Today's Laws & Customs:
Elul Observances
As the last month of the Jewish year, Elul is traditionaly a time of introspection and stocktaking -- a time to review one's deeds and spiritual progress over the past year and prepare for the upcoming "Days of Awe" of Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur.
As the month of Divine Mercy and Forgiveness (see "Today in Jewish History" for Elul 1) it is a most opportune time for teshuvah ("return" to G-d), prayer, charity, and increased Ahavat Yisrael (love for a fellow Jew) in the quest for self-improvement and coming closer to G-d. Chassidic master Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi likens the month of Elul to a time when "the king is in the field" and, in contrast to when he is in the royal palace, "everyone who so desires is permitted to meet him, and he receives them all with a cheerful countenance and shows a smiling face to them all."
Specific Elul customs include the daily sounding of the shofar (ram's horn) as a call to repentance. The Baal Shem Tov instituted the custom of reciting three additional chapters of Psalms each day, from the 1st of Elul until Yom Kippur (on Yom Kippur the remaining 36 chapters are recited, thereby completing the entire book of Psalms). Click below to view today's Psalms.
Chapter 46 Chapter 47 Chapter 48
Elul is also the time to have one's tefillin and mezuzot checked by an accredited scribe to ensure that they are in good condition and fit for use.
Links: More on Elul
Today in Jewish History:
As the last month of the Jewish year, Elul is traditionaly a time of introspection and stocktaking -- a time to review one's deeds and spiritual progress over the past year and prepare for the upcoming "Days of Awe" of Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur.
As the month of Divine Mercy and Forgiveness (see "Today in Jewish History" for Elul 1) it is a most opportune time for teshuvah ("return" to G-d), prayer, charity, and increased Ahavat Yisrael (love for a fellow Jew) in the quest for self-improvement and coming closer to G-d. Chassidic master Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi likens the month of Elul to a time when "the king is in the field" and, in contrast to when he is in the royal palace, "everyone who so desires is permitted to meet him, and he receives them all with a cheerful countenance and shows a smiling face to them all."
Specific Elul customs include the daily sounding of the shofar (ram's horn) as a call to repentance. The Baal Shem Tov instituted the custom of reciting three additional chapters of Psalms each day, from the 1st of Elul until Yom Kippur (on Yom Kippur the remaining 36 chapters are recited, thereby completing the entire book of Psalms). Click below to view today's Psalms.
Chapter 46 Chapter 47 Chapter 48
Elul is also the time to have one's tefillin and mezuzot checked by an accredited scribe to ensure that they are in good condition and fit for use.
Links: More on Elul
Today in Jewish History:
DAILY QUOTE:
One who locks the doors of his courtyard and feasts and drinks with his children and wife on the festivals, but does not feed the poor and the embittered -- this is not the joy of mitzvah but the joy of his stomach(Maimonides)DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: Parshat Ki Tavo, 5th Portion (Deuteronomy 27:11-28:6) with Rashi
• Chapter 27
11. And Moses commanded the people on that day, saying, יא. וַיְצַו משֶׁה אֶת הָעָם בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לֵאמֹר:
12. When you cross the Jordan, the following shall stand upon Mount Gerizim to bless the people: Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph, and Benjamin. יב. אֵלֶּה יַעַמְדוּ לְבָרֵךְ אֶת הָעָם עַל הַר גְּרִזִּים בְּעָבְרְכֶם אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי וִיהוּדָה וְיִשָּׂשכָר וְיוֹסֵף וּבִנְיָמִן:
to bless the people: As it is found in Tractate Sotah (32a): Six tribes ascended to the top of Mount Gerizim and [the other] six to the top of Mount Ebal; the kohanim , the Levites and the [holy] ark stood below in the middle. The Levites turned their faces towards Mount Gerizim and began with the blessing: “Blessed be the man who does not make a graven or molten image…,” and these [the tribes on Mount Gerizim] and these [the tribes on Mount Ebal] answered “Amen!” Then [the Levites] turned their faces towards Mount Ebal and began with the curse, saying: “Cursed be the man who makes any graven [or molten] image…,” and these [the tribes on Mount Gerizim] and these [the tribes on Mount Ebal] responded “Amen!” The Levites then turned their faces once again towards Mount Gerizim, and said: “Blessed be he who does not degrade his father and mother,” [and the tribes on Mount Gerizim and those on Mount Ebal responded “Amen!” The Levites] would then turn their faces once again towards Mount Ebal, and say: “Cursed be he who degrades his father and mother,” [and the tribes on Mount Gerizim and those on Mount Ebal responded “Amen!”]. Thus [it would continue] in this manner for all of them [the blessings and curses] until [the very last curse, namely (verse 26)]:“Cursed be the one who does not uphold [the words of this Torah].”
לברך את העם: כדאיתא במסכת סוטה (לב א) ששה שבטים עלו לראש הר גריזים, וששה לראש הר עיבל והכהנים והלוים והארון למטה באמצע הפכו לוים פניהם כלפי הר גריזים ופתחו בברכה ברוך האיש אשר לא יעשה פסל ומסכה וגו' ואלו ואלו עונין אמן. חזרו והפכו פניהם כלפי הר עיבל ופתחו בקללה ואומרים, (פסוק טו) ארור האיש אשר יעשה פסל וגו' וכן כולם עד (פסוק כו) ארור אשר לא יקים:
13. And the following shall stand upon Mount Ebal for the curse: Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan, and Naftali. יג. וְאֵלֶּה יַעַמְדוּ עַל הַקְּלָלָה בְּהַר עֵיבָל רְאוּבֵן גָּד וְאָשֵׁר וּזְבוּלֻן דָּן וְנַפְתָּלִי:
14. The Levites shall speak up, saying to every individual of Israel, in a loud voice: יד. וְעָנוּ הַלְוִיִּם וְאָמְרוּ אֶל כָּל אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל קוֹל רָם:
15. "Cursed be the man who makes any graven or molten image an abomination to the Lord, the handiwork of a craftsman and sets it up in secret! And all the people shall respond, saying, 'Amen!' טו. אָרוּר הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה פֶסֶל וּמַסֵּכָה תּוֹעֲבַת יְהֹוָה מַעֲשֵׂה יְדֵי חָרָשׁ וְשָׂם בַּסָּתֶר וְעָנוּ כָל הָעָם וְאָמְרוּ אָמֵן:
16. Cursed be he who degrades his father and mother. And all the people shall say, 'Amen!' טז. אָרוּר מַקְלֶה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ וְאָמַר כָּל הָעָם אָמֵן:
who degrades his father: Heb. מַקְלֶה אָבִיו [The word מַקְלֶה means:] to treat cheaply [i.e., with disrespect]. It is similar to the verse, “וְנִקְלָה אָחִיךָ, your brother will be degraded” (Deut. 25:3).
מקלה אביו: מזלזל לשון ונקלה אחיך (לעיל כ"ה, ג):
17. Cursed be he who moves back his neighbor's landmark. And all the people shall say, 'Amen!' יז. אָרוּר מַסִּיג גְּבוּל רֵעֵהוּ וְאָמַר כָּל הָעָם אָמֵן:
who moves back his neighbor’s landmark: Heb. מַסִּיג גְּבוּל, moving it back and stealing the land. [The term מַסִּיג] is an expression similar to,“has turned backwards (וְהֻסַּג אָחוֹר) ” (Isa. 59:14).
מסיג גבול: מחזירו לאחוריו וגונב את הקרקע לשון והוסג אחור (ישעיה נט, יד):
18. Cursed be he who misguides a blind person on the way. And all the people shall say, 'Amen!' יח. אָרוּר מַשְׁגֶּה עִוֵּר בַּדָּרֶךְ וְאָמַר כָּל הָעָם אָמֵן:
who misguides a blind person: One [figuratively] blind regarding some matter [i.e., ignorant or inexperienced], and [knowingly] giving him bad advice.
משגה עור: הסומא בדבר ומשיאו עצה רעה:
19. Cursed be he who perverts the judgment of the stranger, the orphan, or the widow. And all the people shall say, 'Amen!' יט. אָרוּר מַטֶּה מִשְׁפַּט גֵּר יָתוֹם וְאַלְמָנָה וְאָמַר כָּל הָעָם אָמֵן:
20. Cursed be he who lies with his father's wife, thus uncovering the corner of his father's garment. And all the people shall say, 'Amen!' כ. אָרוּר שֹׁכֵב עִם אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו כִּי גִלָּה כְּנַף אָבִיו וְאָמַר כָּל הָעָם אָמֵן:
21. Cursed be he who lies with any animal. And all the people shall say, 'Amen!' כא. אָרוּר שֹׁכֵב עִם כָּל בְּהֵמָה וְאָמַר כָּל הָעָם אָמֵן:
22. Cursed be he who lies with his sister, his father's daughter or his mother's daughter. And all the people shall say, 'Amen!' כב. אָרוּר שֹׁכֵב עִם אֲחֹתוֹ בַּת אָבִיו אוֹ בַת אִמּוֹ וְאָמַר כָּל הָעָם אָמֵן:
23. Cursed be he who lies with his mother in law. And all the people shall say, 'Amen!' כג. אָרוּר שֹׁכֵב עִם חֹתַנְתּוֹ וְאָמַר כָּל הָעָם אָמֵן:
24. Cursed be he who strikes his fellow in secret. And all the people shall say, 'Amen!' כד. אָרוּר מַכֵּה רֵעֵהוּ בַּסָּתֶר וְאָמַר כָּל הָעָם אָמֵן:
who strikes his fellow in secret: [Scripture] is speaking of [someone who causes harm to his fellow Jew through] slander (Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer 53). I saw in the Yesod of Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan that there are eleven curses here, corresponding to eleven tribes. [Each of eleven tribes was blessed by Moses before he passed away. Here, we learn that every tribe had an allusionary curse attached to it, as if in admonishment: “If you do God’s will, you will be granted the blessing, but if not, then there is a curse attached.”] But in allusion to [the tribe of] Simeon, [Moses] did not write“Cursed be he…,” for [Moses] did not intend to bless [the tribe of] Simeon [individually] prior to his passing, when he blessed the other tribes. Therefore, [Moses] did not wish to curse them [either. Moses did not deem the tribe of Simeon deserving of a direct blessing before he passed away, on account of the shocking incident at Shittim which involved the leader of the tribe of Simeon having illicit relations with a Midianite princess. See Num. 25:1-15].
מכה רעהו בסתר: על לשון הרע הוא אומר. ראיתי ביסודו של רבי משה הדרשן י"א ארורים יש כאן כנגד י"א שבטים וכנגד שמעון לא כתב ארור לפי שלא היה בלבו לברכו לפני מותו כשברך שאר השבטים לכך לא רצה לקללו:
25. Cursed be he who takes a bribe to put an innocent person to death. And all the people shall say, 'Amen!' כה. אָרוּר לֹקֵחַ שֹׁחַד לְהַכּוֹת נֶפֶשׁ דַּם נָקִי וְאָמַר כָּל הָעָם אָמֵן:
26. Cursed be he who does not uphold the words of this Torah, to fulfill them. And all the people shall say, 'Amen!' כו. אָרוּר אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָקִים אֶת דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת לַעֲשׂוֹת אוֹתָם וְאָמַר כָּל הָעָם אָמֵן:
who does not uphold [the words of this Torah]: Here [in this curse,] Moses included the entire Torah, and they accepted it upon themselves with a curse and an oath. — [see Shevuoth 36a]
אשר לא יקים: כאן כלל את כל התורה כולה וקבלוה עליהם באלה ובשבועה:
Chapter 28
1. And it will be if you obey the Lord, your God, to observe to fulfill all His commandments which I command you this day, the Lord, your God, will place you supreme above all the nations of the earth. א. וְהָיָה אִם שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לִשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת כָּל מִצְוֹתָיו אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם וּנְתָנְךָ יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ עֶלְיוֹן עַל כָּל גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ:
2. And all these blessings will come upon you and cleave to you, if you obey the Lord, your God. ב. וּבָאוּ עָלֶיךָ כָּל הַבְּרָכוֹת הָאֵלֶּה וְהִשִּׂיגֻךָ כִּי תִשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ:
3. You shall be blessed in the city, and you shall be blessed in the field. ג. בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה בָּעִיר וּבָרוּךְ אַתָּה בַּשָּׂדֶה:
4. Blessed will be the fruit of your womb, the fruit of your soil, the fruit of your livestock, the offspring of your cattle, and the flocks of your sheep. ד. בָּרוּךְ פְּרִי בִטְנְךָ וּפְרִי אַדְמָתְךָ וּפְרִי בְהֶמְתֶּךָ שְׁגַר אֲלָפֶיךָ וְעַשְׁתְּרוֹת צֹאנֶךָ:
the offspring of your cattle: Heb. שְׁגַר אֲלָפֶיךָ, the young which are born from your cattle, [that is,] which the animal sends forth (מְשַׁגֶּרֶת) from its womb.
שגר אלפיך: ולדות בקרך שהבהמה משגרת ממעיה:
and the flocks of your sheep: Heb. וְעַשְׁתְּרוֹת צֹאנֶךָ [This expression is to be understood] as it is rendered by the Targum [Onkelos]: “וְעֶדְרֵי עָנָךְ, and the flocks of your sheep.” Our Rabbis, however, said: Why are [sheep] עַשְׁתְּרוֹת ? Because they enrich (מַעֲשִׁירוֹת) their owners (Chul. 84b) and maintain them, as עַשְׁתְּרוֹת, which are strong rocks.
ועשתרות צאנך: כתרגומו. ורבותינו אמרו למה נקרא שמם עשתרות שמעשירות את בעליהן ומחזיקות אותם כעשתרות הללו שהן סלעים חזקים:
5. Blessed will be your basket and your kneading bowl. ה. בָּרוּךְ טַנְאֲךָ וּמִשְׁאַרְתֶּךָ:
Blessed will be your basket: Your fruits. Another explanation of טַנְאֲךָ: liquids which you strain through baskets [used as strainers].
ברוך טנאך: פירותיך. דבר אחר טנאך דבר לח שאתה מסנן בסלים:
and your kneading bowl: Heb. וּמִשְׁאַרְתֶּךָ. Something dry, which remains (נִשְׁאָר) in the receptacle and does not flow through. [This interpretation follows the latter interpretation in the above Rashi. According to the former interpretation, this means simply “your kneading bowl.”
ומשארתך: דבר יבש שנשאר בכלי ואינו זב:
6. You shall be blessed when you come, and you shall be blessed when you depart. ו. בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה בְּבֹאֶךָ וּבָרוּךְ אַתָּה בְּצֵאתֶךָ:
Blessed will you be when you come, and blessed will you be when you depart: May your departure from the world be as free of sin as was your entry into the world. — [B.M. 107a]
ברוך אתה בבאך וברוך אתה בצאתך: שתהא יציאתך מן העולם בלא חטא כביאתך לעולם:
___________________________
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 79-82
• Special Custom for the Month of Elul and High Holidays
The Baal Shem Tov instituted a custom of reciting three additional chapters of Psalms each day, from the 1st of Elul until Yom Kippur (on Yom Kippur the remaining 36 chapters are recited, thereby completing the entire book of Psalms).
See below for today's additional chapters.
Chapter 79
In this psalm, Asaph thanks God for sparing the people and directing His wrath upon the wood and stones (of the Temple). Still he cries bitterly, mourning the immense destruction: The place where the High Priest alone was allowed to enter-and only on Yom Kippur-is now so desolate that foxes stroll through it!
1. A psalm by Asaph. O God, nations have entered Your inheritance, they defiled Your Holy Sanctuary; they turned Jerusalem into heaps of rubble.
2. They have rendered the corpses of Your servants as food for the birds of heaven, the flesh of Your pious ones for the beasts of the earth.
3. They spilled their blood like water around Jerusalem, and there is no one to bury [them].
4. We became the object of disgrace to our neighbors, ridicule and scorn to those around us.
5. Until when, O Lord! Will You be angry forever? Will Your jealousy burn like fire?
6. Pour Your wrath upon the nations that do not know You, upon the kingdoms that do not call Your Name,
7. for they devoured Jacob and desolated His abode.
8. Do not recall our former sins; let Your mercies come swiftly towards us, for we have fallen very low.
9. Help us, God of our deliverance, for the sake of the glory of Your Name; save us and pardon our sins for the sake of Your Name.
10. Why should the nations say, "Where is their God?" Let there be known among the nations, before our eyes, the retribution of the spilled blood of Your servants.
11. Let the groan of the prisoner come before You; liberate those condemned to death, as befits the greatness of Your strength.
12. Repay our neighbors sevenfold into their bosom, for the disgrace with which they reviled You, O Lord.
13. And we, Your people, the flock of Your pasture, will thank You forever; for all generations we will recount Your praise.
Chapter 80
An awe-inspiring prayer imploring God to draw near to us as in days of old.
1. For the Conductor, on the shoshanim, 1 a testimony by Asaph, a psalm.
2. Listen, O Shepherd of Israel, Who leads Joseph like sheep. Appear, You Who is enthroned upon the cherubim.
3. Arouse Your might before Ephraim, Benjamin and Menashe, for it is upon You to save us.
4. Return us, O God; cause Your countenance to shine, that we may be saved.
5. O Lord, God of Hosts, until when will You fume at the prayer of Your people?
6. You fed them bread of tears, and gave them tears to drink in great measure.
7. You have made us an object of strife to our neighbors; our enemies mock to themselves.
8. Return us, O God of Hosts; cause Your countenance to shine, that we may be saved.
9. You brought a vine out of Egypt; You drove out nations and planted it.
10. You cleared space before it; it took root and filled the land.
11. Mountains were covered by its shade, and its branches became mighty cedars.
12. It sent forth its branches till the sea, and its tender shoots to the river.
13. Why did You breach its fences, so that every passerby plucked its fruit?
14. The boars of the forest ravage it, and the creepers of the field feed upon it.
15. O God of Hosts, please return! Look down from heaven and see, and be mindful of this vine,
16. and of the foundation which Your right hand has planted, and the son whom You strengthened for Yourself.
17. It is burned by fire, cut down; they perish at the rebuke of Your Presence.
18. Let Your hand be upon the man of Your right hand, upon the son of man whom You strengthened for Yourself.
19. Then we will not withdraw from You; revive us, and we will proclaim Your Name.
20. O Lord, God of Hosts, return us; cause Your countenance to shine that we may be saved.
Chapter 81
This psalm was chanted in the Holy Temple on Rosh Hashanah, a day on which many miracles were wrought for Israel.
1. For the Conductor, upon the gittit,1 by Asaph.
2. Sing joyously to God, our strength; sound the shofar to the God of Jacob.
3. Raise your voice in song, sound the drum, the pleasant harp, and the lyre.
4. Blow the shofar on the New Month, on the designated day of our Holy Day;
5. for it is a decree for Israel, a ruling of the God of Jacob.
6. He ordained it as a precept for Joseph when he went forth over the land of Egypt; I heard a language which I did not know.
7. I have taken his shoulder from the burden; his hands were removed from the pot.2
8. In distress you called and I delivered you; [you called] in secret, and I answered you with thunderous wonders; I tested you at the waters of Merivah, Selah.
9. Hear, My people, and I will admonish you; Israel, if you would only listen to Me!
10. You shall have no alien god within you, nor shall you bow down to a foreign deity.
11. I am the Lord your God who brought you up from the land of Egypt; open wide your mouth, [state all your desires,] and I shall grant them.
12. But My people did not heed My voice; Israel did not want [to listen to] Me.
13. So I sent them away for the willfulness of their heart, for following their [evil] design.
14. If only My people would listen to Me, if Israel would only walk in My ways,
15. then I would quickly subdue their enemies, and turn My hand against their oppressors.
16. Those who hate the Lord would shrivel before Him, and the time [of their retribution] shall be forever.
17. I would feed him [Israel] with the finest of wheat, and sate you with honey from the rock.
Chapter 82
This psalm admonishes those judges who feign ignorance of the law, dealing unjustly with the pauper or the orphan, while coddling the rich and pocketing their bribes.
1. A psalm by Asaph. God stands in the council of judges; among the judges He renders judgment:
2. How long will you judge wickedly, ever showing partiality toward the evildoers?
3. Render justice to the needy and the orphan; deal righteously with the poor and the destitute.
4. Rescue the needy and the pauper; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
5. But they do not know, nor do they understand; they go about in darkness, [therefore] all the foundations of the earth tremble.
6. I said that you are angels, supernal beings, all of you;
7. but you will die as mortals, you will fall like any prince.
8. Arise, O God, judge the earth, for You possess all the nations.
Additional Three Chapters
The Baal Shem Tov instituted a custom of reciting three additional chapters of Psalms each day, from the 1st of Elul until Yom Kippur (on Yom Kippur the remaining 36 chapters are recited, thereby completing the entire book of Psalms).
Today's Chapters are 46, 47 and 48.
Chapter 46
This psalm tells of the Gog and Magog era (the Messianic age), when man will cast aside his weapons, and warfare will be no more.
1. For the Conductor, by the sons of Korach, on the alamot,1 a song.
2. God is our refuge and strength, a help in distress, He is most accessible.
3. Therefore, we will not be afraid when the earth is transformed, when mountains collapse in the heart of the seas;
4. when its waters roar and are muddied, and mountains quake before His grandeur, Selah.
5. The river2-its streams will bring joy to the city of God, the sacred dwelling of the Most High.
6. God is in her midst, she will not falter; God will help her at the approach of morning.
7. Nations clamor, kingdoms stumble; He raises His voice and the earth dissolves.
8. The Lord of Hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our stronghold forever.
9. Go and see the works of the Lord, Who has wrought devastation in the land.
10. To the end of the earth He causes wars to cease; He breaks the bow, snaps the spear, and burns the wagons in fire.
11. Stop [waging war]! And know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, exalted upon the earth.
12. The Lord of Hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our stronghold forever.
Chapter 47
Following the battle of Gog and Magog (in the Messianic era), war will be no more. God will grant us salvation, and we will merit to go up to the Holy Temple for the festivals, Amen.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by the sons of Korach.
2. All you nations, clap hands; sound [the shofar] to God with a sound of jubilation.
3. For the Lord is most high, awesome; a great King over all the earth.
4. He subdues peoples under us, nations beneath our feet.
5. He chooses our heritage for us, the glory of Jacob whom He loves eternally.
6. God ascends through teruah, the Lord-through the sound of the shofar.
7. Sing, O sing to God; sing, O sing to our King.
8. For God is King over all the earth; sing, O man of understanding.
9. God reigns over the nations; God is seated on His holy throne.
10. The most noble of the nations are gathered, the nation of the God of Abraham; for the protectors of the earth belong to God; He is greatly exalted.
Chapter 48
The psalmist prophesies about the Messianic era, singing the praises of a rebuilt Jerusalem and the sacrifices brought there. At that time Israel will say, "As we heard from the mouths of the prophets, so have we merited to see!"
1. A song, a psalm by the sons of Korach.
2. The Lord is great and exceedingly acclaimed in the city of God, His holy mountain.
3. Beautiful in landscape, the joy of the whole earth is Mount Zion, on the northern slopes, the city of the great King.
4. In her citadels, God became known as a tower of strength.
5. For behold, the kings assembled, they advanced in concert [to invade her].
6. They saw [the wonders of the Almighty] and were astounded; they were terror-stricken, they hastened to flee.
7. Trembling seized them there, pangs as of a woman in the throes of labor;
8. [they were crushed as] by an east wind that shatters the ships of Tarshish.
9. As we have heard, so have we seen, in the city of the Lord of Hosts, in the city of our God; may God establish it for all eternity.
10. God, we have been hoping for Your kindness [to be revealed] within Your Sanctuary.
11. As Your Name, O God, [is great,] so is Your praise to the ends of the earth; Your right hand is filled with righteousness.
12. Let Mount Zion rejoice, let the towns of Judah exult, because of Your judgments.
13. Walk around Zion, encircle her, count her towers.
14. Consider well her ramparts, behold her lofty citadels, that you may recount it to a later generation.
15. For this God is our God forever and ever; He will lead us eternally.
____________________________
Tanya: Iggeret HaKodesh, middle of Epistle 15
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
Thursday, 16 Elul 5774 • 11 September 2014
Iggeret HaKodesh, middle of Epistle 15
והנה כללות היו״ד ספירות שבנשמת האדם
Now, as regards the totality of the Ten Sefirot [as they appear] in the soul of man,
נודע לכל שהמדות נחלקות בדרך כלל לז׳ מדות
It is known to all1 that the emotive attributes divide into seven general categories,2
וכל פרטי המדות שבאדם באות מאחת מז׳ מדות אלו
and each of the particular attributes in man derives from one of these seven attributes.
שהן שורש כל המדות וכללותן
For they are the root of all the attributes and their generality,
שהן: מדת החסד, להשפיע בלי גבול
namely: the attribute of Chesed (“lovingkindness”), [which is a thrust] to diffuse benevolence [to all] without limit;
ומדת הגבורה, לצמצם מלהשפיע כל כך, או שלא להשפיע כלל
the attribute of Gevurah (“stern limitation and contraction”), [which seeks] to restrain such a degree of diffusion, or to withhold diffusion altogether3 [from certain individuals];
ומדת הרחמים, לרחם על מי ששייך לשון רחמנות עליו
and the attribute of Rachamim (“compassion”), [which seeks] to pity a person to whom compassion is appropriate4 and to extend benevolence to him as well, although he may be unworthy of it.
והיא מדה ממוצעת בין גבורה לחסד
[Rachamim] is the mediating attribute between Gevurah and Chesed,
שהיא להשפיע לכל, גם למי שלא שייך לשון רחמנות עליו כלל
the latter of which would diffuse benevolence to all, even to a person to whom compassion is not at all appropriate,5
מפני שאינו חסר כלום, ואינו שרוי בצער כלל
inasmuch as he lacks nothing and is in no state of trouble whatever.6
Because the attribute of Chesed is unlimited it desires to benefit even someone who lacks nothing. The attribute of Rachamim, by contrast, being also compounded of Gevurah, will not seek to diffuse indiscriminately. At the same time, Rachamim pleads the cause of any individual who is in a pitiable state, however unworthy he may be.
ולפי שהיא מדה ממוצעת, נקראת תפארת
Because [the attribute of Rachamim] is the mediating attribute, it is called Tiferet (“beauty”),
כמו בגדי תפארת, על דרך משל
by analogy with beautiful garments
שהוא בגד צבוע בגוונים הרבה, מעורבים בדרך שהיא תפארת ונוי
which are7 dyed with many colors blended8 in a way that gives rise to beauty and decoration.
מה שאין כן בגד הצבוע בגוון אחד, לא שייך בו לשון תפארת
To a garment dyed in one color, however, one cannot apply the term Tiferet, which implies the beauty of harmony. And since the attribute of Rachamim is compounded of Chesed and Gevurah, the term Tiferet is appropriate.
ואחר כך, בבוא ההשפעה לידי מעשה
Afterwards, once the attribute of either Chesed, Gevurah or Tiferet is aroused to dispense benevolence, as the diffusion is realized,
דהיינו, בשעת ההשפעה ממש
that is, at the time of the actual diffusion,
צריך להתיעץ איך להשפיע בדרך שיוכל המקבל לקבל ההשפעה
it is necessary to deliberate how to diffuse in such a way that the recipient will be able to absorb the effusion.9
כגון שרוצה להשפיע דבר חכמה ללמדה לבנו
For example, when one wishes — and this is a powerful desire — to convey and teach an intellectual subject to his son:
אם יאמרנה לו כולה, כמו שהיא בשכלו, לא יוכל הבן להבין ולקבל
If he will tell it to him in its totality, just as it appears in his own mind, the son will be unable to understand and to absorb it.
This could happen either (a) because the concept as understood by the father is too abstract and subtle for the son, and needs to be lent a more tangible garb, such as a parable; or (b) because the concept is too comprehensive and too diverse, and needs to be broken down into digestible segments, only some of which will be presented to the son.
רק שצריך לסדר לו בסדר וענין אחר
Rather, one needs to arrange [it] for him in a different order and context, such as by providing an example from an alternative context,
דבר דבור על אופניו
“every word fitly spoken,”10 presenting first one side of the issue at hand and then the other,
מעט מעט
little by little, a little of the concept at a time.
The concept thus needs to be contracted with regard to its “length”, by lowering its stature until it is within the grasp of the recipient, and with regard to its “breadth”, by reducing its manifold details to match the capacity of the son or student.
ובחינת עצה זו נקראת נצח והוד
This deliberation, regarding how best to present the concept, is referred to [by the terms] Netzach and Hod.
שהן כליות יועצות
These [attributes] are11 “the kidneys that advise,” in a manner similar to their physical counterpart,
וגם תרין ביעין המבשלים הזרע
and they are also (in spiritual terms) the two testicles that prepare the spermatozoa,12
Like their physical counterpart, the attributes of Netzach and Hod adapt the effusion of the concept.
שהיא הטפה הנמשכת מהמוח
i.e., the drop that issues from the brain.13
דהיינו, דבר חכמה ושכל הנמשך משכל האב, שלא יומשך כמו שהוא, שכל דק מאד במוחו ושכלו
That is, [they adapt] an intellectual subject deriving from the father’s mind in such a way that it will not issue unmodified, i.e., as a very subtle concept in his brain and intellect,
רק ישתנה קצת מדקות שכלו, ויתהווה שכל שאינו דק כל כך
but that it change somewhat from the subtlety of his intelligence and become a somewhat less subtle concept,
כדי שיוכל הבן לקבל במוחו והבנתו
so that the son will be able to absorb [it] in his mind and understanding.
והוא ממש על דרך משל כטפה היורדת מהמוח
This is truly analogous to the seminal drop which descends from the brain;
שהיא דקה מאד, ונעשית גסה וחומרית ממש בכליות ותרין ביעין
it is extremely tenuous, and, through the kidneys and the two testicles, it becomes truly concrete and corporeal.
This process parallels the progressive concretization of a concept, as it descends to match the capacity of the recipient.
The Alter Rebbe now speaks of yet another function of the attributes of Netzach and Hod — separating a concept into its various components.
וגם נצח והוד נקראים שחקים ורחיים, ששוחקים מן לצדיקים
Netzach and Hod are also referred to as “grinders” and “millstones”, because they “grind the mannah for the righteous,”14 like the heaven which is named Shechakim (שחקים) for it “grinds (שוחקים) the mannah for the righteous.”
כמו הטוחן חטים ברחיים, על דרך משל, שמפרר החטים לחלקים דקים מאד
Just as, by way of example, a person who grinds [wheat]15 with millstones crumbles it into very fine parts,
כך צריך האב להקטין השכל ודבר חכמה שרוצה להשפיע לבנו
so too does the father need to taper the insight or the intellectual subject he wishes to convey to his son,
ולחלקם לחלקים רבים, ולומר לו מעט מעט במועצות ודעת
and to divide them into many parts, relating [them] to him gradually, with devices and discernment.
Dividing a concept in this way so as to be able to determine what should be presented and what should be withheld is a contraction of the concept’s depth. Thus, Netzach and Hod serve to contract its length, breadth and depth — the concept in all its dimensions.
וגם בכלל בחינת נצח הוא לנצח ולעמוד נגד כל מונע ההשפעה והלימוד מבנו, מבית ומבחוץ
The category of Netzach also comprises prevailing16 and standing up against anything, from within or from without, that withholds from his son the transmission of beneficial influence or learning.
מבית, היינו: להתחזק נגד מדת הגבורה והצמצום שבאב עצמו
“From within” means firmly resisting the attribute of Gevurah and tzimtzum within the father himself,
שהיא מעוררת דינים ברצונו על בנו
for it arouses (within his will) contentions against his son,
לומר שאינו ראוי לכך עדיין
arguing that he is not yet fit for this [profound knowledge].
There now follows a parenthetical note in the text which states:
(בכתבי יד נרשם: חסר)
(A note in the manuscripts: Omission.)
I.e., according to some of the manuscripts which were compared to the previous printed editions of Iggeret HaKodesh when the current edition was being prepared for publication,17 there is an omission here in the text.
The Rebbe notes that prevailing over influences “from without” is even more important to explain than prevailing over influences “from within.” The fact that this explanation is lacking points to an omission in the text.
In addition: According to the translation offered above that “The category of Netzach also comprises...,” there is nothing amiss in the Alter Rebbe’s failure to explain a corresponding aspect within Hod, for Hod comprises no such corresponding aspect. However, the translation may also be rendered: “In general, the category of Netzach also entails....” If this is indeed the proper rendition, then the question arises, why was there no corresponding statement as to the general function of Hod? Its absence likewise demonstrates that there is an omission in the text.
The Alter Rebbe now goes on to explain the attribute of Yesod.
ובחינת יסוד היא על דרך משל ההתקשרות, שמקשר האב שכלו בשכל בנו
The category of Yesod is, by way of example, the bond by which the father binds his intellect to the intellect of his son
בשעת למודו עמו באהבה ורצון, שרוצה שיבין בנו
while teaching him with love and willingness, for he wishes his son to understand.
ובלעדי זה, גם אם היה הבן שומע דבורים אלו עצמם מפי אביו שמדבר בעדו ולומד לעצמו
Without this [bond], even if the son would hear the very same words from the mouth of his father [18as he speaks and studies to himself],
לא היה מבין כל כך כמו עכשיו
he would not understand [them] as well as now,
שאביו מקשר שכלו אליו, ומדבר עמו פנים אל פנים באהבה וחשק, שחושק מאד שיבין בנו
when his father binds his intellect to him and speaks with him face to face19 with love and desire, because he desires very much that his son understand.
The father does not merely want to enlighten his son; his desire stemming from Yesod is powerful because it is driven by pleasure.
(בכתב יד קודש אדמו״ר בעל הצמח צדק, נשמתו עדן, בדרוש: כי ידעתיו, סעיף י״ג, שהועתק שם לשון זה ליתא תיבות אלו)
[20In the holy handwriting of the Tzemach Tzedek, of blessed memory, (in the discourse entitled Ki Yedaativ, sec. 13,21 where this passage is quoted,) the above words (“as he speaks and studies to himself”) are not to be found.]
The reason for this omission: Not only is there a difference between (a) what the son passively absorbs when he hears his father studying independently, and (b) what he absorbs when his father actively teaches him; but even when the father is actually teaching, the presence or absence of the quality of Yesod will determine whether or not his son’s mind will be ignited by the fire of his own desire to communicate.
וכל מה שהחשק והתענוג גדול, כך ההשפעה והלימוד גדול
And the greater the desire and delight of the father, the greater is the influence and the learning,22
שהבן יוכל לקבל יותר, והאב משפיע יותר
because then the son is able to absorb more and the father communicates more, proportionally.
כי על ידי החשק והתענוג, מתרבה ומתגדל שכלו בהרחבת הדעת, להשפיע וללמד לבנו
For through the desire and delight, and with a contented disposition, his own insight is heightened and amplified, so that he can bestow enlightenment upon his son and teach him.
וכמו, על דרך משל, בגשמיות ממש, רבוי הזרע הוא מרוב החשק והתענוג
(23This parallels, to draw a metaphor from [the attribute of Yesod in] the sphere of the truly physical, the profusion of spermatozoa that results from heightened desire and delight,
ועל ידי זה ממשיך הרבה מהמוח
through which much is elicited from the brain, which is its source.
ולכן המשילו חכמי האמת לזיווג גשמי, כמו שיתבאר
This is why the Kabbalists, seeking to illustrate the imparting of knowledge out of a sense of pleasure, used the analogy of a physical union, for there are a number of similarities between these two expressions of the attribute of Yesod, as will be explained.)24
FOOTNOTES
1. An alternative reading, which does not appear in the ms. versions: “It is known, in a general way,...”
2. The Alter Rebbe first deals with the seven middot, or emotive attributes, and towards the end of this letter proceeds to explain the three intellective attributes which give birth to them. (See the passage below that begins, “Having dealt with the middot....”)
3. In place of כלל (“altogether”), an alternative reading has כל עיקר, which is a more emphatic phrase.
4. The word לשון, which appears in the Hebrew text before רחמנות (“compassion”), is left untranslated for, as the Rebbe notes, it is evidently a superfluous interpolation.
5. The word לשון, which appears in the Hebrew text before רחמנות (“compassion”), is left untranslated for, as the Rebbe notes, it is evidently a superfluous interpolation.
6. Note of the Rebbe: “This is a departure from the usual explanation — that Chesed extends its benevolence even to an individual whom the attribute of compassion would disqualify (despite his need), or to an individual whom one should not pity.”
7. The corresponding Hebrew phrase, whose singular form is apparently anomalous, is rendered in the plural in one of the early editions of this letter (Lemberg, 1860).
8. An alternative reading, which does not appear in the ms. versions, interpolates the word בו after מעורבים; the meaning of the sentence is virtually unaffected.
9. Note of the Rebbe: “This is [the function of the attributes of] Malchut and Yesod, as will soon be explained.”
10. Mishlei 25:11.
11. Berachot 61a.
12. Zohar III, 296a.
13. Cf. Tanya, Part I, ch. 2.
14. Note of the Rebbe: “As above, conclusion of Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, quoting Chagigah 12b.”
15. Brackets are in the original text.
16. The Hebrew root of Netzach comprises three meanings — to prevail, to be enduring, to be victorious.
17. Note of the Rebbe: “As noted in the Introduction of R. Avraham Shu”b, the [previously] printed letters of Iggeret HaKodesh were compared to copyists’ manuscripts (and not to the Alter Rebbe’s original letters).”
18. Brackets are in the original text.
19. Note of the Rebbe: “Though it is possible to understand the acronym פא״פ as meaning פה אל פה (‘mouth to mouth,’ i.e., without an intermediary; cf. Ibn Ezra on Parshat Behaalotcha 12:8), the phrase פנים אל ”פנים״ (‘face to face’) describes a higher level [of communication, and is therefore the preferred rendition], for here the Alter Rebbe is speaking of the highest qualities of Yesod, to the degree that the father ‘desires greatly.’ Moreover, it is specifically this phrase (‘face to face’) that is the antithesis of the contrasting situation described above, in which the father ‘speaks to himself.’”
20. Brackets are in the original text.
21. Printed in Or HaTorah, Vayeira 98b.
22. Note of the Rebbe: “Perhaps this should read גדל [with a kamatz and tzeirei, so that the sentence would mean, ‘And the more the desire and delight of the father grow, the more do the influence and the learning grow’], instead of גדול [with a kamatz and cholam, as translated above].”
23. Parentheses are in the original text.
24. In his Hebrew annotations to the original Yiddish text of the present work, the Rebbe explains why the Alter Rebbe does not discuss the attribute of Malchut. The learned explanation, which hinges on the comparative dynamics of the various Sefirot, is not readily translatable.
____________________________
Rambam:
• Daily Mitzvah P241 - Sefer Hamitzvos:
Thursday, 16 Elul 5774 • 11 September 2014
Positive Commandment 241 (Digest)
Damage Caused by Arson
"If a fire breaks out and spreads through thorns..."—Exodus 22:5.
We are commanded regarding the laws [of liability] that apply if a person sets a fire [that damages another's property].
The 241st mitzvah is that we are commanded to follow the laws regarding damage caused by fire.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "If fire gets out of control and spreads through weeds [...the one who started the fire must pay for the damage.]"
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 2nd and 6th chapters of tractate Bava Kama.
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid. 22:5.
Translation of (the unabridged text of) Sefer Hamitzvot by Rabbi Berel Bell, member of the Rabbinical Court of Montreal and director of Teacher Training for the Jewish Learning Institute.
________________________________________
Damage Caused by Arson
"If a fire breaks out and spreads through thorns..."—Exodus 22:5.
We are commanded regarding the laws [of liability] that apply if a person sets a fire [that damages another's property].
The 241st mitzvah is that we are commanded to follow the laws regarding damage caused by fire.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "If fire gets out of control and spreads through weeds [...the one who started the fire must pay for the damage.]"
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 2nd and 6th chapters of tractate Bava Kama.
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid. 22:5.
Translation of (the unabridged text of) Sefer Hamitzvot by Rabbi Berel Bell, member of the Rabbinical Court of Montreal and director of Teacher Training for the Jewish Learning Institute.
________________________________________
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter a Day: To`en veNit`an - Chapter 14To`en veNit`an - Chapter 14
Halacha 1
If any of the individuals who are not able to establish a claim of ownership by benefiting from a property bring witnesses who testify that the owner sold them this particular field or gave it to them as a present, the testimony is accepted as substantial. There are two exceptions: a robber, and a husband with regard to his wife's property. With regard to which property were the above statements made? With regard to nichsei tzon barzel, a field designated as payment for the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, a field belonging to her and mentioned in her ketubah, or a field that her husband had evaluated in her ketubah as a present for her. With regard to nichsei milog, by contrast, he may bring proof, as stated in Hilchot Ishut.
Halacha 2
What is meant by saying that a robber cannot substantiate the sale of a property? Once it has been established that a person gained possession of a field through robbery, he cannot substantiate his possession of a field even though he brings proof that, in the presence of witnesses, the owner acknowledged the fact that he sold him this field and received payment for it. For the owner can say: "We never sold the field; we acknowledged [the sale only out of fear." In such an instance, we expropriate the field from the robber, and he is not given anything.
If witnesses testify that the robber counted out a specific sum of money to the owner, we expropriate the field from the robber and require the owner to return the money, as stated in Hilchot Gezelah.
Halacha 3
The following rules apply when the son of a craftsman, the son of a sharecropper, or the son of a guardian benefits from a field for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership. If these individuals claim that the owner sold the property to them, or gave it to them as a present, their claim is established. If, however, they claim that the property is an inheritance that they received from their father, who benefited from it for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership, their claim is not accepted.
If they bring witnesses who testify that the owner acknowledged to their father that he sold it or gave it to him, they are allowed to retain possession of the field.
Halacha 4
Although the son of a robber brings proof that the owner acknowledged to their father that he sold a property to him, it is of no consequence, as explained above. When, however, a robber's grandson claims that he - or even his father - acquired a property, he can establish a claim of ownership. If, however, his claim is based on his grandfather's acquisition, he cannot establish a claim of ownership.
Halacha 5
Even though a gentile benefited from a property for several years, he cannot establish a claim of ownership on this basis. If he does not bring a deed of sale, we require that the field be returned to its owner. An oath is not required, for a sh'vu 'at hesset was ordained only when the plaintiff was Jewish.
When a Jew claims a property on the basis of the claim of a gentile, he is governed by the same laws as the gentile, and the fact that he benefited from the property is not significant.
Halacha 6
If the Jew who acquired the property from the gentile claimed: "In my presence, the gentile who sold me the land acquired this land from the Jew who is disputing my claim," his claim is accepted, provided that he supports it with a sh'vu 'at hesset. The rationale is that since the claimant could have asserted: "I acquired it from you and I benefited from it for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership," we accept his word when he asserts: "I acquired it from so-and-so who, in my presence, acquired it from you."
Halacha 7
A claim of ownership cannot be established with regard to property inherited by a minor, even when the minor later attains majority. What is implied? A person benefited from property inherited by a minor for one year in the minor's presence before the minor attained majority, and for two years after he attained majority. Although he claims: "You sold it to me" or "You gave it to me," his claim is not accepted unless he benefits from the property for three consecutive years after he attains majority.
Halacha 8
The following rules apply when a person maintains possession of property belonging to a minor for many years and claims: "I am maintaining possession of it as security, and I am owed this-and-this on its account." Since if he had desired, he could have said: "I purchased it," his word is accepted, for it has not been established that the property belonged to this person's father. Hence, the person in possession may collect what he claims from the property' s increase in value. The property itself is then returned to the orphans.
If, however, the property is reputed to belong to the orphans, the claim of the person in possession is not accepted. The rationale is that a claim of ownership cannot be established over property belonging to a minor. Instead, the field and all the produce that the person used must be returned to the orphans. When they come of age, the plaintiff will lodge a claim against them. 6
Halacha 9
Different rules apply if the person in possession benefited from the field for the time necessary to establish a claim of ownership during the lifetime of the orphans' father. Since he could have claimed that he is the owner because he purchased it from their father, we accept his word when he claims that a debt is owed him by their father. He collects the debt from the produce of the field. Since he could say that the produce belongs to him, he is not required to take an oath concerning it.
Halacha 10
When a person has to flee because of a danger to his life - e.g., the king desired to kill him - a claim of ownership cannot be established with regard to his property. Even if the person in possession of it derived benefit for several years and claimed that he purchased it, the fact that he derived benefit is not significant. We do not tell the owner of the field: "Why didn't you protest?" For the answer is obvious; he was concerned over his life. If, however, a person flees because of financial matters, he is considered like any other person. Thus, if he does not protest, a claim of ownership can be established over his property.
Halacha 11
A claim of ownership can be established over the property of a married woman.
What is implied? A person benefited from the land for a portion of the period necessary to establish a claim of ownership during the lifetime of the woman's husband, and for three years after the husband's death. If he claims: "You and your husband sold it to me," he is allowed to maintain possession. The rationale is that since the person in possession could say: "I purchased it from you after the death of your husband" - for he benefited from it for the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership after the death of her husband and she did not protest his word is accepted with regard to the claim mentioned above.
If, however, he benefited from the property for several years during the lifetime of her husband, but did not benefit from it for the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership after the death of her husband, he does not establish a claim of ownership.
Halacha 12
Possession of property for the time necessary to establish a claim of ownership is of no consequence unless it is accompanied by a claim of acquisition.
What is implied? A person benefited from the produce of a field for several years. Afterwards, the person raising the protest comes and claims: "How did you acquire this field? It's mine."
The person in possession responds: "I don't know who the owner is. Since no one said anything to me about it. I took possession of it."
This does not establish a claim of ownership. For he is not claiming that he acquired it, that it was given to him, or that he inherited it. Nevertheless, even though he does not issue such a demand, the field is not expropriated from him until the person protesting brings witnesses that the field belongs to him. When, however, he brings witnesses, the field and all the benefit that he received from it is expropriated from the squatter.
We do not open by asking the squatter: "Perhaps you had a deed of acquisition and you lost it." He must make such a claim on his own. If he does not make such a claim, he must return all the produce that he reaped. Similarly, when a person benefits from a field for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership on the basis of a deed of sale, and that deed of sale was disqualified, the claim of ownership established is nullified. The field and all of the produce reaped must be returned to the original owner.
Halacha 13
When a person claims ownership of a field as an inheritance, he must bring proof that his father dwelled in or used this field for even one day. Once that is accomplished, since he benefited from the field for three years on the basis of his father's ownership, he is allowed to retain possession.
If, however, he did not bring proof that his father lived in it at all, the field and all of the produce reaped must be returned to the person lodging the protest, if he brings witnesses who testify that the field belongs to him. The rationale is that the person in possession does not claim that the owner sold or gave him the field, and it is not known that the field belonged to his ancestors.
If the person in possession brought proof that his father was seen in the field, it is of no consequence. Perhaps he went to inspect it and did not purchase it. Instead, he must bring proof that his father dwelled there for at least one day.
Halacha 14
The following laws apply when a person benefited from a field for many years and the person raising the protest states: "What are you doing in this field?"
The person in possession acknowledges the truth of his statements, but says: "I know that it once belonged to you, but so-and-so sold it to me, and he purchased it from you."
The person raising the protest states: "So-and-so, the person who sold you the field, is a robber."
Since the person in possession admitted that the field belonged to him and that he did not purchase it from him, the field and all of its produce must be returned to the person raising the protest. This applies even though that person does not bring witnesses that the field belongs to him. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
If the person in possession brings witnesses who testify that the person who sold the field to him lived in it for even one day or he told him, "He purchased it from you in my presence and afterwards he sold it to me," he is allowed to retain possession, for he has a definite claim and he has established a claim of ownership. If he desired, he could have claimed: "I purchased it from you." His claim would have been accepted, for he lived in it long enough to establish a claim of ownership.
____________________________
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters a Day: Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Nine, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Ten, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Eleven
Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Nine
1. When an animal that is pregnant causes damage, the sum of half the damages may be expropriated from the mother and its offspring,1 for the offspring are considered to be part of its body.
When, by contrast, a chicken causes damage, the amount due may not be collected from its eggs. [The rationale is that a chicken's] eggs are not considered to be part of its body, but rather separate and distinct from it.2
2. When a cow that is pregnant gored [another cow], and the calf [of the goring cow] is found at its side, but it is not known whether it had given birth before it gored or not, the sum of half the damages may be collected from the cow [alone]. Nothing may be collected from the calf, unless [the plaintiff can bring proof that it was pregnant when it gored. [The rationale is that] when a person desires to expropriate money from a colleague, the burden of proof is upon him.3
3. [Similarly,] if a bull gores a pregnant cow and we find its calf stillborn at her side, and we do not know if it gave birth to the stillborn calf before it was gored,4 or it gave birth to the stillborn calf because it was gored, [the owner of the bull] is required to pay for [only] the damage to the cow and not the damage to the calf. For when a person desires to expropriate money from a colleague, the burden of proof is upon him.5
4. When [an ox] gores a pregnant cow and causes it to miscarry, we do not evaluate the damage to the cow separately and the damage to the calf separately,6 [and obligate the owner of the ox for the total]. Instead, we evaluate the worth of the cow when it was pregnant and healthy7 and compare it to its present worth and that of the body of the fetus. The owner of the ox must pay the difference8 [if it was mu'ad] or half the difference if it was tam.
5. If the ox was owned by one person and the calf by another,9 the loss in the fat of the cow [caused by the miscarriage] is owed to the owner of the cow; the loss of the cow's bulk10 is divided between the owner of the cow and the owner of the calf. The carcass of the calf belongs to the owner of the calf.
6. [The following rules apply when] one ox was pursuing another ox, and one was damaged. [If the owner of the ox] that was damaged said: "It was your ox that caused the damage," and [the owner of the other ox] said, "I do not know, perhaps it was damaged by a rock,"11 the burden of proof is upon the one who wishes to exact payment. [This ruling applies] even though the one whose property was damaged states: "I am certain [that your ox caused the damages], and the other person says: "I do not know."
If the person whose property was damaged claims: "You certainly know that your ox caused the damage,"12 if [his ox] was mu'ad, [the other person] is required to take a Rabbinic oath that he does not know [that his ox caused the damage]. If, however, [his ox] was tam, he is not required to take a Rabbinic oath. [The rationale is that] even if he admitted [that his ox had caused the damage], he would not be liable. For the liability for half the damages is a fine,13 and a person who admits culpability for a fine [when there are no witnesses to obligate him] is not liable.
7. [A person whose ox was damaged has no legal redress in the following instance.] Two [oxen belonging to two separate owners] were pursuing a third ox. Witnesses saw that one of the oxen caused the third ox damage, but were not able to identify which ox caused the damage. [Since] one of the owners claims, "Your ox caused the damage," and the other claims, "Your ox caused the damage," neither is liable.
If both oxen belong to the same person, he is liable to pay from the body of the less valuable [ox, if that ox is tam].14 If both oxen are mu'adim, he must pay the full amount of the damage from his property.
8. When does the above apply? When both oxen are present before us. If, however, one of the oxen died or was lost, and it was tam, [their owner] is not liable even though they both belong to him. For he can tell the person whose property was damaged: "Prove to me that it was the ox that is here that caused the damage, and I will pay you."15
9. [Similar principles apply in a case where an ox was damaged by one of two oxen belonging to the same owner.] One of the two oxen that pursued [the damaged ox] was large and one was small. If the person whose ox was damaged claims that it was the larger one that caused the damage,16 and the person whose oxen caused the damage claims that the smaller one caused the damage, [the burden of proof is upon the one who wishes to exact payment].17
[Similarly,] if one of the oxen was tam and the other mu'ad, and the person whose ox was damaged claims that it was the mu'ad that caused the damage,18 and the person whose oxen caused the damage claims that the tam caused the damage, the burden of proof is upon the one who wishes to exact payment.
10. If there was no clear proof which of the oxen caused the damage, but witnesses testify that one of the two oxen [owned by this person] caused the damage, the person whose oxen caused the damage must pay the amount he admits.19
If the person whose property was damaged claimed, "You know that the damage was caused by the other ox in your presence,"20 the person whose ox caused the damage must take an oath mandated by Scriptural law.21 He then pays the amount he admitted. [The oath is required] because he admitted a portion [of the claim levied against him].
11. [The following rules apply when] two oxen were damaged, one large and one small, and there were two oxen that caused the damage, one large and one small. The person whose oxen were damaged claims: the large ox damaged the large ox, and the small ox damaged the small ox.22 The person whose oxen caused the damage, by contrast claims: "No. It was the small ox that damaged the large one, and the large ox that damaged the small one."
[A similar dispute arises if] one [of the oxen that caused the damage] was mu'ad and the other tam. The person whose oxen were damaged claims: the ox that was mu'ad damaged the large ox, and the ox that was tam damaged the small ox.23 By contrast, the person whose oxen caused the damage claims: "It was the ox that was tam that damaged the large one, and the ox that was mu'ad that damaged the small one."
[In both these instances,] the burden of proof is upon the one who wishes to exact payment. If there is no proof,24 the one who caused the damage is not liable [at all]. To what can this be compared? To an instance where a person claims that a colleague owes him wheat, and the colleague admits to owing him barley. In such a case, [the defendant] is required to take a Rabbinic oath and then is not liable, even for the barley, as will be explained in Hilchot To'en.25
If the person whose oxen were damaged seizes possession [of property belonging to the person whose oxen caused the damage], he may take payment for the damages to the small ox from the body of the large ox and may take payment for the damages to the large ox from the body of the small ox, as the person who caused the damages admitted.26 If he did not seize possession [of such property], however, no money at all is expropriated from the person whose oxen caused the damage.
12. When one ox gores [another ox] and then gores a third ox, the owner of the first ox that was gored and the owner [of the goring ox] are considered to be partners.27
What is implied? When an ox that is worth 200 [zuz] gores another ox that is worth 200 [zuz] and the carcass is not worth anything, the owner of the damaged ox is entitled to 100 [zuz from the ox that gored] and its owner 100 [zuz]. If that ox gores another ox that is worth 200 [zuz] and its carcass is of no value, the owner of the latter ox is entitled to 100 [zuz] and the owner of the first ox and the original owner of the ox are each entitled to 50 [zuz]. If that ox gores another ox that is worth 200 [zuz] and its carcass is of no value, the owner of the latter ox is entitled to 100 [zuz], the owner of the second ox that was gored is entitled to 50 [zuz], and the owner of the first ox and the original owner of the ox are each entitled to 25 [zuz]. This pattern is followed in the future [if the ox continues to gore].28
13. When a person whose [ox] was damaged seizes the animal that caused the damage in order to collect half the damages from its body, he is considered to be a paid watchman with regard to any damages it causes. Therefore, if it causes damages, the person whose ox was first damaged is liable, and its owner is not liable.
What is implied? An ox that is worth 200 [zuz] gored [another ox], causing damages of 200 [zuz]. The person whose ox was damaged seized [the goring ox] in order to collect the 100 [zuz] that is due him,29 Afterwards, [the ox that caused the damage] gored [another ox], causing damages of 140 [zuz]. The person whose property was damaged last receives 70 [zuz], the person who took possession of the ox because it damaged his property receives the remainder of the damage done to his ox - 30 zuz30 - and the original owner, 100 zuz.31 The same principles apply in other similar situations.
14. When two oxen that are tamim gore one another,32 half of the remainder of the damages must be paid to the one whose ox suffered the greater damage.
If both oxen were mu'adim or an ox that was mu'ad and a man33 injured one another, the entire amount of the remainder of the damages must be paid to the one whose ox [or the man] who suffered the greatest damage.
[The following rules apply if] one of the oxen is tam and one is mu'ad. If [the larger amount of the damage was caused by] the ox that is mu'ad, the entire amount of the remainder of the damages must be paid [to the owner of the tam]. If [the larger amount of the damage was caused by] the ox that is tam, half of the remainder of the damages must be paid [to the owner of the mu'ad.34
What is implied? When one ox that is tam causes 100 [zuz] worth of damage to another ox that is tam, and the other ox causes 40 [zuz] worth of damage to the first ox, the owner of the first ox must pay 30 [zuz] to the owner of the second ox. If they were both mu'adim, the owner of the first ox must pay 60 [zuz] to the owner of the second ox. If the first ox was mu'ad and the second ox was tam, the owner of the first ox must pay 80. If the first ox was tam and the second ox was mu'ad, the owner of the first ox must pay 10.35
FOOTNOTES
1.I.e., if the body of the animal that caused the damage is not worth half the damage it caused, the remainder may be collected from its offspring. Even if for some reason the cow is not found, the entire sum may be collected from the calf Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 399:1).
2.It would appear that according to the Rambam, this applies even before the eggs are laid. Even while within the chicken, they are not considered part of its body. The Maggid Mishneh offers a different explanation, stating that while the eggs are within the chicken, they are considered to be part of its body (Ramah, Choshen Mishpat 399:1).
3.This is a fundamental principle, applicable in many contexts of Jewish business law.
4.And thus the owner of the bull has no responsibility for the death of the calf.
5.Even when the owner of the ox does not know whether or not his ox caused the damage, as long as the owner of the cow cannot support his claim with witnesses, the owner of the ox is not liable Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 399:3).
6.I.e., the difference in value between a living calf and a dead one.
7.Implied is that when a cow is pregnant it adds weight, which increases its value.
8.Obviously, a lesser amount.
9.I.e., the owner had sold the rights to the calf to another person before it was born.
10.Which appears larger and is therefore worth more Tur and Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 399:5).
11.Even when it ran into the rock because it was pursued, the other ox is considered to be merely an indirect cause of damage (grama), and the owner is not liable (Sefer Me'irat Einayim 400:1).
12.And are withholding payment only because you know that I cannot produce witnesses.
13.See Chapter 2, Halachah 7.
14.One of this man's oxen caused the damage, and the damage must be paid for from the body of the ox itself. If the damage was worth more than the value of the lesser ox, the owner of the damaged ox can collect only the value of the lesser ox. The rationale is that there is no proof that the damage was caused by the more valuable ox.
15.Payment for damage caused by an ox that is tam must be expropriated from the body of the ox. If that ox is not present, the damage cannot be collected.
16.This is significant when the extent of the damages exceeds the value of the smaller ox.
17.If there are no witnesses present at all (in contrast to the instance described in the following halachah), in both this and the second clause of this halachah the person whose ox caused the damage is not liable at all. For the obligation that he admits (that the smaller ox or the tam) caused the damage, is not the obligation claimed by the person whose ox caused the damage (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Bava Kama 3:11). (See also Halachah 11 and notes.)
18.This is significant because it determines whether the person receives half the amount of the damages or the full amount.
19.In this instance, as opposed to an instance where there are no witnesses at all, the owner is obligated to pay the debt he admits, because of the testimony of the witnesses (Maggid Mishneh).The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 400:3) quotes the Rambam's decision. The Tur and the Ramah, however, differ and maintain that if the person whose ox causes the damage makes a definitive claim saying that the other ox caused the damage, he is not liable at all.
20.I.e., if the owner of the goring ox indeed did not know which ox caused the damage, he could not be held liable for the greater amount. The person whose ox was damaged is, however, maintaining that the owner in fact does know and is concealing the matter so as not to be held liable.
21.As the Rambam explains, whenever a person admits a portion of a claim lodged against him, he is obligated to support his claim with an oath. He is referred to as a modeh b'miktzat (Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an 1:1).The Ra'avad maintains that an oath is required only in a case when one ox is tam and one ox is mu'ad, for the claim against the tam can be considered to be part of the claim against the mu'ad. When, however, both oxen are tam, the two claims are considered to be unrelated and no oath is required. Rabbenu Asher goes further and considers the claims to be unrelated in both instances. See Siftei Cohen 400:5, which discusses this issue.
22.This difference is significant if the oxen that caused the damage are tamim, for then the payment is expropriated from the body of the ox, and it is possible that the value of the small ox that caused the damage will be less than that of the large ox that was damaged.
23.This difference is significant, because when an ox is mu'ad, its owner is responsible for the entire amount of the damages, while when it is tam, only half the damages are required. Needless to say, the full value of the large ox is far more than the full value of the small ox.
24.If, however, witnesses observed that the oxen belonging to the same owner caused the damage, but were not able to identify which one caused the damage, the owner is obligated to pay the amount he admits, as in the previous halachah (Maggid Mishneh).
25.Chapter 3, Halachah 10. The rationale is that with regard to the instance when one ox is mu'ad, the defendant does not accept any liability with regard to the claim that the plaintiff makes, and the plaintiff has not made a claim regarding the sum the defendant admits liability for; therefore, the defendant is not held liable.With regard to the instance where both of the oxen are tamim, the defendant is not liable, because payment of half the damages is considered a fine, and a person who admits culpability for a fine is not liable (Maggid Mishneh).
26.Even the Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 400:3), who view this situation more stringently than the Rambam, accept this principle. Moreover, according to their logic (see Choshen Mishpat 399:3), if there are no witnesses that the plaintiff seized possession of the property of the defendant, the plaintiff may keep an amount equal to his own claim.The above applies only when the plaintiff seizes possession of the defendant's property before taking the matter to court. If, however, he took the matter to court, and the court ruled in favor of the defendant, as the Rambam states, and then the plaintiff seizes the defendant's property, he must return it.
27.Since the owner of the gored ox is granted a share in the body of the ox that gores, he is also given a share in the responsibility for its damages.
28.See Sefer Me'irat Einayim 401:1, which notes that generally after goring three times, an ox becomes considered mu'ad, and from that time onward, full damages for the damage caused by the ox must be paid. This complicates the matter.
29.I.e., half the damages, as required when a tam gores.
30.I.e., since he was responsible for the ox at the time it caused the damages, he bears the entire financial responsibility.
31.The Rambam's view is also shared by Rashi (Bava Kama 36b) and Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi, and is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 401:2). Tosafot, Rabbenu Asher and the Tur differ and maintain that the law mentioned in the previous halachah applies in this instance as well. Their view is quoted by the Ramah.
32.The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 402:1) explain that the laws mentioned in this halachah apply only when the second ox gores the first after the two oxen have been separated. If, however, directly after the first ox gores the second, the second gores it in return, the owner of the second ox is not liable for the damages. (See also Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 421:13.)
33.For a man is always responsible for the damages he causes.
34.In this and the previous clause, the intent of the Rambam's wording requires the clarification of the examples that follow.
35.I.e., in the latter two instances, one determines the damages to be paid by the mu'ad and those to be paid by the tam and then subtracts one from the other. One does not subtract the amount of the damages caused and then have the owner pay half the remainder if tam, and the entire remainder if mu'ad.
Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Ten
1. Wherever1 an ox kills a [Jew],2 whether an adult or a child, whether a servant or a free man,3 whether the ox is tam4 or mu'ad, [the ox] must be stoned to death.5If an ox kills a gentile, it is not executed, for this is their law.
2. [Not only] an ox, but any other animal, beast or fowl that kills a human should be stoned to death.6
What is the difference then between an ox that is tam killing a person, and that act being performed by an ox that is mu'ad? [The owner of] an ox that is tam is not liable for the atonement fine, while [the owner of] an ox that is mu'ad is liable,7 when his ox is mu'ad to kill.8
3. Since every animal, beast or fowl that kills a human being should be stoned to death, how is it possible to find an animal that is mu'ad to kill, so that its owner will be liable to pay an atonement fine?9 It killed three gentiles,10 and then it killed a Jew. For an ox that is mu'ad [to kill] a gentile, is also mu'ad for a Jew.11 Alternatively, it killed three Jews who were classified as t'refot,12 and then killed a healthy person. [Other possible situations are the following:]
[On three occasions,] it killed a person and then fled, and it was captured on the fourth occasion. [We must say that it was captured, because] the owners are not obligated to pay an atonement fine unless the ox is executed.13
It mortally wounded three individuals at the same time [and they and the fourth person the ox gored all died at the time]. It killed three animals.14 In all these instances, it is deemed as mu'ad to kill, and the owner is liable to pay an atonement fine.
There is also another instance. On three occasions [one of the oxen belonging to a person killed a human]; on each of these occasions, the witnesses recognized the owner, but did not recognize the ox. On the fourth occasion, they saw an ox that killed a person [and were able to recognize it afterwards]. They did not, however, know if this was the same ox that had killed [people] on the three previous occasions or not.
[In this instance, the owner of the ox is liable to pay an atonement fine. The rationale is that] since the owner was warned that he had an ox in his herd that had killed [people] on three occasions, he should have guarded all his oxen [more carefully]. Since he did not, he must pay the atonement fine.
4. The Oral Tradition interprets the Torah's statement [Exodus 21:29]: "And its owner shall also be put to death," as implying death by the hand of God [and not execution by a mortal court]. If [the owner] pays an atonement fine for the person killed, he is pardoned.
Although the obligation of the atonement fine is for [the owner's spiritual] pardon,15 the property of a person who is obligated to pay an atonement fine is forcefully expropriated, [even] against his will.16
5. When an ox belonging to two partners kills [a man], each of [the partners] must pay an entire atonement fine. For each requires a full measure of atonement.17
6. If an ox is owned by a person, the adjudication of the ox must be concluded in its owner's presence. If the ox does not have an owner - e.g., a wild ox, an ox that was consecrated, an ox belonging to a convert who died without leaving any heirs - it should be executed [if it kills a human], and its judgment is concluded despite the fact that it lacks an owner.
Similarly, an ox belonging to a woman, a minor,18 or a guardian19 is stoned [if it kills a human]. The guardians are not required to pay the atonement fine,20 for that fine is [as implied by its name] for the purpose of atonement. Minors, deaf mutes and mental incompetents are not men of responsibility who require atonement.21
7. When an ox that is a t'refah or an ox belonging to a person who is t'refah kills a human, the ox is not executed.22 [This is derived from Exodus 21:29:] "And its owner shall also be put to death." [This is interpreted to mean] that a parallel is established between the owner and the ox being put to death. Since the owner is [already] considered as if he is dead and need not be put to death [by God], so too, the ox is not held liable.
8. When a person sets a dog upon a colleague, and [the dog] kills him, the dog is not stoned to death. The same law applies if he sets another animal or beast upon him.23 If, however, he sets a snake upon him, even if he actually places the snake's mouth on the other person, the snake is stoned to death. [The rationale is that] the snake releases the lethal venom on its own volition. For this reason, the person who sets the snake upon a colleague is not liable to be executed by [an earthly] court.
9. An animal that kills [a person] is not stoned to death unless it had the intent to kill a person for whom it would be executed.24 If, however, an ox intended to kill an animal and instead killed a human being, it intended to kill a gentile and instead killed a Jew, or it intended to gore a stillborn child and instead killed an ordinary child, [the ox] is not executed.25 If [the ox] was mu'ad, the owners are liable to pay the atonement fine or the fine paid for killing a servant. [This applies] even [if the ox] killed unintentionally. [The owners are held responsible] because [the ox] is mu'ad [to kill].
10. [The owner of an ox is liable to pay an atonement fine in the following instances. An ox] was mu'ad to leap on people in pits. It saw a vegetable in a pit, leapt into the pit, [and fell] on a person there and killed him. It was mu'ad to rub itself against walls and knock them over onto people, and it rubbed itself against a wall for its own benefit, and caused the wall to fall on a person and kill him. [In both these instances,] the ox is not liable to be executed, because it did not intend to kill. The owners are, nevertheless, liable for the atonement fine, because the ox is mu'ad to leap into pits on people or to knock walls over onto them.26
How can we know whether any animal is rubbing itself against a wall for its own benefit? If it continues rubbing itself after it knocks the wall down and kills.
11. The owners are not liable to pay the atonement fine unless their animal kills [the person] outside their property. If, however, [their animal] kills [a person] in a domain belonging to [the owner of the animal], the owner is not liable for the atonement fine,27 although the animal is stoned to death.
What is implied? If a person enters a courtyard belonging to a person without his permission28 - even if he enters to demand payment for wages or a debt [owed to him]29 - and an ox belonging to the owner of the courtyard gores him and kills him, the ox should be stoned to death. The owner is, however, free from the atonement fine, because [the deceased] did not have permission to enter his property without his consent.
12. [The owner is not required to pay an atonement fine in the following situation. A person] stood at the entrance and called to the owner, and the latter said: "Yes." [The guest] entered and he was gored by an ox belonging to the owner. The owner is not liable. For "yes" does [not necessarily] mean [more than] "Stand where you are, until I [come] to speak to you."
13. When an animal enters a courtyard belonging to another person and kills a child by treading on it as it proceeds, the owner [of the animal] must pay an atonement fine. [The rationale is that an animal is considered to be] mu'ad to tread on things as it proceeds, and in the domain of another person [the owner of animal] is liable for the damages it causes by eating or treading, as explained.30
Thus, one can conclude: When an animal that is mu'ad kills intentionally, it should be stoned to death, and the owners must pay the atonement fine. If it killed unintentionally, it is not liable to be executed, but the owners must pay the atonement fine. When [an animal that is] tam kills unintentionally, it is not liable to be executed, nor must the owners pay the atonement fine. If it intended to kill, it should be stoned to death. The owners, however, are not liable for the atonement fine or for the fine paid for killing a servant.
14. It appears to me31 that even though [the owner of an ox that is] tam that killed a servant or a maid-servant intentionally is not liable for the fine of 30 selaim mentioned in the Torah,32 if it killed [a servant or maid-servant] unintentionally,33 [the owner] must pay half the value of the servant or the maid-servant from the body of the ox, as if [the ox] had killed another ox or donkey belonging to his colleague.34
FOOTNOTES
1.I.e., in either a private domain or the public domain.
2.This law applies only when the animal kills intentionally, as stated in Halachot 9-10 (Kessef Mishneh).
3.The universality of this law is explicitly stated in Exodus 21:29-32: If it kills a man or a woman, the ox must be stoned.... This law also applies if it gores a boy or a girl. If it gores a servant... or a maid-servant... the ox should be stoned.
4.Exodus 21:28 states that this penalty should be given to an ox that is tam, and the following verse speaks about a mu'ad.
5.See The Guide for the Perplexed, Volume III, Chapter 40, which states that this sentence is not considered punishment to the animal that killed the person, but rather punishment for its owner, so that he will know to restrain his animals. Some of the laws of this chapter (e.g., Halachot 6 and 8) indicate, however, that the intent is to kill an animal that is prone to kill.
6.The verse mentions an ox because it speaks about situations that are most probable.
7.Exodus 21:28, which speaks about an ox that is tam, states: the owner will not be punished. The following verses, which speak about a mu'ad, state that the owner will pay an atonement fine. The nature of that fine is discussed in the following chapter.
8.I.e., that the owner was warned three times that his ox killed (or came close to killing) an animal or a man, as mentioned in the following halachah.
9.I.e., the animal should seemingly have been executed after he killed one human being. How was it possible for him to kill three?
10.In which case it is not obligated to be executed, as stated in Halachah 1.
11.The Maggid Mishneh questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that although Bava Kama 41a, the source for this halachah, mentions this resolution (and the following one), according to the commonly accepted version of the Talmud, it appears that these hypotheses are rejected. The Maggid Mishneh explains that most likely the Rambam possessed a different version of this Talmudic passage.
12.The word t'refah refers to an infirmity that will cause the person (or animal) possessing it to die within a year. Since the person will die anyway, the ox is not executed for killing him (Bava Kama, loc. cit.).
13.There are exceptions to this principle, as reflected in Halachot 9 and 10.
14.In Chapter 6, Halachah 8, the Rambam states that an ox that is mu'ad with regard to a human is not mu'ad with regard to an animal. From that, we can derive that an animal that is mu'ad with regard to an animal is not mu'ad with regard to a human.This does not necessarily represent a contradiction to this halachah. For there, the Rambam is speaking about causing damage, and here we are speaking about causing death (Kessef Mishneh).
15.And it is not a monetary obligation imposed by civil law.
16.With regard to a sin offering or a guilt offering that also comes for the purpose of atonement, we do not find an obligation to expropriate the sacrifice from the person's property. Nevertheless, it is possible to explain that since the atonement fine is paid to a colleague, and not offered in the Temple, people might view its obligation more laxly. See Lechem Mishneh.
17.This is a reflection of the concept that this fine is not recompense for the person's death, but rather a means for the person who caused his death to attain atonement.
18.For whom a guardian was not appointed.
19.The intent is an ox belonging to a minor, deaf mute or mentally incompetent person that was entrusted to a guardian for safekeeping.
20.In contrast to the damages an ox in their care causes, for which they are required to reimburse the party whose property was damaged, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 4.
21.All of these individuals are considered to be mentally incompetent and are not held responsible for any aspect of their conduct.
22.The Ra'avad writes that if an ox kills a person in the presence of a court, it is executed. The leniency applies only when it kills in the presence of witnesses.The Ra'avad's statement is based on a comparison to a human being. When a human being who is t'refah kills another human in the presence of witnesses, he cannot be executed, because there is no way that the witnesses can be disqualified through the laws of hazamah. When, however, he kills in the presence of a court, there is no need for the testimony of witnesses, and the court is charged to obliterate the evil from your midst. (See Hilchot Rotzeach 2:9.)The Maggid Mishneh does not accept this equation, because he maintains that the obligation to obliterate evil applies with regard to a man who performs an evil act and not to an ox.
23.The rationale is that the animal is not considered to have killed as a result of its own tendency, but in response to prompting by the other person.
24.If, however, it intended to kill one Israelite, and instead it killed another, it is executed (Maggid Mishneh). There is a debate among our Sages (Bava Kama 44b) regarding both a human and an ox who kills with such an intent. With regard to a human, the Rambam rules that the killer is not liable for execution (see Hilchot Rotzeach, ch. 4), while with regard to an ox, he rules that it should be executed. See the Ra'avad and the Kessef Mishneh to Hilchot Rotzeach.
25.Our Sages (ibid.) derive this law from the parallel established between the owner and the ox being put to death mentioned in Halachah 6. Since a human being would not be executed for killing in such a manner, the animal is also not executed.
26.And the owners should therefore have watched it to prevent this from happening.
27.See Chapter 1, Halachah 7.
28.If the owner grants his consent, he is liable for the atonement fine if his ox kills the visitor.
29.The Maggid Mishneh and others note that Bava Kama 33a appears to present a difficulty to the Rambam's ruling. Several resolutions are, however, offered.
30.Chapter 1, Halachot 5,7.
31.This expression indicates a conclusion drawn by the Rambam that has no explicit source in the works of our Sages.
32.Exodus 21:32.
33.If it killed the servant intentionally, the law requires that the ox be stoned to death, and no benefit to be derived from it. Thus it is impossible to exact payment from its carcass. When, however, it kills unintentionally, it is not stoned and remains the property of its owner.
34.The Rambam's rationale can be described as follows: If an ox kills a Jewish male or female, the owner is not obligated to pay damages, because the case is considered to involve capital matters. A servant, by contrast, is considered to be his owner's property, and therefore, just as the owner of an ox that is tam must pay half the cost of any damages caused by his ox, so too, he is liable for half of these damages.
Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Eleven
1. How much is the atonement fine? The amount the judges evaluate as being the worth of the person who was killed; everything depends on his worth, as [implied by Exodus 21:30]: "And he shall give the ransom of his1 soul according to all that will be imposed upon him."
The atonement fine for a servant, whether an adult or a minor, whether a male or a female, is the amount determined by the Torah: 30 selaim2 of fine3 silver. [This applies] whether the servant was worth 100 maneh4 or only one dinar.
If a servant is lacking only a bill of release,5 a fine is not imposed, for he does not have a master, for he has already attained his freedom.
2. To whom is the atonement fine paid? To the heirs of the deceased. If a woman is killed, the atonement fine is paid to her heirs [as though she had not married], and not to her husband.6
If a person who is half a servant, and half a freed man7 is killed, half of the fine should be given to the owner, and the other half is fit to be given, but there is no one to take it.8
3. When an ox gores a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry, its owners are not liable for the value of the fetus. [This law applies] even when the ox is mu'ad to gore. For the obligation [stated in] the Torah to pay for the value of the fetus applies only when it is a human who causes the damages.9
4. If, however, an ox [that is mu'ad] gores a maid-servant and causes her to miscarry, [the owner] is required to pay for the value of the fetus. For this is equivalent to having gored a pregnant donkey.10
If the ox is tam, [the owner] must pay half the value of the fetus from the body of the ox.
5. How is this sum evaluated? We assess the value of this maid-servant when she was pregnant, and how much she is worth now.11 [The owner of the ox] must pay [the owner of the maid-servant] the difference or half the difference.12
If [the ox] kills the maid-servant, [despite the fact that she is pregnant, its owner] need pay only the fine determined by the Torah, as we have explained.13
6. When an ox intended to gore an animal and instead gored a man, [the owner is not liable], even if the man dies, as explained.14 Nevertheless, if [the ox] injures him, [the owner of the ox] is liable for the damages.15 If the ox is tam, he should pay half the damages from the body of the ox. If it is mu'ad, he must pay the entire amount of the damages.16
7. When an ox that is tam kills [a man] and then causes damage,17 it is sentenced to execution, but there is no financial claim on its owners.18
If an ox that is mu'ad kills and then causes damage, the liability [resulting from the damages] is determined,19 and then it is sentenced to execution. If it is sentenced to execution first, the liability [resulting from the damages] is determined afterwards.
8. How is this money collected? From the profit that will accrue from the labor of the ox after it has been sentenced.20 [This step is taken] because once it is sentenced to be stoned to death, it no longer has owners who are considered liable for the damages it caused.21
If [in the above situation] it was sentenced to death and then it22 fled, no liability [resulting from the damages] is assigned.23
9. When an ox killed a human, and afterwards its owner consecrates it, it is not consecrated.24 Similarly, if he declares it ownerless, it is not ownerless. If he sells it, the sale is not effective. If a watchman returns it to its owner, it is not considered to have been returned.25 If it is slaughtered, one is forbidden to benefit from its meat.26
When does the above apply? After it has already been sentenced to death. If, however, it had not been sentenced to death [different rules apply]. If its owner consecrates it, it is consecrated. If he declares it ownerless, it is ownerless. If he sells it, the sale is effective.27 If a watchman returns it to its owner, it is considered to have been returned.28 If it is slaughtered first, one is not forbidden to benefit from its meat.
10. When an ox [that killed a human] becomes intermingled with other oxen before it was sentenced to death, they are all not held liable. [The rationale is that] just as the judgment of a human being [must be concluded in the presence of that person], so too, the judgment of the ox must be concluded in the presence of the ox.29
If an ox becomes intermingled with other oxen - even 1000 - after it was sentenced to death, they all must be stoned to death.30 It is forbidden to benefit from them, and their carcasses must be buried, as is required whenever an animal is stoned to death.31
11. When a pregnant cow kills a person - and similarly, all animals that were used for a sinful purpose [that requires their execution]32 - the laws that apply to it apply to its calf.33 For it and its calf gored; it and its calf were sodomized.
12. [The following rules apply if a cow] gored a person to death and then became pregnant: If it became pregnant and bore a calf before it was sentenced to death, the calf is permitted.34 If it bore a calf after the sentence was delivered, the calf is forbidden, for a fetus is considered an extension35 of its mother.36
If [the calf] became intermingled with other calves, they must all be enclosed in a closed room until they die.37
13. When the witnesses whose testimony caused an ox to be sentenced for execution are disqualified because they lied, whoever first takes possession of the ox acquires it as his own. [The rationale is that] once it was sentenced to death, the owners gave up their ownership of it.38
If witnesses testify that the owner [of an ox sodomized his animal] and they were disqualified because they lied, the ox remains the property of its [original] owner. Although another person drew it after him,39 he does not acquire it. [The rationale is that] since the owner knows that he did not sin, and that these are false witnesses, he was planning to have them disqualified. Therefore, he did not give up ownership [of his animal].
FOOTNOTES
1.The antecedent of the pronoun his is a matter of debate among our Sages (Bava Kama 40a), who debated whether it refers to the soul of the owner or that of the person who was killed. According to the Rambam, there are dimensions of both opinions that are relevant. As evident from the previous chapter, by paying the atonement fine the owner of the ox is ransoming his own soul. On the other hand, as the Rambam states in this halachah and in Chapter 10, Halachah 4, the atonement fine is for the person killed, and the amount is determined according to the worth of the person who was killed.
2.See Exodus 21:32. A sela is equivalent to four dinarim (zuzim).
3.I.e., pure silver.
4.10,000 zuz.
5.E.g., a servant who has been declared ownerless by his master, or one whom his master caused to lose one of the limbs that require his release.
6.A woman's property is inherited by her husband. He, however, is entitled only to the property that she possesses at the time of her death, but not property that will accrue to her afterwards. For this reason, he is not entitled to the atonement fine. Needless to say, if the woman has already borne children, the atonement fine is given to them.
7.E.g., a servant was owned by two partners, and one of them freed him while the other did not.Note the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh, who states that this law applies only to a maid-servant, but not to a male servant. The Radbaz (Volume VI, Responsum 2249), however, justifies the Rambam's view.
8.For the half-servant is dead, and he or she has no heirs. Even if he or she bore children as a servant, they are not considered as the half-servant's sons or daughters.
9.Exodus 21:22 speaks about men fighting together, and one of them causing a woman to miscarry.
10.As mentioned at the conclusion of the previous chapter, servants are considered in certain contexts to be no more than their master's chattel.
11.Our Sages note that there are two elements lost with the miscarriage: a) the fetus, which would otherwise become the owner's property, and b) the fact that while pregnant, a woman looks larger and healthier (Bava Kama 49a).
12.I.e., if the ox was mu'ad, the owner must pay the entire difference. If it is tam, he must pay half the difference.
13.See Halachah 1. No extra renumeration is made in consideration of the miscarriage.
14.Chapter 10, Halachah 9.
15.Our Sages explain that one might think that although the owner is liable if his ox damages another ox in this manner, he would not be liable for injuring a man. The rationale is that an animal does not have a spiritual source protecting it, while a person does. If injury occurs despite that spiritual protection, one might think that it is willed by God, and therefore the owner of the ox is not liable. (See Bava Kama 2b).
16.See Chapter 7, Halachah 3.
17.To a man or to another animal.
18.For the payment for the damages caused by an ox that is tam must come from the body of the ox itself. In this instance, since the ox must be stoned to death, we are forbidden to benefit from its carcass. Thus, there is no source from which this obligation can be met.
19.They must pay from resources other than the body of the ox.
20.I.e., the ox is hired out by the court to work for different people. When enough money accrues to pay for the damages, it is executed.
21.The Maggid Mishneh explains the Rambam's position as follows. It is clear to the Rambam that once an animal is sentenced to be executed, it is no longer considered the property of its owner, and the owner is not considered responsible for the damages, even if the damages took place before the death sentence was delivered. (It appears that the Rambam considers that the obligation for the damages takes place only after the matter is taken to court.) For this reason, the Rambam maintains that the ox itself should be made to work for the damages.For this reason, the ox will not be executed immediately after being sentenced. Although it is not proper to delay the execution of a human, there is no such principle with regard to the execution of an ox. There are other authorities who differ with several elements of the Maggid Mishneh's interpretation.
22.I.e., the ox. Rashi interprets Bava Kama 91a, the source of this halachah, as referring to the flight of the owner of the ox.
23.For the ox is not present to be hired out to work.
24.Once an ox has been sentenced to death, it is no longer considered to be the property of its former owner.
25.And the watchman must reimburse the owner for his ox, for he is responsible for it.
26.See Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 4:22, Hilchot Issurei Mizbe'ach 4:2 and other sources.
27.The purchaser should slaughter the ox immediately. Otherwise, its meat will become forbidden.
28.Although the ox will be sentenced to death, the watchman is considered to have fulfilled his obligation, for the owners have the option of slaughtering the ox before it is sentenced to death.
29.And since the ox cannot be identified, that is not possible.
30.The animal is not considered to become bateil b'rov, insignificant because it is mixed with a larger quantity of permitted substances. Indeed, even when it becomes mixed with a far larger number of oxen, its identity is never considered insignificant. The rationale is that a live animal is important. And an important entity is never considered to be insignificant (Zevachim 72a; Sanhedrin 79b-80a).
31.See Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 16:7 and Hilchot Pesulei Hamukdashim 19:11.
32.This apparently refers to an animal used by a human for sodomy, which must be executed, as stated in Leviticus 20:15. For no other sin is an animal executed.
33.This follows the principle stated in the next halachah: A fetus is considered to be an extension of its mother.
34.For it was not part of its mother's body, neither at the time of the killing, nor at the time of the sentence.
35.Literally the thigh.
36.And so, just as the sentence caused the mother to become forbidden, it also caused the calf to become forbidden. The calf is not executed, however. Instead, it is left to die.
37.In this instance as well, all the calves need not be executed. It is, however, forbidden to benefit from them, because the presence of a live animal in a mixture is never considered to be insignificant.
38.Since the owner of the ox does not know whether or not the ox gored, he is dependent on the testimony of the witnesses. Once their testimony establishes that the ox gored, the owner assumes that it will be executed and despairs of retaining ownership. After he has made such a decision, even in error, anyone has the right to take possession of the ox. A parallel ruling is delivered in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 4:8.
39.Thus performing the kinyan of meshichah, a formal act of acquisition.
____________________________
Hayom Yom:
Thursday, 16 Elul 5774 • 11 September 2014
"Today's Day"
Thursday, Elul 16, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Tavo, Chamishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 79-82. Also 46-48.
Tanya: Now, as regards (p. 469) ...as will be explained). (p. 473).
The Alter Rebbe interpreted the statement, "Whoever saves a single person of (the people) Israel is as though he saved an entire world1": One must perceive a Jew as he stands in the primordial thought of Adam Kadmon. There, each soul stands with all the generations destined to descend from it until the coming of Mashiach, the righteous Redeemer. When one does a favor to an individual, it is a favor to all those souls until the end of all generations.
FOOTNOTES
1. Sanhedrin 37a.
____________________________
Daily Thought:
Vertical OrientationsThursday, Elul 16, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Tavo, Chamishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 79-82. Also 46-48.
Tanya: Now, as regards (p. 469) ...as will be explained). (p. 473).
The Alter Rebbe interpreted the statement, "Whoever saves a single person of (the people) Israel is as though he saved an entire world1": One must perceive a Jew as he stands in the primordial thought of Adam Kadmon. There, each soul stands with all the generations destined to descend from it until the coming of Mashiach, the righteous Redeemer. When one does a favor to an individual, it is a favor to all those souls until the end of all generations.
FOOTNOTES
1. Sanhedrin 37a.
____________________________
Daily Thought:
Any true wisdom, as ethereal as it may be, sits above your head as a massive reservoir of living waters. Provide it only a small opening, and it will burst into your reality and pour down into your life.
Whatever wisdom you learn, whatever you know, do something with it. Make it real.
That is the purpose of meditation and prayer—to be that bridge from wisdom to action.(Sefer HaSichot 5704, p. 122; Igrot Kodesh, vol. 4, p. 269.)
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment