Today's Laws & Customs:
• Rosh Chodesh Observances
Today is the second of the two Rosh Chodesh ("Head of the Month") days for the month of Elul(when a month has 30 days, both the last day of the month and the first day of the following month serve as the following month's Rosh Chodesh).
Special portions are added to the daily prayers: Hallel (Psalms 113-118) is recited -- in its "partial" form -- following the Shacharit morning prayer, and the Yaaleh V'yavo prayer is added to the Amidah and to Grace After Meals; the additional Musaf prayer is said (when Rosh Chodesh is Shabbat, special additions are made to the Shabbat Musaf). Tachnun (confession of sins) and similar prayers are omitted.
Many have the custom to mark Rosh Chodesh with a festive meal and reduced work activity. The latter custom is prevalent amongst women, who have a special affinity with Rosh Chodesh -- the month being the feminine aspect of the Jewish Calendar.
Links: The 29th Day; The Lunar Files
• Elul Observances
As the last month of the Jewish year, Elul is traditionally 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 ofPsalms 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 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3
Book I: Psalms 1:1 How blessed are those
who reject the advice of the wicked,
don’t stand on the way of sinners
or sit where scoffers sit!
2 Their delight
is in Adonai’s Torah;
on his Torah they meditate
day and night.
3 They are like trees planted by streams —
they bear their fruit in season,
their leaves never wither,
everything they do succeeds.
4 Not so the wicked,
who are like chaff driven by the wind.
5 For this reason the wicked
won’t stand up to the judgment,
nor will sinners
at the gathering of the righteous.
6 For Adonai watches over
the way of the righteous,
but the way of the wicked
is doomed.
2:1 Why are the nations in an uproar,
the peoples grumbling in vain?
2 The earth’s kings are taking positions,
leaders conspiring together,
against Adonai
and his anointed.
3 They cry, “Let’s break their fetters!
Let’s throw off their chains!”
4 He who sits in heaven laughs;
Adonai looks at them in derision.
5 Then in his anger he rebukes them,
terrifies them in his fury.
6 “I myself have installed my king
on Tziyon, my holy mountain.”
7 “I will proclaim the decree:
Adonai said to me,
‘You are my son;
today I became your father.
8 Ask of me, and I will make
the nations your inheritance;
the whole wide world
will be your possession.
9 You will break them with an iron rod,
shatter them like a clay pot.’”
10 Therefore, kings, be wise;
be warned, you judges of the earth.
11 Serve Adonai with fear;
rejoice, but with trembling.
12 Kiss the son, lest he be angry,
and you perish along the way,
when suddenly his anger blazes.
How blessed are all who take refuge in him.
3:(0) A psalm of David, when he fled from Avshalom his son:
2 (1) Adonai, how many enemies I have!
How countless are those attacking me;
3 (2) how countless those who say of me,
“There is no salvation for him in God.” (Selah)
4 (3) But you, Adonai, are a shield for me;
you are my glory, you lift my head high.
5 (4) With my voice I call out to Adonai,
and he answers me from his holy hill. (Selah)
6 (5) I lie down and sleep, then wake up again,
because Adonai sustains me.
7 (6) I am not afraid of the tens of thousands
set against me on every side.
8 (7) Rise up, Adonai!
Save me, my God!
For you slap all my enemies in the face,
you smash the teeth of the wicked.
9 (8) Victory comes from Adonai;
may your blessing rest on your people. (Selah)
Elul is also the time to have one's tefillin and mezuzahs checked by an accredited scribe to ensure that they are in good condition and fit for use.Links: More on Elul
• Good Year Greetings
From the beginning of Elul and throughout the High Holiday season, we include the blessing "May you be inscribed and sealed for a good year" (Leshanah tovah tikateiv veteichateim) in letters and greetings to one another.
Links: Bless You!
Today in Jewish History:
• Moses ascends Sinai for 3rd 40 days (1313 BCE)
On the early morning of the 1st of Elul of the year 2448 from creation (1313 BCE) Moses ascended Mount Sinai, taking with him the stone tablets he had hewn by divine command (see "Today in Jewish History" for yesterday, Av 30), for G-d to re-inscribe the Ten Commandments. On the mountain, G-d allowed Moses to "see My back, but not My face" (which Maimonides interprets as a perception of G-d's reality but not His essence) -- the closest any human being ever came to knowing G-d -- and taught him the secret of His "Thirteen Attributes of Mercy" (Exodus 33:18-34:8).
Moses remained on the mountain for 40 days, until the 10th of Tishrei (Yom Kippur), during which time He obtained G-d's whole-hearted forgiveness and reconciliation with the people of Israel following their betrayal of the covenant between them with their worship of the Golden Calf. This was the third of Moses' three 40-day periods on Mount Sinai in connection with the Giving of the Torah. Ever since, the month of Elul serves as the "month of Divine mercy and forgiveness."
Links: The 120-Day Version of the Human Story
Daily Quote:
There is nothing new under the sun[Ecclesiastes 1:9]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Shoftim, 1st Portion Deuteronomy 16:18-17:13 with Rashi
• Chapter 16
18You shall set up judges and law enforcement officials for yourself in all your cities that the Lord, your God, is giving you, for your tribes, and they shall judge the people [with] righteous judgment. יחשֹׁפְטִים וְשֹׁטְרִים תִּתֶּן לְךָ בְּכָל שְׁעָרֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ לִשְׁבָטֶיךָ וְשָׁפְטוּ אֶת הָעָם מִשְׁפַּט צֶדֶק:
Judges and law-enforcement officials: Heb. שֹׁפְטִים וְשֹׁטְרִים. שֹׁפְטִים are judges who decide the verdict, and שֹׁטְרִים are those who chastise the people in compliance with their order, (who strike and bind [not found in early editions]) with rods and straps, until he [the guilty party] accepts the judge’s verdict. שופטים ושוטרים: שופטים, דיינים הפוסקים את הדין. ושוטרים, הרודין את העם אחר מצותם. שמכין וכופתין במקל וברצועה עד שיקבל עליו את דין השופט:
in all your cities: Heb. בְּכָל-שְׁעָרֶיךָ, in every city. בכל שעריך: בכל עיר ועיר:
for your tribes: [This phrase] refers back to “You shall set up… for yourself.” Thus, the understanding of the verse is “You shall set up judges and law-enforcement officials for yourself, for your tribes, in all your cities that the Lord, your God, is giving you.” לשבטיך: מוסב על תתן לך. שופטים ושוטרים תתן לך לשבטיך בכל שעריך אשר ה' אלהיך נותן לך:
for your tribes: This teaches us that judges must be appointed for every tribe, and for every city. — [Sifrei, San. 16b] לשבטיך: מלמד שמושיבין דיינין לכל שבט ושבט ובכל עיר ועיר:
and they shall judge the people [with] righteous judgment: Appoint judges who are expert and righteous so that they will judge justly. — [from Sifrei] ושפטו את העם וגו': מנה דיינין מומחים וצדיקים לשפוט צדק:
19You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show favoritism, and you shall not take a bribe, for bribery blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts just words. יטלֹא תַטֶּה מִשְׁפָּט לֹא תַכִּיר פָּנִים וְלֹא תִקַּח שֹׁחַד כִּי הַשֹּׁחַד יְעַוֵּר עֵינֵי חֲכָמִים וִיסַלֵּף דִּבְרֵי צַדִּיקִם:
You shall not pervert justice: [This is to be understood] according to its apparent meaning. לא תטה משפט: כמשמעו:
you shall not show favoritism: Even during the statement of pleas [by the litigants]. This is an admonition addressed to the judge, that he should not be lenient with one litigant and harsh with the other, [e.g., ordering] one to stand [while allowing] the other to sit, because as soon as one notices that the judge is showing more respect toward his opponent, he cannot plead his case any longer [because he thinks that it will be of no use]. לא תכיר פנים: אף בשעת הטענות. אזהרה לדיין שלא יהא רך לזה וקשה לזה, אחד עומד ואחד יושב. לפי שכשרואה שהדיין מכבד את חבירו מסתתמין טענותיו:
and you shall not take a bribe: Even [if you intend] to judge justly - [from Sifrei]. ולא תקח שחד: אפילו לשפוט צדק:
for bribery blinds: As soon as he [the judge] accepts a bribe from him [a litigant], it is impossible for him not to be favorably disposed towards him, to decide the judgment in his favor. כי השחד יעור: משקבל שחד ממנו אי אפשר שלא יטה את לבו אצלו להפוך בזכותו:
just words: Heb. דִּבְרי צַדִּיקִים, just words, true judgments. דברי צדיקים: דברים המצודקים, משפטי אמת:
20Justice, justice shall you pursue, that you may live and possess the land the Lord, your God, is giving you. כצֶדֶק צֶדֶק תִּרְדֹּף לְמַעַן תִּחְיֶה וְיָרַשְׁתָּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ:
Justice, justice shall you pursue: Seek out a good court. (Sifrei; San. 32b) צדק צדק תרדוף: הלך אחר בית דין יפה:
that you may live, and you possess [the land]: The appointment of fitting judges is sufficient merit to keep Israel alive and settled in their land. — [from Sifrei] למען תחיה וירשת: כדאי הוא מנוי הדיינין הכשרים להחיות את ישראל ולהושיבן על אדמתן:
21You shall not plant for yourself an asherah, [or] any tree, near the altar of the Lord, your God, which you shall make for yourself. כאלֹא תִטַּע לְךָ אֲשֵׁרָה כָּל עֵץ אֵצֶל מִזְבַּח יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה לָּךְ:
You shall not plant for yourself an asherah: [This admonition is] to make one liabl e [to punishment] from the time of planting it, and even though he did not worship it, he transgresses a prohibition for its planting. — [from Sifrei] לא תטע לך אשרה: לחייבו עליה משעת נטיעתה ואפילו לא עבדה עובר בלא תעשה על נטיעתה:
You shall not plant…any tree, near the altar of the Lord your God: This is a prohibition addressed to one who plants a tree or builds a house on the Temple Mount. — [Sifrei] לא תטע לך אשרה כל עץ אצל מזבח ה' אלהיך:אזהרה לנוטע אילן ולבונה בית בהר הבית:
22And you shall not set up for yourself a monument, which the Lord, your God hates. כבוְלֹא תָקִים לְךָ מַצֵּבָה אֲשֶׁר שָׂנֵא יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ:
And you shall not set up for yourself any monument: A monument of one stone, to sacrifice on it even to Heaven. ולא תקים לך מצבה: מצבת אבן אחת, להקריב עליה אפילו לשמים:
which [the Lord your God] hates: God has commanded you to make an altar of stones and an altar of earth. This, however, He hates, because this was a [religious] statute of the Canaanites, and although it was dear to Him in the days of the Patriarchs, now He hates it, since these [people] made it a statute for idolatry. (See Sifrei) אשר שנא: מזבח אבנים ומזבח אדמה צוה לעשות, ואת זו שנא כי חק היתה לכנענים. ואף על פי שהיתה אהובה לו בימי האבות עכשיו שנאה, מאחר שעשאוה אלו חק לעבודה זרה:
Chapter 17
1You shall not sacrifice to the Lord, your God, an ox or a sheep that has in it a blemish or any bad thing, for that is an abomination to the Lord, your God. אלֹא תִזְבַּח לַיהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ שׁוֹר וָשֶׂה אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בוֹ מוּם כֹּל דָּבָר רָע כִּי תוֹעֲבַת יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ הוּא:
You shall not sacrifice… or any bad thing: Heb. דָּבָר רַע. This is an admonition to one who would make sacrifices disqualified (פִּגּוּל) through an evil [improper] utterance דִּבּוּר רַע. And from this [expression] our Rabbis derived other explanations as well, as they appear in [the tractate] Shechitath Kodashim [early name for Zevachim]. — [Zev. 36] לא תזבח וגו' כל דבר רע: אזהרה למפגל בקדשים על ידי דבור רע. ועוד נדרשו בו שאר דרשות בשחיטת קדשים:
2If there will be found among you, within one of your cities which the Lord, your God is giving you, a man or woman who does evil in the eyes of the Lord, your God, to transgress His covenant, בכִּי יִמָּצֵא בְקִרְבְּךָ בְּאַחַד שְׁעָרֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אֶת הָרַע בְּעֵינֵי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לַעֲבֹר בְּרִיתוֹ:
to transgress His covenant: which He made with you, namely, not to worship idols. לעבור בריתו: אשר כרת אתכם שלא לעבוד עבודה זרה:
3and who will go and worship other gods and prostrate himself before them, or to the sun, the moon, or any of the host of the heavens, which I have not commanded; גוַיֵּלֶךְ וַיַּעֲבֹד אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ לָהֶם וְלַשֶּׁמֶשׁ | אוֹ לַיָּרֵחַ אוֹ לְכָל צְבָא הַשָּׁמַיִם אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוִּיתִי:
which I have not commanded: to worship them. — [Meg. 9b] אשר לא צויתי: לעבדם:
4and it will be told to you, and you will hear it, and investigate thoroughly, and behold, the matter coincides; this abomination has been perpetrated in Israel. דוְהֻגַּד לְךָ וְשָׁמָעְתָּ וְדָרַשְׁתָּ הֵיטֵב וְהִנֵּה אֱמֶת נָכוֹן הַדָּבָר נֶעֶשְׂתָה הַתּוֹעֵבָה הַזֹּאת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל:
[the matter] coincides: Heb. נָכוֹן הַדָּבָר, the testimony coincides. [I.e., the testimony of one witness coincides with that of the other.] נכון: מכוון העדות:
5Then you shall bring out that man or that woman who has committed this evil thing, to your cities, the man or the woman, and you shall pelt them with stones, and they shall die. הוְהוֹצֵאתָ אֶת הָאִישׁ הַהוּא אוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה הַהִוא אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ אֶת הַדָּבָר הָרַע הַזֶּה אֶל שְׁעָרֶיךָ אֶת הָאִישׁ אוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וּסְקַלְתָּם בָּאֲבָנִים וָמֵתוּ:
Then you shall bring out that man… to your cities: Heb. אֶל-שְׁעָרֶיךָ. One who translates אֶל-שְׁעָרֶיךָ as לִתְרַע בֵּית דִינָךְ, “to the gate of your court,” is mistaken, for we have learned the following: when the verse [here] says אֶל-שְׁעָרֶיךָ, this refers to the city where [the accused] worshipped idols. Or does it refer to the gates [of the court] where he was judged [since the courts were located at the gates]? [In answer to this,] the verse here says שְׁעָרֶיךָ, and above (verse 2), it says שְׁעָרֶיךָ. Just as שְׁעָרֶיךָ mentioned there [clearly] refers to the city where he worshipped [idols] [and not to the gates of a court], so too, the word שְׁעָרֶיךָ mentioned here refers to the city where he worshipped [idols]. Thus the correct version of the Targum is לְקִרְוָיךְ, to your cities. והוצאת את האיש ההוא אל שעריך וגו': המתרגם אל שעריך, לתרע בית דינך, טועה, שכן שנינו אל שעריך זה שער שעבד בו, או אינו אלא שער שנדון בו, נאמר שעריך למטה ונאמר שעריך למעלה (פסוק ב) מה שעריך האמור למעלה שער שעבד בו אף שעריך האמור למטה שער שעבד בו. ותרגומו לקרויך:
6By the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall the one liable to death be put to death; he shall not be put to death by the mouth of one witness. ועַל פִּי | שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים אוֹ שְׁלשָׁה עֵדִים יוּמַת הַמֵּת לֹא יוּמַת עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד:
two witnesses, or three: But if testimony can be executed through two witnesses, why then does Scripture specify “or three”? [It does so] to draw a comparison between [testimony of] three to that of two; just as two witnesses are considered one unit, so too, are three witnesses considered one unit, and they are not subject to the laws of“plotting witnesses” עֵדִים זוֹמְמִין, unless all of them are proven to be “plotting witnesses.” - [Mak. 5b] (See Deut. 19:16-21.) שנים [עדים] או שלשה: אם מתקיימת עדות בשנים למה פרט לך בשלשה, להקיש שלשה לשנים, מה שנים עדות אחת, אף שלשה עדות אחת, ואין נעשין זוממין עד שיזומו כולם:
7The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people, and you shall abolish evil from among you. זיַד הָעֵדִים תִּהְיֶה בּוֹ בָרִאשֹׁנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ וְיַד כָּל הָעָם בָּאַחֲרֹנָה וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ:
8If a matter eludes you in judgment, between blood and blood, between judgment and judgment, or between lesion and lesion, words of dispute in your cities, then you shall rise and go up to the place the Lord, your God, chooses. חכִּי יִפָּלֵא מִמְּךָ דָבָר לַמִּשְׁפָּט בֵּין דָּם | לְדָם בֵּין דִּין לְדִין וּבֵין נֶגַע לָנֶגַע דִּבְרֵי רִיבֹת בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ וְקַמְתָּ וְעָלִיתָ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בּוֹ:
If a matter eludes you [in judgment]: Heb. כִּי יִפָּלֵא. [The term] הַפְלְאָה always denotes detachment and separation; [here it means] that the matter is detached and hidden from you. כי יפלא: כל הפלאה לשון הבדלה ופרישה, שהדבר נבדל ומכוסה ממך:
between blood and blood: Between ritually unclean blood [of menstruation], and ritually clean blood. — [Niddah 19a] (See Rashi on Lev. 12:1-5.) בין דם לדם: בין דם טמא לדם טהור:
between judgment and judgment: Between a judgment of innocent and a judgment of guilty. בין דין לדין: בין דין זכאי לדין חייב:
between lesion and lesion: Between a ritually unclean lesion, and a ritually clean lesion. בין נגע לנגע: בין נגע טמא לנגע טהור:
words of dispute: whereby the Sages of the city [the judges] differ in their opinion on the matter, one declaring it impure, the other pure, one ruling guilty, the other innocent. דברי ריבות: שיהו חכמי העיר חולקים בדבר, זה מטמא וזה מטהר זה מחייב וזה מזכה:
then you shall rise and go up: [This] teaches [us] that the Temple [the seat of the Sanhedrin, the Supreme Court] was on a higher elevation than all other places. — [Sifrei ; San. 87a] וקמת ועלית: מלמד שבית המקדש גבוה מכל המקומות:
9And you shall come to the Levitic kohanim and to the judge who will be in those days, and you shall inquire, and they will tell you the words of judgment. טוּבָאתָ אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם וְאֶל הַשֹּׁפֵט אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וְדָרַשְׁתָּ וְהִגִּידוּ לְךָ אֵת דְּבַר הַמִּשְׁפָּט:
[And you shall come to] the Levitic kohanim: i.e., the kohanim, who are descended from the tribe of Levi. הכהנים הלוים: הכהנים שיצאו משבט לוי:
and to the judge who will be in those days: Although this judge may not be [of the same stature] as other judges who preceded him, you must listen to him, for you have only the judge [who lives] in your time. — [R.H. 25b] ואל השופט אשר יהיה בימים ההם: ואפילו אינו כשאר שופטים שהיו לפניו אתה צריך לשמוע לו. אין לך אלא שופט שבימיך:
10And you shall do according to the word they tell you, from the place the Lord will choose, and you shall observe to do according to all they instruct you. יוְעָשִׂיתָ עַל פִּי הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יַגִּידוּ לְךָ מִן הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהֹוָה וְשָׁמַרְתָּ לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ:
11According to the law they instruct you and according to the judgment they say to you, you shall do; you shall not divert from the word they tell you, either right or left. יאעַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ וְעַל הַמִּשְׁפָּט אֲשֶׁר יֹאמְרוּ לְךָ תַּעֲשֶׂה לֹא תָסוּר מִן הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יַגִּידוּ לְךָ יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאל:
either right or left,: Even if this judge tells you that right is left, and that left is right. How much more so, if he tells you that right is right, and left is left!- [Sifrei] ימין ושמאל: אפילו אומר לך על ימין שהוא שמאל ועל שמאל שהוא ימין, וכל שכן שאומר לך על ימין ימין ועל שמאל שמאל:
12And the man who acts intentionally, not obeying the kohen who stands there to serve the Lord, your God, or to the judge that man shall die, and you shall abolish evil from Israel. יבוְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה בְזָדוֹן לְבִלְתִּי שְׁמֹעַ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן הָעֹמֵד לְשָׁרֶת שָׁם אֶת יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אוֹ אֶל הַשֹּׁפֵט וּמֵת הָאִישׁ הַהוּא וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל:
13And all the people shall listen and fear, and they shall no longer act wantonly. יגוְכָל הָעָם יִשְׁמְעוּ וְיִרָאוּ וְלֹא יְזִידוּן עוֹד:
And all the people shall listen: From here we derive [the ruling] that they postpone his execution [i.e., of the זְקַן מַמְרֵא, the rebellious sage] until the Festival [when all Israel appears in Jerusalem], and they execute him on the Festival. — [San. 89a] וכל העם ישמעו: מכאן שממתינין לו עד הרגל וממיתין אותו ברגל:Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 1 - 9
• 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 1
This psalm inspires man to study Torah and avoid sin. One who follows this path is assured of success in all his deeds, whereas the plight of the wicked is the reverse.
1. Fortunate is the man that has not walked in the counsel of the wicked, nor stood in the path of sinners, nor sat in the company of scoffers.
2. Rather, his desire is in the Torah of the Lord, and in His Torah he meditates day and night.
3. He shall be like a tree planted by streams of water, that yields its fruit in its season, and whose leaf does not wither; and all that he does shall prosper.
4. Not so the wicked; rather, they are like the chaff that the wind drives away.
5. Therefore the wicked will not endure in judgement, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.
6. For the Lord minds the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.
Chapter 2
This psalm warns against trying to outwit the ways of God. It also instructs one who has reason to rejoice, to tremble—lest his sins cause his joy to be overturned.
1. Why do nations gather, and peoples speak futility?
2. The kings of the earth rise up, and rulers conspire together, against the Lord and against His anointed:
3. “Let us sever their cords, and cast their ropes from upon us!”
4. He Who sits in heaven laughs, my Master mocks them.
5. Then He speaks to them in His anger, and terrifies them in His wrath:
6. “It is I Who have anointed My king, upon Zion, My holy mountain.”
7. I am obliged to declare: The Lord said to me, “You are my son, I have this day begotten you.
1
8. Ask of Me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, and the ends of the earth your possession.
9. Smash them with a rod of iron, shatter them like a potter’s vessel.”
10. Now be wise, you kings; be disciplined, you rulers of the earth.
11. Serve the Lord with awe, and rejoice with trembling.
12. Yearn for purity—lest He become angry and your path be doomed, if his anger flares for even a moment. Fortunate are all who put their trust in Him
Chapter 3
When punishment befalls man, let him not be upset by his chastisement, for perhaps--considering his sins—he is deserving of worse, and God is in fact dealing kindly with him.
1. A psalm by David, when he fled from Absalom his son.
2. Lord, how numerous are my oppressors; many rise up against me!
3. Many say of my soul, “There is no salvation for him from God—ever!”
4. But You, Lord, are a shield for me, my glory, the One Who raises my head.
5. With my voice I call to the Lord, and He answers me from His holy mountain, Selah.
6. I lie down and sleep; I awake, for the Lord sustains me.
7. I do not fear the myriads of people that have aligned themselves all around me.
8. Arise, O Lord, deliver me, my God. For You struck all my enemies on the cheek, You smashed the teeth of the wicked.
9. Deliverance is the Lord’s; may Your blessing be upon Your people forever
Chapter 4
This psalm exhorts man not to shame his fellow, and to neither speak nor listen to gossip and slander. Envy not the prosperity of the wicked in this world, rather rejoice and say: “If it is so for those who anger Him . . . [how much better it will be for those who serve Him!”]
1. For the Conductor, with instrumental music, a psalm by David.
2. Answer me when I call, O God [Who knows] my righteousness. You have relieved me in my distress; be gracious to me and hear my prayer.
3. Sons of men, how long will you turn my honor to shame, will you love vanity, and endlessly seek falsehood?
4. Know that the Lord has set apart His devout one; the Lord will hear when I call to Him.
5. Tremble and do not sin; reflect in your hearts upon your beds, and be silent forever.
6. Offer sacrifices in righteousness, and trust in the Lord.
7. Many say: “Who will show us good?” Raise the light of Your countenance upon us, O Lord.
8. You put joy in my heart, greater than [their joy] when their grain and wine abound.
9. In peace and harmony I will lie down and sleep, for You, Lord, will make me dwell alone, in security.
Chapter 5
A prayer for every individual, requesting that the wicked perish for their deeds, and the righteous rejoice for their good deeds.
1. For the Conductor, on the nechilot,1 a psalm by David.
2. Give ear to my words, O Lord, consider my thoughts.
3. Listen to the voice of my cry, my King and my God, for to You I pray.
4. Lord, hear my voice in the morning; in the morning I set [my prayers] before you and hope.
5. For You are not a God Who desires wickedness; evil does not abide with You.
6. The boastful cannot stand before Your eyes; You hate all evildoers.
7. You destroy the speakers of falsehood; the Lord despises the man of blood and deceit.
8. And I, through Your abundant kindness, come into Your house; I bow toward Your holy Sanctuary, in awe of You.
9. Lead me, O Lord, in Your righteousness, because of my watchful enemies; straighten Your path before me.
10. For there is no sincerity in their mouths, their heart is treacherous; their throat is an open grave, [though] their tongue flatters.
11. Find them guilty, O God, let them fall by their schemes; banish them for their many sins, for they have rebelled against You.
12. But all who trust in You will rejoice, they will sing joyously forever; You will shelter them, and those who love Your Name will exult in You.
13. For You, Lord, will bless the righteous one; You will envelop him with favor as with a shield.
Chapter 6
This is an awe-inspiring prayer for one who is ill, to pray that God heal him, body and soul. An ailing person who offers this prayer devoutly and with a broken heart is assured that God will accept his prayer.
1. For the Conductor, with instrumental music for the eight-stringed harp, a psalm by David.
2. Lord, do not punish me in Your anger, nor chastise me in Your wrath.
3. Be gracious to me, O Lord, for I languish away; heal me, O Lord, for my bones tremble in fear.
4. My soul is panic-stricken; and You, O Lord, how long [before You help]?
5. Relent, O Lord, deliver my soul; save me for the sake of Your kindness.
6. For there is no remembrance of You in death; who will praise You in the grave?
7. I am weary from sighing; each night I drench my bed, I melt my couch with my tears.
8. My eye has grown dim from vexation, worn out by all my oppressors.
9. Depart from me, all you evildoers, for the Lord has heard the sound of my weeping.
10. The Lord has heard my supplication; the Lord accepts my prayer.
11. All my enemies will be shamed and utterly terrified; they will then repent and be shamed for a moment.
Chapter 7
Do not rejoice if God causes your enemy to suffer—just as the suffering of the righteous is not pleasant. David, therefore, defends himself intensely before God, maintaining that he did not actively harm Saul. In fact, Saul precipitated his own harm, while David’s intentions were only for the good.
1. A shigayon 1 by David, which he sang to the Lord concerning Kush the Benjaminite.
2. I put my trust in You, Lord, my God; deliver me from all my pursuers and save me.
3. Lest he tear my soul like a lion, crushing me with none to rescue.
4. Lord, my God, if I have done this, if there is wrongdoing in my hands;
5. if I have rewarded my friends with evil or oppressed those who hate me without reason—
6. then let the enemy pursue and overtake my soul, let him trample my life to the ground, and lay my glory in the dust forever.
7. Arise, O Lord, in Your anger, lift Yourself up in fury against my foes. Stir me [to mete out] the retribution which You commanded.
8. When the assembly of nations surrounds You, remove Yourself from it and return to the heavens.
9. The Lord will mete out retribution upon the nations; judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness and my integrity.
10. Let the evil of the wicked come to an end, but establish the righteous—O righteous God, Searcher of hearts and minds.
11. [I rely] on God to be my shield, He Who saves the upright of heart.
12. God is the righteous judge, and the Almighty is angered every day.
13. Because he does not repent, He sharpens His sword, bends His bow and makes it ready.
14. He has prepared instruments of death for him; His arrows will be used on the pursuers.
15. Indeed, he conceives iniquity, is pregnant with evil schemes, and gives birth to falsehood.
16. He digs a pit, digs it deep, only to fall into the trap he laid.
17. His mischief will return upon his own head, his violence will come down upon his own skull.
18. I will praise the Lord according to His righteousness, and sing to the Name of the Lord Most High
Chapter 8
This psalm is a glorious praise to God for His kindness to the lowly and mortal human in giving the Torah to the inhabitants of the lower worlds, arousing the envy of the celestial angels. This idea is expressed in the Yom Kippur prayer, “Though Your mighty strength is in the angels above, You desire praise from those formed of lowly matter.”
1. For the Conductor, on the gittit,1 a psalm by David.
2. Lord, our Master, how mighty is Your Name throughout the earth, You Who has set Your majesty upon the heavens!
3. Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings You have established might, to counter Your enemies, to silence foe and avenger.2
4. When I behold Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars which You have set in place—
5. what is man that You should remember him, son of man that You should be mindful of him?
6. Yet, You have made him but a little less than the angels, and crowned him with honor and glory.
7. You made him ruler over Your handiwork, You placed everything under his feet.
8. Sheep and cattle—all of them, also the beasts of the field;
9. the birds of the sky and the fish of the sea; all that traverses the paths of the seas.
10. Lord, our Master, how mighty is Your Name throughout the earth.
Chapter 9
One should praise God for saving him from the hand of the enemy who stands over and agonizes him, and for His judging each person according to his deeds: the righteous according to their righteousness, and the wicked according to their wickedness.
1. For the Conductor, upon the death of Labben, a psalm by David.
2. I will thank the Lord with all my heart; I will recount all Your wonders.
3. I will rejoice and exult in You; I will sing to Your Name, O Most High.
4. When my enemies retreat, they will stumble and perish from before You.
5. You have rendered my judgement and [defended] my cause; You sat on the throne, O righteous Judge.
6. You destroyed nations, doomed the wicked, erased their name for all eternity.
7. O enemy, your ruins are gone forever, and the cities you have uprooted—their very remembrance is lost.
8. But the Lord is enthroned forever, He established His throne for judgement.
9. And He will judge the world with justice, He will render judgement to the nations with righteousness.
10. The Lord will be a stronghold for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble.
11. Those who know Your Name put their trust in You, for You, Lord, have not abandoned those who seek You.
12. Sing to the Lord Who dwells in Zion, recount His deeds among the nations.
13. For the Avenger of bloodshed is mindful of them; He does not forget the cry of the downtrodden.
14. Be gracious to me, O Lord; behold my affliction at the hands of my enemies, You Who raises me from the gates of death,
15. so that I may relate all Your praises in the gates of the daughter of Zion, that I may exult in Your deliverance.
16. The nations sank into the pit that they made; in the net they concealed their foot was caught.
17. The Lord became known through the judgement He executed; the wicked one is snared in the work of his own hands; reflect on this always.
18. The wicked will return to the grave, all the nations that forget God.
19. For not for eternity will the needy be forgotten, nor will the hope of the poor perish forever.
20. Arise, O Lord, let not man prevail; let the nations be judged in Your presence.
21. Set Your mastery over them, O Lord; let the nations know that they are but frail men, Selah.
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 1, 2 and 3.
Chapter 1
This psalm inspires man to study Torah and avoid sin. One who follows this path is assured of success in all his deeds, whereas the plight of the wicked is the reverse.
1. Fortunate is the man that has not walked in the counsel of the wicked, nor stood in the path of sinners, nor sat in the company of scoffers.
2. Rather, his desire is in the Torah of the Lord, and in His Torah he meditates day and night.
3. He shall be like a tree planted by streams of water, that yields its fruit in its season, and whose leaf does not wither; and all that he does shall prosper.
4. Not so the wicked; rather, they are like the chaff that the wind drives away.
5. Therefore the wicked will not endure in judgement, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.
6. For the Lord minds the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.
Chapter 2
This psalm warns against trying to outwit the ways of God. It also instructs one who has reason to rejoice, to tremble—lest his sins cause his joy to be overturned.
1. Why do nations gather, and peoples speak futility?
2. The kings of the earth rise up, and rulers conspire together, against the Lord and against His anointed:
3. “Let us sever their cords, and cast their ropes from upon us!”
4. He Who sits in heaven laughs, my Master mocks them.
5. Then He speaks to them in His anger, and terrifies them in His wrath:
6. “It is I Who have anointed My king, upon Zion, My holy mountain.”
7. I am obliged to declare: The Lord said to me, “You are my son, I have this day begotten you.
1
8. Ask of Me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, and the ends of the earth your possession.
9. Smash them with a rod of iron, shatter them like a potter’s vessel.”
10. Now be wise, you kings; be disciplined, you rulers of the earth.
11. Serve the Lord with awe, and rejoice with trembling.
12. Yearn for purity—lest He become angry and your path be doomed, if his anger flares for even a moment. Fortunate are all who put their trust in Him
Chapter 3
When punishment befalls man, let him not be upset by his chastisement, for perhaps--considering his sins—he is deserving of worse, and God is in fact dealing kindly with him.
1. A psalm by David, when he fled from Absalom his son.
2. Lord, how numerous are my oppressors; many rise up against me!
3. Many say of my soul, “There is no salvation for him from God—ever!”
4. But You, Lord, are a shield for me, my glory, the One Who raises my head.
5. With my voice I call to the Lord, and He answers me from His holy mountain, Selah.
6. I lie down and sleep; I awake, for the Lord sustains me.
7. I do not fear the myriads of people that have aligned themselves all around me.
8. Arise, O Lord, deliver me, my God. For You struck all my enemies on the cheek, You smashed the teeth of the wicked.
9. Deliverance is the Lord’s; may Your blessing be upon Your people forever
Tanya: Iggeret HaKodesh, beginning of Epistle 10• Lessons in Tanya
• Sunday, Elul 1, 5775 · August 16, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Iggeret HaKodesh, beginning of Epistle 10
אחרי דרישת חיים ושלום
After greetings of life and peace,
פתח דברי יעיר אזן שומעת תוכחת חיים
אשר הוכיח ה׳ חיים על ידי נביאו, ואמר
חסדי ה׳ כי לא תמנו וגו׳
“The kindnesses of G‑d have surely not ended....”
Surprisingly, the Hebrew verb used here is tamnu (in the first person plural), which would make the phrase mean, “wehave not been brought to an end.” If the verse sought to say that (a) the kindnesses “have not ended,” rather than (b) “because of G‑d’s kindnesses we have not been brought to an end,” it should surely have used the verb tamu (in the third person plural), as the Alter Rebbe goes on to point out.
והוה ליה למימר: כי לא תמו
Now, it should really have said ki lo tamu,
כמו שכתוב: כי לא תמו חסדיך וכו׳
as in the phrase,5 “For your kindnesses have not ended....”
The Alter Rebbe answers that our verse indeed implies two ideas: (a) the kindnesses have not ended; (b) we stand in need of חסדי ה׳ (G‑d’s kindnesses), כי לא תמנו — because we are not “perfect” or “complete”. (In the second interpretation, tamnumeans “we are not tamim,” as shall soon be explained.)
ויובן על פי מה שכתוב בזוהר הקדוש: אית חסד ואית חסד
This [anomaly] will be understood in the light of a statement in the sacred Zohar:6 “There are [two] different types of Chesed:
אית חסד עולם כו׳
there is Chesed olam..., literally, “a worldlike Chesed,” a degree of kindness which is limited by temporal bounds,
ואית חסד עילאה, דהוא רב חסד כו׳
and there is a superior form of kindness, i.e., rav Chesed (“boundless kindness”)....
Since it is man’s spiritual service that draws down Divine beneficence, the Alter Rebbe now goes on to explain what manner of service elicits a downflow of the “Chesed of the world,” and what manner of service draws down the boundless degree of rav Chesed.
כי הנה מודעת זאת, התורה נקראת עוז
Now, it is well known that the Torah is called oz (“strength”),
Thus on the verse,7 “G‑d grants strength to His people,” the Gemara in Tractate Zevachim8 comments, “‘Strength’ alludes to the Torah.”
שהוא לשון גבורה
which is an expression of Gevurah.
Literally, Gevurah means “might”, but more specifically, as the name of one of the Sefirot, it signifies (in contradistinction to Chesed) the withholding of beneficence, as regulated by the Divine attribute of stern justice.
וכמו שאמרו חז״ל: תרי״ג מצות נאמרו למשה מסיני מפי הגבורה
As our Sages, of blessed memory, taught:9 “The 613 commandments were declared unto Moses at Sinai from the Mouth of the Gevurah.”
I.e., the 613 commandments were uttered by G‑d as He manifested Himself in the attribute of Gevurah, for which reason He Himself is here referred to by the name of this attribute.
וכדכתיב: מימינו אש דת למו
It is likewise written:10 “From His right Hand a Torah of fire [was given] unto them”; i.e., it was written in fire, which is an expression of the attribute of Gevurah.
פירוש
This means:
The Alter Rebbe here introduces an explanation which anticipates the following question: Since the Torah of G‑d was given “from His right Hand,” which always connotes kindness and benevolence (and indeed, the Torah has been called11Torat Chesed — “a Torah of kindness”), how then can the above-quoted verse proceed to say that the Torah is an expression of fire and Gevurah?
שהתורה מקורה ושרשה הוא רק חסדי ה׳, המכונים בשם ימין
The source and root of the Torah is solely “G‑d’s kindnesses,” that are referred to12 as “the right side.”
דהיינו: המשכת בחינת אלקותו יתברך והארה מאור אין סוף ברוך הוא
That is: The elicitation of His Divinity, and of a radiation from the [infinite] Ein Sof-light,
אל העולמות עליונים ותחתונים
to the upper and lower worlds,
על ידי האדם הממשיך האור על עצמו
[is effected] by man who draws down the light upon himself
בקיום רמ״ח מצות עשה
by the fulfillment of the 248 positive commandments,
שהו רמ״ח אברים דמלכא
which are13 “the 248 organs of the King”;
פירוש: רמ״ח כלים ולבושים לההארה מאור אין סוף ברוך הוא המלובש בהן
i.e., they are the 248 vessels and garments for the radiation from the [infinite] Ein Sof-light that is vested in them.
Each of the commandments serves as a receptor or vehicle for the particular Divine illumination that vests itself within it, just as each organ of the body is a vehicle or receptor for a particular faculty of the soul — the eye for the power of sight, the ear for the power of hearing, and so on.
ומאור זה יומשך לו דחילו ורחימו בכל מצוה, כנודע
(14And, as is known, from this light awe and love are drawn down upon [a person as he performs] each command.)
The Torah and its commandments are thus a downflow of G‑dliness, springing from His attribute of kindness.
רק שהמשכה זו נתלבשה תחלה במדת גבורתו של הקב״ה, המכונה בשם אש
However, this downflow was first vested in G‑d’s attribute of Gevurah, which is referred to as “fire”,
שהיא בחינת צמצום האור והחיות הנמשכות מאור אין סוף ברוך הוא
and which reflects a contraction (tzimtzum) of the light and life-force that issue from the [infinite] Ein Sof-light,
כדי שתוכל להתלבש במעשה המצות
thus enabling it to become vested in the performance of the commandments,
שרובן ככולן הם בדברים חומריים
practically all of which involve material things,
כציצית ותפילין וקרבנות וצדקה
such as tzitzit (which are made of wool), tefillin (made of leather and parchment), sacrifices (offered from animals, plants and minerals) and charity (that involves money or other material objects).
ואף מצות שהן ברוחניות האדם, כמו יראה ואהבה
Even commandments that involve a man’s spirit, such as awe and love [of G‑d],
אף על פי כן הן בבחינת גבול ומדה, ולא בבחינת אין סוף כלל
are also of limited measure,15 and by no means of infinite extent.
כי אהבה רבה לה׳, בלי קץ וגבול ומדה, אין האדם יכול לסובלה בלבו ולהיות קיים בגופו אפילו רגע
For not even for a moment could man sustain in his heart so intense a love of G‑d as is without end and limitation, and still remain in existence in his body.
Indeed, so intense a love would surely cause the soul to take flight.
וכמאמר רז״ל, שבשעת מתן תורה, שהיתה התגלות אלקותו יתברך ואור אין סוף ברוך הוא בבחינת דיבור והתגלות, פרחה נשמתן כו׳
So it was taught by our Sages, of blessed memory,16 that at the time of the Giving of the Torah, when G‑d’s Divinity, and the [infinite] Ein Sof-light, were manifested [to the Jews at Sinai] at the [direct] level of revealed speech, “their souls took flight” from their bodies.
At that time G‑d restored their souls with the dew that He will use to revive the dead in the time to come. We see, however, that the illumination in itself was so intense that their souls could not remain within their bodies for even one moment.
Since the love presently experienced by a soul within a body does not cause it to flee, it follows that this love is inherently limited. This also applies to the awe and love which are experienced as a result of the Divinity that is revealed in the mitzvot, as mentioned earlier. This is the case because the flow of G‑dliness which descends through the Torah and its finite commandments is restrained by the attribute of Gevurah.
We can now understand the two stages implied in the above-quoted verse: Initially, the Torah indeed proceeds “from Hisright Hand,” from the boundless kindness of the attribute of Chesed — but it is then communicated to us “from the Mouth of the Gevurah” as “a Torah of fire,” as a law which is delimited and restricted through the Divine attribute of Gevurah, so that it will be able to find expression in the finitude of the mitzvot.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Cf. Tehillim 119:130. |
| 2. | Cf. Mishlei 15:31. |
| 3. | Note of the Rebbe: “At the conclusion as well [of this Epistle] the Alter Rebbe stresses that ‘This is what the prophet says,’ in order to add certainty to the following statement.” |
| 4. | Eichah 3:22. |
| 5. | Liturgy, concluding blessings of Shemoneh Esreh (Siddur Tehillat HaShem, p. 58). |
| 6. | III, 133b. |
| 7. | Tehillim 29:11. |
| 8. | 116a. |
| 9. | Makkot 23b. |
| 10. | Devarim 33:2. |
| 11. | Mishlei 31:26. |
| 12. | Tikkunei Zohar, Introduction II (Patach Eliyahu). |
| 13. | Tikkunei Zohar, Tikkun 30 (p. 74b). |
| 14. | The parentheses are in the original text. |
| 15. | This being a characteristic of the attribute of Gevurah. |
| 16. | Shabbat 88b. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:Sunday, Elul 1, 5775 · August 16, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 241
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].
Damage Caused by Arson
Positive Commandment 241
Translated by Berel Bell
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.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid. 22:5.
Yibbum vChalitzah - Chapter One
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment1 of Scriptural law for a man to marry the widow of his paternal2 brother if he died without leaving children, as [Deuteronomy 25:5] states: "[And one of them dies] childless,... her husband's brother should cohabit with her." [This applies to a widow] from nisu'in, or from erusin.
[The childless widow is referred to as a yevamah; the rite through which they marry, yibbum.]
Scriptural law does not require a man to consecrate his yevamah, for she is his wife that heaven acquired for him. [All that is necessary] is that he cohabit with her. Her deceased husband's estate is responsible for her marriage contract.3
Halacha 2
If the yavam does not want to perform the rite of yibbum, or if the woman does not consent,4 he should [free her from this obligation through the rite of]chalitzah. [Only] afterwards is she permitted to marry another man.
It is a positive commandment5 of Scriptural law for [a brother] to performchalitzah for [the deceased's widow], if he does not want to perform the rite ofyibbum, as [Deuteronomy 25:9] states: "She shall... remove his shoe."6
The mitzvah of yibbum takes precedence over the mitzvah of chalitzah.7
Halacha 3
The Torah's words [Deuteronomy 25:5], "When one of them dies childless" [should not be interpreted narrowly].8 [When the deceased] has a son, a daughter, a descendant of a son, or a descendant of a daughter, as long as he has left progeny9 - whether from the woman [to whom he is presently married] or from another woman, his wife is free from the obligation of chalitzah oryibbum.
Even if he has a descendant who is illegitimate or an idolater, [that descendant] frees [the deceased's] wife from the obligation of chalitzah or yibbum.
Halacha 4
[The above applies to children born from a Jewish woman.] If, however, [a deceased man] has a child born from a maidservant or a gentile woman, his wife is not free of these obligations. For the offspring of a maidservant are servants. And the offspring of a gentile woman are gentiles, and considered as if they have no connection to him.
[These concepts are derived as follows:] With regard to a maidservant, [Exodus 21:4] states: "The woman and her children will belong to her master," teaching that her offspring have the same status as she.10 And with regard to a gentile woman, [Deuteronomy 7:4] states: "They will lead your son away from Me" - i.e., prevent him from being considered part of the congregation.
Even when a man's son born from a maidservant is freed, or his son born from a gentile woman converts, he is regarded in the same way as other converts or freed slaves and does not cause [the deceased's] wife to be freed [from the obligation of yibbum]. [Even when a man] fathered a son with a maidservant, freed the son and the mother, and married her - if he dies without fathering any other children, his wife should perform the rite of yibbum with his brother, although the son [whom the deceased] fathered is alive and has been freed.11
Halacha 5
[The following rules apply when a man] dies and leaves his wife pregnant: If she miscarries after he dies, his wife [is obligated to] perform the rite of yibbum. If she bore the child, and the fetus emerged into the world alive, the mother is free of the obligation to perform the rite of chalitzah or yibbum. This applies even when the child dies immediately after being born.
According to Rabbinic decree, however, [this does not apply] unless it is known that the child was carried for a full term pregnancy and was born after nine full months had passed.12 If, however, the term of the pregnancy is unknown [the following rules apply]: If the child lives 30 days, the child is considered viable, and he frees his father's wives from the obligation of yibbum or chalitzah.
If the child dies within 30 days [of his birth], even on the thirtieth day, there is a doubt whether the child is viable or non-viable. This applies regardless of [the cause of the infant's death], whether he died as a result of illness, fell from a roof or was eaten by a lion. According to Rabbinic law, [the deceased's wives] must perform the rite of chalitzah;13 they may not perform the rite of yibbum.14
Halacha 6
Whenever a man has a brother, even if the brother is illegitimate or an idolater, whether he is above the age of majority or below the age of majority,15 as long as his head and the majority [of his body]16 emerged into the world before his brother's death,17 his existence causes [his brother's wife] to be obligated to perform the rite of yibbum.18
If [the deceased] had a brother who was born to a maidservant or to a gentile woman, he is not considered to be his brother in any [halachic] context. [His existence] does not cause [his brother's wife] to be obligated to perform the rite of yibbum. Even when [the brother] was born as a member of the Jewish people,19 since his mother was not Jewish when he was conceived, he is not considered to be [the deceased's] brother.
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
There is no concept of fraternity among converts and freed slaves. [Thus, even two converts or two freed slaves born from the same father] are considered unrelated.24 Even if one of them was conceived before his parents were converted and born after they were converted, and the other was conceived and born after the parents were converted, they are not considered to have any family connection.
Even if they are twins who were born after their parents were converted, they are not considered to be brothers25 unless they were also conceived after their parents converted.
Halacha 9
When a man who has many wives dies, [a brother who] engages in relations or performes the rite of chalitzah with one of them frees the others from all obligations. [The deceased's brother] may not marry two [of the deceased's wives], as [implied by Deuteronomy 25:9]: "...who did not build his brother's house." [This is interpreted as an exclusion:] he may build one house, but not two houses.26
Similarly, if [the deceased had many brothers, one of them should perform either the rite of chalitzah or yibbum with one of the widows. This frees the others of all obligations.
Halacha 10
[The following rules apply if] the widows include some who are fit to marry into the priesthood, and some who are not fit to marry into the priesthood: If [the brother] desires to perform the rite of yibbum, he may choose any of the widows that he desires. If he desires to perform the rite of chalitzah, he should perform this rite with one of the wives who is already forbidden to the priesthood, so that he will not disqualify one of the women who may marry into the priesthood through the rite of chalitzah.27
Halacha 11
[The following rules apply if] many [of a man's] brothers die and he [becomes obligated to perform the rite of yibbum or chalitzah] to [all] their wives: If it is possible for him to perform the rite of yibbum with all of them,28 he should. If not, he may perform chalitzah with all of them, or perform chalitzah with whomever he desires, or perform yibbum with whomever he desires, [choosing one of the widows] from each [of his deceased brother's] households.
Halacha 12
When [a yavam] marries a yevamah, all the other widows from that household become forbidden to him and to his other brothers. If he or his other brothers have relations with one of the other widows, they transgress a positive commandment, for [Deuteronomy 25:9] states: "Her yavam will engage in relations with her." [This is interpreted to mean:] With her, and not with another woman from that household. A prohibition stemming from a positive commandment is considered to be a positive commandment.29
Similarly, when [one of the brothers] performs chalitzah with his yevamah, the woman with whom chalitzah was performed and all the other widows from that household become forbidden to [the brother who] performed chalitzah and to the other brothers. They are all forbidden to the brothers by Rabbinic decree,30sharing the status of sh'niyot.31 [This is the only prohibition involved,] for since their brother died childless, the severe prohibition against sexual relations (issur ervah) is removed. Therefore, [if one of the brothers consecrates such a woman,] the consecration is binding, as it would be be if he consecrated one of the sh'niyot.
Halacha 13
When a person performs the rite of chalitzah with his yevamah, not only does she become forbidden to him, but her relatives32 - e.g., her mother and her daughter - also become forbidden. Similarly, she is forbidden to marry his son and his brother.33 Even the sh'niyot - e.g., her daughter's granddaughter - related to her are forbidden to him, and she is forbidden to his son's grandson. To summarize: Her status is like that of a divorced wife.
Similarly, if his yevamah dies while she is still under obligation to him,34 he is forbidden to marry these relatives of hers, as if she were his wife and she died in his lifetime.35 All these prohibitions are of Rabbinic origin.
[If the deceased had two wives, his brother] may marry the sister of the wife with whom he did not perform the rite of chalitzah, or any other of her relatives.36
Halacha 14
It is forbidden for a man to marry a close relative of a woman with whom he is obligated to perform either yibbum or chalitzah - e.g., her mother or her daughter - until one of his brothers performs yibbum with the woman who is obligated, or performs chalitzah with her to free her of her obligation.37
Afterwards, [the other brother] may marry the woman's mother, daughter, or any of her other relatives, despite the fact that these relatives are all forbidden to the brother who performed either yibbum or chalitzah, as explained [in the previous halachah].
Halacha 15
When a man marries his yevamah and then divorces her, he may remarry her if he so desires. She is considered to be his wife with regard to all matters. There remains no trace of the prohibition [that existed when she was] his brother's [wife], neither from Scriptural law nor from Rabbinic law.38
Halacha 16
As explained in Hilchot Ishut,39 the sexual relations in which a boy of nine years and one day engages are halachically significant. This is a law received through the Oral Tradition.
Accordingly, when a yavam who is below the age of majority, but over the age of nine, engages in sexual relations with his yevamah, he should maintain [his bond with her].40 He may not, however, perform the rite of chalitzah until he attains the age of majority and is inspected [for signs of physical maturity].41 For with regard to chalitzah, the term ish ("man") is specifically mentioned in the Torah.42
If [a yavam] is below this age, sexual relations in which he engages are of no halachic significance. [Moreover,] even the sexual relations in which a nine-year-old engages do not acquire [the yevamah for him in a manner that is] binding [entirely].43 Therefore, his yevamah is not permitted to marry another man until he engages in relations with her after he attains majority [and divorces her], or performs the rite of chalitzah [at that age], as will be explained.44
Halacha 17
Similarly, with regard to a yevamah who is below the age of majority: If heryavam desires to perform the rite of yibbum with her, he may.45 He may not, however, perform the rite of chalitzah with her until she attains the age of majority and is inspected [for physical signs of maturity]. Even if she engaged in sexual relations after she became twelve years old,46 she may not perform the rite of chalitzah until she undergoes an inspection and manifests signs of physical maturity.
Halacha 18
Just as a yavam may not perform chalitzah until he attains manhood, so too, ayevamah may not perform chalitzah until she attains womanhood.47
When a yavam who is below the age of majority engages in sexual relations with a yevamah who is also below the age of majority, they should grow up together.
Halacha 19
As all other women,48 a yevamah should not perform either yibbum or chalitzahuntil she waits a 90-day interval. [These 90 days] do not include the day of her previous husband's death or the day of yibbum or chalitzah.
Why may she not perform chalitzah within these 90 days?49Because she is not fit to perform yibbum [at that time]. [Deuteronomy 25:7-9] states: "And if the man does not desire to take his yevamah,... she should remove his shoe" [establishing an equivalence between these two rites]. [Thus,] when she is fit to perform yibbum, she is fit to perform chalitzah. And when she is not fit to perform yibbum, she is not fit to perform chalitzah.50
Should [a brother] perform yibbum or chalitzah with her within these three months, since she is not pregnant, she has discharged her obligation and need not perform any further activity.51
Halacha 20
[The following rules apply when a brother] performs chalitzah with his yevamah, and afterwards it is discovered that she is pregnant: If she gives birth and the child is viable, it is considered as if she had never performed chalitzah. She is permitted to [marry into the] priesthood, and [the brother who performedchalitzah with her] is permitted [to marry] her relatives.
If the woman miscarries, or if the child who is born does not live for 30 days after being born, this - or another - brother52 should perform chalitzah with her again. For chalitzah performed with a pregnant woman is not consideredchalitzah,53 nor are relations with a pregnant woman considered yibbum.
Halacha 21
Therefore, when [a man] marries or performs chalitzah with his yevamah who is pregnant, another woman who was married to the deceased husband should not remarry until this woman gives birth. For a child does not remove [the obligation of yibbum] until it emerges into the world.54
Halacha 22
[The following laws apply when a yavam] marries his yevamah, and then she is discovered to be pregnant. They should be separated [immediately],55 and we wait [to see the results of] her pregnancy. If she miscarries, he should maintain her as his wife.56
If she gives birth [different rules apply]: If the child dies, even on the day it was born, the yavam should divorce her, [give her] a get and perform chalitzah with her.57 [Only] then, is she permitted to marry another man. If the child lives for 30 days after its birth,58 [the child] is considered to be viable, and there is no need for a divorce, for [relations between the two are forbidden by] a severe prohibition].59
Halacha 23
If she gives birth to a viable child six months after she performed yibbum, there is a doubt whether this child is the son of her first husband and was born after a nine-month pregnancy, or is the son of her [yavam] and was born after a six-month pregnancy. Therefore, [the yavam] should divorce his wife, giving her aget. The child is not, however, considered illegitimate.60
If [the yavam] has relations with her after she gives birth, the children that are born afterwards are considered to be of doubtful legitimacy.61
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 216) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 598) include this mitzvah as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
In his Guide for the Perplexed, the Rambam explains that marriage of this nature was a custom carried out before the giving of the Torah (as reflected by Genesis 38:8), and the Torah allowed this rite to be perpetuated. Sefer HaChinuch explains that the closeness shared with the deceased by both his widow and his brother enjoins them to come together and produce a child who will perpetuate the deceased's memory and virtue. As Sefer HaChinuch mentions, there are also profound mystic concepts associated with this mitzvah.
|
| 2. |
Implied is an exclusion. One should not perform this rite with the widow of one's maternal brother (Yevamot 17b; Halachah 7 below).
|
| 3. |
See Hilchot Ishut 22:10-14.
|
| 4. |
According to the Rambam's conception, the woman cannot be compelled to marry her brother-in-law against her will. See Chapter 2, Halachah 10 and notes.
|
| 5. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 217) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 599) include this mitzvah as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 6. |
The woman also participates - indeed she plays a more active role - in the rite of chalitzah. Nevertheless, the mitzvah is considered to be incumbent on the brother of the deceased, because the effect of this mitzvah is that he foregoes a right - the right to marry the woman - that belongs to him. Until he performs chalitzah, the woman is bonded to him, and through performingchalitzah he severs this connection. Therefore, the mitzvah is considered his.
Moreover, chalitzah is a means to dissolve the connection established by kiddushin. Sincekiddushin are established by the man, chalitzah is also his initiative. See the Kovetz who questions whether the man is obligated to perform chalitzah or he merely has the opportunity of doing so.
|
| 7. |
The concluding mishnah of the first chapter of Bechorot states:
In his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that the Mishnah follows the opinion of Abba Shaul, who maintains that the prohibition against marrying one's brother's wife is not removed entirely by the mitzvah of yibbum. Instead, it is merely temporarily superseded. And therefore, if the couple have any intentions other than the fulfillment of the mitzvah, they transgress this prohibition. As such, rather than involve oneself in such a challenge, one should perform the mitzvah of chalitzah.
In that commentary, and in a subsequent responsum, the Rambam explains that the halachah follows the opinion of the Sages who differ with Abba Shaul. These Sages maintain that when a man dies childless, the prohibition against his brother's marrying his wife is lifted entirely. Even if the brother marries the widow because of her looks, or because of her money, there is no prohibition involved. For that reason, the mitzvah of yibbum takes precedence.
The Ashkenazic community, following the rulings of Rabbenu Tam and the authorities who succeeded him, do not accept this ruling and follow Abba Shaul's opinion. Accordingly, theShulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 165:1) quotes the Rambam's view, while the Ramah states thatchalitzah is preferable, and that a couple should not be allowed to perform yibbum unless the court is certain that their intent is solely to perform the mitzvah.
There is some discussion of the Rambam's intent by the commentaries, for his ruling in Hilchot Gerushin 10:16 implies a recognition of the importance of chalitzah. Nevertheless, the clarity of his statements in his Commentary on the Mishnah and in Sefer HaMitzvot makes it obvious that he follows the opinion of the Sages who differ with Abba Shaul. At present, even within the Sephardic community, the mitzvah of chalitzah is generally observed.
[Note also the opinion of the Beit Shmuel 174:3, who states that even according to the Ashkenazic authorities, by Scriptural law yibbum takes precedence, and that the primacy given to chalitzah is a Rabbinic institution.]
|
| 8. |
The Hebrew word בן, translated as "son," can also mean "child" or "descendant." Hence, the ruling mentioned by the Rambam.
|
| 9. |
If, however, a man fathered a child [or children], and he [they all] died in the father's lifetime, the man's wife is obligated to perform the rite of yibbum.
|
| 10. |
Regardless of who the father is.
|
| 11. |
See Hilchot Gerushin 10:19.
|
| 12. |
The Ramah (Even HaEzer 156:4) states that these laws apply as long as we know that the pregnancy lasted into the ninth month.
|
| 13. |
The Ramah (ibid.) rules that even if a fetus is stillborn, these laws still apply.
|
| 14. |
For according to Scriptural law, there is no obligation for yibbum, and the prohibition against relations with her husband's brother remains in force.
|
| 15. |
In such an instance, the brother may not perform the rites of yibbum or chalitzah until he comes of age, as is explained below.
|
| 16. |
The Gur Aryeh notes that Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 10:6 appears to imply that the emergence of an infant's forehead alone is sufficient for it to be considered having been "born." Hence, he interprets the Rambam's words as meaning either the forehead or the majority of the body.
|
| 17. |
If, however, the brother is not born until after the man's death, the deceased's wife is not obligated to perform the rite of yibbum, as explained in Chapter 6, Halachah 16.
|
| 18. |
Needless to say, the woman should not marry the illegitimate man or the idolater. Instead, she should seek to be freed from her obligation through chalitzah.
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 157:4) and the Ramah mention the possibility of leniency, if the deceased's brother was an apostate at the time the deceased married his wife.
|
| 19. |
I.e., the maidservant was freed, or the gentile woman was converted, before the baby was born.
|
| 20. |
See Hilchot Aveilut 2:1.
|
| 21. |
See Hilchot Edut 13:1.
|
| 22. |
See Hilchot Nachalot 1:6.
|
| 23. |
Yevamot 17b derives this concept from Genesis 42:13: "We are twelve brothers, the son of one father."
|
| 24. |
And therefore, one is not obligated to perform the rite of yibbum if his brother dies childless.
|
| 25. |
This ruling applies with regard to the laws of yibbum. With regard to the laws of forbidden relationships, by contrast, in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah the Rambam rules that if one twin has relations with the other's wife, he is liable for transgressing the prohibition against relations with his brother's wife.
|
| 26. |
As reflected in Halachah 12, there is a prohibition involved.
|
| 27. |
Our Sages forbade a priest from marrying a woman who performed the rite of chalitzah (Hilchot Ishut 1:7). Since it makes no difference to the brother with which widow he performs the rite ofchalitzah, our Sages counsel that it be performed in a manner that does not damage a woman's future possibilities. See Yevamot 44a.
A court should enforce the application of this law (Beit Shmuel 161:2).
|
| 28. |
I.e., if he is capable of meeting the responsibilities a husband has - providing for his wife's livelihood, her clothing and her conjugal rights.
|
| 29. |
A person who transgresses a positive commandment is not liable to receive the forty lashes given when a negative commandment of the Torah is violated. Hence, the Rambam clarifies that although a prohibition is involved, it is a prohibition stemming from a positive commandment, and not one stemming from a negative commandment.
|
| 30. |
The Ramban (Nachmonides, Hasagot L'Sefer HaMitzvot, Hosafot Negative Commandment 14) differs and maintains that the violation of a Scriptural prohibition is involved. The difference between their opinions stems from their interpretation of Yevamot 10b.
That passage interprets Deuteronomy 25:9: "... who did not build his brother's house," as implying a prohibition. "Once he did not build it, he no longer has the right to build it." The Ramban follows the authorities who maintain that this is a Scriptural prohibition, while the Rambam (based onYevamot 40b) maintains that the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin, and the reference to the verse is merely an asmachta, a support.
|
| 31. |
Literally, "prohibitions of a second degree," relatives with whom relations are permitted by Scriptural law, but forbidden by Rabbinic decree. See Hilchot Ishut 1:6.
|
| 32. |
This refers to seven women who are included in the category of arayot and with whom sexual relations are forbidden, as mentioned in Leviticus, Chapter 18, and Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 2:7,9. They include her mother, both her maternal and paternal grandmothers, her daughter, the daughter of her son, the daughter of her daughter and her sister.
|
| 33. |
I.e., even a brother who was not born during the lifetime of the widow's husband.
|
| 34. |
I.e., before she performs either yibbum or chalitzah.
|
| 35. |
He is, however, permitted to marry the woman's sister, just as he is allowed to marry his wife's sister after her death.
|
| 36. |
Although the woman herself is forbidden, as stated in the previous halachah, her relatives are permitted.
|
| 37. |
See Chapter 7, Halachah 8.
|
| 38. |
I.e., we do not say that he has already fulfilled the mitzvah of yibbum, and now the woman's status reverts to the prohibition under which she was previously forbidden. See Yevamot 39a.
|
| 39. |
Chapter 11, Halachah 3.
|
| 40. |
I.e., none of the other brothers should marry her instead. See Chapter 5, Halachot 18-19.
|
| 41. |
Two pubic hairs, as stated in Hilchot Ishut 2:10.
|
| 42. |
Deuteronomy 25:7 states: "If the man does not desire...."
|
| 43. |
Rather, these sexual relations are considered to be equivalent to a ma'amar, the status of which is discussed in Chapter 2, Halachah 1.
|
| 44. |
See Chapter 5, Halachah 21, where this situation is described in detail.
|
| 45. |
Yevamot 119a explains that there is a certain dimension of leniency implied by this ruling. Since the woman is below the age of majority, it is possible that as she grows older she will manifest signs of being an aylonit, a woman who lacks female sexual characteristics (Hilchot Ishut 2:3,6). If that were to be the case, then the mitzvah of yibbum would not apply to such a woman, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 8, and relations with her would still be forbidden. Nevertheless, since the overwhelming probability is that a woman will not be an aylonit, our Sages did not impose any restrictions.
|
| 46. |
Rav David Arameah interprets this to be referring to engaging in relations with her previous husband before her death. Although with regard to her husband, we assume that she has manifested signs of physical maturity, as stated in Hilchot Gerushin 11:5, with regard to the laws of yibbum and chalitzah an inspection is required. Note an alternative explanation offered by theOr Sameach.
|
| 47. |
See Chapter 6, Halachah 6.
|
| 48. |
See Hilchot Gerushin 11:18, which prohibits a widow or a divorcee from remarrying within 90 days of her husband's death or their divorce, to preclude the possibility of questions arising concerning who is the father of her child.
|
| 49. |
For performing chalitzah will not prevent the determination of a child's father.
|
| 50. |
The converse of this principle - that one who does not perform chalitzah (e.g., a king) does not perform yibbum - also applies. See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 2:1 and Hilchot Melachim 2:3).
|
| 51. |
The Ramah (Even HaEzer 164:1) differs and maintains that such a woman requires chalitzahfrom her deceased husband's other brothers after the three months have passed. See also Beit Shmuel 164:4.
|
| 52. |
The Ramah (Even HaEzer 164:2) states that the chalitzah should be performed by another brother, and not by the brother who had originally performed chalitzah with her.
|
| 53. |
See Chapter 4, Halachah 26.
The Beit Shmuel 164:5 quotes the view of Tosafot, who maintain that, according to Rabbinic law, performing chalitzah while pregnant disqualifies a woman from marrying into the priesthood and prevents her from performing yibbum if she miscarries.
|
| 54. |
And the yibbum or the chalitzah performed by the woman is of no consequence whatsoever.
|
| 55. |
Lest she give birth, in which case she would be forbidden to the yavam.
|
| 56. |
The Ramah (Even HaEzer 164:5) states that this rule applies only if he marries her before her pregnancy is discovered. If he marries her after her pregnancy is discovered, their relationship should be terminated even if she miscarries.
|
| 57. |
The divorce is necessary lest it appear that a married couple are separating without a divorce, and the chalitzah is necessary as explained in Halachah 5. (See also Chapter 2, Halachah 21.)
|
| 58. |
The Maggid Mishneh states that the same law applies if the child is born with its limbs properly formed after a full-term pregnancy, even if he dies on the day of birth. This ruling is quoted by the Ramah (Even HaEzer 164:6).
|
| 59. |
She does not require a get, because everyone knows that the consecration of such a woman is not binding.
|
| 60. |
For whether he is the son of the woman's first husband or the son of her second husband, no sin was committed in his conception.
|
| 61. |
For we are unsure whether or not the woman is permitted to remain married to her yavam. The laws governing a person of doubtful legitimacy are discussed in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 15:21-22.
|
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,4or 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 tamcaused 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] wasmu'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 wasmu'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 thetam]. 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 themu'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 30selaim 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 ismu'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. |
• Sunday, Elul 1, 5775 · 16 August 2015
"Today's Day"
Wednesday Elul 1, Rosh Chodesh 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Shoftim, Revi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 1-9. Also 1-3.
Tanya: Now, because the (p. 441) ...where penitents stand..." (p. 443).
When the Tzemach Tzedek was nine years old the Alter Rebbe said to Him: I received from my Rebbe (the Maggid) who received from his Rebbe (the Baal Shem Tov) in the name of his well-known Rebbe1 that from the second day of Rosh Chodesh Elul until Yom Kippur we are to say three chapters of Tehillim every day. Then, on Yom Kippur, thirty six (chapters): Nine before Kol Nidrei, nine before sleeping, nine after Musaf, and nine after Ne'ila. Whoever did not start on the second day of Rosh Chodesh is to start with the Tehillim of the particular day on which he realizes his omission, and complete the missing Tehillim later.
FOOTNOTES
1. Achiya HaShiloni.
FOOTNOTES
1. Achiya HaShiloni.
Daily Thought:
Living Time
People talk about “wasting time,” or even “killing time.”
Neither term is accurate. Time does not belong to you that you can waste it. Yet neither does it have a life of its own that you can take away.
Rather, time awaits you to give it life.[11 Nisan, 5742; Torat Menachem 5744 vol. 3, pg. 2001.]
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment