Torah Reading
Balak: Numbers 22:2 Now Balak the son of Tzippor saw all that Isra’el had done to the Emori. 3 Mo’av was very afraid of the people, because there were so many of them; Mo’av was overcome with dread because of the people of Isra’el. 4 So Mo’av said to the leaders of Midyan, “This horde will lick up everything around us, the way an ox licks up grass in the field.”
Balak the son of Tzippor was king of Mo’av at that time. 5 He sent messengers to Bil‘am the son of B‘or, at P’tor by the [Euphrates] River in his native land, to tell him, “Listen, a people has come out of Egypt, spread over all the land and settled down next to me. 6 Therefore, please come, and curse this people for me, because they are stronger than I am. Maybe I will be able to strike them down and drive them out of the land, for I know that whomever you bless is in fact blessed, and whomever you curse is in fact cursed.” 7 The leaders of Mo’av and Midyan left, taking with them the payment for divining, came to Bil‘am and spoke to him the words of Balak. 8 He said to them, “Stay here tonight, and I will bring you back whatever answer Adonai tells me.” So the princes of Mo’av stayed with Bil‘am.
9 God came to Bil‘am and said, “Who are these men with you?” 10 Bil‘am said to God, “Balak the son of Tzippor, king of Mo’av, has sent me this message: 11 ‘The people who came out of Egypt have spread over the land; now, come and curse them for me; maybe I will be able to fight against them and drive them out.’” 12 God answered Bil‘am, “You are not to go with them; you are not to curse the people, because they are blessed.”
Today in Jewish History:
• Passing of R. Chayim ben Attar (Ohr HaChayim) (1743)
Passing of the famed Torah scholar and mystic Rabbi Chayim ben Attar (1696-1743), author of the Ohr HaChayim commentary on the Torah. Born in Morocco, he also lived and taught in Algiers, Italy, Acco and Jerusalem, where he settled a year before his passing. Many stories are told of his holiness and greatness, and of the repeated unsuccessful attempts by Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov to reach the Holy Land and meet with him in the belief that together they could bring the Moshiach and the final redemption.
Daily Quote:
In sukkot [huts] you shall dwell for seven days . . . in order that your generations shall know that I made the children of Israel dwell in sukkot when I took them out of the land of Egypt.[Leviticus 23:42–43]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: with Rashi
• Numbers Chapter 23
13Balak said to him, "Come with me to another place from where you will see them; however, you will see only a part of them, not all of them and curse them for me from there. יגוַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֵלָ֜יו בָּלָ֗ק לְךָ־נָּ֨א אִתִּ֜י אֶל־מָק֤וֹם אַחֵר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר תִּרְאֶ֣נּוּ מִשָּׁ֔ם אֶ֚פֶס קָצֵ֣הוּ תִרְאֶ֔ה וְכֻלּ֖וֹ לֹ֣א תִרְאֶ֑ה וְקָבְנוֹ־לִ֖י מִשָּֽׁם:
curse them for me: Heb. וְקָבְנו ֹלִי. This term is in the imperative: Curse them for me!
וקבנו לי: לשון צווי, קללהו לי:
14He took him to the field of the lookouts, to the peak of the mountain, and he built seven altars and offered up a bull and a ram on [each] altar. ידוַיִּקָּחֵ֨הוּ֙ שְׂדֵ֣ה צֹפִ֔ים אֶל־רֹ֖אשׁ הַפִּסְגָּ֑ה וַיִּ֨בֶן֙ שִׁבְעָ֣ה מִזְבְּחֹ֔ת וַיַּ֛עַל פָּ֥ר וָאַ֖יִל בַּמִּזְבֵּֽחַ:
the field of the lookouts: There was a high spot from where a lookout stands on guard in case an army approaches the city.
שדה צופים: מקום גבוה היה ששם הצופה עומד לשמור אם יבא חיל על העיר:
to the peak of the mountain: Balaam was not as great a diviner as Balak. Balak foresaw that a breach was destined to break into Israel from there, and indeed, Moses died there. He thought that the curse could take effect upon them there, and [he thought,]“This is the breach that I see.” - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 13, Num. Rabbah 20:19]
ראש הפסגה: בלעם לא היה קוסם כבלק, ראה בלק שעתידה פרצה להפרץ בישראל משם ששם מת משה. כסבור ששם תחול עליהם הקללה, וזו היא הפרצה שאני רואה:
15He said to Balak, "Stand here next to your burnt offering and I will be chanced on here. טווַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ אֶל־בָּלָ֔ק הִתְיַצֵּ֥ב כֹּ֖ה עַל־עֹֽלָתֶ֑ךָ וְאָֽנֹכִ֖י אִקָּ֥רֶה כֹּֽה:
I will be chanced on here: By the Holy One, blessed is He.
אקרה כה: מאת הקב"ה:
I will be chanced on: Heb. אקָּרֶה in the passive form.
אקרה: לשון אתפעל:
16The Lord chanced upon Balaam and placed something into his mouth. He said, "Return to Balak and so you shall speak." טזוַיִּקָּ֤ר יְהֹוָה֙ אֶל־בִּלְעָ֔ם וַיָּ֥שֶׂם דָּבָ֖ר בְּפִ֑יו וַיֹּ֛אמֶר שׁ֥וּב אֶל־בָּלָ֖ק וְכֹ֥ה תְדַבֵּֽר:
and placed something into his mouth: What is meant by this placing? What would Scripture had lacked had it [simply] said, “Return to Balak and so shall you speak”? However, when he [Balaam] heard that he was not permitted to curse, he said, “Why should I return to Balak to upset him?” So the Holy One, blessed is He, put a bridle and a bit into his mouth, [so to speak,] as a man goads his beast with a bit to lead it wherever he wants. He [God] said to him, You shall return to Balak against your will. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 13, Num. Rabbah 20:20]
וישם דבר בפיו: ומה היא השימה הזאת, ומה חסר המקרא באמרו שוב אל בלק וכה תדבר, אלא כשהיה שומע שאינו נרשה לקלל, אמר מה אני חוזר אצל בלק לצערו. ונתן לו הקב"ה רסן וחכה בפיו כאדם הפוקס בהמה בחכה להוליכה אל אשר ירצה. אמר לו על כרחך תשוב אל בלק:
17When he came to him, he was standing next to his burnt offering, and the Moabite dignitaries were with him, and Balak said to him, "What did the Lord speak?" יזוַיָּבֹ֣א אֵלָ֗יו וְהִנּ֤וֹ נִצָּב֙ עַל־עֹ֣לָת֔וֹ וְשָׂרֵ֥י מוֹאָ֖ב אִתּ֑וֹ וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לוֹ֙ בָּלָ֔ק מַה־דִּבֶּ֖ר יְהֹוָֽה:
and the Moabite dignitaries were with him: Above (verse 6) it says, “ all the Moabite dignitaries.” However, since they saw that there was no hope, some of them left, and only some of them remained. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 13, Num. Rabbah 20:20]
ושרי מואב אתו: ולמעלה הוא אומר וכל שרי מואב, כיון שראו שאין בו תקוה הלכו להם מקצתם, ולא נשארו אלא מקצתם:
What did the Lord speak?: This is an expression denoting derision, as if to say, You are not your own master. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 13, Num. Rabbah 20:20]
מה דבר ה': לשון צחוק הוא זה, כלומר אינך ברשותך:
18He took up his parable and said, "Arise, Balak, and hear; listen closely to me, son of Zippor. יחוַיִּשָּׂ֥א מְשָׁל֖וֹ וַיֹּאמַ֑ר ק֤וּם בָּלָק֙ וּֽשֲׁמָ֔ע הַֽאֲזִ֥ינָה עָדַ֖י בְּנ֥וֹ צִפֹּֽר:
Arise, Balak: Since he saw that he was mocking him, he intended to taunt him,“Stand on your feet; you have no right to sit, for I have been sent to you as an emissary of the Omnipresent!” - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 13, Num. Rabbah 20:20]
קום בלק: כיון שראהו מצחק בו, נתכוון לצערו עמוד על רגליך, אינך רשאי לישב ואני שלוח אליך בשליחותו של מקום:
son of Zippor: Heb. בְּנו ֹצִפֹּר. This [use of the ‘vav’ as a suffix to denote the construct form] is biblical style, as in,“beasts (חַיְתוֹ) of the forest” (Ps. 104:20);“beasts (וְחַיְתוֹ) of the earth” (Gen. 1:24);“to a spring (לְמַעְיְנוֹ) of water” (Ps. 114:8).
בנו צפר: לשון מקרא הוא זה, כמו (תהלים קד, כ) חיתו יער, (בראשית א, כד) וחיתו ארץ, (תהלים קיד, ח) למעינו מים:
19God is not a man that He should lie, nor is He a mortal that He should relent. Would He say and not do, speak and not fulfill? יטלֹ֣א אִ֥ישׁ אֵל֙ וִֽיכַזֵּ֔ב וּבֶן־אָדָ֖ם וְיִתְנֶחָ֑ם הַה֤וּא אָמַר֙ וְלֹ֣א יַֽעֲשֶׂ֔ה וְדִבֶּ֖ר וְלֹ֥א יְקִימֶֽנָּה:
God is not a man that He should lie: He has already promised them to bring them to and give them possession of the land of the seven nations, and you expect to kill them in the desert?- [See Mid. Tanchuma Mass’ei 7, Num. Rabbah 23:8]
לא איש אל וגו': כבר נשבע להם להביאם ולהורישם ארץ שבעה אומות, ואתה סבור להמיתם במדבר:
Would He say…: Heb. הַהוּא. This is in the form of a question. And the Targum [Onkelos] renders,“who later relent.” They reconsider and change their minds.
ההוא אמר וגו': בלשון תימה, ותרגומו תייבין ומתמלכין, חוזרים ונמלכין לחזור בהם:
20I have received [an instruction] to bless, and He has blessed, and I cannot retract it. כהִנֵּ֥ה בָרֵ֖ךְ לָקָ֑חְתִּי וּבֵרֵ֖ךְ וְלֹ֥א אֲשִׁיבֶֽנָּה:
I have received [instruction] to bless: You ask me, What did God speak? [My answer is] I received from Him [instruction] to bless them. (
הנה ברך לקחתי: אתה שואלני מה דבר ה', קבלתי ממנו לברך אותם:
and He has blessed, and I cannot retract it: He has blessed them, and I will not retract His blessing.
וברך ולא אשיבנה: הוא ברך אותם ואני לא אשיב את ברכתו:
and He has blessed: Heb. ֵוּבֵר, like ֵוּבֵר. This is the rule of the letter ‘reish’ as in אוֹיֵב חֵרֵף (Ps. 74:18), like חִרֵף and similarly, וּבֹצֵע בֵּר (ibid. 10:3)-one who praises and blesses the thief, saying,“Do not be afraid because you will not be punished; you will be all right,” angers the Holy One, blessed is He. But one cannot say that ֵוּבֵר is a noun, for if so, it would be punctuated with a short ‘pathach’ [’segol’] and the accent would be on the first syllable ֵוּבֵר. However, since it is a verb in the active form, it is punctuated with a short ‘kamatz’ [’tzeireh’], and the accent is on the last syllable.
וברך: כמו וברך וכן הוא גזרת רי"ש, כמו (תהלים עד יח) אויב חרף, כמו חרף, וכן (שם י ג) ובוצע ברך, המהלל ומברך את הגוזל ואומר, אל תירא כי לא תענש, שלום יהיה לך, מרגיז הוא לקב"ה. ואין לומר ברך שם דבר, שאם כן היה נקוד בפתח קטן וטעמו למעלה, אבל לפי שהוא לשון פעל הוא נקוד קמץ, וטעמו למטה:
21He does not look at evil in Jacob, and has seen no perversity in Israel; the Lord, his God, is with him, and he has the King's friendship. כאלֹֽא־הִבִּ֥יט אָ֨וֶן֙ בְּיַֽעֲקֹ֔ב וְלֹֽא־רָאָ֥ה עָמָ֖ל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל יְהֹוָ֤ה אֱלֹהָיו֙ עִמּ֔וֹ וּתְרוּעַ֥ת מֶ֖לֶךְ בּֽוֹ:
He does not look at evil in Jacob: According to the Targum [Onkelos it means: I have looked. There are no idol worshippers in Jacob]. Another interpretation: Its literal meaning can be expounded beautifully. The Holy One, blessed is He, does not look at evil in Jacob. When they transgress His word, He does not deal punctiliously with them to scrutinize their wicked deeds and their iniquity in violation of His law. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 14, Num. Rabbah 20:20]
לא הביט און ביעקב וגו': כתרגומו. דבר אחר אחרי פשוטו הוא נדרש מדרש נאה. לא הביט הקב"ה און שביעקב, כשהן עוברין על דבריו אינו מדקדק אחריהם להתבונן באוניות שלהם ובעמלן שהן עוברין על דתו:
perversity: Heb. עָמָל connotes transgression, as in“conceives mischief (עָמָל) ” (Ps. 7:15) [and as in]“For You look at mischief (עָמָל) and provocation” (ibid. 10:14), since a transgression is distressing for the Omnipresent [and עָמָל primarily means hardship and toil].
עמל: לשון עבירה, כמו והרה עמל (תהלים ז טו), כי אתה עמל וכעס תביט (שם י יד) לפי שהעבירה היא עמל לפני המקום:
the Lord, his God, is with him: Even if they anger Him and rebel against Him, He does not move from their midst.
ה' אלהיו עמו: אפילו מכעיסין וממרים לפניו אינו זז מתוכן:
and he has the King’s friendship: וּתְרוּעַת, an expression denoting love and friendship, as in,“the friend of (רֵעֶה) David” (II Sam. 15:37), and in“and has given her to his companion (לְמֵרֵעֵהוּ)” (Jud. 15:6). Similarly, Onkelos renders, “the Presence of their King is among them.”
ותרועת מלך בו: לשון חבה ורעות כמו רעה דוד (שמואל ב' טו לז) אוהב דוד, ויתנה למרעהו (שופטים טו, ו) וכן תרגם אונקלוס ושכינת מלכהון ביניהון:
22God has brought them out of Egypt with the strength of His loftiness. כבאֵ֖ל מֽוֹצִיאָ֣ם מִמִּצְרָ֑יִם כְּתֽוֹעֲפֹ֥ת רְאֵ֖ם לֽוֹ:
God has brought them out of Egypt: You said,“Behold the people coming out of Egypt” (22:11). They did not come out by themselves, but God brought them out. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 14, Num. Rabbah 20:20]
אל מוציאם ממצרים: אתה אמרת הנה עם יצא ממצרים, לא יצא מעצמו אלא הא-להים הוציאם:
with the strength of His loftiness: Heb. כְּתוֹעֲפֹת רְאֵם, in accordance with the power of His loftiness (רוּם) and height. Similarly,“and… abundant silver (תּוֹעָפוֹת)” (Job 22:25); they are terms denoting strength. I maintain that it תּוֹעֲפוֹת is a term cognate with [a similar word in the phrase]“and let the birds fly (יְעוֹפֵף)” (Gen. 1:20) [which denotes] something flying to lofty heights, expressing great power. Thus, כְּתוֹעֲפֹת רְאֵם means flying high. Another interpretation: כְּתוֹעֲפֹת רְאֵם means the power of 're’emim’ and our Rabbis say (Git. 68b) that this refers to demons.
כתועפות ראם לו: כתוקף רום וגובה שלו, וכן וכסף תועפות (איוב כב כה), לשון מעוז המה, ואומר אני שהוא לשון ועוף יעופף (בראשית א כ), המעופף ברום וגובה ותוקף רב הוא זה ותועפות ראם עפיפות גובה. דבר אחר תועפות ראם תוקף ראמים, ואמרו רבותינו אלו השדים:
23For there is no divination in Jacob and no soothsaying in Israel. In time it will be said to Jacob and Israel, 'What has God wrought?' כגכִּ֤י לֹא־נַ֨חַשׁ֙ בְּיַֽעֲקֹ֔ב וְלֹא־קֶ֖סֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל כָּעֵ֗ת יֵֽאָמֵ֤ר לְיַֽעֲקֹב֙ וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל מַה־פָּעַ֖ל אֵֽל:
For there is no divination in Jacob: They are worthy of blessing since there are no diviners or soothsayers among them.
כי לא נחש ביעקב: כי ראוים הם לברכה שאין בהם מנחשים וקוסמים:
In time it will be said to Jacob and Israel: There will come another time like this, when the love [God has] for them will be revealed to all, for they will be seated before Him and learn Torah from His mouth. Their place will be further in [closer to the Divine Presence] than the ministering angels. They will ask them, “What has God wrought?” This is the meaning of what is stated,“your eyes shall behold your Teacher” (Isa. 30:20). Another interpretation: [The phrase] יֵאָמֵר לְיַעֲקֹב is not in the future tense [“it shall be said to Jacob”] but in the present tense. [Thus, the meaning is:] They have no need for a diviner or sorcerer, for any time it is necessary to tell Jacob and Israel what God has wrought and what decrees He enacted on high, they do not need diviners or soothsayers, but the decrees of the Omnipresent are transmitted to them through their prophets, or the Urim and Tummim inform them [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 14, Num. Rabbah 20:20]. Onkelos , however, does not render [it in] this manner.[Onkelos renders: For the diviners do not wish that good should be bestowed upon Jacob, nor do soothsayers desire the greatness of Israel. At this time, it will be told to Jacob what God has wrought.]
כעת יאמר ליעקב וגו': עוד עתיד להיות עת כעת הזאת אשר תגלה חבתן לעין כל שהן יושבין לפניו ולמדים תורה מפיו ומחיצתן לפנים ממלאכי השרת, והם ישאלו להם מה פעל אל, וזהו שנאמר והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך (ישעיה ל כ). דבר אחר יאמר ליעקב אינו לשון עתיד, אלא לשון הוה, אינן צריכין למנחש וקוסם כי בכל עת שצריך להאמר ליעקב ולישראל מה פעל הקב"ה ומה גזרותיו במרום, אינן מנחשים וקוסמים אלא נאמר להם על פי נביאיהם מה היא גזרת המקום, או אורים ותומים מגידים להם, ואונקלוס לא תרגם כן:
24Behold, a people that rises like a lioness (See Malbim) and raises itself like a lion. It does not lie down until it eats its prey and drinks the blood of the slain." כדהֶן־עָם֙ כְּלָבִ֣יא יָק֔וּם וְכַֽאֲרִ֖י יִתְנַשָּׂ֑א לֹ֤א יִשְׁכַּב֙ עַד־יֹ֣אכַל טֶ֔רֶף וְדַם־חֲלָלִ֖ים יִשְׁתֶּֽה:
Behold, a people that rises like a lioness: When they awaken from their sleep in the morning they show the vigor of a lioness and a lion in grasping mitzvoth, to don a ‘tallith ’ [prayer shawl], recite the shema and put on ‘tefillin’ [phylacteries]. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 14, Num. Rabbah 20:20]
הן עם כלביא יקום וגו': כשהן עומדים משנתם שחרית, הן מתגברין כלביא וכארי לחטוף את המצות, ללבוש טלית לקרוא את שמע ולהניח תפילין:
It does not lie down: [I.e., a Jew does not lie down] on his bed at night until he consumes and destroys any harmful thing that comes to tear him. How so? He recites the shema on his bed and entrusts his spirit to the hand of the Omnipresent. Should an army or a troop come to harm them, the Holy One, blessed is He, protects them, fights their battles and strikes them [their attackers] down dead.[Mid. Tanchuma Balak 14, Num. Rabbah 20:20] Another interpretation: “Behold a people that rises like a lioness…” as the Targum [Onkelos] renders [it: namely, It will not settle in its land until it destroys (the enemy) and takes possession of the land of the nations].
לא ישכב: בלילה על מטתו עד שהוא אוכל ומחבל כל מזיק הבא לטרפו. כיצד, קורא את שמע על מטתו ומפקיד רוחו ביד המקום, בא מחנה וגייס להזיקם, הקב"ה שומרם ונלחם מלחמותם ומפילם חללים. דבר אחר הן עם כלביא יקום וגו'. כתרגומו:
and drinks the blood of the slain: He prophesied that Moses would not die until he would strike down the Midianite kings dead, and he [Balaam] would be slain with them, as it says,“Balaam the son of Beor the soothsayer did the children of Israel slay with the sword with those that were slain by them” (Josh. 13:22). - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 14, Num. Rabbah 20:20]
ודם חללים ישתה: נתנבא שאין משה מת עד שיפיל מלכי מדין חללים ויהרג הוא עמהם, שנאמר ואת בלעם בן בעור הקוסם הרגו בני ישראל בחרב על חלליהם (יהושע יג כב):
25Balak said to Balaam, "You shall neither curse them nor shall you bless them." כהוַיֹּ֤אמֶר בָּלָק֙ אֶל־בִּלְעָ֔ם גַּם־קֹ֖ב לֹ֣א תִקֳּבֶ֑נּוּ גַּם־בָּרֵ֖ךְ לֹ֥א תְבָֽרֲכֶֽנּוּ:
You shall neither curse them nor shall you bless them: The first גַּם [literally, also, in the clause,“You shall neither…”] adds something to the second גַּם [in the clause“nor shall you curse”] and the second גַּם adds something to the first גַּם [as if he said, Neither bless them nor curse them; neither curse them nor bless them]. Similarly,“It shall be neither mine (גַּם לִי) nor yours (גַּם לְ) ” (I Kings 3:26) and similarly,“both the youth (גַּם בָּחוּר) and the maiden (גַּם בְּתוּלָה)” (Deut. 32:25).
גם קב לא תקבנו: גם ראשון מוסיף על גם השני, וגם השני על גם ראשון, וכן גם לי גם לך לא יהיה (מלכים א' ג כו), וכן גם בחור גם בתולה (דברים לב כה):
26Balaam answered and said to Balak, "Have I not spoken to you, saying, 'Everything the Lord speaks that I shall do." כווַיַּ֣עַן בִּלְעָ֔ם וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אֶל־בָּלָ֑ק הֲלֹ֗א דִּבַּ֤רְתִּי אֵלֶ֨יךָ֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־יְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֹת֥וֹ אֶֽעֱשֶֽׂה:
Daily Tehillim - Psalms
Chapters 77-78
• Chapter 77
1. For the Conductor, on the yedutun,1 by Asaph, a psalm.
2. [I raise] my voice to God and cry out; [I raise] my voice to God and He will listen to me.
3. On the day of my distress I sought my Lord. My wound oozes at night and does not abate; my soul refuses to be consoled.
4. I remember God and I moan; I speak and my spirit faints, Selah.
5. You grasped my eyelids; I am broken, I cannot speak.
6. I think of olden days, of ancient years.
7. During the night I recall my music, I meditate with my heart, and my spirit searches:
8. Is it for eternity that my Lord forsakes [me], nevermore to be appeased?
9. Has His kindness ceased forever? Has He sealed the decree for all generations?
10. Has God forgotten mercy? Has He in anger restrained His compassion forever?
11. I said, "It is to ter- rify me that the right hand of the Most High changes.”
12. I remember the deeds of Yah, when I remember Your wonders of long ago.
13. I meditate on all Your works, and speak of Your deeds.
14. O God, Your way is in sanctity; what god is as great as God?
15. You are the God Who works wonders; You make Your might known among the nations.
16. You redeemed Your people with a mighty arm, the children of Jacob and Joseph, Selah.
17. The waters2 saw You, O God, the waters saw You and trembled; even the deep shuddered.
18. The clouds streamed water, the heavens sounded forth, even Your arrows flew about.
19. The sound of Your thunder was in the rolling wind; lightning lit up the world; the earth trembled and quaked.
20. Your way was through the sea, Your path through the mighty waters; and Your footsteps were not known.3
21. You led Your people like a flock, by the hand of Moses and Aaron
FOOTNOTES
1.A musical instrument(Metzudot).
2.Of the Red Sea.
3.The waters returned to cover the trail.
Chapter 78
This psalm recounts all the miracles that God wrought for Israel, from the exodus of Egypt to David's becoming king over Israel.
1. A maskil1 by Asaph. Listen, my people, to my teaching; incline your ear to the words of my mouth.
2. I will open my mouth with a parable, I will utter riddles of long ago;
3. that which we have heard and know [to be true], and that our fathers have told us.
4. We will not withhold from their children, telling the final generation the praises of the Lord, and His might, and the wonders He has performed.
5. He established a testimony in Jacob, and set down the Torah in Israel, which He commanded our fathers to make known to their children,
6. so that the last generation shall know; children yet to be born will rise and tell their children,
7. and they shall put their hope in God, and not forget the works of the Almighty; and they shall guard His commandments.
8. And they shall not be like their fathers, a wayward and rebellious generation, a generation that did not set its heart straight, and whose spirit was not faithful to God.
9. The children of Ephraim, armed archers, retreated on the day of battle.2
10. They did not keep the covenant of God, and refused to follow His Torah.
11. They forgot His deeds and His wonders that He had shown them.
12. He performed wonders before their fathers, in the land of Egypt, in the field of Zoan.3
13. He split the sea and brought them across; He erected the waters like a wall.
14. He led them with a cloud by day, and all night long with the light of fire.
15. He split rocks in the wilderness, and gave them to drink as if from the abundant depths.
16. And He brought forth flowing waters from the rock, and caused waters to descend like rivers.
17. Yet they again continued to sin against Him, to provoke the Most High in the parched land.
18. And they tested God in their hearts, by requesting food for their craving.
19. They spoke against God; they said, "Can God set a table in the wilderness?
20. True, He hit the rock and waters flowed, streams gushed forth; but can He also give bread? Will He prepare meat for His people?”
21. And so the Lord heard and was enraged; a fire was kindled against Jacob; wrath, too, flared against Israel.
22. For they did not believe in God and did not trust in His salvation,
23. [though] He had commanded the skies above, and opened the doors of heaven.
24. He had rained upon them manna to eat, and given them grain of heaven.
25. Man ate the bread of angels; He sent them [enough] provisions to satiate.
26. He drove the east wind through the heaven, and led the south wind with His might.
27. He rained meat upon them like dust, winged birds like the sand of seas;
28. and He dropped them inside His camp, around His dwellings.
29. And they ate and were very satiated, for He brought them their desire.
30. They were not yet estranged from their craving, their food was still in their mouths,
31. when the wrath of God rose against them and slew their mighty ones, and brought down the chosen of Israel.
32. Despite this, they sinned again, and did not believe in His wonders;
33. so He ended their days in futility, and their years in terror.
34. When He slew them they would seek Him, they would return and pray to God.
35. They remembered that God is their rock, God the Most High, their redeemer.
36. But they beguiled Him with their mouth, and deceived Him with their tongue.
37. Their heart was not steadfast with Him; they were not faithful to His covenant.
38. Yet He is compassionate, pardons iniquity, and does not destroy; time and again He turns away His anger, and does not arouse all His wrath.
39. He remembered that they were but flesh, a spirit that leaves and does not return.
40. How often they provoked Him in the desert, and grieved Him in the wasteland!
41. Again and again they tested God, and sought a sign from the Holy One of Israel.
42. They did not remember His hand, the day He redeemed them from the oppressor;
43. that He set His signs in Egypt, and His wonders in the field of Zoan.
44. He turned their rivers to blood, and made their flowing waters undrinkable.
45. He sent against them a mixture of beasts which devoured them, and frogs that destroyed them.
46. He gave their produce to the grasshopper, and their toil to the locust.
47. He killed their vines with hail, and their sycamores with biting frost.
48. He delivered their animals to the hail, and their livestock to fiery bolts.
49. He sent against them His fierce anger, fury, rage, and affliction; a delegation of messengers of evil.
50. He leveled a path for His anger, and did not spare their soul from death; He delivered their animals to pestilence.
51. He struck every firstborn in Egypt, the first fruit of their strength in the tents of Ham.4
52. He drove His nation like sheep, and guided them like a flock in the desert.
53. He led them in security and they did not fear, for the sea covered their enemies.
54. And He brought them to the boundary of His holy place, this mountain which His right hand acquired.
55. He drove out nations before them, and allotted them an inheritance [measured] by the cord; He settled the tribes of Israel in their tents.
56. Yet they tested and defied God, the Most High, and did not keep His testimonies.
57. They regressed and rebelled like their fathers; they turned around like a deceptive bow.
58. They angered Him with their high altars, and provoked Him with their idols.
59. God heard and was enraged, and He was utterly disgusted with Israel;
60. And He abandoned the Tabernacle of Shilo, the Tent where He had dwelled among men.
61. He put His might into captivity, and His glory into the hand of the oppressor.
62. He delivered His nation to the sword, and was enraged with His inheritance.
63. Fire consumed His young men, and His maidens had no marriage song.
64. His priests fell by the sword, and their widows did not weep.5
65. And the Lord awoke like one who had been asleep, like a warrior shouting [to sober himself] from wine.
66. He beat His enemies into retreat, and dealt them eternal disgrace.
67. He was disgusted with the tent of Joseph, and did not choose the tribe of Ephraim.
68. He chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion which He loves.
69. And He built His Sanctuary [permanent as] the heavens; like the earth, He established it forever.
70. And He chose David His servant, and took him from the sheep corrals.
71. From following the nursing ewes, He brought Him to shepherd His nation Jacob, Israel His inheritance.
72. And he tended them with the integrity of his heart, and led them with the skill of his hands.
FOOTNOTES
1.A psalm intended to enlighten and impart knowledge(Metzudot).
2.The Ephraimites escaped Egypt before the other tribes, but were defeated when trying to enter the land of Canaan.
3.Capital of Egypt (Radak).
4.Progenitor of the Egyptians.
5.They died before being able to weep (Targum).
Tanya: Igeret HaTeshuva , middle of Chapter 3
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Thursday, 15 Tammuz, 5776 · 21 July 2016
• Igeret HaTeshuva , middle of Chapter 3
• אבל כל זה באדם חזק ובריא, שאין ריבוי הצומות מזיק לו כלל לבריאות גופו, וכמו בדורות הראשונים
However, all this1 applies to the strong and robust, whose physical health would not be harmed at all by repeated fasts, as in the generations of yore.
אבל מי שריבוי הצומות מזיק לו, שאפשר שיבוא לידי חולי או מיחוש, חס ושלום, כמו בדורותינו אלה
But whoever would be affected by many fasts, and might thereby suffer illness or pain, G‑d forbid, as in contemporary generations,
אסור לו להרבות בתעניות, אפילו על כריתות ומיתות בית דין, ומכל שכן על מצוות עשה ומצוות לא תעשה שאין בהן כרת
is forbidden to undertake numerous fasts, even for sins punishable by excision or execution, and certainly not for [violation of] the positive and prohibitive commands that do not involve excision.
אלא כפי אשר ישער בנפשו שבודאי לא יזיק לו כלל
Instead [the measure of fasting is] the personal estimate of what will not harm him at all.
כי אפילו בדורות הראשונים, בימי תנאים ואמוראים, לא היו מתענין בכהאי גוונא אלא הבריאים, דמצו לצעורי נפשייהו
For even in those early generations, in the times of the Tannaim and Amoraim, only the robust who could mortify themselves fasted so frequently.
ודלא מצי לצעורי נפשיה ומתענה, נקרא חוטא בגמרא, פרק קמא דתענית
But whoever cannot fast yet does so, is called a “sinner” in Tractate Taanit, ch. 1.2
ואפילו מתענה על עבירות שבידו, כדפירש רש״י שם
This applies even to one who fasts for specifically known sins, as Rashi explains there,
The very same author of the opinion that he who fasts frequently is considered “holy”, because (as Rashi explains) his sins are thereby expunged, goes on to state that he is considered a sinner if he cannot fast yet does so.
וכדאיתא בגמרא, פרק קמא דזבחים, שאין לך אדם מישראל שאינו מחויב עשה וכו׳
and it is written in Tractate Zevachim, ch. 1,3 that “there is no one of Israel who is not guilty of [transgressing] a positive commandment…,”
Thus, though there are always sins for which one should fast, one should do so only if this will in no way impair his health; otherwise, he is considered a sinner,
ומכל שכן מי שהוא בעל תורה, שחוטא ונענש בכפליים
especially if he is a student of Torah, in which case he is doubly punished,
כי מחמת חלישות התענית, לא יוכל לעסוק בה כראוי
for the weakness resulting from his fast prevents him from studying Torah properly.
אלא מה תקנתיה
What, then, is his remedy?
I.e., what is such a person to do in order to be beloved by his Creator as he was before his sin?
כדכתיב: וחטאך בצדקה פרוק
He should comply with the verse that says,4 “Redeem your sin with charity.”
וכמו שכתבו הפוסקים, ליתן בעד כל יום תענית של תשובה ערך ח״י גדולים פוליש
And, indeed, the codifiers of Torah law specified that one should donate the equivalent of eighteen [large Polish] coins called “gedolim Polish” for each day of repentance.
והעשיר יוסיף לפי עשרו וכו׳
The wealthy should add to this amount for the redemption of each fast-day according to his means,
כמו שכתב המגן אברהם, הלכות תענית
as stated in Magen Avraham in the Laws of Fasts.5
* * *
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Note of the Rebbe: “Concerning all the laws about to be stated, see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 571 and its commentaries; Shulchan Aruch Admur HaZaken, Hilchot Nizkei Guf veNefesh, Sub-section 4.” |
| 2. | Note of the Rebbe: “End of p. 11a; see also Rambam, Hilchot Deot, beg. of ch. 3, and commentators ad loc.” |
| 3. | 7a, and see Rashi there. |
| 4. | Daniel 4:24. |
| 5. | Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 568:12, and commentaries. |
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
• Thursday, 15 Tammuz, 5776 · 21 July 2016
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
• Thursday, 15 Tammuz, 5776 · 21 July 2016
• Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
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].
Full text of this Mitzvah »
• Damage Caused by Arson
Positive Commandment 241
Translated by Berel Bell
aThe 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.
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
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].
Full text of this Mitzvah »
• Damage Caused by Arson
Positive Commandment 241
Translated by Berel Bell
aThe 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.
• Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day
Tum'at Met - Chapter 5
• Tum'at Met - Chapter 5
Tum'at Met - Chapter 5
• Tum'at Met - Chapter 5
1
All entities - whether humans or keilim - that become impure because of contact with a human corpse contract impurity that lasts seven days.
What is implied? When a person or a k'li touch an entity that imparts the impurity associated with a corpse when touched or contract impurity through ohel from one of the entities that impart impurity through ohel, or carry an entity that imparts the impurity associated with a corpse when carried, he or it contract impurity that lasts seven days, as Numbers 19:14 states: "Anyone who enters the tent and anything that is inside the tent will be impure for seven days."
א
כל המתטמאין מחמת המת בין אדם בין כלים טמאים טומאת שבעה כיצד אדם או כלי שנגע בדברים שמטמאין מן המת במגע או שנטמא באהל בא' מדברים שמטמאין באהל וכן אדם שנשא דברים שמטמאין מן המת במשא הכל טמאים טומאת שבעה שנאמר כל הבא אל האהל וכל אשר באהל יטמא שבעת ימים:
2
A person who becomes impure because of a corpse andkeilim which such a person touches contract impurity that lasts seven days, as Numbers 31:24 states: "And you shall wash your garments on the seventh day and become pure."
If, by contrast, a person touches a person who contracted impurity because of a corpse - whether he touched him after he disengaged himself from the corpse that imparted impurity to him or whether he is still touching the corpse - the second person is impure only until the evening, as ibid. 19:22 states: "And the soul that touches it will be impure until the evening."
This is the Scriptural Law. According to Rabbinic Law, if one touches a corpse and touches another person while he is still touching the corpse, they both contract impurity that lasts seven days, as if the second person touched the corpse itself.
In what context does this apply? With regard to partaking ofterumah and sacrificial food. By contrast, a nazirite or one who brings a Paschal sacrifice who are touched by a person who touched a corpse only becomes impure until the evening as is Scriptural Law, whether the first person is still touching the corpse or whether he is not.
ב
אדם שנטמא במת וכלים שיגע בהן אדם זה טמאין טומאת שבעה שנאמר וכבסתם בגדיכם ביום השביעי וטהרתם אבל אדם שנגע באדם שנטמא במת בין שנגע בו אחר שפירש מטמאין בין שנגע בו כשהוא עדיין נוגע במת הרי זה השני טמא טומאת ערב שנאמר והנפש הנוגעת תטמא עד הערב זהו דין תורה אבל מדברי סופרים הנוגע במת ונגע באדם אחר ועדיין הוא מחובר במת שניהן טמאין טומאת שבעה וכאילו נגע זה השני במת עצמו במה דברים אמורים לענין תרומה וקדשים אבל לנזיר ולעושה פסח בין בשעת חבור בין אחר שפירש אינו טמא אלא טומאת ערב כדין תורה:
3
When keilim become impure due to contact with a corpse, whether because they were touched or because they were under the same shelter, one who touches them is considered like one who touches a corpse itself. Just as a corpse imparts impurity that lasts seven days to whatever touches it, whether a person or ak'li, so too, when a k'li became impure due to contact with a corpse, it and other keilim, or a person who touches it contract impurity that lasts seven days, as implied by Numbers 19:16: "one slain by the sword or a corpse." According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that a sword is like a corpse. This also applies to other keilim, whether they are metal utensils, keilim that can be purified by immersion, or garments.
These concepts can also be inferred from ibid. 31:19 which states: "Everyone who killed a person and everyone who touched a corpse must purify himself." Would one think that a person who shot an arrow or threw a stone and killed another person would become impure for seven days? Instead, this is speaking about a person who kills with a sword or the like who becomes impure because he touched the k'li with which he killed, for that k'li touched a corpse.
What is the source from which we learn that keilim that touch a person who touched keilim that became impure because of contact with a corpse become impure? It is written: "And you shall wash your garments on the seventh day and become pure." This teaches that any person who contracts impurity that lasts seven days imparts impurity that lasts seven days to his garments.
ג
כלים שנטמאו במת בין במגע בין באהל הרי הן לנוגע בהן כנוגע במת עצמו מה המת מטמא הנוגע בו בין אדם בין כלים טומאת שבעה אף כלים שנטמאו במת הם והכלים או האדם שיגע בהן טמאין טומאת שבעה שנאמר בחלל חרב או במת מפי השמועה למדו שהחרב כמת והוא הדין לשאר כלים בין כלי מתכות בין כלי שטף ובגדים הרי הוא אומר כל הורג נפש וכל נוגע בחלל וכי תעלה על דעתך שזה ירה חץ והרג או זרק אבן והרג נטמא שבעת ימים אלא הורג נפש בחרב וכיוצא בה שנטמא בנגיעתו בכלי שהרג בו שהרי נגע הכלי במת ומנין שאף הכלים הנוגעין באדם שנגע שטמאים טומאת שבעה שהרי הוא אומר וכבסתם בגדיכם ביום השביעי וטהרתם הא למדת שכל אדם הטמא טומאת שבעה מטמא בגדים טומאת שבעה:
4
Thus in summary: When a person touches a corpse and then touches another person, the first contracts impurity that lasts seven days and the second, impurity that lasts until the evening. When keilim touch a corpse and then other keilim touch them, they both contract impurity that lasts seven days. An entity whose connection is of the third degree, whether a person or a k'li, contracts only the impurity that lasts until the evening.
When keilim are touching a corpse and a person touches thosekeilim and other keilim, all three contract the impurity that lasts seven days. An entity whose connection is of the fourth degree contracts only the impurity that lasts until the evening.
ד
נמצאת אומר אדם שנגע במת ואדם באדם אחר הראשון טמא טומאת שבעה והשני טומאת ערב כלים הנוגעין במת וכלים בכלים שניהם טמאים טומאת שבעה אבל השלישי בין אדם בין כלים טמא טומאת ערב כלים הנוגעין במת ואדם בכלים וכלים באדם שלשתן טמאין טומאת שבעה והרביעי בין אדם בין כלים טמא טומאת ערב:
5
When does the above apply? With regard to terumah and sacrificial food. With regard to liability for karet for entering the Temple or partaking of sacrificial foods, by contrast, only the first two are liable - the first person who touched the corpse and the second person who touched him - as mandated by Scriptural Law, as Numbers 19:22 states: "Everything which is touched by the impure person becomes impure."
When, by contrast, one touches keilim that were touched by an impure person or one touches a person who touches keilim that touched a corpse, he is exempt, as we explained in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash. For these matters, although part of the Oral Tradition, are not considered as Scriptural Law. The rationale is that it was only explicitly stated in the Torah that one who became impure because of contact with a corpse becomes a primary source of impurity and secondly, that an entity, whether a person or a k'li,that touches him becomes impure, becoming a first degree derivative of impurity.
ה
בד"א לענין תרומה וקדשים אבל לחייב כרת על ביאת מקדש או על אכילת קדשים אינו חייב אלא השנים בלבד הראשון שנגע במת והשני שנגע בו כדין תורה שנאמר וכל אשר יגע בו הטמא יטמא אבל הנוגע בכלים שנגעו באדם או הנוגע באדם שנגע בכלים שנגעו במת פטור כמו שביארנו בהלכות ביאת מקדש שהדברים האלו אף על פי שהן דברי קבלה אינן דין תורה שהרי לא נתפרשו בתורה אלא זה שנטמא במת שהוא אב והשני הנוגע בו שהוא ראשון בין אדם בין כלים:
6
When an earthenware container touched a corpse or was in the same structure as it, it contracts ritual impurity. It does not impart ritual impurity, neither to a person, nor to another earthenware container, nor to any other k'li. For an earthenware container never becomes a primary source of ritual impurity, neither with regard to impurity stemming from a corpse or other sources of impurity. This is Scriptural Law, even though it is part of Oral Tradition.
ו
כלי חרש שנגע במת או שהיה עמו באהל טמא ואינו מטמא [לא לאדם] ולא כלי חרש אחר ולא שאר כלים שאין כלי חרש נעשה אב הטומאה לעולם לא במת ולא בשאר טומאות וזה דין תורה אף ע"פ שהוא קבלה:
7
This is a great general principle with regard to ritual impurity. Any primary source of ritual impurity imparts ritual impurity to humans, garments, and utensils, whether metal implements, utensils that can be purified by immersion, or earthenware containers. Any entity that imparts impurity to a person or keilimwhen touched is called a primary source of ritual impurity. Any derivative of ritual impurity imparts ritual impurity to food and drink, but it does not impart impurity to a person or keilim, neither to earthenware containers, nor to other keilim and garments.
ז
זה כלל גדול בטומאות כל אב הטומאה מטמא אדם ומטמא בגדים וכלים בין כלי מתכות בין כלי שטף בין כלי חרש וכל המטמא אדם וכלים בנגיעה הרי זה אב הטומאה וכל ולד הטומאות מטמא אוכלין ומשקין ואינו מטמא לא אדם וכלים לא כלי חרש ולא שאר כלים ובגדים:
8
Any entity that touches a primary source of impurity is referred to as a derivative of the first degree. Anything that touches a derivative of the first degree is referred to as a derivative of the second degree. Anything that touches a derivative of the second degree is referred to as a derivative of the third degree. And anything that touches a derivative of the third degree is referred to as a derivative of the fourth degree. A derivative of the first degree and those on a lesser level are called "the offspring of impurity."
ח
כל הנוגע באב הוא הנקרא ראשון והנוגע בראשון נקרא שני והנוגע בשני נקרא שלישי והנוגע בשלישי נקרא רביעי והראשון ושלמטה ממנו כולן נקראין ולד הטומאה:
9
Any entity, whether a person or a k'li, which contracts impurity that lasts seven days as a result of contact with a corpse is referred to as tamei meit. The person or the k'li is a primary source of impurity with regard to imparting impurity to terumah and sacrificial food, as we explained. From it, are counted a first degree derivative and a second degree derivative to impart impurity to people and keilim when it is touched, like other primary sources of impurity. It does not impart impurity when carried.
ט
כל המתטמא מחמת המת טומאת שבעה בין אדם בין כלים הוא הנקרא טמא מת והוא אב מאבות הטומאות לענין טומאת תרומה וטומאת קדשים כמו שביארנו למנות ממנו ראשון ושני כדי לטמא אדם וכלים במגע כשאר אבות הטומאות ואינו מטמא במשא:
10
Any entity that contracts impurity that lasts until the evening as a result of contact with an entity that contracted impurity from a corpse is considered as the offspring of impurity. It is a derivative of impurity of the first degree. It is possible that a fourth degree contact with a corpse can be a first derivative of impurity, as we explained with regard to terumah and sacrificial foods.
י
כל המתטמא מחמת המת טומאת ערב הוא ולד הטומאה והוא הראשון לטומאה ואפשר שיהיה הרביעי מן המת ראשון לטומאה כמו שביארנו לענין תרומה וקדשים:
11
When a person or keilim contract impurity because of contact with the lands of the nations or a beit hapras or because he carried such earth or he touched weltering blood, agollel or a dofek, or entered a shelter where they were located or carried weltering blood, in all instances, these individuals or keilimand the like are all primary sources of impurity by Rabbinic decree. Similarly, garments that contract impurity that lasts seven days because of these entities are all primary sources of impurity by Rabbinic decree.
יא
אדם או כלים שנטמאו במגע ארץ העכו"ם ובית הפרס או במשאן או במגע דם תבוסה וגולל ודופק או באהלן וכן אדם שנטמא במשא דם תבוסה הרי אלו כולן וכל כיוצא בהן אבות טומאות של דברי סופרים וכן בגדים המתטמאין מחמת אלו טומאת שבעה כולן אבות הטומאות של דברי סופרים:
12
A tent itself which encompasses a source of impurity contracts impurity that lasts seven days according to Scriptural Law even though the impurity did not touch it. It is like garments that were touched by a corpse, as implied by Numbers 19:18: "And he shall sprinkle on the tent."
When does the above apply? When the tent was made from cloth, sackcloth, or a wooden k'li, or a hide, either a hide from an animal or beast that is permitted to be eaten or one which is forbidden to be eaten. These concepts are derived from Exodus 40:19: "And he spread the tent over the Sanctuary." The term "tent" applies only to an entity that is woven or made from hides, as in the Sanctuary. If, by contrast, the structure was made from slats of wood, like a roof, a mat, or the like, or it was bone, or made of metal, it is pure. Needless to say, if it was made from building materials, it is pure.
Whenever the Torah uses the expression, "the house is impure," the intent is the person and the keilim in the house. There is no product of wood that becomes impure as a tent except flax.
יב
האהל עצמו המאהיל על הטומאה אעפ"י שלא נגעה בו טומאה הרי הוא טמא טומאת שבעה מן התורה והרי הוא כבגדים שנגעו במת שנאמר והזה על האהל במה דברים אמורים בשהיה האהל בגד או שק או כלי עץ או עור אחד עור בהמה וחיה בין המותרין לאכילה בין האסורין לאכילה שנאמר ויפרוש את האהל על המשכן אין קרוי אהל אלא ארוג ועור כמשכן אבל אם היה האהל נסרין של עץ כגון התקרה והמחצלת וכיוצא בהן או שהיה עצם או של מתכות ה"ז טהור ואין צ"ל שאם היה בניין שהוא טהור וכ"מ שנאמר הבית טמא אינו אלא אדם וכלים שבכל הבית ואין לך יוצא מן העץ שהוא מתטמא טומאת אוהלים אלא הפשתן בלבד:
13
When garments touch a corpse, even though they are considered as a corpse with regard to imparting impurity that lasts seven days to other entities that touch them, they are not considered as a corpse with regard to imparting impurity when one is under their shelter or when one carries them. The rationale is that the impurity stemming from carrying a corpse itself is not explicitly stated in the Torah, as we explained. And with regard to the impurity imparted by a tent, Numbers 19:14 states: "A man when he will die in a tent." Therefore if one carried garments that touched a corpse without touching the garments, or if one stands over them, they are held over him, or they were in a structure with him, he is pure.
Similarly, when a person contracted impurity from a corpse and stood over keilim, they are pure. For one who contracts impurity from a corpse imparts impurity through touch alone.
יג
בגדים הנוגעין במת אף על פי שהן כמת לטמא אחרים שנגעו בו טומאת שבעה אינן כמת לטמא באהל ובמשא שהמשא למת עצמו אינו מפורש כמו שביארנו ובטומאת אהל הוא אומר אדם כי ימות באהל לפיכך הנושא בגדים שנגעו במת ולא נגע בהן וכל המאהיל עליהן או שהאהילו עליו או שהיו עמו באהל הרי זה טהור וכן האדם שנטמא במת והאהיל על הכלים הרי הן טהורין שאין טמא מת טמא אלא במגע בלבד:
14
A corpse does not impart impurity to a seat or a couch that is below him, nor to articles that are placed upon him, only to a k'li that touches a corpse whether it was at its side or it was below the corpse or on top of it.
What is implied? There were ten garments one on top of the other and the corpse was on top of them and then there were ten garments on top of him. The garment that is touching him and the second garment which is touching the garment touching him both contract the impurity that lasts seven days. The third garment, whether on top or below, contracts the impurity which lasts until the evening.
When does the above - that all the garments or keilim above him and below him are pure - apply? When the impurity was notretzutzah, the laws of ohel do not apply, or there was a stone intervening between them, as will be explained in the appropriate place.
יד
המת אינו מטמא משכב ומושב מתחתיו ולא מדף מעל גביו אלא אחד כלי שיגע במת מצדו או שהיה תחתיו או על גביו כיצד עשרה בגדים זה ע"ג זה והמת למעלה ועשרה בגדים אחרים על גבו מלמעלה בגד הנוגע בו והבגד השני שנגע בבגד שנגע בו שניהן טמאים טומאת שבעה והשלישי טמא טומאת ערב בין של מעלה בין של מטה והרביעי ומן הרביעי ולמטה ומן הרביעי ולמעלה כולן טהורין מה שאין כן בטמאי משכב ומושב כמו שיתבאר במקומו בד"א שכל הבגדים או הכלים שתחתיו ושל מעלה ממנו טהורין בשלא היתה שם טומאה רצוצה ולא טומאת אהל או שהיה מבדיל בינו ובין הכלים אבן כמו שיתבאר במקומו:
• Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day
Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Twelve, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Thirteen, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Fourteen
Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Twelve, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Thirteen, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Fourteen
• Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Twelve
1
When a person digs a cistern1 in the public domain, and an ox or a donkey falls into it and dies,2 the owner of the cistern is liable and is required to pay the full amount of the damages, as [Exodus 21:34] states: "The owner of the cistern must pay." [This applies] even if the cistern was filled with wads of wool or the like.3[The intent] is not only an ox or a donkey, but any animal, beast or fowl. An ox and a donkey are mentioned only because these are the commonplace [examples].
א
החופר א בור ברשות הרבים ונפל לתוכו שור או חמור ומת אפילו היה הבור מלא גזות של צמר וכיוצא בהן הרי בעל הבור חייב לשלם נזק שלם שנאמר בעל הבור ישלם. ואחד שור וחמור או שאר מיני בהמה חיה ועוף לא נאמר שור וחמור אלא בהווה:
2
[The above applies] regardless of whether the person digs a cistern in the public domain,4 he digs it in his own property - but it is open to the public domain or to a domain belonging to a colleague5 - or he digs it in his own property with the opening to his own property, but afterwards, he declares the property - but not the cistern - ownerless.6 In all these instances, [the person who digs the cistern] is liable for the damages suffered. If, however, he declared his domain and the cistern ownerless, or he declared the cistern ownerless [while retaining possession of] his domain, or he consecrated it, he is not liable. [This is derived from the phrase:] "The owner of the cistern will pay." [Implied is that the cistern] must have an owner, while this cistern is ownerless. [Moreover, it cannot be compared to a cistern dug in the public domain,] since at the outset he was permitted to dig [the cistern], because it was on his property.
ב
אחד החופר בור ברשות הרבים או החופר בור [א] ברשותו ופתחו לרשות הרבים או פתח לרשות חבירו או שחפר ופתח לרשותו והפקיר רשותו ולא הפקיר בורו הרי זה חייב בנזקיו א אבל אם הפקיר רשותו ובורו או שהפקיר בורו שברשותו או הקדישו הרי זה פטור שנאמר בעל הבור ישלם מי שיש לו בעלים וזה הפקר ובתחילה ברשות חפר מפני שחפר ברשותו:
3
[The above applies whether the person] dug the cistern himself, it came into being [on his property] through natural means, or it was dug by an animal or a beast.7 Since he is required to fill it up or cover it, and he did not, he is liable for the damages. [Similarly, the above applies] whether the person digs [the cistern himself] or purchases or receives as a present [a domain with a cistern]. This is derived from the phrase:] "The owner of the cistern will pay." [Implied is that if the cistern] has an owner [he is liable].
ג
אחד החופר בור או שנחפר מאליו או שחפרתו בהמה או חיה הואיל והוא חייב למלאותו או לכסותו ולא עשה הרי זה חייב בנזקיו. ואחד החופר או הלוקח או שנתן לו במתנה שנאמר בעל הבור ישלם מי שיש לו בעלים מכל מקום:
4
Just as a person who digs [a cistern is liable], so too, is one who opens a cistern that was covered, as [Exodus 21:33] states: "If a person opens a cistern, or if a person digs a cistern." If [an owner] covered up a cistern in an appropriate manner and the cover decayed from within, and [because of this], an ox fell into the cistern and died, the owner is not liable. For the above verse continues: "And he did not cover it." And in this case, he covered it.8 [The following laws apply if the owner] covered [the cistern] with a covering that was strong enough to have oxen tread on it, but was not strong enough to have camels tread on it, camels trod on it and it became weakened, and then oxen trod on it and fell in. If camels are not [usually] found in such a place, [the owner] is not liable,9 for this is considered a factor beyond his control. If camels pass through this place, even infrequently, he is liable.10
ד
אחד החופר או המגלה מקום שהיה מכוסה שנאמר כי יפתח איש בור או כי יכרה, ואם כסהו כראוי אע"פ שהתליע מתוכו ונפל לתוכו שור ומת פטור שנאמר ולא יכסנו הא אם כסהו פטור. כסהו בדבר שיכול לעמוד בפני שוורים ואינו יכול לעמוד בפני גמלים והלכו עליו גמלים ונתרועע והלכו עליו שוורים ונפלו בו. אם אין הגמלים מצויין באותו מקום הרי זה פטור מפני שזה אונס ואם יבואו שם גמלים אפילו לפרקים הרי זה חייב:
5
If [the cover] decayed from within and oxen fell into [the cistern], [the owner] is not liable. [This applies even when] camels frequent this area, and [the owner] is consider negligent with regard to the camels. Nevertheless, since the oxen fell into [the cistern], because [the cover] decayed [it is considered to be a loss beyond the owner's control].11 The same applies in all similar situations.
ה
6
When a person discovers a cistern and covers it, and afterwards uncovers it, the owner12 of the cistern is liable, and the person who [covered and uncovered it] is not liable.13 If, however, he filled [the cistern] with earth and then removed the earth, he [and not the original owner of the cistern] is liable. Since he filled the cistern with earth, the actions of the person who originally [dug the cistern] are considered to have been nullified.14
ו
7
[The following rules apply when] a cistern is owned by two partners. If the first passed by and did not cover it, and then the second passed by and did not cover it, the first is liable15 until he gives his buckets16 to the second [partner]. Once he gives his buckets to the second partner to draw water from it, the first is freed of liability, and the second becomes liable. If the first [partner] covered it, and the second partner passed by and saw it uncovered and left it so, he is liable.17 Until when does the second [partner] bear the sole responsibility of covering it? Until the first [partner] becomes aware18 that it is open and has the opportunity to hire workers to cut down trees and cover it. If any animal dies during this time, the second partner alone is liable. If an animal dies afterwards, both [partners] are liable, for they both were negligent.
ז
בור של שני שותפין ועבר הראשון ולא כסהו השני ולא כסהו הראשון ב חייב עד שימסור דליו לשני ומשמסר דליו לשני לדלות ממנו נפטר הראשון ונתחייב השני לכסותו. כסהו הראשון ובא השני ומצאו מגולה ולא כסהו השני חייב. ועד אימתי יהיה השני לבדו חייב עד שידע הראשון שהבור מגולה וכדי שישכור פועלים ויכרות ארזים ויכסנו וכל שימות בו תוך זמן זה הרי השני לבדו חייב בו וכל שימות בו אחר זמן כזה שניהן חייבין לשלם
8
When a person transfers [the responsibility for] his cistern to a watchman, [the watchman] is liable for the damages. If, however, the owner gave it to a deaf mute, a mentally incompetent individual or a minor to watch, the owner is liable. [This applies] even if he left it covered, because it is likely that a cistern will be uncovered, and these individuals are not mentally competent [to know that it must be covered at all times].19
ח
המוסר בורו לשומר חייב בנזקיו. ואם מסרו לחרש שוטה וקטן אע"פ שהיה מכוסה הרי הבעלים חייבים שהבור עשוי להתגלות ואלו
9
ט
המכסה בורו בדליו של חבירו ובא בעל הדלי ונטל דליו בעל הבור חייב:
10
[The above laws apply whether] one digs a cistern, a ditch, a cave or a trench. Why does the Torah mention a cistern? [To teach that its depth] must be sufficient to kill. How much is considered sufficient to kill? A depth of ten handbreadths.22 If a cistern was less than ten handbreadths deep23 and an ox or another animal, beast or fowl falls in and dies, [the one responsible for the obstruction] is not liable.24 If the animal is damaged, the one responsible for the obstruction must pay the full extent of the damages.
י
אחד החופר בור או שיח או מערה או חריץ ולמה נאמר בור עד שיהיה בו כדי להמית. וכמה כדי להמית עומק עשרה טפחים אבל אם היה פחות מעשרה ונפל לתוכו שור או שאר בהמה חיה ועוף ומת פטור. ואם הוזקו חייב בעל התקלה נזק שלם:
11
If a cistern was nine handbreadths deep, and one of those handbreadths was filled with water, [the owner] is liable [if an animal falls in and dies]. [The rationale is] that one handbreadth with water is considered equivalent to two handbreadths without water.25 If [the cistern] was eight [handbreadths] deep and two handbreadths [were filled with] water, or it was seven [handbreadths] deep and three handbreadths [were filled with] water, and an ox or the like fell in and died, [the owner of the cistern] is not held liable to pay [for the death of the animal]. If [the owner of the animal seized [compensation for his loss from the owner of the cistern's property],26 [the property he seized] is not expropriated from him. [The rationale is] that there is a doubt regarding this issue.27
יא
היה עומק הבור תשעה ומהן טפח אחד מים חייב. שהטפח של מים חשוב כעומק שני טפחים ביבשה. היה עמוק שמונה ומהן שני טפחים מים או שהיה עומקו שבעה ומהן שלשה טפחים מים ונפל לתוכו שור וכיוצא בו ומת אין מחייבין אותו לשלם. ואם תפש הניזק אין מוציאין מידו שהדברים האלו יש בהן ספק:
12
When one person digs a cistern ten handbreadths deep, a second person comes and [digs deeper], making it twenty handbreadths deep, and a third person comes and [digs deeper], making it thirty handbreadths deep, they all share in the liability.28When the first digs even one handbreadth less than ten handbreadths, and another makes it ten handbreadths deep - either by digging another handbreadth deeper or building a rim of a handbreadth at its edge - the latter person [alone] is liable.29 If afterwards he filled up the handbreadth he added or destroyed the rim he built, it is unresolved whether the first person's deed is no longer considered of consequence30 [and therefore, he is not liable,] or whether his actions are still considered significant.31
יב
החופר בור עמוק עשרה טפחים ובא אחר והשלימו לעשרים ובא אחר והשלימו לשלשים כולן חייבים. חפר הראשון פחות מעשרה אפילו טפח ובא האחרון והשלימו לעשרה בין שחפר בו טפח או שהגביה בנין על שפתו טפח זה האחרון חייב. סתם טפח שהוסיף או שסתר טפח שבנה הרי זה ספק אם כבר נסתלק מעשה ראשון או עדיין לא נסתלק:
13
[The following rules apply when a person] dug a deep cistern,32 another person came and made it wider, and an ox fell into it and died. If [it is obvious that33 the ox] died because of the air within the cistern, the second person is not liable, for [his act] improved [the quality of] the air.34 If [it is obvious that the ox] died because of the blow [it received], the second person is liable, for [his act] brought closer [the possibility] that this cistern would cause damage.35 Similarly, if the ox fell from the side that the person widened, [and died because of the air of the cistern],36 the second person is held liable despite the fact that [the ox] died from [the cistern's foul] air.37 If [the ox] fell from the side that was dug by the first person, the first person is liable, for the second person improved [the quality of] the air.38
יג
חפר הראשון בור עמוק ובא האחרון והרחיבו ונפל לתוכו שור ומת. אם מחמת הבלו מת האחרון פטור שהרי מיעט הבלו ואם מחמת חבטו מת האחרון חייב שהרי הוא הקריב היזק בור זה. וכן אם נפל השור מאותו הצד שהרחיב האחרון האחרון חייב שהרי הקריב היזק בור זה אע"פ שמת מן ההבל. ואם מן הצד שחפר הראשון נפל הראשון חייב שזה האחרון מיעט הבלו:
14
The liability that the Torah imposed for [damages caused by falling into] a cistern applies even when the animal died merely because of the [foul] air within the cistern. Needless to say, it applies when the animal dies because of the blow it received.39 If the width of the cistern was the same as its depth, it will not have [foul] air. Thus, if the animal did not receive a blow [when it fell] and yet it died, [the owner of the cistern] is not liable.40 If the depth exceeds its width, it has [foul] air. If an animal dies [after falling in], [the owner] is liable, even though it did not receive a blow from the bottom [of the cistern].41
יד
בור שחייבה עליו התורה אפילו לא מתה הבהמה אלא מהבלו [ב] ואין צריך לומר אם מתה מחבטו. לפיכך אם היה עומק הבור כרחבו אין לו הבל. ואם לא נחבטה בו הבהמה ומתה פטור. היה עומקו יתר על רחבו יש לו הבל ואם מתה בו הבהמה חייב אע"פ שלא נחבטה בקרקעיתה:
15
[The following rules apply when] a person erects a high mound in the public domain, and an animal receives a blow from it and dies.42If [the mound] was ten handbreadths high, he is liable to pay [for the damages]. If it was less than ten handbreadths high, he is not liable if the animal dies. If, however, an animal is merely injured, he is liable for the full extent of the damages. Even if a mound is of minimal height, or one digs [a pit of] minimal depth, [and an animal is injured, one is liable]. For it is a frequent occurrence for injuries to be caused by a mound or a pit of minimal height or depth. For [an animal] to die because of such a mound or pit is not a frequent occurrence; it is considered to be an event beyond one's control.43
טו
עשה תל גבוה ברשות הרבים ונחבטה בו הבהמה ומתה. אם היה גבוה עשרה טפחים חייב לשלם. ואם היה פחות מעשרה פטור על מיתת הבהמה. אבל אם הוזקה בלבד חייב לשלם נזק שלם. ואפילו בתל גבוה כל שהוא או בחפירה כל שהיא. שהנזק בכל שהוא דבר מצוי וידוע ואין המיתה בכל שהוא מצוייה והרי הוא כמו אונס:
16
Similarly, a person is not liable for the death of an animal that [fell] into a cistern or that received a blow from a mound unless the animal was small, a deaf mute or mentally incompetent,44or it was blind, or it fell at night.45 If, however, the animal was mentally competent, and it fell into [the cistern] during the day, [the owner of the cistern] is not liable. This is considered like an event beyond a person's control. For it is the ordinary practice for an animal to see where it is going and to avoid obstacles. Similarly, if a human fell into the pit and died, the owner is not liable.46 This applies even if he was blind or fell at night,47and regardless of whether he was a free man or a servant. If a mentally competent human or animal suffered injury because of [the cistern], [the owner] is liable for the full extent of the damages,48 as explained [in the previous halachah].49
טז
וכן אינו חייב על מיתת הבהמה בבור או על חביטתה בתל. אלא אם היתה הבהמה קטנה או חרשת או שוטה או סומא או שנפלה בלילה. אבל אם
17
If an ox that had been consecrated as a sacrificial offering and then disqualified50 fell into [the cistern] and died, the owner is not liable.51 [This law is derived as follows. Exodus 21:34] states: "The dead body will belong to [its owner]." [The liability for the animal's death stated in the verse applies only] when the dead body belongs to [the owner].52 This excludes the case at hand, for it is forbidden to benefit from [the body of this animal], and it must be buried.53
יז
נפל לתוכו
18
[The following laws apply when] a person was digging a cistern and the noise of the digging caused an animal to fall into the pit and die. If [the animal] fell forwards, [the owner of the cistern] is liable. If it fell backwards - i.e., it was startled [by the sound] and retreated and then fell - [the owner] is not liable. [The latter law is derived as follows. Exodus 21:33 states: "When an ox...] falls," [implied is that for the person to be liable], the ox must fall in an ordinary manner.54 If [the animal] fell forward outside the cistern because of the sound of the digging and died, the court does not hold the owner of the cistern liable.55 If the person [whose ox died] seizes property [belonging to the owner of the cistern], it is not expropriated from him. If [the animal] fell backward outside the cistern and died or was injured, the owner of the cistern is not liable.
יח
היה חופר בבור ונפלה הבהמה בתוך הבור מקול החפירה ומתה. אם נפלה מלפניה חייב מאחריה כגון שנבעתה וחזרה על עקבה לאחור ונפלה ומתה פטור שנאמר ונפל עד שיפול דרך נפילה. נפלה לפניה מקול החפירה
19
[The following rules apply when] an ox pushes another animal into a cistern and it dies. If [the ox] is mu'ad,56 the owner of the cistern is required to pay half [the damages], and the owner of the ox the [other] half.57 If [the ox] is tam, the owner of the ox must pay one-fourth [of the damages] from the body of the ox,58while the owner of the cistern must pay three-fourths of the damage from his most choice property. For the owner of the dead animal may say to the owner of the cistern: "You owe me for the depreciation in value of this dead animal. Although it was a mature animal and mentally competent, it is as if it fell at night.59 I will collect whatever I can from the owner of the ox. You are liable to pay me the remainder."60
יט
שור שדחף בהמה לתוך הבור ומתה. אם מועד הוא בעל הבור משלם מחצה ובעל השור מחצה. ואם תם הוא בעל השור משלם רביע מגופו ובעל הבור משלם שלשה חלקים מן היפה שבנכסיו. שבעל הנבילה אומר לבעל הבור פחת נבילה זו יש לי אצלך אע"פ שהיא גדולה ופקחת כיון שנדחפה הרי זו כמי שנפלה בלילה כל שאני יכול להוציא מבעל השור אני מוציא [ג] והשאר אתה חייב לשלמו:
20
Similarly, if a person places a stone at the edge of a cistern, and an ox stumbles over it and falls into the cistern and dies, the person who placed the stone there must pay [half the damages],61 and the owner of the cistern must pay the [other] half.
כ
וכן המניח אבן על פי הבור ובא השור ונתקל בה ונפל לבור ומת. המניח את האבן משלם מחצה ובעל הבור מחצה:
21
Similarly,62 [the following laws apply when] an ordinary ox and an ox that was consecrated as a sacrifice and then disqualified gored another ox together. If the ordinary ox is a tam, [its owner] should pay half the damages. If it is mu'ad, [its owner] must pay the entire damages. [The entire burden falls on this person,] because the owner of the ox that suffered the damage will say to him: "I will collect all that I can from the other ox, and you are liable for the remainder. In this instance, since the other ox is consecrated and therefore [its owner is] not held liable,63 you must pay me the entire amount."
כא
וכן שור של הדיוט ושל פסולי המוקדשין שנגחו כאחד. אם תם הוא זה של הדיוט משלם חצי נזק ואם מועד נזק שלם. שהניזק אומר לו כל שאוכל להוציא מזה אוציא והשאר ממך וזה הואיל והקדש הוא ופטור אתה תשלם לי הכל:
22
כב
מי שהיה חופר בור ברשות הרבים ונפל עליו שור והרגו. בעל השור פטור. ואם מת השור נוטל בעל השור דמי שורו מיורשי בעל הבור:
FOOTNOTES
1.
The Rambam has completed his discussion of the first two general categories of damages: grazing and goring. He now goes on to the third category. The damages caused by a cistern.Payment of these damages is also considered one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandment 238, and Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah 53). This mitzvah can be defined as compensating a person for the death or damage to animals he owns that came as a result of an object owned by another person, which serves as a stumbling block.
2.
The Rambam's wording is taken fromExodus 21:33.
3.
In which case the death of the animal was not caused by its fall, but by the foul air of the cistern. Even so, the owner of the cistern is held liable.
4.
Although the cistern does not actually belong to him - for it is in the public domain - since he dug it without permission, the Torah holds him liable for the damages as if it were his own.
5.
Since the opening of the cistern is accessible to others, its owner should have taken precautions and made certain that it was covered.The Tur (Choshen Mishpat 410) maintains that this applies only until the owner of the adjoining courtyard is made aware of the cistern's presence. Once the owner of the courtyard knows about the presence of the cistern, he is liable.
6.
Since he declared the property ownerless, the cistern is accessible to others and therefore should be covered.
7.
This applies even when the cistern was dug by an animal belonging to someone else. As long as a cistern accessible to the public exists within a person's domain, he is liable to cover it. Moreover, the Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 410:4) add that even if the cistern is dug by another human being, the owner of the cistern is liable for any damages caused as soon as he discovers it.
8.
From this, Ki'nat Eliyahu draws the conclusion that the owner is not required to check the cover continually to see that it is strong enough to serve its purpose.
9.
The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 410:23) state that if, however, a camel falls into the cistern, the owner is liable. This is not considered a factor beyond his control.
10.
For he should have protected against such a possibility.
11.
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, explaining as follows: As mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 15, even though ultimately damage was caused because of forces beyond one's control, if one has been negligent at the outset, one is liable. Therefore, in this instance, although the decay of the cover is considered to be beyond the owner's control, since he had been negligent in not covering the cistern with a cover strong enough to support camels, he should be held liable.The Maggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that the above principle applies when the negligence can, at least to a certain extent, be considered a cause of the loss suffered by forces beyond one's control. In this instance, however, the fact that the cover was not sufficient to support camels can in no way be considered a cause of the decay of the cover.The Maggid Mishneh's resolution is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 410:24). Note the Tur and the Ramah, who develop the latter principle further.
12.
I.e., the one who dug the cistern in the public domain, who is held responsible for its damages.
13.
For he has merely returned the situation to its original state.Note the comments of the Maggid Mishneh, who - in response to the objections of the Ra'avad - explains that this law applies even when the owner saw the other person covering the cistern. The owner should know not to rely on a person who is not the cistern's owner (Sefer Me'irat Einayim 410:3).
14.
It is as if the second person had dug the cistern himself (ibid.:4).
15.
It appears that the Rambam's intent is that only the first partner is liable. Rabbenu Asher and his conception is quoted by the Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 410:25) explains that since both partners saw the cistern uncovered, they are both liable. The Talmud's intent by saying the first is liable, is that he must share in the liability. He cannot excuse himself by saying: Since the other partner saw it after me, he must bear the entire responsibility.
16.
Note the Lechem Mishneh who, based on Halachah 9, explains that the buckets were used as the covering for the cistern. See the commentaries of Rashi and Rabbenu Chanan'el on Bava Kama 51b.
17.
The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 410:26) explain that the second partner is also given time to hire workers to cover the cistern.
18.
The Ra'avad interprets the Rambam's words as meaning until he would ordinarily know, while the Maggid Mishneh explains that the intent is until he actually finds out.
19.
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, explaining that if the cistern is covered thoroughly, the owner is not held liable. The Maggid Mishneh upholds the Rambam's ruling, and Sefer Me'irat Einayim 410:45 explains that furthermore, we have reason to believe that the mentally incompetents opened the covering themselves.
20.
That were taken without his colleague's permission.
21.
For he should have taken into consideration the possibility that the owner of the buckets would take them back. The owner of the buckets is not obligated to notify him.
22.
For a cistern is usually at least ten handbreadths deep, while the others may not be that deep.See parallels to this ruling in Hilchot Shechitah 9:8 and Hilchot Rotzeach 3:7.
23.
Even if its depth is small, if it presents a difficulty that could cause an animal to stumble and suffer damage, the owner is liable (Maggid Mishneh). See Halachah 15.
24.
For under ordinary circumstances, a fall of less than ten handbreadths will not cause an animal to die.
25.
The rationale is that the water impairs the quality of the air in the cistern and hastens the animal's death.
26.
See Chapter 1, Halachah 11 and notes.
27.
Therefore, the money is allowed to remain in the possession of the litigant - either the owner of the pit or the owner of the animal - in whose possession it is at the time the matter is brought to court.
28.
Since each of them dug an amount sufficient to cause death, the damages are equally divided among them.
29.
He is solely liable both for damages and for death. The rationale is that the original cistern was not deep enough to cause death. Hence, when the second person deepened it, making it deep enough to cause death, he is considered to have brought into being a new entity for which he alone is liable if it causes damages.
30.
According to this view, once the second person deepened the cistern, it is considered to be his handiwork entirely, as if the first person no longer had any connection to it. Therefore, the second person has the responsibility of covering the cistern, and paying for any damages that might be caused.
31.
Therefore, neither of the people who dug the cistern can be held liable. According to the views that maintain that a person who seizes property when an unresolved doubt exists is allowed to maintain possession, if the person whose property was damaged seizes property from either or both of the persons who dug the cistern, he is entitled to maintain possession (Sefer Me'irat Einayim 410:33).
32.
I.e., ten or more handbreadths deep.
33.
This addition is made based on the comments of Sefer Me'irat Einayim 410:24. It helps reconcile the difficulties with the Rambam's interpretation mentioned in the notes that follow.
34.
By widening the cistern, he enabled more fresh air to circulate.
35.
By widening the cistern, he made it more likely that an animal would fall in. Therefore, he is considered to be the owner of the cistern and is held responsible for the damages, even when the animal fell from the other side.
36.
This addition is made on the basis of the comments of Sefer Me'irat Einayim 410:25.
37.
And the second person improved the quality of the air. Nevertheless, he is held liable, because had he not widened the cistern, it is possible that the ox would not have fallen in.
38.
The Rambam's ruling has attracted the attention of the commentaries, because it appears to fuse together two dissenting Talmudic opinions (Bava Kama 51b). As the Maggid Mishneh explains, according to the first of the opinions mentioned in that passage, it appears that what is significant is whether the animal died because of the blow it received or because of the foul air in the cistern, while according to the second opinion, what is significant is the side from which the animal fell.The Kessef Mishneh reconciles the Rambam's interpretation, explaining that the Rambam did not see the two interpretations as being contradictory, for if that were the case, each one could be refuted by an obvious question. According to the first opinion: Why would the first person be held liable if the ox died because of the air in the cistern if the ox fell in from the side that the other person widened? Had he not widened it, the ox might not have fallen in.According to the second opinion, the question arises: Since the second person's action makes him liable if an ox falls in, what difference does it make from which side it fell.For these reasons, the Rambam maintains that the two opinions are complementary. See the D'rishah (Choshen Mishpat 410), which offers an alternate resolution of the Rambam's view. Rabbenu Asher, the Tur, and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 410:16) differ with the Rambam and follow the second opinion, which maintains that the liability depends on the side from which the ox fell.
39.
This ruling is the subject of a difference of opinion among the Sages of the Talmud (Bava Kama 50b). The Rambam accepts the opinion of the sage Shmuel.
40.
For the animal is considered to have died because of forces beyond the owner's control (Sefer Me'irat Einayim 410:28).
41.
I.e., there were substances at the bottom of the cistern that cushioned the animal's fall (Tur, Choshen Mishpat 410).
42.
The Rambam's wording is carefully chosen. As opposed to the owner of a cistern, who can be held liable whether the animal dies from the blow it receives or from the foul air, a person who erects a mound can be held liable only when the animal dies because of the blow it receives.
43.
See Hilchot Chovel UMazik 1:18.
44.
In all three of these instances, the person who dug the cistern or who erected the mound is liable, for the animal is considered to be mentally incompetent and unable to appreciate the danger that the cistern or mound could cause.
45.
In these instances, although the animal was mentally competent, since it could not see the cistern or the mound, it was unable to appreciate the danger.
46.
This is a decree of Torah law. Commenting on Exodus 21:33: If an ox or a donkey fall into it, Bava Kama 28b, 52a states: An ox' and not a man, a donkey,' and not utensils.
47.
For the leniency is not a result of the fact that a person takes care while walking, but a result of the Torah's decree.
48.
Although the owner must pay the full extent of the damages, he is not liable for the medical treatment, pain, embarrassment, and loss of employment suffered by the person, as stated in Chapter 14, Halachah 15.
49.
With regard to an injury suffered by a human being, Tosafot, Bava Kama 27b explains that the Torah freed the owner of a cistern from liability only when a person died because of a fall (as is the case in the verse cited above), and not when he became injured. Even if the injury is suffered during the day, the person is liable, because it is not common for a person to look carefully at the road on which he is walking.With regard to an injury suffered by an animal, the Rambam's ruling is the subject of a difference of opinion among our Rabbis. The Ra'avad maintains that just as the owner of the cistern is not liable for the death of a mentally competent animal that falls during the daytime, he is not liable for its injury.The Maggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that although an animal may act with caution with regard to obstacles that can cause more severe damages, it will not be as sensitive with regard to obstacles that can cause lesser damages. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 410:20) quotes the Rambam's view, while the Tur and the Ramah follow that of the Ra'avad. Note, however, the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 412:3), which appears to follow the approach of the Ra'avad.
50.
E.g., an animal that suffered a disqualifying physical blemish after being consecrated. This law applies even in the present age, with regard to a firstborn animal.
51.
In Hilchot Chovel UMazik 6:16, the Rambam states that this leniency applies even when the animal is merely injured.
52.
And he is permitted to benefit from it.
53.
Note the Ra'avad, who states that this leniency applies even when the disqualified animal has already been redeemed by its owner. Although the Rambam's wording does not appear to include such an instance (for then, it is permitted to benefit from the animal), the Maggid Mishneh states that he would accept the Ra'avad's ruling.
54.
The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, because it appears to contradict the understanding of Bava Kama 52b-53a. First of all, the Talmud explains that this matter is dependent on a difference of opinion between Rav and Shmuel. In Halachah 15, the Rambam rules according to Shmuel, while here his ruling appears closer to that of Rav. According to the Ra'avad, if the animal fell backwards into the cistern, the owner of the cistern is not held liable, but if the owner seizes property belonging to the other, it is not expropriated from him.The Rambam's interpretation of this passage is obviously problematic. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Kama 5:6), his interpretation also appears to differ from this halachah. There he writes that if the ox falls backwards into the cistern, the owner of the cistern is liable. If he falls backwards outside the cistern, the owner of the cistern is not liable. This understanding is reflected in the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 410:31).
55.
For the animal died because of the blow it received from the land in the public domain, and not that of the cistern. The Ra'avad differs with regard to this clause as well and maintains that the property of the cistern's owner may not be seized. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 410:31) also follows that understanding.
56.
In which case, its owner is ordinarily responsible for the full extent of the damages it causes.
57.
The ox that pushes the animal and the cistern into which it fell are considered equally responsible for the damage. Had the ox not been pushed, it would not have fallen. Had the cistern not been uncovered in the public domain, the ox would also not have fallen.
58.
For the owner of an ox that is tam is required to pay half of the damages (in this case, half of a half), and that payment can be expropriated only from the body of the ox that did the damage. If the ox is not worth that amount, the owner is not obligated to pay any more.
59.
I.e., one cannot say that the animal should have avoided the obstacles.
60.
For had the cistern not been there, the animal would not have died.
61.
As explained in the following chapter, placing any obstacle in the public domain is a derivative of digging a cistern and causes one to be liable for the damages suffered. In this instance, the person who placed the stone and the one who dug the cistern are considered to be partners in this liability, for were it not for the stone, the animal would not have fallen. And were it not for the cistern, the fall would not have resulted in its death.
62.
This is another example of a case where two people are considered to be partners in damage that is caused. Each is considered to be liable for the entire amount. Nevertheless, since the person whose property was damaged does not have to receive more than the amount he lost, the loss is divided between the two (Bava Kama 53a). In this instance, as in Halachah 19, the owner of the dead animal cannot collect from the owner of the ox that was disqualified as a sacrifice. Hence, he collects the entire amount from the owner of the other ox.
63.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 1, from which it is evident that the present halachah refers to an ox that was consecrated, disqualified, but not redeemed as yet.
64.
I.e., he does not have to pay an atonement fine, nor is the ox stoned, as reflected by the ruling in Chapter 10, Halachah 9. The person digging the cistern is considered to be negligent, and the fact that the ox fell is his responsibility.
65.
See Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh 11:4.
Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Thirteen
1
When utensils fall into a cistern and break, the owner of the cistern is not liable.1 [This is derived from Exodus 21:33, which] states: "And an ox or a donkey fell there." The Oral Tradition interprets2 this as an exclusion: "'An ox' and not a man;3 'a donkey' and not utensils." Even when an ox fell [into a cistern] when carrying utensils and died and broke the utensils, the owner is liable for the ox, but not for the utensils.
א
כלים א שנפלו לבור ונשתברו בעל הבור פטור שנאמר ונפל שמה שור או חמור מפי השמועה למדו שור ולא אדם חמור ולא כלים. אפילו נפל שור בכליו ומת השור ונשתברו כליו חייב על הבהמה ופטור על הכלים:
2
A cistern is considered one of the general categories of causes of damage. Its derivatives, like it, are consideredmu'adim from the outset. Whenever a person leaves an obstacle [in the path of other living beings], it is considered to be a derivative of a cistern.4 If a person or an animal is injured because of it, the person who caused the obstacle to exist is liable, whether or not he renounced ownership of it. If it caused damage to utensils, [the person responsible] is not held liable.
ב
הבור מאבות נזיקין הוא ותולדותיו כמוהו מועדין מתחילתן. וכל המניח תקלה הרי זו תולדת הבור ואם הוזק בה אדם או בהמה משלם זה שהניח התקלה נזק שלם בין הפקיר [א] התקלה בין לא הפקירה. ואם הוזקו בה כלים פטור:
3
What is implied? When a person leaves his stone, his knife, his straw, his burden or the like in the public domain, and they cause injury to another human or to an animal, [the first person] is liable for the full amount of the damages. Similarly, if he left such items on his property and declared his property - but not these items - ownerless, and a person stumbled on the ground5 and received a blow from such an item that caused him injury, the person who caused the obstacle to exist is liable. If the person's utensils became damaged or soiled in such a situation, [the person who caused the obstacle to exist] is not liable.
ג
כיצד המניח אבנו או סכינו או תבנו או משאו וכיוצא בהן ברשות הרבים והוזקו בהן בין אדם בין בהמה חייב נזק שלם וכן אם הניחן ברשותו והפקיר רשותו ולא הפקירן נתקל בקרקע ונחבט בתקלה זו והוזק בה חייב בעל התקלה. ואם הוזקו כלים בכל אלו או נטנפו פטור:
4
If a person brought his ox into a courtyard belonging to another person without permission, the ox defecated, and the feces soiled utensils belonging to the owner, [the owner of the ox] is not liable. For the feces are considered to be a derivative of a cistern, and [the owner of] a cistern is never liable for damage to utensils.
ד
הכניס שורו לחצר בעל הבית שלא ברשות והרביץ גללים ונטנפו בהן כליו של בעל הבית פטור. שהגלל זה תולדת בור הוא ולא מצאנו בור שחייב בו על הכלים:
5
[The following laws apply when a person] leaves his jug in the public domain, and a passerby stumbles over it and breaks it. The passerby is not liable, because it is not the practice of people to look out on the way as they walk. If [the passerby] was injured, the owner of the jug is liable for his injury. [This applies] even if he declared his jug ownerless. For whenever a person declares ownerless an obstacle that he has created in a domain in which he has no permission to place it at the outset,6 he is liable, as if he had never declared it ownerless.
ה
המניח את הכד ברשות הרבים והלך [המהלך] ונתקל בה ושברה פטור לפי שאין דרך בני [ב] אדם להתבונן בדרך כשהן מהלכין. ואם הוזק בה הרי בעל הכד חייב בנזקיו ואפילו הפקיר הכד. שכל המפקיר נזקיו במקום שאין לו רשות לעשותה מתחלה חייב כאילו לא הפקירן:
6
If the person placed the jug down in a place where he had permission to place it - e.g., the marketplace before the wine vats or the like7 - and a passerby stumbles over it and breaks it, [the passerby] is liable. If the passerby was injured, the owner of the jug is not liable, because [the passerby] should have looked to see [if there was anything in his way].8 If it was dark or [if the owner of the jugs] filled the entire path with jugs, the passerby is not liable for breaking it. If he is injured, the owner of the jugs is liable.9Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
ו
הניח את הכד במקום שיש לו רשות להניחה שם כגון מקום הקרנות של גיתות וכיוצא בהן ונתקל בה ושברה חייב. ואם הוזק בה המהלך בעל הכד פטור מפני שהיה לו להסתכל. ואם היתה אפלה או שמילא כל הדרך כדים פטור [ג] על שבירתה ואם נתקל בה הרי בעל הכד חייב וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
7
[The following rules apply when] a jug belonging to a person breaks [accidentally] in the public domain, and another person slips on the water [that spilled] or receives a blow from its shards. The owner cannot be held liable by an earthly court, because [the jug] was broken by accident.10 He has, however, a moral and a spiritual obligation, because he did not gather the shards.11 The shards and the water are like ownerless entities, [even though] he did not rescind his ownership until after the accident, he is not held liable. If he intended to take possession of the shards, and another person was damaged by them, he is liable. Similar laws apply to a person whose camel fell and he did not raise it up, or the like.12 In all these situations, if utensils were damaged, the owner of the obstacle is not liable, whether he declared his object ownerless or not, as we have explained.13
ז
נשברה כדו ברשות הרבים והוחלק אחד במים או שלקה בחרסיה פטור מדיני אדם לפי שאנוס הוא. וחייב בדיני שמים מפני שלא סילק החרסים. והרי החרסים והמים כהפקר ולא הפקיר אלא אחר שנאנס ולפיכך פטור. ואם נתכוון לזכות בחרסיה והוזק בהן אחר חייב. והוא הדין לנפלה גמלו ולא העמידה וכל כיוצא בה. ואם הוזקו כלים בכל אלו פטור בין הפקיר בין לא הפקיר כמו שביארנו:
8
[The following laws apply when] two potters were following each other on a path, the first tripped and fell, and the second tripped over the first. If the first could have stood up but failed to do so, he is liable for the damages suffered by the second. Although he accidentally fell, the accident did not [force him to remain] lying in the road. [Therefore,] since he could have stood up, [he is liable].14 If he was unable to have risen [before the second potter tripped over him], he is not liable. [This applies] even though he did not warn [the potter] who tripped over him. [The rationale is] that he is concerned with his own [difficulties].15
ח
שני קדרים שהיו מהלכין בדרך זה אחר זה ונתקל הראשון ונפל ונתקל השני בראשון. אם היה לראשון לעמוד ולא עמד חייב הראשון בנזקי שני שאע"פ שהוא אנוס בשעת נפילה אינו אנוס בהיותו מוטל בדרך והרי הוא יכול לעמוד. ואם לא היה לו לעמוד פטור ואע"פ שלא הזהיר לזה שנתקל בו מפני שהוא טרוד בנפשו:
9
When do we say that he is liable for the damages to the second [potter]? When he suffers damage to his body. If, however, his utensils are damaged, [the first potter] is not liable. For [an owner of] a cistern is not liable for the damage to utensils, and any obstacle is considered to be a derivative of a cistern, as explained above.16
ט
במה דברים אמורים שהוא חייב בנזקיו של שני כשהוזק גופו של שני אבל אם הוזקו כליו פטור שאינו חייב על הכלים בבור וכל תקלה תולדת בור הוא כמו שביארנו:
10
[The following rules apply when] potters, glass blowers and the like were walking one after the other, the first one tripped and fell, the second tripped over the first one, and the third tripped over the second. Each of them had time to stand up, but failed to do so. The first is liable for the damages to the body of the second, regardless of whether he was injured by the body of the first person who is lying on the earth,17 or he was injured by his burden.18 The second is liable for the injuries suffered by the body of the third person if he was injured by the second person's body. If, however, he was injured by the second person's burden, [the second person] is not liable. For he will say: "I did not dig this cistern - i.e., my burden." For it was the first person who caused the second person and his burden to fall.19 In all cases, [if the person who fell] warned [the person who tripped over him or his burden], [the person who fell] is not liable.
י
הקדרים והזגגים וכיוצא בהן שהיו מהלכין זה אחר זה ונתקל הראשון ונפל ונתקל השני בראשון והשלישי בשני וכל אחד מהן יש לו לעמוד ולא עמד. הראשון חייב בנזקי גופו של שני בין שהוזק בגופו של ראשון המוטל בארץ בין שהוזק במשאו.
11
If the first person fell and was lying lengthwise across the road and one person tripped over his head, another [tripped] over his legs and a third over his abdomen, he is liable for the injuries each suffered, for he had the potential to arise.
יא
נפל הראשון והיה מוטל לרוחב הדרך ונתקל אחד בראשו ואחד ברגליו ואחד בבטנו הרי הוא חייב בנזקי כולן הואיל והיה לו לעמוד ולא עמד:
12
When a person pours water into the public domain, and another person is injured by it, [the one who poured out the water] is liable for the damages.20 If the other person's garments were soiled, [the one who poured out the water] is not liable, as we have explained.21 If the water was absorbed by the earth, but the earth remained slippery,22 and a person slipped and fell and was injured by the ground, [the one who poured out the water] is liable.23
יב
השופך את המים ברשות הרבים והוזק בהן אחר חייב בנזקיו ואם נטנפו כליו פטור כמו שביארנו.
13
All those who open their sewage vats and rake out their cesspools do not have permission to pour this water into the public domain during the summer months.24 In the rainy season, a person has permission [to release such sewage].25Nevertheless, if a person or an animal is damaged by the water, the one who released it is responsible for the entire sum of the damages.26
יג
כל אלו שפותקין ביבותיהן וגורפין מערותיהן אין להן רשות לשפוך המים ברשות הרבים בימות החמה אבל בימות הגשמים יש להן רשות. ואעפ"כ אם הוזק אדם או בהמה במים חייבין נזק שלם:
14
A person should not take his straw and hay out to the public domain so that it will be trod upon and become fit to use as fertilizer. If he did take it out, our Sages penalized him and declared the straw to be ownerless. The first person to take possession of it acquires it as his own, once it has been trod upon and its value has increased.27 If a person took possession of it before that time - i.e., directly after it was taken out to the public domain - it should not be expropriated from him.28 Although the straw and the hay are ownerless, if [they cause damage to] a person or an animal, the person who brought it out [to the public domain] must compensate [for the damages].29
יד
לא יוציא אדם תבנו וקשו לרשות הרבים כדי שידושו ויעשו לו זבל. ואם הוציאו קנסוהו חכמים שיהיו כהפקר וכל הקודם בהן זכה מעת שנידושו והשביחו. ואם קדם אדם וזכה בהן משעת הוצאה לרשות הרבים אין מוציאין מידו. ואע"פ שהן כהפקר אם הוזק בהן אדם או בהמה הרי זה המוציא חייב לשלם:
15
A person may take out compost and manure to the public domain at a time when everyone does so and amass them there for 30 days so that they will be trodden upon by people and animals. Although [permission is granted], if these substances cause damage the owner is liable for the damages. [If another person takes] this manure,30 he is liable for theft. Since its value will not increase [appreciably] by being trodden upon, [our Sages] did not penalize him [by declaring it ownerless].31
טו
יש לכל אדם להוציא את הזבל והגללים לרשות הרבים בשעת הוצאת זבלים ולצבור אותן שם שלשים יום כדי שיהיה נשוף ברגלי אדם [ורגלי בהמה]. ואע"פ כן אם הזיק חייב לשלם. וחייבין על זה הגלל משום גזל כיון שאין בו שבח אם גדוש לא קנסו בו:
16
טז
אין שורין טיט ברשות הרבים ואין לובנים לבנים. אבל גובלין טיט ברשות הרבים אבל לא לבנים:
17
When a person constructs a building in the public domain, the one who brings stones may bring stones, and the one who builds may build. If any of them causes damage, they are obligated to pay for the entire sum of the damages.34
יז
הבונה ברשות הרבים המביא אבנים מביא והבונה בונה. וכולן א שהזיקו חייבין לשלם נזק שלם:
18
When a quarrier hews out a stone and gives it to a stonecutter, and it causes damage to a human or an animal, the stonecutter is liable. If the stonecutter gives it to a donkey-driver35 [and it causes damage], the donkey-driver is liable. If the donkey-driver gives it to a porter36 [and it causes damage], the porter is liable. If the porter gives it to a builder [and it causes damage], the builder is liable. If the builder gives it to the person who positions it on the building [and it causes damage], the latter is liable. If they were working as contractors [in a partnership], and after it was positioned in its place on the building it fell and caused damage, they all share in the liability.37 If they are hired laborers, the one [who positioned the stone in its place] is liable, and the others are not liable.38
יח
החוצב שחצב אבן ומסרה לסתת והוזק בה אדם או בהמה הסתת חייב. וסתת שמסר לחמר החמר חייב. מסר חמר לכתף הכתף חייב. מסר כתף לבונה הבונה חייב. מסרה הבונה לזה שמתקן ישיבתה בבנין המתקן חייב. ואם אחר שהעלוה על גבי הדימוס נפלה והזיקה והיו עושין בקבלנות כולן חייבין. ובשכירות האחרון חייב וכולן פטורין:
19
When a wall or a tree falls into the public domain and causes damage,39 the owner is not required to compensate [for the damages].40 [This applies] even when he declared [the tree or the wall] ownerless.41 [The rationale is that these entities] do not resemble a cistern, for at the outset, [it is not likely] that they will cause damage. If they were not sturdy, the court sets a time for the person by which he must cut down the tree and tear down the wall. How much time is granted him? Thirty days.42 If the tree or the wall falls within this time and causes damage, he is not liable. [If it falls] afterwards, he is liable, because he delayed [beyond the limits set].
יט
הכותל והאילן שנפלו לרשות הרבים [ד] והזיקו [ה] פטור מלשלם ואע"פ שהפקירן. לפי שאינן דומים לבור שהרי אין תחילתן להזיק. ואם היו רעועין בית דין קובעין לו זמן לקוץ את האילן ולסתור את הכותל וכמה הזמן שלשים יום. נפלו בתוך הזמן והזיקו פטור לאחר הזמן חייב מפני ששהה אותן:
20
When a person places thorns or glass [within a wall], or when a person makes a fence of thorns that project into the public domain, and it causes damage to another person,43 he is liable for the full extent of the damages. If he makes a fence of thorns that are contained within his property,44 he is not held liable, for it is not ordinary for people to rub against a wall [in the public domain].
כ
המצניע את הקוץ ואת הזכוכית והגודר גדרו בקוצים והפריח לרשות הרבים והוזק אחד בהן חייב נזק שלם. ואם גדר בקוצים בצמצום בתוך רשותו פטור לפי שאין דרך בני אדם להתחכך בכתלים:
21
[The following laws apply when] a person hid his thorns and [fragments of] glass in a wall belonging to a colleague, the owner of the wall came and tore down his wall into the public domain, and [the thorns or glass] caused damage. If the wall was shaky,45 the person who hid [the thorns or glass] is liable. If the wall was strong, its owner is liable.46
כא
המצניע קוציו וזכוכיותיו בתוך כותלו של חבירו ובא בעל הכותל וסתר את כותלו ונפל לרשות הרבים והזיק. אם כותל רעוע היה המצניע חייב. ואם כותל בריא הוא בעל הכותל חייב:
22
The pious men47 of the early generations would bury thorns and [fragments of] glass in their fields [at least] three handbreadths below the ground, so they would not be lifted up by a plow. Others would burn them in fire. Still others would throw them to the sea or to the river so that other people would not be injured by them.
כב
חסידים הראשונים היו מצניעין את הקוצים ואת הזכוכיות בתוך שדותיהם בעומק שלשה טפחים בארץ כדי שלא תעלם המחרישה. ואחרים שורפים [ו] אותם באש. ואחרים משליכים אותם לים או לנהר כדי שלא יוזק בהם אדם.
23
A person should not clear stones from his private property into the public domain.48 One should not dig a cavity, a cistern, a trench or a cave under the public domain.49 [This applies] even when [the covering of the cavity is so strong] that it can support a carriage laden with stones, for there is the possibility that [at a later date] it will open from below without his knowledge. It is permitted for a person to dig a cistern for the needs of people at large.50
כג
לא יסקל אדם מרשותו לרשות הרבים. ואין עושין חלל תחת רשות הרבים ג ולא בורות ולא שיחין ולא מערות ואע"פ שהעגלה יכולה להלך על גביהן והיא טעונה אבנים שמא תפחת מלמטה שלא מדעתו. והחופר בור ד לצרכי רבים מותר:
24
One should not build projections and balconies that protrude into the public domain unless it is possible for a camel and its rider51 to pass beneath, and provided it does not cast shadows on the people in the public domain. If he desires, he can withdraw the walls [of his building into his own domain] and build [the projection].52 If he did withdraw the walls [of his building], but has not built [a projection], he may do so at any time he desires. Never, however, may he return the walls to their original place. Once people at large have been granted permission to pass through a particular property, it cannot be withdrawn.53
כד
אין מוציאין זיזין וגזוזטראות לרשות הרבים אלא אם כן היו למעלה מגמל ורוכבו. [ז] והוא שלא יאפיל הדרך על בני רשות הרבים. ואם רצה כונס לתוך שלו ומוציאו. כנס ולא הוציא הרי זה מוציא כל זמן שירצה אבל אינו יכול להחזיר כותלים למקומן לעולם. שכל מיצר שהחזיקו בו רבים אסור [ח] לקלקלו:
25
When a person purchased a courtyard with projections and balconies protruding into the public domain, we operate under the presumption [that they were built legally].54 If the building falls, he is allowed to rebuild it according to its original proportions.
כה
לקח חצר ובה זיזין וגזוזטראות יוצאות לרשות הרבים הרי זו בחזקתה ואם נפלה חוזר ובונה אותה כשהיתה:
26
When [the foliage of] a tree leans into the public domain, it should be trimmed so that a camel and its rider can pass under it. An empty space should be left next to the banks on both sides of a river wide enough for the crewmen who descend and pull a boat.55 Any tree that is found in this space should be cut down immediately. A warning need not be given to its owner,56 for it blocks the crewmen from pulling ships.
כו
אילן שהוא נוטה לרשות הרבים קוצץ כדי שיהיה הגמל עובר ברוכבו. ומניחין מקום פנוי משתי שפתות הנהר כרחב כתפי המלחים שיורדין שם ומושכין הספינה. וכל אילן הנמצא ברוחב זה קוצצין אותו מיד ואין מתרין בבעליו שהרי מעכב מושכי הספינה:
27
[The following rules apply when] there was a path for people at large passing through a person's field, he expropriated the path and prepared a new path at the side of the field. What he granted them, they acquire possession of,57 but he does not acquire possession of [the land] he took. How wide is a path for people at large? Not less than sixteen cubits.58
כז
מי שהיתה דרך הרבים עוברת בתוך שדהו נטלה ונתנה להם מן הצד מה שנתן נתן וזכו בו וזה שנטל לא זכה בו. וכמה רוחב דרך הרבים אין פחות משש עשרה אמות:
FOOTNOTES
1.
Similarly, as stated in the following halachah, the owner of thecistern is not held liable if the utensils are damaged. With regard toa human, by contrast, the owner is liable for damages. (See Chapter12, Halachah 16; Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 410:21.)
2.
See Bava Kama 28b, 53b.
3.
See Chapter 12, Halachah 16.
4.
See the Tur (Choshen Mishpat 410), which defines thederivatives of a cistern as including any property that causesdamage in its place, which does not move. Although the Rambammentions a moving obstacle in Chapter 2, Halachah 19, the intentis that the obstacle is being moved by another force.
5.
The person stumbled on the earth, and this is what caused theinjury. Nevertheless, since the earth is ownerless, he collects thedamages from the person who left the obstacle in its place. Were itnot for the obstacle, the damage would not have taken place.
6.
If, however, he left a jug on his own property and then declared itownerless, he is not liable. At the outset, he had permission to leavethe jug there. See Chapter 12, Halachah 2.
7.
I.e. a place in front of oil vats or beehives, where jugs of oil orhoney would be filled.
8.
Although, as stated above, it is not the general practice forpeople to watch for obstacles as they walk, since jugs are often lefton the ground in places like these, a passerby should watch his step(Kessef Mishneh).
9.
In the dark, the owner of the jugs should have removed them beforenightfall, for he knows that a passerby will not be able to see. If hefilled the path with jugs, he made it likely that a person would breaka jug as he passed by.Note the quotation of this law in the Shulchan Aruch(Choshen Mishpat 412:2). There a further category is added: aninstance where a person places so many jugs in the road that it isimpossible for people to pass without breaking some of the jugs: thepasserby is not liable even if he intentionally broke enough jugs toallow him to pass.
10.
Since the jug broke accidentally, the owner is not considerednegligent with regard to the damages that were caused. For thisreason, the laws stated in Halachah 5 are not applied to him.
11.
If he did not have time to gather the shards before the otherperson was injured, he does not have such a moral obligation(Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 412:4.)
12.
For the camel, like the broken pitcher, fell accidentally as thepitcher broke, and is thus considered to be an obstacleunintentionally placed in the public domain. Bava Kama 29astates that this is speaking of an instance where the camel died, andits owner rescinded his ownership over its carcass. Otherwise, hewould be held liable.
13.
Halachah 1.
14.
I.e., his body is considered like an obstacle in the publicdomain.
15.
Although one might think that he could have been held liable fornot warning his colleague, this presumption is not accepted. Hisconcern for his own welfare takes priority. Rabbenu Asher (and hisopinion is accepted by the Tur and the Ramah ChoshenMishpat 413:1) differs and maintains that if the first potterhad the opportunity to warn the second and failed to do so, he isliable.
16.
Halachah 2. Implied by the Rambam's wording in this halachah (andthe following one) is that the body of the first potter is consideredto be an obstacle. He is not considered to have caused damage to hiscolleague with his person.
17.
This reflects the concept mentioned in the previous note. Aperson's body is considered to be an obstacle. Therefore, the Rambammentions damage to the body of the second person, implying that if thesecond person's utensils were damaged, the first would not be heldliable.
18.
From Halachah 7, it would appear that this ruling applies onlywhen the potter did not declare his wares ownerless. See the Ra'avad,the Maggid Mishneh, the Tur and the Ramah (ChoshenMishpat 413:2).
19.
This argument does not apply, however, with regard to injurycaused by the body of the second person. Since he had time to rise, heis liable for the injuries suffered.
20.
In this instance, there is no difference whether or not the persondeclared the water ownerless, as reflected in Halachot 2 and 7.
21.
For the owner of a derivative of a cistern is not liable fordamages to property (Halachot 1 and 2).
22.
The Ra'avad explains that this ruling applies only when the groundis still muddy because of the water. The Maggid Mishneh states that even when the water has been absorbed totally, if the ground is still slippery, the person is liable. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 412:5) appears to follow the Ra'avad's view.
23.
Although the ground did not belong to him, since the fall wascaused by the water that he poured, he is liable.
24.
During these months, the streets are clean and it is forbidden forsomeone to soil them. Moreover, in Eretz Yisrael it does notrain during these months, and the sewage will remain in the streetsfor months.
25.
For the streets are muddy at that time, and there is water flowingto wash away the sewage. Needless to say, as our sewage and sidewalkshave become more sophisticated, the relevance of these laws hasfaded.
26.
Although our Sages granted a person permission to release hissewage at this time, they did not absolve him of responsibility.
27.
There is an unresolved difference of opinion among the Sages(Bava Kama 30b) if the penalty takes effect from the time thestraw was taken out, or from the time it became useful asfertilizer.Note the Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 414:1), whostate that at the outset a person who asks whether he may take thestraw and the hay, should not be told that he may retain possession ofits initial value. Instead, he should be told that he may keep onlythe increment. After the fact, he is allowed to keep the initial valueas well.
28.
The Tur and the Ramah differ with regard to this point as well and maintain that in this instance, the straw should be expropriated from the person who took possession of it.
29.
Whenever damage is caused by an object that was declared ownerlessafter being placed in the public domain without permission, the personwho placed it there is liable.
30.
As stated in Hilchot Gezelah 6:5, this applies even if aperson takes his compost out at a time when it is forbidden to do so.A person who takes it is liable for theft.
31.
The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 414:2) statethat if the compost causes damage, it is considered to be ownerless,and it may be taken by another person.
32.
For these will remain in the public domain for an extendedperiod.
33.
To be used for building in the near future.
34.
In this instance as well, the license to perform an activity inthe public domain does not absolve a person of liability.
35.
To transport to a construction site.
36.
To carry it to the builder.
37.
If they were partners, once the task is completed they all sharein the responsibility. Until the entire task is completed, however,the person who is responsible for the activity at the time the damagewas caused must pay for the damages, even when they were allpartners.
38.
I.e., each person is liable for the portion of the task that heperforms.
39.
The Maggid Mishneh emphasizes that this applies when damageis caused by the tree or the wall as it falls. After it falls and thetree or the stones are lying in the public domain, the owner is notliable, if he declares them ownerless.
40.
This is considered an oness, a loss due to forces beyond hiscontrol. The Maggid Mishneh clarifies that this applies onlywhen the wall was constructed properly to begin with. When, however,it is built faultily, the owner is liable.
41.
Generally, despite the fact that a person declares an obstacle that he created in the public domain as ownerless, he is liable. In this instance, however,since he had permission to plant the tree or build the wall, and itfell because of forces beyond his control, he is not heldresponsible.The Maggid Mishneh explains that the owner is liable, if he desires toestablish his possession over the entities which fell.The Tur and the Ramah (loc. cit.) differ.
42.
As Bava Metzia 118a states, this is the ordinary timegranted by the court to adjust difficulties.
43.
The thorns or glass that projects is considered to be an obstacleplaced in the public domain.
44.
Even if they project beyond the wall itself, as long as they arecontained within the owner's property, he is not liable.
45.
And thus one could assume that it would be torn down in the nearfuture.
46.
The owner of the thorns or glass is not liable, because he had noreason to think that someone would tear down a sturdy wall. If thedamage was done when the wall was being destroyed, the owner of thewall is liable, because he should have taken care that no passersbywere hurt. If the damage was done after the wall was destroyed, theowner of the wall is liable, because he was responsible for clearingthe debris remaining from his wall (Tur, Beit Yosef, ChoshenMishpat 415).
47.
I.e., men who went beyond the measure of the law. This teaching isbased on the examples of sages cited by Bava Kama 30a.
48.
Lest another person stumble over them and be injured.
49.
The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 417:1) states that in his era, ithad already become customary to dig below the streets of the publicdomain. This is surely the case in our age, when engineering hasprogressed to the point that safety is not compromised by digging inthis manner.
50.
E.g., to provide travelers with drinking water.This law is stated in a separate paragraph, because as is stated inthe Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat410:7, but see 417:1), it is a separate clause, and not a continuationof the previous idea. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch alsomention that the person must cover the cistern and entrust the coverto the trustees of the people at large, or at the very least informthe court that he has dug a cistern for people, but is expecting thecourt to arrange for its being covered.
51.
A camel was the highest popular means of conveyance in Talmudictimes. Needless to say, in every era, the height should be adjusted to fit the highest contemporary means of conveyance, e.g., in the present era, allowances should be made for semi-trailers.
52.
I.e., knock down the existing walls and build new walls furtherremoved from the public domain.
53.
If, however, people do not frequently walk through this space(e.g., the person prevented that by building a platform there), he mayrebuild the walls in their original place when he desires RabbenuYerucham; Beit Yosef, Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 417:2).
54.
I.e., that the person who originally constructed the buildingbuilt its walls removed from the public domain, so that theprotrusions and balconies were permitted.
55.
I.e., the rivers of Eretz Yisrael and Babylon were for themost part neither wide nor deep. When a ship wanted to dock, severalof its crewmen would descend and they would pull the ship to the riverbank by ropes. This halachah requires that enough empty space be leftalong the river banks to allow these crewmen to maneuver. FromHilchot Geneivah 8:2, it appears that we are speaking about fourcubits.
56.
This can be derived by the conduct of Rabbah bar Rav Nachman(Bava Metzia 108a), who cleared space without informing theowner of the property.
57.
See Halachah 24.
58.
This is derived from the width of the public thoroughfare in thecamp of the Jews in the desert.
Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Fourteen
1
When a person kindles a fire in a field belonging to someone else1 and the fire spreads and causes damage, [the person who kindled it] is liable to pay the full extent of the damages,2 as [Exodus 22:5] states: "When a fire spreads through thorns and consumes bound or standing grain..., [the one who started the fire] must pay." Kindling a fire is considered one of the major categories of sources of damage.3
א
המדליק בתוך שדה חבירו ועברה הדליקה [והזיקה] חייב לשלם נזק שלם שנאמר כי תצא אש ומצאה קוצים ונאכל גדיש או הקמה וגו' שלם ישלם המבעיר וגו'. והבעירה מאבות נזיקין היא.
2
When a person kindles [a fire] on his own property, he must retreat a sufficient distance from his boundary to ensure that the fire will not spread to a field belonging to a colleague.4 How far must he move? Everything depends on the height of the fire.5 If he did not retreat an adequate distance and the fire spread and caused damage, he is liable to pay the full extent of the damages. If he retreated an appropriate distance, and [the fire] nevertheless spread and caused damage, he is not liable. This is considered an act of heaven. Similarly, if [the fire] crossed a stream6 or a pond of rainwater that was [at least] eight cubits wide, [the person who kindled the fire] is not liable.7
ב
הדליק בתוך רשותו צריך להרחיק מסוף המצר כדי שלא תעבור הדליקה לשדה חבירו. וכמה שיעור ההרחקה הכל לפי גובה הדליקה. [א] ואם לא הרחיק כראוי ועברה האש והזיקה חייב לשלם נזק שלם. הרחיק כראוי ועברה והזיקה פטור שזו מכה בידי שמים היא. וכן אם עברה נהר או שלולית שיש בהן מים ורחבן שמונה אמות פטור:
3
If the fire passed a wall, we measure the height of the wall and the height of the fire and the amount of foliage8 and bramble found there.9 If the fire was not of sufficient size to pass the wall ordinarily, he is not liable. If it is large enough, he is liable. When does the above apply? To a piercing flame].10 If, however, the flame ascends upward and warps downward because of the height of the flame, and there were trees11 there, we do not make an estimation. Even if the fire spread for 1000 cubits, [the person who kindled it] is liable.12
ג
עברה גדר אומדין גובה הגדר וגובה הדליקה והעצים או הקוצים המצויין שם אם אינה ראויה לעבור פטור ואם ראויה לעבור חייב. במה דברים אמורים באש [ב] הקודחת אבל אם היה לה להב גדול העולה ונכפף מגובה עליית הלהב והיו עצים מצויין שם אין לה אומד אלא אפילו עברה אלף אמה חייב.
4
[The following rules apply when] a fire breaks out in a person's domain,13 and his wall falls from causes other than the fire.14 If he had had the opportunity to rebuild the wall that fell, and he neglected to do so, he is liable. To what can the matter be compared?15 To a person's ox that broke loose16 and caused damage. For [the owner] was responsible for guarding him, and he failed to do so.
ד
נפלה דליקה בחצרו ונפל גדר שלא מחמת הדליקה ועברה הדליקה בחצר אחרת. אם היה יכול לגדור הגדר שנפל ולא גדרו חייב. למה הדבר דומה לשורו שיצא והזיק שהיה לו לשמרו ולא שמרו:
5
A person who sends a fire in the hands of a deaf mute, a mentally incompetent person or a child is not held liable by an earthly court;17 he does, however, have a moral and a spiritual obligation [to make restitution for the damages].18 When does the above apply? When he gave them a coal and they fanned it into a flame, for it is normal for a coal to burn out before it causes a flame. If, however, [the person] gave them a flame, he is liable, for his deeds caused the damage.19
ה
השולח את הבעירה ביד חרש שוטה וקטן פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בידי שמים. במה דברים אמורים שמסר להן גחלת וליבוה [ג] שדרך הגחלת להכבות מאליה קודם שתעבור ותדליק. אבל אם מסר להן שלהבת חייב שהרי מעשיו גרמו:
6
ו
שלח את הבעירה ביד פקח זה הפקח שהבעיר חייב לשלם והשולח פטור. וכן אם הניח שומר לשמור הבעירה השומר חייב:
7
When one person brings a flame, and [then] another person brings the wood, [and a fire is started, which causes damage], the person who brought the wood is liable.22 When one person brings the wood, and [then] another person brings a flame, [and a fire is started, which causes damage,] the person who brought the flame is liable.23 If another person comes and fans the fire, he is liable.24 If the fire is fanned by an uncommon wind,25 none of them is held liable.26 If a person fanned a fire, but it was also fanned by the wind, the person is liable, for his [actions] caused damage.27And whenever a person's [actions] cause damage, he is liable to pay for the full amount of the damages from the choicest property he owns, as if the damage was inflicted directly.
ז
8
When a fire spread and consumed wood, stone or earth,28 [the person who kindled the fire] is obligated to make restitution, as it is written: "[When a fire] spreads through thorns [and consumes...] a field." [The following rules apply when] a fire consumes a grain heap or the like and there were utensils hidden in the grain heap. If [the utensils include] a thresher, a yoke for cattle or other articles that it is likely for farmers to hide in their grain heaps, [the person who kindled the fire] is liable.29 If [the utensils include] clothes, glassware and the like, he is not liable for the damage to the utensils.30
ח
אש שיצאה ואכלה עצים או אבנים או עפר חייב לשלם שנאמר ומצאה קוצים או השדה. אכלה גדיש וכיוצא בו והיו כלים טמונים בתוך הגדיש אם היו כגון מוריגים וכלי בקר וכיוצא בהן מדברים שדרך אנשי השדה לטמנם בגדיש חייב לשלם. היו בגדים וכלי זכוכית וכיוצא בהן פטור על הכלים:
9
When does the above apply? When a person kindles a fire in a field belonging to a colleague.31 If, however, he kindles the fire in his own [domain] and it spreads to a colleague's field, he is not liable for utensils hidden in a grain heap.32 He must, however, compensate [the owner] as if the space taken by the utensils had been filled with wheat or with barley.33
ט
במה דברים אמורים במדליק בתוך שדה חבירו אבל במדליק בתוך שלו ועברה לשדה חבירו פטור על כל הכלים הטמונים [ד] בגדיש אבל משלם הוא שיעור מקום הכלים ורואין אותו כאילו הוא מלא גדיש של חטים או של שעורים:
10
A person who kindles a fire in a field belonging to a colleague is also liable [in the following instance]. The fire spread and consumed a kid that was tied to the grain heap or a servant near the grain heap.34 For this is also the ordinary practice near a grain heap. If, however, the servant was tied [to the grain heap], or the goat was near the grain heap, [the person who kindled the fire is not liable].35
י
המדליק
11
When a person lends a colleague space to make a grain heap, the colleague makes that grain heap and hides utensils in it, and then the person who lent him the space burns the grain heap, [the person who kindled the fire] is liable to pay [his colleague] only for the grain heap.36 If he lent him space to make a heap of wheat and he made a heap of barley,37 or he lent him space to make a heap of barley and he made a heap of wheat,38 or he made a heap of wheat and covered it with barley,39 or he made a heap of barley and covered it with wheat,40 [the person who kindled the fire] is not liable to pay any more than the value of a heap of barley.
יא
המשאיל מקום לחבירו והגדיש בו והטמין בו כלים והדליק המשאיל ושרף הגדיש אינו משלם אלא דמי גדיש בלבד. השאילו מקום להגדיש חטים והגדיש שעורים או להגדיש שעורים והגדיש חטים או שהגדיש חטים וחיפם בשעורים או שהגדיש שעורים וחיפם בחיטים אינו משלם לו אלא דמי שעורים בלבד:
12
When a person sets fire to a home belonging to a colleague, he must compensate for everything it contains,41for it is the ordinary practice for people to keep all their utensils and possessions in their homes. The person whose house [was burned] is entitled to collect everything he claims,42 provided he takes an oath while holding a [sacred] article.43 This oath is a Rabbinic institution, as will be explained.44 [The above applies] provided he claims articles that we can assume he owns45 or that it is customary for others to entrust to him.
יב
המדליק את הבירה של חבירו משלם כל מה שבתוכה. שכן דרך בני אדם להניח כל כליהם וכל חפציהם בבתים. וכל שיטעון בעל הבית הרי זה נשבע בנקיטת חפץ ונוטל. ושבועה זו מדברי סופרים כמו שיתבאר. ובלבד שיטעון דברים שהוא אמוד בהן או שהוא למוד להיות אותן הדברים שטען פקדון [ה] אצלו:
13
[The following rules apply when] a camel that is loaded with flax passes through the public domain, the flax that enters the shop46 is ignited by the lamp belonging to the shopkeeper and then sets fire to the entire building. The owner of the camel is liable, because he overloaded [his beast].47 [This applies regardless of] whether or not the animal stood.48 If the shopkeeper had placed his lamp outside, the shopkeeper is liable and must reimburse the camel driver even for the flax that burned, because he placed his lamp outside.49 [This applies] even with regard to a Chanukah lamp,50 for he should have sat [there] to guard it [from causing damage].
יג
גמל שהוא טעון פשתן ועובר ברשות הרבים ונכנס פשתנו לתוך החנות ודלקה בנרו של חנוני והדליק את כל הבירה בעל הגמל חייב מפני שהרבה במשאוי בין שעמדה הבהמה בין שלא עמדה. הניח החנוני נרו מבחוץ החנוני חייב אף בדמי פשתן מפני שהניח נרו מבחוץ ואפילו נר חנוכה היה לו לישב לשמור:
14
[The following rule applies when] a person bends standing grain belonging to a colleague toward a fire until it ignites. If the fire would not reach the grain unless it was spread by an uncommon wind, [the person who bent the grain] is not held liable by a mortal court.51 He does, however, have a moral and spiritual obligation to make reimbursement.52 When a person buries standing grain belonging to a colleague in earth or straw,53 and then a fire passes and consumes it, the person who buried [the grain] is not held liable by a mortal court.54 He does, however, have a moral and spiritual obligation to make reimbursement, because the person who kindled the fire is not liable for [the destruction of property that was] hidden.55
יד
הכופף קמתו של חבירו לפני האש עד שתדלק אם אין האש מגעת לה אלא ברוח שאינה מצויה פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים. והטומן קמתו של חבירו בעפר או בתבן ועברה האש ואכלה אותה הרי הטומן פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים מפני שהמדליק את האש פטור על הטמון:
15
When a fire spreads and harms a human being and injures him, the person who kindled the fire is liable for the damages, unemployment benefits, medical costs, pain and embarrassment suffered by the injured party,56 as if he had personally injured him. Although fire is one of a person's possessions, it is as if he caused him damage with his arrows.57 If, by contrast, injury to a man is caused by a person's animal or cistern, he is liable for the damages alone, as we have explained.58
טו
אש שעברה והזיקה את האדם וחבלה בו הרי [ו] המבעיר חייב בנזקיו ובשבתו וברפויו ובצערו ובבשתו כאילו הזיקו בידו שאע"פ שאשו ממונו הוא הרי הוא כמו שהזיקה [ז] בחציו. אבל אם הזיקה בהמתו או בורו את האדם אינו חייב אלא בנזק בלבד כמו שביארנו:
16
[The laws pertaining to] all the derivatives of fire59are the same as [those pertaining to] fire itself. What is implied? If a person placed a stone, a knife or a burden on his roof, and it fell because of an ordinary wind and caused damage, he must pay the full extent of the damages. All these are derivatives of fire.60 If it was an uncommon wind that caused them to fall and create damage, he is not liable.61
טז
כל תולדות האש הרי הן כאש. כיצד הניח אבן או סכין או משא בראש גגו ונפלו ברוח מצויה והזיקו חייב לשלם נזק שלם שכל אלו וכיוצא בהן תולדות הבערה הן. ואם נפלו ברוח שאינה מצויה והזיקו פטור:
FOOTNOTES
1.
Without permission.
2.
This is considered as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah by Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandments 241) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 56).As the Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 418:2) pointout, this applies even when the person took the precautions mentionedin the following halachot. Since he kindled a fire on his colleague'sproperty without permission, he must bear the consequences.
3.
As the Rambam states in Halachah 16, a major category hasderivatives. The derivatives of fire are any asset that one owns thatis transported further by the wind and causes damage.
4.
This communicates a fundamental principle. Although he is actingwithin his own domain, a person must take the necessary precautions toensure that he will not cause damage to another person's property.
5.
I.e., the higher the fire, the further he must retreat.
6.
The Hebrew wording used by the Rambam leads to the inference that astream or irrigation ditch that is dried out is not considered to be asufficient fire barrier.
7.
For it is not usual for a fire to spread across a body of waterthat size.
8.
Or wood. The Hebrew term used by the Rambam could be translatedeither way. The intent is combustible fuel.
9.
Here too, the assessment is simple. The higher the flame, thehigher the fence must must be.
10.
We find this term in Deuteronomy 32:22: There is a piercingfire in My nostrils. From the commentary of Rabbenu Chanan'el(Bava Kama 61a), it appears that the intent is a very hot firethat burns powerfully, but does not produce a high flame.
11.
Or wood. The Hebrew term used by the Rambam could be translatedeither way. The intent is combustible fuel.
12.
When a flame is this high, there are no limits to the extent thefire may spread.
13.
I.e., he kindled a fire, and the flame flew out of control.
14.
Had the wall not fallen, it would ordinarily have been consideredsufficient to impede the spread of the fire. If the fire was so greatthat it toppled the wall, the person would be liable for the damagesthe fire caused. In the instance at hand, however, the question is: Ishe held responsible for the damages the fire caused, because he couldhave rebuilt the wall and thus prevented the fire from spreading.
15.
The comparison is taken from (Bava Kama 23a).
16.
I.e., the ox was placed in a corral that was not securely locked. (See Chapter 4, Halachah 1.)
17.
These three individuals are not liable, because their incompetencecauses them to be freed of responsibility for their conduct. Theperson who gave them the fire is not held liable, for he did not setthe fire himself.
18.
For he is an indirect cause of the damage.
19.
In this instance, he is considered a direct cause of thedamage.
20.
This follows the principle When a student's (the principal whocharged the agent with causing damage) words conflict with a master's(God's, who forbade causing damage), whose words should be heeded?Since the agent is mentally competent, he must accept responsibilityfor his conduct.
21.
When he accepted the responsibility to guard the fire, he alsoaccepted the liability if he failed to do so adequately. See Chapter4, Halachah 4 and notes.
22.
For were it not for the wood, the fire would not have spread.
23.
Since the wood was already there, it is the person who kindled thefire who must accept responsibility.
24.
Because it is the fanning that causes it to spread.
25.
If, however, such winds are common, the persons who brought thewood and started the fire must accept responsibility. They should havetaken this factor into consideration.Note Maggid Mishneh and the gloss of Sefer Me'iratEinayim 418:9, who explain that the term an uncommon winddoes not refer to a storm wind that rarely comes, but rather to a windthat is an infrequent and out-of-the-ordinary matter, but still asomewhat recurrent meteorological occurrence.
26.
For without the wind's influence, the fire would not havespread.If, however, the wind is blowing at the time a person is involvedwith the fire, and he ignores the possible danger, he is held liable(Maggid Mishneh; Ramah, Choshen Mishpat 418:9).The Ramah (based on the Tur) also maintains that if it is acommon wind that caused the fire to spread, the last person who hadanything to do with the fire is liable.
27.
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's statements, maintaining thatthe liability of the person who fanned the fire is dependent on theviability of his deeds. Were his fanning sufficient to have caused thefire to spread even if it had not been fanned by the wind, he isliable. If not, he is not held liable.The Maggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, citingseveral interpretations by the Sages in Bava Kama 60a. Henevertheless questions the Rambam's decision here, based on theRambam's own words in Hilchot Sh'chenim 11:1-2.The Kessef Mishneh resolves this difficulty, explaining thatin Hilchot Sh'chenim, the Rambam mentions a situation in which aperson winnows grain in his own domain, but the wind carries the chaffoutside his domain. There, even though an ordinary wind is involved,the person is not held liable. This appears to contradict the rulinghere. Nevertheless, as the Rambam himself states in HilchotSh'chenim, had it not been for the wind, the chaff would never havecaused damaged. In this instance, the person's fanning of the firewould have caused it to spread sufficiently to cause damage.
28.
Wood is consumed entirely by fire. Stone and earth are notconsumed entirely. Nevertheless, a fire might cause them todeteriorate until they are no longer useful (or as useful as they hadbeen). The liability for both these types of substances is alluded toin the verse the Rambam cites: Thorns are consumed entirely byflames (as are standing and bound grain, which the verse alsomentions). Why does the verse also mention a field (for the liabilityfor standing grain is mentioned explicitly)? To teach that even whenthe field is lying fallow, but its value deteriorates because it ischarred, the person is held liable. See Bava Kama 60a.
29.
Since it is the ordinary practice for such articles to be hiddenin a grain heap, the person who kindled the fire should haveconsidered this possibility. Therefore, he is liable for theirdestruction.
30.
Since it is abnormal for such articles to be hidden in a grainheap, the person who kindled the fire is not held liable. As stated inthe notes on the following halachah, the place taken by the utensilsis considered as if filled with grain, and restitution for that mustbe made.
31.
As in Halachah 1, since he kindled a fire in another person'sdomain without permission, stricter rules apply.
32.
Bava Kama 60a derives this law from the above verse, whichmentions standing grain. It comments: Just as standing grain isopenly revealed, so too, a person is liable only for entitiesthat are openly revealed.Note the Tur and Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat418:13), which state that this applies in an instance where the firewould have been stopped by a wall, the wall fell for reasons notdependent on the fire, and the person had the opportunity to repairthe wall. Although he is liable for the grain heap, he is not liablefor the articles hidden in it.The rationale is: If the fire were large enough to spread byitself, the person would be liable. If its spread was caused byfactors not dependent on the person who kindled the fire - e.g., anabnormal wind - he is also not liable for the grain heap.
33.
I.e., if the utensils took up a cubic foot of space,the person who kindled the fire must pay for a cubic foot of grain. This also applies with regard to a person who burnsclothes or glassware hidden in a grain heap, as mentioned in theprevious halachah.
34.
The Rambam's words are based on the Mishnah (Bava Kama 6:7).The Maggid Mishneh states that the intent is that the person isliable only for the kid. Since the kid is tied, it cannot flee. He isnot liable for the servant, because the servant is mentally competentand should have fled.
35.
He is not held liable financially for the death of the servant,because he is considered to have murdered him, and is liable forcapital punishment for his death. Therefore, we follow the principlethat a person who is liable for capital punishment (even when thatsentence cannot be administered) is free of liability for monetaryloss.There is a question if he is liable for the loss of the kid in thisinstance even when a servant is not killed.. Some explain that he is not liable, because the kid should have fled. Others explain that a kid is not of sufficient mental competence to know whether or not to flee (Maggid Mishneh). Significantly, these laws are not mentioned by the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch.
36.
For he gave him permission to store grain in his domain, notutensils.
37.
Wheat is more valuable than barley. Nevertheless, since inactuality it was barley that was burned, the person who kindled thefire is liable only for the barley.
38.
In this instance, he is liable to pay him only for barley, becausethat is what he gave him permission to store.
39.
This applies even if he was granted permission to make a heap ofwheat. Since the person who kindled the fire saw only barley, he isliable only for that (Sefer Me'irat Einayim 418:20).
40.
If he gave him permission to make a heap of barley, he is liableto pay him only for the barley. If he gave him permission to make aheap of wheat, he is liable to pay the value of the wheat that wasactually burned, and the value of remainder of the barley (SeferMe'irat Einayim 418:21).
41.
I.e., all the personal goods the person claims.
42.
Note the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh, which states that whenit is supported by an oath, the claim of the house owner is accepted,not only when the person who kindled the fire is uncertain about thevalue of the articles in the home he destroyed, but even when heclaims to be certain that they were not worth the money the houseowner demands.
43.
A Torah scroll (Hilchot Sh'vuot 11:8). In certaincircumstances, tefillin are substituted for a Torah scroll(Ibid.:12).
44.
See Hilchot Chovel UMazik 7:17; Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an1:2. (See also Hilchot Sh'vuot 11:6.)
45.
I.e., that according to his standard of living, one might assumethat he owns.
46.
In that era, retail outlets were usually stalls in the publicdomain, rather than enclosed edifices. The flax protruded into thestall, where it caught fire from the shopkeeper's oil lamp.
47.
And caused the flax to protrude beyond the borders of the publicdomain and enter the confines of the shopkeeper's stall.
48.
If the animal stands still, there is more reason to hold the cameldriver liable, for once the fire was kindled, he should move his beastto prevent it from spreading the blaze. Nevertheless, even when hedoes keep his animal moving, since he caused the fire to start, he isliable for all the damages.
49.
This is considered an act of negligence on the part of theshopkeeper. For the camel drivers and wagon drivers in the publicdomain do not suspect that there are lamps hanging there.
50.
Which we are commanded to place at the outside of our homes.
51.
In and of themselves, the actions of the person who bent the grainwere not sufficient to cause the fire to reach the grain; theinfluence of the wind was also necessary. Since the fire was spread byan uncommon wind, it is considered a factor beyond the person'scontrol, and he is not liable.
52.
For had he not bent the grain, the fire would not have reached it,even though an uncommon wind was blowing. As mentioned in the notes onHalachah 7, if the uncommon wind was blowing at the time the personbent the grain toward the fire, he is liable.
53.
The two examples are carefully chosen. Earth reduces thelikelihood that the grain will be consumed by fire, while strawincreases it. Nevertheless, in either case the same laws apply.
54.
For he himself did not set the fire.
55.
See Halachot 8 and 9.
56.
See Hilchot Chovel UMazik, ch. 1, for a detailed explanationof these five categories of compensation.
57.
This is the subject of a difference of opinion among our Sages(Bava Kama 22a). Rabbi Yochanan maintains, as the Rambam rules,that kindling a fire is regarded like shooting an arrow. Resh Lakishdiffers and maintains that a fire is regarded no differently from aperson's cistern or his animals.To explain Rabbi Yochanan's opinion: When a person shoots an arrow,he is considered to have caused damage with his person although thedamage took place far from him. So too, when he kindles a fire,despite the fact that the damage occurs in a distant place, it is asif he caused the damage with his person.Note the Maggid Mishneh, who points to an apparentcontradiction in the Rambam's rulings. For Rabbi Yochanan does notfree a person of liability for articles that are buried. It is,however, possible to explain that the Rambam does not accept RabbiYochanan's perspective blindly. He accepts it in this instance, butfollows the other interpretations with regard to buried property.
58.
Chapter 11, Halachah 6, and Chapter 13, Halachah 2.
59.
The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 418:1) defines thederivatives of fire as referring to any property that one owns that istransported further by the wind and causes damage.
60.
For just as a person is liable when an ordinary wind spreads afire, so too, he is liable for any other damage his property causesthat comes as a result of an ordinary wind.
61.
Just as he is not liable when an uncommon wind causes a fire tospread (Halachah 7).
Hayom Yom: Today's Hayom Yom
• Thursday, 15 Tammuz, 5776 · 21 July 2016
• "Today's Day"
• Sunday Tamuz 15 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Pinchas, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 77-78.
Tanya: However, all this (p. 351) ...on laws of Fasts. (p. 351).
My father writes in one of his maamarim: Fatness of the body can result from the spiritual pleasure and delight derived from G-dliness. They say of R. Nachum of Chernobil that he became corpulent from answering amein y'hei sh'mei raba.
• Daily Thought:
Life's Memories
This experience, to give life, to watch it grow, to be torn apart by it, to receive pleasure from it, and to give life again—for this the soul descended from its ethereal heights.
And when it shall return to there, enveloped in these memories, it will finally know their depth. And with them travel ever higher and higher.
Torah lessons: Chumash: Pinchas, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 77-78.
Tanya: However, all this (p. 351) ...on laws of Fasts. (p. 351).
My father writes in one of his maamarim: Fatness of the body can result from the spiritual pleasure and delight derived from G-dliness. They say of R. Nachum of Chernobil that he became corpulent from answering amein y'hei sh'mei raba.
• Daily Thought:
Life's Memories
This experience, to give life, to watch it grow, to be torn apart by it, to receive pleasure from it, and to give life again—for this the soul descended from its ethereal heights.
And when it shall return to there, enveloped in these memories, it will finally know their depth. And with them travel ever higher and higher.
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment