Sefaria Bava Kamma 13a The William Davidson Talmud (Koren - Steinsaltz) - Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:6 Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, 1999-2015

 Sefaria Bava Kamma 13a The William Davidson Talmud (Koren - Steinsaltz) - Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim  2:6 Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, 1999-2015

Level four:

Near the weekly parsha with the haftorah both with Rashi, a chapter of Nach beginning with Joshua until the end of II Chronicles without Tehillim and start after the 'end' with Joshua again, Mishnah starting with Seder Zeraim (Agriculture) Berakhot until the end Seder Tahorot (Purity) Oktzin and start after the 'end' with Seder Zeraim (Agriculture) Berakhot, a daf from the Talmud Babylonian-Jerusalem starting from the beginning until the end and after the 'end' starting with the beginning again. Reading it very quickly every day.

About This Text

Bava Kamma

Talmud

Bava Kamma (״The First Gate״) is the first of a series of three tractates in Seder Nezikin (“Order of Damages") that deal with civil matters. Bava Kamma focuses on the laws of torts: the first six chapters mostly address damages inflicted by one’s property, while the last four chapters discuss damages inflicted by people, such as theft and injury.

Composed: Talmudic Babylon (c.450 – c.550 CE)נוצר/נערך: בבל התלמודית (450 – 550 לספירה בקירוב)

Current Version

William Davidson Edition - Vocalized Aramaic

Select Translation

Aramaic from The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz
Nikud (vocalization) by Dicta - the Israel Center for Text Analysis.
Punctuation: Rabbi Shimon MarylesRead More

Source: korenpub.co.il

Digitization: Sefaria

License: CC-BY-NC

Revision History

Buy in Print

Current Translation

William Davidson Edition - English

Select Translation

English from The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel SteinsaltzRead More

Source: korenpub.com

Digitization: Sefaria

License: CC-BY-NC

Revision History

Buy in Print

For commentary etc. (right side page under resources) click: Bava Kamma 13a:1 with About (sefaria.org)

13a

לִישַׁנֵּי: הָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, הָא רַבָּנַן!

let Ravina answer Rava’s objection by saying: This baraita, which states that an offering of lesser sanctity is the property of its owner and may be sold even when the Temple stands, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, and it is referring to a case where the animal is still alive. And that qualification of the mishna by Rav Naḥman, that the sale of an unblemished firstborn animal when the Temple is standing is invalid, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who dispute Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s opinion.

(אֲמַר לֵיהּ), מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה קָאָמְרַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה, דְּכִי קָא זָכוּ – מִשֻּׁלְחַן גָּבוֹהַּ קָא זָכוּ.

The Gemara answers: He said to him that this is not difficult: Do you speak of gifts to which members of the priesthood are entitled, of which a firstborn animal is an example? Gifts of the priesthood are different from other offerings of lesser sanctity, as when the priests receive their portions, they receive them from the table of the Most High. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili claims that the act of consecration of an animal as an offering of lesser sanctity does not nullify one’s ownership of the animal. The sanctity of a firstborn offering takes effect with its birth, so it may be that it was never owned; rather, it is reasonable that the Torah provided the priest only with the right and the obligation to partake of it after it is sacrificed.

גּוּפָא: ״וּמָעֲלָה מַעַל בַּה׳״ – לְרַבּוֹת קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁהֵם מָמוֹנוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַשְּׁלָמִים. אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹסְתַּאי אוֹמֵר: לֹא אָמַר בֶּן עַזַּאי אֶלָּא בִּבְכוֹר בִּלְבָד.

§ The Gemara considers the matter itself: The baraita teaches: Concerning one who steals another’s property and takes a false oath denying he has done so, incurring the obligation to bring a guilt-offering, the verse states: “And commits a trespass against the Lord, and deals falsely with his neighbor” (Leviticus 5:21). The verse serves to include a case in which one denies having in his possession offerings of lesser sanctity, which are the property of their owners, and are included in the phrase “and deals falsely with his neighbor.” This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Ben Azzai says: This phrase serves to include peace-offerings. Abba Yosei ben Dostai says: Ben Azzai said this only with regard to a firstborn offering.

אָמַר מָר, בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַשְּׁלָמִים. לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי?

The Master said in the baraita: Ben Azzai says: This phrase serves to include peace-offerings. The Gemara asks: Ben Azzai’s interpretation of the phrase, limiting its interpretation to a reference only to peace-offerings, is to exclude what?

אִילֵּימָא לְמַעוֹטֵי בְּכוֹר, הַשְׁתָּא וּמָה שְׁלָמִים – שֶׁטְּעוּנִים סְמִיכָה וּנְסָכִים וּתְנוּפַת חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק, אָמְרַתְּ מָמוֹן בְּעָלִים הוּא; בְּכוֹר מִבַּעְיָא?

If we say it is to exclude a firstborn offering, because he holds that a firstborn is not the property of the priest, one could reject this, as the sanctity of a firstborn offering is a lesser sanctity than that of a peace-offering, as follows: Now, just as with regard to peace-offerings, which have a higher degree of sanctity such that they require placing hands on the head of the offering and are accompanied by libations and the waving of their breast and the right hind leg by the priest and owner together, you nevertheless say that it is the property of the owners, is it necessary to state that with regard to a firstborn offering, for which these halakhot do not apply, that the priest has ownership of it?

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְמַעוֹטֵי מַעֲשֵׂר –

Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Ben Azzai mentioned peace-offerings in order to exclude an animal tithe offering, i.e., every tenth animal of one’s flock that is designated as tithe for those ten animals and is sacrificed as an offering of lesser sanctity. Animal tithes are excluded because ben Azzai holds that an animal tithe offering is not the property of the owner of the flock.

כִּדְתַנְיָא: בִּבְכוֹר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא תִפְדֶּה״, וְנִמְכָּר תָּם – חַי, וּבַעַל מוּם – חַי וְשָׁחוּט; בְּמַעֲשֵׂר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״, וְאֵינוֹ נִמְכָּר לֹא חַי וְלֹא שָׁחוּט, לֹא תָּם וְלֹא בַּעַל מוּם.

This is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a firstborn offering it is stated: “You shall not redeem” (Numbers 18:17), indicating that the owner can never fully redeem the offering, thereby removing its sanctity. And the firstborn offering can be sold when it is unblemished and alive, or when it is blemished and alive, or blemished and slaughtered. With regard to animal tithe offerings, it is stated: “It shall not be redeemed” (Leviticus 27:33), indicating that the one who designated it can never fully redeem an animal tithe offering, thereby removing its sanctity. And the animal tithe offering cannot be sold, not when it is alive and not when it is slaughtered, not when unblemished and not when blemished. The fact that the sale of an animal tithe offering is invalid demonstrates that it is not the property of the one who designated it.

רָבִינָא מַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא – אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹסְתַּאי אוֹמֵר: לֹא אָמַר בֶּן עַזַּאי, אֶלָּא בִּבְכוֹר בִּלְבָד. לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי?

Ravina taught the preceding discussion with regard to the last clause of the baraita: Abba Yosei ben Dostai says that ben Azzai said this only with regard to a firstborn offering. The Gemara asks: Abba Yosei ben Dostai’s interpretation of the phrase, limiting its interpretation to a reference only to a firstborn offering, is to exclude what?

אִילֵּימָא לְמַעוֹטֵי שְׁלָמִים, הַשְׁתָּא וּמָה בְּכוֹר – שֶׁקָּדוֹשׁ מֵרֶחֶם, מָמוֹנוֹ הוּא; שְׁלָמִים מִבַּעְיָא?

If we say it is to exclude peace-offerings, because he holds that they are not the property of the one who consecrated them as offerings, one could reject this, as the sanctity of peace-offerings is a lesser sanctity than that of a firstborn offering, as follows: Now, just as with regard to a firstborn offering, which is already sanctified upon its emergence from the womb yet nevertheless is the property of the priest, is it necessary to state that peace-offerings are the property of those who consecrated them, where the animals were already the property of its owner before they were consecrated?

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְמַעוֹטֵי מַעֲשֵׂר.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Abba Yosei ben Dostai mentioned peace-offerings in order to exclude an animal tithe offering. Animal tithes are excluded because Abba Yosei ben Dostai holds that an animal tithe offering is not the property of the owner of the flock.

כִּדְתַנְיָא: בִּבְכוֹר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא תִפְדֶּה״, וְנִמְכָּר תָּם – חַי, וּבַעַל מוּם – חַי וְשָׁחוּט; בְּמַעֲשֵׂר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״, וְאֵינוֹ נִמְכָּר לֹא חַי וְלֹא שָׁחוּט, לֹא תָּם וְלֹא בַּעַל מוּם.

This is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a firstborn offering it is stated: “You shall not redeem” (Numbers 18:17), indicating that the owner can never fully redeem the offering, thereby removing its sanctity. And the firstborn offering can be sold when it is unblemished and alive, or when it is blemished and alive, or blemished and slaughtered. With regard to animal tithe offerings, it is stated: “It shall not be redeemed” (Leviticus 27:33), indicating that the one who designated it can never fully redeem an animal tithe offering, thereby removing its sanctity. And the animal tithe offering cannot be sold, not when it is alive and not when it is slaughtered, not when unblemished and not when blemished. The fact that the sale of an animal tithe offering is invalid demonstrates that it is not the property of the one who designated it.

הָא בִּבְכוֹר בִּלְבַד קָאָמַר! קַשְׁיָא.

The Gemara asks: How can one claim that Abba Yosei ben Dostai holds that peace-offerings are also owned by those who consecrated them? Doesn’t Abba Yosei ben Dostai say: Ben Azzai said this only with regard to a firstborn offering. The Gemara concedes: This is difficult.

רָבָא אָמַר: מַאי ״נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן מְעִילָה״ – נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן דִּין מְעִילָה. וּמַאי נִינְהוּ – דְּהֶדְיוֹט.

§ The Gemara cites an alternative explanation of the mishna’s statement: Rava said: What does the mishna mean when it says: One is liable only for damage caused to property for which, were one to use it for a mundane purpose, one would not be liable for the misuse of consecrated property? It is referring to property that is not at all subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property, and what is that? It is referring to any property of an ordinary person, which has no sanctity at all.

וְלִיתְנֵי דְּהֶדְיוֹט! קַשְׁיָא.

The Gemara asks: But then let the mishna teach explicitly: One is liable only for damage caused to property of an ordinary individual. The Gemara concedes: This is difficult.

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: שְׁלָמִים שֶׁהִזִּיקוּ – גּוֹבֶה מִבְּשָׂרָן, וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מֵאֵימוּרֵיהֶן.

§ Rabbi Abba says: With regard to the case of an innocuous animal that was consecrated as a peace-offering and that caused damage, the injured party collects damages from its meat, i.e., from the portion of the offering that would have been eaten by its owners. This is in accordance with the general halakha that the payment for damage caused by an innocuous ox is collected exclusively from the proceeds of the sale of the body of the ox and not from any other property of its owner. But he does not collect the damages from the sacrificial portions.

פְּשִׁיטָא, אֵימוּרִין לְגָבוֹהַּ סָלְקִי!

The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that one collects exclusively from the meat portion and not from the sacrificial portions, as those are to be offered up to God?

לָא צְרִיכָא, לְגוֹבֶה מִבְּשָׂרָן כְּנֶגֶד אֵימוּרִים.

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for Rabbi Abba to teach that there is no collection from the owner’s meat portions corresponding to the sacrificial portions. Payment for damage caused by an innocuous animal is half the amount of the damages, and can be no more than the value of the animal itself. Rabbi Abba is teaching that when assessing the damage to determine the amount to be paid, one deems the owner responsible only according to his share of the animal, i.e., the meat portions, in relation to the animal as a whole.

אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן?

Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis engage in a dispute concerning the halakha in a case in which an ox pushed another animal into a pit (see 53a). If it were an innocuous ox, for which the Torah limits the owner’s liability to half the damages, the Rabbis rule that liability is incurred exclusively by the owner of the ox, i.e., he pays half the value of the damage, and the owner of the pit is entirely exempt. Rabbi Natan holds that since the damage was caused jointly by the ox and the pit, the owner of the ox need pay only half of what he would pay if his animal had been solely responsible, i.e., a quarter of the damages. Rabbi Natan further rules that the remaining sum can then be fully recovered from the owner of the pit, i.e., he pays the remaining three-quarters of the damages. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion, of those tanna’im, does Rabbi Abba state his ruling?

אִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן – פְּשִׁיטָא! הָא אָמְרִי כִּי לֵיכָּא לְאִשְׁתַּלּוֹמֵי מֵהַאי, לָא מִשְׁתַּלַּם מֵהַאי!

If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, then it is obvious and there is no need to state it, as didn’t the Rabbis say: Whenever, for whatever reason, the full cost of the damage cannot be recovered from this party, it is not recovered from that party, i.e., even though the injured party suffered the loss of the full value of his animal and recovered only half its value from the owner of the ox, he may not demand the remaining sum from the owner of the pit. So too, in this case, where the injured party cannot collect damages from the sacrificial portions, he cannot recover that loss from the meat portions of the one who brought the offering.

וְאִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי נָתָן – הָא אָמַר: כִּי לֵיכָּא לְאִשְׁתַּלּוֹמֵי מֵהַאי, מִשְׁתַּלַּם מֵהַאי!

And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, doesn’t he say: Whenever the full cost of the damage cannot be recovered from this one, it is recovered from that one, i.e., since the owner of the ox pays only a quarter of the damages, the remaining sum can be recovered from the owner of the pit. So too, in this case, since the injured party cannot collect payment from the sacrificial portions, he should be able to recover that loss from the meat portions of the one who brought the offering, in contrast to the ruling of Rabbi Abba.

אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַבִּי נָתָן, אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַבָּנַן.

The Gemara explains: If you wish, say Rabbi Abba’s ruling is in accordance with Rabbi Natan, and if you wish, say his ruling is in accordance with the Rabbis.

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא רַבָּנַן – הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּתְרֵי גוּפֵי, אֲבָל בְּחַד גּוּפָא מָצֵי אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״מִכֹּל הֵיכָא דְּבָעֵינָא – מִשְׁתַּלַּמְנָא״.

The Gemara explains: If you wish, say Rabbi Abba’s ruling is in accordance with the Rabbis, as one might have thought that this matter, the ruling of the Rabbis, applies only where the damage is caused by two bodies, such as an ox and a pit. But where the damage is caused by one body, as in the case of damage caused by a an animal consecrated as a peace-offering, the injured party can say to the owner of the animal: From anywhere that I want to, I will recover my losses, and accordingly, the injured party could collect the full cost of the damage from the meat portions of the one who brought the offering. Therefore, it is necessary for Rabbi Abba to teach that this is not the halakha.

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא רַבִּי נָתָן – הָתָם הוּא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ בַּעַל שׁוֹר לְבַעַל הַבּוֹר: ״אֲנָא תּוֹרַאי בְּבֵירָךְ אַשְׁכַּחְתֵּיהּ; מַאי דְּלֵית לִי לְאִשְׁתַּלּוֹמֵי מֵהַיְאךְ – מִשְׁתַּלַּימְנָא מִינָּךְ״;

And if you wish, say Rabbi Abba’s ruling is in accordance with Rabbi Natan: It is only there that the owner of the damaged ox can say to the owner of the pit: Since I found my ox in your pit, ultimately you bear responsibility for any damage, and therefore whatever I cannot recover from the other one, i.e., the owner of the ox, I will recover from you.

13b

אֲבָל הָכָא, מִי מָצֵי אָמַר: ״בָּשָׂר אַזֵּיק, אֵימוּרִין לָא אַזִּיק״?!

But here, in the case of damage caused by an animal consecrated as a peace-offering, is the injured party actually able to say: Only the meat of the animal caused damage but the sacrificial portions did not cause damage? Since the entire animal caused the damage, he does not collect the full cost of the damage from the meat portions of the one who brought the offering.

אָמַר רָבָא: תּוֹדָה שֶׁהִזִּיקָה – גּוֹבֶה מִבְּשָׂרָהּ, וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִלַּחְמָהּ.

Rava says: In the case of an innocuous animal consecrated as a thanks-offering that caused damage, the injured party collects damages from its meat, i.e., from the portion of the offerings that would have been eaten by the one who brought the offering, but he does not collect from its bread, i.e., from the offering of forty loaves of bread that accompanies the sacrifice of the animal.

לֶחֶם – פְּשִׁיטָא!

The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that he does not collect from the bread? The bread is not part of the animal that caused damage.

סֵיפָא אִצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ – נִיזָּק אוֹכֵל בָּשָׂר, וּמִתְכַּפֵּר מֵבִיא לֶחֶם.

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Rava to state this because of the latter clause of his ruling, which states: The injured party eats the meat portions of the offering according to the value of the damages owed to him, but the one achieving atonement, i.e., the one bringing the offering, brings the bread.

הָא נָמֵי פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, כֵּיוָן דְּלֶחֶם הֶכְשֵׁירָא דְזֶבַח הוּא – לֵימָא לֵיהּ: אַתְּ אָכְלַתְּ בְּשַׂר, וַאֲנָא אַיְיתֵי לֶחֶם; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלֶחֶם חִיּוּבָא דִּבְעָלִים הוּא.

The Gemara asks: Isn’t this also obvious? Why should anyone else bring the bread? The Gemara explains: Lest you say, since the bread is a necessary qualifying factor for the thanks-offering, as without it one does not fulfill one’s obligation, let the owner of the offering say to the one eating it, why should you eat the meat and I bring the bread? If you wish to eat, you should bring the bread. Therefore, Rava teaches us that the offering of the loaves of bread is the obligation of the owners of the offering.

נְכָסִים שֶׁהֵן שֶׁל בְּנֵי בְרִית.

§ The mishna teaches: One is liable only for damage caused to property that belongs to members of the covenant.

לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אִי לְמַעוֹטֵי דְּגוֹי – הָא קָתָנֵי לַהּ לְקַמַּן: שׁוֹר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר שֶׁל גּוֹי – פָּטוּר! תָּנֵי וַהֲדַר מְפָרֵשׁ.

The Gemara asks: This clause serves to exclude what? If it serves to exclude the property of a gentile, isn’t that already explicitly taught in the mishna below (37b): In the case of an ox of a Jew that gored an ox of a gentile, the Jew is exempt. The Gemara answers: The tanna teaches this as a principle in the mishna here and then explains it in greater detail in the mishna below.

נְכָסִים הַמְיוּחָדִין. לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: לְמַעוֹטֵי זֶה אוֹמֵר ״שׁוֹרְךָ הִזִּיק״, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר ״שׁוֹרְךָ הִזִּיק״.

The mishna continues: One is liable only for assigned property. The Gemara asks: This clause serves to exclude what? Rav Yehuda said: This clause serves to exclude a case in which an animal is injured but it is unclear which of two oxen, owned by different people, caused the damage. The owner of this ox says to the owner of the other: Your ox caused the damage. And the owner of that ox says to the owner of the other: Your ox caused the damage. Since it cannot be proven which ox actually caused the damage, neither owner is liable. The intention of the mishna is that one is liable only where the belligerent ox is assigned to, i.e., is known to be the property of, a specific individual.

הָא תָּנֵי לְקַמַּן: הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹדְפִין אַחַר אֶחָד, זֶה אוֹמֵר: ״שׁוֹרְךָ הִזִּיק״, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: ״שׁוֹרְךָ הִזִּיק״ – שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּטוּרִין! תָּנֵי וַהֲדַר מְפָרֵשׁ.

The Gemara asks: Isn’t that explicitly taught in the mishna below (35a): If two oxen were seen pursuing a single ox, and then the single ox is found to be injured, and the owner of this ox says to the owner of the other: Your ox caused the damage. And the owner of that ox says to the owner of the other: Your ox caused the damage. In such a case, both of them are exempt since it is uncertain which one is guilty. The Gemara answers: The tanna teaches this as a principle in the mishna here and then explains it in greater detail in the mishna below.

בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: פְּרָט לְנִכְסֵי הֶפְקֵר. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דִּנְגַח תּוֹרָא דִידַן לְתוֹרָא דְהֶפְקֵר – מַאן תָּבַע לֵיהּ? אֶלָּא דִּנְגַח תּוֹרָא דְהֶפְקֵר לְתוֹרָא דִידַן –

It was taught in a baraita in explanation of the mishna that the term assigned property serves to exclude ownerless property. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances in which the mishna teaches that one is exempt? If we say it is referring to a case where an ox belonging to us, i.e., to a Jew, gored an ownerless ox, it is obvious that the owner bears no liability, as who is claiming damages from him? Rather, it must be referring to a case where an ownerless ox gored an ox belonging to us, and it teaches that the injured party does not have a right to damages.

לֵיזִיל וְלַיְתֵיהּ! בְּשֶׁקָּדַם וְזָכָה בּוֹ אַחֵר.

The Gemara asks: What is the point of this halakha? If the injured party wishes to recover his losses, let him go and take the belligerent ox for himself, since it is currently ownerless. The Gemara explains: The mishna teaches that the injured party does not have any right to the ox, in order to teach that in a case where another person preceded him and acquired it, the injured party has no claim to it.

רָבִינָא אָמַר: לְמַעוֹטֵי נָגַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישׁ; נָגַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִפְקִיר.

Ravina said an alternative interpretation of the mishna: The term assigned property serves to exclude a case in which an ox gored and subsequently its owner consecrated it, or where it gored and subsequently its owner declared it ownerless. Since the owners did not own the ox at the time the case was brought before the court, they are exempt from paying. Ravina explains that this is the intention of the mishna: That one is liable only when the property that caused the damage was owned by a responsible party both when it caused the damage and when it was tried. In this case, at the time of the court hearing it was not owned by a responsible party, as it was either consecrated or ownerless.

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, יָתֵר עַל כֵּן אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֲפִילּוּ נָגַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישׁ, נָגַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִפְקִיר – פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהוּעַד בִּבְעָלָיו וְהֵמִית אִישׁ וְגוֹ׳״ – עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא מִיתָה וְהַעֲמָדָה בַּדִּין שָׁוִין כְּאֶחָד.

It is also taught in a baraita: The halakha is that an ox that kills a person is stoned to death. The mishna states (44b) that this does not apply to an ox consecrated to the Temple or an ownerless ox. Moreover, Rabbi Yehuda said: Even if an ox gored and its owner subsequently consecrated it to the Temple, or if an ox gored and its owner subsequently declared it ownerless, the owner is exempt from liability, as it is stated: “And if the ox was wont to gore in time past, and had been forewarned with its owner, and he had not guarded it in, and it killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and also its owner shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:29). The repetition of the reference to the owner at the beginning and end of the verse indicates that the ox is not stoned unless the ox’s status as the owner’s property at the time of the death of the victim and at the time of the owner’s standing trial is the same, i.e., the ox is owned by a responsible party for both events.

וּגְמַר הַדִּין לָא בָּעֵינַן?! הָא ״הַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל״ – בִּגְמַר דִּין הוּא דִּכְתִיב!

The Gemara asks: But do we not also require that the ox’s status be the same at the time of the verdict? Isn’t the phrase: “The ox shall be stoned” written with regard to the time of the verdict?

אֶלָּא אֵימָא: עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא מִיתָה וְהַעֲמָדָה בְּדִין וּגְמַר דִּין שָׁוִין כְּאֶחָד.

Rather, say that the owner of the ox is exempt unless the ox’s status as the owner’s property at the time of the death of the victim and at the time of the owner’s standing trial and at the verdict is the same, i.e., the ox is owned by a responsible party for all three events.

חוּץ מֵרְשׁוּת הַמְיוּחֶדֶת לַמַּזִּיק. דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: תּוֹרָךְ בִּרְשׁוּתִי מַאי בָּעֵי?

§ The mishna teaches: One is liable for damage caused in any place except for a domain designated exclusively for the use of the one responsible for the damage. The Gemara explains the reason for this: This is because the one liable for the damage can say to the injured party: What did your ox want in my domain? One does not have to guard his ox from causing damage within his own property, since another person’s animal has no right to be there.

וּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק וְהַמַּזִּיק.

The mishna continues: And one is liable for damage caused in a domain designated for the joint use of the injured party and the one liable for the damage.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר אֲבִימִי: חֲצַר הַשּׁוּתָּפִין – חַיָּיב בָּהּ עַל הַשֵּׁן וְעַל הָרֶגֶל. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: ״חוּץ מֵרְשׁוּת הַמְיוּחֶדֶת לַמַּזִּיק״ – דְּפָטוּר; ״וּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק וְהַמַּזִּיק – כְּשֶׁהִזִּיק חָב הַמַּזִּיק״.

The Gemara cites a dispute concerning this case that results in two different ways of interpreting the mishna: Rav Ḥisda says that Avimi says: With regard to a courtyard designated for the joint use of two partners, either one of them is liable for damage caused by the ox of one partner to the property of the other partner while in it, both for the category of Eating and for the category of Trampling. And accordingly, this is what the mishna is saying: One is liable for damage caused in any place except for a domain designated exclusively for the use of the one responsible for the damage, as he is exempt there; but in a domain designated for the joint use of the injured party and the one responsible for the damage, when he causes damage, the one who is responsible for the damage is obligated to pay damages. The statement in the mishna concerning a domain designated for joint use is the beginning of the following clause and introduces a case in which one is liable for damage.

וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: פָּטוּר עַל הַשֵּׁן וְעַל הָרֶגֶל. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: ״חוּץ מֵרְשׁוּת הַמְיוּחֶדֶת לַמַּזִּיק, וּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק וְהַמַּזִּיק״ נָמֵי – פָּטוּר; ״וּכְשֶׁהִזִּיק חָב הַמַּזִּיק״ – לְאֵתוֹיֵי קֶרֶן.

And Rabbi Elazar says: In a courtyard designated for joint use, one is exempt for one’s ox causing damage to the property of his partner in the category of Eating, and for one’s ox causing damage to the property of his partner in the category of Trampling. And accordingly, this is what the mishna is saying: One is liable for damage caused in any place except for a domain designated exclusively for the use of the one responsible for the damage, and one is also exempt for damage done in a domain designated for the joint use of the injured party and the one liable for the damage. The statement in the mishna about a domain designated for joint use is a continuation of the previous clause and adds an additional case in which one is exempt. And the following clause: When one causes damage, the one liable for the damage is obligated to pay damages, serves to add the fact that one is liable for damage in the framework of the category of Goring, which was not previously mentioned in the mishna.

הָנִיחָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל, אֶלָּא לְרַב דְּאָמַר: תְּנָא שׁוֹר וְכֹל מִילֵּי דְשׁוֹר, ״חָב הַמַּזִּיק״ לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי?

This interpretation of the concluding clause of the mishna, as a reference to Goring, works out well according to Shmuel, in his dispute with Rav (3b) concerning the meaning of Ox and Maveh in the first mishna of this chapter. According to Shmuel they mean Trampling and Eating, respectively, and Goring has yet to be addressed. But according to Rav, who says: The term ox in the mishna includes damage caused by the ox and all matters involving damaging actions that are completed by an ox, including Goring, Eating, and Trampling, Goring is already addressed in the mishna. What is added by the clause: The one liable for the damage is obligated to pay damages?

לְאֵתוֹיֵי הָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כְּשֶׁהִזִּיק חָב הַמַּזִּיק״ – לְהָבִיא שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר, שֶׁהִזִּיקָה בְּהֵמָה בִּרְשׁוּתָן; תָּם – מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק, וּמוּעָד – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. נִפְרְצָה בַּלַּיְלָה אוֹ שֶׁפְּרָצוּהָ לִסְטִין, וְיָצְתָה וְהִזִּיקָה – פָּטוּר.

The Gemara answers: It serves to add that which the Sages taught in a baraita that elucidates the mishna’s statement. The mishna states: When an animal or item one is responsible to safeguard causes damage, the one liable for the damage caused by insufficiently safeguarding it is obligated to pay payments of restitution for damage. This serves to include the cases of an unpaid bailee, a borrower, a paid bailee, and a renter, in which an animal, e.g., an ox, caused damage while in their possession. If the ox was innocuous, he pays half of the damages, and if it was forewarned, he pays the full damages. If the ox was safely enclosed and a wall broke open at night, or if bandits [listin] broke it open and the ox went out and caused damage, he is exempt from liability.

אָמַר מָר: כְּשֶׁהִזִּיק חָב הַמַּזִּיק – לְהָבִיא שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי?

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master said that the mishna states: When an animal or item one is responsible to safeguard causes damage, the one liable for the damage caused by insufficiently safeguarding it is obligated to pay payments of restitution for damage. This serves to include the cases of an unpaid bailee, a borrower, a paid bailee, and a renter. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances?

אִילֵימָא דְּאַזְּקֵיהּ תּוֹרָא דְמַשְׁאִיל לְתוֹרָא דְשׁוֹאֵל – לֵימָא לֵיהּ: אִילּוּ אַזֵּיק בְּעָלְמָא – בָּעֵית לְשַׁלּוֹמֵי אַתְּ; הַשְׁתָּא דְּאַזְּקֵיהּ לְתוֹרָא דִידָךְ, בָּעֵינָא לְשַׁלּוֹמֵי?!

If we say that the lender’s ox, which was under the watch of the borrower, injured the borrower’s ox, and the baraita is teaching that the lender is liable to pay the borrower, why is this so? Let the lender say to the borrower: If my ox had injured an ox in the world at large, i.e., someone else’s ox, you, the borrower, would be required to pay, as you were entrusted with safeguarding it. Now that my ox has injured your ox, should I be required to pay?

אֶלָּא דְּאַזְּקֵיהּ תּוֹרָא דְשׁוֹאֵל לְתוֹרָא דְמַשְׁאִיל – לֵימָא לֵיהּ: אִילּוּ אִיתַּזַּק מֵעָלְמָא – בָּעֵית לְשַׁלּוֹמֵי כּוּלֵּיהּ תּוֹרָא; הַשְׁתָּא דְּאַזְּקֵיהּ תּוֹרָא דִידָךְ, פַּלְגָא נִיזְקָא הוּא דִּמְשַׁלְּמַתְּ לִי?!

Rather, the case must be that the borrower’s ox injured the lender’s ox, and the baraita is teaching that the borrower is liable to pay. The Gemara asks: According to this interpretation, the baraita teaches that if the belligerent ox was innocuous, the borrower is liable to pay only half of the damages. But why? Let the lender say to the borrower: By borrowing my ox, you undertook full responsibility for it such that if my ox had been injured by an ox from the world at large, you would be required to pay me for the entire value of my ox, irrespective of whether the belligerent ox was considered innocuous or forewarned. Now that it is your ox that injured my ox, should you have to pay only half of the damages? This interpretation of the baraita is also difficult.

לְעוֹלָם דְּאַזְּקֵיהּ תּוֹרָא דְמַשְׁאִיל לְתוֹרָא דְשׁוֹאֵל, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – שֶׁקִּבֵּל עָלָיו שְׁמִירַת גּוּפוֹ,

The Gemara explains: Actually, the case is where the lender’s ox injured the borrower’s ox, and with what are we dealing here? This is a case where the borrower undertook the responsibility of safeguarding the body of the lender’s ox from being injured,

Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:6

Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, 1999-2015

About This Text

Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim

Talmud

Kilayim (“Mixtures”) is a tractate in Seder Zeraim (“Order of Seeds”) that discusses biblical prohibitions of mixed species, based in Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:9-11. These include planting certain mixtures of seeds, grafting different species of trees, growing plants other than grapevines in a vineyard, crossbreeding animals, working certain animals together, and mixing wool and linen in clothing.

Composed: Talmudic Israel (c.375 – c.425 CE)נוצר/נערך: ישראל התלמודית (375 – 425 לספירה בקירוב)

Current Version

The Jerusalem Talmud, edition by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015

Select Version

Read More

Source: nli.org.il

Digitization: Sefaria

License: CC-BY

Revision History

Buy in Print

Current Translation

The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015

Select Translation

Read More

Source: nli.org.il

Digitization: Sefaria

License: CC-BY

Revision History

For commentary etc. (right side page under resources) click: Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:6:1 with About (sefaria.org)

2:6

משנה: אֵין סוֹמְכִין לִשְׂדֵה תְבוּאָה חַרְדָּל וַחֲרִיעַ אֲבָל סוֹמְכִין לִשְׂדֵה יְרָקוֹת חַרְדָּל וַחֲרִיעַ. סוֹמֵךְ לְבוּר וּלְנִיר וּלְגָפָה וּלְדֶרֶךְ וּלְגֶדֶר שֶׁהוּא גָבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים וּלְחָרִיץ שֶׁהוּא עָמוֹק עֲשָׂרָה וְרָחַב אַרְבָּעָה וּלְאִילָן שֶׁהוּא מֵיסַךְ עַל הָאָרֶץ וּלְסֶלַע שֶׁהוּא גָבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה וְרָחַב אַרְבָּעָה.

MISHNAH: One does not sow mustard or saffron close to a grain field, but one may sow mustard or saffron close to a vegetable field. One does sow close to a fallow field, a ploughed field, a closure, a foot path, a fence ten hand-breadths high, a ditch ten deep and four wide, a tree giving shade on the ground, and a rock ten high and four wide.

הלכה: מַהוּ חֲרִיעַ מוֹרִיקָא.

HALAKHAH: What is חריע? Yellow dye.

כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא אֵין מַקִּיפִין הָא לִסְמוֹךְ סוֹמְכִין. מַתְנִיתִן דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. דְּתַנֵּי אֵין מַקִּיפִין חַרְדָּל וַחֲרִיעַ אֶלָּא לְחִסִּיּוֹת בִּלְבַד דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי יוּדָה אָמַר לַכֹּל מַקִּיפִין חַרְדָּל וַחֲרִיעַ חוּץ מִן הַתְּבוּאָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר לַכֹּל מַקִּיפִין חַרְדָּל וַחֲרִיעַ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר עֲרוּגוֹת קְטָנוֹת שֶׁלֹ יֶרֶק מַקִּיפִין אוֹתָן חַרְדָּל וַחֲרִיעַ.

So is the Mishnah: “One does not surround,” hence one may sow close up. Our Mishnah is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as it was stated: “One may surround by mustard or saffron only bulbous vegetables, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, any field one may surround by mustard or saffron except a grain field. Rebbi Simeon said, any field one may surround by mustard or saffron. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, one may surround small vegetable beds by mustard or saffron.”

תַּנֵּי מוּתָּר הוּא אָדָם לִזְרֹעַ בְּתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ שׁוּרָה שֶׁל חַרְדָּל וַחֲרִיעַ וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה אוֹרֶךְ שׁוּרָה אוֹרֶךְ עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה עַל רוֹחַב מְלוֹאוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שָׂדֶה קְטַנָּה. הָא בִגְדוֹלָה לֹא. אֵי זוֹ הִיא גְדוֹלָה וְאֵי זוֹ הִיא קְטַנָּה. אִם יֵשׁ בֵּין בַּד לְבַד בֵּית רוֹבַע זוֹ הִיא גְדוֹלָה. וְאִם לָאו זוֹ הִיא קְטָנָה. לֵית הָדָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר רֹאשׁ תּוֹר הַבָּא בְּחוֹרֵבָה אָסוּר. תַּמָּן לִזְרָעִין וְכָאן לִירָקוֹת. אַף עַל גַּב דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן פְּלִיג בִּזְרָעִים מוֹדֶה הוּא הָכָא בִּירָקוֹת.

It was stated: “One may sow a row of mustard or saffron in the middle of one’s field on condition to make the row long, a length of 10.5 cubits the entire width.” Rebbi Eleazar said, that applies only to a small field, not to a large one. What is large and what is small? If there is between the two ends a bet rova‘, that is large, otherwise it is small. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, for Rebbi Joḥanan said that a vertex that comes from a dry spot is forbidden? There it is for grain, here for vegetables. Even though Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees for grain, he will agree here with respect to vegetables.

גְּרִיד מוּתָּר לִיזְרֹעַ בּוֹ כָּל־מִין שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה שְׁלוֹשָׁה בְתוֹךְ שִׁשָּׁה וּשְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁהֵן סְמוּכִין לְגֶדֶר כִּגְרִיד. הָיוּ שְׁלוֹשָׁה בְתוֹךְ שִׁשָּׁה וְאֶחָד חוּץ לְשִׁשָּׁה מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוּצְּלוּ אֵלּוּ אַף זֶה הוּצָּל. הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם בְּתוֹךְ שִׁשָּׁה וְאֶחָד חוּץ לְשִׁשָּׁה. מֵאַחַר שֶׁלֹּא הוּצְּלוּ אֵלּוּ אַף זֶה לֹא הוּצָּל. הָיָה שָׁם גְּרִיד שׁוּרָה וְשׁוּרָה גֶדֶר וְשׁוּרָה חוֹבְשִׁין אֶת הַשּׁוּרָה גַּבֵּי שֶׁל גֶּדֶר בְּשָׂדוֹת. שְׁתֵּי שָׂדוֹת זוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי זוֹ. הָעֶלְיוֹנָה סְמוּכָה לְחָרִיץ. וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנָה סְמוּכָה לְגֶדֶר.

On dry soil one may sow any kind he desires. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if he uses three of six [hand-breadths]. Three that are close to a fence are like dry land. If there were three inside six and one outside six, since the former ones were saved, that one also is saved. If only two were inside six and one outside six, since the first ones were not saved, neither is that one. If there was one row dry, one row fence, and another row, one jails the row by the fence on fields. Two fields, one above the other, the upper one is close to a ditch, the lower one close to a fence.

דְּבֵי רִבִּי יַנַּאי אָֽמְרֵי גֶּדֶר מוּתָּר לִזְרוֹעַ בּוֹ כָּל־מִין תּוֹרְבְּכִינָה. וְגֶדֶר יֵשׁ בּוֹ לְהָקֵל וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ לְהַחֲמִיר. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא פָּחוֹת מִבֵּית רוֹבַע מוּקְרָח בְּתוֹךְ שְׂדֵה תְבוּאָה אָסוּר לִזְרוֹעַ בּוֹ. הִקִּיפוֹ גֶּדֶר מוּתָּר. בֵּית רוֹבַע בְּבִקְעָה מוּתָּר לִזְרוֹעַ בּוֹ שְׁנֵי מִינִין. הִקִּיפוֹ גֶּדֶר אָסוּר.

The House of Yannai said, on the fence one may sow all kinds of mixtures. A fence implies leniencies and stringencies. How is this? Less than a bet rova‘ shaven in a grain field may not be sown; if surrounded with a fence it may be sown. A bet rova‘ in open country may be sown with two kinds; if surrounded with a fence this is forbidden.

גֶּדֶר מַהוּ שֶׁיַּצִּיל אֶת הַזְּרָעִים. גְּרִיד זְרוּעַ מַהוּ שֶׁיַּצִּיל אֶת הַיֶּרֶק. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן הָדָא. וְסוֹמֵךְ לְשָׁרְשֵׁי אִילָן שֶׁיָּֽבְשׁוּ. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא יָֽבְשׁוּ הָא לַח אָסוּר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי שָׁמַע לֵיהּ מִן הָדָא סוֹמֵךְ לְבוּר וּלְנִיר וּלְגָפָה לְדֶרֶךְ וּלְגֶדֶר שֶׁהוּא גָבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה שֶׁגֶּדֶר זָרוּעַ מַצִּיל אֶת הַזְּרָעִים. אֲפִילוּ תֵימָא וּלְגֶדֶר שֶׁהוּא גָבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים אֵין גֶּדֶר זָרוּעַ מַצִּיל אֶת הַזְּרָעִים. שַׁנְייָא הִיא הָכָא שֶׁהוּא גֶּדֶר זָרוּעַ וְאֵין גֶּדֶר זָרוּעַ מַצִּיל אֶת הַזְּרָעִים.

Does a fence save grains? Does sown dry land save vegetables? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeïra understood it from the following: “One sows close to dried-up tree roots.” This mentions only dry ones; hence, if they are moist, it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose understood it from the following: “One does sow close to a fallow field, a ploughed field, a closure, a foot path, a fence ten hand-breadths high.” That implies that a sown fence saves grains! Even if you accept “fence ten hand-breadths high,” a sown fence does not have to save grains. There is a difference here because the fence is sown and no sown fence saves grains.

רִבִּי יוּדָן בָּעֵי גְּרִיד וּמֶשֶׁךְ מַהוּ שֶׁיִּצְטָֽרְפוּ. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא הָיָה שָׁם מָקוֹם אוֹרֶךְ עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה עַל רוֹחַב שִׁשָּׁה אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ גְּרִיד. עָשָׂה גְּרִיד מִיכָּן מוּתָּר לִסְמוֹךְ שְׁתֵּי רוּחוֹתָיו.

Rebbi Judan asked: Do dry land and length add together? How is that? If there was space ten and a half cubits long and six hand-breadths wide, one does not have to have dry land. If dry land was added on both sides, one may sow close on both sides.

תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן בֶּן יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר הָיָה שָׁם סֶלַע אֲרוּכָה עֲשָׂרָה וְרָחַב אַרְבָּעָה מוּתָּר לִסְמוֹךְ לוֹ מִשְׁתֵּי רוּחוֹתֶיהָ. הָֽיְתָה עֲשָׂרָה עַל עֲשָׂרָה מוּתָּר לִסְמוֹךְ לָה מֵאַרְבַּע רוּחוֹתֶיהָ.

It was stated: Rebbi Jonathan ben Yose said, one may sow close to a rock ten hand-breadths long and four hand-breadths wide on both of its sides. If it was ten by ten hand-breadths, one may sow close to it on all four sides.

Beit Yisrael International.
Become a member.

Get the Membership from Beit Yisrael! ‘How to become a Righteous of the Nations (Ultra-Orthodox Chassidic Noahite/Lost Tribes of Efrayim /‘Ger Toshav ‘) click: Beit yisrael international

Come and join our Facebook group:

Har HaBait Jewish Sovereign for all Israel

Free download 
google Play 

Tehillim Ohel Yosef Yitzchak

Abraham Makovetsky

A must read and guiding line: To go through every step, of the 42 steps in our diaspora until we reach Eretz Yisrael, the unification of Yehuda and Ephraim, when the Jews start to build The Temple and Restoring her Temple Service. It is for all Beit Yisrael International members the way to go.

click:

42 Journeys of the Soul

The Messianic age will elevate the entire universe, including all the spiritual realms.

From the teachings of Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi; adapted by Yitzchak Wagshul

Don't make dogma's out of it. But elevate your souls by learning the Mitzvot surrounded by the Jewish Halakhot. 
And the teachings of Chassidut by the Chassidim.

That we may hold on the 'right understanding' in our 'travel' through the 'dessert' our 'diaspora':

click: 

What Is Kabbalah?

The Soul of Judaism

By Tzvi Freeman

Click:

What Is Chassidut?

Teachings from the core essence

By Tzvi Freeman

Click:

What Is Chabad?

Do-It-Yourself Judaism

By Tzvi Freeman

Click: 

What Is a Tzaddik?

Being human all the way

By Tzvi Freeman

Click:

The Tzaddik HaDor

And…… to all Jews and Ephraimites:

Pirkei Avot 6:10

Dr. Joshua Kulp


חֲמִשָּׁה קִנְיָנִים קָנָה לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְעוֹלָמוֹ, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן, תּוֹרָה קִנְיָן אֶחָד, שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ קִנְיָן אֶחָד, אַבְרָהָם קִנְיָן אֶחָד, יִשְׂרָאֵל קִנְיָן אֶחָד, בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קִנְיָן אֶחָד. תּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (משלי ח), ה' קָנָנִי רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכּוֹ קֶדֶם מִפְעָלָיו מֵאָז. שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (ישעיה סו), כֹּה אָמַר ה' הַשָּׁמַיִם כִּסְאִי וְהָאָרֶץ הֲדֹם רַגְלָי אֵי זֶה בַיִת אֲשֶׁר תִּבְנוּ לִי וְאֵי זֶה מָקוֹם מְנוּחָתִי, וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים קד) מָה רַבּוּ מַעֲשֶׂיךָ ה' כֻּלָּם בְּחָכְמָה עָשִׂיתָ מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ קִנְיָנֶךָ. אַבְרָהָם קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (בראשית יד), וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ וַיֹּאמַר בָּרוּךְ אַבְרָם לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ. יִשְׂרָאֵל קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (שמות טו), עַד יַעֲבֹר עַמְּךָ ה' עַד יַעֲבֹר עַם זוּ קָנִיתָ, וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים טז) לִקְדוֹשִׁים אֲשֶׁר בָּאָרֶץ הֵמָּה וְאַדִּירֵי כָּל חֶפְצִי בָם. בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קִנְיָן אֶחָד מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב (שמות טו), מָכוֹן לְשִׁבְתְּךָ פָּעַלְתָּ ה' מִקְּדָשׁ ה' כּוֹנְנוּ יָדֶיךָ. וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים עח) וַיְבִיאֵם אֶל גְּבוּל קָדְשׁוֹ הַר זֶה קָנְתָה יְמִינוֹ:

Five possessions did the Holy Blessed One, set aside as his own in this world, and these are they: The Torah, one possession; Heaven and earth, another possession; Abraham, another possession; Israel, another possession; The Temple, another possession. 1a) The Torah is one possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written, “The Lord possessed (usually translated as ‘created’) me at the beginning of his course, at the first of His works of old” (Proverbs 8:22). 2a) Heaven and earth, another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is said: “Thus said the Lord: The heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool; Where could you build a house for Me, What place could serve as My abode? (Isaiah 66:1) And it says: “How many are the things You have made, O Lord; You have made them all with wisdom; the earth is full of Your possessions” (Psalms 104:24). 3a) Abraham is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written: “He blessed him, saying, “Blessed by Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth” (Genesis 15:19). 4a) Israel is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is written: “Till Your people cross over, O Lord, Till Your people whom You have possessed” (Exodus 15:16). And it says: “As to the holy and mighty ones that are in the land, my whole desire (possession) is in them” (Psalms 16:3). 5a) The Temple is another possession. From where do we know this? Since it is said: “The sanctuary, O lord, which your hands have established” (Exodus 15:17”, And it says: “And He brought them to His holy realm, to the mountain, which His right hand had possessed” (Psalms 78:54).

 

I like to call out to all my Jewish friends:

Zechariah 8:23

 

23So said the Lord of Hosts: In those days, when ten men of all the languages of the nations shall take hold of the skirt of a Jewish man, saying, "Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you."		כגכֹּֽה־אָמַר֘ יְהֹוָ֣ה צְבָאוֹת֒ בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֔מָּה אֲשֶׁ֚ר יַֽחֲזִ֙יקוּ֙ עֲשָׂרָ֣ה אֲנָשִׁ֔ים מִכֹּ֖ל לְשֹׁנ֣וֹת הַגּוֹיִ֑ם וְֽהֶחֱזִ֡יקוּ בִּכְנַף֩ אִ֨ישׁ יְהוּדִ֜י לֵאמֹ֗ר נֵֽלְכָה֙ עִמָּכֶ֔ם כִּ֥י שָׁמַ֖עְנוּ אֱלֹהִ֥ים עִמָּכֶֽם:
ten men: from the seventy nations. This equals seven hundred for each corner. For the four corners of the tallith there will be two thousand and eight hundred.		עשרה אנשים: משבעים לשון הרי שבע מאות לכל כנף וכנף הרי לד' כנפי הטלית אלפים ושמונ' מאו':

That may come in fulfillment in our days:

Our souls are bearing the ‘sparks’ (divine aspects) of Messiah.

It is forbidden to pray to bow down to any other (god), and/or messiah, and/or before any image or to lift up a human being as a god…… or to put any other (god), and/or messiah, and/or any image before or instead or between HaShem and us. ('It suf')

“The redemption will come about only through the study of the Torah. And the essential redemption depends upon the study of the Kabbalah” According to: R. ELIYAHU, THE VILNA GAON (Evven Shelemah (a ‘complete, without defect stone’) 11:3)

When Yehuda and Ephraim come to unity (again) Messiah Ben Joseph 'died' and Messiah Ben David shall be revealed and anointed by the Israeli people as the Messiah-King of Israel. As YeshaYahu is teaching:

Isa 11:9 – 16 They do no evil nor destroy in all My set-apart mountain, for the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of Adonai as the waters cover the sea.

Rashi: knowledge of the Lord: [lit.] to know the Lord.

10 And on that day, there shall be a Root of Yishai, standing as a banner to the people. Unto Him the nations shall seek, and His rest shall be esteem.

Rashi: as a banner for peoples: that peoples should raise a banner to gather to him.

11 And it shall be in that day that Adonai sets His hand again a second time to recover the remnant of His people who are left, from Ashshur and from Mitsrayim, from Pathros and from Kush, from Ěylam and from Shin‛ar, from Ḥamath and from the islands of the sea.

Rashi: a second time: Just as he acquired them from Egypt, when their redemption was absolute, without subjugation, but the redemption preceding the building of the Second Temple is not counted, since they were subjugated to Cyrus.

and from the islands of the sea: the islands of the Kittim, the Romans, the descendants of Esau.

And he shall raise a banner: Perka, perche in O.F. [i.e., the verse is literally referring to the pole upon which the banner is attached.] And it shall be for a sign to gather to him and to bring the exiles of Israel to Him as a present.

12 And He shall raise a banner for the nations, and gather the outcasts of Yisra’ěl, and assemble the dispersed of Yehuḏa from the four corners of the earth.

13 And the envy of Ephrayim shall turn aside, and the adversaries of Yehuḏa be cut off. Ephrayim shall not envy Yehuḏa, and Yehuḏa not trouble Ephrayim.

Rashi: Ephraim shall not envy Judah: The Messiah, the son of David, and the Messiah, the son of Joseph, shall not envy each other.

14 But they shall fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines toward the west; together they plunder the people of the east, their hand stretching forth on Eḏom and Mo’aḇ, and the children of Ammon shall be subject to them.

Rashi: And they shall fly of one accord against the Philistines in the west: Heb. בְכָתֵף. Israel will fly and run of one accord against the Philistines who are in the west of Eretz Israel and conquer their land. [כָּתֵף, lit. a shoulder, is used in this case to denote unity. The word שֶׁכֶם, also lit. a shoulder, is used in a similar sense.] Comp. (Hoshea 6:9) “They murder on the way in unison (שֶׁכְמָה) ”; (Zeph. 3:9) “One accord (שְׁכֶם אֶחָד).” And so did Jonathan rendered it: And they shall join in one accord to smite the Philistines who are in the west.

and the children of Ammon shall obey them: As the Targum states: Will hearken to them. They will accept their commandments over them.

15 And Adonai shall put under the ban the tongue of the Sea of Mitsrayim, and He shall wave His hand over the River with the might of His Spirit, and shall strike it in the seven streams, and shall cause men to tread it in sandals.

Rashi: And… shall dry up: [lit. shall cut off] to dry it, so that the exiles of Israel will pass through it from Egypt.

over the river: The Euphrates River, for the exiles from Assyria to cross.

with the strength of His wind: Heb. בַּעְיָם. This is hapax legomenon in Scripture, and according to the context it can be interpreted as “with the strength of His wind.”

into seven streams: into seven segments, for the aforementioned seven exiles: from Assyria and from Egypt, etc. Those from the islands of the sea are not from that side.

and He shall lead: the exiles within it.

with shoes: on dry land.

16 And there shall be a highway for the remnant of His people, those left from Ashshur, as it was for Yisra’ěl in the day when he came up from the land of Mitsrayim.

Rashi: And there shall be a highway: in the midst of the water for the remnant of His people.

Please Judah if a righteous gentile tries ‘to grasp your ‘tsi-sit’ and say:  "Let me go with you, for I have heard that God is with you." Open your heart for him/her and share all our Torah. The Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu as it is written and spared and is teaches in the Tanach and all scripture of Rabbinical Judaism………

Read my story: 

Ariel your Representee, Representee of Ephraim and adviser (not a rabbi but friendly adviser) of Bet Yisrael international on the Har HaBayit.

click: Welcome To Beit Yisrael

Beit Yisrael International (Ephraim, The Lost sheep from the House of Israel), Meditate and Realization of Chassidut Torah Teachings – The Strong foundation is based on Chabad teachings ( i.e The purpose of creation is to Bringing Heavens Down to Earth and to make Most High a dwelling place here on earth) and its pillars is based on the true concept of the Breslov Teachings ( in the context of Seventh Pillar of Tzaddik ) by following the Jewish Halacha Principles of Shulchan Aruch Halacha.

The Global Community Torah (sefaria.org)

Your Gift. Your Impact.

When you give to Sefaria, you’re powering a living library of more than 3,000 years of Jewish texts. Donate today and support the future of Jewish learning, innovation, and conversation.

CHABAD LUBAVITCH

About Chabad-LubavitchThe RebbeThe OhelChabad-Lubavitch NewsChabad Locator

Donate to ChaBaD

 click:

LEARN HOW TO READ THE BIBLE IN HEBREW ONCE AND FOR ALL

click:

Ulpan and Hebrew Learning Resources Online

Petition click: 1 Million for a Jewish Temple Mount!

It should be most honest:

'Israeli MK proposes dividing Temple Mount between Jews and Muslims

**AMIT HALEVI'S PLAN WOULD GIVE MUSLIMS CONTROL OF THE SOUTHERN END OF THE TEMPLE MOUNT COMPLEX, WHICH CONTAINS THE AL-AQSA MOSQUE, WHILE JEWS WOULD RECEIVE THE CENTRAL AND NORTHERN AREAS.

(JUNE 8, 2023 / JNS)**

A Likud lawmaker is proposing a plan to divide Jerusalem’s Temple Mount between Muslims and Jews and to remove Jordan’s custodial status over the holy site.

Speaking to the Zman Yisrael Hebrew news site, Knesset member Amit Halevi outlined a plan whereby Muslims would control the southern end of the 37-acre complex which contains the Al-Aqsa mosque, while Jews would receive the central and northern area, where the Dome of the Rock sits.

According to Halevi, the reorganization makes sense from a religious point of view because that part of the Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism, where it is believed the First and Second Temples stood. The Foundation Stone at the center of the Dome of the Rock is where Jewish sources place the Holy of Holies.

“This is the place of the First Temple and the place of the Second Temple built by Babylonian immigrants. No one needs to examine the stones to know that it is ours,” he said.

Halevi also wants to end Israel’s agreement with the Jordanian Waqf whereby the Islamic trust controls and manages Islamic edifices on the Temple Mount.

“Why not give them status in the Dizengoff Center [a large shopping mall in Tel Aviv] as well? This is a terrible mistake. This status should be abolished. I know it’s an agreement between countries, but we have to deal with it. It requires change, even if the process will take time,” he said.

In addition, Halevi wants to give Jews the same access to the Temple Mount enjoyed by Muslims. Currently, the Waqf only allows Jews and non-Muslim tourists access to the Temple Mount via the Maghrebi Gate and only at certain hours when the gate is open.

“We will take the northern end and pray there. The entire mountain is sacred to us, and the Dome of the Rock is the place on which the Temple stood. This should be our guideline,” he said. “Israel is leading. It will be a historical, religious and national statement. If this does not happen then you are not actually the owner of the house. You are a klutz. Why are you even going in there?”

Source: https://www.jns.org/israel-news/jerusalem/23/6/8/293752/

Please let we all, Jews and all their friends, take the Har HaBayit and start building the Temple and restoring her service?

כִּ֤י אִם־הֵיטֵיב֙ תֵּיטִ֔יבוּ אֶת־דַּרְכֵיכֶ֖ם וְאֶת־מַעַלְלֵיכֶ֑ם אִם־עָשׂ֤וֹ תַֽעֲשׂוּ֙ מִשְׁפָּ֔ט בֵּ֥ין אִ֖ישׁ וּבֵ֥ין רֵעֵֽהוּ׃

No, if you really mend your ways and your actions; if you execute justice between one party and another;

גֵּ֣ר יָת֤וֹם וְאַלְמָנָה֙ לֹ֣א תַעֲשֹׁ֔קוּ וְדָ֣ם נָקִ֔י אַֽל־תִּשְׁפְּכ֖וּ בַּמָּק֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה וְאַחֲרֵ֨י אֱלֹהִ֧ים אֲחֵרִ֛ים לֹ֥א תֵלְכ֖וּ לְרַ֥ע לָכֶֽם׃

if you do not oppress the stranger, the orphan, and the widow; if you do not shed the blood of the innocent in this place; if you do not follow other gods, to your own hurt—

וְשִׁכַּנְתִּ֤י אֶתְכֶם֙ בַּמָּק֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה בָּאָ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָתַ֖תִּי לַאֲבוֹתֵיכֶ֑ם לְמִן־עוֹלָ֖ם וְעַד־עוֹלָֽם׃

then only will I let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your ancestors for all time.

Ariel your Representee, Representee of Ephraim and adviser (not a rabbi but friendly adviser) of Bet Yisrael international on the Har HaBayit.

click:

Purchasing Tefillin - A Buyer’s Guide