Today in Jewish History:
• Jews of Schaffhausen (Switzerland) Burned at the Stake (1401)
After the postilion (coach driver) of the governor killed the four-year-old son of a councilor, charges were lodged against a Jew named Michael Vinelmann, a former resident of Basel, alleging that he had promised the murderer three gulden for the blood of the child. The murderer was broken on the wheel, and the Jew burned alive without trial.
Shortly before, a similar accusation had been brought against the Jews of Schaffhausen and been successfully refuted. When news of Michael Vinelmann's fate was brought to Schaffhausen, several of the Jews of the city fled and were soon captured. They were taken back to Schaffhausen, where they were thrown into a dungeon and terribly tortured. Unable to endure the pain, they "confessed" to the crime of which they had been accused, whereupon all the Jews living in Schaffhausen were condemned to death. Thirty Jews were burned alive.Four weeks later, eighteen men and women died at the stake in Winterthur in a similar context.
• Passing of Rabbi Yosef Trani (1639)
Rabbi Yosef Trani, known as the Maharit (1568-1639), was born in Safed and married a descendant of Rabbi Yosef Cairo. When a plague broke out in Safed, he abandoned the city, but returned in 1594 to head a yeshivah. In 1604, he was appointed rabbi of Constantinople and, a few years later, leader of Turkish Jewry. He is renowned for his responsa published under the title Teshuvot Maharit.
Daily Quote:
Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua would say: The honor of your student should be as precious to you as your own; the honor of your colleague, as your awe of your master; and your awe of your master as your awe of Heaven.[Ethics of the Fathers 4: 12]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:Chumash with Rashi
Parshat Balak
In Israel: Pinchas
• Numbers Chapter 22
39Balaam went with Balak, and they arrived at Kiryath Huzoth [a city of streets]. לט וַיֵּ֥לֶךְ בִּלְעָ֖ם עִם־בָּלָ֑ק וַיָּבֹ֖אוּ קִרְיַ֥ת חֻצֽוֹת:
Kiryath Huzoth: A city full of markets, with men, women and children in its streets, as if to say, See, and have pity, so that all these people are not annihilated. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 11, Num. Rabbah 20:17] קרית חצות: עיר מלאה שווקים אנשים ונשים וטף בחוצותיה, לומר ראה ורחם שלא יעקרו אלו:
40Balak slaughtered cattle and sheep and sent [some] to Balaam and to the dignitaries with him. מוַיִּזְבַּ֥ח בָּלָ֖ק בָּקָ֣ר וָצֹ֑אן וַיְשַׁלַּ֣ח לְבִלְעָ֔ם וְלַשָּׂרִ֖ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר אִתּֽוֹ:
cattle and sheep: A small number, only one bull and one sheep. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 11, Num. Rabbah 20:17] בקר וצאן: דבר מועט, בקר אחד וצאן אחד בלבד:
41And in the morning Balak took Balaam and led him up to Bamoth Baal, and from there he saw part of the people. מאוַיְהִ֣י בַבֹּ֔קֶר וַיִּקַּ֤ח בָּלָק֙ אֶת־בִּלְעָ֔ם וַיַּֽעֲלֵ֖הוּ בָּמ֣וֹת בָּ֑עַל וַיַּ֥רְא מִשָּׁ֖ם קְצֵ֥ה הָעָֽם:
Bamoth Baal: As the Targum [Onkelos] understands it:“to the heights of his deity,” [Baal being] the name of a deity. במות בעל: כתרגומו לרמת דחלתיה, שם עבודה זרה:
Numbers Chapter 23
1Balaam said to Balak, "Build me seven altars here, and prepare for me seven bulls and seven rams." אוַיֹּ֤אמֶר בִּלְעָם֙ אֶל־בָּלָ֔ק בְּנֵה־לִ֥י בָזֶ֖ה שִׁבְעָ֣ה מִזְבְּחֹ֑ת וְהָכֵ֥ן לִי֙ בָּזֶ֔ה שִׁבְעָ֥ה פָרִ֖ים וְשִׁבְעָ֥ה אֵילִֽים:
2Balak did as Balaam had requested, and Balak and Balaam offered up a bull and a ram on [each] altar. בוַיַּ֣עַשׂ בָּלָ֔ק כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֖ר דִּבֶּ֣ר בִּלְעָ֑ם וַיַּ֨עַל בָּלָ֧ק וּבִלְעָ֛ם פָּ֥ר וָאַ֖יִל בַּמִּזְבֵּֽחַ:
3Balaam said to Balak, "Stand beside your burnt offering, and I will go. Perhaps the Lord will happen to appear to me, and He will show me something that I can tell you," and he went alone. גוַיֹּ֨אמֶר בִּלְעָ֜ם לְבָלָ֗ק הִתְיַצֵּב֘ עַל־עֹֽלָתֶ֒ךָ֒ וְאֵֽלְכָ֗ה אוּלַ֞י יִקָּרֶ֤ה יְהֹוָה֙ לִקְרָאתִ֔י וּדְבַ֥ר מַה־יַּרְאֵ֖נִי וְהִגַּ֣דְתִּי לָ֑ךְ וַיֵּ֖לֶךְ שֶֽׁפִי:
Perhaps the Lord will happen to appear to me: He is not accustomed to speak to me by day. אולי יקרה ה' לקראתי: אינו רגיל לדבר עמי ביום:
and he went alone: Heb. שֶׁפִי, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders:“alone.” The term denotes ease and quietness, that he was accompanied by nothing but silence. וילך שפי: כתרגומו יחידי, לשון שופי ושקט, שאין עמו אלא שתיקה:
4God chanced upon Balaam, and he said to Him, "I have set up the seven altars, and I have offered up a bull and a ram on [each] altar." דוַיִּקָּ֥ר אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶל־בִּלְעָ֑ם וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֵלָ֗יו אֶת־שִׁבְעַ֤ת הַמִּזְבְּחֹת֙ עָרַ֔כְתִּי וָאַ֛עַל פָּ֥ר וָאַ֖יִל בַּמִּזְבֵּֽחַ:
[God] chanced upon: Heb. וַיִּקָּר, an expression denoting [a] casual [meeting or occurrence], and it denotes something shameful, an expression [used for] the uncleanness caused by seminal emission קֶרִי, as if to say, [God appeared to him] with reluctance and with contempt. He would never have appeared to him by day, but He wanted to show His love for Israel. — [Gen. Rabbah 52:5] ויקר: לשון עראי, לשון גנאי, לשון טומאת קרי, כלומר בקושי ובבזיון, ולא היה נגלה עליו ביום אלא בשביל להראות חבתן של ישראל:
the seven altars: “I prepared seven altars” is not written here, but “ the seven altars.” He said to Him, “Their patriarchs built seven altars before You, and I have prepared [seven] corresponding to them all.” Abraham built four-“There he built an altar to the Lord Who appeared to him” (Gen. 12:7); “Abraham moved from there to the mountain… [and built an altar there]” (ibid. 8); “Abraham pitched his tent [and built an altar there]” (ibid. 13:18), and one on Mount Moriah (ibid. 22:9). Isaac built one-“He built an altar there” (ibid. 26:25), and Jacob built two-one in Shechem (ibid. 33:20) and one in Beth El (ibid. 35:7). - [See Mid. Tanchuma Balak 11, Tzav 1, Num. Rabbah 20:18] את שבעת המזבחת: שבעה מזבחות ערכתי אין כתיב כאן, אלא את שבעת המזבחות, אמר לפניו אבותיהם של אלו בנו לפניך שבעה מזבחות, ואני ערכתי כנגד כולן. אברהם בנה ארבעה (בראשית יב, ז) ויבן שם מזבח לה' הנראה אליו, (שם יב, ח) ויעתק משם ההרה וגו', (שם יג, יח) ויאהל אברהם וגו' ואחד בהר המוריה. ויצחק בנה אחד (שם כו, כה) ויבן שם מזבח וגו'. ויעקב בנה שתים; אחד בשכם ואחד בבית אל:
and I offered up a bull and a ram on [each] altar: whereas Abraham offered up only a ram. - [See Mid. Tanchuma Balak 11, Tzav 1, Num. Rabbah 20:18] ואעל פר ואיל במזבח: ואברהם לא העלה אלא איל אחד:
5The Lord placed something into Balaam's mouth, and He said, "Return to Balak and say as follows." הוַיָּ֧שֶׂם יְהֹוָ֛ה דָּבָ֖ר בְּפִ֣י בִלְעָ֑ם וַיֹּ֛אמֶר שׁ֥וּב אֶל־בָּלָ֖ק וְכֹ֥ה תְדַבֵּֽר:
6When he returned, Balak was standing next to his burnt offering, he and all the Moabite dignitaries. ווַיָּ֣שָׁב אֵלָ֔יו וְהִנֵּ֥ה נִצָּ֖ב עַל־עֹֽלָת֑וֹ ה֖וּא וְכָל־שָׂרֵ֥י מוֹאָֽב:
7He took up his parable and said, "Balak the king of Moab has brought me from Aram, from the mountains of the east [saying], 'Come, curse Jacob for me and come invoke wrath against Israel.' זוַיִּשָּׂ֥א מְשָׁל֖וֹ וַיֹּאמַ֑ר מִן־אֲ֠רָ֠ם יַנְחֵ֨נִי בָלָ֤ק מֶֽלֶךְ־מוֹאָב֙ מֵֽהַֽרְרֵי־קֶ֔דֶם לְכָה֙ אָֽרָה־לִּ֣י יַֽעֲקֹ֔ב וּלְכָ֖ה זֹֽעֲמָ֥ה יִשְׂרָאֵֽל:
Come, curse Jacob for me and come invoke wrath against Israel: He told him to curse them with [their] two names, for perhaps one of them was not [their] distinctive [one]. ארה לי יעקב ולכה זעמה ישראל: בשני שמותיהם אמר לו לקללם, שמא אחד מהם אינו מובהק:
8How can I curse whom God has not cursed, and how can I invoke wrath if the Lord has not been angered? חמָ֣ה אֶקֹּ֔ב לֹ֥א קַבֹּ֖ה אֵ֑ל וּמָ֣ה אֶזְעֹ֔ם לֹ֥א זָעַ֖ם יְהֹוָֽה:
How can I curse whom God has not cursed: Even when they deserved to be cursed, they were not cursed, [namely,] when their father [Jacob] recalled their iniquity, [by saying,] “for in their wrath they killed a man” (Gen. 49:6), he cursed only their wrath, as it says, “Cursed be their wrath” (ibid. 7). When their father [Jacob] came in deceit to his father [Isaac], he deserved to be cursed. But what does it say there? “He, too, shall be blessed” (ibid. 27:33). Regarding those who blessed, it says, “These shall stand to bless the people” (Deut. 27:12). However, regarding those who cursed, it does not say, “These shall stand to curse the people” but, “These shall stand for the curse” (ibid. 13), for He [God] did not want to mention the word ‘curse’ in reference to them [the people]. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 12, Num. Rabbah 20:19] מה אקב לא קבה אל: כשהיו ראוים להתקלל לא נתקללו, כשהזכיר אביהם את עונם, כי באפם הרגו איש. לא קלל אלא אפם, שנאמר (בראשית מט, ז) ארור אפם. כשנכנס אביהם במרמה אצל אביו היה ראוי להתקלל, מה נאמר שם (שם כז, לג) גם ברוך יהיה. במברכים נאמר (דברים כז, יב) אלה יעמדו לברך את העם. במקללים לא נאמר ואלה יעמדו לקלל את העם, אלא על הקללה, לא רצה להזכיר עליהם שם קללה:
If the Lord has not been angered: I myself am powerless, except that I can determine the precise moment when God becomes angry, and He has not become angry all these days since I have come to you. This is the meaning of the statement, “O my people, remember now what he [Balak king of Moab] planned… and what Balaam… answered him… may you recognize the righteous deeds of the Lord” (Mic. 6:5). - [Ber. 7a, Sanh.. 105b, A.Z. 4b] לא זעם ה': אני אין כחי אלא שאני יודע לכוין השעה שהקב"ה כועס בה, והוא לא כעס כל הימים הללו שבאתי אליך, וזהו שנאמר (מיכה ו, ה) עמי זכר נא מה יעץ וגו' ומה ענה אותו בלעם וגו' למען דעת צדקות ה':
9For from their beginning, I see them as mountain peaks, and I behold them as hills; it is a nation that will dwell alone, and will not be reckoned among the nations. טכִּֽי־מֵרֹ֤אשׁ צֻרִים֙ אֶרְאֶ֔נּוּ וּמִגְּבָע֖וֹת אֲשׁוּרֶ֑נּוּ הֶן־עָם֙ לְבָדָ֣ד יִשְׁכֹּ֔ן וּבַגּוֹיִ֖ם לֹ֥א יִתְחַשָּֽׁב:
For from its beginning, I see them as mountain peaks: I look at their origins and the beginning of their roots, and I see them established and powerful, like these mountains and hills, because of their patriarchs and matriarchs. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 12, Num. Rabbah 20:19] כי מראש צרים אראנו: אני מסתכל בראשיתם ובתחלת שרשיהם, ואני רואה אותם מיוסדים וחזקים כצורים וגבעות הללו ע"י אבות ואמהות:
It is a nation that will dwell alone: This is [the legacy] their forefathers gained for them-to dwell alone, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders it [it is a nation that is alone destined to inherit the world]. הן עם לבדד ישכון: הוא אשר זכו לו אבותיו לשכון בדד, כתרגומו:
and will not be reckoned among the nations: As Targum [Onkelos] paraphrases, they will not perish along with the other nations, for it says, “for I shall make an end of all the nations…” (Jer. 30:11); they will not be reckoned with the rest. Another interpretation: When they rejoice, no other nation rejoices with them, as it says, “God alone will guide them [to future happiness]” (Deut. 32:12). And when the nations prosper, they will receive a share with each one of them, but it will not be deducted from their account, and this is the meaning of, “and will not reckoned among the nations.” - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 12, Num. Rabbah 20:19] ובגוים לא יתחשב: כתרגומו, לא יהיו נעשין כלה עם שאר האומות, שנאמר (ירמיה ל, יא) כי אעשה כלה בכל הגוים וגו' אינן נמנין עם השאר. דבר אחר כשהן שמחין אין אומה שמחה עמהם, שנאמר (דברים לב, יב) ה' בדד ינחנו. וכשהאומות בטובה, הם אוכלין עם כל אחד ואחד ואין עולה להם מן החשבון, וזהו, ובגוים לא יתחשב:
10Who counted the dust of Jacob or the number of a fourth of [or, of the seed of] Israel? May my soul die the death of the upright and let my end be like his." ימִ֤י מָנָה֙ עֲפַ֣ר יַֽעֲקֹ֔ב וּמִסְפָּ֖ר אֶת־רֹ֣בַע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל תָּמֹ֤ת נַפְשִׁי֙ מ֣וֹת יְשָׁרִ֔ים וּתְהִ֥י אַֽחֲרִיתִ֖י כָּמֹֽהוּ:
Who can count the dust of Jacob: As the Targum [Onkelos] renders, “the children of the house of Jacob, [concerning whom it was stated, 'they shall be as many as the dust of the earth, or one] of the four camps” - [referring to] the four divisions. Another interpretation: The dust of Jacob-The number of mitzvoth they fulfill with dust are innumerable: “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey [together]” (Deut. 22:10);“You shall not sow your field with a mixture of seeds” (Lev. 19:19), the ashes of the red cow (19:19), the dust used for a woman suspected of infidelity, and others similar to these. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 12, Num. Rabbah 20:19] מי מנה עפר יעקב וגו': כתרגומו, דעדקיא דבית יעקב וכו' מארבע משרייתא, מארבע דגלים. דבר אחר עפר יעקב אין חשבון במצות שהם מקיימין בעפר (דברים כב, י) לא תחרוש בשור ובחמור, (ויקרא יט, יט) לא תזרע כלאים, אפר פרה, ועפר סוטה וכיוצא בהם:
or the number of the seed of: [The word רֹבַע denotes] their copulations; the seed which issues from sexual intercourse. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 12, Num. Rabbah 20:19] ומספר את רבע ישראל: רביעותיהן, זרע היוצא מן התשמיש שלהם:
May my soul die the death of the upright: Among them. תמת נפשי מות ישרים: שבהם:
11Balak said to Balaam, "What have you done to me? I took you to curse my enemies, but you have blessed them!" יאוַיֹּ֤אמֶר בָּלָק֙ אֶל־בִּלְעָ֔ם מֶ֥ה עָשִׂ֖יתָ לִ֑י לָקֹ֤ב אֹֽיְבַי֙ לְקַחְתִּ֔יךָ וְהִנֵּ֖ה בֵּרַ֥כְתָּ בָרֵֽךְ:
12He answered, saying, "What the Lord puts into my mouth that I must take care to say." יבוַיַּ֖עַן וַיֹּאמַ֑ר הֲלֹ֗א אֵת֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָשִׂ֤ים יְהֹוָה֙ בְּפִ֔י אֹת֥וֹ אֶשְׁמֹ֖ר לְדַבֵּֽר:
Daily Tehillim - Psalms
Chapters 72-76
• Chapter 72
David composed this psalm for Solomon, praying that he be granted the wisdom to provide justice for the poor.
1. For Solomon. O God, impart Your justice to the king, and Your righteousness to the son of the king.
2. May he judge Your people with righteousness, Your poor with justice.
3. May the mountains bear peace to the nation, also the hills, in [reward for their] righteousness.
4. May he judge the nation's poor, save the children of the destitute, and crush the oppressor,
5. so that they will fear You as long as the sun [shines] and the moon endures, generation after generation.
6. May [his words] descend like rain upon cut grass, like raindrops that water the earth.
7. In his days may the righteous flourish, with much peace until the moon is no more.
8. And may he rule from sea to sea, and from the river until the ends of the earth.
9. May nobles kneel before him, and may his enemies lick the dust.
10. The kings of Tarshish and the islands will return tribute, the kings of Sheba and Seba will offer gifts.
11. All kings will bow to him, all nations will serve him;
12. for he rescues the needy one who cries out, the poor one who has no one to help him.
13. He pities the impoverished and needy, and saves the souls of the destitute.
14. He redeems their soul from deception and violence, and their blood is precious in his eyes.
15. He revives [the poor], and gives him of the gold of Sheba; and so [the poor] pray for him always, and bless him all day.
16. May there be abundant grain in the land, upon the mountaintops; may its fruit rustle like the [cedars of] Lebanon, and may [people] blossom from the city like the grass of the earth.
17. May his name endure forever; may his name be magnified as long as the sun [shines]. And all nations will bless themselves by him, they will praise him.
18. Blessed is the Lord God, the God of Israel, Who alone performs wonders.
19. Blessed is His glorious Name forever, and may the whole earth be filled with His glory, Amen and Amen.
20. The prayers of David, son of Jesse, are concluded
FOOTNOTES
1.David composed this psalm at the end of his lifetime.
Chapter 73
This psalm addresses the question of why the righteous suffer while the wicked prosper, and prays for an end to our long exile. Read, and you will find repose for your soul.
1. A psalm by Asaph. Truly God is good to Israel, to the pure of heart.
2. But as for me, my feet nearly strayed; in an instant my steps would have been swept aside.
3. For I envied the revelers when I saw the tranquility of the wicked.
4. For there are no bonds1 to their death, and their health is sound.
5. They have no part in the toil of men, nor are they afflicted like other mortals;
6. therefore they wear pride as a necklace; their bodies are enwrapped in violence.
7. Their eyes bulge from fat; they surpassed the fantasies of their heart.
8. They consume [others], and talk wickedly of oppression-from on high do they speak.
9. They set their mouths against Heaven, while their tongues walk upon the earth.
10. Therefore His people return here,2 and suck the full [cup of bitter] waters.
11. And they say, "How can it be that God knows? Is there knowledge in the Most High?”
12. Behold these are the wicked, and they are ever tranquil, they have gained much wealth.
13. Surely in vain have I purified my heart, and washed my hands in cleanliness;
14. for I was afflicted all day, and my rebuke came each morning.
15. Were I to say, "I shall tell it like it is," behold I would turn the generation of Your children to rebels.
16. And when I pondered to understand this, it was unjust in my eyes;
17. until I came to the sanctuaries of God, and perceived their end.
18. Only on slippery places do You set them, You cast them into darkness.
19. How they have become desolate in an instant! They came to an end, they were consumed by terrors,
20. like a dream upon awakening. O my Lord, disgrace their image in the city.
21. When my heart was in ferment, and my mind was sharpened,
22. I was a boor and did not understand, like an animal was I with You.
23. Yet I was always with You; You held my right hand.
24. Guide me with Your counsel, and afterward, receive me with honor.
25. Whom do I have in heaven [besides You]? And when I am with You I desire nothing on earth.
26. My flesh and my heart yearn; God is the rock of my heart and my portion forever.
27. For behold, all those who are far from You perish, You cut down all who stray from You.
28. But as for me, the nearness of God is my good; I have put my trust in my Lord, God, that I may recount all Your works.
FOOTNOTES
1.Their death is not protracted by illness and misery(Radak).
2.To the way of the wicked (Rashi).
Chapter 74
The psalmist mourns and weeps over all the synagogues and study halls that have been burned: the Philistines destroyed the Tabernacle of Shiloh; Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the first Temple. We have been in exile for so long, without seeing any signs of redemption! When will the redemption come? Read, and you will find lamentation and consolation.
1. A maskil1 by Asaph. Why, O God, have You abandoned us forever, does Your wrath fume against the sheep of Your pasture?
2. Remember Your congregation which You acquired long ago, the tribe of Your inheritance whom You redeemed [and brought to] Mount Zion, where You rested Your Presence.
3. Lift Your steps to inflict eternal ruin, because of all the evil done by the enemy in the Sanctuary.
4. Your foes roared in the midst of Your meeting place; they considered their omens to be [genuine] signs.
5. The axes in the thicket of trees2 were reckoned as bringing [an offering] to the Above.
6. And now, all her ornaments together are smashed by hammer and hatchet.
7. They set Your Sanctuary on fire; they desecrated the Abode of Your Name to the ground.
8. Their rulers thought together in their hearts; they burned all the meeting places of God in the land.
9. We have not seen our signs; there is no longer a prophet, and there is none among us who knows how long.
10. How long, O God, will the adversary disgrace, will the enemy blaspheme Your Name forever!
11. Why do You withdraw Your hand, even Your right hand? Cast it out from within Your bosom!
12. For God is my King from long ago, working salvations in the midst of the earth.
13. In Your might, You divided the sea; You shattered the heads of the sea-monsters on the waters.
14. You crushed the heads of the Leviathan,3 leaving him as food for the nation [wandering in] the wilderness.
15. You split [the rock, bringing forth] fountain and brook; You dried up mighty streams.
16. Yours is the day, the night is also Yours; You established the moon and the sun.
17. You set all the boundaries of the earth; summer and winter-You created them.
18. Remember this, how the enemy reviled the Lord, and the vile nation blasphemed Your Name.
19. Do not give the soul of Your turtledove to the wild beast; do not forget the life of Your poor forever.
20. Look to the covenant, for the dark places of the earth are filled with dens of violence.
21. Do not turn back the oppressed in disgrace; [then] the poor and needy will praise Your Name.
22. Arise, O God, champion Your cause; remember Your insults from the perverse all day long.
23. Forget not the voice of Your adversaries; the tumult of Your opponents ascends always.
FOOTNOTES
1.A psalm intended to enlighten and impart knowledge(Metzudot).
2.Chopping wood for the construction of the Temple (Metzudot).
3.Pharaoh and his chieftains
Chapter 75
How great is Israel! During their holidays they do not engage in frivolity, but in song and praise, and the study of the holiday's laws. Also, when they proclaimed (at the giving of the Torah), "We will do and we will hear!" they allowed the world to remain in existence. This psalm also admonishes those who indulge in worldly pleasures and attribute their prosperity to their own efforts.
1. For the Conductor, a plea not to be destroyed. A psalm by Asaph, a song.
2. We gave thanks to You, O God, we gave thanks; and Your Name was near [when] they1 told of Your wonders.
3. When I choose the appointed time, I will judge with fairness.
4. When the earth and all its inhabitants were melting, I established its pillars forever.
5. I said to the perverse, "Do not pervert [Israel]," and to the wicked, "Do not raise your pride.”
6. Do not raise your pride heavenward, nor speak with an arrogant neck
7. For not from the east or the west, nor from the desert does greatness come.
8. For God is Judge; He humbles one, and elevates the other.
9. For there is a cup [of punishment] in the hand of the Lord, with strong wine of full mixture; He pours from this, and all the wicked of the earth will drink, draining even its dregs.
10. But as for me, I will tell of it forever; I will sing to the God of Jacob.
11. I will cut off all glory of the wicked, but the glory of the righteous will be raised up.
FOOTNOTES
1.Our ancestors.
Chapter 76
This psalm contains the prophecy of when the vast army of Sennacherib was seized with a deep slumber that rendered the hands of the soldiers powerless to raise their weapons; thus did they all fall in battle.
1. For the Conductor, with instrumental music, a psalm by Asaph, a song.
2. God is known in Judah, His Name is great in Israel.
3. His Tabernacle was in Shalem,1 and His dwelling place in Zion.
4. There He broke the flying arrows of the bow, the shield, the sword and battle-forever.
5. You are illumination, mightier than the mountains of prey.
6. The stout-hearted were without sense, they slept their sleep, and all the warriors were unable to find their strength.
7. At Your rebuke, O God of Jacob, chariot and horse were stunned.
8. You, awesome are You! Who can stand before You once You are enraged.
9. From heaven You let the verdict be heard; the earth feared and was still,
10. when God rose to pass judgement, to save all the humble of the earth forever.
11. The anger of man will cause us to thank You;2 You will restrain the residue of wrath.
12. Make vows to the Lord your God and fulfill them; all who surround Him will bring tribute to the Awesome One.
13. He cuts down the spirit of nobles; He is awesome to the kings of the earth.
FOOTNOTES
1.Jerusalem.
2.When the wicked are punished for being angry with Israel, Israel acknowledges God (Metzudot).
Tanya: Igeret HaTeshuva , beginning of Chapter 3
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Wednesday, 14 Tammuz, 5776 · 20 July 2016
• Igeret HaTeshuva , beginning of Chapter 3
• Though fasting is not at all necessary for attaining atonement, it was explained above that nevertheless it has a salutary effect as a substitute for the olah offering. In Temple times this sacrifice was offered (even) for transgressing a positive command, in order to make the former offender once again acceptable and beloved of G‑d. Accordingly, the AriZal derived from the Kabbalah the number of fasts to be undertaken for numerous transgressions, even those that are not subject to the punishment of excision or death by Divine decree.
והנה חכמי המוסר האחרונים נחלקו במי שחטא חטא אחד פעמים רבות
The latter Mussar sages — those who lived after the Ari — were divided in their opinions about one who repeated a sin many times.
דיש אומרים שצריך להתענות מספר הצומות לאותו חטא פעמים רבות, כפי המספר אשר חטא
Some contend that he must fast the number of fasts appropriate to that sin according to the number of transgressions.
כגון המוציא זרע לבטלה, שמספר הצומות המפורש בתיקוני תשובה מהאריז״ל הן פ״ד תעניות
For example, the number of fasts prescribed in the penances of the AriZal for wasteful emission of semen is eighty-four.
ואם חטא בזה עשר או עשרים פעמים, על דרך משל, צריך להתענות עשר או עשרים פעמים פ״ד
If someone commits this sin ten or twenty times, say, he must fast ten or twenty times eighty-four, and so on in all instances.
דומיא דקרבן חטאת, שחייב להביא על כל פעם ופעם
This is comparable to the chatat offering (Note of the Rebbe: “i.e., all the chatat offerings”) required for every instance of violation.
ויש מדמין ענין זה לקרבן עולה, הבאה על מצות עשה
Others compare these fasts to the olah offering brought for neglect of a positive command.1
דאפילו עבר על כמה מצוות עשה, מתכפר בעולה אחת, כדאיתא בגמרא, פרק קמא דזבחים
The violation of a number of positive commands is atoned for and the individual finds favor in G‑d’s eyes by one olah, as the Talmud explains in Tractate Zevachim, ch. 1.2
והכרעה המקובלת בזה להתענות ג׳ פעמים כפי מספר הצומות דחטא זה, דהיינו רנ״ב צומות על הוצאות שכבת זרע לבטלה, וכן בשאר חטאים ועונות
The accepted decision in this dispute is to undertake three times the number of fasts prescribed for that particular sin, i.e., 252 fasts (three times eighty-four) for wasteful emission, and similarly for other sins oft repeated.
והטעם הוא על פי מה שכתוב בזוהר הקדוש, סוף פרשת נח: כיון דחב בר נש קמיה קודשא בריך הוא, זמנא חדא עביד רשימו כו׳
This is based on a teaching in the Zohar, at the end of Parshat Noach:3 “As soon as mortal man sins once against the Holy One, blessed be He, he makes an impression [Above; should he sin a second time, the impact of his sin is even greater];
זמנא תליתאה, אתפשט ההוא כתמא מסטרא דא לסטרא דא כו׳
the third time he commits the sin, the stain penetrates from one side through the other;...“
לכן צריך מספר הצומות גם כן ג׳ פעמים וכו׳
therefore the number of fasts ought also be three.
FOOTNOTES
1.Note of the Rebbe: “As distinct from other olah offerings; see the various types of offerings in Maimonides‘ preface to his Commentary on the Mishnayot of Tractate Kodashim.”
2.5b, 6a, 7b.
3.73b.
• Though fasting is not at all necessary for attaining atonement, it was explained above that nevertheless it has a salutary effect as a substitute for the olah offering. In Temple times this sacrifice was offered (even) for transgressing a positive command, in order to make the former offender once again acceptable and beloved of G‑d. Accordingly, the AriZal derived from the Kabbalah the number of fasts to be undertaken for numerous transgressions, even those that are not subject to the punishment of excision or death by Divine decree.
והנה חכמי המוסר האחרונים נחלקו במי שחטא חטא אחד פעמים רבות
The latter Mussar sages — those who lived after the Ari — were divided in their opinions about one who repeated a sin many times.
דיש אומרים שצריך להתענות מספר הצומות לאותו חטא פעמים רבות, כפי המספר אשר חטא
Some contend that he must fast the number of fasts appropriate to that sin according to the number of transgressions.
כגון המוציא זרע לבטלה, שמספר הצומות המפורש בתיקוני תשובה מהאריז״ל הן פ״ד תעניות
For example, the number of fasts prescribed in the penances of the AriZal for wasteful emission of semen is eighty-four.
ואם חטא בזה עשר או עשרים פעמים, על דרך משל, צריך להתענות עשר או עשרים פעמים פ״ד
If someone commits this sin ten or twenty times, say, he must fast ten or twenty times eighty-four, and so on in all instances.
דומיא דקרבן חטאת, שחייב להביא על כל פעם ופעם
This is comparable to the chatat offering (Note of the Rebbe: “i.e., all the chatat offerings”) required for every instance of violation.
ויש מדמין ענין זה לקרבן עולה, הבאה על מצות עשה
Others compare these fasts to the olah offering brought for neglect of a positive command.1
דאפילו עבר על כמה מצוות עשה, מתכפר בעולה אחת, כדאיתא בגמרא, פרק קמא דזבחים
The violation of a number of positive commands is atoned for and the individual finds favor in G‑d’s eyes by one olah, as the Talmud explains in Tractate Zevachim, ch. 1.2
והכרעה המקובלת בזה להתענות ג׳ פעמים כפי מספר הצומות דחטא זה, דהיינו רנ״ב צומות על הוצאות שכבת זרע לבטלה, וכן בשאר חטאים ועונות
The accepted decision in this dispute is to undertake three times the number of fasts prescribed for that particular sin, i.e., 252 fasts (three times eighty-four) for wasteful emission, and similarly for other sins oft repeated.
והטעם הוא על פי מה שכתוב בזוהר הקדוש, סוף פרשת נח: כיון דחב בר נש קמיה קודשא בריך הוא, זמנא חדא עביד רשימו כו׳
This is based on a teaching in the Zohar, at the end of Parshat Noach:3 “As soon as mortal man sins once against the Holy One, blessed be He, he makes an impression [Above; should he sin a second time, the impact of his sin is even greater];
זמנא תליתאה, אתפשט ההוא כתמא מסטרא דא לסטרא דא כו׳
the third time he commits the sin, the stain penetrates from one side through the other;...“
לכן צריך מספר הצומות גם כן ג׳ פעמים וכו׳
therefore the number of fasts ought also be three.
FOOTNOTES
1.Note of the Rebbe: “As distinct from other olah offerings; see the various types of offerings in Maimonides‘ preface to his Commentary on the Mishnayot of Tractate Kodashim.”
2.5b, 6a, 7b.
3.73b.
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
• Wednesday, 14 Tammuz, 5776 · 20 July 2016
• Wednesday, 14 Tammuz, 5776 · 20 July 2016
• Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 241
Damage Caused by Arson
"If a fire breaks out and spreads through thorns..."—Exodus 22:5.
We are commanded regarding the laws [of liability] that apply if a person sets a fire [that damages another's property].
Full text of this Mitzvah »
• Damage Caused by Arson
Positive Commandment 241
Translated by Berel Bell
The 241st mitzvah is that we are commanded to follow the laws regarding damage caused by fire.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "If fire gets out of control and spreads through weeds [...the one who started the fire must pay for the damage.]"
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 2nd and 6th chapters of tractate Bava Kama.
1.Ibid. 22:5.
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 241
Damage Caused by Arson
"If a fire breaks out and spreads through thorns..."—Exodus 22:5.
We are commanded regarding the laws [of liability] that apply if a person sets a fire [that damages another's property].
Full text of this Mitzvah »
• Damage Caused by Arson
Positive Commandment 241
Translated by Berel Bell
The 241st mitzvah is that we are commanded to follow the laws regarding damage caused by fire.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "If fire gets out of control and spreads through weeds [...the one who started the fire must pay for the damage.]"
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 2nd and 6th chapters of tractate Bava Kama.
1.Ibid. 22:5.
• Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day
Tum'at Met - Chapter 4
• Tum'at Met - Chapter 4
Tum'at Met - Chapter 4
• Tum'at Met - Chapter 4
1
When a revi'it of blood comes from two corpses, it is pure. To impart impurity, the entire revi'it must come from one corpse. When a backbone was put together from two corpses, e.g., some of the vertebrae came from one corpse and others, from another, when a skull was put together from two corpses, or a fourth of a kab of bones came from two corpses or a limb came from two corpses: in all these instances, impurity is not imparted when one is under the same structure, only through touching and carrying, as is true with regard to other bones.
א
רביעית דם הבאה משני מתים טהורה עד שתהיה כל הרביעית ממת אחד שדרה שנגמרה משני מתים כגון שהיו מקצת החליות מאחד ותשלומן ממת אחר וכן הגלגולת של שני מתים ורובע עצמות מב' מתים ואבר מן המת מב' מתים כל אלו אינן מטמאין באהל אלא במגע ובמשא כשאר כל עצמות:
2
When a limb from a living person comes from two people, it is pure. Even if it comes from one person, it is pure if it was cut into two.
ב
אבר מן החי מב' אנשים טהור אפילו מאיש אחד אם נחלק לשנים טהור:
3
An olive-sized portion of flesh that comes from two corpses, an olive-sized portion of netzal that comes from two corpses, and two handfuls of rekev that come from two corpses when the laws ofrekev apply to each one of them, can be combined. Similarly, a half of an olive-sized portion of flesh and a half an olive-sized portion ofnetzal can be combined with each other. All of the other sources of impurity stemming from a corpse are not combined with each other, because they are not of equal measures.
ג
כזית בשר משני מתים וכזית נצל משני מתים ומלוא חפנים רקב משני מתים שכל אחד מהן יש לו רקב הרי אלו מצטרפין זה עם זה וכן כחצי זית בשר וכחצי זית נצל מצטרפין זה עם זה ושאר כל הטומאות שבמת אין מצטרפין זה עם זה מפני שלא שוו בשיעוריהן:
4
When a bone the size of a barley-corn is divided into two, it imparts impurity when carried. Similarly, when a quarter of a kabof bones were crushed, although none of them are the size of a barley-corn, they impart impurity when one is under the same shelter as if they were not crushed.
ד
עצם כשעורה שנחלק לשנים מטמא במשא וכן רובע עצמות מת אחד שנדקדקו ואין בכל אחד מהם עצם כשעורה מטמאין באהל כאילו לא נדקדקו:
5
When an olive-sized portion from a corpse was cut into small pieces, flattened, and pressed together, it imparts impurity when under the same shelter and when carried, but it does not impart impurity when one touches a portion of it, even when the pieces are joined together, because anything joined together by man is not considered as joined.
ה
כזית מן המת שחתכו לחלקים ורדדו ודבקו מטמא באהל ובמשא ואינו מטמא במגע קצתו אע"פ שחברו שאין חבורי אדם חבור:
6
When an olive-sized portion of fat that was intact was liquefied, it is impure. If it was separated and it was liquefied, it is pure.
ו
כזית חלב שלם שהתיכו טמא היה מפורד והתיכו טהור:
7
When the majority of the vertebrae were taken from a backbone, it does not impart impurity when under the same shelter, even through its form remains. If it is in the grave, even if it is broken and even if it is crushed, it imparts impurity when under the same shelter. The rationale is that the grave joins it together.
ז
שדרה שנגררו ממנו רוב חליות שלה אף על פי ששלדה קיימת אינה מטמאה באהל ובזמן שהיא בתוך הקבר אפילו משוברת אפילו מכותתת מטמאה באהל מפני שהקבר מצרפה:
8
Whenever a substance that imparts impurity when under the same shelter was divided and then both portions are brought into a house, it is considered as joined together by the shelter and impurity is imparted by them because of it.
ח
כל המטמאין באהל שנחלקו והכניסן בתוך הבית האהל מצרפן ומטמאין באהל:
9
When there is an olive-sized portion of flesh that grew on a bone through the influence of heaven, and a portion of that bone was brought inside a house, the house contracts ritual impurity. If the flesh had been pushed into the bones by humans, the house is pure. The rationale is that anything joined by man is not considered as joined.
ט
עצם שיש עליו כזית בשר בידי שמים והכניס מקצתו לפנים מן הבית נטמא הבית שני עצמות ועליהם כשני חציי זיתים בשר והכניס מקצתן לפנים הבית טמא ואם היה הבשר תחוב בעצמות בידי אדם הבית טהור שאין חבורי אדם חבור:
10
When two handfuls of rekev are spread out throughout a house, the house is impure.
י
מלא חפנים רקב שנתפזר בתוך הבית הבית טמא:
11
When a revi'it Anything that was in the house at the time the blood was absorbed in the earth, is impure.
יא
רביעית דם שנבלעה בתוך הבית הבית טהור להבא וכל שהיה בו בעת שנבלעה הרביעית בארץ טמא:
12
When an olive-sized portion of a corpse was lost inside a house and it was searched for and not found, the house is assumed to be pure. If it is discovered afterwards, the house is deemed impure retroactively from the time it was lost until the time it was discovered.
יב
כזית מן המת שאבד בתוך הבית וביקש ולא נמצא הבית טהור ולכשימצא הבית טמא למפרע מעת שאבד עד שנמצא:
13
The following laws apply when a revi'it of blood was poured in an open space. If it coagulated or it was in a place where it could collect, i.e., a low place like a pit and an entity projects over even a portion of it, that entity is impure. If it was spilled on the doorstep which was on an incline, whether to the inside or outside, the house is pure. The rationale is that the blood did not come to rest on the doorstep. If the doorstep was a place where the blood could collect or it coagulated there, the house is impure.
The following laws apply when a revi'it of blood is absorbed in a garment. If it could be washed and a revi'it of blood would be discharged from it, the garment imparts impurity when touched, carried, or when one is under the same shelter. If not, it does not impart impurity when one is under the same shelter and it is considered as a garment that came into contact with a corpse. The rationale is that whenever something absorbed cannot be discharged, it is considered as pure.
How is the quantity of blood measured? The garment should be washed in water. Then an equal quantity of water should be brought and a revi'it of blood placed in it. If their appearance was the same or the water in which the garment was washed was of a redder hue than the mixture, it is apparent that a revi'it was discharged.
יג
רביעית דם שנשפך באויר אם קרש או שהיה במקום אשבורן והוא המקום הנמוך כמו גומא והאהיל המאהיל על מקצתו נטמא נשפך על האסקופה במורד בין לפנים בין לחוץ הבית טהור שהרי לא נח הדם על האסקופה ואם היתה האסקופה אשבורן או שקרש הדם עליה הבית טמא רביעית דם שנבלעה בכסות אם מתכבסת ויוצאה ממנו רביעית דם הרי זה הכסות מתטמאה במגע ובמשא ובאהל ואם לאו אינה מתטמאה באהל והרי היא ככסות שנגעה במת שכל הבלועה שאינו יכול לצאת טהור כיצד משערין אותה מכבסין אותה במים ומביא מים כמדתן ונותן לתוכן רביעית דם אם היה מראיהן שוה או שהיה מי הכבוס אדום יותר ממי המזג בידוע שיצא ממנה רביעית:
14
Carrying, touching, and being under the same structure are three different categories. Whenever activities come from one category, they can be combined and impart impurity. If they are from two categories, they are not combined and are pure.
What is implied? A person becomes impure in all of the following situations, for the activities that are combined are from the same category:
a) He touches two portions of a corpse that are half the size of an olive at the same time or carries two portions of a corpse that are half the size of an olive at the same time.
b) He stands over two portions of a corpse that are half the size of an olive.
c) He stands over a portion of a corpse that is half the size of an olive and has a similar portion hang over his body.
d) He and a portion of a corpse half the size of an olive were under one shelter and a portion of his body stood over another similar portion, or a similar portion was suspended over his body.
One is, by contrast, pure in all of the following situations. He touches a portion of a corpse half the size of an olive or carries such a portion and:
a) another entity covers both him and another such portion from a corpse;
b) another such portion was suspended over a portion of his body; c) he stood over such a portion, or
d) he touched such a portion and carried such a portion. The rationale is that a quantity that is touched is not combined with one that is carried, neither with regard to a corpse, nor with regard to other forms of impurity. Similarly, a quantity that is touched is not combined with one that is governed by the laws of ohel, nor is one governed by the laws of ohel combined with one that is carried, because they are not from the same category.
יד
המשא והמגע והאהל שלשה שמות הם וכל שהוא משם אחד מצטרף ומטמא ומשני שמות אינו מצטרף וטהור כיצד הנוגע בכשני חצאי זיתים או שנשא שני חצאי זיתים בבת אחת או שהאהיל על כשני חצאי זיתים או שהאהיל על חצי זית וחצי זית אחר מאהיל עליו או שהיה הוא וחצי זית תחת האהל והאהיל במקצת גופו על חצי זית אחר או האהיל חצי זית על מקצתו הכל טמאים מפני שהוא שם אחד אבל הנוגע בחצי זית או הנושא חצי זית ודבר אחר מאהיל עליו ועל כחצי זית או שהאהיל עליו חצי זית אחר או שהאהיל הוא על חצי זית אחר וכן הנושא כחצי זית ונגע בחצי זית אחר הכל טהורים שאין המגע מצטרף עם המשא לא במת ולא בשאר טומאות ולא המגע מצטרף עם האהל ולא האהל מצטרף עם המשא [לפי שאינו שם אחד]:
• Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day
Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Nine, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Ten, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Eleven
Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Nine, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Ten, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Eleven
• Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Nine
1
When an animal that is pregnant causes damage, the sum of half the damages may be expropriated from the mother and its offspring,1 for the offspring are considered to be part of its body. When, by contrast, a chicken causes damage, the amount due may not be collected from its eggs. [The rationale is that a chicken's] eggs are not considered to be part of its body, but rather separate and distinct from it.2
א
בהמה מעוברת שהזיקה גובה חצי נזק ממנה ומולדה מפני שהוא מגופה. אבל תרנגולת שהזיקה אינו גובה מביצתה מפני שהביצה אינה מגופה אבל מובדלת ומופרשת ממנה:
2
When a cow that is pregnant gored [another cow], and the calf [of the goring cow] is found at its side, but it is not known whether it had given birth before it gored or not, the sum of half the damages may be collected from the cow [alone]. Nothing may be collected from the calf, unless [the plaintiff can bring proof that it was pregnant when it gored. [The rationale is that] when a person desires to expropriate money from a colleague, the burden of proof is upon him.3
ב
מעוברת שנגחה ונמצא ולדה בצדה ואין ידוע אם עד שלא נגחה ילדה או אחר שנגחה ילדה. משלם חצי נזק מן הפרה ואינו גובה מן הולד כלום עד שיביא ראיה שבשעה שנגחה היתה מעוברת שהמוציא מחבירו עליו להביא הראיה:
3
[Similarly,] if a bull gores a pregnant cow and we find its calf stillborn at her side, and we do not know if it gave birth to the stillborn calf before it was gored,4 or it gave birth to the stillborn calf because it was gored, [the owner of the bull] is required to pay for [only] the damage to the cow and not the damage to the calf. For when a person desires to expropriate money from a colleague, the burden of proof is upon him.5
ג
שור שנגח פרה מעוברת ונמצא עוברה נופל בצדה ואין ידוע אם עד שלא נגחה הפילה או מחמת נגיחה הפילה. משלם נזק הפרה ואינו משלם נזק הולד. שהמוציא מחבירו עליו [א] הראיה:
4
When [an ox] gores a pregnant cow and causes it to miscarry, we do not evaluate the damage to the cow separately and the damage to the calf separately,6 [and obligate the owner of the ox for the total]. Instead, we evaluate the worth of the cow when it was pregnant and healthy7 and compare it to its present worth and that of the body of the fetus. The owner of the ox must pay the difference8 [if it was mu'ad] or half the difference if it was tam.
ד
נגח פרה מעוברת והפילה. אין שמין פחת פרה בפני עצמה ופחת הולד בפני עצמו. אלא שמין כמה היתה הפרה שוה כשהיתה מעוברת ובריאה וכמה היא שוה עכשיו היא והנפל שלה ומשלם הפחת או חציו אם היה תם:
5
If the ox was owned by one person and the calf by another,9 the loss in the fat of the cow [caused by the miscarriage] is owed to the owner of the cow; the loss of the cow's bulk10 is divided between the owner of the cow and the owner of the calf. The carcass of the calf belongs to the owner of the calf.
ה
היתה הפרה לאחר והולד לאחר הרי פחת השומן שפחת גוף הפרה לבעל הפרה. ופחת הנפחת חולקין אותו בעל הפרה עם בעל הולד והנפל של בעל הולד:
6
[The following rules apply when] one ox was pursuing another ox, and one was damaged. [If the owner of the ox] that was damaged said: "It was your ox that caused the damage," and [the owner of the other ox] said, "I do not know, perhaps it was damaged by a rock,"11 the burden of proof is upon the one who wishes to exact payment. [This ruling applies] even though the one whose property was damaged states: "I am certain [that your ox caused the damages], and the other person says: "I do not know." If the person whose property was damaged claims: "You certainly know that your ox caused the damage,"12 if [his ox] was mu'ad, [the other person] is required to take a Rabbinic oath that he does not know [that his ox caused the damage]. If, however, [his ox] was tam, he is not required to take a Rabbinic oath. [The rationale is that] even if he admitted [that his ox had caused the damage], he would not be liable. For the liability for half the damages is a fine,13 and a person who admits culpability for a fine [when there are no witnesses to obligate him] is not liable.
ו
שור שהיה רודף אחר שור ד אחר והוזק. הניזק אומר שורך הזיק וזה אומר איני יודע שמא בסלע לקה המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. ואע"פ שהניזק אומר איני יודע בודאי וזה אומר איני יודע. טען הניזק ואמר ודאי אתה יודע ששורך הזיק הרי זה נשבע שבועת היסת שאינו יודע אם היה מועד. אבל אם היה תם פטור אף משבועת היסת שאפילו הודה מעצמו פטור שחצי נזק קנס הוא ומודה בקנס פטור הוא:
7
[A person whose ox was damaged has no legal redress in the following instance.] Two [oxen belonging to two separate owners] were pursuing a third ox. Witnesses saw that one of the oxen caused the third ox damage, but were not able to identify which ox caused the damage. [Since] one of the owners claims, "Your ox caused the damage," and the other claims, "Your ox caused the damage," neither is liable. If both oxen belong to the same person, he is liable to pay from the body of the less valuable [ox, if that ox istam].14 If both oxen are mu'adim, he must pay the full amount of the damage from his property.
ז
אד היו שנים רודפים אחר אחד והרי עדים שאחד מהן הזיק ואין העדים יודעים אי זהו משניהם. זה אומר שורך הזיק וזה אומר שורך הזיק שניהם פטורין. ואם היו שניהם של איש אחד חייב לשלם מגוף הפחות שבשניהם. ואם היו מועדין משלמין נזק שלם מנכסיו:
8
When does the above apply? When both oxen are present before us. If, however, one of the oxen died or was lost, and it was tam, [their owner] is not liable even though they both belong to him. For he can tell the person whose property was damaged: "Prove to me that it was the ox that is here that caused the damage, and I will pay you."15
ח
במה דברים אמורים בששני השוורים עומדין. אבל אם מת אחד מהן או אבד והיה אחד מהן תם אע"פ שהן של איש אחד פטור. שהרי אומר לו הבא ראיה שזה העומד הוא שהזיק ואשלם לך:
9
[Similar principles apply in a case where an ox was damaged by one of two oxen belonging to the same owner.] One of the two oxen that pursued [the damaged ox] was large and one was small. If the person whose ox was damaged claims that it was the larger one that caused the damage,16 and the person whose oxen caused the damage claims that the smaller one caused the damage, [the burden of proof is upon the one who wishes to exact payment].17 [Similarly,] if one of the oxen was tam and the other mu'ad, and the person whose ox was damaged claims that it was the mu'ad that caused the damage,18 and the person whose oxen caused the damage claims that the tam caused the damage, the burden of proof is upon the one who wishes to exact payment.
ט
היו שני השוורים הרודפין אחד גדול ואחד קטן. הניזק אומר גדול הזיק והמזיק אומר קטן הזיק. ג היה אחד תם ואחד מועד הניזק אומר מועד הזיק והמזיק אומר תם הזיק. המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה:
10
If there was no clear proof which of the oxen caused the damage, but witnesses testify that one of the two oxen [owned by this person] caused the damage, the person whose oxen caused the damage must pay the amount he admits.19 If the person whose property was damaged claimed, "You know that the damage was caused by the other ox in your presence,"20 the person whose ox caused the damage must take an oath mandated by Scriptural law.21 He then pays the amount he admitted. [The oath is required] because he admitted a portion [of the claim levied against him].
י
לא היתה שם ראיה ברורה שזה הזיק אלא עדים מעידים שאחד משני אלו הזיק משלם המזיק כמו שאומר. ואם טען הניזק שאתה יודע ודאי שזה הזיק בפניך הרי המזיק
11
[The following rules apply when] two oxen were damaged, one large and one small, and there were two oxen that caused the damage, one large and one small. The person whose oxen were damaged claims: the large ox damaged the large ox, and the small ox damaged the small ox.22 The person whose oxen caused the damage, by contrast claims: "No. It was the small ox that damaged the large one, and the large ox that damaged the small one." [A similar dispute arises if] one [of the oxen that caused the damage] was mu'ad and the other tam. The person whose oxen were damaged claims: the ox that was mu'ad damaged the large ox, and the ox that was tam damaged the small ox.23 By contrast, the person whose oxen caused the damage claims: "It was the ox that was tam that damaged the large one, and the ox that was mu'ad that damaged the small one."[In both these instances,] the burden of proof is upon the one who wishes to exact payment. If there is no proof,24 the one who caused the damage is not liable [at all]. To what can this be compared? To an instance where a person claims that a colleague owes him wheat, and the colleague admits to owing him barley. In such a case, [the defendant] is required to take a Rabbinic oath and then is not liable, even for the barley, as will be explained inHilchot To'en.25If the person whose oxen were damaged seizes possession [of property belonging to the person whose oxen caused the damage], he may take payment for the damages to the small ox from the body of the large ox and may take payment for the damages to the large ox from the body of the small ox, as the person who caused the damages admitted.26 If he did not seize possession [of such property], however, no money at all is expropriated from the person whose oxen caused the damage.
יא
היו הניזקין שנים אחד גדול ואחד קטן והמזיקין אחד גדול ואחד קטן הניזק אומר גדול הזיק את הגדול והקטן את הקטן והמזיק אומר לא כי אלא קטן הזיק את הגדול וגדול את הקטן. או שהיה אחד תם ואחד מועד הניזק אומר המועד הזיק את הגדול ותם הזיק את הקטן והמזיק אומר תם הזיק את הגדול והמועד הזיק את הקטן. המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. לא היתה שם ראיה ברורה המזיק פטור. למה זה דומה לזה טוען את חבירו חיטים והודה לו בשעורים שהוא נשבע שבועת היסת ופטור אף מדמי שעורים כמו שיתבאר בהלכות טוען. ואם תפס הניזק הרי משלם לקטן מן הגדול ולגדול מן הקטן כמו שהודה המזיק. אבל אם לא תפס אין מוציאין מן המזיק כלום:
12
When one ox gores [another ox] and then gores a third ox, the owner of the first ox that was gored and the owner [of the goring ox] are considered to be partners.27 What is implied? When an ox that is worth 200 [zuz] gores another ox that is worth 200 [zuz] and the carcass is not worth anything, the owner of the damaged ox is entitled to 100 [zuz from the ox that gored] and its owner 100 [zuz]. If that ox gores another ox that is worth 200 [zuz] and its carcass is of no value, the owner of the latter ox is entitled to 100 [zuz] and the owner of the first ox and the original owner of the ox are each entitled to 50 [zuz]. If that ox gores another ox that is worth 200 [zuz] and its carcass is of no value, the owner of the latter ox is entitled to 100 [zuz], the owner of the second ox that was gored is entitled to 50 [zuz], and the owner of the first ox and the original owner of the ox are each entitled to 25 [zuz]. This pattern is followed in the future [if the ox continues to gore].28
יב
שור שנגח וחזר ונגח שור אחר הרי הניזק הראשון והבעלים שותפין בו. כיצד שור שוה מאתים שנגח שור שוה מאתים ואין הנבלה יפה כלום הניזק נוטל מאה ובעל השור מאה. חזר ונגח שור אחר שוה מאתים ואין הנבלה יפה כלום האחרון נוטל מאה והניזק שלפניו עם הבעלים נוטלין חמשים חמשים זוז. חזר ונגח שור שוה מאתים ואין הנבלה יפה כלום האחרון נוטל מאה וניזק שלפניו חמשים והניזק הראשון עם הבעלים עשרים וחמשה עשרים וחמשה. וכן על דרך זה חולקין והולכים:
13
When a person whose [ox] was damaged seizes the animal that caused the damage in order to collect half the damages from its body, he is considered to be a paid watchman with regard to any damages it causes. Therefore, if it causes damages, the person whose ox was first damaged is liable, and its owner is not liable. What is implied? An ox that is worth 200 [zuz] gored [another ox], causing damages of 200 [zuz]. The person whose ox was damaged seized [the goring ox] in order to collect the 100 [zuz] that is due him,29 Afterwards, [the ox that caused the damage] gored [another ox], causing damages of 140 [zuz]. The person whose property was damaged last receives 70 [zuz], the person who took possession of the ox because it damaged his property receives the remainder of the damage done to his ox - 30 zuz30 - and the original owner, 100zuz.31 The same principles apply in other similar situations.
יג
ניזק שתפס בהמה שהזיקה לגבות חצי נזקו מגופה נעשה עליה שומר שכר לנזקין ואם יצתה והזיקה הניזק הראשון חייב בנזקיה והבעלים פטורין. כיצד שור שוה מאתים שנגח והפסיד מאתים ותפסו הניזק לגבות ממנו מאה וחזר ונגח והפסיד במאה וארבעים הרי הניזק האחרון משתלם שבעים והניזק הראשון שתפסו משתלם מותר נזקו והוא שלשים והבעלים מאה וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
14
When two oxen that are tamim gore one another,32 half of the remainder of the damages must be paid to the one whose ox suffered the greater damage. If both oxen were mu'adim or an ox that was mu'ad and a man33 injured one another, the entire amount of the remainder of the damages must be paid to the one whose ox [or the man] who suffered the greatest damage.[The following rules apply if] one of the oxen is tam and one is mu'ad. If [the larger amount of the damage was caused by] the ox that is mu'ad, the entire amount of the remainder of the damages must be paid [to the owner of the tam]. If [the larger amount of the damage was caused by] the ox that istam, half of the remainder of the damages must be paid [to the owner of the mu'ad.34What is implied? When one ox that is tam causes 100 [zuz] worth of damage to another ox that is tam, and the other ox causes 40 [zuz] worth of damage to the first ox, the owner of the first ox must pay 30 [zuz] to the owner of the second ox. If they were both mu'adim, the owner of the first ox must pay 60 [zuz] to the owner of the second ox. If the first ox was mu'ad and the second ox was tam, the owner of the first ox must pay 80. If the first ox was tamand the second ox was mu'ad, the owner of the first ox must pay 10.35
יד
שני שוורים תמים שחבלו זה בזה משלמין במותר חצי נזק. שניהם מועדין (או מועד ואדם) שחבלו זה בזה משלמין במותר נזק שלם. אחד תם ואחד מועד מועד בתם משלם במותר נזק שלם תם במועד משלם במותר חצי נזק. כיצד שור תם שהפסיד בשור תם אחר שוה מנה וחזר זה האחרון והפסיד בראשון שוה ארבעים הרי בעל הראשון משלם לבעל האחרון שלשים. היו שניהם מועדין בעל הראשון משלם ששים. הראשון מועד ואחרון תם בעל הראשון משלם שמונים. הראשון תם והאחרון מועד בעל הראשון משלם עשרה:
FOOTNOTES
1.
I.e., if the body of the animal that caused the damage is not worth half the damage it caused, the remainder may be collected from its offspring. Even if for some reason the cow is not found, the entire sum may be collected from the calf Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 399:1).
2.
It would appear that according to the Rambam, this applies even before the eggs are laid. Even while within the chicken, they are not considered part of its body. The Maggid Mishneh offers a different explanation, stating that while the eggs are within the chicken, they are considered to be part of its body (Ramah, Choshen Mishpat 399:1).
3.
This is a fundamental principle, applicable in many contexts of Jewish business law.
4.
And thus the owner of the bull has no responsibility for the death of the calf.
5.
Even when the owner of the ox does not know whether or not his ox caused the damage, as long as the owner of the cow cannot support his claim with witnesses, the owner of the ox is not liable Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 399:3).
6.
I.e., the difference in value between a living calf and a dead one.
7.
Implied is that when a cow is pregnant it adds weight, which increases its value.
8.
Obviously, a lesser amount.
9.
I.e., the owner had sold the rights to the calf to another person before it was born.
10.
Which appears larger and is therefore worth more Tur and Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 399:5).
11.
Even when it ran into the rock because it was pursued, the other ox is considered to be merely an indirect cause of damage (grama), and the owner is not liable (Sefer Me'irat Einayim 400:1).
12.
And are withholding payment only because you know that I cannot produce witnesses.
13.
See Chapter 2, Halachah 7.
14.
One of this man's oxen caused the damage, and the damage must be paid for from the body of the ox itself. If the damage was worth more than the value of the lesser ox, the owner of the damaged ox can collect only the value of the lesser ox. The rationale is that there is no proof that the damage was caused by the more valuable ox.
15.
Payment for damage caused by an ox that is tam must be expropriated from the body of the ox. If that ox is not present, the damage cannot be collected.
16.
This is significant when the extent of the damages exceeds the value of the smaller ox.
17.
If there are no witnesses present at all (in contrast to the instance described in the following halachah), in both this and the second clause of this halachah the person whose ox caused the damage is not liable at all. For the obligation that he admits (that the smaller ox or the tam) caused the damage, is not the obligation claimed by the person whose ox caused the damage (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Bava Kama 3:11). (See also Halachah 11 and notes.)
18.
This is significant because it determines whether the person receives half the amount of the damages or the full amount.
19.
In this instance, as opposed to an instance where there are no witnesses at all, the owner is obligated to pay the debt he admits, because of the testimony of the witnesses (Maggid Mishneh).The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 400:3) quotes the Rambam's decision. The Tur and the Ramah, however, differ and maintain that if the person whose ox causes the damage makes a definitive claim saying that the other ox caused the damage, he is not liable at all.
20.
I.e., if the owner of the goring ox indeed did not know which ox caused the damage, he could not be held liable for the greater amount. The person whose ox was damaged is, however, maintaining that the owner in fact does know and is concealing the matter so as not to be held liable.
21.
As the Rambam explains, whenever a person admits a portion of a claim lodged against him, he is obligated to support his claim with an oath. He is referred to as a modeh b'miktzat (Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an 1:1).The Ra'avad maintains that an oath is required only in a case when one ox is tam and one ox is mu'ad, for the claim against the tam can be considered to be part of the claim against the mu'ad. When, however, both oxen are tam, the two claims are considered to be unrelated and no oath is required. Rabbenu Asher goes further and considers the claims to be unrelated in both instances. See Siftei Cohen 400:5, which discusses this issue.
22.
This difference is significant if the oxen that caused the damage are tamim, for then the payment is expropriated from the body of the ox, and it is possible that the value of the small ox that caused the damage will be less than that of the large ox that was damaged.
23.
This difference is significant, because when an ox is mu'ad, its owner is responsible for the entire amount of the damages, while when it is tam, only half the damages are required. Needless to say, the full value of the large ox is far more than the full value of the small ox.
24.
If, however, witnesses observed that the oxen belonging to the same owner caused the damage, but were not able to identify which one caused the damage, the owner is obligated to pay the amount he admits, as in the previous halachah (Maggid Mishneh).
25.
Chapter 3, Halachah 10. The rationale is that with regard to the instance when one ox is mu'ad, the defendant does not accept any liability with regard to the claim that the plaintiff makes, and the plaintiff has not made a claim regarding the sum the defendant admits liability for; therefore, the defendant is not held liable.With regard to the instance where both of the oxen are tamim, the defendant is not liable, because payment of half the damages is considered a fine, and a person who admits culpability for a fine is not liable (Maggid Mishneh).
26.
Even the Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 400:3), who view this situation more stringently than the Rambam, accept this principle. Moreover, according to their logic (see Choshen Mishpat 399:3), if there are no witnesses that the plaintiff seized possession of the property of the defendant, the plaintiff may keep an amount equal to his own claim.The above applies only when the plaintiff seizes possession of the defendant's property before taking the matter to court. If, however, he took the matter to court, and the court ruled in favor of the defendant, as the Rambam states, and then the plaintiff seizes the defendant's property, he must return it.
27.
Since the owner of the gored ox is granted a share in the body of the ox that gores, he is also given a share in the responsibility for its damages.
28.
See Sefer Me'irat Einayim 401:1, which notes that generally after goring three times, an ox becomes considered mu'ad, and from that time onward, full damages for the damage caused by the ox must be paid. This complicates the matter.
29.
I.e., half the damages, as required when a tam gores.
30.
I.e., since he was responsible for the ox at the time it caused the damages, he bears the entire financial responsibility.
31.
The Rambam's view is also shared by Rashi (Bava Kama 36b) and Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi, and is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 401:2). Tosafot, Rabbenu Asher and the Tur differ and maintain that the law mentioned in the previous halachah applies in this instance as well. Their view is quoted by the Ramah.
32.
The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 402:1) explain that the laws mentioned in this halachah apply only when the second ox gores the first after the two oxen have been separated. If, however, directly after the first ox gores the second, the second gores it in return, the owner of the second ox is not liable for the damages. (See also Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 421:13.)
33.
For a man is always responsible for the damages he causes.
34.
In this and the previous clause, the intent of the Rambam's wording requires the clarification of the examples that follow.
35.
I.e., in the latter two instances, one determines the damages to be paid by the mu'ad and those to be paid by the tam and then subtracts one from the other. One does not subtract the amount of the damages caused and then have the owner pay half the remainder if tam, and the entire remainder if mu'ad.
Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Ten
1
א
שור שהמית את האדם בכל מקום בין גדול בין קטן בין עבד בין בן חורין אחד תם ואחד מועד הרי זה נסקל. ואם המית את העכו"ם פטור כדיניהם:
2
[Not only] an ox, but any other animal, beast or fowl that kills a human should be stoned to death.6 What is the difference then between an ox that is tam killing a person, and that act being performed by an ox that is mu'ad? [The owner of] an ox that is tam is not liable for the atonement fine, while [the owner of] an ox that ismu'ad is liable,7 when his ox is mu'ad to kill.8
ב
אחד שור ואחד שאר בהמה חיה ועוף שהמיתו הרי אלו נסקלין. מה בין תם שהרג את האדם למועד שהרג את האדם. שהתם פטור מן הכופר והמועד חייב בכופר ד ובלבד שיהיה מועד להרוג:
3
Since every animal, beast or fowl that kills a human being should be stoned to death, how is it possible to find an animal that is mu'ad to kill, so that its owner will be liable to pay an atonement fine?9 It killed three gentiles,10 and then it killed a Jew. For an ox that is mu'ad [to kill] a gentile, is also mu'ad for a Jew.11Alternatively, it killed three Jews who were classified as t'refot,12 and then killed a healthy person. [Other possible situations are the following:] [On three occasions,] it killed a person and then fled, and it was captured on the fourth occasion. [We must say that it was captured, because] the owners are not obligated to pay an atonement fine unless the ox is executed.13It mortally wounded three individuals at the same time [and they and the fourth person the ox gored all died at the time]. It killed three animals.14 In all these instances, it is deemed as mu'ad to kill, and the owner is liable to pay an atonement fine.There is also another instance. On three occasions [one of the oxen belonging to a person killed a human]; on each of these occasions, the witnesses recognized the owner, but did not recognize the ox. On the fourth occasion, they saw an ox that killed a person [and were able to recognize it afterwards]. They did not, however, know if this was the same ox that had killed [people] on the three previous occasions or not.[In this instance, the owner of the ox is liable to pay an atonement fine. The rationale is that] since the owner was warned that he had an ox in his herd that had killed [people] on three occasions, he should have guarded all his oxen [more carefully]. Since he did not, he must pay the atonement fine.
ג
והואיל וכל בהמה חיה ועוף שהרגו את האדם נסקלין היאך ימצא מועד להרוג עד שישלמו בעליו את הכופר. כגון שהרג שלשה עובדי כוכבים ואחר כך הרג ישראל שהמועד לעכו"ם הרי זה מועד לישראל. או שהרג שלשה ישראל טרפה ואחר כך הרג שלם. או שהרג וברח וברביעי נתפס שאין הבעלים חייבין בכופר עד שיסקל השור. וכן אם סכן שלשה בני אדם כאחד או שהרג שלש בהמות הרי זה מועד להריגה ובעלים משלמין את הכופר. וכן אם הכירו עדים את בעל השור ולא הכירו את השור בפעם ראשונה ושנייה ושלישית וברביעית ראו שורו שהרג ולא היו יודעין אם זה הוא השור שהרג בשלש פעמים הראשונות או אחר היה. הואיל והועדו הבעלים שיש להם בבקרם שור שהרג שלש פעמים היה להם לשמור כל בהמתם ומאחר שלא שמרו משלמין את הכופר:
4
The Oral Tradition interprets the Torah's statement [Exodus 21:29]: "And its owner shall also be put to death," as implying death by the hand of God [and not execution by a mortal court]. If [the owner] pays an atonement fine for the person killed, he is pardoned. Although the obligation of the atonement fine is for [the owner's spiritual] pardon,15 the property of a person who is obligated to pay an atonement fine is forcefully expropriated, [even] against his will.16
ד
זה שכתוב בתורה וגם בעליו יומת מפי השמועה למדו שחיוב מיתה זו בידי שמים ואם נתן כופר הנהרג מתכפר לו. ואע"פ שהכופר כפרה א ממשכנין מי שנתחייב בכופר בעל כרחו:
5
When an ox belonging to two partners kills [a man], each of [the partners] must pay an entire atonement fine. For each requires a full measure of atonement.17
ה
שור של שני שותפין שהרג. כל אחד מהם משלם כופר שלם שהרי כל אחד מהן צריך כפרה גמורה:
6
If an ox is owned by a person, the adjudication of the ox must be concluded in its owner's presence. If the ox does not have an owner - e.g., a wild ox, an ox that was consecrated, an ox belonging to a convert who died without leaving any heirs - it should be executed [if it kills a human], and its judgment is concluded despite the fact that it lacks an owner. Similarly, an ox belonging to a woman, a minor,18 or a guardian19 is stoned [if it kills a human]. The guardians are not required to pay the atonement fine,20 for that fine is [as implied by its name] for the purpose of atonement. Minors, deaf mutes and mental incompetents are not men of responsibility who require atonement.21
ו
אין גומרין דינו של שור אלא בפני בעליו אם היו לו בעלים. אבל אם לא היו לו בעלים כגון שור המדבר ושור של הקדש ושור של גר שמת ואין לו יורשין אם המית הרי זה נסקל וגומרין דינו אע"פ שאין לו בעלים. וכן שור האשה ושור היתומים ושור* האפוטרופוסים שהמיתו נסקלין. ואין האפוטרופוסים משלמין את הכופר שהכופר כפרה הוא ואין הקטנים והחרשים והשוטים בני חיוב כדי שיהיו צריכין כפרה:
7
When an ox that is a t'refah or an ox belonging to a person who is t'refah kills a human, the ox is not executed.22 [This is derived from Exodus 21:29:] "And its owner shall also be put to death." [This is interpreted to mean] that a parallel is established between the owner and the ox being put to death. Since the owner is [already] considered as if he is dead and need not be put to death [by God], so too, the ox is not held liable.
ז
8
When a person sets a dog upon a colleague, and [the dog] kills him, the dog is not stoned to death. The same law applies if he sets another animal or beast upon him.23 If, however, he sets a snake upon him, even if he actually places the snake's mouth on the other person, the snake is stoned to death. [The rationale is that] the snake releases the lethal venom on its own volition. For this reason, the person who sets the snake upon a colleague is not liable to be executed by [an earthly] court.
ח
המשסה כלב בחבירו והרגו אין הכלב נסקל. וכן אם גירה בו בהמה או חיה והרגוהו. אבל אם שסה בו נחש ואפילו השיכו בו והרגו הנחש נסקל. שארס הנחש שממית מעצמו מקיאו לפיכך זה האדם שהשיך בו נחש פטור ממיתת בית דין:
9
An animal that kills [a person] is not stoned to death unless it had the intent to kill a person for whom it would be executed.24If, however, an ox intended to kill an animal and instead killed a human being, it intended to kill a gentile and instead killed a Jew, or it intended to gore a stillborn child and instead killed an ordinary child, [the ox] is not executed.25 If [the ox] was mu'ad, the owners are liable to pay the atonement fine or the fine paid for killing a servant. [This applies] even [if the ox] killed unintentionally. [The owners are held responsible] because [the ox] is mu'ad [to kill].
ט
אין הבהמה נסקלת אם המיתה עד שנתכוונה להזיק למי שהיא חייבת עליו סקילה. אבל שור שהיה מתכוון להרוג את הבהמה והרג את האדם. נתכוון לעכו"ם והרג לישראל. נתכוון לנפלים והרג בן קיימא פטור מן המיתה. ואם היה מועד הבעלים חייבין בכופר או בקנס אם המית עבד. ואע"פ שהרג בלא כוונה הואיל והוא מועד לזה:
10
[The owner of an ox is liable to pay an atonement fine in the following instances. An ox] was mu'ad to leap on people in pits. It saw a vegetable in a pit, leapt into the pit, [and fell] on a person there and killed him. It was mu'ad to rub itself against walls and knock them over onto people, and it rubbed itself against a wall for its own benefit, and caused the wall to fall on a person and kill him. [In both these instances,] the ox is not liable to be executed, because it did not intend to kill. The owners are, nevertheless, liable for the atonement fine, because the ox is mu'ad to leap into pits on people or to knock walls over onto them.26 How can we know whether any animal is rubbing itself against a wall for its own benefit? If it continues rubbing itself after it knocks the wall down and kills.
י
היה מועד ליפול על בני האדם בבורות וראה ירק בבור ונפל לבור בשביל הירק והיה שם אדם ומת. או שהיה מועד להתחכך בכתלים ולהפיל על בני אדם ונתחכך בכותל להנאתו ונפל על אדם ומת מחמת חכוכו השור פטור ממיתה לפי שלא נתכוון להמית והבעלים חייבין בכופר שהרי זה מועד ליפול בבורות על בני אדם או להפיל עליהם הכתלים. והיאך יודע שנתחכך להנאתו כשנתחכך לאחר שהפיל והמית:
11
The owners are not liable to pay the atonement fine unless their animal kills [the person] outside their property. If, however, [their animal] kills [a person] in a domain belonging to [the owner of the animal], the owner is not liable for the atonement fine,27although the animal is stoned to death. What is implied? If a person enters a courtyard belonging to a person without his permission28 - even if he enters to demand payment for wages or a debt [owed to him]29 - and an ox belonging to the owner of the courtyard gores him and kills him, the ox should be stoned to death. The owner is, however, free from the atonement fine, because [the deceased] did not have permission to enter his property without his consent.
יא
אין הבעלים משלמין את הכופר עד שתמית בהמתן חוץ מרשותן. אבל אם המית ברשות המזיק אע"פ שהוא בסקילה הבעלים פטורין מן הכופר. כיצד הנכנס לחצר בעל הבית שלא ברשותו ואפילו נכנס לתבוע שכרו או חובו ממנו ונגחו שורו של בעל הבית ומת. השור בסקילה והבעלים פטורין מן הכופר. שהרי אין לו רשות ליכנס לרשותו של זה שלא מדעתו:
12
[The owner is not required to pay an atonement fine in the following situation. A person] stood at the entrance and called to the owner, and the latter said: "Yes." [The guest] entered and he was gored by an ox belonging to the owner. The owner is not liable. For "yes" does [not necessarily] mean [more than] "Stand where you are, until I [come] to speak to you."
יב
עמד בפתח וקרא לבעל הבית ואמר לו הן. ונכנס ונגחו שורו של בעל הבית הרי הבעלים פטורין. שאין משמע הן אלא עמוד במקומך עד שאדבר עמך:
13
When an animal enters a courtyard belonging to another person and kills a child by treading on it as it proceeds, the owner [of the animal] must pay an atonement fine. [The rationale is that an animal is considered to be] mu'ad to tread on things as it proceeds, and in the domain of another person [the owner of animal] is liable for the damages it causes by eating or treading, as explained.30 Thus, one can conclude: When an animal that is mu'adkills intentionally, it should be stoned to death, and the owners must pay the atonement fine. If it killed unintentionally, it is not liable to be executed, but the owners must pay the atonement fine. When [an animal that is] tam kills unintentionally, it is not liable to be executed, nor must the owners pay the atonement fine. If it intended to kill, it should be stoned to death. The owners, however, are not liable for the atonement fine or for the fine paid for killing a servant.
יג
בהמה שנכנסה לחצר הניזק ודרסה על גבי תינוק דרך הלוכה והרגתהו הבעלים משלמין את הכופר שהרגל מועדת להזיק בדרך הלוכה וברשות הניזק חייב אף על השן ועל הרגל כמו שביארנו. נמצאת למד שהמועד שהמית בכוונה נסקל והבעלים חייבין בכופר ואם המית שלא בכוונה פטור מן המיתה והבעלים חייבים בכופר. ותם שהמית שלא בכוונה פטור מן המיתה ומן הכופר. ואם נתכוון להמית נסקל והבעלים פטורין מן הכופר וכן מקנס של עבד:
14
It appears to me31 that even though [the owner of an ox that is] tam that killed a servant or a maid-servant intentionally is not liable for the fine of 30 selaim mentioned in the Torah,32 if it killed [a servant or maid-servant] unintentionally,33 [the owner] must pay half the value of the servant or the maid-servant from the body of the ox, as if [the ox] had killed another ox or donkey belonging to his colleague.34
יד
FOOTNOTES
1.
I.e., in either a private domain or the public domain.
2.
This law applies only when the animal kills intentionally, as stated in Halachot 9-10 (Kessef Mishneh).
3.
The universality of this law is explicitly stated in Exodus 21:29-32: If it kills a man or a woman, the ox must be stoned.... This law also applies if it gores a boy or a girl. If it gores a servant... or a maid-servant... the ox should be stoned.
4.
Exodus 21:28 states that this penalty should be given to an ox that is tam, and the following verse speaks about a mu'ad.
5.
See The Guide for the Perplexed, Volume III, Chapter 40, which states that this sentence is not considered punishment to the animal that killed the person, but rather punishment for its owner, so that he will know to restrain his animals. Some of the laws of this chapter (e.g., Halachot 6 and 8) indicate, however, that the intent is to kill an animal that is prone to kill.
6.
The verse mentions an ox because it speaks about situations that are most probable.
7.
Exodus 21:28, which speaks about an ox that is tam, states: the owner will not be punished. The following verses, which speak about a mu'ad, state that the owner will pay an atonement fine. The nature of that fine is discussed in the following chapter.
8.
I.e., that the owner was warned three times that his ox killed (or came close to killing) an animal or a man, as mentioned in the following halachah.
9.
I.e., the animal should seemingly have been executed after he killed one human being. How was it possible for him to kill three?
10.
In which case it is not obligated to be executed, as stated in Halachah 1.
11.
The Maggid Mishneh questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that although Bava Kama 41a, the source for this halachah, mentions this resolution (and the following one), according to the commonly accepted version of the Talmud, it appears that these hypotheses are rejected. The Maggid Mishneh explains that most likely the Rambam possessed a different version of this Talmudic passage.
12.
The word t'refah refers to an infirmity that will cause the person (or animal) possessing it to die within a year. Since the person will die anyway, the ox is not executed for killing him (Bava Kama, loc. cit.).
13.
There are exceptions to this principle, as reflected in Halachot 9 and 10.
14.
In Chapter 6, Halachah 8, the Rambam states that an ox that is mu'ad with regard to a human is not mu'ad with regard to an animal. From that, we can derive that an animal that is mu'ad with regard to an animal is not mu'ad with regard to a human.This does not necessarily represent a contradiction to this halachah. For there, the Rambam is speaking about causing damage, and here we are speaking about causing death (Kessef Mishneh).
15.
And it is not a monetary obligation imposed by civil law.
16.
With regard to a sin offering or a guilt offering that also comes for the purpose of atonement, we do not find an obligation to expropriate the sacrifice from the person's property. Nevertheless, it is possible to explain that since the atonement fine is paid to a colleague, and not offered in the Temple, people might view its obligation more laxly. See Lechem Mishneh.
17.
This is a reflection of the concept that this fine is not recompense for the person's death, but rather a means for the person who caused his death to attain atonement.
18.
For whom a guardian was not appointed.
19.
The intent is an ox belonging to a minor, deaf mute or mentally incompetent person that was entrusted to a guardian for safekeeping.
20.
In contrast to the damages an ox in their care causes, for which they are required to reimburse the party whose property was damaged, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 4.
21.
All of these individuals are considered to be mentally incompetent and are not held responsible for any aspect of their conduct.
22.
The Ra'avad writes that if an ox kills a person in the presence of a court, it is executed. The leniency applies only when it kills in the presence of witnesses.The Ra'avad's statement is based on a comparison to a human being. When a human being who is t'refah kills another human in the presence of witnesses, he cannot be executed, because there is no way that the witnesses can be disqualified through the laws of hazamah. When, however, he kills in the presence of a court, there is no need for the testimony of witnesses, and the court is charged to obliterate the evil from your midst. (See Hilchot Rotzeach 2:9.)The Maggid Mishneh does not accept this equation, because he maintains that the obligation to obliterate evil applies with regard to a man who performs an evil act and not to an ox.
23.
The rationale is that the animal is not considered to have killed as a result of its own tendency, but in response to prompting by the other person.
24.
If, however, it intended to kill one Israelite, and instead it killed another, it is executed (Maggid Mishneh). There is a debate among our Sages (Bava Kama 44b) regarding both a human and an ox who kills with such an intent. With regard to a human, the Rambam rules that the killer is not liable for execution (see Hilchot Rotzeach, ch. 4), while with regard to an ox, he rules that it should be executed. See the Ra'avad and the Kessef Mishneh to Hilchot Rotzeach.
25.
Our Sages (ibid.) derive this law from the parallel established between the owner and the ox being put to death mentioned in Halachah 6. Since a human being would not be executed for killing in such a manner, the animal is also not executed.
26.
And the owners should therefore have watched it to prevent this from happening.
27.
See Chapter 1, Halachah 7.
28.
If the owner grants his consent, he is liable for the atonement fine if his ox kills the visitor.
29.
The Maggid Mishneh and others note that Bava Kama 33a appears to present a difficulty to the Rambam's ruling. Several resolutions are, however, offered.
30.
Chapter 1, Halachot 5,7.
31.
This expression indicates a conclusion drawn by the Rambam that has no explicit source in the works of our Sages.
33.
If it killed the servant intentionally, the law requires that the ox be stoned to death, and no benefit to be derived from it. Thus it is impossible to exact payment from its carcass. When, however, it kills unintentionally, it is not stoned and remains the property of its owner.
34.
The Rambam's rationale can be described as follows: If an ox kills a Jewish male or female, the owner is not obligated to pay damages, because the case is considered to involve capital matters. A servant, by contrast, is considered to be his owner's property, and therefore, just as the owner of an ox that is tam must pay half the cost of any damages caused by his ox, so too, he is liable for half of these damages.
Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Eleven
1
How much is the atonement fine? The amount the judges evaluate as being the worth of the person who was killed; everything depends on his worth, as [implied by Exodus 21:30]: "And he shall give the ransom of his1 soul according to all that will be imposed upon him." The atonement fine for a servant, whether an adult or a minor, whether a male or a female, is the amount determined by the Torah: 30 selaim2 of fine3 silver. [This applies] whether the servant was worth 100 maneh4 or only one dinar.If a servant is lacking only a bill of release,5 a fine is not imposed, for he does not have a master, for he has already attained his freedom.
א
כמה הוא הכופר. כמו שראו הדיינין שהוא דמי הנהרג הכל לפי שוויו של נהרג שנאמר ונתן פדיון נפשו ככל אשר יושת עליו. וכופר העבדים א בין גדולים בין קטנים בין זכרים בין נקבות הוא הקנס הקצוב בתורה שלשים סלע כסף יפה בין שהיה העבד שוה מאה מנה בין שאינו שוה אלא דינר. וכל המעוכב גט שחרור אין לו קנס הואיל ואין לו אדון שהרי יצא לחירות:
2
To whom is the atonement fine paid? To the heirs of the deceased. If a woman is killed, the atonement fine is paid to her heirs [as though she had not married], and not to her husband.6 If a person who is half a servant, and half a freed man7 is killed, half of the fine should be given to the owner, and the other half is fit to be given, but there is no one to take it.8
ב
למי נותנין הכופר ליורשי הנהרג. ואם המית אשה הכופר ליורשיה מאביה ואינו לבעל. המית מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין נותן חצי קנס לרבו והחצי האחר ראוי ליתן ואין מי יקחנו:
3
When an ox gores a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry, its owners are not liable for the value of the fetus. [This law applies] even when the ox is mu'ad to gore. For the obligation [stated in] the Torah to pay for the value of the fetus applies only when it is a human who causes the damages.9
ג
שור שנגח אשה ויצאו ילדיה אע"פ שהוא מועד ליגח הבעלים פטורין מדמי ולדות. שלא חייבה תורה בדמי ולדות אלא לאדם:
4
If, however, an ox [that is mu'ad] gores a maid-servant and causes her to miscarry, [the owner] is required to pay for the value of the fetus. For this is equivalent to having gored a pregnant donkey.10 If the ox is tam, [the owner] must pay half the value of the fetus from the body of the ox.
ד
נגח שפחה ויצאו ילדיה משלם דמי ולדות. שזה כמי שנגח חמור מעוברת. ואם היה תם משלם חצי דמי ולדות מגופו:
5
How is this sum evaluated? We assess the value of this maid-servant when she was pregnant, and how much she is worth now.11 [The owner of the ox] must pay [the owner of the maid-servant] the difference or half the difference.12 If [the ox] kills the maid-servant, [despite the fact that she is pregnant, its owner] need pay only the fine determined by the Torah, as we have explained.13
ה
כיצד שמין אותה. אומדין כמה היתה שפחה זו שוה כשהיתה מעוברת וכמה היא שוה עתה ונותן לבעליה הפחת או חציו. ואם המית השפחה משלם הכופר הקצוב בתורה בלבד כמו שבארנו:
6
When an ox intended to gore an animal and instead gored a man, [the owner is not liable], even if the man dies, as explained.14 Nevertheless, if [the ox] injures him, [the owner of the ox] is liable for the damages.15 If the ox is tam, he should pay half the damages from the body of the ox. If it is mu'ad, he must pay the entire amount of the damages.16
ו
שור שנתכוון לבהמה ונגח את האדם אע"פ שאם המיתו פטור כמו שבארנו אם חבל בו חייב בנזק. ואם תם הוא משלם חצי נזק מגופו. ואם מועד נזק שלם:
7
When an ox that is tam kills [a man] and then causes damage,17it is sentenced to execution, but there is no financial claim on its owners.18 If an ox that is mu'ad kills and then causes damage, the liability [resulting from the damages] is determined,19 and then it is sentenced to execution. If it is sentenced to execution first, the liability [resulting from the damages] is determined afterwards.
ז
שור תם שהמית והזיק דנין אותו דיני נפשות ואין דנין אותו דיני ממונות. ומועד שהמית והזיק דנין אותו דיני ממונות וחוזרין ודנין אותו דיני נפשות. קדמו ודנוהו דיני נפשות תחלה חוזרין ודנין אותו דיני ממונות:
8
How is this money collected? From the profit that will accrue from the labor of the ox after it has been sentenced.20 [This step is taken] because once it is sentenced to be stoned to death, it no longer has owners who are considered liable for the damages it caused.21 If [in the above situation] it was sentenced to death and then it22 fled, no liability [resulting from the damages] is assigned.23
ח
9
When an ox killed a human, and afterwards its owner consecrates it, it is not consecrated.24 Similarly, if he declares it ownerless, it is not ownerless. If he sells it, the sale is not effective. If a watchman returns it to its owner, it is not considered to have been returned.25 If it is slaughtered, one is forbidden to benefit from its meat.26 When does the above apply? After it has already been sentenced to death. If, however, it had not been sentenced to death [different rules apply]. If its owner consecrates it, it is consecrated. If he declares it ownerless, it is ownerless. If he sells it, the sale is effective.27 If a watchman returns it to its owner, it is considered to have been returned.28 If it is slaughtered first, one is not forbidden to benefit from its meat.
ט
שור שהמית את האדם והקדישו בעליו אינו קדוש. וכן אם הפקירו אינו מופקר. מכרו אינו מכור. החזירו שומר לבעליו אינה חזרה. שחטו בשרו אסור בהנאה. במה דברים אמורים אחר שנגמר דינו לסקילה. אבל עד שלא נגמר דינו לסקילה אם הקדישו מוקדש ואם הפקירו הרי הוא מופקר מכרו הרי זה מכור החזירו שומר לבעליו הרי זה מוחזר. ואם קדם ושחטו הרי זה מותר באכילה:
10
When an ox [that killed a human] becomes intermingled with other oxen before it was sentenced to death, they are all not held liable. [The rationale is that] just as the judgment of a human being [must be concluded in the presence of that person], so too, the judgment of the ox must be concluded in the presence of the ox.29 If an ox becomes intermingled with other oxen - even 1000 - after it was sentenced to death, they all must be stoned to death.30 It is forbidden to benefit from them, and their carcasses must be buried, as is required whenever an animal is stoned to death.31
י
שור שלא נגמר דינו שנתערב בשוורים אחרים כולן פטורין לפי שאין גומרין דינו של שור אלא בפני השור כדין האדם. נגמר דינו ואחר כך נתערב באחרים אפילו באלף כולן נסקלים ונקברין ואסורין בהנאה כדין בהמה נסקלת:
11
יא
פרה מעוברת שהמיתה את האדם וכן כל בהמה שנעברה בה עבירה הרי עוברה כמוה היא ועוברה נגחה היא ועוברה נרבעה:
12
[The following rules apply if a cow] gored a person to death and then became pregnant: If it became pregnant and bore a calf before it was sentenced to death, the calf is permitted.34 If it bore a calf after the sentence was delivered, the calf is forbidden, for a fetus is considered an extension35 of its mother.36 If [the calf] became intermingled with other calves, they must all be enclosed in a closed room until they die.37
יב
נגחה והמיתה ואחר כך נתעברה. אם עד שלא נגמר דינה נתעברה וילדה קודם גמר דין ולדה מותר ואם ילדה אחר גמר דין ולדה אסור שהעובר ירך אמו הוא. ואם נתערב ילד זה באחרים כונסין את כלם בכיפה עד שימותו שם:
13
When the witnesses whose testimony caused an ox to be sentenced for execution are disqualified because they lied, whoever first takes possession of the ox acquires it as his own. [The rationale is that] once it was sentenced to death, the owners gave up their ownership of it.38 If witnesses testify that the owner [of an ox sodomized his animal] and they were disqualified because they lied, the ox remains the property of its [original] owner. Although another person drew it after him,39 he does not acquire it. [The rationale is that] since the owner knows that he did not sin, and that these are false witnesses, he was planning to have them disqualified. Therefore, he did not give up ownership [of his animal].
יג
שור הנסקל שהוזמו עדיו כל הקודם בו זכה שהרי משנגמר דינו הפקירוהו בעליו. ואם העידו שבעליו רבעהו והזים את העדים הרי השור לבעליו והקודם ומשכו לא זכה בו שכיון שהבעל יודע בעצמו שלא חטא ושאלו עדי שקר הם והרי הוא מיחל להזימם לא הפקיר:
FOOTNOTES
1.
The antecedent of the pronoun his is a matter of debate among our Sages (Bava Kama 40a), who debated whether it refers to the soul of the owner or that of the person who was killed. According to the Rambam, there are dimensions of both opinions that are relevant. As evident from the previous chapter, by paying the atonement fine the owner of the ox is ransoming his own soul. On the other hand, as the Rambam states in this halachah and in Chapter 10, Halachah 4, the atonement fine is for the person killed, and the amount is determined according to the worth of the person who was killed.
2.
See Exodus 21:32. A sela is equivalent to four dinarim (zuzim).
3.
I.e., pure silver.
4.
10,000 zuz.
5.
E.g., a servant who has been declared ownerless by his master, or one whom his master caused to lose one of the limbs that require his release.
6.
A woman's property is inherited by her husband. He, however, is entitled only to the property that she possesses at the time of her death, but not property that will accrue to her afterwards. For this reason, he is not entitled to the atonement fine. Needless to say, if the woman has already borne children, the atonement fine is given to them.
7.
E.g., a servant was owned by two partners, and one of them freed him while the other did not.Note the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh, who states that this law applies only to a maid-servant, but not to a male servant. The Radbaz (Volume VI, Responsum 2249), however, justifies the Rambam's view.
8.
For the half-servant is dead, and he or she has no heirs. Even if he or she bore children as a servant, they are not considered as the half-servant's sons or daughters.
9.
Exodus 21:22 speaks about men fighting together, and one of them causing a woman to miscarry.
10.
As mentioned at the conclusion of the previous chapter, servants are considered in certain contexts to be no more than their master's chattel.
11.
Our Sages note that there are two elements lost with the miscarriage: a) the fetus, which would otherwise become the owner's property, and b) the fact that while pregnant, a woman looks larger and healthier (Bava Kama 49a).
12.
I.e., if the ox was mu'ad, the owner must pay the entire difference. If it is tam, he must pay half the difference.
13.
See Halachah 1. No extra renumeration is made in consideration of the miscarriage.
14.
Chapter 10, Halachah 9.
15.
Our Sages explain that one might think that although the owner is liable if his ox damages another ox in this manner, he would not be liable for injuring a man. The rationale is that an animal does not have a spiritual source protecting it, while a person does. If injury occurs despite that spiritual protection, one might think that it is willed by God, and therefore the owner of the ox is not liable. (See Bava Kama 2b).
16.
See Chapter 7, Halachah 3.
17.
To a man or to another animal.
18.
For the payment for the damages caused by an ox that is tam must come from the body of the ox itself. In this instance, since the ox must be stoned to death, we are forbidden to benefit from its carcass. Thus, there is no source from which this obligation can be met.
19.
They must pay from resources other than the body of the ox.
20.
I.e., the ox is hired out by the court to work for different people. When enough money accrues to pay for the damages, it is executed.
21.
The Maggid Mishneh explains the Rambam's position as follows. It is clear to the Rambam that once an animal is sentenced to be executed, it is no longer considered the property of its owner, and the owner is not considered responsible for the damages, even if the damages took place before the death sentence was delivered. (It appears that the Rambam considers that the obligation for the damages takes place only after the matter is taken to court.) For this reason, the Rambam maintains that the ox itself should be made to work for the damages.For this reason, the ox will not be executed immediately after being sentenced. Although it is not proper to delay the execution of a human, there is no such principle with regard to the execution of an ox. There are other authorities who differ with several elements of the Maggid Mishneh's interpretation.
22.
I.e., the ox. Rashi interprets Bava Kama 91a, the source of this halachah, as referring to the flight of the owner of the ox.
23.
For the ox is not present to be hired out to work.
24.
Once an ox has been sentenced to death, it is no longer considered to be the property of its former owner.
25.
And the watchman must reimburse the owner for his ox, for he is responsible for it.
26.
See Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 4:22, Hilchot Issurei Mizbe'ach 4:2 and other sources.
27.
The purchaser should slaughter the ox immediately. Otherwise, its meat will become forbidden.
28.
Although the ox will be sentenced to death, the watchman is considered to have fulfilled his obligation, for the owners have the option of slaughtering the ox before it is sentenced to death.
29.
And since the ox cannot be identified, that is not possible.
30.
The animal is not considered to become bateil b'rov, insignificant because it is mixed with a larger quantity of permitted substances. Indeed, even when it becomes mixed with a far larger number of oxen, its identity is never considered insignificant. The rationale is that a live animal is important. And an important entity is never considered to be insignificant (Zevachim 72a; Sanhedrin 79b-80a).
31.
See Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 16:7 and Hilchot Pesulei Hamukdashim 19:11.
32.
This apparently refers to an animal used by a human for sodomy, which must be executed, as stated inLeviticus 20:15. For no other sin is an animal executed.
33.
This follows the principle stated in the next halachah: A fetus is considered to be an extension of its mother.
34.
For it was not part of its mother's body, neither at the time of the killing, nor at the time of the sentence.
35.
Literally the thigh.
36.
And so, just as the sentence caused the mother to become forbidden, it also caused the calf to become forbidden. The calf is not executed, however. Instead, it is left to die.
37.
In this instance as well, all the calves need not be executed. It is, however, forbidden to benefit from them, because the presence of a live animal in a mixture is never considered to be insignificant.
38.
Since the owner of the ox does not know whether or not the ox gored, he is dependent on the testimony of the witnesses. Once their testimony establishes that the ox gored, the owner assumes that it will be executed and despairs of retaining ownership. After he has made such a decision, even in error, anyone has the right to take possession of the ox. A parallel ruling is delivered in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 4:8.
39.
Thus performing the kinyan of meshichah, a formal act of acquisition.
Hayom Yom: Today's Hayom Yom
• Wednesday, 14 Tammuz, 5776 · 20 July 2016
• "Today's Day"
• Shabbat Tamuz 14 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Balak, Shevi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 72-76.
Tanya: Ch. 3. The latter (p. 349) ...also be three. (p. 351).
The Tzemach Tzedek notes in one of his discourses: "On Tuesday of parshat Balak 5562 (1802) our master,1 of blessed memory, said to his sons as follows: To understand the problem posed by the astronomers, that since the earth is round and spherical like an apple, why do not those people fall who live on the side of the globe opposite to ours, 'down below,' in America?... Their answer is not the true one... Our master,1 of blessed memory, said that the answer lies in explanation of the Etz Chaim that the Nine Spheres are nurtured by that state termed igulim, 'Circles,' and in a circle there is no above or below. For this reason those who live opposite us, 'down below,' have their heavens high above them arching in one continuity with the heaven above us, and the earth there is below, relative to the heavens over it."
FOOTNOTES
1.The Alter Rebbe.
• Daily Thought:
Runaway Inspiration
Yesterday, you were inspired. Today, that is all gone. And so, you are depressed.
But this is the way the system works: Everything begins with inspiration. Then the inspirations cools down—so that you can grab it and do something with it. For fire to become deeds.[from a letter]
Torah lessons: Chumash: Balak, Shevi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 72-76.
Tanya: Ch. 3. The latter (p. 349) ...also be three. (p. 351).
The Tzemach Tzedek notes in one of his discourses: "On Tuesday of parshat Balak 5562 (1802) our master,1 of blessed memory, said to his sons as follows: To understand the problem posed by the astronomers, that since the earth is round and spherical like an apple, why do not those people fall who live on the side of the globe opposite to ours, 'down below,' in America?... Their answer is not the true one... Our master,1 of blessed memory, said that the answer lies in explanation of the Etz Chaim that the Nine Spheres are nurtured by that state termed igulim, 'Circles,' and in a circle there is no above or below. For this reason those who live opposite us, 'down below,' have their heavens high above them arching in one continuity with the heaven above us, and the earth there is below, relative to the heavens over it."
FOOTNOTES
1.The Alter Rebbe.
• Daily Thought:
Runaway Inspiration
Yesterday, you were inspired. Today, that is all gone. And so, you are depressed.
But this is the way the system works: Everything begins with inspiration. Then the inspirations cools down—so that you can grab it and do something with it. For fire to become deeds.[from a letter]
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment