Today is Shabbat, Av 16, 5778 · July 28, 2018
Today's Laws & Customs
• Shabbat Nachamu ("Shabbat of Consolation")
The Shabbat after the Ninth of Av is called Shabbat Nachamu("Shabbat of Consolation") after the opening words of the day's reading from the prophets ("haftara"). This is the first of the series of readings known as "The Seven of Consolation" read in the seven weeks from the Ninth of Av to Rosh Hashanah.
• Ethics of the Fathers: Chapter 3
During the summer months, from the Shabbat after Passover until the Shabbat before Rosh Hashahah, we study a weekly chapter of the Talmud's Ethics of the Fathers ("Avot") each Shabbat afternoon; this week we study Chapter Three.
Today in Jewish History
• Passing of Sir Moses Montefiore (1885)
Av 16 is the day of the passing, at age 101, of the famed philanthropist and Jewish advocate, Sir Moses Montefiore (1784-1885).
Daily Torah Study
Chumash: Va'etchanan, 7th Portion Deuteronomy 7:1-7:11 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation
• Video Class
• Daily Wisdom (short insight)
Deuteronomy Chapter 7
| 1When the Lord, your God, brings you into the land to which you are coming to possess it, He will cast away many nations from before you: the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivvites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and powerful than you. | | אכִּ֤י יְבִֽיאֲךָ֙ יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ אֶל־הָאָ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּ֥ה בָא־שָׁ֖מָּה לְרִשְׁתָּ֑הּ וְנָשַׁ֣ל גּוֹיִֽם־רַבִּ֣ים | מִפָּנֶ֡יךָ הַֽחִתִּי֩ וְהַגִּרְגָּשִׁ֨י וְהָֽאֱמֹרִ֜י וְהַכְּנַֽעֲנִ֣י וְהַפְּרִזִּ֗י וְהַֽחִוִּי֙ וְהַיְבוּסִ֔י שִׁבְעָ֣ה גוֹיִ֔ם רַבִּ֥ים וַֽעֲצוּמִ֖ים מִמֶּֽךָּ: |
| He will cast away: Heb. וְנָשַׁל. This is an expression meaning casting away, and causing to fly. Similarly is (Deut. 19:5),“and the iron [axe blade] will cause to fly [from the tree].” | | ונשל: לשון השלכה והתזה, וכן (דברים יט, ה) ונשל הברזל: |
| 2And the Lord, your God, will deliver them to you, and you shall smite them. You shall utterly destroy them; neither shall you make a covenant with them, nor be gracious to them. | | בוּנְתָנָ֞ם יְהֹוָ֧ה אֱלֹהֶ֛יךָ לְפָנֶ֖יךָ וְהִכִּיתָ֑ם הַֽחֲרֵ֤ם תַּֽחֲרִים֙ אֹתָ֔ם לֹֽא־תִכְרֹ֥ת לָהֶ֛ם בְּרִ֖ית וְלֹ֥א תְחָנֵּֽם: |
| nor be gracious to them: Heb. וְלֹא תְחָנֵּם This means, you must not show them any grace (חֵן) . It is forbidden for a person to say,“How handsome is this heathen!” Another explanation: Do not grant them a settlement (חֲניָּה) in the land. (Avodah Zarah 20a) | | לא תחנם: לא תתן להם חן. אסור לו לאדם לומר כמה נאה גוי זה. דבר אחר אל תתן להם חנייה בארץ: |
| 3You shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughter to his son, and you shall not take his daughter for your son. | | גוְלֹ֥א תִתְחַתֵּ֖ן בָּ֑ם בִּתְּךָ֙ לֹֽא־תִתֵּ֣ן לִבְנ֔וֹ וּבִתּ֖וֹ לֹֽא־תִקַּ֥ח לִבְנֶֽךָ: |
| 4For he will turn away your son from following Me, and they will worship the gods of others, and the wrath of the Lord will be kindled against you, and He will quickly destroy you. | | דכִּֽי־יָסִ֤יר אֶת־בִּנְךָ֙ מֵאַֽחֲרַ֔י וְעָֽבְד֖וּ אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֲחֵרִ֑ים וְחָרָ֤ה אַף־יְהֹוָה֙ בָּכֶ֔ם וְהִשְׁמִֽידְךָ֖ מַהֵֽר: |
| For he will turn away your son from following Me: i.e., the heathen’s son, if he marries your daughter, will turn away your [grand]son whom your daughter will bear to him, from following Me. This teaches us that your daughter’s son, born of a heathen man, is called “your son,” but your son’s son, born of a heathen woman, is not called “your son,” but “her son.” For Scripture [first says, “Do not give your daughter to his son, and do not take his daughter for your son.” Then it follows with “For he will turn away your son….” However], referring to “do not take his daughter,” it does not say“For she will turn away your son…” [because he is considered her son, not yours (Kid. 68b). | | כי יסיר את בנך מאחרי: בנו של גוי כשישא את בתך יסיר את בנך אשר תלד לו בתך מאחרי. למדנו שבן בתך הבא מן הגוי קרוי בנך, אבל בן בנך הבא מן הגויה אינו קרוי בנך אלא בנה, שהרי לא נאמר על בתו לא תקח כי תסיר את בנך מאחרי, אלא כי יסיר את בנך וגו': |
| 5But so shall you do to them: You shall demolish their altars and smash their monuments, and cut down their asherim trees, and burn their graven images with fire. | | הכִּ֣י אִם־כֹּ֤ה תַֽעֲשׂוּ֙ לָהֶ֔ם מִזְבְּחֹֽתֵיהֶ֣ם תִּתֹּ֔צוּ וּמַצֵּֽבֹתָ֖ם תְּשַׁבֵּ֑רוּ וַֽאֲשֵֽׁירֵהֶם֙ תְּגַדֵּע֔וּן וּפְסִֽילֵיהֶ֖ם תִּשְׂרְפ֥וּן בָּאֵֽשׁ: |
| their altars: Heb. מִזְבְּחֹתֵיהֶם [A מִזְבֵּח is a structure] built up [of several stones]. | | מזבחתיהם: של בנין: |
| and… their monuments: Heb. וּמַצֵּבֹתָם [A מַצֵּבָה is a structure made] of one stone. \b their asherim trees Trees that are worshipped (\b0Avodah Zarah 48a). | | מצבותם: אבן אחת: |
| and… their graven images: [These are] images (i.e., idols). | | ואשירהם: אילנות שעובדין אותן: |
| 6For you are a holy people to the Lord, your God: the Lord your God has chosen you to be His treasured people, out of all the peoples upon the face of the earth. | | וכִּ֣י עַ֤ם קָדוֹשׁ֙ אַתָּ֔ה לַֽיהֹוָ֖ה אֱלֹהֶ֑יךָ בְּךָ֞ בָּחַ֣ר | יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֗יךָ לִֽהְי֥וֹת לוֹ֙ לְעַ֣ם סְגֻלָּ֔ה מִכֹּל֙ הָֽעַמִּ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֖ר עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הָֽאֲדָמָֽה: |
| 7Not because you are more numerous than any people did the Lord delight in you and choose you, for you are the least of all the peoples. | | זלֹ֣א מֵֽרֻבְּכֶ֞ם מִכָּל־הָֽעַמִּ֗ים חָשַׁ֧ק יְהֹוָ֛ה בָּכֶ֖ם וַיִּבְחַ֣ר בָּכֶ֑ם כִּֽי־אַתֶּ֥ם הַמְעַ֖ט מִכָּל־הָֽעַמִּֽים: |
| Not because you were [more] numerous: [This is to be understood] according to its simple meaning. But its midrashic explanation [understanding וְלֹא מֵרֻבְּכֶם as “not because you are great”] is: Because you do not boast about yourselves when I shower good upon you. This is why I delighted in you [says God]. | | לא מרבכם: כפשוטו. ומדרשו לפי שאין אתם מגדילים עצמכם כשאני משפיע לכם טובה לפיכך חשקתי בכם: |
| For you are the least [of all the peoples]: You humble yourselves as, e.g., Abraham, who said, “For I am dust and ashes” (Gen. 18:27), and Moses and Aaron, who said, “but of what [significance] are we?” (Exod. 16:7) Unlike Nebuchadnezzar, who said, “I will liken myself to the Most High,” (Isa. 14:14), and Sennacherib, who said, (Isa. 36:20), “Who are they among all the gods of thelands [who saved their land from my hand]?” and Hiram, who said,“I am a god, I have sat in a seat of God” (Ezek. 28:2). (Chul. 89a) | | כי אתם המעט: הממעטין עצמכם, כגון אברהם, שאמר (בראשית יח, כז) ואנכי עפר ואפר, וכגון משה ואהרן שאמרו (שמות טז, ח) ונחנו מה, לא כנבוכדנצר שאמר (ישעיה יד, יד) אדמה לעליון, וסנחריב שאמר (שם לו, כ) מי בכל אלהי הארצות, וחירם שאמר (יחזקאל כח, ב) אל אני מושב אלהים ישבתי: |
| for you are the least: Heb. כִּי-אַתֶּם הַמְעַט Here כִּי is an expression of“because.” | | כי אתם המעט: הרי כי משמש בלשון דהא: |
| 8But because of the Lord's love for you, and because He keeps the oath He swore to your forefathers, the Lord took you out with a strong hand and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh, the king of Egypt. | | חכִּי֩ מֵאַֽהֲבַ֨ת יְהֹוָ֜ה אֶתְכֶ֗ם וּמִשָּׁמְר֤וֹ אֶת־הַשְּׁבֻעָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֤ר נִשְׁבַּע֙ לַֽאֲבֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם הוֹצִ֧יא יְהֹוָ֛ה אֶתְכֶ֖ם בְּיָ֣ד חֲזָקָ֑ה וַיִּפְדְּךָ֙ מִבֵּ֣ית עֲבָדִ֔ים מִיַּ֖ד פַּרְעֹ֥ה מֶֽלֶךְ־מִצְרָֽיִם: |
| But because of the Lord’s love: Heb. כִּי מֵאַהֲבַת ה׳ Here, [however,] כִּי is an expression of “but.” [Thus, the verses read] Not because you were more numerous… did the Lord delight in you, but because of the Lord’s love for you. | | כי מאהבת ה': הרי כי משמש בלשון אלא. לא מרובכם חשק ה' בכם, אלא מאהבת ה' אתכם: |
| and because He keeps the oath: Heb. וּמִשָּׁמְרוֹ means, “and because of His keeping the oath” [not “and from His keeping the oath”]. | | ומשמרו את השבועה: מחמת שמרו את השבועה: |
| 9Know, therefore, that the Lord, your God He is God, the faithful God, Who keeps the covenant and loving kindness with those who love Him and keep His commandments to a thousand generations. | | טוְיָ֣דַעְתָּ֔ כִּֽי־יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ ה֣וּא הָֽאֱלֹהִ֑ים הָאֵל֙ הַנֶּֽאֱמָ֔ן שֹׁמֵ֧ר הַבְּרִ֣ית וְהַחֶ֗סֶד לְאֹֽהֲבָ֛יו וּלְשֹֽׁמְרֵ֥י מִצְוֹתָ֖יו (כתיב מצותו) לְאֶ֥לֶף דּֽוֹר: |
| to a thousand generations: But earlier, (verse 5:10) it says: “To thousands [of generations].” [Why the difference?] Here, where it is adjacent to “those who keep His commandments,” it says: “to a thousand generations” [because it is referring to those who obey God out of fear] but previously, where it is adjacent to those who love Him, it says:“for thousands [of generations].” (Sotah 31a) | | לאלף דור: ולהלן הוא אומר (דברים ה, ט) לאלפים, כאן שהוא סמוך אצל לשומרי מצותיו, העושין מיראה, הוא אומר לאלף, ולהלן שהוא סמוך אצל לאוהביו, העושין מאהבה, ששכרם יותר גדול, הוא אומר לאלפים: |
| with those who love Him: Those who perform [the commandments] out of love. | | לאוהביו: אלו העושין מאהבה: |
| and keep His commandments: Those who perform [the commandments] out of fear. | | ולשומרי מצותיו: אלו העושין מיראה: |
| 10And He repays those who hate Him, to their face, to cause them to perish; He will not delay the one who hates Him, but he will repay him to his face. | | יוּמְשַׁלֵּ֧ם לְשֽׂנְאָ֛יו אֶל־פָּנָ֖יו לְהַֽאֲבִיד֑וֹ לֹ֤א יְאַחֵר֙ לְשׂ֣נְא֔וֹ אֶל־פָּנָ֖יו יְשַׁלֶּם־לֽוֹ: |
| And He repays those who hate Him to their face: During his lifetime, He pays him his good reward, in order to cause him to be lost from the World to Come. | | ומשלם לשנאיו אל פניו: בחייו משלם לו גמולו הטוב כדי להאבידו מן העולם הבא: |
| 11You shall therefore, observe the commandments, the statutes, and the ordinances, which I command you this day to do. | | יאוְשָֽׁמַרְתָּ֨ אֶת־הַמִּצְוָ֜ה וְאֶת־הַֽחֻקִּ֣ים וְאֶת־הַמִּשְׁפָּטִ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֨ר אָֽנֹכִ֧י מְצַוְּךָ֛ הַיּ֖וֹם לַֽעֲשׂתָֽם: |
| this day to do them: But in the future, in the World to Come, you will receive their reward (Eruvin 22a). | | היום לעשותם: ולמחר לעולם הבא ליטול |
Tehillim: Chapters 79 - 82
• Hebrew text
• English text
Chapter 79
In this psalm, Asaph thanks God for sparing the people and directing His wrath upon the wood and stones (of the Temple). Still he cries bitterly, mourning the immense destruction: The place where the High Priest alone was allowed to enter-and only on Yom Kippur-is now so desolate that foxes stroll through it!
1. A psalm by Asaph. O God, nations have entered Your inheritance, they defiled Your Holy Sanctuary; they turned Jerusalem into heaps of rubble.
2. They have rendered the corpses of Your servants as food for the birds of heaven, the flesh of Your pious ones for the beasts of the earth.
3. They spilled their blood like water around Jerusalem, and there is no one to bury [them].
4. We became the object of disgrace to our neighbors, ridicule and scorn to those around us.
5. Until when, O Lord! Will You be angry forever? Will Your jealousy burn like fire?
6. Pour Your wrath upon the nations that do not know You, upon the kingdoms that do not call Your Name,
7. for they devoured Jacob and desolated His abode.
8. Do not recall our former sins; let Your mercies come swiftly towards us, for we have fallen very low.
9. Help us, God of our deliverance, for the sake of the glory of Your Name; save us and pardon our sins for the sake of Your Name.
10. Why should the nations say, "Where is their God?" Let there be known among the nations, before our eyes, the retribution of the spilled blood of Your servants.
11. Let the groan of the prisoner come before You; liberate those condemned to death, as befits the greatness of Your strength.
12. Repay our neighbors sevenfold into their bosom, for the disgrace with which they reviled You, O Lord.
13. And we, Your people, the flock of Your pasture, will thank You forever; for all generations we will recount Your praise.
Chapter 80
An awe-inspiring prayer imploring God to draw near to us as in days of old.
1. For the Conductor, on the shoshanim, a testimony by Asaph, a psalm.
2. Listen, O Shepherd of Israel, Who leads Joseph like sheep. Appear, You Who is enthroned upon the cherubim.
3. Arouse Your might before Ephraim, Benjamin and Menashe, for it is upon You to save us.
4. Return us, O God; cause Your countenance to shine, that we may be saved.
5. O Lord, God of Hosts, until when will You fume at the prayer of Your people?
6. You fed them bread of tears, and gave them tears to drink in great measure.
7. You have made us an object of strife to our neighbors; our enemies mock to themselves.
8. Return us, O God of Hosts; cause Your countenance to shine, that we may be saved.
9. You brought a vine out of Egypt; You drove out nations and planted it.
10. You cleared space before it; it took root and filled the land.
11. Mountains were covered by its shade, and its branches became mighty cedars.
12. It sent forth its branches till the sea, and its tender shoots to the river.
13. Why did You breach its fences, so that every passerby plucked its fruit?
14. The boars of the forest ravage it, and the creepers of the field feed upon it.
15. O God of Hosts, please return! Look down from heaven and see, and be mindful of this vine,
16. and of the foundation which Your right hand has planted, and the son whom You strengthened for Yourself.
17. It is burned by fire, cut down; they perish at the rebuke of Your Presence.
18. Let Your hand be upon the man of Your right hand, upon the son of man whom You strengthened for Yourself.
19. Then we will not withdraw from You; revive us, and we will proclaim Your Name.
20. O Lord, God of Hosts, return us; cause Your countenance to shine that we may be saved.
Chapter 81
This psalm was chanted in the Holy Temple on Rosh Hashanah, a day on which many miracles were wrought for Israel.
1. For the Conductor, upon the gittit, by Asaph.
2. Sing joyously to God, our strength; sound the shofar to the God of Jacob.
3. Raise your voice in song, sound the drum, the pleasant harp, and the lyre.
4. Blow the shofar on the New Month, on the designated day of our Holy Day;
5. for it is a decree for Israel, a ruling of the God of Jacob.
6. He ordained it as a precept for Joseph when he went forth over the land of Egypt; I heard a language which I did not know.
7. I have taken his shoulder from the burden; his hands were removed from the pot.
8. In distress you called and I delivered you; [you called] in secret, and I answered you with thunderous wonders; I tested you at the waters of Merivah, Selah.
9. Hear, My people, and I will admonish you; Israel, if you would only listen to Me!
10. You shall have no alien god within you, nor shall you bow down to a foreign deity.
11. I am the Lord your God who brought you up from the land of Egypt; open wide your mouth, [state all your desires,] and I shall grant them.
12. But My people did not heed My voice; Israel did not want [to listen to] Me.
13. So I sent them away for the willfulness of their heart, for following their [evil] design.
14. If only My people would listen to Me, if Israel would only walk in My ways,
15. then I would quickly subdue their enemies, and turn My hand against their oppressors.
16. Those who hate the Lord would shrivel before Him, and the time [of their retribution] shall be forever.
17. I would feed him [Israel] with the finest of wheat, and sate you with honey from the rock.
Chapter 82
This psalm admonishes those judges who feign ignorance of the law, dealing unjustly with the pauper or the orphan, while coddling the rich and pocketing their bribes.
1. A psalm by Asaph. God stands in the council of judges; among the judges He renders judgment:
2. How long will you judge wickedly, ever showing partiality toward the evildoers?
3. Render justice to the needy and the orphan; deal righteously with the poor and the destitute.
4. Rescue the needy and the pauper; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
5. But they do not know, nor do they understand; they go about in darkness, [therefore] all the foundations of the earth tremble.
6. I said that you are angels, supernal beings, all of you;
7. but you will die as mortals, you will fall like any prince.
8. Arise, O God, judge the earth, for You possess all the nations.
Tanya: Iggeret HaKodesh, middle of Epistle 5
• English Text (Lessons in Tanya)
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class
Menachem Av 16, 5778 · July 28, 2018
Today's Tanya Lesson
Iggeret HaKodesh, middle of Epistle 5
אך ביאור הענין למה אמרו רז״ל שעולם הזה דוקא נברא בה׳
We now come to an exposition of why our Sages, of blessed memory, said that specifically this world was created by the hei.
According to the explanation provided above, not only this physical world, but all of creation resulted from the letter hei, i.e., from the Sefirah of Malchut as expressed in Divine speech.
The Alter Rebbe resolves this apparent anomaly by explaining that it is indeed true that all creation derives from the infinite variety of permutations and combinations of the letters which constitute Divine speech. Nevertheless, the loftier and more spiritual created beings derive from the internal aspect of Divine speech, which stems from Chochmah,and they therefore have an intellectual perception of G‑dliness. Physical creation, by contrast, is of too lowly a level to be able to receive its life-giving Divine light and energy from the “soul” (i.e., the internal aspect) of the letters of G‑d’s creative speech; it merely receives this from the “body” (i.e., from the external aspect) of these letters.
The creation of physicality thus resembles the breath emanating from the heart, that forms the physical voice. Above, in like manner, the physical world is formed from Supernal breath, the “body” of the letters.
Hence our Sages teach that this world was created by the letter hei — for this letter denotes the Divine breath, as explained above.
It is this that the Alter Rebbe now goes on to say:
הנה ידוע לכל חכמי לב
This is known to all the wise of heart1
כי ריבוי העולמות וההיכלות אשר אין להם מספר
concerning the multitude of worlds and heichalot, palaces or chambers, which are innumerable,
כמו שכתוב: היש מספר לגדודיו
as it is written, with reference to these countless worlds andheichalot,2 “Do His regiments have a number?”
ובכל היכל וגדוד, אלף אלפין ורבוא רבבן מלאכים
Each heichal and regiment comprises [a finite but prodigious number of] angels, [as it is written],]3 “A thousand thousands [serve Him] and myriads of myriads [stand before Him].”4
וכן נרנח״י, מדרגות לאין קץ
Likewise, incalculable like the above heichalotand regiments, are the levels of [souls, belonging to the five general categories of] nefesh, ruach, neshamah, chayah and yechidah, in rungs to no end, for each of these five categories branches out into levels of inexhaustible number.
ובכל עולם והיכלות מריבוי היכלות שבאצילות, בריאה, יצירה
And so too [there are numberless levels] in all the worlds and heichalot, from among the multitudes of heichalot that exist in the Worlds of Atzilut, Beriah and Yetzirah.
The three above-mentioned worlds are “higher” than the World of Asiyah (“the World of Action”), which includes both the spiritual and physical worlds of Asiyah.
הנה כל ריבויים אלו, ריבוי אחר ריבוי עד אין קץ
All these hosts [of created beings], then, one multitude beyond another ad infinitum,
הכל נמשך ונשפע מריבוי צירופי כ״ב אותיות דבר ה׳
all issue and flow from the multitudinous combinations of the twenty-two letters of the “word of G‑d,”
המתחלקות גם כן לצירופים רבים עד אין קץ ותכלית ממש
which, in turn, divide into a further profusion of combinations, truly ad infinitum.
כמו שכתוב בספר יצירה: שבע אבנים בונות חמשת אלפים וארבעים בתים
As stated in Sefer Yetzirah,5 “Seven ‘stones’ (i.e., letters)build five thousand and forty ‘houses’ (i.e., words);
מכאן ואילך, צא וחשוב מה שאין הפה יכול לדבר כו׳
from here onwards — i.e., from the sum of the factorial of eight and onwards — go ahead and calculate that which the mouth is unable to express.”
In this way the letters of Divine speech may be multiplied infinitely by various permutations and combinations, thus giving rise to a correspondingly infinite range of created beings.
But if the distinctions between all these beings lie merely in the ways in which their respective letters are combined, why are there also many and varying qualitative levels, “one surpassing the other”? This is the question that the Alter Rebbe now proceeds to address.
והגם שיש במעלות ומדריגות המלאכים ונשמות כמה וכמה מיני מעלות ומדריגות חלוקות לאין קץ
Though among the rungs and levels of the angels and souls there are so many distinct kinds of qualitative as well as quantitative levels and rungs ad infinitum,
גבוה על גבוה
one surpassing the other,
הנה הכל נמשך לפי חילופי הצירופים והתמורות בא״ת ב״ש כו׳
[these variations of level exist because] they all come into being according to permutations in the various letter-combinations and letter-substitutions of alef-tav, beit-shin, and so on,6 (of the twenty-two letters whichthemselves come into being according to permutations in the various letter-combinations and letter-substitutions of alef-tav, beit-shin [and so on]),7
(וכמו שכתוב בפרק י״ב)
(8as explained in ch. 12 [of Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah]).9
Now, although there exists such a teeming superabundance of distinct and varying levels of created beings:
אך דרך כלל הנה כולם בעלי חכמה ודעת, ויודעים את בוראם
In a general way they all possess wisdom and knowledge, and they know their Creator,
מפני היות חיותם מפנימיות האותיות, הנמשכות מבחינת חכמה עילאה, וכנ״ל
because their life-force stems from the inwardness of the letters which issue from the Supreme Chochmah, as mentioned above.
We may therefore truly say that the beings encompassed by the general term of [creatures of] the World to Come were all created by the letter yud, for their vitality stems from the inwardness and radiance of the letters of Divine speech that derive from the yud of the Four-Letter Name of G‑d.
* * *
אך העולם הזה השפל, עם החיות שבתוכו
This lowly world, however, with the life-force that is found within it,
קטן מהכיל ולסבול אור וחיות מבחינת צורת האותיות ופנימיותן
is too small to contain and endure the light and life-force that proceed from the “form” and “inwardness” of the letters;
להאיר ולהשפיע בו בלי לבוש והסתר
[this lowly world is too small for this light and life-force to be able] to radiate and diffuse in it without any garment or concealment
כמו שמאירות ומשפיעות לנשמות ומלאכים
as they radiate and diffuse to the souls and angels, which receive the radiation from the inwardness of the letters without the garment and concealment of the “matter” and “body” of the letters which consists of the “breath”.10
רק ההארה וההשפעה באה ונשפע לעולם הזה מבחינת חומר וגוף האותיות וחיצוניותם
Instead, the radiation and diffusion comes and flows to this world from the “matter”, “body”, or “externality” of the letters.
שהוא בחינת ההבל
This is called “breath”, just as the “body” or external aspect of the letters of man’s speech derives from physical breath,
המתחלק לז׳ הבלים שבקהלת, שעליהם העולם עומד
and it divides into the seven “breaths” of [the second verse of] Kohelet,11 on which the world stands; as taught in the holyZohar,12 “The world exists only by virtue of the [seven] ‘breaths’ uttered by King Solomon.”
והוא מוצא פי ה׳, המתלבש בעולם הזה וכל צבאיו להחיותם
This is “the utterance that issues forth from G‑d’s mouth,” i.e., this is the letter hei, which is vested in this world and all its hosts to animate them;
ובתוכו מלובשת בחינת צורת אותיות הדיבור והמחשבה
in [this utterance] is vested the “form” of the letters of speech and thought,
ממדותיו הקדושות ורצונו וחכמתו וכו׳
emanating from His holy attributes, and His will and wisdom, and so on,
This is similar to the letters (i.e., the potential and as-yet- inarticulate components) of a man’s speech or thought, which attain a state of revealed expression through his emotions: since, for example, he loves and desires something, he thinks and speaks about it. The emotions themselves, however, derive from his will and mind. The same is true Above: the letters of speech and thought are revealed by the Divine attributes and emanate from them, though ultimately they derive from G‑d’s will and wisdom.
המיוחדות באין סוף ברוך הוא, בתכלית
which are utterly incorporated in the blessed Ein Sof.
Thus, the radiance emanating from the “form” of the letters — a radiance that emanates from G‑d’s attributes, wisdom and will — is merely found בתוכו, withinthe internality of the Divine utterance that creates and vitalizes this world; it is not manifest. That which serves as the source of the creation and vitality of this world is the externality or “body” of the letters, the “breath” of Divine speech.
(וזה שאמר האר״י ז״ל, שבחינת חיצוניות הכלים דמלכות דאצילות, המרומזות בה׳ של שם ה׳ ברוך הוא, הם ירדו ונעשו נשמה לעולם העשיה)
(13And this is what Rabbi Isaac Luria, of blessed memory, stated14 — that the external aspects of the vessels of [the Sefirahof] Malchut of [the World of] Atzilut,[these external aspects being] alluded to by the [lower] hei of the Four-Letter Name of G‑d, descended and became the soul for the World of Asiyah.)
וכן כתוב בתקונים, שהיו״ד הוא באצילות כו׳, וה׳ תתאה מקננת בעשיה
It is likewise stated in the Tikkunim,15 that the yud is in [the World of] Atzilut, [the upper hei in the World of Beriah, the vav in the World of Yetzirah,] and the lower heinests in [the World of] Asiyah.
These four letters of the Divine Name Havayahare the aspect of G‑dliness that is revealed within the Four Worlds,16 as follows:
In the World of Atzilut,the Sefirah of Chochmah(the yud of the Divine Name) is manifest. Chochmah signifies the highest form of self-nullification, the awareness that “He is One Alone and apart from Him there is nothing,” as explained in the Note to Part I, ch. 35. This Sefirahpermeates the entire World of Atzilut, so that whatever exists at that state of being experiences this degree of self-nullification before G‑d.
The upper hei of the Divine Name, the Sefirahof Binah(“comprehension”), illuminates the World of Beriah. Hence all the inhabitants of this world, both souls and angels, are characterized by a high degree of perception of Divinity.
The World of Yetzirahis illumined by the letter vav of the Divine Name, representing the six middot, the Divine emotive attributes. The created beings of this world therefore serve G‑d with their spiritual emotions, with ecstatic love and fear.
The World of Asiyah is animated by the lower heiof the Tetragrammaton, the Sefirah of Malchut.This is the world of action, the level of active Divine service that is motivated by an acceptance of the yoke of the heavenly kingdom.
However, this refers only to the soul of the World of Asiyah that emanates from the combinations of the letters of Divine speech at their innermost dimension. This level is clothed and concealed within the “matter” or “body” of the letters — the “breath”. The actual creation and animation of the World of Asiyah derives only from the externality of Divine speech, i.e., from the “breath”. It is for this reason that this world is physical and corporeal.
* * *
| FOOTNOTES |
| 1. | “This accords with the explanation in Torah Or(and Or HaTorah) on this phrase [in the context of Shmot 28:2-3].” ( — Note of the Rebbe.) |
| 2. | Iyov 25:3. |
| 3. | Daniel 7:10. |
| 4. | “The Alter Rebbe cites this as well (as he does also in Part I, ch. 46, p. 65b), thus inviting a question as to what is added thereby (see ibid., beginning of ch. 48). It could be argued that he thereby adduces that though these ‘regiments’ derive from letters and are therefore (finite and) countable, they nevertheless comprise as well an aspect of infinity.” ( — Note of the Rebbe.) |
| 5. | 4:12. |
| 6. | According to the rules of substitution, the first letter (א) can be substituted by the last letter (ת); the second letter (ב) can be substituted by the second-last letter (ש), and so on. There are also other schemes of transposition, e.g., of letters of similar sound; of letters articulated by the same organ of speech; and so on. |
| 7. | This parenthetical gloss was added by the Rebbe. |
| 8. | Parentheses appear in original text. |
| 9. | “[The above-described successive stages of letter-permutation cause the light of Divine speech] to descend from the loftiest rung to the lofty rung below it, [creating creatures of lesser standing by a mere] ‘radiation of a radiation’ [as in ch. 12, loc. cit.]. By contrast, mere differencesin letter-permutation would not produce [creatures of] lesser standing.” ( — Note of the Rebbe.) |
| 10. | “[This ‘garment’ or ‘breath’] retains no separate identity from that which is clothed in it, and does not conceal it.” ( — Note of the Rebbe.) |
| 11. | “See also Or HaTorah on this verse.” ( — Note of the Rebbe.) |
| 12. | I, 146b. |
| 13. | Parentheses appear in original text. |
| 14. | See Etz Chayim, Shaar 47, ch. 2, et al. |
| 15. | See Tikkun 6 (p. 23a); Etz Chayim, Shaar 42, conclusion of ch. 4. |
| 16. | “As explained in Part I, ch. 39.” ( — Note of the Rebbe.) |
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvot:
|
|
Today's Mitzvah
|
Menachem Av 16, 5778 · July 28, 2018
|
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
| |
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.
Positive Commandment 246Laws of Claims
"In every case of trespass...in which one can say: 'This is it'"—Exodus 22:8.
We are commanded to adjudicate monetary cases between litigants [according to the laws outlined in the Torah].
|
|
|
Laws of Claims
Positive Commandment 246
The 246th mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding claims and counterclaims [in lawsuits.]
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He), "In every case of dishonesty... [and the watchman] said that this is it."
In the words of the Mechilta: "The phrase 'that this is it' refers to partial admission to the claim."
This mitzvah includes anything that can arise from the claims people have against one another involving admission and denial.
The details of this commandment are explained in the 3rd chapter of Bava Kama, the beginning of Bava Metzia, and the 5th, 6th, and 7th chapters of Shavuos. Many questions regarding this subject are spread throughout the Talmud.
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter A Day: Shechitah Shechitah - Chapter 7
Shechitah - Chapter 7
1
The lungs have two membranes. If only one of them is perforated, [the animal] is permitted. If they are both perforated, [the animal] is trefe. Even if the entire upper membrane is peeled off and dissolves, [the animal] is permitted. If there was even a slight perforation in the portion of windpipe in the chest or lower, [the animal] is trefe. For this is a place in the lower portion of the windpipe that is not fit for ritual slaughter.
א
שני קרומות יש על הריאה אם ניקב זה בלא זה מותרת, ואם ניקבו שניהן טרפה אפילו נגלד הקרום העליון כולו והלך לו מותרת, והקנה שניקב מן החזה ולמטה במשהו טרפה, והוא המקום שאינו ראוי לשחיטה בקנה למטה.
2
If a person began slaughtering the animal and slit the windpipe entirely, then perforated the lung, and afterwards, completed the slaughter, [the animal] is trefe, for [the lung] was perforated before the completion of the slaughter. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
ב
התחיל בשחיטה ושחט כל הקנה ואחר כך ניקבה הריאה ואחר כך גמר השחיטה הרי זו טרפה, הואיל וניקבה קודם גמר שחיטה וכן כל כיוצא בזה.
3
If one of the bronchioles was perforated, even if the perforation is covered by another bronchiole, [the animal] is trefe. If one saw that it was perforated and then it developed a scab, [the scab] is of no consequence.
If the mass of the lung is perforated, [the animal] is trefe, even if one of the ribs seals the perforation. If it was perforated in a place where the lung breaks into lobes and the lobe lies on [a rib, the animal] is kosher.
ג
אחד מסמפוני ריאה שניקב אפילו ניקב לחבירו טרפה, וריאה שניקבה ועלה קרום במכה ונסתם הנקב אינו כלום, ניקבה האום של ריאה אע"פ שדופן סותמתה טרפה, ואם ניקבה במקום חתוך האונות שלה והוא המקום שרובצת עליו כשרה.
4
When does the above apply? When the perforation in the lobes is sealed by flesh. If, however, the perforation is pressed against the bone, it does not protect it. If, however, the perforation in the lobes was clinging both to the bone and the flesh, [the animal] is permitted.
ד
במה דברים אמורים כשסתם מקום הנקב שבאונות בשר, אבל אם נסמך הנקב לעצם אינו מגין, ואם היה נקב האונות דבוק בעצם ובבשר מותרת.
5
When the body of the lung is found adhering to the ribs, we suspect that it was perforated. [This applies] whether or not growths appeared on it.
What do we [to check it]? We separate it from the rib while taking care not to perforate it. If it is discovered to be perforated and a bruise is discovered on the rib in the place where it was perforated, we assume that the perforation was caused by the bruise. If there was no bruise on the rib, it is clear that this perforation existed within the lung before the animal was slaughtered and it is trefe.
ה
האום של ריאה שנמצאת סמוכה לדופן, בין שהעלת צמחים בין שלא העלת חוששין לה שמא ניקבה, וכיצד עושין בה מפרקין אותה מן הדופן ונזהרין בה שלא תנקב, אם נמצאת נקובה ונמצא בדופן מכה במקום הנקב תולין במכה ואומרים אחר שחיטה ניקבה כשנפרק מן המכה, ואם אין מכה בדופן בידוע שנקב זה בריאה היה קודם השחיטה וטרפה.
6
When it is discovered that there is a closed place in the lung which air does not enter and it does not inflate, it is as if it had been perforated and [the animal] is trefe.
How do we inspect it? We cut off the portion [of the lung] that would not inflate when [air was] blown [into the lung]. If fluid was discovered within it, it is permitted, because it was due to the fluid that the air did not enter. If no fluid is found within, we put some saliva, a straw, a feather or the like over [the separated portion] and blow air into it. If they move, [the animal] is kosher.If not, it is trefe, because air does not enter [that portion of the lung].
ו
הריאה שנמצא בה מקום אטום כל שהוא שאין הרוח נכנסת בו ואינו נתפח הרי זו כנקובה וטרפה, וכיצד בודקין אותו, קורעין המקום שלא נתפח בשעת נפיחה אם נמצאת בו לחה מותרת שמחמת הלחה לא נכנסה שם הרוח, ואם לא נמצאת בו לחה נותנין עליו מעט רוק או תבן או כנף וכיוצא בהן ונופחין אותה אם נתנדנד כשרה ואם לאו טרפה שאין הרוח נכנסת לשם.
7
[The following rules apply when] a sound is heard when a lung is inflated. If the place from which the sound emanates can be detected, saliva, a straw, or the like should be placed over it. If they flutter, it is apparent that the lung is perforated and [the animal] is trefe.
If the place [from which the sound emanates] cannot be detected, the lung should be placed in lukewarm water and blown. If the water bubbles, [the animal] istrefe. If not, it is apparent that only the lower membrane has been perforated, the air is moving between the two membranes. For this reason, it will be possible to hear a hushed sound when it is inflated.
ז
ריאה שתשמע בה הברה כשנופחין אותה אם ניכר המקום שממנו תשמע ההברה מושיבין עליו רוק או תבן וכיוצא בו, אם נתנדנד בידוע שהיא נקובה וטרפה, ואם לא ניכר המקום מושיבין אותה במים פושרין ונופחין אותה, אם בקבק המים טרפה, ואם לאו בידוע שקרום התחתון בלבד ניקב והרוח תנהג בין שני הקרומות ומפני זה ישמע בה קול דממה בשעת נפיחה.
8
Keep this encompassing general principle in mind: Whenever air was blown into a lung that was placed in lukewarm water and the water did not bubble, [the lung] is intact, without a perforation.
ח
זה עיקר גדול יהיה בידך שכל ריאה שנופחין אותה בפושרין ולא יבקבק המים הרי היא שלימה מכל נקב.
9
[The following laws apply when the insides of] a lung can be poured out like [water from] a pitcher, but the outer membrane is intact, without a perforation. If the bronchioles remain in their place and have not degenerated, it is acceptable. If even one of the bronchioles have degenerated, it is trefe.
What should be done? We perforate [the membrane of the lung] and pour it out into a container glazed with lead or the like. If white strands can be seen, it is apparent that the bronchioles have degeneratedand it is trefe. If not, it is only the flesh of the lung that has degenerated and [the animal] is acceptable.
ט
ריאה שנשפכה כקיתון וקרום העליון שלה קיים שלם בלא נקב, אם הסמפונות עומדים במקומם ולא נמוחו כשרה, ואם נמוח אפילו סמפון אחד טרפה, כיצד עושין נוקבין אותה ושופכין אותה בכלי שהוא שוע באבר וכיוצא בו, אם נראה בה חוטין לבנין בידוע שנימוקו הסמפונות וטרפה, ואם לאו בשר הריאה בלבד הוא שנמוק וכשרה.
10
[The following rules apply when] boils are discovered on a lung. If they are filled with air, clear water, fluid that is viscous like honey or the like, dried fluid that is firm like a stone, [the animal] is permitted. If putrid fluid or putrid or murky liquid is found within it, it is trefe. When one removes the fluid and checks it, one should check the bronchiole below it. If it is discovered to be perforated, it is trefe.
י
ריאה שנמצאו בה אבעבועות אם היו מלאים רוח או מים זכים או לחה הנמשכת כדבש וכיוצא בו או לחה יבשה וקשה אפילו כאבן הרי זו מותרת, ואם נמצאת בהן לחה סרוחה או מים סרוחין או עכורין הרי זו טרפה, וכשמוציא הלחה ובודק אותה צריך לבדוק הסמפון שתחתיה אם נמצא נקוב טרפה.
11
When one discovers two boils on a lung close to each other, [the animal] is trefe, for it is very likely that there is a perforation between them and there is no way of checking the matter. If there is one which appears like two, one should perforate one, if the other flows into it, it is only one and [the animal] is permitted. If not, [the animal] is trefe.
יא
ריאה שנמצאו בה שתי אבעבועות סמוכות זו לזו טרפה, שהדבר קרוב הרבה שיש נקב ביניהן ואין להן דרך בדיקה, היתה אחת ונראה כשתים נוקבין האחת אם שפכה לה האחרת אחת היא ומותרת ואם לאו טרפה.
12
If the lung degenerated, [the animal] is trefe. What is implied? For example, it was discovered intact and when it is hung up, it will break apart and fall into separate pieces.
When a lung was discovered to be perforated in the place where it was handled by the butcher's hand, the animal is permitted. We assume that [it was blemished by his] hand and say: "It was perforated by the butcher's hand after slaughter."
If the perforation was discovered in another place and it is not known whether it took place before ritual slaughter or afterwards, we make another perforation and compare the two as is done with regard to the digestive organs.
יב
הריאה שנתמסמסה טרפה, כיצד כגון שנמצאת שלימה וכשתולין אותה תחתך ותפול חתיכות חתיכות, ריאה שנמצאת נקובה במקום שיד הטבח ממשמש מותרת ותולין בידו ואומרין מיד הטבח ניקבה אחר השחיטה, נמצא הנקב במקום אחר ואין ידוע אם קודם שחיטה או אחר שחיטה נוקבין בה נקב אחר ומדמין כשם שעושים בבני מעיים.
13
We do not compare the lung of a small domesticated animal to the lung of a large domesticated animal. Instead, [the lung of] a small animal [must be compared to that] of a small animal and that of a large animal to that of a large animal.
If a perforation is found in one of the boils of a lung, [the animal] is trefe. We do not say: "Perforate another boil and compare them," because the matter is not clearly apparent.
יג
ואין מדמין מריאה של בהמה דקה לריאה של בהמה גסה אלא מדקה לדקה ומגסה לגסה, נמצא הנקב באחד מן האבעבועות הרי זו טרפה ואין אומרין ניקוב אבעבוע אחר ונערוך שאין הדבר ניכר.
14
When a needle is found in the lung, we blow up the lung. If no air is released from it, it is apparent that this needle entered via the bronchioles and did not perforate [them]. If the lung was cut open before it was blown up and a needle was found in it, [the animal] is forbidden. For there is a high probability that it perforated [the lung] when it entered.
יד
מחט שנמצאת בריאה נופחין אותה אם לא יצא ממנה רוח בידוע שזאת המחט דרך סמפונות נכנסה ולא ניקבה, ואם נתחתכה הריאה קודם נפיחה ונמצאת בה המחט הרי זו אסורה שהדבר קרוב שניקבה כשנכנסה.
15
When there is a worm in the lung and it perforated the lung and emerged and we see the lung perforated by the worm, [the animal] is permitted. We rely on the prevailing assumption that it perforated [the lung] after ritual slaughterand emerged [then].
There are ways that certain organs appear [that can disqualify the organ].For if the appearance of the organ is changed to that undesirable appearance, it is considered as if it was perforated. For since the appearance of this flesh changed to the [undesirable] appearance, it is considered as if it was dead. It is as if the flesh whose appearance changed does not exist. Similarly, [ Leviticus 13:10] states: "And there is a spot of living flesh in the blemish...," and [ ibid. 13:10] states: "On the day when he will present living flesh...." Implied is that flesh whose appearance has changed is not "alive."
תולעת שהיתה בריאה וניקבה ויצאה והרי הריאה נקובה בתולעת הרי זו מותרת, חזקתה שאחר שחיטה תיקוב ותצא, יש שם מראות שאם נשתנה מראה האבר לאותו המראה הרע הרי הוא כנקוב שאותו הבשר שנשתנו מראיו למראה זה כמת הוא חשוב וכאילו הוא הבשר שנהפך עינו אינו מצוי, וכן הוא אומר ומחית בשר חי בשאת וביום הראות בו בשר חי מכלל ששאר הבשר שנשתנה אינו חי.
16
[The following principles apply if] the color of a lung changes, whether part of its color changes or its entire color changes. If it changes to a permitted color, even if its entire color changes, it is permitted. If, however, even the slightest portion of it changes to a forbidden color, [the animal] is trefe. [The rationale is that] the forbidden color is considered equivalent to a perforation as explained [above].
טז
ריאה שנשתנו מראיה, בין מראה כולה בין מראה מקצתה אם נשתנית למראה המותר אפילו נשתנית כולה מותרת, ואם נשתנה למראה האסור אפילו כל שהוא טרפה, שהמראה האסור כנקב הוא חשוב כמו שביארנו.
17
There are five forbidden hues for the lung: black like ink, greenish-yellowlike hops, [yellow] like the yolk of an egg, or like safflower, or like the color of meat.
Safflower is a color which clothes are dyed. It is comparable to hairs that are slightly red, leaning towards gold.
יז
וחמש מראות אסורות יש בריאה ואלו הן: שחורה כדיו, או ירוקה כעין כשות, או כעין חלמון ביצה, או כעין חריע, או כמראה הבשר, וחריע הוא הצבע שצובעים בו הבגדים והוא דומה לשערות אדומות מעט ונוטות לירוקה.
18
If the lung is discovered to be the color of the branches of a date palm, we forbid it because of the doubt involved, because this is very close to a forbidden color. We do not forbid any of these colors until the lung is inflated and massaged by hand. If it changes to a permitted color, [the animal] is permitted.If it retains the [forbidden] color, it is forbidden.
יח
נמצאת כעין חריות של דקל אוסרין אותה מספק שזה קרוב למראה האסור, וכל המראות האלו אין אוסרין בהם עד שנופחים אותה וממרס בה בידו אם נשתנית למראה המותר מותרת, ואם עמדה בעינה אסורה.
19
There are four permitted hues [for the lung]. They are: blackish blue, green like a leek, red, or the color of the liver. Even if the lung was entirely colored in these four hues patch by patch, spot by spot, [the animal] is permitted.
יט
ארבע מראות מותרת /מותרות/ יש בה ואלו הן: שחורה ככחול, או ירוקה כחציר, או אדומה, או כמראה הכבד, ואפילו היתה הריאה כולה טלאים טלאים נקודות נקודות מארבע מראות אלו הרי זו מותרת.
20
When a fowl fell into a fire and its heart, its liver, or its craw turned green or its digestive organs turned red, [the fowl] is trefe. [This applies if] even the slightest portion of the organs [changed color]. For whenever a fire causes organs that were green to turn red or those which were red to turn green, it is considered as if the organ was removed and [the animal] is trefe. [This applies] provided they retain this color after they were cooked slightly and massaged.
כ
עוף שנפל לאור והוריק לבו או כבדו או קרקבנו או שהאדימו המעיים שלו בכל שהוא הרי זו טרפה, שכל הירוקים שהאדימו או האדומים שהוריקו מחמת האור בעוף הרי הן כמי שניטלו וטרפה, והוא שיעמדו במראה זה אחר ששלקו אותן מעט וממרסין בהן.
21
Whenever the liver of a fowl appears like the digestive organs or [the appearance of] the other digestive organs change and the change remains after they were cooked slightly and massaged as explained [above], we can assume that the fowl fell into a fire, its digestive organs were burnt, and it is trefe.
Moreover, when there was no change detected in the digestive organs of a fowl, but when they were cooked slightly they changed color, those that were green turned -red or those that were red turned green, we can assume that the fowl fell into a fire, its digestive organs were burnt, and it is trefe.
Similarly, if [the color of] the gullet [has changed] - the outer skin appears white and the inner red - it is considered as if the organ is not present, and it - either an animal or a fowl - is trefe.
כא
כל עוף שנמצאת הכבד שלו כמראה בני מעים, או שנשתנו שאר בני מעים ועמדו בשינויין אחר שליקה ומריסה כמו שביארנו בידוע שנפל לאור ונחמרו בני מעיו וטרפה, ולא עוד אלא בני מעים של עוף שלא נמצא בהם שינוי וכשנשלקו נשתנו והאדימו הירוקים והוריקו האדומים, בידוע שנפל לאור ונחמרו בני מעיו וטרפה, וכן הושט שנמצא העור החיצון שלו לבן והפנימי אדום בין בעוף בין בבהמה הרי הוא כאילו אינו וטרפה. .
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters A Day: To`en veNit`an To`en veNit`an - Chapter 4, To`en veNit`an To`en veNit`an - Chapter 5, To`en veNit`an To`en veNit`an - Chapter 6
To`en veNit`an - Chapter 4
1
A person who admits a portion of a claim is not required to take a Scriptural oath until the plaintiff lodges a claim against him for an entity with a specific measure, weight or number, and the defendant admits owing a portion of that measure, weight or number.
What is implied? A plaintiff claims: "You owe me 10 dinarim," and the defendant responds: "I owe you only five"; "You owe me a kor of wheat," "I owe you only a letech"; "You owe me two litras of silk," "I owe you only a rotel." In all these and in other similar situations, he is liable.
Different rules apply, however, if the plaintiff claims: "I gave you a wallet full of coins," and the defendant answers: "You gave me only 50," or he claims: "I gave you 100 dinarim" and the defendant answers: "You gave me only this pouch, and you did not count the contents before me. I do not know what was in it. You are receiving what you gave me." In these and all similar situations, he is not liable to take an oath.
א
אין מודה במקצת חייב שבועה מן התורה עד שיטעננו בדבר שבמדה או במשקל או במנין ויודה לו בדבר שבמדה או שבמשקל או שבמנין, כיצד עשרה דינרין יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא חמשה, כור חטים יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא לתך, שתי ליטרין של משי יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא רוטל הרי זה חייב וכן כל כיוצא בזה, אבל אמר לו כיס מלא דינרין מסרתי לך לא מסרת לי אלא חמשים, מאה דינרין מסרתי לך לא מסרת לי אלא צרור של דינרין ולא מנית אותן בפני ואיני יודע מה היה בו ומה שהנחת אתה נוטל הרי זה פטור וכן כל כיוצא בזה.
2
Similarly, if the plaintiff claims: "I gave you a room full of grain," and the defendant answers: "You gave me only ten korim" or he claims: "I gave you ten korim," and the defendant answers: "I do not know how much you gave me, because you did not measure them before me. You are receiving what you gave me," the defendant is not liable.
ב
בית מלא תבואה מסרתי לך והלה אומר לא מסרת לי אלא עשרה כורין, עשרה כורין מסרתי לך איני יודע כמה הם שהרי לא מדדתם בפני אלא מה שהנחת אתה נוטל פטור.
3
If, however, if the plaintiff claims: "I gave you this room that was filled with grain until the projection," and the defendant responded: "It was filled only to the window," he is liable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
ג
בית זה מלא עד הזיז מסרתי לך והלה אומר עד החלון חייב, וכן כל כיוצא בזה.
4
A person who admits a portion of a claim is not required to take a Scriptural oath, unless he makes his admission with regard to a matter that he could deny [owing.
What is implied? A plaintiff lodged a complaint against a colleague, saying: "You owe me 100 dinarim. 50 are recorded in this promissory note, and 50 are not recorded in a promissory note." The defendant responds: "I owe you only the 50 mentioned in the promissory note." He is not considered to be a person who admits a portion of a claim. For his denial would be of no consequence with regard to the sum mentioned in the promissory note. All of his property is on lien to it, and even if he denied it, he would be obligated to pay. Therefore, he is required to take only a sh'vuat hesset concerning the 50 that are not mentioned in the promissory note.
ד
אין מודה במקצת חייב שבועה עד שיודה בדבר שאפשר לו לכפור בו, כיצד מי שטען חבירו ואמר מאה דינרין יש לי אצלך חמשים שבשטר זה וחמשים בלא שטר, אין לך בידי אלא חמשים שבשטר אין זה מודה במקצת שהשטר לא תועיל בו כפירתו והרי כל נכסיו משועבדין בו ואפילו כפר בו היה חייב לשלם, לפיכך נשבע היסת על החמשים.
5
The following rules apply when a dispute arises concerning a promissory note that mentions that the defendant owes sela'im, but does not mentioned the number of sela'im he owes. The lender states: "You owe me five sela'im, and that is the intent of the promissory note." The borrower counters: "I owe you only three; that is what is implied by the promissory note."
Because of the promissory note alone, he would be obligated to pay only two sela'im" He is, nevertheless, not liable to take a Scriptural oath ' despite the fact that he admitted owing a sela that he could have denied, because he is like a person who returns a lost article. And it is one of the ordinances instituted by our Sages that any person who returns a lost article should not be required to take an oath, as explained in the appropriate place.
Similarly, when a person tells his colleague: "My father told me that you owe me a maneh." The defendant responded: "I owe you only 50 dinarim." He is a person returning a lost object, and he is not liable even for a sh'vuat hesset. Needless to say, this applies if a person on his own initiative acknowledged: "I owed your father a maneh. I repaid him 50 dinarim, but I still owe him 50." He is not liable even for a sh'vuat hesset."
If, however, the heir claims: "I know with certainty that you..." or "...your father owe my father a maneh" and the defendant responds: "I owe your father only 50 dinarim" or "My father owes you only 50," he is considered to be a person who admits a portion of a claim and is required to take a Scriptural oath.
ה
שטר שכתוב בו סלעים ולא הזכיר מנין, מלוה אומר חמש סלעים שיש לי בידך הם הכתובים בו והלוה אומר אין לך בידי אלא שלש והם הכתובים בשטר, אע"פ שאין מחייבין אותו בשטר זה אלא בשתים והרי הודה בסלע שאפשר לכפור בה הרי זה פטור מפני שהוא כמשיב אבדה ותקנת חכמים היא שכל שישיב אבדה לא ישבע כמו שביארנו במקומו, וכן האומר לחבירו אמר לי אבא שיש לי בידך מנה והלה אומר אין לך בידי אלא חמשים הרי זה משיב אבדה ופטור אף משבועת היסת, ואין צריך לומר אם הודה מעצמו ואמר מנה היה לאביך בידי ונתתי לו חמשים דינרין ונשאר לו חמשים שזה פטור אף משבועת היסת, אבל יורש שטען ואמר אני יודע בודאי שיש לאבי בידך או ביד אביך מנה והוא אומר אין לו בידי אלא חמשים או אין לך ביד אבי אלא חמשים הרי זה מודה מקצת וישבע.
6
When a plaintiff claims: "You owe me a maneh and this article is security for it," and the defendant claims: "I owe you only 50 dinarim" he is considered to be a person who admits a portion of a claim and must take a Scriptural oath.
If the security is worth only 50 dinarim or less, the defendant must take the oath and pay the 50 that he acknowledged owing. If the security was worth 100 dinarim or more, since the lender has the right to claim its value, the lender should take an oath and collect his claim from the value of the security.
If the security was worth 80 dinarim, the lender must take an oath that he is owed at least 80 and then he collects that amount from the security. The borrower must also take a Scriptural oath with regard to the 20 that he denies.
If the borrower denies the entire matter, saying: "This is not security. Instead, it is an entrusted article and I do not owe him anything," the lender must take an oath that he is owed at least 80 and the borrower must take a sh'vuat hesset with regard to the 20 that he denies.
ו
מנה לי בידך על משכון זה אין בידי עליו אלא חמשים הרי זה מודה וישבע, אין המשכון שוה אלא חמשים או פחות הרי זה נשבע ומשלם החמשים שהודה בהן, היה המשכון שוה מאה או יתר הואיל והמלוה יכול לטעון עליו עד כדי דמיו הרי המלוה נשבע ונוטל מדמי המשכון, היה שוה שמונים נשבע המלוה שאין לו פחות משמונים ונוטלן מן המשכון, ונשבע הלוה מן התורה על העשרים שכפר בהן, כפר בכל ואמר אין זה משכון אלא פקדון ואין לו אצלי כלום נשבע המלוה שאין פחות משמונים ונשבע הלוה היסת על העשרים.
7
The following ruling applies when a plaintiff claims: "You owe me a maneh" and the defendant responds: "I know that I owe you 50 dinarim, but I am unsure of whether or not I owe you the other 50." The defendant is obligated to take a Scriptural oath, because he acknowledged a portion of a claim. He cannot take an oath regarding the portion he denied owing, because he does not know whether he is liable or not. Therefore, he must pay the entire maneh; the lender is not required to take an oath. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
The defendant may have a conditional ban of ostracism issued against anyone who lodges a claim against him when the plaintiff is not certain that the defendant is obligated.
ז
מנה לי בידך והלה אומר חמשים ודאי יש לך בידי אבל החמשים איני יודע אם אני חייב בהן או לאו הרי זה מחוייב שבועה מפני שהודה במקצת ואינו יכול להשבע במקצת שכפר בו שהרי אינו יודע לפיכך משלם המנה בלא שבועה וכן כל כיוצא בזה, ויש לו להחרים על מי שטוען עלי דבר שאינו יודע בודאי שאני חייב בו.
8
Similar concepts apply in the following situation. The plaintiff claims: "I lent you a maneh and here is one witness who will testify that this is so." The defendant responds: "That is true, but you owe me a maneh to match it." The defendant is obligated to take an oath, but cannot take that oath, and hence, is obligated to pay.
Why can he not take an oath? Because he acknowledges the content of the testimony of the witness. And a person who must take an oath because of the testimony of one witness may take the oath only when he contradicts the witness, denies his testimony and takes the oath to support his denial.
Similarly, when there is a promissory note signed by one witness and the defendant claims to have paid the debt, or a person denied a claim, a witness testified against him, and then the defendant stated that he paid the debt or returned the entrusted article, ? the defendant is obligated to take an oath, but may not take the oath. Hence, he must pay.
An incident once occurred concerning a person who seized a slab of silver from a colleague in the presence of one witness. Afterwards, he said: "I seized it, but what I seized was mine." Our Sages said: "He is obligated to take an oath, but may not take the oath. Hence, he must pay. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
ח
מנה לי בידך והרי עד אחד מעיד עליו והנטען אומר כן הוא אבל אתה חייב לי כנגד אותו מנה הרי זה מחוייב שבועה ואינו יכול לישבע ומשלם, ומפני מה אינו יכול לישבע שהרי הוא מודה במה שהעיד בו העד ואין הנשבע בהעדאת עד אחד נשבע עד שיכחיש את העד ויכפור בעדותו וישבע על כפירתו, לפיכך שטר שיש בו עד אחד וטען שפרעו, וכן כפרן שבא עליו עד אחד וטען שפרע או החזרתי לך הפקדון הרי זה מחוייב שבועה ואינו יכול להשבע ומשלם, מעשה באחד שחטף לשון כסף מחבירו בפני עד אחד ואמר אחר כן חטפתי ושלי חטפתי ואמרו חכמים הרי זה מחוייב שבועה ואינו יכול להשבע ומשלם וכן כל כיוצא בזה.
9
The testimony of one witness is also significant in the following instance. The plaintiff claims: "I lent you a maneh." The defendant denies the matter entirely, and the plaintiff brings one witness who testifies that the defendant took a loan in his presence. Had there been two witnesses, a presumption that the defendant is lying would have been established, and the defendant would be obligated to pay, as will be explained. Hence, the defendant is required to take an oath because of the testimony of one witness. For wherever the testimony of two witnesses requires a defendant to make financial restitution, the testimony of one witness requires him to take an oath.
If after the witness testifies, the defendant changes his claim and states that he paid the debt, he is required to make financial restitution. The plaintiff is not required to take an oath, as we have explained.
ט
מנה הלויתיך לא היו דברים מעולם הביא עד אחד שלוה ממנו בפניו, הואיל ואילו היו שנים היה מוחזק כפרן ומשלם כמו שיתבאר הרי זה נשבע על פי עד אחד שכל מקום ששנים מחייבין אותו ממון אחד מחייבו שבועה, חזר ואמר פרעתי משלם בלא שבועה כמו שבארנו.
10
When a plaintiff claims: "You owe me a maneh" the defendant denies the claim entirely, and witnesses testify that the defendant still owes the plaintiff 50 dinarim, all of the Geonim have ruled that the law is that the defendant must pay 50 and take an oath concerning the remainder. The rationale is that the principal's own admission should not have greater legal power than the testimony of witnesses.
י
מנה לי בידך אין לך בידי כלום והעדים מעידין עליו שעדיין יש לו אצלו חמשים, פסקו כל הגאונים הלכה שישלם חמשים וישבע על השאר שלא תהא הודיית פיו גדולה מהעדאת עדים.
To`en veNit`an - Chapter 5
1
An oath is not taken on claims concerning the following according to Scriptural Law: landed property, servants, promissory notes and consecrated property. Even though a defendant admitted a portion of a claim or a witness testified against him, or he served as a watchman and sought to free himself on the basis of one of the claims according to which a watchman is freed of liability, he is not required to take an oath. These concepts are derived from Exodus 22:6, which, with regard to the obligation to take an oath, states: "When a person will give his colleague" - this excludes consecrated property - "money or utensils..." - this excludes landed property. And it excludes servants, which the Torah associated with landed property. It also excludes promissory notes, for their actual substance is not of financial value like money or utensils. They only serve as proof of an obligation.
With regard to all of these matters, the defendant must take a sh 'vuat hesset if the plaintiff issues a definite claim with the exception of consecrated property. In that instance, even though a person is not liable to take an oath concerning them according to Scriptural Law, our Sages ordained that the defendant take an oath resembling a Scriptural oath. This requirement was instituted so that people would not treat consecrated property lightly.
א
ואלו דברים שאין נשבעין עליהן מן התורה, הקרקעות והעבדים והשטרות וההקדשות אע"פ שהודה במקצת או שיש עליו עד אחד או ששמר וטען טענת השומרין הרי זה פטור, שנאמר כי יתן איש אל רעהו פרט להקדש, כסף או כלים פרט לקרקעות ולעבדים שהוקשו לקרקעות, וכן יצאו שטרות שאין גופן ממון ככסף וככלים ואינן אלא לראיה שבהן, ועל כלן נשבע שבועת היסת אם היתה שם טענת ודאי, חוץ מן ההקדשות שאע"פ שאינו חייב עליהם שבועה מן התורה תקנו חכמים שישבע עליהם כעין של תורה כדי שלא יזלזלו בהקדשות.
2
Accordingly, when a plaintiff claims: "You sold me two fields," and the defendant responds: "I sold you only one," or he claims: "I entrusted two servants..." or "...two promissory notes to you," and the defendant responds: "You entrusted only one," the defendant is required to take only a sh'vuat hesset.
Similarly, if the plaintiff claims: "This courtyard, this servant or this promissory note that is in your possession is mine; you sold it to me," and the defendant denies the existence of the matter entirely, he is required to take merely a sh'vuat hesset. This applies whether the plaintiff brings a witness to support his claim or not.
A similar law applies when a person digs cisterns, trenches or caves in his colleague's property, reducing its value, and the owner of the field claims that the digger is liable to make financial restitution. Regardless of whether the owner claimed that a defendant dug such caves, and the defendant responded: "I did not dig anything," the owner claimed: "You dug two caves," and the defendant answered, "I dug only one," or one witness testified that he dug caves and the defendantresponded: "I did not dig anything," the defendant is required to take only a sh'vuat hesset regarding the claim.
ב
שתי שדות מכרת לי לא מכרתי לך אלא אחת, שני עבדים או שני שטרות יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא שטר אחד או עבד אחד הרי זה נשבע היסת, וכן אם טען ואמר חצר זו או עבד זה או שטר זה שיש לי בידך שלי הוא ואתה מכרתו לי והנטען אומר לא היו דברים מעולם, בין שהביא הטוען עד אחד בין שלא הביא הרי זה נשבע היסת ונפטר, וכן החופר בשדה חבירו בורות שיחין ומערות והפסידוה והרי הוא חייב לשלם בין שטענו שחפר והוא אומר לא חפרתי או שטענו שחפר שתי מערות והוא אומר לא חפרתי אלא אחת או שהיה שם עד אחד שחפר והוא אומר לא חפרתי כלום, הרי זה נשבע היסת על הכל.
3
The following laws apply when the plaintiff claimed both utensils and landed property. Whether the defendant: acknowledged owing all of the landed property, but denied owing any of the utensils, acknowledged owing all the utensils, but denied owing any of the landed property, acknowledged owing some of the landed property, but denied owing the remainder as well as all of the utensils, he must take a sh'vuat hesset.
If, however, the defendant acknowledged owing some of the utensils and denied owing the remainder, as well as all of the landed property, since he is required to take an oath with regard to the utensils that he denied, he must also take an oath concerning the landed property that he denied together with them, for it is all one claim.
Similar laws apply when the plaintiff claims utensils and servants, or utensils and promissory notes, for all such claims are governed by the same legal process.
ג
טענו כלים וקרקעות בין שהודה בכל הקרקעות וכפר בכל הכלים בין שהודה בכל הכלים וכפר בכל הקרקעות בין שהודה במקצת הקרקעות וכפר במקצתן עם כל הכלים, בכל אלו נשבע היסת, אבל אם הודה במקצת כלים וכפר במקצתן עם כל הקרקעות מתוך שהוא חייב שבועה על מקצת הכלים שכפר בהן נשבע אף על הקרקעות שטענו עמהן שהכל טענה אחת, וכן הדין בטענו כלים ועבדים או כלים ושטרות הכל דין אחד הוא.
4
When a plaintiff lodges a claim concerning grapes that are ready to be harvested, or grain that has dried and is ready to be reaped, and the defendant accepts a portion of the claim and denies a portion of the claim, he must take an oath concerning those he denied, as is required with regard to other movable property, provided they no longer require the nurture of the ground. The rationale is whatever is ready to be harvested is considered as though it has been harvested with regard to the denial and admission of claims.
If, however, the crops require the nurture of the ground, they are considered to be landed property in all contexts, and only a sh'vuat hesset is required concerning them.
ד
טענו ענבים העומדות ליבצר ותבואה יבשה העומדת להקצר והודה במקצתן וכפר במקצתן הרי זה נשבע עליהם כשאר המטלטלין, והוא שאינן צריכין לקרקע שכל העומד להבצר הרי הוא כבצור לענין כפירה והודייה, אבל אם היו צריכים לקרקע חרי הן כקרקע לכל דבר ואין נשבעין עליהן אלא היסת.
5
When a person lodges a claim against his colleague, saying: "You dwelled in my courtyard for two months, and you owe me two months rent," and the defendant responds, "I dwelled there for only one month," he is considered a person who denied a portion of a claim.
Thus, if the rent for the month that he denied owing is equivalent to two silver me'in, he must take an oath. The rationale is that the claim does not focus on the land itself, but on the rent for it, and that is movable property.
ה
הטוען על חבירו ואמר לו שני חדשים שכנת בחצרי ואתה חייב לי שכר שני חדשים והוא אומר לא שכנתי אלא חדש אחד הרי זה מודה במקצת, ואם היה שכר החדש שכפר בו שוה שני כסף נשבע שאין הטענה בגוף הקרקע אלא בשכרה שהוא מטלטלין.
6
When a plaintiff claims: "I gave you a promissory note that served as proof of a debt of ten dinarim," and the defendant denies the matter entirely, the defendant is required to take a sh'vuat hesset.
If he reverses the obligation for the oath, requiring it of the plaintiff, the plaintiff must take a sh'vuat hesset that the note served as proof of a debt of ten dinarim, which he lost when the promissory note was destroyed. Afterwards, he may collect his claim.
If the defendant admitted: "It is true that you gave me the promissory note, and it was lost," he is not liable, even to take a sh 'vuat hesset. For even if he was negligent in its care and it was lost, he would not be liable, as we have explained in Hilchot Chovel.
ו
שטר מסרתי לך ועשרה דינרין היו לי בו ראיה לא היו דברים מעולם ישבע היסת, הפך עליו הרי זה נשבע היסת שהיתה בו ראיה לעשרה דינרים ואבדו באבדת השטר ויטול, ואם אמר הנתבע אמת מסרת לי ואבד הרי זה פטור אף משבועת היסת שאפילו פשע בו ואבד פטור כמו שבארנו בהלכות חובל.
7
When a person tells a colleague: "The promissory note in your possession mentions a factor that is advantageous to me," and the colleague states: "I will not produce my promissory note," or "I do not know if it states anything that serves as support for your position," we compel him to produce the promissory note and bring it to court.
ז
האומר לחבירו שטר שיש לי בידך זכות יש לי בו וזה אומר איני מוצא שטרי או איני יודע אם יש לך בו ראיה או לא כופין אותו להוציאו.
8
If the holder of the promissory note claims that it was lost, we issue a conditional ban of ostracism against him.
If, however, the person who desires to see the promissory note claims that he is certain that his colleague is holding a promissory note that mentions a factor that is advantageous to him, his colleague must take a sh'vuat hesset that the promissory note is no longer in his possession and it is lost. My teachers ruled in this manner.
ח
טען שאבד השטר מחרימין אותו חרם סתם, טען זה שהוא יודע בודאי שהשטר שיש לו בו זכות אצלו הרי זה נשבע היסת שאינו אצלו ושאבד ממנו וכזה הורו רבותי.
9
An oath is never administered because of claims issued by deaf-mutes, mentally or emotionally incapable individuals and minors. In the latter instance, this principle applies regardless of whether the minor's claim involves his own issues or those of his father. For admitting a portion of a claim owed to a minor is like returning a lost article.
Similarly, if the defendant denied the entire debt, and one witness came and testified on behalf of the minor, the defendant is not required to take an oath. For it is as though there were one witness, but no plaintiff, because a claim lodge by a minor is not a substantial claim.
Thus, if a minor said to an adult: "You owe me..." or "You owe my father a maneh," and the defendant said: "I owe you only 50," or "I do not owe you anything" and there was one witness who corroborates the minor's claim, the defendant is not liable to take a Scriptural oath.
If, however, a person acted as a watchman for a minor and claimed that the entrusted article was lost, he is required to take the oath required of a watchman. The rationale is that this oath is not taken because of a claim.
Similarly, if a person admitted that he was a partner or a sharecropper of a minor, the court should appoint a guardian for the minor, and the partner or the like should take an oath despite the fact that there is only an indefinite claim against him.
ט
אין נשבעין על טענת חרש שוטה וקטן, אחד הבא בטענת עצמו או בטענת אביו לפי שזה המקצת שהודה בו לקטן אינו אלא כמשיב אבדה, וכן אם כפר בכל ובא עד אחד והעיד לקטן אינו נשבע שזה עד אחד ואין שם תובע שתביעת קטן אינה תביעה גמורה, נמצאת אומר קטן שאמר לגדול מנה לי בידך, או אבא היה לו בידך והלה אומר אין לך בידי אלא חמשים או אין לך בידי כלום ועד אחד מעידו שיש לו הרי זה פטור משבועת התורה, אבל אם שמר לקטן וטען שאבד הרי זה נשבע שבועת השומרין לפי שאינו נשבע מחמת טענה, וכן אם הודה שהיה שותף לקטן או אפוטרופוס עליו יעמידו בית דין אפוטרופוס לקטן וישבע השותף וכיוצא בו בטענת שמא.
10
My teachers ruled that although a Scriptural oath is not taken because of the claim of a minor, a sh'vuat hesset must be taken. This applies even when the minor is not resourceful with regard to financial matters. The rationale is that an opportunity should not be granted for a person to take money belonging to a minor, and depart without paying him at all. I also favor this approach, and think that it will lead to the improvement of society.
Thus, if a minor lodges a claim against an adult, whether the adult admits a portion of the claim or denies it entirely, whether there is a witness who supports the plaintiff or not, the defendant is required to take a sh'vuat hesset. He cannot reverse the responsibility for the oath, placing it on the minor, because an oath is never administered to a minor. Even a conditional ban of ostracism is not imposed upon the minor, for he does not know the severity of the retribution received for taking a false oath.
י
הורו רבותי שאין נשבעין על טענת קטן שבועה של תורה אבל שבועת היסת נשבעין, ואפילו היה קטן שאינו חריף לענין משא ומתן נשבעין היסת על טענתו, שלא יהיה זה נוטל ממונו כשהוא קטן וילך לו בחנם ולזה דעתי נוטה ותקון עולם הוא, נמאת למד שהקטן שטען על הגדול בין שהודה במקצת בין שכפר בכל בין שהיה שם עד בין שלא היה שם עד, הרי זה נשבע היסת ואינו יכול להפוך על הקטן שאין משביעין את הקטן כלל, ואפילו חרם סתם אינו מקבל לפי שאינו יודע עונש השבועה.
11
The following rules apply when an adult lodges a claim against a minor. If the claim involves a matter that will benefit the minor - e.g., a claim involving business transactions - and the minor admits his liability, we expropriate payment from the minor's property. If the minor does not possess any resources, we wait until he gains such. Then he must pay. If the minor denies the obligation, the plaintiff must wait until the minor attains majority. At that point, he is required to take a sh'vuat hesset.
The following rules apply when a person lodges a claim against a minor in a matter that will not benefit the minor - e.g., damages or personal injury. Even though the minor admits his responsibility and he has resources with which he could pay, he is not liable even after he attains majority. If the plaintiff was one of those who takes an oath and collects the money that he claims - e.g., an employee and the like - since the minor benefits from the fact that an employee will work for him, he may take an oath and collect from the minor. A storekeeper who takes an oath because of his account book, by contrast, may not take an oath and collect from a minor. The rationale is that the minor does not derive any benefit from this. For regardless, he must pay his workers who take oaths and collect from him. Thus it is the storekeeper who caused himself a loss, because he gave his money because of a minor's word. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
יא
קטן שטענו הגדול, אם טענו בדבר שיש לו הנייה לקטן כגון עסק משא ומתן והודה הקטן נפרעין מנכסיו, ואם אין לו ימתין עד שיהיה לו וישלם, ואם כפר הקטן ממתינין עד שיגדיל וישבע היסת, ואם טענו בדבר שאין לקטן הנייה כגון נזקין וחבלות אע"פ שמודה ואע"פ שיש לו ממה ישלם פטור ואפילו לאחר שהגדיל, ואם היה התובע מן הנשבעין ונוטלין כגון השכיר וכיוצא בו שיש הנייה לקטן שישתכר לו שכיר הרי זה נשבע ונוטל מן הקטן, אבל חנוני שנשבע על פנקסו אינו נשבע ונוטל מן הקטן, שאין לקטן בזה הנייה שהרי חייב ליתן לפועליו ונשבעין ונוטלין ממנו, וזה החנוני הפסיד על נפשו שנתן ממונו על פי קטן וכן כל כיוצא בזה.
12
With regard to a deaf-mute and a mentally or emotionally incapable individual, we do not concern ourselves with them with regard to any claim, not a claim that they lodged against others, nor a claim that others lodge against them, nor for a lesser oath, and, needless to say, not for a severe oath or to compel them to make financial restitution. A blind man, by contrast, is considered to be a healthy person with regard to all matters concerning such subjects. He must take all types of oaths if required, and oaths are taken in response to his claims.
יב
החרש והשוטה אין נזקקין להן לכל טענה לא לטענתן על אחרים ולא לטענת אחרים עליהן לא לשבועה קלה ואין צריך לומר שבועה חמורה או תשלומין, אבל הסומא הרי הוא כבריא לכל דבר בענינים אלו ונשבע כל מיני שבועות ונשבעין על טענתו.
To`en veNit`an - Chapter 6
1
The court requires that precise statements be made by the litigants. For example, litigants come to court and one of them claims: "He owes me a maneh that I lent to him," "... that I entrusted to him," "... that he stole from me," "... that he owes me as wages," or the like. Should the defendant answer: "I do not owe you anything," "I have nothing of yours," or "You are issuing a false claim," this is not a proper response. Instead, we tell the defendant: "Reply to his claim and clarify your answer as he clarified his claim. Say whether you borrowed from him or did not borrow from him," "... whether he entrusted an article to you or did not," "... whether you stole from him or did not," "... whether he hired you or did not," or lodge any other specific claim. Why do we not accept the general answer? Because it is possible that the person is making an error and this will lead to his taking a false oath. For it is possible that he borrowed money as the plaintiff claims and returned the debt to the lender's son or wife, or gave the lender a present of the value of the debt, and thinks that because of this, he is no longer liable for the debt. Hence, the court tells him: "Why are you saying that you are not liable? Maybe the law would hold you liable and you do not know. Instead, tell the judges the details of the matter, and they will tell you whether or not you are liable."
Even if the defendant is a wise man of great stature, we tell him: "You have nothing to lose by responding to his claim and telling us why you are not liable to him, whether it is because nothing of that nature ever happened, or because you were liable and you repaid the debt. You will not lose, because we follow the principle of miggo."
Similarly, if the plaintiff claims: "This person owes me a maneh," or "He has a maneh of mine in his possession." We ask him: "On what basis do you make this claim? Did you lend him money? Did you entrust it to him for safekeeping? Did he damage your property? Tell us why he is obligated to you." For it is possible that a person will think that a colleague is obligated to him when he is not - e.g., he suspects that he stole from him he promised him to give him a maneh but did not, or the like.
The defendant's word is not accepted in the following situation. The plaintiff claimed that he lent the defendant a maneh, and the defendant denied ever taking the loan. Afterwards, the plaintiff brought witnesses who testified that the loan was given in their presence. In response, the defendant replied that he took the loan, but repaid it. We do not accept his claim. Instead, a presumption that the defendant is lying is established, and he is required to pay.
If, however, in the latter situation, the defendant first replied: "I am not liable," "I do not owe you anything," "You are lying," or the like a different rule applies. Even though the plaintiff brings witnesses who state that the loan was given in their presence, if the defendant says: "That is true, but I returned the entrusted object" or "... repaid the loan," a presumption that the defendant is lying is not established. He may take a sh'vuat hesset and then is released of all obligations.
א
בעלי דינין שבאו לבית דין טען האחד ואמר מנה יש לי אצל זה שהלויתיו או שהפקדתי אצלו או שגזל ממני, או שיש לי אצלו בשכר וכן כל כיוצא בזה, והשיב הנטען ואמר איני חייב כלום, או אין לך בידי כלום, או שקר אתה טוען, אין זו תשובה נכונה אלא אומרים בית דין לנטען השב על טענתו ופרש התשובה כמו שפירש זה טענתו ואמור אם לוית ממנו אם לא לוית, הפקיד אצלך או לא הפקיד, גזלתו או לא גזלתו, שכרתו או לא שכרתו, וכן שאר הטענות, ומפני מה אין מקבלים ממנו תשובה זו, שמא טועה הוא בדעתו ויבא להשבע על שקר שהרי אפשר שהלוהו כמו שטען והחזיר זה את החוב לבנו או לאשתו או שנתן לו במתנה כנגד החוב וידמה בדעתו שנפטר מן החוב, לפיכך אומרים לו היאך תאמר איני חייב כלום שמא אתה מתחייב מן הדין לשלם ואין אתה יודע אלא הודע לדיינין פירוש הדברים והם יודיעוך אם אתה חייב או אין אתה חייב, ואפילו היה חכם גדול אומרים לו אין לך הפסד שתשיב על טענתו ותודיענו כיצד אין אתה חייב לו מפני שלא היו דברים מעולם או מפני שהיו והחזרת לו שהרי אנו דנין במתוך שיכול לומר בכל מקום. וכן אם טען הטוען ואמר זה חייב לי מנה, או מנה יש לי אצלו, אומרים לו מאי זה פנים, הלוית אותו, או הפקדת אצלו, או הזיק ממונך, אמור היאך נתחייב לך שהרי אפשר שידמה לו שהוא חייב לו והוא אינו חייב כגון שחשדו שגנבו או שאמר לו שאתן לך מנה וכיוצא בזה, הרי שטען עליו שהלוהו מנה והשיב זה ואמר לו לא היו דברים מעולם ואחר כך הביא הטוען עדים שהלוהו בפניהם וחזר הנטען ואמר כן היה ולויתי ופרעתי אין מקבלין ממנו אלא הוחזק כפרן ומשלם, אבל אם השיב איני חייב או אין לך בידי כלום או שקר אתה טוען וכן כל כיוצא בזה והלך התובע והביא עדים שהלוהו בפניהם ואמר (הנתבע) כן היה אבל חזרתי לו פקדונו או פרעתיו חובו לא הוחזק כפרן ונשבע היסת ונפטר.
2
The following rules apply when witnesses see that the plaintiff counted out money and gave it to the defendant, but did not know for which reason. If the defendant demands payment in a court of law, saying: "Give me the money that I lent you,"" and the defendant replied: "You gave me a present," or "You repaid a debt," his word is accepted. He may take a sh'vuat hesset and then is released of all obligations. If, however, he claims that he was never given any money, and the witnesses came and testified that money was counted out in their presence, a presumption that the defendant is lying is established.
A person is never presumed by the court to be a liar unless he denies a matter in court and two witnesses come and offer testimony that contradicts the denial he made.
ב
ראוהו עדים שמנה לו מעות ולא ידעו מה הן, ותבעו בדין ואמר לו תן לי מעותי שהלויתיך ואמר מתנה נתת לי או פרעון היו הרי זה נאמן ונשבע היסת ונפטר, אמר לא היו דברים מעולם ואחר כך באו עדים שמנה לו בפניהם הוחזק כפרן, ולעולם אין אדם מוחזק כפרן עד שיכפור בבית דין ויבאו שני עדים ויכחישוהו במה שכפר.
3
There is a corollary to the above concept. The plaintiff claimed: "I lent you a maneh." The defendant denied the matter in court, saying: "The incident never occurred." Two witnesses came and testified that the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff and repaid the debt. After these comments were made, the lender stated: "I did not receive payment." The defendant is obligated to pay. The rationale is that anyone who says: "I did not borrow," is considered to have said: "I did not repay the debt," in the event that witnesses come and establish that he in fact took a loan. Thus, in the above situation, it is as if the borrower said: "I did not repay the debt," despite the fact that witnesses testify that he did. We postulate that the admission of the principal is considered as strong as the testimony of 100 witnesses and the borrower is held liable. The lender is not required to take an oath, for a presumption that the borrower is lying has been established.
A similar law applies if the lender produces a signed note saying that he is liable, and the borrower denies the entire matter and claims that he did not write the note. If the authenticity of the note was established in court or witnesses come and testify that it was his note, a presumption that the defendant is lying is established, and he is required to pay.
ג
מנה הלויתיך כפר בבית דין ואמר לא היו דברים מעולם, ובאו שני עדים שלוה ממנו מנה ופרעו, והמלוה אומר לא נפרעתי הרי זה חייב לשלם, שכל האומר לא לויתי ובאו עדים שלוה כאומר לא פרעתי דמי, ונמצא הלוה אומר לא פרעתי והעדים מעידים אותו שפרעו הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי ואין המלוה חייב שבועה שהרי הוחזק זה כפרן, וכן אם הוציא עליו כתב ידו שהוא חייב לו ואמר לא היו דברים מעולם וזה אינו כתב ידי, אם הוחזק כתב ידו בבית דין או שבאו עדים שהוא כתב ידו הרי זה הוחזק כפרן ומשלם.
4
There are times, however, when a person is not presumed to be lying despite the fact that his statements conflict with the testimony of witnesses. For example, a plaintiff claims: "I lent you a maneh, and it is in your possession." The defendant responds: "I paid you in the presence of so-and-so-and so-and-so," but those two witnesses come and deny having observed the matter. We do not say that a presumption that the defendant is lying is established. The rationale is that witnesses will remember only a matter concerning which they were designated to serve as witnesses. Hence, a presumption that the defendant is lying is not established, and the borrower may take a sh'vuat hesset and be freed of responsibility.
Similarly, if the plaintiff claims: "Give me the maneh that I lent you when you were standing next to this pillar," and the defendant responded: "I never stood next to that pillar," a presumption that the defendant is lying is not established even though witnesses come and testify that he stood there. The rationale is that a person will not take notice of matters that are not significant. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
ד
מנה הלויתיך והוא לי בידך אמר לו הנטען והלא פרעתיך בפני פלוני ופלוני, ובאו עדים ואמרו לא היו דברים מעולם, לא הוחזק כפרן שאין העדים זוכרין אלא דבר שהם עדים בו לפיכך לא הוחזק כפרן וישבע הלוה היסת ויפטר, כיוצא בו תן לי מנה שהלויתיך ואתה עמדת בצד עמוד זה ואמר הנטען לא עמדתי בצד עמוד זה מעולם ובאו עדים שעמד לא הוחזק כפרן, שאין אדם משים דעתו לדברים שאין בהן ממש וכן כל כיוצא בזה.
5
When a person lends money to a colleague in the presence of witnesses, the borrower is not required to repay him in the presence of witnesses, as explained. Accordingly, if the lender claims: "Give me the maneh that I lent to you; here are the witnesses in whose presence the loan was given." And the defendant claims: "I repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so," we tell the borrower: "Bring them to court and be freed of responsibility." If they do not come, or they died, or they journeyed to another country, the borrower must take a sh'vuat hesset that he paid the debt. For the only reason we require the defendant to bring the witnesses is to clarify his position and be released from the obligation of an oath.
ה
תן לי מנה שהלויתיך והרי העדים ואמר הנטען פרעתיך בפני פלוני ופלוני אומרין ללוה הביאם והפטר, לא באו או שמתו או שהלכו למדינה אחרת, ישבע היסת שפרעו שאין אנו מצריכים אותו להביאן אלא לברר דבריו ולהפטר אף משבועה שהמלוה את חבירו בעדים אינו צריך לפרעו בעדים כמו שבארנו.
6
An admission made by the borrower outside of court may not be binding. For example, the plaintiff told the defendant in the presence of witnesses: "You owe me a maneh" and the defendant agreed. The following day, the plaintiff lodged a claim against the defendant in court and brought the witnesses to support his claim. If the defendant claimed: "I was joking with you and I do not owe you anything," he is not held liable. He must merely take a sh'vuat hesset that he does not owe anything.
This ruling applies even when the defendant denies that the event ever happened. The rationale is that the defendant never designated the witnesses to serve in that capacity. And when a person is not charged with acting as a witness with regard to a situation, he will not necessarily remember its particulars. Therefore, even if the defendant said that the events did not ever take place, we do not accept the presumption that he is lying.
ו
אמר לו בפני עדים מנה לי בידך אמר לו הן למחר תבעו בדין והביא עדים ואמר משטה הייתי בך ואין לך בידי כלום פטור ונשבע היסת שאין בידו כלום, ואפילו אמר לא היו דברים מעולם שהרי לא אמר להם אתה עדי ודבר שאינו עדות אין אדם זוכרו, ולפיכך אם אמר לא היו דברים מעולם לא הוחזק כפרן.
7
Morevoer, the defendant's denial is allowed to stand even in the following situation. The plaintiff hid witnesses behind a fence and told the defendant: "You owe me a maneh," and the defendant agreed. The plaintiff then told him: "Do you wish so-and-so and so-and-so to act as witnesses against you?"
He replied: "No. Lest you press me to judgment tomorrow; for I have nothing to pay you."
On the next day, he called him to court with these witnesses. Whether the defendant claimed: "I was speaking frivolously," or whether he claimed that the matter never took place, he may take a sh'vuat hesset and is then released of responsibility. The rationale is the testimony is not committing until the borrower says: "You are my witnesses," or the lender makes that statement in the presence of the borrower, and the borrower remains silent. The defendant is not presumed to be a liar, because of testimony of this nature.
An incident occurred concerning a person called kav r'shu ("a full measure of indebtedness") - i.e., that he had many debts. He would say: "The only person to whom I owe money is so-and-so." When that person came and lodged a claim against him, he said: "I do not owe him anything." Our Sages said: "He may take a sh'vuat hesset and be released of all obligation."
Similarly, there was a person about whom people would gossip that he was wealthy. At the time of his death, he said: "If I had money, would I not pay so-and-so and so-and-so." After his death, so-and-so and so-and-so lodged a claim against the estate. Our Sages said: "They have no claim against the estate." For a person is wont to try to make himself appear as if he does not possess any money, and even as if he did not leave money to his children. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
ז
ולא עוד אלא אפילו הטמין לו עדים אחורי הגדר ואמר לו מנה לי בידך אמר לו הן רצונך שיעידו בך פלוני ופלוני אמר לו לא שמא תכפני בדין למחר ואין לי מה אתן לך ולמחר תבעו בדין באלו העדים, בין שטען ואמר משטה הייתי בו בין שאמר לא היו דברים מעולם הרי זה נשבע היסת ונפטר, שאין כאן עדות עד שיאמר הלוה אתם עדי או יאמר המלוה בפני הלוה וישתוק הלוה אבל בעדות הזה לא הוחזק כפרן מעשה באחד שהיו קורין אותו קב רשו כלומר שיש עליו חובות הרבה, אמר מי הוא שאני חייב לו אלא פלוני ובא אותו פלוני ותבעו ואמר הוא איני חייב לו כלום, ואמרו חכמים ישבע היסת ויפטר, וכן אחד היו אומרים עליו שהוא בעל ממון, בשעת מיתתו אמר אילו היה לי ממון לא הייתי פורעו לפלוני ולפלוני, ואחר מיתתו באו פלוני ופלוני לתבוע ואמרו חכמים אין להם כלום, שהאדם עשוי להראות עצמו שאינו בעל ממון ושלא הניח בניו בעלי ממון וכל כיוצא בדברים אלו.
8
As mentioned, witnesses who are hidden cannot give binding testimony, and similarly, when a person admits a debt on his own initiative while witnesses are listening, or a person tells a colleague in the presence of witnesses: "You owe me a maneh" and the colleague admits the obligation, the testimony of the witnesses is not significant. Nevertheless, in all these situations, when the principals come to the court, we tell the defendant: "Why don't you pay the debt you owe him?"
If he says: "I do not owe him anything," we tell him: "Behold you made a statement saying this-and-this in the presence of these individuals," or "You admitted the obligation on your own initiative." If he arises and makes restitution, that is desirable. If he does not offer a defense, we do not suggest one for him. If, however, he claims: "I was speaking frivolously with him," "The event never occurred," or "I did not want to appear wealthy," he is not liable and is required to take a sh'vuat hesset, as we have explained in the previous halachah.
ח
אע"פ שהמטמין עדים אינה עדות וכן המודה מעצמו ועדים שומעין אותו, וכן האומר לחבירו בפני עדים מנה לי בידך ואמר לו הן, בכל הדברים וכיוצא בהן כשיבאו לבית דין אומרין לנתבע למה לא תתן מה שיש לו אצלך, אמר אין לו אצלי כלום, אומרים לו והלא אתה אמרת בפני אלו כך וכך או הודית מעצמך, אם עמד ושלם מוטב ואם לא טען אין טוענין לו, אבל אם טען ואמר משטה הייתי בו או לא היו דברים מעולם או שלא להשביע את עצמי נתכוונתי פטור ונשבע היסת כמו שבארנו.
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class
| Tuesday | Menachem Av 16 | 5703 |
| Torah lessons: | Chumash: Eikev, Shlishi with Rashi. |
| Tehillim: 79-82. |
| Tanya: However, the letters (p. 411) ...see there). (p. 413). |
|
The travels of the Baal Shem Tov when he first revealed himself were for three purposes: Redemption of captives, buttressing Torah and piety, and revealing the Inner Torah (Chassidus).
The Mitteler Rebbe would explain: The Revealed Torah is called water; one goes to water. The Inner Torah is called fire; one fears fire. Therefore, the mashpiya (the one who gives to another) must go to the recipient and say to him, "Do not fear, for Hashem your G‑d is a consuming fire."
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.
|
|
|
|
Audio: 
No comments:
Post a Comment