Sefaria Bava Kamma 7a-b The William Davidson Talmud (Koren - Steinsaltz) - Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 1:9 Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, 1999-2015

 Sefaria Bava Kamma 7a-b The William Davidson Talmud (Koren - Steinsaltz) - Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 1:9 Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, 1999-2015

Level four:

Near the weekly parsha with the haftorah both with Rashi, a chapter of Nach beginning with Joshua until the end of II Chronicles without Tehillim and start after the 'end' with Joshua again, Mishnah starting with Seder Zeraim (Agriculture) Berakhot until the end Seder Tahorot (Purity) Oktzin and start after the 'end' with Seder Zeraim (Agriculture) Berakhot, a daf from the Talmud Babylonian-Jerusalem starting from the beginning until the end and after the 'end' starting with the beginning again. Reading it very quickly every day.

About This Text

Bava Kamma

Talmud

Bava Kamma (״The First Gate״) is the first of a series of three tractates in Seder Nezikin (“Order of Damages") that deal with civil matters. Bava Kamma focuses on the laws of torts: the first six chapters mostly address damages inflicted by one’s property, while the last four chapters discuss damages inflicted by people, such as theft and injury.

Composed: Talmudic Babylon (c.450 – c.550 CE)נוצר/נערך: בבל התלמודית (450 – 550 לספירה בקירוב)

Current Version

William Davidson Edition - Vocalized Aramaic

Select Translation

Aramaic from The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz
Nikud (vocalization) by Dicta - the Israel Center for Text Analysis.
Punctuation: Rabbi Shimon MarylesRead More

Source: korenpub.co.il

Digitization: Sefaria

License: CC-BY-NC

Revision History

Buy in Print

Current Translation

William Davidson Edition - English

Select Translation

English from The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel SteinsaltzRead More

Source: korenpub.com

Digitization: Sefaria

License: CC-BY-NC

Revision History

Buy in Print

For commentary etc. (right side page under resources) click: Bava Kamma 7a:1 with About (sefaria.org)

7a

וּבַעַל חוֹב בְּבֵינוֹנִית!

and the halakha of a creditor is to collect only from intermediate-quality land, not from superior-quality land.

וְכִי תֵּימָא סָבַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: בַּעַל חוֹב נָמֵי בְּעִידִּית; אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְבַעַל חוֹב – שֶׁכֵּן יִפָּה כֹּחוֹ בְּנִזָּקִין, תֹּאמַר בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ – שֶׁהוֹרַע כֹּחוֹ בְּנִזָּקִין!

And if you would say that Rabbi Akiva holds that a creditor can collect the money owed him from superior-quality land as well, there is still a difficulty; the a fortiori inference can still be refuted in the following manner: What is notable about an ordinary creditor? He is notable in that the Torah enhanced his power with regard to payment of damages, as an ordinary person can collect payment of damages for loss or injury caused by another’s ox. But can you say the same about the Temple treasury of consecrated property, with regard to which the Torah weakened its power with regard to payment of damages, not allowing it to collect such compensation? Accordingly, even if a creditor collects from superior-quality land, it does not necessarily follow that a Temple treasurer would also do so. It is therefore apparent that Rabbi Akiva’s a fortiori inference is not referring to the case of one who donates money to the Temple.

לְעוֹלָם דִּנְגַח תּוֹרָא דִידַן לְתוֹרָא דְהֶקְדֵּשׁ. וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ: ״שׁוֹר רֵעֵהוּ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא – וְלֹא שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ; רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא –

The Gemara rejects this: Actually, we can explain that we are dealing here with a case where our ox gored an ox that is consecrated property. And with regard to that which posed a difficulty for you about this explanation, i.e., that the Merciful One states: “The ox of another” (Exodus 21:35), which indicates that liability is incurred only for damaging another person’s ox but not for an ox consecrated to the Temple, Rabbi Akiva disagrees with that interpretation and holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya.

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר: שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶדְיוֹט – פָּטוּר; שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ, בֵּין תָּם בֵּין מוּעָד – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.

As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: If an ox that is consecrated property gored an ox belonging to a common person [hedyot], the Temple treasury is exempt from liability. By contrast, in the case of an ox belonging to a common person that gored an ox that is consecrated property, whether the ox that gored the other ox was an innocuous ox, i.e., an ox with no consistent history of causing damage with the intent to injure, or it was a forewarned ox, i.e., an ox whose owner was forewarned because his ox had already gored another ox three times, the ox’s owner pays the full cost of the damage.

אִי הָכִי, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – מִמַּאי דִּבְעִידִּית דְּנִיזָּק וְזִיבּוּרִית דְּמַזִּיק פְּלִיגִי? דִּלְמָא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בִּדְנִיזָּק שָׁיְימִינַן, וְהָכָא בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא וְרַבָּנַן קָמִפַּלְגִי –

The Gemara asks: If so, from where do you know to say that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael disagree about a case where the superior-quality land belonging to the injured party and the inferior-quality land belonging to the one liable for the damage are equal in quality, and the one liable for the damage also has land of superior quality, as the dispute was previously interpreted by Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov? Perhaps everyone, including Rabbi Akiva, agrees that we appraise the value of the land of the injured party, and here they disagree with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and the Rabbis.

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא, וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר כְּרַבָּנַן!

The Gemara explains: Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, that in the case of damage caused by the ox of a common person to the property of the Temple treasury, compensation is collected from superior-quality land belonging to the one liable for the damage. And Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that the owner of the ox bears no liability. In other words, perhaps in the baraita recording the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva (see 6b), Rabbi Yishmael first taught that land is appraised based on the quality of the injured party’s land, and then, although it is not explicit in the baraita, he continued to state his opinion that the Temple treasury is unable to collect damages. Accordingly, Rabbi Akiva can be understood as having first expressed his agreement concerning the valuation of land and then proceeding to dispute Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion with regard to the Temple treasury.

אִם כֵּן, מַאי ״לֹא בָּא הַכָּתוּב״?

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If it is so that this is the disagreement, then what is the meaning of Rabbi Akiva’s statement: The verse comes only to allow injured parties to collect compensation from superior-quality land? This indicates that Rabbi Akiva disagrees about how to understand this verse.

וְעוֹד, מַאי ״קַל וָחוֹמֶר לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ״?

And furthermore, if the subject is the Temple treasury, what is the meaning of: And by means of an a fortiori inference one can derive that the Temple treasury of consecrated property collects from superior-quality land. If, as suggested, Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, then he maintains that damage to consecrated property is dealt with more stringently than damage to another person’s property, in that if one’s ox damages consecrated property one is liable for the full cost of the damage even if the ox was considered innocuous. If damage to consecrated property is dealt with more stringently, there is no basis to derive an a fortiori inference.

וְעוֹד, הָא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, תַּנְיָא בְּהֶדְיָא: ״מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם״ – מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ שֶׁל נִיזָּק, וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ שֶׁל נִיזָּק, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ שֶׁל מַזִּיק, וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ שֶׁל מַזִּיק.

And furthermore, didn’t Rav Ashi say: It is taught explicitly in a baraita: The verse: “The best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay” (Exodus 22:4), teaches that the appraisal is of the best of the field of the injured party, and of the best of the vineyard of the injured party. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The appraisal is of the best of the field of the one liable for the damage, and of the best of the vineyard of the one liable for the damage. This clearly indicates that according to Rabbi Akiva compensation is collected from the superior-quality land belonging to the one liable for the damage.

רָמֵי לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרָבָא, כְּתִיב: ״מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם״ – מֵיטַב אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא לָא;

§ The Gemara considers others issues concerning the form in which restitution should be paid: Abaye raises a contradiction and addresses it to Rava: It is written: “The best of his field and of the best of his vineyard he shall pay” (Exodus 22:4), which indicates that from his best-quality land, yes, he shall pay, but from something else, no, he shall not pay.

וְהָתַנְיָא: ״יָשִׁיב״ – לְרַבּוֹת שָׁוֶה כֶּסֶף, וַאֲפִילּוּ סוּבִּין!

But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit and not cover it, and an ox or a donkey fall therein, the owner of the pit shall pay; he shall recompense money to its owners” (Exodus 21:33–34)? Since the verse states: “The owner of the pit shall pay,” the additional term “he shall recompense” is superfluous. It therefore serves to include any item worth money, and even bran, a relatively inferior commodity, as valid forms of restitution.

לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן מִדַּעְתּוֹ, כָּאן בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ.

Rava resolves the contradiction: This is not difficult. Here, the term “he shall recompense” is referring to a case where he pays of his own volition, without being taken to court, and he may therefore use any form of payment. There, the phrase “of the best of his field” is referring to a case where he pays against his will, after the injured party has sued him in court. Since he caused the injured party additional trouble, he must pay using his best-quality land.

אָמַר עוּלָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב עִילַּאי: דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דִּכְתִיב: ״יְשַׁלֵּם״ – בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ.

Ulla, son of Rav Ilai, said: According to this explanation, the language of the verse is also precise, as it is written: “He shall pay,” a term that, as opposed to: “He shall recompense,” connotes that he is forced to pay against his will.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִי כְּתִיב ״יְשׁוּלַּם״?! ״יְשַׁלֵּם״ כְּתִיב – מִדַּעְתּוֹ מַשְׁמַע!

Abaye said to him that the precise meaning of the verse does not indicate that he is paying against his will: Is it written: He shall be paid, in the passive form, which would clearly indicate that he did not voluntarily initiate the payment himself but rather is paying against his will? No; “he shall pay” is written, which can also indicate that he pays of his own volition.

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כִּדְמָר – דְּתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ בָּתִּים שָׂדוֹת וּכְרָמִים, וְאֵינוֹ מוֹצֵא לְמוֹכְרָן – מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ מַעְשַׂר עָנִי, עַד מֶחֱצָה.

Rather, Abaye said an alternative resolution, similar to that with which the Master, i.e., Abaye’s teacher, Rabba, employed in order to resolve a different difficulty. As it is taught in a baraita: A wealthy person is not entitled to take a poor man’s tithe. He is instead expected to sell his assets and purchase food with the proceeds. But in the case of an individual who owns houses, fields, and vineyards, but at the present time cannot find buyers to whom he can sell them, one may feed him with food from the poor man’s tithe up until half the value of his assets.

וְהָוֵי בָּהּ מָר: הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי (הוּזַל) [דְּזוּל] אַרְעָתָא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא, וְדִידֵיהּ נָמֵי זָל בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ – אֲפִילּוּ טוּבָא נָמֵי לִיסְפֵּי לֵיהּ, דְּהָא זוּל דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא נָמֵי!

And the Master discussed it and asked: What are the circumstances that led to him being unable to sell his land? If everyone’s land depreciated in value, and his land also depreciated along with theirs, let us provide him with even more than half the value of his assets, as, since everyone’s land also depreciated, the market value of his property is low and he is genuinely classified as a poor person, who may take as much poor man’s tithe as is given to him.

אֶלָּא דְּאוֹקִיר אַרְעָתָא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא, וְדִידֵיהּ – אַיְּידֵי דְּעָיֵיל וְנָפֵיק אַזּוּזֵי, זָל אַרְעֵיהּ?

Rather, it must be that everyone else’s land appreciated in value, and with regard to his land, since people see that he goes in and goes out for money, i.e., he is in need of money, they reason that he will be forced to accept a lower offer for his property. Consequently, his land depreciated in value.

7b

אֲפִילּוּ פּוּרְתָּא נָמֵי לָא לִיסְפּוֹ לֵיהּ!

The Gemara asks: But if that is the case, we should not provide him with even a slight amount of poor man’s tithe. Since his assets, based on their market value, have a high value, he is not to be classified as a poor person.

וְאָמַר מָר עֲלַהּ: לָא צְרִיכָא; דִּבְיוֹמֵי נִיסָן יָקְרָא אַרְעָתָא, וּבְיוֹמֵי תִּשְׁרֵי זָל אַרְעָתָא;

And the Master, Rabba, said concerning this: No, the halakha that he is provided with only up to half the value of his assets is necessary in a case where he cannot sell due to seasonal fluctuations in price. This is because in the days of the month of Nisan, which is the beginning of the harvest season, the market value of land appreciates, and in the days of the month of Tishrei, a time when the harvest had already been reaped and it is too late to prepare the land for the coming year, the market value of land depreciates.

דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא – נָטְרִי עַד נִיסָן, וּמְזַבְּנִי; וְהַאי, הוֹאִיל וְאִצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ זוּזֵי – זָבֵין כִּדְהַשְׁתָּא. עַד פַּלְגָא – אוֹרְחֵיהּ לְמֵיזַל, טְפֵי – לָאו אוֹרְחֵיהּ לְמֵיזַל.

Consequently, everyone generally waits until Nisan and sells only at that point. But this person, since he is in need of money, sells his land in Tishrei according to the current, lower, market price. Accordingly, based on the current market prices, his assets have a low value and there is justification in regarding him as a poor person. Yet, since if he waited until Nisan, as everyone else does, his land would have a high value, he cannot truly be classified as a poor person. Therefore, he is permitted to take only as much poor man’s tithe as will cover his losses. The Gemara explains why he is permitted to take only up to half the value of his land: Since it is the nature of land to depreciate up to half its value, and it is not its nature to depreciate more than that, he is entitled to take poor man’s tithe that is worth up to half the value of his land and the rest he can supplement by selling his land at its current, lower price.

וְהָכָא נָמֵי גַּבֵּי נִזָּקִין – דִּינֵיהּ בְּעִידִּית;

Abaye uses a similar distinction to resolve the contradiction he raises: And here also, with regard to damages, if one considers a case where the injured party comes to collect his damages during Tishrei, his legal right is to collect payment from superior-quality land. This will be a relatively large amount of land, owing to the current seasonal depreciation in its value.

וְאִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִיהוּ: הַב לִי בֵּינוֹנִית טְפֵי פּוּרְתָּא; אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי שָׁקְלַתְּ כְּדִינָךְ – שְׁקוֹל כִּדְהַשְׁתָּא, וְאִי לָא – שְׁקֹיל כִּי יוּקְרָא דִּלְקַמֵּיהּ.

But if the injured party says to the one liable for the damage: Give me slightly more land of intermediate quality instead, then the one liable for the damage can say to him: If you choose to take superior-quality land, as is your legal right, take a large amount in accordance with the current market value; but if not, and you wish to take intermediate-quality land, take according to the future value in Nisan, after it will have appreciated, which will mean you will be entitled to a smaller amount of land. This can be used to resolve the contradiction: The phrase “of the best of his field,” which indicates that payment is made only from superior-quality land, defines the injured party’s basic rights. The term “he shall recompense,” which indicates that payment may be made in any form, is referring to a case where the injured party forgoes his rights. In such a case the value of the land or item he agrees to receive is appraised based on its appreciated value at the season when it is generally sold.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: אִם כֵּן, הוֹרַעְתָּ כֹּחָן שֶׁל נִזָּקִין אֵצֶל בֵּינוֹנִית וְזִיבּוּרִית – דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר מִמֵּיטַב, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ מִבֵּינוֹנִית וְזִיבּוּרִית נָמֵי לָא!

Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov objects to this suggestion: If so, you have weakened the power of injured parties with regard to intermediate-quality and inferior-quality land, as, by agreeing to receive land of a lower quality than that to which their rights entitle them, they will actually receive less land, since the land is then appraised based on the appreciated market values in Nisan. Such an opinion is untenable, as the Merciful One states that injured parties collect from the best-quality land, clearly intending to enhance their rights, and yet you said he cannot also collect from intermediate-quality and inferior-quality land unless he agrees that the land should be appraised based on the appreciated Nisan values, thereby lowering the value of his payment.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: אִי אִיכָּא לְדַמּוֹיֵי – לְבַעַל חוֹב מְדַמֵּינַן לֵיהּ; בַּעַל חוֹב – דִּינֵיהּ בְּבֵינוֹנִית. וְאִי אָמַר לֵיהּ: הַב לִי זִיבּוּרִית טְפֵי פּוּרְתָּא, אָמַר לֵיהּ: אִי שָׁקְלַתְּ כְּדִינָךְ – שְׁקוֹל כִּדְהַשְׁתָּא, וְאִי לָא – שְׁקֹיל כִּי יוּקְרָא דִּלְקַמֵּיהּ.

Rather, Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: If there is a case to compare to Rabba’s distinction, it is not compared to a case of payment of damages, but we can compare it to a case of a creditor who comes to collect the loan during Tishrei. His legal right is to collect from the borrower’s intermediate-quality land, which will be a relatively large amount owing to the current seasonal depreciation in the value of land. But if the creditor says to the borrower: Give me slightly more land of inferior quality instead, the borrower can say to him: If you choose to take the intermediate-quality land, as is your legal right, take a large amount in accordance with the current market value, but if not, and you wish to take land of inferior quality, take it in accordance with the future, appreciated, market value in the month of Nisan. This would mean that the creditor would be entitled to a smaller amount of land.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: אִם כֵּן, נָעַלְתָּ דֶּלֶת בִּפְנֵי לֹוִין – דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: אִילּוּ הֲווֹ לִי זוּזֵי, הֲוָה שְׁקַלִי כִּדְהַשְׁתָּא; הַשְׁתָּא דְּזוּזֵי גַּבָּךְ, אֶשְׁקוֹל כְּיוּקְרָא דִּלְקַמֵּיהּ!

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, objects to this suggestion: If so, you have locked the door in the face of potential borrowers, as, according to your suggestion, the creditor is in a disadvantageous position. He can say to the borrower: Were I still to have the money I lent you, I would be able to purchase a large parcel of land in accordance with the current depreciated market value, so why, now that the money is with you, should I be forced to purchase land in accordance with the future, appreciated market value of the month of Nisan? If people are penalized as a result of granting loans, they will cease to do so.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: אִי אִיכָּא לְדַמּוֹיֵי – לִכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה מְדַמֵּינַן; דְּהָא כְּתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה דִּינָה בְּזִיבּוּרִית, וְאִי אָמְרָה לֵיהּ אִיהִי: הַב לִי בֵּינוֹנִית בְּצִיר פּוּרְתָּא; אָמַר לַהּ: אִי שָׁקְלַתְּ כְּדִינִךְ – שְׁקוּלִ[י] כִּדְהַשְׁתָּא, וְאִי לָא – שְׁקֻלִי כְּיוּקְרָא דִּלְקַמֵּיהּ.

Rather, Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: If there is a case to compare to Rabba’s distinction, we can compare it to the collection of a woman’s marriage contract where she comes to collect it during Tishrei. As a woman’s legal right in a marriage contract is to collect payment from her husband’s inferior-quality land, which will be a relatively large amount owing to the current seasonal depreciation in the value of land. But if she says to her former husband: Give me slightly less land of intermediate quality instead, her former husband can say to her: If you choose to take the lowest-quality land, as is your legal right, take a large amount in accordance with the current market value, but if not, and you wish to take land of a higher quality, take in accordance with the future appreciated market value of the month of Nisan, which will mean you will be entitled only to a smaller amount of land.

מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, קַשְׁיָא!

The Gemara returns to examine the contradiction raised by Abaye: In any case, the original difficulty still remains.

אָמַר רָבָא: כֹּל דְּיָהֵיב לֵיהּ – מִמֵּיטַב לִיתֵּיב לֵיהּ.

Rava said: Whatever he gives the injured party as payment he must give him of the best of that type. For example, even if he pays in bran he must pay with his best-quality bran, and this is the meaning of the phrase “of the best of his field.” Accordingly, the contra-diction is resolved. The term “he shall recompense” indicates that payment can be given in any form, but the phrase “of the best of his field” indicates only that whichever form of payment is used, it must be of a superior quality, and not, as Abaye initially understood it, as limiting the form of payment specifically to land of superior quality.

וְהָא ״מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ״ כְּתִיב!

The Gemara asks: But isn’t “the best of his field” written, which suggests that the requirement to pay with one’s best land applies only when one pays with land?

אֶלָּא כִּי אֲתָא רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מִבֵּי רַב, פָּרְשׁוּהָ: כֹּל מִילֵּי – מֵיטַב הוּא, דְּאִי לָא מִזְדַּבַּן הָכָא – מִזְדַּבַּן בְּמָתָא אַחֲרִיתִי; לְבַר מֵאַרְעָא – דְּלִיתֵּיב לֵיהּ מִמֵּיטַב, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלִקְפּוֹץ עֲלַהּ זָבוֹנָא.

Rather, when Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came from Rav’s academy, they explained it as follows: With regard to payment, all items are classified as property of the best quality, as, if an item cannot be sold here, it can be sold in another city. Since movable items are easily liquidated, they are always considered an acceptable form of payment. This is with the exception of land, which is not always easily sold. Therefore, the halakha is that the one liable for the damage must give the injured party payment from his best-quality land, which is easier to sell. This is in order to ensure the possibility that a buyer will jump at the opportunity to purchase it, thereby providing the injured party with the possibility of liquidating it. This resolves the contradiction. The phrase “of the best of his field” indicates that if payment is made with land it must be with superior-quality land, and the term “he shall recompense” indicates that if payment is made from movable property, anything worth money may be used.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא מֵאַקְרוֹנְיָא – מֵרַבִּי אַבָּא: כְּשֶׁהֵן שָׁמִין – בְּשֶׁלּוֹ הֵן שָׁמִין, אוֹ בְּשֶׁל עוֹלָם הֵן שָׁמִין?

§ Rav Shmuel bar Abba from Akronya asked Rabbi Abba: When the court appraises land to determine if it is to be classified as being of superior-quality, does it appraise land based on the quality of a property owner’s other land or does it appraise it based on the quality of the land in the world at large?

אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל לָא תִּבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּאָמַר בִּדְנִיזָּק שָׁיְימִינַן.

The Gemara notes: Do not raise the dilemma in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, as he says that we appraise land based on the quality of land owned by the injured party, and therefore payment is made with land that is of a similar quality to the best-quality land of the injured party. Accordingly, it is obvious that the classification is based only on the land of the injured party.

כִּי תִּבְּעֵי לָךְ אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – דְּאָמַר בִּדְמַזִּיק שָׁיְימִינַן,

When you raise this dilemma, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that we appraise land based on the quality of land owned by the one liable for the damage, and he pays with his superior-quality land even if its quality exceeds that of any of the injured party’s land. Consequently, according to Rabbi Akiva it is appropriate to ask whether the appraisal is based only on his other land or based on the land in the world at large.

מַאי? ״מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא – לְמַעוֹטֵי דְּנִיזָּק; אוֹ דִלְמָא, לְמַעוֹטֵי דְּעָלְמָא נָמֵי?

The Gemara asks: What is the answer to the dilemma? When the Merciful One states: “The best of his field” (Exodus 22:4), does the stress in the verse on “his field” serve to exclude only the possibility of appraising land based solely on the value of the land of the injured party, but land is appraised based on the quality of land in the world at large? Or perhaps, does it serve to exclude the possibility of appraising land based on the quality of land of the world at large as well, and it is sufficient if the land he pays with is his best-quality land?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, רַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ״, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ בְּשֶׁל עוֹלָם הֵן שָׁמִין?!

Rabbi Abba said to him: The Merciful One states: “The best of his field,” and you say the court appraises land based on the quality of land in the world at large? Certainly the term “his field” teaches that it is sufficient that the land be the best of the land of the one liable for the damage.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא עִידִּית – כּוּלָּם גּוֹבִין מִן הָעִידִּית. בֵּינוֹנִית – כּוּלָּם גּוֹבִין בֵּינוֹנִית. זִיבּוּרִית – כּוּלָּם גּוֹבִין זִיבּוּרִית.

Rav Shmuel bar Abba raised an objection to this opinion from a baraita that delineates the forms of payment used for paying damages, repaying a debt to a creditor, and paying a marriage contract: If the debtor has only superior-quality land, all of them collect from the superior-quality land. Similarly, if he has only intermediate-quality land, all of them collect from the intermediate-quality land. And if he has only inferior-quality land, all of them collect from the inferior-quality land.

הָיוּ לוֹ עִידִּית וּבֵינוֹנִית וְזִיבּוּרִית; נִזָּקִין – בְּעִידִּית, וּבַעַל חוֹב – בְּבֵינוֹנִית, וּכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה – בְּזִיבּוּרִית. עִידִּית וּבֵינוֹנִית; נִזָּקִין – בְּעִידִּית, בַּעַל חוֹב וּכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה – בְּבֵינוֹנִית. בֵּינוֹנִית וְזִיבּוּרִית; נִזָּקִין וּבַעַל חוֹב – בְּבֵינוֹנִית, וּכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה – בְּזִיבּוּרִית.

If he has superior-quality, intermediate-quality, and inferior-quality land, damages are paid from the superior-quality land, and a creditor collects from the intermediate-quality land, and a woman’s marriage contract is paid from the inferior-quality land. If he has only superior-quality and intermediate-quality land, damages are paid from the superior-quality land, and payment to a creditor and payment of a woman’s marriage contract are made from the intermediate-quality land. If he has only intermediate-quality and inferior-quality land, payments for damages and payments owed to a creditor are made from the intermediate-quality land, while payments of a woman’s marriage contract are made from the inferior-quality land.

Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 1:9

Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, 1999-2015

Level four:

Near the weekly parsha with the haftorah both with Rashi, a chapter of Nach beginning with Joshua until the end of II Chronicles without Tehillim and start after the 'end' with Joshua again, Mishnah starting with Seder Zeraim (Agriculture) Berakhot until the end Seder Tahorot (Purity) Oktzin and start after the 'end' with Seder Zeraim (Agriculture) Berakhot, a daf from the Talmud Babylonian-Jerusalem starting from the beginning until the end and after the 'end' starting with the beginning again. Reading it very quickly every day.

About This Text

Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim

Talmud

Kilayim (“Mixtures”) is a tractate in Seder Zeraim (“Order of Seeds”) that discusses biblical prohibitions of mixed species, based in Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:9-11. These include planting certain mixtures of seeds, grafting different species of trees, growing plants other than grapevines in a vineyard, crossbreeding animals, working certain animals together, and mixing wool and linen in clothing.

Composed: Talmudic Israel (c.375 – c.425 CE)נוצר/נערך: ישראל התלמודית (375 – 425 לספירה בקירוב)

Current Version

The Jerusalem Talmud, edition by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015

Select Version

Read More

Source: nli.org.il

Digitization: Sefaria

License: CC-BY

Revision History

Buy in Print

Current Translation

The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015

Select Translation

Read More

Source: nli.org.il

Digitization: Sefaria

License: CC-BY

Revision History

Buy in Print

Alternate Source Versions

Mechon-Mamre

Select Version

Read More

Source: mechon-mamre.org

Digitization: Sefaria

License:

Revision History

Buy in Print

Venice Edition

Select Version

Read More

Source: nli.org.il

Digitization: Sefaria

License:

Revision History

For commentary etc. (right side page under resources) click: Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 1:9:1 with About (sefaria.org)

1:9

משנה: הַטּוֹמֵן לֶפֶת וּצְנוֹנוֹת תַּחַת הַגֶּפֶן אִם הָיוּ מִקְצַת הֶעָלִין מְגוּלִּין אֵינוֹ חוֹשֶׁשׁ לֹא מִשּׁוּם כִּלְאַיִם וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבִיעִית וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם מַעְשְׂרוֹת וְנִיטָּלִין בַּשַּׁבָּת. הַזּוֹרֵעַ חִיטָּה וּשְׂעוֹרָה כְּאַחַת הֲרֵי זֶה כִלְאַיִם. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ כִלְאַיִם עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁתֵּי חִטִּים וּשְׂעוֹרָה אוֹ חִיטָּה וּשְׁתֵּי שְׂעוֹרִים אוֹ חִטָּה וּשְׂעוֹרָה וְכוּסֶּמֶת.

MISHNAH: If someone hides turnips and radishes under a vine and some of the leaves were showing he does not have to worry either because of kilaim, or because of the Sabbatical year, or because of tithes, and they may be removed on the Sabbath. If someone sows wheat and barley together, that is kilaim. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not kilaim unless there are two wheat kernels and a barley kernel, or a wheat kernel and two barley kernels, or one each of wheat, barley, and spelt.

הלכה: חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לֶפֶת וּצְנוֹנוֹת הָא שְׁאָר דְּבָרִים לֹא. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לֹא שַׁנְייָא הִיא לֶפֶת הִיא צְנוֹנוֹת הִיא שְׁאָר כָּל־דְּבָרִים. מַה נָן קַייָמִין אִי מִשּׁוּם זְרָעִים בְּאִילָן לָמָּה לִי גֶּפֶן וּצְנוֹנוֹת אֲפִילוּ שְׁאָר כָּל־דְּבָרִים הָאֵילּוּ. אִי מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה בְּהַשְׁרָשָׁתָן לָמָּה לִי לֶפֶת וּצְנוֹנוֹת אֲפִילוּ שְׁאָר כָּל־דְּבָרִים. מִן מַה דְּתַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָא כְּגוֹן אֲגוּדָה שֶׁל לֶפֶת וַאֲגוּדָה שֶׁל צְנוֹנוֹת. הֲוֵי לֵית טַעֲמָא דְּלֹא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה בְּהַשְׁרָשָׁתָן.

HALAKHAH: Ḥizqiah said, they stated only turnips and radishes, nothing else. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference whether turnips, radishes, or any other plants. What are we talking about? If because of the rules of vegetables and trees, why do I need vine and radishes, even any other plants? If because he does not want them to take root, why turnips and radishes, even any other species also? From what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “for example bunches of turnips and bunches of radishes,” it follows that the reason is only because he does not want them to take root.

תַּנֵּי פַּגָּה שֶׁטְּמָנָהּ בְּטֵבֵל וַחֲרָרָה שֶׁטְּמָנָהּ בִּגְחָלִים אִם הָיוּ מִקְצָתָן מְגוּלִּין נִיטָּלִין בַּשַּׁבָּת וְאִם לָאו אֵין נִיטָּלִין בַּשַּׁבָּת. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בֶּן תַּדַּאי אָמַר בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ תּוֹחֵב בִּשְׁפוּד אוֹ בְסַכִּין וְנוֹטְלָן. אַתְיָא דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בֶּן תַּדַּאי כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּתַנֵּי לֹא יִגּוֹר אָדָם אֶת הַכִּיסֵּא וְאֶת הַמִּיטָּה וְאֶת הַקַּתֵּידְרָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה חָרִיץ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר. רַבָּא בְשֵׁם רַב הוּנָא רִבִּי חַגַּיי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הִילָא מוֹדִין חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּכִסֵּא שֶׁרַגְלָיו מְשׁוּקָּעוֹת בְּטִיט שֶׁמּוּתָּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ. וּכְמַה דְתֵימַר מוּתָּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ. וְדִכְווָתָהּ מוּתָּר לְהַחֲזִירוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוּף אֲנָן תַּנִּינָן נִיטָּלִין בְּשַׁבָּת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. וְהָא תַּנִּינָן שְׁבִיעִית. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר שְׁבִיעִית דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. פָּתַר לָהּ שְׁבִיעִית דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר בִּסְפִיחֵי שְׁבִיעִית וְהָכָא אָמַר הָכֵן. אַף עַל גַּב דְּרִבִּי שִׁמעוֹן מַתִּיר בִּסְפִיחֵי שְׁבִיעִית אִית לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם קְדוּשַּׁת שְׁבִיעִית. אוּף הָכָא אֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ לֹא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבִיעִית וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם קְדוּשַּׁת שְׁבִיעִית.

It was stated: “If unripe figs that one hid in ṭevel or a flat pita that one hid in glowing charcoal were partially uncovered they may be taken on the Sabbath, otherwise they may not be taken on the Sabbath. Rebbi Eleazar ben Taddeus said, in either case he pushes in a spear or a knife and lifts them out.” The statement of Rebbi Eleazar ben Taddeus turns out following Rebbi Simeon, as we have stated: “One should not drag a chair, or a bed, or an easy chair because one makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits it.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Huna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Illaï: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move. And just as you say that one is permitted to move it, so one is permitted to bring it back. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated: “They may be taken on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is from Rebbi Simeon. But we have stated: “The Sabbatical year!” Can you say that “the Sabbatical year” follows Rebbi Simeon? Explain “the Sabbatical year!” For Rebbi Simeon permits the aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, and here he says so? Even though Rebbi Simeon permits aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, he still holds it subject to the holiness of the Sabbatical year. Here also, he worries neither about the Sabbatical year nor about the holiness of the Sabbatical year!

זָרַע שְׁנֵי מִינִין בְּבִקְעָה שְׁנֵי מִינִין בְּחוֹרֵבָה שְׁנֵי מִינִין וְחִלְּקָן גֶּדֶר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר פָּטוּר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר חַייָב. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּזוֹרֵעַ עַל גַּבֵּי הַיָּם עַל גַּבֵּי פֵּיטְרָא עַל גַּבֵּי סְלָעִים עַל גַּבֵּי טְרָשִׁים שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּזוֹרֵעַ עַל מְנָת לְהַתְקִין גֶּדֶר שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא קַּרְתָּגֵינִיָּא מוֹדֶה רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לְעִנְייַן שַׁבָּת עַד שֶׁתָּנוּחַ. מַתְנִיתִן פְּלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַזּוֹרֵעַ חִיטָּה וּשְׂעוֹרָה כְּאַחַת הֲרֵי זֶה כִלְאַיִם. פָּתַר לָהּ בִּנְתוּנִּים בְּתוֹךְ שִׁשָּׁה עַל שִׁשָּׁה. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֵינוֹ חַייָב עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שִׁשָּׁה עַל שִׁשָּׁה מוּקְרָחִין בְּתוֹךְ שְׂדֵה תְבוּאָה אוֹ מוּקָּפִין גֶּדֶר.

One sowed two kinds in a valley, two kinds in a dry spot, or two kinds that he separated by a fence. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is free from sanction, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that one who sows on the sea, on a stone, on a rock, on hard stones cannot be sanctioned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that one who sows with the intention of erecting a fence cannot be sanctioned. Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath it must come to rest. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If someone sows wheat and barley together, that is kilaim.” He explains it, if they are put inside a six [hand-breadths] by six [hand-breadths] spot, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty unless there is a bare spot of six by six inside a grain field or enclosed by a fence.

בְּהָדָא רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ כִּלְאַיִם. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי יוּדָה כְדַעְתֵּיהּ. דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה אָמַר בִּשְׂדֵה יֶרֶק טֶפַח. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מָאן דְּבָעֵי מַקְשַׁיָּה עַל הָדָא דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא יְלִיף הָדָא דְרִבִּי יוּדָה מִן דְּרַבָּנִין. כְּמַה דְּרַבָּנִין אָֽמְרִין בְּאִיסּוּר בֵּית רוֹבַע לִלְקוֹת שִׁשָּׁה עַל שִׁשָּׁה. כֵּן רִבִּי יוּדָה אָמַר בְּאִיסּוּר שִׁשָּׁה עַל שִׁשָּׁה לִלְקוֹת טֶפַח. וְהָתַנֵּי רִבִּי יוּדָה מַתִּיר. וְקַשְׁייָא מַה טַעְמָא דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוֹצִיא מִתּוֹךְ יָדוֹ לְזֶרַע חַייָב. וְהָא תַנִּינָן רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ כִלְאַיִם. פָּתַר לָהּ עַד שָׁעָה שֶׁתָּנוּחַ. וְהָתַנֵּי רִבִּי יוּדָה מַתִּיר לֹא אֲפִילוּ נָחָה רִבִּי יוּדָה מַתִּיר. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם חִזְקִיָּה רֹאשׁ תּוֹר מֵחוֹרֵבָה מוּתָּר. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ שְׁנֵי חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרָה. וְכֵן הִיא וְהָֽתַנִּינָן עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁנֵי חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרָה אוֹ חִיטָּה אַחַת וּשְׁנֵי שְׂעוֹרִין אוֹ חִטָּה אַחַת וּשְׂעוֹרָה וְכוּסֶּמֶת. פָּֽתְרי לָהּ חִיטָּה מִכָּן וְחִיטָּה מִכָּן גֶּדֶר מִכָּן וְגֶדֶר מִכָּן וּשְׂעוֹרָה חֲבוּשָׁה בְאֶמְצַע. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְיָא הָדָא דְּתֵימַר שֶׁאֵין שָׁם חוֹרֵבָה אֲבַל יֵשׁ שָׁם חוֹרֵבָה מוּתָּר.

Does Rebbi Judah say that in this case it is not kilaim? Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jehudah said, in the case of a vegetable field one hand-breadth. Rebbi Yose said, he who wants to question this statement of Rebbi Zeïra might deduce the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah from that of the rabbis. Just as the rabbis say, in the case of the prohibition of bet rova‘ one needs six-by-six to whip, so Rebbi Judah said in the case of the prohibition of six-by-six that one needs a hand-breadth to whip. But did we not state, Rebbi Judah permits it? Then it is difficult: what is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since he threw it out from his hand as seed, he is guilty. But did we not state that “Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not kilaim?” Explain it, until the moment that it comes to rest. But was it not stated that Rebbi Judah permits it? Even if it came to rest, Rebbi Jehudah permits it. Rebbi Illaï said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: A vertex from a dry spot is permitted. Then it also should be thus in the case of two wheat grains and one of barley? That is correct. But did we not state, “unless there are two wheat kernels and one barley kernel, or one wheat kernel and two barley kernels, or one each of wheat, barley, and spelt?” Explain it if there is a grain of wheat on each side, a fence on each side, and the grain of barley caught in the middle. Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is only if there is no dry spot, but if there is a dry spot there, it is permitted.

Beit Yisrael International.
Become a member.

Get the Membership from Beit Yisrael! ‘How to become a Righteous of the Nations (Ultra-Orthodox Chassidic Noahite/Lost Tribes of Efrayim /‘Ger Toshav ‘) click: Beit yisrael international

Come and join our Facebook group:

Har HaBait Jewish Sovereign for all Israel

Free download 
google Play 

Tehillim Ohel Yosef Yitzchak

Abraham Makovetsky

A must read and guiding line: To go through every step, of the 42 steps in our diaspora until we reach Eretz Yisrael, the unification of Yehuda and Ephraim, when the Jews start to build The Temple and Restoring her Temple Service. It is for all Beit Yisrael International members the way to go.

click:

42 Journeys of the Soul

The Messianic age will elevate the entire universe, including all the spiritual realms.

From the teachings of Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi; adapted by Yitzchak Wagshul

Don't make dogma's out of it. But elevate your souls by learning the Mitzvot surrounded by the Jewish Halakhot. 
And the teachings of Chassidut by the Chassidim.

That we may hold on the 'right understanding' in our 'travel' through the 'dessert' our 'diaspora':

click: 

What Is Kabbalah?

The Soul of Judaism

By Tzvi Freeman

Click:

What Is Chassidut?

Teachings from the core essence

By Tzvi Freeman

Click:

What Is Chabad?

Do-It-Yourself Judaism

By Tzvi Freeman

Click: 

What Is a Tzaddik?

Being human all the way

By Tzvi Freeman

Click:

The Tzaddik HaDor

And…… to all Jews and Ephraimites:

Pirkei Avot 6:10

Dr. Joshua Kulp


חֲמִשָּׁה קִנְיָנִים קָנָה לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְעוֹלָמוֹ, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן, תּוֹרָה קִנְיָן אֶחָד, שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ קִנְיָן אֶחָד, אַבְרָהָם קִנְיָן אֶחָד, יִשְׂרָאֵל קִנְיָן אֶחָד, בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קִנְיָן אֶחָד. תּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (משלי ח), ה' קָנָנִי רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכּוֹ קֶדֶם מִפְעָלָיו מֵאָז. שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (ישעיה סו), כֹּה אָמַר ה' הַשָּׁמַיִם כִּסְאִי וְהָאָרֶץ הֲדֹם רַגְלָי אֵי זֶה בַיִת אֲשֶׁר תִּבְנוּ לִי וְאֵי זֶה מָקוֹם מְנוּחָתִי, וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים קד) מָה רַבּוּ מַעֲשֶׂיךָ ה' כֻּלָּם בְּחָכְמָה עָשִׂיתָ מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ קִנְיָנֶךָ. אַבְרָהָם קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (בראשית יד), וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ וַיֹּאמַר בָּרוּךְ אַבְרָם לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ. יִשְׂרָאֵל קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (שמות טו), עַד יַעֲבֹר עַמְּךָ ה' עַד יַעֲבֹר עַם זוּ קָנִיתָ, וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים טז) לִקְדוֹשִׁים אֲשֶׁר בָּאָרֶץ הֵמָּה וְאַדִּירֵי כָּל חֶפְצִי בָם. בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (שמות טו), מָכוֹן לְשִׁבְתְּךָ פָּעַלְתָּ ה' מִקְּדָשׁ ה' כּוֹנְנוּ יָדֶיךָ. וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים עח) וַיְבִיאֵם אֶל גְּבוּל קָדְשׁוֹ הַר זֶה קָנְתָה יְמִינוֹ:

Five possessions did the Holy Blessed One, set aside as his own in this world, and these are they: The Torah, one possession; Heaven and earth, another possession; Abraham, another possession; Israel, another possession; The Temple, another possession. 1a) The Torah is one possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written, “The Lord possessed (usually translated as ‘created’) me at the beginning of his course, at the first of His works of old” (Proverbs 8:22). 2a) Heaven and earth, another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is said: “Thus said the Lord: The heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool; Where could you build a house for Me, What place could serve as My abode? (Isaiah 66:1) And it says: “How many are the things You have made, O Lord; You have made them all with wisdom; the earth is full of Your possessions” (Psalms 104:24). 3a) Abraham is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written: “He blessed him, saying, “Blessed by Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth” (Genesis 15:19). 4a) Israel is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written: “Till Your people cross over, O Lord, Till Your people whom You have possessed” (Exodus 15:16). And it says: “As to the holy and mighty ones that are in the land, my whole desire (possession) is in them” (Psalms 16:3). 5a) The Temple is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is said: “The sanctuary, O lord, which your hands have established” (Exodus 15:17”, And it says: “And He brought them to His holy realm, to the mountain, which His right hand had possessed” (Psalms 78:54).

 

I like to call out to all my Jewish friends:

Zechariah 8:23

 

23So said the Lord of Hosts: In those days, when ten men of all the languages of the nations shall take hold of the skirt of a Jewish man, saying, "Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you."		כגכֹּֽה־אָמַר֘ יְהֹוָ֣ה צְבָאוֹת֒ בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֔מָּה אֲשֶׁ֚ר יַֽחֲזִ֙יקוּ֙ עֲשָׂרָ֣ה אֲנָשִׁ֔ים מִכֹּ֖ל לְשֹׁנ֣וֹת הַגּוֹיִ֑ם וְֽהֶחֱזִ֡יקוּ בִּכְנַף֩ אִ֨ישׁ יְהוּדִ֜י לֵאמֹ֗ר נֵֽלְכָה֙ עִמָּכֶ֔ם כִּ֥י שָׁמַ֖עְנוּ אֱלֹהִ֥ים עִמָּכֶֽם:
ten men: from the seventy nations. This equals seven hundred for each corner. For the four corners of the tallith there will be two thousand and eight hundred.		עשרה אנשים: משבעים לשון הרי שבע מאות לכל כנף וכנף הרי לד' כנפי הטלית אלפים ושמונ' מאו':

That may come in fulfillment in our days:

Our souls are bearing the ‘sparks’ (divine aspects) of Messiah.

It is forbidden to pray to bow down to any other (god), and/or messiah, and/or before any image or to lift up a human being as a god…… or to put any other (god), and/or messiah, and/or any image before or instead or between HaShem and us. ('It suf')

“The redemption will come about only through the study of the Torah. And the essential redemption depends upon the study of the Kabbalah” According to: R. ELIYAHU, THE VILNA GAON (Evven Shelemah (a ‘complete, without defect stone’) 11:3)

When Yehuda and Ephraim come to unity (again) Messiah Ben Joseph 'died' and Messiah Ben David shall be revealed and anointed by the Israeli people as the Messiah-King of Israel. As YeshaYahu is teaching:

Isa 11:9 – 16 They do no evil nor destroy in all My set-apart mountain, for the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of Adonai as the waters cover the sea.

Rashi: knowledge of the Lord: [lit.] to know the Lord.

10 And on that day, there shall be a Root of Yishai, standing as a banner to the people. Unto Him the nations shall seek, and His rest shall be esteem.

Rashi: as a banner for peoples: that peoples should raise a banner to gather to him.

11 And it shall be in that day that Adonai sets His hand again a second time to recover the remnant of His people who are left, from Ashshur and from Mitsrayim, from Pathros and from Kush, from Ěylam and from Shin‛ar, from Ḥamath and from the islands of the sea.

Rashi: a second time: Just as he acquired them from Egypt, when their redemption was absolute, without subjugation, but the redemption preceding the building of the Second Temple is not counted, since they were subjugated to Cyrus.

and from the islands of the sea: the islands of the Kittim, the Romans, the descendants of Esau.

And he shall raise a banner: Perka, perche in O.F. [i.e., the verse is literally referring to the pole upon which the banner is attached.] And it shall be for a sign to gather to him and to bring the exiles of Israel to Him as a present.

12 And He shall raise a banner for the nations, and gather the outcasts of Yisra’ěl, and assemble the dispersed of Yehuḏa from the four corners of the earth.

13 And the envy of Ephrayim shall turn aside, and the adversaries of Yehuḏa be cut off. Ephrayim shall not envy Yehuḏa, and Yehuḏa not trouble Ephrayim.

Rashi: Ephraim shall not envy Judah: The Messiah, the son of David, and the Messiah, the son of Joseph, shall not envy each other.

14 But they shall fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines toward the west; together they plunder the people of the east, their hand stretching forth on Eḏom and Mo’aḇ, and the children of Ammon shall be subject to them.

Rashi: And they shall fly of one accord against the Philistines in the west: Heb. בְכָתֵף. Israel will fly and run of one accord against the Philistines who are in the west of Eretz Israel and conquer their land. [כָּתֵף, lit. a shoulder, is used in this case to denote unity. The word שֶׁכֶם, also lit. a shoulder, is used in a similar sense.] Comp. (Hoshea 6:9) “They murder on the way in unison (שֶׁכְמָה) ”; (Zeph. 3:9) “One accord (שְׁכֶם אֶחָד).” And so did Jonathan rendered it: And they shall join in one accord to smite the Philistines who are in the west.

and the children of Ammon shall obey them: As the Targum states: Will hearken to them. They will accept their commandments over them.

15 And Adonai shall put under the ban the tongue of the Sea of Mitsrayim, and He shall wave His hand over the River with the might of His Spirit, and shall strike it in the seven streams, and shall cause men to tread it in sandals.

Rashi: And… shall dry up: [lit. shall cut off] to dry it, so that the exiles of Israel will pass through it from Egypt.

over the river: The Euphrates River, for the exiles from Assyria to cross.

with the strength of His wind: Heb. בַּעְיָם. This is hapax legomenon in Scripture, and according to the context it can be interpreted as “with the strength of His wind.”

into seven streams: into seven segments, for the aforementioned seven exiles: from Assyria and from Egypt, etc. Those from the islands of the sea are not from that side.

and He shall lead: the exiles within it.

with shoes: on dry land.

16 And there shall be a highway for the remnant of His people, those left from Ashshur, as it was for Yisra’ěl in the day when he came up from the land of Mitsrayim.

Rashi: And there shall be a highway: in the midst of the water for the remnant of His people.

Please Judah if a righteous gentile tries ‘to grasp your ‘tsi-sit’ and say:  "Let me go with you, for I have heard that God is with you." Open your heart for him/her and share all our Torah. The Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu as it is written and spared and is teaches in the Tanach and all scripture of Rabbinical Judaism………

Read my story: 

Ariel your Representee, Representee of Ephraim and adviser (not a rabbi but friendly adviser) of Bet Yisrael international on the Har HaBayit.

click: Welcome To Beit Yisrael

Beit Yisrael International (Ephraim, The Lost sheep from the House of Israel), Meditate and Realization of Chassidut Torah Teachings – The Strong foundation is based on Chabad teachings ( i.e The purpose of creation is to Bringing Heavens Down to Earth and to make Most High a dwelling place here on earth) and its pillars is based on the true concept of the Breslov Teachings ( in the context of Seventh Pillar of Tzaddik ) by following the Jewish Halacha Principles of Shulchan Aruch Halacha.

The Global Community Torah (sefaria.org)

Your Gift. Your Impact.

When you give to Sefaria, you’re powering a living library of more than 3,000 years of Jewish texts. Donate today and support the future of Jewish learning, innovation, and conversation.

CHABAD LUBAVITCH

About Chabad-LubavitchThe RebbeThe OhelChabad-Lubavitch NewsChabad Locator

Donate to ChaBaD

 click:

LEARN HOW TO READ THE BIBLE IN HEBREW ONCE AND FOR ALL

click:

Ulpan and Hebrew Learning Resources Online

Petition click: 1 Million for a Jewish Temple Mount!

It should be most honest:

'Israeli MK proposes dividing Temple Mount between Jews and Muslims

**AMIT HALEVI'S PLAN WOULD GIVE MUSLIMS CONTROL OF THE SOUTHERN END OF THE TEMPLE MOUNT COMPLEX, WHICH CONTAINS THE AL-AQSA MOSQUE, WHILE JEWS WOULD RECEIVE THE CENTRAL AND NORTHERN AREAS.

(JUNE 8, 2023 / JNS)**

A Likud lawmaker is proposing a plan to divide Jerusalem’s Temple Mount between Muslims and Jews and to remove Jordan’s custodial status over the holy site.

Speaking to the Zman Yisrael Hebrew news site, Knesset member Amit Halevi outlined a plan whereby Muslims would control the southern end of the 37-acre complex which contains the Al-Aqsa mosque, while Jews would receive the central and northern area, where the Dome of the Rock sits.

According to Halevi, the reorganization makes sense from a religious point of view because that part of the Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism, where it is believed the First and Second Temples stood. The Foundation Stone at the center of the Dome of the Rock is where Jewish sources place the Holy of Holies.

“This is the place of the First Temple and the place of the Second Temple built by Babylonian immigrants. No one needs to examine the stones to know that it is ours,” he said.

Halevi also wants to end Israel’s agreement with the Jordanian Waqf whereby the Islamic trust controls and manages Islamic edifices on the Temple Mount.

“Why not give them status in the Dizengoff Center [a large shopping mall in Tel Aviv] as well? This is a terrible mistake. This status should be abolished. I know it’s an agreement between countries, but we have to deal with it. It requires change, even if the process will take time,” he said.

In addition, Halevi wants to give Jews the same access to the Temple Mount enjoyed by Muslims. Currently, the Waqf only allows Jews and non-Muslim tourists access to the Temple Mount via the Maghrebi Gate and only at certain hours when the gate is open.

“We will take the northern end and pray there. The entire mountain is sacred to us, and the Dome of the Rock is the place on which the Temple stood. This should be our guideline,” he said. “Israel is leading. It will be a historical, religious and national statement. If this does not happen then you are not actually the owner of the house. You are a klutz. Why are you even going in there?”

Source: https://www.jns.org/israel-news/jerusalem/23/6/8/293752/

Please let we all, Jews and all their friends, take the Har HaBayit and start building the Temple and restoring her service?

כִּ֤י אִם־הֵיטֵיב֙ תֵּיטִ֔יבוּ אֶת־דַּרְכֵיכֶ֖ם וְאֶת־מַעַלְלֵיכֶ֑ם אִם־עָשׂ֤וֹ תַֽעֲשׂוּ֙ מִשְׁפָּ֔ט בֵּ֥ין אִ֖ישׁ וּבֵ֥ין רֵעֵֽהוּ׃

No, if you really mend your ways and your actions; if you execute justice between one party and another;

גֵּ֣ר יָת֤וֹם וְאַלְמָנָה֙ לֹ֣א תַעֲשֹׁ֔קוּ וְדָ֣ם נָקִ֔י אַֽל־תִּשְׁפְּכ֖וּ בַּמָּק֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה וְאַחֲרֵ֨י אֱלֹהִ֧ים אֲחֵרִ֛ים לֹ֥א תֵלְכ֖וּ לְרַ֥ע לָכֶֽם׃

if you do not oppress the stranger, the orphan, and the widow; if you do not shed the blood of the innocent in this place; if you do not follow other gods, to your own hurt—

וְשִׁכַּנְתִּ֤י אֶתְכֶם֙ בַּמָּק֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה בָּאָ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָתַ֖תִּי לַאֲבוֹתֵיכֶ֑ם לְמִן־עוֹלָ֖ם וְעַד־עוֹלָֽם׃

then only will I let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your ancestors for all time.

Ariel your Representee, Representee of Ephraim and adviser (not a rabbi but friendly adviser) of Bet Yisrael international on the Har HaBayit.

click:

Purchasing Tefillin - A Buyer’s Guide