How could a murderous tam ever become a muad? TB Baba Kama 41

Something in the Mishnah on today’s daf TB Baba Kama 41 doesn’t make sense and needs the Gemara explanation. “With regard to an ox that gored a person and the person died, if the ox was forewarned (muad-מוּעָד ) its owner pays ransom (kofer-כּוֹפֶר,[1]), but if it was innocuous (tam-תָם) he is exempt from paying the ransom. And both this forewarned ox and that innocuous ox are liable to be put to death for killing a person” (Sefaria.org translation)

After the ox gores something three times, its status changes from a tam to a muad at the fourth goring.  Now if every tam who gores and kills a person is put to death,  how could an ox ever become a muad? “The Gemara asks: But since we kill the ox for killing a person when it is still considered innocuous, how can you find a case of a forewarned ox killing a person?” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara suggests no less than eight answers to solve this question. Some are rejected immediately while others are entertained. All the quotes will come from Sefaria.org translation. To differentiate my comments from the text, I shall italicize  them.

 

1.    Rabba said: Here we are dealing with a case where in three instances of attacking people, the court assessed that had the people not escaped, the ox would certainly have killed them. Therefore, despite the fact that the ox did not kill anyone, it now has the status of a forewarned ox.  In other words, we have three cases of attempted  murder.

2             Rav Ashi said: Such an assessment is not worth anything. Since the ox did not             actually kill them, it is not rendered forewarned even if it intended to kill. Rather,         here we are dealing with a case where it endangered the lives of three people by         goring them, and they all died only after the third goring. Therefore, the ox had not         been put to death. The ox critically wounded  three people, but they did not die                immediately.

3.                Rav Zevid said: The mishna is discussing a case where it killed three animals,             which is sufficient to render the ox forewarned but for which it is not put to death.         The  Gemara  says that animals are qualitatively different than humans  and just             because the ox  killed another animal  doesn’t mean automatically that it will kill             human beings.

4.         Rav Shimi said: The mishna is discussing a case where it killed three gentiles, for      which the animal is not put to death. The Gemara rejects this answer as well because     the ox doesn’t differentiate between Jews and Gentiles.

5.        Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: The mishna is discussing a case where it killed three    people who had wounds that would have caused them to die within twelve months    [tereifa]. Since they were on the verge of dying anyway, the ox is not put to death for       killing them. Nevertheless, it is rendered forewarned with regard to its future goring         and   killing of people. The Gemara rejects this answer as well.

6.    Rav Pappa said: The mishna is discussing a case where it killed a person and fled to the marsh, then killed again and fled to the marsh, and then killed again and fled to the marsh, so the court was not able kill it before it had killed three times, rendering it forewarned. This can be described as a hit and run murder.

7.        Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: The mishna is discussing a case where the witnesses     who had rendered the witnesses who testified to the three incidents of goring as     conspiring witnesses, resulting in the animal not being put to death, were themselves     subsequently proven to be conspiring witnesses by other witnesses. Consequently, the  testimonies of the witnesses who testified about the incidents of goring were reinstated,  rendering the ox forewarned. The ox was not put to death immediately because it’s case was tied up in litigation.

8.    Ravina said: The mishna is discussing a case where the witnesses recognized the owner of the ox but did not recognize the ox itself. Therefore, with regard to the first incidents of goring, they testified that it was his ox that gored, but they did not testify with regard to the ox itself. That is why the ox was not put to death. Only afterward did they realize that this was the ox that had gored three times previously. The Gemara asks: If so, why is the ox rendered forewarned? What could the owner have done to prevent it from goring again, as he did not know which of his oxen had gored? The Gemara answers that it is rendered forewarned because the court effectively said to him: You have a habitually goring ox in your herd, so you must safeguard your entire herd.

I like Rav Pappa answer the best. What do you think?

 

---

[1] indemnity, fine; [atonement.] B. Kam. IV, 5 משלם כ׳ must pay indemnity for a life lost.

 

Our choices matter #Miketz#devartorah#parashathashavu

A swimming instructor in New Jersey saw a car sinking into Newark Bay and heard the driver inside screaming “I can’t swim” as his SUV quickly sank into the murky waters. As a crowd watched from shore, Anthony ran to the rocks along the edge, removed his prosthetic leg, and jumped in to rescue the sixty-eight-year-old man and help him safely to shore. Thanks to Anthony’s decisive action, another man was saved.

Our choices matter. Consider our patriarch Jacob, the father of 12 sons, who openly favored his seventeen-year-old son Joseph. He foolishly made Joseph “an ornate robe” (Genesis 37:3). The result? Joseph’s brothers hated him (v. 4); and when the opportunity arose, they sold him into slavery (v. 28). Yet because Joseph ended up in Egypt, we learn in this week’s Torah portion that God used him to preserve his family and many others during a seven-year famine—despite Joseph’s brothers’ intention to harm him (see 50:20). The choice that set it all in motion in this week’s Torah portion Meketz was Joseph’s decision to be honorable and run from Potiphar’s wife (39:1–12). The result was prison (39:20) and an eventual meeting with Pharaoh (ch. 41).

Anthony had the advantage of training, but he still had to make a choice. When we love God and seek to serve Him, we can make life-affirming and God-honoring choices.

 

Not for children only TB Baba Kama 40

On daf TB Baba Kama 40 Rava praises Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov to Rav Naḥman; consequently, Rav Naḥman wants to meet him. “Rava was praising Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov before Rav Naḥman, saying that he is a great man. Rav Naḥman said to him: When he happens to come to you, bring him to visit me.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Eventually Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov visits Rava and is introduced to Rav Naḥman. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov overwhelms Rav Naḥman with questions he cannot answer.

“When Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov eventually came to him, Rav Naḥman said to him: Ask me something. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov asked him: If an ox belonging to two partners kills a person, how do they pay the ransom? If this partner pays the ransom in full and that partner also pays the ransom in full, it would seem incorrect, as the Merciful One states that one ransom shall be paid, but not two ransoms. If this partner pays half the ransom and that partner pays half the ransom, it would also seem incorrect, as the Merciful One states that a full ransom shall be paid, but not half a ransom.

“While Rav Naḥman was sitting and pondering this question, Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov asked him another question. He said to him: We learned in a mishna: The court repossesses property from those liable to pay their valuations who are delaying their payments. But the court does not repossess property from those liable to bring sin-offerings and guilt-offerings; they are relied upon to bring their offerings of their own initiative, as it is assumed they want to atone for their transgressions (Arakhin 21a). In light of this mishna, what is the halakha with regard to those liable to pay ransom?

“Should it be reasoned that since it is atonement, it is similar to the cases of a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, which a person treats seriously, as it is in his interest to achieve atonement, and therefore the court does not need to repossess property from him? Or perhaps it should be reasoned that since he is required to give the ransom to another person, he considers it a financial liability and does not consider it an obligation toward the Most High, and consequently he does not treat it seriously enough; and therefore the court needs to repossess property from him, as he might not pay it.  Alternatively, it could be reasoned that since he himself did not sin but rather it is his property, i.e., his ox, that caused the damage, he does not treat the matter seriously enough, and therefore the court needs to repossess property from him to ensure payment.

“Rav Naḥman said to him: Leave me alone. I am still stuck on the first question and have no solution, so you must not raise further difficult questions.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 Too often we relegate only to our Jewish education to our children. Consequently when our children become a bar/bat mitzvah, 13 years old,  and they believe they have reached Jewish adulthood, they drop out religious school and don’t attend any further Jewish education. We adults have become negative role models. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov’s life can serve as a corrective for us.

How did Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov become a great Torah scholar? The following story shows that he knew how important adult Jewish education is. “Rav Ya’akov the son of Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov was sent by his father to study with Abaye. When his father came to observe, he saw that his son was not learning well. He said, ‘I can do better than you. Return home, and I will take your place.’” (TB Kiddushin 29b)

Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov knew the importance of Jewish education and if his son wasn’t going to take advantage of this opportunity to study Torah, he was. Can you imagine the positive impact this would have on our children, if they see us engaged in Torah study on a weekly basis? We will become their positive role models and inspire them to continue their Jewish educational journey.

 

May a person who says he is going to donate to tzedaka change his mind? TB Baba Kama 36-37

TB Baba Kama 36b-37a delineates the difference between a sela medina, a provincial sela, and a sela tzuri, a Tyrian sela. “Generally speaking, during the time of the Talmud there were two types of coins. Matbe’ah tzuri was a silver-based coin that was viewed as being biblical money. Kesef medina were coins that had the same names as the more valuable matbe’ah tzuri, but were made of cheaper metals and were worth 1/8 the value of kesef tzuri. Different values for coins with identical names were not uncommon in the ancient world and this phenomenon still exists in some places today, where paper money may have the same name as a gold coin, for example, but is worth significantly less. It is therefore essential to determine which coin is being discussed. (https://steinsaltz.org/daf/bavakamma36/)” A sela tzuri was worth 1/8 of a Tyrian sela or ½ zuz.

An interesting question and practical halakha arises out of a story found at the very bottom of our daf. May a person who says he is going to donate to tzedaka change his mind? Can we hold that pledging your donation it is as if it is already given just as in the case of making a donation to the Temple (אֲמִירָתוֹ לַגָּבוֹהַּ, כִּמְסִירָתוֹ לַהֶדְיוֹט-one’s declaration to the Most High, i.e., when one consecrates an item through speech, is equivalent to transferring an item to a common person, and the item is acquired by the Temple treasury through his mere speech. (Mishna Kiddushin 1:6, Sefaria.org translation)?

“There was a certain man who slapped another. Rav Toviya bar Mattana sent an enquiry before Rav Yosef, asking him whether the sela we learned about in the mishna is referring to a Tyrian sela, which is worth four dinars, or whether the sela we learned about in the mishna is referring to a provincial sela, worth only half of a dinar, or one-eighth of a Tyrian sela.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara ultimately explained: “The Sages resolved it based on that which Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: All references to coinage mentioned in the Torah refer to Tyrian coinage, whereas all mentions of coinage in the statements of the Sages refer to provincial coinage. Therefore, a person who slaps another is fined a provincial sela, worth half of a dinar.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Because the fine was so small i.e. ½ zuz, at first the man who was slapped said he didn’t want and it should be given to the poor. “Following the verdict, that man who was slapped said to Rav Yosef: Since the fine is only half a dinar, I do not want it, as it is beneath me to collect such an amount. Instead, let him give it to the poor. Then he retracted his decision, and said to Rav Yosef: Let him give it to me, and I will go and sustain [ve’avri] myself with it.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rav Yosef basically told him he could not change his mind because we treat the poor just as we treat the orphans. “Rav Yosef said to him: Since you already committed to give it to charity, the poor have already acquired it and it now belongs to them. And although there are no poor people here to acquire it, we, the court, are the hand, i.e., the legal extension, of the poor. We represent them, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Orphans do not require a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from abrogating an outstanding debt [prosbol] by transferring the right of collection to the court. The reason that orphans do not require this document is because the court is legally considered to be their steward, and their debts are therefore transferred to the court automatically, even without a prosbol.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Rif provides several answers. Once you say you’re giving the money to charity, it is as already given based upon “when one consecrates an item through speech, is equivalent to transferring an item to a common person.” In our case the key phrase is “a common person.” The man can’t change his mind because he made his declaration in front of a court of three. If he didn’t make such a declaration front of the court of three people, he could change his mind.

Alternately, in our case he can’t change his mind because Rav Yosef had already acquired the money. It the fine had not yet been paid, and wasn’t in Rav Yosef’s domain, the offender person could change his mind.

A creditor or owner? TB Baba Kama 33

Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva have a very interesting disagreement on daf TB Baba Kama 33. According to Jewish law based on verses in the Torah, a belligerent ox (a shor muad-שור מועד), an ox that is known to gore habitually, pays full damages. Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree how this payment should be viewed.

“Rabbi Yishmael holds that the owner of the dead ox is considered a creditor of the owner of the belligerent ox, and it is money that he is claiming from him, but he has no ownership of the body of the belligerent ox. And Rabbi Akiva holds that they are partners, i.e., from the time the innocuous ox killed the other ox, the owner of the dead ox has a share of ownership in the belligerent ox.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara cites a Baraita what happens if the owner sanctifies the belligerent ox to the Temple, “Rav Taḥalifa from the West, Eretz Yisrael, taught the following baraita with regard to the belligerent ox before Rabbi Abbahu: If he sold it, it is not sold, but if he consecrated it, it is consecrated.” (Sefaria.org translation) Both Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva agree the animal remains sanctified and dedicated to the Temple.

At first glance, one would think that Rabbi Akiva disagrees because now the owner of the dead ox has a share of the live ox which can reach up to 100%. How can somebody dedicate someone else’s ox?! The Gemara explains why this sanctified ox remains sanctified. “The statement that if he consecrated it, it is consecrated, is the halakha even according to Rabbi Akiva, since it is not actually consecrated but is considered so only due to the statement of Rabbi Abbahu. As Rabbi Abbahu says that if one consecrates liened property, although the consecration does not take effect, nevertheless he is required to redeem it, due to a rabbinic decree lest people say that consecrated property can be removed from the ownership of the Temple treasury without redemption. Therefore, the ineffectiveness of the ox’s consecration notwithstanding, he is still required to redeem it, by means of minimal payment, so as not to cause the denigration of Temple property.” (Sefaria.org translation)

On the other hand, one can understand Rabbi Yishmael position that the ox remains sanctified because the ox only represents a monetary lien and the injured party doesn’t own the ox. Nevertheless, Rebbainu Tam in Tosefot (ד"ה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ) raises a problem for Rabbi Yishmael. We have previously learned that three things nullifies a lien. They are: 1, sanctification; 2, freedom of a Canaanite slave; 3, hametz on Passover. Rebbainu Tam comments that this is difficult for Rabbi Yishmael because anything portable that is sanctified nullifies a lien. This ox is considered something portable and its sanctification should nullify the lien. He answers that the lien remains in place because the rabbis wanted to strengthen the lien for the who suffered the damage based on the precedent found later on daf TB Baba Kama 90a.

 

 

 

Be a modern Maccabee

 Prior to the American Civil War, fugitive slaves found freedom by following the Underground Railroad, a term for the secret routes from the South to the North and the abolitionists who helped them along the way. Slaves would travel at night for many miles, keeping on track by following the light of the “Drinking Gourd.” This was a code name for the collection of stars known as the Big Dipper, which points to the North Star. Some believe the fugitives also used encoded directions in the lyrics of the song “Follow the Drinking Gourd” to keep them from getting lost as they traveled.

Both the abolitionists and the “drinking gourd” served as points of light directing the slaves to freedom. Hanukkah is our holiday of religious freedom. The Maccabbees fought for our right to worship God as directed by the Torah when Antiochus forbad it. Our hanukkia, the 8-branch candelabra lights our homes in order to inspire us to join the fight for religious freedom and tolerance today.

Since the beginning of the October 7  Simkhat Torah war in Gaza, all over our country anti-Semitism has dramatically increased. The Times of Israel reports “The NYPD reported 69 antisemitic hate crimes in October, marking a major increase in anti-Jewish incidents in the city following Hamas’s October 7 invasion and slaughter of some 1,400 people in southern Israel, and Israel’s ensuing war against the terror group in Gaza. The number of antisemitic crimes in October marked a 214 percent increase over the same month last year, according to police data released on Wednesday.” (https://www.timesofisrael.com/as-antisemitism-surges-nypd-reports-69-hate-crimes-against-jews-in-october/)

Just like our Maccabbee ancestors, we are still on the front lines fighting for redemption and spiritual liberation for us and all the citizens of the United States. Hanukkah reminds us to be brave and proud to be Jews. Davka this year more than before, we must place our hannukiyot in our windows to shine light in all those dark corners of our country and to point the way towards truth, justice, and the American way so that all may enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 Shabbat shalom and happy Hanukkah,

Rabbi Greene 

Hanukkah begins Thursday night. 

How to light the Hanukkah candles

According to Jewish tradition, after the Maccabees’ victory over the Greeks, there was only enough oil to burn for one day in the Temple. Miraculously the oil burned for eight days. Lighting the Hanukkah menorah commemorates this miracle.

Step 1: Know Your Timing You’re supposed to light the menorah just after dark each night of Hanukkah. (However, many families wait until everyone is home together, and light it then.) On Fridays, the menorah is lit before dark to avoid lighting on Shabbat.

Step 2: Find Its Spot The menorah is meant to spread light to others and is traditionally placed in a window, on a table or outside your door. (Just make sure it is far from active kids and flammable materials.)

Step 3: Light the Shamash The candle that is raised or in the center of the menorah is the shamash (helper candle). It’s the one you use to light the other candles. Light it first. (Don’t use any of the other candles to light the others.)

Step 4: Say the Hanukkah Blessing You recite the Hanukkah blessing now, once the shamash is lit but before you light any other candles.

Step 5: Light Right to Left, but Left to Right There are eight candles to light. On the first night of Hanukkah, place a candle in the holder on the far right, and light it with the shamash. Then put the shamash back in its spot (leaving it lit). On the second night, light the candle second from the right, then the candle on the far right, and replace the lit shamash. You’ll repeat this pattern for each night of Hanukkah, always lighting the newest candle first. On the eighth night, you’ll be lighting all of the candles, starting at the far left.

Here's a link for the Hanukkah blessing recited before lighting the candles: https://pjlibrary.org/beyond-books/pjblog/november-2020/how-to-light-the-hanukkah-candles#:~:text=Each%20night%2C%20add%20a%20new,%2C%20that's%20how%20you%20light!%22

Walk don’t run TB Baba Kama 32

The last couple dappim in our massekhet have dealt with collision liability. The general rule of thumb is the person who is doing something unusual or uncommon and causes an accident is liable for damages. Today’s daf TB Baba Kama 32 discusses who is liable when people are running. Isi ben Yehuda holds that running is the unusual mode of transportation in the public domain, the runner is liable for damages. “Isi ben Yehuda says that one who runs in the public domain and causes damage is liable to pay for any damage he causes because his behavior is unusual in the public domain. And Isi concedes with regard to one who runs and causes damage at twilight on the eve of Shabbat that he is exempt, because he is running with permission.” (Sefaria.org translation) When two people are running in the public domain and collide, neither are liable for damages because both are acting irresponsibly in the public domain.

The Gemara asks and then answers his own question “What is the reason that running at twilight on the eve of Shabbat is considered to be with permission? The Gemara answers: It is like that which Rabbi Ḥanina would say, as Rabbi Ḥanina would say at twilight on the eve of Shabbat: Come and let us go out to greet the bride, the queen (בּוֹאוּ וְנֵצֵא לִקְרַאת כַּלָּה מַלְכְּתָא). And some say that this is what he would say: Come and let us go out to greet Shabbat, the bride, the queen (לִקְרַאת שַׁבָּת – כַּלָּה מַלְכְּתָא). Rabbi Yannai would wrap himself in his tallit and stand at the eve of Shabbat at twilight, saying: Come, bride; come, bride. Similarly, it is appropriate for one to run out in honor of Shabbat.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Anyone familiar with the Kabbalat Shabbat service will recognize the poem/prayer Lekha Dodi written in the 16^th century in Safed by Shelomo ben Moshe Halevi Alkebetz from our Gemara. The refrain of Lekha Dodi is “לְכָה דודִי לִקְרַאת כַּלָּה. פְּנֵי שבָּת נְקַבְּלָה -Come, beloved to greet the bride! Let us receive the Shabbat.” The Sefardic tradition is even closer to our Gemara. When one is adding a third “to greet the bride” in the last refrain, the person says, “בֹּאִי כַלָּה, שַׁבָּת מַלְכְּתָא.”

According to our Gemara, the person is only running minutes before Shabbat commences in order to greet Shabbat as one who runs to greet royalty. But everyone who observes Shabbat knows we almost always never have enough time to do everything we need to do before we must stop and observe the Shabbat. The clock is running. The Rosh and other rishonim extend the time permitted to run from mid-day in order to accomplish all that needs to be done before Shabbat. Running to prepare for Shabbat is running with permission.