחילין למנות לה ימי נדה וימי זיבה כמו שביארנו ולפיכך לא תטמא הבת בזיבה אלא בת י' ימים שאם ראתה ביום שנולדה הרי זו נדה שבעת ימים ושלשת ימים סמוך לנדתה הרי י' ימים הנה למדת שמתחילת ראייה מתחלת למנות ימי נדה וימי זיבה כל ימיה ואפילו ראתה והיא קטנה:

3

During the era of the Sages of the Gemara, many doubts arose with regard to the appearance of blood3 and the reckoning of the pattern of menstruation. For it was not within the potential of all women to calculate the "days of niddah" and the "days of zivah." Therefore our Sages ruled stringently concerning this matter and decreed that a woman should consider all her days as "days of zivah" and consider any bleeding that she discovers as zivah bleeding because of the doubt.4

ג

ובימי חכמי הגמרא נסתפק הדבר הרבה בראיית הדמים ונתקלקלו הוסתות לפי שלא היה כח בכל הנשים למנות ימי נדה וימי זיבה לפיכך החמירו חכמים בדבר זה וגזרו שיהו כל ימי האשה כימי זיבתה ויהיה כל דם שתראה ספק דם זיבות:

4

In addition, Jewish women accepted a further stringency upon themselves. They accepted the custom that wherever Jews live, whenever a Jewish woman discovers [uterine] bleeding, even if she does not discover more than a drop the size of a mustard seed and the bleeding ceases immediately, she must count seven "spotless" days.5 [This stringency applies] even if she discovered the bleeding during her "days of niddah."6

Whether the bleeding continued for one day, two days, an entire seven days, or longer, when the bleeding ceases, she counts seven "spotless" days as is required of a major zavah and immerses on the night of the eighth day despite the fact that there is a doubt whether she is a zavah.7 Or she may immerse during the day on the eighth day in a pressing situation, as explained.8 Afterwards, she is permitted to her husband.

ד

ועוד החמירו בנות ישראל על עצמן חומרא יתירה על זה ונהגו כולם בכ"מ שיש ישראל שכל בת ישראל שרואה דם אפילו לא ראתה אלא טיפה כחרדל בלבד ופסק הדם סופרת לה ז' ימים נקיים ואפילו ראתה בעת נדתה בין שראתה יום אחד או שנים או השבעה כולן או יתר משיפסוק הדם סופרת שבעת ימים נקיים כזבה גדולה וטובלת בליל שמיני אף על פי שהיא ספק זבה או ביום שמיני אם היה שם דוחק כמו שאמרנו ואחר כך תהיה מותרת לבעלה:

5

Similarly, every women who gives birth in the present age is considered as one who gives birth while a zavah and she must count seven "spotless" days, as we explained.9

It is the commonly accepted custom in Babylon, in "the cherished land,"10Spain, and the West,11 that if a woman discovers bleeding in the days after childbirth,12 she must count seven "spotless" days after the bleeding stopped. [This applies] even if she first counted seven "spotless" days and immersed [after giving birth].

We do not grant her any pure days at all. Instead, whenever a woman discovers bleeding whether it is bleeding associated with childbirth or "pure blood," it is all impure. She must count seven "spotless" days after the bleeding ceases.

ה

וכן כל היולדת בזמן הזה הרי היא כיולדת בזוב וצריכה שבעת ימים נקיים כמו שביארנו ומנהג פשוט בשנער ובארץ הצבי ובספרד ובמערב שאם ראתה דם בתוך ימי מלאת אע"פ שראתה אחר שספרה שבעת ימים נקיים וטבלה הרי זו סופרת שבעת ימים נקיים אחר שיפסוק הדם ואין נותנין לה ימי טוהר כלל אלא כל דם שתראה האשה בין דם קושי בין דם טוהר הכל טמא וסופרת שבעת ימים נקיים אחר שיפסוק הדם:

6

This law was instituted in the era of the Geonim. They decreed that there be no concept of "pure" blood. For the stringency that women accepted upon themselves in the era of the Sages of the Talmud applies only to a woman who discovers bleeding that would render them impure. [In this instance, they accepted the custom of] waiting seven days. Blood which she discovers during her "days of purity" after counting [seven "spotless" days], by contrast, is not a matter of concern [according to Scriptural Law]. For the days of purity are not subject [to concern] with regard to niddah or zivah as we explained.13

ו

ודין זה בימי הגאונים נתחדש והם גזרו שלא יהיה שם דם טוהר כלל שזה שהחמירו על עצמן בימי חכמי הגמרא אינו אלא ברואה דם שהוא טמא שיושבת עליו ז' נקיים אבל דם שתראה בימי טוהר אחר ספירה וטבילה אין לחוש לו שאין ימי טוהר ראויין לא לנדה ולא לזיבה כמו שביארנו:

7

We have heard that in France,14 even today, relations are allowed [despite] "pure" bleeding as was the law in the Talmudic era after [the woman] counts [seven "spotless" days] and immerses herself because of the impurity resulting from giving birth in the zivah state. This matter is dependent on local custom.15

ז

ושמענו שבצרפת בועלים על דם טוהר כדין הגמרא עד היום אחר ספירה וטבילה מטומאת יולדת בזוב ודבר זה תלוי במנהג:

8

Similarly, [stringencies were adopted] with regard to the laws of hymeneal bleeding in the present age. Even if a minor is below the age when she could be expected to menstruate and never discovered uterine bleeding, [her husband] must separate after engaging in the relations which are a mitzvah.16

Whenever she discovers hymeneal bleeding,17 she is impure. When the bleeding ceases, she must count seven "spotless" days [before immersing herself].

ח

וכן דין דם בתולים בזמן הזה שאפילו היתה קטנה שלא הגיע זמנה לראות ולא ראתה דם מימיה בועל בעילת מצוה ופורש וכל זמן שתראה הדם מחמת המכה הרי היא טמאה ואחר שיפסוק הדם סופרת ז' ימים נקיים:

9

Moreover, whenever a girl is asked to marry and consents, she must count seven "spotless" days after she consents to marry.18 Afterwards, [she immerses and] becomes permitted to her husband.19 [The rationale is that] she might have desired a man and released a drop [of blood] without being aware of it. Whether she is a mature woman or a minor, she must wait seven "spotless" days after she consents to marry. Afterwards, she immerses and may engage in relations.

ט

יתר על זה כל בת שתבעוה להנשא ורצתה שוהה שבעת ימים נקיים מאחר שרצתה ואחר כך תהיה מותרת להבעל שמא מחמודה לאיש ראתה דם טיפה אחת ולא הרגישה בה בין שהיתה האשה גדולה בין שהיתה קטנה צריכה לישב ז' נקיים מאחר שרצתה ואח"כ תטבול ותבעל:

10

All of these matters are additional stringencies that have been practiced by Jewish women from the era of the Sages of the Talmud [onward]. One should never deviate from it. Therefore every women who consents when asked to marry should not marry until she counts [these days] and immerses herself. If she marries a Torah scholar, she may marry immediately and then count after marriage and immerse. [The rationale is that] a Torah scholar will know that she is forbidden and observe [the restriction]. He will not approach her until she immerses.20

י

וכל הדברים האלו חומרא יתירה שנהגו בה בנות ישראל מימי חכמי הגמרא ואין לסור ממנה לעולם לפיכך כל אשה שרצתה כשתבעוה להנשא לא תנשא עד שתספור ותטבול ואם נשאת לתלמיד חכם מותרת להנשא מיד ותספור מאחר שנשאתו ותטבול שתלמיד חכם יודע שהיא אסורה ונזהר מזה ולא יקרב לה עד שתטבול:

11

The laws applying to [the discovery of] stains in the present era [follow the principles] we explained.21 There is no innovation in this regard, not are there any [new] customs. Instead, any stain which we ruled was pure, is considered pure. And when [a woman discovers] any of the stains which we ruled were impure - [even] of the stain was not of the size that would generate concern for zivut - she must count seven ["spotless"] days, after the day of the discovery of the stain. For the discovery of a stain is not identical with the discovery of bleeding.22

יא

דין הכתמים בזמן הזה כמו שביארנו ואין בדבר חידוש ולא מנהג אלא כל כתם שאמרנו שהיא טהורה הרי היא טהורה וכל כתם שאמרנו טמאה (אם אין בכתם שיעור כדי לחוש לזיבות) סופרת שבעת ימים מיום שנמצא בו הכתם ואם היה שיעור הכתם כדי לחוש לזיבות סופרת שבעת ימים מאחר יום שנמצא בו הכתם שאין הרואה דם כרואה כתם:

12

All the statements we made concerning a woman who miscarried [and discharged a creature that does not resemble a human fetus]23 and [hence] is pure also apply in the present age.24

Similarly, when a woman discovers a white or green blood-like secretion25or if she discharges a red mass of flesh that is not accompanied by bleeding,26she is pure even in the present age. For the stringency involves only one who discovers impure bleeding and the above are not considered as impure bleeding.

יב

וכן כל מה שאמרנו ביולדת שאמו טהורה הרי היא טהורה בזמן הזה וכן האשה שראתה לובן או דם ירוק או שהשליכה חתיכה אדומה שאין עמה דם הרי היא טהורה אף בזמן הזה שלא החמירו אלא ברואה דם טמא [ואין זה דם טמא]:

13

Similarly, if she had a wound from which blood was flowing27 or blood was released with her urine,28 she is pure. Innovations [in practice] were made only with regard to all women who discover impure bleeding as explained [above] and also that all different shades of blood are considered impure.29

יג

וכן אם היתה בה מכה והיה הדם שותת ממנה או שבא הדם עם מימי רגלים ה"ז טהורה ולא נתחדש דבר אלא ספירת שבעת ימים נקיים לכל רואה דם טמא כמו שאמרנו ושיהיו כל מראה דמים טמאים:

14

In certain places, the practice is that a woman must consider herself a niddah for seven days even though her bleeding lasted only one day. [Then] after these seven, she must count seven "spotless" days. This is not a [proper] custom.30 Instead, it is an error on the part of the one who ruled in this manner and is not worthy of being given any consideration.31 Instead, [the law is that if a woman experiences] one day of menstrual bleeding, she should count seven "spotless" days afterwards and immerse on the night [following] the eighth day,32 which is the second day after her ["days of] niddah." She is [then] permitted to her husband.

יד

זה שתמצא במקצת המקומות שהנדה יושבת שבעת ימים בנדתה אף ע"פ שלא ראתה דם אלא יום אחד ואחר השבעה תשב שבעת ימים נקיים אין זה מנהג אלא טעות הוא ממי שהורה להם כך ואין ראוי לפנות לדבר זה כלל אלא אם ראתה יום אחד סופרת אחריו ז' (נקיים) וטובלת בליל ח' שהוא ליל שני שלאחר נדתה ומותרת לבעלה:

15

Similarly, in certain places, the practice is - and support for this is found in the responsa of some of the Geonim - for a woman who gives birth to a male not to engage in relations until the conclusion of forty days and for one who gives birth to a female [to refrain] until after eighty days33 even though they discovered bleeding only during the [first] seven days. This is not a [proper] custom. Instead, these responsa are in error and indeed [the observance of this practice] in these places is of a heretical nature.34 They learned this interpretation from the Sadducees.35 It is a mitzvah to compel [these people] to remove [this improper custom] from their hearts and to return them to [the observance of] the words of the Sages who require only the counting of seven "spotless" days as explained.

טו

וכן זה שתמצא במקצת מקומות ותמצא תשובות למקצת הגאונים שיולדת זכר לא תשמש מטתה עד סוף ארבעים ויולדת נקבה אחר שמונים ואף על פי שלא ראתה דם אלא בתוך השבעה אין זה מנהג אלא טעות הוא באותן התשובות ודרך אפיקורוסות באותן המקומות ומן הצדוקין למדו דבר זה ומצוה לכופן כדי להוציא מלבן ולהחזירן לדברי חכמים שתספור ז' ימים נקיים בלבד כמו שביארנו:

16

A woman does not ascend from her state of ritual impurity and cease being considered as an ervah until she immerses herself in a mikveh that is halachicly acceptable while there are no substances intervening between her flesh and the water.36 In Hilchot Mikveot, we will explain what defines a mikveh as acceptable and what disqualifies it, the manner in which one should immerse, and the laws concerning intervening substances.

If, by contrast, she washes in a bath - even if all the water in the world passes over her - her state is the same after washing as before washing [and a man who engages in relations with her is liable] for kereit. For there is no way of ascending from a state of ritual impurity to one of purity except through immersing in the waters of a mikveh, a spring, or a sea which is like a spring, as will be explained in Hilchot Mikveot.

טז

אין האשה עולה מטומאתה ויוצא מידי ערוה עד שתטבול במי מקוה כשר ולא יהיה דבר חוצץ בין בשרה ובין המים ובהלכות מקואות יתבאר המקוה הכשר והפסול ודרך הטבילה ומשפטי החציצה אבל אם רחצה במרחץ אפילו נפלו עליה כל מימות שבעולם הרי היא אחר הרחיצה כמות שהיתה קודם הרחיצה בכרת שאין לך דבר שמעלה מטומאה לטהרה אלא טבילה במי מקוה או במעיין או בימים שהם כמעיין כמו שיתבאר בהלכות מקואות:

17

In the present age, although the seven "spotless" days [are observed only because of] doubt,37 if a woman immerses herself during them, it is as if she did not immerse herself.38 If she immerses herself on the seventh day,39the immersion is valid even though it is forbidden to do so at the outset, lest one engage in relations on the seventh day after the immersion.40 [The rationale is that] she immersed in the appropriate time even were she to have definitely been a zavah.41

יז

כל ז' ימים נקיים שבזמן הזה אע"פ שהן ספק אם טבלה בהן כאילו לא טבלה ואם טבלה בשביעי אף על פי שאסור לעשות כן לכתחלה שמא יבוא לבעול בשביעי אחר הטבילה הואיל וטבלה בזמנה אפי' היתה זבה ודאית הרי זו עלתה לה טבילה:

18

It is forbidden to a person to embrace his wife during these seven "spotless" days. [This applies] even if she is clothed and he is clothed.42 He should not draw close to her, nor touch her, not even with his pinky. He may not eat together with her from the same plate.43The general principle is he must conduct himself with her during the days she is counting as he does in her "days of niddah." For [relations with her] are still punishable by kereit until she immerses herself, as we explained.44

יח

ואסור לאדם שידבק באשתו בשבעת ימים נקיים אלו ואע"פ שהיא בכסותה והוא בכסותו ולא יקרב לה ולא יגע בה אפילו באצבע קטנה ולא יאכל עמה בקערה אחת כללו של דבר ינהוג עמה בימי ספירה כמו שינהוג בימי נדה שעדיין היא בכרת עד שתטבול כמו שביארנו:

19

A niddah may perform any task which a wife would perform for her husband except washing his face, hands, and feet, pouring him a drink, and spreading out his bed in his presence.45[These were forbidden as] decrees, lest they come to sin.46

For this reason, she should not eat with him from the same plate, nor should he touch her flesh, lest this lead to sin. Similarly, she should not perform these three tasks for him during her seven "spotless" days. It is permitted for a woman to adorn herself during her "days of niddah," so that she does not become unattractive to her husband.

יט

כל מלאכות שהאשה עושה לבעלה נדה עושה לבעלה חוץ מהרחצת פניו ידיו ורגליו ומזיגת הכוס והצעת המטה בפניו גזירה שמא יבוא לדבר עבירה ומפני זה לא תאכל עמו בקערה אחת ולא יגע בבשרה מפי הרגל עבירה וכן בשבעת ימים נקיים לא תעשה לו שלש מלאכות אלו ומותר לאשה להתקשט בימי נדתה כדי שלא תתגנה על בעלה:

FOOTNOTES

1.

I.e., to the Temple in Jerusalem. See Hilchot Mamrim, chs. 1 and 4, which discuss the authority of the Supreme Sanhedrin and how it served as the final governing body for Jewish Law.

2.

Chapter 4, Halachah 4.

3.

As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 7-12, in the Talmudic era, our Sages felt capable of distinguishing between different shades of red and were able to identify some shades as pure and others as impure. In the Rambam's era and certainly in later ages, the Rabbis felt incapable of making such distinctions.

4.

The Maggid Mishneh relates that the Rambam did not clarify his statements concerning this Rabbinic ordinance because it was only a temporary measure. It does not reflect Scriptural Law, nor does it reflect Rabbinic Law as practice, because it was later supplanted by the stringency Jewish women accepted upon themselves as stated in the following halachah.

To explain: Niddah 66a relates that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi ordained that any woman who discovers uterine bleeding should wait six "spotless" days before immersing herself . If, however, she discovers bleeding for three consecutive days, she must wait seven "spotless" days. Thus if the bleeding had come in her days of niddah, she would have waited the seven days required by Scriptural Law (the day she discovered the bleeding and the six "spotless" days). And if the bleeding had come in her days of zivah, all that is required by Scriptural Law is for her to wait one spotless day. This is the ordinance to which the Rambam referred.

5.

The stringency implied by this practice is that even if bleeding is sighted for only one day, the woman counts seven "spotless" days.

6.

According to Scriptural Law, there is no need for her to count seven "spotless" days in such a situation. Instead, she may immerse after the seventh day regardless. Nevertheless, women accepted this stringency upon themselves.

7.

I.e., according to Scriptural Law, a zavah may immerse herself during the day on the seventh day. She need not wait until evening. Nevertheless, since a niddah is required to wait until the evening to immerse herself, women standardized their conduct and ordained that all immersion be performed at night unless there are extenuating circumstances. Note, however, Halachah 17.

8.

Chapter 4, Halachah 8.

9.

Chapter 7, Halachah 5.

According to Scriptural Law, if a women is not a zavah when she gives birth, she may immerse herself after seven or fourteen days, even if she was bleeding the entire time. In the Talmudic era, however, it became customary to observe the stringency described by the Rambam. The rationale is that since every discovery of bleeding renders her a zavah, she is always considered as having given birth in that state (Maggid Mishneh).

When quoting this law, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:1) emphasizes that this practice does not supplant Scriptural Law. Thus if a woman counts seven "spotless" days directly after giving birth to a girl, she must still wait the fourteen days required by the Torah before immersing.

10.

Eretz Yisrael.

11.

Morocco and North Africa.

12.

The Hebrew term used by the Rambam has a specific meaning, the days between the seventh and fortieth days after a woman gives birth to a male or the days between the fourteenth and eightieth days after she gives birth to a female.

13.

Chapter 7, Halachah 7.

14.

Whose halachic tradition differed from that of the Sephardic community in many particulars.

15.

The Rambam is referring to one of the principles mentioned in his introduction to the Mishneh Torah: Laws ordained by the Sages of the Talmud must be accepted universally throughout the Jewish community. Laws ordained by later authorities are subject to the halachic review of the local authorities.

The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 194:1) writes that it has already become universal Jewish practice to forbid relations when a woman discovers bleeding during her days of purity.

16.

I.e., the first time the couple engage in relations. As explained in Chapter 5, Halachot 18-25, according to Scriptural Law, hymeneal bleeding does not represent any difficulty for it is not at all related to niddah or zivah. Hence, according to Talmudic Law, when the wife is a minor, the couple may engage in relations until the hymeneal bleeding ceases. Even a girl who gets married at the age of twelve is granted certain leniency. The later Rabbis, however, required all couples to separate because of hymeneal bleeding.

The Maggid Mishneh emphasizes that the groom may complete relations and withdraw while erect even if he knows that bleeding has commenced. Although our Rabbis ordained this stringency, they did not apply it to the first time the couple engaged in relations.

He also states that even if no bleeding is discovered, if the bride was a virgin, we assume that there was a slight amount of blood that was not noticed and rule that she is impure. These laws are quoted by Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 193:1).

17.

I.e., if all the hymeneal blood was not released during the first time the couple engaged in relations and bleeding was discovered after subsequent relations.

18.

The day after she consents is the first of these seven days. If she becomes engaged and there is a considerable time between the engagement and the marriage, the days are counted from the time wedding preparations are made in earnest (Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 192:1-2).

19.

This stringency applies to a young girl who never menstruated or an older girl who already experienced seven "spotless" days after her last menstruation.

20.

The Kessef Mishneh and the Maggid Mishneh maintain that the Rambam would agree that not only relations, but also remaining alone with one's wife is forbidden in this situation. The Ra'avad and the Tur (Yoreh De'ah 192) infer that the Rambam is not paying heed to this prohibition. Hence, they differ with his ruling.

21.

In Chapter 9.

22.

The Rambam is saying that for a stain a woman is not required to make a hefsek taharah or count seven days. Instead, it is sufficient for her to count six "spotless" days as described in Halachah 3 and notes. For as he explains, the discovery of a stain is not the same as the discovery of bleeding.

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the laws applying to the discovery of bleeding also apply with regard to the discovery of a stain. The Maggid Mishneh offers theoretical support for the Rambam's approach, but states that since other Rishonim follow the Ra'avad's view, we should be stringent and accept it. This opinion is followed by Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 188:3, 190:1).

23.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 15; Chapter 10, Halachah 8.

24.

The Rambam maintains that the Rabbis did not issue a decree concerning such a situation, nor was this included in the stringency which Jewish women accepted upon themselves. The Ra'avad differs, explaining that in the present era, we are not knowledgeable concerning the distinctions between the forms which our Sages made. Hence, because of the doubt, we rule that a woman is impure after any miscarriage.

In this instance as well, the Ra'avad's view is accepted by the Ramban and the Rashba and is cited as halachah by Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:3).

25.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 6. This ruling is accepted by all authorities.

26.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 13. This ruling is also disputed by the Ra'avad and other Rishonim. For they maintain that it is impossible for the uterus to open without there being any bleeding. This view is accepted by Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 194:2).

27.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 20.

28.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 17. Other Rabbis also do not require stringency with regard to these matters in the present age.

29.

As stated in Halachah 3, the later Rabbis felt incapable of distinguishing between different shades of red as the Sages of the Talmud were capable of doing.

30.

The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 196:11) also mentions the practice cited by the Rambam. He also negates it saying: "There is not reason for the practiceו. A person who is lenient earns a reward and hastens his [involvement in] the mitzvah."

31.

Although the halachic authorities are unanimous in their support of the Rambam's ruling. The custom he quotes has a Rabbinic source in Midrash Tanchuma, Parshat Metzora, sec. 7.

32.

The Rama (loc. cit.) mentions that the Ashkenazic custom is not to begin counting seven until thje fifth day after the woman discovered menstrual bleeding.

33.

By this practice, they distort the meaning of Leviticus, ch. 12, as interpreted in Chapter 4, Halachah 5.

34.

For as indicated by the association with the Sadducees, they undermine the authority of the Oral Law.

35.

A deviant sect which tried to sway our people from Jewish practice by denying the authority of the Oral Law.

36.

For an immersion can be disqualified when there are substances intervening between one's flesh and the waters of a mikveh. See Hilchot Mikveot 1:7 and the laws that follow.

37.

As explained in Halachot 3 and 4 and notes.

38.

Since a niddah or a zavah does not change her state if she immerses herself before the required time, we apply this same ruling to a woman in the present age.

39.

I.e., after sunrise.

40.

We fear that she may discover uterine bleeding after engaging in relations, but before nightfall, and thus nullify the entire seven "spotless" days. In that instance, her immersion is of no consequence.

41.

For according to Scriptural Law, a zavah may immerse at this time, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 11. And if the woman is a niddah, she may certainly immerse according to Scriptural Law, for the time of her impurity has passed.

42.

This and the following restrictions were imposed lest they lead to relations, as the Rambam states in the following halachah.

43.

The Ra'avad states: "Our custom is that [they may not eat] even on the same table." The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 195:3) quotes the Ra'avad's ruling, but offers the following leniency. One may place an object between the two to make a distinction.

44.

In Halachah 16.

45.

Implied is that if he is not present, she may make his bed. Outside his presence, making his bed is a household task. In his presence, it could suggest an invitation for intimacy. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah, ch. 195) and commentaries for a further delineation of stringencies that must be observed until a woman purifies herself.

46.

I.e., relations.

Rambam:
• 3 Chapters A Day: Mechirah Mechirah - Chapter Twenty Two, Mechirah Mechirah - Chapter Twenty Three, Mechirah Mechirah - Chapter Twenty Four
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class

Mechirah - Chapter Twenty Two

1

A person cannot transfer ownership over an article that has not yet come into existence. This applies with regard to a sale, with regard to a present or with regard to the disposition of an oral will.

What is implied? If a person states: "What my field will produce is sold to you," "What this tree will grow is given to you," "Give so and so the offspring that this animal bears," the recipient does not acquire anything. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

א

אין אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם בין במכר בין במתנה בין במתנת שכיב מרע כיצד מה שתוציא שדה זו מכור לך מה שיוציא אילן זה נתון לך תנו מה שתלד בהמה זו לפלוני לא קנה כלום וכן כל כיוצא בזה:

2

When a person sells the fruit of a date palm to a colleague, he may retract even after the fruits of the date palm have already come into existence. If the purchaser harvests the fruits, they are not expropriated from him. If either of them retracts, he is not required to receive the adjuration mi shepara.

ב

המוכר פירות דקל לחבירו יכול לחזור בו אף לאחר שבאו הפירות לעולם ואם שמט הלוקח ואכל אין מוציאין מידו וכל החוזר בו משניהם אין חייב לקבל מי שפרע:

3

When, however, a person sells produce at the market price, although the seller was not in possession of the type of produce, the seller is obligated to purchase the amount of produce he pledged, and give it to the purchaser. If he retracts, he must receive the adjuration mi shepara.

ג

אבל הפוסק על שער שבשוק ולא היה אותו המין שפסק עליו ברשות מוכר חייב לקנות וליתן ללוקח מה שפסק ואם חזר מקבל מי שפרע:

4

The following rules apply when a person sells produce at the market price, promising to give four se'ah for a sela. Even if the grain was in stalks, the transaction is completed, and if he retracts, the seller is liable to receive the adjuration mi shepara, provided either of the following stipulations is met:"

a) the seller shows the purchaser that he possesses grain in his storehouse, or

b) the purchaser tells the seller in the market place: "I am relying on you." If the purchaser did not tell the seller: "I am relying on you," the seller does not consider this to be a firm agreement, and he is not required to receive the adjuration mi shepara if he retracts. For he says to himself: "Perhaps the purchaser also made such an agreement with another individual and he does not actually require this wheat."

ד

מי שפסק על שער שבשוק שיתן ארבע סאין בסלע אם היו שבלים הרי זה קנה לקבל מי שפרע והוא שיראה לו בגורן או שיאמר לו בשוק הריני סומך עליך אבל אם לא נראה בגורן ולא אמר לו הריני סומך עליך לא סמכה דעתו של מוכר ואינו מקבל מי שפרע שהרי הוא אומר שמא פסק עם אחר ואין צריך לחטים אלו:

5

An entity that is not in the possession of the seller cannot be acquired; it is like an entity that has not come into existence.

What is implied? When a seller says: "What I will inherit from my father is sold to you," "What my net will bring up from the sea is sold to you," or "When I purchase this field, it is sold to you," the purchaser does not acquire anything. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

ה

דבר שאין ברשותו של מקנה אינו נקנה והרי הוא כדבר שלא בא לעולם כיצד מה שאירש מאבא מכור לך מה שתעלה מצודתי מן הים נתון לך שדה זו לכשאקחנה קנויה לך לא קנה כלום וכן כל כיוצא בזה:

6

When a person was on his deathbed and the heir desired to sell some of the dying person's property to spend the money for the sake of the burial, our Sages ordained that if the heir says: "What I will inherit from my father today is sold to you," the sale is binding. The rationale is that since the son is poor, if he is forced to wait until his father dies to sell the property, the corpse will remain unburied and be disgraced.

Similarly, provisions were made for a poor fisherman who has nothing to eat. If he says: "What my net brings in today from the sea is sold to you," the sale is binding. This was ordained to provide for his livelihood.

ו

מי שהיה מורישו גוסס ונטוי למות ורצה למכור מנכסיו מעט כדי להוציא הדמים בצרכי קבורה הואיל והבן עני ואם ימתין עד שימות וימכור ישתהא המת ויתבזה תקנו חכמים שאם מכר ואמר מה שאירש מאבי היום מכור לך ממכרו קיים וכן צייד עני שאין לו מה שיאכל שאמר מה שתעלה מן הים מצודתי היום מכור לך ממכרו קיים משום כדי חייו:

7

If a son sold property belonging to his father during his father's lifetime, but the son died in his father's lifetime, the son's son may expropriate the property from the purchasers. The rationale is that his father sold something that had not entered his domain. Thus, the property remained in the domain of the grand father, and the grandson inherited the estate of his grandfather. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

ז

הבן שמכר בנכסי אביו בחיי אביו ומת הבן בחיי האב ואח"כ מת האב בן הבן מוציא מיד הלקוחות שהרי אביו מכר דבר שלא בא עדיין לרשותו ונמצאו הנכסים ברשות האב וזה יורש אבי אביו וכן כל כיוצא בזה:

8

The following rules apply when a person gave a colleague landed property as a present, and together with it gave him 100 dinarim through a kinyan agav. If the dinarim existed in his domain at the time he gave the present, when the recipient acquired the field, he also acquired the dinarim. If. however, the giver does not have a dinar, we do not obligate the giver to give the recipient 100 dinarimuntil the recipient brings proof that the giver possessed dinarim at the time the recipient acquired the present.

The same principles apply to other movable property that a person desires to transfer together with landed property through a kinyan agav. If the movable property is not in the domain of the seller or the giver at the time the recipient acquires the present, he does not acquire it. For a person may not transfer ownership over an article that is not in his domain.

ח

מי שנתן קרקע מתנה לחבירו ונתן לו על גבה מאה דינרין אם היו הדינרין מצויין ברשותו כיון שזכה בשדה זכה בדינרין ואם אין לו דינר אין מחייבין את הנותן ליתן לו מאה דינרין עד שיביא הזוכה ראיה שהיה לזה דינרין בעת המתנה והוא הדין לשאר מטלטלין שמקנה אדם אותם על קרקע אם אינם ברשות המוכר או הנותן לא קנה שאין אדם מקנה דבר שאינו ברשותו:

9

When a person has entrusted an object to a colleague for safekeeping, he may transfer ownership over it, either through a sale or through a gift. The rationale is that an entrusted object is in the domain of its owner, and we operate under the presumption that the entrusted object continues to exists

If, however, the person to whom the article was entrusted denies receiving it, the owner may not transfer ownership of it. It is as if the article were lost; it is not in his domain.

Different rules apply with regard to a loan. Since a loan is given with the intent that it be spent, it cannot be transferred except through a ma'amad sh'loshtam, a convention that is not based on a motivating reason, as we have explained.

If the loan was supported by a promissory note, the creditor may transfer ownership of the promissory note with a written authorization and the transfer of the note, for there is an entity that can be transferred through which one can acquire the encumbrance it contains.

ט

מי שהיה לו פקדון ביד אחר הרי זה מקנהו בין במכר בין במתנה לפי שהפקדון ברשות בעליו הוא והרי הוא בחזקת שהוא קיים ואם כפר בו זה שהופקד אצלו אינו יכול להקנותו שזה כמי שאבד שאינו ברשותו אבל המלוה הואיל ולהוצאה ניתנה אינה בעולם ואין אדם יכול להקנותה אלא במעמד שלשתן והוא דבר שאין לו טעם כמו שביארנו ואם היתה מלוה בשטר מקנה את השטר בכתיבה ומסירה שהרי יש כאן דבר הנמסר לקנות שעבוד שבו:

10

Just as a person may not transfer ownership of an article that has not yet come into existence, so too, he may not transfer ownership of an article to someone who has not come into existence. Even a fetus is considered to be someone who has not come into existence, and thus, when a person wishes to endow a fetus with an article, the transaction is not binding.

If, however, the fetus is the person's son, the transaction is binding. The rationale is that a person feels great closeness to his son.

י

כשם שאין אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם כך אין אדם מקנה למי שלא בא לעולם ואפילו עובר הרי הוא כמי שלא בא לעולם והמזכה לעובר לא קנה ואם היה בנו הואיל ודעתו של אדם קרובה אצל בנו קנה:

11

When, however, a person tells his wife: "I will give my property to the children that you will bear," the children do not acquire anything. Since the woman was not pregnant at the time the present was given, the children had not yet reached a stage at which it could be said that a person feels great closeness for them.

יא

האומר לאשתו נכסי לבנים שתלדי ממני הרי אלו לא יקנו כלום שכיון שלא נתעברה בהן בשעת המתנה עדיין לא באו כדי להיות דעתו קרובה להם:

12

When a person desires to transfer ownership of property to an animal, the transfer is not effective at all. If a person attempted to transfer part of his property to an animal or to a person who did not exist, and afterwards told a colleague: "Acquire a share of my property as this animal does," or "... as this fetus does," [the colleague does not acquire anything.

If he tells him: "You and this animal shall acquire my property," or "You and this fetus ... ," the person acquires half of the property.

יב

המקנה למין ממיני חיה לא הקנה כלום הקנה קצת נכסיו לבהמה או למי שלא בא לעולם וחזר ואמר לחבירו קנה כבהמה זו או כעובר זה לא קנה כלום אמר לו קנה את ובהמה זו או את ועובר זה קנה מחצה:

13

A person cannot transfer ownership - neither through a sale nor through a present - over an object unless it has substance. If it has no substance, ownership of it cannot be transferred.

יג

אין אדם מקנה לא במכר ולא במתנה אלא דבר שיש בו ממש אבל דבר שאין בו ממש אינו נקנה:

14

What is implied? A person cannot transfer ownership over the fragrance of an apple, the taste of honey, the color of crystal or the like. Therefore, when a person desires to transfer ownership of the right to partake of the fruits of this date palm or to dwell in this home, the recipient does not acquire anything. For the transaction to be effective, the owner must transfer the house itself for the sake of dwelling in it, or the tree itself for the purpose of eating its fruit, as will be explained.

יד

כיצד אין אדם מקנה ריח התפוח הזה או טעם הדבש הזה או עין הבדולח הזה וכן כל כיוצא בזה לפיכך המקנה לחבירו אכילת פירות דקל זה או דירת בית זה לא קנה עד שיקנה לו גוף הבית לדור בו וגוף האילן לאכול פירותיו כמו שיתבאר:

15

The laws applying to transactions involving property consecrated to the Temple, the poor, and vows are not the same as those involving ordinary people. If a person says: "All the offspring of my animal will be consecrated to the Temple treasury," "... will be forbidden to me," or "... will be given to charity," although the offspring does not become consecrated - because it does not yet exist - the person making the statement is obligated to keep his word,, as Numbers 30:3 states: "He must act according to the statements that he utters."

טו

דין ההקדש ודין העניים ודין הנדרים אינו כדין ההדיוט בקנייתו שאילו אמר אדם כל מה שתלד בהמתי יהיה הקדש לבדק הבית או יהיה אסור עלי או אתננו לצדקה אע"פ שאינו מתקדש לפי שאינו בעולם הרי זה חייב לקיים דברו שנאמר ככל היוצא מפיו יעשה:

16

Since this is so, if a person on his death bed says: "Whatever this tree produces should be given to the poor," or "The rent from this house should be given to the poor," the poor acquire these objects.

טז

והואיל והדבר כן אם צוה אדם כשהוא שכיב מרע ואמר כל מה שיוציא אילן זה לעניים או כל שכר בית זה לעניים זכו בהן העניים:

17

There are Geonim who differ with this principle and hold that the poor acquire only in a similar matter to that of an ordinary person. Therefore, they do not acquire an entity that has not come into existence. I do not accept these principles. My rationale is that a person is not commanded to transfer ownership of property. He is, however, commanded to fulfill his pledges to charity or to consecrate property, as he is commanded to fulfill other vows, as we have explained in Hilchot Arachin.

יז

יש גאונים שחולקין על דבר זה ואומרים שאין העניים זוכין אלא בדברים שהדיוט קונה בהן ולפיכך לא יזכו בדבר שלא בא לעולם ואין דעתי נוטה לדברים אלו שאין אדם מצווה להקנות והוא מצווה לקיים דבריו בצדקה או בהקדש כמו שהוא מצווה לקיים הנדר כמו שביארנו בערכין:

Mechirah - Chapter Twenty Three

1

A person can transfer ownership over a property itself with regard to the produce it yields. This applies with regard to a sale, with regard to a present or with regard to an oral will. This is not considered to be transferring ownership of an entity that has not come into existence. For the article itself exists, and the person is transferring ownership over its produce. To what can the matter be compared? To a person who rents a house or a field to a colleague, in which instance he did not transfer ownership over the property in its entirety, but rather merely the right to derive benefit from it.

א

מקנה אדם הגוף לפירותיו בין במכר בין במתנה בין במתנת שכיב מרע ואין זה מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם שהרי הגוף מצוי ומקנה לפירות הא למה זה דומה לשוכר בית או שדה לחבירו שלא הקנה לו הגוף אלא הנאת הגוף:

2

What is implied? A person sold or gave away a field with regard to its produce for a limited time, or for the entire lifetime of the seller or of the purchaser.

Similar rules apply to a person who sells or gives away a tree for its fruit, a sheep for its shearings, an animal or a maid-servant for her offspring or a servant for his work. In all such instances, the sale or the present is binding.

ב

כיצד כגון שמכר או שנתן שדה לפירותיה בין לזמן קצוב בין כל ימי חייו של מוכר או של לוקח והוא הדין למוכר ולנותן אילן לפירותיו או רחל לגיזתה או בהמה ושפחה לולדותיהם או עבד למעשה ידיו בכל ממכרו או מתנותיו קיימין:

3

There is an unresolved question if a sale is binding when a person sells his servant with regard to his fine - i.e., whether the fine which is imposed if the servant is gored by an ox and killed should be given to the purchaser or not. Therefore, the purchaser does not acquire the money; if he seizes it from the servant's owner, it is not expropriated from him.

ג

מכר עבדו לקנס שאם יונח וימות יהיה קנס של לוקח הרי זה ספק לפיכך לא קנה ואם תפש הקנס אין מוציאין מידו:

4

When a person sells a tree to one person and its fruit to another, when making the first sale he did not leave over the rights to the fruit. Therefore the second purchaser does not acquire anything.

If, however, a person sells a tree and leaves its fruit to himself, it is considered as if he retained the branches, the place where fruit grows, even if he did not explicitly say so. The rationale is that when a person retains property for himself, he acts generously.

ד

מכר אילן לזה ופירותיו לאחר לא שייר מקום הפירות ואין לאחר כלום אבל אם מכר אילן ושייר פירותיו לעצמו הרי שייר מקום הפירות אף על פי שלא פירש לגבי עצמו בעין יפה משייר:

5

When a person sells landed property for a specific time, the sale is binding. The purchaser may use the body of the land as he desires and derive benefit from it throughout the duration of the sale. At the end of the specified time period, the property returns to its original owner.

ה

המוכר גוף הקרקע לזמן קצוב הרי זה מכירה ומשתמש הלוקח בגוף כחפצו ואוכל הפירות כל זמן המכירה ובסוף תחזור לבעליה:

6

What is the difference between a person who sells landed property for a specific time and one who transfers ownership of it with regard to its produce? A person who purchases land with regard to its produce may not change the form of the land. He may not build, nor may he destroy. When, by contrast, a person purchases land for a specific time, he may build and destroy. During that specific time, he may act in the same manner as does one who purchases the land forever.

ו

ומה הפרש יש בין המוכר קרקע לזמן קצוב ובין המקנה אותה לפירותיה שהקונה לפירות אינו יכול לשנות צורת הקרקע ולא יבנה ולא יהרוס אבל הקונה לזמן קצוב הוא בונה והורס ועושה בכל זמנו הקצוב כמו שעושה הקונה קניין עולם לעולם:

7

What is the difference between a person who sells a field with regard to the produce it yields, and a person who sells a colleague the produce of a particular field?

When a person sells the produce of a particular field, the purchaser has no right to use this field at all. He is forbidden even to enter, except to take out his produce. The owner of the field, by contrast, may do whatever he desires within.

When, by contrast, a person sells a field with regard to the produce it yields, the owner of the field may not enter the field without the consent of the purchaser, and the purchaser may use the field as he desires.

זז

ומה הפרש יש בין המוכר שדה זו לפירותיה ובין המוכר פירות שדה זו לחבירו שהמוכר פירות השדה אין ללוקח להשתמש בשדה זו כלל אפילו להכנס אלא בשעת הוצאת הפירות ויש לבעל השדה להשתמש בה כחפצו אבל המוכר שדה לפירותיה אין בעל השדה יכול להכנס בה אלא מדעת הלוקח ויש ללוקח להשתמש בה כחפצו:

8

What is the difference between a person who purchases a field with regard to the produce it yields, and a person who rents a field from a colleague?

A person who purchases a field with regard to the produce it yields may plant trees or seeds within it whenever he desires or leave it fallow. A renter does not have this right, as will be explained with regard to rentals.

A renter does not have the right to sublet the property. One who buys the property may, however, sell the rights he purchased to another person.

ח

ומה הפרש יש בין הקונה שדה זו לפירותיה ובין השוכר שדה מחבירו שהקונה שדה לפירותיה יש לו לנטעה או לזרעה כל זמן שירצה או להובירה והשוכר אינן כן כמו שיתבאר בענין שכירות ואין השוכר רשאי להשכיר אבל הקונה מקנה לאחרים כל מה שקנה:

9

When a person sells the benefit to be obtained from a dovecote or the benefit to be obtained from a beehive to a colleague, the sale is binding. He is not considered to have sold an entity that has not come into existence. For he is not selling the doves that will be born or the honey that will be produced in the beehive. Instead, he is selling the dovecote with regard to the benefit it produces, and the beehive for its honey.

The seller can be compared to a person who rents a stream of water to a colleague, in which instance the renter may derive benefit from everything he catches within. Similarly, when a person sells a dovecote with regard to its benefit, it is as if he sells a tree with regard to its fruit. And the laws applying to both of them are like those applying to a person who rents a house, as we have explained in Halachah 1. Such a person may derive all the possible benefits from the property. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

ט

המוכר פירות שובך ופירות כוורת לחבירו קנה ואין זה מוכר דבר שלא בא לעולם לפי שאינו מוכר יונים שיולדו או דבש שיבוא לכוורת אלא הוא מוכר שובך לפירותיו או כוורת לדבשה שהרי הוא כשוכר אמת המים לחבירו שהוא נהנה בכל מה שיצוד בה כך זה הקנה שובך זה לפירותיו כמו שמוכר אילן לפירותיו ודין כולם כדין השוכר בית מחבירו כמו שאמרנו שהוא נהנה בכל הניות שיש בו וכן כל כיוצא בזה:

10

The owner of the dovecote does not acquire the eggs and the fledgling sin the dovecote until they fly. This is a Rabbinic decree, enacted as a safeguard to the prohibition, Deuteronomy 22:6: "Do not take the mother with the young."

Therefore, if a person wants to transfer the ownership of these eggs or these fledglings to a colleague, he should rap on the dovecote so that the mothers will fly away, lifting themselves up from the ground. He should then transfer ownership of the dovecote to his colleague via a kinyan chalifin, by virtue of the transfer of landed property, or via another means of acquiring movable property.

י

הביצים והאפרוחין עצמן שיש בשובך לא קנה אותם בעל שובך כל זמן שלא פרחו ודבר זה גזרת חכמים היא ומשום לא תקח האם על הבנים נגעו בה לפיכך הרוצה להקנות אפרוחים וביצים אלו לחבירו מטפח על השובך שיפרחו האמהות ויגבהו מעל הארץ ואחר כך יקנה אותן לחבירו בקנין או על גבי קרקע או בשאר דברים שהמטלטלין נקנין בהן:

11

When a person purchases the benefit to be derived from a dovecote from a colleague, he is not entitled to take all the fledglings that will be born from the time of the purchase onward. If he did that, the mothers would fly away and he would destroy the dovecote entirely. Instead, he should leave enough of the fledglings so that the dovecote will remain populated.

יא

הלוקח פירות שובך מחבירו אינו יכול ליטול כל הגוזלות שיולדו בו מעתה מפני שהאמהות בורחות נמצא שהחריב כל השובך אלא מניח מהן כדי ליישב השובך:

12

How many of the fledglings must he leave? If there were mother doves and female fledglings at the time he sold the benefit from the dovecote, he should leave the first pair of offspring that the mothers will bear, so that the mothers will be able to establish rapport with the first pair and with the female fledglings that were with them from the time of the sale. He should also leave two pairs of fledglings from those that the daughters who were in the dovecote from the time of the sale bear, so that the daughters will be able to establish rapport with these two pair that they bore. Whatever offspring are born after the first two pair from the daughters and the first pair of the mother belong to the purchaser.

יב

וכמה מניח אם היו בו אמהות ובנות בעת מכירת הפירות מניח בריכה ראשונה שיולידו האמהות כדי שיצטוותו האמהות עם הבריכה הראשונה ועם הבנות שעמהם ומניח ממה שיולידו הבנות שתי בריכות כדי שיצטוותו הבנות עם שתי הבריכות שהולידו וכל הנולד מאחר שתי בריכות של בנות והבריכה הראשונה של אמהות הרי אלו שלו:

13

When a person purchases the benefit to be gained from a beehive from a colleague, he may take three swarms of bees - one after the other. After that, he should take a swarm and leave a swarm to populate the beehive.

יג

הלוקח פירות כוורת מחבירו נוטל שלשה נחילים זה אחר זה מכאן ואילך נוטל נחיל ומניח נחיל כדי ליישב את הכוורת:

14

When a person purchases blocks of a beehive from a colleague, he should leave at least two blocks in the beehive, so that the bees do not fly away and abandon the hive.

יד

הלוקח חלות דבש מחבירו מניח בכוורת שתי חלות כדי שלא יפרחו הדבורים וילכו להן:

15

When a person purchases olive trees from a colleague to cut down as lumber, he must leave two fistfuls of the tree above the ground before cutting. If he purchases a wild fig tree that was never cut down, he must leave three handbreadths before cutting. If he purchases a wild fig tree that was cut down previously, he must leave two handbreadths. For other trees, one handbreadth must be left before cutting.

For reeds and vines, he must leave the lowest knot above the ground. With regard to palm trees and cedar trees, the purchaser should dig out its roots, for it will not grow again.

טו

הלוקח זיתים מחבירו לקוץ מניח האילן סמוך לארץ שתי גרופיות וקוצץ לקח בתולת שקמה מגביה שלשה טפחים וקוצץ סדן של שקמה שני טפחים ובשאר אילנות טפח וקוצץ בקנים ובגפנים מן הפקק ולמעלה בדקלים וארזים חופר ומשרש לפי שאין גזעו מחליף:

Mechirah - Chapter Twenty Four

1

When a person sells three trees within his field, even three small newly planted trees, or three growths of one tree, the purchaser also acquires the land necessary to nurture them. Even if the trees dry up or are chopped down, he still owns the land necessary to nurture them. The purchaser also acquires all the other trees between them.

א

המוכר שלשה אילנות בתוך שדהו ואפילו היו שלש נטיעות קטנות או שלשה בדי אילן הרי יש ללוקח קרקע הראוי להם ואפילו יבשו האילנות או נקצצו יש לו קרקע הראוי להם וקנה כל האילנות שביניהם:

2

How much land is necessary to nurture them? The land beneath them, between them and beyond them, in which a person picking fruit can stand together with his basket.

This place - the place in which a person picking fruit can stand together with his basket - may not be sown by either the buyer or the seller unless the other agrees.

ב

וכמה היא הקרקע הראוי להם תחתיהם וביניהם וחוצה להם כמלא האורה וסלו וזה המקום שהוא מלא האורה וסלו אין אחד משניהם יכול לזרעו אלא מדעת חבירו:

3

When does the above apply? When the three trees that he purchases are positioned like the three feet of a range on which a pot is placed - i.e., two parallel to each other and the third equidistant between them, but not on the line connecting them. There must be at least four cubits between each tree, and no more than sixteen cubits.

ג

במה דברים אמורים כשהיו שלשה האילנות עומדין כמו שלשה פטפוטי כירה ששופתין עליהן את הקדרה שהרי הן שנים זה כנגד זה והשלישי מכוון ביניהן ומרוחק מהן והוא שיהיו בין כל אילן ואילן מארבע אמות ועד שש עשרה:

4

From where does one measure? From the wide portion of the trunk of the tree.

In the following situations, by contrast, the purchaser does not acquire land: the trees were not standing in such a position, they were closer together than four cubits or more distant than sixteen cubits; he purchased one after the other; he sold him two trees in the midst of his field and the third on the boundary line; the purchaser bought two trees in one person's field and one in a field belonging to a colleague; or a cistern, an irrigation ditch or the public domain was interposed between the purchaser's three trees.

Therefore, the purchaser does not acquire the trees between the trees he purchased. If his trees dry up or are cut down, he has no further rights.

ד

ומהיכן הוא מודד מן העיקר הרחב של אילנות אבל אם לא היו עומדין כצורה הזאת או שהיו מקורבים פחות מארבע אמות או מרוחקין יותר משש עשרה אמה או שלקחן זה אחר זה או שמכר לו שנים בתוך שדהו ואחד על המצר או שנים בתוך שלו ואחד בתוך של חבירו או שהפסיק בור או אמת המים או רשות הרבים ביניהם הרי זה אין לו קרקע לפיכך לא קנה האילנות שביניהם ואם יבש האילן או נקצץ ילך לו:

5

The following rules apply whenever a person purchases three trees and therefore acquires land: If the trees grow and a new branch emerges outward from the trunk, it should be cut off, so as not to limit the passage of the owner of the field.

All the twigs and small branches that emerge from the trees - even those that emerge from the roots - belong to the owner of the trees, for he has acquired the land.

ה

כל מי שקונה שלשה אילנות ויש לו קרקע אם הגדילו והוציאו חוטר יקוץ כדי שלא ימעט הדרך על בעל השדה וכל השריגין והאמירים היוצאים מהם ואפילו מן השרשים הרי הן של בעל האילנות שהרי יש לו קרקע:

6

When a person purchases two trees in a field belonging to a colleague, the purchaser does not acquire any land. Therefore, if one of his trees dies or is cut down, he has no further right to the land.

If his two trees grow and produce twigs and small branches, they should be cut off, lest they grow into the earth and appear as a third tree. Then the purchaser would tell the seller: "You sold me three trees and I have a right to the land."

ו

הקונה שני אילנות בתוך שדה חבירו אין לו קרקע לפיכך אם מת האילן או נקצץ אין לו כלום הגדילו שני אילנות והוציאו שריגים ואמירים יקוץ שמא יצמחו בארץ ויאמר למוכר שלשה אילנות מכרת לי ויש לי קרקע:

7

The following laws apply to all the branches that the owner of the trees trims from them. Any branches that grow from the portion of the trunk that sees the sun belong to the owner of the trees. The branches that grow from the roots and do not see the sun belong to the owner of the field. With regard to palm trees, the owner of the tree does not acquire any of the branches, for they do not grow from the trunk.

ז

כל העצים שקוצץ בעל שני האילנות מהן העולה מן הגזעים והוא הרואה פני החמה הרי הוא של בעל האילנות והעולה מן השרשים והוא שאינו רואה פני החמה הרי הוא של בעל השדה ובדקלים אין לבעל הדקל מן העולה כלום לפי שאין לו גזע:

8

When a person sells landed property but retains the rights to the trees, he also retains possession of half of the land. For if he did not retain possession of the land, the purchaser would tell him: "Uproot your trees."

Similarly, if he retains the rights to two trees, he also retains possession of the land appropriate for them. For if he did not retain possession of the land, the purchaser would tell him: "Uproot your trees."

ח

המוכר קרקע ושייר אילנות הרי יש לו חצי הקרקע כולה שאילו לא שייר בקרקע הרי אומר לו הלוקח עקור אילנך וכן אם שייר שני האילנות בלבד יש לו קרקע הראוי להם שאילו לא שייר הקרקע היה הלוקח אומר לו עקור אילנך ולך:

9

When a person sells trees, but retains possession of the land, the owner of the trees acquires possession of the land necessary for them, as we have explained.

If a person sold the land to one person and the trees to another, and the purchaser of the trees manifested his ownership over the trees, and the purchaser of the land manifested his ownership over the land, the purchaser of the trees acquires the trees and half the land, while the purchaser of the land acquires only half the land.

ט

המוכר את האילנות ושייר את הקרקע יש לבעל האילנות קרקע הראוי להם כמו שביארנו מכר את הקרקע לאחד ואת האילנות לאחר והחזיק זה באילנות והחזיק זה בקרקע זה קנה האילנות עם חצי הקרקע וזה שהחזיק בקרקע קנה חצי הקרקע בלבד:

10

When brothers divide an inheritance, one taking an orchard and one taking a field of grain, the owner of the orchard receives four cubits in the field of grain next to the orchard. He is granted this land because we assume that they divided the land with this stipulation in mind. It need not be stated explicitly, because it is something that is well known.

י

האחין שחלקו אחד נטל פרדס ואחד נטל שדה לבן יש לבעל הפרדס ארבע אמות בתוך שדה לבן סמוכות לסוף האילנות של פרדס שעל מנת כן חלקו ואין צריך לפרש דבר זה מפני שהוא דבר ידוע:

11

The following rules apply when a person sells a field containing date palms to a colleague and specifies that he is selling him the field with the exception of one specific tree. If it is a valuable and high-quality tree, we assume that he retained ownership of that one date palm alone; the remainder belong to the purchaser. If the date palm that he specified that he was retaining is inferior, we assume that he surely retained ownership over the others, and the purchaser does not acquire any of the date palms at all.

יא

המוכר שדה לחבירו והיו בה דקלים ואמר לו חוץ מדקל פלוני אם דקל טוב ומשובח הוא אותו הדקל לבדו הוא ששייר והשאר ללוקח ואם דקל רע הוא ששייר [כל שכן ששייר השאר] לא קנה מן הדקלים כלום:

12

The following rules apply when a person sells a field to a colleague and tells him that he is selling it to him with the exception of the trees. If it contains only date palms, the seller retains ownership over the date palms. If it contains only vines, the seller retains ownership over the vines. Similar rules apply if it contains only one other type of tree.

If the field contains vines and date palms, the seller retains ownership over the vines alone. If it contains other trees and vines, the seller retains ownership over the other trees alone. Similarly, if it contains other trees and date palms, he retains the other trees alone. The rationale is that whoever sells, sells generously,

If the seller retains ownership over date palms, he retains ownership over only those date palms that are tall and that one must ascend by means of a rope. The others belong to the purchaser. If he retains ownership over trees, he retains ownership over only those trees that will not be bent over by a yoke. Those that can be bent over by a yoke belong to the purchaser and are considered to be part of the field.

יב

מכר לו שדה ואמר לו חוץ מן האילנות אם יש בו דקלים בלבד שייר הדקלים ואם יש בו גפנים בלבד שייר הגפנים וכן שאר האילנות היו בה גפנים ודקלים לא שייר אלא הגפנים אילנות וגפנים לא שייר אלא אילנות וכן אילנות ודקלים שייר אילנות שהמוכר בעין יפה הוא מוכר ואם הדקלים שייר לא שייר אלא כל דקל גבוה שעולים לו בחבל והשאר הרי הוא של לוקח ואם שאר האילנות הוא ששייר לא שייר בהם אלא כל שאין העול כובשו וכל שהעול כובשו הרי הוא של לוקח ובכלל השדה נחשב:

13

The following rules apply when a person tells a colleague, "I am selling you land and date palms." Even if there are no date palms on the land that he was intending to sell, if he desires to transfer ownership of two other date palms, the transaction is binding. The purchaser does not have the option of saying: "I am purchasing only land that has date palms growing on it."

If, however, the seller tells him: "I am selling you land with date palms," the sale is binding only when there are at least two date palms on the land. If not, it is considered a transaction entered into under false premises, and it is nullified. If the seller tells the purchaser: "I am selling you land for date palms," it need not have date palms. This expression indicates merely that the land is fit to grow date palms.

יג

האומר לחבירו קרקע ודקלים אני מוכר לך אפילו לא היו לו דקלים אם רצה לקנות לו שני דקלים הרי זה נקנה המקח ואין הלוקח יכול לומר לו איני לוקח אלא קרקע שיש בו דקלים ואם אמר קרקע בדקלים אני מוכר לך אם היו בו שני דקלים קנה ואם לאו מקח טעות הוא וחוזר ואם אמר לו קרקע של דקלים אני מוכר לך אין לו דקלים שאין בלשון הזה אלא קרקע הראוי לדקלים:

14

When a person sells an orchard to a colleague, he must write: "Acquire the date palms, the dates and the palm branches." Although the purchaser acquires all of these entities even when they are not explicitly mentioned in the deed of sale, mentioning them makes the wording of the document articulate.

Similarly, when a person sells landed property to a colleague, he must write: "I have not retained ownership over anything in this sale," to prevent judgments and claims from arising.

יד

המוכר פרדס לחבירו צריך שיכתוב לו קנה לך דקלים ותמרים והוצין ואע"פ שקנה כל אלו אף על פי שלא פירש אותם נויי השטר הם וכן המוכר קרקע לחבירו צריך לכתוב לו ולא הנחתי לפני במכר זה כלום כדי להסתלק מן הדינין והטענות:

15

The following rules apply when a person sells a house to a colleague: Even though he writes in the deed of sale: "I have transferred ownership of its depths and its heights," he must write to him:"Acquire from the ground of the earth's depths to the heights of the sky." For the heights and the depths of the property are not transferred when no specification is made.

If he said that he was transferring ownership of the heights and the depths, the purchaser would acquire the height - i.e., the atmosphere alone- and the depths, what is under the ground. He does not acquire what is in their midst. When, however, he writes: "From the ground of the earth's depths to the heights of the sky," he acquires a water receptacle and a cistern that are in the midst of the earth and the pathways that are in between the ceiling and the top of the building.

טו

המוכר בית לחבירו אע"פשכתב לו והקניתי לך עמקו ורומו צריך לכתוב לו קנה לך מהקרקע התהום עד רום רקיע שהעומק והרום אינו נקנה בסתם וכיון שקנה העומק והרום קנה הרום שהוא האויר בלבד והעומק שהוא עובי הארץ אבל לא קנה הבינונית שבמעמקים ושבאויר וכיון שכתב לו מקרקע התהום עד רום הרקיע קנה הבור והדות שבעובי הקרקע והמעזיבות והמחילות שבין המעזיבות למעלה:

16

When a person sells a home on the condition that the upper storeyremains his, he retains possession of that portion of the building. If he desires to extend projections from it, he has the right. If it falls, he may rebuild it. And if there was a third storey built on top of the second and it fell, if he desires to rebuild it, he may build it as it was before it fell.

טז

המוכר בית לחבירו על מנת שדיוטא עליונה שלי הרי זו שלו ואם רצה להוציא בה זיזין מוציא ואם נפלה חוזר ובונה אותה ואם רצה לבנות על גבה בונה כשהיה מקודם:

17

Although a person sells his grave, the path to his grave, the place where the funeral procession stands in honor of the departed, or the place where eulogies are recited, the family may come and bury the deceased there or perform any of the other rites against the will of the purchaser.

This privilege was granted lest the failure to do so blemish the honor of the family. They must pay the purchaser for the grave in which the deceased was buried. This provision is granted even though it was not stated explicitly in the original deed of sale.

יז

המוכר קברו או דרך קברו או מקום מעמדו או בית הספדו באין בני משפחה וקוברים שם בעל כרחו משום פגם משפחה ונותנין דמי הקבר שקברו בו ללוקח אע"פ שלא פירש:

Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class
Shabbat, 10 Tammuz 5778 / June 23, 2018
TODAY
Tuesday Tamuz 10 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Balak, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 55-59.
Tanya: For they (p. 339) ...BLESSED AND EXALTED. (p. 341).
In the early period of his leadership the Alter Rebbe taught: "The footsteps of man are directed by G‑d."1 When a Jew comes to a particular place it is for an (inner Divine) intent and purpose - to perform a mitzva, whether a mitzva between man and G‑d or a mitzva between man and his fellow-man. A Jew is G‑d's messenger. Wherever a messenger (shaliach) may be, he represents the power of the meshalei'ach, the one who sent him.2 The superior quality that souls possess, higher than the angels (who are also "messengers"), is that souls are messengers by virtue of Torah.
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
1.Tehillim 37:23.
2.See also earlier, 7 Adar I, and Iyar 8.***