BSD

Suka 32a

Teves 24, 5782. December 28, 2021

1- We added another point to conclude last week’s shiur regarding a Lulav that was worshiped as עבודה זרה. The Gemara says that בדיעבד one is יוצא. 

Tosafos explains that it is referring to a Lulav of a Goy, thus there is no obligation to burn it since the Goy can be מבטל this עבודה זרה. 

In passing, Tosafos mentions that a Lulav that is growing on a tree that is עבודה זרה, once it is cut, it loses its עבודה זרה status. 

We mentioned the Maharsham (1, 1) that quotes the אדר”ת who brings proof from this that the ארבע מינים cannot be used while attached to the ground! 

It would seem this is a theoretical question since it would be hardly possible that all 4 מינים would be growing together to be used at one time.  See also the פרי מגדים (end of 653) that discusses this question. Also the צל”ח (Shabbos 131a). 

We mentioned that perhaps if all 4 grew in one pot עציץ שאינו נקוב. One would pick up the pot and make a ברכה and נענועים…..

2- We went thru the various types of splits and cracks in a Lulav that make it פסול. 

3- Since the Torah does not say explicitly to use a Lulav- it just says ‘branches of palm’,  כפות תמרים, the Gemara suggests that perhaps it may mean other parts of the palm tree. 

כפת תמרים?

One idea, is to use the bottom part of the tree itself. Our Gemara dismisses this suggestion since the tusk of the palm tree has thorns that would make it not pleasant to hold. This would be contrary to the idea that the Torah’s Mitzvos are pleasant. דרכיה דרכי נועם.  

4- We mentioned a Rav that attempted to use this concept and was total told off by Reb Yakov Etlinger,  who we mentioned many times in the past quoting from his ספרים – ערוך לנר, ביכורי יעקב , בנין ציון. 

The question was concerning a widow who got married prior to obtaining  חליצה from her deceased husband’s brother. 

 If she gets married before the חליצה the הלכה is that she still need to get חליצה, but must first obtain a Get from her new husband and only then get חליצה from her husband’s brother. She cannot go back to her second husband.

דרכיה דרכי נעם וכל נתיבותיה שלום

A certain Rav wanted to find a way for her to stay with her 2nd husband by doing the  חליצה while she was still married. In short- one of the arguments he used was that at that time obtaining a legal divorce took many years. 

Waiting…

So waiting for the divorce would be ‘unpleasant’ for the woman. This Rav invoked דרכיה דרכי נועם, meaning the Halachah must take into consideration the comfort of human.

Reb Yakov  (בנין ציון 148) comes out very harshly against the entire episode (seems this  Rav allowed her to marry before the חליצה). As to using דרכיה דרכי נועם to alter accepted הלכה, is ludicrous he says. The חכמים used this concept to prove the details of a Mitzva when there are two alternatives – one in way that the performance of the Mitzva would be pleasant and the other unpleasant. 

“אין לזה דמיון כלל מחמת כמה טעמים: – הא’ – אין לדמות גזירה דרבנן לאיסור …..דאורייתא” 

דרכיה דרכי נועם is used to prove that the Torah meant the pleasant way only.

In the case of the חליצה, there is another way; such as traveling to another country to get divorced, or for the husband to look for another wife….

5- Speaking of quirky questions (and of the recent suicide of a popular figure) we mentioned the שאלה presented to Reb Ezriel Hildesheim:

Someone who attempted suicide, like jumping into the ocean. Miraculously, he was saved…like a fish swallowed him and then spit him out. יונה! 

Thanks for the lift!

Does he have to make a הגומל asked this fellow? Is it not a מצוה הבאה בעבירה? 

 

 

6- We concluded the הלכה  of a Lulav that didn’t have leaves to cover the entire spine of the Lulav. Question is if most of the Lulav was covered and one spot was not. 

 

The opinion of the Alter Rebbe 645, and the Mishna Brurah. 

 

 

---

 

BSD

Suka 31b

Teves 17, 5782. December 21, 2021

1- We added a few more details concerning the color ירוק ככרתי. 

The Gemara in Megillah 13 a, states that Esther was a ירקרוקת. 

ר’ יהושע בן קרחה אומר אסתר ירקרוקת היתה, וחוט של חסד משוך עליה.

Esther was called Hadassah because she was greenish, having a pale complexion like a myrtle, הדסה, but a cord of Divine grace was strung around her, endowing her with a beautiful appearance.  

The connotation is that the color detracted from her natural beauty.  What does that mean? 

2- The bottom line, as Tosfos concludes, is that a green Esrog may be used as long as we know that eventually it will turn yellow.

Otherwise, if it stays green, it would mean that it was never fully matured when picked. It never was an Esrog per se. 

 

3- We spoke aboke the size of an Esrog. The minimal and maximum size. 

4- Using a Lulav that is עבודה זרה. A lulav that was worshiped should not be used for the Mitzvah. However בדיעבד one is יוצא. 

We touched upon the big topic of איסורי הנאה. Items that we are prohibited (either    מדאורייתא like חמץ, or מדרבנן like non-kosher wine) to have use from- הנאה. 

So why is one יוצא with Lulav of עבודה זרה? Isn’t he ‘enjoying’ this prohibited Lulav?

Now, מצוות לאו ליהנות ניתנו. That is a general rule, that when performing a Mitzvah, if during the Mitzvah one has any form of enjoyment or pleasure, we do not consider that pleasure as ‘real’. We discount it and do not give it credence.

As Rashi explains here and in  RH 28a, Mitzvos need to be performed only ‘as a servant to his master’.  Thus, the enjoyment is not taken into account. 

לא ליהנות ניתנו – לישראל להיות קיומם להם הנאה אלא לעול על צואריהם ניתנו

The result of this rule is that if one performs a Mitzvah with items that are אסור בהנאה, such as using a mikvah that has water that is prohibited from using, the טבילה is fine although the person enjoyed soaking in the hot or cold water in the mikvah. 

 

Therefore, when using a Lulav that is prohibited to have הנאה from, one is יוצא. The fact that he ‘enjoyed’ its use by fulfilling his מצוה obligation, we do not considered that ‘enjoyment’. The spiritual benefit of doing a mitzvah does not count as a הנאה. 

To be continued. 

5- In connection with מצוות לאו ליהנות ניתנו we mentioned a fascinating and fundamental concept from the אגלי טל. This popular work on the halachos of Shabbos was written by Reb Avrohom Borenstein, the Rebbe of Sochotchov. 

What he writes in the הקדמה is interesting in general and in particular to see it coming from someone that was a Chassidisher Rebbe. 

Here is the Hebrew. 

In short he writes that contrary to popular opinion (did he mean in the Chasidisher world?) learning Torah and enjoying the intellectual challenge is not only something to be frowned about, but on the contrary, that is תורה לשמה!!!  

‘The primary idea of לימוד התורה is (also) to enjoy its logic because only when one gains pleasure from being involved in learning and understanding it does the תורה unite with him.’

ומדי דברי זכור אזכור מה ששמעתי קצת בני אדם טועין מדרך השכל בענין לימוד תוה”ק ואמרו כי הלומד ומחדש חדושיס ושמח ומתענג בלימודו אין זה לימוד התודה כ”כ לשמה כמו אם היה לומד בפשיטות שאין לו מהלימוד שום תענוג והוא רק לשם מצוה אבל הלומד ומתענג בלימודו הרי מתערב בלימודו גם הנאת עצמו

ובאמת זה טעות מפורסם ואדרבא כי זה היא עיקר מצות לימוד התורה להיות שש ושמח ומתענג בלימודו ואז דברי תורה נבלעין בדמו ומאחר שנהנה מדברי תורה הוא נעשה דבוק לתורה [ועיין פירש”י סנהדרין נ”ח ד”ה ודבק]

ובזוה”ק דבין יצה”ט ובין יצה”ר אינן מתגדלין אלא מתוך שמחה יצה”ט מתגדל מתוך שמחה של תורה יצה”ר כו’ ואם אמדת שע”י השמחה שיש לו מהלימוד נקרא שלא לשמה או עכ”פ לשמה ושלא לשמה, הרי שמחה זו עוד מגרע כח המצוה ומכהה אודה ואיך יגדל מזה יצה”ט וכיון שיצה”ט מתגדל מזה בודאי זה הוא עיקר המצוה.

ומודינא דהלומד לא לשם מצות הלימוד רק מחמת שיש לו תענוג בלימודו הרי זה נקרא לימוד שלא לשמה כהא דאוכל מצה שלא לשם מצוה רק לשם תענוג אכילה ובהא אמרו לעולם יעסוק אדם כו’ שלא לשמה שמתוך כו’ אבל הלומד לשם מצוה ומתענג בלימודו הרי זה לימוד לשמה וכולו קודש כי גם התענוג מצוה

6- We read the text of the words of Reb Avrohom min Hohor.  Montpellier, France. 

(We mentioned R’ Chaim Moshe Yehuda Blau who tirelessly worked to have this and other works of Rishonim published).

Rabbi Moshe Yehuda Hakohen Blau

נדרים מח, א. 

The Mishna says that one who takes a vow not to have any הנאה from a particular town, he is not allowed to use the city’s plaza, bath house, the Shul, the בימה and the ספרים.

The obvious question is regarding the ספרים. When one uses them to learn, even if he derives pleasure from them, we should discount it since מצוות לאו ליהנות ניתנו!

Reb Avrohom answers that generally מצוות לאו ליהנות ניתנו means that when a Mitzvah is performed the intention is not for the pleasure derived from it. 

Learning Torah on the other hand, the enjoyment is part of the Mitzvah!

Therefore, the vow not to have any הנאה from a particular city includes using and learning from their ספרים since learning encompasses intellectual pleasure.

 

Sukkah 31a-b

Teves 10, 5782. December 14, 2021

1- We continued with the תקנה for בעלי תשובה. 

In general, if an item that was stolen is intact, the only way for a proper ‘return’ והשיב את הגזילה, is to return the actual item. Paying cash to the rightful owner is insufficient. 

However, if the thief had the stolen item imbedded or cemented into his home, the חכמים allowed him to just pay the owner the value of the item stolen.

Steal Beam.

That is called תקנת מריש. The ‘enactment of a beam’. 

The logic is that requiring the potential בעל תשובה to destroy his home would inhibit his want and ability to do תשובה. 

רמב”ם הלכות גזילה ואבידה · פרק ראשון · הלכה ה

אפילו גזל קורה ה ובנאה בבירה הואיל ולא נשתנית דין תורה הוא שיהרוס את כל הבנין ויחזיר קורה לבעליה. אבל תקנו חכמים מפני תקנת השבים שיהיה נותן את דמיה ולא יפסיד הבנין וכן כל כיוצא בזה. אפילו גזל קורה ועשאה בסוכת החג ובא בעל הקורה לתובעה בתוך החג נותן לו את דמיה. אבל אחר החג הואיל ולא נשתנית ולא בנאה בטיט מחזיר את הקורה עצמה.

2- Mendel Nemenov pointed us to the Gemore  (16a)  in תענית that the people of Nineveh expressed their sincere תשובה, by going all the way. They ripped out stolen beams from their homes (even if it demolished an entire grand house) and returned them to their rightful owners. 

אמר שמואל: אפילו גזל מריש ובנאו בבירה מקעקע כל הבירה כולה ומחזיר מריש לבעליו.

 

2- By extension, this תקנה applies for the 7 days of Sukkos. If one stole סכך, although it is obviously still intact, he may use the Sukkah but he needs  to pay the owner the value of the סכך.  AR 637, 5. 

Oops…should’ve kept the beam 

3 – We mentioned the old quip about G-D telling משה רבינו:

.כֵּן בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד דֹּבְרֹת

4- We spoke about the לא תעשה of לא תגרע. Meaning do not ‘reduce’ any Mitzvah. 

The famous טורי אבן that when one takes only 3 of the ארבע מינים, that is not לא תגרע. 

More on this next week. בל”נ. 

5- The Gemore says that if one cannot get his hands on fresh  ארבע מינים he should at the very least use ones that are completely dry. שלא תשכח תורת ארבע מינים. 

The using of non כשר ארבע מינים is a big topic with many details. Some פסולין  can be used even with a ברכה, others with out and some none at all. 

See here. Alter Rebbe 649. 22-24. 

 

6 – The color issue. Please see below for Zev Sero’s well researched comment.

Here are the general parameters as per Tosfos: 

 

The Gemara uses the term: 

ירוק ככרתי 

Yarok like leek. 

What color is Yarok?  And what color is leek?

That would seem simple enough, since leek is green.  So Yarok must be green. 

However, we find that Yarok is used as a color that is similar to blue. תכלת לכרתי.  So Yorok it seems, is (also) a shade of blue. 

Elsewhere we find that Yarok is (also) a shade of yellow!

7- We mentioned the controversy of William Gladstone who seemed to say that humans in the past were unable to discern the full color spectrum. 

https://coloriasto.blogspot.com/2015/01/w-e-gladstone-color-sense.html?m=1

 

To be continued. 

 

————————————————————————–

From Zev Sero

Leeks are of course green.

In lashon Torah ירוק means green.  But in leshon Chazal it means *both*

green and yellow.  They could easily tell the difference, but they only

had one word for both.  The word צהוב, which means yellow in leshon

torah and also in Ivrit, didn’t exist in their language.  So they

distinguished between the two meanings of ירוק by saying ירוק ככרתי,

yarok like leek, or ירוק ככרכום, yarok like saffron.   An esrog has to

be yarok like saffron, and not yarok like leek.

The gemara in Chulin starts out saying that a lung that is ירוק is

kosher, but not if it looks like an egg.  So what kind of ירוק lung is

kosher?  One that is like leek. In other words green is kosher but

yellow is treif.

Note also that the Mekubolim often talk of gold as being אדום.  It’s

true that some gold does look red because of impurities, but it’s more that they didn’t have a word for “yellow”, so they called it אדום and associated it with gevurah.   This is helped by the fact that gold is

also called כתם in Hebrew (as in הכתם הטוב, or  כתם טהור פז דמות ראשו),

and of course we automatically associate כתם with כתמים, which are red…

But they may also have been influenced by medieval poetry which

described gold as “red”

https://earthandstarryheaven.com/2016/07/06/red-gold/

 

Homer described the sea as “wine-dark” and many scholars broke their

heads trying to explain what he meant by that.  See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine-dark_sea_(Homer)

 

But according to a friend of mine who’s spent some time in Greece:

“If you go to Greece and look at the sea, from a boat, the deep sea, not

just offshore, you will find that it is a very unique colour, unlike

anything else but in fact undeniably “wine-dark”. Patrick O’Brian is

wrong about this, wine-dark sea isn’t sea the colour of green white

wine. It’s a particular shade of blue which is the same shade, though

not the same colour, as dark red wine. It’s unmistakable. I’ve only

ever seen this in the Aegean, but the reaction of everyone I’ve ever

pointed it out to has been “Oh yes. Wine-dark sea.” It’s a purely

descriptive term.”

 

As for different languages perceptions of colours, consider that we

English-speakers easily distinguish pink from red, and don’t think of

them as shades of the same colour at all.  Likewise we don’t see orange

and brown as shades of the same colour.  And yet when we look at the

colours that in Ivrit are called כחול and תכלת, which native

Hebrew-speakers think of as completely separate colours, we see two

shades of the same colour.

 

Russian-speakers also see them as two completely different colours.  A

study was done comparing the ability of native English-speakers and

Russian-speakers to distinguish different shades of blue; they were

shown three blue squares, two of which were the same and one was

different.  Russian-speakers were quicker to pick the odd one out,

presumably because their language wired their brains to distinguish the

shades more easily.   https://rdcu.be/cDeBD

 

On the whole topic of colour names, see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity_and_the_color_naming_debate

 

According to this theory:

1. All languages contain terms for black and white.
2. If a language contains three terms, then it contains a term for red.
3. If a language contains four terms, then it contains a term for

either green or yellow (but not both).

4. If a language contains five terms, then it contains terms for

both green and yellow.

5. If a language contains six terms, then it contains a term for blue.
6. If a language contains seven terms, then it contains a term for

brown.

7. If a language contains eight or more terms, then it contains

terms for purple, pink, orange or gray.

 

It seems that Chazal were at stage 3, while the Torah was at at least 4

but probably 6, because the word חום appears in the Torah, which seems

to mean “brown”, as it does in Ivrit.  If so it’s odd that no word for

“blue” appears.  (תכלת and ארגמן and שני in the Torah are not colours,

but names for dyed wool. So Moshe Rabbenu could describe the colour

purple by saying “the same colour as ארגמן”, but he had no word for the

colour itself.)

 

BSD

Sukkah 30b- 31a

Teves 3, 5782. December 7, 2021

Notes in brief:

1- We continued with the instruction of Rav Huna to the wholesalers when purchasing הדסים from non-Jewish farmers. In order to ensure that there is no חשש of גזילה, due to the chance that their farms lands were (perhaps) previously owned by Jews and forcibly taken away from them, he told them to instruct the farmers to cut the hadasim themselves.  

We assume that the original Jewish owners were מייאש. But יאוש is ineffective for real estate. 

So the process of יאוש to be effective begins when cutting the hadasim. The יאוש is now effective since the הדסים are now מטלטלין. 

Since יאוש itself is insufficient to grant new ownership, we need another act. Their selling of the הדסים to the wholesalers is the second step. 

We called this יאוש plus. What Rav Huna suggested was, יאוש, plus the change of hands. From the farmers to the wholesalers. 

We mentioned parenthetically that although the גזלן or גנב  becomes the legal owner after the original owners were מייאש with a second step, (the item stolen had a change of location, name change or change of form) the גזלן or גנב is still obligated to pay the original owner. יאוש plus only helps that the item itself does not need to be returned. 

 

2- We also discussed 2 other יאוש plus options. One was the binding of the hadasim with the lulav. That is a מעשה that could combine with יאוש to grant the new owner the status of לכם. 

However as the Gemara says, there are two opinions if we are required to bind the lulav, hadasim and aravos together. The Halacha follows that it is not obligatory to bind them at all! 

We do it just למצוה. But there is no obligation. 

Therefore, the binding of the hadasim with lulav is not a sufficient act to combine it with יאוש. 

3- We mentioned the מהר”ץ חיות that introduces here the concept of   מצוותו אחשביה. Meaning that a mundane action is elevated when it is a מצוה. The binding in itself is not really an act that is considered a מעשה, as it can easily be undone. Only if the binding is a חיוב would the binding be considered important enough to combine with יאוש. 

4- We spoke about the מצוה (not the חיוב) of binding the lulav. 

See here from the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch. 621. 

 ומצוה מן המובחר לאגוד הלולב עם ההדס וערבה באגודה אחת משום נוי שנאמר זה אלי ואנוהו התנאה לפניו במצות:

ו יש נוהגים  לעשות האגד בדרך זה שכורכין סביבות שלשה מינים אלו עד שיהיו מהודקין היטב ותוחבין ראשי הכרך לתוך עיגול הכרוך סביב שלשה מינים אלו ויש מחמירים וקושרים שני ראשי הכרך בשני קשרים זה על גבי זה וביו”ט שאי אפשר לקשרן בענין זה שהרי הוא קשר של קיימא שאינו חושש להתירו עולמית אוגדין אותו בעניבה דהיינו שעושין שתי עניבות זו על גבי זו (אבל אסור לעשות עניבה על גבי קשר כיון שאינו חושש להתירו עולמית עיין סימן (שמ”א) [שי”ז]) או שתוחבין ראשי הכרך לתוך עגול הכרך כמו שנתבאר:

As we can see, there are some who say that the binding must be completed with 2 knots! A real קשר של קיימא. Making a loop is insufficient. 

https://collive.com/lulav-rings-used-by-the-rebbe/

5- The obvious question is how people use what is commonly called Keishiklach. Since the hadasim and aravos can easily be removed, how is that אגד לולב?

We mentioned that some who do use the Keishiklach tie the entire bundle with a lulav leaf and knot it. 

See from the Mishna Berura where he also writes that one needs to knot it. 

 

6- We continued with the interesting story of the woman who came to Rav Nachman complaining the the ריש גלותא’s henchmen stole wood branches from her and all ‘the great rabbis are sitting now in this ‘stolen Sukkah’. 

There was a certain old woman who came before Rav Nachman. She said to him: The Reish Galusa and all the Sages in his house have been sitting in a stolen sukka. She claimed that the Reish Galusa’s servants stole her wood and used it to build the sukka. She screamed, but Rav Nachman did not pay attention to her. 

She said to him: A woman whose father, Abraham, our forefather, had three hundred and eighteen slaves screams before you, and you do not pay attention to her? She claimed that she should be treated with deference due to her lineage as a Jew. 

Rav Nachman said to the Sages: This woman is a screamer, and she has rights only to the monetary value of the wood. However, the sukka itself was already acquired by the Reish Galusa.

We discussed various explanations to this perplexing story.

See Aruch Laner here and Ksav Soifer, below:. 

אר”נ פעיתא היא דא. בשיטה מקובצת פ”ק דב”מ סוגי’ תוקפו א’ בפנינו שתק ולבסוף צווח ע”ש כ’ שסבירא לי’ דוקא כיון שצווח לבסוף וחזינן דצווחן הוא ואפ”ה שתק בתחלה איכא למימר אודוי’ אודי לי’ אבל אם שתק גם לבסוף ובא לפני ב”ד לקבול לא אמרי’ אודי לי’ אלא אין דרכו וכבודו לצווח וה”נ י”ל בשעה שחטפו ממנו העצים שתקה כאלו נתרצית ליקח דמי מחירתן או להשאילן עד אחר החג ועכשיו צווחה א”כ פעיתא היא דא צווחנית שדרכה לצווח ומ”ט לא צווחה מעיקרא ע”כ אין לה אלא דמי עצים לבד:

 

BSD

Suka 30a

Kislev 26, 5782. November 30, 2021

1- We continued the topic of מצוה הבאה בעבירה. 

The interesting משל of רשב”י explaining what is wrong in stealing to bring a Korbon using the warped logic that ‘everything belongs to G-D anyway’. So stealing and offering it to Him is no issue.  

A parable of a king who was passing by a customs/toll booth. He said to his servants: Pay the toll to the taxmen. They said to him: Doesn’t all the tax in its entirety belong to you? If the taxes will ultimately reach the royal treasury, what is the point of you paying the levy? 

He said to them: From my conduct, all travelers will learn and will not evade payment of the tax. 

So too, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: “I the Lord… hate robbery in a burnt-offering.” Although the whole world is His and the acquisitions of man have no impact upon Him, God says: From My conduct, My children will learn and distance themselves from robbery, even from robbery unrelated to the needs of offerings.

2- We mentioned the famed Jewish traveler, Ishtori Haparchi, [mentioned him in a Pesach Shiur about 6 years ago and here], who writes in his Book כפתור ופרח that a Lulav from a date tree that grew in Yerushalayim would be פסול because of מצוה הבאה בעבירה. What is the עבירה? 

There was a תקנה enacted that no trees should be planted in Yerushalayim to avoid the spreading of טומאה. BK 82?. Therefore, using a לולב from such a tree is a מצוה הבאה בעבירה!! 

3- We spoke about Rav Huna’s instructions to the wholesalers when purchasing hadasim  from non-Jewish farmers that grew them in lands that (perhaps) were previously owned by Jews and forcibly taken away from them. 

We digressed to the wide Halachic topic of assets that are lost during a war and found by others. The fact is that the owners, once they were expelled from their homes, in all likelihood gave up. יאוש. Their ownership is gone because they undoubtedly lost hope for recovery. 

President Eisnhower surveying some of the artwork looted by the Nazis 

See here 

5 – Yiush is a big topic and we will discuss more bl”n next week. 

6- Speaking about the story of Chana and her seven children, See Gitin 57, b. Medrash Eicha 1, 50, we mentioned the Ramban about the various מדרשים we have.  

7 – We discussed the popular Chanukah song  מעוז צור. Composed at the time of the terrible tragedies that Jews suffered in the hands of the crusaders ימ”ש. 

Mentioned that whereas the song was composed in the 13th century, the last stanza only appeared a few hundred years later. 

Some suggest the reason is due to the multiple hidden messages, in this stanza,  lashing out against the individual and his religion that caused this great calamity with the massacres perpetrated by the crusaders

Here is an interesting article on this. 

8- Regarding בְּצֵל צַלְמוֹן, (see below)  which is perhaps an allusion to the cross, צלם  in Hebrew,  we mentioned the Rov of the city of  Tzeilim. If one searches the map there is no such city in existence.  The name of the city where he was Rov actually is  Deutschkreutz.  Meaning German Cross. 

Jews, unwilling to utter the real city name, created a new one! They used a different name……Tzeilim! 

בס”ד

חנוכה תשפ”ב

Last stanza   of                                                                                                                                             מעוז צור

 חֲשׂוֹף זרוֹע קָדְשֶׁךָ

וְקָרֵב קֵץ הַיְשׁוּעָה

Expose your holy arm,

And bring the end of the redemption

(yeshua. an allusion to אותו האיש). 

נְקֹם נִקְמַת עֲבָדֶיךָ

מֵאֻמָּה הָרְשָׁעָה

Avenge the abuse of your servants

From the wicked nation.

(Alluding to Rome and נצרות)

כִּי אָרְכָה לָנוּ הַיְשׁוּעָה

וְאֵין קֵץ לִימֵי הָרָעָה

For the redemption has been long delayed,

And there is no end to the days of misery.

דְּחֵה אַדְמוֹן

בְּצֵל צַלְמוֹן

Reject Edom

In the shadow of tzalmon

(Alluding to people who worship a cross)

הָקֵם לָנוּ רוֹעִים שִׁבְעָה

and set up for us the seven shepherds.