English translation — שופטים ב

Talk <pg>106</pg>

A.

The Rambam wrote<sup>1</sup>

: A decree of the Scripture is that a court does not put to death nor flog a person by his own admission, but only on the testimony of two witnesses<sup>2</sup>.

That is,

that although we hold that the admission of a litigant is like a hundred witnesses<sup>3</sup>,

this is only to obligate him in monetary matters,

but not to become liable

(through his own admission)

for death or lashes.

And the Radbaz there: And it is possible to give a little reason⁴

Because a person's soul is not his possession, but rather the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He⁵

As it is said⁶

The souls are Mine, behold, therefore his admission does not avail in a matter that is not his, and lashes are half^*6

Of death it is, but his money is his, and therefore we say the admission of a litigant is like a hundred witnesses..

And with all this I admit that it is a decree of the King of the world and one must not question.

And at first glance it is difficult to understand in the words of the Radbaz,

What is different about souls that they are the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He,

From this that the entire world is "the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He" as it is written⁷

"The earth is the Lord's and its fullness" — and in the language of the Chinuch⁸

"Everything is in the jurisdiction of the Master of everything" — including a person's money,

And in the language of the verse⁹

"Mine is the silver and Mine is the gold, says the Lord"?

And it must be said,

that although the entire world is in the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He,

nevertheless,

in relation to the domain of man there is a fundamental difference between his soul and his money¹⁰.

2.

And it can be said the explanation of this:

A person's soul and life were given by the Holy One, blessed be He, to the person only as a deposit,

and not as his ownership.

And as the ruling of our master, the Alter Rebbe, in his Shulchan Aruch¹¹

that "a person has no authority over his body at all to strike it, etc."

And based on this,

that a person is warned not to harm his body is not only a matter of prohibition,

but this is also from the laws of acquisitions — that he has no authority

(ownership¹²)

over his body

(for the body is the property of the Holy One, blessed be He, which is found with the person as a deposit).

<pg>107</pg>

But not so a person's money,

was given to the person in a manner that he becomes the owner of this money

(and in the manner that it is said¹³

"and the earth He gave to the children of man").

And that "one must¹⁴

be very careful not to lose it nor to ruin it nor to damage it" is not because the money is not his¹⁵,

but rather it is a prohibition¹⁶,

that he transgresses the negative commandment of bal tashchit.

And this is not a contradiction to what is said "Mine is the silver and Mine is the gold, says the L-rd"

(and the like)

— because the ownership of the Holy One, blessed be He,

which is caused by the fact that He, blessed be He, created the world and leads it etc.,

is a general ownership,

and even after the money is given to the person, it does not leave the ownership of the Holy One, blessed be He&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;,

to the extent that He can take it from him&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;.

[And in the manner and language of Rashi&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;

(regarding the land,

and regarding the land of Israel in particular)

"All the earth is the Holy One, blessed be He's,

He created it and gave it to whomever is upright in His eyes,

by His will He gave it to them and by His will He took it from them and gave it to us" — for even though initially "He gave it to them" as a complete gift&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;,

nevertheless afterwards "by His will He took it from them and gave it to us"]&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;.

And since a person has ownership over his money — therefore the law regarding it

(regarding the money)

is that "the admission of a litigant is like a hundred witnesses"; but regarding anything that pertains to his body and soul,

which remain entirely in the ownership of the Holy One, blessed be He and are found with the person only in the category of a deposit — therefore the person is not a "master" over them and therefore we do not obligate him based on his admission for lashes and the like.

3.

And one must bring a proof for this distinction between his soul

(and his body)

of a person and his property — from the law of blessings over enjoyments:

Our Sages, of blessed memory, said²²

(and it is brought in the halachah²³)

"It is forbidden for a person to benefit from this world without a blessing, and anyone who benefits from this world without a blessing commits an act of sacrilege...

as if he benefited from the sacred property of Heaven, as it is said²⁴

"To the Lord is the earth and its fullness,"

But they are not obligated in the blessing of enjoyments except for something from which one's body benefits

(eating, drinking, etc.)²⁵,

but not when a person has monetary benefit<pg>108</pg>

(receiving money, etc.)

they did not institute a blessing for this²⁶.

And superficially this is not understood: what is the difference between benefit of the body and benefit of money — for in both of them a person benefits from this world,

about it is said,

as above "to God the earth and its fullness",

and why does he not commit sacrilege by that he "benefits from holy things of Heaven" when he benefits from money without a blessing&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;?

[And although we find several commandments performed with a person's property,

and their purpose is

(as explained in the books of reasons for the commandments)

to instill in the person the recognition that "to God the earth and its fullness"

(and like the commandment of the Sabbatical year

(this year

(event,

'_dyn_edn_3')

"&gt;*),

whose concept is "that it be seen from the deed of man..

as if there is nothing special in his possession only that everything is in the possession of the Master of all"&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;

; and likewise gifts to the priests,

tithes etc. — whose content is "in order to know that everything is His"&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;)

— nevertheless it is understood and simple that the matter is not at all comparable to the blessing of benefits,

for the commandment is that the person of his own will abandon his field in the Sabbatical year etc.

And to note that these commandments are regarding a part of a person's assets&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;,

but not so the law of blessings over enjoyments is — that it is forbidden to derive any enjoyment

(and even the slightest&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;)

without a blessing.

And at first glance it does not apply to our subject].

And according to what we have learned — in the distinction in the definition of a person's ownership over his money or over his soul and body — one may say:

Regarding the soul and body of a person,

which are "the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He" in a manner that a person has no ownership over them,

so also their pleasures are like them&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;

— the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He,

and therefore they are "holy things of Heaven" that it is forbidden to benefit from them without a blessing.

And that which it says in the Gemara&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

that only before the blessing they are "holy things of Heaven",

but after the blessing they are in the state of "and the earth He gave to the children of man"&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;

("it is for the children of man"&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;)

— the intention in this is not that through the blessing they changed to be the possession of the person

(for even afterwards we say "Blessed is He from Whose we have eaten"&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;),

but that through&lt;pg&gt;109&lt;/pg&gt;

The blessing removes from them the law of "sanctified to Heaven"

(which is forbidden in benefit)³⁶

And it is permitted to benefit from them,

But he does not benefit from his own but from the Holy One, blessed be He³⁷,

And the Holy One, blessed be He gives them to him in a manner that they will be his³⁸,

Also on condition that he eat them

(consume them)

etc.

But not so the property of a person and his money

(from their own perspective)

From the outset are not in the category of "sanctified to Heaven",

Because they were given over to the ownership of the person,

And therefore no blessing is needed to permit the benefit of money

[Rather, so that the person recognizes that his ownership does not nullify, heaven forbid, the ownership

(the general ownership of)

The Holy One, blessed be He over his money,

Commandments were given to him regarding his money etc. "in order that he know that everything is His"

(as above)].

4.

But at first glance, this itself requires a reason: What is different about a person's money, which is given to him in a manner that he has ownership over it,

while his soul and body remain "the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He,"

to the extent that "a person has no authority over them at all"?

At first glance, one can say that this is the intention of the Radbaz at the conclusion of his words, "Nevertheless, I admit that it is a decree of the King of the world and one should not question it,"

for the above distinction between a person's soul and his money is not a matter of intellect,

but rather it is the "decree of the King of the world" that He gave permission and ownership to a person over his money but not over his soul and body.

But,

In the language of the Radbaz "it is possible to give some reason" also for this:

From the side of the Holy One, blessed be He, there is no difference at all between a person's soul and body and his money,

for the entire world and its fullness belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He, equally exactly,

but there is a practical difference between them from the side of the person:

Regarding his body and soul — they were given to him in a way that the ownership of the Holy One, blessed be He, is recognizable in them,

for every day he says "the soul that You placed in me" anew³⁹,

obligated in Torah and mitzvos⁴⁰

etc. etc. and the holiness of the soul is felt in his body,

and also in his body⁴¹

<pg>110</pg>

of a Jewish man there is holiness⁴²,

and since they were created in a way that the ownership of the Holy One, blessed be He, is recognizable in them,

behold it is impossible that a person should have a claim of ownership over them;

But his money is in a manner that has no holiness

(this)

and the ownership of the Holy One, blessed be He, is not discernible in it⁴³

— and since the Torah was given specifically down on earth⁴⁴

(in a place where the ownership of the Holy One, blessed be He, in the aforementioned is not discernible in it),

therefore,

in the laws of the Torah, a person has permission and ownership over his money and his possessions

[except that he must know and recognize,

that this ownership itself was given to him from heaven

(the Holy One, blessed be He)

for "the earth is the Lord's and its fullness,"

as above].

5.

Based on this, there is yet another distinction between monetary laws and capital laws to be explained:

"The matter⁴⁵

Torah, one [for] monetary laws and one [for] capital laws, [requires] inquiry and interrogation..

And what reason did they say [that] monetary laws do not require inquiry and interrogation? So as not to lock the door before borrowers."

("[That] they will refrain from lending, lest he deny and the witnesses err and their testimony not be precise and he will lose"⁴⁶).

And behold, simply — the reason for this is that according to "the matter of Torah" also monetary laws [require] inquiry and interrogation, and the Torah was not concerned about "locking the door before borrowers"

And in general — the reason for the multiplicity of matters that the Sages made a fence for the Torah,

and for the decrees of the Sages because they were concerned about a stumbling block and error etc. and from the Torah there is no concern —

it can be said,

because the laws of the Torah are according to the principle that all Israel are in the presumption of fitness⁴⁷,

and their conduct is in accordance with this⁴⁸

and there is no place for concern etc. and in our case for the concern "lest he deny" the borrower⁴⁹

and the lender will need witnesses;

But when there multiplied

the deceivers etc.,

and there is a concern that perhaps the borrower will deny etc.,

then the sages saw a need to institute enactments so that "the door should not be locked before borrowers".

And similarly regarding all the concerns and decrees

— when they saw that the earlier ones

are like angels and the later ones like people, and if the earlier ones are like people, the later ones etc.

And it can be said that the change of the situation due to the decline of the generations is

(not only in that there multiplied the borrowers the deceivers etc.,

but)

also from the side of the lender — a concern that the lender will refrain from lending because he fears "perhaps the borrower will deny" etc.,

But from the aspect of "Dvar Torah"

(which relates to the state of a Jewish person as it should be,

like angels and like human beings)

there is no place for this concern.

&lt;pg&gt;111&lt;/pg&gt;

And one can explain the matter:

From the aspect of "a matter of Torah" — all of a person's money is not entirely in his possession and ownership,

but only that part which he uses for permissible matters

(in the language of the Mishnah⁵³

"all your deeds"),

since it was given to him to use as he wishes

(for things permitted according to Shulchan Aruch)

it is in his possession and ownership; but the money with which a person needs to fulfill commandments,

from the outset was not given into the ownership of the person and it is only as a deposit with him

(like his soul)

in order that he may fulfill with it matters of Heaven.

And in the manner of the explanation of his honor, my master, father-in-law, the Rebbe⁵⁴

regarding charity

(and regarding loan money)

"that what the rich man graciously gives to the poor, behold it is not⁵⁵

his at all, but it is Hashem's that is with him as a deposit for a set time and period."

And therefore there is no place then for the concern of "locking the door before borrowers" — because when the possibility of fulfilling the commandment of gemilus chassadim comes to his hand

(by means of a loan),

surely he will hasten to fulfill the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, to lend to the poor,

and he will not refrain himself from lending because of the concern⁵⁶

of "perhaps he will deny",

since he knows and recognizes that the money is not his, but rather of the Holy One, blessed be He, who commanded him to lend to the poor

(and brought this poor person before him).

And it can be said that this is the hint in that which they said "One Torah law, both monetary cases and capital cases etc.": When a person's standing is as it should be

("a Torah matter"),

he feels that in truth there is no difference between matters of his soul and his money,

in his knowing that also the money given into his possession is of the Holy One, blessed be He.

But after the decline of the generations etc.

(that also the world "declined" and became more material),

the state of man changed

(and the world)

in a manner that there is a difference between "capital cases" and "monetary cases",

he does not feel that his money is not his but of the Holy One, blessed be He,

and therefore then "they said monetary cases do not require interrogation and investigation so as not to lock the door before borrowers".

6.

Based on this, another detail in this halacha will be sweetened:

The halacha that in monetary laws we do not require interrogation and investigation is,

according to several opinions⁵⁷,

not only regarding loans and admissions

(in which the concern of "locking the door before borrowers" applies),

but also "robberies⁵⁸

and injuries and a woman's ketubah and inheritances and gifts, in all of them we also do not require interrogation and investigation,

in order not to lock the door before robbers"

(who would rob on the basis that they will not find witnesses who corroborate their testimony⁵⁹).

And superficially, according to these opinions, it is difficult: why did the Talmud state the reason of "do not lock the door before borrowers"

(which applies only to loans and admissions),

and not

(also)

the reason of "lock the door before robbers"

(and especially that this reason also applies to loans and admissions — to lock the door before one who wishes to deny a loan based on not finding precise testimony)?

And according to the above, it can be said,

that in this it teaches us a novelty regarding "matter of Torah" — that in the conduct required by virtue of "matter of Torah," not only is there no place for the concern of robbery and denial etc.,

but furthermore,

that there is no difference&lt;pg&gt;112&lt;/pg&gt;

By the person

(the lender)

between "capital cases" and "monetary cases",

because he recognizes that his money is not his own but rather of the Holy One, blessed be He,

And this is emphasized in the reason of "Do not lock the door before borrowers"

(that he does not lock the door before the borrower due to concern etc.),

as above at length.

7.

It is written⁶⁰

"You are My witnesses, says the Lord",

that the Children of Israel testify,

as it were,

about His existence, blessed be He, in the world.

The concept⁶¹

of testimony is to reveal a hidden thing.

For regarding a thing that is revealed to everyone's eyes,

there is no need for testimony,

and also regarding a matter that in the future is destined to be revealed⁶²

the Torah did not require testimony,

rather testimony is about "a thing that is completely hidden".

And so in our matter: that Bnei Yisrael are called "My adornment"

(of the Holy One, blessed be He)

is because their function is to reveal the existence of Hashem also in worldly matters,

that even in "the world"

(language of concealment&lt;sup&gt;63&lt;/sup&gt;)

which conceals and hides the ownership of the Holy One, blessed be He — to the extent that according to Torah its matters are given to the authority and ownership of man — one must reveal that everything&lt;sup&gt;64&lt;/sup&gt;

exists only "from the truth of His existence"&lt;sup&gt;65&lt;/sup&gt;,

and therefore in truth there is no existence

(true)

other than Him, blessed be He,

"There is none besides Him"&lt;sup&gt;66&lt;/sup&gt;.

And known is the story about one of the great chassidim of the Alter Rebbe

(R. Binyamin Kletzker),

a businessman in the timber trade,

that once when he made an accounting in the negotiation of the goods etc.,

when he came to writing the "total sum" of the entire account — he wrote: "There is none besides Him".

It is understood and also simple,

that what the above-mentioned chassid wrote thus is because he truly felt that way,

that this is the sum total of the business that he conducted in practice,

namely,

that the concept of "There is none besides Him" was permeated in his entire existence and in all his affairs,

and therefore at the time that he arrived at the "sum total" of his business matters — he wrote the truth

(in its truth)

"There is none besides Him".

And in a deeper sense — and with the introduction of the question: Since the matter of "there is none else besides Him" was always engraved on the heart of the aforementioned chassid — why did he write this only in the last line of the account,

while in the preceding lines he recorded the details of the numbers and merchandise etc. as usual?

— He should have written this in every line

(instead of the numbers of the merchandise etc.)

!

And the explanation of this⁶⁷

— that on the contrary,

this is the novelty

(in the aforementioned story)

:<pg>113</pg>

Certainly the matter that each one of Bnei Yisrael

(who are in the presumption of kashrus)

is able to feel that "there is none besides Him",

by contemplating well how that "all existences etc. were not brought into existence except from the truth of His existence"⁶⁵

and the like.

However, to this recognition he can arrive at the time that he contemplates etc.,

at the time of prayer and study,

when he is separated and removed from worldly matters; but when the person is occupied with matters of commerce etc.,

which according to the nature of the world conceal and hide His existence, blessed be He,

it is difficult for him to feel then the matter of "there is none besides Him".

And this is the emphasis in the aforementioned story⁶⁸,

that the chassid was then,

according to the command to occupy himself with his livelihood,

in a situation that he wrote all the details of his accounts precisely etc.,

meaning that his occupation then was not with matters of contemplation on the greatness of the Almighty etc.,

but with matters of commerce,

but because he was entirely permeated with the recognition of "there is none besides Him",

behold, even within the making of this account the recognition came to complete revelation in the conclusion of the account,

that the "total" and the purpose of all his commerce and his affairs is — "there is none besides Him"⁶⁹.

And through this service,

to reveal in the entire world that there is a leader to this capital,

until the recognition that "there is none besides Him" — they merit a state and condition that there will be no need for the matter of "testimony" mentioned,

for the prophecy will be fulfilled⁷⁰

of "And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh together shall see that the mouth of the Lord has spoken,"

in the true and complete redemption through our righteous Messiah,

and speedily in our very days.

(From the talks of 19 Adar and Shabbat Parshat Vayikra-Purim 5745)