Today in Jewish History:
R. Yosef Yitzchak Freed (1927)
On the 13th of Tammuz of 1927, the sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, received the documents authorizing his release from a sentence of exile to Kastroma in the interior of Russia. The Rebbe was actually notified of his release on Tammuz 12, but since that day was a legal holiday, the Certificate of Release freeing him to travel home was issued only the next day. Thus both the 12th and 13th of Tammuz are celebrated as a "festival of liberation" by the Chabad-Lubavitch community. (For more on the Rebbe's arrest and liberation, "Today in Jewish History" for yesterday, Tammuz 12).
Daily Quote:
Even the empty ones amongst you are full of mitzvot like a pomegranate[Talmud, Berachot 57a]Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: with Rashi Parshat Balak, 3rd Portion (Numbers 22:21-22:38)
• Numbers Chapter 22
21In the morning Balaam arose, saddled his she-donkey and went with the Moabite dignitaries. כאוַיָּ֤קָם בִּלְעָם֙ בַּבֹּ֔קֶר וַיַּֽחֲב֖שׁ אֶת־אֲתֹנ֑וֹ וַיֵּ֖לֶךְ עִם־שָׂרֵ֥י מוֹאָֽב:
saddled his she-donkey: From here [we learn] that hate causes a disregard for the standard [of dignified conduct], for he saddled it himself. The Holy One, blessed is He, said, “Wicked one, their father Abraham has already preceded you, as it says, 'Abraham arose in the morning and saddled his donkey’” (Gen. 22:3). - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 8, Num. Rabbah 20:12] ויחבש את אתנו: מכאן שהשנאה מקלקלת את השורה, שחבש הוא בעצמו. אמר הקב"ה רשע כבר קדמך אברהם אביהם, שנאמר (בראשית כב, ג) וישכם אברהם בבקר ויחבוש את חמורו:
with the Moabite dignitaries: His intent was the same as theirs. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 8, Num. Rabbah 20:12] עם שרי מואב: לבו כלבם שוה:
22God's wrath flared because he was going, and an angel of the Lord stationed himself on the road to thwart him, and he was riding on his she-donkey, and his two servants were with him. כבוַיִּֽחַר־אַ֣ף אֱלֹהִים֘ כִּֽי־הוֹלֵ֣ךְ הוּא֒ וַיִּתְיַצֵּ֞ב מַלְאַ֧ךְ יְהֹוָ֛ה בַּדֶּ֖רֶךְ לְשָׂטָ֣ן ל֑וֹ וְהוּא֙ רֹכֵ֣ב עַל־אֲתֹנ֔וֹ וּשְׁנֵ֥י נְעָרָ֖יו עִמּֽוֹ:
because he was going: He saw that this was considered evil by the Omnipresent, yet he longed to go. כי הולך הוא: ראה שהדבר רע בעיני המקום ונתאוה לילך:
to thwart him: It was an angel of mercy [as the Name vuvh denotes the attribute of mercy], and he wanted to prevent him from sinning, for should he sin, he would perish. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 8, Num. Rabbah 20:13] לשטן לו: מלאך של רחמים היה והיה רוצה למנעו מלחטוא, שלא יחטא ויאבד:
and his two servants were with him: From here we learn that a distinguished person who embarks on a journey should take two people with him to attend him, and then they can attend each other [so that when one is occupied, the other takes his place]. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 8, Num. Rabbah 20:13] ושני נעריו עמו: מכאן לאדם חשוב היוצא לדרך יוליך עמו שני אנשים לשמשו וחוזרים ומשמשים זה את זה:
23The she-donkey saw the angel of the Lord stationed on the road with his sword drawn in his hand; so the she-donkey turned aside from the road and went into a field. Balaam beat the she-donkey to get it back onto the road. כגוַתֵּ֣רֶא הָֽאָתוֹן֩ אֶת־מַלְאַ֨ךְ יְהֹוָ֜ה נִצָּ֣ב בַּדֶּ֗רֶךְ וְחַרְבּ֤וֹ שְׁלוּפָה֙ בְּיָד֔וֹ וַתֵּ֤ט הָֽאָתוֹן֙ מִן־הַדֶּ֔רֶךְ וַתֵּ֖לֶךְ בַּשָּׂדֶ֑ה וַיַּ֤ךְ בִּלְעָם֙ אֶת־הָ֣אָת֔וֹן לְהַטֹּתָ֖הּ הַדָּֽרֶךְ:
The she-donkey saw: But he [Balaam] did not see, for God permitted a beast to perceive more than a man. Since he [man] possesses intelligence, he would become insane if he saw demons. ותרא האתון: והוא לא ראה, שנתן הקב"ה רשות לבהמה לראות יותר מן האדם, שמתוך שיש בו דעת תטרף דעתו כשיראה מזיקין:
with his sword drawn in his hand: He said, “This wicked man has forsaken the tools of his own art, for the weapon of the heathen nations is the sword, and he is coming against them with [the power of] his mouth, which is their specialty. I too, will take hold of his (art) and accost him with his own art.” This indeed was his fate [as it says],“and Balaam the son of Beor they slew with the sword” (31:8). - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 8, Num. Rabbah 20:13] וחרבו שלופה בידו: אמר רשע זה הניח כלי אומנותו, שכלי זיינן של אומות העולם בחרב, והוא בא עליהם בפיו, שהוא אומנות שלהם, אף אני אתפוש את שלו ואבוא עליו באומנותו. וכן היה סופו (במדבר לא, ח) ואת בלעם בן בעור הרגו בחרב:
24The angel of the Lord stood in a path of the vineyards, with a fence on this side and a fence on that side. כדוַיַּֽעֲמֹד֙ מַלְאַ֣ךְ יְהֹוָ֔ה בְּמִשְׁע֖וֹל הַכְּרָמִ֑ים גָּדֵ֥ר מִזֶּ֖ה וְגָדֵ֥ר מִזֶּֽה:
in a path: Heb. בְּמִשְׁעוֹל, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders, בִּשְׁבִיל, in a path. Similarly,“if the dust of Samaria will suffice for the soles (לִשְׁעָלִים) ” (I Kings 20:10) -the dust that sticks to the soles of the feet while walking. Similarly,“Who measured the waters with his step (בְּשָׁעֳלוֹ) ?” (Isa. 40:12) -with his feet and with his step [as one measures by pacing]. במשעול: כתרגומו בשביל. וכן (מ"א כ, י) אם ישפוק עפר שומרון לשעלים. עפר הנדבק בכפות הרגלים בהלוכן, וכן (ישעיה מ, יב) מי מדד בשעלו מים, ברגליו ובהלוכו:
with a fence on either side: Heb. גָּדֵר. Unless specified otherwise, גָּדֵר refers to one made of stone. גדר מזה וגדר מזה: סתם גדר של אבנים הוא:
25The she-donkey saw the angel of the Lord, and she was pressed against the wall. She pressed Balaam's leg against the wall, and he beat her again. כהוַתֵּ֨רֶא הָֽאָת֜וֹן אֶת־מַלְאַ֣ךְ יְהֹוָ֗ה וַתִּלָּחֵץ֙ אֶל־הַקִּ֔יר וַתִּלְחַ֛ץ אֶת־רֶ֥גֶל בִּלְעָ֖ם אֶל־הַקִּ֑יר וַיֹּ֖סֶף לְהַכֹּתָֽהּ:
She was pressed: וַתִּלָּחֵץ. [The ‘ niphal’ form denotes] she herself. ותלחץ: היא עצמה:
She pressed: וַתִּלְחַץ. [The ‘kal’ form denotes that she pressed] something else, namely, Balaam’s leg. ותלחץ: את אחרים את רגל בלעם:
26The angel of the Lord continued going ahead, and he stood in a narrow place, where there was no room to turn right or left. כווַיּ֥וֹסֶף מַלְאַךְ־יְהֹוָ֖ה עֲב֑וֹר וַיַּֽעֲמֹד֙ בְּמָק֣וֹם צָ֔ר אֲשֶׁ֛ר אֵֽין־דֶּ֥רֶךְ לִנְט֖וֹת יָמִ֥ין וּשְׂמֹֽאול:
The angel of the Lord continued going ahead: He continued further ahead of him, [that is,] to be before him in another spot, as in,“he [Jacob] went ahead (עָבַר) of them” (Gen. 33:3). The Midrash Aggadah in Tanchuma (8) [asks]: What made him stop in three places? For he [the angel] showed him [Balaam] symbols alluding to the patriarchs. ויוסף מלאך ה' עבור: לעבור עוד לפניו להלוך להיות לפניו במקום אחר, כמו (בראשית לג, ג) והוא עבר לפניהם. ומדרש אגדה יש בתנחומא מה ראה לעמוד בשלשה מקומות, סימני אבות הראהו:
27The she-donkey saw the angel of the Lord, and it crouched down under Balaam. Balaam's anger flared, and he beat the she-donkey with a stick. כזוַתֵּ֤רֶא הָֽאָתוֹן֙ אֶת־מַלְאַ֣ךְ יְהֹוָ֔ה וַתִּרְבַּ֖ץ תַּ֣חַת בִּלְעָ֑ם וַיִּֽחַר־אַ֣ף בִּלְעָ֔ם וַיַּ֥ךְ אֶת־הָֽאָת֖וֹן בַּמַּקֵּֽל:
28The Lord opened the mouth of the she-donkey, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you that you have struck me these three times?" כחוַיִּפְתַּ֥ח יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶת־פִּ֣י הָֽאָת֑וֹן וַתֹּ֤אמֶר לְבִלְעָם֙ מֶה־עָשִׂ֣יתִי לְךָ֔ כִּ֣י הִכִּיתָ֔נִי זֶ֖ה שָׁל֥שׁ רְגָלִֽים:
these three times: He hinted to him, You seek to uproot a nation which celebrates three festivals (שָׁלשׁ רְגָלִים) in a year?- [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 9, Num. Rabbah 20:14] זה שלש רגלים: רמז לו אתה מבקש לעקור אומה החוגגת שלש רגלים בשנה:
29Balaam said to the she-donkey, "For you have humiliated me; if I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now." כטוַיֹּ֤אמֶר בִּלְעָם֙ לָֽאָת֔וֹן כִּ֥י הִתְעַלַּ֖לְתְּ בִּ֑י ל֤וּ יֶשׁ־חֶ֨רֶב֙ בְּיָדִ֔י כִּ֥י עַתָּ֖ה הֲרַגְתִּֽיךְ:
you have humiliated: Heb. הִתְעַלַּלְתָּ. As the Targum [Onkelos] renders it, a term denoting shame and disgrace. התעללת: כתרגומו לשון גנאי ובזיון:
If I had a sword in my hand: This matter made him greatly contemptible in the eyes of the dignitaries. This man was going to kill an entire nation with his mouth, yet for this she-donkey he needed weapons!- [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 9, Num. Rabbah 20:14] לו יש חרב בידי: גנות גדולה היה לו דבר זה בעיני השרים, זה הולך להרוג אומה שלמה בפיו, ולאתון זו צריך לכלי זיין:
30The she-donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your she-donkey on which you have ridden since you first started until now? Have I been accustomed to do this to you?" He said, "No." לוַתֹּ֨אמֶר הָֽאָת֜וֹן אֶל־בִּלְעָ֗ם הֲלוֹא֩ אָֽנֹכִ֨י אֲתֹֽנְךָ֜ אֲשֶׁר־רָכַ֣בְתָּ עָלַ֗י מֵעֽוֹדְךָ֙ עַד־הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה הַֽהַסְכֵּ֣ן הִסְכַּ֔נְתִּי לַֽעֲשׂ֥וֹת לְךָ֖ כֹּ֑ה וַיֹּ֖אמֶר לֹֽא:
Have I become accustomed: Heb. הַהַסְכֵּן הִסְכַּנְתִּי. As the Targum [Onkelos] renders [lit., have I learned to do this?]. Similarly,“Does man learn (יִסְכָּן) for God?” (Job 22:2). Our Rabbis, however, expounded this verse in the Talmud: They [the Moabite dignitaries] said to him, “Why aren’t you riding on a horse?” He [Balaam] said to them, “I sent it out to pasture.” [Immediately, the she-donkey retorted, “Am I not your she-donkey?” He said to her, “Just for bearing burdens.” She retorted, “on which you have ridden.” He said to her, “Only on occasion.” She retorted,“since you first started until now, and not only that but I provide you with riding by day, and with intimacy at night, (interpreting Heb. הַהַסְכֵּן הִסְכַּנְתִּי as”I heated you up,") as is stated in Tractate Avodah Zarah [4b]. ההסכן הסכנתי: כתרגומו, וכן (איוב כב, ב) הלאל יסכן גבר. ורבותינו דרשו מקרא זה בגמרא אמרו ליה, מאי טעמא לא רכבת אסוסיא. אמר להון ברטיבא שדאי ליה וכו', כדאיתא במסכת עבודה זרה (ד ב):
31The Lord opened Balaam's eyes, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road, with a sword drawn in his hand. He bowed and prostrated himself on his face. לאוַיְגַ֣ל יְהֹוָה֘ אֶת־עֵינֵ֣י בִלְעָם֒ וַיַּ֞רְא אֶת־מַלְאַ֤ךְ יְהֹוָה֙ נִצָּ֣ב בַּדֶּ֔רֶךְ וְחַרְבּ֥וֹ שְׁלֻפָ֖ה בְּיָד֑וֹ וַיִּקֹּ֥ד וַיִּשְׁתַּ֖חוּ לְאַפָּֽיו:
32The angel of the Lord said to him, "Why have you beaten your she-donkey these three times? Behold, I have came out to thwart you, for the one embarking on the journey has hastened against me. לבוַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֵלָיו֙ מַלְאַ֣ךְ יְהֹוָ֔ה עַל־מָ֗ה הִכִּ֨יתָ֙ אֶת־אֲתֹ֣נְךָ֔ זֶ֖ה שָׁל֣וֹשׁ רְגָלִ֑ים הִנֵּ֤ה אָֽנֹכִי֙ יָצָ֣אתִי לְשָׂטָ֔ן כִּֽי־יָרַ֥ט הַדֶּ֖רֶךְ לְנֶגְדִּֽי:
for the traveler has hastened against me: Heb. יָרַט. Our Rabbis, the Sages of the Mishnah, expounded this word (יָרַט) as an acronym [of the words] יָרְאָה רָאֲתָה נָטְתָה,“She feared, she saw, she turned aside” (Shab. 125a), because the course you took is contrary to me, that is to say, you [made this journey] to make me vengeful and provoke me. According to the literal meaning [it means חָרֵד],“because the journey was hurried against me.” The term יָרַט is cognate with רָטַט, rapid movement, [meaning,] for I saw that the one embarking on the journey [Balaam] has hastened and hurried on his way, in order to anger me and provoke me. The verse is elliptical [as it should read בַּעַל הַדֶּרֶ, the one embarking on the journey]. Similar is וַתְּכַל דָּוִד“David longed” (II Sam. 13:39), which means וַתְּכַל נֶפֶשׁ דָּוִד,“David’s soul longed,” [as is apparent from the feminine prefix of the verb וַתְּכַל. Another interpretation: [The term] יָרַט denotes desire. Similar is,“through the wicked He placates me (יִרְטֵנִי)” (Job 16:11); He appeases me and comforts me through the wicked, who do nothing but provoke me. [Hence, the verse is rendered: the one who embarked on the journey desired to provoke me.] - [Machbereth Menachem p. 163] כי ירט הדרך לנגדי: רבותינו חכמי המשנה דרשוהו (שבת קה א) נוטריקון יראה ראתה, נטתה, בשביל שהדרך לנגדי, כלומר לקנאתי ולהקניטני. ולפי משמעו כי חרד הדרך לנגדי לשון רטט, כי ראיתי בעל הדרך שחרד ומיהר הדרך שהוא לכעסי ולהמראתי. ומקרא קצר הוא, כמו (ש"ב יג, לט) ותכל דוד. לישנא אחרינא ירט לשון רצון, וכן (איוב טז, יא) ועל ידי רשעים ירטני, מפייס ומנחם אותי על ידי רשעים, שאינן אלא מקניטים:
33When the she-donkey saw me, it turned aside these three times. Had she not turned aside before me, now also I would also have killed you and spared her [the she-donkey]." לגוַתִּרְאַ֨נִי֙ הָֽאָת֔וֹן וַתֵּ֣ט לְפָנַ֔י זֶ֖ה שָׁל֣שׁ רְגָלִ֑ים אוּלַי֙ נָֽטְתָ֣ה מִפָּנַ֔י כִּ֥י עַתָּ֛ה גַּם־אֹֽתְכָ֥ה הָרַ֖גְתִּי וְאוֹתָ֥הּ הֶֽחֱיֵֽיתִי:
Had she not turned: Heb. אוּלַי, like לוּלֵא ‘if not.’ Sometimes אוּלַי is used in the sense of לוּלֵא. אולי נטתה: כמו לולא, פעמים שאולי משמש בלשון לולא:
I would also have killed you: Heb. גַּם אֹתְכָה הָרַגְתִּי, I would have killed you also. This is a transposed verse, like הָרַגְתִּי אֹת ְגַּם, I would also have killed you, meaning to say: Not only would the delay have befallen you through me but even [your] death. גם אתכה הרגתי: הרי זה מקרא מסורס, והוא כמו גם הרגתי אותך, כלומר לא העכבה בלבד קראתך על ידי, כי גם ההריגה:
and spared her: But now, since she spoke and rebuked you, and you could not withstand her rebuke, as it is written, “He said, No,” therefore, I have killed her, so that [people] should not say, “This is the one that silenced Balaam with her rebuke, and he could not respond,” for the Omnipresent shows regard for human dignity. Similarly, “you shall kill the woman and the animal [through which the sin was committed]” (Lev. 20:16), and, “you shall kill the animal” (ibid. 20:15) - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 9, Num. Rabbah 20:14] ואותה החייתי: ועתה מפני שדברה והוכיחתך ולא יכולת לעמוד בתוכחתה, כמו שכתוב (פסוק ל) ויאמר לא. על כן הרגתיה, שלא יאמרו זו היא שסלקה את בלעם בתוכחתה ולא יכול להשיב, שחס המקום על כבוד הבריות, וכן (ויקרא כ, טו - טז) ואת הבהמה תהרוגו, וכן (שם) והרגת את האשה ואת הבהמה:
34Balaam said to the angel of the Lord, "I have sinned, for I did not know that you were standing on the road before me. Now, if it displeases you, I will return." לדוַיֹּ֨אמֶר בִּלְעָ֜ם אֶל־מַלְאַ֤ךְ יְהֹוָה֙ חָטָ֔אתִי כִּ֚י לֹ֣א יָדַ֔עְתִּי כִּ֥י אַתָּ֛ה נִצָּ֥ב לִקְרָאתִ֖י בַּדָּ֑רֶךְ וְעַתָּ֛ה אִם־רַ֥ע בְּעֵינֶ֖יךָ אָשׁ֥וּבָה לִּֽי:
for I did not know: This too is a [mark of] disgrace for him, but he was forced to concede, for [earlier] he had boasted that he was aware of the thoughts of the Most High, but now his mouth professed, “I did not know.” - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 9] כי לא ידעתי: גם זה גנותו, ועל כרחו הודה, שהוא היה משתבח שיודע דעת עליון, ופיו העיד לא ידעתי:
if it displeases you, I will return: This reply was a challenge against the Omnipresent. He [Balaam] said to him, “He [God] Himself commanded me to go, yet you, an angel, annul His words. This is His custom: He says one thing and angel retracts it. He said to Abraham, ”Take now your son“ (Gen. 22:2), and through an angel He annulled His words. I, too; if it displeases you, I will have to return.”- [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 10, Num. Rabbah 20:15] אם רע בעיניך אשובה לי: להתריס נגד המקום היא תשובה זו. אמר לו הוא בעצמו צוני ללכת, ואתה מלאך מבטל את דבריו, למוד הוא בכך, שאומר דבר ומלאך מחזירו, אמר לאברהם (בראשית כב, ב) קח נא את בנך וגו', וע"י מלאך בטל את דברו, אף אני אם רע בעיניך צריך אני לשוב:
35The angel of the Lord said to Balaam, "Go with these men, but the word I will speak to you-that you shall speak." So Balaam went with Balak's dignitaries. להוַיֹּ֩אמֶר֩ מַלְאַ֨ךְ יְהֹוָ֜ה אֶל־בִּלְעָ֗ם לֵ֚ךְ עִם־הָ֣אֲנָשִׁ֔ים וְאֶ֗פֶס אֶת־הַדָּבָ֛ר אֲשֶׁר־אֲדַבֵּ֥ר אֵלֶ֖יךָ אֹת֣וֹ תְדַבֵּ֑ר וַיֵּ֥לֶךְ בִּלְעָ֖ם עִם־שָׂרֵ֥י בָלָֽק:
Go with these men: A man is led along the path he wishes to follow. — [Mak. 10b] ( לך עם האנשים: בדרך שאדם רוצה לילך בה, מוליכין אותו. לך עם האנשים, כי חלקך עמהם וסופך להאבד מן העולם:
Go with the men: For your portion is with them, and you are destined to perish from the world. — [Mak. 10b]) ואפס: על כרחך את הדבר אשר אדבר וגו':
but: Against your will, “the word I will speak [to you-that you shall speak.” עם שרי בלק: שמח לקללם כמותם:
with Balak’s dignitaries: He was glad to curse them as much as they were. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 10, Num. Rabbah 20:15] :
36Balak heard that Balaam was coming; so he went out toward him to the city of Moab which is on the border of Arnon-at the extreme edge of the border. לווַיִּשְׁמַ֥ע בָּלָ֖ק כִּ֣י בָ֣א בִלְעָ֑ם וַיֵּצֵ֨א לִקְרָאת֜וֹ אֶל־עִ֣יר מוֹאָ֗ב אֲשֶׁר֙ עַל־גְּב֣וּל אַרְנֹ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֖ר בִּקְצֵ֥ה הַגְּבֽוּל:
Balak heard: He sent messengers ahead to inform him. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 10, Num. Rabbah 20:16] וישמע בלק: שלח שלוחים לבשרו:
to the city of Moab: Its capital, its most important city, as if to say, “Look what these [people] are trying to uproot!” - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 10, Num. Rabbah 15] אל עיר מואב: אל מטרפולין שלו, עיר החשובה שלו, לומר ראה מה אלו מבקשים לעקור:
37Balak said to Balaam, "Did I not send to you to call for you? Why did you not come to me? Am I indeed incapable of honoring you?" לזוַיֹּ֨אמֶר בָּלָ֜ק אֶל־בִּלְעָ֗ם הֲלֹא֩ שָׁלֹ֨חַ שָׁלַ֤חְתִּי אֵלֶ֨יךָ֙ לִקְרֹא־לָ֔ךְ לָ֥מָּה לֹֽא־הָלַ֖כְתָּ אֵלָ֑י הַֽאֻמְנָ֔ם לֹ֥א אוּכַ֖ל כַּבְּדֶֽךָ:
Am I indeed incapable of honoring you?: He prophesied that in the end he would leave him in disgrace. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 10, Num. Rabbah 20:16] האמנם לא אוכל כבדך: נתנבא שסופו לצאת מעמו בקלון:
38Balaam said to Balak, "Behold I have come to you, do I have any power to say anything? The word God puts into my mouth-that I will speak." לחוַיֹּ֨אמֶר בִּלְעָ֜ם אֶל־בָּלָ֗ק הִֽנֵּה־בָ֨אתִי֙ אֵלֶ֔יךָ עַתָּ֕ה הֲיָכֹ֥ל אוּכַ֖ל דַּבֵּ֣ר מְא֑וּמָה הַדָּבָ֗ר אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָשִׂ֧ים אֱלֹהִ֛ים בְּפִ֖י אֹת֥וֹ אֲדַבֵּֽר:
Daily Tehillim Psalms Chapters 69-71
• Chapter 69
1. For the Conductor, on the shoshanim,1 by David.
2. Deliver me, O God, for the waters have reached until my soul!
3. I have sunk in muddy depths without foothold; I have come into deep waters, and the current sweeps me away.
4. I am wearied by my crying, my throat is parched; my eyes pined while waiting for my God.
5. More numerous than the hairs on my head are those who hate me without reason. Mighty are those who would cut me off, those who are my enemies without cause. What I have not stolen, I will then have to return.
6. O God, You know my folly, and my wrongs are not hidden from You.
7. Let not those who hope in You be shamed through me, O my Lord, God of Hosts; let not those who seek You be disgraced through me, O God of Israel,
8. because for Your sake I have borne humiliation, disgrace covers my face.
9. I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother's sons,
10. for the envy of Your House has consumed me, and the humiliations of those who scorn You have fallen upon me.
11. And I wept while my soul fasted, and it was a humiliation to me.
12. I made sackcloth my garment, and became a byword for them.
13. Those who sit by the gate speak of me, and [of me] are the songs of drunkards.
14. May my prayer to You, Lord, be at a gracious time; God, in Your abounding kindness, answer me with Your true deliverance.
15. Rescue me from the mire, so that I not sink; let me be saved from my enemies and from deep waters.
16. Let not the current of water sweep me away, nor the deep swallow me; and let not the pit close its mouth over me.
17. Answer me, Lord, for Your kindness is good; according to Your abundant mercies, turn to me.
18. Do not hide Your face from Your servant, for I am in distress-hurry to answer me.
19. Draw near to my soul and liberate it; redeem me, so that my enemies [not feel triumphant].
20. You know my humiliation, my shame, and my disgrace; all my tormentors are before You.
21. Humiliation has broken my heart, and I have become ill. I longed for comfort, but there was none; for consolers, but I did not find.
22. They put gall into my food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.
23. Let their table become a trap before them, and [their] serenity, a snare.
24. Let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and let their loins continually falter.
25. Pour Your wrath upon them, and let the fierceness of Your anger overtake them.
26. Let their palace be desolate, let there be no dweller in their tents,
27. for they persecute the one whom You struck, and tell of the pain of Your wounded ones.
28. Add iniquity to their iniquity, and let them not enter into Your righteousness.
29. May they be erased from the Book of Life, and let them not be inscribed with the righteous.
30. But I am poor and in pain; let Your deliverance, O God, streng-then me.
31. I will praise the Name of God with song, I will extol Him with thanksgiving!
32. And it will please the Lord more than [the sacrifice of] a mature bull with horns and hooves.
33. The humble will see it and rejoice; you seekers of God, [see] and your hearts will come alive.
34. For the Lord listens to the needy, and He does not despise His prisoners.
35. Let heaven and earth praise Him, the seas and all that moves within them,
36. for God will deliver Zion and build the cities of Judah, and they will settle there and possess it;
37. and the seed of His servants will inherit it, and those who love His Name will dwell in it.
FOOTNOTES
1.A musical instrument shaped like a shoshana, a rose (Metzudot).
Chapter 70
David prays that his enemies be shamed and humiliated for their shaming him and reveling in his troubles. Then the righteous will rejoice, and chant songs and praises always.
1. For the Conductor, by David, to remind.
2. O God, [come] to rescue me; O Lord, hurry to my aid.
3. Let those who seek my life be shamed and disgraced; let those who wish me harm retreat and be humiliated.
4. Let those who say, "Aha! Aha!" be turned back in return for their shaming [me].
5. Let all who seek You rejoice and delight in You, and let those who love Your deliverance say always, "May God be exalted!”
6. But I am poor and needy; hurry to me, O God! You are my help and deliverer; O God, do not delay!
Chapter 71
In this awe-inspiring prayer, David speaks of his enemies' desire to kill him, declaring him deserving of death.
1. I have taken refuge in You, O Lord; I will never be shamed.
2. Rescue me and deliver me in Your righteousness; incline Your ear to me and save me.
3. Be for me a sheltering rock, to enter always. You have ordered my salvation, for You are my rock and my fortress.
4. O my God, rescue me from the hand of the wicked, from the palm of the scheming and violent.
5. For You are my hope, O my Lord, God, my security since my youth.
6. I have relied on You from the womb; You drew me from my mother's innards; my praise is of You always.
7. I became an example to the masses, yet You were my mighty refuge.
8. Let my mouth be filled with Your praise, all day long with Your glory.
9. Do not cast me aside in old age; do not forsake me when my strength fails;
10. for my enemies say of me, and those who watch my soul conspire together,
11. saying, "God has forsaken him. Give chase and catch him, for there is no rescuer.”
12. O God, do not distance Yourself from me; my God, hurry to my aid.
13. Let the adversaries of my soul be shamed and consumed; let those who seek my harm be enwrapped in disgrace and humiliation.
14. But as for me, I will always hope; I will add to all Your praises.
15. My mouth will tell of Your righteousness, all day long of Your deliverance, for I do not know their number.
16. I come with the strength of my Lord, God; I mention Your righteousness, Yours alone.
17. O God, You have taught me since my youth, and to this day I tell of Your wonders.
18. Even into old age and hoariness, O God, do not abandon me, until I tell of Your might to the generations, and of Your strength to all who are to come.
19. Your righteousness, O God, reaches the high heavens, for You do great things; O God, who is like You!
20. You, Who has shown me many and grievous troubles, You will revive me again; You will lift me again from the depths of the earth.
21. You will increase my greatness; You will turn and console me.
22. I too1 will thank You on the lyre for Your faithfulness, My God; I will sing to You on the harp, O Holy One of Israel.
23. My lips will rejoice when I sing to you, as well as my soul which You have redeemed.
24. My tongue will also utter Your righteousness all day, for those who seek my harm are shamed and disgraced.
FOOTNOTES
1.As you increase my greatness, so will I increase your praise (Metzudot).
Tanya: Igeret HaTeshuva , Chapter 2
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Tuesday, 13 Tammuz, 5776 · 19 July 2016
• Igeret HaTeshuva , Chapter 2
• Repentance, as the Alter Rebbe explained in the opening chapter, is in no way synonymous with fasting for a sin that one has committed; repentance merely entails abandoning the sin for all time. This is so even with regard to transgressions — those punishable by excision or by execution — whose atonement becomes complete through suffering. Even in these instances the suffering is not intended to be self-inflicted through fasting, but is brought on from Above.
אך כל זה לענין כפרה ומחילת העון, שנמחל לו לגמרי מה שעבר על מצות המלך כשעשה תשובה שלמה
However, all this refers to atonement and forgiveness of the sin — [the offender] is pardoned completely for having violated the command of the King once he has repented fully.
Atonement and forgiveness thus do not require fasting. If the individual repents fully:
ואין מזכירין לו דבר וחצי דבר ביום הדין, לענשו על זה חס ושלום בעולם הבא, ונפטר לגמרי מן הדין בעולם הבא
No charge nor semblance of an accusation is mentioned against him on the day of judgment so that he should be punished for his sin, G‑d forbid, in the World to Come; in his trial there he is completely exonerated.
אמנם שיהיה לרצון לפני ה׳, ומרוצה וחביב לפניו יתברך כקודם החטא, להיות נחת רוח לקונו מעבודתו, היה צריך להביא קרבן עולה
Nonetheless, in order that he should be acceptable before G‑d, as beloved of Him as before the sin, so that his Creator might derive delight from his service, — [in past times] he would bring an olah offering,1 in addition to his repentance,
אפילו על מצות עשה קלה שאין בה כרת ומיתת בית דין
even for [transgressing] an ordinary positive commandment that involves no excision or execution.
כמו שדרשו רז״ל בתורת כהנים על פסוק: ונרצה לו
In this spirit our Sages in Torat Kohanim interpret the verse,2 “It shall be acceptable for him,” — that theolah offering causes a person who violated a positive command to become acceptable to G‑d.
וכדאיתא בגמרא פרק קמא דזבחים, דעולה מכפרת על מצות עשה, והיא דורון לאחר שעשה תשובה ונמחל לו העונש
Thus too we find in the Talmud, in the first chapter of Zevachim,3 that the olah offering atones for [the violation of] positive commandments; it is a “gift” [that is offered] after one has repented and been pardoned his punishment.
וכאדם שסרח במלך ופייסו על ידי פרקליטין, ומחל לו
This is like the case of a man who displeased his king, appeased him through intercessors, and was forgiven by him;
אף על פי כן שולח דורון ומנחה לפניו, שיתרצה לו לראות פני המלך
still he will send a gift, so that the king might consent that he appear again before his sovereign.
The olah offering was similarly brought as a gift to G‑d after the offender had repented and had been granted a pardon, in order that he once again find favor in His eyes, and be beloved by Him as before the sin.
ולשון מכפרת, וכן מה שכתוב בתורה: ונרצה לו לכפר עליו
(4The expression “atones” quoted from the Talmud, and in the verse,5 “It shall be acceptable for him, to atone for him,”
אין זו כפרת נפשו
does not refer to the soul’s atonement for the sin, for this is accomplished through repentance,
אלא לכפר לפני ה׳, להיות נחת רוח לקונו
but rather (so to speak) his restoration before G‑d, so that he will bring his Creator gratification; no vestige of the sin will remain, and the former offender will be beloved of G‑d as before,
כדאיתא שם בגמרא
as the Talmud teaches there — that once the person has been pardoned, then comes the gift of the olah offering,
וכמו שכתוב: תמים יהיה לרצון
and as the verse states:6 “It shall be perfect, so that it be acceptable.”)
ועכשיו שאין לנו קרבן להפיק רצון מה׳, התענית הוא במקום קרבן, כמו שכתוב בגמרא: שיהא מיעוט חלבי ודמי שנתמעט כאלו הקרבתי לפניך כו׳
Today, when we have no offerings to call forth G‑d’s pleasure, fasting replaces the offering. As the Talmudsays, that the prayer of one who is fasting is:7 “May my loss of fat and blood brought about through fasting be regarded as though I had offered it to You [as a sacrifice on the altar].”
The purpose of fasting, then, is that one become acceptable to G‑d just as before the sin.
ולכן מצינו בכמה תנאים ואמוראים, שעל דבר קל היו מתענים תעניות הרבה מאד
This is why there are many cases of Talmudic Sages, who for some trivial fault undertook a great many fasts.
כמו רבי אלעזר בן עזריה, שהיה מתיר שתהא פרה יוצאה ברצועה שבין קרניה בשבת, וחכמים אוסרים, ופעם אחת יצאה כן פרתו של שכנתו, ולא מיחה בה, והושחרו שיניו מפני הצומות על שלא קיים דברי חביריו,
R. Elazar ben Azariah, for example, contended that a cow may go out wearing its strap between its horns on Shabbat, while his colleagues prohibited it. Once a neighbor’s cow went out with its strap and R. Elazar did not protest. Because he did not support his colleagues‘ view, he fasted so long that his teeth were blackened.8
וכן רבי יהושע, שאמר: בושני מדבריכם בית שמאי, והושחרו שיניו מפני הצומות
So, too, R. Joshua once remarked:9 “I am ashamed of your words, Beit Shammai.” His teeth, too, turned black through fasting.
ורב הונא, פעם אחת נתהפכה לו רצועה של תפילין, והתענה מ׳ צומות
Likewise Rav Huna, because his tefillin strap once turned over, undertook forty fasts.10
וכהנה רבות
Indeed, there are many such instances recorded about our Sages.
These fasts were not undertaken for the sake of repentance, nor as self-inflicted suffering in order to complete a process of atonement; these were not sins of the kind that required this. The sole purpose of these fasts was to restore the bonds of love between the former sinner and his Maker.
ועל יסוד זה
On this basis, that fasting substitutes for an offering, and as such has a place even when an individual does not need to undergo suffering in order to attain complete atonement,
לימד האריז״ל לתלמידיו על פי חכמת האמת מספר הצומות לכמה עונות וחטאים
the AriZal taught his disciples, according to the principles of the Kabbalah, the number of fasts to be undertaken for many transgressions,
אף שאין בהן כרת, ולא מיתה בידי שמים
even though they entail neither excision, nor death by divine agency — in which case suffering would be necessary.
כמו על הכעס, קנ״א תעניות וכו׳
Examples: for anger — 151 fasts;
ואפילו על איסור דרבנן, כמו סתם יינם, יתענה ע״ג תעניות וכו׳
even for transgressing a Rabbinic prohibition, such as drinking the wine of non-Jews — seventy-three fasts;
וכן על ביטול מצות עשה דרבנן, כמו תפלה, יתענה ס״א תעניות וכו׳
likewise for neglecting a positive Rabbinic enactment, such as prayer11 — sixty-one fasts.
ודרך כלל, סוד התענית היא סגולה נפלאה להתגלות רצון העליון ברוך הוא
As a general rule, the mystery of fasting is wondrously effective for the revelation of the Supreme Will,
כמו הקרבן, שנאמר בו: ריח ניחוח לה׳
similar to an offering, of which it is said,12 “An aroma pleasing to G‑d.”
וכמו שכתוב בישעיהו: הלזה תקרא צום ויום רצון לה׳
Thus in Isaiah13 we find, “Do you call this a fast and a day desirable to G‑d?!”
מכלל שהצום הנרצה הוא יום רצון
Obviously, an acceptable fast is a “desirable day.”.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Vayikra 1:3. |
| 2. | Loc. cit., v. 4. |
| 3. | 7b. |
| 4. | Parentheses appear in the original. |
| 5. | Loc. cit., v. 4. |
| 6. | Vayikra 22:21. |
| 7. | Cf. Berachot 17a. |
| 8. | Yerushalmi, Beitzah 2:8. |
| 9. | Chagigah 22b. |
| 10. | Moed Katan 25a. |
| 11. | The Rebbe notes that we cannot adduce from here that the Alter Rebbe is of the opinion that the obligation of prayer is of Rabbinic origin. (This would be consonant with the statement in his Shulchan Aruch, Hilchot Tefillah, Section 106; it is also implied in the beginning of ch. 38 of Tanya [Vol. II in this series, p. 514], and in Likkutei Torah, Parshat Balak 70c. However, in the famous letter of the Alter Rebbe that appears in Beit Rebbe, Part I, p. 20a, he states outright that prayer is of Torah origin. In Mishnat Yoel this whole issue is debated and explained. In any event, no proof can be derived from the above text.) For according to all opinions the specific times for prayer are of Rabbinic origin; when one neglects this aspect of prayer, then the AriZal prescribes sixty-one fasts. |
| 12. | Vayikra 1:13. |
| 13. | 58:5. |
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
• Tuesday, 13 Tammuz, 5776 · 19 July 2016
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
• Tuesday, 13 Tammuz, 5776 · 19 July 2016
• Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 238
Damage Caused by a Ditch
"And if a man shall open a pit..."—Exodus 21:33.
We are commanded regarding the laws [of liability] that apply if a person digs a pit [and another's animal falls into it and is injured].
Full text of this Mitzvah »
• Damage Caused by a Ditch
Positive Commandment 238
Translated by Berel Bell
The 238th mitzvah is that we are commanded to follow the laws regarding damage caused by a pit in the ground.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "If a person digs a pit in the ground [...and an ox or donkey falls into it, the one responsible for the pit must pay for the damage...]."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 3rd and 5th chapters of tractate Bava Kama.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid., 21:33.
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 238
Damage Caused by a Ditch
"And if a man shall open a pit..."—Exodus 21:33.
We are commanded regarding the laws [of liability] that apply if a person digs a pit [and another's animal falls into it and is injured].
Full text of this Mitzvah »
• Damage Caused by a Ditch
Positive Commandment 238
Translated by Berel Bell
The 238th mitzvah is that we are commanded to follow the laws regarding damage caused by a pit in the ground.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "If a person digs a pit in the ground [...and an ox or donkey falls into it, the one responsible for the pit must pay for the damage...]."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 3rd and 5th chapters of tractate Bava Kama.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid., 21:33.
• Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day
Tum'at Met - Chapter 3
• Tum'at Met - Chapter 3
Tum'at Met - Chapter 3
• Tum'at Met - Chapter 3
1
The following entities impart ritual impurity when they are touched, carried, or one is under the same structure: a) a corpse, even a stillborn fetus whose limbs have not become attached to its body with sinews, b) an olive-sized portion of flesh from a corpse, c) an olive-sized portion of netzal, d) a limb from a living person that has the required amount of flesh, e) a limb from a corpse that has the required amount of flesh, f) the backbone of a corpse, g) its skull, h) the majority of its structure, i) the majority of the number of its bones, j) a fourth of a kab of bones in any instance, even if they do not comprise the majority of the structure of the number of the bones of the corpse, k) a revi'it of blood, and l) a revi'itof blood of "weltering blood"; twelve entities in total.
א
אלו מטמאין במגע ובמשא ובאהל: המת אפילו נפל שלא נתקשרו איבריו בגידין וכזית מבשר המת וכזית נצל ואבר מן החי ואבר מן המת שיש עליהם בשר כראוי והשדרה והגולגול' ורוב בניינו ורוב מניינו ורובע עצמות מכ"מ אף על פי שאין בהן לא רוב בנין ולא רוב מנין ורביעית דם תבוסה הכל שתים עשרה:
2
The following entities impart ritual impurity when they are touched or carried, but not when one is under the same structure: a) a limb from a living person that is lacking enough flesh to regenerate itself, b) a limb from a corpse that is lacking either flesh or bone and does not have enough flesh to regenerate itself or the bone is lacking, even if has enough flesh to regenerate itself, c) a backbone that is lacking and does not possess a fourth of a kab of bones, d) a skull that is lacking and does not possess a fourth of akab of bones, e) a bone, even if it is the size of a barley corn, f) the earth of the nations, and g) a beit hapras; seven entities in total.
ב
ואלו מטמאין במגע ובמשא ואין מטמאין באהל: אבר מן החי שחסר בשרו ואין בו להעלות ארוכה ואבר מן המת שחסר בשרו או עצמו ולא נשאר בשר כדי להעלות ארוכה או שחסר העצם אע"פ שיש עליו בשר כדי להעלות ארוכה והשדרה שחסרה ואין בה רובע עצמות והגולגולת שחסרה ואין בה רובע עצמות ועצם אפילו כשעורה וארץ העכו"ם ובית הפרס הכל שבע:
3
A gollel and a dofek impart ritual impurity when they are touched or when one is under the same shelter, like a grave. They do not impart ritual impurity when carried. The decomposed mass of a corpse imparts ritual impurity when it is carried or when one is under the same shelter. It does not impart ritual impurity when touched.
It appears to me that the ritual impurity imparted by a fourth of a kabof bones when one is under the same structure, a revi'it of blood, a limb that does not have the sufficient amount of flesh, whether from a corpse or from a living person is not of Scriptural origin, as evidenced by the fact that a nazirite need not shave his hair because of them, as we explained in Hilchot Nizirut. Nor is one liable for entering the Temple after having contracted such impurity and when a person is impure due to an impurity of Scriptural origin, he is liable for entering the Temple. Therefore I maintain that all sources of impurity from a corpse that do not require a nazirite to shave are not of Scriptural origin.
ג
הגולל ודופק מטמאין במגע ובאהל כקבר ואינן מטמאין במשא הרקב מטמא במשא ובאהל ואינו מטמא במגע טומאת רובע עצמות באהל וטומאת רביעית דם וטומאת אבר שאין עליו בשר כראוי בין מן המת בין מן החי יראה לי שכולן טומאתן אינן דין תורה שהרי אין הנזיר מגלח עליהן כמו שביארנו בנזירות ואין חייבין עליהן על ביאת המקדש ועל טמא בטומאה של תורה חייב על ביאת המקדש לפיכך אני אומר שכל טומאה מן המת שאין הנזיר מגלח עליה אינה דין תורה:
4
The decomposed mass of a corpse does not impart ritual impurity unless it is buried naked in a coffin of marble, glass, or the like, and it was totally intact at the time of burial. If it was lacking a limb, it was buried in its garments, or it was buried in a coffin of wood or metal, the decomposed mass does not impart ritual impurity. The rationale is that the rot of the garment or the wood and the rust of the metal will become mixed with the decomposed mass of the corpse.
When any amount of earth becomes mixed with the decomposed mass of a corpse, it remains impure. These laws of rekev applies only to the corpse of one who died naturally. They do not apply to one who was slain.
ד
אין רקב המת מטמא עד שיקבר ערום בארון של שיש או של זכוכית וכיוצא בהן ויהיה כולו שלם חסר ממנו אבר או שנקבר בכסותו או בארון של עץ או של מתכת אין רקבו טמא מפני שרקב הכסות או רקב העץ או חלודת המתכת תתערב ברקב גוייתו ורקב המטמא שנתערב בו עפר כל שהוא הרי הוא בטומאתו ולא אמרו רקב אלא למת בלבד אבל הרוג אין לו רקב:
5
When two corpses are buried together, a deceased's hair or nails were trimmed and then buried with him, or a pregnant woman was buried with the fetus she was carrying, the laws of rekevdo not apply.
ה
קברו שני מתים כאחד או שגזזו שערו או צפרניו וקברום עמו או שקברו אשה מעוברת ועוברה במעיה אין להם רקב:
6
If one ground a corpse until it became a decomposed mass, it does not convey the impurity of rekev. Those laws do not apply unless it decomposes as part of a natural process.
ו
טחן המת עד שנעשה רקב אינו מטמא עד שירקיב מאליו:
7
If one ground a corpse and then left its remains until they decomposed naturally or a portion of the body decomposed while the person was alive, he died, and then the entire body decomposed, there is an unresolved doubt concerning the ruling. Hence, if a person becomes impure because of two handfuls of thisrekev, he must consider himself impure, because of this unresolved doubt.
ז
טחנו כולו והניחו עד שירקיב או שהרקיב מקצתו כשהוא חי ומת והרקיב כולו הרי זה ספק ואם נטמא למלוא חפנים מרקב זה ה"ז טמא בספק:
8
The following laws applies when there are two handfuls and more of earth that was found under a corpse or in a grave and it is not known what it comprises: whether it is rekev that imparts impurity when under the same shelter or it is merely earth that has become soiled with the netzal and the blood of the corpse. It imparts impurity when carried and when one is under the same shelter, because this mass that is more than two handfuls contains two full handfuls of rekev. It appears to me that also this impurity is a Rabbinic decree.
ח
מלא חפנים ועוד מעפר הנמצא תחת המת או מעפר הנמצא בקבר ואין ידוע מה טיבו אם הוא רקב שמטמא באהל או אינו אלא עפר שנתלכלך בנצל המת ודמו ה"ז מטמא במשא ובאהל שהרי יש במלוא חפנים ועוד מלא חפנים רקב ויראה לי שאף זו טומאה מדברי סופרים:
9
When a corpse was burned and its skeleton - i.e., the backbone and the ribs - is intact, it conveys impurity like an entire corpse. Needless to say, this applies if the flesh is merely charred. If, however, it is burnt to the extent that its form is destroyed, it is ritually pure.
Similarly, if a miscarried embryo which had already begun to have its limbs take form was mixed with water, it is pure, because its form was destroyed.
ט
המת שנשרף ושלדו קיימת והוא השדרה והצלעות ה"ז מטמא כמת שלם ואצ"ל אם נחרך אבל אם נשרף עד שנתבלבלה צורת תבניתו טהור וכן שפיר מרוקם שטרפו במים טהור שהרי נתבלבלה צורתו:
10
When the flesh of a corpse has become powdery and flourlike, it is ritually pure. Similarly, the ashes of corpses that were burnt are ritually pure. Similarly, worms which come into existence from the flesh of a corpse, whether they are alive or dead, are ritually pure.
We have already explained that bone marrow is considered as flesh in all instances, whether with regard to a human corpse or with regard to the carcass of an animal or crawling animal.
י
בשר המת שנפרך ונעשה כקמח טהור וכן אפר השרופין טהור וכן התולעים הנהוין מבשר המת בין חיים בין מתים טהורין וכבר ביארנו שהמוח כבשר בכל מקום בין במת בין בנבלה ושרץ:
11
A person's skin is considered as his flesh. If it was processed entirely or trodden upon as is necessary for processing, it is considered as pure according to Scriptural Law. According to Rabbinic Law, however, an olive-sized portion imparts impurity like the flesh of a corpse. This is a decree, enacted so that people do not become accustomed to processing human skin and using it.
יא
עור האדם כבשרו ואם עבדו כל צרכו או הילך בו כדי עבודה הרי זה טהור מן התורה אבל מדבריהם מטמא בכזית כבשר המת גזירה שלא להרגיל בני אדם לעבוד עורות האדם וישתמשו בהן:
12
The skin that appears opposite the face of a infant when he is born, whether both he and his mother survive the birth or he and his mother die in the process of the birth, is considered as ritually pure. The rationale is that it is like a waste produce, like filth, vomit, or the like.
יב
עור הבא כנגד פניו של אדם כשיולד בין שהיה חי ואמו חיה בין שנולד מת ואמו מתה ה"ז טהור מפני שהוא כמו פרש או צואה וקיא וכיוצא בהן:
13
Every element of a corpse is impure with the exception of the teeth, the hair, and the nails, for they are replaced. While they are attached to the body, they are all impure.
What is implied? When a corpse is outside a house and his hair which is attached to his body is inside, everything in the house becomes impure. Similarly, one who touches hair, teeth, or nails while they are attached to a corpse becomes impure. When the hair of the deceased was ready to be cut or his nails were ready to be trimmed, their halachic status is in doubt because they are prepared to be cut off. Therefore, one who touches them is considered as ritually impure because of the doubt.
Any liquid that flows out from a corpse is pure except for its blood. Any liquid with the color of blood that flows from a corpse is impure, as we explained. Why wasn't a decree made with regard to liquids that flow from a corpse as was made with regard to liquids flowing from other impure individuals? Since everyone withdraws from a corpse, they did not feel the need to enact a decree regarding liquids that flow from it.
יג
כל שבמת טמא חוץ מן השינים והשיער והצפורן הואיל וגזען מחליף ובשעת חבורן הכל טמא כיצד המת בחוץ ושערו בתוך הבית נטמא כל אשר בבית וכן הנוגע בשערו או בשיניו או בצפרניו כשהן מחוברין נטמא שערו העומד להגזז וצפרניו העומדים להנטל הואיל והן עומדין להנטל יש בהן ספק לפיכך הנוגע בהן הרי הוא ספק טמא כל משקה היוצא מן המתים טהור חוץ מדמו וכל מראה דמים מן המת טמא כמו שביארנו ומפני מה לא גזרו על משקה המת כדרך שגזרו על משקין היוצאין מכל הטמאין מפני שהמת הכל בדלין ממנו לא גזרו על משקיו:
14
When a liver has decomposed, a revi'it of it imparts impurity, because it is considered like blood that has coagulated.
If all the blood of an infant flows out, but it does not amount to a revi'it, it is pure even though it comprises all the blood in his body.
יד
כבד שנמוחה מטמאה ברביעית מפני שהיא כדם נקפה דם קטן שיצא כולו אם אין בו רביעית טהור אף על פי שהוא כל דם שבו:
15
If even the slightest amount of these measures are lacking, the substances are pure: a) a revi'it of blood, b) a piece of bone the size of a barley-corn, c) an olive-sized portion of flesh, d) an olive-sized portion of netzal, e) two handfuls of rekev, and f) a limb from a living person from which the slightest portion of the bone was lacking.
טו
ואלו אם חסרו כל שהוא טהורים: רביעית דם ועצם כשעורה וכזית בשר וכזית נצל ומלא חפנים רקב ואבר מן החי שחסר מעצמו כל שהוא:
• Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day
Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Six, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Seven, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Eight
Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Six, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Seven, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Eight
• Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Six
1
What is meant by the term mu'ad?1 [An animal regarding which] testimony2 was given on three [different] days. If, however, an animal gored [other animals] on one day, or it bit, lay upon, kicked or butted [other animals many] - even one hundred - times in one day, it should not be considered to be mu'ad.3 If three pairs of witnesses gave testimony [concerning an animal]4 on one day, there is an [unresolved] doubt whether it is classified as mu'ad or not.
א
אי זהו מועד כל שהעידו בו שלשה ימים. אבל אם נגח ביום אחד או נשך או רבץ או בעט או נגף אפילו מאה פעמים אין זה מועד. העידו בו שלש כתי עדים ביום אחד הרי זה
2
The warning administered to an owner [for an animal] must be administered in the owner's presence, as [implied by Exodus 21:29]: "And the owners shall be warned." The warning must be administered in a court.5
ב
אין העדה אלא בפני הבעלים ובפני בית דין שנאמר והועד בבעליו. ואין העדה אלא בבית דין:
3
When an ox belonging to a deaf mute, a mentally incompetent individual, a minor6 or a person who is overseas gores, [the owner] is not liable. The court should, however, appoint a guardian for the ox and administer the warning to the guardian.
ג
שור של חרש שוטה וקטן ומי שהוא במדינת הים שנגחו פטורין. אבל בית דין מעמידין להם
4
[The following rules apply when this ox] causes damage after the warning was administered to the guardian:7 If the ox is still classified as a tam, an ordinary animal, half the damages must be paid from the body [of the ox].8 If a warning was administered on three [different] days, and afterwards [the ox] causes damage, the guardian must pay for the damage from the choicest properties he owns.9 When the orphans attain majority, they must enter into litigation with the guardian and repay him.
ד
הזיקו אחר שהועדו בפני אפוטרופוסין אם עדיין הוא תם משלם חצי נזק מגופו ואם הועד בו שלשה ימים ואחר כך הזיק משלם נזק שלם מן היפה שבנכסי אפוטרופוסין ולכשיגדלו היתומים יעשו דין עם האפוטרופוסין וישלמו להן:
5
When oxen are used for sport,10 and they are trained to gore each other, they are not considered to be mu'adim [to gore] each other. [Moreover,] even if they kill a human, they should not be executed, for [Exodus 21:28] states: "When an ox gores...," [implying that it does so on its own initiative,] not that it was prompted to gore.
ה
שוורים שמשחקין בהן ומלמדין אותן ליגח זה את זה אינם מועדים זה לזה. ואפילו המיתו את האדם אינן חייבין מיתה שנאמר
6
When an ox was sold or given away as a present after its owners had been warned, its status reverts back to that of atam. With the change in ownership, its status changes. If, however, an ox was borrowed or entrusted to a watchman, its status remains unchanged. Similarly, if a warning regarding an ox was given to a guardian, and then the owner who was a deaf mute regained his faculties, or the owner who was mentally incompetent regained competence, or the owner who was a minor attains majority, the status of the ox remains unchanged,11 for it remains in the domain of the [same] owner.
ו
שור שהועד ונמכר או ניתן במתנה חזר לתמותו שהרשות שנשתנית משנה דינו. אבל אם השאילו או מסרו לשומר הרי הוא בחזקתו. וכן שור שהועד בפני אפוטרופסין ונתפקח החרש ונשתפה השוטה והגדיל הקטן אע"פ שבטלו האפוטרופסין הרי הן מועדין בחזקתן שהרי ברשות בעלים הן:
7
When an animal was classified as mu'ad, and then it changes its conduct, its status changes and it is considered to be a tam. What is implied? If an ox was classified as mu'ad with regard to goring and it ceased goring, it is considered to be a tam with regard to goring, even though it still butts. When is it considered to have ceased [goring]? When children play12 with it and it does not gore them. Similarly with regard to other tendencies regarding which warnings were given, [the status of the animal remains unchanged] until [children] play with it, and it does not do [what it was wont to do previously].
ז
בהמה שהועדה וחזרה בה מדבר שהועדה לו חזרה לתמותה. כיצד שור שהועד ליגח וחזר שלא יגח אע"פ שהוא נוגף הרי זה תם לנגיחה. ומאימתי הוא חזרתו עד שיהיו התינוקות ממשמשין בו ואינו נוגח. וכן בשאר הדברים שהועד להן עד שימשמשו בו ולא יהיה עושה אותן:
8
When an ox has been classified as mu'ad with regard to [other oxen], it is not considered to be mu'ad with regard to other types of animals. An ox that has been classified as mu'ad with regard to humans is not considered to be mu'ad with regard to animals.13 If it has been classified as mu'ad with regard to young animals, it is not considered to be mu'ad with regard to older animals. Therefore, if it caused damage of the type regarding which the warning was given, the owner is liable for the full amount of the damages. If it caused damages of another type, regarding which a warning was not given, [the owners] must pay [only] half the damages. If it has been classified as mu'ad with regard to Sabbaths, it is not considered to be mu'ad with regard to weekdays.14 If it causes damage on the Sabbath, the owner is liable for the full amount of the damages. During the week, [the owners] must pay [only] half the damages. When is the warning rescinded? When children will play with it on the day concerning which the warning was given, and it does not harm them in the way it is known to cause harm.
ח
שור שהוא מועד למינו הרי זה אינו מועד לשאינו מינו. הועד לאדם אינו מועד לבהמה הועד [א] לקטנים אינו מועד לגדולים לפיכך אם הזיק את מין שהוא מועד לו משלם נזק שלם ואם הזיק לשאר המינין משלם חצי נזק. היה מועד לשבתות אינו מועד לימות החול ואם הזיק בשבתות משלם נזק שלם ובימות החול משלם חצי נזק. ומאימתי היא חזרתו משימשמשו התינוקות בו ביום שהוא מועד לו ולא יהיה מזיק נזק שהועד לו:
9
If [an ox] gored another ox on one day, a donkey on the following day, and a camel on the day afterwards, it is classified as mu'ad for all [these three] types [of animals].15 [A warning should also be administered to an owner in the following situation. His ox] saw another ox on one day and gored it. On the next day, it saw another ox but did not gore it. On the third day, it saw another ox and gored it. On the fourth day, it saw another ox but did not gore it. On the fifth day, it saw another ox and gored it, and on the sixth day, it saw another ox but did not gore it. [In these circumstances, the ox] becomes classified as mu'ad to gore oxen on alternate days.16Similar laws apply in other analogous situations.
ט
נגח שור היום וחמור למחר וגמל ביום שלישי נעשה מועד לכל. ראה שור היום ונגחו. ולמחר ראה שור ולא נגחו. וביום השלישי ראה שור ונגחו. וברביעי ראה שור ולא נגחו. ובחמישי ראה שור ונגחו. ובששי ראה שור ולא נגחו נעשה מועד לסירוגין לשוורים. וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
10
[Similarly, a warning should also be administered to an owner in the following situation. His ox] saw another ox on one day and gored it. On the next day, it saw a donkey, but did not gore it. On the third day, it saw a horse and gored it. On the fourth day, it saw a camel but did not gore it. On the fifth day, it saw a mule and gored it, and on the sixth day, it saw a wild ass but did not gore it. [In these circumstances, the ox] becomes classified as mu'ad to gore all [these three] types [of animals] on alternate days. If it gores one of these types of animals that it had gored on alternate days on a day on which it is mu'ad, [the owner must pay the full damages, as is required for an ox that is] mu'ad.
י
11
[When an ox] gores [an animal] on the fifteenth of one month, on the sixteenth of the following month, and on the seventeenth of the third month, it is not classified as mu'ad until it adds a day a third time, in the fourth month.17 If an ox hears a shofar blast and gores on three [successive] occasions, it is consideredmu'ad [to gore after hearing] shofar blasts.18 Similar laws apply in other analogous situations.
יא
נגח בחמשה עשר לחודש זה. ובששה עשר לחודש שני. ובשבעה עשר לחדש שלישי אינו מועד עד שישלש בדילוג. שמע קול שופר ונגח קול שופר ונגח קול שופר ונגח נעשה מועד לשופרות. וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
12
[There is an unresolved doubt in the following situations.] An ox gored three other oxen on three successive days. On the fourth day it gored a donkey, and on the fifth day it gored a camel. Or at first it gored a donkey and a camel, and then it gored three oxen one after another. There is a doubt if it is classified as mu'ad only for oxen or for all three types of animals. Similarly, if an ox gores on three successive Sabbaths and then on the Sunday and the Monday [following the third Sabbath], or it gored on Thursday, on Friday and then on three successive Sabbaths, there is a doubt whether it is classified as mu'ad only for Sabbaths or for a block of three days, two of which are ordinary weekdays.19
יב
נגח שלשה שוורים בשלשה ימים זה אחר זה וברביעי נגח חמור ובחמישי נגח גמל או שנגח חמור וגמל בתחילה בשני ימים זה אחר זה ואחר כך נגח שלשה שוורים זה אחר זה הרי זה ספק אם הוא מועד לשוורים בלבד או לשלשת המינין הוא מועד. וכן אם נגח בשלש שבתות זו אחר זו ובאחד בשבת ובשני בשבת או שנגח בחמישי בשבת ובערב שבת וביום השבת ובשתי שבתות הבאות אחריה הרי זה ספק אם הוא מועד לשבתות בלבד או לשלשת הימים ששנים מהן חול:
13
With regard to these unresolved questions and the like, [the owner of the ox] that caused the damage is required to pay for only half the damages. If the person whose property was damaged seizes property belonging to the other person equivalent to the full amount of the damages, it is not expropriated from him.20
יג
וכל אלו הספיקות וכיוצא בהן אין מחייבין בהן את המזיק אלא חצי נזק ואם תפש הניזק נזק שלם אין מוציאין מידו:
FOOTNOTES
1.
Mu'ad literally means forewarned - i.e., the animal is prone to perform such acts, and the owner should be forewarned.
3.
For it is possible that the animal was disturbed by certain factors on that day, and its conduct is not indicative of its ordinary pattern.
5.
Hilchot Sanhedrin 5:12 states that this refers to a court of three judges who received semichah. For this reason, ever since this semichah was nullified, animals were no longer placed into the category of mu'ad. Accordingly, these laws do not apply in the present age.
6.
All the first three people are considered to be mentally incompetent and are not held responsible for their conduct.
7.
I.e., the Rambam explains that the ox gored another ox, a guardian was appointed, and then it gored again. (See Or Sameach.)
8.
Rashi (Bava Kama 39a), Rabbenu Asher and the Ra'avad differ and maintain that a guardian is not appointed unless the ox gores three times. Otherwise, the owners are not held liable.
9.
The Tur (Choshen Mishpat 406) states that the payment is made from the property of the orphans, and not from that of the guardian.
10.
Bava Kama 4:3 uses the expression A bull from a stadium. In his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam explains This one sends out his bull and the other sends out his bull. After having trained their animals to gore, they call to them to attack the other animal to see who will be victorious. This is done with the owner's consent. This is the habit of many foolish people.
11.
See Halachah 3. Although previously the guardian was responsible for watching the ox, the change in responsibility is not a change in ownership, and the ox's status is not changed.
12.
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Kama 2:4). In neither source does the Rambam mention how often the children must play with the ox. With this ruling, the Rambam rejects an opinion stated in Bava Kama 23b, which states that if three days pass when the ox sees other oxen and does not gore them, the warning is rescinded.
13.
Conversely, an ox that has been classified as mu'ad with regard to animals is not considered to be mu'ad with regard to humans.
14.
Rashi (Bava Kama 37a) explains that on the Sabbath, an ox is not required to work. Hence, it may not feel the yoke of its master as thoroughly and may therefore cause damage. Others cite the Jerusalem Talmud which explains that since people dress differently on the Sabbath, the ox will not be familiar with them, and may gore them because it views them as strangers. This does not apply during the week.
15.
Our translation is based on the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh, which reflects the Rambam's wording in Halachot 10 and 12. The Rambam is explaining that to be classified as mu'ad for a type of animal, an ox does not have to gore that type of animal three times. The Ra'avad differs and explains that the ox is considered to be mu'ad for all types of animals.
16.
Thus, if it gores an ox on an odd day, its owner will be liable for the full extent of the damages, and if it gores on an even day, he will be liable for only half the damages.
17.
A parallel to this law is found with regard to fixing the pattern of the onset of menstruation. See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 8:6.
19.
The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, asking why the animal would be considered to be mu'ad for only this block of three days.
Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Seven
1
[The following rules apply when] an ox breaks loose and causes damage after its owner had tied it with a rope and locked it [in a corral] in an acceptable manner.1 If it is a tam, he is required to pay only half the damages. If it is mu'ad, he is not liable at all,2 as [implied by Exodus 21:29]: "[If the owners were warned,] and they did not guard him." [One can infer that] if they did guard, they are not liable. [And in the above instance, the ox] was guarded.3Similarly, if an ox caused damage through an activity for which he is mu'ad at the outset - e.g., it ate a type of food that it usually eats or it broke objects by treading on them - [the owner] is not liable [in the above instance].
א
שור שקשרו בעליו במוסרה ונעל בפניו כראוי ויצא והזיק. אם תם הוא משלם חצי נזק. ואם היה מועד פטור שנאמר ולא ישמרנו הא אם שמרו פטור ושמור הוא זה. וכן אם הזיק בדבר שהוא מועד לו מתחילתו כגון שאכל דברים הראויים לו או שבר ברגליו בדרך הלוכו פטור מלשלם:
2
If the ox has been classified as mu'ad with regard to its right horn, but it is not mu'ad with regard to its left horn, and it got loose after it had been guarded in an acceptable manner, [the owner is required to] pay half the damages.4 [This applies] regardless of whether it gored with its right horn or its left horn.
ב
היה מועד
3
[The following rules apply when] an animal injures a human being, whether intentionally or unintentionally. If the animal is atam, half the damages must be paid from the body of the animal. If it is mu'ad, [the owner] must pay the entire amount of the damages.5He is, however, not liable for compensation for unemployment, embarrassment, pain and medical expenses. For the Torah required redress for these matters only when one person injured a colleague.6When, by contrast, it is an animal which caused the injury, it is as if [the animal] damaged the person's property, and [the owner] is liable for only half of the damages.For this reason, if a person's ox causes [another individual] embarrassment, he is not liable. If, however, he causes that embarrassment himself, he is liable, as will be explained.7If a person's ox injures his father or mother, or it sets fire to a person's grain heap on the Sabbath, [the owner] is liable, although if the person performed these same actions himself, he would not be liable.8
ג
בהמה שחבלה באדם בין בכוונה בין שלא בכוונה. אם תמה היא משלם חצי נזק מגופה. ואם מועדת היא משלם נזק שלם. ופטור מן השבת ומן הבושת ומן הצער ומן הרפוי. שארבעה דברים אלו לא חייבה בהן תורה אלא באדם שחבל בחבירו אבל בהמה שחבלה באדם הרי זה כמי שהזיקה ממונו שאינו חייב אלא חצי נזק בלבד. לפיכך שורו שבייש פטור ואם בייש הוא בעצמו חייב כמו שיתבאר. ושורו שחבל באביו או באמו או שהדליק גדיש חבירו בשבת חייב בנזקין ואילו היה הוא בעצמו העושה זה פטור מלשלם כמו שיתבאר:
4
[The following rules apply when] a person brings his ox into a courtyard belonging to another person without his permission. If the [uninvited ox] was gored by an ox belonging to the owner or bitten by the owner's dog, the owner is not liable. If the [uninvited ox] gored an ox belonging to the owner [of the courtyard], [the owner of the uninvited ox is liable.] If [his ox] is tam, [its owner] must pay half the damages. If it is mu'ad, he must pay the entire damages, as if it had gored [the other ox] in the public domain.9
ד
המכניס שורו לחצר בעל הבית שלא ברשות ונגחו שורו של בעל הבית או נשכו כלבו פטור. ואם נגח הוא שור של בעל הבית. אם היה תם משלם חצי נזק. ואם היה מועד משלם נזק שלם כדין הנוגח ברשות הרבים:
5
[In the above situation, the following rules apply if the uninvited ox] falls into a cistern in this courtyard and spoils its water. If it spoiled the water immediately upon falling within,10 [the owner of the ox] is liable for the loss caused by the ruining of the water. If [the water] was not spoiled until afterwards,11 [the owner] is not liable. [The rationale is that] the ox is considered to be an obstruction in the cistern, and the water is considered to be a utensil. And one is never liable for damage to utensils caused by an obstruction.12 If [the owner of the ox received] permission to bring in his ox, the owner of the ox is not liable for any damage the ox caused.13 If the owner of the courtyard accepted responsibility for the ox,14 he is liable for the damages it suffers from falling into the cistern.
ה
6
[The following rules also apply when] a person brings his ox into a courtyard belonging to another person without his permission. If the [uninvited ox] injures the owner of the courtyard, the owner of the courtyard suffers injury [because of the ox], or [the ox] digs pits or trenches, or burrows in the courtyard, the owner of the ox is liable for the damage to the courtyard [or to the owner]. [If another person] is injured because of these pits,15 the owner of the courtyard is liable, for it is his responsibility to fill them up.
ו
הכניס שורו לחצר בעל הבית שלא ברשות והזיק את בעל הבית או שהוזק בו בעל הבית. או שחפר בחצר בורות שיחין ומערות. בעל השור חייב בנזקי חצר. ובעל חצר חייב בנזקי הבור שהרי עליו לסתמו:
7
[The following rules apply if] the owner of the courtyard damaged the ox: If he caused the damage unknowingly, he is not liable. For he can tell [the owner of the ox], "Why did you bring [your ox] in without permission. I was not aware of it until I [damaged it] unknowingly."16 If he caused the damage knowingly, he is liable for the full extent of the damage. He has the right to take the [intruding animal] out of his property; he does not have the right to damage it.
ז
הזיק בעל הבית את השור. אם הזיקו שלא לדעת פטור. שהרי אומרין לו למה נכנסת שלא ברשות שלא ידעתי עד ששגגתי בך. ואם הזיקו לדעת חייב נזק שלם. מפני שיש לו רשות להוציאו מרשותו אבל להזיקו אין לו רשות:
8
We evaluate the amount of damages caused. What is implied? If either a person or his ox broke a utensil belonging to a colleague, we do not tell the person who caused the damage, "Take the broken utensil and pay its worth to its owner."17 Instead, we evaluate the loss caused to the utensil. This amount is paid by the person who caused the damage. [If the damage was caused by his ox, and the ox] was mu'ad, he is liable for the full amount of the damages. If it is tam, he is liable for half the damages.[This is implied by Exodus 21:36]: "And the carcass will be his" - i.e., it belongs to the one whose property was damaged. If the carcass loses value, the person whose property was damaged suffers the loss. If its value rises, the increase is divided between the person who caused the damage and the person whose property was damaged.
ח
שמין לנזקין. כיצד הרי ששבר כלי של חבירו בין הוא בין בהמתו אין אומרים למזיק קח אתה הכלי השבור ושלם לזה דמי הכלי אלא אומדין כמה פחת הכלי מדמיו ונותן לו כל הפחת אם המזיק מועד או חצי הפחת אם היה תם שנאמר והמת יהיה לו לניזק ב פחת הנבלה של ניזק. ושבח הנבילה חולקין אותו הניזק והמזיק:
9
What is implied? When an ox that is worth 200 [zuz] is gored and dies - its carcass was worth 100 [zuz] at the time of its death,18 but at the time of the trial, it decreased in value and was worth only 80. [In such an instance,] the person whose [ox] caused the damage is required to pay only 100 [zuz],19 if [the ox] was mu'ad. If it was a tam, the owner is required to pay only 50 [zuz] from the body of the ox.
ט
כיצד שור שוה מאתים שנגחוהו ומת והרי הנבלה שוה בשעת מיתה מאה ובשעת העמדה בדין פחתה והרי שוה שמונים אין המזיק משלם אלא מאה אם היה מועד. ואם היה תם משלם לו חמשים מגופו:
10
If the value of the carcass increased, and it is worth 120 [zuz] at the time of the trial, the one who caused the damage must pay 9020 if the ox was mu'ad, and 45 from the body of the ox if it was a tam. [This is implied by Exodus 21:35]: "And they shall also divide the dead [ox]" - i.e., they shall divide the profit from the dead ox.21
י
השביחה הנבלה והרי היא שוה בשעת העמדה בדין מאה ועשרים. הרי המזיק משלם לו תשעים אם היה מועד. ואם היה תם משלם ארבעים וחמשה מגופו וזהו שנאמר וגם את המת יחצון [שבח המת יחצון]:
11
[The amount that the person whose ox caused the damage must pay is subject to change in some, but not in all, circumstances. To illustrate:] An ox that was worth 200 [zuz] gored another ox worth 200 [zuz], causing it to depreciate 50 [zuz]. At the time of the trial, its value increased and it was worth 400 zuz. If, however, it had not been gored, it would have been worth 800 [zuz]. Whether its value increased because it was fattened or because of market fluctuations,22 the damages are evaluated according to the loss at the time the damage took place.23 If the ox became weak because of the injury it received and the damages amounted to 100zuz at the time of the trial, the damages are evaluated according to the loss at the time of the trial.24
יא
שור שוה מאתים שנגח שור שוה מאתים והפחיתו חמשים ובשעת העמדה בדין השביח הניזק והרי הוא שוה ארבע מאות זוז ואלולא הנגיחה שהפחיתו היה שוה שמונה מאות בין שפטמו בין ששבח מאליו אין נותן אלא כשעת הנזק. כחש מחמת המכה בשעת העמדה בדין והרי הפחת שוה מאה נותן לו כשעת העמדה בדין:
12
[The following rules apply if] the value of the ox that caused the damage increased at the time of the trial.25 If its value increased because the owner fattened it, only its value at the time it caused the damage is considered to be on lien for payment.26 If its value increased because of market fluctuations, half of the damages may be collected from its value at the time of the trial.27
יב
השביח המזיק בשעת העמדה בדין. אם מחמת שפטמו שבח אינו משתלם ממנו אלא מה שהיה שוה בשעה שהזיק. ואם מחמת עצמו השביח משתלם חצי נזק ממנו כלו כשעת העמדה בדין:
13
It is the responsibility of the person who caused the damage to make the effort to bring the carcass of the ox that was damaged to the person [whose ox] was damaged. What is implied? An ox fell into a cistern and died. [The owner of the cistern] must raise the carcass [of the ox]28 from the cistern and give it to its owner. Then we evaluate the extent of the loss.[This is derived fromExodus 21:34]: "He shall give monetary recompense to the owners, and the carcass will be [the owners']." This teaches that he is obligated to return the carcass and the decrease in the value of the ox [from the time]29 when it was alive, to its owner. If [the ox that caused the damage was a tam], [its owner is required to pay only] half the damages, as explained above.30
יג
על המזיק לטרוח בנבלה עד שממציא אותה לניזק. כיצד כגון שנפל השור לבור ומת מעלה הנבלה מן הבור ונותנה לניזק ואחר כך שמין לו פחת נבלה שנאמר כסף ישיב לבעליו והמת יהיה לו, מלמד שהוא חייב להשיב את הנבלה ואת הפחת שפחתה מן החי לניזק. ואם היה תם חצי הפחת. כמו שביארנו:
FOOTNOTES
1.
I.e., with a gate that can withstand an ordinary wind. According to the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 396:1), this halachah is speaking about guarding the animal in an inferior manner as explained in the notes to Chapter 4, Halachah 4. If the animal is guarded in an excellent manner, there is no liability.
2.
According to the Rambam, the owner is not liable for even half the damages. Rabbenu Asher and others differ. According to their view, since he did guard the ox to some degree, he is not liable for the full damages. He is, however, liable for half the damages, for there is no reason why the laws governing him should be more lenient than those governing an ordinary ox. See Sefer Me'irat Einayim 396:1.
3.
Note the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Kama, conclusion of Chapter 4), which states that since this ox frequently gores, it is a mitzvah to slaughter it.
4.
Since the ox is considered to be a tam with regard to one element of goring, the owner is never freed from the obligation to pay the half damages that the owner of an ordinary ox would pay.
5.
Although these principles are stated in the Torah explicitly with regard only to damage done to another animal, Bava Kama 33a explains how an equation to human injury is derived.
6.
For Leviticus 24:19, the source for the laws applying to human injury, states: When a man will cause a blemish to a colleague.... Implied is that these laws apply only when the injury is caused by another man.
8.
A human being is not liable in these instances. The rationale is that he is liable for capital punishment for injuring his parents or desecrating the Sabbath. Whenever a person incurs both liability for capital punishment and monetary restitution with the performance of a single deed, he is freed of responsibility for the monetary claim. See Hilchot Chovel UMazik 4:5,7.
9.
The words as if it had gored in the public domain refer to the fact that the owner of an ox that is tam pays for only half the damages. One might draw a comparison to the damage caused by eating or treading, in which instance the owner of the ox is not held liable for damage caused in the public domain, but he is liable for the entire amount of damages caused in the domain of the owner of the produce. To counter this hypothesis, the Rambam emphasizes that with regard to goring, one is liable as in the public domain, but not more.
13.
The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachot 8-9, when an ox causes damage in a courtyard belonging jointly to its owner and another person, the owner of the ox is liable for the damage it causes. Why then, asks the Ra'avad, is the owner of the ox not liable in this situation? The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 398:5), however, quotes the Rambam's ruling.
14.
As mentioned in the notes on Chapter 3, Halachot 13-15, the Tur differs with Rambam and maintains that granting the owner of the ox permission to bring his ox into the courtyard is equivalent to accepting responsibility for any damage to it caused by the owner or his property. With regard to damages caused by others, however, the owner of the courtyard is not liable unless he accepts responsibility. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) quotes the Rambam's wording, while the Ramah follows the perspective of the Tur.
15.
The Maggid Mishneh and Sefer Me'irat Einayim 398:2 state that the owner of the courtyard is generally not liable for the injury another person suffered because of these pits, since he can always claim: Who gave you permission to enter my property? Only when the owner gives up ownership of his property or gives others the right to enter is he liable.
16.
This phrase has attracted the attention of the commentaries, for it implies that if the owner of the courtyard knew that the animal had entered his property, he would be liable even when he caused the damage accidentally. From Hilchot Chovel UMazik 1:16, 6:3, however, it appears that he would not be liable in such an instance. See Migdal Oz, Lechem Mishneh.
18.
The Tur maintains that the time that is significant is not the time of the animal's death, but the time when its owner is notified regarding its death. Until that time, the one who caused the damage is responsible for the loss. The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 403:2) mentions this view.
20.
I.e., the 100 zuz that the owner of the ox lost, minus 10 zuz, which is the share of the profit given to the person who caused the damage.
21.
The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 403:2) emphasize that although the person who caused the damage is given a share in the value of the dead ox, this applies only with regard to the loss. If the price of meat rises to the extent that the meat of the ox is worth more than the ox was worth when it was alive, the one who caused the damages is not given a share of the profits.
23.
I.e., 50 zuz if the ox was mu'ad. With regard to the larger sum, the matter is considered one of grama, an indirect cause of damage. Therefore, the owner of the ox is not liable (Sefer Me'irat Einayim 404:2).
24.
Tosafot, Bava Kama 10b draws a distinction between this instance and Halachah 8, which states that the increased loss to the carcass is suffered by its owner. The rationale for this distinction is that once the ox died, its owner should have sold it immediately. In this instance, since the ox was still alive, its owner thought that it would recover and that the loss would be less.
25.
This increase is significant, because the owner of the ox that was damaged can collect the payment (half of the damage) for the damages, only from the body of the ox that caused the damage. Thus, if the damage to an ox was 200 zuz, and the ox that caused the damage was worth only 80 zuz, the fact that its value increased to 100 zuz could affect the amount the owner of the damaged ox receives.
26.
I.e., in the above instance, the payment would be only 80 zuz. The rationale is that the owner of the ox who caused the damage will say: Did I fatten my ox so that you will take the profit?The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 404:2) differ and maintain that if the increase in the value of the ox exceeds the cost of fattening it, the cost of fattening it is deducted from its value, and the person whose ox was damaged receives half of the difference.
27.
I.e., in the above instance, the payment would be 100 zuz. The rationale is that since the body of the ox that caused the damage is on lien for the damages, and now that body is worth 100 zuz, the entire amount may be expropriated. Note the Or Sameach, who emphasizes that although the payment is taken from the body of the ox that caused the damages, the lien is not established until the time of the trial. Thus, if the owner of the ox that caused the damage consecrates it, it is consecrated, and the owner of the damaged ox receives no payment at all.
28.
The Tur (Choshen Mishpat 403) writes that although the responsibility to raise the ox is that of the owner of the cistern, if the owner of the ox becomes aware that his ox fell into the cistern, he must raise it and then bill the owner of the cistern for his costs. Sefer Me'irat Einayim 403:8 quotes this ruling.
29.
It is as if the verse reads He shall give monetary recompense and the carcass to the owners (Bava Kama 10b).
Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Eight
1
When an ox belonging to an Israelite gores an ox that was consecrated1 or an ox that was consecrated gores an ox belonging to an Israelite, [the owner of the goring ox] is not liable, [as implied by Exodus 21:35]: "[If one person's ox injures] an ox belonging to a colleague...."2 All consecrated entities for which one is held liable for using them for one's own purposes3 are not bound by the laws of damages.4 Animals that were consecrated and then disqualified5 are bound by the laws of damages. This applies regardless of whether it is they who cause the damage, or they who are damaged. For they have been redeemed and can be considered ordinary.6
א
שור א של ישראל שנגח שור של [א] הקדש או שור של הקדש שנגח שור של ישראל פטור שנאמר שור רעהו. וכל הקדשים שחייבין בהן מעילה אין בהן דין נזקין. ופסולי המוקדשין יש בהן דין נזקין בין שהזיקו בין שהוזקו שהרי יצאו לפדיון ולהיותם חולין:
2
When [an animal consecrated for] a peace offering causes damage, the damages may be collected from its meat.7 [The person whose property was damaged] does not, however, collect his due from the portions burned on the altar. For the prohibition against using consecrated property for one's own purposes applies to the portions of sacrifices of lesser sanctity8 burned on the altar, as explained in Hilchot Me'ilah.9 Similarly, [if an animal consecrated for] a thanksgiving offering causes damage, the damages may be collected from its meat. They may not, however, be collected from the bread that accompanies it,10 for the bread is not considered to be part of the meat.
ב
שלמים שהזיקו גובה מבשרם ואינו גובה מן הבשר כנגד אימוריהן שהאימורים של קדשים קלים מועלין בהן כמו שביארנו בהלכות מעילה. וכן תודה שהזיקה גובה מבשרה ואינו גובה מן הלחם הבא עמה שאין הלחם מכלל בשר:
3
How can [the person whose property was damaged] collect [his due]? He and his company should eat, in a holy manner, a portion of the meat equivalent to half the damages he suffered.11What is meant by the statement that [the person whose property was damaged] does not, however, collect his due from the portions burned on the altar? That if half the damages he suffered was equivalent to a dinar, and the meat and the portions to be offered on the altar together were worth two dinarim, but the meat without the portions to be offered was worth only a dinar and a half, [the person whose property was damaged] receives only half the meat, and not two thirds of the meat.
ג
וכיצד גובה שיאכל הניזק וחבורתו מן הבשר בקדושה כנגד חצי נזק שלו. וכיצד אינו גובה כנגד האימורין שאם היה לו לגבות בחצי נזקו שוה דינר והיה כל הבשר עם האימורין שוה שני דינרים והבשר בלא אימורין שוה דינר וחצי אינו גובה שני שלישי הבשר אלא חצי הבשר בלבד:
4
Similarly, an ox that is ownerless and causes damage is also not held responsible for the damage it causes. [This is also derived from the phrase,] "an ox belonging to a colleague," implying that the ox must be defined as the property of an owner. What is implied? When an ox that is ownerless gores [another ox], and before the person whose property was damaged takes possession of [the goring ox] another person does so, that other person is not liable for the damages.12Moreover, even if an ox that is defined as the property of an owner causes damage, and afterwards the owner consecrates it or declares it ownerless, [payment is] not expropriated [from the body of the ox]. [For payment to be expropriated], it must be owned by one person at the time it caused the damage and at the time of the the trial.13
ד
וכן שור הפקר שהזיק פטור שנאמר שור רעהו עד שיהיו הנכסים מיוחדים לבעלים. כיצד שור הפקר שנגח וקודם שיתפוש אותו הניזק בא אחר וזכה בו הרי זה פטור. ולא עוד אלא שור המיוחד לבעלים שהזיק ואחר שהזיק הקדישו או הפקירו הרי זה פטור עד שיהיו לו בעלים בשעת היזקו ובשעת העמדה בדין:
5
When an ox - whether a tam or a mu'ad - belonging to a Jew gores an ox belonging to a gentile, [the Jew] is not liable. [The rationale is] that the gentiles do not hold a person responsible for damage caused by his livestock.14 Therefore we judge this case according to their laws.15 When, by contrast, an ox - whether a tamor a mu'ad - belonging to a gentile gores an ox belonging to a Jew, [the gentile] must pay the entire amount of the damages. This is a penalty imposed upon the gentiles because they are not careful about [the observance of] the mitzvot,16 and they do not remove factors that can cause damage. If we will not hold them liable for the damage caused by their animals, they will not guard them, and [the animals] will destroy other people's property.
ה
6
When an ox that is tam causes damage and then is sold by its owner before the trial takes place, the person whose property was damaged may collect his due from it17 despite the fact that it was sold.18 Afterwards, the purchaser should collect that sum from the [previous] owner who sold it to him. [The rationale for this ruling is]19 that once an ox has gored, the matter becomes known, and the purchaser should not have purchased the animal until the one whose property was damaged had collected his due.
ו
שור תם שהזיק אם מכרו המזיק עד שלא [ב] עמד בדין אע"פ שהוא מכור הרי הניזק גובה הימנו וחוזר הלוקח וגובה מן המזיק שמכר לו. שכיון שנגח קול יש לו ולא היה לו ללוקח ליקח עד שיגבה הניזק.
7
If [the owner of an ox that] caused damage consecrates [the ox], it is consecrated. [This law was instituted] so that people will not say, "An animal that was consecrated can lose its status without being redeemed."20 [If the owner] slaughters the ox, [the person whose property was damaged] may collect his due from the meat.21 [If the owner] gives it away as a present, [the present] is binding,22 but [the person whose property was damaged] may collect his due from [the animal].
ז
הקדישו המזיק הרי זה מוקדש כדי שלא יאמרו הקדש יוצא בלא פדיון. שחטו גובה מבשרו. נתנו במתנה מה שעשה עשוי ויגבה הניזק ממנו:
8
If [an ox] caused damage, there was a trial, and afterwards, [the owner] sold it, the sale is of no consequence. If he consecrated it, it is not consecrated, and if he gave it away as a present, the present is of no consequence.23 If the creditors of the owner [of the ox] seize it first, [to collect their due from it], they are not entitled to retain possession. Instead, the person whose property was damaged collects his due from it. This applies whether the debt was undertaken before the damage was done24 or afterwards. [The rationale is] that even if it belonged to the creditors at the outset and caused damage, [the person whose property was damaged] would be entitled to collect his due.25
ח
הזיק ועמד בדין ואחר כך מכרו אינו מכור. הקדישו אינו מוקדש. נתנו במתנה לא עשה ולא כלום. קדמו בעלי חובות של מזיק ותפסוהו בין שחב עד שלא הזיק בין הזיק עד שלא חב לא זכו אלא הניזק גובה ממנו שאפילו היה של בעלי חובות מתחלה והזיק הרי זה גובה מגופו:
9
[The following rules apply when] an ox that is mu'ad causes damage: Regardless of whether the trial took place already or not, if [the owner] has consecrated it, sold it, given it as a present or slaughtered it, his deed is binding. If the creditors of the owner lead [the ox] away before [the person whose property was damaged takes possession of it], they acquire it. [This applies] whether the debt owed them was made before the damage took place or afterwards.26 [The rationale is that] the person whose property was damaged is entitled to collect his due from the choicest property belonging to the owner. All of [the owner's] property is on lien because of the damage caused.27
ט
מועד שהזיק בין עמד בדין בין שלא עמד בדין והקדישו או מכרו או נתנו במתנה או שחטו. מה שעשה עשוי. קדמו בעלי חובות והנהיגוהו בין חב עד שלא הזיק בין הזיק עד שלא חב זכו בו. לפי שאין משתלם הניזק אלא מן המעולה שבנכסי המזיק והרי כל נכסיו משועבדין לנזק זה:
10
When, for the person whose property was damaged, the court is required to expropriate property belonging to the person who caused the damage,28 his movable property should be expropriated first.29 If he does not own any movable property, or the property he owns is not sufficient to pay for all the damages, the remainder should be expropriated from the choicest properties he owns. As long as movable property is found, even property of inferior quality,30 landed property should not be expropriated.
י
כשבית דין נזקקין לגבות לניזק מנכסי המזיק גובין מן המטלטלין תחלה ואם לא היו לו מטלטלין כלל או שלא היו לו מטלטלין כנגד כל הנזק גובין השאר מן הקרקע המעולה שבנכסי [ג] המזיק וכל זמן שימצאו מטלטלין ואפילו סובין אין [ד] נזקקין לקרקע:
11
If the person who caused the damage dies before he pays, the court does not expropriate the movable property belonging to his heirs. Instead, [they expropriate] the landed property [in the estate], taking that of least value.31 [The rationale is that] the person whose property was damaged becomes one of the creditors [of the person who caused the damage], and movable property is never considered to be on lien to a creditor. If the person whose property was damaged [seized] possession of movable property [belonging to] the person who caused the damage in the latter's lifetime, payment for the damages may be collected from this [movable property] after his death.
יא
מת המזיק קודם שישלם אין בית דין נזקקין למטלטלין של יתומים אלא לקרקע וגובין לניזק מן הזבורית. מפני שהניזק נעשה כבעל חוב והמטלטלין אינן משועבדין לבעל חוב. ואם תפס הניזק המטלטלין בחיי המזיק גובין לו מהם לאחר מותו:
12
The Geonim have already ordained that a debt owed a creditor can be expropriated from the movable property [in the estate].32 This ruling has been accepted by all the [Jewish] courts of law.33 Therefore, damages may also be expropriated from movable property left to heirs. If [the deceased] did not leave any movable property, [the creditor] may expropriate the landed property of least value. For as explained [in the previous halachah], whenever a person seeks to expropriate property from heirs, he is given the property of the least value.
יב
כבר תקנו הגאונים לגבות בעל חוב מן המטלטלין. ופשטה תקנה זו בכל בתי דינין. לפיכך מגבין הנזקין מן [ה] המטלטלין של יתומים. ואם לא הניח מטלטלין גובין לו מן הזבורית שכל הבא ליפרע מנכסי יתומים לא יפרע אלא מן הזבורית כמו שביארנו:
13
Damages should not be collected, nor is an atonement fine imposed, nor is an animal executed34 unless definite proof is brought [as substantiated] by acceptable witnesses. We do not say that since only shepherds,35 servants,36 and the like are found in the stables of horses, the stalls of cattle and the corrals of sheep, their testimony should be accepted if they testify that one animal damaged another. Similarly, if minors or women37 testify that one person injured another or caused another type of damage, [one might think] that we rely on them. This is not so.38 Instead, financial redress is required because of the testimony of witnesses only when the witnesses are acceptable and fit to testify with regard to other matters, and they give testimony, [on which basis] the court obligates the one who caused the damage to pay.
יג
14
When an ox was pasturing at the edge of a river, and another ox is found dead near him, even though the dead ox was gored, and this ox was prone to gore - or the dead ox was bitten and this ox was prone to bite - we do not say: "One can be certain that this bit it, or this gored it." Even if one of a group of camels is known to bite, and another camel is found dead at its side, we do not say that it is certain that this one killed it, unless the matter was observed by acceptable witnesses.39
יד
שור שהיה רועה על גבי הנהר ונמצא ב שור הרוג בצדו. אף על פי שזה מנוגח וזה מועד ליגח זה מנושך וזה מועד לישך. אין אומרים בידוע שזה נשכו וזה נגחו ואפילו גמל האוחר בין הגמלים ונמצא [גמל] הרוג בצדו אין אומרים בידוע שזה הרגו עד שראוהו עדים כשרים:
FOOTNOTES
1.
I.e., the owner of the ox consecrated it to serve as a burned offering or a sin offering, or (if it was blemished) to donate its value to the Temple, but he did not bring it to the Temple as yet.
2.
One can infer that since the ox that is consecrated no longer belongs to a colleague, the laws that follow in the verse do not apply.
5.
See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim, which describes when a consecrated animal is placed into this category.See Chapter 12, Halachah 21, from which it is evident that the liablity applies only when a disqualified animal was already redeemed. If it has not been redeemed, the owner is not liable.
6.
Although it is forbidden to work with, or shear these animals, they are still considered the private property of their owners and are thus an ox belonging to a colleague.
7.
Since the meat of a peace offering is eaten by the owners, the animal is still considered to be their personal property, despite the fact that it is consecrated. Therefore, payment for the damages can be expropriated from the meat.See the commentary of the Lechem Mishneh, who questions the apparent contradiction between the Rambam's ruling here and his ruling in Hilchot Geneivah 2:1.
10.
Forty loaves of bread are offered together with the thanksgiving offering. These are, however, considered to be a separate entity and are not on lien to the person whose property was damaged.
12.
I.e., one might think that the person whose property was damaged might be entitled to expropriate the amount of the loss from the body of the ox. Nevertheless, since the ox was acquired by its present owner after the damage took place, he is not held responsible.
13.
Bava Kama 44b derives this concept from the exegesis of Exodus 21:29. If, however, the previous owner retakes possession of the ox, he is liable for the damages even though he declared it ownerless Tur and Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 406:3). With regard to the sale of the ox, see Halachah 6. (See also Halachah 8 and notes.)
14.
The Ra'avad differs with the rationale stated by the Rambam, and objects because the gentiles seize animals in lieu of payment for the damage that they cause. The Ra'avad maintains that by speaking of a colleague's ox, the Torah excludes one belonging to a gentile. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 406:1) quote the Rambam's ruling.
15.
See Hilchot Melachim 10:12, which states:The following rules apply when there is a dispute between a Jew and an idolater: If the Jew will fare better according to their laws, they are judged according to their laws.... If the Jew will fare better according to our laws, they are judged according to Torah law.... It appears to me that this approach is not followed with regard to a resident alien. He is always judged according to their laws.See also the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Kama 4:3), which echoes and expands upon this principle.
16.
It would appear that the intent of the word mitzvot, meaning commandments, is the seven universal laws commanded to Noach and his descendants. One of them is the law obligating societies to set up a system of civil law. See Bava Kama 38a.
17.
For the damages that an ox that is tam causes are collected from its body. Thus, it is as if the ox is on lien for the damages it caused.
18.
This implies that the sale is not nullified. The purchaser may plow with the ox directly after the purchase. Moreover, he cannot return it to the original owner because of the claim against it.
20.
Implied is that in essence the person whose property was damaged should be allowed to collect his due from the ox without redeeming it. Our Sages, however, did not allow this, because a person who knew that the ox was consecrated, but did not know that it had gored, might see it being given to the person whose property was damaged and think that an animal that was consecrated can lose its sacred status without being redeemed. Instead, they required that the person whose property was damaged redeem the ox for a minimal fee and then collect his due from it (Maggid Mishneh).The Chatam Sofer (Choshen Mishpat, Responsum 165) notes that there appears to be a contradiction between this halachah and Halachah 4. From Halachah 4, it appears that the person can consecrate the ox and thus totally nullify the lien of the person whose property was damaged. From this halachah, by contrast, it appears that the lien remains.In resolution, the Chatam Sofer makes a distinction between the sanctification of the value of the ox (as in this halachah), in which instance the lien remains, and the sanctification of the body of the ox (as in Halachah 4), in which instance the lien is nullified.
21.
The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 407:2) state that if the slaughter causes the value of the ox to depreciate, the owner must reimburse the person whose property was damaged for the loss.
23.
For the lien on the body of the ox possessed by the person whose property was damaged has now been firmly established. He thus becomes a partner in the ownership of the ox, and the original owner cannot carry out a sale without informing him.
24.
I.e., if the obligation were incumbent on the person whose ox caused the damage himself or on his property, those who had a prior claim would be entitled to take the ox as payment. In this instance, the obligation is associated with the body of the ox itself, and therefore the person whose property was damaged is entitled to the ox for the reason mentioned by the Rambam.
25.
The Rambam's ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 407:4). The Tur and the Ramah differ and state that if the owner of the ox had already designated the ox as payment for a specific debt that existed before the damage took place, that creditor has a right to the ox.
26.
According to Talmudic law, an earlier debt takes precedence over a later one with regard to landed property. With regard to movable property, by contrast, whichever creditor takes control of an asset first is entitled to it.
27.
This explains the fundamental difference between damage caused by a tam and a mu'ad. When a tam causes damage, its own body is on lien for the damage; the damage is not considered to be a debt owed by the owner of the ox. When, in contrast, a mu'ad causes damage, the opposite is true. The person whose property was damaged has no claim to the ox itself; his claim is borne by all the holdings of its owner.
28.
These laws, though applicable to damage caused by an ox that is mu'ad, apply to all other cases of damage for which a person is held responsible.
29.
Bava Kama 7b explains that movable property is considered to be easier to sell after it has been expropriated than landed property. Therefore, it is considered to be choicer and should be given priority.Sefer Me'irat Einayim 419:1 writes that the person who caused the damages has the prerogative of giving the person whose property he damaged movable property or landed property, whichever he desires. The Siftei Cohen 419:2 differs and states that according to the Rambam, the Beit Yosef and others, if the person who caused the damages possesses movable property, he must pay in movable property, regardless of whether or not he desires.
30.
The Hebrew term used by the Rambam literally means bran.As long as the person pays for the damage with movable property, the quality of the movable property with which he pays is of no consequence. The Hagahot Maimoniot state that according to the Rambam and Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi, even if the person who caused the damage possesses cash, he may pay the person whose property he damaged with movable property of inferior quality.Although there is debate concerning this concept among the commentaries, it is accepted as binding by the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 419:1).
31.
During the lifetime of the person who caused the damage, the choicest property in his holdings is expropriated. After his death, however, the status of the obligation changes, and the property of least value is expropriated (Gittin 48b).This law applies regardless of the age of the heirs, even if they are past majority (Maggid Mishneh; Siftei Cohen 419:7). See, however, Sefer Me'irat Einayim 419:5.
32.
In his gloss on Hilchot Ishut 16:7, the Maggid Mishneh explains that this ruling reflects a difference in the socio-economic status of the Jewish people. Land was commonly owned in the Talmudic period. In contrast, the ownership of land was less common in the era of the geonim. Movable property thus rose in importance, and a creditor would feel secure even when an obligation was supported only by movable property.
33.
Thus, although it is post-Talmudic in origin, it should be adhered to because of its universal acceptance. See, however, Hilchot Ishut 16:8.
34.
When an ox that is mu'ad kills a human being, the ox should be executed, and its owner is obligated to pay an atonement fine, as explained in Chapter 10. The Ra'avad explains that if a person admits that either he or his property caused damage, he is obligated for financial payment and for an atonement fine. His ox is not, however, executed because of his statements.
35.
Who are disqualified from serving as witnesses, because they are suspected of pasturing their flocks in fields belonging to other people, for this is equivalent to stealing (Hilchot Edut 10:4).
38.
The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 35:14) writes that although this is the legal standard, it has already become customary to accept witnesses whose testimony would ordinarily be disqualified, if there is no way of finding witnesses who are acceptable. Note, however, Sefer Me'irat Einayim 35:30, which states that the Ramah's leniency does not apply with regard to damages.
39.
In this as in many other instances, the Rambam emphasizes that circumstantial evidence - no matter how indisputable - is not sufficient. According to Torah law, a claim can be established only through the testimony of witnesses. (See also Hilchot Chovel UMazik 5:4; Hilchot Sanhedrin 20:1, 24:1.)
Hayom Yom: Today's Hayom Yom
• Tuesday, 13 Tammuz, 5776 · 19 July 2016
• Today's Day
• Friday, Tamuz 13, Festival of Liberation 5703
Tachanun in not said.
Torah lessons: Chumash: Balak, Shishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 69-71.
Tanya: Ch. 2. However, (p. 347) ..."desirable day." (p. 349).
On this day the Rebbe (R. Yosef Yitzchak) was actually freed.
The imprisonment began at 2:15 a.m. on Wednesday, Sivan 15, 5687 (June 15, 1927). He remained in exile - in the town of Kostrama - until one half-hour past mid-day, Wednesday, Tamuz 13, 5687 (July 13, 1927).
From a letter of the Rebbe to mark the Festival of his Liberation: "I send you a maamar ...which is my participation - for their success - with my beloved friends the chassidim wherever they reside, (which is my way of) being united with you in your farbrengen for the purpose of strengthening the practices of Chassidus, in fixing and observing periods for studying Chassidus and to be stimulated to pragmatically implement those studies...
May our G-d and G-d of our Fathers bless the whole community of chassidim - them, their households, their children and grandchildren among all our brothers the people of Israel (G-d grant them eternal life)1 with all good things of soul and of flesh."
FOOTNOTES
1.C.f. Yeshayahu 38:16; the verse there refers to t'chiyat hameitim, resurrection.
• Daily Thought:
Is G-d in Heaven?
People imagine that since G‑d is not physical, therefore He must be in heaven. But the heavens—and all things spiritual—are just as much creations as the earth. Less dissonant, more harmonious, more lucid—but finite realms nonetheless.
G‑d is not found in a place because it is big enough to contain Him or so magnificent that He belongs there. G‑d is found in whatever place He desires. And where does He desire most to be found? In the work of our hands, repairing His world.
The heavens are filled with spiritual light. In the work of our hands dwells G‑d Himself, the Source of All Light.
Tachanun in not said.
Torah lessons: Chumash: Balak, Shishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 69-71.
Tanya: Ch. 2. However, (p. 347) ..."desirable day." (p. 349).
On this day the Rebbe (R. Yosef Yitzchak) was actually freed.
The imprisonment began at 2:15 a.m. on Wednesday, Sivan 15, 5687 (June 15, 1927). He remained in exile - in the town of Kostrama - until one half-hour past mid-day, Wednesday, Tamuz 13, 5687 (July 13, 1927).
From a letter of the Rebbe to mark the Festival of his Liberation: "I send you a maamar ...which is my participation - for their success - with my beloved friends the chassidim wherever they reside, (which is my way of) being united with you in your farbrengen for the purpose of strengthening the practices of Chassidus, in fixing and observing periods for studying Chassidus and to be stimulated to pragmatically implement those studies...
May our G-d and G-d of our Fathers bless the whole community of chassidim - them, their households, their children and grandchildren among all our brothers the people of Israel (G-d grant them eternal life)1 with all good things of soul and of flesh."
FOOTNOTES
1.C.f. Yeshayahu 38:16; the verse there refers to t'chiyat hameitim, resurrection.
• Daily Thought:
Is G-d in Heaven?
People imagine that since G‑d is not physical, therefore He must be in heaven. But the heavens—and all things spiritual—are just as much creations as the earth. Less dissonant, more harmonious, more lucid—but finite realms nonetheless.
G‑d is not found in a place because it is big enough to contain Him or so magnificent that He belongs there. G‑d is found in whatever place He desires. And where does He desire most to be found? In the work of our hands, repairing His world.
The heavens are filled with spiritual light. In the work of our hands dwells G‑d Himself, the Source of All Light.
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment