Saturday, June 24, 2017

TODAY IN JUDAISM: Sivan 30, 5777 - Shabbat, June 24, 2017 - Today is Shabbat, Sivan 30, 5777 · June 24, 2017 - Rosh Chodesh Tammuz

ב"ה

Today in Judaism

TODAY IN JUDAISM: Sivan 30, 5777 - Shabbat, June 24, 2017 - Today is Shabbat, Sivan 30, 5777 · June 24, 2017 - Rosh Chodesh Tammuz

Torah Reading:
Korach: Numbers 16:1 - 18:32

Numbers 16:1 Now Korach the son of Yitz’har, the son of K’hat, the son of Levi, along with Datan and Aviram, the sons of Eli’av, and On, the son of Pelet, descendants of Re’uven, took men and ²rebelled against Moshe. Siding with them were 250 men of Isra’el, leaders of the community, key members of the council, men of reputation. ³They assembled themselves against Moshe and Aharon and said to them, “You take too much on yourselves! After all, the entire community is holy, every one of them, and Adonai is among them. So why do you lift yourselves up above Adonai’s assembly?”⁴When Moshe heard this he fell on his face. ⁵Then he said to Korach and his whole group, “In the morning, Adonai will show who are his and who is the holy person he will allow to approach him. Yes, he will bring whomever he chooses near to himself. ⁶Do this: take censers, Korach and all your group; ⁷put fire in them; and put incense in them before Adonai tomorrow. The one whom Adonai chooses will be the one who is holy! It is you, you sons of Levi, who are taking too much on yourselves!”
⁸Then Moshe said to Korach, “Listen here, you sons of Levi! ⁹Is it for you a mere trifle that the God of Isra’el has separated you from the community of Isra’el to bring you close to himself, so that you can do the work in the tabernacle of Adonai and stand before the community serving them? ¹⁰He has brought you close and all your brothers the sons of Levi with you. Now you want the office of cohen too! ¹¹That’s why you and your group have gathered together against Adonai! After all, what is Aharon that you complain against him?”
¹²Then Moshe sent to summon Datan and Aviram, the sons of Eli’av. But they replied, “We won’t come up! ¹³Is it such a mere trifle, bringing us up from a land flowing with milk and honey to kill us in the desert, that now you arrogate to yourself the role of dictator over us? (ii) ¹⁴You haven’t at all brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey, and you haven’t put us in possession of fields and vineyards. Do you think you can gouge out these men’s eyes and blind them? We won’t come up!”
¹⁵Moshe was very angry and said to Adonai, “Don’t accept their grain offering! I haven’t taken one donkey from them, I’ve done nothing wrong to any of them.” ¹⁶Moshe said to Korach, “You and your group, be there before Adonai tomorrow — you, they and Aharon. ¹⁷Each of you take his fire pan and put incense in it; every one of you, bring before Adonai his fire pan, 250 fire pans, you too, and Aharon — each one his fire pan.”
¹⁸Each man took his fire pan, put fire in it, laid incense on it and stood at the entrance to the tent of meeting with Moshe and Aharon. ¹⁹Korach assembled all the group who were against them at the entrance to the tent of meeting. Then the glory of Adonai appeared to the whole assembly.
(iii) ²⁰Adonai said to Moshe and Aharon, ²¹“Separate yourselves from this assembly; I’m going to destroy them right now!” ²²They fell on their faces and said, “Oh God, God of the spirits of all humankind, if one person sins, are you going to be angry with the entire assembly?” ²³Adonai answered Moshe, ²⁴“Tell the assembly to move away from the homes of Korach, Datan and Aviram.” ²⁵Moshe got up and went to Datan and Aviram, and the leaders of Isra’el followed him. ²⁶There he said to the assembly, “Leave the tents of these wicked men! Don’t touch anything that belongs to them, or you may be swept away in all their sins.” ²⁷So they moved away from all around the area where Korach, Datan and Aviram lived.
Then Datan and Aviram came out and stood at the entrance to their tents with their wives, sons and little ones. ²⁸Moshe said, “Here is how you will know that Adonai has sent me to do all these things and that I haven’t done them out of my own ambition: ²⁹if these men die a natural death like other people, only sharing the fate common to all humanity, then Adonai has not sent me. ³⁰But if Adonai does something new — if the ground opens up and swallows them with everything they own, and they go down alive to Sh’ol — then you will understand that these men have had contempt for Adonai.”
³¹The moment he finished speaking, the ground under them split apart — ³²the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up with their households, all the people who had sided with Korach and everything they owned. ³³So they and everything they owned went down alive into Sh’ol, the earth closed over them and their existence in the community ceased. ³⁴All Isra’el around them fled at their shrieks, shouting, “The earth might swallow us too!” ³⁵Then fire came out from Adonai and destroyed the 250 men who had offered the incense.

17:1 ^(16:36)Adonai said to Moshe, ²^(16:37)“Tell El‘azar the son of Aharon the cohen to remove the fire pans from the fire, and scatter the smoldering coals at a distance, because they have become holy. ³^(16:38)Also the fire pans of these men, whose sin cost them their lives, have become holy, because they were offered before Adonai. Therefore, have them hammered into plates to cover the altar. This will be a sign for the people of Isra’el.”
⁴^(16:39)El‘azar the cohen took the brass fire pans which the men who had been burned to death had offered, and they hammered them into a covering for the altar, ⁵^(16:40)to remind the people of Isra’el that an ordinary person, not descended from Aharon, is not to approach and burn incense before Adonai, if he wants to avoid the fate of Korach and his group — as Adonai had said to him through Moshe.
⁶^(16:41)But the very next day, the whole community of the people of Isra’el complained against Moshe and Aharon: “You have killed Adonai’s people!” ⁷^(16:42)However, as the community was assembling against Moshe and Aharon, they looked in the direction of the tent of meeting and saw the cloud cover it and the glory of Adonai appear. ⁸^(16:43)Moshe and Aharon came to the front of the tent of meeting.
(iv) ⁹^(16:44)Adonai said to Moshe, ¹⁰^(16:45)“Get away from this assembly, and I will destroy them at once!” But they fell on their faces. ¹¹^(16:46)Moshe said to Aharon, “Take your fire pan, put fire from the altar in it, lay incense on it, and hurry with it to the assembly to make atonement for them, because anger has gone out from Adonai, and the plague has already begun!” ¹²^(16:47)Aharon took it, as Moshe had said, and ran into the middle of the assembly. There the plague had already begun among the people, but he added the incense and made atonement for the people. ¹³^(16:48)He stood between the dead and the living, and the plague was stopped. ¹⁴^(16:49)Those dying from the plague numbered 14,700 — besides those who died in the Korach incident. ¹⁵^(16:50)Aharon returned to Moshe at the entrance to the tent of meeting, and the plague was stopped.
(v) ¹⁶⁽¹⁾Adonai said to Moshe, ¹⁷⁽²⁾“Speak to the people of Isra’el, and take from them staffs, one for each ancestral tribe from each leader of a tribe, twelve staffs. Write each man’s name on his staff; ¹⁸⁽³⁾and write Aharon’s name on the staff of Levi, for each tribe’s leader is to have one staff. ¹⁹⁽⁴⁾Put them in the tent of meeting in front of the testimony, where I meet with you. ²⁰⁽⁵⁾The staff of the man I am going to choose will sprout buds — in this way I will put a stop to the complaints the people of Isra’el keep making against you.”
²¹⁽⁶⁾Moshe spoke to the people of Isra’el, and all their leaders gave him staffs, one for each leader, according to their ancestral tribes, twelve staffs. Aharon’s staff was among their staffs. ²²⁽⁷⁾Moshe put the staffs before Adonai in the tent of the testimony. ²³⁽⁸⁾The next day Moshe went into the tent of the testimony, and there he saw that Aharon’s staff for the house of Levi had budded — it had sprouted not only buds but flowers and ripe almonds as well. ²⁴⁽⁹⁾Moshe brought out all the staffs from before Adonai to all the people of Isra’el, and they looked, and each man took back his staff.
(vi) ²⁵⁽¹⁰⁾Adonai said to Moshe, “Return Aharon’s staff to its place in front of the testimony. It is to be kept there as a sign to the rebels, so that they will stop grumbling against me and thus not die.” ²⁶⁽¹¹⁾Moshe did this; he did as Adonai had ordered him.
²⁷⁽¹²⁾But the people of Isra’el said to Moshe, “Oh no! We’re dead men! Lost! We’re all lost! ²⁸⁽¹³⁾Whenever anyone approaches the tabernacle of Adonai, he dies! Will we all perish?”

18:1 Adonai said to Aharon, “You, your sons and your father’s family line will be responsible for anything that goes wrong in the sanctuary. You and your sons with you will be responsible for anything wrong in your service as cohanim. ²But you are to bring your kinsmen, the tribe of Levi, along with yourselves, to work together with you and help you — you and your sons with you — when you are there before the tent of meeting. ³They are to be at your disposal and perform all kinds of tasks related to the tent; only they are not to come near the holy furnishings or the altar, so that neither they nor you will die. ⁴They will work together with you in your duties related to the tent of meeting, whatever the service in the tent may be; but an unauthorized person is not to come near you. ⁵You will take charge of all the holy things and the altar, so that there will no longer be anger against the people of Isra’el. ⁶I myself have taken your kinsmen the L’vi’im from among the people of Isra’el; they have been given as a gift to Adonai for you, so that you can perform the service in the tent of meeting. ⁷You and your sons with you will exercise your prerogatives and duties as cohanim in regard to everything having to do with the altar and within the curtain. I entrust the service required of cohanim to you; the unauthorized person who tries to perform it is to be put to death.”
⁸Adonai said to Aharon, “I myself have put you in charge of the contributions given to me. Everything consecrated by the people of Isra’el I have given and set aside for you and your sons; this is a perpetual law. ⁹Here is what is to be yours of the especially holy things taken from the fire: every offering they make — that is, every grain offering, sin offering and guilt offering of theirs that they turn over to me — will be especially holy for you and your sons. ¹⁰You are to eat it in an especially holy place; every male may eat it; it will be set apart for you.
¹¹“Also yours is the contribution the people of Isra’el give in the form of wave offerings. I have given these to you, your sons and your daughters with you; this is a perpetual law. Everyone in your family who is clean may eat it. ¹²All the best of the olive oil, wine and grain, the first portion of what they give to Adonai, I have given to you. ¹³The first produce to turn ripe of all that is in their land, which they bring to Adonai, is to be yours; every clean person in your family may eat it.
¹⁴“Everything in Isra’el which has been consecrated unconditionally is to be yours.
¹⁵“Everything that comes first out of the womb, of all living things which they offer to Adonai, whether human or animal, will be yours. However, the firstborn of a human being you must redeem, and the firstborn of an unclean beast you are to redeem. ¹⁶The sum to be paid for redeeming anyone a month old or over is to be five shekels of silver [two ounces], as you value it, using the sanctuary shekel (this is the same as twenty gerahs). ¹⁷But the firstborn of an ox, sheep or goat you are not to redeem; they are holy — you are to splash their blood against the altar and make their fat go up in smoke as an offering made by fire, as a fragrant aroma for Adonai. ¹⁸Their meat will be yours, like the breast that is waved and the right thigh — they will be yours. ¹⁹All the contributions of holy things which the people of Isra’el offer to Adonai I have given to you, your sons and your daughters with you; this is a perpetual law, an eternal covenant of salt before Adonai for you and your descendants with you.”
²⁰Adonai said to Aharon, “You are not to have any inheritance or portion in their land; I am your portion and inheritance among the people of Isra’el.
(vii) ²¹“To the descendants of Levi I have given the entire tenth of the produce collected in Isra’el. It is their inheritance in payment for the service they render in the tent of meeting. ²²From now on, the people of Isra’el are not to approach the tent of meeting, so that they will not bear the consequences of their sin and die. ²³Only the L’vi’im are to perform the service in the tent of meeting, and they will be responsible for whatever they do wrong. This is to be a permanent regulation through all your generations. They are to have no inheritance among the people of Isra’el, ²⁴because I have given to the L’vi’im as their inheritance the tenths of the produce which the people of Isra’el set aside as a gift for Adonai. This is why I have said to them that they are to have no inheritance among the people of Isra’el.”
²⁵Adonai said to Moshe, ²⁶“Tell the L’vi’im, ‘When you take from the people of Isra’el the tenth of the produce which I have given you from them as your inheritance, you are to set aside from it a gift for Adonai, one tenth of the tenth. ²⁷The gift you set aside will be accounted to you as if it were grain from the threshing-floor and grape juice from the wine vat. ²⁸In this way you will set aside a gift for Adonai from all your tenths that you receive from the people of Isra’el, and from these tenths you are to give to Aharon the cohen the gift set aside for Adonai. ²⁹From everything given to you, you are to set aside all that is due Adonai, the best part of it, its holy portion.’
(Maftir) ³⁰“Therefore you are to tell them, ‘When you set aside from it its best part, it will be accounted to the L’vi’im as if it were grain from the threshing-floor and grape juice from the wine vat. ³¹You may eat it anywhere, you and your households; because it is your payment in return for your service in the tent of meeting. ³²Moreover, because you will have set aside from it its best parts, you will not be committing any sin because of it; for you are not to profane the holy things of the people of Isra’el, or you will die.’”

Shabbat Rosh Chodesh: Numbers 28:9-15

Numbers 28:⁹“‘On Shabbat offer two male lambs in their first year and without defect, with one gallon of fine flour as a grain offering, mixed with olive oil, and its drink offering. ¹⁰This is the burnt offering for every Shabbat, in addition to the regular burnt offering and its drink offering.¹¹“‘At each Rosh-Hodesh of yours, you are to present a burnt offering to Adonai consisting of two young bulls, one ram and seven male lambs in their first year and without defect; ¹²with six quarts of fine flour mixed with olive oil as a grain offering for the one ram; ¹³and two quarts of fine flour mixed with olive oil as a grain offering for each lamb. This will be the burnt offering giving a fragrant aroma, an offering made by fire for Adonai. ¹⁴Their drink offerings will be two quarts of wine for a bull, one-and-one-third quarts for the ram, and one quart for each lamb. This is the burnt offering for every Rosh-Hodesh throughout the months of the year. ¹⁵Also a male goat is to be offered as a sin offering to Adonai, in addition to the regular burnt offering and its drink offering.

Shabbat Rosh Chodesh / Machar Chodesh: Isaiah 66:1-24; Isaiah 66:23; Samuel I 20:18; Samuel I 20:42

Isaiah 66:1 “Heaven is my throne,” says Adonai,“and the earth is my footstool.
What kind of house could you build for me?
What sort of place could you devise for my rest?
²Didn’t I myself make all these things?
This is how they all came to be,”

says Adonai.

“The kind of person on whom I look with favor
is one with a poor and humble spirit,
who trembles at my word.
³Those others might as well kill a person as an ox,
as well break a dog’s neck as sacrifice a lamb,
as well offer pig’s blood as offer a grain offering,
as well bless an idol as burn incense.
Just as these have chosen their ways
and enjoy their disgusting practices,
⁴so I will enjoy making fools of them,
and bring on them the very things they fear.
For when I called, no one answered;
when I spoke, they did not hear.
Instead they did what was evil in my sight
and chose what did not please me.”

⁵Hear the word of Adonai,
you who tremble at his word:
“Your brothers, who hate you and reject you
because of my name, have said:
‘Let Adonai be glorified,
so we can see your joy.’
But they will be put to shame.”
⁶That uproar in the city,
that sound from the temple,
is the sound of Adonai repaying
his foes what they deserve.

⁷Before going into labor, she gave birth;
before her pains came, she delivered a male child.
⁸Who ever heard of such a thing?
Who has ever seen such things?
Is a country born in one day?
Is a nation brought forth all at once?
For as soon as Tziyon went into labor,
she brought forth her children.
⁹“Would I let the baby break through
and not be born?” asks Adonai.
“Would I, who cause the birth,
shut the womb?” asks your God.

¹⁰Rejoice with Yerushalayim!
Be glad with her, all you who love her!
Rejoice, rejoice with her,
all of you who mourned for her;
¹¹so that you nurse and are satisfied
by her comforting breast,
drinking deeply and delighting
in the overflow of her glory.

¹²For Adonai says, “I will spread shalom
over her like a river,
and the wealth of nations
like a flooding stream;
you will nurse and be carried in her arm
and cuddled in her lap.
¹³Like someone comforted by his mother,
I will comfort you;
in Yerushalayim
you will be comforted.”

¹⁴Your heart will rejoice at the sight,
your bodies will flourish like newly sprouted grass.
It will be known that the hand of Adonai
is with his servants; but with his enemies, his fury.

¹⁵For — look! — Adonai will come in fire,
and his chariots will be like the whirlwind,
to render his anger furiously,
his rebuke with blazing fire.
¹⁶For Adonai will judge all humanity
with fire and with the sword,
and those slain by Adonai will be many.

¹⁷“Those who consecrate and purify themselves
in order to enter the gardens,
then follow the one who was already there,
eating pig meat, reptiles and mice,
will all be destroyed together,” says Adonai.
¹⁸“For I [know] their deeds and their thoughts.

“[The time] is coming when I will gather together all nations and languages. They will come and see my glory, ¹⁹and I will give them a sign. I will send some of their survivors to the nations of Tarshish, Pul, Lud (these are archers), Tuval, Greece and more distant coasts, where they have neither heard of my fame nor seen my glory. They will proclaim my glory in these nations; ²⁰and they will bring all your kinsmen out of all the nations as an offering to Adonai — on horses, in chariots, in wagons, on mules, on camels — to my holy mountain Yerushalayim,” says Adonai, “just as the people of Isra’el themselves bring their offerings in clean vessels to the house of Adonai. ²¹I will also take cohanim and L’vi’im from them,” says Adonai.
²²“For just as the new heavens and the new earth that I am making will continue in my presence,” says Adonai, “so will your descendants and your name continue.

²³“Every month on Rosh-Hodesh
and every week on Shabbat,
everyone living will come
to worship in my presence,” says Adonai.
²⁴“As they leave, they will look on the corpses
of the people who rebelled against me.
For their worm will never die,
and their fire will never be quenched;
but they will be abhorrent
to all humanity.”

[“Every month on Rosh-Hodesh
and every week on Shabbat,
everyone living will come
to worship in my presence,” says Adonai.]

Isaiah 66:23

Isaiah 66:²³“Every month on Rosh-Hodesh
and every week on Shabbat,
everyone living will come
to worship in my presence,” says Adonai.

1 Samuel 201 Samuel 20:¹⁸Y’honatan said to him, “Tomorrow is Rosh-Hodesh, and you will be missed, because your seat will be empty.

1 Samuel 20:42Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)⁴²Y’honatan said to David, “Go in peace; because we have sworn, both of us, in the name of Adonai, that Adonai will be between me and you, and between my descendants and yours, forever.”

Today's Laws & Customs:

• Rosh Chodesh Observances

Today is the first of the two Rosh Chodesh ("Head of the Month") days for the Hebrew month of "Tammuz" (when a month has 30 days, both the last day of the month and the first day of the following month serve as the following month's Rosh Chodesh).

Special portions are added to the daily prayers: Hallel (Psalms 113-118) is recited -- in its "partial" form -- following the Shacharit morning prayer, and the Yaaleh V'yavo prayer is added to the Amidah and to Grace After Meals; the additional Musaf prayer is said (when Rosh Chodesh is Shabbat, special additions are made to the Shabbat Musaf). Tachnun (confession of sins) and similar prayers are omitted.

Many have the custom to mark Rosh Chodesh with a festive meal and reduced work activity. The latter custom is prevalent amongst women, who have a special affinity with Rosh Chodesh -- the month being the feminine aspect of the Jewish Calendar.

Links: The 29th Day; The Lunar Files

• Ethics of the Fathers: Chapter 4

During the summer months, from the Shabbat after Passover until the Shabbat before Rosh Hashahah, we study a weekly chapter of the Talmud's Ethics of the Fathers ("Avot") each Shabbat afternoon; this week we study Chapter Four.

Link: Ethics of the Fathers, Chapter 4

Daily Torah Study:

Chumash: with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation
• Video Class
• Daily Wisdom (short insight)

Numbers Chapter 18

21And to the descendants of Levi, I have given all tithes of Israel as an inheritance, in exchange for their service which they perform-the service of the Tent of Meeting.		כאוְלִבְנֵ֣י לֵוִ֔י הִנֵּ֥ה נָתַ֛תִּי כָּל־מַֽעֲשֵׂ֥ר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לְנַֽחֲלָ֑ה חֵ֤לֶף עֲבֹֽדָתָם֙ אֲשֶׁר־הֵ֣ם עֹֽבְדִ֔ים אֶת־עֲבֹדַ֖ת אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵֽד:
22The children of Israel shall therefore no longer approach the Tent of Meeting, lest they bear sin and die.		כבוְלֹֽא־יִקְרְב֥וּ ע֛וֹד בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל אֶל־אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֑ד לָשֵׂ֥את חֵ֖טְא לָמֽוּת:
23The Levites shall perform the service of the Tent of Meeting, and they will bear their iniquity; it is an eternal statute for your generations, but among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance.		כגוְעָבַ֨ד הַלֵּוִ֜י ה֗וּא אֶת־עֲבֹדַת֙ אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֔ד וְהֵ֖ם יִשְׂא֣וּ עֲו‍ֹנָ֑ם חֻקַּ֤ת עוֹלָם֙ לְדֹרֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם וּבְתוֹךְ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יִנְחֲל֖וּ נַֽחֲלָֽה:
and they: The Levites shall bear the iniquity of the Israelites, for it is their duty to warn outsiders against approaching them.		והם: הלוים ישאו עונם של ישראל, שעליהם להזהיר הזרים מגשת אליהם:
24For the tithes of the children of Israel, which they shall set aside for the Lord as a gift, I have given to the Levites as an inheritance. Thus, I have said to them that they shall have no inheritance among the children of Israel.		כדכִּ֞י אֶת־מַעְשַׂ֣ר בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָרִ֤ימוּ לַֽיהֹוָה֙ תְּרוּמָ֔ה נָתַ֥תִּי לַֽלְוִיִּ֖ם לְנַֽחֲלָ֑ה עַל־כֵּן֙ אָמַ֣רְתִּי לָהֶ֔ם בְּתוֹךְ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יִנְחֲל֖וּ נַֽחֲלָֽה:
which they shall set aside for the Lord as a gift: Heb. תְּרוּמָה. Scripture calls it תְּרוּמָה, a gift, until he separates a gift [for the kohanim] from the tithes [received by the Levite from an Israelite]. — [Sifrei Korach 53]		אשר ירימו לה' תרומה: הכתוב קראו תרומה עד שיפריש ממנו תרומת מעשר:
25The Lord spoke to Moses, saying:		כהוַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־משֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר:
26Speak to the Levites and tell them, "When you take the tithe from the children of Israel which I have given you from them as your inheritance, you shall set aside from it a gift for the Lord, a tithe of the tithe.		כווְאֶל־הַֽלְוִיִּ֣ם תְּדַבֵּר֘ וְאָֽמַרְתָּ֣ אֲלֵהֶם֒ כִּֽי־תִ֠קְח֠וּ מֵאֵ֨ת בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל אֶת־הַמַּֽעֲשֵׂ֗ר אֲשֶׁ֨ר נָתַ֧תִּי לָכֶ֛ם מֵֽאִתָּ֖ם בְּנַֽחֲלַתְכֶ֑ם וַֽהֲרֵֽמֹתֶ֤ם מִמֶּ֨נּוּ֙ תְּרוּמַ֣ת יְהֹוָ֔ה מַֽעֲשֵׂ֖ר מִן־הַמַּֽעֲשֵֽׂר:
27Your gift shall be considered for you as grain from the threshing-floor and as the produce of the vat.		כזוְנֶחְשַׁ֥ב לָכֶ֖ם תְּרֽוּמַתְכֶ֑ם כַּדָּגָן֙ מִן־הַגֹּ֔רֶן וְכַֽמְלֵאָ֖ה מִן־הַיָּֽקֶב:
Your gift shall be considered for you, as grain from the threshing-floor: Your gift separated from the tithe is forbidden to outsiders and to ritually unclean [people], and they incur the death penalty and [if eaten unintentionally] and [they are liable to pay] an additional fifth, just as in the case of the gift set aside by Israelites for the kohanim, which is called the first grain from the threshing-floor. — [Midrash Aggadah]		ונחשב לכם תרומתכם כדגן מן הגרן: תרומת מעשר שלכם אסורה לזרים ולטמאים וחייבין עליה מיתה וחומש כתרומה גדולה שנקראת ראשית דגן מן הגורן:
and the produce of the vat: Like the gifts of wine and oil taken from the vats.		וכמלאה מן היקב: כתרומת תירוש ויצהר הניטלת מן היקבים:
produce: Heb. מְלֵאָה, lit., fullness, a term denoting ripening produce which has grown to its full [size].		מלאה: לשון בישול תבואה שנתמלאת:
vat: Heb. יֶקֶב. This is the pit in front of the press into which the wine flows. The term יֶקֶב always denotes an excavation in the ground. Similarly,“the pits (יִקְבֵי) of the king” (Zech. 14:10), referring to the ocean-an excavation ‘dug’ by the King of the world. - [Peskita d’Rav Kahana p. 143; see also Song Rabbah 7:3, Mattenoth Kehunnah, Redal]		יקב: הוא הבור שלפני הגת שהיין יורד לתוכו. וכל לשון יקב חפירת קרקע הוא, וכן (זכריה יד, י) יקבי המלך, הוא ים אוקיינוס חפירה שחפר מלכו של עולם:
28So shall you too set aside a gift for the Lord from all the tithes you take from the children of Israel, and you shall give thereof the Lord's gift to Aaron the priest.		כחכֵּ֣ן תָּרִ֤ימוּ גַם־אַתֶּם֙ תְּרוּמַ֣ת יְהֹוָ֔ה מִכֹּל֙ מַעְשְׂרֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֣ר תִּקְח֔וּ מֵאֵ֖ת בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וּנְתַתֶּ֤ם מִמֶּ֨נּוּ֙ אֶת־תְּרוּמַ֣ת יְהֹוָ֔ה לְאַֽהֲרֹ֖ן הַכֹּהֵֽן:
So shall you too set aside: Just as the Israelites set aside [a portion] from their threshing-floors and from their wine vats [for the kohanim], so shall you, too, set aside [a portion] from your tithes, for that is your inheritance.		כן תרימו גם אתם: כמו שישראל מרימים מגרנם ומיקביהם תרימו גם אתם ממעשר שלכם, כי הוא נחלתכם:
29From all your gifts, you shall set aside every gift of the Lord, from its choicest portion, that part of it which is to be consecrated."		כטמִכֹּל֙ מַתְּנֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם תָּרִ֕ימוּ אֵ֖ת כָּל־תְּרוּמַ֣ת יְהֹוָ֑ה מִכָּ֨ל־חֶלְבּ֔וֹ אֶת־מִקְדְּשׁ֖וֹ מִמֶּֽנּוּ:
From all that is given to you, you shall set aside all God’s gifts: Scripture refers to terumah gedolah [the gift set aside by the Israelites for the kohanim]. If the Levite preceded the kohen to the bin and accepted his tithes before the kohen took his terumah gedolah from the storage bin, the Levite must first separate one fiftieth from the tithe as terumah gedolah and then again separate another gift from the tithe. — [Shab. 127b]		מכל מתנתיכם תרימו את כל תרומת ה': בתרומה גדולה הכתוב מדבר, שאם הקדים לוי את הכהן בכרי וקבל מעשרותיו קודם שיטול כהן תרומה גדולה מן הכרי, צריך להפריש הלוי מן המעשר תחלה אחד מחמשים לתרומה גדולה, ויחזור ויפריש תרומת מעשר:
30Say to them, "When you separate its choicest part, it shall be considered for the Levites as produce from the threshing-floor and as produce from the vat.		לוְאָֽמַרְתָּ֖ אֲלֵהֶ֑ם בַּֽהֲרִֽימְכֶ֤ם אֶת־חֶלְבּוֹ֙ מִמֶּ֔נּוּ וְנֶחְשַׁב֙ לַֽלְוִיִּ֔ם כִּתְבוּאַ֥ת גֹּ֖רֶן וְכִתְבוּאַ֥ת יָֽקֶב:
When you separate its choicest part: After you have separated a gift from the tithes.		בהרימכם את חלבו ממנו: לאחר שתרימו תרומת מעשר ממנו:
it shall be considered: The remainder shall be for the Levites and contain no sanctity whatsoever.		ונחשב: המותר ללוים חולין גמורין:
As produce from the threshing-floor: For the Israelites. So that you should not say: Since Scripture calls it תְּרוּמָה, “a gift,” as it says,“For the tithes of the children of Israel, which they shall set aside for the Lord as a gift” (18:24), one might think it is completely forbidden [i.e., that it would retain its sanctity]. Thus, Scripture tells us that it shall be considered to the Levites like the produce of the threshing-floor; just as that of the Israelites is non-sacred [after the terumah gift has been set aside from it], so is that of the Levites non-sacred. — [Sifrei Korach 70]		כתבואת גרן: לישראל, שלא תאמר הואיל וקראו הכתוב תרומה שנאמר כי את מעשר בני ישראל אשר ירימו לה' תרומה, יכול יהא כולו אסור, תלמוד לומר ונחשב ללוים כתבואת גרן, מה של ישראל חולין, אף של לוי חולין:
31You and your household may eat it anywhere, for it is your wage for you in exchange for your service in the Tent of Meeting.		לאוַֽאֲכַלְתֶּ֤ם אֹתוֹ֙ בְּכָל־מָק֔וֹם אַתֶּ֖ם וּבֵֽיתְכֶ֑ם כִּֽי־שָׂכָ֥ר הוּא֙ לָכֶ֔ם חֵ֥לֶף עֲבֹֽדַתְכֶ֖ם בְּאֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵֽד:
Anywhere: Even in a cemetery. — [Sifrei Korach 71, Yev. 86b]		בכל מקום: אפילו בבית הקברות:
32After you separate the choicest part from it, you shall not bear any sin on account of it, but you shall not profane the sacred [offerings] of the children of Israel, so that you shall not die.		לבוְלֹֽא־תִשְׂא֤וּ עָלָיו֙ חֵ֔טְא בַּֽהֲרִֽימְכֶ֥ם אֶת־חֶלְבּ֖וֹ מִמֶּ֑נּוּ וְאֶת־קָדְשֵׁ֧י בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל לֹ֥א תְחַלְּל֖וּ וְלֹ֥א תָמֽוּתוּ:
You shall not bear any sin on account of it: However, if you do not set aside [a portion], you will bear a sin. — [Yev. 89b, Rashi]		ולא תשאו עליו חטא וגו': הא אם לא תרימו תשאו חטא:
So that you shall not die: However, if you do profane it, you shall die. — [Bech. 26b]		ולא תמותו: הא אם תחללו תמותו:

Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 145 - 150
• Hebrew text
• English text

Chapter 145

One who recites this psalm three times daily with absolute concentration is guaranteed a portion in the World to Come. Because of its prominence, this psalm was composed in alphabetical sequence.

1. A psalm of praise by David: I will exalt You, my God the King, and bless Your Name forever.

2. Every day I will bless You, and extol Your Name forever.

3. The Lord is great and exceedingly exalted; there is no limit to His greatness.

4. One generation to another will laud Your works, and tell of Your mighty acts.

5. I will speak of the splendor of Your glorious majesty and of Your wondrous deeds.

6. They will proclaim the might of Your awesome acts, and I will recount Your greatness.

7. They will express the remembrance of Your abounding goodness, and sing of Your righteousness.

8. The Lord is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and of great kindness.

9. The Lord is good to all, and His mercies extend over all His works.

10. Lord, all Your works will give thanks to You, and Your pious ones will bless You.

11. They will declare the glory of Your kingdom, and tell of Your strength,

12. to make known to men His mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of His kingdom.

13. Your kingship is a kingship over all worlds, and Your dominion is throughout all generations.

14. The Lord supports all who fall, and straightens all who are bent.

15. The eyes of all look expectantly to You, and You give them their food at the proper time.

16. You open Your hand and satisfy the desire of every living thing.

17. The Lord is righteous in all His ways, and benevolent in all His deeds.

18. The Lord is close to all who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in truth.

19. He fulfills the desire of those who fear Him, hears their cry and delivers them.

20. The Lord watches over all who love Him, and will destroy all the wicked.

21. My mouth will utter the praise of the Lord, and let all flesh bless His holy Name forever.

Chapter 146

This psalm inspires man to repent and perform good deeds while still alive. Let him not rely on mortals who are unable to help themselves, and who may suddenly pass on. Rather, one should put his trust in God, Who is capable of carrying out all He desires.

1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord, O my soul.

2. I will sing to the Lord with my soul; I will chant praises to my God while I yet exist.

3. Do not place your trust in nobles, nor in mortal man who has not the ability to bring deliverance.

4. When his spirit departs, he returns to his earth; on that very day, his plans come to naught.

5. Fortunate is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope rests upon the Lord his God.

6. He makes the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them; He keeps His promise faithfully forever.

7. He renders justice to the oppressed; He gives food to the hungry; the Lord releases those who are bound.

8. The Lord opens the eyes of the blind; the Lord straightens those who are bowed; the Lord loves the righteous.

9. The Lord watches over the strangers; He gives strength to orphan and widow; He thwarts the way of the wicked.

10. The Lord shall reign forever, your God, O Zion, throughout all generations. Praise the Lord!

Chapter 147

This psalm recounts God's greatness, and His kindness and goodness to His creations.

1. Praise the Lord! Sing to our God for He is good; praise befits Him for He is pleasant.

2. The Lord is the rebuilder of Jerusalem; He will gather the banished of Israel.

3. He heals the broken-hearted, and bandages their wounds.

4. He counts the number of the stars; He gives a name to each of them.

5. Great is our Master and abounding in might; His understanding is beyond reckoning.

6. The Lord strengthens the humble; He casts the wicked to the ground.

7. Lift your voices to the Lord in gratitude; sing to our God with the harp.

8. He covers the heaven with clouds; He prepares rain for the earth, and makes grass grow upon the mountains.

9. He gives the animal its food, to the young ravens which cry to Him.

10. He does not desire [those who place their trust in] the strength of the horse, nor does He want those who rely upon the thighs [swiftness] of man.

11. He desires those who fear Him, those who long for His kindness.

12. Praise the Lord, O Jerusalem; Zion, extol your God.

13. For He has strengthened the bolts of your gates; He has blessed your children in your midst.

14. He has made peace within your borders; He satiates you with the finest of wheat.

15. He issues His command to the earth; swiftly does His word run.

16. He dispenses snow like fleece; He scatters frost like ashes.

17. He hurls His ice like morsels; who can withstand His cold?

18. He sends forth His word and melts them; He causes His wind to blow, and the waters flow.

19. He tells His words [Torah] to Jacob, His statutes and ordinances to Israel.

20. He has not done so for other nations, and they do not know [His] ordinances. Praise the Lord!

Chapter 148

The psalmist inspires one to praise God for His creations-above and below-all of which exist by God's might alone.

1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens; praise Him in the celestial heights.

2. Praise Him, all His angels; praise Him, all His hosts.

3. Praise Him, sun and moon; praise Him, all the shining stars.

4. Praise Him, hea-ven of heavens, and the waters that are above the heavens.

5. Let them praise the Name of the Lord, for He comman-ded and they were created.

6. He has established them forever, for all time; He issued a decree, and it shall not be transgressed.

7. Praise the Lord from the earth, sea-monsters and all [that dwell in] the depths;

8. fire and hail, snow and vapor, stormy wind carrying out His command;

9. the mountains and all hills, fruit-bearing trees and all cedars;

10. the beasts and all cattle, creeping things and winged fowl;

11. kings of the earth and all nations, rulers and all judges of the land;

12. young men as well as maidens, elders with young lads.

13. Let them praise the Name of the Lord, for His Name is sublime, to Himself; its radiance [alone] is upon earth and heaven.

14. He shall raise the glory of His people, [increase] the praise of all His pious ones, the Children of Israel, the people close to Him. Praise the Lord!

Chapter 149

1. Praise the Lord! Sing to the Lord a new song, [recount] His praise in the assembly of the pious.

2. Israel will rejoice in its Maker; the children of Zion will delight in their King.

3. They will praise His Name with dancing; they will sing to Him with the drum and harp.

4. For the Lord desires His people; He will adorn the humble with salvation.

5. The pious will exult in glory; they will sing upon their beds.

6. The exaltation of God is in their throat, and a double-edged sword in their hand,

7. to bring retribution upon the nations, punishment upon the peoples;

8. to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with iron fetters;

9. to execute upon them the prescribed judgment; it shall be a glory for all His pious ones. Praise the Lord!

Chapter 150

This psalm contains thirteen praises, alluding to the Thirteen Attributes (of Mercy) with which God conducts the world.

1. Praise the Lord! Praise God in His holiness; praise Him in the firmament of His strength.

2. Praise Him for His mighty acts; praise Him according to His abundant greatness.

3. Praise Him with the call of the shofar; praise Him with harp and lyre.

4. Praise Him with timbrel and dance; praise Him with stringed instruments and flute.

5. Praise Him with resounding cymbals; praise Him with clanging cymbals.

6. Let every soul praise the Lord. Praise the Lord!

Tanya: Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, end of Chapter 9
• English Text (Lessons in Tanya)
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class

Shabbat, Sivan 30, 5777 · June 24, 2017

Today's Tanya Lesson

Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, end of Chapter 9

AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES

• VIDEO CLASS: Rabbi Yehoshua B. Gordon Watch • Listen

• AUDIO CLASS: Rabbi Manis Freidman Listen • Download MP3

הגהה

NOTE

The Alter Rebbe now briefly explains the various tzimtzumim that had to take place in order to enable the attributes of Atzilut to emanate from the [infinite] Ein Sof-light.

סוד הצמצום באור אין סוף ברוך הוא

[This note will outline] the mystical principle of the tzimtzum of the Ein Sof-light,

Before the tzimtzum, G‑d’s infinite manifestation was predominant. Tzimtzum caused His capacity for limitation and finitude, which previously had been submerged within His infinite power, to be revealed.

וצמצום אדם קדמון

and the tzimtzum of Adam Kadmon, which is the highest state of existence after the tzimtzum, and the primal thought that contains and is the source of all subsequent emanations and creations,

וסוד הדיקנא

and the esoteric doctrine of [the tzimtzum of] Dikna.

The life-force that animates hair is exceedingly attentuated, to the point that cutting it causes no pain. Accordingly, the terms Dikna (lit., “beard”) and se‘arot (“hair”) are used to represent a certain form of tzimtzum.1

שסוד כל הצמצומים: לצמצם האור, שיתלבש בבחינת כלים די׳ ספירות

For the underlying purpose of all the contractions is to condense the light, in order to enable it to become enclothed within the vessels of the Ten Sefirot [of the World of Atzilut].

These “vessels” assume the specific form of wisdom or kindness. By contrast, the divine light that permeates these vessels is essentially simple. When, through tzimtzum, the vessels come into being and the light clothes itself within them and becomes fused with them, wisdom and kindness become one with G‑d.

והנה אחר שנתלבש אור אין סוף בבחינת כלים דחב״ד, אז שייך לומר מה שכתב הרמב״ם: הוא היודע והוא המדע והוא הידוע, ובידיעת עצמו וכו׳

It is only after the Ein Sof-light becomes clothed within the vessels of ChaBaD that Maimonides‘ statement [about the Holy One, blessed be He] is in place: “He is the Knower, and He is the Knowledge, and He is the Known,…and by knowing Himself [He knows all creation].”

לפי שבחינת כלים דאצילות נעשים נשמה וחיות לבריאה יצירה עשיה ולכל אשר בהם

For the vessels of Atzilut become the soul and life-force of [the Worlds of] Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah, and all [the creatures] therein.

By “knowing Himself” with the knowledge that is to be found in the vessels of Atzilut, He also knows all the Worlds and creatures of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah, since they derive their life-force from these vessels.

All this, however, can only come about after the various tzimtzumim have brought about the contraction of the light, enabling it to be vested in the vessels of Atzilut.

אבל בלי צמצום והלבשה הנ״ל, לא שייך כלל לומר: הוא היודע והוא המדע וכו׳

However, without the aforesaid tzimtzum and investiture [of the light in the vessels], it is not at all appropriate to say that “He is the Knower and He is the Knowledge...;” i.e., the whole category of knowledge cannot be ascribed to G‑d, even in so exalted a manner as in the statement that “He is the Knower.,”

כי אינו בבחינת וגדר דעת ומדע כלל, חס ושלום

for He is not within the realm and domain of knowing and knowledge at all, G‑d forbid,

אלא למעלה מעלה עילוי רב עד אין קץ, אפילו מבחינת וגדר חכמה

but infinitely elevated above even the level and the bounds of wisdom,

For even the statement that “He is the Knower.” implies restricting G‑d, so to speak, to one particular faculty — viz., wisdom, as distinct from (say) the attribute of kindness or mercy. G‑d, however, utterly transcends all such bounds,

עד שבחינת חכמה נחשבת אצלו יתברך כבחינת עשיה גשמית

to the extent that in relation to Him, the level of wisdom is considered like the level of physical action.

END OF NOTE

Before the note the Alter Rebbe had said that “the manner and nature of the flow and emanation — how and what — is known to the savants.” I.e., it is they who understand how from the Ein Sof-light there emanated the intellectual and emotive attributes, which even after their emanation are so completely fused with G‑d that it can be said that “He is the Knowledge….” The Alter Rebbe now goes on to say:

והנה אין לנו עסק בנסתרות

Now, we are not concerned with esoteric matters — how the emanations of the Sefirot from the Ein Sof-light came about, and the subsequent manner of their unity with Him,

אך הנגלות לנו: להאמין אמונה שלמה דאיהו וגרמוהי חד

but it is incumbent upon us to believe with complete faith, matters that are revealed to us — that He and His attributes, viz., the vessels and Sefirot, are One.

דהיינו: מדותיו של הקב״ה, ורצונו, וחכמתו ובינתו ודעתו עם מהותו ועצמותו

I.e., the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, and His will, and His wisdom and understanding and knowledge, [are One] with His Essence and Being,

המרומם לבדו רוממות אין קץ מבחינת חכמה ושכל והשגה

Who alone is exalted by infinite elevations above the level of wisdom and intellect and comprehension.

ולכן גם יחודו, שמתייחד עם מדותיו שהאציל מאתו יתברך, גם כן אינו בבחינת השגה

Hence, since He totally transcends intellect and comprehension, His union with the attributes which He emanated from Himself is also beyond the realm of comprehension;

להשיג איך מתייחד בהן

[i.e., it is impossible] to understand how He unites with them; rather, this may be apprehended only through faith.

ולכן נקראו מדותיו של הקב״ה, שהן הספירות, בזהר הקדוש: רזא דמהימנותא

In the holy Zohar, therefore, the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, which are the Sefirot, are called “the secret of faith,”

שהיא האמונה שלמעלה מן השכל

which is the faith that transcends intellect, for this concept cannot be grasped intellectually, but only through faith

FOOTNOTES
1.	Note of the Rebbe: “This is explained more extensively in many places in Chassidut, e.g., in Shaar HaYichud [in Ner Mitzvah veTorah Or of the Mitteler Rebbe].”

Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvot:

English Text | Hebrew Text

Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class

Shabbat, Sivan 30, 5777 · June 24, 2017

Today's Mitzvah

A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"

AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES

• VIDEO CLASS: Rabbi Mendel Kaplan Watch • Listen

• AUDIO CLASS: Rabbi Berel Bell Listen • MP3 Download

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 source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "If fire gets out of control and spreads through weeds [...the one who started the fire must pay for the damage.]"
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 2nd and 6th chapters of tractate Bava Kama.

Footnotes

1.Ibid. 22:5.

• 1 Chapter A Day: To`en veNit`an To`en veNit`an - Chapter 14

English Text | Hebrew Text

Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class

To`en veNit`an - Chapter 14

1 If any of the individuals who are not able to establish a claim of ownership by benefiting from a property bring witnesses who testify that the owner sold them this particular field or gave it to them as a present, the testimony is accepted as substantial. There are two exceptions: a robber, and a husband with regard to his wife's property. With regard to which property were the above statements made? With regard to nichsei tzon barzel, a field designated as payment for the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, a field belonging to her and mentioned in her ketubah, or a field that her husband had evaluated in her ketubah as a present for her. With regard to nichsei milog, by contrast, he may bring proof, as stated in Hilchot Ishut.אכל אלו שאין אכילתן ראיה אם הביאו עדים שמכרו להם הבעלים שדה זו או נתנוה להן במתנה ראייתן ראיה, חוץ מן הגזלן והבעל בנכסי אשתו, באי זה נכסים אמרו בנכסי צאן ברזל או בשדה שייחד לה בכתובתה ובשדה שכתב לה בכתובתה ובשדה שנתן לה בשום משלו אבל בנכסי מלוג יש לו ראיה כמו שבארנו בהלכות אישות.

2 What is meant by saying that a robber cannot substantiate the sale of a property? Once it has been established that a person gained possession of a field through robbery, he cannot substantiate his possession of a field even though he brings proof that, in the presence of witnesses, the owner acknowledged the fact that he sold him this field and received payment for it. For the owner can say: "We never sold the field; we acknowledged [the sale only out of fear." In such an instance, we expropriate the field from the robber, and he is not given anything.
If witnesses testify that the robber counted out a specific sum of money to the owner, we expropriate the field from the robber and require the owner to return the money, as stated in Hilchot Gezelah.בכיצד הגזלן אין לו ראיה, כיון שהוחזק גזלן על שדה זו אע"פ שהביא ראיה שהודה הבעל בפני עדים שמכר לו שדה זו ולקח דמים והבעלים אומרים לא מכרנו לך אלא מפני היראה הודינו לו מוציאין את השדה מידו ואין לו כלום, ואם העידו העדים שבפניהם מנה לו כך וכך מוציאין את השדה מיד הגזלן ומחזירין לו הבעלים את הדמים כמו שבארנו בהלכות גזלה.

3 The following rules apply when the son of a craftsman, the son of a sharecropper, or the son of a guardian benefits from a field for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership. If these individuals claim that the owner sold the property to them, or gave it to them as a present, their claim is established. If, however, they claim that the property is an inheritance that they received from their father, who benefited from it for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership, their claim is not accepted.
If they bring witnesses who testify that the owner acknowledged to their father that he sold it or gave it to him, they are allowed to retain possession of the field.גבן האומן ובן האריס וכן /ובן/ האפוטרופוס שאכלו שדה זו שני חזקה, אם טענו שהבעלים מכרו להן או נתנו להן יש להן חזקה, ואם טענו שהיא ירושה להן מאביהם שאכלוה שני חזקה אין להן חזקה, ואם הביאו עדים שהודו הבעלים לאביהן שמכרוה להן או נתנוה מעמידין את השדה בידן.

4 Although the son of a robber brings proof that the owner acknowledged to their father that he sold a property to him, it is of no consequence, as explained above. When, however, a robber's grandson claims that he - or even his father - acquired a property, he can establish a claim of ownership. If, however, his claim is based on his grandfather's acquisition, he cannot establish a claim of ownership.דבן הגזלן אע"פ שהביא ראיה שהודו הבעלים לאביו שמכר אינה ראיה כמו שבארנו, אבל בן בן הגזלן אפילו בא בטענת אביו יש לו חזקה בא בטענת אבי אביו אין לו חזקה.

5 Even though a gentile benefited from a property for several years, he cannot establish a claim of ownership on this basis. If he does not bring a deed of sale, we require that the field be returned to its owner. An oath is not required, for a sh'vu 'at hesset was ordained only when the plaintiff was Jewish.
When a Jew claims a property on the basis of the claim of a gentile, he is governed by the same laws as the gentile, and the fact that he benefited from the property is not significant.ההעכו"ם אפילו אכלה כמה שנים אין אכילתו ראיה, ואם לא הביא שטר תחזור השדה לבעלים בלא שום שבועה שלא תקנו שבועת היסת אלא לישראל וישראל הבא מחמת העכו"ם הרי הוא כעכו"ם שאין אכילתו ראיה. 1

6 If the Jew who acquired the property from the gentile claimed: "In my presence, the gentile who sold me the land acquired this land from the Jew who is disputing my claim," his claim is accepted, provided that he supports it with a sh'vu 'at hesset. The rationale is that since the claimant could have asserted: "I acquired it from you and I benefited from it for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership," we accept his word when he asserts: "I acquired it from so-and-so who, in my presence, acquired it from you."וטען זה הישראל הבא מחמת העכו"ם ואמר בפני לקחה העכו"ם שמכר לי מזה הישראל המערער עלי הרי זה נאמן וישבע היסת על כך מתוך שיכול לומר אני לקחתיה ממך והרי אכלתיה שני חזקה יכול לומר מפלוני לקחתיה שבפני לקחה ממך.

7 A claim of ownership cannot be established with regard to property inherited by a minor, even when the minor later attains majority. What is implied? A person benefited from property inherited by a minor for one year in the minor's presence before the minor attained majority, and for two years after he attained majority. Although he claims: "You sold it to me" or "You gave it to me," his claim is not accepted unless he benefits from the property for three consecutive years after he attains majority.זאין מחזיקין בנכסי קטן ואפילו הגדיל, כיצד אכלה בפניו כשהוא קטן שנה אחת ושתים אחר שהגדיל וטען אתה מכרת לי אתה נתת לי אין זה כלום עד שיאכל שלש שנים רצופות אחר שהגדיל. 2

8 The following rules apply when a person maintains possession of property belonging to a minor for many years and claims: "I am maintaining possession of it as security, and I am owed this-and-this on its account." Since if he had desired, he could have said: "I purchased it," his word is accepted, for it has not been established that the property belonged to this person's father. Hence, the person in possession may collect what he claims from the property' s increase in value. The property itself is then returned to the orphans.
If, however, the property is reputed to belong to the orphans, the claim of the person in possession is not accepted. The rationale is that a claim of ownership cannot be established over property belonging to a minor. Instead, the field and all the produce that the person used must be returned to the orphans. When they come of age, the plaintiff will lodge a claim against them. 6חמי שהחזיק בנכסי קטן שנים רבות וטען ואמר משכונה הן בידי ויש לי חובה עליהן כך וכך, הואיל ואילו רצה אמר לקוחים הן בידי נאמן שהרי אינה מוחזקת שהיה לאביו של זה והרי זה גובה משבחה מה שטען ותחזור ליתומים, אבל אם יצא עליה קול שהיא של יתומים אינו נאמן שהרי אין מחזיקין בנכסי קטן ותחזור השדה וכל הפירות שאכל ליתומים עד שיגדלו ויעשה עמהן דין. 3

9 Different rules apply if the person in possession benefited from the field for the time necessary to establish a claim of ownership during the lifetime of the orphans' father. Since he could have claimed that he is the owner because he purchased it from their father, we accept his word when he claims that a debt is owed him by their father. He collects the debt from the produce of the field. Since he could say that the produce belongs to him, he is not required to take an oath concerning it.טאכלה שני חזקה בחיי אביהן מתוך שיכול לומר לקוחה היא בידי מאביהן נאמן לומר חוב יש לי על אביהן, וגובה אותו מן הפירות וגובהו שלא בשבועה מתוך שיכול לומר שלי הן. 4

10 When a person has to flee because of a danger to his life - e.g., the king desired to kill him - a claim of ownership cannot be established with regard to his property. Even if the person in possession of it derived benefit for several years and claimed that he purchased it, the fact that he derived benefit is not significant. We do not tell the owner of the field: "Why didn't you protest?" For the answer is obvious; he was concerned over his life. If, however, a person flees because of financial matters, he is considered like any other person. Thus, if he does not protest, a claim of ownership can be established over his property.יבורח שברח מחמת סכנת נפשות כגון שהיה המלך מבקש להמיתו, אין מחזיקין בנכסיו אפילו אכל המחזיק כמה שנים וטען שלקח אין אכילתו ראיה, ואין אומרים לבעל השדה למה לא מחית מפני שהוא מתעסק בנפשו, אבל הבורח מחמת ממון הרי הוא ככל אדם ואם לא מיחה מחזיקין בנכסיו.

11 A claim of ownership can be established over the property of a married woman.
What is implied? A person benefited from the land for a portion of the period necessary to establish a claim of ownership during the lifetime of the woman's husband, and for three years after the husband's death. If he claims: "You and your husband sold it to me," he is allowed to maintain possession. The rationale is that since the person in possession could say: "I purchased it from you after the death of your husband" - for he benefited from it for the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership after the death of her husband and she did not protest his word is accepted with regard to the claim mentioned above.
If, however, he benefited from the property for several years during the lifetime of her husband, but did not benefit from it for the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership after the death of her husband, he does not establish a claim of ownership.יאמחזיקין בנכסי אשת איש, כיצד אכלה מקצת שני חזקה בחיי הבעל ושלש שנים אחר מיתת הבעל, וטען ואמר מכרתה /מכרת/ לי את ובעליך מעמידין אותה בידו מתוך שיכול לומר ממך לקחתיה אחר מות בעליך שהרי אכלה שני חזקה אחר מיתת הבעל ולא מיחת בו, אבל אם אכלה בחיי בעלה כמה שנים ולא אכלה שני חזקה אחר מיתת בעלה אין לו חזקה.

12 Possession of property for the time necessary to establish a claim of ownership is of no consequence unless it is accompanied by a claim of acquisition.
What is implied? A person benefited from the produce of a field for several years. Afterwards, the person raising the protest comes and claims: "How did you acquire this field? It's mine."
The person in possession responds: "I don't know who the owner is. Since no one said anything to me about it. I took possession of it."
This does not establish a claim of ownership. For he is not claiming that he acquired it, that it was given to him, or that he inherited it. Nevertheless, even though he does not issue such a demand, the field is not expropriated from him until the person protesting brings witnesses that the field belongs to him. When, however, he brings witnesses, the field and all the benefit that he received from it is expropriated from the squatter.
We do not open by asking the squatter: "Perhaps you had a deed of acquisition and you lost it." He must make such a claim on his own. If he does not make such a claim, he must return all the produce that he reaped. Similarly, when a person benefits from a field for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership on the basis of a deed of sale, and that deed of sale was disqualified, the claim of ownership established is nullified. The field and all of the produce reaped must be returned to the original owner.יבכל חזקה שאין עמה טענה אינה חזקה, כיצד הרי שאכל פירות שדה זו כמה שנים ובא המערער ואמר לו מאין לך שדה זו שלי הוא השיבו ואמר לו איני יודע של מי היא וכיון שלא אמר לי אדם כלום ירדתי לתוכה, אין זו חזקה שהרי לא טען שלקחה ולא שנתנה לו ולא שירשה, ואע"פ שלא טען אין מוציאין אותה מידו עד שיביא זה המערער עדים שהיא שלו, הביא עדים תחזור לו השדה ומוציאין מזה כל הפירות שאכל ואין פותחין לזה המחזיק תחלה ואין אומרים שמא שטר היה לך ואבד עד שיטעון מעצמו ואם לא טען יחזיר כל הפירות שאכל, וכן האוכל שני חזקה מחמת שיש שטר בידו ונמצא השטר בטל בטלה החזקה ותחזור השדה עם כל הפירות לבעלים.

13 When a person claims ownership of a field as an inheritance, he must bring proof that his father dwelled in or used this field for even one day. Once that is accomplished, since he benefited from the field for three years on the basis of his father's ownership, he is allowed to retain possession.
If, however, he did not bring proof that his father lived in it at all, the field and all of the produce reaped must be returned to the person lodging the protest, if he brings witnesses who testify that the field belongs to him. The rationale is that the person in possession does not claim that the owner sold or gave him the field, and it is not known that the field belonged to his ancestors.
If the person in possession brought proof that his father was seen in the field, it is of no consequence. Perhaps he went to inspect it and did not purchase it. Instead, he must bring proof that his father dwelled there for at least one day.יגהבא מחמת ירושה צריך להביא ראיה שדר אביו בשדה זו או נשתמש בה אפילו יום אחד וכיון שאכלה הוא שלש שנים מחמת אביו מעמידין אותה בידו, אבל אם לא הביא ראיה שדר בה אביו כלל תחזור השדה וכל הפירות למערער שיש לו עדים שהוא שלו, שהרי אינו טוען עליו שמכר או נתן לו ולא נודעה קרקע זו לאבותיו, הביא ראיה שנראה בה אביו אינה כלום שמא בא לבקר אותה ולא קנאה, אלא צריך להביא ראיה שדר אביו בה אפילו יום אחד.

14 The following laws apply when a person benefited from a field for many years and the person raising the protest states: "What are you doing in this field?"
The person in possession acknowledges the truth of his statements, but says: "I know that it once belonged to you, but so-and-so sold it to me, and he purchased it from you."
The person raising the protest states: "So-and-so, the person who sold you the field, is a robber."
Since the person in possession admitted that the field belonged to him and that he did not purchase it from him, the field and all of its produce must be returned to the person raising the protest. This applies even though that person does not bring witnesses that the field belongs to him. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
If the person in possession brings witnesses who testify that the person who sold the field to him lived in it for even one day or he told him, "He purchased it from you in my presence and afterwards he sold it to me," he is allowed to retain possession, for he has a definite claim and he has established a claim of ownership. If he desired, he could have claimed: "I purchased it from you." His claim would have been accepted, for he lived in it long enough to establish a claim of ownership.ידהרי שאכל שדה זו שנים רבות ובא המערער ואמר לו מה לך ולשדה זו הודה ואמר לו יודע אני שהיתה שלך אבל פלוני מכרה לי והוא לקחה ממך, ואמר לו המערער פלוני שמכר לך גזלן הוא, הואיל והודה שהוא שלו ושלא לקחה ממנו תחזור השדה וכל הפירות למערער אע"פ שאין לזה המערער עדים שהיא שלו וכן כל כיוצא בזה, הביא זה המחזיק עדים שפלוני שמכר לו דר בה אפילו יום אחד או שאמר לו בפני לקח ממך ואחר כך מכרה לי, מעמידין אותה בידו שהרי יש לו טענה עם חזקתו ואילו רצה טען ואמר ממך לקחתיה שהרי יש לו שני חזקה.

Footnotes

העכו"ם אפילו אכלה כמה שנים וכו' עד ואין אכילתו ראיה. א"א יש כאן שבוש ואומר אני שאם מכרה לישראל שישבע היסת אע"פ שבא מחמת העכו"ם עכ"ל.

אין מחזיקין בנכסי קטן וכו' עד אחר שהגדיל. א"א אינו כן אלא אפילו אכלה שלש שנים אחר שהגדיל אינה חזקה וכן נראה מן הגמרא עכ"ל.

מי שהחזיק בנכסי קטן וכו' עד ותחזור ליתומים. א"א נראה מדבריו דמעשה דרבה בר שרשום מוקי לה בשאינה ידועה שהיתה של אביה ואם כן למה ליה למימר מגו דאי בעי אמר לקוחה היא בידו לימא דאי בעי אמר דידי היא ועוד משום קלא מבטלין מגו וחזקה דממונא ואיהו הוה מוחזק ואבוהון דיתמי לא הוה מוחזק אלא ודאי בחזקת אבוהון הות מיהו כיון דאכלה שני חזקה בחיי אבוהון בלא מחאה איכא מגו ואי לאו קלא הוה מהימן במגו והשתא דאיכא קלא לא אמרינן ומוקמי ארעא בחזקת אבהתא והאי דינא דקושטא עכ"ל.

אכלה שני חזקה בחיי אביהם וכו' עד מתוך שיכול לומר שלי היא. א"א נראה מדבריו אפילו יצא עליו קול שהיא של יתומים וזהו טעות גדולה דאיהי היא ועוד אני אומר שלא יועיל מגו לגבות לכתחלה בלא שבועה מידי דהוה אנשבע על המשכון שאמרו הגאונים שהוא נשבע ונוטל ורבה בר שרשום דקא בעי למפטר נפשיה משבועה אחר אכילה קאמר בין תבין עכ"ל.

• 3 Chapters A Day: Hilchot Nizkei Mamon Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Nine, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Ten, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Eleven

English Text | Hebrew Text

Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class

Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Nine

1When 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.2אבהמה מעוברת שהזיקה גובה חצי נזק ממנה ומולדה מפני שהוא מגופה. אבל תרנגולת שהזיקה אינו גובה מביצתה מפני שהביצה אינה מגופה אבל מובדלת ומופרשת ממנה:

2When 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.3במעוברת 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.5גשור 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:

4When [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.דנגח 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:

5If the cow 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.ההיתה 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.ושור 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 is tam].14 If both oxen are mu'adim, he must pay the full amount of the damage from his property.זאד 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:

8When 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."15חבמה 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.טהיו 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:

10If 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].ילא 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 נשבע שבועת התורה ומשלם כמו שהודה שהרי הודה במקצת:

11[The following rules apply when] two oxen were damaged, one large and one small, and there were two oxen that caused the damage, one large and one small. The person whose oxen were damaged claims: the large ox damaged the large ox, and the small ox damaged the small ox.22 The person whose oxen caused the damage, by contrast claims: "No. It was the small ox that damaged the large one, and the large ox that damaged the small one." [A similar dispute arises if] one [of the oxen that caused the damage] was mu'ad and the other tam. The person whose oxen were damaged claims: the ox that was mu'ad damaged the large ox, and the ox that was tam damaged the small ox.23 By contrast, the person whose oxen caused the damage claims: "It was the ox that was tam that damaged the large one, and the ox that was mu'ad that damaged the small one."[In both these instances,] the burden of proof is upon the one who wishes to exact payment. If there is no proof,24 the one who caused the damage is not liable [at all]. To what can this be compared? To an instance where a person claims that a colleague owes him wheat, and the colleague admits to owing him barley. In such a case, [the defendant] is required to take a Rabbinic oath and then is not liable, even for the barley, as will be explained in Hilchot To'en.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.יאהיו 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:

12When 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].28יבשור 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:

13When a person whose [ox] was damaged seizes the animal that caused the damage in order to collect half the damages from its body, he is considered to be a paid watchman with regard to any damages it causes. Therefore, if it causes damages, the person whose ox was first damaged is liable, and its owner is not liable. What is implied? An ox that is worth 200 [zuz] gored [another ox], causing damages of 200 [zuz]. The person whose ox was damaged seized [the goring ox] in order to collect the 100 [zuz] that is due him,29 Afterwards, [the ox that caused the damage] gored [another ox], causing damages of 140 [zuz]. The person whose property was damaged last receives 70 [zuz], the person who took possession of the ox because it damaged his property receives the remainder of the damage done to his ox - 30 zuz30 - and the original owner, 100 zuz.31 The same principles apply in other similar situations.יגניזק 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:

14When two oxen that are tamim gore one another,32 half of the remainder of the damages must be paid to the one whose ox suffered the greater damage. If both oxen were mu'adim or an ox that was mu'ad and a man33 injured one another, the entire amount of the remainder of the damages must be paid to the one whose ox [or the man] who suffered the greatest damage.[The following rules apply if] one of the oxen is tam and one is mu'ad. If [the larger amount of the damage was caused by] the ox that is mu'ad, the entire amount of the remainder of the damages must be paid [to the owner of the tam]. If [the larger amount of the damage was caused by] the ox that is tam, half of the remainder of the damages must be paid [to the owner of the mu'ad.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 tam and the second ox was mu'ad, the owner of the first ox must pay 10.35ידשני 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

1Wherever1 an ox kills a [Jew],2 whether an adult or a child, whether a servant or a free man,3 whether the ox is tam4 or mu'ad, [the ox] must be stoned to death.5If an ox kills a gentile, it is not executed, for this is their law.אשור 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 is mu'ad is liable,7 when his ox is mu'ad to kill.8באחד 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:

3Since every animal, beast or fowl that kills a human being should be stoned to death, how is it possible to find an animal that is mu'ad to kill, so that its owner will be liable to pay an atonement fine?9 It killed three gentiles,10 and then it killed a Jew. For an ox that is mu'ad [to kill] a gentile, is also mu'ad for a Jew.11 Alternatively, it killed three Jews who were classified as t'refot,12 and then killed a healthy person. [Other possible situations are the following:] [On three occasions,] it killed a person and then fled, and it was captured on the fourth occasion. [We must say that it was captured, because] the owners are not obligated to pay an atonement fine unless the ox is executed.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.גוהואיל 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:

4The 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.16דזה 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:

5When 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.17השור של שני שותפין שהרג. כל אחד מהם משלם כופר שלם שהרי כל אחד מהן צריך כפרה גמורה:

6If 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.21ואין 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:

7When 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 שור שהוא טרפה שהרג את הנפש או שהיה השור של אדם טרפה אינו נסקל שנאמר וגם בעליו יומת כמיתת הבעלים כך מיתת השור וכיון שבעליו כמת הם חשובים ואינן צריכין מיתה הרי זה פטור:

8When 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.חהמשסה 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:

9An animal that kills [a person] is not stoned to death unless it had the intent to kill a person for whom it would be executed.24 If, however, an ox intended to kill an animal and instead killed a human being, it intended to kill a gentile and instead killed a Jew, or it intended to gore a stillborn child and instead killed an ordinary child, [the ox] is not executed.25 If [the ox] was mu'ad, the owners are liable to pay the atonement fine or the fine paid for killing a servant. [This applies] even [if the ox] killed unintentionally. [The owners are held responsible] because [the ox] is mu'ad [to kill].טאין 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.יהיה 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:

11The owners are not liable to pay the atonement fine unless their animal kills [the person] outside their property. If, however, [their animal] kills [a person] in a domain belonging to [the owner of the animal], the owner is not liable for the atonement fine,27 although the animal is stoned to death. What is implied? If a person enters a courtyard belonging to a person without his permission28 - even if he enters to demand payment for wages or a debt [owed to him]29 - and an ox belonging to the owner of the courtyard gores him and kills him, the ox should be stoned to death. The owner is, however, free from the atonement fine, because [the deceased] did not have permission to enter his property without his consent.יאאין 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."יבעמד 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:

13When an animal enters a courtyard belonging to another person and kills a child by treading on it as it proceeds, the owner [of the animal] must pay an atonement fine. [The rationale is that an animal is considered to be] mu'ad to tread on things as it proceeds, and in the domain of another person [the owner of animal] is liable for the damages it causes by eating or treading, as explained.30 Thus, one can conclude: When an animal that is mu'ad kills intentionally, it should be stoned to death, and the owners must pay the atonement fine. If it killed unintentionally, it is not liable to be executed, but the owners must pay the atonement fine. When [an animal that is] tam kills unintentionally, it is not liable to be executed, nor must the owners pay the atonement fine. If it intended to kill, it should be stoned to death. The owners, however, are not liable for the atonement fine or for the fine paid for killing a servant.יגבהמה 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:

14It 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.34יד נראה לי שאע"פ שהתם שהמית בכוונה עבד או שפחה פטור מן הקנס שהוא שלשים סלע הכתוב בתורה אם המית שלא בכוונה משלם חצי דמי העבד או חצי דמי השפחה מגופו כאילו המית שור חבירו או חמורו:

Footnotes

1.I.e., in either a private domain or the public domain.

2.This law applies only when the animal kills intentionally, as stated in Halachot 9-10 (Kessef Mishneh).

3.The universality of this law is explicitly stated in Exodus 21:29-32: If it kills a man or a woman, the ox must be stoned.... This law also applies if it gores a boy or a girl. If it gores a servant... or a maid-servant... the ox should be stoned.

4.Exodus 21:28 states that this penalty should be given to an ox that is tam, and the following verse speaks about a mu'ad.

5.See The Guide for the Perplexed, Volume III, Chapter 40, which states that this sentence is not considered punishment to the animal that killed the person, but rather punishment for its owner, so that he will know to restrain his animals. Some of the laws of this chapter (e.g., Halachot 6 and 8) indicate, however, that the intent is to kill an animal that is prone to kill.

6.The verse mentions an ox because it speaks about situations that are most probable.

7.Exodus 21:28, which speaks about an ox that is tam, states: the owner will not be punished. The following verses, which speak about a mu'ad, state that the owner will pay an atonement fine. The nature of that fine is discussed in the following chapter.

8.I.e., that the owner was warned three times that his ox killed (or came close to killing) an animal or a man, as mentioned in the following halachah.

9.I.e., the animal should seemingly have been executed after he killed one human being. How was it possible for him to kill three?

10.In which case it is not obligated to be executed, as stated in Halachah 1.

11.The Maggid Mishneh questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that although Bava Kama 41a, the source for this halachah, mentions this resolution (and the following one), according to the commonly accepted version of the Talmud, it appears that these hypotheses are rejected. The Maggid Mishneh explains that most likely the Rambam possessed a different version of this Talmudic passage.

12.The word t'refah refers to an infirmity that will cause the person (or animal) possessing it to die within a year. Since the person will die anyway, the ox is not executed for killing him (Bava Kama, loc. cit.).

13.There are exceptions to this principle, as reflected in Halachot 9 and 10.

14.In Chapter 6, Halachah 8, the Rambam states that an ox that is mu'ad with regard to a human is not mu'ad with regard to an animal. From that, we can derive that an animal that is mu'ad with regard to an animal is not mu'ad with regard to a human.This does not necessarily represent a contradiction to this halachah. For there, the Rambam is speaking about causing damage, and here we are speaking about causing death (Kessef Mishneh).

15.And it is not a monetary obligation imposed by civil law.

16.With regard to a sin offering or a guilt offering that also comes for the purpose of atonement, we do not find an obligation to expropriate the sacrifice from the person's property. Nevertheless, it is possible to explain that since the atonement fine is paid to a colleague, and not offered in the Temple, people might view its obligation more laxly. See Lechem Mishneh.

17.This is a reflection of the concept that this fine is not recompense for the person's death, but rather a means for the person who caused his death to attain atonement.

18.For whom a guardian was not appointed.

19.The intent is an ox belonging to a minor, deaf mute or mentally incompetent person that was entrusted to a guardian for safekeeping.

20.In contrast to the damages an ox in their care causes, for which they are required to reimburse the party whose property was damaged, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 4.

21.All of these individuals are considered to be mentally incompetent and are not held responsible for any aspect of their conduct.

22.The Ra'avad writes that if an ox kills a person in the presence of a court, it is executed. The leniency applies only when it kills in the presence of witnesses.The Ra'avad's statement is based on a comparison to a human being. When a human being who is t'refah kills another human in the presence of witnesses, he cannot be executed, because there is no way that the witnesses can be disqualified through the laws of hazamah. When, however, he kills in the presence of a court, there is no need for the testimony of witnesses, and the court is charged to obliterate the evil from your midst. (See Hilchot Rotzeach 2:9.)The Maggid Mishneh does not accept this equation, because he maintains that the obligation to obliterate evil applies with regard to a man who performs an evil act and not to an ox.

23.The rationale is that the animal is not considered to have killed as a result of its own tendency, but in response to prompting by the other person.

24.If, however, it intended to kill one Israelite, and instead it killed another, it is executed (Maggid Mishneh). There is a debate among our Sages (Bava Kama 44b) regarding both a human and an ox who kills with such an intent. With regard to a human, the Rambam rules that the killer is not liable for execution (see Hilchot Rotzeach, ch. 4), while with regard to an ox, he rules that it should be executed. See the Ra'avad and the Kessef Mishneh to Hilchot Rotzeach.

25.Our Sages (ibid.) derive this law from the parallel established between the owner and the ox being put to death mentioned in Halachah 6. Since a human being would not be executed for killing in such a manner, the animal is also not executed.

26.And the owners should therefore have watched it to prevent this from happening.

27.See Chapter 1, Halachah 7.

28.If the owner grants his consent, he is liable for the atonement fine if his ox kills the visitor.

29.The Maggid Mishneh and others note that Bava Kama 33a appears to present a difficulty to the Rambam's ruling. Several resolutions are, however, offered.

30.Chapter 1, Halachot 5,7.

31.This expression indicates a conclusion drawn by the Rambam that has no explicit source in the works of our Sages.

32.Exodus 21:32.

33.If it killed the servant intentionally, the law requires that the ox be stoned to death, and no benefit to be derived from it. Thus it is impossible to exact payment from its carcass. When, however, it kills unintentionally, it is not stoned and remains the property of its owner.

34.The Rambam's rationale can be described as follows: If an ox kills a Jewish male or female, the owner is not obligated to pay damages, because the case is considered to involve capital matters. A servant, by contrast, is considered to be his owner's property, and therefore, just as the owner of an ox that is tam must pay half the cost of any damages caused by his ox, so too, he is liable for half of these damages.

Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Eleven

1How 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.אכמה 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:

2To 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.8בלמי 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:

3When 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.9גשור שנגח אשה ויצאו ילדיה אע"פ שהוא מועד ליגח הבעלים פטורין מדמי ולדות. שלא חייבה תורה בדמי ולדות אלא לאדם:

4If, 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.דנגח שפחה ויצאו ילדיה משלם דמי ולדות. שזה כמי שנגח חמור מעוברת. ואם היה תם משלם חצי דמי ולדות מגופו:

5How 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.13הכיצד 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:

6When 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.16ושור 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:

7When an ox that is tam kills [a man] and then causes damage,17 it is sentenced to execution, but there is no financial claim on its owners.18 If an ox that is mu'ad kills and then causes damage, the liability [resulting from the damages] is determined,19 and then it is sentenced to execution. If it is sentenced to execution first, the liability [resulting from the damages] is determined afterwards.זשור 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:

8How 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.23ח ומהיכן משתלם מן השבח שהשביח ברדייתו אחר שנגמר דינו. שכיון שנגמר דינו לסקילה אין לו בעלים שיתחייבו בנזקיו. דנוהו דיני נפשות וברח אין דנין אותו דיני ממונות:

9When 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.טשור 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:

10When 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.31ישור 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:

11When a pregnant cow kills a person - and similarly, all animals that were used for a sinful purpose [that requires their execution]32 - the laws that apply to it apply to its calf.33 For it and its calf gored; it and its calf were sodomized.יאפרה 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.37יבנגחה 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:

13When 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].יגשור 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 in Leviticus 20:15. For no other sin is an animal executed.

33.This follows the principle stated in the next halachah: A fetus is considered to be an extension of its mother.

34.For it was not part of its mother's body, neither at the time of the killing, nor at the time of the sentence.

35.Literally the thigh.

36.And so, just as the sentence caused the mother to become forbidden, it also caused the calf to become forbidden. The calf is not executed, however. Instead, it is left to die.

37.In this instance as well, all the calves need not be executed. It is, however, forbidden to benefit from them, because the presence of a live animal in a mixture is never considered to be insignificant.

38.Since the owner of the ox does not know whether or not the ox gored, he is dependent on the testimony of the witnesses. Once their testimony establishes that the ox gored, the owner assumes that it will be executed and despairs of retaining ownership. After he has made such a decision, even in error, anyone has the right to take possession of the ox. A parallel ruling is delivered in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 4:8.

39.Thus performing the kinyan of meshichah, a formal act of acquisition.

Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class

Shabbat, Sivan 30, 5777 · 24 June 2017

"Today's Day"

Shabbat	Sivan 30, Shabbat Rosh Chodesh	5703
Torah lessons:	Chumash: Korach, Shevi'i with Rashi.
	Tehillim: 145-150.
	Tanya: Ch. 8. Now, what (p. 321)...of the life-force. (p. 325).

In reviewing the weekly parsha, twice the text and once the Targum Onkelos, we review verse by verse. We also review the haftora; two, in case of Shabbat-Rosh Chodesh or combined parshiot, etc.
The Alter Rebbe's response to a young genius, famed for his intellectual gifts, at his first yechidus in 5555 (1795) in Lyozna: Spiritual and physical are antithetical in their very essence. A superior quality in the physical is a deficiency in the spiritual.
In material matters, one who is "satisfied with his lot"1 is an individual of the highest quality. A person possessing this trait will, through avoda, attain the highest levels. In spiritual matters, however, to be satisfied with one's lot is the worst deficiency, and leads, G-d forbid, to descent and falling.

Daily Thought

Making a living is all about plumbing. You’ve got a reservoir up there, a water tank down here, and you need some way to connect the two.

The reservoir of life up there can’t be changed or moved. As for the water tank down here, that is your career, and it receives only what is decided from Above.

But you also have a second career—your principal career—and that is to bring more good into this world.

In that career, you are a plumber. You can open faucets, widen pipelines, drain all you can from an Infinite Source. It will overflow into the water tanks of your material career. It might even increase their volume.

The flow of life is in your hands.

Likkutei Sichot, vol. 6, p. 193

ב"ה

Today in Judaism

TODAY IN JUDAISM: Sivan 29, 5777 - Friday, June 23, 2017 - Today is Friday, Sivan 28, 5777 · June 23, 2017 - Candle Lighting - Light Candles before sunset ––:––

Today in Jewish History:

• Lubavitcher Rebbe Arrives in US (1941)

After escaping Nazi-occupied Paris, and many perilous months in Vichy France, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994), and his wife, Rebbetzin Chaya Mushkah (1901-1988), boarded the SS Serpa Pinto in Lisbon, Portugal. On Monday, June 23--Sivan 28 on the Jewish calendar--at 10:30 A.M., they arrived in New York.

Shortly after his arrival, the Rebbe's father-in-law, the then Lubavitcher Rebbe Rabbi Yoseph Yitzchak Schneersohn (who had been rescued from Nazi-occupied Warsaw in 1940), appointed him to head the social and educational outreach programs of Chabad-Lubavitch. Thus the Rebbe began his decades-long revolutionary work to revitalize Jewish life in the Western Hemisphere, which spread, by means of the emissaries ("shluchim") he dispatched from his New York headquarters, to every part of the world.

Links:
Inspiring the Jewish American Revolution
World Jewry Thrives Seven Decades After Rebbe’s U.S. Arrival

Daily Quote

Even the empty ones amongst you are full of mitzvot like a pomegranate

[Talmud, Berachot 57a}

Daily Torah Study:

Chumash: with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation

• Video Class

• Daily Wisdom (short insight)

Numbers Chapter 17
16The Lord spoke to Moses saying: טזוַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־משֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר:
17Speak to the children of Israel and take from them a staff for each father's house from all the chieftains according to their fathers' houses; [a total of] twelve staffs, and inscribe each man's name on his staff. יזדַּבֵּ֣ר | אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל וְקַ֣ח מֵֽאִתָּ֡ם מַטֶּ֣ה מַטֶּה֩ לְבֵ֨ית אָ֜ב מֵאֵ֤ת כָּל־נְשִֽׂיאֵהֶם֙ לְבֵ֣ית אֲבֹתָ֔ם שְׁנֵ֥ים עָשָׂ֖ר מַטּ֑וֹת אִ֣ישׁ אֶת־שְׁמ֔וֹ תִּכְתֹּ֖ב עַל־מַטֵּֽהוּ:
18Inscribe Aaron's name on the staff of Levi, for there is [only] one staff for the head of their fathers' house. יחוְאֵת֙ שֵׁ֣ם אַֽהֲרֹ֔ן תִּכְתֹּ֖ב עַל־מַטֵּ֣ה לֵוִ֑י כִּ֚י מַטֶּ֣ה אֶחָ֔ד לְרֹ֖אשׁ בֵּ֥ית אֲבוֹתָֽם:
for… one staff…: Although I have divided them into two families, the family of kehunah separate and the family of the Levites separate, it is, nevertheless, one tribe. כי מטה אחד: אף על פי שחלקתים לשתי משפחות משפחת כהונה לבד ולויה לבד מכל מקום שבט אחד הוא:
19You shall place the staffs in the Tent of Meeting before the [Ark of] the Testimony where I commune with you. יטוְהִנַּחְתָּ֖ם בְּאֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֑ד לִפְנֵי֙ הָֽעֵד֔וּת אֲשֶׁ֛ר אִוָּעֵ֥ד לָכֶ֖ם שָֽׁמָּה:
20The staff of the man whom I will choose will blossom, and I will calm down [turning away] from Myself the complaints of the children of Israel which they are complaining against you. כוְהָיָ֗ה הָאִ֛ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֶבְחַר־בּ֖וֹ מַטֵּ֣הוּ יִפְרָ֑ח וַֽהֲשִׁכֹּתִ֣י מֵֽעָלַ֗י אֶת־תְּלֻנּוֹת֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֲשֶׁ֛ר הֵ֥ם מַלִּינִ֖ם עֲלֵיכֶֽם:
and I will calm down: Heb. וַהֲשִׁכֹּתִי, as in“and the waters subsided וַיָּשֹׁכּוּ ” (Gen. 8:1); [and in]“and the king’s anger abated שָׁכָכָה” (Esther 7:10). והשכתי: כמו (בראשית ח, א) וישכו המים, (אסתר ז, י) וחמת המלך שככה:
21Moses spoke to the children of Israel, and all their chieftains gave him a staff for each chieftain according to their fathers' houses, [a total of] twelve staffs, and Aaron's staff was amidst their staffs. כאוַיְדַבֵּ֨ר משֶׁ֜ה אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל וַיִּתְּנ֣וּ אֵלָ֣יו | כָּל־נְשִֽׂיאֵיהֶ֡ם מַטֶּה֩ לְנָשִׂ֨יא אֶחָ֜ד מַטֶּ֨ה לְנָשִׂ֤יא אֶחָד֙ לְבֵ֣ית אֲבֹתָ֔ם שְׁנֵ֥ים עָשָׂ֖ר מַטּ֑וֹת וּמַטֵּ֥ה אַֽהֲרֹ֖ן בְּת֥וֹךְ מַטּוֹתָֽם:
amidst their staffs: He placed it in the middle so that they should not say that it blossomed because he had placed it close to the Divine Presence. — [Mid. Tanchuma Acharei Moth 8] בתוך מטותם: הניחו באמצע, שלא יאמרו מפני שהניחו בצד שכינה פרח:
22Moses placed the staffs before the Lord in the Tent of the Testimony. כבוַיַּנַּ֥ח משֶׁ֛ה אֶת־הַמַּטֹּ֖ת לִפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה בְּאֹ֖הֶל הָֽעֵדֻֽת:
23And on the following day Moses came to the Tent of Testimony, and behold, Aaron's staff for the house of Levi had blossomed! It gave forth blossoms, sprouted buds, and produced ripe almonds. כגוַיְהִ֣י מִמָּֽחֳרָ֗ת וַיָּבֹ֤א משֶׁה֙ אֶל־אֹ֣הֶל הָֽעֵד֔וּת וְהִנֵּ֛ה פָּרַ֥ח מַטֵּה־אַֽהֲרֹ֖ן לְבֵ֣ית לֵוִ֑י וַיֹּ֤צֵ֥א פֶ֨רַח֙ וַיָּ֣צֵ֥ץ צִ֔יץ וַיִּגְמֹ֖ל שְׁקֵדִֽים:
It gave forth blossoms: [This is to be understood] in its literal sense. ויצא פרח: כמשמעו:
buds: This is the budding of the fruit after the blossom falls off. ציץ: הוא חנטת הפרי כשהפרח נופל:
and produced ripe almonds: Heb. וַיִּגְמֹל, when the fruit was recognizable, it was recognized that they were almonds. A similar expression is as found in“and the child grew and was weaned וַיִּגָמֵל ” (Gen. 21:8). This expression is frequently found used in reference to fruits of the tree, as in“and the buds turn into ripening grapes גֹמֵל ” (Isa. 18:5). Now why [did it bear particularly] almonds? That is the fruit that blossoms quicker than other fruits. Likewise, he who opposes the kehunah ; his punishment comes quickly, as we find in the case of Uzziah:“and the tzara’ath shone upon his forehead” (II Chron. 26:19) (See also Rashi on Jer. 1:12). The Targum [Onkelos] renders ‘knotted almonds,’ like a cluster of almonds knotted together one on top of the other. ויגמל שקדים: כשהוכר הפרי הוכר שהן שקדים, לשון (בראשית כא, ח) ויגדל הילד ויגמל, ולשון זה מצוי בפרי האילן, כמו (ישעיה יח, ה) ובוסר גומל יהיה נצה. ולמה שקדים, הוא הפרי הממהר להפריח מכל הפירות, אף המעורר על הכהונה פורענותו ממהרת לבא, כמו שמצינו בעוזיה (ד"ה ב' כו, יט) והצרעת זרחה במצחו. ותרגומו וכפית שגדין, כמין אשכול שקדים יחד כפותים זה על זה:
24Moses took out all the staffs from before the Lord, to the children of Israel; they saw and they took, each man his staff. כדוַיֹּצֵ֨א משֶׁ֤ה אֶת־כָּל־הַמַּטֹּת֙ מִלִּפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֔ה אֶל־כָּל־בְּנֵ֖י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וַיִּרְא֥וּ וַיִּקְח֖וּ אִ֥ישׁ מַטֵּֽהוּ:
Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 135 - 139
• Hebrew text
• English text

Chapter 135

1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Name of the Lord; offer praise, you servants of the Lord-

2. who stand in the House of the Lord, in the courtyards of the House of our God.

3. Praise the Lord, for the Lord is good; sing to His Name, for He is pleasant.

4. For God has chosen Jacob for Himself, Israel as His beloved treasure.

5. For I know that the Lord is great, our Master is greater than all supernal beings.

6. All that the Lord desired He has done, in the heavens and on earth, in the seas and the depths.

7. He causes mists to rise from the ends of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain; He brings forth the wind from His vaults.

8. It was He who struck down the firstborn of Egypt, of man and beast.

9. He sent signs and wonders into the midst of Egypt, on Pharaoh and on all his servants.

10. It was He who struck down many nations, and slew mighty kings:

11. Sichon, king of the Amorites; Og, king of Bashan; and all the kingdoms of Canaan.

12. And He gave their lands as a heritage, a heritage to His people Israel.

13. Lord, Your Name is forever; Lord, Your remembrance is throughout all generations.

14. Indeed, the Lord will judge on behalf of His people, and have compassion on His servants.

15. The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the product of human hands.

16. They have a mouth, but cannot speak; they have eyes, but cannot see;

17. they have ears, but cannot hear; nor is there breath in their mouth.

18. Like them will their makers become-all who trust in them.

19. House of Israel, bless the Lord; House of Aaron, bless the Lord;

20. House of Levi, bless the Lord; you who fear the Lord, bless the Lord.

21. Blessed is the Lord from Zion, who dwells in Jerusalem. Praise the Lord!

Chapter 136

This psalm contains twenty-six verses, corresponding to the twenty-six generations between the creation of the world and the giving of the Torah.

1. Praise the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is forever.

2. Praise the God of the supernal beings, for His kindness is forever.

3. Praise the Master of the heavenly hosts, for His kindness is forever.

4. Who alone performs great wonders, for His kindness is forever.

5. Who makes the heavens with understanding, for His kindness is forever.

6. Who spreads forth the earth above the waters, for His kindness is forever.

7. Who makes the great lights, for His kindness is forever.

8. The sun to rule by day, for His kindness is forever.

9. The moon and stars to rule by night, for His kindness is forever.

10. Who struck Egypt through its firstborn, for His kindness is forever.

11. And brought Israel out of their midst, for His kindness is forever.

12. With a strong hand and with an outstretched arm, for His kindness is forever.

13. Who split the Sea of Reeds into sections, for His kindness is forever.

14. And brought Israel across it, for His kindness is forever.

15. And cast Pharaoh and his army into the Sea of Reeds, for His kindness is forever.

16. Who led His people through the desert, for His kindness is forever;

17. Who struck down great kings, for His kindness is forever.

18. And slew mighty kings, for His kindness is forever.

19. Sichon, king of the Amorites, for His kindness is forever.

20. And Og, king of Bashan, for His kindness is forever.

21. And gave their land as a heritage, for His kindness is forever.

22. A heritage to Israel His servant, for His kindness is forever.

23. Who remembered us in our humiliation, for His kindness is forever.

24. And redeemed us from our oppressors, for His kindness is forever.

25. Who gives food to all flesh, for His kindness is forever.

26. Praise the God of heaven, for His kindness is forever.

Chapter 137

Referring to the time of the destruction of the Temple, this psalm tells of when Nebuchadnezzar would ask the Levites to sing in captivity as they had in the Temple, to which they would reply, "How can we sing the song of God upon alien soil?" They were then comforted by Divine inspiration.

1. By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat and wept as we remembered Zion.

2. There, upon the willows, we hung our harps.

3. For there our captors demanded of us songs, and those who scorned us-rejoicing, [saying,] "Sing to us of the songs of Zion.”

4. How can we sing the song of the Lord on alien soil?

5. If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget [its dexterity].

6. Let my tongue cleave to my palate if I will not remember you, if I will not bring to mind Jerusalem during my greatest joy!

7. Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites the day of [the destruction of] Jerusalem, when they said, "Raze it, raze it to its very foundation!”

8. O Babylon, who is destined to be laid waste, happy is he who will repay you in retribution for what you have inflicted on us.

9. Happy is he who will seize and crush your infants against the rock!

Chapter 138

David offers awesome praises to God for His kindness to him, and for fulfilling His promise to grant him kingship.

1. By David. I will thank You with all my heart, in the presence of princes I shall praise You.

2. I will bow toward Your Holy Sanctuary, and praise Your Name for Your kindness and for Your truth; for You have exalted Your word above all Your Names.

3. On the day that I called out You answered me, You emboldened me, [You put] strength in my soul.

4. Lord, all the kings of the land will give thanks to You when they hear the words of Your mouth.

5. And they will sing of the Lord's ways, for the glory of the Lord is great.

6. For though the Lord is exalted, He sees the lowly; the High One castigates from afar.

7. If I walk in the midst of distress, keep me alive; against the wrath of my enemies stretch out Your hand, and let Your right hand deliver me.

8. Lord, complete [Your kindness] on my behalf. Lord, Your kindness is forever, do not forsake the work of Your hands.

Chapter 139

A most prominent psalm that guides man in the ways of God as no other in all of the five books of Tehillim. Fortunate is he who recites it daily.

1. For the Conductor, by David, a psalm. O Lord, You have probed me, and You know.

2. You know my sitting down and my standing up; You perceive my thought from afar.

3. You encircle my going about and my lying down; You are familiar with all my paths.

4. For there was not yet a word on my tongue-and behold, Lord, You knew it all.

5. You have besieged me front and back, You have laid Your hand upon me.

6. Knowledge [to escape You] is beyond me; it is exalted, I cannot know it.

7. Where can I go [to escape] Your spirit? And where can I flee from Your presence?

8. If I ascend to the heavens, You are there; if I make my bed in the grave, behold, You are there.

9. Were I to take up wings as the dawn and dwell in the furthest part of the sea,

10. there, too, Your hand would guide me; Your right hand would hold me.

11. Were I to say, "Surely the darkness will shadow me," then the night would be as light around me.

12. Even the darkness obscures nothing from You; and the night shines like the day-the darkness is as light.

13. For You created my mind; You covered me in my mother's womb.

14. I will thank You, for I was formed in an awesome and wondrous way; unfathomable are Your works, though my soul perceives much.

15. My essence was not hidden from You even while I was born in concealment, formed in the depths of the earth.

16. Your eyes beheld my raw form; all [happenings] are inscribed in Your book, even those to be formed in future days-to Him they are the same.

17. How precious are Your thoughts to me, O God! How overwhelming, [even] their beginnings!

18. Were I to count them, they would outnumber the sand, even if I were to remain awake and always with You.

19. O that You would slay the wicked, O God, and men of blood [to whom I say], "Depart from me!”

20. They exalt You for wicked schemes, Your enemies raise [You] for falsehood.

21. Indeed, I hate those who hate You, Lord; I contend with those who rise up against You.

22. I hate them with the utmost hatred; I regard them as my own enemies.

23. Search me, Lord, and know my heart; test me and know my thoughts.

24. See if there is a vexing way in me, then lead me in the way of the world.

Tanya: Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, beginning of Chapter 9
• English Text (Lessons in Tanya)
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download

Friday, Sivan 29, 5777 · June 23, 2017

Today's Tanya Lesson

Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, middle of Chapter 9

AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES

• VIDEO CLASS: Rabbi Yehoshua B. Gordon Watch • Listen

• AUDIO CLASS: Rabbi Manis Freidman Listen • Download MP3

רק מפני שאין בנבראים כח להשיג רק ההשתלשלות ממדרגת החכמה, שהיא ראשיתם, למדרגת עשיה השפלה

But inasmuch as it is within the power of created beings to comprehend only the descent from the level of wisdom, which is their beginning, to the level of action, which is the lowliest of levels,

לכך אנו אומרים שלגבי הקב״ה נחשבת מדרגת החכמה כמדרגת עשיה ממש

therefore we say that in relation to the Holy One, blessed be He, the level of wisdom is considered exactly as the level of action.

We use this example simply because there is no greater descent in the realm of human experience than the descent from wisdom to action.

דהיינו לומר, שהוא רם ונשא ונעלה עילוי רב מאד מאד ממדרגת החכמה

That is to say: [G‑d] is “high and exalted” and very greatly elevated above the level of wisdom,

ולא שייך כלל לייחס אצלו שום ענין המתייחס לחכמה, אפילו בדרך מעלהמעלה ועילוי רב

and it is not at all appropriate to ascribe to Him anything that pertains to wisdom, even in a very lofty and sublime form, i.e., even if by doing so we mean to express how He transcends wisdom;

כגון לומר עליו שאי אפשר לשום נברא, עליונים ותחתונים, להשיג חכמתו או מהותו

for example, to say of Him that it is beyond the capacity of any higher or lower creature to comprehend His wisdom or His Essence.

Even this negative reference to wisdom is inappropriate, —

כי ענין ההשגה מתייחס ונופל על דבר חכמה ושכל, לומר שאפשר להשיגו או אי אפשר להשיגו מפני עומק המושג

For comprehension pertains and applies to a matter of wisdom and intellect, about which one can say that it can or cannot be understood because of the profundity of the concept.

אבל הקב״ה, שהוא למעלה מן השכל והחכמה, לא שייך כלל לומר בו שאיאפשר להשיגו מפני עומק המושג

However, concerning the Holy One, blessed be He, Who transcends intellect and wisdom, it is not at all appropriate to say that one cannot comprehend Him because of the profundity of the concept,

כי אינו בבחינת השגה כלל

for He is not within the realm of comprehension at all.

והאומר עליו שאי אפשר להשיגו, הוא כאומר על איזה חכמה רמה ועמוקהשאי אפשר למששה בידים מפני עומק המושג

He who states that it is impossible to comprehend Him, is like one who says of some lofty and profound concept that it cannot be touched with the hands because of the depth of the concept.

שכל השומע יצחק לו, לפי שחוש המישוש אינו מתייחס ונופל אלא על עשייה גשמית, הנתפשת בידים

Whoever hears [this] will mock him, because the sense of touch refers and applies only to physical objects, which may be grasped by the hands.

וככה ממש נחשבת לגבי הקב״ה מדרגת השכל וההשגה כעשייה גשמית ממש

Exactly so, the level of intellect and comprehension in relation to the Holy One, blessed be He, is considered as actual physical action.

ואפילו השגת שכלים שבעולמות עליונים, ואפילו מדרגת חכמה עילאה, המחיה את כולם

Even the comprehension of the [superior and spiritual] Intelligences in the higher worlds, and even the level of Supernal Wisdom of the World of Atzilut which gives life to them all [is considered so in relation to the Holy One, blessed be He],

כדכתיב: כולם בחכמה עשית

as it is written,1 “You have made them all with wisdom.”

All of creation is rooted in the wisdom of Atzilut. Nevertheless, even the Supernal Wisdom of Atzilut is considered as action in relation to G‑d, for G‑d transcends it infinitely. It is thus impossible to say that G‑d can or cannot be apprehended through intellect, inasmuch as intellect and wisdom are not at all the means by which G‑d can be grasped.

ומה שהקב״ה נקרא חכם בכתוב, וגם חז״ל כינו לו מדרגת ומעלת החכמה

As for the Holy One, blessed be He, being called “Wise” in Scripture, and our Sages, of blessed memory, have also referred to Him with epithets denoting the quality and level of wisdom,

היינו משום שהוא מקור החכמה, שממנו יתברך נמשך ונאצל מהות מדרגת חכמה עילאה, שבעולם האצילות

this is because He is the source of wisdom, for from Him issues and emanates the essence of the level of Supernal Wisdom, which is in the World of Atzilut.

וכן רחום וחסיד, על שם שהוא מקור הרחמים והחסדים

Likewise [He is called] Merciful and Kind, even though He utterly transcends mercy and kindness,because He is the source of mercy and kindness;

וכן שאר המדות

and likewise regarding the other emotive attributes; G‑d is referred to by the names of the other attributes because He is their source,

שכולן נמשכו ונאצלו ממנו יתברך

for they all proceed and emanate from Him.

ודרך וענין ההמשכה והאצילות, איך ומה, ידוע למשכילים

The manner and nature of the flow and emanation — how and what — i.e., how the intellectual and emotive attributes emanate from the Ein Sof which totally transcends them, and exactly what they are, for after they have emanated from Him they are wholly united with Him, is known to the savants.2

FOOTNOTES

1. Tehillim 104:24.

2. Note of the Rebbe: “This is explained at greater length in many places in Chassidut, e.g., in Mitzvat Haamanat Elokut [in Derech Mitzvotecha of the Tzemach Tzedek].”

• Video Class

Rambam:

• Sefer Hamitzvot:

English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class

friday,Sivan 29, 5777 · June 23, 2017
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES
• VIDEO CLASS: Rabbi Mendel Kaplan Watch • Listen
• AUDIO CLASS: Rabbi Berel Bell Listen • MP3 Download
Positive Commandment 238
Damage Caused by a Ditch
"And if a man shall open a pit..."—Exodus 21:33.
We are commanded regarding the laws [of liability] that apply if a person digs a pit [and another's animal falls into it and is injured].
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Damage Caused by a Ditch
Positive Commandment 238
Translated by Berel Bell
The 238th mitzvah is that we are commanded to follow the laws regarding damage caused by a pit in the ground.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "If a person digs a pit in the ground [...and an ox or donkey falls into it, the one responsible for the pit must pay for the damage...]."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 3rd and 5th chapters of tractate Bava Kama.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid., 21:33.

• 1 Chapter A Day: To`en veNit`an To`en veNit`an - Chapter 12

English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class

To`en veNit`an - Chapter 12

1 The three years mentioned in the previous chapter must be from day to day. Even if one day was lacking, a claim of ownership is not established and the person in possession of the property is removed from it.

When does the above apply? With regard to landed property that produces benefit at all times - e.g., houses, courtyards, cisterns, pits, storage cavities, stores, inns, bathhouses, dovecotes, olive presses, fields that are continually irrigated and hence can be used for sowing and for planting, gardens, and orchards, and also servants who go on their own initiative, as we have explained.

Different rules apply with regard to a field that is watered only from rain and a grove of trees. The "threes years" are not calculated from day to day.

Instead, after the person in possession partakes of three harvests from one type of produce, it is considered as if three years have passed.

What is implied? There was a date grove and the person in possession harvested it three times, a grape orchard and he harvested it three times, or an olive grove and he harvested it three times, he is considered to have established a claim of ownership. This applies even if the trees were planted one after the other, and there was not enough space left between them. Although ultimately, they will dry and have to be uprooted, since the person derived benefit from them for three harvests, he has established a claim of ownership.אשלש שנים שאמרנו מיום ליום אפילו היו חסרים יום אחד לא החזיק ומסלקין אותו ממנה, במה דברים אמורים בקרקעות שהן עושין פירות תמיד כגון הבתים והחצרות והבורות והשיחין והמערות והחנויות והפונדקות והמרחצאות והשובכות ובתי הבדין ושדה בית השלחין שמשקין אותם תמיד וזורעין בה ונוטעין והגנות והפרדסין, וכן עבדים המהלכין כמו שבארנו, אבל שדה הבעל שהיא שותה ממי גשמים בלבד ושדה אילן אינה מיום ליום אלא כיון שאכלו שלש תבואות ממין אחד הרי אלו כשלש שנים, כיצד היתה שדה תמרים וגדר שלש גדרות או שדה ענבים ובצר שלש בצירות או שדה זיתים ומסק שלש מסיקות הרי אלו כשלש שנים והחזיק, ואפילו היו האילנות רצופין ולא היה ביניהן הרחקה כראוי שהרי סופן ליבש הואיל ואוכלן שלש תבואות החזיק. 

2 If a person brings witnesses who testify that he dwelled in this courtyard for three years or rented it out to a tenant for three years, he establishes a claim of ownership.

If the owner of the courtyard claims: "Maybe you - or your tenant - did not dwell there during the day and during the night," his claim is valid. We tell the person in possession: "Bring witnesses that throughout these years, you dwelled there during the day and during the night, or depart."

Even when witnesses come and testify, saying: "The person in possession rented the field to us, and we dwelled there during the day and during the night," if the owner of the field demands: "Let them bring witnesses that they dwelled there during the day and during the night," these tenants must bring proof that they dwelled there at all times. The rationale is that the matter is dependent on them and is not dependent on the claim of the person in possession of the property that they should testify on his behalf.בהביא עדים שהיה דר בחצר זו שלש שנים או ששכרה שלש שנים הרי זו חזקה, טען בעל החצר ואמר שמא לא שכן בה ביום ובלילה או שמא אלו שהשכירו להם לא שכנו בה ביום ובלילה הרי זו טענה, אומרים למחזיק או תביא עדים ששנים אלו גמורות ביום ובלילה או הסתלק, אפילו באו עדים ואמרו לנו השכיר ואנו דרנו בה ביום ובלילה וטען בעל השדה ואמר יביאו עדים שדרו בה ביום ובלילה, צריכין אלו השוכרין להביא ראיה שדרו בה תמיד, שזה הדבר תלוי בהן ואין תלוי בטענת המחזיק כדי שיעידו לו. 1 

3 Different laws apply if the person in possession of the property or the witnesses were traveling salesmen who journey from village to village or the like. In such a situation, the court makes a claim on behalf of the owner at the outset. When he brings witnesses to try to substantiate his claim of ownership, the court tells him: "Bring witnesses who will testify that you manifested possession during the day and the night."

When does the above apply? With regard to courtyards, houses, and the like, in which people live during the day and the night. Different laws apply with regard to stores operated by merchants and the like, in which people dwell only during the day. In such a situation, if a person dwelled in the store for three years during the day, he establishes a claim of ownership.גהיה זה המחזיק או העדים שדרו בה מן הרוכלין המחזרין בעיירות וכיוצא בהן, טוענין אותו לכתחלה וכשיביא עדי חזקה אומר לו הבא עדים שהיית מחזיק בה ביום ובלילה, במה דברים אמורים בחצרות ובתים וכיוצא בהן שהן עשויות לדור בתוכן ביום ובלילה, אבל החנויות של תגרים וכיוצא כהן /בהן/ שאין דרין בהן אלא ביום כיון שדר בה שלש שנים ביום הרי זה חזקה. 2 

4 The three years mentioned must be consecutive, one following the other. If a person in possession of a field sowed it one year and left it fallow the next year, and then sowed it one year and left it fallow the next year, he does not establish a claim of ownership. This applies even if he followed this pattern for many years.

If the custom of the farmers of that area was to leave fields fallow, the person is considered to have established a claim of ownership. This applies even if some of the local farmers sow their fields year after year, and some sow their fields for one year and leave them fallow the next. For the person in possession may claim: "I left it fallow only so that it will produce more in the year that I sow it."דשלש שנים שאמרנו צריך שיהיו רצופות זו אחר זו, הרי שהחזיק בשדה וזרעה שנה והובירה שנה וזרעה שנה והובירה שנה, אפילו עשה כן כמה שנים לא החזיק, היה דרכן של בני אותו המקום להוביר אע"פ שמקצתן זורעין שנה אחר שנה ומקצתן זורעין שנה ומובירין שנה הרי זה החזיק שהרי הוא אומר לא הוברתי אותה אלא כדי שתעשה הרבה בשנת הזריעה. 

5 When two partners maintained possession of a field for six years, one partaking of the produce in the first, third and fifth years, and the other partaking of the produce in the second, fourth and sixth years, neither is considered to have established a claim of ownership. The rationale is that the owner of the field can say: "Since I neither saw nor heard of one person maintaining possession year after year, I did not protest."

Accordingly, if these partners composed a legal document attesting to their partnership and stating that they should each utilize the field in successive years, if three years pass in which they use it, they establish a claim of ownership. The rationale is that a legal document becomes public knowledge. Hence, if the owner did not protest, he forfeited his right.

Similar laws apply if two people maintain possession of a servant and use his services year after year. Ordinarily, they do not establish a claim of ownership. If they compose a legal document concerning the servant, they do.השני שותפין שהחזיקו בשדה שש שנים האחד אכלה ראשונה ושלישית וחמישית, והשני אכלה שניה ורביעית וששית לא עלתה חזקה לאחד מהם, שהרי בעל הקרקע אומר כיון שלא ראיתי ולא שמעתי שהחזיק בה אדם אחד שנה אחר שנה מפני זה לא מחיתי, לפיכך אם כתבו אלו השותפין שטר ביניהן שישתמשו בה שנה אחר שנה כיון שעבר שלש שנים עלתה להן חזקה, שהשטר יש לו קול והואיל ולא מיחה אבד זכותו, והוא הדין לעבד שהחזיקו בו שנים ונשתמשו בו שנה אחר שנה אם כתבו שטר ביניהן הרי החזיקו. 

6 The following rules apply when a person who took possession of a property derived benefit from its produce for one year and then sold it, the purchaser derived benefit from its produce for one year and then sold it, and the second purchaser derived benefit from its produce for a year. If they sold it to each other with a deed of sale, the activities of the three are combined and a claim of ownership is established, because the previous owner did not protest.

If they did not record the transaction in a deed of sale, a claim of ownership is not established, because the original owners can say: "Since one person did not maintain a presence within it for three years, there was no necessity to issue a protest."ואכלה שנה זה המחזיק ומכרה ואכלה הלוקח שנה ומכר ללוקח שני ואכלה שנה, אם מכרו זה לזה בשטר שלשתן מצטרפין והרי זו חזקה מפני שלא מיחה, ואם מכרו שלא בשטר אינה חזקה שהבעלים הראשונים אומרים כיון שלא עמד בה איש אחד שלש שנים לא הוצרכתי למחות. 

7 When a father derived benefit from a property for one year, and his son derived benefit for two years, or the father derived benefit for two years, and his son derived benefit for one year, a claim of ownership is established.

The same law applies if the father derived benefit for a year, the son derived benefit for a year, and the person who purchased it derived benefit for a year, provided that he purchased it with a deed of sale.זאכלה האב שנה והבן שתים האב שתים והבן שנה האב שנה והבן שנה והלוקח מן הבן שנה הרי זו חזקה והוא שלקח בשטר. 

8 When a person seeking to establish a claim of ownership partakes of produce from a field for one year in the presence of the father who was the owner, and two years in the presence of his son, or two years in the presence of the father and one year in the presence of the son, a claim of ownership is established.

Similarly, a claim of ownership is established when the person in possession of the field partakes of its produce for one year in the presence of the father, one year in the presence of the son, and one year in the presence of a person who purchased the field from the son. This law applies when the son sold the field together with all his fields. In such an instance, the person in possession of the field will not appreciate that it was sold, and hence will not necessarily be careful to maintain possession of his deed of acquisition beyond the three-year period. If, however, the son sold the field as a discrete entity the property is expropriated and given to the purchaser. For there can be no greater protest against the squatter's possession than this.חאכלה בפני האב שהיה בעל השדה שנה ובפני בנו שתים, או בפני האב שתים ובפני הבן שנה, או בפני האב שנה ובפני בנו שנה ובפני לוקח מן הבן שנה, הרי זו חזקה, והוא שמכר הבן זו השדה בכלל שדותיו שהרי לא הכיר המחזיק שנמכרה ולפיכך לא נזהר בשטרו, אבל אם מכר הבן שדה זו בפני עצמה אין לך מחאה גדולה מזו. 

9 If the person in possession left the field fallow year after year - even for many years - since he did not derive any benefit from it, he does not establish a claim of ownership.

Similarly, if he irrigated it or even irrigated it and did no more than break up large clumps of earth, since he did not benefit from its produce, he does not establish a claim of ownership.טנרה שנה אחר שנה אפילו כמה שנים הואיל ולא נהנה בה אינה חזקה, וכן אם פתח בה שבילי המים ופתח ושדד בלבד הואיל ולא אכל פירות אינה חזקה. 

10 If the person in possession sowed it, but did not make any profit - i.e., he sowed a kor and reaped a kor - he does not establish a claim of ownership, since he did not derive any benefit from it.יזרעה ולא הרויח כלום אלא זרע כור ואסף כור לא החזיק שהרי לא נהנה. 

11 If he harvests the field as straw, he does not establish a claim of ownership. If in that region it was common to sow to harvest straw because straw is very expensive, he does establish a claim of ownership.יאאכלה שחת לא החזיק, ואם היה המקום דרכן לזרוע לשחת מפני שדמיו יקרין הרי זו חזקה. 

12 If the person in possession partook of produce of a field that was orlah, grew during the Sabbatical year, or contained mixed species, he establishes a claim of ownership despite the fact that he derived benefit through transgression.יבאכלה ערלה שביעית וכלאים אף על פי שנהנה בעבירה הרי זו חזקה. 3 

13 If the property in question was a stone or a rocky area unfit to be sown, the person in possession must benefit from the land in an appropriate manner - e.g., use it to spread out fruits to dry, as a place for an animal to pasture, or the like. If he does not derive benefit throughout all these three years in an appropriate manner, he does not establish a claim of ownership.יגהיה המקום שהחזיק בו סלע או חלמיש שאינו ראוי לזריעה צריך ליהנות בו בדבר הראוי לה כגון שישטח בו הפירות או יעמיד בו בהמה וכיוצא בזה, ואם לא נהנה בו בכל אותן השלש שנים בדבר הראוי לו לא החזיק. 

14 The following rules apply when a person would tie his animal in a specific place in a courtyard belonging to a colleague, he would raise chickens there, he would place an oven, a range or a mill there, or he would place his fertilizer there. Whether or not he erects a barrier there, if he uses the property for these purposes during the day and the night and claims that the owner of the courtyard sold or gave him that place, he establishes a claim of ownership.ידהיה מעמיד בהמה במקום מסויים מחצר חבירו או שהיה מגדל שם תרנגולין או מעמיד שם תנור וכירים וריחים, או שנתן שם זבלו, בין שהעמיד שם מחיצה בין שלא העמיד, אם נשתמש בדברים אלו וכיוצא בהן שלש שנים ביום ובלילה וטען על בעל החצר ואמר אתה נתת לי מקום זה או מכרתו לי הרי זו חזקה. 

15 The following rules apply when a field is surrounded by a fence and a person took possession of it and sowed crops outside the fence, deriving benefit from the portion that is not protected. Even though he derives benefit year after year, he does not establish a claim of ownership. The rationale is that the owner can claim: "Since we saw that he was sowing crops in a place that was unprotected, we said: 'Whatever he sowed, the beasts of the field will eat. Therefore, we did not protest.'" This law also applies to anyone who sows crops in a place that is not protected and the crops are accessible to animals and other people.טושדה שהיא מוקפת גדר ובא זה שהחזיק בה וזרע חוץ לגדר ונהנה בכל מקום שאינו שמור, אע"פ שאכלו שנה אחר שנה לא עלתה לו חזקה, שהבעלים טוענין ואומרין כיון שראינו שזורע במקום מופקר אמרנו כל מה שזרע חית השדה תאכלנו ולפיכך לא מחיתי, והוא הדין לכל הזורע מקום שאינו שמור אלא רגל חיה ויד כל אדם מצויין בו. 

16 When the person in possession derives benefit from the entire property with the exception of one portion fit to sow a quarter of a kav of grain, he establishes a claim of ownership over the entire field, with the exception of the portion from which he did not benefit. Even if that was a rocky portion in the midst of the field, since he did not use it in a way appropriate for it, he does not establish a claim of ownership over it.טזאכלה כולה חוץ מבית רובע החזיק בכולה חוץ מאותו בית רובע שלא נהנה בו, אפילו היה חלמיש בתוך השדה הואיל ולא נשתמש בו כראוי לו אין לזה בו חזקה. 

17 The following rules apply when one person took possession of trees and derived benefit from their produce, and another took possession of the land, sowed crops there, and derived benefit from them, and each of them claims that the entire property belongs to him, because he purchased it from the owner. The person in possession of the trees is given the trees and the land necessary to tend to them - i.e., the space in which a person picking fruit can stand together with his basket for each tree. The person in possession of the land receives the remainder of the land.יזהחזיק אחד באילנות ואכל פירותיהן ואחד החזיק בקרקע וזרעה ואכל פירותיה וכל אחד משניהם טוען שהכל שלי ואני לקחתיו, זה שהחזיק באילנות ואכלן שלש שנים יש לו האילנות וקרקע שצריכין לו והוא כמלא האורה וסלו חוצה לכל אילן ואילן, וזה שהחזיק בקרקע יש לו שאר הקרקע. 

18 Similarly, when a person benefits from all the produce of a tree for three years and then issues a claim against the owner of the tree: "You sold me this tree and its land," he is granted an amount of land equivalent to the thickness of the tree until the depths of the earth.יחוכן האוכל כל פירות אילן שלש שנים וטען על בעל האילן אתה מכרת לי אילן זה וקרקעו הרי זה יש לו קרקע כעובי האילן עד התהום. 

19 The following laws apply when there are 30 trees within a tree grove large enough to sow three se'ah of grain. If a person in possession benefited from ten trees in the first year, ten in the second year, and ten in the third, he establishes his possession over the entire grove.

The above applies when the ten trees from which he benefited were spread through the entire area of the field, and the other trees did not produce any fruit. If, however, the other trees produced fruit and he did not partake of it, he establishes a claim of ownership only on the produce from which he partook.יטשדה אילן שהיו בו שלשים אילנות בתוך בית שלש סאין ואכל עשרה בשנה ראשונה ועשרה בשנה שניה ועשרה בשנה שלישית הוחזק בכל, והוא שהיו עשרה שאכל מפוזרות בכל בית השלש סאין ולא הוציאו שאר האילנות פירות, אבל אם הוציאו שאר האילנות פירות ולא אכלן לא הוחזק אלא במה שאכל.  
20 When does the above apply? When he benefited from some of the fruit and the people reaped the remainder of the fruit. If, however, he left the fruit on the trees and benefited from the fruit from several portions throughout the entire grove, he establishes a claim of ownership concerning the entire field, even though he did not collect all its produce.כבמה דברים אמורים בשאכל הוא מקצת הפירות ובזזו העם שאר הפירות, אבל אם מניח פירותיהן עליהן הואיל ואכל אילן מכאן ואילן מכאן מכל השדה החזיק בכל השדה אע"פ שלא אסף כל פירותיה. 4 
• 3 Chapters A Day: Hilchot Nizkei Mamon Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Three, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Four, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Five 



English Text | Hebrew Text

 Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class 

Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Three
1
It is taken for granted that an animal is prone to eat fruit, vegetables or the like. Therefore, if [an animal] enters a domain belonging to another person and eats produce that it would normally eat, [the owner of the animal] is liable for the entire amount of the damages, as stated [in Exodus 22:4]: "And if he shall send forth his animals, and they shall pasture in another's field, payment should be exacted from his choice field." If [the animal] ate produce belonging to another person in the public domain, [the owner] is not liable.1 If [the animal] benefits [from eating the produce], the owner must pay for the benefit [his animal received], but not for the damages caused.
א
הבהמה מועדת לאכול פירות או ירקות וכיוצא בהן. לפיכך אם נכנסה לרשות הניזק ואכלה דברים שדרכה לאכלם משלם נזק שלם שנאמר ובער בשדה אחר מיטב שדהו וגו'. ואם אכלתם ברשות הרבים פטור ואם נהנית משלם מה שנהנית לא מה שהזיקה:

2
What is implied? If [an animal] entered another person's domain and ate sesame seeds, chestnuts or the like that were worth a dinar, [the owner] must pay a dinar. If [the animal ate these foods] in the public domain and derived benefit, we consider [these foods] as if they were barley or fodder, and [the owner is required to] pay the wholesale2 price of fodder3 or barley.4
ב
כיצד נכנסה לרשות הניזק ואכלה שומשמין או לוט וכיוצא בהם בשוה דינר משלם דינר. ואם אכלתן ברשות הרבים ונהנית רואין אותן כאילו הם שעורים או עמיר ומשלם דמי עמיר או דמי שעורים בזול:

3
If the animal ate foods that are harmful to it - e.g., it ate wheat - since it did not derive any benefit, [the owner] is not liable. If it ate substances that it would not usually eat - e.g., it ate a garment or a utensil - [the owner] should pay half the damages.5[This applies] both in a private domain and in a public domain. [The rationale is that] this is a deviation. [Hence, the owner is liable for only half the damages. He is liable for damage caused in the public domain, however] because it is the ordinary practice of people to leave their utensils or garments in the public domain while they rest.
ג
אכלה אוכלים הרעים לה כגון שאכלה חיטין הואיל ולא נהנית פטור. אכלה אוכלין שאין דרכה לאכלן כגון שאכלה כסות ג או כלים בין ברשות הניזק בין ברשות הרבים משלם חצי נזק שזה שינוי הוא ודרך בני אדם להניח כליהם וכסותן ברשות הרבים עד שינוחו מעט:

4
There is a doubt [regarding the liability of the owner when his] animal is standing in a private domain, but takes produce [belonging to the owner of the private domain] from the public domain and eats it in that private domain.6 Therefore, [the owner] is liable only for the benefit [his animal] derived.7 If, however, the person whose property was damaged seizes possession of the full worth of the damage [caused by the animal], it should not be expropriated from him,8 for [the produce] was eaten in his domain.
ד
בהמה שהיתה עומדת ברשות הניזק ותלשה פירות מרשות הרבים ואכלתן ברשות הניזק הרי הדבר ספק לפיכך אינה משלמת אלא מה שנהנית  ואם תפש הניזק  כמה שהזיקה אין מוציאין מידו שהרי ברשותו אכלה:

5
When a dog entered a courtyard, took bread or meat, brought it into the public domain or to another courtyard9 and ate it there, [the owner] should pay for the benefit [the dog] received.10 If [the dog] ate [the food] in a field belonging to the owner of the courtyard, the [dog's owner] must pay the full extent of the damages as if it had been eaten in the courtyard, because it was eaten in a domain belonging to the person whose property was damaged.11 The same [laws] apply in all analogous situations.
ה
כלב שנכנס לחצר ונטל פת או בשר והוציאן לרשות הרבים או לחצר אחר ואכלם שם מה שנהנה משלם. אכלם בשדה של בעל החצר משלם נזק שלם כאילו אכלן בתוך החצר שהרי ברשות הניזק אכל. וכן כל כיוצא בזה:

6
[The following rules apply when] an animal eats foods that it would not ordinarily eat, but would eat under constraint: e.g., a cow that ate barley, a donkey that ate vetch12 or fish, a pig that ate a piece of meat, a dog that licked oil, a cat that ate dates and the like. If the foods were eaten in a domain belonging to the person whose property was damaged, [the owner] must pay the entire amount of the damage.13 [If the foods were eaten] in the public domain, he is not liable. If [the animal] benefited, the owner must pay for that benefit.
ו
בהמה שאכלה אוכלין שאין דרכה לאכלן אבל אוכלתן על ידי הדחק. כגון פרה שאכלה שעורים וחמור שאכל כרשינים או דגים ְוחזיר שאכל חתיכה בשר וכלב שלקק את השמן וחתול שאכל תמרים וכן כל כיוצא באלו. אם אכלה ברשות הניזק משלם נזק שלם וברשות הרבים פטור. ואם נהנית משלם מה שנהנית:

7
When a beast enters a private domain and seizes an animal or meat14 and eats it, [its owner] must pay the full extent of the damages, for this is its ordinary course of behavior. When, however, a dog eats small sheep,15 or a cat eats large cocks,16 this is considered to be a deviation,17 and [the owner] is liable for [only] half the damages.
ז
חיה שנכנסה לרשות הניזק וטרפה ואכלה בהמה או בשר משלם נזק שלם שזהו דרכה. אבל ו כלב שאכל כבשים קטנים או חתול שאכל תרנגולים גדולים הרי זה שינוי ומשלם חצי נזק:

8
When there is a basket of bread [in a private domain], and a donkey enters and breaks the basket and eats the bread, [the owner] is liable for the full extent of the damages, for this is [a donkey's] ordinary behavior. Similarly, if a goat sees a turnip or the like on the opening of a jug, stumbles over the jug and eats the turnip and breaks the jug, [the owner] must pay the full damages for both, for it is the ordinary pattern [for such an animal] to hang on to utensils and climb on them in order to eat. The same applies in all analogous situations. If, however, a donkey came in and ate bread and then broke a basket, [the owner] is liable for full damages for the bread, but only half damages for the basket.18The same applies in all analogous situations.
ח
סל שיש בו לחם ונכנס חמור ושבר הסל ואכל הלחם משלם על הסל ועל הלחם נזק שלם שזה הוא דרכו. וכן שעיר עזים שראה לפת וכיוצא בו על פי החבית ונסתבך בחבית ואכל את הלפת ושבר את החבית משלם על שניהם נזק שלם. כשם שדרכו לאכול כך דרכו להתלות בכלים ולעלות כדי לאכול וכן כל כיוצא בזה. אבל אם נכנס החמור ואכל את הלחם ואחר כך שבר את הסל על הלחם משלם נזק שלם ועל הסל חצי נזק וכן כל כיוצא בזה:

9
When an animal eats [produce] in the marketplace, whether when walking or when standing, [its owner] must pay [only] for the benefit it received.19 This applies even if the animal turns [its head] to the corners of the marketplace and eats.20 If, however, the animal left the marketplace and went and stood at the corner of the marketplace and ate [produce], [its owner] must pay for the damages.21 If the animal ate from [produce in] the storefront, [the owner] must pay [only] for the benefit it received. If it ate from [produce] within the store, he must pay the full extent of the damages.
ט
בהמה שאכלה מתוך הרחבה בין דרך הליכתה בין שעמדה ואכלה משלם מה שנהנית, ואפילו חזרה על צדי הרחבה ואכלה מהן. אבל אם הניחה את הרחבה והלכה ועמדה בצדי הרחבה ואכלה משלם מה שהזיקה. א אכלה מפתח החנות משלם מה שנהנית מתוך החנות משלם מה שהזיקה:

10
If an animal was walking in the public domain and stretched out its neck and ate from [produce] that was [loaded onto] another animal's back, [its owner] must pay [only] for the benefit it received, for it is common for animals to eat from [a load] being carried by another.22 [This law applies] even when [the animal] stands. If it jumped23 to eat from the [produce] that was [loaded onto] another animal's back, [its owner] must pay the full extent of the damages,24 because the back of another animal is considered to be the private domain of the person who suffered the damage.
י
היתה מהלכת ברשות הרבים ופשטה צוארה ואכלה מעל גבי חברתה ואפילו עמדה משלם מה שנהנית שכן דרך הבהמות לאכול זו מעל גבי זו. ואם קפצה ואכלה על גבי חברתה משלם מה שהזיקה שגבי חברתה כחצר הניזק הוא חשוב:

11
When an animal slips on a stone or on urine and falls onto fruit or vegetables or eats them, [the owner] is required to pay [only] for the benefit it receives. Even if it walks from one row to another row, and even if it stays there the entire day, he is required to pay [only] for the benefit it receives.25 What benefit could it receive from falling? That it fell on a soft place and did not crush its limbs. If, by contrast, an animal descended [into private property] in an ordinary manner and ate produce, [the owner] must pay the full extent of the damages. Even if it soiled produce with its afterbirth, [the owner] must pay the full extent of the damages, because the first stage involved negligence.26Similarly, if it was pushed by another animal and fell, [the owner] must pay the full extent of the damages, because he should have had them pass one by one so that they would not push each other.27
יא
בהמה שהוחלקה באבן או במימי רגליה ונפלה לגינה ונחבטה על גבי פירות וירקות או שאכלה משלם מה שנהנית. אפילו הלכה מערוגה לערוגה ואפילו נשארה שם כל היום כולו אינו משלם אלא מה שנהנית. ומה הנאה יש לה בחביטה שהרי מצאה מקום רך ולא נתרסקו איבריה. אבל אם ירדה כדרכה ואכלה משלם מה שהזיקה. ואפילו טנפה פירות במי לידה משלם מה שהזיקה מפני שתחילתו בפשיעה. וכן אם דחפתה חברתה ונפלה משלם מה שהזיקה מפני שהיה לו להעבירן אחת אחת כדי שלא ידחפו זו את זו:

12
If it slipped and fell [into another person's garden], departed28 and then returned to that garden, [the owner] must pay the full extent of the damages, even if it returned without his knowledge. He was obligated to watch it, [and prevent it] from returning.29 For it is known that if an animal knows the way to a garden, it will return on its own initiative.
יב
הוחלקה ונפלה ויצאת וחזרה לגינה אע"פ שחזרה שלא לדעת הבעלים משלם מה שהזיקה מפני שהיה לו לשמרה שלא תחזור שהדבר ידוע שכיון שידעה דרך הגינה הרי היא חוזרת מאליה:

13
When a potter brings his wares into a person's courtyard without his permission, and an animal belonging to the owner [of the courtyard] broke the pottery, [the owner] is not liable.30 [Moreover,] if the animal is injured, the potter is liable.31 If he brought his wares in with [the owner's] permission, [the potter is not liable [for the animal's injury].32 If the owner made a commitment to guard the pottery, he is liable [for the damages].
יג
הקדר שהכניס קדרותיו לחצר בעל הבית שלא ברשות ושברתן בהמתו של בעל הבית פטור, ואם הוזקה בהן בעל הקדרות חייב. ואם הכניס ברשות פטור. ואם קבל עליו בעל הבית לשמור את הקדרות בעל הבית חייב:

14
Similarly, if [a person] brought produce into a courtyard belonging to another individual without his permission and the animal belonging to the owner [of the courtyard] ate it, [the owner of the courtyard] is not liable.33 If the animal slipped on it and suffered injuries, the owner of the produce is liable.34 If he brought the produce in with [the owner's] permission, [the owner of the produce] is not liable [for the animal's injury].35 If the owner [of the courtyard] made a commitment to guard the produce, he is liable [for the damages to the produce].36 If the person brought produce [into a courtyard] without permission, and an animal belonging to the owner of the courtyard ate it and suffered injury because it ate it, the owner of the produce is not liable. The animal should not have eaten it.37 When the owner of a courtyard allowed a person to bring his produce into [the courtyard] and left [the owner of the produce] to watch it, if an animal belonging to the owner of the courtyard ate from the produce and suffered damages, the owner of the produce is liable. Since he saw the animal eating produce that could damage it and took no action, he is liable. For the owner of the courtyard is not present to banish his animal from them. An incident occurred when a woman entered to bake in the house of her neighbors.38 They left her alone, so that they would not see her while she was kneading and baking.39 A goat belonging to the owner came and ate from [her raw] dough and died. The Sages obligated her to reimburse [the owners] for the goat. These principles apply in all similar situations.
יד
וכן אם הכניס פירותיו לחצר בעל הבית שלא ברשות ואכלתם בהמתו של בעל הבית פטור. ואם הוחלקה בהן והוזקה בעל הפירות חייב. ואם הכניס ברשות פטור. ואם קבל עליו בעל הבית לשמור את הפירות  בעל הבית חייב. הכניסן  שלא ברשות ואכלתן בהמתו של בעל הבית והוזקה באכילתן בעל הפירות פטור מפני שהיה לה שלא תאכל. ואם הכניסה ברשות והניחו בעלי החצר את זה שהרשהו בחצר לשמרו ואכלתן בהמתו של בעל הבית והוזקה באכילתן בעל הפירות חייב. שכיון שראה הבהמה אוכלת דברים המזיקין לה והניחה חייב שהרי אין בעלי החצר מצויין שם להעביר הבהמה מהן. ומעשה באשה שנכנסה לאפות בתנור בבית שכנותיה והניחוה ונתעלמו כדי שלא יביטו בה בעת לישתה ואפייתה ובא עז של בעל הבית ואכל הבצק ומת וחייבוה חכמים לשלם דמיו. וכן כל כיוצא בזה:

15
When a person made a grain heap in a field belonging to a colleague without the latter's permission, and an animal belonging to the owner of the field ate it, [the owner of the field] is not liable. If the animal slipped on it and suffered injuries, the owner of the produce is liable. If the animal ate it and suffered injury because it ate it, [the owner of the produce] is not liable.40 If he had permission to make the grain heap, the owner of the field is liable, even if he did not accept the responsibility to guard [the grain pile]. Once a watchman in the granaries says: "Make your grain heap here," it is as if he told him: "Make your grain heap and I will guard it for you."41
טו
המגדיש בתוך שדה חבירו שלא ברשות ואכלתן בהמתו של בעל השדה פטור. ואם הוחלקה והוזקה בעל הפירות חייב. אכלתן והוזקה באכילתן פטור. ואם הגדיש ברשות בעל השדה חייב  אע"פ  שלא קבל עליו לשמור. שהשומר בגרנות כיון שאמר לו הגדש בכאן כמי שאמר לו הגדש ואני אשמור לך הוא חשוב:

FOOTNOTES
1.
The proof-text stated above explicitly states that the owner is liable when his animals pasture in another's field. This is understood as excluding the public domain.In Chapter 1, Halachah 8, the Rambam explains the rationale for this exclusion: It is the habit of an animal to go and eat as it proceeds - i.e., if a person leaves produce in the public domain, he should take it for granted that it will be eaten by the animals passing through.
2.
Our translation is loose. The Hebrew b'zol literally means as they are cheap. Rashi (Bava Kama 20a) states that he should pay 2/3 of the market price of the fodder. The reason for this reduction is that the owner is being forced to pay against his will.Based on his interpretation of the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Kama 2:2), the Shiltei Gibborim interpret b'zol as meaning when they are cheap - i.e., if they cost less than the substance eaten by the animal.
3.
Here also we have used a loose translation, because as mentioned in the Maggid Mishneh, the Kessef Mishneh and the Lechem Mishneh, there are several different interpretations of the Hebrew term emir.
4.
I.e., although the chestnuts or the sesame seeds are more valuable than the simple fodder, the owner is required to pay only the market price for the fodder, for that is what he would have fed his animal.
5.
The commentaries explain that this damage is considered a derivative of goring.
6.
There are two dimensions to the damage: the place from which the produce was taken, and the place where it was destroyed. One is not liable for produce taken from the public domain, but one is liable for produce eaten in a private domain. Hence the doubt mentioned by the Rambam. See Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 391:12.
7.
Because of the doubt, money cannot be exacted from its owner.
8.
Since the money is now in possession of the person whose property was damaged, it can also not be exacted from him. See the notes to Chapter 1, Halachah 11.
9.
Belonging to another person.
10.
I.e., he does not pay the full price of the food. The rationale is, as in the previous halachah, that the food was eaten in the public domain.
11.
The fact that it was taken away from the place from which it was originally taken is not significant, provided that it is eaten in a domain belonging to that owner.
12.
A type of bean usually eaten by cows.
13.
Despite the fact that this is not the animal's ordinary food, since it ate it, the owner is liable for the damages. If, however, an animal eats food that it would never eat - e.g., a cow ate meat - the owner must pay only half the damages Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 391:3).
14.
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 391:6) interpret this as referring to raw meat alone.
15.
I.e., even small sheep; certainly this applies with regard to large sheep.
16.
Eating small cocks, however, is not considered a deviation. See Ketubot 41b.
17.
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) clarifies that this refers only to living animals. Once an animal has died, however, it is natural for a dog or cat to eat from its corpse regardless of its size.
18.
This is considered a derivative of goring. Hence the payment must be exacted from the body of the animal that caused the damage Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 391:4).
19.
For the marketplace is considered to be part of the public domain.
20.
For this is also the ordinary practice of an animal in the public domain.
21.
The area on the side of the marketplace is considered to be a private domain, and considered like the private property of the person whose property was damaged (Tosafot, Bava Kama 21a).
22.
Therefore, it is considered to be an ordinary instance of an animal's eating produce in the public domain.
23.
And placed its forelegs on the other animal. By doing so, it is considered to have left the public domain and entered the domain of the person whose produce was damaged.
24.
The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 391:11) differ and maintain that this ruling applies only when it is impossible for the animal to eat the produce without jumping on the other animal.
25.
Since the animal entered the private domain by accident, its owner is not held responsible for the damage it caused.
26.
Even if the owner did not know that the animal was about to give birth, and thus the damage can be considered to have come about by forces beyond his control. Since the animal's entry into the private domain came as a result of negligence, the owner is held liable. See Chapter 2, Halachah 15.
27.
I.e., this is also considered negligence on the owner's part. The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 394:1) consider this to be accidental, and free the owner of responsibility.
28.
The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 394:2) state that this law applies when the owner is aware that the animal entered the garden and departed.
29.
The Maggid Mishneh, the Tur and the Ramah (ibid.) state that if the owner locked the animal in a stall in an ordinary manner, and the animal managed to escape and return to the garden, the owner is not liable, because he did everything necessary to prevent this from happening.
30.
His animal has free rein within his own courtyard; it can be assumed that it will walk freely and trod on anything placed there. The potter brought his wares there at his own risk.
31.
The pottery is considered to be a pit dug in someone's private property, because the potter should have taken the necessary precautions to ensure that the owner's animal would not be damaged.
32.
For the owner knew of the pottery and should have taken care that his animal not be damaged.
33.
For it can be assumed that his animal will eat any produce left in his courtyard.
34.
For he created an obstacle in another person's domain.
35.
Since the owner gave the person permission to place his produce there, he must take responsibility for his animal.
36.
Note the Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 393:1, 398:5), who maintain that if the owner of the courtyard gave the person permission to bring his wares in, he becomes liable for them. He does not have to make an explicit statement accepting responsibility.
37.
I.e., the owner of the courtyard should take responsibility for making sure that his animal does not overeat (Sefer Me'irat Einayim 393:4).
38.
Sefer Me'irat Einayim 393:5 explains that this incident teaches that even when the owner of the produce does not know that the owner of the courtyard has left, under certain circumstances, he should take responsibility for the animal belonging to the owner of the courtyard.
39.
It is common for a woman to roll up her sleeves and bare her arms when she is kneading dough. Out of concern for modesty, the owners of the house left the room (Bava Kama 48a).
40.
These laws are basically a restatement of those of the previous halachah. The new insight stated by the Rambam comes in the following paragraph.
41.
Note the Lechem Mishneh and the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Kama 6:3), which indicate that the watchman is liable and not the owner of the field.See, however, Sefer Me'irat Einayim 393:7, which states that this is speaking about an instance in which the owner himself guards his fields.

Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Four
1
When a person gathers sheep in a corral and locks them in with a gate that can withstand an ordinary wind, and [yet the sheep were able to] leave and cause damage, the owner is not liable.1 If [the gate] cannot withstand an ordinary wind or if the walls of the corral are shaky, [the owner] is not considered to have enclosed [the sheep] in a proper manner. [Thus, if they are able to] leave and cause damage, he is liable.2 Even if [the sheep] dug beneath [the gate3 to] get out, [the gate] was broken at night,4 or thieves broke it down, the owner of the sheep is liable [for the damage his sheep cause].5 If, however, the gate was strong and it was broken at night or thieves broke in, and then [the sheep] departed and caused damage, [the owner] is not liable.6 If the thieves took the sheep out and then they caused damage, the thieves are liable.
א
הכונס צאן לדיר ונעל בפניהן בדלת שיכולה לעמוד ברוח מצויה ויצאה והזיקה פטור. ואם אינה יכולה לעמוד ברוח מצויה או שהיו כותלי הדיר רעועין הרי לא נעל בפניהם כראוי ואם יצאת והזיקה חייב. ואפילו חתרה ויצאת ואפילו נפרצה מחיצה בלילה או פרצוה ליסטים בעל הצאן חייב. היתה מחיצה בריאה ונפרצה בלילה או שפרצוה ליסטים ויצאת והזיקה פטור הוציאוה ליסטים והזיקה ליסטים חייבים:

2
[The following rules apply when] a person breaks down a fence in front of an animal belonging to a colleague. If the fence was strong and sturdy, he is liable.7 If the wall was shaky, he cannot be held liable according to mortal law,8 but he has a moral obligation. Similarly, if a person places poison in front of an animal belonging to a colleague, he cannot be held liable according to mortal law,9 but he has a moral obligation.10
ב
הפורץ גדר לפני בהמת חבירו ויצאת והזיקה. אם היה גדר חזק ובריא חייב. ואם היה כותל רעוע פטור בדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים. וכן הנותן סם המות לפני בהמת חבירו פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים:

3
When a person brings an animal belonging to a colleague to crops belonging to a third individual, the person who brought the animal there is liable.11 Similarly, if a colleague hit an animal with a switch until it walked to crops belonging to a third individual, the person who switched it is liable.
ג
המעמיד בהמת חבירו על גבי קמת חבירו המעמיד חייב לשלם מה שהזיק. וכן אם הכישה עד שהלכה לקמת חבירו והזיקה זה שהכישה חייב:

4
When a person entrusts his animal to an unpaid watchman, a paid watchman, a renter or a borrower, these individuals assume the owner's responsibilities. If [the animal] causes damages, the watchman is held liable. When does the above apply? When he did not guard the animal at all. If, however, he guarded the animal in an excellent manner, as he should,12 and it got loose and caused damage, the watchman is not liable, and the owners are liable, even if the animal kills a human being.13Should the watchman guard the animal in an inferior manner,14 he is not held liable if he is an unpaid watchman.15 If he is a paid watchman, a renter or a borrower, he is held liable.16
ד
המוסר בהמתו לשומר חנם או לנושא שכר או לשוכר או לשואל נכנסו תחת הבעלים ואם הזיקה חייב השומר. במה דברים אמורים בזמן שלא שמרוה כלל אבל אם שמרוה שמירה מעולה כראוי ויצאת והזיקה השומרים פטורין והבעלים חייבים אפילו המיתה את האדם. שמרוה  שמירה  פחותה אם שומר חנם הוא פטור ואם שומר שכר או שוכר או שואל הוא חייבין:

5
If [a person] leaves an animal in the sun and it gets loose and causes damage, even if it must dig [under the fence to do so], the one who left it in the sun is liable. [The rationale is that because of] the discomfort [the animal] feels, it will do anything it possibly can to flee.17
ה
הניחה בחמה אפילו חתרה ויצאת והזיקה חייב זה שהניחה שם. שכיון שהניחה בחמה הרי היא מצטערת ובורחת ועושה כל שאפשר לה לעשות:

6
When [a person] gives his animal to a deaf mute, a mentally incompetent individual or a minor18 to watch, the owner is liable. [This applies] even if the ox is tied, for an ox - and similarly other [animals] - will break open the knot and go out and cause damage.19 Even if the animal was guarded in an excellent manner, and it dug [under the fence] and escaped and caused damage, the owners are liable.20
ו
מסר בהמתו לחרש שוטה וקטן אע"פ שהיה השור קשור הבעלים חייבין. שדרך השור וכיוצא בו להתיר הקשר ולצאת ולהזיק. אפילו שמרוה שמירה מעולה וחתרה ויצאה והזיקה הבעלים חייבים:

7
[The following rules apply when] a person entrusts his ox to five men, one of them was negligent, and the ox escaped and caused damage. If all five are required to guard the ox, the person who was negligent is liable.21 If the ox can still be watched by the others, they share in the liability.22
ז
מסר שורו לחמשה ופשע בו אחד מהן ויצא והזיק אם אינו משתמר אלא בחמשתן זה שפשע בשמירתו חייב. ואם משתמר בשארן אף אלו הנשארין חייב:

8
[The following rules apply if a person] borrowed an ox under the presumption that it was an ordinary ox, and it was discovered that it had already been classified as one that gores. If the borrower knew that it had a tendency to gore,23 the owners are required to pay half the damages, for wherever the ox goes, it remains the owner's property.24 The borrower is also required to pay half the damages, because even if it had been an ordinary ox, as he had thought, he would have been required to pay half the damages, for he knew that the ox had a tendency to gore.25 If, however, the borrower did not know of this tendency, he is not liable at all,26 and the owners must pay the entire amount of the damages.
ח
שאלו בחזקת תם ונמצא מועד. אם ידע השואל שהוא נגחן הבעלים משלמים חצי נזק שכל מקום שהוא הולך הרי שם בעליו עליו. והשואל משלם חצי נזק. שאפילו היה תם (כשעלה בדעתו) חצי נזק היה משלם שהרי ידע שהוא נגחן. ואם לא ידע שהוא נגחן אין השואל חייב כלום והבעלים  משלמין נזק שלם:

9
When a borrower borrows an ox that is classified as an ordinary ox, and it becomes classified as a goring ox when in the possession of the borrower, it is removed from that category when it is returned to its owner. Since the domain [under which the animal is] changes, its classification also changes. [If the ox gores,] the owners must pay half the damages, and the borrower is not held liable at all, for he returned it to its owners.
ט
שאלו כשהוא תם והועד בבית השואל והחזירו לבעליו חוזר לתמותו. הואיל ונשתנית רשותו בטלה ההעדה והבעלים משלמין חצי נזק והשואל פטור שהרי החזירו:

10
When a watchman accepts responsibility only for watching the body of an animal [entrusted to him], but [does not accept responsibility] for the damage it causes, if [the animal] causes damage the watchman is not held liable, and its owners are.27 If [the watchman] accepted responsibility [only] for the damages [the animal] causes, he is liable if it causes damage. If it is injured, the watchman is not liable, and the owners should sue the person who caused the injury.
י
שומר שקבל עליו שמירת גוף הבהמה בלבד אבל לא שמירת נזקיה והזיקה פטור מלשלם והבעלים חייבים. קבל שמירת נזקיה והזיקה חייב השומר. ואם הוזקה פטור והבעלים עושים  דין עם המזיק:

11
When a watchman entrusts [an animal] to another watchman, [and it causes damage], the first watchman is liable to pay the person whose property was damaged. For whenever one watchman delegates [an entrusted object] to another watchman, he is liable.28 For the person whose property was damaged will tell him: "Why didn't you watch it yourself instead of delegating it to someone else? Pay me yourself, and sue the watchman to whom you delegated it." If, however, the watchman entrusted [the animal] to his son, a member of his household or one of his helpers, they assume the responsibility that was the watchman's, and they are liable.29
יא
מסר השומר לשומר אחר השומר הראשון חייב לשלם לניזק שהשומר שמסר לשומר חייב. והרי הניזק אומר לו למה לא שמרת אתה בעצמך ומסרת לאחר שלם לי אתה ולך ועשה דין עם השומר שמסרת לו אתה. מסרה השומר לבנו או לבן ביתו או למסעדו נכנסו תחת השומר וחייבים:

12
[The following rule applies when] a watchman is liable to pay [for the damages an animal caused], but he is insolvent. If the animal that caused the damage is considered to be an ordinary animal, in which case half the damages must be paid from the body of the animal itself, the person whose property was damaged should take his due from the animal, and the sum that he collects should be considered to be a debt owed by the watchman to the owner of the animal.30
יב
כל שומר שנתחייב לשלם ואין לו והיה המזיק תם שהוא משלם חצי נזק מגופו הרי הניזק משתלם מן הבהמה שהזיקה וישאר דמי מה שגבה הניזק חוב על השומר לבעל הבהמה:

13
Whenever an animal causes damage to crops that are growing, the damage is assessed by comparison with a field sixty times the size of the crops that were damaged. The one who is liable - either the owner or the watchman - is obligated to pay that sum.31 What is implied? If [an animal] ate the amount of produce that would grow when a se'ah [of seeds] were sown in that field, we calculate the worth of an area in which sixty se'ah [of seeds] could be sown in that field, [evaluating] how much it would be worth [before the animal ate from it] and how much it is worth now. [The owner or the watchman] is liable for the remainder. Similarly, if the animal ate an amount of produce that would grow when a kav or a quarter of a kav were sown - [or even if it ate] one stalk of grain - the damages are assessed by comparison with a field sixty times the size of the crops that were damaged.
יג
כל בהמה שהזיקה פירות מחוברין משערין מה שהזיקה בששים ומשלם זה שנתחייב לשלם בין הבעלים בין השומרים. כיצד הרי שאכלה בית סאה שמין ששים בית סאה באותה השדה כמה היה שוה וכמה הוא שוה עתה אחר שנפסד בו הבית סאה ומשלם השאר. וכן אם אכלה קב או רובע אפילו קלח אחד שמין אותו בששים:

14
When, [by contrast,] an animal ate fruit that ripened and no longer needed [the nurture of] the land, [the owner of the animal is required to] pay the full value of ripe produce. If [the animal ate] a se'ah, he must pay for a se'ah. If [it ate] two se'ah, he must pay for two se'ah. [The following laws apply if an animal] ate the fruit of one date palm, or a person gathered the fruit of a colleague's date palm and ate it. If it was a Roman date palm, whose fruit is not of very high quality, it should be measured in comparison with a orchard of date palms sixty times the size of its land. If it was a Persian date palm or the like, whose fruit is of very high quality, the date palm should be evaluated individually. An assessment should be made of its worth before the fruit was eaten and its worth after the fruit was eaten.
יד
אכלה פירות גמורין שאין צריכים לקרקע משלם דמי פירות גמורין בשוויהן אם סאה דמי סאה ואם סאתים דמי סאתים. הרי שאכלה ב פירות דקל אחד וכן הלוקט פירות דקל חבירו ואכל אם היה דקל רומי וכיוצא בו שאין התמרים שלו יפות משערין אותו בששים על גב הקרקע. ואם דקל פרסי וכיוצא בו הוא שהתמרים שלו יפות ביותר משערין הדקל בפני עצמו כמה היה שוה וכמה הוא שוה עתה:

FOOTNOTES
1.
For he has done all that could be expected of him to watch his sheep.
2.
For he is considered to be negligent.
3.
If, however, they dug under another part of the corral, the owner is not liable, for their exit has nothing to do with his negligence (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 396:1).
4.
If the walls were broken during the day, and the owner did not fix them, he is considered to be negligent.
5.
Although the damage is considered to have been caused by forces beyond the owner's control, since this damage was preceded by acts of negligence on the part of the owner, he is liable. See Chapter 2, Halachah 15.
6.
The damage is considered to have been caused by forces beyond the owner's control. Even if the owner is informed that the gate to his corral was broken at night, he is not obligated to fix it until the following day (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:2).
7.
The Ra'avad and the Tur maintain that the person who broke the fence is not liable unless he leads the animal out. The Rambam's ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 396:3), while the Ramah cites the other views.See the Maggid Mishneh, who questions the difference between this law and the previous one, which states that thieves are not liable unless they actually take the animal out of the corral.
8.
Since the owner is considered negligent in leaving the fence shaky, he is held liable for the damage the animal caused. Needless to say, the person who broke the wall down is liable for the damage to the wall, even though it was shaky.
9.
He is considered to have been merely an indirect cause (grama).
10.
See Chapter 2, Halachah 19.
11.
He is considered to be a direct cause of the damage.
12.
I.e., enclosing it behind a gate capable of withstanding winds of unusual force.
13.
The wording of this halachah has raised questions for there is an obvious difficulty: If the watchmen guarded the animal in an excellent manner, why is the owner liable? The Maggid Mishneh explains that the liability refers only to damage caused by the animal by goring. (See Chapter 7, Halachah 1.) The Kessef Mishneh refers to a responsum purported to have been sent by the Rambam to the Sages of Lunil, which states that there was a printing error and the text should read: If, however, they guarded the animal in an excellent manner, as they should, and it got loose and caused damage, the watchman is not liable. If the watchman guarded the animal in an inferior manner, he is not held liable if he is an unpaid watchman. Instead, the owners are liable, even if the animal kills a human being. The watchman is held liable if he is a paid watchman, a renter or a borrower.In his Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 396:8), Rav Yosef Karo quotes the interpretation of the Maggid Mishneh. The Sefer Me'irat Einayim 396:18 questions this, referring to Karo's Kessef Mishneh.
14.
Enclosing it behind a gate capable of withstanding ordinary winds.
15.
For an unpaid watchman is not expected to take as thorough care of an animal as a paid watchman. See, however, note 13.
16.
Such watchmen are expected to watch the animal in a thorough manner.
17.
The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 396:5) state that even if the person tied the animal with a strong rope, he is liable if it breaks loose in these circumstances.
18.
All of these three types of people are considered mentally incompetent. They are not responsible for their actions, and the owner is considered negligent for charging them with watching his animal.
19.
The owner is considered negligent because these individuals will frequently play with the rope, and by doing so loosen the knot, enabling the animal to break free.
20.
Although escaping in this manner is considered to be a factor beyond the owner's control, since he was originally negligent in entrusting the animal to a mentally incompetent person, he must bear the consequences.The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling. It is, however, accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 396:6).
21.
For the damage is due to his negligence.
22.
For had they not been negligent as well, the ox would not have escaped. Although the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 396:7) appears to favor the Rambam's ruling, it also quotes the opinion of the Tur, which states that the person who is negligent shares the liability only when the others tell him that because of his negligence, they are withdrawing their responsibility. Otherwise, it is they who are liable, and not he.
23.
But did not know that it had been placed in the category of a goring ox.
24.
I.e., when an animal is sold, its status is changed with the change in ownership. (See Chapter 6, Halachah 6.) This, however, does not apply when it is merely borrowed (Kessef Mishneh).
25.
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, explaining that it applies only when the court takes possession of the ox.
26.
For it is more difficult to guard an ox that has a tendency to gore, and the borrower did not accept this responsibility.
27.
The Rambam's statements imply that if the watchman makes no specific statement with regard to whether or not he is responsible for the damages the animal causes, he is liable for the damage it causes (Maggid Mishneh). The Ra'avad understands the Rambam as making such an implication, and he objects, maintaining that the watchman should not be held liable. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 396:8) follows the Maggid Mishneh's conception. They maintain that the principle followed by the Rambam should be accepted with the exception of a goring ox.
28.
The first watchman is considered negligent in entrusting it to a second watchman (even if an unpaid watchman entrusts it to a paid watchman). Therefore, the first watchman is liable, even in an instance when the object was destroyed by forces beyond the second watchman's control.
29.
The rationale is that a watchman will frequently delegate an entrusted article to these individuals. The owner should have taken this into account when he entrusted the article to the watchman at the outset.
30.
If the animal was already classified as prone to cause damages, this law would not apply, because the obligation would rest solely on the watchman's person. When, however, the animal is not placed in that category, since its own body is on lien for the damages, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 7, it is expropriated in lieu of payment.
31.
Since the produce was growing, it would be unfair for the person whose animal caused the damages to be required to pay for it as if it were harvested fruit that was damaged. Instead, one considers the damaged crops as a part in a larger whole, thus reducing the amount of the damages. A compromise is accepted that takes in consideration the positions of both the owner of the land and the owner of the animal.The produce is not evaluated individually, for this would inflate the amount of damages paid. Nor is its share evaluated in comparison with the entire field, for then the amount of damages would be unfairly low. Instead, it is evaluated when compared with an area sixty times its size as explained.A se'ah is six kabbin. A kab is 1.376 kilograms according to Shiurei Torah. Thus a se'ah is 8.256 kilograms. The area where a se'ah of seeds would be sown is 50 cubits by 50 cubits.

Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Five
1
[The following laws apply when] an animal was pasturing and entered fields and vineyards [belonging to others]. Even though it did not cause any damage,1 a warning should be given to its owner on three occasions.2 [Afterwards,] if he does not watch his animal and prevent it from pasturing [in other people's fields], the owner of the field has the right to slaughter the animal in a ritually acceptable manner,3 and tell its owners: "Come and sell your meat." [The rationale is that] it is forbidden for a person to cause damages and then to pay for the damages he caused. Even being an [indirect] cause of damage is forbidden.
א
בהמה שהיתה רועה ג ופרשה ונכנסה בשדות ובכרמים אע"פ שעדיין לא הזיקה מתרין בבעליה שלש פעמים. אם לא שמר בהמתו ולא מנעה מלרעות יש רשות לבעל השדה לשחטה [ג] שחיטה כשרה ואומר לבעליה בואו ומכרו בשר שלכם. מפני שאסור לאדם להזיק ולשלם מה שהזיק אפילו לגרום הנזק אסור:

2
For this reason, our Sages forbade [our people] from raising small animals4 and small beasts5 in Eretz Yisrael, where there are fields and vineyards.6 One may, however, raise these animals in the forests and deserts of Eretz Yisrael.7In Syria,8 it is permitted to raise these animals everywhere.
ב
לפיכך אסרו חכמים לגדל א בהמה דקה וחיה דקה בארץ ישראל במקום השדות והכרמים אלא ביערים ובמדברות שבארץ ישראל. ומגדלין בסוריא בכל מקום:

3
Joshua and his court established ten conditions at the time they divided the land [into ancestral plots]: a) One may pasture a small animal in forests that are thick with trees;9 one may not, however, pasture a large animal there.10 In a forest that is not thick with trees, one may not pasture either a large animal or a small animal without the permission of the owners. b) Any person is permitted to collect wood from a field belonging to a colleague. This refers to wood that is not valuable - comparable to thorns, brambles and prickly shrubs. Moreover, this refers to fresh twigs that are still connected to their source of nurture,11 and applies only when the person will not uproot them entirely.12 It is forbidden to take other types of wood. c) Any person may collect grass that is growing on its own accord anywhere,13 except for a field of fenugrec that was sown to be used as animal fodder.14 d) A person may cut off a branch from any tree in any place,15 except from the branches left in an old olive tree.16 One may not, however, cut off closer than the length of an egg from the place where the branches begin to spread from an olive tree. And one may cut only from the place where a shoot is joined to the trunk of a reed or a vine. With regard to other trees, one may cut from the center of the tree and not from its higher branches. [Although] permission was granted to cut off a branch, this applies only to [cutting] from a new branch17 that does not yet produce fruit, but not from an old branch that produces fruit. One may cut off [a branch] only from a portion of the tree that is not exposed to the sun.18 e) When a new spring of water emerges, the inhabitants of the city in whose territory it emerges may make use of it,19 even though its source is elsewhere. No others may take water from it together with them. f) Any person may catch fish in Lake Kinneret, provided he fishes with a small net. Only the tribe20 to which the lake was awarded as part of their ancestral portion may spread out large nets that will prevent the passage of other boats.21 g) Any person who needs to relieve himself may turn off the path, go behind any fence he sees and defecate there. [This applies] even with regard to a field of saffron.22 One may pick up a stone from there and clean oneself with it. h) Any person who loses his way in a vineyard or the like may break through the vines and ascend, or break through the vines and descend until he is able to find his way. i) When the public thoroughfare is filled with mud, or the ravines are filled with water, passersby may take side paths, even though they are private property. j) A corpse that has no one to bury it23 acquires its place and should be buried there by the person who finds it. This applies provided the corpse is not lying lengthwise across the path,24 or within the Sabbath boundaries of a city. In those instances, the corpse should be transported to a cemetery.25
ג
עשרה תנאים ב התנה יהושע ובית דינו בשעה שחלק את הארץ, ואלו הן. א) התנה שמרעין בהמה דקה ביערים שאילניהן גסין. אבל אין מרעין שם בהמה גסה. וביער שאילניו דקים אין מרעין בו לא גסה ולא דקה אלא מדעת בעליו. ב) וכן התנה שיהיה כל אדם מותר ללקט עצים משדה חבירו. והוא שיהיו עצים פחותים וקרובים להיות קוצים כגון היזמי והיני. והוא שיהיו לחים ומחוברין ובלבד שלא ישרש. אבל שאר עצים אסור. ג) וכן התנה שיהיה כל אדם מותר ללקט עשבים העולין מאיליהן בכל מקום חוץ משדה תלתן שזרעה לבהמה. ד) וכן התנה שיהיה אדם קוטם נטיעה בכל מקום חוץ מגרופיות של זית ואינו קוטם מן האילנות אלא בזית כביצה ובקנים ובגפנים מן הפקק ולמעלה ובשאר האילן מתוכו* של אילן לא מחודו. וכשהתיר לקטום לא התיר אלא מחדש שאינו עושה פירות אבל לא מישן שעושה פירות. ואינו קוטם אלא ממקום שאינו רואה פני חמה. ה) וכן התנה שהמעיין היוצא בתחילה בני אותה העיר שיצא בגבולם מסתפקין ממנו אע"פ שאין עיקרו בחלקם ואין לאחרים להסתפק עמהם ממנו. ו) וכן התנה שיהיה כל אדם מותר לצוד דגים מים טבריה והוא שיצוד בחכה בלבד. אבל לא יפרוש קלע ויעמיד ספינה שם אלא בני השבט שהגיע אותו הים בחלקם. ז) וכן התנה שכל אדם שצריך לנקביו מסתלק מן הדרך ונכנס אחורי הגדר שפגע בו ונפנה שם ואפילו בשדה מליאה כרכום ונוטל משם צרור ומקנח. ח) וכן התנה שכל התועה בין הכרמים וכיוצא בהן מפסג ועולה מפסג ויורד עד שיצא לדרכו. ט) וכן התנה שבזמן שירבה הטיט בדרכי הרבים או נקיעי מים יש לעוברי דרכים להסתלק לצדדי הדרכים ומהלכין שם אע"פ שהן מהלכין בדרך שיש לה בעלים. י) וכן התנה שמת מצוה קונה מקומו ונקבר במקום שימצא בו. שלא יהא מוטל על המצר ולא בתוך תחום המדינה. אבל אם נמצא על המצר או שהיה בתוך התחום מביאו לבית הקברות:

4
King Solomon ordained that passersby are permitted to walk on private paths in the fields during the summer months until the second phase of fall rains descend.26
ד
שלמה תקן שיהיו עוברי דרכים מותרין בימות החמה להלך בשבילין שבשדות שיש להן בעלים עד שתרד רביעה שנייה:

5
These rules apply in all places, even in the diaspora.27
ה
ותקנות אלו כולן נוהגות בכל מקום אפילו בחוצה לארץ:

6
From the time dew descends in Babylonia, it is forbidden to walk through private pathways belonging to others.28
ו
ומשירד הטל בבבל אסור להלך בשבילין שיש להן בעלים:

7
Although it is forbidden to raise a small animal in Eretz Yisrael, one may maintain possession of one for 30 days prior to a pilgrimage festival,29 or prior to the wedding of one's son.30 A butcher may buy an animal for slaughter and may leave it for a certain time until he slaughters it, as long as it does not pasture with the flock. Instead, whoever maintains possession of a small animal must keep it within his house, so that it does not cause damage.
ז
אע"פ שאין מגדלין בהמה דקה בארץ ישראל מותר לשהותה קודם לרגל שלשים יום וקודם למשתה בנו שלשים יום. והטבח לוקח ושוחט לוקח ומשהה עד שישחוט מעט מעט. ובלבד שלא תצא ותרעה בעדר אלא כל המשהה משהה בתוך ביתו כדי שלא תזיק:

8
[Our Sages] established an equation between Babylonia and Israel, prohibiting the raising of small animals and beasts there as well. For [in Talmudic times,] the majority of the fields and vineyards there belonged to Jews.31
ח
וכבר עשו בבל כארץ ישראל לאסור בה גידול בהמה דקה וחיה דקה מפני שהיו רוב השדות והכרמים שם באותם הימים של ישראל:

9
Similarly, our Sages forbade raising pigs in all places.32 Also, [our Sages forbade raising] dogs unless they are tied by a chain. One may, however, raise dogs in a city near the border.33During the day [the dogs] should be chained, and at night let loose. Our Sages said:34 "Cursed be one who raises dogs and pigs, because they frequently cause a great degree of damage."
ט
וכן אסרו חכמים לגדל חזירים בכל מקום. ולא את הכלב אלא אם כן היה קשור בשלשלת. אבל מגדל הוא כלבים בעיר הסמוכה לספר. ביום קושרו ובלילה מתירו. ואמרו חכמים ארור מגדל כלבים וחזירים מפני שהיזקן מרובה ומצוי:

10
When a shepherd repents, he should not be obligated to sell [his entire herd] immediately. Instead, he should sell a bit at a time.35 Similarly, if a person has inherited dogs and pigs, he is not required to sell all of them immediately, but instead may sell them bit by bit.
י
רועה שעשה תשובה אין מחייבין אותו למכור מיד אלא מוכר על יד על יד. וכן מי שנפלו לו כלבים וחזירים בירושה אין מחייבין אותו למכור מיד אלא מוכר מעט מעט:


FOOTNOTES
1.
The Ra'avad and Rabbenu Asher take issue with the Rambam on this point, explaining that the owner of the field generally does not have the right to slaughter an animal belonging to another person. Bava Kama 23b does speak of the owner of a field slaughtering goats belonging to someone else, but this was a special instance. He knew that the goats were being taken to the market to be slaughtered.The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam had a different interpretation of that passage. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 397:1-2) follows the Ra'avad's interpretation.
2.
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (op. cit.) interpret this to be implying that if the owner of the animal says, Why come to me with a complaint? Let the owner of the field build a strong fence around his field to prevent animals from entering, his claim is not accepted. He is required to take responsibility for his animal.
3.
This minimizes to the greatest degree possible the loss that the owner of the animal would suffer.
4.
E.g., sheep and goats.
5.
E.g., deer.
6.
For they will harm the produce. The Maggid Mishneh explains that this law (and those that follow) were instituted as part of the provisions of yishuv Eretz Yisrael, the settlement of our Holy Land. (See also Hilchot Edut 10:4, which states that a shepherd of sheep or goats is not acceptable as a witness, because it is likely that he will pasture his flocks in fields belonging to others. See also Hilchot Bechorot 3:6.)It is, however, permissible to raise large animals like cows in Eretz Yisrael.
7.
Where the damage is not significant.
8.
See Hilchot Terumot 1:4,9, which defines the status of Syria as less than that of Eretz Yisrael, but greater than that of the diaspora as a whole.
9.
I.e., the owner of the forest has no right to protest.
10.
For it could damage the forest.
11.
If they are dry and severed from the ground, they are fit to serve as firewood for the owners of the field.
12.
Significantly, the Tur (Choshen Mishpat 274) does not mention this dimension.
13.
This is beneficial for the owner of the field, because the grass detracts from the field's growth potential.
14.
For grass and fenugrec make excellent fodder. For that reason, if the fenugrec is being grown for human consumption, one may pick the grass. Bava Kama 81a states that if the fenugrec is growing in rows, one may assume that it has been planted for human consumption.
15.
This is allowed to enhance the settlement of Eretz Yisrael, for it will enable more trees to be grown there.
16.
When an olive tree has become old, and it no longer produces a significant amount of fruit, all of its branches are cut off except two, so that its growth potential will become concentrated. Cutting off one of these remaining branches would damage the future of the tree.
17.
One that is less than a year old.
18.
For it is the branches that are exposed to the sun that provide a tree with its nurture.
19.
Without payment.
20.
I.e., the tribe of Naftali.
21.
The Tur (loc. cit.) and others differ with the Rambam and maintain that even the owner of a lake may not fish with nets large enough to prevent the passage of a boat.Others interpret large nets as referring to nets that will catch large quantities of fish. Fishing privileges of that nature are not granted to another tribe.
22.
A type of spice that will be damaged by the unpleasant odor of feces.
23.
We have used a loose translation. The Hebrew term meit mitzvah, literally a corpse that we are commanded to bury, refers to a Jewish corpse lying on the road, that has no one to bury it (Hilchot Eivel 3:8).
24.
Our translation is taken from Rashi's commentary on Bava Kama 81b. In these instances, the presence of a grave will be likely to impart impurity to a large number of people.
25.
The commentaries question why the Rambam requires a corpse found in the road to be taken to the cemetery. In Hilchot Tum'at Meit 8:7, he states that in such an instance, a corpse may be buried in a nearby field. This indeed is the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 364:3).
26.
I.e., from the seventeenth of Cheshvan on. Until then, passersby will not do any damage to the fields. Once the rains descend, however, the seeds begin to take root, and treading on them would damage them.
27.
The Tur (Choshen Mishpat 274) quotes this ruling. The Shulchan Aruch, however, does not mention these laws. The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 274:1) quotes the Tur's view and questions why the Shulchan Aruch ignored these laws. He explains that it is possible that the Shulchan Aruch also maintains that these laws are applicable in the diaspora, but failed to mention them because it was uncommon for Jews to own land at that time.The concept that these laws apply in the diaspora is somewhat difficult according to the Maggid Mishneh (and Rashi), who explain that the motivating rationale for these laws is the concern for yishuv Eretz Yisrael, the settlement of our Holy Land. Others explain that these provisions are intended to avoid strife and friction.
28.
For this will cause damage to the land there.
29.
In the time of the Temple, these animals were offered as sacrifices. Even after the Temple's destruction, it is still a mitzvah to celebrate on the festivals by eating meat (Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 6:18).
30.
For these feasts are also considered to be se'udot mitzvah (feasts associated with the performance of a mitzvah).
31.
From this, we can assume that these laws would apply in any community where most of the lands are owned by Jews.
32.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Kama 7:7), the Rambam states that this law applies to all animals that are forbidden to be eaten. (See also The Guide for the Perplexed, Volume III, Chapter 48, which speaks of the unfavorable tendencies brought about by eating pork.)From the conclusion of this halachah, however, it appears that the Rambam is focusing on a different rationale: the material and not the spiritual damage that pigs can cause.
33.
For they will serve as watchdogs and raise a clamor in the event of attack.
34.
Bava Kama 82b, 83a.
35.
If he were required to sell his entire herd immediately, it is possible that he would have to reduce the price of the animals. Our Sages feared that the possibility of this loss would intimidate the shepherd and prevent him from repenting.
Hayom Yom:
 • English Text | Video Class

Friday, Sivan 29, 5777 · 23 June 2017

"Today's Day"


FridaySivan 295703
Torah lessons:Chumash: Korach, Shishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 140-144.
Tanya: And the numerical (p. 319)...the letters themselves. (p. 321).


Man's avoda according to Chassidus: To accustom himself to perceive individual Divine Providence (hashgacha p'ratit), how G-d, in His goodness, renews the universe and all creatures every moment with His particular Divine Providence, which constitutes - to the exclusion of all else - the reality, life-force and sustained existence1of all creatures.
FOOTNOTES
1.For the distinction between "reality" (metzi'ut) and "sustained existence" (kiyum), see Sefer Hamaamarim 5711 p. 31.



Daily Thought         



         Plumbing         
Making a living is all about plumbing. You’ve got a reservoir up there, a water tank down here, and you need some way to connect the two.
The reservoir of life up there can’t be changed or moved. As for the water tank down here, that is your career, and it receives only what is decided from Above.
But you also have a second career—your principal career—and that is to bring more good into this world. 
In that career, you are a plumber. You can open faucets, widen pipelines, drain all you can from an Infinite Source. It will overflow into the water tanks of your material career. It might even increase their volume.
The flow of life is in your hands.


Likkutei Sichot, vol. 6, p. 193.

------

Missionary Renegade

Saturday, June 24, 2017

TODAY IN JUDAISM: Sivan 30, 5777 - Shabbat, June 24, 2017 - Today is Shabbat, Sivan 30, 5777 · June 24, 2017 - Rosh Chodesh Tammuz

TODAY IN JUDAISM: Sivan 30, 5777 - Shabbat, June 24, 2017 - Today is Shabbat, Sivan 30, 5777 · June 24, 2017 - Rosh Chodesh Tammuz

Isaiah 66:23

Isaiah 66:²³“Every month on Rosh-Hodesh
and every week on Shabbat,
everyone living will come
to worship in my presence,” says Adonai.

1 Samuel 201 Samuel 20:¹⁸Y’honatan said to him, “Tomorrow is Rosh-Hodesh, and you will be missed, because your seat will be empty.

1 Samuel 20:42Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)⁴²Y’honatan said to David, “Go in peace; because we have sworn, both of us, in the name of Adonai, that Adonai will be between me and you, and between my descendants and yours, forever.”

Today's Laws & Customs:

Daily Torah Study:

Damage Caused by Arson

Positive Commandment 241

To`en veNit`an - Chapter 14

ב"ה

Today in Judaism

TODAY IN JUDAISM: Sivan 29, 5777 - Friday, June 23, 2017 - Today is Friday, Sivan 28, 5777 · June 23, 2017 - Candle Lighting - Light Candles before sunset ––:––

Today in Jewish History:

• Lubavitcher Rebbe Arrives in US (1941)

Daily Quote

Daily Torah Study:

To`en veNit`an - Chapter 12

Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Three

Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Four

Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Five

No comments:

Post a Comment

FOOTNOTES
1.	Tehillim 104:24.
2.	Note of the Rebbe: “This is explained at greater length in many places in Chassidut, e.g., in Mitzvat Haamanat Elokut [in Derech Mitzvotecha of the Tzemach Tzedek].”

FOOTNOTES
1.	For the distinction between "reality" (metzi'ut) and "sustained existence" (kiyum), see Sefer Hamaamarim 5711 p. 31.

Saturday, June 24, 2017

TODAY IN JUDAISM: Sivan 30, 5777 - Shabbat, June 24, 2017 - Today is Shabbat, Sivan 30, 5777 · June 24, 2017 - Rosh Chodesh Tammuz

TODAY IN JUDAISM: Sivan 30, 5777 - Shabbat, June 24, 2017 - Today is Shabbat, Sivan 30, 5777 · June 24, 2017 - Rosh Chodesh Tammuz

Isaiah 66:23

Isaiah 66:23 “Every month on Rosh-Hodesh and every week on Shabbat, everyone living will come to worship in my presence,” says Adonai.

1 Samuel 201 Samuel 20:18 Y’honatan said to him, “Tomorrow is Rosh-Hodesh, and you will be missed, because your seat will be empty.

1 Samuel 20:42Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)42 Y’honatan said to David, “Go in peace; because we have sworn, both of us, in the name of Adonai, that Adonai will be between me and you, and between my descendants and yours, forever.”

Today's Laws & Customs:

Daily Torah Study:

Damage Caused by Arson

Positive Commandment 241

To`en veNit`an - Chapter 14

ב"ה Today in Judaism

TODAY IN JUDAISM: Sivan 29, 5777 - Friday, June 23, 2017 - Today is Friday, Sivan 28, 5777 · June 23, 2017 - Candle Lighting - Light Candles before sunset ––:––

Today in Jewish History:

• Lubavitcher Rebbe Arrives in US (1941)

Daily Quote

Daily Torah Study:

To`en veNit`an - Chapter 12

Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Three

Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Four

Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Five

No comments:

Post a Comment

Isaiah 66:²³“Every month on Rosh-Hodesh
and every week on Shabbat,
everyone living will come
to worship in my presence,” says Adonai.

1 Samuel 201 Samuel 20:¹⁸Y’honatan said to him, “Tomorrow is Rosh-Hodesh, and you will be missed, because your seat will be empty.

1 Samuel 20:42Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)⁴²Y’honatan said to David, “Go in peace; because we have sworn, both of us, in the name of Adonai, that Adonai will be between me and you, and between my descendants and yours, forever.”

ב"ה

Today in Judaism