TODAY IN JUDAISM: Sivan 12, 5778 - Shabbat, May 26, 2018 Chabad.org ב"ה Today in Judaism Today is Shabbat, Sivan 12, 5778 · May 26, 2018

View Online ב"ה

Today in Judaism

TODAY IN JUDAISM: Sivan 12, 5778 - Shabbat, May 26, 2018  Chabad.org  ב"ה Today in Judaism Today is Shabbat, Sivan 12, 5778 · May 26, 2018
Today's Laws & Customs:
• End of Shavuot "fulfillment" days
When the Holy Temple stood in Jerusalem, and all Jews would come there for the three annual "pilgrimage festivals" (Passover, Shavuot and Sukkot), Sivan 12 was the last of the seven days allotted for the offerings brought in conjunction with the Shavuot pilgrimage (unlike the festivals of Passover and Sukkot, which have seven biblically mandated days, Shavuot consists only of one day; hence the additional six days of tashlumin or "fulfillment").
Thus we do not recite the tachnun (confession and penitential suplication), and the other prayers omitted on a festival or joyous commemoration, from the 1st of Sivan until and including the 12th, as all these days bear a connection with the festival of Shavuot (see last week's calendar entries for Sivan 1 through 6).
Korbanot (Sacrifices and Offerings)temple Offerings• Ethics of the Fathers: Chapter 1
It is the custom of many communities (and such is the Chabad custom) to continue the weekly study of a chapter Ethics of the Fathers("Avot"), one chapter each Shabbat afternoon, through through the summer, until the Shabbat before Rosh Hashanahn (the first six-week cycle is completed on the six Shabbatot between Passover and Shavuot). This Shabbat, being the first Shabbat after Shavuot, we study Chapter One.
Link: Ethics of the Fathers, Chapter 1
Daily Torah Study
Chumash: Naso, 7th Portion Numbers 7:84-7:89 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation
• Video Class
• Daily Wisdom (short insight)
Numbers Chapter 7
84This was the dedication offering of the altar presented by the chieftains on the day it was anointed; there were twelve silver bowls, twelve silver basins and twelve gold spoons. פדזֹ֣את | חֲנֻכַּ֣ת הַמִּזְבֵּ֗חַ בְּיוֹם֙ הִמָּשַׁ֣ח אֹת֔וֹ מֵאֵ֖ת נְשִׂיאֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל קַֽעֲרֹ֨ת כֶּ֜סֶף שְׁתֵּ֣ים עֶשְׂרֵ֗ה מִזְרְקֵי־כֶ֨סֶף֙ שְׁנֵ֣ים עָשָׂ֔ר כַּפּ֥וֹת זָהָ֖ב שְׁתֵּ֥ים עֶשְׂרֵֽה:
on the day it was anointed: On the day it was anointed, he brought the offering. So what is the meaning of “after it was anointed” (verse 88)? That it was first anointed and then he brought an offering, or [perhaps] “after it was anointed” means: after some time later [i.e., a while after it was anointed], and “on the day it was anointed” [does not mean that it was offered on the day it was anointed, but it] comes only to tell us that it was anointed by day? [However,] when Scripture says, “on the day they were anointed” (Lev. 7:36), we have already learned that it was anointed by day. So what does “on the day it was anointed” [here] teach us? That on the day it was anointed, he brought the offering. — [Sifrei Naso 1:159]. ביום המשח אותו: בו ביום שנמשח הקריב, ומה אני מקיים אחרי המשח, שנמשח תחלה ואחר כך הקריב. או אחרי המשח לאחר זמן, ולא בא ללמד ביום המשח אלא לומר שנמשח ביום, כשהוא אומר (ויקרא ז, לו) ביום משחו אותם, למדנו שנמשח ביום, ומה תלמוד לומר ביום המשח אותו, ביום שנמשח הקריב:
twelve silver bowls: [The total is recorded here to show that] these were the very same ones that were donated, and no disqualifying factor happened to them. - [Sifrei Naso 1:160]. קערת כסף שתים עשרה: הם הם שהתנדבו ולא אירע בהם פסול:
85The weight of each silver bowl was one hundred and thirty [shekels], and that of each basin was seventy [shekels]; all the silver of the vessels weighed in total two thousand four hundred [shekels] according to the holy shekel. פהשְׁלשִׁ֣ים וּמֵאָ֗ה הַקְּעָרָ֤ה הָֽאַחַת֙ כֶּ֔סֶף וְשִׁבְעִ֖ים הַמִּזְרָ֣ק הָֽאֶחָ֑ד כֹּ֚ל כֶּ֣סֶף הַכֵּלִ֔ים אַלְפַּ֥יִם וְאַרְבַּע־מֵא֖וֹת בְּשֶׁ֥קֶל הַקֹּֽדֶשׁ:
[The weight of] each silver bowl was one hundred and thirty [shekels]: What does this teach us? Since Scripture says [in the account of the donation of each chieftain]: “weighing one hundred and thirty shekels,” but it does not specify which type of shekel, therefore, [Scripture] repeats it here, and includes them all: “all the silver of the vessels… according to the holy shekel.” - [Sifrei Naso 1:160]. שלשים ומאה הקערה האחת וגו': מה תלמוד לומר, לפי שנאמר שלשים ומאה משקלה, ולא פירש באיזו שקל, לכך חזר ושנאה כאן, וכלל בכולן כל כסף הכלים בשקל הקדש:
all the silver of the vessels: This teaches you that all the vessels of the sanctuary were of precise weight; whether weighed individually or collectively, there was neither more nor less [than the specified amount]. — [Sifrei Naso 1:160] כל כסף הכלים וגו': למדך שהיו כלי המקדש מכוונים במשקלן, שוקלן אחד אחד ושוקלן כולן כאחד, לא ריבה ולא מיעט:
86Twelve gold spoons filled with incense; each spoon weighing ten [shekels] according to the holy shekel; all the gold spoons totaled one hundred and twenty shekels. פוכַּפּ֨וֹת זָהָ֤ב שְׁתֵּֽים־עֶשְׂרֵה֙ מְלֵאֹ֣ת קְטֹ֔רֶת עֲשָׂרָ֧ה עֲשָׂרָ֛ה הַכַּ֖ף בְּשֶׁ֣קֶל הַקֹּ֑דֶשׁ כָּל־זְהַ֥ב הַכַּפּ֖וֹת עֶשְׂרִ֥ים וּמֵאָֽה:
Twelve gold spoons: Why is this said? For it says [in the account of the donation of each chieftain]: “One spoon [weighing] ten gold [shekels].” [Does this mean that] it was made of gold and it weighed ten silver shekels? Or [does it mean] that it was a silver spoon weighing ten gold shekels-for the weight of the gold shekels is not the same as the weight of silver ones? Therefore, Scripture tells us: “Gold spoons”-they were [made] of gold. — [Sifrei Naso 1:161] כפות זהב שתים עשרה: למה נאמר, לפי שנאמר כף אחת עשרה זהב, היא של זהב, ומשקלה עשרה שקלים של כסף, או אינו אלא כף אחת של כסף ומשקלה עשרה שקלי זהב, ושקלי זהב אין משקלם שוה לשל כסף, תלמוד לומר כפות זהב, של זהב היו:
87The total of the cattle for the burnt offerings was twelve bulls, twelve rams, and twelve lambs in their first year with their meal offerings. And [there were] twelve young he goats for sin offerings. פזכָּל־הַבָּקָ֨ר לָֽעֹלָ֜ה שְׁנֵ֧ים עָשָׂ֣ר פָּרִ֗ים אֵילִ֤ם שְׁנֵֽים־עָשָׂר֙ כְּבָשִׂ֧ים בְּנֵֽי־שָׁנָ֛ה שְׁנֵ֥ים עָשָׂ֖ר וּמִנְחָתָ֑ם וּשְׂעִירֵ֥י עִזִּ֛ים שְׁנֵ֥ים עָשָׂ֖ר לְחַטָּֽאת:
88The total of cattle for the peace offerings was twenty four oxen, sixty rams, sixty he goats, and sixty lambs in their first year. This was the dedication offering for the altar, after it was anointed. פחוְכֹ֞ל בְּקַ֣ר | זֶ֣בַח הַשְּׁלָמִ֗ים עֶשְׂרִ֣ים וְאַרְבָּעָה֘ פָּרִים֒ אֵילִ֤ם שִׁשִּׁים֙ עַתֻּדִ֣ים שִׁשִּׁ֔ים כְּבָשִׂ֥ים בְּנֵֽי־שָׁנָ֖ה שִׁשִּׁ֑ים זֹ֚את חֲנֻכַּ֣ת הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ אַֽחֲרֵ֖י הִמָּשַׁ֥ח אֹתֽוֹ:
89When Moses would come into the Tent of Meeting to speak with Him, he would hear the voice speaking to him from the two cherubim above the covering which was over the Ark of Testimony, and He spoke to him. פטוּבְבֹ֨א משֶׁ֜ה אֶל־אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵד֘ לְדַבֵּ֣ר אִתּוֹ֒ וַיִּשְׁמַ֨ע אֶת־הַקּ֜וֹל מִדַּבֵּ֣ר אֵלָ֗יו מֵעַ֤ל הַכַּפֹּ֨רֶת֙ אֲשֶׁר֙ עַל־אֲרֹ֣ן הָֽעֵדֻ֔ת מִבֵּ֖ין שְׁנֵ֣י הַכְּרֻבִ֑ים וַיְדַבֵּ֖ר אֵלָֽיו:
When Moses would enter: [When there are] two contradictory verses, the third one comes and reconciles them. One verse says, “the Lord spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting” (Lev. 1:1), and that implies outside the curtain, whereas another verse says,“and speak to you from above the ark cover” (Exod. 25:22) [which is beyond the curtain]. This [verse] comes and reconciles them: Moses came into the Tent of Meeting, and there he would hear the voice [of God] coming from [between the cherubim,] above the ark cover. - [Sifrei Naso 1:162] ובבא משה: שני כתובים המכחישים זה את זה, בא שלישי והכריע ביניהם. כתוב אחד אומר (ויקרא א, א) וידבר ה' אליו מאהל מועד, והוא חוץ לפרכת, וכתוב אחד אומר (שמות כה, כב) ודברתי אתך מעל הכפרת, בא זה והכריע ביניהם, משה בא אל אהל מועד ושם שומע את הקול הבא מעל הכפרת:
from between the two cherubim: The voice emanated from heaven to [the area] between the two cherubim, and from there it went out to the Tent of Meeting. — [Sifrei Naso 1:162] מבין שני הכרובים: הקול יוצא מן השמים לבין שני הכרובים ומשם יצא לאהל מועד:
speaking to him: Heb. מִדַּבֵּר. [The word מִדַּבֵּר] is similar to מִתְדַּבֵּר [the reflexive form, literally,] “speaking to itself.” It is out of reverence for the Most High to express it in this way. [The voice] would speak to itself, and Moses would listen to it. מדבר: כמו מתדבר, כבודו של מעלה לומר כן מדבר בינו לבין עצמו, ומשה שומע מאליו:
and He spoke to Him: [Thus] excluding Aaron from the [Divine] statements. וידבר אליו: למעט את אהרן מן הדברות:
He would hear the voice: I might think it was in an undertone. Therefore, Scripture teaches us:“the voice”-the very voice which spoke with him at [Mount] Sinai, [which was loud and clear]. But when it [the voice] reached the entrance, it stopped and did not proceed outside the tent. וישמע את הקול: יכול קול נמוך, תלמוד לומר את הקול, הוא הקול שנדבר עמו בסיני, וכשמגיע לפתח היה נפסק, ולא היה יוצא חוץ לאהל:
Tehillim: Chapters 66 - 68
• Hebrew text
• English text
Chapter 66
This psalm describes the praises and awe-inspiring prayers that we will offer God upon the ingathering of the exiles.
1. For the Conductor, a song, a psalm. Raise your voices in jubilation to God, all the earth!
2. Sing the glory of His Name; make glorious His praise.
3. Say to God, "How awesome are Your deeds!" Because of Your great strength, Your enemies will [admit] their treachery to You.
4. All the earth will bow to You, and sing to You; they will sing praise to Your Name forever!
5. Go and see the works of God, awesome in His deeds toward mankind.
6. He turned the sea into dry land, and they passed through the river on foot; we rejoiced in Him there.
7. He rules the world with His might, and His eyes watch the nations; let the rebellious not exalt themselves, Selah.
8. Bless our God, O nations, and let the voice of His praise be heard.
9. He has kept us alive, and did not allow our feet to falter.
10. For You tested us, O God; You refined us as one refining silver.
11. You brought us into prison; You placed a chain upon our loins.
12. You mounted men over our head; we went through fire and water, and You brought us out to abundance.
13. I will enter Your House with burnt-offerings, I will pay to You my vows,
14. which my lips uttered and my mouth spoke in my distress.
15. I will offer up to You burnt-offerings of fat animals, with the smoke of rams; I will prepare cattle with he-goats, Selah.
16. Come listen, all you who fear God, and I will relate what He has done for my soul.
17. I called to Him with my mouth, with exaltation beneath my tongue.
18. Had I seen iniquity in my heart, my Lord would not have listened.
19. But in truth, God heard; He gave ear to the voice of my prayer.
20. Blessed is God Who has not turned away my prayer or His kindness from me.
Chapter 67
This psalm is known as an especially revered prayer. It, too, speaks of the era of the ingathering of the exiles, and the wars of Gog and Magog, a time when "the Lord will be One."
1. For the Conductor, a song with instrumental music, a psalm.
2. May God be gracious to us and bless us; may He make His countenance shine upon us forever,
3. that Your way be known on earth, Your salvation among all nations.
4. The nations will extol You, O God; all the nations will extol You.
5. The nations will rejoice and sing for joy, for You will judge the peoples justly and guide the nations on earth forever.
6. The peoples will extol You, O God; all the peoples will extol You,
7. for the earth will have yielded its produce, and God, our God, will bless us.
8. God will bless us; and all, from the farthest corners of the earth, shall fear Him.
Chapter 68
An awe-inspiring and wondrous prayer, David composed this psalm referring to a future event, when Sennacherib would surround Jerusalem on Passover, during the reign of Hezekiah. He also prophesies about the good we will enjoy during the Messianic era.
1. For the Conductor; by David, a psalm, a song.
2. Let God rise, let His enemies be scattered, and let His enemies flee before Him.
3. As smoke is driven away, drive them away; as wax melts before fire, let the wicked perish before God.
4. And the righteous will rejoice, they will exult before God and delight with joy.
5. Sing to God, chant praises to His Name; extol Him Who rides upon the heavens with His Name, Yah, and exult before Him.
6. A father of orphans and judge of widows is God, in the abode of His holiness.
7. God settles the solitary into a home, and frees those bound in shackles; but the rebellious [are left to] dwell in an arid land.
8. O God, when You went out before Your nation, when You marched through the wilderness, Selah,
9. the earth trembled, even the heavens dripped before the presence of God; this mountain of Sinai [trembled] before the presence of God, the God of Israel.
10. You poured generous rain, O God; when Your heritage was weary, You secured it.
11. Your flock settled there; in Your goodness, O God, You prepare for the poor.
12. My Lord will fulfill the word of the heralds to a great legion:
13. Kings of armies will flee, they will flee; and she who inhabits the home will divide the loot.
14. Even if you lie upon the hearth,1 [you will be like] wings of a dove covered with silver, her pinions with brilliant gold.
15. When the Almighty scatters kings in her midst, those in the shadow of darkness will be made snow-white.
16. The mountain of God is a fertile mountain, the mountain of majestic peaks is a fertile mountain.
17. Why do you prance, O mountains of peaks? This is the mountain God has desired as His dwelling; the Lord will even dwell there forever.
18. The chariots of God are twice ten thousand, [with] thousands of angels; my Lord is in their midst, at Sinai, in holiness.
19. You ascended on high and took a captive,2 you seized gifts for man; and [now] even rebels dwell with Yah, God.
20. Blessed is my Lord, Who each day loads us [with beneficence], the God Who is our deliverance forever.
21. The Lord is a God of deliverances for us; and to God, my Lord, are the many avenues of death.
22. God alone crushes the heads of His enemies, the hairy skull of him who goes about in his guilt.
23. My Lord said, "I will bring back from Bashan,3 I will bring back from the depths of the sea,
24. that your foot may wade through [the enemy's] blood; that the tongue of your dogs may have its portion from your enemies.”
25. They saw Your ways, O God, the ways of my God, my King, in holiness.
26. The singers began, then the musicians, in the midst of the maidens playing timbrels.
27. In assemblies bless God; [bless] my Lord, O you who stem from Israel.
28. There Benjamin, the youngest, rules them; the princes of Judah stone them, [as do] the princes of Zebulun, and the princes of Naphtali.
29. Your God has decreed your strength. Show Your strength, O God, Who has wrought this for our sake.
30. Because of [the glory of] Your Sanctuary upon Jerusalem, kings will bring You tribute.
31. Rebuke the wild beast of the reeds, the assembly of mighty bulls among the calves of nations, [until] each submits himself with pieces of silver. Scatter the nations that desire wars.
32. Nobles will come from Egypt; Kush will hasten [to raise] its hands to God.
33. Kingdoms of the earth, sing to God; sing praise to my Lord forever!
34. To the One Who rides upon the loftiest of ancient heavens-behold He gives forth His voice, a voice of might.
35. Ascribe power to God; His majesty is over Israel, and His might is in the skies.
36. God, You are feared from Your Sanctuary; it is the God of Israel Who grants strength and power to His people; blessed is God.
FOOTNOTES
1.And dirty yourself in exile (Metzudot).
2.Israel ascended on high and seized the Torah from the Angels (Metzudot).
3.From amongst the nations who are compared to “bulls of Bashan” (Metzudot).
Tanya: Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, beginning of Chapter 4
• English Text (Lessons in Tanya)
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class
LESSONS IN TANYA: Shabbat, May 26, 2018
Sivan 12, 5778 · May 26, 2018
Today's Tanya Lesson
Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, beginning of Chapter 4
AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES
• VIDEO CLASS: Rabbi Yehoshua B. Gordon Watch• Listen
• AUDIO CLASS: Rabbi Manis Freidman Listen •Download MP3
Since the Divine activating force responsible for the existence of created things must continuously be present within them, they are completely nullified in their source. This means, as the Alter Rebbe explained in the previous chapter, that in reality they do not “exist”.
Why, then, do we nevertheless perceive created beings as enjoying a tangible “existence”? — Only because we are unable to see or comprehend the Divine utterance that is contained within each created thing and that calls it into being.
The Alter Rebbe illustrated this by considering the sun’s rays. When they are not within their source, the sun, but diffused throughout the expanse of the universe, they are perceived as having independent existence. However, when they are contained within the sun-globe they clearly have no such “existence” at all.
The following question therefore arose: Since created beings, unlike the sun’s rays, must constantly have their source within them, why do we not actually see how they are completely nullified in their source?
In order to answer this question the Alter Rebbe wrote that a certain preface would be necessary — and hence this, the fourth chapter, now elaborates on G‑d’s capacity for tzimtzum, or contraction.
כי הנה כתיב: כי שמש ומגן ה׳ אלקים
It is written,1 “For a sun and a shield isHavayah Elokim.”
Just as the sun gives forth illumination, so too does the Four-Letter Divine Name Havayahprovide us with spiritual illumination. Likewise, just as the sun’s shield protects us from the intensity of its rays, so too does G‑d shield us with the Divine Name Elokim.
פירוש מגן הוא נרתק לשמש
"Shield” refersspecifically to [that shield which is] a covering for the sun,
להגן שיוכלו הבריות לסבלו
to protect creatures so that they should be able to bear it (i.e., the sun’s heat).
כמאמר רז״ל: לעתיד לבא הקב״ה מוציא חמה מנרתקה, רשעים נדונין בה כו׳
As our Sages, of blessed memory, have said,2 “In time to come(i.e., in the Messianic Era),the Holy One, blessed be He, will take out the sun from its sheath; the wicked will be punished by it...,” as they will be unable to bear the intensity of the sun. The passage goes on to say that the righteous will not only be able to tolerate it: they will actually be healed by it.
וכמו שהנרתק מגין בעד השמש
Now, just as the covering shields the sun, protecting creatures from the intensity of its rays so that benefit may be derived from it,
-כך שם אלקים מגין לשם הויה ברוך הוא
so does the NameElokim shield the Name Havayah,blessed be He, enabling the created universe to absorb the Divine illumination that emanates from it.
Our opening verse — “For a sun and a shield isHavayah Elokim” — thus means that the NameHavayah illumines like the sun, while the NameElokim screens its illumination, like the sheath of the sun, enabling its light to be received.
-דשם הויה פירושו שמהוה את הכל מאין ליש
The meaning of the Name Havayah is “that which brings everything into existence ex nihilo.”
The Rebbe notes: “This refers to the [last three letters hei, vav and hei of this Name, which form the word hoveh, the root of the verb which means ‘[to bring into] being.’”
והיו״ד משמשת על הפעולה שהיא בלשון הוה ותמיד
The letter yud, prefixed to the stem הוה, modifies the verb, indicating that the action is present and continuous,
כדפירש רש״י על פסוק: ככה יעשה איוב כל הימים
as Rashi comments on the verse,3 “In this manner was Job (Iyov) accustomed to do(ya‘aseh) all the days.”
Just as here the prefix of the letter yud indicates an ongoing process, so too does the initial yud of the Name Havayah indicate that G‑d creates everything ex nihilo,continuously.
והיינו החיות הנשפע בכל רגע ממש בכל הברואים, ממוצא פי ה׳ ורוחו, ומהוה אותם מאין ליש בכל רגע
This [action] is the life-force which flows at every single instant into all things created, from “that which proceeds from the mouth of G‑d” and “His breath,” and brings them into existence ex nihilo at every moment.
כי לא די להם במה שנבראו בששת ימי בראשית, להיות קיימים בזה, כמו שכתוב לעיל
For the fact that they were created during the Six Days of Creation is not sufficient for their continued existence, as explained above; they must continuously be recreated.
It is the “sun” ofHavayah whose illumination continuously brings creation into being. However, were this illumination to be revealed within created beings, they would be aware of their complete nullification within their source, and we would not see before us created beings. For as explained earlier, when the activating force is perceived the created being is “non-existent”.
This is why the “shield” of Elokim is necessary — in order to conceal from created beings the Divine illumination of Havayahthat is within them, and that is responsible for their existence. Only then can they perceive themselves as existing independently of their life-force. And this perception in turn makes it possible for created beings to consider and feel themselves to be tangibly existing, as shall soon be explained.
והנה בסידור שבחיו של הקב״ה כתיב: הגדול הגבור כו׳
In the enumeration of the praises of the Holy One, blessed be He, it is written,4 HaGadol(“the Great”), HaGibor(“the Mighty”), and so on.
ופירוש הגדול היא מדת חסד והתפשטות החיות בכל העולמות וברואים, לאין קץ ותכלית
“HaGadol” refers to the attribute of Chesed(“kindness”) and to the spreading forth of the life-force into all the worlds and created things, without end or limit,
להיות ברואים מאין ליש, וקיימים בחסד חנם
so that they shall be created ex nihilo and exist through gratuitous kindness,for G‑d maintains all creatures, whether they are worthy of His kindness or not.
ונקראת גדולה, כי באה מגדולתו של הקב״ה בכבודו ובעצמו
[The attribute ofChesed] is calledGedulah (“greatness”)for it derives from the greatness of the Holy One, blessed be He, from Himself in all His glory,
כי גדול ה׳ ולגדולתו אין חקר
for5 “G‑d is great... and His greatness is unsearchable,”inasmuch as it is infinite,
ולכן משפיע גם כן חיות והתהוות מאין ליש לעולמות וברואים אין קץ
and therefore, He also causes life-force and existence ex nihilo to issue forth for an unlimited number of worlds and creatures,
שטבע הטוב להטיב
for 6 “it is the nature of the benevolent to do good.”
G‑d’s benevolence thus dictates that there be an infinite number of worlds and creatures who will benefit from His beneficence.
FOOTNOTES
1. Tehillim 84:12.
2. See Nedarim 8b.
3. Iyov 1:5; cf. Rashi onBereishit 24:45, Shmot 15:1.
4. Liturgy, Amidah prayer; cf.Yoma 69b.
5. Tehillim 145:3.
6. R. Zvi Hirsch Ashkenazi,Chacham Zvi (Responsa), Sec. 18; R. Yosef Irgas,Shomer Emunim, 2:14, quoting kabbalistic sources.
Ramben:
• Sefer Hamitzvot:
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
DAILY MITZVAH (Maimonides): Shabbat, May 26, 2018
Sivan 12, 5778 · May 26, 2018
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
Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Positive Commandment 109
Immersing in a Mikvah (Ritual Pool)"He shall bathe all his body in water"—Leviticus 15:16.
A person who chooses to become cleansed of any ritual impurity is commanded to immerse in a mikvah [a natural pool of water]. According to the tradition of the Oral Law, for a mikvah to be kosher it must contain enough water for [an average] person to submerge himself within them—unless it is a moving stream of water, in which case even the smallest amount of water suffices [for a smaller than average individual, or for immersing a ritually impure utensil].
Some details:
Of all the types of ritually impure people, only the zavrequires immersion in a moving stream of water.
This mitzvah is not obligatory. As long as an individual has no intention of entering the Temple Mount, he may remain in his ritually impure state.
An individual's purification process is not finalized until the sun sets on the day he immerses.
There may not be anything separating between the person's body and the waters of the mikvah.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Positive Commandment 109
Translated by Berel BellThe 109th mitzvah is that we are commanded to immerse in the waters of a mikvah and thereby be purified from whichever form of tumah previously existed.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "He must immerse his entire body in water." The Oral Tradition2explains that [the phrase "his entire body" also teaches that] there must be enough water to cover his entire body.3 This is the minimum size of a mikvah unless the water is from a spring, in which case there is no minimum amount,4 as explained in the laws which deal with this mitzvah.
Among the conditions [governing the mikvah] is that only in the case of a zav is spring water required,5 as the verse6 states, "mayim chaim."
When we say that immersion is a mitzvah, this does not mean that any person who is tameh is required to immerse himself — as one who wears a four-cornered garment must put tzitzis on it, or that anyone with a house must build a fence around the roof. [When I say, "it is a mitzvah,"] I refer to the laws of immersion — that we are commanded that anyone who wants purification from tumah can do so only through immersion in water, after which he becomes tahor.
The Sifra7 says, "One might think that the phrase8 'He must immerse in water' is a Divine decree [and that it is an absolute requirement to immerse]. The verse therefore says, 'then he can return to the camp' [after being purified] from tumah." This hints to the principle I just explained, i.e. that the mitzvah is just the law, i.e. that one who wants to be purified should take certain steps. This law is itself the mitzvah. This does not mean however, that there is an independent requirement to immerse — should he want to remain tameh and not enter the machaneh Shechinah9 for any period of time, he may do so.
The Book of Truth (i.e. the Torah) explains that even though after the person immerses he becomes tahor, his purification is incomplete until sunset.10 The Oral Tradition also explains that during immersion he must be naked and that his entire body must come in contact with the water. As our Sages put it,11 "The phrase, 'his entire body' teaches that there can be nothing intervening between his body and the water."
We have therefore explained that this mitzvah of immersion includes the laws of mikvah, of intervening substances, and t'vul yom.12 This mitzvah is explained in tractates Mikva'os and T'vul Yom.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 15:16.
2.Sifra.
3.This is 40 se'ah of water.
4.In practice, even a mikvah of spring water must contain 40 se'ah.
5.In other cases, even for a zavah, rain water is sufficient.
6.Lev. 15:13.
7.Ibid., 16:26.
8.Ibid., 14:8.
9.Corresponding to the Temple courtyard.
10.See Lev. 22:6. A person in this state is called a t'vul yom.
11.Eruvin 4b.
12.One who has immersed and is awaiting sunset, as mentioned above.
Positive Commandment 237
Damage Caused by Goring"If an ox gores..."—Exodus 21:28.
We are commanded regarding the laws [of liability] that apply if a person's ox [gores another's animal, or any other malicious damage cause by any animal belonging to an individual].
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Damage Caused by Goring
Positive Commandment 237
Translated by Berel Bell
The 237th mitzvah is that we are commanded to follow the laws regarding [damage caused by] an ox.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "If an ox gores [a man or woman...]", and the verse,2 "If one person's ox injures the ox of another person...."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the first six chapters of tractate Bava Kama.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ex. 21:28.
2.Ibid., 21:35.
• 1 Chapter A Day: Gerushin Gerushin - Chapter Eleven
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
Gerushin - Chapter Eleven
1
One should not marry a girl below the age of majority.1 When a man marries an orphan girl below the age of majority, and [before she attains majority] she [decides that] she does not desire [to remain married to] this husband, she rejects [the marriage] and departs; a get is not required, because a consecration effected by a minor does not establish a marriage bond in the full sense, as explained.2 [The annulment of a marriage in this manner is referred to as mi'un.]
Similarly, when a girl below majority was married at her father's initiative,3 but was then widowed or divorced while still a minor, she is considered to be an orphan, although her father is alive.4 If she marries again while she is below the age of majority, she may annul her marriage through mi'un.א
אין נושאין את הקטנה. והנושא קטנה יתומה ולא רצתה בבעל הרי זו ממאנת והולכת ואינה צריכה ממנו גט. שאין קדושין של קטנה קדושין גמורין כמו שבארנו. וכן קטנה שהשיאה אביה ונתאלמנה או נתגרשה כשהיא קטנה הרי היא כיתומה בחיי אביה. ואם נישאת כשהיא קטנה הרי זו ממאנת:
2
Although the marriage of a woman who is a deaf-mute is a Rabbinic institution like that of a minor, our Sages did not give her the right to annul it through mi'un, so that men would not refrain from marrying her.5ב
החרשת אע"פ שנישואיה מדברי סופרים כנישואי קטנה לא תקנו לה שתמאן כדי שלא ימנעו מלנשאה:
3
A minor can annul her marriage via mi'un whether she has been merely consecrated or [even if] the marriage has been consummated. [She can exercise this privilege] in her husband's presence, or outside his presence. Just as she can annul her marriage to her husband, she can annul her relationship to a yavam.6
Just as she can annul one marriage through mi'un, so too, she can annul a second marriage or a third marriage. Indeed, [she can exercise this privilege] any number of times.7
As long as she is a minor, she has the right to annul her marriage through mi'un. When a minor does not exercise the right of mi'unand becomes consecrated to another man despite the fact that she was married, [the consecration is binding]. Becoming consecrated is [obviously] a rejection [- and thus an annulment - of her previous marriage].ג
ממאנת היא הקטנה בין מן האירוסין בין מן הנשואין. בין בפני בעלה בין שלא בפניו. וכשם שממאנת בבעל כך ממאנת ביבם. וממאנת בבעל זה וממאנת בשני אם נשאת לאחר וכן בשלישי אפילו כמה פעמים כל זמן שהיא קטנה יש לה למאן. וקטנה שלא מיאנה אע"פ שהיא נשואה והלכה ונתקדשה לאחר כשהיא קטנה קידושיה הם הם מיאוניה:
4
Until when may a girl annul her marriage through mi'un? Throughout the entire time she is a minor, until she becomes a na'arah,8 or until it is known that she becomes classified as an aylonit.9
When does the above10 apply? When her husband did not engage in marital relations with her after she became twelve years and one day old. If, however, the couple engaged in relations after she reached this age, since these relations consecrate her according to Scriptural law, as explained,11she no longer has the right to annul her marriage through mi'un.
Similarly, [when the woman reaches this age, we assume that she has lost her right to annul her marriage through mi'un]. She need not be checked for signs of physical maturity, for it is assumed that she has manifested them.12ד
עד מתי הבת ממאנת כל זמן שהיא קטנה. עד שתהיה נערה או עד שיוודע שהיא אילונית. במה דברים אמורים בשלא בא עליה הבעל אחר שנעשית בת י"ב שנה ויום אחד. אבל אם הגיעה לזמן הזה ונבעלה הואיל והבעילה קונה מן התורה כמו שבארנו הרי זו אינה ממאנת. ואינה צריכה בדיקה למיאון שחזקתה שהביאה סימנין:
5
If she has undergone a physical inspection, and no signs of maturity were discovered, but she engaged in marital relations after the age when she could have manifested signs of maturity, we suspect that pubic hairs had grown and later fell off. Because of the doubt, the marriage must be dissolved with a get.
If a woman [who engaged in marital relations with her husband after reaching the age of twelve attempts to] annul her marriage through mi'un after undergoing a physical examination,13 and then is consecrated by another person, [her second husband also] must dissolve their relationship with a get, because of the doubt involved.14 If she married [the second husband], she must be divorced by both husbands and there is a doubt concerning the legitimacy of a child born to either of them [after her consecration to her second husband].15ה
הרי שנבדקה ולא נמצאו לה סימנים הואיל ונבעלה אחר שהגיעה לזמן הראוי לסימנין הרי זו חוששין לה שמא הביאה ונשרו. ולפיכך צריכה גט מספק. ואם מיאנה אחר שנבדקה ונתקדשה לאחר צריכה ממנו גט מספק. ואם נשאת תצא מזה ומזה והולד ספק ממזר משניהם:
6
When a minor does not exercise her right to mi'un and attains majority, she no longer has this privilege. [This applies] even when she did not engage in marital relations with her husband after reaching the age of twelve years and one day. Since she has attained majority, it is a Rabbinic decree that a divorce is required [if the marriage must be dissolved].
[The rationale for this ruling is as follows:] The couple did not engage in marital relations after she reached the age of na'arut, in which instance it would be necessary to suspect that she manifested signs of physical maturity, and accordinly, there would be a doubt whether or not a marriage bond had been established. Nor did they engage in relations after she attained majority, in which instance she would become a married woman in all regards. Accordingly, the only reason she requires a get is the fact of her marriage as a minor, which is a Rabbinic institution.
Based on the above, if another man consecrated her after she attained majority, [when she had not engaged in marital relations with her first husband from the age of twelve onward,] the second man's consecration is binding.16 As such, if her first husband divorces her, her second husband may consummate the marriage. If, however, her second husband divorces her, her first husband may not continue his marriage with her. [This is a decree, instituted] lest people say: "He remarried his divorcee after she was consecrated."17
If her second husband engaged in marital relations with her before her first husband divorced her, she must be divorced by both men. [This is a decree instituted] because [the situation] resembles an instance in which a woman heard that her husband died, she married, and then her first husband returned.18 [The laws governing the two situations are not entirely analogous. In this instance,] a child fathered by the second husband is not illegitimate.19 But if her first husband engages in relations with her before her second husband divorces her, any child born is illegitimate.20ו
קטנה שלא מיאנה והגדילה ואע"פ שלא בעלה בעלה משנעשית בת שתים עשרה שנה ויום אחד הרי זו אינה ממאנת שהרי הגדילה. וצריכה גט מדברי סופרים. שהרי לא בא עליה אחר שהגיעה לשני נערות עד שנחוש לה שמא הביאה סימנין ותהיה ספק מקודשת. ולא בא עליה אחר שהגדילה כדי שתהיה אשת איש גמורה. ונמצאת שאינה צריכה גט אלא מנשואי קטנות שהן מדברי סופרים. לפיכך אם עמדה ונתקדשה אחר שגדלה תופסין בה קדושין של שני. ואם גירש הראשון יכנוס השני. אבל אם גירש שני לא יקיים ראשון שמא יאמרו החזיר גרושתו מאחר שנתארסה. ואם בא עליה שני קודם שיגרש ראשון תצא מזה ומזה מפני שדומה לאשה ששמעה שמת בעלה ונשאת ואחר כך בא בעלה ואין הולד מן השני ממזר. ואם בא עליה ראשון קודם שגירש שני הולד ממזר:
7
In which instances must a minor perform the rite of mi'un [to nullify her marriage]? [Our Sages established the following guidelines.] If she was between six and ten [when she was consecrated], we investigate the extent of her sagacity.
If she knows to guard [the money given to her to effect] the kiddushin, appreciates that it was given for that purpose and will guard it differently from the way in which she would guard a nut, a date or the like, she must perform the rite of mi'un [to nullify her marriage].
If she does not know to guard [the money given to her to effect] the kiddushin, she need not perform the rite of mi'un [to nullify her marriage]. Instead, she returns to her mother's home as if she had never been consecrated. If she is less than six, even if she knows [how to guard the money given her,] she need not perform the rite of mi'un. If she is more than ten, even if she is very inept, she must perform the rite of mi'un.21
Whenever a girl's brother, mother or relatives arranged for her marriage without telling her of the identity of the groom, she need not perform the rite of mi'un [to nullify her marriage].22ז
אי זו היא קטנה שצריכה למאן מבת שש עד בת עשר שנים בודקין אותה לפי יופי דעתה אם יודעת לשמור קדושיה ושהן קדושין לא שתשמור אותן כדרך שמשמרת האגוז ותמרה וכיוצא בהן הרי זו צריכה מיאון. ואם אינה יודעת לשמור קדושיה אינה צריכה למאן אלא הולכת לבית אמה כאילו לא נתקדשה מעולם. ופחותה מבת שש אפילו יודעת לשמור אינה צריכה מיאון ויתירה על בת עשר אפילו סכלה ביותר צריכה מיאון. וכל מי שהשיאוה אחיה או אמה או קרוביה שלא לדעתה אינה צריכה למאן:
8
What does the rite of mi'un entail? She tells two witnesses:23 "I no longer desire my husband so and so," "I no longer desire to be consecrated [to the man] to whom my mother - or my brother - consecrated me," or the like.
[The above applies] even if the two individuals are guests dining in her husband's home and she is serving them. If she tells them, "I no longer desire my husband so and so," she has performed mi'un.ח
כיצד ממאנת אומרת בפני שני עדים אין רצוני בפלוני בעלי. או אין רצוני בקידושין שקדשוני אמי או אחי וכיוצא בדברים אלו. אפילו היו אורחין מסובין בבית בעלה והיא עומדת ומשקה עליהן ואמרה איני רוצה בפלוני בעלי הרי זה מיאון:
9
The two individuals in whose presence the minor performs the rite of mi'unshould write the following for her: "On this and this day, _______________the daughter of _____________ rejected her husband." They sign the document and give it to her. This is the essential portion of a deed of mi'un.
A deed of mi'un does not resemble a bill of divorce, in which the giving of the bill effects the divorce.24 It need not be written with the proper intent, nor must it be transferred, nor do any of the laws required for a bill of divorce apply with regard to it. The wording used for a get is not used for it, lest it appear to be a get.25 It is merely a legal record.ט
השנים שממאנת הקטנה בפניהן כותבין לה ביום פלוני מיאנה פלונית בת פלוני בפנינו בפלוני בעלה וחותמין ונותנין לה. וזה הוא גופו של גט מיאון. וגט מיאון אינו כגט הגירושין שנתינתו מגרשה ואינו צריך כתיבה לשמה ולא מסירה ולא דבר ממשפטי גט הגירושין. ואין כותבין בו טופסי הגט שמא יראה כגט גירושין לפי שאינו אלא כמעשה בית דין:
10
The two individuals before whom a girl makes a statement of mi'unmust know the identity of the girl and her husband. Therefore, whoever sees [a girl] make a statement of mi'un [in the presence of two other people] and hears that statement, is entitled to write a legal record of this statement, even though he was not aware of [the girl's] identity beforehand.26
It has become customary for the Jewish people to write a legal record of a statement of mi'un, employing the following text.י
השנים שממאנת בפניהן צריכין שיהו מכירין אותה ואת בעלה שמיאנה בו. לפיכך כל מי שראה אותה שמיאנה ושמע מיאוניה יש לו לכתוב גט מיאון לה אע"פ שאין מכירה. וכבר נהגו ישראל לכתוב גט מיאון בנוסח זה:
11
A legal record of a statement of mi'un:
On this day of the week, and on this day of the month, in this year according to the following reckoning,27 so and so, the daughter of so and so (her father's name) issued a protest in our presence, saying: "My mother or my brother misled me and had me married - or consecrated - to so and so, the son of so and so (his father's name) while I was a minor. I am now making a statement in your presence that I do not desire him, nor can I live with him." We have had so and so undergo a physical examination,28 and it has been established that she is still a minor. [Hence,] we have written and signed this [legal document] and have given it to her to serve as support and clear evidence.
So and so, the son of so and so (his father's name), a witness;
So and so, the son of so and so (his father's name), a witness.יא
גט מיאון בכך בשבת כך וכך יום לחדש פלוני שנת כך וכך למנין פלוני מיאנה פלונית בת פלוני בפנינו ואמרה שאמי או אחי הטעוני והשיאוני או קידשוני ואני קטנה לפלוני בר פלוני והשתא גליתי דעתי קדמיכון דלא צבינא ביה ולא קאימנא עמיה ובדקנא פלונית דא ואתברר לנא דעדיין קטנה היא וכתבנא וחתמנא ויהיבנא לה לזכות ולראיה ברורה: פלוני בר פלוני עד: פלוני בר פלוני עד:
12
When a man divorces his wife, and she becomes consecrated to another man, she is forbidden to her first [husband], even though she has not engaged in marital relations [with her second husband]. If her first [husband] remarries her and engages in sexual relations with her,29 he [transgresses a negative commandment,30 and] is punished by lashes. He is forced to divorce her, as [implied by Deuteronomy 24:4]: "Her first husband, who sent her away, may not [return and remarry her]."יב
המגרש את אשתו ונתקדשה לאחר אע"פ שלא בעלה נאסרה על הראשון. ואם החזיר הראשון ובעלה לוקה וכופין אותו להוציא שנאמר לא יוכל בעלה הראשון וגו':
13
If she engaged in promiscuous relations with another man while she was divorced, she is permitted to remarry her husband, for it is written [Deuteronomy 24:2]: "And she departed from his home and went and became another man's [wife]." It is "becom[ing] another man's [wife]" - i.e., being consecrated - which causes her to become forbidden to remarry her [first] husband.יג
זינתה עם אחר כשהיא גרושה מותרת לחזור לבעלה שנאמר ויצאה מביתו והלכה והיתה לאיש אחר. הוייתה לאיש אחר שהיא הקדושין היא שאוסרת אותה על בעלה לחזור לו:
14
Included in this prohibition is that every woman who engaged in adulterous relations becomes forbidden to her husband. He is punished by lashes [for engaging in marital relations with her],31as [implied by the inclusion of the phrase] "after she has become tainted" in [Deuteronomy 24:4]: "And [an adulterous woman] has been tainted." There is one exception: the wife of an Israelite32 who was raped.33
Therefore, whenever a woman becomes forbidden to her husband, because she violated his warning against entering into privacy with another man,34 and he engages in relations with her, he is punished by stripes of rebellion.35 If after divorcing his wife [for such reasons], the husband transgresses and remarries her, he must divorce her.יד
ובכלל לאו זה שכל אשה שזינתה תחת בעלה נאסרה עליו ולוקה עליה שנאמר אחרי אשר הוטמאה והרי נטמאה. אא"כ היתה אשת ישראל שנאנסה. לפיכך כל אשה שנאסרה על בעלה על ידי קינוי וסתירה אם בעל אותה מכין אותו מכת מרדות. ואם עבר והחזירה אחר שגירשה יוציא בגט:
15
A deaf-mute may divorce his wife with signals, as explained.36 [If such a woman] went and became consecrated to another deaf-mute [and is then divorced], she is forbidden to be remarried to her first husband. Needless to say, [this applies if her second husband] was a mentally competent individual.
If, however, a woman who had been married to a mentally competent individual and was divorced, married a deaf-mute and was divorced, she is permitted to remarry her first husband.37טו
חרש שגירש ברמיזה כמו שבארנו. והלכה ונתקדשה לחרש אחר ואין צריך לומר לפקח אסורה לחזור לבעלה החרש. אבל אשתו של פקח שנתגרשה והלכה ונשאת לחרש ונתגרשה מותרת לחזור לבעלה הפקח:
16
A girl who leaves her husband by virtue of the rite of mi'un is not considered to be divorced by him.38 The laws applying to her relations with her husband whom she rejected are the same as those applying to a man who has never consecrated her. She is permitted to marry his relatives. He is permitted to marry her relatives. Nor is she disqualified from marrying into the priesthood.
If she married another man and was divorced or widowed, or she nullified her relationship with him through mi'un, she is permitted to remarry him. Moreover, even if her first husband divorced her [while she was still a minor], remarried her, she then nullified their relationship via mi'un and married another man and was divorced by him, she may remarry her first husband.39
[The rationale is that] whenever a girl leaves a marriage via the rite of mi'un, it is considered as if she had never been divorced via a get, and she may remarry her first husband. [This applies] even if she was once divorced [by this man] before mi'un.
When, by contrast, a man divorces his wife - who is a minor - with a get, she marries another man and then nullifies the marriage through mi'un, she may not remarry her first husband, because although her final marriage was terminated by mi'un, her marriage [to her first husband] was terminated by a divorce.40 Needless to say, this applies if the second husband divorced her or he died.
Similarly, she is forbidden to the father of her first husband, his son and his brothers, as are other divorced women. [This applies despite the fact that] she terminates her marriage to her second husband via mi'un.טז
הממאנת (באיש) אינה מגורשת ממנו. ודינה עם בעלה שמיאנה בו כדינה עם מי שלא קידשה מעולם. היא מותרת בקרוביו והוא מותר בקרובותיה ולא פסלה מן הכהונה. ואם נשאת לאחר וגירשה האחר או מת או מיאנה בו מותרת לחזור לראשון. ולא עוד אלא אפילו גירשה הראשון והחזירה ומיאנה בו ונשאת לאחר אחר שמיאנה בו וגירשה האחר מותרת לחזור לראשון. שכל היוצאת במיאון אע"פ שקדמו גט הרי זו כמי שלא נתגרשה ממנו בגט מעולם ומותרת לחזור לו. אבל המגרש את הקטנה בגט ונשאת לאחר ומיאנה בו אסורה לחזור לראשון מפני שיצאת ממנו בגט אע"פ שיצאת מן האחרון במיאון. ואין צריך לומר אם גירשה האחרון או מת. וכן אסורה לאבי הראשון ולבנו ולאחיו כשאר הגרושות אף על פי שיצאת מן האחרון במיאון:
17
When a girl nullifies her connection to a yavam through mi'un, she remains forbidden to his father, for she appears to be his daughter-in-law, since [that was her status] when his son died. She is, however, permitted to marry [her late husband's] other relatives.41 Thus, although she rejected a potential yavamwith mi'un, she is permitted to marry his brother.יז
הממאנת ביבם אסורה לאביו מפני שנראת ככלתו בעת שמת בנו אבל לשאר קרובים מותרת. לפיכך אם מיאנה באחד מן היבמין מותרת לאחיו:
18
Whenever a woman is divorced or widowed, she should neither marry nor be consecrated42 until 90 days pass between the day she was divorced or her husband died and the day on which she became consecrated. [This interval was required] to see whether or not she is pregnant, and thus to differentiate between the seed of the first husband and the seed of the second husband.43יח
כל אשה שנתגרשה או שנתאלמנה הרי זו לא תנשא ולא תתארס עד שתמתין תשעים יום חוץ מיום שנתגרשה או שמת בעלה בו וחוץ מיום שנתארסה בו. כדי שיודע אם היא מעוברת או אינה מעוברת להבחין בין זרעו של ראשון לזרעו של שני:
19
We count [these 90 days] from the day the get is written; [this applies] even when it was written on a conditional basis, or it did not reach the woman until years afterwards. [The rationale is] that from the time [a get] is written, [a woman's husband] no longer enters into privacy with her.44יט
ומיום כתיבת הגט מונין למגורשת. ואפילו היה על תנאי או שלא הגיע לידה אלא לאחר כמה שנים מיום הכתיבה מונין. שהרי אינו מתיחד עמה משכתבו לה:
20
[Included] in this decree of our Sages is that even a woman who is not fit to give birth, and even one who was divorced or widowed after merely being consecrated, must wait 90 days. I.e., even a minor, an elderly woman, a barren woman or an aylonit, even a woman whose husband was overseas, sick or imprisoned, and indeed, even a woman who is a virgin despite being consecrated, must wait 90 days.45כ
וגזירת חכמים היא שאפילו אשה שאינה ראויה לילד ואפילו נתגרשה או נתאלמנה מן האירוסין צריכה להמתין תשעים יום. אפילו קטנה או זקנה או עקרה או אילונית. ואפילו בעלה במדינת הים או חולה או חבוש בבית האסורין. ואפילו בתולה מן האירוסין צריכות להמתין תשעים יום:
21
A maidservant who was freed and a non-Jewish woman who was converted are required to wait 90 days [before they marry].46 Even a gentile and his wife who convert together are required to separate for 90 days to differentiate between seed that was conceived in holiness and seed that was not conceived in holiness.
Similarly, although the Torah prescribed only [an interim of] 30 days for her own sake, a yefat to'ar47 must wait 90 days [to marry her captor] for the sake of the definition of her child's [status].48 The 30 [days mentioned by the Torah] are included in the 90-day interim.כא
שפחה שנשתחררה וגיורת שנתגיירה ממתינין תשעים יום. ואפילו גר ואשתו שנתגיירו מפרישין אותן תשעים יום כדי להבחין בין זרע שנזרע בקדושה לזרע שלא נזרע בקדושה. וכן יפת תאר אע"פ שנתנה לה תורה שלשים יום לתקנת עצמה צריכה להמתין תשעים יום לתקנת הולד. והשלשים מכלל התשעים:
22
A girl who annuls her marriage through mi'un need not wait [before remarrying]; our Sages' decree applied only to a divorcee. Similarly, a woman who has promiscuous relations need not wait, for she guards herself against becoming pregnant. Similarly, a woman who was raped or seduced need not wait.כב
הממאנת אינה צריכה להמתין לא גזרו אלא בירושה. וכן המזנה אינה צריכה להמתין מפני שמשמרת עצמה שלא תתעבר. וכן אנוסה ומפותה אינן צריכות להמתין:
23
[The following rule applies when] a girl below the age of majority who is not fit to give birth was married under a mistaken conception, discovered that she is forbidden to remain married to her husband and was forced to separate by the court. She need not wait, for this is an unlikely occurrence, and our Sages did not apply their decrees to situations that are out of the ordinary.49כג
מי שנישאת בטעות ונודע שהיא אסורה לבעלה והוציאוה ב"ד מתחתיו. אם היתה קטנה שאינה ראויה לילד אינה צריכה להמתין. שזה דבר שאינו מצוי הוא וכל דבר שאינו מצוי ברוב לא גזרו בו:
24
When, within this 90-day period, [a man] consecrates [a woman who is required to wait], he is placed under a ban of ostracism.50 If he consecrates the woman and then temporarily flees [to a distant country], he is not placed under a ban of ostracism.51 If he consummates the marriage within the 90-day period, the couple are forced to separate until the conclusion of the interval, at which time they are allowed to live together as man and wife.כד
המארס בתוך תשעים יום מנדין אותו. אירס וברח אין מנדין אותו. כנס בתוך תשעים יום מפרישין אותן עד אחר זמן ויעמוד עם אשתו:
25
Similarly, our Sages decreed that a man should not marry a woman who is pregnant with a child conceived by another man, or a woman who is nursing a child conceived by another man, even though the parentage of the fetus is known.52
[The restriction concerning] a pregnant woman [was instituted,] lest [the other man] harm the fetus during sexual relations, for he is not concerned about his colleague's child. [And the decree concerning] a nursing mother [was instituted], lest the woman's milk spoil and her second husband fail to show concern for restoring her ability to nurse, by providing her with a diet that will remedy her difficulty.כה
וכן גזרו חכמים שלא ישא אדם מעוברת חבירו ומינקת חבירו. ואף על פי שהזרע ידוע למי היא מעוברת. שמא יזיק הולד בשעת תשמיש שאינו מקפיד על בן חבירו. ומניקה שמא יתעכר החלב והוא אינו מקפיד לרפאות החלב בדברים המועילין לחלב כשיתעכר:
26
For how long is the woman considered to be a nursing mother? For twenty-four months.53 This does not include the day the child was born, nor the day the woman becomes consecrated.כו
כמה הוא זמן היניקה כ"ד חדש חוץ מיום שנולד בו ומיום שנתארסה בו:
27
Just as it is forbidden to marry such a woman, it is forbidden to consecrate her until this time period passes. Even if [a woman] gives her child to a nursemaid or weans him during these 24 months, she should not marry.54 If her son dies, she is permitted to marry. We do not fear that perhaps she will kill [her son for this reason].כז
כשם שאסור לישא כך אסור לארס עד אחר זמן זה. אפילו נתנה בנה למניקה או שגמלתו בתוך כ"ד חדש לא תנשא. מת בנה מותרת לינשא ואין חוששין שמא תהרגנו:
28
If a man transgresses and marries a pregnant or nursing woman during this period, he should divorce her,55even if he is a priest.56 If the man is an Israelite, he may remarry her after the 24 months of nursing pass.
If [a man] marries [such a woman] and then flees and returns after [the prescribed] period and lives together with his wife, there is no difficulty.
[A man who] consecrates a pregnant or nursing woman is not forced to divorce her.57 He may not, however, consummate the marriage until the nursing period passes or until the child dies.כח
בר ונשא מעוברת או מניקה בתוך זמן זה יוציא בגט ואפילו היה כהן. ואם היה ישראל יחזירנה אחר כ"ד חדש של מניקה. נשא וברח ולאחר זמן בא וישב עם אשתו אין בכך כלום. אירס מעוברת או מניקה אין כופין אותו להוציא ולא לכנוס עד אחר זמן היניקה או עד שימות הולד:
FOOTNOTES
1.I.e., even though a father has the right to consecrate his daughter before she reaches majority and arrange for her marriage, "it is not proper for him to act in this manner." Instead, our Sages enjoined that a person should not consecrate his daughter while she is a minor until she matures and says, "I would like [to marry] so and so" (Hilchot Ishut 3:19). Similarly, from the husband's point of view, he should not marry a girl until she is mature, lest she change her mind afterwards (Tosafot, Kiddushin 41a).
2.Our Sages ordained that an orphan girl below the age of majority could be married, so that someone would care for her and protect her. With regard to such a marriage, the Rambam writes in Hilchot Ishut 4:8: "The consecration is not absolutely binding according to Scriptural law; it is merely a Rabbinic institution. [According to Scriptural law, the outcome] is tentative. If she continues living with her husband until she reaches the age of majority, the kiddushin are finalized, and she becomes a married woman in the complete sense of the term. There is no need for [her husband] to consecrate her again after she attains majority. If she does not want [to continue] living with him, she must perform mi'un; she then leaves [the relationship] without a divorce."
3.In which instance, the marriage is binding according to Scriptural law and cannot be annulled through mi'un.
4.Once a girl is married, her father no longer has any authority over her, even though he is alive (Hilchot Ishut 3:12).
5.In the instance of a minor, her right to annul the marriage lasts only until she reaches majority. With regard to a deaf-mute, by contrast, there would be no limit to this privilege. This would be regarded unfavorably by a husband (Yevamot 113a).
6.I.e., if her husband dies without children and she does not desire to marry the yavam, she can dissolve the marriage by mi'un.
7.Although a girl has the right to marry and dissolve her marriage as often as she desires, our Rabbis did not approve of such conduct and counselled that the Jewish court should arrange a marriage of a minor only when it does not appear likely that she will seek to dissolve the marriage (Hagahot Maimoniot).
8.I.e., when she becomes twelve years old and manifests physical signs of maturity, as explained in Hilchot Ishut 2:3.
9.A woman who does not manifest any female physical characteristics. If she shows clear signs of such a condition, she is placed in this category at age 20. If she does not show such signs, but also does not manifest signs of female physical maturity, she is not placed into this category until age 35 (Ibid.:4).
10.That a girl can annul her marriage despite the fact that she has passed the age of twelve, when she has not manifested female physical characteristics.
11.Hilchot Ishut 1:2.
12.I.e., our ordinary assumption is that a woman has manifested signs of maturity. Therefore, if a woman wants to annul the marriage after she reaches the age of twelve, she must undergo a physical inspection to show that she has not manifested signs of physical maturity. If no signs are discovered, and she has not engaged in relations with her husband after reaching the age of twelve, she may exercise the right of mi'un.
13.In which no signs of physical maturity were discovered.
14.Since no signs of physical maturity were discovered, it is possible that the girl is still a minor and that the annulment of her first marriage - and thus her subsequent consecration - is acceptable. But it is also possible that, as mentioned in the previous halachah, pubic hairs grew and fell off, and that through engaging in marital relations she had been consecrated by her first husband. Because of the doubt involved, she must be divorced by both men.
15.Since it is possible that her first marriage is binding, the legitimacy of a child fathered by her second husband is in doubt. And conversely, since it is possible that the marriage to her second husband is binding, there are also doubts concerning the legitimacy of a child fathered afterwards by the first husband.
16.I.e., even if she had not yet been divorced by her first husband. Since the second man's consecration has the power of Scriptural law, it takes priority.
17.Which is forbidden, as stated in Halachah 12.
18.The resemblance is that the woman married a second husband before her marriage with the first was severed.
19.Because her marriage to her first husband is not binding according to Scriptural law.
20.For her second marriage is binding according to Scriptural law.
21.The Ramah (Even HaEzer 155:2) quotes opinions that maintain that the above applies only when the girl's marriage was arranged by her brother or her mother. If she arranged the marriage herself, it is not binding, even according to Rabbinic law. The Ra'avad mentions a third opinion, which states that for a girl between the ages of six and ten, the marriage must be arranged by her family to be binding. After the age of ten, it is binding even if she arranged it herself.
22.Our translation is based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Yevamot 13:2), which explains that this refers to an instance in which a girl's family members prepared her for marriage without informing her who her groom would be.
23.Rabbenu Chanan'el and other authorities maintain that, a priori, three individuals should be present. Although the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer155:4) mentions this opinion, the Rambam's view appears to be favored.
24.I.e., a deed of mi'un is merely a legal record. The act of mi'un - i.e., the girl's statement that she no longer desires to live with her husband - is what nullifies their marriage. In contrast, it is the transfer of the get, the bill of divorce, that causes the divorce to take effect.
25.Yevamot 107b-108a relates that originally, the Sages would have a legal record of mi'un written using wording that somewhat resembled a bill of divorce. They saw, however, that this created the impression that the husband was forbidden to marry the girl's close relatives. Since this is not the case, as mentioned in Halachah 16, they altered the wording used for the legal record.
26.Our additions are made on the basis of the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer155:8). We assume that the other witnesses were aware of the law and would have objected to the girl's making such statements if they did not know her identity and that of her husband. (See a parallel in Hilchot Yibbum VaChalitzah 4:29. Note, however, the Beit Shmuel 155:11 who differs.)
27.I.e., from the creation or from the beginning of Alexander the Great's rule, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 27.
28.I.e., she was checked by women on whom the court can rely, as stated in Hilchot Ishut 2:20.
29.Needless to say, the Rambam is not speaking about an instance in which the woman is still married to her second husband. That would be adultery, a sin punishable by execution. Rather, this applies even if the first husband remarries his wife after she is divorced by her second husband.
The husband is punished by lashes only if he both remarries her and engages in sexual relations with her. Neither act alone incurs that punishment (Kiddushin 78a).
30.Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 356) and Sefer HaChinuch(Mitzvah 580) count this as one of the Torah's 613 commandments.
31.Note the Kessef Mishneh, which cites an apparent contradiction between the Rambam's statements here and those in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 1:22 and Hilchot Sanhedrin, Chapter 19, from which it would appear that a man is not punished by lashes for engaging in relations with his wife in such a situation.
32.But not a priest. (See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 18:27.)
33.Or who engaged in adulterous relations unwittingly. (See Hilchot Ishut24:19.)
34.I.e., a sotah.
35.Stripes of rebellion is the punishment given for the violation of a Rabbinic injunction. It refers to a less form of corporal punishment than lashes.
The husband is prohibited from engaging in relations with such a wife because it is possible that he will violate a prohibition of Scriptural law. Nevertheless, since it has not been definitely established that his wife committed adultery, he is not punished by lashes (Maggid Mishneh).
36.Chapter 2, Halachah 17. This applies only when the person was a deaf-mute when he originally consecrated his wife.
37.Since the marriage to the deaf-mute is not binding according to Scriptural law, it is as if she had never married a second husband. Based on a difference in the version of the Jerusalem Talmud (Yevamot 14:1) that was available to him, the Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling.
38.Divorce nullifies a marriage from the time of divorce onward. Mi'un, by contrast, voids the marriage entirely, causing it to be considered as if it had never taken place.
39.The mi'un that terminated the second marriage reveals that the first marriage was not binding according to Scriptural law, and that a get was not actually required. (See Rashi, Yevamot 108a.)
40.Yevamot 108b explains that she is not permitted to remarry her first husband because we are afraid that he will change his mind and influence her to nullify her marriage to her second husband via mi'un. We suspect that she will be able to be influenced by him, because she still is attracted to him - for it was he who divorced her, not she who nullified the marriage through mi'un. In the first instance, we do not harbor such suspicions, for it was she who rejected her first husband, nullifying the marriage through mi'un.
41.The Rashba and the Ramban differ, and maintain that the woman is forbidden to the other relatives of the deceased, with the exception of his brothers. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 155:11) mentions both opinions, but favors that of the Rambam.
42.She may, however, become engaged to be married during this time, provided she does not enter into privacy with her fiance (Ramah, Even HaEzer 13:1).
43.The laws governing forbidden marital relationships revolve around paternal relationships, as do the laws of yibbum. For these reasons, it is very important to determine who in fact is the father of a child.
44.And thus it is impossible that he be the father of the woman's child. (See Chapter 3, Halachah 5; Chapter 8, Halachah 2.)
The Ramah (Even HaEzer 13:1) differs and quotes Rabbenu Asher, who maintains that the counting should begin from the day the get reached the woman for whom it was intended.
45.Yevamot 42b explains that this decree was applied universally lest people begin to search for loopholes.
46.The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 13:5) interpret this to be referring to a woman who was married as a non-Jew, and not one who was unmarried. Note the Radbaz (Vol. I, Responsa 196), who differs and maintains that this applies even to an unmarried gentile woman.
47.A female captive who is taken as a wife by her captor, as described in Deuteronomy 21:11 and Hilchot Melachim, Chapter 8.
48.This refers to the second time the captor has relations with her. It is possible for a child to be conceived during their first sexual encounter, in which instance the child also has the status of a convert.
49.If, however, the woman was old enough to conceive a child while married to the man with whom relations are forbidden, she is required to wait. For it is necessary to discern if a child was conceived in the forbidden relationship or not.
50.The Ra'avad states that the intent of the ban of ostracism should be to compel the man to divorce his wife. (See the Ramah, Even HaEzer 13:10, who quotes this opinion.)
51.The Ramah (loc. cit.) states that he is advised to flee.
52.The Ramah (Even HaEzer 13:11) mentions that leniency is often shown in instances where a pregnant woman would be likely to engage in sexual relations with the father of the child, or with other men during this interim period, with the hope that marriage will prevent her from unchaste conduct.
53.The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 13:11) states that in a leap year, the extra month should be counted as one of the 24. The Ramah, however, states that, a priori, in such a situation, an additional month should be added to the restriction. (Note Beit Shmuel 13:22.)
54.Rashi (Ketubot 60b) states that the restriction is upheld lest women be encouraged to take these options rather than continue nursing their children.
If, however, the woman gave her child to a nursemaid in her first husband's lifetime or is physically incapable of nursing, there are no restrictions against her remarrying (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 13:11).
55.
The Ra'avad states that he is placed under a ban of ostracism until he divorces her. This ruling is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 13:12).
56.Who may not remarry his divorcee.
57.The Ramah (Even HaEzer 13:12) is more stringent and equates consecration with marriage.



• 3 Chapters A Day: Mikvaot Mikvaot - Chapter 11, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter One, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Two
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day
Mikvaot - Chapter 11, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter One, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Two
Shabbat, 12 Sivan 5778 / May 26, 2018
Mikoat - Chapter 11
1
We already explained that washing one's hands and/or immersing them is a Rabbinic requirement. Hands that must be immersed may be immersed solely in an acceptable mikveh that contains 40 se'ah. For only in a place where a person immerses his body may he immerse keilimand hands. When, however, hands need only to be washed, if they were immersed in the water of a mikveh, they are pure. If they were immersed in drawn water, whether in a container or on the earth, the person's hands are not purified. Instead, drawn water poured from a container must fall upon his hands. For hands may only be washed from containers and using human effort, as we explained in Hilchot Berachot.א
כבר ביארנו שנטילת ידים וטבילתן מדברי סופרים וידים שצריכות טבילה אין מטבילן אותן אלא במקוה כשר שיש בו ארבעים סאה שבמקום שהאדם טובל בו כלים ידים טובלין אבל ידים שאין צריכות אלא נטילה בלבד אם הטבילן במי מקוה טהורין ואם הטבילן במים שאובין בין בכלים בין בקרקעות לא טהרו ידיו עד שיפלו המים השאובים מן הכלי על ידיו שאין נוטלין לידים אלא מן הכלים ומכח נותן כמו שביארנו בהלכות ברכות:
2
Any substance that intervenes for one's entire body when immersing also intervenes for one's hands, both when immersing then and when washing them. Any substance that is included in the measure of a mikveh, e.g., flowing mud, is also included in the measure of a revi'itrequired for the washing of hands. Everyone who washes his hands must rub them together.ב
כל החוצץ בטבילה חוצץ בידים בין בטבילתן בין בנטילתן וכל העולה למדת המקוה כטיט הנרוק עולה לשיעור הרביעית שנוטלין בהן הידים וכל הנוטל ידיו צריך לשפשף:
3
When a person washes both of his hands to partake of terumah, he must wash them a second time with other water to remove the water that is on his hands. For the water with which he washed them first - it is called the first water - contracted impurity from his hands. Therefore if a loaf of bread that was terumah fell into the water with which one first washed his hands, it contracts impurity. If it fell into the water of the second washing, it does not contract impurity. If one poured the water of the first washing and the second washing into one place and a loaf that was terumah fell there, it contracts impurity.
If one washed one's hands with the first water, an intervening object was found on his hands, and he removed it and washed again, his hands are impure as they were before, because the second water imparts purity only to what remains of the first water on his hands.ג
הנוטל שתי ידיו לתרומה צריך לחזור וליטול פעם שנייה במים שניים כדי להסיר המים שעל גב ידיו שהרי המים שנטל בהן תחילה והן הנקראין מים ראשונים נטמאו בידיו לפיכך אם נפל ככר של תרומה לתוך המים שנטל בהן ידיו תחילה נטמא ואם נפל לתוך המים השניים לא נטמא ואם נטל ראשונים ושניים למקום אחד ונפל שם ככר של תרומה נטמא נטל את הראשונים ונמצא על ידיו דבר חוצץ והסירו ונטל את השניים הרי ידיו טמאות כשהיו שאין המים השניים מטהרין אלא הנשאר מן המים הראשונים ע"ג ידיו:
4
Hands contract impurity and are purified until the joint.
What is implied? One washed his hands the first time until the joint. The second time, he washed them, the water poured beyond the joint, his hands are pure. The rationale is that the second water is pure.
If, when he washed his hands the first time and the second time, the water poured beyond the joint and it returned to his hand, his hand contracts impurity. The rationale is that the first water that poured beyond the wrist contracted impurity because of his hand. The second water does not purify the water outside the joint. Hence, since the water that was beyond the joint returned to his hand, it imparts impurity to it.ד
הידים מתטמאות ומתטהרות עד הפרק כיצד נטל את הראשונים עד הפרק ונטל המים השניים חוץ לפרק וחזרו מחוץ לפרק לידיו הרי ידיו טהורות שהמים השניים טהורין הן נטל את הראשונים והשניים חוץ לפרק וחזרו לידו נטמאת ידו שהמים הראשונים שחוץ לפרק נטמאו מחמת ידיו ואין המים השניים מטהרים במים שחוץ לפרק ולפי שחזרו המים שחוץ לפרק לידו טמאוה:
5
If the first time, he washed one hand and changed his mind and washed both his hands together the second time, they are impure. The rationale is that the second water contracts impurity because of the hand that was not washed the first time and then they impart impurity to the other hand.
If he washed both his hands the first time and washed only one hand the second time, that one is pure. If he washed one hand and then rubbed it against his other hand which was not washed at all, the water upon the washed hand contracts impurity because of the unwashed hand and then imparts impurity to the hand which was washed. If he rubs it on his head or against the wall, it is pure.ה
נטל את הראשונים לידו אחת ונמלך ונטל את השניים לשתי ידיו טמאות שהשניים מתטמאין מחמת היד שלא ניטלה במים ראשונים וחוזרין ומטמאין את היד השנייה נטל את הראשונים לשתי ידיו ונטל את השניים לידו אחת האחת טהורה נטל ידו אחת ושפשפה בחבירתה נטמאו המים שעליה מחמת חבירתה שלא ניטלה וחוזרין ומטמאין את היד שנטלה שפשפה בראשו או בכותל הרי זו טהורה:
6
If one washes both hands with one washing, they are pure. We do not say that it is like washing one hand with the water that descended from the other hand. Moreover, even four or five people, one next to each other or one on top of the other, may wash in this manner, as long as they hold their hands open so that the water can flow over the entire hand.ו
נטל שתי ידיו משטיפה אחת הרי אלו טהורין ואין אומרין הרי זה כנוטל ידו אחת במים שירדו מעל ידו השנייה אפילו ארבעה או חמשה זה בצד זה או זה על גב זה ובלבד שירפו שיבואו בהן המים:
7
If one washed a portion of his hand and then washed the rest of his hand, his hand is impure as it was originally. If there is enough water to impart moisture to another substance on the portion of the hand washed first while the other part was being washed the hand] is pure.
When does the above apply? To the water of the first washing. With regard to the second washing, one may wash a portion of his hand and then wash again, adding to the portion washed.ז
נטל מקצת ידו וחזר והוסיף ונטל הנשאר מן ידו הרי ידו טמאה כשהיתה ואם עדיין יש על מקצת שנטל בתחילה טופח על מנת להטפיח הרי זו טהורה בד"א במים ראשונים אבל בשניים נוטל מקצת ידיו וחוזר ומוסיף על מקצתן:
8
The minimum measure of water with which one may wash one's hands initially is a revi'it for each and every person for both their hands. No less than this measure is acceptable, as explained with regarding to washing before partaking of bread.
With regard to the second washing, by contrast, two people may wash their hands with a revi'it, and half a log may be used for three or four. And from a log, even 100 may wash. The rationale is that the second water does not come to purify, but merely to wash off the first water.ח
שיעור המים שנוטלין בהן תחילה רביעית לכל אדם ואדם לשתי הידים אין פחות משיעור זה כמו שביארנו בנטילת ידים לפת אבל מים שניים יש לשנים ליטול ידיהן מרביעית ומחצי לוג נותנין לשלשה ולארבעה ומלוג נותנין אפילו למאה שאין המים השניים לטהר אלא להעביר המים הראשונים:
9
When there was a container that held a revi'it of water that was acceptable for the washing of hands and one added to it a small amount of water that is not acceptable for that purpose, the mixture is acceptable. If one removed the amount of water he added from the container and there remained only a revi'it as there was originally, it is unacceptable. The rationale is that water that is unacceptable made up the measure of the revi'it.ט
כלי שהיה בו רביעית מים כשרים לנטילת ידים ונתן לתוכו מעט מים פסולין לנטילת ידים הרי אלו כשרין נטל מן הכלי כשיעור שנתן ונשארה רביעית בלבד כשהיתה הרי זו פסולה מפני שהמים הפסולין השלימו שיעור הרביעית:
10
Any water that is deemed unacceptable for the first washing is unacceptable for the second washing. Any container that may not be used for the first washing is also unacceptable for the second washing. Just as the water of the first washing must be poured by human effort, so too, must the water of the second washing.י
כל המים הפסולין לנטילה במים ראשונים כך הן פסולין במים שניים וכל כלי שאין נוטלין ממנו במים ראשונים כך אין נוטלין ממנו מים שניים וכשם שצריך להיות המים הראשונים מכח אדם כך המים השניים:
11
We already explained in Hilchot Berachot all of the factors that could disqualify water for the washing of hands and what makes them acceptable, all of the containers that may be used for the washing of the hands and those that may not be used, Just as any doubt regarding the washing of hands is considered as pure with regard to partaking of ordinary food, as explained there, so too, with regard to terumah, any doubt regarding the washing of hands is considered as pure.יא
כבר ביארנו בפרק ששי מהלכות ברכות כל מיני המים הפסולין לנטילת ידים והכשרן וכל הכלים שנוטלין בהן לידים ושאין נוטלין ואי זו נתינה היא מכח נותן וכשירה ואי זה נתינה אינה מכח נותן ופסולה וכל אותן הדברים שביארנו שם בנטילת ידים לפת חולין כך הן לתרומה וכשם שכל ספק ידים טהורות לחולין כמו שביארנו שם כך הן לתרומה כל ספק ידים טהור:
12
It is a clear and apparent matter that the concepts of purity and impurity are Scriptural decrees and they are not matters determined by a person's understanding and they are included in the category of chukim. Similarly, immersion in a mikveh to ascend from impurity is included in the category of chukim, because impurity is not mud or filth that can be washed away with water. Instead, the immersion is a Scriptural decree and requires the focusing the intent of one's heart. Therefore our Sages said: "When one immersed, but did not intend to purify himself," it is as if he did not immerse.
Although it is a Scriptural decree, there is an allusion involved: One who focuses his heart on purifying himself becomes purified once he immerses, even though there was no change in his body. Similarly, one who focuses his heart on purifying his soul from the impurities of the soul, which are wicked thoughts and bad character traits, becomes purified when he resolves within his heart to distance himself from such counsel and immerse his soul in the waters of knowledge. And Ezekiel 36:25states: "I will pour over you pure water and you will be purified from all your impurities and from all your false deities, I will purify you."יב
דבר ברור וגלוי שהטומאות והטהרות גזירות הכתוב הן ואינן מדברים שדעתו של אדם מכרעתו והרי הן מכלל החוקים וכן הטבילה מן הטומאות מכלל החוקים הוא שאין הטומאה טיט או צואה שתעבור במים אלא גזירת הכתוב היא והדבר תלוי בכוונת הלב ולפיכך אמרו חכמים טבל ולא הוחזק כאילו לא טבל ואעפ"כ רמז יש בדבר כשם שהמכוין לבו לטהר כיון שטבל טהור ואף על פי שלא נתחדש בגופו דבר כך המכוין לבו לטהר נפשו מטומאות הנפשות שהן מחשבות האון ודעות הרעות כיון שהסכים בלבו לפרוש מאותן העצות והביא נפשו במי הדעת טהור הרי הוא אומר וזרקתי עליכם מים טהורים וטהרתם מכל טומאותיכם ומכל גלוליכם אטהר אתכם השם ברחמיו הרבים מכל חטא עון ואשמה יטהרנו אמן:
Blessed be the Merciful One Who grants assistance.
סליקו להו הלכות מקואות בס"ד:
Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter OneIn the name of the Lord, the God of the world.
Extend my heart to Your testimonies and not to monetary gain.
The eleventh book which is The Book of of Injuries
It contains five sets of Halachot and this is their order:

• The Laws of Nizkei Mamon
• The Laws of Genevah
• The Laws of Gezelah va'Avedah
• The Laws of Chovel uMazzik 
• The Laws of Rotzeach uShmirat Nefesh

Introduction to Hilchos Nizkei Mamon
[This text] contains four positive commandments; they are:
1) The laws regarding damage caused by [the goring of] an ox,
2) The laws regarding damage caused by the grazing [of an animal],
3) The laws regarding damage caused by a pit,
4) The laws regarding damage caused by fire.
These mitzvot are explained in the chapters [that follow].
בְּשֵׁם יי אֵל עוֹלָם (בראשית כא לג)
הַט לִבִּי אֶל עֵדְו‍ֹתֶיךָ, וְאַל אֶל בָּצַע (תהלים קיט לו)
ספר אחד עשר והוא ספר נזקים
הלכותיו חמש, וזה הוא סידורן:
נזקי ממון
הלכות גניבה
הלכות גזילה ואבידה
הלכות חובל ומזיק
הלכות רוצח ושמירת נפש
הלכות נזקי ממון - הקדמה
יש בכללן ארבע מצות עשה. וזה הוא פרטן
א) דין השור
ב) דין ההבער
ג) דין הבור
ד) דין הבערה
וביאור מצות אלו בפרקים אלו:
1
Whenever a living animal owned by a person causes damages, the owner is required to pay, for the damage was caused by his property. [This is implied by Exodus 21:35:] "When a person's ox will gore an ox belonging to a colleague...."1These laws apply equally to an ox and to any other animal, beast or fowl. The verse mentions an ox only because that is a common instance.א
כל נפש חיה שהיא ברשותו של אדם שהזיקה הבעלים חייבין לשלם שהרי ממונם הזיק שנאמר כי יגוף שור איש את שור רעהו. אחד השור ואחד שאר בהמה וחיה ועוף לא דיבר הכתוב בשור אלא בהווה:
2
How much must [the owner] pay? If [the animal] caused damage through the performance of an act that it performs frequently and that is its natural habit - e.g., an animal ate straw or fodder, or it caused damage by [treading on an object] with its feet while walking - [the owner] is obligated to pay the full amount of the damage, [giving up, if necessary,]2 his most choice property, as stated in [Exodus 22:4]: "Payment should be exacted from his choice field and his choice vineyard."3 If [the animal] deviated from its ordinary habit and performed acts that it does not usually perform and caused damage in this manner - e.g., a ox gored or bit [another animal] - the owner is obligated to pay half the damages caused. [The payment must be exacted] from the animal that caused the damage, as [Exodus 21:35] states: "And they shall sell the ox that is alive and divide the money."ב
וכמה משלם. אם הזיקה בדברים שדרכה לעשותם תמיד כמנהג ברייתה. כגון בהמה שאכלה תבן או עמיר או שהזיקה ברגלה בדרך הילוכה חייב לשלם נזק שלם מן היפה שבנכסיו שנאמר מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו ישלם. ואם שינתה ועשתה מעשים שאין דרכה לעשותם תמיד והזיקה בהן. כגון שור שנגח או נשך חייב לשלם חצי נזק מגוף המזיק עצמו שנאמר ומכרו את השור החי וחצו את כספו וגו':
3
What is implied? When an ox that is worth a maneh4gores an ox that is worth 20 zuz and kills it, [leaving] a corpse that is worth four zuz, the owner of the ox [that caused the damage] is liable to pay eight zuz, half of the loss [suffered by the owner of the ox that was killed]. The payment must be exacted from the body of the animal that caused the damage,5 as it is written: "And they shall sell the ox that is alive."6 Therefore, if an ox that was worth 20 zuz killed an ox that was worth 200 zuzand its carcass was worth [only] a maneh, the owner of the dead ox cannot compel the owner of the living ox to give him 50 [zuz]. Instead, he should tell him: "Here is the ox that caused the damage. Take it and depart."7[This applies] even if the [ox that gored] is worth only a dinar. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.ג
כיצד שור שוה מנה שנגח לשור שוה עשרים והמיתו והרי הנבילה שוה ארבעה בעל השור חייב לשלם שמונה שהוא חצי הנזק. ואינו חייב לשלם אלא מגוף השור שהזיק שנאמר ומכרו את השור החי. לפיכך אם המית שור שוה עשרים לשור שוה מאתים ונבלה שוה מנה אין בעל הנבלה יכול לומר לבעל החי תן לי חמשים. אלא אומר לו הרי שור שהזיק לפניך קחהו ולך אפילו אינו שוה אלא דינר. וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
4
[An animal] that performs a deed it is accustomed to performing by nature is called a mu'ad.8 [When an animal] deviates from its ordinary pattern and performs an act that its species does not usually perform - e.g., an ox gores or bites - it is called a tam.9 If the animal continues to follow the deviant pattern on several occasions, it is considered to be mu'ad with regard to the deviation to which it has become habituated, as [implied by Exodus 21:36]: "Or it is known that it is a goring ox."ד
העושה מעשה שדרכו לעשותו תמיד כמנהג ברייתו הוא הנקרא מועד. והמשנה ועשה מעשה שאין דרך כל מינו לעשות כן תמיד כגון שור שנגח או נשך הוא הנקרא תם. וזה המשנה אם הרגיל בשינויו פעמים רבות נעשה מועד לאותו דבר שהרגיל בו שנאמר או נודע כי שור נגח הוא:
5
Five types of activities are considered to be abnormal for an animal. If it repeatedly performs any of them, it is considered to be mu'ad with regard to that activity.10 An animal is not considered to be prone to gore, to butt,11 to bite, to lie down on large utensils or to kick. If it becomes accustomed to such an activity, its owner should be forewarned. At the outset, [an animal] is, however, considered prone to eat foods that are appropriate for it and to break utensils [on which it treads] as it walks. Similarly, an animal is considered prone to lie down on small utensils and crush them.ה
חמשה מעשים תמים יש בבהמה. ואם הועדה לאחד מהן נעשית מועדת לאותו מעשה ואלו הן. הבהמה אינה מועדת מתחילתה לא ליגח ולא ליגוף ולא לישוך ולא לרבוץ על כלים גדולים ולא לבעוט. ואם הועדה לאחד מהן הרי זו מועדת לו. אבל השן מועדת מתחילתה לאכול את הראוי לה. והרגל מועדת מתחילתה לשבר בדרך הילוכה. והבהמה מועדת מתחילתה לרבוץ על פכין קטנים וכיוצא בהם ולמעך אותן:
6
Five species of animals are considered prone to cause damage from the beginning of their existence. [This applies] even if they have become domesticated.12 Therefore, if they cause damage or death by goring, biting, treading, lying down upon, or the like, [the owner] is liable for the entire amount of the damages. They are a wolf, a lion, a bear, a tiger and a leopard. Similarly, a snake that bites is considered to be mu'ad, even if it has been domesticated.ו
חמשה מיני בהמה מועדין מתחלת ברייתן להזיק ואפילו הן בני תרבות. לפיכך אם הזיקו או המיתו בנגיחה או בנשיכה ודריסה וכיוצא בהן חייב נזק שלם. ואלו הן א הזאב והארי והדוב והנמר והברדלס. וכן הנחש שנשך הרי זה מועד ואפילו היה בן תרבות.
7
Whenever [an animal] is mu'ad, [the owner] must pay the entire amount of the damage, [even if this requires expropriating] his most choice property. Whenever, by contrast, an animal is considered a tam, [the owner] is required to pay [only] half the amount of the damages. [Moreover,] that half is taken only from the animal itself. When does the above apply? When the animal entered into the domain belonging to the person to whom damage was caused, and caused damage. When, however, the person to whom damage was caused entered into the domain of the person [whose animal] caused the damage, [the owner] is not liable for anything. For he can tell [the party who suffered the damages]: "If you had not entered my domain, you would not have suffered any damages." Indeed, this is explicitly stated in the Torah, as [Exodus 22:4] states: "And if he shall send forth his animals, and they pasture in another's field."13ז
כל מועד משלם נזק שלם מן היפה שבנכסיו. וכל תם משלם חצי נזק מגופו. במה דברים אמורים בשנכנסה הבהמה לרשות הניזק והזיקתהו. אבל אם נכנס הניזק לרשות המזיק והזיקתהו בהמתו של בעל הבית הרי זה פטור על הכל. שהרי הוא אומר לו אילו לא נכנסת לרשותי לא הגיע לך היזק והרי מפורש בתורה ושלח את בעירה ובער בשדה אחר:
8
[The following rules apply when a person's] animal causes damage in the public domain or in a courtyard that belongs neither to the owner of [the animal that] caused the damage nor to the party who suffered the damages,14 or in a courtyard owned jointly by both parties that is set aside to leave produce there and/or to harbor an animal - e.g., a valley. If [the animal] caused damage by eating or treading in its ordinary manner, the owner is not liable. For [the animal] has permission to go from here to there, and it is the habit of an animal to go and eat as it proceeds and to break [anything lying in its way] as it proceeds.15[Different rules apply if] it [caused damage by] goring, butting, kicking or biting.16 If its status is tam, [the owner] must pay for half the damages. If its status is mu'ad, [the owner] must pay the entire amount of the damages.17ח
הזיקה ברשות הרבים או בחצר שאינה של שניהם לא למזיק ולא לניזק או בחצר שהיא של שניהן והרי היא מיוחדת להניח בה פירות ולהכניס לה בהמה כגון הבקעה וכיוצא בה. אם בשן ורגל הזיקה כדרכה הרי זה פטור מפני שיש לה רשות להלך [כאן] וכאן ודרך הבהמה להלך ולאכול כדרכה ולשבר בדרך הילוכה. ואם נגחה או נגפה או רבצה או בעטה או נשכה. אם תמה היא משלם חצי נזק ואם מועדת נזק שלם:
9
When a courtyard owned jointly by both parties18 is designated for produce and not for harboring an animal, and one of the parties lets his animal in and it causes damage, [the owner] is liable even for damage caused by eating or treading.19 Similarly, if both of them had the right to harbor an animal there, but only one had the right to keep produce there, if [an animal belonging to the other] damaged [that person's] produce, [its owner] is liable even for damage caused by eating or treading.20ט
היתה החצר של שניהן מיוחדת לפירות ולא להכניס בה בהמה והכניס שם אחד מן השותפין בהמתו והזיקה חייב אפילו על השן ועל הרגל. וכן אם היתה מיוחדת לבהמה לשניהם והיה רשות לאחד מהן בלבד להכניס לה פירות והזיקה פירותיו חייב על השן ועל הרגל:
10
There are three categories of damages [caused by] an ox: a) goring, b) eating and c) treading. The derivatives of goring are butting, biting,21lying upon and kicking.22The derivatives of eating are23 causing damage when scratching itself on a wall for its benefit, and soiling produce24 for its benefit. The derivatives of treading are25 causing damage with its body while walking; causing damage with its hair while walking or by swishing its tail, or with its saddle, the bit in its mouth or the bell around its neck. Similarly, a donkey that causes damage with its burden while walking or a calf that is pulling a cart that causes damage while pulling it. All of these are derivatives of treading. In a public domain [the owner] is not liable, and in a domain belonging to the party who suffered the damages, he must pay for the entire amount of the damages.י
שלשה אבות נזיקין בשור הקרן והשן והרגל. תולדות הקרן נגיפה נשיכה רביצה בעיטה. תולדות השן אם נתחככה בכותל להנאתה והזיקה בחיכוכה. וכן אם טנפה פירות להנאתה. תולדות הרגל הזיקה בגופה דרך הילוכה או שהזיקה בשערה דרך הילוכה או כשכשה בזנבה או באוכף שעליה בפרומביא שבפיה בזוג שבצוארה. וכן חמור שהזיק במשאו בשעת הילוכו ועגלה המושכת בקרון שהזיקה בשעת משיכתה כל אלו תולדות הרגל הן וברשות הרבים פטורין וברשות הניזק משלמין נזק שלם:
11
When [an animal] swishes its tail repeatedly in an abnormal manner and causes damage in the public domain, or when it swishes its sexual organ and causes damage in the public domain, [the owner] is not held liable. If the person whose property was damaged seizes possession [of property belonging to the owner], he may take payment for half of the damages.26 [The rationale for that ruling is that] there is an unresolved question whether these acts are derivatives of goring, in which case [the owner] is liable [for damage caused] in the public domain, or whether they are derivatives of treading, in which case [the owner] is not liable [for damage caused] in the public domain, as has been explained.27יא
כשכשה בזנבה כשכוש רב שאין דרכה לעשותה תמיד והזיקה ברשות הרבים. או שכשכשה בגיד שלה ברשות הרבים והזיקה פטור. ואם תפש הניזק גובה חצי נזק ממה שתפש. שזה הדבר ספק הוא אם אלו תולדות הקרן שחייב עליה ברשות הרבים או תולדות הרגל שפטור עליה ברשות הרבים כמו שביארנו:
FOOTNOTES
1.
Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 237) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 51) consider this to be one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot. This mitzvah can be defined as compensating an owner for damages caused by one's animals through an action that they would not ordinarily perform.
2.I.e., the owner is obligated to reimburse the person whose property was damaged for his loss. If the owner does not have cash readily available, his most valuable landed property should be expropriated and sold to pay the damages his animal caused.
3.Payment of these damages is also considered one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 240) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 55). This mitzvah can be defined as compensating an owner for damages caused by one's animals through an action that they would ordinarily perform.
4.100 zuz.
5.As the Rambam proceeds to illustrate, the damages caused by the ox do not create a lien on all the property belonging to the owner of the ox.
6.The commentaries have cited the apparent redundancy in the citation of the proof-text.
7.Thus the owner of the dead ox receives only the worth of the ox which gored, 20 zuz, 30 zuz less than what would be due him.
8.Mu'ad literally means forewarned - i.e., the animal is prone to perform such acts, and the owner should be forewarned.
9.Tam literally means simple, implying that the animal is not habituated in the performance of the abnormal behavior.
10.I.e., for that activity alone, and not for any other abnormal activity (Maggid Mishneh).
11.I.e., to attack an animal with a part of its body other than its horns (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Bava Kama 1:4).
12.Even when these animals have been raised in a home and do not outwardly show wild traits, their tendency to violence is considered part of their instinct, never to be eradicated fully.The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 389:8) states that these animals are considered mu'adim only with regard to the specific negative traits for which they are known. If they cause damage in other ways, they are considered as tamim.
13.This is the verse that describes the payment of damages caused by grazing. It emphasizes that the owner is liable for damages caused in another's field, and not in his own.The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 389:10) and others cite Bava Kama 21b, which interprets this verse in a more specific and somewhat different manner. It would appear, however, that the Rambam is not referring to the exegesis of the verse by the Talmud, but is instead presenting the simple meaning of the verse as a support for the premise stated previously.
14.This applies when the party who suffered the damages placed produce there without receiving permission from the owner. If, however, he received permission from the owner, it is considered as though it were his own courtyard. See Shulchan Aruch and Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 389:16).
15.In the Guide for the Perplexed, Volume III, Chapter 40, the Rambam explains that this law is based on a logical premise. Since this is an animal's natural habit, it is difficult for the owner to prevent his animal from causing such damage. Moreover, the person whose property was damaged should have foreseen the problem and not left anything of value in such places.
16.For this represents a departure from the animal's natural pattern, for which its owner is held responsible.
17.Although both types of animals have the right to proceed in the public domain, neither has the right to damage the other animal. Therefore, the owner of the animal that caused the damages must assume responsibility.
18.I.e., the owner of the animal that caused the damage and the party who suffered the damages.
19.Since he brought his animal into a place where an animal should not enter, he must bear responsibility.
20.Since only the other partner was allowed to bring his produce there, in this regard it is considered his courtyard, and the owner of the animal is liable.
21.When it has no desire to eat, i.e., biting for a violent and destructive intent (Maggid Mishneh).
22.All these are acts performed by an animal with a desire to harm the animal (or object) it strikes, without any intention to derive any benefit from it.
23.The acts that follow are damages caused by an animal when it follows its ordinary pattern and seeks its own benefit.
24.This refers to soiling produce by rolling upon it, not by defecating (Ibid.). Ruining an object by defecating is considered to be a derivative of kicking stones (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 390:8). See Chapter 2, Halachah 13.
25.All the acts that follow are damages caused by an animal without any intent, that are likely to be caused when it proceeds in an ordinary manner (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 390:1).
26.As the Rambam proceeds to explain, these instances are the subject of an unresolved Talmudic debate (Bava Kama 19b). Because of the doubt involved, payment is not exacted from the owner, and for this same reason the person whose property was damaged may not seize the owner's property. If, however, he did seize the owner's property, the same rationale is advanced on his behalf. Since the property may rightfully belong to him, because of the doubt, we do not expropriate the property and return it to its owner.In any case, all that is involved is half of the damages, because the reason why one might hold the owner liable is that these activities are derivatives of goring. And for goring, the owner is required to pay only half the value of the damages.The Rambam's opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 390:2). The Ramah cites the opinion of the Ramban and the Tur, who maintain that when a question of law is unresolved, and one party seizes the other's property, the property that was seized must be returned.
27.See Halachah 8.
Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Two
1
[The following laws apply with regard to] the major categories of damages and their derivatives. [If a person's property is considered] mu'ad with regard to the major category, it is considered mu'ad with regard to its derivatives. [If it is considered] tam with regard to the major category, the same law applies with regard to its derivatives. From the outset, [a person's property is considered] to be mu'ad with regard to all the major categories of damage and their derivatives, with the exception of goring and its derivatives. In that instance, [an animal is considered] tam until it has been deemed prone [to goring],1 as explained.2א
אחד אבות נזיקין ואחד התולדות אם היה האב מועד תולדותיו מועדות ואם היה תם תולדותיו כמוהו. וכל אבות נזיקין וכל תולדותיהן מועדין הן מתחלתן חוץ מקרן ותולדותיו שהן תמים בתחלה עד שיועדו כמו שביארנו:
2
All the derivatives of a category of damages are governed by the same laws as the major category, with the exception of stones that are propelled by an animal while walking. This activity is considered a derivative of the category of treading,3 and one is therefore not liable for damage caused in the public domain. Nevertheless, if such stones cause damage in a person's private domain, [the owner of the animal] must pay [for the damages] from his most choice property,4as he must pay for damages caused by treading, the major category. And yet, he is required to pay only half the amount of the damages.5ב
כל תולדה כאב שלה חוץ מצרורות המנתזין מתחת רגלי הבהמה בשעת הילוכה. שאע"פ שתולדת הרגל הם ופטור עליהן ברשות הרבים כרגל ואם הזיקו ברשות הניזק משלם מן היפה שבנכסיו כרגל שהוא אב אע"פ כן אינו משלם אלא חצי נזק:
3
What is implied? When an animal enters a courtyard belonging to another person and proceeds to walk, and in doing so propels stones from under its feet that break utensils, [the owner of the animal] must pay half the amount of the damage from his most choice property. This matter is a law communicated by the Oral Tradition.6ג
כיצד בהמה שנכנסה לחצר הניזק והלכה והיו צרורות מנתזין מתחת רגליה ושברו את הכלים משלם חצי נזק מן היפה שבנכסיו. ודבר זה הלכה מפי הקבלה היא:
4
Similarly, if [an animal] was proceeding in the public domain7 and stones were propelled from under its feet into a domain belonging to someone else, and they broke utensils there, [the owner of the animal] must pay half the damages. If [an animal] treads on a utensil in a domain belonging to someone else and breaks it, and shards from the broken utensil fall on another utensil and break it, [the owner of the animal] must pay the entire [damages for the destruction of] the first utensil, and half [the damages for the destruction of] the second utensil.8ד
וכן אם היתה מהלכת ברשות הרבים ונתזו צרורות מתחת רגליה לרשות הניזק ושברו את הכלים משלם חצי נזק. דרסה על הכלי ברשות הניזק ושברתו ונפל על כלי אחר ושברו. על הראשון משלם נזק שלם ועל האחרון משלם חצי נזק:
5
If an animal was walking in the public domain and it kicked9 [the ground] and propelled stones that caused damage in the public domain, [the owner] is not liable. If the person whose property was damaged seized a fourth [of the cost] of the damages, it should not be expropriated from him.10 [The rationale is that] there is a doubt regarding the matter: perhaps this is considered a deviation from the ordinary pattern and it is not a derivative of treading, for [the animal] kicked.11ה
היתה מהלכת ברשות
 הרבים ובעטה והתיזה צרורות והזיקו ברשות הרבים פטור. ואם תפש הניזק רביע נזק אין מוציאין מידו. שהדבר ספק הוא שמא שינוי הוא ואינו תולדת רגל שהרי בעטה:
6
If the animal kicked the earth in the domain belonging to another person and stones were propelled because of its kick and caused damages, [the owner] is liable to pay a fourth of the damages, for this is a deviation from the ordinary manner of propelling stones. If the person whose property was damaged seized half [of the cost] of the damages, it should not be expropriated from him.12 Even if an animal was walking in a place where it would be impossible for it not to propel stones, and it kicked [the earth] and propelled stones, [the owner] is liable to pay a fourth of the damages.13 If the person whose property was damaged half [of the cost] of the damages, it should not be expropriated from him.ו
בעטה בארץ ברשות הניזק והתיזה צרורות מחמת הבעיטה והזיקו שם חייב לשלם רביע נזק שזה שינוי הוא בהתזת הצרורות. ואם תפש הניזק חצי נזק אין מוציאין מידו. ואפילו היתה מהלכת במקום שאי אפשר לה שלא תתיז ובעטה והתיזה משלם רביע נזק ואם תפש הניזק חצי נזק אין מוציאין מידו:
7
Whenever a person must pay full damages, the payment is considered to be a monetary obligation that he is liable to pay, as if he had borrowed [money] from his colleague. When, by contrast, a person must pay half the damages, the monetary obligation is considered a fine, with the exception of the half damages liable from stones,14 which is a halachah [transmitted by the Oral Tradition], as we have explained.15ז
כל המשלם נזק שלם א הרי התשלומין ממון שהוא חייב לשלמו כמי שלוה מחבירו שהוא חייב לשלם. וכל המשלם חצי נזק הרי התשלומין קנס חוץ מחצי נזק של צרורות שהוא הלכה כמו שביארנו:
8
This is the operating principle: Whenever a person pays for the damage that he caused, it is considered a monetary obligation. Whenever he pays more or less - e.g., the double payment (for theft) or half the amount of damages - the amount that is greater or less than the principal is considered to be a fine. A fine is required only when one is obligated through the testimony of witnesses. When a person admits that he is liable for a fine, he is absolved of the obligation.16ח
זה הכלל כל המשלם מה שהזיק הרי זה ממון וכל המשלם יתר או פחות כגון תשלומי כפל או חצי נזק הרי היתר על הקרן או הפחות קנס ואין חייבין קנס אלא ע"פ עדים אבל המודה בכל קנס מן הקנסות פטור:
9
[The following rules apply when] a rooster sticks its head inside a glass container, crows while doing so and breaks it [as a result of the sound]. If there were spices or the like inside [the container, and the rooster] stuck its head in to eat them, [the owner] must pay full damages for the spices17 and half the damages for the container, as one pays half damages for stones [that are propelled].18 [The rationale is that this is the animal's] ordinary pattern.19 If, however, the container is empty, this is a deviation from the norm, and [the owner] is liable to pay half the damages, as in the case with other fines.20ט
תרנגול שהושיט ראשו לאויר כלי זכוכית ותקע בו ושברו. אם היו בתוכו תבלין וכיוצא בהן שהושיט ראשו כדי לאכלן. על התבלין משלם נזק שלם ועל הכלי משלם חצי נזק כחצי נזק צרורות שכך הוא דרכו. ואם היה הכלי ריקן הרי זה משונה ומשלם חצי נזק ככל הקנסות:
10
Similarly, if a horse yelped or a donkey bellowed and utensils were broken as a result, the owner is obligated to pay only half the damages.21 Roosters are considered prone to break utensils as they proceed in their ordinary pattern. If there was a string or a strap tied to [a rooster's] legs22 and a utensil became entangled with the string and rolled and broke, [the owner] is required to pay half the damages.23When does the above apply? When the string was tied to the rooster by a person.24 If, however, the string became ensnarled around the rooster's foot, its owner is not liable.25 If that string was owned by a given person,26 rather than being ownerless, the owner of the string is liable to pay half the damages, because the string is like a moving pit.27י
וכן סוס שצנף וחמור שנער ושבר את הכלים משלם חצי נזק. התרנגולין מועדין להלך כדרכן ולשבר. היה חוט או רצועה קשור ברגליהן ונסתבך כלי באותו החוט ונתגלגל ונשבר משלם חצי נזק. במה דברים אמורים כשקשרו אדם אבל אם נקשר על רגליהם מאליו בעל התרנגולין פטור. ואם היו לחוט בעלים ולא היה החוט הפקר בעל החוט חייב חצי נזק שהרי הוא כבור המתגלגל:
11
If the owner of the string hid the string, and the roosters trod on it and took it out, and then it became ensnarled around their feet, and as a result utensils were broken, the owner of the string is also freed of liability,28 for [the damage] was beyond his control.29יא
הצניע בעל החוט את החוט והתרנגולים דרסו עליו והוציאוהו ונקשר ברגליהן ושברו בו את הכלים אף בעל החוט פטור שהרי אנוס הוא:
12
[The following rules apply when] roosters flew from place to place and broke utensils. If they broke the utensils with their wings, [the owner] is liable for the entire damage.30 If the utensils were broken by the wind generated by [the roosters'] wings, [the owner] is liable for half the damages.31יב
תרנגולין שהיו מפריחין ממקום למקום ושברו את הכלים. אם בכנפיהם שברו משלם נזק שלם ואם ברוח שבכנפיהם משלם חצי נזק:
13
[If roosters] were digging32 at dough or at produce and soiled it or pecked at it, [the owner] is liable for the entire damage.33 If they caused damages with the dust or stones that they raised with their feet or with their wings, [the owner] is liable for half the damages.34יג
היו מהדסין על גבי עיסה או על גבי פירות וטנפו או נקרו משלמין נזק שלם. הזיקו בעפר או צרורות שהעלו בכנפיהן או ברגליהן משלמין חצי נזק:
14
If [roosters] were pecking at a rope [that held a bucket], the rope tore, and the bucket broke, [the owner] is liable for the entire damage. [This applies when] the bucket rolled until it fell and broke because of them.35 If there was food on the rope, and the rope tore while they were eating, they are liable to pay the entire amount of the damage to the rope as well.36יד
היו מחטטין בחבל ונפסק החבל ונשבר הדלי משלמין נזק שלם. והוא שנתגלגל הדלי מחמתן עד שנפל ונשבר. ואם היה על החבל אוכל ובעת אכילתן פסקוהו משלם גם על החבל נזק שלם:
15
When a dog or a goat jumps from a roof downward and breaks utensils, [the owner] is liable for the entire damages, because they are prone to this.37Similarly, if they fell and caused damages, [their owner is liable], because the fact that they climbed to the roof is considered negligence.38 [Therefore,] even if they fell because of forces beyond [the owner's] control, [he is liable], because whenever a person is negligent at the outset, and damage subsequently occurs because of forces beyond his control, he is liable.39טו
הכלב והגדי שקפצו מראש הגג מלמעלה למטה ושברו את הכלים משלמין נזק שלם מפני שמועדים הן לדבר זה. וכן אם נפלו והזיקו שעלייתן לראש הגג פשיעה. ואע"פ שנפילתן אונס כל שתחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס חייב:
16
If [the animals] jump upward [and cause damage], [the owner] is liable for half.40 This applies when a goat climbs upward or a dog jumps. If, however, a dog climbed upward and a goat leaps, whether upward or downward, [the owner] is liable for the entire damage.41 Similarly, if a rooster jumps either upward or downward, [the owner] is liable to pay for the entire amount of the damage.טז
קפצו ממטה למעלה משלמין חצי נזק. והוא שנתלש הגדי ונסרך וקפץ הכלב אבל נסרך הכלב ודלג הגדי בין מלמעלה למטה בין ממטה למעלה חייבין נזק שלם. וכן תרנגול שדלג בין מלמעלה למטה בין מלמטה למעלה משלם נזק שלם:
17
[The following laws apply when] a dog takes a cake [from a fire where it is cooking, a coal is stuck to the cake], and [the dog] takes [the cake] to a grain heap. If it places [the cake] down on the grain heap, eats the cake and kindles the grain heap, [the owner] is liable to pay the full damages for the cake and the place where it placed the cake [in the grain heap].42 For the remainder of the grain heap, he is required to pay only half the damages.43 If [the dog] dragged the cake all over the grain heap, burning it as it proceeded, [the owner] is liable to pay the entire damages for the cake. For the place of the coals,44 [the owner] is liable to pay half the damages,45 and for the remainder of the grain heap he is not liable at all.46יז
כלב שנטל את החררה והלך לו לגדיש. אם הניחה בגדיש ואכל את החררה והדליק את הגדיש על החררה ועל מקום החררה משלם נזק [א] שלם ועל שאר הגדיש חצי נזק. ואם היה מגרר את החררה על הגדיש והולך ושורף משלם על החררה נזק שלם ועל מקום הגחלים חצי נזק ועל שאר הגדיש פטור:
18
When does the above apply? When the owner of the coal guarded his fire and closed the door, and yet the dog dug underneath [until it could enter and] take the cake from the fire.47 If, however, he did not guard his fire, the owner of the fire is liable for the burning of the grain heap,48and the owner of the dog is liable for the cake and the place where it was placed.49יח
במה דברים אמורים כששמר בעל הגחלת את אשו וסתם הדלת ובא הכלב וחתר ונטל את החררה מעל האש. אבל אם לא שמר אשו בעל האש חייב על שריפת הגדיש ובעל הכלב חייב על אכילת החררה ועל מקומה:
19
When a person sets a dog belonging to a colleague on a [third] individual, he is not held liable by mortal courts;50 the laws of heaven, however, obligate him to pay.51 The owner of the dog is liable to pay half the damages.52 Since he knows that if his dog is set upon [a person] maliciously he will bite him, he should not have allowed [his dog to be left to do this]. If [a person] set a dog [belonging to a colleague] to bite the person himself, the owner of the dog is not liable. For when there is already a deviation from the norm,53 and a person brings about a further deviation,54 [the owner] is not liable.יט
המשסה כלבו של חבירו בחבירו פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמיםובעל הכלב חייב חצי נזק שכיון שהוא יודע שאם שסה את כלבו להזיק נושך לא היה לו להניחו. ואם שסהו בעצמו בעל הכלב פטור שכל המשנה ובא אחר ושינה בו פטור:
20
When there are two cows in the public domain, one lying down and one walking, if the one walking kicks the one lying down, [the owner] is liable for half the damages.55 Even though it would be the ordinary practice for [the cow] to tread on the cow that is lying down, it is not its ordinary practice to kick it.56כ
שתי פרות ברשות הרבים אחת רבוצה ואחת מהלכת ובעטה מהלכת ברבוצה חייב חצי נזק שאע"פ שדרכה להלך עליה אין דרכה לבעט בה:
FOOTNOTES
1.The Ra'avad emphasizes that when an animal has been deemed prone to cause damage through goring or one of its derivatives, it is deemed mu'ad only with regard to the particular activity that it performed repeatedly, but not with regard to any of the other derivatives of goring.
2.See Chapter 1, Halachah 4-5.
3.For like damages caused by treading, it involves damages caused accidentally by an animal when walking in its ordinary manner.
4.The Lechem Mishneh raises questions regarding this point, but the Rambam's ruling is justified by the later commentaries.
5.See Halachah 7, which clarifies the distinction between this and other instances where half payment is required.
6.I.e., it is a law that was communicated orally to Moses on Mount Sinai and then transmitted orally from generation to generation. Although such laws are usually not even alluded to in the Written Law, their authority is the same as that of a law stated in Scripture. See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Sanhedrin, Chapter 6).
7.Despite the fact that the animal was walking in the public domain, since the damage took place in a private domain, the owner is liable.
8.The damage to the first utensil is an ordinary instance of treading, while the damage to the second utensil is a case of the law illustrated in the previous two halachot.
9.Intentionally.
10.See Chapter 1, Halachah 11 and notes.
11.This law is the subject of an unresolved question in Bava Kama 19a. The question is whether kicking the stone is considered like goring - for the kicking was done intentionally - in which case the owner would be liable for damage caused in the public domain, or it is considered to be an ordinary instance of stones that were propelled, and since the damage took place in the public domain, the owner is not held liable.Even according to the logic that maintains that the owner is liable, he is liable for only a fourth of the damage. This figure is arrived at as follows: When damage is caused by propelling stones, the owner is required to pay only half. Since the animal is considered to be a tam - i.e., it is not prone to cause such damages - the owner is required to pay only half of the amount for which he would be liable. Thus, one half of a half is a quarter.Since the question was not resolved by the Sages, the owner should not be held liable. Conversely, if the person whose property was damaged seized the money involved, it should not be expropriated from him.The Ra'avad raises objections to the Rambam's ruling, based on a different understanding of the Talmudic passage. The later authorities, however, follow the Rambam.
12.This law is an extension of the unresolved question mentioned in the previous halachah. Since the damage took place in a private domain, the owner is definitely held liable. The question is whether he is liable for half the damages or for only a quarter of the damages. According to the opinion that maintains that kicking is considered a deviation, he should be held liable for only a fourth. According to the opinion that maintains that a deviation is not significant with regard to this category of damages, he is liable to pay half the damages.Since the matter was left unresolved, the owner may be required to pay only one fourth. If, however, the person whose property was damaged seized the owner's property, he need not relinquish half the value of the damages.
13.The principles operating in this instance are the same as those operating in the first clause. The only reason for mentioning this law is that since it is impossible that the animal would not propel stones, one might not think that the deviation is significant, and the owner should be held liable for half the damages, as in an ordinary case of this nature. This premise is, nevertheless, not accepted.
14.In this instance, although the owner does not pay for the full extent of the damages, none of the leniencies stated below apply.With regard to the payment of half-damages, according to ordinary logic - and indeed, this was the practice of the secular laws at that time - since the animal was not mu'ad, prone to cause damage, one would not think to hold the owner liable. Nevertheless, to insure higher standards of respect for property, Torah law fined the owner of the animal for half the damages.
15.See Halachah 3.
16.This applies even if after a person admits that he is liable for a fine, witnesses testify to that effect (Hilchot Geneivah 3:8-9 and the Maggid Mishneh). There are also other distinctions between fines and monetary obligations; for example, cases involving fines were arbitrated only by judges who were given semichah. Thus, they are not arbitrated in the present era.
17.As is the case when one's animal eats produce belonging to someone else.
18.The parallel between this instance and stones that are propelled can be explained as follows: When an animal propels a stone and the stone causes damage, the damage is not caused directly by the animal's body, but indirectly by the power it generated. Similarly, when the rooster breaks the container by crowing, the damage is caused indirectly, as a result of the animal's energy.
19.I.e., a rooster is likely to stick its head into a container in order to eat food, and it is likely to crow while eating.
20.Since this is a deviation from the animal's ordinary pattern, one is liable only for half the damages. The Ra'avad raises the question: Since the first clause of the halachah draws an analogy between the rooster's crowing and an animal's propelling stones, how is this instance different from the law stated in Halachah 6, where the owner is held liable for only a quarter of the damages his animal caused?The Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam's rationale is difficult to understand, but offers the following explanation. When there are no spices in the container, crowing and breaking the container is considered to be a derivative of goring, not of propelling stones.The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 390:9) does not resolve the issue, explaining that since a deviation from the ordinary pattern is involved, the case is considered a fine and is not arbitrated in the present era.
21.These are not considered departures from the norm. Instead, they are considered derivatives of the category of propelling stones. Therefore, payment is required for only half the damages.
22.The Ra'avad raises many questions concerning the Rambam's decision, and similarly, Rabbenu Asher interprets the passage in Bava Kama 17a differently from the Rambam. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 390:10) quotes the Rambam's interpretation, while the Ramah refers to the Rambam's rulings as satum, closed to us, and follows the approach of Rabbenu Asher.
23.It appears that the Rambam considers the string to be like stones propelled by an animal's feet (tz'rurot). They are not considered as a pit, an inanimate object that causes damage, for as the Ra'avad notes, one is liable for the full damages caused by a pit and not half the damages.
24.I.e., by the rooster's owner. If it was tied by another person, the owner is not held liable, and the others are required to pay half the damages.
25.As mentioned, the string is considered to be a pit. With regard to that category of damages, Bava Kama 19b states that the pit must be brought into being by a person. If it is brought into being by an animal, the owner of the animal is not liable. In this case, since the owner did not tie the string to the rooster, he is not liable.
26.Other than the owner of the rooster.
27.As stated by the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 411:4), when an object belonging to a person is left in the public domain, moved by an animal and then causes damage, the owner of the animal and the owner of the article must share the cost of the damages equally.
28.I.e., the owner of the rooster is freed of liability, because as above, he did not tie the string to the rooster.
29.I.e., he did everything he could to prevent the damage from occurring.
30.I.e., this is comparable to an animal's breaking a utensil by treading upon it.
31.The wind produced by the roosters' wings is comparable to an an animal's propelling stones.
32.Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Kama 2:1).
33.I.e., since the roosters caused the damage in an ordinary fashion with their bodies, the owner is liable for the entire amount.
34.This is also comparable to an animal's propelling stones.
35.I.e., the roosters pushed the bucket until it fell and broke. They were thus the direct cause of its breaking, and this is considered as treading.If the bucket broke as a result of the rope's tearing, the ruling depends on whether the rope is new or worn. We assume that a rooster will peck at a rope slightly to sip its moisture. Thus, if the rope is worn, it is normal for it to snap. Hence, the owner is liable for the entire damages. If the rope is new, for the rope to tear from such pecking is not ordinary, and the owner is liable for only half the damages (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 390:11).
36.Since there is food on the rope, we assume that the roosters will peck on it exceedingly, and it will tear even if it is new.
37.This is considered to be a derivative of treading.
38.I.e., the animals' owner should have known that his animals are prone to climb to the roof, and he should have taken precautions against that happening.
39.Bava Metzia 42a explains that the logic is that, if not for the negligence, the damage would never have been caused by forces beyond their control.
40.For this is a departure from the norm.
41.For this is their ordinary pattern. The Rambam's ruling follows the version of Bava Kama 22a cited by Rabbenu Chanan'el and Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi. The standard version of the Talmud we possess today differs.Our translation differs from that of Rashi and the Nimukei Yosef who translate as lowered itself while hanging.
42.This is the ordinary pattern of a dog, who will grab food from a fire in order to eat it. And since it is likely that a coal will remain attached to the cake, the owner of the dog is liable for the place where the cake is placed down as well.
43.The standard printed texts of the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Kama 2:3) offer the following rationale: This is a deviation from the ordinary pattern. This does not follow any of the explanations given in the Talmud. Rav Kapach's text of the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah explains that the burning of the rest of the grain heap is compared to stones that are kicked, for in both cases the damage is caused indirectly. This follows Rabbi Yochanan's position, Bava Kama 22a.
44.According to the Radbaz (Volume V, Responsum 1662), this refers to all the places over which the dog dragged the coals.
45.For this is considered comparable to stones that are kicked.
46.The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that the owner is forced to pay one fourth of the damages, because he considers this case comparable to propelling stones, except that a deviation from the normal pattern is involved. The Tur also follows this approach. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 392:1) follows the opinion of the Rambam, while the Ramah mentions that of the Tur.The Rambam's opinion can be substantiated based on Hilchot Rotze'ach 6:15, which states that a person is not liable for ko'ach kocho, an activity that comes about as an indirect result of his exertion of energy. It appears that the Rambam considers the damage caused by propelling stones to be kocho, a direct result of the person's energy, and not ko'ach kocho (Kessef Mishneh, Radbaz). The Ra'avad, by contrast, considers propelling stones to be ko'ach kocho.
47.In which case, the owner of the dog is responsible for all the damages, for the fire took place because of his negligence.
48.For it is his negligence that made the fire possible.
49.For the dog caused this damage directly.The Ra'avad and the Tur, who in the previous law maintain that the owner of the dog must pay one fourth of the damages to the grain heap, maintain that he is liable for that amount in this instance as well. Hence, the owner of the fire is liable for only three fourths of the damages. In this instance as well, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) follows the opinion of the Rambam, while the Ramah mentions that of the Tur.
50.This reflects a fundamental principle in the laws of damages. Grama, being an indirect cause, does not generate liability.
51.I.e., he has a moral and ethical obligation to pay for the damages. See Bava Kama 55b, which gives several instances of grama and states that the person who indirectly caused the damage has a moral obligation to compensate for it.
52.Dogs do not usually bite. Therefore, the fact that the person who set the dog on the third person provoked it to do so is considered a departure from the norm, and the owner is liable for only half the damages.The Ra'avad adds that if the dog is known to be prone to bite, the owner is liable for the entire amount of the damages. The Maggid Mishneh differs, maintaining that since the dog was provoked by the person who set it, this is considered a departure from the norm. (See also Chapter 6, Halachah 5.) Sefer Me'irat Einayim 395:2 quotes the Maggid Mishneh's view.
53.Causing the dog to bite.
54.Causing the dog to bite his own master.
55.This is considered a derivative of goring. Since the cow is not known to be prone to kick other animals, the owner is liable for only half the damages.
56.The owner would not have been liable if the cow had caused the damage by treading on the other cow. Since he did cause the damage by kicking, the owner is liable.
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class
Daily Study: Hayom Yom
Shabbat, 12 Sivan 5778 / May 26, 2018Tuesday Sivan 12 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Beha'alotecha, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 66-68.
Tanya: The exact parallel (p. 295)...remarks are necessary. (p. 295).
In the b'racha shehakol: The yud of nih'yoh has a kamatz vowel, not a segol vowel.
My father wrote in a letter: Cherish criticism, for it will place you on the true heights.
Compiled and arranged by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 5703 (1943) from the talks and letters of the sixth Chabad Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, of righteous memory.
© Copyright Chabad.org, all rights reserved. Privacy Policy
Chabad.org · Ask the Rabbi ·Contact Us · Donate
***