diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Ahavah/Mishneh Torah, Circumcision/English/Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Ahavah/Mishneh Torah, Circumcision/English/Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4daeef750e5aa75c3f0cd7978940da94e8b5c12a --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Ahavah/Mishneh Torah, Circumcision/English/Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007.json @@ -0,0 +1,74 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Circumcision", + "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI", + "versionTitle": "Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007", + "status": "locked", + "priority": 3.0, + "license": "CC-BY-NC", + "versionNotes": "\n Dedicated in memory of Irving Montak, z\"l

© Published and Copyright by Moznaim Publications.
Must obtain written permission from Moznaim Publications for any commercial use. Any use must cite Copyright by Moznaim Publications. Released into the commons with a CC-BY-NC license.\n ", + "digitizedBySefaria": false, + "shortVersionTitle": "Trans. by Eliyahu Touger, Moznaim Publishing", + "purchaseInformationImage": "https://storage.googleapis.com/sefaria-physical-editions/touger-mishneh-torah-hilkhot-teshuvah-purchase-img.png", + "purchaseInformationURL": "https://moznaim.com/products/mishneh-torah-rambam", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": false, + "isSource": false, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות מילה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Ahavah" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "Circumcision is a positive mitzvah1Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 215) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 2) consider this one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. [whose lack of fulfillment] is punishable by2Circumcision and the Paschal sacrifices are the only positive commandments for which the Torah prescribes punishment if they are not fulfilled. In both instances, the punishment is the same (karet). karet,3Premature death at the hand of God (Mo'ed Katan 28a) and a severe spiritual punishment, the \"soul's being cut off,\" and not being granted a share in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1,5). as [Genesis 17:14] states: \"And an uncircumcised male who does not circumcise his foreskin - this soul will be cut off from his people.\"4The citation of the verse from Genesis is significant. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Chulin 7:6), the Rambam writes that our fulfillment of this mitzvah is not based on God's commandment to Abraham, but rather on the commandment issued to Moses (Leviticus 12:3), \"On the eighth day, the child's foreskin will be circumcised.\" Nevertheless, the commandment to Abraham is still significant, and many particulars concerning circumcision are derived from it.
A father5and not a mother (Kiddushin 29a) is commanded to circumcise his son,6Although when the son reaches the age of bar mitzvah, he is obligated by the mitzvah. Until that time, the father is responsible for the fulfillment of the mitzvah.
The Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 2) questions the extent of the father's responsibility. If the father does not circumcise his son before the latter reaches majority, is the father still charged with the mitzvah (together with the son) or is the son solely responsible for the mitzvah?
Likkutei Sichot (Vol. 11) explains that the question is dependent on a difference of opinion between the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. The Babylonian Talmud (Kiddushin 29a) derives the mitzvah from the verse (Genesis 21:4), \"And Avraham circumcised his son, Isaac.\" This indicates that the mitzvah is primarily the father's (although after the son reaches adulthood, he also becomes responsible). In contrast, the Jerusalem Talmud (Kiddushin 1:7) quotes as a proof-text for the mitzvah (Leviticus 12:3), \"On the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.\" The Korban Eidah explains that this implies the mitzvah is the son's. Since he is not able to perform it himself as a youth, however, his father is given the responsibility while the child is a minor.
Likkutei Sichot continues, explaining that the Rambam's position is obvious from his discussion of the blessings recited for the mitzvot in Hilchot Berachot, Chapter 11. In Halachah 11 of that chapter, the Rambam explains that if one performs a mitzvah on one's own behalf, one should use the form, \"who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to....\" In contrast, if one performs a mitzvah on behalf of another person, one uses the form, \"... and commanded us concerning....\"
Rav Yitzchak ben Sheshet (Responsum 131) notes that the Rambam (Hilchot Bikkurim 11:5) rules that one should recite the blessing \"...concerning the redemption of a son,\" implying that the mitzvah is not the father's, but the son's (merely that as an infant, the son cannot fulfill it). In contrast, in Chapter 3, Halachah 1, the Rambam states that a father should recite the blessing \"... to circumcise...,\" implying that the mitzvah is his.
and a master, his slaves.7Here, the responsibility for the mitzvah is surely the master's. This circumcision is one of the stages in the process by which the slave attains the status of eved C'na'ani, an intermediate rung between a gentile and a Jew. He is obligated to fulfill all the negative commandments and all those positive commandments that are not associated with a specific time. (See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 12:11.) This applies both to those who are born in his home8i.e., a non-Jewish maidservant gave birth to a male child and to those purchased by him.9See Genesis 17:27, which relates that Abraham circumcised both these categories of servants. If the father or the master transgressed and did not circumcise them, he negated the fulfillment of a positive commandment.10Note the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 19:6):
If a person transgressed and did not circumcise his son or his servants born in his home... on the eighth day, he transgresses a very great and severe mitzvah, to which there is no comparison among the other mitzvot. He can never compensate for [the lack of fulfillment of] this mitzvah. His sin is much more severe than a person who did not build a sukkah on Sukkot, or one who did not eat matzah on Pesach.
He is not, however, punished by karet, for karet is incurred only by the uncircumcised person himself.11This is obvious from the proof-text quoted above. The court is obligated to circumcise that son12Although when the son reaches the age of bar mitzvah, he is obligated by the mitzvah. Until that time, the father is responsible for the fulfillment of the mitzvah.
The Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 2) questions the extent of the father's responsibility. If the father does not circumcise his son before the latter reaches majority, is the father still charged with the mitzvah (together with the son) or is the son solely responsible for the mitzvah?
Likkutei Sichot (Vol. 11) explains that the question is dependent on a difference of opinion between the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. The Babylonian Talmud (Kiddushin 29a) derives the mitzvah from the verse (Genesis 21:4 , \"And Avraham circumcised his son, Isaac.\" This indicates that the mitzvah is primarily the father's (although after the son reaches adulthood, he also becomes responsible). In contrast, the Jerusalem Talmud (Kiddushin 1:7) quotes as a proof-text for the mitzvah (Leviticus 12:3 , \"On the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.\" The Korban Eidah explains that this implies the mitzvah is the son's. Since he is not able to perform it himself as a youth, however, his father is given the responsibility while the child is a minor.
Likkutei Sichot continues, explaining that the Rambam's position is obvious from his discussion of the blessings recited for the mitzvot in Hilchot Berachot, Chapter 11. In Halachah 11 of that chapter, the Rambam explains that if one performs a mitzvah on one's own behalf, one should use the form, \"who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us
or slave at the proper time and should not leave an uncircumcised male among the Jewish people or their slaves.13Kiddushin, loc. cit., interprets Genesis 17:10, \"You must circumcise every male,\" as a charge to the Jewish court, making them responsible for circumcising every member of the people.", + "We may not circumcise a person's son without his knowledge,1See Hilchot Chovel UMazik 7:13-14, where the Rambam describes the prohibition against \"stealing\" the performance of a mitzvah from a colleague, and the fine of ten gold pieces for doing so. The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 382:1) explicitly associates this concept with circumcising a person's son without his knowledge. unless he has transgressed and did not circumcise him.2The Rambam's phraseology has raised questions among the halachic authorities. Is his intent that once the father has allowed the eighth day to pass, the obligation falls on the court, or is his intent that only after the father makes it obvious that he does not want to circumcise his son that they become responsible? Similarly, the question has been raised what should be done if the father is unaware that a son has been born to him, or is prevented from carrying out the circumcision by factors beyond his control. Should the circumcision be carried out on the eighth day, or should the family wait until the father returns? See Avnei Nezer (Yoreh De'ah, Responsum 318) and Rav Kapach's commentary. [In such an instance,] the court must circumcise3the obligation mentioned in the previous halachah falls upon them [the child] against [the father's] will.4Even if he protests, the mitzvah should be performed.
If the matter does not become known to the court and they do not circumcise him, when [the child] reaches bar mitzvah, he is obligated to circumcise himself.5Tzafenat Paneach explains that there are three aspects to the mitzvah of circumcision:
a) to remove the foreskin;b) to be circumcised;c) not to be uncircumcised. (See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.)< /p>
The first aspect involves a single deed. The second and third dimensions, however, are ongoing qualities that a person continues to possess even after the deed of circumcision is completed. Thus, the Or Zarua quotes Menachot 43b, which relates that when King David entered the bathhouse, he was upset for he was \"naked,\" without mitzvot. When he remembered that he was circumcised, he relaxed, realizing that he was still involved with the performance of a mitzvah.
This indicates that, even years after his circumcision, he was considered to be fulfilling the mitzvah. In contrast, with regard to the mitzvot of tefillin and tzitzit, although he had just removed them, he was no longer considered to be involved in the performance of these mitzvot.
With each and every day that passes after he has reached bar mitzvah, he negates a positive commandment.6Some of the manuscript editions of the Mishneh Torah state, \"It is as if he negates a commandment.\" The mitzvah of circumcision is not negated until the person dies without fulfilling it. Unlike tefillin or tzitzit, where each day a person performs a different mitzvah, there is only one mitzvah of circumcision (Rav Kapach). He is not, however, liable for karet until he dies uncircumcised,7As mentioned above, there are two dimensions to the punishment of karet: premature death and the cutting off of the soul. According to the Rambam, a person who does not circumcise himself is liable only for the second aspect of this punishment, since until he dies, it is not known whether he will perform the mitzvah or not (Kessef Mishneh).
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's statements, stating that each day he does not perform the mitzvah, he is liable for karet and is worthy of premature death. (Even according to the Ra'avad, were the person to circumcise himself, he would no longer be liable for karet).
having intentionally8but not if he was unaware of the mitzvah or was prevented from fulfilling it by forces beyond his control [failed to perform the mitzvah].9The Rambam's phraseology raises the question whether a person is liable for karet if he initially failed to perform the mitzvah intentionally, and then was prevented from fulfilling it by forces beyond his control.", + "A master is obligated to circumcise both a slave who was born as the property of a Jewish owner1i.e., the \"home-born slave\" mentioned in Genesis 17:12 and a slave purchased from the gentiles.2Such servants are also mentioned in the above verse. [There is, however, a difference between the two.] A home-born slave should be circumcised on the eighth day [of his life].3as is a Jewish child. The above verse states that \"all those born in your house\" - i.e., also slaves - should be circumcised on the eighth day (Rashi, Shabbat 135b). In contrast, a slave who is purchased should be circumcised on the day he was purchased.4Since Genesis 17:13 repeats the commandment, \"Circumcise all home-born [slaves] and those purchased with your money,\" we can assume that there are slaves who are to be circumcised immediately (Rashi, loc. cit.). If he was purchased on the day he was born, he should be circumcised on that day.5provided, of course, that the surgery will not affect the infant's health. (Note the Guide to the Perplexed, Vol. III, Chapter 49, which explains that both physically and spiritually, a child is not prepared for circumcision until the eighth day.)", + "There are, however,1certain exceptions to the rules mentioned in the previous halachah that are also mentioned in Shabbat 135b. There are some slaves that are purchased who should be circumcised on the eighth day [of their lives],2as explained in this halachah and3some home-born slaves who should be circumcised on the day they are born.4as explained in the following halachah.
What is implied? Should one purchase a maidservant and purchase [the rights to] her fetus [separately],5This is possible when the maidservant herself belonged to one master and the fetus to another (Rambam in his responsa). when she gives birth, the baby should be circumcised on the eighth day. Although the fetus itself was purchased separately, since [the master] purchased his mother before the child was born,6the child is considered \"home-born\" and he should be circumcised on his eighth day.7The Kessef Mishneh relates that, according to the Rambam, even if the master at first purchased only the rights to the fetus, and then purchased the mother, since she gave birth while in his domain, the slave is considered \"home-born,\" and is circumcised on the eighth day.", + "If a person purchased a maidservant for her offspring,1In his responsum cited above, the Rambam compares this to a person who buys a tree for its fruit - i.e., he is not the actual owner of the tree, but is entitled to all the fruit it produces. Similarly, in this instance, the master is not the owner of the maidservant; what he has purchased is the right to her offspring. Therefore, none of the offspring are considered \"home-born,\" and must be circumcised immediately. or purchased a maidservant with the intent of not immersing her as a slave,2Through immersion in a mikveh, a female maidservant becomes a shifchah C'na'anit and attains the intermediate status mentioned in the Commentary on Halachah 1.
As the Rambam mentions in the following halachah, it is possible to purchase a gentile slave and maintain possession of him or her without changing his or her status in the above manner.
even though her offspring is born in his domain, the child should be circumcised on the day he was born.3The first instance mentioned does not require explanation. With regard to the second category, the Rambam elaborates:
[This ruling was granted, because] this child is considered as if he alone has been purchased [by his master], and it is as if he purchased him this day. His mother is not included among the maidservants of the Jewish people, so that the child could be considered \"home-born.\"4In the responsum cited above, the Rambam explains that the concept of a \"home-born\" slave is derived from God's commandment to Abraham. All the members of Abraham's household had accepted his beliefs and way of life. In contrast, a slave who is unwilling to accept the mitzvot cannot be considered part of a Jewish household, and her children are not \"home-born.\" If his mother immersed herself after she gave birth,5This shows that the stipulation that she need not be immersed (see the following halachah) is nullified and considered of no consequence. Therefore, she is considered to be part of the household, and the child should be circumcised on the eighth day.6The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's decision and maintains that unless the mother immerses herself before giving birth, the child should be circumcised immediately. Rabbenu Nissim, in his notes to Shabbat 135b, supports the Rambam's decision, explaining that the Sages did not reach a final ruling on the matter, and hence the more stringent approach should be taken.", + "When a person purchases a slave from the gentiles and the slave does not consent1Note the difference of opinion in Yevamot 48b, whether this leniency is granted if the slave refuses outright to be circumcised. to be circumcised, we may be patient with him for twelve months.2lest he change his mind and accept his status within the Jewish people. It is forbidden to maintain him for any longer period while he remains uncircumcised, and one must sell him to gentiles.3He must, however, agree to accept the seven universal laws mentioned below. Otherwise, he should be slain (Kessef Mishneh).
If, at the outset, while the slave was still in the possession of his gentile master, he made a stipulation that he would not be circumcised,4Rav Kapach maintains that the stipulation was made by the slave's master. Since the slave is considered to be chattel, his own say is of no concern. it is permissible to maintain him although he is not circumcised, provided he accepts the seven universal laws commanded to the descendants of Noah5The prohibitions against idol worship, cursing God, murder, theft, adultery, eating flesh taken from a living animal, and the obligation to establish a court system. (See Hilchot Melachim 9:1-2.) and becomes a resident alien.6In Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:6, the Rambam writes that it is forbidden to allow gentiles who do not accept these seven laws to dwell in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, a gentile who does is called a resident alien - i.e., a non-Jew who may dwell among us.
If he refuses to accept these seven laws,7The slave must formally accept the performance of these mitzvot in the presence of a Rabbinic court. he should be killed immediately.8The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam's decision depends on his statement (Hilchot Melachim 8:9) that we must do everything in our power to influence the gentiles to observe these seven laws.
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's statement, explaining that in the present era, we may not kill any gentiles for refusing to observe these seven laws. The commentaries differ whether the Rambam would accept the Ra'avad's decision (and his statement here is, like many of the other laws he states, reflective of the Messianic era), or whether permission is granted to kill a slave for refusing to follow these laws in the present age as well.
A resident alien may be accepted only in the era when the laws of yovel9The Jubilee year are in effect.10The Jubilee must be observed only when the entire Jewish people are dwelling in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, when the tribes of Reuven and Gad and half the tribe of Menasheh were exiled by the kingdom of Assyria (see II Kings, Chapter 16), the observance of the Jubilee was nullified (Hilchot Shemitah V'Yovel 10:8).", + "When a convert enters the congregation of Israel, he is obligated to undergo circumcision first.1Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 13:1-4 states:
With three acts, Israel entered into a covenant [with God]: circumcision, immersion [in the mikveh], and [the offering of] sacrifices.... Similarly, with regard to future generations, when a gentile wants to enter into the covenant, take refuge under the wings of the Divine Presence, and accept the yoke of the Torah, he must undergo circumcision, immersion, and the offering of a sacrifice.
The phrase \"accept the yoke of the Torah\" indicates that before performing these deeds, the prospective convert must resolve to fulfill the mitzvot.
If he had been circumcised while he was a gentile,2and not by a Jew for the purpose of conversion. Note Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 13:7 which relates that even if a gentile circumcises himself for the purpose of conversion, it is insufficient. it is necessary to extract the blood of the covenant3a superficial cut is made on the shaft of the penis, and a small amount of blood extracted.
The expression \"blood of the covenant\" is derived from the interpretation of Exodus 24:8, \"This is the blood of the covenant which God established with you,\" in certain texts of Nedarim 31b and the Mechilta's interpretation of Zechariah 9:11, \"Because of the blood of your covenant, I have sent forth your prisoners from the pit.\"
on the day that he converts.4The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 268:2) states that one should wait until the wound of the circumcision is completely healed before immersing in the mikveh and completing the process of conversion.
Similarly, a child who was born without a foreskin5Our Sages mention this as a sign of a high spiritual level, citing Moses and Shem (Noah's son) as examples of children born without a foreskin. must have blood extracted for circumcision6Were we to be sure the child did not have a foreskin, there would be no need for the extraction of blood. The blood is extracted lest the child have a thin foreskin that is not readily noticeable (Shabbat 135a). Note the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 263:4), which requires the extraction of blood and states that we must inspect such a child carefully - but gently - to see whether he possesses a thin foreskin or not. (Perhaps the expression \"thin foreskin\" refers to the membrane removed by pri'ah.)
It must be noted that there are Rishonim (see Rashi,Shabbat 134a) who maintain that the extraction of the \"blood of the covenant\" is not a by-product of a search for a thin membrane, but rather serves an independent purpose: The Jews' covenant with God is established through their blood.
on the eighth day.7Note Chapter 3, Halachah 6, which states that a blessing is not recited for this activity.
The Ramah mentions several other instances when blood must be extracted: a child who was circumcised before the eighth day (Yoreh De'ah 262:1), circumcised at night ( loc. cit.), or circumcised by a gentile ( loc. cit., 264:1) should have blood extracted for the sake of fulfilling the mitzvah. (Note also the commentary on Chapter 2, Halachah 1.)
An androgynous, a child with both male and female sexual organs,8Androgynous is a combination of the Greek words meaning \"man\" and \"woman.\" (See Hilchot Ishut 2:24.) Note also Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 12:4, which states:
The status of a tumtum and an androgynous is doubtful. Therefore, the stringencies of both a man and a woman are applied to them, and they are obligated by all [the mitzvot]. If, however, they transgress, they are not [punished by] lashing.
Because of this unique status, an androgynous
must be circumcised on the eighth day.9lest he be obligated to undergo circumcision.
See Tiferet Yisrael (Shabbat 19:3), who writes:
There are those who say there is no such thing as an androgynous. Their statements are false.... I beheld such a phenomenon with my own eyes. Twelve years ago, I myself circumcised a child with this condition.
Similarly, a child born by Caesarian section10Shabbat 135a explains as follows: The commandment for circumcision on the eighth day (Leviticus 12:3 is stated directly after the verse that relates that a woman who gives birth becomes ritually impure. Since a woman does not contract ritual impurity when she gives birth by Caesarian section, one might think that the child need not be circumcised on the eighth day. Therefore, the Rambam clarified the matter. (See also Halachah 11.) and a child who has two foreskins11This refers to a birth abnormality. Rashi (Shabbat 135b) mentions two interpretations: a person with a single penis that is covered by two foreskins; alternatively, a person with two penises. should both be circumcised on the eighth day.12Nevertheless, as explained in Halachah 11, none of the individuals mentioned in this halachah are circumcised on the eighth day if it falls on the Sabbath.", + "Circumcision is performed only during the day,1This applies to all circumcisions - those of children, servants, and converts after the rising of the sun,2This refers to הנץ החמה, the rising of the sun on the horizon. as [Leviticus 12:3] states, \"On the eighth day...,\" i.e., during the day,3only, and not at night.4In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Megillah 2:4), the Rambam writes that the day extends from dawn to the appearance of the stars. It is preferable, however, to perform all acts that must be carried out during the day after the rising of the sun.
Although according to the Rambam, the day extends until the appearance of the stars, circumcision should be carried out before sunset (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 266:9).
The proof-text quoted mentions the eighth day. Nevertheless, Yevamot 72b uses the rules of Biblical exegesis to demonstrate that
[This applies to a circumcision performed] at the appropriate time, the eighth day [after birth], and [to a circumcision performed] after the appropriate time, from the ninth day and onward.
If one performed the circumcision5alot hashachar, the appearance of the first rays of the sun, approximately an hour before the sun itself actually appears on the horizon. after dawn, it is acceptable. It is acceptable [at any time] throughout the entire day. Nevertheless, it is a mitzvah to [perform the circumcision] early, in the beginning of the day, since \"the eager perform mitzvot early.\"6Pesachim 4a derives this concept from the description in Genesis 22:3 of Abraham's rising early in the morning to perform the akedah.", + "When a circumcision [is performed] at its appropriate time,1on the eighth day. [its performance] supersedes [the prohibition against labor]2Cutting off the foreskin is otherwise forbidden because it causes bleeding (Hilchot Shabbat 8:7-8). on the Sabbath. When it [is] not [performed] at its appropriate time, [its performance] does not supersede [the prohibition against labor] on the Sabbath3Shabbat 132a relates that the verse, \"On the eighth day, the child's foreskin will be circumcised,\" is a Torah decree, requiring circumcision on the eighth day regardless of the day on which it falls. or the festivals.4The observance of the Sabbath and festivals involves both a positive and negative commandment. Therefore, circumcision, which is merely a positive commandment, does not supersede their observance. Whether or not it is performed at its appropriate time,5Note Rav Kapach, who asks how is it possible for a sign of tzara'at to be already definitely determined as such by the eighth day of a child's life. [its performance] supersedes [the prohibition against removing signs of] tzara'at.6Tzara'at is a skin condition resembling leprosy. Deuteronomy 24:8 forbids removing such a mark, and Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 308) considers this to be one of the 365 prohibitions of the Torah. (See also Hilchot Tum'at Tzara'at, Chapter 10.)
What is implied? If there was a sign of tzara'at on the foreskin, it may be cut off with the foreskin. Although there is a prohibition against cutting off the signs of tzara'at, the performance of a positive commandment supersedes the observance of a negative commandment.7In contrast to the permission granted to circumcise on the Sabbath, this is not an exception made with regard to circumcision, but rather a general rule that applies throughout Torah law (see Hilchot Tzitzit 3:6).", + "Just as the circumcision of sons supersedes [the prohibitions against labor on] the Sabbath, so too, the circumcision of those slaves who are circumcised on the eighth day [of their lives]1The \"home-born\" slaves mentioned in Halachot 3-4. In contrast, slaves who were purchased, and therefore should be circumcised on the day they were purchased (or born), should not be circumcised on the Sabbath. supersedes [the prohibitions against labor on] the Sabbath when the eighth day [of their life] falls on the Sabbath.2Kiryat Melech cites Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 29, which relates that Abraham circumcised all his servants on Yom Kippur.
Significantly, Rabbenu Yerucham differs, and writes that only the circumcisions of Jews, and not of their servants, supersedes the Sabbath prohibitions. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 267:2) quotes the Rambam's view.
There is [one] exception3a slave whose mother did not immerse herself until after she gave birth. - See Halachah 5 and commentary. - a slave whose mother did not immerse herself until after she gave birth. Although such a slave is circumcised on the eighth day, his circumcision does not supersede [the prohibitions against labor on] the Sabbath.4When the eighth day of such a person's life falls on the Sabbath, he is circumcised on Sunday, the ninth day of his life.", + "[The circumcision of the following individuals] does not supersede [the prohibitions against labor on] the Sabbath:
a child who was born without a foreskin;
a1Since, as stated in Halachah 7, the blood is extracted from him only because of a suspicion that he has a hidden foreskin, this activity does not supersede the Sabbath prohibitions. child who was born in the eighth month of pregnancy before his development was completed; he is considered to be a stillborn, for he will not live;
a2As explained in Halachah 13, the circumcision is not carried out on the eighth day because of the probability that the child will not live. child born by Caesarian section;
an3See Halachah 7. androgynous; and
a person with two foreskins.4because we are unsure of the nature of the obligation of circumcision in these instances.
These individuals are circumcised on [the following] Sunday, the ninth day of their lives.5They should not be circumcised before the eighth day.", + "When a child is born beyn hash'mashot,1the period between sunset and the appearance of three stars. (See Hilchot Shabbat 5:4.) which is a period when it is undetermined whether it is considered day or night, we count from the night,2Were we to count from the day, it is possible that the circumcision would be carried out before the proper time. and he is circumcised on the ninth day [following the day he was born], which could be the eighth day.3The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 262:7) states that night depends on the appearance of three stars, and not on when the evening service is recited.
When a child is born beyn hash'mashot on Friday,4he should not be circumcised on the following Friday, as explained above. Nor should he be circumcised on the following Sabbath (although it is the ninth day of his life), since his circumcision does not supersede the Sabbath prohibitions, because the Sabbath prohibitions are never superseded because of a doubtful situation. Rather, he should be circumcised on [the following] Sunday.5Thus, he is circumcised on the 10th day of his life. (See Shabbat 19:5.)", + "[The following principles apply when] a child is born in the eighth month [of pregnancy]:1The comprehension of this and the following halachah are dependent on the following two Talmudic passages:
[The prohibitions against labor on] the Sabbath are superseded for [the circumcision of a child] born in the seventh month, but not for a child born in the eighth month (Shabbat 135a).
A child born in the eighth month is like a stone and may not be carried [on the Sabbath]. His mother may, however, lean over him and nurse him....
Rabbi states: [This is when] his physical features reflect his [lack of development]; i.e., when his hair and nails are not completely formed.
[Rabbi's statements imply that] if [his hair and nails] are completely formed, he is a baby that should have been born in the seventh month, but whose birth was delayed (Yevamot 80b).
From these passages, it appears that the Sages considered that there were two periods of gestation that could produce healthy babies, a seven-month period and a nine-month period. Therefore, a baby who was born in the seventh month was considered to be healthy, and circumcision could be performed on the Sabbath.
In contrast, a baby born in the eighth month was generally considered to be unhealthy. Not only was the baby not to be circumcised on the Sabbath, but moving it at all was forbidden. Since it was likely to die, it was considered to be muktzeh. If, however, a baby born in the eighth month looks healthy, we assume that it should have been born in the seventh month, but its birth was delayed. Therefore, it is considered a healthy baby and it may be circumcised on the Sabbath.
We have used the past tense in the above explanation, because these laws are no longer practiced, and all babies are allowed to be moved on the Sabbath. Tosafot, Shabbat, loc. cit., state that at present, it is no longer possible to determine exactly when a child was conceived, and we therefore do not know the month of pregnancy the mother was in. Furthermore, the advances in medical technology have enabled the lives of many premature babies to be saved despite the fact that, without these new developments, these babies would surely not have survived. At present, it is considered a mitzvah to try to save the lives of any premature babies, even if doing so involves carrying out forbidden labors on the Sabbath.
Also, it must be emphasized that, as stated in Halachot 16-18, a child is circumcised only when it is healthy and there is no danger involved. This is surely relevant with regard to premature infants. Rarely, if ever, would a doctor grant permission for such a baby to be circumcised on the eighth day of his life.
If the child's nails and hair are completely formed, we assume that this is a completely formed infant that should have been born in the seventh month, but whose birth was delayed. Hence, the baby may be carried on the Sabbath, is not considered to be a stone, and may be circumcised on the Sabbath.
If, however, when the baby was born, its hair and nails were incompletely formed, we can be certain that this child is in its eighth month of development and should not have been born until the ninth month, but was born prematurely. Therefore, he is considered as a stone and may not be moved on the Sabbath.
Nevertheless, if such an infant remains alive for thirty days, he is considered to be a child who will live and is governed by all the same rules as other infants.2Among the ramifications of this decision are that the child's mother is free of the obligations of yibbum and chalitzah. (See Hilchot Yibbum 1:5.)
Whenever a human child lives longer than thirty days, it is no longer considered to be a stillborn.", + "[The following rules apply when] a child is born in the seventh month of gestation: If a child is born with his limbs completely formed,3Our translation is based on the commentary of the Maggid Mishneh, Hilchot Yibbum 1:5. According to this interpretation, the child's hair and nails need not be completely formed. The Kessef Mishneh offers a different interpretation. Significantly, however, in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 266:11), Rav Yosef Karo accepts the Maggid Mishneh's interpretation. we assume that he will live and he should be circumcised on the eighth day [even if it falls on the Sabbath].
If there is a question whether a child4According to the Maggid Mishneh's interpretation mentioned above, this refers to an instance when the child's limbs are completely formed, but his hair and nails are not. The date of his birth, however, creates a problem, because he appears to have been born in the eighth month.
[With regard to this law, the Shulchan Aruch ( loc. cit.) does not accept the Maggid Mishneh's interpretation. It is, however, quoted by the Ramah.]
was born in the seventh month or in the eighth month, he can be circumcised on the Sabbath. The rationale is: If he was born in the seventh month and his limbs are completely formed, it is appropriate that [his circumcision] supersede [the prohibitions against labor on] the Sabbath. If he was born in the eighth month, circumcising him [does not constitute a violation of the Sabbath prohibitions].5This rationale is not used to allow the circumcision of a child who was definitely born in the eighth month, because the Rabbinic prohibition of muktzeh is in effect. Although the Sages did not enforce that prohibition in a case of doubt (the present halachah), they did apply it when no doubt about the period of gestation exists (the previous halachah).
It is like cutting meat, because he is like a stillborn if he is, in fact, born in the eighth month.", + "When a child's head emerges from his mother's birth canal beyn hash'mashot on Friday, but his entire body does not emerge until after the Sabbath night [has commenced], the child should not be circumcised on the Sabbath.6Niddah 42b relates that the time when a child's head emerges is considered the hour of birth.
Whenever a child's circumcision does not supersede the Sabbath prohibitions, [such circumcision] also does not supersede the prohibitions of the first day of a festival.7See Halachah 9, which equates circumcision on festivals to circumcision on the Sabbath. In this halachah, the Rambam is adding that the prohibition against circumcision on the eighth day when it falls on the Sabbath in the various instances mentioned in Halachot 11-13 also applies on festivals. It does, however, supersede the prohibitions of the second day of a festival.8Since the celebration of the second day of a festival is only Rabbinic in origin, the fulfillment of the mitzvah of circumcision takes priority.
This represents the Rambam's view. Rabbenu Asher differs and maintains that only a circumcision that would be performed on the eighth day, were it to fall on the Sabbath, should be performed on the second day of a festival. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 266:8) quotes Rabbenu Asher's view, while the Siftei Cohen 266:8 follows the Rambam's position. [Significantly, the Noda biYhudah (Orach Chayim, Responsum 30) and the Chatam Sofer (Yoreh De'ah, Responsum 250) interpret the difference of opinion between the Rambam and Rabbenu Asher as applying only when the circumcision is definitely not being performed on the eighth day. (See notes 10 and 11.) According to their view, even Rabbenu Asher agrees that when a child is born during beyn hash'mashot eight days before the second day of a festival, he may be circumcised on that second day of the festival.
On Rosh HaShanah, however, it does not supersede [the prohibitions] of either the first or the second day.9As explained in Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 1:21-24, the rules governing the celebration of the second day of Rosh HaShanah differ from those governing the celebration of the second days of other festivals. The two days of Rosh HaShanah share the same level of holiness, and all the prohibitions that apply on the first day apply on the second, with the exception of the laws of burial. (See also Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 5:7-8.)Thus, if a child was born during beyn hash'mashot a week before Rosh HaShanah in a year when the two days of Rosh HaShanah are followed by the Sabbath, the child is not circumcised until the twelfth day of his life (Shabbat 19:5). Similarly, a circumcision that is not carried out at the appropriate time10This refers to instances when a child was sick and the circumcision was delayed, and the like. does not supersede [the prohibitions of either of] the two days of Rosh HaShanah.11From the Rambam's phraseology, it appears that he allows such circumcisions to be carried out on the second day of other festivals. See note 8.", + "A sick person1This applies not only to children who are circumcised on the eighth day of their lives, but also to those (e.g., converts or slaves) who are circumcised when they are older. should not be circumcised until he regains his health.2lest the child's life be endangered. (See Halachah 18.) Seven full days should be counted from the time he regains his health until he is circumcised.3In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 19:5), the Rambam writes:
Until he fully recovers from his illness and the weakness from his sickness passes. He should wait seven days from the time the weakness passes.... Only afterwards, should he be circumcised.
Thus, we see that the Rambam intends that the person to be circumcised fully regain his health, and then wait an additional seven days.

When does the above apply? When he recovers from high fever4Our translation is based on the Kessef Mishneh. or from a similar illness.5i.e., an illness that affects a person's entire body (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 262:2) If, however, a person's eyes hurt, as soon as his eyes heal he may be circumcised immediately.6i.e., on the same day of his recovery. Note the Turei Zahav 262:3, which explains that since the circumcision has been postponed, it may be further delayed and should not be carried out on Thursday or Friday, so that the child will not have pain on the Sabbath. The same applies in all similar circumstances.7i.e., sicknesses in which the person's entire body is not affected.", + "A child whose complexion is very yellowish12The Rambam is referring to infantile jaundice, which is common in many newborns. on the eighth day of his life13The Bayit Chadash (Yoreh De'ah 263) and the Binyan Shlomo interpret the Rambam's phraseology as indicating that, in contrast to the sicknesses mentioned in the previous halachah, it is not necessary to wait seven days after the child's recovery in these instances. This is the common practice today. should not be circumcised until his blood recovers and his complexion returns to that of an ordinary healthy child.
Similarly, if his complexion is overly red,14At present, if the child's skin color is not normal (regardless of the tinge), it is customary to delay the circumcision. as if he had been painted, he should not be circumcised until his blood recovers and his complexion returns to that of an ordinary healthy child.15Shabbat 134a relates that once, a woman approached Rabbi Natan HaBavli while he was visiting a distant community. She explained that her first two children had died after being circumcised, and was concerned whether she should circumcise her third son or not. Rabbi Natan inspected the baby and saw that he was extremely red. He advised that the circumcision be delayed until the child's complexion returned to the norm. His advice was followed and the child survived. In appreciation, the family named him Natan. This is an example of sickness, and great care must be taken regarding this matter.", + "When a woman circumcised her first son and he died because the circumcision sapped his strength, and similarly, circumcised her second son and he also died because of the circumcision, she should not circumcise her third son at the appropriate time. Rather, she should wait until he becomes older and his strength increases. [This applies regardless of whether] the first two children were sired by the same father or not.
We should not circumcise a child who is afflicted with any sickness at all, since the danger to life takes precedence over everything. Circumcision can be performed at a later date, while it is impossible to bring a single Jewish soul back to life." + ], + [ + "Circumcision may be performed by anyone.1Although a father is commanded to circumcise his son, if he is not present or cannot perform the mitzvah, it may be performed by another person. Even a person who is himself not circumcised,2This refers to a Jew who is not circumcised. The Kessef Mishneh explains that it refers to a person who was not circumcised because his brothers died because of circumcision. A Jew who intentionally fails to circumcise himself, however, should not be allowed to circumcise others. Rav Yosef Karo also quotes this ruling in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 264:1).
Note also the Ramah (ibid.), who states that an apostate should not be allowed to circumcise others.
a slave,3Although a slave is not a full-fledged member of the Jewish community, he is obligated to perform certain mitzvot and is himself circumcised. a woman,4Avodah Zarah 27a allows a woman to perform a circumcision, because \"a woman is considered as if she is circumcised.\" The matter is, however, one of debate, and other Sages do not allow a woman to perform a circumcision. Tosafot follow this view and their opinion is quoted by the Ramah (ibid.). or a minor5This is allowed because a minor will ultimately be obligated to perform all the mitzvot and is circumcised himself. may perform the circumcision, if an adult male is not present.6i.e., if possible, an adult male should be charged with the fulfillment of this mitzvah. A gentile, however, should not be allowed to perform the circumcision at all.7The Chatam Sofer (Yoreh De'ah, Responsum 132) explains that when a gentile performs a circumcision, the mitzvah is not performed at all... Nevertheless, if he does so, there is no need for a second circumcision.8because the deed has already been completed. (See also Sha'agat Aryeh, Responsum 54.)
This ruling revolves around the conception that there are two dimensions to circumcision:
a) the mitzvah of actually cutting off the foreskin;
b) the effect of that cutting, that the person is circumcised.
There are, however, other explanations of the Rambam's ruling. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the decision revolves upon whether or not circumcision must be carried out lishmah, for the sake of the fulfillment of the mitzvah.
The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 264:1) rules that although a second circumcision is not required, blood should be extracted. This is the accepted practice today. Some authorities maintain that even the Rambam requires such a step.

Any utensil may be used for circumcision, even a flint,9See Exodus 4:25, which relates that Tziporah (Moses' wife) performed a circumcision with such a utensil. glass, or any article that cuts. One should not circumcise with the sharpened side of a reed, because of the danger involved.10Chulin16b explains that we are afraid that a splinter from the reed may damage the penis. The optimum manner of performing the mitzvah is to use an iron utensil11The Targum Yonatan interprets Joshua 5:2 as an indication that iron was used for circumcision even at that early age. The Prishah (Yoreh De'ah 284:7) relates that this custom was instituted after Goliath's iron helmet split open before David's stone. God promised iron that, in recognition of its act on behalf of the Jews, they would use it for a positive purpose in future generations. The Mishnah (Shabbat 19:1) refers to the use of iron utensils for circumcision as an accepted custom. - either scissors or a knife. Throughout the Jewish community, it has become customary to use a knife.12See the Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbat 19:6.", + "How is the circumcision performed? The foreskin that covers the crown of the penis is cut off until the entire crown is revealed.1i.e., all the tissue of the foreskin until its ridge must be removed. [This step is referred to as milah.]
Afterwards,2The pri'ah should be carried out after the circumcision itself. Today, there are some mohalim who insert a utensil and lift up the membrane before the circumcision, and then cut off the foreskin and the membrane together. Many contemporary authorities have criticized this approach. the soft membrane that is beneath the skin should be split along the mid-line with one's nails3The Yalkut Shimoni, Vol. II, Note 723, states that nails were created for this purpose. and peeled back to either side until the flesh of the crown is revealed.4Preferably, no portion of the foreskin or the membrane should remain. See Chatam Sofer (Yoreh De'ah, Responsum13 248). [This step is referred to as pri'ah.]
Afterwards, one should suck5Traditionally, the mohel sucks out the blood with his mouth. Nevertheless, in previous generations, the Rabbis did grant license to use a pipette because of the possibility that germs in the mohel's mouth might infect the child. Today, there are authorities who suggest the use of a pipette because of the danger that the mohel could contract AIDS. the place of the circumcision until all the blood in the further reaches is extracted, lest a dangerous situation arise.6The Tiferet Yisrael (Shabbat 19:2) relates that internal bleeding caused by the circumcision could cause the penis to swell, and applying suction to remove the blood averts that danger. The Tiferet Yisrael also writes that a danger exists that applying too strong a suction will rupture the blood vessels and cause excessive bleeding. Therefore, he recommends that one should apply gentle suction. [This step is referred to as metzitzah.] Any [mohel] who does not perform metzitzah should be removed from his position.7because of the danger to which he exposes the children. After one has performed metzitzah, one should apply a bandage, a compress, or the like.8to stop the bleeding and assist the healing of the wound.", + "There are strands of flesh that disqualify a circumcision [if they are not removed], and strands of flesh that do not disqualify a circumcision.
What is implied? If, [after circumcision,] a portion of the foreskin is left that covers the majority of the crown of the penis' height,1Rashi, Shabbat 137b, states that surely if the foreskin is left on the majority of the circumference of the penis' crown, it is unacceptable. When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 264:5) states that if the majority of the height of the crown is left covered in any one place, the circumcision is not acceptable. Thus, even a thin strand of skin that covers either the majority of the height or the majority of the circumference of the crown can disqualify the circumcision. the child is considered to be uncircumcised, and this flesh is considered a tzitz that disqualifies the circumcision.2A second circumcision is required in such an instance, and a blessing is recited when performing it.If only a small portion of flesh remains which does not cover the majority of the crown of the penis' height, it is considered to be a tzitz that does not disqualify the circumcision.3See the following halachah.", + "While the person performing the circumcision is involved in the operation, he should go back and remove both the tzitzim that disqualify the circumcision and the tzitzim that do not disqualify the circumcision.4As mentioned in Halachah 6, this ruling applies even when the circumcision is being carried out on the Sabbath. Once he has interrupted his activity, he must return and remove any tzitzim that disqualify the circumcision,5Since, as explained in the previous halachah, unless this flesh is removed, a second circumcision is necessary. but he does not return to remove anytzitzim that do not disqualify the circumcision.6The Rambam's phraseology is somewhat problematic. The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 264) explains that the Rambam's intent is that we are not required to remove this flesh. In contrast, the Sha'agat Aryeh (Responsum 50) interprets the Rambam as stating that, once the mohel has interrupted his activity, he is forbidden to return and cut off the remaining flesh. (The Sha'agat Aryeh himself questions the Rambam's decision. The Merkevet HaMishneh explains that since the circumcision is acceptable, it is forbidden to expose the child to further pain.)
The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 264:5) rules that if the circumcision is performed during the week, one should remove this flesh. This ruling is followed throughout the Jewish community today.

When one performs a circumcision without performing pri'ah, it is considered as if the circumcision was not performed.7The Babylonian Talmud relates that although pri'ah is not mentioned in the Torah, nor was Abraham commanded to carry out this activity, it is part of the oral tradition (halachah leMoshe miSinai), which may not be ignored (Shabbat 137b, Yevamot 71b). The Jerusalem Talmud (Yevamot 8:1) differs, and uses the principles of Biblical exegesis to derive the obligation of removing the membrane.", + "[The following ruling is given when]1a circumcision was performed properly, but a child's flesh is soft and hangs loosely, or if he is very fat and,2there is flesh protruding over the crown of the penis and therefore, it appears that he is not circumcised.3Were this condition to result from an improper circumcision, a second circumcision would be required. Since the circumcision was performed correctly, such measures are not necessary. Nevertheless, We should observe him when he has an erection:4when the penis is extended and its flesh taut if he appears circumcised at that time,5There is no need for the entire crown to be revealed; as long as one third of it is not covered by the flesh, it is acceptable (Terumat HaDeshen 264). it is unnecessary to do anything more. One must, however, correct the flesh on the sides, because of the appearance it creates.6The flesh should be held back with bandages to prevent it from covering the crown. There is, however, no necessity for an additional operation even if these measures are not successful (Terumat HaDeshen, ibid.).
If, however, he does not appear to be circumcised when he has an erection,7if more than two-thirds of the crown is covered the loose hanging flesh on the sides should be cut off until the crown of the penis is revealed while it is erect.8The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 264:6) explains that, in this instance - in contrast to the original circumcision - it is not necessary to reveal the entire crown; it is necessary only to reveal a minimal portion.
This9second operation was ordained by the Rabbis. According to the Torah itself, even though he [appears] uncircumcised, since he was circumcised once,10properly and all the flesh removed from the crown of the penis there is no obligation to circumcise him again.", + "Anything that is necessary for the circumcision [itself] may be performed on the Sabbath.1As mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 9, when a circumcision is carried out on the eighth day of a child's life, it may be performed on the Sabbath, with the exception of several unique instances. We may perform milah, pri'ah, and metzitzah,2the three phases of the circumcision mentioned in Halachah 2. return and remove the tzitzim that disqualify the circumcision even though one has interrupted one's activity,3This is permitted because, until these strands of flesh are removed, the obligation to circumcise the child on the eighth day has not been fulfilled. (See Halachah 3 and commentary.) Hence, just as we are allowed to carry out the operation on the Sabbath at the outset, we are allowed to complete its performance by removing these strands of flesh. return and remove the tzitzim that do not disqualify the circumcision if one has not interrupted one's activity,4Even according to the opinion that allows one to return and remove these strands of flesh during the week, it is forbidden to do so on the Sabbath because the circumcision is acceptable. Hence, no further cutting is permitted because of the Sabbath laws. and bandage the circumcision afterwards.5In general, medication may be applied on the Sabbath only when a danger to life is involved. The Sages considered circumcision to be in this category. The preparation of articles that are necessary for the circumcision does not supersede the prohibitions against labor on the Sabbath.6The license the Torah grants for circumcision to be performed on the Sabbath applies only to the deed of circumcision, which is itself a mitzvah. All the preparatory stages that make circumcision possible must be performed beforehand, for they are not elements of the actual performance of the mitzvah (Kiryat Sefer).
What is implied? If we are unable to find a knife, a knife may not be made on the Sabbath, nor may we bring it from place to place.7i.e., from a public domain to a private domain It is even forbidden to bring it from one courtyard to another courtyard in an alleyway if there is no eruv.8Here, there is no Torah prohibition involved. Nevertheless, Although the [mitzvah of] eruv is only Rabbinic in origin, it is not superseded by [the necessity] to bring a knife,9Pesachim 92a cites this as an example of the power of Rabbinic law. Although karet (the punishment for not fulfilling the mitzvah of circumcision) is involved, the Sages enforced their decree against carrying in such places and forbade bringing the knife. since it was possible to bring the knife on Friday.", + "Herbs may not be ground to [use for the compress], nor may water be heated [to wash the child], nor may a compress be prepared,8A compress that is prepared before the Sabbath may be applied on the Sabbath. It is, however, forbidden to prepare the compress on the Sabbath (see Hilchot Shabbat 23:11). nor may wine and oil be mixed [on the Sabbath itself].9The mixture of wine and oil was applied to the wound to heal it.
If cumin was not ground on Friday, one may chew it on the Sabbath10According to Torah law, a labor is forbidden on the Sabbath only when it is performed in its usual fashion. In most cases, however, such activities are forbidden by the Rabbis. Nevertheless, in this instance, since the herbs are being prepared for a remedy and they are not being prepared in the normal manner, the Sages did not forbid their preparation (see Hilchot Shabbat 21:26). and apply it [to the wound]. If one did not mix wine and oil together, they may each be applied individually. This is the general rule: Whatever can be performed on Friday does not supersede [the prohibitions against labor on] the Sabbath. Should one forget and not prepare the accessories necessary for the circumcision, the circumcision should be performed on the ninth day.", + "If a child was circumcised on the Sabbath and, afterwards, the hot water was spilled or the herbs [for the compress] were scattered, one may do anything that is necessary for him on the Sabbath, because of the danger involved.
In a place where it is customary to wash a child, he may be washed on the Sabbath on the day of his circumcision, both before the circumcision and after the circumcision, and on the third day of his circumcision. The child's entire body may be washed as well as the place of the circumcision itself. [On the third day,] he may be washed with water that was heated on Friday or with water that was heated on the Sabbath itself, because the situation involves danger.", + "If a knife was forgotten and not brought [to the place of the circumcision] on Friday, one may instruct a gentile to bring it on the Sabbath, provided he does not bring it through the public domain.
The general principle governing this matter is: It is permissible to tell a gentile to perform any activity that we are forbidden to perform as a sh'vut,11In Hilchot Shabbat 21:1, the Rambam defines a sh'vut as follows:
[With regard to the Sabbath,] the Torah has told us, \"You shall rest.\" This implies that we are obligated to rest from the performance of [certain] activities even though they are not included among the forbidden labors.
In Chapters 21 and 22 of those halachot, the Rambam explains the concept of sh'vut in detail.
so that we may perform a mitzvah at its appropriate time.12In Hilchot Shabbat 6:9, the Rambam mentions this leniency with regard to bringing a shofar on Rosh HaShanah [i.e., in Jerusalem to be sounded in the Temple]. Although Tosafot (Gittin 8b) maintain that the leniency should not be extended beyond the scope of the mitzvah of circumcision, the Rambam's ruling is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 307:5). When, however, an activity is prohibited because a forbidden labor is involved, we may not instruct a gentile to do it [for us] on the Sabbath.13For this reason, a gentile may not be instructed to make a knife or boil water for the circumcision. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 331:6.)", + "[The preparation of] the accessories for circumcision - even when the circumcision is being performed at the appropriate time14I.e., on the eighth day of a child's life. - does not supersede [the prohibitions against labor on] the holidays, because it is possible to complete them before the commencement of the holiday.15Thus, making a knife is forbidden on a festival. Nevertheless, carrying a knife through the public domain and heating water are permitted on a festival.
[This ruling can be derived through the following] process of inference: If [the preparation of] the accessories for circumcision is not significant enough to supersede the Rabbinic prohibitions of sh'vut, why should they supersede a negative commandment of the Torah?16There are certain leniencies regarding the performance of labor on festivals when compared to the performance of labor on the Sabbath. Nevertheless, the performance of labor on festivals is also considered a Torah prohibition. (See Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 1:1.) [Nevertheless, there are certain greater leniencies on festivals:] One may grind herbs for [the compress], since these herbs are fit to be used in food.17On festivals, we are allowed to perform any labor that is connected with the preparation of food. Since these herbs could be used for food, we are allowed to prepare them for the circumcision as well. Similarly, oil and wine may be mixed together.18In this instance, only a Rabbinic prohibition is involved, and it is waived because of the importance of circumcision (Ma'aseh Rokeach)." + ], + [ + "Before the circumcision, the person who performs the circumcision recites the blessing, \"[Blessed are You...] who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the circumcision.\" [This applies] when circumcising the son of another person.1The Rambam's ruling depends on his statement (Hilchot Berachot 11:13) that if someone performs a blessing on behalf of another person, he should use the form \"who has sanctified us with Your commandments and commanded us concerning....\" When circumcising one's own son, one should recite the blessing \"... to circumcise a son.\"2In Hilchot Berachot 11:12, the Rambam states that when one fulfills a mitzvah on one's own behalf, one should use the form \"who has sanctified us with Your commandments and commanded us to...\"
Although the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 365:2) mentions the Rambam's opinion, the Ramah states that it is customary to recite the blessing \"... concerning the circumcision,\" at all times.
It is possible to explain that the Ramah does not accept the Rambam's general principle and prefers a universal form for a blessing to be recited every time a particular mitzvah is fulfilled. It is, however, also possible to interpret their difference of opinion as relating to the definition of the mitzvah of circumcision itself. The Rambam's text of the blessing, which uses the form \"... to...,\" indicates that the nature of the mitzvah of circumcision focuses on the act of circumcision. In contrast, the Ramah's text for the blessing can be interpreted to imply that the nature of the mitzvah is to bring a person to the state that he is no longer uncircumcised. Therefore, the form \"... concerning...\" is more appropriate (Kinat Eliyahu).

[At the circumcision,]3The time when this blessing is recited is a matter of question. In two of his responsa, the Rambam writes that it makes no difference whether this blessing is recited before the circumcision or afterwards. Nevertheless, Rav Avraham, his son, and Rav Yitzchak, his grandson, state that it was the Rambam's custom to recite this blessing before the mitzvah.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 265:1) quotes the opinion of Rabbenu Asher, who states that this blessing should be recited between the milah and the pri'ah.
the father of the child recites another blessing:
Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to have our children enter the covenant of Abraham, our Patriarch.4Tosafot, Pesachim 7a, explain that this blessing is not one of the blessings connected with the performance of a mitzvah, but a blessing that expresses our thanks and appreciation to God for granting us this mitzvah.
[This blessing was instituted because] it is a greater mitzvah for a father to circumcise his son than for the Jewish people as a whole to circumcise the uncircumcised among them. Therefore, if a child's father is not present, this blessing should not be recited. There are those who have ruled that the court or one of the people [in attendance should recite this blessing in the father's absence]. [Nevertheless, this ruling] should not be followed.5The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's decision and rules that, in the absence of the father, the sandak (the person who holds the baby during the circumcision) should recite this blessing. The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 265:1) quotes this decision.", + "If others are present,6The literal translation of the Rambam's phraseology is \"If others are standing there.\" The commentaries explain that his intent is also to emphasize that it is necessary to stand while attending a brit. (See the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 265:6, which states that, if possible, it is preferable to perform a circumcision with at least ten adult males in attendance.) they say: \"Just as you have brought him into the covenant,7The Rambam's version of this statement is found also in the Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 9:3) and is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 265:1). At present, however, it is customary to follow Rabbenu Asher's opinion and say, \"Just as he has entered the covenant, so may he enter...\" without mentioning the father's role. Significantly, this version is found in our texts of Shabbat 137b where this custom is mentioned. so, too, may you bring him to Torah, marriage, and good deeds.\"8We wish that the merit of the circumcision will lead to a life full of genuine Jewish conduct.", + "Afterwards, the father of the child, the person who performed the circumcision, or one of the people in attendance should recite the [following] blessing:
Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who has sanctified the cherished from the womb, affixed his covenant in his flesh, and sealed his descendants with the sign of the holy covenant. Therefore, as a reward for this [circumcision], living God, our Portion, our Rock, has ordained that the beloved of our flesh be saved from the abyss for the sake of His covenant that He has set in our flesh. Blessed are You, God, who establishes the covenant.
The father of the son recites the blessing shehecheyanu.", + "When circumcising converts, one should recite the blessing:9It appears that the Rambam considers this the only blessing recited in connection with the circumcision of converts, and would have this blessing recited before the circumcision. In contrast, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 268:5) explain that two blessings should be recited in connection with the circumcision of a convert:
a) one blessing before the circumcision, \"... who has sanctified us... and commanded us to circumcise converts,\"
b) one blessing after the circumcision, the blessing quoted by the Rambam with the conclusion, \"Blessed are You, God, who establishes a covenant.\"
According to the Shulchan Aruch's perspective, like the blessing mentioned in the previous halachah, this blessing is not a blessing connected with the performance of the mitzvah, but an expression of praise for God for granting us the opportunity to perform such a unique mitzvah.
According to the Rambam's view, it is somewhat difficult to understand: Why is this blessing so lengthy? In this context, theSefer HaMaor explains that this blessing was instituted to reassure converts and strengthen their resolve before they fulfill a mitzvah that is associated with pain and suffering.

Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to circumcise converts and to extract from them the blood of the covenant,10The Kessef Mishneh explains that this is a reference to the extraction of blood from converts who were circumcised previously. Other commentaries object to this interpretation, noting that in Halachah 6, the Rambam does not require a blessing in such an instance. for were it not for the blood of the covenant the existence of the heavens and the earth could not be maintained, as [Jeremiah 33:25] states: \"Were it not for My covenant, day and night, I would not have established the laws of heaven and earth.\"", + "One who circumcises his slave11I.e., when the master performs the circumcision himself. recites the blessing:12In this instance as well, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 267:12) rule that two blessings should be recited. See Note 9.
[Blessed are You...] who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to circumcise slaves and to extract from them the blood of the covenant, for were it not for the blood of the covenant the existence of the heavens and the earth could not be maintained....\"
If one circumcises a slave belonging to someone else, one should [alter the text of] the blessing and say, \"[and commanded us] concerning the circumcision of slaves [and...]13The reason for the change of text depends on the Rambam's statements (Hilchot Berachot 11:11) that a person who performs a blessing on his own behalf should use the form, \"who has sanctified us... and commanded us to...\" In contrast, one who performs a blessing on behalf of others should use the form, \"...and commanded us concerning....\"
When circumcising an adult male, one must cover his sexual organ until after the blessing is recited.14This is because, as explained in Hilchot Kri'at Shema 3:16, it is forbidden to recite holy words in the presence of an exposed sexual organ.
There is somewhat of a problem, however, with the Rambam's statements. Here, it appears that one need not cover the penis of a baby before reciting the blessing, yet in Hilchot Kri'at Shema (ibid.), the Rambam writes that the Shema may not be recited in the presence of a minor whose sexual organ is exposed.
In one of his responsa, the Rambam resolves this difficulty, explaining that the prohibition begins when the child - either male or female - possesses some sexual potency. (See also Siftei Cohen 265:18.)
Afterwards, one reveals it and performs the circumcision.", + "When the blood of circumcision is extracted from a convert who had been circumcised before conversion, or from a child who was born without a foreskin, there is no necessity to recite a blessing.15In both cases, there is a doubt whether or not it is necessary to perform this circumcision. (See Chapter 1, Halachah 7.) Therefore, the circumcision is performed, but a blessing is not recited, lest there be no obligation to perform this activity, and thus, the blessing would be recited in vain. (See Hilchot Berachot 11:16.) Similarly, a blessing is not recited over the circumcision of an androgynous, because he is not definitely categorized as a male.16The Ra'avad contests this point, noting that when there is a doubt whether a certain activity fulfills a mitzvah or not, one should recite a blessing, and cites the recitation of blessings on the second day of festivals in the diaspora as an example of this principle.
Rav Kapach explains that the difference between the Rambam and the Ra'avad depends on their conception of the status of an androgynous. The Ra'avad maintains that an androgynous is considered a male whose status is in doubt. Therefore, since a mitzvah from the Torah is involved, a blessing should be recited. The Rambam maintains that an androgynous is in a category of his own, and the question is whether the obligation to circumcise falls on people in this category. Hence, no blessing is recited. See also their difference of opinion in Hilchot Shofar 2:2.
", + "It is forbidden for a Jew to circumcise a idolator who is forced to remove his foreskin because of a wound or because of a tumor, since we are instructed neither to save the idolator from death, nor to cause them to die.17In Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:1-2, the Rambam writes:
If we see an idolater being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him. It is, however, forbidden to cause one of them to sink or to push him into a pit or the like, since he is not waging war against us....
From the above, we can infer that it is forbidden to offer medical treatment to an idolater even when offered a wage. If, however, one is afraid of the consequences or fears that ill feeling will be aroused, one may treat them for a wage, but to treat them for free is forbidden.
[Regarding] a ger toshav, since we are commanded to secure his well-being, he may be given medical treatment at no cost.
Many authorities maintain that the laws applying to a ger toshav can be applied to all gentiles who are not idolaters. Furthermore, since at present, a doctor would have much difficulty if he refused to treat gentiles, leniency should be shown in this regard.
From the above, it would appear that a doctor who operates a medical practice today is allowed to treat gentile patients. Indeed, throughout the ages, many great Rabbinic authorities, including the Rambam himself, served as doctors to gentiles.
Although a mitzvah is accomplished in the process of administering this medical treatment, the idolator did not intend to fulfill the mitzvah. If, however, the idolator intends to fulfill the mitzvah of circumcision, it is a mitzvah to circumcise him.18In Hilchot Melachim 10:10, the Rambam writes that a gentile who desires to fulfill any mitzvah should be given the opportunity.
There are other authorities who differ with the Rambam on this matter. They explain that circumcision is a sign given to the Jewish people that establishes their uniqueness and it is improper that gentiles should be given the opportunity of possessing this property.
", + "How disgusting is the foreskin that is used as a term of deprecation with regard to the gentiles, as [Jeremiah 9:25] states: \"For all the gentiles are uncircumcised!\" How great is the circumcision! Behold, our Patriarch Abraham was not called \"perfect\" until he was circumcised, as [Genesis 17:1-2] states: \"Proceed before Me and become perfect. And I will place My covenant between Me and you.\"19See the Guide to the Perplexed, Vol. III, Chapter 49, where the Rambam criticizes a hedonistic approach to life and explains that circumcision comes \"to complete the perfection of our emotions... to reduce a person's lust and wild cravings.\"
Anyone who breaks the covenant of Abraham our Patriarch and leaves his foreskin uncircumcised, or [although he was circumcised,]20In the Hellenistic era, there were some Greek sympathizers among the Jewish people who would cause their foreskin to appear extended, so that they would not be distinguished from gentile athletes. The Sages were extremely critical of these individuals. causes it to appear extended, does not have a portion in the world to come,21See Avot 3:11 and Hilchot Teshuvah 3:6. despite the fact that he has studied Torah and performed good deeds.", + "Come and see how severe a matter circumcision is. Moses, our teacher, was not granted even a temporary respite from [fulfilling this mitzvah].22As Exodus 4:24-26 relates, when Moses returned to Egypt, he took his newborn son, Eliezer, with him. He did not circumcise him immediately and, therefore, an angel came in the form of a snake and swallowed him. Tziporah his wife realized the source of the problem and circumcised her son. After this, the angel retracted. (See Nedarim 32a.)
The Torah mentions only three covenants regarding all its mitzvot, as [Deuteronomy 28:69] states: \"These are the words of the covenant that God commanded... in addition to the covenant that He established with you in Chorev.\" And [Deuteronomy 29:9-11] states: \"You are all standing today... to enter into a covenant with God, your Lord.\" Thus, there are three covenants.
In contrast, thirteen covenants were established with Abraham, our Patriarch, with regard to circumcision:23In the Guide to the Perplexed, Vol. III, Chapter 49, the Rambam writes that the brit is a sign of the covenant of the oneness of God. \"When a person is circumcised he enters into the covenant of Abraham which obligates him to know [God's] unity.\" This covenant of unity defines the nature of the Jewish people. It is natural that when people share a common sign, love and mutual assistance among them grow.
\"I will place My covenant between Me and you\" [Genesis 17:2],
\"And I, behold, My covenant is with you\" [ibid.:4],
\"I will establish My covenant between Me and you\" [ibid.:7],
\"For an eternal covenant\" [ibid.],
\"And you shall observe My covenant\" [ibid.:9],
\"This is My covenant which you shall observe\" [ibid.:10],
\"It will be a sign of the covenant\" [ibid.:11],
\"My covenant will be in your flesh\" [ibid.:13],
\"For an eternal covenant\" [ibid.],
\"He will have nullified My covenant\" [ibid.:14],
\"And I will establish My covenant with Him\" [ibid.:19],
\"For an eternal covenant\" [ibid.],
\"And I will establish My covenant with Isaac\" [ibid.:21]." + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Ahavah/Mishneh Torah, Circumcision/English/The Mishneh Torah by Maimonides. trans. by Moses Hyamson, 1937-1949.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Ahavah/Mishneh Torah, Circumcision/English/The Mishneh Torah by Maimonides. trans. by Moses Hyamson, 1937-1949.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..14b3895caaf6debd90da56409e20223048d27007 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Ahavah/Mishneh Torah, Circumcision/English/The Mishneh Torah by Maimonides. trans. by Moses Hyamson, 1937-1949.json @@ -0,0 +1,73 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Circumcision", + "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002108865", + "versionTitle": "The Mishneh Torah by Maimonides. trans. by Moses Hyamson, 1937-1949", + "status": "locked", + "priority": 2.0, + "license": "Public Domain", + "versionNotes": "", + "digitizedBySefaria": true, + "versionTitleInHebrew": "משנה תורה להרמב״ם, תורגם ע״י משה חיימסון, 1937-1949", + "shortVersionTitle": "Moses Hyamson, 1937-1949", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": false, + "isSource": false, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות מילה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Ahavah" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "Circumcision is an affirmative precept, the neglect of which entails the penalty of excision, as it is said, \"And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin—that soul shall be cut off from his people\" (Gen. 17:14). It is a duty incumbent upon the father to circumcise his son, and upon the master to circumcise his male slave, whether \"born in the house\" or bought with money. If the father or master failed to perform the circumcision, he has neglected the fulfillment of an affirmative precept but has not incurred the penalty of excision, to which only the uncircumcised person is made liable. In such case of neglect, the court is charged with the duty of circumcising the infant or slave at the appointed time, and must not leave any male uncircumcised among the Israelites or their slaves.", + "A male infant is not circumcised without the father's knowledge, unless the latter has neglected his duty and refrained from circumcising it. In this case, the Court has it circumcised even against the father's will. Should the child have escaped the notice of the Court, so that it did not have the child circumcised, then that person is under an obligation, when he grows up, to have himself circumcised. Every day that passes, after he is grown up, that he remains uncircumcised, he is neglecting the fulfillment of an affirmative precept. He does not however incur the penalty of excision till he has died, having wilfully remained uncircumcised.", + "The master is under an obligation to circumcise his male slaves, whether at birth they were his property or whether they had been acquired from a non-Israelite. There is a distinction however between these cases. A slave born in an Israelite's home is circumcised on the eighth day after birth; the slave bought with money, on the day that he is bought. Even if he was born on the day he was bought, he is circumcised on the same day.", + "Under certain circumstances, a slave acquired by purchase is circumcised on the eighth day after birth, while one born in the house is circumcised on the day he is born. For example, a female slave is bought, and her still unborn child is bought at the same time, the child, subsequently born, is circumcised when eight days old. For, although it had been separately bought, and is thus a slave acquired by purchase, still, as the mother had been acquired before the infant's birth, it is circumcised on the eighth day.", + "On the other hand, when a female slave was acquired for the sake of her offspring only (i.e. that her offspring might belong to the purchaser); or when she was acquired with the stipulation that she was not to take the ritual bath so as to have the status of a slave in an Israelite's home, though her subsequently born child is born as the property of the Israelite, it is circumcised on the day it is born; because this infant is as though it had been bought alone and had been bought on the day of its birth,—as the mother had not come within the category of an Israelite's female slave, so as to make her male child a slave \"born in the house\". Should she however, after delivery, have taken the ritual bath, the infant is circumcised on the eighth day.", + "If one acquired from an idolater, an adult slave who is unwilling to be circumcised, efforts are to be made for a period of twelve months to persuade him to submit to the rite. Should he at the end of this period still remain uncircumcised, he may not be retained but must be resold to a non-Israelite. But if, while he had still been with his non-Israelite master, the condition of sale had been made that he was not to be circumcised, he may be retained (by his new Jewish owner), though uncircumcised—provided that he undertakes to keep the seven Noachide precepts and he will then have the status of a proselyte of the gate. If he does not accept these seven precepts he is to be put to death (as a lawless individual). Proselytes of the gate are only received while the institution of the Jubilee is in force.", + "A proselyte must, before he can enter the communion of Israel be circumcised. If, while still a gentile, he had already been circumcised, it is requisite to draw a drop of blood from the membrum, on the day when he is received, as a sign of the covenant. Similarly, if a male infant is born with the prepuce absent, it is requisite to draw a drop of blood from the membrum when the infant is eight days old. An androgyne that has both male and female organs is to be circumcised on the eighth day. So too a male infant delivered by the Caesarean operation, or one born with two foreskins is to be circumcised on the eighth day.", + "Circumcisions are only performed during the daytime after sunrise, whether the operation takes place on the eighth day, the regular time, or subsequently, from the ninth day and further on, as it is said \"on the eighth day\" (Gen. 17:12) i.e. by day, and not at night. If the circumcision takes place after daybreak, it is correct. The whole of the day is proper for circumcision. Still it is a duty to perform it in the early part of the day, for the zealous fulfill their religious obligations at the earliest possible time.", + "When a circumcision takes place at the regular time (on the eighth day), it supersedes the prohibition of work on the Sabbath. But if it is to be performed after the regular time, it neither overrides the obligation of the Sabbath nor of the festivals. Whether performed at the regular time or not, it supersedes the obligation of the law of leprosy. If there was a bright leprous spot on the foreskin, the spot is cut off with the foreskin. For though the hacking of a leprous plague spot is prohibited, the affirmative precept (of circumcision) overrides the prohibition.", + "Even as the circumcision of male infants overrides the obligation of the Sabbath, so the circumcision of bondmen who are to be circumcised on the eighth day, overrides the obligation of abstinence from work on the Sabbath, should the eighth day fall on the Sabbath. To this rule there is an exception, namely, that of a bondman \"born in the house\", whose mother had not taken the ritual bath before the child was born. In this case, though the infant should be circumcised on the eighth day, the circumcision does not override the obligation of abstaining from work on the Sabbath.", + "When an infant was born \"circumcised\" (i.e. without a prepuce), or was delivered in the eighth month, after conception, while still immature—when it is considered to be in the category of a still-born child, as it may not live—; or if it was delivered by the Caesarean operation; or was an androgyne; or had two foreskins—in any of these cases the duty of circumcision on the eighth day does not override the obligation of the Sabbath. All such infants are circumcised on the first day of the week, which is the ninth day after birth.", + "If an infant is born (in the evening) when it is dusk and doubtful whether it is still day or already night, the eight days are counted from the night and the infant is circumcised on the nominally ninth day, which may in fact be the eighth day after its birth. If an infant is born on the eve of the Sabbath at dusk, the circumcision does not override the obligation of the Sabbath. It is circumcised on the first day of the week, since in a case when it is doubtful whether the Sabbath is the eighth day, the obligation of the Sabbath is not superseded.", + "If an eighth-month infant shows full development in its hair and nails, it is (regarded as) a mature seventh-month infant the delivery of which has been delayed. It may therefore (as a living being) be carried and taken from place to place on the Sabbath, and is not regarded as a stone (an inanimate object). It is circumcised on the Sabbath (should that be the eighth day after its birth). But if it was born with its hair undeveloped and its nails not perfectly formed as these are in normal infants, it is regarded as an eighth-month child that would not have been maturely developed till its ninth month, but that had been prematurely delivered while still immature. It is regarded as a stone (an inanimate object) and may not be moved on the Sabbath. Should it however live for thirty days, it is considered an infant capable of continued existence, and as in all respects like other infants; for an infant of the human species that survives for thirty days is no longer in the same category with the still-born.", + "A seventh-month infant that is fully formed is regarded as an infant expected to live, and is circumcised on the Sabbath. If it is doubtful whether such an infant is a seventh or an eighth-month child, it is, on either assumption, circumcised on the Sabbath. If it is, in fact, a seventh-month infant and mature, it is in accordance with the law that the circumcision should override the obligation of abstinence from work on the Sabbath. If it is an eighth-month child, the operator who circumcises it is regarded as cutting flesh, since an eighth-month infant is in the same category with a still-born child.", + "If the head of the foetus had emerged at dusk on the eve of the Sabbath, though complete delivery had not taken place till after night-fall of the Sabbath, the infant is not circumcised on a Sabbath. And in every case whenever a circumcision does not supersede the obligation to rest on the Sabbath, it likewise does not supersede the obligation to refrain from work on the first days of the festivals; but does supersede this obligation on the second days of the festivals. To this rule the New Year forms an exception. Circumcision (in cases where it would not supersede the obligation to rest on the Sabbath) does not supersede the duty to refrain from work on the first or on the second day of the New Year.**both days being regarded as one long day. So also, a circumcision, not taking place at the due time (on the eighth day after birth), does not supersede the obligation to refrain from work on the two days of the New Year.", + "A sick infant is not circumcised till it is well. Seven consecutive periods, each of twenty four hours, are counted from its recovery, after which it is circumcised. This applies to recovery from fever and similar illnesses. But if it had suffered from sore eyes, then as soon as the eyes are open and well, it is immediately circumcised. And so with similar disorders [that are localized and do not affect the general health].", + "An infant found on the eighth day to be excessively yellow is not circumcised till the circulation has become normal, and its complexion is like that of other healthy infants. So too, if it was excessively ruddy, presenting the appearance of one who had been dyed red, it is not circumcised till the blood has been absorbed, and its complexion is like that of other infants—this redness being a disease. In these cases, great caution must be exercised.", + "When a woman's first male child was circumcised and died as a result of the operation, which lowered its vitality, and her second male child also died as a result of its circumcision,—whether that infant was by the same or by another husband,—her third male child must not be circumcised at the appointed period (on the eighth day). The operation must be deferred till the infant has grown and its constitutional vigour is established. No child may be circumcised, unless it is entirely free from disease, since danger to life is a factor that overrides everything else. It is possible to circumcise after the appointed time, but it is impossible to restore a life that is extinct." + ], + [ + "All are qualified to perform the operation of circumcision. Where there is no adult circumcised male, (Israelite), it is performed by an uncircumcised Israelite, a bondman, a woman or a minor. But under no circumstances does a gentile circumcise. If however he has done so, the operation need not be repeated.**According to the Ashkenazi practice a drop of blood must be drawn. The circumcision may be performed with any instrument made of flint, glass or other material which cuts. One should not however use a reed for fear that splinters may hurt the child. The best method of fulfilling the precept is to use an iron instrument, such as a knife or shears. The universal custom in Israel is to use a knife.", + "How is circumcision performed? The entire foreskin which covers the glans is cut, so that the whole of the glans is exposed. Then the thin layer of skin (mucous membrane) beneath the foreskin in divided with the nail and turned back, till the flesh of the glans is completely exposed. The wound is then sucked till the blood has been drawn from parts remote (from the surface), thus obviating danger (to the child's health). The operator who omits to do so is removed from practice. After this has been done, a plaster, bandage, or similar dressing is applied.", + "There are some cases where shreds of skin that are left render the circumcision invalid. In others, they do not render it invalid. If so much of the foreskin remains as to cover the greater part of the glans, lengthwise, the infant is regarded as uncircumcised, as it was before the operation. This is a case of a shred of skin that invalidates the circumcision. If only a small portion of skin is left that does not cover the greater part of the length of the glans,—it is a filament, the non-removal of which does not invalidate the circumcision.", + "The operator, as long as he is still occupied with the circumcision, resumes his task to remove both kinds of shreds. But if he has completed the circumcision, he only resumes his task to remove these filaments, the non-removal of which would invalidate the circumcision, but not those which do not make it invalid. Should he have performed the circumcision and not drawn back the inner skin, (mucous membrane) it is as if he had not circumcised at all.", + "An infant whose flesh is tender and flaccid or who is fat, so that it appears as if it had not been circumcised, is to be examined during an erection. If it then seems circumcised, nothing need be done. Still the (flaccid) flesh should, for the sake of appearances, be pushed back on both sides. But if during erection, it does not appear circumcised, the flaccid flesh is cut away on both sides, so that the glans appears thoroughly exposed during erection. This is an ordinance of the scribes. But according to the Scriptual law, even if the infant appears uncircumcised, once the circumcision has taken place, it need not be repeated.", + "All the requisites that belong to the act of circumcision are done on the Sabbath. The foreskin is removed, the mucous lamella (inner layer of skin) retracted, the blood drawn by suction. If shreds of skin are left, such as would make the circumcision invalid, the operator resumes his task to remove them, even after he has completed the circumcision. If the shreds are such as would not invalidate the circumcision, he only does so if he is still engaged in the operation. A dressing is applied. But the preliminary preparations for the circumcision do not override the obligation of the Sabbath. For example, if a knife was not found, it may not be manufactured on the Sabbath. Nor may it be carried from place to place. And if no Erub**the food set aside in this ritual on the eve of the Sabbath. had been prepared to permit carrying through an alley communicating between two courts, the knife may not even be carried from one court to the other. For though the Erub is a Rabbinic ordinance, the necessity of bringing the knife does not override the requirement of compliance with the Erub; since the knife could have been brought on the day before the Sabbath.", + "So too, drugs for the dressing are not ground on the Sabbath; water is not heated, neither is a dressing prepared nor an emulsion of wine and oil mixed. If cummin seed (used as a styptic) had not been ground on the day before the Sabbath, the operator chews it with his teeth and applies it. If an emulsion of wine and oil had not been prepared, he applies each separately. The general principle is as follows: Whatever might have been prepared on the day before the Sabbath does not supersede the obligation of the Sabbath. If the requisites had been forgotten and not been provided, the circumcision is put off to the ninth day.", + "If, after the circumcision, the warm water for bathing the infant had been spilt, or the drugs (for the dressing) had been scattered, everything needed is prepared on the Sabbath day so as to avoid danger to the child. Where it is the practice to bathe the infant, this is done on the Sabbath when the circumcision takes place, before or after the operation, and also on the third day after the operation, should that day fall on the Sabbath. The bathing takes place, of the whole body or of the genitals only, according to the local custom, with water which had been kept warm from the previous day, or which had to be heated on the Sabbath, since the omission of the ablution might be dangerous to the infant.", + "If, through forgetfulness, the knife had not been brought on the day before the Sabbath, a non-Israelite is directed to bring it,—provided that he does not carry it through the public thoroughfare. The general principle may be stated as follows: Whatever we are forbidden to do by Rabbinic ordinance, as a precaution to prevent Sabbath violation, we may direct a gentile to do, to enable us to fulfill a religious precept at the proper time. But whatever is forbidden to be done by us on the Sabbath because it is work, we may not ask a gentile to do on the Sabbath.", + "The requisite preliminaries in preparation for the circumcision—even when it is to take place on the proper day, do not supersede the obligation of abstaining from work on the festival, since these could have been prepared on the day before the festival. This can be deduced a fortiori. Since the preparation of preliminaries to circumcision do not supersede a prohibition which is a precaution to prevent Sabbath violation, and which is only a Rabbinic ordinance, how can it supersede a prohibition of work on the festivals which is expressly forbidden in the Scriptures. Drugs, however, that are required for the circumcision are ground on the festival, since they can be used for cooking (as spices).****Cooking is permitted on the festivals that fall on the working days of the week. (Exodus 12:16.) So too, wine and oil may be beaten up as an emulsion (to be used after the operation)." + ], + [ + "Before circumcising, the operator recites the blessing, \"Blessed art Thou, O Lord, our God, King of the Universe Who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and given us command concerning circumcision.\" This blessing is said by him when he circumcises the son of another person. If he was circumcising his own son, the formula he recites is … \"and commanded us to circumcise the son.\" In either case, the father of the child recites another blessing also: \"Blessed art Thou, O Lord, our God, King of the Universe Who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments, and commanded us to make him enter into the covenant of Abraham, our ancestor.\" The duty is incumbent upon the father to have his son circumcised; and this is in addition to the obligation that rests on all Israelites to circumcise any male person among them. Hence, if the father is not present at the circumcision, the second blessing is not recited after it. One authority decided that in such a case, the Ecclesiastical court or one of those present should say this blessing. It is, however, not right to do so.", + "If there are persons present, they say (to the father) \"Even as thou hast brought him into the covenant, so mayest thou lead him to the study of the Torah, to marriage and to the performance of good deeds. ", + "The father, operator or any one else present says, \"Blessed art Thou, O Lord, our God, King of the Universe, Who, from the womb didst sanctify the well-beloved (Isaac), and didst set Thy statute in his flesh, and seal his offspring with the sign of the holy covenant. On this account, O living God, our Portion and our Rock, give command to deliver from destruction the dearly beloved of our flesh for the sake of the covenant which Thou hast set in our flesh. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, Who makest the covenant.\" The father of the child recites the blessing \"Who hast preserved us in life.\"**Not the custom of the Ashkenazim.", + "One who circumcises proselytes says the blessing, \"Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and commanded us to circumcise proselytes and draw from them the blood of the covenant. For if it were not for the blood of the covenant, Heaven and Earth would not have endured, even as it is said \"Were it not for My Covenant by day and night, I would not have appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth\" (Jerem. 33-25).", + "If one circumcises his own bondman, he says the blessing, \"Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and commanded us to circumcise bondmen and draw from them blood of the covenant; for if it were not for the blood of the covenant, Heaven and Earth would not exist. If one circumcises a bondman belonging to other persons, the formula recited is … \"concerning the circumcision of bondmen.\" When an adult is circumcised, the private parts must be covered till after the blessing has been said; and then uncovered while the circumcision is performed.", + "If a proselyte had been circumcised before he became a proselyte, or if a male infant was born apparently circumcised, (i.e. with the prepuce deficient) no blessing is recited when a drop of blood is drawn from the virile member. So too, no blessing is said at the circumcision of an androgyne (hermaphrodite), since the subject is not positively (and exclusively) a male.", + "When a heathen needs to be circumcised because a wound of boil had formed in that part, an Israelite was (in ancient times) forbidden to perform the operation, on the principle that nothing is to be done to rescue idolaters from death or occasion it in their case. And this was the rule despite the possibility that this cure might be a religious act**as the patient might have wished to become an Israelite. since no such intent had been expressed. Hence, if the idolater had the intent, expressed or otherwise known, that the operation should be a ritual circumcision (of a proselyte), an Israelite may perform the operation.", + "The foreskin is regarded as an abomination, for which the gentiles are contemned in Scripture, as it is said \"For all the nations are uncircumcised (Jer. 9-25). An important institution is Circumcision. For the Patriarch Abraham was not called perfect till he had circumcised himself, as it is said, \"Walk thou before me; and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between Me and thee\" (Gen. 17:1-2). Whoever neglects the covenant of our ancestor Abraham, and retains the foreskin or artificially obliterates the marks of circumcision, even if he has acquired much knowledge of the Torah and practises good deeds, will have no portion in the world to come.", + "Mark how strictly the observance of Circumcision is to be regarded. Moses, although he was on a journey did not receive indulgence a single hour for neglecting this duty. In connection with all the precepts of the Torah, three covenants were made with Israel; as it is said \"These are the words of the covenant which the Lord commanded … beside the covenant which He made with them in Horeb\" (Deut. 28:69). And in the next section it is said \"Ye are standing this day all of you before the Lord your God … that thou shouldst enter into the covenant of the Lord thy God\" (Deut. 29:9-11). Three covenants are here mentioned. But in connection with Circumcision, thirteen covenants were made with our ancestor Abraham: \"And I will make My covenant between Me and thee\" (Gen. 17:2); \"As for me. behold, My covenant is with thee\" (ib. 17:4); \"And I will establish My covenant between Me and thee\" (ib. 17:7); \"for an everlasting covenant\" (ib. 17:7); \"And as for thee, thou shalt keep My covenant\" (ib. 17:9); \"This is My covenant which you shall keep\" (ib. 17:10) \"And it shall be a token of a covenant\" (ib. 17:11); \"And My covenant shall be in your flesh\" (ib. 17:13); \"for an everlasting covenant\" (ib. 17:13); \"he hath broken my covenant\" (ib. 17:14); \"And I will establish My covenant with him\" (ib. 17:19); \"for an everlasting covenant\" (ib. 17:19); \"But My covenant I will establish with Isaac\" (ib. 17:21)." + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Ahavah/Mishneh Torah, Circumcision/English/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Ahavah/Mishneh Torah, Circumcision/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6aaf98cfbbe3f5e0a7e19d2ebdb36d9d7e185407 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Ahavah/Mishneh Torah, Circumcision/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@ +{ + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Circumcision", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah,_Circumcision", + "text": [ + [ + "Circumcision is a positive mitzvah1Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 215) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 2) consider this one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. [whose lack of fulfillment] is punishable by2Circumcision and the Paschal sacrifices are the only positive commandments for which the Torah prescribes punishment if they are not fulfilled. In both instances, the punishment is the same (karet). karet,3Premature death at the hand of God (Mo'ed Katan 28a) and a severe spiritual punishment, the \"soul's being cut off,\" and not being granted a share in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1,5). as [Genesis 17:14] states: \"And an uncircumcised male who does not circumcise his foreskin - this soul will be cut off from his people.\"4The citation of the verse from Genesis is significant. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Chulin 7:6), the Rambam writes that our fulfillment of this mitzvah is not based on God's commandment to Abraham, but rather on the commandment issued to Moses (Leviticus 12:3), \"On the eighth day, the child's foreskin will be circumcised.\" Nevertheless, the commandment to Abraham is still significant, and many particulars concerning circumcision are derived from it.
A father5and not a mother (Kiddushin 29a) is commanded to circumcise his son,6Although when the son reaches the age of bar mitzvah, he is obligated by the mitzvah. Until that time, the father is responsible for the fulfillment of the mitzvah.
The Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 2) questions the extent of the father's responsibility. If the father does not circumcise his son before the latter reaches majority, is the father still charged with the mitzvah (together with the son) or is the son solely responsible for the mitzvah?
Likkutei Sichot (Vol. 11) explains that the question is dependent on a difference of opinion between the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. The Babylonian Talmud (Kiddushin 29a) derives the mitzvah from the verse (Genesis 21:4), \"And Avraham circumcised his son, Isaac.\" This indicates that the mitzvah is primarily the father's (although after the son reaches adulthood, he also becomes responsible). In contrast, the Jerusalem Talmud (Kiddushin 1:7) quotes as a proof-text for the mitzvah (Leviticus 12:3), \"On the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.\" The Korban Eidah explains that this implies the mitzvah is the son's. Since he is not able to perform it himself as a youth, however, his father is given the responsibility while the child is a minor.
Likkutei Sichot continues, explaining that the Rambam's position is obvious from his discussion of the blessings recited for the mitzvot in Hilchot Berachot, Chapter 11. In Halachah 11 of that chapter, the Rambam explains that if one performs a mitzvah on one's own behalf, one should use the form, \"who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to....\" In contrast, if one performs a mitzvah on behalf of another person, one uses the form, \"... and commanded us concerning....\"
Rav Yitzchak ben Sheshet (Responsum 131) notes that the Rambam (Hilchot Bikkurim 11:5) rules that one should recite the blessing \"...concerning the redemption of a son,\" implying that the mitzvah is not the father's, but the son's (merely that as an infant, the son cannot fulfill it). In contrast, in Chapter 3, Halachah 1, the Rambam states that a father should recite the blessing \"... to circumcise...,\" implying that the mitzvah is his.
and a master, his slaves.7Here, the responsibility for the mitzvah is surely the master's. This circumcision is one of the stages in the process by which the slave attains the status of eved C'na'ani, an intermediate rung between a gentile and a Jew. He is obligated to fulfill all the negative commandments and all those positive commandments that are not associated with a specific time. (See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 12:11.) This applies both to those who are born in his home8i.e., a non-Jewish maidservant gave birth to a male child and to those purchased by him.9See Genesis 17:27, which relates that Abraham circumcised both these categories of servants. If the father or the master transgressed and did not circumcise them, he negated the fulfillment of a positive commandment.10Note the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 19:6):
If a person transgressed and did not circumcise his son or his servants born in his home... on the eighth day, he transgresses a very great and severe mitzvah, to which there is no comparison among the other mitzvot. He can never compensate for [the lack of fulfillment of] this mitzvah. His sin is much more severe than a person who did not build a sukkah on Sukkot, or one who did not eat matzah on Pesach.
He is not, however, punished by karet, for karet is incurred only by the uncircumcised person himself.11This is obvious from the proof-text quoted above. The court is obligated to circumcise that son12Although when the son reaches the age of bar mitzvah, he is obligated by the mitzvah. Until that time, the father is responsible for the fulfillment of the mitzvah.
The Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 2) questions the extent of the father's responsibility. If the father does not circumcise his son before the latter reaches majority, is the father still charged with the mitzvah (together with the son) or is the son solely responsible for the mitzvah?
Likkutei Sichot (Vol. 11) explains that the question is dependent on a difference of opinion between the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. The Babylonian Talmud (Kiddushin 29a) derives the mitzvah from the verse (Genesis 21:4 , \"And Avraham circumcised his son, Isaac.\" This indicates that the mitzvah is primarily the father's (although after the son reaches adulthood, he also becomes responsible). In contrast, the Jerusalem Talmud (Kiddushin 1:7) quotes as a proof-text for the mitzvah (Leviticus 12:3 , \"On the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.\" The Korban Eidah explains that this implies the mitzvah is the son's. Since he is not able to perform it himself as a youth, however, his father is given the responsibility while the child is a minor.
Likkutei Sichot continues, explaining that the Rambam's position is obvious from his discussion of the blessings recited for the mitzvot in Hilchot Berachot, Chapter 11. In Halachah 11 of that chapter, the Rambam explains that if one performs a mitzvah on one's own behalf, one should use the form, \"who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us
or slave at the proper time and should not leave an uncircumcised male among the Jewish people or their slaves.13Kiddushin, loc. cit., interprets Genesis 17:10, \"You must circumcise every male,\" as a charge to the Jewish court, making them responsible for circumcising every member of the people.", + "We may not circumcise a person's son without his knowledge,1See Hilchot Chovel UMazik 7:13-14, where the Rambam describes the prohibition against \"stealing\" the performance of a mitzvah from a colleague, and the fine of ten gold pieces for doing so. The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 382:1) explicitly associates this concept with circumcising a person's son without his knowledge. unless he has transgressed and did not circumcise him.2The Rambam's phraseology has raised questions among the halachic authorities. Is his intent that once the father has allowed the eighth day to pass, the obligation falls on the court, or is his intent that only after the father makes it obvious that he does not want to circumcise his son that they become responsible? Similarly, the question has been raised what should be done if the father is unaware that a son has been born to him, or is prevented from carrying out the circumcision by factors beyond his control. Should the circumcision be carried out on the eighth day, or should the family wait until the father returns? See Avnei Nezer (Yoreh De'ah, Responsum 318) and Rav Kapach's commentary. [In such an instance,] the court must circumcise3the obligation mentioned in the previous halachah falls upon them [the child] against [the father's] will.4Even if he protests, the mitzvah should be performed.
If the matter does not become known to the court and they do not circumcise him, when [the child] reaches bar mitzvah, he is obligated to circumcise himself.5Tzafenat Paneach explains that there are three aspects to the mitzvah of circumcision:
a) to remove the foreskin;b) to be circumcised;c) not to be uncircumcised. (See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.)< /p>
The first aspect involves a single deed. The second and third dimensions, however, are ongoing qualities that a person continues to possess even after the deed of circumcision is completed. Thus, the Or Zarua quotes Menachot 43b, which relates that when King David entered the bathhouse, he was upset for he was \"naked,\" without mitzvot. When he remembered that he was circumcised, he relaxed, realizing that he was still involved with the performance of a mitzvah.
This indicates that, even years after his circumcision, he was considered to be fulfilling the mitzvah. In contrast, with regard to the mitzvot of tefillin and tzitzit, although he had just removed them, he was no longer considered to be involved in the performance of these mitzvot.
With each and every day that passes after he has reached bar mitzvah, he negates a positive commandment.6Some of the manuscript editions of the Mishneh Torah state, \"It is as if he negates a commandment.\" The mitzvah of circumcision is not negated until the person dies without fulfilling it. Unlike tefillin or tzitzit, where each day a person performs a different mitzvah, there is only one mitzvah of circumcision (Rav Kapach). He is not, however, liable for karet until he dies uncircumcised,7As mentioned above, there are two dimensions to the punishment of karet: premature death and the cutting off of the soul. According to the Rambam, a person who does not circumcise himself is liable only for the second aspect of this punishment, since until he dies, it is not known whether he will perform the mitzvah or not (Kessef Mishneh).
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's statements, stating that each day he does not perform the mitzvah, he is liable for karet and is worthy of premature death. (Even according to the Ra'avad, were the person to circumcise himself, he would no longer be liable for karet).
having intentionally8but not if he was unaware of the mitzvah or was prevented from fulfilling it by forces beyond his control [failed to perform the mitzvah].9The Rambam's phraseology raises the question whether a person is liable for karet if he initially failed to perform the mitzvah intentionally, and then was prevented from fulfilling it by forces beyond his control.", + "A master is obligated to circumcise both a slave who was born as the property of a Jewish owner1i.e., the \"home-born slave\" mentioned in Genesis 17:12 and a slave purchased from the gentiles.2Such servants are also mentioned in the above verse. [There is, however, a difference between the two.] A home-born slave should be circumcised on the eighth day [of his life].3as is a Jewish child. The above verse states that \"all those born in your house\" - i.e., also slaves - should be circumcised on the eighth day (Rashi, Shabbat 135b). In contrast, a slave who is purchased should be circumcised on the day he was purchased.4Since Genesis 17:13 repeats the commandment, \"Circumcise all home-born [slaves] and those purchased with your money,\" we can assume that there are slaves who are to be circumcised immediately (Rashi, loc. cit.). If he was purchased on the day he was born, he should be circumcised on that day.5provided, of course, that the surgery will not affect the infant's health. (Note the Guide to the Perplexed, Vol. III, Chapter 49, which explains that both physically and spiritually, a child is not prepared for circumcision until the eighth day.)", + "There are, however,1certain exceptions to the rules mentioned in the previous halachah that are also mentioned in Shabbat 135b. There are some slaves that are purchased who should be circumcised on the eighth day [of their lives],2as explained in this halachah and3some home-born slaves who should be circumcised on the day they are born.4as explained in the following halachah.
What is implied? Should one purchase a maidservant and purchase [the rights to] her fetus [separately],5This is possible when the maidservant herself belonged to one master and the fetus to another (Rambam in his responsa). when she gives birth, the baby should be circumcised on the eighth day. Although the fetus itself was purchased separately, since [the master] purchased his mother before the child was born,6the child is considered \"home-born\" and he should be circumcised on his eighth day.7The Kessef Mishneh relates that, according to the Rambam, even if the master at first purchased only the rights to the fetus, and then purchased the mother, since she gave birth while in his domain, the slave is considered \"home-born,\" and is circumcised on the eighth day.", + "If a person purchased a maidservant for her offspring,1In his responsum cited above, the Rambam compares this to a person who buys a tree for its fruit - i.e., he is not the actual owner of the tree, but is entitled to all the fruit it produces. Similarly, in this instance, the master is not the owner of the maidservant; what he has purchased is the right to her offspring. Therefore, none of the offspring are considered \"home-born,\" and must be circumcised immediately. or purchased a maidservant with the intent of not immersing her as a slave,2Through immersion in a mikveh, a female maidservant becomes a shifchah C'na'anit and attains the intermediate status mentioned in the Commentary on Halachah 1.
As the Rambam mentions in the following halachah, it is possible to purchase a gentile slave and maintain possession of him or her without changing his or her status in the above manner.
even though her offspring is born in his domain, the child should be circumcised on the day he was born.3The first instance mentioned does not require explanation. With regard to the second category, the Rambam elaborates:
[This ruling was granted, because] this child is considered as if he alone has been purchased [by his master], and it is as if he purchased him this day. His mother is not included among the maidservants of the Jewish people, so that the child could be considered \"home-born.\"4In the responsum cited above, the Rambam explains that the concept of a \"home-born\" slave is derived from God's commandment to Abraham. All the members of Abraham's household had accepted his beliefs and way of life. In contrast, a slave who is unwilling to accept the mitzvot cannot be considered part of a Jewish household, and her children are not \"home-born.\" If his mother immersed herself after she gave birth,5This shows that the stipulation that she need not be immersed (see the following halachah) is nullified and considered of no consequence. Therefore, she is considered to be part of the household, and the child should be circumcised on the eighth day.6The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's decision and maintains that unless the mother immerses herself before giving birth, the child should be circumcised immediately. Rabbenu Nissim, in his notes to Shabbat 135b, supports the Rambam's decision, explaining that the Sages did not reach a final ruling on the matter, and hence the more stringent approach should be taken.", + "When a person purchases a slave from the gentiles and the slave does not consent1Note the difference of opinion in Yevamot 48b, whether this leniency is granted if the slave refuses outright to be circumcised. to be circumcised, we may be patient with him for twelve months.2lest he change his mind and accept his status within the Jewish people. It is forbidden to maintain him for any longer period while he remains uncircumcised, and one must sell him to gentiles.3He must, however, agree to accept the seven universal laws mentioned below. Otherwise, he should be slain (Kessef Mishneh).
If, at the outset, while the slave was still in the possession of his gentile master, he made a stipulation that he would not be circumcised,4Rav Kapach maintains that the stipulation was made by the slave's master. Since the slave is considered to be chattel, his own say is of no concern. it is permissible to maintain him although he is not circumcised, provided he accepts the seven universal laws commanded to the descendants of Noah5The prohibitions against idol worship, cursing God, murder, theft, adultery, eating flesh taken from a living animal, and the obligation to establish a court system. (See Hilchot Melachim 9:1-2.) and becomes a resident alien.6In Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:6, the Rambam writes that it is forbidden to allow gentiles who do not accept these seven laws to dwell in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, a gentile who does is called a resident alien - i.e., a non-Jew who may dwell among us.
If he refuses to accept these seven laws,7The slave must formally accept the performance of these mitzvot in the presence of a Rabbinic court. he should be killed immediately.8The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam's decision depends on his statement (Hilchot Melachim 8:9) that we must do everything in our power to influence the gentiles to observe these seven laws.
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's statement, explaining that in the present era, we may not kill any gentiles for refusing to observe these seven laws. The commentaries differ whether the Rambam would accept the Ra'avad's decision (and his statement here is, like many of the other laws he states, reflective of the Messianic era), or whether permission is granted to kill a slave for refusing to follow these laws in the present age as well.
A resident alien may be accepted only in the era when the laws of yovel9The Jubilee year are in effect.10The Jubilee must be observed only when the entire Jewish people are dwelling in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, when the tribes of Reuven and Gad and half the tribe of Menasheh were exiled by the kingdom of Assyria (see II Kings, Chapter 16), the observance of the Jubilee was nullified (Hilchot Shemitah V'Yovel 10:8).", + "When a convert enters the congregation of Israel, he is obligated to undergo circumcision first.1Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 13:1-4 states:
With three acts, Israel entered into a covenant [with God]: circumcision, immersion [in the mikveh], and [the offering of] sacrifices.... Similarly, with regard to future generations, when a gentile wants to enter into the covenant, take refuge under the wings of the Divine Presence, and accept the yoke of the Torah, he must undergo circumcision, immersion, and the offering of a sacrifice.
The phrase \"accept the yoke of the Torah\" indicates that before performing these deeds, the prospective convert must resolve to fulfill the mitzvot.
If he had been circumcised while he was a gentile,2and not by a Jew for the purpose of conversion. Note Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 13:7 which relates that even if a gentile circumcises himself for the purpose of conversion, it is insufficient. it is necessary to extract the blood of the covenant3a superficial cut is made on the shaft of the penis, and a small amount of blood extracted.
The expression \"blood of the covenant\" is derived from the interpretation of Exodus 24:8, \"This is the blood of the covenant which God established with you,\" in certain texts of Nedarim 31b and the Mechilta's interpretation of Zechariah 9:11, \"Because of the blood of your covenant, I have sent forth your prisoners from the pit.\"
on the day that he converts.4The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 268:2) states that one should wait until the wound of the circumcision is completely healed before immersing in the mikveh and completing the process of conversion.
Similarly, a child who was born without a foreskin5Our Sages mention this as a sign of a high spiritual level, citing Moses and Shem (Noah's son) as examples of children born without a foreskin. must have blood extracted for circumcision6Were we to be sure the child did not have a foreskin, there would be no need for the extraction of blood. The blood is extracted lest the child have a thin foreskin that is not readily noticeable (Shabbat 135a). Note the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 263:4), which requires the extraction of blood and states that we must inspect such a child carefully - but gently - to see whether he possesses a thin foreskin or not. (Perhaps the expression \"thin foreskin\" refers to the membrane removed by pri'ah.)
It must be noted that there are Rishonim (see Rashi,Shabbat 134a) who maintain that the extraction of the \"blood of the covenant\" is not a by-product of a search for a thin membrane, but rather serves an independent purpose: The Jews' covenant with God is established through their blood.
on the eighth day.7Note Chapter 3, Halachah 6, which states that a blessing is not recited for this activity.
The Ramah mentions several other instances when blood must be extracted: a child who was circumcised before the eighth day (Yoreh De'ah 262:1), circumcised at night ( loc. cit.), or circumcised by a gentile ( loc. cit., 264:1) should have blood extracted for the sake of fulfilling the mitzvah. (Note also the commentary on Chapter 2, Halachah 1.)
An androgynous, a child with both male and female sexual organs,8Androgynous is a combination of the Greek words meaning \"man\" and \"woman.\" (See Hilchot Ishut 2:24.) Note also Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 12:4, which states:
The status of a tumtum and an androgynous is doubtful. Therefore, the stringencies of both a man and a woman are applied to them, and they are obligated by all [the mitzvot]. If, however, they transgress, they are not [punished by] lashing.
Because of this unique status, an androgynous
must be circumcised on the eighth day.9lest he be obligated to undergo circumcision.
See Tiferet Yisrael (Shabbat 19:3), who writes:
There are those who say there is no such thing as an androgynous. Their statements are false.... I beheld such a phenomenon with my own eyes. Twelve years ago, I myself circumcised a child with this condition.
Similarly, a child born by Caesarian section10Shabbat 135a explains as follows: The commandment for circumcision on the eighth day (Leviticus 12:3 is stated directly after the verse that relates that a woman who gives birth becomes ritually impure. Since a woman does not contract ritual impurity when she gives birth by Caesarian section, one might think that the child need not be circumcised on the eighth day. Therefore, the Rambam clarified the matter. (See also Halachah 11.) and a child who has two foreskins11This refers to a birth abnormality. Rashi (Shabbat 135b) mentions two interpretations: a person with a single penis that is covered by two foreskins; alternatively, a person with two penises. should both be circumcised on the eighth day.12Nevertheless, as explained in Halachah 11, none of the individuals mentioned in this halachah are circumcised on the eighth day if it falls on the Sabbath.", + "Circumcision is performed only during the day,1This applies to all circumcisions - those of children, servants, and converts after the rising of the sun,2This refers to הנץ החמה, the rising of the sun on the horizon. as [Leviticus 12:3] states, \"On the eighth day...,\" i.e., during the day,3only, and not at night.4In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Megillah 2:4), the Rambam writes that the day extends from dawn to the appearance of the stars. It is preferable, however, to perform all acts that must be carried out during the day after the rising of the sun.
Although according to the Rambam, the day extends until the appearance of the stars, circumcision should be carried out before sunset (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 266:9).
The proof-text quoted mentions the eighth day. Nevertheless, Yevamot 72b uses the rules of Biblical exegesis to demonstrate that
[This applies to a circumcision performed] at the appropriate time, the eighth day [after birth], and [to a circumcision performed] after the appropriate time, from the ninth day and onward.
If one performed the circumcision5alot hashachar, the appearance of the first rays of the sun, approximately an hour before the sun itself actually appears on the horizon. after dawn, it is acceptable. It is acceptable [at any time] throughout the entire day. Nevertheless, it is a mitzvah to [perform the circumcision] early, in the beginning of the day, since \"the eager perform mitzvot early.\"6Pesachim 4a derives this concept from the description in Genesis 22:3 of Abraham's rising early in the morning to perform the akedah.", + "When a circumcision [is performed] at its appropriate time,1on the eighth day. [its performance] supersedes [the prohibition against labor]2Cutting off the foreskin is otherwise forbidden because it causes bleeding (Hilchot Shabbat 8:7-8). on the Sabbath. When it [is] not [performed] at its appropriate time, [its performance] does not supersede [the prohibition against labor] on the Sabbath3Shabbat 132a relates that the verse, \"On the eighth day, the child's foreskin will be circumcised,\" is a Torah decree, requiring circumcision on the eighth day regardless of the day on which it falls. or the festivals.4The observance of the Sabbath and festivals involves both a positive and negative commandment. Therefore, circumcision, which is merely a positive commandment, does not supersede their observance. Whether or not it is performed at its appropriate time,5Note Rav Kapach, who asks how is it possible for a sign of tzara'at to be already definitely determined as such by the eighth day of a child's life. [its performance] supersedes [the prohibition against removing signs of] tzara'at.6Tzara'at is a skin condition resembling leprosy. Deuteronomy 24:8 forbids removing such a mark, and Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 308) considers this to be one of the 365 prohibitions of the Torah. (See also Hilchot Tum'at Tzara'at, Chapter 10.)
What is implied? If there was a sign of tzara'at on the foreskin, it may be cut off with the foreskin. Although there is a prohibition against cutting off the signs of tzara'at, the performance of a positive commandment supersedes the observance of a negative commandment.7In contrast to the permission granted to circumcise on the Sabbath, this is not an exception made with regard to circumcision, but rather a general rule that applies throughout Torah law (see Hilchot Tzitzit 3:6).", + "Just as the circumcision of sons supersedes [the prohibitions against labor on] the Sabbath, so too, the circumcision of those slaves who are circumcised on the eighth day [of their lives]1The \"home-born\" slaves mentioned in Halachot 3-4. In contrast, slaves who were purchased, and therefore should be circumcised on the day they were purchased (or born), should not be circumcised on the Sabbath. supersedes [the prohibitions against labor on] the Sabbath when the eighth day [of their life] falls on the Sabbath.2Kiryat Melech cites Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 29, which relates that Abraham circumcised all his servants on Yom Kippur.
Significantly, Rabbenu Yerucham differs, and writes that only the circumcisions of Jews, and not of their servants, supersedes the Sabbath prohibitions. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 267:2) quotes the Rambam's view.
There is [one] exception3a slave whose mother did not immerse herself until after she gave birth. - See Halachah 5 and commentary. - a slave whose mother did not immerse herself until after she gave birth. Although such a slave is circumcised on the eighth day, his circumcision does not supersede [the prohibitions against labor on] the Sabbath.4When the eighth day of such a person's life falls on the Sabbath, he is circumcised on Sunday, the ninth day of his life.", + "[The circumcision of the following individuals] does not supersede [the prohibitions against labor on] the Sabbath:
a child who was born without a foreskin;
a1Since, as stated in Halachah 7, the blood is extracted from him only because of a suspicion that he has a hidden foreskin, this activity does not supersede the Sabbath prohibitions. child who was born in the eighth month of pregnancy before his development was completed; he is considered to be a stillborn, for he will not live;
a2As explained in Halachah 13, the circumcision is not carried out on the eighth day because of the probability that the child will not live. child born by Caesarian section;
an3See Halachah 7. androgynous; and
a person with two foreskins.4because we are unsure of the nature of the obligation of circumcision in these instances.
These individuals are circumcised on [the following] Sunday, the ninth day of their lives.5They should not be circumcised before the eighth day.", + "When a child is born beyn hash'mashot,1the period between sunset and the appearance of three stars. (See Hilchot Shabbat 5:4.) which is a period when it is undetermined whether it is considered day or night, we count from the night,2Were we to count from the day, it is possible that the circumcision would be carried out before the proper time. and he is circumcised on the ninth day [following the day he was born], which could be the eighth day.3The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 262:7) states that night depends on the appearance of three stars, and not on when the evening service is recited.
When a child is born beyn hash'mashot on Friday,4he should not be circumcised on the following Friday, as explained above. Nor should he be circumcised on the following Sabbath (although it is the ninth day of his life), since his circumcision does not supersede the Sabbath prohibitions, because the Sabbath prohibitions are never superseded because of a doubtful situation. Rather, he should be circumcised on [the following] Sunday.5Thus, he is circumcised on the 10th day of his life. (See Shabbat 19:5.)", + "[The following principles apply when] a child is born in the eighth month [of pregnancy]:1The comprehension of this and the following halachah are dependent on the following two Talmudic passages:
[The prohibitions against labor on] the Sabbath are superseded for [the circumcision of a child] born in the seventh month, but not for a child born in the eighth month (Shabbat 135a).
A child born in the eighth month is like a stone and may not be carried [on the Sabbath]. His mother may, however, lean over him and nurse him....
Rabbi states: [This is when] his physical features reflect his [lack of development]; i.e., when his hair and nails are not completely formed.
[Rabbi's statements imply that] if [his hair and nails] are completely formed, he is a baby that should have been born in the seventh month, but whose birth was delayed (Yevamot 80b).
From these passages, it appears that the Sages considered that there were two periods of gestation that could produce healthy babies, a seven-month period and a nine-month period. Therefore, a baby who was born in the seventh month was considered to be healthy, and circumcision could be performed on the Sabbath.
In contrast, a baby born in the eighth month was generally considered to be unhealthy. Not only was the baby not to be circumcised on the Sabbath, but moving it at all was forbidden. Since it was likely to die, it was considered to be muktzeh. If, however, a baby born in the eighth month looks healthy, we assume that it should have been born in the seventh month, but its birth was delayed. Therefore, it is considered a healthy baby and it may be circumcised on the Sabbath.
We have used the past tense in the above explanation, because these laws are no longer practiced, and all babies are allowed to be moved on the Sabbath. Tosafot, Shabbat, loc. cit., state that at present, it is no longer possible to determine exactly when a child was conceived, and we therefore do not know the month of pregnancy the mother was in. Furthermore, the advances in medical technology have enabled the lives of many premature babies to be saved despite the fact that, without these new developments, these babies would surely not have survived. At present, it is considered a mitzvah to try to save the lives of any premature babies, even if doing so involves carrying out forbidden labors on the Sabbath.
Also, it must be emphasized that, as stated in Halachot 16-18, a child is circumcised only when it is healthy and there is no danger involved. This is surely relevant with regard to premature infants. Rarely, if ever, would a doctor grant permission for such a baby to be circumcised on the eighth day of his life.
If the child's nails and hair are completely formed, we assume that this is a completely formed infant that should have been born in the seventh month, but whose birth was delayed. Hence, the baby may be carried on the Sabbath, is not considered to be a stone, and may be circumcised on the Sabbath.
If, however, when the baby was born, its hair and nails were incompletely formed, we can be certain that this child is in its eighth month of development and should not have been born until the ninth month, but was born prematurely. Therefore, he is considered as a stone and may not be moved on the Sabbath.
Nevertheless, if such an infant remains alive for thirty days, he is considered to be a child who will live and is governed by all the same rules as other infants.2Among the ramifications of this decision are that the child's mother is free of the obligations of yibbum and chalitzah. (See Hilchot Yibbum 1:5.)
Whenever a human child lives longer than thirty days, it is no longer considered to be a stillborn.", + "[The following rules apply when] a child is born in the seventh month of gestation: If a child is born with his limbs completely formed,3Our translation is based on the commentary of the Maggid Mishneh, Hilchot Yibbum 1:5. According to this interpretation, the child's hair and nails need not be completely formed. The Kessef Mishneh offers a different interpretation. Significantly, however, in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 266:11), Rav Yosef Karo accepts the Maggid Mishneh's interpretation. we assume that he will live and he should be circumcised on the eighth day [even if it falls on the Sabbath].
If there is a question whether a child4According to the Maggid Mishneh's interpretation mentioned above, this refers to an instance when the child's limbs are completely formed, but his hair and nails are not. The date of his birth, however, creates a problem, because he appears to have been born in the eighth month.
[With regard to this law, the Shulchan Aruch ( loc. cit.) does not accept the Maggid Mishneh's interpretation. It is, however, quoted by the Ramah.]
was born in the seventh month or in the eighth month, he can be circumcised on the Sabbath. The rationale is: If he was born in the seventh month and his limbs are completely formed, it is appropriate that [his circumcision] supersede [the prohibitions against labor on] the Sabbath. If he was born in the eighth month, circumcising him [does not constitute a violation of the Sabbath prohibitions].5This rationale is not used to allow the circumcision of a child who was definitely born in the eighth month, because the Rabbinic prohibition of muktzeh is in effect. Although the Sages did not enforce that prohibition in a case of doubt (the present halachah), they did apply it when no doubt about the period of gestation exists (the previous halachah).
It is like cutting meat, because he is like a stillborn if he is, in fact, born in the eighth month.", + "When a child's head emerges from his mother's birth canal beyn hash'mashot on Friday, but his entire body does not emerge until after the Sabbath night [has commenced], the child should not be circumcised on the Sabbath.6Niddah 42b relates that the time when a child's head emerges is considered the hour of birth.
Whenever a child's circumcision does not supersede the Sabbath prohibitions, [such circumcision] also does not supersede the prohibitions of the first day of a festival.7See Halachah 9, which equates circumcision on festivals to circumcision on the Sabbath. In this halachah, the Rambam is adding that the prohibition against circumcision on the eighth day when it falls on the Sabbath in the various instances mentioned in Halachot 11-13 also applies on festivals. It does, however, supersede the prohibitions of the second day of a festival.8Since the celebration of the second day of a festival is only Rabbinic in origin, the fulfillment of the mitzvah of circumcision takes priority.
This represents the Rambam's view. Rabbenu Asher differs and maintains that only a circumcision that would be performed on the eighth day, were it to fall on the Sabbath, should be performed on the second day of a festival. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 266:8) quotes Rabbenu Asher's view, while the Siftei Cohen 266:8 follows the Rambam's position. [Significantly, the Noda biYhudah (Orach Chayim, Responsum 30) and the Chatam Sofer (Yoreh De'ah, Responsum 250) interpret the difference of opinion between the Rambam and Rabbenu Asher as applying only when the circumcision is definitely not being performed on the eighth day. (See notes 10 and 11.) According to their view, even Rabbenu Asher agrees that when a child is born during beyn hash'mashot eight days before the second day of a festival, he may be circumcised on that second day of the festival.
On Rosh HaShanah, however, it does not supersede [the prohibitions] of either the first or the second day.9As explained in Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 1:21-24, the rules governing the celebration of the second day of Rosh HaShanah differ from those governing the celebration of the second days of other festivals. The two days of Rosh HaShanah share the same level of holiness, and all the prohibitions that apply on the first day apply on the second, with the exception of the laws of burial. (See also Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 5:7-8.)Thus, if a child was born during beyn hash'mashot a week before Rosh HaShanah in a year when the two days of Rosh HaShanah are followed by the Sabbath, the child is not circumcised until the twelfth day of his life (Shabbat 19:5). Similarly, a circumcision that is not carried out at the appropriate time10This refers to instances when a child was sick and the circumcision was delayed, and the like. does not supersede [the prohibitions of either of] the two days of Rosh HaShanah.11From the Rambam's phraseology, it appears that he allows such circumcisions to be carried out on the second day of other festivals. See note 8.", + "A sick person1This applies not only to children who are circumcised on the eighth day of their lives, but also to those (e.g., converts or slaves) who are circumcised when they are older. should not be circumcised until he regains his health.2lest the child's life be endangered. (See Halachah 18.) Seven full days should be counted from the time he regains his health until he is circumcised.3In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 19:5), the Rambam writes:
Until he fully recovers from his illness and the weakness from his sickness passes. He should wait seven days from the time the weakness passes.... Only afterwards, should he be circumcised.
Thus, we see that the Rambam intends that the person to be circumcised fully regain his health, and then wait an additional seven days.

When does the above apply? When he recovers from high fever4Our translation is based on the Kessef Mishneh. or from a similar illness.5i.e., an illness that affects a person's entire body (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 262:2) If, however, a person's eyes hurt, as soon as his eyes heal he may be circumcised immediately.6i.e., on the same day of his recovery. Note the Turei Zahav 262:3, which explains that since the circumcision has been postponed, it may be further delayed and should not be carried out on Thursday or Friday, so that the child will not have pain on the Sabbath. The same applies in all similar circumstances.7i.e., sicknesses in which the person's entire body is not affected.", + "A child whose complexion is very yellowish12The Rambam is referring to infantile jaundice, which is common in many newborns. on the eighth day of his life13The Bayit Chadash (Yoreh De'ah 263) and the Binyan Shlomo interpret the Rambam's phraseology as indicating that, in contrast to the sicknesses mentioned in the previous halachah, it is not necessary to wait seven days after the child's recovery in these instances. This is the common practice today. should not be circumcised until his blood recovers and his complexion returns to that of an ordinary healthy child.
Similarly, if his complexion is overly red,14At present, if the child's skin color is not normal (regardless of the tinge), it is customary to delay the circumcision. as if he had been painted, he should not be circumcised until his blood recovers and his complexion returns to that of an ordinary healthy child.15Shabbat 134a relates that once, a woman approached Rabbi Natan HaBavli while he was visiting a distant community. She explained that her first two children had died after being circumcised, and was concerned whether she should circumcise her third son or not. Rabbi Natan inspected the baby and saw that he was extremely red. He advised that the circumcision be delayed until the child's complexion returned to the norm. His advice was followed and the child survived. In appreciation, the family named him Natan. This is an example of sickness, and great care must be taken regarding this matter.", + "When a woman circumcised her first son and he died because the circumcision sapped his strength, and similarly, circumcised her second son and he also died because of the circumcision, she should not circumcise her third son at the appropriate time. Rather, she should wait until he becomes older and his strength increases. [This applies regardless of whether] the first two children were sired by the same father or not.
We should not circumcise a child who is afflicted with any sickness at all, since the danger to life takes precedence over everything. Circumcision can be performed at a later date, while it is impossible to bring a single Jewish soul back to life." + ], + [ + "Circumcision may be performed by anyone.1Although a father is commanded to circumcise his son, if he is not present or cannot perform the mitzvah, it may be performed by another person. Even a person who is himself not circumcised,2This refers to a Jew who is not circumcised. The Kessef Mishneh explains that it refers to a person who was not circumcised because his brothers died because of circumcision. A Jew who intentionally fails to circumcise himself, however, should not be allowed to circumcise others. Rav Yosef Karo also quotes this ruling in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 264:1).
Note also the Ramah (ibid.), who states that an apostate should not be allowed to circumcise others.
a slave,3Although a slave is not a full-fledged member of the Jewish community, he is obligated to perform certain mitzvot and is himself circumcised. a woman,4Avodah Zarah 27a allows a woman to perform a circumcision, because \"a woman is considered as if she is circumcised.\" The matter is, however, one of debate, and other Sages do not allow a woman to perform a circumcision. Tosafot follow this view and their opinion is quoted by the Ramah (ibid.). or a minor5This is allowed because a minor will ultimately be obligated to perform all the mitzvot and is circumcised himself. may perform the circumcision, if an adult male is not present.6i.e., if possible, an adult male should be charged with the fulfillment of this mitzvah. A gentile, however, should not be allowed to perform the circumcision at all.7The Chatam Sofer (Yoreh De'ah, Responsum 132) explains that when a gentile performs a circumcision, the mitzvah is not performed at all... Nevertheless, if he does so, there is no need for a second circumcision.8because the deed has already been completed. (See also Sha'agat Aryeh, Responsum 54.)
This ruling revolves around the conception that there are two dimensions to circumcision:
a) the mitzvah of actually cutting off the foreskin;
b) the effect of that cutting, that the person is circumcised.
There are, however, other explanations of the Rambam's ruling. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the decision revolves upon whether or not circumcision must be carried out lishmah, for the sake of the fulfillment of the mitzvah.
The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 264:1) rules that although a second circumcision is not required, blood should be extracted. This is the accepted practice today. Some authorities maintain that even the Rambam requires such a step.

Any utensil may be used for circumcision, even a flint,9See Exodus 4:25, which relates that Tziporah (Moses' wife) performed a circumcision with such a utensil. glass, or any article that cuts. One should not circumcise with the sharpened side of a reed, because of the danger involved.10Chulin16b explains that we are afraid that a splinter from the reed may damage the penis. The optimum manner of performing the mitzvah is to use an iron utensil11The Targum Yonatan interprets Joshua 5:2 as an indication that iron was used for circumcision even at that early age. The Prishah (Yoreh De'ah 284:7) relates that this custom was instituted after Goliath's iron helmet split open before David's stone. God promised iron that, in recognition of its act on behalf of the Jews, they would use it for a positive purpose in future generations. The Mishnah (Shabbat 19:1) refers to the use of iron utensils for circumcision as an accepted custom. - either scissors or a knife. Throughout the Jewish community, it has become customary to use a knife.12See the Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbat 19:6.", + "How is the circumcision performed? The foreskin that covers the crown of the penis is cut off until the entire crown is revealed.1i.e., all the tissue of the foreskin until its ridge must be removed. [This step is referred to as milah.]
Afterwards,2The pri'ah should be carried out after the circumcision itself. Today, there are some mohalim who insert a utensil and lift up the membrane before the circumcision, and then cut off the foreskin and the membrane together. Many contemporary authorities have criticized this approach. the soft membrane that is beneath the skin should be split along the mid-line with one's nails3The Yalkut Shimoni, Vol. II, Note 723, states that nails were created for this purpose. and peeled back to either side until the flesh of the crown is revealed.4Preferably, no portion of the foreskin or the membrane should remain. See Chatam Sofer (Yoreh De'ah, Responsum13 248). [This step is referred to as pri'ah.]
Afterwards, one should suck5Traditionally, the mohel sucks out the blood with his mouth. Nevertheless, in previous generations, the Rabbis did grant license to use a pipette because of the possibility that germs in the mohel's mouth might infect the child. Today, there are authorities who suggest the use of a pipette because of the danger that the mohel could contract AIDS. the place of the circumcision until all the blood in the further reaches is extracted, lest a dangerous situation arise.6The Tiferet Yisrael (Shabbat 19:2) relates that internal bleeding caused by the circumcision could cause the penis to swell, and applying suction to remove the blood averts that danger. The Tiferet Yisrael also writes that a danger exists that applying too strong a suction will rupture the blood vessels and cause excessive bleeding. Therefore, he recommends that one should apply gentle suction. [This step is referred to as metzitzah.] Any [mohel] who does not perform metzitzah should be removed from his position.7because of the danger to which he exposes the children. After one has performed metzitzah, one should apply a bandage, a compress, or the like.8to stop the bleeding and assist the healing of the wound.", + "There are strands of flesh that disqualify a circumcision [if they are not removed], and strands of flesh that do not disqualify a circumcision.
What is implied? If, [after circumcision,] a portion of the foreskin is left that covers the majority of the crown of the penis' height,1Rashi, Shabbat 137b, states that surely if the foreskin is left on the majority of the circumference of the penis' crown, it is unacceptable. When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 264:5) states that if the majority of the height of the crown is left covered in any one place, the circumcision is not acceptable. Thus, even a thin strand of skin that covers either the majority of the height or the majority of the circumference of the crown can disqualify the circumcision. the child is considered to be uncircumcised, and this flesh is considered a tzitz that disqualifies the circumcision.2A second circumcision is required in such an instance, and a blessing is recited when performing it.If only a small portion of flesh remains which does not cover the majority of the crown of the penis' height, it is considered to be a tzitz that does not disqualify the circumcision.3See the following halachah.", + "While the person performing the circumcision is involved in the operation, he should go back and remove both the tzitzim that disqualify the circumcision and the tzitzim that do not disqualify the circumcision.4As mentioned in Halachah 6, this ruling applies even when the circumcision is being carried out on the Sabbath. Once he has interrupted his activity, he must return and remove any tzitzim that disqualify the circumcision,5Since, as explained in the previous halachah, unless this flesh is removed, a second circumcision is necessary. but he does not return to remove anytzitzim that do not disqualify the circumcision.6The Rambam's phraseology is somewhat problematic. The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 264) explains that the Rambam's intent is that we are not required to remove this flesh. In contrast, the Sha'agat Aryeh (Responsum 50) interprets the Rambam as stating that, once the mohel has interrupted his activity, he is forbidden to return and cut off the remaining flesh. (The Sha'agat Aryeh himself questions the Rambam's decision. The Merkevet HaMishneh explains that since the circumcision is acceptable, it is forbidden to expose the child to further pain.)
The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 264:5) rules that if the circumcision is performed during the week, one should remove this flesh. This ruling is followed throughout the Jewish community today.

When one performs a circumcision without performing pri'ah, it is considered as if the circumcision was not performed.7The Babylonian Talmud relates that although pri'ah is not mentioned in the Torah, nor was Abraham commanded to carry out this activity, it is part of the oral tradition (halachah leMoshe miSinai), which may not be ignored (Shabbat 137b, Yevamot 71b). The Jerusalem Talmud (Yevamot 8:1) differs, and uses the principles of Biblical exegesis to derive the obligation of removing the membrane.", + "[The following ruling is given when]1a circumcision was performed properly, but a child's flesh is soft and hangs loosely, or if he is very fat and,2there is flesh protruding over the crown of the penis and therefore, it appears that he is not circumcised.3Were this condition to result from an improper circumcision, a second circumcision would be required. Since the circumcision was performed correctly, such measures are not necessary. Nevertheless, We should observe him when he has an erection:4when the penis is extended and its flesh taut if he appears circumcised at that time,5There is no need for the entire crown to be revealed; as long as one third of it is not covered by the flesh, it is acceptable (Terumat HaDeshen 264). it is unnecessary to do anything more. One must, however, correct the flesh on the sides, because of the appearance it creates.6The flesh should be held back with bandages to prevent it from covering the crown. There is, however, no necessity for an additional operation even if these measures are not successful (Terumat HaDeshen, ibid.).
If, however, he does not appear to be circumcised when he has an erection,7if more than two-thirds of the crown is covered the loose hanging flesh on the sides should be cut off until the crown of the penis is revealed while it is erect.8The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 264:6) explains that, in this instance - in contrast to the original circumcision - it is not necessary to reveal the entire crown; it is necessary only to reveal a minimal portion.
This9second operation was ordained by the Rabbis. According to the Torah itself, even though he [appears] uncircumcised, since he was circumcised once,10properly and all the flesh removed from the crown of the penis there is no obligation to circumcise him again.", + "Anything that is necessary for the circumcision [itself] may be performed on the Sabbath.1As mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 9, when a circumcision is carried out on the eighth day of a child's life, it may be performed on the Sabbath, with the exception of several unique instances. We may perform milah, pri'ah, and metzitzah,2the three phases of the circumcision mentioned in Halachah 2. return and remove the tzitzim that disqualify the circumcision even though one has interrupted one's activity,3This is permitted because, until these strands of flesh are removed, the obligation to circumcise the child on the eighth day has not been fulfilled. (See Halachah 3 and commentary.) Hence, just as we are allowed to carry out the operation on the Sabbath at the outset, we are allowed to complete its performance by removing these strands of flesh. return and remove the tzitzim that do not disqualify the circumcision if one has not interrupted one's activity,4Even according to the opinion that allows one to return and remove these strands of flesh during the week, it is forbidden to do so on the Sabbath because the circumcision is acceptable. Hence, no further cutting is permitted because of the Sabbath laws. and bandage the circumcision afterwards.5In general, medication may be applied on the Sabbath only when a danger to life is involved. The Sages considered circumcision to be in this category. The preparation of articles that are necessary for the circumcision does not supersede the prohibitions against labor on the Sabbath.6The license the Torah grants for circumcision to be performed on the Sabbath applies only to the deed of circumcision, which is itself a mitzvah. All the preparatory stages that make circumcision possible must be performed beforehand, for they are not elements of the actual performance of the mitzvah (Kiryat Sefer).
What is implied? If we are unable to find a knife, a knife may not be made on the Sabbath, nor may we bring it from place to place.7i.e., from a public domain to a private domain It is even forbidden to bring it from one courtyard to another courtyard in an alleyway if there is no eruv.8Here, there is no Torah prohibition involved. Nevertheless, Although the [mitzvah of] eruv is only Rabbinic in origin, it is not superseded by [the necessity] to bring a knife,9Pesachim 92a cites this as an example of the power of Rabbinic law. Although karet (the punishment for not fulfilling the mitzvah of circumcision) is involved, the Sages enforced their decree against carrying in such places and forbade bringing the knife. since it was possible to bring the knife on Friday.", + "Herbs may not be ground to [use for the compress], nor may water be heated [to wash the child], nor may a compress be prepared,8A compress that is prepared before the Sabbath may be applied on the Sabbath. It is, however, forbidden to prepare the compress on the Sabbath (see Hilchot Shabbat 23:11). nor may wine and oil be mixed [on the Sabbath itself].9The mixture of wine and oil was applied to the wound to heal it.
If cumin was not ground on Friday, one may chew it on the Sabbath10According to Torah law, a labor is forbidden on the Sabbath only when it is performed in its usual fashion. In most cases, however, such activities are forbidden by the Rabbis. Nevertheless, in this instance, since the herbs are being prepared for a remedy and they are not being prepared in the normal manner, the Sages did not forbid their preparation (see Hilchot Shabbat 21:26). and apply it [to the wound]. If one did not mix wine and oil together, they may each be applied individually. This is the general rule: Whatever can be performed on Friday does not supersede [the prohibitions against labor on] the Sabbath. Should one forget and not prepare the accessories necessary for the circumcision, the circumcision should be performed on the ninth day.", + "If a child was circumcised on the Sabbath and, afterwards, the hot water was spilled or the herbs [for the compress] were scattered, one may do anything that is necessary for him on the Sabbath, because of the danger involved.
In a place where it is customary to wash a child, he may be washed on the Sabbath on the day of his circumcision, both before the circumcision and after the circumcision, and on the third day of his circumcision. The child's entire body may be washed as well as the place of the circumcision itself. [On the third day,] he may be washed with water that was heated on Friday or with water that was heated on the Sabbath itself, because the situation involves danger.", + "If a knife was forgotten and not brought [to the place of the circumcision] on Friday, one may instruct a gentile to bring it on the Sabbath, provided he does not bring it through the public domain.
The general principle governing this matter is: It is permissible to tell a gentile to perform any activity that we are forbidden to perform as a sh'vut,11In Hilchot Shabbat 21:1, the Rambam defines a sh'vut as follows:
[With regard to the Sabbath,] the Torah has told us, \"You shall rest.\" This implies that we are obligated to rest from the performance of [certain] activities even though they are not included among the forbidden labors.
In Chapters 21 and 22 of those halachot, the Rambam explains the concept of sh'vut in detail.
so that we may perform a mitzvah at its appropriate time.12In Hilchot Shabbat 6:9, the Rambam mentions this leniency with regard to bringing a shofar on Rosh HaShanah [i.e., in Jerusalem to be sounded in the Temple]. Although Tosafot (Gittin 8b) maintain that the leniency should not be extended beyond the scope of the mitzvah of circumcision, the Rambam's ruling is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 307:5). When, however, an activity is prohibited because a forbidden labor is involved, we may not instruct a gentile to do it [for us] on the Sabbath.13For this reason, a gentile may not be instructed to make a knife or boil water for the circumcision. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 331:6.)", + "[The preparation of] the accessories for circumcision - even when the circumcision is being performed at the appropriate time14I.e., on the eighth day of a child's life. - does not supersede [the prohibitions against labor on] the holidays, because it is possible to complete them before the commencement of the holiday.15Thus, making a knife is forbidden on a festival. Nevertheless, carrying a knife through the public domain and heating water are permitted on a festival.
[This ruling can be derived through the following] process of inference: If [the preparation of] the accessories for circumcision is not significant enough to supersede the Rabbinic prohibitions of sh'vut, why should they supersede a negative commandment of the Torah?16There are certain leniencies regarding the performance of labor on festivals when compared to the performance of labor on the Sabbath. Nevertheless, the performance of labor on festivals is also considered a Torah prohibition. (See Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 1:1.) [Nevertheless, there are certain greater leniencies on festivals:] One may grind herbs for [the compress], since these herbs are fit to be used in food.17On festivals, we are allowed to perform any labor that is connected with the preparation of food. Since these herbs could be used for food, we are allowed to prepare them for the circumcision as well. Similarly, oil and wine may be mixed together.18In this instance, only a Rabbinic prohibition is involved, and it is waived because of the importance of circumcision (Ma'aseh Rokeach)." + ], + [ + "Before the circumcision, the person who performs the circumcision recites the blessing, \"[Blessed are You...] who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the circumcision.\" [This applies] when circumcising the son of another person.1The Rambam's ruling depends on his statement (Hilchot Berachot 11:13) that if someone performs a blessing on behalf of another person, he should use the form \"who has sanctified us with Your commandments and commanded us concerning....\" When circumcising one's own son, one should recite the blessing \"... to circumcise a son.\"2In Hilchot Berachot 11:12, the Rambam states that when one fulfills a mitzvah on one's own behalf, one should use the form \"who has sanctified us with Your commandments and commanded us to...\"
Although the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 365:2) mentions the Rambam's opinion, the Ramah states that it is customary to recite the blessing \"... concerning the circumcision,\" at all times.
It is possible to explain that the Ramah does not accept the Rambam's general principle and prefers a universal form for a blessing to be recited every time a particular mitzvah is fulfilled. It is, however, also possible to interpret their difference of opinion as relating to the definition of the mitzvah of circumcision itself. The Rambam's text of the blessing, which uses the form \"... to...,\" indicates that the nature of the mitzvah of circumcision focuses on the act of circumcision. In contrast, the Ramah's text for the blessing can be interpreted to imply that the nature of the mitzvah is to bring a person to the state that he is no longer uncircumcised. Therefore, the form \"... concerning...\" is more appropriate (Kinat Eliyahu).

[At the circumcision,]3The time when this blessing is recited is a matter of question. In two of his responsa, the Rambam writes that it makes no difference whether this blessing is recited before the circumcision or afterwards. Nevertheless, Rav Avraham, his son, and Rav Yitzchak, his grandson, state that it was the Rambam's custom to recite this blessing before the mitzvah.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 265:1) quotes the opinion of Rabbenu Asher, who states that this blessing should be recited between the milah and the pri'ah.
the father of the child recites another blessing:
Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to have our children enter the covenant of Abraham, our Patriarch.4Tosafot, Pesachim 7a, explain that this blessing is not one of the blessings connected with the performance of a mitzvah, but a blessing that expresses our thanks and appreciation to God for granting us this mitzvah.
[This blessing was instituted because] it is a greater mitzvah for a father to circumcise his son than for the Jewish people as a whole to circumcise the uncircumcised among them. Therefore, if a child's father is not present, this blessing should not be recited. There are those who have ruled that the court or one of the people [in attendance should recite this blessing in the father's absence]. [Nevertheless, this ruling] should not be followed.5The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's decision and rules that, in the absence of the father, the sandak (the person who holds the baby during the circumcision) should recite this blessing. The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 265:1) quotes this decision.", + "If others are present,6The literal translation of the Rambam's phraseology is \"If others are standing there.\" The commentaries explain that his intent is also to emphasize that it is necessary to stand while attending a brit. (See the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 265:6, which states that, if possible, it is preferable to perform a circumcision with at least ten adult males in attendance.) they say: \"Just as you have brought him into the covenant,7The Rambam's version of this statement is found also in the Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 9:3) and is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 265:1). At present, however, it is customary to follow Rabbenu Asher's opinion and say, \"Just as he has entered the covenant, so may he enter...\" without mentioning the father's role. Significantly, this version is found in our texts of Shabbat 137b where this custom is mentioned. so, too, may you bring him to Torah, marriage, and good deeds.\"8We wish that the merit of the circumcision will lead to a life full of genuine Jewish conduct.", + "Afterwards, the father of the child, the person who performed the circumcision, or one of the people in attendance should recite the [following] blessing:
Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who has sanctified the cherished from the womb, affixed his covenant in his flesh, and sealed his descendants with the sign of the holy covenant. Therefore, as a reward for this [circumcision], living God, our Portion, our Rock, has ordained that the beloved of our flesh be saved from the abyss for the sake of His covenant that He has set in our flesh. Blessed are You, God, who establishes the covenant.
The father of the son recites the blessing shehecheyanu.", + "When circumcising converts, one should recite the blessing:9It appears that the Rambam considers this the only blessing recited in connection with the circumcision of converts, and would have this blessing recited before the circumcision. In contrast, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 268:5) explain that two blessings should be recited in connection with the circumcision of a convert:
a) one blessing before the circumcision, \"... who has sanctified us... and commanded us to circumcise converts,\"
b) one blessing after the circumcision, the blessing quoted by the Rambam with the conclusion, \"Blessed are You, God, who establishes a covenant.\"
According to the Shulchan Aruch's perspective, like the blessing mentioned in the previous halachah, this blessing is not a blessing connected with the performance of the mitzvah, but an expression of praise for God for granting us the opportunity to perform such a unique mitzvah.
According to the Rambam's view, it is somewhat difficult to understand: Why is this blessing so lengthy? In this context, theSefer HaMaor explains that this blessing was instituted to reassure converts and strengthen their resolve before they fulfill a mitzvah that is associated with pain and suffering.

Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to circumcise converts and to extract from them the blood of the covenant,10The Kessef Mishneh explains that this is a reference to the extraction of blood from converts who were circumcised previously. Other commentaries object to this interpretation, noting that in Halachah 6, the Rambam does not require a blessing in such an instance. for were it not for the blood of the covenant the existence of the heavens and the earth could not be maintained, as [Jeremiah 33:25] states: \"Were it not for My covenant, day and night, I would not have established the laws of heaven and earth.\"", + "One who circumcises his slave11I.e., when the master performs the circumcision himself. recites the blessing:12In this instance as well, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 267:12) rule that two blessings should be recited. See Note 9.
[Blessed are You...] who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to circumcise slaves and to extract from them the blood of the covenant, for were it not for the blood of the covenant the existence of the heavens and the earth could not be maintained....\"
If one circumcises a slave belonging to someone else, one should [alter the text of] the blessing and say, \"[and commanded us] concerning the circumcision of slaves [and...]13The reason for the change of text depends on the Rambam's statements (Hilchot Berachot 11:11) that a person who performs a blessing on his own behalf should use the form, \"who has sanctified us... and commanded us to...\" In contrast, one who performs a blessing on behalf of others should use the form, \"...and commanded us concerning....\"
When circumcising an adult male, one must cover his sexual organ until after the blessing is recited.14This is because, as explained in Hilchot Kri'at Shema 3:16, it is forbidden to recite holy words in the presence of an exposed sexual organ.
There is somewhat of a problem, however, with the Rambam's statements. Here, it appears that one need not cover the penis of a baby before reciting the blessing, yet in Hilchot Kri'at Shema (ibid.), the Rambam writes that the Shema may not be recited in the presence of a minor whose sexual organ is exposed.
In one of his responsa, the Rambam resolves this difficulty, explaining that the prohibition begins when the child - either male or female - possesses some sexual potency. (See also Siftei Cohen 265:18.)
Afterwards, one reveals it and performs the circumcision.", + "When the blood of circumcision is extracted from a convert who had been circumcised before conversion, or from a child who was born without a foreskin, there is no necessity to recite a blessing.15In both cases, there is a doubt whether or not it is necessary to perform this circumcision. (See Chapter 1, Halachah 7.) Therefore, the circumcision is performed, but a blessing is not recited, lest there be no obligation to perform this activity, and thus, the blessing would be recited in vain. (See Hilchot Berachot 11:16.) Similarly, a blessing is not recited over the circumcision of an androgynous, because he is not definitely categorized as a male.16The Ra'avad contests this point, noting that when there is a doubt whether a certain activity fulfills a mitzvah or not, one should recite a blessing, and cites the recitation of blessings on the second day of festivals in the diaspora as an example of this principle.
Rav Kapach explains that the difference between the Rambam and the Ra'avad depends on their conception of the status of an androgynous. The Ra'avad maintains that an androgynous is considered a male whose status is in doubt. Therefore, since a mitzvah from the Torah is involved, a blessing should be recited. The Rambam maintains that an androgynous is in a category of his own, and the question is whether the obligation to circumcise falls on people in this category. Hence, no blessing is recited. See also their difference of opinion in Hilchot Shofar 2:2.
", + "It is forbidden for a Jew to circumcise a idolator who is forced to remove his foreskin because of a wound or because of a tumor, since we are instructed neither to save the idolator from death, nor to cause them to die.17In Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:1-2, the Rambam writes:
If we see an idolater being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him. It is, however, forbidden to cause one of them to sink or to push him into a pit or the like, since he is not waging war against us....
From the above, we can infer that it is forbidden to offer medical treatment to an idolater even when offered a wage. If, however, one is afraid of the consequences or fears that ill feeling will be aroused, one may treat them for a wage, but to treat them for free is forbidden.
[Regarding] a ger toshav, since we are commanded to secure his well-being, he may be given medical treatment at no cost.
Many authorities maintain that the laws applying to a ger toshav can be applied to all gentiles who are not idolaters. Furthermore, since at present, a doctor would have much difficulty if he refused to treat gentiles, leniency should be shown in this regard.
From the above, it would appear that a doctor who operates a medical practice today is allowed to treat gentile patients. Indeed, throughout the ages, many great Rabbinic authorities, including the Rambam himself, served as doctors to gentiles.
Although a mitzvah is accomplished in the process of administering this medical treatment, the idolator did not intend to fulfill the mitzvah. If, however, the idolator intends to fulfill the mitzvah of circumcision, it is a mitzvah to circumcise him.18In Hilchot Melachim 10:10, the Rambam writes that a gentile who desires to fulfill any mitzvah should be given the opportunity.
There are other authorities who differ with the Rambam on this matter. They explain that circumcision is a sign given to the Jewish people that establishes their uniqueness and it is improper that gentiles should be given the opportunity of possessing this property.
", + "How disgusting is the foreskin that is used as a term of deprecation with regard to the gentiles, as [Jeremiah 9:25] states: \"For all the gentiles are uncircumcised!\" How great is the circumcision! Behold, our Patriarch Abraham was not called \"perfect\" until he was circumcised, as [Genesis 17:1-2] states: \"Proceed before Me and become perfect. And I will place My covenant between Me and you.\"19See the Guide to the Perplexed, Vol. III, Chapter 49, where the Rambam criticizes a hedonistic approach to life and explains that circumcision comes \"to complete the perfection of our emotions... to reduce a person's lust and wild cravings.\"
Anyone who breaks the covenant of Abraham our Patriarch and leaves his foreskin uncircumcised, or [although he was circumcised,]20In the Hellenistic era, there were some Greek sympathizers among the Jewish people who would cause their foreskin to appear extended, so that they would not be distinguished from gentile athletes. The Sages were extremely critical of these individuals. causes it to appear extended, does not have a portion in the world to come,21See Avot 3:11 and Hilchot Teshuvah 3:6. despite the fact that he has studied Torah and performed good deeds.", + "Come and see how severe a matter circumcision is. Moses, our teacher, was not granted even a temporary respite from [fulfilling this mitzvah].22As Exodus 4:24-26 relates, when Moses returned to Egypt, he took his newborn son, Eliezer, with him. He did not circumcise him immediately and, therefore, an angel came in the form of a snake and swallowed him. Tziporah his wife realized the source of the problem and circumcised her son. After this, the angel retracted. (See Nedarim 32a.)
The Torah mentions only three covenants regarding all its mitzvot, as [Deuteronomy 28:69] states: \"These are the words of the covenant that God commanded... in addition to the covenant that He established with you in Chorev.\" And [Deuteronomy 29:9-11] states: \"You are all standing today... to enter into a covenant with God, your Lord.\" Thus, there are three covenants.
In contrast, thirteen covenants were established with Abraham, our Patriarch, with regard to circumcision:23In the Guide to the Perplexed, Vol. III, Chapter 49, the Rambam writes that the brit is a sign of the covenant of the oneness of God. \"When a person is circumcised he enters into the covenant of Abraham which obligates him to know [God's] unity.\" This covenant of unity defines the nature of the Jewish people. It is natural that when people share a common sign, love and mutual assistance among them grow.
\"I will place My covenant between Me and you\" [Genesis 17:2],
\"And I, behold, My covenant is with you\" [ibid.:4],
\"I will establish My covenant between Me and you\" [ibid.:7],
\"For an eternal covenant\" [ibid.],
\"And you shall observe My covenant\" [ibid.:9],
\"This is My covenant which you shall observe\" [ibid.:10],
\"It will be a sign of the covenant\" [ibid.:11],
\"My covenant will be in your flesh\" [ibid.:13],
\"For an eternal covenant\" [ibid.],
\"He will have nullified My covenant\" [ibid.:14],
\"And I will establish My covenant with Him\" [ibid.:19],
\"For an eternal covenant\" [ibid.],
\"And I will establish My covenant with Isaac\" [ibid.:21]." + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007", + "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות מילה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Ahavah" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Ahavah/Mishneh Torah, Circumcision/Hebrew/Torat Emet 370.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Ahavah/Mishneh Torah, Circumcision/Hebrew/Torat Emet 370.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..973f7109a2f41a878ab643fa44a829a9621fc521 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Ahavah/Mishneh Torah, Circumcision/Hebrew/Torat Emet 370.json @@ -0,0 +1,71 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Circumcision", + "versionSource": "http://www.toratemetfreeware.com/index.html?downloads", + "versionTitle": "Torat Emet 370", + "status": "locked", + "priority": 3.0, + "license": "unknown", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "תורת אמת 370", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות מילה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Ahavah" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "מִילָה מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁחַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ כָּרֵת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית יז יד) ״וְעָרֵל זָכָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִמּוֹל אֶת בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מֵעַמֶּיהָ״. וּמִצְוָה עַל הָאָב לָמוּל אֶת בְּנוֹ וְעַל הָרַב לָמוּל אֶת עֲבָדָיו (בראשית יז יב) ״יְלִיד בַּיִת וּמִקְנַת כֶּסֶף״. עָבַר הָאָב אוֹ הָאָדוֹן וְלֹא מָל אוֹתָן בִּטֵּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב כָּרֵת שֶׁאֵין הַכָּרֵת תָּלוּי אֶלָּא בֶּעָרֵל עַצְמוֹ. וּבֵית דִּין מְצֻוִּים לָמוּל אוֹתוֹ הַבֵּן אוֹ הָעֶבֶד בִּזְמַנּוֹ וְלֹא יַנִּיחוּ עָרֵל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא בְּעַבְדֵיהֶן:", + "אֵין מָלִין בְּנוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן עָבַר וְנִמְנַע לְמוּלוֹ שֶׁבֵּית דִּין מָלִין אוֹתוֹ בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ. נִתְעַלֵּם מִבֵּית דִּין וְלֹא מָלוּ אוֹתוֹ. כְּשֶׁיִּגְדַּל הוּא חַיָּב לָמוּל אֶת עַצְמוֹ. וְכָל יוֹם וְיוֹם שֶׁיַּעֲבֹר עָלָיו מִשֶּׁיִּגְדַּל וְלֹא יָמוּל אֶת עַצְמוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא מְבַטֵּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה. אֲבָל אֵינוֹ חַיָּב כָּרֵת עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת וְהוּא עָרֵל בְּמֵזִיד:", + "אֶחָד עֶבֶד שֶׁנּוֹלַד בִּרְשׁוּת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶחָד עֶבֶד הַנִּלְקָח מִן הַכּוּתִים חַיָּב הָרַב לָמוּל אוֹתָן. אֶלָּא שֶׁיְּלִיד בַּיִת נִמּוֹל לִשְׁמוֹנָה. וּמִקְנַת כֶּסֶף נִמּוֹל בַּיּוֹם שֶׁנִּלְקַח אֲפִלּוּ לְקָחוֹ בַּיּוֹם שֶׁנּוֹלַד נִמּוֹל בְּיוֹמוֹ:", + "יֵשׁ מִקְנַת כֶּסֶף שֶׁנִּמּוֹל לִשְׁמוֹנָה וְיֵשׁ יְלִיד בַּיִת שֶׁנִּמּוֹל בַּיּוֹם שֶׁנּוֹלַד. כֵּיצַד. לָקַח שִׁפְחָה וְלָקַח עֻבָּרָהּ עִמָּהּ וְיָלְדָה הֲרֵי זֶה נִמּוֹל לִשְׁמוֹנָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלָּקַח הָעֻבָּר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וַהֲרֵי הָעֻבָּר עַצְמוֹ מִקְנַת כֶּסֶף הוֹאִיל וְקָנָה אִמּוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁנּוֹלַד נִמּוֹל לִשְׁמוֹנָה:", + "לָקַח שִׁפְחָה לְעֻבָּרֶיהָ. אוֹ שֶׁלָּקַח שִׁפְחָה עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא לְהַטְבִּילָהּ לְשֵׁם עַבְדוּת. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנּוֹלַד בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ נִמּוֹל בַּיּוֹם שֶׁנּוֹלָד. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַנּוֹלָד הַזֶּה כְּאִלּוּ הוּא מִקְנַת כֶּסֶף לְבַדּוֹ וּכְאִלּוּ הַיּוֹם קָנָהוּ. שֶׁאֵין אִמּוֹ בִּכְלַל שִׁפְחוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַבֵּן יְלִיד בַּיִת. וְאִם טָבְלָה אִמּוֹ אַחַר שֶׁיָּלְדָה הֲרֵי זֶה נִמּוֹל לִשְׁמוֹנָה:", + "לָקַח עֶבֶד גָּדוֹל מִן הָעַכּוּ״ם וְלֹא רָצָה הָעֶבֶד לָמוּל מְגַלְגְּלִין עִמּוֹ כָּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. יֶתֶר עַל כֵּן אָסוּר לְקַיְּמוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא עָרֵל. אֶלָּא חוֹזֵר וּמוֹכְרוֹ לְעַכּוּ״ם. וְאִם הִתְנָה עָלָיו מִתְּחִלָּה וְהוּא אֵצֶל רַבּוֹ הָעַכּוּ״ם שֶׁלֹּא יָמוּל אוֹתוֹ מֻתָּר לְקַיְּמוֹ וְהוּא עָרֵל. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל עָלָיו שֶׁבַע מִצְוֹת שֶׁנִּצְטַוּוּ בְּנֵי נֹחַ וְיִהְיֶה כְּגֵר תּוֹשָׁב. אֲבָל אִם לֹא קִבֵּל עָלָיו שֶׁבַע מִצְוֹת יֵהָרֵג מִיָּד. וְאֵין מְקַבְּלִים גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג:", + "גֵּר שֶׁנִּכְנַס לִקְהַל יִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָּב מִילָה תְּחִלָּה. וְאִם מָל כְּשֶׁהָיָה עַכּוּ״ם צָרִיךְ לְהַטִּיף מִמֶּנּוּ דַּם בְּרִית בַּיּוֹם שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר. וְכֵן קָטָן שֶׁנּוֹלַד כְּשֶׁהוּא מָהוּל צָרִיךְ לְהַטִּיף מִמֶּנּוּ דַּם בְּרִית בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי. אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס וְהוּא הַיָּלוּד שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ זַכְרוּת כְּזָכָר וְנַקְבוּת כִּנְקֵבָה צָרִיךְ לָמוּל אוֹתוֹ בַּשְּׁמִינִי. וְכֵן יוֹצֵא דֹּפֶן וּמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי עָרְלוֹת מָלִין אֶת שְׁתֵּיהֶן בַּשְּׁמִינִי:", + "אֵין מָלִין לְעוֹלָם אֶלָּא בַּיּוֹם אַחַר עֲלוֹת הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ. בֵּין בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי שֶׁהוּא זְמַנָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ שֶׁהוּא מִתְּשִׁיעִי וָהָלְאָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יב ג) ״בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי״ בַּיּוֹם וְלֹא בַּלַּיְלָה. מָל מִשֶּׁעָלָה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר כָּשֵׁר. וְכָל הַיּוֹם כָּשֵׁר לְמִילָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן מִצְוָה לְהַקְדִּים בִּתְחִלַּת הַיּוֹם שֶׁזְּרִיזִין מַקְדִּימִין לְמִצְוֹת: ", + "מִילָה בִּזְמַנָּהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ אֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה לֹא אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת וְלֹא אֶת יוֹם טוֹב. וּבֵין בִּזְמַנָּהּ וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַצָּרַעַת. כֵּיצַד. שֶׁאִם הָיְתָה בַּהֶרֶת בְּעוֹר הָעָרְלָה חוֹתְכָהּ עִם הָעָרְלָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקְּצִיצַת נֶגַע הַצָּרַעַת בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה יָבֹא עֲשֵׂה וְיִדְחֶה אֶת לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה:", + "כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמִּילַת הַבָּנִים דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת כָּךְ מִילַת הָעֲבָדִים שֶׁהֵן נִמּוֹלִים לִשְׁמוֹנָה דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת אִם חָל שְׁמִינִי שֶׁלָּהֶן בְּשַׁבָּת. חוּץ מִילִיד בַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא טָבְלָה אִמּוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּלְדָה שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּמּוֹל לִשְׁמוֹנָה אֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת:", + "קָטָן שֶׁנּוֹלַד כְּשֶׁהוּא מָהוּל. וּמִי שֶׁנּוֹלַד בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁמִינִי לְעִבּוּרוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּגָּמֵר בְּרִיָּתוֹ שֶׁהוּא כְּנֵפֶל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַי. וְיוֹצֵא דֹּפֶן וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס וּמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי עָרְלוֹת אֵין דּוֹחִין אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת אֶלָּא נִימוֹלִין בְּאֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת שֶׁהוּא יוֹם תְּשִׁיעִי שֶׁלָּהֶן:", + "מִי שֶׁנּוֹלַד בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת סָפֵק בַּיּוֹם סָפֵק בַּלַּיְלָה מוֹנִין מִן הַלַּיְלָה וְנִמּוֹל לִתְשִׁיעִי שֶׁהוּא סָפֵק שְׁמִינִי. וְאִם נוֹלַד עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת אֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת אֶלָּא נִמּוֹל בְּאֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת. שֶׁאֵין דּוֹחִין אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת מִסָּפֵק:", + "מִי שֶׁנּוֹלַד בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁמִינִי. אִם הָיָה שָׁלֵם בִּשְׂעָרוֹ וּבְצִפָּרְנָיו הֲרֵי זֶה וָלָד שָׁלֵם וּבֶן שִׁבְעָה הוּא אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּהָה. וּמֻתָּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת וְאֵינוֹ כְּאֶבֶן. וּמָלִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת. אֲבָל אִם נוֹלַד וּשְׂעָרוֹ לָקוּי וְאֵין צִפָּרְנָיו שְׁלֵמִין כִּבְרִיָּתָן הֲרֵי זֶה בֶּן שְׁמוֹנָה וַדַּאי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה רָאוּי לְהִוָּלֵד אֶלָּא בְּתִשְׁעָה וְיָצָא קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּגָּמֵר. וּלְפִיכָךְ הוּא חָשׁוּב כְּאֶבֶן וְאָסוּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן אִם שָׁהָה שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם הֲרֵי הוּא וָלָד שֶׁל קַיָּמָא. וַהֲרֵי הוּא כִּשְׁאָר הַנּוֹלָדִין לְכָל דָּבָר. שֶׁכָּל שֶׁשָּׁהָה שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם בָּאָדָם אֵינוֹ נֵפֶל:", + "מִי שֶׁנּוֹלַד בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי לְעִבּוּרוֹ אִם נוֹלַד שָׁלֵם הֲרֵי זֶה וָלָד שֶׁל קַיָּמָא וּמָלִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת. סָפֵק בֶּן שִׁבְעָה סָפֵק בֶּן שְׁמוֹנָה מָלִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת עַל כָּל פָּנִים. אִם בֶּן שִׁבְעָה הוּא וְשָׁלֵם הוּא בְּדִין הוּא שֶׁיִּדְחֶה שַׁבָּת. וְאִם בֶּן שְׁמוֹנָה הוּא הֲרֵי זֶה שֶׁמָּל כִּמְחַתֵּךְ בָּשָׂר הוּא לְפִי שֶׁזֶּה נֵפֶל אִם הוּא בֶּן שְׁמוֹנָה:", + "הוֹצִיא הָעֻבָּר רֹאשׁוֹ חוּץ לִמְעֵי אִמּוֹ בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא כֻּלּוֹ אֶלָּא בְּלֵילֵי שַׁבָּת אֵין מָלִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת. וְכָל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת אֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה אֶת יוֹם טוֹב רִאשׁוֹן וְדוֹחֶה אֶת יוֹם טוֹב שֵׁנִי. וּבִשְׁנֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים שֶׁל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה אֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה לֹא אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי. וְכֵן מִילָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ אֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת שְׁנֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים שֶׁל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה:", + "חוֹלֶה אֵין מָלִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּבְרִיא. וּמוֹנִין לוֹ מֵעֵת שֶׁיַּבְרִיא מֵחָלְיוֹ שִׁבְעָה יָמִים מֵעֵת לְעֵת וְאַחַר כָּךְ מָלִין אוֹתוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁחֲלַצְתּוֹ חַמָּה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בְּחלִי זֶה. אֲבָל אִם כָּאֲבוּ לוֹ עֵינָיו בְּעֵת שֶׁיִּפָּתְחוּ עֵינָיו וְיֵרָפְאוּ מָלִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:", + "קָטָן שֶׁנִּמְצָא בַּשְּׁמִינִי שֶׁלּוֹ יָרוֹק בְּיוֹתֵר אֵין מָלִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בּוֹ דָּם וְיַחְזְרוּ מַרְאָיו כְּמַרְאֵה הַקְּטַנִּים הַבְּרִיאִים. וְכֵן אִם הָיָה אָדֹם בְּיוֹתֵר כְּמִי שֶׁצָּבְעוּ אוֹתוֹ אֵין מָלִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּבָּלַע בּוֹ דָּמוֹ וְיַחְזְרוּ מַרְאָיו כִּשְׁאָר הַקְּטַנִּים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁזֶּה חלִי הוּא. וְצָרִיךְ לְהִזָּהֵר בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ הַרְבֵּה:", + "אִשָּׁה שֶׁמָּלָה בְּנָהּ רִאשׁוֹן וּמֵת מֵחֲמַת מִילָה שֶׁהִכְשִׁילָה אֶת כֹּחוֹ. וְכֵן מָלָה אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי וּמֵת מֵחֲמַת מִילָה. בֵּין מִבַּעֲלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן בֵּין מִבַּעֲלָהּ הַשֵּׁנִי הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יָמוּל אֶת הַשְּׁלִישִׁי בִּזְמַנּוֹ. אֶלָּא מַמְתִּינִין לוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּגְדִּיל וְיִתְחַזֵּק כֹּחוֹ. אֵין מָלִין אֶלָּא וָלָד שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שׁוּם חלִי. שֶׁסַּכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת דּוֹחָה אֶת הַכּל. וְאֶפְשָׁר לָמוּל לְאַחַר זְמַן וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְהַחֲזִיר נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל לְעוֹלָם:" + ], + [ + "הַכּל כְּשֵׁרִין לָמוּל. וַאֲפִלּוּ עָרֵל וְעֶבֶד וְאִשָּׁה וְקָטָן מָלִין בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין שָׁם אִישׁ. אֲבָל עַכּוּ״ם לֹא יָמוּל כְּלָל. וְאִם מָל אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לַחֲזֹר וְלָמוּל שְׁנִיָּה. וּבַכּל מָלִין וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּצוּר וּבִזְכוּכִית וּבְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁכּוֹרֵת. וְלֹא יָמוּל בִּקְרוּמִית שֶׁל קָנֶה מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכָּנָה. וּמִצְוָה מִן הַמֻּבְחָר לָמוּל בְּבַרְזֶל בֵּין בְּסַכִּין בֵּין בְּמִסְפָּרַיִם. וְנָהֲגוּ כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּסַכִּין:", + "כֵּיצַד מוֹהֲלִין. חוֹתְכִין אֶת כָּל הָעוֹר הַמְחַפֶּה אֶת הָעֲטָרָה עַד שֶׁתִּתְגַּלֶּה כָּל הָעֲטָרָה. וְאַחַר כָּךְ פּוֹרְעִין אֶת הַקְּרוּם הָרַךְ שֶׁלְּמַטָּה מִן הָעוֹר בְּצִפֹּרֶן וּמַחֲזִירוֹ לְכָאן וּלְכָאן עַד שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה בְּשַׂר הָעֲטָרָה. וְאַחַר כָּךְ מוֹצֵץ אֶת הַמִּילָה עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא הַדָּם מִמְּקוֹמוֹת רְחוֹקִים כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹא לִידֵי סַכָּנָה. וְכָל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹצֵץ מַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ. וְאַחַר שֶׁמּוֹצֵץ נוֹתֵן עָלֶיהָ אִסְפְּלָנִית אוֹ רְטִיָּה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן:", + "יֵשׁ צִיצִין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה וְיֵשׁ צִיצִין שֶׁאֵין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה. כֵּיצַד. אִם נִשְׁאַר מֵעוֹר הָעָרְלָה עוֹר הַחוֹפֶה רֹב גָּבְהָהּ שֶׁל עֲטָרָה הֲרֵי זֶה עָרֵל כְּמוֹת שֶׁהָיָה. וְזֶה הָעוֹר הוּא צִיץ הַמְעַכֵּב. וְאִם לֹא נִשְׁאַר מִמֶּנּוּ אֶלָּא מְעַט שֶׁאֵינוֹ חוֹפֶה רֹב גָּבְהָהּ שֶׁל עֲטָרָה זֶהוּ צִיץ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב:", + "הַמָּל כָּל זְמַן שֶׁעוֹסֵק בַּמִּילָה חוֹזֵר בֵּין עַל הַצִּיצִין שֶׁמְּעַכְּבִין בֵּין עַל צִיצִין שֶׁאֵין מְעַכְּבִין. פֵּרַשׁ, עַל צִיצִין הַמְעַכְּבִין חוֹזֵר, עַל צִיצִין שֶׁאֵינָן מְעַכְּבִין אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר. מָל וְלֹא פָּרַע אֶת הַמִּילָה כְּאִלּוּ לֹא מָל:", + "קָטָן שֶׁבְּשָׂרוֹ רַךְ וּמְדֻלְדָּל בְּיוֹתֵר אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה בַּעַל בָּשָׂר עַד שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה כְּאִלּוּ אֵינוֹ מָהוּל רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ בְּעֵת שֶׁיִּתְקַשֶּׁה. אִם נִרְאֶה שֶׁהוּא מָהוּל אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ כְּלוּם. וְצָרִיךְ לְתַקֵּן אֶת הַבָּשָׂר מִכָּאן וּמִכָּאן מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן. וְאִם בְּעֵת שֶׁיִּתְקַשֶּׁה לֹא נִרְאֶה מָהוּל חוֹזְרִין וְקוֹצְצִין אֶת הַבָּשָׂר הַמְדֻלְדָּל מִכָּאן וּמִכָּאן עַד שֶׁתֵּרָאֶה הָעֲטָרָה גְּלוּיָה בְּעֵת קִשּׁוּי. וְדָבָר זֶה מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. אֲבָל מִן הַתּוֹרָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא נִרְאֶה כְּעָרֵל הוֹאִיל וּמָל אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לָמוּל פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה:", + "עוֹשִׂין כָּל צָרְכֵי מִילָה בְּשַׁבָּת. מָלִין וּפוֹרְעִין וּמוֹצְצִין. וְחוֹזֵר עַל צִיצִין הַמְעַכְּבִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁפֵּרַשׁ וְעַל צִיצִין שֶׁאֵין מְעַכְּבִין כָּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא פֵּרַשׁ. וְנוֹתֵן עָלֶיהָ אִסְפְּלָנִית. אֲבָל מַכְשִׁירֵי מִילָה אֵינָן דּוֹחִין אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁלֹּא מָצְאוּ סַכִּין אֵין עוֹשִׂין סַכִּין בְּשַׁבָּת וְלֹא מְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם. וַאֲפִלּוּ מָבוֹי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעֹרָב אֵין מְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחָצֵר לְחָצֵר. וְאֵין עֵרוּב מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם נִדְחֶה מִפְּנֵי הֲבָאַת הַסַּכִּין הוֹאִיל וְאֶפְשָׁר לַהֲבִיאוֹ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת:", + "וְכֵן אֵין שׁוֹחֲקִין לָהּ סַמְמָנִין וְאֵין מְחִמִּין לָהּ חַמִּין. וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין לָהּ אִסְפְּלָנִית. וְאֵין טוֹרְפִין יַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן. וְאִם לֹא שָׁחַק כַּמּוֹן מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת לוֹעֵס בְּשִׁנָּיו וְנוֹתֵן. וְאִם לֹא טָרַף יַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן נוֹתֵן זֶה לְעַצְמוֹ וְזֶה לְעַצְמוֹ. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת אֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. אֲבָל אִם שָׁכַח וְלֹא הֵכִינוּ הַמַּכְשִׁירִין תִּדָּחֶה הַמִּילָה לִתְשִׁיעִי:", + "מָלוּ אֶת הַקָּטָן בְּשַׁבָּת וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁפְּכוּ הַחַמִּין אוֹ נִתְפַּזְּרוּ הַסַּמְמָנִין עוֹשִׂין לוֹ הַכּל בְּשַׁבָּת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁסַּכָּנָה הִיא לוֹ. מָקוֹם שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְהַרְחִיץ אֶת הַקָּטָן מַרְחִיצִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת בְּיוֹם הַמִּילָה בֵּין לִפְנֵי הַמִּילָה בֵּין לְאַחַר הַמִּילָה, אוֹ בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי שֶׁל מִילָה שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת. בֵּין רְחִיצַת כָּל גּוּפוֹ. בֵּין רְחִיצַת מִילָה. בֵּין בְּחַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת בֵּין בְּחַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁסַּכָּנָה הִיא לוֹ:", + "שָׁכְחוּ וְלֹא הֵבִיאוּ סַכִּין מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת אוֹמֵר לְעַכּוּ״ם לְהָבִיא סַכִּין בְּשַׁבָּת. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יָבִיא אוֹתוֹ דֶּרֶךְ רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁעֲשִׂיָּתוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת אֲסוּרָה עָלֵינוּ מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת מֻתָּר לָנוּ לוֹמַר לְעַכּוּ״ם לַעֲשׂוֹת אוֹתָן כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת מִצְוָה בִּזְמַנָּהּ. וְדָבָר שֶׁעֲשִׂיָּתוֹ אֲסוּרָה עָלֵינוּ מִשּׁוּם מְלָאכָה אָסוּר לָנוּ לוֹמַר לְעַכּוּ״ם לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת:", + "מַכְשִׁירֵי מִילָה אֲפִלּוּ בִּזְמַנָּהּ אֵינָן דּוֹחִין אֶת יוֹם טוֹב הוֹאִיל וְאֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹתָן מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב. וְקַל וָחֹמֶר הַדְּבָרִים, אִם לֹא דָּחוּ מַכְשִׁירֵי מִילָה שְׁבוּת שֶׁהוּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם הֵיאַךְ יִדְחוּ לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. אֲבָל שׁוֹחֲקִין לָהּ סַמָּנִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב הוֹאִיל וְרָאוּי לִקְדֵרָה. וְטוֹרְפִין לָהּ יַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן:" + ], + [ + "הַמָּל מְבָרֵךְ קֹדֶם שֶׁיָּמוּל אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ עַל הַמִּילָה, אִם מָל בֶּן חֲבֵרוֹ. וְאִם מָל אֶת בְּנוֹ מְבָרֵךְ וְצִוָּנוּ לָמוּל אֶת הַבֵּן. וַאֲבִי הַבֵּן מְבָרֵךְ בְּרָכָה אַחֶרֶת. בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה יְיָ׳‎ אֱלֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ לְהַכְנִיסוֹ בִּבְרִיתוֹ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ. מִצְוָה עַל הָאָב לָמוּל אֶת בְּנוֹ יָתֵר עַל מִצְוָה שֶׁמְּצֻוִּין יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיָּמוּלוּ כָּל עָרֵל שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶן. לְפִיכָךְ אִם אֵין שָׁם אָבִיו אֵין מְבָרְכִין אַחֲרֶיהָ בְּרָכָה זוֹ. וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁהוֹרָה שֶׁיְּבָרְכוּ אוֹתָהּ בֵּית דִּין אוֹ אֶחָד מִן הָעָם. וְאֵין רָאוּי לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן:", + "וְאִם הָיוּ שָׁם עוֹמְדִין אוֹמְרִים כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהִכְנַסְתּוֹ לַבְּרִית כֵּן תַּכְנִיסֵהוּ לְתוֹרָה וּלְחֻפָּה וּלְמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים:", + "וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְבָרֵךְ אֲבִי הַבֵּן אוֹ הַמָּל אוֹ אֶחָד מִן הָעוֹמְדִין שָׁם. בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה יְיָ׳‎ אֱלֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם אֲשֶׁר קִדַּשׁ יְדִיד מִבֶּטֶן וְחֹק בִּשְׁאֵרוֹ שָׂם וְצֶאֱצָאָיו חָתַם בְּאוֹת בְּרִית קֹדֶשׁ עַל כֵּן בִּשְׂכַר זֹאת אֵל חַי חֶלְקֵנוּ צוּרֵנוּ צַוֵּה לְהַצִּיל יְדִידוּת שְׁאֵרֵנוּ מִשַּׁחַת לְמַעַן בְּרִיתוֹ אֲשֶׁר שָׂם בִּבְשָׂרֵנוּ. בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה יְיָ׳‎ כּוֹרֵת הַבְּרִית. וַאֲבִי הַבֵּן מְבָרֵךְ שֶׁהֶחֱיָנוּ:", + "הַמָּל אֶת הַגֵּרִים מְבָרֵךְ. בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה יְיָ׳‎ אֱלֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ לָמוּל אֶת הַגֵּרִים וּלְהַטִּיף מִמֶּנּוּ דַּם בְּרִית שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא דַּם הַבְּרִית לֹא נִתְקַיְּמוּ שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ירמיה לג כה) ״אִם לֹא בְרִיתִי יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה חֻקּוֹת שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ לֹא שָׂמְתִּי״:", + "הַמָּל אֶת עַבְדּוֹ מְבָרֵךְ אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ לָמוּל אֶת הָעֲבָדִים וּלְהַטִּיף מֵהֶן דַּם בְּרִית שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא דַּם בְּרִית לֹא נִתְקַיְּמוּ שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ. וְאִם מָל עֶבֶד שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים מְבָרֵךְ עַל מִילַת הָעֲבָדִים. וְהַמָּל אָדָם גָּדוֹל צָרִיךְ לְכַסּוֹת עֶרְוָתוֹ עַד שֶׁיְּבָרֵךְ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְגַלֵּהוּ וּמָל אוֹתוֹ:", + "גֵּר שֶׁמָּל קֹדֶם שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר וְקָטָן שֶׁנּוֹלַד כְּשֶׁהוּא מָהוּל כְּשֶׁמַּטִּיפִין מִמֶּנּוּ דַּם בְּרִית אֵינָן צְרִיכִין בְּרָכָה. וְכֵן אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס אֵין מְבָרְכִין עַל מִלָּתוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא אֵינוֹ זָכָר וַדַּאי:", + "עַכּוּ״ם שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לַחְתֹּךְ עָרְלָתוֹ מִפְּנֵי מַכָּה אוֹ מִפְּנֵי שְׁחִין שֶׁנּוֹלַד בּוֹ הָיָה אָסוּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לַחְתֹּךְ לוֹ אוֹתָהּ, שֶׁהָעַכּוּ״ם אֵין מַעֲלִים אוֹתָם מִידֵי מִיתָה וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין אוֹתָן אֵלֶיהָ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית מִצְוָה בִּרְפוּאָה זוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נִתְכַּוֵּן לְמִצְוָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נִתְכַּוֵּן הָעַכּוּ״ם לְמִילָה מֻתָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לָמוּל אוֹתוֹ:", + "מְאוּסָה הִיא הָעָרְלָה שֶׁנִּתְגַּנּוּ בָּהּ הַגּוֹיִם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ירמיה ט כה) ״כִּי כָּל הַגּוֹיִם עֲרֵלִים״. וּגְדוֹלָה הִיא הַמִּילָה שֶׁלֹּא נִקְרָא אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ שָׁלֵם עַד שֶׁמָּל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית יז א) ״הִתְהַלֵּךְ לְפָנַי וֶהְיֵה תָמִים״ (בראשית יז ב) ״וְאֶתְּנָה בְרִיתִי בֵּינִי וּבֵינֶךָ״ וְגוֹ׳‎. וְכָל הַמֵּפֵר בְּרִיתוֹ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ וְהִנִּיחַ עָרְלָתוֹ אוֹ מְשָׁכָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ תּוֹרָה וּמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא:", + "בּוֹא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה חֲמוּרָה מִילָה שֶׁלֹּא נִתְלָה לְמשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ עָלֶיהָ אֲפִלּוּ שָׁעָה אַחַת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ. וְכָל מִצְוֹת הַתּוֹרָה נִכְרְתוּ עֲלֵיהֶן שָׁלֹשׁ בְּרִיתוֹת. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כח סט) ״אֵלֶּה דִבְרֵי הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְיָ׳‎״, (דברים כח סט) ״מִלְּבַד הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר כָּרַת אִתָּם בְּחֹרֵב״. וְשָׁם הוּא אוֹמֵר (דברים כט ט) ״אַתֶּם נִצָּבִים הַיּוֹם כֻּלְּכֶם״ (דברים כט יא) ״לְעָבְרְךָ בִּבְרִית יְיָ׳‎ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״, הֲרֵי שָׁלֹשׁ בְּרִיתוֹת. וְעַל הַמִּילָה נִכְרְתוּ שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה בְּרִיתוֹת עִם אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ. (בראשית יז ב) ״וְאֶתְּנָה בְרִיתִי בֵּינִי וּבֵינֶךָ״. (בראשית יז ד) ״אֲנִי הִנֵּה בְרִיתִי אִתָּךְ״. וַהֲקִמֹתִי אֶת בְּרִיתִי בֵּינִי וּבֵינֶךָ. לִבְרִית עוֹלָם. (בראשית יז ט) ״וְאַתָּה אֶת בְּרִיתִי תִשְׁמֹר״. (בראשית יז י) ״זֹאת בְּרִיתִי אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁמְרוּ״. (בראשית יז יא) ״וְהָיָה לְאוֹת בְּרִית״. (בראשית יז יג) ״וְהָיְתָה בְרִיתִי בִּבְשַׂרְכֶם״. לִבְרִית עוֹלָם. (בראשית יז יד) ״אֶת בְּרִיתִי הֵפַר״. (בראשית יז יט) ״וַהֲקִמֹתִי אֶת בְּרִיתִי אִתּוֹ. לִבְרִית עוֹלָם״. (בראשית יז כא) ״וְאֶת בְּרִיתִי אָקִים אֶת יִצְחָק״:
בְּרִיךְ רַחֲמָנָא דְּסַיְּעָן" + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Ahavah/Mishneh Torah, Circumcision/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Ahavah/Mishneh Torah, Circumcision/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7b1494af0766ff09c2438df4a7c873112dd079d4 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Ahavah/Mishneh Torah, Circumcision/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Circumcision", + "versionSource": "http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94_%D7%9C%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%91%22%D7%9D", + "versionTitle": "Wikisource Mishneh Torah", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY-SA", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "משנה תורה (ויקיטקסט)", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות מילה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Ahavah" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "מילה מצות עשה שחייבין עליה כרת שנאמר וערל זכר אשר לא ימול את בשר ערלתו ונכרתה הנפש ההוא מעמיה ומצוה על האב למול את בנו ועל הרב למול את עבדיו יליד בית ומקנת כסף עבר האב או האדון ולא מל אותן ביטל מצות עשה ואינו חייב כרת שאין הכרת תלוי אלא בערל עצמו ובית דין מצווים למול אותו הבן או העבד בזמנו ולא יניחו ערל בישראל ולא בעבדיהן.", + "אין מלין בנו של אדם שלא מדעתו אלא אם כן עבר ונמנע למולו שבית דין מלין אותו בעל כרחו נתעלם מבית דין ולא מלו אותו כשיגדל הוא חייב למול את עצמו וכל יום ויום שיעבור עליו משיגדל ולא ימול את עצמו הרי הוא מבטל מצות עשה אבל אינו חייב כרת עד שימות והוא ערל במזיד.", + "אחד עבד שנולד ברשות ישראל ואחד עבד הנלקח מן הכותים חייב הרב למול אותן אלא שיליד בית נימול לשמנה ומקנת כסף נימול ביום שנלקח אפילו לקחו ביום שנולד נימול ביומו.", + "יש מקנת כסף שנימול לשמנה ויש יליד בית שנימול ביום שנולד כיצד לקח שפחה ולקח עוברה עמה וילדה הרי זה נימול לשמנה ואף על פי שלקח העובר בפני עצמו והרי העובר עצמו מקנת כסף הואיל וקנה אמו קודם שנולד נימול לשמנה.", + "לקח שפחה לעובריה או שלקח שפחה על מנת שלא להטבילה לשם עבדות אע\"פ שנולד ברשותו נימול ביום שנולד שהרי הנולד הזה כאילו הוא מקנת כסף לבדו וכאילו היום קנהו שאין אמו בכלל שפחות ישראל כדי שיהיה הבן יליד בית ואם טבלה אמו אחר שילדה הרי זה נימול לשמנה.", + "לקח עבד גדול מן העכו\"ם ולא רצה העבד למול מגלגלין עמו כל שנים עשר חדש יתר על כן אסור לקיימו כשהוא ערל אלא חוזר ומוכרו לעכו\"ם ואם התנה עליו מתחלה והוא אצל רבו העכו\"ם שלא ימול אותו מותר לקיימו והוא ערל ובלבד שיקבל עליו שבע מצות שנצטוו בני נח ויהיה כגר תושב אבל אם לא קיבל עליו שבע מצות יהרג מיד ואין מקבלים גר תושב אלא בזמן שהיובל נוהג.", + "גר שנכנס לקהל ישראל חייב מילה תחלה ואם מל כשהיה עכו\"ם צריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית ביום שנתגייר וכן קטן שנולד כשהוא מהול צריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית ביום השמיני אנדרוגינוס והוא הילוד שיש לו זכרות כזכר ונקבות כנקבה צריך למול אותו בשמיני וכן יוצא דופן ומי שיש לו שתי ערלות מלין את שתיהן בשמיני.", + "אין מלין לעולם אלא ביום אחר עלות השמש בין ביום השמיני שהוא זמנה בין שלא בזמנה שהוא מתשיעי והלאה שנאמר ביום השמיני ביום ולא בלילה מל משעלה עמוד השחר כשר וכל היום כשר למילה ואעפ\"כ מצוה להקדים בתחלת היום שזריזין מקדימין למצות.", + "מילה בזמנה דוחה את השבת ושלא בזמנה אינה דוחה לא את השבת ולא את יום טוב ובין בזמנה ובין שלא בזמנה דוחה את הצרעת כיצד שאם היתה בהרת בעור הערלה חותכה עם הערלה אף על פי שקציצת נגע הצרעת בלא תעשה יבא עשה וידחה את לא תעשה.", + "כשם שמילת הבנים דוחה את השבת כך מילת העבדים שהן נימולים לשמנה דוחה את השבת אם חל שמיני שלהן בשבת חוץ מיליד בית שלא טבלה אמו עד שילדה שאע\"פ שנימול לשמנה אינו דוחה את השבת.", + "קטן שנולד כשהוא מהול ומי שנולד בחדש השמיני לעבורו קודם שתגמר ברייתו שהוא כנפל מפני שאינו חי ויוצא דופן ואנדרוגינוס ומי שיש לו שתי ערלות אין דוחין את השבת אלא נימולין באחד בשבת שהוא יום תשיעי שלהן.", + "מי שנולד בין השמשות ספק ביום ספק בלילה מונין מן הלילה ונימול לתשיעי שהוא ספק שמיני ואם נולד ערב שבת בין השמשות אינו דוחה את השבת אלא נימול באחד בשבת שאין דוחין את השבת מספק.", + "מי שנולד בחדש השמיני אם היה שלם בשערו ובצפרניו הרי זה ולד שלם ובן שבעה הוא אלא שנשתהה ומותר לטלטלו בשבת ואינו כאבן ומלין אותו בשבת אבל אם נולד ושערו לקוי ואין צפרניו שלימין כברייתן הרי זה בן שמנה ודאי שלא היה ראוי להולד אלא בתשעה ויצא קודם שיגמר ולפיכך הוא חשוב כאבן ואסור לטלטלו בשבת ואעפ\"כ אם שהה שלשים יום הרי הוא ולד של קיימא והרי הוא כשאר הנולדין לכל דבר שכל ששהה שלשים יום באדם אינו נפל.", + "מי שנולד בחדש השביעי לעבורו אם נולד שלם הרי זה ולד של קיימא ומלין אותו בשבת ספק בן שבעה ספק בן שמנה מלין אותו בשבת על כל פנים אם בן שבעה הוא ושלם הוא בדין הוא שידחה שבת ואם בן שמנה הוא הרי זה שמל כמחתך בשר הוא לפי שזה נפל אם הוא בן שמנה.", + "הוציא העובר ראשו חוץ למעי אמו בין השמשות אף על פי שלא יצא כולו אלא בלילי שבת אין מלין אותו בשבת וכל מי שאינו דוחה את השבת אינו דוחה את יום טוב ראשון ודוחה את יום טוב שני ובשני ימים טובים של ראש השנה אינו דוחה לא את הראשון ולא את השני וכן מילה שלא בזמנה אינה דוחה את שני ימים טובים של ראש השנה.", + "חולה אין מלין אותו עד שיבריא ומונין לו מעת שיבריא מחוליו שבעה ימים מעת לעת ואח\"כ מלין אותו במה דברים אמורים בשחלצתו חמה וכיוצא בחולי זה אבל אם כאבו לו עיניו בעת שיפתחו עיניו וירפאו מלין אותו מיד וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "קטן שנמצא בשמיני שלו ירוק ביותר אין מלין אותו עד שיפול בו דם ויחזרו מראיו כמראה הקטנים הבריאים וכן אם היה אדום ביותר כמי שצבעו אותו אין מלין אותו עד שיבלע בו דמו ויחזרו מראיו כשאר הקטנים מפני שזה חולי הוא וצריך להזהר בדברים אלו הרבה.", + "אשה שמלה בנה ראשון ומת מחמת מילה שהכשילה את כחו וכן מלה את השני ומת מחמת מילה בין מבעלה הראשון בין מבעלה השני הרי זה לא ימול את השלישי בזמנו אלא ממתינין לו עד שיגדיל ויתחזק כחו אין מלין אלא ולד שאין בו שום חולי שסכנת נפשות דוחה את הכל ואפשר למול לאחר זמן ואי אפשר להחזיר נפש אחת מישראל לעולם" + ], + [ + "הכל כשרין למול ואפילו ערל ועבד ואשה וקטן מלין במקום שאין שם איש אבל עכו\"ם לא ימול כלל ואם מל אינו צריך לחזור ולמול שנייה ובכל מלין ואפילו בצור ובזכוכית ובכל דבר שכורת ולא ימול בקרומית של קנה מפני הסכנה ומצוה מן המובחר למול בברזל בין בסכין בין במספרים ונהגו כל ישראל בסכין.", + "כיצד מוהלין חותכין את כל העור המחפה את העטרה עד שתתגלה כל העטרה ואחר כך פורעין את הקרום הרך שלמטה מן העור בצפורן ומחזירו לכאן ולכאן עד שיראה בשר העטרה ואח\"כ מוצץ את המילה עד שיצא הדם ממקומות רחוקים כדי שלא יבא לידי סכנה וכל מי שאינו מוצץ מעבירין אותו ואחר שמוצץ נותן עליה אספלנית או רטייה וכיוצא בהן.", + "יש ציצין מעכבין את המילה ויש ציצין שאין מעכבין את המילה כיצד אם נשאר מעור הערלה עור החופה רוב גבהה של עטרה הרי זה ערל כמות שהיה וזה העור הוא ציץ המעכב ואם לא נשאר ממנו אלא מעט שאינו חופה רוב גבהה של עטרה זהו ציץ שאינו מעכב.", + "המל כל זמן שעוסק במילה חוזר בין על הציצין שמעכבין בין על ציצין שאין מעכבין פירש על ציצין המעכבין חוזר על ציצין שאינן מעכבין אינו חוזר מל ולא פרע את המילה כאילו לא מל.", + "קטן שבשרו רך ומדולדל ביותר או שהיה בעל בשר עד שיראה כאילו אינו מהול רואין אותו בעת שיתקשה אם נראה שהוא מהול אינו צריך כלום וצריך לתקן את הבשר מכאן ומכאן מפני מראית העין ואם בעת שיתקשה לא נראה מהול חוזרין וקוצצין את הבשר המדולדל מכאן ומכאן עד שתראה העטרה גלויה בעת קישוי ודבר זה מדברי סופרים אבל מן התורה אע\"פ שהוא נראה כערל הואיל ומל אינו צריך למול פעם שנייה.", + "עושין כל צרכי מילה בשבת מלין ופורעין ומוצצין וחוזר על ציצין המעכבין אף על פי שפירש ועל ציצין שאין מעכבין כל זמן שלא פירש ונותן עליה אספלנית אבל מכשירי מילה אינן דוחין את השבת כיצד הרי שלא מצאו סכין אין עושין סכין בשבת ולא מביאין אותו ממקום למקום ואפילו מבוי שאינו מעורב אין מביאין אותו מחצר לחצר ואין עירוב מדבריהם נדחה מפני הבאת הסכין הואיל ואפשר להביאו מערב שבת.", + "וכן אין שוחקין לה סממנין ואין מחמין לה חמין ואין עושין לה אספלנית ואין טורפין יין ושמן ואם לא שחק כמון מערב שבת לועס בשניו ונותן ואם לא טרף יין ושמן נותן זה לעצמו וזה לעצמו זה הכלל כל שאפשר לעשותו מערב שבת אינו דוחה את השבת אבל אם שכח ולא הכינו המכשירין תדחה המילה לתשיעי.", + "מלו את הקטן בשבת ואחר כך נשפכו החמין או נתפזרו הסממנין עושין לו הכל בשבת מפני שסכנה היא לו מקום שדרכן להרחיץ את הקטן מרחיצין אותו בשבת ביום המילה בין לפני המילה בין לאחר המילה או בשלישי של מילה שחל להיות בשבת בין רחיצת כל גופו בין רחיצת מילה בין בחמין שהוחמו מערב שבת בין בחמין שהוחמו בשבת מפני שסכנה היא לו.", + "שכחו ולא הביאו סכין מערב שבת אומר לעכו\"ם להביא סכין בשבת ובלבד שלא יביא אותו דרך רשות הרבים כללו של דבר כל דבר שעשייתו בשבת אסורה עלינו משום שבות מותר לנו לומר לעכו\"ם לעשות אותן כדי לעשות מצות בזמנה ודבר שעשייתו אסורה עלינו משום מלאכה אסור לנו לומר לעכו\"ם לעשותו בשבת.", + "מכשירי מילה אפילו בזמנה אינן דוחין את יום טוב הואיל ואפשר לעשותן מערב יום טוב וקל וחומר הדברים אם לא דחו מכשירי מילה שבות שהוא מדבריהם היאך ידחו לא תעשה שבתורה אבל שוחקין לה סמנין ביום טוב הואיל וראוי לקדרה וטורפין לה יין ושמן." + ], + [ + "המל מברך קודם שימול אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על המילה אם מל בן חבירו ואם מל את בנו מברך וצונו למול את הבן ואבי הבן מברך ברכה אחרת ברוך אתה יי' אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו להכניסו בבריתו של אברהם אבינו מצוה על האב למול את בנו יתר על מצוה שמצווין ישראל שימולו כל ערל שביניהן לפיכך אם אין שם אביו אין מברכין אחריה ברכה זו ויש מי שהורה שיברכו אותה בית דין או אחד מן העם ואין ראוי לעשות כן.", + "ואם היו שם עומדין אומרים כשם שהכנסתו לברית כן תכניסהו לתורה ולחופה ולמעשים טובים.", + "ואח\"כ מברך אבי הבן או המל או אחד מן העומדין שם ברוך אתה יי' אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קידש ידיד מבטן וחוק בשארו שם וצאצאיו חתם באות ברית קדש על כן בשכר זאת אל חי חלקנו צורנו צוה להציל ידידות שארנו משחת למען בריתו אשר שם בבשרנו ברוך אתה יי' כורת הברית ואבי הבן מברך שהחיינו.", + "המל את הגרים מברך ברוך אתה יי' אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו למול את הגרים ולהטיף ממנו דם ברית שאלמלא דם הברית לא נתקיימו שמים וארץ שנאמר אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי.", + "המל את עבדו מברך אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו למול את העבדים ולהטיף מהן דם ברית שאלמלא דם ברית לא נתקיימו שמים וארץ ואם מל עבד של אחרים מברך על מילת העבדים והמל אדם גדול צריך לכסות ערותו עד שיברך ואחר כך מגלהו ומל אותו.", + "גר שמל קודם שנתגייר וקטן שנולד כשהוא מהול כשמטיפין ממנו דם ברית אינן צריכין ברכה וכן אנדרוגינוס אין מברכין על מילתו מפני שהוא אינו זכר ודאי.", + "עכו\"ם שצריך לחתך ערלתו מפני מכה או מפני שחין שנולד בו היה אסור לישראל לחתוך לו אותה שהעכו\"ם אין מעלים אותם מידי מיתה ולא מורידין אותן אליה אע\"פ שנעשית מצוה ברפואה זו שהרי לא נתכוון למצוה לפיכך אם נתכוון העכו\"ם למילה מותר לישראל למול אותו.", + "מאוסה היא הערלה שנתגנו בה הגוים שנאמר כי כל הגוים ערלים וגדולה היא המילה שלא נקרא אברהם אבינו שלם עד שמל שנאמר התהלך לפני והיה תמים ואתנה בריתי ביני וביניך וגו' וכל המפר בריתו של אברהם אבינו והניח ערלתו או משכה אף על פי שיש בו תורה ומעשים טובים אין לו חלק לעולם הבא.", + "בא וראה כמה חמורה מילה שלא נתלה למשה רבינו עליה אפילו שעה אחת אף ע\"פ שהיה בדרך וכל מצות התורה נכרתו עליהן שלש בריתות שנאמר אלה דברי הברית אשר צוה יי' מלבד הברית אשר כרת אתם בחרב ושם הוא אומר אתם נצבים היום כולכם לעברך בברית יי' אלהיך הרי שלש בריתות ועל המילה נכרתו שלש עשרה בריתות עם אברהם אבינו ואתנה בריתי ביני וביניך אני הנה בריתי אתך והקימתי את בריתי ביני וביניך לברית עולם ואתה את בריתי תשמור זאת בריתי אשר תשמרו והיה לאות ברית והיתה בריתי בבשרכם לברית עולם את בריתי הפר והקימתי את בריתי אתו לברית עולם ואת בריתי אקים את יצחק:בריך רחמנא דסייען." + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Ahavah/Mishneh Torah, Circumcision/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Ahavah/Mishneh Torah, Circumcision/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..40d887c8756128f2068e7ff6db615c27173d5582 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Ahavah/Mishneh Torah, Circumcision/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@ +{ + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Circumcision", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah,_Circumcision", + "text": [ + [ + "מִילָה מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁחַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ כָּרֵת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית יז יד) ״וְעָרֵל זָכָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִמּוֹל אֶת בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מֵעַמֶּיהָ״. וּמִצְוָה עַל הָאָב לָמוּל אֶת בְּנוֹ וְעַל הָרַב לָמוּל אֶת עֲבָדָיו (בראשית יז יב) ״יְלִיד בַּיִת וּמִקְנַת כֶּסֶף״. עָבַר הָאָב אוֹ הָאָדוֹן וְלֹא מָל אוֹתָן בִּטֵּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב כָּרֵת שֶׁאֵין הַכָּרֵת תָּלוּי אֶלָּא בֶּעָרֵל עַצְמוֹ. וּבֵית דִּין מְצֻוִּים לָמוּל אוֹתוֹ הַבֵּן אוֹ הָעֶבֶד בִּזְמַנּוֹ וְלֹא יַנִּיחוּ עָרֵל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא בְּעַבְדֵיהֶן:", + "אֵין מָלִין בְּנוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן עָבַר וְנִמְנַע לְמוּלוֹ שֶׁבֵּית דִּין מָלִין אוֹתוֹ בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ. נִתְעַלֵּם מִבֵּית דִּין וְלֹא מָלוּ אוֹתוֹ. כְּשֶׁיִּגְדַּל הוּא חַיָּב לָמוּל אֶת עַצְמוֹ. וְכָל יוֹם וְיוֹם שֶׁיַּעֲבֹר עָלָיו מִשֶּׁיִּגְדַּל וְלֹא יָמוּל אֶת עַצְמוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא מְבַטֵּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה. אֲבָל אֵינוֹ חַיָּב כָּרֵת עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת וְהוּא עָרֵל בְּמֵזִיד:", + "אֶחָד עֶבֶד שֶׁנּוֹלַד בִּרְשׁוּת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶחָד עֶבֶד הַנִּלְקָח מִן הַכּוּתִים חַיָּב הָרַב לָמוּל אוֹתָן. אֶלָּא שֶׁיְּלִיד בַּיִת נִמּוֹל לִשְׁמוֹנָה. וּמִקְנַת כֶּסֶף נִמּוֹל בַּיּוֹם שֶׁנִּלְקַח אֲפִלּוּ לְקָחוֹ בַּיּוֹם שֶׁנּוֹלַד נִמּוֹל בְּיוֹמוֹ:", + "יֵשׁ מִקְנַת כֶּסֶף שֶׁנִּמּוֹל לִשְׁמוֹנָה וְיֵשׁ יְלִיד בַּיִת שֶׁנִּמּוֹל בַּיּוֹם שֶׁנּוֹלַד. כֵּיצַד. לָקַח שִׁפְחָה וְלָקַח עֻבָּרָהּ עִמָּהּ וְיָלְדָה הֲרֵי זֶה נִמּוֹל לִשְׁמוֹנָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלָּקַח הָעֻבָּר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וַהֲרֵי הָעֻבָּר עַצְמוֹ מִקְנַת כֶּסֶף הוֹאִיל וְקָנָה אִמּוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁנּוֹלַד נִמּוֹל לִשְׁמוֹנָה:", + "לָקַח שִׁפְחָה לְעֻבָּרֶיהָ. אוֹ שֶׁלָּקַח שִׁפְחָה עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא לְהַטְבִּילָהּ לְשֵׁם עַבְדוּת. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנּוֹלַד בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ נִמּוֹל בַּיּוֹם שֶׁנּוֹלָד. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַנּוֹלָד הַזֶּה כְּאִלּוּ הוּא מִקְנַת כֶּסֶף לְבַדּוֹ וּכְאִלּוּ הַיּוֹם קָנָהוּ. שֶׁאֵין אִמּוֹ בִּכְלַל שִׁפְחוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַבֵּן יְלִיד בַּיִת. וְאִם טָבְלָה אִמּוֹ אַחַר שֶׁיָּלְדָה הֲרֵי זֶה נִמּוֹל לִשְׁמוֹנָה:", + "לָקַח עֶבֶד גָּדוֹל מִן הָעַכּוּ״ם וְלֹא רָצָה הָעֶבֶד לָמוּל מְגַלְגְּלִין עִמּוֹ כָּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. יֶתֶר עַל כֵּן אָסוּר לְקַיְּמוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא עָרֵל. אֶלָּא חוֹזֵר וּמוֹכְרוֹ לְעַכּוּ״ם. וְאִם הִתְנָה עָלָיו מִתְּחִלָּה וְהוּא אֵצֶל רַבּוֹ הָעַכּוּ״ם שֶׁלֹּא יָמוּל אוֹתוֹ מֻתָּר לְקַיְּמוֹ וְהוּא עָרֵל. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל עָלָיו שֶׁבַע מִצְוֹת שֶׁנִּצְטַוּוּ בְּנֵי נֹחַ וְיִהְיֶה כְּגֵר תּוֹשָׁב. אֲבָל אִם לֹא קִבֵּל עָלָיו שֶׁבַע מִצְוֹת יֵהָרֵג מִיָּד. וְאֵין מְקַבְּלִים גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג:", + "גֵּר שֶׁנִּכְנַס לִקְהַל יִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָּב מִילָה תְּחִלָּה. וְאִם מָל כְּשֶׁהָיָה עַכּוּ״ם צָרִיךְ לְהַטִּיף מִמֶּנּוּ דַּם בְּרִית בַּיּוֹם שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר. וְכֵן קָטָן שֶׁנּוֹלַד כְּשֶׁהוּא מָהוּל צָרִיךְ לְהַטִּיף מִמֶּנּוּ דַּם בְּרִית בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי. אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס וְהוּא הַיָּלוּד שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ זַכְרוּת כְּזָכָר וְנַקְבוּת כִּנְקֵבָה צָרִיךְ לָמוּל אוֹתוֹ בַּשְּׁמִינִי. וְכֵן יוֹצֵא דֹּפֶן וּמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי עָרְלוֹת מָלִין אֶת שְׁתֵּיהֶן בַּשְּׁמִינִי:", + "אֵין מָלִין לְעוֹלָם אֶלָּא בַּיּוֹם אַחַר עֲלוֹת הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ. בֵּין בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי שֶׁהוּא זְמַנָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ שֶׁהוּא מִתְּשִׁיעִי וָהָלְאָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יב ג) ״בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי״ בַּיּוֹם וְלֹא בַּלַּיְלָה. מָל מִשֶּׁעָלָה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר כָּשֵׁר. וְכָל הַיּוֹם כָּשֵׁר לְמִילָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן מִצְוָה לְהַקְדִּים בִּתְחִלַּת הַיּוֹם שֶׁזְּרִיזִין מַקְדִּימִין לְמִצְוֹת: ", + "מִילָה בִּזְמַנָּהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ אֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה לֹא אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת וְלֹא אֶת יוֹם טוֹב. וּבֵין בִּזְמַנָּהּ וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַצָּרַעַת. כֵּיצַד. שֶׁאִם הָיְתָה בַּהֶרֶת בְּעוֹר הָעָרְלָה חוֹתְכָהּ עִם הָעָרְלָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקְּצִיצַת נֶגַע הַצָּרַעַת בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה יָבֹא עֲשֵׂה וְיִדְחֶה אֶת לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה:", + "כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמִּילַת הַבָּנִים דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת כָּךְ מִילַת הָעֲבָדִים שֶׁהֵן נִמּוֹלִים לִשְׁמוֹנָה דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת אִם חָל שְׁמִינִי שֶׁלָּהֶן בְּשַׁבָּת. חוּץ מִילִיד בַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא טָבְלָה אִמּוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּלְדָה שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּמּוֹל לִשְׁמוֹנָה אֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת:", + "קָטָן שֶׁנּוֹלַד כְּשֶׁהוּא מָהוּל. וּמִי שֶׁנּוֹלַד בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁמִינִי לְעִבּוּרוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּגָּמֵר בְּרִיָּתוֹ שֶׁהוּא כְּנֵפֶל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַי. וְיוֹצֵא דֹּפֶן וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס וּמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי עָרְלוֹת אֵין דּוֹחִין אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת אֶלָּא נִימוֹלִין בְּאֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת שֶׁהוּא יוֹם תְּשִׁיעִי שֶׁלָּהֶן:", + "מִי שֶׁנּוֹלַד בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת סָפֵק בַּיּוֹם סָפֵק בַּלַּיְלָה מוֹנִין מִן הַלַּיְלָה וְנִמּוֹל לִתְשִׁיעִי שֶׁהוּא סָפֵק שְׁמִינִי. וְאִם נוֹלַד עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת אֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת אֶלָּא נִמּוֹל בְּאֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת. שֶׁאֵין דּוֹחִין אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת מִסָּפֵק:", + "מִי שֶׁנּוֹלַד בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁמִינִי. אִם הָיָה שָׁלֵם בִּשְׂעָרוֹ וּבְצִפָּרְנָיו הֲרֵי זֶה וָלָד שָׁלֵם וּבֶן שִׁבְעָה הוּא אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּהָה. וּמֻתָּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת וְאֵינוֹ כְּאֶבֶן. וּמָלִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת. אֲבָל אִם נוֹלַד וּשְׂעָרוֹ לָקוּי וְאֵין צִפָּרְנָיו שְׁלֵמִין כִּבְרִיָּתָן הֲרֵי זֶה בֶּן שְׁמוֹנָה וַדַּאי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה רָאוּי לְהִוָּלֵד אֶלָּא בְּתִשְׁעָה וְיָצָא קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּגָּמֵר. וּלְפִיכָךְ הוּא חָשׁוּב כְּאֶבֶן וְאָסוּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן אִם שָׁהָה שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם הֲרֵי הוּא וָלָד שֶׁל קַיָּמָא. וַהֲרֵי הוּא כִּשְׁאָר הַנּוֹלָדִין לְכָל דָּבָר. שֶׁכָּל שֶׁשָּׁהָה שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם בָּאָדָם אֵינוֹ נֵפֶל:", + "מִי שֶׁנּוֹלַד בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי לְעִבּוּרוֹ אִם נוֹלַד שָׁלֵם הֲרֵי זֶה וָלָד שֶׁל קַיָּמָא וּמָלִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת. סָפֵק בֶּן שִׁבְעָה סָפֵק בֶּן שְׁמוֹנָה מָלִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת עַל כָּל פָּנִים. אִם בֶּן שִׁבְעָה הוּא וְשָׁלֵם הוּא בְּדִין הוּא שֶׁיִּדְחֶה שַׁבָּת. וְאִם בֶּן שְׁמוֹנָה הוּא הֲרֵי זֶה שֶׁמָּל כִּמְחַתֵּךְ בָּשָׂר הוּא לְפִי שֶׁזֶּה נֵפֶל אִם הוּא בֶּן שְׁמוֹנָה:", + "הוֹצִיא הָעֻבָּר רֹאשׁוֹ חוּץ לִמְעֵי אִמּוֹ בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא כֻּלּוֹ אֶלָּא בְּלֵילֵי שַׁבָּת אֵין מָלִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת. וְכָל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת אֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה אֶת יוֹם טוֹב רִאשׁוֹן וְדוֹחֶה אֶת יוֹם טוֹב שֵׁנִי. וּבִשְׁנֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים שֶׁל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה אֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה לֹא אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי. וְכֵן מִילָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ אֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת שְׁנֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים שֶׁל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה:", + "חוֹלֶה אֵין מָלִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּבְרִיא. וּמוֹנִין לוֹ מֵעֵת שֶׁיַּבְרִיא מֵחָלְיוֹ שִׁבְעָה יָמִים מֵעֵת לְעֵת וְאַחַר כָּךְ מָלִין אוֹתוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁחֲלַצְתּוֹ חַמָּה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בְּחלִי זֶה. אֲבָל אִם כָּאֲבוּ לוֹ עֵינָיו בְּעֵת שֶׁיִּפָּתְחוּ עֵינָיו וְיֵרָפְאוּ מָלִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:", + "קָטָן שֶׁנִּמְצָא בַּשְּׁמִינִי שֶׁלּוֹ יָרוֹק בְּיוֹתֵר אֵין מָלִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בּוֹ דָּם וְיַחְזְרוּ מַרְאָיו כְּמַרְאֵה הַקְּטַנִּים הַבְּרִיאִים. וְכֵן אִם הָיָה אָדֹם בְּיוֹתֵר כְּמִי שֶׁצָּבְעוּ אוֹתוֹ אֵין מָלִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּבָּלַע בּוֹ דָּמוֹ וְיַחְזְרוּ מַרְאָיו כִּשְׁאָר הַקְּטַנִּים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁזֶּה חלִי הוּא. וְצָרִיךְ לְהִזָּהֵר בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ הַרְבֵּה:", + "אִשָּׁה שֶׁמָּלָה בְּנָהּ רִאשׁוֹן וּמֵת מֵחֲמַת מִילָה שֶׁהִכְשִׁילָה אֶת כֹּחוֹ. וְכֵן מָלָה אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי וּמֵת מֵחֲמַת מִילָה. בֵּין מִבַּעֲלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן בֵּין מִבַּעֲלָהּ הַשֵּׁנִי הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יָמוּל אֶת הַשְּׁלִישִׁי בִּזְמַנּוֹ. אֶלָּא מַמְתִּינִין לוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּגְדִּיל וְיִתְחַזֵּק כֹּחוֹ. אֵין מָלִין אֶלָּא וָלָד שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שׁוּם חלִי. שֶׁסַּכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת דּוֹחָה אֶת הַכּל. וְאֶפְשָׁר לָמוּל לְאַחַר זְמַן וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְהַחֲזִיר נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל לְעוֹלָם:" + ], + [ + "הַכּל כְּשֵׁרִין לָמוּל. וַאֲפִלּוּ עָרֵל וְעֶבֶד וְאִשָּׁה וְקָטָן מָלִין בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין שָׁם אִישׁ. אֲבָל עַכּוּ״ם לֹא יָמוּל כְּלָל. וְאִם מָל אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לַחֲזֹר וְלָמוּל שְׁנִיָּה. וּבַכּל מָלִין וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּצוּר וּבִזְכוּכִית וּבְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁכּוֹרֵת. וְלֹא יָמוּל בִּקְרוּמִית שֶׁל קָנֶה מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכָּנָה. וּמִצְוָה מִן הַמֻּבְחָר לָמוּל בְּבַרְזֶל בֵּין בְּסַכִּין בֵּין בְּמִסְפָּרַיִם. וְנָהֲגוּ כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּסַכִּין:", + "כֵּיצַד מוֹהֲלִין. חוֹתְכִין אֶת כָּל הָעוֹר הַמְחַפֶּה אֶת הָעֲטָרָה עַד שֶׁתִּתְגַּלֶּה כָּל הָעֲטָרָה. וְאַחַר כָּךְ פּוֹרְעִין אֶת הַקְּרוּם הָרַךְ שֶׁלְּמַטָּה מִן הָעוֹר בְּצִפֹּרֶן וּמַחֲזִירוֹ לְכָאן וּלְכָאן עַד שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה בְּשַׂר הָעֲטָרָה. וְאַחַר כָּךְ מוֹצֵץ אֶת הַמִּילָה עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא הַדָּם מִמְּקוֹמוֹת רְחוֹקִים כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹא לִידֵי סַכָּנָה. וְכָל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹצֵץ מַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ. וְאַחַר שֶׁמּוֹצֵץ נוֹתֵן עָלֶיהָ אִסְפְּלָנִית אוֹ רְטִיָּה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן:", + "יֵשׁ צִיצִין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה וְיֵשׁ צִיצִין שֶׁאֵין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה. כֵּיצַד. אִם נִשְׁאַר מֵעוֹר הָעָרְלָה עוֹר הַחוֹפֶה רֹב גָּבְהָהּ שֶׁל עֲטָרָה הֲרֵי זֶה עָרֵל כְּמוֹת שֶׁהָיָה. וְזֶה הָעוֹר הוּא צִיץ הַמְעַכֵּב. וְאִם לֹא נִשְׁאַר מִמֶּנּוּ אֶלָּא מְעַט שֶׁאֵינוֹ חוֹפֶה רֹב גָּבְהָהּ שֶׁל עֲטָרָה זֶהוּ צִיץ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב:", + "הַמָּל כָּל זְמַן שֶׁעוֹסֵק בַּמִּילָה חוֹזֵר בֵּין עַל הַצִּיצִין שֶׁמְּעַכְּבִין בֵּין עַל צִיצִין שֶׁאֵין מְעַכְּבִין. פֵּרַשׁ, עַל צִיצִין הַמְעַכְּבִין חוֹזֵר, עַל צִיצִין שֶׁאֵינָן מְעַכְּבִין אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר. מָל וְלֹא פָּרַע אֶת הַמִּילָה כְּאִלּוּ לֹא מָל:", + "קָטָן שֶׁבְּשָׂרוֹ רַךְ וּמְדֻלְדָּל בְּיוֹתֵר אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה בַּעַל בָּשָׂר עַד שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה כְּאִלּוּ אֵינוֹ מָהוּל רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ בְּעֵת שֶׁיִּתְקַשֶּׁה. אִם נִרְאֶה שֶׁהוּא מָהוּל אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ כְּלוּם. וְצָרִיךְ לְתַקֵּן אֶת הַבָּשָׂר מִכָּאן וּמִכָּאן מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן. וְאִם בְּעֵת שֶׁיִּתְקַשֶּׁה לֹא נִרְאֶה מָהוּל חוֹזְרִין וְקוֹצְצִין אֶת הַבָּשָׂר הַמְדֻלְדָּל מִכָּאן וּמִכָּאן עַד שֶׁתֵּרָאֶה הָעֲטָרָה גְּלוּיָה בְּעֵת קִשּׁוּי. וְדָבָר זֶה מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. אֲבָל מִן הַתּוֹרָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא נִרְאֶה כְּעָרֵל הוֹאִיל וּמָל אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לָמוּל פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה:", + "עוֹשִׂין כָּל צָרְכֵי מִילָה בְּשַׁבָּת. מָלִין וּפוֹרְעִין וּמוֹצְצִין. וְחוֹזֵר עַל צִיצִין הַמְעַכְּבִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁפֵּרַשׁ וְעַל צִיצִין שֶׁאֵין מְעַכְּבִין כָּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא פֵּרַשׁ. וְנוֹתֵן עָלֶיהָ אִסְפְּלָנִית. אֲבָל מַכְשִׁירֵי מִילָה אֵינָן דּוֹחִין אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁלֹּא מָצְאוּ סַכִּין אֵין עוֹשִׂין סַכִּין בְּשַׁבָּת וְלֹא מְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם. וַאֲפִלּוּ מָבוֹי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעֹרָב אֵין מְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחָצֵר לְחָצֵר. וְאֵין עֵרוּב מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם נִדְחֶה מִפְּנֵי הֲבָאַת הַסַּכִּין הוֹאִיל וְאֶפְשָׁר לַהֲבִיאוֹ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת:", + "וְכֵן אֵין שׁוֹחֲקִין לָהּ סַמְמָנִין וְאֵין מְחִמִּין לָהּ חַמִּין. וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין לָהּ אִסְפְּלָנִית. וְאֵין טוֹרְפִין יַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן. וְאִם לֹא שָׁחַק כַּמּוֹן מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת לוֹעֵס בְּשִׁנָּיו וְנוֹתֵן. וְאִם לֹא טָרַף יַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן נוֹתֵן זֶה לְעַצְמוֹ וְזֶה לְעַצְמוֹ. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת אֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. אֲבָל אִם שָׁכַח וְלֹא הֵכִינוּ הַמַּכְשִׁירִין תִּדָּחֶה הַמִּילָה לִתְשִׁיעִי:", + "מָלוּ אֶת הַקָּטָן בְּשַׁבָּת וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁפְּכוּ הַחַמִּין אוֹ נִתְפַּזְּרוּ הַסַּמְמָנִין עוֹשִׂין לוֹ הַכּל בְּשַׁבָּת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁסַּכָּנָה הִיא לוֹ. מָקוֹם שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְהַרְחִיץ אֶת הַקָּטָן מַרְחִיצִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת בְּיוֹם הַמִּילָה בֵּין לִפְנֵי הַמִּילָה בֵּין לְאַחַר הַמִּילָה, אוֹ בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי שֶׁל מִילָה שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת. בֵּין רְחִיצַת כָּל גּוּפוֹ. בֵּין רְחִיצַת מִילָה. בֵּין בְּחַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת בֵּין בְּחַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁסַּכָּנָה הִיא לוֹ:", + "שָׁכְחוּ וְלֹא הֵבִיאוּ סַכִּין מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת אוֹמֵר לְעַכּוּ״ם לְהָבִיא סַכִּין בְּשַׁבָּת. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יָבִיא אוֹתוֹ דֶּרֶךְ רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁעֲשִׂיָּתוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת אֲסוּרָה עָלֵינוּ מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת מֻתָּר לָנוּ לוֹמַר לְעַכּוּ״ם לַעֲשׂוֹת אוֹתָן כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת מִצְוָה בִּזְמַנָּהּ. וְדָבָר שֶׁעֲשִׂיָּתוֹ אֲסוּרָה עָלֵינוּ מִשּׁוּם מְלָאכָה אָסוּר לָנוּ לוֹמַר לְעַכּוּ״ם לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת:", + "מַכְשִׁירֵי מִילָה אֲפִלּוּ בִּזְמַנָּהּ אֵינָן דּוֹחִין אֶת יוֹם טוֹב הוֹאִיל וְאֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹתָן מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב. וְקַל וָחֹמֶר הַדְּבָרִים, אִם לֹא דָּחוּ מַכְשִׁירֵי מִילָה שְׁבוּת שֶׁהוּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם הֵיאַךְ יִדְחוּ לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. אֲבָל שׁוֹחֲקִין לָהּ סַמָּנִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב הוֹאִיל וְרָאוּי לִקְדֵרָה. וְטוֹרְפִין לָהּ יַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן:" + ], + [ + "הַמָּל מְבָרֵךְ קֹדֶם שֶׁיָּמוּל אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ עַל הַמִּילָה, אִם מָל בֶּן חֲבֵרוֹ. וְאִם מָל אֶת בְּנוֹ מְבָרֵךְ וְצִוָּנוּ לָמוּל אֶת הַבֵּן. וַאֲבִי הַבֵּן מְבָרֵךְ בְּרָכָה אַחֶרֶת. בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה יְיָ׳‎ אֱלֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ לְהַכְנִיסוֹ בִּבְרִיתוֹ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ. מִצְוָה עַל הָאָב לָמוּל אֶת בְּנוֹ יָתֵר עַל מִצְוָה שֶׁמְּצֻוִּין יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיָּמוּלוּ כָּל עָרֵל שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶן. לְפִיכָךְ אִם אֵין שָׁם אָבִיו אֵין מְבָרְכִין אַחֲרֶיהָ בְּרָכָה זוֹ. וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁהוֹרָה שֶׁיְּבָרְכוּ אוֹתָהּ בֵּית דִּין אוֹ אֶחָד מִן הָעָם. וְאֵין רָאוּי לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן:", + "וְאִם הָיוּ שָׁם עוֹמְדִין אוֹמְרִים כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהִכְנַסְתּוֹ לַבְּרִית כֵּן תַּכְנִיסֵהוּ לְתוֹרָה וּלְחֻפָּה וּלְמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים:", + "וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְבָרֵךְ אֲבִי הַבֵּן אוֹ הַמָּל אוֹ אֶחָד מִן הָעוֹמְדִין שָׁם. בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה יְיָ׳‎ אֱלֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם אֲשֶׁר קִדַּשׁ יְדִיד מִבֶּטֶן וְחֹק בִּשְׁאֵרוֹ שָׂם וְצֶאֱצָאָיו חָתַם בְּאוֹת בְּרִית קֹדֶשׁ עַל כֵּן בִּשְׂכַר זֹאת אֵל חַי חֶלְקֵנוּ צוּרֵנוּ צַוֵּה לְהַצִּיל יְדִידוּת שְׁאֵרֵנוּ מִשַּׁחַת לְמַעַן בְּרִיתוֹ אֲשֶׁר שָׂם בִּבְשָׂרֵנוּ. בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה יְיָ׳‎ כּוֹרֵת הַבְּרִית. וַאֲבִי הַבֵּן מְבָרֵךְ שֶׁהֶחֱיָנוּ:", + "הַמָּל אֶת הַגֵּרִים מְבָרֵךְ. בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה יְיָ׳‎ אֱלֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ לָמוּל אֶת הַגֵּרִים וּלְהַטִּיף מִמֶּנּוּ דַּם בְּרִית שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא דַּם הַבְּרִית לֹא נִתְקַיְּמוּ שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ירמיה לג כה) ״אִם לֹא בְרִיתִי יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה חֻקּוֹת שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ לֹא שָׂמְתִּי״:", + "הַמָּל אֶת עַבְדּוֹ מְבָרֵךְ אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ לָמוּל אֶת הָעֲבָדִים וּלְהַטִּיף מֵהֶן דַּם בְּרִית שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא דַּם בְּרִית לֹא נִתְקַיְּמוּ שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ. וְאִם מָל עֶבֶד שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים מְבָרֵךְ עַל מִילַת הָעֲבָדִים. וְהַמָּל אָדָם גָּדוֹל צָרִיךְ לְכַסּוֹת עֶרְוָתוֹ עַד שֶׁיְּבָרֵךְ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְגַלֵּהוּ וּמָל אוֹתוֹ:", + "גֵּר שֶׁמָּל קֹדֶם שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר וְקָטָן שֶׁנּוֹלַד כְּשֶׁהוּא מָהוּל כְּשֶׁמַּטִּיפִין מִמֶּנּוּ דַּם בְּרִית אֵינָן צְרִיכִין בְּרָכָה. וְכֵן אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס אֵין מְבָרְכִין עַל מִלָּתוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא אֵינוֹ זָכָר וַדַּאי:", + "עַכּוּ״ם שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לַחְתֹּךְ עָרְלָתוֹ מִפְּנֵי מַכָּה אוֹ מִפְּנֵי שְׁחִין שֶׁנּוֹלַד בּוֹ הָיָה אָסוּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לַחְתֹּךְ לוֹ אוֹתָהּ, שֶׁהָעַכּוּ״ם אֵין מַעֲלִים אוֹתָם מִידֵי מִיתָה וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין אוֹתָן אֵלֶיהָ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית מִצְוָה בִּרְפוּאָה זוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נִתְכַּוֵּן לְמִצְוָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נִתְכַּוֵּן הָעַכּוּ״ם לְמִילָה מֻתָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לָמוּל אוֹתוֹ:", + "מְאוּסָה הִיא הָעָרְלָה שֶׁנִּתְגַּנּוּ בָּהּ הַגּוֹיִם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ירמיה ט כה) ״כִּי כָּל הַגּוֹיִם עֲרֵלִים״. וּגְדוֹלָה הִיא הַמִּילָה שֶׁלֹּא נִקְרָא אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ שָׁלֵם עַד שֶׁמָּל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית יז א) ״הִתְהַלֵּךְ לְפָנַי וֶהְיֵה תָמִים״ (בראשית יז ב) ״וְאֶתְּנָה בְרִיתִי בֵּינִי וּבֵינֶךָ״ וְגוֹ׳‎. וְכָל הַמֵּפֵר בְּרִיתוֹ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ וְהִנִּיחַ עָרְלָתוֹ אוֹ מְשָׁכָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ תּוֹרָה וּמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא:", + "בּוֹא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה חֲמוּרָה מִילָה שֶׁלֹּא נִתְלָה לְמשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ עָלֶיהָ אֲפִלּוּ שָׁעָה אַחַת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ. וְכָל מִצְוֹת הַתּוֹרָה נִכְרְתוּ עֲלֵיהֶן שָׁלֹשׁ בְּרִיתוֹת. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כח סט) ״אֵלֶּה דִבְרֵי הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְיָ׳‎״, (דברים כח סט) ״מִלְּבַד הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר כָּרַת אִתָּם בְּחֹרֵב״. וְשָׁם הוּא אוֹמֵר (דברים כט ט) ״אַתֶּם נִצָּבִים הַיּוֹם כֻּלְּכֶם״ (דברים כט יא) ״לְעָבְרְךָ בִּבְרִית יְיָ׳‎ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״, הֲרֵי שָׁלֹשׁ בְּרִיתוֹת. וְעַל הַמִּילָה נִכְרְתוּ שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה בְּרִיתוֹת עִם אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ. (בראשית יז ב) ״וְאֶתְּנָה בְרִיתִי בֵּינִי וּבֵינֶךָ״. (בראשית יז ד) ״אֲנִי הִנֵּה בְרִיתִי אִתָּךְ״. וַהֲקִמֹתִי אֶת בְּרִיתִי בֵּינִי וּבֵינֶךָ. לִבְרִית עוֹלָם. (בראשית יז ט) ״וְאַתָּה אֶת בְּרִיתִי תִשְׁמֹר״. (בראשית יז י) ״זֹאת בְּרִיתִי אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁמְרוּ״. (בראשית יז יא) ״וְהָיָה לְאוֹת בְּרִית״. (בראשית יז יג) ״וְהָיְתָה בְרִיתִי בִּבְשַׂרְכֶם״. לִבְרִית עוֹלָם. (בראשית יז יד) ״אֶת בְּרִיתִי הֵפַר״. (בראשית יז יט) ״וַהֲקִמֹתִי אֶת בְּרִיתִי אִתּוֹ. לִבְרִית עוֹלָם״. (בראשית יז כא) ״וְאֶת בְּרִיתִי אָקִים אֶת יִצְחָק״:
בְּרִיךְ רַחֲמָנָא דְּסַיְּעָן" + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Torat Emet 370", + "http://www.toratemetfreeware.com/index.html?downloads" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות מילה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Ahavah" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Ahavah/Mishneh Torah, Reading the Shema/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Ahavah/Mishneh Torah, Reading the Shema/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d055a8a4fe5e046e24f66e662642ea6e35017a60 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Ahavah/Mishneh Torah, Reading the Shema/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Reading the Shema", + "versionSource": "http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94_%D7%9C%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%91%22%D7%9D", + "versionTitle": "Wikisource Mishneh Torah", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY-SA", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "משנה תורה (ויקיטקסט)", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות קריאת שמע", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Ahavah" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "פעמים בכל יום קוראין ק\"ש בערב ובבקר שנאמר ובשכבך ובקומך בשעה שדרך בני אדם שוכבין וזה הוא לילה ובשעה שדרך בני אדם עומדין וזה הוא יום.", + "ומה הוא קורא שלשה פרשיות אלו הן:שמע והיה אם שמוע ויאמר ומקדימין לקרות פרשת שמע מפני שיש בה יחוד השם ואהבתו ותלמודו שהוא העיקר הגדול שהכל תלוי בו ואחריה והיה אם שמוע שיש בה צווי על (זכירת) שאר כל המצות ואחר כך פרשת ציצית שגם היא יש בה צווי זכירת כל המצות.", + "אע\"פ שאין מצות ציצית נוהגת בלילה קוראין אותה בלילה מפני שיש בה זכרון יציאת מצרים ומצוה להזכיר יציאת מצרים ביום ובלילה שנאמר למען תזכור את יום צאתך מארץ מצרים כל ימי חייך וקריאת שלש פרשיות אלו על סדר זה היא הנקראת קריאת שמע.", + "הקורא קריאת שמע כשהוא גומר פסוק ראשון אומר בלחש ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד וחוזר וקורא כדרכו ואהבת את יי' אלהיך עד סופה ולמה קורין כן מסורת היא בידינו שבשעה שקבץ יעקב אבינו את בניו במצרים בשעת מיתתו ציום וזרזם על יחוד השם ועל דרך ה' שהלך בה אברהם ויצחק אביו ושאל אותם ואמר להם בני שמא יש בכם פסלות מי שאינו עומד עמי ביחוד השם כענין שאמר לנו משה רבינו פן יש בכם איש או אשה וגו' ענו כולם ואמרו שמע ישראל יי' אלהינו יי' אחד כלומר שמע ממנו אבינו ישראל יי' אלהינו יי' אחד פתח הזקן ואמר ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד לפיכך נהגו כל ישראל לומר שבח ששבח בו ישראל הזקן אחר פסוק זה.", + "הקורא קריאת שמע מברך לפניה ולאחריה ביום מברך שתים לפניה ואחת לאחריה ובלילה מברך שתים לפניה ושתים לאחריה.", + "ברכה ראשונה שלפניה ביום יוצר אור ובורא חשך וכו' וברכה שנייה אהבת עולם אהבתנו ושל אחריה אמת ויציב וברכה ראשונה שלפניה בלילה מעריב ערבים וכו' שנייה לה אהבת עולם בית ישראל עמך אהבת כו' וברכה ראשונה על אחריה אמת ואמונה שנייה לה השכיבנו.", + "ברכה ראשונה שלפניה בין ביום בין בלילה פותח בה בברוך וחותם בה בברוך ושאר ברכותיה חותם בכל אחת מהן בברוך ואין להם פתיחה בברוך ברכות אלו עם שאר כל הברכות הערוכות בפי כל ישראל עזרא הסופר ובית דינו תקנום ואין אדם רשאי לפחות מהם ולא להוסיף עליהם מקום שהתקינו לחתום בברוך אינו רשאי שלא לחתום ומקום שהתקינו שלא לחתום אינו רשאי לחתום מקום שהתקינו שלא לפתוח בברוך אינו רשאי לפתוח מקום שהתקינו לפתוח אינו רשאי שלא לפתוח כללו של דבר כל המשנה ממטבע שטבעו חכמים בברכות הרי זה טועה וחוזר ומברך כמטבע וכל שאינו אומר אמת ויציב בשחרית ואמת ואמונה בערבית לא יצא ידי חובתו.", + "הקדים ברכה שנייה לברכה ראשונה בין ביום בין בלילה בין לפניה בין לאחריה יצא לפי שאין סדר בברכות בשחרית פתח יוצר אור וסיים מעריב ערבים לא יצא פתח במעריב ערבים וסיים ביוצר אור יצא ובערב פתח במעריב ערבים וסיים ביוצר אור לא יצא פתח ביוצר אור וסיים במעריב ערבים יצא שכל הברכות הולכות אחר חתימתן.", + "אי זהו זמן קריאת שמע בלילה מצותה משעת יציאת הכוכבים עד חצי הלילה ואם עבר ואיחר וקרא עד שלא עלה עמוד השחר יצא ידי חובתו שלא אמרו עד חצות אלא כדי להרחיק אדם מן הפשיעה.", + "הקורא קריאת שמע של ערבית אחר שיעלה עמוד השחר קודם הנץ החמה לא יצא ידי חובתו אא\"כ היה אנוס כגון שכור או חולה וכיוצא בהן ואנוס שקרא בעת זה אינו אומר השכיבנו.", + "ואי זה הוא זמנה ביום מצותה שיתחיל לקרות קודם הנץ החמה כדי שיגמור לקרות ולברך ברכה אחרונה עם הנץ החמה ושיעור זה כמו [עישור] שעה קודם שתעלה השמש ואם איחר וקרא קריאת שמע אחר שתעלה השמש יצא ידי חובתו שעונתה עד סוף שלש שעות ביום למי שעבר ואיחר.", + "מי שהקדים וקרא קריאת שמע של שחרית אחר שיעלה עמוד השחר אף על פי שהשלים קודם שתנץ החמה יצא ידי חובתו ובשעת הדחק כגון שהיה משכים לצאת לדרך קורא לכתחלה משעלה עמוד השחר.", + "הקורא אחר שלש שעות ביום אפילו היה אנוס לא יצא ידי חובת קריאת שמע בעונתו אלא הרי הוא כקורא בתורה ומברך לפניה ולאחריה כל היום אפילו איחר וקרא אחר שלש שעות." + ], + [ + "הקורא את שמע ולא כיון לבו בפסוק ראשון שהוא שמע ישראל לא יצא ידי חובתו והשאר אם לא כיון לבו יצא אפי' היה קורא בתורה כדרכו או מגיה את הפרשיות האלו בעונת קריאה יצא והוא שכיון לבו בפסוק ראשון.", + "כל אדם קורין כדרכן בין עומדין בין מהלכין בין שוכבין בין רוכבין על גבי בהמה ואסור לקרות קריאת שמע והוא מוטל ופניו טוחות בקרקע או מושלך על גבו ופניו למעלה אבל קורא הוא והוא שוכב על צדו ואם היה בעל בשר הרבה ואינו יכול להתהפך על צדו או שהיה חולה נוטה מעט לצדו וקורא.", + "מי שהיה מהלך על רגליו עומד בפסוק ראשון והשאר קורא והוא מהלך היה ישן מצערין אותו ומעירין אותו עד שיקרא פסוק ראשון ומכאן ואילך אם אנסתו שינה אין מצערין אותו.", + "מי שהיה עוסק במלאכה מפסיק עד שיקרא פרשה ראשונה כולה וכן האימנין בטלין ממלאכתן בפרשה ראשונה כדי שלא תהא קריאתן עראי והשאר קורא הוא כדרכו ועוסק במלאכתו אפילו היה עומד בראש האילן או בראש הכותל קורא במקומו ומברך לפניה ולאחריה.", + "היה עוסק בתלמוד תורה והגיע זמן קריאת שמע פוסק וקורא ומברך לפניה ולאחריה היה עוסק בצרכי רבים לא יפסוק אלא יגמור עסקיהן ויקרא אם נשאר עת לקרות.", + "היה עוסק באכילה או שהיה במרחץ או שהיה עוסק בתספורת או שהיה מהפך בעורות או שהיו עוסקין בדין גומר ואח\"כ קורא קריאת שמע ואם היה מתיירא שמא יעבור זמן קריאה ופסק וקרא הרי זה משובח.", + "מי שירד לטבול אם יכול לעלות ולהתכסות קודם שתנץ החמה יעלה ויתכסה ויקרא ואם היה מתיירא שמא תנץ החמה קודם שיקרא יתכסה במים שהוא עומד בהן ויקרא ולא יתכסה לא במים הרעים שריחן רע ולא במי המשרה ולא במים צלולין מפני שערותו נראית בהן אבל מתכסה הוא במים עכורין שאין ריחן רע וקורא במקומו.", + "הקורא קריאת שמע לא ירמוז בעיניו ולא יקרוץ בשפתיו ולא יראה באצבעותיו כדי שלא תהיה קריאתו עראי ואם עשה כן אף על פי שיצא ידי חובתו הרי זה מגונה וצריך להשמיע לאזנו כשהוא קורא ואם לא השמיע לאזנו יצא וצריך לדקדק באותיותיו ואם לא דקדק יצא.", + "כיצד ידקדק ישמור שלא ירפה החזק ולא יחזיק הרפה ולא יניח הנד ולא יניד הנח לפיכך צריך ליתן ריוח בין הדבקים בין כל שתי אותיות הדומות שאחת מהן סוף תיבה והאחרת תחלת תיבה הסמוכה לה כגון בכל לבבך קורא בכל ושוהה וחוזר וקורא לבבך וכן ואבדתם מהרה הכנף פתיל וצריך לבאר זיי\"ן של תזכרו וצריך להאריך בדל\"ת של אחד כדי שימליכהו בשמים ובארץ ובארבע רוחות וצריך שלא יחטוף בחי\"ת כדי שלא יהא כאומר אי חד.", + "קורא אדם את שמע בכל לשון שיהיה מבינה והקורא בכל לשון צריך להזהר מדברי שבוש שבאותו הלשון ומדקדק באותו הלשון כמו שמדקדק בלשון הקדש.", + "הקורא למפרע לא יצא בד\"א בסדר הפסוקים אבל אם הקדים פרשה לפרשה אף ע\"פ שאינו רשאי אני אומר שיצא לפי שאינה סמוכה לה בתורה קרא פסוק וחזר וקראו פעם שנייה הרי זה מגונה קרא מלה אחת וכפלה כגון שקרא שמע שמע משתקין אותו.", + "קראה סירוגין יצא אפילו שהה בין סירוג לסירוג כדי לגמור את כולה יצא והוא שיקרא על הסדר קראה מתנמנם והוא מי שאינו ער ולא נרדם בשינה יצא ובלבד שיהיה ער בפסוק ראשון.", + "ספק קרא קריאת שמע ספק לא קרא חוזר וקורא ומברך לפניה ולאחריה אבל אם ידע שקרא ונסתפק לו אם בירך לפניה ולאחריה או לא בירך אינו חוזר ומברך קרא וטעה יחזור למקום שטעה נעלם ממנו בין פרשה לפרשה ואינו יודע אי זו פרשה השלים ואי זו צריך להתחיל חוזר לפרשה ראשונה שהוא ואהבת את ה' אלהיך וגו'.", + "טעה באמצע הפרק ואינו יודע להיכן פסק חוזר לראש הפרק היה קורא וכתבתם ואינו יודע אם הוא בוכתבתם של שמע או בוכתבתם שבוהיה אם שמוע חוזר לוכתבתם של שמע ואם נסתפק לו אחר שקרא למען ירבו ימיכם אינו חוזר שעל הרגל לשונו הוא הולך.", + "היה קורא ופגע באחרים או פגעו בו אחרים אם היה בין פרק לפרק פוסק ומתחיל ושואל שלום מי שהוא חייב בכבודו כגון שפגע באביו או רבו או מי שהוא גדול ממנו בחכמה ומשיב שלום לכל אדם שנתן לו שלום.", + "היה קורא באמצע הפרשה אינו פוסק ומתחיל לשאול אלא בשלום מי שהוא מתיירא ממנו כגון מלך או אנס וכיוצא בהן אבל מי שהוא חייב בכבודו כגון אביו או רבו אם נתן לו שלום תחלה פוסק ומשיב לו שלום.", + "ואלו הן בין הפרקים בין ברכה ראשונה לשנייה בין שנייה לשמע בין שמע לוהיה אם שמוע בין והיה אם שמוע לויאמר בין הפרקים האלו שואל מפני הכבוד ומשיב שלום לכל אדם אבל בין ויאמר לאמת ויציב הרי זה כאמצע הפרק ולא יפסיק אלא לשאול מפני היראה ולהשיב מפני הכבוד." + ], + [ + "הקורא את שמע רוחץ ידיו במים קודם שיקרא הגיע זמן קריאתה ולא מצא מים קודם שיקרא לא יאחר קריאתה וילך לבקש מים אלא מקנח ידיו בעפר או בצרור או בקורה וכיוצא בהן וקורא.", + "אין קורין לא בבית המרחץ ולא בבית הכסא אע\"פ שאין בו צואה ולא בבית הקברות ולא בצד המת עצמו ואם הרחיק ארבע אמות מן הקבר או מן המת מותר לקרות וכל מי שקרא במקום שאין קורין בו חוזר וקורא.", + "בית הכסא החדש שהוכן ועדיין לא נשתמש בו מותר לקרות קריאת שמע לנגדו אבל לא בתוכו מרחץ החדש מותר לקרות בתוכו היו שני בתים זימן אחד מהם לבית הכסא ואמר על השני וזה הרי השני ספק אם הזמינו לכך אם לא לפיכך אין קורין בו לכתחלה ואם קרא יצא אמר גם זה הרי שניהם מזומנין ואין קוראין בהן חצר המרחץ והוא המקום שבני אדם עומדין בו לבושין מותר לקרות בו קריאת שמע.", + "ולא קריאת שמע בלבד אלא כל ענין שהוא מדברי הקדש אסור לאומרו בבית המרחץ ובבית הכסא ואפילו אמרו בלשון חול ולא לאמרו בלבד אלא אפילו להרהר בלבו בדברי תורה בבית הכסא ובבית המרחץ ובמקום הטנופת והוא המקום שיש בו צואה ומי רגלים אסור.", + "דברים של חול מותר לאמרן בלשון קדש בבית הכסא וכן הכנויים כגון רחום וחנון ונאמן וכיוצא בהן מותר לאמרן בבית הכסא אבל השמות המיוחדים והן השמות שאינן נמחקין אסור להזכירן בבית הכסא ובבית המרחץ ישן ואם נזדמן לו להפריש מן דבר האסור בבית המרחץ או בבית הכסא מפריש ואפילו בלשון קודש ובעניני קודש.", + "צואת האדם וצואת כלבים וחזירין בזמן שיש בתוכן עורות וכל צואה שריחה רע כגון אלו אסור לקרות קריאת שמע כנגדן וכן כנגד מי רגלים של אדם אבל מי רגלים של בהמה קורין כנגדן קטן שאינו יכול לאכול כזית דגן בכדי שיאכל הגדול כשלשה ביצי דגן אין מרחיקין לא מצואתו ולא ממי רגליו.", + "היתה צואה יבשה כחרש אסור לקרות כנגדה ואם היתה יבשה יותר מחרש עד שאם זרקה תתפרך הרי היא כעפר ומותר לקרות כנגדה מי רגלים שנבלעו בקרקע אם היו מרטיבין היד אסור לקרות כנגדן ואם לאו מותר.", + "כמה ירחיק אדם מצואה וממי רגלים ואחר כך יקרא ארבע אמות במה דברים אמורים בזמן שהם מלאחוריו או מצדיו אבל אם היו כנגד פניו מרחיק מהן עד שלא יראה אותן ואח\"כ יקרא.", + "בד\"א כשהיה עמהן בבית במקום שוה אבל אם היה שם מקום גבוה מהן עשרה טפחים או נמוך מהם עשרה טפחים יושב בצד המקום וקורא שהרי נפסק ביניהם והוא שלא יגיע לו ריח רע וכן אם כפה כלי על הצואה או על מימי רגלים אף על פי שהן עמו בבית הרי אלו כקבורין ומותר לקרות כנגדן.", + "היה בינו ובין הצואה מחיצה של זכוכית אע\"פ שהוא רואה אותה מאחרי הזכוכית מותר לקרות בצדה נתן רביעית מים לתוך מי רגלים של פעם אחת מותר לקרות עמהן בתוך ד' אמות.", + "היתה צואה בגומא עומד בסנדלו על הגומא וקורא והוא שלא יהיה סנדלו נוגע בה היתה כנגדו צואה מעוטה ביותר כמו טיפה רוקק עליה רוק עבה עד שתתכסה וקורא היתה נטישת צואה על בשרו או ידיו מטונפות מבית הכסא ולא היה להן ריח רע כלל מפני קוטנן או יבשותן מותר לקרות לפי שאין להן ריח רע אבל אם היתה במקומה אף ע\"פ שאינה נראית כשהוא עומד הואיל ונראית כשהוא יושב אסור לקרות עד שיקנח יפה יפה מפני שהצואה לחה היא ויש לה ריח רע וכמה גאונים הורו שאסור לו לקרות אם היו ידיו מטונפות וכך ראוי לעשות.", + "ריח רע שיש לו עיקר מרחיק ד' אמות וקורא אם פסק הריח ואם לא פסק הריח מרחיק עד מקום שפסק הריח ושאין לו עיקר כגון מי שיצא ממנו רוח מלמטה מרחיק עד מקום שתכלה הריח וקורא גרף של רעי ועביט של מימי רגלים אסור לקרות קריאת שמע כנגדן ואף על פי שאין בהן כלום ואין להם ריח רע מפני שהם כבית הכסא.", + "צואה עוברת כגון שהיתה שטה על פני המים אסור לקרות כנגדה ופי חזיר כצואה עוברת דמי ואסור לקרות כנגדו עד שיעברו ממנו ארבע אמות.", + "היה קורא והגיע למקום הטנופת לא יניח ידו על פיו ויקרא אלא יפסיק עד שיעבור מאותו מקום וכן הקורא שיצתה ממנו רוח מלמטה יפסיק עד שתכלה באשה וחוזר לקריאתו וכן בדברי תורה יצתה רוח מחבירו אע\"פ שמפסיק לקריאת שמע אינו פוסק לדברי תורה.", + "היה קורא קריאת שמע בבית ונסתפק לו אם יש שם צואה או מימי רגלים או אין שם הרי זה מותר לקרות היה קורא באשפה ונסתפק לו אם יש שם צואה או אין שם לא יקרא עד שיבדוק שחזקת האשפה שהיא מקום הטנופת אבל ספק מי רגלים אפילו באשפה מותר לקרות.", + "כשם שאסור לקרות כנגד צואה ומי רגלים עד שירחיק כך אסור לקרות כנגד הערוה עד שיחזיר פניו אפילו כותי או קטן לא יקרא כנגד ערותן אפילו מחיצה של זכוכית מפסקת הואיל והוא רואה אותה אסור לקרות עד שיחזיר פניו וכל גוף האשה ערוה לפיכך לא יסתכל בגוף האשה כשהוא קורא ואפילו אשתו ואם היה מגולה טפח מגופה לא יקרא כנגדה.", + "וכשם שהוא אסור כנגד ערות אחרים כך הוא אסור לקרות כנגד ערותו ולא יקרא כשהוא ערום עד שיכסה ערותו היתה חגורה של בגד או עור או שק על מתניו אף על פי ששאר גופו ערום מותר לו לקרות קריאת שמע והוא שלא יהיה עקבו נוגע בערותו היה ישן בטליתו והיה ערום חוצץ בטליתו מתחת לבו וקורא אבל לא יחוץ צוארו ויקרא מפני שלבו רואה את הערוה ונמצא כמי שקורא בלא חגורה.", + "שנים שהיו ישנים בטלית אחת כל אחד מהן אסור לקרות אף על פי שיכסה מתחת לבו עד שתהא טלית מפסקת ביניהן עד שלא יגע בשר זה בבשר זה ממתניו ולמטה ואם היה ישן עם אשתו או בניו ובני ביתו הקטנים הרי גופן כגופו ואינו מרגיש מהן לפיכך אע\"פ שבשרו נוגע בהם מחזיר פניו וחוצץ מתחת לבו וקורא.", + "עד אימתי הם קטנים לענין זה עד שיהא הזכר בן שתים עשרה שנה ויום אחד והנקבה בת אחת עשרה שנה ויום אחד והוא שיהא תבניתם כתבנית גדולים שדים נכונו ושערך צמח ואחר כך לא יקרא עד שתפסיק טלית ביניהן אבל אם עדיין לא היו שדים נכונו ושערך צמח קורא עמהן בקירוב בשר ואינו צריך הפסק עד שיהיה הזכר בן י\"ג שנה ויום אחד והנקבה בת שתים עשרה שנה ויום אחד." + ], + [ + "נשים ועבדים וקטנים פטורים מקריאת שמע ומלמדין את הקטנים לקרותה בעונתה ומברכין לפניה ולאחריה כדי לחנכן במצות מי שהיה לבו טרוד ונחפז לדבר מצוה פטור מכל המצות ומקריאת שמע לפיכך חתן שנשא בתולה פטור מקריאת שמע עד שיבא עליה לפי שאין דעתו פנויה שמא לא ימצא לה בתולים ואם שהה עד מוצאי שבת ולא בעל חייב לקרות ממוצאי שבת ואילך שהרי נתקררה דעתו ולבו גס בה אף על פי שלא בעל.", + "אבל הנושא את הבעולה אע\"פ שעוסק במצוה חייב לקרות הואיל ואין לו דבר שמשמש דעתו וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "מי שמת לו מת שהוא חייב להתאבל עליו פטור מקריאת שמע עד שיקברנו מפני שאין דעתו פנויה לקרות ואם היה משמר את המת אף על פי שאינו מתו פטור מקריאת שמע ואם היו השומרים שנים האחד משמר והשני נשמט למקום אחר וקורא וחוזר ומשמר ונשמט האחר וקורא וכן החופר קבר למת פטור מקריאת שמע.", + "אין מוציאין את המת לקוברו סמוך לזמן קריאת שמע אלא אם כן היה אדם גדול ואם התחילו והוציאו והגיע זמן הקריאה והן מלוין את המת כל שיש למטה צורך בהן כגון נושאי המטה וחילופיהן וחלופי חלופיהן בין שהיו לפני המטה בין שהיו לאחר המטה פטורין ושאר המלוין שאין למטה צורך בהן חייבין.", + "היו עסוקים בהספד והגיע זמן קריאת שמע בזמן שהמת מונח לפניהן נשמטים אחד אחד וקוראין וחוזרין להספד אין המת מוטל לפניהם כל העם קורין קריאת שמע והאבל יושב ודומם לפי שאינו חייב לקרות עד שיקבור את מתו.", + "קברו את המת וחזרו האבלים לקבל תנחומין וכל העם הולכים אחריהם ממקום הקבר למקום שעומדים בו האבלים לעשות שורה לקבל תנחומין אם יכולין העם להתחיל ולגמור אפילו פסוק אחד קודם שיגיעו לשורה יתחילו ואם לאו לא יתחילו אלא ינחמו את האבלים ואחר שיפטרו מהן יתחילו לקרות בני אדם העומדין בשורה הפנימיים שהן רואין פני האבלים פטורין מקריאת שמע והחיצונים הואיל ואינן רואין את האבלים חייבין בקריאת שמע במקומן.", + "כל מי שהוא פטור מלקרות קריאת שמע אם רצה להחמיר על עצמו לקרות קורא והוא שתהא דעתו מישבת עליו אבל אם היה זה הפטור מלקרות מבוהל ותמה אינו רשאי לקרות עד שתתיישב דעתו עליו.", + "כל הטמאין חייבין בקריאת שמע ומברכין לפניה ולאחריה והן בטומאתן אף על פי שאפשר להן לעלות מטומאתן בו ביום כגון הנוגעין בשרץ או בנדה וזבה ומשכבה וכיוצא בהן ועזרא ובית דינו תקנו שלא יקרא בדברי תורה בעל קרי לבדו והוציאוהו מכלל שאר הטמאין עד שיטבול ולא פשטה תקנה זו בכל ישראל ולא היה כח ברוב הציבור לעמוד בה לפיכך בטלה וכבר נהגו כל ישראל לקרות בתורה ולקרות קריאת שמע והן בעלי קריין לפי שאין דברי תורה מקבלין טומאה אלא עומדין בטהרתן לעולם שנאמר הלא כה דברי כאש נאם יי' מה אש אינה מקבלת טומאה אף דברי תורה אינם מקבלין טומאה:סליק הלכות קריאת שמע." + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/English/Jad Haghasakkah, trans. by L. Mandelstamm. St. Petersburg, 1851. Corrected and edited by Igor Itkin - German [de].json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/English/Jad Haghasakkah, trans. by L. Mandelstamm. St. Petersburg, 1851. Corrected and edited by Igor Itkin - German [de].json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..75b1bdc5e7d804ff39fb59424d2654beede2b1e9 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/English/Jad Haghasakkah, trans. by L. Mandelstamm. St. Petersburg, 1851. Corrected and edited by Igor Itkin - German [de].json @@ -0,0 +1,401 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods", + "versionSource": "https://www.talmud.de/tlmd/mischne-tora/", + "versionTitle": "Jad Haghasakkah, trans. by L. Mandelstamm. St. Petersburg, 1851. Corrected and edited by Igor Itkin - German [de]", + "priority": 0.0, + "license": "Public Domain", + "versionNotes": "Mandelstamm’s translation has been corrected according to an unrevised Hebrew edition, missing segments and explanatory brackets were added by Igor Itkin. This project was enabled thanks to the Freimann collection at Goethe University Frankfurt, and to Transkribus software.", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "", + "versionNotesInHebrew": "התרגום של מנדלשטאם תוקן על פי המהדורה עברית, קטעים חסרים וסוגריים הסבר נוספו על ידי איגור איטקין. פרויקט זה התאפשר תודות לאוסף פריימן באוניברסיטת גתה פרנקפורט, ותוכנת Transkribus.", + "shortVersionTitle": "Leon Mandelstamm. St. Petersburg, 1851", + "actualLanguage": "de", + "languageFamilyName": "german", + "isBaseText": false, + "isSource": false, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות מאכלות אסורות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Kedushah" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "Erkennungszeichen koscherer Tiere
Es ist eine Mizwa die Erkennungszeichen zu unterscheiden bei Tieren, die uns zu essen erlaubt und verboten sind. Bei Vieh, Wild, Vogel, Fisch und Heuschrecken, So steht es in der Tora: „Und ihr sollt unterscheiden zwischen dem reinen Vieh und dem unreinen und zwischen den unreinen Vögeln und den reinen“(Lev.20:26) „Damit man unterscheide zwischen dem, was unrein ist, und dem, was rein ist, und zwischen den Tieren, die gegessen werden dürfen, und denen, die man nicht essen darf.“(Lev.11:47)", + "Die Erkennungszeichen des Viehs und des Wilds sind in der Torah erklärt, ihrer sind zwei: „gespaltene Hufe und Wiederkäuer“ (Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6). Allen Wiederkäuern fehlen die oberen Schneidezähne. Alle Wiederkäuer haben gespaltene Hufen, ausgenommen das Kamel. Und alle Tiere, die gespaltene Hufen haben, sind Wiederkäuer, ausgenommen das Schwein.", + "Trifft man ein unbekanntes Tier in der Wüste und stellt fest, dass seine Hufen verstümmelt sind, so untersuche man das Maul. Hat es keine oberen Schneidezähne, so ist es ein koscheres Tier — vorausgesetzt, man kann Kamele erkennen. Ist das Maul abgetrennt, untersuche man die Hufen: Sind die Hufen gespalten, so ist das Tier koscher, — vorausgesetzt, man kann Schweine erkennen.Trifft man ein Tier, dessen Hufen und Maul verstümmelt sind, untersuche man nach dem Schächten den äußeren Hüftlochmuskel. Sind die Muskelfasern dort kreuzweise angelegt, so ist es koscher. Dies gilt nur in dem Fall, wenn man einen Wildesel ausschließen kann. ", + "Gebiert ein koscheres Tier ein Junges, das einem unkoscheren Tier ähnelt, — obwohl es weder Wiederkäuer noch Paarhufer ist, sondern genauso aussieht wie ein Esel oder wie ein Pferd, ist das Tier zum Verzehr geeignet. Wann gilt das? Wenn es in unserem Beisein gebiert. Lässt man dagegen die trächtige Kuh in der Herde und man findet dort ein Schwein, das der Kuh ständig nachläuft und sogar von ihr säugt, so liegt hier ein Zweifel vor und das Tier ist zum Verzehr verboten. Vielleicht hat es ein unkoscheres Tier geboren und es läuft jetzt dem koscheren hinterher.", + "Gebiert ein unkoscheres Tier ein Junges, das einem koscheren ähnelt, — obwohl es Paarhufer und Wiederkäuer ist und genauso aussieht wie ein Ochse oder wie ein Schaf, ist es zum Verzehr verboten, denn alles, was dem unkoscheren Tier entspringt, ist unkoscher; alles was dem koscheren entspringt, ist koscher. Findet man einen unkoscheren Fisch im Bauch eines koscheren Fisches, ist er demzufolge verboten. Findet man einen koscheren Fisch im Bauch eines unkoscheren Fisches, ist er erlaubt. Denn er hat ihn verschluckt und nicht gezeugt, da Fische laichen.", + "Gebiert ein koscheres Tier oder findet man in in ihm ein Tier mit zwei Rücken und zwei Wirbelsäulen, so ist es zum Verzehr verboten. Dieses wird in der Tora „Schesua” (Gespaltenes) genannt: „Doch von denen, die wiederkäuen, und von denen mit ganz gespaltenen Klauen (Schesua), dürft ihr diese nicht essen.“ (Dt.14:7). Das ist ein Tier, das als zwei Tiere geboren wurde (einer Art siamesischer Zwilling).", + "Ebenfalls ein dem Vogel ähnelndes Tier in einem Vieh: Obwohl es wie ein koscherer Vogel aussieht, ist es zum Verzehr verboten. Nur wenn man ein Tier mit Hufen in einem Vieh findet, ist es erlaubt.", + "Vom Vieh und vom Wild sind auf der ganzen Welt nur die zehn Arten erlaubt, welche die Tora aufzählt. Die drei Arten vom Vieh: Rind, Schaf und Ziege. Die sieben Arten vom Wild: Gazelle, Hirsch, Antilope, Steinbock, Addax, Bison und Giraffe. Beinhaltet sind auch Unterarten wie Auerochse und Büffel, beide gehören den Rindern an. Alle diese zehn Arten und ihre Unterarten sind Paarhufer und Wiederkäuer. Deshalb muss man diese Tiere nicht nach den Erkennungsmerkmalen untersuchen, wenn man sie kennt und erkennt.", + "Obwohl all diese Tiere zum Verzehr erlaubt sind, müssen wir einen Unterschied machen zwischen koscherem Vieh und koscherem Wild. Beim Wild ist das Fett erlaubt und das Blut muss nach dem Schächten bedeckt werden. Beim Vieh wird der Verzehr vom Fett mit Karet (Ausrottungsstrafe) bestraft und sein Blut muss nicht bedeckt werden.", + "Die Erkennungsmerkmale für Wild gemäß der mündlichen Tradition sind diese: Wiederkäuer und Paarhufer, deren Hörner sich verzweigen wie beim Hirsch, sind zweifellos koscher. Verzweigen sich die Hörner nicht, sondern sind gebogen wie beim Rind oder wirbelartig eingekerbt wie bei der Ziege oder spiralförmig gedreht wie bei der Gazelle, dann ist das ein koscheres Tier. Das sind die Erkennungsmerkmale für Hörner: gebogen, eingekerbt oder spiralförmig gedreht.", + "Wann gilt das? Wenn man das Wild nicht erkennt. Dagegen sind die sieben Tiere, die in der Tora aufgezählt sind, koscher, wenn man sie erkennt, auch wenn sie keine Hörner haben. Man kann ihr Fett essen und muss ihr Blut bedecken.", + "Der Auerochse gehört zum Vieh. Das Einhorn(?)/Giraffe/Keresch hat nur ein Horn, gehört aber zum Wild. Wenn man im Zweifel ist, ob ein Tier zum Vieh oder zum Wild gehört, dann ist sein Fett verboten — Peitschenhiebe werden dafür aber nicht gegeben — und sein Blut muss bedeckt werden.", + "Es gibt ein Hybrid, eine Kreuzung aus jeweils koscherem Vieh und Wild, namens „Koi”. Sein Fett ist verboten — Peitschenhiebe werden dafür nicht gegeben — und sein Blut muss bedeckt werden. Unkoschere Tiere können niemals von koscheren Tieren befruchtet werden.", + "Die Erkennungsmerkmale für koschere Vögel nennt die Tora nicht, sondern zählt nur die unkoscheren Arten auf. Alle nicht aufgezählten Arten sind erlaubt. Die vierundzwanzig unkoscheren Arten sind diese: 1) Adler; 2) Bartgeier; 3) Mönchsgeier; 4) Milan, das ist der Raah in Deuteronomium (Dt. 14:13); 5) Habicht, das ist der Dajah in Deuteronomium (ebenda); 6) Eine Art Habicht; denn über den Habicht steht „nach seiner Art“ (Lev. 11:14); es umfasst also zwei Arten;7) Raben; 8) Star, denn über den Raben steht: „nach seiner Art“ (Lev. 11:15), es schließt den Star mit ein; 9) Strauß; 10) Schwalmvogel; 11) Möwe; 12) Falke; 13) Schurnika, es ist einer Art der Falken, denn es steht „nach seiner Art“ (Lev. 14:16); 14) Steinkauz; 15) Fischadler; 16) Ohreule; 17) Schleiereule; 18) Schwan; 19) Schmutzgeier; 20) Storch; 21) Reiher; 22) Eine Arten der Reiher, denn es steht über Reiher: „nach seiner Art“ (Lev.11:19); 23) Wiedehopf; 24) Fledermaus. Das sind die vierundzwanzig.", + "Wer ein Fachmann ist und sich mit Vögeln und ihren Namen auskennt, kann alle Vögel essen außer diesen, ohne sie zu untersuchen. Koschere Vögel werden gemäß der Tradition gegessen, die an verschiedenen Orten vorherrscht. Ein Jäger ist glaubwürdig, der sagt: „Mein Lehrer hat mir diesen Vogel erlaubt.“ Vorausgesetzt, dass dieser Jäger ein Fachmann von Ruf ist, der sich mit diesen Vögeln und ihren Arten auskennt.", + "Wer kein Fachmann ist und sich mit Vögeln und ihren Namen nicht auskennt, der suche nach Erkennungszeichen, die unsere Rabbiner festgelegt haben: Wenn ein Vogel beim Fressen mit dem Fuß auf seine Nahrung tritt, so ist er bestimmt unkoscher. Ansonsten darf man den Vogel essen, wenn er eine der folgenden drei Eigenschaften hat: Er hat eine zusätzliche, vierte Zehe am Fuß oder einen Kropf, oder die Membran seines Magens kann mit der Hand abgezogen werden.", + "Alle verbotenen Vögel, die mit dem Fuß auf ihre Nahrung treten, haben eine der oben genannten Eigenschaften außer dem Mönchsgeier und dem Bartgeier. Aber diese beiden Vögel leben nicht in bewohnten Gebieten, sondern nur in Wüsten und fernen Ländern, weit weg von Menschen.", + "Es besteht ein Zweifel, ob der Vogel koscher ist, wenn sich die Membran des Magens mit dem Messer, aber nicht mit der Hand abziehen lässt, obwohl er mit seinem Fuß nicht auf seine Nahrung tritt. Ist die Membran fest und klebt eng am Magen; wird der Magen der Sonne ausgesetzt, sodass die Membran locker wird und mit der Hand abgezogen werden kann, dann ist der Vogel erlaubt.", + "Laut einer Tradition der Geonim darf man Vögel nicht nur anhand eines einzelnen Merkmals zum Verzehr erlauben, außer dieses Merkmal besteht darin, dass man bei ihnen die Membran des Magens abziehen kann. Wenn die Membran sich nicht abziehen lässt, darf man den Vogel nicht essen, auch wenn er einen Kropf und eine zusätzliche Zehe hat.", + "Alle Vögel sind nicht koscher, die ihre Zehen teilen, wenn man ihnen einen Faden spannt, jeweils zwei Zehen auf jeder Seite, oder ihre Beute in der Luft packen und in der Luft fressen. Jede Art Vogel, das mit einer unkoscheren Art lebt und ihr ähnelt, ist selbst unkoscher.", + "Acht Arten von Heuschrecken hat die Tora erlaubt: 1) Springheuschrecke; 2) Eine Art der Springheuschrecke ist Duwnit; 3) Laubheuschrecke; 4) Eine Art der Laubheuschrecke ist Azronja; 5) Wanderheuschrecke; 6) Eine Art der Wanderheuschrecke ist der Vogel der Weinberge; 7) Feldheuschrecke; 8) Eine Art der Feldheuschrecke ist Jochana aus Jerusalem.", + "Wer Fachmann ist und ihre Namen kennt, der darf sie essen. Der Jäger ist glaubwürdig wie beim Vogel. Wer kein Fachmann ist, untersuche die Erkennungszeichen. Es gibt drei Erkennungszeichen: Hat sie vier Beine, vier Flügel, die den Großteil des Körpers nach Länge und Breite bedecken, zwei Springbeine, dann ist sie koscher. Auch wenn ihr Kopf breit ist und sie einen Schwanz hat, so ist sie koscher, sofern sie nur „Heuschrecke” (Chagaw, „Springheuschrecke”) heißt.", + "", + "Fische haben zwei Erkennungszeichen: Flossen und Schuppen. Flossen sind das, womit er schwimmt. Die Schuppen dagegen haften am ganzen Körper. Alle Fische, die Schuppen haben, haben Flossen. Hat er zur Zeit keine Schuppen, die aber noch in Zukunft wachsen, oder hat er Schuppen während er im Wasser ist, wenn er auftaucht wirft er die Schuppen ab, dann ist er koscher. Wenn die Schuppen nicht den ganzen Körper bedecken, ist er erlaubt. Sogar wenn der Fisch nur eine Flosse und eine Schuppe hat, ist er erlaubt." + ], + [ + "Die Verbotenen Arten, das Ungeziefer
Das Aus der Schriftstelle: „alles Vieh, das hufgespalten ist und wiederkäut, sollst du essen“ (Dt. 14:6) weiß ich, dass alles, was nicht hufgespalten und wiederkäuend ist, verboten sein muss. Ein Verbot, das aus einem Gebot gefolgert wird, bleibt ein Gebot. Beim Kamel, Hasen und Klippschliefer heißt es: „diese sollt ihr nicht essen unter den Wiederkäuern“ (Lev. 11:4; Deut. 14:7). Daran siehst du, dass sie verboten sind, obwohl sie doch ein Zeichen (wiederkäuend) haben; erst recht anderes unkoscheres Vieh oder Wild, das gar keines der Zeichen hat. Das Verbot, sie zu essen, tritt noch zu jenem Gebot hinzu.", + "Demzufolge wird geschlagen, der das Maß einer Olive an unkoscherem Vieh oder Wild isst. Gleichgültig, ob er vom Fleisch oder Fett isst, denn die Tora unterscheidet bei den verbotenen Tieren nicht zwischen Fleisch oder Fett.", + "Obwohl über den Menschen steht: „Der Mensch werde zum besselten Tier.“ (Gen.2:7), gehört er nicht zu den Landtieren. Er ist also nicht aufgrund eines negativen Gebotes verboten, und wer von seinem Fleisch oder Fett isst, sei es vom lebenden oder toten, wird nicht geschlagen. Dennoch ist er aufgrund eines (positiven) Gebotes verboten. Denn die Tora zählt sieben Landtiere auf und sagt über sie: „Diese Tiere sollt ihr essen.“ (Lev. 11:2) — andere also nicht. Ein Verbot, das aus einem Gebot gefolgert wird, bleibt ein Gebot.", + "Wer das Maß einer Olive von einem unkoscheren Vogel isst, wird laut der Tora geschlagen, da es heißt: „und diese sollt ihr verabscheuen von den Vögeln, esst sie nicht“ (Lev. 11:13). Damit übertritt er ein (positives) Gebot, denn es heißt: „jeden koscheren Vogel könnt ihr essen” (Deut. 14:11) — unkoschere Vögel also nicht. Ebenso wird jemand geschlagen, der das Maß einer Olive von einem unkoscheren Fisch isst, denn es heißt: „ein Abscheu sollen sie euch, von ihrem Fleisch sollt ihr nicht essen” (Lev. 11:11). Damit übertritt er auch ein (positives) Gebot, denn es heißt: „alles, was Flossen und Schuppen hat, könnt ihr essen.” (Deut. 14:9) — was keine Flossen und Schuppen hat, dürft ihr also nicht essen. Insgesamt ergibt sich: Wer das Maß einer Olive isst von einem unkoscheren Fisch, unkoscherem Vieh, Wild oder Vogel, der übertritt ein positives und ein negatives Gebot. „Diese Tiere sollt ihr essen.“ (Lev. 11:2) — andere also nicht. Ein Verbot, das aus einem Gebot gefolgert wird, bleibt ein Gebot.", + "Unkoschere Heuschrecken gehören zu den kriechenden Ungeziefern. Wer das Maß einer Oliven von ihnen isst, wird geschlagen, denn es steht: „jedes fliegende Ungeziefer soll euch unrein (=unkoscher) sein; es soll nicht gegessen werden“ (Deut. 14:19). Was ist das fliegende Ungeziefer? Z. B. die Fliege, die Mücke, die Biene, die Hornisse und Ähnliches.", + "Wer das Maß einer Olive vom Ungeziefer der Erde isst, wird geschlagen, denn es heißt: „und jedes auf der Erde kriechende Ungeziefer ist ein Abscheu, es soll nicht gegessen werden” (Lev. 11:41). Und was ist das Ungeziefer der Erde? Z. B. Blindmäuse, Eidechsen, Schlangen, Skorpione, Käfer und Tausendfüßler und Ähnliche.", + "Die acht Arten Ungeziefer, die in der Tora aufgeführt werden — der Maulwurf, die Maus und alle Arten von Dornschwanzechsen, der Gecko, der Waran, die Eidechse, die Blindschleiche und das Chamäleon (Lev. 11:29) — wer von ihrem Fleisch das Maß einer Linse isst, wird geschlagen. Das Maß, ab dem man bei ihnen von Essen sprechen kann, ist gerade so groß wie das Maß, ab dem sie verunreinigen. Alle acht werden zum Maß einer Linse zusammengezählt.", + "Wann gilt das? Wenn man sie nach ihrem Tod ist. Wer aber ein Glied von einem lebenden Tier abschneidet und es isst, wird nicht geschlagen, bis er das Maß einer Olive gegessen hat — alle werden zum Maß einer Olive zusammengezählt. Wer ein vollständiges Glied von einem toten Ungeziefer ist, wird nur geschlagen, wenn es mindestens das Maß einer Linse hatte.", + "Das Blut und Fleisch der acht Ungeziefer wird zum Maß einer Linse zusammengezählt, aber nur, wenn das Blut mit dem Fleisch verbunden ist. Ähnlich werden Blut und Fleisch der Schlange zum Maß einer Olive zusammengezählt, und man wird auch dafür geschlagen, weil ihr Fleisch und Blut nicht getrennt sind, obwohl es nicht verunreinigt. Dasselbe gilt auch für alle übrigen Ungeziefer, welche nicht unrein machen.", + "Ist das Blut der Ungeziefer von ihrem Fleisch getrennt, und jemand sammelt und isst es, so wird er ab dem Maß einer Olive geschlagen. Das gilt aber nur, wenn man ihn vor dem Verbot „Essen von Ungeziefern” verwarnt hat. Hat man ihm aber vor dem Verbot „Essen von Blut” verwarnt, wird er nicht geschlagen, denn man wird nur für das Blut von wilden und domestizierten Tieren sowie Geflügel schuldig. (Aber nicht von Ungeziefer)", + "Diese verschiedenen Maße sind eine dem Mosche am Sinai übergebene Tradition.", + "Wer das Maß einer Olive von einem Wasser-Ungeziefer isst, wird nach der Tora geschlagen, da es heißt: „Macht eure Seelen nicht zu einem Abscheu durch irgendwelches Ungeziefer, das wimmelt, und verunreinigt euch nicht durch dieses“ (Lev. 11:43). Dieses Verbot umfasst Land-Ungeziefer, Flug-Ungeziefer und Wasser-Ungeziefer. Was ist das Wasser-Ungeziefer? Es handelt sich um kleine Lebewesen, wie Würmer, und Egel im Wasser, wie auch sehr große Lebewesen, welche wilde Wassertiere darstellen. Allgemein lässt sich sagen: Es umfasst alles, was nicht die Gestalt von Fischen hat, weder die eines koscheren noch eines unkoscheren Fisches, wie etwa den Seehund, den Delphin, den Frosch und Ähnliches.", + "Folgendes sind die Arten, die in Misthaufen und Aasen entstehen: Fäulnis(würmer) und Würmer und Ähnliches, die nicht durch geschlechtliche Fortpflanzung entstehen, sondern durch verfaulte Ausscheidungen und Ähnliches — diese heißen „auf der Erde Kriechende”. Wer von ihnen das Maß einer Olive isst, wird geschlagen, denn es heißt: „und verunreinigt nicht eure Seelen durch jedes Ungeziefer, das auf der Erde kriecht” (Lev. 11:44) — auch wenn sie sich nicht geschlechtlich fortpflanzen. Aber „das auf der Erde Wimmelnde” pflanzt sich sehr wohl geschlechtlich fort.", + "Folgendes sind die Arten, die in Früchten und Speisen entstehen. Wenn sie sich loslösen und sich in der Erde bewegen, obwohl sie wieder in die Speise zurückkehren — wer von ihnen das Maß einer Olive isst, wird geschlagen, denn es steht: „alles Ungeziefer, das auf der Erde kriecht — davon sollt ihr nicht essen, denn es ist ein Abscheu” (Lev. 11:42) — das verbietet alles, was sich in der Erde bewegt. Bewegt es sich aber nicht zur Erde, darf man sowohl die Frucht wie auch den darin befindlichen Wurm essen.", + "Wann gilt dies? Nur dann, wenn die Frucht erst wurmstichig wird, nachdem sie von der Erde getrennt wurde. Wird sie aber wurmstichig, während sie noch mit der Erde verbunden ist, so ist dieser Wurm verboten, als sei er aus der Erde entsprungen, weil er aus der Erde entstanden ist — seinetwegen wird geschlagen. Der Zweifelsfall ist verboten. Deshalb darf man alle Früchte, die wurmstichig werden, solange mit der Erde verbunden, nicht essen, bis man das Innere der Frucht kontrolliert hat, denn sie könnte einen Wurm enthalten. Ruhte die Frucht aber zwölf Monate, nachdem sie geerntet wurde, kann man sie ohne Kontrolle essen, denn der Wurm hält sich dort keine zwölf Monate.", + "Strömen die Würmer aus der Frucht in die Luft aus, ohne die Erde zu berühren, oder strömen sie teilweise in die Erde aus, oder strömen sie nach ihrem Tod aus, oder wurde ein Wurm auf dem Samen von innen gefunden, oder kamen sie aus der einen Speise in eine andere — sind sie alle als Zweifelsfall verboten; man schlägt ihretwegen nicht.", + "Ein Wurm, der in den Gekrösen von Fischen oder im Gehirn eines Rindes oder im Fleisch gefunden wird, ist verboten. Aber ein gesalzener Fisch, der vom Wurm befallen wird — dieser Wurm ist erlaubt, denn sie werden wie Früchte betrachtet, die wurmstichig wurden, nachdem sie von der Erde getrennt wurden; diese sind zum Verzehr allesamt geeignet, mitsamt dem darin befindlichen Wurm.Ebenfalls das Wasser in Gefäßen, in welchem sich ein Gewimmel entwickelt — dieses Gewimmel darf man mit dem Wasser trinken, da es heißt: „alles, was Flossen und Schuppen im Wasser, den Gewässern und Flüssen hat, diese dürft ihr essen“ (Lev. 11:9), d. h., im Wasser, in Gewässern und in Flüssen darfst du diese essen und nicht diejenigen, denen diese Merkmale fehlen, aber in Gefäßen darfst du alle essen, ob sie die Merkmale haben oder nicht.", + "Das Gewimmel, das sich in Gruben, Brunnen oder Höhlen entwickelt — da es kein fließendes Wasser ist, sondern gestaut, gilt es wie Wasser in Gefäßen, daher ist es erlaubt. Er kann sich herunterbeugen und sorglos trinken, sogar wenn er dabei kleine Tierchen verschluckt.", + "Wann gilt das? Wenn sich die Würmer vom Ort ihrer Entstehung nicht loslösen; tun sie das aber, ist es verboten, mögen sie auch in das Gefäß oder die Grube zurückkehren. Löste sich der Wurm von den Wänden eines Fasses und fiel wieder in das Wasser oder das Gebräu — ist es erlaubt. Ebenfalls ist es erlaubt, wenn er sich von den Wänden der Grube oder Höhle loslöst und ins Wasser fällt.", + "Wer Wein oder Essig oder Bier filtriert und von den Fliegen oder Mücken oder sonstigen Insekten isst, die er herausgefiltert hat, wird wegen Wasser-Ungeziefer oder Flug-Ungeziefer und Wasser-Ungeziefer geschlagen, sogar wenn sie nach der Filterung in das Gefäß zurückkehren, denn sie haben sich vom Ort ihrer Entstehung losgelöst. Hat er nicht gefiltert, kann er sorglos trinken, wie wir erklärt haben.", + "Mit der Wendung „wer das Maß einer Olive isst” in diesem Kapitel meinen wir, dass er von einem größeren Lebewesen gegessen oder von verschiedenen kleineren Lebewesen derselben Art gesammelt hat, bis er das Maß einer Olive gegessen hat. Wer aber ein vollständiges, unkoscheres Lebewesen isst, wird nach der Tora immer geschlagen, mag es auch kleiner als ein Senfkorn sein, ob es lebend oder tot ist. Auch wenn das Lebewesen verdorben und verwesen ist, wird er doch geschlagen, wenn er es vollständig gegessen hat.", + "Wegen einer Ameise, der auch nur einer ihrer Füße fehlt, wird man erst nach Verzehr des Maßes einer Olive geschlagen.Wer demzufolge eine vollständige Fliege oder eine vollständige Mücke isst — sei es lebend, sei es tot —, wird wegen Flug-Ungeziefer geschlagen.", + "War das Lebewesen ein Flug-Ungeziefer, dem Wasser-Ungeziefer oder dem Erd-Ungeziefer, hatte es Flügel, lief auf der Erde wie alles übrige Ungeziefer und vermehrte sich im Wasser — wer es isst, wird drei Maße geschlagen. Wenn das Lebewesen darüber hinaus noch den Arten zugehört, die in Früchten entstehen, empfängt er vier Maße Schläge. Gehört es schließlich noch den Arten an, die sich geschlechtlich fortpflanzen, empfängt er fünf Maße Schläge. Wenn es den unkoscheren Vögeln eher als dem Flug-Ungeziefer ähnelt, empfängt man sechs Maße von Prügelstrafe: wegen des Essens unkoscherer Vögel, Erd-Ungeziefer, Wasser-Ungeziefer, auf der Erde wimmelndes Ungeziefer, und wegen der Würmer in den Früchten, ob er es vollständig oder nur das Maß einer Olive davon isst. Isst also jemand eine fliegende Ameise, die dem Wasser entstammt, empfängt er fünf Maße von Prügelstrafe.", + "Wer Ameisen anschneidet und eine vollständige sowie einige angeschnittene zum Maß einer Olive zusammenfügt und sie ist, empfängt sechs Maße von Prügelstrafe: fünf wegen der vollständigen Ameise, und eine wegen der angeschnittenen Ameisenleiche." + ], + [ + "Milch und Eier
Alles nur irgend Genießbare, das von diesen, unter Strafe der Geißelung verbotenen Gegenständen herrührt, ist laut Vorschrift der Tora, ebenfalls zu essen verboten, wie z. B. die Milch von unreinen Haus- und wilden Tieren, die Eier des unreinen Vogels und der Rogen unreiner Fische, denn es heisst in der Schrift: »Und das Junge des Straußes«, was auch auf dessen Ei hindeutet. Dieses Verbot erstreckt sich nun auf alle, gleich dem Strauße, verbotenen Tiere, wie auch auf Alles, das gleich dem Ei, von etwas Verbotenem herrührt. ", + "Das Fett des Menschen ist zum Essen erlaubt, obwohl das Fleisch des Menschen zum Essen verboten ist, wie wir bereits erklärten (2:3), das durch ein Gebot verboten ist.", + "Der Honig der Bienen und Hummeln ist erlaubt, da er nicht aus den Säften ihres Körpers herrührt, sondern von ihnen gesammelt wird, indem sie mit ihrer Saugröhre Saft aus den Blumen ziehen, ihn als Honig wiederum auf demselben Wege von sich geben, und zwar indem sie ihn im Bienenstock, als Nahrung für den Winter ablegen. ", + "Obgleich die Milch des Menschen erlaubt ist, so haben dennoch die Weisen dem Erwachsenen verboten, an der Brust zu saugen; läßt sich jedoch Jemand solches zu Schulden kommen, erhält er nur die Mardut-Geißelung. ", + "Das Kind kann vier bis fünf Jahre ununterbrochen fortsaugen, wurde es aber einmal entwöhnt, so dass es drei oder mehrere Tage bereits nicht gesogen hatte, und zwar wenn dieses nicht Krankheit halber geschah, so darf man ihm, wenn es schon vierundzwanzig Monate alt war, nicht mehr zu saugen geben, bis zu dieser Zeit hingegen kann das Kind, selbst wenn es auch schon ein oder zwei Monate entwöhnt war, doch wiederum zum Saugen zugelassen, und dann damit bis zum zweijährigen Alter fortgefahren werden. ", + "Obgleich die Milch von unreinen Tieren und die Eier eines unreinen Vogels, laut Vorschrift der Tora verboten sind, so steht dennoch darauf nicht die Geißelung, denn es heisst: »Von ihrem Fleische sollt ihr nicht essen«, — also steht nur auf den Genuss des Fleisches die Geißelung, nicht aber auf den der Eier und der Milch. Wer diese genießt, steht auf gleicher Stufe mit Demjenigen, der weniger als das festgesetzte Maaß vom Verbotenen genossen. Obgleich nun dieses auch laut Vorschrift der Tora verboten ist, so zieht es dennoch nicht Geißelung nach sich, sondern steht hierauf nur die Mardut-Geißelung. ", + "Mir scheint, dass, wenn Jemand den Rogen unreiner Fische genießt, so lange er noch nicht aus dem Fische herausgenommen, selbiger auf einer gleichen Stufe mit Demjenigen steht, der Eingeweide unreiner Fische gegessen, so dass er also laut Vorschrift der Tora der Geißelung verfällt. So steht auch auf den Genuss noch nicht gelegter Eier unreinen Geflügels die Geißelung, gleich als ob man das Eingeweide des Vogels verzehrt hätte. ", + "Wenn man das Ei eines unreinen Vogels verzehrt, nachdem sich bereits das Küken darin zu bilden angefangen, verfällt man der Geißelung, gleich als ob man kriechendes Geflügel gegessen hätte, verzehrt man jedoch solch ein Ei eines reinen Vogels, verfällt man nur der Mardut-Geißelung. ", + "Findet man, wenn auch nur einen Tropfen Blut im Ei, so hat man darauf zu achten, ob es sich im Weißen des Eies befindet, in welchem Falle man das Blut absondern muss, und dann das Übrige verzehren kann, oder ob es sich im Dotter befindet, sodass das ganze Ei verboten ist. Windeier kann auch der gewissenhafteste Mensch essen. ", + "In dem Augenblicke, da das Küken aus dem Ei herauskriecht, kann es auch schon gegessen werden, und sollten sich sogar dessen Augen noch nicht geöffnet haben. Wurde ein reines Tier tödlich verwundet, so ist dessen Milch, gleich der eines unreinen Tieres, verboten. Das Ei eines tödlich verwundeten Vogels ist, gleich dem eines unreinen, gleichfalls verboten. ", + "Das Küken aber, das aus dem Ei eines zerrissenen Vogels ausgebrütet wurde, ist erlaubt, da es ursprünglich nicht unrein war. War es nun zweifelhaft, ob der Vogel wirklich tödlich verwundet sei, so werden alle Eier, die er das erste Mal gelegt, aufbewahrt; wenn nun der Vogel zum zweiten Mal Eier legt, so werden auch die erstgelegten erlaubt, denn wäre er tödlich verwundet, so hätte er zum zweiten Male nicht Eier legen können. Legte aber der Vogel weiter keine Eier (krepierte), so sind auch die erstgelegten verboten. ", + "Milch von unreinem Vieh gerinnt nie, und sondert auch keinen Rahm ab. Wurde nun die Milch unreiner Tiere mit der Milch reiner gemischt, so wird sich die reine Milch als Rahm absondern, die unreine hingegen, mit den Molken zugleich abgehen. ", + "Daraus könnte man nun schließen, dass die gewöhnliche Milch in der Hand eines Heiden verboten ist, da man die Milch unreiner Tiere mit daruntergemischt haben könnte. Käse hingegen, von Heiden bereitet, sollte erlaubt sein, da ja die Milch unreiner Tiere nicht gerinnt. Zur Zeit der Mischna-Gelehrten aber, hat man ein Verbot über Käse, der von Heiden bereitet war, erlassen, weil die Heiden ihn gewöhnlich durch den Magen eines von ihnen selbst geschlachteten Tieres, das verboten ist, bereiteten. Man sollte glauben, die Magenhaut habe einen gar zu geringen Einfluss auf den Käse, und deshalb sollte der unbedeutende Beigeschmack, den der Käse durch den Magen erhält, als Null im Verhältnis zu selbigem betrachtet werden können. Doch, weil die Magenhaut durch ihre Säure das Gerinnen des Käses bewirkt, und demnach also die Hauptursache des Käsewerdens — etwas Verbotenes ist, so muss denn auch der ganze Käse verboten sein. ", + "Käse, der von Heiden durch Zusatz von Gräsern oder Fruchtsäften, wie z. B. Dattelmost, bereitet wurden so dass diese ZuTaten in selbigem vorschmecken, ist dennoch von einem Teil der Gaonim verboten worden. Weil nämlich bereits ein Verbot auf den Genuss heidnischen Käses im Allgemeinen bestand, so hatte man nun dem zu Folge zu besorgen, dass wir, einmal an heidnischen, durch erlaubte Zutaten gesäuerten Käse gewöhnt, auch Käse essen könnten, der durch nicht erlaubten Zutaten gesäuert worden. ", + "Wer nun heidnischen Käse genießt, oder auch Milch von einem Heiden gemolken, wobei kein Israelit zugegen war, verfällt der Mardut -Geißelung. Heidnischen Rahm haben einige Gaonim erlaubt, weil das von den Rabbinen erlassene Verbot sich nicht auf den Rahm erstreckte, und ja die Milch unreiner Tiere nicht gerinnt. Andere Gaonim verbieten jedoch auch den Rahm, und das aus dem Grunde, weil selbiger doch stets einige Milch Teilchen enthält, und da sich die Molken, die in der geronnenen Milch befindlich sind, nicht mit dem Rahm vermischen, so können sie auch nicht für Null erklärt werden; bei der Milch aber, die nach dem Abstehen des Rahmes übrigbleibt, findet wiederum die Befürchtung statt, dass darunter ein Tropfen unreiner Milch gemischt sein könne. ", + "Mir scheint, dass, wenn man Rahm von einem Heiden kauft und ihn so lange kocht, bis sich die Milch Teilchen absondern, so müsste selbiger erlaubt sein, denn gesetzt die Milch Teilchen sondern sich nicht ab, sondern mischten sich mit dem Rahm, so würde diese Mischung es schon bewirken, sie für Null zu erklären. Rahm aber von Götzendienern gekocht, sollte wegen Benutzung heidnischer Geschirre dazu, verboten sein, wie solches weiter unten erklärt werden wird. ", + "Sitzt ein Israelit in der Nähe einer Herde, die einem Heiden gehört, und der Heide bringt ihm aus dieser Herde Milch, so ist selbige, selbst wenn auch in der Herde sich unreine Tiere befinden sollten, dennoch erlaubt. Denn die dem Israeliten sich darbietende Möglichkeit, das Melken mit anzusehen, wird den Heiden schon davon abgehalten haben, für ihn ein unreines Tier zu melken, selbst wenn der Israelit auch in der Tat nicht hingesehen haben sollte.", + " 18) Ein Ei, dessen beide Enden rund, oder beide spitz sind, oder dessen Dotter das Weiße umschließt, ist positiv als das eines unreinen Vogels zu betrachten. War das eine Ende rund, das andere spitz und auch die Dotter vom Weißen umschlossen, so kann es sowohl von einem unreinen, als auch von einem reinen Vogel herstammen. Weshalb denn der israelitische Vogelfänger, der die Eier verkauft, befragt werden muss, und wenn er sagt, dass selbige von einem reinen Vogel herrühren, der zu dieser oder jener Gattung gehört, so ist das Ei erlaubt; wenn er jedoch schlechtweg behauptet, das Ei rühre von einem reinen Vogel her, ohne dessen Gattung genau angeben zu können, so soll man sich nicht auf ihn verlassen. ", + "Deswegen soll man denn auch von einem Heiden nur dann Eier kaufen, wenn man überzeugt ist, dass selbige von einem reinen Vogel herrühren, wobei denn die Besorgnis, dass sie vielleicht von einem auf den Tod verwundeten, oder krepierten Vogel kommen, wegfällt. Geschlagene Eier soll man keinen Falls von einem Götzendiener kaufen. ", + "Die Kennzeichen des Fischrogens gleichen denen der Eier, sind nämlich beide Enden rund, oder beide spitz, so ist er als unrein zu betrachten; ist das eine Ende rund, das andere spitz, so soll man den Israeliten, der solchen verkauft, befragen, und wenn er behauptet, selbst den Roggen gesalzen, und einem reinen Fische entnommen zu haben, so kann man selbigen, auf dessen Aussage hin, essen. Behauptet er aber der Rogen sei rein, ohne Gründe dafür anzugeben, so soll man ihm nur dann Glauben schenken, wenn er allgemein in dem Rufe eines frommen Mannes steht. ", + "Gleichfalls soll man Käse und Stücke von Fischen, an denen die Reinheitskennzeichen nicht ersichtlich sind, nur von einem solchen Israeliten kaufen, der im Rufe der Frömmigkeit steht. Im gelobten Lande aber, dessen meiste Bewohner Israeliten waren, durfte man ohne Weiteres solche von einem jeden Israeliten kaufen. Milch darf man vom Israeliten überall und ohne Weiteres kaufen. ", + "Wenn man unreine Fische einsalzt, so ist auch die Lake verboten; die Lake unreiner Heuschrecken hingegen ist erlaubt, da selbige keine Feuchtigkeit in sich enthalten. Von Götzendienenden soll man nur dann Fischlake kaufen, wenn sich darin noch wenigstens ein reiner Fisch befindet. ", + "Bringt ein Heide eine ganze Ladung offener Fässchen mit Fischlake, und in einem dieser Fässchen befindet sich ein reiner Fisch, so sind alle diese Fässchen erlaubt; waren aber die Fässchen zugeschlagen, so werden alle nur dann erlaubt, wenn man in den beiden zuerst geöffneten, je einen reinen Fischen fand, jedoch muss bei diesem Fisch noch Kopf und Rücken ganz sein, um ihn als reinen anzuerkennen. Zerhackte gesalzene Fische, welche unter dem Namen Hackfisch verkauft werden, soll man in keinem Falle von einem Heiden kaufen, es sei denn, dass an diesen zerhackten Fischen noch die Kopf-und Rückenkennzeichen ersichtlich sind. ", + "Trägt ein Heide in einer Mulde Stücke Fisch herum, die augenscheinlich von einem und demselben Fisch geschnitten sind, und an einem dieser Stücke befinden sich Schuppen, so sind alle erlaubt. " + ], + [ + "Gefallenes, Zerrissenes, Verbindung der Verbote, Nichtessbares
Wer ein Stück von der Größe einer Olive von einem gefallenen Haustiere oder Vogel verzehrt, erhält die Geißelung, denn es heisst: »Ihr sollt kein Gefallenes (Aas) essen«. Aber auch jedes Tier, das nicht gehörig geschlachtet ist, wird als Gefallenes angesehen. In der Abhandlung über Schlachten soll erklärt werden, was der Ausdruck »gehörig schlachten« und »nicht gehörig schlachten« bedeutet. ", + "Nur die reinen Tiergattungen sind, da sie sich zum Schlachten eignen, wenn sie nicht gehörig geschlachtet wurden, als Gefallenes verboten, da selbige, wenn sie gehörig geschlachtet wurden, gegessen werden dürfen; auf den Genuss unreiner Tiergattungen hingegen, bei denen das Schlachten von keinem Belange ist, steht die Geißelung, gleichviel ob sie gehörig geschlachtet wurden, oder von selbst krepierten, oder ob man ein Glied von einem lebendigen Tiere abgehauen hatte, und zwar nicht als für den Genuss von Gefallenem oder Zerrissenem, sondern als für den unreiner Tiere. ", + "Wenn Jemand einen reinen Vogel, sei er auch noch so klein, lebendig verzehrt, wird solcher gegeißelt, als hätte er Gefallenes gegessen; sollte auch der Vogel sogar kleiner als eine Olive sein, so bedingt doch schon der Umstand, dass er ihn ganz verzehrt, die Geißelung. Verzehrt er den Vogel, nachdem selbiger bereits krepiert war, so wird er erst dann gegeißelt, wenn der Vogel die Größe einer Olive erreichte, wobei es sich nun gleich bleibt, ob an dem Vogel eine Olive groß Fleisch war, oder nicht; denn da der ganze Vogel die Größe einer Olive hatte, so bedingt dieser Umstand schon die Geißelung, als hätte man Aas gegessen. ", + "Wer vom Fleische einer Frühgeburt so viel als eine Olive groß verzehrt, wird gegeißelt, als hätte er von Gefallenem gegessen; aber auch ein naturgemäß geworfenes Kalb darf, bis zur achten Nacht nach der Geburt, nicht gegessen werden, da alle Tiere, die nicht acht Tage leben, als Frühgeburt betrachtet werden müssen; indessen steht auf den Genuss eines solchen Kalbes nicht die Geißelung. Wenn man aber genau weiß, dass die Mutter die volle Zeit hindurch damit trächtig ging, nämlich neun Monate für großes und fünf Monate für kleines Vieh gerechnet, so ist das Kalb schon am Tage der Geburt zu essen erlaubt. ", + "Die Nachgeburt, welche zugleich mit dem Kalbe herauskommt, ist zu essen verboten, jedoch ist Derjenige, der sie genießt, freizusprechen, da es doch nicht als Fleisch zu betrachten ist. ", + "Wer vom Fleische reiner Haus- und wilder Tiere, oder Vögel, die auf den Tod verwundet waren, wie eine Olive groß verzehrt, verfällt der Geißelung, denn es heisst: »Und Fleisch von im Felde Zerrissenem sollt ihr nicht essen, dem Hunde sollt ihr's vorwerfen« (Ex. 22:30) Unter Zerrissenem nun, dessen die Tora hier erwähnt, ist ein solches Tier zu verstehen, das von reißenden Tieren wie z. B. Löwen, Tigern und dergl., auf den Tod verwundet wurde, oder auch ein Vogel, der von einem Raubvogel, wie z. B. dem Habicht u. dergl. auf den Tod verwundet wurde. Denn wir sollen den Ausdruck »Zerrissenes« nicht so deuten, als sei dieses Tier auf der Stelle getötet worden, da ja in solchem Falle das zerrissene Tier als Aas anzusehen wäre. Es bleibt sich für uns ganz gleich, ob es von selbst krepiert, mit einem Schwerte erschlagen wurde, oder durch die Klauen eines Löwen fiel. Wenn die Schrift also neben dem Gefallenen auch noch des Zerrissenen erwähnt, so kann sie darunter nur ein solch Zerrissenes verstehen, das nicht auf der Stelle tot war. ", + "Ist aber ein verwundetes Tier schon dann verboten, wenn es nicht auf der Stelle tot war, so könnten wir vielleicht denken, man müsse auch solche Tiere, die z. B. von einem Wolfe am Fuß, Schwanz, oder Ohr fortgeschleppt, aber alsbald durch Menschen errettet wurden, gleichfalls, weil sie einmal gebissen waren, als verboten betrachten: daher sagt denn die Schrift: »Dem Hunde sollt ihr es vorwerfen«, also müsste das Tier so zerrissen sein, dass es nur noch für den Hund tauglich war.Woraus wir nun schließen können, dass unter Zerrissenes, dessen die Schrift erwähnt, wir ein solch verwundetes Tier zu verstehen haben, das nicht mehr hergestellt werden kann, sondern an seinen Wunden krepieren muss. Wenn man nun solch ein Tier, vor dessen Tode, auch gehörig schlachtet, darf man doch dessen Fleisch, als das eines Zerrissenen, nicht essen, da, hätte man es auch nicht geschlachtet, es dennoch nicht am Leben geblieben wäre. ", + "Folglich ist zu ersehen, dass die Schrift ein totes Tier verboten hat, und zwar unter dem Namen eines Gefallenen, ferner ein auf den Tod verwundetes, obgleich es noch nicht tot ist, und dieses, unter dem Namen eines Zerrissenen. Wie wir nun aber bei einem toten Tiere keinen Unterschied machen dürfen, ob es von selbst, oder durch einen Sturz, oder durch Erstickung, oder durch Zerfleischung eines anderen Raubtieres krepiert ist, so sollen wir auch bei einem auf den Tod verwundeten Tiere, keinen Unterschied machen, ob ein anderes Tier es bis auf den Tod zerfleischt, ob es vom Dache gestürzt und die meisten seiner Knochen dabei zerbrochen hatte, ob es so gefallen, dass seine Glieder auseinander rissen, ob man es mit einem Pfeile traf, so dass Herz und Lunge durchlöchert wurden, ob es eine Krankheit bekam, wo Herz und Lunge beschädigt wurden, oder ob der Mensch selbst die meisten Knochen des Tieres zerbrach , u. dergl. mehr; in allen diesen Fällen nun, bedingt die unheilbare Verwundung den Zustand des Zerrissenseins, gleichviel, ob die Veranlassung dazu ein Mensch, oder das Schicksal war. Wenn die Schrift also den Ausdruck »Zerrissen« gebrauchte, so geschah dieses nur, weil dieser Fall der natürlichste ist, ganz wie sie den Ausdruck »im Felde« gebraucht, der doch wahrlich nicht einen Unterschied zwischen im Felde Zerrissenem und im Hofe Zerrissenem hervorrufen sollte, sondern bloß der Wahrscheinlichkeit wegen hier gebraucht wird, (da nämlich Tiere gewöhnlich nicht im Hofe, sondern im Felde zerrissen werden). Ganz dieselbe Bewandtnis hat es nun auch mit dem Ausdrucke Zerrissenes, da nämlich ein Tier auf natürlichem Wege, nur durch Raubtiere bis auf den Tod verwundet werden kann. ", + "Der Hauptgedanke der Schrift ist hierbei, dass, wenn ein Tier durch Verletzung dem Tode naheliegt, und zwar ohne mögliche Wiedergenesung — es zum Essen verboten sei. Hierauf gründeten die Weisen ihre Regel, dass jedes Tier, desgleichen überhaupt nicht lange am Leben bleiben kann — als zerrissen betrachten werde. In der Abhandlung über das Schlachten soll aber erklärt werden, welche Krankheit den Fall des Zerristenseins bedingt, und welche nicht. ", + "Dasselbe gilt, wenn Jemand ein Stück Fleisch von einem lebendigen Tiere, und zwar einem reinen, wegschneidet, sodass dieses Stück Fleisch als Zerrissenes betrachtet wird, so dass, wenn man davon von der Größe einer Olive isst, man der Geißelung, wegen Genusses von Zerrissenem, verfällt. Denn dieses Stück Fleisch rührt ja von einem Viehe, das weder gehörig geschlachtet, noch tot ist, und es bleibt sich demnach ganz gleich, ob selbiges — durch ein Tier, oder durch ein Messer zerrissen, ob das ganze Vieh dem Verbote des Zerrissenseins oder bloß ein Teil desselben unterlag. Die Schrift sagt ein für alle Mal: »Und Fleisch des auf dem Felde Zerrissenen sollt ihr nicht essen« (Ex. 22:30), also wird das Vieh, sobald es zum »Fleische auf dem Felde« geworden, als zerrissen betrachtet. ", + "Ist aber ein Vieh aus Altersschwäche siech geworden, und kommt dem Tode nah, so bleibt es doch immer zum Schlachten erlaubt, wenn ihm nur nicht eine Wunde an irgendeinem Gliede beigebracht worden, die als tödlich anerkannt wird,— indem die Schrift nur die, dem durch wilde Tiere Zerrissensein ähnlichen Fälle mit dem Verbote belegt hat, wo doch eine tödliche Verletzung stattfindet.", + "Obgleich aber ein solches Vieh (dem Buchstaben des Gesetzes nach) erlaubt ist, pflegten doch die größten Weisen nicht von einem solchen Tiere zu essen, mit dessen Abschlachten man eilen muss, damit es nicht krepiere, ja sogar, in dem Falle nicht, wo das Vieh noch beim Schlusse des Schlachtens zappelte. Dieser Fall bedingt jedoch kein Verbot, sondern es ist einem Jeden anheimgestellt, freiwillig sich diesem lobenswerten Entschlusse zu unterziehen. ", + "Schlachtet man ein Hausvieh, Tier oder Geflügel, ohne dass dabei Blut abfließt, so sind solche doch zum Genuss erlaubt und man hat nicht zu besorgen, dass selbige vielleicht von selbst dabei krepierten. Ebendasselbe gilt in dem Falle, wo man ein gesundes Tier schlachtet, ohne dass es indessen dabei zappele. War das Vieh aber gefährlich siech, nämlich so, dass es sich nicht auf den Füßen erhalten konnte, obgleich man es aufrichtete, so bleibt es, selbst wenn es sonst wie ein gesundes Tier frisst, doch als Gefallenes verboten, sobald es beim Schlachten nicht zappelt, und zwar bedingt dies schon die Geißelung; zappelt das sieche Tier, so ist selbiges erlaubt, jedoch muss das Zappeln am Schlusse des Abschlachtens stattfinden, beim Beginn dieser Prozedur ist das Zappeln ohne weitere Bedeutung. ", + "Was versteht man unter Zappeln? Bei kleinem Hausvieh und bei großem und kleinem Wild — gilt es gleichviel, ob es den Vorderfuß ausstreckt und zurückzieht, den Hinterfuß ausstreckt, selbst ohne ihn zurückzuziehen, oder auch bloß den Hinterfuß zusammenzieht — immer heißt es ein Zappeln, und macht das Tier erlaubt. Streckte es aber den Vorderfuß aus, ohne ihn zurückzuziehen, so ist es verbotet, weil dies bloß das letzte Aushauchen des Lebens ist. Beim großen Hausvieh hingegen bleibt es sich gleich, ob Vorder- oder Hinterfuß, ob es ihn ausstreckte ohne ihn wieder zusammenzuziehen, oder ob es ihn zusammenzog ohne ihn auszustrecken,— immer heißt es ein Zappeln, und das Tier ist erlaubt. Streckt es aber weder Vorder- noch Hinterfuß aus, noch zieht es ihn irgendwie zusammen, so ist es als Gefallenes zu betrachten. Beim Geflügel aber ist schon ein bloßes Zucken mit dem Auge, eine Bewegung der Schwanzfedern, als Zappeln zu betrachten. ", + "Schlachtet man ein gefährlich sieches Tier bei Nachtzeit, wo man sich nicht überzeugt, ob es zappelte oder nicht, so ist selbiges als zweifelhaft Gefallenes zu betrachten, und folglich verboten. ", + "Die in der Schrift angeführten verbotenen Speisen werden nicht untereinander zusammengerechnet, um (durch eine solche Zusammenziehung verschiedener Quantitäten) das Quantum, das ein Verbot bedingt, hervorzubringen. Ausgenommen hiervon sind bloß die dem Nasir (durch Gelübde abgesonderten) verbotenen Gegenstände, wie dies an gehöriger Stelle auseinandergesetzt werden soll. Wenn daher Jemand etwas Talg, etwas Blut, etwas Fleisch von einem unreinen Viehe, etwas Fleisch von Gefallenem, etwas Fleisch vom unreinen Fische, etwas Fleisch von einem unreinen Vogel, und dergleichen verbotener Speisen zusammentut, so dass sämtliche Teilchen zusammen das Quantum einer Olive ausmachen, — so verfällt er dadurch noch nicht der Geißelung, sondern wird wie einer, der das halbe Quantum genießt, behandelt. ", + "Alles Gefallene aber vereinigt sich untereinander, ebenso Gefallenes mit Zerrissenem; alle unreinen Tiere und Viehstücke werden desgleichen zusammengerechnet; Gefallenes wird jedoch nicht zu Fleisch von unreinem Vieh zugezogen. Wenn Jemand z. B. Fleisch vom gefallenen Ochsen, Hirsche und Huhne zusammentut, bis zum Quantum einer Olive, es dann verzehrt, so wird er gegeißelt; ebenso, wenn er das Quantum einer halben Olive von gefallenem reinem Vieh, mit dem gleichen Quantum von zerrissenem, oder mit Fleisch vom lebendigen Tiere zusammen isst; desgleichen wenn er vom Fleische eines Kamels, Schweines und Hasen, zusammengerechnet das Quantum einer Olive aufisst. Wenn man aber das Quantum einer halben Olive vom gefallenen Ochsen, mit gleichem Quantum Kamelfleisch zusammen verzehrt, so werden die verbotenen Gegenstände nicht zu einander zugezogen; und so in dergleichen Fällen mehr. Ganz dasselbe gilt auch vom Fleische unreiner Säugetiere, in Bezug auf dessen Zusammenrechnung mit Fleisch von unreinem Geflügel und unreinen Fischen; das Fleisch dieser beiden verschiedenen Tiergattungen wird nicht zusammengerechnet, indem sie zwei verschiedene Benennungen haben, und besonderen Verboten unterliegen, wie wir bereits erklärt. Alle unreine Vögel hingegen werden untereinander zusammengerechnet, auf gleiche Weise, wie alle unreine Säugetiere zusammengerechnet werden. Die allgemeine Regel hierfür ist Folgendes: Alle Gegenstände, die mit einem und demselben Verbote untersagt wurden, werden untereinander zusammengezogen, die aber durch verschiedene Verbote untersagt wurden, werden nicht zusammengerechnet. Ausgenommen hiervon sind Gefallenes und Zerrissenes, weil Zerrissenes gleichsam den Anfang von Gefallenem ausmacht. ", + "Isst Jemand von gefallenem, zerrissenem, unreinem Hausvieh oder Wilden die Haut, die Knochen, Adern, Hörner, Klauen, oder die Nägel des Geflügels, — da wo das Blut hervorquillt, wenn sie geschnitten werden, oder auch die Mutterhaut, so ist er, obgleich dies verboten ist, dennoch von der Geißelung frei, weil diese Körperteile als ungenießbar angesehen, und auch nicht zum eigentlichen Fleische zugezogen werden, um das Quantum der Olive zu bilden. ", + "Der Magenschleim des gefallenen und unreinen Tieres ist erlaubt, weil selbiger nur wie aller andere Körperschmutz zu nehmen ist; deswegen ist es auch gestattet Käse, durch den Magenschleim von Heiden geschlachteter oder unreiner Tiere, gerinnen zu lassen. Das Magenhäutchen aber ist den anderen Eingeweiden gleichzustellen — und verboten. ", + "Die Haut, die über dem Vorderkopf des Esels sich ausdehnt, ist zum Essen erlaubt, weil selbige aller ausscheidenden Materie und dem Urine gleicht, welche uns erlaubt wären (wenn uns nicht der Ekel davon abhielte). Jedoch gibt es Häute, die wie Fleisch betrachtet werden, so dass, wenn Jemand davon das Quantum einer Olive isst, er sich so vergeht, wie bei eigentlichem Fleischgenusse; dies gilt indessen nur, wenn man selbige in ihrem noch weichem Zustande verzehrt. ", + "Folgende Häute gleichen dem Fleische: die Haut des Menschen, die Haut des zahmen Schweines, des Kamelhöckers, so lange noch keine Lasten ihm aufgeladen waren, und es noch nicht das Alter des Lastentragens erreicht hat, sodass dessen Haut noch weich ist, — ferner die Häute der Anakah, des Koach, des Letaah, und des Chomet (siehe Kap. II, 7, die der Wahrscheinlichkeit nach entsprechenden deutschen Benennungen). Alle diese Häute sind, so lange sie noch weich, — in jeder Hinsicht dem Fleische gleichzuachten, so in Bezug des Genusses als der Entweihung. ", + "Es heißt vom zu steinigenden Ochsen: »Und sein Fleisch soll nicht gegessen werden« (Ex. 21:28). Wie wäre es denn aber möglich das Fleisch desselben zu essen, nachdem er gesteinigt worden wäre, sodass er doch ein gefallenes Tier ist? Es ist daraus zu folgern, dass die Schrift hiermit sagen will, dass, sobald das Urteil der Steinigung über ihn gefällt ist, er zum Genuss verboten wird und einem unreinen Viehe gleicht, so dass, wenn man der Steinigung zuvorkommend, den Ochsen auch ganz gehörig schlachtete, er dennoch zu aller Nutznießung verboten bliebe, und wenn Jemand vom Fleische desselben das Quantum einer Olive isst, so verfällt er der Geißelung; ebenso auch darf er nach der Steinigung weder verkauft, noch den Hunden vorgeworfen werden. Darauf eben deuten die Worte »Es soll sein Fleisch nicht gegessen werden«. Der Mist vom gesteinigten Ochsen ist aber zur Nutznießung erlaubt. 23) Wurde nach seiner Verurteilung in Erfahrung gebracht, dass er von der Steinigung zu befreien ist, wenn z.B. die gegen selbigen auftretenden Zeugen Lügen gestraft wurden, — so werde er wieder in die Herde frei zu weiden gelassen; — kam jene Erfahrung nach dessen Steinigung, so tritt wieder die Erlaubnis der Nutznießung desselben ein. " + ], + [ + "Glied von Lebendigem, Fetus
Es ist durch die Tradition mitgeteilt worden, dass die Worte der Schrift: »Du sollst nicht die Seele mit dem Fleische aufessen« (Deut. 22:23) darauf hindeuten, ein von einem lebendigen Tiere weggeschnittenes Glied zu verbieten. Das Glied vom Lebendigen ist aber bereits Noach untersagt worden: »Doch Fleisch mit der Seele im Blute (also eines noch lebenden Tieres) sollt ihr nicht essen«. Das Verbot des Gliedes vom Lebendigen erstreckt sich auf Hausvieh, Wild und Geflügel, jedoch bloß von den reinen Gattungen, nicht aber auf das von den unreinen. ", + "Es bleibt sich nun ganz gleich, ob es ein Glied betrifft, welches Fleisch, Adern und Knochen zugleich enthält, wie z.B. Vorder- oder Hinterfuß, oder ob es ein Glied ohne Knochen, wie z. B. die Zunge, die Milz, die Nieren, das Herz und dergleichen ist. Der Unterschied besteht bloß darin, dass von einem knochenlosen Gliede selbst ein Teil das Verbot bedingt, bei einem Gliede mit Knochen hingegen, wird man erst dann schuldig, wenn man ein dem ganzen Gliede ähnliches Stück abschneidet, nämlich das ebenfalls aus Fleisch, Adern und Knochen besteht; nimmt man aber vom lebendigen Gliede bloß Fleisch hinweg, so verwirkt man dadurch die Strafe wegen Zerrissenes, wie wir bereits erklärt, nicht aber wegen eines Gliedes vom lebendigen Tiere. ", + "Isst Jemand vom Gliede eines lebendigen Tieres das Quantum einer Olive, so verfällt er der Geißelung; wenn aber Jemand ein ganzes Glied, welches weniger als eine Olive groß war, aufgegessen, so ist er frei, denn nur das Quantum einer Olive bedingt die Straffälligkeit. Schneidet man von einem Gliede, nach der natürlichen Beschaffenheit des ganzen, ein Stück Fleisch ab, so dass in demselben Fleisch Adern und Knochen enthalten seien, und sind diese zusammen von der Größe einer Olive, so verfällt man, wenn man es aufisst, der Geißelung, selbst wenn vom Fleische daran auch noch so wenig ist; hat man aber das Glied, nachdem es vom lebendigen Tiere abgerissen wurde, zerlegt und, das Fleisch von den Adern und Knochen abgesondert, so verwirkt man erst dann die Geißelung, wenn man vom Fleische allein das Quantum einer Olive isst, Knochen und Adern aber werden dann nicht zugezogen, um das Quantum zu bilden, nachdem das Glied seinen natürlichen Zustand verloren. ", + "Zerschneidet man ein Glied und verzehrt es allmählich, so hängt die Straffälligkeit davon ab, ob in dem, was man gegessen, Fleisch von dem Quantum einer Olive war — sodass man straffällig wird, — oder ob nicht so viel Fleisch war,— sodass man frei ist. Verzehrt man vom Gliede das Quantum einer Olive, nach seiner natürlichen Beschaffenheit, nämlich Fleisch, Adern und Knochen zusammen, so ist man straffällig, selbst wenn im Munde sich das Fleisch von den Adern und Knochen abgelöst, bevor man das zu sich Genommene verschluckt, und das Fleisch für sich das Quantum einer Olive nicht ausmacht. ", + "Reißt man von einem lebendigen Tiere ein solches Glied weg, wodurch das Tier zum zerrissenen gemacht wird, und verzehrt es, so verwirkt man die doppelte Geißelung, erstens die wegen eines Gliedes vom Lebendigen und zweitens die wegen des Zerrissenen, — in diesem Falle werden nämlich beide Verbote auf einmal übertreten. Ebenso verwirkt man eine doppelte Geißelung, wenn man Talg vom lebendigen Tiere wegreißt und verzehrt, —erstens wegen des Gliedes eines Lebendigen und zweitens wegen des Genusses von Talg; reißt man Talg von einem als zerrissen geltenden Tiere und verzehrt ihn, so verwirkt man die dreifache Geißelung. ", + "Das an einem Vieh abgerissen hängende Glied, oder Fleisch, ist für den Genuss verboten, wenn es nicht zuwachsen könnte, und zwar selbst dann, wenn diese Absonderung erst nach dem Schlachten des Viehes (doch vor dem völligen Absterben desselben) erfolgte; hierauf steht jedoch nicht die Geißelung.— Krepierte das Vieh, so wird ein so abgelöstes Glied betrachtet, als wäre es von einem noch lebendigen Tiere abgelöst worden, und der Genuss desselben bewirkt die Strafe der Geißelung, wegen des Gliedes vom Lebendigen. Kann aber das abgelöste Stück wieder zuwachsen, so ist es erlaubt, weil die Ablösung nach dem Schlachten des Viehes geschah. ", + "Riss man ein Glied aus seinem Gelenke, oder zerquetschte und zerdrückte es, wie z.B. die Hoden, so ist der Genuss desselben, nach der heiligen Schrift, nicht verboten, weil in ihnen noch immer etwas Leben ist, und sie daher nicht in Fäulnis übergehen können; jedoch ist es zum Essen, dem angenommenen Brauche in Israel zufolge, nicht gestattet, da es doch dem Gliede vom Lebendigen gleicht. ", + "Wurde ein Knochen zerbrochen, und das Fleisch oder die Haut bedeckt den größten Teil des Umfanges des Beinbruches, so ist das Glied erlaubt; — trat aber der Knochen hervor, so ist es verboten; man muss sogar, wenn man das Vieh oder den Vogel geschlachtet, die Stelle des Bruches ausschneiden und wegwerfen, das ganze Tier aber ist erlaubt.Blieb beim zerbrochenen Knochen der größte Teil des Knochens zwar bedeckt vom Fleische, dieses aber ist zerfetzt oder zerfressen, so wie Fleisch, welches der Arzt von Wunden ablöst, oder es befindet sich stückweise an verschiedenen Stellen des Fußes, oder war durchfressen, gespalten, oder zusammengerollt wie ein Ring, oder es war von der Oberfläche so zerfetzt, dass es bloß wie ein Häutchen dünn blieb; oder war im Gegenteil das Fleisch, nach dem zerbrochenen Knochen zu so zerfressen, dass es weit von demselben abstand, so ist das Glied jedenfalls verboten, bis das Glied ganz zuheilt; — wenn man nun von allen diesen isst, so erhält man die Mardut-Geißelung. ", + "Steckt man seine Hand in die Eingeweide des Tieres und schneidet die Milz oder die Niere ab und lässt die abgeschnittenen Organe im Tier liegen und schlachtet darauf das Tier, so sind die abgeschnittenen Organe wegen eines Gliedes vom Lebendigen verboten, obwohl sie im Eingeweide liegen. Schneidet man hingegen etwas vom Fetus im Mutterleib ab und holt es nicht heraus und schächtet danach die Mutter, so ist das Fetus oder sein Glied erlaubt, weil sie nicht entfernt wurden. Steckt das Fetus einen Hinter- oder Vorderfuß heraus, so bleibt dieses Glied für immer verboten, ganz gleich, ob man das Glied vor oder nach dem Abschlachten der Mutter abgeschnitten, — selbst dann, wenn das Glied wieder in den Leib der Mutter hineingebracht worden, und das Kalb einige Jahre nach der Abschlachtung der Mutter gelebt, bleibt das Glied immer als Zerrissenes verboten; Fleisch, welches sich aus der normalen Lage heraus verschoben, ist ganz so verboten wie Fleisch, welches vom Lebendigen abgelöst wurde, denn es heißt: »Und Fleisch das im Felde zerrissen«, also sobald es auf eine Stelle kam, die für dasselbe einem freien Felde gleichgilt, so wird es als zerrissen betrachtet, wie wir es bereits erklärt (5:1). ", + "Kam nur ein Teil eines Gliedes zum Vorschein und der andere, wenn selbst der kleinere blieb darin, so ist bloß derjenige Teil verboten, welcher hervorsteht das inwendig gebliebene Stück aber ist erlaubt. Schnitt man das hervorgekommene Stück im Innern hinweg, nachdem das Glied zurück hineingedrängt worden, und schlachtet darauf die Kuh, so ist bloß das hervorgetretene Stück verboten, das Übrige aber erlaubt; wurde aber das Übrige nicht zurückgedrängt, sondern abgeschnitten, so lange es außerhalb des Körpers war, ganz gleich ob dieses Wegschneiden nach dem Abschlachten der Kuh oder vorher stattfand — immer bleibt die Stelle des Einschnittes auch verboten, nämlich diejenige Stelle, welche der Luft, nachdem der Schnitt vollbracht wurde, ausgesetzt war, so dass man nachher diese Stelle abermals wegschneiden muss. ", + "Jedes Glied eines Fetus, das hervortritt und vor dem Schlachten abgeschnitten wird, heißt, so lange es noch der Luft ausgesetzt ist, ein Glied vom Lebendigen, und bewirkt die Geißelung, selbst wenn der Fetus noch vor dem Schlachten der Kuh krepiert; wurde es aber erst nach dem Schlachten weggeschnitten, so wird der es Verzehrende nicht gegeißelt, selbst wenn der Fetus nicht lebt; wird ein Glied vom Fetus weggeschnitten, nachdem die Kuh krepierte, so wird der es Verzehrende, wegen des Gliedes vom Lebendigen, gegeißelt. ", + "Steckt der Fetus ein Glied vor, so dass dasselbe das Verbot bedingt, und darauf wird das Kalb geworfen und wächst zur Kuh heran, so darf man deren Milch als Bezweifeltes nicht trinken, indem nämlich die Milch von allen Gliedern zusammenkommt; und da ein Glied von diesen verboten ist, so ist dieser Fall zu nehmen, als wenn man die Milch eines zerrissenen Tieres mit der eines reinen vermengt hätte. ", + "Schlachtet man ein trächtiges Vieh und findet darin ein Fetus, ganz gleich ob lebendig oder tot, so ist letzteres auch zum Essen erlaubt, ja sogar die Nachgeburt ist nicht verboten; trat aber von der Nachgeburt etwas hervor, und darauf erst wurde das Vieh geschlachtet, so ist, wenn die Nachgeburt am Kalbe haftete, das hervorgetretene Stück verboten, das Übrige aber erlaubt, war sie vom Kalbe getrennt, so ist das Stück verboten, denn es ist die Möglichkeit vorhanden, dass von der Nachgeburt, die Teilweise hervorgetreten, das Kalb schon längst geworfen wurde, und dass die des Kalbes, welches nach dem Schlachten der Kuh gefunden wurde, abgegangen ist, geschweige denn dass, wenn in der Kuh kein Kalb gefunden wird, die Nachgeburt verboten ist. ", + "Fand man in der Kuh einen lebendigen Fetus, so bedarf es, selbst wenn es volle neun Monate alt und die Möglichkeit vorhanden wäre, dass es leben könnte, nicht eines besonderen Abschlachtens, indem es durch das Schlachten der Mutter auch zum Essen erlaubt wird; hat das Kalb aber schon auf dem Boden Fuß gefasst, so erfordert es eines besonderen Schlachtens.", + "Hat man ein Tier zerschnitten, oder ein zerrissenes Vieh geschlachtet, und findet in diesem ein neunmonatliches Kalb, so bedarf es eines besonderen Abschlachtens, um es zum Essen erlaubt zu machen, indem die Abschlachtung der Mutter hier nicht in Betracht gezogen wird; war aber der Fetus nicht reif, so ist es ganz verboten, selbst wenn es bereits in den Eingeweiden der zerrissenen Mutter lebte. Jeder Fetus, dessen Kopf heraustritt und zurückgedrängt wird ist durch das Abschlachten der Mutter nicht erlaubt, sondern wird als völlig geboren betrachtet, und muss besonders geschlachtet werden. " + ], + [ + "Blut
Wer Blut vom Quantum einer Olive isst, verwirkt, wenn er es absichtlich tut, die Strafe der Vertilgung (Karet); wenn es aber unabsichtlich geschah, muss er das gewöhnliche Sühnopfer darbringen. Es ist jedoch ausdrücklich in der Schrift erklärt, dass die Straffälligkeit nur auf das Blut von Hausvieh, Wild und Geflügel steht, wobei zwar kein Unterschied zwischen reinem oder unreinem stattfindet, denn es heißt: »Und was nur Blut ist, sollet ihr nicht essen in allen euren Wohnorten bei Geflügel und Hausvieh«. Wilde vierfüßige Tiere sind aber unter dem Ausdrucke Vieh mitbegriffen, denn es heißt: »Folgendes ist das Vieh, das ihr essen dürfet: Ochs .... Hindin und Hirsch«. Das Genießen des Blutes von Fischen, Heuschrecken, kriechenden und krabbelnden Tieren hingegen, bewirkt keine Strafe, daher ist das Blut ersterer geradezu erlaubt zu essen, selbst wenn man es in ein Geschirr sammelte und es als Speise isst; das Blut von unreinen Heuschrecken und Fischen ist bloß deswegen für den Genuss verboten, weil es einen Bestandteil ihres Körpers, ganz wie die Milch eines unreinen Haustieres, ausmacht; — das Blut kriechender Tiere ist ganz wie deren Fleisch für den Genuss verboten, wie wir es bereits erklärt. ", + "Das Blut des Menschen, wenn es aus dem Körper rausfließt, ist aufgrund einer rabbinischen Verordnung zum Verzehr verboten und man geißelt ihn mit der Mardut-Geißlung. Das Blut der Zähne darf man schlucken. Beißt man aufs Brot und etwas Blut bleibt darauf, muss man das Blut entfernen, um das Brot zu essen, den denn es ist abgeflossenes Blut.", + "Man bewirkt die Strafe der Vertilgung nur wegen des Genusses des Blutes, das beim Schlachten, Stechen, oder Abschlagen des Kopfes herauskommt, so lange es noch rot ist; wegen des Genusses des Blutes aber, das im Herzen enthalten ist und bei einem Aderlass abfließt, nur so lange als die Strömung fortdauert; hingegen das Blut, welches zu Anfänge des Aderlasses hervorquillt, bevor noch die Strömung begonnen, wie auch dasjenige welches nach dem Abflüsse schon dicker wird, bewirkt nicht diese Strafe, sondern ist wie das Blut von Gliedmaßen zu betrachten, indem nur strömendes Blut dasjenige ist, welches das Leben entfernt. ", + "Herausgedrücktes Blut, so auch Blut aller andern Gliedmaßen, wie z. B. das Blut der Milz, der Nieren, Hoden, ja sogar dasjenige, welches nach dem Abschlachten sich zum Herzen drängt, ebenso das Blut, welches in der Leber vorgefunden wird — bewirken nicht durch ihren Genuss die Strafe der Vertilgung; wer aber davon das Quantum einer Olive isst, bekommt die Geißelung, da es auch heißt: »Und kein Blut sollt ihr essen«; bei der Strafe der Vertilgung aber sagt die Schrift: »Denn die Seele des Fleisches ist im Blute«, also steht die Vertilgung nur auf dasjenige Blut, welches das Leben entführt. ", + "Das Blut eines Fetus, welches in den Eingeweiden des Tieres vorgefunden wird, gleicht dem Blute eines schon bereits geworfenen Jungen, daher steht die Strafe der Vertilgung nur auf den Genuss des Blutes, welches in dessen Herzen ist, das übrige Blut aber ist wie Gliedmaßenblut zu betrachten. ", + "Um das Herz zu genießen, hat man es durchzureißen, und das Blut herauszudrücken, sodass es gesalzen werden muss, — und so kann es sowohl zum Kochen, als zum Braten gebraucht werden; hat man das Herz gekocht, ohne es durchgerissen zu haben, so tue man dieses nach dem Kochen und genieße es erst dann; hat man es verzehrt, ohne es durch gerissen zu haben, so steht darauf noch immer nicht die Strafe der Vertilgung; letzteres jedoch bezieht sich nur auf den Genuss eines Herzens von Geflügel, worin sich Blut, nicht vom Quantum einer Olive, findet; auf den Genuss eines Herzens von Großvieh hingegen, steht wohl die Vertilgung, weil darin sich doch bestimmt eigentliches Herzblut, das die Vertilgung bewirkt, vom Quantum einer Olive befindet. ", + "Die Leber ist zum Genuss erlaubt, wenn sie vor dem Kochen zerschnitten und in Essig gelegt worden, oder in kochendes Wasser so lange lag, bis sie weiß geworden; es ist aber bereits in ganz Israel Sitte, selbige zuerst roh auf dem Feuer zu rösten und sie dann zu kochen, — wobei es sich ganz gleichbleibt, ob man die Leber allein oder mit anderem Fleische kocht; es ist ebenfalls eine allgemeine Sitte, dass man Gehirn weder kocht noch bratet, bevor es nicht über dem Feuer geführt wurde. ", + "Hat man die Leber gekocht, ohne sie vorher über Feuer geführt und in Essig oder kochendem Wasser geweicht zu haben, so ist die ganze Speise, sowohl die Leber, als alles andere, was mit ihr gekocht wurde, für den Genuss verboten; hingegen ist es erlaubt, Leber zusammen mit Fleisch an einem Bratspieß zu braten, jedoch muss hierbei die Leber unter dem Fleische liegen; lag sie über dem Fleische, so kann man sie, wenn sie mit Fleisch zusammen gekocht wurde, doch essen. ", + "Die Milz kann genossen werden, selbst wenn sie mit Fleisch zusammen gekocht wurde, da sie nicht Blut, sondern Blut ähnliches Fleisch enthält. Das rohe Fleisch eines Tieres, dem der Nacken vor dem Aushauchen des Lebens zerbrochen wurde, ist für den Genuss, selbst wenn es in Essig geweicht wurde, verboten, da das Blut in die Glieder zurückgedrängt wird; dessen Genuss ist aber erlaubt, wenn man folgendes Verfahren beobachtet: man zerschneide das zum Essen bestimmte Stück, salze es gehörig durch, bis es rein wird, und koche oder brate es dann; wir haben aber bereits oben erklärt, dass, wenn man Hausvieh, Tiere oder Geflügel schlachtet, und dabei kein Blut abläuft, die geschlachteten Tiere dennoch erlaubt sind. ", + "Fleisch wird nicht eher vom Blute völlig befreit, als bis man es stark durchsalzt und gut in Wasser abspült; man verfährt hierbei wie folgt: Zuerst wird das Fleisch in Wasser abgespült, dann ganz stark mit Salz bestreut und im Salze so lange liegen gelassen, wie viel Zeit man nötig hat, um eine Mille zu gehen, darauf wird es wieder so lange mit Wasser abgespült, bis dieses ganz rein herunterfließt — sodass es alsbald in kochendes, nicht aber in lauwarmes Wasser gelegt werden muss, damit es sich bald zusammenziehe und nicht mehr Blut herauskomme. ", + "Wenn das Fleisch gesalzen wird, darf es nur in einem durchlöcherten Gefäße geschehen, auch darf nur mit Salz, das so grob wie große Sandkörner sind, gesalzen werden, weil das Fleisch anderes, wie Mehl feines, Salz, in sich zieht, ohne das Blut herauszutreiben; das Fleisch muss übrigens vom Salze abgeschüttelt und dann abgespült werden. ", + "Alle diese Maßregeln sind bloß bei Fleisch, das zum Kochen bestimmt ist, zu beobachten; Bratenfleisch kann gleich nach dem Salzen gebraten werden; will Jemand rohes Fleisch essen, so salze er es gut ein und spüle es dann gehörig ab, sodass er es für sich zum Essen präparieren kann; hat man es in Essig gelegt, so kann man es auch roh essen und sogar den Essig genießen, weil Essig kein Blut hervorzieht. ", + "Essig, worin schon einmal Fleisch gelegen hat, darf nicht zum zweiten Male zu demselben Behufe gebraucht werden; wurde ein Stück Fleisch in Essig rot, so bleibt es samt dem Essig so lange verboten, bis das Fleisch recht gut gesalzen und dann gebraten wurde; rotgewordenes Fleisch, Hoden von Vieh und Wild, die noch das Oberhäutchen auf sich haben, ebenso der Nacken, worin sich die mit Blut gefüllten Adern befinden, sind, wenn sie gesetzlich zerschnitten und gesalzen wurden, zum Kochen erlaubt; wurden sie nicht zerschnitten, aber an dem Bratspieße gebraten, und zwar so, dass die Öffnung des Nackens herabhing, oder wurden alle diese Gegenstände auf Kohlen gebraten, so sind sie auch erlaubt. ", + "Der Kopf eines Hausviehes, welcher im Back - oder Brennofen gebraten wurde, ist für den Genuss erlaubt, wenn er während des Bratens so hing, dass die Einschnittsstelle nach unten lag, — in welchem Falle das Blut abfließt und hervorquillt; war die Einschnittsstelle nach der Seite hingewendet, so ist das Gehirn des Kopfes verboten, weil das Blut sich dahin drängt; das Fleisch aber, welches sich an dem äußeren Knochen befindet, ist erlaubt; war die Schnauze nach unten gekehrt, und Stroh oder Rohr darein gesteckt, damit sie offen bleibe und das Blut abfließe so ist das Gehirn zum Genuss erlaubt; wenn die Schnauze aber nicht so lag, so ist das Gehirn verboten. ", + "Man darf nicht ein Geschirr unter Bratfleisch stellen, um das abrinnende Wasser aufzusagen, bis das Wasser ganz die rötliche Farbe verloren; man hat hierbei aber wie folgt zu verfahren: Man werfe in das Gefäß etwas Salz hinein, lasse das Gefäß unter dem Braten bis dieser gar geworden, alsdann nehme man das Fett von oben herunter, das Wasser aber, welches sich unter dem Fette befindet, ist verboten. ", + "Hat man Bratenfleisch auf Brot geschnitten, so kann dies gegessen werden, weil der dabei herausgepresste Saft nur Fett enthält.Hat man Fische und Geflügel zusammen gesalzen, wenn sogar in einem durchlöcherten Gefäße, so bleibt der Fisch verboten, weil er weicher als das Geflügel ist, und folglich das Blut, welches von diesem abfließt, einsaugt, geschweige denn, wenn man Fisch zusammen mit Fleisch von großen Tieren oder Wild einsalzte. ", + "Hat man Geflügel unzerschnitten hingelegt, und es mit Fleisch und Eiern angefüllt und so gekocht, so ist es zum Genuss verboten, weil das Blut sich in das Geflügel zog, indem hier auch das starke Salzen nicht hilft; es ist sogar auch dann verboten, wenn das Füllfleisch vorher abgebrüht oder gebraten wurde; ward das gefüllte Geflügel gebraten, so ist es erlaubt, selbst wenn das Füllfleisch roh, und die Öffnung des Geflügels nach oben war. ", + "Hat man auf diese Weise Eingeweide mit Bratenfleisch, oder abgebrühtem Fleische, oder mit Eiern angefüllt und es dann abgebrüht und geröstet, so ist es zum Genüsse erlaubt, weil in diesem kein Blut enthalten ist; — so haben die Gaonim entschieden. ", + "Hat man Geflügel mit eingerührtem Mehl belegt und so gebraten, ganz gleich ob es ganz oder zerschnitten war, so kann man, wenn das Mehl grob war, die Mehlzutat essen, selbst wenn diese rot wurde, weil grobes Mehl im Braten mürbe, und dem Abfließen des Blutes nicht hinderlich wird; bestand die Zutat in geknetetem Weizenmehl, so darf man sie nur dann essen, wenn sie so weiß wie Silber ist; ist sie aber nicht weiß, so ist sie verboten; bestand die Zutat aus anderen Mehlsorten, so ist sie verboten, wenn sie rot wurde, und erlaubt, wenn sie nicht rot wurde. ", + "Mit dem Messer, mit welchem man geschlachtet, darf man kein warmes gekochtes Fleisch schneiden, wenn es nicht zuerst im Feuer durchgeglüht oder auf dem Schleifsteine geschärft, oder in harte Erde zehn Mal hineingesteckt wurde; ist es aber dennoch geschehen, so ist das Fleisch auch alsdann zum Genuss erlaubt; eben so wenig darf man mit einem solchen Messer Meerrettich oder dergleichen scharfe Sachen schneiden; hat man aber das Messer, abgespült oder mit Etwas abgewischt, so darf man damit wohl Meerrettich und dergleichen schneiden, aber keineswegs Heißgekochtes. ", + "Aus einer Schüssel, worin einmal Fleisch gesalzen wurde, ist es verboten, selbst wenn sie ausgezinnt war, je wieder etwas Siedendes zu essen, weil das Blut bestimmt in dieselbe gedrungen war. " + ], + [ + "Talg
Wer Talg, vom Quantum einer Olive, absichtlich isst, verwirkt die Strafe der Vertilgung (Karet); wenn es absichtslos geschah, hat er das beständige Sühnopfer zu bringen; die Schrift sagt aber ausdrücklich, dass nur der Talg der drei Gattungen reiner Haustiere verboten ist, denn es heißt: »Allen Talg des Ochsen, des Schafes und der Ziege dürft ihr nicht essen« (Lev. 7:23); bei diesen drei Viehgattungen bleibt es sich gleich, ob man von Geschlachtetem, Gefallenem oder Zerrissenem den Talg gegessen; bei anderem Hausvieh und Wild hingegen, ganz gleich ob von unreinem oder reinem, ist der Talg ganz wie Fleisch zu betrachten. Von einer Frühgeburt einer dieser drei Viehgattungen ist der Talg auch wie Fleisch zu bettachten, so dass, wenn man von solchem Talge das Quantum einer Olive zu sich nimmt, man die Geißelung wegen Genusses von Gefallenem erhält. ", + "Wer den Talg von Gefallenem oder Zerrissenem isst, verfällt der Strafe, wegen des Genusses von Talg und wegen des Genusses von Gefallenem und Zerrissenem; weil nämlich auf das ganze Fleisch des Viehes, welches sonst erlaubt wäre, durch den Umstand des Gefallenseins ein Verbot bezogen wird, so wird dieses Verbot zum Genuss des Talges hinzugesetzt, und daher verfällt man einer doppelten Geißelung. ", + "Schlachtet Jemand ein Tier, und findet darin ein Fetus, so ist dessen Talg erlaubt, sogar dann, wenn man es lebendig vorgefunden hat, da es als ein Glied der Mutter zu betrachten ist; hatte es aber die gehörige Monatsreife, und lebte als man die Mutter schlachtete, selbst wenn es noch nicht auf der Erde Fuß gefasst und man nach dem Gesetze auch des Abschlachtens nicht bedurfte, um es essen zu können, so ist doch dessen Talg verboten und der Genuss desselben bewirkt die Strafe der Vertilgung; auch müssen von dem Fleische desselben alle verbotenen Fäserchen und Häutchen, wie bei allen anderen Tieren, herausgenommen werden. ", + "Steckt Jemand seine Hand in die Eingeweide des Tieres und schneidet Talg vom Fetus ab, dessen Monate sich vollendeten, so ist er straffällig als ob er vom Muttertiere den Talg abschnitt, denn die Vollendung der Monate verursacht das Verbot des Talges.", + "Drei Arten von Fett gibt es, auf deren Genuss die Strafe der Vertilgung steht: das Fett um den Wanst (Bauch), das um die Nieren und das um die Lenden; der Fettschwanz hingegen ist zu essen erlaubt, und wurde nur in Bezug aufs Opfer mit dem Namen Talg belegt; ganz so wie die Nieren und das Leberläppchen auch in Bezug auf das Opfer Talg genannt werden; wie es auch heisst: »Das Fett der Erde« (Gen. 45:18), »und das Fett der Nieren des Weizens« (Deut. 32:14); es wird nämlich darunter das Vorzüglichste des zu genießenden Gegenstandes verstanden; da nun jene Gegenstände vom Opfertier zum Verbrennen, im Namen Gottes, erhoben werden, so hat man ihnen den Namen Fett beigelegt, weil es doch nichts Vorzüglicheres geben kann, als das was im Namen Gottes erhoben worden; daher heißt es auch bei der Zehenten-Priesterhebe Num. 18:39): »Indem ihr sein Fett von ihm erheben werdet«. ", + "Der Talg, welcher sich auf dem Unterleibe und über der Harnblase befindet, nämlich der auf dem Wanste und der an den Hüftgelenken nach innen zu,— zieht durch den Genuss die Strafe der Vertilgung nach sich; dieser Talg ist es eben, der in der Schrift mit: »Über den Hüftbecken« bezeichnet wurde. Über dem eigentlichen Magen ist nun ein Stück Talg vorhanden, das krumm wie ein Bogen ist — dieses ist verboten; dann ein Stück, straff wie eine Sehne — dieses ist erlaubt. Die Fasern, welche sich im Talge befinden, sind zwar verboten, bewirken aber durch den Genuss nicht die Strafe der Vertilgung. ", + "Der Talg, der von Fleisch bedeckt wird, ist erlaubt; die Schrift hat nur was über den Hüftbecken, nicht aber was in den Becken sich befindet, verboten; ebenso ist der Talg über den Nieren verboten, nicht aber der zwischen den Nieren; man hat jedoch wohl das Weiße, das sich zwischen den Nieren befindet, abzunehmen, kann hingegen die Niere, ohne sie weiter abzuschaben, alsdann verzehren. ", + "An den Wurzeln der Lenden befinden sich zwei Talgfäden, die nahe am Rande des Beckens laufen; — wenn nun das Tier lebt, so wird dieser Talg abgesondert in den Eingeweiden gesehen, ist das Tier tot, so klebt da Fleisch an Fleisch, so dass dieser Talg bedeckt und nicht eher gesehen wird, bis das Fleisch von einander abgesondert wird; dieser Talg ist dessen ungeachtet verboten, weil von ihm nicht behauptet werden kann, dass Fleisch ihn bedecke; überall aber, wo der Talg unter dem Fleische gefunden wird, so dass das Fleisch selbigen von allen Seiten umgibt, und der Talg sich erst nach dem Zerschneiden zeigt, ist selbiger erlaubt. ", + "Herz- und Eingeweidenfett, nämlich die dünnen und zusammengeklebten Fettblättchen, sind alle erlaubt und wie Schmalz zu betrachten, der erlaubt ist, außer demjenigen, der sich nahe am Magen, nämlich da wo die Eingeweide beginnen, befindet; — dieser Talg muss abgekratzt werden, da er »Talg über den kleinen Gedärmen« genannt wird und verboten ist. Es gibt indessen Gaonim, die da behaupten, dass betreffs des Gesetzes der Schrift, den Talg von der Spitze des Darms abzukratzen, man darunter den Mastdarm, also das Ende der Eingeweide, zu verstehen habe. ", + "Es gibt im Körper des Viehes Fäserchen und Häutchen, die teils als Talg, teils als Blut verboten sind; ist ein Fäserchen oder Häutchen als Blut verboten, (kein Blut dürft ihr essen Lev. 3:17): so muss es heruntergenommen werden, sodass erst das Fleisch gesalzen und gekocht werden darf, wie wir es bereits erklärt. Hat man aber bereits das Fleisch zerschnitten und gesalzen, so ist es weiter nicht nötig, die Fäserchen herauszusuchen; eben so wenig braucht man selbige herunterzunehmen, wenn das Fleisch gebraten wird; ist aber ein Fäserchen oder Häutchen als Talgart verboten, so muss es vom Fleische heruntergenommen werden, ganz gleich, ob es gebraten oder gekocht werden soll. ", + "Fünf Fäserchen gibt es an den Hüftbecken, drei von der rechten Seite und zwei von der linken; die drei von der rechten Seite Teilen sich wieder jede in zwei, und die zwei von der linken Seite zerteilen sich jede in drei Fasern, — diese alle sind als Talg verboten; die Fasern der Milch und der Nieren sind ebenfalls als Talg verboten; ebenso ist das Häutchen über der Milz, über den Hüftbecken und über den Nieren, als Talg verboten; der Genuss des Häutchens, das über der Milz Brust liegt, bewirkt die Strafe der Vertilgung; das übrige des Häutchens ist zwar verboten, bewirkt aber nicht die Strafe der Vertilgung. ", + "Die Niere hat auch zwei Häutchen, dessen Genuss die Strafe der Vertilgung bewirkt, ganz wie der Talg über den Nieren; das untere hingegen gleicht in Betreff des Gesetzes allen anderen Häutchen und Fasern, die zwar verboten sind, aber nicht die Strafe der Vertilgung nach sich ziehen. ", + "Die Fäserchen im Herzen, in den Vorderfüßen, an den Brustwarzen, an den Unterkiefer von beiden Seiten der Zunge, ebenso die seinen Fäserchen, die sich im Herzen befinden und spinngewebeartig stark in einander verzweigt sind, so auch Häutchen über dem kleinen Gehirn, wie auch das Häutchen über den Hoden — sind alle als Blut verboten. ", + "Die Hoden eines Zickleins oder Lämmleins, das noch nicht volle dreißig Tage zählt, können unabgehäutet gekocht werden; hat es schon dreißig Tage zurückgelegt, so dürfen sie, wenn auf ihnen feine rote Fäserchen gesehen werden, — sodass das Blut daselbst bereits zirkuliert, auch nicht eher gekocht werden, als nach Abhäutung oder Zerschneidung und Einsalzung derselben, wie wir es oben erklärt; so lange aber noch keine roten Fasern sichtbar sind, können sie ohne Weiteres gegessen werden. ", + "Die Gedärme, durch deren Höhlung sich die Speise zieht, sind nicht bluthaltig. ", + "Mir scheint es, dass alle jene Fäserchen und Häutchen nur laut der Vorschrift der Rabbinen verboten seien; sollte man aber auch annehmen, dass sie von der Schrift selbst unter dem allgemeinen Ausdrucke: ,,Alles Blut und allen Talg dürft ihr nicht essen«, verboten wären, so stände dennoch darauf nur die Mardut - Geißelung; diese Häutchen müssten nämlich dann einem halben Quantum einer Olive gleichen, welches ebenfalls nach der Schrift verboten ist, — und doch die Geißelung nicht nach sich zieht. ", + "Man darf nicht Talg zusammen mit Fleisch salzen, noch sie zusammen mit Wasser abspülen; mit dem Messer, mit dem man Talg geschnitten, darf man nicht Fleisch schneiden; in dem Geschirre, wo Talg abgespült wurde, darf kein Fleisch abgespült werden; daher, muss der Schächter drei Messer in Bereitschaft halten, eins zum Schlachten, eins zum Zerschneiden des Fleisches, und eins zum Zerschneiden des Talges. ", + "Ist es an einem Orte Sitte, dass der Schächter das Fleisch in der Fleischbude abspüle, so muss er auch zwei Geschirre mit Wasser haben, eins zum Abspülen des Fleisches, das andere zum Abspülen des Talges. ", + "Auch darf der Schächter nicht den Talg, der sich über dem Hüftbein befindet, über das Fleisch ausdehnen, um dadurch das Fleisch ansehnlicher zu machen, weil das Häutchen, welches sich über dem Talge befindet, sehr dünn ist, und in der Hand des Schächters zerrieben werden könnte, so dass der Talg flüssig und vom Fleische eingesogen würde; — solche Fälle sind zwar von vornherein untersagt, sind sie aber schon geschehen, so wird das Fleisch in Folge dessen nicht verboten; auch werden die Täter nicht gegeißelt, sondern nur angewiesen, ferner so was nicht zu tun. ", + "Man darf das Fleisch auch nicht eher salzen, als bis die verbotenen Häutchen und Fasern heruntergenommen wurden; hat man aber das Salzen schon vorgenommen, so kann man auch nachher die Adern herausnehmen, selbst wenn sich unter diesen eine Spannader befinden sollte, und das Fleisch dann kochen. ", + "Der Schächter, der befugt ist das Fleisch von den Adern zu reinigen, wird, wenn er so nachlässig war, ein verbotenes Fäserchen oder Häutchen nachzulassen, zurecht gewiesen und gewarnt, zukünftig mit verbotenen Gegenständen nicht so leichtsinnig umzugehen; fand man aber nach seiner Reinigung im Fleische Talg vor, so wird er schlechterdings abgesetzt, wenn das Vorgefundene von der Größe einer Gerste war; — er wird aber noch obendrein mit der Mardut-Geißelung bestraft, wenn der Talg von dem Quantum einer Olive war, weil dem Schächter, in Bezug auf Talgverboten, Glauben geschenkt wird, (und er so das Vertrauen missbraucht). " + ], + [ + "Spannader, unbekanntes Fleisch, Verbot der Nutznießung
Das Verbot des Genusses der Spannader findet bei reinem Vieh und Tiere statt, selbst wenn sie als Gefallenes oder Zerrissenes betrachtet werden; ebenso beim Fetus, und bei Tieren, die zum Opfer geheiligt wurden, wobei es sich gleich bleibt, ob es Opfer sind, die gegessen werden können oder nicht, ebenfalls bleibt es sich gleich, ob es die Spannader des rechten oder linken Schenkels ist; — nach der Schrift aber sind nur diejenigen Adern verboten, die auf dem Becken liegen, denn es heißt (Gen. 32:33): »Die auf dem Kopfe des Hüftknochens«; das Übrige von der Spannader, so über, wie unter dem Becken, wie auch das Fett, das sich um diese Ader befindet, ist nur laut Vorschrift der Rabbinen verboten. Übrigens gibt es zwei Spannadern, das Verbot der Schrift nun bezieht sich nur auf die innere, die dem Knochen naheliegt, das Verbot der äußern rührt ganz von den Schriftgelehrten her. ", + "Wer nun von der inneren Spannader isst, und zwar von dem Stück, das auf dem Becken liegt, bekommt die Geißelung; isst Jemand vom Fett oder von den anderen Teilen der inneren Ader, oder von der äußern Ader, an welcher Stelle es auch sei, so bestraft man ihn bloß mit der Mardut-Geißelung. Das Quantum des Genusses, welches die Straffälligkeit bedingt, ist die Größe einer Olive; aß man aber die ganze Ader, die über das Becken hinläuft, so verfällt man der Geißelung, wenn darin auch nicht das Quantum einer Olive enthalten wäre, weil diese Ader wie etwas für sich Bestehendes zu betrachten ist. ", + "Hat Jemand das Quantum einer Olive von der rechten Hüftader und ebenso viel von der linken, oder die beiden eigentlichen ganzen Spannadern, wenn sie auch nicht das Quantum einer Olive ausmachten, gegessen, so bekommt er achtzig Hiebe; ebenso bekommt er eine besondere Geißelung für jede Ader, die er genossen. ", + "Beim Vogel findet das Verbot der Spannader nicht statt, weil er keine Becken, sondern stattdessen bloß lange Schenkel hat; findet sich aber ein Geflügel, das Hüftknochen wie ein Quadrupede hat, so ist dessen Spannader wohl verboten, ohne jedoch dem dieselbe Essenden die Geißelung zu zuziehen; ebenso ist die Spannader eines Quadrupeden, dessen Hüftknochen so länglich geformt sind, wie beim Geflügel, bloß für den Genuss verboten, ohne jedoch durch denselben die Geißelung zu verwirken. ", + "Wer die Spannader von unreinem Vieh und Wild isst, ist freizusprechen, weil dieses Verbot nicht für unreine Tiere gilt, sondern bloß für ein Vieh, das, abgerechnet die Spannader, ganz erlaubt ist; andrerseits verfällt man in diesem Falle nicht der Strafe wegen des Genusses unreiner Tiere, weil die Adern nicht als Fleisch betrachtet werden, wie wir es bereits erklärt haben. Aß man aber vom Fette, das sich auf der Spannader befindet, so ist man, wegen des Genusses vom Fleische unreiner Tiere, straffällig, wie wir es bereits erklärt. ", + "Isst man die Spannader von Gefallenem, Zerrissenem, oder von einem Ganzopfer, so verwirkt man die doppelte Geißelung, weil nämlich die Spannader, zusammen mit dem ganzen Körper, welcher sonst zu essen erlaubt ist, dem Verbote verfiel, so wird die Spannader dadurch gleichsam mit dem doppelten Verbote belegt. ", + "Wer die Spannader aus dem Fleische herausnimmt, muss so lange nachschaben, bis im Fleische davon nichts nachbleibt; dem Schächter muss man in Betreff der Spannader ebenso Vertrauen schenken, wie in Bezug auf den Talg; man darf aber überhaupt nicht Fleisch von einem jeden Schächter kaufen, sondern bloß von einem frommen, und als solcher bekannten Mann; ein solcher nun kann für sich selbst schlachten, wie auch Andern Fleisch verkaufen, — ihm wird Glauben geschenkt. ", + "Dies gilt aber nur im Auslande; im Lande Israel hingegen, so lange es den Israeliten gehört, ist es erlaubt, Fleisch von einem Jeden zu kaufen. ", + "Hatte ein Schächter, dem es gestattet war Fleisch zu verkaufen, gefallenes oder zerrissenes ausgeteilt, so muss er den Käufern das Geld für das gekaufte Fleisch zurückgeben, außerdem wird er aber noch mit der Bannbuße belegt, abgesetzt, und kann nie wieder die Erlaubnis erlangen, Fleisch zu verkaufen; außer etwa wenn er aus seinem Orte nach einem andern übersiedelt, wo ihn Niemand kennt, und er sich da auszeichnet, indem er einen Fund von großem Werte dem Eigentümer desselben zurückgibt, oder wenn er daselbst, für sich schlachtend, ein Vieh als zerrissen erklärt, obgleich er selber dabei Schaden leidet, — was als Beweis dienen kann, dass er aufrichtig Buße getan. ", + "Kauft Jemand Fleisch und schickt es durch einen ungebildeten Menschen nach Hause, so kann man diesem Glauben schenken, ohne besorgen zu müssen, dass er das Fleisch umtausche, selbst dann, wenn dieser auch nicht als rechtschaffener und frommer Mensch bekannt ist; — auch Knechte und Mägde, die bei Israeliten sind, verdienen in dieser Hinsicht Zutrauen; bei einem Nichtisraeliten aber, (dem das Gesetz über das Zerrissensein wohl nicht so einleuchtend sein mag) steht wohl zu besorgen, dass er das Fleisch umtauschen könnte. ", + "Sind unter zehn Fleischbuden neun da, welche gehörig geschlachtetes Fleisch verkaufen, und eine, welche als gefallen betrachtetes Fleisch verkauft, — und Jemand kauft nun in einer von diesen Buden, ohne bestimmt zu wissen, ob in einer zuverlässigen, so ist das Fleisch zu essen verboten, weil alle an einem Orte beständig sich befindenden Gegenstände, im Falle einer Ungewissheit, von keiner Mehrzahl überwogen werden; fand man aber ein Stück Fleisch auf der Straße liegen, so ist dasselbe wohl einer aus der Mehrzahl der Buden zuzuschreiben, weil Alles, was sich absondert, als von der Mehrheit Abgesondertes zu betrachten ist; folglich ist das gefundene Stück Fleisch, wenn die meisten Verkäufer Nichtisraeliten sind, verboten, wenn aber die meisten Verkäufer Israeliten sind, erlaubt. ", + "Ebenso ist Fleisch, welches sich bei einem Nichtisraeliten, der nicht weiß, von wem er es gekauft, befindet — erlaubt, wenn die meisten Fleischhändler des Ortes Israeliten sind. Dies ist indessen bloß laut dem Urgesetze der Schrift verordnet, die Weisen hingegen haben bereits alles Fleisch, das gefunden wird, verboten, sei es auf der Straße, oder in der Hand eines Nichtisraeliten, selbst wenn auch alle Schächter und Fleischhändler in diesem Orte Israeliten wären; ja sogar, wenn man Fleisch gekauft, es in seinem eigenen Hause irgendwohin gelegt, aber so, dass es auf einige Zeit aus dem Gesichte verloren ging, so wäre das Fleisch verboten, wenn man nicht entweder ein Kennzeichen daran hätte, oder das Stück überhaupt vorher sich genau gemerkt, und es als das verloren gegangene erkannte, oder wenn es eingebunden und versiegelt wäre. ", + "Hing man ein Geschirr voll von Fleischstücken irgendwo auf, worauf das Gefäß zerbrach und die Fleischstücke zur Erde fielen, und findet nun später die Fleischstücke auf der Erde, ohne sich dieselben früher gemerkt zu haben, so sind sie verboten, da man denken kann, das Fleisch, welches im Gefäße war, sei von einem Wilde oder einem kriechenden Tiere weggeschleppt, und diese Stücke seien ganz andere (und zwar verbotene). ", + "Die Spannader ist zur Nutznießung erlaubt; daher ist es auch erlaubt, einem Nichtisraeliten ganze Schenkel samt der Spannader zu schicken, oder ihm in Gegenwart eines Israeliten selbige ganz zu überreichen, sodass es nicht zu besorgen steht, dass dieser gegenwärtige Israelit von den Schenkeln essen werde, ohne die Spannader herausgenommen zu haben, weil die Stelle doch kenntlich ist; war aber der Schenkel zerschnitten, so darf man selbigen nicht in Gegenwart eines Israeliten einem Nichtisraeliten abgeben, bevor noch die Spannader herausgenommen ist, weil zu besorgen steht, dass der Israelit verleitet werden könnte, davon zu essen. ", + "Überall wo es in der Schrift heißt: »Sollst Du nicht essen, sollt ihr nicht essen, sollen sie nicht essen, soll nicht gegessen werden«, versteht man darunter eben sowohl das Verbot des Essens, als das der Nutznießung, außer wenn die Schrift ausdrücklich letztere erlaubt, wie es auch beim Gefallenen heißt: »Dem Fremdling, der in deinen Toren ist, sollst, du es geben, damit er es esse«; oder wie beim Talge, wo es heißt: »Soll gebraucht werden zu aller Arbeit«, oder wenn es in der mündlichen Lehre ausdrücklich gesagt ist, dass es zur Nutznießung erlaubt ist, wie z. B. der kriechenden und krabbelnden Tiere Blut, Glieder von lebendigen Tieren und die Spannader, welche alle Gegenstände durch die Tradition zur Nutznießung erlaubt sind, obgleich sie zum Genuss verboten sind. ", + "Jede Speise, die zur Nutznießung verboten ist bewirkt, wenn man Nutzen davon gezogen, ohne indessen sie selbst verzehrt zu haben, z. B wenn man sie verkauft oder Hunden vorgeworfen, keine volle Geißelung, sondern bloß die Mardut-Geißelung, der Täter kann jedoch dann das für die Speise erhaltene Geld benutzen; — mit den Speisen aber, die bloß zum Essen verboten, zur Nutznießung hingegen erlaubt sind, darf man auch nicht geradezu Handel treiben und Geschäfte auf sie allein absehen; ausgenommen hiervon ist der Talg, von dem es ausdrücklich heißt: »Soll gebraucht werden zu aller Arbeit«; es ist daher nicht üblich, Geschäfte mit Gefallenem, Zerrissenem, kriechenden und krabbelnden Tieren zu treiben. ", + "Findet ein Jäger ein unreines Tier, Geflügel oder Fische, und fängt sie, oder fängt er Unreines mit Reinem zusammen, so ist ihm erlaubt, solche zu verkaufen; aber von vornherein seine Jagd auf unreine Tiere anstellen, ist nicht recht; es ist aber erlaubt, Geschäfte mit Milch, die Nichtjuden gemelkt, selbst auch dann, wenn es nicht in Gegenwart eines Israeliten geschehen, zu machen; ebenso mit dem Käse von Nichtisraeliten bereitet, und dergleichen. ", + "Die allgemeine Regel ist, dass dasjenige, was von der Schrift selbst verboten ist, sich auch nicht zu einem Erwerbszweige eignet; damit aber, was bloß von den Schriftgelehrten verboten wurde, kann man wohl Geschäfte machen, ganz gleich, ob es als zweifelhaft oder zuverlässig verboten ist. " + ], + [ + "Fleisch in Milch
Fleisch in Milch ist verboten zu kochen und zu essen, laut Vorschrift der Tora, auch verboten zu jeder Nutznießung, so dass man im vorkommenden Falle es vergraben muss; dessen Asche sogar ist, wie die aller anderen Gegenstände, die vergraben werden müssen, zum Gebrauche verboten. Wer von Fleisch mit Milch zusammengenommen, das Quantum einer Olive kocht, verfällt der Geißelung; denn es heißt: »Du sollst kein Zicklein in der Milch seiner Mutter kochen«. Ebenso verfällt man der Geißelung, wenn man davon das Quantum einer Olive verzehrt, selbst wenn ein Anderer es gekocht hat. ", + "Die Schrift überging das ausdrückliche Verbot des Genusses von Fleisch mit Milch bloß deswegen, weil sie schon das Kochen verboten, was so viel sagen will als, da schon das Kochen verboten ist, um wie viel mehr müsste das Essen es sein; so überging auch die Schrift mit Stillschweigen das Verbot, eine Tochter zu heiraten, weil sie wegen der Tochter-Tochter ein ausdrückliches Verbot festgesetzt. ", + "Laut der Tora bezieht sich dieses Verbot nur auf das Kochen von Fleisch eines reinen Tieres in der Milch eines reinen Tieres, denn es heißt: »Du sollst kein Zicklein in der Milch seiner Mutter kochen«; unter Zicklein aber ist jedes Junge zu verstehen, sowohl vom Rindvieh, als vom Schaaf, oder von der Ziege, außer etwa wenn es ausdrücklich heißt: »Das Junge einer Ziege«; dass die Schrift bloß von einem Zicklein gesprochen, ist deswegen, weil dieser Fall am gewöhnlichsten vorzukommen pflegte. Fleisch eines reinen Tieres hingegen in der Milch eines unreinen Tieres, oder umgekehrt, Fleisch eines unreinen Tieres in der Milch eines reinen, ist sowohl zu kochen als zu anderweitiger Nutznießung erlaubt; ja sogar, wenn man es isst, so verwirkt man dadurch nicht die Strafe wegen Vergehen von Fleisch in Milch gekocht, (sondern wegen Genusses unreiner Tiere). ", + "Ebenso ist es, laut der Tora selbst, nicht verboten, das Fleisch wilder Tiere und Geflügel zu essen, gleichviel ob es in der Milch eines solchen Tieres, oder Haustieres gekocht wird; daher ist das Kochen und die anderweitige Benutzung desselben auch jetzt völlig erlaubt, dasselbe zu essen ist jedoch, nach einer Bestimmung der Weisen, verboten, damit das Volk sich nicht daran zu sehr gewöhne und dadurch zum Genuss des von der Tora verbotenen Fleisches, in Milch gekocht, verleitet werde; indem man irrtümlicher Weise den Schluss ziehen könnte, dass eben so wenig, wie die Schrift Fleisch von Geflügel und wilden Tieren unter jenem Verbote verstanden, es auch alles Fleisch sei, ausgenommen das wirklicher Zicklein in der Milch ihrer Mutter. ", + "Fische und Heuschrecken aber darf man noch jetzt in Milch gekocht essen; ebenso wenn man fertige Eier in einem geschlachteten Vogel findet, so darf man sie, in Milch gekocht, essen. ", + "Geräuchertes und in Mineralwasser gekochtes Fleisch, (Pökelfleisch) und dergl., ziehen nicht die Strafe der Geißelung nach sich, (nämlich wenn man es später in Milch kocht); wenn man Fleisch in Molken, oder in der Milch eines bereits toten Tieres kocht, oder wenn man Blut in Milch kocht, so zieht das Kochen nicht die Geißelung nach sich, der Genuss derselben zieht sogar auch nicht die Geißelung, wegen Fleisch in Milch gekocht, nach sich; wer aber Fleisch von einem toten Tiere, oder Talg und dergl. in Milch kocht, verwirkt wohl die Geißelung wegen des Kochens, ohne indessen beim Genuss die Geißelung, wegen Fleisch in Milch gekocht, zu verwirken; denn das Verbot von Fleisch in Milch gekocht, kann sich weder auf das als Gefallenes Verbotene, noch auf Talg erstrecken, indem hierbei weder ein allgemeines noch außerordentliches Verbot, noch ein Zusammenfallen von zwei Verboten stattfindet. ", + "Wer einen Fetus in Milch kocht, hat das Verbot übertreten, ebenso wer es isst; wer aber eine Nachgeburt, Haut, Adern, Knochen, Knorpel oder Hufen in Milch kocht, ist freizusprechen, und so auch wenn er sie isst. ", + "Ist Fleisch in Milch, oder Milch in Fleisch gekommen, und Beides wurde zusammen gekocht, so ist zur Bedingung des Verbotes der Geschmack hier maßgebend. Wenn z.B. ein Stück Fleisch in einen Topf siedender Milch hineinfiel, so möge ein Nichtjude das Gekochte schmecken und angeben, ob es einen Fleischgeschmack hat oder nicht, im ersten Falle ist es verboten, im zweiten Falle bleibt die Suppe erlaubt, das Stück Fleisch aber verboten. Dies gilt jedoch nur, wenn man das Stück Fleisch schnell, noch bevor es die eingesogene Milch herauslassen konnte, herausnahm; geschah dies nicht, so muss man sich nach dem Maßstab des Sechzigfachen richten, weil die vom Fleische eingesogene Milch wieder herauskam, und mit dem Übrigen sich vermengte. ", + "Kam Milch in einen Topf mit Fleisch, so schmecke man das Stück Fleisch, worauf die Milch kam: ist kein Milchgeschmack wahrzunehmen, so ist alles erlaubt; ist der Milchgeschmack vorhanden, so ist dieses Stück Fleisch verboten, selbst wenn nach dem Ausdrücken des Fleisches gar kein Milchgeschmack bleiben sollte; was das Übrige anbetrifft, so ist es erlaubt, wenn im ganzen Topfe, Fleisch, Grünwerk, Suppe usw. zusammengerechnet, sechzig Mal so viel als das verbotene Stück enthalten ist. ", + "Dies jedoch gilt nur dann, wenn man den Topf beim Hereinkommen der Milch nicht durchgerührt, sondern es zuletzt getan, und da auch ohne den Topf zugedeckt zu haben; wenn man aber das Gekochte durchrührte, oder wenn man den Topf beim Hereinkommen der Milch zudeckte und ihn so bis zuletzt ließ, so wird das Verbot schon durch den Milchgeschmack bedingt; dasselbe gilt, wenn Milch in die Suppe kam, oder auf mehrere Stücke Fleisch, ohne dass man wüsste auf welche namentlich; man hat dann das Ganze umzurühren, damit alles untereinander vermischt werde und dann schmecke man, ob in der ganzen Speise ein Milchgeschmack zu merken ist; findet man diesen, so bleibt sie verboten, findet man ihn nicht heraus, so ist sie erlaubt. Findet man keinen Nichtjuden, der die Speise schmecken könnte, um sich auf sein Urteil zu verlassen, so ist das Sechzigfache wiederum als maßgebend zu betrachten, gleichviel ob Milch in Fleisch, oder Fleisch in Milch kam; wenn daher das Verbotene Einsechszig-Teil der ganzen Speise ausmacht, so ist sie erlaubt, macht es aber mehr aus, so ist sie verboten. ", + "In einem Topfe, in dem Fleisch gekocht wurde, darf man keine Milch kochen; hat man es getan, so wird das Verbot durch den Geschmack bedingt. ", + "Das Euter ist laut Vorschrift der Weisen zu essen verboten, denn Fleisch, welches in der Milch bereits geschlachteter Tiere gekocht ist, unterliegt laut Vorschrift der Tora dem Verbote nicht, wie wir es bereits erklärt; wenn man daher das Euter zerreißt und die Milch ausgießt, so ist es erlaubt, dasselbe gebraten zu essen; wurde es aber kreuz und quer zerrissen und in der Luft getrocknet, so dass gar keine Milchfeuchtigkeit nachblieb, so ist es erlaubt es sogar mit Fleisch zu kochen; ein nicht zerrissenes Euter hingegen darf von vornherein nicht gekocht werden, wobei es sich ganz gleich bleibe, ob es von einem jungen Vieh, das noch nicht säugen konnte, oder von einem großgewachsenen Vieh ist; hat man aber bereits das Euter gekocht, so kommt es darauf an, ob es allein gekocht wurde, in welchem Falle auch der Genuss desselben erlaubt ist, oder ob es mit anderem Fleisch zusammen gekocht wurde, sodass wiederum das Sechzigfache maßgebend wird, wobei das Fleisch des Euters selbst auch mitgerechnet werden kann. ", + "Wenn nämlich die ganze Speise mit dem Euter zusammengenommen, sechzig Mal so viel als das Euter allein ausmacht, so bleibt bloß das Euter verboten, die Speise aber erlaubt; war die Speise weniger als neunundfünfzig Mal, nach der Quantität des Euters, so bleibt die ganze Speise verboten; in beiden Fällen aber bewirkt das so gekochte Euter ein Verbot, wenn es in einen anderen Topf fällt, so dass dann das volle Maaß des Sechzigfachen im zweiten Topfe maßgebend sein muss, um die Speise desselben als erlaubt zu erklären; wobei man aber nicht mehr die ursprüngliche Größe des Euters in Betracht zieht, sondern die, welche sich nach dem Kochen desselben herausstellt. ", + "Man darf das Euter, welches vom Fleische weggeschnitten wurde, nicht an einem Bratspieße braten; ist es aber bereits geschehen, so ist es ganz erlaubt. ", + "Hat man den Magen samt dem milchartigen Saft desselben gekocht, so ist er erlaubt, denn dieser Saft ist keine Milch, sondern ist nichts mehr als wie Schmutz zu betrachten, der sich in den Eingeweiden verändert. ", + "Es ist verboten, Milch in der Magenhaut eines geschlachteten Viehes gerinnen zu lassen, ist es jedoch bereits geschehen, so schmecke man den Käse, und ist darin Fleischgeschmack, so ist er verboten, wenn aber nicht, so ist er erlaubt, weil der Gegenstand, welcher das Gerinnen hervorbringt, doch an und für sich erlaubt ist, da doch der Magen aus einem gehörig geschlachteten Vieh kommt; es bliebe bloß noch das Verbot wegen Fleisch in Milch gekocht übrig, welches aber erst dann in Kraft tritt, wenn der Geschmack bemerkbar ist. Lässt man aber den Käse in die Magenhaut gefallener, zerrissener oder unreiner Tiere gerinnen, so wird der Käse nicht wegen Fleisch in Milch gekocht verboten, sondern als von gefallenen Tieren kommend; aus dergleichen Besorgnis stammte das allgemeine Verbot, von Heiden zubereiteten Käse zu essen, wie wir es bereits erklärt. ", + "Liegt Fleisch abgesondert von Milch, so sind beide erlaubt; erst durch die Vermischung beider im Kochen werden sie verboten; diese Vermischung bewirkt aber dann erst das Verbot, wenn beide zusammen gekocht worden sind, oder wenn heiße Speise in kalte, oder auch kalte Speise in heiße gefallen; fällt aber eine dieser Speisen heiß in eine andere die kalt ist, so beschneide man das Fleisch, welches von der Milch berührt worden, und esse beides. Ebenso hat man, wenn Kaltes in Kaltes gefallen, das Stück Fleisch nur abzuspülen, sodass man es essen darf. Daher ist es auch erlaubt, Fleisch und Käse in einem Tuche zu halten, wenn sie sich nur nicht berühren; haben sie sich aber berührt, so hat man beide Gegenstände abzuspülen, sodass sie gegessen werden dürfen. ", + "Stark gesalzenes Fleisch, das wegen des vielen Satzes nicht gegessen werden kann, ist mit einer heißen Suppe zu vergleichen; kann es aber wohl gegessen werden, so dass man es mit der babylonischen Brühe vergleichen könnte, so ist es nicht wie eine heiße Suppe zu betrachten. ", + "Fiel ein geschlachteter Vogel in Milch, oder eine Brühe, in der sich Milch befand, so hat man ihn, wenn er noch roh hineinfiel, bloß abzuspülen, war er aber gebraten, so ziehe man ihm die Haut ab, sodass er erlaubt ist; hatte er aber Einschnitte, oder war er stark gewürzt und fiel in Milch, oder in eine Milchbrühe, so ist er verboten. ", + "Es ist untersagt, Geflügel zugleich mit Käse zum Mahl aufzutischen, weil die Gewohnheit Einen leicht verleiten könnte, auch beides zusammen zu essen; — dieses Gebot rührt von den Rabbinen her. ", + "Zwei Kostgänger, die sich einander nicht kennen, dürfen, der eine Fleisch, der andere Käse, an einem Tische essen, weil keiner von beiden so leicht Verlangen tragen wird, den andern zum Essen einzuladen. ", + "Man darf nicht Teig in Milch kneten, hat man es getan, so ist der Teig verboten, weil man leicht versucht sein könnte, das Brot mit Fleisch zu essen; eben so wenig darf man den Backofen mit Fett ausschmieren, aus Besorgnis, man könnte nachher mit dem Brot Milch essen; ist es bereits geschehen, so muss man den Ofen von Neuem heizen, sonst wäre alles darin gebackene Brot verboten; hat man aber die Form des Brotes verändert, so dass man es vor anderen Broten erkennen könnte, um damit weder Fleisch noch Milch (je nachdem das Verbot es erheischt) zu essen, so ist das Brot erlaubt. ", + "Brot im Ofen gebacken, während daselbst auch Fleisch gebraten wurde, und Fische mit Fleisch gebraten, dürfen nicht mit Milch gegessen werden; hat man aus einer Schüssel Fleisch gegessen und später darin Fische gekocht, so dürfen diese Fische wohl mit einer Milchbrühe gegessen werden. ", + "Hat man mit einem Messer vorher gebratenes Fleisch, darauf Radieschen und dergleichen scharfe Gewächse geschnitten, so dürfen diese nicht mit einer Milchbrühe gegessen werden; schnitt man aber mit ihm entweder harte oder nicht scharfe Dinge, so hat man bloß die Stelle, wo geschnitten wurde, abzuschaben, sodass letzteres mit Milch gegessen werden darf. ", + "Man darf nicht einen Krug Salz neben eine Milchbrühe stellen, weil das Salz den Dampf einzieht; es könnte nämlich Fleisch mit diesem Salz gekocht werden, nachdem dieses Salz schon Milchgeschmack hätte; Essig aber darf wohl neben eine heiße Milchbrühe gestellt werden, weil Essig nicht anzieht. ", + "Isst man Käse oder Milch zuerst, so kann man bald darauf Fleisch essen; nur hat man zwischen Käse und Fleisch die Hände abzuwaschen und den Mund zur einigen; die Reinigung des Mundes wird schon durch das Kauen von Brot oder Früchten, die man herunterschlucken oder ausspeien kann, bewirkt; hiervon eine Ausnahme machen blas Datteln, Mehl und Grünigkeiten, die nicht so gut reinigen. ", + "Dies gilt jedoch im Ganzen nur vom Fleische eines Haus- oder wilden Tieres; isst man aber Geflügel nach Käse oder Milch, so braucht man weder den Mund zu reinigen, noch die Hände zu waschen. ", + "Wer aber früher Fleisch isst, gleichviel ob Fleisch von Vieh oder Geflügel, darf bis ungefähr zu einem zweiten Mahle keine Milchspeise essen, — was ungefähr sechs Stunden dauert, und zwar geschieht dies wegen des zwischen den Zähnen gebliebenen Fleisches. " + ], + [ + "Verbotene Getreide
Alle Verbote, die wir bis jetzt angeführt, beziehen sich bloß auf Gattungen lebendiger Wesen; nun gibt es noch außerdem Verbote, die die Schrift über Erdfrüchte erlassen, nämlich in Betreff des jungen Getreides (Hadaschim), der Weinbergsmischsaaten (Kilei haKerem), des Unverzehnteten (Tewel) und des Vorreifen (Orla). ", + "Unter jungem Getreide ist zu verstehen, dass man von der frischen Ernte der fünf Getreidearten, bevor das Omer (Getreideopfer) am sechszehnten des Monats Nissan dargebracht wurde, nicht essen durfte, denn es heißt: »Brot, gedörrte und geriebene Ähren, sollt ihr nicht essen« (Lev. 23:14), Wer das Quantum einer Olive von diesem frischen Getreide vor der Darbringung des Omers aß, erhielt laut Vorschrift der Tora, aller Zeiten und aller Orten, sowohl im gelobten Lande als im Auslande, sowohl während des Bestehens des Tempels, als nach dieser Zeit, die Geißelung; der Unterschied bestand nur darin, dass, solange der Tempel besteht, das frische Getreide in Jerusalem alsbald nach der Darbringung des Omers zu essen erlaubt wurde; seitdem der Tempel nicht existiert, ist es laut Vorschrift der Tora den ganzen sechszehnten Nissan hindurch verboten, frisches Getreide zu essen; jetzt aber, wo man zwei Feiertage feiert, ist es nach der Bestimmung der Weisen auch den ganzen siebenten Nissan hindurch verboten. ", + "Isst Jemand Brot, gedörrte und zerriebene Ähren, von jedem das Quantum einer Olive, so verfällt er der dreifachen Geißelung, denn es heißt: »Brot, gedörrte und zerriebene Ähren, sollt ihr nicht essen«, (ebenda) was die Tradition dahin erläuterte, dass auf den Genuss eines jeden der drei ein besonderes Verbot steht. ", + "Getreide, welches vor der Darbringung des Omers Wurzel gefasst, wird durch die Darbringung des Omers schon zum Essen erlaubt, selbst wenn es erst nach Darbringung des Omers reif wurde; Getreide, das aber erst nach Darbringung des Omers Wurzel gefasst, bleibt, obgleich es vor Darbringung des Omers gesät wurde, verboten bis zur Darbringung des Omers im nächsten Jahre; diese Bestimmung bleibt aller Zeiten und aller Orten, nach Vorschrift der Tora, in Kraft. ", + "Wenn Getreide, welches Wurzel gefasst, nach Darbringung des Omers geschnitten und dann wieder Teilweise zur Aussaat benutzt wurde, aber so, dass als das zweite Omer dargebracht wurde, diese zweite Aussaat sich noch im Boden befand (nämlich noch ohne Wurzel gefasst zu haben), — so ist es zweifelhaft, ob das zweite Omer diese zweite Aussaat erlaubt macht, ganz gleich als wenn sie im Fasse lagen; oder nicht erlaubt macht, weil sie im Boden gleichsam aufhörten eingeerntetes Getreide zu sein; wenn nun Jemand von diesen Körnern Etwas aufliest und verzehrt, so bekommt er zwar nicht die große Geißelung, doch aber die Mardut.Ebenso verhält es sich mit Ähren, deren ein Drittel vor Darbringung des Omers reifte, dann entwurzelt und erst nach Darbringung des Omers wieder eingepflanzt wird, so dass diese Ähren noch reiften; — es bleibt nämlich zweifelhaft, ob sie wegen der später gereiften zwei Drittel bis zum nächsten Omer-Opfer verboten bleiben sollen, oder, da sie doch das erste Mal vor Darbringung des Omer-Opfers Wurzel gefasst, sie auch durch das erste Omer-Opfer erlaubt sein sollen. ", + "Unter Weinbergsmischfrüchten versteht man Getreide oder Grünes, welches zwischen den Weinstöcken gesät wurde, wobei es sich ganz gleichbleibt, ob ein Israelit oder ein Nichtisraelit es gesät, oder ob es von selbst ausgewachsen, oder ob man den Weinstock zwischen das Grüne gepflanzt, — jedenfalls bleiben Weinstöcke und Getreide, oder Grünwerk, sowohl zum Essen als zur Nutznießung verboten, denn es heißt: »Damit nicht ausgeartet (entweiht) werde die Fülle der Saat die du säen wirst, so wie auch die Lese des Weinbergs« (Deut. 22:9), was so viel sagen will, als: Du könntest durch Übertretung beides verboten machen. ", + "Wer nun das Quantum einer Olive von Weinbergsmischfrüchten, gleichviel ob von Grünem oder Weintrauben, isst, verfällt laut Vorschrift der Tora der Geißelung; beide Gewächse werden zusammengerechnet, um dieses Quantum zu bilden. ", + "Dies gilt jedoch nur dann, wenn diese Mischsaat im gelobten Lande stattfand, im Auslande aber sind die Weinbergsmischfrüchte bloß nach Vorschrift der Weisen verboten; in der Abhandlung über Mischfrüchte wird auseinandergesetzt werden, welche Gattung von Gewächsen als Weinbergsmischfrüchte verboten sind und welche es nicht sind, wann das Verbot beginnt, welcher Gegenstand »die Entweihung« bedingt und welcher nicht. ", + "Unter Vorreifem hat man alle die Früchte zu verstehen, welche ein fruchttragender Baum in den ersten drei Jahren nach seiner Pflanzung liefert; diese dürfen weder zum Essen, noch zu einer anderweitigen Nutznießung verbraucht werden, denn es heißt: »Drei Jahre soll es für Euch als unbeschnitten betrachtet sein, das nicht gegessen werden darf«; wer nun davon das Quantum einer Olive isst, verfällt nach dem Ausspruch der Tora der Geißelung. ", + "Dies gilt aber auch nur, wenn man im gelobten Lande Bäume pflanzt, denn es heißt: »Wenn Ihr kommt nach dem Lande« usw., im Auslande hingegen ist das Verbot über vorreife Früchte als Tradition Moses vom Berge Sinai her folgendes: die zuverlässig als vorreif anerkannten Früchte sind verboten, erlaubt aber, wenn es zweifelhafte sind; in der Abhandlung über den zweiten Zehnt werden alle Gattungen, die als vorreif verboten sind, wie auch die erlaubt sind, auseinandergesetzt werden. ", + "Im gelobten Lande sind sogar auch zweifelhaft vorreife und zweifelhafte Weinbergsmischfrüchte verboten; in Syrien, nämlich in den Ländern, die König David eroberte, sind solche zweifelhafte Früchte erlaubt; wenn nun außerhalb eines unbeschnittenen Weinberges Weintrauben verkauft werden, oder wenn im Weinberge auch Grünigkeiten gesät waren und außerhalb derselben Grünigkeiten verkauft werden, wobei es zweifelhaft ist, ob die verkauften Früchte aus diesem Weinberge kommen oder aus einem andern, so sind sie in Syrien erlaubt; im Auslande sind sie sogar dann erlaubt, wenn man Weintrauben aus einem unbeschnittenen Weinberge heraustragen gesehen, wenn man nur nicht gesehen, wie die Weintrauben geradezu von den unbeschnittenen Weinstöcken abgepflückt, oder wie die Grünigkeiten aus dem Weinberge mit der Hand gerissen wurden. ", + "Ein Weinberg, von dem gezweifelt wird, ob er nicht unbeschnitten sei, oder aus Mischfrüchten bestehe, ist im gelobten Lande verboten, in Syrien erlaubt, und umso mehr im Auslande. ", + "Findet man ein Fass Wein versteckt in einem unbeschnittenen Weinberge, so ist es verboten, ihn zu trinken, aber erlaubt zu anderweitiger Benutzung, weil ein Dieb schwerlich das Gestohlene an demselben Orte verstecken wird, wo er den Diebstahl begangen; findet man aber daselbst Weintrauben versteckt, so sind sie verboten, weil sie daselbst gepflückt und versteckt sein können. ", + "Waren ein Nichtjude und ein Israelit gemeinschaftliche Teilnehmer einer Pflanzung, so ist der Umstand zu berücksichtigen: ob von vornherein (bei der Anlegung des Weinberges) die Abmachung getroffen wurde, dass der Nichtjude die ersten drei Jahre der Orla und der Israelit hingegen das zweite erlaubte Triennium benutze, — in welchem Falle die Benutzung der Früchte erlaubt ist; hat man aber nicht von vornherein diese Abmachung getroffen, so ist es verboten, diese Früchte in Anschlag zu bringen, nämlich zu berechnen, wie viel Früchte der Nichtjude in den drei Orla - Jahren gegessen, damit der Israelit später eben so viel als Abschlag essen solle; eine solche Abmachung ist verboten, weil dies so zu betrachten wäre, als wenn man Orla - Früchte gegen andere eintauschte. ", + "Mir scheint es, dass das Gesetz über das vierte Jahr der Pflanzung, im Auslande gar keine Anwendung zu finden brauche, sondern könnte man die Früchte des vierten Jahres nach der Pflanzung ohne allen Erlös genießen, denn die Gelehrten haben bloß der eigentlichen Orla erwähnt. Dies lässt sich sogar vom Leichteren zum Schwereren schließen, da Syrien, welches zu den Zehenten und Siebenten, laut Vorschrift der Gelehrten, verpflichtet ist, die Früchte des vierten Jahres nicht einzulösen nötig hat, wie dies in der Abhandlung über den zweiten Zehnt erklärt werden wird; um wie viel mehr müsste nun das Ausland davon befreit sein, welches nicht einmal zum Zehnten verpflichtet ist? Im gelobten Lande aber bleibt das Gesetz über das vierte Jahr in voller Kraft, so während des Existierens des Tempels, als auch nach dieser Zeit. Einige Gaonim behaupteten, dass bloß der Weinberg im Auslande am vierten Jahre dem Erlös unterliege, und dann erst zum Genuss erlaubt sei, — was aber keine Begründung hat. ", + "Die Früchte des ganzen vierten Jahres nach der Pflanzung, sind im Lande Israels so lange verboten, bis sie eingelöst werden. In der Abhandlung über den zweiten Zehnt wird erklärt werden, wie die Einlösung geschieht, auf welche Weise der Genuss gestattet wird, und von welcher Zeit an man die drei Jahre der Vorreife, und das vierte Jahr zu rechnen anfängt. ", + "Heut zu Tage löst man die Pflanzen des vierten Jahres folgendermaßen ein: Sobald man sie eingesammelt, spricht man den Segen: »Gelobt seist Du, Ewiger, unser Gott, König der Welt, der uns geheiligt durch seine Gebote, und uns das Gesetz gegeben, wegen Einlösung der Pflanzen des vierten Jahres«. Darauf kann Alles, sogar durch eine einzige Prutha, eingelöst werden, indem man spricht: »Mögen diese Früchte durch diese Prutha eingelöst sein«, sodass man letztere ins tote Meer zu werfen hat; auch kann man diese Früchte durch andere Fruchte vom Wert einer Prutha ersetzen (substituieren), wobei man zu sprechen hat: »Mögen alle diese Früchte auf diesen Weizen- oder Gerstenhaufen ausgetauscht sein«; darauf verbrennt man letztere, damit nicht Andere durch sie sich vergingen, dann dürfen alle jene Früchte gegessen werden. ", + "Einige der Gaonim haben entschieden, dass man die Früchte des 4ten Jahres, wenn man sie auch eingelöst oder substituiert, doch nicht essen dürfe bis das 5te Jahr begonnen; dieses Gesetz ist aber durch nichts begründet; mir scheint sogar, dass dies eine irrtümliche Entscheidung und Folge der Missdeutung des Verses: »Und am fünften Jahre sollt Ihr seine Frucht essen«, (Lev. 19:25) sei, da der Sinn dieser Worte doch nur der ist, dass man am 5ten Jahre, die Früchte des Weinberges ohne allen Erlös essen dürfe, wie überhaupt alle Gemeinfrüchte, und folglich hat man auf jene Entscheidung keine Rücksicht zu nehmen. ", + "Unter Unverzehntetem (Tewel) versteht man jede Speise, die der Priesterhebe und den Zehnten unterliegt, was Tewel genannt wird, — so lange sie diesen Abgaben noch nicht unterzogen war; deren Genuss ist verboten, denn es heißt: »Und nicht entweihen sollen sie hie Heiligtümer der Kinder Israels, das, was sie dem Ewigen absondern werden«; was so viel sagen will, als: sie mögen mit solchen Gegenständen nicht so umgehen, wie mit Gemeingütern, so lange die Heiligtümer, die davon zu entheben sind, noch nicht abgenommen worden. Wer nun das Quantum einer Olive von diesem Tewel, bevor die große Priester- und Zehntenhebe abgenommen wurde, genießt, verwirkt die Todesstrafe durch Gotteshand, denn es heißt: »Nicht entweihen sollen sie die Heiligtümer … und auf sie die Strafe einer Schuld bringen«. ", + "Wer aber von einer solchen Speise, von der zwar die große und Zehntenpriesterhebe bereits abgenommen, noch nicht aber die einfachen Zehenten enthoben wurden, und sollte auch nur der Armenzehnt nachgeblieben sein, genießt, verfällt der Geißelung für den Genuss des Tewels; dies verwirkt indessen nicht die Todesstrafe, weil die Todsünde bloß im Genuss der großen und Zehntenpriesterhebe liegt. ", + "Eine Warnung gegen den Genuss des Tewels, von dem die Zehnten noch nicht enthoben sind, befindet sich im Allgemeinen im Verse: »Du kannst nicht essen in deinen Toren den Zehenten deines Getreides«. In der Abhandlung über Priesterhebe und Zehnten, wird auseinandergesetzt werden, welche Gegenstände der Bestimmung der Priesterhebe und der Zehnten unterliegen, welche nicht, welche laut Vorschrift der Tora, und welche bloß laut Bestimmung der Gelehrten, den Eigentümer zu diesen Abgaben verpflichten. Derjenige nun, der das Quantum einer Olive von Getreide isst, das bloß nach Bestimmung der Rabbinen als Tewel betrachtet wird, oder derjenige, welcher im Auslande von den Mischfrüchten des Weinberges und dem Vorreifen genießt, verfällt bloß der Mardut-Geißelung. ", + "Das Unverzehnte, das Frische, das Geheiligte, die Spätsaat des siebenten Jahres, die Mischfrüchte, das Vorreife bedingen auch, ganz wie sie selbst, das Verbot derjenigen Getränke, die aus ihnen gemacht werden; jedoch ohne dass man durch deren Genuss die Geißelung verwirkte. Eine Ausnahme hiervon machen der Wein und das Öl der vorreifen, und der Wein der Weinbergsmischfrüchte, auf deren Genuss die Geißelung ganz so folgt, wie auf Oliven und Weintrauben selbst. ", + "Bei den Heiligtümern gibt es noch andere Speisenverbote, die sämtlich von der Tora selbst verhängt wurden, wie z. B. das Verbotene beim Genuss der Priesterhebe, der Erstlingsfrüchte, der Teighebe, des zweiten Zehnten, und wiederum die Verbote, welche die Allerheiligtümer treffen, so z. B. das Überdauerte, das Nachgebliebene, das Verunreinigte — jedes dieser Verbote wird nun an Ort und Stelle gehörig erörtert werden. ", + "Das Maß des Genusses, welches diese Verbote bedingt, ist das Quantum einer Olive, sowohl für die Strafe der Geißelung, als für die Vertilgung; in der Abhandlung über Ungesäuertes und Gesäuertes, haben wir bereits das Verbot: das letztere am Pessachfeste zu essen, mit allen seinen Nebenbestimmungen erörtert; das Verbot des Essens am Versöhnungstage ist aber ein Verbot ganz eigener Art; ebenso ist das Verbot alles dessen, was vom Weinstocke herstammt, welches Verbot bloß den Nasir (Gottgeweihten) trifft, nicht allgemein unveränderlich; daher werden wir die Verbote jedes dieser Gegenstände, wie auch die Maße des Genusses, gehörigen Orts auseinandersetzen. " + ], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "Vermischung von Verboten
Bei allen Verboten der Schrift, die sich auf Essen beziehen, bedingt das Quantum einer mittelmäßigen Olive dieses Verbot, ganz gleich ob es in Bezug auf die Geißelung, oder die Strafe der Vertilgung, oder auch auf den Tod durch das himmlische Gericht gilt; wir haben bereits erklärt, dass Derjenige, welcher durch Essen die Strafe der Vertilgung oder des himmlischen Gerichts verwirkt, auch die Geißelung bekommt. ", + "Diese Maßgabe sowohl, als sämtliche übrige Maßbestimmungen sind eine Überlieferung Moses vom Berge Sinai her. — Laut der Schrift ist es aber auch verboten, von einer verbotenen Speise, wenn auch noch so wenig, zu genießen; die große Geißelung folgt indessen nur auf den Genuss vom Quantum einer Olive, wer aber weniger als dieses Maaß isst, bekommt bloß die Mardut- Geißelung. ", + "Wenn man beim Verzehren von dem Quantum einer Olive spricht, so wird darunter nicht mitbegriffen das, was während des Essens zwischen den Zähnen, wohl aber, was hinter den Kinnladegelenken bleibt, wobei der Schlund von dem Quantum einer Olive schon Genuss hat; sogar wenn man die Hälfte einer Olive aß und es hochwürgte und dasselbe wieder aß, ist man strafbar. Die Strafe wird also nur durch den Genuss für den Schlund, in dem Quantum einer Olive, von einer verbotenen Speise verwirkt. ", + "Wurde das Quantum einer Olive von Talg, gefallenem, profaniertem oder überdauertem Opferfleisch und dergl. in die Sonne gelegt, wo es eintrocknete, so ist der es Verzehrende von der Strafe frei; legte man es aber nachher auf eine feuchte Stelle, so dass es wieder ausdünstete, so verwirkt man durchs Essen desselben die Strafe der Vertilgung oder der Geißelung; war es anfänglich weniger als das Quantum einer Olive, wurde aber ausgedünstet bis zur Größe einer Olive, so ist es zwar verboten, man verfällt jedoch nicht durch den Genuss desselben der Geißelung. ", + "Wir haben bereits erklärt, dass die verbotenen Gegenstände, die in der Schrift jeder besonders, aufgezählt sind, nicht untereinander zugezogen werden, um das Quantum einer Olive zu bilden; ausgenommen das Fleisch von Gefallenem mit dem Fleische von Zerrissenem, und die dem Nasir verbotenen Gegenstände untereinander, — was an Ort und Stelle auseinandergesetzt werden wird; so werden auch die bekannten fünf Getreidearten, deren Mehl und Teigsorten, untereinander zugezogen, um das Quantum einer Olive zu bilden, ganz gleich, ob in Bezug auf das Verbot des gesäuerten, oder des frischen Getreides vor dem Omer-Opfer, oder des zweiten Zehnten, oder der Priesterheben. ", + "Mir scheint es, dass alle Gegenstände, die Priesterheben und Zehntenpflichtig sind, untereinander zugezogen werden müssen, um das Quantum einer Olive von Unverzehntetem zu bilden, weil sie alle unter eine Kategorie gehören, ganz gleich, wie das Fleisch von einem gefallenen Ochsen, Schafe und Hirsche unter sich zugerechnet werden, um das Quantum einer Olive zu bilden, wie wir' es bereits erklärt haben. ", + "Wer sich satt isst an einer verbotenen Speise, verwirkt nicht die Strafe der Geißelung oder der Vertilgung (dies hat seine Wichtigkeit für die Buße) für jedes Stückchen von dem Quantum einer Olive, sondern nur eine einmalige Bestrafung für das ganze Essen; waren aber Zeugen da, die ihn während des Essens bei jedem Quantum einer Olive warnten, so verwirkt er die Strafe für jede unbeachtete Warnung, obgleich er sein Essen ununterbrochen fortgesetzt hatte. ", + "Isst Jemand von einer der verbotenen Speisen ein Stückchen wie eine Gerste, oder wie ein Senfkorn groß, unterbricht sich etwas und nimmt abermals so ein Stückchen zu sich, und so weiter mit Unterbrechungen, bis das Quantum einer Olive voll wird, wobei es sich ganz gleich bleibt, ob es absichtslos oder mutwillig geschah, immer werden diese kleinen Stückchen zusammengerechnet, wenn es vom Anfange des Essens bis zum Ende nur so lange gedauert hat, als man braucht, drei Eier zu verzehren, und man verwirkt so die Strafe der Vertilgung oder der Geißelung, oder es ist ein Sühnopfer erforderlich, ganz wie wenn er das Quantum einer Olive auf einmal verzehrt. Dauert es aber länger als die oben angegebene Zeit vom Anfange bis zum Ende des Essens, mögen nun die Unterbrechungen auch von gar keiner Dauer gewesen sein, sondern verzehrt er Stückchen, wie Senfkörner groß, ununterbrochen, wenn nur nicht das Quantum einer Olive in dem bestimmten Zeitraum eines Zubisses verzehrt wurde, so werden sie nicht zusammengerechnet, und der Genießende ist frei von der Strafe. ", + "Ebendasselbe gilt, wenn man ein Quart von zweifelhaft heidnischem Wein schluckweise trinkt, oder wenn man Gesäuertes am Pessachfeste, oder Talg auflöst und es allmählich verschluckt; oder wenn man Blut tropfenweise trinkt; immer kommt es darauf an, ob es vom Anfange bis zum Ende des Trinkens so lange dauerte, wie viel es erforderlich ist, ein Quart zu trinken, sodass die Schlückchen zusammengerechnet werden, wenn aber länger, so werden sie nicht zusammengerechnet. ", + "Alle verbotenen Speisen bewirken nur dann eine Strafe, wenn man sie auf die gewöhnliche Art des Genießens verzehrt; ausgenommen sind: Fleisch in Milch gekocht, und die Weinbergsmischsaaten, weil bei diesen Gegenständen nicht der Ausdruck »essen« in der Schrift stattfindet, sondern wird das Verbot des Essens derselben durch eine andere Wendung ausgedrückt, nämlich durch Kochen und durch Geheiligtwerden, woraus zu schließen ist, dass der Genuss derselben verboten ist, wenn er auch nicht auf die gewöhnliche Art stattgefunden. ", + "Z.B. Wenn man Talg hat schmelzen lassen und es verschluckte, so lange es siedend war, so dass die Gurgel verbrannte, oder wenn man rohen Talg isst, oder wenn man bittere Gegenstände, wie Wermut oder Bitterkraut, in Libationswein oder in eine Suppe von gefallenem Fleisch einmischt und sie so verzehrt, oder wenn man eine verbotene Speise, nachdem sie in Fäulnis übergegangen, und üblen Geruch bekommt, so dass sie nicht mehr als Speise zulässig ist, genießt, so ist man frei von der Strafe; hat man aber bittere Gegenstände in eine Suppe von Fleisch in Milch getan oder in Wein von Weinbergsmischfrüchten, eingelegt und sie verzehrt, so ist man straffällig. ", + "Wenn Jemand eine von den verbotenen Speisen scherzweise, oder in Gedanken verzehrt, selbst wenn er gar nicht an den eigentlichen Genuss des Essens denkt, so ist er ebenso straffällig, als wenn seine Absicht auf den Genuss gerichtet wäre, indem der Genuss doch wirklich stattgefunden; ein Genuss der Jemandem wider seinen Willen beigebracht wird, in irgend welchen verbotenen Gegenständen es auch sei, ist als verboten zu betrachten, wenn man dabei die Absicht des Genusses hat, und als erlaubt, wenn man nach dem Genuss nicht strebt. ", + "Isst Jemand eine verbotene Speise, um seine Lüsternheit oder seinen Hunger zu stillen, so ist er straffällig; war man aber in der Wüste verwirrt, so dass man nichts außer den verbotenen Gegenständen zu essen gefunden, so ist der Genuss erlaubt, wegen Lebensgefahr. ", + "Hat eine schwangere Frau eine verbotene Speise gerochen und darnach verlangt wie z. B. Opfer- oder Schweinefleisch, so gebe man ihr zuerst von der Suppe desselben, wenn sie dadurch beruhigt wird, so bleibt es dabei, wenn nicht, so gebe man ihr ein Quantum, das nicht die Straffälligkeit bedingt; wird sie aber auch dann nicht beruhigt, so gebe man ihr so lange davon zu essen, bis sie beruhigt wird.", + "Eben so ist's mit einem Kranken, der Etwas riecht, worin eine Säure oder dergleichen enthalten ist, was den Lebensgeist aufregt; — er ist in dieser Hinsicht ganz wie eine schwangere Frau zu behandeln. ", + "Wenn aber Jemanden der Heißhunger befällt, so kann man ihm unverzüglich verbotene Speisen so lange zu essen geben, bis seine Augen wieder hell werden; in einem solchen Falle suche man nicht erst nach erlaubten Speisen, sondern beeile sich, ihm darzureichen, was vorgefunden wird, bloß hat man ihm zuerst das leicht Verbotene zu reichen und es dabei bewenden zu lassen, wenn seine Augen sich dabei aufheitern; wenn es aber nicht genügt, gebe man ihm auch das streng Verbotene. ", + "Wenn z.B. vor uns Unverzehntetes und Gefallenes da war, so gebe man ihm zuerst das Fleisch von Gefallenem, weil auf Unverzehntetes die Todesstrafe steht; ist Gefallenes und der Nachwuchs vom Jobeljahre da, so gebe man ihm zuerst den Nachwuchs vom Schmitajahre der bloß laut Vorschrift der Rabbinen verboten ist, wie es in der Abhandlung über das Erlaßjahr erörtert werden soll; ist Unverzehntetes und Getreide vom Erlaßjahre da, so gebe man zuerst das Getreide vom Erlaßjahre; ist Unverzehrrtetes und Priesterhebe da, und es ist nicht möglich, das Unverzehntete zu verzehnten, so gebe man zuerst von diesem, weil nichts so heilig ist als die Priestechebe; und so in anderen Fällen mehr. ", + "Wir haben bereits erklärt, dass ein zweites Verbot keinen bereits verbotenen Gegenstand treffen kann, außer wenn zwei Verbote auf einmal den Gegenstand treffen, oder, dass das zweite Verbot etwas Neues hinzusetzt, oder ein allgemeines ist; daher kann es Fälle geben, wo man für den Genuss des Quantums einer Olive eine fünffache Geißelung verwirkt, wobei freilich eine Warnung vor Übertritt aller fünf vereinigten Verbote stattfinden muss. Wenn z.B. ein Verunreinigter das Quantum einer Olive Talg von dem überdauerten oder nachgebliebenen Opferfleisch am Versöhnungstage isst, so erhält er erstens die Geißelung wegen Genusses von Talg, zweitens wegen Genusses von Überdauertem, drittens wegen Genusses am Versöhnungstage, viertens wegen Genusses des Geheiligten in seinem Unreinheitszustande, und fünftens wegen Nutznießung und Missbrauch der heiligen Opfer. ", + "Warum aber trifft in solchen Fällen ein Verbot den bereits verbotenen Gegenstand? Weil von diesem Hausvieh anfangs der Talg bloß zum Essen verboten, aber zur Nutznießung erlaubt war, nach dessen Weihung aber als Opfer wird der Talg selbst zur Nutznießung verboten; da nun durch diesen Akt das Verbot der Nutznießung herbeigezogen wird, so ist schon das Verbot des Genusses der Opfer über dasselbe im Allgemeinen ausgedehnt; noch immer aber wäre dieser Talg erlaubt als Opfer dem Allerhöchsten, und bloß für irdischen Nutzen verboten: — sobald er aber überdauerte, so verfällt er dem Verbote, auch als Opfer gebraucht zu werden, und wird folglich für den Menschen desto strenger verboten; — außerdem wäre es dem Essenden im Allgemeinen erlaubt, das Fleisch des Hausviehs, nicht aber dessen Talg zu essen; wurde er unrein, so wird ihm dadurch auch der Genuss des Fleisches verboten; daher wird auch dieses Verbot auf den Talg ausgedehnt; dazu kommt endlich das Verbot, am Versöhnungstage zu essen: dieses Verbot ist nun ein allgemeines für alle Speisen, und da es sich auch auf nicht Heiliges ausdehnt, so wird es auch auf diesen Talg von neuem Einfluss; und so in dergleichen Fällen mehr. " + ], + [ + "Vermischung von Verboten
Wurde ein verbotener Gegenstand mit einem erlaubten vermischt, so ist für deren Genuss oder Verbot, wenn die Speisegattungen verschiedenartig waren, die durch die Mischung hervorgebrachte Geschmacksveränderung maßgebend; bei einer und derselben Gattung aber wo es nicht möglich ist die Veränderung des Geschmackes zu bestimmen, wird das Verbot vom Übermaße aufgehoben. ", + "Wenn z.B. Nierenfett in Grütze fällt und darin ganz zerschmilzt, so koste man die Grütze, und findet man keinen Nebengeschmack von Fett, so bleibt sie erlaubt; ist aber ein Fettgeschmack, und zugleich etwas Anfühlbares dabei wahrzunehmen, so ist sie laut der Tora verboten; ist aber bloß der Fettgeschmack da, ohne dass man etwas Anfühlbares vom Fett selbst wahrnimmt, so bleibt sie noch laut der Vorschrift der Rabbinen verboten. ", + "Was versteht man unter Anfühlbarem? Wenn z.B. das Quantum einer Olive Fett sich in einem Quantum von je drei Eiern von der vermischten Speise befindet, und man von dieser Grütze ein Quantum von drei Eiern isst, so verwirkt man die Geißelung, weil in diesem Quantum sich eine Olive groß Fett vorfand und der Geschmack des verbotenen Gegenstandes, wie auch seine Bestandteile, bemerkbar waren; aß man von einer solchen Mischung ein Quantum von weniger als drei Eiern, so verwirkt man laut Vorschrift der Rabbinen die Mardut - Geißelung; ebenso verwirkt man die bloße Mardut-Geißelung, wenn in der Mischung vom Quantum je dreier Eier nicht so viel wie eine Olive Fett war, sodass es sich gleich bleibt, ob auch in der Mischung ein Fettgeschmack wahrzunehmen war und auch eine ganze Schüssel voll davon gegessen wurde. ", + "Fiel Nierenfett in Schwanzfett, und wurden beide zusammen geschmolzen, aber in dem Verhältnisse, dass des erlaubten Fettes doppelt so viel war als des verbotenen, so ist laut der Tora Alles erlaubt; ja sogar wenn ein Stück von Gefallenem unter zwei Stücke von Geschlachtetem sich vermengte, so wäre Alles laut der Tora erlaubt; nach der Vorschrift der Rabbinen aber bleibt Alles so lange verboten, bis der verbotene Gegenstand seiner außerordentlichen Minorität wegen als annulliert zu betrachten, und als gar nicht beachtenswert anzusehen wäre. ", + "Wie gering aber muss der verbotene Gegenstand in Verhältnis zum Erlaubten sein, um als null und nichtig wegen der Minorität betrachtet zu werden. Die Weisen haben dieser Bestimmungen wegen festgesetzt, dass bei manchen Gegenständen das Verhältnis des verbotenen Gegenstandes wie eins zu sechzig, bei manchen wie eins zu hundert, und bei einigen wie einst zu zweihundert sein müsse. ", + "Hieraus folgt, dass alle von der Tora verbotenen Gegenstände, sowohl diejenigen, durch deren Genuss man die Geißelung oder die Vertilgung verwirkt, als auch die, deren Nutznießung sogar verboten ist, wenn sie sich mit erlaubten Speisen vermischen, in zwei Kategorien zerfallen; ist der verbotene Gegenstand der Gattung nach von der Mischung verschieden, so kommt es auf den Geschmack an; sind sie derselben Gattung, so dass man die Geschmacksveränderung nicht bestimmen kann, so ist das Verhältnis des Verbotenen zum Erlaubten entweder wie eins zu sechzig, oder wie eins zu hundert, oder wie eins zu zweihundert; ausgenommen hiervon sind indessen Libationswein, wegen der schweren Sünde des Götzendienstes, und Unverzehntetes, weil man es brauchbar machen kann; diese Gegenstände bewirken ein Verbot in einer Mischung derselben Gattung, selbst wenn nur ein Minimum sich vermengt, und ist das Hinzugekommene eine andere Gattung, so wird die Veränderung des Geschmackes bestimmend, wie bei allen andern verbotenen Gegenständen. ", + "Wurden z.B. auf einen einzigen Tropfen Libationswein mehrere Fässer erlaubten Weines gegossen, so wird aller Wein verboten, wie es erklärt werden soll; ebenso wenn ein Becher unverzehnteten Weines sich mit ganzen Fässern von erlaubtem vermengte, wird Alles so lange als unverzehntet betrachtet, bis man die Priesterheben und die Zehnten, die für die Mischung erforderlich sind, abgesondert, wie es an Ort und Stelle erklärt werden wird. ", + "Die Früchte vom Jobeljahr gehören nicht zur Zahl der verbotenen Gegenstände, obgleich sie durch das Mindeste auf homogene, und durch bloße Geschmacksveränderung auf heterogene Früchte in der Mischung ein Verbot bewirken; diese Mischung ist nämlich nicht verboten, sondern bloß in sofern als heilig zu betrachten, dass man sie wie einfache Jobeljahrsfrüchte im heiligen Zustande verzehren muss, wie es an Ort und Stelle erklärt werden wird. ", + "Sauerteig am Pessachfeste gehört auch nicht in jene allgemeine Regel, weil eine solche Mischung mit Ungesäuertem nicht auf immer verboten, sondern nach dem Pessachfeste wieder erlaubt ist, wie wir es bereits erklärt haben; daher bewirkt Gesäuertes auf eine Mischung mit Erlaubtem, ganz gleich ob letzteres homogen oder heterogen mit ersterem ist, ein Verbot durch ein Minimum. ", + "Ganz dasselbe gilt auch von frischem Getreide vor Darbringung des Omeropfers, nämlich dass ein Minimum desselben ein Verbot der Mischung mit Erlaubtem bewirkt, weil eben später, nach Darbringung des Omers, Alles zusammen erlaubt wird.Ebenso verhält es sich mit allen Gegenständen, die nur temporär verboten, nach einer gewissen Zeit aber wieder erlaubt werden, und wenn auch dieses Verbot ursprünglich bloß von den Schriftgelehrten herrührte, wie z.B. das Verbot des Abgesonderten (mukza) und das über das am Feiertage Geborene, so haben die Gelehrten doch kein Verhältnis der Mischung festgesetzt, sondern bestimmt, dass wenn auch das Verbotene zum Erlaubten sich wie Eins zu mehreren Tausenden verhält, es nicht annulliert werde, da doch immer ein Fall da ist, wo Alles erlaubt werden kann, ganz wie Heiligtümer, der zweite Zehent und dergl. ", + "Für vorreife Früchte aber (Orla) und Weinbergsmischfrüchte, Talg, Blut und dergl., wie auch für Priesterhebe, haben die Weisen wohl ein Verhältnis bestimmt, weil bei diesen Gegenständen kein verbotaufhebendes Mittel stattfindet. ", + "Mir scheint aber, dass selbst ein verbotener Gegenstand, für den es verbotaufhebende Mittel gibt, doch kein Verbot auf eine Mischung, die aus heterogenen Gegenständen besteht und auch keine Geschmacksveränderung spüren lässt, bewirkt, denn dieser Fall kann ja nicht strenger als Unverzehntes betrachtet werden, welches ebenfalls erlaubt gemacht werden kann, und dennoch in einer Mischung mit Heterogenem nur durch Geschmacksveränderung ein Verbot bewirkt, wie wir es bereits erklärt haben. Man hat sich nicht über die Mischung von Gesäuertem am Pessachfeste zu wundern (siehe § 9), denn da die Schrift dort ausdrücklich sagt: »Nichts Gesäuertes sollt ihr genießen«, so hat man dabei besonders strenge Maßregeln angewendet — wie wir es bereits erklärt haben. ", + "Folgende sind die Verhältnisbestimmungen, die die Weisen getroffen: Priesterhebe, Zehntenpriesterhebe, Brothebe (Chala) und Erstlingssfrüchte werden in 101 Teile aufgehoben, sodass es nötig ist, die Hebe herunterzunehmen; auch werden diese verschiedenen Gegenstände zusammengezogen, um das Quantum zu bilden; ebenso wenn ein Stück von geweihtem Schaubrot sich unter Nicht-Geweihtes mischte, wird es in hundert und ein Teile aufgehoben. Wenn z. B. ein Maaß Mehl einer dieser Gattungen, oder ein Maaß von allen diesen zusammengenommen, sich unter hundert Maaß Mehl vermischte, so hat man, von der ganzen Mischung, ein Maaß als Ersatz für das Maaß Geheiligtes, welches vermischt wurde, abzunehmen, sodass der ganze Rest für Jedermann erlaubt ist; — fiel es aber in weniger als hundert Maaß, so wird das ganze Quantum als zweifelhaft Heiliges angesehen. ", + "Vorreife und Weinbergsmischfrüchte werden in zwei hundert und eins aufgehoben; diese beiden Gattungen werden untereinander zusammengerechnet, um das erforderliche Quantum zu bilden; von der ganzen Mischung ist es aber nicht nötig, das verbotene Quantum abzunehmen. Wenn z.B. ein Quart Orla-Wein, oder Weinbergsmischfrüchtewein, oder ein Quart von diesen beiden zusammengenommen, unter zweihundert Quart erlaubten Weines sich vermischte, so ist Alles erlaubt, sodass man zumal nicht Ersatz für das eine Quart zu entheben nötig hat; kam es aber in weniger als zweihundert Maaß, so bleibt Alles für die Nutznießung verboten. ", + "Warum aber muss man für Priesterhebe von der Mischung Ersatz abnehmen und von vorreifen und Weinbergsmischfrüchten nicht? Weil jenes Eigentum der Priester ist; daher ist es auch bei solcher Priesterhebe nicht nötig, woran den Priestern nicht sehr gelegen ist, wie z. B. bei Eicheln, Johannisbrot, und den edomitischen Schoten. ", + "Warum hat man aber das Verhältnis für vorreife und Weinbergsfrüchte verdoppelt? Weil sie auch zur Nutznießung verboten sind. Warum hat man für Priesterhebe das Verhältnis von hundert angenommen? Weil die Zehntenpriesterhebe auch ein von hundert ist und Alles heilig macht (verboten), wie es auch heißt (Num. 18:29): »Seine Heiligkeit aus ihm«, was die Weisen auch dahin deuteten, dass, wenn ein Gegenstand, der enthoben worden, wieder hineinfällt, er das Ganze wiederum heilig (verboten) macht. ", + "Bei allen anderen verbotenen Gegenständen in der Schrift, wie z. B. bei Fleisch kriechender Tiere, Gewürme, Talg, Blut u. dergl., gilt das Verhältnis von eins zu sechzig; wenn z. B. das Quantum einer Olive Nierenfett unter ein sechzigfaches Quantum Schwanzfett vermischt wird, so ist Alles erlaubt; fiel es in ein kleineres Quantum als das sechzigfache, so ist Alles verboten; ebenso kann nur, wenn wie eine Gerste groß Talg unter erlaubtes Fett kam, ein sechzigfaches Quantum dasselbe annullieren; so auch bei andern verbotenen Gegenständen.Dasselbe gilt auch, wenn Fett von der Hüftader in einen Topf mit Fleisch hineinfällt, man berechnet dann das Verhältnis wie eins zu sechzig, wobei das verbotene Fett nicht mitgerechnet werden darf. Dieses Verbot findet hier seine Anwendung, obgleich das Fett der Hüftader bloß laut Vorschrift der Rabbinen verboten ist; da nämlich die Hüftader ein Verbotsgegenstand ganz eigener Art ist, so hat man damit strenger, ganz wie mit Verboten der Schrift, zu verfahren. Die Hüftader selbst aber unterliegt gar keinem Verhältnis und kann auch gar kein Verbot auf eine Mischung bewirken, weil durch Adern keine Geschmacksveränderung hervorgebracht werden kann. ", + "Wenn das Euter zusammen mit Fleisch gekocht wurde, so wird zwar auch das sechzigfache Quantum des Erlaubten erfordert, aber das Euter selbst auch zur Zahl mitgerechnet, (1 :59). Da nämlich das Euter mit Fleisch zu kochen bloß ein Verbot der Rabbinen ist, wie wir es oben erklärt, so haben sie es mit den Verhältnisbestimmungen für dasselbe auch ein wenig leichter genommen. ", + "Wurde ein Ei, worin ein Küklein sich angesetzt hatte, zusammen mit erlaubten Eiern abgekocht, so ist es erforderlich, dass der erlaubten Eier einundsechzig vorhanden seien, um diese erlaubt zu machen; waren der erlaubten Eier aber nur sechzig, so sind sie alle verboten; da nämlich so ein Ei ein Verbotsgegenstand eigener Art ist, so hat man daran ein Merkmal gemacht und das Verhältnis vergrößert. ", + "Ein Ei von einem unreinen Vogel aber, welches mit Eiern von reinem Geflügel abgekocht wurde, bewirkt auf diese kein Verbot; wurden jedoch Eier beider Gattungen zusammen zerschlagen, oder wurde das Ei eines unreinen oder zerrissenen Vogels mit andern Eiern zusammen eingerührt, so tritt das sechzigfache Verhältnis wieder in Kraft. ", + "Worauf gründeten die Weisen das Verhältnis des 60-fachen? Auf den Umstand, dass die Priesterhebe vom Opferwidder des Nasirs, nämlich der Vorderschenkel, ebenfalls 1/60 des ganzen Widders ausmacht, dessen ungeachtet aber, wenn sie mit dem ganzen Widder zusammengekocht wurde, doch kein Verbot auf das übrige Fleisch des Widders bewirkt, wie es auch heißt (Num. 6:19): »Und der Priester nehme den Vorderschenkel gekocht vom Widder hinweg«. ", + "Wurden zwei homogene mit einem dritten heterogenen Gegenstände vermischt, z.B. wenn in einem Topft, worin sich Fettschwanzfett mit Grütze befand, etwas Nierenfett hineinfällt, und Alles zusammen schmolz, so dass ein Gegenstand daraus wurde, so betrachtet man das Fettschwanzfett nebst der Grütze als einen Gegenstand, und berechnet dann das Verhältnis des Nierenfettes gegenüber der Grütze mit dem Fettschwanz zusammen; wenn nun ersteres bloß 1/60 von beiden zusammengenommen ausmacht, so ist die ganze Speise deswegen erlaubt, weil man dabei die Geschmacksveränderung nicht so genau bestimmen kann. ", + "Ebendasselbe gilt für Priesterhebe in einer gleichen Mischung, um das Verhältnis des Hundertfachen, und bei vorreifen oder Weinbergämischfrüchten das Verhältnis des Zweihundertfachen zu bestimmen. ", + "Bei der Berechnung des Verhältnisses der verbotenen Gegenstände, gleichviel ob es sich um das Sechzig-, Hundert oder Zweihundertfache handelt, wird immer Suppe, Gewürze und Alles, was sich im Topfe befindet, wie auch was der Topf selbst eingezogen haben kann, nachdem der verbotene Gegenstand hineingefallen, zugezogen, welches letztere, da man es nicht genau angeben kann, wieviel der Topf eingesogen haben mag, nach der Wahrscheinlichkeit bestimmt wird. ", + "Von vornherein ist es verboten, einen von der Tora verbotenen Gegenstand absichtlich zu annullieren, ist es aber bereits geschehen, so wäre die Speise erlaubt; indessen haben die Schriftgelehrten eine Rüge daraufgesetzt und verbieten eine solche Mischung gänzlich; mir scheint es aber, dass, da es eine bloße Rüge ist, eine solche Mischung nur für den Übertreter des Gesetzes verboten, für Andere aber erlaubt sein müsse. ", + "Wenn z.B. ein Maaß vorreifer Früchte in hundert Maaß erlaubter hineinfiele, wodurch alle hundert verboten werden müssten, so darf man nicht von vornherein noch hundert Maaß erlaubter Früchte hinzutun, auf dass das einzige Maaß vorreifer Früchte in dem Verhältnis von zweihundert und eines annulliert werde; ist es aber doch geschehen, so sind die Früchte erlaubt. Ein Verbot der Rabbinen aber kann, in dieser Beziehung, von vornherein annulliert werden. ", + "Wenn z.B. Milch in einen Topf, worin Geflügel gekocht wird, hineinkam und eine Geschmacksveränderung im ganzen Topfe bewirkte, so kann man noch so viel Geflügelfleisch hinzutun, bis die Geschmacksveränderung aufgehoben wird, und so in dergleichen Fällen. ", + "Wir haben bereits erklärt, dass, wenn ein verbotener Gegenstand einen Beigeschmack bei einem erlaubten bewirkt, die ganze Mischung verboten wird; dies gilt aber nur dann, wenn der Geschmack dadurch gewonnen hat; war aber der von dem verbotenen Gegenstand hinzugekommene Geschmack ein nachteiliger; so dass der erlaubte Gegenstand dadurch an Geschmack verlor, so bleibt die Mischung erlaubt. Jedoch findet diese Regel nur dann ihre Anwendung., wenn die Geschmacksverschlimmerung eine bleibende ist, war sie hingegen nur eine vorübergehende, so dass der Geschmack nachher wieder gut wird, oder war die Geschmacksveränderung vorteilhaft, wenn auch nur vorübergehend, so dass der Geschmack nachher sich verschlimmern müsste, so bleibt das Verbot in voller Kraft. ", + "Wer aber soll eine solche Mischung versuchen? Bestand die Mischung aus Priesterhebe und Ungeweihtem, so versucht die Speise ein Priester; findet er, dass der Geschmack der Hebe bemerkbar ist, so wird Alles als zweifelhaft Heiliges angesehen; in der Abhandlung über die Priesterhebe sollen übrigens die Gesetze über solches zweifelhaft Heilige auseinandergesetzt werden. ", + "War es aber Fleisch in Milch gekocht, oder Libations oder vorreifer Wein oder waren es Weinbergsmischfrüchte, die sich mit Honig vermischten, oder war es Fleisch von kriechendem Tier und Gewürm, das in Gemüse fiel und dergleichen mehr, so versucht die Speise ein Nichtjude, auf dessen Aussage man sich verlassen kann; wenn er nun sagt, es ist dabei kein Beigeschmack vom Verbotenen, oder es ist wohl ein Beigeschmack herauszufinden, der aber unangenehm ist, so ist Alles erlaubt, wenn der Geschmack nur nicht der Art ist, dass er sich später wieder zum Vorteil verändern müsste, wie wir es bereits erklärt. War aber kein Nichtjude da, der es versuchen sollte, so halte man sich an das Verhältnis des Sechzig-, Hundert- oder Zweihundertfachen. ", + "Fiel eine Maus in Bier oder Essig hinein, so muss man das Verhältnis des Sechzigfachen in Anschlag bringen, weil zu besorgen steht, dass dadurch eine vorteilhafte Geschmacksveränderung entstehen könnte; fiel sie aber in Wein, Öl oder Honig hinein, so bleiben diese Gegenstände erlaubt, denn sollte dadurch eine Geschmacksveränderung hervorgebracht worden sein, so wird es bestimmt eine nachteilige sein, weil diese Gegenstände alle mehr würzhaft sein müssten, dieser Vorfall aber sie übelriechend macht und ihren Geschmack dann verdirbt. ", + "Wurde ein Zicklein in seinem Talg gebraten, so darf man sogar das Ohrläppchen davon nicht essen, weil das Fett sich allen Gliedern mitteilt, sie vorteilhaft zurichtet und Geschmack beigibt; wenn daher das Zicklein mager ist, so dass weder Nieren noch Magenfett in größerer Quantität da war, als im Verhältnis von eins zu sechzig, so schneide man davon stückweise ab und esse das Fleisch, bis man zu einem Stück Talg gelangt. Ebenso wenn man einen Schenkel zusammen mit der Hüftader gebraten, so schneide man das Fleisch immer stückweise ab und verzehre es, bis man auf die Hüftader kommt, die dann weggeworfen wird. Ganz dasselbe gilt, wenn man ein ganzes Vieh gebraten, ohne die verbotenen Fasern und Häutchen weggenommen zu haben, immer schneidet man stückweise ab, isst es, und sobald man auf einen verbotenen Gegenstand kommt, so schneidet man ihn aus und wirft ihn weg, da durch Adern sich keine Geschmacksveränderung hervorbringen lässt, um darnach die Verhältnisbestimmungen zu richten. ", + "Man darf geschlachtetes Fleisch nicht zusammen mit Fleisch von gefallenen oder unreinen Tieren in einem und demselben Ofen braten, selbst wenn sie nicht in Berührung kamen; ist es aber bereits geschehen, so bleibt ersteres doch erlaubt, und zwar selbst in dem Falle, wo das verbotene Fleisch sehr fett und das erlaubte mager wäre, weil nämlich der bloße Geruch kein Verbot bewirkt, sondern ist hierzu der Geschmack des verbotenen Gegenstandes erforderlich. ", + "Wenn Salzfleisch von Gefallenem mit Geschlachtetem vermischt wurde, so wird letzteres verboten, weil der Saft des Fleisches des Gefallenen vom Geschlachteten eingesogen wird, wobei man indessen weder die Geschmacksveränderung noch das Verhältnis bestimmen kann. Ganz dasselbe gilt, wenn man gesalzenen unreinen Fisch mit ungesalzenem reinen Fisch zusammenlegt; letzterer wird nämlich verboten wegen der Lacke; war aber der gesalzene Fisch ein reiner und der ungesalzene ein unreiner, so wird der gesalzene nicht verboten, weil bloß der nicht gesalzene vom gesalzenen die Lacke einsaugt; wurde ein unreiner Fisch zusammen mit einem reinen eingelegt, so wird Alles verboten, außer etwa wenn das Unreine bloß 1/200 vom Reinen war. " + ], + [ + "Fortsetzung
Alle Bestimmungen, welche die Weisen für den Fall bestimmt, wenn ein verbotener Gegenstand sich mit homogenen erlaubten Gegenständen vermischt, finden nur statt, so lange dieser verbotene Gegenstand nicht eine Säure, Gewürz, oder eine treuere, in der Mischung sich ganz erhaltende Speise war, die mit dem Verbotenen sich nicht amalgamiert; war aber der verbotene Gegenstand entweder eine Säure, oder würzhaft, oder eine sonst treuere Speise, so zieht auf die Mischung selbst ein Minimum das Verbot. ", + "Wenn z.B. Sauerteig von Priesterhebenweizen in einen Teig von nicht geheiligtem Weizen hineinfiel, und wenn das Stück so groß war, dass es eine Säuerung des ganzen Teiges bewirken könnte, so wird der ganze Teig als zweifelhaft Heiliges betrachtet; ebenso wenn Priesterhebewürze in eine Schüssel oder in einen Topf gewöhnlicher Speise fiel, und das Hineingefallene so bedeutend war, dass es die ganze Speise im Topfe würzen kann, und es zugleich homogen mit der nicht heiligen Speisegattung ist, so wird Alles als zweifelhaft Heiliges verboten, obgleich der Sauerteig oder das Gewürz sich nur wie 1:1000 verhält; so wird auch Alles, wenn Sauerteig von Weinbergsmischfrüchten in einfachen Teig, oder wenn Gewürz von vorreifen Früchten in einen erlaubten Speisetopf fällt, der Nutznießung verboten. ", + "Als wertvolle Gegenstände, die in homogener Mischung selbst durch ein Minimum ein Verbot nach sich ziehen, werden folgende sieben betrachtet: Kokosnüsse, arabische Granaten, nicht geöffnete Fässchen mit ihrem Inhalt, Grünwerkblätter, das Herz von Blumenkohl, griechische Melonen und eigen gebackenes Brot. ", + "Fiel z.B. eine arabische vorreife Granate zwischen mehrere Tausend andere erlaubte, so sind sie alle verboten; ebenso wenn ein vermachtes Fässchen mit Weinbergsmischfrüchten sich unter mehrere Tausend vermachter Fässchen mit Erlaubtem mischte, so sind alle zur Nutznießung verboten; dasselbe gilt auch von den anderen sieben Gegenständen. ", + "So ist es auch, wenn ein Stück Fleisch von gefallenem oder unreinem Hausvieh, Wild, Geflügel oder Fisch, sich unter mehrere Tausend Stücke mengt, so bleibt Alles so lange verboten, bis man davon ein Ersatzstück abnimmt und dann das Übrige nach dem Verhältnis der Sechzig berechnet; denn so lange ein Ersatzstück nicht abgenommen ist, bleibt der verbotene Gegenstand noch immer unverändert da, und er ist so ansehnlich, dass man mit ihm Gäste bewirten kann. ", + "Ganz dasselbe gilt auch von einem Stück Fleisch in Milch gekocht, oder von nicht heiligem Vieh, welches in der Tempelhalle geschlachtet worden, — welche beide Gegenstände laut Vorschrift der Rabbinen zur Nutznießung verboten sind, wie dies in der Abhandlung über das Schlachten erklärt werden wird; sie ziehen auch in der Vermischung schon durch ein Minimum das Verbot nach sich, so lange kein Ersatzstück von der Mischung abgenommen; ebenso hat man, wenn man die Hüftader mit anderen Adern, oder mit Fleisch, zusammengekocht, und jene kenntlich ist, sie herauszunehmen, das Übrige bleibt aber dann erlaubt, weil Adern keine Geschmacksveränderung hervorzubringen im Stande sind; ist sie aber nicht kenntlich, so bleibt Alles verboten, weil diese Ader ein Stück eigener Art, und daher als ansehnlich zu betrachten ist, wodurch sie auch ein Verbot durch ein Minimum nach sich zieht. ", + "Eben so sind alle lebendigen Geschöpfe als ansehnlich zu betrachten, und können daher nicht annulliert werden; wenn demnach ein zur Steinigung verurteilter Ochs sich unter tausend andere Ochsen, oder das zum Nackenabschlagen bestimmte Kalb unter tausend Kälber, oder der vom Aussätzigen zum Schlachten bestimmte Opfervogel unter tausend Vögel, oder der Eselserstling unter tausend Esel sich mischte, sind Alle zur Nutznießung verboten; andere Gegenstände aber, wenn sie auch gewöhnlich der Zählung unterworfen sind, können doch durch die Verhältnisbestimmungen annulliert werden. ", + "Wenn z.B. ein Bündel Grünwerk von Weinbergsmischfrüchten sich unter zweihundert andere Bündel, oder ein Etrog (Paradiesapfel) von vorreifer Frucht, sich unter zweihundert andere Etroge mischt, so sind sie alle erlaubt, und so in dergleichen Fällen mehr. ", + "Mir scheint es, dass jede Sache, die an irgend einen Orte beliebt ist, oder als ansehnlich betrachtet wird, etwa wie die Kokosnüsse und arabischen Granaten zu jener Zeit im Lande Palästina, je nach dem Orte und der Zeit ihrer Bevorzugung, schon durch ein Minimum das Verbot auf ihre Mischung mit anderen erlaubten Gegenständen nach sich zieht; wenn im Talmud bloß jene sieben Gattungen als ansehnlich aufgezählt wurden, so geschah dies, weil diese überall durch ein Minimum das Verbot bewirken; dasselbe muss aber auch für alle dergleichen Gegenstände gelten, die speziell an gewissen Orten als ansehnlich betrachtet werden. Das ist aber ausgemacht, dass alle diese Verbote bloß Satzungen der Rabbinen sind. ", + "Fiel eine Granate von einer solchen Mischung unter zwei andere arabische erlaubte Granaten, und von diesen dreien dann eine wieder unter andere Granaten, so sind diese letzteren erlaubt, weil die Granate von der ersten Mischung bereits in der Mehrheit aufgehoben wurde; fiel aber von der ersten Mischung eine Granate, wenn auch unter tausend erlaubte, so bleiben sie alle verboten. Die Annullierung in der Mehrheit hat nur in sofern Geltung, dass sie einen zweifachen Zweifel beseitigt, nämlich, dass wenn von einer zweiten Mischung eine Frucht wieder in erlaubte fällt, sie kein Verbot nach sich zöge; und so in dergleichen Fällen mehr. ", + "Wurden Kokosnüsse die sämtlich durch die Vermengung der einzigen vorreifen Nuss verboten wurden, zerschlagen, oder die Granaten geteilt, die Fässer geöffnet, die Melonen oder die eigen gebackenen Brote zerschnitten, nachdem sie sämtlich durch eine Mischung verboten worden waren, so können sie wiederum unter 201 des Erlaubten annulliert werden; eben dasselbe gilt auch von einem Stück Fleisch von Gefallenem, welches unter andere Stücke zerhackt und unter einander zu einem Ganzen gemengt wurde, — es wird nämlich auch im 60-fachen annulliert. ", + "Es ist aber verboten, von vorherein die Nüsse zu zerschlagen, die Granaten zu zerlegen und die Fässer zu öffnen, nachdem bereits das Verbot auf selbige gefallen, damit sie etwa in dem 201-fachen annulliert werden; dies darf deshalb nicht geschehen, weil etwas Verbotenes von vornherein nicht annulliert werden darf; tut man es doch, so hat das Gericht zur Rüge Alles als verboten zu erklären, wie wir es bereits erklärt. ", + "13. Kam Sauerteig von Weinbergsmischfrüchten und von Priesterhebe zugleich unter gewöhnlichen Teig, aber weder in dem einem noch in dem andern ist so viel Säure, um den ganzen Teig gären zu machen, die Säure beider zusammen hingegen wäre es wohl im Stande — so ist dieser Teig für den gewöhnlichen Israeliten verboten, für den Priester aber erlaubt; ebenso wenn Gewürz von Priesterhebe und Weinbergsmischfrüchten zugleich in einem Topf mit Speisen fallen, und weder in dem einen noch in dem andern ist so viel Würzhaftes vorhanden, um die ganze Speise im Topfe zu würzen, in beiden zusammengenommen ist aber wohl so viel, so bleibt die Speise für den gewöhnlichen Israeliten verboten, weil die ganze Würzung von für ihn verbotenen Gegenständen herrührte, für den Priester aber erlaubt, (weil für den Priester die eine Hälfte der Würze erlaubt ist). ", + "Gewürze einer Gattung, aber verschiedener spezieller Benennungen, oder auch Gewürze dreier verschiedener Gattungen, die unter einer Benennung bekannt sind, werden zusammengezogen, wo es sich um das Verbot bedingende Quantum handelt, und ebenso Sauerteige; wenn z.B. ein Stückchen Sauerteig von Weizenmehl und eines von Gerstenmehl zusammen das erforderliche Quantum ausmachen, so werden sie, weil die Benennung Sauerteig beiden zukommt, nicht wie eine Mischung zweier Gattungen betrachtet, sondern werden als eine und dieselbe Gattung zusammengezogen, um auf einen Teig von Weizenmehl, durch das Verhältnis der Säure ein Verbot nach sich zu ziehen, wenn in beiden zusammen der Weizengeschmack vorherrschend ist, oder um einen Teig von Gerstenmehl das Verbot zu ziehen, wenn der Geschmack von Gerstenmehl mehr hervortrat. ", + "Wie gibt es drei Benennungen für eine und dieselbe Gattung? z.B. Bachpetersilie, Wiesenpetersilie und Gartenpetersilie; — obgleich jede dieser drei Sorten eine besondere Benennung hat, werden sie doch, da sie nur eine Gattung bilden, zusammengezogen, um das erforderliche Würzen-Quantum hervorzubringen. ", + "Wenn in bereits gesäuerten Teig ein Stückchen Sauerteig von Priesterhebe oder Weinbergsmischfrüchten hineinfiel, oder wenn in eine bereits gewürzte Speise Würze von Priesterhebe, vorreifen oder Weinbergsmischfrüchten hineinfiel, so ist, wenn in diesem Sauerteig ein solches Quantum enthalten ist, dass, wenn der Teig noch ungesäuert wäre, er ihn in Säuerung bringen könnte, oder wenn in den Gewürzen so viel Würzhaftes war, dass sie die Speise, im Falle sie noch nicht gewürzt wäre, gehörig würzen könnten — Alles verboten; ist aber das erforderliche Quantum nicht da, so können sowohl der Sauerteig als das Gewürz durch das bestimmte Verhältnis annulliert werden, nämlich Priesterhebe in 101, vorreife und Weinbergsmischfrüchte aber in 201. ", + "Die Priesterhebe kann vorreife und Weinbergsmischfrüchte annullieren; wenn z. B. ein Maaß Priesterhebe in neun und neunzig Maaß nicht Heiliges fiel, und darauf zu dieser Mischung wiederum ein halbes Maaß vorreifer oder Weinbergsmischfrüchte hinzukam, so findet da weder das Verbot des Vorrreifen noch der Weinbergsmischfrüchte statt, indem das halbe Maaß im Zweihundertfachen annulliert wird, obgleich ein Teil dieser Zweihundert aus Priesterhebe besteht. ", + "Eben so können vorreife und Weinbergsmischfrüchte Priesterhebe annullieren; wenn z. B. hundert Maaß vorreifer oder Weinbergsmischfrüchte in zwanzigtausend Maaß nicht Geheiligtes fiel, so wird demnach die ganze Mischung zwanzigtausend einhundert ausmachen; kommen nun in diese ganze Mischung zweihundert und ein Maaß Priesterhebe, so wird Alles erlaubt; da diese Priesterhebe im Hundertundeinfachen aufgehoben wird, obgleich ein Teil dieser hundert Maaß, welche sie nun annullieren sollen, aus vorreifen oder Weinbergsmischfrüchten besteht. ", + "Eben so können vorreife Früchte Weinbergsmischfrüchte, diese wiederum vorreife Früchte, Weinbergsmischfrüchte andere dergleichen, und verreife Früchte andere dergleichen annullieren; wenn z.B. zweihundert Maaß vorreifer oder Weinbergsmischfrüchte in vierzigtausend Maaß nicht Geheiligtes fiel, und nachher in diese Mischung zweihundert und ein Maaß vorreifer und Weinbergsmischfrüchte kam, so wird Alles erlaubt, denn nachdem das Verbot bereits annulliert worden, wurde die erste Mischung vollkommen erlaubten, nicht geheiligten, Früchten gleich. ", + "Ein Kleid, welches mit den Schalen vorreifer Früchte gefärbt wurde, muss verbrannt werden, wurde dieses Kleid unter andere vermengt, so wird es in zweihundert annulliert; ebenso wenn eine Speise mit den Schalen von vorreifen Früchten gekocht, oder Brot mit diesen oder mit Weinbergsmischfrüchten gebacken wurde, so müssen die Speisen und das Brot verbrannt werden, weil die Nutznießung des verbotenen Gegenstandes darin zu erkennen ist; wurde aber diese Speise oder dieses Brot mit andern erlaubten vermischt, so können sie im Zweihundertundeinfachen annulliert werden. ", + "Eben so kann ein Kleid, worin ein Fingerbreit mit solchen Faden gewirkt wurde, die mit Schalen von vorreifen Früchten gefärbt waren, im zweihundertundeinfachen erlaubt werden, obgleich man diesen Streifen nicht herausfinden kann; wurde Färbestoff von vorreifen Früchten mit erlaubtem Färbestoff vermischt, so tritt wieder das Verhältnis von zweihundertundeins ein; wurde Farbewasser mit Färbewasser vermischt, so kann schon die bloße Mehrheit des erlaubten das Verbot annullieren. ", + "Wurde ein Ofen mit Schalen von vorreifen und Weinbergsmischfrüchten geheizt, so muss er abgekühlt werden, ganz gleich ob er neu oder alt war, sodass man ihn mit erlaubtem Holz Heizen kann; wurde aber in ihm, bevor er abgekühlt worden, Brot gebacken oder Speise gekocht, so sind beide zur Nutznießung verboten, weil in dem Brote oder in der Speise ein Vorteil durch das verbotene Holz entstanden ist; wurde aber das Feuer aus dem Ofen herausgescharrt, und das Backen oder Kochen fand in der bloßen Ofenwärme statt, so wird die Speise, da das verbotene Holz fortgeschafft war, erlaubt. ", + "Schüssel, Becher, Topfe, Gläser, die der Töpfer mit Schalen von vorreifen Früchten glasierte, sind zu jeder Nutznießung verboten, weil ein zur Nutznießung verbotener Gegenstand deren Brauchbarkeit bewirkt. ", + "Brot, welches auf Kohlen von Holz vorreifer Früchte gebacken wurde, ist zum Genuss erlaubt, weil, sobald das Holz schon zu Kohlen wurde, das Verbot schon beseitigt ist, obgleich letztere noch glimmen; wurde eine Speise durch Schalen von vorreifen und Weinbergsmischfrüchten und erlaubtes Holz gekocht, so ist sie verboten, obgleich zwei Wirkungen des Kochens da waren, denn während die Speise durch das verbotene Heizmaterial kochte, war das erlaubte Holz noch nicht in der Wirkung, folglich musste ein Teil des Kochens durch erlaubtes Holz, ein anderer Teil aber durch verbotenes verursacht worden sein. ", + "Wurde ein Reis von vorreifen Früchten unter andere Reiser vermengt, oder fand sich ein Beet von Weinbergsmischfrüchten, unter andern mit erlaubten Früchten besäten, so ist es erlaubt, von vornherein von allen Pflanzungen Früchte zu pflücken, und wenn dieser Reis und dieses Beet sich zu den anderen wie eins zu zweihundert verhielten, so ist alles Zusammengelesene erlaubt; war das Verhältnis aber nicht so groß, so ist alles Zusammengelesene verboten; warum aber erlaubt man von vornherein von der ganzen Pflanzung die Früchte zu pflücken, in welcher man doch nach dem Gesetze Alles verbieten sollte, bis man das verbotene Reis oder das verbotene Beet herausgefunden? Weil nämlich fest anzunehmen ist, dass Niemand wissentlich durch einen Reis einen ganzen Weinberg verboten machen, sondern man sich bemühen würde, wenn man es nur könnte, den verbotenen Gegenstand schadlos zu machen. ", + "Lässt man Käse durch den Harz von vorreifen Früchten, oder durch die Magensäure von einem Götzen-Opfer, oder durch den Essig von Libationswein gerinnen, so bleibt er zu aller Nutznießung verboten, obgleich dies eine Mischung von heterogenen Gattungen ist und der ganze Nutzen des Verbotenen in einem Unbedeutenden besteht; der Grund dazu ist, dass der verbotene Gegenstand kenntlich ist, da er eigentlich den Käse vollends hervorgebracht. ", + "Vorreife und Weinbergsmischfrüchte müssen dem Gesetze nach verbrannt, und deren Säfte, da Flüssiges unmöglich ganz verbrannt werden kann, vergraben werden. ", + "Wein, der Götzen zur Libation diente und mit erlaubtem vermischt wurde, bewirkt auf die ganze Mischung, schon durch ein Minimum, das Verbot der Nutznießung, wie wir es bereits erklärt; dies gilt jedoch nur, wenn der erlaubte Wein auf den Libationswein gegossen wird; wurde aber der Libationswein aus Fläschchen in ein Fass erlaubten Weines gegossen, wenn auch dieses Gießen allmählich im Laufe des ganzen Tages gedauert, so wird immer das erste Bisschen in der großen Masse annulliert; wurde hingegen der verbotene Wein aus einem Fasse gegossen, so kommt es nicht mehr darauf an, ob das Erlaubte auf das Verbotene, oder das Verbotene auf das Erlaubte gegossen wurde — immer bleibt die Mischung verboten, weil der Strom des Weines aus dem Spundloch des Fasses groß war. ", + "Wurde einfacher Heidenwein mit erlaubtem Wein vermischt, so bewirkt schon ein Minimum das Verbot des Trinkens auf die Mischung, jedoch kann letztere an Nichtjuden verkauft werden, sodass man den Wert an Geld des ursprünglich verbotenen Weines ins tote Meer werfen muss; den Rest des Geldes für den ursprünglich erlaubten Wein darf man aber benutzen; ebendasselbe gilt, wenn ein Fass Libationswein sich unter mehrere erlaubte vermengte, — alle Fässer sind dann zum Trinken verboten, zur Nutznießung aber erlaubt; der ganze Wein wird nämlich verkauft, der Wert des eigentlich verbotenen Weines ins tote Meer geworfen; dies gilt auch von einem Fasse Heidenwein. ", + "Wurde Wasser mit Wein, oder Wein mit Wasser — von welchen beiden Flüssigkeiten eine verboten war, — vermischt, so ist für deren Genuss die Geschmacksveränderung maßgebend, weil dies eine Mischung von heterogenen Gegenständen ist; dies gilt jedoch nur dann, wenn das erlaubte Getränke auf das verbotene kam; wurde aber das verbotene Getränk in das erlaubte gegossen, so wird immer die erste Strömung von der Mehrheit annulliert, sobald der Guss aus einer kleinen Flasche stattfindet, so dass nur wenig auf einmal auf das Erlaubte kam. Wie ist es aber möglich, dass Wasser verboten sein soll? Wenn es angebetet, oder einem Götzen als Opfer gedient. ", + "Fiel in eine Kelter Weines zuerst ein Krug Wasser hinein, und dann kam noch Libationswein, so betrachte man den erlaubten Wein als gar nicht existierend und mache das Verhältnis zwischen dem hineingekommenen Wasser und dem Libationswein der Art, dass, wenn das Wasser den Geschmack des Libationsweines aufheben würde, das Wasser durch die Mehrheit denselben ganz annulliert, so dass Alles erlaubt werde. ", + "Kam Libationswein auf Weintrauben, so werden diese nur abgespült, und sind dann zum Essen erlaubt; waren die Weintrauben aber geplatzt, so sind sie, wenn der Wein in ihnen eine Geschmacksveränderung hervorgebracht, gleichviel ob es alter oder frischer Wein ist, zur Nutznießung verboten; bringt der Wein aber keine Geschmacksveränderung in den Trauben hervor, so sind sie zum Genuss erlaubt. ", + "Kam Libationswein auf Feigen, so sind diese erlaubt, weil Wein in Feigen nur eine unangenehme Veränderung des Geschmackes hervorbringt. ", + "Kam Libationswein auf Weizen, so ist dieser zum Genuss verboten, aber erlaubt zur Nutznießung, jedoch darf man den Weizen nicht einem Heiden verkaufen, da letzterer ihn wieder einem Israeliten verkaufen könnte, sondern man muss ihn mahlen und verbacken, sodass man das Brot an Heiden nicht in Gegenwart von Israeliten verkaufen kann. Dies geschieht, damit Israeliten selbiges nicht wiederum von den Heiden kaufen könnten, da Heiden-Brot, wie es erklärt werden wird, verboten ist. Warum aber untersucht man nicht bei Weizen die durch den verbotenen Wein hervorgebrachte Geschmacksveränderung? Weil Weizen einzieht und demnach den Wein einsaugt. ", + "Wurde Libationswein sauer und kam dann in Bieressig, so bewirkt er durch ein Minimum ein Verbot aus die Mischung, weil selbige eine homogene ist, indem doch beide Sorten Essig sind; wurde aber Wein mit Essig vermische wobei es sich gleichbleibt, ob der Essig in den Wein ganz oder dieser in den Essig kam, so findet das Verhältnis von Geschmacksveränderung wieder statt. " + ], + [ + "Geräte von Nichtjuden und ihr Kochen, Brot, Erziehung, Ekel
In einem Lehmtopfe, worin Fleisch von gefallenen, kriechenden, oder krabbelnden Tieren gekocht wurde, darf man an demselben Tage nicht mehr Schlachtfleisch kochen; wurde dennoch eine Fleischgattung dann gekocht, so ist die Speise verboten, ist aber etwas Anderes darin gekocht worden, so tritt das Verhältnis der Geschmacksveränderung wieder ein. ", + "Die Schrift hat in einem solchen Topfe nur an demselben Tage zu kochen verboten, weil das vom Topfe eingesogene Fett in dieser Zeit noch nicht verdorben sein kann; laut Vorschrift der Rabbinen aber darf man niemals mehr in einem solchen Topfe kochen. Daher ist es auch verboten, alte Lehmgeschirre von Götzendienern zu kaufen, wenn sie zu warmen Speisen gebraucht worden, wie z. B. Töpfe und Schüsseln, selbst dann nicht, wenn sie von innen verzinnt waren; hat man aber bereits solche Geschirre gekauft und in denselben Tages darauf, nachdem sie zu unerlaubten Speisen gebraucht worden, und weiterhin, gekocht, so ist die Speise erlaubt. ", + "Wenn Jemand von einem Götzendiener eiserne Essgeschirre und Glassachen, die noch gar nicht benutzt worden waren, kauft, so hat er selbige im Tauchbade unterzutauchen, sodass es erlaubt ist, aus denselben zu essen und zu trinken. Sind es solche Geschirre, die man schon zu kalten Sachen benutzte, wie z. B. Becher, Gläser oder Krüge, so hat man sie auszuspülen und dann unterzutauchen, sodass sie erlaubt bleiben. Sind es Geschirre die zum Sieden von Wasser benutzt wurden, wie z. B. Kessel, Becken und andere Gefäße zum Wasserwärmen, so reinige man sie zuerst mit kochendem Wasser, und tauche sie unter, sodass sie erlaubt sind. ", + "Wie geschieht das Reinigen durch kochendes Wasser? Man lege das kleine Gefäß in ein größeres, fülle dieses ganz mit Wasser, so dass auch das kleine ganz dadurch bedeckt werde, und lasse es so lange sieden, bis das Wasser gut durchkocht. War das Gefäß aber ein großes, so umklebe man den Rand desselben mit Teig oder Lehm und fülle es so mit Wasser, dass dieses auch den beklebten Rand übersteige, worauf man das Wasser zum Sieden bringe. In allen diesen Fällen ist jedoch, wenn man in solchen Geschirren Etwas kocht, bevor man sie durch kochendes oder kaltes Wasser gereinigt, ausgeglüht oder untergetaucht, die Speise dennoch erlaubt, weil das etwaige diesen Geschirren noch anklebende Fett nur eine unangenehme Geschmacksveränderung hervorbringen könnte, wie dieses bereits erklärt worden. ", + "Das Untertauchen, welches bei von Götzendienern gekauften Geschirren erforderlich ist, um sie zum Gebrauche beim Essen und Trinken erlaubt zu machen, ist nicht wegen Reinheit oder Unreinheit, sondern bloß laut Vorschrift der Rabbinen verordnet, worauf aber auch schon die Schrift einen Wink gegeben. Es heißt nämlich (Num. 31:24): »Jeden Gegenstand der ins Feuer kommt, sollt ihr durchs Feuer führen, damit er rein werde.« Durch die Tradition ist uns nun überkommen, dass es sich an dieser Stelle nur um die Reinigung von götzendienstlichem Gebrauch, nicht aber um eine Reinigung von der Entweihung handle, da es gar keinen Fall von Entweihung gibt, der durchs Feuer aufgehoben werden könnte, sondern alles Entweihte durch das Untertauchen im Wasser von der Entweihung gereinigt wird, und sogar die Entweihung bei einem Todesfall auch durch bloße Besprengen mit Wasser und Untertauchen aufgehoben wird. Die Anwendung von Feuer aber findet nur bei. Reinigung vom götzendienstlichen Gebrauche statt, und da es nun dort heißt: »und er werde rein«, so schlossen die Weisen daraus, dass man den Gegenstand, nach dessen Durchführung durchs Feuer, behufs seiner Reinigung vom götzendienstlichen Gebrauche, noch einer Reinigung zu unterziehen habe. ", + "Dieser Untertauchung find nur solche metallene Speisegeschirre unterworfen, die von einem Götzendiener gekauft worden; borgt aber Jemand von einem Götzendiener ein Geschirr, oder nimmt er es als Pfand, von ihm, so ist die Untertauchung nicht nötig und ein bloßes Abspülen, Durchsieden oder Durchglühen genügt. Ebenso hat man, wenn man hölzerne oder steinerne Gefäße kauft, sie nur auszuspülen und durchzusieden, und nicht unterzutauchen nötig. — Ganz neue Geschirre bedürfen auch keiner Untertauchung; Geschirre aber, die ausgezinnt sind, gleichen den metallenen und müssen untergetaucht werden. ", + "Wenn Jemand von einem Götzendiener ein Messer kauft, so muss er es in Feuer durchglühen, oder am Schleifstein abziehen. Ist das Messer ein gutes, ohne Scharten, so ist es, um kalte Speisen damit schneiden zu dürfen, hinreichend, wenn man es zehnmal in harte Erde steckt; ist das Messer aber schartig, oder will man mit demselben, sei es auch ohne Scharten, warme Speisen schneiden, oder gar ein Tier schlachten, so muss man es erst durchglühen oder ganz abschleifen. Schlachtete man aber mit dem Messer, bevor es gereinigt worden, so muss man die Stelle des Einschnittes abspülen; noch lobenswerter ist es, wenn man diese Stelle wegschneidet.", + "Ein Messer, mit welchem man ein als zerrissen geltendes Tier geschlachtet, darf zu einer erlaubten Schlachtung nicht eher gebraucht werden, als bis es wenigstens mit kaltem Wasser abgespült, oder mit einem Lappen abgewischt worden. ", + "Außerdem gibt es noch Mehreres, was die Gelehrten verboten und zwar nicht auf Grund einer Vorschrift der Tora, sondern aus Besorgnis, die Israeliten könnten sich mit den Götzendienern vermengen und auf diese Weise sich mit ihnen verschwägern; sie sollen sich aber von diesen fernhalten; es ist nämlich untersagt, mit den Götzendienern zusammen Wein zu trinken, wenn auch dabei keine Besorgnis wegen Libationswein stattfindet; gleichfalls ist ss verboten, Brot und gekochte Speisen der Götzendiener zu essen, selbst wenn nicht zu besorgen stände, dass selbige durch verbotene Gegenstände verunreinigt worden sind. ", + "So z. B. darf man in einer Gesellschaft von Götzendienern selbst nicht gekochten Wein trinken, der doch sonst nicht verboten ist, ja nicht einmal Wein aus eigenen Geschirren darf man mit ihnen trinken; sind aber die meisten Mitglieder der Gesellschaft Israeliten, so ist es erlaubt; auch darf man nicht Bier trinken, das Götzendiener aus Feigen, Datteln und dergl. bereiten; dies ist aber nur da verboten, wo die Heiden dasselbe verkaufen, bringt man es hingegen nach Hause und trinkt es da, so ist es erlaubt, weil der Hauptgrund des Verbotes darin besteht, dass der Israelit nicht zusammen mit dem Götzendiener speise. ", + "Wein aus Äpfeln, Granaten und dergl., ist überall zu trinken erlaubt, denn auf einen Gegenstand, der nicht alltäglich: ist, hat man die Verbotsbestimmung nicht ausgedehnt. Rosinenwein ist wie gewöhnlicher Wein zu betrachten, der auch als Libationswein gebraucht wird. ", + "Obgleich das Brot von Götzendienern verboten ist, so gibt es doch Orte, wo man es nicht so strenge damit nimmt, so dass man Bäcker-Brot von Götzendienern kauft, wenn in der Stadt kein jüdischer Bäcker da ist; außerhalb der Stadt ist es sogar ohne weiteres erlaubt, weil es hier als Notfall zu betrachten ist; für den Genuss des eigengebackenen Brotes der Heiden hat sich noch Niemand zur Erleichterung des Verbotes entschieden, aus Besorgnis, man könnte, wenn man schon eigengebackenes Brot der Heiden äße, leicht dazu kommen, bei Götzendienern Mahlzeiten zu halten, und gar sich mit ihnen verschwägern. ", + "Hat ein Götzendiener einen Ofen geheizt und ein Israelit backte darin Brot, oder heizte ein Israelit den Ofen an, und ein Götzendiener backte das Brot, oder ein Götzendiener heizte zwar den Ofen und backte das Brot, ein Israelit aber kam hinzu und rührte das Feuer um, oder löschte es, so ist das Brot schon deshalb erlaubt, dass der Israelit an der Arbeit des Backens Teil genommen; ja sogar, wenn ein Israelit nur ein einziges Stück Holz in den Ofen warf, so wird schon alles darin gebackene Brot erlaubt gemacht, weil es nur nötig ist, ein Erinnerungszeichen daran zu haben, dass Brot von Götzendienern verboten ist. ", + "Kocht ein Götzendiener für uns Wein, Milch, Honig, oder Pfirsiche und dergleichen Dinge, die auch roh gegessen werden, so sind sie erlaubt; die Verbotsbestimmung erstreckt sich bloß auf einen Gegenstand, der nicht roh gegessen werden kann, wie z.B. Fleisch, unzubereiteter Fisch, Eier und Grünigkeiten, wenn nun diese ein Götzendiener von Anfang bis zu Ende, ohne Hilfe eines Israeliten, gekocht, so sind sie wohl als von Götzendienern Gekochtes verboten. ", + "Dieses aber gilt auch nur von solchen Gegenständen, welche an königlichem Tische serviert werden können, um sie damit Brot zu essen, wie z.B. Fleisch, Eier, Fische und dergl.; Gegenstände aber, die nicht auf königlichen Tisch kommen, um mit Brot gegessen zu werden, wie z. B. Lupine von einem Götzendiener abgekocht, sind wohl erlaubt, obgleich sie nicht roh gegessen werden können, und so in dergleichen Fällen mehr, da der Grund der Verbotsbestimmung in der Besorgnis liegt, dass man sich mit Götzendienern verschwägern könnte, wenn man sie nämlich zur Mahlzeit laden sollte; zu Speisen aber, die nicht am königlichen Tische gereicht werden, um mit Brot gegessen zu werden, macht man gewöhnlich keine besondere Einladungen. ", + "Kleine Fische, die ein Israelit oder Götzendiener gesalzen, gleichen einem Teilweise gekochten Fische; wenn nun Götzendiener sie nachher gebraten, so sind sie im erstem Falle erlaubt; überhaupt ist eine Speise, wenn ein Israelit etwas beim Kochen, sei es zu Anfange oder zu Ende beigetragen, erlaubt; wenn daher ein Götzendiener Fleisch oder einen Topf mit Speise auf dem Feuer hat stehen lassen, und ein Israelit den Braten umgedreht, oder die Speise durchgerührt hat, im gleichen wenn ein Israelit die Speise ans Feuer gesetzt und ein Götzendiener die Zubereitung vollendet, so ist die Speise erlaubt. ", + "Fische von einem Götzendiener gesalzen, und Früchte von solchem getrocknet, so dass sie ohne weiteres gegessen werden können, sind erlaubt; Gesalzenes gilt in Bezug auf diese Verbotsbestimmung nicht wie Gesottenes, und Geräuchertes nicht wie Gekochtes; ebenso sind von Götzendienern gesengte Ähren erlaubt; die Verbotsbestimmung wurde auf diese deswegen nicht ausgedehnt, weil Niemand seinen Nächsten zu gesengten Ähren zu Gaste rufen wird; ", + "Bohnen, Erbsen, Linsen und dergleichen, die von Götzendienern abgekocht und verkauft werden, sind da als von Götzendienern Gekochtes verboten, wo es Sitte ist, solche auf dem königlichen Tisch als Dessert zu reichen; aber als von Götzendienern Verunreinigtes sind sie überall verboten, weil zu besorgen steht, dass man sie entweder zusammen mit Fleisch, oder in einem Topfe, worin Fleisch war, abgekocht haben könnte. Ebenso sind auch geröstete Kuchen, welche von Heiden mit Öl gebacken wurden, wegen Verunreinigung durch Götzendiener verboten. ", + "Hat ein Götzendiener eine Speise gekocht, ohne die Absicht zum Kochen gehabt zu haben, so ist sie erlaubt; wenn z. B. ein Götzendiener einen Morast anzündet, um das Gras von demselben hinwegzubrennen, und dabei braten Heuschrecken aus, so sind sie erlaubt, selbst an einem Orte, wo Heuschrecken an der königlichen Tafel als Dessert gereicht werden; ebenso wenn ein Götzendiener einen Rinderkopf über dem Feuer hält, um das Haar desselben abzusengen, so ist es erlaubt von den herabhängenden Fleischschnittchen, so wie auch die Ohrspitzen zu essen, die beim Absengen gebraten wurden. ", + "Datteln von Götzendienern abgekocht sind erlaubt, wenn sie auch im rohen Zustande süß waren, aber verboten, wenn sie bitter waren und durch das Kochen erst zum Essen zubereitet wurden; waren sie mittelmäßig süß, so sind sie verboten. ", + "Geröstete Linsen, die später eingeknetet wurden, sei es in Wasser oder Essig, sind verboten; aber gerösteter Weizen und Gerste, die in Wasser geknetet wurden, sind erlaubt. ", + "Öl von Götzendienern ist erlaubt, und wer es verbietet, begeht eine große Sünde, weil man sich dadurch dem Ausspruche des Gerichts welches Öl einmal erlaubt hat, widersetzt; ja sogar wenn dasselbe nachher gekocht wurde, ist es auch erlaubt, da das Verbot weder wegen des Gekochten durch Götzendiener darauf anwendbar ist, indem Öl auch roh gegessen wird, noch das Verbot wegen des von Götzendienern Veruneinigten, indem das Kochen den Geschmack des Öles verdirbt und es übelriechend macht. ", + "Aus demselben Grunde ist auch Honig, von Götzendienern gekocht, und zu verschiedenen Konfitüren gebraucht, erlaubt. ", + "Trester (Abfall von Oliven und dergl. Früchten), welcher heiß gemacht wurde, ganz gleich ob in einem großen Kessel oder in einem kleinen, ist erlaubt, weil er nur eine nachteilige Geschmacksveränderung hervorbringt; ebenso gepreßte Früchte, zu welchen man gewöhnlich weder Essig noch Wein hinzutut, so auch gepresste Oliven und Heuschrecken, die soeben vom Verkaufsplatze kommen; aber Heuschrecken und sonstiges Gepresstes, worauf man gewöhnlich Wein aufträufelt oder auch nur Essig oder Bieressig gießt, sind verboten. ", + "Warum aber wurde Bieressig von Götzendienern verboten? Weil diese gewöhnlich Weinhefen hineinwerfen; deswegen ist auch Bieressig, der so eben erst vom Verkaufsplatze kommt, erlaubt. ", + "Fischlake ist an dem Orte, wo man gewöhnlich Wein in dieselbe Tat, verboten; ist aber der Wein daselbst teurer als die Lake, so ist diese erlaubt; auf diese Weise entscheide man auch über jeden Gegenstand, von dem zu besorgen steht, dass die Götzendiener Etwas daruntergemischt, indem angenommen werden kann, dass Niemand eine treuere Sache mit einer billigen vermischen wird, wodurch es verlieren müsste; wohl aber könnte man Billiges unter Teures tun, um dabei zu gewinnen. ", + "Hat ein unmündiger Knabe eine von den verbotenen Speisen gegessen, oder eine Arbeit am Schabbat verrichtet, so ist es nicht Sache des Gerichts ihn dafür zu züchtigen, weil er doch nicht zurechnungsfähig ist; dies gilt jedoch nur, wenn er es selbst getan, es ist aber verboten ihn dazu zu verleiten, selbst wenn es sich um solche Gegenstände handelte, die bloß laut Vorschrift der Rabbinen verboten sind; ebenso ist es verboten, einen Knaben an die Nichtbeobachtung des Schabbats oder Feiertages zu gewöhnen, selbst wenn es sich um Fälle handelt, wo bloß von Rastvorsicht die Rede ist. ", + "Obgleich aber das Gericht nicht verpflichtet ist, einen Unmündigen von dergleichen Vergehen abzuhalten, so ist es doch Pflicht seines Vaters, ihn zurecht zu weisen und von solchen Schritten abzuhalten, damit der Knabe sich an die Heiligkeit der Religion gewöhne, denn es heißt: »Gewöhne den Knaben nach seiner Weise usw.« Mischlei 22:6). ", + "Die Weisen haben auch diejenigen Speisen und Getränke verboten, die den meisten Menschen zum Ekel sind; ebenso haben die Weisen verboten, aus unreinen Geschirren zu essen und zu trinken, wobei der Mensch gewöhnlich Ekel empfindet, wie z.B. aus den gläsernen Gefäßen der Barbiere, worin das Blut beim Aderlass aufgefangen wird. ", + "Desgleichen haben sie verboten, mit schmutzigen und beschwitzten Händen, oder auf schmutzigem Tischzeug zu essen, denn alle diese Fälle sind in den Worten der Schrift inbegriffen: »Ihr sollt eure Seelen nicht verunreinigen«; wer aber solche Speisen dennoch isst, erhält die Mardut-Geißelung. ", + "Eben so ist es verboten, seine natürlichen Leibesöffnungen aufzuhalten, ganz gleich ob von einer geringeren oder großem Funktion; wer es aber dennoch tut, wird auch als »seine Seele verunreinigend« betrachtet; abgesehen davon, dass man dadurch über sich schwere Krankheiten bringen und sich an seinem eigenen Leben verschulden kann; vielmehr muss man sich gewöhnen, an bestimmten Stunden seine Notdurft zu verrichten, damit man einerseits sich nicht in Gegenwart von Menschen absondern müsse, und andererseits nicht seine Seele verunreinige. ", + "Wer aber in diesen Sachen vorsichtig ist, bringt besondere Heiligkeit und Reinheit über seine Seele, und regelt sein Leben für den Namen des Ewigen, gelobt sei Er, wie es auch heißt: »Und ihr möget euch heiligen und heilig sein, denn heilig bin Ich« (Lev. 11:45). " + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/English/Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, edited by Philip Birnbaum, New York, 1967.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/English/Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, edited by Philip Birnbaum, New York, 1967.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c782872c3b6e0149f61b41968697764fd835ead1 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/English/Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, edited by Philip Birnbaum, New York, 1967.json @@ -0,0 +1,122 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods", + "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002108864", + "versionTitle": "Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, edited by Philip Birnbaum, New York, 1967", + "status": "locked", + "priority": 3.0, + "digitizedBySefaria": true, + "versionTitleInHebrew": "משנה תורה להרמב״ם, נערך בידי פיליפ בירנבאום, ניו יורק 1967", + "shortVersionTitle": "Philip Birnbaum, 1967", + "purchaseInformationImage": "https://storage.googleapis.com/sefaria-physical-editions/42714f509389e119a74f21312b450b45.png", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": false, + "isSource": false, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות מאכלות אסורות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Kedushah" + ], + "text": [ + [], + [], + [], + [ + "Anyone who eats an olive-size of the flesh of cattle, beasts, or birds that died a natural death should be lashed, as it is written: \"You must not eat anything that has died a natural death\" (Deuteronomy 14:21). Whatever has not been slaughtered properly is regarded as if it died a natural death.— —", + "The term prohibited nevelah is applicable only to the clean species that are fit for ritual slaughter, and permitted as food if slaughtered properly. Unclean species, on the other hand, where sheḥitah has no advantage, if anyone eats of their flesh he is to be lashed not because of eating nevelah and terefah but for eating the flesh of an unclean animal; and it is immaterial whether it has been slaughtered properly or it has died a natural death, or whether he has cut a piece of flesh from it when alive and eaten it.", + "", + "", + "", + "Anyone who eats an olive-size of the flesh of clean cattle, beasts or birds that were declared ritually unfit for food is to be lashed, as it is written: \"You must not eat flesh torn by beasts in the field; you shall cast it to the dogs\" (Exodus 22:30). The biblical term terefah refers to an animal torn by a wild beast, such as a lion, a leopard, or the like. So too, terefah is applied to a bird torn by a bird of prey, a hawk, or the like. You cannot say that terefah signifies that the wild beast or bird of prey tore and killed it, since it would be nevelah if dead; what difference does it make whether it died of itself or was killed by someone who struck it with a sword, or whether a lion mauled and killed it? Hence, the biblical text must refer to a mauled animal that has not died.", + "If a torn animal that has not died is forbidden, one might suppose that if a wolf came and dragged away a young goat by its foot, tail or ear, and a man chased the wolf and rescued the kid from its mouth, the kid should be forbidden because it was mauled, therefore the Torah plainly says: \"You must not eat flesh torn by beasts in the field; you shall cast it to the dogs,\" that is, it is forbidden only when it has become fit for the dogs. Hence, you may infer that terefah spoken of in the Torah refers to an animal torn and mauled by a wild beast to the point of death, though it has not died yet. Even if someone hastened to slaughter it prior to its death, it is forbidden as terefah, since it could not have survived the wound inflicted upon it.", + "From this you may conclude that the Torah has forbidden an animal that has died, a nevelah. It has also forbidden an animal on the verge of death because of its wounds, even though it has not died yet, and that is terefah. Just as you can make no distinction between the causes of death, whether the animal died a natural death or it fell down and died — — so you can make no distinction in the case of an animal on the verge of death, whether a beast tore and mauled it — — or whether someone shot an arrow at it and pierced its heart or lungs.— — Once the animal is dying at any rate, it is terefah, whether the cause is a human act or an act of God. If this is the case, why is the term terefah (torn) mentioned in the Torah? Scripture speaks of what happens regularly. If you will not interpret it in this manner, you will have to assume that it refers only to an animal \"torn … in the field,\" and if it was torn in a courtyard it should not be forbidden! Hence, you must infer that Scripture speaks only of what is likely to happen.", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "In reference to an ox condemned to be stoned it is written: \"Its flesh shall not be eaten\" (Exodus 21:28). How could it be eaten after it had been stoned and assumed the status of nevelah? ! Scripture only means to convey that as soon as the ox was condemned to be stoned it became forbidden and was regarded as an unclean animal. If anyone hastened and slaughtered the ox properly, it is forbidden to derive any benefit from it; if anyone ate an olive-size of its flesh he is to be lashed.— —" + ], + [], + [ + "If anyone eats an olive-size of blood willfully he deserves kareth; if unwittingly, he must bring a standard sin-offering.— —", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "If the liver is cut open and thrown into vinegar or boiling water so that it becomes bleached, it is then permitted to be cooked. All the Jewish people have already adopted the custom of singeing it over the fire before cooking it.— —", + "If one cooked a liver without singeing it over the fire or without scalding it in vinegar or boiling water, the entire dish is forbidden: the liver and all that was cooked with it.— —", + "", + "Meat cannot be rid of its blood unless it is thoroughly salted and rinsed. How should one proceed? First, he should rinse the meat, and then salt it thoroughly and leave it in the salt for the time it takes to walk a mile. He should then rinse it well again until the water is entirely clear, and immediately throw it into boiling water, but not lukewarm water, that it may become bleached without any blood coming out.", + "When meat is salted, it should be salted only in a perforated utensil, using only salt that is as heavy as coarse sand, since the salt that is as fine as flour becomes absorbed in the meat and fails to extract the blood. Also, one must shake off the salt before rinsing the meat.", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "A bowl in which one has salted meat must never be used for hot food, even if the bowl is lined with lead, for the blood has already been absorbed in its potsherds." + ], + [], + [ + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "A butcher who has been believed to sell kosher meat must refund the money to the customers if it has been found out that he has been passing on nevelah or terefah meat. He should be excommunicated and removed from his position. He can never be rehabilitated to enable him to sell meat again, unless he proceeds to a place where the people do not know him, and there restores a lost object of considerable worth, — — thereby proving that he has indeed repented, without any trickery." + ], + [ + "It is biblically forbidden either to cook or to eat meat with milk.— — Anyone who cooks both together [as little as] the size of an olive is to be lashed, as it is written: \"You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk\" (Exodus 23:19; 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21). So too, anyone who eats of both the meat and the milk that have been cooked together, [even as little as] the size of an olive, is to be lashed, even if he has not done the cooking himself.", + "The reason Scripture is silent, and does not explicitly prohibit the eating of meat with milk, is that it has already forbidden the cooking; that is to say, since the cooking of the meat-milk mixture is forbidden, it is needless to state that partaking of it is likewise forbidden. Similarly, Scripture is silent and does not explicitly prohibit taking one's own daughter to wife, having already prohibited the taking of one's granddaughter to wife.", + "Biblically, only the meat of a clean animal with the milk of a clean animal is forbidden, as it is written: \"You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk.\" The term kid includes the offspring of ox, sheep or goat, unless the text explicitly states \"a kid from the flock of goats\" (Genesis 38:17). The phrase \"a kid in its mother's milk\" is used only because Scripture speaks of something that actually happens. But if one cooks the meat of a clean animal with the milk of an unclean animal, or the meat of an unclean animal with the milk of a clean animal, he is permitted to do so and derive a benefit from it as well; punishment is incurred for eating it, but not by reason of its being a meat-milk mixture.", + "So too, the meat of beast or bird cooked with the milk of beasts or cattle is biblically not prohibited from eating; hence, it is permissible to cook it and to derive a benefit from it. It is, however, prohibited from eating it on rabbinic grounds, so that the people may not reach out beyond what is permitted and transgress the biblical meat-milk prohibition by eating the meat of a clean animal with the milk of a clean animal, since the literal meaning of the verse is restricted to a kid in its mother's milk only. For this reason, the sages have prohibited all meat with milk.", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "If one has first partaken of cheese or milk, he may eat meat immediately thereafter. He must, however, wash his hands and cleanse his mouth between the cheese and the meat. With what should he cleanse his mouth? With bread, or by chewing fruit and swallowing it or spitting it out.— —", + "This applies only to the meat of cattle and livestock; but if one eats poultry after milk or cheese, he is not required to cleanse his mouth or wash his hands.", + "If one has eaten meat first, whether the meat of cattle or fowl, he should not partake of milk thereafter until a lapse of time is spent, equal to the interval between two meals, namely about six hours, because the fragments of meat between the teeth are not removed by cleansing." + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/English/Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/English/Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d684674cce01483dbe2c17489b81ba0397dbaab7 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/English/Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007.json @@ -0,0 +1,489 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods", + "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI", + "versionTitle": "Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007", + "status": "locked", + "priority": 5.0, + "license": "CC-BY-NC", + "versionNotes": "\n Dedicated in memory of Irving Montak, z\"l

© Published and Copyright by Moznaim Publications.
Must obtain written permission from Moznaim Publications for any commercial use. Any use must cite Copyright by Moznaim Publications. Released into the commons with a CC-BY-NC license.\n ", + "digitizedBySefaria": false, + "shortVersionTitle": "Trans. by Eliyahu Touger, Moznaim Publishing", + "purchaseInformationImage": "https://storage.googleapis.com/sefaria-physical-editions/touger-mishneh-torah-hilkhot-teshuvah-purchase-img.png", + "purchaseInformationURL": "https://moznaim.com/products/mishneh-torah-rambam", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": false, + "isSource": false, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות מאכלות אסורות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Kedushah" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "It is a positive commandment to know the signs that distinguish between domesticated animals, beasts, fowl, fish, and locusts that are permitted to be eaten and those which are not permitted to be eaten,1The Rambam includes these four among the Torah's 613 mitzvot in his Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandments 149-152). The Ra'avad (in his hasagot to the listing of the mitzvot at the beginning of the Mishneh Torah) and the Ramban (in his hasagot to general principle 6 in Sefer HaMitzvot) differ and maintain that they should not be counted as mitzvot. According to their view, the mitzvot involve the observance of the prohibitions, but there is no positive act involved that could be considered as the observance of a commandment. [The Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 153, 470, 158, and 155) mentions these mitzvot, but explains that he personally subscribes to the opinion of the Ramban that they should be not included among the 613 mitzvot.]
In his Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam explains his position. Leviticus 11:2 states: \"This is the living creature that you may eat....\" The Sifri commenting on that verse describes it as a positive commandment. Now there is no positive commandment to eat kosher meat. The commandment is to know which species are kosher and to make a distinction between them and those which are not kosher meat as implied by the verse the Rambam cites here: \"And you shall distinguish....\" For it is only in this way, that one will be able to eat kosher meat. See also the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh. And see Chapter 2, Halachah 1, where the Rambam explains how he derives the idea that both a positve mitzvah and a negative mitzvah are involved.
as [Leviticus 20:25] states: \"And you shall distinguish between a kosher animal and a non-kosher one, between a non-kosher fowl and a kosher one.\" And [Leviticus 11:47] states: \"To distinguish between the kosher and the non-kosher, between a beast which may be eaten and one which may not be eaten.\"", + "The signs of a [kosher] domesticated animal and beast are explicitly mentioned in the Torah.2Leviticus 11:3. There are two signs: a split hoof and chewing the cud. Both are necessary.
Any domesticated animal and beast that chews the cud does not have teeth on its upper jaw-bone. Every animal that chews the cud has split hoofs except a camel.3The Ra'avad questions why the Rambam does not mention a rabbit or a hare. The Torah specifically mentions that they chew their cud. The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam does not mention them because they have teeth on their upper jaw.
The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 79:1) also mention that a camel has two teethlike growths on its upper jaw, but they do not in any way resemble teeth.
The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam's intent is that any kosher domesticated animal or wild beast that chews its cud will not have teeth on its upper jaw and every such animal will have a split hoof.
Every animal that has split hoofs chews the cud except a pig.", + "Therefore if a person finds an animal whose hoofs are cut off in the desert and he cannot identify its species, he should check its mouth. If it does not have teeth on its upper jaw, it can be identified as kosher, provided one can recognize a camel.4I.e., if one sees that the domesticated animal is not a camel, one can assume that it is kosher, for a camel is the only non-kosher animal without teeth on its upper jaw. If a person finds an animal whose mouth is cut off, he should check its hooves, if they are split, it is kosher, provided he can recognize a pig.5For a pig is the only non-kosher animal with split hooves.
When both its mouth and its hoofs are cut off, he should inspect the end of its tail after he slaughters it.6For before slaughtering it, such an inspection would be painful for the animal. If he discovers that [the strings of] its meat extend both lengthwise and widthwise,7Our translation is based on the commentary of the Meiri to Chullin 59a. Rashi interprets that passage slightly differently and his opinion is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah79:1). it is kosher, provided he can recognize a wild donkey. For [the strings of] its meat also extend both lengthwise and widthwise.8The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 79:1) mention another sign for a kosher animal: horns.", + "When a kosher animal gives birth to an offspring resembling a non-kosher animal, it is permitted to be eaten even though it does not have split hoofs or chew the cud, but instead, resembles a horse or a donkey in all matters.9As indicated by the Rambam's statements in the following halachah, the matter is dependent on the species and not the presence of distinguishing signs in and of themselves.
When does the above apply? When he sees it give birth. If, however, he left a pregnant cow in his herd and found an animal resembling a pig dependent on it, the matter is doubtful and [the young animal] is forbidden to be eaten. [This applies] even if it nurses from [the cow], for perhaps it was born from a non-kosher species, but became dependent on the kosher animal.10The Ra'avad qualifies the Rambam's ruling, stating that it applies only when the person possesses a non-kosher animal in his herd. If that is not the case, we do not suspect that a non-kosher newborn came from elsewhere. The Maggid Mishneh and the Siftei Cohen 79:6 do not accept this addition.", + "When a non-kosher animal gives birth to an offspring resembling a kosher animal, it is forbidden to be eaten. [This applies] even if it has split hoofs and chews its cud and resembles an ox or a sheep in all matters. [The rationale is that offspring] produced by a non-kosher animal are not kosher11See also the beginning of ch. 3. and those produced by a kosher animal are kosher.
For this reason, a non-kosher fish found in the belly of a kosher fish is forbidden, and a kosher fish found in the belly of a non-kosher fish is permitted, for they did not produce the fish, but instead, swallowed it.", + "When a kosher animal gives birth to an offspring that has two backs and two backbones12I.e., a calf born with a Siamese twin. or such a creature is discovered within [an animal that was slaughtered], it is forbidden to be eaten. This is what is meant by the term hashisuah which is forbidden by the Torah, as [Deuteronomy 14:7] states: \"These may not be eaten from those which chew the cud and have split hoofs, the shisuah...\", i.e., an animal that was born divided into two animals.", + "Similarly, when [a fetus] resembling a fowl is found within a [slaughtered] animal, it is forbidden to be eaten. [This applies] even if it resembles a kosher fowl. [For when a fetus] is discovered in an animal, only one which has a hoof is permitted.13The hoof, however, need not be split as indicated by Halachah 4. See also Rama (Yoreh De'ah 13:5) and Siftei Cohen 13:20 who rule more leniently.", + "There are no other domesticated animals or wild beasts in the world that are permitted to be eaten except the ten species mentioned in the Torah. They are three types of domesticated animals: an ox, a sheep, and a goat, and seven types of wild beasts: a gazelle,14The translation of the names of these seven species is a matter of debate among both Torah commentaries and zoologists. Our translation is taken from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's Living Torah. Consult the notes there for a detailed discussion of the matter. See also Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 80:3; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 28:4 who discuss these issues. In practice, we partake of the meat of an animal only when there is an established tradition that it is permitted (Siftei Cohen 80:1). a deer, an antelope, an ibex, a chamois, a bison, and a giraffe. [This includes the species] itself and its subspecies, e.g., the wild ox and the buffalo are subspecies of the ox.15The Maggid Mishneh and others interpret t'o as referring to a wild ox.
All of these ten species and their subspecies chew the cud and have split hoofs. Therefore, a person who recognizes these species need not check neither their mouths,16To see whether or not they have teeth on their upper jaw, as stated in Halachah 3. nor their feet.", + "Although all these species are permitted to be eaten, we must make a distinction between a kosher domesticated animal and a kosher wild beast. For the fat of a wild beast is permitted to be eaten and its blood must be covered.17As stated in Hilchot Shechitah, ch. 14. With regard to a kosher domesticated animal, by contrast, one is liable for kerais for partaking of its fat18See Chapter 7. and its blood need not be covered.", + "According to the Oral Tradition, these are the distinguishing signs of a [kosher] wild beast: Any species that has split hoofs, chews its cud, and has horns which branch off like those of a gazelle are certainly kosher wild beasts. [The following laws apply with regard to] all those whose horns do not branch off: If they are curved, like the horns of an ox, notched, like the horns of a goat, but the notch should be embedded within them, and spiraled, like the horns of a deer,19See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 3:6) for a definition of these terms. The Ra'avad, the Rashba, and Rashi offer slightly different definitions for these terms. it is a kosher wild beast. Its horns, however, must have these three signs: They must be curved, notched, and spiraled.", + "When does the above apply? With regard to a species that he does not recognize. [Different rules apply with regard to] the seven species mentioned in the Torah. If he recognizes this species, he may partake of its fat and is obligated to cover its blood, even one does not find any horns on it at all.", + "A wild ox is a species of domesticated animal.20Although it is not domesticated and lives like a wild beast, it is still placed in this category. A unicorn21This was not a mythical beast, but a species of antelope known to exist during the Talmudic period (Chullin 59b). is considered a wild beast even though it has only one horn.22And all other kosher wild beasts have two.
Whenever we have a doubt whether an animal is a domesticated animal or a wild beast, its fat is forbidden, but lashes are not given for partaking of it, and we must cover its blood.23I.e., we accept the stringencies resulting from both positions. The Turei Zahav 80:3 adds that since we are not certain that this is required, we do not cover its blood on a festival. Similarly, the Siftei Cohen 80:4 states that a blessing is not recited before covering its blood.", + "A mixed species that comes from the mating of a kosher domesticated animal and a kosher wild beast is called a koi. Its fat is forbidden, but lashes are not given for partaking of it, and we must cover its blood.24See also Hilchot Nazirut 2:10-11 which states that in certain ways it is like a domesticated animal (its fat is forbidden). In others, it is like a wild beast (its blood must be covered). Still in others it is like neither a domesticated animal or a wild beast (for it is considered as a mixed species with either of them) and in others (that it must be slaughtered), it resembles both. A non-kosher species will never be impregnated by a kosher species.25I.e., even if they are mated, they will not produce offspring.", + "The distinguishing signs of a kosher [species of] fowl are not mentioned explicitly by the Torah. Instead, the Torah mentions26Leviticus 11:13-19; Deuteronomy 14:12-18. only the non-kosher species. The remainder of the species of fowl are kosher. There are 24 forbidden species. They are:
a) the eagle,27In this instance as well, the translation of the names of these species is a matter of debate among both Torah commentaries and zoologists. Our translation is taken from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's Living Torah. Consult the notes there for a detailed discussion of the matter. In practice, we only partake of those species of fowl concerning which we have an established tradition that they are acceptable.
b) the ossifrage,
c) the osprey;
d) the kite, this is identical with the rayah mentioned in Deuteronomy,
e) the vulture, this is identical with the dayah mentioned in Deuteronomy,
f) members of the vulture family; for the Torah states \"according to its family,\" implying that two species [are forbidden],
g) the raven,
h) the starling;28See the Kessef Mishneh and others who state that there is a difference of opinion whether this species is acceptable or not. since the Torah states \"according to its family\" with regard to the raven, the starling is included,
i) the ostrich,
j) the owl,
k) the gull,
l) the hawk,
m) the gosshawk, for this is among the hawk family; and the verse says \"according to its family,\"
n) the falcon,
o) the cormorant,
p) the ibis,
q) the swan,
r) the pelican,
s) the magpie,
t) the stork,
u) the heron,
v) members of the heron family; for the Torah states \"according to its family,\"
w) the hoopie, and
x) the bat.
", + "Whoever is knowledgeable with regard to these species29As mentioned, there is a difference of opinion regarding the species associated with these names and there are few if any individuals who can claim the desired level of familiarity (see Siftei Cohen 82:1). and their names30As indicated by Chapter 3, Halachah 18, the knowledge of the names of the species is important. Otherwise, the hunter's word is not accepted. may partake of any fowl from other species.31For these are the only ones forbidden by the Torah. A kosher species of fowl may be eaten based on tradition, i.e., that it is accepted simply in that place that the species of fowl is kosher.32If there is such a tradition, there is no necessity to check the signs mentioned in the following halachah. A hunter's word is accepted if he says: \"The hunter who taught me told me33Chullin 63b states that this refers to a person who taught hunting and not a teacher of Torah, for it is possible that the Torah teacher will not be able to actually identify the species. Nevertheless, if a Rabbinical authority testifies that he has received the tradition that a species is acceptable, we follow his ruling (Siftei Cohen, loc. cit.). that this fowl is permitted,\" provided that [teacher] has an established reputation as being knowledgeable with regard to these species and their names.", + "Whoever does not recognize these species and does not know their names must check according to the following signs given by our Sages: Any fowl that attacks with its claws34In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 3:6), the Rambam defines this as meaning \"place its claws on the object that it desires to eat and eats it.\" and eats is known to be among these species and is unkosher. If [a fowl] does not attack with its claws and eat, it is kosher if it possesses one of the following signs: a) it has an extra claw,35I.e., a claw that is positioned higher and behind the fowl's row of claws (Rashi, Chulin 62a). Although most species of fowl possess such a claw, it is called \"extra,\" because it is not positioned in the row of claws. Alternatively, the Hebrew term yeterah can be translated not as \"extra,\" but as \"larger,\" i.e., a claw that is larger than the others (Rabbenu Nissim). b) a crop;36An organ which parallels a human's stomach. this is also referred to as a mur'ah, c) [the membrane of] its craw37An extra muscular stomach that exists in fowl.
We are speaking about the inner membrane (Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Chulin 3:6). See Chatam Sofer, Yoreh De'ah, Responsum 50.
can be peeled by hand.38Although the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 82:2) quotes the Rambam's words, it concludes: \"Even though a fowl possesses these three signs, it should not be eaten, because we suspect that it might be a bird of prey unless they have a tradition given to them by their ancestors that this species is kosher.\" Similarly, the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 82:3) states: \"One should not partake of any fowl unless there is a received tradition that it is kosher. This is the accepted custom. One should not deviate from it.\" Thus even if a species of fowl possesses these three signs, we do not partake of it.", + "[The rationale is that] there are none of the forbidden species that do not attack with its claws and eat and possesses one of these three signs with the exception of the ossifrage and the osprey. And the ossifrage and the osprey are not found in settled areas, but rather in the deserts of the distant islands that are very far removed to the extent that are located at the ends of the settled portions of the world.", + "If its craw can be peeled with a knife, but cannot be peeled by hand and it does not possess any other sign even though it is not a bird of prey, there is an unresolved doubt regarding the matter.39And we do not permit it. If the membrane was firm and tightly attached, but [the craw] was left in the sun and it became looser [to the extent that] it could be peeled by hand, [the species] is permitted.", + "The Geonim said that they have an existing tradition that one should not rule to permit a fowl that possesses only one of these signs unless that sign is that its craw can be peeled by hand. If, however, it cannot be peeled by hand, it was never permitted [to be eaten] even if it possesses a crop or an extra claw.", + "Whenever a bird divides its claws when a line is extended for it,40I.e., it stands on a rope or a pole extended for it by gripping the rope or pole with its claws (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Chulin 3:6). placing two on one side and two on the other or it seizes an object in the air and eats while in the air, it is a bird of prey41For these actions indicate that it uses its claws to attack other animals. and non-kosher. Any species that lives together with non-kosher species and resembles them, is itself non-kosher.42Chulin 65a states that only species that are themselves impure will dwell together with impure species.", + "There are eight species of locusts which the Torah permitted:
a) a white locust,43In this instance as well, the translation of the names of these species is a matter of debate among both Torah commentaries and zoologists. Our translation is taken from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's Living Torah. Consult the notes there for a detailed discussion of the matter. In practice, it is common in most communities not to partake of any species of locusts (Turei Zahav 85:1). In the Yemenite community, however, there are certain species of locusts which are eaten. b) a member of the white locust family,44The Torah mentions four names of locust species and in connection with each states \"according to its family,\" indicating that a sub-species is also permitted. the razbenit, c) the spotted grey locust, d) a member of the spotted grey locust family, the artzubiya, e) the red locust, d) a member of the red locust family, the bird of the vineyards, f) the yellow locust, g) a member of the yellow locust family, the yochanah of Jerusalem.", + "Whoever is knowledgeable with regard to these species and their names may partake of them. A hunter's word is accepted as [stated with regard] to a fowl.45Halachah 15. A person who is not familiar with them should check their identifying signs. [The kosher species] have three signs. Whenever a species has four legs, four wings that cover the majority of the length and the majority of the width of its body, and it has two longer legs to hop, it is a kosher species.46Chulin 66a speaks of four identifying signs for a kosher locust: a) four wings, 2 long legs, four legs, and the fact that its wings cover the majority of its body.. Even if its head is elongated and it has a tail, if it is referred to as a locust, it is a kosher species.47Note the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishneh (Chullin81, the conclusion of ch. 3) which states that the factor of fundamental importance is that the specis be referred to as a locust. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 85a).", + "When [a locust] does not have wings or extended legs at present, or its wings do not cover the majority [of its body], but it will grow them later when it grows larger, it is permitted [to be eaten] at present.", + "There are two signs of [kosher] fish: fins and scales. Fins are used by the fish to swim and scales are those which cling48The Maggid Mishneh explains that this term implies that the scales are not an integral part of the fish but can be separated from its body either by hand or with a utensil. If they cannot be separated from the fish, the fish is not kosher [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 83:1)]. to its entire body. Any fish that possesses scales will have fins.49Thus if one finds scales on a piece of fish, there is no need to check whether it possessed fins (the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 83:3).
Chulin 66b asks: If so, why did the Torah mention fins and answers that this magnifies and amplifies the Torah.
If it does not have them at present, but when it grows, it will have them or if it has scales while in the sea, but when it emerges it sheds its scales,50There are several species of kosher fish which shed their scales in this manner. it is permitted.
When a fish does not have scales that cover its entire body, it is permitted. Even if it has only one fin and one scale,51The Tur and Rama (loc. cit.) quote the view of certain Rishonim who maintain that in such an instance, the scale must be located under its gills, fins, or tail. it is permitted." + ], + [ + "Since it is written [Deuteronomy 14:6]: \"Any animal that has split hooves, [whose foot] is divided into two hoofs and chews the cud, [this may you eat],\"1Similar verses are also stated in that passage with regard to fish, fowl, and locusts. Like verses are also stated in Leviticus, except that in Leviticus, there is no such commandment with regard to a kosher fowl. To include that as well, the Rambam refers to the passage in Deuteronomy. one may derive that any animal that does not chew its cud and have split hoofs is forbidden. A negative commandment that comes as a result of a positive commandment is considered as a positive commandment.2I.e., it does not have the severity of a negative commandment. Hence its violation is not punishable by lashes.
The Rambam is explaining that the Torah is not commanding us to eat kosher species, for there is no obligation to partake of them. Instead, it is commanding us to take precautions - through checking distinguishing signs - against partaking of non-kosher ones. See Sefer HaMitzvot (General Principle 6) where the Rambam elaborates in the explanation of the concept of a prohibition derived from a positive commandment. See also Chapter 1, Halachah 1, and notes which deals with this issue.

With regard to the camel, the pig, the rabbit, and the hare, [Leviticus 11:4]3Here the Rambam cites the verses from Leviticus - although like verses also appear in Deuteronomy - for Leviticus comes first in the Torah. states: \"These you may not eat from those which chew the cud and have split hoofs.\" From this, you see that they are forbidden by a negative commandment, even though they possess one sign of kashrut. Certainly, this applies to other non-kosher domesticated animals and wild beasts that do not have any signs of kashrut.4The commentaries have raised a question concerning the Rambam's statements. There is a general principle (Pesachim 24a, et al): \"We do not issue a warning on the basis of logical deduction.\" Implied is that a person is not given lashes when a prohibition is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, but instead derived through logic. Why then, these commentaries ask, are lashes given for partaking of non-kosher species other than the four mentioned specifically by the Torah?
The Rambam offers a resolution to this question in his Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 172). There he explains that in this instance, we are not deriving the prohibition on the basis of logic, for it is already stated in the positive commandment. We are using logic only to derive that this prohibition is also included in the negative commandment.
The prohibition against eating them involves a negative commandment in addition to the positive commandment that is derived from \"This may you eat.\"", + "Therefore anyone who eats an olive sized portion5Approximately, an ounce in contemporary measure. of the meat of a non-kosher domesticated animal or wild beasts is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law. This applies whether he partook of the meat or the fat. For the Torah did not distinguish between the meat and fat of non-kosher animals.6Such a distinction is made with regard to the meat and fat of kosher animals. With regard to non-kosher animals, by contrast, the two are included in the same category and the same prohibition applies to both of them.", + "With regard to humans: Although [Genesis 2:7] states: \"And the man became a beast with a soul,\" he is not included in the category of hoofed animals. Therefore, he is not included in the [above] prohibition.7For the prohibition mentions the animal's hoofs. Accordingly, one who partakes of meat or fat from a man - whether alive or deceased - is not liable for lashes. It is, however, forbidden [to partake of human meat] because of the positive commandment [mentioned above].8The Ra'avad and the Rashba differ with the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that there is no prohibition at all against partaking of meat from a human. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 80:1) follows the Rambam's ruling.
The Maggid Mishneh explains the Rambam's position, noting that - as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 2, and in Chapter 6, Halachot 1-2 - there is no Scriptural prohibition against partaking of milk and blood from a human. Now these leniencies are derived from the exegesis of verses from the Torah. Were the meat of a human not to be forbidden, why would it be necessary to teach that his milk and blood are permitted? Who would have thought otherwise?
For the Torah [Leviticus 11:2] lists the seven species of kosher wild beasts and says: \"These are the beasts of which you may partake.\" Implied is that any other than they may not be eaten. And a negative commandment that comes as a result of a positive commandment is considered as a positive commandment.", + "When one partakes of an olive-sized portion of a non-kosher fowl, he is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Leviticus 11:13] states: \"These shall you detest from the fowl. You shall not partake of them.\" And he violates a positive commandment, as [Deuteronomy 14:11] states: \"You may partake of all kosher fowl.\" Implied is that the non-kosher may not be eaten.
Anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of a non-kosher fish is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Leviticus 11:11] states: \"They shall be detestable for you. Do not partake of their meat.\" And he violates a positive commandment, as [Deuteronomy 14:9] states: \"All that possess fins and scales, you may eat.\" Implied is that those that do not possess fins and scales may not be eaten. We thus learn that anyone who partakes of a non-kosher fish, domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl nullified a positive commandment and violated a negative commandment.9Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 172, 173, 174) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 154, 156, 157) include these among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.", + "A non-kosher locust is included among [the category of] flying teeming animals.10I.e., there is no separate commandment not to partake of a non-kosher locust. Instead, this is included in the general prohibition against partaking of non-kosher teeming animals. The Lechem Mishneh and others note that, in contrast, to the previous halachot, the Rambam does not mention the fact that there is a prohibition against partaking of locusts that results from the positive commandment to partake of them. One who partakes of an olive-sized portion11Or an entire teeming animal even if it is smaller than an olive; see Halachah 21. of flying teeming animals is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Deuteronomy 14:19] states: \"All flying teeming animals are non-kosher for you. They may not be eaten.\"12Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 175) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 471) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
As explained in the halachot that follow and summarized in Halachah 23, there are five prohibitions in the Torah that refer to teeming animals. The categories are not mutually exclusive and it is possible that one particular creature may be included in several - or all - of these categories.

What is meant by a flying teeming animal? For example, a fly, a mosquito, a hornet, a bee, or the like.", + "When one partakes of an olive-sized portion of a teeming animal of the land, he is liable for lashes, as [Leviticus 11:41] states: \"Any teeming animal that swarms on the ground is detestable to you. It should not be eaten.\"13Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 176) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 162) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
What is meant by a teeming animal of the land? Snakes, scorpions, beetles, centipedes, and the like.", + "The eight teeming animals that are mentioned in the Torah14Leviticus 11:29-30. The translation of the names of these eight species is a matter of debate among both Torah commentaries and zoologists. Our translation is taken from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's Living Torah. Consult the notes there for a detailed discussion of the matter.
The Torah singles these teeming animals out from others and states that they convey ritual purity. It does not mention anything about them with regard to the prohibition against partaking of their flesh. Nevertheless, since this quantity of their flesh is significant in another halachic context, it is also considered significant with regard to this prohibition (Meilah 16b). This explains why the minimum measure for which they are liable is less than that associated with other prohibitions.
are: the weasel, the mouse, the ferret, the hedgehog, the chameleon, the lizard, the snail, and the mole. A person who eats a lentil-sized portion of their meat is liable for lashes. The minimum measure that one is prohibited to partake of their meat is the same as the minimum measure that conveys ritual impurity. They all may be combined together to reach the measure of a lentil.", + "When does the above apply? When one partakes of them after they have died.15For their flesh only conveys ritual impurity after they have died. If, however, one cuts off a limb from a living creature from one of these species and eats it, he does not receive lashes unless he [partakes of] an olive-sized portion of meat. They all may be combined together to reach the measure of an olive.
One who eats an entire limb of a teeming animal after it dies does not receive lashes unless it contains a lentil-sized amount of meat.16Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTumah 4:3 states that there is no minimum measure with regard to the limbs of a teeming animal within the context of ritual impurity. A person who touches an entire limb of a such an animal after its death becomes impure even if the limb is smaller than the size of a lentil. Nevertheless, we do not rule that one is liable if he eats such a limb.
Meilah, loc. cit., explains that although the limbs of other animals also convey ritual impurity no matter what their size, one is not liable unless he partakes of an olive-sized portion. Hence, there is no reason to extend the stringency that applies with regard to these teeming animals any further.
", + "The blood of these eight teeming animals and their flesh can be combined to reach the minimum measure of a lentil, provided the blood is still attached to their flesh.17If not, one is not liable until he partakes of an olive-sized portion, as stated in the following halachah. Similarly, the blood of a snake18Which is not one of the teeming animals explicitly mentioned by the Torah. is combined with its flesh to reach the measure of an olive and one receives lashes for it. The rationale is that its flesh is not separate from its blood, even though it does not impart ritual impurity.19In contrast to the blood of the eight teeming animals that were singled out by the Torah. Similar concepts apply with regard to other teeming animals that do not convey ritual impurity.", + "When a person collects the blood of teeming animals that has been separated [from their bodies] and partakes of it, he receives lashes if he partakes of a portion the size of an olive.20The Maggid Mishneh (in his gloss to Halachah 9) states that this applies even to the eight teeming animals mentioned explicitly in the Torah. Once their blood is separated from their bodies, the minimum measure is the same as that of other species. [This applies] provided he was warned against partaking of it because [of the prohibition against partaking of] a teeming animal. If, however, he is warned against partaking of it because [of the prohibition against partaking of] blood, he is not liable. For we are liable only for the blood of domesticated animals, wild beasts, and fowl.21As stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 1.", + "All these measures - and the distinctions between them22That for some one is liable for an olive-sized portion and for others, for a lentil-sized portion. - are halachot received by Moses at Sinai [and transmitted via the Oral Tradition].", + "One who partakes of an olive-sized portion of an aquatic teeming animal is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Leviticus 11:43] states: \"Do not make your souls detestable [by partaking] of any teeming animal that swarms... and do not become impure because of them.\" Included in this prohibition are teeming animals of the land, that fly, and of the water.23Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 179) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 164) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. As obvious from the Rambam's words here and as explained in greater length in Sefer HaMitzvot, this is not a specific commandment relating to aquatic teeming creatures, but a general commandment relating to all teeming animals. Accordingly, when a person partakes of a teeming animal of the land or a flying teeming animal, he is liable for two transgressions.
The Ramban (Hasagot to Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 9) and the Maggid Mishneh differ with the Rambam and maintain that this is not considered as a separate mitzvah.

What is meant by a aquatic teeming animal? Both small creatures like worms and leeches that inhabit the water24See Halachot 18-19. and larger creatures that are beasts of the sea. To state a general principle: Any aquatic creature that does not have the characteristics of a fish, neither a non-kosher fish or a kosher fish, e.g., a seal, a dolphin, a frog, or the like.", + "The species that come into existence in garbage heaps and the carcasses of dead animals, e.g., maggots, worms, and the like which are not brought into being from male-female [relations],25The Rambam is stating - based on Midrashic and Talmudic sources - that there are creatures which spontaneously regenerate. It is not our place to defend these concepts against the findings of science. It must, however, be said that many Rabbinical leaders who are aware of the work of Pasteur and others did not doubt the teachings of the Torah and accepted these laws. but from filth that decays and the like are called \"those which creep on the earth.\" A person who partakes of an olive-sized portion [of these creations] is liable for lashes,26Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 177) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 165) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. as [Leviticus 11:44] states: \"Do not make your souls impure with any teeming animal that creeps on the earth,\" even thought they do not reproduce. Teeming animals that swarm on the earth, by contrast, are those that reproduce from male-female [relations].", + "[The following laws apply with regard to] species that come into being from fruits and other foods.27See Halachot 18-19. Should they depart from [the source from where they came into being] and go to the earth,28The Rambam's wording is borrowed from the prooftext cited. Even if these crawling animals do not reach the earth, but merely appear on the surface of the fruit, they become forbidden., as stated in Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 178). Note, however, Halachah 16. a person who partakes of an olive-sized portion of them is liable for lashes,29Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 178) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 163) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. as [Leviticus 11:42] states: \"With regard to any teeming animal that swarms on the earth, [do not eat them].\" This forbids those that departed to the earth, even though they returned to the food. If, however, they did not depart, it is permitted to eat the fruit together with the worm in it.", + "When does the above apply? When the food became worm-ridden after it was uprooted from the earth.30Or removed from its tree. If, however, it became worm-ridden while it was connected [to its source of nurture], that worm is forbidden as if it became departed to the earth. For it was created on the earth. One is liable for lashes [for partaking of it]. If there is a doubt, it is forbidden.
Therefore all fruits that commonly become worm-ridden31This is a halachic issue that is given much attention today. We find certain Jewish groups who have taken it upon themselves to grow vegetables without any exposure to insects. There is a heightened consciousness with regard to the need to check and many books and tools have been produced with this purpose in mind. It must be emphasized, however, that although there are no vegetables that are absolutely insect and larvae free, the common halachic approach is not to show concern for any insects and/or larvae that are not visible to the naked eye. Conversely, we assume that all insects we discover came from male-female relationships or came into being while the fruit was connected to its source and do not permit any because they might have come from the fruit itself after it was detached. when connected [to their source of nurture] should not be eaten until one checks the fruit from its inside,32I.e., an external search is not sufficient and one must cut the fruit or vegetable open and search from the inside. for perhaps it contains a worm. If the fruit remains twelve months after being severed [from its source], it may be eaten without being inspected. For a worm inside of it will not endure for twelve months.33Since a crawling animal will not live for more than twelve months inside produce and the produce has been detached for more than twelve months, it follows that the animal came into being from the produce itself and thus the produce and the animal can be eaten together.
Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 84:8) states that the produce should be checked lest there be crawling animals that have left the produce. One of the ways to select grains, legumes, and the like is to soak them first. Any ones with holes will float to the top. They should be discarded, lest they be worm-ridden.
", + "If [the worm] departed to the atmosphere, but did not reach the earth, or only a portion of it reached the earth, it departed after it died, the worm was found on the seed on the inside, or it departed from one food to another, [in] all these [situations, the worm] is forbidden because of the doubt, but lashes are not administered [if one partakes of it].", + "A worm found in the stomach of a fish, in the brain within the head of an animal, and one found in meat are forbidden. When, however, salted fish becomes worm-ridden, the worms in it are permitted.34Provided they have not departed from the fish itself (Maggid Mishneh).
The Maggid Mishneh explains the Rambam's approach as follows: All worms that are found in both meat and fish while the animals are alive are forbidden, for we assume that they entered from the outside. Even after a fish dies, we can assume that the worms in its stomach were swallowed when it was alive. Similarly, those in an animal's brain can be assumed to have entered its nose from the outside and are hence, forbidden. Those found in the body of a fish are considered to have been spontaneously generated are hence permitted. Those found in the meat of an animal are not permitted. The rationale is that anything that comes from an animal is permitted to be eaten only after it has been slaughtered according to law. Even though the animal itself was slaughtered, since that slaughter preceded the existence of the worms, they are not permitted.
The Ra'avad and many other Rishonim differ with the Rambam's understanding and permit worms that came into being in meat from animals that were ritually slaughtered, e.g., in meat that was salted to be used at a later time. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 84:16) quotes both views, but appears to favor the more lenient one. The Rama states that it is customary to follow the more lenient view. In practice, in the present age, this problem is far less prevalent, for because of refrigeration and freezing, it is less likely for worms to exist in meat.
This is comparable to fruit which has become worm-ridden after it has been separated from the earth. It is permitted to eat them together with the worm that is in them.
Similarly, if water35Or other beverages (Siftei Cohen 84:1). This is evident from Halachot 19-20. in a utensil produces teeming animals, those teeming animals are permitted to be drunk together with the water, as [can be inferred from Leviticus 11:9]: \"All that possess fins and scales in the water, seas, and rivers, they you may eat.\" Implied is that you may eat those that possess [fins and scales] in the water, seas, and rivers and those that do not possess them, you may not eat. But those creatures [that come into existences] in utensils are permitted whether they possess [fins and scales] or not.", + "[Since the water found] in cisterns, trenches and caves is not flowing water, but instead is collected there,36I.e., water that is stored in storage compartments dug into - or naturally found within - the earth.
The Maggid Mishneh states that irrigation ditches and breeding ponds which water flows through are not included in this category, because - in contrast to water found in containers - the water in them does not stand still. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 84:1) quotes a difference of opinion on this issue.
it is comparable to water found in containers. [Hence], aquatic teeming animals that are created [in these places] are permitted. A person may bend down and drink37Commenting on the citation of this ruling by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 84:2), the Rama states that if one finds worms in a bucket of water drawn from such bodies, the worms are forbidden, because we fear that the worms came from the bucket and not from the water. without holding back even though he swallows these flimsy teeming animals when drinking.38Or other beverages (Siftei Cohen 84:1). This is evident from Halachot 19-20.", + "When does the above apply? When the teeming animals did not depart from the place where they came into being. If they did, even though they later return to the container or the cistern, they are forbidden. If they went out to the walls of the barrel and then fell back into the water or the beer, they are permitted.39For the walls are still considered as \"the place where the teeming animals came into existence.\" Similarly, if they went out to the walls of the cistern and the cave and returned to the water, they are permitted.", + "When a person strains wine, vinegar, or beer and eats the insects, bugs, and worms that he strains, he is liable for lashes for partaking of an aquatic teeming animal or [for partaking of] a flying teeming animal and an aquatic teeming animal.40If the insect has the characteristics of both the prohibited species, as stated in Halachah 23. [This applies] even if they returned to the container after they were strained, for they departed from the place where they came into existence. If, however, they did not depart, one may drink without holding back, as we explained.41Halachah 18. I.e., he need not worry that perhaps they became separated (Maggid Mishneh).", + "When, in this chapter, we have spoken about partaking of an olive-sized portion, [the intent is that] one ate an olive-sized portion of a large creature or one collected some from one species and some from another similar species42For the portions of forbidden insects to be combined, they need not be of the same species. They must, however, be included in the same prohibition. See Chapter 4, Halachah 17. until one partakes of an olive sized portion. If, however, one eats an entire forbidden creature by itself, one is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law even if it is smaller than a mustard seed.43This is a general principle applying in many contexts in the laws of kashrut. The creature must, however, be visible to the naked eye.
[This applies] whether one partook of it after it died or while it was alive. Even if the creature decayed and lost its form,44If, however, it has decayed to the extent that it is no longer fit for human consumption, one is not liable, as stated in Chapter 14, Halachah 11. one is liable for lashes since one consumed it in its entirety.", + "When an ant has lost even one of its legs,45For it is no longer considered as a complete creation. one is not liable for lashes for partaking of it unless one eats an olive-sized portion. For this reason,46This phrase refers to the previous halachah. one who eats an entire fly or an entire mosquito whether alive or dead is worthy of lashes for partaking of a flying teeming animal.", + "[The following laws apply if] a particular creature is [included in the categories of] a flying teeming animal, an aquatic teeming animal, and a teeming animal of the earth, e.g., it has wings, it walks on the earth like other [earthbound] teeming animals, and it reproduces in the water. If one partakes of it, he is liable for three [sets of] lashes.47The Rambam's statements are based on Makkot 16b: \"If one eats a potisa, one is liable for four [sets of] lashes, an ant, five [sets of] lashes.\" As he explains in Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 179), the intent is not that one is liable for additional sets of lashes because several prohibitions are stated with regard to a particular creature. Instead, the intent is that if one creature falls into several forbidden categories, one is liable for a set of lashes for every forbidden category. See Maggid Mishneh.
It must be emphasized that the Ra'avad, Rav Moshe HaCohen, the Ramban, and other Rishonim do not accept the Rambam's interpretation and instead, maintain that the prohibitions mentioned in Makkot, loc. cit., refer to the repetition of prohibitions concerning a single creature.

If, in addition to the above, it is one of the species which are brought into being in the earth in fruit, he is liable for a fourth [set of] lashes. If it is one of the species that reproduce,48I.e., although this particular creature was spontaneously generated, it was brought into being in a manner that it could reproduce and bear offspring. he is liable for a fifth [set of] lashes. If it also can be considered as a non-kosher fowl in addition to being considered a flying teeming animal,49In Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.), the Rambam is sensitive to the question that might arise and states: \"Do not wonder how it is possible for a fowl to come into being from the decay of fruits, for we have seen this take place frequently.\" In that source, he also explains that it is possible for a single creature to have the characteristics of a non-kosher fowl and a flying teeming animal. he is liable for six [sets of] lashes: [for partaking of] a non-kosher fowl, a flying teeming animal, a teeming animal of the earth, an aquatic teeming animal, an animal that swarms on the earth, and a worm from fruit.
[This applies whether] he partook of the entire creature or he partook of an olive-sized portion of it. Therefore one who eats an ant that flies that breeds in the water is liable for five [sets of] lashes.", + "When one crushed ants, added another complete ant to those that were crushed so that the entire quantity was equal to an olive-sized portion, and partook of it, he is liable for six [sets of] lashes: five [for partaking of] the one ant50As stated in the previous halachah. and an additional one, because he partook of an olive-sized portion of dead non-kosher animals.51The Rambam is not referring to the prohibition against partaking of an animal that is not ritually slaughtered. For that prohibition applies only with regard to kosher animals, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 2. For this reason, the Maggid Mishneh (in his gloss to that halachah) raises questions with the Rambam's statement here. The Kessef Mishneh and others attempt to offer resolutions." + ], + [ + "Any food that is produced from forbidden species for which lashes are given for partaking of1I.e., foods that are forbidden by a negative commandment. is forbidden to be eaten according to Scriptural Law, e.g., milk from a forbidden species of domesticated animal or wild beast or the eggs of a forbidden species of birds or fish. [This is derived from Leviticus 11:16 which mentions]: \"the bat of the ostrich.\" [Our Sages2Chullin 64b. The term literally means \"the daughter of the ostrich.\" Our Sages, however, expanded the interpretation of the term as the Rambam explains. commented:] \"This refers to its egg.\" The same law applies to all species that are forbidden like an ostrich and all entities [that are produce] like eggs.", + "Human milk is permitted to be eaten,3I.e., even by an adult. Note, however, Halachah 4. although the meat of a human is forbidden to be eaten. We have already explained4Chapter 2, Halachah 3. that it is forbidden by virtue of a positive commandment.5Thus it does not contradict the general principle mentioned in the previous halachah.", + "Honey produced by bees and hornets6As the Maggid Mishneh mentions, there is a difference of opinion among the Sages in Bechorot 7b whether the honey of hornets is forbidden. This difference of opinion is perpetuated among the later authorities. See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 81:9). is permitted. [The rationale is that] it is not a product of their bodies. Instead, it is collected in their mouths from herbs and then expelled in their hive so that they will be able to partake of it in the rainy season.", + "Although human milk is permitted, our Sages prohibited an adult to nurse from [a woman's] breasts. Instead, the woman should express it into a container7Or into a person's hands. She may not, however, express it into the person's mouth [the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 81:7)]. and the adult should partake of it. An adult who nurses from [a woman's] breast is like one who nurses from a teeming animal.8The Ra'avad and the Turei Zahav 81:9 explains that these words of censure were issued because an observer might think that the milk of a non-kosher animal is also permitted. He is given stripes for rebellious conduct.", + "An infant may continue to nurse for even four or five years. If, however, he was weaned for three days or more in a state of health and not because of sickness, he should not be allowed to nurse again.9Needless to say, if there is a danger to the child's life, he may be allowed to nurse again regardless of the amount of time for which he had been weaned [the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 81:7)]. [The above applies] provided he was weaned after 24 months. If he was weaned within that time, even if he was weaned for a month or two, it is permitted to have him nurse again until the conclusion of 24 months.10When an infant has never been weaned, he may continue past the 24 month limit as the Rambam states at the beginning of the halachah. If, however, he has been weaned, he is bound by this restriction [Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 81)].", + "Although the milk of a non-kosher animal and the egg of a non-kosher fowl are forbidden according to Scriptural Law, [one is] not [liable for] lashes [for partaking of them. [This is derived from Leviticus 11:8] which states: \"You may not eat from their flesh.\" [Implied is that] one is liable for lashes for [partaking of] their flesh, but is not liable for lashes for [partaking of] their eggs and milk. One who partakes [of these substances] is like one who eats half the minimum measure [of a forbidden substance]. This is forbidden according to Scriptural Law, but one is not liable for lashes. Instead, he receives stripes for rebellious conduct.11See Chapter 4, Halachah 16, Hilchot Shivitat Esor 2:3, et al.", + "It appears to me that eating the eggs of non-kosher species of fish that are found in their bellies is comparable to eating the insides of the forbidden fish themselves12For they are part of the fish's body and are not separated by a shell. and one is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law. Similarly, when a person partakes of the eggs of a non-kosher fowl that are hanging in a cluster without being separated from the mother's body or completed, he is liable for lashes as if he ate the insides of [the fowl itself].13For this instance as well, the eggs are not a distinct entity, but instead are considered part of the fowl's body. The Maggid Mishneh brings proof of this concept from Chapter 9, Halachot 4-5, which states that it is forbidden to eat such eggs together with milk and from Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 3:10 which states that they convey ritual impurity like the meat of the fowl itself.", + "When one partakes of the egg of a non-kosher fowl inside of which an embryo has begun to take form, he is liable for eating a flying teeming animal.14The embryo is not considered as a non-kosher fowl. Nevertheless, it is already a distinct entity. Hence it is considered as a non-kosher teeming animal. The Maggid Mishneh mentions that there are other Rishonim who do not accept the Rambam's position.
The Siftei Cohen 15:1 explains that while the embryo is within the egg, it has the characteristics of a teeming animal.
If, however, one partakes of the egg of a kosher fowl inside of which an embryo has begun to take form, he is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.15From Chullin 64a, it appears that there is only a Rabbinic prohibition against partaking of this embryo. Hence, this punishment is given.", + "[The following laws apply if] a blood spot is found on an egg.16This refers to an egg that could have been fertilized. If, however, we know that an egg was not fertilized, it is acceptable no matter where the blood spot is found. The blood itself, however, must be discarded [the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 66:7)]. Most of the eggs commercially sold are not fertilized. If it is found on the white, one should discard the blood and eat the remainder of the egg.17For the embryo has not begun to form and has not affected the entire egg. If it is found on the yolk, the entire egg is forbidden.18At this stage of development, the entire egg has been affected. See the Shulchan Aruch and Rama (Yoreh De'ah 66:2-3) which also mention other halachic perspectives with regard to blood found in fertilized eggs. Unfertilized eggs - a refined person partakes of them.19Even though they could be considered spoiled [see Rashi, Chullin 77a; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 66:7)].", + "When a chick is hatched, even if its eyes have not opened, it is permitted [to slaughter it and] eat it.20Until it is hatched, however, it is forbidden as indicated by Halachah 8. See also Siftei Cohen 15:2 who mentions authorities who suggest that one should wait until its wings start to develop before slaughtering it.
When a kosher animal became trefe,21Forbidden because it contracted a wound that will cause it to die within a year. its milk is forbidden like the milk of a non-kosher animal.22Although the milk comes from a kosher species, since the animal itself is unacceptable, its milk is also deemed unacceptable. Similarly, the egg of a kosher fowl that became trefe is comparable to the egg of a non-kosher fowl and is forbidden.23According to Rabbinic decree, this law applies to eggs that are found within a fowl that died without being ritually slaughtered [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 86:3)].", + "When a chick is hatched from an egg from a trefe fowl, it is permitted, for it is not from a non-kosher species.24Chulin 31a states that the fact that the egg from which the embryo is formed is trefe does not present a halachic problem. The rationale is that, for the embryo to form, the egg must decompose. Hence its halachic status does not affect that of the embryo. When there is an unresolved question whether a fowl is trefe or not, we retain25For 21 days [Bechorot 8a; the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 86:99]. This is the amount of time our Sages thought necessary for a fowl to begin laying a new batch of eggs. all the eggs it lays in its first batch.26I.e., the eggs it was carrying when it first became trefe. Although Chulin 58a states that a fowl which is trefe will not lay eggs, the intent is that it will not lay a new batch of eggs. It will, however, lay the batch it is presently carrying. If it grows another batch and begins laying them, the first ones are permitted.27There are opinions in the Ashkenazic halachic tradition that forbid such a chick. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 86:7) states that the initial and preferred option is to respect these views. For if it was trefe, it would no longer lay eggs. If it does not lay eggs, [the first batch] are forbidden.", + "The milk of a non-kosher animal will not congeal and solidify as the milk of a kosher animal does. If the milk of a non-kosher animal is mixed together with the milk of a kosher animal, when the mixture is [set aside for cheese to be made], the kosher milk will solidify and the non-kosher milk will be expelled together with the whey of the cheese.", + "Accordingly, logic would dictate that any milk found in the possession of a gentile is forbidden, lest the gentile have mixed the milk of a non-kosher animal with it. And the cheese of the gentiles should be permitted, for the milk of a non-kosher animal will not form cheese. Nevertheless, during the age of the Sages of the Mishnah, they issued a decree against gentile cheese and forbade it, lest they use the skin of the stomach of an animal they slaughtered - which is forbidden as a nevelah28This term refers to an animal from a kosher species which died without being ritually slaughtered. - to cause it to solidify.29For milk to solidify as cheese, it needs a catalyst, rennin, to cause it to curdle. One of the most common sources of rennin was the digestive organs of an animal. For the enzymes that facilitate the digestion of food also produce such an effect. Using the skin of a non-kosher organ causes the cheese to be non-kosher for the reasons the Rambam proceeds to explain. See also Chapter 4, Halachah 19, and Chapter 9, Halachah 15.
As the Ra'avad and Maggid Mishneh mention, Avodah Zarah 35a gives several additional reasons for these prohibitions. The Rambam, however, does not mention them because the factors causing the prohibition could be nullified as explained in the following note. The Maggid Mishneh mentions that there are opinions that maintain that the motivating factor behind the prohibition against non-Jewish cheese is to prevent social interaction between Jews and non-Jews. Hence the prohibitions are never nullified even if there is a substantially larger quantity of the kosher substance.

If one would say: The stomach skin is a very small entity when compared to the milk that it is used to solidify. Why is it not nullified because of its insignificant size?30As will be explained, according to Scriptural Law, when a forbidden substance is mixed together with a kosher substance, it is nullified - i.e, considered as if it has become part of the permitted substance - if the quantity of the permitted substance is greater than it. According to Rabbinic Law, this is true when the quantity of the permitted substance is so great that the taste of the forbidden substance would not be detected. That would certainly be true in the instance at hand. Nevertheless, the forbidden substance is not nullified for the reason explained by the Rambam. Because it is used as the catalyst to cause the cheese to curdle. Since the catalyst which causes it to curdle is forbidden, everything is forbidden, as will be explained.31Chapter 9, Halachah 16; Chapter 16, Halachah 26.", + "[The following laws apply when] cheese is left to solidify with herbs or fruit juice, e.g., fig syrup, and it is apparent [that these substances were used for] the cheese. There are some of the Geonim who have ruled that it is forbidden, for [our Sages] already decreed that all the cheeses of gentiles are forbidden, whether they caused them to solidify with a forbidden entity or with a permitted entity.32This is also the Rambam's view. It is quoted by the the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 115:2. The Rama states that it is customary to follow this view. The Rama continues, stating that when a Jew observes a gentile milking the cows and making the cheese, it is permitted to partake of it even though the cheese belongs to the gentiles. He continues, stating that even if the Jew does not observe the gentile milking the cow, as long as he observes him making the cheese, the cheese is acceptable after the fact. The Turei Zahav 115:11 and the Siftei Cohen 115:22 quote opinions that differ and maintain that the prohibition should be observed even if a Jew did not observe the milking.
This difference of opinion is relevant today, reflecting the difference between chalav Yisrael cheese and ordinary kosher cheese. In both instances, the cheesemaking process is supervised. Chalav Yisrael cheese uses milk that was supervised when milked, while ordinary kosher cheese does not.
This is a decree, [instituted] because they cause them to solidify using forbidden entities.", + "When a person partakes of cheese from gentiles or milk that was milked by a gentile without a Jew observing him, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.33For his behavior is in violation of an explicit Rabbinic prohibition. Even though the rationale for the original decree is no longer applicable, the prohibition established by our Rabbis is still in force. (See Hilchot Mamrim 2:2.)
In the present era, there are certain Rabbis (see Rav Moshe Feinstein, Igros Moshe) who give a rationale for leniency with regard to this prohibition, stating that government supervision makes it impossible for gentiles to mix non-kosher milk together with cow's milk and thus there is no necessity to heed that prohibition. It must be emphasized, however, that this responsum was authored before the time when it became relative easy to procure chalav Yisrael and that many other Rabbinical authorities never accepted this decision. On the contrary, basing themselves on the ruling of Hilchot Mamrim 2:2, they explain that the original decree must still be observed. As a result of their forceful stance, at present, it is possible to obtain chalav Yisrael products in almost every major Jewish community.
With regard to butter produced by gentiles, some of the Geonim permit it, for [our Sages] did not decree against butter and some of the Geonim forbid it,34The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 115:3) states that one should not rebuke those who permit the use of such butter, but if the local custom is to forbid it, that custom should be respected. At present, since it is possible to obtain chalav Yisrael butter in almost every major Jewish community, many Rabbis urge that this prohibition be observed. because of the drops of milk that remain in it. For the whey in the butter is not mixed with the butter35We are speaking about homemade butter which always has some small drops of whey within it. These drops, however, are not mixed with the butter itself, but instead remain as a separate entity. Hence, they cannot be nullified. See Kessef Mishneh. so that it will be nullified because of its minimal quantity. And we suspect that any milk [from gentiles] is mixed with the milk of a non-kosher animal.", + "It appears to me36This expression connotes a law derived by the Rambam through his deductive reasoning without an existing prior Rabbinic source. that if one purchased butter from gentiles and cooked it until the drops of milk in it disappeared, it is permitted.37The Kessef Mishneh explains that not only is this permitted after the fact, one may do so at the outset (lechatchilah). For it is possible that there is no forbidden substance present at all.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 115:3) quotes this ruling. Nevertheless, most of the authorities who forbid using non-Jewish butter maintain that, in practice, one should refrain from cooking it as well.
For if one will say that [drops of non-kosher milk] were mixed with the butter and it was all cooked together, they became insignificant because of the small quantity [involved].38I.e., the amount of non-kosher milk is surely insignificant in relation to the quantity of the mixture as a whole. Hence it is nullified. When, however, the butter is cooked by gentiles themselves,39I.e., in their own utensils. it is forbidden because of the effusion of gentile [foods], as will be explained.40As explained in Chapter 17, Halachah 2, it is forbidden to cook food in utensils belonging to gentiles, for the utensil will have absorbed some of the non-kosher food cooked in it previously and will discharge it into the kosher food during the cooking process.
The Kessef Mishneh and the Rama (loc. cit.) differ with the Rambam regarding this issue. See the notes to Chapter 17 Halachah 18, for a discussion of this matter.
", + "When a Jew sits near a herd belonging to a gentile and the gentile brings him milk from the herd, it is permitted [for him to partake of it] even though there are non-kosher animals in the herd. [This applies] even though he did not see him milk the animal, provided he could have seen him were he to stand.41Similarly, if the Jew walks in and out of the place where the milking is taking place, it is acceptable. For the gentile will fear that any moment, the Jew will return (Turei Zahav 115:3). [The rationale is that] the gentile is afraid to milk the non-kosher animal lest [the Jew] stand and see him.42The Rambam is explaining that although our Sages require that a Jew observe the milking of an animal, it is not necessary that he watch the actual milking. As long as he is present and could see what the gentile is doing, the gentile will refrain from mixing in a non-kosher substance.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 115:1) states that this ruling applies only after the fact. At the outset, the Jew must observe the milking and also check the container into which the gentile is milking.
The Maggid Mishneh clarifies that this ruling applies only when the gentile is milking the animal for the Jew and knows that the Jew will not drink the milk of the non-kosher animal. If he is not aware of the prohibition, we suspect that he will give the Jew milk from any animal in his herd.
", + "When both of the ends of an egg are rounded, both are pointed, or the yolk is on the outside and the white is on the inside, it is certainly from a non-kosher species. If one end is pointed, the other rounded, and the white is on the outside and the yolk is on the inside, it is possible that it is the egg of a non-kosher species and it is possible that it is the egg of a kosher species.43I.e., all kosher eggs have these characteristics, but not all eggs with these characteristics are kosher. Accordingly, the Jew should inquire of the Jewish44But not a non-Jewish hunter, as evident from the following halachah. hunter who sells them. If he tells him that they are from such-and-such a fowl and that this fowl is kosher, he may rely on him.45We are certain that he will not lie, because it is possible to bring other eggs from that species and see that they are not alike (Turei Zahav 86:1; Siftei Cohen 86:3). If, however, he tells him that they are from a kosher fowl, but does not mention its name, he may not rely on him.46For the method of verification mentioned in the previous note does not apply.
The Ra'avad rules that if the hunter has an established reputation for observance, we may rely on his word, even though he does not name the species of the fowl. The Maggid Mishneh states that, as indicated by the conclusion of Halachah 20, the Rambam would also accept that ruling. According to this understanding, the hunter we are speaking about is not known for his observance. Nevertheless, we rely on his statements.
In his notes to Halachah 20, the Rashba emphasizes that we are not speaking about a person who is known to sell non-kosher food as kosher. As evident from Hilchot Maaserot 12:16, such a person is considered as a gentile and his word is not accepted at all. Instead, the intent is someone whose reputation for observance has not been established, but is also not suspect to cause others to transgress.
", + "For this reason, we do not purchase eggs from gentiles unless one recognizes the eggs and can identify them as being from a particular kosher species of fowl.47The Maggid Mishneh quotes the Ramban who differs with the Rambam and maintains that there is no difference between a Jew whose reputation for observance is not established and a gentile. Just like we accept the Jew's word, we accept that of the gentile. For we assume that he will not risk his reputation by making false statements. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 86:1) quotes the Rambam's ruling, while the Tur and the Rama cite that of the Ramban.
The Maggid Mishneh also quotes Rashba who states that in the present age, we purchase eggs from gentiles without compunction, because non-kosher species are uncommon and the overwhelming proportion of eggs sold are from chickens or geese. This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 86:2).
We do not suspect that they came from a fowl that was trefe or nevelah.48I.e., that died without being ritually slaughtered; see Chapter 4, Halachah 1. We rule leniently, because it is very uncommon to have eggs from fowl in such a condition (Maggid Mishneh). And we do not purchase an [unshelled and] stirred egg from a gentile at all.49For we fear that it came from an egg that was trefe (Maggid Mishneh).", + "The distinguishing signs of fish eggs are the same as those for fowl. When both of the ends of an egg are rounded or both are pointed, it is non-kosher. If one end is pointed and the other rounded, he should inquire of the Jew who sells them.50For the distinguishing signs themselves are not sufficient for the eggs to be considered kosher. The Maggid Mishneh explains that although Avodah Zarah 40a would appear to indicate that the distinguishing signs are sufficient, since Chullin 64a compares fish eggs to fowl eggs, we assume that all the laws that apply to one apply to the other.
In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 83:8), Rav Yosef Caro quotes the Rambam's ruling, but states that at present, it has become customary to buy any red fish eggs, even from gentiles. Black fish eggs, however, may not be purchased. In his Beit Yosef 81:12, he explains that the Rabbinic authorities of the earlier ages researched the matter and discovered that there are no common non-kosher fish that lay red eggs. See Siftei Cohen 83:27 who quotes other sources from which it is not clear whether or not this ruling was accepted in all communities.
If he tells him that he salted them51I.e., to preserve them, for it is common to bring fish eggs from distant places. and removed them from a kosher species,52Naming the species as in Halachah 18. he may partake of them on the basis of his statements. If he tells him that they are kosher, he may not rely on him unless he is a person who has an established reputation for observance.", + "Similarly, we may not purchase cheese and pieces of fish that do not have distinguishing signs except from a Jew who has an established reputation for observance. In Eretz Yisrael, at the time it was populated primarily by [observant] Jews,53As indicated by Chapter 11, Halachah 25, today, the same principles that apply in the Diaspora apply in Eretz Yisrael. one could purchase these items from any Jew located there. And it is permitted to purchase milk from any Jew, anywhere.", + "When a person pickles non-kosher fish, the brine produced is forbidden. The brine produced by non-kosher locusts, by contrast, is permitted, because they do not possess any moisture.54In the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 10:9), he states that they possess very little moisture. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling and forbids brine from non-kosher locusts. Accordingly, we do not purchase brine from gentiles unless there is a kosher fish floating in it.55For then we assume that the brine came from this species of fish. Even one fish is sufficient.", + "When a gentile brings a trough filled with open barrels of brine and there is a kosher fish in one of them, they are all permitted.56For we consider all the open barrels as a single entity and the one fish indicates that the entire quantity is acceptable. See Kessef Mishneh. This represents the Rambam's understanding of Avodah Zarah 39b-40a. The rulings of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 83:6) quotes the Rambam's ruling, but also those of others who interpret that passage differently. If they are closed, one opens one and finds a kosher fish and one opens a second and finds a kosher fish, they are all permitted.57The intent is not that all the barrels are considered as a single entity, but that since two barrels are discovered to be kosher, we assume that the others are also kosher (Kessef Mishneh). [This applies] provided the head of the fish and its backbone are present so that it is recognizable that they are from a kosher species of fish.58I.e., by looking at the head and the backbone, the person is able to recognize that the fish comes from a kosher species. One alone, i.e., either the head or the backbone, is not sufficient (Avodah Zarah 40a).
For this reason, we do not purchased crushed, salted fish from gentiles which are called terit terufah.59In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 2:6), the Rambam explains that it was customary to crush and stir the fish until it produces a mixture like dough that was used as a dip. If, however, the head and the backbone of a fish is recognizable, even though it is crushed, it is permitted to purchase it from a gentile.60I.e., if we discover the head and the backbone of one fish, we may purchase a larger quantity, because we do not expect that kosher fish and non-kosher fish were salted together (Maggid Mishneh).", + "When a gentile brings a keg of pieces of evenly cut up fish and it is obvious that they are from one fish,61The Siftei Cohen 83:4 notes that the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 83:4) does not quote the Rambam's wording and explains that according to that source, it is not necessary for it to be obvious that they all come from one fish.
If it is not obvious that they come from one fish, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) rules that only the piece with scales is permitted.
they are all permitted if he finds scales on one of the pieces.62For every fish that has scales will also have fins." + ], + [ + "A person who partakes of an olive-sized portion of a domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl which dies is liable for lashes, as [Deuteronomy 14:21] states: \"Do not partake of any nevelah.\"1Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 180) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 472) include this among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. All animals that were not slaughtered in the appropriate manner are considered as if they died. In the Laws of Shechitah, we will explain which types of slaughter are appropriate and which are not.", + "Only animals from kosher species are forbidden as a nevelah, for they are the species that are fit to be ritually slaughtered and if they are slaughtered in a kosher manner, it is permitted to partake of them. [When,] by contrast, one partakes of [meat from] a non-kosher species, [since] ritual slaughter is of no consequence with regard to them, whether they are slaughtered in a kosher manner, whether they died in a natural manner, or whether one cut meat from a living animal and ate it, one does not receive lashes for partaking of a nevelah or partaking of trefe meat,2See Halachah 10. only because one ate the meat of a non-kosher animal.3From Chullin 100b, it would appear that the rationale for this ruling is the general principle: \"One prohibition does not fall upon another prohibition.\" Since the meat is already prohibited because it is from a non-kosher species, the prohibition of nevela does not apply to it. The Rambam's wording, however, is slightly different and may be alluding to a slightly different rationale.", + "When a person eats an [entire] kosher fowl4Which was not correctly slaughtered. of any size, he is liable for lashes for partaking of a nevelah, even though he ate less than an olive-sized portion. [The rationale is that] he consumed it in its entirety.5This reflects a general concept with regard to the laws of kashrut. As stated in Chapter 2, Law 21, whenever \"one eats an entire forbidden creature by itself, one is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law even if it is smaller than a mustard seed.\"
The commentaries (Maggid Mishneh, Rav Moshe HaCohen) question why the Rambam states that the person is liable for eating a nevelah. Seemingly, the prohibition he transgresses is eating a limb from a living animal (see Chapter 5). The Meiri explains the Rambam's position, stating that an entire creature cannot be considered as \"a limb.\"
If he ate it after it died, it must be the size of an olive [for him to be liable].6For the conception of being liable for an entire creature even though it is not the size of an olive, applies only when that creature is inherently forbidden (Meiri). While alive, the bird is considered as an entire forbidden entity, like a non-kosher species. After its death, that distinction does not apply. Even though it does not have an olive-sized portion of meat on it, since as a whole, it is the size of an olive, he is liable for [partaking of] a nevelah.7For we include the bones and the sinews as well (Chullin 102b).", + "When a person partakes of an olive-sized portion of a stillborn fetus8The same laws apply if the fetus is born alive, but it is obvious that the birth is not viable. Even if the animal is slaughtered in the appropriate manner, we are forbidden to partake of it. of a kosher animal, he is liable for lashes for partaking of a nevelah.
It is forbidden to partake of a newborn animal until the night of the eighth day [of its life].9I.e., even if the animal is slaughtered properly, it is forbidden because it is possible that the birth is not viable. Although our Sages (Chulin 136a) spoke of the eighth day of an animal's life, their intent was the beginning of the eighth day (Maggid Mishneh). For whenever an animal has not lived for eight days, we consider it as stillborn, but lashes are not administered [for partaking] of it.10Since it is not a definite matter, lashes are not administered (ibid.). [Moreover,] if it is known that the animal was born after a full term period of gestation, i.e., nine months for a large domesticated animal and five months for a small domesticated animal, it is permitted on the day that it was born.11In contrast, an animal may not be offered as a sacrifice until the eighth day of its life (Exodus 22:29; Turei Zahav 15:3).", + "The placenta that is expelled together with the newborn is forbidden to be eaten. A person who eats it, however, is not liable,12I.e., he is not considered to have partaken of a nevelah. because it is not [considered] meat.13For as stated in Halachah 18, these are not considered meat, but rather comparable to an animal's wastes. For that reason, the Ra'avad (in his gloss to Chapter 5, Halachah 13) states that there is no prohibition against partaking of a placenta.", + "When a person eats an olive-sized portion of a kosher14I.e., like the prohibition of nevelah, the prohibition of trefe does not apply with regard to non-kosher species. domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl that was mortally wounded is liable for lashes, as [Exodus 22:30] states: \"Do not eat meat [from an animal that was] mortally wounded (trefe) in the field. Cast it to the dogs.\"15I.e., even if it was slaughtered properly before it died, the meat is, nevertheless, forbidden, as stated in the following halachah. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 181) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 73) include this among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
The term trefe employed by the Torah refers to [an animal] mortally wounded by a wild beast, e.g., a lion, a tiger, or the like, or a fowl mortally wounded by a bird of prey, e.g., a hawk or the like.16As the Rambam proceeds to explain in Halachah 8, the term trefe also applies in other situations. Nevertheless, there is an added dimension of severity to the laws applying to animals that are mortally wounded by beasts, as stated in Hilchot Shechitah 5:3 (Maggid Mishneh; Kessef Mishneh). We cannot say that the term trefe refers to an animal that was attacked and killed, for if it died, it is a nevelah. What difference does it make if it died naturally, was struck by a sword or died, or was battered by a lion and died? Thus [the term trefe] must refer to an instance when it was mortally wounded, but did not die.", + "If an animal that is mortally wounded is forbidden, shall we say that if a wolf or a lion comes and drags a kid by its foot, its tail, or its ear, and a man pursues [the beast] and saves [the kid], it will be forbidden, because it was attacked?17The term trefe literally means \"preyed upon.\" Our translation \"mortally wounded\" is the halachic definition as the Rambam proceeds to explain. The Torah states: \"Do not eat meat [from an animal that was] mortally wounded (trefe) in the field. Cast it to the dogs.\" [An animal is not considered trefe] unless it was brought to a state that its meat is fit [only] for the dogs. Thus we have learned that the term trefe employed by the Torah refers to [an animal] that was attacked by a wild beast and battered by it that has not died yet. Even if the person hurries and slaughters it before it dies, it is forbidden as trefe. For it is impossible that it will live after suffering such wounds.", + "Thus we have learned that the Torah forbade [an animal] that died, a nevelah, and it forbade one that was on the verge of death because of its wounds even though it has not died yet, i.e., a trefe.
Now we do not make a distinction with regard to an animal that has died regardless of whether it died naturally, it fell and died, it was strangled until it died, or it was attacked by a wild beast who killed it. Similarly, we do not make a distinction between an animal that is on the verge of death, regardless of whether it was attacked by an animal and battered, fell from the roof and broke the majority of its ribs,18This and the following examples are specifically mentioned by the Rambam in Hilchot Shechitah 10:1, 9:8, 11:4, 6:1. fell and crushed its limbs, it was shot with an arrow and its heart or lung pierced, it developed an illness that caused its heart or lung to be perforated, one broke the majority of its ribs, or the like. Since it is on the verge of death regardless of the cause, it is a trefe. [This applies] whether [its wound] was caused by flesh and blood or by God's hand.
If so, why does the Torah use the term trefe? For Scripture speaks with regard to prevalent situations.19This is a general principle employed by our Sages with regard to the interpretation of the Torah's language. When it mentions a specific situation, it is not confining itself to the limited setting mentioned in the verse, but applies to other circumstances as well. Why is that situation mentioned? Because it is common. [We are forced] to say this. If not, only an animal that was mortally wounded in the field would be forbidden.20For only that is in the direct scope of the verse. One that is mortally wounded in a courtyard would not be forbidden. Thus we learn that Scripture [is employing this example,] only because it speaks with regard to prevalent situations.", + "The intent of the verse is that [an animal] that is mortally wounded and will not live21Longer than twelve months (Hilchot Shechitah 11:1). because of these wounds is forbidden. On this basis, our Sages said:22Chulin 42a. \"This is the general principle: Whenever [an animal] in this condition will not live, it is trefe.\" In Hilchot Shechitah,23From Chapter Five to Chapter Eleven. A concise list is found in Chapter 10, Halachah 9. we will explain which conditions cause an animal to be deemed trefe and which do not cause it to be deemed trefe.", + "Similarly, when one cuts meat from a living kosher24For as mentioned above, the prohibition against partaking of a trefe applies only with regard to kosher animals. animal, one receives lashes for partaking of a trefe.25See Chapter Five, Halachot 2-3, where the Rambam distinguishes between this prohibition and the prohibition against partaking of a limb from a living animal. Note, however, Hilchot Melachim 9:10-11 where the Rambam includes eating the meat from an animal and eating a limb from an animal as a single prohibition for a gentile. For this meat comes from an animal that has not been ritually slaughtered and has not died. [Hence it is comparable to a trefe.] What difference does it make to me if it was attacked by an animal or cut by a knife? And what difference does it make if [the animal] was [wounded] in its totality or only a portion of it was wounded?26I.e., just as we forbid the meat of an animal that was mortally wounded, we should forbid a portion of meat that was cut off with a knife. For the verse states: \"Do not eat meat [from an animal that was] trefe in the field.\" Since [a portion of] the animal was made meat in the field,27I.e., the meat was cut off from its natural place. See also Chapter 5, Halachah 9. it is trefe.", + "When an animal is sick because it is weakened and is on the verge of death, it is permitted, because it did not suffer a wound in any one of the limbs and organs that will cause it to die. For the Torah forbade only those situations resembling an animal mortally wounded by a preying wild beast. In that situation, the animal wounded it with a blow that caused it to die.28With this explanation, the Rambam is clarifying the distinction Chulin 37a makes between an animal which is misukenet (dangerously ill) and trefe. The trefe condition is a result of wound, while in the case of a misukenet, all of its limbs and organs are sound. Nevertheless, as stated in Hilchot Trefot 5:2, there are other physical conditions which render an animal trefe even if it has not been attacked by an animal. These conditions were communicated as halachot to Moses at Sinai.", + "Although it is permitted, the great sages would not partake [of the meat] of an animal which people were hurrying to slaughter before it died.29The Maggid Mishneh (based on Chullin 37b) interprets this as a gesture of pious conduct. Note, however, Siftei Cohen 17:8. [This applies] even if it makes convulsive movements after being slaughtered.30Such a convulsive movement is a sign that it was alive at the time that it was slaughtered, as the Rambam continues to explain in the following halachah. This is a matter that does not involve a prohibition. Nevertheless, whoever desires to accept this stringency upon himself is praiseworthy.31The Maggid Mishneh quotes opinions that maintain that this leniency was granted only to alleviate the financial loss a Jewish owner of an animal would suffer. Therefore, meat from an animal belonging to a gentile which is in such a condition should not be eaten. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 116:7) quotes this ruling.", + "When a person slaughters a domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl and blood does not flow out from them, they are permitted. We do not say: perhaps they were dead already. Similarly, when one slaughters a healthy animal and it does not make convulsive movements, it is permitted.
Different [rules apply with regard to an animal that] is dangerously ill, i.e., one which cannot maintain itself when others cause it to stand it up.32It must be able to stand up on its own when called or hit with a switch. If it is stood up by hand, it is still considered dangerously ill even if it is able to remain standing [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 17:1); Siftei Cohen 17:1]. [It is placed in this category] even if it eats the food of healthy animals. If [such an animal] is slaughtered and does not make any convulsive movements at all, it is a nevelah33I.e., we assume that it died before the slaughter was completed (see Chulin 38a). and one is liable for lashes [for partaking] of it. If it makes convulsive movements, it is permitted.
The convulsive movements must be made at the end of the slaughter. If they are made at the beginning, they are of no consequence.", + "What is meant by convulsive movements? For a small domesticated animal and for both a small and a large wild beast, the intent is that it extended its foreleg and returned it, extended its hind leg even though it did not return it, or merely bent its hind leg.34The Maggid Mishneh and the Siftei Cohen 17:4 quote opinions that rule that if a small domesticated animal's foreleg was extended and it bent it, that is sufficient to render it acceptable. This is considered a convulsive movement and [the animal] is permitted. If, however, it merely extended its foreleg and did not return it, it is forbidden. [This movement is] merely a result of the expiration of the soul.
With regard to a large domesticated animal, [more lenient laws apply]. If it either extended its foreleg or its hind leg without bending it or bent its foreleg or hind leg without extending it, it is considered as a convulsive movement and it is permitted. If, however, it neither extended or bent its foreleg or its hind leg at all, it is considered as a nevelah.
With regard to a fowl, even if it only blinked its eyelid35Note the Siftei Cohen 17:5 which quotes different versions of Chullin 38b that state that a fowl must move its wing. Winking its eyes is not sufficient. or swatted its tail, it is considered a convulsive movement.36The Maggid Mishneh (and the Turei Zahav 17:4 and the Siftei Cohen 17:6) quote opinions that maintain that swishing its tail is also sufficient for an animal to be considered as having made a convulsive movement.", + "When one slaughters an animal that is dangerously ill at night and does not know37I.e., because he cannot see. Needless to say, if the room is illuminated, this law does not apply. whether or not it made convulsive movements, it is forbidden, because of the possibility that it is a nevelah.38I.e., we follow the principle that when a doubt concerning a Scriptural prohibition is involved, we rule stringently.", + "None of the substances prohibited by the Torah can be combined with each other [to reach the minimum measure for which one is liable for lashes] with the exception of the prohibitions that apply to a nazarite, as explained in that source.39As stated in Hilchot Nazirut 5:3, although there are separate prohibitions against eating raisins, grape peels, grape seeds, and partaking of wine, if one combined all these substances together, one is liable. Therefore when a person takes a small amount of fat, a small amount of blood, a small amount of the meat of a non-kosher animal, a small amount of the meat of a nevelah, a small amount of the meat of a non-kosher fish, a small amount of the meat of a non-kosher fowl, or the like from other prohibited substances, although he collects an olive-sized portion from the entire mixture and partakes of it, he is not liable for lashes. He is bound by the laws that apply when one eats half the minimum measure [of a forbidden] substance.40In which instance, the prohibition is Scriptural in origin, but lashes are not given (Chapter 3, Halachah 6).
The Rambam's statements in this and the following halachah touch on an issue of general significance. Rabbi Meir (Avodah Zarah 66a) maintains that forbidden substances of different types can be combined together to make a person liable for lashes. The Sages differ and maintain that they cannot be combined, but instead are judged individually. If there is enough of the one substance to make one liable, he is liable. If not, he is exempt.
The principle stated in Halachot 18-19 is a correlory to these concepts. Since the forbidden substances are not combined with each other, but are instead considered as discrete entities, they help nullify each other, as explained there.
", + "All [types of] nevelot may be combined together. A nevelah may be combined with a trefe. All the non-kosher animals and wild beasts may be combined with each other. But the meat of a nevelah and the meat of a non-kosher animal may not be combined.
What is implied? When one takes [some meat] from a nevelah of an ox, some from the nevelah of a deer, some from the nevelah of a chicken and combined it so that he has an olive-sized portion of meat, he is liable for lashes if he eats it. Similarly, if he collected half of an olive-sized portion from the nevelah of a kosher animal and half of an olive-sized portion from a trefe, or half of an olive-sized portion from the meat of a nevelah and half from meat taken from a living kosher animal,41For this is included in the prohibition against a trefe, as stated in Halachah 10. he is liable if he eats it. Similarly, if he collects an olive-sized portion [by combining] the meat of a camel, a pig, and a hare,42Although each one of these species is mentioned separately in the Torah, they are all included in the same prohibition. he is liable if he eats it.
If, by contrast, he takes half of an olive-sized portion of a nevelah of an ox and half an olive-sized portion of a camel [an eats it], they are not combined.43The Ra'avad mentions that this point is the subject of a difference of opinion among the Sages of the Talmud, seemingly implying that the opinion which maintains that they should be combined should be followed. The Maggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's position. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations. Similarly, the meat of a non-kosher animal, fowl, or fish are not combined for they involve different prohibitions. For each one is forbidden by a separate negative commandment, as we explained.44See Chapter 2. Nevertheless, all the forbidden species of fowl can be combined as may all the forbidden species of domesticated animals and wild beasts.
This is the general principle: Whenever substances are included in the same prohibition, they may be combined. [If they are included] in two [separate] prohibitions, they are not combined. The [only] exceptions are a nevelah and a trefe. [The rationale is that] a trefe is the beginning of [an animal] becoming a nevelah.", + "When a person eats the skin, the bones, the sinews,45Note the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 9:1) which interprets the Hebrew term giddim as also referring to veins, arteries, and nerves. the horns, or the hoofs46This applies even if the portions eaten were soft and blood spurts from them. of a nevelah, a trefe, or a non-kosher domesticated animal or wild beast, from the nails of a non-kosher fowl in the places where blood would spurt through when they are cut off, or from their placenta,47As stated in Halachah 5. although this is forbidden, he is not liable. [The rationale is that] they are not fit to be eaten. They cannot be combined with meat [in the measure of] an olive-sized portion.", + "[Milk found in] the stomach of a nevelah and the stomach of a non-kosher animal48The Rambam does not distinguish between milk that has coagulated and milk that is fluid. For even if it is fluid, it is already considered as a waste product. (Kessef Mishneh). is permitted, for it is like other waste products of the body. Therefore, it is permitted to use [milk found in] the stomach of an animal slaughtered by a gentile or the stomach of a non-kosher domesticated animal or wild beast to cause cheese to solidify.49I.e., since the digestive juices from the animal's stomach have already mixed with this milk, it will be an effective catalyst to cause the large quantity of milk to curdle and harden into cheese. See also Chapter 3, Halachah 13, and Chapter 9, Halachah 15.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 81:6) differs and quotes Rabbenu Tam's opinion states that liquid milk found in the stomach of a forbidden species is forbidden. Moreover, at the outset, one should not use even dried milk found in the stomach of a non-kosher animal as a catalyst because of the impression it will create. After the fact, it is permitted.
The skin of the stomach, by contrast, is like the other digestive organs and is forbidden.", + "The placenta of a donkey50Our translation is based on the glosses of Rashi and Tosafot, Bechoros 7b. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling and maintains that this placenta is forbidden. The Maggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling. is permitted to be eaten because it is like dung and urine which is permitted. There is skin which is considered like meat and one who partakes of an olive-sized portion is considered like one who eats an olive-sized portion of meat, provided one partakes of it when it is soft.51And not processed so that it becomes hard like leather.", + "The following [types of] skins are considered like meat: the skin of a human, the skin of a domesticated pig,52That of a wild boar, by contrast, is too tough to be eaten. the skin of a camel's hump upon which a burden has never been loaded, [because] it has not reached the age [to serve as a beast] of burden, for then it is still soft, the skin of genital area, the skin that is below the tail, the skin of a fetus, the skin of the hedgehog, the chameleon, the lizard, the snail.53As mentioned in the notes to Chapter 2, Halachah 7, the names of these species are a matter of debate. When all of these skins are soft, they are considered like meat with regard to all matters, whether with regard to [liability54This addition is necessary, for there is a prohibition against partaking of any skin, as stated in Halachah 18. for] the prohibition against partaking of them or with regard to the laws of ritual purity.55For an olive-sized portion of the meat of a nevelah can convey ritual impurity, while a hide or a piece of leather that size does not.", + "With regard to an ox condemned to be stoned,56For goring a human being. See Hilchot Nizkei Mammon, ch. 10, which explains the pertinent laws. [Exodus 21:28] states: \"Its meat shall not be eaten.\" Now, how could one think that it would be eaten after it was stoned to death, for it is a nevelah?57For it died without ritual slaughter. Instead, the Torah is coming to teach you that once it has been sentenced to execution by stoning, it becomes forbidden; it becomes like a non-kosher animal. [Even] if one hurried and slaughtered it in an acceptable manner [before it was executed], it is forbidden to benefit from it.58Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 188) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 52) include this among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
Instead, the corpse of the executed animal should be buried (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:11).
If one eats an olive-sized portion of its meat, he is liable for lashes. And when it is executed by stoning, its [meat] should not be sold or given to the dogs or to a gentile, [as implied by the phrase]: \"shall not be eaten.\"59As stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 15, unless there is a teaching that states otherwise, this phrase implies both a prohibition against eating and a prohibition against deriving benefit. It is permitted [to benefit from] the dung of an ox condemned to be stoned.60As stated in Hilchot Ishut 5:2, the rationale is that the dung is considered of negligible importance with regard to the ox itself. As implied by Halachah 20, the dung of an animal is not considered as part of the animal itself, nor is it included in the prohibitions applying to it.
If it is discovered that [a condemned ox] is not liable to be stoned after it was sentenced, e.g., the witnesses who testified against it were disqualified, it may be sent out to pasture with the herd. If this was discovered after it was executed, it is permitted to benefit from [its meat]." + ], + [ + "According to the Oral Tradition, we learnt1Chullin 102b. that [the intent of] the Torah's statement \"Do not partake of the soul together with the meat\" [is to] forbid a limb cut off from a living animal.2Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 182) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 452) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. With regard to a limb cut off from a living animal, it was said to Noah [Genesis 9:4]: \"But flesh, together with its soul, its blood, you may not eat.\"3This prohibition is also one of the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants (Hilchot Melachim 8:10).
The prohibition against [partaking of] a limb from a living animal applies to kosher domesticated animals, wild beasts, and fowl, but not to non-kosher species.4Since the species is forbidden, no additional prohibitions apply.", + "The term ever [translated as \"limb\"] applies both to a limb that has flesh, sinews, and bones, e.g., a hand or a foot, and to an organ that does not have a bone, e.g., the tongue, the testicles, the spleen, the kidneys, the heart, and the like.5The Merkevat HaMishneh notes that this represents a difference between this prohibition and the prohibition against ritual impurity stemming from a limb where the limb must possess a bone. He explains that there a bone is necessary, for the source of the impurity is that of a corpse, and a corpse possesses bones. [There is, however, one difference.] When an organ does not possess a bone, the prohibition [against partaking of] a limb from a living animal applies whether one cut off the entire organ or only part of it.6The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and does not accept this distinction. He maintains that partaking of part of an organ is also included in the prohibition against partaking of a trefe. When, by contrast, a limb possesses a bone, a person is not liable [for violating the prohibition against] a limb from a living animal unless he separates it in its complete state, with its flesh, sinews, and bones. If, however, he only removes flesh from the living animal, he is liable for [the prohibition against partaking of] a trefe [animal] as explained,7Chapter 4, Halachah 10. and not because of a limb from a living animal.", + "One is liable for lashes only for partaking of an olive-sized portion of a limb from a living animal. Even if one eats an entire limb or organ, if it is the size of an olive, one is liable;8We do not consider an organ or limb as a distinct creature and hold him liable, as he is liable for partaking of an ant, even if it is smaller than an olive. Chulin 102a explains that we require an olive-sized portion for the verse that states the prohibition speaks of \"partak[ing] of the soul.\" The term partaking is appropriate only when one eats an olive-sized portion. if not he is exempt.
If one cut off a olive-sized portion of flesh, sinews, and bones from the limb according to its natural form and ate it, one is liable, even if it possessed only the smallest amount of meat.9Since one did not alter its natural form, one is liable for the bones and sinews as well. If, however, one separated a limb which he tore off from a living animal and detached the flesh from the sinews and the meat, he is not liable for lashes unless he eats an olive-sized portion of the meat alone. The bones and the sinews are not included in the olive-sized portion since he changed [the limb's] natural form.", + "When one divides this organ and eats it bit by bit, he is liable if there is an olive-sized portion of meat in what he ate.10Even though he did not detach the meat from the sinews and the bones, since he cut the limb and distorted its natural form, we consider only the meat and not the other elements of the limb. If not, he is exempt. If he took an olive-sized portion of a limb with flesh, sinews, and bones according to its natural form and ate it, he is liable, even though it became divided inside his mouth before he swallows it.", + "When a person rips a limb from a living animal and causes it to become trefe when doing so, he is doubly liable for partaking of it: once for [partaking of] a limb from a living animal and once for [partaking of] a trefe. Both of these prohibitions take effect at the same time.11This explains why the person is liable for the prohibition against partaking of a trefe, for seemingly, we should follow the principle \"a prohibition does not fall on a substance which is already forbidden.\" This principle does not apply in this instance, for here, both prohibitions take effect at the same time. Hence, one does not take precedence over the other and the transgressor is liable for both. (See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:8-10; Chapter 14, Halachah 18, for explanation regarding these principles.) Similarly, if one rips fat from a living animal and partakes of it, he is doubly liable: for [partaking of] a limb from a living animal and for [partaking of] fat.12He is liable for both prohibitions, because the prohibition against partaking of a limb from a living animal is of a wider scope (issur mosif; i.e., it is forbidden to gentiles as well as Jews) than the prohibition against partaking of forbidden fat (Lechem Mishneh).
Kin'at Eliyahu asks why a limb taken from a forbidden species is not forbidden. Here also, the prohibition against taking a limb from a living animal is of a wider scope than that against partaking of a forbidden species.
If he rips fat from a trefe [animal], he is liable for [the violation of] three [negative commandments].13The two mentioned in the previous clause and the prohibition against partaking of a trefe.
He is liable for all three prohibitions, because the prohibition against partaking of forbidden fat is of a wider scope than the prohibition against partaking of a trefe and the prohibition against partaking of limb of a living animal is of a wider scope than the other two (ibid.).
", + "[The following rules apply when] meat is disjoined from an animal and an organ is hanging from it. If it is impossible that this meat will again become a living part of the body, it is forbidden,14From a comparison to the following halachah, it appears that this prohibition is of Scriptural origin. but one is not liable for lashes for it. [This applies] even though it was not separated [from the animal] until after it was slaughtered. If the animal dies, we consider [the limb] as if it fell off while [the animal] was alive.15Chullin 74a makes this distinction between an animal that dies naturally and one which is ritually slaughtered. Therefore one receives lashes for [partaking] of it, because of the prohibition against [partaking of] a limb from a living animal. If, however, the limb could again become a living part of the body and the animal is ritually slaughtered, it is permitted.16For it is considered as part of the animal.", + "If one pulled an organ [from its natural position],17Without detaching it. crushed it, ground it, e.g., one crushed testicles or pulled them from their place [and then slaughtered the animal, the organ] is not forbidden according to Scriptural Law. [The rationale is] that it possesses a trace of life - as evidenced by the fact that it does not decay. Nevertheless, it is forbidden to partake of it as a result of a custom followed by the entire Jewish people from previous generations. For it resembles a limb separated from a living animal.", + "[The following laws apply when an animal's] bone was broken:18In Hilchot Shechitah 8:11-12, the Rambam mentions instances where a broken bone causes an animal to be designated as trefe. Here the Rambam is speaking of instances where the broken bone does not cause the animal to be trefe and the question involves merely the broken limb. May the meat from that limb be eaten or not? If the flesh or the skin covers the majority of the thickness of the broken bone and the majority of the circumference of the fracture, it is permitted. If the bone emerged outside [the skin], the limb is forbidden. When the animal or the fowl is slaughtered, one should cut off [the limb] at the place where it is broken and discard it. The remainder of the limb is permitted.
We rule that [the limb] is forbidden until the flesh is healed [in all the following situations]: the bone broke, the flesh covers the bone, but that flesh was crushed or decayed like flesh which a doctor would remove, it is scattered in many different places,19I.e., when one would calculate the entire amount of the flesh, it would be large enough to cover the majority of the bone. Nevertheless, it is not located in large sections, but is instead, made up of many small pieces. there were many perforations within the flesh,20None of these perforations, however, caused a decrease in the mass of the flesh. the flesh was cracked or pierced like a ring, the flesh was rubbed off from above until only a [thin] peel remained, or the flesh decayed from below around the broken bone to the extent that the flesh surrounding the bone does not touch it.21Chullin 76b mentions all these circumstances without reaching a final ruling regarding them. Hence we rule stringently. If a person partook [of the limb] in any of these [circumstances], he is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.", + "When a person inserts his hand into the inside of an animal, cuts off the spleen, one of the kidneys, or the like,22I.e., organs that do not cause an animal to be considered as a trefe. but leaves [the severed organ] inside the animal, and then slaughters it, the pieces cut off are forbidden as organs from a living animal although they remained within the animal's womb. If, however, he cut away [a portion of] a fetus within the womb, but did not remove it, and then slaughtered [the mother], the pieces or limbs of the fetus are permitted because they did not emerge [outside the mother].23This distinction is made on the basis of Chulin 68a, 69a. The rationale is that the animal's organs are an integral part of it. On the basis of Deuteronomy 14:5, \"You shall eat it,\" our Sages explain when it's whole, you may eat everything within it, but not when it is lacking. The fetus, however, is not considered an integral part of the animal. Hence, as long as its limbs have not emerged outside the womb, they are permitted with the slaughter of the mother.
When a fetus sticks its foreleg or hind leg out of the womb, that limb is forbidden forever, whether one cuts off [the limb] before he slaughters the mother or afterwards.24From this halachah and Halachah 11, we see that there are two prohibitions involved: partaking of a limb considered trefe and partaking of a limb from a living animal. At times, one applies, and in other situations, the other applies. Even if it returns the limb to the womb of the mother and afterwards, [the mother] was slaughtered or the fetus was born and lived for several years,25The Maggid Mishneh and Kessef Mishneh interpret this as referring to a situation where the fetus was not born before the mother was ritually slaughtered (see also Halachah 12). Instead, the mother was slaughtered while the fetus was still in its womb. Afterwards, the fetus was taken out and it survived. If, however, the fetus is born before the mother is slaughtered, the leg which emerged is not forbidden. When the calf is slaughtered, all of its legs are permitted. There are authorities who differ whether this is the Rambam's intent. Most, however, agree that this ruling should be followed in practice [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 14:2)]. that limb is forbidden as a trefe. [The rationale is that] all meat that emerged from its natural position is forbidden as flesh that was separated from a living animal.
[This is derived from the phrase (Exodus 22:30 :] \"Meat [from an animal that was] mortally wounded (trefe) in the field.\" [Our Rabbis extrapolated:] When meat comes out to a place that is like a field for it,26I.e., it is not its natural place. it becomes trefe, as we explained.27See Chapter 4, Halachah 10.", + "[When the fetus] sticks out a portion of a limb and a portion remains within, even if it is only the minority of it, the portion which emerged is forbidden and that which remained within is permitted.
If he cuts off the portion of the limb that emerged after it was returned within the animal and the animal was slaughtered, only that portion is forbidden, the remainder of the limb is permitted. If he did not return it to the womb and it remained outside and he cut it off there, the place where he cut it off - i.e., the place on the limb open to the air after the limb was cut off - is forbidden. He must afterwards cut off this portion as well. [This applies] whether he [originally] cut off the portion of the limb before [the mother] was slaughtered or afterwards.", + "Whenever a limb emerges and is cut off before the animal is slaughtered while it is outside, it is considered as a limb from a living animal28As evident from a comparison to Halachah 9, the prohibition against partaking of a trefe applies only when the limb was cut off following the ritual slaughter of the mother. and one is worthy of lashes for partaking of it. [This applies] even if the fetus dies before [the mother] is slaughtered.29For the ruling is dependent on the mother's condition, not that of the fetus. Even if the fetus dies, it is permitted to partake of it after the slaughter of the mother (see Tosafos, Chullin 72a). If it is cut off after ritual slaughter, one who partakes of it is not liable for lashes,30I.e., he is not liable for lashes for transgressing the prohibition against partaking of a limb of a living animal. As reflected by Halachah 9, he violates the prohibition against partaking of a trefe. The Ra'avad maintains that he is liable for lashes for this violation. The Maggid Mishneh maintains that this situation is comparable to a maimed limb as described in Halachah 6 in which instance a Scriptural prohibition is involved, but one is not liable for lashes. even if it dies. If [the mother] dies and then one cuts off this limb, one who partakes of it is liable for lashes for the prohibition against partaking of a limb from a living animal.31And not for either the prohibition against partaking of a trefe or a nevelah. The death of the mother causes the limb to be considered as if it fell off during the animal's lifetime. See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 2:9 which explains the parallels that apply with regard to the laws of ritual impurity.", + "[The following rule applies when] a fetus sticks out a limb and that limb becomes forbidden and then the fetus is born.32The Maggid Mishneh states that this also refers to a situation where the fetus was born after the mother was slaughtered. If it is female, we are forbidden to drink its milk because of an unresolved halachic question.33Chullin 69a asks whether this milk can be compared to milk from a kosher animal or not. The distinction is that a kosher animal will become permitted if it is slaughtered in the ritual manner and this limb will never become permitted. For the milk comes from all of the animal's limbs and it has a limb which is forbidden. Hence, it is comparable to milk from a trefe animal that becomes mixed with milk from a kosher animal.", + "When a person slaughters a kosher animal that is pregnant and discovers a fetus - whether live or dead - within it, the fetus is permitted to be eaten.34With regard to a live fetus, see the following halachah. With regard to a dead fetus, the Rambam is emphasizing that it is not considered as a separate entity (in which case it would be forbidden as a nevelah), but instead as one of the limbs of the mother. Even the placenta is permitted to be eaten.35Chapter 4, Halachah 5, states that a placenta that is expelled together with the newborn is forbidden to be eaten. In this instance, however, since the placenta has not been expelled, it is still considered part of the mother's body and permitted.
[The following rules apply if] a portion of the placenta emerged and then one slaughtered the mother. If the placenta was attached to the fetus, the portion which emerged is forbidden36Like the limb of a fetus that emerged before ritual slaughter (Maggid Mishneh).
The Ra'avad states that the placenta is comparable to an animal's waste products and therefore is not forbidden at all. The Maggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling.
and the remainder is permitted. If it is not attached to the fetus, it is forbidden in its entirety, for perhaps the fetus that was in this placenta disappeared37Which was not permitted because of the slaughter of the mother. and maybe the placenta of the fetus that is found in the womb disappeared. Needless to say, if a fetus is not found in the womb at all, the placenta is forbidden in its entirety.", + "If one finds a living fetus [in the womb of a slaughtered animal] - even though it has been carried for nine months,38I.e., the period of gestation was full term. and it is possible that it will live, it does not require ritual slaughter.39And can be killed in any manner. Instead, it is acceptable because of the slaughter of its mother. If it steps on the ground, it requires ritual slaughter.40Because of the impression that might be created (Chullin 75b).", + "If a person ripped open an animal41Without slaughtering it according to Torah law. or slaughtered an animal that was trefe and found a live fetus that had been carried for nine months, [that fetus] must be ritually slaughtered to be permitted.42The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 13:3) states that at present, we do not permit any fetus found in the womb of a trefe even if it was ritually slaughtered. The slaughter of its mother is not effective.43Since the slaughter of the mother does not cause the mother to be permitted, it is not effective with regard to the fetus.
If the period [of gestation] was not completed, it is forbidden even though it is alive in the womb of the trefe animal. [The rationale is that] it is considered as one of the mother's limbs.44Since the period of gestation has not been completed, it is not considered as an independent entity. Even if it is taken from the womb and lives for a brief time, ritual slaughter does not cause it to be permitted. Whenever an animal thrust its head [out of the womb] and then returned it and [only] afterwards its mother was slaughtered, the slaughter of its mother has no bearing on it, it is considered as if it was born and it must be ritual slaughtered [to be permitted]." + ], + [ + "When a person partakes of an olive-sized1Although blood is a liquid, the Rambam mentions an olive-sized portion, i.e., a measure of mass, rather than a fourth of a lug, a liquid measure. It is possible to explain that since the Torah uses the word \"eat\" while stating the prohibition, the intent is the same measure that applies with regard to other prohibitions involving \"eating,\" an olive-sized portion. portion of blood intentionally, he is liable for karet.2The soul is cut off in this world (i.e., the person dies prematurely) and in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1). Whenever a person is liable for karet, he is punished by lashes if he was warned before committing the transgression. If lashed, he is absolved from karet.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 184) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 148) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
If he does so inadvertently, he is liable to bring a fixed sin-offering.3This term is used to differentiate this offering from a guilt offering whose value is adjusted according to the person's means.
It is explicitly stated in the Torah that he is liable for partaking of blood from all domesticated animals, wild beasts, and fowl alone. This applies whether they are from a non-kosher or kosher species,4In contrast to the prohibition against partaking of cheilev, forbidden fat, which applies only with regard to kosher species of domesticated animals. as [Leviticus 7:26] states: \"You may not partake of any blood from a fowl or an animal in all your dwellings.\" A wild beast is considered as an animal as [Deuteronomy 14:4-5] states: \"These are the animals that you may eat: an ox... a gazelle and a deer....\"5I.e., the verse uses the term behemah which more specifically refers to domesticated animals and mentions both domesticated animals and wild beasts.
One is not, [by contrast,] liable for transgressing of the prohibition against partaking of blood6One may, however, be liable for another prohibition as the Rambam continues to explain. for partaking of the blood of fish, locusts, creeping animals, teeming animals, or humans. Therefore it is permitted to partake of the blood of kosher fish and locusts. Even if one collects it in a container and drinks it, it is permitted.7The Ra'avad and the Maggid Mishneh note that Keritot 21a states that it is permitted to partake of fish blood that has been collected only when fish scales are placed in it. Otherwise, it is forbidden because of the impression that may be created. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 66:9) quotes this view. The blood of non-kosher fish and locusts is forbidden because it comes from their bodies like the milk of a non-kosher animal.8As apparent from Chapter 3, Halachot 1 and 6, although this prohibition is of Scriptural origin, it is not punishable by lashes. See also Chapter 3, Halachah 22. The blood of creeping animals is comparable to their bodies, as we explained.9Chapter 2, Halachot 9-10.", + "The blood of a human is forbidden according to Rabbinic law if it departed [from the person's body]. One is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct for [partaking] of it. When, by contrast, one's teeth bleed, he may swallow it; he need not hold himself back. If one bit into bread and found blood upon it,10I.e., the same blood that he is permitted to swallow. he must scrape away the blood before partaking of it, for the blood has departed [from the body].", + "One is liable for karet only for blood that flows out [from the animal] when it is slaughtered, killed, or decapitated as long as it is tinted red, blood that is collected within the heart,11See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 5:1) where he states that this is the blood of fundamental importance. See also Halachot 5-6. and blood that is let, i.e., blood that flows forcefully [from the body]. One is not, however, liable for blood that drips at the beginning of bloodletting before it begins to flow forcefully or blood that drips at the ending of bloodletting when the bleeding begins to cease. It is like \"blood within the limbs.\" [The reason for the distinction is that] blood that flows forcefully is bleeding through which the soul may expire.", + "One is not liable for karet for concentrated blood12I.e., blood that flows slowly after the majority of the animal's blood has already been discharged. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.). or the blood within the limbs, i.e., the blood of the spleen, the kidneys, the testicles, the blood that collects in the heart at the time the animal is slaughtered, and the blood found in the liver.13There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if the prohibition against the blood of the liver is Scriptural or Rabbinic in origin. See the gloss of Rav Moshe HaCohen. A person who partakes of an olive-sized portion of it, however, is liable for lashes, as it is written: \"You may not partake of any blood.\"14The term \"blood within the limbs\" appears to refer to blood that is absorbed within the meat and organs of the animal. As indicated later in this chapter and as stated in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 67:1, this blood is forbidden only when it emerges from the meat or moves from place to place within the meat. See the notes to Halachah 12. With regard to one's liability for karet [Leviticus 17:11] states: \"For the soul of the flesh is in the blood.\" [Implied is that] one is liable for karet only for blood that causes the soul to expire.", + "When a fetus is found in an animal's womb, its blood is like the blood of an animal that has been born.15There is a distinction between the blood of a fetus and its fat (which is permitted in certain circumstances, see Chapter 7, Halachah 3). The rationale is that the verse forbidding blood prohibits \"any blood\" (Lechem Mishneh). Therefore one is liable for the blood that is collected in its heart.16As stated in Halachah 3. The remainder of its blood, by contrast, is considered as the blood of the limbs.17According to the Maggid Mishneh, even if one slaughters the fetus after removing it from its mother's womb, he is not liable for partaking of its blood.", + "Whether one [desires to] roast or cook a heart, one must cut it open, remove its blood, and then salt it.18As stated in Halachah 12, the Rambam maintains that even when one roasts meat, he must salt it first. As stated in the notes to that halachah, there are other Rabbis who differ with that point and require salting only when one cooks meat. See also the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 72:1) which quotes certain authorities that forbid eating a cooked heart, even if it was cut open and salted. If one cooks a heart without cutting it open, one may cut it open after it was cooked. It is then permitted.19Pesachim 74b states that the meat of the heart is smooth and hard and will not absorb the blood. Other substances that are cooked with it, however, are forbidden (Maggid Mishneh in the name of the Rashba). The Ra'avad and others differ with the Rambam and consider a heart cooked with its blood as forbidden. This is the view cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 72:2). If one did not cut it open and partook of it, one is not liable for karet.
When does the above apply? With regard to the heart of a fowl, because it does not contain an olive-sized portion of blood.20The heart of a fowl is not large enough for there to be an olive-sized portion of blood absorbed within its meat before slaughter. And it is only that blood for which one is liable for karet. If an olive-sized portion of blood collects there when the animal is slaughtered, one is liable for lashes. If, by contrast, one [partakes] of the heart of an animal, one is liable for karet. For there is an olive-sized portion of blood within the heart and therefore one is liable for karet.21This indicates that according to the Rambam, even when one cooks blood, one is liable for kereit for partaking of it (Lechem Mishneh). Other authorities differ and maintain that if blood has been cooked or salted, one is not liable according to Scriptural Law (Siftei Cohen 87:15).", + "If one cuts open the liver22The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 73:1) states: \"The liver has an abundance of blood. Therefore at the outset, it is not a sufficient measure to prepare it for cooking by salting.\"
The liver must be cut open thoroughly so that the blood contained in the blood vessels inside of it will flow out. Afterwards, placing it in vinegar or hot water causes the blood to be sealed in its place and not to flow into other portions of the liver. It is only blood that flows from place to place within the meat itself that is forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).
and casts it into vinegar or boiling water until it turns white, it is permitted to cook it afterwards.23Implied is that if one desires to roast it, there is no difficulty (Maggid Mishneh).
Many opinions maintain that we are not knowledgeable with regard to the process of casting a liver in vinegar or boiling water in the present age and should not rely on this practice. This view is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 73:2).
It has already become universal Jewish custom to singe it over a fire24See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 10:11) where the Rambam mentions ordinary roasting and not singeing for the liver to be permitted. and then cook it. [This applies] whether one cooks it alone or one cooks it with other meat.25The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 73:1) states that it must be roasted to the extent that it is fit to be eaten. The Siftei Cohen 73:2 explains that this means that it must be roasted at least half the extent to which one would normally roast it.
Similarly, it is a common custom that the brains are not cooked nor roasted until they are singed over a fire.26The Maggid Mishneh states that this custom is not as widespread as the custom of singeing the liver. Instead, he writes that it is customary to cut open the membrane surrounding it and then to salt it thoroughly. See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 71:3).", + "When a liver was cooked without being singed over a fire or cast into vinegar or hot water, the pot in which it was cooked is forbidden entirely: the liver and everything cooked with it.27The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 73:2) follows the opinion that the liver itself is permitted if it is cooked after being salted, though everything cooked with it is forbidden. The Rama, however, states that the Rambam's view should be followed.
It is permitted to roast a liver together with other meat on one spit, provided the liver is positioned below [the other meat].28For then the blood will not flow from the liver to the other meat. Hence, even at the outset, this is permitted. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 73:4) states that this ruling applies with regard to the ovens that existed in the Talmudic era. In the present era, however, it is common to turn the spit upside down. Hence, one should not roast the liver together with other meat. If one transgressed and roasted it while it was positioned above the meat, [after the fact,] one may eat it.", + "It is permitted to cook a spleen29That has been salted [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 74:1)]. together with meat, because it is not blood, but meat that resembles blood.
When one breaks the neck of an animal before its soul expires, the blood is absorbed into the limbs.30I.e., the animal suffers internal bleeding when its neck is broken. Since it is in the midst of expiring, it does not have the potential to expel this blood from its system. Instead, it becomes absorbed in its meat [Tur (Yoreh De'ah 67)]. It is forbidden to eat raw meat from it even if one causes the blood to be sealed.31By casting it into vinegar or boiling water.
To explain the difficulty the Rambam is addressing: There is a certain amount of blood absorbed in the meat of an animal. It is forbidden to partake of blood that has moved from place to place within an animal's body and cooking meat will certainly cause such movement. To avoid this difficulty, we salt meat, for this removes the blood. Casting meat in vinegar or boiling water does not remove blood, but instead causes it to be sealed in its place without moving even when the meat is cooked. Hence, according to the Rambam, this process is effective for ordinary meat. It is not, however, effective in this instance, for the internal bleeding that resulted from the breakage of the neck leaves blood that is not in its natural place (Kessef Mishneh, see also his gloss to Halachah 12).
What should be done? One should cut open32Our translation follows the gloss of the Lechem Mishneh who states that one should cut open the meat to allow its blood to flow out. The Maggid Mishneh states that it is unnecessary to cut open the meat and his view is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 67:3). The Rama, however, states that at the outset, one should be stringent. the piece and salt it thoroughly and afterwards, cook it or roast it.33It is then permitted, because the salting removes all the blood.
We have already explained34Chapter 4, Halachah 13. In that chapter, the emphasis was that the animal was not dead when slaughtered. Here the Rambam is restating the law to emphasize that we do not fear that the blood became absorbed within the meat and will not be released through salting. that when a person slaughters a domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl and no blood emerges, they are permitted.", + "Meat does not release [all] the blood it contains unless it is salted thoroughly and washed thoroughly. What should one do? One should wash the meat first35Among the reasons given for this initial washing are:
a) it removes the blood on the external surface of the meat;
b) it softens the meat and enables the blood inside to flow out more easily;
c) it enables the salt to adhere well to the surface of the meat.
and afterwards, salt it thoroughly. One should leave it in the salt for the time it takes to walk a mil36A mil is a Talmudic measure equivalent to approximately a kilometer. According to many Rabbinic opinions, it takes 18 minutes to walk a mil. [This view is cited in the present context by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 69:6).] The Rambam, however, follows a more stringent view [see his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 3:2)] and requires 24 minutes.
The Rama states that these measures are acceptable only after the fact or when there is an urgent need to prepare meat quickly. Otherwise, meat should be allowed to soak in water for at least half an hour.
and then wash it thoroughly, [continuing] until clean water emerges.37This washing removes the salt and blood from the meat. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 69:7) states that the meat should be washed twice and the Rama requires a third washing. Immediately afterwards, one should cast it into boiling water - warm water is not [sufficient] - so that it will become white immediately and [no further] blood will be released.38This follows the Rambam's view that we are knowledgeable in the process of casting meat into hot water to seal it in its place. (As mentioned above, there are many who maintain that we lack that knowledge.) Moreover, in this instance, once the meat has been salted, there is no need for this measure, because all its blood has been released. For this reason, the Ra'avad and the Maggid Mishneh object to the Rambam's ruling. It is, however, mentioned by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 69:19).", + "When we salt meat, we salt it only in a utensil that has holes.39So that the blood will drain out and not be reabsorbed by the meat. If one salted meat in utensil that did not have holes, all the meat lying in the brine is forbidden. Moreover, the outer surface of the meat above the brine becomes forbidden [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 69:18)]. The Rama maintains that the entire piece of meat becomes forbidden.
We salt it only with thick salt that resembles coarse sand. [The rationale is that] salt that is thin like flour will be absorbed by the meat and will not extract the blood.40The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 69:3) states that one should be careful not to use salt with overly large crystals for they will not adhere to the meat. The Rama adds that if one has only thin salt, it is permitted to salt meat using it.
One must shake the salt from the meat before washing it.41For the water will stop the meat from releasing blood. Afterwards, the salt may cause the blood on the surface to be reabsorbed into the meat (Siftei Cohen 69:27).", + "All of the above procedures apply with regard to meat that one must cook. For roasting, by contrast, one may salt the meat and roast it immediately.42When meat is cooked, the blood will enter the pot in which it is being cooked and cause the meat and any other substances to become forbidden. When it is being roasted, the blood will flow down from the spit without being absorbed.
The Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam's words imply that he maintains that one must salt meat before roasting it. There are other Rabbinic opinions that do not accept that approach. (They are favored by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 76:1).
The Rashba emphasizes that if one salts meat and does not roast it immediately, he should wash off the salt and the blood. Otherwise, the blood may become reabsorbed. The Rama rules that one should wash meat and salt it slightly before roasting it and should roast it directly after salting it.

When a person desires to eat raw meat, he should salt it thoroughly43The Rambam's statements have attracted the attention of the commentaries, for they appear to contradict his approach in Halachah 9 and in the latter clause of this halachah. To explain: From Halachah 9, it would appear that it is forbidden to eat raw meat that is not salted only when there is internal bleeding while the animal is being slaughtered. For although the meat contains blood, that blood is forbidden only when it moves from one part of the meat to another while cooking. If one eats the meat raw, such a transfer will not take place.
Similarly, the latter clause of this halachah permits meat when it is cast into vinegar because the blood becomes sealed in its place. Implied is that the blood itself is permitted.
This clause, by contrast, states that one must salt the meat to remove the blood even when one eats the meat without cooking it. Implied is that the blood is forbidden even though it has not moved from place to place within the meat. The Kessef Mishneh resolves the contradiction, explaining that since the blood is fit to move from place to place, it is forbidden. Hence, the latter clause which speaks about blood that is sealed in its place does not represent a contradiction. Similarly, this interpretation allows Halachah 9 to be understood in a manner that does not produce a contradiction.
It must be emphasized that the Ra'avad and many other authorities object to the Rambam's ruling and maintain that as long as the blood has not actually moved from place to place, it is not forbidden. Therefore it is permitted to partake of raw meat without salting it. It must, however, be washed thoroughly to remove all blood on its surface. This view is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 67:2).
and wash it thoroughly. If he causes the blood to be sealed [by casting the meat into] vinegar, it is permitted to eat the meat while raw.44As mentioned previously, in the Ashkenazic community (and also among many Sefardim), the custom of sealing blood by casting meat into vinegar is no longer practice. See Rama (Yoreh De'ah 67:6). And it is permitted to drink the vinegar which sealed it, for vinegar does not extract blood.", + "Vinegar in which meat was sealed should not be used to seal meat a second time.45For its power has been weakened (Rashi, Chulin 33a). When a piece of meat turns red within vinegar,46The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that it is based on an improper interpretation of Chulin 93b. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 67:4-5 appears to think that the interpretations are not mutually exclusive, for it accepts both of them. it and the vinegar are forbidden. [It can be permitted by] salting it thoroughly and roasting it.
When meat turns red,47An indication that it has absorbed additional blood. similarly, the testicles of an animal or beast and their membranes,48For they also contain large quantities of blood. See Chulin 93a. and similarly the neck which contains large blood vessels that are filled with blood, it is permitted to cook them if they are cut open and salted as required. If one did not cut them open and instead roasted them on a spit, they are permitted if he roasted the neck with its opening facing downward or he roasted all of them on the coals themselves.", + "[The following rules apply when one] roasts the head of an animal in an oven or a furnace. If one hangs the head with the opening to its neck49Literally, the place where the animal was slaughtered. hanging downward, it is permitted, for the blood will emerge and flow outward.50The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 68:1) states that, as an initial and preferred measure, it is customary to be stringent and not to roast the head while it is whole at all, even if the opening to the neck is positioned downward. If the opening to the neck is positioned to the side, the brain is forbidden, because the blood collects in it.51If, however, a hole is made in the skull and its membranes so that the blood can drain off, the brain is permitted [Rashba, as quoted by the Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 68:1)]. The remainder of the meat on the external surface of the bones is permitted.52The brain must, however, be removed from the skull, before the skull is cooked (Maggid Mishneh in the name of the Ramban).
Should he [roast it] with its nose positioned downward, if he places a straw or a reed in its nose so that it will remain open and the blood can flow out through it, [the brain] is permitted. If not, it is forbidden.", + "One should not place a utensil beneath meat53That has not been salted and left to let the blood drain off. that is being roasted to collect the juice [dripping from it] until no red color remains in the juice. What should be done?54For if one waits until there is no trace of the blood, the fat that one wishes to collect will also have drained off. One places a small amount of salt55One should use only a small amount of salt. If one uses a large amount, the blood will become mixed with the fat (Maggid Mishneh). in the utensil and leaves the utensil there until the meat roasts. He then removes the fat resting on top. The liquid below the fat is forbidden.56Because it is mixed with blood. Since the fat does not mix with the other liquids but instead floats above them, it remains a distinct entity and is permitted.
The Maggid Mishneh writes that there are opinions that we are not familiar with the details of this process. Hence one should not rely on this leniency. This approach is followed by the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 76:6) which state that one should not place a utensil under the meat until the meat is roasted to the extent that it can be eaten.
", + "When roasted meat is sliced over a piece of bread, it is permitted to eat the bread, for [the liquid] which exudes is only fat.57I.e., once the meat is roasted to the extent that it is fit to be eaten, we assume that all the forbidden blood has drained off.
When fish and fowl are salted together, even in a utensil with holes, the fish are forbidden. [The rationale is that] the fish is soft and will absorb the blood which is being exuded by the fowl.58Generally, when pieces of meat are being salted together and the utensil has holes so that the blood can run off, the meat is permitted even if the blood from other meat flows over it. The rationale is that since it is expelling its own blood and/or other juices, it will not absorb blood. Fish, however, will expel its blood and juices far faster than meat or fowl and will complete that process before the meat completes expelling its blood. Hence, we fear that it will absorb the blood from the meat or fowl (Maggid Mishneh).
All that is forbidden is the external surface of the fish (kedai kelipah). Once that is cut off, the remainder of the fish is permitted [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 70:1)]. The Rama rules that all the fish are forbidden. This stringency applies when the fishes' scales have been removed. If they have not been removed, the fish are permitted.
Needless to say, [this law applies] if one salted fish together with the meat of an animal or beast.", + "When one leaves fowl whole, stuffs their cavity with meat and eggs, and cooks them, they are forbidden, for the blood flows into them.59I.e., into the stuffings. Afterwards, the blood will become reabsorbed into the fowl itself and cause it to become forbidden. This applies even if one salted them thoroughly,60The Maggid Mishneh interprets the Rambam's ruling as being dependent on his ruling in Halachah 10 that after being salted, meat must be placed in hot water. In this instance, the fowl's stuffing prevents the boiling water from having the desired effect on the fowl.
Alternatively, the Rambam's ruling can be understood according to the statements of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 77:1) who rules that initially one must salt both sides of the fowl. If the fowl was already stuffed, salting just the exterior is not sufficient, because it will not effect the blood on the inside. See also the Rama who rules that at the outset, fowl must be salted properly and any meat placed within it must be salted properly. Only in such a situation should one cook a fowl with stuffing.
and even if the meat inside them was cooked or roasted. If one roasted [the fowl], they are permitted.61For the fire will cause all the blood to drain out. [This applies] even if the meat inside them was raw and even if their opening was pointed upward.62Even in such a position, the power of the fire will cause the blood to drain downward.", + "When one filled intestines [that were not salted] with roasted or cooked meat in this manner or with eggs and cooked them or roasted them, they are permitted. [The rationale is that] we do not presume that there is blood in the intestines.63Hence salting is not required. The Geonim ruled in this manner.", + "[The following rules apply when] one coated fowl64The Maggid Mishneh interprets this halachah as referring to fowl that were salted, but were not placed in water after the salting. According to the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 78:1), it applies to fowl that were not salted. The Shulchan Aruch continues, stating that according to the present custom, one should not coat meat that is being roasted unless it has been salted and washed first. with flour and roasted them, whether whole or cut in portions. If they were coated with coarse flour, one may partake of the coating, even if it became reddish. [The rationale is that] coarse flour will crumble65I.e., it will not stick thoroughly to the sides of the fowl. Thus there will be space for the blood to drain through. and the blood will flow outward. When they are coated with wheat flour that was moistened [before being ground],66In which instance, the flour is very thin and hence, clings tightly to the fowl. it is permitted to eat from the coating if it is white like silver. Otherwise, it is forbidden. If they were coated with other flours, they are forbidden if they turn red. Otherwise,67Even if they are not white like silver. they are permitted.", + "It is forbidden to use a knife that was used for ritual slaughter to cut hot meat68The Rambam's ruling is based on the following points. There is a difference of opinion among our Sages (Chullin 8b) whether the portion of the animal's neck where it is slaughtered is considered as \"hot\" at the time of slaughter, in which instance, when the animal is slaughtered some of its blood would be absorbed into the knife. Or it is not hot, in which instance, there is no such absorption.
From the Rambam's ruling (here and in Chapter 17, Halachah 7), it appears that he maintains that the animal's neck is not \"hot.\" Nevertheless, he requires certain safeguards in consideration of the other views.
This issue is a matter of concern only when the meat being cut itself is hot. For otherwise, the blood absorbed in the knife will not be transferred to it.
The Maggid Mishneh mentions that there is another opinion which maintains that even though the animal's neck is cold, the pressure of cutting causes the knife to absorb some blood. See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 10:2) and commentaries.
unless the knife was exposed to fire until it turned white, sharpened in a sharpener or inserted into hard earth ten times. [After the fact,] if one cut hot meat with it, it is permitted.
Similarly, one should not cut radishes or other sharp foods69Since these foods are sharp, they produce an effect similar to actual heat and have the potential to affect forbidden foods absorbed in a knife. Therefore safeguards should be taken. with it at the outset. If one washed the knife or cleaned it with a utensil, it is permitted to cut radish and the like with it, but not hot meat.", + "When meat has been salted in a bowl,70Seemingly this refers to a bowl that does not have holes. Nevertheless, there are authorities who also forbid using a bowl that has holes. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 69:17) states that at the outset, one should not use even a bowl that has holes, but after the fact, the food is permitted. one is forbidden to eat hot food71The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 69:16) also quotes an opinion that forbids using the bowl for cold food at the outset if it has not been washed. in it for all time,72One of the fundamental principles of the laws of kashrut is that an earthenware vessel can never be kashered. Once it absorbs forbidden matter, it will never be dislodged from it (see Chapter 17, Halachah 2). Hence once the bowl has absorbed the blood, there is no way that the earthenware utensil will be permitted again. for the blood has already been absorbed in its clay.73And will be released when the hot food is placed in it, causing that food to become forbidden. [This applies] even if [the utensil] is coated with lead.74Were the utensil to be made of lead alone, it could be kashered by boiling water in it (hagalah), as is the law with regard to metal utensils. In this instance, however, the metal is just a coating and the blood will penetrate to the earthenware base. Hence, it remains forbidden." + ], + [ + "When a person willfully eats an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat,1The term forbidden fat refers to the Hebrew term cheilev, to distinguish it from shuman which refers to fat that may be eaten. Unless otherwise mentioned, the term \"fat\" in this text will refer to forbidden fat. he is liable for kerat. If he partakes of it inadvertently, he must bring a fixed sin-offering.
It is explicitly stated in the Torah that he is liable for partaking2There is, however, no prohibition against benefiting from forbidden fat. See Chapter 8, Halachah 15. [of the fat] of the three species of kosher domesticated animals alone, as [Leviticus 7:23] states: \"Do not partake of any fat from an ox, lamb, or goat.\"3Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 185) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 147) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. [This applies] whether one partakes of fat from an animal that is ritually slaughtered or one partakes of fat from a nevelah or a trefe [from a kosher species].4See the following halachah. With regard to other domesticated animals and wild beasts, whether non-kosher or kosher, their fat is comparable to their meat.5I.e., there is no separate prohibition concerning it. If the animal is kosher, its fat is not considered cheilev and is permitted. If the animal is not-kosher, its fat is of course forbidden, but it is not bound by a separate prohibition. This reflects a contrast to the prohibition against partaking of blood mentioned in the previous chapter. Similarly, the fat of a stillborn fetus of the three species of kosher animals is comparable to its flesh. When one partakes of an olive-sized portion of it, one is liable for lashes for partaking of a nevelah.6There is not, however, a separate prohibition for partaking of its forbidden fat. From Chulin 75a, it appears that this leniency applies only when the fetus is stillborn before its full period of gestation is completed. If, however, the full period of gestation is completed, the prohibition against cheilev does apply (Maggid Mishneh; Siftei Cohen 64:5). See also Halachot 3-4.", + "When a person partakes of the fat of a nevelah or a trefe, he is liable for partaking of fat and for partaking of a nevelah or a trefe. [The rationale]7I.e., why we do not follow the principle that one prohibition does not fall upon another. is that since a prohibition is added to its meat - for it was permitted beforehand - it is also added to its fat.8The fat was forbidden previously and a further prohibition is added when the meat becomes forbidden. Hence one is liable for two sets of lashes.", + "When a person slaughters an animal and finds a fetus in its womb, all of its fat is permitted.9Contrast this to the prohibition against gid hanasheh as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 1. [This applies] even if the fetus is alive, because it is considered as a limb of [the mother]. If it was carried for the full period of gestation and discovered to be alive, its fat is forbidden and one is liable for kerat for partaking of it. [This applies] even if [the fetus] never stepped on the ground and does not require ritual slaughter.10As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 14. The Ra'avad mentions an opinion which states that one is not liable. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:2) cites both views.. [Instead,] we must remove all the forbidden strands of tissue and membranes from it as [is required] with regard to other animals.", + "When a person inserts his hand into an animal's womb and cuts off and takes out the fat of a fetus that has undergone a full period of gestation, he is liable11From the Rambam's inclusion of the phrase \"takes out,\" the Kessef Mishneh concludes that the prohibition applies only when the fat is taken out from the mother's womb while the animal is still alive. If the fat is left inside the womb and then the animal is slaughtered, he maintains that the fat is permitted. This conclusion is cited by the Turei Zahav 64:4 and the Siftei Cohen 64:6. for it in the same way as if he cut off the fat of the animal itself. [The rationale is that the fulfillment of the gestation period] is what causes the prohibition against fat.12The Maggid Mishneh clarifies that this stringency does not apply when the fetus dies in its mother's womb even if it has completed the nine months of gestation.", + "There are three types of forbidden fat for which one is liable for kerat: the fat on the digestive organs, on both kidneys, and on the flanks. The fat-tail, by contrast, is permitted to be eaten.13The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:5) states that one must remove the fatty portion on the inner side. It is called fat only with regard to the sacrifices, just as the kidneys and the large lobe of the liver are referred to as \"fat\" with regard to the sacrifices.14Chulin 117a interprets Leviticus 3:16: \"All of the cheilev to God\" as referring to the portions of the animal offered on the altar. These include the kidneys and the lobe of the liver although they are not \"fat\" (see Hilchot Maaseh HaKorbanot 1:18). Instead, the intent of term cheilev in the verse is \"choice portions.\" Similarly, we find the expressions15Genesis 45:18; Deuteronomy 32:14. \"the fat of the land,\" and \"wheat as fat as kidneys\" [where the intent is not \"fat,\"] but \"choice.\"
Since these entities are being raised up from the sacrifice to be consumed with fire for God, they are called \"the fat,\" i.e., the choice portion, for there is nothing more choice than the portion consumed with fire for God. For this reason, with regard to terumat ma'aser16The tenth of the tithe which the Levites who receive the tithe must separate and give the priests. [Numbers 18:30] states: \"When you raise up its fat from it.\"17Here also the intent of the term cheilev is \"choice portions.\"", + "The fat on the abdomen18An animal has four stomachs. We have chosen synonyms arbitrarily to describe them. and on the gut is what is meant by the term \"the fat on the digestive organs.\" One is liable for the fat at the joints of the thighs on the inside. This is what is meant by the term \"the fat on the flanks.\" There is also fat on the maw which is bent like an arch; it is forbidden. There is a ligament that extends like a lobe; it is permitted. The strands [stemming from] the fat are forbidden, but one is not liable for kerat for them.", + "Fat which is covered by meat is permitted. Scripture forbids \"fat on the flanks,\" but not within the flanks. Similarly, \"fat on the kidneys\" is forbidden, but not fat within the kidneys. Nevertheless, a person should remove the white matter within the kidney and only then, partake of it. It is not necessary, however, to remove all traces of it.19The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:12) cites the Rambam's view, but also that of the Tur which requires one to be stringent and remove all of its traces. The Rama states that, after the fact, even the stringent opinions do not consider the kidney forbidden if it was cooked without the traces of this fat being removed.", + "There are two cords of fat in the primary loin area, near the top of the thigh. While an animal is alive, this fat can be seen on the intestines.20For while an animal is alive, its meat hangs loosely (Chulin 93b). When, however, it dies, one portion of meat will cling to another and cover this fat. It will not be visible until the portions of meat will be separated from each other. Nevertheless, it is forbidden, because this is not fat that is covered by meat.21For in its lifetime, it is not covered by meat.
[In contrast,] wherever you find fat under meat, with the meat covering it and surrounding it in its entirety [so that] it will not be seen until the meat is cut away, it is permitted.", + "The fat of the heart and the fat of all of the small intestines are permitted. They are considered like shuman which is permitted fat with the exception of the top of the intestine that is next to the maw and is the beginning of the small intestines. The fat must be scraped off it.22In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro mentions that some interpret Chulin 93b as stating that a cubit of the intestines are forbidden and he quotes this view as halachah in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:15). The Ramah, however, states that the forbidden measure is not a full cubit, but close to it. This is the fat of the small intestines that is forbidden. There are some of the Geonim who say that the top of the intestine from which the fat must be scraped off is the large intestine,23From the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Shechitah 6:10, it is obvious that he favors the first opinion. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the second view should be followed. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:15) states that one should follow the stringencies of both views. i.e., the colon from which feces are excreted which is the last of the digestive organs.", + "In the body of an animal, there are strands of tissue and membranes that are forbidden. Some are forbidden because of the prohibition against partaking of fat and others because of that against blood.24I.e., there is blood absorbed in the tissue or membrane. Whenever a strand of tissue or a membrane is forbidden because of the prohibition [Leviticus 3:17]: \"Do not partake of any blood,\" one must remove it, and only then salt the meat as we explained.25The commentaries have cited Chapter 6, Halachot 10-12, as the Rambam's intent, but this point is not explicitly stated there. If one cut [the forbidden blood vessel], it does not have to be removed.26For the blood will flow out of it. Similarly, if one roasts [the meat], it does not have to be removed.27For the fire will cause the blood to drain off [see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 65:1)]. As the Maggid Mishneh mentions, there are some authorities who require that the blood vessels be cut open even when one roasts the meat.
Whenever a strand of tissue or membrane is forbidden because of the prohibition, \"Do not partake of any fat,\" it must be removed from the animal whether one's intent is to cut it or roast it.28Otherwise, the fat will seep through the meat when it is being cooked or roasted.", + "There are five strands of tissue in the flanks:29The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 64:13) explains that these strands of tissue extend from the lower portion of the backbone. As will be explained in the notes to Halachah 13, there are differences between his interpretation and that of the Rambam. three on the right and two on the left. Each of the three on the right splits into two and each of the two on the left splits into three. All are [forbidden] as fat.
The strands of tissue from the spleen and from the kidneys are forbidden as fat. Similarly, the membrane on the spleen, the membrane above the flanks, and the membrane on the kidneys are forbidden as fat. One is liable for kerat for the membrane on the thick side30Our translation follows the commentary of Rashi to Chullin 93a and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:10). of the spleen. The remainder of the membrane is forbidden, but one is not liable for it.", + "The kidney has two membranes. One is liable for kerat for [partaking of] the upper one as one is for [partaking of] the fat of the kidney itself. The lower one is like other membranes.31I.e., they are forbidden, but one is not liable for kerat for them. The strands of tissue in them are forbidden, but one is not liable for kerat for them.", + "The strands of tissue of the heart, of the foreleg, of the end of the spinal cord,32This follows the Rambam's interpretation of Chullin 93a. Rashi [and his view is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:13)] understands that passage as referred to the strands of fat mentioned in Halachah 11. of the lower jaw, those at either side of the tongue, and those within the fat of the small intestines which are interwoven like spiderwebs,33The Maggid Mishneh and Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 75:3) write that in the present age, leniency is granted with regard to these blood vessels. Nevertheless, it is customary to remove them. and the membrane above the brain in the cranium and the membrane on the testicles are all forbidden because [of the prohibition against partaking] of blood.34I.e., these are blood vessels in which blood will be lodged after the slaughter of the animal. Therefore they must be removed or cut open (see Halachah 10) before the animal is cooked or roasted.", + "When a kid or a lamb35The Maggid Mishneh notes that the Rambam (and his source, Chullin 93b) do not mention a calf when stating this leniency. Implied is that even at a younger age, the testicles of a calf are considered as developed. is less than 30 days old, it is permissible to cook its testicles without peeling [the membranes from them].36Until the kid or lamb reaches that age, the blood vessels are not developed and there is not a large quantity of blood flowing through them. After 30 days, if thin red lines can be seen within them, it is recognizable that blood has circulated through them and one should not cook [the testicles] until their outer membrane has been removed or until they have been cut open and salted, as we explained.37Chapter 6, Halachah 13. If thin red lines have not yet been seen within them, they are permitted.", + "We do not assume that there is blood in any of the digestive organs38This refers to the organs themselves. Hence they need not be salted (Maggid Mishneh, see Chapter 6, Halachah 18). With regard to the fat on these organs, it is possible for there to be blood vessels within them as mentioned above.
The Maggid Mishneh writes that we do assume that the stomach contains blood. This view is not, however, followed by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 75:1). The Siftei Cohen 75:1 and the Turei Zahav 75:1, however, state that we do assume that the stomach of a fowl contains blood.
through which the food passes.", + "It appears to me39This expression indicates a conclusion at which the Rambam arrived through his own powers of deduction without any explicit prior Rabbinic source. It appears that the Rambam did not arrive at a conclusive decision that the prohibition was of Rabbinic origin, but that he did favor this understanding. that all of these strands of tissue and membranes are forbidden according to Rabbinic Law. [Even] if one would say that they are forbidden according to Scriptural Law,40The verses mention kol, \"any,\" fat or blood. That term could be understood as an inclusion beyond the ordinary scope of the term and hence, involving these substances as well. and are included in the prohibitions against partaking against any fat or any blood, one is not liable for lashes for them, only stripes for rebellious conduct. [Partaking of] them is comparable to partaking of half the measure of a forbidden substance. This is forbidden by Scriptural Law, yet one is not liable for lashes for it.41See Chapter 4, Halachah 16, Hilchot Shivitat Esor 2:3, et al.", + "We do not salt42For we fear that the meat will absorb some of the fat. or wash fat together with meat. One should not use a knife used to cut fat to cut meat, nor a container in which fats were washed to wash meat.43If one cleans the knife or the container first, scrubbing it carefully, it is permitted (Maggid Mishneh in the name of the Rashba).
Therefore a butcher should prepare three knives: one with which to slaughter, one to cut the meat,44For at the outset, the knife used to slaughter should not be used to cut meat (see Chapter 6, Halachah 20). and one to cut fat.", + "If it is local custom for the butcher to wash the meat in his store, he should prepare two containers of water, one in which to wash meat and one in which to wash fat.45The Chulin 8b asks: Why isn't one container sufficient? First he will wash the meat in it and then the fat? The text answers that perhaps he will forget and wash the fat first. In this instance, by contrast, since he has two clearly designated containers, he will not make such a mistake.", + "It is forbidden for a butcher to spread the fat of the flanks over the meat46The Maggid Mishneh mentions views that maintain that this restriction only applies directly after slaughter when the fat is still warm. Once it has cooled, it hardens. This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:18). to make it appear attractive. [The rationale is that] the membrane over the fat is thin. It may become crushed by the butcher's hand and the fat will ooze out and saturate through the meat.
[Although] it is forbidden to perform all of these acts, if they are performed, the meat is not forbidden.47Although there are some more stringent views regarding certain particulars, the Rambam's view is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:19). Nor is the person who performs them given corporal punishment. Instead, he is taught not to act in this manner.", + "Meat should not be salted before the forbidden membranes and strands of tissue are removed.48This is a safeguard against the fat and blood being absorbed by the meat. If the meat was salted with them, they must be removed after the salting. Even if the gid hanesheh49See the following chapter. was among them, one may remove them after salting and cook [the meat].50According to the Rambam, after the fact, we do not say that the fat and/or blood was absorbed in the meat (see also Chapter 15, Halachah 32, and notes). The Rashba differs and maintains that one must remove the surface of the meat with them, because that surface also becomes forbidden. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:20) quotes both views. The Rama also cites a more stringent perspective, but concludes that one may rely on the Rashba's view.", + "When a butcher follows the practice of cleaning meat [from forbidden strands of tissue and membranes and] such a strand or membrane is found after he [alleged to have cleaned the meat], we teach him and warn him not to act negligently with regard to prohibitions.51He is not removed from his position, because these prohibitions are Rabbinic in origin (Maggid Mishneh). This ruling is, however, somewhat difficult to understand according to the second view mentioned in Halachah 16. [More stringent rules apply] if forbidden fat is found after he [alleged to have cleaned the meat]. If it is a barley corn in size, he is removed [from his position]. If an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat is found - even in several places - after he [alleged to have cleaned the meat], he is given stripes for rebellious conduct52For he transgresses the prohibition: \"Do not place a stumbling block before the blind,\" which is interpreted as a charge forbidding one to cause others to transgress. Nevertheless, lashes are not given for the violation of this prohibition. and he is removed from his position. The rationale is that a butcher's word is relied upon with regard to fat.53And his customers might cook the meat without checking for fat (or being knowledgeable about the details of the prohibition). Hence, he would cause them to transgress." + ], + [ + "[The prohibition against partaking of] the gid hanesheh1Genesis, ch. 32, relates that before his confrontation with Esau, Jacob remained alone in his camp. An unidentified being - interpreted by the Torah commentaries to be Esau's archangel - wrestled with him the entire night. When he saw that he could not defeat Jacob, he gave him a blow to his upper thigh, dislocating his gid hanesheh. In commemoration of this event, \"The children of Israel do not eat the gid hanesheh.
The Rabbis identified the gid hanesheh as the sciatic nerve, the large main nerve running down the back of an animal's hind leg. The term gid, though sometimes translated as \"sinew,\" is a general term. As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:4), it is used to refer to arteries, veins, tendons, nerves, and sinews.
applies with regard to kosher2See Halachah 5. domesticated animals and wild beasts,3Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 183) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 3) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. even nevelot and trefot.4See Halachah 6. It applies to a fetus5The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 65:7 does not cite the Rambam's view, but instead quotes two differing opinions: one that the prohibition does not apply to a fetus at all and another, that it applies only when the fetus has completed the period of gestation and is discovered alive. and to animals that have been consecrated, both those consecrated [for sacrifices] of which we partake and for sacrifices of which we do not partake. It applies to [the gid] on the right thigh and that on the left thigh.6Although the angel only dislodged the nerve on one of Jacob's legs, we are forbidden to partake of the nerves from both sides.
According to Scriptural Law, only [the gid] on the hip socket is forbidden, as [Genesis 32:33] states: \"which is on the hip-socket.\" The remainder of the gid which is above the socket or below the socket - and similarly, the fat which is on the gid - are forbidden only according to Rabbinic decree.7See Halachah 7 concerning the removal of this nerve. There are two giddim. The inner one next to the bone is forbidden according to Scriptural Law. The entire outer one is forbidden by Rabbinic decree.", + "When a person partakes of the inner gid hanesheh on the socket, he is liable for lashes.8Because he violates a Scriptural prohibition. If he partakes of the fat [of the gid], the remainder of the inner gid, or the entire outer one, he is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.9For violating a Rabbinic prohibition.
What is the measure of which one must partake to be liable? An olive-sized portion. If one ate the entire gid on the socket, one is liable, even though it is less than an olive in size. The rationale is that it is considered as a self-contained entity.10Accordingly, even if it is less than an olive-sized portion in size, one is liable. Compare to Chapter 2, Halachah 21, Chapter 15, Halachah 17, and Chapter 16, Halachah 6.", + "When a person eats an olive-sized portion of the gid on the right side and an olive-sized portion of the gid on the left side, or he ate two entire giddim even if they are not the size of an olive, he receives 80 lashes. He is given lashes for every gid independently.11Rav Moshe HaCohen writes that this ruling applies when the person was given a separate warning for each gid. Otherwise, he receives only one set of lashes. The Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam would also accept that interpretation.", + "The prohibition against gid hanesheh does not apply with regard to a fowl, because it does not have a [round]12This explanatory addition is based on Chullin 92b. hip-socket. Instead, its thigh is long [and flat]. If there is a fowl whose thigh is shaped like that of the thigh of an animal, i.e., it has a hip-socket, its gid hanesheh is forbidden, but one is not liable for lashes, because of it. Similarly, when there is an animal whose thigh is long like that of a fowl, its gid hanesheh is forbidden, but one is not liable for lashes for it.13Chullin 92b discusses these issues and leaves both matters unresolved; hence, the Rambam's rulings.", + "When a person eats the gid hanesheh from a non-kosher domesticated animal or wild beast, he is not liable.14Not for partaking of the gid and not for partaking of the meat of a forbidden animal. [The rationale is that this prohibition] does not apply with regard to a non-kosher animal,15Chullin 101a notes that the confrontation between Jacob and the angel took place before the Giving of the Torah, at a time when the Jews could eat non-kosher animals. Hence, there is reason to say that the prohibition could involve a non-kosher animal, for partaking of such animal was not forbidden until the Giving of the Torah.
In response, the Talmud explains that our observance of this prohibition does not stem from the practice observed by Jacob's descendants, but because this prohibition was reiterated at the time of the Giving of the Torah. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 7:6, the Rambam elaborates on this point, explaining that our observance of Jewish practice, even the mitzvot which we know that the Patriarchs fulfilled like circumcision, stems from God's command at Sinai and not from our ancestors' observance.
only with regard to an animal that is entirely permitted. Nor is he considered as one who partook of the remainder of its body, for the gid is not included as meat, as we explained.16Chapter 4, Halachah 18. See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 65:9) which states that a gid is \"like a piece of wood; it has no flavor.\" If, however, one partakes of the fat on the gid [of a non-kosher] animal, it is considered as if one ate from its meat.", + "When a person partakes of a gid hanesheh from a nevelah, a trefe, or an animal consecrated as a burnt offering, he is liable for two [sets of lashes]. Since [the prohibition]17I.e., the prohibition against partaking of a nevelah, trefe, or burnt offering. includes the remainder of its body which was permitted, it also includes the gid and causes another prohibition to be added to it.18Following the concept of issur kollel, \"an encompassing prohibition,\" as explained in the conclusion of Halachah 14 (Maggid Mishneh).
The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that Chullin 82b states that according to the opinion that a gid hanesheh does not have any flavor, one is not liable. Only the opinion that maintains that the gid hanesheh does have a flavor holds one liable. From the previous halachah, it appears that the Rambam follows the former view. Why then does he hold the person liable for two sets of lashes.
", + "One who removes the gid hanesheh must ferret out all traces of it until nothing remains.19Since the gid hanesheh and the gid forbidden by Rabbinic decree subdivide into several branches, this is a rather difficult task. For this reason, in most sectors of the Jewish community today, it is customary not to eat the hind-quarters of an animal. Accordingly, several cuts of meat, e.g., sirloin steak, are not available from kosher butchers. A butcher's word is accepted with regard to the gid hanesheh,20I.e., we rely on his word and do not inspect the meat ourselves. just as it is accepted with regard to forbidden fat. [Accordingly,] we do not purchase meat from every butcher, [only from] an upright man who has established a reputation for observance.21If the person himself does not have a reputation for observance and knowledge of the laws, he can sell meat if he hires such a person to act as a supervisor. This is the rationale for the practice of hasgachah, kashrut inspection, practiced today. If he slaughters meat himself and sells it, his word is accepted.", + "Where does the above apply? In the Diaspora. In Eretz Yisrael, by contrast, when it is populated entirely by [Torah-observant] Jews, meat may be purchased from anyone.22In the present era, there is no difference between Eretz Yisrael and other lands, for the majority of the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael are not Torah observant.", + "[The following rules apply when] a butcher is considered as trustworthy to sell meat, but it is discovered that he sold meat that was nevelah or trefe. He must return the money to its owners.23He must return the money entirely. This applies even if the customers already partook of the non-kosher meat (Hilchot Mechirah 16:14). The rationale is that a person's soul is revolted by the commission of a transgression and he is not considered to have benefited from the meat at all (Sefer Meirat Einayim 232:4). He is placed under a ban of ostracism and is removed from his position.24See Chapter 7, Halachah 21.
There is no way that he can correct [his act] so that people [will be allowed] to purchase meat from him until he goes to a place where his identity is unknown25If he performs such an act in a place where his identity is known, it can be said that he did so in order to be reinstated.and returns a lost object of significant worth or slaughters an animal for his own self and has it declared trefe although it involves a significant financial loss. For these actions indicate that he certainly repented without any [intent to] deceive.26I.e., they show that he is willing to forgo his financial benefit in order to keep Torah law. See also Hilchot Shechitah 10:14 and Hilchot Edut 12:9 which deal with the same concept. Hilchot Edut states that in order to be accepted as a witness, he must wear black garments as a sign of repentance.", + "When a person purchases meat and sends it via a common person, [the latter's] word is accepted with regard to it. Although he has not established a reputation for Torah observance,27See the Maggid Mishneh who maintains that the Rambam would rule in this manner even when a Jew is reputed to transgress various prohibitions. He also mentions the opinion of the Rashba who maintains that further precautions must be taken if an article is entrusted to a non-observant Jew. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 118:8) quotes the Rambam's ruling and then cites the Rashba's view without indicating which opinion should be followed. we do not suspect that he will exchange [the meat for a non-kosher cut].28I.e., we do not expect that he will steal. Moreover, he will derive no benefit from doing so, for he will have to supply an equivalent piece of meat for the one he exchanges. We do not expect him to cause sin without deriving any benefit. If, however, he has a reputation for stealing, his word is not accepted (Maggid Mishneh). Even the servants and maidservants29I.e., Canaanite servants, non-Jews purchased as servants who have undergone a partial conversion process (Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 12:11). of the Jews are trusted with regard to such a matter. A gentile, by contrast, is not [trusted], for we fear that he will exchange [the meat].30For a gentile is never trusted in any matters involving Jewish observance. When one desires to send food that involves prohibitions with a gentile, it is necessary to take precautions as stated in Chapter 13, Halachot 8-10.", + "[The following rule applies when there are] ten stores, nine sell kosher meat and one sells nevelot.31I.e., even if the proportions are heavily weighted in favor of the conclusion that the meat is kosher, we accept the possibility that it is non-kosher. If one purchased meat from one of these stores and did not know which one he purchased from, [the meat] is forbidden. [The rationale is that] whenever [the presence of a forbidden entity] is firmly established, the situation is considered as half and half.32This is a general principle applying in many other contexts as well, e.g., Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 2:10, Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 18:15.
If, however, meat is found cast away in the street,33The Hagahot Maimoniot explains that this law applies only when the meat is discovered in the public domain. If a person is seen taking meat from a store, but it is not known which store he took it from, the previous law applies. [it is judged] according to the majority. For [we follow the assumption:] Anything that was separated, separated from the majority.34This also is a frequently employed Talmudic principle. If the majority of sellers were gentile, [the meat] is forbidden. If the majority were Jewish, it is permitted.", + "Similarly, when meat is found in the hand of a gentile and it is not known from where he purchased it, if [the majority of] the sellers of meat were Jewish, it is permitted.
This reflects the ruling according to Scriptural Law. [Nevertheless,] our Sages have already forbidden any meat found in the marketplace or in the possession of a gentile35As mentioned by the Maggid Mishneh, there are Rishonim who permit meat found in the possession of a gentile when the majority of the sellers are Jewish, maintaining that this is evident from Chullin 95a. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 63:1, however, quotes the Rambam's view. even though all the slaughterers and all the sellers are Jewish. Moreover, even if one purchased meat, left it in his house, and it disappeared from one's sight, it is forbidden36According to the literal meaning of the Rambam's words, if meat was placed in the freezer, it would be forbidden. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 63:2) cites, however, the opinion of Rashbam which permits the meat if it is found in the same place that it was placed. The Rama writes that it is customary to follow this view. unless it had a distinguishing mark, he was familiar with it and could recognize it definitely as [the piece of meat lost],37The Maggid Mishneh states that if a person has a reputation for upright conduct, his word is accepted in this concept even if he is not a Torah scholar. Note the contrast to Hilchot Gezeilah V'Aveidah 14:12 which accepts only the word of a Torah scholar if one claims to recognize a lost object, but cannot identify it with distinctive marks. or it was bound and sealed.", + "[The following rule applies when] one hung a container filled with pieces of meat, the container broke, and the pieces fell to the earth.38If, however, he found it as he left it, it is certainly permitted (Maggid Mishneh). If there is no distinguishing mark [on the meat] and he was not able to recognize it, it is forbidden. [The rationale is that] it is possible to say that the meat that was in the container was dragged away by a wild beast or creeping animal and this is other meat.", + "It is permitted to derive benefit from a gid hanesheh.39The Maggid Mishneh notes that according to Pesachim 22a, it would appear that the authorities who maintain that the gid hanesheh has no flavor also maintain that it is forbidden to benefit from it. Now the Rambam follow the perspective that the gid hanesheh has no flavor (see Halachah 5). Hence his position here is somewhat difficult. The Maggid Mishneh explains, however, that the two positions are not necessary interrelated and both rulings of the Rambam can be upheld. Therefore it is permissible for a person to send a thigh which contains a gid hanesheh to a gentile.40I.e., because there is no prohibition against receiving benefit from the gid hanesheh, he does not have to remove it before selling the meat. He may give him the entire thigh intact in the presence of a Jew. We do not suspect that [the other] Jew will partake of this meat before the gid is removed, because its place is recognizable.41Since the Jew sees a co-religionist giving the gentile the meat, he will assume that it was ritually slaughtered and that the meat was kosher. [This applies in a place where public announcements are made when an animal is discovered to be trefe (Chullin 93b). Otherwise, the Jew must tell the gentile that the animal is kosher (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 65:11)].
Nevertheless, since the place of the gid hanesheh is recognizable - i.e., it is obvious whether the gid is still in the thigh or has already been removed - he will not partake of the meat until the gid is removed.
Accordingly, if the thigh was cut into pieces, he should not give it to a gentile in the presence of a Jew, lest the other Jew partake of it.42Since the place of the gid hanesheh is not obvious, the other Jew may think that ordinary kosher meat is being given and may partake of it.", + "Wherever the Torah states: \"Do not eat,\" \"You shall not eat,\"43Both of these commands are in the second person: one singular, one plural. \"They shall not eat,\" or \"It shall not be eaten,\" the intent is that it is forbidden both to partake of or benefit from the forbidden entity44Sometimes the command is stated in an active voice; sometimes, it is passive; sometimes, singular and sometimes plural. The passive form implies that it is forbidden to derive any benefit that could lead to one's eating, e.g., selling it for money that could be used to purchase food. unless:
a) a verse explicitly states otherwise, as it does with regard to a nevelah [Deuteronomy 14:21]: \"Give it to the stranger in your gate and he shall partake of it,\" or with regard to forbidden fat [Leviticus 7:24]: \"You may use it for any task\"; or
b) the Oral Law states explicitly that it is permitted to benefit from it, as is the case with regarding to teeming animals, swarming animals, blood, a limb from a living animal, and the gid hanesheh. For according to the Oral Tradition, it is permitted to benefit from all these prohibited entities, even though it is forbidden to partake of them.", + "Whenever it is forbidden to benefit from a substance, if a person derives benefit without partaking of it, e.g., he sold or gave to a gentile or gave it to dogs, he is not liable for lashes.45Rav Moshe HaCohen questions this ruling, stating that if the intent of the Scriptural prohibition is that it is forbidden to benefit from these substances, why is one not liable for lashes for deriving such benefit? The Maggid Mishneh explains that he is not liable, for one is liable for lashes only when he derives benefit from the food in the ordinary manner one derives benefit from food. This includes only eating. Receiving money, by contrast, is not considered as benefiting from food in the ordinary manner. Rav Moshe HaCohen, however, anticipated that attempted resolution and explains that, on the contrary, selling edible food is an ordinary way of deriving benefit. He should, however, be given stripes for rebellious conduct. The money [he received] is permitted.46There is one exception to this: money received in return for a false deity or articles associated with it. That money is itself forbidden (see Chapter 13, Halachah 15; Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 7:19).
Whenever it is forbidden to partake of a substance, but it is permitted to benefit from it, even though it is permitted to benefit from it, it is forbidden do business with such articles or establish oneself in a profession that involves forbidden entities.47I.e., one's livelihood may not revolve around the sale of these forbidden entities or performing work with them (e.g., serving as a chef in a non-kosher restaurant). The rationale for the prohibition is that we fear that a person who has extensive involvement with forbidden substances may come to partake of them (Rashba).
The Maggid Mishneh clarifies that the above applies only with regard to food from forbidden species. One may choose a profession that involves employing a horse or a donkey as a beast of burden.
[There is] an exception, forbidden fat, for concerning it, it is written: \"You may use it for any task.\" For this reason, we do not do business with nevelot, trefot, teeming animals, and swarming animals.", + "When a trapper happens upon a non-kosher wild animal, fowl, or fish, and he snares them or he traps both kosher and non-kosher animals, he may sell them.48He must sell them immediately. He may not raise them until they become large [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 117:4)]. See also Siftei Cohen 117:6 who questions whether the leniency is granted only to a professional trapper or to any person. He may not, however, intend to have his profession concern non-kosher species.
It is, however, permitted to do business with milk that was milked by a gentile without being observed by a Jew, cheeses made by gentiles, and the like.", + "This is the general principle: Whenever a prohibition is forbidden by Scriptural Law, it is forbidden to do business with it. Whenever the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin, it is permitted do business with it, whether we are certain of the existence of the prohibition or it is a matter of question." + ], + [ + "It is forbidden to cook meat and milk together and to partake of them according to Scriptural Law.1Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments 186-187) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 113 and 92) include these prohibitions among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. It is forbidden to benefit from [such a mixture]. It must be buried. Its ashes are forbidden like the ashes of all substances that must be buried.2See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:11,13.
Whenever a person cooks an olive-sized portion of the two substances together,3I.e., together the mixture is the size of an olive. It is not necessary that one have an olive-sized portion of milk and an olive-sized portion of meat. he is worthy of lashes, as [Exodus 23:19] states: \"Do not cook a kid in its mother's milk.\" Similarly, a person who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the meat and milk that were cooked together4If, however, the meat and milk have not been cooked together, there is no Scriptural prohibition against partaking of them together (Maggid Mishneh). According to Rabbinic Law, it is forbidden to partake of them in any manner. is worthy of lashes even though he was not the one who cooked them.5Even if a prohibition was not violated when cooking them together (e.g., they were cooked by a gentile), it is forbidden for a Jew to partake of the mixture. The implication is that the prohibitions against cooking the mixture and partaking of it are separate issues that do not necessarily share a connection (Maggid Mishneh).", + "The Torah remained silent concerning the prohibition against partaking [of meat and milk]6I.e., no where in the Torah does it state that it is forbidden to partake of such a mixture. only because it forbade cooking them. This is as if to say: Even cooking it is forbidden, how much more so partaking of it.7Significantly, in his Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., the Rambam explains that the prohibitions against partaking of and benefiting from milk and meat are derived from the fact that the Torah repeats this prohibition three times. Perhaps the reason the Rambam does not mention this means of derivation here is to avoid the following question being raised: Why are lashes not given for benefiting from milk and meat?
To explain: In Chapter 8, Halachah 16, the Rambam writes that one is not liable for lashes for deriving benefit from a forbidden substance. As explained in the notes to that halachah, the Maggid Mishneh explains that one is liable for lashes only when he derives benefit from the food in an ordinary manner from food. This includes only eating and not other forms of deriving benefit. Nevertheless, seemingly this should not apply with regard to benefiting from a mixture of milk and meat. For, as stated in Chapter 14, Halachah 10, in that instance, one is liable even if one does not derive benefit in the ordinary manner. Hence, it would appear that one should be liable for lashes for partaking of such a mixture.
Among the explanations given why one is not liable is that the prohibition against deriving benefit from a mixture of milk and meat is derived from an inference from a more lenient instance to a more stringent one (a kal vichomer; see Chullin 115b). And we follow the principle that punishment is not meted out when a prohibition is derived in such a fashion, only when it is stated explicitly (Sifri, Naso). If, however, there was an explicit prohibition in the Torah teaching us that deriving benefit from a mixture of milk and meat was forbidden. Seemingly, one would be liable for lashes (Lechem Mishneh).
[To cite a parallel:] The Torah did not mention the prohibition against relations with one's daughter, because it forbade those with the daughter of one's daughter.8See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 2:6.", + "According to Scriptural Law, the prohibition involves only [a mixture of] meat from a kosher domesticated animal9With regard to the meat or milk of a kosher wild beast or fowl, see the following halachah and notes. and milk from a kosher domesticated animal, as implied by the verse: \"Do not cook a kid in its mother's milk.\"10I.e., the prohibition involves only a kid that could be eaten and milk of which one could partake. The term \"a kid\" includes the offspring of an ox, the offspring of a sheep, and the offspring of a goat unless the verse states explicitly, a goat-kid.11I.e., the term gidi translated as \"kid,\" commonly means \"a kid-goat.\" Nevertheless, according to the Bible, it is not necessarily restricted to this meaning unless the verse specifies so explicitly, as in Genesis 27:16; 38:20. The term \"a kid in its mother's milk\" [does not exclude all other situations].12I.e., the intent is not that one is liable only for cooking an offspring in the milk of its mother and not in any other situations. See the conclusion of the following halachah. Instead, the Torah is speaking regarding the commonplace circumstance.
With regard to the meat of a kosher animal which was cooked in the milk of a non-kosher animal or the meat of a non-kosher animal which was cooked in the milk of a kosher animal, by contrast, cooking is permitted, and deriving benefit is permitted. One is not liable for [transgressing the prohibition against partaking of] meat and milk if one partakes of it.13Needless to say, one is liable for partaking of the non-kosher meat or the non-kosher milk.", + "Similarly, the meat of a wild beast and the meat of a fowl together with the milk of a wild beast or the milk of a domesticated animal is not forbidden according to Scriptural Law.14There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis in Chullin 116a whether the prohibition against eat the meat of a wild beast [cooked] in milk is Scriptural or Rabbinic in origin. According to some interpretations, that difference of opinion is perpetuated among the Rishonim (see Siftei Cohen 87:4). Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of Rishonim and Achronim follow the opinion the Rambam states here. This is also the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 87:3).
Significantly, in (Hilchot Mamrim 2:9), the Rambam states that the meat of a wild beast that is cooked in milk is forbidden according to Scriptural Law. In their glosses to Hilchot Mamrim, the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that there, the Rambam is speaking theoretically: Were the halachah to follow the opinion that the meat of a wild beast is forbidden according to Scriptural law, the ruling would be such and such. The Merkevat HaMishneh, however, maintains that a printing error crept into the text in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot and the text should be changed to fit the Rambam's ruling in Hilchot Mamrim.
Therefore it is permitted to cook it and it is permitted to benefit from it. It is forbidden to partake of it according to Rabbinic Law so that people at large will not be negligent and come to violate the Scriptural prohibition against milk and meat and partake of the meat of a kosher domesticated animal [cooked] in the milk of a kosher domesticated animal. For the literal meaning of the verse implies only the meat of a kid in the milk of its actual mother.15Hence were the Sages to allow one to partake of the meat of a wild beast and fowl cooked in milk, one might think that the prohibition applies only in its most literal context. As a safeguard to prevent this error from occurring, they instituted this prohibition. Therefore, they forbade all meat in milk.", + "It is permitted to partake of fish and locusts [cooked] in milk.16The Turei Zahav 87:3 and the Siftei Cohen 87:5 mention that there are authorities who forbid eating fish and milk together because it can cause health dangers. They, however, reject that ruling.
When a person slaughters a fowl and finds eggs that are completed within it, it is permitted to partake of them together with milk.17This refers to eggs that already have a yolk and whites, but are still connected to the chicken's body (Maggid Mishneh). See the Turei Zahav 87:6 and the Siftei Cohen 87:9 who quote authorities who explain that even though such eggs are considered as meat in certain contexts, there is no prohibition against partaking of them together with milk.", + "When [milk and meat] are smoked, cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias, or the like, one is not liable for lashes.18Nevertheless, there is a prohibition against partaking of all these mixtures and those mentioned in the following clause. Similarly, when meat is cooked in whey, milk from a dead animal,19I.e., milk that was in the animal's udders when it died or was slaughtered. See Halachah 12. or milk from a male,20The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 87:6) states that, after the fact, there is no prohibition against a mixture of milk from a male and meat. The Siftei Cohen 87:16 explains that this refers to milk from a male human. Even the Rama would forbid milk from a male animal according to Rabbinic Law. or if blood is cooked with milk, one is absolved and is not liable for partaking [of the mixture] because of [the prohibition against partaking of] milk and meat.21Implied is that in the latter instance, one is liable for partaking of blood. The Siftei Cohen 87:15 notes that according to many authorities, one is not liable for lashes for partaking of blood that has been cooked.
When, however, a person cooks the meat of a dead animal, forbidden fat, or the like in milk, he is liable for lashes for cooking.22Since we are speaking about meat or fat from a kosher species, the prohibition against cooking applies. In this instance, we do not say that \"one prohibition does not fall upon another,\" because there is no prohibition against cooking a nevelah or forbidden fat. He is not liable for lashes for partaking [of the mixture] because of the prohibition against meat and milk.23He is, however, liable for partaking of a nevelah or of forbidden fat. For the prohibition against [mixtures of] meat and milk does not take effect with regard to [entities] prohibited as nevelah or forbidden fat, because we are not speaking about a more encompassing prohibition, a prohibition which adds a new dimension, or [two] prohibitions that take effect at the same time.24As stated in Chapter 14, Halachah 18, and in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:8, it is only in these circumstances, that we do not follow the general principle: One prohibition does not fall upon another prohibition.
The commentaries ask: Seemingly, the prohibition against a mixture of meat and milk does add a new dimension to this prohibition, because it is forbidden to benefit from such a mixture. Why then does the prohibition against partaking of milk and meat not apply?
The Rambam attempts to resolve this question in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 3:4) by explaining that since the prohibition against benefiting from the mixture is an extension of the prohibition against partaking of it, when - as in the present instance - the prohibition against partaking of it does not apply, the prohibition against benefiting from it also does not apply.
", + "When a person cooks a fetus in milk, he is liable. Similarly, one who partakes of it is liable. When, however, one cooks a placenta, skin, sinews, bones, the roots of the horns, or the soft portion of the hoofs [cooked] in milk,25For as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 18, such substances are not fit to be eaten and thus are not considered as meat. he is not liable. Similarly, one who partakes [of such a mixture] is not liable.", + "When meat falls into milk or milk falls into meat and they are cooked together, the minimum measure [for which one is liable is] enough for one substance to impart its flavor to the other.
What is implied? When a piece of meat falls into a bubbling pot26The pot must be boiling hot. If meat falls into cold milk, it will not absorb it. See Halachah 17. full of milk, a gentile should taste [the contents of] the pot.27Chullin 97a states \"An Aramean chef shall taste it.\" Tosafot and others explain that only a chef's word is accepted. He will not lie, because if his falsification is discovered, his professional reputation will be tarnished and he will suffer a loss. We suspect that an ordinary gentile, by contrast, will lie. His word is only accepted with regard to ritual matters when he makes statements in the course of conversation, without knowing that a Jew is depending on his word.
This interpretation is not evident from the Rambam's words. On the contrary, it appears that according to the Rambam, the statements of any gentile are acceptable (see Chapter 15, Law 30, and notes). The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 92:1 quotes the Rambam's words. The Siftei Cohen 92:1 mentions the view of Tosafot. The Rama states that in the Ashkenazic community, the custom is not to rely on the word of a gentile in this context. Instead, we require sixty times the volume of the meat in all instances. Otherwise, both the milk and the meat are forbidden.
If it has the flavor of meat, it is forbidden. If not, it is permitted, but the piece of meat is forbidden.28For it certainly absorbed milk.
When does the above apply? When he hurried and removed the piece of meat before it discharged the milk that it absorbed. If he did not remove it [that quickly], we require 60 times its volume,29As will be explained (see Chapter 15, Halachah 6, and notes), our Sages received the tradition that a forbidden substances will not impart its flavor to a mixture when the mixture contains sixty times its volume. because the milk that it absorbed became forbidden. It was discharged and then mixed together with the remainder of the milk.30There is no way of distinguishing the remainder of the milk from the forbidden milk. Hence the entire mixture is forbidden unless there is more than 60 times the amount of the forbidden substance.", + "When milk falls [onto a piece of] meat [being cooked] in a pot,31As evident from the continuation of the Rambam's words in this and the following halachah, we are speaking of an instance where milk falls on a piece of meat that is not in the sauce. According to Rashi, the lower portion of the meat is resting within the sauce in the pot and its upper portion - on which the milk falls - projects beyond it. According to Rabbenu Yitzchak, the entire portion is outside the sauce. See Turei Zahav 92:2; Siftei Cohen 92:4. (From the Rambam's wording at the beginning of the following halachah, it would appear that he follows Rabbenu Yitzchak's position.) we taste32I.e., we have the meat tasted by a gentile as above. the piece on which the milk fell. If it does not have the flavor of milk, everything is permitted.33I.e., the piece itself is permitted and therefore all the contents of the pot. [More stringent rules apply] if the piece of meat has the flavor of milk. Even though if the piece of meat was pressed to remove [the absorbed liquid], the flavor [of milk] would not remain, since it has the flavor of milk now, it is forbidden and we must measure its entire volume.34Since the meat becomes forbidden, because it is meat that has been mixed with milk, tasting the mixture for milk is not sufficient. Instead, we consider the meat as a forbidden article and measure 60 times its volume. It is not possible to distinguish between the flavor of the forbidden meat and that of the permitted meat. If everything in the pot - the other meat, the vegetables, the sauce, and the spices - is great enough so that the piece is one sixtieth of the entire [volume], that piece of meat is forbidden35Once it becomes forbidden, it is considered as a prohibited entity and cannot become permitted again. Our Sages [Chullin 108b; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 92:3-4)] use the expression: \"The piece becomes like carrion,\" i.e., as if it is inherently forbidden. and the remainder is permitted.36As if it was mixed with 60 times its volume of non-kosher meat. If the entire mixture is not 60 times the volume of the forbidden piece, the entire mixture becomes forbidden.", + "When does the above apply? When he did not stir the pot at the outset when the milk fell into it. [He did so] only at the end37Since he mixed at the end, after the meat became forbidden, the entire mixture may become forbidden. and did not cover the pot.38Thus the piece of meat on which the milk fell remained a discrete entity, separate from the entire mixture. Hence it becomes forbidden.
If, however, he stirred the pot from the beginning until the end39The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 82) states that it is sufficient for him to stir the mixture at the beginning. This will cause the milk to be blended throughout the entire mixture. There is no need for him to continue stirring the pot. Rav Yaakov ibn Chaviv maintains that the Rambam would also accept this position. The Rambam mentions stirring the put until the end only for stylistic reasons. This interpretation is also apparent in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 8:3).
In his Kessef Mishneh and Beit Yosef, Rav Yosef Caro differs and maintains that the Rambam's words here should be understood literally. Unless he mixed the pot from the beginning until the end, we fear that it was not mixed well. Hence in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 92:2, he quotes the Rambam exactly. The Rama, however, cites the Tur's position.
or covered [the pot]40For covering the pot also causes the flavor of the milk to be blended throughout the entire mixture. from the time [the milk] fell until the end, [the question of whether a prohibition exists depends] on whether [the milk] imparted its flavor.41And we have a gentile taste the mixture as above.
Similarly, if the milk fell into the sauce or onto all the pieces and it was not known on which piece [the milk] fell,42The Tur and the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 92:2) emphasize that if the person does not stir the pot immediately after the milk fell in, the piece on which the milk fell becomes forbidden. Since its identity is unknown, all the pieces are forbidden unless the entire mixture is 60 times larger than its largest piece.
Rav Yaakov ibn Chaviv and Rav Yosef Caro (in his Kessef Mishneh and Beit Yosef) interpret the Rambam's intent as analogous to that of the Tur. They maintain that the Rambam also would agree that if person waited after the milk fell on the piece, that piece - and perhaps all the pieces - become(s) forbidden.
The Maggid Mishneh offers a different interpretation, explaining that in this instance, we do not say that the piece of meat on which the milk fell becomes forbidden because we do not know which piece it is. Hence rather than have the taste of the milk affect that piece, we stir the entire mixture so that the milk will become blended into it and become nullified as explained in the following note.
The Turei Zahav 92:6 and the Siftei Cohen 92:8 follow the interpretation of the Maggid Mishneh, explaining that in this instance, the principle (Beitzah 4b): \"We do not nullify the existence of a forbidden substance at the outset,\" does not apply. For since the identity of the forbidden substance was never established, there is no specific prohibited substance involved. Hence at the outset, the entire pot is considered as subject to being forbidden. To prevent that from happening, we stir it so that the prohibition will not take effect.
he should stir the entire pot so that all its contents will be mixed [thoroughly].43I.e., intentionally mixing the milk throughout the entire pot and thus nullifying its presence. As the Tur (loc. cit) writes, if the milk fell into the sauce, even if the person did not stir the mixture, this would be the ruling. Nevertheless, the Rambam advises the person to stir the mixture so that it will be mixed thoroughly and no trace will remain. If the flavor of milk [can be detected] in the entire pot, it is forbidden. If not, it is permitted. If a gentile to taste [the pot] whom we can rely on cannot be found, we require a measure of sixty whether for meat in milk or milk in meat. If there is one measure in sixty,44More precisely, the permitted substance must be sixty times the volume of the forbidden substance. Thus we are speaking about the forbidden substance being one sixty-first. it is permitted. If there is less than sixty, it is forbidden.", + "When meat has been cooked in a pot, milk should not be cooked in it.45This applies even on a later day. According to Scriptural Law, after 24 hours, there is no prohibition. Nevertheless, according to Rabbinic Law, at the outset, one should be stringent and not cook milk in a pot in which meat was cooked previously even if it had been cooked several days beforehand. If one cooked [milk] in it, [it is forbidden] if it imparted its flavor.46I.e., it should be tasted by a gentile. According to the Ashkenazic custom not to rely on a gentile, we require that the contents be 60 times the volume of the pot. The Siftei Cohen 93:1 states that it would be very rare for such a situation to exist. Generally, the ratio between a pot and its contents is less than 60. Hence, in most instances, the food would be prohibited.", + "The udders [of an animal] are forbidden according to Rabbinic Law.47I.e., we are afraid that a certain amount of milk remained in the udder or that the udder absorbed a certain amount of milk. Since we do not know how much milk it absorbed, we assume that it is entirely forbidden. [The prohibition is not of Scriptural origin, because] meat that was cooked in milk from an animal that was slaughtered is not forbidden according to Scriptural Law, as we explained.48Halachah 6.
Therefore if one cut it open and discharged the milk it contained, it is permitted to roast it and eat it. If one cut it both horizontally and vertically and then pressed it into a wall until none of the moisture of the milk remained, it may be cooked with other meat.49The ruling regarding roasting is more lenient than the ruling regarding cooking, because when meat is roasted, any fluids it contains are discharged and flow outward without being absorbed (see Halachah 14). When it is cooked, by contrast, it stews in its juices and it and any other meat will absorb the milk it discharges.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 90:2) writes that the accepted custom is not to cook it with other meat at all and to cook it alone only after it has been cut vertically and horizontally and pressed into a wall. The Rama adds that it is Ashkenazic custom not to cook it at all.

When an udder has not been cut open, when from a young animal that never nursed50I.e., our Sages enforced their decree universally, without differentiating between one animal and another. or from an older one, it is forbidden to cook it. If one transgressed and cooked it alone, it is permitted to partake of it. If one cooked it with other meat, we require 60 times its volume. The udder itself is calculated in the 60.51In Chapter 15, Halachah 18, the Rambam explains that since only a Rabbinic prohibition is involved, our Sages were more lenient. Thus the Rambam interprets this ruling as being of general significance. The Rashba offers a different rationale for this ruling, explaining that since the meat of the udder is acceptable, we include it in the reckoning of 60. Thus in contrast to other instances where 60 times the amount of the forbidden substance is required, here, we require only 59.", + "What is implied? If the entire mixture together with the udder was sixty times the volume of the udder, the udder is forbidden,52Rashi, Chullin 97b, explains that we assume that the milk imparted its flavor to the udder. Hence it becomes forbidden as the Rambam proceeds to state. and the remainder is permitted. If there was less than 60 times its volume, the entire mixture is forbidden. Regardless of [the ruling applying to the entire mixture], if the udder fell into another pot, it can cause it to be forbidden. We require 60 times its volume as in the original instance.53Thus according to the Rambam, only 59 times its volume is required. This view is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 90:1). The Tur and the Rama differ and maintain that the second mixture is judged more stringently than the first. They follow the rationale of the Rashba cited above. Thus they maintain at first, the udder is included in the reckoning, because its meat is permitted. With regard to the second mixture, by contrast, it is the meat, not the milk of the udder which is forbidden. Hence 60 times its volume is required. [The rationale is that] the udder which is cooked becomes considered as a forbidden piece of meat.
We measure [the volume of] the udder at the time that it was cooked, not according to its state when it fell [into the mixture].", + "We do not roast an udder that has been cut above meat on a spit.54This is a safeguard so that it will not discharge milk which will flow over other pieces of meat. If, however, one roasted it [in that manner], everything is permitted.55For even if its milk does flow over other pieces of meat, they are not forbidden. The rationale is that since it has been cut open, we do not suspect that perhaps some milk remained. Since the entire prohibition is Rabbinic in origin, we are not overly stringent. The Rama states if the udder was not cut open beforehand, the meat that is lower on the spit is forbidden.", + "A stomach that is cooked with milk inside it56I.e., a calf that had drank its mother's milk and was cooked with that milk in its stomach. is permitted. [The rationale is that] it is no longer considered as milk.57The Kessef Mishneh states that according to the Rambam, this applies even to milk that is still liquid. Since it has already undergone preliminary digestive processes, it is no longer considered as milk. See Chapter 4, Halachah 19. Instead, it is considered as a waste product, because it undergoes a change in the digestive system.", + "It is forbidden to place the skin of a kosher animal's stomach [in milk] to serve as a catalyst for it to harden into cheese. If one used it as a catalyst, [a gentile] should taste the cheese. If it has a taste of meat, it is forbidden. If not, it is permitted. [The rationale is that] the catalyst is itself a permitted entity,58Hence the logic mentioned in the following note does not apply. for it comes from the stomach of a kosher animal. [The only question] is [whether] the prohibition against meat and milk [was violated] and that is dependent on whether the flavor was imparted.
[Different laws apply, however, when] one uses the skin of the stomach of a nevelah, a trefe, or a non-kosher animal. [The rationale is that] since the catalyst is forbidden in its own right, the cheese becomes forbidden, not because of the prohibition of meat and milk, but because of the prohibition against a nevelah. For this reason, [our Sages] forbade cheeses made by gentiles, as we explained.59Chapter 3, Halachah 13. As the Rambam states in that halachah, since the amount of skin used is minimal, we might think that no prohibition is involved, for the forbidden substance would be nullified. Nevertheless, the Rabbis ruled stringently, explaining that since the catalyst which causes the milk to curdle is forbidden, everything is forbidden.", + "Meat alone is permitted and milk alone is permitted. It is [only] when the two become mixed together through cooking that they both become forbidden.
When does the above apply? When they were cooked together, when a hot object fell into a hot object,60For in this instance, the two substances will be absorbed by each other just as if they had been cooked together. or when a cold object fell into a hot object.61For we follow the principle (Pesachim 76a): \"The lower one dominates,\" and the food is considered as hot. If, however, [milk or meat] that is hot fell into the other when it is cold, [all that is necessary is to] remove the surface of the meat which touched the milk; the remainder may be eaten.62We assume that the meat's surface absorbed a small amount of milk while it was cooling down (ibid.). Hence the surface is forbidden and must be removed. The milk does not, however, permeate beyond the surface. Therefore the remainder is permitted. With regard to the milk, it appears that there is no prohibition. The Radbaz explains that since it is not possible to remove the surface of the milk, there is no prohibition whatsoever. Other Rishonim require that the milk be sixty times the volume of the surface of the meat. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 91:4) quotes the Rambam's ruling and the Siftei Cohen 91:8 states that this decision is accepted by the Rama despite the fact that this might appear incompatible with some of the other rulings of the Rama. The Turei Zahav 91:7, however, argues in favor of the view of the other Rishonim.
If cold [meat] fell into cold [milk or the opposite], one must wash the piece of meat thoroughly.63Since they are both cold, there is no suspicion that one will be absorbed by the other. Washing the meat is necessary only to remove any traces of milk that might be left. [Afterwards,] it may be eaten. For this reason, it is permitted to [carry] meat and milk bound together in a single handkerchief, provided they do not touch each other. If they do touch each other, one must wash the meat and wash the cheese.64The Bayit Chadash rules that this applies only when one of them is moist. If they are both solid, they need not even be washed. [Afterwards,] he may partake of them.", + "When a substance is salted to the extent that it cannot be eaten because of its salt,65In previous eras, before the advent of refrigeration, meat was salted thoroughly to preserve it. Afterwards, when one desired to partake of it, he would soak it in water to remove the salt (Rashi, Chullin 112a). The Radbaz states that we are speaking about salting meat in a manner similar to the way it is salted to remove its blood. If less salt than that is used, these laws do not apply. See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 91:5) which discusses these laws. is considered as if it is boiling.66I.e., we assume that it will cause substances to be discharged and absorbed as cooking does. This is merely a Rabbinic stringency.
It must be emphasized that the comparison to cooking is not total. Generally, salting only causes the surface of the substance to become forbidden. If, however, the substance is fatty, the entire substance becomes forbidden (ibid.:6).
If it can be eaten in its present state like kutach,67A mixture of milk, breadcrumbs, salt, and spices, commonly served as a dip in Babylon. it is not considered as if it is boiling.68All that is necessary is to wash the meat and/or cheese thoroughly.", + "[The following rules apply when] a fowl that has been slaughtered falls into milk or kutach that contains milk: If it is raw, it need only be washed thoroughly and it is permitted. If it was roasted, one should remove its surface.69There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if this is speaking about a roasted fowl that is hot, or even one that is not hot. According to the latter opinion, it will still absorb some milk because it has become soft and permeable. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 91:7) quotes the first view while the Turand the Rama mention the second. If it has portions where it is open70I.e., instead of being a solid surface, the surface of the meat cracks open in several places. or it is spiced and it falls into milk or kutach, it is forbidden.71Because the cracks in its surface or the spices will cause it to absorb the milk to a greater extent than it would otherwise. This clause appears also to be referring to meat that has been roasted. There are, however, opinions that interpret it as referring to raw meat. See Siftei Cohen 91:21.", + "It is forbidden to serve fowl72Needless to say, this applies to meat (see Lechem Mishneh). together with milk on the table upon which one is eating.73They may, however, be placed together on a serving table (Chullin 104b). This is a decree [enacted] because habit [might lead] to sin.74Since both substances are permitted and they are served together, one might accidentally partake of them together.
Implied is that if substances are forbidden and one would not ordinarily partake of them, there is no difficulty in having them served on the table at which one is eating. See Siftei Cohen 88:2.
We fear that one will eat one with the other. [This applies] even though fowl with milk is forbidden only because of Rabbinic decree.75See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 88:2) which explains that if a distinction is made, e.g., the milk is placed on one type of placemat and the meat on another, there is no prohibition.", + "When two guests who are not familiar with each other are eating at the same table, one may eat the meat of an animal and one may eat cheese. [The rationale is] that they are not well-acquainted with each other to the extent that they will eat together.76Thus there is little likelihood that they will share their food together.", + "We do not knead a loaf with milk. If one kneaded it [with milk], the loaf is forbidden,77Even to be eaten alone [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 97:1)]. The Shulchan Aruch, however, grants license if only a small amount of bread was prepared in this manner and thus it can be eaten at one time. because habit [might lead] to sin, lest he eat it together with meat. We do not dab an oven with animal fat.78Even if the fat is kosher. If in fact one dabbed an oven [with fat], any loaf is forbidden79We fear that the fat from the oven became absorbed in the bread, causing it to become fleishig. until one fires the oven,80Firing the oven to the point that it becomes red-hot will burn away all traces of the fat. lest one eat milk with [that loaf]. If one altered the appearance of the bread so that it will be evident that one should not eat meat or milk with it, it is permitted.", + "When a loaf has been baked together with roasted meat, or fish were roasted together with meat,81Even if they did not touch each other. Note the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 116) and the Turei Zahav 95:3) which mention that there is a prohibition against eating fish roasted with meat because it could cause a health problem. it is forbidden to eat them together with milk.82For the vapors from the meat become absorbed in the bread or in the fish. In Chapter 15, Halachah 32, the Rambam rules that vapors do not cause an object to become forbidden. There is not necessarily a contradiction between these two rulings, for here we are speaking about a small oven [Radbaz, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 97:3). Even though, after the fact, kosher meat roasted together with non-kosher meat in a small oven is permitted, here one is not deeming the bread or fish forbidden, one is merely prohibiting that it be eaten with milk (Siftei Cohen 97:4). When meat was eaten83Or cooked [Radbaz, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 95:1)]. The Shulchan Aruch adds that this ruling applies only when the dish was thoroughly washed and no trace of meat remains. in a dish and then fish were cooked in it, it is permitted to eat those fish together with kutach.84Even though the kutach contains milk. The rationale is that although the flavor of the meat was imparted to the dish and from the dish, it was imparted to the fish. Nevertheless, since it went through these two intermediate stages, it is not considered significant and does not cause the fish to be considered fleishig. The Rabbis referred to this concept as nat bar nat - notain taam bar notain tam (\"imparting merely flavor a second time\").
It must be emphasized that nat bar nat is permitted only with regard to a mixture of milk and meat. The rationale is that both milk and meat are permitted, a prohibition only exists when they are mixed together and if one of them has been weakened to the extent that it is nat bar nat, it is not considered significant. When, however, an entity is inherently forbidden, e.g., non-kosher meat, when its flavor becomes absorbed into a dish, that dish becomes forbidden and it may not be used again for hot food (Radbaz).
", + "When a knife was used to cut roasted meat85The Rambam's wording implies that the meat was hot (Radbaz). This ruling applies also to hot cooked meat (Kessef Mishneh). There are opinions that maintain that this ruling also applies when the meat was cold (Radbaz). and then was used to cut radish or other sharp foods, it is forbidden to eat them together with kutach.86Rashi, Chullin 111b, states that the rationale is that it is likely that there will be a small amount of fat left on the knife. Thus when the knife is used to cut the sharp food, its sharpness will cause that the flavor of the fat will be imparted to it. According to this view, if the knife was cleaned or used to cut another substance first, it does not cause the radish to be forbidden [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 96:5); note also the dissenting view of the Rama]. (This opinion speaks of fat being left on the knife, for if there was no fat there, seemingly, this instance would resemble the concept of nat bar nat mentioned in the previous halachah.)
There are, however, other opinions (Tosafot, Sefer HaTerumot) which maintain that this ruling would apply even if the knife was clean. The rationale is the pungency of the food and the pressure of the knife cause it to absorb more than an ordinary instance of nat bar nat.
From the Rambam's wording, it appears that the entire radish is forbidden. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 96:1), however, rules that it is sufficient to remove a piece a fingerbreadth in thickness. The Rama, however, mentions the Rambam's view.
If, however, one cut meat [with a knife] and afterwards cut zucchini or watermelon,87I.e., substances that are not pungent and soft and contain moisture. If one cuts a vegetable that is not soft and moist, it is sufficient to wash it [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 96:5)]. one should scrape away the place where the cut was made and the remainder may be eaten with milk.", + "We do not place a jar of salt near a jar of kutach, because it will draw out its flavor.88The Ra'avad and the Radbaz note that the Rambam apparently had a slightly different version of Chullin 112a, the source for this halachah, than that found in the standard printed texts of the Talmud. According to the standard version, the rationale is that we fear that some drops of kutach will fall into the salt. The Radbaz adds that according to the Rambam, the prohibition applies only with regard to earthenware jugs. If they are made from metal, the material will be too dense to allow for the flavor to be drawn out. Thus one will cook meat with this salt that has the flavor of milk. One may, however, place a jar of vinegar near a jar of kutach, because the vinegar will not draw out its flavor.89According to the other rationale, the kutach will remain a distinct entity if it falls into the salt, but it will become mixed with the vinegar and nullified if it falls into it (Radbaz; Turei Zahav 95:16).", + "When a person eats cheese or milk first, it is permitted for him to eat meat directly afterwards. He must, however, wash his hands90The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 89:2) states that if one sees that his hands are clean, it is not necessary to wash them. and clean his mouth between the cheese and the meat.91The Rama quotes a view that requires one to wait six hours after eating hard cheese. It is, however, questionable if this would be required for most hard cheese commercially produced today.
With what should he clean his mouth? With bread or with fruit that [require him] to chew and then swallow or spit them out.92The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) states that one should also wash his mouth. One may clean his mouth with all substances with the exception of dates, flour, and vegetables, because they do not clean effectively.", + "When does the above apply? With regard to the meat of a domesticated animal or a wild beast.93The requirement of this stringency for the meat of a domesticated animal is understandable, for the prohibition is of Scriptural origin. Nevertheless, according to the standard text of Halachah 4, the prohibition against a mixture of milk and the meat of a wild beast is also Rabbinic in origin. What then is the difference between the meat of a wild beast and that of a fowl? The Kessef Mishneh, however, explains that the meat of a domesticated animal resembles the meat of a wild beast. Hence it was necessary for the Rabbis to forbid it. Alternatively, Rabbenu Tam explains that the meat of a wild beast will stick to a person's mouth and hands more than the meat of a fowl. If, however, one [desires to] eat the meat of a fowl after eating cheese or milk, it is not necessary for him to clean his mouth or wash his hands.94Since only a Rabbinic prohibition is involved, our Sages did not enforce any further stringency.", + "When a person ate meat first - whether the meat of an animal or the meat of a fowl - he should not partake of milk afterwards unless he waits the time for another meal, approximately six hours.95This is the view stated in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 89:1) and in the Rama's conclusion, although the Rama does mention that there are some more lenient views. This stringency is required because meat that becomes stuck between teeth and is not removed by cleaning.96The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 89) gives a different rationale: that because meat is fatty, its taste persists for a long time." + ], + [ + "All the prohibitions we mentioned involve living beings. There are also other Scriptural prohibitions that involve the produce of the earth. They include: chadash, kilai hakerem, tevel, and orlah.1The Rambam proceeds to define each of these terms in the subsequent halachot. The prohibitions the Rambam mentions in this chapter apply universally. There are other prohibitions involving the consumption of agricultural products that apply with regard to non-priests, e.g., terumah, as explained in Sefer Zeraim and others involving the sacrifices as explained in Sefer HaAvodah (Radbaz).", + "What is meant by chadash?2The term chadash literally means \"new.\" It refers to new grain, i.e., grain that is harvested before the sixteenth of Nisan, as the Rambam proceeds to explain. It is forbidden to partake of any of the five species of grain3These five species are commonly identified as wheat, barley, rye, oats, and spelt. As mentioned in the notes to Hilchot Berachot 3:1, there is some discussion whether these are in fact the species of which the Talmud and the Rambam speak. alone4I.e., other species commonly identified as grain, e.g., corn, rice, and millet, are not included in this ban. before the omer5A measure of barley that is offered on the sixteenth of Nisan, as explained in Leviticus 23:9-15; Hilchot Temidim UMusafim, ch. 7. is offered on the sixteenth of Nisan, as [Leviticus 23:14] states: \"You may not partake of bread, roasted kernels, or fresh kernels.\"6Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments 189-191) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 303-305) include these prohibitions among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The Radbaz states that the Rambam mentions chadash before the other prohibitions, because it occurs most frequently, recurring every year.
Anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of fresh grain before the offering of the omer is liable for lashes. [This applies] in every place and at all times, whether in Eretz [Yisrael] or in the Diaspora,7In the Diaspora, where crops of grain are sometimes planted after Pesach, this prohibition could present a problem. For all grain planted after Pesach, will not be permitted until the following year. In resolution, the Rama writes that unless we know otherwise, all grain is permitted after Pesach, based on the concept of sefek-sefekah - multiple doubt. It is possible it is from the previous year's crop. Even if it is from this year's crop, perhaps it took root before Pesach and is thus permitted.
The Bayit Chadash in his gloss to the Tur (Yoreh De'ah 293) elaborates on the concept that the prohibition against chadash applies only to grain belonging to a Jew. Grain belonging to a non-Jew is not bound by this prohibition. The Turei Zahav 293:2 differs and maintains that it applies also to grain grown by a gentile. Most of the authorities respect the Bayit Chadash for his attempt to absolve most of the Jewish people from the prohibition (since by and large, the grain available in the Diaspora is grown by non-Jews) but accept the logic of the Turei Zahav. In practice, however, it is customary to rely on the leniency of the Rama.
whether at the time of the Temple or when the Temple is no longer standing.8I.e., the prohibition is not dependent on the offering of the omer, but instead applies even when no sacrifices are offered.
[The only difference in observance is that] while the Temple is standing, once the omer has been offered, it is permitted [to partake of] new grain in Jerusalem. Distant places9I.e., places that will not be able to hear a report when the omer was actually offered before noon because they are far removed from Jerusalem. are permitted [to partake of new grain] after midday. For the court will not be indolent with regard to [the offering of omer] beyond midday.10I.e., by midday, one can be certain that the omer had been sacrificed. [Now] when the Temple is no longer standing, the entire day is forbidden according to Scriptural Law. In the present age, in the places where the festivals are observed for two days,11See Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh, ch. 5, which explains that in places where messengers from Jerusalem would not inform the Jewish community when the new month had been sanctified, the festivals are observed for two days, for perhaps the day considered as the fifteenth of Nisan was really the fourteenth. chadash is forbidden on the entire day of the seventeenth of Nisan until the evening according to Rabbinic Law.12Since the observance of the second day was instituted because there was a doubt concerning the day on which the festival should be observed, our Sages ordained that the prohibition concerning chadash should be observed by Rabbinical decree until the conclusion of the seventeenth so as not to minimize the importance of the festival. Even though there is no longer any doubt concerning the day on which the festival should be observed, we heed this prohibition to maintain our Sages' original decree (Radbaz).", + "When a person partakes of an olive-sized portion of bread from each of roasted kernels, or fresh kernels [from chadash], he is liable for three sets of lashes,13Provided he is given a separate warning for each one (Radbaz). as [implied by the verse]: \"You may not partake of bread, roasted kernels, or fresh kernels.\" According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that all three involve separate prohibitions.14All three are mentioned in one verse. Thus one might think that we are speaking of a prohibition of a general nature and we follow the principle (see Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2-3) that lashes are not given for a prohibition of a general nature. Nevertheless, Keritot 5a explains why this instance is an exception.", + "Whenever grain took root before the offering of the omer, it is permitted to be eaten after the offering of the omer despite the fact that it did not reach maturity until after that offering. Grain that took root after the offering of the omer is forbidden until the offering of that sacrifice the following year even though it was planted before that offering was brought. This law applies in every place15I.e., even in places that follow a different agricultural cycle than Eretz Yisrael. and in every era according to Scriptural Law.", + "[There is an unresolved halachic difficulty in the following situations:] Grain took root after the omer. One harvested it and sowed this wheat in the ground. Afterwards, the omer of the following year was offered, while these kernels of wheat were still in the ground.16And had not sprouted (Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 293:4). There is a doubt whether [the offering of] the omer caused [these kernels] to be permitted as if they had been stored in a jar or it did not cause them to be permitted, because they have been nullified in the ground.17And thus they would not be permitted until the following year. Therefore if a person collected them and partook of them, he is not liable for lashes, but [instead] is given stripes for rebellious conduct.
Similarly, when a stalk reached a third of its growth before the offering of the omer,18Thus had one left it in the ground, it would have been permitted. one uprooted it and then replanted it after the offering of the omer, and it increased in size. There is a doubt whether it is forbidden because of the increase in size until the offering of the omer the following year or it is not forbidden because it took root before the offering of the omer.19The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 293:5) rules that such grain is forbidden because of the doubt.", + "What is meant by kilai hakerem?20The Hebrew term literally means \"mixed species in a vineyard.\" Sowing a species of grain or a type of vegetable together with a vine.21The Rambam's statements have attracted the attention of the commentaries, for they represent a contradiction to his statements in Hilchot Kelayim 8:1: \"One is not liable for sowing kilai hakerem unless he sows wheat, barley, and grape seeds together.\" The Radbaz explains that the laws governing sowing mixed species are different than those regarding partaking of them. [This applies] whether they were sown by a Jew or a non-Jew,22For as above, the prohibition against sowing mixed species and partaking of them are distinct. whether they grew on their own, or whether one planted a vine among vegetables, we are prohibited against partaking and benefiting from both of them, as [Deuteronomy 22:9] states: \"Lest the fullness of the seed which you sowed and the produce of the vineyard become hallowed.\"23Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 193) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 549) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. [\"Becom[ing] hallowed\"] means being set apart and forbidden.", + "One who eats24The Torah does not specifically mention that it is forbidden to partake of the mixed species. Nevertheless, it states that it is forbidden to derive benefit from them. There is no greater derivation of benefit than eating (Radbaz). From the Rambam's wording, one would surmise that one is not liable for lashes from merely benefiting from kilai hakerem. an olive-sized portion from kilai hakerem, whether from the vegetables or from the grapes is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law. The two can be combined to reach this measure.25I.e., when one eats some of the grapes and some of the vegetables, if the combined volume is the size of an olive, he is liable.", + "When does the above26Liability for lashes. apply? When they were sown in Eretz Yisrael.27In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 3:10), the Rambam writes that this concept is derived from Deuteronomy 22:9: \"Do not sow kilayom in your vineyard.\" For the only vineyard that can truly be considered as \"yours,\" i.e., belonging to a Jew, is one in Eretz Yisrael.
The Mishneh LiMelech writes that in the present era, when the observance of the agricultural laws in Eretz Yisrael is only a matter of Rabbinic Law (see Hilchot Terumah 1:26), the prohibition against kilai hakerem is also of Rabbinic origin.
In the Diaspora, by contrast, kilai hakerem are forbidden by Rabbinic decree.
In Hilchot Kelayim,28One of the Halachot in Sefer Zeraim. it will be explained which species are forbidden as kilai hakerem and which are not forbidden, how they become forbidden, when they become forbidden, in which situations, produce causes vines to become \"hallowed,\" and when they do not cause them to become \"hallowed.\"", + "What is meant by orlah?29The term literally means \"covered.\" Thus the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aserot 4:4) speaks of \"something which covers (oral) its fruit.\" For that reason, a foreskin is described as an orlah, because it covers the male organ. Here also this fruit is \"covered\" by a forbidden quality. Whenever anyone plants30I.e., replants an existing seedling or plants a seed and grows the tree from the outset (Radbaz). a fruit tree, it is forbidden to partake of or benefit from all of the fruit the tree produces for three years after being planted, as [Leviticus 19:23] states: \"For three years, they shall be closed off for you, they may not be eaten.\"31Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 192) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 246) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Whoever eats an olive-sized portion of such fruit is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law.", + "When does this apply? When one plants in Eretz Yisrael, as [the above] verse states: \"When you enter the land....\" With regard to the prohibition against orlah in the Diaspora, it is a halachah transmitted to Moses at Sinai32I.e., an element of the Oral Tradition that has no explicit source in the Written Law. that fruit that is definitely orlah is forbidden. If there is a doubt regarding the matter, it is permitted. In Hilchot Ma'aaser Sheni,33One of the Halachot in Sefer Zeraim. it will be explained which [growths] are forbidden as orlah and which are permitted.34I.e., which type of planting or replanting incurs the prohibition against orlah and which does not.", + "When there is a doubt whether produce is orlah or kilai hakerem in Eretz Yisrael, it is forbidden.35A Scriptural prohibition is involved. Hence we follow the principle: Whenever a Scriptural prohibition is involved, we rule stringently. In Syria, i.e., the lands that David conquered,36As explained in Hilchot Terumah 1:3, King David conquered parts of Syria before he completed the conquest of Eretz Yisrael. Hence, these lands were not considered as part of Eretz Yisrael proper. Nevertheless, certain laws concerning the produce of Eretz Yisrael were applied there by Rabbinic decree. it is permitted.
What is implied? If there was a vineyard [containing] orlah and grapes were being sold outside it, or there were vegetables sown inside it37Thus violating the prohibition against kilai hakerem. and vegetables were being sold outside it, [in which instance,] there is a doubt whether [the grapes or the vegetables] came from it or from another place, in Syria, they are permitted.38I.e., permission is granted even in an instance were it is highly likely that the produce is prohibited. In the Diaspora, even if one sees grapes being taken out from a vineyard that is orlah or vegetables being taken out from a vineyard, one may purchase them provided one does not actually see orlah being reaped or the vegetables being harvested [from the vineyard].", + "When there is a doubt whether a vineyard [contains] orlah or kilai hakerem, in Eretz Yisrael, it is forbidden. In Syria, it is permitted.39I.e., one may purchase the produce even if one is certain it comes from the vineyard in question. Indeed, one may even pick the produce from that vineyard by oneself (Radbaz; Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 10:11). Needless to say, that ruling prevails in the Diaspora.", + "It is forbidden40This represents the Rambam's interpretation of Bava Batra 24a. Others interpret that passage as stating that we are even permitted to partake of the wine. This is the view quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 294:11).
Tosafot questions: Why isn't the wine forbidden as yayin nesech, wine touched by a gentile? They reply that we assume that the thieves were Jewish. Thus if there is reason to think that the thieves are gentile, the wine is forbidden (Siftei Cohen 294:22).
to drink a jug of wine that is found hidden in an orchard [whose produce is] orlah. It is permitted to benefit from it. [The rationale is] that a thief will not steal from a place and hide [what he stole] there. Grapes that are hidden there are forbidden, lest they have been harvested from there and stored away there.", + "[The following laws apply when] a gentile and a Jew are partners in planting [an orchard]. If at the beginning of the partnership, they agreed that the gentile would benefit from the produce during the years of orlah and the Jew would benefit from it for three years when the produce is permitted afterwards, it is permitted.41I.e., the gentile takes care of the orchard in the orlah years, and the Jew in the subsequent years. He is not considered as benefiting from the produce that is orlah, because it never belonged to him. If they did not make such an agreement at the outset, it is forbidden [to make one afterwards].42For the crops that are orlah are considered to have become the Jew's property and he is bartering them. Rashi and Rabbenu Asher (Avodah Zarah 22a) differ and permit such an arrangement to be made. They explain that although if such an arrangement is not made at the outset, it is forbidden to make it with regard to the Sabbath, different rules apply here. On the Sabbath, it is forbidden for the gentile to perform work on behalf of the Jew. In this instance, no such prohibition exists (Siftei Cohen 294:28). The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 294:13) follows the Rambam's approach, while the Rama follows that of Rabbenu Asher. [Even when the agreement was made at the outset,] they may not make a reckoning.
What is meant [by making a reckoning]? I.e., to calculate the quantity of produce from which the gentile benefited in the years of orlah so that the Jew will benefit from exactly that amount. If they made such an agreement, it is forbidden, for this is exchanging the produce which is orlah.43Here also, the authorities who rule leniently as mentioned in the previous note would rule leniently (Siftei Cohen 294:29).", + "It appears to me that the laws of neta reva'i44This term refers to the produce of the fourth year of a tree's growth. This produce must be taken to Jerusalem and eaten in a state of ritual purity or redeemed and the money taken to Jerusalem to be used for food to be eaten there. do not apply in the Diaspora. Instead, one may eat the produce of the fourth year without redeeming it at all. Our Sages mentioned only orlah.
An extrapolation can be made from a more stringent instance to [this one] which is less stringent. In Syria, the laws governing the tithes and the Sabbatical year apply by Rabbinic decree,45See Hilchot Terumot 1:4; Hilchot Shemitah 4:27. nevertheless, the laws governing neta reva'i do not apply, as will be explained in Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni.46Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 9:1. Thus, in the Diaspoa,47Where the laws of the tithes and the Sabbatical year do not apply at all. how much more so should [we conclude] that the laws governing neta reva'i do not apply.
In Eretz Yisrael, however, these laws apply whether or not the Temple is standing.48The Rambam's wording is somewhat misleading. The laws of neta reva'i are not dependent on the existence of the Temple. Even if the Temple is not standing, this mitzvah applies. Nevertheless, according to Scriptural Law, they apply only when the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael is intact. And according to Scriptural Law, that sanctity was nullified after the conquest of the land by the Assyrians and Babylonians. According to Rabbinic Law, however, these laws do apply in Eretz Yisrael in the present age. Some of the Geonim ruled that kerem reva'i49The harvest of a vineyard must be redeemed, but not that of any other type of tree. alone must be redeemed in the Diaspora before it is permitted to be eaten. There is no basis for this [ruling].50The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 294:7) quotes opinions that state that the laws applying to neta reva'i also apply in the Diaspora, as well as the Rambam's view that they do not apply. The Tur and the Rama quote the opinion of the Geonim who maintain that these laws apply with regard to a vineyard, but not with regard to any other types of produce.", + "In Eretz Yisrael, it is forbidden to eat any of the produce of the fourth year51The Radbaz emphasizes that even if the fourth year passes, fruit which grew during that year is forbidden in the fifth year until it is redeemed. This is also included as one of the 613 mitzvot. The Rambam, however, lists that mitzvah in Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni. until it is redeemed.52I.e., in the present era. See the following note. In Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni, we will explain the laws governing the redemption [of the produce], how it should be eaten, and when we begin calculating the growth of a tree with regard to orlah and [netah] reva'i.", + "How is produce which is neta reva'i redeemed in the present age?53In Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni, the Rambam explains that in the era of the Temple, the produce would be taken to be eaten in Jerusalem in a state of ritual purity (or redeemed for its value and that money taken to Jerusalem to be used to purchase food to be eaten there in a state of ritual purity). Since that is not possible in the present era, different laws apply. After [the produce] is collected, one recites the blessing: Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the earth, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to redeem neta reva'i. Afterwards, one redeems the entire crop even with one p'rutah.54A copper coin of minimal value. In the era of the Temple, it was necessary to redeem the produce for its value and add a fifth (Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 4:1,9). In the present era, since there is no opportunity to use the money as required, a p'rutah is sufficient for one's entire harvest (Arachin 29a). This p'rutah is then cast into the Dead Sea.55I.e., a place where no one will benefit from it. In Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 2:2, the Rambam states that the p'rutah should be cast into the Mediterranean Sea. At times, the term Yam HaMelech which is commonly translated as the Dead Sea is used to refer to the Mediterranean. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 294:6) mentions the Mediterranean. It also states that one may grind the coin into dust.
Alternatively, one may transfer the holiness to other produce that is worth a p'rutah by saying:56Seemingly, the wording of the blessing should also be altered as indicated by Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 4:3. \"The holiness of all of this produce is transferred to this wheat,\" \"...to this barley,\" or the like.57This is also a leniency granted in the present age. In the era of the Temple, at the outset, one should not transfer the holiness from one species of produce to another (Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 4:2). Afterwards, one burns the [latter quantity of produce] so that they will not cause difficulty to others.58These kernels of grain must also be eaten in Jerusalem in a state of ritual purity. Since this is impossible, they should be destroyed, lest another person transgress by eating them elsewhere. He may then partake of all the produce [he harvested].", + "Some of the Geonim ruled that even though one redeemed the produce of the fourth year or transferred its holiness, it is forbidden to partake of it until the entrance of the fifth year. This ruling has no foundation. It appears to me that it is in error. [Although Leviticus 19:25] states: \"And in the fifth year, you shall partake of its produce,\" the intent of the verse is that in the fifth year you will partake of its produce without redeeming it like any ordinary produce in the world. One should not heed the above ruling.", + "What is meant by tevel? Any produce from which one is obligated to separate terumah and tithes is called tevel before one separates these portions.59Before produce may be eaten, a person must separate bikkurim (the first fruits), terumah gedolah (a small portion - 1/40 to 1/60 of the produce) which is given to the priests, ma'aser (tithes, which is given to the Levites), and ma'aser sheni (the second tithe, which is eaten in a state of purity in Jerusalem) or ma'aser oni (the tithe given to the poor). From the tithe which the Levites receive, they must give a tithe to the priests as terumat ma'aser. [In that state,] it is forbidden to partake of it,60Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 153) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 284) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. as [Leviticus 22:16] states: \"And they shall not desecrate the sacraments of the children of Israel which they will dedicate to God,\" i.e., one should not treat them in an ordinary manner while the sacred elements that will be separated in the future have not yet been separated.
When a person61There is a question if this prohibition applies even to a priest who would later be permitted to partake of terumah. To explain: There is a discussion among the Achronim if tevel is considered as an independent prohibition or if it is forbidden because of terumah that has not been separated (see Tzaphnat Paneach; Atvan D'Oraita). According to the former view, even a priest is liable, while according to the second view, there is room for leniency. partakes of an olive-sized portion of tevel before he separates terumah gedolah and terumat ma'aser, he is liable for death by the hand of heaven,62I.e., he will die before his time. as [Leviticus 22:15-16] states: \"And they shall not desecrate the sacraments of the children of Israel... And they will bear the sin of guilt.\"", + "When, however, one partakes of food from which terumah gedolah and terumat ma'aser63Terumat Ma'aser should be separated after the tithes are separated. Nevertheless, after the fact, if one separated it beforehand, the separation is valid. have been separated, but from which tithes - even the tithes of the poor have not been separated - he is worthy of lashes for partaking of tevel. He is not worthy of death. For only with regard to terumah gedolah and terumat ma'aser is the sin worthy of death.64The Ra'avad explains the Rambam's ruling on the basis of the prooftext cited in the previous halachah which puts an emphasis on \"the sacraments of the children of Israel.\" That term refers to terumah. The Kessef Mishneh, however, notes that the second tithe is also referred to as \"a sacrament.\" The Lechem Mishneh, however, offers a resolution.", + "The warning against partaking of tevel from which tithes were not separated is included in [Deuteronomy 12:17 which] states: \"You may not eat the tithes of grain... in your gates.\"65Although that prohibition forbids eating the second tithe outside of Jerusalem, it also has this intent.
In Hilchot Terumot and Hilchot Ma'aserot, it will be explained which produce is obligated to have terumah and the tithes [separated from it] and which is not, when does the obligation stem from Scriptural Law and when is it Rabbinic. When a person partakes of an olive-sized portion of produce that is tevel according to Rabbinic Law66E.g., produce that grows in a flower pot without a hole on the bottom. or kilai hakerem or orlah from the Diaspora,67See Halachah 8 and 10. he is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.", + "The juices that come from produce that is tevel, chadash, consecrated to the Temple, growths of the Sabbatical year, kilayim, and orlah are forbidden as they are. One is not, however, liable for lashes for partaking of them.68The Maggid Mishneh (in his gloss to Chapter 8, Halachah 16) states that this is not the ordinary way which one benefits from such produce. The Lechem Mishneh explains that other juices, in contrast to wine and oil, are not considered to have the substance of the fruit. Exceptions are wine and oil that are orlah and wine that is kilai hakerem. One is liable for lashes for them just as one is liable for lashes for the olives and grapes,", + "There are other prohibitions involving foods applicable to consecrated entities. They are all of Scriptural origin, e.g., there are prohibitions against partaking of terumot, the first fruits, challah, and the second tithe. And there are prohibitions involving sacrifices consecrated [to be offered] on the altar, e.g., piggul, sacrificial meat that remains past its time, and sacrifices that have become impure.69See Chapter 18 of Hilchot Pesulei HaMekedashim for a definition of these prohibitions. All of these [prohibitions] will be explained in the appropriate place.", + "The measure for which one is liable - whether for lashes or for kerait is an olive-sized portion. We have already explained the prohibition against [partaking of] leaven on Pesach and the [relevant] laws in Hilchot Chametz UMatzah. The prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur is a different type of prohibition.70In all other instances, it is the substance (cheftzah) that is forbidden. On Yom Kippur, the prohibition does not apply to the substance, but to the person (the gavra). He is forbidden to partake of all foods. The prohibition against all products of the vine that applies to a Nazirite does not apply equally to all. Therefore, all of these prohibitions, the measure for which one is liable, and the [relevant] laws are explained in the appropriate place." + ], + [ + "When wine has been poured as a libation to a false divinity,1As explained in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 3:3, pouring a libation and sacrificing are among the four acts of service for which one is liable to any false deity, even if this is not its mode of service. it is forbidden to benefit from it. A person who drinks even the smallest quantity2See the following halachah. of [such wine] is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law. Similarly, anyone who partakes of the smallest quantity of something offered to a false deity, e.g., meat or fruit, even water or salt, is worthy of lashes, as [implied by Deuteronomy 32:38]: \"The fat of whose offerings they would eat; they would drink the wine of their libations. Let them stand.\"3Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 194) includes this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. According to the Rambam, it is actually the last of the mitzvot which the Torah mentions.
Although the verse does not specifically mention a prohibition, the Rambam derives the prohibition as follows: As stated in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 7:2, we are forbidden to derive benefit from anything offered to a false deity. Since the prooftext quoted establishes an equation between a libation and an offering, we conclude that just as an offering is forbidden by a negative commandment; so, too, there is a negative commandment involving a libation (see Avodah Zarah 29b).
The Ramban (in his Hasagot to Sefer HaMitzvot) and the Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 111) maintain that both are included in a single prohibition. They should not be counted as separate negative commandments. They all agree, however, that the prohibition against such wine is Scriptural in origin. As the Rambam explains in Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., there are statements of our Sages that appear to imply that the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin. Those statements, however, apply to wine handled by gentiles (see Halachah 3) and not to wine that was actually used for a libation.
", + "Wine poured as a libation to a false deity is like a sacrifice offered to it. Since this prohibition stems from [the prohibition against] the worship of false deities, there is no minimum measure involved, as stated with regard to the worship of false deities [ibid. 13:18]: \"Let no trace of the condemned [entity] cling to your hand.\"4This verse is most particularly related to the prohibition against benefiting from the property of a city who were drawn after idol worship (ir hanidachat). Nevertheless, since all false deities can be considered as \"condemned,\" the verse applies to them as well (Megillat Esther, Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 25). The expression \"any trace\" implies even the slightest amount of benefit is prohibited.", + "When we do not know whether wine belonging to a gentile was used for a libation or not, it is called \"ordinary [gentile] wine.\" It is forbidden to benefit from it, as it is forbidden to benefit from wine used as a libation. [This matter] is a Rabbinic decree.5We find an allusion to this decree in Scripture itself for Daniel 1:8 speaks of how Daniel refrained from drinking the king's wine. Avodah Zarah 36b states that the decree against drinking wine handled by gentiles was instituted lest this lead to familiarity and ultimately, to intermarriage. From the Rambam's wording in the following halachah, however, it would appear that the prohibition was instituted as a safeguard against benefiting from idolatry (Ma'aseh Rokeach; see also Halachah 7 and notes). When a person drinks a revi'it6One fourth of a log, 86 cc. According to Shiurei Torah and 150 cc. According to Chazon Ish. This is the standard liquid measure involved in ritual matters. of \"ordinary [gentile] wine,\" he is liable for \"stripes for rebellious conduct.\"7It is forbidden to drink even the slightest amount, but one is liable only for drinking a revi'it (Lechem Mishneh).", + "It is forbidden [to benefit from] any wine that a gentile touches;8See Chapter 12, Halachot 1-2, which define what is meant by a gentile touching wine. As implied by the contrast to the following halachah, for it to be forbidden to benefit from the wine, the gentile must touch it intentionally. Similarly, he must know that it is wine (Radbaz). for perhaps he poured it as a libation. For the thought of a gentile is focused on the worship of false deities.9Therefore even if there is no false deity present, it is possible that the gentile intended to use it as a libation. See Halachah 7 and notes which discuss which gentiles we are referring to. From this, we learn that it is forbidden to benefit [even from] wine belonging to a Jew which was touched by a gentile; it is governed by the laws that apply to ordinary gentile wine.", + "When a gentile touches wine unintentionally10See Chapter 12, Halachah 5. and similarly, when a gentile child11Here the term child is not defined chronologically, but in terms of his relation to idolatry. Does he praise the name of a false deity or not? [Avodah Zarah 57a; Tur, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:1)]. touches wine, it is forbidden to drink it,12In both instances, we cannot say that the person had the intent to use the wine as a libation. In the first instance, he did not intend to touch the wine and in the second, the child does not know about idolatrous worship. Nevertheless, the wine is still forbidden as a safeguard. See Chapter 12, Halachah 5. See also the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 124:24) who states that in the present era, most gentiles are not idolaters. Even so, if they touch wine unintentionally, although there are authorities who say there is room for leniency, the prevailing custom is to be stringent unless a significant loss is involved. See Siftei Cohen 124:71. but it is permitted to benefit from it.
When one purchases servants from a gentile and they were circumcised and immersed [in the mikveh] immediately,13Thus reaching the intermediate stage of Jewish servants, as Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 12:11 states, they \"have departed from the category of gentiles, but have yet to enter the category of Jews.\" they no longer pour libations to false deities.14Their \"conversion\" to Judaism will prevent them from offering such a libation. See the Tur who also mentions the opinion of Rabbenu Chananel who maintains that a gentile servant causes wine to be forbidden for twelve months.
The Tur clarifies that the debate concerns only a servant, because his acceptance of Judaism is forced. All agree that no such strictures apply to a convert who willingly accepts Judaism.
It is permitted to drink wine which they touch even though they have yet to conduct themselves according to the Jewish faith and they still speak of idolatry.", + "[With regard to] the children of gentile maidservants that were born in a Jewish domain15If they were not born in a Jewish domain, the circumcision alone is of no consequence and even minors cause wine to become forbidden to drink (Kessef Mishneh). and circumcised, but were not immersed yet:16If they were not immersed yet, even young children cause wine they touch to become forbidden to drink (the Kessef Mishneh's interpretation of the Rambam's opinion). The Rashba, however, differs and maintains even if these children were neither circumcised or immersed, they do not cause wine to be forbidden. The Turei Zahav124:3 and the Siftei Cohen 124:9 differ and maintain that even the Rambam would accept the Rashba's approach. The older ones cause wine that they touch to become forbidden. The younger ones17Here the term child is not defined chronologically, but in terms of his relation to idolatry. Does he praise the name of a false deity or not? [Avodah Zarah 57a; Tur, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:1)]. do not cause it to become forbidden.18I.e., it is permitted entirely, even to drink it.", + "With regard to a resident alien, i.e., one who accepted the observance of the seven universal laws [commanded to Noah and his descendants],19The prohibitions against the worship of false deities, blasphemy, murder, theft, incest and adultery, eating the flesh of a living animal, and the obligation to establish courts. See Hilchot Melachim 8:10. as we explained:20See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 14:7. It is forbidden to drink his wine, but it is permitted to benefit from it.21The Kessef Mishneh explains that there are two dimensions to the prohibition against drinking the wine of gentiles:
a) The desire to limit familiarity with gentiles, lest it lead to intermarriage. This applies to resident aliens as well. Therefore there is a prohibition against drinking their wine.
b) A safeguard against benefiting from wine used as libations. This does not apply with regard to resident aliens. Therefore there is no prohibition against deriving benefit from their wine.
We may deposit wine in his possession for a short time, but may not entrust it to him for a lengthy period.22Since we do not suspect that he will use the wine for a libation - or allow other gentiles to do so - we do not forbid one to leave it there for a short while. Nevertheless, if it is left there for a long time, we fear that the gentile will exchange it with his own wine and as stated above, it is forbidden for Jews to drink his own wine (see Rashi, Avodah Zarah 64b).
With regard to any gentile who does not serve false deities, e.g., the Arabs:23The Rambam's wording has attracted the attention of the commentaries, for from the beginning of the halachah, it appears that the gentile must accept all seven mitzvot, while this clause appears to imply that it is sufficient for him to accept only the prohibition against idolatry. The Kessef Mishneh explains that when the entire nation does not worship false deities, then we do not fear that wine will be used as a libation. When, however, that is not the case, a gentile must accept all seven mitzvot for his wine to be permitted. It is forbidden to drink his wine, but it is permitted to benefit from it. The Geonim rule in this manner. With regard to those who worship false deities,24Our translation follows the standard version of the Mishneh Torah. The uncensored text reads: \"Christians, by contrast, are idolaters. It is forbidden to benefit....\" The Rama (Orach Chayim 155:1) rules that Christianity violates only the prohibition against shituf, worshipping another entity together with God, and gentiles are not prohibited against such worship. It must be emphasized that today, though many gentiles are nominally Christian, their observance is minimal and they have an awareness of monotheism.
See also the statements of the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 123:1, 124:24) who quotes opinions that maintain that in the present age, it is not customary for gentiles to pour wine as libations to false deities. Nevertheless, the prohibition against drinking such wine, however, remains intact.
by contrast, it is forbidden to benefit from their ordinary wine.", + "Whenever it is stated that wine is forbidden in this context, if the gentile who causes the wine to be forbidden worships false deities, it is forbidden to benefit from it. If he does not worship false deities, it is merely forbidden to drink it. Whenever we refer to a gentile without any further description, we mean one who worships false deities.25For in the Rambam's age, most gentiles were idolaters. The Rabbinic authorities question whether one can make such an assumption in the present age. For many gentiles do not worship according to any religious rites at all and others, like the Arabs, have a conception of monotheism.", + "Only wine that is fit to be offered on the altar is used for libations for false deities. Therefore when [our Sages] decreed against ordinary gentile wine, ordaining that it is forbidden to benefit from any wine touched by a gentile, their decree involved only wine that is fit to be used as a libation. Accordingly, wine that was boiled26Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 6:9 states that wine that was cooked to the extent that its taste changed is forbidden to be used as a libation on the altar. To put the concept in contemporary terms, wine that was pasteurized is included in this category. that was touched by a gentile is not forbidden. It is permitted to drink it together with a gentile27Avodah Zarah 30b relates that the Sage Shmuel actually drank boiled wine together with a gentile.
The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rabbenu Asher who asks: If the decree against wine touched by a gentile was instituted to prevent intermarriage, what difference does it make if it was boiled or not? Will boiling the wine prevent familiarity from arising with gentiles?
In resolution, he explains that perhaps since boiled wine is uncommon, our Sages did not apply their decree in such a situation. Even though today, it has become common to drink boiled - i.e., pasteurized wine - our Sages decree has not been expanded. It must be emphasized that this leniency applies to wine belonging to a Jew that was boiled. Wine belonging to a gentile becomes forbidden before it is boiled and thus cannot be drunken.
in one cup. If, however, [a gentile] touches wine blended [with water] and wine that began to turn into vinegar,28Although they are unfit to be used for a libation. but can still be drunken it is forbidden.", + "The Geonim of the west ruled that if a small amount of a sweetener29This includes any wine to which sugar was added. or yeast became mixed with Jewish wine, since it is no longer fit for the altar,30Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 6:9. it is considered as if were boiled or as if it were beer and will not be used as a libation. It is permitted to drink it together with a gentile.", + "When does wine belonging to a gentile become forbidden? When the grapes have been crushed and the wine begins to flow,31In their days, grape presses were built on an incline, so that after the grapes were pressed, the juice would flow naturally toward a cistern. even though it has not descended into the cistern and is still in the wine press, it is forbidden. For this reason, we do not crush grapes together with a gentile in a wine press,32The Turei Zahav 123:14 states that some interpret the Rambam as speaking only about a winepress that is open. If it is plugged close, there is room to say that the prohibition does not apply. Nevertheless, the Turei Zahav quotes other views that maintain that the prohibition applies even in such an instance. lest he touch it with his hand33Implied is that a libation cannot be offered with one's feet (Kessef Mishneh based on Avodah Zarah 56b; the Siftei Cohen 123:43, however, maintains that this is not the correct understanding of the Rambam's words). The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:11), however, rules that a gentile who touches the wine with his feet causes it to be come forbidden. The Rama, however, rules leniently and maintains that the prohibition applies only to drinking such wine. and offer it as a libation. [This applies] even if he is bound. [Similarly,] we do not purchase a wine press [filled with] crushed [grapes] even if the wine is still mixed with the seeds and peels and has not descended into the cistern.", + "When a gentile crushes [grapes for] wine without touching it34The Turei Zahav 124:17 interprets this as referring to an instance where he does not touch the wine at all, not even with his feet. The Kessef Mishneh, however, explains that this is referring to a situation where the gentile touches the wine with his feet, but not with his hands. and a Jew is standing over him,35And watching that the gentile does not touch it. and a Jew is the one who collects it in jugs, it is forbidden [only] to be drunken.36It is, however, permitted to benefit from it.", + "It is forbidden to benefit from vinegar belonging to a gentile, because it became [forbidden like] wine offered as a libation before it became vinegar.37The fact that it becomes vinegar afterwards does not cause it to become permitted.The Radbaz states that one can conclude from the Rambam's wording that if a gentile touches vinegar belonging to a Jew, it is permitted, for it is no longer wine.
When a gentile is crushing grapes in a barrel, we are not concerned that the wine [becomes forbidden] as wine used for a libation. If a gentile was eating from the baskets [of grapes brought to a winepress] and left over, a se'ah or two and threw them into the winepress, he does not cause the wine [to become forbidden] as wine used for a libation, even though it spatters over the grapes.38Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard published text is difficult to understand. As the Radbaz and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 125:6) state, the Rambam is referring to a situation where a certain amount of grape juice collects in the bottom of the baskets. Even though that juice spatters of the grapes, it does not cause the wine to be considered forbidden, for this prohibition does not apply until the wine begins to flow, as stated in Halachah 11 (Radbaz).", + "Grape seeds and peels belonging to a gentile are forbidden39Even to benefit from them [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 123:14)]. See also the Rama who states that the prohibition applies only when the peels were in contact with gentile wine. If the gentiles had merely crushed the grapes, but the wine had not begun flowing from the winepress, the peels are not forbidden. for twelve months. After twelve months, they have already dried out; they contain no moisture and they are permitted to be eaten. Similarly, the dregs of wine that have dried out are permitted to be eaten after twelve months.40See the Shulchan Aruch (ibid. ) which quotes more stringent views in certain circumstances. [The rationale is that] no trace of wine remains; they are just like dust or earth.", + "It is forbidden to put wine in wineskins or barrels in which gentiles had kept wine41For a certain quantity of wine is absorbed in the container. Afterwards, when the kosher wine is placed in the container, it will be soaked into the container and the wine in the container will be released into it. until:
a) they are allowed to dry for twelve months;42See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 135:16) which explains that even if one used the containers for water during this period, this does not prevent the containers from becoming permitted.
b) they are placed in a fire until their pitch becomes soft or they become hot;43I.e., if they are not covered with tar (Kessef Mishneh). By heating them, one will achieve the results of libbun and purge any absorbed wine through heat.
See also the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 135:15) which state that hagalah, filling the containers with boiling water is also acceptable.

c) water is placed in them for three days for a full 24 hour period; [one places water in them], pours it out after 24 hours, and puts other water in. [This should be done] three times, [once a day] for three days.
[This applies] whether the containers belong to [the non-Jews] or they belonged to a Jew from whom [the non-Jews] borrowed them and then placed their wine into them. If one put wine in them before purifying them, it is forbidden to drink [that wine].44It is, however, permitted to benefit from this wine (Kessef Mishneh).", + "It is permitted to place beer, fish brine, or fish oil in these containers immediately.45For these substances nullify the taste of wine (Rashi, Avodah Zarah 33b). None of these [purging processes] are necessary. After one placed fish brine or fish oil in them, one may place wine in them, for the salt [in the fish brine or fat] will burn out [any residue of wine].", + "When a person purchases new utensils that were not covered with pitch from a gentile, he may place wine in them immediately, he need not worry that gentile wine had been placed in them. If they were covered with pitch, he should wash them thoroughly even though they are new.46I.e., even though they appear new, we suspect that a gentile used them to store wine. Hence they must be washed. Nevertheless, the fact that they appear new indicates that they were not used for a long time. Hence, washing them is sufficient.
This stringency applies only with regard to containers covered with pitch. Since they are dark black, it is not evident whether they were used previously or not. With regard to other containers, it is much more clearly apparent whether or not they were used. Hence there is no need for this stringency (Kessef Mishneh).

Similarly, [any] utensil in which gentile wine was placed, but was not stored there for an extensive period, e.g., a bucket used to draw wine from a cistern, a funnel, or the like, should have water swished in them. That is sufficient for it.47The Kessef Mishneh notes that Avodah Zarah 74b appears to require that such utensils be dried. He questions why the Rambam does not mention this point. As a possible resolution, he suggests that perhaps the Talmud is speaking about utensils belonging to a gentile, while the Rambam is speaking about those belonging to a Jew.", + "Similarly, it is forbidden to drink from an earthenware cup that a gentile had drunk from. If one washed it thoroughly three times, it is permitted, for all traces of wine have been washed away.48The Rambam's ruling is dependent on his interpretation of Avodah Zarah 33b. Other authorities including Rashi and the Ra'avad have a different understanding of the passage. Their view is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 135:4). This applies provided it is glazed with lead as potters do or covered with pitch. If, however, it is of earthenware, washing it thoroughly [once] is [all that is] required.49The Kessef Mishneh explains that we are speaking of an instance where the glazing of the lead or the pitch was not completed in a thorough manner and the surface of the utensil is not smooth. Therefore such a utensil will absorb wine more easily than an ordinary earthenware utensil. Hence, three washings are required. The following halachah, by contrast, is speaking about a utensil that is glazed in a more thorough manner, producing a smooth surface. Hence it is less likely to absorb the wine than an ordinary earthenware utensil.", + "When earthenware utensils that are glazed with lead50As mentioned above, the Kessef Mishneh interprets this to mean that they were glazed in a manner that produced a smooth surface. Hence they do not absorb the wine easily. are used for gentile wine, they are permitted51After being washed alone. if they are white, red, or black. If they are green, they are forbidden, because they absorb.52In order to produce a green color, a substance called netar, alum crystals [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 135:5)], is mixed into the glazing. This substance is very absorbent. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah, loc. cit.) states that utensils made from this substance can never be purified. If they have a portion where the earthenware is revealed,53I.e., the glazing does not cover the entire utensil. they are forbidden54Until the wine is purged as mentioned in Halachah 15. whether they are white or green, because they absorb.
It appears to me that this ruling applies only when wine was placed in them for long term storage.55The Kessef Mishneh quotes the Rashba as stating that from the fact that these statements are made about earthenware utensils, one can conclude that metal utensils do not absorb even when gentile wine was placed in them for an extended period of time. They will absorb only when liquids are heated. If, however, it was not placed in them for long term storage, [it is necessary merely to] wash them.56For even if the wine was not placed in them for an extended period, it is possible that there will be a certain amount of residue left in the container. They are then permitted, even if they are earthenware.57For over a short period of time, they will not absorb.", + "When a gentile treads on grapes in a winepress of stone or of wood58That is not covered with pitch (Kessef Mishneh) . or a gentile applied pitch to a winepress of stone59Rashi (Avodah Zarah 74b) and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 138:1) explain that after pitch is applied to a vat, a small amount of wine is placed in the vat to remove the unfavorable odor of the pitch. even though he did not tread the grapes there, one must wash [the press] thoroughly with water and ashes60I.e., rubbing the walls with ashes and then washing them (Kessef Mishneh). four times. Afterwards, one may tread grapes there. If [the press] is still moist, one should place the ashes in before the water. If it is not moist, one should place the water in first.", + "When a gentile treaded [grapes] in a stone winepress covered with pitch or [applied] pitch to a wooden winepress61Since a larger amount of pitch is necessary, it will absorb more. even though he did not tread grapes there, one must peel the pitch.62The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 138:1) follows the position of other Rishonim who maintains that even after peeling the outer layer of the pitch, one must apply ashes and water, as stated in the previous halachah. If one left it for twelve months or placed water in it for three days, it is not necessary to peel [the pitch off].63As stated with regard to barrels in Halachah 15. The Ra'avad and most other Rishonim differ with regard to this ruling and require the barrel to be pealed. [The laws applying to] a winepress need not be more stringent than those applying to barrels.64Indeed, one would suspect the laws governing barrels to be more stringent, for wine is stored there for long periods. It remains in a winepress, by contrast, for only a short time. [The option of] peeling was given only to allow [the winepress to be used] immediately.65Without having to wait any time at all.", + "An earthenware winepress [is governed by more stringent rules].66For earthenware absorbs more readily than other substances. In the previous halachah, we assume that the winepress itself did not absorb any wine. In this case, we assume that it did (Kessef Mishneh). Even if one peels the pitch, it is forbidden to tread grapes in it immediately. [Instead, one must] heat it with fire until the pitch softens. If, however, one leaves it for twelve months or places water in it for three successive days, it is permitted,67Without peeling off the pitch as stated in the previous halachah. Here also the Ra'avad differs and rules that the pitch must be peeled off. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) follows the Rambam's ruling. as we explained.68In Halachah 15.", + "[The following laws apply to] a filter that had been used for wine belonging to a gentile. If it is made of hair, it should be washed thoroughly69Hair does not absorb liquid at all. Hence, it need only be washed to remove the wine that may be sticking to its surface. and then it may be used as a filter. If it is made from wool, it should be washed thoroughly four times with water and ashes and then left70Our translation follows the authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text differs slightly. until it dries. If it was from flax,71Which is more absorbant. it should be left for twelve months. If it has knots, they should be untied [before the filter is washed out].72So that the residue will not collect there.
Similar [laws apply with regard to] utensils from reeds,73Our translation is based on the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 135:8). from date bast, or similar utensils like wicker baskets that are used to tread grapes. If they were sewed with ropes, they should be washed thoroughly. If they are tangled together with snarls that are difficult to undo, they should be washed four times with ashes and with water. [After] they are dried, they may be used. If they are sewed with flax, they should be left unused for twelve months. If they have knots, they should be untied.74When citing this law in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 138:7, 9), Rav Yosef Caro does not mention the need to untie the knots in this instance. As evident from his Kessef Mishneh, he follows the approach of the Rashba who maintains that when an object is left for twelve months, there is no need to untie the knots. The Siftei Cohen 138:8 differs and states that the Rambam's ruling should be followed.", + "How can the utensils of a winepress used by a gentile for gentile wine be purified so that a Jew may use them? The boards,75Upon which the grapes are placed. the balls of clay,76Used to crush the grapes (see the conclusion of the gloss of the Lechem Mishneh to Halachah 17). and the palm branches77Which are used as brooms to collect the grapes (Rashi, Avodah Zarah 75a). should be washed thoroughly. The restraints78In his Commentary to the Mishneh, Taharot 10:8, the Rambam states that this refers to the restraints placed around olives (and grapes) when they are being squeezed to gather them together. of wood and of canvas should be dried out.79This term refers to the process of applying ashes and water mentioned above. Those from water grasses and from bullrushes should be left unused for twelve months.
If one desires to purify them immediately, he should place them in boiling water,80To purge the wine absorbed in this fashion. seal them with water used to cook olives,81Cooking them in such water will cause whatever wine that was absorbed to be sealed in its place and never to be released. or place them under a drain through which water flows continually or in a stream of running water for twelve hours.82This will also purge the absorbed wine. See Hilchot Tumat Ochalin 11:17 which mentions these same processes in a different context. Afterwards, they are permitted.", + "In the era when the land of Israel was entirely within the possession of the Jewish people, it was permitted to purchase wine from any Jewish person without holding anyone in suspicion.83A Jew who worships false divinities, does not observe the Sabbath, or denies the Torah and its mitzvot is considered equivalent to a gentile and his wine is forbidden just as a gentile's is (see Hilchot Shabbat 30:15). When Eretz Yisrael was populated solely by Jews, our Sages maintained that there was no need to suspect that a person fell into the above categories. In the Diaspora, they would only purchase [wine] from a person whose reputation [for observance] has been established. In the present age, in every place, we only purchase wine from a person whose reputation for observance has been established.84The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, stating that a common person will not necessarily cause another to transgress. The Radbaz states that even if the common people will not necessarily transgress themselves, they will not be careful about protecting another person's observance and may sell him forbidden articles. This view is cited by the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 119:1). These laws also apply to meat, cheese, and a cut of fish that does not have a sign as we explained.85Chapter 3, Halachah 21; Chapter 8, Halachah 7.", + "When a person enjoys the hospitality of a homeowner in any place and at any time and that homeowner brings him wine, meat, cheese, or a piece of fish, it is permitted. There is no need to inquire concerning it.86We assume that the host is observant and that he is giving his guest the same food that he eats himself (Radbaz). [This law applies] even if he does not know him at all; all that he knows is that he is Jewish.
If [the host] has an established reputation for non-observance and for not paying attention to these matters, it is forbidden to accept his hospitality. If one transgresses and accepts his hospitality, it is forbidden to eat meat and drink wine [despite] his assurances unless a person who has an established reputation for observance testifies [to their acceptability]." + ], + [ + "How do we define the term touch when we say that a gentile1As the Rambam stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 8, unless otherwise specified, when he uses the term \"gentile,\" he is referring to an idolater. who touches wine causes it to be forbidden? Touching the wine itself whether with his hands2Or with an article held in his hand [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:11)]. or with any of his other limbs with which it is customary to pour a libation3As evident from Chapter 11, Halachah 11, according to the Rambam, it is not customary to pour a libation with one's feet. Note, however, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:11) which forbids wine that a gentile touched with his feet. The Rama, however, quotes the Rambam's view. and shook the wine.4If, however, he did not cause the wine to move, it is forbidden to drink it, but one is allowed to benefit from it (Radbaz). In his Kessef Mishneh, however, Rav Yosef Caro notes that although there are authorities who agree with the ruling of the Radbaz, from the Rambam's wording, it appears that the wine is permitted entirely. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:13), he follows the majority view and rules that it is permitted only to benefit from such wine.
If, however, he extended his hand to a barrel, but his hand was grabbed before he could remove [any wine] or shake it, [there is room for leniency]. If the barrel was opened from below and the wine was allowed to flow out to the extent that it reached below his hand, the wine is not forbidden.5The Rambam is citing an incident that transpired as recorded by Avodah Zarah 59b. It is not forbidden to benefit from the wine. The question of whether or not it is forbidden to drink it depends on the difference of opinion mentioned in the previous note.
Similarly, if he held an open container6With regard to a closed container, see Halachah 4. of wine and shaked it, the wine becomes forbidden even though he did not lift up the container or touch the wine.7The Ra'avad objects to this ruling, maintaining that as long as the gentile does not touch the wine itself, lift the container, or cause the wine to spatter, moving an open utensil does not cause it to be forbidden. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:17) quotes the Rambam's ruling as a minority opinion and the Rama states that it need not be followed if financial loss is involved.", + "If he took an [open]8This addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Radbaz. container of wine, lifted it up, and poured it out, the wine becomes forbidden,9There is a difference of opinion among the commentaries if only the wine that is poured out is forbidden or also the wine which remains in the container (Kessef Mishneh). The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 125:1) quotes the more stringent view. The Rama mentions the more lenient opinion, but states that it may be followed only in a case of severe loss. even though he did not shake it. For the wine moved as a result of his power. If he lifted the container up, but did not shake it or touch it, it is permitted.10I.e., even to drink the wine. For merely lifting up the wine is of no consequence.", + "When a gentile was holding a container on the ground and a Jew poured wine into it, the wine is permitted.11One may even drink it [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 125:8)]. If the gentile shakes the container, the wine becomes forbidden.", + "It is permitted to have a gentile move a closed [container of wine] from one place to another even though the wine moves. For this is not the manner in which a libation is made.12A libation is made only from an open container (see Avodah Zarah 60a).
When [a gentile] moves a wineskin containing wine from one place to another while [a Jew]13This addition was made on the basis of the gloss of the Radbaz. was holding the opening of the wineskin with his hand, it is permitted.14For this is equivalent to closing it. [This applies] whether the wineskin was entirely full or not and [applies] even though the wine moves.
[When a gentile] transfers15The Rambam's source (Avodah Zarah 60a) and also the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 125:10) emphasize that we are referring to a situation where the Jew is following the gentile. Otherwise, the wine is certainly forbidden. an open earthenware16The Radbaz states that the same laws apply regardless of what the container was made of. Therefore he maintains that the word \"earthenware\" is a printer's error. vessel that is filled with wine, it is prohibited,17Although the Rashba maintains that one may benefit from the wine, most authorities rule that it is prohibited to benefit from it as well as to drink it [Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.)]. for perhaps he touched it.18Since the container is both open and full, it is highly likely that the gentile touched the wine (Avodah Zarah 60a). If it was only partially full, [the wine] is permitted unless he shook it.19For shaking the wine is equivalent to pouring it as a libation, as stated in Halachah 1.", + "When a gentile touches wine without intending to, it is permitted only to benefit from the wine.20I.e., it is forbidden to drink it, as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 5.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 124:24) states that in the present era, most gentiles are not idolaters. Therefore, if they touch wine unintentionally, the wine is not forbidden at all.
What is implied? He fell on an [open]21This addition was made on the basis of the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh. wineskin or stretched his hand out to a barrel under the impression that it contained oil and it actually contained wine.", + "If wine moves because of a gentile's power although he did not intend to do so, since he did not touch the wine, it is permitted to drink it.22According to Scriptural Law, as long as the gentile does not touch the wine, it is not forbidden. Although our Sages forbade wine which he shook without touching as a safeguard, that applies only when the gentile intentionally touches the container of the wine (see Avodah Zarah 58a). What is implied? If he lifted up a container of wine and poured it into another container while thinking that it was beer or oil, [the wine] is permitted.", + "If a gentile entered a house or a store seeking wine and extended his hand to search for it and touched wine,23Shaking it (Kessef Mishneh). According to the Rambam, this applies even though he did not know for certain that the article he touched was wine. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the gentile must know that the container contains wine when shaking it. Otherwise, it is not forbidden. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:12) quotes the Rambam's ruling. [the wine] is forbidden. [The rationale is that] he was intending [to touch] wine. This is not considered as touching without intent.", + "When a barrel is split lengthwise and a gentile comes and embraces it so that the halves will not separate24And thus the wine will not spill. it is permitted to benefit from [the wine].25See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:22). If, however, it split widthwise and he grabbed the upper half so that it will not fall, it is permitted to drink [the wine]. For the wine is not affected by the gentile's power.", + "When a gentile fell into a cistern of wine and was hoisted up dead,26In this instance, it is permitted to benefit from the wine, because the gentile is considered to have touched it without intending to. See Halachah 5. According to the Rama's view that the gentiles of the present age are not considered as idolaters, there is no prohibition against using such wine at all. This leniency should be accepted if a significant loss is involved (Siftei Cohen 124:55). This concept also applies to the remainder of the instances mentioned in this halachah. measured a cistern containing wine with a reed, swatted away a fly or a hornet from it with a reed,27In these instances, since the gentile did not touch the wine directly, merely by means of another entity, it is not forbidden to benefit from it. patted a boiling bottle of wine so that the boiling would cease28Rashi, Avodah Zarah 60a, states that it is not forbidden to benefit from this wine, because this is not the ordinary way that one makes a libation. Kin'at Eliyahu asks: Since the wine is boiling, the entire prohibition against gentile wine seemingly should not apply, as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 9? or took a barrel and threw it into the cistern in anger,29In this instance also, the gentile did not touch the wine directly. Hence it is permitted to benefit from it.
The Ra'avad protests to this ruling, stating that if he threw the barrel into the cistern in anger, the wine in the cistern is not forbidden at all. Even if he intentionally threw the barrel into the cistern, it is still permitted to benefit from the wine for the reason mentioned. The Radbaz notes that the wording of Avodah Zarah, loc. cit., appears to support the Ra'avad's perspective, for it states that our Sages hikshiru, \"considered acceptable,\" the wine. He, however, cites a passage from the Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 4:11) which appears to fit the Rambam's perspective. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:19) quotes the Rambam's view. Nevertheless, the commentaries note that in Yoreh De'ah 125:5, the Shulchan Aruch, appears to support the Ra'avad's view.
it is merely permitted to benefit from the wine. If, [in the first instance,] the gentile was raised [from the cistern] alive, it is forbidden to benefit from the wine.30For we assume that in his happiness over being saved, he will offer the wine as a libation to his false deity (Avodah Zarah, loc. cit.). The Turei Zahav 124:19 states that if the gentile was alive when taken from the cistern, the wine is forbidden even if he dies immediately afterwards.", + "When there is a hole on the side of a barrel, the stopper slips away from the hole, and a gentile places his finger over the hole so that the wine will not flow out, all of the wine from the top of the barrel until the hole is forbidden.31One may not even benefit from it. Since the wine would have flowed out had the gentile not place his finger there, our Sages considered it as if he touched all of that wine. It is, however, permitted to drink the wine beneath the hole.32Because this wine was not affected by the gentile's touch at all. Although this wine is touching the wine that is forbidden, it is not forbidden. The Ra'avad objects to such a ruling, maintaining that the entire barrel should be considered as mixed together. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam's ruling, explaining that had the gentile inserted his finger in the hole and touched the wine, the entire barrel would have been forbidden. Here, however, we are speaking about an instance where the gentile stopped the wine from flowing by placing his finger on the outside. Therefore the wine above the hole is forbidden because it was affected by his power, as stated in the following halachah. This is merely a Rabbinic decree. Hence, the wine below the hole is not forbidden at all. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:23) follow the Ra'avad's view. See also Hilchot Tum'at Ochalin 8:6.", + "[The following rules apply when] one end of a bent outflow pipe made from metal, glass, or the like is placed in wine and the other end extends out of the barrel. If one sucked on the wine and the wine began flowing out as is always done, and a gentile came and placed his finger at the end of the outflow pipe and prevented the wine from flowing outward, all of the wine in the barrel is forbidden.33This ruling applies when the opening to the outflow pipe is placed at the bottom of the barrel, so that all the wine would actually have flowed out had the gentile allowed it to. If it was not placed at the bottom of the barrel, the laws mentioned in the previous halachah apply (Radbaz; Siftei Cohen 124:69). [The rationale is that] were it not for his hand, everything [in the barrel] would have flowed out. Thus all the wine is affected by his power.", + "When a person pours wine into a receptacle containing gentile wine, all of the wine in the upper container is forbidden.34From the Rambam's wording, it appears that this ruling applies with regard to all gentile wine, even when it was not known to have been used as a libation for a false deity. The Rambam, moreover, appears to forbid benefit from the wine, not only partaking of it. The Ra'avad rules that it is permitted to benefit from the wine, but not to partake of it. The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 126) mentions the opinion of Rabbenu Tam which is more lenient, ruling that this stringency does not apply to ordinary gentile wine. He rules that it is even permitted to partake of the wine. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 126:1-2) follows the ruling of the Maharam of Rutenburg, who states the Rambam's stringency should be followed only when a small loss is involved. If there is a significant loss involved, we may rely on the perspective of Rabbenu Tam.
See also the Tur who mentions a perspective that maintains that the above stringency applies only to wine used as a libation for a false deity, but not to ordinary gentile wine.
[The rationale is that] the column of wine being poured connects35Compare to Hilchot Tumat Ochalin 7:1,5 where this principle is not applied. It appears that it is applied in this instance because of the stringency of the prohibition against gentile wine. between the wine in the upper container and the wine in the lower container. Therefore when a person is measuring wine for a gentile into a container in the latter's hands, he should interrupt [the column of wine before it reaches the utensil] or throw the wine so that [the column of wine] being poured will not establish a connection and cause the wine remaining in the upper container to become forbidden.", + "When a funnel that was used to measure wine for a gentile has an obstruction that prevents wine [from flowing] the funnel should not be used to measure wine for a Jew36Because the wine held back in the funnel is forbidden because of the connection to the column of wine that extends to the gentile's utensil. until it was washed thoroughly and dried.37Drying refers to the process of applying water and ashes mentioned in Chapter 11, Halachah 20. If he did not wash it thoroughly,38The Kessef Mishneh offers the following interpretation of the Rambam's wording: As long as the funnel was washed thoroughly, even if it was not dried out, it does not cause other wine to become forbidden. He also, however, makes a distinction between a funnel that has been used by a gentile frequently and one that was used just once. In the former instance, he states, it is possible that washing it thoroughly alone is not sufficient. [the Jew's wine] is forbidden.39I.e., it is forbidden to benefit from the entire quantity of wine [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:11)]. According to the Rama, one is permitted to benefit from the wine if the loss will be significant (Siftei Cohen 124:23).
The rationale for the prohibition is that the wine in the container will mix with the small quantity of gentile wine in the funnel and become forbidden.
", + "[The following rules apply with regard to] a container possessed by a Jew that has two \"nostrils,\"40I.e., outflow pipes. that emerge from it, like containers that are used to wash hands, and is filled with wine. If a Jew is sucking and drinking from one nostril and a gentile is sucking and drinking from the other nostril, this is permitted,41Since the wine which the Jew is drinking and that which the gentile is drinking are flowing in opposite directions, they are not considered to be connected. provided the Jew begins [drinking] and concludes while the gentile is still drinking. When the gentile stops drinking, all the wine that was in the nostril will return to the container and cause all the wine in it to be forbidden. [The rationale is that] the wine [in the nostril] was moved by [the gentile's] power.42For it was his sucking that drew it into the outflow pipe. When that wine returns to the container and becomes mixed with the wine in the container, all the wine becomes forbidden as indicated by the following halachah.", + "When a gentile sucks wine from a container with an outflow pipe, all the wine in the container becomes forbidden.43Even if the wine never touched his mouth (Kessef Mishneh). For when he ceases [sucking], all of the wine that entered the outflow pipe through his sucking will return to the barrel and cause it to become forbidden.", + "When a gentile is transferring barrels of wine from one place to another together with a Jew and [the Jew] is walking after them to protect them, they are permitted even if he separates from him for a mil.44A Talmudic measure equivalent to approximately a kilometer. The Lechem Mishneh notes that as stated in Hilchot Mitamei Moshav UMerkav 13:5, a mil is not a cut off point. As long as the gentile has reason to fear that the Jew will appear suddenly, the wine is permitted. [The rationale is] that he is afraid of him and will say: \"He will suddenly appear before us and observe us.\"
[More stringent rules apply if the Jew] tells [gentile porters]: \"Proceed and I will follow after you.\"45These words will imply to the porters that he will not be coming immediately. Hence there is reason to fear that they will take from the wine. If they pass beyond his sight to the extent that [they have time] to uncover the opening of the barrel, seal it again, and [allow it] to dry out,46I.e., so that it would not be apparent that they touched it. it is forbidden to drink all of the wine.47Implied is that one is permitted to benefit from it. The rationale is that since the barrel is sealed, we follow the principle stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 9. See also the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 129:1) who rules that if the loss is significant, we may rely on the views that one seal is sufficient. If for a lesser [time], [the wine] is permitted.48I.e., one may even partake of it.", + "Similarly, if a Jew leaves a gentile in his store, even though he departs and enters, [going back and forth] the entire day, the wine is permitted.49One may drink it. For the gentile will be afraid to touch the wine, for he will never feel that the Jew has left him alone with the opportunity to do whatever he wants. If he informs him that he is departing for a significant period, should he wait long enough [to enable the gentile] to open the barrel, seal it again, and [allow it] to dry out, it is forbidden to drink the wine.50As in the previous halachah, since the gentile knows that the Jew is departing for a significant period, we fear that he will use the opportunity to take the wine.
Similarly, if a person left his wine in a wagon or a ship51See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 5:4) which explains why it is necessary to mention all three instances: the store, the wagon, and the ship. with a gentile and enters a city to tend to his needs, the wine is permitted.52The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:1) state that this applies only when the Jew went on a side path that would enable him to surprise the gentile. If, however, he follows the ordinary path, the wine is forbidden. For the gentile will watch to see whether he is coming. If he informs him that he is departing for a significant period, should he wait long enough [to enable the gentile] to open the barrel, seal it again, and [allow it] to dry out, it is forbidden to drink the wine.
All of the above rulings apply with regard to closed barrels. If they are open,53And thus: a) the wine is easily accessible, and b) the barrel does not have to be sealed close to hide the fact that one took from the wine. even if he did not wait, since he told him that he was departing for a significant period, the wine is forbidden.54It would appear that according to the Rambam, it is even forbidden to benefit from the wine (Kessef Mishneh).", + "When a Jew was eating together with a gentile, left wine open on the table and on the counter, and departed, the wine on the table is forbidden, while that on the counter is permitted.55We assume that he will touch the wine on the table, because it is open before him. But we don't think that he will take the risk of appearing as a thief by touching the wine on the counter. For it is not proper for a guest to take food left on the counter until the host has it brought to the table [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 5:5)].
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:7) rules slightly more stringently, stating that any wine which is in the gentile's reach is forbidden.
If [the Jew] told him: \"Mix [the wine] and drink,\" all the open wine in the house is forbidden.56Since the Jew gave him license, we have no reason to think that he will restrain himself. Here, too, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) rules more stringently, stating that if the Jew remains outside for a prolonged period (as mentioned in the previous halachah), even the closed barrels are forbidden.", + "When [a Jew] was drinking together with a gentile and he heard the sound of prayer in the synagogue and departed, even the open wine is permitted. For the gentile will say: \"Soon he will remember the wine, come hurriedly and see me touching his wine.\" Therefore [we do not suspect that] the gentile will move from his place. Hence only the wine that is before him57I.e., the wine on the table, as in the previous halachah (Kessef Mishneh). becomes forbidden.58As above, when quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:7) mentions the possibility of the Jew coming from a side path and surprising the gentile. If this is not possible, that source does not accept this leniency.", + "[The following rules apply when] a gentile and a Jew are living together in one courtyard59Avodah Zarah 70a (the Rambam's source) and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:9) state that this leniency applies when the Jew and the gentile live in a two-storey home, with the Jew living in the upper storey. The Rambam does not appear to think that is necessary (Kessef Mishneh). and they both left in agitation60The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam chose his words carefully. This leniency is granted because they left in agitation. Hence, it was probable that they would not notice each other outside. If, however, they left with calm reserve, it is possible that the gentile would have looked to see that the Jew was not returning and then entered his home and touched his wine.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 129:9) quotes this understanding as halachah. The Turei Zahav 129:19, however, differs, explaining that even when a person leaves his home in an agitated state, he will not necessarily return in an agitated state.
to see a bridegroom or a funeral. If the gentile returns and closes the entrance and the Jew comes later, the open wine in the Jew's home remains permitted. [We assume that] the gentile closed [the entrance] with the assumption that the Jew had already entered his home and no one remained outside; [i.e.,] he thought that the Jew came before him.", + "[The following rules apply when] wine belonging to both a Jew and a gentile [is being stored] in one building and [the Jew's] barrels were open. If the gentile entered the building and locked the door behind him,61If, however, we do not know that the door was locked - even though it was closed and it has a lock - the wine is permitted (Turei Zahav 128:5). all the wine is forbidden.62If, however, the Jew's barrels were closed, the wine in the closed barrels is permitted unless the gentile remained in the closed building alone for the time it would take to open a barrel, seal it closed again, and for its lid to dry, as stated in Halachah 16 [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 128:3)]. If there is a window in the door that enables a person standing behind the door to see in front of him, all of the barrels that are opposite the window are permitted. Those on the sides are forbidden. [The leniency is granted,] because the gentile will fear from those who can see him.", + "Similarly, if a lion roared or the like and the gentile fled and hid among the open barrels, the wine is permitted. For he will say, \"Perhaps another Jew also hid here and will see me if I touch [the wine].\"", + "[The following laws apply with regard to] a wine cellar whose barrels were open, a gentile also stored wine in that inn,63I.e., in an inn, there were several wine cellars, one in which a Jew stored wine and one in which a gentile stored wine (Kessef Mishneh). and the gentile was discovered standing among the open barrels belonging to the Jew. If he was frightened when discovered and it would be considered as if he was a thief,64I.e., if he was brought before the judges of a city on the complaint that he touched the wine, the judges would consider him a thief [Rashi (Avodah Zarah 61b)]. The Kessef Mishneh states that it is possible that the Rambam interprets the term differently, understanding it as meaning \"if he would think he would be considered a thief.\" According to this interpretation, it could refer not only to the gentile's touching the wine, but also entering the wine cellar.
To explain: Since the gentile also stores wine in that inn, he has permission to be in the inn, but he does not necessarily have permission to be in the Jew's wine cellar. This is precisely the question the Rambam is focusing on. Would the gentile be considered as a thief for being found in the Jew's wine cellar or not?
it is permitted to drink the wine. For because of his fear and dread, he will not have the opportunity to pour a libation. If he would not be considered as a thief, but instead, he feels secure there, the wine is forbidden.65Since he feels unthreatened, there is a high likelihood that he touched the Jews' wine.
When a [gentile] young child is discovered among the barrels, regardless of whether he would be considered like a thief or not, all of the wine is permitted.66For a young child never pours wine as a libation. In Chapter 11, Halachah 5, the Rambam states that it is forbidden to drink wine touched by a gentile young child. Here, he permits the wine entirely, because we are not certain that the young child in fact touched the wine. The Radbaz explains the rationale for the Rambam's ruling.: Since the young child does not think of using the wine as a libation, there is no reason for it to trouble itself and touch it.", + "When a battalion [of soldiers] enter a country with an approach of peace, all of the open barrels [of wine] in the stores are forbidden.67The Rambam's wording appears to imply that the open barrels in the homes are permitted. The soldiers would take the liberty of entering stores and making themselves free with their contents. They would not, however, feel that confident to enter homes. The Radbaz objects to this interpretation, noting that we see that soldiers often enter homes to loot. Indeed, when mentioning this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:12) speaks of homes and not stores.
Compare also to Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 18:26 which discusses a similar situation with regard to the question whether the women of the town have been raped.
The closed ones, by contrast, are permitted.68We can be certain that had the soldiers open the wine for use as a libation, they would not have taken the trouble of closing them again [Kessef Mishneh, Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.)]. At a time of war, however, if a battalion spread through a city and moved on, both are permitted,69The Kessef Mishneh states that if a barrel was closed and it is discovered open, it is forbidden. For we see that the soldiers did have time to touch the wine. because they do not have time to make libations.", + "[The following laws apply when] a gentile is discovered standing next to a cistern of wine [belonging to a Jew]. If [the Jew] owes him a debt for which this wine serves is collateral, [the wine] is forbidden.70The Kessef Mishneh explains the Rambam's ruling as follows: If the wine is security for a debt owed the gentile, the gentile will certainly not be considered a thief for touching the wine. Therefore it is forbidden. If the wine is not considered as security for a loan, when the gentile would be considered as a thief, the wine is permitted. When he would not be considered as a thief, it is forbidden. Since he feels privileged, he will extend his hand and make a libation. If it is not collateral for a debt, it is permitted to drink the wine.71This applies even if the Jew owes him money, and the loan is due, but he has not designated the wine as security for the debt [Rashi (Avodah Zarah 60a); Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 128:2)].", + "When a gentile harlot is present at a Jewish feast, the wine is permitted. For she is in dread of them and will not touch [the wine].72Although the Jews are willing to give in to their lust for forbidden relations, they are not suspect to drink gentile wine (Avodah Zarah 69b). Even the gentile harlot realizes this. When, however, a Jewish harlot is present at a gentile feast, her wine73I.e., wine that she herself brought. that is before her in her utensils is forbidden, for [the gentiles] will touch it without her consent.74Since they are employing her as a harlot, they look down upon her and show no consideration for her religious obligations.", + "[The following laws apply when] a gentile is discovered in a winepress:75I.e., a winepress that does not contain any wine, except for some remnants on the floor. If there is enough moisture from wine that when one places his hand in it, [the hand] will become moist to the extent that if it touches his other hand, that hand will become moist,76This is the meaning of the Hebrew phrase tofach al minat litfiach. it is necessary to wash out the winepress thoroughly and dry it out.77Applying water and ashes, as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 20. If this amount is not present, all that is necessary is to wash it out thoroughly. This is an extra measure of stringency.78We are not certain that the gentile try to touch the wine. Even if he did try to touch the wine, there is no reason for a prohibition, for we are speaking of a dry winepress. Hence washing it out is certainly sufficient (Radbaz).", + "[The following rules apply with regard to] a barrel floating in the river. If it was found near a city populated primarily by Jews, we are permitted to benefit from it.79The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:17) quotes this law as applying only in situations when there are obstructions in the river that prevent wine from being carried down the river from other places. In such a situation, we follow the principle of rov, i.e., since the majority of the city's inhabitants are Jewish, we assume that the barrel came from one of them. We are, nevertheless, forbidden to drink the wine. See the notes to the following halachah. Near a city populated primarily by gentiles, it is forbidden.", + "In a place where most of the wine merchants are Jewish, if one discovers large containers that are generally used only by wine merchants to store wine and which are filled with wine, it is permitted to benefit from [the wine].80In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro questions the Rambam's ruling. The Rambam's logic appears to be that since it is obvious that the wine came from a wine merchant and most of the wine merchants are Jewish, we follow the majority and rule that the wine is permitted. Nevertheless, since the majority of the inhabitants of the town are gentile, we forbid drinking the wine. The Kessef Mishneh asks: \"If we fear that the gentile touched the wine, it should be forbidden to benefit from it as well. And if not, it should be permitted to drink it.\" Indeed, he proposes that perhaps the Rambam's intent is that it is permitted to benefit only from the barrels. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:19), he follows the Rambam's ruling. Based on his Beis Yosef, it is possible to explain that we are speaking about closed barrels. We assume that had a gentile opened them and touched the wine, he would not have closed them again. Alternatively, since we do not know for certain that the gentile touched the wine, we do not forbid benefiting from it.
When a barrel has been opened by thieves, if most of the local thieves are Jewish, it is permitted to drink the wine. If not, it is forbidden." + ], + [ + "[The following rules apply when a Jew] purchases or rents a building in a courtyard belonging to a gentile and fills it with wine. If the Jew lives in that courtyard, the wine is permitted even if the entrance is open. [The rationale is that] the gentile will always worry, saying: \"He may suddenly enter his building and find me there.\" If the Jew lives in another courtyard,1And thus it is less likely for him to come at frequent intervals. he should not depart until he closes the building and keeps the key and the seal2Implied is that the entrance is closed with two seals, as required by Halachah 8. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 130:2) writes that since in the present age, most gentiles are not idolaters, only one seal is necessary. The Siftei Cohen 130:11) states that this principle should be applied in the present instance. in his possession. He need not fear that the gentile will make a copy of the key to the building.", + "When [the Jew] left [the building] without closing the entrance or closed it and gave the key to the gentile, it is forbidden to drink the wine. Perhaps the gentile entered and poured a libation, for the Jew is not present there.3Nevertheless, since we do not know for certain that the gentile touched the wine, we do not forbid benefiting from it (Radbaz).
If [the Jew] told [the gentile]: \"Hold the key for me until I come,\" the wine is permitted. He did not entrust him with guarding the house, only with guarding the key.4Since the gentile was not given permission to enter the house, he would be considered as a thief if he did so. Hence, we assume that he did not enter the home to pour a libation.
The Ra'avad states that the Rambam's words apply only when the house belongs to the Jew. When, however, the house belongs to the gentile, the wine is forbidden, even if he did not entrust him with the key. The rationale is that since the gentile has a connection to the house, he will have an excuse to enter it. Hence we fear that he entered it and touched the Jew's wine. The Radbaz defends the Rambam's ruling explaining that since the house is rented the owner does not have the right to enter it at will. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:5) quotes the Rambam's ruling.
", + "[The following laws apply when] a gentile hires a Jew to prepare wine for him in a state of ritual purity5We have translated the Rambam's words literally. The intent, however, appears to be not ritual purity per se, but \"without contact with gentiles.\" so that it will be permitted to the Jews and they will purchase it from him. The wine is [stored] in a building belonging to the gentile. If the Jew who is guarding the wine lives in that courtyard, the wine is permitted. [This applies] even if the entrance is open and the [Jewish] guard goes out and returns.6I.e., he is not present at all times. Nevertheless, it is possible that he will return at any given moment. Hence, the gentile will not take liberties. See Halachah 4.
If the guard lives in another courtyard,7Since he does not live on the premises, he is not considered as a permanent watchman. Hence, the fact that he enters from time to time during the day is not significant (Lechem Mishneh). The Ra'avad differs and maintains that as long as the Jew enters and leaves at will, that is sufficient to inhibit the gentile from touching the wine. [Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:11), the Rambam adopts a position similar to that of the Ra'avad.]
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 131:1 adopt an intermediate position, stating that if there is another Jew living in that city and the entrance to the building where the wine is stored is visible from the public domain, the wine is permitted. For the owner will be afraid to break the lock to the door lest he be seen and the matter become known. (This approach is also mentioned in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit).
the wine is forbidden even though the key and the seal are in the possession of a Jew. [The rationale is that] since the wine belongs to the gentile and is found in his domain, he does not fear falsifying [the seal and/or key] and to enter the building. He will say: \"What could be? If they find out about this, they will not purchase [the wine] from me.\"8There is, however, nothing preventing him from selling it to other gentiles.", + "Even if a gentile wrote [a legal document] for the Jew stating that he received the money for which he agreed to sell him the wine,9I.e., he wrote the bill of sale in advance, before the Jew actually paid to clarify that his intent was to sell it to him.
The Siftei Cohen 131:1 writes that these stringencies apply only if the Jew did not pay the gentile anything at all. Once the Jew pays the gentile something, the wine is considered his and more lenient rules apply. It is questionable, however, if the Rambam would accept this leniency, for as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 25, he rules that as long as wine is security for a debt, a gentile creditor will feel free to do with it as he desires.
since the Jew cannot remove the wine from the gentile's domain until he pays him the money, the wine belongs to the gentile and it is forbidden unless the guard lives in the courtyard.
The guard does not have to sit and guard [the wine] at all times. Instead, he may come in and go out, as explained. [This applies whether the wine is stored] in the domain belonging to the owner of the wine or in a domain belonging to another gentile.", + "When the pure wine belonging to a gentile was placed in the public domain or in a building that is open to the public domain and there are Jews going back and forth, it is permitted.10Since Jews can see whether or not the gentile touches it, he is afraid to do so, lest his investment be ruined. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:11). For it has not entered the gentile's domain.", + "[When wine is located] in a garbage dump, a window, or under a palm tree even if it does not have fruit, it is as [if it is located in] the public domain.11Because these places are also in public view and/or acces. When a gentile is located near wine located in such a place, it is not forbidden. A house which is open to such a place is considered as if it as open to the public domain.", + "[The following rule applies when] there is a courtyard divided by low barriers,12Our translation follows Rashi's commentary to Avodah Zarah 70a. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:16) defines the term as meaning pillars. on one side there is a gentile and on the other, a Jew, there are two roofs, with the Jew's roof located above the gentile's roof, or [the two roofs are located] side by side, but there are dividers separating them. Even though the gentile can reach the Jew's portion, he need not worry about [the gentile pouring] his wine as a libation13Since the gentile would be considered as a thief for overstepping these boundaries, we do not fear that he would do so. or [disqualifying] articles that are ritually pure.14Were a gentile to touch them, they would be disqualified.", + "It is permitted for a Jew to entrust his wine to a gentile for safekeeping in a closed container, provided it has two distinguishing marks. This is referred to as \"a seal within a seal.\"15The rationale is that we assume that a gentile will not trouble himself to reseal the container with two seals as the Jew had sealed it. Hence the fact that he found it with the two seals he left, it is a sign that it has not been tampered with.
What is implied? [A Jew] closed a barrel with a utensil that is not tightly fitting as most people do and then sealed it with clay, it is considered as one seal. If the container is tightly fitting and he applied clay to it from above, it is considered as \"a seal within a seal.\"
Similarly, if one tied the opening to a wineskin close, it is considered as one seal. If he turned the opening to the wineskin inside and then tied it close, it is considered as \"a seal within a seal.\" Similarly, any deviation from the ordinary pattern people follow is considered as one seal and applying clay or tying it is a second seal.16To apply these concepts in contemporary terms: When a bottle of wine is closed with a cork or a bottle-cap, that is one seal. If there is a paper or plastic wrapper around the cork or the cap, that is the second seal.", + "If [a Jew] entrusted [wine that was closed] with one seal to a gentile for safekeeping, it is forbidden to drink it, but it is permitted to benefit from it provided he designates a [specific] corner for it.17Based on Avodah Zarah 31a, some interpret this as speaking about an instance where the corner the gentile grants the Jew is closed off with a seal. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 130:2) writes that there are opinions which rule that after the fact, one seal is sufficient in this situation.
The Lechem Mishneh explains that even if the place is not closed off, since it is designated for the Jew, one seal is sufficient. See Turei Zahav 130:4).
", + "Two seals are not necessary when one deposits boiled wine, beer, wine which is mixed with other substances, e.g., honey or oil,18For in none of these instances do we fear that the gentile will use the beverage for a libation, as stated in Chapter 11, Halachot 9-10. – and similarly, vinegar, cheese, and any substance that is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law – with a gentile. Instead, one seal is sufficient.19In these instances, we fear that the gentile will exchange another substance, for the substance deposited. One seal is sufficient to dispel these suspicions (Lechem Mishneh). Nevertheless, two seals are necessary for wine, meat, and pieces of fish that do not have signs and which were entrusted to a gentile.20Since the prohibition involved in these instances is Scriptural in origin, we are more stringent.", + "It appears to me that anywhere in this context that we have stated that our wine is forbidden to be drunk, but it is permitted to benefit from it because of the possibility that a gentile touched it, we are speaking about an instance where the gentile is an idolater. If, however, the prohibition has arisen because of a gentile who is not an idolater, e.g., an Arab,21See Chapter 11, Halachah 7. That halachah states that when a gentile who is not an idolater touches wine, it is only forbidden to drink it. In this instance, since the gentile did not intend to touch the wine, we are more lenient and do not forbid it at all (Radbaz).
As mentioned previously, the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 124:24) rules that in the present era, none of the gentiles are considered as idolaters and the leniency suggested by the Rambam applies universally. On that basis, he and the subsequent Ashkenazic authorities have suggested several leniencies.
who touched our wine unintentionally or tapped the top of a barrel,22See Chapter 12, Halachot 5 and 9. [the wine] is permitted to be drunken. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "When, however, one deposits wine in the domain of a resident alien23A gentile who has made a formal commitment to accept the Seven Universal Laws Commanded to Noah and His Descendants. These include the prohibition against worshipping false divinities. sends wine with him and departs for an extended period, or leaves one's home open in a courtyard that [one shares with] a resident alien, it is forbidden to drink the wine. For it appears to me that the suspicions that a gentile will exchange [wine] and forge [a seal] apply equally to all gentiles. Since the wine enters their domain,24I.e., a place where it can be exchanged without a Jew noticing. it is forbidden at least to drink it.25For we fear that he exchanged it with his own wine and it is forbidden to drink such wine. Although a resident alien also accepted the prohibition against theft, we fear that he - and certainly, other gentiles - will not abide by his commitment (Radbaz).", + "There are situations where the prohibition against wine poured as a libation does not apply at all, yet our Sages forbade them as a safeguard against libation. They are: a gentile should not mix water into wine in a Jew's possession lest he come to pour wine into water. A gentile should not bring grapes to the winepress lest he come to press them or touch the wine. He should not help a Jew when he pours wine from one container to another lest he leave the wine in the possession of the gentile and the wine [will flow] because of [the gentile's] power. If the gentile assists [the Jew], mixes water [into wine] or brings grapes, [the wine] is permitted.26For these are merely safeguards. Although Rashi (Avodah Zarah 58b) and other Rishonim rule more stringently, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 125:3,6,7) accepts the Rambam's position.", + "Similarly, it is permitted for a gentile to smell the fragrance of our wine27Doing so does not arouse a suspicion that perhaps he used it as a libation for his false deity. Smelling is not considered as tasting or drinking. and it is permitted for a Jew to smell the fragrance of a barrel of wine that had been used as a libation.28It is not included in the prohibition mentioned at the beginning of Ch. 11. There is no prohibition against this, because fragrance is of no consequence since it has no substance.29See the conclusion of Ch. 5 of Hilchot Meilah, where the Rambam delivers a slightly contradictory ruling.", + "We already explained,30Chapter 8, Halachah 16. See also Hilchot Avodat Kochavimn 7:9 and Hilchot Ishut 5:2. that whenever it is forbidden to benefit from a substance, if one transgresses and sells it, it is permitted [to make use of] the money with the exception of false deities, their accessories, offerings made to them, and wine poured as a libation to it. Our Sages were stringent with regard to ordinary gentile wine [and ruled that] money given for it is forbidden like money given for wined poured as a libation to a false deity.
Accordingly, when a gentile hires a Jew to work with him with wine, his wages are forbidden.31For he is deriving benefit from gentile wine.", + "Similarly, when a person rents a donkey or a boat to transport wine, the payment for them is forbidden.32Even though the Jew himself does nothing to help transport the gentile wine. If he gave him money, he should bring them to the Dead Sea.33I.e., throw in a place where neither he nor anyone else will benefit from them. If he gave him clothes, utensils, or produce as payment, he should burn it and bury the dust so that he34Nor others. does not benefit from it.", + "If a gentile rented a donkey to ride and placed containers of wine on it, the rental fee for the donkey is permitted.35For the rental fee was not primarily paid for the sake of the wine (Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 133:3). The Radbaz emphasizes that this leniency applies when the donkey was rented primarily for human transport and, by the way, the gentile placed wine upon it. If, however, he rented it primarily to transport packages - and later the owner discovered that wine was included among them - the rental fee is forbidden even if the person also rides on the donkey. If [a gentile] hires a Jew to break barrels of wine used as a libation, his fee is permitted. May he be blessed because he eliminated obscenity.", + "When a person hires a worker and tells him: \"Transport 100 barrels of beer for me for 100 p'rutot,\" and it is discovered that one of them is [gentile] wine, his entire wage is forbidden.36He is being paid for the entire work as a collective entity. Were he not to have transported all the barrels, he would not be paid at all (Rashi, Avodah Zarah 65a). Accordingly, the payment for transporting the beer was never distinct from that of the wine. Hence his entire wage is forbidden.
The Ra'avad differs and maintains that it is sufficient to destroy the wage paid for the forbidden barrels. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 133:3) follows the Rambam's stringency.
", + "If he told him: \"Transport barrels for me at a p'rutah each,\" and he transported them and barrels of wine were discovered among them, the wage for the barrels of wine is forbidden. The remainder of the wage is permitted.37Since the wage was paid for each barrel individually, the wage paid for the barrels of beer is a separate and distinct entity. Hence it is not forbidden. Nevertheless, at the outset, it is forbidden to accept such a job [Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.)].", + "When a gentile sends Jewish craftsmen a barrel of wine as part of their wages, it is permitted for them to tell him: \"Give us its worth.\"38For the craftsman have not accepted the wine and the employer owes them money. Once it enters their domain, it is forbidden.39For then it is as if they are exchanging the wine for wine.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 132:3) writes that in the present age, (when gentiles are not actually idolaters,) a worker may return the barrel of wine even though it has entered his domain.
", + "When a gentile owed a Jew a maneh,40One hundred silver zuzim. it is permitted for the gentile to sell a false deity and wine that had been poured as a libation and bring him the money. If, before he sells them, he tells [the Jew]: \"Wait until I sell the false deity or libation wine that I own and [then] I will bring you [the money],\" if he sells it and brings [the money] to him, [the money] is forbidden. [This applies] even with regard to ordinary gentile wine. [The rationale is that] the Jew desires that [the false deity or the wine] to continue to exist so that he will be able to pay him his debt.41Hence he has benefited from existence of the gentile wine. Hence, it is forbidden.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 132:7) states that, even if the Jew desires that the false deity continue to exist, leniency can be granted in an instance where the gentile has other resources to pay the debt or alternatively, when the debt is secured by a guarantor. Moreover, if all that is concerned is ordinary gentile wine, in the present age, there is no prohibition for the reason stated above.
", + "Similarly, when a convert and a gentile were partners and they came to divide the resources [of the partnership], the convert may not tell the gentile: \"You take the false deity and I will take the money. You take the wine and I will take the produce.\" [The rationale is that] he desires that [the forbidden entities] continue to exist so that he will be able to receive something in exchange for them.42Here leniency is not granted, because the convert has a share in the entities belonging to the partnership. Thus he is exchanging money for a false deity.
When, by contrast, a convert and a gentile inherit the estate of their father who was a gentile, [the convert] may tell [the gentile]: \"You take the false deity and I will take the money. You take the wine and I will take the oil.\" This is a leniency granted with regard to an estate inherited by a convert so that he will not return to his deviant ways.43I.e., our Sages feared that the convert will be so disturbed about being unable to receive his inheritance, that he will forsake Jewish practice and return to his previous mode of conduct. This is undesirable, because once a person converts, he is a full-fledged Jew. If he conducts himself undesirably, his conduct affects the entire Jewish people. If [the forbidden entities] entered the domain of the convert, it is forbidden.44For they have already entered the domain of the convert and are, therefore, forbidden. Hence it is forbidden to exchange them for others, for then one will be deriving benefit.", + "[The following rules apply when] a Jew sells his wine to a gentile. If he established a price before he measured out [the wine], the money is permitted. [The rationale is that] from the time a price was established, [the gentile] definitely agreed [to the purchase] and when he pulled [the wine] into his domain, he acquired it.45I.e., he acquires the wine through the kinyan of meshichah [see Maggid Mishneh, Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 1:14; Turei Zahav 132:4) and the money is considered as a loan which he owes the Jew.
The Radbaz questions why the Rambam mentions meshichah, drawing the wine into his own domain. Seemingly, once a price was established and the wine was poured, the gentile acquires it whether or not he performs meshichah immediately. Conversely, if meshichah finalizes the transaction, seemingly as long as a price was set before meshichah, the wine should be permitted
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam is speaking according to the common practice. It was customary to establish a price either before measuring the wine or after meshichah.
And it does not become [comparable to] wine offered as a libation until he touches it. Therefore at the time of sale, it was permitted.
If he measured it out for him before he established a price, the money is forbidden. [The rationale is that the gentile] did not definitely agree [to the purchase], even though he pulled [the wine] into his domain.46For he fears that the Jew will ask an exorbitant price (Radbaz). Hence he always keeps the option of negating the sale. Thus at the time he touched [the wine], he had not definitely agreed to the purchase. Hence the wine becomes forbidden because of his touch and it is as if [the Jew] is selling gentile wine.", + "When does the above apply? When the Jew measured [the wine] into his own containers. If, however, he measured it into the gentile's containers or to a container belonging to a Jew in the gentile's possession, he must take the money,47For the payment of the money formalizes the transfer of the wine (effecting a kinyan), Thus the gentile has paid for the wine before it entered his domain and became forbidden. before measuring out [the wine]. If he measured out [the wine,] but did not take the money, the money is forbidden even though he established a price. As soon as [the wine] enters [the gentile's] container, it is forbidden as ordinary gentile wine.48There are several explanations for this ruling. The gentile left some of his wine in the container and thus as the Jew was pouring the new wine in, it became forbidden. Alternatively, the gentile was holding the container and moved it (see Chapter 12, Halachah 3). This is sufficient to cause the wine to become forbidden (Radbaz).
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, stating that (as the Rambam himself rules in Chapter 16, Halachah 29) if kosher wine becomes mixed with non-kosher wine, it is forbidden to drink it, but one may benefit from it. Nevertheless, he does not provide a rebuttal to the second explanation given above.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that since the wine in the container the gentile is holding becomes forbidden, the wine the Jew is pouring also becomes forbidden, as stated above in Chapter 12, Halachah 12.
", + "When [a Jewish employer] gives a dinar to a gentile storekeeper and tells his gentile employee: \"Go, drink, and eat [on my account] from the storekeeper and I will settle the accounts with him,\" he must show concern lest [the employee] will drink wine.49Since he gave the storekeeper the money in advance, it is as if he paid the storekeeper for what his worker would eat. Thus it is as if the worker is drinking the employer's wine. Thus it will be as if he purchased wine used as a libation and gave it to him.
A similar arrangement with regard to the Sabbatical year50The Rambam's source (Avodah Zarah 58b) mentions both produce from the Sabbatical year and untithed produce, because it is possible that a common person is lax in his observance of both these mitzvot. Apparently, the Rambam also had this intent because he begins by mentioning produce of the Sabbatical year and concludes by mentioning untithed produce. is also forbidden; i.e., one gives a dinar to a Jewish storekeeper who is a common person and tells his Jewish employee: \"Go, drink, and eat [on my account] from the storekeeper and I will settle the accounts with him.\" If the worker eats food that was not tithed, it is forbidden.51I.e., it is forbidden for the employer to do this, because it would be considered as if he personally gave his employee produce from the Sabbatical year or untithed produce.", + "If, however, he told them: \"Eat and drink the worth of this dinar,\" or \"Eat and drink from the storekeeper on my account and I will pay him,\" this is permitted. Although the Jew becomes liable, his liability is not specifically related [to the foods from which the employees partake].52I.e., he undertakes a financial obligation to the storekeeper, but since he does not pay him the money beforehand, that obligation is not explicitly associated with the food or drink of which the worker partakes. [Therefore,] he need not be concerned, not about wine used as a libation, not about produce of the Sabbatical year, nor about untithed produce.53The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 450:6) mentions opinions that are more stringent with regard to an employer taking financial responsibility for the food a gentile will eat on Pesach. The Turei Zahav 460:4 explains that with regard to Pesach, there is a greater reason for stringency, for it is almost certain that the gentile will eat chametz. In the situations mentioned in our halachah, by contrast, it is possible that none of the prohibitions will be violated, for the gentile will not want wine, nor the Jewish workers, the untithed or Sabbatical produce.", + "[The following rules apply when] a [gentile] king distributes his wine among the people and takes money for it, as he desires.54A gentile king produced wine from the royal vineyard as a means of financing his nation's expenses. He would obligate each of the person's in his kingdom to buy a standard amount of wine. For a Jew, that represents a problem for the wine is gentile wine. Not only is it forbidden to drink it, it is forbidden to benefit from it. Thus not only may a Jew not partake of such wine, nor may he take it and sell it. He is forbidden even to purchase it from the king.
This represents the Rambam's interpretation of Avodah Zarah 71a. It is quoted by the Rashba and other Rishonim. Rashi, the Ra'avad, and others, however, have different interpretations of the passage. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 132:6) quotes the Rambam's interpretation.
A [Jew] may not tell a gentile: \"Take 200 zuz and go into the king's storehouse in place of me,\" so that the gentile will take the wine designated for the Jew and give the money to the king.55The Radbaz explains that in this way, the gentile is purchasing the wine from the Jew. Others explain that the gentile is acting as the Jew's agent. He may, however, tell him: \"Here is 200 zuz for you. Save me from [going to] the storehouse.\"56For in this way, the gentile is not acting as the Jew's agent.", + "When a gentile touches57This law applies when the gentile intentionally touches the wine. If the gentile touches it unintentionally, he is not liable. The rationale is that this is damage which is not outwardly noticeable (i.e., although the ritual status of the wine has changed, outwardly it is the same). In such an instance, Hilchot Chovel UMazik 7:3 states, one is not liable for causing damage inadvertently.
The Kessef Mishneh states that even if the gentile intentionally touched the wine, but did not know that by touching it, he caused it to be forbidden, the gentile is not liable and this leniency does not apply. The Siftei Cohen 132:2, however, interprets this wording as implying that even if the gentile caused it to become forbidden inadvertently, the Jew may sell it to him.
See also Hilchot Chovel UMazik 7:4 and commentaries, where a similar concept is discussed.
a Jew's wine against [the Jew's] will,58For if the Jew could have stopped the gentile from touching the wine and didn't, he is responsible for the loss (Radbaz). it is permitted to sell that wine to that gentile alone.59The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 124:2) rules that in the present age, when it is not customary for gentiles to use wine as libations, the wine may be sold to any gentile. [The rationale is] since that gentile wished to cause a Jew a loss [by] having his wine forbidden, it is as if he destroyed it or burnt it, in which instance, he would be obligated to pay. Thus the money [the Jew] takes from him is money for the loss and not money for a sale.60Avodah Zarah 59b states that in such a situation, he may charge the gentile the full price of the wine." + ], + [ + "The minimum measure for which one is liable for partaking of any of the forbidden foods in the Torah is [the size of] an average olive.1The measure of \"the size of an olive\" cannot be determined by measuring an average olive today. Instead, this refers to a measure established by our Sages and is the subject of debate by later Rabbinic authorities. The Pri Chadash (Orach Chayim 486) states that the Rambam considers an olive as one-third the size of an egg with its shell (17.3 grams according to Shiurei Torah 3:13, 24 grams according to Chazon Ish). Tosafot, Chullin 103a, differs and defines an olive as one-half the size of a shelled egg (25.6 grams according to Shiurei Torah 3:12, 36 grams according to Chazon Ish). In practice, with regard to questions of Scriptural Law, the more stringent opinion should be followed. With regard to questions of Rabbinic Law, one may rely on the more lenient view. [This applies] whether for lashes, kerait, 2Literally, the soul's being cut off. This involves premature death in this world (before the age of 50, Mo'ed Kattan 28a) and the soul not meriting a portion in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1). or death at the hand of heaven.3Premature death before the age of 60 (Mo'ed Kattan, loc. cit.). We already explained4See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 1:7. that anyone who is liable for kerait or death at the hand of heaven for [partaking of] forbidden food, should receive lashes.", + "This measure, as all the other measurements, is a halachah conveyed by Moses from Sinai. It is forbidden by Scriptural Law to eat even the slightest amount of a forbidden substance. Nevertheless, one receives lashes only for an olive-sized portion. If one partakes of any amount less than this measure, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.5The punishment given for the violation of Rabbinic commandments or Scriptural Laws for which there is no specific punishment outlined.", + "The measure of \"the size of an olive\" that we mentioned does not include what is between one's teeth.6Shiurei Torah suggests including slightly more than 3 grams in the measure of an olive-sized portion to compensate for this factor. What is between one's gums,7Even though it was not swallowed. however, is included in what one swallows, for his palate benefited from an olive-sized portion of food.
Even if one ate half of an olive-sized portion, vomited it, and then ate the same portion that was half the size of an olive that he vomited, he is liable.8This refers to a situation in which the person ate the vomited food a second time shortly after he ate it the first time. To explain: For a person to be liable, he must eat not only a specific amount (an olive-sized portion), but he must eat it in a specific time: k'dai achilas p'ras, as explained in Halachah 8. For the liability is for the benefit one's palate receives from a forbidden substance.", + "When an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat, a nevelah, piggul,9A sacrifice which the priest thought to have its blood or limbs offered on the altar after the time when they should be offered or have its meat eaten after the time it should be eaten (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 13:1). notar,10Sacrificial meat that remained after the time when it is required to be eaten (op cit. 13:3). or the like was left in the sun and was reduced in volume, one who eats it is not liable.11As Menachot 54b states, the size of a portion of food at the time one partakes of it determines whether he is liable or not.
If, afterwards, one left it in the rain and it expanded, one is liable for either kerait or lashes.12For, at the outset, it was the size of an olive. If, originally, it was smaller than an olive-sized portion and then expanded to the size of an olive, it is forbidden to partake of it, but one is not liable for lashes for it.13For its natural size is not an olive.", + "We already explained14Chapter 4, Halachot 16 and 17. that all of the forbidden substances in the Torah are not combined with each other to reach the minimum measure of the size of an olive with the exception of the meat of a nevelah and the meat of a trefe15For a trefe is the beginning of a nevelah, as stated there. and the prohibitions involving a nazirite,16For they are all grape products, as stated in Hilchot Nazirut 5:3. as explained in the appropriate places. The five types of grain,17Wheat, barley, rye, oats, and spelt. Since they are all grain, they are combined to reach the minimum measure. their flour, and the dough made from them all can be combined with each other to reach the minimum measure of the size of an olive with regard to the prohibition against leaven on Pesach, the prohibition against partaking of chadash before the offering of the omer,18See Chapter 10 for a definition of this prohibition. and the prohibitions involving the second tithe and the terumot.", + "It appears to me that all [produce] from which we are required to separate terumah and tithes can be combined to reach the minimum measure of the size of an olive with regard to [the prohibition against] tevel because a single prohibition is involved. To what can the matter be compared? To [meat from] the corpse of an ox, the corpse of a sheep, and the corpse of a deer which can be combined to reach the minimum measure of the size of an olive as we explained.19Chapter 4, Halachah 7.
The Ra'avad qualifies the Rambam's statement, maintaining that it applies only when the types of produce consumed have a similar taste. The Radbaz, however, justifies the Rambam's view.
", + "When a person partakes of a large amount of food from a forbidden substance, he is not liable for lashes or kerait for every olive-sized portion he eats. Instead, he is liable once for all he ate.20In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nazir 6:4), the Rambam states that this leniency applies only with regard to an earthly court. God, however, holds the person liable for each forbidden measure he eats. If, however, the witness gave him a warning for every olive-sized portion, he is liable for every warning even though he ate it in one sitting, without interruption.21For the warnings create a distinction between the food eaten before and afterwards.", + "[The following rules apply when] a person partakes of a barley-corn or mustard-seed-sized portion of any forbidden food, waits, and then partakes of another mustard-seed-sized portion whether inadvertently or intentionally. If he waited from the beginning to the end the time it takes to eat a portion of bread with relish the size of three eggs22Our translation is based on Hilchot Tumat Tzara'at 16:6. [or less], everything [he ate] is combined.23This is one of the fundamental concepts with regard to the mitzvot and prohibitions concerning eating. Just as there is a minimum amount, a k'zayit (an olive-sized portion), which one must eat for the mitzvah or prohibition to be fulfilled; so, too, there is a minimum measure of time, k'dei achilat p'ras, in which that amount of food must be eaten. If one takes a longer time to eat the prohibited food, his eating is not significant, like one who eats less than the minimum amount.
Rashi (Pesachim 44a ) offers a different view and maintains that this measure is defined as the time it takes to eat four eggs. Shiurei Torah mentions several different opinions from between four minutes until nine minutes for this figure.
He is liable for kerait, lashes, or a sacrifice as if he ate an olive-sized portion at one time. If he waits a longer time from the beginning to the end, [the small portions] are not combined. Since he completed the olive-sized portion only in a longer time than k'dei achilat p'ras, he is not liable even if he did not wait at all, but continued eating mustard-seed-sized portion after mustard-seed-sized portion.", + "Similar [laws apply when] a person who drinks a revi'it24The standard liquid measure that applies with regard to the Torah's mitzvot and prohibitions. of ordinary gentile wine little by little, swallows liquefied leaven on Pesach or fat little by little, or drinks blood25The commentaries have noted that in Chapter 6, Halachah 1, the Rambam mentioned that the minimum measure for which one is liable for partaking of blood is an olive-sized portion and question why in this context, a revi'it is mentioned. It is possible to explain that here the subjects are slightly different, for we are not speaking about the minimum amount for which one is liable, but rather the minimum time period. The commentaries, however, do not see this as a significant enough point. little by little. If he waits from the beginning until the end the time it takes to drink a revi'it, [all of the sipping] is combined.26For if one prolongs his drinking over a longer period, his deed is not considered significant. If not, it is not combined.27The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh note that other authorities do not accept the concept of \"the time it takes to drink a revi'it\" and even with regard to prohibitions that involve drinking, speak of k'dei achilat p'ras. Indeed, the Rambam himself mentions that measure with regard to drinking within the context of the laws of ritual purity (Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah.
The Radbaz explains the Rambam's ruling here, stating that with regard to the prohibitions against eating, what is important is that one feel significant satisfaction. If he prolongs his drinking longer than that, he will not feel satisfaction from it. See also the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh to Hilchot Shivitat Esor 2:4 which discusses this issue.
", + "One is not liable for partaking of any of the prohibited foods unless one partakes of them in a manner in which one derives satisfaction with the exception of a mixture of meat and milk and mixed species grown in a vineyard. [The rationale is that with regard to these prohibitions, the Torah] does not use the term \"eating,\"28When, however, the Torah uses the term \"eating,\" that implies that one derives satisfaction in the ordinary manner one derives benefit from food (see the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh to Chapter 8, Halachah 16). Only then is one liable. Needless to say, it is forbidden by Rabbinic Law to partake of a forbidden substance even if one does not derive benefit. but instead conveys the prohibition against partaking of them in other terms. [With regard to meat and milk, it uses] the term \"cooking\" and [with regard to mixed species grown in a vineyard, it uses the term] \"become hallowed.\"29As explained in Chapter 10, Halachah 6, \"becom[ing] hallowed\" means being \"set apart and forbidden.\" [This implies] that they are forbidden even when one does not derive satisfaction.", + "What is implied? When one liquefied fat and swallowed it when it was so hot that his throat was burned from it, he eat raw fat,30Which does not have a pleasant taste. mixed bitter substances like gall or wormwood into wine31This concept also applies with regard to wine used as a libation, for, Deuteronomy 32:38, the prooftext from which this prohibition is derived, also mentions \"eating\" [Minchat Chinuch (mitzvah 111)]. or into a pot [where meat from] a nevelah [is cooking] and he partook of it while they were bitter,32I.e., even if the unappetizing element of the food is not dependent on them, but on a foreign substance. or he ate a forbidden food after it became decayed, spoiled, and unfit for human consumption, he is not liable.33This refers to the concept referred to as notein taam lifgam, giving an unfavorable taste. Our Rabbis extend this concept further, explaining that any pot which has not been used for non-kosher food for a day no longer causes the pot to be forbidden according to Scriptural Law, because the forbidden food has already lost its flavor [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 103:5)]. See also Chapter 15, Halachot 28-31. If, by contrast, he mixed a bitter substance into a a pot [where meat and milk are cooking] or into wine from a vineyard where mixed species are growing and partook of it, he is liable.", + "When a person partakes of one of the forbidden food in a frivolous manner or as one who is acting purposelessly, he is liable. Even though he did not intend to actually partake of the food, since he derived pleasure, it is considered as if he intended to actually partake of the food.34Generally, a person who violates a transgression without intent is not liable (Shabbat 22a). Here, however, an exception is made, because the person is deriving physical benefit. When, [by contrast,] a person is forced to derive [forbidden] pleasure, if he focuses his intent on it, he is liable. If he does not, it is permitted.35Even though he derived pleasure, since he did not act voluntarily and did not desire the forbidden pleasure, he is not held liable.", + "When a person partakes of a forbidden food because of desire or because of hunger, he is liable.36Although either his desire or hunger causes him pain, he is not considered as if he was compelled to partake of the forbidden food. If he was wandering in the desert and he has nothing to eat but a forbidden substance, it is permitted, because of the danger to his life.37As stated in Hilchot Yesodei Torah 5:6, all prohibitions are superceded by danger to life with the exception of idolatry, murder, and forbidden sexual relations.", + "When a pregnant woman smells a forbidden food [and is overcome by desire for it],38A pregnant woman may have severe cravings for food with an attractive aroma. Our Sages feared that if she were not given some of the food she desired, she might miscarry and perhaps even her own life would be endangered. See Yoma 82b. e.g., consecrated meat or ham, she should be given some of the gravy. If her mind becomes settled, that is commendable. If not, we feed her less than the forbidden measure39I.e., less than an olive-sized portion as stated in Halachah 1. Since one is not liable unless one partakes of an olive-sized portion within k'dei achilat pras (see Halachah 8), if we do not fear the situation is overly dangerous, the woman can be fed this minimal amount in intervals. See Hilchot Sh'vitat Asor 2:9, Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 617:2). [of the meat itself]. If her mind does not become settled, we feed her until her mind becomes settled.", + "Similarly, when a sick person smells food that contains vinegar or the like, [i.e.,] substances that arouse a soul's [desire], he is governed by the same laws that apply to a pregnant woman.40Since he is sick, his condition is precarious and we are concerned that his craving may place his life in danger. See Ketubot 61a.", + "When a person is overcome by severe hunger,41This refers to a state of infirmity that overcomes a person because of lack of nourishment. He becomes dizzy, faint, and unable to focus his eyes. he may be fed forbidden food immediately until his eyesight clears. We do not seek permitted food. Instead, we hurry to feed him what is available.42Out of fear that the delay may be crucial to his life. Similarly, we do not try first giving him the gravy and then smaller portions as in the previous halachot (Kessef Mishneh). Needless to say, if kosher food is available, there is no reason to give him non-kosher food.
We feed him substances bound by more lenient prohibitions first. If his sight clears, that is sufficient. If not, we feed him the substances bound by the more severe prohibitions.", + "What is implied? If there is tevel43Produce from which terumah and the tithes have not been separated. and a nevelah, we feed him the nevelah first. {The rationale is] that [partaking of] tevel is punishable by death [at the hand of heaven].44This applies when the terumot have not been separated from the produce. If the terumot have been separated, but the tithes have not been separated, the prohibition is of the same degree of severity as partaking of a nevelah. See Chapter 10, Halachot 19-20. If [the choice is between] a nevelah and produce that grows on its own during the Sabbatical year, we feed him the produce, for it is forbidden [only] by Rabbinic decree, as will be explained in Hilchot Shemitah.45Hilchot Shemitah ViYovel 4:2.
If [the choice is between] tevel and produce grown during the Sabbatical year,46I.e., produce grown in the Sabbatical year that remains after the time when it is supposed to be disposed of (Rashi, Yoma 83a). we feed him the produce grown during the Sabbatical year.47For the prohibition against eating produce cultivated in the Sabbatical year stems from a positive commandment. This is considered as more lenient than a prohibition stemming from a negative commandment, because there is no punishment involved. If [the choice is between] tevel and terumah, if it is impossible to make the tevel acceptable,48Some interpret this as referring to a situation where there is no one who knows how to separate the terumot present. Rashi (loc. cit.) interprets this as referring to a situation where the sick person must eat the entire amount of produce available. It is preferable not to separate the terumot. For even though he will be eating less of a forbidden substance, the prohibition will be more severe because terumah is sanctified. we feed him the tevel. [The rationale is] that it is not sanctified as terumah is. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "We have already explained49Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:8-9. that one prohibition does not take effect when another prohibition is in effect unless both of the prohibitions take effect at the same time,50Chapter 5, Halachah 5, gives an example of this concept. When a person rips a limb from a living animal which causes the animal to become trefe, he is considered to have transgressed two prohibitions: the prohibition against eating flesh from a living animal and the prohibition against partaking of an animal that is trefe, for both prohibitions take effect at the same time. the latter prohibition forbids additional entities,51This concept is exemplified in this and the following halachah. See also Chapter 7, Halachah 2, and Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:9-10. or the [latter] prohibition encompasses other entities.52This concept is exemplified in Chapter 8, Halachah 6: A person who partakes of a gid hanesheh, a sciatic nerve, of an animal which is trefe is liable for two transgressions. Since when the animal became trefe, its entire body became encompassed in the prohibition, that prohibition also encompasses the gid even though it was prohibited beforehand.
Accordingly, [it is possible] for there to be a person who eats one olive-sized portion of forbidden food and yet, he will be liable for five [sets of] lashes for it, provided he was warned for all five prohibitions that accumulated.
What is implied? For example, on Yom Kippur, a person who was ritually impure ate an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat from a consecrated animal that remained after its prescribed time.53Every sacrifice of which we are allowed to partake has a certain time span - a day and a night or two days and a night - in which we are allowed to partake of it. After that time span, it becomes forbidden because of the prohibition referred to as notar (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:10. He is liable for lashes because he partook of forbidden fat, notar, because he ate on Yom Kippur,54The Rambam also states this concept in Hilchot Shegagot 6:4. There he emphasizes that to be liable for eating on Yom Kippur, one must add another small portion of food. For one is not liable for eating on Yom Kippur unless he consumes a date-sized portion. That additional portion, however, need not involve all these different prohibitions. because he partook of consecrated food while ritually impure, and because he derived benefit from consecrated food, thus [violating the prohibition of] me'ilah.", + "Why do these prohibitions fall on each other? Because although it was forbidden to partake of the fat of this animal, it was permitted to benefit from it. Once he consecrated it, it became forbidden to benefit from the fat. Since the prohibition to benefit from it was added to it, the prohibition against [benefiting from] consecrated articles became added to it.
Although this fat was forbidden to an ordinary person, it was still permitted to be offered to the One on High. When it became notar, since it became forbidden to the One on High, [that] prohibition was added to an ordinary person.
This person was permitted to partake of the meat of the animal,55Before it became notar. although he was forbidden to partake of its fat. When he became impure, since its meat became forbidden an additional prohibition was added to its fat. When Yom Kippur commenced, all food became included [in the prohibition], since this prohibition affects non-consecrated food, it adds a prohibition to this fat. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations." + ], + [ + "When a forbidden substance becomes mixed with a permitted substance of another type, [it causes it to become forbidden] if its flavor can be detected. When [a forbidden substance becomes mixed with a permitted substance of] the same type and it is impossible to detect [the forbidden substance] by its flavor,1Because it tastes the same as the permitted substance. its presence becomes nullified if there is a majority [of the permitted substance].2According to Scriptural Law. As stated in Halachot 4-5, the Rabbis enforced more stringent requirements.", + "What is implied? When the fat of the kidneys3Which is forbidden (Chapter 7, Halachah 5). falls into beans and becomes dissolved, the beans should be tasted.4By a gentile (see the notes to Halachah 30 and Chapter 9, Halachah 8) for a discussion of why the gentile's word is accepted. If the taste of fat cannot be detected, they are permitted. If [not only] the taste, [but also] the substance of the fat is present, they are forbidden according to Scriptural Law. If the flavor could be detected, but there is no substance, they are forbidden by Rabbinic Law.5See Tosafot (Chullin 98b) which mentions a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if the principle \"the flavor of an entity is equivalent to its substance\" is of Rabbinic or Scriptural origin.", + "What is meant by its substance? For example, there was enough forbidden fat for there to be an olive-sized portion [of fat] in each portion the size of three eggs from the mixture. If a person eats a portion of beans the size of three eggs, he is liable for lashes for they contain an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat, for [not only] the flavor, [but also] the substance of [the forbidden fat] is present.6The Rambam shares the perspective of Tosafot (Avodah Zarah 67b) who maintains that if there is more than an olive-sized portion of fat in a portion of food k'dei achilat p'ras (the size of three eggs), its substance is considered as present even though it is dissolved and not discernable. Rashi differs and maintains that as long as the fat is dissolved, it is considered as if the substance of the forbidden entity is not present. If one eats less than a portion the size of three eggs [of the mixture], one is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct as prescribed by Rabbinic Law.
Similarly, if there was less than an olive-sized portion of [forbidden] fat in every portion the size of three eggs, even if the flavor of fat is detectable and he eats the entire pot, he is not liable for lashes7Even though he may eat an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat, he will not have eaten it in the required time (the time it takes to eat three eggs, as stated in Chapter 14, Halachah 8) for one to be held liable. The concentration of the forbidden fat is too small for that to happen. [as prescribed by Scriptural Law], only stripes for rebellious conduct.", + "[The following laws apply when] the fat of the kidneys8Which is forbidden (Chapter 7, Halachah 5). falls into the fat from the fat tail9Which is permitted. and the entire [mixture] becomes dissolved.10Since both are fat, the mixture is considered as being of the same substance. If there is twice as much fat from the fat tail as fat of the kidneys, the entire mixture is permitted according to Scriptural Law.11For according to Scriptural Law, as long as the majority is kosher, the mixture may be eaten. Indeed, there is no need for there to be twice as much kosher fat as non-kosher fat. A simple majority is sufficient. Even when a piece of [meat from] a nevelah becomes mixed with two pieces of [meat from] a ritually slaughter animal, everything is permitted according to Scriptural Law.12With regard to the mixture of fat, there is greater reason for leniency, for there is no longer any non-kosher fat that exists as an independent entity, it is all mixed together with the kosher fat. In this instance, the meat from the nevelah exists as an independent entity, it is just that we have no way of detecting which of the pieces it is (Radbaz). Nevertheless, according to Rabbinic Law, everything13In all instances when forbidden substances are mixed with kosher substances. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 109:1) which rules leniently and allows one to rely on Scriptural Law in certain situations. See the notes to Halachah 20. is forbidden until the forbidden substance will be nullified because of the tiny proportion [of the entire mixture it represents] to the extent that it is not significant and it is as if it does not exist, as will be explained.14In the following halachot.", + "Into what quantity [of a permitted substance] must a forbidden substance be mixed for it to be considered nullified because of its tiny proportion? [Each forbidden substance according to] the measure the Sages specified for it. There are substances that are nullified in a mixture 60 times its size, others in a mixture 100 times its size, and still others in a mixture 200 times its size.", + "Thus we learn from this that [the following laws apply] with regard to all of the prohibited substances in the Torah, whether those punishable by lashes or punishable by kerait or substances from which it is forbidden to benefit that become mixed with permitted substances. If the substances are of different types, [the mixture is forbidden] if the flavor is detectable.
If the substances are of the same type and thus it is impossible to detect the flavor [of the forbidden substance], we measure [whether there was] 60, 100, or 200 [times the amount of permitted substances]. The only exceptions are wine poured as a libation to a false deity, because of the severity [of the prohibition against] worship of a false deity15In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 5:8), the Rambam cites Deuteronomy 13:18: \"No trace of the condemned should cling to your hand\" as evidence that even the slightest amount is forbidden. See Chapter 16, Halachah 28, for a leniency that is granted with regard to this restriction. and tevel, because it can be corrected.16The terumot and the tithes can be separated from it, causing it to be permitted. See Halachah 10.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam cites the rationale given by Avodah Zarah 73b: Just as one kernel of grain can serve as terumah and correct the entire crop; so, too, one kernel of grain from which terumah was not separated can cause an entire crop to be forbidden. The rationale given by the Rambam here has its source in the Jerusalem Talmud (Shivi'it 6:3).
For that reason, even the slightest mixture of them with a substance of their type is forbidden. If they become mixed with substances of a different type, the matter is dependent on whether their flavor is detectable.", + "What is implied? When several barrels of wine fell over a drop of wine that was poured as a libation, the entire mixture is forbidden, as will be explained.17Chapter 16, Halachah 28. Similarly, if a cup of wine which is tevel becomes nixed into a barrel [of wine], the entire [barrel] is considered tevel until the amount of terumah and tithes that are appropriate to be separated18I.e., the terumah and tithes that would have been required to have been separated from the tevel originally. In this context, the fact that it became mixed with other wine is not significant. are separated as will be explained in the appropriate place.19Hilchot Terumah, Chapter 13.", + "[Related concepts apply with regard to] produce of the Sabbatical year.20The Rambam feels it necessary to mention this point, because his source, Avodah Zarah 73b mentions the produce of the Sabbatical year together with the two prohibited substances mentioned above. The Rambam clarifies that the comparison is not entirely correct, because the produce of the Sabbatical year is not forbidden. If [such produce] becomes mixed with [produce of] the same type, the tiniest amount [causes the mixture to be considered bound by the laws of the produce of the Sabbatical year].21The Ra'avad mentions that this concept applies only until the time it is required to destroy the produce of the Sabbatical year. After that time, that produce is forbidden to be eaten and hence, is considered like other forbidden substances. [If it becomes mixed with produce of] another type, [the ruling depends on whether] its flavor can be detected. [Nevertheless,] it is not considered as one of the substances forbidden by Scriptural Law. For this mixture is not forbidden. Instead, one is obligated to eat the entire mixture in keeping with the holiness of the produce of the Sabbatical year, as will be explained in the appropriate place.22Hilchot Shemitrah ViYovel, chs. 4-7.", + "Although chametz on Pesach is forbidden by Scriptural Law, it is not governed by these general principles,23I.e., although even the tiniest amount of chametz causes an entire mixture to be forbidden, chametz was not mentioned by Avodah Zarah 73b together with wine poured as a libation and tevel. The reason is that the prohibition of the mixture of chametz is motivated by a different rationale (Kessef Mishneh). for this mixture is not forbidden forever. For after Pesach, the entire mixture will be permitted, as we explained.24See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 1:5 which states that a mixture of chametz and another substance is permitted after the Pesach holiday. Therefore the slightest amount [of chametz] causes [a mixture] to become forbidden,25As explained in the following halachah and notes. See also Halachah 12. whether [it becomes mixed] with a substance of its own type or of another type.", + "The same law26The Radbaz states that the comparison is to tevel and not to chametz on Pesach. For like tevel, if it becomes mixed with a different substance, it is permitted if its flavor cannot be detected. There are special stringencies applied with regard to chametz, as stated in Halachah 12 (Radbaz). applies when new grain becomes mixed with old grain before [the offering of] the omer. Even the tiniest amount causes [the entire mixture] to become forbidden. For there is a factor that will cause the substance to become permitted. For after [the offering of] the omer, the entire mixture is permitted.27See Chapter 10, Halachah 2.
Similarly, whenever there is a factor that will cause the substance to become permitted, e.g., consecrated entities,28For they can be redeemed (Radbaz). the second tithe,29For they can be eaten in Jerusalem or their holiness can be transferred to money (Radbaz). or the like,30E.g., Bikkurim; see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bkkurim 2:2). our Sages did not mention a measure [in which it could be nullified]. Instead, even if one [of the forbidden substance] becomes mixed with several thousand31Our Sages (Beitzah 3b) state it is not nullified when mixed with 1000 times the amount of kosher substances. The Rambam's wording clarifies that 1000 is not an upper limit. No matter how many times more of the permitted substance there is, the mixture is forbidden. [times that amount of a permitted substance], it is not nullified. [The rationale is that] there is a way that the prohibition can be released.32Hence, this option should be taken rather than relying on the nullification of the forbidden substance. [This principle applies] even when the prohibition stems from Rabbinic decree, e.g., an article set aside or born on a festival.33As explained in Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 1:19 that when a person sets an object aside before the holiday with the intent that he will not use it on the holiday, he may not change his mind and use it on the holiday. This prohibition is referred to as muktzeh.
Halachah 1:20 states that an egg laid on a holiday following the Sabbath was prepared on the Sabbath, as it were. Therefore it may not be used on the holiday. This prohibition is referred to as nolad. Both of these prohibitions are of Rabbinic origin. Halachah 1:21 states that if such an egg becomes mixed with other eggs, they are all forbidden.
", + "With regard to orlah, mixed species grown in a vineyard, fat, blood, and the like, our Sages fixed a measure [that would enable mixtures to be nullified]. Similarly, our Sages fixed a measure with regard to terumot, for there is no way it can be permitted for all people.34I.e., a mixture of terumah could be eaten in a permitted manner by a priest. Nevertheless, since there is no way it could be permitted to an ordinary person, our Sages were not stringent (Kessef Mishneh).
Both the Kessef Mishneh and the Radbaz ask: It is possible to have to have terumah permitted by making a statement of regret concerning its separation before a wise man. If so, seemingly, it should be considered as an object that could be eaten in a permitted manner. The Radbaz explains that a wise man who can nullify the separation of terumah may not always be found. The Kessef Mishneh states that since this is not the common practice, a substance may not be considered as an object that could be eaten in a permitted manner for this reason.
", + "It appears to me35This term indicates a conclusion deduced by the Rambam without an explicit prior Rabbinic source. There are others, including Rav Yitzchak Alfasi and Rav Moshe HaCohen, who differ and maintain that since the mixture could be eaten in a permitted manner, the above stringencies apply. The Ra'avad, however, states that this concept is explicitly stated in the Mishnah. He does not, however, mention which mishnah. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer different hypotheses as to the Ra'avad's intent and why the Rambam did not accept it. that even there is a factor that will cause a substance to become permitted, if that substance becomes mixed with a substance of a different type and its flavor is not detectable, it is permitted. The fact that there is a factor that will cause the substance to become permitted does not [cause the prohibition to be] more severe than tevel. [For tevel] can be corrected,36By separating the appropriate terumot and tithes. and yet when it [becomes mixed with a substance] of a different type, [it is permitted if] its flavor cannot be detected, as explained.37Halachah 6. One should not raise a question with regard to chametz on Pesach [where such leniency is not granted. A distinction can be made.] For with regard to chametz, the Torah [Exodus 12:20] states: \"Do not eat any leavened substance.\" For this reason, [our Sages] were stringent with regard to it, as we explained.38Halachah 9.", + "These are the measures which the Sages established: Terumah, terumat ma'aser39The terumah which the Levites offer from the tithes they are given. challah, and bikkurim become nullified [when the mixture is] 101 times the [original] amount. [In addition,] one must separate [a portion and give it to a priest].40Although the prohibition is negated, we are still concerned with the fact that property due the priest is not given to him, as stated in Halachah 15. [All of these sacred foods] are combined one with the other.41I.e., as stated in the conclusion of the halachah, if two of these substances fall into the same accumulation of permitted substances, it is necessary to have 100 times their combined size. Similarly, a slice of the showbread becomes nullified when mixed with slices of ordinary bread [if] the mixture is 101 times the original amount.42The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam's ruling here appears to contradict his ruling in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 6:24 where he states that the showbread is not nullified. He explains that in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim, the Rambam is speaking about pieces of the showbread that are ritually pure. Hence the entire mixture should be eaten by the priests. (Note the Radbaz who questions how the priests could eat the mixture.) Here, by contrast, we are speaking about pieces of the showbread that are impure. If the showbread was a significant part of the mixture, the entire mixture would have to be burnt. Since it is not significant, we considered its existence negated.
What is implied? When a se'ah of flour from one of the above43Terumah, terumat ma'aser challah, or bikkurim.- or one se'ah from all of them [combined] - falls into 100 se'ah of ordinary [flour] and [the flour] became mixed together,44If, however, the sacred substances are distinct, they must be separated from the ordinary substances. one should separate one se'ah from the mixture for the se'ah that fell in originally. The remainder is permitted to all people.45It does not have to eaten with attention to the laws of terumah. If it fell into less than 100 se'ah, the entire mixture is meduma.46This term refers to a mixture of terumah or other sacred substances with ordinary substances. The mixture must be sold to priests (at the price of terumah) with the exception of the original sacred amount (Hilchot Terumah 13:2).", + "Orlah and mixed species grown in a vineyard become nullified [when the mixture is] 201 times the [original] amount. The [two prohibitions] are combined one with the other,47Although they are separate and unrelated prohibitions, since it is forbidden to benefit from both of them and we derive the laws pertaining to one from the laws pertaining to the other, we rule that they may be combined (Orlah 2:1). and it is not necessary to separate any thing.48As explained in the following halachah, in this instance, one is not causing the priests a loss.
What is implied? When a revi'it of wine which is orlah or which [came from grapes] grown together with mixed species in a vineyard - or one revi'it was combined from both prohibited substances - falls into 200 revi'iot of wine, the entire mixture is permitted. It is not necessary to separate anything. If it falls into less than 200, it is forbidden to benefit from the entire [mixture].49The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, objecting to the decision that it is forbidden to benefit from the mixture. (He maintains that although partaking of the mixture is forbidden, one should be able to sell it to a gentile with the exception of the value of the forbidden substance. For, he maintains, it is never forbidden to benefit from a mixture that is not inherently forbidden.) The Radbaz justifies the Rambam's view.", + "Why is it necessary to separate [a measure of] terumah and not a measure of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard? Because terumah is the property of the priests. Accordingly, any terumah which the priests are not concerned with, e.g., terumah from [low-grade] figs,50Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 11:4). carobs, and Edomite barley, need not be separated.51For the priests will not be concerned about its loss.", + "Why was the measure doubled for orlah and mixed species grown in a vineyard? Because it is forbidden to benefit from them.52Therefore they were treated more stringently. The Radbaz emphasizes that they are compared to terumah and not to other forbidden substances for the root kodesh is used with regard to them.
Why did [the Sages] choose the figure of 100 for terumot? For terumat ma'aser is one hundredth of the entire crop,53For it is one tenth of a tenth. and yet it causes the entire crop to be \"sanctified,\"54I.e., \"forbidden.\" as [Numbers 18:29] states: \"its sacred part.\"55As the Rambam continues to explain, the Jerusalem Talmud (Orlah 2:1) offers a non-literal interpretation of this phrase, understanding it as meaning \"the one who sanctifies it.\" Our Sages said: \"An entity which must be separated from it sanctifies it if it returns to it.", + "The measure for all of the other prohibitions of the Torah,56With this wording, the Rambam also eliminates those prohibitions of Rabbinic origin, which have a smaller measure as stated in the following halachah. e.g., the meat of crawling animals, teeming animals, fat, blood, and the like is sixty times [the original amount].
What is implied? When an olive-sized portion of the fat of the kidneys falls into sixty times the size of an olive of the fat from the fat tail, the entire mixture is permitted. If it falls into less than sixty [that amount], the entire mixture is forbidden. Similarly, if a portion of forbidden fat the size of a barley-corn, [the mixture] must contain permitted substances the size of sixty barley-corns.57Although there is not enough of the forbidden substance for a person to be liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, unless there is 60 times the amount of forbidden fat, the mixture is forbidden according to Scriptural Law (see Chulin 98a). Similar [laws apply] with regard to other prohibitions.
Similarly, if the fat of the gid hanesheh falls into a pot of meat,58The prohibitions are considered of the same type, because the taste of the fat is not distinct from that of the meat (Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi to Chulin 98a). we require sixty times its amount. The fat of the gid itself is included in this sum.59As is the law with regard to Rabbinic prohibitions as stated in the following halachah. Although the fat of the gid is prohibited [only] by Rabbinic Law, as we explained,60Chapter 8, Halachah 1. since the gid hanesheh is considered a creation in its own right,61As our Sages ruled [Chulin 100a; Chapter 16, Halachah 6; quoted by Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 100:1)], a forbidden being which is a creation in its own right is never forbidden. Therefore they ruled more stringently. In this instance, the gid hanesheh itself will be removed. Hence the full stringency of our Sages' ruling is not applied, nevertheless, in recognition of the serious of the prohibition involved, this stringency is applied. [our Sages] ruled stringently concerning it as if it was forbidden by Scriptural Law. The gid itself is not measured and it does not cause other substances to be forbidden, because the gid does not impart flavor.62See Chapter 8, Halachah 6.", + "When, by contrast, an udder is cooked with meat, we require sixty times its amount and the udder is considered as part of the sum.63Thus instead of requiring 61 times the forbidden substance (60 plus the substance itself) all that is required is 60 (59 and the substance itself). [The rationale is that] since [the prohibition against] the udder is Rabbinic in origin, [our Sages] were lenient in establishing a measure.64See Chapter 9, Halachot 12-13. As explained in the notes there, the Ra'avad and the Rashba offer a different rationale for this ruling, explaining that since the meat of the udder is acceptable, we include it in the reckoning of 60. Thus in contrast to other instances where 60 times the amount of the forbidden substance is required, here, we require only 59. According to his view, we cannot extrapolate from this ruling to other Rabbinic prohibitions.", + "[The following laws apply when] an egg in which a chick is found65Such an egg is forbidden to be eaten (see Chapter 3, Halachah 8). is cooked together with eggs that are permitted. If there are 61 and it,66I.e., a total of 62. they are permitted. If, however, there are only sixty [permitted eggs], the entire mixture is forbidden. [The rationale is that the chick] is a creation in its own right,67As stated in the notes to the previous halachah, in this instance, the forbidden substance itself will be removed. Hence the full stringency of our Sages' ruling concerning an entity that is a creation in its own right is not applied. Nevertheless, in recognition of the serious of the prohibition involved, this stringency is applied. See the notes to the following halachah where a rationale cited by other authorities is mentioned. [our Sages] made a distinction and added to its [required] measure.", + "If, however, the egg of an non-kosher fowl was cooked together with the eggs of kosher fowl, it does not cause them to become forbidden.68Here we are talking about eggs that are cooked in their shells. When an egg contains a chick, the chick will impart its flavor to the entire pot. When, by contrast, eggs are cooked in their shells, they do not impart flavor (Chulin 97b). The non-kosher egg must be removed from the mixture. This, however, can sometimes be done, because the appearance of non-kosher eggs may differ from that of kosher eggs (Chapter 3, Halachah 18).
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 86:6) differs and states that if a substantial loss will not be caused, we should be stringent and follow the same ruling with regard to all eggs. If, however, there will be a substantial loss, even he counsels to rely on the more lenient views.

If [the eggs were opened and] mixed together or the egg of a non-kosher fowl or the egg of a fowl that is trefe become mixed with other eggs,69For, at times, non-kosher eggs are not distinguishable from kosher eggs (ibid.). the required measure is 60.70I.e., the mixture is judged as an ordinary instance in which kosher food becomes mixed with non-kosher food. According to the Rambam, the non-kosher egg is not a creation that is forbidden in its own right.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 86:5) differs and rules that we require 61 kosher eggs in this instance as well. The Ramban explains that the reason is that not all eggs are the same size and by adding an extra egg, we make certain that we have the necessary amount. (He uses this rationale to explain the law stated in the previous halachah as well.) The Siftei Cohen 86:15 offers a different rationale, stating that an egg itself is considered a creation in its own right.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that there are some who would rule that 60 eggs are not necessary, for there are opinions [see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 109:1)] that when kosher and non-kosher entities are intermingled in a dry mixture, we rely on Scriptural Law and require only a simple majority of the kosher substances. As obvious from this ruling, the Rambam does not accept this leniency.
", + "What is the source because of which the Sages relied on the measure of 60? For the portion given [to the priest] from the ram brought by a Nazirite,71When a Nazirite completes the days of his Nazirite vow, he brings several sacrifices. Among them is a ram brought as a peace offering. The foreleg from this offering is given to the priest and may not be eaten by an ordinary Israelite (Chulin 98a; Hilchot Nazirut 8:1-4).i.e., the foreleg, is one sixtieth of the remainder of the ram. It is cooked together with it and does not cause it to be forbidden,72I.e., although this portion which is forbidden to an Israelite is cooked together with the entire ram, the Israelite is permitted to partake of the remainder of the ram. Accordingly, our Sages inferred that a similar ratio may be used when other prohibited substances are cooked with permitted substances. as [Numbers 6:19] states: \"And the priest shall take the cooked foreleg from the ram.\"", + "[The following rules apply when] two substances of the same type, [one permitted and one forbidden,] and a [third] entity become mixed together, e.g., there was a pot with fat from the fat tail and beans and fat from the kidneys fell into it. The entire [mixture] dissolved and became a single entity. We view the fat from the fat tail and the beans as a single entity and we measure the fat from the kidneys against it. If the ratio was one to sixty, it is permitted. For it is impossible to detect the taste.73Because there is no significant difference between the taste of fat from the fat tail and fat from the kidneys, as indicated by Halachah 4.", + "The same principle applies when terumot are mixed together [with other substances, some of the same type and some of a different type], their measure is 100. And the measure of mixed species from a vineyard and orlah is 200.", + "When we calculate the measure of permitted substances with regard to all prohibitions, whether the measure is 60, 100, or 200, we include the soup, the spices, everything that is in the pot, and what the pot has absorbed after the prohibited substance fell according to our estimation.74I.e., at that time, it absorbed both the permitted substances and the prohibited substance (Radbaz).
In his Kessef Mishneh and in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 99:4), Rav Yosef Caro follows the view of Rashi and the Tur who maintain that we should measure the prohibited substance and the permitted substances as they are at present, for there is no way of knowing how much the pot absorbed. This stringency applies, however, only with regard to forbidden substances mixed with permitted substances of a different type. (For then the prohibition stems from Scriptural Law.) If they are of the same type (when a simple majority is required according to Scriptural Law), the Shulchan Aruch rules more leniently and accepts the Rambam's ruling.
For it is impossible to know the exact amount which the pot absorbed.", + "It is forbidden to nullify a substance75I.e., after a forbidden substance fell into a mixture, one may not add enough permitted substances that there will 60, 100, or 200 times the amount of the forbidden substance. forbidden by Scriptural76If, however, a substance forbidden by Rabbinic Law accidentally fell into a mixture, one may add enough permitted substances to nullify the prohibition, as stated in Halachah 26. Law as an initial and preferred measure. If, however, one nullified it, the mixture is permitted.77Because in fact the presence of the forbidden substance has been nullified. Nevertheless, our Sages penalized such a person and forbade the entire mixture.78The Siftei Cohen 99:11 explains the reason for this penalty. If we would permit him to benefit from it, we fear that if, in the future, such a situation would recur, he would instruct his servants to nullify the prohibited substances for him. It appears to me that since this is a penalty, we forbid this mixture only to the person79Or the person whom he intended to serve after nullifying the forbidden substance. Were this not the case, he would benefit from his undesirable act (Kessef Mishneh). who transgressed and nullified the prohibited substance.80The Rambam's wording implies that the penalty was imposed only when he willfully nullified the existence of the forbidden substance. If he did so accidentally or inadvertently, no prohibition applies, for our Sages did not impose penalties in such situations [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 99:5)]. For others, however, the entire mixture is permitted.", + "What is implied? If a se'ah of orlah falls into 100 se'ah [of permitted produce], the entire [mixture] is forbidden. One should not bring another 100 se'ah and join [the entire quantity] together so that [the forbidden substance] will be nullified because of the presence of 201 times the original amount. If, however, he transgressed and did so, the entire [mixture] is permitted.
With regard to a prohibition forbidden by Rabbinic decree,81This point was not accepted by all authorities. The Ashkenazic authorities (as reflected by the ruling of Rabbenu Asher) maintain that even a Rabbinic prohibition should not be nullified as an initial and preferred measure. The Radbaz proposes an intermediate position: that the stringency should be applied only to Rabbinic prohibitions that have a source in Scriptural Law, e.g., milk and fowl, but not those enacted by the Rabbis entirely on their own initiative. This compromise, however, was not accepted. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 99:6) adopts the Rambam's position, while the Tur and the Rama follow that of Rabbenu Asher. we do nullify a prohibition as an initial and preferred measure.", + "What is implied? If milk fell into a pot that contains fowl and imparted its flavor to the food, one may add other fowl to the pot until the flavor [of the milk] is no longer discernable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "We already explained82Halachah 1. that if a forbidden substance imparts its flavor to a permitted substance, the entire mixture is not permitted. When does the above apply? [When the flavor imparted] improves [the flavor of the permitted food]. If, however, the forbidden substance detracts from the flavor of the permitted substance and impairs it, it is permitted.83Avodah Zarah 66a derives this concept from the statements of Deuteronomy 14:21 concerning the meat of an animal that died without slaughter: \"Give it to the stranger in your gate and he will partake of it.\" Implied is that the prohibition applies only to meat that is fit for a non-Jew to partake of. If it is not fit for the non-Jew to eat, it cannot cause a Jew's food to be forbidden.
See also Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 103:2) which states: \"The impairment of the food's flavor does not have to be complete to the extent that one would be disgusted to eat it. Instead, even if it slightly detracts [from its flavor], it does not cause the mixture to become forbidden.\"

[This applies] provided it detracts from its flavor from the beginning until the end. If, however, it detracted from its flavor at the outset, but ultimately improved it or improved it initially, even though it will ultimately detract from it, [the mixture] is forbidden.84Avodah Zarah, loc. cit. states that if initially, the flavor of a substance is improved by the addition of the forbidden substance, it becomes forbidden. The fact that ultimately the addition detracts from the flavor of the permitted substance is not sufficient to cause it to become permitted again. The Rambam draws the conclusion that ultimately if the flavor of the substance will be improved, it is also prohibited (Kessef Mishneh).
Note, however, the Siftei Cohen 103:7 who states that it is permitted to partake of a mixture after the flavor of the permitted substance was impaired, before it improved, even though one knows that ultimately, it will improve. Based on the wording of the following halachah, however, it is questionable if the Rambam would accept this conclusion.
", + "Who will taste the mixture?85I.e., since there is a question whether the mixture is forbidden or not. If terumot were mixed with ordinary crops, a priest should taste the mixture.86For he is permitted to partake of terumot. If the flavor of the terumah is discernible, the entire mixture is considered as miduma. In Hilchot Terumot,87Chs. 13 and 14. the laws pertaining to [produce that is] miduma will be explained.", + "If [the mixture involved] meat and milk, wine poured as a libation, wine that was orlah, or [made from grapes that grew together with] mixed species in a vineyard that fell into honey, or the meat of crawling animals or teeming animals that were cooked with vegetables and the like, a gentile should taste [the mixture].
We rely on his word.88There is a difficulty with the Rambam's statements, for generally, we do not rely on the word of a gentile with regard to ritual matters. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 98:1) relies on the opinion of the Rashba quoted by the Tur, that this refers to a situation where the gentile does not know that we are relying on him, but instead makes his statements as a matter of course (masiach lifi tomo).
See also the Turei Zahav 98:2 and the Siftei Cohen 98:2 who quote views which state that an ordinary gentile is not sufficient, but instead, the intent is a gentile chef who is an expert on recognizing flavors. According to some, however, this interpretation leads to a leniency. For since he is a professional, he will not risk his professional reputation by lying to mislead a Jew. Hence, according to these views, his statements can be accepted even if they are made in response to direct questions and not as a matter of course. There are, nevertheless, authorities who differ and require even a chef to make his statements as a matter of course. Moreover, there are authorities (among them, the Radbaz and the Rama) who never accept the statements of a gentile with regard to these matters.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 98:1) states that in the present age, we do not rely on the statements of a non-Jew who tasted food to determine whether it is kosher or not.
If he says: \"It does not have the flavor [of the forbidden substance],\" or he says: \"It [imparted] its flavor, but that flavor is bad and it detracts [from the flavor of the permitted substance,\" the entire [mixture] is permitted, provided it will not ultimately improve it, as we explained.89Halachah 28. If there is no gentile to taste it, we rely on the measures of 60,90For it is an accepted principle that the taste of a forbidden substance will be nullified in more than 60 times its volume. 100, or 200.91This refers to mixtures of terumot, orlah, and mixed species in a vineyard. The ruling is, however, problematic. For if we are speaking about a mixture of these substances together with different substances, then 60 times their volume will be sufficient. For the taste of all substances except spices is nullified in 60 times their volume as stated in the previous note. And if we are speaking about a mixture of substances with their own kind, the taste of the forbidden substance will not be detectable.", + "When a rat falls into beer or vinegar, we require a measure of 60, for we suspect that it imparted its flavor to the beer or the vinegar and it improves it.92Avodah Zarah 68b leaves unresolved the question whether the rat's flavor detracts from the flavor of beer and vinegar. Hence we rule stringently.When, however, it falls into wine, oil, or honey,93These substances are not mentioned by the Talmud, loc. cit., but it is common knowledge that the rat's flavor will detract from their own, as the Rambam explains (Kessef Mishneh). it is permitted, even if it imparts its flavor, for the [rat's] flavor detracts [from the flavor of these substances]. For [these substances] must all have a pleasant fragrance and rat meat spoils their aroma and detracts from their flavor.", + "When a goat is roasted in its fat, it is forbidden to eat from even the tip of its ear. [The rationale is that] the fat permeates through all its limbs, improves [their taste], and imparts flavor. Accordingly, if [a goat] is lean and possessed only a meager amount of fat on its kidneys and digestive organs,94These are prohibited by Scriptural Law. i.e., one in sixty-one [of the entire animal], one may cut away [the meat] and eat it95In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro states that, according to the Rambam, one may partake of the meat as it is. He need not scrape off or cut away its surface (kelipah or netilah). In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 105:5), however, he rules according to the perspective of Rabbenu Asher, the Rashba, the Ran, and the Tur who maintain that the outer layer of the meat next to the fat itself must be cut away.
See also the ruling of the Rama (Yoreh De'ah, loc. cit.) that at present, we are not capable of differentiating which fat is considered succulent and which is considered lean. Hence, we require 60 times the amount of forbidden fat in all instances.
until he reaches the fat.
Similarly, when the thigh [of an animal] is roasted96The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that the leniency mentioned by the Rambam applies only when the animal is roasted with its gid or with the forbidden tissues. If it is cooked, more stringent rules apply. together with the gid hanesheh, one may cut away [the meat] and eat it until he reaches the gid [hanesheh].97Although the fat of the gid hanesheh is prohibited, there is not enough fat to cause the other limbs of the animal to become prohibited (Kessef Mishneh). Nevertheless, one must cut away the outer layer of the meat next to the gid. [This], he should cast away. Similarly, if an animal was roasted whole without removing the forbidden strands of tissue and membranes, one may cut away [the meat] and eat it.98In this instance as well, there is not a significant enough quantity of fat to cause the meat to become forbidden. When he reaches a forbidden substance, he should cast it away. There is no need to calculate the ratio [of this forbidden tissue to the meat,] for this [forbidden] tissue does not impart flavor.", + "One should not roast ritually slaughtered meat with the meat of a nevelah or the meat of a non-kosher species in one oven, even though they do not touch each other.99The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 108:1) quotes the Rambam's ruling forbidding roasting the two in the same oven, but allows for certain leniencies, e.g., the oven is very large or the substances are covered. If one roasted them together, [the kosher meat] is permitted. [This applies] even if the forbidden meat was very succulent and the permitted meat was lean. For an aroma does not cause a substance to become forbidden; only the flavor of a forbidden substance does.", + "When the meat of a ritually slaughtered animal100It appears that the kosher meat was unsalted. If, however, it were salted, it would not absorb the juices of the non-kosher meat, as indicated by the principle: \"One that is involved in discharging its own juices does not absorb from another\" (Radbaz). was mixed together101The commentaries note an apparent contradiction to the Rambam's rulings in Chapter 7, Halachot 17-19. The Radbaz explains that there, both the forbidden and the kosher substances were salted, while here the kosher meat was not. The Kessef Mishneh explains that here the two pieces of meat are mixed together, while there the substances were merely near each other. with the meat of a nevelah that was salted, the [kosher] meat becomes prohibited,102In this halachah, the Rambam is communicating the principle stated by Chulin 111b et al that meat which is salted is considered as if it is burning hot. It emits concentrated juices which are absorbed by other meat. for the concentrated [juices] of the nevelah are absorbed in the kosher meat. It is impossible to detect their flavor or to calculate the quantity of the forbidden substance.103I.e., no matter what the ration of the kosher meat to the non-kosher meat, the mixture is forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 70:3-4) follows the more lenient views of Rabbenu Asher, the Rashba, and the Ran who maintain that only the external surface of the kosher meat becomes forbidden. Once it is peeled off, the meat is permitted.

When the meat of a unsalted species of kosher fish was mixed together with the meat of a species of unkosher fish that was salted, the [kosher] fish becomes prohibited because of the [non-kosher] brine. If, however, it was the kosher fish that was salted and the non-kosher fish was unsalted, the salted fish does not become forbidden. For even though the unsalted [fish] absorbs [the brine] of the salted one, it does not absorb it to the degree that it will cause it to discharge [its own brine].
When a non-kosher fish was pickled with a kosher fish, the entire mixture is forbidden unless the ratio of kosher fish to non-kosher is 200:1.104For pickling is considered equivalent to cooking. Fish brine is considered as very powerful. Hence it requires a much larger measure than ordinary non-kosher substances. See Rav Kapach's notes to the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Terumot 10:8) where he writes that the Rambam changed his mind three times on this issue, twice stating more stringent views than the one stated here, before writing this view as his final conclusion." + ], + [ + "All the above measures given by our Sages with regard to a forbidden substance being mixed with a permitted substance of the same type apply when the forbidden substance is not a leavening agent, a spice, or an important entity that is discrete and is not mixed together with or blended with the permitted substance.1I.e., it does not become mixed with the forbidden substances into a single blend, nevertheless, it cannot be distinguished from the kosher substances. If, however, [the forbidden substance] is a leavening agent, a spice, or an important entity, even the slightest amount of it causes [the entire mixture] to be forbidden.2The presence of the forbidden substance is never nullified no matter how great the ratio between it and the permitted substances. Needless to say, this stringency was instituted by Rabbinic degree. As mentioned above, according to Scriptural Law, a simple majority is sufficient to nullify the presence of an entity.", + "What is implied? When yeast from wheat that is terumah falls into a dough of ordinary wheat [flour] and it is of sufficient quantity3If, however, there is not enough to cause the dough to leaven, it is not considered a leavening agent and its presence can be nullified [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 2:6-7)]. to cause the dough to leaven, the entire dough is considered as having been mixed with terumah.4And must be sold to a priest at the price of terumah. Similarly, if spices that are terumah fall into a pot of ordinary food [containing] the same substance,5If, however, they do not contain the same substance, according to the Rambam (loc. cit.), we see if their flavor can be detected or not. If it cannot be detected, the mixture is permitted. when [the forbidden spices] are of sufficient quantity to season [the dish], the entire [dish] is considered as having been mixed with terumah. This applies even if the ration between the yeast and the spices [to the permitted substances] is 1:1000.
Similarly, if yeast from mixed species grown in a vineyard fall into a dough or spices of orlah fall into a pot, it is forbidden to benefit from the entire [mixture].", + "Even the smallest amount of an important entity [that is forbidden] can cause a mixture of its own type to become forbidden. The seven entities that follow are considered as important: nuts from Perach,6Perach and Baden are names of places. These and the following terms are defined in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 3:8). pomegranates from Baden, sealed barrels,7The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 134:2) states that this applies only when the barrels are large and therefore important. A small barrel is not important and its presence can be nullified by a simple majority. beet shoots, cabbage heads, Greek squash, and loaves baked by a private person.8In contrast to those baked by a baker.", + "What is implied? If one pomegranate from Baden that was orlah became mixed with several thousand other pomegranates, it is forbidden to benefit from the entire mixture.9I.e., all the pomegranates are considered as if they are the pomegranate that is orlah.
The Radbaz mentions opinions that state that one may throw away the value of the forbidden pomegranate, but then benefit from the entire mixture. He, however, brings support for the Rambam's position.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 101:1) appears to support the Rambam's ruling. Note, however, the comments of the Siftei Cohen 110:2 who writes that even though a Jew may not benefit from any one of the forbidden pomegranates himself, he may sell the entire mixture to a gentile, minus the price of the forbidden pomegranate. See also the notes to Halachah 7.
Similarly, if a sealed barrel of wine that is orlah or that is a product of mixed species from a vineyard that became mixed with several thousand sealed barrels, it is forbidden to benefit from the entire quantity.", + "Similarly, when a piece of meat from a nevelah or from a non-kosher species of animal, beast, fowl, or fish become mixed with several thousand other pieces of meat, the entire mixture is forbidden until one separates that piece of meat and makes certain that there is sixty times its measure.10This refers to an instance when the forbidden piece of meat was cooked with the other pieces. For if one does not separate [the forbidden piece of meat], it will continue to be present and it will not have changed.11If its form changes, different rules apply, as apparent from Halachah 11. And this piece of meat is important to him, for he receives honor [by serving it] to guests.12The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 109:1) state that if a piece of meat is not of the type that will bring a person respect by serving it to guests, the stringency mentioned in this halachah does not apply.
Tosafot (Chulin 100a) explains that even though in practice, the piece of meat will not bring honor to the person - because since it is forbidden, he cannot serve it - it is placed in this category, for were it not to be forbidden, it would bring him honor.
", + "The same laws apply with regard to a piece of meat [cooked] with milk13There is an important insight associated with this ruling. The stringency relating to a piece of meat from which one receives honor applies only when the meat is inherently forbidden. When, however, a piece of kosher meat falls into a stew of non-kosher meat, it is not considered a piece of meat from which one receives honor, for it is not inherently forbidden. What is forbidden is the flavor of the non-kosher meat and that flavor is not a substance from which one receives honor.
This does not apply with regard to milk and meat. Although it is absorbing the milk that causes the meat to be considered forbidden, once it absorbs that milk, it becomes inherently forbidden. For both of the substances are themselves permitted, it is their mixture that is forbidden by the Torah (Radbaz).
or an ordinary animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, for it is forbidden to benefit from [the latter] according to Rabbinic decree,14I.e., this stringency is applied even though we are speaking only about a Rabbinic prohibition (Kessef Mishneh). as will be explained in Hilchot Shechitah.15Chapter 2, Halachah 3. Even the slightest amount of them causes [a mixture] to become forbidden until they are removed.
Similarly, when a gid hanesheh was cooked with other similar tissue or with meat, when it can be recognized, it should be removed and the remainder is permitted. For giddim do not impart flavor.16The Lechem Mishneh states that this is speaking about a situation when the gid hanesheh was cooked without its fat. Otherwise, 60 times its volume is required, for the fat does impart flavor. If one cannot recognize it, the entire mixture is forbidden. For [the gid hanesheh is considered as a created being in its own right.17The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 100:1) gives the following criteria for a creation in its own right: It must be alive, in contrast to a kernel of wheat. It must be inherently forbidden, in contrast to a kosher fowl that was slaughtered improperly. It must be a complete entity to the extent that were it to be divided it would no longer be referred to with that name in contrast to non-kosher fat. And it must actually be whole, in contrast to a gid hanesheh that was cut in half. Hence, it is significant; no matter how small it is, it causes [a mixture] to become forbidden.18This principle applies with regard to all entities that are creations in their own right. Until they are removed, the mixture is forbidden regardless of the ratio of kosher to nonkosher substances. Once they are removed, the ratio must be 60:1 (ibid.:2).", + "Similarly, all living animals are significant and they never become nullified. Therefore, if an ox sentenced to be stoned to death19An ox sentenced to execution for goring a human being. See Chapter 4, Halachah 22. becomes intermingled with 1000 oxen, a calf whose neck is to be broken20This calf is an atonement offering brought by the elders of a city when there is an unresolved murder. See Hilchot Rotzeach , ch. 9. becomes intermingled with 1000 calves, a dove selected for a metzora21Tzara'at refers to a unique affliction of the skin resembling leprosy that afflicted a person because of he spoke lashon hora, unfavorable gossip. When the physical signs of his affliction have disappeared, the person must bring two doves as sacrifices. One is slaughtered and one is sent away, as stated in Hilchot Tumat Tzara'at 11:1. It is forbidden to benefit from the one that is slaughtered. becomes intermingled with 1000 doves, or a firstborn donkey22A firstborn donkey must either be either exchanged for a lamb and the lamb given to a priest or the donkey's neck must be broken (Exodus 13:13; Hilchot Bikkurim, ch. 12). becomes intermingled with 1000 donkeys, it is forbidden to benefit from any of them.23The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, stating that all that is necessary is to destroy the benefit one would receive from one of the forbidden entities. The benefit from the remainder is permitted. The Kessef Mishneh points to Halachah 29 as indication that the Rambam would also accept the ruling stated by the Ra'avad. The Migdal Oz differs and maintains that the Rambam would not accept that ruling. As mentioned above, the Siftei Cohen 101:2 defends the position of the Kessef Mishneh, stating that the Rambam would allow one to sell the entire mixture to a gentile, minus the price of the forbidden article. With regard to other entities, even though it is customary to [sell] them by number,24The Tur and the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 110:1) cite the view of other Rishonim who state that whenever an article is always sold by number, not by a package, its presence is never nullified. they can be nullified according to the ordinary measures.", + "What is implied?25I.e., what is an example of an article that is sold by number being nullified. When a bundle of vegetables that come from mixed species grown in a vineyard are mixed with 200 bundles or an esrog which is orlah is mixed with 200 esrogim, the entire quantity is permitted. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "It appears to me that every article that is significant to the inhabitants of a given place as nuts from Perach and pomegranates from Baden were significant in Eretz Yisrael in [the Talmudic] era causes a mixture to be forbidden if even the slightest amount becomes mixed in because of its importance in that time and in that era. The particular entities [referred to above] were mentioned because the slightest amount of them causes a mixture to be forbidden in every place. The same laws apply to articles similar to them in other places. It is clear that all of these prohibitions stem from Rabbinic decree.26For according to Scriptural Law, a substance mixed with substances of the same type are forbidden when there is a majority of the permitted substance. When mixed with substances of a different type, they are nullified when the taste can no longer be detected.", + "If one pomegranate from a mixture [of pomegranates including a forbidden pomegranate from Baden] falls into two other [permitted] pomegranates from Baden and then one of these three pomegranates fell into other pomegranates, the latter mixture is permitted. [The rationale is that the presence of] the pomegranate from the first mixture [which fell into the second mixture] is nullified because of the majority of permitted substances.27I.e., according to Scriptural Law; according to Rabbinic Law, both the first and the second mixtures are forbidden. If, however, [a pomegranate] from the first mixture falls into 1000 pomegranates, they are all forbidden.28For with regard to each of the pomegranates in the second mixture, there is a question if it is forbidden by Scriptural Law or not (Radbaz).
The Radbaz notes that the Rambam's ruling here appears to contradict his ruling in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 7:10 where the Rambam rules that if a goblet used for idol worship becomes mixed with other goblets and then one from the first mixture falls into a second mixture, one may use the goblets of the second mixture. The Radbaz maintains that with this ruling, the Rambam changed his mind and adopted a more stringent position.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam rules more stringently in this instance than with regard to idol worship because the prohibition against idol worship is universally known. The prohibition against benefiting from a significant entity, by contrast, is less recognized. Therefore there is need for greater stringency. Alternatively, here the Rambam is speaking about partaking of the forbidden mixture, while in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, he is speaking about benefiting from the mixture. Obviously, there is greater reason to prohibited a substance from which one partakes.
The position followed by the Rambam in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim is followed by other Rishonim even with regard to a significant entity. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 110:8) quotes the Rambam's view and the Rama adds further stringencies. The Turei Zahav 110:10 and the Siftei Cohen 110:3 mention the more lenient views.
[The concept that the presence of the forbidden pomegranate] was nullified because of the majority of permitted substances only when there is a multiple doubt involved:29Perhaps the pomegranate that fell from the first mixture into the second mixture was not forbidden by Scriptural Law. Even if it was forbidden, perhaps the pomegranate that fell from the second mixture was not forbidden by Scriptural Law. Thus there is a multiple doubt if an entity forbidden by Scriptural Law is present. i.e., that if one of the second mixture will fall into another place, it does not cause [that third mixture] to become forbidden. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "If the nuts that were forbidden because of the nut that was orlah intermingled with them were cracked open, the pomegranates were taken apart, the barrels were opened, the squash was cut, or the bread was sliced after they became forbidden, [the presence of the forbidden entity] can be nullified if there is 201 times its volume.30As required with regard to the prohibitions of orlah and mixed species in a vineyard. I.e., the stringency of a significant article no longer applies, because the entities are no longer whole and in their present form, they are not significant. This law also applies with regard to a piece of forbidden meat31Which would be forbidden because one derives honor from serving it as stated in Halachah 5. Once it has been minced, the meat is no longer a piece from which one would derive honor [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah101:6)]. that is minced together with other pieces and they are all [minced] in the same way, [the presence of the forbidden entity] can be nullified if there is 60 times its volume.", + "It is, however, forbidden to crack the nuts, take apart the pomegranates, open the barrels after they have become forbidden so that [the presence of the forbidden entity] can be nullified if there is 201 times its volume. For, as an initial and preferred measure, we do not nullify the presence of an entity.32The commentaries question the Rambam's statement, noting that in Chapter 15, Halachah 26, the Rambam states that we may nullify the presence of a substance forbidden by Rabbinic Law. Since the prohibition against these mixtures is Rabbinic in origin, seemingly, it would be possible to nullify their presence. If one does so, we penalize him and forbid [the entity] to him, as explained.33See Chapter 15, Halachah 25.", + "[The following rule applies when] yeast that comes from mixed species in a vineyard and from terumah falls into dough and there is not enough of either of [the forbidden substances] alone to cause the dough to rise, but when the two are combined, there is enough to cause the dough to rise. This dough is forbidden to an Israelite, but permitted to the priests.34As mentioned in Halachah 1, if an entity is sufficient to cause a dough to leaven or to spice a pot, its presence can never be nullified. Although neither forbidden entity on its own is large enough to bring about this change, when the two are combined, this result is achieved. Therefore an Israelite is forbidden to partake of the dough or the pot. With regard to a priest, by contrast, since terumah is not forbidden to him, we do not say that an article forbidden to him brought about this change. For the mixed species alone is not of sufficient size. Hence, he is permitted to partake of the bread or the cooked food.
Similarly, when spices that come from terumah and from mixed species in a vineyard fall into a pot and there is not enough of either of [the forbidden substances] to spice the pot, but together there is enough of both of them to spice the pot, that pot is forbidden to an Israelite - for an entity forbidden to him spice it - and permitted to the priests.", + "When there are two or three types of the same species of spice or three species of the same type, they can be combined to cause a pot to be forbidden when they spice it or when [a similar type mixture] causes dough to leaven.
What is implied? Yeast from wheat and yeast from barley are not considered as being two separate substances. Instead, since the category yeast is the same, they are considered as one substance and they can be combined to measure to see if they are sufficient to cause a dough of wheat to leaven if their combined flavor is that of wheat35If the combined flavor is not that of wheat, the dough does not become forbidden, because the yeast is considered as giving a different flavor to the dough. Hence the dough is forbidden only of that flavor is detectable.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, offering a different interpretation of Avodah Zarah 65a, the Rambam's source. Significantly, their disagreement is mirrored by similar difference in interpretation by Rashi and Tosafot. Rashi and the Rambam follow one approach and Tosafot and the Ra'avad, the other.
or to cause a dough of barley to leaven if their combined flavor is that of barley.", + "What is meant by three species of the same type? For example, river parsley, parsley that grows in meadows, and parsley that grows in gardens. Although each of them has a distinct name, since they are of one type, they can be combined to [cause a dish to be forbidden if they] spice [it].", + "[The following rules apply when] yeast that is terumah or from mixed species from a vineyard falls into dough that is already leavened or spices that are terumah or from mixed species from a vineyard fall into a pot that has already been spiced. If there is enough [of the forbidden] yeast to cause the dough to leaven if it had been unleavened or there is enough of the spices to spice the pot had it been unspiced, the entire mixture is forbidden.36Although in actual fact the forbidden yeast or spices did not have an effect, because the dough leavened and the pot was spiced without them. Nevertheless, since they could have had an effect, they cause the dish to become forbidden.
Avodah Zarah 68a notes that when a dough is already leavened, adding yeast will spoil its flavor. Hence, seemingly, it should not be forbidden. Nevertheless, an exception is made with regard to dough, for when extra yeast is added to dough, that dough is then used to cause other doughs to leaven. Hence, it is not considered to be spoiled.
The Ra'avad understands the emphasis of the passage from Avodah Zarah differently and objects to the Rambam's ruling. He note that Avodah Zarah does not mention spices; the Rambam added those on the basis of his logic. And the Ra'avad, argues, that logic can be disputed. For the addition of yeast to the dough has an effect as explained. The addition of the spices, by contrast, have no effect - for the pot was already spiced. Why then do they cause the pot to be forbidden?
The Lechem Mishneh answers, that even according to the Ra'avad's understanding, the Rambam's logic can be defended, for the food from the heavily spiced pot could be used to spice other pots.
If they are of sufficient size to spice [the pot] or cause [the dough] to leaven, their presence can be nullified according to the required measure: terumah when [the mixture] is 101 times [the size of the forbidden substance] and mixed species in a vineyard when [the mixture] is 201 times [the size of the forbidden substance].", + "Terumah can [help] cause orlah and mixed species from a vineyard to be nullified.
What is implied? When a se'ah of terumah falls into 99 [se'ah of] ordinary produce and afterwards, a half se'ah of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard falls into the entire mixture, the prohibition against orlah or mixed species in a vineyard does not apply.37The mixture is, however, forbidden to Israelites and permitted only to priests, for the presence of the terumah is not nullified. For it is nullified because of the presence of 201 times [the size of the forbidden substance] even though a portion of the 201 is terumah.38This and the following halachah represent the Rambam's interpretation of Orlah 2:2 which is based on the Jerusalem Talmud.", + "Similarly, orlah and mixed species from a vineyard can [help] cause terumah to be nullified.
What is implied? When 100 se'ah of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard fall into 20,000 se'ah of ordinary produce, the entire mixture is thus 20,100 se'ah.39I.e., the presence of the orlah or the mixed species from the vineyard are nullified. Afterwards, a se'ah of terumah fell into every 100 se'ah, the entire [mixture] is permitted and the presence of the terumah is nullified because of the presence of 101 times [the original amount of terumah].40This example is the product of the Rambam's own deduction. Although the simple interpretation of Orlah, loc. cit., would imply that the concept stated in this halachah could also be derived from the situation described in the previous halachah, it does not work out mathematically. Hence, the Rambam had to find a new example. [This applies] even though part of the 100 that nullify its presence are orlah or mixed species from a vineyard.", + "Similarly, orlah may [help] nullify mixed species from a vineyard and mixed species from a vineyard may [help] nullify orlah. Mixed species from a vineyard may [help] nullify [the presence of other] mixed species from a vineyard and orlah may [help] nullify [the presence of other] orlah.
What is implied? 200 se'ah of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard fall into 40,000 se'ah of ordinary produce.41The prohibition is thus nullified because the ratio of permitted to forbidden substances is 200:1.
The Ra'avad criticizes the Rambam, questioning why he uses extremely large numbers. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam's figures enable all the calculations to be made without fragments.
Afterwards,42I.e., after it was discovered that the forbidden substance had fallen into the permitted substances. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 5:8). a se'ah of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard fell into each of the 200 se'ah of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard, the entire mixture is permitted. Since the presence of the forbidden substance that fell into [the mixture] originally was nullified, the entire [mixture] is considered as ordinary produce that is permitted.43Thus despite the fact that it contains produce that was originally forbidden, the entire quantity may be used to nullify the presence of the second measure of forbidden produce that falls in.
The rationale for this leniency is that according to Scriptural Law, the entire measure is permitted when there is a simple majority of forbidden substances.
", + "A garment that was dyed with shells of orlah44In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 1:8), the Rambam quotes the Sifra (Parshat Kedoshim) which teaches that since it is forbidden to benefit from Orlah, it is also forbidden to use it as a dye. The Rambam emphasizes that, accordingly, this applies, not only to fruit which is orlah, but also to the shells from which dye is made. In his notes to the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Rav Kapach cites a responsa from the Rambam from which it appears that this applies only to shells because they serve a fruit. It is not forbidden to make dye from the wood or the bark of a tree that is orlah. See Halachah 24 and notes. should be burnt.45Since the substance from which the dye comes is forbidden, the entire article becomes forbidden. If it became intermingled with others, [its presence] may be nullified when there are 201 times the original amount.46The Rambam's wording - and hence, our translation - implies that one may cause the presence of the forbidden garment to be nullified by adding 200 other garments to it. The Radbaz explains that the mixture is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law. As stated in Chapter 15, Halachah 26, as an initial and preferred option, one may add a sufficient quantity of permitted substances to nullify the presence of a substance forbidden by Rabbinic Law. Note, however, the glosses of the Tosafot Yom Tov and Rav Kapach to Orlah 3:1, that do not accept this interpretation and state that one may not nullify the prohibition as an initial and preferred option. Similarly, when a dish was cooked or a loaf of bread baked with the shells of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard, the dish or the bread must be burnt, for the benefit [from the forbidden substance] is evident.47See Halachah 22. If it became intermingled with others, [its presence] may be nullified when there are 201 times the original amount.", + "Similarly, when milo hasit48In his notes to the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 3:2), Rav Kapach elaborates on the definition of this term, concluding that it is equal to two thumbbreadths. This is also reflected in the Rambam's ruling, Hilchot Shabbat 9:18. of a garment was dyed with [a dye that is] orlah, and [that garment] cannot be identified, [its presence] may be nullified when there are 201 times the original amount.49I.e., if the entire garment is not 201 times the size of the portion dyed with the forbidden dye. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that this law teaches us that if even a small portion of a garment is dyed with forbidden dye, the entire garment may become forbidden. If powdered dye that is orlah becomes mixed with powdered dye that is permitted, [its presence] may be nullified when there are 201 times the original amount. When liquid dye that is orlah becomes mixed with liquid dye that is permitted, its presence is nullified when there is a majority [of the permitted substance].50The Radbaz explains that a more lenient ruling is issued in this instance, because:
a) Here there is no substance that is forbidden, it is only the color that comes from the forbidden dye that is problematic. A differentiation can be made between this instance and the previous laws, for in those instances, the forbidden dye has already become permanently associated with a substance.
b) In this instance, the majority of the dyeing will result from the permitted dye. The effect of the prohibited dye is secondary.
", + "When an oven has been heated with shells of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard, it must be cooled off [before cooking in it]. [This applies] to both a new and an old [oven]. Afterwards, one should heat [the oven] with permitted wood.51If so, it is then permitted to use even a new oven. Heating a new oven with the shells of orlah completes the task of fashioning the oven. Thus there is reason to say that since it was completed in a forbidden manner, the oven itself would be forbidden. Nevertheless, when permitted fuel is used even for such an oven, the products are permitted. The rationale is that they are produced by two substances: the oven which is forbidden and the fuel which is permitted. Whenever there are two factors involved, one permitted and one forbidden, the result is permitted to be used (Pesachim 26b). We do not require the oven to be destroyed, for the oven is not inherently forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).
One might ask: If so, why is an oven that is heated with shells that are orlah forbidden to be used. Here also there are two factors involved, the oven which is permitted and the fuel which is forbidden. It is possible to explain that the leniency of allowing to use the yield produced by a forbidden and a permitted substance only after the fact. In this instance, cooling the oven provides an easy alternative (Radbaz).
If one cooked in it before it was cooled, whether bread or food, it is forbidden to benefit from it. [The rationale is that] the forbidden wood increased the value of the bread or the food.52One might ask, since the oven is permitted, even though the fuel is forbidden, there is both a permitted and a forbidden factor producing this result. Why, then, is the food forbidden? It is possible to explain that since the fire which is forbidden is evident and apparent, we rule stringently (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).
If one removed the entire fire53As indicated by the Halachah 24, this applies even if there are still glowing coals in the oven. and then cooked or baked with the heat of the oven [that remained], it is permitted, for the forbidden wood is no longer present.54One might ask: In the case of a new oven, since both factors - the oven and the fuel - are forbidden. Nevertheless, it appears that according to the Rambam, removing the fire is sufficient for the food to be permitted. For the oven itself is not inherently forbidden, it was only completed in a forbidden manner (Kessef Mishneh).", + "It is forbidden to benefit from plates, cups, pots, and bottles that were fired by a potter with shells of orlah. [The rationale is] they are made new by an object from which it is forbidden to benefit.55Since the fuel used to fire the kitchenware is the primary element in completing them, they are forbidden. The Turei Zahav 142:7 explains that here we are speaking about kitchenware on which food is served cold. Since the kitchenware was made in a forbidden manner, it is forbidden to benefit from it. If, however, a pot was fired with forbidden fuel and then used to cook kosher food, that food would be permitted as is the law concerning a new oven. The Meiri (in his gloss to Pesachim 26b), however, explains that if one cooks food with a pot forbidden because of these factors, the food is forbidden.", + "When bread was baked on coals from wood56The Radbaz emphasizes that here, too, we are speaking about shells from fruit that is orlah. The wood of a tree never becomes forbidden as orlah. that is orlah, it is permitted. Once [the wood] becomes coals, the forbidden dimension is no longer present, even though they are still glowing.57For once the wood is consumed by fire, it is no longer considered forbidden. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:13 which states that it is permitted to benefit from the ashes of substances that are forbidden and required to be burnt.
When a pot was cooked with shells from orlah or mixed species from a vineyard together with permitted wood,58As evident from the continuation of the Rambam's statements, this applies when the permitted fuel was added after the forbidden fuel. Implied is that were the two fuels mixed together at the outset, the dish would be permitted. the food [cooked in it] is forbidden, even though [it was cooked by two factors, one forbidden and one permitted]. [The rationale is] that at the time it was cooked with the forbidden wood, the permitted wood had not been introduced. Thus part of the cooking process was performed with permitted wood and part with forbidden wood.59The Kessef Mishneh gives two interpretations for this halachah. Our translation follows the first interpretation. The Kessef Mishneh, however, questions that interpretation, stating that seemingly, the fact that the pot in which the food was cooked was permitted would add another permitted factor and thus the food was never cooked in a totally forbidden setting. He therefore offers another interpretation, stating that here the Rambam is speaking about firing the pot in which the food was cooked. First it was fired with forbidden fuel, then it was fired with permitted fuel, and then food was cooked in it with permitted fuel. Since it was originally fired with forbidden fuel, it becomes forbidden and any food cooked in it is likewise prohibited. The Turei Zahav 142:9 favors the first interpretation, explaining that the situation resembles food cooked in an oven with forbidden fuel.", + "When a plant that is orlah becomes mixed together with other plants or a row of mixed species from a vineyard became mixed with other rows,60I.e., it was known that one plant or row was forbidden, but one was not able to identify the forbidden plant. It is somewhat difficult to conceive how a row of crops could not be recognized as mixed species growing in a vineyard. at the outset, one should gather all [the produce].61Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 1:6), the Rambam rules that at the outset, it is forbidden to gather this produce. The leniency stated in this halachah applies only after the fact. The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam changed his mind, because the more lenient opinion is mentioned in the Talmud (Gittin 54b). If [the ratio of] permitted plants to forbidden plants was 200:1 or the ratio of forbidden rows to permitted ones is 200:1, everything that was gathered is permitted. If the ratio was less than this, all that was gathered is forbidden.
[One might ask:] Why is one permitted to gather [the produce] at the outset? Seemingly, the law should require that everything be forbidden for him until he undertakes the difficulty of removing the forbidden plant or row.62I.e., perhaps we should ordain a decree, forbidding benefit from the entire field, lest one intentionally mix a forbidden orlah plant into his vineyard. [It can be explained that that] a person will not cause his vineyard to be forbidden because of one plant.63Hence we do not fear that he will introduce a forbidden plant into the vineyard. Were he to be able to identify it, he would remove it.64I.e., we do not fear that he left the orlah plant intentionally.
In Hilchot Terumot 13:12, the Rambam rules more stringently with regard to terumah. A distinction between the two instances can be made, for terumah may be eaten by priests, while orlah is forbidden to everyone.
", + "It is forbidden to benefit from cheese that is made to harden using the syrup of orlah fruit that has not ripened,65In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 1:7), the Rambam states that it is common to use the white syrup that drips from underdeveloped figs as a catalyst to cause cheese to harden. the stomach66I.e., using the renin as a catalyst. of an animal offered as a sacrifice to false divinities, or vinegar made from the wine of a false divinity. Although the forbidden entity is being mixed with a substance of another type and a very small amount is used, [the cheese] is forbidden for [the effect of] the forbidden entity is obvious, for it [caused the milk] to harden into cheese.67See Chapter 3, Halachah 13. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 2:5), the Rambam writes that the laws applying to a catalyst used to make cheese are more severe than those applying to spices and yeast (Halachah 1, for the latter can be nullified when they fall into a substance of another type) for the reason explained above. As the Radbaz explains, even without yeast a dough would be able to be baked and a dish could be served without spices, but without a catalyst, milk would never harden into cheese.", + "The law is that fruit that is orlah or from mixed species from a vineyard should be burnt.68Kiddushin 56b derives this from the exegesis of Deuteronomy 22:9, pen tikadeish, \"lest it become hallowed,\" interpreting it as pen tukad eish, \"lest it be consigned to fire.\" Liquids from [that fruit] should be buried, because it is impossible to burn liquids.", + "When wine that was poured as a libation to idols is mixed with [other] wine, it is forbidden to benefit from the entire mixture regardless of how small [the amount of forbidden wine], as we explained.69Chapter 15, Halachot 6-7.
When does the above apply? When the permitted wine is poured onto a drop of wine that had been poured as a libation.70The Siftei Cohen quotes Rishonim who rule that if a quantity of permitted wine that is 60 times the volume of the forbidden wine falls into the forbidden wine at the same time, the presence of the forbidden wine is nullified. The stringency mentioned by the Rambam applies only when the kosher wine is poured into the forbidden wine little by little. The Siftei Cohen rules that if a severe loss is involved, one may rely on this leniency. If, however, one poured wine that had been poured as a libation from a small bottle71I.e., a bottle from which the wine is poured one drop at a time. into a cistern of wine, its presence is nullified. Even if one poured the entire day, each individual drop becomes nullified, drop after drop.72The Radbaz states that this applies even if the majority of the mixture comes from the forbidden wine. Since each drop was nullified, the entire quantity is permitted. The Siftei Cohen 134:4 differs and requires that the permitted wine be 60 times the volume of the forbidden wine.
According to the Rambam, it is even permitted to drink the wine of the mixture. Rashi (Avodah Zarah 73a) rules that it is permitted to benefit from the wine, drinking it, however, is forbidden. And the Ra'avad rules that it is forbidden even to benefit from it. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 134:1) quotes the Rambam's ruling.

If one pours from a jug,73I.e., a container with a large opening. the entire quantity is forbidden. [This applies] whether one pours permitted wine into forbidden wine or forbidden wine into permitted wine. [This stringency is enforced,] because the column of wine which descends from the large jug [creates a connection].", + "When even the smallest amount of ordinary [gentile] wine is mixed with [Jewish] wine, it is forbidden to drink [the entire mixture].74The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 134:2) rules leniently, stating that in the present era, since it is no longer customary to pour wine as libations to false divinities, one may be lenient and permit the mixture if there is 60 times more kosher wine than forbidden wine, provided the kosher wine is not poured into the forbidden wine in one column. Instead, it should be sold to a gentile in its entirety. The money [paid] for the forbidden wine should be cast into the Dead Sea.75I.e., cast into a place where one will not benefit from it. One may, however, benefit from the remainder of the money.76One may, however, destroy one jug and then benefit from the others - e.g., to use the wine as a dye - for it is possible that one will be benefiting directly from the forbidden wine. The advice suggested by the Rambam, by contrast, allows the Jew to benefit from the remainder of the wine without any possibility of benefiting directly from the forbidden wine.
The advice suggested applies only to jugs, for each jug is a separate entity. It does not apply when wine becomes mixed with wine, as indicated by the previous halachah (Avodah Zarah 74a).

Similarly, if a jug of wine poured as a libation had become intermingled with jugs of [kosher] wine, it is forbidden to drink the entire mixture.77See the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 134:2) who explains that this applies only when the jugs are large and therefore important as mentioned in Halachah 3. Otherwise, the presence of the forbidden jug can be nullified by a simple majority. One may, however, benefit from it, selling the entire mixture to a gentile and casting the money for the [forbidden] jug into the Dead Sea. The same applies with regard to a jug of ordinary [gentile] wine.78Seemingly, this ruling is obvious. The Kessef Mishneh states that it was added to emphasize the stringency that one must destroy the value of the forbidden jug.", + "When water is mixed into wine or wine is mixed into water, [the forbidden entity causes the mixture to be prohibited] if its flavor can be detected, because they are two different types of substances.79As stated in Chapter 15, Halachah 6.
When does the above apply? When the permitted liquid falls into the forbidden liquid. If, however, the forbidden liquid fell into the permitted liquid, the presence of it is nullified, drop after drop, provided it fell from a from a small bottle.80See Halachah 28.
Rav Moshe HaCohen questions how the presence of the forbidden entity can be nullified, since its flavor can be detected. Indeed, when quoting this law, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 134:3) states this leniency applies only when the taste of the forbidden substance cannot be detected.

How is it possible for water to be forbidden? If it was worshipped or if it was offered to a false divinity.", + "[The following law applies when] a pitcher of water fell into a cistern of wine and afterwards,81Avodah Zarah 73a emphasizes that the leniency mentioned in this halachah applies only when the water falls into the wine before the forbidden wine. If the forbidden wine falls in first, the permitted wine becomes prohibited. wine that was poured as a libation fell into it. [Initially,] we consider the permitted wine as if it did not exist,82And thus it is not automatically forbidden. We measure the water in relation to the wine poured as a libation. If it83I.e., the water alone. The permitted wine is not considered, for any amount of the forbidden wine mixed into it would cause the permitted wine to be prohibited. is [of sufficient volume] to nullify the taste of the wine poured as a libation, the water is more abundant than it and it nullifies [the forbidden wine] and the entire [mixture] is permitted.", + "When wine poured as a libation falls on grapes, one should wash them. They are permitted to be eaten.84For the forbidden wine will not have entered them. If the grapes have split open,85And thus the forbidden wine could enter. when the wine imparts its flavor to them, it is forbidden to benefit from them.86They may, however, be sold to a gentile, minus the increase in their value produced by the forbidden wine [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 134:8)].If not, it is permitted to partake of them. [This applies] whether the wine is aged or fresh.87Avodah Zarah 66a emphasizes that even if the fresh wine has the same flavor as the grapes, the grapes are not forbidden. For the wine is considered as a different type of substance.", + "When [forbidden wine] falls on figs, they are permitted, because wine impairs the flavor of figs.88Hence even if it imparts its flavor, the figs are not forbidden. Although the version of Avodah Zarah 5:2 which the Rambam relies on differs from the standard published text of the Mishnah, the Rambam's ruling is accepted as halachah by Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah134:9).", + "When wine poured as a libation falls on wheat, [the wheat] is forbidden to be eaten, but it is permitted to benefit from it. One should not sell it to a gentile, lest he sell it again to a Jew. What should be done instead? He should grind [the wheat] into flour, make it into bread, and sell it to a gentile outside the presence of a Jew.89This is permitted, for the gentile is paying for the bread alone. He is not paying for the wine at all. [In this way,] a Jew will not repurchase it from the gentile,90If, however, the Jew selling a fellow Jew selling bread to the gentile, he might purchase it from him. for the bread of a gentile is forbidden, as will be explained.91Chapter 17, Halachah 9. A Jew will have no way of knowing that this bread was not baked by the gentile. Hence he will refrain from purchasing it from him. In a place where it is customary to purchase bread from gentiles, there is no way of benefiting from the wheat [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 134:11)].
Why do we not check the wheat to see if [the wine imparted] its flavor? Because [the wheat] draws out the wine92As Avodah Zarah 65b states, the kernels of wheat are cracked and this causes them to absorb the wine (Lechem Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.). and it becomes absorbed within it.93The Radbaz emphasizes that the taste of the wine becomes blended in with the taste of the wheat to the extent that it cannot be detected.", + "When wine poured as a libation becomes vinegar94The vinegar is forbidden, as the wine was. and falls into vinegar that comes from beer, even the slightest amount causes it to become forbidden. [The rationale is that] it is considered to have become mixed with the same type of substance, because they are both vinegar.95The fact that originally one was wine and one was beer is not significant.
When wine becomes mixed with vinegar, we see if [the forbidden entity] imparts its flavor.96If it does, the mixture is forbidden. If not, it is permitted. Even if the vinegar originally came from wine, it is considered as a different substance. [This applies] whether [forbidden] vinegar falls into wine97It is not automatically permitted, because vinegar impairs the flavor of wine, for there are some who prefer vinegar to wine (Rashba, as quoted by Turei Zahav 134:8). or [forbidden] wine falls into vinegar." + ], + [ + "When the meat of a nevelah or a crawling animal or teeming animal was cooked in an earthenware pot,1If the pot was made out of metal, it is possible to purge the flavor of the non-kosher food the pot absorbed through hagaalah. This process is not effective with regard to an earthenware pot. one should not cook the meat of a ritually slaughtered animal in that pot on that same day. If he cooked a type of meat [in the pot that day], the dish is forbidden.2Since the dish contains meat and the flavor of the forbidden meat was absorbed in the pot, the laws applying to a forbidden substance mixed with its own type apply. Since we do not know how much of the forbidden substance is absorbed in the pot, we assume that the entire pot is forbidden. For this reason, the Rambam does not mention that if there is 60 times the amount of the forbidden food in the kosher food, the kosher food is permitted. For it is very rare that a pot be able to contain sixty times its own volume (Radbaz). If he cooked another substance in it, [it is forbidden if] its flavor can be detected.3According to the Rambam, it should be tasted by a gentile to determine whether the forbidden flavor is detectable or not, as stated in Chapter 15, Halachah 30. As mentioned, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 98:1) accepts the Rambam's premise, but the Rama states that in the present age, we do not rely on the statements of a non-Jew who tasted food to determine whether it is kosher or not.", + "The Torah forbade only [the use of] a pot that was [cooked with the forbidden substance] on that day.4The meaning of the Rambam's words is not clear. Rashi (Avodah Zarah 75b) interprets the term as meaning \"which has not been left overnight.\" Tosafot, by contrast, states that it means \"that has not been left for 24 hours.\" The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 103:5) follows the latter view. For [in that time,] the flavor of the fat absorbed in the pot had not been impaired.5After that time, however, the flavor is impaired and thus will not cause a substance cooked in the pot to become forbidden.
According to Rabbinic Law, one should never cook in it again.6This is a safeguard less cooking in a pot that had not been used for non-kosher food for a day lead to cooking in one that had been used for non-kosher food that day (Avodah Zarah, loc. cit.). For this reason, one should never purchase used earthenware utensils from gentiles to use them for hot foods, e.g., pots and plates. This applies even when they are coated with lead. If one purchased such a utensil and cooked in it from the second day onward, the food is permitted.7Our Sages did not enforce their decree after the fact. Nevertheless, at the outset, an earthenware pot that was used for non-kosher food may never be used.", + "[The following rules apply when] a person purchases metal or glass dinnerware from a gentile. Utensils that [the gentile] did not use at all should be immersed in the waters of a mikveh. Afterwards, it is permitted to eat and drink with them.8See Halachah 5 regarding the obligation for this immersion.
Utensils that he used for cold [food and drink], e.g., cups, flasks, and pitchers, he should wash them thoroughly9Lest any forbidden food be stuck to them. and immerse them. [Afterwards,] they are permitted. Utensils that he used for hot food: large pots, kettles, and pots used to heat food, should be purged through hagaalah,10This will purge any forbidden food that was absorbed in them. There should be at least one day between the last time a pot was used for non-kosher food and the time when hagaalah is performed. and immersed in the mikveh.11See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 121:2 which discusses what must be done if they were immersed in the mikveh before hagaalah was performed. Afterwards, they are permitted. Utensils that he used by exposing them to fire, e.g., spits and grills, should be exposed to fire12That the forbidden article and the utensil were in direct contact with fire without a medium of water or any other liquid. until they become white-hot and their outer surface falls off.13Only then will the forbidden flavor that was absorbed be purged. They may then be immersed and become permitted for use.", + "How is [the purging process of] hagaalah achieved? A small pot is placed into a large pot and they are filled with water until the smaller one is submerged.14In that way, there will not be any portion of it that is not exposed to the water. Then one must boil it very thoroughly.15I.e., we follow the principle: \"As it absorbed a forbidden flavor, so it purges it.\" Hence boiling it thoroughly will cause any forbidden taste that is absorbed to be purged.
If a large pot was [forbidden],16And thus it would be difficult to submerge it a larger pot. one should place dough or mud along its edge [so that] he could fill it with water so that it will flow over its edge.17And thus the boiling water will also cover the edge.He [then] boils it.
In all instances, if he used them before boiling [water in them for hagaalah], washing them thoroughly, making them white hot, or immersing them, [the food] is kosher. For any fat [absorbed] in them imparts an unpleasant flavor, as explained.18In Halachah 2.", + "The immersion of the dinnerware that is purchased from gentiles to allow it to be used for eating and drinking is not associated with ritual purity and impurity. Instead, it is a Rabbinic decree.19As the Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 5:15) states, this immersion was instituted to mark the article's transition from the impurity of the gentiles.
There is an allusion20Most commentaries understand the Rambam as explaining that the requirement for immersion is an asmachta, i.e., an obligation that is essentially Rabbinic in origin. Although our Sages cited a verse that can be seen to allude to it, the intent is not that the obligation is derived from the verse. Instead, the verse is merely a hint which the Rabbis found to allude to their teaching (Rabbenu Nissim).
There are, however, others who note that the Rambam occasionally employs the term he employs here - midvrei sofrim - to refer to obligations and laws that are of Scriptural origin. They are not explicitly stated in the verse, but instead derived through the principles of Biblical exegesis. According to this view, the obligation is of Scriptural origin (the Rashba, Vol. III, Responsum 255, 259).
to this [in Numbers 31:23 that describes Moses' instructions with regard to the spoils taken from Midian:] \"Everything that can be passed through fire, you shall pass through fire and it will become pure.\" According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that the verse is speaking only about purifying [the utensils] from gentile cooking, not from ritual impurity. For there is no ritually impurity that is dispelled by fire. All those who are impure ascend from their impurity through immersion and the impurity stemming from [contact with] a human corpse is [dispelled] through the sprinkling [of water and the ashes of the red heifer]. There is no concept of fire [employed in this context], rather [it is employed] with regard to purification from gentile cooking. Since the verse states \"and it will become pure,\" our Sages said: \"Add to it another dimension of purity after passing it through fire to cause it to be permitted because [of its contact] with gentile cooking.\"21I.e., after you have purged it from the taste absorbed because of gentile cooking, add another dimension of purity through immersion.", + "[Our Sages] obligate this immersion only for metal22This requirement also applies to glass dinnerware, as stated in Halachah 3.
Avodah Zarah 75b explains the association with metal utensils as follows. Our Sages associated this obligation with the purification of the spoil taken in the war against Midian and the verse which mentions those spoils (Numbers 31:22 refers to metal utensils. Glass utensils are also included, because, halachically, they share similarities to metal utensils.
dinnerware utensils23I.e., utensils used to prepare, serve, or partake of food. Even utensils that are used in the preliminary phases of preparation of food, e.g., a knife used to slaughter or skin an animal, are required to be immersed according to certain authorities [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 120:5)]. that were purchased from a gentile. When, however, a person borrows [such utensils] from a gentile or a gentile left him such utensils as security, it is only necessary to wash them thoroughly, boil them, or expose them to fire. He does not have to immerse [them].24For even though he has permission to use them, he has not become their owner. The Kessef Mishneh quotes certain opinions that maintain that utensils taken as security must be immersed, because if the debt is not repaid, they are considered as payment [see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 120:5).
In this context, there are many authorities who question why the utensils that are \"purchased\" by a gentile before Pesach are not required to be immersed.
Similarly, if one purchased wooden or stone utensils, it is only necessary to wash them thoroughly, boil them, or expose them to fire. Similarly, earthenware utensils need not be immersed.25Needless to say, plastic utensils need not be immersed. If, however, they are coated with lead, they are considered as metal utensils and require immersion.26The Rama ((Yoreh De'ah 120:1) states that they should be immersed without a blessing.", + "When a person purchases a knife from a gentile, he must expose it to fire until it become white hot or have it honed in its sharpener.27By exposing the knife to fire, the person will burn away any non-kosher substances. By honing it, he will grind away its surface and together with it, the taste of the forbidden substance it absorbed. If it was a perfectly [smooth] knife without any blemishes, it is sufficient to insert it in hard earth ten times.28One must insert it in ten different places in the earth. It is not sufficient to insert it in the same place ten times [Tur and Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 121:7)]. [Afterwards,] one may eat cold food with it.29For sticking it into the earth will remove any traces of forbidden fat on its surface and the taste of forbidden food that is absorbed will not be released when it is used for cold food. If it had blemishes or it was perfectly [smooth], but one desired to use it to eat hot food or to slaughter with it, he should expose it to fire until it becomes white hot or hone it in its entirety.30These activities may cause any forbidden taste absorbed by the knife to be released. Hence before the knife is used, the traces of the forbidden flavor must be removed as above.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 121:7) quotes opinions that maintain that honing the knife is not sufficient to allow it to be used for hot foods. He states that this is accustomed practice. Even so, after the fact, if a person slaughtered an animal with a knife that was honed in a grinder, thre is no prohibition involved (Siftei Cohen 121:20).
If he slaughtered [an animal] with such a knife before purifying it, he should wash thoroughly the place of slaughter.31To remove any traces of forbidden fat that might be present.
This is permitted only after the fact. At the outset, it is forbidden to slaughter with such a knife unless measures are taken to remove the absorbed fat (Siftei Cohen 10:8).
If he removes the surface [of the meat around the place of slaughter], it is praiseworthy.32For according to some opinions, through the slaughter of the animal, the forbidden fat on the knife can become absorbed in the surface of the meat where the animal was slaughtered. Hence it is necessary that it be removed. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 10:1) rules that it is necessary to take this measure and remove the surface of the meat.", + "When a knife was used to slaughter an animal that was trefe, one should not slaughter with it [again] until it is washed thoroughly, even with cold water or wiped clean with worn-out clothes.33To remove any trace of forbidden blood or fat. Nothing more is necessary, we do not say that the blood or fat became absorbed in the knife.
The Turei Zahav 10:15 states that unlike a knife used by gentiles mentioned in the previous halachah, it was not used frequently with a non-kosher substance. Hence washing it thoroughly is sufficient.
", + "There are other substances which are forbidden by the Sages. Even though there is not a basis for their prohibition in Scriptural Law, they decreed against their use34These decrees were about the eighteen decrees passed when the students of the School of Shammai outnumbered the students of the School of Hillel, as related in Shabbat 1:3 (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 2:6). to separate from the gentiles so that Jews will not intermingle with them and intermarry. They are: It is forbidden to drink [alcoholic beverages] with them35See the following halachah. even in a place where there was no suspicion that the wine was poured as a libation. And they forbade eating from their bread or cooked dishes36See Halachot 12-24. even in a place where there is no suspicion that the food was forbidden.37E.g., the food was cooked by gentiles on Jewish premises (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.).", + "A person should not drink at a party of gentiles even though boiled wine which is not forbidden38See Chapter 11, Halachah 9. [is being served] or he is drinking from his own utensils. If the majority of the attendants of the party are Jewish, it is permitted.39The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch do not mention this restriction or the accompanying leniency. The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 112) explains the Rambam's logic as follows: Avodah Zarah 30a relates that one of the Sages, Shmuel was sitting with Abalat, a gentile. They were served boiled wine. Abalat withdrew, lest he touch the wine and cause it to become forbidden. Shmuel called him back, telling him there was no prohibition against boiled wine.
Rabbenu Asher asks: Since the prohibition against gentile wine was instituted as a protection against intermarriage, what difference does it make whether the wine is boiled or not? He answers that boiled wine is not common. Hence our Sages did not include it in their decree.
Rambam maintains that boiled wine is common and hence included in our Sages' decree. For this reason, it is forbidden to drink it together with gentiles. How then could Shmuel drink with Abalat? Because there were a majority of Jews at the gathering and such a situation is not included in our Sages' decree.
We may not drink the beer that they make from dates, figs, or the like. [This is forbidden] only in the place where they are sold.40Thus according to the Rambam [and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 114:1) who quotes his ruling, it is forbidden to drink at a bar frequented primarily by gentiles. The Rama mentions that it is customary in the Ashkenazic community to rule leniently with regard to alcoholic beverages made from honey and grain. If, however, one brought the beer home and drank it there, it is permitted. For the fundamental point of the decree is that one should not feast with [a gentile].", + "It is permitted to drink wine from apples, pomegranates, and the like in every place. [Our Sages] did not institute a decree in an uncommon situation. Raisen wine is like ordinary wine and is used for libations.41Hence a gentile's touch renders it forbidden.", + "Although [our Sages] forbade bread [baked] by gentiles, there are places where leniency is shown regarding this matter and bread baked by a gentile baker is purchased in a place where there is no Jewish baker and it is in a field, because this is a pressing situation.42Because bread is a staple of life and there is no Jewish bread available, our Sages allowed for leniency when purchasing bread from a commercial baker. For buying from him will not lead to close personal relationships. Nevertheless, according to the Rambam, this leniency is granted only: where there is no Jewish bakers and in the fields, not in the cities. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 112:2) rules more leniently and does not forbid this in a city. The Rama rules even more leniently and allows the purchase of bread from a gentile baker even in places where bread from a Jewish baker is available. There is, by contrast, no one who will rule that leniency may be shown with regard to bread baked by a homeowner.43There are opinions which maintain when there is no bread from a commercial baker available, one may even use bread baked by a gentile homeowner [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 112)]. The Rama states that one may accept this leniency. For the primary reason for [our Sages'] decree was [to prevent] intermarriage. If one will eat the bread of a [gentile] homeowner, [it is likely that] he will feast with him.", + "[The bread] is permitted [in the following situations]: A gentile lit the oven and a Jew baked within it, a Jew lit the oven and the gentile baked within it, the gentile both lit the oven and baked, but the Jew stirred the fire or reduced it, since he was involved in the baking tasks, [we rule leniently]. Even though he did not do more than throw one piece of wood into the oven, he caused all the bread in it to be permitted. [The rationale is that this requirement] is only to make a distinction that [a gentile's] bread is forbidden.44The Radbaz states that this leniency applies only with regard to baking bread. With regard to cooking, a Jew must take a more active role in the cooking process. This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 113:7). The Rama, however, differs and maintains that kindling the oven is sufficient for cooking as well.", + "When a gentile cooks wine, milk, honey, quince,45There is a slight difficulty with the Rambam's statements, because quince are only edible when cooked. or the like, i.e., any entity that is usually eaten raw, it is permitted. [Our Sages] issued their decree only with regard to entities that are not eaten at all raw, e.g., meat, unsalted fish, an egg, and vegetables. If a gentile were to cook them from the beginning to the end without the Jew participating in the cooking at all, they are forbidden because they were cooked by gentiles.", + "When does the above apply? To [food] that would be served on the table of kings46Today, when monarchy is a point of history, the phrase \"fit to be served on the table of kings\" refers to food served at a dinner for the President or dignitaries of similar status. to be eaten together with bread,47Avodah Zarah 38a gives this and the leniency mentioned in the previous halachah as alternate explanations when food cooked by gentiles is permitted. Since the matter is left unresolved by the Talmud, the Rambam and the subsequent authorities rule leniently in both situations. e.g., meat, eggs, fish, and the like. When, by contrast, [food] would not be served on the table of kings to be eaten together with bread, e.g., vetch48A legume used as cattle fodder, but also served to humans on occasion. cooked by gentiles, it is permitted despite the fact that it is not eaten uncooked. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. For the fundamental purpose of the decree was to prevent intermarriage, by [hindering] a gentile from inviting [the Jew] to a feast. And when [food] would not be served on the table of kings to be eaten together with bread, a person would not invite a friend [to share a meal] of it.", + "When small fish were salted by a Jew or a gentile,49The Kessef Mishneh states that this is speaking about fish that are frequently served salted even without being cooked (e.g., sardines or herring served in brine). It is permitted to eat such fish for, as the Rambam states in the following halachah, in this context, salting is not considered as cooking. This leniency does not apply to large fish, for they are unfit to be eaten unless they are cooked or roasted. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 103:12) mentions this ruling, but also a dissenting view that allows leniency even with regard to large fish. it is as if they have undergone part of their cooking process. [Therefore] if a gentile roasted them afterwards, they are permitted.50Since they were fit to be eaten before they were roasted, the fact that they were roasted by a gentile afterwards does not cause them to be forbidden. This applies even when a gentile performed the salting. For that salting did not cause the fish to become forbidden and yet, it made it fit to be eaten (ibid.). [Similarly,] whenever a Jew performs a small part of the cooking process, whether at the beginning or at the end, [the food] is permitted. Accordingly, if a gentile placed meat or a pot on the fire and the Jew turned over the meat or stirred the pot or, conversely, the Jew placed [the food on the fire] and the gentile completed [the cooking process], [the food] is permitted.51In his Kessef Mishneh, R. Yosef Caro rules that this applies only when the cooking process would have been completed without the gentile's activity; the gentile merely hastened it. He does not, however, quote this ruling in his Shulchan Aruch. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 113:6) rules that even if the food would not have cooked without the gentile's activity, it is permitted. The Turei Zahav 113:6 and the Siftei Cohen 113:8, however, raise questions concerning that leniency.", + "When a gentile salts fish or smokes fruit and in this way prepares them to be eaten, they are permitted. With regard to this decree,52In contrast to certain other halachic contexts. salted food is not considered as if it were boiling hot, nor is smoking considered as cooking. Similarly, kernels of grain roasted by a gentile are permitted. They were not included in the decree, for a person will not invite a colleague53See the conclusion of Halachah 15. to [come and eat] roasted kernels of grain.", + "Beans, peas, lentils, and the like that have been cooked by gentiles and are sold are forbidden because of [the decree against] gentile cooking in places where they are served on the tables of kings54Implied is that the designation of a food as important enough to be served on the tables of kings is a relative matter, determined by each locale in accordance with its own practice (Makor Mayim Chayim). as a relish. [They are also forbidden,] because of prohibited foods in all places for perhaps they were cooked together with meat55For this is frequently done in order to flavor beans. or in a pot in which meat had been cooked.56I.e., cooked that day. The Kessef Mishneh states that, according to the Rambam, we assume that a pot owned by a gentile had been used to cook non-kosher food that day. This is not the view of the majority of Halachic authorities. Similarly, doughnuts that are fried by gentiles in oil are forbidden because of prohibited foods.57For we fear that the gentile used non-kosher fat or that the fryer in which they are prepared was used that day for non-kosher meat.", + "When a gentile cooked without intending to cook, [the product] is permitted.58When quoting this law, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 113:5) emphasizes that if the gentile intends to cook, even if he did not intend to cook a particular substance, that substance is forbidden. For example, when a gentile lit an oven with the intent of cooking food without realizing that there was meat in the oven, the meat is forbidden. What is implied? A gentile lit a fire in a swamp to clean away the overgrowth and grasshoppers were roasted, it is permitted to eat them. [This applies] even in places where they are served on the tables of kings as a relish. Similarly, if he scorches a [kosher animal's] head to remove its hair, it is permitted to partake of the strings of meat and the tips of the ears that were roasted at the time of the scorching.", + "[The following rules apply to] dates that were cooked by gentiles. If, initially, they were sweet, they are permitted.59Since they can be eaten fresh, they are not forbidden when cooked (Halachah 14). If they were bitter and the cooking sweetened them, they are forbidden. If they were of intermediate sweetness, they are forbidden.", + "Roasted lentils that were kneaded with water or with vinegar are forbidden.60Avodah Zarah 38b relates that it was customary to eat a dish made from roasted lentils mixed with vinegar. This was considered like cooking. As a safeguard against partaking of such a mixture, they also forbade roasted lentils mixed with water. It was not, however, customary to partake of grain mixed with vinegar. Hence, there was no reason to forbid grain mixed with water. When, however, roasted kernels of wheat or barley are kneaded with water, they are permitted.", + "The oil of gentiles is permitted. One who forbids it commits a great sin, for he rebels61The wording the Rambam uses alludes to the Biblical prohibition of the rebellious elder (see Deuteronomy, ch. 17, and Hilchot Mamrim, ch. 3). The Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 2:8) relates that Rav once refused to partake of gentile oil. Shmuel ordered him to do so. \"If not,\" he threatened, \"I will have you labeled a rebellious elder.\" against [the teachings] of the [High] Court who permitted it.62Avodah Zarah 35b states that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi and his court permitted gentile oil to be used. Even if the oil was cooked, it is permitted. It is not forbidden because of gentile cooking, because we partake of oil uncooked. Nor is it forbidden, because of prohibited foods,63I.e., the flavor of forbidden meat absorbed in the pot. because meat impairs [the flavor of] oil and spoils it.", + "Similarly, when gentile honey was cooked and sweets were made from it, it is permitted for the same reason.64I.e., because it is ordinarily eaten raw and because meat spoils its flavor.", + "Date dregs65Which would be boiled to make beer. of gentiles that were heated in hot water, whether in a large pot or a small pot, are permitted.66Avodah Zarah 38b originally postulates that only date dregs cooked in small pots with openings too narrow to put in non-kosher meat are forbidden. The conclusion of the passage, however, permits even date dregs cooked in large pots for the reason mentioned by the Rambam. For the [flavor of forbidden meat absorbed in the pot] impairs its flavor. Similarly, pickled foods to which it is not customary to add vinegar or wine or pickled olives or pickled grasshoppers that are brought from the storehouse are permitted.67In some halachic contexts, pickling is considered as cooking. Nevertheless, with regard to this prohibition, our Sages ruled leniently. We do not forbid them because of the suspicion that wine or vinegar will be sprinkled over them, because wine or vinegar would not be sprinkled over them in the storeroom, only in a retail outlet [Rashi (Avodah Zarah 39b)]. Nevertheless, grasshoppers and pickled foods over which wine is sprinkled are forbidden.68Because of the gentile wine. Similarly, they are forbidden if vinegar - even vinegar made from beer - is sprinkled over them.69As stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 13, vinegar made from gentile wine is forbidden. And as indicated in the next halachah, other types of vinegar are also forbidden.", + "Why is gentile vinegar made from beer forbidden? Because they cast the dregs of wine into it. Therefore [vinegar] taken from a storage room is permitted.70For if wine dregs were cast into the vinegar in the storage room, it would spoil (Avodah Zarah 32b). In a store, however, we assume that it will be sold quickly and in that brief time, it will not spoil (Turei Zahav 114:5).", + "[Gentile] fish brine, in places where it is customary to mix wine into it, is forbidden. If the wine is more expensive than the fish brine, it is permitted. We rule this way in all instances where we suspect that the gentiles mixed a forbidden substance [into a permitted substance]. For a person will not mix something expensive into something that is low-priced, for he will lose. He will, however, mix the low-priced into the expensive, for then he profits.", + "When a child eats forbidden foods or performs a forbidden labor on the Sabbath,71Although the Rambam's wording in Hilchot Shabbat 24:11 might lead one to think that one must rebuke a child for performing a task forbidden by Scriptural Law, both the Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh explain that his statements there should be interpreted within the context of his statements here. the Jewish court is not commanded to make him cease, because he is not intellectually capable.72Hence, he is not responsible for his actions.
When does the above apply? When he acts on his own initiative.73Note, however, the Rama (Orach Chayim 243:1) which quotes opinions that maintain that once a child has reached the age where he is fit to be educated in the observance of the mitzvot, the court - and every individual person - is obligated to rebuke for transgressing. It is, however, forbidden [for an adult] to give him [non-kosher food] by hand. [This applies even] to foods forbidden by Rabbinic decree. Similarly, it is forbidden to make him accustomed to desecrating the Sabbath and the festivals.74To give a contemporary example, a parent cannot have a child turn lights on and off on the Sabbath. [This applies] even to [performing] activities forbidden as a shvut.75As the Rambam explains in Hilchot Shabbat 21:1, the term shvut refers to activities forbidden by Rabbinic Law, because they resemble forbidden labors or because they might lead one to commit a forbidden labor.
Note, however, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 243:1 which rules that when there is a necessity, not even a severe necessity, Rabbinic prohibitions can be overstepped with regard to a child.
", + "Although the Jewish court is not commanded to separate a child from transgressions, his father is commanded to rebuke him so that he withdraws in order to train him in holy conduct, as [Proverbs 22:6] states: \"Educate a child according to his way.\"76This is a general charge, applying to the Torah and its mitzvot in their totality.", + "Our Sages77See the notes to the following halachah with regard to whether these restrictions are of Scriptural or Rabbinic origin. forbade [a person from partaking of] food and drink from which the souls of most people are revolted, e.g., food and drink that were mixed with vomit, feces, foul discharges, or the like.78The Radbaz states that one partake of such foods for curative purposes if necessary. Similarly, our Sages forbade eating and drinking from filthy utensils from which a person's soul languishes, e.g., the utensils of a lavatory, the glass79The Bayit Chadash (Yoreh De'ah 116) states that this also applies to metal utensils. The Rambam mentions glass only because that was the ordinary practice at that time. utensils of medical attendants that are used to let blood, and the like.", + "Similarly, they forbade eating with unclean and soiled hands and with dirty utensils. All of these matters are included in the general [prohibition]: \"Do not make your souls detestable.\" A person who partakes of these foods is given stripes for rebellious conduct.80See the Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 116) who debates whether the prohibition mentioned in this and the previous halachah are of Rabbinic or Scriptural origin. It is possible to explain that the restrictions were instituted by the Rabbis and they employed the Biblical verse merely as an asmachta, an allusion and a hint, but not a source per se.
The wording of the Rambam here and his statements in Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 179) imply that the prohibition itself is Scriptural in origin. The only reason a person is not given lashes is because the simple meaning of the verse refers to the prohibition against teeming animals.
", + "Similarly, it is forbidden for a person to delay relieving himself at all, whether through defecation or urination.81See Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Mahadura Basra 3:11 which mentions several points concerning this restriction:
a) Our Sages did not, however, require their ordinance to override considerations of public embarrassment. For example, [a person is allowed to wait] until he finds a private place to relieve himself or until he will not be causing an interruption in prayer.
b) The Rashba maintains that the prohibition \"not [to] make your souls detestable\" does not apply to deferring urination. c) Whenever one can contain himself, whether from urinating or from eliminating, for the length of time it takes to walk a parsah (a Persian measure equal to approximately four kilometers), all opinions agree that the prohibition \"not [to] make yourselves loathsome\" does not apply.
Anyone who delays relieving himself is considered among those who make their souls detestable in addition to the severe illnesses he brings upon himself and becoming liable for his life. Instead, it is appropriate for a person to train himself [to eliminate] at specific times so that he will not have to separate himself in the presence of others and not have to make his soul detestable.", + "Whoever is careful concerning these matters82It would appear that the Rambam's intent is not only the subjects spoken about in the last halachot, but also the totality of the laws of kashrut. brings an additional measure of holiness and purity to his soul and purges his soul for the sake of the Holy One, blessed be He, as [Leviticus 11:44] states: \"And you shall sanctify yourselves and you will be holy, for I am holy.\"" + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..96bbe0610e366e89c4cdd499ee1741e406516a7e --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json @@ -0,0 +1,133 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org", + "versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation", + "priority": 2.0, + "license": "CC0", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "תרגום קהילת ספריא", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": false, + "isSource": false, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות מאכלות אסורות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Kedushah" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "It is a positive commandment to know the simanim (signs) that distinguish between domesticated and wild animals, birds and fish, and grasshoppers that are permitted to be eaten, and those that are forbidden for consumption, as it says, (Leviticus 20:25) \"And you shall distinguish between a kosher animal and a non-kosher animal, between a non-kosher fowl and a kosher fowl.\" And it says, (Leviticus 11:47) \"To distinguish between the kosher and the non-kosher, between a beast which may be eaten and one which may not be eaten.\" " + ], + [], + [ + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "The milk of a non-kosher animal will not coagulate and form into cheese like the milk of a kosher animal. If milk of a non-kosher animal were mixed with that of a kosher animal, when it coagulates into cheese, the non-kosher milk with its whey will flow out of the cheese.", + "It therefore is logical that any milk owned by a non-Jew is prohibited, lest they have mixed in the milk of a non-kosher animal. Cheese produced by a non-Jew is permitted, since milk of a non-kosher animal cannot become cheese. However, in the days of the sages, they decreed that cheese produced by a non-Jew be prohibited, lest they coagulate it using the non-kosher stomach lining of animals they slaughter. And if you will say - the stomach-lining is negligible in relation in the amount of milk; should it not be considered nullified? Since it is the very thing which creates the cheese, and if the thing which creates the cheese is prohibited, the whole thing is prohibited, as will be explained.", + "", + "[If] a person eats the cheese of non-Jews or milk that was milked by a non-Jew and no Jew watched him, they give him lashes for rebellious conduct. [Regarding] the butter of non-Jews, some of the Geonim permit it, for [the Sages] did not make a decree against butter, and impure milk [from a non-kosher animal] will not coagulate [into the butter]. But some of the Geonim prohibit it, because of the drops of milk that remain in it. For the whey in the butter is not mixed into the butter in such a way as to be nullified based on its minimal quantity. And we suspect all milk from them [non-Jews], lest it be mixed with the milk of an impure [non-kosher] animal.", + "It appears to me that if one purchased butter from non-Jews and cooked it until the drops of milk left, it is permitted. If you would say [that drops of non-kosher milk] were mixed with [the butter] and they were all cooked together, [the non-kosher milk drops] would be nullified based on their minimal quantity. But [if] the butter was cooked by non-Jews, it is forbidden because of the leeching of non-Jewish [vessels into food], as will be explained." + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "Ten stores: nine sell kosher meat and one sell non-kosher meat, and one takes meat from one of them, but does not know which one the meat was taken from, this [meat] is forbidden, as every established place is like a half of a half [i.e. each established location is treated as its own majority]. But meat that is found thrown in the marketplace, you can follow the majority, as anything separated [is considered to be] separated from the majority. If the majority of sellers are non-Jews, it is forbidden; and if the majority of sellers are Jews, it is permitted." + ], + [ + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "One who cooks a fetus in milk is liable, as is one who eats it. However, one who cooks a placenta, skin, sinews, bones, or the inside of horns and talons in milk is exempt. Likewise one who eats it is exempt." + ], + [ + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "What is this [law of orlah] referring to? A case where one plants in the Land of Israel, as it is written (Leviticus 19:23), \"When you shall enter the land,\" etc. But the prohibition of orlah outside Israel is a \"Halacha of Moses from Sinai,\" for true orlah outside Israel is forbidden, and in a case of doubt, it is permitted. And in the laws of Maaser Sheni we shall explain what is forbidden and what is permitted on account of orlah." + ], + [ + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "A Ger Toshav -- He who has accepted the Seven Mitzvot of the sons of Noah, as we have explained -- it is prohibited to drink his wine, but it is permitted to derive benefit from it. And one may leave wine with him briefly, but not for a long time. And so too any Gentile who does not worship the stars and the constellations, such as the Ishmaelites, their wine may not be drunk, but one may derive benefit from it. And such instructed all the Geonim. But those who worship the stars and the constellations, one may not derive benefit from their wine.", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "In the time that the Land of Israel was ruled by the Jewish people, one would purchase wine from other Jews without any doubts. Outside of the land, one would not purchase from anyone unless they had a reputation for upholding the laws of kashrut. Nowadays, in all places wine is not taken from anyone without such a reputation. And so it is with regards to meat, cheese and fish without obvious signs.", + "One who is a guest in the house of a host, in all places and in all times, and is given wine, meat, cheese or fish - one does not need to investigate further [about the host], even if he is unknown to him, and all he knows is that he is a Jew. If, however, [the host] is reputable for not upholding the laws of kashrut and not applying all its details, it is forbidden to be a guest in his house. And if one nonetheless did come as a guest, one does not eat the meat or drink the wine or trust his word about it, unless another reputable person testifies about it.\n" + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "And there are other things that the Sages prohibited, even though they are not Biblically prohibited, the Sages decreed upon these in order to distance from the Gentiles such that Israel would not assimilate in them, and intermarry. And the prohibitions are: The prohibited to drink with them, even when we are not worried about libations; and they prohibited eating their bread or dishes that they cooked, even when we are not worried about their \"revulsions\" [i.e. the absorbed taste of non-kosher food in the dishes]. ", + "How so? A [Jew] shouldn't drink at the party of a Gentile; even though the wine is pre-cooked and therefore not prohibited. He should not even drink from their vessels. If the majority of the party attendants are Jews then it is permissible. And one should not drink their alcohol that is made of dates or figs etc. And it is not prohibited unless there is a possibility of purchase. However, if he brings the alcohol to his home and he drinks it then it is permissible because the primary enactment was eating with them.", + "Apple wine or pomegranate wine etc. are permissible to drink no matter what. For that which is uncommon is not part of the ruling.", + "Even though they [the Sages] prohibited Gentile bread, there are cases where we are lenient and we take bread from a Gentile baker where there is no Jewish baker, and in the field, for it is a time of pressing need. But bread made by ordinary folk, there is nobody who permits it; for the primary purpose of the decree is from intermarriage, and if he eats the bread of ordinary folk, he will end up eating with them." + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/English/Yad Hachasakah, based on L. Mandelstamm,1851 German translation. Translated by DeepL.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/English/Yad Hachasakah, based on L. Mandelstamm,1851 German translation. Translated by DeepL.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8f94b7c9f7f2461d962b775050387d58bb855df4 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/English/Yad Hachasakah, based on L. Mandelstamm,1851 German translation. Translated by DeepL.json @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods", + "versionSource": "http://sefaria.org", + "versionTitle": "Yad Hachasakah, based on L. Mandelstamm,1851 German translation. Translated by DeepL", + "status": "locked", + "priority": 4.0, + "license": "CC0", + "shortVersionTitle": "based on L. Mandelstamm,1851 German translation. Translated by DeepL", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": false, + "isSource": false, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות מאכלות אסורות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Kedushah" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "It is a mitzvah to discern the distinguishing marks of animals that are allowed and forbidden to eat — whether cattle, game, birds, fish and locusts — as is written: \"Ye shall therefore separate between the clean beast and the unclean, and between the unclean fowl and the clean\" (Lev. 20:26); \"to make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the living thing that may be eaten and the living thing that may not be eaten\" (Lev. 11:47).", + "The identification marks of cattle and game are indicated in the Torah, and there are two of them: \"cloven hooves and ruminants\" (Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6). All ruminants are missing their upper incisors. All ruminants have split hooves, except the camel. And all animals that have cloven hoofs are ruminants, except the hog.", + "If one meets an unknown animal in the desert and finds that its hooves are mutilated, one examines its mouth. If it has no upper incisors, it is a kosher animal — provided he can recognize camels. If the mouth is severed, the hoofs are examined: if the hoofs are split, the animal is kosher, provided that a pig can be ruled out; if the hoofs and mouth are mutilated, the outer hip-hole muscle is examined. If the muscle fibers are crossed there, the animal is kosher. This only applies if a wild ass can be eliminated.", + "If a kosher animal bears a young that resembles a non-kosher animal — although it is neither ruminant nor cloven-hoofed, but resembles a donkey or a horse, the animal is fit for consumption. When does that apply? When it delivers in our presence. If, on the other hand, you leave the gestating cow in the herd and you find a pig clinging behind the cow, even if it suckles from it — there is a doubt here and the animal is forbidden for consumption. Perhaps it was born to a non-kosher animal and is now running after the kosher one.", + "If a non-kosher animal bears a young that resembles a kosher one — although it is cloven-hoofed and ruminant and looks exactly like an ox or a sheep — it is forbidden for consumption, because everything that originates from the non-kosher animal is non-kosher, and everything that originates from the kosher animal is kosher. If a non-kosher fish is found in the belly of a kosher fish, it is forbidden. If a kosher fish is found in the belly of a non-kosher fish, it is allowed, because it has swallowed the fish and has not spawned it.", + "If a kosher animal gives birth or if an animal with two backs and two spines is found in it, it is forbidden for consumption. In the Torah this is called shesua (split): \"Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud and have the hoof cloven — the shesua\" (Deut. 14:7). This is an animal that was born as two animals [a kind of Siamese twin].", + "Also, a bird-like animal found in a [slaughtered] cattle: although it looks like a kosher bird, it is forbidden for consumption. Only if you find an animal with hooves in a cattle is it allowed.", + "In the whole world, only the ten species listed in the Torah are allowed of cattle and game. The three types of cattle: cattle, sheep and goats. The seven types of game: gazelle, deer, antelope, ibex, addax, bison and giraffe. Included are also subspecies such as aurochs and buffalo, both belonging to the cattle. All these ten species and their subspecies are cloven hoofed animals and ruminants. Therefore it is not necessary to examine these animals for their identification characteristics if you know and recognize them.", + "Although all these animals are eligible for consumption, we must make a distinction between kosher livestock and kosher game. With game, fat is allowed and blood must be covered after slaughter. In the case of livestock, the consumption of fat is punished by the penalty of karet (extermination) and its blood need not be covered.", + "According to the oral tradition, these are the distinguishing features of game: ruminants and cloven hoofed animals whose horns branch out like a deer's are undoubtedly kosher. If the horns do not branch, but are curved like those of cattle, or vertebrally notched like those of goats, or spirally twisted like those of gazelle, then this is a kosher animal. These are the distinguishing features of horns: curved, notched or spirally twisted.", + "When does that apply? When you can't identify the game. On the other hand, the seven animals listed in the Torah are kosher if you recognize them, even if they have no horns — you can eat their fat and must cover their blood.", + "The aurochs belongs to the cattle. The keresh-unicorn has only one horn, but belongs to the game. If you are in doubt whether an animal belongs to the cattle or the game, its fat is forbidden — but whip lashes are not given for it — and its blood must be covered.", + "There is a hybrid, a cross between kosher cattle and game, called \"Koi\". Its fat is forbidden — whip lashes are not given for it — and its blood must be covered. Non-kosher animals cannot be fertilized by kosher animals.", + "The Torah does not mention the distinguishing features of kosher birds, but only lists the non-kosher species. All unlisted species are allowed. The twenty-four non-kosher species are these: 1) Eagle; 2) Bearded Vulture; 3) Black Vulture; 4) Kite, which is the ra'ah in Deuteronomy (Deut. 14:13); 5) Hawk, that is the da'ah in Deuteronomy (ibid.); 6) species of hawk, because for the hawk is written \"after its kinds\" (Lev. 11:14), so it includes two species; 7) Raven; 8) Starling, because for the raven is written \"after its kinds\" (Lev. 11:15), it includes the starling; 9) Ostrich; 10) Swallow; 11) Gull; 12) Falcon; 13) Shrike, it is a kind of falcon, because it says \"after its kinds\" (Lev. 14:16); 14) Little Owl; 15) Osprey; 16) Long-Eared Owl; 17) Barn Owl; 18) Swan; 19) Egyptian Vulture; 20) Stork; 21) Heron; 22) species of heron, because for the heron is written: \"according to his kind\" (Lev. 11:19); 23) Hoopoe; 24) Bat.", + "If one is a expert and knows about birds and their names, he can eat all birds except these [twenty-four] without examining them. Kosher birds are eaten according to the tradition that prevails in different places. A hunter is credible if he says: \"My teacher allowed me this bird\" — provided that this hunter is a professional of reputation who knows these birds and their species.", + "If one is not an expert and is not familiar with birds and their names, he should look for identification marks that our rabbis have established: If a bird treads on its prey, it is certainly non-kosher. Otherwise, the bird may be eaten if it has one of the following three characteristics: It has an extra, fourth toe on its foot; or a crop; or the membrane of its stomach can be peeled off with the hand.", + "All forbidden birds that tread on their prey with their foot have one of the above mentioned characteristics except the black vulture and the bearded vulture. But these two birds do not live in inhabited areas, but only in deserts and faraway countries, distant from civilization.", + "There is a question whether the bird is kosher if the membrane of the stomach can be peeled off with a knife but not with the hand, even though it does not tread on its prey with its foot. If the membrane is firm and sticks closely to the stomach, and upon exposure to the sun becomes loose and can be peeled off with the hand — the bird is permitted.", + "According to a tradition of the Geonim, birds may not be permitted on the basis of a single characteristic, unless that characteristic is the ability to peel the membrane from their stomach. If the membrane cannot be peeled off, the bird must not be eaten, even if it has a crop and an extra toe.", + "Any bird is a non-kosher bird if it splits its toes two on each side when a thread is stretched, or if it seizes and eats its prey midair. Any bird that lives with and resembles a non-kosher species is itself non-kosher.", + "Eight species of locusts are permitted by the Torah: 1) grasshopper; 2) a species of grasshopper — razbanit; 3) bush cricket; 4) a species of bush cricket — artzuveya; 5) locust; 6) a species of locust — the bird of the vineyards; 7) bald locust; 8) a species of bald locust — Jerusalem yoḥana. ", + "Those who are experts and know their names may eat them. The hunter is as credible as with birds. If one is not an expert, he examines the identification marks. There are three distinctive signs: If it has four legs; four wings covering most of its circumference; two legs that spring — it is kosher. Even if its head is .wide and it has a tail — if its name is \"grasshopper\" (chagav) it is kosher.", + "A grasshopper that has no wings covering most of its circumference, but will grow them after a time, is permitted.", + "Fish have two distinguishing marks: fins and scales. Fins are what he swims with. The scales are attached to the entire surface of the body. All fish that have scales have fins. If it does not have scales at the moment, but they will grow in the future, or if it had scales while in the water, and when it emerged it dropped off the scales, then it is kosher. If the scales do not cover the whole body, it is permitted. Even if a fish has only one fin and one scale, it is permitted." + ], + [ + "From the scripture (Deut. 14:6): \"and every beast that parts the hoof, forming thereby two entirely cloven hoofs, and ruminant [among the beasts, that may you eat.]\" — I derive that everything that is not cloven-hoofed and ruminant must be forbidden. A prohibition derived from a commandment becomes a commandment. Regarding the camel, hare, and hyrax it says (Lev. 11:4; Deut. 14:7): \"These you shall not eat among ruminants\" — you see that they are forbidden even though they have one sign, certainly other non-kosher cattle or game that has none of the signs. The injunction against eating them is in addition to that derived commandment." + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/English/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bdb1b456af898b58c38626ef5032cadac58af019 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,482 @@ +{ + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah,_Forbidden_Foods", + "text": [ + [ + "It is a positive commandment to know the signs that distinguish between domesticated animals, beasts, fowl, fish, and locusts that are permitted to be eaten and those which are not permitted to be eaten,1The Rambam includes these four among the Torah's 613 mitzvot in his Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandments 149-152). The Ra'avad (in his hasagot to the listing of the mitzvot at the beginning of the Mishneh Torah) and the Ramban (in his hasagot to general principle 6 in Sefer HaMitzvot) differ and maintain that they should not be counted as mitzvot. According to their view, the mitzvot involve the observance of the prohibitions, but there is no positive act involved that could be considered as the observance of a commandment. [The Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 153, 470, 158, and 155) mentions these mitzvot, but explains that he personally subscribes to the opinion of the Ramban that they should be not included among the 613 mitzvot.]
In his Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam explains his position. Leviticus 11:2 states: \"This is the living creature that you may eat....\" The Sifri commenting on that verse describes it as a positive commandment. Now there is no positive commandment to eat kosher meat. The commandment is to know which species are kosher and to make a distinction between them and those which are not kosher meat as implied by the verse the Rambam cites here: \"And you shall distinguish....\" For it is only in this way, that one will be able to eat kosher meat. See also the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh. And see Chapter 2, Halachah 1, where the Rambam explains how he derives the idea that both a positve mitzvah and a negative mitzvah are involved.
as [Leviticus 20:25] states: \"And you shall distinguish between a kosher animal and a non-kosher one, between a non-kosher fowl and a kosher one.\" And [Leviticus 11:47] states: \"To distinguish between the kosher and the non-kosher, between a beast which may be eaten and one which may not be eaten.\"", + "The signs of a [kosher] domesticated animal and beast are explicitly mentioned in the Torah.2Leviticus 11:3. There are two signs: a split hoof and chewing the cud. Both are necessary.
Any domesticated animal and beast that chews the cud does not have teeth on its upper jaw-bone. Every animal that chews the cud has split hoofs except a camel.3The Ra'avad questions why the Rambam does not mention a rabbit or a hare. The Torah specifically mentions that they chew their cud. The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam does not mention them because they have teeth on their upper jaw.
The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 79:1) also mention that a camel has two teethlike growths on its upper jaw, but they do not in any way resemble teeth.
The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam's intent is that any kosher domesticated animal or wild beast that chews its cud will not have teeth on its upper jaw and every such animal will have a split hoof.
Every animal that has split hoofs chews the cud except a pig.", + "Therefore if a person finds an animal whose hoofs are cut off in the desert and he cannot identify its species, he should check its mouth. If it does not have teeth on its upper jaw, it can be identified as kosher, provided one can recognize a camel.4I.e., if one sees that the domesticated animal is not a camel, one can assume that it is kosher, for a camel is the only non-kosher animal without teeth on its upper jaw. If a person finds an animal whose mouth is cut off, he should check its hooves, if they are split, it is kosher, provided he can recognize a pig.5For a pig is the only non-kosher animal with split hooves.
When both its mouth and its hoofs are cut off, he should inspect the end of its tail after he slaughters it.6For before slaughtering it, such an inspection would be painful for the animal. If he discovers that [the strings of] its meat extend both lengthwise and widthwise,7Our translation is based on the commentary of the Meiri to Chullin 59a. Rashi interprets that passage slightly differently and his opinion is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah79:1). it is kosher, provided he can recognize a wild donkey. For [the strings of] its meat also extend both lengthwise and widthwise.8The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 79:1) mention another sign for a kosher animal: horns.", + "When a kosher animal gives birth to an offspring resembling a non-kosher animal, it is permitted to be eaten even though it does not have split hoofs or chew the cud, but instead, resembles a horse or a donkey in all matters.9As indicated by the Rambam's statements in the following halachah, the matter is dependent on the species and not the presence of distinguishing signs in and of themselves.
When does the above apply? When he sees it give birth. If, however, he left a pregnant cow in his herd and found an animal resembling a pig dependent on it, the matter is doubtful and [the young animal] is forbidden to be eaten. [This applies] even if it nurses from [the cow], for perhaps it was born from a non-kosher species, but became dependent on the kosher animal.10The Ra'avad qualifies the Rambam's ruling, stating that it applies only when the person possesses a non-kosher animal in his herd. If that is not the case, we do not suspect that a non-kosher newborn came from elsewhere. The Maggid Mishneh and the Siftei Cohen 79:6 do not accept this addition.", + "When a non-kosher animal gives birth to an offspring resembling a kosher animal, it is forbidden to be eaten. [This applies] even if it has split hoofs and chews its cud and resembles an ox or a sheep in all matters. [The rationale is that offspring] produced by a non-kosher animal are not kosher11See also the beginning of ch. 3. and those produced by a kosher animal are kosher.
For this reason, a non-kosher fish found in the belly of a kosher fish is forbidden, and a kosher fish found in the belly of a non-kosher fish is permitted, for they did not produce the fish, but instead, swallowed it.", + "When a kosher animal gives birth to an offspring that has two backs and two backbones12I.e., a calf born with a Siamese twin. or such a creature is discovered within [an animal that was slaughtered], it is forbidden to be eaten. This is what is meant by the term hashisuah which is forbidden by the Torah, as [Deuteronomy 14:7] states: \"These may not be eaten from those which chew the cud and have split hoofs, the shisuah...\", i.e., an animal that was born divided into two animals.", + "Similarly, when [a fetus] resembling a fowl is found within a [slaughtered] animal, it is forbidden to be eaten. [This applies] even if it resembles a kosher fowl. [For when a fetus] is discovered in an animal, only one which has a hoof is permitted.13The hoof, however, need not be split as indicated by Halachah 4. See also Rama (Yoreh De'ah 13:5) and Siftei Cohen 13:20 who rule more leniently.", + "There are no other domesticated animals or wild beasts in the world that are permitted to be eaten except the ten species mentioned in the Torah. They are three types of domesticated animals: an ox, a sheep, and a goat, and seven types of wild beasts: a gazelle,14The translation of the names of these seven species is a matter of debate among both Torah commentaries and zoologists. Our translation is taken from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's Living Torah. Consult the notes there for a detailed discussion of the matter. See also Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 80:3; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 28:4 who discuss these issues. In practice, we partake of the meat of an animal only when there is an established tradition that it is permitted (Siftei Cohen 80:1). a deer, an antelope, an ibex, a chamois, a bison, and a giraffe. [This includes the species] itself and its subspecies, e.g., the wild ox and the buffalo are subspecies of the ox.15The Maggid Mishneh and others interpret t'o as referring to a wild ox.
All of these ten species and their subspecies chew the cud and have split hoofs. Therefore, a person who recognizes these species need not check neither their mouths,16To see whether or not they have teeth on their upper jaw, as stated in Halachah 3. nor their feet.", + "Although all these species are permitted to be eaten, we must make a distinction between a kosher domesticated animal and a kosher wild beast. For the fat of a wild beast is permitted to be eaten and its blood must be covered.17As stated in Hilchot Shechitah, ch. 14. With regard to a kosher domesticated animal, by contrast, one is liable for kerais for partaking of its fat18See Chapter 7. and its blood need not be covered.", + "According to the Oral Tradition, these are the distinguishing signs of a [kosher] wild beast: Any species that has split hoofs, chews its cud, and has horns which branch off like those of a gazelle are certainly kosher wild beasts. [The following laws apply with regard to] all those whose horns do not branch off: If they are curved, like the horns of an ox, notched, like the horns of a goat, but the notch should be embedded within them, and spiraled, like the horns of a deer,19See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 3:6) for a definition of these terms. The Ra'avad, the Rashba, and Rashi offer slightly different definitions for these terms. it is a kosher wild beast. Its horns, however, must have these three signs: They must be curved, notched, and spiraled.", + "When does the above apply? With regard to a species that he does not recognize. [Different rules apply with regard to] the seven species mentioned in the Torah. If he recognizes this species, he may partake of its fat and is obligated to cover its blood, even one does not find any horns on it at all.", + "A wild ox is a species of domesticated animal.20Although it is not domesticated and lives like a wild beast, it is still placed in this category. A unicorn21This was not a mythical beast, but a species of antelope known to exist during the Talmudic period (Chullin 59b). is considered a wild beast even though it has only one horn.22And all other kosher wild beasts have two.
Whenever we have a doubt whether an animal is a domesticated animal or a wild beast, its fat is forbidden, but lashes are not given for partaking of it, and we must cover its blood.23I.e., we accept the stringencies resulting from both positions. The Turei Zahav 80:3 adds that since we are not certain that this is required, we do not cover its blood on a festival. Similarly, the Siftei Cohen 80:4 states that a blessing is not recited before covering its blood.", + "A mixed species that comes from the mating of a kosher domesticated animal and a kosher wild beast is called a koi. Its fat is forbidden, but lashes are not given for partaking of it, and we must cover its blood.24See also Hilchot Nazirut 2:10-11 which states that in certain ways it is like a domesticated animal (its fat is forbidden). In others, it is like a wild beast (its blood must be covered). Still in others it is like neither a domesticated animal or a wild beast (for it is considered as a mixed species with either of them) and in others (that it must be slaughtered), it resembles both. A non-kosher species will never be impregnated by a kosher species.25I.e., even if they are mated, they will not produce offspring.", + "The distinguishing signs of a kosher [species of] fowl are not mentioned explicitly by the Torah. Instead, the Torah mentions26Leviticus 11:13-19; Deuteronomy 14:12-18. only the non-kosher species. The remainder of the species of fowl are kosher. There are 24 forbidden species. They are:
a) the eagle,27In this instance as well, the translation of the names of these species is a matter of debate among both Torah commentaries and zoologists. Our translation is taken from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's Living Torah. Consult the notes there for a detailed discussion of the matter. In practice, we only partake of those species of fowl concerning which we have an established tradition that they are acceptable.
b) the ossifrage,
c) the osprey;
d) the kite, this is identical with the rayah mentioned in Deuteronomy,
e) the vulture, this is identical with the dayah mentioned in Deuteronomy,
f) members of the vulture family; for the Torah states \"according to its family,\" implying that two species [are forbidden],
g) the raven,
h) the starling;28See the Kessef Mishneh and others who state that there is a difference of opinion whether this species is acceptable or not. since the Torah states \"according to its family\" with regard to the raven, the starling is included,
i) the ostrich,
j) the owl,
k) the gull,
l) the hawk,
m) the gosshawk, for this is among the hawk family; and the verse says \"according to its family,\"
n) the falcon,
o) the cormorant,
p) the ibis,
q) the swan,
r) the pelican,
s) the magpie,
t) the stork,
u) the heron,
v) members of the heron family; for the Torah states \"according to its family,\"
w) the hoopie, and
x) the bat.
", + "Whoever is knowledgeable with regard to these species29As mentioned, there is a difference of opinion regarding the species associated with these names and there are few if any individuals who can claim the desired level of familiarity (see Siftei Cohen 82:1). and their names30As indicated by Chapter 3, Halachah 18, the knowledge of the names of the species is important. Otherwise, the hunter's word is not accepted. may partake of any fowl from other species.31For these are the only ones forbidden by the Torah. A kosher species of fowl may be eaten based on tradition, i.e., that it is accepted simply in that place that the species of fowl is kosher.32If there is such a tradition, there is no necessity to check the signs mentioned in the following halachah. A hunter's word is accepted if he says: \"The hunter who taught me told me33Chullin 63b states that this refers to a person who taught hunting and not a teacher of Torah, for it is possible that the Torah teacher will not be able to actually identify the species. Nevertheless, if a Rabbinical authority testifies that he has received the tradition that a species is acceptable, we follow his ruling (Siftei Cohen, loc. cit.). that this fowl is permitted,\" provided that [teacher] has an established reputation as being knowledgeable with regard to these species and their names.", + "Whoever does not recognize these species and does not know their names must check according to the following signs given by our Sages: Any fowl that attacks with its claws34In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 3:6), the Rambam defines this as meaning \"place its claws on the object that it desires to eat and eats it.\" and eats is known to be among these species and is unkosher. If [a fowl] does not attack with its claws and eat, it is kosher if it possesses one of the following signs: a) it has an extra claw,35I.e., a claw that is positioned higher and behind the fowl's row of claws (Rashi, Chulin 62a). Although most species of fowl possess such a claw, it is called \"extra,\" because it is not positioned in the row of claws. Alternatively, the Hebrew term yeterah can be translated not as \"extra,\" but as \"larger,\" i.e., a claw that is larger than the others (Rabbenu Nissim). b) a crop;36An organ which parallels a human's stomach. this is also referred to as a mur'ah, c) [the membrane of] its craw37An extra muscular stomach that exists in fowl.
We are speaking about the inner membrane (Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Chulin 3:6). See Chatam Sofer, Yoreh De'ah, Responsum 50.
can be peeled by hand.38Although the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 82:2) quotes the Rambam's words, it concludes: \"Even though a fowl possesses these three signs, it should not be eaten, because we suspect that it might be a bird of prey unless they have a tradition given to them by their ancestors that this species is kosher.\" Similarly, the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 82:3) states: \"One should not partake of any fowl unless there is a received tradition that it is kosher. This is the accepted custom. One should not deviate from it.\" Thus even if a species of fowl possesses these three signs, we do not partake of it.", + "[The rationale is that] there are none of the forbidden species that do not attack with its claws and eat and possesses one of these three signs with the exception of the ossifrage and the osprey. And the ossifrage and the osprey are not found in settled areas, but rather in the deserts of the distant islands that are very far removed to the extent that are located at the ends of the settled portions of the world.", + "If its craw can be peeled with a knife, but cannot be peeled by hand and it does not possess any other sign even though it is not a bird of prey, there is an unresolved doubt regarding the matter.39And we do not permit it. If the membrane was firm and tightly attached, but [the craw] was left in the sun and it became looser [to the extent that] it could be peeled by hand, [the species] is permitted.", + "The Geonim said that they have an existing tradition that one should not rule to permit a fowl that possesses only one of these signs unless that sign is that its craw can be peeled by hand. If, however, it cannot be peeled by hand, it was never permitted [to be eaten] even if it possesses a crop or an extra claw.", + "Whenever a bird divides its claws when a line is extended for it,40I.e., it stands on a rope or a pole extended for it by gripping the rope or pole with its claws (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Chulin 3:6). placing two on one side and two on the other or it seizes an object in the air and eats while in the air, it is a bird of prey41For these actions indicate that it uses its claws to attack other animals. and non-kosher. Any species that lives together with non-kosher species and resembles them, is itself non-kosher.42Chulin 65a states that only species that are themselves impure will dwell together with impure species.", + "There are eight species of locusts which the Torah permitted:
a) a white locust,43In this instance as well, the translation of the names of these species is a matter of debate among both Torah commentaries and zoologists. Our translation is taken from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's Living Torah. Consult the notes there for a detailed discussion of the matter. In practice, it is common in most communities not to partake of any species of locusts (Turei Zahav 85:1). In the Yemenite community, however, there are certain species of locusts which are eaten. b) a member of the white locust family,44The Torah mentions four names of locust species and in connection with each states \"according to its family,\" indicating that a sub-species is also permitted. the razbenit, c) the spotted grey locust, d) a member of the spotted grey locust family, the artzubiya, e) the red locust, d) a member of the red locust family, the bird of the vineyards, f) the yellow locust, g) a member of the yellow locust family, the yochanah of Jerusalem.", + "Whoever is knowledgeable with regard to these species and their names may partake of them. A hunter's word is accepted as [stated with regard] to a fowl.45Halachah 15. A person who is not familiar with them should check their identifying signs. [The kosher species] have three signs. Whenever a species has four legs, four wings that cover the majority of the length and the majority of the width of its body, and it has two longer legs to hop, it is a kosher species.46Chulin 66a speaks of four identifying signs for a kosher locust: a) four wings, 2 long legs, four legs, and the fact that its wings cover the majority of its body.. Even if its head is elongated and it has a tail, if it is referred to as a locust, it is a kosher species.47Note the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishneh (Chullin81, the conclusion of ch. 3) which states that the factor of fundamental importance is that the specis be referred to as a locust. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 85a).", + "When [a locust] does not have wings or extended legs at present, or its wings do not cover the majority [of its body], but it will grow them later when it grows larger, it is permitted [to be eaten] at present.", + "There are two signs of [kosher] fish: fins and scales. Fins are used by the fish to swim and scales are those which cling48The Maggid Mishneh explains that this term implies that the scales are not an integral part of the fish but can be separated from its body either by hand or with a utensil. If they cannot be separated from the fish, the fish is not kosher [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 83:1)]. to its entire body. Any fish that possesses scales will have fins.49Thus if one finds scales on a piece of fish, there is no need to check whether it possessed fins (the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 83:3).
Chulin 66b asks: If so, why did the Torah mention fins and answers that this magnifies and amplifies the Torah.
If it does not have them at present, but when it grows, it will have them or if it has scales while in the sea, but when it emerges it sheds its scales,50There are several species of kosher fish which shed their scales in this manner. it is permitted.
When a fish does not have scales that cover its entire body, it is permitted. Even if it has only one fin and one scale,51The Tur and Rama (loc. cit.) quote the view of certain Rishonim who maintain that in such an instance, the scale must be located under its gills, fins, or tail. it is permitted." + ], + [ + "Since it is written [Deuteronomy 14:6]: \"Any animal that has split hooves, [whose foot] is divided into two hoofs and chews the cud, [this may you eat],\"1Similar verses are also stated in that passage with regard to fish, fowl, and locusts. Like verses are also stated in Leviticus, except that in Leviticus, there is no such commandment with regard to a kosher fowl. To include that as well, the Rambam refers to the passage in Deuteronomy. one may derive that any animal that does not chew its cud and have split hoofs is forbidden. A negative commandment that comes as a result of a positive commandment is considered as a positive commandment.2I.e., it does not have the severity of a negative commandment. Hence its violation is not punishable by lashes.
The Rambam is explaining that the Torah is not commanding us to eat kosher species, for there is no obligation to partake of them. Instead, it is commanding us to take precautions - through checking distinguishing signs - against partaking of non-kosher ones. See Sefer HaMitzvot (General Principle 6) where the Rambam elaborates in the explanation of the concept of a prohibition derived from a positive commandment. See also Chapter 1, Halachah 1, and notes which deals with this issue.

With regard to the camel, the pig, the rabbit, and the hare, [Leviticus 11:4]3Here the Rambam cites the verses from Leviticus - although like verses also appear in Deuteronomy - for Leviticus comes first in the Torah. states: \"These you may not eat from those which chew the cud and have split hoofs.\" From this, you see that they are forbidden by a negative commandment, even though they possess one sign of kashrut. Certainly, this applies to other non-kosher domesticated animals and wild beasts that do not have any signs of kashrut.4The commentaries have raised a question concerning the Rambam's statements. There is a general principle (Pesachim 24a, et al): \"We do not issue a warning on the basis of logical deduction.\" Implied is that a person is not given lashes when a prohibition is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, but instead derived through logic. Why then, these commentaries ask, are lashes given for partaking of non-kosher species other than the four mentioned specifically by the Torah?
The Rambam offers a resolution to this question in his Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 172). There he explains that in this instance, we are not deriving the prohibition on the basis of logic, for it is already stated in the positive commandment. We are using logic only to derive that this prohibition is also included in the negative commandment.
The prohibition against eating them involves a negative commandment in addition to the positive commandment that is derived from \"This may you eat.\"", + "Therefore anyone who eats an olive sized portion5Approximately, an ounce in contemporary measure. of the meat of a non-kosher domesticated animal or wild beasts is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law. This applies whether he partook of the meat or the fat. For the Torah did not distinguish between the meat and fat of non-kosher animals.6Such a distinction is made with regard to the meat and fat of kosher animals. With regard to non-kosher animals, by contrast, the two are included in the same category and the same prohibition applies to both of them.", + "With regard to humans: Although [Genesis 2:7] states: \"And the man became a beast with a soul,\" he is not included in the category of hoofed animals. Therefore, he is not included in the [above] prohibition.7For the prohibition mentions the animal's hoofs. Accordingly, one who partakes of meat or fat from a man - whether alive or deceased - is not liable for lashes. It is, however, forbidden [to partake of human meat] because of the positive commandment [mentioned above].8The Ra'avad and the Rashba differ with the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that there is no prohibition at all against partaking of meat from a human. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 80:1) follows the Rambam's ruling.
The Maggid Mishneh explains the Rambam's position, noting that - as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 2, and in Chapter 6, Halachot 1-2 - there is no Scriptural prohibition against partaking of milk and blood from a human. Now these leniencies are derived from the exegesis of verses from the Torah. Were the meat of a human not to be forbidden, why would it be necessary to teach that his milk and blood are permitted? Who would have thought otherwise?
For the Torah [Leviticus 11:2] lists the seven species of kosher wild beasts and says: \"These are the beasts of which you may partake.\" Implied is that any other than they may not be eaten. And a negative commandment that comes as a result of a positive commandment is considered as a positive commandment.", + "When one partakes of an olive-sized portion of a non-kosher fowl, he is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Leviticus 11:13] states: \"These shall you detest from the fowl. You shall not partake of them.\" And he violates a positive commandment, as [Deuteronomy 14:11] states: \"You may partake of all kosher fowl.\" Implied is that the non-kosher may not be eaten.
Anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of a non-kosher fish is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Leviticus 11:11] states: \"They shall be detestable for you. Do not partake of their meat.\" And he violates a positive commandment, as [Deuteronomy 14:9] states: \"All that possess fins and scales, you may eat.\" Implied is that those that do not possess fins and scales may not be eaten. We thus learn that anyone who partakes of a non-kosher fish, domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl nullified a positive commandment and violated a negative commandment.9Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 172, 173, 174) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 154, 156, 157) include these among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.", + "A non-kosher locust is included among [the category of] flying teeming animals.10I.e., there is no separate commandment not to partake of a non-kosher locust. Instead, this is included in the general prohibition against partaking of non-kosher teeming animals. The Lechem Mishneh and others note that, in contrast, to the previous halachot, the Rambam does not mention the fact that there is a prohibition against partaking of locusts that results from the positive commandment to partake of them. One who partakes of an olive-sized portion11Or an entire teeming animal even if it is smaller than an olive; see Halachah 21. of flying teeming animals is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Deuteronomy 14:19] states: \"All flying teeming animals are non-kosher for you. They may not be eaten.\"12Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 175) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 471) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
As explained in the halachot that follow and summarized in Halachah 23, there are five prohibitions in the Torah that refer to teeming animals. The categories are not mutually exclusive and it is possible that one particular creature may be included in several - or all - of these categories.

What is meant by a flying teeming animal? For example, a fly, a mosquito, a hornet, a bee, or the like.", + "When one partakes of an olive-sized portion of a teeming animal of the land, he is liable for lashes, as [Leviticus 11:41] states: \"Any teeming animal that swarms on the ground is detestable to you. It should not be eaten.\"13Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 176) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 162) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
What is meant by a teeming animal of the land? Snakes, scorpions, beetles, centipedes, and the like.", + "The eight teeming animals that are mentioned in the Torah14Leviticus 11:29-30. The translation of the names of these eight species is a matter of debate among both Torah commentaries and zoologists. Our translation is taken from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's Living Torah. Consult the notes there for a detailed discussion of the matter.
The Torah singles these teeming animals out from others and states that they convey ritual purity. It does not mention anything about them with regard to the prohibition against partaking of their flesh. Nevertheless, since this quantity of their flesh is significant in another halachic context, it is also considered significant with regard to this prohibition (Meilah 16b). This explains why the minimum measure for which they are liable is less than that associated with other prohibitions.
are: the weasel, the mouse, the ferret, the hedgehog, the chameleon, the lizard, the snail, and the mole. A person who eats a lentil-sized portion of their meat is liable for lashes. The minimum measure that one is prohibited to partake of their meat is the same as the minimum measure that conveys ritual impurity. They all may be combined together to reach the measure of a lentil.", + "When does the above apply? When one partakes of them after they have died.15For their flesh only conveys ritual impurity after they have died. If, however, one cuts off a limb from a living creature from one of these species and eats it, he does not receive lashes unless he [partakes of] an olive-sized portion of meat. They all may be combined together to reach the measure of an olive.
One who eats an entire limb of a teeming animal after it dies does not receive lashes unless it contains a lentil-sized amount of meat.16Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTumah 4:3 states that there is no minimum measure with regard to the limbs of a teeming animal within the context of ritual impurity. A person who touches an entire limb of a such an animal after its death becomes impure even if the limb is smaller than the size of a lentil. Nevertheless, we do not rule that one is liable if he eats such a limb.
Meilah, loc. cit., explains that although the limbs of other animals also convey ritual impurity no matter what their size, one is not liable unless he partakes of an olive-sized portion. Hence, there is no reason to extend the stringency that applies with regard to these teeming animals any further.
", + "The blood of these eight teeming animals and their flesh can be combined to reach the minimum measure of a lentil, provided the blood is still attached to their flesh.17If not, one is not liable until he partakes of an olive-sized portion, as stated in the following halachah. Similarly, the blood of a snake18Which is not one of the teeming animals explicitly mentioned by the Torah. is combined with its flesh to reach the measure of an olive and one receives lashes for it. The rationale is that its flesh is not separate from its blood, even though it does not impart ritual impurity.19In contrast to the blood of the eight teeming animals that were singled out by the Torah. Similar concepts apply with regard to other teeming animals that do not convey ritual impurity.", + "When a person collects the blood of teeming animals that has been separated [from their bodies] and partakes of it, he receives lashes if he partakes of a portion the size of an olive.20The Maggid Mishneh (in his gloss to Halachah 9) states that this applies even to the eight teeming animals mentioned explicitly in the Torah. Once their blood is separated from their bodies, the minimum measure is the same as that of other species. [This applies] provided he was warned against partaking of it because [of the prohibition against partaking of] a teeming animal. If, however, he is warned against partaking of it because [of the prohibition against partaking of] blood, he is not liable. For we are liable only for the blood of domesticated animals, wild beasts, and fowl.21As stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 1.", + "All these measures - and the distinctions between them22That for some one is liable for an olive-sized portion and for others, for a lentil-sized portion. - are halachot received by Moses at Sinai [and transmitted via the Oral Tradition].", + "One who partakes of an olive-sized portion of an aquatic teeming animal is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Leviticus 11:43] states: \"Do not make your souls detestable [by partaking] of any teeming animal that swarms... and do not become impure because of them.\" Included in this prohibition are teeming animals of the land, that fly, and of the water.23Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 179) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 164) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. As obvious from the Rambam's words here and as explained in greater length in Sefer HaMitzvot, this is not a specific commandment relating to aquatic teeming creatures, but a general commandment relating to all teeming animals. Accordingly, when a person partakes of a teeming animal of the land or a flying teeming animal, he is liable for two transgressions.
The Ramban (Hasagot to Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 9) and the Maggid Mishneh differ with the Rambam and maintain that this is not considered as a separate mitzvah.

What is meant by a aquatic teeming animal? Both small creatures like worms and leeches that inhabit the water24See Halachot 18-19. and larger creatures that are beasts of the sea. To state a general principle: Any aquatic creature that does not have the characteristics of a fish, neither a non-kosher fish or a kosher fish, e.g., a seal, a dolphin, a frog, or the like.", + "The species that come into existence in garbage heaps and the carcasses of dead animals, e.g., maggots, worms, and the like which are not brought into being from male-female [relations],25The Rambam is stating - based on Midrashic and Talmudic sources - that there are creatures which spontaneously regenerate. It is not our place to defend these concepts against the findings of science. It must, however, be said that many Rabbinical leaders who are aware of the work of Pasteur and others did not doubt the teachings of the Torah and accepted these laws. but from filth that decays and the like are called \"those which creep on the earth.\" A person who partakes of an olive-sized portion [of these creations] is liable for lashes,26Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 177) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 165) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. as [Leviticus 11:44] states: \"Do not make your souls impure with any teeming animal that creeps on the earth,\" even thought they do not reproduce. Teeming animals that swarm on the earth, by contrast, are those that reproduce from male-female [relations].", + "[The following laws apply with regard to] species that come into being from fruits and other foods.27See Halachot 18-19. Should they depart from [the source from where they came into being] and go to the earth,28The Rambam's wording is borrowed from the prooftext cited. Even if these crawling animals do not reach the earth, but merely appear on the surface of the fruit, they become forbidden., as stated in Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 178). Note, however, Halachah 16. a person who partakes of an olive-sized portion of them is liable for lashes,29Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 178) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 163) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. as [Leviticus 11:42] states: \"With regard to any teeming animal that swarms on the earth, [do not eat them].\" This forbids those that departed to the earth, even though they returned to the food. If, however, they did not depart, it is permitted to eat the fruit together with the worm in it.", + "When does the above apply? When the food became worm-ridden after it was uprooted from the earth.30Or removed from its tree. If, however, it became worm-ridden while it was connected [to its source of nurture], that worm is forbidden as if it became departed to the earth. For it was created on the earth. One is liable for lashes [for partaking of it]. If there is a doubt, it is forbidden.
Therefore all fruits that commonly become worm-ridden31This is a halachic issue that is given much attention today. We find certain Jewish groups who have taken it upon themselves to grow vegetables without any exposure to insects. There is a heightened consciousness with regard to the need to check and many books and tools have been produced with this purpose in mind. It must be emphasized, however, that although there are no vegetables that are absolutely insect and larvae free, the common halachic approach is not to show concern for any insects and/or larvae that are not visible to the naked eye. Conversely, we assume that all insects we discover came from male-female relationships or came into being while the fruit was connected to its source and do not permit any because they might have come from the fruit itself after it was detached. when connected [to their source of nurture] should not be eaten until one checks the fruit from its inside,32I.e., an external search is not sufficient and one must cut the fruit or vegetable open and search from the inside. for perhaps it contains a worm. If the fruit remains twelve months after being severed [from its source], it may be eaten without being inspected. For a worm inside of it will not endure for twelve months.33Since a crawling animal will not live for more than twelve months inside produce and the produce has been detached for more than twelve months, it follows that the animal came into being from the produce itself and thus the produce and the animal can be eaten together.
Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 84:8) states that the produce should be checked lest there be crawling animals that have left the produce. One of the ways to select grains, legumes, and the like is to soak them first. Any ones with holes will float to the top. They should be discarded, lest they be worm-ridden.
", + "If [the worm] departed to the atmosphere, but did not reach the earth, or only a portion of it reached the earth, it departed after it died, the worm was found on the seed on the inside, or it departed from one food to another, [in] all these [situations, the worm] is forbidden because of the doubt, but lashes are not administered [if one partakes of it].", + "A worm found in the stomach of a fish, in the brain within the head of an animal, and one found in meat are forbidden. When, however, salted fish becomes worm-ridden, the worms in it are permitted.34Provided they have not departed from the fish itself (Maggid Mishneh).
The Maggid Mishneh explains the Rambam's approach as follows: All worms that are found in both meat and fish while the animals are alive are forbidden, for we assume that they entered from the outside. Even after a fish dies, we can assume that the worms in its stomach were swallowed when it was alive. Similarly, those in an animal's brain can be assumed to have entered its nose from the outside and are hence, forbidden. Those found in the body of a fish are considered to have been spontaneously generated are hence permitted. Those found in the meat of an animal are not permitted. The rationale is that anything that comes from an animal is permitted to be eaten only after it has been slaughtered according to law. Even though the animal itself was slaughtered, since that slaughter preceded the existence of the worms, they are not permitted.
The Ra'avad and many other Rishonim differ with the Rambam's understanding and permit worms that came into being in meat from animals that were ritually slaughtered, e.g., in meat that was salted to be used at a later time. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 84:16) quotes both views, but appears to favor the more lenient one. The Rama states that it is customary to follow the more lenient view. In practice, in the present age, this problem is far less prevalent, for because of refrigeration and freezing, it is less likely for worms to exist in meat.
This is comparable to fruit which has become worm-ridden after it has been separated from the earth. It is permitted to eat them together with the worm that is in them.
Similarly, if water35Or other beverages (Siftei Cohen 84:1). This is evident from Halachot 19-20. in a utensil produces teeming animals, those teeming animals are permitted to be drunk together with the water, as [can be inferred from Leviticus 11:9]: \"All that possess fins and scales in the water, seas, and rivers, they you may eat.\" Implied is that you may eat those that possess [fins and scales] in the water, seas, and rivers and those that do not possess them, you may not eat. But those creatures [that come into existences] in utensils are permitted whether they possess [fins and scales] or not.", + "[Since the water found] in cisterns, trenches and caves is not flowing water, but instead is collected there,36I.e., water that is stored in storage compartments dug into - or naturally found within - the earth.
The Maggid Mishneh states that irrigation ditches and breeding ponds which water flows through are not included in this category, because - in contrast to water found in containers - the water in them does not stand still. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 84:1) quotes a difference of opinion on this issue.
it is comparable to water found in containers. [Hence], aquatic teeming animals that are created [in these places] are permitted. A person may bend down and drink37Commenting on the citation of this ruling by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 84:2), the Rama states that if one finds worms in a bucket of water drawn from such bodies, the worms are forbidden, because we fear that the worms came from the bucket and not from the water. without holding back even though he swallows these flimsy teeming animals when drinking.38Or other beverages (Siftei Cohen 84:1). This is evident from Halachot 19-20.", + "When does the above apply? When the teeming animals did not depart from the place where they came into being. If they did, even though they later return to the container or the cistern, they are forbidden. If they went out to the walls of the barrel and then fell back into the water or the beer, they are permitted.39For the walls are still considered as \"the place where the teeming animals came into existence.\" Similarly, if they went out to the walls of the cistern and the cave and returned to the water, they are permitted.", + "When a person strains wine, vinegar, or beer and eats the insects, bugs, and worms that he strains, he is liable for lashes for partaking of an aquatic teeming animal or [for partaking of] a flying teeming animal and an aquatic teeming animal.40If the insect has the characteristics of both the prohibited species, as stated in Halachah 23. [This applies] even if they returned to the container after they were strained, for they departed from the place where they came into existence. If, however, they did not depart, one may drink without holding back, as we explained.41Halachah 18. I.e., he need not worry that perhaps they became separated (Maggid Mishneh).", + "When, in this chapter, we have spoken about partaking of an olive-sized portion, [the intent is that] one ate an olive-sized portion of a large creature or one collected some from one species and some from another similar species42For the portions of forbidden insects to be combined, they need not be of the same species. They must, however, be included in the same prohibition. See Chapter 4, Halachah 17. until one partakes of an olive sized portion. If, however, one eats an entire forbidden creature by itself, one is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law even if it is smaller than a mustard seed.43This is a general principle applying in many contexts in the laws of kashrut. The creature must, however, be visible to the naked eye.
[This applies] whether one partook of it after it died or while it was alive. Even if the creature decayed and lost its form,44If, however, it has decayed to the extent that it is no longer fit for human consumption, one is not liable, as stated in Chapter 14, Halachah 11. one is liable for lashes since one consumed it in its entirety.", + "When an ant has lost even one of its legs,45For it is no longer considered as a complete creation. one is not liable for lashes for partaking of it unless one eats an olive-sized portion. For this reason,46This phrase refers to the previous halachah. one who eats an entire fly or an entire mosquito whether alive or dead is worthy of lashes for partaking of a flying teeming animal.", + "[The following laws apply if] a particular creature is [included in the categories of] a flying teeming animal, an aquatic teeming animal, and a teeming animal of the earth, e.g., it has wings, it walks on the earth like other [earthbound] teeming animals, and it reproduces in the water. If one partakes of it, he is liable for three [sets of] lashes.47The Rambam's statements are based on Makkot 16b: \"If one eats a potisa, one is liable for four [sets of] lashes, an ant, five [sets of] lashes.\" As he explains in Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 179), the intent is not that one is liable for additional sets of lashes because several prohibitions are stated with regard to a particular creature. Instead, the intent is that if one creature falls into several forbidden categories, one is liable for a set of lashes for every forbidden category. See Maggid Mishneh.
It must be emphasized that the Ra'avad, Rav Moshe HaCohen, the Ramban, and other Rishonim do not accept the Rambam's interpretation and instead, maintain that the prohibitions mentioned in Makkot, loc. cit., refer to the repetition of prohibitions concerning a single creature.

If, in addition to the above, it is one of the species which are brought into being in the earth in fruit, he is liable for a fourth [set of] lashes. If it is one of the species that reproduce,48I.e., although this particular creature was spontaneously generated, it was brought into being in a manner that it could reproduce and bear offspring. he is liable for a fifth [set of] lashes. If it also can be considered as a non-kosher fowl in addition to being considered a flying teeming animal,49In Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.), the Rambam is sensitive to the question that might arise and states: \"Do not wonder how it is possible for a fowl to come into being from the decay of fruits, for we have seen this take place frequently.\" In that source, he also explains that it is possible for a single creature to have the characteristics of a non-kosher fowl and a flying teeming animal. he is liable for six [sets of] lashes: [for partaking of] a non-kosher fowl, a flying teeming animal, a teeming animal of the earth, an aquatic teeming animal, an animal that swarms on the earth, and a worm from fruit.
[This applies whether] he partook of the entire creature or he partook of an olive-sized portion of it. Therefore one who eats an ant that flies that breeds in the water is liable for five [sets of] lashes.", + "When one crushed ants, added another complete ant to those that were crushed so that the entire quantity was equal to an olive-sized portion, and partook of it, he is liable for six [sets of] lashes: five [for partaking of] the one ant50As stated in the previous halachah. and an additional one, because he partook of an olive-sized portion of dead non-kosher animals.51The Rambam is not referring to the prohibition against partaking of an animal that is not ritually slaughtered. For that prohibition applies only with regard to kosher animals, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 2. For this reason, the Maggid Mishneh (in his gloss to that halachah) raises questions with the Rambam's statement here. The Kessef Mishneh and others attempt to offer resolutions." + ], + [ + "Any food that is produced from forbidden species for which lashes are given for partaking of1I.e., foods that are forbidden by a negative commandment. is forbidden to be eaten according to Scriptural Law, e.g., milk from a forbidden species of domesticated animal or wild beast or the eggs of a forbidden species of birds or fish. [This is derived from Leviticus 11:16 which mentions]: \"the bat of the ostrich.\" [Our Sages2Chullin 64b. The term literally means \"the daughter of the ostrich.\" Our Sages, however, expanded the interpretation of the term as the Rambam explains. commented:] \"This refers to its egg.\" The same law applies to all species that are forbidden like an ostrich and all entities [that are produce] like eggs.", + "Human milk is permitted to be eaten,3I.e., even by an adult. Note, however, Halachah 4. although the meat of a human is forbidden to be eaten. We have already explained4Chapter 2, Halachah 3. that it is forbidden by virtue of a positive commandment.5Thus it does not contradict the general principle mentioned in the previous halachah.", + "Honey produced by bees and hornets6As the Maggid Mishneh mentions, there is a difference of opinion among the Sages in Bechorot 7b whether the honey of hornets is forbidden. This difference of opinion is perpetuated among the later authorities. See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 81:9). is permitted. [The rationale is that] it is not a product of their bodies. Instead, it is collected in their mouths from herbs and then expelled in their hive so that they will be able to partake of it in the rainy season.", + "Although human milk is permitted, our Sages prohibited an adult to nurse from [a woman's] breasts. Instead, the woman should express it into a container7Or into a person's hands. She may not, however, express it into the person's mouth [the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 81:7)]. and the adult should partake of it. An adult who nurses from [a woman's] breast is like one who nurses from a teeming animal.8The Ra'avad and the Turei Zahav 81:9 explains that these words of censure were issued because an observer might think that the milk of a non-kosher animal is also permitted. He is given stripes for rebellious conduct.", + "An infant may continue to nurse for even four or five years. If, however, he was weaned for three days or more in a state of health and not because of sickness, he should not be allowed to nurse again.9Needless to say, if there is a danger to the child's life, he may be allowed to nurse again regardless of the amount of time for which he had been weaned [the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 81:7)]. [The above applies] provided he was weaned after 24 months. If he was weaned within that time, even if he was weaned for a month or two, it is permitted to have him nurse again until the conclusion of 24 months.10When an infant has never been weaned, he may continue past the 24 month limit as the Rambam states at the beginning of the halachah. If, however, he has been weaned, he is bound by this restriction [Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 81)].", + "Although the milk of a non-kosher animal and the egg of a non-kosher fowl are forbidden according to Scriptural Law, [one is] not [liable for] lashes [for partaking of them. [This is derived from Leviticus 11:8] which states: \"You may not eat from their flesh.\" [Implied is that] one is liable for lashes for [partaking of] their flesh, but is not liable for lashes for [partaking of] their eggs and milk. One who partakes [of these substances] is like one who eats half the minimum measure [of a forbidden substance]. This is forbidden according to Scriptural Law, but one is not liable for lashes. Instead, he receives stripes for rebellious conduct.11See Chapter 4, Halachah 16, Hilchot Shivitat Esor 2:3, et al.", + "It appears to me that eating the eggs of non-kosher species of fish that are found in their bellies is comparable to eating the insides of the forbidden fish themselves12For they are part of the fish's body and are not separated by a shell. and one is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law. Similarly, when a person partakes of the eggs of a non-kosher fowl that are hanging in a cluster without being separated from the mother's body or completed, he is liable for lashes as if he ate the insides of [the fowl itself].13For this instance as well, the eggs are not a distinct entity, but instead are considered part of the fowl's body. The Maggid Mishneh brings proof of this concept from Chapter 9, Halachot 4-5, which states that it is forbidden to eat such eggs together with milk and from Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 3:10 which states that they convey ritual impurity like the meat of the fowl itself.", + "When one partakes of the egg of a non-kosher fowl inside of which an embryo has begun to take form, he is liable for eating a flying teeming animal.14The embryo is not considered as a non-kosher fowl. Nevertheless, it is already a distinct entity. Hence it is considered as a non-kosher teeming animal. The Maggid Mishneh mentions that there are other Rishonim who do not accept the Rambam's position.
The Siftei Cohen 15:1 explains that while the embryo is within the egg, it has the characteristics of a teeming animal.
If, however, one partakes of the egg of a kosher fowl inside of which an embryo has begun to take form, he is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.15From Chullin 64a, it appears that there is only a Rabbinic prohibition against partaking of this embryo. Hence, this punishment is given.", + "[The following laws apply if] a blood spot is found on an egg.16This refers to an egg that could have been fertilized. If, however, we know that an egg was not fertilized, it is acceptable no matter where the blood spot is found. The blood itself, however, must be discarded [the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 66:7)]. Most of the eggs commercially sold are not fertilized. If it is found on the white, one should discard the blood and eat the remainder of the egg.17For the embryo has not begun to form and has not affected the entire egg. If it is found on the yolk, the entire egg is forbidden.18At this stage of development, the entire egg has been affected. See the Shulchan Aruch and Rama (Yoreh De'ah 66:2-3) which also mention other halachic perspectives with regard to blood found in fertilized eggs. Unfertilized eggs - a refined person partakes of them.19Even though they could be considered spoiled [see Rashi, Chullin 77a; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 66:7)].", + "When a chick is hatched, even if its eyes have not opened, it is permitted [to slaughter it and] eat it.20Until it is hatched, however, it is forbidden as indicated by Halachah 8. See also Siftei Cohen 15:2 who mentions authorities who suggest that one should wait until its wings start to develop before slaughtering it.
When a kosher animal became trefe,21Forbidden because it contracted a wound that will cause it to die within a year. its milk is forbidden like the milk of a non-kosher animal.22Although the milk comes from a kosher species, since the animal itself is unacceptable, its milk is also deemed unacceptable. Similarly, the egg of a kosher fowl that became trefe is comparable to the egg of a non-kosher fowl and is forbidden.23According to Rabbinic decree, this law applies to eggs that are found within a fowl that died without being ritually slaughtered [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 86:3)].", + "When a chick is hatched from an egg from a trefe fowl, it is permitted, for it is not from a non-kosher species.24Chulin 31a states that the fact that the egg from which the embryo is formed is trefe does not present a halachic problem. The rationale is that, for the embryo to form, the egg must decompose. Hence its halachic status does not affect that of the embryo. When there is an unresolved question whether a fowl is trefe or not, we retain25For 21 days [Bechorot 8a; the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 86:99]. This is the amount of time our Sages thought necessary for a fowl to begin laying a new batch of eggs. all the eggs it lays in its first batch.26I.e., the eggs it was carrying when it first became trefe. Although Chulin 58a states that a fowl which is trefe will not lay eggs, the intent is that it will not lay a new batch of eggs. It will, however, lay the batch it is presently carrying. If it grows another batch and begins laying them, the first ones are permitted.27There are opinions in the Ashkenazic halachic tradition that forbid such a chick. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 86:7) states that the initial and preferred option is to respect these views. For if it was trefe, it would no longer lay eggs. If it does not lay eggs, [the first batch] are forbidden.", + "The milk of a non-kosher animal will not congeal and solidify as the milk of a kosher animal does. If the milk of a non-kosher animal is mixed together with the milk of a kosher animal, when the mixture is [set aside for cheese to be made], the kosher milk will solidify and the non-kosher milk will be expelled together with the whey of the cheese.", + "Accordingly, logic would dictate that any milk found in the possession of a gentile is forbidden, lest the gentile have mixed the milk of a non-kosher animal with it. And the cheese of the gentiles should be permitted, for the milk of a non-kosher animal will not form cheese. Nevertheless, during the age of the Sages of the Mishnah, they issued a decree against gentile cheese and forbade it, lest they use the skin of the stomach of an animal they slaughtered - which is forbidden as a nevelah28This term refers to an animal from a kosher species which died without being ritually slaughtered. - to cause it to solidify.29For milk to solidify as cheese, it needs a catalyst, rennin, to cause it to curdle. One of the most common sources of rennin was the digestive organs of an animal. For the enzymes that facilitate the digestion of food also produce such an effect. Using the skin of a non-kosher organ causes the cheese to be non-kosher for the reasons the Rambam proceeds to explain. See also Chapter 4, Halachah 19, and Chapter 9, Halachah 15.
As the Ra'avad and Maggid Mishneh mention, Avodah Zarah 35a gives several additional reasons for these prohibitions. The Rambam, however, does not mention them because the factors causing the prohibition could be nullified as explained in the following note. The Maggid Mishneh mentions that there are opinions that maintain that the motivating factor behind the prohibition against non-Jewish cheese is to prevent social interaction between Jews and non-Jews. Hence the prohibitions are never nullified even if there is a substantially larger quantity of the kosher substance.

If one would say: The stomach skin is a very small entity when compared to the milk that it is used to solidify. Why is it not nullified because of its insignificant size?30As will be explained, according to Scriptural Law, when a forbidden substance is mixed together with a kosher substance, it is nullified - i.e, considered as if it has become part of the permitted substance - if the quantity of the permitted substance is greater than it. According to Rabbinic Law, this is true when the quantity of the permitted substance is so great that the taste of the forbidden substance would not be detected. That would certainly be true in the instance at hand. Nevertheless, the forbidden substance is not nullified for the reason explained by the Rambam. Because it is used as the catalyst to cause the cheese to curdle. Since the catalyst which causes it to curdle is forbidden, everything is forbidden, as will be explained.31Chapter 9, Halachah 16; Chapter 16, Halachah 26.", + "[The following laws apply when] cheese is left to solidify with herbs or fruit juice, e.g., fig syrup, and it is apparent [that these substances were used for] the cheese. There are some of the Geonim who have ruled that it is forbidden, for [our Sages] already decreed that all the cheeses of gentiles are forbidden, whether they caused them to solidify with a forbidden entity or with a permitted entity.32This is also the Rambam's view. It is quoted by the the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 115:2. The Rama states that it is customary to follow this view. The Rama continues, stating that when a Jew observes a gentile milking the cows and making the cheese, it is permitted to partake of it even though the cheese belongs to the gentiles. He continues, stating that even if the Jew does not observe the gentile milking the cow, as long as he observes him making the cheese, the cheese is acceptable after the fact. The Turei Zahav 115:11 and the Siftei Cohen 115:22 quote opinions that differ and maintain that the prohibition should be observed even if a Jew did not observe the milking.
This difference of opinion is relevant today, reflecting the difference between chalav Yisrael cheese and ordinary kosher cheese. In both instances, the cheesemaking process is supervised. Chalav Yisrael cheese uses milk that was supervised when milked, while ordinary kosher cheese does not.
This is a decree, [instituted] because they cause them to solidify using forbidden entities.", + "When a person partakes of cheese from gentiles or milk that was milked by a gentile without a Jew observing him, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.33For his behavior is in violation of an explicit Rabbinic prohibition. Even though the rationale for the original decree is no longer applicable, the prohibition established by our Rabbis is still in force. (See Hilchot Mamrim 2:2.)
In the present era, there are certain Rabbis (see Rav Moshe Feinstein, Igros Moshe) who give a rationale for leniency with regard to this prohibition, stating that government supervision makes it impossible for gentiles to mix non-kosher milk together with cow's milk and thus there is no necessity to heed that prohibition. It must be emphasized, however, that this responsum was authored before the time when it became relative easy to procure chalav Yisrael and that many other Rabbinical authorities never accepted this decision. On the contrary, basing themselves on the ruling of Hilchot Mamrim 2:2, they explain that the original decree must still be observed. As a result of their forceful stance, at present, it is possible to obtain chalav Yisrael products in almost every major Jewish community.
With regard to butter produced by gentiles, some of the Geonim permit it, for [our Sages] did not decree against butter and some of the Geonim forbid it,34The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 115:3) states that one should not rebuke those who permit the use of such butter, but if the local custom is to forbid it, that custom should be respected. At present, since it is possible to obtain chalav Yisrael butter in almost every major Jewish community, many Rabbis urge that this prohibition be observed. because of the drops of milk that remain in it. For the whey in the butter is not mixed with the butter35We are speaking about homemade butter which always has some small drops of whey within it. These drops, however, are not mixed with the butter itself, but instead remain as a separate entity. Hence, they cannot be nullified. See Kessef Mishneh. so that it will be nullified because of its minimal quantity. And we suspect that any milk [from gentiles] is mixed with the milk of a non-kosher animal.", + "It appears to me36This expression connotes a law derived by the Rambam through his deductive reasoning without an existing prior Rabbinic source. that if one purchased butter from gentiles and cooked it until the drops of milk in it disappeared, it is permitted.37The Kessef Mishneh explains that not only is this permitted after the fact, one may do so at the outset (lechatchilah). For it is possible that there is no forbidden substance present at all.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 115:3) quotes this ruling. Nevertheless, most of the authorities who forbid using non-Jewish butter maintain that, in practice, one should refrain from cooking it as well.
For if one will say that [drops of non-kosher milk] were mixed with the butter and it was all cooked together, they became insignificant because of the small quantity [involved].38I.e., the amount of non-kosher milk is surely insignificant in relation to the quantity of the mixture as a whole. Hence it is nullified. When, however, the butter is cooked by gentiles themselves,39I.e., in their own utensils. it is forbidden because of the effusion of gentile [foods], as will be explained.40As explained in Chapter 17, Halachah 2, it is forbidden to cook food in utensils belonging to gentiles, for the utensil will have absorbed some of the non-kosher food cooked in it previously and will discharge it into the kosher food during the cooking process.
The Kessef Mishneh and the Rama (loc. cit.) differ with the Rambam regarding this issue. See the notes to Chapter 17 Halachah 18, for a discussion of this matter.
", + "When a Jew sits near a herd belonging to a gentile and the gentile brings him milk from the herd, it is permitted [for him to partake of it] even though there are non-kosher animals in the herd. [This applies] even though he did not see him milk the animal, provided he could have seen him were he to stand.41Similarly, if the Jew walks in and out of the place where the milking is taking place, it is acceptable. For the gentile will fear that any moment, the Jew will return (Turei Zahav 115:3). [The rationale is that] the gentile is afraid to milk the non-kosher animal lest [the Jew] stand and see him.42The Rambam is explaining that although our Sages require that a Jew observe the milking of an animal, it is not necessary that he watch the actual milking. As long as he is present and could see what the gentile is doing, the gentile will refrain from mixing in a non-kosher substance.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 115:1) states that this ruling applies only after the fact. At the outset, the Jew must observe the milking and also check the container into which the gentile is milking.
The Maggid Mishneh clarifies that this ruling applies only when the gentile is milking the animal for the Jew and knows that the Jew will not drink the milk of the non-kosher animal. If he is not aware of the prohibition, we suspect that he will give the Jew milk from any animal in his herd.
", + "When both of the ends of an egg are rounded, both are pointed, or the yolk is on the outside and the white is on the inside, it is certainly from a non-kosher species. If one end is pointed, the other rounded, and the white is on the outside and the yolk is on the inside, it is possible that it is the egg of a non-kosher species and it is possible that it is the egg of a kosher species.43I.e., all kosher eggs have these characteristics, but not all eggs with these characteristics are kosher. Accordingly, the Jew should inquire of the Jewish44But not a non-Jewish hunter, as evident from the following halachah. hunter who sells them. If he tells him that they are from such-and-such a fowl and that this fowl is kosher, he may rely on him.45We are certain that he will not lie, because it is possible to bring other eggs from that species and see that they are not alike (Turei Zahav 86:1; Siftei Cohen 86:3). If, however, he tells him that they are from a kosher fowl, but does not mention its name, he may not rely on him.46For the method of verification mentioned in the previous note does not apply.
The Ra'avad rules that if the hunter has an established reputation for observance, we may rely on his word, even though he does not name the species of the fowl. The Maggid Mishneh states that, as indicated by the conclusion of Halachah 20, the Rambam would also accept that ruling. According to this understanding, the hunter we are speaking about is not known for his observance. Nevertheless, we rely on his statements.
In his notes to Halachah 20, the Rashba emphasizes that we are not speaking about a person who is known to sell non-kosher food as kosher. As evident from Hilchot Maaserot 12:16, such a person is considered as a gentile and his word is not accepted at all. Instead, the intent is someone whose reputation for observance has not been established, but is also not suspect to cause others to transgress.
", + "For this reason, we do not purchase eggs from gentiles unless one recognizes the eggs and can identify them as being from a particular kosher species of fowl.47The Maggid Mishneh quotes the Ramban who differs with the Rambam and maintains that there is no difference between a Jew whose reputation for observance is not established and a gentile. Just like we accept the Jew's word, we accept that of the gentile. For we assume that he will not risk his reputation by making false statements. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 86:1) quotes the Rambam's ruling, while the Tur and the Rama cite that of the Ramban.
The Maggid Mishneh also quotes Rashba who states that in the present age, we purchase eggs from gentiles without compunction, because non-kosher species are uncommon and the overwhelming proportion of eggs sold are from chickens or geese. This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 86:2).
We do not suspect that they came from a fowl that was trefe or nevelah.48I.e., that died without being ritually slaughtered; see Chapter 4, Halachah 1. We rule leniently, because it is very uncommon to have eggs from fowl in such a condition (Maggid Mishneh). And we do not purchase an [unshelled and] stirred egg from a gentile at all.49For we fear that it came from an egg that was trefe (Maggid Mishneh).", + "The distinguishing signs of fish eggs are the same as those for fowl. When both of the ends of an egg are rounded or both are pointed, it is non-kosher. If one end is pointed and the other rounded, he should inquire of the Jew who sells them.50For the distinguishing signs themselves are not sufficient for the eggs to be considered kosher. The Maggid Mishneh explains that although Avodah Zarah 40a would appear to indicate that the distinguishing signs are sufficient, since Chullin 64a compares fish eggs to fowl eggs, we assume that all the laws that apply to one apply to the other.
In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 83:8), Rav Yosef Caro quotes the Rambam's ruling, but states that at present, it has become customary to buy any red fish eggs, even from gentiles. Black fish eggs, however, may not be purchased. In his Beit Yosef 81:12, he explains that the Rabbinic authorities of the earlier ages researched the matter and discovered that there are no common non-kosher fish that lay red eggs. See Siftei Cohen 83:27 who quotes other sources from which it is not clear whether or not this ruling was accepted in all communities.
If he tells him that he salted them51I.e., to preserve them, for it is common to bring fish eggs from distant places. and removed them from a kosher species,52Naming the species as in Halachah 18. he may partake of them on the basis of his statements. If he tells him that they are kosher, he may not rely on him unless he is a person who has an established reputation for observance.", + "Similarly, we may not purchase cheese and pieces of fish that do not have distinguishing signs except from a Jew who has an established reputation for observance. In Eretz Yisrael, at the time it was populated primarily by [observant] Jews,53As indicated by Chapter 11, Halachah 25, today, the same principles that apply in the Diaspora apply in Eretz Yisrael. one could purchase these items from any Jew located there. And it is permitted to purchase milk from any Jew, anywhere.", + "When a person pickles non-kosher fish, the brine produced is forbidden. The brine produced by non-kosher locusts, by contrast, is permitted, because they do not possess any moisture.54In the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 10:9), he states that they possess very little moisture. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling and forbids brine from non-kosher locusts. Accordingly, we do not purchase brine from gentiles unless there is a kosher fish floating in it.55For then we assume that the brine came from this species of fish. Even one fish is sufficient.", + "When a gentile brings a trough filled with open barrels of brine and there is a kosher fish in one of them, they are all permitted.56For we consider all the open barrels as a single entity and the one fish indicates that the entire quantity is acceptable. See Kessef Mishneh. This represents the Rambam's understanding of Avodah Zarah 39b-40a. The rulings of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 83:6) quotes the Rambam's ruling, but also those of others who interpret that passage differently. If they are closed, one opens one and finds a kosher fish and one opens a second and finds a kosher fish, they are all permitted.57The intent is not that all the barrels are considered as a single entity, but that since two barrels are discovered to be kosher, we assume that the others are also kosher (Kessef Mishneh). [This applies] provided the head of the fish and its backbone are present so that it is recognizable that they are from a kosher species of fish.58I.e., by looking at the head and the backbone, the person is able to recognize that the fish comes from a kosher species. One alone, i.e., either the head or the backbone, is not sufficient (Avodah Zarah 40a).
For this reason, we do not purchased crushed, salted fish from gentiles which are called terit terufah.59In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 2:6), the Rambam explains that it was customary to crush and stir the fish until it produces a mixture like dough that was used as a dip. If, however, the head and the backbone of a fish is recognizable, even though it is crushed, it is permitted to purchase it from a gentile.60I.e., if we discover the head and the backbone of one fish, we may purchase a larger quantity, because we do not expect that kosher fish and non-kosher fish were salted together (Maggid Mishneh).", + "When a gentile brings a keg of pieces of evenly cut up fish and it is obvious that they are from one fish,61The Siftei Cohen 83:4 notes that the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 83:4) does not quote the Rambam's wording and explains that according to that source, it is not necessary for it to be obvious that they all come from one fish.
If it is not obvious that they come from one fish, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) rules that only the piece with scales is permitted.
they are all permitted if he finds scales on one of the pieces.62For every fish that has scales will also have fins." + ], + [ + "A person who partakes of an olive-sized portion of a domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl which dies is liable for lashes, as [Deuteronomy 14:21] states: \"Do not partake of any nevelah.\"1Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 180) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 472) include this among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. All animals that were not slaughtered in the appropriate manner are considered as if they died. In the Laws of Shechitah, we will explain which types of slaughter are appropriate and which are not.", + "Only animals from kosher species are forbidden as a nevelah, for they are the species that are fit to be ritually slaughtered and if they are slaughtered in a kosher manner, it is permitted to partake of them. [When,] by contrast, one partakes of [meat from] a non-kosher species, [since] ritual slaughter is of no consequence with regard to them, whether they are slaughtered in a kosher manner, whether they died in a natural manner, or whether one cut meat from a living animal and ate it, one does not receive lashes for partaking of a nevelah or partaking of trefe meat,2See Halachah 10. only because one ate the meat of a non-kosher animal.3From Chullin 100b, it would appear that the rationale for this ruling is the general principle: \"One prohibition does not fall upon another prohibition.\" Since the meat is already prohibited because it is from a non-kosher species, the prohibition of nevela does not apply to it. The Rambam's wording, however, is slightly different and may be alluding to a slightly different rationale.", + "When a person eats an [entire] kosher fowl4Which was not correctly slaughtered. of any size, he is liable for lashes for partaking of a nevelah, even though he ate less than an olive-sized portion. [The rationale is that] he consumed it in its entirety.5This reflects a general concept with regard to the laws of kashrut. As stated in Chapter 2, Law 21, whenever \"one eats an entire forbidden creature by itself, one is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law even if it is smaller than a mustard seed.\"
The commentaries (Maggid Mishneh, Rav Moshe HaCohen) question why the Rambam states that the person is liable for eating a nevelah. Seemingly, the prohibition he transgresses is eating a limb from a living animal (see Chapter 5). The Meiri explains the Rambam's position, stating that an entire creature cannot be considered as \"a limb.\"
If he ate it after it died, it must be the size of an olive [for him to be liable].6For the conception of being liable for an entire creature even though it is not the size of an olive, applies only when that creature is inherently forbidden (Meiri). While alive, the bird is considered as an entire forbidden entity, like a non-kosher species. After its death, that distinction does not apply. Even though it does not have an olive-sized portion of meat on it, since as a whole, it is the size of an olive, he is liable for [partaking of] a nevelah.7For we include the bones and the sinews as well (Chullin 102b).", + "When a person partakes of an olive-sized portion of a stillborn fetus8The same laws apply if the fetus is born alive, but it is obvious that the birth is not viable. Even if the animal is slaughtered in the appropriate manner, we are forbidden to partake of it. of a kosher animal, he is liable for lashes for partaking of a nevelah.
It is forbidden to partake of a newborn animal until the night of the eighth day [of its life].9I.e., even if the animal is slaughtered properly, it is forbidden because it is possible that the birth is not viable. Although our Sages (Chulin 136a) spoke of the eighth day of an animal's life, their intent was the beginning of the eighth day (Maggid Mishneh). For whenever an animal has not lived for eight days, we consider it as stillborn, but lashes are not administered [for partaking] of it.10Since it is not a definite matter, lashes are not administered (ibid.). [Moreover,] if it is known that the animal was born after a full term period of gestation, i.e., nine months for a large domesticated animal and five months for a small domesticated animal, it is permitted on the day that it was born.11In contrast, an animal may not be offered as a sacrifice until the eighth day of its life (Exodus 22:29; Turei Zahav 15:3).", + "The placenta that is expelled together with the newborn is forbidden to be eaten. A person who eats it, however, is not liable,12I.e., he is not considered to have partaken of a nevelah. because it is not [considered] meat.13For as stated in Halachah 18, these are not considered meat, but rather comparable to an animal's wastes. For that reason, the Ra'avad (in his gloss to Chapter 5, Halachah 13) states that there is no prohibition against partaking of a placenta.", + "When a person eats an olive-sized portion of a kosher14I.e., like the prohibition of nevelah, the prohibition of trefe does not apply with regard to non-kosher species. domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl that was mortally wounded is liable for lashes, as [Exodus 22:30] states: \"Do not eat meat [from an animal that was] mortally wounded (trefe) in the field. Cast it to the dogs.\"15I.e., even if it was slaughtered properly before it died, the meat is, nevertheless, forbidden, as stated in the following halachah. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 181) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 73) include this among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
The term trefe employed by the Torah refers to [an animal] mortally wounded by a wild beast, e.g., a lion, a tiger, or the like, or a fowl mortally wounded by a bird of prey, e.g., a hawk or the like.16As the Rambam proceeds to explain in Halachah 8, the term trefe also applies in other situations. Nevertheless, there is an added dimension of severity to the laws applying to animals that are mortally wounded by beasts, as stated in Hilchot Shechitah 5:3 (Maggid Mishneh; Kessef Mishneh). We cannot say that the term trefe refers to an animal that was attacked and killed, for if it died, it is a nevelah. What difference does it make if it died naturally, was struck by a sword or died, or was battered by a lion and died? Thus [the term trefe] must refer to an instance when it was mortally wounded, but did not die.", + "If an animal that is mortally wounded is forbidden, shall we say that if a wolf or a lion comes and drags a kid by its foot, its tail, or its ear, and a man pursues [the beast] and saves [the kid], it will be forbidden, because it was attacked?17The term trefe literally means \"preyed upon.\" Our translation \"mortally wounded\" is the halachic definition as the Rambam proceeds to explain. The Torah states: \"Do not eat meat [from an animal that was] mortally wounded (trefe) in the field. Cast it to the dogs.\" [An animal is not considered trefe] unless it was brought to a state that its meat is fit [only] for the dogs. Thus we have learned that the term trefe employed by the Torah refers to [an animal] that was attacked by a wild beast and battered by it that has not died yet. Even if the person hurries and slaughters it before it dies, it is forbidden as trefe. For it is impossible that it will live after suffering such wounds.", + "Thus we have learned that the Torah forbade [an animal] that died, a nevelah, and it forbade one that was on the verge of death because of its wounds even though it has not died yet, i.e., a trefe.
Now we do not make a distinction with regard to an animal that has died regardless of whether it died naturally, it fell and died, it was strangled until it died, or it was attacked by a wild beast who killed it. Similarly, we do not make a distinction between an animal that is on the verge of death, regardless of whether it was attacked by an animal and battered, fell from the roof and broke the majority of its ribs,18This and the following examples are specifically mentioned by the Rambam in Hilchot Shechitah 10:1, 9:8, 11:4, 6:1. fell and crushed its limbs, it was shot with an arrow and its heart or lung pierced, it developed an illness that caused its heart or lung to be perforated, one broke the majority of its ribs, or the like. Since it is on the verge of death regardless of the cause, it is a trefe. [This applies] whether [its wound] was caused by flesh and blood or by God's hand.
If so, why does the Torah use the term trefe? For Scripture speaks with regard to prevalent situations.19This is a general principle employed by our Sages with regard to the interpretation of the Torah's language. When it mentions a specific situation, it is not confining itself to the limited setting mentioned in the verse, but applies to other circumstances as well. Why is that situation mentioned? Because it is common. [We are forced] to say this. If not, only an animal that was mortally wounded in the field would be forbidden.20For only that is in the direct scope of the verse. One that is mortally wounded in a courtyard would not be forbidden. Thus we learn that Scripture [is employing this example,] only because it speaks with regard to prevalent situations.", + "The intent of the verse is that [an animal] that is mortally wounded and will not live21Longer than twelve months (Hilchot Shechitah 11:1). because of these wounds is forbidden. On this basis, our Sages said:22Chulin 42a. \"This is the general principle: Whenever [an animal] in this condition will not live, it is trefe.\" In Hilchot Shechitah,23From Chapter Five to Chapter Eleven. A concise list is found in Chapter 10, Halachah 9. we will explain which conditions cause an animal to be deemed trefe and which do not cause it to be deemed trefe.", + "Similarly, when one cuts meat from a living kosher24For as mentioned above, the prohibition against partaking of a trefe applies only with regard to kosher animals. animal, one receives lashes for partaking of a trefe.25See Chapter Five, Halachot 2-3, where the Rambam distinguishes between this prohibition and the prohibition against partaking of a limb from a living animal. Note, however, Hilchot Melachim 9:10-11 where the Rambam includes eating the meat from an animal and eating a limb from an animal as a single prohibition for a gentile. For this meat comes from an animal that has not been ritually slaughtered and has not died. [Hence it is comparable to a trefe.] What difference does it make to me if it was attacked by an animal or cut by a knife? And what difference does it make if [the animal] was [wounded] in its totality or only a portion of it was wounded?26I.e., just as we forbid the meat of an animal that was mortally wounded, we should forbid a portion of meat that was cut off with a knife. For the verse states: \"Do not eat meat [from an animal that was] trefe in the field.\" Since [a portion of] the animal was made meat in the field,27I.e., the meat was cut off from its natural place. See also Chapter 5, Halachah 9. it is trefe.", + "When an animal is sick because it is weakened and is on the verge of death, it is permitted, because it did not suffer a wound in any one of the limbs and organs that will cause it to die. For the Torah forbade only those situations resembling an animal mortally wounded by a preying wild beast. In that situation, the animal wounded it with a blow that caused it to die.28With this explanation, the Rambam is clarifying the distinction Chulin 37a makes between an animal which is misukenet (dangerously ill) and trefe. The trefe condition is a result of wound, while in the case of a misukenet, all of its limbs and organs are sound. Nevertheless, as stated in Hilchot Trefot 5:2, there are other physical conditions which render an animal trefe even if it has not been attacked by an animal. These conditions were communicated as halachot to Moses at Sinai.", + "Although it is permitted, the great sages would not partake [of the meat] of an animal which people were hurrying to slaughter before it died.29The Maggid Mishneh (based on Chullin 37b) interprets this as a gesture of pious conduct. Note, however, Siftei Cohen 17:8. [This applies] even if it makes convulsive movements after being slaughtered.30Such a convulsive movement is a sign that it was alive at the time that it was slaughtered, as the Rambam continues to explain in the following halachah. This is a matter that does not involve a prohibition. Nevertheless, whoever desires to accept this stringency upon himself is praiseworthy.31The Maggid Mishneh quotes opinions that maintain that this leniency was granted only to alleviate the financial loss a Jewish owner of an animal would suffer. Therefore, meat from an animal belonging to a gentile which is in such a condition should not be eaten. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 116:7) quotes this ruling.", + "When a person slaughters a domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl and blood does not flow out from them, they are permitted. We do not say: perhaps they were dead already. Similarly, when one slaughters a healthy animal and it does not make convulsive movements, it is permitted.
Different [rules apply with regard to an animal that] is dangerously ill, i.e., one which cannot maintain itself when others cause it to stand it up.32It must be able to stand up on its own when called or hit with a switch. If it is stood up by hand, it is still considered dangerously ill even if it is able to remain standing [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 17:1); Siftei Cohen 17:1]. [It is placed in this category] even if it eats the food of healthy animals. If [such an animal] is slaughtered and does not make any convulsive movements at all, it is a nevelah33I.e., we assume that it died before the slaughter was completed (see Chulin 38a). and one is liable for lashes [for partaking] of it. If it makes convulsive movements, it is permitted.
The convulsive movements must be made at the end of the slaughter. If they are made at the beginning, they are of no consequence.", + "What is meant by convulsive movements? For a small domesticated animal and for both a small and a large wild beast, the intent is that it extended its foreleg and returned it, extended its hind leg even though it did not return it, or merely bent its hind leg.34The Maggid Mishneh and the Siftei Cohen 17:4 quote opinions that rule that if a small domesticated animal's foreleg was extended and it bent it, that is sufficient to render it acceptable. This is considered a convulsive movement and [the animal] is permitted. If, however, it merely extended its foreleg and did not return it, it is forbidden. [This movement is] merely a result of the expiration of the soul.
With regard to a large domesticated animal, [more lenient laws apply]. If it either extended its foreleg or its hind leg without bending it or bent its foreleg or hind leg without extending it, it is considered as a convulsive movement and it is permitted. If, however, it neither extended or bent its foreleg or its hind leg at all, it is considered as a nevelah.
With regard to a fowl, even if it only blinked its eyelid35Note the Siftei Cohen 17:5 which quotes different versions of Chullin 38b that state that a fowl must move its wing. Winking its eyes is not sufficient. or swatted its tail, it is considered a convulsive movement.36The Maggid Mishneh (and the Turei Zahav 17:4 and the Siftei Cohen 17:6) quote opinions that maintain that swishing its tail is also sufficient for an animal to be considered as having made a convulsive movement.", + "When one slaughters an animal that is dangerously ill at night and does not know37I.e., because he cannot see. Needless to say, if the room is illuminated, this law does not apply. whether or not it made convulsive movements, it is forbidden, because of the possibility that it is a nevelah.38I.e., we follow the principle that when a doubt concerning a Scriptural prohibition is involved, we rule stringently.", + "None of the substances prohibited by the Torah can be combined with each other [to reach the minimum measure for which one is liable for lashes] with the exception of the prohibitions that apply to a nazarite, as explained in that source.39As stated in Hilchot Nazirut 5:3, although there are separate prohibitions against eating raisins, grape peels, grape seeds, and partaking of wine, if one combined all these substances together, one is liable. Therefore when a person takes a small amount of fat, a small amount of blood, a small amount of the meat of a non-kosher animal, a small amount of the meat of a nevelah, a small amount of the meat of a non-kosher fish, a small amount of the meat of a non-kosher fowl, or the like from other prohibited substances, although he collects an olive-sized portion from the entire mixture and partakes of it, he is not liable for lashes. He is bound by the laws that apply when one eats half the minimum measure [of a forbidden] substance.40In which instance, the prohibition is Scriptural in origin, but lashes are not given (Chapter 3, Halachah 6).
The Rambam's statements in this and the following halachah touch on an issue of general significance. Rabbi Meir (Avodah Zarah 66a) maintains that forbidden substances of different types can be combined together to make a person liable for lashes. The Sages differ and maintain that they cannot be combined, but instead are judged individually. If there is enough of the one substance to make one liable, he is liable. If not, he is exempt.
The principle stated in Halachot 18-19 is a correlory to these concepts. Since the forbidden substances are not combined with each other, but are instead considered as discrete entities, they help nullify each other, as explained there.
", + "All [types of] nevelot may be combined together. A nevelah may be combined with a trefe. All the non-kosher animals and wild beasts may be combined with each other. But the meat of a nevelah and the meat of a non-kosher animal may not be combined.
What is implied? When one takes [some meat] from a nevelah of an ox, some from the nevelah of a deer, some from the nevelah of a chicken and combined it so that he has an olive-sized portion of meat, he is liable for lashes if he eats it. Similarly, if he collected half of an olive-sized portion from the nevelah of a kosher animal and half of an olive-sized portion from a trefe, or half of an olive-sized portion from the meat of a nevelah and half from meat taken from a living kosher animal,41For this is included in the prohibition against a trefe, as stated in Halachah 10. he is liable if he eats it. Similarly, if he collects an olive-sized portion [by combining] the meat of a camel, a pig, and a hare,42Although each one of these species is mentioned separately in the Torah, they are all included in the same prohibition. he is liable if he eats it.
If, by contrast, he takes half of an olive-sized portion of a nevelah of an ox and half an olive-sized portion of a camel [an eats it], they are not combined.43The Ra'avad mentions that this point is the subject of a difference of opinion among the Sages of the Talmud, seemingly implying that the opinion which maintains that they should be combined should be followed. The Maggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's position. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations. Similarly, the meat of a non-kosher animal, fowl, or fish are not combined for they involve different prohibitions. For each one is forbidden by a separate negative commandment, as we explained.44See Chapter 2. Nevertheless, all the forbidden species of fowl can be combined as may all the forbidden species of domesticated animals and wild beasts.
This is the general principle: Whenever substances are included in the same prohibition, they may be combined. [If they are included] in two [separate] prohibitions, they are not combined. The [only] exceptions are a nevelah and a trefe. [The rationale is that] a trefe is the beginning of [an animal] becoming a nevelah.", + "When a person eats the skin, the bones, the sinews,45Note the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 9:1) which interprets the Hebrew term giddim as also referring to veins, arteries, and nerves. the horns, or the hoofs46This applies even if the portions eaten were soft and blood spurts from them. of a nevelah, a trefe, or a non-kosher domesticated animal or wild beast, from the nails of a non-kosher fowl in the places where blood would spurt through when they are cut off, or from their placenta,47As stated in Halachah 5. although this is forbidden, he is not liable. [The rationale is that] they are not fit to be eaten. They cannot be combined with meat [in the measure of] an olive-sized portion.", + "[Milk found in] the stomach of a nevelah and the stomach of a non-kosher animal48The Rambam does not distinguish between milk that has coagulated and milk that is fluid. For even if it is fluid, it is already considered as a waste product. (Kessef Mishneh). is permitted, for it is like other waste products of the body. Therefore, it is permitted to use [milk found in] the stomach of an animal slaughtered by a gentile or the stomach of a non-kosher domesticated animal or wild beast to cause cheese to solidify.49I.e., since the digestive juices from the animal's stomach have already mixed with this milk, it will be an effective catalyst to cause the large quantity of milk to curdle and harden into cheese. See also Chapter 3, Halachah 13, and Chapter 9, Halachah 15.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 81:6) differs and quotes Rabbenu Tam's opinion states that liquid milk found in the stomach of a forbidden species is forbidden. Moreover, at the outset, one should not use even dried milk found in the stomach of a non-kosher animal as a catalyst because of the impression it will create. After the fact, it is permitted.
The skin of the stomach, by contrast, is like the other digestive organs and is forbidden.", + "The placenta of a donkey50Our translation is based on the glosses of Rashi and Tosafot, Bechoros 7b. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling and maintains that this placenta is forbidden. The Maggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling. is permitted to be eaten because it is like dung and urine which is permitted. There is skin which is considered like meat and one who partakes of an olive-sized portion is considered like one who eats an olive-sized portion of meat, provided one partakes of it when it is soft.51And not processed so that it becomes hard like leather.", + "The following [types of] skins are considered like meat: the skin of a human, the skin of a domesticated pig,52That of a wild boar, by contrast, is too tough to be eaten. the skin of a camel's hump upon which a burden has never been loaded, [because] it has not reached the age [to serve as a beast] of burden, for then it is still soft, the skin of genital area, the skin that is below the tail, the skin of a fetus, the skin of the hedgehog, the chameleon, the lizard, the snail.53As mentioned in the notes to Chapter 2, Halachah 7, the names of these species are a matter of debate. When all of these skins are soft, they are considered like meat with regard to all matters, whether with regard to [liability54This addition is necessary, for there is a prohibition against partaking of any skin, as stated in Halachah 18. for] the prohibition against partaking of them or with regard to the laws of ritual purity.55For an olive-sized portion of the meat of a nevelah can convey ritual impurity, while a hide or a piece of leather that size does not.", + "With regard to an ox condemned to be stoned,56For goring a human being. See Hilchot Nizkei Mammon, ch. 10, which explains the pertinent laws. [Exodus 21:28] states: \"Its meat shall not be eaten.\" Now, how could one think that it would be eaten after it was stoned to death, for it is a nevelah?57For it died without ritual slaughter. Instead, the Torah is coming to teach you that once it has been sentenced to execution by stoning, it becomes forbidden; it becomes like a non-kosher animal. [Even] if one hurried and slaughtered it in an acceptable manner [before it was executed], it is forbidden to benefit from it.58Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 188) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 52) include this among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
Instead, the corpse of the executed animal should be buried (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:11).
If one eats an olive-sized portion of its meat, he is liable for lashes. And when it is executed by stoning, its [meat] should not be sold or given to the dogs or to a gentile, [as implied by the phrase]: \"shall not be eaten.\"59As stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 15, unless there is a teaching that states otherwise, this phrase implies both a prohibition against eating and a prohibition against deriving benefit. It is permitted [to benefit from] the dung of an ox condemned to be stoned.60As stated in Hilchot Ishut 5:2, the rationale is that the dung is considered of negligible importance with regard to the ox itself. As implied by Halachah 20, the dung of an animal is not considered as part of the animal itself, nor is it included in the prohibitions applying to it.
If it is discovered that [a condemned ox] is not liable to be stoned after it was sentenced, e.g., the witnesses who testified against it were disqualified, it may be sent out to pasture with the herd. If this was discovered after it was executed, it is permitted to benefit from [its meat]." + ], + [ + "According to the Oral Tradition, we learnt1Chullin 102b. that [the intent of] the Torah's statement \"Do not partake of the soul together with the meat\" [is to] forbid a limb cut off from a living animal.2Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 182) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 452) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. With regard to a limb cut off from a living animal, it was said to Noah [Genesis 9:4]: \"But flesh, together with its soul, its blood, you may not eat.\"3This prohibition is also one of the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants (Hilchot Melachim 8:10).
The prohibition against [partaking of] a limb from a living animal applies to kosher domesticated animals, wild beasts, and fowl, but not to non-kosher species.4Since the species is forbidden, no additional prohibitions apply.", + "The term ever [translated as \"limb\"] applies both to a limb that has flesh, sinews, and bones, e.g., a hand or a foot, and to an organ that does not have a bone, e.g., the tongue, the testicles, the spleen, the kidneys, the heart, and the like.5The Merkevat HaMishneh notes that this represents a difference between this prohibition and the prohibition against ritual impurity stemming from a limb where the limb must possess a bone. He explains that there a bone is necessary, for the source of the impurity is that of a corpse, and a corpse possesses bones. [There is, however, one difference.] When an organ does not possess a bone, the prohibition [against partaking of] a limb from a living animal applies whether one cut off the entire organ or only part of it.6The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and does not accept this distinction. He maintains that partaking of part of an organ is also included in the prohibition against partaking of a trefe. When, by contrast, a limb possesses a bone, a person is not liable [for violating the prohibition against] a limb from a living animal unless he separates it in its complete state, with its flesh, sinews, and bones. If, however, he only removes flesh from the living animal, he is liable for [the prohibition against partaking of] a trefe [animal] as explained,7Chapter 4, Halachah 10. and not because of a limb from a living animal.", + "One is liable for lashes only for partaking of an olive-sized portion of a limb from a living animal. Even if one eats an entire limb or organ, if it is the size of an olive, one is liable;8We do not consider an organ or limb as a distinct creature and hold him liable, as he is liable for partaking of an ant, even if it is smaller than an olive. Chulin 102a explains that we require an olive-sized portion for the verse that states the prohibition speaks of \"partak[ing] of the soul.\" The term partaking is appropriate only when one eats an olive-sized portion. if not he is exempt.
If one cut off a olive-sized portion of flesh, sinews, and bones from the limb according to its natural form and ate it, one is liable, even if it possessed only the smallest amount of meat.9Since one did not alter its natural form, one is liable for the bones and sinews as well. If, however, one separated a limb which he tore off from a living animal and detached the flesh from the sinews and the meat, he is not liable for lashes unless he eats an olive-sized portion of the meat alone. The bones and the sinews are not included in the olive-sized portion since he changed [the limb's] natural form.", + "When one divides this organ and eats it bit by bit, he is liable if there is an olive-sized portion of meat in what he ate.10Even though he did not detach the meat from the sinews and the bones, since he cut the limb and distorted its natural form, we consider only the meat and not the other elements of the limb. If not, he is exempt. If he took an olive-sized portion of a limb with flesh, sinews, and bones according to its natural form and ate it, he is liable, even though it became divided inside his mouth before he swallows it.", + "When a person rips a limb from a living animal and causes it to become trefe when doing so, he is doubly liable for partaking of it: once for [partaking of] a limb from a living animal and once for [partaking of] a trefe. Both of these prohibitions take effect at the same time.11This explains why the person is liable for the prohibition against partaking of a trefe, for seemingly, we should follow the principle \"a prohibition does not fall on a substance which is already forbidden.\" This principle does not apply in this instance, for here, both prohibitions take effect at the same time. Hence, one does not take precedence over the other and the transgressor is liable for both. (See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:8-10; Chapter 14, Halachah 18, for explanation regarding these principles.) Similarly, if one rips fat from a living animal and partakes of it, he is doubly liable: for [partaking of] a limb from a living animal and for [partaking of] fat.12He is liable for both prohibitions, because the prohibition against partaking of a limb from a living animal is of a wider scope (issur mosif; i.e., it is forbidden to gentiles as well as Jews) than the prohibition against partaking of forbidden fat (Lechem Mishneh).
Kin'at Eliyahu asks why a limb taken from a forbidden species is not forbidden. Here also, the prohibition against taking a limb from a living animal is of a wider scope than that against partaking of a forbidden species.
If he rips fat from a trefe [animal], he is liable for [the violation of] three [negative commandments].13The two mentioned in the previous clause and the prohibition against partaking of a trefe.
He is liable for all three prohibitions, because the prohibition against partaking of forbidden fat is of a wider scope than the prohibition against partaking of a trefe and the prohibition against partaking of limb of a living animal is of a wider scope than the other two (ibid.).
", + "[The following rules apply when] meat is disjoined from an animal and an organ is hanging from it. If it is impossible that this meat will again become a living part of the body, it is forbidden,14From a comparison to the following halachah, it appears that this prohibition is of Scriptural origin. but one is not liable for lashes for it. [This applies] even though it was not separated [from the animal] until after it was slaughtered. If the animal dies, we consider [the limb] as if it fell off while [the animal] was alive.15Chullin 74a makes this distinction between an animal that dies naturally and one which is ritually slaughtered. Therefore one receives lashes for [partaking] of it, because of the prohibition against [partaking of] a limb from a living animal. If, however, the limb could again become a living part of the body and the animal is ritually slaughtered, it is permitted.16For it is considered as part of the animal.", + "If one pulled an organ [from its natural position],17Without detaching it. crushed it, ground it, e.g., one crushed testicles or pulled them from their place [and then slaughtered the animal, the organ] is not forbidden according to Scriptural Law. [The rationale is] that it possesses a trace of life - as evidenced by the fact that it does not decay. Nevertheless, it is forbidden to partake of it as a result of a custom followed by the entire Jewish people from previous generations. For it resembles a limb separated from a living animal.", + "[The following laws apply when an animal's] bone was broken:18In Hilchot Shechitah 8:11-12, the Rambam mentions instances where a broken bone causes an animal to be designated as trefe. Here the Rambam is speaking of instances where the broken bone does not cause the animal to be trefe and the question involves merely the broken limb. May the meat from that limb be eaten or not? If the flesh or the skin covers the majority of the thickness of the broken bone and the majority of the circumference of the fracture, it is permitted. If the bone emerged outside [the skin], the limb is forbidden. When the animal or the fowl is slaughtered, one should cut off [the limb] at the place where it is broken and discard it. The remainder of the limb is permitted.
We rule that [the limb] is forbidden until the flesh is healed [in all the following situations]: the bone broke, the flesh covers the bone, but that flesh was crushed or decayed like flesh which a doctor would remove, it is scattered in many different places,19I.e., when one would calculate the entire amount of the flesh, it would be large enough to cover the majority of the bone. Nevertheless, it is not located in large sections, but is instead, made up of many small pieces. there were many perforations within the flesh,20None of these perforations, however, caused a decrease in the mass of the flesh. the flesh was cracked or pierced like a ring, the flesh was rubbed off from above until only a [thin] peel remained, or the flesh decayed from below around the broken bone to the extent that the flesh surrounding the bone does not touch it.21Chullin 76b mentions all these circumstances without reaching a final ruling regarding them. Hence we rule stringently. If a person partook [of the limb] in any of these [circumstances], he is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.", + "When a person inserts his hand into the inside of an animal, cuts off the spleen, one of the kidneys, or the like,22I.e., organs that do not cause an animal to be considered as a trefe. but leaves [the severed organ] inside the animal, and then slaughters it, the pieces cut off are forbidden as organs from a living animal although they remained within the animal's womb. If, however, he cut away [a portion of] a fetus within the womb, but did not remove it, and then slaughtered [the mother], the pieces or limbs of the fetus are permitted because they did not emerge [outside the mother].23This distinction is made on the basis of Chulin 68a, 69a. The rationale is that the animal's organs are an integral part of it. On the basis of Deuteronomy 14:5, \"You shall eat it,\" our Sages explain when it's whole, you may eat everything within it, but not when it is lacking. The fetus, however, is not considered an integral part of the animal. Hence, as long as its limbs have not emerged outside the womb, they are permitted with the slaughter of the mother.
When a fetus sticks its foreleg or hind leg out of the womb, that limb is forbidden forever, whether one cuts off [the limb] before he slaughters the mother or afterwards.24From this halachah and Halachah 11, we see that there are two prohibitions involved: partaking of a limb considered trefe and partaking of a limb from a living animal. At times, one applies, and in other situations, the other applies. Even if it returns the limb to the womb of the mother and afterwards, [the mother] was slaughtered or the fetus was born and lived for several years,25The Maggid Mishneh and Kessef Mishneh interpret this as referring to a situation where the fetus was not born before the mother was ritually slaughtered (see also Halachah 12). Instead, the mother was slaughtered while the fetus was still in its womb. Afterwards, the fetus was taken out and it survived. If, however, the fetus is born before the mother is slaughtered, the leg which emerged is not forbidden. When the calf is slaughtered, all of its legs are permitted. There are authorities who differ whether this is the Rambam's intent. Most, however, agree that this ruling should be followed in practice [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 14:2)]. that limb is forbidden as a trefe. [The rationale is that] all meat that emerged from its natural position is forbidden as flesh that was separated from a living animal.
[This is derived from the phrase (Exodus 22:30 :] \"Meat [from an animal that was] mortally wounded (trefe) in the field.\" [Our Rabbis extrapolated:] When meat comes out to a place that is like a field for it,26I.e., it is not its natural place. it becomes trefe, as we explained.27See Chapter 4, Halachah 10.", + "[When the fetus] sticks out a portion of a limb and a portion remains within, even if it is only the minority of it, the portion which emerged is forbidden and that which remained within is permitted.
If he cuts off the portion of the limb that emerged after it was returned within the animal and the animal was slaughtered, only that portion is forbidden, the remainder of the limb is permitted. If he did not return it to the womb and it remained outside and he cut it off there, the place where he cut it off - i.e., the place on the limb open to the air after the limb was cut off - is forbidden. He must afterwards cut off this portion as well. [This applies] whether he [originally] cut off the portion of the limb before [the mother] was slaughtered or afterwards.", + "Whenever a limb emerges and is cut off before the animal is slaughtered while it is outside, it is considered as a limb from a living animal28As evident from a comparison to Halachah 9, the prohibition against partaking of a trefe applies only when the limb was cut off following the ritual slaughter of the mother. and one is worthy of lashes for partaking of it. [This applies] even if the fetus dies before [the mother] is slaughtered.29For the ruling is dependent on the mother's condition, not that of the fetus. Even if the fetus dies, it is permitted to partake of it after the slaughter of the mother (see Tosafos, Chullin 72a). If it is cut off after ritual slaughter, one who partakes of it is not liable for lashes,30I.e., he is not liable for lashes for transgressing the prohibition against partaking of a limb of a living animal. As reflected by Halachah 9, he violates the prohibition against partaking of a trefe. The Ra'avad maintains that he is liable for lashes for this violation. The Maggid Mishneh maintains that this situation is comparable to a maimed limb as described in Halachah 6 in which instance a Scriptural prohibition is involved, but one is not liable for lashes. even if it dies. If [the mother] dies and then one cuts off this limb, one who partakes of it is liable for lashes for the prohibition against partaking of a limb from a living animal.31And not for either the prohibition against partaking of a trefe or a nevelah. The death of the mother causes the limb to be considered as if it fell off during the animal's lifetime. See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 2:9 which explains the parallels that apply with regard to the laws of ritual impurity.", + "[The following rule applies when] a fetus sticks out a limb and that limb becomes forbidden and then the fetus is born.32The Maggid Mishneh states that this also refers to a situation where the fetus was born after the mother was slaughtered. If it is female, we are forbidden to drink its milk because of an unresolved halachic question.33Chullin 69a asks whether this milk can be compared to milk from a kosher animal or not. The distinction is that a kosher animal will become permitted if it is slaughtered in the ritual manner and this limb will never become permitted. For the milk comes from all of the animal's limbs and it has a limb which is forbidden. Hence, it is comparable to milk from a trefe animal that becomes mixed with milk from a kosher animal.", + "When a person slaughters a kosher animal that is pregnant and discovers a fetus - whether live or dead - within it, the fetus is permitted to be eaten.34With regard to a live fetus, see the following halachah. With regard to a dead fetus, the Rambam is emphasizing that it is not considered as a separate entity (in which case it would be forbidden as a nevelah), but instead as one of the limbs of the mother. Even the placenta is permitted to be eaten.35Chapter 4, Halachah 5, states that a placenta that is expelled together with the newborn is forbidden to be eaten. In this instance, however, since the placenta has not been expelled, it is still considered part of the mother's body and permitted.
[The following rules apply if] a portion of the placenta emerged and then one slaughtered the mother. If the placenta was attached to the fetus, the portion which emerged is forbidden36Like the limb of a fetus that emerged before ritual slaughter (Maggid Mishneh).
The Ra'avad states that the placenta is comparable to an animal's waste products and therefore is not forbidden at all. The Maggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling.
and the remainder is permitted. If it is not attached to the fetus, it is forbidden in its entirety, for perhaps the fetus that was in this placenta disappeared37Which was not permitted because of the slaughter of the mother. and maybe the placenta of the fetus that is found in the womb disappeared. Needless to say, if a fetus is not found in the womb at all, the placenta is forbidden in its entirety.", + "If one finds a living fetus [in the womb of a slaughtered animal] - even though it has been carried for nine months,38I.e., the period of gestation was full term. and it is possible that it will live, it does not require ritual slaughter.39And can be killed in any manner. Instead, it is acceptable because of the slaughter of its mother. If it steps on the ground, it requires ritual slaughter.40Because of the impression that might be created (Chullin 75b).", + "If a person ripped open an animal41Without slaughtering it according to Torah law. or slaughtered an animal that was trefe and found a live fetus that had been carried for nine months, [that fetus] must be ritually slaughtered to be permitted.42The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 13:3) states that at present, we do not permit any fetus found in the womb of a trefe even if it was ritually slaughtered. The slaughter of its mother is not effective.43Since the slaughter of the mother does not cause the mother to be permitted, it is not effective with regard to the fetus.
If the period [of gestation] was not completed, it is forbidden even though it is alive in the womb of the trefe animal. [The rationale is that] it is considered as one of the mother's limbs.44Since the period of gestation has not been completed, it is not considered as an independent entity. Even if it is taken from the womb and lives for a brief time, ritual slaughter does not cause it to be permitted. Whenever an animal thrust its head [out of the womb] and then returned it and [only] afterwards its mother was slaughtered, the slaughter of its mother has no bearing on it, it is considered as if it was born and it must be ritual slaughtered [to be permitted]." + ], + [ + "When a person partakes of an olive-sized1Although blood is a liquid, the Rambam mentions an olive-sized portion, i.e., a measure of mass, rather than a fourth of a lug, a liquid measure. It is possible to explain that since the Torah uses the word \"eat\" while stating the prohibition, the intent is the same measure that applies with regard to other prohibitions involving \"eating,\" an olive-sized portion. portion of blood intentionally, he is liable for karet.2The soul is cut off in this world (i.e., the person dies prematurely) and in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1). Whenever a person is liable for karet, he is punished by lashes if he was warned before committing the transgression. If lashed, he is absolved from karet.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 184) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 148) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
If he does so inadvertently, he is liable to bring a fixed sin-offering.3This term is used to differentiate this offering from a guilt offering whose value is adjusted according to the person's means.
It is explicitly stated in the Torah that he is liable for partaking of blood from all domesticated animals, wild beasts, and fowl alone. This applies whether they are from a non-kosher or kosher species,4In contrast to the prohibition against partaking of cheilev, forbidden fat, which applies only with regard to kosher species of domesticated animals. as [Leviticus 7:26] states: \"You may not partake of any blood from a fowl or an animal in all your dwellings.\" A wild beast is considered as an animal as [Deuteronomy 14:4-5] states: \"These are the animals that you may eat: an ox... a gazelle and a deer....\"5I.e., the verse uses the term behemah which more specifically refers to domesticated animals and mentions both domesticated animals and wild beasts.
One is not, [by contrast,] liable for transgressing of the prohibition against partaking of blood6One may, however, be liable for another prohibition as the Rambam continues to explain. for partaking of the blood of fish, locusts, creeping animals, teeming animals, or humans. Therefore it is permitted to partake of the blood of kosher fish and locusts. Even if one collects it in a container and drinks it, it is permitted.7The Ra'avad and the Maggid Mishneh note that Keritot 21a states that it is permitted to partake of fish blood that has been collected only when fish scales are placed in it. Otherwise, it is forbidden because of the impression that may be created. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 66:9) quotes this view. The blood of non-kosher fish and locusts is forbidden because it comes from their bodies like the milk of a non-kosher animal.8As apparent from Chapter 3, Halachot 1 and 6, although this prohibition is of Scriptural origin, it is not punishable by lashes. See also Chapter 3, Halachah 22. The blood of creeping animals is comparable to their bodies, as we explained.9Chapter 2, Halachot 9-10.", + "The blood of a human is forbidden according to Rabbinic law if it departed [from the person's body]. One is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct for [partaking] of it. When, by contrast, one's teeth bleed, he may swallow it; he need not hold himself back. If one bit into bread and found blood upon it,10I.e., the same blood that he is permitted to swallow. he must scrape away the blood before partaking of it, for the blood has departed [from the body].", + "One is liable for karet only for blood that flows out [from the animal] when it is slaughtered, killed, or decapitated as long as it is tinted red, blood that is collected within the heart,11See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 5:1) where he states that this is the blood of fundamental importance. See also Halachot 5-6. and blood that is let, i.e., blood that flows forcefully [from the body]. One is not, however, liable for blood that drips at the beginning of bloodletting before it begins to flow forcefully or blood that drips at the ending of bloodletting when the bleeding begins to cease. It is like \"blood within the limbs.\" [The reason for the distinction is that] blood that flows forcefully is bleeding through which the soul may expire.", + "One is not liable for karet for concentrated blood12I.e., blood that flows slowly after the majority of the animal's blood has already been discharged. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.). or the blood within the limbs, i.e., the blood of the spleen, the kidneys, the testicles, the blood that collects in the heart at the time the animal is slaughtered, and the blood found in the liver.13There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if the prohibition against the blood of the liver is Scriptural or Rabbinic in origin. See the gloss of Rav Moshe HaCohen. A person who partakes of an olive-sized portion of it, however, is liable for lashes, as it is written: \"You may not partake of any blood.\"14The term \"blood within the limbs\" appears to refer to blood that is absorbed within the meat and organs of the animal. As indicated later in this chapter and as stated in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 67:1, this blood is forbidden only when it emerges from the meat or moves from place to place within the meat. See the notes to Halachah 12. With regard to one's liability for karet [Leviticus 17:11] states: \"For the soul of the flesh is in the blood.\" [Implied is that] one is liable for karet only for blood that causes the soul to expire.", + "When a fetus is found in an animal's womb, its blood is like the blood of an animal that has been born.15There is a distinction between the blood of a fetus and its fat (which is permitted in certain circumstances, see Chapter 7, Halachah 3). The rationale is that the verse forbidding blood prohibits \"any blood\" (Lechem Mishneh). Therefore one is liable for the blood that is collected in its heart.16As stated in Halachah 3. The remainder of its blood, by contrast, is considered as the blood of the limbs.17According to the Maggid Mishneh, even if one slaughters the fetus after removing it from its mother's womb, he is not liable for partaking of its blood.", + "Whether one [desires to] roast or cook a heart, one must cut it open, remove its blood, and then salt it.18As stated in Halachah 12, the Rambam maintains that even when one roasts meat, he must salt it first. As stated in the notes to that halachah, there are other Rabbis who differ with that point and require salting only when one cooks meat. See also the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 72:1) which quotes certain authorities that forbid eating a cooked heart, even if it was cut open and salted. If one cooks a heart without cutting it open, one may cut it open after it was cooked. It is then permitted.19Pesachim 74b states that the meat of the heart is smooth and hard and will not absorb the blood. Other substances that are cooked with it, however, are forbidden (Maggid Mishneh in the name of the Rashba). The Ra'avad and others differ with the Rambam and consider a heart cooked with its blood as forbidden. This is the view cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 72:2). If one did not cut it open and partook of it, one is not liable for karet.
When does the above apply? With regard to the heart of a fowl, because it does not contain an olive-sized portion of blood.20The heart of a fowl is not large enough for there to be an olive-sized portion of blood absorbed within its meat before slaughter. And it is only that blood for which one is liable for karet. If an olive-sized portion of blood collects there when the animal is slaughtered, one is liable for lashes. If, by contrast, one [partakes] of the heart of an animal, one is liable for karet. For there is an olive-sized portion of blood within the heart and therefore one is liable for karet.21This indicates that according to the Rambam, even when one cooks blood, one is liable for kereit for partaking of it (Lechem Mishneh). Other authorities differ and maintain that if blood has been cooked or salted, one is not liable according to Scriptural Law (Siftei Cohen 87:15).", + "If one cuts open the liver22The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 73:1) states: \"The liver has an abundance of blood. Therefore at the outset, it is not a sufficient measure to prepare it for cooking by salting.\"
The liver must be cut open thoroughly so that the blood contained in the blood vessels inside of it will flow out. Afterwards, placing it in vinegar or hot water causes the blood to be sealed in its place and not to flow into other portions of the liver. It is only blood that flows from place to place within the meat itself that is forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).
and casts it into vinegar or boiling water until it turns white, it is permitted to cook it afterwards.23Implied is that if one desires to roast it, there is no difficulty (Maggid Mishneh).
Many opinions maintain that we are not knowledgeable with regard to the process of casting a liver in vinegar or boiling water in the present age and should not rely on this practice. This view is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 73:2).
It has already become universal Jewish custom to singe it over a fire24See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 10:11) where the Rambam mentions ordinary roasting and not singeing for the liver to be permitted. and then cook it. [This applies] whether one cooks it alone or one cooks it with other meat.25The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 73:1) states that it must be roasted to the extent that it is fit to be eaten. The Siftei Cohen 73:2 explains that this means that it must be roasted at least half the extent to which one would normally roast it.
Similarly, it is a common custom that the brains are not cooked nor roasted until they are singed over a fire.26The Maggid Mishneh states that this custom is not as widespread as the custom of singeing the liver. Instead, he writes that it is customary to cut open the membrane surrounding it and then to salt it thoroughly. See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 71:3).", + "When a liver was cooked without being singed over a fire or cast into vinegar or hot water, the pot in which it was cooked is forbidden entirely: the liver and everything cooked with it.27The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 73:2) follows the opinion that the liver itself is permitted if it is cooked after being salted, though everything cooked with it is forbidden. The Rama, however, states that the Rambam's view should be followed.
It is permitted to roast a liver together with other meat on one spit, provided the liver is positioned below [the other meat].28For then the blood will not flow from the liver to the other meat. Hence, even at the outset, this is permitted. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 73:4) states that this ruling applies with regard to the ovens that existed in the Talmudic era. In the present era, however, it is common to turn the spit upside down. Hence, one should not roast the liver together with other meat. If one transgressed and roasted it while it was positioned above the meat, [after the fact,] one may eat it.", + "It is permitted to cook a spleen29That has been salted [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 74:1)]. together with meat, because it is not blood, but meat that resembles blood.
When one breaks the neck of an animal before its soul expires, the blood is absorbed into the limbs.30I.e., the animal suffers internal bleeding when its neck is broken. Since it is in the midst of expiring, it does not have the potential to expel this blood from its system. Instead, it becomes absorbed in its meat [Tur (Yoreh De'ah 67)]. It is forbidden to eat raw meat from it even if one causes the blood to be sealed.31By casting it into vinegar or boiling water.
To explain the difficulty the Rambam is addressing: There is a certain amount of blood absorbed in the meat of an animal. It is forbidden to partake of blood that has moved from place to place within an animal's body and cooking meat will certainly cause such movement. To avoid this difficulty, we salt meat, for this removes the blood. Casting meat in vinegar or boiling water does not remove blood, but instead causes it to be sealed in its place without moving even when the meat is cooked. Hence, according to the Rambam, this process is effective for ordinary meat. It is not, however, effective in this instance, for the internal bleeding that resulted from the breakage of the neck leaves blood that is not in its natural place (Kessef Mishneh, see also his gloss to Halachah 12).
What should be done? One should cut open32Our translation follows the gloss of the Lechem Mishneh who states that one should cut open the meat to allow its blood to flow out. The Maggid Mishneh states that it is unnecessary to cut open the meat and his view is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 67:3). The Rama, however, states that at the outset, one should be stringent. the piece and salt it thoroughly and afterwards, cook it or roast it.33It is then permitted, because the salting removes all the blood.
We have already explained34Chapter 4, Halachah 13. In that chapter, the emphasis was that the animal was not dead when slaughtered. Here the Rambam is restating the law to emphasize that we do not fear that the blood became absorbed within the meat and will not be released through salting. that when a person slaughters a domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl and no blood emerges, they are permitted.", + "Meat does not release [all] the blood it contains unless it is salted thoroughly and washed thoroughly. What should one do? One should wash the meat first35Among the reasons given for this initial washing are:
a) it removes the blood on the external surface of the meat;
b) it softens the meat and enables the blood inside to flow out more easily;
c) it enables the salt to adhere well to the surface of the meat.
and afterwards, salt it thoroughly. One should leave it in the salt for the time it takes to walk a mil36A mil is a Talmudic measure equivalent to approximately a kilometer. According to many Rabbinic opinions, it takes 18 minutes to walk a mil. [This view is cited in the present context by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 69:6).] The Rambam, however, follows a more stringent view [see his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 3:2)] and requires 24 minutes.
The Rama states that these measures are acceptable only after the fact or when there is an urgent need to prepare meat quickly. Otherwise, meat should be allowed to soak in water for at least half an hour.
and then wash it thoroughly, [continuing] until clean water emerges.37This washing removes the salt and blood from the meat. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 69:7) states that the meat should be washed twice and the Rama requires a third washing. Immediately afterwards, one should cast it into boiling water - warm water is not [sufficient] - so that it will become white immediately and [no further] blood will be released.38This follows the Rambam's view that we are knowledgeable in the process of casting meat into hot water to seal it in its place. (As mentioned above, there are many who maintain that we lack that knowledge.) Moreover, in this instance, once the meat has been salted, there is no need for this measure, because all its blood has been released. For this reason, the Ra'avad and the Maggid Mishneh object to the Rambam's ruling. It is, however, mentioned by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 69:19).", + "When we salt meat, we salt it only in a utensil that has holes.39So that the blood will drain out and not be reabsorbed by the meat. If one salted meat in utensil that did not have holes, all the meat lying in the brine is forbidden. Moreover, the outer surface of the meat above the brine becomes forbidden [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 69:18)]. The Rama maintains that the entire piece of meat becomes forbidden.
We salt it only with thick salt that resembles coarse sand. [The rationale is that] salt that is thin like flour will be absorbed by the meat and will not extract the blood.40The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 69:3) states that one should be careful not to use salt with overly large crystals for they will not adhere to the meat. The Rama adds that if one has only thin salt, it is permitted to salt meat using it.
One must shake the salt from the meat before washing it.41For the water will stop the meat from releasing blood. Afterwards, the salt may cause the blood on the surface to be reabsorbed into the meat (Siftei Cohen 69:27).", + "All of the above procedures apply with regard to meat that one must cook. For roasting, by contrast, one may salt the meat and roast it immediately.42When meat is cooked, the blood will enter the pot in which it is being cooked and cause the meat and any other substances to become forbidden. When it is being roasted, the blood will flow down from the spit without being absorbed.
The Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam's words imply that he maintains that one must salt meat before roasting it. There are other Rabbinic opinions that do not accept that approach. (They are favored by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 76:1).
The Rashba emphasizes that if one salts meat and does not roast it immediately, he should wash off the salt and the blood. Otherwise, the blood may become reabsorbed. The Rama rules that one should wash meat and salt it slightly before roasting it and should roast it directly after salting it.

When a person desires to eat raw meat, he should salt it thoroughly43The Rambam's statements have attracted the attention of the commentaries, for they appear to contradict his approach in Halachah 9 and in the latter clause of this halachah. To explain: From Halachah 9, it would appear that it is forbidden to eat raw meat that is not salted only when there is internal bleeding while the animal is being slaughtered. For although the meat contains blood, that blood is forbidden only when it moves from one part of the meat to another while cooking. If one eats the meat raw, such a transfer will not take place.
Similarly, the latter clause of this halachah permits meat when it is cast into vinegar because the blood becomes sealed in its place. Implied is that the blood itself is permitted.
This clause, by contrast, states that one must salt the meat to remove the blood even when one eats the meat without cooking it. Implied is that the blood is forbidden even though it has not moved from place to place within the meat. The Kessef Mishneh resolves the contradiction, explaining that since the blood is fit to move from place to place, it is forbidden. Hence, the latter clause which speaks about blood that is sealed in its place does not represent a contradiction. Similarly, this interpretation allows Halachah 9 to be understood in a manner that does not produce a contradiction.
It must be emphasized that the Ra'avad and many other authorities object to the Rambam's ruling and maintain that as long as the blood has not actually moved from place to place, it is not forbidden. Therefore it is permitted to partake of raw meat without salting it. It must, however, be washed thoroughly to remove all blood on its surface. This view is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 67:2).
and wash it thoroughly. If he causes the blood to be sealed [by casting the meat into] vinegar, it is permitted to eat the meat while raw.44As mentioned previously, in the Ashkenazic community (and also among many Sefardim), the custom of sealing blood by casting meat into vinegar is no longer practice. See Rama (Yoreh De'ah 67:6). And it is permitted to drink the vinegar which sealed it, for vinegar does not extract blood.", + "Vinegar in which meat was sealed should not be used to seal meat a second time.45For its power has been weakened (Rashi, Chulin 33a). When a piece of meat turns red within vinegar,46The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that it is based on an improper interpretation of Chulin 93b. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 67:4-5 appears to think that the interpretations are not mutually exclusive, for it accepts both of them. it and the vinegar are forbidden. [It can be permitted by] salting it thoroughly and roasting it.
When meat turns red,47An indication that it has absorbed additional blood. similarly, the testicles of an animal or beast and their membranes,48For they also contain large quantities of blood. See Chulin 93a. and similarly the neck which contains large blood vessels that are filled with blood, it is permitted to cook them if they are cut open and salted as required. If one did not cut them open and instead roasted them on a spit, they are permitted if he roasted the neck with its opening facing downward or he roasted all of them on the coals themselves.", + "[The following rules apply when one] roasts the head of an animal in an oven or a furnace. If one hangs the head with the opening to its neck49Literally, the place where the animal was slaughtered. hanging downward, it is permitted, for the blood will emerge and flow outward.50The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 68:1) states that, as an initial and preferred measure, it is customary to be stringent and not to roast the head while it is whole at all, even if the opening to the neck is positioned downward. If the opening to the neck is positioned to the side, the brain is forbidden, because the blood collects in it.51If, however, a hole is made in the skull and its membranes so that the blood can drain off, the brain is permitted [Rashba, as quoted by the Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 68:1)]. The remainder of the meat on the external surface of the bones is permitted.52The brain must, however, be removed from the skull, before the skull is cooked (Maggid Mishneh in the name of the Ramban).
Should he [roast it] with its nose positioned downward, if he places a straw or a reed in its nose so that it will remain open and the blood can flow out through it, [the brain] is permitted. If not, it is forbidden.", + "One should not place a utensil beneath meat53That has not been salted and left to let the blood drain off. that is being roasted to collect the juice [dripping from it] until no red color remains in the juice. What should be done?54For if one waits until there is no trace of the blood, the fat that one wishes to collect will also have drained off. One places a small amount of salt55One should use only a small amount of salt. If one uses a large amount, the blood will become mixed with the fat (Maggid Mishneh). in the utensil and leaves the utensil there until the meat roasts. He then removes the fat resting on top. The liquid below the fat is forbidden.56Because it is mixed with blood. Since the fat does not mix with the other liquids but instead floats above them, it remains a distinct entity and is permitted.
The Maggid Mishneh writes that there are opinions that we are not familiar with the details of this process. Hence one should not rely on this leniency. This approach is followed by the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 76:6) which state that one should not place a utensil under the meat until the meat is roasted to the extent that it can be eaten.
", + "When roasted meat is sliced over a piece of bread, it is permitted to eat the bread, for [the liquid] which exudes is only fat.57I.e., once the meat is roasted to the extent that it is fit to be eaten, we assume that all the forbidden blood has drained off.
When fish and fowl are salted together, even in a utensil with holes, the fish are forbidden. [The rationale is that] the fish is soft and will absorb the blood which is being exuded by the fowl.58Generally, when pieces of meat are being salted together and the utensil has holes so that the blood can run off, the meat is permitted even if the blood from other meat flows over it. The rationale is that since it is expelling its own blood and/or other juices, it will not absorb blood. Fish, however, will expel its blood and juices far faster than meat or fowl and will complete that process before the meat completes expelling its blood. Hence, we fear that it will absorb the blood from the meat or fowl (Maggid Mishneh).
All that is forbidden is the external surface of the fish (kedai kelipah). Once that is cut off, the remainder of the fish is permitted [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 70:1)]. The Rama rules that all the fish are forbidden. This stringency applies when the fishes' scales have been removed. If they have not been removed, the fish are permitted.
Needless to say, [this law applies] if one salted fish together with the meat of an animal or beast.", + "When one leaves fowl whole, stuffs their cavity with meat and eggs, and cooks them, they are forbidden, for the blood flows into them.59I.e., into the stuffings. Afterwards, the blood will become reabsorbed into the fowl itself and cause it to become forbidden. This applies even if one salted them thoroughly,60The Maggid Mishneh interprets the Rambam's ruling as being dependent on his ruling in Halachah 10 that after being salted, meat must be placed in hot water. In this instance, the fowl's stuffing prevents the boiling water from having the desired effect on the fowl.
Alternatively, the Rambam's ruling can be understood according to the statements of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 77:1) who rules that initially one must salt both sides of the fowl. If the fowl was already stuffed, salting just the exterior is not sufficient, because it will not effect the blood on the inside. See also the Rama who rules that at the outset, fowl must be salted properly and any meat placed within it must be salted properly. Only in such a situation should one cook a fowl with stuffing.
and even if the meat inside them was cooked or roasted. If one roasted [the fowl], they are permitted.61For the fire will cause all the blood to drain out. [This applies] even if the meat inside them was raw and even if their opening was pointed upward.62Even in such a position, the power of the fire will cause the blood to drain downward.", + "When one filled intestines [that were not salted] with roasted or cooked meat in this manner or with eggs and cooked them or roasted them, they are permitted. [The rationale is that] we do not presume that there is blood in the intestines.63Hence salting is not required. The Geonim ruled in this manner.", + "[The following rules apply when] one coated fowl64The Maggid Mishneh interprets this halachah as referring to fowl that were salted, but were not placed in water after the salting. According to the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 78:1), it applies to fowl that were not salted. The Shulchan Aruch continues, stating that according to the present custom, one should not coat meat that is being roasted unless it has been salted and washed first. with flour and roasted them, whether whole or cut in portions. If they were coated with coarse flour, one may partake of the coating, even if it became reddish. [The rationale is that] coarse flour will crumble65I.e., it will not stick thoroughly to the sides of the fowl. Thus there will be space for the blood to drain through. and the blood will flow outward. When they are coated with wheat flour that was moistened [before being ground],66In which instance, the flour is very thin and hence, clings tightly to the fowl. it is permitted to eat from the coating if it is white like silver. Otherwise, it is forbidden. If they were coated with other flours, they are forbidden if they turn red. Otherwise,67Even if they are not white like silver. they are permitted.", + "It is forbidden to use a knife that was used for ritual slaughter to cut hot meat68The Rambam's ruling is based on the following points. There is a difference of opinion among our Sages (Chullin 8b) whether the portion of the animal's neck where it is slaughtered is considered as \"hot\" at the time of slaughter, in which instance, when the animal is slaughtered some of its blood would be absorbed into the knife. Or it is not hot, in which instance, there is no such absorption.
From the Rambam's ruling (here and in Chapter 17, Halachah 7), it appears that he maintains that the animal's neck is not \"hot.\" Nevertheless, he requires certain safeguards in consideration of the other views.
This issue is a matter of concern only when the meat being cut itself is hot. For otherwise, the blood absorbed in the knife will not be transferred to it.
The Maggid Mishneh mentions that there is another opinion which maintains that even though the animal's neck is cold, the pressure of cutting causes the knife to absorb some blood. See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 10:2) and commentaries.
unless the knife was exposed to fire until it turned white, sharpened in a sharpener or inserted into hard earth ten times. [After the fact,] if one cut hot meat with it, it is permitted.
Similarly, one should not cut radishes or other sharp foods69Since these foods are sharp, they produce an effect similar to actual heat and have the potential to affect forbidden foods absorbed in a knife. Therefore safeguards should be taken. with it at the outset. If one washed the knife or cleaned it with a utensil, it is permitted to cut radish and the like with it, but not hot meat.", + "When meat has been salted in a bowl,70Seemingly this refers to a bowl that does not have holes. Nevertheless, there are authorities who also forbid using a bowl that has holes. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 69:17) states that at the outset, one should not use even a bowl that has holes, but after the fact, the food is permitted. one is forbidden to eat hot food71The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 69:16) also quotes an opinion that forbids using the bowl for cold food at the outset if it has not been washed. in it for all time,72One of the fundamental principles of the laws of kashrut is that an earthenware vessel can never be kashered. Once it absorbs forbidden matter, it will never be dislodged from it (see Chapter 17, Halachah 2). Hence once the bowl has absorbed the blood, there is no way that the earthenware utensil will be permitted again. for the blood has already been absorbed in its clay.73And will be released when the hot food is placed in it, causing that food to become forbidden. [This applies] even if [the utensil] is coated with lead.74Were the utensil to be made of lead alone, it could be kashered by boiling water in it (hagalah), as is the law with regard to metal utensils. In this instance, however, the metal is just a coating and the blood will penetrate to the earthenware base. Hence, it remains forbidden." + ], + [ + "When a person willfully eats an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat,1The term forbidden fat refers to the Hebrew term cheilev, to distinguish it from shuman which refers to fat that may be eaten. Unless otherwise mentioned, the term \"fat\" in this text will refer to forbidden fat. he is liable for kerat. If he partakes of it inadvertently, he must bring a fixed sin-offering.
It is explicitly stated in the Torah that he is liable for partaking2There is, however, no prohibition against benefiting from forbidden fat. See Chapter 8, Halachah 15. [of the fat] of the three species of kosher domesticated animals alone, as [Leviticus 7:23] states: \"Do not partake of any fat from an ox, lamb, or goat.\"3Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 185) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 147) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. [This applies] whether one partakes of fat from an animal that is ritually slaughtered or one partakes of fat from a nevelah or a trefe [from a kosher species].4See the following halachah. With regard to other domesticated animals and wild beasts, whether non-kosher or kosher, their fat is comparable to their meat.5I.e., there is no separate prohibition concerning it. If the animal is kosher, its fat is not considered cheilev and is permitted. If the animal is not-kosher, its fat is of course forbidden, but it is not bound by a separate prohibition. This reflects a contrast to the prohibition against partaking of blood mentioned in the previous chapter. Similarly, the fat of a stillborn fetus of the three species of kosher animals is comparable to its flesh. When one partakes of an olive-sized portion of it, one is liable for lashes for partaking of a nevelah.6There is not, however, a separate prohibition for partaking of its forbidden fat. From Chulin 75a, it appears that this leniency applies only when the fetus is stillborn before its full period of gestation is completed. If, however, the full period of gestation is completed, the prohibition against cheilev does apply (Maggid Mishneh; Siftei Cohen 64:5). See also Halachot 3-4.", + "When a person partakes of the fat of a nevelah or a trefe, he is liable for partaking of fat and for partaking of a nevelah or a trefe. [The rationale]7I.e., why we do not follow the principle that one prohibition does not fall upon another. is that since a prohibition is added to its meat - for it was permitted beforehand - it is also added to its fat.8The fat was forbidden previously and a further prohibition is added when the meat becomes forbidden. Hence one is liable for two sets of lashes.", + "When a person slaughters an animal and finds a fetus in its womb, all of its fat is permitted.9Contrast this to the prohibition against gid hanasheh as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 1. [This applies] even if the fetus is alive, because it is considered as a limb of [the mother]. If it was carried for the full period of gestation and discovered to be alive, its fat is forbidden and one is liable for kerat for partaking of it. [This applies] even if [the fetus] never stepped on the ground and does not require ritual slaughter.10As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 14. The Ra'avad mentions an opinion which states that one is not liable. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:2) cites both views.. [Instead,] we must remove all the forbidden strands of tissue and membranes from it as [is required] with regard to other animals.", + "When a person inserts his hand into an animal's womb and cuts off and takes out the fat of a fetus that has undergone a full period of gestation, he is liable11From the Rambam's inclusion of the phrase \"takes out,\" the Kessef Mishneh concludes that the prohibition applies only when the fat is taken out from the mother's womb while the animal is still alive. If the fat is left inside the womb and then the animal is slaughtered, he maintains that the fat is permitted. This conclusion is cited by the Turei Zahav 64:4 and the Siftei Cohen 64:6. for it in the same way as if he cut off the fat of the animal itself. [The rationale is that the fulfillment of the gestation period] is what causes the prohibition against fat.12The Maggid Mishneh clarifies that this stringency does not apply when the fetus dies in its mother's womb even if it has completed the nine months of gestation.", + "There are three types of forbidden fat for which one is liable for kerat: the fat on the digestive organs, on both kidneys, and on the flanks. The fat-tail, by contrast, is permitted to be eaten.13The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:5) states that one must remove the fatty portion on the inner side. It is called fat only with regard to the sacrifices, just as the kidneys and the large lobe of the liver are referred to as \"fat\" with regard to the sacrifices.14Chulin 117a interprets Leviticus 3:16: \"All of the cheilev to God\" as referring to the portions of the animal offered on the altar. These include the kidneys and the lobe of the liver although they are not \"fat\" (see Hilchot Maaseh HaKorbanot 1:18). Instead, the intent of term cheilev in the verse is \"choice portions.\" Similarly, we find the expressions15Genesis 45:18; Deuteronomy 32:14. \"the fat of the land,\" and \"wheat as fat as kidneys\" [where the intent is not \"fat,\"] but \"choice.\"
Since these entities are being raised up from the sacrifice to be consumed with fire for God, they are called \"the fat,\" i.e., the choice portion, for there is nothing more choice than the portion consumed with fire for God. For this reason, with regard to terumat ma'aser16The tenth of the tithe which the Levites who receive the tithe must separate and give the priests. [Numbers 18:30] states: \"When you raise up its fat from it.\"17Here also the intent of the term cheilev is \"choice portions.\"", + "The fat on the abdomen18An animal has four stomachs. We have chosen synonyms arbitrarily to describe them. and on the gut is what is meant by the term \"the fat on the digestive organs.\" One is liable for the fat at the joints of the thighs on the inside. This is what is meant by the term \"the fat on the flanks.\" There is also fat on the maw which is bent like an arch; it is forbidden. There is a ligament that extends like a lobe; it is permitted. The strands [stemming from] the fat are forbidden, but one is not liable for kerat for them.", + "Fat which is covered by meat is permitted. Scripture forbids \"fat on the flanks,\" but not within the flanks. Similarly, \"fat on the kidneys\" is forbidden, but not fat within the kidneys. Nevertheless, a person should remove the white matter within the kidney and only then, partake of it. It is not necessary, however, to remove all traces of it.19The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:12) cites the Rambam's view, but also that of the Tur which requires one to be stringent and remove all of its traces. The Rama states that, after the fact, even the stringent opinions do not consider the kidney forbidden if it was cooked without the traces of this fat being removed.", + "There are two cords of fat in the primary loin area, near the top of the thigh. While an animal is alive, this fat can be seen on the intestines.20For while an animal is alive, its meat hangs loosely (Chulin 93b). When, however, it dies, one portion of meat will cling to another and cover this fat. It will not be visible until the portions of meat will be separated from each other. Nevertheless, it is forbidden, because this is not fat that is covered by meat.21For in its lifetime, it is not covered by meat.
[In contrast,] wherever you find fat under meat, with the meat covering it and surrounding it in its entirety [so that] it will not be seen until the meat is cut away, it is permitted.", + "The fat of the heart and the fat of all of the small intestines are permitted. They are considered like shuman which is permitted fat with the exception of the top of the intestine that is next to the maw and is the beginning of the small intestines. The fat must be scraped off it.22In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro mentions that some interpret Chulin 93b as stating that a cubit of the intestines are forbidden and he quotes this view as halachah in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:15). The Ramah, however, states that the forbidden measure is not a full cubit, but close to it. This is the fat of the small intestines that is forbidden. There are some of the Geonim who say that the top of the intestine from which the fat must be scraped off is the large intestine,23From the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Shechitah 6:10, it is obvious that he favors the first opinion. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the second view should be followed. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:15) states that one should follow the stringencies of both views. i.e., the colon from which feces are excreted which is the last of the digestive organs.", + "In the body of an animal, there are strands of tissue and membranes that are forbidden. Some are forbidden because of the prohibition against partaking of fat and others because of that against blood.24I.e., there is blood absorbed in the tissue or membrane. Whenever a strand of tissue or a membrane is forbidden because of the prohibition [Leviticus 3:17]: \"Do not partake of any blood,\" one must remove it, and only then salt the meat as we explained.25The commentaries have cited Chapter 6, Halachot 10-12, as the Rambam's intent, but this point is not explicitly stated there. If one cut [the forbidden blood vessel], it does not have to be removed.26For the blood will flow out of it. Similarly, if one roasts [the meat], it does not have to be removed.27For the fire will cause the blood to drain off [see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 65:1)]. As the Maggid Mishneh mentions, there are some authorities who require that the blood vessels be cut open even when one roasts the meat.
Whenever a strand of tissue or membrane is forbidden because of the prohibition, \"Do not partake of any fat,\" it must be removed from the animal whether one's intent is to cut it or roast it.28Otherwise, the fat will seep through the meat when it is being cooked or roasted.", + "There are five strands of tissue in the flanks:29The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 64:13) explains that these strands of tissue extend from the lower portion of the backbone. As will be explained in the notes to Halachah 13, there are differences between his interpretation and that of the Rambam. three on the right and two on the left. Each of the three on the right splits into two and each of the two on the left splits into three. All are [forbidden] as fat.
The strands of tissue from the spleen and from the kidneys are forbidden as fat. Similarly, the membrane on the spleen, the membrane above the flanks, and the membrane on the kidneys are forbidden as fat. One is liable for kerat for the membrane on the thick side30Our translation follows the commentary of Rashi to Chullin 93a and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:10). of the spleen. The remainder of the membrane is forbidden, but one is not liable for it.", + "The kidney has two membranes. One is liable for kerat for [partaking of] the upper one as one is for [partaking of] the fat of the kidney itself. The lower one is like other membranes.31I.e., they are forbidden, but one is not liable for kerat for them. The strands of tissue in them are forbidden, but one is not liable for kerat for them.", + "The strands of tissue of the heart, of the foreleg, of the end of the spinal cord,32This follows the Rambam's interpretation of Chullin 93a. Rashi [and his view is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:13)] understands that passage as referred to the strands of fat mentioned in Halachah 11. of the lower jaw, those at either side of the tongue, and those within the fat of the small intestines which are interwoven like spiderwebs,33The Maggid Mishneh and Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 75:3) write that in the present age, leniency is granted with regard to these blood vessels. Nevertheless, it is customary to remove them. and the membrane above the brain in the cranium and the membrane on the testicles are all forbidden because [of the prohibition against partaking] of blood.34I.e., these are blood vessels in which blood will be lodged after the slaughter of the animal. Therefore they must be removed or cut open (see Halachah 10) before the animal is cooked or roasted.", + "When a kid or a lamb35The Maggid Mishneh notes that the Rambam (and his source, Chullin 93b) do not mention a calf when stating this leniency. Implied is that even at a younger age, the testicles of a calf are considered as developed. is less than 30 days old, it is permissible to cook its testicles without peeling [the membranes from them].36Until the kid or lamb reaches that age, the blood vessels are not developed and there is not a large quantity of blood flowing through them. After 30 days, if thin red lines can be seen within them, it is recognizable that blood has circulated through them and one should not cook [the testicles] until their outer membrane has been removed or until they have been cut open and salted, as we explained.37Chapter 6, Halachah 13. If thin red lines have not yet been seen within them, they are permitted.", + "We do not assume that there is blood in any of the digestive organs38This refers to the organs themselves. Hence they need not be salted (Maggid Mishneh, see Chapter 6, Halachah 18). With regard to the fat on these organs, it is possible for there to be blood vessels within them as mentioned above.
The Maggid Mishneh writes that we do assume that the stomach contains blood. This view is not, however, followed by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 75:1). The Siftei Cohen 75:1 and the Turei Zahav 75:1, however, state that we do assume that the stomach of a fowl contains blood.
through which the food passes.", + "It appears to me39This expression indicates a conclusion at which the Rambam arrived through his own powers of deduction without any explicit prior Rabbinic source. It appears that the Rambam did not arrive at a conclusive decision that the prohibition was of Rabbinic origin, but that he did favor this understanding. that all of these strands of tissue and membranes are forbidden according to Rabbinic Law. [Even] if one would say that they are forbidden according to Scriptural Law,40The verses mention kol, \"any,\" fat or blood. That term could be understood as an inclusion beyond the ordinary scope of the term and hence, involving these substances as well. and are included in the prohibitions against partaking against any fat or any blood, one is not liable for lashes for them, only stripes for rebellious conduct. [Partaking of] them is comparable to partaking of half the measure of a forbidden substance. This is forbidden by Scriptural Law, yet one is not liable for lashes for it.41See Chapter 4, Halachah 16, Hilchot Shivitat Esor 2:3, et al.", + "We do not salt42For we fear that the meat will absorb some of the fat. or wash fat together with meat. One should not use a knife used to cut fat to cut meat, nor a container in which fats were washed to wash meat.43If one cleans the knife or the container first, scrubbing it carefully, it is permitted (Maggid Mishneh in the name of the Rashba).
Therefore a butcher should prepare three knives: one with which to slaughter, one to cut the meat,44For at the outset, the knife used to slaughter should not be used to cut meat (see Chapter 6, Halachah 20). and one to cut fat.", + "If it is local custom for the butcher to wash the meat in his store, he should prepare two containers of water, one in which to wash meat and one in which to wash fat.45The Chulin 8b asks: Why isn't one container sufficient? First he will wash the meat in it and then the fat? The text answers that perhaps he will forget and wash the fat first. In this instance, by contrast, since he has two clearly designated containers, he will not make such a mistake.", + "It is forbidden for a butcher to spread the fat of the flanks over the meat46The Maggid Mishneh mentions views that maintain that this restriction only applies directly after slaughter when the fat is still warm. Once it has cooled, it hardens. This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:18). to make it appear attractive. [The rationale is that] the membrane over the fat is thin. It may become crushed by the butcher's hand and the fat will ooze out and saturate through the meat.
[Although] it is forbidden to perform all of these acts, if they are performed, the meat is not forbidden.47Although there are some more stringent views regarding certain particulars, the Rambam's view is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:19). Nor is the person who performs them given corporal punishment. Instead, he is taught not to act in this manner.", + "Meat should not be salted before the forbidden membranes and strands of tissue are removed.48This is a safeguard against the fat and blood being absorbed by the meat. If the meat was salted with them, they must be removed after the salting. Even if the gid hanesheh49See the following chapter. was among them, one may remove them after salting and cook [the meat].50According to the Rambam, after the fact, we do not say that the fat and/or blood was absorbed in the meat (see also Chapter 15, Halachah 32, and notes). The Rashba differs and maintains that one must remove the surface of the meat with them, because that surface also becomes forbidden. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:20) quotes both views. The Rama also cites a more stringent perspective, but concludes that one may rely on the Rashba's view.", + "When a butcher follows the practice of cleaning meat [from forbidden strands of tissue and membranes and] such a strand or membrane is found after he [alleged to have cleaned the meat], we teach him and warn him not to act negligently with regard to prohibitions.51He is not removed from his position, because these prohibitions are Rabbinic in origin (Maggid Mishneh). This ruling is, however, somewhat difficult to understand according to the second view mentioned in Halachah 16. [More stringent rules apply] if forbidden fat is found after he [alleged to have cleaned the meat]. If it is a barley corn in size, he is removed [from his position]. If an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat is found - even in several places - after he [alleged to have cleaned the meat], he is given stripes for rebellious conduct52For he transgresses the prohibition: \"Do not place a stumbling block before the blind,\" which is interpreted as a charge forbidding one to cause others to transgress. Nevertheless, lashes are not given for the violation of this prohibition. and he is removed from his position. The rationale is that a butcher's word is relied upon with regard to fat.53And his customers might cook the meat without checking for fat (or being knowledgeable about the details of the prohibition). Hence, he would cause them to transgress." + ], + [ + "[The prohibition against partaking of] the gid hanesheh1Genesis, ch. 32, relates that before his confrontation with Esau, Jacob remained alone in his camp. An unidentified being - interpreted by the Torah commentaries to be Esau's archangel - wrestled with him the entire night. When he saw that he could not defeat Jacob, he gave him a blow to his upper thigh, dislocating his gid hanesheh. In commemoration of this event, \"The children of Israel do not eat the gid hanesheh.
The Rabbis identified the gid hanesheh as the sciatic nerve, the large main nerve running down the back of an animal's hind leg. The term gid, though sometimes translated as \"sinew,\" is a general term. As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:4), it is used to refer to arteries, veins, tendons, nerves, and sinews.
applies with regard to kosher2See Halachah 5. domesticated animals and wild beasts,3Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 183) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 3) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. even nevelot and trefot.4See Halachah 6. It applies to a fetus5The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 65:7 does not cite the Rambam's view, but instead quotes two differing opinions: one that the prohibition does not apply to a fetus at all and another, that it applies only when the fetus has completed the period of gestation and is discovered alive. and to animals that have been consecrated, both those consecrated [for sacrifices] of which we partake and for sacrifices of which we do not partake. It applies to [the gid] on the right thigh and that on the left thigh.6Although the angel only dislodged the nerve on one of Jacob's legs, we are forbidden to partake of the nerves from both sides.
According to Scriptural Law, only [the gid] on the hip socket is forbidden, as [Genesis 32:33] states: \"which is on the hip-socket.\" The remainder of the gid which is above the socket or below the socket - and similarly, the fat which is on the gid - are forbidden only according to Rabbinic decree.7See Halachah 7 concerning the removal of this nerve. There are two giddim. The inner one next to the bone is forbidden according to Scriptural Law. The entire outer one is forbidden by Rabbinic decree.", + "When a person partakes of the inner gid hanesheh on the socket, he is liable for lashes.8Because he violates a Scriptural prohibition. If he partakes of the fat [of the gid], the remainder of the inner gid, or the entire outer one, he is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.9For violating a Rabbinic prohibition.
What is the measure of which one must partake to be liable? An olive-sized portion. If one ate the entire gid on the socket, one is liable, even though it is less than an olive in size. The rationale is that it is considered as a self-contained entity.10Accordingly, even if it is less than an olive-sized portion in size, one is liable. Compare to Chapter 2, Halachah 21, Chapter 15, Halachah 17, and Chapter 16, Halachah 6.", + "When a person eats an olive-sized portion of the gid on the right side and an olive-sized portion of the gid on the left side, or he ate two entire giddim even if they are not the size of an olive, he receives 80 lashes. He is given lashes for every gid independently.11Rav Moshe HaCohen writes that this ruling applies when the person was given a separate warning for each gid. Otherwise, he receives only one set of lashes. The Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam would also accept that interpretation.", + "The prohibition against gid hanesheh does not apply with regard to a fowl, because it does not have a [round]12This explanatory addition is based on Chullin 92b. hip-socket. Instead, its thigh is long [and flat]. If there is a fowl whose thigh is shaped like that of the thigh of an animal, i.e., it has a hip-socket, its gid hanesheh is forbidden, but one is not liable for lashes, because of it. Similarly, when there is an animal whose thigh is long like that of a fowl, its gid hanesheh is forbidden, but one is not liable for lashes for it.13Chullin 92b discusses these issues and leaves both matters unresolved; hence, the Rambam's rulings.", + "When a person eats the gid hanesheh from a non-kosher domesticated animal or wild beast, he is not liable.14Not for partaking of the gid and not for partaking of the meat of a forbidden animal. [The rationale is that this prohibition] does not apply with regard to a non-kosher animal,15Chullin 101a notes that the confrontation between Jacob and the angel took place before the Giving of the Torah, at a time when the Jews could eat non-kosher animals. Hence, there is reason to say that the prohibition could involve a non-kosher animal, for partaking of such animal was not forbidden until the Giving of the Torah.
In response, the Talmud explains that our observance of this prohibition does not stem from the practice observed by Jacob's descendants, but because this prohibition was reiterated at the time of the Giving of the Torah. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 7:6, the Rambam elaborates on this point, explaining that our observance of Jewish practice, even the mitzvot which we know that the Patriarchs fulfilled like circumcision, stems from God's command at Sinai and not from our ancestors' observance.
only with regard to an animal that is entirely permitted. Nor is he considered as one who partook of the remainder of its body, for the gid is not included as meat, as we explained.16Chapter 4, Halachah 18. See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 65:9) which states that a gid is \"like a piece of wood; it has no flavor.\" If, however, one partakes of the fat on the gid [of a non-kosher] animal, it is considered as if one ate from its meat.", + "When a person partakes of a gid hanesheh from a nevelah, a trefe, or an animal consecrated as a burnt offering, he is liable for two [sets of lashes]. Since [the prohibition]17I.e., the prohibition against partaking of a nevelah, trefe, or burnt offering. includes the remainder of its body which was permitted, it also includes the gid and causes another prohibition to be added to it.18Following the concept of issur kollel, \"an encompassing prohibition,\" as explained in the conclusion of Halachah 14 (Maggid Mishneh).
The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that Chullin 82b states that according to the opinion that a gid hanesheh does not have any flavor, one is not liable. Only the opinion that maintains that the gid hanesheh does have a flavor holds one liable. From the previous halachah, it appears that the Rambam follows the former view. Why then does he hold the person liable for two sets of lashes.
", + "One who removes the gid hanesheh must ferret out all traces of it until nothing remains.19Since the gid hanesheh and the gid forbidden by Rabbinic decree subdivide into several branches, this is a rather difficult task. For this reason, in most sectors of the Jewish community today, it is customary not to eat the hind-quarters of an animal. Accordingly, several cuts of meat, e.g., sirloin steak, are not available from kosher butchers. A butcher's word is accepted with regard to the gid hanesheh,20I.e., we rely on his word and do not inspect the meat ourselves. just as it is accepted with regard to forbidden fat. [Accordingly,] we do not purchase meat from every butcher, [only from] an upright man who has established a reputation for observance.21If the person himself does not have a reputation for observance and knowledge of the laws, he can sell meat if he hires such a person to act as a supervisor. This is the rationale for the practice of hasgachah, kashrut inspection, practiced today. If he slaughters meat himself and sells it, his word is accepted.", + "Where does the above apply? In the Diaspora. In Eretz Yisrael, by contrast, when it is populated entirely by [Torah-observant] Jews, meat may be purchased from anyone.22In the present era, there is no difference between Eretz Yisrael and other lands, for the majority of the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael are not Torah observant.", + "[The following rules apply when] a butcher is considered as trustworthy to sell meat, but it is discovered that he sold meat that was nevelah or trefe. He must return the money to its owners.23He must return the money entirely. This applies even if the customers already partook of the non-kosher meat (Hilchot Mechirah 16:14). The rationale is that a person's soul is revolted by the commission of a transgression and he is not considered to have benefited from the meat at all (Sefer Meirat Einayim 232:4). He is placed under a ban of ostracism and is removed from his position.24See Chapter 7, Halachah 21.
There is no way that he can correct [his act] so that people [will be allowed] to purchase meat from him until he goes to a place where his identity is unknown25If he performs such an act in a place where his identity is known, it can be said that he did so in order to be reinstated.and returns a lost object of significant worth or slaughters an animal for his own self and has it declared trefe although it involves a significant financial loss. For these actions indicate that he certainly repented without any [intent to] deceive.26I.e., they show that he is willing to forgo his financial benefit in order to keep Torah law. See also Hilchot Shechitah 10:14 and Hilchot Edut 12:9 which deal with the same concept. Hilchot Edut states that in order to be accepted as a witness, he must wear black garments as a sign of repentance.", + "When a person purchases meat and sends it via a common person, [the latter's] word is accepted with regard to it. Although he has not established a reputation for Torah observance,27See the Maggid Mishneh who maintains that the Rambam would rule in this manner even when a Jew is reputed to transgress various prohibitions. He also mentions the opinion of the Rashba who maintains that further precautions must be taken if an article is entrusted to a non-observant Jew. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 118:8) quotes the Rambam's ruling and then cites the Rashba's view without indicating which opinion should be followed. we do not suspect that he will exchange [the meat for a non-kosher cut].28I.e., we do not expect that he will steal. Moreover, he will derive no benefit from doing so, for he will have to supply an equivalent piece of meat for the one he exchanges. We do not expect him to cause sin without deriving any benefit. If, however, he has a reputation for stealing, his word is not accepted (Maggid Mishneh). Even the servants and maidservants29I.e., Canaanite servants, non-Jews purchased as servants who have undergone a partial conversion process (Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 12:11). of the Jews are trusted with regard to such a matter. A gentile, by contrast, is not [trusted], for we fear that he will exchange [the meat].30For a gentile is never trusted in any matters involving Jewish observance. When one desires to send food that involves prohibitions with a gentile, it is necessary to take precautions as stated in Chapter 13, Halachot 8-10.", + "[The following rule applies when there are] ten stores, nine sell kosher meat and one sells nevelot.31I.e., even if the proportions are heavily weighted in favor of the conclusion that the meat is kosher, we accept the possibility that it is non-kosher. If one purchased meat from one of these stores and did not know which one he purchased from, [the meat] is forbidden. [The rationale is that] whenever [the presence of a forbidden entity] is firmly established, the situation is considered as half and half.32This is a general principle applying in many other contexts as well, e.g., Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 2:10, Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 18:15.
If, however, meat is found cast away in the street,33The Hagahot Maimoniot explains that this law applies only when the meat is discovered in the public domain. If a person is seen taking meat from a store, but it is not known which store he took it from, the previous law applies. [it is judged] according to the majority. For [we follow the assumption:] Anything that was separated, separated from the majority.34This also is a frequently employed Talmudic principle. If the majority of sellers were gentile, [the meat] is forbidden. If the majority were Jewish, it is permitted.", + "Similarly, when meat is found in the hand of a gentile and it is not known from where he purchased it, if [the majority of] the sellers of meat were Jewish, it is permitted.
This reflects the ruling according to Scriptural Law. [Nevertheless,] our Sages have already forbidden any meat found in the marketplace or in the possession of a gentile35As mentioned by the Maggid Mishneh, there are Rishonim who permit meat found in the possession of a gentile when the majority of the sellers are Jewish, maintaining that this is evident from Chullin 95a. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 63:1, however, quotes the Rambam's view. even though all the slaughterers and all the sellers are Jewish. Moreover, even if one purchased meat, left it in his house, and it disappeared from one's sight, it is forbidden36According to the literal meaning of the Rambam's words, if meat was placed in the freezer, it would be forbidden. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 63:2) cites, however, the opinion of Rashbam which permits the meat if it is found in the same place that it was placed. The Rama writes that it is customary to follow this view. unless it had a distinguishing mark, he was familiar with it and could recognize it definitely as [the piece of meat lost],37The Maggid Mishneh states that if a person has a reputation for upright conduct, his word is accepted in this concept even if he is not a Torah scholar. Note the contrast to Hilchot Gezeilah V'Aveidah 14:12 which accepts only the word of a Torah scholar if one claims to recognize a lost object, but cannot identify it with distinctive marks. or it was bound and sealed.", + "[The following rule applies when] one hung a container filled with pieces of meat, the container broke, and the pieces fell to the earth.38If, however, he found it as he left it, it is certainly permitted (Maggid Mishneh). If there is no distinguishing mark [on the meat] and he was not able to recognize it, it is forbidden. [The rationale is that] it is possible to say that the meat that was in the container was dragged away by a wild beast or creeping animal and this is other meat.", + "It is permitted to derive benefit from a gid hanesheh.39The Maggid Mishneh notes that according to Pesachim 22a, it would appear that the authorities who maintain that the gid hanesheh has no flavor also maintain that it is forbidden to benefit from it. Now the Rambam follow the perspective that the gid hanesheh has no flavor (see Halachah 5). Hence his position here is somewhat difficult. The Maggid Mishneh explains, however, that the two positions are not necessary interrelated and both rulings of the Rambam can be upheld. Therefore it is permissible for a person to send a thigh which contains a gid hanesheh to a gentile.40I.e., because there is no prohibition against receiving benefit from the gid hanesheh, he does not have to remove it before selling the meat. He may give him the entire thigh intact in the presence of a Jew. We do not suspect that [the other] Jew will partake of this meat before the gid is removed, because its place is recognizable.41Since the Jew sees a co-religionist giving the gentile the meat, he will assume that it was ritually slaughtered and that the meat was kosher. [This applies in a place where public announcements are made when an animal is discovered to be trefe (Chullin 93b). Otherwise, the Jew must tell the gentile that the animal is kosher (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 65:11)].
Nevertheless, since the place of the gid hanesheh is recognizable - i.e., it is obvious whether the gid is still in the thigh or has already been removed - he will not partake of the meat until the gid is removed.
Accordingly, if the thigh was cut into pieces, he should not give it to a gentile in the presence of a Jew, lest the other Jew partake of it.42Since the place of the gid hanesheh is not obvious, the other Jew may think that ordinary kosher meat is being given and may partake of it.", + "Wherever the Torah states: \"Do not eat,\" \"You shall not eat,\"43Both of these commands are in the second person: one singular, one plural. \"They shall not eat,\" or \"It shall not be eaten,\" the intent is that it is forbidden both to partake of or benefit from the forbidden entity44Sometimes the command is stated in an active voice; sometimes, it is passive; sometimes, singular and sometimes plural. The passive form implies that it is forbidden to derive any benefit that could lead to one's eating, e.g., selling it for money that could be used to purchase food. unless:
a) a verse explicitly states otherwise, as it does with regard to a nevelah [Deuteronomy 14:21]: \"Give it to the stranger in your gate and he shall partake of it,\" or with regard to forbidden fat [Leviticus 7:24]: \"You may use it for any task\"; or
b) the Oral Law states explicitly that it is permitted to benefit from it, as is the case with regarding to teeming animals, swarming animals, blood, a limb from a living animal, and the gid hanesheh. For according to the Oral Tradition, it is permitted to benefit from all these prohibited entities, even though it is forbidden to partake of them.", + "Whenever it is forbidden to benefit from a substance, if a person derives benefit without partaking of it, e.g., he sold or gave to a gentile or gave it to dogs, he is not liable for lashes.45Rav Moshe HaCohen questions this ruling, stating that if the intent of the Scriptural prohibition is that it is forbidden to benefit from these substances, why is one not liable for lashes for deriving such benefit? The Maggid Mishneh explains that he is not liable, for one is liable for lashes only when he derives benefit from the food in the ordinary manner one derives benefit from food. This includes only eating. Receiving money, by contrast, is not considered as benefiting from food in the ordinary manner. Rav Moshe HaCohen, however, anticipated that attempted resolution and explains that, on the contrary, selling edible food is an ordinary way of deriving benefit. He should, however, be given stripes for rebellious conduct. The money [he received] is permitted.46There is one exception to this: money received in return for a false deity or articles associated with it. That money is itself forbidden (see Chapter 13, Halachah 15; Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 7:19).
Whenever it is forbidden to partake of a substance, but it is permitted to benefit from it, even though it is permitted to benefit from it, it is forbidden do business with such articles or establish oneself in a profession that involves forbidden entities.47I.e., one's livelihood may not revolve around the sale of these forbidden entities or performing work with them (e.g., serving as a chef in a non-kosher restaurant). The rationale for the prohibition is that we fear that a person who has extensive involvement with forbidden substances may come to partake of them (Rashba).
The Maggid Mishneh clarifies that the above applies only with regard to food from forbidden species. One may choose a profession that involves employing a horse or a donkey as a beast of burden.
[There is] an exception, forbidden fat, for concerning it, it is written: \"You may use it for any task.\" For this reason, we do not do business with nevelot, trefot, teeming animals, and swarming animals.", + "When a trapper happens upon a non-kosher wild animal, fowl, or fish, and he snares them or he traps both kosher and non-kosher animals, he may sell them.48He must sell them immediately. He may not raise them until they become large [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 117:4)]. See also Siftei Cohen 117:6 who questions whether the leniency is granted only to a professional trapper or to any person. He may not, however, intend to have his profession concern non-kosher species.
It is, however, permitted to do business with milk that was milked by a gentile without being observed by a Jew, cheeses made by gentiles, and the like.", + "This is the general principle: Whenever a prohibition is forbidden by Scriptural Law, it is forbidden to do business with it. Whenever the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin, it is permitted do business with it, whether we are certain of the existence of the prohibition or it is a matter of question." + ], + [ + "It is forbidden to cook meat and milk together and to partake of them according to Scriptural Law.1Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments 186-187) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 113 and 92) include these prohibitions among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. It is forbidden to benefit from [such a mixture]. It must be buried. Its ashes are forbidden like the ashes of all substances that must be buried.2See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:11,13.
Whenever a person cooks an olive-sized portion of the two substances together,3I.e., together the mixture is the size of an olive. It is not necessary that one have an olive-sized portion of milk and an olive-sized portion of meat. he is worthy of lashes, as [Exodus 23:19] states: \"Do not cook a kid in its mother's milk.\" Similarly, a person who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the meat and milk that were cooked together4If, however, the meat and milk have not been cooked together, there is no Scriptural prohibition against partaking of them together (Maggid Mishneh). According to Rabbinic Law, it is forbidden to partake of them in any manner. is worthy of lashes even though he was not the one who cooked them.5Even if a prohibition was not violated when cooking them together (e.g., they were cooked by a gentile), it is forbidden for a Jew to partake of the mixture. The implication is that the prohibitions against cooking the mixture and partaking of it are separate issues that do not necessarily share a connection (Maggid Mishneh).", + "The Torah remained silent concerning the prohibition against partaking [of meat and milk]6I.e., no where in the Torah does it state that it is forbidden to partake of such a mixture. only because it forbade cooking them. This is as if to say: Even cooking it is forbidden, how much more so partaking of it.7Significantly, in his Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., the Rambam explains that the prohibitions against partaking of and benefiting from milk and meat are derived from the fact that the Torah repeats this prohibition three times. Perhaps the reason the Rambam does not mention this means of derivation here is to avoid the following question being raised: Why are lashes not given for benefiting from milk and meat?
To explain: In Chapter 8, Halachah 16, the Rambam writes that one is not liable for lashes for deriving benefit from a forbidden substance. As explained in the notes to that halachah, the Maggid Mishneh explains that one is liable for lashes only when he derives benefit from the food in an ordinary manner from food. This includes only eating and not other forms of deriving benefit. Nevertheless, seemingly this should not apply with regard to benefiting from a mixture of milk and meat. For, as stated in Chapter 14, Halachah 10, in that instance, one is liable even if one does not derive benefit in the ordinary manner. Hence, it would appear that one should be liable for lashes for partaking of such a mixture.
Among the explanations given why one is not liable is that the prohibition against deriving benefit from a mixture of milk and meat is derived from an inference from a more lenient instance to a more stringent one (a kal vichomer; see Chullin 115b). And we follow the principle that punishment is not meted out when a prohibition is derived in such a fashion, only when it is stated explicitly (Sifri, Naso). If, however, there was an explicit prohibition in the Torah teaching us that deriving benefit from a mixture of milk and meat was forbidden. Seemingly, one would be liable for lashes (Lechem Mishneh).
[To cite a parallel:] The Torah did not mention the prohibition against relations with one's daughter, because it forbade those with the daughter of one's daughter.8See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 2:6.", + "According to Scriptural Law, the prohibition involves only [a mixture of] meat from a kosher domesticated animal9With regard to the meat or milk of a kosher wild beast or fowl, see the following halachah and notes. and milk from a kosher domesticated animal, as implied by the verse: \"Do not cook a kid in its mother's milk.\"10I.e., the prohibition involves only a kid that could be eaten and milk of which one could partake. The term \"a kid\" includes the offspring of an ox, the offspring of a sheep, and the offspring of a goat unless the verse states explicitly, a goat-kid.11I.e., the term gidi translated as \"kid,\" commonly means \"a kid-goat.\" Nevertheless, according to the Bible, it is not necessarily restricted to this meaning unless the verse specifies so explicitly, as in Genesis 27:16; 38:20. The term \"a kid in its mother's milk\" [does not exclude all other situations].12I.e., the intent is not that one is liable only for cooking an offspring in the milk of its mother and not in any other situations. See the conclusion of the following halachah. Instead, the Torah is speaking regarding the commonplace circumstance.
With regard to the meat of a kosher animal which was cooked in the milk of a non-kosher animal or the meat of a non-kosher animal which was cooked in the milk of a kosher animal, by contrast, cooking is permitted, and deriving benefit is permitted. One is not liable for [transgressing the prohibition against partaking of] meat and milk if one partakes of it.13Needless to say, one is liable for partaking of the non-kosher meat or the non-kosher milk.", + "Similarly, the meat of a wild beast and the meat of a fowl together with the milk of a wild beast or the milk of a domesticated animal is not forbidden according to Scriptural Law.14There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis in Chullin 116a whether the prohibition against eat the meat of a wild beast [cooked] in milk is Scriptural or Rabbinic in origin. According to some interpretations, that difference of opinion is perpetuated among the Rishonim (see Siftei Cohen 87:4). Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of Rishonim and Achronim follow the opinion the Rambam states here. This is also the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 87:3).
Significantly, in (Hilchot Mamrim 2:9), the Rambam states that the meat of a wild beast that is cooked in milk is forbidden according to Scriptural Law. In their glosses to Hilchot Mamrim, the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that there, the Rambam is speaking theoretically: Were the halachah to follow the opinion that the meat of a wild beast is forbidden according to Scriptural law, the ruling would be such and such. The Merkevat HaMishneh, however, maintains that a printing error crept into the text in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot and the text should be changed to fit the Rambam's ruling in Hilchot Mamrim.
Therefore it is permitted to cook it and it is permitted to benefit from it. It is forbidden to partake of it according to Rabbinic Law so that people at large will not be negligent and come to violate the Scriptural prohibition against milk and meat and partake of the meat of a kosher domesticated animal [cooked] in the milk of a kosher domesticated animal. For the literal meaning of the verse implies only the meat of a kid in the milk of its actual mother.15Hence were the Sages to allow one to partake of the meat of a wild beast and fowl cooked in milk, one might think that the prohibition applies only in its most literal context. As a safeguard to prevent this error from occurring, they instituted this prohibition. Therefore, they forbade all meat in milk.", + "It is permitted to partake of fish and locusts [cooked] in milk.16The Turei Zahav 87:3 and the Siftei Cohen 87:5 mention that there are authorities who forbid eating fish and milk together because it can cause health dangers. They, however, reject that ruling.
When a person slaughters a fowl and finds eggs that are completed within it, it is permitted to partake of them together with milk.17This refers to eggs that already have a yolk and whites, but are still connected to the chicken's body (Maggid Mishneh). See the Turei Zahav 87:6 and the Siftei Cohen 87:9 who quote authorities who explain that even though such eggs are considered as meat in certain contexts, there is no prohibition against partaking of them together with milk.", + "When [milk and meat] are smoked, cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias, or the like, one is not liable for lashes.18Nevertheless, there is a prohibition against partaking of all these mixtures and those mentioned in the following clause. Similarly, when meat is cooked in whey, milk from a dead animal,19I.e., milk that was in the animal's udders when it died or was slaughtered. See Halachah 12. or milk from a male,20The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 87:6) states that, after the fact, there is no prohibition against a mixture of milk from a male and meat. The Siftei Cohen 87:16 explains that this refers to milk from a male human. Even the Rama would forbid milk from a male animal according to Rabbinic Law. or if blood is cooked with milk, one is absolved and is not liable for partaking [of the mixture] because of [the prohibition against partaking of] milk and meat.21Implied is that in the latter instance, one is liable for partaking of blood. The Siftei Cohen 87:15 notes that according to many authorities, one is not liable for lashes for partaking of blood that has been cooked.
When, however, a person cooks the meat of a dead animal, forbidden fat, or the like in milk, he is liable for lashes for cooking.22Since we are speaking about meat or fat from a kosher species, the prohibition against cooking applies. In this instance, we do not say that \"one prohibition does not fall upon another,\" because there is no prohibition against cooking a nevelah or forbidden fat. He is not liable for lashes for partaking [of the mixture] because of the prohibition against meat and milk.23He is, however, liable for partaking of a nevelah or of forbidden fat. For the prohibition against [mixtures of] meat and milk does not take effect with regard to [entities] prohibited as nevelah or forbidden fat, because we are not speaking about a more encompassing prohibition, a prohibition which adds a new dimension, or [two] prohibitions that take effect at the same time.24As stated in Chapter 14, Halachah 18, and in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:8, it is only in these circumstances, that we do not follow the general principle: One prohibition does not fall upon another prohibition.
The commentaries ask: Seemingly, the prohibition against a mixture of meat and milk does add a new dimension to this prohibition, because it is forbidden to benefit from such a mixture. Why then does the prohibition against partaking of milk and meat not apply?
The Rambam attempts to resolve this question in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 3:4) by explaining that since the prohibition against benefiting from the mixture is an extension of the prohibition against partaking of it, when - as in the present instance - the prohibition against partaking of it does not apply, the prohibition against benefiting from it also does not apply.
", + "When a person cooks a fetus in milk, he is liable. Similarly, one who partakes of it is liable. When, however, one cooks a placenta, skin, sinews, bones, the roots of the horns, or the soft portion of the hoofs [cooked] in milk,25For as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 18, such substances are not fit to be eaten and thus are not considered as meat. he is not liable. Similarly, one who partakes [of such a mixture] is not liable.", + "When meat falls into milk or milk falls into meat and they are cooked together, the minimum measure [for which one is liable is] enough for one substance to impart its flavor to the other.
What is implied? When a piece of meat falls into a bubbling pot26The pot must be boiling hot. If meat falls into cold milk, it will not absorb it. See Halachah 17. full of milk, a gentile should taste [the contents of] the pot.27Chullin 97a states \"An Aramean chef shall taste it.\" Tosafot and others explain that only a chef's word is accepted. He will not lie, because if his falsification is discovered, his professional reputation will be tarnished and he will suffer a loss. We suspect that an ordinary gentile, by contrast, will lie. His word is only accepted with regard to ritual matters when he makes statements in the course of conversation, without knowing that a Jew is depending on his word.
This interpretation is not evident from the Rambam's words. On the contrary, it appears that according to the Rambam, the statements of any gentile are acceptable (see Chapter 15, Law 30, and notes). The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 92:1 quotes the Rambam's words. The Siftei Cohen 92:1 mentions the view of Tosafot. The Rama states that in the Ashkenazic community, the custom is not to rely on the word of a gentile in this context. Instead, we require sixty times the volume of the meat in all instances. Otherwise, both the milk and the meat are forbidden.
If it has the flavor of meat, it is forbidden. If not, it is permitted, but the piece of meat is forbidden.28For it certainly absorbed milk.
When does the above apply? When he hurried and removed the piece of meat before it discharged the milk that it absorbed. If he did not remove it [that quickly], we require 60 times its volume,29As will be explained (see Chapter 15, Halachah 6, and notes), our Sages received the tradition that a forbidden substances will not impart its flavor to a mixture when the mixture contains sixty times its volume. because the milk that it absorbed became forbidden. It was discharged and then mixed together with the remainder of the milk.30There is no way of distinguishing the remainder of the milk from the forbidden milk. Hence the entire mixture is forbidden unless there is more than 60 times the amount of the forbidden substance.", + "When milk falls [onto a piece of] meat [being cooked] in a pot,31As evident from the continuation of the Rambam's words in this and the following halachah, we are speaking of an instance where milk falls on a piece of meat that is not in the sauce. According to Rashi, the lower portion of the meat is resting within the sauce in the pot and its upper portion - on which the milk falls - projects beyond it. According to Rabbenu Yitzchak, the entire portion is outside the sauce. See Turei Zahav 92:2; Siftei Cohen 92:4. (From the Rambam's wording at the beginning of the following halachah, it would appear that he follows Rabbenu Yitzchak's position.) we taste32I.e., we have the meat tasted by a gentile as above. the piece on which the milk fell. If it does not have the flavor of milk, everything is permitted.33I.e., the piece itself is permitted and therefore all the contents of the pot. [More stringent rules apply] if the piece of meat has the flavor of milk. Even though if the piece of meat was pressed to remove [the absorbed liquid], the flavor [of milk] would not remain, since it has the flavor of milk now, it is forbidden and we must measure its entire volume.34Since the meat becomes forbidden, because it is meat that has been mixed with milk, tasting the mixture for milk is not sufficient. Instead, we consider the meat as a forbidden article and measure 60 times its volume. It is not possible to distinguish between the flavor of the forbidden meat and that of the permitted meat. If everything in the pot - the other meat, the vegetables, the sauce, and the spices - is great enough so that the piece is one sixtieth of the entire [volume], that piece of meat is forbidden35Once it becomes forbidden, it is considered as a prohibited entity and cannot become permitted again. Our Sages [Chullin 108b; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 92:3-4)] use the expression: \"The piece becomes like carrion,\" i.e., as if it is inherently forbidden. and the remainder is permitted.36As if it was mixed with 60 times its volume of non-kosher meat. If the entire mixture is not 60 times the volume of the forbidden piece, the entire mixture becomes forbidden.", + "When does the above apply? When he did not stir the pot at the outset when the milk fell into it. [He did so] only at the end37Since he mixed at the end, after the meat became forbidden, the entire mixture may become forbidden. and did not cover the pot.38Thus the piece of meat on which the milk fell remained a discrete entity, separate from the entire mixture. Hence it becomes forbidden.
If, however, he stirred the pot from the beginning until the end39The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 82) states that it is sufficient for him to stir the mixture at the beginning. This will cause the milk to be blended throughout the entire mixture. There is no need for him to continue stirring the pot. Rav Yaakov ibn Chaviv maintains that the Rambam would also accept this position. The Rambam mentions stirring the put until the end only for stylistic reasons. This interpretation is also apparent in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 8:3).
In his Kessef Mishneh and Beit Yosef, Rav Yosef Caro differs and maintains that the Rambam's words here should be understood literally. Unless he mixed the pot from the beginning until the end, we fear that it was not mixed well. Hence in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 92:2, he quotes the Rambam exactly. The Rama, however, cites the Tur's position.
or covered [the pot]40For covering the pot also causes the flavor of the milk to be blended throughout the entire mixture. from the time [the milk] fell until the end, [the question of whether a prohibition exists depends] on whether [the milk] imparted its flavor.41And we have a gentile taste the mixture as above.
Similarly, if the milk fell into the sauce or onto all the pieces and it was not known on which piece [the milk] fell,42The Tur and the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 92:2) emphasize that if the person does not stir the pot immediately after the milk fell in, the piece on which the milk fell becomes forbidden. Since its identity is unknown, all the pieces are forbidden unless the entire mixture is 60 times larger than its largest piece.
Rav Yaakov ibn Chaviv and Rav Yosef Caro (in his Kessef Mishneh and Beit Yosef) interpret the Rambam's intent as analogous to that of the Tur. They maintain that the Rambam also would agree that if person waited after the milk fell on the piece, that piece - and perhaps all the pieces - become(s) forbidden.
The Maggid Mishneh offers a different interpretation, explaining that in this instance, we do not say that the piece of meat on which the milk fell becomes forbidden because we do not know which piece it is. Hence rather than have the taste of the milk affect that piece, we stir the entire mixture so that the milk will become blended into it and become nullified as explained in the following note.
The Turei Zahav 92:6 and the Siftei Cohen 92:8 follow the interpretation of the Maggid Mishneh, explaining that in this instance, the principle (Beitzah 4b): \"We do not nullify the existence of a forbidden substance at the outset,\" does not apply. For since the identity of the forbidden substance was never established, there is no specific prohibited substance involved. Hence at the outset, the entire pot is considered as subject to being forbidden. To prevent that from happening, we stir it so that the prohibition will not take effect.
he should stir the entire pot so that all its contents will be mixed [thoroughly].43I.e., intentionally mixing the milk throughout the entire pot and thus nullifying its presence. As the Tur (loc. cit) writes, if the milk fell into the sauce, even if the person did not stir the mixture, this would be the ruling. Nevertheless, the Rambam advises the person to stir the mixture so that it will be mixed thoroughly and no trace will remain. If the flavor of milk [can be detected] in the entire pot, it is forbidden. If not, it is permitted. If a gentile to taste [the pot] whom we can rely on cannot be found, we require a measure of sixty whether for meat in milk or milk in meat. If there is one measure in sixty,44More precisely, the permitted substance must be sixty times the volume of the forbidden substance. Thus we are speaking about the forbidden substance being one sixty-first. it is permitted. If there is less than sixty, it is forbidden.", + "When meat has been cooked in a pot, milk should not be cooked in it.45This applies even on a later day. According to Scriptural Law, after 24 hours, there is no prohibition. Nevertheless, according to Rabbinic Law, at the outset, one should be stringent and not cook milk in a pot in which meat was cooked previously even if it had been cooked several days beforehand. If one cooked [milk] in it, [it is forbidden] if it imparted its flavor.46I.e., it should be tasted by a gentile. According to the Ashkenazic custom not to rely on a gentile, we require that the contents be 60 times the volume of the pot. The Siftei Cohen 93:1 states that it would be very rare for such a situation to exist. Generally, the ratio between a pot and its contents is less than 60. Hence, in most instances, the food would be prohibited.", + "The udders [of an animal] are forbidden according to Rabbinic Law.47I.e., we are afraid that a certain amount of milk remained in the udder or that the udder absorbed a certain amount of milk. Since we do not know how much milk it absorbed, we assume that it is entirely forbidden. [The prohibition is not of Scriptural origin, because] meat that was cooked in milk from an animal that was slaughtered is not forbidden according to Scriptural Law, as we explained.48Halachah 6.
Therefore if one cut it open and discharged the milk it contained, it is permitted to roast it and eat it. If one cut it both horizontally and vertically and then pressed it into a wall until none of the moisture of the milk remained, it may be cooked with other meat.49The ruling regarding roasting is more lenient than the ruling regarding cooking, because when meat is roasted, any fluids it contains are discharged and flow outward without being absorbed (see Halachah 14). When it is cooked, by contrast, it stews in its juices and it and any other meat will absorb the milk it discharges.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 90:2) writes that the accepted custom is not to cook it with other meat at all and to cook it alone only after it has been cut vertically and horizontally and pressed into a wall. The Rama adds that it is Ashkenazic custom not to cook it at all.

When an udder has not been cut open, when from a young animal that never nursed50I.e., our Sages enforced their decree universally, without differentiating between one animal and another. or from an older one, it is forbidden to cook it. If one transgressed and cooked it alone, it is permitted to partake of it. If one cooked it with other meat, we require 60 times its volume. The udder itself is calculated in the 60.51In Chapter 15, Halachah 18, the Rambam explains that since only a Rabbinic prohibition is involved, our Sages were more lenient. Thus the Rambam interprets this ruling as being of general significance. The Rashba offers a different rationale for this ruling, explaining that since the meat of the udder is acceptable, we include it in the reckoning of 60. Thus in contrast to other instances where 60 times the amount of the forbidden substance is required, here, we require only 59.", + "What is implied? If the entire mixture together with the udder was sixty times the volume of the udder, the udder is forbidden,52Rashi, Chullin 97b, explains that we assume that the milk imparted its flavor to the udder. Hence it becomes forbidden as the Rambam proceeds to state. and the remainder is permitted. If there was less than 60 times its volume, the entire mixture is forbidden. Regardless of [the ruling applying to the entire mixture], if the udder fell into another pot, it can cause it to be forbidden. We require 60 times its volume as in the original instance.53Thus according to the Rambam, only 59 times its volume is required. This view is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 90:1). The Tur and the Rama differ and maintain that the second mixture is judged more stringently than the first. They follow the rationale of the Rashba cited above. Thus they maintain at first, the udder is included in the reckoning, because its meat is permitted. With regard to the second mixture, by contrast, it is the meat, not the milk of the udder which is forbidden. Hence 60 times its volume is required. [The rationale is that] the udder which is cooked becomes considered as a forbidden piece of meat.
We measure [the volume of] the udder at the time that it was cooked, not according to its state when it fell [into the mixture].", + "We do not roast an udder that has been cut above meat on a spit.54This is a safeguard so that it will not discharge milk which will flow over other pieces of meat. If, however, one roasted it [in that manner], everything is permitted.55For even if its milk does flow over other pieces of meat, they are not forbidden. The rationale is that since it has been cut open, we do not suspect that perhaps some milk remained. Since the entire prohibition is Rabbinic in origin, we are not overly stringent. The Rama states if the udder was not cut open beforehand, the meat that is lower on the spit is forbidden.", + "A stomach that is cooked with milk inside it56I.e., a calf that had drank its mother's milk and was cooked with that milk in its stomach. is permitted. [The rationale is that] it is no longer considered as milk.57The Kessef Mishneh states that according to the Rambam, this applies even to milk that is still liquid. Since it has already undergone preliminary digestive processes, it is no longer considered as milk. See Chapter 4, Halachah 19. Instead, it is considered as a waste product, because it undergoes a change in the digestive system.", + "It is forbidden to place the skin of a kosher animal's stomach [in milk] to serve as a catalyst for it to harden into cheese. If one used it as a catalyst, [a gentile] should taste the cheese. If it has a taste of meat, it is forbidden. If not, it is permitted. [The rationale is that] the catalyst is itself a permitted entity,58Hence the logic mentioned in the following note does not apply. for it comes from the stomach of a kosher animal. [The only question] is [whether] the prohibition against meat and milk [was violated] and that is dependent on whether the flavor was imparted.
[Different laws apply, however, when] one uses the skin of the stomach of a nevelah, a trefe, or a non-kosher animal. [The rationale is that] since the catalyst is forbidden in its own right, the cheese becomes forbidden, not because of the prohibition of meat and milk, but because of the prohibition against a nevelah. For this reason, [our Sages] forbade cheeses made by gentiles, as we explained.59Chapter 3, Halachah 13. As the Rambam states in that halachah, since the amount of skin used is minimal, we might think that no prohibition is involved, for the forbidden substance would be nullified. Nevertheless, the Rabbis ruled stringently, explaining that since the catalyst which causes the milk to curdle is forbidden, everything is forbidden.", + "Meat alone is permitted and milk alone is permitted. It is [only] when the two become mixed together through cooking that they both become forbidden.
When does the above apply? When they were cooked together, when a hot object fell into a hot object,60For in this instance, the two substances will be absorbed by each other just as if they had been cooked together. or when a cold object fell into a hot object.61For we follow the principle (Pesachim 76a): \"The lower one dominates,\" and the food is considered as hot. If, however, [milk or meat] that is hot fell into the other when it is cold, [all that is necessary is to] remove the surface of the meat which touched the milk; the remainder may be eaten.62We assume that the meat's surface absorbed a small amount of milk while it was cooling down (ibid.). Hence the surface is forbidden and must be removed. The milk does not, however, permeate beyond the surface. Therefore the remainder is permitted. With regard to the milk, it appears that there is no prohibition. The Radbaz explains that since it is not possible to remove the surface of the milk, there is no prohibition whatsoever. Other Rishonim require that the milk be sixty times the volume of the surface of the meat. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 91:4) quotes the Rambam's ruling and the Siftei Cohen 91:8 states that this decision is accepted by the Rama despite the fact that this might appear incompatible with some of the other rulings of the Rama. The Turei Zahav 91:7, however, argues in favor of the view of the other Rishonim.
If cold [meat] fell into cold [milk or the opposite], one must wash the piece of meat thoroughly.63Since they are both cold, there is no suspicion that one will be absorbed by the other. Washing the meat is necessary only to remove any traces of milk that might be left. [Afterwards,] it may be eaten. For this reason, it is permitted to [carry] meat and milk bound together in a single handkerchief, provided they do not touch each other. If they do touch each other, one must wash the meat and wash the cheese.64The Bayit Chadash rules that this applies only when one of them is moist. If they are both solid, they need not even be washed. [Afterwards,] he may partake of them.", + "When a substance is salted to the extent that it cannot be eaten because of its salt,65In previous eras, before the advent of refrigeration, meat was salted thoroughly to preserve it. Afterwards, when one desired to partake of it, he would soak it in water to remove the salt (Rashi, Chullin 112a). The Radbaz states that we are speaking about salting meat in a manner similar to the way it is salted to remove its blood. If less salt than that is used, these laws do not apply. See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 91:5) which discusses these laws. is considered as if it is boiling.66I.e., we assume that it will cause substances to be discharged and absorbed as cooking does. This is merely a Rabbinic stringency.
It must be emphasized that the comparison to cooking is not total. Generally, salting only causes the surface of the substance to become forbidden. If, however, the substance is fatty, the entire substance becomes forbidden (ibid.:6).
If it can be eaten in its present state like kutach,67A mixture of milk, breadcrumbs, salt, and spices, commonly served as a dip in Babylon. it is not considered as if it is boiling.68All that is necessary is to wash the meat and/or cheese thoroughly.", + "[The following rules apply when] a fowl that has been slaughtered falls into milk or kutach that contains milk: If it is raw, it need only be washed thoroughly and it is permitted. If it was roasted, one should remove its surface.69There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if this is speaking about a roasted fowl that is hot, or even one that is not hot. According to the latter opinion, it will still absorb some milk because it has become soft and permeable. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 91:7) quotes the first view while the Turand the Rama mention the second. If it has portions where it is open70I.e., instead of being a solid surface, the surface of the meat cracks open in several places. or it is spiced and it falls into milk or kutach, it is forbidden.71Because the cracks in its surface or the spices will cause it to absorb the milk to a greater extent than it would otherwise. This clause appears also to be referring to meat that has been roasted. There are, however, opinions that interpret it as referring to raw meat. See Siftei Cohen 91:21.", + "It is forbidden to serve fowl72Needless to say, this applies to meat (see Lechem Mishneh). together with milk on the table upon which one is eating.73They may, however, be placed together on a serving table (Chullin 104b). This is a decree [enacted] because habit [might lead] to sin.74Since both substances are permitted and they are served together, one might accidentally partake of them together.
Implied is that if substances are forbidden and one would not ordinarily partake of them, there is no difficulty in having them served on the table at which one is eating. See Siftei Cohen 88:2.
We fear that one will eat one with the other. [This applies] even though fowl with milk is forbidden only because of Rabbinic decree.75See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 88:2) which explains that if a distinction is made, e.g., the milk is placed on one type of placemat and the meat on another, there is no prohibition.", + "When two guests who are not familiar with each other are eating at the same table, one may eat the meat of an animal and one may eat cheese. [The rationale is] that they are not well-acquainted with each other to the extent that they will eat together.76Thus there is little likelihood that they will share their food together.", + "We do not knead a loaf with milk. If one kneaded it [with milk], the loaf is forbidden,77Even to be eaten alone [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 97:1)]. The Shulchan Aruch, however, grants license if only a small amount of bread was prepared in this manner and thus it can be eaten at one time. because habit [might lead] to sin, lest he eat it together with meat. We do not dab an oven with animal fat.78Even if the fat is kosher. If in fact one dabbed an oven [with fat], any loaf is forbidden79We fear that the fat from the oven became absorbed in the bread, causing it to become fleishig. until one fires the oven,80Firing the oven to the point that it becomes red-hot will burn away all traces of the fat. lest one eat milk with [that loaf]. If one altered the appearance of the bread so that it will be evident that one should not eat meat or milk with it, it is permitted.", + "When a loaf has been baked together with roasted meat, or fish were roasted together with meat,81Even if they did not touch each other. Note the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 116) and the Turei Zahav 95:3) which mention that there is a prohibition against eating fish roasted with meat because it could cause a health problem. it is forbidden to eat them together with milk.82For the vapors from the meat become absorbed in the bread or in the fish. In Chapter 15, Halachah 32, the Rambam rules that vapors do not cause an object to become forbidden. There is not necessarily a contradiction between these two rulings, for here we are speaking about a small oven [Radbaz, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 97:3). Even though, after the fact, kosher meat roasted together with non-kosher meat in a small oven is permitted, here one is not deeming the bread or fish forbidden, one is merely prohibiting that it be eaten with milk (Siftei Cohen 97:4). When meat was eaten83Or cooked [Radbaz, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 95:1)]. The Shulchan Aruch adds that this ruling applies only when the dish was thoroughly washed and no trace of meat remains. in a dish and then fish were cooked in it, it is permitted to eat those fish together with kutach.84Even though the kutach contains milk. The rationale is that although the flavor of the meat was imparted to the dish and from the dish, it was imparted to the fish. Nevertheless, since it went through these two intermediate stages, it is not considered significant and does not cause the fish to be considered fleishig. The Rabbis referred to this concept as nat bar nat - notain taam bar notain tam (\"imparting merely flavor a second time\").
It must be emphasized that nat bar nat is permitted only with regard to a mixture of milk and meat. The rationale is that both milk and meat are permitted, a prohibition only exists when they are mixed together and if one of them has been weakened to the extent that it is nat bar nat, it is not considered significant. When, however, an entity is inherently forbidden, e.g., non-kosher meat, when its flavor becomes absorbed into a dish, that dish becomes forbidden and it may not be used again for hot food (Radbaz).
", + "When a knife was used to cut roasted meat85The Rambam's wording implies that the meat was hot (Radbaz). This ruling applies also to hot cooked meat (Kessef Mishneh). There are opinions that maintain that this ruling also applies when the meat was cold (Radbaz). and then was used to cut radish or other sharp foods, it is forbidden to eat them together with kutach.86Rashi, Chullin 111b, states that the rationale is that it is likely that there will be a small amount of fat left on the knife. Thus when the knife is used to cut the sharp food, its sharpness will cause that the flavor of the fat will be imparted to it. According to this view, if the knife was cleaned or used to cut another substance first, it does not cause the radish to be forbidden [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 96:5); note also the dissenting view of the Rama]. (This opinion speaks of fat being left on the knife, for if there was no fat there, seemingly, this instance would resemble the concept of nat bar nat mentioned in the previous halachah.)
There are, however, other opinions (Tosafot, Sefer HaTerumot) which maintain that this ruling would apply even if the knife was clean. The rationale is the pungency of the food and the pressure of the knife cause it to absorb more than an ordinary instance of nat bar nat.
From the Rambam's wording, it appears that the entire radish is forbidden. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 96:1), however, rules that it is sufficient to remove a piece a fingerbreadth in thickness. The Rama, however, mentions the Rambam's view.
If, however, one cut meat [with a knife] and afterwards cut zucchini or watermelon,87I.e., substances that are not pungent and soft and contain moisture. If one cuts a vegetable that is not soft and moist, it is sufficient to wash it [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 96:5)]. one should scrape away the place where the cut was made and the remainder may be eaten with milk.", + "We do not place a jar of salt near a jar of kutach, because it will draw out its flavor.88The Ra'avad and the Radbaz note that the Rambam apparently had a slightly different version of Chullin 112a, the source for this halachah, than that found in the standard printed texts of the Talmud. According to the standard version, the rationale is that we fear that some drops of kutach will fall into the salt. The Radbaz adds that according to the Rambam, the prohibition applies only with regard to earthenware jugs. If they are made from metal, the material will be too dense to allow for the flavor to be drawn out. Thus one will cook meat with this salt that has the flavor of milk. One may, however, place a jar of vinegar near a jar of kutach, because the vinegar will not draw out its flavor.89According to the other rationale, the kutach will remain a distinct entity if it falls into the salt, but it will become mixed with the vinegar and nullified if it falls into it (Radbaz; Turei Zahav 95:16).", + "When a person eats cheese or milk first, it is permitted for him to eat meat directly afterwards. He must, however, wash his hands90The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 89:2) states that if one sees that his hands are clean, it is not necessary to wash them. and clean his mouth between the cheese and the meat.91The Rama quotes a view that requires one to wait six hours after eating hard cheese. It is, however, questionable if this would be required for most hard cheese commercially produced today.
With what should he clean his mouth? With bread or with fruit that [require him] to chew and then swallow or spit them out.92The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) states that one should also wash his mouth. One may clean his mouth with all substances with the exception of dates, flour, and vegetables, because they do not clean effectively.", + "When does the above apply? With regard to the meat of a domesticated animal or a wild beast.93The requirement of this stringency for the meat of a domesticated animal is understandable, for the prohibition is of Scriptural origin. Nevertheless, according to the standard text of Halachah 4, the prohibition against a mixture of milk and the meat of a wild beast is also Rabbinic in origin. What then is the difference between the meat of a wild beast and that of a fowl? The Kessef Mishneh, however, explains that the meat of a domesticated animal resembles the meat of a wild beast. Hence it was necessary for the Rabbis to forbid it. Alternatively, Rabbenu Tam explains that the meat of a wild beast will stick to a person's mouth and hands more than the meat of a fowl. If, however, one [desires to] eat the meat of a fowl after eating cheese or milk, it is not necessary for him to clean his mouth or wash his hands.94Since only a Rabbinic prohibition is involved, our Sages did not enforce any further stringency.", + "When a person ate meat first - whether the meat of an animal or the meat of a fowl - he should not partake of milk afterwards unless he waits the time for another meal, approximately six hours.95This is the view stated in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 89:1) and in the Rama's conclusion, although the Rama does mention that there are some more lenient views. This stringency is required because meat that becomes stuck between teeth and is not removed by cleaning.96The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 89) gives a different rationale: that because meat is fatty, its taste persists for a long time." + ], + [ + "All the prohibitions we mentioned involve living beings. There are also other Scriptural prohibitions that involve the produce of the earth. They include: chadash, kilai hakerem, tevel, and orlah.1The Rambam proceeds to define each of these terms in the subsequent halachot. The prohibitions the Rambam mentions in this chapter apply universally. There are other prohibitions involving the consumption of agricultural products that apply with regard to non-priests, e.g., terumah, as explained in Sefer Zeraim and others involving the sacrifices as explained in Sefer HaAvodah (Radbaz).", + "What is meant by chadash?2The term chadash literally means \"new.\" It refers to new grain, i.e., grain that is harvested before the sixteenth of Nisan, as the Rambam proceeds to explain. It is forbidden to partake of any of the five species of grain3These five species are commonly identified as wheat, barley, rye, oats, and spelt. As mentioned in the notes to Hilchot Berachot 3:1, there is some discussion whether these are in fact the species of which the Talmud and the Rambam speak. alone4I.e., other species commonly identified as grain, e.g., corn, rice, and millet, are not included in this ban. before the omer5A measure of barley that is offered on the sixteenth of Nisan, as explained in Leviticus 23:9-15; Hilchot Temidim UMusafim, ch. 7. is offered on the sixteenth of Nisan, as [Leviticus 23:14] states: \"You may not partake of bread, roasted kernels, or fresh kernels.\"6Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments 189-191) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 303-305) include these prohibitions among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The Radbaz states that the Rambam mentions chadash before the other prohibitions, because it occurs most frequently, recurring every year.
Anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of fresh grain before the offering of the omer is liable for lashes. [This applies] in every place and at all times, whether in Eretz [Yisrael] or in the Diaspora,7In the Diaspora, where crops of grain are sometimes planted after Pesach, this prohibition could present a problem. For all grain planted after Pesach, will not be permitted until the following year. In resolution, the Rama writes that unless we know otherwise, all grain is permitted after Pesach, based on the concept of sefek-sefekah - multiple doubt. It is possible it is from the previous year's crop. Even if it is from this year's crop, perhaps it took root before Pesach and is thus permitted.
The Bayit Chadash in his gloss to the Tur (Yoreh De'ah 293) elaborates on the concept that the prohibition against chadash applies only to grain belonging to a Jew. Grain belonging to a non-Jew is not bound by this prohibition. The Turei Zahav 293:2 differs and maintains that it applies also to grain grown by a gentile. Most of the authorities respect the Bayit Chadash for his attempt to absolve most of the Jewish people from the prohibition (since by and large, the grain available in the Diaspora is grown by non-Jews) but accept the logic of the Turei Zahav. In practice, however, it is customary to rely on the leniency of the Rama.
whether at the time of the Temple or when the Temple is no longer standing.8I.e., the prohibition is not dependent on the offering of the omer, but instead applies even when no sacrifices are offered.
[The only difference in observance is that] while the Temple is standing, once the omer has been offered, it is permitted [to partake of] new grain in Jerusalem. Distant places9I.e., places that will not be able to hear a report when the omer was actually offered before noon because they are far removed from Jerusalem. are permitted [to partake of new grain] after midday. For the court will not be indolent with regard to [the offering of omer] beyond midday.10I.e., by midday, one can be certain that the omer had been sacrificed. [Now] when the Temple is no longer standing, the entire day is forbidden according to Scriptural Law. In the present age, in the places where the festivals are observed for two days,11See Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh, ch. 5, which explains that in places where messengers from Jerusalem would not inform the Jewish community when the new month had been sanctified, the festivals are observed for two days, for perhaps the day considered as the fifteenth of Nisan was really the fourteenth. chadash is forbidden on the entire day of the seventeenth of Nisan until the evening according to Rabbinic Law.12Since the observance of the second day was instituted because there was a doubt concerning the day on which the festival should be observed, our Sages ordained that the prohibition concerning chadash should be observed by Rabbinical decree until the conclusion of the seventeenth so as not to minimize the importance of the festival. Even though there is no longer any doubt concerning the day on which the festival should be observed, we heed this prohibition to maintain our Sages' original decree (Radbaz).", + "When a person partakes of an olive-sized portion of bread from each of roasted kernels, or fresh kernels [from chadash], he is liable for three sets of lashes,13Provided he is given a separate warning for each one (Radbaz). as [implied by the verse]: \"You may not partake of bread, roasted kernels, or fresh kernels.\" According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that all three involve separate prohibitions.14All three are mentioned in one verse. Thus one might think that we are speaking of a prohibition of a general nature and we follow the principle (see Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2-3) that lashes are not given for a prohibition of a general nature. Nevertheless, Keritot 5a explains why this instance is an exception.", + "Whenever grain took root before the offering of the omer, it is permitted to be eaten after the offering of the omer despite the fact that it did not reach maturity until after that offering. Grain that took root after the offering of the omer is forbidden until the offering of that sacrifice the following year even though it was planted before that offering was brought. This law applies in every place15I.e., even in places that follow a different agricultural cycle than Eretz Yisrael. and in every era according to Scriptural Law.", + "[There is an unresolved halachic difficulty in the following situations:] Grain took root after the omer. One harvested it and sowed this wheat in the ground. Afterwards, the omer of the following year was offered, while these kernels of wheat were still in the ground.16And had not sprouted (Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 293:4). There is a doubt whether [the offering of] the omer caused [these kernels] to be permitted as if they had been stored in a jar or it did not cause them to be permitted, because they have been nullified in the ground.17And thus they would not be permitted until the following year. Therefore if a person collected them and partook of them, he is not liable for lashes, but [instead] is given stripes for rebellious conduct.
Similarly, when a stalk reached a third of its growth before the offering of the omer,18Thus had one left it in the ground, it would have been permitted. one uprooted it and then replanted it after the offering of the omer, and it increased in size. There is a doubt whether it is forbidden because of the increase in size until the offering of the omer the following year or it is not forbidden because it took root before the offering of the omer.19The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 293:5) rules that such grain is forbidden because of the doubt.", + "What is meant by kilai hakerem?20The Hebrew term literally means \"mixed species in a vineyard.\" Sowing a species of grain or a type of vegetable together with a vine.21The Rambam's statements have attracted the attention of the commentaries, for they represent a contradiction to his statements in Hilchot Kelayim 8:1: \"One is not liable for sowing kilai hakerem unless he sows wheat, barley, and grape seeds together.\" The Radbaz explains that the laws governing sowing mixed species are different than those regarding partaking of them. [This applies] whether they were sown by a Jew or a non-Jew,22For as above, the prohibition against sowing mixed species and partaking of them are distinct. whether they grew on their own, or whether one planted a vine among vegetables, we are prohibited against partaking and benefiting from both of them, as [Deuteronomy 22:9] states: \"Lest the fullness of the seed which you sowed and the produce of the vineyard become hallowed.\"23Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 193) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 549) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. [\"Becom[ing] hallowed\"] means being set apart and forbidden.", + "One who eats24The Torah does not specifically mention that it is forbidden to partake of the mixed species. Nevertheless, it states that it is forbidden to derive benefit from them. There is no greater derivation of benefit than eating (Radbaz). From the Rambam's wording, one would surmise that one is not liable for lashes from merely benefiting from kilai hakerem. an olive-sized portion from kilai hakerem, whether from the vegetables or from the grapes is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law. The two can be combined to reach this measure.25I.e., when one eats some of the grapes and some of the vegetables, if the combined volume is the size of an olive, he is liable.", + "When does the above26Liability for lashes. apply? When they were sown in Eretz Yisrael.27In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 3:10), the Rambam writes that this concept is derived from Deuteronomy 22:9: \"Do not sow kilayom in your vineyard.\" For the only vineyard that can truly be considered as \"yours,\" i.e., belonging to a Jew, is one in Eretz Yisrael.
The Mishneh LiMelech writes that in the present era, when the observance of the agricultural laws in Eretz Yisrael is only a matter of Rabbinic Law (see Hilchot Terumah 1:26), the prohibition against kilai hakerem is also of Rabbinic origin.
In the Diaspora, by contrast, kilai hakerem are forbidden by Rabbinic decree.
In Hilchot Kelayim,28One of the Halachot in Sefer Zeraim. it will be explained which species are forbidden as kilai hakerem and which are not forbidden, how they become forbidden, when they become forbidden, in which situations, produce causes vines to become \"hallowed,\" and when they do not cause them to become \"hallowed.\"", + "What is meant by orlah?29The term literally means \"covered.\" Thus the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aserot 4:4) speaks of \"something which covers (oral) its fruit.\" For that reason, a foreskin is described as an orlah, because it covers the male organ. Here also this fruit is \"covered\" by a forbidden quality. Whenever anyone plants30I.e., replants an existing seedling or plants a seed and grows the tree from the outset (Radbaz). a fruit tree, it is forbidden to partake of or benefit from all of the fruit the tree produces for three years after being planted, as [Leviticus 19:23] states: \"For three years, they shall be closed off for you, they may not be eaten.\"31Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 192) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 246) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Whoever eats an olive-sized portion of such fruit is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law.", + "When does this apply? When one plants in Eretz Yisrael, as [the above] verse states: \"When you enter the land....\" With regard to the prohibition against orlah in the Diaspora, it is a halachah transmitted to Moses at Sinai32I.e., an element of the Oral Tradition that has no explicit source in the Written Law. that fruit that is definitely orlah is forbidden. If there is a doubt regarding the matter, it is permitted. In Hilchot Ma'aaser Sheni,33One of the Halachot in Sefer Zeraim. it will be explained which [growths] are forbidden as orlah and which are permitted.34I.e., which type of planting or replanting incurs the prohibition against orlah and which does not.", + "When there is a doubt whether produce is orlah or kilai hakerem in Eretz Yisrael, it is forbidden.35A Scriptural prohibition is involved. Hence we follow the principle: Whenever a Scriptural prohibition is involved, we rule stringently. In Syria, i.e., the lands that David conquered,36As explained in Hilchot Terumah 1:3, King David conquered parts of Syria before he completed the conquest of Eretz Yisrael. Hence, these lands were not considered as part of Eretz Yisrael proper. Nevertheless, certain laws concerning the produce of Eretz Yisrael were applied there by Rabbinic decree. it is permitted.
What is implied? If there was a vineyard [containing] orlah and grapes were being sold outside it, or there were vegetables sown inside it37Thus violating the prohibition against kilai hakerem. and vegetables were being sold outside it, [in which instance,] there is a doubt whether [the grapes or the vegetables] came from it or from another place, in Syria, they are permitted.38I.e., permission is granted even in an instance were it is highly likely that the produce is prohibited. In the Diaspora, even if one sees grapes being taken out from a vineyard that is orlah or vegetables being taken out from a vineyard, one may purchase them provided one does not actually see orlah being reaped or the vegetables being harvested [from the vineyard].", + "When there is a doubt whether a vineyard [contains] orlah or kilai hakerem, in Eretz Yisrael, it is forbidden. In Syria, it is permitted.39I.e., one may purchase the produce even if one is certain it comes from the vineyard in question. Indeed, one may even pick the produce from that vineyard by oneself (Radbaz; Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 10:11). Needless to say, that ruling prevails in the Diaspora.", + "It is forbidden40This represents the Rambam's interpretation of Bava Batra 24a. Others interpret that passage as stating that we are even permitted to partake of the wine. This is the view quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 294:11).
Tosafot questions: Why isn't the wine forbidden as yayin nesech, wine touched by a gentile? They reply that we assume that the thieves were Jewish. Thus if there is reason to think that the thieves are gentile, the wine is forbidden (Siftei Cohen 294:22).
to drink a jug of wine that is found hidden in an orchard [whose produce is] orlah. It is permitted to benefit from it. [The rationale is] that a thief will not steal from a place and hide [what he stole] there. Grapes that are hidden there are forbidden, lest they have been harvested from there and stored away there.", + "[The following laws apply when] a gentile and a Jew are partners in planting [an orchard]. If at the beginning of the partnership, they agreed that the gentile would benefit from the produce during the years of orlah and the Jew would benefit from it for three years when the produce is permitted afterwards, it is permitted.41I.e., the gentile takes care of the orchard in the orlah years, and the Jew in the subsequent years. He is not considered as benefiting from the produce that is orlah, because it never belonged to him. If they did not make such an agreement at the outset, it is forbidden [to make one afterwards].42For the crops that are orlah are considered to have become the Jew's property and he is bartering them. Rashi and Rabbenu Asher (Avodah Zarah 22a) differ and permit such an arrangement to be made. They explain that although if such an arrangement is not made at the outset, it is forbidden to make it with regard to the Sabbath, different rules apply here. On the Sabbath, it is forbidden for the gentile to perform work on behalf of the Jew. In this instance, no such prohibition exists (Siftei Cohen 294:28). The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 294:13) follows the Rambam's approach, while the Rama follows that of Rabbenu Asher. [Even when the agreement was made at the outset,] they may not make a reckoning.
What is meant [by making a reckoning]? I.e., to calculate the quantity of produce from which the gentile benefited in the years of orlah so that the Jew will benefit from exactly that amount. If they made such an agreement, it is forbidden, for this is exchanging the produce which is orlah.43Here also, the authorities who rule leniently as mentioned in the previous note would rule leniently (Siftei Cohen 294:29).", + "It appears to me that the laws of neta reva'i44This term refers to the produce of the fourth year of a tree's growth. This produce must be taken to Jerusalem and eaten in a state of ritual purity or redeemed and the money taken to Jerusalem to be used for food to be eaten there. do not apply in the Diaspora. Instead, one may eat the produce of the fourth year without redeeming it at all. Our Sages mentioned only orlah.
An extrapolation can be made from a more stringent instance to [this one] which is less stringent. In Syria, the laws governing the tithes and the Sabbatical year apply by Rabbinic decree,45See Hilchot Terumot 1:4; Hilchot Shemitah 4:27. nevertheless, the laws governing neta reva'i do not apply, as will be explained in Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni.46Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 9:1. Thus, in the Diaspoa,47Where the laws of the tithes and the Sabbatical year do not apply at all. how much more so should [we conclude] that the laws governing neta reva'i do not apply.
In Eretz Yisrael, however, these laws apply whether or not the Temple is standing.48The Rambam's wording is somewhat misleading. The laws of neta reva'i are not dependent on the existence of the Temple. Even if the Temple is not standing, this mitzvah applies. Nevertheless, according to Scriptural Law, they apply only when the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael is intact. And according to Scriptural Law, that sanctity was nullified after the conquest of the land by the Assyrians and Babylonians. According to Rabbinic Law, however, these laws do apply in Eretz Yisrael in the present age. Some of the Geonim ruled that kerem reva'i49The harvest of a vineyard must be redeemed, but not that of any other type of tree. alone must be redeemed in the Diaspora before it is permitted to be eaten. There is no basis for this [ruling].50The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 294:7) quotes opinions that state that the laws applying to neta reva'i also apply in the Diaspora, as well as the Rambam's view that they do not apply. The Tur and the Rama quote the opinion of the Geonim who maintain that these laws apply with regard to a vineyard, but not with regard to any other types of produce.", + "In Eretz Yisrael, it is forbidden to eat any of the produce of the fourth year51The Radbaz emphasizes that even if the fourth year passes, fruit which grew during that year is forbidden in the fifth year until it is redeemed. This is also included as one of the 613 mitzvot. The Rambam, however, lists that mitzvah in Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni. until it is redeemed.52I.e., in the present era. See the following note. In Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni, we will explain the laws governing the redemption [of the produce], how it should be eaten, and when we begin calculating the growth of a tree with regard to orlah and [netah] reva'i.", + "How is produce which is neta reva'i redeemed in the present age?53In Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni, the Rambam explains that in the era of the Temple, the produce would be taken to be eaten in Jerusalem in a state of ritual purity (or redeemed for its value and that money taken to Jerusalem to be used to purchase food to be eaten there in a state of ritual purity). Since that is not possible in the present era, different laws apply. After [the produce] is collected, one recites the blessing: Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the earth, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to redeem neta reva'i. Afterwards, one redeems the entire crop even with one p'rutah.54A copper coin of minimal value. In the era of the Temple, it was necessary to redeem the produce for its value and add a fifth (Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 4:1,9). In the present era, since there is no opportunity to use the money as required, a p'rutah is sufficient for one's entire harvest (Arachin 29a). This p'rutah is then cast into the Dead Sea.55I.e., a place where no one will benefit from it. In Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 2:2, the Rambam states that the p'rutah should be cast into the Mediterranean Sea. At times, the term Yam HaMelech which is commonly translated as the Dead Sea is used to refer to the Mediterranean. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 294:6) mentions the Mediterranean. It also states that one may grind the coin into dust.
Alternatively, one may transfer the holiness to other produce that is worth a p'rutah by saying:56Seemingly, the wording of the blessing should also be altered as indicated by Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 4:3. \"The holiness of all of this produce is transferred to this wheat,\" \"...to this barley,\" or the like.57This is also a leniency granted in the present age. In the era of the Temple, at the outset, one should not transfer the holiness from one species of produce to another (Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 4:2). Afterwards, one burns the [latter quantity of produce] so that they will not cause difficulty to others.58These kernels of grain must also be eaten in Jerusalem in a state of ritual purity. Since this is impossible, they should be destroyed, lest another person transgress by eating them elsewhere. He may then partake of all the produce [he harvested].", + "Some of the Geonim ruled that even though one redeemed the produce of the fourth year or transferred its holiness, it is forbidden to partake of it until the entrance of the fifth year. This ruling has no foundation. It appears to me that it is in error. [Although Leviticus 19:25] states: \"And in the fifth year, you shall partake of its produce,\" the intent of the verse is that in the fifth year you will partake of its produce without redeeming it like any ordinary produce in the world. One should not heed the above ruling.", + "What is meant by tevel? Any produce from which one is obligated to separate terumah and tithes is called tevel before one separates these portions.59Before produce may be eaten, a person must separate bikkurim (the first fruits), terumah gedolah (a small portion - 1/40 to 1/60 of the produce) which is given to the priests, ma'aser (tithes, which is given to the Levites), and ma'aser sheni (the second tithe, which is eaten in a state of purity in Jerusalem) or ma'aser oni (the tithe given to the poor). From the tithe which the Levites receive, they must give a tithe to the priests as terumat ma'aser. [In that state,] it is forbidden to partake of it,60Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 153) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 284) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. as [Leviticus 22:16] states: \"And they shall not desecrate the sacraments of the children of Israel which they will dedicate to God,\" i.e., one should not treat them in an ordinary manner while the sacred elements that will be separated in the future have not yet been separated.
When a person61There is a question if this prohibition applies even to a priest who would later be permitted to partake of terumah. To explain: There is a discussion among the Achronim if tevel is considered as an independent prohibition or if it is forbidden because of terumah that has not been separated (see Tzaphnat Paneach; Atvan D'Oraita). According to the former view, even a priest is liable, while according to the second view, there is room for leniency. partakes of an olive-sized portion of tevel before he separates terumah gedolah and terumat ma'aser, he is liable for death by the hand of heaven,62I.e., he will die before his time. as [Leviticus 22:15-16] states: \"And they shall not desecrate the sacraments of the children of Israel... And they will bear the sin of guilt.\"", + "When, however, one partakes of food from which terumah gedolah and terumat ma'aser63Terumat Ma'aser should be separated after the tithes are separated. Nevertheless, after the fact, if one separated it beforehand, the separation is valid. have been separated, but from which tithes - even the tithes of the poor have not been separated - he is worthy of lashes for partaking of tevel. He is not worthy of death. For only with regard to terumah gedolah and terumat ma'aser is the sin worthy of death.64The Ra'avad explains the Rambam's ruling on the basis of the prooftext cited in the previous halachah which puts an emphasis on \"the sacraments of the children of Israel.\" That term refers to terumah. The Kessef Mishneh, however, notes that the second tithe is also referred to as \"a sacrament.\" The Lechem Mishneh, however, offers a resolution.", + "The warning against partaking of tevel from which tithes were not separated is included in [Deuteronomy 12:17 which] states: \"You may not eat the tithes of grain... in your gates.\"65Although that prohibition forbids eating the second tithe outside of Jerusalem, it also has this intent.
In Hilchot Terumot and Hilchot Ma'aserot, it will be explained which produce is obligated to have terumah and the tithes [separated from it] and which is not, when does the obligation stem from Scriptural Law and when is it Rabbinic. When a person partakes of an olive-sized portion of produce that is tevel according to Rabbinic Law66E.g., produce that grows in a flower pot without a hole on the bottom. or kilai hakerem or orlah from the Diaspora,67See Halachah 8 and 10. he is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.", + "The juices that come from produce that is tevel, chadash, consecrated to the Temple, growths of the Sabbatical year, kilayim, and orlah are forbidden as they are. One is not, however, liable for lashes for partaking of them.68The Maggid Mishneh (in his gloss to Chapter 8, Halachah 16) states that this is not the ordinary way which one benefits from such produce. The Lechem Mishneh explains that other juices, in contrast to wine and oil, are not considered to have the substance of the fruit. Exceptions are wine and oil that are orlah and wine that is kilai hakerem. One is liable for lashes for them just as one is liable for lashes for the olives and grapes,", + "There are other prohibitions involving foods applicable to consecrated entities. They are all of Scriptural origin, e.g., there are prohibitions against partaking of terumot, the first fruits, challah, and the second tithe. And there are prohibitions involving sacrifices consecrated [to be offered] on the altar, e.g., piggul, sacrificial meat that remains past its time, and sacrifices that have become impure.69See Chapter 18 of Hilchot Pesulei HaMekedashim for a definition of these prohibitions. All of these [prohibitions] will be explained in the appropriate place.", + "The measure for which one is liable - whether for lashes or for kerait is an olive-sized portion. We have already explained the prohibition against [partaking of] leaven on Pesach and the [relevant] laws in Hilchot Chametz UMatzah. The prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur is a different type of prohibition.70In all other instances, it is the substance (cheftzah) that is forbidden. On Yom Kippur, the prohibition does not apply to the substance, but to the person (the gavra). He is forbidden to partake of all foods. The prohibition against all products of the vine that applies to a Nazirite does not apply equally to all. Therefore, all of these prohibitions, the measure for which one is liable, and the [relevant] laws are explained in the appropriate place." + ], + [ + "When wine has been poured as a libation to a false divinity,1As explained in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 3:3, pouring a libation and sacrificing are among the four acts of service for which one is liable to any false deity, even if this is not its mode of service. it is forbidden to benefit from it. A person who drinks even the smallest quantity2See the following halachah. of [such wine] is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law. Similarly, anyone who partakes of the smallest quantity of something offered to a false deity, e.g., meat or fruit, even water or salt, is worthy of lashes, as [implied by Deuteronomy 32:38]: \"The fat of whose offerings they would eat; they would drink the wine of their libations. Let them stand.\"3Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 194) includes this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. According to the Rambam, it is actually the last of the mitzvot which the Torah mentions.
Although the verse does not specifically mention a prohibition, the Rambam derives the prohibition as follows: As stated in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 7:2, we are forbidden to derive benefit from anything offered to a false deity. Since the prooftext quoted establishes an equation between a libation and an offering, we conclude that just as an offering is forbidden by a negative commandment; so, too, there is a negative commandment involving a libation (see Avodah Zarah 29b).
The Ramban (in his Hasagot to Sefer HaMitzvot) and the Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 111) maintain that both are included in a single prohibition. They should not be counted as separate negative commandments. They all agree, however, that the prohibition against such wine is Scriptural in origin. As the Rambam explains in Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., there are statements of our Sages that appear to imply that the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin. Those statements, however, apply to wine handled by gentiles (see Halachah 3) and not to wine that was actually used for a libation.
", + "Wine poured as a libation to a false deity is like a sacrifice offered to it. Since this prohibition stems from [the prohibition against] the worship of false deities, there is no minimum measure involved, as stated with regard to the worship of false deities [ibid. 13:18]: \"Let no trace of the condemned [entity] cling to your hand.\"4This verse is most particularly related to the prohibition against benefiting from the property of a city who were drawn after idol worship (ir hanidachat). Nevertheless, since all false deities can be considered as \"condemned,\" the verse applies to them as well (Megillat Esther, Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 25). The expression \"any trace\" implies even the slightest amount of benefit is prohibited.", + "When we do not know whether wine belonging to a gentile was used for a libation or not, it is called \"ordinary [gentile] wine.\" It is forbidden to benefit from it, as it is forbidden to benefit from wine used as a libation. [This matter] is a Rabbinic decree.5We find an allusion to this decree in Scripture itself for Daniel 1:8 speaks of how Daniel refrained from drinking the king's wine. Avodah Zarah 36b states that the decree against drinking wine handled by gentiles was instituted lest this lead to familiarity and ultimately, to intermarriage. From the Rambam's wording in the following halachah, however, it would appear that the prohibition was instituted as a safeguard against benefiting from idolatry (Ma'aseh Rokeach; see also Halachah 7 and notes). When a person drinks a revi'it6One fourth of a log, 86 cc. According to Shiurei Torah and 150 cc. According to Chazon Ish. This is the standard liquid measure involved in ritual matters. of \"ordinary [gentile] wine,\" he is liable for \"stripes for rebellious conduct.\"7It is forbidden to drink even the slightest amount, but one is liable only for drinking a revi'it (Lechem Mishneh).", + "It is forbidden [to benefit from] any wine that a gentile touches;8See Chapter 12, Halachot 1-2, which define what is meant by a gentile touching wine. As implied by the contrast to the following halachah, for it to be forbidden to benefit from the wine, the gentile must touch it intentionally. Similarly, he must know that it is wine (Radbaz). for perhaps he poured it as a libation. For the thought of a gentile is focused on the worship of false deities.9Therefore even if there is no false deity present, it is possible that the gentile intended to use it as a libation. See Halachah 7 and notes which discuss which gentiles we are referring to. From this, we learn that it is forbidden to benefit [even from] wine belonging to a Jew which was touched by a gentile; it is governed by the laws that apply to ordinary gentile wine.", + "When a gentile touches wine unintentionally10See Chapter 12, Halachah 5. and similarly, when a gentile child11Here the term child is not defined chronologically, but in terms of his relation to idolatry. Does he praise the name of a false deity or not? [Avodah Zarah 57a; Tur, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:1)]. touches wine, it is forbidden to drink it,12In both instances, we cannot say that the person had the intent to use the wine as a libation. In the first instance, he did not intend to touch the wine and in the second, the child does not know about idolatrous worship. Nevertheless, the wine is still forbidden as a safeguard. See Chapter 12, Halachah 5. See also the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 124:24) who states that in the present era, most gentiles are not idolaters. Even so, if they touch wine unintentionally, although there are authorities who say there is room for leniency, the prevailing custom is to be stringent unless a significant loss is involved. See Siftei Cohen 124:71. but it is permitted to benefit from it.
When one purchases servants from a gentile and they were circumcised and immersed [in the mikveh] immediately,13Thus reaching the intermediate stage of Jewish servants, as Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 12:11 states, they \"have departed from the category of gentiles, but have yet to enter the category of Jews.\" they no longer pour libations to false deities.14Their \"conversion\" to Judaism will prevent them from offering such a libation. See the Tur who also mentions the opinion of Rabbenu Chananel who maintains that a gentile servant causes wine to be forbidden for twelve months.
The Tur clarifies that the debate concerns only a servant, because his acceptance of Judaism is forced. All agree that no such strictures apply to a convert who willingly accepts Judaism.
It is permitted to drink wine which they touch even though they have yet to conduct themselves according to the Jewish faith and they still speak of idolatry.", + "[With regard to] the children of gentile maidservants that were born in a Jewish domain15If they were not born in a Jewish domain, the circumcision alone is of no consequence and even minors cause wine to become forbidden to drink (Kessef Mishneh). and circumcised, but were not immersed yet:16If they were not immersed yet, even young children cause wine they touch to become forbidden to drink (the Kessef Mishneh's interpretation of the Rambam's opinion). The Rashba, however, differs and maintains even if these children were neither circumcised or immersed, they do not cause wine to be forbidden. The Turei Zahav124:3 and the Siftei Cohen 124:9 differ and maintain that even the Rambam would accept the Rashba's approach. The older ones cause wine that they touch to become forbidden. The younger ones17Here the term child is not defined chronologically, but in terms of his relation to idolatry. Does he praise the name of a false deity or not? [Avodah Zarah 57a; Tur, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:1)]. do not cause it to become forbidden.18I.e., it is permitted entirely, even to drink it.", + "With regard to a resident alien, i.e., one who accepted the observance of the seven universal laws [commanded to Noah and his descendants],19The prohibitions against the worship of false deities, blasphemy, murder, theft, incest and adultery, eating the flesh of a living animal, and the obligation to establish courts. See Hilchot Melachim 8:10. as we explained:20See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 14:7. It is forbidden to drink his wine, but it is permitted to benefit from it.21The Kessef Mishneh explains that there are two dimensions to the prohibition against drinking the wine of gentiles:
a) The desire to limit familiarity with gentiles, lest it lead to intermarriage. This applies to resident aliens as well. Therefore there is a prohibition against drinking their wine.
b) A safeguard against benefiting from wine used as libations. This does not apply with regard to resident aliens. Therefore there is no prohibition against deriving benefit from their wine.
We may deposit wine in his possession for a short time, but may not entrust it to him for a lengthy period.22Since we do not suspect that he will use the wine for a libation - or allow other gentiles to do so - we do not forbid one to leave it there for a short while. Nevertheless, if it is left there for a long time, we fear that the gentile will exchange it with his own wine and as stated above, it is forbidden for Jews to drink his own wine (see Rashi, Avodah Zarah 64b).
With regard to any gentile who does not serve false deities, e.g., the Arabs:23The Rambam's wording has attracted the attention of the commentaries, for from the beginning of the halachah, it appears that the gentile must accept all seven mitzvot, while this clause appears to imply that it is sufficient for him to accept only the prohibition against idolatry. The Kessef Mishneh explains that when the entire nation does not worship false deities, then we do not fear that wine will be used as a libation. When, however, that is not the case, a gentile must accept all seven mitzvot for his wine to be permitted. It is forbidden to drink his wine, but it is permitted to benefit from it. The Geonim rule in this manner. With regard to those who worship false deities,24Our translation follows the standard version of the Mishneh Torah. The uncensored text reads: \"Christians, by contrast, are idolaters. It is forbidden to benefit....\" The Rama (Orach Chayim 155:1) rules that Christianity violates only the prohibition against shituf, worshipping another entity together with God, and gentiles are not prohibited against such worship. It must be emphasized that today, though many gentiles are nominally Christian, their observance is minimal and they have an awareness of monotheism.
See also the statements of the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 123:1, 124:24) who quotes opinions that maintain that in the present age, it is not customary for gentiles to pour wine as libations to false deities. Nevertheless, the prohibition against drinking such wine, however, remains intact.
by contrast, it is forbidden to benefit from their ordinary wine.", + "Whenever it is stated that wine is forbidden in this context, if the gentile who causes the wine to be forbidden worships false deities, it is forbidden to benefit from it. If he does not worship false deities, it is merely forbidden to drink it. Whenever we refer to a gentile without any further description, we mean one who worships false deities.25For in the Rambam's age, most gentiles were idolaters. The Rabbinic authorities question whether one can make such an assumption in the present age. For many gentiles do not worship according to any religious rites at all and others, like the Arabs, have a conception of monotheism.", + "Only wine that is fit to be offered on the altar is used for libations for false deities. Therefore when [our Sages] decreed against ordinary gentile wine, ordaining that it is forbidden to benefit from any wine touched by a gentile, their decree involved only wine that is fit to be used as a libation. Accordingly, wine that was boiled26Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 6:9 states that wine that was cooked to the extent that its taste changed is forbidden to be used as a libation on the altar. To put the concept in contemporary terms, wine that was pasteurized is included in this category. that was touched by a gentile is not forbidden. It is permitted to drink it together with a gentile27Avodah Zarah 30b relates that the Sage Shmuel actually drank boiled wine together with a gentile.
The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rabbenu Asher who asks: If the decree against wine touched by a gentile was instituted to prevent intermarriage, what difference does it make if it was boiled or not? Will boiling the wine prevent familiarity from arising with gentiles?
In resolution, he explains that perhaps since boiled wine is uncommon, our Sages did not apply their decree in such a situation. Even though today, it has become common to drink boiled - i.e., pasteurized wine - our Sages decree has not been expanded. It must be emphasized that this leniency applies to wine belonging to a Jew that was boiled. Wine belonging to a gentile becomes forbidden before it is boiled and thus cannot be drunken.
in one cup. If, however, [a gentile] touches wine blended [with water] and wine that began to turn into vinegar,28Although they are unfit to be used for a libation. but can still be drunken it is forbidden.", + "The Geonim of the west ruled that if a small amount of a sweetener29This includes any wine to which sugar was added. or yeast became mixed with Jewish wine, since it is no longer fit for the altar,30Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 6:9. it is considered as if were boiled or as if it were beer and will not be used as a libation. It is permitted to drink it together with a gentile.", + "When does wine belonging to a gentile become forbidden? When the grapes have been crushed and the wine begins to flow,31In their days, grape presses were built on an incline, so that after the grapes were pressed, the juice would flow naturally toward a cistern. even though it has not descended into the cistern and is still in the wine press, it is forbidden. For this reason, we do not crush grapes together with a gentile in a wine press,32The Turei Zahav 123:14 states that some interpret the Rambam as speaking only about a winepress that is open. If it is plugged close, there is room to say that the prohibition does not apply. Nevertheless, the Turei Zahav quotes other views that maintain that the prohibition applies even in such an instance. lest he touch it with his hand33Implied is that a libation cannot be offered with one's feet (Kessef Mishneh based on Avodah Zarah 56b; the Siftei Cohen 123:43, however, maintains that this is not the correct understanding of the Rambam's words). The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:11), however, rules that a gentile who touches the wine with his feet causes it to be come forbidden. The Rama, however, rules leniently and maintains that the prohibition applies only to drinking such wine. and offer it as a libation. [This applies] even if he is bound. [Similarly,] we do not purchase a wine press [filled with] crushed [grapes] even if the wine is still mixed with the seeds and peels and has not descended into the cistern.", + "When a gentile crushes [grapes for] wine without touching it34The Turei Zahav 124:17 interprets this as referring to an instance where he does not touch the wine at all, not even with his feet. The Kessef Mishneh, however, explains that this is referring to a situation where the gentile touches the wine with his feet, but not with his hands. and a Jew is standing over him,35And watching that the gentile does not touch it. and a Jew is the one who collects it in jugs, it is forbidden [only] to be drunken.36It is, however, permitted to benefit from it.", + "It is forbidden to benefit from vinegar belonging to a gentile, because it became [forbidden like] wine offered as a libation before it became vinegar.37The fact that it becomes vinegar afterwards does not cause it to become permitted.The Radbaz states that one can conclude from the Rambam's wording that if a gentile touches vinegar belonging to a Jew, it is permitted, for it is no longer wine.
When a gentile is crushing grapes in a barrel, we are not concerned that the wine [becomes forbidden] as wine used for a libation. If a gentile was eating from the baskets [of grapes brought to a winepress] and left over, a se'ah or two and threw them into the winepress, he does not cause the wine [to become forbidden] as wine used for a libation, even though it spatters over the grapes.38Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard published text is difficult to understand. As the Radbaz and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 125:6) state, the Rambam is referring to a situation where a certain amount of grape juice collects in the bottom of the baskets. Even though that juice spatters of the grapes, it does not cause the wine to be considered forbidden, for this prohibition does not apply until the wine begins to flow, as stated in Halachah 11 (Radbaz).", + "Grape seeds and peels belonging to a gentile are forbidden39Even to benefit from them [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 123:14)]. See also the Rama who states that the prohibition applies only when the peels were in contact with gentile wine. If the gentiles had merely crushed the grapes, but the wine had not begun flowing from the winepress, the peels are not forbidden. for twelve months. After twelve months, they have already dried out; they contain no moisture and they are permitted to be eaten. Similarly, the dregs of wine that have dried out are permitted to be eaten after twelve months.40See the Shulchan Aruch (ibid. ) which quotes more stringent views in certain circumstances. [The rationale is that] no trace of wine remains; they are just like dust or earth.", + "It is forbidden to put wine in wineskins or barrels in which gentiles had kept wine41For a certain quantity of wine is absorbed in the container. Afterwards, when the kosher wine is placed in the container, it will be soaked into the container and the wine in the container will be released into it. until:
a) they are allowed to dry for twelve months;42See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 135:16) which explains that even if one used the containers for water during this period, this does not prevent the containers from becoming permitted.
b) they are placed in a fire until their pitch becomes soft or they become hot;43I.e., if they are not covered with tar (Kessef Mishneh). By heating them, one will achieve the results of libbun and purge any absorbed wine through heat.
See also the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 135:15) which state that hagalah, filling the containers with boiling water is also acceptable.

c) water is placed in them for three days for a full 24 hour period; [one places water in them], pours it out after 24 hours, and puts other water in. [This should be done] three times, [once a day] for three days.
[This applies] whether the containers belong to [the non-Jews] or they belonged to a Jew from whom [the non-Jews] borrowed them and then placed their wine into them. If one put wine in them before purifying them, it is forbidden to drink [that wine].44It is, however, permitted to benefit from this wine (Kessef Mishneh).", + "It is permitted to place beer, fish brine, or fish oil in these containers immediately.45For these substances nullify the taste of wine (Rashi, Avodah Zarah 33b). None of these [purging processes] are necessary. After one placed fish brine or fish oil in them, one may place wine in them, for the salt [in the fish brine or fat] will burn out [any residue of wine].", + "When a person purchases new utensils that were not covered with pitch from a gentile, he may place wine in them immediately, he need not worry that gentile wine had been placed in them. If they were covered with pitch, he should wash them thoroughly even though they are new.46I.e., even though they appear new, we suspect that a gentile used them to store wine. Hence they must be washed. Nevertheless, the fact that they appear new indicates that they were not used for a long time. Hence, washing them is sufficient.
This stringency applies only with regard to containers covered with pitch. Since they are dark black, it is not evident whether they were used previously or not. With regard to other containers, it is much more clearly apparent whether or not they were used. Hence there is no need for this stringency (Kessef Mishneh).

Similarly, [any] utensil in which gentile wine was placed, but was not stored there for an extensive period, e.g., a bucket used to draw wine from a cistern, a funnel, or the like, should have water swished in them. That is sufficient for it.47The Kessef Mishneh notes that Avodah Zarah 74b appears to require that such utensils be dried. He questions why the Rambam does not mention this point. As a possible resolution, he suggests that perhaps the Talmud is speaking about utensils belonging to a gentile, while the Rambam is speaking about those belonging to a Jew.", + "Similarly, it is forbidden to drink from an earthenware cup that a gentile had drunk from. If one washed it thoroughly three times, it is permitted, for all traces of wine have been washed away.48The Rambam's ruling is dependent on his interpretation of Avodah Zarah 33b. Other authorities including Rashi and the Ra'avad have a different understanding of the passage. Their view is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 135:4). This applies provided it is glazed with lead as potters do or covered with pitch. If, however, it is of earthenware, washing it thoroughly [once] is [all that is] required.49The Kessef Mishneh explains that we are speaking of an instance where the glazing of the lead or the pitch was not completed in a thorough manner and the surface of the utensil is not smooth. Therefore such a utensil will absorb wine more easily than an ordinary earthenware utensil. Hence, three washings are required. The following halachah, by contrast, is speaking about a utensil that is glazed in a more thorough manner, producing a smooth surface. Hence it is less likely to absorb the wine than an ordinary earthenware utensil.", + "When earthenware utensils that are glazed with lead50As mentioned above, the Kessef Mishneh interprets this to mean that they were glazed in a manner that produced a smooth surface. Hence they do not absorb the wine easily. are used for gentile wine, they are permitted51After being washed alone. if they are white, red, or black. If they are green, they are forbidden, because they absorb.52In order to produce a green color, a substance called netar, alum crystals [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 135:5)], is mixed into the glazing. This substance is very absorbent. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah, loc. cit.) states that utensils made from this substance can never be purified. If they have a portion where the earthenware is revealed,53I.e., the glazing does not cover the entire utensil. they are forbidden54Until the wine is purged as mentioned in Halachah 15. whether they are white or green, because they absorb.
It appears to me that this ruling applies only when wine was placed in them for long term storage.55The Kessef Mishneh quotes the Rashba as stating that from the fact that these statements are made about earthenware utensils, one can conclude that metal utensils do not absorb even when gentile wine was placed in them for an extended period of time. They will absorb only when liquids are heated. If, however, it was not placed in them for long term storage, [it is necessary merely to] wash them.56For even if the wine was not placed in them for an extended period, it is possible that there will be a certain amount of residue left in the container. They are then permitted, even if they are earthenware.57For over a short period of time, they will not absorb.", + "When a gentile treads on grapes in a winepress of stone or of wood58That is not covered with pitch (Kessef Mishneh) . or a gentile applied pitch to a winepress of stone59Rashi (Avodah Zarah 74b) and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 138:1) explain that after pitch is applied to a vat, a small amount of wine is placed in the vat to remove the unfavorable odor of the pitch. even though he did not tread the grapes there, one must wash [the press] thoroughly with water and ashes60I.e., rubbing the walls with ashes and then washing them (Kessef Mishneh). four times. Afterwards, one may tread grapes there. If [the press] is still moist, one should place the ashes in before the water. If it is not moist, one should place the water in first.", + "When a gentile treaded [grapes] in a stone winepress covered with pitch or [applied] pitch to a wooden winepress61Since a larger amount of pitch is necessary, it will absorb more. even though he did not tread grapes there, one must peel the pitch.62The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 138:1) follows the position of other Rishonim who maintains that even after peeling the outer layer of the pitch, one must apply ashes and water, as stated in the previous halachah. If one left it for twelve months or placed water in it for three days, it is not necessary to peel [the pitch off].63As stated with regard to barrels in Halachah 15. The Ra'avad and most other Rishonim differ with regard to this ruling and require the barrel to be pealed. [The laws applying to] a winepress need not be more stringent than those applying to barrels.64Indeed, one would suspect the laws governing barrels to be more stringent, for wine is stored there for long periods. It remains in a winepress, by contrast, for only a short time. [The option of] peeling was given only to allow [the winepress to be used] immediately.65Without having to wait any time at all.", + "An earthenware winepress [is governed by more stringent rules].66For earthenware absorbs more readily than other substances. In the previous halachah, we assume that the winepress itself did not absorb any wine. In this case, we assume that it did (Kessef Mishneh). Even if one peels the pitch, it is forbidden to tread grapes in it immediately. [Instead, one must] heat it with fire until the pitch softens. If, however, one leaves it for twelve months or places water in it for three successive days, it is permitted,67Without peeling off the pitch as stated in the previous halachah. Here also the Ra'avad differs and rules that the pitch must be peeled off. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) follows the Rambam's ruling. as we explained.68In Halachah 15.", + "[The following laws apply to] a filter that had been used for wine belonging to a gentile. If it is made of hair, it should be washed thoroughly69Hair does not absorb liquid at all. Hence, it need only be washed to remove the wine that may be sticking to its surface. and then it may be used as a filter. If it is made from wool, it should be washed thoroughly four times with water and ashes and then left70Our translation follows the authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text differs slightly. until it dries. If it was from flax,71Which is more absorbant. it should be left for twelve months. If it has knots, they should be untied [before the filter is washed out].72So that the residue will not collect there.
Similar [laws apply with regard to] utensils from reeds,73Our translation is based on the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 135:8). from date bast, or similar utensils like wicker baskets that are used to tread grapes. If they were sewed with ropes, they should be washed thoroughly. If they are tangled together with snarls that are difficult to undo, they should be washed four times with ashes and with water. [After] they are dried, they may be used. If they are sewed with flax, they should be left unused for twelve months. If they have knots, they should be untied.74When citing this law in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 138:7, 9), Rav Yosef Caro does not mention the need to untie the knots in this instance. As evident from his Kessef Mishneh, he follows the approach of the Rashba who maintains that when an object is left for twelve months, there is no need to untie the knots. The Siftei Cohen 138:8 differs and states that the Rambam's ruling should be followed.", + "How can the utensils of a winepress used by a gentile for gentile wine be purified so that a Jew may use them? The boards,75Upon which the grapes are placed. the balls of clay,76Used to crush the grapes (see the conclusion of the gloss of the Lechem Mishneh to Halachah 17). and the palm branches77Which are used as brooms to collect the grapes (Rashi, Avodah Zarah 75a). should be washed thoroughly. The restraints78In his Commentary to the Mishneh, Taharot 10:8, the Rambam states that this refers to the restraints placed around olives (and grapes) when they are being squeezed to gather them together. of wood and of canvas should be dried out.79This term refers to the process of applying ashes and water mentioned above. Those from water grasses and from bullrushes should be left unused for twelve months.
If one desires to purify them immediately, he should place them in boiling water,80To purge the wine absorbed in this fashion. seal them with water used to cook olives,81Cooking them in such water will cause whatever wine that was absorbed to be sealed in its place and never to be released. or place them under a drain through which water flows continually or in a stream of running water for twelve hours.82This will also purge the absorbed wine. See Hilchot Tumat Ochalin 11:17 which mentions these same processes in a different context. Afterwards, they are permitted.", + "In the era when the land of Israel was entirely within the possession of the Jewish people, it was permitted to purchase wine from any Jewish person without holding anyone in suspicion.83A Jew who worships false divinities, does not observe the Sabbath, or denies the Torah and its mitzvot is considered equivalent to a gentile and his wine is forbidden just as a gentile's is (see Hilchot Shabbat 30:15). When Eretz Yisrael was populated solely by Jews, our Sages maintained that there was no need to suspect that a person fell into the above categories. In the Diaspora, they would only purchase [wine] from a person whose reputation [for observance] has been established. In the present age, in every place, we only purchase wine from a person whose reputation for observance has been established.84The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, stating that a common person will not necessarily cause another to transgress. The Radbaz states that even if the common people will not necessarily transgress themselves, they will not be careful about protecting another person's observance and may sell him forbidden articles. This view is cited by the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 119:1). These laws also apply to meat, cheese, and a cut of fish that does not have a sign as we explained.85Chapter 3, Halachah 21; Chapter 8, Halachah 7.", + "When a person enjoys the hospitality of a homeowner in any place and at any time and that homeowner brings him wine, meat, cheese, or a piece of fish, it is permitted. There is no need to inquire concerning it.86We assume that the host is observant and that he is giving his guest the same food that he eats himself (Radbaz). [This law applies] even if he does not know him at all; all that he knows is that he is Jewish.
If [the host] has an established reputation for non-observance and for not paying attention to these matters, it is forbidden to accept his hospitality. If one transgresses and accepts his hospitality, it is forbidden to eat meat and drink wine [despite] his assurances unless a person who has an established reputation for observance testifies [to their acceptability]." + ], + [ + "How do we define the term touch when we say that a gentile1As the Rambam stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 8, unless otherwise specified, when he uses the term \"gentile,\" he is referring to an idolater. who touches wine causes it to be forbidden? Touching the wine itself whether with his hands2Or with an article held in his hand [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:11)]. or with any of his other limbs with which it is customary to pour a libation3As evident from Chapter 11, Halachah 11, according to the Rambam, it is not customary to pour a libation with one's feet. Note, however, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:11) which forbids wine that a gentile touched with his feet. The Rama, however, quotes the Rambam's view. and shook the wine.4If, however, he did not cause the wine to move, it is forbidden to drink it, but one is allowed to benefit from it (Radbaz). In his Kessef Mishneh, however, Rav Yosef Caro notes that although there are authorities who agree with the ruling of the Radbaz, from the Rambam's wording, it appears that the wine is permitted entirely. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:13), he follows the majority view and rules that it is permitted only to benefit from such wine.
If, however, he extended his hand to a barrel, but his hand was grabbed before he could remove [any wine] or shake it, [there is room for leniency]. If the barrel was opened from below and the wine was allowed to flow out to the extent that it reached below his hand, the wine is not forbidden.5The Rambam is citing an incident that transpired as recorded by Avodah Zarah 59b. It is not forbidden to benefit from the wine. The question of whether or not it is forbidden to drink it depends on the difference of opinion mentioned in the previous note.
Similarly, if he held an open container6With regard to a closed container, see Halachah 4. of wine and shaked it, the wine becomes forbidden even though he did not lift up the container or touch the wine.7The Ra'avad objects to this ruling, maintaining that as long as the gentile does not touch the wine itself, lift the container, or cause the wine to spatter, moving an open utensil does not cause it to be forbidden. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:17) quotes the Rambam's ruling as a minority opinion and the Rama states that it need not be followed if financial loss is involved.", + "If he took an [open]8This addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Radbaz. container of wine, lifted it up, and poured it out, the wine becomes forbidden,9There is a difference of opinion among the commentaries if only the wine that is poured out is forbidden or also the wine which remains in the container (Kessef Mishneh). The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 125:1) quotes the more stringent view. The Rama mentions the more lenient opinion, but states that it may be followed only in a case of severe loss. even though he did not shake it. For the wine moved as a result of his power. If he lifted the container up, but did not shake it or touch it, it is permitted.10I.e., even to drink the wine. For merely lifting up the wine is of no consequence.", + "When a gentile was holding a container on the ground and a Jew poured wine into it, the wine is permitted.11One may even drink it [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 125:8)]. If the gentile shakes the container, the wine becomes forbidden.", + "It is permitted to have a gentile move a closed [container of wine] from one place to another even though the wine moves. For this is not the manner in which a libation is made.12A libation is made only from an open container (see Avodah Zarah 60a).
When [a gentile] moves a wineskin containing wine from one place to another while [a Jew]13This addition was made on the basis of the gloss of the Radbaz. was holding the opening of the wineskin with his hand, it is permitted.14For this is equivalent to closing it. [This applies] whether the wineskin was entirely full or not and [applies] even though the wine moves.
[When a gentile] transfers15The Rambam's source (Avodah Zarah 60a) and also the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 125:10) emphasize that we are referring to a situation where the Jew is following the gentile. Otherwise, the wine is certainly forbidden. an open earthenware16The Radbaz states that the same laws apply regardless of what the container was made of. Therefore he maintains that the word \"earthenware\" is a printer's error. vessel that is filled with wine, it is prohibited,17Although the Rashba maintains that one may benefit from the wine, most authorities rule that it is prohibited to benefit from it as well as to drink it [Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.)]. for perhaps he touched it.18Since the container is both open and full, it is highly likely that the gentile touched the wine (Avodah Zarah 60a). If it was only partially full, [the wine] is permitted unless he shook it.19For shaking the wine is equivalent to pouring it as a libation, as stated in Halachah 1.", + "When a gentile touches wine without intending to, it is permitted only to benefit from the wine.20I.e., it is forbidden to drink it, as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 5.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 124:24) states that in the present era, most gentiles are not idolaters. Therefore, if they touch wine unintentionally, the wine is not forbidden at all.
What is implied? He fell on an [open]21This addition was made on the basis of the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh. wineskin or stretched his hand out to a barrel under the impression that it contained oil and it actually contained wine.", + "If wine moves because of a gentile's power although he did not intend to do so, since he did not touch the wine, it is permitted to drink it.22According to Scriptural Law, as long as the gentile does not touch the wine, it is not forbidden. Although our Sages forbade wine which he shook without touching as a safeguard, that applies only when the gentile intentionally touches the container of the wine (see Avodah Zarah 58a). What is implied? If he lifted up a container of wine and poured it into another container while thinking that it was beer or oil, [the wine] is permitted.", + "If a gentile entered a house or a store seeking wine and extended his hand to search for it and touched wine,23Shaking it (Kessef Mishneh). According to the Rambam, this applies even though he did not know for certain that the article he touched was wine. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the gentile must know that the container contains wine when shaking it. Otherwise, it is not forbidden. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:12) quotes the Rambam's ruling. [the wine] is forbidden. [The rationale is that] he was intending [to touch] wine. This is not considered as touching without intent.", + "When a barrel is split lengthwise and a gentile comes and embraces it so that the halves will not separate24And thus the wine will not spill. it is permitted to benefit from [the wine].25See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:22). If, however, it split widthwise and he grabbed the upper half so that it will not fall, it is permitted to drink [the wine]. For the wine is not affected by the gentile's power.", + "When a gentile fell into a cistern of wine and was hoisted up dead,26In this instance, it is permitted to benefit from the wine, because the gentile is considered to have touched it without intending to. See Halachah 5. According to the Rama's view that the gentiles of the present age are not considered as idolaters, there is no prohibition against using such wine at all. This leniency should be accepted if a significant loss is involved (Siftei Cohen 124:55). This concept also applies to the remainder of the instances mentioned in this halachah. measured a cistern containing wine with a reed, swatted away a fly or a hornet from it with a reed,27In these instances, since the gentile did not touch the wine directly, merely by means of another entity, it is not forbidden to benefit from it. patted a boiling bottle of wine so that the boiling would cease28Rashi, Avodah Zarah 60a, states that it is not forbidden to benefit from this wine, because this is not the ordinary way that one makes a libation. Kin'at Eliyahu asks: Since the wine is boiling, the entire prohibition against gentile wine seemingly should not apply, as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 9? or took a barrel and threw it into the cistern in anger,29In this instance also, the gentile did not touch the wine directly. Hence it is permitted to benefit from it.
The Ra'avad protests to this ruling, stating that if he threw the barrel into the cistern in anger, the wine in the cistern is not forbidden at all. Even if he intentionally threw the barrel into the cistern, it is still permitted to benefit from the wine for the reason mentioned. The Radbaz notes that the wording of Avodah Zarah, loc. cit., appears to support the Ra'avad's perspective, for it states that our Sages hikshiru, \"considered acceptable,\" the wine. He, however, cites a passage from the Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 4:11) which appears to fit the Rambam's perspective. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:19) quotes the Rambam's view. Nevertheless, the commentaries note that in Yoreh De'ah 125:5, the Shulchan Aruch, appears to support the Ra'avad's view.
it is merely permitted to benefit from the wine. If, [in the first instance,] the gentile was raised [from the cistern] alive, it is forbidden to benefit from the wine.30For we assume that in his happiness over being saved, he will offer the wine as a libation to his false deity (Avodah Zarah, loc. cit.). The Turei Zahav 124:19 states that if the gentile was alive when taken from the cistern, the wine is forbidden even if he dies immediately afterwards.", + "When there is a hole on the side of a barrel, the stopper slips away from the hole, and a gentile places his finger over the hole so that the wine will not flow out, all of the wine from the top of the barrel until the hole is forbidden.31One may not even benefit from it. Since the wine would have flowed out had the gentile not place his finger there, our Sages considered it as if he touched all of that wine. It is, however, permitted to drink the wine beneath the hole.32Because this wine was not affected by the gentile's touch at all. Although this wine is touching the wine that is forbidden, it is not forbidden. The Ra'avad objects to such a ruling, maintaining that the entire barrel should be considered as mixed together. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam's ruling, explaining that had the gentile inserted his finger in the hole and touched the wine, the entire barrel would have been forbidden. Here, however, we are speaking about an instance where the gentile stopped the wine from flowing by placing his finger on the outside. Therefore the wine above the hole is forbidden because it was affected by his power, as stated in the following halachah. This is merely a Rabbinic decree. Hence, the wine below the hole is not forbidden at all. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:23) follow the Ra'avad's view. See also Hilchot Tum'at Ochalin 8:6.", + "[The following rules apply when] one end of a bent outflow pipe made from metal, glass, or the like is placed in wine and the other end extends out of the barrel. If one sucked on the wine and the wine began flowing out as is always done, and a gentile came and placed his finger at the end of the outflow pipe and prevented the wine from flowing outward, all of the wine in the barrel is forbidden.33This ruling applies when the opening to the outflow pipe is placed at the bottom of the barrel, so that all the wine would actually have flowed out had the gentile allowed it to. If it was not placed at the bottom of the barrel, the laws mentioned in the previous halachah apply (Radbaz; Siftei Cohen 124:69). [The rationale is that] were it not for his hand, everything [in the barrel] would have flowed out. Thus all the wine is affected by his power.", + "When a person pours wine into a receptacle containing gentile wine, all of the wine in the upper container is forbidden.34From the Rambam's wording, it appears that this ruling applies with regard to all gentile wine, even when it was not known to have been used as a libation for a false deity. The Rambam, moreover, appears to forbid benefit from the wine, not only partaking of it. The Ra'avad rules that it is permitted to benefit from the wine, but not to partake of it. The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 126) mentions the opinion of Rabbenu Tam which is more lenient, ruling that this stringency does not apply to ordinary gentile wine. He rules that it is even permitted to partake of the wine. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 126:1-2) follows the ruling of the Maharam of Rutenburg, who states the Rambam's stringency should be followed only when a small loss is involved. If there is a significant loss involved, we may rely on the perspective of Rabbenu Tam.
See also the Tur who mentions a perspective that maintains that the above stringency applies only to wine used as a libation for a false deity, but not to ordinary gentile wine.
[The rationale is that] the column of wine being poured connects35Compare to Hilchot Tumat Ochalin 7:1,5 where this principle is not applied. It appears that it is applied in this instance because of the stringency of the prohibition against gentile wine. between the wine in the upper container and the wine in the lower container. Therefore when a person is measuring wine for a gentile into a container in the latter's hands, he should interrupt [the column of wine before it reaches the utensil] or throw the wine so that [the column of wine] being poured will not establish a connection and cause the wine remaining in the upper container to become forbidden.", + "When a funnel that was used to measure wine for a gentile has an obstruction that prevents wine [from flowing] the funnel should not be used to measure wine for a Jew36Because the wine held back in the funnel is forbidden because of the connection to the column of wine that extends to the gentile's utensil. until it was washed thoroughly and dried.37Drying refers to the process of applying water and ashes mentioned in Chapter 11, Halachah 20. If he did not wash it thoroughly,38The Kessef Mishneh offers the following interpretation of the Rambam's wording: As long as the funnel was washed thoroughly, even if it was not dried out, it does not cause other wine to become forbidden. He also, however, makes a distinction between a funnel that has been used by a gentile frequently and one that was used just once. In the former instance, he states, it is possible that washing it thoroughly alone is not sufficient. [the Jew's wine] is forbidden.39I.e., it is forbidden to benefit from the entire quantity of wine [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:11)]. According to the Rama, one is permitted to benefit from the wine if the loss will be significant (Siftei Cohen 124:23).
The rationale for the prohibition is that the wine in the container will mix with the small quantity of gentile wine in the funnel and become forbidden.
", + "[The following rules apply with regard to] a container possessed by a Jew that has two \"nostrils,\"40I.e., outflow pipes. that emerge from it, like containers that are used to wash hands, and is filled with wine. If a Jew is sucking and drinking from one nostril and a gentile is sucking and drinking from the other nostril, this is permitted,41Since the wine which the Jew is drinking and that which the gentile is drinking are flowing in opposite directions, they are not considered to be connected. provided the Jew begins [drinking] and concludes while the gentile is still drinking. When the gentile stops drinking, all the wine that was in the nostril will return to the container and cause all the wine in it to be forbidden. [The rationale is that] the wine [in the nostril] was moved by [the gentile's] power.42For it was his sucking that drew it into the outflow pipe. When that wine returns to the container and becomes mixed with the wine in the container, all the wine becomes forbidden as indicated by the following halachah.", + "When a gentile sucks wine from a container with an outflow pipe, all the wine in the container becomes forbidden.43Even if the wine never touched his mouth (Kessef Mishneh). For when he ceases [sucking], all of the wine that entered the outflow pipe through his sucking will return to the barrel and cause it to become forbidden.", + "When a gentile is transferring barrels of wine from one place to another together with a Jew and [the Jew] is walking after them to protect them, they are permitted even if he separates from him for a mil.44A Talmudic measure equivalent to approximately a kilometer. The Lechem Mishneh notes that as stated in Hilchot Mitamei Moshav UMerkav 13:5, a mil is not a cut off point. As long as the gentile has reason to fear that the Jew will appear suddenly, the wine is permitted. [The rationale is] that he is afraid of him and will say: \"He will suddenly appear before us and observe us.\"
[More stringent rules apply if the Jew] tells [gentile porters]: \"Proceed and I will follow after you.\"45These words will imply to the porters that he will not be coming immediately. Hence there is reason to fear that they will take from the wine. If they pass beyond his sight to the extent that [they have time] to uncover the opening of the barrel, seal it again, and [allow it] to dry out,46I.e., so that it would not be apparent that they touched it. it is forbidden to drink all of the wine.47Implied is that one is permitted to benefit from it. The rationale is that since the barrel is sealed, we follow the principle stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 9. See also the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 129:1) who rules that if the loss is significant, we may rely on the views that one seal is sufficient. If for a lesser [time], [the wine] is permitted.48I.e., one may even partake of it.", + "Similarly, if a Jew leaves a gentile in his store, even though he departs and enters, [going back and forth] the entire day, the wine is permitted.49One may drink it. For the gentile will be afraid to touch the wine, for he will never feel that the Jew has left him alone with the opportunity to do whatever he wants. If he informs him that he is departing for a significant period, should he wait long enough [to enable the gentile] to open the barrel, seal it again, and [allow it] to dry out, it is forbidden to drink the wine.50As in the previous halachah, since the gentile knows that the Jew is departing for a significant period, we fear that he will use the opportunity to take the wine.
Similarly, if a person left his wine in a wagon or a ship51See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 5:4) which explains why it is necessary to mention all three instances: the store, the wagon, and the ship. with a gentile and enters a city to tend to his needs, the wine is permitted.52The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:1) state that this applies only when the Jew went on a side path that would enable him to surprise the gentile. If, however, he follows the ordinary path, the wine is forbidden. For the gentile will watch to see whether he is coming. If he informs him that he is departing for a significant period, should he wait long enough [to enable the gentile] to open the barrel, seal it again, and [allow it] to dry out, it is forbidden to drink the wine.
All of the above rulings apply with regard to closed barrels. If they are open,53And thus: a) the wine is easily accessible, and b) the barrel does not have to be sealed close to hide the fact that one took from the wine. even if he did not wait, since he told him that he was departing for a significant period, the wine is forbidden.54It would appear that according to the Rambam, it is even forbidden to benefit from the wine (Kessef Mishneh).", + "When a Jew was eating together with a gentile, left wine open on the table and on the counter, and departed, the wine on the table is forbidden, while that on the counter is permitted.55We assume that he will touch the wine on the table, because it is open before him. But we don't think that he will take the risk of appearing as a thief by touching the wine on the counter. For it is not proper for a guest to take food left on the counter until the host has it brought to the table [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 5:5)].
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:7) rules slightly more stringently, stating that any wine which is in the gentile's reach is forbidden.
If [the Jew] told him: \"Mix [the wine] and drink,\" all the open wine in the house is forbidden.56Since the Jew gave him license, we have no reason to think that he will restrain himself. Here, too, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) rules more stringently, stating that if the Jew remains outside for a prolonged period (as mentioned in the previous halachah), even the closed barrels are forbidden.", + "When [a Jew] was drinking together with a gentile and he heard the sound of prayer in the synagogue and departed, even the open wine is permitted. For the gentile will say: \"Soon he will remember the wine, come hurriedly and see me touching his wine.\" Therefore [we do not suspect that] the gentile will move from his place. Hence only the wine that is before him57I.e., the wine on the table, as in the previous halachah (Kessef Mishneh). becomes forbidden.58As above, when quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:7) mentions the possibility of the Jew coming from a side path and surprising the gentile. If this is not possible, that source does not accept this leniency.", + "[The following rules apply when] a gentile and a Jew are living together in one courtyard59Avodah Zarah 70a (the Rambam's source) and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:9) state that this leniency applies when the Jew and the gentile live in a two-storey home, with the Jew living in the upper storey. The Rambam does not appear to think that is necessary (Kessef Mishneh). and they both left in agitation60The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam chose his words carefully. This leniency is granted because they left in agitation. Hence, it was probable that they would not notice each other outside. If, however, they left with calm reserve, it is possible that the gentile would have looked to see that the Jew was not returning and then entered his home and touched his wine.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 129:9) quotes this understanding as halachah. The Turei Zahav 129:19, however, differs, explaining that even when a person leaves his home in an agitated state, he will not necessarily return in an agitated state.
to see a bridegroom or a funeral. If the gentile returns and closes the entrance and the Jew comes later, the open wine in the Jew's home remains permitted. [We assume that] the gentile closed [the entrance] with the assumption that the Jew had already entered his home and no one remained outside; [i.e.,] he thought that the Jew came before him.", + "[The following rules apply when] wine belonging to both a Jew and a gentile [is being stored] in one building and [the Jew's] barrels were open. If the gentile entered the building and locked the door behind him,61If, however, we do not know that the door was locked - even though it was closed and it has a lock - the wine is permitted (Turei Zahav 128:5). all the wine is forbidden.62If, however, the Jew's barrels were closed, the wine in the closed barrels is permitted unless the gentile remained in the closed building alone for the time it would take to open a barrel, seal it closed again, and for its lid to dry, as stated in Halachah 16 [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 128:3)]. If there is a window in the door that enables a person standing behind the door to see in front of him, all of the barrels that are opposite the window are permitted. Those on the sides are forbidden. [The leniency is granted,] because the gentile will fear from those who can see him.", + "Similarly, if a lion roared or the like and the gentile fled and hid among the open barrels, the wine is permitted. For he will say, \"Perhaps another Jew also hid here and will see me if I touch [the wine].\"", + "[The following laws apply with regard to] a wine cellar whose barrels were open, a gentile also stored wine in that inn,63I.e., in an inn, there were several wine cellars, one in which a Jew stored wine and one in which a gentile stored wine (Kessef Mishneh). and the gentile was discovered standing among the open barrels belonging to the Jew. If he was frightened when discovered and it would be considered as if he was a thief,64I.e., if he was brought before the judges of a city on the complaint that he touched the wine, the judges would consider him a thief [Rashi (Avodah Zarah 61b)]. The Kessef Mishneh states that it is possible that the Rambam interprets the term differently, understanding it as meaning \"if he would think he would be considered a thief.\" According to this interpretation, it could refer not only to the gentile's touching the wine, but also entering the wine cellar.
To explain: Since the gentile also stores wine in that inn, he has permission to be in the inn, but he does not necessarily have permission to be in the Jew's wine cellar. This is precisely the question the Rambam is focusing on. Would the gentile be considered as a thief for being found in the Jew's wine cellar or not?
it is permitted to drink the wine. For because of his fear and dread, he will not have the opportunity to pour a libation. If he would not be considered as a thief, but instead, he feels secure there, the wine is forbidden.65Since he feels unthreatened, there is a high likelihood that he touched the Jews' wine.
When a [gentile] young child is discovered among the barrels, regardless of whether he would be considered like a thief or not, all of the wine is permitted.66For a young child never pours wine as a libation. In Chapter 11, Halachah 5, the Rambam states that it is forbidden to drink wine touched by a gentile young child. Here, he permits the wine entirely, because we are not certain that the young child in fact touched the wine. The Radbaz explains the rationale for the Rambam's ruling.: Since the young child does not think of using the wine as a libation, there is no reason for it to trouble itself and touch it.", + "When a battalion [of soldiers] enter a country with an approach of peace, all of the open barrels [of wine] in the stores are forbidden.67The Rambam's wording appears to imply that the open barrels in the homes are permitted. The soldiers would take the liberty of entering stores and making themselves free with their contents. They would not, however, feel that confident to enter homes. The Radbaz objects to this interpretation, noting that we see that soldiers often enter homes to loot. Indeed, when mentioning this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:12) speaks of homes and not stores.
Compare also to Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 18:26 which discusses a similar situation with regard to the question whether the women of the town have been raped.
The closed ones, by contrast, are permitted.68We can be certain that had the soldiers open the wine for use as a libation, they would not have taken the trouble of closing them again [Kessef Mishneh, Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.)]. At a time of war, however, if a battalion spread through a city and moved on, both are permitted,69The Kessef Mishneh states that if a barrel was closed and it is discovered open, it is forbidden. For we see that the soldiers did have time to touch the wine. because they do not have time to make libations.", + "[The following laws apply when] a gentile is discovered standing next to a cistern of wine [belonging to a Jew]. If [the Jew] owes him a debt for which this wine serves is collateral, [the wine] is forbidden.70The Kessef Mishneh explains the Rambam's ruling as follows: If the wine is security for a debt owed the gentile, the gentile will certainly not be considered a thief for touching the wine. Therefore it is forbidden. If the wine is not considered as security for a loan, when the gentile would be considered as a thief, the wine is permitted. When he would not be considered as a thief, it is forbidden. Since he feels privileged, he will extend his hand and make a libation. If it is not collateral for a debt, it is permitted to drink the wine.71This applies even if the Jew owes him money, and the loan is due, but he has not designated the wine as security for the debt [Rashi (Avodah Zarah 60a); Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 128:2)].", + "When a gentile harlot is present at a Jewish feast, the wine is permitted. For she is in dread of them and will not touch [the wine].72Although the Jews are willing to give in to their lust for forbidden relations, they are not suspect to drink gentile wine (Avodah Zarah 69b). Even the gentile harlot realizes this. When, however, a Jewish harlot is present at a gentile feast, her wine73I.e., wine that she herself brought. that is before her in her utensils is forbidden, for [the gentiles] will touch it without her consent.74Since they are employing her as a harlot, they look down upon her and show no consideration for her religious obligations.", + "[The following laws apply when] a gentile is discovered in a winepress:75I.e., a winepress that does not contain any wine, except for some remnants on the floor. If there is enough moisture from wine that when one places his hand in it, [the hand] will become moist to the extent that if it touches his other hand, that hand will become moist,76This is the meaning of the Hebrew phrase tofach al minat litfiach. it is necessary to wash out the winepress thoroughly and dry it out.77Applying water and ashes, as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 20. If this amount is not present, all that is necessary is to wash it out thoroughly. This is an extra measure of stringency.78We are not certain that the gentile try to touch the wine. Even if he did try to touch the wine, there is no reason for a prohibition, for we are speaking of a dry winepress. Hence washing it out is certainly sufficient (Radbaz).", + "[The following rules apply with regard to] a barrel floating in the river. If it was found near a city populated primarily by Jews, we are permitted to benefit from it.79The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:17) quotes this law as applying only in situations when there are obstructions in the river that prevent wine from being carried down the river from other places. In such a situation, we follow the principle of rov, i.e., since the majority of the city's inhabitants are Jewish, we assume that the barrel came from one of them. We are, nevertheless, forbidden to drink the wine. See the notes to the following halachah. Near a city populated primarily by gentiles, it is forbidden.", + "In a place where most of the wine merchants are Jewish, if one discovers large containers that are generally used only by wine merchants to store wine and which are filled with wine, it is permitted to benefit from [the wine].80In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro questions the Rambam's ruling. The Rambam's logic appears to be that since it is obvious that the wine came from a wine merchant and most of the wine merchants are Jewish, we follow the majority and rule that the wine is permitted. Nevertheless, since the majority of the inhabitants of the town are gentile, we forbid drinking the wine. The Kessef Mishneh asks: \"If we fear that the gentile touched the wine, it should be forbidden to benefit from it as well. And if not, it should be permitted to drink it.\" Indeed, he proposes that perhaps the Rambam's intent is that it is permitted to benefit only from the barrels. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:19), he follows the Rambam's ruling. Based on his Beis Yosef, it is possible to explain that we are speaking about closed barrels. We assume that had a gentile opened them and touched the wine, he would not have closed them again. Alternatively, since we do not know for certain that the gentile touched the wine, we do not forbid benefiting from it.
When a barrel has been opened by thieves, if most of the local thieves are Jewish, it is permitted to drink the wine. If not, it is forbidden." + ], + [ + "[The following rules apply when a Jew] purchases or rents a building in a courtyard belonging to a gentile and fills it with wine. If the Jew lives in that courtyard, the wine is permitted even if the entrance is open. [The rationale is that] the gentile will always worry, saying: \"He may suddenly enter his building and find me there.\" If the Jew lives in another courtyard,1And thus it is less likely for him to come at frequent intervals. he should not depart until he closes the building and keeps the key and the seal2Implied is that the entrance is closed with two seals, as required by Halachah 8. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 130:2) writes that since in the present age, most gentiles are not idolaters, only one seal is necessary. The Siftei Cohen 130:11) states that this principle should be applied in the present instance. in his possession. He need not fear that the gentile will make a copy of the key to the building.", + "When [the Jew] left [the building] without closing the entrance or closed it and gave the key to the gentile, it is forbidden to drink the wine. Perhaps the gentile entered and poured a libation, for the Jew is not present there.3Nevertheless, since we do not know for certain that the gentile touched the wine, we do not forbid benefiting from it (Radbaz).
If [the Jew] told [the gentile]: \"Hold the key for me until I come,\" the wine is permitted. He did not entrust him with guarding the house, only with guarding the key.4Since the gentile was not given permission to enter the house, he would be considered as a thief if he did so. Hence, we assume that he did not enter the home to pour a libation.
The Ra'avad states that the Rambam's words apply only when the house belongs to the Jew. When, however, the house belongs to the gentile, the wine is forbidden, even if he did not entrust him with the key. The rationale is that since the gentile has a connection to the house, he will have an excuse to enter it. Hence we fear that he entered it and touched the Jew's wine. The Radbaz defends the Rambam's ruling explaining that since the house is rented the owner does not have the right to enter it at will. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:5) quotes the Rambam's ruling.
", + "[The following laws apply when] a gentile hires a Jew to prepare wine for him in a state of ritual purity5We have translated the Rambam's words literally. The intent, however, appears to be not ritual purity per se, but \"without contact with gentiles.\" so that it will be permitted to the Jews and they will purchase it from him. The wine is [stored] in a building belonging to the gentile. If the Jew who is guarding the wine lives in that courtyard, the wine is permitted. [This applies] even if the entrance is open and the [Jewish] guard goes out and returns.6I.e., he is not present at all times. Nevertheless, it is possible that he will return at any given moment. Hence, the gentile will not take liberties. See Halachah 4.
If the guard lives in another courtyard,7Since he does not live on the premises, he is not considered as a permanent watchman. Hence, the fact that he enters from time to time during the day is not significant (Lechem Mishneh). The Ra'avad differs and maintains that as long as the Jew enters and leaves at will, that is sufficient to inhibit the gentile from touching the wine. [Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:11), the Rambam adopts a position similar to that of the Ra'avad.]
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 131:1 adopt an intermediate position, stating that if there is another Jew living in that city and the entrance to the building where the wine is stored is visible from the public domain, the wine is permitted. For the owner will be afraid to break the lock to the door lest he be seen and the matter become known. (This approach is also mentioned in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit).
the wine is forbidden even though the key and the seal are in the possession of a Jew. [The rationale is that] since the wine belongs to the gentile and is found in his domain, he does not fear falsifying [the seal and/or key] and to enter the building. He will say: \"What could be? If they find out about this, they will not purchase [the wine] from me.\"8There is, however, nothing preventing him from selling it to other gentiles.", + "Even if a gentile wrote [a legal document] for the Jew stating that he received the money for which he agreed to sell him the wine,9I.e., he wrote the bill of sale in advance, before the Jew actually paid to clarify that his intent was to sell it to him.
The Siftei Cohen 131:1 writes that these stringencies apply only if the Jew did not pay the gentile anything at all. Once the Jew pays the gentile something, the wine is considered his and more lenient rules apply. It is questionable, however, if the Rambam would accept this leniency, for as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 25, he rules that as long as wine is security for a debt, a gentile creditor will feel free to do with it as he desires.
since the Jew cannot remove the wine from the gentile's domain until he pays him the money, the wine belongs to the gentile and it is forbidden unless the guard lives in the courtyard.
The guard does not have to sit and guard [the wine] at all times. Instead, he may come in and go out, as explained. [This applies whether the wine is stored] in the domain belonging to the owner of the wine or in a domain belonging to another gentile.", + "When the pure wine belonging to a gentile was placed in the public domain or in a building that is open to the public domain and there are Jews going back and forth, it is permitted.10Since Jews can see whether or not the gentile touches it, he is afraid to do so, lest his investment be ruined. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:11). For it has not entered the gentile's domain.", + "[When wine is located] in a garbage dump, a window, or under a palm tree even if it does not have fruit, it is as [if it is located in] the public domain.11Because these places are also in public view and/or acces. When a gentile is located near wine located in such a place, it is not forbidden. A house which is open to such a place is considered as if it as open to the public domain.", + "[The following rule applies when] there is a courtyard divided by low barriers,12Our translation follows Rashi's commentary to Avodah Zarah 70a. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:16) defines the term as meaning pillars. on one side there is a gentile and on the other, a Jew, there are two roofs, with the Jew's roof located above the gentile's roof, or [the two roofs are located] side by side, but there are dividers separating them. Even though the gentile can reach the Jew's portion, he need not worry about [the gentile pouring] his wine as a libation13Since the gentile would be considered as a thief for overstepping these boundaries, we do not fear that he would do so. or [disqualifying] articles that are ritually pure.14Were a gentile to touch them, they would be disqualified.", + "It is permitted for a Jew to entrust his wine to a gentile for safekeeping in a closed container, provided it has two distinguishing marks. This is referred to as \"a seal within a seal.\"15The rationale is that we assume that a gentile will not trouble himself to reseal the container with two seals as the Jew had sealed it. Hence the fact that he found it with the two seals he left, it is a sign that it has not been tampered with.
What is implied? [A Jew] closed a barrel with a utensil that is not tightly fitting as most people do and then sealed it with clay, it is considered as one seal. If the container is tightly fitting and he applied clay to it from above, it is considered as \"a seal within a seal.\"
Similarly, if one tied the opening to a wineskin close, it is considered as one seal. If he turned the opening to the wineskin inside and then tied it close, it is considered as \"a seal within a seal.\" Similarly, any deviation from the ordinary pattern people follow is considered as one seal and applying clay or tying it is a second seal.16To apply these concepts in contemporary terms: When a bottle of wine is closed with a cork or a bottle-cap, that is one seal. If there is a paper or plastic wrapper around the cork or the cap, that is the second seal.", + "If [a Jew] entrusted [wine that was closed] with one seal to a gentile for safekeeping, it is forbidden to drink it, but it is permitted to benefit from it provided he designates a [specific] corner for it.17Based on Avodah Zarah 31a, some interpret this as speaking about an instance where the corner the gentile grants the Jew is closed off with a seal. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 130:2) writes that there are opinions which rule that after the fact, one seal is sufficient in this situation.
The Lechem Mishneh explains that even if the place is not closed off, since it is designated for the Jew, one seal is sufficient. See Turei Zahav 130:4).
", + "Two seals are not necessary when one deposits boiled wine, beer, wine which is mixed with other substances, e.g., honey or oil,18For in none of these instances do we fear that the gentile will use the beverage for a libation, as stated in Chapter 11, Halachot 9-10. – and similarly, vinegar, cheese, and any substance that is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law – with a gentile. Instead, one seal is sufficient.19In these instances, we fear that the gentile will exchange another substance, for the substance deposited. One seal is sufficient to dispel these suspicions (Lechem Mishneh). Nevertheless, two seals are necessary for wine, meat, and pieces of fish that do not have signs and which were entrusted to a gentile.20Since the prohibition involved in these instances is Scriptural in origin, we are more stringent.", + "It appears to me that anywhere in this context that we have stated that our wine is forbidden to be drunk, but it is permitted to benefit from it because of the possibility that a gentile touched it, we are speaking about an instance where the gentile is an idolater. If, however, the prohibition has arisen because of a gentile who is not an idolater, e.g., an Arab,21See Chapter 11, Halachah 7. That halachah states that when a gentile who is not an idolater touches wine, it is only forbidden to drink it. In this instance, since the gentile did not intend to touch the wine, we are more lenient and do not forbid it at all (Radbaz).
As mentioned previously, the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 124:24) rules that in the present era, none of the gentiles are considered as idolaters and the leniency suggested by the Rambam applies universally. On that basis, he and the subsequent Ashkenazic authorities have suggested several leniencies.
who touched our wine unintentionally or tapped the top of a barrel,22See Chapter 12, Halachot 5 and 9. [the wine] is permitted to be drunken. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "When, however, one deposits wine in the domain of a resident alien23A gentile who has made a formal commitment to accept the Seven Universal Laws Commanded to Noah and His Descendants. These include the prohibition against worshipping false divinities. sends wine with him and departs for an extended period, or leaves one's home open in a courtyard that [one shares with] a resident alien, it is forbidden to drink the wine. For it appears to me that the suspicions that a gentile will exchange [wine] and forge [a seal] apply equally to all gentiles. Since the wine enters their domain,24I.e., a place where it can be exchanged without a Jew noticing. it is forbidden at least to drink it.25For we fear that he exchanged it with his own wine and it is forbidden to drink such wine. Although a resident alien also accepted the prohibition against theft, we fear that he - and certainly, other gentiles - will not abide by his commitment (Radbaz).", + "There are situations where the prohibition against wine poured as a libation does not apply at all, yet our Sages forbade them as a safeguard against libation. They are: a gentile should not mix water into wine in a Jew's possession lest he come to pour wine into water. A gentile should not bring grapes to the winepress lest he come to press them or touch the wine. He should not help a Jew when he pours wine from one container to another lest he leave the wine in the possession of the gentile and the wine [will flow] because of [the gentile's] power. If the gentile assists [the Jew], mixes water [into wine] or brings grapes, [the wine] is permitted.26For these are merely safeguards. Although Rashi (Avodah Zarah 58b) and other Rishonim rule more stringently, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 125:3,6,7) accepts the Rambam's position.", + "Similarly, it is permitted for a gentile to smell the fragrance of our wine27Doing so does not arouse a suspicion that perhaps he used it as a libation for his false deity. Smelling is not considered as tasting or drinking. and it is permitted for a Jew to smell the fragrance of a barrel of wine that had been used as a libation.28It is not included in the prohibition mentioned at the beginning of Ch. 11. There is no prohibition against this, because fragrance is of no consequence since it has no substance.29See the conclusion of Ch. 5 of Hilchot Meilah, where the Rambam delivers a slightly contradictory ruling.", + "We already explained,30Chapter 8, Halachah 16. See also Hilchot Avodat Kochavimn 7:9 and Hilchot Ishut 5:2. that whenever it is forbidden to benefit from a substance, if one transgresses and sells it, it is permitted [to make use of] the money with the exception of false deities, their accessories, offerings made to them, and wine poured as a libation to it. Our Sages were stringent with regard to ordinary gentile wine [and ruled that] money given for it is forbidden like money given for wined poured as a libation to a false deity.
Accordingly, when a gentile hires a Jew to work with him with wine, his wages are forbidden.31For he is deriving benefit from gentile wine.", + "Similarly, when a person rents a donkey or a boat to transport wine, the payment for them is forbidden.32Even though the Jew himself does nothing to help transport the gentile wine. If he gave him money, he should bring them to the Dead Sea.33I.e., throw in a place where neither he nor anyone else will benefit from them. If he gave him clothes, utensils, or produce as payment, he should burn it and bury the dust so that he34Nor others. does not benefit from it.", + "If a gentile rented a donkey to ride and placed containers of wine on it, the rental fee for the donkey is permitted.35For the rental fee was not primarily paid for the sake of the wine (Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 133:3). The Radbaz emphasizes that this leniency applies when the donkey was rented primarily for human transport and, by the way, the gentile placed wine upon it. If, however, he rented it primarily to transport packages - and later the owner discovered that wine was included among them - the rental fee is forbidden even if the person also rides on the donkey. If [a gentile] hires a Jew to break barrels of wine used as a libation, his fee is permitted. May he be blessed because he eliminated obscenity.", + "When a person hires a worker and tells him: \"Transport 100 barrels of beer for me for 100 p'rutot,\" and it is discovered that one of them is [gentile] wine, his entire wage is forbidden.36He is being paid for the entire work as a collective entity. Were he not to have transported all the barrels, he would not be paid at all (Rashi, Avodah Zarah 65a). Accordingly, the payment for transporting the beer was never distinct from that of the wine. Hence his entire wage is forbidden.
The Ra'avad differs and maintains that it is sufficient to destroy the wage paid for the forbidden barrels. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 133:3) follows the Rambam's stringency.
", + "If he told him: \"Transport barrels for me at a p'rutah each,\" and he transported them and barrels of wine were discovered among them, the wage for the barrels of wine is forbidden. The remainder of the wage is permitted.37Since the wage was paid for each barrel individually, the wage paid for the barrels of beer is a separate and distinct entity. Hence it is not forbidden. Nevertheless, at the outset, it is forbidden to accept such a job [Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.)].", + "When a gentile sends Jewish craftsmen a barrel of wine as part of their wages, it is permitted for them to tell him: \"Give us its worth.\"38For the craftsman have not accepted the wine and the employer owes them money. Once it enters their domain, it is forbidden.39For then it is as if they are exchanging the wine for wine.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 132:3) writes that in the present age, (when gentiles are not actually idolaters,) a worker may return the barrel of wine even though it has entered his domain.
", + "When a gentile owed a Jew a maneh,40One hundred silver zuzim. it is permitted for the gentile to sell a false deity and wine that had been poured as a libation and bring him the money. If, before he sells them, he tells [the Jew]: \"Wait until I sell the false deity or libation wine that I own and [then] I will bring you [the money],\" if he sells it and brings [the money] to him, [the money] is forbidden. [This applies] even with regard to ordinary gentile wine. [The rationale is that] the Jew desires that [the false deity or the wine] to continue to exist so that he will be able to pay him his debt.41Hence he has benefited from existence of the gentile wine. Hence, it is forbidden.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 132:7) states that, even if the Jew desires that the false deity continue to exist, leniency can be granted in an instance where the gentile has other resources to pay the debt or alternatively, when the debt is secured by a guarantor. Moreover, if all that is concerned is ordinary gentile wine, in the present age, there is no prohibition for the reason stated above.
", + "Similarly, when a convert and a gentile were partners and they came to divide the resources [of the partnership], the convert may not tell the gentile: \"You take the false deity and I will take the money. You take the wine and I will take the produce.\" [The rationale is that] he desires that [the forbidden entities] continue to exist so that he will be able to receive something in exchange for them.42Here leniency is not granted, because the convert has a share in the entities belonging to the partnership. Thus he is exchanging money for a false deity.
When, by contrast, a convert and a gentile inherit the estate of their father who was a gentile, [the convert] may tell [the gentile]: \"You take the false deity and I will take the money. You take the wine and I will take the oil.\" This is a leniency granted with regard to an estate inherited by a convert so that he will not return to his deviant ways.43I.e., our Sages feared that the convert will be so disturbed about being unable to receive his inheritance, that he will forsake Jewish practice and return to his previous mode of conduct. This is undesirable, because once a person converts, he is a full-fledged Jew. If he conducts himself undesirably, his conduct affects the entire Jewish people. If [the forbidden entities] entered the domain of the convert, it is forbidden.44For they have already entered the domain of the convert and are, therefore, forbidden. Hence it is forbidden to exchange them for others, for then one will be deriving benefit.", + "[The following rules apply when] a Jew sells his wine to a gentile. If he established a price before he measured out [the wine], the money is permitted. [The rationale is that] from the time a price was established, [the gentile] definitely agreed [to the purchase] and when he pulled [the wine] into his domain, he acquired it.45I.e., he acquires the wine through the kinyan of meshichah [see Maggid Mishneh, Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 1:14; Turei Zahav 132:4) and the money is considered as a loan which he owes the Jew.
The Radbaz questions why the Rambam mentions meshichah, drawing the wine into his own domain. Seemingly, once a price was established and the wine was poured, the gentile acquires it whether or not he performs meshichah immediately. Conversely, if meshichah finalizes the transaction, seemingly as long as a price was set before meshichah, the wine should be permitted
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam is speaking according to the common practice. It was customary to establish a price either before measuring the wine or after meshichah.
And it does not become [comparable to] wine offered as a libation until he touches it. Therefore at the time of sale, it was permitted.
If he measured it out for him before he established a price, the money is forbidden. [The rationale is that the gentile] did not definitely agree [to the purchase], even though he pulled [the wine] into his domain.46For he fears that the Jew will ask an exorbitant price (Radbaz). Hence he always keeps the option of negating the sale. Thus at the time he touched [the wine], he had not definitely agreed to the purchase. Hence the wine becomes forbidden because of his touch and it is as if [the Jew] is selling gentile wine.", + "When does the above apply? When the Jew measured [the wine] into his own containers. If, however, he measured it into the gentile's containers or to a container belonging to a Jew in the gentile's possession, he must take the money,47For the payment of the money formalizes the transfer of the wine (effecting a kinyan), Thus the gentile has paid for the wine before it entered his domain and became forbidden. before measuring out [the wine]. If he measured out [the wine,] but did not take the money, the money is forbidden even though he established a price. As soon as [the wine] enters [the gentile's] container, it is forbidden as ordinary gentile wine.48There are several explanations for this ruling. The gentile left some of his wine in the container and thus as the Jew was pouring the new wine in, it became forbidden. Alternatively, the gentile was holding the container and moved it (see Chapter 12, Halachah 3). This is sufficient to cause the wine to become forbidden (Radbaz).
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, stating that (as the Rambam himself rules in Chapter 16, Halachah 29) if kosher wine becomes mixed with non-kosher wine, it is forbidden to drink it, but one may benefit from it. Nevertheless, he does not provide a rebuttal to the second explanation given above.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that since the wine in the container the gentile is holding becomes forbidden, the wine the Jew is pouring also becomes forbidden, as stated above in Chapter 12, Halachah 12.
", + "When [a Jewish employer] gives a dinar to a gentile storekeeper and tells his gentile employee: \"Go, drink, and eat [on my account] from the storekeeper and I will settle the accounts with him,\" he must show concern lest [the employee] will drink wine.49Since he gave the storekeeper the money in advance, it is as if he paid the storekeeper for what his worker would eat. Thus it is as if the worker is drinking the employer's wine. Thus it will be as if he purchased wine used as a libation and gave it to him.
A similar arrangement with regard to the Sabbatical year50The Rambam's source (Avodah Zarah 58b) mentions both produce from the Sabbatical year and untithed produce, because it is possible that a common person is lax in his observance of both these mitzvot. Apparently, the Rambam also had this intent because he begins by mentioning produce of the Sabbatical year and concludes by mentioning untithed produce. is also forbidden; i.e., one gives a dinar to a Jewish storekeeper who is a common person and tells his Jewish employee: \"Go, drink, and eat [on my account] from the storekeeper and I will settle the accounts with him.\" If the worker eats food that was not tithed, it is forbidden.51I.e., it is forbidden for the employer to do this, because it would be considered as if he personally gave his employee produce from the Sabbatical year or untithed produce.", + "If, however, he told them: \"Eat and drink the worth of this dinar,\" or \"Eat and drink from the storekeeper on my account and I will pay him,\" this is permitted. Although the Jew becomes liable, his liability is not specifically related [to the foods from which the employees partake].52I.e., he undertakes a financial obligation to the storekeeper, but since he does not pay him the money beforehand, that obligation is not explicitly associated with the food or drink of which the worker partakes. [Therefore,] he need not be concerned, not about wine used as a libation, not about produce of the Sabbatical year, nor about untithed produce.53The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 450:6) mentions opinions that are more stringent with regard to an employer taking financial responsibility for the food a gentile will eat on Pesach. The Turei Zahav 460:4 explains that with regard to Pesach, there is a greater reason for stringency, for it is almost certain that the gentile will eat chametz. In the situations mentioned in our halachah, by contrast, it is possible that none of the prohibitions will be violated, for the gentile will not want wine, nor the Jewish workers, the untithed or Sabbatical produce.", + "[The following rules apply when] a [gentile] king distributes his wine among the people and takes money for it, as he desires.54A gentile king produced wine from the royal vineyard as a means of financing his nation's expenses. He would obligate each of the person's in his kingdom to buy a standard amount of wine. For a Jew, that represents a problem for the wine is gentile wine. Not only is it forbidden to drink it, it is forbidden to benefit from it. Thus not only may a Jew not partake of such wine, nor may he take it and sell it. He is forbidden even to purchase it from the king.
This represents the Rambam's interpretation of Avodah Zarah 71a. It is quoted by the Rashba and other Rishonim. Rashi, the Ra'avad, and others, however, have different interpretations of the passage. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 132:6) quotes the Rambam's interpretation.
A [Jew] may not tell a gentile: \"Take 200 zuz and go into the king's storehouse in place of me,\" so that the gentile will take the wine designated for the Jew and give the money to the king.55The Radbaz explains that in this way, the gentile is purchasing the wine from the Jew. Others explain that the gentile is acting as the Jew's agent. He may, however, tell him: \"Here is 200 zuz for you. Save me from [going to] the storehouse.\"56For in this way, the gentile is not acting as the Jew's agent.", + "When a gentile touches57This law applies when the gentile intentionally touches the wine. If the gentile touches it unintentionally, he is not liable. The rationale is that this is damage which is not outwardly noticeable (i.e., although the ritual status of the wine has changed, outwardly it is the same). In such an instance, Hilchot Chovel UMazik 7:3 states, one is not liable for causing damage inadvertently.
The Kessef Mishneh states that even if the gentile intentionally touched the wine, but did not know that by touching it, he caused it to be forbidden, the gentile is not liable and this leniency does not apply. The Siftei Cohen 132:2, however, interprets this wording as implying that even if the gentile caused it to become forbidden inadvertently, the Jew may sell it to him.
See also Hilchot Chovel UMazik 7:4 and commentaries, where a similar concept is discussed.
a Jew's wine against [the Jew's] will,58For if the Jew could have stopped the gentile from touching the wine and didn't, he is responsible for the loss (Radbaz). it is permitted to sell that wine to that gentile alone.59The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 124:2) rules that in the present age, when it is not customary for gentiles to use wine as libations, the wine may be sold to any gentile. [The rationale is] since that gentile wished to cause a Jew a loss [by] having his wine forbidden, it is as if he destroyed it or burnt it, in which instance, he would be obligated to pay. Thus the money [the Jew] takes from him is money for the loss and not money for a sale.60Avodah Zarah 59b states that in such a situation, he may charge the gentile the full price of the wine." + ], + [ + "The minimum measure for which one is liable for partaking of any of the forbidden foods in the Torah is [the size of] an average olive.1The measure of \"the size of an olive\" cannot be determined by measuring an average olive today. Instead, this refers to a measure established by our Sages and is the subject of debate by later Rabbinic authorities. The Pri Chadash (Orach Chayim 486) states that the Rambam considers an olive as one-third the size of an egg with its shell (17.3 grams according to Shiurei Torah 3:13, 24 grams according to Chazon Ish). Tosafot, Chullin 103a, differs and defines an olive as one-half the size of a shelled egg (25.6 grams according to Shiurei Torah 3:12, 36 grams according to Chazon Ish). In practice, with regard to questions of Scriptural Law, the more stringent opinion should be followed. With regard to questions of Rabbinic Law, one may rely on the more lenient view. [This applies] whether for lashes, kerait, 2Literally, the soul's being cut off. This involves premature death in this world (before the age of 50, Mo'ed Kattan 28a) and the soul not meriting a portion in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1). or death at the hand of heaven.3Premature death before the age of 60 (Mo'ed Kattan, loc. cit.). We already explained4See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 1:7. that anyone who is liable for kerait or death at the hand of heaven for [partaking of] forbidden food, should receive lashes.", + "This measure, as all the other measurements, is a halachah conveyed by Moses from Sinai. It is forbidden by Scriptural Law to eat even the slightest amount of a forbidden substance. Nevertheless, one receives lashes only for an olive-sized portion. If one partakes of any amount less than this measure, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.5The punishment given for the violation of Rabbinic commandments or Scriptural Laws for which there is no specific punishment outlined.", + "The measure of \"the size of an olive\" that we mentioned does not include what is between one's teeth.6Shiurei Torah suggests including slightly more than 3 grams in the measure of an olive-sized portion to compensate for this factor. What is between one's gums,7Even though it was not swallowed. however, is included in what one swallows, for his palate benefited from an olive-sized portion of food.
Even if one ate half of an olive-sized portion, vomited it, and then ate the same portion that was half the size of an olive that he vomited, he is liable.8This refers to a situation in which the person ate the vomited food a second time shortly after he ate it the first time. To explain: For a person to be liable, he must eat not only a specific amount (an olive-sized portion), but he must eat it in a specific time: k'dai achilas p'ras, as explained in Halachah 8. For the liability is for the benefit one's palate receives from a forbidden substance.", + "When an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat, a nevelah, piggul,9A sacrifice which the priest thought to have its blood or limbs offered on the altar after the time when they should be offered or have its meat eaten after the time it should be eaten (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 13:1). notar,10Sacrificial meat that remained after the time when it is required to be eaten (op cit. 13:3). or the like was left in the sun and was reduced in volume, one who eats it is not liable.11As Menachot 54b states, the size of a portion of food at the time one partakes of it determines whether he is liable or not.
If, afterwards, one left it in the rain and it expanded, one is liable for either kerait or lashes.12For, at the outset, it was the size of an olive. If, originally, it was smaller than an olive-sized portion and then expanded to the size of an olive, it is forbidden to partake of it, but one is not liable for lashes for it.13For its natural size is not an olive.", + "We already explained14Chapter 4, Halachot 16 and 17. that all of the forbidden substances in the Torah are not combined with each other to reach the minimum measure of the size of an olive with the exception of the meat of a nevelah and the meat of a trefe15For a trefe is the beginning of a nevelah, as stated there. and the prohibitions involving a nazirite,16For they are all grape products, as stated in Hilchot Nazirut 5:3. as explained in the appropriate places. The five types of grain,17Wheat, barley, rye, oats, and spelt. Since they are all grain, they are combined to reach the minimum measure. their flour, and the dough made from them all can be combined with each other to reach the minimum measure of the size of an olive with regard to the prohibition against leaven on Pesach, the prohibition against partaking of chadash before the offering of the omer,18See Chapter 10 for a definition of this prohibition. and the prohibitions involving the second tithe and the terumot.", + "It appears to me that all [produce] from which we are required to separate terumah and tithes can be combined to reach the minimum measure of the size of an olive with regard to [the prohibition against] tevel because a single prohibition is involved. To what can the matter be compared? To [meat from] the corpse of an ox, the corpse of a sheep, and the corpse of a deer which can be combined to reach the minimum measure of the size of an olive as we explained.19Chapter 4, Halachah 7.
The Ra'avad qualifies the Rambam's statement, maintaining that it applies only when the types of produce consumed have a similar taste. The Radbaz, however, justifies the Rambam's view.
", + "When a person partakes of a large amount of food from a forbidden substance, he is not liable for lashes or kerait for every olive-sized portion he eats. Instead, he is liable once for all he ate.20In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nazir 6:4), the Rambam states that this leniency applies only with regard to an earthly court. God, however, holds the person liable for each forbidden measure he eats. If, however, the witness gave him a warning for every olive-sized portion, he is liable for every warning even though he ate it in one sitting, without interruption.21For the warnings create a distinction between the food eaten before and afterwards.", + "[The following rules apply when] a person partakes of a barley-corn or mustard-seed-sized portion of any forbidden food, waits, and then partakes of another mustard-seed-sized portion whether inadvertently or intentionally. If he waited from the beginning to the end the time it takes to eat a portion of bread with relish the size of three eggs22Our translation is based on Hilchot Tumat Tzara'at 16:6. [or less], everything [he ate] is combined.23This is one of the fundamental concepts with regard to the mitzvot and prohibitions concerning eating. Just as there is a minimum amount, a k'zayit (an olive-sized portion), which one must eat for the mitzvah or prohibition to be fulfilled; so, too, there is a minimum measure of time, k'dei achilat p'ras, in which that amount of food must be eaten. If one takes a longer time to eat the prohibited food, his eating is not significant, like one who eats less than the minimum amount.
Rashi (Pesachim 44a ) offers a different view and maintains that this measure is defined as the time it takes to eat four eggs. Shiurei Torah mentions several different opinions from between four minutes until nine minutes for this figure.
He is liable for kerait, lashes, or a sacrifice as if he ate an olive-sized portion at one time. If he waits a longer time from the beginning to the end, [the small portions] are not combined. Since he completed the olive-sized portion only in a longer time than k'dei achilat p'ras, he is not liable even if he did not wait at all, but continued eating mustard-seed-sized portion after mustard-seed-sized portion.", + "Similar [laws apply when] a person who drinks a revi'it24The standard liquid measure that applies with regard to the Torah's mitzvot and prohibitions. of ordinary gentile wine little by little, swallows liquefied leaven on Pesach or fat little by little, or drinks blood25The commentaries have noted that in Chapter 6, Halachah 1, the Rambam mentioned that the minimum measure for which one is liable for partaking of blood is an olive-sized portion and question why in this context, a revi'it is mentioned. It is possible to explain that here the subjects are slightly different, for we are not speaking about the minimum amount for which one is liable, but rather the minimum time period. The commentaries, however, do not see this as a significant enough point. little by little. If he waits from the beginning until the end the time it takes to drink a revi'it, [all of the sipping] is combined.26For if one prolongs his drinking over a longer period, his deed is not considered significant. If not, it is not combined.27The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh note that other authorities do not accept the concept of \"the time it takes to drink a revi'it\" and even with regard to prohibitions that involve drinking, speak of k'dei achilat p'ras. Indeed, the Rambam himself mentions that measure with regard to drinking within the context of the laws of ritual purity (Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah.
The Radbaz explains the Rambam's ruling here, stating that with regard to the prohibitions against eating, what is important is that one feel significant satisfaction. If he prolongs his drinking longer than that, he will not feel satisfaction from it. See also the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh to Hilchot Shivitat Esor 2:4 which discusses this issue.
", + "One is not liable for partaking of any of the prohibited foods unless one partakes of them in a manner in which one derives satisfaction with the exception of a mixture of meat and milk and mixed species grown in a vineyard. [The rationale is that with regard to these prohibitions, the Torah] does not use the term \"eating,\"28When, however, the Torah uses the term \"eating,\" that implies that one derives satisfaction in the ordinary manner one derives benefit from food (see the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh to Chapter 8, Halachah 16). Only then is one liable. Needless to say, it is forbidden by Rabbinic Law to partake of a forbidden substance even if one does not derive benefit. but instead conveys the prohibition against partaking of them in other terms. [With regard to meat and milk, it uses] the term \"cooking\" and [with regard to mixed species grown in a vineyard, it uses the term] \"become hallowed.\"29As explained in Chapter 10, Halachah 6, \"becom[ing] hallowed\" means being \"set apart and forbidden.\" [This implies] that they are forbidden even when one does not derive satisfaction.", + "What is implied? When one liquefied fat and swallowed it when it was so hot that his throat was burned from it, he eat raw fat,30Which does not have a pleasant taste. mixed bitter substances like gall or wormwood into wine31This concept also applies with regard to wine used as a libation, for, Deuteronomy 32:38, the prooftext from which this prohibition is derived, also mentions \"eating\" [Minchat Chinuch (mitzvah 111)]. or into a pot [where meat from] a nevelah [is cooking] and he partook of it while they were bitter,32I.e., even if the unappetizing element of the food is not dependent on them, but on a foreign substance. or he ate a forbidden food after it became decayed, spoiled, and unfit for human consumption, he is not liable.33This refers to the concept referred to as notein taam lifgam, giving an unfavorable taste. Our Rabbis extend this concept further, explaining that any pot which has not been used for non-kosher food for a day no longer causes the pot to be forbidden according to Scriptural Law, because the forbidden food has already lost its flavor [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 103:5)]. See also Chapter 15, Halachot 28-31. If, by contrast, he mixed a bitter substance into a a pot [where meat and milk are cooking] or into wine from a vineyard where mixed species are growing and partook of it, he is liable.", + "When a person partakes of one of the forbidden food in a frivolous manner or as one who is acting purposelessly, he is liable. Even though he did not intend to actually partake of the food, since he derived pleasure, it is considered as if he intended to actually partake of the food.34Generally, a person who violates a transgression without intent is not liable (Shabbat 22a). Here, however, an exception is made, because the person is deriving physical benefit. When, [by contrast,] a person is forced to derive [forbidden] pleasure, if he focuses his intent on it, he is liable. If he does not, it is permitted.35Even though he derived pleasure, since he did not act voluntarily and did not desire the forbidden pleasure, he is not held liable.", + "When a person partakes of a forbidden food because of desire or because of hunger, he is liable.36Although either his desire or hunger causes him pain, he is not considered as if he was compelled to partake of the forbidden food. If he was wandering in the desert and he has nothing to eat but a forbidden substance, it is permitted, because of the danger to his life.37As stated in Hilchot Yesodei Torah 5:6, all prohibitions are superceded by danger to life with the exception of idolatry, murder, and forbidden sexual relations.", + "When a pregnant woman smells a forbidden food [and is overcome by desire for it],38A pregnant woman may have severe cravings for food with an attractive aroma. Our Sages feared that if she were not given some of the food she desired, she might miscarry and perhaps even her own life would be endangered. See Yoma 82b. e.g., consecrated meat or ham, she should be given some of the gravy. If her mind becomes settled, that is commendable. If not, we feed her less than the forbidden measure39I.e., less than an olive-sized portion as stated in Halachah 1. Since one is not liable unless one partakes of an olive-sized portion within k'dei achilat pras (see Halachah 8), if we do not fear the situation is overly dangerous, the woman can be fed this minimal amount in intervals. See Hilchot Sh'vitat Asor 2:9, Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 617:2). [of the meat itself]. If her mind does not become settled, we feed her until her mind becomes settled.", + "Similarly, when a sick person smells food that contains vinegar or the like, [i.e.,] substances that arouse a soul's [desire], he is governed by the same laws that apply to a pregnant woman.40Since he is sick, his condition is precarious and we are concerned that his craving may place his life in danger. See Ketubot 61a.", + "When a person is overcome by severe hunger,41This refers to a state of infirmity that overcomes a person because of lack of nourishment. He becomes dizzy, faint, and unable to focus his eyes. he may be fed forbidden food immediately until his eyesight clears. We do not seek permitted food. Instead, we hurry to feed him what is available.42Out of fear that the delay may be crucial to his life. Similarly, we do not try first giving him the gravy and then smaller portions as in the previous halachot (Kessef Mishneh). Needless to say, if kosher food is available, there is no reason to give him non-kosher food.
We feed him substances bound by more lenient prohibitions first. If his sight clears, that is sufficient. If not, we feed him the substances bound by the more severe prohibitions.", + "What is implied? If there is tevel43Produce from which terumah and the tithes have not been separated. and a nevelah, we feed him the nevelah first. {The rationale is] that [partaking of] tevel is punishable by death [at the hand of heaven].44This applies when the terumot have not been separated from the produce. If the terumot have been separated, but the tithes have not been separated, the prohibition is of the same degree of severity as partaking of a nevelah. See Chapter 10, Halachot 19-20. If [the choice is between] a nevelah and produce that grows on its own during the Sabbatical year, we feed him the produce, for it is forbidden [only] by Rabbinic decree, as will be explained in Hilchot Shemitah.45Hilchot Shemitah ViYovel 4:2.
If [the choice is between] tevel and produce grown during the Sabbatical year,46I.e., produce grown in the Sabbatical year that remains after the time when it is supposed to be disposed of (Rashi, Yoma 83a). we feed him the produce grown during the Sabbatical year.47For the prohibition against eating produce cultivated in the Sabbatical year stems from a positive commandment. This is considered as more lenient than a prohibition stemming from a negative commandment, because there is no punishment involved. If [the choice is between] tevel and terumah, if it is impossible to make the tevel acceptable,48Some interpret this as referring to a situation where there is no one who knows how to separate the terumot present. Rashi (loc. cit.) interprets this as referring to a situation where the sick person must eat the entire amount of produce available. It is preferable not to separate the terumot. For even though he will be eating less of a forbidden substance, the prohibition will be more severe because terumah is sanctified. we feed him the tevel. [The rationale is] that it is not sanctified as terumah is. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "We have already explained49Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:8-9. that one prohibition does not take effect when another prohibition is in effect unless both of the prohibitions take effect at the same time,50Chapter 5, Halachah 5, gives an example of this concept. When a person rips a limb from a living animal which causes the animal to become trefe, he is considered to have transgressed two prohibitions: the prohibition against eating flesh from a living animal and the prohibition against partaking of an animal that is trefe, for both prohibitions take effect at the same time. the latter prohibition forbids additional entities,51This concept is exemplified in this and the following halachah. See also Chapter 7, Halachah 2, and Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:9-10. or the [latter] prohibition encompasses other entities.52This concept is exemplified in Chapter 8, Halachah 6: A person who partakes of a gid hanesheh, a sciatic nerve, of an animal which is trefe is liable for two transgressions. Since when the animal became trefe, its entire body became encompassed in the prohibition, that prohibition also encompasses the gid even though it was prohibited beforehand.
Accordingly, [it is possible] for there to be a person who eats one olive-sized portion of forbidden food and yet, he will be liable for five [sets of] lashes for it, provided he was warned for all five prohibitions that accumulated.
What is implied? For example, on Yom Kippur, a person who was ritually impure ate an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat from a consecrated animal that remained after its prescribed time.53Every sacrifice of which we are allowed to partake has a certain time span - a day and a night or two days and a night - in which we are allowed to partake of it. After that time span, it becomes forbidden because of the prohibition referred to as notar (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:10. He is liable for lashes because he partook of forbidden fat, notar, because he ate on Yom Kippur,54The Rambam also states this concept in Hilchot Shegagot 6:4. There he emphasizes that to be liable for eating on Yom Kippur, one must add another small portion of food. For one is not liable for eating on Yom Kippur unless he consumes a date-sized portion. That additional portion, however, need not involve all these different prohibitions. because he partook of consecrated food while ritually impure, and because he derived benefit from consecrated food, thus [violating the prohibition of] me'ilah.", + "Why do these prohibitions fall on each other? Because although it was forbidden to partake of the fat of this animal, it was permitted to benefit from it. Once he consecrated it, it became forbidden to benefit from the fat. Since the prohibition to benefit from it was added to it, the prohibition against [benefiting from] consecrated articles became added to it.
Although this fat was forbidden to an ordinary person, it was still permitted to be offered to the One on High. When it became notar, since it became forbidden to the One on High, [that] prohibition was added to an ordinary person.
This person was permitted to partake of the meat of the animal,55Before it became notar. although he was forbidden to partake of its fat. When he became impure, since its meat became forbidden an additional prohibition was added to its fat. When Yom Kippur commenced, all food became included [in the prohibition], since this prohibition affects non-consecrated food, it adds a prohibition to this fat. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations." + ], + [ + "When a forbidden substance becomes mixed with a permitted substance of another type, [it causes it to become forbidden] if its flavor can be detected. When [a forbidden substance becomes mixed with a permitted substance of] the same type and it is impossible to detect [the forbidden substance] by its flavor,1Because it tastes the same as the permitted substance. its presence becomes nullified if there is a majority [of the permitted substance].2According to Scriptural Law. As stated in Halachot 4-5, the Rabbis enforced more stringent requirements.", + "What is implied? When the fat of the kidneys3Which is forbidden (Chapter 7, Halachah 5). falls into beans and becomes dissolved, the beans should be tasted.4By a gentile (see the notes to Halachah 30 and Chapter 9, Halachah 8) for a discussion of why the gentile's word is accepted. If the taste of fat cannot be detected, they are permitted. If [not only] the taste, [but also] the substance of the fat is present, they are forbidden according to Scriptural Law. If the flavor could be detected, but there is no substance, they are forbidden by Rabbinic Law.5See Tosafot (Chullin 98b) which mentions a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if the principle \"the flavor of an entity is equivalent to its substance\" is of Rabbinic or Scriptural origin.", + "What is meant by its substance? For example, there was enough forbidden fat for there to be an olive-sized portion [of fat] in each portion the size of three eggs from the mixture. If a person eats a portion of beans the size of three eggs, he is liable for lashes for they contain an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat, for [not only] the flavor, [but also] the substance of [the forbidden fat] is present.6The Rambam shares the perspective of Tosafot (Avodah Zarah 67b) who maintains that if there is more than an olive-sized portion of fat in a portion of food k'dei achilat p'ras (the size of three eggs), its substance is considered as present even though it is dissolved and not discernable. Rashi differs and maintains that as long as the fat is dissolved, it is considered as if the substance of the forbidden entity is not present. If one eats less than a portion the size of three eggs [of the mixture], one is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct as prescribed by Rabbinic Law.
Similarly, if there was less than an olive-sized portion of [forbidden] fat in every portion the size of three eggs, even if the flavor of fat is detectable and he eats the entire pot, he is not liable for lashes7Even though he may eat an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat, he will not have eaten it in the required time (the time it takes to eat three eggs, as stated in Chapter 14, Halachah 8) for one to be held liable. The concentration of the forbidden fat is too small for that to happen. [as prescribed by Scriptural Law], only stripes for rebellious conduct.", + "[The following laws apply when] the fat of the kidneys8Which is forbidden (Chapter 7, Halachah 5). falls into the fat from the fat tail9Which is permitted. and the entire [mixture] becomes dissolved.10Since both are fat, the mixture is considered as being of the same substance. If there is twice as much fat from the fat tail as fat of the kidneys, the entire mixture is permitted according to Scriptural Law.11For according to Scriptural Law, as long as the majority is kosher, the mixture may be eaten. Indeed, there is no need for there to be twice as much kosher fat as non-kosher fat. A simple majority is sufficient. Even when a piece of [meat from] a nevelah becomes mixed with two pieces of [meat from] a ritually slaughter animal, everything is permitted according to Scriptural Law.12With regard to the mixture of fat, there is greater reason for leniency, for there is no longer any non-kosher fat that exists as an independent entity, it is all mixed together with the kosher fat. In this instance, the meat from the nevelah exists as an independent entity, it is just that we have no way of detecting which of the pieces it is (Radbaz). Nevertheless, according to Rabbinic Law, everything13In all instances when forbidden substances are mixed with kosher substances. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 109:1) which rules leniently and allows one to rely on Scriptural Law in certain situations. See the notes to Halachah 20. is forbidden until the forbidden substance will be nullified because of the tiny proportion [of the entire mixture it represents] to the extent that it is not significant and it is as if it does not exist, as will be explained.14In the following halachot.", + "Into what quantity [of a permitted substance] must a forbidden substance be mixed for it to be considered nullified because of its tiny proportion? [Each forbidden substance according to] the measure the Sages specified for it. There are substances that are nullified in a mixture 60 times its size, others in a mixture 100 times its size, and still others in a mixture 200 times its size.", + "Thus we learn from this that [the following laws apply] with regard to all of the prohibited substances in the Torah, whether those punishable by lashes or punishable by kerait or substances from which it is forbidden to benefit that become mixed with permitted substances. If the substances are of different types, [the mixture is forbidden] if the flavor is detectable.
If the substances are of the same type and thus it is impossible to detect the flavor [of the forbidden substance], we measure [whether there was] 60, 100, or 200 [times the amount of permitted substances]. The only exceptions are wine poured as a libation to a false deity, because of the severity [of the prohibition against] worship of a false deity15In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 5:8), the Rambam cites Deuteronomy 13:18: \"No trace of the condemned should cling to your hand\" as evidence that even the slightest amount is forbidden. See Chapter 16, Halachah 28, for a leniency that is granted with regard to this restriction. and tevel, because it can be corrected.16The terumot and the tithes can be separated from it, causing it to be permitted. See Halachah 10.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam cites the rationale given by Avodah Zarah 73b: Just as one kernel of grain can serve as terumah and correct the entire crop; so, too, one kernel of grain from which terumah was not separated can cause an entire crop to be forbidden. The rationale given by the Rambam here has its source in the Jerusalem Talmud (Shivi'it 6:3).
For that reason, even the slightest mixture of them with a substance of their type is forbidden. If they become mixed with substances of a different type, the matter is dependent on whether their flavor is detectable.", + "What is implied? When several barrels of wine fell over a drop of wine that was poured as a libation, the entire mixture is forbidden, as will be explained.17Chapter 16, Halachah 28. Similarly, if a cup of wine which is tevel becomes nixed into a barrel [of wine], the entire [barrel] is considered tevel until the amount of terumah and tithes that are appropriate to be separated18I.e., the terumah and tithes that would have been required to have been separated from the tevel originally. In this context, the fact that it became mixed with other wine is not significant. are separated as will be explained in the appropriate place.19Hilchot Terumah, Chapter 13.", + "[Related concepts apply with regard to] produce of the Sabbatical year.20The Rambam feels it necessary to mention this point, because his source, Avodah Zarah 73b mentions the produce of the Sabbatical year together with the two prohibited substances mentioned above. The Rambam clarifies that the comparison is not entirely correct, because the produce of the Sabbatical year is not forbidden. If [such produce] becomes mixed with [produce of] the same type, the tiniest amount [causes the mixture to be considered bound by the laws of the produce of the Sabbatical year].21The Ra'avad mentions that this concept applies only until the time it is required to destroy the produce of the Sabbatical year. After that time, that produce is forbidden to be eaten and hence, is considered like other forbidden substances. [If it becomes mixed with produce of] another type, [the ruling depends on whether] its flavor can be detected. [Nevertheless,] it is not considered as one of the substances forbidden by Scriptural Law. For this mixture is not forbidden. Instead, one is obligated to eat the entire mixture in keeping with the holiness of the produce of the Sabbatical year, as will be explained in the appropriate place.22Hilchot Shemitrah ViYovel, chs. 4-7.", + "Although chametz on Pesach is forbidden by Scriptural Law, it is not governed by these general principles,23I.e., although even the tiniest amount of chametz causes an entire mixture to be forbidden, chametz was not mentioned by Avodah Zarah 73b together with wine poured as a libation and tevel. The reason is that the prohibition of the mixture of chametz is motivated by a different rationale (Kessef Mishneh). for this mixture is not forbidden forever. For after Pesach, the entire mixture will be permitted, as we explained.24See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 1:5 which states that a mixture of chametz and another substance is permitted after the Pesach holiday. Therefore the slightest amount [of chametz] causes [a mixture] to become forbidden,25As explained in the following halachah and notes. See also Halachah 12. whether [it becomes mixed] with a substance of its own type or of another type.", + "The same law26The Radbaz states that the comparison is to tevel and not to chametz on Pesach. For like tevel, if it becomes mixed with a different substance, it is permitted if its flavor cannot be detected. There are special stringencies applied with regard to chametz, as stated in Halachah 12 (Radbaz). applies when new grain becomes mixed with old grain before [the offering of] the omer. Even the tiniest amount causes [the entire mixture] to become forbidden. For there is a factor that will cause the substance to become permitted. For after [the offering of] the omer, the entire mixture is permitted.27See Chapter 10, Halachah 2.
Similarly, whenever there is a factor that will cause the substance to become permitted, e.g., consecrated entities,28For they can be redeemed (Radbaz). the second tithe,29For they can be eaten in Jerusalem or their holiness can be transferred to money (Radbaz). or the like,30E.g., Bikkurim; see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bkkurim 2:2). our Sages did not mention a measure [in which it could be nullified]. Instead, even if one [of the forbidden substance] becomes mixed with several thousand31Our Sages (Beitzah 3b) state it is not nullified when mixed with 1000 times the amount of kosher substances. The Rambam's wording clarifies that 1000 is not an upper limit. No matter how many times more of the permitted substance there is, the mixture is forbidden. [times that amount of a permitted substance], it is not nullified. [The rationale is that] there is a way that the prohibition can be released.32Hence, this option should be taken rather than relying on the nullification of the forbidden substance. [This principle applies] even when the prohibition stems from Rabbinic decree, e.g., an article set aside or born on a festival.33As explained in Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 1:19 that when a person sets an object aside before the holiday with the intent that he will not use it on the holiday, he may not change his mind and use it on the holiday. This prohibition is referred to as muktzeh.
Halachah 1:20 states that an egg laid on a holiday following the Sabbath was prepared on the Sabbath, as it were. Therefore it may not be used on the holiday. This prohibition is referred to as nolad. Both of these prohibitions are of Rabbinic origin. Halachah 1:21 states that if such an egg becomes mixed with other eggs, they are all forbidden.
", + "With regard to orlah, mixed species grown in a vineyard, fat, blood, and the like, our Sages fixed a measure [that would enable mixtures to be nullified]. Similarly, our Sages fixed a measure with regard to terumot, for there is no way it can be permitted for all people.34I.e., a mixture of terumah could be eaten in a permitted manner by a priest. Nevertheless, since there is no way it could be permitted to an ordinary person, our Sages were not stringent (Kessef Mishneh).
Both the Kessef Mishneh and the Radbaz ask: It is possible to have to have terumah permitted by making a statement of regret concerning its separation before a wise man. If so, seemingly, it should be considered as an object that could be eaten in a permitted manner. The Radbaz explains that a wise man who can nullify the separation of terumah may not always be found. The Kessef Mishneh states that since this is not the common practice, a substance may not be considered as an object that could be eaten in a permitted manner for this reason.
", + "It appears to me35This term indicates a conclusion deduced by the Rambam without an explicit prior Rabbinic source. There are others, including Rav Yitzchak Alfasi and Rav Moshe HaCohen, who differ and maintain that since the mixture could be eaten in a permitted manner, the above stringencies apply. The Ra'avad, however, states that this concept is explicitly stated in the Mishnah. He does not, however, mention which mishnah. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer different hypotheses as to the Ra'avad's intent and why the Rambam did not accept it. that even there is a factor that will cause a substance to become permitted, if that substance becomes mixed with a substance of a different type and its flavor is not detectable, it is permitted. The fact that there is a factor that will cause the substance to become permitted does not [cause the prohibition to be] more severe than tevel. [For tevel] can be corrected,36By separating the appropriate terumot and tithes. and yet when it [becomes mixed with a substance] of a different type, [it is permitted if] its flavor cannot be detected, as explained.37Halachah 6. One should not raise a question with regard to chametz on Pesach [where such leniency is not granted. A distinction can be made.] For with regard to chametz, the Torah [Exodus 12:20] states: \"Do not eat any leavened substance.\" For this reason, [our Sages] were stringent with regard to it, as we explained.38Halachah 9.", + "These are the measures which the Sages established: Terumah, terumat ma'aser39The terumah which the Levites offer from the tithes they are given. challah, and bikkurim become nullified [when the mixture is] 101 times the [original] amount. [In addition,] one must separate [a portion and give it to a priest].40Although the prohibition is negated, we are still concerned with the fact that property due the priest is not given to him, as stated in Halachah 15. [All of these sacred foods] are combined one with the other.41I.e., as stated in the conclusion of the halachah, if two of these substances fall into the same accumulation of permitted substances, it is necessary to have 100 times their combined size. Similarly, a slice of the showbread becomes nullified when mixed with slices of ordinary bread [if] the mixture is 101 times the original amount.42The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam's ruling here appears to contradict his ruling in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 6:24 where he states that the showbread is not nullified. He explains that in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim, the Rambam is speaking about pieces of the showbread that are ritually pure. Hence the entire mixture should be eaten by the priests. (Note the Radbaz who questions how the priests could eat the mixture.) Here, by contrast, we are speaking about pieces of the showbread that are impure. If the showbread was a significant part of the mixture, the entire mixture would have to be burnt. Since it is not significant, we considered its existence negated.
What is implied? When a se'ah of flour from one of the above43Terumah, terumat ma'aser challah, or bikkurim.- or one se'ah from all of them [combined] - falls into 100 se'ah of ordinary [flour] and [the flour] became mixed together,44If, however, the sacred substances are distinct, they must be separated from the ordinary substances. one should separate one se'ah from the mixture for the se'ah that fell in originally. The remainder is permitted to all people.45It does not have to eaten with attention to the laws of terumah. If it fell into less than 100 se'ah, the entire mixture is meduma.46This term refers to a mixture of terumah or other sacred substances with ordinary substances. The mixture must be sold to priests (at the price of terumah) with the exception of the original sacred amount (Hilchot Terumah 13:2).", + "Orlah and mixed species grown in a vineyard become nullified [when the mixture is] 201 times the [original] amount. The [two prohibitions] are combined one with the other,47Although they are separate and unrelated prohibitions, since it is forbidden to benefit from both of them and we derive the laws pertaining to one from the laws pertaining to the other, we rule that they may be combined (Orlah 2:1). and it is not necessary to separate any thing.48As explained in the following halachah, in this instance, one is not causing the priests a loss.
What is implied? When a revi'it of wine which is orlah or which [came from grapes] grown together with mixed species in a vineyard - or one revi'it was combined from both prohibited substances - falls into 200 revi'iot of wine, the entire mixture is permitted. It is not necessary to separate anything. If it falls into less than 200, it is forbidden to benefit from the entire [mixture].49The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, objecting to the decision that it is forbidden to benefit from the mixture. (He maintains that although partaking of the mixture is forbidden, one should be able to sell it to a gentile with the exception of the value of the forbidden substance. For, he maintains, it is never forbidden to benefit from a mixture that is not inherently forbidden.) The Radbaz justifies the Rambam's view.", + "Why is it necessary to separate [a measure of] terumah and not a measure of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard? Because terumah is the property of the priests. Accordingly, any terumah which the priests are not concerned with, e.g., terumah from [low-grade] figs,50Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 11:4). carobs, and Edomite barley, need not be separated.51For the priests will not be concerned about its loss.", + "Why was the measure doubled for orlah and mixed species grown in a vineyard? Because it is forbidden to benefit from them.52Therefore they were treated more stringently. The Radbaz emphasizes that they are compared to terumah and not to other forbidden substances for the root kodesh is used with regard to them.
Why did [the Sages] choose the figure of 100 for terumot? For terumat ma'aser is one hundredth of the entire crop,53For it is one tenth of a tenth. and yet it causes the entire crop to be \"sanctified,\"54I.e., \"forbidden.\" as [Numbers 18:29] states: \"its sacred part.\"55As the Rambam continues to explain, the Jerusalem Talmud (Orlah 2:1) offers a non-literal interpretation of this phrase, understanding it as meaning \"the one who sanctifies it.\" Our Sages said: \"An entity which must be separated from it sanctifies it if it returns to it.", + "The measure for all of the other prohibitions of the Torah,56With this wording, the Rambam also eliminates those prohibitions of Rabbinic origin, which have a smaller measure as stated in the following halachah. e.g., the meat of crawling animals, teeming animals, fat, blood, and the like is sixty times [the original amount].
What is implied? When an olive-sized portion of the fat of the kidneys falls into sixty times the size of an olive of the fat from the fat tail, the entire mixture is permitted. If it falls into less than sixty [that amount], the entire mixture is forbidden. Similarly, if a portion of forbidden fat the size of a barley-corn, [the mixture] must contain permitted substances the size of sixty barley-corns.57Although there is not enough of the forbidden substance for a person to be liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, unless there is 60 times the amount of forbidden fat, the mixture is forbidden according to Scriptural Law (see Chulin 98a). Similar [laws apply] with regard to other prohibitions.
Similarly, if the fat of the gid hanesheh falls into a pot of meat,58The prohibitions are considered of the same type, because the taste of the fat is not distinct from that of the meat (Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi to Chulin 98a). we require sixty times its amount. The fat of the gid itself is included in this sum.59As is the law with regard to Rabbinic prohibitions as stated in the following halachah. Although the fat of the gid is prohibited [only] by Rabbinic Law, as we explained,60Chapter 8, Halachah 1. since the gid hanesheh is considered a creation in its own right,61As our Sages ruled [Chulin 100a; Chapter 16, Halachah 6; quoted by Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 100:1)], a forbidden being which is a creation in its own right is never forbidden. Therefore they ruled more stringently. In this instance, the gid hanesheh itself will be removed. Hence the full stringency of our Sages' ruling is not applied, nevertheless, in recognition of the serious of the prohibition involved, this stringency is applied. [our Sages] ruled stringently concerning it as if it was forbidden by Scriptural Law. The gid itself is not measured and it does not cause other substances to be forbidden, because the gid does not impart flavor.62See Chapter 8, Halachah 6.", + "When, by contrast, an udder is cooked with meat, we require sixty times its amount and the udder is considered as part of the sum.63Thus instead of requiring 61 times the forbidden substance (60 plus the substance itself) all that is required is 60 (59 and the substance itself). [The rationale is that] since [the prohibition against] the udder is Rabbinic in origin, [our Sages] were lenient in establishing a measure.64See Chapter 9, Halachot 12-13. As explained in the notes there, the Ra'avad and the Rashba offer a different rationale for this ruling, explaining that since the meat of the udder is acceptable, we include it in the reckoning of 60. Thus in contrast to other instances where 60 times the amount of the forbidden substance is required, here, we require only 59. According to his view, we cannot extrapolate from this ruling to other Rabbinic prohibitions.", + "[The following laws apply when] an egg in which a chick is found65Such an egg is forbidden to be eaten (see Chapter 3, Halachah 8). is cooked together with eggs that are permitted. If there are 61 and it,66I.e., a total of 62. they are permitted. If, however, there are only sixty [permitted eggs], the entire mixture is forbidden. [The rationale is that the chick] is a creation in its own right,67As stated in the notes to the previous halachah, in this instance, the forbidden substance itself will be removed. Hence the full stringency of our Sages' ruling concerning an entity that is a creation in its own right is not applied. Nevertheless, in recognition of the serious of the prohibition involved, this stringency is applied. See the notes to the following halachah where a rationale cited by other authorities is mentioned. [our Sages] made a distinction and added to its [required] measure.", + "If, however, the egg of an non-kosher fowl was cooked together with the eggs of kosher fowl, it does not cause them to become forbidden.68Here we are talking about eggs that are cooked in their shells. When an egg contains a chick, the chick will impart its flavor to the entire pot. When, by contrast, eggs are cooked in their shells, they do not impart flavor (Chulin 97b). The non-kosher egg must be removed from the mixture. This, however, can sometimes be done, because the appearance of non-kosher eggs may differ from that of kosher eggs (Chapter 3, Halachah 18).
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 86:6) differs and states that if a substantial loss will not be caused, we should be stringent and follow the same ruling with regard to all eggs. If, however, there will be a substantial loss, even he counsels to rely on the more lenient views.

If [the eggs were opened and] mixed together or the egg of a non-kosher fowl or the egg of a fowl that is trefe become mixed with other eggs,69For, at times, non-kosher eggs are not distinguishable from kosher eggs (ibid.). the required measure is 60.70I.e., the mixture is judged as an ordinary instance in which kosher food becomes mixed with non-kosher food. According to the Rambam, the non-kosher egg is not a creation that is forbidden in its own right.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 86:5) differs and rules that we require 61 kosher eggs in this instance as well. The Ramban explains that the reason is that not all eggs are the same size and by adding an extra egg, we make certain that we have the necessary amount. (He uses this rationale to explain the law stated in the previous halachah as well.) The Siftei Cohen 86:15 offers a different rationale, stating that an egg itself is considered a creation in its own right.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that there are some who would rule that 60 eggs are not necessary, for there are opinions [see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 109:1)] that when kosher and non-kosher entities are intermingled in a dry mixture, we rely on Scriptural Law and require only a simple majority of the kosher substances. As obvious from this ruling, the Rambam does not accept this leniency.
", + "What is the source because of which the Sages relied on the measure of 60? For the portion given [to the priest] from the ram brought by a Nazirite,71When a Nazirite completes the days of his Nazirite vow, he brings several sacrifices. Among them is a ram brought as a peace offering. The foreleg from this offering is given to the priest and may not be eaten by an ordinary Israelite (Chulin 98a; Hilchot Nazirut 8:1-4).i.e., the foreleg, is one sixtieth of the remainder of the ram. It is cooked together with it and does not cause it to be forbidden,72I.e., although this portion which is forbidden to an Israelite is cooked together with the entire ram, the Israelite is permitted to partake of the remainder of the ram. Accordingly, our Sages inferred that a similar ratio may be used when other prohibited substances are cooked with permitted substances. as [Numbers 6:19] states: \"And the priest shall take the cooked foreleg from the ram.\"", + "[The following rules apply when] two substances of the same type, [one permitted and one forbidden,] and a [third] entity become mixed together, e.g., there was a pot with fat from the fat tail and beans and fat from the kidneys fell into it. The entire [mixture] dissolved and became a single entity. We view the fat from the fat tail and the beans as a single entity and we measure the fat from the kidneys against it. If the ratio was one to sixty, it is permitted. For it is impossible to detect the taste.73Because there is no significant difference between the taste of fat from the fat tail and fat from the kidneys, as indicated by Halachah 4.", + "The same principle applies when terumot are mixed together [with other substances, some of the same type and some of a different type], their measure is 100. And the measure of mixed species from a vineyard and orlah is 200.", + "When we calculate the measure of permitted substances with regard to all prohibitions, whether the measure is 60, 100, or 200, we include the soup, the spices, everything that is in the pot, and what the pot has absorbed after the prohibited substance fell according to our estimation.74I.e., at that time, it absorbed both the permitted substances and the prohibited substance (Radbaz).
In his Kessef Mishneh and in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 99:4), Rav Yosef Caro follows the view of Rashi and the Tur who maintain that we should measure the prohibited substance and the permitted substances as they are at present, for there is no way of knowing how much the pot absorbed. This stringency applies, however, only with regard to forbidden substances mixed with permitted substances of a different type. (For then the prohibition stems from Scriptural Law.) If they are of the same type (when a simple majority is required according to Scriptural Law), the Shulchan Aruch rules more leniently and accepts the Rambam's ruling.
For it is impossible to know the exact amount which the pot absorbed.", + "It is forbidden to nullify a substance75I.e., after a forbidden substance fell into a mixture, one may not add enough permitted substances that there will 60, 100, or 200 times the amount of the forbidden substance. forbidden by Scriptural76If, however, a substance forbidden by Rabbinic Law accidentally fell into a mixture, one may add enough permitted substances to nullify the prohibition, as stated in Halachah 26. Law as an initial and preferred measure. If, however, one nullified it, the mixture is permitted.77Because in fact the presence of the forbidden substance has been nullified. Nevertheless, our Sages penalized such a person and forbade the entire mixture.78The Siftei Cohen 99:11 explains the reason for this penalty. If we would permit him to benefit from it, we fear that if, in the future, such a situation would recur, he would instruct his servants to nullify the prohibited substances for him. It appears to me that since this is a penalty, we forbid this mixture only to the person79Or the person whom he intended to serve after nullifying the forbidden substance. Were this not the case, he would benefit from his undesirable act (Kessef Mishneh). who transgressed and nullified the prohibited substance.80The Rambam's wording implies that the penalty was imposed only when he willfully nullified the existence of the forbidden substance. If he did so accidentally or inadvertently, no prohibition applies, for our Sages did not impose penalties in such situations [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 99:5)]. For others, however, the entire mixture is permitted.", + "What is implied? If a se'ah of orlah falls into 100 se'ah [of permitted produce], the entire [mixture] is forbidden. One should not bring another 100 se'ah and join [the entire quantity] together so that [the forbidden substance] will be nullified because of the presence of 201 times the original amount. If, however, he transgressed and did so, the entire [mixture] is permitted.
With regard to a prohibition forbidden by Rabbinic decree,81This point was not accepted by all authorities. The Ashkenazic authorities (as reflected by the ruling of Rabbenu Asher) maintain that even a Rabbinic prohibition should not be nullified as an initial and preferred measure. The Radbaz proposes an intermediate position: that the stringency should be applied only to Rabbinic prohibitions that have a source in Scriptural Law, e.g., milk and fowl, but not those enacted by the Rabbis entirely on their own initiative. This compromise, however, was not accepted. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 99:6) adopts the Rambam's position, while the Tur and the Rama follow that of Rabbenu Asher. we do nullify a prohibition as an initial and preferred measure.", + "What is implied? If milk fell into a pot that contains fowl and imparted its flavor to the food, one may add other fowl to the pot until the flavor [of the milk] is no longer discernable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "We already explained82Halachah 1. that if a forbidden substance imparts its flavor to a permitted substance, the entire mixture is not permitted. When does the above apply? [When the flavor imparted] improves [the flavor of the permitted food]. If, however, the forbidden substance detracts from the flavor of the permitted substance and impairs it, it is permitted.83Avodah Zarah 66a derives this concept from the statements of Deuteronomy 14:21 concerning the meat of an animal that died without slaughter: \"Give it to the stranger in your gate and he will partake of it.\" Implied is that the prohibition applies only to meat that is fit for a non-Jew to partake of. If it is not fit for the non-Jew to eat, it cannot cause a Jew's food to be forbidden.
See also Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 103:2) which states: \"The impairment of the food's flavor does not have to be complete to the extent that one would be disgusted to eat it. Instead, even if it slightly detracts [from its flavor], it does not cause the mixture to become forbidden.\"

[This applies] provided it detracts from its flavor from the beginning until the end. If, however, it detracted from its flavor at the outset, but ultimately improved it or improved it initially, even though it will ultimately detract from it, [the mixture] is forbidden.84Avodah Zarah, loc. cit. states that if initially, the flavor of a substance is improved by the addition of the forbidden substance, it becomes forbidden. The fact that ultimately the addition detracts from the flavor of the permitted substance is not sufficient to cause it to become permitted again. The Rambam draws the conclusion that ultimately if the flavor of the substance will be improved, it is also prohibited (Kessef Mishneh).
Note, however, the Siftei Cohen 103:7 who states that it is permitted to partake of a mixture after the flavor of the permitted substance was impaired, before it improved, even though one knows that ultimately, it will improve. Based on the wording of the following halachah, however, it is questionable if the Rambam would accept this conclusion.
", + "Who will taste the mixture?85I.e., since there is a question whether the mixture is forbidden or not. If terumot were mixed with ordinary crops, a priest should taste the mixture.86For he is permitted to partake of terumot. If the flavor of the terumah is discernible, the entire mixture is considered as miduma. In Hilchot Terumot,87Chs. 13 and 14. the laws pertaining to [produce that is] miduma will be explained.", + "If [the mixture involved] meat and milk, wine poured as a libation, wine that was orlah, or [made from grapes that grew together with] mixed species in a vineyard that fell into honey, or the meat of crawling animals or teeming animals that were cooked with vegetables and the like, a gentile should taste [the mixture].
We rely on his word.88There is a difficulty with the Rambam's statements, for generally, we do not rely on the word of a gentile with regard to ritual matters. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 98:1) relies on the opinion of the Rashba quoted by the Tur, that this refers to a situation where the gentile does not know that we are relying on him, but instead makes his statements as a matter of course (masiach lifi tomo).
See also the Turei Zahav 98:2 and the Siftei Cohen 98:2 who quote views which state that an ordinary gentile is not sufficient, but instead, the intent is a gentile chef who is an expert on recognizing flavors. According to some, however, this interpretation leads to a leniency. For since he is a professional, he will not risk his professional reputation by lying to mislead a Jew. Hence, according to these views, his statements can be accepted even if they are made in response to direct questions and not as a matter of course. There are, nevertheless, authorities who differ and require even a chef to make his statements as a matter of course. Moreover, there are authorities (among them, the Radbaz and the Rama) who never accept the statements of a gentile with regard to these matters.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 98:1) states that in the present age, we do not rely on the statements of a non-Jew who tasted food to determine whether it is kosher or not.
If he says: \"It does not have the flavor [of the forbidden substance],\" or he says: \"It [imparted] its flavor, but that flavor is bad and it detracts [from the flavor of the permitted substance,\" the entire [mixture] is permitted, provided it will not ultimately improve it, as we explained.89Halachah 28. If there is no gentile to taste it, we rely on the measures of 60,90For it is an accepted principle that the taste of a forbidden substance will be nullified in more than 60 times its volume. 100, or 200.91This refers to mixtures of terumot, orlah, and mixed species in a vineyard. The ruling is, however, problematic. For if we are speaking about a mixture of these substances together with different substances, then 60 times their volume will be sufficient. For the taste of all substances except spices is nullified in 60 times their volume as stated in the previous note. And if we are speaking about a mixture of substances with their own kind, the taste of the forbidden substance will not be detectable.", + "When a rat falls into beer or vinegar, we require a measure of 60, for we suspect that it imparted its flavor to the beer or the vinegar and it improves it.92Avodah Zarah 68b leaves unresolved the question whether the rat's flavor detracts from the flavor of beer and vinegar. Hence we rule stringently.When, however, it falls into wine, oil, or honey,93These substances are not mentioned by the Talmud, loc. cit., but it is common knowledge that the rat's flavor will detract from their own, as the Rambam explains (Kessef Mishneh). it is permitted, even if it imparts its flavor, for the [rat's] flavor detracts [from the flavor of these substances]. For [these substances] must all have a pleasant fragrance and rat meat spoils their aroma and detracts from their flavor.", + "When a goat is roasted in its fat, it is forbidden to eat from even the tip of its ear. [The rationale is that] the fat permeates through all its limbs, improves [their taste], and imparts flavor. Accordingly, if [a goat] is lean and possessed only a meager amount of fat on its kidneys and digestive organs,94These are prohibited by Scriptural Law. i.e., one in sixty-one [of the entire animal], one may cut away [the meat] and eat it95In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro states that, according to the Rambam, one may partake of the meat as it is. He need not scrape off or cut away its surface (kelipah or netilah). In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 105:5), however, he rules according to the perspective of Rabbenu Asher, the Rashba, the Ran, and the Tur who maintain that the outer layer of the meat next to the fat itself must be cut away.
See also the ruling of the Rama (Yoreh De'ah, loc. cit.) that at present, we are not capable of differentiating which fat is considered succulent and which is considered lean. Hence, we require 60 times the amount of forbidden fat in all instances.
until he reaches the fat.
Similarly, when the thigh [of an animal] is roasted96The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that the leniency mentioned by the Rambam applies only when the animal is roasted with its gid or with the forbidden tissues. If it is cooked, more stringent rules apply. together with the gid hanesheh, one may cut away [the meat] and eat it until he reaches the gid [hanesheh].97Although the fat of the gid hanesheh is prohibited, there is not enough fat to cause the other limbs of the animal to become prohibited (Kessef Mishneh). Nevertheless, one must cut away the outer layer of the meat next to the gid. [This], he should cast away. Similarly, if an animal was roasted whole without removing the forbidden strands of tissue and membranes, one may cut away [the meat] and eat it.98In this instance as well, there is not a significant enough quantity of fat to cause the meat to become forbidden. When he reaches a forbidden substance, he should cast it away. There is no need to calculate the ratio [of this forbidden tissue to the meat,] for this [forbidden] tissue does not impart flavor.", + "One should not roast ritually slaughtered meat with the meat of a nevelah or the meat of a non-kosher species in one oven, even though they do not touch each other.99The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 108:1) quotes the Rambam's ruling forbidding roasting the two in the same oven, but allows for certain leniencies, e.g., the oven is very large or the substances are covered. If one roasted them together, [the kosher meat] is permitted. [This applies] even if the forbidden meat was very succulent and the permitted meat was lean. For an aroma does not cause a substance to become forbidden; only the flavor of a forbidden substance does.", + "When the meat of a ritually slaughtered animal100It appears that the kosher meat was unsalted. If, however, it were salted, it would not absorb the juices of the non-kosher meat, as indicated by the principle: \"One that is involved in discharging its own juices does not absorb from another\" (Radbaz). was mixed together101The commentaries note an apparent contradiction to the Rambam's rulings in Chapter 7, Halachot 17-19. The Radbaz explains that there, both the forbidden and the kosher substances were salted, while here the kosher meat was not. The Kessef Mishneh explains that here the two pieces of meat are mixed together, while there the substances were merely near each other. with the meat of a nevelah that was salted, the [kosher] meat becomes prohibited,102In this halachah, the Rambam is communicating the principle stated by Chulin 111b et al that meat which is salted is considered as if it is burning hot. It emits concentrated juices which are absorbed by other meat. for the concentrated [juices] of the nevelah are absorbed in the kosher meat. It is impossible to detect their flavor or to calculate the quantity of the forbidden substance.103I.e., no matter what the ration of the kosher meat to the non-kosher meat, the mixture is forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 70:3-4) follows the more lenient views of Rabbenu Asher, the Rashba, and the Ran who maintain that only the external surface of the kosher meat becomes forbidden. Once it is peeled off, the meat is permitted.

When the meat of a unsalted species of kosher fish was mixed together with the meat of a species of unkosher fish that was salted, the [kosher] fish becomes prohibited because of the [non-kosher] brine. If, however, it was the kosher fish that was salted and the non-kosher fish was unsalted, the salted fish does not become forbidden. For even though the unsalted [fish] absorbs [the brine] of the salted one, it does not absorb it to the degree that it will cause it to discharge [its own brine].
When a non-kosher fish was pickled with a kosher fish, the entire mixture is forbidden unless the ratio of kosher fish to non-kosher is 200:1.104For pickling is considered equivalent to cooking. Fish brine is considered as very powerful. Hence it requires a much larger measure than ordinary non-kosher substances. See Rav Kapach's notes to the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Terumot 10:8) where he writes that the Rambam changed his mind three times on this issue, twice stating more stringent views than the one stated here, before writing this view as his final conclusion." + ], + [ + "All the above measures given by our Sages with regard to a forbidden substance being mixed with a permitted substance of the same type apply when the forbidden substance is not a leavening agent, a spice, or an important entity that is discrete and is not mixed together with or blended with the permitted substance.1I.e., it does not become mixed with the forbidden substances into a single blend, nevertheless, it cannot be distinguished from the kosher substances. If, however, [the forbidden substance] is a leavening agent, a spice, or an important entity, even the slightest amount of it causes [the entire mixture] to be forbidden.2The presence of the forbidden substance is never nullified no matter how great the ratio between it and the permitted substances. Needless to say, this stringency was instituted by Rabbinic degree. As mentioned above, according to Scriptural Law, a simple majority is sufficient to nullify the presence of an entity.", + "What is implied? When yeast from wheat that is terumah falls into a dough of ordinary wheat [flour] and it is of sufficient quantity3If, however, there is not enough to cause the dough to leaven, it is not considered a leavening agent and its presence can be nullified [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 2:6-7)]. to cause the dough to leaven, the entire dough is considered as having been mixed with terumah.4And must be sold to a priest at the price of terumah. Similarly, if spices that are terumah fall into a pot of ordinary food [containing] the same substance,5If, however, they do not contain the same substance, according to the Rambam (loc. cit.), we see if their flavor can be detected or not. If it cannot be detected, the mixture is permitted. when [the forbidden spices] are of sufficient quantity to season [the dish], the entire [dish] is considered as having been mixed with terumah. This applies even if the ration between the yeast and the spices [to the permitted substances] is 1:1000.
Similarly, if yeast from mixed species grown in a vineyard fall into a dough or spices of orlah fall into a pot, it is forbidden to benefit from the entire [mixture].", + "Even the smallest amount of an important entity [that is forbidden] can cause a mixture of its own type to become forbidden. The seven entities that follow are considered as important: nuts from Perach,6Perach and Baden are names of places. These and the following terms are defined in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 3:8). pomegranates from Baden, sealed barrels,7The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 134:2) states that this applies only when the barrels are large and therefore important. A small barrel is not important and its presence can be nullified by a simple majority. beet shoots, cabbage heads, Greek squash, and loaves baked by a private person.8In contrast to those baked by a baker.", + "What is implied? If one pomegranate from Baden that was orlah became mixed with several thousand other pomegranates, it is forbidden to benefit from the entire mixture.9I.e., all the pomegranates are considered as if they are the pomegranate that is orlah.
The Radbaz mentions opinions that state that one may throw away the value of the forbidden pomegranate, but then benefit from the entire mixture. He, however, brings support for the Rambam's position.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 101:1) appears to support the Rambam's ruling. Note, however, the comments of the Siftei Cohen 110:2 who writes that even though a Jew may not benefit from any one of the forbidden pomegranates himself, he may sell the entire mixture to a gentile, minus the price of the forbidden pomegranate. See also the notes to Halachah 7.
Similarly, if a sealed barrel of wine that is orlah or that is a product of mixed species from a vineyard that became mixed with several thousand sealed barrels, it is forbidden to benefit from the entire quantity.", + "Similarly, when a piece of meat from a nevelah or from a non-kosher species of animal, beast, fowl, or fish become mixed with several thousand other pieces of meat, the entire mixture is forbidden until one separates that piece of meat and makes certain that there is sixty times its measure.10This refers to an instance when the forbidden piece of meat was cooked with the other pieces. For if one does not separate [the forbidden piece of meat], it will continue to be present and it will not have changed.11If its form changes, different rules apply, as apparent from Halachah 11. And this piece of meat is important to him, for he receives honor [by serving it] to guests.12The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 109:1) state that if a piece of meat is not of the type that will bring a person respect by serving it to guests, the stringency mentioned in this halachah does not apply.
Tosafot (Chulin 100a) explains that even though in practice, the piece of meat will not bring honor to the person - because since it is forbidden, he cannot serve it - it is placed in this category, for were it not to be forbidden, it would bring him honor.
", + "The same laws apply with regard to a piece of meat [cooked] with milk13There is an important insight associated with this ruling. The stringency relating to a piece of meat from which one receives honor applies only when the meat is inherently forbidden. When, however, a piece of kosher meat falls into a stew of non-kosher meat, it is not considered a piece of meat from which one receives honor, for it is not inherently forbidden. What is forbidden is the flavor of the non-kosher meat and that flavor is not a substance from which one receives honor.
This does not apply with regard to milk and meat. Although it is absorbing the milk that causes the meat to be considered forbidden, once it absorbs that milk, it becomes inherently forbidden. For both of the substances are themselves permitted, it is their mixture that is forbidden by the Torah (Radbaz).
or an ordinary animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, for it is forbidden to benefit from [the latter] according to Rabbinic decree,14I.e., this stringency is applied even though we are speaking only about a Rabbinic prohibition (Kessef Mishneh). as will be explained in Hilchot Shechitah.15Chapter 2, Halachah 3. Even the slightest amount of them causes [a mixture] to become forbidden until they are removed.
Similarly, when a gid hanesheh was cooked with other similar tissue or with meat, when it can be recognized, it should be removed and the remainder is permitted. For giddim do not impart flavor.16The Lechem Mishneh states that this is speaking about a situation when the gid hanesheh was cooked without its fat. Otherwise, 60 times its volume is required, for the fat does impart flavor. If one cannot recognize it, the entire mixture is forbidden. For [the gid hanesheh is considered as a created being in its own right.17The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 100:1) gives the following criteria for a creation in its own right: It must be alive, in contrast to a kernel of wheat. It must be inherently forbidden, in contrast to a kosher fowl that was slaughtered improperly. It must be a complete entity to the extent that were it to be divided it would no longer be referred to with that name in contrast to non-kosher fat. And it must actually be whole, in contrast to a gid hanesheh that was cut in half. Hence, it is significant; no matter how small it is, it causes [a mixture] to become forbidden.18This principle applies with regard to all entities that are creations in their own right. Until they are removed, the mixture is forbidden regardless of the ratio of kosher to nonkosher substances. Once they are removed, the ratio must be 60:1 (ibid.:2).", + "Similarly, all living animals are significant and they never become nullified. Therefore, if an ox sentenced to be stoned to death19An ox sentenced to execution for goring a human being. See Chapter 4, Halachah 22. becomes intermingled with 1000 oxen, a calf whose neck is to be broken20This calf is an atonement offering brought by the elders of a city when there is an unresolved murder. See Hilchot Rotzeach , ch. 9. becomes intermingled with 1000 calves, a dove selected for a metzora21Tzara'at refers to a unique affliction of the skin resembling leprosy that afflicted a person because of he spoke lashon hora, unfavorable gossip. When the physical signs of his affliction have disappeared, the person must bring two doves as sacrifices. One is slaughtered and one is sent away, as stated in Hilchot Tumat Tzara'at 11:1. It is forbidden to benefit from the one that is slaughtered. becomes intermingled with 1000 doves, or a firstborn donkey22A firstborn donkey must either be either exchanged for a lamb and the lamb given to a priest or the donkey's neck must be broken (Exodus 13:13; Hilchot Bikkurim, ch. 12). becomes intermingled with 1000 donkeys, it is forbidden to benefit from any of them.23The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, stating that all that is necessary is to destroy the benefit one would receive from one of the forbidden entities. The benefit from the remainder is permitted. The Kessef Mishneh points to Halachah 29 as indication that the Rambam would also accept the ruling stated by the Ra'avad. The Migdal Oz differs and maintains that the Rambam would not accept that ruling. As mentioned above, the Siftei Cohen 101:2 defends the position of the Kessef Mishneh, stating that the Rambam would allow one to sell the entire mixture to a gentile, minus the price of the forbidden article. With regard to other entities, even though it is customary to [sell] them by number,24The Tur and the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 110:1) cite the view of other Rishonim who state that whenever an article is always sold by number, not by a package, its presence is never nullified. they can be nullified according to the ordinary measures.", + "What is implied?25I.e., what is an example of an article that is sold by number being nullified. When a bundle of vegetables that come from mixed species grown in a vineyard are mixed with 200 bundles or an esrog which is orlah is mixed with 200 esrogim, the entire quantity is permitted. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "It appears to me that every article that is significant to the inhabitants of a given place as nuts from Perach and pomegranates from Baden were significant in Eretz Yisrael in [the Talmudic] era causes a mixture to be forbidden if even the slightest amount becomes mixed in because of its importance in that time and in that era. The particular entities [referred to above] were mentioned because the slightest amount of them causes a mixture to be forbidden in every place. The same laws apply to articles similar to them in other places. It is clear that all of these prohibitions stem from Rabbinic decree.26For according to Scriptural Law, a substance mixed with substances of the same type are forbidden when there is a majority of the permitted substance. When mixed with substances of a different type, they are nullified when the taste can no longer be detected.", + "If one pomegranate from a mixture [of pomegranates including a forbidden pomegranate from Baden] falls into two other [permitted] pomegranates from Baden and then one of these three pomegranates fell into other pomegranates, the latter mixture is permitted. [The rationale is that the presence of] the pomegranate from the first mixture [which fell into the second mixture] is nullified because of the majority of permitted substances.27I.e., according to Scriptural Law; according to Rabbinic Law, both the first and the second mixtures are forbidden. If, however, [a pomegranate] from the first mixture falls into 1000 pomegranates, they are all forbidden.28For with regard to each of the pomegranates in the second mixture, there is a question if it is forbidden by Scriptural Law or not (Radbaz).
The Radbaz notes that the Rambam's ruling here appears to contradict his ruling in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 7:10 where the Rambam rules that if a goblet used for idol worship becomes mixed with other goblets and then one from the first mixture falls into a second mixture, one may use the goblets of the second mixture. The Radbaz maintains that with this ruling, the Rambam changed his mind and adopted a more stringent position.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam rules more stringently in this instance than with regard to idol worship because the prohibition against idol worship is universally known. The prohibition against benefiting from a significant entity, by contrast, is less recognized. Therefore there is need for greater stringency. Alternatively, here the Rambam is speaking about partaking of the forbidden mixture, while in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, he is speaking about benefiting from the mixture. Obviously, there is greater reason to prohibited a substance from which one partakes.
The position followed by the Rambam in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim is followed by other Rishonim even with regard to a significant entity. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 110:8) quotes the Rambam's view and the Rama adds further stringencies. The Turei Zahav 110:10 and the Siftei Cohen 110:3 mention the more lenient views.
[The concept that the presence of the forbidden pomegranate] was nullified because of the majority of permitted substances only when there is a multiple doubt involved:29Perhaps the pomegranate that fell from the first mixture into the second mixture was not forbidden by Scriptural Law. Even if it was forbidden, perhaps the pomegranate that fell from the second mixture was not forbidden by Scriptural Law. Thus there is a multiple doubt if an entity forbidden by Scriptural Law is present. i.e., that if one of the second mixture will fall into another place, it does not cause [that third mixture] to become forbidden. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "If the nuts that were forbidden because of the nut that was orlah intermingled with them were cracked open, the pomegranates were taken apart, the barrels were opened, the squash was cut, or the bread was sliced after they became forbidden, [the presence of the forbidden entity] can be nullified if there is 201 times its volume.30As required with regard to the prohibitions of orlah and mixed species in a vineyard. I.e., the stringency of a significant article no longer applies, because the entities are no longer whole and in their present form, they are not significant. This law also applies with regard to a piece of forbidden meat31Which would be forbidden because one derives honor from serving it as stated in Halachah 5. Once it has been minced, the meat is no longer a piece from which one would derive honor [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah101:6)]. that is minced together with other pieces and they are all [minced] in the same way, [the presence of the forbidden entity] can be nullified if there is 60 times its volume.", + "It is, however, forbidden to crack the nuts, take apart the pomegranates, open the barrels after they have become forbidden so that [the presence of the forbidden entity] can be nullified if there is 201 times its volume. For, as an initial and preferred measure, we do not nullify the presence of an entity.32The commentaries question the Rambam's statement, noting that in Chapter 15, Halachah 26, the Rambam states that we may nullify the presence of a substance forbidden by Rabbinic Law. Since the prohibition against these mixtures is Rabbinic in origin, seemingly, it would be possible to nullify their presence. If one does so, we penalize him and forbid [the entity] to him, as explained.33See Chapter 15, Halachah 25.", + "[The following rule applies when] yeast that comes from mixed species in a vineyard and from terumah falls into dough and there is not enough of either of [the forbidden substances] alone to cause the dough to rise, but when the two are combined, there is enough to cause the dough to rise. This dough is forbidden to an Israelite, but permitted to the priests.34As mentioned in Halachah 1, if an entity is sufficient to cause a dough to leaven or to spice a pot, its presence can never be nullified. Although neither forbidden entity on its own is large enough to bring about this change, when the two are combined, this result is achieved. Therefore an Israelite is forbidden to partake of the dough or the pot. With regard to a priest, by contrast, since terumah is not forbidden to him, we do not say that an article forbidden to him brought about this change. For the mixed species alone is not of sufficient size. Hence, he is permitted to partake of the bread or the cooked food.
Similarly, when spices that come from terumah and from mixed species in a vineyard fall into a pot and there is not enough of either of [the forbidden substances] to spice the pot, but together there is enough of both of them to spice the pot, that pot is forbidden to an Israelite - for an entity forbidden to him spice it - and permitted to the priests.", + "When there are two or three types of the same species of spice or three species of the same type, they can be combined to cause a pot to be forbidden when they spice it or when [a similar type mixture] causes dough to leaven.
What is implied? Yeast from wheat and yeast from barley are not considered as being two separate substances. Instead, since the category yeast is the same, they are considered as one substance and they can be combined to measure to see if they are sufficient to cause a dough of wheat to leaven if their combined flavor is that of wheat35If the combined flavor is not that of wheat, the dough does not become forbidden, because the yeast is considered as giving a different flavor to the dough. Hence the dough is forbidden only of that flavor is detectable.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, offering a different interpretation of Avodah Zarah 65a, the Rambam's source. Significantly, their disagreement is mirrored by similar difference in interpretation by Rashi and Tosafot. Rashi and the Rambam follow one approach and Tosafot and the Ra'avad, the other.
or to cause a dough of barley to leaven if their combined flavor is that of barley.", + "What is meant by three species of the same type? For example, river parsley, parsley that grows in meadows, and parsley that grows in gardens. Although each of them has a distinct name, since they are of one type, they can be combined to [cause a dish to be forbidden if they] spice [it].", + "[The following rules apply when] yeast that is terumah or from mixed species from a vineyard falls into dough that is already leavened or spices that are terumah or from mixed species from a vineyard fall into a pot that has already been spiced. If there is enough [of the forbidden] yeast to cause the dough to leaven if it had been unleavened or there is enough of the spices to spice the pot had it been unspiced, the entire mixture is forbidden.36Although in actual fact the forbidden yeast or spices did not have an effect, because the dough leavened and the pot was spiced without them. Nevertheless, since they could have had an effect, they cause the dish to become forbidden.
Avodah Zarah 68a notes that when a dough is already leavened, adding yeast will spoil its flavor. Hence, seemingly, it should not be forbidden. Nevertheless, an exception is made with regard to dough, for when extra yeast is added to dough, that dough is then used to cause other doughs to leaven. Hence, it is not considered to be spoiled.
The Ra'avad understands the emphasis of the passage from Avodah Zarah differently and objects to the Rambam's ruling. He note that Avodah Zarah does not mention spices; the Rambam added those on the basis of his logic. And the Ra'avad, argues, that logic can be disputed. For the addition of yeast to the dough has an effect as explained. The addition of the spices, by contrast, have no effect - for the pot was already spiced. Why then do they cause the pot to be forbidden?
The Lechem Mishneh answers, that even according to the Ra'avad's understanding, the Rambam's logic can be defended, for the food from the heavily spiced pot could be used to spice other pots.
If they are of sufficient size to spice [the pot] or cause [the dough] to leaven, their presence can be nullified according to the required measure: terumah when [the mixture] is 101 times [the size of the forbidden substance] and mixed species in a vineyard when [the mixture] is 201 times [the size of the forbidden substance].", + "Terumah can [help] cause orlah and mixed species from a vineyard to be nullified.
What is implied? When a se'ah of terumah falls into 99 [se'ah of] ordinary produce and afterwards, a half se'ah of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard falls into the entire mixture, the prohibition against orlah or mixed species in a vineyard does not apply.37The mixture is, however, forbidden to Israelites and permitted only to priests, for the presence of the terumah is not nullified. For it is nullified because of the presence of 201 times [the size of the forbidden substance] even though a portion of the 201 is terumah.38This and the following halachah represent the Rambam's interpretation of Orlah 2:2 which is based on the Jerusalem Talmud.", + "Similarly, orlah and mixed species from a vineyard can [help] cause terumah to be nullified.
What is implied? When 100 se'ah of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard fall into 20,000 se'ah of ordinary produce, the entire mixture is thus 20,100 se'ah.39I.e., the presence of the orlah or the mixed species from the vineyard are nullified. Afterwards, a se'ah of terumah fell into every 100 se'ah, the entire [mixture] is permitted and the presence of the terumah is nullified because of the presence of 101 times [the original amount of terumah].40This example is the product of the Rambam's own deduction. Although the simple interpretation of Orlah, loc. cit., would imply that the concept stated in this halachah could also be derived from the situation described in the previous halachah, it does not work out mathematically. Hence, the Rambam had to find a new example. [This applies] even though part of the 100 that nullify its presence are orlah or mixed species from a vineyard.", + "Similarly, orlah may [help] nullify mixed species from a vineyard and mixed species from a vineyard may [help] nullify orlah. Mixed species from a vineyard may [help] nullify [the presence of other] mixed species from a vineyard and orlah may [help] nullify [the presence of other] orlah.
What is implied? 200 se'ah of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard fall into 40,000 se'ah of ordinary produce.41The prohibition is thus nullified because the ratio of permitted to forbidden substances is 200:1.
The Ra'avad criticizes the Rambam, questioning why he uses extremely large numbers. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam's figures enable all the calculations to be made without fragments.
Afterwards,42I.e., after it was discovered that the forbidden substance had fallen into the permitted substances. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 5:8). a se'ah of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard fell into each of the 200 se'ah of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard, the entire mixture is permitted. Since the presence of the forbidden substance that fell into [the mixture] originally was nullified, the entire [mixture] is considered as ordinary produce that is permitted.43Thus despite the fact that it contains produce that was originally forbidden, the entire quantity may be used to nullify the presence of the second measure of forbidden produce that falls in.
The rationale for this leniency is that according to Scriptural Law, the entire measure is permitted when there is a simple majority of forbidden substances.
", + "A garment that was dyed with shells of orlah44In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 1:8), the Rambam quotes the Sifra (Parshat Kedoshim) which teaches that since it is forbidden to benefit from Orlah, it is also forbidden to use it as a dye. The Rambam emphasizes that, accordingly, this applies, not only to fruit which is orlah, but also to the shells from which dye is made. In his notes to the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Rav Kapach cites a responsa from the Rambam from which it appears that this applies only to shells because they serve a fruit. It is not forbidden to make dye from the wood or the bark of a tree that is orlah. See Halachah 24 and notes. should be burnt.45Since the substance from which the dye comes is forbidden, the entire article becomes forbidden. If it became intermingled with others, [its presence] may be nullified when there are 201 times the original amount.46The Rambam's wording - and hence, our translation - implies that one may cause the presence of the forbidden garment to be nullified by adding 200 other garments to it. The Radbaz explains that the mixture is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law. As stated in Chapter 15, Halachah 26, as an initial and preferred option, one may add a sufficient quantity of permitted substances to nullify the presence of a substance forbidden by Rabbinic Law. Note, however, the glosses of the Tosafot Yom Tov and Rav Kapach to Orlah 3:1, that do not accept this interpretation and state that one may not nullify the prohibition as an initial and preferred option. Similarly, when a dish was cooked or a loaf of bread baked with the shells of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard, the dish or the bread must be burnt, for the benefit [from the forbidden substance] is evident.47See Halachah 22. If it became intermingled with others, [its presence] may be nullified when there are 201 times the original amount.", + "Similarly, when milo hasit48In his notes to the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 3:2), Rav Kapach elaborates on the definition of this term, concluding that it is equal to two thumbbreadths. This is also reflected in the Rambam's ruling, Hilchot Shabbat 9:18. of a garment was dyed with [a dye that is] orlah, and [that garment] cannot be identified, [its presence] may be nullified when there are 201 times the original amount.49I.e., if the entire garment is not 201 times the size of the portion dyed with the forbidden dye. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that this law teaches us that if even a small portion of a garment is dyed with forbidden dye, the entire garment may become forbidden. If powdered dye that is orlah becomes mixed with powdered dye that is permitted, [its presence] may be nullified when there are 201 times the original amount. When liquid dye that is orlah becomes mixed with liquid dye that is permitted, its presence is nullified when there is a majority [of the permitted substance].50The Radbaz explains that a more lenient ruling is issued in this instance, because:
a) Here there is no substance that is forbidden, it is only the color that comes from the forbidden dye that is problematic. A differentiation can be made between this instance and the previous laws, for in those instances, the forbidden dye has already become permanently associated with a substance.
b) In this instance, the majority of the dyeing will result from the permitted dye. The effect of the prohibited dye is secondary.
", + "When an oven has been heated with shells of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard, it must be cooled off [before cooking in it]. [This applies] to both a new and an old [oven]. Afterwards, one should heat [the oven] with permitted wood.51If so, it is then permitted to use even a new oven. Heating a new oven with the shells of orlah completes the task of fashioning the oven. Thus there is reason to say that since it was completed in a forbidden manner, the oven itself would be forbidden. Nevertheless, when permitted fuel is used even for such an oven, the products are permitted. The rationale is that they are produced by two substances: the oven which is forbidden and the fuel which is permitted. Whenever there are two factors involved, one permitted and one forbidden, the result is permitted to be used (Pesachim 26b). We do not require the oven to be destroyed, for the oven is not inherently forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).
One might ask: If so, why is an oven that is heated with shells that are orlah forbidden to be used. Here also there are two factors involved, the oven which is permitted and the fuel which is forbidden. It is possible to explain that the leniency of allowing to use the yield produced by a forbidden and a permitted substance only after the fact. In this instance, cooling the oven provides an easy alternative (Radbaz).
If one cooked in it before it was cooled, whether bread or food, it is forbidden to benefit from it. [The rationale is that] the forbidden wood increased the value of the bread or the food.52One might ask, since the oven is permitted, even though the fuel is forbidden, there is both a permitted and a forbidden factor producing this result. Why, then, is the food forbidden? It is possible to explain that since the fire which is forbidden is evident and apparent, we rule stringently (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).
If one removed the entire fire53As indicated by the Halachah 24, this applies even if there are still glowing coals in the oven. and then cooked or baked with the heat of the oven [that remained], it is permitted, for the forbidden wood is no longer present.54One might ask: In the case of a new oven, since both factors - the oven and the fuel - are forbidden. Nevertheless, it appears that according to the Rambam, removing the fire is sufficient for the food to be permitted. For the oven itself is not inherently forbidden, it was only completed in a forbidden manner (Kessef Mishneh).", + "It is forbidden to benefit from plates, cups, pots, and bottles that were fired by a potter with shells of orlah. [The rationale is] they are made new by an object from which it is forbidden to benefit.55Since the fuel used to fire the kitchenware is the primary element in completing them, they are forbidden. The Turei Zahav 142:7 explains that here we are speaking about kitchenware on which food is served cold. Since the kitchenware was made in a forbidden manner, it is forbidden to benefit from it. If, however, a pot was fired with forbidden fuel and then used to cook kosher food, that food would be permitted as is the law concerning a new oven. The Meiri (in his gloss to Pesachim 26b), however, explains that if one cooks food with a pot forbidden because of these factors, the food is forbidden.", + "When bread was baked on coals from wood56The Radbaz emphasizes that here, too, we are speaking about shells from fruit that is orlah. The wood of a tree never becomes forbidden as orlah. that is orlah, it is permitted. Once [the wood] becomes coals, the forbidden dimension is no longer present, even though they are still glowing.57For once the wood is consumed by fire, it is no longer considered forbidden. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:13 which states that it is permitted to benefit from the ashes of substances that are forbidden and required to be burnt.
When a pot was cooked with shells from orlah or mixed species from a vineyard together with permitted wood,58As evident from the continuation of the Rambam's statements, this applies when the permitted fuel was added after the forbidden fuel. Implied is that were the two fuels mixed together at the outset, the dish would be permitted. the food [cooked in it] is forbidden, even though [it was cooked by two factors, one forbidden and one permitted]. [The rationale is] that at the time it was cooked with the forbidden wood, the permitted wood had not been introduced. Thus part of the cooking process was performed with permitted wood and part with forbidden wood.59The Kessef Mishneh gives two interpretations for this halachah. Our translation follows the first interpretation. The Kessef Mishneh, however, questions that interpretation, stating that seemingly, the fact that the pot in which the food was cooked was permitted would add another permitted factor and thus the food was never cooked in a totally forbidden setting. He therefore offers another interpretation, stating that here the Rambam is speaking about firing the pot in which the food was cooked. First it was fired with forbidden fuel, then it was fired with permitted fuel, and then food was cooked in it with permitted fuel. Since it was originally fired with forbidden fuel, it becomes forbidden and any food cooked in it is likewise prohibited. The Turei Zahav 142:9 favors the first interpretation, explaining that the situation resembles food cooked in an oven with forbidden fuel.", + "When a plant that is orlah becomes mixed together with other plants or a row of mixed species from a vineyard became mixed with other rows,60I.e., it was known that one plant or row was forbidden, but one was not able to identify the forbidden plant. It is somewhat difficult to conceive how a row of crops could not be recognized as mixed species growing in a vineyard. at the outset, one should gather all [the produce].61Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 1:6), the Rambam rules that at the outset, it is forbidden to gather this produce. The leniency stated in this halachah applies only after the fact. The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam changed his mind, because the more lenient opinion is mentioned in the Talmud (Gittin 54b). If [the ratio of] permitted plants to forbidden plants was 200:1 or the ratio of forbidden rows to permitted ones is 200:1, everything that was gathered is permitted. If the ratio was less than this, all that was gathered is forbidden.
[One might ask:] Why is one permitted to gather [the produce] at the outset? Seemingly, the law should require that everything be forbidden for him until he undertakes the difficulty of removing the forbidden plant or row.62I.e., perhaps we should ordain a decree, forbidding benefit from the entire field, lest one intentionally mix a forbidden orlah plant into his vineyard. [It can be explained that that] a person will not cause his vineyard to be forbidden because of one plant.63Hence we do not fear that he will introduce a forbidden plant into the vineyard. Were he to be able to identify it, he would remove it.64I.e., we do not fear that he left the orlah plant intentionally.
In Hilchot Terumot 13:12, the Rambam rules more stringently with regard to terumah. A distinction between the two instances can be made, for terumah may be eaten by priests, while orlah is forbidden to everyone.
", + "It is forbidden to benefit from cheese that is made to harden using the syrup of orlah fruit that has not ripened,65In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 1:7), the Rambam states that it is common to use the white syrup that drips from underdeveloped figs as a catalyst to cause cheese to harden. the stomach66I.e., using the renin as a catalyst. of an animal offered as a sacrifice to false divinities, or vinegar made from the wine of a false divinity. Although the forbidden entity is being mixed with a substance of another type and a very small amount is used, [the cheese] is forbidden for [the effect of] the forbidden entity is obvious, for it [caused the milk] to harden into cheese.67See Chapter 3, Halachah 13. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 2:5), the Rambam writes that the laws applying to a catalyst used to make cheese are more severe than those applying to spices and yeast (Halachah 1, for the latter can be nullified when they fall into a substance of another type) for the reason explained above. As the Radbaz explains, even without yeast a dough would be able to be baked and a dish could be served without spices, but without a catalyst, milk would never harden into cheese.", + "The law is that fruit that is orlah or from mixed species from a vineyard should be burnt.68Kiddushin 56b derives this from the exegesis of Deuteronomy 22:9, pen tikadeish, \"lest it become hallowed,\" interpreting it as pen tukad eish, \"lest it be consigned to fire.\" Liquids from [that fruit] should be buried, because it is impossible to burn liquids.", + "When wine that was poured as a libation to idols is mixed with [other] wine, it is forbidden to benefit from the entire mixture regardless of how small [the amount of forbidden wine], as we explained.69Chapter 15, Halachot 6-7.
When does the above apply? When the permitted wine is poured onto a drop of wine that had been poured as a libation.70The Siftei Cohen quotes Rishonim who rule that if a quantity of permitted wine that is 60 times the volume of the forbidden wine falls into the forbidden wine at the same time, the presence of the forbidden wine is nullified. The stringency mentioned by the Rambam applies only when the kosher wine is poured into the forbidden wine little by little. The Siftei Cohen rules that if a severe loss is involved, one may rely on this leniency. If, however, one poured wine that had been poured as a libation from a small bottle71I.e., a bottle from which the wine is poured one drop at a time. into a cistern of wine, its presence is nullified. Even if one poured the entire day, each individual drop becomes nullified, drop after drop.72The Radbaz states that this applies even if the majority of the mixture comes from the forbidden wine. Since each drop was nullified, the entire quantity is permitted. The Siftei Cohen 134:4 differs and requires that the permitted wine be 60 times the volume of the forbidden wine.
According to the Rambam, it is even permitted to drink the wine of the mixture. Rashi (Avodah Zarah 73a) rules that it is permitted to benefit from the wine, drinking it, however, is forbidden. And the Ra'avad rules that it is forbidden even to benefit from it. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 134:1) quotes the Rambam's ruling.

If one pours from a jug,73I.e., a container with a large opening. the entire quantity is forbidden. [This applies] whether one pours permitted wine into forbidden wine or forbidden wine into permitted wine. [This stringency is enforced,] because the column of wine which descends from the large jug [creates a connection].", + "When even the smallest amount of ordinary [gentile] wine is mixed with [Jewish] wine, it is forbidden to drink [the entire mixture].74The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 134:2) rules leniently, stating that in the present era, since it is no longer customary to pour wine as libations to false divinities, one may be lenient and permit the mixture if there is 60 times more kosher wine than forbidden wine, provided the kosher wine is not poured into the forbidden wine in one column. Instead, it should be sold to a gentile in its entirety. The money [paid] for the forbidden wine should be cast into the Dead Sea.75I.e., cast into a place where one will not benefit from it. One may, however, benefit from the remainder of the money.76One may, however, destroy one jug and then benefit from the others - e.g., to use the wine as a dye - for it is possible that one will be benefiting directly from the forbidden wine. The advice suggested by the Rambam, by contrast, allows the Jew to benefit from the remainder of the wine without any possibility of benefiting directly from the forbidden wine.
The advice suggested applies only to jugs, for each jug is a separate entity. It does not apply when wine becomes mixed with wine, as indicated by the previous halachah (Avodah Zarah 74a).

Similarly, if a jug of wine poured as a libation had become intermingled with jugs of [kosher] wine, it is forbidden to drink the entire mixture.77See the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 134:2) who explains that this applies only when the jugs are large and therefore important as mentioned in Halachah 3. Otherwise, the presence of the forbidden jug can be nullified by a simple majority. One may, however, benefit from it, selling the entire mixture to a gentile and casting the money for the [forbidden] jug into the Dead Sea. The same applies with regard to a jug of ordinary [gentile] wine.78Seemingly, this ruling is obvious. The Kessef Mishneh states that it was added to emphasize the stringency that one must destroy the value of the forbidden jug.", + "When water is mixed into wine or wine is mixed into water, [the forbidden entity causes the mixture to be prohibited] if its flavor can be detected, because they are two different types of substances.79As stated in Chapter 15, Halachah 6.
When does the above apply? When the permitted liquid falls into the forbidden liquid. If, however, the forbidden liquid fell into the permitted liquid, the presence of it is nullified, drop after drop, provided it fell from a from a small bottle.80See Halachah 28.
Rav Moshe HaCohen questions how the presence of the forbidden entity can be nullified, since its flavor can be detected. Indeed, when quoting this law, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 134:3) states this leniency applies only when the taste of the forbidden substance cannot be detected.

How is it possible for water to be forbidden? If it was worshipped or if it was offered to a false divinity.", + "[The following law applies when] a pitcher of water fell into a cistern of wine and afterwards,81Avodah Zarah 73a emphasizes that the leniency mentioned in this halachah applies only when the water falls into the wine before the forbidden wine. If the forbidden wine falls in first, the permitted wine becomes prohibited. wine that was poured as a libation fell into it. [Initially,] we consider the permitted wine as if it did not exist,82And thus it is not automatically forbidden. We measure the water in relation to the wine poured as a libation. If it83I.e., the water alone. The permitted wine is not considered, for any amount of the forbidden wine mixed into it would cause the permitted wine to be prohibited. is [of sufficient volume] to nullify the taste of the wine poured as a libation, the water is more abundant than it and it nullifies [the forbidden wine] and the entire [mixture] is permitted.", + "When wine poured as a libation falls on grapes, one should wash them. They are permitted to be eaten.84For the forbidden wine will not have entered them. If the grapes have split open,85And thus the forbidden wine could enter. when the wine imparts its flavor to them, it is forbidden to benefit from them.86They may, however, be sold to a gentile, minus the increase in their value produced by the forbidden wine [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 134:8)].If not, it is permitted to partake of them. [This applies] whether the wine is aged or fresh.87Avodah Zarah 66a emphasizes that even if the fresh wine has the same flavor as the grapes, the grapes are not forbidden. For the wine is considered as a different type of substance.", + "When [forbidden wine] falls on figs, they are permitted, because wine impairs the flavor of figs.88Hence even if it imparts its flavor, the figs are not forbidden. Although the version of Avodah Zarah 5:2 which the Rambam relies on differs from the standard published text of the Mishnah, the Rambam's ruling is accepted as halachah by Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah134:9).", + "When wine poured as a libation falls on wheat, [the wheat] is forbidden to be eaten, but it is permitted to benefit from it. One should not sell it to a gentile, lest he sell it again to a Jew. What should be done instead? He should grind [the wheat] into flour, make it into bread, and sell it to a gentile outside the presence of a Jew.89This is permitted, for the gentile is paying for the bread alone. He is not paying for the wine at all. [In this way,] a Jew will not repurchase it from the gentile,90If, however, the Jew selling a fellow Jew selling bread to the gentile, he might purchase it from him. for the bread of a gentile is forbidden, as will be explained.91Chapter 17, Halachah 9. A Jew will have no way of knowing that this bread was not baked by the gentile. Hence he will refrain from purchasing it from him. In a place where it is customary to purchase bread from gentiles, there is no way of benefiting from the wheat [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 134:11)].
Why do we not check the wheat to see if [the wine imparted] its flavor? Because [the wheat] draws out the wine92As Avodah Zarah 65b states, the kernels of wheat are cracked and this causes them to absorb the wine (Lechem Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.). and it becomes absorbed within it.93The Radbaz emphasizes that the taste of the wine becomes blended in with the taste of the wheat to the extent that it cannot be detected.", + "When wine poured as a libation becomes vinegar94The vinegar is forbidden, as the wine was. and falls into vinegar that comes from beer, even the slightest amount causes it to become forbidden. [The rationale is that] it is considered to have become mixed with the same type of substance, because they are both vinegar.95The fact that originally one was wine and one was beer is not significant.
When wine becomes mixed with vinegar, we see if [the forbidden entity] imparts its flavor.96If it does, the mixture is forbidden. If not, it is permitted. Even if the vinegar originally came from wine, it is considered as a different substance. [This applies] whether [forbidden] vinegar falls into wine97It is not automatically permitted, because vinegar impairs the flavor of wine, for there are some who prefer vinegar to wine (Rashba, as quoted by Turei Zahav 134:8). or [forbidden] wine falls into vinegar." + ], + [ + "When the meat of a nevelah or a crawling animal or teeming animal was cooked in an earthenware pot,1If the pot was made out of metal, it is possible to purge the flavor of the non-kosher food the pot absorbed through hagaalah. This process is not effective with regard to an earthenware pot. one should not cook the meat of a ritually slaughtered animal in that pot on that same day. If he cooked a type of meat [in the pot that day], the dish is forbidden.2Since the dish contains meat and the flavor of the forbidden meat was absorbed in the pot, the laws applying to a forbidden substance mixed with its own type apply. Since we do not know how much of the forbidden substance is absorbed in the pot, we assume that the entire pot is forbidden. For this reason, the Rambam does not mention that if there is 60 times the amount of the forbidden food in the kosher food, the kosher food is permitted. For it is very rare that a pot be able to contain sixty times its own volume (Radbaz). If he cooked another substance in it, [it is forbidden if] its flavor can be detected.3According to the Rambam, it should be tasted by a gentile to determine whether the forbidden flavor is detectable or not, as stated in Chapter 15, Halachah 30. As mentioned, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 98:1) accepts the Rambam's premise, but the Rama states that in the present age, we do not rely on the statements of a non-Jew who tasted food to determine whether it is kosher or not.", + "The Torah forbade only [the use of] a pot that was [cooked with the forbidden substance] on that day.4The meaning of the Rambam's words is not clear. Rashi (Avodah Zarah 75b) interprets the term as meaning \"which has not been left overnight.\" Tosafot, by contrast, states that it means \"that has not been left for 24 hours.\" The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 103:5) follows the latter view. For [in that time,] the flavor of the fat absorbed in the pot had not been impaired.5After that time, however, the flavor is impaired and thus will not cause a substance cooked in the pot to become forbidden.
According to Rabbinic Law, one should never cook in it again.6This is a safeguard less cooking in a pot that had not been used for non-kosher food for a day lead to cooking in one that had been used for non-kosher food that day (Avodah Zarah, loc. cit.). For this reason, one should never purchase used earthenware utensils from gentiles to use them for hot foods, e.g., pots and plates. This applies even when they are coated with lead. If one purchased such a utensil and cooked in it from the second day onward, the food is permitted.7Our Sages did not enforce their decree after the fact. Nevertheless, at the outset, an earthenware pot that was used for non-kosher food may never be used.", + "[The following rules apply when] a person purchases metal or glass dinnerware from a gentile. Utensils that [the gentile] did not use at all should be immersed in the waters of a mikveh. Afterwards, it is permitted to eat and drink with them.8See Halachah 5 regarding the obligation for this immersion.
Utensils that he used for cold [food and drink], e.g., cups, flasks, and pitchers, he should wash them thoroughly9Lest any forbidden food be stuck to them. and immerse them. [Afterwards,] they are permitted. Utensils that he used for hot food: large pots, kettles, and pots used to heat food, should be purged through hagaalah,10This will purge any forbidden food that was absorbed in them. There should be at least one day between the last time a pot was used for non-kosher food and the time when hagaalah is performed. and immersed in the mikveh.11See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 121:2 which discusses what must be done if they were immersed in the mikveh before hagaalah was performed. Afterwards, they are permitted. Utensils that he used by exposing them to fire, e.g., spits and grills, should be exposed to fire12That the forbidden article and the utensil were in direct contact with fire without a medium of water or any other liquid. until they become white-hot and their outer surface falls off.13Only then will the forbidden flavor that was absorbed be purged. They may then be immersed and become permitted for use.", + "How is [the purging process of] hagaalah achieved? A small pot is placed into a large pot and they are filled with water until the smaller one is submerged.14In that way, there will not be any portion of it that is not exposed to the water. Then one must boil it very thoroughly.15I.e., we follow the principle: \"As it absorbed a forbidden flavor, so it purges it.\" Hence boiling it thoroughly will cause any forbidden taste that is absorbed to be purged.
If a large pot was [forbidden],16And thus it would be difficult to submerge it a larger pot. one should place dough or mud along its edge [so that] he could fill it with water so that it will flow over its edge.17And thus the boiling water will also cover the edge.He [then] boils it.
In all instances, if he used them before boiling [water in them for hagaalah], washing them thoroughly, making them white hot, or immersing them, [the food] is kosher. For any fat [absorbed] in them imparts an unpleasant flavor, as explained.18In Halachah 2.", + "The immersion of the dinnerware that is purchased from gentiles to allow it to be used for eating and drinking is not associated with ritual purity and impurity. Instead, it is a Rabbinic decree.19As the Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 5:15) states, this immersion was instituted to mark the article's transition from the impurity of the gentiles.
There is an allusion20Most commentaries understand the Rambam as explaining that the requirement for immersion is an asmachta, i.e., an obligation that is essentially Rabbinic in origin. Although our Sages cited a verse that can be seen to allude to it, the intent is not that the obligation is derived from the verse. Instead, the verse is merely a hint which the Rabbis found to allude to their teaching (Rabbenu Nissim).
There are, however, others who note that the Rambam occasionally employs the term he employs here - midvrei sofrim - to refer to obligations and laws that are of Scriptural origin. They are not explicitly stated in the verse, but instead derived through the principles of Biblical exegesis. According to this view, the obligation is of Scriptural origin (the Rashba, Vol. III, Responsum 255, 259).
to this [in Numbers 31:23 that describes Moses' instructions with regard to the spoils taken from Midian:] \"Everything that can be passed through fire, you shall pass through fire and it will become pure.\" According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that the verse is speaking only about purifying [the utensils] from gentile cooking, not from ritual impurity. For there is no ritually impurity that is dispelled by fire. All those who are impure ascend from their impurity through immersion and the impurity stemming from [contact with] a human corpse is [dispelled] through the sprinkling [of water and the ashes of the red heifer]. There is no concept of fire [employed in this context], rather [it is employed] with regard to purification from gentile cooking. Since the verse states \"and it will become pure,\" our Sages said: \"Add to it another dimension of purity after passing it through fire to cause it to be permitted because [of its contact] with gentile cooking.\"21I.e., after you have purged it from the taste absorbed because of gentile cooking, add another dimension of purity through immersion.", + "[Our Sages] obligate this immersion only for metal22This requirement also applies to glass dinnerware, as stated in Halachah 3.
Avodah Zarah 75b explains the association with metal utensils as follows. Our Sages associated this obligation with the purification of the spoil taken in the war against Midian and the verse which mentions those spoils (Numbers 31:22 refers to metal utensils. Glass utensils are also included, because, halachically, they share similarities to metal utensils.
dinnerware utensils23I.e., utensils used to prepare, serve, or partake of food. Even utensils that are used in the preliminary phases of preparation of food, e.g., a knife used to slaughter or skin an animal, are required to be immersed according to certain authorities [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 120:5)]. that were purchased from a gentile. When, however, a person borrows [such utensils] from a gentile or a gentile left him such utensils as security, it is only necessary to wash them thoroughly, boil them, or expose them to fire. He does not have to immerse [them].24For even though he has permission to use them, he has not become their owner. The Kessef Mishneh quotes certain opinions that maintain that utensils taken as security must be immersed, because if the debt is not repaid, they are considered as payment [see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 120:5).
In this context, there are many authorities who question why the utensils that are \"purchased\" by a gentile before Pesach are not required to be immersed.
Similarly, if one purchased wooden or stone utensils, it is only necessary to wash them thoroughly, boil them, or expose them to fire. Similarly, earthenware utensils need not be immersed.25Needless to say, plastic utensils need not be immersed. If, however, they are coated with lead, they are considered as metal utensils and require immersion.26The Rama ((Yoreh De'ah 120:1) states that they should be immersed without a blessing.", + "When a person purchases a knife from a gentile, he must expose it to fire until it become white hot or have it honed in its sharpener.27By exposing the knife to fire, the person will burn away any non-kosher substances. By honing it, he will grind away its surface and together with it, the taste of the forbidden substance it absorbed. If it was a perfectly [smooth] knife without any blemishes, it is sufficient to insert it in hard earth ten times.28One must insert it in ten different places in the earth. It is not sufficient to insert it in the same place ten times [Tur and Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 121:7)]. [Afterwards,] one may eat cold food with it.29For sticking it into the earth will remove any traces of forbidden fat on its surface and the taste of forbidden food that is absorbed will not be released when it is used for cold food. If it had blemishes or it was perfectly [smooth], but one desired to use it to eat hot food or to slaughter with it, he should expose it to fire until it becomes white hot or hone it in its entirety.30These activities may cause any forbidden taste absorbed by the knife to be released. Hence before the knife is used, the traces of the forbidden flavor must be removed as above.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 121:7) quotes opinions that maintain that honing the knife is not sufficient to allow it to be used for hot foods. He states that this is accustomed practice. Even so, after the fact, if a person slaughtered an animal with a knife that was honed in a grinder, thre is no prohibition involved (Siftei Cohen 121:20).
If he slaughtered [an animal] with such a knife before purifying it, he should wash thoroughly the place of slaughter.31To remove any traces of forbidden fat that might be present.
This is permitted only after the fact. At the outset, it is forbidden to slaughter with such a knife unless measures are taken to remove the absorbed fat (Siftei Cohen 10:8).
If he removes the surface [of the meat around the place of slaughter], it is praiseworthy.32For according to some opinions, through the slaughter of the animal, the forbidden fat on the knife can become absorbed in the surface of the meat where the animal was slaughtered. Hence it is necessary that it be removed. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 10:1) rules that it is necessary to take this measure and remove the surface of the meat.", + "When a knife was used to slaughter an animal that was trefe, one should not slaughter with it [again] until it is washed thoroughly, even with cold water or wiped clean with worn-out clothes.33To remove any trace of forbidden blood or fat. Nothing more is necessary, we do not say that the blood or fat became absorbed in the knife.
The Turei Zahav 10:15 states that unlike a knife used by gentiles mentioned in the previous halachah, it was not used frequently with a non-kosher substance. Hence washing it thoroughly is sufficient.
", + "There are other substances which are forbidden by the Sages. Even though there is not a basis for their prohibition in Scriptural Law, they decreed against their use34These decrees were about the eighteen decrees passed when the students of the School of Shammai outnumbered the students of the School of Hillel, as related in Shabbat 1:3 (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 2:6). to separate from the gentiles so that Jews will not intermingle with them and intermarry. They are: It is forbidden to drink [alcoholic beverages] with them35See the following halachah. even in a place where there was no suspicion that the wine was poured as a libation. And they forbade eating from their bread or cooked dishes36See Halachot 12-24. even in a place where there is no suspicion that the food was forbidden.37E.g., the food was cooked by gentiles on Jewish premises (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.).", + "A person should not drink at a party of gentiles even though boiled wine which is not forbidden38See Chapter 11, Halachah 9. [is being served] or he is drinking from his own utensils. If the majority of the attendants of the party are Jewish, it is permitted.39The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch do not mention this restriction or the accompanying leniency. The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 112) explains the Rambam's logic as follows: Avodah Zarah 30a relates that one of the Sages, Shmuel was sitting with Abalat, a gentile. They were served boiled wine. Abalat withdrew, lest he touch the wine and cause it to become forbidden. Shmuel called him back, telling him there was no prohibition against boiled wine.
Rabbenu Asher asks: Since the prohibition against gentile wine was instituted as a protection against intermarriage, what difference does it make whether the wine is boiled or not? He answers that boiled wine is not common. Hence our Sages did not include it in their decree.
Rambam maintains that boiled wine is common and hence included in our Sages' decree. For this reason, it is forbidden to drink it together with gentiles. How then could Shmuel drink with Abalat? Because there were a majority of Jews at the gathering and such a situation is not included in our Sages' decree.
We may not drink the beer that they make from dates, figs, or the like. [This is forbidden] only in the place where they are sold.40Thus according to the Rambam [and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 114:1) who quotes his ruling, it is forbidden to drink at a bar frequented primarily by gentiles. The Rama mentions that it is customary in the Ashkenazic community to rule leniently with regard to alcoholic beverages made from honey and grain. If, however, one brought the beer home and drank it there, it is permitted. For the fundamental point of the decree is that one should not feast with [a gentile].", + "It is permitted to drink wine from apples, pomegranates, and the like in every place. [Our Sages] did not institute a decree in an uncommon situation. Raisen wine is like ordinary wine and is used for libations.41Hence a gentile's touch renders it forbidden.", + "Although [our Sages] forbade bread [baked] by gentiles, there are places where leniency is shown regarding this matter and bread baked by a gentile baker is purchased in a place where there is no Jewish baker and it is in a field, because this is a pressing situation.42Because bread is a staple of life and there is no Jewish bread available, our Sages allowed for leniency when purchasing bread from a commercial baker. For buying from him will not lead to close personal relationships. Nevertheless, according to the Rambam, this leniency is granted only: where there is no Jewish bakers and in the fields, not in the cities. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 112:2) rules more leniently and does not forbid this in a city. The Rama rules even more leniently and allows the purchase of bread from a gentile baker even in places where bread from a Jewish baker is available. There is, by contrast, no one who will rule that leniency may be shown with regard to bread baked by a homeowner.43There are opinions which maintain when there is no bread from a commercial baker available, one may even use bread baked by a gentile homeowner [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 112)]. The Rama states that one may accept this leniency. For the primary reason for [our Sages'] decree was [to prevent] intermarriage. If one will eat the bread of a [gentile] homeowner, [it is likely that] he will feast with him.", + "[The bread] is permitted [in the following situations]: A gentile lit the oven and a Jew baked within it, a Jew lit the oven and the gentile baked within it, the gentile both lit the oven and baked, but the Jew stirred the fire or reduced it, since he was involved in the baking tasks, [we rule leniently]. Even though he did not do more than throw one piece of wood into the oven, he caused all the bread in it to be permitted. [The rationale is that this requirement] is only to make a distinction that [a gentile's] bread is forbidden.44The Radbaz states that this leniency applies only with regard to baking bread. With regard to cooking, a Jew must take a more active role in the cooking process. This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 113:7). The Rama, however, differs and maintains that kindling the oven is sufficient for cooking as well.", + "When a gentile cooks wine, milk, honey, quince,45There is a slight difficulty with the Rambam's statements, because quince are only edible when cooked. or the like, i.e., any entity that is usually eaten raw, it is permitted. [Our Sages] issued their decree only with regard to entities that are not eaten at all raw, e.g., meat, unsalted fish, an egg, and vegetables. If a gentile were to cook them from the beginning to the end without the Jew participating in the cooking at all, they are forbidden because they were cooked by gentiles.", + "When does the above apply? To [food] that would be served on the table of kings46Today, when monarchy is a point of history, the phrase \"fit to be served on the table of kings\" refers to food served at a dinner for the President or dignitaries of similar status. to be eaten together with bread,47Avodah Zarah 38a gives this and the leniency mentioned in the previous halachah as alternate explanations when food cooked by gentiles is permitted. Since the matter is left unresolved by the Talmud, the Rambam and the subsequent authorities rule leniently in both situations. e.g., meat, eggs, fish, and the like. When, by contrast, [food] would not be served on the table of kings to be eaten together with bread, e.g., vetch48A legume used as cattle fodder, but also served to humans on occasion. cooked by gentiles, it is permitted despite the fact that it is not eaten uncooked. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. For the fundamental purpose of the decree was to prevent intermarriage, by [hindering] a gentile from inviting [the Jew] to a feast. And when [food] would not be served on the table of kings to be eaten together with bread, a person would not invite a friend [to share a meal] of it.", + "When small fish were salted by a Jew or a gentile,49The Kessef Mishneh states that this is speaking about fish that are frequently served salted even without being cooked (e.g., sardines or herring served in brine). It is permitted to eat such fish for, as the Rambam states in the following halachah, in this context, salting is not considered as cooking. This leniency does not apply to large fish, for they are unfit to be eaten unless they are cooked or roasted. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 103:12) mentions this ruling, but also a dissenting view that allows leniency even with regard to large fish. it is as if they have undergone part of their cooking process. [Therefore] if a gentile roasted them afterwards, they are permitted.50Since they were fit to be eaten before they were roasted, the fact that they were roasted by a gentile afterwards does not cause them to be forbidden. This applies even when a gentile performed the salting. For that salting did not cause the fish to become forbidden and yet, it made it fit to be eaten (ibid.). [Similarly,] whenever a Jew performs a small part of the cooking process, whether at the beginning or at the end, [the food] is permitted. Accordingly, if a gentile placed meat or a pot on the fire and the Jew turned over the meat or stirred the pot or, conversely, the Jew placed [the food on the fire] and the gentile completed [the cooking process], [the food] is permitted.51In his Kessef Mishneh, R. Yosef Caro rules that this applies only when the cooking process would have been completed without the gentile's activity; the gentile merely hastened it. He does not, however, quote this ruling in his Shulchan Aruch. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 113:6) rules that even if the food would not have cooked without the gentile's activity, it is permitted. The Turei Zahav 113:6 and the Siftei Cohen 113:8, however, raise questions concerning that leniency.", + "When a gentile salts fish or smokes fruit and in this way prepares them to be eaten, they are permitted. With regard to this decree,52In contrast to certain other halachic contexts. salted food is not considered as if it were boiling hot, nor is smoking considered as cooking. Similarly, kernels of grain roasted by a gentile are permitted. They were not included in the decree, for a person will not invite a colleague53See the conclusion of Halachah 15. to [come and eat] roasted kernels of grain.", + "Beans, peas, lentils, and the like that have been cooked by gentiles and are sold are forbidden because of [the decree against] gentile cooking in places where they are served on the tables of kings54Implied is that the designation of a food as important enough to be served on the tables of kings is a relative matter, determined by each locale in accordance with its own practice (Makor Mayim Chayim). as a relish. [They are also forbidden,] because of prohibited foods in all places for perhaps they were cooked together with meat55For this is frequently done in order to flavor beans. or in a pot in which meat had been cooked.56I.e., cooked that day. The Kessef Mishneh states that, according to the Rambam, we assume that a pot owned by a gentile had been used to cook non-kosher food that day. This is not the view of the majority of Halachic authorities. Similarly, doughnuts that are fried by gentiles in oil are forbidden because of prohibited foods.57For we fear that the gentile used non-kosher fat or that the fryer in which they are prepared was used that day for non-kosher meat.", + "When a gentile cooked without intending to cook, [the product] is permitted.58When quoting this law, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 113:5) emphasizes that if the gentile intends to cook, even if he did not intend to cook a particular substance, that substance is forbidden. For example, when a gentile lit an oven with the intent of cooking food without realizing that there was meat in the oven, the meat is forbidden. What is implied? A gentile lit a fire in a swamp to clean away the overgrowth and grasshoppers were roasted, it is permitted to eat them. [This applies] even in places where they are served on the tables of kings as a relish. Similarly, if he scorches a [kosher animal's] head to remove its hair, it is permitted to partake of the strings of meat and the tips of the ears that were roasted at the time of the scorching.", + "[The following rules apply to] dates that were cooked by gentiles. If, initially, they were sweet, they are permitted.59Since they can be eaten fresh, they are not forbidden when cooked (Halachah 14). If they were bitter and the cooking sweetened them, they are forbidden. If they were of intermediate sweetness, they are forbidden.", + "Roasted lentils that were kneaded with water or with vinegar are forbidden.60Avodah Zarah 38b relates that it was customary to eat a dish made from roasted lentils mixed with vinegar. This was considered like cooking. As a safeguard against partaking of such a mixture, they also forbade roasted lentils mixed with water. It was not, however, customary to partake of grain mixed with vinegar. Hence, there was no reason to forbid grain mixed with water. When, however, roasted kernels of wheat or barley are kneaded with water, they are permitted.", + "The oil of gentiles is permitted. One who forbids it commits a great sin, for he rebels61The wording the Rambam uses alludes to the Biblical prohibition of the rebellious elder (see Deuteronomy, ch. 17, and Hilchot Mamrim, ch. 3). The Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 2:8) relates that Rav once refused to partake of gentile oil. Shmuel ordered him to do so. \"If not,\" he threatened, \"I will have you labeled a rebellious elder.\" against [the teachings] of the [High] Court who permitted it.62Avodah Zarah 35b states that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi and his court permitted gentile oil to be used. Even if the oil was cooked, it is permitted. It is not forbidden because of gentile cooking, because we partake of oil uncooked. Nor is it forbidden, because of prohibited foods,63I.e., the flavor of forbidden meat absorbed in the pot. because meat impairs [the flavor of] oil and spoils it.", + "Similarly, when gentile honey was cooked and sweets were made from it, it is permitted for the same reason.64I.e., because it is ordinarily eaten raw and because meat spoils its flavor.", + "Date dregs65Which would be boiled to make beer. of gentiles that were heated in hot water, whether in a large pot or a small pot, are permitted.66Avodah Zarah 38b originally postulates that only date dregs cooked in small pots with openings too narrow to put in non-kosher meat are forbidden. The conclusion of the passage, however, permits even date dregs cooked in large pots for the reason mentioned by the Rambam. For the [flavor of forbidden meat absorbed in the pot] impairs its flavor. Similarly, pickled foods to which it is not customary to add vinegar or wine or pickled olives or pickled grasshoppers that are brought from the storehouse are permitted.67In some halachic contexts, pickling is considered as cooking. Nevertheless, with regard to this prohibition, our Sages ruled leniently. We do not forbid them because of the suspicion that wine or vinegar will be sprinkled over them, because wine or vinegar would not be sprinkled over them in the storeroom, only in a retail outlet [Rashi (Avodah Zarah 39b)]. Nevertheless, grasshoppers and pickled foods over which wine is sprinkled are forbidden.68Because of the gentile wine. Similarly, they are forbidden if vinegar - even vinegar made from beer - is sprinkled over them.69As stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 13, vinegar made from gentile wine is forbidden. And as indicated in the next halachah, other types of vinegar are also forbidden.", + "Why is gentile vinegar made from beer forbidden? Because they cast the dregs of wine into it. Therefore [vinegar] taken from a storage room is permitted.70For if wine dregs were cast into the vinegar in the storage room, it would spoil (Avodah Zarah 32b). In a store, however, we assume that it will be sold quickly and in that brief time, it will not spoil (Turei Zahav 114:5).", + "[Gentile] fish brine, in places where it is customary to mix wine into it, is forbidden. If the wine is more expensive than the fish brine, it is permitted. We rule this way in all instances where we suspect that the gentiles mixed a forbidden substance [into a permitted substance]. For a person will not mix something expensive into something that is low-priced, for he will lose. He will, however, mix the low-priced into the expensive, for then he profits.", + "When a child eats forbidden foods or performs a forbidden labor on the Sabbath,71Although the Rambam's wording in Hilchot Shabbat 24:11 might lead one to think that one must rebuke a child for performing a task forbidden by Scriptural Law, both the Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh explain that his statements there should be interpreted within the context of his statements here. the Jewish court is not commanded to make him cease, because he is not intellectually capable.72Hence, he is not responsible for his actions.
When does the above apply? When he acts on his own initiative.73Note, however, the Rama (Orach Chayim 243:1) which quotes opinions that maintain that once a child has reached the age where he is fit to be educated in the observance of the mitzvot, the court - and every individual person - is obligated to rebuke for transgressing. It is, however, forbidden [for an adult] to give him [non-kosher food] by hand. [This applies even] to foods forbidden by Rabbinic decree. Similarly, it is forbidden to make him accustomed to desecrating the Sabbath and the festivals.74To give a contemporary example, a parent cannot have a child turn lights on and off on the Sabbath. [This applies] even to [performing] activities forbidden as a shvut.75As the Rambam explains in Hilchot Shabbat 21:1, the term shvut refers to activities forbidden by Rabbinic Law, because they resemble forbidden labors or because they might lead one to commit a forbidden labor.
Note, however, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 243:1 which rules that when there is a necessity, not even a severe necessity, Rabbinic prohibitions can be overstepped with regard to a child.
", + "Although the Jewish court is not commanded to separate a child from transgressions, his father is commanded to rebuke him so that he withdraws in order to train him in holy conduct, as [Proverbs 22:6] states: \"Educate a child according to his way.\"76This is a general charge, applying to the Torah and its mitzvot in their totality.", + "Our Sages77See the notes to the following halachah with regard to whether these restrictions are of Scriptural or Rabbinic origin. forbade [a person from partaking of] food and drink from which the souls of most people are revolted, e.g., food and drink that were mixed with vomit, feces, foul discharges, or the like.78The Radbaz states that one partake of such foods for curative purposes if necessary. Similarly, our Sages forbade eating and drinking from filthy utensils from which a person's soul languishes, e.g., the utensils of a lavatory, the glass79The Bayit Chadash (Yoreh De'ah 116) states that this also applies to metal utensils. The Rambam mentions glass only because that was the ordinary practice at that time. utensils of medical attendants that are used to let blood, and the like.", + "Similarly, they forbade eating with unclean and soiled hands and with dirty utensils. All of these matters are included in the general [prohibition]: \"Do not make your souls detestable.\" A person who partakes of these foods is given stripes for rebellious conduct.80See the Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 116) who debates whether the prohibition mentioned in this and the previous halachah are of Rabbinic or Scriptural origin. It is possible to explain that the restrictions were instituted by the Rabbis and they employed the Biblical verse merely as an asmachta, an allusion and a hint, but not a source per se.
The wording of the Rambam here and his statements in Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 179) imply that the prohibition itself is Scriptural in origin. The only reason a person is not given lashes is because the simple meaning of the verse refers to the prohibition against teeming animals.
", + "Similarly, it is forbidden for a person to delay relieving himself at all, whether through defecation or urination.81See Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Mahadura Basra 3:11 which mentions several points concerning this restriction:
a) Our Sages did not, however, require their ordinance to override considerations of public embarrassment. For example, [a person is allowed to wait] until he finds a private place to relieve himself or until he will not be causing an interruption in prayer.
b) The Rashba maintains that the prohibition \"not [to] make your souls detestable\" does not apply to deferring urination. c) Whenever one can contain himself, whether from urinating or from eliminating, for the length of time it takes to walk a parsah (a Persian measure equal to approximately four kilometers), all opinions agree that the prohibition \"not [to] make yourselves loathsome\" does not apply.
Anyone who delays relieving himself is considered among those who make their souls detestable in addition to the severe illnesses he brings upon himself and becoming liable for his life. Instead, it is appropriate for a person to train himself [to eliminate] at specific times so that he will not have to separate himself in the presence of others and not have to make his soul detestable.", + "Whoever is careful concerning these matters82It would appear that the Rambam's intent is not only the subjects spoken about in the last halachot, but also the totality of the laws of kashrut. brings an additional measure of holiness and purity to his soul and purges his soul for the sake of the Holy One, blessed be He, as [Leviticus 11:44] states: \"And you shall sanctify yourselves and you will be holy, for I am holy.\"" + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007", + "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות מאכלות אסורות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Kedushah" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/Hebrew/Torat Emet 363.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/Hebrew/Torat Emet 363.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d8e1bdad901dc006e21082375fb9075290087744 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/Hebrew/Torat Emet 363.json @@ -0,0 +1,486 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods", + "versionSource": "http://www.toratemetfreeware.com/index.html?downloads", + "versionTitle": "Torat Emet 363", + "status": "locked", + "priority": 1.0, + "license": "Public Domain", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "תורת אמת 363", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות מאכלות אסורות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Kedushah" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לֵידַע הַסִּימָנִין שֶׁמַּבְדִּילִין בָּהֶן בֵּין בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה וְעוֹף וְדָגִים וַחֲגָבִים שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְאָכְלָן וּבֵין שֶׁאֵין מֻתָּר לְאָכְלָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כ כה) \"וְהִבְדַּלְתֶּם בֵּין הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהֹרָה לַטְּמֵאָה וּבֵין הָעוֹף הַטָּמֵא לַטָּהֹר\". וְנֶאֱמַר (ויקרא יא מז) \"לְהַבְדִּיל בֵּין הַטָּמֵא וּבֵין הַטָּהֹר וּבֵין הַחַיָּה הַנֶּאֱכֶלֶת וּבֵין הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֵאָכֵל\": \n", + "סִימָנֵי בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה נִתְפָּרְשׁוּ בַּתּוֹרָה וְהֵם שְׁנֵי סִימָנִין (ויקרא יא ג) (דברים יד ו) \"מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה\" וּ (ויקרא יא ג) (דברים יד ו) \"מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה\" עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם. וְכָל בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה שֶׁהִיא מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה אֵין לָהּ שִׁנַּיִם בַּלְּחִי הָעֶלְיוֹן. וְכָל בְּהֵמָה שֶׁהִיא מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה הֲרֵי הִיא מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה. חוּץ מִן הַגָּמָל. וְכָל בְּהֵמָה שֶׁהִיא מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה הִיא מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה חוּץ מִן הַחֲזִיר: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ הַמּוֹצֵא בְּהֵמָה בַּמִּדְבָּר וְאֵינוֹ מַכִּירָהּ וּמְצָאָהּ חֲתוּכַת הַפְּרָסוֹת בּוֹדֵק בְּפִיהָ אִם אֵין לָהּ שִׁנַּיִם לְמַעְלָה בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה. וְהוּא שֶׁיַּכִּיר גָּמָל. מָצָא בְּהֵמָה שֶׁפִּיהָ חָתוּךְ בּוֹדֵק בְּפַרְסוֹתֶיהָ אִם הִיא שְׁסוּעָה טְהוֹרָה. וְהוּא שֶׁיַּכִּיר חֲזִיר. מָצָא פִּיהָ חָתוּךְ וְרַגְלֶיהָ חֲתוּכוֹת בּוֹדֵק בָּהּ אַחַר שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ בְּכַנְפֵי הָעֹקֶץ אִם מָצָא בְּשָׂרָהּ שָׁם מַהֲלַךְ שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב טְהוֹרָה. וְהוּא שֶׁיַּכִּיר עָרוֹד שֶׁכֵּן הוּא בְּשָׂרוֹ שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב: \n", + "בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה כְּמִין בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַפְרִיס פַּרְסָה וְלֹא מַעֲלֶה גֵּרָה אֶלָּא כְּמִין סוּס אוֹ חֲמוֹר לְכָל דָּבָר הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁיָּלְדָה לְפָנָיו. אֲבָל אִם הִנִּיחַ פָּרָה מְעֻבֶּרֶת בְּעֶדְרוֹ וּבָא וּמָצָא כְּמִין חֲזִיר כָּרוּךְ אַחֲרֶיהָ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא יוֹנֵק מִמֶּנָּה הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק וְאָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה. שֶׁמָּא מִן הַטֻּמְאָה נוֹלָד וְנִכְרָךְ אַחַר הַטְּהוֹרָה: \n", + "בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה כְּמִין בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מַפְרִיס פַּרְסָה וּמַעֲלֶה גֵּרָה וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּמִין שׁוֹר לְכָל דָּבָר אוֹ כְּמִין שֶׂה הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה. שֶׁהַגָּדֵל מִן הַטְּמֵאָה טָמֵא וּמִן הַטְּהוֹרָה טָהוֹר. (לְפִיכָךְ) דָּג טָמֵא שֶׁנִּמְצָא בִּמְעֵי דָּג טָהוֹר אָסוּר. וְדָג טָהוֹר הַנִּמְצָא בִּמְעֵי דָּג טָמֵא מֻתָּר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין גִּדּוּלָיו אֶלָּא בְּלָעוֹ: \n", + "בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצָא בָּהּ בְּרִיָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ שְׁתֵּי גַּבִּין וּשְׁתֵּי שְׁדָרוֹת אֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה. וְזוֹ הִיא הַשְּׁסוּעָה שֶׁנֶּאֶסְרָה בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד ז) \"אֶת זֶה לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִמַּעֲלֵי הַגֵּרָה וּמִמַּפְרִיסֵי הַפַּרְסָה הַשְּׁסוּעָה\" כְּלוֹמַר בְּרִיָּה שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה שְׁסוּעָה לִשְׁתֵּי בְּהֵמוֹת: \n", + "וְכֵן בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּמְצָא בָּהּ דְּמוּת עוֹף אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא עוֹף טָהוֹר הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה. לֹא הֻתַּר מִן הַנִּמְצָא בַּבְּהֵמָה אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ פַּרְסָה: \n", + "אֵין לְךָ בְּכָל בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם שֶׁמֻּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה חוּץ מֵעֲשֶׂרֶת הַמִּינִין הַמְּנוּיִין בַּתּוֹרָה. שְׁלֹשָׁה מִינֵי בְּהֵמָה וְהֵם. שׁוֹר שֶׂה וְעֵז. וְשִׁבְעָה מִינֵי חַיָּה. אַיָּל וּצְבִי וְיַחְמוּר וְאַקּוֹ וְדִישֹׁן וּתְאוֹ וָזָמֶר. הֵם וּמִינֵיהֶן כְּגוֹן שׁוֹר הַבָּר וְהַמְּרִיא שֶׁהֵן מִמִּין הַשּׁוֹר. וְכָל הָעֲשָׂרָה מִינִין וּמִינֵיהֶם מַעֲלֶה גֵּרָה וּמַפְרִיס פַּרְסָה. לְפִיכָךְ מִי שֶׁהוּא מַכִּירָן אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִבְדֹּק לֹא בַּפֶּה וְלֹא בָּרַגְלַיִם: \n", + "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכֻּלָּן מֻתָּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה צְרִיכִין אָנוּ לְהַבְדִּיל בֵּין בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה וְחַיָּה טְהוֹרָה. שֶׁהַחַיָּה חֶלְבָּהּ מֻתָּר וְדָמָהּ טָעוּן כִּסּוּי וְהַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהוֹרָה חֶלְבָּהּ בְּכָרֵת וְאֵין דָּמָהּ טָעוּן כִּסּוּי: \n", + "וְסִימָנֵי חַיָּה מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה הֵן. כָּל מִין שֶׁהוּא מַפְרִיס פַּרְסָה וּמַעֲלֶה גֵּרָה וְיֵשׁ לוֹ קַרְנַיִם מְפֻצָּלוֹת כְּגוֹן הָאַיָּל הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּה טְהוֹרָה בְּוַדַּאי. וְכָל שֶׁאֵין קַרְנָיו מְפֻצָּלוֹת אִם הָיוּ קַרְנָיו כְּרוּכוֹת כְּקַרְנֵי הַשּׁוֹר וַחֲרוּקוֹת כְּקַרְנֵי הָעֵז וְיִהְיֶה הֶחָרָק מֻבְלָע בָּהֶן וַהֲדוּרוֹת כְּקַרְנֵי הַצְּבִי הֲרֵי זוֹ חַיָּה טְהוֹרָה. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בַּקַּרְנַיִם שְׁלֹשָׁה סִימָנִין אֵלּוּ כְּרוּכוֹת חֲרוּקוֹת וַהֲדוּרוֹת: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּמִין שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַכִּירוֹ אֲבָל שִׁבְעָה מִינֵי חַיָּה הָאֲמוּרִין בַּתּוֹרָה אִם הָיָה מַכִּיר אוֹתָן אֲפִלּוּ לֹא מָצָא לוֹ קַרְנַיִם הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכֵל חֶלְבּוֹ וְחַיָּב לְכַסּוֹת דָּמוֹ: \n", + "שׁוֹר הַבָּר מִין בְּהֵמָה הוּא וְהַקֶּרֶשׁ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא קֶרֶן אַחַת הֲרֵי הוּא חַיָּה. וְכָל שֶׁיִּסְתַּפֵּק לְךָ אִם הוּא מִין חַיָּה אוֹ מִין בְּהֵמָה חֶלְבּוֹ אָסוּר וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו וּמְכַסִּין אֶת דָּמוֹ: \n", + "כִּלְאַיִם הַבָּא מִבְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה עִם חַיָּה טְהוֹרָה הוּא הַנִּקְרָא כְּוִי. חֶלְבּוֹ אָסוּר וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו וּמְכַסִּין אֶת דָּמוֹ. וְאֵין מִין טָמֵא מִתְעַבֵּר מִמִּין טָהוֹר כְּלָל: \n", + "סִימָנֵי עוֹף טָהוֹר לֹא נִתְפָּרֵשׁ מִן הַתּוֹרָה. אֶלָּא מָנָה מִנְיַן טְמֵאִים בִּלְבַד וּשְׁאָר מִינֵי הָעוֹף מֻתָּרִין. וְהַמִּנְיָן הָאֲסוּרִין אַרְבָּעָה וְעֶשְׂרִים הֵן. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. א) נֶשֶׁר. ב) פֶּרֶס. ג) עָזְנִיָּה. ד) דָּאָה וְהִיא הָרָאָה הָאֲמוּרָה בְּמִשְׁנֵה תּוֹרָה. ה) אַיָּה וְהִיא הַדַּיָּהּ הָאֲמוּרָה בְּמִשְׁנֵה תּוֹרָה. ו) מִין הָאַיָּה שֶׁכֵּן כָּתוּב בָּהּ לְמִינָהּ מִכְלַל שֶׁהוּא שְׁנֵי מִינִין. ז) עוֹרֵב. ח) זַרְזִיר שֶׁכֵּן נֶאֱמַר בְּעוֹרֵב לְמִינוֹ לְהָבִיא אֶת הַזַּרְזִיר. ט) יַעֲנָה. י) תַּחְמָס. יא) שַׁחַף. יב) נֵץ. יג) וְשַׁרְנְקָא וְהוּא מִין הַנֵּץ שֶׁכֵּן כָּתוּב בּוֹ לְמִינֵהוּ. יד) כּוֹס. טו) שָׁלָךְ. טז) יַנְשׁוּף. יז) תִּנְשֶׁמֶת. יח) קָאָת. יט) רָחָמָה. כ) חֲסִידָה. כא) הָאֲנָפָה. כב) מִין הָאֲנָפָה שֶׁכֵּן נֶאֱמַר בָּהּ לְמִינָהּ. כג) הַדּוּכִיפַת. כד) הָעֲטַלֵּף: \n", + "כָּל מִי שֶׁהוּא בָּקִי בְּמִינִין אֵלּוּ וּבִשְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכֵל עוֹף שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵהֶם וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה. וְעוֹף טָהוֹר נֶאֱכַל בְּמָסֹרֶת. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה דָּבָר פָּשׁוּט בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם שֶׁזֶּה עוֹף טָהוֹר. וְנֶאֱמָן צַיָּד לוֹמַר עוֹף זֶה הִתִּיר לִי רַבִּי הַצַּיָּד. וְהוּא שֶׁיֻּחְזַק אוֹתוֹ צַיָּד שֶׁהוּא בָּקִי בְּמִינִין אֵלּוּ וּבִשְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן: \n", + "מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַכִּירָן וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ שְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן בּוֹדֵק בְּסִימָנִין אֵלּוּ שֶׁנָּתְנוּ חֲכָמִים. כָּל עוֹף שֶׁהוּא דּוֹרֵס וְאוֹכֵל בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהוּא מֵאֵלּוּ הַמִּינִין וְטָמֵא. וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ דּוֹרֵס וְאוֹכֵל אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ אֶחָד מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה סִימָנִין אֵלּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹף טָהוֹר. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. אֶצְבַּע יְתֵרָה. אוֹ זֶפֶק וְהִיא הַמֻּרְאָה. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה קֻרְקְבָנוֹ נִקְלַף בְּיָד: \n", + "לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּכָל אֵלּוּ הַמִּינִין הָאֲסוּרִין מִין שֶׁאֵינוֹ דּוֹרֵס וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ אֶחָד מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה סִימָנִין אֵלּוּ חוּץ מִפֶּרֶס וְעָזְנִיָּה וּפֶרֶס וְעָזְנִיָּה אֵינָן מְצוּיִין בְּיִשּׁוּב אֶלָּא בְּמִדְבָּרוֹת אִיֵּי הַיָּם הָרְחוֹקוֹת עַד מְאֹד שֶׁהֵן סוֹף הַיִּשּׁוּב: \n", + "הָיָה הַקֻּרְקְבָן נִקְלָף בְּסַכִּין וְאֵינוֹ נִקְלָף בְּיָד וְאֵין בּוֹ סִימָן אַחֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ דּוֹרֵס הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק. הָיָה חָזָק וְדָבֵק וְהִנִּיחוֹ בַּשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְנִתְרַפָּה וְנִקְלָף בְּיָד הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר: \n", + "אָמְרוּ הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁמָּסֹרֶת הִיא בִּידֵיהֶם שֶׁאֵין מוֹרִין לְהַתִּיר עוֹף הַבָּא בְּסִימָן אֶחָד אֶלָּא אִם הָיָה אוֹתוֹ סִימָן שֶׁיִּקָּלֵף קֻרְקְבָנוֹ בְּיָד. אֲבָל אִם אֵינוֹ נִקְלָף בְּיָד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ זֶפֶק אוֹ אֶצְבַּע יְתֵרָה מֵעוֹלָם לֹא הִתִּירוּהוּ: \n", + "כָּל עוֹף שֶׁחוֹלֵק אֶת רַגְלָיו כְּשֶׁמּוֹתְחִין לוֹ חוּט שְׁתַּיִם לְכָאן וּשְׁתַּיִם לְכָאן. אוֹ שֶׁקּוֹלֵט מִן הָאֲוִיר וְאוֹכֵל בָּאֲוִיר. הֲרֵי זֶה דּוֹרֵס וְטָמֵא. וְכָל הַשּׁוֹכֵן עִם הַטְּמֵאִים וְנִדְמֶה לָהֶם הֲרֵי זֶה טָמֵא: \n", + "וּמִינֵי חֲגָבִים שֶׁהִתִּירָה תּוֹרָה שְׁמוֹנָה. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. א) חָגָב. ב) מִין חָגָב וְהוּא הָרַזְבָנִית. ג) חַרְגּל. ד) וּמִין חַרְגּל וְהוּא עַרְצוּבְיָא. ה) אַרְבֶּה. ו) וּמִין אַרְבֶּה וְהִיא צִפֹּרֶת כְּרָמִים. ז) סָלְעָם. ח) וּמִין סָלְעָם וְהִיא יוֹחָנָא יְרוּשַׁלְמִית: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהוּא בָּקִי בָּהֶן וּבִשְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן אוֹכֵל. וְהַצַּיָּד נֶאֱמָן עֲלֵיהֶן כְּעוֹף. ומִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּקִי בָּהֶן בּוֹדֵק בְּסִימָנִין. וּשְׁלֹשָׁה סִימָנִין יֵשׁ בָּהֶן. כָּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אַרְבַּע רַגְלַיִם. וְאַרְבַּע כְּנָפַיִם שֶׁחוֹפוֹת רֹב אֹרֶךְ גּוּפוֹ וְרֹב הֶקֵּף גּוּפוֹ. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי כְּרָעַיִם לְנַתֵּר בָּהֶם הֲרֵי זֶה מִין טָהוֹר. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרֹאשׁוֹ אָרֹךְ וְיֵשׁ לוֹ זָנָב אִם הָיָה שְׁמוֹ חָגָב טָהוֹר: \n", + "מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ עַכְשָׁו כְּנָפַיִם אוֹ כְּרָעַיִם אוֹ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כְּנָפַיִם הַחוֹפִין אֶת רֻבּוֹ וְעָתִיד לְגַדֵּל אוֹתָן אַחַר זְמַן כְּשֶׁיַּגְדִּיל הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר מֵעַתָּה: \n", + "וּבְדָגִים שְׁנֵי סִימָנִין. סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת. וּסְנַפִּיר הוּא שֶׁפּוֹרֵחַ בּוֹ. וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת הִיא הַדְּבוּקָה בְּכָל גּוּפוֹ. וְכָל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת יֵשׁ לוֹ סְנַפִּיר. אֵין לוֹ עַכְשָׁו וּכְשֶׁיַּגְדִּיל יִהְיֶה לוֹ אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת כְּשֶׁהוּא בַּיָּם וּכְשֶׁיַּעֲלֶה יַשִּׁיר קַשְׂקַשָּׂיו הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וּמִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קַשְׂקַשִּׂים הַחוֹפִין אֶת כֻּלּוֹ מֻתָּר. אֲפִלּוּ אֵין בּוֹ אֶלָּא סְנַפִּיר אַחַת וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת אַחַת הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר: \n" + ], + [ + "מִכְּלָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד ו) \"וְכָל בְּהֵמָה מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה וְשֹׁסַעַת שֶׁסַע שְׁתֵּי פְרָסוֹת מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה\" שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁכָּל שֶׁאֵינָהּ מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה וּמַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה אֲסוּרָה. וְלָאו הַבָּא מִכְּלַל עֲשֵׂה עֲשֵׂה הוּא. וּבְגָמָל וּבַחֲזִיר וּבְאַרְנֶבֶת וּבְשָׁפָן נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא יא ד) (דברים יד ז) \"אֶת זֶה לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִמַּעֲלֵי הַגֵּרָה וּמִמַּפְרִיסֵי הַפַּרְסָה\" וְגוֹ' הֲרֵי לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁהֵן בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן סִימָן אֶחָד. וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן שְׁאָר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה וְחַיָּה טְמֵאָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ סִימָן כְּלָל שֶׁאִסּוּר אֲכִילָתָם בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה יֶתֶר עַל עֲשֵׂה הַבָּא מִכְּלַל אוֹתָהּ תֹּאכְלוּ: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ כָּל הָאוֹכֵל מִבְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה טְמֵאָה כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה. בֵּין שֶׁאָכַל מִן הַבָּשָׂר בֵּין שֶׁאָכַל מִן הַחֵלֶב. לֹא חִלֵּק הַכָּתוּב בִּטְמֵאִים בֵּין בְּשָׂרָם לְחֶלְבָּם: \n", + "הָאָדָם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ (בראשית ב ז) \"וַיְהִי הָאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה\" אֵינוֹ מִכְּלַל מִינֵי חַיָּה בַּעֲלַת פַּרְסָה לְפִיכָךְ אֵינוֹ בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה. וְהָאוֹכֵל מִבְּשַׂר הָאָדָם אוֹ מֵחֶלְבּוֹ בֵּין מִן הַחַי בֵּין מִן הַמֵּת אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. אֲבָל אָסוּר הוּא בַּעֲשֵׂה שֶׁהֲרֵי מָנָה הַכָּתוּב שִׁבְעַת מִינֵי חַיָּה וְאָמַר בָּהֶן (ויקרא יא ב) \"זֹאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ\" הָא כָּל שֶׁהוּא חוּץ מֵהֶן לֹא תֹּאכְלוּ וְלָאו הַבָּא מִכְּלַל עֲשֵׂה עֲשֵׂה: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִבְּשַׂר עוֹף טָמֵא לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא יג) \"וְאֶת אֵלֶּה תְּשַׁקְּצוּ מִן הָעוֹף לֹא יֵאָכְלוּ\". וַהֲרֵי עָבַר עַל עֲשֵׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד יא) \"כָּל צִפּוֹר טְהֹרָה תֹּאכֵלוּ\" הָא טְמֵאָה לֹא תֹּאכְלוּ. וְכֵן הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִדָּג טָמֵא לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא יא) \"וְשֶׁקֶץ יִהְיוּ לָכֶם\" (ויקרא יא יא) \"מִבְּשָׂרָם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ\". וְעָבַר עַל עֲשֵׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד ט) \"כּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת תֹּאכֵלוּ\" מִכְּלַל שֶׁמִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת לֹא יֵאָכֵל. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁכָּל הָאוֹכֵל דָּג טָמֵא אוֹ בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה טְמֵאָה אוֹ עוֹף טָמֵא בִּטֵּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה וְעָבַר עַל לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה: \n", + "חָגָב טָמֵא הֲרֵי הוּא בִּכְלַל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף וְהָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִשֶּׁרֶץ הָעוֹף לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד יט) \"כָּל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם לֹא יֵאָכֵלוּ\". וְאֵי זֶהוּ שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף כְּגוֹן זְבוּב אוֹ יַתּוּשׁ וְצִרְעָה וּדְבוֹרָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִשֶּׁרֶץ הָאָרֶץ לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא מא) \"וְכָל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ שֶׁקֶץ הוּא לֹא יֵאָכֵל\". וְאֵי זֶהוּ שֶׁרֶץ הָאָרֶץ כְּגוֹן נְחָשִׁים וְעַקְרַבִּים וְחִפְשִׁית וְנַדָּל וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן: \n", + "וּשְׁמוֹנָה שְׁרָצִים הָאֲמוּרִים בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁהֵן (ויקרא יא כט) \"הַחלֶד וְהָעַכְבָּר וְהַצָּב\" (ויקרא יא ל) \"וְהָאֲנָקָה וְהַכֹּחַ וְהַלְּטָאָה וְהַחֹמֶט וְהַתִּנְשֶׁמֶת\" הָאוֹכֵל מִבְּשָׂרָם כַּעֲדָשָׁה לוֹקֶה. שִׁעוּר אֲכִילָתָן כְּשִׁעוּר טֻמְאָתָן. וְכֻלָּם מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁאָכַל מֵהֶן אַחַר מִיתָתָן. אֲבָל הַחוֹתֵךְ אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי מִן אֶחָד מֵהֶן וַאֲכָלוֹ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עָלָיו עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בּוֹ כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר. וְכֻלָּן מִצְטָרְפִין לִכְזַיִת. אָכַל אֵיבָר שָׁלֵם מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ אַחַר שֶׁמֵּת אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בּוֹ כַּעֲדָשָׁה: \n", + "דַּם שְׁמוֹנָה שְׁרָצִים וּבְשָׂרָן מִצְטָרֵף לְכַעֲדָשָׁה וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַדָּם מְחֻבָּר לַבָּשָׂר. וְכֵן דַּם הַנָּחָשׁ מִצְטָרֵף לִבְשָׂרוֹ לִכְזַיִת וְלוֹקֶה עָלָיו לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּשָׂרוֹ חָלוּק מִדָּמוֹ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ מִשְּׁאָר שְׁרָצִים שֶׁאֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין: \n", + "דַּם שְׁרָצִים שֶׁפָּרַשׁ וּכְנָסוֹ וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה עָלָיו בִּכְזַיִת. וְהוּא שֶׁיַּתְרוּ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל שֶׁרֶץ. אֲבָל אִם הִתְרוּ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל דָּם פָּטוּר. שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין אֶלָּא עַל דַּם בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף: \n", + "כָּל הַשִּׁעוּרִין וּמַחְלְקוֹתָם הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִשֶּׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא מג) \"אַל תְּשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בְּכָל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ וְלֹא תִטַּמְּאוּ בָּהֶם\". הֲרֵי כָּלַל בְּלָאו זֶה שֶׁרֶץ הָאָרֶץ וְשֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף וְשֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם. אֵי זֶהוּ שֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם אֵלּוּ הַבְּרִיּוֹת הַקְּטַנּוֹת כְּמוֹ הַתּוֹלָעִים וְהָעֲלוּקָה שֶׁבַּמַּיִם וְהַבְּרִיּוֹת הַגְּדוֹלוֹת בְּיוֹתֵר שֶׁהֵן חַיּוֹת הַיָּם. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר כָּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּצוּרַת הַדָּגִים לֹא דָּג טָמֵא וְלֹא דָּג טָהוֹר כְּגוֹן כֶּלֶב הַמַּיִם וְהַדַּלְפוֹן וְהַצְּפַרְדֵּעַ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן: \n", + "אֵלּוּ הַמִּינִין שֶׁנִּבְרָאִין בְּאַשְׁפּוֹת וּבְגוּפֵי הַנְּבֵלוֹת כְּגוֹן רִמָּה וְתוֹלַעַת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁאֵינָן נִבְרָאִין מִזָּכָר וּנְקֵבָה אֶלָּא מִן הַגְּלָלִים שֶׁהִסְרִיחוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הֵן הַנִּקְרָאִין רוֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ. וְהָאוֹכֵל מֵהֶן כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא מד) \"וְלֹא תְטַמְּאוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בְּכָל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ\" וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין פָּרִין וְרָבִין. אֲבָל (ויקרא יא מא מב) \"הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשּׁוֹרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ\" הוּא שֶׁפָּרֶה וְרָבֶה מִזָּכָר וּנְקֵבָה: \n", + "אֵלּוּ הַמִּינִין הַנִּבְרָאִין בְּפֵרוֹת וּבְמַאֲכָלוֹת אִם פָּרְשׁוּ וְיָצְאוּ לָאָרֶץ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזְרוּ לְתוֹךְ הָאֹכֶל מִי שֶׁאָכַל מֵהֶן כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא מב) \"לְכָל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ\" לֶאֱסֹר אֵלּוּ שֶׁפָּרְשׁוּ לָאָרֶץ. אֲבָל אִם לֹא פָּרְשׁוּ מֻתָּר לֶאֱכל הַפְּרִי וְהַתּוֹלַעַת שֶׁבְּתוֹכוֹ: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁהִתְלִיעַ הָאֹכֶל אַחַר שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר מִן הָאָרֶץ. אֲבָל אִם הִתְלִיעַ וְהוּא מְחֻבָּר. אוֹתָהּ הַתּוֹלַעַת אֲסוּרָה כְּאִלּוּ פֵּרְשָׁה לָאָרֶץ שֶׁעַל הָאָרֶץ נִבְרֵאת וְלוֹקִין עָלֶיהָ. וְאִם סָפֵק אֲסוּרָה. לְפִיכָךְ כָּל מִינֵי פֵּרוֹת שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְהַתְלִיעַ כְּשֶׁהֵן מְחֻבָּרִין לֹא יֹאכַל עַד שֶׁיִּבְדֹּק הַפְּרִי מִתּוֹכוֹ שֶׁמָּא יֵשׁ בּוֹ תּוֹלַעַת. וְאִם שָׁהָה הַפְּרִי אַחַר שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ אוֹכֵל בְּלֹא בְּדִיקָה שֶׁאֵין תּוֹלַעַת שֶׁבּוֹ מִתְקַיֶּמֶת שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ: \n", + "פָּרְשׁוּ לָאֲוִיר וְלֹא נָגְעוּ לָאָרֶץ. אוֹ שֶׁפָּרְשׁוּ מִקְצָתָן לָאָרֶץ. אוֹ שֶׁפָּרְשׁוּ אַחַר שֶׁמֵּתוּ. אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת תּוֹלַעַת עַל הַגַּרְעִינָה מִבִּפְנִים. אוֹ שֶׁיָּצְאוּ מִתּוֹךְ הָאֹכֶל לְתוֹךְ אֹכֶל אַחֵר. כָּל אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין מִסָּפֵק וְאֵין לוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶן: \n", + "תּוֹלַעַת הַנִּמְצֵאת בִּמְעֵי הַדָּגִים וּבַמֹּחַ שֶׁבְּרֹאשׁ הַבְּהֵמָה וְהַנִּמְצֵאת בַּבָּשָׂר אֲסוּרָה. אֲבָל דָּג מָלִיחַ שֶׁהִתְלִיעַ הֲרֵי הַתּוֹלַעַת שֶׁבּוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. שֶׁהֵן כְּפֵרוֹת שֶׁהִתְלִיעוּ אַחַר שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרוּ מִן הָאָרֶץ שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְאָכְלָן כֻּלָּן כְּאַחַת בַּתּוֹלַעַת שֶׁבְּתוֹכָן. וְכֵן הַמַּיִם שֶׁבַּכֵּלִים שֶׁהִשְׁרִיצוּ הֲרֵי אוֹתָן שְׁרָצִים מֻתָּר לִשְׁתּוֹתָן עִם הַמַּיִם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא ט) \"וְכָל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת בַּמַּיִם בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים אֹתָם תֹּאכֵלוּ\". כְּלוֹמַר בַּמַּיִם וּבַיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים הוּא שֶׁאַתָּה אוֹכֵל אֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ וְאֵין אַתָּה אוֹכֵל אֶת שֶׁאֵין לוֹ. אֲבָל בְּכֵלִים בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בֵּין שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מֻתָּר: \n", + "שֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם הַנִּבְרָא בְּבוֹרוֹת וּבְשִׁיחִין וּבִמְעָרוֹת הוֹאִיל וְאֵינָן מַיִם נוֹבְעִין וַהֲרֵי הֵן עֲצוּרִים הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמַיִם שֶׁבְּכֵלִים וּמֻתָּר. וְשׁוֹחֶה וְשׁוֹתֶה וְאֵינוֹ נִמְנָע וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבּוֹלֵעַ בִּשְׁעַת שְׁתִיָּה מֵאוֹתָן הַשְּׁרָצִים הַדַּקִּים: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁלֹּא פָּרְשׁוּ מִמְּקוֹם בְּרִיָּתָן. אֲבָל אִם פֵּרַשׁ הַשֶּׁרֶץ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזַר לְתוֹךְ הַכְּלִי אוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַבּוֹר אָסוּר. פָּרַשׁ לְדָפְנֵי הֶחָבִית וְחָזַר וְנָפַל לְתוֹךְ הַמַּיִם אוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַשֵּׁכָר מֻתָּר. וְכֵן אִם פָּרַשׁ לְדָפְנֵי הַבּוֹר אוֹ הַמְּעָרָה וְחָזַר לַמַּיִם מֻתָּר: \n", + "הַמְסַנֵּן אֶת הַיַּיִן אוֹ אֶת הַחֹמֶץ אוֹ אֶת הַשֵּׁכָר וְאָכַל אֶת הַיַּבְחוּשִׁים אוֹ אֶת הַיַּתּוּשִׁין וְהַתּוֹלָעוֹת שֶׁסִּנֵּן לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם שֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם אוֹ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף (וְשֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם) אֲפִלּוּ חָזַר לַכְּלִי אַחַר שֶׁסִּנְּנָן שֶׁהֲרֵי פָּרְשׁוּ מִמְּקוֹם בְּרִיָּתָן. אֲבָל אִם לֹא סִנְּנָן שׁוֹתֶה וְאֵינוֹ נִמְנָע כְּמוֹ שֶׁפֵּרַשְׁנוּ: \n", + "זֶה שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ בְּפֶרֶק זֶה הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת. כְּשֶׁאָכַל כְּזַיִת מִבְּרִיָּה גְּדוֹלָה אוֹ שֶׁצֵּרֵף מְעַט מִבְּרִיָּה זוֹ וּמְעַט מִבְּרִיָּה זוֹ שֶׁבְּמִינָהּ עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל כְּזַיִת. אֲבָל הָאוֹכֵל בְּרִיָּה טְמֵאָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ כֻּלָּהּ הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה פְּחוּתָה מִן הַחַרְדָּל. בֵּין שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ מֵתָה בֵּין שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ חַיָּה. וַאֲפִלּוּ סָרְחָה הַבְּרִיָּה וְנִשְׁתַּנֵּית צוּרָתָהּ הוֹאִיל וַאֲכָלָהּ כֻּלָּהּ לוֹקֶה: \n", + "נְמָלָה שֶׁחֲסֵרָה אֲפִלּוּ אַחַת מֵרַגְלֶיהָ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא בִּכְזַיִת. לְפִיכָךְ הָאוֹכֵל זְבוּב שָׁלֵם אוֹ יַתּוּשׁ שָׁלֵם בֵּין חַי וּבֵין מֵת לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף: \n", + "הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיְתָה הַבְּרִיָּה מִשֶּׁרֶץ הָעוֹף וּמִשֶּׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם וּמִשֶּׁרֶץ הָאָרֶץ כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ לָהּ כְּנָפַיִם וְהִיא מְהַלֶּכֶת עַל הָאָרֶץ כִּשְׁאָר שְׁרָצִים וְהָיְתָה רָבָה בַּמַּיִם וַאֲכָלָהּ לוֹקֶה שָׁלֹשׁ מַלְקִיּוֹת. וְאִם הָיְתָה יֶתֶר עַל זֶה מִן הַמִּינִין שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ בְּפֵרוֹת לוֹקֶה עָלֶיהָ אַרְבַּע מַלְקִיּוֹת. וְאִם הָיְתָה מִן הַמִּינִין שֶׁפָּרִין וְרָבִין לוֹקֶה חָמֵשׁ. וְאִם הָיְתָה מִכְּלַל עוֹף טָמֵא יֶתֶר עַל הֱיוֹתָהּ מִשֶּׁרֶץ הָעוֹף לוֹקֶה עָלֶיהָ שֵׁשׁ מַלְקִיּוֹת. מִשּׁוּם עוֹף טָמֵא. וּמִשּׁוּם שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף. וּמִשּׁוּם שֶׁרֶץ הָאָרֶץ. וּמִשּׁוּם שֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם. וּמִשּׁוּם רוֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ. וּמִשּׁוּם תּוֹלַעַת הַפֵּרוֹת. בֵּין שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ כֻּלָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁאָכַל מִמֶּנָּה כְּזַיִת. לְפִיכָךְ הָאוֹכֵל נְמָלָה הַפּוֹרַחַת הַגְּדֵלָה בַּמַּיִם לוֹקֶה חָמֵשׁ מַלְקִיּוֹת: \n", + "רִסֵּק נְמָלִים וְהֵבִיא אַחַת שְׁלֵמָה וְצֵרְפָהּ לְאֵלּוּ שֶׁנִּתְרַסְּקוּ וְנַעֲשָׂה הַכּל כְּזַיִת וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה שֵׁשׁ מַלְקִיּוֹת. חָמֵשׁ מִשּׁוּם הַנְּמָלָה הָאַחַת וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם כְּזַיִת מִנִּבְלַת הַטְּמֵאִים: \n" + ], + [ + "כָּל מַאֲכָל הַיּוֹצֵא מִמִּין מִן הַמִּינִין הָאֲסוּרִין שֶׁלּוֹקִין עַל אֲכִילָתָן הֲרֵי אוֹתוֹ הַמַּאֲכָל אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה. כְּגוֹן חֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה הַטְּמֵאִים וּבֵיצֵי עוֹף וְדָג הַטְּמֵאִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא טז) (דברים יד טו) \"וְאֵת בַּת הַיַּעֲנָה\" זוֹ בֵּיצָתָהּ. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְכָל הָאָסוּר כְּיַעֲנָה וּלְכָל הַדְּבָרִים הַדּוֹמִין לְבֵיצָה: \n", + "חֲלֵב הָאָדָם מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבְּשַׂר הָאָדָם אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהוּא בַּעֲשֵׂה: \n", + "דְּבַשׁ דְּבוֹרִים וּדְבַשׁ צְרָעִים מֻתָּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתַּמְצִית גּוּפָן אֶלָּא כּוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ מִן הָעֲשָׂבִים בְּתוֹךְ פִּיהֶן וּמְקִיאִין אוֹתוֹ בַּכַּוֶּרֶת כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּמְצְאוּ אוֹתוֹ לֶאֱכל מִמֶּנּוּ בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים: \n", + "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחֲלֵב אָדָם מֻתָּר אָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים לְגָדוֹל לִינֹק אוֹתוֹ מִן הַשָּׁדַיִם אֶלָּא חוֹלֶבֶת אִשָּׁה לְתוֹךְ הַכְּלִי וְשׁוֹתֶה. וְגָדוֹל שֶׁיָּנַק מִן הַשָּׁד כְּיוֹנֵק שֶׁרֶץ וּמַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: \n", + "יוֹנֵק תִּינוֹק וְהוֹלֵךְ אֲפִלּוּ אַרְבַּע אוֹ חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים. וְאִם גְּמָלוּהוּ וּפָרַשׁ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים אוֹ יֶתֶר מֵחֲמַת בֻּרְיוֹ לֹא מֵחֲמַת חָלְיוֹ אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר וְיוֹנֵק. וְהוּא שֶׁגְּמָלוּהוּ אַחַר כ\"ד חֹדֶשׁ. אֲבָל בְּתוֹךְ זְמַן זֶה אֲפִלּוּ גְּמָלוּהוּ חֹדֶשׁ אוֹ שְׁנַיִם מֻתָּר לַחֲזֹר וְלִינֹק עַד סוֹף כ\"ד חֹדֶשׁ: \n", + "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה וּבֵיצֵי עוֹף טָמֵא אֲסוּרִין מִן הַתּוֹרָה אֵין לוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא ח) (דברים יד ח) \"מִבְּשָׂרָם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ\" עַל הַבָּשָׂר הוּא לוֹקֶה וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. עַל הַבֵּיצָה וְעַל הֶחָלָב. וַהֲרֵי הָאוֹכֵל אוֹתָן כְּאוֹכֵל חֲצִי שִׁעוּר שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֲבָל מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: \n", + "יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁהָאוֹכֵל בֵּיצֵי דָּגִים טְמֵאִים הַנִּמְצָאִים בִּמְעֵיהֶם כְּאוֹכֵל קִרְבֵי דָּגִים טְמֵאִים וְלוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וְכֵן בֵּיצֵי הָעוֹף הַטָּמֵא הַתְּלוּיוֹת בְּאֶשְׁכּוֹל שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא פָּרְשׁוּ וְנִגְמְרוּ. הָאוֹכֵל אוֹתָן לוֹקֶה כְּאוֹכֵל בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם שֶׁלָּהֶן: \n", + "בֵּיצַת עוֹף טָמֵא שֶׁהִתְחִיל הָאֶפְרוֹחַ לְהִתְרַקֵּם בָּהּ וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף. אֲבָל בֵּיצַת הָעוֹף טָהוֹר שֶׁהִתְחִיל הָאֶפְרוֹחַ לְהִתְרַקֵּם בָּהּ וַאֲכָלָהּ מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: \n", + "נִמְצָא עָלֶיהָ קֹרֶט דָּם. אִם עַל הַחֶלְבּוֹן זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם וְאוֹכֵל אֶת הַשְּׁאָר. וְאִם עַל הַחֶלְמוֹן אֲסוּרָה כֻּלָּהּ. בֵּיצָה הַמּוּזֶרֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַיָּפָה תֹּאכְלֶנָּה: \n", + "אֶפְרוֹחַ שֶׁנּוֹלַד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְפַּתְּחוּ עֵינָיו מֻתָּר לְאָכְלוֹ. בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה שֶׁנִּטְרְפָה חֲלָבָהּ אָסוּר כַּחֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה. וְכֵן בֵּיצַת עוֹף טָהוֹר שֶׁנִּטְרַף כְּבֵיצַת עוֹף טָמֵא וְאָסוּר: \n", + "אֶפְרוֹחַ שֶׁנּוֹלַד מִבֵּיצַת טְרֵפָה מֻתָּר שֶׁאֵין מִינוֹ טָמֵא. הָיָה הָעוֹף סְפֵק טְרֵפָה כָּל הַבֵּיצִים שֶׁתֵּלֵד בַּעֲרֵמָה רִאשׁוֹנָה מַשְׁהִין אוֹתָן. אִם טָעֲנָה עֲרֵמָה שְׁנִיָּה וְהִתְחִילָה לֵילֵד הֻתְּרוּ הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת שֶׁאִם הָיְתָה טְרֵפָה לֹא הָיְתָה יוֹלֶדֶת עוֹד. וְאִם לֹא יָלְדָה הֲרֵי הֵן אֲסוּרוֹת: \n", + "חֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אֵינוֹ נִקְפֶּה וְעוֹמֵד כַּחֲלֵב הַטְּהוֹרָה. וְאִם נִתְעָרֵב חֲלֵב טְמֵאָה בַּחֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה כְּשֶׁתַּעֲמִיד אוֹתוֹ יַעֲמוֹד חֲלֵב הַטְּהוֹרָה וְיֵצֵא חֲלֵב הַטֻּמְאָה עִם הַקּוֹם שֶׁל גְּבִינָה: \n", + "וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה יִתֵּן הַדִּין שֶׁכָּל חָלָב הַנִּמְצָא בְּיַד עַכּוּ\"ם אָסוּר שֶׁמָּא עֵרֵב בּוֹ חֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה. וּגְבִינַת הָעַכּוּ\"ם מֻתֶּרֶת שֶׁאֵין חֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מִתְגַּבֵּן. אֲבָל בִּימֵי חַכְמֵי מִשְׁנָה גָּזְרוּ עַל גְּבִינַת הָעַכּוּ\"ם וַאֲסָרוּם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּעוֹר קֵבָה שֶׁל שְׁחִיטָתָן שֶׁהִיא נְבֵלָה. וְאִם תֹּאמַר וַהֲלֹא עוֹר הַקֵּבָה דָּבָר קָטָן הוּא עַד מְאֹד בֶּחָלָב שֶׁעָמַד בּוֹ וְלָמָּה לֹא יִבָּטֵל בְּמִעוּטוֹ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא הַמַּעֲמִיד הַגְּבִינָה. וְהוֹאִיל וְדָבָר הָאָסוּר הוּא שֶׁהֶעֱמִיד הֲרֵי הַכּל אָסוּר כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר: \n", + "גְּבִינָה שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ הָעַכּוּ\"ם בַּעֲשָׂבִים אוֹ בְּמֵי פֵּרוֹת כְּגוֹן שְׂרַף הַתְּאֵנִים וַהֲרֵי הֵן נִכָּרִין בַּגְּבִינָה הוֹרוּ מִקְצָת הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה. שֶׁכְּבָר גָּזְרוּ עַל כָּל גְּבִינַת הָעַכּוּ\"ם בֵּין שֶׁהֶעֱמִידוּהָ בְּדָבָר אָסוּר בֵּין שֶׁהֶעֱמִידוּהָ בְּדָבָר הַמֻּתָּר גְּזֵרָה מִשּׁוּם שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּדָבָר הָאָסוּר: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל גְּבִינַת הָעַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ חָלָב שֶׁחֲלָבוֹ עַכּוּ\"ם וְאֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל רוֹאֵהוּ מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. הַחֶמְאָה שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם מִקְצָת הַגְּאוֹנִים הִתִּירוּהָ שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא גָּזְרוּ עַל הַחֶמְאָה וַחֲלֵב הַטְּמֵאָה אֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד. וּמִקְצָת הַגְּאוֹנִים אֲסָרוּהָ מִפְּנֵי צִחְצוּחֵי חָלָב שֶׁיִּשָּׁאֵר בָּהּ. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַקּוֹם שֶׁבַּחֶמְאָה אֵינוֹ מְעֹרָב עִם הַחֶמְאָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּבָּטֵל בְּמִעוּטוֹ. וְכָל חָלָב שֶׁלָּהֶן חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא עֵרְבוּ בּוֹ חֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה: \n", + "יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאִם לָקַח חֶמְאָה מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם וּבִשְּׁלָהּ עַד שֶׁהָלְכוּ לָהֶן צִחְצוּחֵי חָלָב הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. שֶׁאִם תֹּאמַר נִתְעָרְבוּ עִמָּן וְנִתְבַּשְּׁלוּ כֻּלָּן בָּטְלוּ בְּמִעוּטָם. אֲבָל הַחֶמְאָה שֶׁבִּשְּׁלוּ אוֹתָהּ עַכּוּ\"ם אֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם גִּעוּלֵי עַכּוּ\"ם כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר: \n", + "יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיָּשַׁב בְּצַד הָעֵדֶר שֶׁל נָכְרִי וּבָא הַנָּכְרִי וְהֵבִיא לוֹ חָלָב מִן הָעֵדֶר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּעֵדֶר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתָּר. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה אוֹתוֹ חוֹלֵב. וְהוּא שֶׁיָּכוֹל לִרְאוֹתוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא חוֹלֵב כְּשֶׁיַּעֲמֹד. שֶׁהַנָּכְרִי מִתְיָרֵא לַחֲלֹב מִן הַטְּמֵאָה שֶׁמָּא יַעֲמֹד וְיִרְאֶה אוֹתוֹ: \n", + "בֵּיצָה שֶׁשְּׁנֵי רָאשֶׁיהָ כַּדִּין אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁנֵי רָאשֶׁיהָ חַדִּין. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה חֶלְמוֹן מִבַּחוּץ וְחֶלְבּוֹן מִבִּפְנִים בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהוּא בֵּיצַת עוֹף טָמֵא. רֹאשָׁהּ אֶחָד כַּד וְרֹאשָׁהּ אֶחָד חַד וְחֶלְבּוֹן מִבַּחוּץ וְחֶלְמוֹן מִבִּפְנִים. אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁהִיא בֵּיצַת עוֹף טָמֵא וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁהִיא בֵּיצַת עוֹף טָהוֹר. לְפִיכָךְ שׁוֹאֵל לַצַּיָּד יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁמּוֹכְרָהּ. אִם אָמַר לוֹ שֶׁל עוֹף פְּלוֹנִי הוּא וְעוֹף טָהוֹר הוּא סוֹמֵךְ עָלָיו. וְאִם אָמַר שֶׁל עוֹף טָהוֹר וְלֹא אָמַר לוֹ שְׁמוֹ אֵינוֹ סוֹמֵךְ עָלָיו: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לוֹקְחִים בֵּיצִים מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֶלָּא אִם הָיָה מַכִּיר אוֹתָן וְיֵשׁ לוֹ בָּהֶן טְבִיעוּת עַיִן שֶׁהֵן בֵּיצֵי עוֹף פְּלוֹנִי הַטָּהוֹר. וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהֶן שֶׁמָּא הֵן בֵּיצֵי טְרֵפָה אוֹ בֵּיצֵי נְבֵלָה. וְאֵין לוֹקְחִין מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם בֵּיצָה טְרוּפָה כְּלָל: \n", + "בֵּיצֵי דָּגִים סִימָנֵיהֶם כְּסִימָנֵי בֵּיצֵי הָעוֹף. אִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵי רָאשֶׁיהָ כַּדִּין אוֹ חַדִּין טְמֵאָה. אֶחָד כַּד וְאֶחָד חַד שׁוֹאֵל לְיִשְׂרְאֵלִי הַמּוֹכֵר. אִם אָמַר לוֹ אֲנִי מְלַחְתִּים וְהוֹצֵאתִים מִדָּג טָהוֹר אוֹכֵל עַל פִּיו. וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ טְהוֹרִין הֵם אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה אָדָם שֶׁהֻחְזַק בְּכַשְׁרוּת: \n", + "וְכֵן אֵין לוֹקְחִין גְּבִינָה וַחֲתִיכַת דָּג שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ סִימָן אֶלָּא מִיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי שֶׁהֻחְזַק בְּכַשְׁרוּת. אֲבָל בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּשֶׁהָיְתָה רֻבָּהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לוֹקְחִין מִכָּל יִשְׂרְאֵלִי שֶׁבָּהּ. וְהֶחָלָב לוֹקְחִין אוֹתוֹ מִכָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל מִכָּל מָקוֹם: \n", + "הַכּוֹבֵשׁ דָּגִים טְמֵאִים צִירָן אָסוּר. אֲבָל צִיר חֲגָבִים טְמֵאִים מֻתָּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם לַחְלוּחִית. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לוֹקְחִין צִיר מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה בּוֹ דָּג טָהוֹר מְשׁוֹטֵט בּוֹ אֲפִלּוּ דָּג אֶחָד: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁהֵבִיא עֲרֵבָה מְלֵאָה חָבִיּוֹת פְּתוּחוֹת שֶׁל צִיר וְדָג אֶחָד טָהוֹר בְּאַחַת מֵהֶם כֻּלָּן מֻתָּרוֹת. הָיוּ סְתוּמוֹת פָּתַח אַחַת וְנִמְצָא בָּהּ דָּג טָהוֹר שְׁנִיָּה וְנִמְצָא בָּהּ טָהוֹר כֻּלָּן מֻתָּרוֹת. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל דָּג וּשְׁדֵרוֹ קַיָּם כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא נִכָּר שֶׁהוּא דָּג טָהוֹר. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לוֹקְחִין דָּגִים מְרוֹצָצִין מְלוּחִין מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְהֵם הַנִּקְרָאִים טָרִית טְרוּפָה. וְאִם הָיָה רֹאשׁ הַדָּג וּשְׁדֵרוֹ נִכָּר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מְרוֹצָץ מֻתָּר לִקַּח אוֹתוֹ מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁהֵבִיא גָּרָב שֶׁל חֲתִיכוֹת דָּג שֶׁחִתּוּכָן שָׁוֶה וְהֵן נִכָּרִין שֶׁכֻּלָּן מִדָּג אֶחָד וּמָצָא בַּחֲתִיכָה אַחַת מֵהֶן קַשְׂקַשִּׂין הֲרֵי כֻּלָּן מֻתָּרוֹת: \n" + ], + [ + "הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִבְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה שֶׁמֵּתָה אוֹ חַיָּה שֶׁמֵּתָה אוֹ עוֹף שֶׁמֵּת לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד כא) \"לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כָל נְבֵלָה\". וְכָל שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחֲטָה כָּרָאוּי הֲרֵי זוֹ מֵתָה. וּבְהִלְכוֹת הַשְּׁחִיטָה יִתְבָּאֵר הַשְּׁחִיטָה שֶׁהִיא כָּרָאוּי וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ כָּרָאוּי: \n", + "אֵין אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם נְבֵלָה אֶלָּא מִינִים טְהוֹרִים בִּלְבַד מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן רְאוּיִין לִשְׁחִיטָה וְאִם נִשְׁחֲטוּ שְׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה יִהְיוּ מֻתָּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה. אֲבָל מִינִין טְמֵאִין שֶׁאֵין שְׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בָּהֶן בֵּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה כָּרָאוּי בֵּין שֶׁמֵּתָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁחָתַךְ בָּשָׂר מִן הַחַי מִמֶּנָּה וַאֲכָלוֹ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל בְּשַׂר טְמֵאָה: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל עוֹף טָהוֹר חַי כָּל שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל נְבֵלָה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כְּזַיִת הוֹאִיל וַאֲכָלוֹ כֻּלּוֹ. וְאִם אֲכָלוֹ אַחַר שֶׁמֵּת עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בּוֹ כְּזַיִת. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בְּכֻלּוֹ בָּשָׂר כְּזַיִת הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ בְּכֻלּוֹ כְּזַיִת חַיָּב עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם נְבֵלָה: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִבְּשַׂר נֵפֶל בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל נְבֵלָה. וְאָסוּר לֶאֱכל מִן הַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה עַד לֵיל שְׁמִינִי שֶׁכָּל שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהָה שְׁמוֹנָה יָמִים בִּבְהֵמָה הֲרֵי זֶה כְּנֵפֶל. וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו. וְאִם נוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁכָּלוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו בַּבֶּטֶן וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹלַד שֶׁהֵן תִּשְׁעָה חֳדָשִׁים לִבְהֵמָה גַּסָּה וַחֲמִשָּׁה לְדַקָּה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בַּיּוֹם שֶׁנּוֹלַד: \n", + "הַשִּׁלְיָא שֶׁיָּצָאת עִם הַוָּלָד אֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה וְהָאוֹכְלָהּ פָּטוּר שֶׁאֵינָהּ בָּשָׂר: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִבְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה אוֹ חַיָּה אוֹ עוֹף טְהוֹרִים שֶׁנִּטְרְפוּ לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ל) \"וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ לַכֶּלֶב תַּשְׁלִכוּן אֹתוֹ\". טְרֵפָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה זוֹ שֶׁטָּרְפָה אוֹתָהּ חַיַּת הַיַּעַר כְּגוֹן אֲרִי וְנָמֵר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. וְכֵן עוֹף שֶׁטָּרַף אוֹתוֹ עוֹף הַדּוֹרֵס כְּגוֹן נֵץ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ. וְאֵין אַתָּה יָכוֹל לוֹמַר שֶׁטָּרְפָה אוֹתָהּ וְהֵמִיתָה אוֹתָהּ שֶׁאִם מֵתָה הֲרֵי הִיא נְבֵלָה. וּמַה לִּי מֵתָה מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָהּ אוֹ הִכָּה בְּסַיִף וֶהֱמִיתָהּ אוֹ שְׁבָרָהּ אֲרִי וֶהֱמִיתָהּ. הָא אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁנִּטְרְפָה וְלֹא מֵתָה: \n", + "וְאִם הַטְּרֵפָה שֶׁלֹּא מֵתָה אֲסוּרָה יָכוֹל אִם בָּא זְאֵב וְגָרַר הַגְּדִי בְּרַגְלוֹ אוֹ בִּזְנָבוֹ אוֹ בְּאָזְנוֹ וְרָדַף אָדָם וְהִצִּילוֹ מִפִּיו יִהְיֶה אָסוּר שֶׁהֲרֵי נִטְרַף תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (שמות כב ל) \"וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה\" וְגוֹ' (שמות כב ל) \"לַכֶּלֶב תַּשְׁלִיכוּן אֹתוֹ\". עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ בָּשָׂר הָרְאוּיָה לַכֶּלֶב. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁהַטְּרֵפָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה הִיא שֶׁטָּרְפָה אוֹתוֹ חַיַּת הַיַּעַר וְשָׁבְרָה אוֹתָהּ וְנָטָה לָמוּת וַעֲדַיִן לֹא מֵתָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּדַם וּשְׁחָטָהּ קֹדֶם שֶׁתָּמוּת הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה הוֹאִיל וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּחְיֶה מִמַּכָּה זוֹ הַבָּאָה עָלֶיהָ: \n", + "נִמְצֵאתָ לָמֵד שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה אָסְרָה הַמֵּתָה וְהִיא הַנְּבֵלָה. וְאָסְרָה הַנּוֹטָה לָמוּת מֵחֲמַת מַכּוֹתֶיהָ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא מֵתָה וְהִיא הַטְּרֵפָה. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁלֹּא תַּחֲלֹק בְּמִיתָה בֵּין מֵתָה מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָהּ בֵּין שֶׁנָּפְלָה וָמֵתָה בֵּין שֶׁחֲנָקָהּ עַד שֶׁמֵּתָה בֵּין שֶׁדְּרָסַתָּה חַיָּה וַהֲרָגַתָּה. כָּךְ לֹא תַּחֲלֹק בְּנוֹטָה לָמוּת בֵּין שֶׁטְּרָפַתָּה חַיָּה וּשְׁבָרַתָּה בֵּין שֶׁנָּפְלָה מִן הַגַּג וְנִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ רֹב צַלְעוֹתֶיהָ בֵּין שֶׁנָּפְלָה וְנִתְרַסְּקוּ אֵיבָרֶיהָ בֵּין שֶׁזָּרַק בָּהּ חֵץ וְנָקַב לִבָּהּ אוֹ רֵאָתָהּ בֵּין שֶׁבָּא לָהּ חלִי מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָהּ וְנָקַב לִבָּהּ אוֹ רֵאָתָהּ אוֹ שִׁבֵּר רֹב צַלְעוֹתֶיהָ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. הוֹאִיל וְהִיא נוֹטָה לָמוּת מִכָּל מָקוֹם הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה הַגּוֹרֵם בִּידֵי בָּשָׂר וָדָם בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה (שמות כב ל) \"טְרֵפָה\". דִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב בַּהוֹוֶה. שֶׁאִם לֹא תֹּאמַר כֵּן לֹא תֵּאָסֵר אֶלָּא אוֹתָהּ שֶׁנִּטְרְפָה בַּשָּׂדֶה אֲבָל אִם נִטְרְפָה בֶּחָצֵר לֹא תֵּאָסֵר. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאֵין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בַּהוֹוֶה: \n", + "וְעִנְיַן הַכָּתוּב שֶׁהַנּוֹטָה לָמוּת מֵחֲמַת מַכּוֹתֶיהָ וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לָהּ לִחְיוֹת מֵחֲמַת מַכָּה זוֹ אֲסוּרָה. מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל שֶׁאֵין כָּמוֹהָ חַיָּה טְרֵפָה. וּבְהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה יִתְבָּאֵר אֵי זֶה חלִי עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ טְרֵפָה וְאֵי זֶה חלִי אֵין עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ טְרֵפָה: \n", + "וְכֵן הַחוֹתֵךְ בָּשָׂר מִן הַחַי מִן הַטְּהוֹרִים הֲרֵי אוֹתוֹ הַבָּשָׂר טְרֵפָה וְהָאוֹכֵל מִמֶּנּוּ כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל טְרֵפָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי בָּשָׂר זֶה מִבְּהֵמָה שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחֲטָה וְלֹא מֵתָה. מַה לִּי טָרְפָה אוֹתָהּ חַיָּה מַה לִּי חֲתָכָהּ בְּסַכִּין מַה לִּי בְּכֻלָּהּ מַה לִּי בְּמִקְצָתָהּ. הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (שמות כב ל) \"וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ\" כֵּיוָן שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית הַבְּהֵמָה בָּשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה הֲרֵי הִיא טְרֵפָה: \n", + "בְּהֵמָה שֶׁהִיא חוֹלָה מֵחֲמַת שֶׁתָּשַׁשׁ כֹּחָהּ וְנָטְתָה לָמוּת הוֹאִיל וְלֹא אֵרְעָה מַכָּה בְּאֵיבָר מֵאֵיבָרֶיהָ הַמְּמִיתִים אוֹתָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. שֶׁלֹּא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא כְּעֵין טְרֵפַת חַיַּת הַיַּעַר שֶׁהֲרֵי עָשָׂה בָּהּ מַכָּה הַמְּמִיתָה אוֹתָהּ: \n", + "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת גְּדוֹלֵי הַחֲכָמִים לֹא הָיוּ אוֹכְלִין מִבְּהֵמָה שֶׁמְּמַהֲרִין וְשׁוֹחֲטִין אוֹתָהּ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תָּמוּת וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁפִּרְכְּסָה בְּסוֹף שְׁחִיטָה. וְדָבָר זֶה אֵין בּוֹ אִסּוּר אֶלָּא כָּל הָרוֹצֶה לְהַחֲמִיר עַל עַצְמוֹ בְּדָבָר זֶה הֲרֵי זֶה מְשֻׁבָּח: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף וְלֹא יָצָא מֵהֶן דָּם הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין וְאֵין אוֹמְרִין שֶׁמָּא מֵתִים הָיוּ. וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַבְּרִיאָה וְלֹא פִּרְכְּסָה הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. אֲבָל הַמְסֻכֶּנֶת וְהִיא כָּל שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ וְאֵינָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא אוֹכֶלֶת מַאֲכַל בְּרִיאוֹת אִם שְׁחָטָהּ וְלֹא פִּרְכְּסָה כְּלָל הֲרֵי זוֹ נְבֵלָה וְלוֹקִין עָלֶיהָ. וְאִם פִּרְכְּסָה הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַפִּרְכּוּס בְּסוֹף הַשְּׁחִיטָה. אֲבָל בִּתְחִלָּתָהּ אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל: \n", + "כֵּיצַד הוּא הַפִּרְכּוּס בִּבְהֵמָה דַּקָּה וּבְחַיָּה גַּסָּה וְדַקָּה. בֵּין שֶׁפָּשְׁטָה יָדָהּ וְהֶחֱזִירָה אוֹ שֶׁפָּשְׁטָה רַגְלָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הֶחֱזִירָה אוֹ שֶׁכְּפָפָה רַגְלָהּ בִּלְבַד הֲרֵי זֶה פִּרְכּוּס וּמֻתָּר. אֲבָל אִם פָּשְׁטָה יָדָהּ וְלֹא הֶחֱזִירָתָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה שֶׁאֵין זוֹ אֶלָּא הוֹצָאַת נֶפֶשׁ בִּלְבַד. וּבִבְהֵמָה גַּסָּה אֶחָד הַיָּד וְאֶחָד הָרֶגֶל בֵּין שֶׁפָּשְׁטָה וְלֹא כָּפְפָה בֵּין כָּפְפָה וְלֹא פָּשְׁטָה הֲרֵי זוֹ פִּרְכּוּס וּמֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם לֹא פָּשְׁטָה לֹא יָד וְלֹא רֶגֶל וְלֹא כָּפְפָה כְּלָל הֲרֵי זוֹ נְבֵלָה. וּבְעוֹף אֲפִלּוּ לֹא רִפְרֵף אֶלָּא בְּעֵינוֹ וְלֹא כִּשְׁכֵּשׁ אֶלָּא בִּזְנָבוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה פִּרְכּוּס: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַמְסֻכֶּנֶת בַּלַּיְלָה וְלֹא יָדַע אִם פִּרְכְּסָה אוֹ לֹא פִּרְכְּסָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נְבֵלָה וַאֲסוּרָה: \n", + "כָּל אִסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה חוּץ מֵאִסּוּרֵי נָזִיר כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר שָׁם. לְפִיכָךְ הַלּוֹקֵחַ מְעַט חֵלֶב וּמְעַט דָּם וּמְעַט בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה וּמְעַט בְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה וּמְעַט בְּשַׂר דָּג טָמֵא וּמְעַט בְּשַׂר עוֹף טָמֵא וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּאֵלּוּ מִשְּׁאָר הָאִסּוּרִין וְצֵרֵף מִן הַכּל כְּזַיִת וַאֲכָלוֹ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה וְדִינוֹ כְּדִין אוֹכֵל חֲצִי שִׁעוּר: \n", + "כָּל הַנְּבֵלוֹת מִצְטָרְפוֹת זוֹ עִם זוֹ. וּנְבֵלָה מִצְטָרֶפֶת עִם טְרֵפָה. וְכֵן כָּל בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה הַטְּמֵאִים מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. אֲבָל בְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה עִם בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. כֵּיצַד. הַלּוֹקֵחַ מִנִּבְלַת הַשּׁוֹר וְנִבְלַת הַצְּבִי וְנִבְלַת הַתַּרְנְגוֹל וְקִבֵּץ מִן הַכּל כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה. וְכֵן אִם קִבֵּץ חֲצִי זַיִת מִנִּבְלַת בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה וַחֲצִי זַיִת מִן הַטְּרֵפָה אוֹ חֲצִי זַיִת מִבְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה וַחֲצִי זַיִת מִבָּשָׂר מִן הַחַי מִן הַטְּהוֹרָה וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה. וְכֵן בְּשַׂר הַגָּמָל וְהַחֲזִיר וְהָאַרְנֶבֶת שֶׁקִּבֵּץ מִכֻּלָּם כְּזַיִת וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה. אֲבָל אִם צֵרֵף חֲצִי זַיִת מִנִּבְלַת הַשּׁוֹר וַחֲצִי זַיִת מִבְּשַׂר הַגָּמָל אֵינָן מִצְטָרְפִין. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְכֵן בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה וְעוֹף טָמֵא אוֹ דָּג טָמֵא אֵין בְּשַׂר שְׁנֵיהֶן מִצְטָרֵף. לְפִי שֶׁהֵן שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת. שֶׁהֲרֵי כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּלָאו בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֲבָל כָּל הָעוֹפוֹת הַטְּמֵאִין מִצְטָרְפִין כְּמוֹ שֶׁמִּצְטָרְפִין כָּל בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה הַטְּמֵאִין. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל שֶׁאִסּוּרָן בְּלָאו אֶחָד מִצְטָרְפִין. בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. חוּץ מִנְּבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה הוֹאִיל וְהַטְּרֵפָה תְּחִלַּת נְבֵלָה הִיא: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל מִנְּבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה אוֹ מִבְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה הַטְּמֵאִים מִן הָעוֹר וּמִן הָעֲצָמוֹת וּמִן הַגִּידִים וּמִן הַקַּרְנַיִם וּמִן הַטְּלָפַיִם וּמִן הַצִּפָּרְנַיִם שֶׁל עוֹף מִמְּקוֹמוֹת שֶׁמְּבַצְבֵּץ מִשָּׁם הַדָּם כְּשֶׁיֵּחָתְכוּ וּמִן הַשִּׁלְיָא שֶׁלָּהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵלּוּ אֵינָן רְאוּיִין לַאֲכִילָה וְאֵין מִצְטָרְפִין עִם הַבָּשָׂר לִכְזַיִת: \n", + "קֵיבַת הַנְּבֵלָה וְקֵיבַת הַטְּמֵאָה מֻתֶּרֶת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כִּשְׁאָר טִנֹּפֶת שֶׁבַּגּוּף. וּלְפִיכָךְ מֻתָּר לְהַעֲמִיד הַגְּבִינָה בְּקֵיבַת שְׁחִיטַת הָעַכּוּ\"ם וּבְקֵיבַת בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה טְמֵאָה. אֲבָל עוֹר הַקֵּבָה הֲרֵי הוּא כִּשְׁאָר הַמֵּעַיִם וְאָסוּר: \n", + "עוֹר הַבָּא כְּנֶגֶד פָּנָיו שֶׁל חֲמוֹר מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּמוֹ הַפֶּרֶשׁ וּמֵי רַגְלַיִם שֶׁהֵן מֻתָּרִין. יֵשׁ עוֹרוֹת שֶׁהֵן כְּבָשָׂר וְהָאוֹכֵל מֵהֶן כְּזַיִת כְּאוֹכֵל מִן הַבָּשָׂר. וְהוּא כְּשֶׁיֹּאכַל אוֹתָן כְּשֶׁהֵן רַכִּים: \n", + "וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁעוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן כִּבְשָׂרָן. עוֹר הָאָדָם וְעוֹר הַחֲזִיר שֶׁל יִשּׁוּב וְעוֹר חֲטוֹטֶרֶת שֶׁל גָּמָל שֶׁלֹּא טָעֲנוּ עָלָיו מַשָּׂא מֵעוֹלָם וְלֹא הִגִּיעַ לְמַשָּׂא שֶׁעֲדַיִן הִיא רַכָּה וְעוֹר בֵּית הַבּשֶׁת וְעוֹר שֶׁתַּחַת הָאַלְיָה וְעוֹר הַשָּׁלִיל וְעוֹר הָאֲנָקָה וְהַכֹּחַ וְהַלְּטָאָה וְהַחֹמֶט. כָּל אֵלּוּ הָעוֹרוֹת כְּשֶׁהֵן רַכּוֹת הֲרֵי הֵן כְּבָשָׂר לְכָל דָּבָר בֵּין לְאִסּוּר אֲכִילָה בֵּין לְטֻמְאָה: \n", + "נֶאֱמַר בְּשׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל (שמות כא כח) \"וְלֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ\". וְהֵיאַךְ הָיָה אֶפְשָׁר לְאָכְלוֹ אַחַר שֶׁנִּסְקַל וַהֲרֵי הוּא נְבֵלָה. אֶלָּא לֹא בָּא הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ לִסְקִילָה נֶאֱסַר וְנַעֲשָׂה כִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה. וְאִם קָדַם וּשְׁחָטוֹ שְׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה. וְאִם אָכַל מִבְּשָׂרוֹ כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה. וְכֵן כְּשֶׁיִּסָּקֵל לֹא יִמָּכֵר וְלֹא יִתְּנֶנּוּ לִכְלָבִים וְלֹא לְעַכּוּ\"ם לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר לֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ. וּפֶרֶשׁ שֶׁל שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה. נוֹדַע שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר מִסְּקִילָה אַחַר שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוּזְמוּ הָעֵדִים יֵצֵא וְיִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר. וְאִם נוֹדַע אַחַר שֶׁנִּסְקָל הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה: \n" + ], + [ + "מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה (דברים יב כג) \"לֹא תֹאכַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ עִם הַבָּשָׂר\" לֶאֱסֹר אֵיבָר שֶׁנֶּחְתַּךְ מִן הַחַי. וְעַל אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי הוּא אוֹמֵר לְנֹחַ (בראשית ט ד) \"אַךְ בָּשָׂר בְּנַפְשׁוֹ דָמוֹ לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ\". וְאִסּוּר אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי נוֹהֵג בִּבְהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף בִּטְהוֹרִים אֲבָל לֹא בִּטְמֵאִים: \n", + "אֶחָד אֵיבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ בָּשָׂר וְגִידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת כְּגוֹן הַיָּד וְהָרֶגֶל. וְאֶחָד אֵיבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ עֶצֶם כְּגוֹן הַלָּשׁוֹן וְהַבֵּיצִים וְהַטְּחוֹל וְהַכְּלָיוֹת וְחֵלֶב וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. אֶלָּא שֶׁהָאֵיבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ עֶצֶם בֵּין שֶׁחָתַךְ כֻּלּוֹ בֵּין שֶׁחָתַךְ מִקְצָתוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי. וְהָאֵיבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ עֶצֶם אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי עַד שֶׁיִּפְרשׁ כִּבְרִיָּתוֹ בָּשָׂר וְגִידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת. אֲבָל אִם פָּרַשׁ מִן הַחַי הַבָּשָׂר בִּלְבַד חַיָּב עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ לֹא מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל מֵאֵיבָר מִן הַחַי כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה וַאֲפִלּוּ אָכַל אֵיבָר שָׁלֵם אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּזַיִת חַיָּב פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת פָּטוּר. חָתַךְ מִן הָאֵיבָר כִּבְרִיָּתוֹ בָּשָׂר וְגִידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת כְּזַיִת וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ בָּשָׂר אֶלָּא כָּל שֶׁהוּא. אֲבָל אִם הִפְרִיד הָאֵיבָר אַחַר שֶׁתְּלָשׁוֹ מִן הַחַי וְהִפְרִיד הַבָּשָׂר מִן הַגִּידִים וּמִן הָעֲצָמוֹת אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל כְּזַיִת מִן הַבָּשָׂר לְבַדּוֹ. וְאֵין הָעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִים מִצְטָרְפִין בּוֹ לִכְזַיִת מֵאַחַר שֶׁשִּׁנָּה בְּרִיָּתוֹ: \n", + "חִלְּקוֹ לְאֵיבָר זֶה וַאֲכָלוֹ מְעַט מְעַט. אִם יֵשׁ בְּמַה שֶּׁאָכַל כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר חַיָּב וְאִם לָאו פָּטוּר. לָקַח כְּזַיִת מִן הָאֵיבָר כִּבְרִיָּתוֹ בָּשָׂר וְגִידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת וַאֲכָלוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּחְלַק בְּפִיו בִּפְנִים קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּבְלָעֶנּוּ חַיָּב: \n", + "תָּלַשׁ אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי וְנִטְרְפָה בִּנְטִילָתוֹ וַאֲכָלוֹ חַיָּב שְׁתַּיִם. מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי וּמִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה שֶׁהֲרֵי שְׁנֵי הָאִסּוּרִין בָּאִין כְּאַחַת. וְכֵן הַתּוֹלֵשׁ חֵלֶב מִן הַחַי וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם. מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי וּמִשּׁוּם חֵלֶב. תָּלַשׁ חֵלֶב מִן הַטְּרֵפָה וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה שָׁלֹשׁ: \n", + "בָּשָׂר הַמְדֻלְדָּל בִּבְהֵמָה וְאֵיבָר הַמְדֻלְדָּל בָּהּ אִם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר וְלִחְיוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פָּרַשׁ אֶלָּא אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה אָסוּר וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו. וְאִם מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִלּוּ נָפַל מֵחַיִּים. לְפִיכָךְ לוֹקִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי. אֲבָל הַיָּכוֹל לַחֲזֹר וְלִחְיוֹת אִם נִשְׁחֲטָה הַבְּהֵמָה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר: \n", + "שָׁמַט אֵיבָר אוֹ מְעָכוֹ אוֹ דָּכוֹ כְּגוֹן הַבֵּיצִים שֶׁמָּעַךְ אוֹתָן אוֹ נִתְּקָן הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת חַיִּים. וּלְפִיכָךְ אֵין מַסְרִיחַ. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן אָסוּר לְאָכְלוֹ מִמִּנְהָג שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל מִקֶּדֶם שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא דּוֹמֶה לְאֵיבָר מִן הַחַי: \n", + "עֶצֶם שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר אִם הָיָה הַבָּשָׂר אוֹ הָעוֹר חוֹפֶה רֹב עָבְיוֹ שֶׁל עֶצֶם הַנִּשְׁבָּר וְרֹב הֶקֵּף הַשֶּׁבֶר הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְאִם יָצָא הָעֶצֶם לַחוּץ הֲרֵי הָאֵיבָר אָסוּר. וּכְשֶׁיִּשְׁחֹט הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ הָעוֹף יַחְתֹּךְ מִמְּקוֹם הַשֶּׁבֶר וְיַשְׁלִיכוֹ וְהַשְּׁאָר מֻתָּר. נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם וְהַבָּשָׂר חוֹפֶה אֶת רֻבּוֹ אֲבָל הָיָה אוֹתוֹ בָּשָׂר מְרֻסָּס אוֹ נִתְאַכֵּל כְּבָשָׂר שֶׁהָרוֹפֵא גּוֹרְרוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מִתְלַקֵּט הָרֹב מִמְּקוֹמוֹת הַרְבֵּה. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁעָלָיו נְקָבִים נְקָבִים. אוֹ שֶׁנִּסְדַּק הַבָּשָׂר. אוֹ שֶׁנִּקְדַר כְּמִין טַבַּעַת. אוֹ שֶׁנִּגְרַר הַבָּשָׂר מִלְּמַעְלָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁאַר מִן הַבָּשָׂר אֶלָּא כִּקְלִיפָה. אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְאַכֵּל הַבָּשָׂר מִלְּמַטָּה מֵעַל הָעֶצֶם שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר עַד שֶׁנִּמְצָא הַבָּשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֵינוֹ נוֹגֵעַ בָּעֶצֶם. בְּכָל אֵלּוּ מוֹרִין לְאִסּוּר עַד שֶׁיִּתְרַפֵּא הַבָּשָׂר. וְאִם אָכַל מִכָּל אֵלּוּ מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: \n", + "הַמּוֹשִׁיט יָדוֹ לִמְעֵי הַבְּהֵמָה וְחָתַךְ מִן הַטְּחוֹל וּמִן הַכְּלָיוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וְהִנִּיחַ הַחֲתִיכוֹת בְּתוֹךְ מֵעֶיהָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שְׁחָטָהּ. הֲרֵי אוֹתָן הַחֲתִיכוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בְּתוֹךְ מֵעֶיהָ. אֲבָל אִם חָתַךְ מִן הָעֻבָּר שֶׁבְּמֵעֶיהָ וְלֹא הוֹצִיאוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שְׁחָטָהּ הֲרֵי חֲתִיכַת הָעֻבָּר אוֹ אֵיבָרוֹ מֻתָּר הוֹאִיל וְלֹא יָצָא. עֻבָּר שֶׁהוֹצִיא יָדוֹ אוֹ רַגְלוֹ נֶאֱסַר אוֹתוֹ אֵיבָר לְעוֹלָם בֵּין שֶׁחֲתָכוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּשָּׁחֵט אִמּוֹ בֵּין שֶׁחֲתָכוֹ אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה אִמּוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הֶחֱזִיר אוֹתוֹ אֵיבָר לִמְעֵי אִמּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁחַט אוֹ נוֹלַד הַוָּלָד וְחָיָה כַּמָּה שָׁנִים הֲרֵי אוֹתוֹ הָאֵיבָר אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה. שֶׁכָּל בָּשָׂר שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לִמְחִצָּתוֹ נֶאֱסַר כְּבָשָׂר שֶׁפָּרַשׁ מִן הַחַי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ל) \"וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה\" כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצָא לְמָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא לוֹ כְּשָׂדֶה נַעֲשָׂה טְרֵפָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "הוֹצִיא מִקְצָת הָאֵיבָר וְנִשְׁאַר מִקְצָתוֹ בִּפְנִים אֲפִלּוּ לֹא נִשְׁאַר אֶלָּא מִעוּטוֹ הַיּוֹצֵא אָסוּר וְשֶׁבִּפְנִים מֻתָּר. וְאִם חָתַךְ הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הָאֵיבָר אַחַר שֶׁהֶחְזִירוֹ וְנִשְׁחֲטָה. אוֹתוֹ שֶׁיָּצָא בִּלְבַד אָסוּר וּשְׁאָר הָאֵיבָר מֻתָּר. וְאִם לֹא הֶחְזִירוֹ וַחֲתָכוֹ וְהוּא בַּחוּץ. בֵּין שֶׁחֲתָכוֹ קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה אוֹ אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה. מְקוֹם הַחֲתָךְ אָסוּר. וְהוּא הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁנֶּגֶד הָאֲוִיר. אַחַר שֶׁיֵּחָתֵךְ הַיּוֹצֵא חוֹזֵר וְחוֹתֵךְ מְקוֹם הַחֲתָךְ: \n", + "כָּל אֵיבָר עֻבָּר שֶׁיָּצָא וַחֲתָכוֹ קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה וְהוּא בַּחוּץ הֲרֵי זֶה אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי וְלוֹקִין עָלָיו. וַאֲפִלּוּ מֵת הָעֻבָּר קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה. וְאִם נֶחְתַּךְ אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה הָאוֹכְלוֹ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה וַאֲפִלּוּ מֵת. וְאִם מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ חֲתָכוֹ הָאוֹכְלוֹ לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי: \n", + "עֻבָּר שֶׁהוֹצִיא אֵיבָר וְנֶאֱסַר הָאֵיבָר וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹלַד וַהֲרֵי הִיא נְקֵבָה. הֶחָלָב שֶׁלָּהּ אָסוּר לִשְׁתּוֹתוֹ מִסָּפֵק. הוֹאִיל וְהוּא בָּא מִכְּלָל הָאֵיבָרִין וְיֵשׁ בָּהּ אֵיבָר אֶחָד אָסוּר. וַהֲרֵי זֶה כַּחֲלֵב טְרֵפָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בַּחֲלֵב טְהוֹרָה: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה מְעֻבֶּרֶת וּמָצָא בָּהּ שָׁלִיל בֵּין חַי בֵּין מֵת הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה. וַאֲפִלּוּ שִׁלְיָא מֻתֶּרֶת בַּאֲכִילָה. וְשִׁלְיָא שֶׁיָּצָאת מִקְצָתָהּ וְשָׁחַט אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה. אִם הָיְתָה שִׁלְיָא זוֹ קְשׁוּרָה בַּוָּלָד מַה שֶּׁיָּצָא מִמֶּנָּה אָסוּר וְהַשְּׁאָר מֻתָּר. וְאִם לֹא הָיְתָה קְשׁוּרָה בּוֹ כֻּלָּהּ אֲסוּרָה. שֶׁמָּא שִׁלְיָא זוֹ שֶׁיָּצָאת מִקְצָתָהּ הָלַךְ לוֹ וָלָד שֶׁהָיָה בָּהּ וְוָלָד זֶה שֶׁנִּמְצָא בַּבֶּטֶן הָלְכָה שִׁלְיָא שֶׁלּוֹ. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁאִם לֹא נִמְצָא בַּבֶּטֶן וָלָד כְּלָל שֶׁהַשִּׁלְיָא כֻּלָּהּ אֲסוּרָה: \n", + "מָצָא בָּהּ עֻבָּר חַי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה חֳדָשִׁים גְּמוּרִין וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּחְיֶה אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ. וְאִם הִפְרִיס עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע צָרִיךְ שְׁחִיטָה: \n", + "קָרַע אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ שָׁחַט בְּהֵמָה טְרֵפָה וּמָצָא בָּהּ בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה חַי צָרִיךְ שְׁחִיטָה לְהַתִּירוֹ וְאֵין שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מוֹעֶלֶת לוֹ. וְאִם לֹא גָּמְרוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא חַי בִּמְעֵי הַטְּרֵפָה הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּאֵיבָר מֵאִמּוֹ. כָּל עֻבָּר שֶׁהוֹצִיא רֹאשׁוֹ וְהֶחְזִירוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת אִמּוֹ אֵין שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מוֹעֶלֶת לוֹ וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּיָלוּד וְצָרִיךְ שְׁחִיטָה: \n" + ], + [ + "הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִן הַדָּם בְּמֵזִיד חַיָּב כָּרֵת בְּשׁוֹגֵג מֵבִיא חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה. וְדָבָר מְפֹרָשׁ בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא עַל דַּם בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף בִּלְבַד בֵּין טְמֵאִין בֵּין טְהוֹרִין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ז כו) \"וְכָל דָּם לֹא תֹאכְלוּ בְּכל מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם לָעוֹף וְלַבְּהֵמָה\". וְחַיָּה בִּכְלַל בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד ד) \"זֹאת הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכֵלוּ שׁוֹר\" וְגוֹ' (דברים יד ה) \"אַיָּל וּצְבִי\" וְגוֹ'. אֲבָל דַּם דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים וּשְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים וְדַם הָאָדָם אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם דָּם. לְפִיכָךְ דַּם דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים טְהוֹרִים מֻתָּר לְאָכְלוֹ וַאֲפִלּוּ כְּנָסוֹ בִּכְלִי וְשָׁתָהוּ מֻתָּר. וְדַם חֲגָבִים וְדָגִים טְמֵאִים אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא תַּמְצִית גּוּפָן כַּחֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה. וְדַם שְׁקָצִים כִּבְשָׂרָן כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "דַּם הָאָדָם אָסוּר מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים אִם פֵּרַשׁ. וּמַכִּין עָלָיו מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. אֲבָל דַּם הַשִּׁנַּיִם בּוֹלְעוֹ וְאֵינוֹ נִמְנַע. הֲרֵי שֶׁנָּשַׁךְ בְּפַת וּמָצָא עָלֶיהָ דָּם גּוֹרֵר אֶת הַדָּם וְאַחַר כָּךְ אוֹכֵל שֶׁהֲרֵי פֵּרַשׁ: \n", + "אֵין חַיָּבִין כָּרֵת אֶלָּא עַל דָּם הַיּוֹצֵא בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה וּנְחִירָה אוֹ הַתָּזַת הָרֹאשׁ כָּל זְמַן שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אַדְמוּמִית. וְעַל הַדָּם הַכָּנוּס בְּתוֹךְ הַלֵּב. וְעַל דַּם הַקָּזָה כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהוּא מְקַלֵּחַ וְיוֹצֵא. אֲבָל הַדָּם הַשּׁוֹתֵת בִּתְחִלַּת הַקָּזָה קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּתְחִיל לְקַלֵּחַ וְדָם הַשּׁוֹתֵת בְּסוֹף הַקָּזָה כְּשֶׁיַּתְחִיל הַדָּם לִפְסֹק אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּדַם הָאֵיבָרִים. שֶׁדַּם הַקִּלּוּחַ הוּא הַדָּם שֶׁהַנֶּפֶשׁ יוֹצְאָה בּוֹ: \n", + "דַּם הַתַּמְצִית וְדַם הָאֵיבָרִין כְּגוֹן דַּם הַטְּחוֹל וְדַם הַכְּלָיוֹת וְדַם בֵּיצִים וְדָם הַמִּתְכַּנֵּס לַלֵּב בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה וְדָם הַנִּמְצָא בַּכָּבֵד אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. אֲבָל הָאוֹכֵל מִמֶּנּוּ כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ג יז) (ויקרא ז כו) \"וְכָל דָּם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ\". וּבְחִיּוּב כָּרֵת הוּא אוֹמֵר (ויקרא יז יא) \"כִּי נֶפֶשׁ הַבָּשָׂר בַּדָּם הִיא\" אֵינוֹ חַיָּב כָּרֵת אֶלָּא עַל הַדָּם שֶׁהַנֶּפֶשׁ יוֹצְאָה בּוֹ: \n", + "הַשָּׁלִיל הַנִּמְצָא בִּמְעֵי הַבְּהֵמָה הֲרֵי דָּמוֹ כְּדַם הַיָּלוּד. לְפִיכָךְ הַדָּם הַנִּמְצָא כָּנוּס בְּתוֹךְ לִבּוֹ חַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת אֲבָל שְׁאָר דָּמוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּדַם הָאֵיבָרִין: \n", + "הַלֵּב בֵּין לְצָלִי בֵּין לִקְדֵרָה קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת דָּמוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מוֹלְחוֹ. וְאִם בִּשֵּׁל הַלֵּב וְלֹא קְרָעוֹ קוֹרְעוֹ אַחַר שֶׁבִּשְּׁלוֹ וּמֻתָּר. וְאִם לֹא קְרָעוֹ וַאֲכָלוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עָלָיו כָּרֵת. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּלֵב הָעוֹף שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כְּזַיִת דָּם. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה לֵב בְּהֵמָה חַיָּב כָּרֵת שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּזַיִת מִדָּם שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַלֵּב שֶׁחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת: \n", + "הַכָּבֵד אִם חֲתָכָהּ וְהִשְׁלִיכָהּ לְתוֹךְ הַחֹמֶץ אוֹ לְתוֹךְ מַיִם רוֹתְחִין עַד שֶׁתִּתְלַבֵּן הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַשֵּׁל אוֹתָהּ אַחַר כֵּן. וּכְבָר נָהֲגוּ כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַבְהֲבָהּ עַל הָאוּר וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְבַשְּׁלִין אוֹתָהּ בֵּין שֶׁבִּשְּׁלָהּ לְבַדָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁבִּשְּׁלָהּ עִם בָּשָׂר אַחֵר. וְכֵן מִנְהָג פָּשׁוּט שֶׁאֵין מְבַשְּׁלִין הַמֹּחַ שֶׁל רֹאשׁ וְלֹא קוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁמְּהַבְהֲבִין אוֹתוֹ בָּאוּר: \n", + "הַכָּבֵד שֶׁבִּשְּׁלָהּ וְלֹא הִבְהֲבָהּ עַל הָאוּר וְלֹא חֲלָטָהּ בְּחֹמֶץ אוֹ בְּרוֹתְחִין הֲרֵי הַקְּדֵרָה כֻּלָּהּ אֲסוּרָה הַכָּבֵד וְכָל שֶׁנִתְבַּשֵּׁל עִמָּהּ. וּמֻתָּר לִצְלוֹת כָּבֵד עִם הַבָּשָׂר בְּשִׁפּוּד אֶחָד וְהוּא שֶׁתִּהְיֶה הַכָּבֵד לְמַטָּה. וְאִם עָבַר וּצְלָאָהּ לְמַעְלָה מִבָּשָׂר הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכְלוֹ: \n", + "הַטְּחוֹל מֻתָּר לְבַשְּׁלוֹ אֲפִלּוּ עִם הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁאֵינוֹ דָּם אֶלָּא בָּשָׂר הַדּוֹמֶה לְדָם. הַשּׁוֹבֵר מִפְרֶקֶת בְּהֵמָה קֹדֶם שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ הֲרֵי הַדָּם נִבְלַע בָּאֵיבָרִים וְאָסוּר לֶאֱכל מִמֶּנָּה בָּשָׂר חַי וַאֲפִלּוּ חֲלָטוֹ. אֶלָּא כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה. יַחְתֹּךְ הַחֲתִיכָה וְיִמְלַח יָפֶה יָפֶה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יְבַשֵּׁל אוֹ יִצְלֶה. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף וְלֹא יָצָא מֵהֶן דָּם שֶׁהֵן מֻתָּרִין: \n", + "אֵין הַבָּשָׂר יוֹצֵא מִידֵי דָּמוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מוֹלְחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה וּמְדִיחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה. כֵּיצַד עוֹשֶׂה. מֵדִיחַ הַבָּשָׂר תְּחִלָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ מוֹלְחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה וּמַנִּיחוֹ בְּמִלְחוֹ כְּדֵי הִלּוּךְ מִיל. וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְדִיחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה עַד שֶׁיֵּצְאוּ הַמַּיִם זַכִּים וּמַשְׁלִיכוֹ מִיָּד לְתוֹךְ מַיִם רוֹתְחִין אֲבָל לֹא לְפוֹשְׁרִין כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּתְלַבֵּן מִיָּד וְלֹא יֵצֵא דָּם: \n", + "כְּשֶׁמּוֹלְחִין הַבָּשָׂר אֵין מוֹלְחִין אוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא בִּכְלִי מְנֻקָּב. וְאֵין מוֹלְחִין אֶלָּא בְּמֶלַח עָבֶה כְּחוֹל הַגַּס. שֶׁהַמֶּלַח דַּק כְּקֶמַח יִבָּלַע בַּבָּשָׂר וְלֹא יוֹצִיא דָּם. וְצָרִיךְ לְנַפֵּץ הַבָּשָׂר מִן הַמֶּלַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ יְדִיחֶנּוּ: \n", + "כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ לְבָשָׂר שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְבַשְּׁלוֹ אֲבָל לְצָלִי מוֹלֵחַ וְצוֹלֶה מִיָּד. וְהָרוֹצֶה לֶאֱכל בָּשָׂר חַי מוֹלְחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה וּמְדִיחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יֹאכַל. וְאִם חֲלָטוֹ בְּחֹמֶץ מֻתָּר לְאָכְלוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא חַי. וּמֻתָּר לִשְׁתּוֹת הַחֹמֶץ שֶׁחֲלָטוֹ בּוֹ שֶׁאֵין הַחֹמֶץ מוֹצִיא הַדָּם: \n", + "חֹמֶץ שֶׁחָלַט בּוֹ בָּשָׂר לֹא יַחְלֹט בּוֹ פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה. וַחֲתִיכָה שֶׁהֶאֱדִימָה בְּתוֹךְ הַחֹמֶץ הִיא וְהַחֹמֶץ אֲסוּרִין עַד שֶׁיִּמְלַח אוֹתָהּ יָפֶה יָפֶה וְיִצְלֶה. בָּשָׂר שֶׁהֶאְדִּים וְכֵן בֵּיצֵי בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה בִּקְלִיפָה שֶׁעֲלֵיהֶן. וְכֵן הָעֹרֶף שֶׁבּוֹ הַמִּזְרָקִים שֶׁהֵן מְלֵאִים דָּם. אִם חֲתָכָן וּמְלָחָן כַּדָּת מֻתָּר לְבַשְּׁלָן. וְאִם לֹא חֲתָכָן וּצְלָאָן בְּשִׁפּוּד וְצָלָה הָעֹרֶף וּפִיו לְמַטָּה אוֹ שֶׁצְּלָאָן כֻּלָּן עַל הַגֶּחָלִים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין: \n", + "רֹאשׁ הַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁצָּלָהוּ בְּתַנּוּר אוֹ בְּכִבְשָׁן אִם תָּלָהוּ וּבֵית שְׁחִיטָתוֹ לְמַטָּה מֻתָּר שֶׁהַדָּם יוֹצֵא וְשׁוֹתֵת. וְאִם הָיָה בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה מִן הַצַּד מֹחוֹ אָסוּר. שֶׁהַדָּם מִתְקַבֵּץ לְתוֹכוֹ. וּשְׁאָר הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁעַל הָעֲצָמוֹת מִבַּחוּץ מֻתָּר. הִנִּיחַ חָטְמוֹ לְמַטָּה אִם הִנִּיחַ בּוֹ גֶּמִי אוֹ קָנֶה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשָּׁאֵר פָּתוּחַ וְיֵצֵא דָּמוֹ דֶּרֶךְ חָטְמוֹ מֻתָּר וְאִם לָאו מֹחוֹ אָסוּר: \n", + "אֵין מַנִּיחִין כְּלִי תַּחַת הַצָּלִי לְקַבֵּל מֵימָיו עַד שֶׁתִּכְלֶה כָּל מַרְאֶה אַדְמוּמִית שֶׁבּוֹ. וְכֵיצַד עוֹשִׂין. מַשְׁלִיכִין לְתוֹךְ הַכְּלִי מְעַט מֶלַח וּמַנִּיחַ הַכְּלִי עַד שֶׁיִּצָּלֶה וְלוֹקֵחַ הַשַּׁמְנוּנִית שֶׁל מַעְלָה וְהַמַּיִם שֶׁל מַטָּה שֶׁתַּחַת הַשַּׁמְנוּנִית אֲסוּרָה: \n", + "פַּת שֶׁחָתַךְ עָלֶיהָ בָּשָׂר צָלִי מֻתָּר לְאָכְלָהּ שֶׁאֵינָהּ אֶלָּא שַׁמְנוּנִית [א. ב] דָּגִים וְעוֹפוֹת שֶׁמְּלָחָן זֶה עִם זֶה אֲפִלּוּ בִּכְלִי מְנֻקָּב הַדָּגִים אֲסוּרִין שֶׁהַדָּג רָפֶה וּבוֹלֵעַ דָּם הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הָעוֹף. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם מָלַח דָּג עִם בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה אוֹ חַיָּה: \n", + "עוֹפוֹת שֶׁהִנִּיחָן שְׁלֵמִים וּמִלֵּא חֲלָלָן בָּשָׂר וּבֵיצִים וּבִשְּׁלָן אֲסוּרוֹת שֶׁהֲרֵי דָּם יוֹצֵא לְתוֹכָן וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּלָחָן יָפֶה יָפֶה. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁבְּתוֹכָן שָׁלוּק אוֹ צָלוּי. וְאִם צְלָאָן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַבָּשָׂר שֶׁבְּתוֹכָן חַי וַאֲפִלּוּ פִּיהֶן לְמַעְלָה: \n", + "בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם שֶׁמִּלְּאָן עַל דֶּרֶךְ זוֹ בְּבָשָׂר צָלוּי אוֹ שָׁלוּק אוֹ שֶׁמִּלְּאָן בְּבֵיצִים וּשְׁלָקָן אוֹ קְלָאָן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין שֶׁאֵין מַחֲזִיקִין דָּם בִּבְנֵי מֵעַיִם. וְכֵן הוֹרוּ הַגְּאוֹנִים: \n", + "עוֹפוֹת שֶׁטְּפָלָן בְּבָצֵק וּצְלָאָן בֵּין שְׁלֵמִים בֵּין מְחֻתָּכִין אִם טְפָלָן בְּסלֶת גַּסָּה אֲפִלּוּ הִסְמִיקָה הַטְּפֵלָה אוֹכֵל אֶת הַטְּפֵלָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁסּלֶת גַּסָּה מִתְפָּרֶרֶת וְיוֹצֵא הַדָּם. וְאִם טְפָלָן בְּקֶמַח חִטִּים שֶׁלָּתְתָן אִם הָיְתָה הַטְּפֵלָה לְבָנָה כְּמוֹ הַכֶּסֶף מֻתָּר לֶאֱכל מִמֶּנָּה וְאִם לָאו אֲסוּרָה. טְפָלָן בִּשְׁאָר קְמָחִין אִם הֶאְדִּימוּ אֲסוּרִין וְאִם לֹא הֶאְדִּימוּ מֻתָּרִין: \n", + "סַכִּין שֶׁשָּׁחַט בָּהּ אָסוּר לַחְתֹּךְ בָּהּ רוֹתֵחַ עַד שֶׁיְּלַבֵּן הַסַּכִּין בָּאוּר אוֹ יַשְׁחִיזֶנָּה בְּמַשְׁחֶזֶת אוֹ יִנְעָצֶנָּה בְּקַרְקַע קָשָׁה עֶשֶׂר פְּעָמִים. וְאִם חָתַךְ בָּהּ רוֹתֵחַ מֻתָּר. וְכֵן אֵינוֹ חוֹתֵךְ בָּהּ צְנוֹן וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ מִדְּבָרִים הַחֲרִיפִים לְכַתְּחִלָּה. וְאִם הֵדִיחַ הַסַּכִּין אוֹ שֶׁקִּנְּחָהּ בִּכְלִי מֻתָּר לַחְתֹּךְ בּוֹ צְנוֹן וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ אֲבָל לֹא רוֹתֵחַ: \n", + "קְעָרָה שֶׁמָּלַח בָּהּ בָּשָׂר אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה שׁוֹעָה בַּאֲבָר אָסוּר לֶאֱכל בָּהּ רוֹתֵחַ לְעוֹלָם שֶׁכְּבָר נִבְלַע הַדָּם בַּחֲרָסֶיהָ: \n" + ], + [ + "הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב בְּמֵזִיד חַיָּב כָּרֵת. בְּשׁוֹגֵג מֵבִיא חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה. וּבְפֵרוּשׁ אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא עַל שְׁלֹשָׁה מִינֵי בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה בִּלְבַד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ז כג) \"כָּל חֵלֶב שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ\" בֵּין שֶׁאָכַל מֵחֵלֶב שְׁחוּטָה בֵּין שֶׁאָכַל מֵחֵלֶב נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה שֶׁלָּהֶן. אֲבָל שְׁאָר בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה בֵּין טְמֵאָה בֵּין טְהוֹרָה חֶלְבָּהּ כִּבְשָׂרָהּ. וְכֵן נֵפֶל שֶׁל שְׁלֹשָׁה מִינֵי בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה חֶלְבּוֹ כִּבְשָׂרוֹ וְהָאוֹכֵל מֵחֶלְבּוֹ כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל נְבֵלָה: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל מֵחֵלֶב נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה חַיָּב מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל חֵלֶב וּמִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנּוֹסָף הָאִסּוּר בִּבְשָׂרָהּ שֶׁהָיָה מֻתָּר נוֹסָף עַל הַחֵלֶב וּלְפִיכָךְ לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה וּמָצָא בָּהּ שָׁלִיל כָּל חֶלְבּוֹ מֻתָּר וַאֲפִלּוּ מְצָאוֹ חַי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּאֵיבָר מִמֶּנָּה. וְאִם שָׁלְמוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו וּמְצָאוֹ חַי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִפְרִיס עַל הַקַּרְקַע וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שְׁחִיטָה חֶלְבּוֹ אָסוּר וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. וּמוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ כָּל הַחוּטִין וְהַקְּרוּמוֹת הָאֲסוּרִין כִּשְׁאָר הַבְּהֵמוֹת: \n", + "הוֹשִׁיט יָדוֹ לִמְעֵי בְּהֵמָה וְחָתַךְ מֵחֵלֶב הָעֻבָּר שֶׁכָּלוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו וְהוֹצִיאוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב עָלָיו כְּאִלּוּ חֲתָכוֹ מֵחֵלֶב הָאֵם עַצְמָהּ. שֶׁהֶחֳדָשִׁים הֵן הַגּוֹרְמִין לְאִסּוּר הַחֵלֶב: \n", + "שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָבִים הֵן שֶׁחַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶן כָּרֵת. חֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַקֶּרֶב וְשֶׁעַל שְׁתֵּי הַכְּלָיוֹת וְשֶׁעַל הַכְּסָלִים. אֲבָל הָאַלְיָה מֻתֶּרֶת בַּאֲכִילָה. לֹא נִקְרֵאת חֵלֶב אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן קָרְבָּן בִּלְבַד כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּקְרְאוּ חֲלָבִים כְּלָיוֹת וְיוֹתֶרֶת הַכָּבֵד לְעִנְיַן קָרְבָּן. כְּמוֹ שֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר (בראשית מה יח) \"חֵלֶב הָאָרֶץ\" וְ(דברים לב יד) \"חֵלֶב כִּלְיוֹת חִטָּה\" שֶׁהוּא טוּבָם. וּלְפִי שֶׁמְּרִימִין דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ מִן הַקָּרְבָּן לִשְׂרֵפָה לַשֵּׁם נִקְרְאוּ חֵלֶב. שֶׁאֵין שֵׁם דָּבָר טוֹב אֶלָּא הַמּוּרָם לַשֵּׁם. וּלְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר בִּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר (במדבר יח ל לב) \"בַּהֲרִימְכֶם אֶת חֶלְבּוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ\": \n", + "חֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הֶמְסֵס וְשֶׁעַל בֵּית הַכּוֹסוֹת הוּא הַחֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַקֶּרֶב. וְחֵלֶב שֶׁבְּעִקְּרֵי הַיְרֵכוֹת מִבִּפְנִים חַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת וְהוּא הַחֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַכְּסָלִים. וְיֵשׁ שָׁם חֵלֶב עַל הַקֵּבָה עָקֹם כְּמוֹ קֶשֶׁת וְהוּא הָאָסוּר וְחוּט מָשׁוּךְ כְּמוֹ יֶתֶר וְהוּא מֻתָּר. חוּטִין שֶׁבַּחֵלֶב אֲסוּרִין וְאֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶן כָּרֵת: \n", + "חֵלֶב שֶׁהַבָּשָׂר חוֹפֶה אוֹתוֹ מֻתָּר. שֶׁעַל הַכְּסָלִים אָסַר הַכָּתוּב לֹא שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַכְּסָלִים. וְכֵן חֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַכְּלָיוֹת נֶאֱסַר וְלֹא שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַכְּלָיוֹת. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵּן נוֹטֵל אָדָם לֹבֶן שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַכּוּלְיָא וְאַחַר כָּךְ אוֹכֵל אוֹתָהּ וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְחַטֵּט אַחֲרָיו: \n", + "יֵשׁ כְּמוֹ שְׁתֵּי פְּתִילוֹת שֶׁל חֵלֶב בְּעִקְּרֵי הַמָּתְנַיִם סָמוּךְ לְרֹאשׁ הַיָּרֵךְ. כְּשֶׁהַבְּהֵמָה חַיָּה חֵלֶב זֶה נִרְאֶה בַּמֵּעַיִם. וּכְשֶׁתָּמוּת יִדְבַּק בָּשָׂר בְּבָשָׂר וְיִתְכַּסֶּה חֵלֶב זֶה וְאֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה עַד שֶׁיִּתְפָּרֵק הַבָּשָׂר מִן הַבָּשָׂר. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר. שֶׁאֵין זֶה חֵלֶב שֶׁהַבָּשָׂר חוֹפֶה אוֹתוֹ. וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁתִּמְצָא בּוֹ הַחֵלֶב תַּחַת הַבָּשָׂר וְהַבָּשָׂר מַקִּיף אוֹתוֹ מִכָּל סְבִיבָיו וְלֹא יֵרָאֶה עַד שֶׁיִּקָּרַע הַבָּשָׂר הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר: \n", + "חֵלֶב הַלֵּב וְחֵלֶב הַמֵּעַיִם וְהֵן הַדַּקִּין הַמְלֻפָּפִין כֻּלָּן מֻתָּרִין וַהֲרֵי הֵם כְּשֻׁמָּן שֶׁהוּא מֻתָּר. חוּץ מֵרֹאשׁ הַמְּעִי שֶׁסָּמוּךְ לַקֵּבָה שֶׁהוּא תְּחִלַּת בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִגְרֹר הַחֵלֶב שֶׁעָלָיו וְזֶהוּ חֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַדַּקִּין שֶׁאָסוּר. וְיֵשׁ מִן הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁאוֹמֵר שֶׁרֹאשׁ הַמְּעִי שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְגָרְרוֹ הוּא הַמְּעִי שֶׁיֵּצֵא בּוֹ הָרְעִי שֶׁהוּא סוֹף הַמֵּעַיִם: \n", + "יֵשׁ בְּגוּף הַבְּהֵמָה חוּטִין וּקְרוּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין. מֵהֶם מִשּׁוּם חֵלֶב וּמֵהֶן מִשּׁוּם דָּם. וְכָל חוּט אוֹ קְרוּם שֶׁאָסוּר מִשּׁוּם (ויקרא ג יז) (ויקרא ז כו) \"כָּל דָּם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ\" צָרִיךְ לְנָטְלוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִמְלַח וִיבַשֵּׁל הַבָּשָׂר כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ. וְאִם חֲתָכוֹ וּמְלָחוֹ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְנָטְלוֹ. וְכֵן לְצָלִי (אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְנָטְלוֹ). וְכָל חוּט אוֹ קְרוּם שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם כָּל חֵלֶב בֵּין לְצָלִי בֵּין לְבִשּׁוּל צָרִיךְ לְנָטְלוֹ מִן הַבְּהֵמָה: \n", + "חֲמִשָּׁה חוּטִין יֵשׁ בַּכְּסָלִים. שְׁלֹשָׁה מִן הַיָּמִין וּשְׁנַיִם מִן הַשְּׂמֹאל. הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁמִּן הַיָּמִין מִתְפַּצֵּל כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶם לִשְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם. וְהַשְּׁנַיִם שֶׁמִּן הַשְּׂמֹאל מִתְפַּצְּלִין לִשְׁלֹשָׁה שְׁלֹשָׁה. וְכֻלָּן מִשּׁוּם חֵלֶב. וְחוּטֵי הַטְּחוֹל וְחוּטֵי הַכְּלָיוֹת מִשּׁוּם חֵלֶב. וְכֵן קְרוּם שֶׁעַל הַטְּחוֹל וּקְרוּם שֶׁעַל הַכְּסָלִים וּקְרוּם שֶׁעַל הַכְּלָיוֹת אֲסוּרִין מִשּׁוּם חֵלֶב. וּקְרוּם שֶׁעַל דַּד הַטְּחוֹל חַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. וּשְׁאָר הַקְּרוּם אָסוּר וְאֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו: \n", + "וּשְׁנֵי קְרוּמוֹת יֵשׁ לַכּוּלְיָא. הָעֶלְיוֹן חַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת כַּחֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַכּוּלְיָא. וְהַתַּחְתּוֹן הֲרֵי הוּא כִּשְׁאָר קְרוּמוֹת. וְחוּטִין שֶׁבָּהֶן אֲסוּרִין וְאֵין בָּהֶן כָּרֵת: \n", + "חוּטֵי הַלֵּב וְחוּטֵי הַיָּד וְחוּטֵי הָעֹקֶץ וְחוּטֵי הַלְּחִי הַתַּחְתּוֹן שֶׁבְּצַד הַלָּשׁוֹן מִיכָּן וּמִיכָּן. וְכֵן הַחוּטִין הַדַּקִּין שֶׁהֵן בְּתוֹךְ חֵלֶב הַדַּקִּין כְּמוֹ בֵּית עַכָּבִישׁ מְסֻבָּכִין זֶה בָּזֶה. וּקְרוּם שֶׁעַל הַמֹּחַ שֶׁבַּקֹּדְקֹד. וּקְרוּם שֶׁעַל הַבֵּיצִים. הַכּל אֲסוּרִין מִשּׁוּם דָּם: \n", + "בֵּיצֵי גְּדִי אוֹ טָלֶה שֶׁלֹּא הִשְׁלִים שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם מֻתָּר לְבַשְּׁלָן בְּלֹא קְלִיפָה. לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אִם נִרְאֶה בָּהֶן חוּטִין דַּקִּין אֲדֻמִּים בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהָלַךְ בָּהֶם הַדָּם וְלֹא יְבַשֵּׁל עַד שֶׁיִּקְלֹף אוֹ עַד שֶׁיֵּחָתֵךְ וְיִמָלַּח כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאִם עֲדַיִן לֹא נִרְאוּ בָּהֶן חוּטִין הָאֲדֻמִּים מֻתָּרִין: \n", + "וְכָל בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם שֶׁהַמַּאֲכָל סוֹבֵב בַּחֲלָלָן אֵין מַחֲזִיקִין בָּהֶן דָּם: \n", + "יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁכָּל אֵלּוּ הַחוּטִין וְהַקְּרוּמוֹת אִסּוּרָן מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים וְאִם תֹּאמַר שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין מִן הַתּוֹרָה בִּכְלַל (ויקרא ג יז) \"כָּל חֵלֶב וְכָל דָּם\" אֵין לוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶן אֶלָּא מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת וְיִהְיוּ כַּחֲצִי שִׁעוּר שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו: \n", + "אֵין מוֹלְחִין חֲלָבִים עִם הַבָּשָׂר וְלֹא מְדִיחִין חֲלָבִים עִם בָּשָׂר. וְסַכִּין שֶׁחָתַךְ בָּהּ חֲלָבִים לֹא יַחְתֹּךְ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר. וּכְלִי שֶׁהֵדִיחַ בּוֹ חֲלָבִים לֹא יָדִיחַ בּוֹ בָּשָׂר. לְפִיכָךְ צָרִיךְ הַטַּבָּח לְהַתְקִין שָׁלֹשׁ סַכִּינִין. אַחַת שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט בָּהּ. וְאַחַת שֶׁמְּחַתֵּךְ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר. וְאַחַת שֶׁמְּחַתֵּךְ בָּהּ חֲלָבִים: \n", + "וְאִם דֶּרֶךְ אוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם שֶׁיָּדִיחַ הַטַּבָּח הַבָּשָׂר בַּחֲנוּת. צָרִיךְ לְהַתְקִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים שֶׁל מַיִם אֶחָד שֶׁמֵּדִיחַ בּוֹ בָּשָׂר וְאֶחָד שֶׁמֵּדִיחַ בּוֹ חֲלָבִים: \n", + "וְאָסוּר לַטַּבָּח לִפְרשֹׁ חֵלֶב הַכְּסָלִים עַל הַבָּשָׂר כְּדֵי לְנָאוֹתוֹ. שֶׁהַקְּרוּם שֶׁעַל הַחֵלֶב דַּק וְיִתְמַעֵךְ בְּיַד הַטַּבָּח וְיָזוּב הַחֵלֶב וְיִבָּלַע בַּבָּשָׂר. וְכָל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹתָן. וִאִם נַעֲשׂוּ לֹא נֵאֻסַר הַבָּשָׂר. וִאֵין מַכִּין אֶת הָעוֹשֶׂה אֶלָּא מְלַמְּדִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה: \n", + "וְכֵן אֵין מוֹלְחִין אֶת הַבָּשָׂר קֹדֶם שֶׁיָּסִיר מִמֶּנּוּ אֶת הַקְּרוּמוֹת וְאֶת הַחוּטִין הָאֲסוּרִין. וְאִם מָלַח מְסִירָם אַחַר שֶׁנִּמְלְחוּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה בָּהֶן גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה מְסִירוֹ אַחַר שֶׁנִּמְלַח וּמְבַשֵּׁל: \n", + "וְטַבָּח שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְנַקּוֹת הַבָּשָׂר וְנִמְצָא אַחֲרָיו חוּט אוֹ קְרוּם מְלַמְּדִין אוֹתוֹ וּמַזְהִירִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יְזַלְזֵל בְּאִסּוּרִין. אֲבָל אִם נִמְצָא אַחֲרָיו חֵלֶב אִם הָיָה כִּשְׂעוֹרָה מַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ. וְאִם נִמְצָא אַחֲרָיו כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב אֲפִלּוּ בִּמְקוֹמוֹת הַרְבֵּה מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת וּמַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַטַּבָּח נֶאֱמָן עַל הַחֵלֶב: \n" + ], + [ + "גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה נוֹהֵג בִּבְהֵמָה וְחַיָּה הַטְּהוֹרִין וַאֲפִלּוּ בִּנְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶן. וְנוֹהֵג בְּשָׁלִיל וּבְמֻקְדָּשִׁין בֵּין קָדָשִׁים הַנֶּאֱכָלִים בֵּין קָדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין. וְנוֹהֵג בְּיָרֵךְ שֶׁל יָמִין וּבְיָרֵךְ שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל. וְאֵין אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא שֶׁעַל כַּף הַיָּרֵךְ בִּלְבַד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית לב לג) \"אֲשֶׁר עַל כַּף הַיָּרֵךְ\". אֲבָל שְׁאָר הַגִּיד שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה מִן הַכַּף וְשֶׁלְּמַטָּה עַד סוֹפוֹ וְכֵן חֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַגִּיד אֵינוֹ אָסוּר אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. וּשְׁנֵי גִּידִין הֵן. הַפְּנִימִי הַסָּמוּךְ לָעֶצֶם אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וְהָעֶלְיוֹן כֻּלּוֹ אָסוּר מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל מִגִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה הַפְּנִימִי מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁעַל הַכַּף לוֹקֶה. וְאִם אָכַל מֵחֶלְבּוֹ אוֹ מִשְּׁאָר הַגִּיד הַפְּנִימִי אוֹ מִכָּל הַחִיצוֹן מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. וְכַמָּה שִׁעוּר אֲכִילָה. כְּזַיִת. וְאִם אָכַל הַגִּיד שֶׁעַל הַכַּף כֻּלּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כִּבְרִיָּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ: \n", + "אָכַל כְּזַיִת מִגִּיד שֶׁל יָמִין וּכְזַיִת מִגִּיד שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל. אוֹ שֶׁאָכַל שְׁנֵי גִּידִים כֻּלָּן. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה שְׁמוֹנִים. (וְכֵן הוּא לוֹקֶה עַל כָּל גִּיד וְגִיד): \n", + "הָעוֹף אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כַּף יָרֵךְ אֶלָּא יְרֵכוֹ אָרֹךְ. וְאִם נִמְצָא עוֹף שֶׁיְּרֵכוֹ כְּיֶרֶךְ הַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ כַּף גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁלּוֹ אָסוּר וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו. וְכֵן בְּהֵמָה שֶׁכַּף יְרֵכָהּ אָרֹךְ כְּשֶׁל עוֹף גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁלָּהּ אָסוּר וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה מִבְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה הַטְּמֵאִים פָּטוּר לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בִּטְמֵאָה אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה שֶׁכֻּלָּהּ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאֵינוֹ כְּאוֹכֵל מִשְּׁאָר גּוּפָהּ שֶׁאֵין הַגִּידִים מִכְּלַל הַבָּשָׂר כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאִם אָכַל מֵחֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַגִּיד הֲרֵי זֶה כְּאוֹכֵל מִבְּשָׂרָהּ: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁל נְבֵלָה אוֹ שֶׁל טְרֵפָה אוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָה חַיָּב שְׁתַּיִם. מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנִּכְלָל בְּאִסּוּר שְׁאָר גּוּפָהּ שֶׁהָיָה מֻתָּר נִכְלָל גַּם הַגִּיד וְנוֹסָף עָלָיו אִסּוּר אַחֵר: \n", + "הַנּוֹטֵל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה צָרִיךְ לְחַטֵּט אַחֲרָיו עַד שֶׁלֹּא יַשְׁאִיר מִמֶּנּוּ כְּלוּם. וְנֶאֱמָן הַטַּבָּח עַל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנֶּאֱמָן עַל הַחֵלֶב. וְאֵין לוֹקְחִין בָּשָׂר מִכָּל טַבָּח אֶלָּא אִם הָיָה אָדָם כָּשֵׁר וּמֻחְזָק בְּכַשְׁרוּת הוּא שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט לְעַצְמוֹ וּמוֹכֵר וְנֶאֱמָן: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. אֲבָל בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּזְמַן שֶׁכֻּלָּהּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לוֹקְחִין מִכָּל אָדָם: \n", + "טַבָּח הַנֶּאֱמָן לִמְכֹּר בָּשָׂר וְנִמְצָא בְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה אוֹ בְּשַׂר טְרֵפָה יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ. מַחֲזִיר אֶת הַדָּמִים לַבְּעָלִים ומְשַׁמְּתִין אוֹתוֹ וּמַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ. וְאֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה לְעוֹלָם לִקַּח מִמֶּנּוּ בָּשָׂר עַד שֶׁיֵּלֵךְ לְמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַכִּירִין אוֹתוֹ וְיַחֲזִיר אֲבֵדָה בְּדָבָר חָשׁוּב אוֹ יִשְׁחֹט לְעַצְמוֹ וְיוֹצִיא טְרֵפָה לְעַצְמוֹ בְּמָמוֹן חָשׁוּב שֶׁוַּדַּאי עָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה בְּלֹא הַעֲרָמָה: \n", + "הַלּוֹקֵחַ בָּשָׂר וּשְׁלָחוֹ בְּיַד אֶחָד מֵעַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן עָלָיו. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֻחְזָק בְּכַשְׁרוּת אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא יַחֲלִיף. וַאֲפִלּוּ עַבְדֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאַמְהוֹתֵיהֶן נֶאֱמָנִין בְּדָבָר זֶה. אֲבָל לֹא עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁמָּא יַחֲלִיף: \n", + "עֶשֶׂר חֲנֻיּוֹת תֵּשַׁע מוֹכְרוֹת בְּשַׂר שְׁחוּטָה וְאַחַת מוֹכֶרֶת נְבֵלוֹת וְלָקַח בָּשָׂר מֵאַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ מֵאֵיזֶה מֵהֶן לָקַח הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר שֶׁכָּל קָבוּעַ כְּמֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה דָּמִי. אֲבָל בָּשָׂר הַנִּמְצָא מֻשְׁלָךְ בַּשּׁוּק הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הָרֹב דְּכָל דְּפָרִישׁ מֵרֻבָּא פָּרִישׁ. אִם הָיוּ רֹב הַמּוֹכְרִים עַכּוּ\"ם אָסוּר. וְאִם הָיוּ רֹב הַמּוֹכְרִים יִשְׂרָאֵל מֻתָּר: \n", + "וְכֵן בָּשָׂר הַנִּמְצָא בְּיַד עַכּוּ\"ם וְאֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ מִמִּי לָקַח אִם הָיוּ מוֹכְרֵי הַבָּשָׂר יִשְׂרָאֵל מֻתָּר. זֶה הוּא דִּין תּוֹרָה. וּכְבָר אָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים כָּל הַבָּשָׂר הַנִּמְצָא בֵּין בַּשּׁוּק בֵּין בְּיַד עַכּוּ\"ם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּל הַשּׁוֹחֲטִין וְכָל הַמּוֹכְרִין יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא הַלּוֹקֵחַ בָּשָׂר וְהִנִּיחוֹ בְּבֵיתוֹ וְנֶעֱלַם מִן הָעַיִן אָסוּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה לוֹ בּוֹ סִימָן אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ בּוֹ טְבִיעַת עַיִן וְהוּא מַכִּירוֹ וַדַּאי שֶׁהוּא זֶה אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה צָרוּר וְחָתוּם: \n", + "תָּלָה כְּלִי מָלֵא חֲתִיכוֹת בָּשָׂר וְנִשְׁבַּר הַכְּלִי וְנָפְלוּ הַחֲתִיכוֹת לָאָרֶץ וּבָא וּמָצָא חֲתִיכוֹת וְאֵין לוֹ בָּהֶן סִימָן וְלֹא טְבִיעַת עַיִן הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹמַר אוֹתוֹ בָּשָׂר שֶׁהָיָה בַּכְּלִי גְּרָרַתּוּ חַיָּה אוֹ שֶׁרֶץ וְזֶה בָּשָׂר אַחֵר הוּא: \n", + "גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה. לְפִיכָךְ מֻתָּר לְאָדָם לִשְׁלֹחַ לְעַכּוּ\"ם יָרֵךְ שֶׁגִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה בְּתוֹכָהּ. וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ הַיָּרֵךְ שְׁלֵמָה בִּפְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא יֹאכַל מִמֶּנָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל זֶה קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּנָּטֵל הַגִּיד שֶׁהֲרֵי מְקוֹמוֹ נִכָּר. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיְתָה הַיָּרֵךְ חֲתוּכָה לֹא יִתְּנֶנָּה לְעַכּוּ\"ם בִּפְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד שֶׁיִּטּל הַגִּיד שֶׁמָּא יֹאכַל מִמֶּנָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל: \n", + "כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה לֹא תֹאכַל לֹא תֹאכְלוּ לֹא יֹאכְלוּ לֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶחָד אִסּוּר אֲכִילָה וְאֶחָד אִסּוּר הֲנָאָה בְּמַשְׁמָע עַד שֶׁיִּפְרֹט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁפֵּרֵט לְךָ בִּנְבֵלָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד כא) \"לַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תִּתְּנֶנָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ\" וְכַחֵלֶב שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ (ויקרא ז כד) \"יֵעָשֶׂה לְכָל מְלָאכָה\". אוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּתְפָּרֵשׁ בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה שֶׁהוּא מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה. כְּגוֹן שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים וְדָם וְאֵיבָר מִן הַחַי וְגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה. שֶׁכָּל אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין בַּהֲנָאָה מִפִּי הַקַּבָּלָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה: \n", + "כָּל מַאֲכָל שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה אִם נֶהֱנָה וְלֹא אָכַל כְּגוֹן שֶׁמָּכַר אוֹ נָתַן לְעַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ לִכְלָבִים אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. וּמַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת וְהַדָּמִים מֻתָּרִין. וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁאָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּמֻתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ סְחוֹרָה וּלְכַוֵּן מְלַאכְתּוֹ בִּדְבָרִים אֲסוּרִים חוּץ מִן הַחֵלֶב שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ (ויקרא ז כד) \"יֵעָשֶׂה לְכָל מְלָאכָה\". לְפִיכָךְ אֵין עוֹשִׂין סְחוֹרָה לֹא בִּנְבֵלוֹת וְלֹא בִּטְרֵפוֹת וְלֹא בִּשְׁקָצִים וְלֹא בִּרְמָשִׂים: \n", + "הַצַּיָּד שֶׁנִּזְדַּמְּנוּ לוֹ חַיָּה אוֹ עוֹף וְדָג טְמֵאִים וְצָדָן אוֹ שֶׁנִּצּוֹדוּ לוֹ טְמֵאִים וּטְהוֹרִים מֻתָּר לְמָכְרָן. אֲבָל לֹא יְכַוֵּן מְלַאכְתּוֹ לִטְמֵאִים. וּמֻתָּר לַעֲשׂוֹת סְחוֹרָה בְּחָלָב שֶׁחֲלָבוֹ עַכּוּ\"ם וְאֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל רוֹאֵהוּ וּבִגְבִינוֹת הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן: \n", + "זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל שֶׁאִסּוּרוֹ מִן הַתּוֹרָה אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ סְחוֹרָה וְכָל שֶׁאִסּוּרוֹ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם מֻתָּר לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ סְחוֹרָה בֵּין בִּסְפֵקוֹ בֵּין בְּוַדָּאוֹ: \n" + ], + [ + "בָשָׂר בְּחָלָב אָסוּר לְבַשְּׁלוֹ וְאָסוּר לְאָכְלוֹ מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וְאָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. וְקוֹבְרִין אוֹתוֹ. וְאֶפְרוֹ אָסוּר כְּאֵפֶר כָּל הַנִּקְבָּרִין. וּמִי שֶׁיְּבַשֵּׁל מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם כְּזַיִת כְּאֶחָד לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כג יט) (שמות לד כו) (דברים יד כא) \"לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ\". וְכֵן הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם מֵהַבָּשָׂר וְהֶחָלָב שֶׁנִּתְבַּשְּׁלוּ כְּאֶחָד לוֹקֶה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא בִּשֵּׁל: ", + "לֹא שָׁתַק הַכָּתוּב מִלֶּאֱסֹר הָאֲכִילָה אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָסַר הַבִּשּׁוּל כְּלוֹמַר וַאֲפִלּוּ בִּשּׁוּלוֹ אָסוּר וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אֲכִילָתוֹ. כְּמוֹ שֶׁשָּׁתַק מִלֶּאֱסֹר הַבַּת מֵאַחַר שֶׁאָסַר בַּת הַבַּת: ", + "אֵין אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה בַּחֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כג יט) (שמות לד כו) (דברים יד כא) \"לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ\". וּגְדִי הוּא כּוֹלֵל וְלַד הַשּׁוֹר וְלַד הַשֶּׂה וְלַד הָעֵז עַד שֶׁיִּפְרֹט וְיֹאמַר גְּדִי עִזִּים וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב בַּהוֹוֶה. אֲבָל בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה (שֶׁבִּשְּׁלוֹ) בַּחֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה. אוֹ בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה (שֶׁבִּשְּׁלוֹ) בַּחֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה מֻתָּר לְבַשֵּׁל וּמֻתֶּרֶת בַּהֲנָיָה וְאֵין חַיָּבִין עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ מִשּׁוּם בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב: ", + "וְכֵן בְּשַׂר חַיָּה וְעוֹף בֵּין בַּחֲלֵב חַיָּה בֵּין בַּחֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה אֵינוֹ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה לְפִיכָךְ מֻתָּר לְבַשְּׁלוֹ וּמֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה. וְאָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִפְשְׁעוּ הָעָם וְיָבוֹאוּ לִידֵי אִסּוּר בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב שֶׁל תּוֹרָה וְיֹאכְלוּ בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה בַּחֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין מַשְׁמַע הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ מַמָּשׁ. לְפִיכָךְ אָסְרוּ כָּל בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב: ", + "דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים מֻתָּר לְאָכְלָן בְּחָלָב. וְהַשּׁוֹחֵט עוֹף וְנִמְצָא בּוֹ בֵּיצִים גְּמוּרוֹת מֻתָּר לְאָכְלָן בְּחָלָב: ", + "הַמְעֻשָּׁן וְהַמְבֻשָּׁל בְּחַמֵּי טְבֶרְיָא וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן אֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו. וְכֵן הַמְבַשֵּׁל בָּשָׂר בְּמֵי חָלָב אוֹ בַּחֲלֵב מֵתָה אוֹ בַּחֲלֵב זָכָר אוֹ שֶׁבִּשֵּׁל דָּם בְּחָלָב פָּטוּר וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ מִשּׁוּם בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב. אֲבָל הַמְבַשֵּׁל בְּשַׂר מֵתָה אוֹ חֵלֶב וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן בְּחָלָב לוֹקֶה עַל בִּשּׁוּלוֹ וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ מִשּׁוּם בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב. שֶׁאֵין אִסּוּר בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב חָל עַל אִסּוּר נְבֵלָה אוֹ אִסּוּר חֵלֶב. שֶׁאֵין כָּאן לֹא אִסּוּר כּוֹלֵל וְלֹא אִסּוּר מוֹסִיף וְלֹא אִסּוּר בַּת אַחַת: ", + "הַמְבַשֵּׁל שָׁלִיל בְּחָלָב חַיָּב וְכֵן הָאוֹכְלוֹ. אֲבָל הַמְבַשֵּׁל שִׁלְיָא אוֹ עוֹר וְגִידִין וַעֲצָמוֹת וְעִקְּרֵי קַרְנַיִם וּטְלָפַיִם הָרַכִּים בְּחָלָב פָּטוּר. וְכֵן הָאוֹכְלָן פָּטוּר: ", + "בָּשָׂר שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ הֶחָלָב אוֹ חָלָב שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ הַבָּשָׂר וְנִתְבַּשֵּׁל עִמּוֹ שִׁעוּרוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. כֵּיצַד. חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל בָּשָׂר שֶׁנָּפְלָה לִקְדֵרָה רוֹתַחַת שֶׁל חָלָב. טוֹעֵם הַנָּכְרִי אֶת הַקְּדֵרָה. אִם אָמַר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ טַעַם בָּשָׂר אֲסוּרָה. וְאִם לָאו מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאוֹתָהּ חֲתִיכָה אֲסוּרָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁקָּדַם וְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַחֲתִיכָה קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּפְלֹט חָלָב שֶׁבָּלְעָה. אֲבָל אִם לֹא סִלֵּק מְשַׁעֲרִים אוֹתָהּ בְּשִׁשִּׁים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֶחָלָב שֶׁנִּבְלָע בָּהּ וְנֶאֱסַר יָצָא וְנִתְעָרֵב עִם שְׁאָר הֶחָלָב: ", + "נָפַל חָלָב לְתוֹךְ קְדֵרָה שֶׁל בָּשָׂר טוֹעֲמִין אֶת הַחֲתִיכָה שֶׁנָּפַל עָלֶיהָ חָלָב. אִם אֵין בָּהּ טַעַם חָלָב הַכּל מֻתָּר. וְאִם יֵשׁ בַּחֲתִיכָה טַעַם חָלָב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאִם תִּסָּחֵט הַחֲתִיכָה לֹא יִשָּׁאֵר בָּהּ טַעַם. הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ בָּהּ עַתָּה טַעַם חָלָב נֶאֶסְרָה אוֹתָהּ חֲתִיכָה. וּמְשַׁעֲרִין בְּכֻלָּהּ אִם הָיָה בְּכָל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בַּקְּדֵרָה מִן הַחֲתִיכוֹת וְהָיָּרָק וְהַמָּרָק וְהַתַּבְלִין כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּהְיֶה חֲתִיכָה זוֹ אֶחָד מִשִּׁשִּׁים מִן הַכּל הַחֲתִיכָה אֲסוּרָה וְהַשְּׁאָר מֻתָּר: ", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁלֹּא נִעֵר אֶת הַקְּדֵרָה בַּתְּחִלָּה כְּשֶׁנָּפַל הֶחָלָב אֶלָּא לְבַסּוֹף וְלֹא כִּסָּה. אֲבָל אִם נִעֵר מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף אוֹ שֶׁכִּסָּה מִשְּׁעַת נְפִילָה עַד סוֹף הֲרֵי זֶה בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. וְכֵן אִם נָפַל חָלָב לְתוֹךְ הַמָּרָק אוֹ לְכָל הַחֲתִיכוֹת וְלֹא נוֹדַע לְאֵי זֶה חֲתִיכָה נָפַל. נוֹעֵר אֶת הַקְּדֵרָה כֻּלָּהּ עַד שֶׁתָּשׁוּב וְיִתְעָרֵב הַכּל. אִם יֵשׁ בַּקְּדֵרָה כֻּלָּהּ טַעַם חָלָב אֲסוּרָה וְאִם לָאו מֻתֶּרֶת. אִם לֹא נִמְצָא נָכְרִי שֶׁיִּטְעֹם וְנִסְמֹךְ עָלָיו מְשַׁעֲרִים בְּשִׁשִּׁים בֵּין בָּשָׂר לְתוֹךְ חָלָב בֵּין חָלָב לְתוֹךְ בָּשָׂר אֶחָד מִשִּׁשִּׁים מֻתָּר פָּחוֹת מִשִּׁשִּׁים אָסוּר: ", + "קְדֵרָה שֶׁבִּשֵּׁל בָּהּ בָּשָׂר לֹא יְבַשֵּׁל בָּהּ חָלָב. וְאִם בִּשֵּׁל בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם: ", + "הַכְּחַל אָסוּר מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. שֶׁאֵין בָּשָׂר שֶׁנִתְבַּשֵּׁל בַּחֲלֵב שְׁחוּטָה אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם קְרָעוֹ וּמֵרֵק הֶחָלָב שֶׁבּוֹ מֻתָּר לִצְלוֹתוֹ וּלְאָכְלוֹ. וְאִם קְרָעוֹ שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב וְטָחוֹ בַּכֹּתֶל עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁאַר בּוֹ לַחְלוּחִית חָלָב מֻתָּר לְבַשְּׁלוֹ עִם הַבָּשָׂר. וּכְחַל שֶׁלֹּא קְרָעוֹ בֵּין שֶׁל קְטַנָּה שֶׁלֹּא הֵינִיקָה בֵּין שֶׁל גְּדוֹלָה אָסוּר לְבַשְּׁלוֹ. וְאִם עָבַר וּבִשְּׁלוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ מֻתָּר לְאָכְלוֹ. וְאִם בִּשְּׁלוֹ עִם בָּשָׂר אַחֵר מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשִׁשִּׁים וּכְחַל מִן הַמִּנְיָן: ", + "כֵּיצַד. אִם הָיָה הַכּל עִם הַכְּחַל כְּמוֹ שִׁשִּׁים בַּכְּחַל הַכְּחַל אָסוּר וְהַשְּׁאָר מֻתָּר. וְאִם הָיָה בְּפָחוֹת מִשִּׁשִּׁים הַכּל אָסוּר. בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ אִם נָפַל לִקְדֵרָה אַחֶרֶת אוֹסֵר אוֹתָהּ וּמְשַׁעֲרִין בּוֹ בְּשִׁשִּׁים כְּבָרִאשׁוֹנָה. שֶׁהַכְּחַל עַצְמוֹ שֶׁנִתְבַּשֵּׁל נַעֲשָׂה כַּחֲתִיכָה הָאֲסוּרָה וְאֵין מְשַׁעֲרִין בּוֹ אֶלָּא כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא בְּעֵת שֶׁנִתְבַּשֵּׁל לֹא כְּמוֹת שֶׁהָיָה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁנָּפַל: ", + "אֵין צוֹלִין אֶת הַכְּחַל שֶׁחֲתָכוֹ [לְמַעְלָה] מִן הַבָּשָׂר בְּשִׁפּוּד. וְאִם צָלָהוּ הַכּל מֻתָּר: ", + "קֵבָה שֶׁבִּשְּׁלָהּ בֶּחָלָב שֶׁבָּהּ מֻתֶּרֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ חָלָב אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הוּא כְּטִנֹּפֶת שֶׁהֲרֵי יִשְׁתַּנֶּה בַּמֵּעַיִם: ", + "אָסוּר לְהַעֲמִיד הַגְּבִינָה בְּעוֹר הַקֵּבָה שֶׁל שְׁחוּטָה. וְאִם הֶעֱמִיד טוֹעֵם אֶת הַגְּבִינָה אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ טַעַם בָּשָׂר אֲסוּרָה וְאִם לָאו מֻתֶּרֶת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַמַּעֲמִיד דָּבָר הַמֻּתָּר הוּא. שֶׁקֵּיבַת שְׁחוּטָה הִיא. וְאֵין כָּאן אֶלָּא אִסּוּר בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב שֶׁשִּׁעוּרוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. אֲבָל הַמַּעֲמִיד בְּעוֹר קֵיבַת נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה וּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה הוֹאִיל וְהַמַּעֲמִיד דָּבָר הָאָסוּר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ נֶאֶסְרָה הַגְּבִינָה מִשּׁוּם נְבֵלָה לֹא מִשּׁוּם בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב. וּמִפְּנֵי חֲשָׁשׁ זֶה אָסְרוּ גְּבִינַת עַכּוּ\"ם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: ", + "הַבָּשָׂר לְבַדּוֹ מֻתָּר וְהֶחָלָב לְבַדּוֹ מֻתָּר וּבְהִתְעָרֵב שְׁנֵיהֶן עַל יְדֵי בִּשּׁוּל יֵאָסְרוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁנִּתְבַּשְּׁלוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּיַחַד אוֹ שֶׁנָּפַל חַם לְתוֹךְ חַם אוֹ צוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ חַם. אֲבָל אִם נָפַל אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם וְהוּא חַם לְתוֹךְ הַשֵּׁנִי וְהוּא צוֹנֵן קוֹלֵף הַבָּשָׂר כֻּלּוֹ שֶׁנָּגַע בּוֹ הֶחָלָב וְאוֹכֵל הַשְּׁאָר. וְאִם נָפַל צוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן מֵדִיחַ הַחֲתִיכָה וְאוֹכְלָהּ. לְפִיכָךְ מֻתָּר לִצְרֹר בָּשָׂר וּגְבִינָה בְּמִטְפַּחַת אַחַת וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִגְּעוּ זֶה בָּזֶה. וְאִם נָגְעוּ מֵדִיחַ הַבָּשָׂר וּמֵדִיחַ הַגְּבִינָה וְאוֹכֵל: ", + "מָלִיחַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל מֵחֲמַת מִלְחוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרוֹתֵחַ. וְאִם נֶאֱכָל כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא כְּמוֹ הַכּוּתָח אֵינוֹ כְּרוֹתֵחַ: ", + "עוֹף שָׁחוּט שֶׁנָּפַל לְחָלָב אוֹ לְכוּתָח שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ חָלָב. אִם חַי הוּא מְדִיחוֹ וּמֻתָּר. וְאִם צָלִי קוֹלְפוֹ. וְאִם הָיוּ בּוֹ פְּלָחִים פְּלָחִים אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מְתֻבָּל בְּתַבְלִין וְנָפַל לְחָלָב אוֹ לְכוּתָח הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר: ", + "אָסוּר לְהַעֲלוֹת הָעוֹף עִם הַגְּבִינָה עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן שֶׁהוּא אוֹכֵל עָלָיו גְּזֵרָה מִשּׁוּם הֶרְגֵּל עֲבֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאכַל זֶה עִם זֶה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָעוֹף בְּחָלָב אָסוּר מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים: ", + "שְׁנֵי אַכְסַנָּאִין שֶׁאֵינָם מַכִּירִין זֶה אֶת זֶה אוֹכְלִין עַל שֻׁלְחָן אֶחָד זֶה בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה וְזֶה גְּבִינָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין זֶה גַּס לִבּוֹ בָּזֶה כְּדֵי שֶׁיֹּאכַל עִמּוֹ: ", + "אֵין לָשִׁין הָעִסָּה בְּחָלָב וְאִם לָשׁ כָּל הַפַּת אֲסוּרָה מִפְּנֵי הֶרְגֵּל עֲבֵרָה. שֶׁמָּא יֹאכַל בָּהּ בָּשָׂר. וְאֵין טָשִׁין אֶת הַתַּנּוּר בְּאַלְיָה. וְאִם טָשׁ כָּל הַפַּת אֲסוּרָה עַד שֶׁיַּסִּיק אֶת הַתַּנּוּר שֶׁמָּא יֹאכַל בָּהּ חָלָב. וְאִם שִׁנָּה בְּצוּרַת הַפַּת עַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה נִכֶּרֶת כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכַל בָּהּ לֹא בָּשָׂר וְלֹא חָלָב הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר: ", + "פַּת שֶׁאֲפָאָהּ עִם הַצָּלִי וְדָגִים שֶׁצְּלָאָן עִם הַבָּשָׂר אָסוּר לְאָכְלָן בְּחָלָב. קְעָרָה שֶׁאָכְלוּ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר וּבִשְּׁלוּ בָּהּ דָּגִים אוֹתָן הַדָּגִים מֻתָּר לְאָכְלָן בְּכוּתָח: ", + "סַכִּין שֶׁחָתַךְ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר צָלִי וְחָזַר וְחָתַךְ בָּהּ צְנוֹן וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ מִדְּבָרִים חֲרִיפִין אָסוּר לְאָכְלָן בְּכוּתָח. אֲבָל אִם חָתַךְ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר וְחָזַר וְחָתַךְ בָּהּ קִישׁוּת אוֹ אֲבַטִּיחַ גּוֹרֵד מְקוֹם הַחֲתָךְ וְאוֹכֵל הַשְּׁאָר בְּחָלָב: ", + "אֵין מַנִּיחִין כַּד שֶׁל מֶלַח בְּצַד כַּד שֶׁל כְּמָךְ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשּׁוֹאֵב מִמֶּנּוּ וְנִמְצָא מְבַשֵּׁל הַבָּשָׂר בְּמֶלַח זֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ טַעַם הֶחָלָב. אֲבָל מַנִּיחַ כַּד הַחֹמֶץ בְּצַד כַּד הַכְּמָךְ שֶׁאֵין הַחֹמֶץ שׁוֹאֵב מִמֶּנּוּ: ", + "מִי שֶׁאָכַל גְּבִינָה אוֹ חָלָב תְּחִלָּה מֻתָּר לֶאֱכל אַחֲרָיו בָּשָׂר מִיָּד. וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיָּדִיחַ יָדָיו וִיקַנֵּחַ פִּיו בֵּין הַגְּבִינָה וּבֵין הַבָּשָׂר. וּבְמַה מְקַנֵּחַ פִּיו בְּפַת אוֹ בְּפֵרוֹת שֶׁלּוֹעֲסָן וּבוֹלְעָן אוֹ פּוֹלְטָן. וּבַכּל מְקַנְּחִין אֶת הַפֶּה חוּץ מִתְּמָרִים אוֹ קֶמַח אוֹ יְרָקוֹת שֶׁאֵין אֵלּוּ מְקַנְּחִין יָפֶה: ", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּבְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה אוֹ חַיָּה. אֲבָל אִם אָכַל בְּשַׂר עוֹף אַחַר שֶׁאָכַל הַגְּבִינָה אוֹ הֶחָלָב אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לֹא קִנּוּחַ הַפֶּה וְלֹא נְטִילַת יָדַיִם: ", + "מִי שֶׁאָכַל בָּשָׂר בַּתְּחִלָּה בֵּין בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה בֵּין בְּשַׂר עוֹף לֹא יֹאכַל אַחֲרָיו חָלָב עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בֵּינֵיהֶן כְּדֵי שִׁעוּר סְעֻדָּה אַחֶרֶת וְהוּא כְּמוֹ שֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת מִפְּנֵי הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁל בֵּין הַשִּׁנַּיִם שֶׁאֵינוֹ סָר בְּקִנּוּחַ: " + ], + [ + "כָּל אִסּוּרִין שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ הֵן בְּמִינֵי נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה. וְיֵשׁ אִסּוּרִין אֲחֵרִים שֶׁל תּוֹרָה בְּזֶרַע הָאָרֶץ וְהֵן הֶחָדָשׁ וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם וְהַטֶּבֶל וְהָעָרְלָה: \n", + "הֶחָדָשׁ כֵּיצַד. כָּל אֶחָד מֵחֲמִשָּׁה מִינֵי תְּבוּאָה בִּלְבַד אָסוּר לֶאֱכל מֵהֶחָדָשׁ שֶׁלּוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּקָּרֵב הָעֹמֶר בְּט\"ז בְּנִיסָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כג יד) \"וְלֶחֶם וְקָלִי וְכַרְמֶל לֹא תֹאכְלוּ\". וְכָל הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת חָדָשׁ קֹדֶם הַקְרָבַת הָעֹמֶר לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם וּבְכָל זְמַן בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ בֵּין בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת. אֶלָּא שֶׁבִּזְמַן שֶׁיֵּשׁ מִקְדָּשׁ מִשֶּׁיִּקָּרֵב הָעֹמֶר הֻתַּר הֶחָדָשׁ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם. וְהַמְּקוֹמוֹת הָרְחוֹקִין מֻתָּרִין אַחַר חֲצוֹת שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין מִתְעַצְּלִין בּוֹ עַד אַחַר חֲצוֹת. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁאֵין בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ כָּל הַיּוֹם כֻּלּוֹ אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וּבַזְּמַן הַזֶּה בִּמְקוֹמוֹת שֶׁעוֹשִׂין שְׁנֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים הֶחָדָשׁ אָסוּר כָּל יוֹם י\"ז בְּנִיסָן עַד לָעֶרֶב מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל לֶחֶם וְקָלִי וְכַרְמֶל כְּזַיִת מִכָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד לוֹקֶה שָׁלֹשׁ מַלְקִיּוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כג יד) \"וְלֶחֶם וְקָלִי וְכַרְמֶל לֹא תֹאכְלוּ\". מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁשְּׁלָשְׁתָּן בַּלָּאוִין חֲלוּקִין זֶה מִזֶּה: \n", + "כָּל תְּבוּאָה שֶׁהִשְׁרִישָׁה קֹדֶם הַקְרָבַת הָעֹמֶר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה אֶלָּא אַחַר שֶׁקָּרַב מֻתֶּרֶת בַּאֲכִילָה מִשֶּׁקָּרַב הָעֹמֶר. וּתְבוּאָה שֶׁהִשְׁרִישָׁה אַחַר שֶׁקָּרַב הָעֹמֶר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיְתָה זְרוּעָה קֹדֶם שֶׁקָּרַב הָעֹמֶר הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה עַד שֶׁיִּקָּרֵב הָעֹמֶר שֶׁל שָׁנָה הַבָּאָה. וְדִין זֶה בְּכָל מָקוֹם וּבְכָל זְמַן מִן הַתּוֹרָה: \n", + "תְּבוּאָה שֶׁהִשְׁרִישָׁה אַחַר הָעֹמֶר וּקְצָרָה וְזָרַע מִן הַחִטִּים בַּקַּרְקַע. וְאַחַר כָּךְ קָרַב הָעֹמֶר הַבָּא וַעֲדַיִן הַחִטִּים בַּקַּרְקַע. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ סָפֵק אִם הִתִּירָן הָעֹמֶר כְּאִלּוּ הָיוּ מֻנָּחִין בְּכַד. אוֹ לֹא יַתִּיר אוֹתָן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבָּטְלוּ בַּקַּרְקַע. לְפִיכָךְ אִם לִקֵּט מֵהֶם וְאָכַל אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. וּמַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. וְכֵן שִׁבּלֶת שֶׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ מִלִּפְנֵי הָעֹמֶר וַעֲקָרָהּ וּשְׁתָלָהּ אַחַר שֶׁקָּרַב הָעֹמֶר וְהוֹסִיפָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק אִם תִּהְיֶה אֲסוּרָה מִפְּנֵי הַתּוֹסֶפֶת עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא הָעֹמֶר הַבָּא אוֹ לֹא תִּהְיֶה אֲסוּרָה שֶׁהֲרֵי הִשְׁרִישָׁה קֹדֶם הָעֹמֶר: \n", + "כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם כֵּיצַד. מִין מִמִּינֵי תְּבוּאָה אוֹ מִינֵי יְרָקוֹת שֶׁנִּזְרְעוּ עִם הַגֶּפֶן. בֵּין שֶׁזָּרַע יִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּין שֶׁזָּרַע נָכְרִי. בֵּין שֶׁעָלוּ מֵאֲלֵיהֶן. בֵּין שֶׁנָּטַע הַגֶּפֶן בְּתוֹךְ הָיָּרָק. שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲסוּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה וּבַהֲנָיָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב ט) \"פֶּן תִּקְדַּשׁ הַמְּלֵאָה הַזֶּרַע אֲשֶׁר תִּזְרָע וּתְבוּאַת הַכָּרֶם\". כְּלוֹמַר פֶּן תִּתְרַחֵק וְתֶאֱסֹר שְׁנֵיהֶם: \n", + "וְהָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִכִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם בֵּין מִן הַיָּרָק בֵּין מִן הָעֲנָבִים לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁנִּזְרְעוּ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. אֲבָל בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. וּבְהִלְכוֹת כִּלְאַיִם יִתְבָּאֵר אֵי זֶה מִין אָסוּר בְּכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם וְאֵי זֶה מִין אֵינוֹ אָסוּר וְהֵיאַךְ יֶאֱסֹר וּמָתַי יֵאָסֵר וְאֵי זֶה דָּבָר מְקַדֵּשׁ וְאֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ מְקַדֵּשׁ: \n", + "הָעָרְלָה כֵּיצַד. כָּל הַנּוֹטֵעַ אִילַן מַאֲכָל כָּל פֵּרוֹת שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ אִילָן שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים מִשֶּׁנָּטַע הֲרֵי הֵן אֲסוּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה וּבַהֲנָאָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט כג) \"שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים יִהְיֶה לָכֶם עֲרֵלִים לֹא יֵאָכֵל\". וְכָל הָאוֹכֵל מֵהֶם כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּנוֹטֵעַ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט כג) \"כִּי תָבֹאוּ אֶל הָאָרֶץ\" וְגוֹ'. אֲבָל אִסּוּר עָרְלָה בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי שֶׁוַּדַּאי הָעָרְלָה בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ אֲסוּרָה וּסְפֵקָהּ מֻתָּר. וּבְהִלְכוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי יִתְבָּאֵר דְּבָרִים הָאֲסוּרִין מִשּׁוּם עָרְלָה וּדְבָרִים הַמֻּתָּרִין: \n", + "סְפֵק עָרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אָסוּר. בְּסוּרְיָא וְהִיא אֲרָצוֹת שֶׁכָּבַשׁ דָּוִד מֻתָּר. כֵּיצַד. הָיָה כֶּרֶם וְעָרְלָה וַעֲנָבִים נִמְכָּרוֹת חוּצָה לוֹ. הָיָה יָרָק זָרוּעַ בְּתוֹכוֹ וְיָרָק נִמְכָּר חוּצָה לוֹ. שֶׁמָּא מִמֶּנּוּ הוּא זֶה שֶׁמָּא מֵאַחֵר. בְּסוּרְיָא מֻתָּר. וּבְחוּץ לָאָרֶץ אֲפִלּוּ רָאָה הָעֲנָבִים יוֹצְאוֹת מִכֶּרֶם עָרְלָה אוֹ יָרָק יוֹצֵא מִן הַכֶּרֶם לוֹקֵחַ מֵהֶן. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִרְאֶה אוֹתוֹ בּוֹצֵר מִן הָעָרְלָה אוֹ לוֹקֵט הַיָּרָק בְּיָדוֹ: \n", + "כֶּרֶם שֶׁהוּא סְפֵק עָרְלָה אוֹ סְפֵק כִּלְאַיִם בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אָסוּר וּבְסוּרְיָא מֻתָּר. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ: \n", + "חָבִית יַיִן הַנִּמְצֵאת טְמוּנָה בְּפַרְדֵּס שֶׁל עָרְלָה אֲסוּרָה בִּשְׁתִיָּה וּמֻתֶּרֶת בַּהֲנָיָה שֶׁאֵין הַגַּנָּב גּוֹנֵב מִמָּקוֹם וְטוֹמֵן בּוֹ. אֲבָל עֲנָבִים הַנִּמְצָאִין טְמוּנִים שָׁם אֲסוּרִים שֶׁמָּא מִשָּׁם נִלְקְטוּ וְהִצְנִיעָן שָׁם: \n", + "נָכְרִי וְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיוּ שֻׁתָּפִין בִּנְטִיעָה אִם הִתְנוּ מִתְּחִלַּת הַשֻּׁתָּפוּת שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַנָּכְרִי אוֹכֵל שְׁנֵי עָרְלָה וְיִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹכֵל שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים מִשְּׁנֵי הֶתֵּר כְּנֶגֶד שְׁנֵי הָעָרְלָה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְאִם לֹא הִתְנוּ מִתְּחִלָּה אָסוּר וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יָבֹאוּ לְחֶשְׁבּוֹן. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁיַּחְשֹׁב כַּמָּה פֵּרוֹת אָכַל הַנָּכְרִי בִּשְׁנֵי עָרְלָה עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּנֶגֶד אוֹתָן הַפֵּרוֹת. אִם הִתְנוּ כָּזֶה אָסוּר שֶׁהֲרֵי זֶה כְּמַחֲלִיף פֵּרוֹת עָרְלָה: \n", + "יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאֵין דִּין נֶטַע רְבָעִי נוֹהֵג בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ אֶלָּא אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת שָׁנָה רְבִיעִית בְּלֹא פִּדְיוֹן כְּלָל שֶׁלֹּא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא הָעָרְלָה. וְקַל וָחֹמֶר הַדְּבָרִים וּמַה סּוּרְיָא שֶׁהִיא חַיֶּבֶת בְּמַעַשְׂרוֹת וּבִשְׁבִיעִית מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם אֵינָהּ חַיֶּבֶת בְּנֶטַע רְבָעִי כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה נֶטַע רְבָעִי נוֹהֵג בָּהּ. אֲבָל בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹהֵג בָּהּ בֵּין בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת. וְהוֹרוּ מִקְצָת גְּאוֹנִים שֶׁכֶּרֶם רְבָעִי לְבַדּוֹ פּוֹדִין אוֹתוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִהְיֶה מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה. וְאֵין לְדָבָר זֶה עִקָּר: \n", + "פֵּרוֹת שָׁנָה רְבִיעִית כֻּלָּהּ אָסוּר לֶאֱכל מֵהֶן בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד שֶׁיִּפָּדוּ. וּבְהִלְכוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי יִתְבָּאֵר מִשְׁפְּטֵי פִּדְיוֹנָן וְדִין אֲכִילָתָן וּמֵאֵימָתַי מוֹנִין לְעָרְלָה וְלִרְבָעִי: \n", + "כֵּיצַד פּוֹדִין פֵּרוֹת נֶטַע רְבָעִי בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה. אַחַר שֶׁאוֹסֵף אוֹתָן מְבָרֵךְ. בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה' אֱלֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ עַל פִּדְיוֹן נֶטַע רְבָעִי. וְאַחַר כָּךְ פּוֹדֶה אֶת כֻּלָּן וַאֲפִלּוּ בִּפְרוּטָה אַחַת וְאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּדוּיִין בִּפְרוּטָה זוֹ וּמַשְׁלִיךְ אוֹתָהּ פְּרוּטָה לְיָם הַמֶּלַח אוֹ מְחַלְּלָן עַל שְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה מִפֵּרוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת. וְאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת הָאֵלּוּ מְחֻלָּלִין עַל חִטִּים אֵלּוּ אוֹ עַל שְׂעוֹרִים אֵלּוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. וְשׂוֹרֵף אוֹתָן כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ תַּקָּלָה לַאֲחֵרִים. וְאוֹכֵל כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת: \n", + "הוֹרוּ מִקְצָת הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁפָּדָה פֵּרוֹת שָׁנָה רְבִיעִית אוֹ חִלְּלָן אָסוּר לְאָכְלָן עַד שֶׁתִּכָּנֵס שָׁנָה חֲמִישִׁית. וְדָבָר זֶה אֵין לוֹ עִקָּר. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁזּוֹ שִׁגְגַת הוֹרָאָה וְהַטַּעַם לְפִי שֶׁכָּתוּב (ויקרא יט כה) \"וּבַשָּׁנָה הַחֲמִישִׁת תֹּאכְלוּ אֶת פִּרְיוֹ\" וְאֵין עִנְיָן הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא שֶׁבַּשָּׁנָה הַחֲמִישִׁית תֹּאכְלוּ פִּרְיוֹ בְּלֹא פִּדְיוֹן כְּכָל חֻלִּין שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם. וְאֵין רָאוּי לָחוּשׁ לְהוֹרָאָה זוֹ: \n", + "הַטֶּבֶל כֵּיצַד. כָּל אֹכֶל שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לְהַפְרִישׁ מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּפְרִישׁ מִמֶּנּוּ נִקְרָא טֶבֶל וְאָסוּר לֶאֱכל מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב טו) \"וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת קָדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵת אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ לַה'\". כְּלוֹמַר לֹא יִנְהֲגוּ בָּהֶן מִנְהַג חֻלִּין וַעֲדַיִן קָדָשִׁים שֶׁעֲתִידִין לְהִתָּרֵם לֹא הוּרְמוּ. וְהָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִן הַטֶּבֶל קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּפְרִישׁ מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר חַיָּב מִיתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת קָדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ' וְהִשִּׂיאוּ אוֹתָם עֲוֹן אַשְׁמָה: \n", + "אֲבָל הָאוֹכֵל מִדָּבָר שֶׁנִּטְּלָה מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וַעֲדַיִן לֹא הִפְרִישׁ מִמֶּנּוּ מַעַשְׂרוֹת וַאֲפִלּוּ לֹא נִשְׁאַר בּוֹ אֶלָּא מַעֲשַׂר עָנִי הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל טֶבֶל. וְאֵין בּוֹ מִיתָה שֶׁאֵין עֲוֹן מִיתָה אֶלָּא בִּתְרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר: \n", + "אַזְהָרָה לָאוֹכֵל טֶבֶל שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמוּ מִמֶּנּוּ מַעַשְׂרוֹת בִּכְלָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יב יז) \"לֹא תוּכַל לֶאֱכל בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ מַעֲשַׂר דְּגָנְךָ\" וְגוֹ'. וּבְהִלְכוֹת תְּרוּמוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת יִתְבָּאֵר אֵיזֶה דָּבָר חַיָּב בִּתְרוּמָה וּבְמַעַשְׂרוֹת וְאֵי זֶה דָּבָר פָּטוּר. וְאֵי זֶה דָּבָר הוּא חַיָּב מִן הַתּוֹרָה וְאֵי זֶהוּ הַחַיָּב מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. וְהָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִטֶּבֶל שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם אוֹ מִכִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם וְעָרְלָה שֶׁל חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: \n", + "הַטֶּבֶל וְהֶחָדָשׁ וְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁ וּסְפִיחֵי שְׁבִיעִית וְהַכִּלְאַיִם וְהָעָרְלָה מַשְׁקִין הַיּוֹצְאִין מִפֵּרוֹתֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִים כְּמוֹתָן וְאֵין לוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶן. חוּץ מִיַּיִן וְשֶׁמֶן שֶׁל עָרְלָה וְיַיִן שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם שֶׁלּוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶן כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁלּוֹקִין עַל הַזֵּיתִים וְעַל הָעֲנָבִים שֶׁלָּהֶן: \n", + "וְיֵשׁ בְּקָדָשִׁים אִסּוּרִין אֲחֵרִים בְּמַאֲכָלוֹת וְכֻלָּן שֶׁל תּוֹרָה הֵן. כְּגוֹן אִסּוּרִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בַּאֲכִילַת תְּרוּמוֹת וּבִכּוּרִים וְחַלָּה וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. וְאִסּוּרִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּקָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ כְּגוֹן פִּגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. וְכָל אֶחָד מֵהֶן יִתְבָּאֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ: \n", + "וְשִׁעוּר כָּל אֲכִילָה מֵהֶן כְּזַיִת בֵּין לְמַלְקוֹת בֵּין לְכָרֵת. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ אִסּוּר חָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח וְדִינָיו בְּהִלְכוֹת חָמֵץ וּמַצָּה. אֲבָל אִסּוּר אֲכִילָה בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אִסּוּר מִין בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. וְכֵן אִסּוּר יוֹצֵא מִגֶּפֶן עַל הַנָּזִיר אֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה בַּכּל. וּלְפִיכָךְ יִתְבָּאֵר אִסּוּר כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְשִׁעוּרוֹ וְדִינָיו בִּמְקוֹמוֹ הָרָאוּי לוֹ: \n" + ], + [ + "יַיִן שֶׁנִּתְנַסֵּךְ לְעַכּוּ\"ם אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה. וְהַשּׁוֹתֶה מִמֶּנּוּ כָּל שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וְכֵן הָאוֹכֵל כָּל שֶׁהוּא מִתִּקְרֹבֶת עַכּוּ\"ם מִבָּשָׂר אוֹ מִפֵּרוֹת אֲפִלּוּ מַיִם וּמֶלַח הָאוֹכֵל מֵהֶן כָּל שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים לב לח) \"אֲשֶׁר חֵלֶב זְבָחֵימוֹ יֹאכֵלוּ יִשְׁתּוּ יֵין נְסִיכָם יָקוּמוּ\" וְגוֹ': \n", + "יַיִן שֶׁנִּתְנַסֵּךְ לָהּ כְּזֶבַח שֶׁקָּרֵב לָהּ וְכֵיוָן שֶׁאִסּוּר זֶה מִשּׁוּם עַכּוּ\"ם הוּא אֵין לוֹ שִׁעוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וּמַזָּלוֹת (דברים יג יח) \"וְלֹא יִדְבַּק בְּיָדְךָ מְאוּמָה מִן הַחֵרֶם\": \n", + "יֵין הָעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין אִם נִתְנַסֵּךְ אוֹ לֹא נִתְנַסֵּךְ וְהוּא הַנִּקְרָא סְתַם יֵינָם אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה כְּמוֹ יַיִן שֶׁנִּתְנַסֵּךְ. וְדָבָר זֶה מִגְּזֵרוֹת סוֹפְרִים הוּא. וְהַשּׁוֹתֶה מִסְּתַם יֵינָם רְבִיעִית מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: \n", + "וְכָל יַיִן שֶׁיִּגַּע בּוֹ הָעַכּוּ\"ם הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר שֶׁמָּא נִסֵּךְ אוֹתוֹ שֶׁמַּחְשֶׁבֶת הָעַכּוּ\"ם לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁיֵּין יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּגַע בּוֹ הָעַכּוּ\"ם דִּינוֹ כִּסְתַם יֵינָם שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנָּגַע בְּיַיִן שֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוָּנָה וְכֵן תִּינוֹק עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנָּגַע בְּיַיִן אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה וּמֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה. הַלּוֹקֵחַ עֲבָדִים מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם וּמָלוּ וְטָבְלוּ מִיָּד אֵין מְנַסְּכִין וְיַיִן שֶׁנָּגְעוּ בּוֹ מֻתָּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נָהֲגוּ בְּדָתֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא פָּסְקָה עַכּוּ\"ם מִפִּיהֶם: \n", + "בְּנֵי הַשְּׁפָחוֹת הָעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ בִּרְשׁוּת יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמָלוּ וַעֲדַיִן לֹא טָבְלוּ הַגְּדוֹלִים אוֹסְרִין הַיַּיִן כְּשֶׁיִּגְּעוּ בּוֹ וְהַקְּטַנִּים אֵינָן אוֹסְרִין: \n", + "גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב וְהוּא שֶׁקִּבֵּל עָלָיו שֶׁבַע מִצְוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ יֵינוֹ אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה וּמֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה. וּמְיַחֲדִין אֶצְלוֹ יַיִן וְאֵין מַפְקִידִין אֶצְלוֹ יַיִן. וְכֵן כָּל עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד עַכּוּ\"ם כְּגוֹן אֵלּוּ הַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים יֵינָן אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה וּמֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה. וְכֵן הוֹרוּ כָּל הַגְּאוֹנִים. אֲבָל אוֹתָם הָעוֹבְדִים עַכּוּ\"ם סְתַם יֵינָם אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה: \n", + "כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּעִנְיָן זֶה שֶׁהַיַּיִן אָסוּר אִם הָיָה עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנֶּאֱסַר הַיַּיִן בִּגְלָלוֹ עוֹבֵד עַכּוּ\"ם הֲרֵי הוּא אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה. וְאִם אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד עַכּוּ\"ם הֲרֵי הוּא אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה בִּלְבַד. וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר עַכּוּ\"ם סְתָם הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹבֵד עַכּוּ\"ם: \n", + "אֵין מִתְנַסֵּךְ לְעַכּוּ\"ם אֶלָּא יַיִן שֶׁרָאוּי לְהַקְרִיב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה כְּשֶׁגָּזְרוּ עַל סְתַם יֵינָם וְגָזְרוּ עַל כָּל יַיִן שֶׁיִּגַּע בּוֹ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה לֹא גָּזְרוּ אֶלָּא עַל הַיַּיִן הָרָאוּי לְהִתְנַסֵּךְ. לְפִיכָךְ יַיִן מְבֻשָּׁל שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּגַע בּוֹ הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֵינוֹ אָסוּר וּמֻתָּר לִשְׁתּוֹת עִם הָעַכּוּ\"ם בְּכוֹס אֶחָד. אֲבָל יַיִן מָזוּג וְיַיִן שֶׁהִתְחִיל לְהַחֲמִיץ וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּשְׁתֶּה אִם נָגַע בּוֹ נֶאֱסַר: \n", + "הוֹרוּ גְּאוֹנֵי הַמַּעֲרָב שֶׁאִם נִתְעָרֵב בְּיֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל מְעַט דְּבַשׁ אוֹ מְעַט שְׂאוֹר הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לַמִּזְבֵּחַ הֲרֵי הוּא כִּמְבֻשָּׁל אוֹ כְּשֵׁכָר וְאֵינוֹ מִתְנַסֵּךְ וּמֻתָּר לִשְׁתּוֹתוֹ עִם הָעַכּוּ\"ם: \n", + "מֵאֵימָתַי יֵאָסֵר יֵין הָעַכּוּ\"ם מִשֶּׁיִּדְרֹךְ וְיִמָּשֵׁךְ הַיַּיִן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא יָרַד לַבּוֹר אֶלָּא עֲדַיִן הוּא בַּגַּת הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין דּוֹרְכִין עִם הָעַכּוּ\"ם בַּגַּת שֶׁמָּא יִגַּע בְּיָדוֹ וִינַסֵּךְ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה כָּפוּת. וְאֵין לוֹקְחִין מִמֶּנּוּ גַּת דְּרוּכָה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן הַיַּיִן מְעֹרָב עִם הַחַרְצַנִּים וְזַגִּין וְלֹא יָרַד לַבּוֹר: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁדָּרַךְ הַיַּיִן וְלֹא נָגַע בּוֹ וַהֲרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבָּיו וְיִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא שֶׁכְּנָסוֹ בֶּחָבִית הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה: \n", + "הַחֹמֶץ שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה יֵין נֶסֶךְ קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּחְמִיץ. עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁהָיָה דּוֹרֵס עֲנָבִים בְּחָבִית אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַיַּיִן צָף עַל גַּבֵּי יָדָיו אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין מִשּׁוּם יֵין נֶסֶךְ. הָיָה אוֹכֵל מִן הַסַּלִּים וְהוֹתִיר כִּסְאָה וּכְסָאתַיִם וּזְרָקָן בַּגַּת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַיַּיִן מִגִּתּוֹ עַל הָעֲנָבִים אֵין עוֹשֶׂה יֵין נֶסֶךְ: \n", + "הַחַרְצַנִּים וְהַזַּגִּין שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם אֲסוּרִים כָּל י\"ב חֹדֶשׁ. וּלְאַחַר י\"ב חֹדֶשׁ כְּבָר יָבְשׁוּ וְלֹא נִשְׁאֲרָה בָּהֶן לַחְלוּחִית וּמֻתָּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה. וְכֵן שְׁמָרִים שֶׁל יַיִן שֶׁיָּבְשׁוּ לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ מֻתָּרִין שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נִשְׁאַר בָּהֶן רֵיחַ יַיִן וַהֲרֵי הֵן כֶּעָפָר וְכַאֲדָמָה: \n", + "נֹאדוֹת הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְקַנְקְנֵיהֶן שֶׁהִכְנִיסוּ בָּהֶן הָעַכּוּ\"ם יֵינָם אָסוּר לִתֵּן לְתוֹכָן יַיִן עַד שֶׁיְּיַשְּׁנָן שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ אוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּחֲזִירָן לָאוּר עַד שֶׁיִּתְרַפֶּה הַזֶּפֶת שֶׁעֲלֵיהֶן אוֹ שֶׁיֵּחַמּוּ אוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן לְתוֹכָן מַיִם שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים מֵעֵת לְעֵת וּמְעָרֶה הַמַּיִם וּמַחֲלִיף מַיִם אֲחֵרִים כָּל מֵעֵת לְעֵת שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים בִּשְׁלֹשֶׁת הַיָּמִים. בֵּין שֶׁהָיוּ הַכֵּלִים שֶׁלָּהֶן בֵּין שֶׁהָיוּ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְשָׁאֲלוּ אוֹתָן וְהִכְנִיסוּ בָּהֶן יֵינָם. וְאִם נָתַן לְתוֹכָם יַיִן קֹדֶם שֶׁיְּטַהֵר אוֹתָן הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה: \n", + "וּמֻתָּר לִתֵּן לְתוֹכָן שֵׁכָר אוֹ צִיר אוֹ מוּרְיָס מִיָּד וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לִכְלוּם. וּמֻתָּר לִתֵּן הַיַּיִן לְתוֹכָן אַחַר שֶׁנּוֹתֵן הַצִּיר אוֹ הַמּוּרְיָס שֶׁהַמֶּלַח שׂוֹרְפָן: \n", + "הַלּוֹקֵחַ כֵּלִים חֲדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינָם מְזֻפָּתִים מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם נוֹתֵן לְתוֹכָן יַיִן מִיָּד וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא נָתְנוּ בָּהֶן יֵין נֶסֶךְ. וְאִם הָיוּ מְזֻפָּתִין מְדִיחָן וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן חֲדָשִׁים. וְכֵן כְּלִי שֶׁנָּתְנוּ בּוֹ יֵין נֶסֶךְ וְאֵין מַכְנִיסוֹ לְקִיּוּם כְּגוֹן כְּלִי שֶׁחוֹשֵׂף בּוֹ אוֹ הַמַּשְׁפֵּךְ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ מְשַׁכְשְׁכוֹ בְּמַיִם וְדַיּוֹ: \n", + "וְכֵן כּוֹס שֶׁל חֶרֶס שֶׁשָּׁתָה בּוֹ הָעַכּוּ\"ם אָסוּר לִשְׁתּוֹת בּוֹ. הֱדִיחוֹ פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה וּשְׁלִישִׁית מֻתָּר שֶׁכְּבָר הָלְכוּ צִחְצוּחֵי הַיַּיִן שֶׁבּוֹ. וְהוּא שֶׁהָיָה מְצֻפֶּה בַּאֲבָר כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַיּוֹצְרִין עוֹשִׂין אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מְזֻפָּת. אֲבָל שֶׁל חֶרֶס צָרִיךְ הֲדָחָה: \n", + "כְּלֵי חֶרֶס הַשּׁוֹעִים בַּאֲבָר שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בָּהֶן בְּיֵין נֶסֶךְ אִם הָיוּ לְבָנִים אוֹ אֲדֻמִּים אוֹ שְׁחוֹרִים מֻתָּרִין. וְאִם הָיוּ יְרֻקִּין אֲסוּרִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן בּוֹלְעִים. וְאִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶם מָקוֹם מְגֻלֶּה שֶׁל חֶרֶס בֵּין לְבָנִים בֵּין יְרֻקִּים אֲסוּרִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵם בּוֹלְעִין. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאֵין הַדָּבָר אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁכָּנְסוּ בָּהֶם לְקִיּוּם. אֲבָל לֹא כָּנְסוּ בָּהֶם לְקִיּוּם מְדִיחָן וּמֻתָּרִין וַאֲפִלּוּ הֵם שֶׁל חֶרֶס: \n", + "גַּת שֶׁל אֶבֶן וְשֶׁל עֵץ שֶׁדָּרַךְ בָּהֶן הָעַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ גַּת שֶׁל אֶבֶן שֶׁזִּפְּתָהּ הָעַכּוּ\"ם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא דָּרַךְ בָּהּ מְדִיחָן בְּמַיִם וּבְאֵפֶר אַרְבַּע פְּעָמִים וְדוֹרֵךְ בָּהֶן. וְאִם הָיְתָה בָּהֶם לַחְלוּחִית מַקְדִּים הָאֵפֶר לַמַּיִם. וְאִם לָאו מַקְדִּים הַמַּיִם: \n", + "גַּת שֶׁל אֶבֶן מְזֻפֶּפֶת שֶׁדָּרַךְ בָּהּ הָעַכּוּ\"ם. אוֹ גַּת שֶׁל עֵץ זְפוּתָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא דָּרַךְ בָּהּ צָרִיךְ לִקְלֹף אֶת הַזֶּפֶת. וְאִם יִשְּׁנָהּ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ אוֹ נָתַן בָּהּ מַיִם שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים מֵעֵת לְעֵת אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִקְלֹף. לֹא תִּהְיֶה הַגַּת חֲמוּרָה יֶתֶר מִן הַקַּנְקַנִּים. לֹא נֶאֱמַר יִקְלֹף אֶלָּא לְהַתִּירָהּ מִיָּד: \n", + "גַּת שֶׁל חֶרֶס אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּלַף אֶת הַזֶּפֶת אָסוּר לִדְרֹךְ בָּהּ מִיָּד עַד שֶׁיָּחֵם אוֹתָהּ בְּאֵשׁ עַד שֶׁיִּרְפֶּה הַזֶּפֶת. וְאִם יִשְּׁנָהּ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ אוֹ נָתַן בָּהּ מַיִם שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים מֻתֶּרֶת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "מְשַׁמֶּרֶת שֶׁל יַיִן שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם אִם הָיְתָה שֶׁל שֵׂעָר מְדִיחָהּ וּמְשַׁמֵּר בָּהּ. וְאִם הָיְתָה שֶׁל צֶמֶר מְדִיחָהּ בְּמַיִם וּבְאֵפֶר אַרְבַּע פְּעָמִים וּמְדִיחָהּ עַד שֶׁתִּנָּגֵב וּמְשַׁמֵּר בָּהּ. וְאִם הָיְתָה שֶׁל שֵׁשׁ מְיַשְּׁנָהּ י\"ב חֹדֶשׁ. וְאִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶן קְשָׁרִים מַתִּירָן. וְכֵן כְּלֵי חֵלֶף וְהוּצִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן מִכְּפִיפוֹת שֶׁדּוֹרְכִין בָּהֶן יַיִן אִם הָיוּ תְּפוּרִין בַּחֲבָלִים מְדִיחָן. וְאִם הָיוּ אֲחוּזוֹת זוֹ בְּסִבּוּךְ קָשֶׁה מְדִיחָן בְּאֵפֶר וּבְמַיִם אַרְבַּע פְּעָמִים וּמְנַגְּבָן וּמִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן. וְאִם הָיוּ תְּפוּרוֹת בְּפִשְׁתָּן מְיַשְּׁנָן שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. וְאִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶן קְשָׁרִים מַתִּירָן: \n", + "כְּלֵי הַגַּת שֶׁדָּרַךְ בָּהֶן הָעַכּוּ\"ם יֵין נֶסֶךְ כֵּיצַד מְטַהֲרִין אוֹתָן כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּדְרֹךְ בָּהֶן הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל. הַדַּפִּין וְהָעֲדָשִׁים וְהַלּוּלָבִין מְדִיחָן. הָעֲקָלִין. שֶׁל נְסָרִין וְשֶׁל בִּצְבּוּץ מְנַגְּבָן. שֶׁל שִׁיפָה וְשֶׁל גֶּמִי מְיַשְּׁנָן שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. וְאִם רָצָה לְטַהֲרָן מִיָּד מַגְעִילָן בְּרוֹתְחִין אוֹ חוֹלְטָן בְּמֵי זֵיתִים אוֹ מַנִּיחָן תַּחַת צִנּוֹר שֶׁמֵּימָיו מְקֻלָּחִין אוֹ בְּמַעְיָן שֶׁמֵּימָיו רוֹדְפִין שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁעוֹת וְאַחַר כָּךְ יֻתְּרוּ: \n", + "בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָיְתָה אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל כֻּלָּהּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הָיוּ לוֹקְחִין הַיַּיִן מִכָּל אָדָם מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ. וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לֹא הָיוּ לוֹקְחִין אֶלָּא מֵאָדָם שֶׁהֻחְזַק בְּכַשְׁרוּת. וּבַזְּמַן הַזֶּה אֵין לוֹקְחִין יַיִן בְּכָל מָקוֹם אֶלָּא מֵאָדָם שֶׁהֻחְזַק בְּכַשְׁרוּת. וְכֵן הַבָּשָׂר וְהַגְּבִינָה וַחֲתִיכַת דָּג שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ סִימָן כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "הַמִּתְאָרֵחַ אֵצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת בְּכָל מָקוֹם וּבְכָל זְמַן וְהֵבִיא לוֹ יַיִן אוֹ בָּשָׂר אוֹ גְּבִינָה וַחֲתִיכַת דָּג הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִשְׁאל עָלָיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַכִּירוֹ אֶלָּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא יְהוּדִי בִּלְבַד. וְאִם הֻחְזַק שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר וְלֹא מְדַקְדֵּק בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ אָסוּר לְהִתְאָרֵחַ אֶצְלוֹ. וְאִם עָבַר וְנִתְאָרֵחַ אֶצְלוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל בָּשָׂר וְלֹא שׁוֹתֶה יַיִן עַל פִּיו עַד שֶׁיָּעִיד לוֹ אָדָם כָּשֵׁר עֲלֵיהֶם: \n" + ], + [ + "כֵּיצַד הִיא הַנְּגִיעָה שִׁאוֹסֵר בָּהּ הָעַכּוּ\"ם הַיַּיִן. הוּא שֶׁיִּגַּע בַּיַּיִן עַצְמוֹ בֵּין בְּיָדוֹ בֵּין בִּשְׁאָר אֵיבָרָיו שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְנַסֵּךְ בָּהֶן וִישַׁכְשֵׁךְ. אֲבָל אִם פָּשַׁט יָדוֹ לְחָבִית וְתָפְסוּ אֶת יָדוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁיּוֹצִיאָהּ וְלֹא יְנִידָהּ וּפָתְחוּ הֶחָבִית מִלְּמַטָּה עַד שֶׁיָּצָא הַיַּיִן וְיָרַד לְמַטָּה מִיָּדוֹ לֹא נֶאֱסַר הַיַּיִן. וְכֵן אִם אָחַז כְּלִי פָּתוּחַ שֶׁל יַיִן וְשִׁכְשְׁכוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִגְבִּיהַּ הַכְּלִי וְלֹא נָגַע בַּיַּיִן נֶאֱסַר הַיַּיִן: \n", + "נָטַל כְּלִי שֶׁל יַיִן וְהִגְבִּיהוֹ וְיָצַק הַיַּיִן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא שִׁכְשֵׁךְ נֶאֱסַר שֶׁהֲרֵי בָּא הַיַּיִן מִכֹּחוֹ. הִגְבִּיהַּ וְלֹא שִׁכְשֵׁךְ וְלֹא נָגַע מֻתָּר: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁהָיָה אוֹחֵז הַכְּלִי בַּקַּרְקַע וְיִשְׂרָאֵל יָצַק לְתוֹכוֹ יַיִן הַיַּיִן מֻתָּר. וְאִם נִדְנֵד הָעַכּוּ\"ם הַכְּלִי נֶאֱסַר הַיַּיִן: \n", + "כְּלִי סָתוּם מֻתָּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ הָעַכּוּ\"ם מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַיַּיִן מִתְנַדְנֵד שֶׁאֵין זֶה דֶּרֶךְ הַנִּסּוּךְ. הֶעֱבִיר נוֹד שֶׁל יַיִן מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם וְהוּא אוֹחֵז פִּי הַנּוֹד בְּיָדוֹ. בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה הַנּוֹד מָלֵא אוֹ חָסֵר מֻתָּר. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַיַּיִן מִתְנַדְנֵד. הֶעֱבִיר כְּלִי חֶרֶס פָּתוּחַ מָלֵא יַיִן אָסוּר שֶׁמָּא נָגַע בּוֹ. וְאִם הָיָה חָסֵר מֻתָּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן שִׁכְשְׁכוֹ: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנָּגַע בְּיַיִן וְלֹא נִתְכַּוֵּן לָזֶה הֲרֵי הַיַּיִן מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה בִּלְבַד. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּפַל עַל נוֹד שֶׁל יַיִן אוֹ שֶׁהוֹשִׁיט יָדוֹ לְחָבִית עַל מְנָת שֶׁהִיא שֶׁמֶן וְנִמְצֵאת יַיִן: \n", + "בָּא הַיַּיִן מִכֹּחוֹ שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם בְּלֹא כַּוָּנָה הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נָגַע בַּיַּיִן הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִגְבִּיהַּ כְּלִי שֶׁל יַיִן וְיָצַק לִכְלִי אַחֵר וְהוּא מְדַמֶּה שֶׁהוּא שֵׁכָר אוֹ שֶׁמֶן הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר: \n", + "נִכְנַס הָעַכּוּ\"ם לְבַיִת אוֹ לַחֲנוּת לְבַקֵּשׁ יַיִן וּפָשַׁט יָדוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא מְחַפֵּשׂ וְנָגַע בַּיַּיִן אָסוּר שֶׁהֲרֵי לְיַיִן נִתְכַּוֵּן וְאֵין זֶה נוֹגֵעַ בְּלֹא כַּוָּנָה: \n", + "חָבִית שֶׁנִּסְדְּקָה לְאָרְכָּהּ וְקָדַם הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְחִבְּקָה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִתְפָּרְדוּ הַחֲרָסִים הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה. אֲבָל אִם נִסְדְּקָה לְרָחְבָּהּ וְתָפַס בַּסֶּדֶק הָעֶלְיוֹן כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִפּל הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין הַיַּיִן עַל כֹּחוֹ שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנָּפַל לְבוֹר שֶׁל יַיִן וְהֶעֱלוּהוּ מִשָּׁם מֵת. אוֹ שֶׁמָּדַד הַבּוֹר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ הַיַּיִן בְּקָנֶה. אוֹ שֶׁהִתִּיז אֶת הַזְּבוּב וְהַצִּרְעָה מֵעָלָיו בְּקָנֶה. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מְטַפֵּחַ עַל פִּי הֶחָבִית הָרוֹתַחַת כְּדֵי שֶׁתָּנוּחַ הָרְתִיחָה. אוֹ שֶׁנָּטַל חָבִית וּזְרָקָהּ בַּחֲמָתוֹ לַבּוֹר. הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה בִּלְבַד. וְאִם עָלָה הָעַכּוּ\"ם חַי הַיַּיִן אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה: \n", + "חָבִית שֶׁהָיָה נֶקֶב בְּצִדָּהּ וְנִשְׁמַט הַפְּקָק מִן הַנֶּקֶב וְהִנִּיחַ הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֶצְבָּעוֹ בִּמְקוֹם הַנֶּקֶב כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֵצֵא הַיַּיִן כָּל הַיַּיִן שֶׁמֵּרֹאשׁ הֶחָבִית עַד הַנֶּקֶב אָסוּר. וְשֶׁתַּחַת הַנֶּקֶב מֻתָּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה: \n", + "מֵינֶקֶת כְּפוּפָה שֶׁעוֹשִׂין אוֹתָהּ מִמַּתֶּכֶת אוֹ מִזְּכוּכִית וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶם. שֶׁהִנִּיחַ רֹאשָׁהּ לְתוֹךְ הַיַּיִן שֶׁבֶּחָבִית וְהָרֹאשׁ הָאַחֵר חוּץ לֶחָבִית וּמָצַץ הַיַּיִן וְהִתְחִיל הַיַּיִן לֵירֵד כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁעוֹשִׂין תָּמִיד. וּבָא הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְהִנִּיחַ אֶצְבָּעוֹ עַל פִּי הַמֵּינֶקֶת וּמָנַע הַיַּיִן מִלֵּירֵד נֶאֱסַר כָּל הַיַּיִן שֶׁבֶּחָבִית. שֶׁהַכּל הָיָה יוֹצֵא וְנִגְרָר לוּלֵי יָדוֹ וְנִמְצָא הַכּל כְּבָא מִכֹּחוֹ: \n", + "הַמְעָרֶה יַיִן לְתוֹךְ כְּלִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ יֵין עַכּוּ\"ם נֶאֱסַר כָּל הַיַּיִן שֶׁבַּכְּלִי הָעֶלְיוֹן. שֶׁהֲרֵי הָעַמּוּד הַנִּצֹּק מְחַבֵּר בֵּין הַיַּיִן שֶׁבַּכְּלִי הָעֶלְיוֹן וּבֵין הַיַּיִן שֶׁבַּכְּלִי הַתַּחְתּוֹן. לְפִיכָךְ הַמּוֹדֵד לְעַכּוּ\"ם לְתוֹךְ כְּלִי שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ יְנַפֵּץ נְפִיצָה אוֹ יִזְרֹק זְרִיקָה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה נִצֹּק חִבּוּר וְיֶאֱסֹר עָלָיו מַה שֶּׁיִּשָּׁאֵר בַּכְּלִי הָעֶלְיוֹן: \n", + "מַשְׁפֵּךְ שֶׁמָּדַד בּוֹ לְעַכּוּ\"ם אִם יֵשׁ בִּקְצֵה הַמַּשְׁפֵּךְ עֲכָּבַת יַיִן לֹא יִמְדֹּד בּוֹ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַד שֶׁיְּדִיחֶנּוּ וִינַגֵּב. וְאִם לֹא הֵדִיחַ הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר: \n", + "כְּלִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ כְּמִין שְׁנֵי חֳטָמִין יוֹצְאִין מִמֶּנּוּ כְּמוֹ הַכֵּלִים שֶׁנּוֹטְלִין בָּהֶם לַיָּדַיִם שֶׁהָיָה מָלֵא יַיִן בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהָיָה יִשְׂרָאֵל מוֹצֵץ וְשׁוֹתֶה מֵחֹטֶם זֶה וְהָעַכּוּ\"ם מוֹצֵץ וְשׁוֹתֶה מִן הַחֹטֶם הַשֵּׁנִי הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְהוּא שֶׁיַּקְדִּים הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי וְיִפְסֹק וַעֲדַיִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם שׁוֹתֶה. שֶׁמִּשֶּׁיִּפְסֹק הָעַכּוּ\"ם יַחֲזֹר הַיַּיִן שֶׁיִּשָּׁאֵר בַּחֹטֶם לַכְּלִי וְיֶאֱסֹר כָּל מַה שֶּׁיִּשָּׁאֵר בּוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי בָּא הַיַּיִן מִכֹּחוֹ: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁמָּצַץ הַיַּיִן מִן הֶחָבִית בְּמֵינֶקֶת אָסַר כָּל הַיַּיִן שֶׁבָּהּ. שֶׁכְּשֶׁיִּפָּסֵק יַחֲזֹר הַיַּיִן שֶׁעָלָה בַּמֵּינֶקֶת בִּמְצִיצָתוֹ וְיִפּל לֶחָבִית וְיֶאֱסֹר הַכּל: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁהָיָה מַעֲבִיר עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל כַּדֵּי יַיִן מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם וְהוּא הוֹלֵךְ אַחֲרֵיהֶן לְשָׁמְרָן אֲפִלּוּ הִפְלִיגוּ מִמֶּנּוּ כְּדֵי מִיל הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרוֹת. שֶׁאֵימָתוֹ עֲלֵיהֶן וְאוֹמֵר עַתָּה יֵצֵא לְפָנֵינוּ וְיִרְאֶה אוֹתָנוּ. וְאִם אָמַר לָהֶם לְכוּ וַאֲנִי אָבוֹא אַחֲרֵיכֶם אִם נִתְעַלְּמוּ מֵעֵינָיו כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּפְתְּחוּ פִּי הַכַּד וְיַחְזְרוּ וְיָגִיפוּ אוֹתָהּ וְתִיגוֹב הֲרֵי הַיַּיִן כֻּלּוֹ אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה. אִם פָּחוֹת מִכֵּן מֻתָּר: \n", + "וְכֵן הַמֵּנִיחַ עַכּוּ\"ם בַּחֲנוּתוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא יוֹצֵא וְנִכְנַס כָּל הַיּוֹם כֻּלּוֹ הַיַּיִן מֻתָּר. וְאִם מוֹדִיעוֹ שֶׁהוּא מַפְלִיג וְשָׁהָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּפְתַּח וְיִגֹּף וְתִיגוֹב הַיַּיִן אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה. וְכֵן הַמֵּנִיחַ יֵינוֹ בְּקָרוֹן אוֹ בִּסְפִינָה עִם הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְנִכְנַס לָעִיר לַעֲשׂוֹת צְרָכָיו הַיַּיִן מֻתָּר. וְאִם הוֹדִיעָן שֶׁהוּא מַפְלִיג וְשָׁהָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּפְתַּח וְיִגֹּף וְתִיגוֹב הַיַּיִן אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה. וְכָל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ בְּחָבִיּוֹת סְתוּמוֹת. אֲבָל בִּפְתוּחוֹת אֲפִלּוּ לֹא שָׁהָה מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוֹדִיעָן שֶׁהוּא מַפְלִיג הַיַּיִן אָסוּר: \n", + "יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיָה אוֹכֵל עִם הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְהִנִּיחַ יַיִן פָּתוּחַ עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן וְיַיִן פָּתוּחַ עַל הַדֻּלְפְּקִי וְיָצָא. שֶׁעַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן אָסוּר וְשֶׁעַל הַדֻּלְפְּקִי מֻתָּר. וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ מְזֹג וּשְׁתֵה כָּל הַיַּיִן הַפָּתוּחַ שֶׁבַּבַּיִת אָסוּר: \n", + "הָיָה שׁוֹתֶה עִם הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְשָׁמַע קוֹל תְּפִלָּה בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת וְיָצָא אַף הַיַּיִן הַפָּתוּחַ מֻתָּר. שֶׁהַנָּכְרִי אוֹמֵר עַתָּה יִזְכֹּר הַיַּיִן וְיָבוֹא בִּמְהֵרָה וְיִמְצָא אוֹתִי נוֹגֵעַ בְּיֵינוֹ וּלְפִי זֶה אֵינוֹ זָז מִמְּקוֹמוֹ וְאֵין נֶאֱסַר אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁלְּפָנָיו בִּלְבַד: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם וְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיוּ דָּרִין בֶּחָצֵר אַחַת וְיָצְאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּבֶהָלָה לִרְאוֹת חָתָן אוֹ הֶסְפֵּד. וְחָזַר הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְסָגַר הַפֶּתַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי הַיַּיִן הַפָּתוּחַ שֶׁבְּבֵית יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּהֶתֵּרוֹ. שֶׁלֹּא סָגַר הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֶלָּא עַל דַּעַת שֶׁכְּבָר נִכְנַס הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי לְבֵיתוֹ וְלֹא נִשְׁאַר אָדָם בַּחוּץ וְכִמְדֻמֶּה לוֹ שֶׁהוּא קְדָמוֹ: \n", + "יַיִן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְשֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם בְּבַיִת אֶחָד וְהָיוּ חָבִיּוֹת פְּתוּחוֹת וְנִכְנַס הָעַכּוּ\"ם לַבַּיִת וְנָעַל הַדֶּלֶת בַּעֲדוֹ נֶאֱסַר כָּל הַיַּיִן. וְאִם יֵשׁ חַלּוֹן בַּדֶּלֶת שֶׁמִּסְתַּכֵּל מִמֶּנּוּ הָעוֹמֵד אֲחוֹרֵי הַפֶּתַח וְרוֹאֶה כְּנֶגְדּוֹ כָּל הֶחָבִיּוֹת שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד הַחַלּוֹן מֻתָּרוֹת. וְשֶׁמִּן הַצְּדָדִין אֲסוּרוֹת שֶׁהֲרֵי מְפַחֵד מִן הָרוֹאֶה אוֹתוֹ: \n", + "וְכֵן אִם שָׁאַג אֲרִי וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ וּבָרַח הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְנֶחְבָּא בֵּין הֶחָבִיּוֹת הַפְּתוּחוֹת הַיַּיִן מֻתָּר שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר נֶחְבָּא כָּאן וְהוּא רוֹאֶה אוֹתִי כְּשֶׁאֶגַּע: \n", + "אוֹצָר שֶׁל יַיִן שֶׁהָיוּ חָבִיּוֹתָיו פְּתוּחוֹת וְיֵשׁ לְעַכּוּ\"ם חָבִיּוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת בְּאוֹתוֹ הַפֻּנְדָּק. וְנִמְצָא הָעַכּוּ\"ם עוֹמֵד בֵּין חָבִיּוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַפְּתוּחוֹת. אִם נִבְהַל כְּשֶׁנִּמְצָא וְנִתְפַּשׂ עָלָיו כְּגַנָּב הַיַּיִן מֻתָּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה שֶׁמִּפַּחְדּוֹ וְיִרְאָתוֹ אֵין לוֹ פְּנַאי לְנַסֵּךְ. וְאִם לֹא נִתְפַּשׂ כְּגַנָּב אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הוּא בּוֹטֵחַ שָׁם הַיַּיִן אָסוּר. וְתִינוֹק הַנִּמְצָא בֵּין הֶחָבִיּוֹת בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ כָּל הַיַּיִן מֻתָּר: \n", + "גְּדוּד שֶׁנִּכְנַס לַמְּדִינָה דֶּרֶךְ שָׁלוֹם כָּל הֶחָבִיּוֹת הַפְּתוּחוֹת שֶׁבַּחֲנוּיוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת וּסְתוּמוֹת מֻתָּרוֹת. וּבִשְׁעַת מִלְחָמָה אִם פָּשַׁט הַגְּדוּד בַּמְּדִינָה וְעָבַר אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ מֻתָּרוֹת שֶׁאֵין פְּנַאי לְנַסֵּךְ: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנִּמְצָא עוֹמֵד בְּצַד הַבּוֹר שֶׁל יַיִן אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ מִלְוֶה עַל אוֹתוֹ הַיַּיִן הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלִּבּוֹ גַּס בּוֹ שׁוֹלֵחַ יָדוֹ וּמְנַסֵּךְ. וְאִם אֵין לוֹ עָלָיו מִלְוֶה הַיַּיִן מֻתָּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה: \n", + "זוֹנָה עַכּוּ\"ם בִּמְסִבָּה שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל הַיַּיִן מֻתָּר שֶׁאֵימָתָן עָלֶיהָ וְלֹא תִּגַּע. אֲבָל זוֹנָה יִשְׂרְאֵלִית בִּמְסִבַּת עַכּוּ\"ם יֵינָהּ שֶׁלְּפָנֶיהָ בְּכֵלֶיהָ אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן נוֹגְעִין בּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתָּהּ: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם הַנִּמְצָא בְּבֵית הַגַּת אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם לַחְלוּחִית יַיִן כְּדֵי לִבְלל הַכַּף עַד שֶׁתִּבְלל הַכַּף לְכַף שְׁנִיָּה צָרִיךְ לְהָדִיחַ כָּל בֵּית הַגַּת וִינַגֵּב. וְאִם לָאו מֵדִיחַ בִּלְבַד וְזוֹ הַרְחָקָה יְתֵרָה: \n", + "חָבִית שֶׁצָּפָה בַּנָּהָר אִם נִמְצֵאת כְּנֶגֶד עִיר שֶׁרֻבָּהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מֻתֶּרֶת בַּהֲנָיָה. כְּנֶגֶד עִיר שֶׁרֻבָּהּ עַכּוּ\"ם אֲסוּרָה: \n", + "מָקוֹם שֶׁהָיוּ רֹב מוֹכְרֵי הַיַּיִן בּוֹ יִשְׂרְאֵלִים וְנִמְצְאוּ בּוֹ כֵּלִים גְּדוֹלִים מְלֵאִים יַיִן וְהֵם כֵּלִים שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ הַמּוֹכְרִין לְבַדָּם לִכְנֹס בָּהֶם הַיַּיִן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין בַּהֲנָיָה. חָבִית שֶׁפְּתָחוּהָ גַּנָּבִים אִם רֹב גַּנָּבֵי הָעִיר יִשְׂרָאֵל הַיַּיִן מֻתָּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה וְאִם לָאו אָסוּר: \n" + ], + [ + "הַלוֹקֵחַ בַּיִת אוֹ שֶׁשָּׂכָר בַּיִת בַּחֲצֵרוֹ שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם וּמִלְּאָהוּ יַיִן אִם הָיָה הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי דָּר בְּאוֹתָהּ חָצֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַפֶּתַח פָּתוּחַ הַיַּיִן מֻתָּר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָעַכּוּ\"ם מְפַחֵד תָּמִיד וְאוֹמֵר עַתָּה יִכָּנֵס לְבֵיתוֹ פִּתְאֹם וְיִמְצָא אוֹתִי בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ. וְאִם הָיָה דָּר בְּחָצֵר אַחֶרֶת לֹא יֵצֵא עַד שֶׁיִּסְגֹּר הַבַּיִת וְיִהְיֶה הַמַּפְתֵּחַ וְהַחוֹתָם בְּיָדוֹ. וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא יְזַיֵּף הָעַכּוּ\"ם מַפְתֵּחַ הַבַּיִת: \n", + "יָצָא וְלֹא סָגַר הַפֶּתַח אוֹ שֶׁסָּגַר וְהִנִּיחַ הַמַּפְתֵּחַ בְּיַד עַכּוּ\"ם הֲרֵי הַיַּיִן אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה. שֶׁמָּא נִכְנַס הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְנִסֵּךְ. שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי שָׁם. וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ אֱחֹז לִי מַפְתֵּחַ זֶה עַד שֶׁאָבוֹא הַיַּיִן מֻתָּר שֶׁלֹּא מָסַר לוֹ שְׁמִירַת הַבַּיִת אֶלָּא שְׁמִירַת הַמַּפְתֵּחַ: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁשָּׂכַר יִשְׂרָאֵל לִדְרֹךְ לוֹ יֵינוֹ בְּטָהֳרָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מֻתָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקָּחוּהוּ מִמֶּנּוּ וְהָיָה הַיַּיִן בְּבֵיתוֹ שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם. אִם הָיָה יִשִׂרָאֵל זֵה שֵׁשּׁוֹמֵר הַיַּיִן דָּר בְּאוֹתָהּ חָצֵר הַיַּיִן מֻתָּר. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַפֶּתַח פָּתוּחַ וְהַשּׁוֹמֵר נִכְנָס וְיוֹצֵא. וְאִם הָיָה הַשּׁוֹמֵר דָּר בְּחָצֵר אַחֶרֶת הַיַּיִן אָסוּר. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַמַּפְתֵּחַ וְהַחוֹתָם בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל. שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁהַיַּיִן שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם וּבִרְשׁוּתוֹ אֵינוֹ מְפַחֵד לְזַיֵּף וּלְהִכָּנֵס לַבַּיִת וְיֹאמַר וִיהִי מָה אִם יֵדְעוּ בּוֹ לֹא יִקְחוּ מִמֶּנִּי: \n", + "אֲפִלּוּ כָּתַב הָעַכּוּ\"ם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּתְקַבֵּל מִמֶּנּוּ הַמָּעוֹת לִמְכֹּר לוֹ בָּהֶן יַיִן הוֹאִיל וְאֵין הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ מֵרְשׁוּת הָעַכּוּ\"ם עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן לוֹ הַמָּעוֹת הֲרֵי הוּא שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם וְאָסוּר. אֶלָּא אִם הָיָה הַשּׁוֹמֵר דָּר שָׁם בֶּחָצֵר. וְאֵין הַשּׁוֹמֵר צָרִיךְ לִהְיוֹת יוֹשֵׁב וּמְשַׁמֵּר תָּמִיד אֶלָּא נִכְנָס וְיוֹצֵא כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת בַּעַל הַיַּיִן בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת עַכּוּ\"ם אַחֵר: \n", + "הָיָה יַיִן זֶה הַטָּהוֹר שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם מֻנָּח בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אוֹ בְּבַיִת הַפָּתוּחַ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְיִשְׂרָאֵל הוֹלְכִים וְשָׁבִים מֻתָּר. שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נִכְנַס בִּרְשׁוּת הָעַכּוּ\"ם: \n", + "וְאַשְׁפָּה וְחַלּוֹן וְדֶקֶל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ פֵּרוֹת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. וְחָבִית יַיִן שָׁם וְעַכּוּ\"ם הַנִּמְצָא שָׁם אֵינוֹ אוֹסְרָהּ. וּבַיִת הַפָּתוּחַ לְשָׁם הֲרֵי הוּא כְּפָתוּחַ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים: \n", + "חָצֵר הַחֲלוּקָה בִּמְסִיפִים וְעַכּוּ\"ם בְּצַד זֶה וְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּצַד אַחֵר. וְכֵן שְׁנֵי גַּגִּין שֶׁהָיָה גַּג יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמַעְלָה וְגַג הָעַכּוּ\"ם לְמַטָּה. אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ זֶה בְּצַד זֶה וְיֵשׁ בֵּינֵיהֶן מְסִיפִים. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיַּד הָעַכּוּ\"ם מַגַּעַת לְחֵלֶק יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ מִשּׁוּם יֵין נֶסֶךְ וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם טָהֳרוֹת: \n", + "מֻתָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַפְקִיד יֵינוֹ בִּכְלִי סָתוּם בְּיַד עַכּוּ\"ם וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לוֹ בּוֹ שְׁנֵי סִימָנִין. וְזֶה הוּא הַנִּקְרָא חוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם. כֵּיצַד. סָתַם הֶחָבִית בִּכְלִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְהֻדָּק כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁסּוֹתְמִין כָּל אָדָם וְטָח בְּטִיט הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹתָם אֶחָד. הָיָה כְּלִי מְהֻדָּק וְטָח עָלָיו מִלְּמַעְלָה הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם. וְכֵן אִם צָר פִּי הַנּוֹד הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹתָם אֶחָד. הָפַךְ פִּי הַנּוֹד לְתוֹכוֹ וְצָר עָלָיו הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם. וְכֵן כָּל שִׁנּוּי שֶׁמְּשַׁנֶּה מִדְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ כָּל אָדָם הֲרֵי הֵן כְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד וְהַטִּיחָה אוֹ הַקְּשִׁירָה חוֹתָם שֵׁנִי: \n", + "וְאִם הִפְקִיד בְּיַד עַכּוּ\"ם בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה וּמֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה וְהוּא שֶׁיְּיַחֵד לוֹ קֶרֶן זָוִית: \n", + "יַיִן מְבֻשָּׁל וְהַשֵּׁכָר אוֹ יַיִן שֶׁעֵרְבוֹ עִם דְּבָרִים אֲחֵרִים כְּגוֹן דְּבַשׁ וְשֶׁמֶן וְכֵן הַחֹמֶץ וְהַגְּבִינָה וְהֶחָלָב וְכָל שֶׁאִסּוּרוֹ מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים שֶׁהִפְקִידוֹ בְּיַד עַכּוּ\"ם אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שְׁנֵי חוֹתָמוֹת אֶלָּא חוֹתָם אֶחָד בִּלְבַד דַּיּוֹ. אֲבָל הַיַּיִן וְהַבָּשָׂר וַחֲתִיכַת דָּג שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ סִימָן שֶׁהִפְקִידָן בְּיַד עַכּוּ\"ם צְרִיכִין שְׁנֵי חוֹתָמוֹת: \n", + "יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁכָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ בְּעִנְיָן זֶה בְּיַיִן שֶׁלָּנוּ שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה וּמֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה מִפְּנֵי צַד נְגִיעָה שֶׁנָּגַע בּוֹ הָעַכּוּ\"ם כְּשֶׁהָיָה הָעַכּוּ\"ם עוֹבֵד עַכּוּ\"ם. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה אִסּוּרוֹ בִּגְלַל עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד עַכּוּ\"ם כְּגוֹן יִשְׁמְעֵאלִי שֶׁנָּגַע בַּיַּיִן שֶׁלָּנוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוָּנָה אוֹ שֶׁטִּפַּח עַל פִּי הֶחָבִית הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "אֲבָל הַמַּפְקִיד יַיִן בְּיַד גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁלָחוֹ עִמּוֹ וְהִפְלִיג אוֹ שֶׁהֵנִיחַ בֵּיתוֹ פָּתוּחַ בַּחֲצַר גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה. שֶׁכָּל חֲשָׁשׁ שֶׁל חִלּוּף וְזִיּוּף יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁכָּל הָעַכּוּ\"ם שָׁוִים בּוֹ הוֹאִיל וְנַעֲשָׂה הַיַּיִן בִּרְשׁוּתָן נֶאֱסַר בִּשְׁתִיָּה עַל כָּל פָּנִים: \n", + "יֵשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם אִסּוּר נִסּוּךְ כְּלָל וְאָסְרוּ אוֹתָם חֲכָמִים כְּדֵי לְהַרְחִיק מִן הַנִּסּוּךְ. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. לֹא יִמְזֹג הָעַכּוּ\"ם הַמַּיִם לְתוֹךְ הַיַּיִן שֶׁבְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא לִצֹּק הַיַּיִן לְתוֹךְ הַמַּיִם. וְלֹא יוֹלִיךְ הָעַכּוּ\"ם עֲנָבִים לַגַּת שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא לִדְרֹךְ אוֹ לִגַּע. וְלֹא יְסַיֵּעַ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמֵּרִיק מִכְּלִי לִכְלִי שֶׁמָּא יַנִּיחַ הַכְּלִי בְּיַד הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְנִמְצָא הַיַּיִן בָּא מִכֹּחוֹ. וְאִם סִיֵּעַ אוֹ מָזַג הַמַּיִם אוֹ הֵבִיא עֲנָבִים מֻתָּר: \n", + "וְכֵן מֻתָּר שֶׁיָּרִיחַ הָעַכּוּ\"ם בְּחָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן שֶׁלָּנוּ. וּמֻתָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לְהָרִיחַ בְּחָבִית שֶׁל יֵין נֶסֶךְ וְאֵין בָּזֶה שֵׁם אִסּוּר שֶׁאֵין הָרֵיחַ כְּלוּם לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ: \n", + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁכָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה אִם עָבַר וּמָכְרוּ דָּמָיו מֻתָּרִין חוּץ מֵעַכּוּ\"ם וּמְשַׁמְּשֶׁיהָ וְתִקְרֹבֶת שֶׁלָּהּ וְיַיִן שֶׁנִּתְנַסֵּךְ לָהּ. וְהֶחְמִירוּ חֲכָמִים בִּסְתַם יֵינָם לִהְיוֹת דָּמָיו אֲסוּרִין כִּדְמֵי יַיִן שֶׁנִּתְנַסֵּךְ לְעַכּוּ\"ם. לְפִיכָךְ עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁשָּׂכַר אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמּוֹ בְּיַיִן שְׂכָרוֹ אָסוּר: \n", + "וְכֵן הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַחֲמוֹר לְהָבִיא עָלָיו יַיִן אוֹ שֶׁשָּׂכַר סְפִינָה לְהָבִיא בָּהּ יַיִן שְׂכָרָן אָסוּר. אִם מָעוֹת נָתְנוּ לוֹ יוֹלִיכֵן לְיָם הַמֶּלַח. וְאִם נָתְנוּ לוֹ בִּשְׂכָרוֹ כְּסוּת אוֹ כֵּלִים אוֹ פֵּרוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה יִשְׂרֹף אוֹתָן וְיִקְבֹּר הָאֵפֶר כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא לֵהָנוֹת בּוֹ: \n", + "שָׂכַר לָעַכּוּ\"ם חֲמוֹר לִרְכֹּב עָלָיו וְהִנִּיחַ עָלָיו לוֹגִין שֶׁל יַיִן שְׂכָרוֹ מֻתָּר. שְׂכָרוֹ לְשַׁבֵּר כַּדֵּי יֵין נֶסֶךְ שְׂכָרוֹ מֻתָּר וְתָבוֹא עָלָיו בְּרָכָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּמַעֵט בְּתִפְלָה: \n", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל וְאָמַר לוֹ הַעֲבֵר לִי מֵאָה חָבִיּוֹת שֶׁל שֵׁכָר בְּמֵאָה פְּרוּטוֹת וְנִמְצָא אַחַת מֵהֶן יַיִן שְׂכָרוֹ כֻּלּוֹ אָסוּר: \n", + "אָמַר לוֹ הַעֲבֵר לִי חָבִית בִּפְרוּטָה חָבִית בִּפְרוּטָה וְהֶעֱבִיר וְנִמְצָא בֵּינֵיהֶן חָבִיּוֹת שֶׁל יַיִן. שְׂכַר חָבִיּוֹת שֶׁל יַיִן אָסוּר וּשְׁאָר שְׂכָרוֹ מֻתָּר: \n", + "אֻמְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁשָּׁלַח לָהֶם עַכּוּ\"ם חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן בִּשְׂכָרָן מֻתָּר שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ תֵּן לָנוּ אֶת דָּמֶיהָ. וְאִם מִשֶּׁנִּכְנְסָה לִרְשׁוּתָן אָסוּר: \n", + "יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיָה נוֹשֶׁה בְּעַכּוּ\"ם מָנֶה. הָלַךְ הָעַכּוּ\"ם וּמָכַר עַבוֹדָה זָרָה וְיֵין נֶסֶךְ וְהֵבִיא לוֹ דְּמֵיהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּמְכֹּר הַמְתֵּן לִי עַד שֶׁאֶמְכֹּר עַבוֹדָה זָרָה אוֹ יֵין נֶסֶךְ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי וְאָבִיא לְךָ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא סְתַם יֵינוֹ. וּמָכַר וְהֵבִיא לוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי רוֹצֶה בְּקִיּוּמוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּפְרַע מִמֶּנּוּ חוֹבוֹ: \n", + "וְכֵן גֵּר וְעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁהָיוּ שֻׁתָּפִין וּבָאוּ לַחֲלֹק. אֵין הַגֵּר יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לָעַכּוּ\"ם טֹל אַתָּה עַבוֹדָה זָרָה וַאֲנִי מָעוֹת. אַתָּה יַיִן וַאֲנִי פֵּרוֹת שֶׁהֲרֵי רוֹצֶה בְּקִיּוּמָן כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּטּל כְּנֶגְדָּן. אֲבָל גֵּר וְעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁיָּרְשׁוּ אֶת אֲבִיהֶן עַכּוּ\"ם יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ טֹל אַתָּה עַבוֹדָה זָרָה וַאֲנִי מָעוֹת. אַתָּה יַיִן וַאֲנִי שֶׁמֶן. קַל הוּא שֶׁהֵקֵלּוּ בִּירֻשַּׁת הַגֵּר כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יַחֲזֹר לְסוּרוֹ. וְאִם מִשֶּׁבָּאוּ לִרְשׁוּת הַגֵּר אָסוּר: \n", + "יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁמָּכַר יֵינוֹ לְעַכּוּ\"ם פָּסַק עַד שֶׁלֹּא מָדַד לוֹ דָּמָיו מֻתָּרִין. שֶׁמִּשֶּׁפָּסַק סָמְכָה דַּעְתּוֹ וּמִשֶּׁמָּשַׁךְ קָנָה וְיֵין נֶסֶךְ אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה עַד שֶׁיִּגַּע בּוֹ. נִמְצָא בִּשְׁעַת מְכִירָה הָיָה מֻתָּר. מָדַד לוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַק הַדָּמִים דָּמָיו אֲסוּרִין. שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא סָמְכָה דַּעְתּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמָּשַׁךְ וְנִמְצָא כְּשֶׁנָּגַע עֲדַיִן לֹא סָמְכָה דַּעְתּוֹ לִקַּח וְנֶאֱסַר הַיַּיִן בִּנְגִיעָתוֹ וַהֲרֵי זֶה כְּמוֹכֵר סְתַם יֵינָם: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁמָּדַד הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי לְכֵלָיו. אֲבָל אִם מָדַד לִכְלִי הָעַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ לִכְלִי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁבְּיַד הָעַכּוּ\"ם צָרִיךְ לִקַּח אֶת הַדָּמִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִמְדֹּד. וְאִם מָדַד וְלֹא לָקַח דָּמִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁפָּסַק דָּמָיו אֲסוּרִים שֶׁמִּשֶּׁיַגִּיעַ לַכְּלִי נֶאֱסַר כִּסְתָם יֵינָם: \n", + "הַנּוֹתֵן דִּינָר לְחֶנְוָנִי עַכּוּ\"ם וְאָמַר לְפוֹעֲלוֹ הָעַכּוּ\"ם לֵךְ וּשְׁתֵה וֶאֱכל מִן הַחֶנְוָנִי וַאֲנִי מְחַשֵּׁב לוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁתֶּה יַיִן. שֶׁזֶּה כְּמִי שֶׁקָּנָה לוֹ יֵין נֶסֶךְ וְהִשְׁקָהוּ. וּכְנֶגֶד זֶה בִּשְׁבִיעִית אָסוּר כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּתַן דִּינָר לְחֶנְוָנִי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַם הָאָרֶץ וְאָמַר לְפוֹעֲלוֹ הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי לֵךְ וֶאֱכל וַאֲנִי מְחַשֵּׁב לוֹ. וְאִם אָכַל הַפּוֹעֵל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעֵשָּׂר אָסוּר: \n", + "אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לָהֶם אִכְלוּ וּשְׁתוּ בְּדִינָר זֶה. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶם אִכְלוּ וּשְׁתוּ עָלַי מִן הַחֶנְוָנִי וַאֲנִי פּוֹרֵעַ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּעְבֵּד הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נִתְיַחֵד שִׁעְבּוּדוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ לֹא מִשּׁוּם יֵין נֶסֶךְ וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבִיעִית וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם מַעֲשֵׂר: \n", + "מֶלֶךְ שֶׁהָיָה מְחַלֵּק יֵינוֹ לָעָם וְלוֹקֵחַ מֵהֶן דָּמָיו כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה. אַל יֹאמַר אָדָם לְעַכּוּ\"ם הֵא לְךָ מָאתַיִם זוּז וְהִכָּנֵס תַּחְתַּי בְּאוֹצַר הַמֶּלֶךְ כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּקַּח עַכּוּ\"ם הַיַּיִן שֶׁכָּתְבוּ בְּשֵׁם יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִתֵּן הָעַכּוּ\"ם הַדָּמִים לַמֶּלֶךְ. אֲבָל אוֹמֵר לוֹ הֵא לְךָ מָאתַיִם זוּז וּמַלְּטֵנִי מִן הָאוֹצָר: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנָּגַע בְּיֵינוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל לְאָנְסוֹ מֻתָּר לִמְכֹּר אוֹתוֹ יַיִן לְאוֹתוֹ הָעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁאֲסָרוֹ לְבַדּוֹ. שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּן זֶה הָעַכּוּ\"ם לְהַזִּיקוֹ וְלֶאֱסֹר יֵינוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמוֹ שֶׁשְּׁבָרוֹ אוֹ שְׂרָפוֹ שֶׁחַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. וְנִמְצְאוּ הַדָּמִים שֶׁלּוֹקֵחַ מִמֶּנּוּ דְּמֵי הַהֶזֵּק וְלֹא דְּמֵי הַמְּכִירָה: \n" + ], + [ + "כָּל אִסּוּרֵי מַאֲכָלוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה שִׁעוּרָן בִּכְזַיִת בֵּינוֹנִי בֵּין לְמַלְקוֹת בֵּין לְכָרֵת בֵּין לְמִיתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁכָּל הַמְחֻיָּב כָּרֵת אוֹ מִיתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם עַל מַאֲכָל לוֹקֶה: \n", + "וְשִׁעוּר זֶה עִם כָּל הַשִּׁעוּרִין הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי הֵם. וְאָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה לֶאֱכל כָּל שֶׁהוּא מִדָּבָר הָאָסוּר. אֲבָל אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶלָּא עַל כְּזַיִת. וְאִם אָכַל כָּל שֶׁהוּא פָּחוֹת מִכַּשִּׁעוּר מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: \n", + "כְּזַיִת שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ חוּץ מִשֶּׁל בֵּין הַשִּׁנַּיִם. אֲבָל מַה שֶּׁל בֵּין הַחֲנִיכַיִם מִצְטָרֵף לְמַה שֶּׁבָּלַע שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶהֱנָה גְּרוֹנוֹ מִכְּזַיִת. אֲפִלּוּ אָכַל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וֶהֱקִיאוֹ וְחָזַר וְאָכַל אוֹתוֹ חֲצִי זַיִת עַצְמוֹ שֶׁהֵקִיא חַיָּב. שֶׁאֵין הַחִיּוּב אֶלָּא עַל הֲנָאַת הַגָּרוֹן בִּכְזַיִת מִדָּבָר הָאָסוּר: \n", + "כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב אוֹ נְבֵלָה אוֹ פִּגּוּל אוֹ נוֹתָר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁהִנִּיחוֹ בַּחַמָּה וְנִתְמַעֵט. הָאוֹכְלוֹ פָּטוּר. חָזַר וְהִנִּיחוֹ בַּגְּשָׁמִים וְנִתְפַּח חַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת אוֹ מַלְקוֹת. הָיָה פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת מִבַּתְּחִלָּה וְנִתְפַּח וְעָמַד עַל כְּזַיִת אָסוּר וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו: \n", + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁכָּל אִסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה לִכְזַיִת. חוּץ מִבְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה עִם בְּשַׂר טְרֵפָה וְאִסּוּרֵי נָזִיר שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֲרוּ בִּמְקוֹמָן. וַחֲמֵשֶׁת מִינֵי תְּבוּאָה וּקְמָחִין שֶׁלָּהֶן וְהַבְּצֵקוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶן הַכּל מִצְטָרְפִים לִכְזַיִת בֵּין לְאִסּוּר חָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח. בֵּין לְאִסּוּר חָדָשׁ מִלִּפְנֵי הָעֹמֶר. בֵּין לְאִסּוּרֵי מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וּתְרוּמוֹת: \n", + "יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁכָּל הַחַיָּב בִּתְרוּמָה וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת מִצְטָרֵף לִכְזַיִת בְּטֶבֶל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא שֵׁם אֶחָד. הָא לְמַה זֶּה דּוֹמֶה לְנִבְלַת הַשּׁוֹר וְנִבְלַת הַשֶּׂה וְנִבְלַת הַצְּבִי שֶׁהֵן מִצְטָרְפִין לִכְזַיִת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל אֲכִילָה גְּדוֹלָה מִדָּבָר אָסוּר אֵין מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ מַלְקוֹת אוֹ כָּרֵת עַל כָּל כְּזַיִת וּכְזַיִת אֶלָּא חִיּוּב אֶחָד לְכָל הָאֲכִילָה. וְאִם הָיוּ הָעֵדִים מַתְרִים בּוֹ בִּשְׁעַת אֲכִילָה עַל כָּל כְּזַיִת וּכְזַיִת חַיָּב עַל כָּל הַתְרָאָה וְהַתְרָאָה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא אֲכִילָה אַחַת וְלֹא הִפְסִיק: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל כִּשְׂעוֹרָה אוֹ כְּחַרְדָּל מֵאֶחָד מִכָּל מַאֲכָלוֹת הָאֲסוּרִים וְשָׁהָה מְעַט וְחָזַר וְאָכַל כְּחַרְדָּל. וְכֵן עַד שֶׁהִשְׁלִים כְּזַיִת. בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד. אִם שָׁהָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף כְּדֵי אֲכִילַת שָׁלֹשׁ בֵּיצִים יִצְטָרֵף הַכּל וַהֲרֵי הוּא חַיָּב כָּרֵת אוֹ מַלְקוֹת אוֹ קָרְבָּן כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָכַל כְּזַיִת בְּבַת אַחַת. וְאִם שָׁהָה יֶתֶר מִזֶּה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהָה בֵּינֵיהֶן אֶלָּא אָכַל כְּחַרְדָּל אַחַר כְּחַרְדָּל הוֹאִיל וְלֹא הִשְׁלִים כְּזַיִת אֶלָּא בְּיֶתֶר מִכְּדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס אֵינָן מִצְטָרְפִין וּפָטוּר: \n", + "וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹתֶה רְבִיעִית שֶׁל סְתָם יֵינָם מְעַט מְעַט. אוֹ שֶׁהִמְחָה אֶת הֶחָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח אוֹ אֶת הַחֵלֶב וּגְמָעוֹ מְעַט מְעַט. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁתָה מִן הַדָּם מְעַט מְעַט. אִם שָׁהָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף כְּדֵי שְׁתִיַּת רְבִיעִית מִצְטָרְפִין. וְאִם לָאו אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין: \n", + "כָּל הָאֳכָלִין הָאֲסוּרִין אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עֲלֵיהֶם עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל אוֹתָן דֶּרֶךְ הֲנָאָה חוּץ מִבָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר בָּהֶן אֲכִילָה אֶלָּא הוֹצִיא אִסּוּר אֲכִילָתָן בְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֶרֶת בִּלְשׁוֹן בִּשּׁוּל וּבִלְשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ לֶאֱסוֹר אוֹתָן וַאֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא כְּדֶרֶךְ הֲנָיָה: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁהִמְחָה אֶת הַחֵלֶב וּגְמָעוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא חַם עַד שֶׁנִּכְוָה גְּרוֹנוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ אוֹ שֶׁאָכַל חֵלֶב חַי. אוֹ שֶׁעֵרֵב דְּבָרִים מָרִים כְּגוֹן רֹאשׁ וְלַעֲנָה לְתוֹךְ יֵין נֶסֶךְ אוֹ לְתוֹךְ קְדֵרָה שֶׁל נְבֵלָה וַאֲכָלָן כְּשֶׁהֵן מָרִין. אוֹ שֶׁאָכַל אֹכֶל הָאָסוּר אַחַר שֶׁהִסְרִיחַ וְהִבְאִישׁ וּבָטַל מֵאֹכֶל אָדָם הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. וְאִם עֵרֵב דָּבָר מַר בְּתוֹךְ קְדֵרָה שֶׁל בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב אוֹ בְּיֵין כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם וַאֲכָלוֹ חַיָּב: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל מַאֲכָל מִמַּאֲכָלוֹת הָאֲסוּרוֹת דֶּרֶךְ שְׂחוֹק אוֹ כְּמִתְעַסֵּק. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְכַּוֵּן לְגוּף הָאֲכִילָה. הוֹאִיל וְנֶהֱנָה חַיָּב כְּמִי שֶׁמִּתְכַּוֵּן לְעַצְמָהּ שֶׁל אֲכִילָה. וַהֲנָיָה הַבָּאָה לוֹ לְאָדָם בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ בְּאִסּוּר מִכָּל הָאִסּוּרִין אִם נִתְכַּוֵּן אָסוּר וְאִם לֹא נִתְכַּוֵּן מֻתָּר: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל מַאֲכָל אָסוּר לְתֵאָבוֹן אוֹ מִפְּנֵי הָרָעָב חַיָּב. וְאִם הָיָה תּוֹעֶה בַּמִּדְבָּר וְאֵין לוֹ מַה יֹּאכַל אֶלָּא דְּבַר אִסּוּר הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר מִפְּנֵי סַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת: \n", + "עֻבָּרָה שֶׁהֵרִיחָה מַאֲכָל אָסוּר כְּגוֹן בְּשַׂר קֹדֶשׁ אוֹ בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר. מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתָהּ מִן הַמָּרָק. אִם נִתְיַשְּׁבָה דַּעְתָּהּ מוּטָב. וְאִם לָאו מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתָהּ פָּחוֹת מִכַּשִּׁעוּר. וְאִם לֹא נִתְיַשְּׁבָה דַּעְתָּהּ מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתָהּ עַד שֶׁתִּתְיַשֵּׁב דַּעְתָּהּ: \n", + "וְכֵן הַחוֹלֶה שֶׁהֵרִיחַ דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ חֹמֶץ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ מִדְּבָרִים שֶׁמְּעַרְעֲרִין אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ דִּינוֹ כְּעֻבָּרָה: \n", + "מִי שֶׁאָחֲזוֹ בֻּלְמוֹס מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ דְּבָרִים הָאֲסוּרִים מִיָּד עַד שֶׁיֵּאוֹרוּ עֵינָיו. וְאֵין מְחַזְּרִין עַל דָּבָר הַמֻּתָּר אֶלָּא מְמַהֲרִין בַּנִּמְצָא. וּמַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ הַקַּל הַקַּל תְּחִלָּה. אִם הֵאִירוּ עֵינָיו דַּיּוֹ. וְאִם לָאו מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ הֶחָמוּר: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. הָיוּ לְפָנֵינוּ טֶבֶל וּנְבֵלָה מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ נְבֵלָה תְּחִלָּה שֶׁהַטֶּבֶל בְּמִיתָה. נְבֵלָה וּסְפִיחֵי שְׁבִיעִית מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ סְפִיחֵי שְׁבִיעִית שֶׁאֲסוּרִין מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁמִטָּה. טֶבֶל וּשְׁבִיעִית מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ שְׁבִיעִית. טֶבֶל וּתְרוּמָה אִם אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְתַקֵּן הַטֶּבֶל מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ טֶבֶל שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ כִּתְרוּמָה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁאֵין אִסּוּר חָל עַל אִסּוּר אֶלָּא אִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵי הָאִסּוּרִין בָּאִין כְּאַחַת אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אִסּוּר מוֹסִיף אוֹ אִסּוּר כּוֹלֵל. לְפִיכָךְ יֵשׁ אוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת אֶחָד וְלוֹקֶה עָלָיו חָמֵשׁ מַלְקִיּוֹת. וְהוּא שֶׁהִתְרוּ בּוֹ בַּחֲמִשָּׁה אִסּוּרִין שֶׁנִּתְקַבְּצוּ בּוֹ. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב שֶׁנּוֹתַר מִן הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁים בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל חֵלֶב. וּמִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל נוֹתָר. וּמִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים. וּמִשּׁוּם טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל קֹדֶשׁ. וּמִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה מִן הַקֹּדֶשׁ וּמָעַל: \n", + "וְלָמָּה חָל כָּאן אִסּוּר עַל אִסּוּר. שֶׁבְּהֵמָה זוֹ הָיָה חֶלְבָּהּ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּמֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה. הִקְדִּישָׁהּ נֶאֱסַר חֶלְבָּהּ בַּהֲנָיָה וּמִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנּוֹסַף בּוֹ אִסּוּר הֲנָיָה נוֹסַף עָלָיו אִסּוּר קָדָשִׁים. וַעֲדַיִן הָיָה חֵלֶב זֶה מֻתָּר לְגָבוֹהַּ וְאָסוּר לְהֶדְיוֹט. נַעֲשָׂה נוֹתָר מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנּוֹסַף בּוֹ אִסּוּר לְגָבוֹהַּ נֶאֱסַר לְהֶדְיוֹט. וְהָאוֹכֵל הַזֶּה הָיָה מֻתָּר בִּבְשַׂר הַבְּהֵמָה וְאָסוּר בְּחֶלְבָּהּ. נִטְמָא נֶאֱסַר אַף בִּבְשָׂרָהּ נוֹסַף לוֹ אִסּוּר עַל הַחֵלֶב. בָּא יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים כָּלַל כָּל הָאֳכָלִין. וּמִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱסַר אַף בְּחֻלִּין נוֹסַף אִסּוּרוֹ בְּחֵלֶב זֶה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n" + ], + [ + "דָבָר אָסוּר שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּדָבָר מֻתָּר מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. וּמִין בְּמִינוֹ שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲמֹד עַל טַעֲמוֹ יִבָּטֵל בְּרֹב: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. חֵלֶב הַכְּלָיוֹת שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ הַגְּרִיסִין וְנִמּוֹחַ הַכּל. טוֹעֲמִין אֶת הַגְּרִיסִין. אִם לֹא נִמְצָא בָּהֶן טַעַם חֵלֶב הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. וְאִם נִמְצָא בָּהֶם טַעַם חֵלֶב וְהָיָה בָּהֶן מַמָּשׁוֹ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין מִן הַתּוֹרָה. נִמְצָא בָּהֶן טַעֲמוֹ וְלֹא הָיָה בָּהֶן מַמָּשׁוֹ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים: \n", + "כֵּיצַד הוּא מַמָּשׁוֹ. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה מִן הַחֵלֶב כְּזַיִת בְּכָל שָׁלֹשׁ בֵּיצִים מִן הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת. אִם אָכַל מִן הַגְּרִיסִין הָאֵלּוּ כְּשָׁלֹשׁ בֵּיצִים הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶן כְּזַיִת מִן הַחֵלֶב לוֹקֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי טַעַם הָאִסּוּר וּמַמָּשׁוֹ קַיָּם. אֲבָל פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁלֹשׁ בֵּיצִים מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. וְכֵן אִם לֹא הָיָה בַּתַּעֲרֹבֶת כְּזַיִת בְּכָל שָׁלֹשׁ בֵּיצִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן טַעַם חֵלֶב וְאָכַל כָּל הַקְּדֵרָה אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶלָּא מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: \n", + "נָפַל חֵלֶב כְּלָיוֹת לְחֵלֶב הָאַלְיָה וְנִמּוֹחַ הַכּל. אִם הָיָה חֵלֶב הָאַלְיָה כִּשְׁנַיִם בְּחֵלֶב הַכְּלָיוֹת הֲרֵי הַכּל מֻתָּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה. אֲפִלּוּ חֲתִיכַת נְבֵלָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בִּשְׁתֵּי חֲתִיכוֹת שֶׁל שְׁחוּטָה הַכּל מֻתָּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה. אֲבָל מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים הַכּל אָסוּר עַד שֶׁיְּאַבֵּד דָּבָר הָאָסוּר מֵעֹצֶם מִעוּטוֹ וְלֹא יִהְיֶה דָּבָר חָשׁוּב שֶׁעֵינוֹ עוֹמֶדֶת כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר: \n", + "וּבְכַמָּה יִתְעָרֵב דָּבָר הָאָסוּר וִיאַבֵּד בְּעֹצֶם מִעוּטוֹ. כַּשִּׁעוּר שֶׁנָּתְנוּ בּוֹ חֲכָמִים. יֵשׁ דָּבָר שֶׁשִּׁעוּרוֹ בְּשִׁשִּׁים. וְיֵשׁ שֶׁשִּׁעוּרוֹ בְּמֵאָה. וְיֵשׁ שֶׁשִּׁעוּרוֹ בְּמָאתַיִם: \n", + "נִמְצֵאתָ לָמֵד שֶׁכָּל אִסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. בֵּין אִסּוּרֵי מַלְקוֹת. בֵּין אִסּוּרֵי כָּרֵת. בֵּין אִסּוּרֵי הֲנָיָה. שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בַּמַּאֲכָל הַמֻּתָּר מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. מִין בְּמִינוֹ שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲמֹד עַל הַטַּעַם שִׁעוּרוֹ בְּשִׁשִּׁים אוֹ בְּמֵאָה אוֹ בְּמָאתַיִם. חוּץ מִיֵּין נֶסֶךְ מִפְּנֵי חֻמְרַת עַבוֹדָה זָרָה. וְחוּץ מִטֶּבֶל שֶׁהֲרֵי אֶפְשָׁר לְתַקְּנוֹ. וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה אוֹסְרִין בְּמִינָן בְּכָל שֶׁהֵן. וְשֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם כִּשְׁאָר כָּל הָאִסּוּרִין: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. טִפַּת יֵין נֶסֶךְ שֶׁנָּפְלוּ עָלֶיהָ כַּמָּה חָבִיּוֹת שֶׁל יַיִן הַכּל אָסוּר כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. וְכֵן כּוֹס שֶׁל יֵין טֶבֶל שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּחָבִית הַכּל טֶבֶל עַד שֶׁיַּפְרִישׁ תְּרוּמוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת הָרְאוּיִין לְתַעֲרֹבֶת כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ: \n", + "פֵּרוֹת שְׁבִיעִית אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאִם נִתְעָרְבוּ בְּמִינָן בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא וְשֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם אֵינָן בִּכְלָל אִסּוּרֵי תּוֹרָה שֶׁאֵין אוֹתָהּ הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת אֲסוּרָה. אֶלָּא חַיָּב לֶאֱכל כָּל הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת בִּקְדֻשַּׁת שְׁבִיעִית כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ: \n", + "חָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מֵאִסּוּרֵי תּוֹרָה אֵינוֹ בִּכְלָלוֹת אֵלּוּ. לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת אֲסוּרָה לְעוֹלָם שֶׁהֲרֵי לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח תִּהְיֶה כָּל הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת מֻתֶּרֶת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. לְפִיכָךְ אוֹסֵר בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא בֵּין בְּמִינוֹ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ: \n", + "וְהוּא הַדִּין לִתְבוּאָה חֲדָשָׁה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בִּישָׁנָה מִלִּפְנֵי הָעֹמֶר אוֹסֶרֶת בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא. שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ לָהּ מַתִּירִין שֶׁלְּאַחַר הָעֹמֶר יֻתַּר הַכּל. וְכֵן כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה אִסּוּרוֹ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם כְּגוֹן אִסּוּר מֻקְצֶה וְנוֹלָד בְּיוֹם טוֹב לֹא נָתְנוּ בּוֹ חֲכָמִים שִׁעוּר אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ אֶחָד בְּכַמָּה אֲלָפִים אֵינוֹ בָּטֵל. שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ דֶּרֶךְ שֶׁיֻּתַּר בָּהּ כְּגוֹן הֶקְדֵּשׁ וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן: \n", + "אֲבָל הָעָרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם וְחֵלֶב וְדָם וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וְכֵן תְּרוּמוֹת נָתְנוּ חֲכָמִים בָּהֶן שִׁעוּר שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן דֶּרֶךְ הֶתֵּר לְכָל אָדָם: \n", + "יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין אִם נִתְעָרֵב בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ וְלֹא נָתַן טַעַם מֻתָּר. לֹא יִהְיֶה זֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין חָמוּר מִטֶּבֶל שֶׁהֲרֵי אֶפְשָׁר לְתַקְּנוֹ וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵּן שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאַל תִּתְמַהּ עַל חָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה (שמות יב כ) \"כָּל מַחְמֶצֶת לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ\" לְפִיכָךְ הֶחְמִירוּ בּוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַשִּׁעוּרִין שֶׁנָּתְנוּ חֲכָמִים. הַתְּרוּמָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְהַחַלָּה וְהַבִּכּוּרִים עוֹלִין בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה וְצָרִיךְ לְהָרִים וּמִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. וְכֵן פְּרוּסָה שֶׁל לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים לְתוֹךְ פְּרוּסוֹת שֶׁל חֻלִּין עוֹלִין בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה. כֵּיצַד. סְאָה קֶמַח מֵאֶחָד מֵאֵלּוּ. אוֹ סְאָה מִכֻּלָּם שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה סְאָה קֶמַח שֶׁל חֻלִּין וְנִתְעָרֵב הַכּל. מֵרִים מִן הַכּל סְאָה אַחַת כְּנֶגֶד סְאָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה וְהַשְּׁאָר מֻתָּר לְכָל אָדָם. נָפְלָה לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה נַעֲשֶׂה הַכּל מְדֻמָּע: \n", + "הָעָרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם עוֹלִין בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם וּמִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָרִים. כֵּיצַד. רְבִיעִית שֶׁל יֵין עָרְלָה אוֹ כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה הָרְבִיעִית מִצְטָרֶפֶת מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְתוֹךְ מָאתַיִם רְבִיעִיּוֹת שֶׁל יַיִן הַכּל מֻתָּר וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָרִים כְּלוּם. נָפְלָה לְפָחוֹת מִמָּאתַיִם הַכּל אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה: \n", + "וְלָמָּה צָרִיךְ לְהָרִים הַתְּרוּמָה וְלֹא יָרִים עָרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם. שֶׁהַתְּרוּמָה מָמוֹן כֹּהֲנִים. לְפִיכָךְ כָּל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁאֵין הַכֹּהֲנִים מַקְפִּידִין עָלֶיהָ כְּגוֹן תְּרוּמַת הַכְּלִיסִין וְהַחֲרוּבִין וּשְׂעוֹרִין שֶׁבֶּאֱדוֹם אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָרִים: \n", + "וְלָמָּה כָּפְלוּ שִׁעוּר עָרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין בַּהֲנָיָה. וְלָמָּה סָמְכוּ עַל שִׁעוּר מֵאָה בִּתְרוּמוֹת שֶׁהֲרֵי תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר אֶחָד מִמֵּאָה וּמְקַדֵּשׁ הַכּל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יח כט) \"אֶת מִקְדְּשׁוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ\" אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים דָּבָר שֶׁאַתָּה מֵרִים מִמֶּנּוּ אִם חָזַר לְתוֹכוֹ מְקַדְּשׁוֹ: \n", + "שְׁאָר אִסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּן כְּגוֹן בְּשַׂר שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים וְחֵלֶב וְדָם וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שִׁעוּרָן בְּשִׁשִּׁים. כֵּיצַד. כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב כְּלָיוֹת שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ שִׁשִּׁים כְּזַיִת מֵחֵלֶב הָאַלְיָה הַכּל מֻתָּר. נָפַל לְפָחוֹת מִשִּׁשִּׁים הַכּל אָסוּר. וְכֵן אִם נָפַל כִּשְׂעוֹרָה חֵלֶב צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה שָׁם כְּמוֹ שִׁשִּׁים שְׂעוֹרָה. וְכֵן בִּשְׁאָר אִסּוּרִין. וְכֵן שֻׁמָּן שֶׁל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁנָּפַל לִקְדֵרָה שֶׁל בָּשָׂר מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשִׁשִּׁים. וְאֵין שֻׁמַּן הַגִּיד מִן הַמִּנְיָן. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשֻּׁמַּן גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. הוֹאִיל וְגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה בְּרִיָּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ הֶחְמִירוּ בּוֹ בְּאִסּוּרֵי תּוֹרָה. וְהַגִּיד עַצְמוֹ אֵין מְשַׁעֲרִין בּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר שֶׁאֵין בַּגִּידִים בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם: \n", + "אֲבָל כְּחַל שֶׁנִתְבַּשֵּׁל עִם הַבָּשָׂר בְּשִׁשִּׁים וּכְחַל מִן הַמִּנְיָן. הוֹאִיל וְהַכְּחַל מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ הֵקֵלּוּ בְּשִׁעוּרוֹ: \n", + "בֵּיצָה שֶׁנִּמְצָא בָּהּ אֶפְרוֹחַ שֶׁנִּשְׁלְקָה עִם בֵּיצִים הַמֻּתָּרוֹת אִם הָיְתָה עִם שִׁשִּׁים וְאַחַת וְהִיא הֲרֵי הֵן מֻתָּרוֹת. הָיְתָה עִם שִׁשִּׁים בִּלְבַד נֶאֶסְרוּ הַכּל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא בְּרִיָּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ עָשׂוּ הֶכֵּר בָּהּ וְהוֹסִיפוּ בְּשִׁעוּרָהּ: \n", + "אֲבָל בֵּיצַת עוֹף טָמֵא שֶׁנִּשְׁלְקָה עִם בֵּיצֵי עוֹף טָהוֹר לֹא אָסְרָה אוֹתָם. וְאִם טָרַף אֵלּוּ עִם אֵלּוּ. אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בֵּיצַת עוֹף טָמֵא אוֹ בֵּיצַת טְרֵפָה עִם בֵּיצִים אֲחֵרוֹת שִׁעוּרָן בְּשִׁשִּׁים: \n", + "וּמִנַּיִן סָמְכוּ חֲכָמִים עַל שִׁעוּר שִׁשִּׁים. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַמּוּרָם מֵאֵיל נָזִיר וְהִיא הַזְּרוֹעַ אֶחָד מִשִּׁשִּׁים מִשְּׁאָר הָאַיִל וְהִיא מִתְבַּשֶּׁלֶת עִמּוֹ וְאֵינָהּ אוֹסֶרֶת אוֹתוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ו יט) \"וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַזְּרֹעַ בְּשֵׁלָה מִן הָאַיִל\": \n", + "מִין בְּמִינוֹ וְדָבָר אַחֵר שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ כְּגוֹן קְדֵרָה שֶׁהָיָה בָּהּ חֵלֶב אַלְיָה וּגְרִיסִין וְנָפַל לְתוֹכָהּ חֵלֶב הַכְּלָיוֹת וְנִמְחָה הַכּל וְנַעֲשָׂה גּוּף אֶחָד. רוֹאִין אֶת חֵלֶב הָאַלְיָה וְאֶת הַגְּרִיסִין כְּאִלּוּ הֵן גּוּף אֶחָד וּמְשַׁעֲרִין חֵלֶב הַכְּלָיוֹת כִּגְרִיסִין וּכְאַלְיָּה. אִם הָיָה אֶחָד מִשִּׁשִּׁים מֻתָּר. שֶׁהֲרֵי אִי אֶפְשָׁר כָּאן לַעֲמֹד עַל הַטַּעַם: \n", + "וְהוּא הַדִּין לַתְּרוּמוֹת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ לְשַׁעֲרָן בְּמֵאָה. וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם אוֹ עָרְלָה לְשַׁעֵר אוֹתָן בְּמָאתַיִם: \n", + "כְּשֶׁמְּשַׁעֲרִין בְּכָל הָאִסּוּרִין בֵּין בְּשִׁשִּׁים בֵּין בְּמֵאָה בֵּין בְּמָאתַיִם. מְשַׁעֲרִין בַּמָּרָק וּבַתַּבְלִין וּבְכָל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בַּקְּדֵרָה וּבְמַה שֶּׁבָּלְעָה קְדֵרָה מֵאַחַר שֶׁנָּפַל הָאִסּוּר לְפִי אֹמֶד הַדַּעַת. שֶׁהֲרֵי אִי אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲמֹד עַל מַה שֶּׁבָּלְעָה בְּצִמְצוּם: \n", + "אָסוּר לְבַטֵּל אִסּוּרִין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה לְכַתְּחִלָּה. וְאִם בִּטֵּל הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן קָנְסוּ אוֹתוֹ חֲכָמִים וְאָסְרוּ הַכּל. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא קְנָס אֵין אוֹסְרִין תַּעֲרֹבֶת זוֹ אֶלָּא עַל זֶה הָעוֹבֵר שֶׁבִּטֵּל הָאִסּוּר. אֲבָל לַאֲחֵרִים הַכּל מֻתָּר: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁנָּפְלָה סְאָה שֶׁל עָרְלָה לְתוֹךְ מֵאָה סְאָה שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱסַר הַכּל. לֹא יָבִיא מֵאָה סְאָה אֲחֵרוֹת וִיצָרֵף כְּדֵי שֶׁתַּעֲלֶה בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם. וְאִם עָבַר וְעָשָׂה כֵּן הַכּל מֻתָּר. אֲבָל בְּאִסּוּר שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם מְבַטְּלִין הָאִסּוּר לְכַתְּחִלָּה: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. חָלָב שֶׁנָּפַל לִקְדֵרָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ בְּשַׂר עוֹף וְנָתַן טַעַם בַּקְּדֵרָה מַרְבֶּה עָלָיו בְּשַׂר עוֹף אַחֵר עַד שֶׁיִּבָּטֵל הַטַּעַם. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁאִם נָתַן דָּבָר הָאָסוּר טַעֲמוֹ בְּדָבָר הַמֻּתָּר נֶאֱסַר הַכּל. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחוֹ. אֲבָל אִם פָּגַם זֶה הָאָסוּר לַמֻּתָּר וְהִפְסִיד טַעֲמוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה פּוֹגֵם מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף. אֲבָל אִם פָּגַם בַּתְּחִלָּה וְסוֹפוֹ לְהַשְׁבִּיחַ. אוֹ הִשְׁבִּיחַ בַּתְּחִלָּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁסּוֹפוֹ לִפְגֹּם הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר: \n", + "וּמִי יִטְעֹם אֶת הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת. אִם הָיָה הַמְעֹרָב תְּרוּמוֹת עִם הַחֻלִּין טוֹעֵם אוֹתָן הַכֹּהֵן. אִם הָיָה טַעַם הַתְּרוּמָה נִכָּר הַכּל מְדֻמָּע. וּבְהִלְכוֹת תְּרוּמוֹת יִתְבָּאֵר דִּין הַמְדֻמָּע: \n", + "וְאִם הָיָה בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב אוֹ יֵין נֶסֶךְ וְיֵין עָרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לִדְבַשׁ. אוֹ בְּשַׂר שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים שֶׁנִּתְבַּשֵּׁל עִם הָיָּרָק וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. טוֹעֵם אוֹתָן הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְסוֹמְכִין עַל פִּיו. אִם אָמַר אֵין בּוֹ טַעַם אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר יֵשׁ בּוֹ טַעַם וּמִטַּעַם רַע הוּא וַהֲרֵי פְּגָמוֹ הַכּל מֻתָּר. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה סוֹפוֹ לְהַשְׁבִּיחַ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאִם אֵין שָׁם עַכּוּ\"ם לִטְעֹם מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשִׁעוּרוֹ בְּשִׁשִּׁים אוֹ בַּמֵּאָה אוֹ בְּמָאתַיִם: \n", + "עַכְבָּר שֶׁנָּפַל לְשֵׁכָר אוֹ לְחֹמֶץ מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשִׁשִּׁים. שֶׁאָנוּ חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא טַעֲמוֹ בַּשֵּׁכָר וּבַחֹמֶץ מַשְׁבִּיחַ. אֲבָל אִם נָפַל לְיַיִן אוֹ לְשֶׁמֶן אוֹ לִדְבַשׁ מֻתָּר וַאֲפִלּוּ נָתַן טַעַם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁטַּעֲמוֹ פּוֹגֵם. שֶׁכָּל אֵלּוּ צְרִיכִין לִהְיוֹתָן מְבֻשָּׂמִים וְזֶה מַסְרִיחָן וּמַפְסִיד טַעֲמָן: \n", + "גְּדִי שֶׁצְּלָאוֹ בְּחֶלְבּוֹ אָסוּר לֶאֱכל אֲפִלּוּ מִקְצֵה אָזְנוֹ. שֶׁהָחֵלֶב נִבְלָע בְּאֵיבָרָיו וְהוּא מַשְׁבִּיחוֹ וְנוֹתֵן בּוֹ טַעַם. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיָה כָּחוּשׁ וְלֹא הָיָה בּוֹ חֵלֶב כְּלָיוֹת וְלֹא חֵלֶב קֶרֶב אֶלָּא מְעַט כְּאֶחָד מִשִּׁשִּׁים קוֹלֵף וְאוֹכֵל עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לַחֵלֶב. וְכֵן יָרֵךְ שֶׁצְּלָאָהּ בְּגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁבָּהּ קוֹלֵף וְאוֹכֵל עַד שֶׁהוּא מַגִּיעַ לַגִּיד וּמַשְׁלִיכוֹ. וְכֵן בְּהֵמָה שֶׁצְּלָאָהּ שְׁלֵמָה וְלֹא הֵסִיר לֹא חוּטִין וְלֹא קְרוּמוֹת הָאֲסוּרוֹת קוֹלֵף וְאוֹכֵל. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְדָבָר אָסוּר חוֹתְכוֹ וּמַשְׁלִיכוֹ שֶׁאֵין בַּגִּידִים בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם כְּדֵי לְשַׁעֵר בָּהֶן: \n", + "אֵין צוֹלִין בְּשַׂר שְׁחוּטָה עִם בְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה אוֹ בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה בְּתַנּוּר אֶחָד. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין נוֹגְעִין זֶה בָּזֶה. וְאִם צְלָאָן הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה הָאֲסוּרָה שְׁמֵנָה הַרְבֵּה וְהַמֻּתֶּרֶת רָזָה שֶׁהָרֵיחַ אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר. וְאֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר אֶלָּא טַעֲמוֹ שֶׁל אִסּוּר: \n", + "בְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה מָלִיחַ שֶׁנִּבְלַל עִמּוֹ בְּשַׂר שְׁחוּטָה הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱסַר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁתַּמְצִית הַנְּבֵלָה נִבְלַעַת בְּגוּף בְּשַׂר הַשְּׁחוּטָה וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲמֹד כָּאן לֹא עַל הַטַּעַם וְלֹא עַל הַשִּׁעוּר. וְכֵן בְּשַׂר דָּג טָמֵא מָלִיחַ שֶׁנִּבְלַל עִמּוֹ דָּג תָּפֵל טָהוֹר נֶאֱסַר מִפְּנֵי צִירוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה הַמָּלִיחַ טָהוֹר וְהַתָּפֵל דָּג טָמֵא לֹא נֶאֱסַר הַמָּלִיחַ [אַף עַל פִּי] שֶׁהַתָּפֵל בּוֹלֵעַ מִן הַמָּלִיחַ [ אֵינוֹ בּוֹלֵעַ כָּל כָּךְ שֶׁיַּחְזֹר וְיִפְלֹט]. דָּג טָמֵא שֶׁכְּבָשׁוֹ עִם דָּג טָהוֹר הַכּל אָסוּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה הַטָּמֵא אֶחָד מִמָּאתַיִם מִן הַטָּהוֹר: \n" + ], + [ + "כָּל הַשִּׁעוּרִים הָאֵלּוּ שְׁנָּתְנוּ חֲכָמִים לְדָבָר הָאָסוּר שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמִינוֹ הַמֻּתָּר בְּשֶׁלֹּא הָיָה הַדָּבָר הָאָסוּר מְחַמֵּץ אוֹ מְתַבֵּל. אוֹ דָּבָר חָשׁוּב שֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא וְלֹא נִתְעָרֵב וְנִדְמָע בְּדָבָר הַמֻּתָּר. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה מְחַמֵּץ אוֹ מְתַבֵּל אוֹ דָּבָר חָשׁוּב אוֹסֵר בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. שְׂאוֹר שֶׁל חִטִּין שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ עִסַּת חִטִּין שֶׁל חֻלִּין וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ הֲרֵי הָעִסָּה כֻּלָּהּ מְדֻמָּע. וְכֵן תַּבְלִין שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לִקְדֵרַת חֻלִּין וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶן כְּדֵי לְתַבֵּל וְהֵן מִמִּין הַחֻלִּין הַכּל מְדֻמָּע. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַשְּׂאוֹר אוֹ הַתַּבְלִין אֶחָד מֵאֶלֶף. וְכֵן שְׂאוֹר שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם לְתוֹךְ הָעִסָּה אוֹ תַּבְלִין שֶׁל עָרְלָה לְתוֹךְ הַקְּדֵרָה הַכּל אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה: \n", + "דָּבָר חָשׁוּב שֶׁהוּא אוֹסֵר בְּמִינוֹ בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא שִׁבְעָה דְּבָרִים וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. אֱגוֹזֵי פֶּרֶךְ. וְרִמּוֹנֵי בְּדַן. וְחָבִיּוֹת סְתוּמוֹת. וַחֲלַפוֹת תְּרָדִין. וְקִלְחֵי כְּרוּב. וּדְלַעַת יְוָנִית. וְכִכָּרוֹת שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. רִמּוֹן אֶחָד מֵרִמּוֹנֵי בְּדַן שֶׁהָיָה עָרְלָה וְנִתְעָרֵב בְּכַמָּה אֲלָפִים רִמּוֹנִים הַכּל אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה. וְכֵן חָבִית סְתוּמָה שֶׁל יֵין עָרְלָה אוֹ שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּכַמָּה אֲלָפִים חָבִיּוֹת סְתוּמוֹת הַכּל אֲסוּרִים בַּהֲנָיָה. וְכֵן שְׁאָר הַשִּׁבְעָה דְּבָרִים: \n", + "וְכֵן חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל נְבֵלָה אוֹ שֶׁל בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה אוֹ חַיָּה אוֹ עוֹף אוֹ דָּג הַטְּמֵאִין שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּכַמָּה אֲלָפִים חֲתִיכוֹת הַכּל אָסוּר עַד שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהַּ אוֹתָהּ חֲתִיכָה. וְאַחַר כָּךְ יְשַׁעֵר הַשְּׁאָר בְּשִׁשִּׁים. שֶׁאִם לֹא הִגְבִּיהָהּ הֲרֵי הַדָּבָר הָאָסוּר עוֹמֵד וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּנָּה וְהַחֲתִיכָה חֲשׁוּבָה אֶצְלוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי מִתְכַּבֵּד בָּהּ לִפְנֵי הָאוֹרְחִין: \n", + "וְהוּא הַדִּין בַּחֲתִיכָה שֶׁל בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב אוֹ שֶׁל חֻלִּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בָּעֲזָרָה שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵן אֲסוּרִים מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן בַּהֲנָיָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה אוֹסְרִין בְּכָל שֶׁהֵן עַד שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהַּ אוֹתָן. וְכֵן גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁנִּתְבַּשֵּׁל עִם הַגִּידִין אוֹ עִם הַבָּשָׂר בִּזְמַן שֶׁמַּכִּירוֹ מַגְבִּיהוֹ וְהַשְּׁאָר מֻתָּר שֶׁאֵין בַּגִּידִים בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. וְאִם אֵינוֹ מַכִּירוֹ הַכּל אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בְּרִיָּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא חָשׁוּב וְאוֹסֵר בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא: \n", + "וְכֵן כָּל בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים חֲשׁוּבִין הֵן וְאֵינָם בְּטֵלִין. לְפִיכָךְ שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּאֶלֶף שְׁוָרִים וְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה בְּאֶלֶף עֶגְלוֹת. אוֹ צִפּוֹר מְצֹרָע הַשְּׁחוּטָה בְּאֶלֶף צִפֳּרִים אוֹ פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר בְּאֶלֶף חֲמוֹרִים כֻּלָּן אֲסוּרִין בַּהֲנָיָה. אֲבָל שְׁאָר הַדְּבָרִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לִמָּנוֹת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ עוֹלִין בְּשִׁעוּרָן: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. אֲגֻדָּה שֶׁל יָרָק מִכִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּמָאתַיִם אֲגֻדּוֹת. אוֹ אֶתְרוֹג שֶׁל עָרְלָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמָאתַיִם אֶתְרוֹגִים. הַכּל מֻתָּר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁכָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא חָשׁוּב אֵצֶל בְּנֵי מָקוֹם מִן הַמְּקוֹמוֹת. כְּגוֹן אֱגוֹזֵי פֶּרֶךְ וְרִמּוֹנֵי בְּדַן בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּאוֹתָן הַזְּמַנִּים. שֶׁהוּא אוֹסֵר בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא לְפִי חֲשִׁיבוּתוֹ בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם וּבְאוֹתוֹ זְמַן. וְלֹא הֻזְכְּרוּ אֵלּוּ אֶלָּא לְפִי שֶׁהֵן אוֹסְרִין כָּל שֶׁהֵן בְּכָל מָקוֹם. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן בִּשְׁאָר מְקוֹמוֹת. וְדָבָר בָּרוּר הוּא שֶׁכָּל אִסּוּרִין הָאֵלּוּ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם: \n", + "נָפַל רִמּוֹן אֶחָד מִן הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת הַזֹּאת לִשְׁנֵי רִמּוֹנִים אֲחֵרִים מֵרִמּוֹנֵי בְּדַן. וְנָפַל מִן הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה רִמּוֹן אֶחָד לְרִמּוֹנִים אֲחֵרִים. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ הָאֲחֵרִים מֻתָּרִין שֶׁהֲרֵי הָרִמּוֹן שֶׁל תַּעֲרֹבֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה בָּטֵל בְּרֹב. וְאִם נָפַל מִן הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה רִמּוֹן לְאֶלֶף כֻּלָּן אֲסוּרִין. לֹא נֶאֱמַר בָּטֵל בְּרֹב אֶלָּא לְהַתִּיר סְפֵק סְפֵקָן שֶׁאִם יִפּל מִן הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "נִתְפַּצְּעוּ אֱגוֹזִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁנֶּאֶסְרוּ כֻּלָּן מִפְּנֵי אֱגוֹז עָרְלָה שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶן אוֹ נִתְפָּרְרוּ הָרִמּוֹנִים וְנִתְפַּתְּחוּ הֶחָבִיּוֹת וְנִתְחַתְּכוּ הַדְּלוּעִין וְנִתְפָּרְסוּ הַכִּכָּרוֹת אַחַר שֶׁנֶּאֶסְרוּ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יַעֲלוּ בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם. וְהוּא הַדִּין לַחֲתִיכַת נְבֵלָה שֶׁנִּדּוֹכָה בְּכָל הַחֲתִיכוֹת וְנַעֲשָׂה הַכּל כְּמוֹת שֶׁהִיא עוֹלֶה בְּשִׁשִּׁים: \n", + "וְאָסוּר לִפְצֹעַ הָאֱגוֹזִים וּלְפָרֵר הָרִמּוֹנִים וְלִפְתֹּחַ הֶחָבִיּוֹת אַחַר שֶׁנֶּאֶסְרוּ כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּעֲלוּ בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם שֶׁאֵין מְבַטְּלִין אִסּוּר לְכַתְּחִלָּה. וְאִם עָשָׂה כֵּן קוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ וְאוֹסְרִין עָלָיו כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "שְׂאוֹר שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם וְשֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לְתוֹךְ הָעִסָּה לֹא בָּזֶה כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ וְלֹא בָּזֶה כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ וּבִשְׁנֵיהֶם כְּשֶׁיִּצְטָרְפוּ יֵשׁ בָּהֶם כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ. אוֹתָהּ עִסָּה אֲסוּרָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וּמֻתֶּרֶת לַכֹּהֲנִים. וְכֵן תַּבְלִין שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה וְשֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לְתוֹךְ הַקְּדֵרָה. וְלֹא בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן כְּדֵי לְתַבֵּל וּבִשְׁנֵיהֶם כְּדֵי לְתַבֵּל. אוֹתָהּ קְדֵרָה אֲסוּרָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהֲרֵי דָּבָר הָאָסוּר לָהֶם תִּבְּלָה. וּמֻתֶּרֶת לַכֹּהֲנִים: \n", + "תַּבְלִין שֶׁהֵם שְׁנַיִם אוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה שֵׁמוֹת מִמִּין אֶחָד אוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה מִינִין מִשֵּׁם אֶחָד מִצְטָרְפִין לְתַבֵּל וְלֶאֱסֹר וְכֵן לְחַמֵּץ. כֵּיצַד. שְׂאוֹר שֶׁל חִטִּין וּשְׂאוֹר שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִים הוֹאִיל וְשֵׁם שְׂאוֹר אֶחָד הוּא אֵינָן כְּמִין וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ. אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמִין אֶחָד וּמִצְטָרֵף לְשַׁעֵר בָּהֶן כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ בְּעִסָּה שֶׁל חִטִּין אִם הָיָה טַעַם שְׁנֵיהֶם טַעַם חִטִּין. אוֹ כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ בְּעִסָּה שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִין אִם הָיָה טַעַם שְׁנֵיהֶם טַעַם שְׂעוֹרִים: \n", + "שְׁלֹשָׁה שֵׁמוֹת מִמִּין אֶחָד כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן כַּרְפַּס שֶׁל נְהָרוֹת וְכַרְפַּס שֶׁל אֲפָר וְכַרְפַּס שֶׁל גִּנָּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן שֵׁם בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ הוֹאִיל וְהֵם מִין אֶחָד מִצְטָרְפִין לְתַבֵּל: \n", + "עִסָּה מְחֻמֶּצֶת שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹכָהּ שְׂאוֹר שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה אוֹ שְׂאוֹר שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם. וְכֵן קְדֵרָה מְתֻבֶּלֶת שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לְתוֹכָהּ תַּבְלִין שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה אוֹ שֶׁל עָרְלָה וְשֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם. אִם יֵשׁ בַּשְּׂאוֹר כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ אִלּוּ הָיְתָה הָעִסָּה מַצָּה. וּבַתַּבְלִין כְּדֵי לְתַבֵּל הַקְּדֵרָה אִלּוּ הָיְתָה תְּפֵלָה הֲרֵי הַכּל אָסוּר. וְאִם אֵין בָּהֶם כְּדֵי לְתַבֵּל וּלְחַמֵּץ יַעֲלוּ בְּשִׁעוּרָן. תְּרוּמָה בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה וְעָרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם: \n", + "הַתְּרוּמָה מַעְלָה אֶת הָעָרְלָה וְאֶת כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם. כֵּיצַד. סְאָה תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְתִשְׁעָה וְתִשְׁעִים חֻלִּין וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָפַל לְכָל חֲצִי סְאָה שֶׁל עָרְלָה אוֹ שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם אֵין כָּאן אִסּוּר עָרְלָה וְלֹא אִסּוּר כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם. שֶׁהֲרֵי עָלָה בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּקְצָת הַמָּאתַיִם תְּרוּמָה: \n", + "וְכֵן הָעָרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם מַעֲלִין אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה. כֵּיצַד. מֵאָה סְאָה שֶׁל עָרְלָה אוֹ שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לְתוֹךְ עֶשְׂרִים אֶלֶף שֶׁל חֻלִּין נַעֲשֵׂית כָּל הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת עֶשְׂרִים אֶלֶף וּמֵאָה. וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָפַל לְכָל מֵאָה סְאָה סְאָה שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה הֲרֵי הַכּל מֻתָּר וְתַעֲלֶה הַתְּרוּמָה בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּקְצָת הַמֵּאָה הַמַּעֲלִין אוֹתָהּ עָרְלָה אוֹ כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם: \n", + "וְכֵן הָעָרְלָה מַעֲלָה אֶת כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם. וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם אֶת הָעָרְלָה. וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם אֶת כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם. וְהָעָרְלָה אֶת הָעָרְלָה. כֵּיצַד. מָאתַיִם סְאָה שֶׁל עָרְלָה אוֹ שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לְאַרְבָּעִים אֶלֶף חֻלִּין. וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָפַל לְכָל מָאתַיִם סְאָה וּסְאָה שֶׁל עָרְלָה אוֹ שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם הַכּל מֻתָּר. שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁבָּטֵל הָאִסּוּר שֶׁנָּפַל תְּחִלָּה נַעֲשָׂה הַכּל כְּחֻלִּין הַמֻּתָּרִין: \n", + "בֶּגֶד שֶׁצְּבָעוֹ בִּקְלִפֵּי עָרְלָה יִשָּׂרֵף. נִתְעָרֵב בַּאֲחֵרִים יַעֲלֶה בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם. וְכֵן תַּבְשִׁיל שֶׁבִּשְּׁלוֹ בִּקְלִפֵּי עָרְלָה וּפַת שֶׁאֲפָאָהּ בִּקְלִפֵּי עָרְלָה אוֹ בְּכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם יִשָּׂרֵף הַתַּבְשִׁיל וְהַפַּת. שֶׁהֲרֵי הֲנָיָתוֹ נִכֶּרֶת בָּהֶן. נִתְעָרְבוּ בַּאֲחֵרִים יַעֲלוּ בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם: \n", + "וְכֵן בֶּגֶד שֶׁאָרַג בּוֹ מְלֹא הַסִּיט שֶׁצְּבָעוֹ בָּעָרְלָה וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵי זֶה הוּא יַעֲלֶה בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם. נִתְעָרְבוּ סַמָּנֵי עָרְלָה בְּסַמָּנֵי הֶתֵּר יַעֲלוּ בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם. מֵי צֶבַע בְּמֵי צֶבַע יִבָּטֵל בְּרֹב: \n", + "תַּנּוּר שֶׁהִסִּיקוֹ בִּקְלִפֵּי עָרְלָה וּבְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם בֵּין חָדָשׁ בֵּין יָשָׁן יוּצַן. וְאַחַר כָּךְ יָחֵם אוֹתוֹ בַּעֲצֵי הֶתֵּר. וְאִם בִּשֵּׁל בּוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁיּוּצַן בֵּין פַּת בֵּין תַּבְשִׁיל הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה. יֵשׁ שֶׁבַח עֲצֵי אִסּוּר בְּפַת אוֹ בְּתַבְשִׁיל. גָּרַף אֶת כָּל הָאֵשׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ בִּשֵּׁל אוֹ אָפָה בְּחֻמּוֹ שֶׁל תַּנּוּר הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר שֶׁהֲרֵי עֲצֵי אִסּוּר הָלְכוּ לָהֶן: \n", + "קְעָרוֹת וְכוֹסוֹת וּקְדֵרוֹת וּצְלוֹחִיּוֹת שֶׁבִּשְּׁלָן הַיּוֹצֵר בִּקְלִפֵּי עָרְלָה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין בַּהֲנָאָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי דָּבָר הָאָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה עָשָׂה אוֹתָן חָדָשׁ: \n", + "פַּת שֶׁבִּשְּׁלָהּ עַל גַּבֵּי גֶּחָלִים שֶׁל עֲצֵי עָרְלָה מֻתֶּרֶת. כֵּיוָן שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ גֶּחָלִים הָלַךְ אִסּוּרָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן בּוֹעֲרוֹת. קְדֵרָה שֶׁבִּשֵּׁל אוֹתָהּ בִּקְלִפֵּי עָרְלָה אוֹ בְּכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם וּבַעֲצֵי הֶתֵּר הֲרֵי הַתַּבְשִׁיל אָסוּר. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁזֶּה וְזֶה גּוֹרֵם. שֶׁבְּשָׁעָה שֶׁנִּתְבַּשְּׁלָה מֵחֲמַת עֲצֵי אִסּוּר עֲדַיִן לֹא בָּאוּ עֲצֵי הַהֶתֵּר וְנִמְצָא מִקְצָת הַבִּשּׁוּל בַּעֲצֵי הֶתֵּר וּמִקְצָתוֹ בְּאִסּוּר: \n", + "נְטִיעָה שֶׁל עָרְלָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בִּנְטִיעוֹת. וְכֵן עֲרוּגָה שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם בַּעֲרוּגוֹת. הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֵט לְכַתְּחִלָּה מִן הַכּל. וְאִם הָיְתָה נְטִיעָה בְּמָאתַיִם נְטִיעוֹת וַעֲרוּגָה בְּמָאתַיִם עֲרוּגוֹת הֲרֵי כָּל הַנִּלְקָט מֻתָּר. וְאִם הָיוּ בְּפָחוֹת מִזֶּה כָּל הַנִּלְקָט אָסוּר. וְלָמָּה הִתִּירוּ לוֹ לִלְקֹט לְכַתְּחִלָּה וְהָיָה מִן הַדִּין שֶׁאוֹסְרִין לוֹ הַכּל עַד שֶׁיִּטְרַח וְיוֹצִיא הַנְּטִיעָה וְהָעֲרוּגָה הָאֲסוּרָה. שֶׁהַדָּבָר חֲזָקָה שֶׁאֵין אָדָם אוֹסֵר כַּרְמוֹ בִּנְטִיעָה אַחַת וְאִלּוּ הָיָה יוֹדְעָהּ הָיָה מוֹצִיאָהּ: \n", + "הַמַּעֲמִיד גְּבִינָה בִּשְׂרַף פַּגֵּי עָרְלָה. אוֹ בְּקֵיבַת תִּקְרֹבֶת עַכּוּ\"ם. אוֹ בְּחֹמֶץ יַיִן שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם. הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָיָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא כָּל שֶׁהוּא. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַדָּבָר הָאָסוּר הוּא הַנִּכָּר וְהוּא שֶׁעָשָׂה אוֹתָהּ גְּבִינָה: \n", + "הָעָרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם דִּין הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶן שֶׁיִּשָּׂרְפוּ. וְהַמַּשְׁקִין שֶׁלָּהֶן יִקָּבְרוּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׂרֹף הַמַּשְׁקִין: \n", + "יַיִן שֶׁנִּתְנַסֵּךְ לְעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב עִם הַיַּיִן הַכּל אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁהוּרַק הַיַּיִן הַמֻּתָּר עַל טִפָּה שֶׁל יֵין נֶסֶךְ. אֲבָל אִם עֵרָה יֵין נֶסֶךְ מִצִּלְצוּל קָטָן לְתוֹךְ הַבּוֹר שֶׁל יַיִן. אֲפִלּוּ עֵרָה כָּל הַיּוֹם כֻּלּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן בָּטֵל. עֵרָה מִן הֶחָבִית בֵּין שֶׁעֵרָה מִן הַמֻּתָּר לָאָסוּר אוֹ מִן הָאָסוּר לַמֻּתָּר הַכּל אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָעַמּוּד הַיּוֹרֵד מִפִּי הֶחָבִית גָּדוֹל: \n", + "נִתְעָרֵב סְתָם יֵינָם בַּיַּיִן הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא בִּשְׁתִיָּה וְיִמָּכֵר כֻּלּוֹ לְעַכּוּ\"ם. וְלוֹקֵחַ דְּמֵי הַיַּיִן הָאָסוּר שֶׁבּוֹ וּמַשְׁלִיכוֹ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח וְיֵהָנֶה בִּשְׁאָר הַמָּעוֹת. וְכֵן אִם נִתְעָרְבָה חָבִית שֶׁל יֵין נֶסֶךְ בֵּין הֶחָבִיּוֹת הַכּל אֲסוּרִין בִּשְׁתִיָּה וּמֻתָּרִין בַּהֲנָיָה. וְיוֹלִיךְ דְּמֵי אוֹתָהּ חָבִית לְיָם הַמֶּלַח כְּשֶׁיִּמְכֹּר הַכּל לְעַכּוּ\"ם. וְכֵן בְּחָבִית שֶׁל סְתָם יֵינָם: \n", + "מַיִם שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בְּיַיִן אוֹ יַיִן בְּמַיִם בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁנָּפַל הַמַּשְׁקֶה הַמֻּתָּר לְתוֹךְ הַמַּשְׁקֶה הָאָסוּר. אֲבָל אִם נָפַל הַמַּשְׁקֶה הָאָסוּר לְתוֹךְ הַמַּשְׁקֶה הַמֻּתָּר רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן בָּטֵל. וְהוּא שֶׁיּוּרַק מִצִּלְצוּל קָטָן שֶׁהָיָה מֵרִיק וְיוֹרֵד מְעַט מְעַט. וְהֵיאַךְ יִהְיוּ הַמַּיִם אֲסוּרִים כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ נֶעֱבָדִין אוֹ תִּקְרֹבֶת עַכּוּ\"ם: \n", + "בּוֹר שֶׁל יַיִן שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹכוֹ קִיתוֹן שֶׁל מַיִם תְּחִלָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ יֵין נֶסֶךְ. רוֹאִים אֶת יֵין הַהֶתֵּר כְּאִלּוּ אֵינוֹ וְהַמַּיִם שֶׁנָּפְלוּ מְשַׁעֲרִין בָּהֶן עִם יֵין נֶסֶךְ. אִם רְאוּיִין לְבַטֵּל טַעַם אוֹתוֹ יֵין נֶסֶךְ הֲרֵי הַמַּיִם רָבִין עָלָיו וּמְבַטְּלִין אוֹתוֹ וְיִהְיֶה הַכּל מֻתָּר: \n", + "יֵין נֶסֶךְ שֶׁנָּפַל עַל הָעֲנָבִים יְדִיחֵם וְהֵן מֻתָּרוֹת בַּאֲכִילָה. וְאִם הָיוּ מְבֻקָּעוֹת בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה הַיַּיִן יָשָׁן בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה חָדָשׁ אִם נוֹתֵן טַעַם בָּעֲנָבִים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרוֹת בַּהֲנָיָה. וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרוֹת בַּאֲכִילָה: \n", + "נָפַל עַל גַּבֵּי תְּאֵנִים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרוֹת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַיַּיִן פּוֹגֵם בְּטַעַם הַתְּאֵנִים: \n", + "יֵין נֶסֶךְ שֶׁנָּפַל עַל הַחִטִּים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרוֹת בַּאֲכִילָה וּמֻתָּרוֹת בַּהֲנָיָה. וְלֹא יִמְכְּרֵם לְעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁמָּא יַחֲזֹר וְיִמְכְּרֵם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. אֶלָּא כֵּיצַד עוֹשֶׂה. טוֹחֵן אוֹתָן וְעוֹשֶׂה מֵהֶן פַּת וּמוֹכְרָהּ לְעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִקְּחוּ אוֹתָהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁהֲרֵי פַּת עַכּוּ\"ם אֲסוּרָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. וְלָמָּה אֵין בּוֹדְקִין אֶת הַחִטִּים בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן שׁוֹאֲבוֹת וְהַיַּיִן נִבְלָע בָּהֶן: \n", + "יֵין נֶסֶךְ שֶׁהֶחֱמִיץ וְנָפַל לְתוֹךְ חֹמֶץ שֵׁכָר אוֹסֵר בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בְּמִינוֹ שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶן חֹמֶץ הֵן. וְיַיִן שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב עִם הַחֹמֶץ בֵּין שֶׁנָּפַל חֹמֶץ לַיַּיִן בֵּין שֶׁנָּפַל יַיִן לַחֹמֶץ מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹתוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם: \n" + ], + [ + "קְדֵרָה שֶׁל חֶרֶס שֶׁנּתִבַּשֵּׁל בָּהּ בְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה אוֹ בְּשַׂר שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים לֹא יְבַשֵּׁל בָּהּ בְּשַׂר שְׁחוּטָה בְּאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם. וְאִם בִּשֵּׁל בָּהּ מִין בָּשָׂר הַתַּבְשִׁיל אָסוּר. בִּשֵּׁל בָּהּ מִין אַחֵר בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם: ", + "וְלֹא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא קְדֵרָה בַּת יוֹמָהּ בִּלְבַד הוֹאִיל וַעֲדַיִן לֹא נִפְגַּם הַשֻּׁמָּן שֶׁנִּבְלָע בַּקְּדֵרָה. וּמִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים לֹא יְבַשֵּׁל בָּהּ לְעוֹלָם. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לוֹקְחִין כְּלֵי חֶרֶס יְשָׁנִים מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בָּהֶן בְּחַמִּין כְּגוֹן קְדֵרוֹת וּקְעָרוֹת לְעוֹלָם. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ שׁוֹעִין בַּאֲבָר. וְאִם לָקַח וּבִשֵּׁל בָּהֶן מִיּוֹם שֵׁנִי וָהָלְאָה הַתַּבְשִׁיל מֻתָּר: ", + "הַלּוֹקֵחַ כְּלֵי תַּשְׁמִישׁ סְעֻדָּה מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם מִכְּלֵי מַתָּכוֹת וּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית. דְּבָרִים שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן כָּל עִקָּר מַטְבִּילָן בְּמֵי מִקְוֶה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִהְיוּ מֻתָּרִין לֶאֱכֹל בָּהֶן וְלִשְׁתּוֹת. וּדְבָרִים שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עַל יְדֵי צוֹנֵן כְּגוֹן כּוֹסוֹת וּצְלוֹחִיּוֹת וְקִיתוֹנִיּוֹת מְדִיחָן וּמַטְבִּילָן וְהֵן מֻתָּרוֹת. וּדְבָרִים שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עַל יְדֵי חַמִּין כְּגוֹן יוֹרוֹת וְקֻמְקְמוֹסִין וּמְחַמְּמֵי חַמִּין מַגְעִילָן וּמַטְבִּילָן וְהֵן מֻתָּרִין. וּדְבָרִים שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עַל יְדֵי הָאוּר כְּגוֹן שִׁפּוּדִין וְאַסְכְּלָאוֹת מְלַבְּנָן בָּאוּר עַד שֶׁתִּנְשַׁר קְלִפָּתָן וּמַטְבִּילָן וְהֵן מֻתָּרִין: ", + "כֵּיצַד מַגְעִילָן. נוֹתֵן יוֹרָה קְטַנָּה לְתוֹךְ יוֹרָה גְּדוֹלָה וּמְמַלֵּא עָלֶיהָ מַיִם עַד שֶׁיָּצוּפוּ עַל הַקְּטַנָּה וּמַרְתִּיחָהּ יָפֶה יָפֶה. וְאִם הָיְתָה יוֹרָה גְּדוֹלָה מַקִּיף עַל שְׂפָתָהּ בָּצֵק אוֹ טִיט וּמְמַלֵּא מַיִם עַד שֶׁיָּצוּפוּ הַמַּיִם עַל שְׂפָתָהּ וּמַרְתִּיחַ. וְכֻלָּן שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִרְתִּיחַ אוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵדִיחַ וְעַד שֶׁלֹּא הִלְבִּין וְעַד שֶׁלֹּא הִטְבִּיל מֻתָּר. שֶׁכָּל הַשֻּׁמָּן שֶׁבָּהֶן נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם הוּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: ", + "טְבִילָה זוֹ שֶׁמַּטְבִּילִין כְּלֵי הַסְּעֻדָּה הַנִּלְקָחִים מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְאַחַר כָּךְ יֻתְּרוּ לַאֲכִילָה וּשְׁתִיָּה אֵינָן לְעִנְיַן טֻמְאָה וְטָהֳרָה אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. וְרֶמֶז לָהּ (במדבר לא כג) \"כָּל דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יָבֹא בָאֵשׁ תַּעֲבִירוּ בָאֵשׁ וְטָהֵר\" וּמִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּטָהֳרָתָן מִידֵי גִּעוּלֵי עַכּוּ\"ם לֹא מִידֵי טֻמְאָה. שֶׁאֵין לְךָ טֻמְאָה עוֹלָה עַל יְדֵי הָאֵשׁ וְכָל הַטְּמֵאִים בִּטְבִילָה עוֹלִין מִטֻּמְאָתָן. וְטֻמְאַת מֵת בְּהַזָּאָה וּטְבִילָה וְאֵין שָׁם אֵשׁ כְּלָל. אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן גִּעוּלֵי עַכּוּ\"ם. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁכָּתוּב וְטָהֵר אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים הוֹסֵיף לוֹ טָהֳרָה אַחַר עֲבִירָתוֹ בָּאֵשׁ לְהַתִּירוֹ מִגִּעוּלֵי עַכּוּ\"ם: ", + "לֹא חִיְּבוּ בִּטְבִילָה זוֹ אֶלָּא כְּלֵי מַתָּכוֹת שֶׁל סְעֻדָּה הַנִּלְקָחִין מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם. אֲבָל הַשּׁוֹאֵל מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם. אוֹ שֶׁמִּשְׁכֵּן הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֶצְלוֹ כְּלֵי מַתָּכוֹת. מֵדִיחַ אוֹ מַרְתִּיחַ אוֹ מְלַבֵּן וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַטְבִּיל. וְכֵן אִם לָקַח כְּלֵי עֵץ אוֹ כְּלֵי אֲבָנִים מֵדִיחַ אוֹ מַרְתִּיחַ וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַטְבִּיל. וְכֵן כְּלֵי חָרָשִׂים אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַטְבִּיל. אֲבָל הַשּׁוֹעִין בַּאֲבָר הֲרֵי הֵן כִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת וּצְרִיכִין טְבִילָה: ", + "הַלּוֹקֵחַ סַכִּין מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם מְלַבְּנָהּ בָּאֵשׁ אוֹ מַשְׁחִיזָהּ בָּרֵחַיִם שֶׁלָּהּ. וְאִם הָיְתָה סַכִּין יָפָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ פְּגִימוֹת דַּי לוֹ אִם נְעָצָהּ בְּקַרְקַע קָשָׁה עֶשֶׂר פְּעָמִים וְאוֹכֵל בָּהּ צוֹנֵן. וְאִם הָיוּ בָּהּ פְּגִימוֹת אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה יָפָה וְרָצָה לֶאֱכֹל בָּהּ חַמִּין אוֹ לִשְׁחֹט בָּהּ מְלַבְּנָהּ אוֹ מַשְׁחִיזָהּ כֻּלָּהּ. שָׁחַט בָּהּ קֹדֶם שֶׁיְּטַהֲרֶנָּה מֵדִיחַ מְקוֹם הַשְּׁחִיטָה. וְאִם קִלֵּף הֲרֵי זֶה מְשֻׁבָּח: ", + "סַכִּין שֶׁשָּׁחַט בָּהּ טְרֵפָה לֹא יִשְׁחֹט בָּהּ עַד שֶׁיְּדִיחָהּ אֲפִלּוּ בְּצוֹנֵן אוֹ מְקַנְּחָהּ בִּבְלָיוֹת שֶׁל בְּגָדִים: ", + "וְיֵשׁ שָׁם דְּבָרִים אֲחֵרִים אָסְרוּ אוֹתָן חֲכָמִים וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לְאִסּוּרָן עִקָּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה גָּזְרוּ עֲלֵיהֶן כְּדֵי לְהִתְרַחֵק מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם עַד שֶׁלֹּא יִתְעָרְבוּ בָּהֶן יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיָבוֹאוּ לִידֵי חַתְנוּת. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. אָסְרוּ לִשְׁתּוֹת עִמָּהֶן וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין לָחוּשׁ לְיֵין נֶסֶךְ. וְאָסְרוּ לֶאֱכֹל פִּתָּן אוֹ בִּשּׁוּלֵיהֶן וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין לָחוּשׁ לְגִעוּלֵיהֶן: ", + "כֵּיצַד. לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה אָדָם בִּמְסִבָּה שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא יַיִן מְבֻשָּׁל שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱסָר. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה שׁוֹתֶה מִכֵּלָיו לְבַדּוֹ. וְאִם הָיָה רֹב הַמְּסִבָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל מֻתָּר. וְאֵין שׁוֹתִין שֵׁכָר שֶׁלָּהֶן שֶׁעוֹשִׂין מִן הַתְּמָרִים וְהַתְּאֵנִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. וְאֵינוֹ אָסוּר אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם מְכִירָתוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הֵבִיא הַשֵּׁכָר לְבֵיתוֹ וְשָׁתָהוּ שָׁם מֻתָּר שֶׁעִקַּר הַגְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יִסְעֹד אֶצְלוֹ: ", + "יֵין תַּפּוּחִים וְיֵין רִמּוֹנִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן מֻתָּר לִשְׁתּוֹתָן בְּכָל מָקוֹם. דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָצוּי לֹא גָּזְרוּ עָלָיו. יֵין צִמּוּקִים הֲרֵי הוּא כְּיַיִן וּמִתְנַסֵּךְ: ", + "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָסְרוּ פַּת עַכּוּ\"ם. יֵשׁ מְקוֹמוֹת שֶׁמְּקִלִּין בַּדָּבָר וְלוֹקְחִין פַּת הַנַּחְתּוֹם הָעַכּוּ\"ם בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין שָׁם נַחְתּוֹם יִשְׂרָאֵל וּבַשָּׂדֶה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא שְׁעַת הַדְּחָק. אֲבָל פַּת בַּעֲלֵי בָּתִּים אֵין שָׁם מִי שֶׁמּוֹרֶה בָּהּ לְהָקֵל שֶׁעִקַּר הַגְּזֵרָה מִשּׁוּם חַתְנוּת וְאִם יֹאכַל פַּת בַּעֲלֵי בָּתִּים יָבוֹא לִסְעֹד אֶצְלָן: ", + "הִדְלִיק הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֶת הַתַּנּוּר וְאָפָה בּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל. אוֹ שֶׁהִדְלִיק יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָפָה עַכּוּ\"ם. אוֹ שֶׁהִדְלִיק הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְאָפָה הָעַכּוּ\"ם וּבָא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנִעֵר הָאֵשׁ מְעַט אוֹ כְּבָשׁוֹ לָאֵשׁ הוֹאִיל וְנִשְׁתַּתֵּף בִּמְלֶאכֶת הַפַּת הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. וַאֲפִלּוּ לֹא זָרַק אֶלָּא עֵץ לְתוֹךְ הַתַּנּוּר הִתִּיר כָּל הַפַּת שֶׁבּוֹ. שֶׁאֵין הַדָּבָר אֶלָּא לִהְיוֹת הֶכֵּר שֶׁהַפַּת שֶׁלָּהֶן אֲסוּרָה: ", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁבִּשֵּׁל לָנוּ יַיִן אוֹ חָלָב אוֹ דְּבַשׁ אוֹ פְּרִישִׁין וְכַיּוֹצֵא בְּאֵלּוּ (מִכָּל) דָּבָר הַנֶּאֱכָל כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא חַי הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. וְלֹא גָּזְרוּ אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא חַי. כְּגוֹן בָּשָׂר וְדָג תָּפֵל וּבֵיצָה וִירָקוֹת. אִם בִּשְּׁלָן הָעַכּוּ\"ם מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּתֵּף יִשְׂרָאֵל עִמּוֹ בְּבִשּׁוּלָן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין מִשּׁוּם בִּשּׁוּלֵי עַכּוּ\"ם: ", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּדָבָר שֶׁהוּא עוֹלֶה עַל שֻׁלְחַן מְלָכִים לֶאֱכֹל בּוֹ אֶת הַפַּת. כְּגוֹן בָּשָׂר וּבֵיצִים וְדָגִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶם. אֲבָל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה עַל שֻׁלְחַן מְלָכִים לֶאֱכֹל בּוֹ אֶת הַפַּת כְּגוֹן תֻּרְמוֹסִין שֶׁשָּׁלְקוּ אוֹתָן עַכּוּ\"ם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין חַיִּין הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. שֶׁעִקַּר הַגְּזֵרָה מִשּׁוּם חַתְנוּת שֶׁלֹּא יְזַמְּנוֹ הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֶצְלוֹ בַּסְּעֻדָּה. וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה עַל שֻׁלְחַן מְלָכִים לֶאֱכֹל בּוֹ אֶת הַפַּת אֵין אָדָם מְזַמֵּן אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו: ", + "וְדָגִים קְטַנִּים שֶׁמְּלָחָן יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ עַכּוּ\"ם הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבַּשְּׁלוּ מִקְצָת בִּשּׁוּל. וְאִם צְלָאָן עַכּוּ\"ם אַחַר כֵּן מֻתָּרִין. וְכָל שֶׁבִּשְּׁלוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל מְעַט בִּשּׁוּלוֹ בֵּין בַּתְּחִלָּה בֵּין בַּסּוֹף מֻתָּר. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הִנִּיחַ הָעַכּוּ\"ם בָּשָׂר אוֹ קְדֵרָה עַל גַּבֵּי הָאֵשׁ וְהָפַךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּבָּשָׂר וְהֵגִיס בַּקְּדֵרָה אוֹ שֶׁהִנִּיחַ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגָמַר הָעַכּוּ\"ם הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר: ", + "דָּג שֶׁמְּלָחוֹ עַכּוּ\"ם וּפֵרוֹת שֶׁעִשְּׁנָן עַד שֶׁהִכְשִׁירָן לַאֲכִילָה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. מָלִיחַ אֵינוֹ כְּרוֹתֵחַ בִּגְזֵרָה זוֹ וְהַמְעֵשָּׁן אֵינוֹ כִּמְבֻשָּׁל. וְכֵן קְלָיוֹת שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם מֻתָּרִין וְלֹא גָּזְרוּ עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מְזַמֵּן חֲבֵרוֹ עַל הַקְּלָיוֹת: ", + "פּוֹלִין וַאֲפוּנִין וַעֲדָשִׁים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁשּׁוֹלְקִין אוֹתָן הָעַכּוּ\"ם וּמוֹכְרִין אוֹתָן אֲסוּרִין מִשּׁוּם בִּשּׁוּלֵי עַכּוּ\"ם בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁעוֹלִין עַל שֻׁלְחַן מְלָכִים מִשּׁוּם פַּרְפֶּרֶת. וּמִשּׁוּם גִּעוּלֵי עַכּוּ\"ם בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁמָּא יְבַשְּׁלוּ אוֹתָן עִם הַבָּשָׂר אוֹ בִּקְדֵרָה שֶׁבִּשְּׁלוּ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר. וְכֵן הַסֻּפְגָּנִין שֶׁקּוֹלִין אוֹתָן הָעַכּוּ\"ם בְּשֶׁמֶן אֲסוּרִין אַף מִשּׁוּם גִּעוּלֵי עַכּוּ\"ם: ", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁבִּשֵּׁל וְלֹא נִתְכַּוֵּן לְבִשּׁוּל הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. כֵּיצַד. עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁהִצִּית אוּר בַּאֲגַם כְּדֵי לְהַעֲבִיר הֶחָצִיר וְנִתְבַּשְּׁלוּ בָּהּ חֲגָבִים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהֵן עוֹלִין עַל שֻׁלְחַן מְלָכִים מִשּׁוּם פַּרְפֶּרֶת. וְכֵן אִם חָרַךְ הָרֹאשׁ לְהַעֲבִיר הַשֵּׂעָר מֻתָּר לֶאֱכֹל מִן הַדִּלְדּוּלִין וּמִן רֹאשׁ אָזְנַיִם שֶׁנִּצְּלוּ בִּשְׁעַת חֲרִיכָה: ", + "תְּמָרִים שֶׁשָּׁלְקוּ אוֹתָן עַכּוּ\"ם אִם הָיוּ מְתוּקִין מִתְּחִלָּתָן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. וְאִם הָיוּ מָרִין וּמְתַקְּנִין הַבִּשּׁוּל הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין. הָיוּ בֵּינוֹנִיִּים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין: ", + "קָלִי שֶׁל עֲדָשִׁים שֶׁלָּשׁוֹ בֵּין בְּמַיִם בֵּין בְּחֹמֶץ הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר. אֲבָל קָלִי שֶׁל חִטִּים וּשְׂעוֹרִים שֶׁלָּשִׁין אוֹתָן בְּמַיִם הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר: ", + "שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם מֻתָּר. וּמִי שֶׁאוֹסְרוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹמֵד בְּחֵטְא גָּדוֹל. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּמְרֶה עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין שֶׁהִתִּירוּהוּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ נִתְבַּשֵּׁל הַשֶּׁמֶן הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱסָר לֹא מִפְּנֵי בִּשּׁוּלֵי עַכּוּ\"ם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנֶּאֱכָל כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא חַי. וְלֹא מִפְּנֵי גִּעוּלֵי עַכּוּ\"ם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַבָּשָׂר פּוֹגֵם אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן וּמַסְרִיחוֹ: ", + "וְכֵן דְּבַשׁ שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנִּתְבַּשֵּׁל וְעָשׂוּ מִמֶּנּוּ מִינֵי מְתִיקָה מֻתָּר מִטַּעַם זֶה: ", + "כּוֹסְפָן שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ חַמִּין בֵּין בְּיוֹרָה גְּדוֹלָה בֵּין בְּיוֹרָה קְטַנָּה מֻתָּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנּוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם הוּא. וְכֵן כְּבָשִׁין שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכָּן לָתֵת לְתוֹכָן חֹמֶץ אוֹ יַיִן אוֹ זֵיתִים הַכְּבוּשִׁין וַחֲגָבִים הַכְּבוּשִׁין שֶׁבָּאִין מִן הָאוֹצָר מֻתָּרִין. אֲבָל חֲגָבִים וּכְבָשִׁים שֶׁמְּזַלְּפִין עֲלֵיהֶן יַיִן אֲסוּרִין. וְכֵן אִם הָיוּ מְזַלְּפִין עֲלֵיהֶן חֹמֶץ וַאֲפִלּוּ חֹמֶץ שֵׁכָר אֲסוּרִין: ", + "וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אָסְרוּ חֹמֶץ שֵׁכָר שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּשְׁלִיכִין לְתוֹכוֹ שִׁמְרֵי יַיִן. לְפִיכָךְ הַנִּלְקָח מִן הָאוֹצָר מֻתָּר: ", + "הַמּוּרְיָס בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לָתֵת לְתוֹכוֹ יַיִן אָסוּר. וְאִם הָיָה הַיַּיִן יָקָר מִן הַמּוּרְיָס מֻתָּר. וְכָזֶה מוֹרִין בְּכָל דָּבָר שֶׁחוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא עֵרְבוּ בּוֹ הָעַכּוּ\"ם דָּבָר אָסוּר. שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מְעָרֵב דָּבָר הַיָּקָר בְּזוֹל שֶׁהֲרֵי מַפְסִיד. אֲבָל מְעָרֵב הַזּוֹל בְּיָקָר כְּדֵי לְהִשְׂתַּכֵּר: ", + "קָטָן שֶׁאָכַל אֶחָד מִמַּאֲכָלוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת. אוֹ שֶׁעָשָׂה מְלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת. אֵין בֵּית דִּין מְצֻוִּין עָלָיו לְהַפְרִישׁוֹ לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ בֶּן דַּעַת. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁעָשָׂה מֵעַצְמוֹ. אֲבָל לְהַאֲכִילוֹ בְּיָדַיִם אָסוּר וַאֲפִלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאִסּוּרָן מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. וְכֵן אָסוּר לְהַרְגִּילוֹ בְּחִלּוּל שַׁבָּת וּמוֹעֵד וַאֲפִלּוּ בִּדְבָרִים שֶׁהֵן מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת: ", + "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין מְצֻוִּין לְהַפְרִישׁ אֶת הַקָּטָן. מִצְוָה עַל אָבִיו לִגְעֹר בּוֹ וּלְהַפְרִישׁוֹ כְּדֵי לְחַנְּכוֹ בִּקְדֻשָּׁה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי כב ו) \"חֲנֹךְ לַנַּעַר עַל פִּי דַרְכּוֹ\" וְגוֹ': ", + "אָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים מַאֲכָלוֹת וּמַשְׁקִין שֶׁנֶּפֶשׁ רֹב בְּנֵי אָדָם קִהָה מֵהֶן כְּגוֹן מַאֲכָלוֹת וּמַשְׁקִין שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בָּהֶן קִיא אוֹ צוֹאָה וְלֵחָה סְרוּחָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. וְכֵן אָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים לֶאֱכֹל וְלִשְׁתּוֹת בְּכֵלִים הַצּוֹאִים שֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מִתְאוֹנֶנֶת מֵהֶם. כְּגוֹן כְּלֵי בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא וּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית שֶׁל סַפָּרִין שֶׁגּוֹרְעִין בָּהֶם אֶת הַדָּם וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן: ", + "וְכֵן אָסְרוּ לֶאֱכֹל בְּיָדַיִם מְסֹאָבוֹת מְזֹהָמוֹת. וְעַל גַּבֵּי כֵּלִים מְלֻכְלָכִים. שֶׁכָּל דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ בִּכְלַל (ויקרא יא מג) \"אַל תְּשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם\". וְהָאוֹכֵל מַאֲכָלוֹת אֵלּוּ מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: ", + "וְכֵן אָסוּר לְאָדָם שֶׁיַּשְׁהֶה אֶת נְקָבָיו כְּלָל בֵּין גְּדוֹלִים בֵּין קְטַנִּים. וְכָל הַמַּשְׁהֶה נְקָבָיו הֲרֵי זֶה בִּכְלַל מְשַׁקֵּץ נַפְשׁוֹ. יֶתֶר עַל חֳלָאִים רָעִים שֶׁיָּבִיא עַל עַצְמוֹ וְיִתְחַיֵּב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ. אֶלָּא רָאוּי לוֹ לְהַרְגִּיל עַצְמוֹ בְּעִתִּים מְזֻמָּנִים כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִתְרַחֵק בִּפְנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם וְלֹא יְשַׁקֵּץ נַפְשׁוֹ: ", + "וְכָל הַנִּזְהָר בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ מֵבִיא קְדֻשָּׁה וְטָהֳרָה יְתֵרָה לְנַפְשׁוֹ. וּמְמָרֵק נַפְשׁוֹ לְשֵׁם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא מד) \"וְהִתְקַדִּשְׁתֶּם וִהְיִיתֶם קְדשִׁים כִּי קָדוֹשׁ אָנִי\": " + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bdd5ab981a122c08815e3bc24f62a9c14a661f26 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json @@ -0,0 +1,485 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods", + "versionSource": "http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94_%D7%9C%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%91%22%D7%9D", + "versionTitle": "Wikisource Mishneh Torah", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY-SA", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "משנה תורה (ויקיטקסט)", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות מאכלות אסורות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Kedushah" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "מצות עשה לידע הסימנין שמבדילין בהן בין בהמה וחיה ועוף ודגים וחגבים שמותר לאכלן ובין שאין מותר לאכלן שנאמר והבדלתם בין הבהמה הטהורה לטמאה ובין העוף הטמא לטהור ונאמר להבדיל בין הטמא ובין הטהור ובין החיה הנאכלת ובין החיה אשר לא תאכל.", + "סימני בהמה וחיה נתפרשו בתורה והם שני סימנין מפרסת פרסה ומעלת גרה עד שיהיו שניהם וכל בהמה וחיה שהיא מעלת גרה אין לה שינים בלחי העליון וכל בהמה שהיא מעלת גרה הרי היא מפרסת פרסה חוץ מן הגמל וכל בהמה שהיא מפרסת פרסה היא מעלת גרה חוץ מן החזיר.", + "לפיכך המוצא בהמה במדבר ואינו מכירה ומצאה חתוכת הפרסות בודק בפיה אם אין לה שינים למעלה בידוע שהיא טהורה והוא שיכיר גמל מצא בהמה שפיה חתוך בודק בפרסותיה אם היא שסועה טהורה והוא שיכיר חזיר מצא פיה חתוך ורגליה חתוכות בודק בה אחר ששחטה בכנפי העוקץ אם מצא בשרה שם מהלך שתי וערב טהורה והוא שיכיר ערוד שכן הוא בשרו שתי וערב.", + "בהמה טהורה שילדה כמין בהמה טמאה אע\"פ שאינו מפריס פרסה ולא מעלה גרה אלא כמין סוס או חמור לכל דבר הרי זה מותר באכילה בד\"א בשילדה לפניו אבל אם הניח פרה מעוברת בעדרו ובא ומצא כמין חזיר כרוך אחריה אף על פי שהוא יונק ממנה הרי זה ספק ואסור באכילה שמא מן הטמאה נולד ונכרך אחר הטהורה.", + "בהמה טמאה שילדה כמין בהמה טהורה אע\"פ שהוא מפריס פרסה ומעלה גרה והרי הוא כמין שור לכל דבר או כמין שה הרי זה אסור באכילה שהגדל מן הטמאה טמא ומן הטהורה טהור (לפיכך) דג טמא שנמצא במעי דג טהור אסור ודג טהור הנמצא במעי דג טמא מותר לפי שאין גדוליו אלא בלעו.", + "בהמה טהורה שילדה או שנמצא בה בריה שיש לה שתי גבין ושתי שדרות אסורה באכילה וזו היא השסועה שנאסרה בתורה שנאמר את זה לא תאכלו ממעלי הגרה וממפריסי הפרסה השסועה כלומר בריה שנולדה שסועה לשתי בהמות.", + "וכן בהמה שנמצא בה דמות עוף אע\"פשהוא עוף טהור הרי זה אסור באכילה לא הותר מן הנמצא בבהמה אלא מה שיש לו פרסה.", + "אין לך בכל בהמה וחיה שבעולם שמותר באכילה חוץ מעשרת המינין המנויין בתורה שלשה מיני בהמה והם:שור שה ועז ושבעה מיני חיה:איל וצבי ויחמור ואקו ודישון ותאו וזמר הם ומיניהן כגון שור הבר והמריא שהן ממין השור וכל העשרה מינין ומיניהם מעלה גרה ומפריס פרסה לפיכך מי שהוא מכירן אינו צריך לבדוק לא בפה ולא ברגלים.", + "אף על פי שכולן מותרין באכילה צריכין אנו להבדיל בין בהמה טהורה וחיה טהורה שהחיה חלבה מותר ודמה טעון כסוי והבהמה הטהורה חלבה בכרת ואין דמה טעון כסוי.", + "וסימני חיה מפי השמועה הן כל מין שהוא מפריס פרסה ומעלה גרה ויש לו קרנים מפוצלות כגון האיל הרי זה חיה טהורה בודאי וכל שאין קרניו מפוצלות אם היו קרניו כרוכות כקרני השור וחרוקות כקרני העז ויהיה החרק מובלע בהן והדורות כקרני הצבי הרי זו חיה טהורה ובלבד שיהיה בקרנים שלשה סימנין אלו כרוכות חרוקות והדורות.", + "בד\"א במין שאינו מכירו אבל שבעה מיני חיה האמורין בתורה אם היה מכיר אותן אפילו לא מצא לו קרנים הרי זה אוכל חלבו וחייב לכסות דמו.", + "שור הבר מין בהמה הוא והקרש אע\"פ שאין לו אלא קרן אחת הרי הוא חיה וכל שיסתפק לך אם הוא מין חיה או מין בהמה חלבו אסור ואין לוקין עליו ומכסין את דמו.", + "כלאים הבא מבהמה טהורה עם חיה טהורה הוא הנקרא כוי חלבו אסור ואין לוקין עליו ומכסין את דמו ואין מין טמא מתעבר ממין טהור כלל.", + "סימני עוף טהור לא נתפרש מן התורה אלא מנה מנין טמאים בלבד ושאר מיני העוף מותרין והמינין האסורין ארבעה ועשרים הן ואלו הן:(א) נשר (ב) פרס (ג) עזניה (ד) דאה והיא הראה האמורה במשנה תורה (ה) איה והיא הדיה האמורה במשנה תורה (ו) מין האיה שכן כתוב בה למינה מכלל שהוא שני מינין (ז) עורב (ח) זרזיר שכן נאמר בעורב למינו להביא את הזרזיר (ט) יענה (י) תחמס (יא) שחף (יב) נץ (יג) ושרנקא והוא מין הנץ שכן כתוב בו למינהו (יד) כוס (טו) שלך (טז) ינשוף (יז) תנשמת (יח) קאת (יט) רחמה (כ) חסידה (כא) האנפה (כב) מין האנפה שכן נאמר בה למינה (כג) הדוכיפת (כד) העטלף.", + "כל מי שהוא בקי במינין אלו ובשמותיהן הרי זה אוכל עוף שאינו מהם ואינו צריך בדיקה ועוף טהור נאכל במסורת והוא שיהיה דבר פשוט באותו מקום שזה עוף טהור ונאמן צייד לומר עוף זה התיר לי רבי הצייד והוא שיוחזק אותו צייד שהוא בקי במינין אלו ובשמותיהן.", + "מי שאינו מכירן ואינו יודע שמותיהן בודק בסימנין אלו שנתנו חכמים כל עוף שהוא דורס ואוכל בידוע שהוא מאלו המינין וטמא ושאינו דורס ואוכל אם יש בו אחד משלשה סימנין אלו הרי זה עוף טהור ואלו הן:אצבע יתירה או זפק והיא המוראה או שהיה קרקבנו נקלף ביד.", + "לפי שאין בכל אלו המינין האסורין מין שאינו דורס ויש בו אחד משלשה סימנין אלו חוץ מפרס ועזניה ופרס ועזניה אינן מצויין בישוב אלא במדברות איי הים הרחוקות עד מאד שהן סוף הישוב.", + "היה הקרקבן נקלף בסכין ואינו נקלף ביד ואין בו סימן אחר אף על פי שאינו דורס הרי זה ספק היה חזק ודבק והניחו בשמש ונתרפה ונקלף ביד הרי זה מותר.", + "אמרו הגאונים שמסורת היא בידיהם שיאן מורין להתיר עוף הבא בסימן אחד אלא אם היה אותו סימן שיקלף קרקבנו ביד אבל אם אינו נקלף ביד אע\"פ שיש לו זפק או אצבע יתירה מעולם לא התירוהו.", + "כל עוף שחולק את רגליו כשמותחין לו חוט שתים לכאן ושתים לכאן או שקולט מן האויר ואוכל באויר הרי זה דורס וטמא וכל השוכן עם הטמאים ונדמה להם הרי זה טמא.", + "ומיני חגבים שהתירה תורה שמונה ואלו הן:(א) חגב (ב) מין חגב והוא הרזבנית (ג) חרגול (ד) ומין חרגול והוא ערצוביא (ה) ארבה (ו) ומין ארבה והיא צפורת כרמים (ז) סלעם (ח) ומין סלעם והיא יוחנא ירושלמית.", + "מי שהוא בקי בהן ובשמותיהן אוכל והצייד נאמן עליהן כעוף ומי שאינו בקי בהן בודק בסימנין ושלשה סימנין יש בהן:כל שיש לו ארבע רגלים וארבע כנפים שחופות רוב אורך גופו ורוב הקף גופו ויש לו שני כרעים לנתר בהם הרי זה מין טהור ואף על פי שראשו ארוך ויש לו זנב אם היה שמו חגב טהור.", + "מי שאין לו עכשיו כנפים או כרעים או שאין לו כנפים החופין את רובו ועתיד לגדל אותן אחר זמן כשיגדיל הרי זה מותר מעתה.", + "ובדגים שני סימנין:סנפיר וקשקשת וסנפיר הוא שפורח בו וקשקשת היא הדבוקה בכל גופו וכל שיש לו קשקשת יש לו סנפיר אין לו עכשיו וכשיגדיל יהיה לו או שיש לו קשקשת כשהוא בים וכשיעלה ישיר קשקשיו הרי זה מותר ומי שאין לו קשקשים החופין את כולו מותר אפילו אין בו אלא סנפיר אחת וקשקשת אחת הרי זה מותר." + ], + [ + "מכלל שנאמר וכל בהמה מפרסת פרסה ושוסעת שסע שתי פרסות מעלת גרה שומע אני שכל שאינה מעלת גרה ומפרסת פרסה אסורה ולאו הבא מכלל עשה עשה הוא ובגמל ובחזיר ובארנבת ובשפן נאמר את זה לא תאכלו ממעלי הגרה וממפריסי הפרסה וגו' הרי למדת שהן בלא תעשה ואף על פי שיש בהן סימן אחד וכל שכן שאר בהמה טמאה וחיה טמאה שאין בה סימן כלל שאיסור אכילתם בלא תעשה יתר על עשה הבא מכלל אותה תאכלו.", + "לפיכך כל האוכל מבשר בהמה וחיה טמאה כזית לוקה מן התורה בין שאכל מן הבשר בין שאכל מן החלב לא חלק הכתוב בטמאים בין בשרם לחלבם.", + "האדם אע\"פ שנאמר בו ויהי האדם לנפש חיה אינו מכלל מיני חיה בעלת פרסה לפיכך אינו בלא תעשה והאוכל מבשר האדם או מחלבו בין מן החי בין מן המת אינו לוקה אבל אסור הוא בעשה שהרי מנה הכתוב שבעת מיני חיה ואמר בהן זאת החיה אשר תאכלו הא כל שהוא חוץ מהן לא תאכלו ולאו הבא מכלל עשה עשה.", + "האוכל כזית מבשר עוף טמא לוקה מן התורה שנאמר ואת אלה תשקצו מן העוף לא יאכלו והרי עבר על עשה שנאמר כל צפור טהורה תאכלו הא טמאה לא תאכלו וכן האוכל כזית מדג טמא לוקה שנאמר ושקץ יהיו לכם מבשרם לא תאכלו ועבר על עשה שנאמר כל אשר לו סנפיר וקשקשת תאכלו מכלל שמי שאין לו סנפיר וקשקשת לא יאכל הא למדת שכל האוכל דג טמא או בהמה וחיה טמאה או עוף טמא בטל מצות עשה ועבר על לא תעשה.", + "חגב טמא הרי הוא בכלל שרץ העוף והאוכל כזית משרץ העוף לוקה שנאמר כל שרץ העוף טמא הוא לכם לא יאכלו ואי זהו שרץ העוף כגון זבוב או יתוש וצרעה ודבורה וכיוצא בהן.", + "האוכל כזית משרץ הארץ לוקה שנאמר וכל השרץ השורץ על הארץ שקץ הוא לא יאכל ואי זהו שרץ הארץ כגון נחשים ועקרבים וחפשית ונדל וכיוצא בהן.", + "ושמנה שרצים האמורים בתורה שהן:החולד והעכבר והצב והאנקה והכח והלטאה והחומט והתנשמת האוכל מבשרם כעדשה לוקה שיעור אכילתן כשיעור טומאתן וכולם מצטרפין זה עם זה בכעדשה.", + "במה דברים אמורים בשאכל מהן אחר מיתתן אבל החותך אבר מן החי מן אחד מהן ואכלו אינו לוקה עליו עד שיהיה בו כזית בשר וכולן מצטרפין לכזית אבל אבר שלם מן השרץ אחר שמת אינו לוקה עד שיהיה בו כעדשה.", + "דם שמנה שרצים ובשרן מצטרף לכעדשה והוא שיהיה הדם מחובר לבשר וכן דם הנחש מצטרף לבשרו לכזית ולוקה עליו לפי שאין בשרו חלוק מדמו ואף על פי שאינו מטמא וכן כל כיוצא בו משאר שרצים שאינן מטמאין.", + "דם שרצים שפרש וכנסו ואכלו לוקה עליו בכזית והוא שיתרו בו משום אוכל שרץ אבל אם התרו בו משום אוכל דם פטור שאין חייבין אלא על דם בהמה חיה ועוף.", + "כל השעורין ומחלקותם הלכה למשה מסיני.", + "האוכל כזית משרץ המים לוקה מן התורה שנאמר אל תשקצו את נפשותיכם בכל השרץ השורץ ולא תטמאו בהם הרי כלל בלאו זה שרץ הארץ ושרץ העוף ושרץ המים אי זהו שרץ המים אלו הבריות הקטנות כמו התולעים והעלוקה שבמים והבריות הגדולות ביתר שהן חיות הים כללו של דבר כל שאינו בצורת הדגים לא דג טמא ולא דג טהור כגון כלב המים והדלפון והצפרדע וכיוצא בהן.", + "אלו המינין שנבראין באשפות ובגופי הנבלות כגון רמה ותולעת וכיוצא בהן שאינן נבראין מזכר ונקבה אלא מן הגללים שהסריחו וכיוצא בהן הן הנקראין רומש על הארץ והאוכל מהן כזית לוקה שנאמר ולא תטמאו את נפשותיכם בכל השרץ הרומש על הארץ ואע\"פ שאין פרין ורבין אבל השרץ השורץ על הארץ הוא שפרה ורבה מזכר ונקבה.", + "אלו המינין הנבראין בפירות ובמאכלות אם פרשו ויצאו לארץ אע\"פשחזרו לתוך האוכל מי שאכל מהן כזית לוקה שנאמר לכל השרץ השורץ על הארץ לאסור אלו שפרשו לארץ אבל אם לא פרשו מותר לאכול הפרי והתולעת שבתוכו.", + "בד\"א שהתליע האוכל אחר שנעקר מן הארץ אבל אם התליע והוא מחובר אותה התולעת אסורה כאילו פירשה לארץ שעל הארץ נבראת ולוקין עליה ואם ספק אסורה לפיכך כל מיני פירות שדרכן להתליע כשהן מחוברין לא יאכל עד שיבדוק הפרי מתוכו שמא יש בו תולעת ואם שהה הפרי אחר שנעקר שנים עשר חדש אוכל בלא בדיקה שאין תולעת שבו מתקיימת שנים עשר חדש.", + "פרשו לאויר ולא נגעו לארץ או שפרשו מקצתן לארץ או שפרשו אחר שמתו או שנמצאת תולעת על הגרעינה מבפנים או שיצאו מתוך האוכל לתוך אוכל אחר כל אלו אסורין מספק ואין לוקין עליהן.", + "תולעת הנמצאת במעי הדגים ובמוח שבראש הבהמה והנמצאת בבשר אסורה אבל דג מליח שהתליע הרי התולעת שבו מותרת שהן כפירות שהתליעו אחר שנעקרו מן הארץ שמותר לאכלן כולן כאחת בתולעת שבתוכן וכן המים שבכלים שהשריצו הרי אותן שרצים מותר לשתותן עם המים שנאמר וכל אשר לו סנפיר וקשקשת במים בימים ובנחלים אותם תאכלו כלומר במים ובימים ובנחלים הוא שאתה אוכל את שיש לו ואין אתה אוכל את שאין לו אבל בכלים בין שיש לו בין שאין לו מותר.", + "שרץ המים הנברא בבורות ובשיחין ובמערות הואיל ואינן מים נובעין והרי הן עצורים הרי הן כמים שבכלים ומותר ושוחה ושותה ואינו נמנע ואף על פי שבולע בשעת שתייה מאותן השרצים הדקים.", + "במה דברים אמורים שלא פרשו ממקום ברייתן אבל אם פירש השרץ אע\"פשחזר לתוך הכלי או לתוך הבור אסור פרש לדפני החבית וחזר ונפל לתוך המים או לתוך השכר מותר וכן אם פרש לדפני הבור או המערה וחזר למים מותר.", + "המסנן את היין או את החומץ או את השכר ואכל את היבחושים או את היתושין והתולעות שסנן לוקה משום שרץ המים או משום שרץ העוף (ושרץ המים) אפילו חזר לכלי אחר שסננן שהרי פרשו ממקום ברייתן אבל אם לא סננן שותה ואינו נמנע כמו שפירשנו.", + "זה שאמרנו בפרק זה האוכל כזית כשאכל כזית מבריה גדולה או שצרף מעט מבריה זו ומעט מבריה זו שבמינה עד שיאכל כזית אבל האוכל בריה טמאה בפני עצמה כולה הרי זה לוקה מן התורה ואפילו היתה פחותה מן החרדל בין שאכלה מתה בין שאכלה חיה ואפילו סרחה הבריה ונשתנית צורתה הואיל ואכלה כולה לוקה.", + "נמלה שחסרה אפילו אחת מרגליה אינה לוקה עליה אלא בכזית לפיכך האוכל זבוב שלם או יתוש שלם בין חי ובין מת לוקה משום שרץ העוף.", + "הרי שהיתה הבריה משרץ העוף ומשרץ המים ומשרץ הארץ כגון שהיו לה כנפים והיא מהלכת על הארץ כשאר שרצים והיתה רבה במים ואכלה לוקה שלש מלקיות ואם היתה יתר על זה מן המינין שנבראו בפירות לוקה עליה ארבע מלקיות ואם היתה מן המינין שפדין ורבין לוקה חמש ואם היתה מכלל עוף טמא יתר על היותה משרץ העוף לוקה עליה שש מלקיות:משום עוף טמא ומשום שרץ העוף ומשום שרץ הארץ ומשום שרץ המים ומשום רומש על הארץ ומשום תולעת הפירות בין שאכלה כולה בין שאכל ממנה כזית לפיכך האוכל נמלה הפורחת הגדילה במים לוקה חמש מלקיות.", + "ריסק נמלים והביא אחת שלימה וצרפה לאלו שנתרסקו ונעשה הכל כזית ואכלו לוקה שש מלקיות חמש משום הנמלה האחת ואחת משום כזית מנבלת הטמאים." + ], + [ + "כל מאכל היוצא ממין מן המינין האסורין שלוקין על אכילתן הרי אותו המאכל אסור באכילה מן התורה כגון חלב בהמה וחיה הטמאים וביצי עוף ודג הטמאים שנאמר ואת בת היענה זו ביצתה והוא הדין לכל האסור כיענה ולכל הדברים הדומין לביצה.", + "חלב האדם מותר באכילה אף על פי שבשר האדם אסור באכילה וכבר ביארנו שהוא בעשה.", + "דבש דבורים ודבש צרעים מותר מפני שאינו מתמצית גופן אלא כונסין אותו מן העשבים בתוך פיהן ומקיאין אותו בכורת כדי שימצאו אותו לאכול ממנו בימות הגשמים.", + "אע\"פ שחלב אדם מותר אסרו חכמים לגדול לינק אותו מן השדים אלא חולבת אשה לתוך הכלי ושותה וגדול שינק מן השד כיונק שרץ ומכין אותו מכת מרדות.", + "יונק תינוק והולך אפילו ארבע או חמש שנים ואם גמלוהו ופרש שלשה ימים או יתר מחמת בוריו לא מחמת חוליו אינו חוזר ויונק והוא שגמלוהו אחר כ\"ד חדש אבל בתוך זמן זה אפילו גמלוהו חדש או שנים מותר לחזור ולינק עד סוף כ\"ד חדש.", + "אף על פי שחלב בהמה טמאה וביצי עוף טמא אסורין מן התורה אין לוקין עליהם שנאמר מבשרם לא תאכלו על הבשר הוא לוקה ואינו לוקה על הביצה ועל החלב והרי האוכל אותן כאוכל חצי שיעור שהוא אסור מן התורה ואינו לוקה אבל מכין אותו מכת מרדות.", + "יראה לי שהאוכל ביצי דגים טמאים הנמצאים במעיהם כאוכל קרבי דגים טמאים ולוקה מן התורה וכן ביצי העוף הטמא התלויות באשכול שעדיין לא פירשו ונגמרו האוכל אותן לוקה כאוכל בני מעים שלהן.", + "ביצת עוף טמא שהתחיל האפרוח להתרקם בה ואכלו לוקה משום אוכל שרץ העוף אבל ביצת העוף טהור שהתחיל האפרוח להתרקם בה ואכלה מכין אותו מכת מרדות.", + "נמצא עליה קורט דם אם על החלבון זורק את הדם ואוכל את השאר ואם על החלמון אסורה כולה ביצה המוזרת הנפש היפה תאכלנה.", + "אפרוח שנולד אף על פי שלא נתפתחו עיניו מותר לאכלו בהמה טהורה שנטרפה חלבה אסור כחלב בהמה טמאה וכן ביצת עוף טהור שנטרף כביצת עוף טמא ואסור.", + "אפרוח שנולד מביצת טרפה מותר שאין מינו טמא היה העוף ספק טרפה כל הביצים שתלד בערימה ראשונה משהין אותן אם טענה ערימה שניה והתחילה לילד הותרו הראשונות שאם היתה טריפה לא היתה יולדת עוד ואם לא ילדה הרי הן אסורות.", + "חלב בהמה טמאה אינו נקפה ועומד כחלב הטהורה ואם נתערב חלב טמאה בחלב בהמה טהורה כשתעמיד אותו יעמוד חלב הטהורה ויצא חלב הטמאה עם הקום של גבינה.", + "ומפני זה יתן הדין שכל חלב הנמצא ביד עכו\"ם אסור שמא ערב בו חלב בהמה טמאה וגבינת העכו\"ם מותרת שאין חלב בהמה טמאה מתגבן אכל בימי חכמי משנה גזרו על גבינת העכו\"ם ואסרום מפני שמעמידין אותה בעור קיבה של שחיטתן שהיא נבלה ואם תאמר והלא עור הקיבה דבר קטן הוא עד מאד בחלב שעמד בו ולמה לא יבטל במיעוטו מפני שהוא המעמיד הגבינה והואיל ודבר האסור הוא שהעמיד הרי הכל אסור כמו שיתבאר.", + "גבינה שמעמידין אותה העכו\"ם בעשבים או במי פירות כגון שרף התאנים והרי הן ניכרין בגבינה הורו מקצת הגאונים שהיא אסורה שכבר גזרו על כל גבינת העכו\"ם בין שהעמידוה בדבר אסור בין שהעמידוה בדבר המותר גזירה משום שמעמידין אותה בדבר האסור.", + "האוכל גבינת העכו\"ם או חלב שחלבו עכו\"ם ואין ישראל רואהו מכין אותו מכת מרדות החמאה של עכו\"ם מקצת הגאונים התירוה שהרי לא גזרו על החמאה וחלב הטמאה אינו עומד ומקצת הגאונים אסרוה מפני צחצוחי חלב שישאר בה שהרי הקום שבחמאה אינו מעורב עם החמאה כדי שיבטל במיעוטו וכל חלב שלהן חוששין לו שמא עירבו בו חלב בהמה טמאה.", + "יראה לי שאם לקח חמאה מן העכו\"ם ובשלה עד שהלכו להן צחצוחי חלב הרי זו מותרת שאם תאמר נתערבו עמן ונתבשלו כולן בטלו במיעוטם אבל החמאה שבשלו אותה עכו\"ם אסורה משום גיעולי עכו\"ם כמו שיתבאר.", + "ישראל שישב בצד העדר של נכרי ובא הנכרי והביא לו חלב מן העדר אע\"פ שיש בעדר בהמה טמאה הרי זו מותר ואע\"פ שלא ראה אותו חולב והוא שיכול לראותו כשהוא חולב כשיעמוד שהנכרי מתיירא לחלוב מן הטמאה שמא יעמוד ויראה אותו.", + "ביצה ששני ראשיה כדין או ששני ראשיה חדין או שהיה חלמון מבחוץ וחלבון מבפנים בידוע שהוא ביצת עוף טמא ראשה אחד כד וראשה אחד חד וחלבון מבחוץ וחלמון מבפנים אפשר שהיא ביצת עוף טמא ואפשר שהיא ביצת עוף טהור לפיכך שואל לצייד ישראל שמוכרה אם אמר לו של עוף פלוני הוא ועוף טהור הוא סומך עליו ואם אמר של עוף טהור ולא אמר לו שמו אינו סומך עליו.", + "לפיכך אין לוקחים ביצים מן העכו\"ם אלא אם היה מכיר אותן ויש לו בהן טביעות עין שהן ביצי עוף פלוני הטהור ואין חוששין להן שמא הן ביצי טרפה או ביצי נבלה ואין לוקחין מן העכו\"ם ביצה טרופה כלל.", + "ביצי דגים סימניהם כסימני ביצי העוף אם היו שני ראשיה כדין או חדין טמאה אחד כד ואחד חד שואל לישראלי המוכר אם אמר לו אני מלחתים והוצאתים מדג טהור אוכל על פיו ואמר אמר לו טהורין הם אינו נאמן אא\"כ היה אדם שהוחזק בכשרות.", + "וכן אין לוקחין גבינה וחתיכת דג שאין בה סימן אלא מישראלי שהוחזק בכשרות אבל בארץ ישראל כשהיתה רובה ישראל לוקחין מכל ישראלי שבה והחלב לוקחין אותו מכל ישראל מכל מקום.", + "הכובש דגים טמאים צירן אסור אבל ציר חגבים טמאים מותר מפני שאין בהם לחלוחית לפיכך אין לוקחין ציר מן העכו\"ם אלא אם כן היה בו דג טהור משוטט בו אפילו דג אחד.", + "עכו\"ם שהביא עריבה מליאה חביות פתוחות של ציר ודג אחד טהור באחת מהם כולן מותרות היו סתומות פתח אחת ונמצא בה דג טהור שניה ונמצא בה טהור כולן מותרות והוא שיהיה ראשו של דג ושדרו קיים כדי שיהא ניכר שהוא דג טהור לפיכך אין לוקחין דגים מרוצצין מלוחין מן העכו\"ם והם הנקראים טרית טרופה ואם היה ראש הדג ושדרו ניכר אף על פי שהוא מרוצץ מותר ליקח אותו מן העכו\"ם.", + "עכו\"ם שהביא גרב של חתיכות דג שחתוכן שוה והן ניכרין שכולן מדג אחד ומצא בחתיכה אחת מהן קשקשין הרי כולן מותרות." + ], + [ + "האוכל כזית מבשר בהמה שמתה או חיה שמתה או עוף שמת לוקה שנאמר לא תאכלו כל נבלה וכל שלא נשחטה כראוי הרי זו מתה ובהלכות השחיטה יתבאר השחיטה שהיא כראוי ושאינה כראוי.", + "אין אסור משום נבילה אלא מינים טהורים בלבד מפני שהן ראויין לשחיטה ואם נשחטו שחיטה כשרה יהיו מותרין באכילה אבל מינין טמאין שאין שחיטה מועלת בהן בין שנשחטה כראוי בין שמתה כדרכה בין שחתך בשר מן החי ממנה ואכלו אינו לוקה משום נבלה וטרפה אלא משום אוכל בשר טמאה.", + "האוכל עוף טהור חי כל שהוא לוקה משום אוכל נבלה ואע\"פ שאין בו כזית הואיל ואכלו כולו ואם אכלו אחר שמת עד שיהיה בו כזית ואף על פי שאין בכולו בשר כזית הואיל ויש בכולו כזית חייב עליו משום נבלה.", + "האוכל כזית מבשר נפל בהמה טהורה לוקה משום אוכל נבלה ואסור לאכול מן הבהמה שנולדה עד ליל שמיני שכל שלא שהה שמונה ימים בבהמה הרי זה כנפל ואין לוקין עליו ואם נודע לו ושכלו לו חדשיו בבטן ואחר כך נולד שהן תשעה חדשים לבהמה גסה וחמשה לדקה הרי זה מותר ביום שנולד.", + "השליא שיצאת עם הולד אסורה באכילה והאוכלה פטור שאינה בשר.", + "האוכל כזית מבשר בהמה או חיה או עוף טהורים שנטרפו לוקה שנאמר ובשר בשדה טרפה לא תאכלו לכלב תשליכון אותו טרפה האמורה בתורה זו שטרפה אותה חית היער כגון ארי ונמר וכיוצא בהן וכן עוף שטרף אותו עוף הדורס כגון נץ וכיוצא בו ואין אתה יכול לומר שטרפה אותה והמיתה אותה שאם מתה הרי היא נבלה ומה לי מתה מחמת עצמה או הכה בסייף והמיתה או שברה ארי והמיתה הא אינו מדבר אלא בשנטרפה ולא מתה.", + "ואם הטרפה שלא מתה אסורה יכול אם בא זאב וגרר הגדי ברגלו או בזנבו או באזנו ורדף אדם והצילו מפיו יהיה אסור שהרי נטרף תלמוד לומר ובשר בשדה טרפה וגו' לכלב תשליכון אותו עד שיעשה אותה בשר הראויה לכלב הא למדת שהטריפה האמורה בתורה היא שטרפה אותו חית היער ושברה אותה ונטה למות ועדיין לא מתה אף על פי שקדם ושחטה קודם שתמות הרי זו אסורה משום טריפה הואיל ואי אפשר שתחיה ממכה זו הבאה עליה.", + "נמצאת למד שהתורה אסרה המתה והיא הנבלה ואסרה הנוטה למות מחמת מכותיה ואע\"פ שעדיין לא מתה והיא הטריפה וכשם שלא תחלוק במיתה בין מתה מחמת עצמה בין שנפלה ומתה בין שחנקה עד שמתה בין שדרסתה חיה והרגתה כך לא תחלוק בנוטה למות בין שטרפתה חיה ושברתה בין שנפלה מן הגג ונשתברו רוב צלעותיה בין שנפלה ונתרסקו איבריה בין שזרק בה חץ ונקב לבה או ריאתה בין שבא לה חולי מחמת עצמה ונקב לבה או ריאתה או שיבר רוב צלעותיה וכיוצא בהן הואיל והיא נוטה למות מכל מקום הרי זו טרפה בין שהיה הגורם בידי בשר ודם בין שהיה בידי שמים אם כן למה נאמר בתורה טרפה דבר הכתוב בהווה שאם לא תאמר כן לא תאסר אלא אותה שנטרפה בשדה אבל אם נטרפה בחצר לא תאסר הא למדת שאין הכתוב מדבר אלא בהווה.", + "וענין הכתוב שהנוטה למות מחמת מכותיה ואי אפשר לה לחיות מחמת מכה זו אסורה מכאן אמרו חכמים זה הכלל כל שאין כמוה חיה טריפה ובהלכות שחיטה יתבאר אי זה חולי עושה אותה טריפה ואי זה חולי אין עושה אותה טרפה.", + "וכן החותך בשר מן החי מן הטהורים הרי אותו הבשר טריפה והאוכל ממנו כזית לוקה משום אוכל טריפה שהרי בשר זה מבהמה שלא נשחטה ולא מתה מה לי טרפה אותו חיה מן לי חתכה בסכין מה לי בכולה מה לי במקצתה הרי הוא אומר ובשר בשדה טרפה לא תאכלו כיון שנעשית הבהמה בשר בשדה הרי היא טריפה.", + "בהמה שהיא חולה מחמת שתשש כחה ונטתה למות הואיל ולא אירעה מכה באבר מאביריה הממיתים אותה הרי זו מותרת שלא אסרה תורה אלא כעין טריפת חית היער שהרי עשה בה מכה הממיתה אותה.", + "אף על פי שהיא מותרת גדולי החכמים לא היו אוכלין מבהמה שממהרין ושוחטין אותה כדי שלא תמות ואע\"פ שפרכסה בסוף שחיטה ודבר זה אין בו איסור אלא כל הרוצה להחמיר על עצמו בדבר זה הרי זה משובח.", + "השוחט בהמה חיה ועוף ולא יצא מהן דם הרי אלו מותרין ואין אומרין שמא מתים היו וכן השוחט את הבריאה ולא פרכסה הרי זו מותרת אבל המסוכנת והיא כל שמעמידין אותה ואינה עומדת אף על פי שהיא אוכלת מאכל בריאות אם שחטה ולא פרכסה כלל הרי זו נבלה ולוקין עליה ואם פרכסה הרי זו מותרת וצריך שיהיה הפרכוס בסוף השחיטה אבל בתחלתה אינו מועיל.", + "כיצד הוא הפרכוס בבהמה דקה ובחיה גסה ודקה בין שפשטה ידה והחזירה או שפשטה רגלה אע\"פ שלא החזירה או שכפפה רגלה בלבד הרי זה פרכוס ומותר אבל אם פשטה ידה ולא החזירתה הרי זו אסורה שאין זו אלא הוצאת נפש בלבד ובבהמה גסה אחד היד ואחד הרגל בין שפשטה ולא כפפה בין כפפה ולא פשטה הרי זו פרכוס ומותרת ואם לא פשטה לא יד ולא רגל ולא כפפה כלל הרי זו נבלה ובעוף אפילו לא ריפרף אלא בעינו ולא כישכש אלא בזנבו הרי זה פרכוס.", + "השוחט את המסוכנת בלילה ולא ידע אם פרכסה או לא פרכסה הרי זו ספק נבלה ואסורה.", + "כל איסורין שבתורה אין מצטרפין זה עם זה חוץ מאיסורי נזיר כמו שיתבאר שם לפיכך הלוקח מעט חלב ומעט דם ומעט בשר בהמה טמאה ומעט בשר נבלה ומעט בשר דג טמא ומעט בשר עוף טמא וכיוצא באלו משאר האיסורין וצירף מן הכל כזית ואכלו אינו לוקה ודינו כדין אוכל חצי שיעור.", + "כל הנבלות מצטרפות זו עם זו ונבלה מצטרפת עם טריפה וכן כל בהמה וחיה הטמאים מצטרפין זה עם זה אבל בשר נבילה עם בשר בהמה טמאה אין מצטרפין כיצד הלוקח מנבלת השור ונבלת הצבי ונבלת התרנגול וקבץ מן הכל כזית בשר ואכלו לוקה וכן אם קבץ חצי זית מנבלת בהמה טהורה וחצי זית מן הטרפה או חצי זית מבשר נבלה וחצי זית מבשר מן החי מן הטהורה ואכלו לוקה וכן בשר הגמל והחזיר והארנבת שקבץ מכולם כזית ואכלו לוקה אבל אם צירף חצי זית מנבלת השור וחצי זית מבשר הגמל אינן מצטרפין וכן כל כיוצא בזה וכן בהמה טמאה ועוף טמא או דג טמא אין בשר שניהן מצטרף לפי שהן שני שמות שהרי כל אחד מהן בלאו בפני עצמו כמו שביארנו אבל כל העופות הטמאין מצטרפין כמו שמצטרפין כל בהמה וחיה הטמאין זה הכלל כל שאיסורן בלאו אחד מצטרפין בשני לאוין אין מצטרפין חוץ מנבלה וטריפה הואיל והטריפה תחלת נבלה היא.", + "האוכל מנבלה וטריפה או מבהמה וחיה הטמאים מן העור ומן העצמות ומן הגידים ומן הקרנים ומן הטלפים ומן הצפרנים של עוף ממקומות שמבצבץ משם הדם כשיחתכו ומן השליא שלהן אף על פי שהוא אסור ה\"ז פטור מפני שאלו אינן ראויין לאכילה ואין מצטרפין עם הבשר לכזית.", + "קיבת הנבלה וקיבת הטמאה מותרת מפני שהיא כשאר טנופת שבגוף ולפיכך מותר להעמיד הגבינה בקיבת שחיטת העכו\"ם ובקיבת בהמה וחיה טמאה אבל עור הקיבה הרי הוא כשאר המעים ואסור.", + "עור הבא כנגד פניו של חמור מותר באכילה מפני שהוא כמו הפרש ומי רגלים שהן מותרין יש עורות שהן כבשר והאוכל מהן כזית כאוכל מן הבשר והוא כשיאכל אותן כשהן רכים.", + "ואלו שעורותיהן כבשרן:עור האדם ועור החזיר של ישוב ועור חטוטרת של גמל שלא טענו עליו משא מעולם ולא הגיע למשא שעדיין היא רכה ועור בית הבושת ועור שתחת האליה ועור השליל ועור האנקה והכח והלטאה והחומט כל אלו העורות כשהן רכות הרי הן כבשר לכל דבר בין לאיסור אכילה בין לטומאה.", + "נאמר בשור הנסקל ולא יאכל את בשרו והיאך היה אפשר לאכלו אחר שנסקל והרי הוא נבילה אלא לא בא הכתוב אלא להודיעך שכיון שנגמר דינו לסקילה נאסר ונעשה כבהמה טמאה ואם קדם ושחטו שחיטה כשירה הרי זה אסור בהנייה ואם אכל מבשרו כזית לוקה וכן כשיסקל לא ימכר ולא יתננו לכלבים ולא לעכו\"ם לכך נאמר לא יאכל את בשרו ופרש של שור הנסקל מותר בהנאה נודע שהוא פטור מסקילה אחר שנגמר דינו כגון שהוזמו העדים יצא וירעה בעדר ואם נודע אחר שנסקל הרי זה מותר בהנייה." + ], + [ + "מפי השמועה למדו שזה שנאמר בתורה לא תאכל הנפש עם הבשר לאסור אבר שנחתך מן החי ועל אבר מן החי הוא אומר לנח אך בשר בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו ואיסור אבר מן החי נוהג בבהמה חיה ועוף בטהורים אבל לא בטמאים.", + "אחד אבר שיש בו בשר וגידים ועצמות כגון היד והרגל ואחד אבר שאין בו עצם כגון הלשון והביצים והטחול והכליות וחלב וכיוצא בהן אלא שהאבר שאין בו עצם בין שחתך כולו בין שחתך מקצתו הרי זה אסור משום אבר מן החי והאבר שיש בו עצם אינו חייב עליו משום אבר מן החי עד שיפרוש כברייתו בשר וגידים ועצמות אבל אם פרש מן החי הבשר בלבד חייב עליו משום טריפה כמו שביארנו לא משום אבר מן החי.", + "האוכל מאבר מן החי כזית לוקה ואפילו אכל אבר שלם אם יש בו כזית חייב פחות מכזית פטור חתך מן האבר כברייתו בשר וגידים ועצמות כזית ואכלו לוקה אע\"פ שאין בו בשר אלא כל שהוא אבל אם הפריד האבר אחר שתלשו מן החי והפריד הבשר מן הגידים ומן העצמות אינו לוקה עד שיאכל כזית מן הבשר לבדו ואין העצמות והגידים מצטרפין בו לכזית מאחר ששנה ברייתו.", + "חלקו לאבר זה ואכלו מעט מעט אם יש במה שאכל כזית בשר חייב ואם לאו פטור לקח כזית מן האבר כברייתו בשר וגידים ועצמות ואכלו אף על פי שנחלק בפיו בפנים קודם שיבלענו חייב.", + "תלש אבר מן החי ונטרפה בנטילתו ואכלו חייב שתים משום אבר מן החי ומשום טריפה שהרי שני האסורין באין כאחת וכן התולש חלב מן החי ואכלו לוקה שתים משום אבר מן החי ומשום חלב תלש חלב מן הטריפה ואכלו לוקה שלש.", + "בשר המדולדל בבהמה ואבר המדולדל בה אם אינו יכול לחזור ולחיות אע\"פ שלא פרש אלא אחר שנשחטה אסור ואין לוקין עליו ואם מתה הבהמה רואין אותו כאילו נפל מחיים לפיכך לוקין עליו משום אבר מן החי אבל היכול לחזור ולחיות אם נשחטה הבהמה הרי זה מותר.", + "שמט אבר או מעכו או דכו כגון הביצים שמעך אותן או נתקן הרי זה אינו אסור מן התורה שהרי יש בו מקצת חיים ולפיכך אין מסריח ואעפ\"כ אסור לאכלו ממנהג שנהגו כל ישראל מקדם שהרי הוא דומה לאבר מן החי.", + "עצם שנשבר אם היה הבשר או העור חופה רוב עוביו של עצם הנשבר ורוב הקף השבר הרי זה מותר ואם יצא העצם לחוץ הרי האבר אסור וכשישחוט הבהמה או העוף יחתוך ממקום השבר וישליכו והשאר מותר נשבר העצם והבשר חופה את רובו אבל היה אותו בשר מרוסס או נתאכל כבשר שהרופא גוררו או שהיה מתלקט הרוב ממקומות הרבה או שהיה הבשר שעליו נקבים נקבים או שנסדק הבשר או שנקדר כמין טבעת או שנגרר הבשר מלמעלה עד שלא נשאר מן הבשר אלא כקליפה או שנתאכל הבשר מלמטה מעל העצם שנשבר עד שנמצא הבשר החופה אינו נוגע בעצם בכל אלו מורין לאיסור עד שיתרפא הבשר ואם אכל מכל אלו מכין אותו מכת מרדות.", + "המושיט ידו למעי הבהמה וחתך מן הטחול ומן הכליות וכיוצא בהן והניח החתיכות בתוך מעיה ואח\"כ שחטה הרי אותן החתיכות אסורות משום אבר מן החי ואף על פי שהוא בתוך מעיה אבל אם חתך מן העובר שבמעיה ולא הוציאו ואחר כך שחטה הרי חתיכת העובר או אברו מותר הואיל ולא יצא עובר שהוציא ידו או רגלו נאסר אותו אבר לעולם בין שחתכו קודם שתשחט אמו בין שחתכו אחר שנשחטה אמו ואפילו החזיר אותו אבר למעי אמו ואח\"כ נשחט או נולד הולד וחיה כמה שנים הרי אותו האבר אסור משום טריפה שכל בשר שיצא חוץ למחיצתו נאסר כבשר שפרש מן החי שנאמר ובשר בשדה טרפה כיון שיצא למקום שהוא לו כשדה נעשה טריפה כמו שביארנו.", + "הוציא מקצת האבר ונשאר מקצתו בפנים אפילו לא נשאר אלא מיעוטו היוצא אסור ושבפנים מותר ואם חתך היוצא מן האבר אחר שהחזירו ונשחטה אותו שיצא בלבד אסור ושאר האבר מותר ואם לא החזירו וחתכו והוא בחוץ בין שחתכו קודם שחיטה או אחר שחיטה מקום החתך אסור והוא המקום שנגד האויר אחר שיחתך היוצא חוזר וחותך מקום החתך.", + "כל אבר עובר שיצא וחתכו קודם שחיטה והוא בחוץ הרי זה אבר מן החי ולוקין עליו ואפילו מת העובר קודם שחיטה ואם נחתך אחר שחיטה האוכלו אינו לוקה ואפילו מת ואם מתה הבהמה ואחר כך חתכו האוכלו לוקה משום אבר מן החי.", + "עובר שהוציא אבר ונאסר האבר ואח\"כ נולד והרי היא נקבה החלב שלה אסור לשתותו מספק הואיל והוא בא מכלל האיברין ויש בה אבר אחד אסור והרי זה כחלב טריפה שנתערב בחלב טהורה.", + "השוחט בהמה מעוברת ומצא בה שליל בין חי בין מת הרי זה מותר באכילה ואפילו שליא מותרת באכילה ושליא שיצאת מקצתה ושחט את הבהמה אם היתה שליא זו קשורה בולד מה שיצא ממנה אסור והשאר מותר ואם לא היתה קשורה בו כולה אסורה שמא שליא זו שיצאת מקצתה הלך לו ולד שהיה בה וולד זה שנמצא בבטן הלכה שליא שלו ואין צריך לומר שאם לא נמצא בבטן ולד כלל שהשליא כולה אסורה.", + "מצא בה עובר חי אע\"פ שהוא בן תשעה חדשים גמורין ואפשר שיחיה אינו צריך שחיטה אלא שחיטת אמו מטהרתו ואם הפריס על גבי קרקע צריך שחיטה.", + "קרע את הבהמה או שחט בהמה טריפה ומצא בה בן תשעה חי צריך שחיטה להתירו ואין שחיטת אמו מועלת לו ואם לא גמרו לו חדשיו אף על פי שהוא חי במעי הטריפה הרי זה אסור מפני שהוא כאבר מאמו כל עובר שהוציא ראשו והחזירו ואחר כך שחט את אמו אין שחיטת אמו מועלת לו והרי הוא כילוד וצריך שחיטה." + ], + [ + "האוכל כזית מן הדם במזיד חייב כרת בשוגג מביא חטאת קבועה ודבר מפורש בתורה שאינו חייב אלא על דם בהמה חיה ועוף בלבד בין טמאין בין טהורין שנאמר וכל דם לא תאכלו בכל מושבותיכם לעוף ולבהמה וחיה בכלל בהמה שנאמר זאת הבהמה אשר תאכלו שור וגו' איל וצבי וגו' אבל דם דגים וחגבים ושקצים ורמשים ודם האדם אין חייבין עליו משום דם לפיכך דם דגים וחגבים טהורים מותר לאכלו ואפילו כנסו בכלי ושתהו מותר ודם חגבים ודגים טמאים אסור משום שהוא תמצית גופן כחלב בהמה טמאה ודם שקצים כבשרן כמו שביארנו.", + "דם האדם אסור מדברי סופרים אם פירש ומכין עליו מכת מרדות אבל דם השינים בולעו ואינו נמנע הרי שנשך בפת ומצא עליה דם גורר את הדם ואחר כך אוכל שהרי פירש.", + "אין חייבין כרת אלא על דם היוצא בשעת שחיטה ונחירה או התזת הראש כל זמן שיש בו אדמומית ועל הדם הכנוס בתוך הלב ועל דם הקזה כל זמן שהוא מקלח ויוצא אבל הדם השותת בתחלת הקזה קודם שיתחיל לקלח ודם השותת בסוף הקזה כשיתחיל הדם לפסוק אין חייבין עליו והרי הוא כדם האיברים שדם הקלוח הוא הדם שהנפש יוצאה בו.", + "דם התמצית ודם האיברין כגון דם הטחול ודם הכליות ודם ביצים ודם המתכנס ללב בשעת שחיטה ודם הנמצא בכבד אין חייבין עליו כרת אבל האוכל ממנו כזית לוקה שנאמר וכל דם לא תאכלו ובחיוב כרת הוא אומר כי נפש הבשר בדם היא אינו חייב כרת אלא על הדם שהנפש יוצאה בו.", + "השליל הנמצא במעי הבהמה הרי דמו כדם הילוד לפיכך הדם הנמצא כנוס בתוך לבו חייבין עליו כרת אבל שאר דמו הרי הוא כדם האברין.", + "הלב בין לצלי בין לקדרה קורעו ומוציא את דמו ואח\"כ מולחו ואם בשל הלב ולא קרעו קורעו אחר שבשלו ומותר ואם לא קרעו ואכלו אינו חייב עליו כרת בד\"א בלב העוף שאין בו כזית דם אבל אם היה לב בהמה חייב כרת שהרי יש בו כזית מדם שבתוך הלב שחייבין עליו כרת.", + "הכבד אם חתכה והשליכה לתוך החומץ או לתוך מים רותחין עד שתתלבן הרי זו מותרת לבשל אותה אחר כן וכבר נהגו כל ישראל להבהבה על האור ואחר כך מבשלין אותה בין שבשלה לבדה בין שבשלה עם בשר אחר וכן מנהג פשוט שאין מבשלין המוח של ראש ולא קולין אותו עד שמהבהבין אותו באור.", + "הכבד שבשלה ולא הבהבה על האור ולא חלטה בחומץ או ברותחין הרי הקדרה כולה אסורה הכבד וכל שנתבשל עמה ומותר לצלות כבד עם הבשר בשפוד אחד והוא שתהיה הכבד למטה ואם עבר וצלאה למעלה מבשר הרי זה אוכלו.", + "הטחול מותר לבשלו אפילו עם הבשר שאינו דם אלא בשר הדומה לדם השובר מפרקת בהמה קודם שתצא נפשה הרי הדם נבלע באברים ואסור לאכול ממנה בשר חי ואפילו חלטו אלא כיצד יעשה יחתוך החתיכה וימלח יפה יפה ואח\"כ יבשל או יצלה וכבר ביארנו שהשוחט בהמה חיה ועוף ולא יצא מהן דם שהן מותרין.", + "אין הבשר יוצא מידי דמו אא\"כ מולחו יפה יפה ומדיחו יפה יפה כיצד עושה מדיח הבשר תחלה ואחר כך מולחו יפה יפה ומניחו במלחו כדי הילוך מיל ואח\"כ מדיחו יפה יפה עד שיצאו המים זכים ומשליכו מיד לתוך מים רותחין אבל לא לפושרין כדי שיתלבן מיד ולא יצא דם.", + "כשמולחין הבשר אין מולחין אותו אלא בכלי מנוקב ואין מולחין אלא במלח עבה כחול הגס שהמלח דק כקמח יבלע בבשר ולא יוציא דם וצריך לנפץ הבשר מן המלח ואחר כך ידיחנו.", + "כל הדברים האלו לבשר שצריך לבשלו אבל לצלי מולח וצולה מיד והרוצה לאכול בשר חי מולחו יפה יפה ומדיחו יפה יפה ואח\"כ יאכל ואם חלטו בחומץ מותר לאכלו כשהוא חי ומותר לשתות החומץ שחלטו בו שאין החומץ מוציא הדם.", + "חומץ שחלט בו בשר לא יחלוט בו פעם שניה וחתיכה שהאדימה בתוך החומץ היא והחומץ אסורין עד שימלח אותה יפה יפה ויצלה בשר שהאדים וכן ביצי בהמה וחיה בקליפה שעליהן וכן העורף שבו המזרקים שהן מלאים דם אם חתכן ומלחן כדת מותר לבשלן ואם לא חתכן וצלאן בשפוד וצלה העורף ופיו למטה או שצלאן כולן על הגחלים הרי אלו מותרין.", + "ראש הבהמה שצלהו בתנור או בכבשן אם תלהו ובית שחיטתו למטה מותר שהדם יוצא ושותת ואם היה בית השחיטה מן הצד מוחו אסור שהדם מתקבץ לתוכו ושאר הבשר שעל העצמות מבחוץ מותר הניח חוטמו למטה אם הניח בו גמי או קנה כדי שישאר פתוח ויצא דמו דרך חוטמו מותר ואם לאו מוחו אסור.", + "אין מניחין כלי תחת הצלי לקבל מימיו עד שתכלה כל מראה אדמומית שבו וכיצד עושין משליכין לתוך הכלי מעט מלח ומניח הכלי עד שיצלה ולוקח השמנונית של מעלה והמים של מטה שתחת השמנונית אסורה.", + "פת שחתך עליה בשר צלי מותר לאכלה שאינה אלא שמנונית דגים ועופות שמלחן זה עם זה אפילו בכלי מנוקב הדגים אסורין שהדג רפה ובולע דם היוצא מן העוף ואין צריך לומר אם מלח דג עם בשר בהמה או חיה.", + "עופות שהניחן שלמים ומלא חללן בשר וביצים ובשלן אסורות שהרי דם יוצא לתוכן ואע\"פ שמלחן יפה יפה ואפילו היה הבשר שבתוכן שלוק או צלוי ואם צלאן הרי אלו מותרות אע\"פשהבשר שבתוכן חי ואפילו פיהן למעלה.", + "בני מעיים שמלאן על דרך זו בבשר צלוי או שלוק או שמלאן בביצים ושלקן או קלאן הרי אלו מותרין שאין מחזיקין דם בבני מעים וכן הורו הגאונים.", + "עופות שטפלן בבצק וצלאן בין שלמים בין מחותכין אם טפלן בסולת גסה אפילו הסמיקה הטפלה אוכל את הטפילה מפני שסלת גסה מתפררת ויוצא הדם ואם טפלן בקמח חטים שלתתן אם היתה הטפלה לבנה כמו הכסף מותר לאכול ממנה ואם לאו אסורה טפלן בשאר קמחין אם האדימו אסורין ואם לא האדימו מותרין.", + "סכין ששחט בה אסור לחתוך בה רותח עד שילבן הסכין באור או ישחיזנה במשחזת או ינעצנה בקרקע קשה עשר פעמים ואם חתך בה רותח מותר וכן אינו חותך בה צנון וכיוצא בו מדברים החריפים לכתחלה ואם הדיח הסכין או שקנחה בכלי מותר לחתוך בו צנון וכיוצא בו אבל לא רותח.", + "קערה שמלח בה בשר אפילו היתה שועה באבר אסור לאכול בה רותח לעולם שכבר נבלע הדם בחרסיה." + ], + [ + "האוכל כזית חלב במזיד חייב כרת בשוגג מביא חטאת קבועה ובפירוש אמרה תורה שאינו חייב אלא על שלשה מיני בהמה טהורה בלבד שנאמר כל חלב שור וכבש ועז לא תאכלו בין שאכל מחלב שחוטה בין שאכל מחלב נבלה וטריפה שלהן אבל שאר בהמה וחיה בין טמאה בין טהורה חלבה כבשרה וכן נפל של שלשה מיני בהמה טהורה חלבו כבשרו והאוכל מחלבו כזית לוקה משום אוכל נבילה.", + "האוכל מחלב נבילה וטריפה חייב משום אוכל חלב ומשום אוכל נבלה וטרפה מתוך שנוסף האיסור בבשרה שהיה מותר נוסף על החלב ולפיכך לוקה שתים.", + "השוחט בהמה ומצא בה שליל כל חלבו מותר ואפילו מצאו חי מפני שהוא כאבר ממנה ואם שלמו לו חדשיו ומצאו חי אף על פי שלא הפריס על הקרקע ואינו צריך שחיטה חלבו אסור וחייבין עליו כרת ומוציאין ממנו כל החוטין והקרומות האסורין כשאר הבהמות.", + "הושיט ידו למעי בהמה וחתך מחלב העובר שכלו לו חדשיו והוציאו הרי זה חייב עליו כאילו חתכו מחלב האם עצמה שהחדשים הן הגורמין לאסור החלב.", + "שלשה חלבים הן שחייבין עליהן כרת:חלב שעל הקרב ושעל שתי הכליות ושעל הכסלים אבל האליה מותרת באכילה לא נקראת חלב אלא לענין קרבן בלבד כמו שנקראו חלבים כליות ויותרת הכבד לענין קרבן כמו שאתה אומר חלב הארץ וחלב כליות חטה שהוא טובם ולפי שמרימין דברים אלו מן הקרבן לשריפה לשם נקראו חלב שאין שם דבר טוב אלא המורם לשם ולכך נאמר בתרומת מעשר בהרימכם את חלבו ממנו.", + "חלב שעל המסס ושעל בית הכוסות הוא החלב שעל הקרב וחלב שבעיקרי הירכות מבפנים חייבין עליו כרת והוא החלב שעל הכסלים ויש שם חלב על הקיבה עקום כמו קשת והוא האסור וחוט משוך כמו יתר והוא מותר חוטין שבחלב אסורין ואין חייבין עליהן כרת.", + "חלב שהבשר חופה אותו מותר שעל הכסלים אסר הכתוב לא שבתוך הכסלים וכן חלב שעל הכליות נאסר ולא שבתוך הכליות ואף על פי כן נוטל אדם לובן שבתוך הכוליא ואחר כך אוכל אותה ואינו צריך לחטט אחריו.", + "יש כמו שתי פתילות של חלב בעיקרי המתנים סמוך לראש הירך כשהבהמה חיה חלב זה נראה במעים וכשתמות ידבק בשר בבשר ויתכסה חלב זה ואינו נראה עד שיתפרק הבשר מן הבשר ואעפ\"כ הרי זה אסור שאין זה חלב שהבשר חופה אותו וכל מקום שתמצא בו החלב תחת הבשר והבשר מקיף אותו מכל סביביו ולא יראה עד שיקרע הבשר הרי זה מותר.", + "חלב הלב וחלב המעים הן הדקין המלופפין כולן מותרין והרי הם כשומן שהוא מותר חוץ מראש המעי שסמוך לקיבה שהוא תחלת בני מעים שצריך לגרור החלב שעליו וזהו חלב שעל הדקין שאסור ויש מן הגאונים שאומר שראש המעי שצריך לגררו הוא המעי שיצא בו הרעי שהוא סוף המעים.", + "יש בגוף הבהמה חוטין וקרומות שהן אסורין מהם משום חלב ומהן משום דם וכל חוט או קרום שאסור משום כל דם לא תאכלו צריך לנטלו ואח\"כ ימלח ויבשל הבשר כמו שאמרנו ואם חתכו ומלחו אינו צריך לנטלו וכן לצלי (אינו צריך לנטלו) וכל חוט או קרום שהוא אסור משום כל חלב בין לצלי בין לבשול צריך לנטלו מן הבהמה.", + "חמשה חוטין יש בכסלים שלשה מן הימין ושנים מן השמאל השלשה שמן הימין מתפצל כל אחד מהם לשנים שנים והשנים שמן השמאל מתפצלין לשלשה שלשה וכולן משום חלב וחוטי הטחול וחוטי הכליות משום חלב וכן קרום שעל הטחול וקרום שעל הכסלים וקרום שעל הכליות אסורין משום חלב וקרום שעל דד הטחול חייבין עליו כרת ושאר הקרום אסור ואין חייבין עליו.", + "ושני קרומות יש לכוליא העליון חייבין עליו כרת כחלב שעל הכוליא והתחתון הרי הוא כשאר קרומות וחוטין שבהן אסורין ואין בהן כרת.", + "חוטי הלב וחוטי היד וחוטי העוקץ וחוטי הלחי התחתון שבצד הלשון מיכן ומיכן וכן החוטין הדקין שהן בתוך חלב הדקין כמו בית עכביש מסובכין זה בזה וקרום שעל המוח שבקדקד וקרום שעל הביצים הכל אסורין משום דם.", + "ביצי גדי או טלה שלא השלים שלשים יום מותר לבשלן בלא קליפה לאחר שלשים יום אם נראה בהן חוטין דקין אדומים בידוע שהלך בהם הדם ולא יבשל עד שיקלוף או עד שיחתך וימלח כמו שביארנו ואם עדיין לא נראו בהן חוטין האדומים מותרין.", + "וכל בני מעים שהמאכל סובב בחללן אין מחזיקין בהן דם.", + "יראה לי שכל אלו החוטין והקרומות איסורן מדברי סופרים ואם תאמר שהן אסורין מן התורה בכלל כל חלב וכל דם אין לוקין עליהן אלא מכת מרדות ויהיו כחצי שיעור שהוא אסור מן התורה ואין לוקין עליו.", + "אין מולחין חלבים עם הבשר ולא מדיחין חלבים עם בשר וסכין שחתך בה חלבים לא יחתך בה בשר וכלי שהדיח בו חלבים לא ידיח בו בשר לפיכך צריך הטבח להתקין שלש סכינין אחת ששוחט בה ואחת שמחתך בה בשר ואחת שמחתך בה חלבים.", + "ואם דרך אותו מקום שידיח הטבח הבשר בחנות צריך להתקין לו שני כלים של מים אחד שמדיח בו בשר ואחד שמדיח בו חלבים.", + "ואסור לטבח לפרוש חלב הכסלים על הבשר כדי לנאותו שהקרום שעל החלב דק ויתמעך ביד הטבח ויזוב החלב ויבלע בבשר וכל הדברים האלו אסור לעשותן ואם נעשו לא נאסר הבשר ואין מכין את העושה אלא מלמדין אותו שלא יעשה.", + "וכן אין מולחין את הבשר קודם שיסיר ממנו את הקרומות ואת החוטין האסורין ואם מלח מסירם אחר שנמלחו ואפילו היה בהן גיד הנשה מסירו אחר שנמלח ומבשל.", + "וטבח שדרכו לנקות הבשר ונמצא אחריו חוט או קרום מלמדין אותו ומזהירין אותו שלא יזלזל באיסורין אבל אם נמצא אחריו חלב אם היה כשעורה מעבירין אותו ואם נמצא אחריו כזית חלב אפילו במקומות הרבה מכין אותו מכת מרדות ומעבירין אותו מפני שהטבח נאמן על החלב." + ], + [ + "גיד הנשה נוהג בבהמה וחיה הטהורין ואפילו בנבלות וטרפות שלהן ונוהג בשליל ובמוקדשין בין קדשים הנאכלים בין קדשים שאינן נאכלין ונוהג בירך של ימין ובירך של שמאל ואין אסור מן התורה אלא שעל כף הירך בלבד שנאמר אשר על כף הירך אבל שאר הגיד שלמעלה מן הכף ושלמטה עד סופו וכן חלב שעל הגיד אינו אסור אלא מדברי סופרים ושני גידין הן הפנימי הסמוך לעצם אסור מן התורה והעליון כולו אסור מדבריהם.", + "האוכל מגיד הנשה הפנימי ממקום שעל הכף לוקה ואם אכל מחלבו או משאר הגיד הפנימי או מכל החיצון מכין אותו מכת מרדות וכמה שיעור אכילה כזית ואם אכל הגיד שעל הכף כולו אע\"פ שאין בו כזית לוקה מפני שהוא כבריה בפני עצמה.", + "אבל כזית מגיד של ימין וכזית מגיד של שמאל או שאכל שני גידים כולן אף על פי שאין בהן כזית לוקה שמונים (וכן הוא לוקה על כל גיד וגיד).", + "העוף אין בו משום גיד הנשה מפני שאין לו כף ירך אלא יריכו ארוך ואם נמצא עוף שירכו כירך הבהמה שיש לו כף גיד הנשה שלו אסור ואין לוקין עליו וכן בהמה שכף ירכה ארוך כשל עוף גיד הנשה שלה אסור ואין לוקין עליו.", + "האוכל גיד הנשה מבהמה וחיה הטמאים פטור לפי שאינו נוהג בטמאה אלא בבהמה שכולה מותרת ואינו כאוכל משאר גופה שאין הגידים מכלל הבשר כמו שביארנו ואם אכל מחלב שעל הגיד הרי זה כאוכל מבשרה.", + "האוכל גיד הנשה של נבילה או של טרפה או של עולה חייב שתים מתוך שנכלל באיסור שאר גופה שהיה מותר נכלל גם הגיד ונוסף עליו איסור אחר.", + "הנוטל גיד הנשה צריך לחטט אחריו עד שלא ישאיר ממנו כלום ונאמן הטבח על גיד הנשה כשם שנאמן על החלב ואין לוקחין בשר מכל טבח אלא אם היה אדם כשר ומוחזק בכשרות הוא ששוחט לעצמו ומוכר ונאמן.", + "במה דברים אמורים בחוצה לארץ אבל בארץ ישראל בזמן שכולה לישראל לוקחין מכל אדם.", + "טבח הנאמן למכור בשר ונמצא בשר נבלה או בשר טריפה יוצא מתחת ידו מחזיר את הדמים לבעלים ומשמתין אותו ומעבירין אותו ואין לו תקנה לעולם ליקח ממנו בשר עד שילך למקום שאין מכירין אותו ויחזיר אבדה בדבר חשוב או ישחוט לעצמו ויוציא טרפה לעצמו בממון חשוב שודאי עשה תשובה בלא הערמה.", + "הלוקח בשר ושלחו ביד אחד מעמי הארץ הרי זה נאמן עליו ואע\"פ שאינו מוחזק בכשרות אין חוששין לו שמא יחליף ואפילו עבדי ישראל ואמהותיהן נאמנין בדבר זה אבל לא לעכו\"ם שמא יחליף.", + "עשר חנויות תשע מוכרות בשר שחוטה ואחת מוכרת נבלות ולקח בשר מאחת מהן ואינו יודע מאיזה מהן לקח הרי זה אסור שכל קבוע כמחצה על מחצה דמי אבל בשר הנמצא מושלך בשוק הלך אחר הרוב דכל דפריש מרובא פריש אם היו רוב המוכרים עכו\"ם אסור ואם היו רוב המוכרים ישראל מותר.", + "וכן בשר הנמצא ביד עכו\"ם ואינו ידוע ממי לקח אם היו מוכרי הבשר ישראל מותר זה הוא דין תורה וכבר אסרו חכמים כל הבשר הנמצא בין בשוק בין ביד עכו\"ם אף על פי שכל השוחטין וכל המוכרין ישראל ולא עוד אלא הלוקח בשר והניחו בביתו ונעלם מן העין אסור אלא אם כן היה לו בו סימן או שהיה לו בו טביעת עין והוא מכירו ודאי שהוא זה או שהיה צרור וחתום.", + "תלה כלי מלא חתיכות בשר ונשבר הכלי ונפלו החתיכות לארץ ובא ומצא חתיכות ואין לו בהן סימן ולא טביעת עין הרי זה אסור שיש לומר אותו בשר שהיה בכלי גררתו חיה או שרץ וזה בשר אחר הוא.", + "גיד הנשה מותר בהנאה לפיכך מותר לאדם לשלוח לעכו\"ם ירך שגיד הנשה בתוכה ונותן לו הירך שלימה בפני ישראל ואין חוששין שמא יאכל ממנה ישראל זה קודם שינטל הגיד שהרי מקומו ניכר לפיכך אם היתה הירך חתוכה לא יתננה לעכו\"ם בפני ישראל עד שיטול הגיד שמא יאכל ממנה ישראל.", + "כל מקום שנאמר בתורה לא תאכל לא תאכלו לא יאכלו לא יאכל אחד איסור אכילה ואחד איסור הנאה במשמע עד שיפרוט לך הכתוב כדרך שפרט לך בנבלה שנאמר לגר אשר בשעריך תתננה ואכלה וכחלב שנאמר בו יעשה לכל מלאכה או עד שיתפרש בתורה שבעל פה שהוא מותר בהנאה כגון שקצים ורמשים ודם ואבר מן החי וגיד הנשה שכל אלו מותרין בהנאה מפי הקבלה אע\"פשהן אסורין באכילה.", + "כל מאכל שהוא אסור בהנאה אם נהנה ולא אכל כגון שמכר או נתן לעכו\"ם או לכלבים אינו לוקה ומכין אותו מכת מרדות והדמים מותרין וכל דבר שאסור באכילה ומותר בהנאה אע\"פ שהוא מותר בהנאה אסור לעשות בו סחורה ולכוין מלאכתו בדברים אסורים חוץ מן החלב שהרי נאמר בו יעשה לכל מלאכה לפיכך אין עושין סחורה לא בנבלות ולא בטרפות ולא בשקצים ולא ברמשים.", + "הצייד שנזדמנו לו חיה או עוף ודג טמאים וצדן או שניצודו לו טמאים וטהורים מותר למוכרן אבל לא יכוין מלאכתו לטמאים ומותר לעשות סחורה בחלב שחלבו עכו\"ם ואין ישראל רואהו ובגבינות העכו\"ם וכיוצא בהן.", + "זה הכלל כל שאיסורו מן התורה אסור לעשות בו סחורה וכל שאיסורו מדבריהם מותר לעשות בו סחורה בין בספיקו בין בודאו." + ], + [ + "בשר בחלב אסור לבשלו ואסור לאכלו מן התורה ואסור בהנאה וקוברין אותו ואפרו אסור כאפר כל הנקברין ומי שיבשל משניהם כזית כאחד לוקה שנאמר לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו וכן האוכל כזית משניהם מהבשר והחלב שנתבשלו כאחד לוקה ואף על פי שלא בשל.", + "לא שתק הכתוב מלאסור האכילה אלא מפני שאסר הבשול כלומר ואפילו בשולו אסור ואין צריך לומר אכילתו כמו ששתק מלאסור הבת מאחר שאסר בת הבת.", + "אין אסור מן התורה אלא בשר בהמה טהורה בחלב בהמה טהורה שנאמר לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו וגדי הוא כולל ולד השור ולד השה ולד העז עד שיפרוט ויאמר גדי עזים ולא נאמר גדי בחלב אמו אלא שדיבר הכתוב בהווה אבל בשר בהמה טהורה (שבשלו) בחלב בהמה טמאה או בשר בהמה טמאה (שבשלו) בחלב בהמה טהורה מותר לבשל ומותרת בהנייה ואין חייבין על אכילתו משום בשר בחלב.", + "וכן בשר חיה ועוף בין בחלב חיה בין בחלב בהמה אינו אסור באכילה מן התורה לפיכך מותר לבשלו ומותר בהנייה ואסור באכילה מדברי סופרים כדי שלא יפשעו העם ויבואו לידי איסור בשר בחלב של תורה ויאכלו בשר בהמה טהורה בחלב בהמה טהורה שהרי אין משמע הכתוב אלא גדי בחלב אמו ממש לפיכך אסרו כל בשר בחלב.", + "דגים וחגבים מותר לאכלן בחלב והשוחט עוף ונמצא בו ביצים גמורות מותר לאכלן בחלב.", + "המעושן והמבושל בחמי טבריא וכיוצא בהן אין לוקין עליו וכן המבשל בשר במי חלב או בחלב מתה או בחלב זכר או שבשל דם בחלב פטור ואינו לוקה על אכילתו מושם בשר בחלב אבל המבשל בשר מתה או חלב וכיוצא בהן בחלב לוקה על בשולו ואינו לוקה על אכילתו משום בשר בחלב שאין איסור בשר בחלב חל על איסור נבילה או איסור חלב שאין כאן לא איסור כולל ולא איסור מוסיף ולא איסור בת אחת.", + "המבשל שליל בחלב חייב וכן האוכלו אבל המבשל שליא או עור וגידין ועצמות ועקרי קרנים וטלפים הרכים בחלב פטור וכן האוכלן פטור.", + "בשר שנפל לתוך החלב או חלב שנפל לתוך הבשר ונתבשל עמו שיעורו בנותן טעם כיצד חתיכה של בשר שנפלה לקדרה רותחת של חלב טועם הנכרי את הקדרה אם אמר שיש בה טעם בשר אסורה ואם לאו מותרת ואותה חתיכה אסורה במה דברים אמורים שקדם והוציא את החתיכה קודם שתפלוט חלב שבלעה אבל אם לא סלק משערים אותה בששים מפני שהחלב שנבלע בה ונאסר יצא ונתערב עם שאר החלב.", + "נפל חלב לתוך קדרה של בשר טועמין את החתיכה שנפל עליה חלב אם אין בה טעם חלב הכל מותר ואם יש בחתיכה טעם חלב אף על פי שאם תסחט החתיכה לא ישאר בה טעם הואיל ויש בה עתה טעם חלב נאסרה אותה חתיכה ומשערין בכולה אם היה בכל שיש בקדרה מן החתיכות והירק והמרק והתבלין כדי שתהיה חתיכה זו אחד מששים מן הכל החתיכה אסורה והשאר מותר.", + "בד\"א בשלא נער את הקדרה בתחלה כשנפל החלב אלא לבסוף ולא כסה אבל אם נער מתחלה ועד סוף או שכסה משעת נפילה עד סוף הרי זה בנותן טעם וכן אם נפל חלב לתוך המרק או לכל החתיכות ולא נודע לאי זה חתיכה נפל נוער את הקדרה כולה עד שתשוב ויתערב הכל אם יש בקדרה כולה טעם חלב אסורה ואם לאו מותרת אם לא נמצא נכרי שיטעום ונסמוך עליו משערים בששים בין בשר לתוך חלב בין חלב לתוך בשר אחד מששים מותר פחות בששים אסור.", + "קדרה שבשל בה בשר לא יבשל בה חלב ואם בשל בנותן טעם.", + "הכחל אסור מדברי סופרים שאין בשר שנתבשל בחלב שחוטה אסור מן התורה כמו שביארנו לפיכך אם קרעו ומירק החלב שבו מותר לצלותו ולאכלו ואם קרעו שתי וערב וטחו בכותל עד שלא נשאר בו לחלוחית חלב מותר לבשלו עם הבשר וכחל שלא קרעו בין של קטנה שלא הניקה בין של גדולה אסור לבשלו ואם עבר ובשלו בפני עצמו מותר לאכלו ואם בשלו עם בשר אחר משערין אותו בששים וכחל מן המנין.", + "כיצד אם היה הכל עם הכחל כמו ששים בכחל הכחל אסור והשאר מותר ואם היה בפחות מששים הכל אסור בין כך ובין כך אם נפל לקדרה אחרת אוסר אותה ומשערין בו בששים כבראשונה שהכחל עצמו שנתבשל נעשה כחתיכה האסורה ואין משערין בו אלא כמות שהוא בעת שנתבשל לא כמות שהיה בשעה שנפל.", + "אין צולין את הכחל שחתכו [למעלה] מן הבשר בשפוד ואם צלהו הכל מותר.", + "קיבה שבשלה בחלב שבה מותרת שאינו חלב אלא הרי הוא כטנופת שהרי ישתנה במעים.", + "אסור להעמיד הגבינה בעור הקיבה של שחוטה ואם העמיד טועם את הגבינה אם יש בה טעם בשר אסורה ואם לאו מותרת מפני שהמעמיד דבר המותר הוא שקיבת שחוטה היא ואין כאן אלא איסור בשר בחלב ששעורו בנותן טעם אבל המעמיד בעור קיבת נבילה וטרפה ובהמה טמאה הואיל והמעמיד דבר האסור בפני עצמו נאסרה הגבינה משום נבלה לא משום בשר בחלב ומפני חשש זה אסרו גבינת עכו\"ם כמו שביארנו.", + "הבשר לבדו מותר והחלב לבדו מותר ובהתערב שניהן על ידי בישול יאסרו שניהם במה דברים אמורים שנתבשלו שניהם ביחד או שנפל חם לתוך חם או צונן לתוך חם אבל אם נפל אחד משניהם והוא חם לתוך השני והוא צונן קולף הבשר כולו שנגע בו החלב ואוכל השאר ואם נפל צונן לתוך צונן מדיח החתיכה ואוכלה לפיכך מותר לצרור בשר וגבינה במטפחת אחת והוא שלא יגעו זה בזה ואם נגעו מדיח הבשר ומדיח הגבינה ואוכל.", + "מליח שאינו נאכל מחמת מלחו הרי הוא כרותח ואם נאכל כמות שהוא כמו הכותח אינו כרותח.", + "עוף שחוט שנפל לחלב או לכותח שיש בו חלב אם חי הוא מדיחו ומותר ואם צלי קולפו ואם היו בו פלחים פלחים או שהיה מתובל בתבלין ונפל לחלב או לכותח הרי זה אסור.", + "אסור להעלות העוף עם הגבינה על השלחן שהוא אוכל עליו גזירה משום הרגל עבירה שמא יאכל זה עם זה אע\"פ שהעוף בחלב אסור מדברי סופרים.", + "שני אכסנאין שאינם מכירין זה את זה אוכלין על שלחן אחד זה בשר בהמה וזה גבינה מפני שאין זה גס לבו בזה כדי שיאכל עמו.", + "אין לשון העיסה בחלב ואם לש כל הפת אסורה מפני הרגל עבירה שמא יאכל בה בשר ואין טשין את התנור באליה ואם טש כל הפת אסורה עד שיסיק את התנור שמא יאכל בה חלב ואם שינה בצורת הפת עד שתהיה ניכרת כדי שלא יאכל בה לא בשר ולא חלב הרי זה מותר.", + "פת שאפאה עם הצלי ודגים שצלאן עם הבשר אסור לאכלן בחלב קערה שאכלו בה בשר ובשלו בה דגים אותן הדגים מותר לאכלן בכותח.", + "סכין שחתך בה בשר צלי וחזר וחתך בה צנון וכיוצא בו מדברים חריפין אסור לאכלן בכותח אבל אם חתך בה בשר וחזר וחתך בה קישות או אבטיח גורד מקום החתך ואוכל השאר בחלב.", + "אין מניחין כד של מלח בצד כד של כמך מפני ששואב ממנו ונמצא מבשל הבשר במלח זה שיש בו טעם החלב אבל מניח כד החומץ בצד כד הכמך שאין החומץ שואב ממנו.", + "מי שאכל גבינה או חלב תחלה מותר לאכול אחריו בשר מיד וצריך שידיח ידיו ויקנח פיו בין הגבינה ובין הבשר ובמה מקנח פיו בפת או בפירות שלועסן ובולען או פולטן ובכל מקנחין את הפה חוץ מתמרים או קמח או ירקות שאין אלו מקנחין יפה.", + "בד\"א בבשר בהמה או חיה אבל אם אכל בשר עוף אחר שאכל הגבינה או החלב אינו צריך לא קנוח הפה ולא נטילת ידים.", + "מי שאכל בשר בתחלה בין בשר בהמה בין בשר עוף לא יאכל אחריו חלב עד שיהיה ביניהן כדי שיעור סעודה אחרת והוא כמו שש שעות מפני הבשר של בין השינים שאינו סר בקינוח." + ], + [ + "כל איסורין שאמרנו הן במיני נפש חיה ויש איסורין אחרים של תורה בזרע הארץ והן החדש וכלאי הכרם והטבל והערלה.", + "החדש כיצד כל אחד מחמשה מיני תבואה בלבד אסור לאכול מהחדש שלו קודם שיקרב העומר בט\"ז בניסן שנאמר ולחם וקלי וכרמל לא תאכלו וכל האוכל כזית חדש קודם הקרבת העומר לוקה מן התורה בכל מקום ובכל זמן בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ בין בפני הבית בין שלא בפני הבית אלא שבזמן שיש מקדש משיקרב העומר הותר החדש בירושלים והמקומות הרחוקין מותרין אחר חצות שאין בית דין מתעצלין בו עד אחר חצות ובזמן שאין בית המקדש כל היום כולו אסור מן התורה ובזמן הזה במקומות שעושין שני ימים טובים החדש אסור כל יום י\"ז בניסן עד לערב מדברי סופרים.", + "האוכל לחם וקלי וכרמל כזית מכל אחד ואחד לוקה שלש מלקיות שנאמר ולחם וקלי וכרמל לא תאכלו מפי השמועה למדו ששלשתן בלאוין חלוקין זה מזה.", + "כל תבואה שהשרישה קודם הקרבת העומר אף על פי שלא נגמרה אלא אחר שקרב מותרת באכילה משקרב העומר ותבואה שהשרישה אחר שקרב העומר אע\"פ שהיתה זרועה קודם שקרב העומר הרי זו אסורה עד שיקרב העומר של שנה הבאה ודין זה בכל מקום ובכל זמן מן התורה.", + "תבואה שהשרישה אחר העומר וקצרה וזרע מן החטים בקרקע ואחר כך קרב העומר הבא ועדיין החטים בקרקע הרי אלו ספק אם התירן העומר כאילו היו מונחין בכד או לא יתיר אותן מפני שבטלו בקרקע לפיכך אם לקט מהם ואכל אינו לוקה ומכין אותו מכת מרדות וכן שיבולת שהביאה שליש מלפני העומר ועקרה ושתלה אחר שקרב העומר והוסיפה הרי זו ספק אם תהיה אסורה מפני התוספת עד שיבא העומר הבא או לא תהיה אסורה שהרי השרישה קודם העומר.", + "כלאי הכרם כיצד מין ממיני תבואה או מיני ירקות שנזרעו עם הגפן בין שזרע ישראל בין שזרע נכרי בין שעלו מאליהן בין שנטע הגפן בתוך הירק שניהם אסורין באכילה ובהנייה שנאמר פן תקדש המלאה הזרע אשר תזרע ותבואת הכרם כלומר פן תתרחק ותאסור שניהם.", + "והאוכל כזית מכלאי הכרם בין מן הירק בין מן הענבים לוקה מן התורה ושניהם מצטרפין זה עם זה.", + "במה דברים אמורים שנזרעו בארץ ישראל אבל בחוצה לארץ כלאי הכרם מדברי סופרים ובהלכות כלאים יתבאר אי זה מין אסור בכלאי הכרם ואי זה מין אינו אסור והיאך יאסור ומתי יאסר ואי זה דבר מקדש ואי זה אינו מקדש.", + "הערלה כיצד כל הנוטע אילן מאכל כל פירות שעושה אותו אילן שלש שנים משנטע הרי הן אסורין באכילה ובהנאה שנאמר שלש שנים יהיה לכם ערלים לא יאכל וכל האוכל מהם כזית לוקה מן התורה.", + "בד\"א בנוטע בארץ ישראל שנאמר כי תבאו אל הארץ וגו' אבל איסור ערלה בחוצה לארץ הלכה למשה מסיני שודאי הערלה בחוצה לארץ אסורה וספיקה מותר ובהלכות מעשר שני יתבאר דברים האסורין משום ערלה ודברים המותרין.", + "ספק ערלה וכלאי הכרם בארץ ישראל אסור בסוריא והיא ארצות שכבש דוד מותר כיצד היה כרם וערלה וענבים נמכרות חוצה לו היה ירק זרוע בתוכו וירק נמכר חוצה לו שמא ממנו הוא זה שמא מאחר בסוריא מותר ובחוצה לארץ אפילו ראה הענבים יוצאות מכרם ערלה או ירק יוצא מן הכרם לוקח מהן והוא שלא יראה אותו בוצר מן הערלה או לוקט הירק בידו.", + "כרם שהוא ספק ערלה או ספק כלאים בארץ ישראל אסור ובסוריא מותר ואין צריך לומר בחוצה לארץ.", + "חבית יין הנמצאת טמונה בפרדס של ערלה אסורה בשתייה ומותרת בהנייה שאין הגנב גונב ממקום וטומן בו אבל ענבים הנמצאין טמונים שם אסורים שמא משם נלקטו והצניען שם.", + "נכרי וישראל שהיו שותפין בנטיעה אם התנו מתחלת השותפות שיהיה הנכרי אוכל שני ערלה וישראל אוכל שלש שנים משני היתר כנגד שני הערלה הרי זה מותר ואם לא התנו מתחלה אסור ובלבד שלא יבאו לחשבון כיצד כגון שיחשוב כמה פירות אכל הנכרי בשני ערלה עד שיאכל ישראל כנגד אותן הפירות אם התנו כזה אסור שהרי זה כמחליף פירות ערלה.", + "יראה לי שאין דין נטע רבעי נוהג בחוצה לארץ אלא אוכל פירות שנה רביעית בלא פדיון כלל שלא אמרו אלא הערלה וקל וחומר הדברים ומה סוריא שהיא חייבת במעשרות ובשביעית מדבריהם אינה חייבת בנטע רבעי כמו שיתבאר בהלכות מעשר שני חוצה לארץ לא כל שכן שלא יהיה נטע רבעי נוהג בה אבל בארץ ישראל נוהג בה בין בפני הבית בין שלא בפני הבית והורו מקצת גאונים שכרם רבעי לבדו פודין אותו בחוצה לארץ ואח\"כ יהיה מותר באכילה ואין לדבר זה עיקר.", + "פירות שנה רביעית כולה אסור לאכול מהן בארץ ישראל עד שיפדו ובהלכות מעשר שני יתבאר משפטי פדיונן ודין אכילתן ומאימתי מונין לערלה ולרבעי.", + "כיצד פודין פירות נטע רבעי בזמן הזה אחר שאוסף אותן מברך בא\"י אמ\"ה אקב\"ו על פדיון נטע רבעי ואחר כך פודה את כולן ואפילו בפרוטה אחת ואומר הרי אלו פדויין בפרוטה זו ומשליך אותה פרוטה לים המלח או מחללן על שוה פרוטה מפירות אחרות ואומר הרי כל הפירות האלו מחוללין על חטים אלו או על שעורים אלו וכיוצא בהן ושורף אותן כדי שלא יהיו תקלה לאחרים ואוכל כל הפירות.", + "הורו מקצת הגאונים שאף על פי שפדה פירות שנה רביעית או חללן אסור לאכלן עד שתכנס שנה חמישית ודבר זה אין לו עיקר ויראה לי שזו שגגת הוראה והטעם לפי שכתוב ובשנה החמישית תאכלו את פריו ואין ענין הכתוב אלא שבשנה החמישית תאכלו פריו בלא פדיון ככל חולין שבעולם ואין ראוי לחוש להוראה זו.", + "הטבל כיצד כל אוכל שהוא חייב להפריש ממנו תרומה ומעשרות קודם שיפריש ממנו נקרא טבל ואסור לאכול ממנו שנאמר ולא יחללו את קדשי בני ישראל את אשר ירימו לה' כלומר לא ינהגו בהן מנהג חולין ועדיין קדשים שעתידין להתרם לא הורמו והאוכל כזית מן הטבל קודם שיפריש ממנו תרומה גדולה ותרומת מעשר חייב מיתה בידי שמים שנאמר ולא יחללו את קדשי בני ישראל וגו' והשיאו אותם עון אשמה.", + "אבל האוכל מדבר שניטלה ממנו תרומה גדולה ותרומת מעשר ועדיין לא הפריש ממנו מעשרות ואפילו לא נשאר בו אלא מעשר עני הרי זה לוקה משום אוכל טבל ואין בו מיתה שאין שאין עון מיתה אלא בתרומה גדולה ותרומת מעשר.", + "אזהרה לאוכל טבל שלא הורמו ממנו מעשרות בכלל שנאמר לא תוכל לאכול בשעריך מעשר דגנך וגו' ובהלכות תרומות ומעשרות יתבאר איזה דבר חייב בתרומה ובמעשרות ואי זה דבר פטור ואי זה דבר הוא חייב מן התורה ואי זהו החייב מדברי סופרים והאוכל כזית מטבל של דבריהם או מכלאי הכרם וערלה של חוצה לארץ מכין אותו מכת מרדות.", + "הטבל והחדש וההקדש וספיחי שביעית והכלאים והערלה משקין היוצאין מפירותיהן אסורים כמותן ואין לוקין עליהן חוץ מיין ושמן של ערלה ויין של כלאי הכרם שלוקין עליהן כדרך שלוקין על הזיתים ועל הענבים שלהן.", + "ויש בקדשים איסורין אחרים במאכלות וכולן של תורה הן כגון איסורין שיש באכילת תרומות ובכורים וחלה ומעשר שני ואיסורין שיש בקדשי מזבח כגון פיגול ונותר וטמא וכל אחד מהן יתבאר במקומו.", + "ושיעור כל אכילה מהן כזית בין למלקות בין לכרת וכבר ביארנו איסור חמץ בפסח ודיניו בהלכות חמץ ומצה אבל איסור אכילה ביוה\"כ איסור מין בפני עצמו וכן איסור יוצא מגפן על הנזיר אינו שוה בכל ולפיכך יתבאר איסור כל אחד מהן ושיעורו ודיניו במקומו הראוי לו." + ], + [ + "יין שנתנסך לעכו\"ם אסור בהנייה והשותה ממנו כל שהוא לוקה מן התורה וכן האוכל כל שהוא מתקרובת עכו\"ם מבשר או מפירות אפילו מים ומלח האוכל מהן כל שהוא לוקה שנאמר אשר חלב זבחימו יאכלו ישתו יין נסיכם יקומו וגו'.", + "יין שנתנסך לה כזבח שקרב לה וכיון שאיסור זה משום עכו\"ם הוא אין לו שיעור שנאמר בעבודת כו\"ם ולא ידבק בידך מאומה מן החרם.", + "יין העכו\"ם שאין אנו יודעין אם נתנסך או לא נתנסך והוא הנקרא סתם יינם אסור בהנאה כמו יין שנתנסך ודבר זה מגזירות סופרים הוא והשותה מסתם יינם רביעית מכין אותו מכת מרדות.", + "וכל יין שיגע בו העכו\"ם הרי זה אסור שמא נסך אותו שמחשבת העכו\"ם לעבודת כוכבים הא למדת שיין ישראל שנגע בו העכו\"ם דינו כסתם יינם שהוא אסור בהנייה.", + "עכו\"ם שנגע ביין שלא בכוונה וכן תינוק עכו\"ם שנגע ביין אסור בשתייה ומותר בהנייה הלוקח עבדים מן העכו\"ם ומלו וטבלו מיד אין מנסכין ויין שנגעו בו מותר בשתייה ואע\"פ שעדיין לא נהגו בדתי ישראל ולא פסקה עכו\"ם מפיהם.", + "בני השפחות העכו\"ם שנולדו ברשות ישראל ומלו ועדיין לא טבלו הגדולים אוסרין היין כשיגעו בה והקטנים אינן אוסרין.", + "גר תושב והוא שקיבל עליו שבע מצות כמו שביארנו יינו אסור בשתייה ומותר בהנייה ומייחדין אצלו יין ואין מפקידין אצלו יין וכן כל עכו\"ם שאינו עובד עכו\"ם כגון אלו הישמעאלים יינן אסור בשתייה ומותר בהנייה וכן הורו כל הגאונים אבל אותם העובדים עכו\"ם סתם יינם אסור בהנייה.", + "כל מקום שנאמר בענין זה שהיין אסור אם היה עכו\"ם שנאסר היין בגללו עובד עכו\"ם הרי הוא אסור בהנייה ואם אינו עובד עכו\"ם הרי הוא אסור בשתייה בלבד וכל מקום שנאמר עכו\"ם סתם הרי זה עובד עכו\"ם.", + "אין מתנסך לעכו\"ם אלא יין שראוי להקריב על גבי המזבח ומפני זה כשגזרו על סתם יינם וגזרו על כל יין שיגע בו שיהיה אסור בהנייה לא גזרו אלא על היין הראוי להתנסך לפיכך יין מבושל של ישראל שנגע בו העכו\"ם אינו אסור ומותר לשתות עם העכו\"ם בכוס אחד אבל יין מזוג ויין שהתחיל להחמיץ ואפשר שישתה אם נגע בו נאסר.", + "הורו גאוני המערב שאם נתערב ביין ישראל מעט דבש או מעט שאור הואיל ואינו ראוי למזבח הרי הוא כמבושל או כשכר ואינו מתנסך ומותר לשתותו עם העכו\"ם.", + "מאימתי יאסר יין העכו\"ם משידרוך וימשך היין אף על פי שלא ירד לבור אלא עדיין הוא בגת הרי זה אסור לפיכך אין דורכין עם העכו\"ם בגת שמא יגע בידו וינסך ואפילו היה כפות ואין לוקחין ממנו גת דרוכה ואע\"פ שעדיין היין מעורב עם החרצנים וזגין ולא ירד לבור.", + "עכו\"ם שדרך היין ולא נגע בו והרי ישראל עומד על גביו וישראל הוא שכנסו בחבית ה\"ז אסור בשתייה.", + "החומץ של עכו\"ם אסור בהנייה מפני שנעשה יין נסך קודם שיחמיץ עכו\"ם שהיה דורס ענבים בחבית אף על פי שהיין צף על גבי ידיו אין חוששין משום יין נסך היה אוכל מן הסלים והותיר כסאה וכסאתים וזרקן בגת אע\"פשהיין מגתו על הענבים אין עושה יין נסך.", + "החרצנים והזגין של עכו\"ם אסורים כל י\"ב חדש ולאחר י\"ב חדש כבר יבשו ולא נשארה בהן לחלוחית ומותרין באכילה וכן שמרים של יין שיבשו לאחר י\"ב חדש מותרין שהרי לא נשאר בהן ריח יין והרי הן כעפר וכאדמה.", + "נאדות העכו\"ם וקנקניהן שהכניסו בהן העכו\"ם יינם אסור ליתן לתוכן יין עד שיישנן י\"ב חדש או עד שיחזירן לאור עד שיתרפה הזפת שעליהן או שיחמו או עד שיתן לתוכן מים שלשה ימים מעת לעת ומערה המים ומחליף מים אחרים כל מעת לעת שלש פעמים בשלשת הימים בין שהיו הכלים שלהן בין שהיו של ישראל ושאלו אותן והכניסו בהן יינם ואם נתן לתוכם יין קודם שיטהר אותן הרי זה אסור בשתייה.", + "ומותר ליתן לתוכן שכר או ציר או מורייס מיד ואין צריך לכלום ומותר ליתן היין לתוכן אחר שנותן הציר או המוריס שהמלח שורפן.", + "הלוקח כלים חדשים שאינם מזופתים מן העכו\"ם נותן לתוכן יין מיד ואינו חושש שמא נתנו בהן יין נסך ואם היו מזופתין מדיחן ואע\"פ שהן חדשים וכן כלי שנתנו בו יין נסך ואין מכניסו לקיום כגון כלי שחושף בו או המשפך וכיוצא בה משכשכו במים ודיו.", + "וכן כוס של חרס ששתה בו העכו\"ם אסור לשתות בו הדיחו פעם ראשונה ושניה ושלישית מותר שכבר הלכו צחצוחי היין שבו והוא שהיה מצופה באבר כדרך שהיוצרין עושין או שהיה מזופת אבל של חרס צריך הדחה.", + "כלי חרס השועים באבר שנשתמשו בהן ביין נסך אם היו לבנים או אדומים או שחורים מותרין ואם היו ירוקין אסורין מפני שהן בולעים ואם יש בהם מקום מגולה של חרס בין לבנים בין ירוקים אסורים מפני שהם בולעין ויראה לי שאין הדבר אלא בשכנסו בהם לקיום אבל לא כנסו בהם לקיום מדיחן ומותרין ואפילו הם של חרס.", + "גת של אבן ושל עץ שדרך בהן העכו\"ם או גת של אבן שזפתה העכו\"ם אף על פי שלא דרך בה מדיחן במים ובאפר ארבע פעמים ודורך בהן ואם היתה בהם לחלוחית מקדים האפר למים ואם לאו מקדים המים.", + "גת של אבן מזופפת שדרך בה העכו\"ם או גת של עץ זפותה אע\"פ שלא דרך בה צריך לקלוף את הזפת ואם יישנה שנים עשר חדש או נתן בה מים שלשה ימים מעת לעת אינו צריך לקלוף לא תהיה הגת חמורה יתר מן הקנקנים לא נאמר יקלוף אלא להתירה מיד.", + "גת של חרס אף על פי שקלף את הזפת אסור לדרוך בה מיד עד שיחם אותה באש עד שירפה הזפת ואם ישנה שנים עשר חדש או נתן בה מים שלשה ימים מותרת כמו שביארנו.", + "משמרת של יין של עכו\"ם אם היתה של שער מדיחה ומשמר בה ואם היתה של צמר מדיחה במים ובאפר ארבע פעמים ומדיחה עד שתנגב ומשמר בה ואם היתה של שש מישנה י\"ב חדש ואם יש בהן קשרים מתירן וכן כלי חלף והוצים וכיוצא בהן מכפיפות שדורכין בהן יין אם היו תפורין בחבלים מדיחן ואם היו אחוזות זו בסבוך קשה מדיחן באפר ובמים ארבע פעמים ומנגבן ומשתמש בהן ואם היו תפורות בפשתן מישנן שנים עשר חדש ואם יש בהן קשרים מתירן.", + "כלי הגת שדרך בהן העכו\"ם יין נסך כיצד מטהרין אותן כדי שידרוך בהן הישראל הדפין והעדשים והלולבין מדיחן העקלין של נסרין ושל בצבוץ מנגבן של שיפה ושל גמי מישנן שנים עשר חדש ואם רצה לטהרן מיד מגעילן ברותחין או חולטן במי זיתים או מניחן תחת צנור שמימיו מקולחין או במעין שמימיו רודפין שתים עשרה שעות ואח\"כ יותרו.", + "בזמן שהיתה ארץ ישראל כולה לישראל היו לוקחין היין מכל אדם מישראל ואין חוששין לו ובחוצה לארץ לא היו לוקחין אלא מאדם שהוחזק בכשרות ובזמן הזה אין לוקחין יין בכ\"מ אלא מאדם שהוחזק בכשרות וכן הבשר והגבינה וחתיכת דג שאין בה סימן כמו שביארנו.", + "המתארח אצל בעל הבית בכל מקום ובכל זמן והביא לו יין או בשר או גבינה וחתיכת דג הרי זה מותר ואינו צריך לשאול עליו אף על פי שאינו מכירו אלא יודע שהוא יהודי בלבד ואם הוחזק שאינו כשר ולא מדקדק בדברים אלו אסור להתארח אצלו ואם עבר ונתארח אצלו אינו אוכל בשר ולא שותה יין על פיו עד שיעיד לו אדם כשר עליהם." + ], + [ + "כיצד היא הנגיעה שאוסר בה העכו\"ם היין הוא שיגע ביין עצמו בין בידו בין בשאר איבריו שדרכן לנסך בהן וישכשך אבל אם פשט ידו לחבית ותפסו את ידו קודם שיוציאה ולא ינידה ופתחו החבית מלמטה עד שיצא היין וירד למטה מידו לא נאסר היין וכן אם אחז כלי פתוח של יין ושכשכו אע\"פ שלא הגביה הכלי ולא נגע ביין נאסר היין.", + "נטל כלי של יין והגביהו ויצק היין אע\"פ שלא שיכשך נאסר שהרי בא היין מכחו הגביה ולא שיכשך ולא נגע מותר.", + "עכו\"ם שהיה אוחז הכלי בקרקע וישראל יצק לתוכו יין היין מותר ואם נדנד העכו\"ם הכלי נאסר היין.", + "כלי סתום מותר לטלטלו העכו\"ם ממקום למקום ואף על פי שהיין מתנדנד שאין זה דרך הניסוך העביר נוד של יין ממקום למקום והוא אוחז פי הנוד בידו בין שהיה הנוד מלא או חסר מותר ואע\"פ שהיין מתנדנד העביר כלי חרס פתוח מלא יין אסור שמא נגע בו ואם היה חסר מותר אא\"כ שכשכו.", + "עכו\"ם שנגע ביין ולא נתכוון לזה הרי היין מותר בהנייה בלבד כיצד כגון שנפל על נוד של יין או שהושיט ידו לחבית על מנת שהיא שמן ונמצאת יין.", + "בא היין מכחו של עכו\"ם בלא כוונה הואיל ולא נגע ביין הרי זה מותר בשתייה כיצד כגון שהגביה כלי של יין ויצק לכלי אחר והוא מדמה שהוא שכר או שמן הרי זה מותר.", + "נכנס העכו\"ם לבית או לחנות לבקש יין ופשט ידו כשהוא מחפש ונגע ביין אסור שהרי ליין נתכוין ואין זה נוגע בלא כוונה.", + "חבית שנסדקה לארכה וקדם העכו\"ם וחבקה כדי שלא יתפרדו החרסים הרי זה מותר בהנייה אבל אם נסדקה לרחבה ותפס בסדק העליון כדי שלא יפול הרי זה מותר בשתייה שהרי אין היין על כחו של עכו\"ם.", + "עכו\"ם שנפל לבור של יין והעלוהו משם מת או שמדד הבור שיש בו היין בקנה או שהתיז את הזבוב והצרעה מעליו בקנה או שהיה מטפח על פי החבית הרותחת כדי שתנוח הרתיחה או שנטל חבית וזרקה בחמתו לבור הרי זה מותר בהנייה בלבד ואם עלה העכו\"ם חי היין אסור בהנייה.", + "חבית שהיה נקב בצדה ונשמט הפקק מן הנקב והניח העכו\"ם אצבעו במקום הנקב כדי שלא יצא היין כל היין שמראש החבית עד הנקב אסור ושתחת הנקב מותר בשתייה.", + "מינקת כפופה שעושין אותה ממתכת או מזכוכית וכיוצא בהם שהניח ראשה לתוך היין שבחבית והראש האחר חוץ לחבית ומצץ היין והתחיל היין לירד כדרך שעושין תמיד ובא העכו\"ם והניח אצבעו על פי המינקת ומנע היין מלירד נאסר כל היין שבחבית שהכל היה יוצא ונגרר לולי ידו ונמצא הכל כבא מכחו.", + "המערה יין לתוך כלי שיש בו יין עכו\"ם נאסר כל היין שבכלי העליון שהרי העמוד הנצוק מחבר בין היין שבכלי העליון ובין היין שבכלי התחתון לפיכך המודד לעכו\"ם לתוך כלי שבידו ינפץ נפיצה או יזרוק זריקה כדי שלא יהיה נצוק חבור ויאסור עליו מה שישאר בכלי העליון.", + "משפך שמדד בו לעכו\"ם אם יש בקצה המשפך עכבת יין לא ימדוד בו לישראל עד שידיחנו וינגב ואם לא הדיח הרי זה אסור.", + "כלי שיש לו כמין שני חוטמין יוצאין ממנו כמו הכלים שנוטלין בהם לידים שהיה מלא יין ביד ישראל והיה ישראל מוצץ ושותה מחוטם זה והעכו\"ם מוצץ ושותה מן החוטם השני הרי זה מותר והוא שיקדים הישראלי ויפסוק ועדיין העכו\"ם שותה שמשיפסוק העכו\"ם יחזור היין שישאר בחוטם לכלי ויאסור כל מה שישאר בו שהרי בא היין מכחו.", + "עכו\"ם שמצץ היין מן החבית במינקת אסר כל היין שבה שכשיפסק יחזור היין שעלה במינקת במציצתו ויפול לחבית ויאסור הכל.", + "עכו\"ם שהיה מעביר עם ישראל כדי יין ממקום למקום והוא הולך אחריהן לשמרן אפילו הפליגו ממנו כדי מיל הרי אלו מותרות שאימתו עליהן ואומד עתה יצא לפנינו ויראה אותנו ואם אמר להם לכו ואני אבוא אחריכם אם נתעלמו מעיניו כדי שיפתחו פי הכד ויחזרו ויגיפו אותה ותיגב הרי היין כולו אסור בשתיה אם פחות מיכן מותר.", + "וכן המניח עכו\"ם בחנותו אף על פי שהוא יוצא ונכנס כל היום כולו היין מותר ואם מודיעו שהוא מפליג ושהה כדי שיפתח ויגוף ותיגוב היין אסור בשתייה וכן המניח יינו בקרון או בספינה עם העכו\"ם ונכנס לעיר לעשות צרכיו היין מותר ואם הודיען שהוא מפליג ושהה כדי שיפתח ויגוף ותיגב היין אסור בשתייה וכל הדברים האלו בחביות סתומות אבל בפתוחות אפילו לא שהה מאחר שהודיען שהוא מפליג היין אסור.", + "ישראל שהיה אוכל עם העכו\"ם והניח יין פתוח על השולחן ויין פתוח על הדולפקי ויצא שעל השולחן אסור ושעל הדולפקי מותר ואם אמר לו מזוג ושתה כל היין הפתוח שבבית אסור.", + "היה שותה עם העכו\"ם ושמע קול תפלה בבית הכנסת ויצא אף היין הפתוח מותר שהנכרי אומר עתה יזכור היין ויבוא במהרה וימצא אותי נוגע ביינו ולפי זה אינו זז ממקומו ואין נאסר אלא מה שלפניו בלבד.", + "עכו\"ם וישראל שהיו דרין בחצר אחת ויצאו שניהם בבהלה לראות חתן או הספד וחזר העכו\"ם וסגר הפתח ואחר כך ישראל הרי היין הפתוח שבבית ישראל בהיתרו שלא סגר העכו\"ם אלא על דעת שכבר נכנס הישראלי לביתו ולא נשאר אדם בחוץ וכמדומה לו שהוא קדמו.", + "יין של ישראל ושל עכו\"ם בבית אחד והיו חביות פתוחות ונכנס העכו\"ם לבית ונעל הדלת בעדו נאסר כל היין ואם יש חלון בדלת שמסתכל ממנו העומד אחורי הפתח ורואה כנגדו כל החביות שכנגד החלון מותרות ושמן הצדדין אסורות שהרי מפחד מן הרואה אותו.", + "וכן אם שאג ארי וכיוצא בו וברח העכו\"ם ונחבא בין החביות הפתוחות היין מותר שהוא אומר שמא ישראל אחר נחבא כאן והוא רואה אותי כשאגע.", + "אוצר של יין שהיו חביותיו פתוחות ויש לעכו\"ם חביות אחרות באותו הפונדק ונמצא העכו\"ם עומד בין חביות ישראל הפתוחות אם נבהל כשנמצא ונתפש עליו כגנב היין מותר בשתייה שמפחדו ויראתו אין לו פנאי לנסך ואם לא נתפש כגנב אלא הרי הוא בוטח שם היין אסור ותינוק הנמצא בין החביות בין כך ובין כך כל היין מותר.", + "גדוד שנכנס למדינה דרך שלום כל החביות הפתוחות שבחנויות אסורות וסתומות מותרות ובשעת מלחמה אם פשט הגדוד במדינה ועבר אלו ואלו מותרות שאין פנאי לנסך.", + "עכו\"ם שנמצא עומד בצד הבור של יין אם יש לו מלוה על אותו היין הרי זה אסור מפני שלבו גס בו שולח ידו ומנסך ואם אין לו עליו מלוה היין מותר בשתיה.", + "זונה עכו\"ם במסיבה של ישראל היין מותר שאימתן עליה ולא תגע אבל זונה ישראלית במסיבת עכו\"ם יינה שלפניה בכליה אסור מפני שהן נוגעין בו שלא מדעתה.", + "עכו\"ם הנמצא בבית הגת אם יש שם לחלוחית יין כדי לבלול הכף עד שתבלול הכף לכף שניה צריך להדיח כל בית הגת וינגב ואם לאו מדיח בלבד וזו הרחקה יתירה.", + "חבית שצפה בנהר אם נמצאת כנגד עיר שרובה ישראל מותרת בהנייה כנגד עיר שרובה עכו\"ם אסורה.", + "מקום שהיו רוב מוכרי היין בו ישראלים ונמצאו בו כלים גדולים מלאים יין והם כלים שדרך המוכרין לבדם לכנוס בהם היין הרי אלו מותרין בהנייה חבית שפתחוה גנבים אם רוב גנבי העיר ישראל היין מותר בשתייה ואם לאו אסור." + ], + [ + "הלוקח בית או ששכר בית בחצירו של עכו\"ם ומלאהו יין אם היה הישראלי דר באותה חצר אף על פי שהפתח פתוח היין מותר מפני שהעכו\"ם מפחד תמיד ואומר עתה יכנס לביתו פתאום וימצא אותי בתוך ביתו ואם היה דר בחצר אחרת לא יצא עד שיסגור הבית ויהיה המפתח והחותם בידו ואינו חושש שמא יזייף העכו\"ם מפתח הבית.", + "יצא ולא סגר הפתח או שסגר והניח המפתח ביד עכו\"ם הרי היין אסור בשתיה שמא נכנס העכו\"ם ונסך שהרי אין הישראלי שם ואם אמר לו אחוז לי מפתח זה עד שאבוא היין מותר שלא מסר לו שמירת הבית אלא שמירת המפתח.", + "עכו\"ם ששכר ישראל לדרוך לו יינו בטהרה כדי שיהיה מותר לישראל ויקחוהו ממנו והיה היין בביתו של עכו\"ם אם היה ישראל זה ששומר היין דר באותה חצר היין מותר ואע\"פ שהפתח פתוח והשומר נכנס ויוצא ואם היה השומר דר בחצר אחרת היין אסור ואף על פי שהמפתח והחותם ביד ישראל שכיון שהיין של עכו\"ם וברשותו אינו מפחד לזייף ולהכנס לבית ויאמר ויהי מה אם ידעו בו לא יקחו ממני.", + "אפילו כתב העכו\"ם לישראל שנתקבל ממנו המעות למכור לו בהן יין הואיל ואין הישראלי יכול להוציאו מרשות העכו\"ם עד שיתן לו המעות הרי הוא של עכו\"ם ואסור אלא אם היה השומר דר שם בחצר ואין השומר צריך להיות יושב ומשמר תמיד אלא נכנס ויוצא כמו שביארנו בין ברשות בעל היין ברשות עכו\"ם אחר.", + "היה יין זה הטהור של עכו\"ם מונח ברשות הרבים או בבית הפתוח לרשות הרבים וישראל הולכים ושבים מותר שעדיין לא נכנס ברשות העכו\"ם.", + "ואשפה וחלון ודקל אף על פי שאין בו פירות הרי אלו כרשות הרבים וחבית יין שם ועכו\"ם הנמצא שם אינו אוסרה ובית הפתוח לשם הרי הוא כפתוח לרשות הרבים.", + "חצר החלוקה במסיפים ועכו\"ם בצד זה וישראל בצד אחר וכן שני גגין שהיה גג ישראל למעלה וגג העכו\"ם למטה או שהיו זה בצד זה ויש ביניהן מסיפים אע\"פ שיד העכו\"ם מגעת לחלק ישראל אינו חושש משום יין נסך ולא משום טהרות.", + "מותר לישראל להפקיד יינו בכלי סתום ביד עכו\"ם והוא שיהיה לו בו שני סימנין וזה הוא הנקרא חותם בתוך חותם כיצד סתם החבית בכלי שאינו מהודק כדרך שסותמין כל אדם וטח בטיט הרי זה חותם אחד היה כלי מהודק וטח עליו מלמעלה הרי זה חותם בתוך חותם וכן אם צר פי הנוד הרי זה חותם אחד הפך פי הנוד לתוכו וצר עליו הרי זה חותם בתוך חותם וכן כל שינוי שמשנה מדברים שאין דרך כל אדם הרי הן כחותם אחד והטיחה או הקשירה חותם שני.", + "ואם הפקיד ביד עכו\"ם בחותם אחד הרי זה אסור בשתייה ומותר בהנייה והוא שייחד לו קרן זוית.", + "יין מבושל והשכר או יין שעירבו עם דברים אחרים כגון דבש ושמן וכן החומץ והגבינה והחלב וכל שאיסורו מדברי סופרים שהפקידו ביד עכו\"ם אינו צריך שני חותמות אלא חותם אחד בלבד דיו אבל היין והבשר וחתיכת דג שאין בה סימן שהפקידן ביד עכו\"ם צריכין שני חותמות.", + "יראה לי שכל מקום שאמרנו בענין זה ביין שלנו שהוא אסור בשתייה ומותר בהנייה מפני צד נגיעה שנגע בו העכו\"ם כשהיה העכו\"ם עובד עכו\"ם אבל אם היה איסורו בגלל עכו\"ם שאינו עובד עכו\"ם כגון ישמעאלי שנגע ביין שלנו שלא בכוונה או שטפח על פי החבית הרי זה מותר בשתייה וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "אבל המפקיד יין ביד גר תושב או ששלחו עמו והפליג או שהניח ביתו פתוח בחצר גר תושב הרי זה אסור בשתייה שכל חשש של חלוף וזיוף יראה לי שכל העכו\"ם שוים בו הואיל ונעשה היין ברשותן נאסר בשתייה על כל פנים.", + "יש דברים שאין בהם איסור ניסוך כלל ואסרו אותם חכמים כדי להרחיק מן הניסוך ואלו הן לא ימזוג העכו\"ם המים לתוך היין שביד ישראל שמא יבא לצוק היין לתוך המים ולא יוליך העכו\"ם ענבים לגת שמא יבוא לדרוך או ליגע ולא יסייע לישראל בשעה שמריק מכלי לכלי שמא יניח הכלי ביד העכו\"ם ונמצא היין בא מכחו ואם סייע או מזג המים או הביא ענבים מותר.", + "וכן מותר שיריח העכו\"ם בחבית של יין שלנו ומותר לישראל להריח בחבית של יין נסך ואין בזה שם איסור שאין הריח כלום לפי שאין בו ממש.", + "כבר ביארנו שכל דבר שהוא אסור בהנייה אם עבר ומכרו דמיו מותרין חוץ מעכו\"ם ומשמשיה ותקרובת שלה ויין שנתנסך לה והחמירו חכמים בסתם יינם להיות דמיו אסורין כדמי יין שנתנסך לעכו\"ם לפיכך עכו\"ם ששכר את ישראל לעשות עמו ביין שכרו אסור.", + "וכן השוכר את החמור להביא עליו יין או ששכר ספינה להביא בה יין שכרן אסור אם מעות נתנו לו יוליכן לים המלח ואם נתנו לו בשכרו כסות או כלים או פירות הרי זה ישרוף אותן ויקבור האפר כדי שלא ליהנות בו.", + "שכר לעכו\"ם חמור לרכוב עליו והניח עליו לוגין של יין שכרו מותר שכרו לשבר כדי יין נסך שכרו מותר ותבוא עליו ברכה מפני שממעט בתיפלה.", + "השוכר את הפועל ואמר לו העבר לי מאה חביות של שכר במאה פרוטות ונמצא אחת מהן יין שכרו כולו אסור.", + "אמר לו העבר לי חבית בפרוטה חבית בפרוטה והעביר ונמצא ביניהן חביות של יין שכר חביות של יין אסור ושאר שכרו מותר.", + "אומני ישראל ששלח להם עכו\"ם חבית של יין בשכרן מותר שיאמרו לו תן לנו את דמיה ואם משנכנסה לרשותן אסור.", + "ישראל שהיה נושה בעכו\"ם מנה הלך העכו\"ם ומכר עכו\"ם ויין נסך והביא לו דמיהן הרי זה מותר ואם אמר לו קודם שימכור המתן לי עד שאמכור עכו\"ם או יין נסך שיש לי ואביא לך אף על פי שהוא סתם יינו ומכר והביא לו הרי זה אסור מפני שהישראלי רוצה בקיומו כדי שיפרע ממנו חובו.", + "וכן גר ועכו\"ם שהיו שותפין ובאו לחלוק אין הגר יכול לומר לעכו\"ם טול אתה עכו\"ם ואני מעות אתה יין ואני פירות שהרי רוצה בקיומן כדי שיטול כנגדן אבל גר ועכו\"ם שירשו את אביהן עכו\"ם יכול לומר לו טול אתה עכו\"ם ואני מעות אתה יין ואני שמן קל הוא שהקלו בירושת הגר כדי שלא יחזור לסורו ואם משבאו לרשות הגר אסור.", + "ישראל שמכר יינו לעכו\"ם פסק עד שלא מדד לו דמיו מותרין שמשפסק סמכה דעתו ומשמשך קנה ויין נסך אינו נעשה עד שיגע בו נמצא בשעת מכירה היה מותר מדד לו עד שלא פסק הדמים דמיו אסורין שהרי לא סמכה דעתו אע\"פ שמשך ונמצא כשנגע עדיין לא סמכה דעתו ליקח ונאסר היין בנגיעתו והרי זה כמוכר סתם יינם.", + "במה דברים אמורים בשמדד הישראלי לכליו אבל אם מדד לכלי העכו\"ם או לכלי ישראל שביד העכו\"ם צריך ליקח את הדמים ואח\"כ ימדוד ואם מדד ולא לקח דמים אף על פי שפסק דמיו אסורים שמשיגיע לכלי נאסר כסתם יינם.", + "הנותן דינר לחנוני עכו\"ם ואמר לפועלו העכו\"ם לך ושתה ואכול מן החנוני ואני מחשב לו הרי זה חושש שמא ישתה יין שזה כמי שקנה לו יין נסך והשקהו וכנגד זה בשביעית אסור כגון שנתן דינר לחנוני ישראל עם הארץ ואמר לפועלו הישראלי לך ואכול ואני מחשב לו ואם אכל הפועל דבר שאינו מעושר אסור.", + "אבל אם אמר להם אכלו ושתו בדינר זה או שאמר להם אכלו ושתו עלי מן החנוני ואני פורע אע\"פ שנשתעבד הואיל ולא נתייחד שעבודו הרי זה מותר ואינו חושש לא משום יין נסך ולא משום שביעית ולא משום מעשר.", + "מלך שהיה מחלק יינו לעם ולוקח מהן דמיו כפי מה שירצה אל יאמר אדם לעכו\"ם הא לך מאתים זוז והכנס תחתי באוצר המלך כדי שיקח עכו\"ם היין שכתבו בשם ישראל ויתן העכו\"ם הדמים למלך אבל אומר לו הא לך מאתים זוז ומלטני מן האוצר.", + "עכו\"ם שנגע ביינו של ישראל לאונסו מותר למכור אותו יין לאותו העכו\"ם שאסרו לבדו שכיון שנתכוון זה העכו\"ם להזיקו ולאסור יינו הרי זה כמו ששברו או שרפו שחייב לשלם ונמצאו הדמים שלוקח ממנו דמי ההיזק ולא דמי המכירה." + ], + [ + "כל איסורי מאכלות שבתורה שיעורן בכזית בינוני בין למלקות בין לכרת בין למיתה בידי שמים וכבר ביארנו שכל המחוייב כרת או מיתה בידי שמים על מאכל לוקה.", + "ושיעור זה עם כל השיעורין הלכה למשה מסיני הם ואסור מן התורה לאכול כל שהוא מדבר האסור אבל אינו לוקה אלא על כזית ואם אכל כל שהוא פחות מכשיעור מכין אותו מכת מרדות.", + "כזית שאמרנו חוץ משל בין השינים אבל מה של בין החניכים מצטרף למה שבלע שהרי נהנה גרונו מכזית אפילו אכל כחצי זית והקיאו וחזר ואכל אותו חצי זית עצמו שהקיא חייב שאין החיוב אלא על הנאת הגרון בכזית מדבר האסור.", + "כזית חלב או נבלה או פגול או נותר וכיוצא בהן שהניחו בחמה ונתמעט האוכלו פטור חזר והניחו בגשמים ונתפח חייבין עליו כרת או מלקות היה פחות מכזית מבתחלה ונתפח ועמד על כזית אסור ואין לוקין עליו.", + "כבר ביארנו שכל איסורין שבתורה אין מצטרפין זה עם זה לכזית חוץ מבשר נבלה עם בשר טרפה ואיסורי נזיר שיתבארו במקומן וחמשת מיני תבואה וקמחין שלהן והבציקות שלהן הכל מצטרפים לכזית בין לאיסור חמץ בפסח בין לאיסור חדש מלפני העומר בין לאיסורי מעשר שני ותרומות.", + "יראה לי שכל החייב בתרומה ומעשרות מצטרף לכזית בטבל מפני שהוא שם אחד הא למה זה דומה לנבלת השור ונבלת השה ונבלת הצבי שהן מצטרפין לכזית כמו שביארנו.", + "האוכל אכילה גדולה מדבר אסור אין מחייבין אותו מלקות או כרת על כל כזית וכזית אלא חיוב אחד לכל האכילה ואם היו העדים מתרים בו בשעת אכילה על כל כזית וכזית חייב על כל התראה והתראה ואף על פי שהיא אכילה אחת ולא הפסיק.", + "האוכל כשעורה או כחרדל מאחד מכל מאכלות האסורים ושהה מעט וחזר ואכל כחרדל וכן עד שהשלים כזית בין בשוגג בין במזיד אם שהה מתחלה ועד סוף כדי אכילת שלש ביצים יצטרף הכל והרי הוא חייב כרת או מלקות או קרבן כמו שאכל כזית בבת אחת ואם שהה יתר מזה מתחלה ועד סוף אע\"פ שלא שהה ביניהן אלא אכל כחרדל אחר כחרדל הואיל ולא השלים כזית אלא ביתר מכדי אכילת פרס אינן מצטרפין ופטור.", + "וכן השותה רביעית של סתם יינם מעט מעט או שהמחה את החמץ בפסח או את החלב וגמעו מעט מעט או ששתה מן הדם מעט מעט אם שהה מתחלה ועד סוף כדי שתיית רביעית מצטרפין ואם לאו אין מצטרפין.", + "כל האוכלין האסורין אינו חייב עליהם עד שיאכל אותן דרך הנאה חוץ מבשר בחלב וכלאי הכרם לפי שלא נאמר בהן אכילה אלא הוציא איסור אכילתן בלשון אחרת בלשון בשול ובלשון הקדש לאסור אותן ואפילו שלא כדרך הנייה.", + "כיצד הרי שהמחה את החלב וגמעו כשהוא חם עד שנכוה גרונו ממנו או שאכל חלב חי או שעירב דברים מרים כגון ראש ולענה לתוך יין נסך או לתוך קדרה של נבלה ואכלן כשהן מרין או שאכל אוכל האסור אחר שהסריח והבאיש ובטל מאוכל אדם הרי זה פטור ואם עירב דבר מר בתוך קדרה של בשר בחלב או ביין כלאי הכרם ואכלו חייב.", + "האוכל מאכל ממאכלות האסורות דרך שחוק או כמתעסק אף על פי שלא נתכוון לגוף האכילה הואיל ונהנה חייב כמי שמתכוון לעצמה של אכילה והנייה הבאה לו לאדם בעל כרחו באיסור מכל האיסורין אם נתכוון אסור ואם לא נתכוון מותר.", + "האוכל מאכל אסור לתיאבון או מפני הרעב חייב ואם היה תועה במדבר ואין לו מה יאכל אלא דבר איסור הרי זה מותר מפני סכנת נפשות.", + "עוברה שהריחה מאכל אסור כגון בשר קדש או בשר חזיר מאכילין אותה מן המרק אם נתיישבה דעתה מוטב ואם לאו מאכילין אותה פחות מכשיעור ואם לא נתיישבה דעתה מאכילין אותה עד שתתיישב דעתה.", + "וכן החולה שהריח דבר שיש בו חומץ וכיוצא בו מדברים שמערערין את הנפש דינו כעוברה.", + "מי שאחזו בולמוס מאכילין אותו דברים האסורים מיד עד שיאורו עיניו ואין מחזרין על דבר המותר אלא ממהרין בנמצא ומאכילין אותו הקל הקל תחלה אם האירו עיניו דיו ואם לאו מאכילין אותו החמור.", + "כיצד היו לפנינו טבל ונבלה מאכילין אותו נבלה תחלה שהטבל במיתה נבלה וספיחי שביעית מאכילין אותו ספיחי שביעית שאסורין מדברי סופרים כמו שיתבאר בהלכות שמטה טבל ושביעית מאכילין אותו שביעית טבל ותרומה אם אי אפשר לתקן הטבל מאכילין אותו טבל שאינו קדוש כתרומה וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "כבר ביארנו שאין איסור חל על איסור אלא אם היו שני האיסורין באין כאחת או שהיה איסור מוסיף או איסור כולל לפיכך יש אוכל כזית אחד ולוקה עליו חמש מלקיות והוא שהתרו בו בחמשה איסורין שנתקבצו בו כיצד כגון טמא שאכל כזית חלב שנותר מן המוקדשים ביום הכפורים לוקה משום אוכל חלב ומשום אוכל נותר ומשום אוכל ביוה\"כ ומשום טמא שאכל קדש ומשום שנהנה מן הקדש ומעל.", + "ולמה חל כאן איסור על איסור שבהמה זו היה חלבה אסור באכילה ומותר בהנייה הקדישה נאסר חלבה בהנייה ומתוך שנוסף בו איסור הנייה נוסף עליו איסור קדשים ועדיין היה חלב זה מותר לגבוה ואסור להדיוט נעשה נותר מתוך שנוסף בו איסור לגבוה נאסר להדיוט והאוכל הזה היה מותר בבשר הבהמה ואסור בחלבה נטמא נאסר אף בבשרה נוסף לו איסור על החלב בא יום הכפורים כלל כל האוכלין ומתוך שנאסר אף בחולין נוסף איסורו בחלב זה וכן כל כיוצא בזה." + ], + [ + "דבר אסור שנתערב בדבר מותר מין בשאינו מינו בנותן טעם ומין במינו שאי אפשר לעמוד על טעמו יבטל ברוב.", + "כיצד חלב הכליות שנפל לתוך הגריסין ונמוח הכל טועמין את הגריסין אם לא נמצא בהן טעם חלב הרי אלו מותרין ואם נמצא בהם טעם חלב והיה בהן ממשו הרי אלו אסורין מן התורה נמצא בהן טעמו ולא היה בהן ממשו הרי אלו אסורין מדברי סופרים.", + "כיצד הוא ממשו כגון שהיה מן החלב כזית בכל שלש ביצים מן התערובת אם אכל מן הגריסין האלו כשלש ביצים הואיל ויש בהן כזית מן החלב לוקה שהרי טעם האיסור וממשו קיים אבל פחות משלש ביצים מכין אותו מכת מרדות מדבריהם וכן אם לא היה בתערובת כזית בכל שלש ביצים אע\"פ שיש בהן טעם חלב ואכל כל הקדירה אינו לוקה אלא מכת מרדות.", + "נפל חלב כליות לחלב האליה וגמוח הכל אם היה חלב האליה כשנים בחלב הכליות הרי הכל מותר מן התורה אפילו חתיכת נבלה שנתערבה בשתי חתיכות של שחוטה הכל מותר מן התורה אבל מדברי סופרים הכל אסור עד שיאבד דבר האסור מעוצם מיעוטו ולא יהיה דבר חשוב שעינו עומדת כמו שיתבאר.", + "ובכמה יתערב דבר האסור ויאבד בעוצם מיעוטו כשיעור שנתנו בו חכמים יש דבר ששיעורו בששים ויש ששיעורו במאה ויש ששיעורו במאתים.", + "נמצאת למד שכל איסורין שבתורה בין איסורי מלקות בין איסורי כרת בין איסורי הנייה שנתערבו במאכל המותר מין בשאינו מינו בנותן טעם מין במינו שאי אפשר לעמוד על הטעם שיעורו בששים או במאה או במאתים חוץ מיין נסך מפני חומרת עכו\"ם וחוץ מטבל שהרי אפשר לתקנו ומפני זה אוסרין במינן בכל שהן ושלא במינן בנותן טעם כשאר כל האיסורין.", + "כיצד טיפת יין נסך שנפלו עליה כמה חביות של יין הכל אסור כמו שיתבאר וכן כוס של יין טבל שנתערב בחבית הכל טבל עד שיפריש תרומות ומעשרות הראויין לתערובת כמו שיתבאר במקומו.", + "פירות שביעית אף על פי שאם נתערבו במינן בכל שהוא ושלא במינן בנותן טעם אינן בכלל איסורי תורה שאין אותה התערובת אסורה אלא חייב לאכול כל התערובת בקדושת שביעית כמו שיתבאר במקומו.", + "חמץ בפסח אע\"פשהוא מאיסורי תורה אינו בכללות אלו לפי שאין התערובת אסורה לעולם שהרי לאחר הפסח תהיה כל התערובת מותרת כמו שביארנו לפיכך אוסר בכל שהוא בין במינו בין שלא במינו.", + "והוא הדין לתבואה חדשה שנתערבה בישנה מלפני העומר אוסרת בכל שהוא שהרי יש לה מתירין שלאחר העומר יותר הכל וכן כל דבר שיש לו מתירין ואפילו היה איסורו מדבריהם כגון איסור מוקצה ונולד ביום טוב לא נתנו בו חכמים שיעור אלא אפילו אחד בכמה אלפים אינו בטל שהרי יש דרך שיותר בה כגון הקדש ומעשר שני וכיוצא בהן.", + "אבל הערלה וכלאי הכרם וחלב ודם וכיוצא בהן וכן תרומות נתנו חכמים בהן שיעור שאין בהן דרך היתר לכל אדם.", + "יראה לי שאפילו דבר שיש לו מתירין אם נתערב בשאינו מינו ולא נתן טעם מותר לא יהיה זה שיש לו מתירין חמור מטבל שהרי אפשר לתקנו ואף על פי כן שלא במינו בנותן טעם כמו שביארנו ואל תתמה על חמץ בפסח שהתורה אמרה כל מחמצת לא תאכלו לפיכך החמירו בו כמו שביארנו.", + "ואלו הן השיעורין שנתנו חכמים התרומה ותרומת מעשר והחלה והבכורים עולין באחד ומאה וצריך להרים ומצטרפין זה עם זה וכן פרוסה של לחם הפנים לתוך פרוסות של חולין עולין באחד ומאה כיצד סאה קמח מאחד מאלו או סאה מכולם שנפלה למאה סאה קמח של חולין ונתערב הכל מרים מן הכל סאה אחת כנגד סאה שנפלה והשאר מותר לכל אדם נפלה לפחות ממאה נעשה הכל מדומע.", + "הערלה וכלאי הכרם עולין באחד ומאתים ומצטרפין זה עם זה ואינו צריך להרים כיצד רביעית של יין ערלה או כלאי הכרם או שהיתה הרביעית מצטרפת משניהם שנפלה לתוך מאתים רביעיות של יין הכל מותר ואינו צריך להרים כלום נפלה לפחות ממאתים הכל אסור בהנייה.", + "ולמה צריך להרים התרומה ולא ירים ערלה וכלאי הכרם שהתרומה ממון כהנים לפיכך כל תרומה שאין הכהנים מקפידין עליה כגון תרומת הכליסין והחרובין ושעורין שבאדום אינו צריך להרים.", + "ולמה כפלו שיעור ערלה וכלאי הכרם מפני שהן אסורין בהנייה ולמה סמכו על שיעור מאה בתרומות שהרי תרומת מעשר אחד ממאה ומקדש הכל שנאמר את מקדשו ממנו אמרו חכמים דבר שאתה מרים ממנו אם חזר לתוכו מקדשו.", + "שאר איסורין שבתורה כולן כגון בשר שקצים ורמשים וחלב ודם וכיוצא בהן שיעורן בששים כיצד כזית חלב כליות שנפל לתוך ששים כזית מחלב האליה הכל מותר נפל לפחות מששים הכל אסור וכן אם נפל כשעורה חלב צריך שיהיה שם כמו ששים שעורה וכן בשאר אסורין וכן שומן של גיד הנשה שנפל לקדרה של בשר משערין אותו בששים ואין שומן הגיד מן המנין ואע\"פ ששומן גיד הנשה מדבריהם כמו שביארנו הואיל וגיד הנשה בריה בפני עצמה החמירו בו באיסורי תורה והגיד עצמו אין משערין בו ואינו אוסר שאין בגידים בנותן טעם.", + "אבל כחל שנתבשל עם הבשר בששים וכחל מן המנין הואיל והכחל מדבריהם כמו שביארנו הקלו בשיעורו.", + "ביצה שנמצא בה אפרוח שנשלקה עם ביצים המותרות אם היתה עם ששים ואחת והיא הרי הן מותרות היתה עם ששים בלבד נאסרו הכל מפני שהיא בריה בפני עצמה עשו היכר בה והוסיפו בשיעורה.", + "אבל ביצת עוף טמא שנשלקה עם ביצי עוף טהור לא אסרה אותם ואם טרף אלו עם אלו או שנתערבה ביצת עוף טמא או ביצת טריפה עם ביצים אחרות שיעורן בששים.", + "ומנין סמכו חכמים על שיעור ששים שהרי המורם מאיל נזיר והיא הזרוע אחד מששים משאר האיל והיא מתבשלת עמו ואינה אוסרת אותו שנאמר ולקח הכהן את הזרוע בשלה מן האיל.", + "מין במינו ודבר אחר שנתערבו כגון קדרה שהיה בה חלב אליה וגריסין ונפל לתוכה חלב הכליות ונמחה הכל ונעשה גוף אחד רואין את חלב האליה ואת הגריסין כאילו הן גוף אחד ומשערין חלב הכליות כגריסין וכאליה אם היה אחד מששים מותר שהרי אי אפשר כאן לעמוד על הטעם.", + "והוא הדין לתרומות שנתערבו לשערן במאה וכלאי הכרם או ערלה לשער אותן במאתים.", + "כשמשערין בכל האיסורין בין בששים בין במאה בין במאתים משערין במרק ובתבלין ובכל שיש בקדרה ובמה שבלעה קדרה מאחר שנפל האיסור לפי אומד הדעת שהרי אי אפשר לעמוד על מה שבלעה בצמצום.", + "אסור לבטל איסורין של תורה לכתחלה ואם ביטל הרי זה מותר ואעפ\"כ קנסו אותו חכמים ואסרו הכל ויראה לי שכיון שהוא קנס אין אוסרין תערובת זו אלא על זה העובר שביטל האיסור אבל לאחרים הכל מותר.", + "כיצד הרי שנפלה סאה של ערלה לתוך מאה סאה שהרי נאסר הכל לא יביא מאה סאה אחרות ויצרף כדי שתעלה באחד ומאתים ואם עבר ועשה כן הכל מותר אבל באיסור של דבריהם מבטלין האיסור לכתחלה.", + "כיצד חלב שנפל לקדרה שיש בה בשר עוף ונתן טעם בקדרה מרבה עליו בשר עוף אחר עד שיבטל הטעם וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "כבר ביארנו שאם נתן דבר האסור טעמו בדבר המותר נאסר הכל בד\"א בשהשביחו אבל אם פגם זה האסור למותר והפסיד טעמו הרי זה מותר והוא שיהיה פוגם מתחלה ועד סוף אבל אם פגם בתחלה וסופו להשביח או השביח בתחלה אף על פי שסופו לפגום הרי זה אסור.", + "ומי יטעום את התערובת אם היה המעורב תרומות עם החולין טועם אותן הכהן אם היה טעם התרומה ניכר הכל מדומע ובהלכות תרומות יתבאר דין המדומע.", + "ואם היה בשר בחלב או יין נסך ויין ערלה וכלאי הכרם שנפלו לדבש או בשר שקצים ורמשים שנתבשל עם הירק וכיוצא בהן טועם אותן העכו\"ם וסומכין על פיו אם אמר אין בו טעם או שאמר יש בו טעם ומטעם רע הוא והרי פגמו הכל מותר והוא שלא יהיה סופו להשביח כמו שביארנו ואם אין שם עכו\"ם לטעום משערין אותו בשיעורו בששים או במאה או במאתים.", + "עכבר שנפל לשכר או לחומץ משערין אותו בששים שאנו חוששין שמא טעמו בשכר ובחומץ משביח אבל אם נפל ליין או לשמן או לדבש מותר ואפילו נתן טעם מפני שטעמו פוגם שכל אלו צריכין להיותן מבושמים וזה מסריחן ומפסיד טעמן.", + "גדי שצלאו בחלבו אסור לאכול אפילו מקצה אזנו שהחלב נבלע באיבריו והוא משביחו ונותן בו טעם לפיכך אם היה כחוש ולא היה בו חלב כליות ולא חלב קרב אלא מעט כאחד מששים קולף ואוכל עד שמגיע לחלב וכן ירך שצלאה בגיד הנשה שבה קולף ואוכל עד שהוא מגיע לגיד ומשליכו וכן בהמה שצלאה שלימה ולא הסיר לא חוטין ולא קרומות האסורות קולף ואוכל וכיון שיגיע לדבר אסור חותכו ומשליכו שאין בגידים בנותן טעם כדי לשער בהן.", + "אין צולין בשר שחוטה עם בשר נבלה או בהמה טמאה בתנור אחד ואף על פי שאין נוגעין זה בזה ואם צלאן ה\"ז מותר ואפילו היתה האסורה שמנה הרבה והמותרת רזה שהריח אינו אוסר ואינו אוסר אלא טעמו של איסור.", + "בשר נבלה מליח שנבלל עמו בשר שחוטה הרי זה נאסר מפני שתמצית הנבלה נבלעת בגוף בשר השחוטה ואי אפשר לעמוד כאן לא על הטעם ולא על השיעור וכן בשר דג טמא מליח שנבלל עמו דג תפל טהור נאסר מפני צירו אבל אם היה המליח טהור והתפל דג טמא לא נאסר המליח [אע\"פ] שהתפל בולע מן המליח [אינו בולע כל כך שיחזור ויפלוט] דג טמא שכבשו עם דג טהור הכל אסור אא\"כ היה הטמא אחד ממאתים מן הטהור." + ], + [ + "כל השיעורים האלו שנתנו חכמים לדבר האסור שנתערב במינו המותר בשלא היה הדבר האסור מחמץ או מתבל או דבר חשוב שהוא עומד כמות שהוא ולא נתערב ונדמע בדבר המותר אבל אם היה מחמץ או מתבל או דבר חשוב אוסר בכל שהוא.", + "כיצד שאור של חיטין של תרומה שנפל לתוך עיסת חיטין של חולין ויש בו כדי לחמץ הרי העיסה כולה מדומע וכן תבלין של תרומה שנפלו לקדרת חולין ויש בהן כדי לתבל והן ממין החולין הכל מדומע ואף על פי שהשאור או התבלין אחד מאלף וכן שאור של כלאי הכרם לתוך העיסה או תבלין של ערלה לתוך הקדרה הכל אסור בהנייה.", + "דבר חשוב שהוא אוסר במינו בכל שהוא שבעה דברים ואלו הן:אגוזי פרך ורמוני בדן וחביות סתומות וחלפות תרדין וקלחי כרוב ודלעת יוונית וככרות של בעל הבית.", + "כיצד רמון אחד מרמוני בדן שהיה ערלה ונתערב בכמה אלפים רמונים הכל אסור בהנייה וכן חבית סתומה של יין ערלה או של כלאי הכרם שנתערבה בכמה אלפים חביות סתומות הכל אסורים בהנייה וכן שאר השבעה דברים.", + "וכן חתיכה של נבלה או של בשר בהמה או חיה או עוף או דג הטמאין שנתערבה בכמה אלפים חתיכות הכל אסור עד שיגביה אותה חתיכה ואחר כך ישער השאר בששים שאם לא הגביהה הרי הדבר האסור עומד ולא נשתנה והחתיכה חשובה אצלו שהרי מתכבד בה לפני האורחין.", + "והוא הדין בחתיכה של בשר בחלב או של חולין שנשחטו בעזרה שהרי הן אסורים מדבריהן בהנייה כמו שיתבאר בהלכות שחיטה אוסרין בכל שהן עד שיגביה אותן וכן גיד הנשה שנתבשל עם הגידין או עם הבשר בזמן שמכירו מגביהו והשאר מותר שאין בגידים בנותן טעם ואם אינו מכירו הכל אסור מפני שהוא בריה בפני עצמו הרי הוא חשוב ואוסר בכל שהוא.", + "וכן כל בעלי חיים חשובין הן ואינם בטלין לפיכך שור הנסקל שנתערב באלף שוורים ועגלה ערופה באלף עגלות או צפור מצורע השחוטה באלף צפרים או פטר חמור באלף חמורים כולן אסורין בהנייה אבל שאר הדברים אע\"פ שדרכן לימנות הרי אלו עולין בשיעורן.", + "כיצד אגודה של ירק מכלאי הכרם שנתערבה במאתים אגודות או אתרוג של ערלה שנתערב במאתים אתרוגים הכל מותר וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "יראה לי שכל דבר שהוא חשוב אצל בני מקום מן המקומות כגון אגוזי פרך ורמוני בדן בארץ ישראל באותן הזמנים שהוא אוסר בכל שהוא לפי חשיבותו באותו מקום ובאותו זמן ולא הוזכרו אלו אלא לפי שהן אוסרין כל שהן בכ\"מ והוא הדין לכל כיוצא בהן בשאר מקומות ודבר ברור הוא שכל איסורין האלו מדבריהם.", + "נפל רמון אחד מן התערובת הזאת לשני רמונים אחרים מרמוני בדן ונפל מן השלשה רמון אחד לרמונים אחרים הרי אלו האחרים מותרין שהרי הרמון של תערובת הראשונה בטל ברוב ואם נפל מן התערובת הראשונה רמון לאלף כולן אסורין לא נאמר בטל ברוב אלא להתיר ספק ספיקן שאם יפול מן התערובת השנייה למקום אחר אינו אוסר וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "נתפצעו אגוזים אלו שנאסרו כולן מפני אגוז ערלה שביניהן או נתפררו הרמונים ונתפתחו החביות ונתחתכו הדלועין ונתפרסו הככרות אחר שנאסרו הרי אלו יעלו באחד ומאתים והוא הדין לחתיכת נבלה שנדוכה בכל החתיכות ונעשה הכל כמות שהיא עולה בששים.", + "ואסור לפצוע האגוזים ולפרר הרמונים ולפתוח החביות אחר שנאסרו כדי שיעלו באחד ומאתים שאין מבטלין איסור לכתחלה ואם עשה כן קונסין אותו ואוסרין עליו כמו שביארנו.", + "שאור של כלאי הכרם ושל תרומה שנפלו לתוך העיסה לא בזה כדי לחמץ ולא בזה כדי לחמץ ובשניהם כשיצטרפו יש בהם כדי לחמץ אותה עיסה אסורה לישראל ומותרת לכהנים וכן תבלין של תרומה ושל כלאי הכרם שנפלו לתוך הקדרה ולא באחד מהן כדי לתבל ובשניהם כדי לתבל אותה קדרה אסורה לישראל שהרי דבר האסור להם תבלה ומותרת לכהנים.", + "תבלין שהם שנים או שלשה שמות ממין אחד או שלשה מינין משם אחד מצטרפין לתבל ולאסור וכן לחמץ כיצד שאור של חטין ושאור של שעורים הואיל ושם שאור אחד הוא אינן כמין ושאינו מינו אלא הרי הן כמין אחד ומצטרף לשער בהן כדי לחמץ בעיסה של חיטין אם היה טעם שניהם טעם חיטין או כדי לחמץ בעיסה של שעורין אם היה טעם שניהם טעם שעורים.", + "שלשה שמות ממין אחד כיצד כגון כרפס של נהרות וכרפס של אפר וכרפס של גנה אף על פי שכל אחד מהן שם בפני עצמו הואיל והם מין אחד מצטרפין לתבל.", + "עיסה מחומצת שנפל לתוכה שאור של תרומה או שאור של כלאי הכרם וכן קדרה מתובלת שנפלו לתוכה תבלין של תרומה או של ערלה ושל כלאי הכרם אם יש בשאור כדי לחמץ אילו היתה העיסה מצה ובתבלין כדי לתבל הקדרה אילו היתה תפילה הרי הכל אסור ואם אין בהם כדי לתבל ולחמץ יעלו בשיעורן תרומה באחד ומאה וערלה וכלאי הכרם באחד ומאתים.", + "התרומה מעלה את הערלה ואת כלאי הכרם כיצד סאה תרומה שנפלה לתשעה ותשעים חולין ואח\"כ נפל לכל חצי סאה של ערלה או של כלאי הכרם אין כאן איסור ערלה ולא איסור כלאי הכרם שהרי עלה באחד ומאתים ואע\"פשמקצת המאתים תרומה.", + "וכן הערלה וכלאי הכרם מעלין את התרומה כיצד מאה סאה של ערלה או של כלאי הכרם שנפלו לתוך עשרים אלף של חולין נעשת כל התערובת עשרים אלף ומאה ואח\"כ נפל לכל מאה סאה סאה של תרומה הרי הכל מותר ותעלה התרומה באחד ומאה ואף על פי שמקצת המאה המעלין אותה ערלה או כלאי הכרם.", + "וכן הערלה מעלה את כלאי הכרם וכלאי הכרם את הערלה וכלאי הכרם את כלאי הכרם והערלה את הערלה כיצד מאתים סאה של ערלה או של כלאי הכרם שנפלו לארבעים אלף חולין ואחר כך נפל לכל מאתים סאה וסאה של ערלה או של כלאי הכרם הכל מותר שכיון שבטל האיסור שנפל תחלה נעשה הכל כחולין המותרין.", + "בגד שצבעו בקליפי ערלה ישרף נתערב באחרים יעלה באחד ומאתים וכן תבשיל שבישלו בקליפי ערלה ופת שאפאה בקליפי ערלה או בכלאי הכרם ישרף התבשיל והפת שהרי הנייתו ניכרת בהן נתערבו באחרים יעלו באחד ומאתים.", + "וכן בגד שארג בו מלא הסיט שצבעו בערלה ואין ידוע אי זה הוא יעלה באחד ומאתים נתערבו סמני ערלה בסמני היתר יעלו באחד ומאתים מי צבע במי צבע יבטל ברוב.", + "תנור שהסיקו בקליפי ערלה ובכלאי הכרם בין חדש בין ישן יוצן ואח\"כ יחם אותו בעצי היתר ואם בישל בו קודם שיוצן בין פת בין תבשיל הרי זה אסור בהנייה יש שבח עצי איסור בפת או בתבשיל גרף את כל האש ואחר כך בישל או אפה בחומו של תנור הרי זה מותר שהרי עצי איסור הלכו להן.", + "קערות וכוסות וקדרות וצלוחיות שבישלן היוצר בקליפי ערלה הרי אלו אסורין בהנאה שהרי דבר האסור בהנאה עשה אותן חדש.", + "פת שבישלה על גבי גחלים של עצי ערלה מותרת כיון שנעשו גחלים הלך איסורן אע\"פ שהן בוערות קדרה שבישל אותה בקליפי ערלה או בכלאי הכרם ובעצי היתר הרי התבשיל אסור ואף על פי שזה וזה גורם שבשעה שנתבשלה מחמת עצי איסור עדיין לא באו עצי ההיתר ונמצא מקצת הבשול בעצי היתר ומקצתו באיסור.", + "נטיעה של ערלה שנתערבה בנטיעות וכן ערוגה של כלאי הכרם בערוגות הרי זה לוקט לכתחלה מן הכל ואם היתה נטיעה במאתים נטיעות וערוגה במאתים ערוגות הרי כל הנלקט מותר ואם היו בפחות מזה כל הנלקט אסור ולמה התירו לו ללקוט לכתחלה והיה מן הדין שאוסרין לו הכל עד שיטרח ויוציא הנטיעה והערוגה האסורה שהדבר חזקה שאין אדם אוסר כרמו בנטיעה אחת ואילו היה יודעה היה מוציאה.", + "המעמיד גבינה בשרף פני ערלה או בקיבת תקרובת עכו\"ם או בחומץ יין של עכו\"ם הרי זו אסורה בהנייה אף על פי שהוא מין בשאינו מינו ואע\"פ שהוא כל שהוא שהרי הדבר האסור הוא הניכר והוא שעשה אותה גבינה.", + "הערלה וכלאי הכרם דין הפירות שלהן שישרפו והמשקין שלהן יקברו מפני שאי אפשר לשרוף המשקין.", + "יין שנתנסך לעכו\"ם שנתערב עם היין הכל אסור בהנייה בכל שהוא כמו שאמרנו במה דברים אמורים בשהורק היין המותר על טיפה של יין נסך אבל אם עירה יין נסך מצלצול קטן לתוך הבור של יין אפילו עירה כל היום כולו ראשון ראשון בטל עירה מן החבית בין שעירה מן המותר לאסור או מן האסור למותר הכל אסור מפני שהעמוד היורד מפי החבית גדול.", + "נתערב סתם יינם ביין הרי זה אסור בכל שהוא בשתייה וימכר כולו לעכו\"ם ולוקח דמי היין האסור שבו ומשליכו לים המלח ויהנה בשאר המעות וכן אם נתערבה חבית של יין נסך בין החביות הכל אסורין בשתייה ומותרין בהנייה ויוליך דמי אותה חבית לים המלח כשימכור הכל לעכו\"ם וכן בחבית של סתם יינם.", + "מים שנתערבו ביין או יין במים בנותן טעם מפני שהן מין בשאינו מינו במה דברים אמורים בשנפל המשקה המותר לתוך המשקה האסור אבל אם נפל המשקה האסור לתוך המשקה המותר ראשון ראשון בטל והוא שיורק מצלצול קטן שהיה מריק ויורד מעט מעט והיאך יהיו המים אסורים כגון שהיו נעבדין או תקרובת עכו\"ם.", + "בור של יין שנפל לתוכו קיתון של מים תחלה ואח\"כ נפל לתוכו יין נסך רואים את יין ההיתר כאילו אינו והמים שנפלו משערין בהן עם יין נסך אם ראויין לבטל טעם אותו יין נסך הרי המים רבין עליו ומבטלין אותו ויהיה הכל מותר.", + "יין נסך שנפל על הענבים ידיחם והן מותרות באכילה ואם היו מבוקעות בין שהיה היין ישן בין שהיה חדש אם נותן טעם בענבים הרי אלו אסורות בהנייה ואם לאו הרי אלו מותרות באכילה.", + "נפל על גבי תאנים הרי אלו מותרות מפני שהיין פוגם בטעם התאנים.", + "יין נסך שנפל על החטים הרי אלו אסורות באכילה ומותרות בהנייה ולא ימכרם לעכו\"ם שמא יחזור וימכרם לישראל אלא כיצד עושה טוחן אותן ועושה מהן פת ומוכרה לעכו\"ם שלא בפני ישראל כדי שלא יקחו אותה ישראל מן העכו\"ם שהרי פת עכו\"ם אסורה כמו שיתבאר ולמה אין בודקין את החטים בנותן טעם מפני שהן שואבות והיין נבלע בהן.", + "יין נסך שהחמיץ ונפל לתוך חומץ שכר אוסר בכל שהוא מפני שהוא במינו ששניהן חומץ הן ויין שנתערב עם החומץ בין שנפל חומץ ליין בין שנפל יין לחומץ משערין אותו בנותן טעם." + ], + [ + "קדרה של חרס שנתבשל בה בשר נבלה או בשר שקצים ורמשים לא יבשל בה בשר שחוטה באותו היום ואם בישל בה מין בשר התבשיל אסור בישל בה מין אחר בנותן טעם.", + "ולא אסרה תורה אלא קדרה בת יומה בלבד הואיל ועדיין לא נפגם השומן שנבלע בקדרה ומדברי סופרים לא יבשל בה לעולם לפיכך אין לוקחין כלי חרס ישנים מן העכו\"ם שנשתמשו בהן בחמין כגון קדרות וקערות לעולם ואפילו היו שועין באבר ואם לקח ובישל בהן מיום שני והלאה התבשיל מותר.", + "הלוקח כלי תשמיש סעודה מן העכו\"ם מכלי מתכות וכלי זכוכית דברים שלא נשתמש בהן כל עיקר מטבילן במי מקוה ואחר כך יהיו מותרין לאכול בהן ולשתות ודברים שנשתמש בהןע\"יצונן כגון כוסות וצלוחיות וקיתוניות מדיחן ומטבילן והן מותרות ודברים שנשתמש בהן על ידי חמין כגון יורות וקומקמוסין ומחממי חמין מגעילן ומטבילן והן מותרין ודברים שנשתמש בהןע\"יהאור כגון שפודין ואסכלאות מלבנן באור עד שתנשר קליפתן ומטבילן והן מותרין.", + "כיצד מגעילן נותן יורה קטנה לתוך יורה גדולה וממלא עליה מים עד שיצופו על הקטנה ומרתיחה יפה יפה ואם היתה יורה גדולה מקיף על שפתה בצק או טיט וממלא מים עד שיצופו המים על שפתה ומרתיח וכולן שנשתמש בהן עד שלא הרתיח או עד שלא הדיח ועד שלא הלבין ועד שלא הטביל מותר שכל השומן שבהן נותן טעם לפגם הוא כמו שביארנו.", + "טבילה זו שמטבילין כלי הסעודה הנלקחים מן העכו\"ם ואח\"כ יותרו לאכילה ושתיה אינן לענין טומאה וטהרה אלא מדברי סופרים ורמז לה כל דבר אשר יבא באש תעבירו באש וטהר ומפי השמועה למדו שאינו מדבר אלא בטהרתן מידי גיעולי עכו\"ם לא מידי טומאה שאין לך טומאה עולה על ידי האש וכל הטמאים בטבילה עולין מטומאתן וטומאת מת בהזאה וטבילה ואין שם אש כלל אלא לענין גיעולי עכו\"ם וכיון שכתוב וטהר אמרו חכמים הוסיף לו טהרה אחר עבירתו באש להתירו מגיעולי עכו\"ם.", + "לא חייבו בטבילה זו אלא כלי מתכות של סעודה הנלקחין מן העכו\"ם אבל השואל מן העכו\"ם או שמשכן העכו\"ם אצלו כלי מתכות מדיח או מרתיח או מלבן ואינו צריך להטביל וכן אם לקח כלי עץ או כלי אבנים מדיח או מרתיח ואינו צריך להטביל וכן כלי חרשים אינו צריך להטביל אבל השועין באבר הרי הן ככלי מתכות וצריכין טבילה.", + "הלוקח סכין מן העכו\"ם מלבנה באש או משחיזה בריחים שלה ואם היתה סכין יפה שאין בה פגימות די לו אם נעצה בקרקע קשה עשר פעמים ואוכל בה צונן ואם היו בה פגימות או שהיתה יפה ורצה לאכול בה חמין או לשחוט בה מלבנה או משחיזה כולה שחט בה קודם שיטהרנה מדיח מקום השחיטה ואם קלף הרי זה משובח.", + "סכין ששחט בה טרפה לא ישחוט בה עד שידיחה אפילו בצונן או מקנחה בבליות של בגדים.", + "ויש שם דברים אחרים אסרו אותן חכמים ואף על פי שאין לאיסורן עיקר מן התורה גזרו עליהן כדי להתרחק מן העכו\"ם עד שלא יתערבו בהן ישראל ויבאו לידי חתנות ואלו הן:אסרו לשתות עמהן ואפילו במקום שאין לחוש ליין נסך ואסרו לאכול פיתן או בישוליהן ואפילו במקום שאין לחוש לגיעוליהן.", + "כיצד לא ישתה אדם במסיבה של עכו\"ם ואע\"פ שהוא יין מבושל שאינו נאסר או שהיה שותה מכליו לבדו ואם היה רוב המסיבה ישראל מותר ואין שותין שכר שלהן שעושין מן התמרים והתאנים וכיוצא בהן ואינו אסור אלא במקום מכירתו אבל אם הביא השכר לביתו ושתהו שם מותר שעיקר הגזירה שמא יסעוד אצלו.", + "יין תפוחים ויין רמונים וכיוצא בהן מותר לשתותן בכל מקום דבר שאינו מצוי לא גזרו עליו יין צמוקים הרי הוא כיין ומתנסך.", + "אף על פי שאסרו פת עכו\"ם יש מקומות שמקילין בדבר ולוקחין פת הנחתום העכו\"ם במקום שאין שם נחתום ישראל ובשדה מפני שהוא שעת הדחק אבל פת בעלי בתים אין שם מי שמורה בה להקל שעיקר הגזירה משום חתנות ואם יאכל פת בעלי בתים יבוא לסעוד אצלן.", + "הדליק העכו\"ם את התנור ואפה בו ישראל או שהדליק ישראל ואפה עכו\"ם או שהדליק העכו\"ם ואפה העכו\"ם ובא ישראל וניער האש מעט או כבשו לאש הואיל ונשתתף במלאכת הפת הרי זו מותרת ואפילו לא זרק אלא עץ לתוך התנור התיר כל הפת שבו שאין הדבר אלא להיות היכר שהפת שלהן אסורה.", + "עכו\"ם שבישל לנו יין או חלב או דבש או פרישין וכיוצא באלו (מכל) דבר הנאכל כמות שהוא חי הרי אלו מותרין ולא גזרו אלא על דבר שאינו נאכל כמות שהוא חי כגון בשר ודג תפל וביצה וירקות אם בישלן העכו\"ם מתחלה ועד סוף ולא נשתתף ישראל עמו בבשולן הרי אלו אסורין משום בשולי עכו\"ם.", + "במה דברים אמורים בדבר שהוא עולה על שולחן מלכים לאכול בו את הפת כגון בשר וביצים ודגים וכיוצא בהם אבל דבר שאינו עולה על שלחן מלכים לאכול בו את הפת כגון תורמוסין ששלקו אותן עכו\"ם אע\"פ שאינן נאכלין חיין הרי אלו מותרין וכן כל כיוצא בהן שעיקר הגזרה משום חתנות שלא יזמנו העכו\"ם אצלו בסעודה ודבר שאינו עולה על שולחן מלכים לאכול בו את הפת אין אדם מזמן את חבירו עליו.", + "ודגים קטנים שמלחן ישראל או עכו\"ם הרי הן כמו שנתבשלו מקצת בשול ואם צלאן עכו\"ם אחר כן מותרין וכל שבשלו ישראל מעט בשולו בין בתחלה בין בסוף מותר לפיכך אם הניח העכו\"ם בשר או קדרה על גבי האש והפך ישראל בבשר והגיס בקדרה או שהניח ישראל וגמר העכו\"ם הרי זה מותר.", + "דג שמלחו עכו\"ם ופירות שעישנן עד שהכשירן לאכילה הרי אלו מותרין מליח אינו כרותח בגזירה זו והמעושן אינו כמבושל וכן קליות של עכו\"ם מותרין ולא גזרו עליהם שאין אדם מזמן חבירו על הקליות.", + "פולין ואפונין ועדשים וכיוצא בהן ששולקין אותן העכו\"ם ומוכרין אותן אסורין משום בישולי עכו\"ם במקום שעולין על שלחן מלכים משום פרפרת ומשום גיעולי עכו\"ם בכ\"מ שמא יבשלו אותן עם הבשר או בקדרה שבישלו בה בשר וכן הסופגנין שקולין אותן העכו\"ם בשמן אסורין אף משום גיעולי עכו\"ם.", + "עכו\"ם שבישל ולא נתכוון לבשול הרי זה מותר כיצד עכו\"ם שהצית אור באגם כדי להעביר החציר ונתבשלו בה חגבים הרי אלו מותרין ואפילו במקום שהן עולין על שלחן מלכים משום פרפרת וכן אם חרך הראש להעביר השער מותר לאכול מן הדלדולין ומן ראש אזנים שנצלו בשעת חריכה.", + "תמרים ששלקו אותן עכו\"ם אם היו מתוקין מתחלתן הרי אלו מותרין ואם היו מרין ומתקנין הבשול הרי אלו אסורין היו בינוניים הרי אלו אסורין.", + "קלי של עדשים שלשו בין במים בין בחומץ הרי זה אסור אבל קלי של חטים ושעורים שלשין אותן במים הרי זה מותר.", + "שמן של עכו\"ם מותר ומי שאוסרו הרי זה עומד בחטא גדול מפני שממרה על פי בית דין שהתירוהו ואפילו נתבשל השמן הרי זה מותר ואינו נאסר לא מפני בישולי עכו\"ם מפני שנאכל כמות שהוא חי ולא מפני גיעולי עכו\"ם מפני שהבשר פוגם את השמן ומסריחו.", + "וכן דבש של עכו\"ם שנתבשל ועשו ממנו מיני מתיקה מותר מטעם זה.", + "כוספן של עכו\"ם שהוחמו חמין בין ביורה גדולה בין ביורה קטנה מותר מפני שנותן טעם לפגם הוא וכן כבשין שאין דרכן לתת לתוכן חומץ או יין או זיתים הכבושין וחגבים הכבושין שבאין מן האוצר מותרין אבל חגבים וכבשים שמזלפין עליהן יין אסורין וכן אם היו מזלפין עליהן חומץ ואפילו חומץ שכר אסורין.", + "ומפני מה אסרו חומץ שכר של עכו\"ם מפני שמשליכין לתוכו שמרי יין לפיכך הנלקח מן האוצר מותר.", + "המורייס במקום שדרכן לתת לתוכו יין אסור ואם היה היין יקר מן המורייס מותר וכזה מורין בכל דבר שחוששין לו שמא עירבו בו העכו\"ם דבר אסור שאין אדם מערב דבר היקר בזול שהרי מפסיד אבל מערב הזול ביקר כדי להשתכר.", + "קטן שאכל אחד ממאכלות אסורות או שעשה מלאכה בשבת אין בית דין מצווין עליו להפרישו לפי שאינו בן דעת בד\"א בשעשה מעצמו אבל להאכילו בידים אסור ואפילו דברים שאיסורן מדברי סופרים וכן אסור להרגילו בחילול שבת ומועד ואפילו בדברים שהן משום שבות.", + "אף על פי שאין בית דין מצווין להפריש את הקטן מצוה על אביו לגעור בו ולהפרישו כדי לחנכו בקדושה שנאמר חנוך לנער על פי דרכו וגו'.", + "אסרו חכמים מאכלות ומשקין שנפש רוב בני אדם קיהה מהן כגון מאכלות ומשקין שנתערב בהן קיא או צואה ולחה סרוחה וכיוצא בהן וכן אסרו חכמים לאכול ולשתות בכלים הצואים שנפשו של אדם מתאוננת מהם כגון כלי בית הכסא וכלי זכוכית של ספרין שגורעין בהם את הדם וכיוצא בהן.", + "וכן אסרו לאכול בידים מסואבות מזוהמות ועל גבי כלים מלוכלכים שכל דברים אלו בכלל אל תשקצו את נפשותיכם והאוכל מאכלות אלו מכין אותו מכת מרדות.", + "וכן אסור לאדם שישהה את נקביו כלל בין גדולים בין קטנים וכל המשהה נקביו הרי זה בכלל משקץ נפשו יתר על חלאים רעים שיביא על עצמו ויתחייב בנפשו אלא ראוי לו להרגיל עצמו בעתים מזומנים כדי שלא יתרחק בפני בני אדם ולא ישקץ נפשו.", + "וכל הנזהר בדברים אלו מביא קדושה וטהרה יתירה לנפשו וממרק נפשו לשם הקדוש ברוך הוא שנאמר והתקדשתם והייתם קדושים כי קדוש אני:בריך רחמנא דסייען מריש ועד כען." + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eaacfef1bbe27c55a04dd28b06163dab08db8e86 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,482 @@ +{ + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah,_Forbidden_Foods", + "text": [ + [ + "מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לֵידַע הַסִּימָנִין שֶׁמַּבְדִּילִין בָּהֶן בֵּין בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה וְעוֹף וְדָגִים וַחֲגָבִים שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְאָכְלָן וּבֵין שֶׁאֵין מֻתָּר לְאָכְלָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כ כה) \"וְהִבְדַּלְתֶּם בֵּין הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהֹרָה לַטְּמֵאָה וּבֵין הָעוֹף הַטָּמֵא לַטָּהֹר\". וְנֶאֱמַר (ויקרא יא מז) \"לְהַבְדִּיל בֵּין הַטָּמֵא וּבֵין הַטָּהֹר וּבֵין הַחַיָּה הַנֶּאֱכֶלֶת וּבֵין הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֵאָכֵל\": \n", + "סִימָנֵי בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה נִתְפָּרְשׁוּ בַּתּוֹרָה וְהֵם שְׁנֵי סִימָנִין (ויקרא יא ג) (דברים יד ו) \"מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה\" וּ (ויקרא יא ג) (דברים יד ו) \"מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה\" עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם. וְכָל בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה שֶׁהִיא מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה אֵין לָהּ שִׁנַּיִם בַּלְּחִי הָעֶלְיוֹן. וְכָל בְּהֵמָה שֶׁהִיא מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה הֲרֵי הִיא מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה. חוּץ מִן הַגָּמָל. וְכָל בְּהֵמָה שֶׁהִיא מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה הִיא מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה חוּץ מִן הַחֲזִיר: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ הַמּוֹצֵא בְּהֵמָה בַּמִּדְבָּר וְאֵינוֹ מַכִּירָהּ וּמְצָאָהּ חֲתוּכַת הַפְּרָסוֹת בּוֹדֵק בְּפִיהָ אִם אֵין לָהּ שִׁנַּיִם לְמַעְלָה בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה. וְהוּא שֶׁיַּכִּיר גָּמָל. מָצָא בְּהֵמָה שֶׁפִּיהָ חָתוּךְ בּוֹדֵק בְּפַרְסוֹתֶיהָ אִם הִיא שְׁסוּעָה טְהוֹרָה. וְהוּא שֶׁיַּכִּיר חֲזִיר. מָצָא פִּיהָ חָתוּךְ וְרַגְלֶיהָ חֲתוּכוֹת בּוֹדֵק בָּהּ אַחַר שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ בְּכַנְפֵי הָעֹקֶץ אִם מָצָא בְּשָׂרָהּ שָׁם מַהֲלַךְ שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב טְהוֹרָה. וְהוּא שֶׁיַּכִּיר עָרוֹד שֶׁכֵּן הוּא בְּשָׂרוֹ שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב: \n", + "בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה כְּמִין בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַפְרִיס פַּרְסָה וְלֹא מַעֲלֶה גֵּרָה אֶלָּא כְּמִין סוּס אוֹ חֲמוֹר לְכָל דָּבָר הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁיָּלְדָה לְפָנָיו. אֲבָל אִם הִנִּיחַ פָּרָה מְעֻבֶּרֶת בְּעֶדְרוֹ וּבָא וּמָצָא כְּמִין חֲזִיר כָּרוּךְ אַחֲרֶיהָ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא יוֹנֵק מִמֶּנָּה הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק וְאָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה. שֶׁמָּא מִן הַטֻּמְאָה נוֹלָד וְנִכְרָךְ אַחַר הַטְּהוֹרָה: \n", + "בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה כְּמִין בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מַפְרִיס פַּרְסָה וּמַעֲלֶה גֵּרָה וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּמִין שׁוֹר לְכָל דָּבָר אוֹ כְּמִין שֶׂה הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה. שֶׁהַגָּדֵל מִן הַטְּמֵאָה טָמֵא וּמִן הַטְּהוֹרָה טָהוֹר. (לְפִיכָךְ) דָּג טָמֵא שֶׁנִּמְצָא בִּמְעֵי דָּג טָהוֹר אָסוּר. וְדָג טָהוֹר הַנִּמְצָא בִּמְעֵי דָּג טָמֵא מֻתָּר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין גִּדּוּלָיו אֶלָּא בְּלָעוֹ: \n", + "בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצָא בָּהּ בְּרִיָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ שְׁתֵּי גַּבִּין וּשְׁתֵּי שְׁדָרוֹת אֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה. וְזוֹ הִיא הַשְּׁסוּעָה שֶׁנֶּאֶסְרָה בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד ז) \"אֶת זֶה לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִמַּעֲלֵי הַגֵּרָה וּמִמַּפְרִיסֵי הַפַּרְסָה הַשְּׁסוּעָה\" כְּלוֹמַר בְּרִיָּה שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה שְׁסוּעָה לִשְׁתֵּי בְּהֵמוֹת: \n", + "וְכֵן בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּמְצָא בָּהּ דְּמוּת עוֹף אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא עוֹף טָהוֹר הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה. לֹא הֻתַּר מִן הַנִּמְצָא בַּבְּהֵמָה אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ פַּרְסָה: \n", + "אֵין לְךָ בְּכָל בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם שֶׁמֻּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה חוּץ מֵעֲשֶׂרֶת הַמִּינִין הַמְּנוּיִין בַּתּוֹרָה. שְׁלֹשָׁה מִינֵי בְּהֵמָה וְהֵם. שׁוֹר שֶׂה וְעֵז. וְשִׁבְעָה מִינֵי חַיָּה. אַיָּל וּצְבִי וְיַחְמוּר וְאַקּוֹ וְדִישֹׁן וּתְאוֹ וָזָמֶר. הֵם וּמִינֵיהֶן כְּגוֹן שׁוֹר הַבָּר וְהַמְּרִיא שֶׁהֵן מִמִּין הַשּׁוֹר. וְכָל הָעֲשָׂרָה מִינִין וּמִינֵיהֶם מַעֲלֶה גֵּרָה וּמַפְרִיס פַּרְסָה. לְפִיכָךְ מִי שֶׁהוּא מַכִּירָן אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִבְדֹּק לֹא בַּפֶּה וְלֹא בָּרַגְלַיִם: \n", + "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכֻּלָּן מֻתָּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה צְרִיכִין אָנוּ לְהַבְדִּיל בֵּין בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה וְחַיָּה טְהוֹרָה. שֶׁהַחַיָּה חֶלְבָּהּ מֻתָּר וְדָמָהּ טָעוּן כִּסּוּי וְהַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהוֹרָה חֶלְבָּהּ בְּכָרֵת וְאֵין דָּמָהּ טָעוּן כִּסּוּי: \n", + "וְסִימָנֵי חַיָּה מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה הֵן. כָּל מִין שֶׁהוּא מַפְרִיס פַּרְסָה וּמַעֲלֶה גֵּרָה וְיֵשׁ לוֹ קַרְנַיִם מְפֻצָּלוֹת כְּגוֹן הָאַיָּל הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּה טְהוֹרָה בְּוַדַּאי. וְכָל שֶׁאֵין קַרְנָיו מְפֻצָּלוֹת אִם הָיוּ קַרְנָיו כְּרוּכוֹת כְּקַרְנֵי הַשּׁוֹר וַחֲרוּקוֹת כְּקַרְנֵי הָעֵז וְיִהְיֶה הֶחָרָק מֻבְלָע בָּהֶן וַהֲדוּרוֹת כְּקַרְנֵי הַצְּבִי הֲרֵי זוֹ חַיָּה טְהוֹרָה. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בַּקַּרְנַיִם שְׁלֹשָׁה סִימָנִין אֵלּוּ כְּרוּכוֹת חֲרוּקוֹת וַהֲדוּרוֹת: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּמִין שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַכִּירוֹ אֲבָל שִׁבְעָה מִינֵי חַיָּה הָאֲמוּרִין בַּתּוֹרָה אִם הָיָה מַכִּיר אוֹתָן אֲפִלּוּ לֹא מָצָא לוֹ קַרְנַיִם הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכֵל חֶלְבּוֹ וְחַיָּב לְכַסּוֹת דָּמוֹ: \n", + "שׁוֹר הַבָּר מִין בְּהֵמָה הוּא וְהַקֶּרֶשׁ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא קֶרֶן אַחַת הֲרֵי הוּא חַיָּה. וְכָל שֶׁיִּסְתַּפֵּק לְךָ אִם הוּא מִין חַיָּה אוֹ מִין בְּהֵמָה חֶלְבּוֹ אָסוּר וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו וּמְכַסִּין אֶת דָּמוֹ: \n", + "כִּלְאַיִם הַבָּא מִבְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה עִם חַיָּה טְהוֹרָה הוּא הַנִּקְרָא כְּוִי. חֶלְבּוֹ אָסוּר וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו וּמְכַסִּין אֶת דָּמוֹ. וְאֵין מִין טָמֵא מִתְעַבֵּר מִמִּין טָהוֹר כְּלָל: \n", + "סִימָנֵי עוֹף טָהוֹר לֹא נִתְפָּרֵשׁ מִן הַתּוֹרָה. אֶלָּא מָנָה מִנְיַן טְמֵאִים בִּלְבַד וּשְׁאָר מִינֵי הָעוֹף מֻתָּרִין. וְהַמִּנְיָן הָאֲסוּרִין אַרְבָּעָה וְעֶשְׂרִים הֵן. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. א) נֶשֶׁר. ב) פֶּרֶס. ג) עָזְנִיָּה. ד) דָּאָה וְהִיא הָרָאָה הָאֲמוּרָה בְּמִשְׁנֵה תּוֹרָה. ה) אַיָּה וְהִיא הַדַּיָּהּ הָאֲמוּרָה בְּמִשְׁנֵה תּוֹרָה. ו) מִין הָאַיָּה שֶׁכֵּן כָּתוּב בָּהּ לְמִינָהּ מִכְלַל שֶׁהוּא שְׁנֵי מִינִין. ז) עוֹרֵב. ח) זַרְזִיר שֶׁכֵּן נֶאֱמַר בְּעוֹרֵב לְמִינוֹ לְהָבִיא אֶת הַזַּרְזִיר. ט) יַעֲנָה. י) תַּחְמָס. יא) שַׁחַף. יב) נֵץ. יג) וְשַׁרְנְקָא וְהוּא מִין הַנֵּץ שֶׁכֵּן כָּתוּב בּוֹ לְמִינֵהוּ. יד) כּוֹס. טו) שָׁלָךְ. טז) יַנְשׁוּף. יז) תִּנְשֶׁמֶת. יח) קָאָת. יט) רָחָמָה. כ) חֲסִידָה. כא) הָאֲנָפָה. כב) מִין הָאֲנָפָה שֶׁכֵּן נֶאֱמַר בָּהּ לְמִינָהּ. כג) הַדּוּכִיפַת. כד) הָעֲטַלֵּף: \n", + "כָּל מִי שֶׁהוּא בָּקִי בְּמִינִין אֵלּוּ וּבִשְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכֵל עוֹף שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵהֶם וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה. וְעוֹף טָהוֹר נֶאֱכַל בְּמָסֹרֶת. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה דָּבָר פָּשׁוּט בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם שֶׁזֶּה עוֹף טָהוֹר. וְנֶאֱמָן צַיָּד לוֹמַר עוֹף זֶה הִתִּיר לִי רַבִּי הַצַּיָּד. וְהוּא שֶׁיֻּחְזַק אוֹתוֹ צַיָּד שֶׁהוּא בָּקִי בְּמִינִין אֵלּוּ וּבִשְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן: \n", + "מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַכִּירָן וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ שְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן בּוֹדֵק בְּסִימָנִין אֵלּוּ שֶׁנָּתְנוּ חֲכָמִים. כָּל עוֹף שֶׁהוּא דּוֹרֵס וְאוֹכֵל בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהוּא מֵאֵלּוּ הַמִּינִין וְטָמֵא. וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ דּוֹרֵס וְאוֹכֵל אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ אֶחָד מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה סִימָנִין אֵלּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹף טָהוֹר. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. אֶצְבַּע יְתֵרָה. אוֹ זֶפֶק וְהִיא הַמֻּרְאָה. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה קֻרְקְבָנוֹ נִקְלַף בְּיָד: \n", + "לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּכָל אֵלּוּ הַמִּינִין הָאֲסוּרִין מִין שֶׁאֵינוֹ דּוֹרֵס וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ אֶחָד מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה סִימָנִין אֵלּוּ חוּץ מִפֶּרֶס וְעָזְנִיָּה וּפֶרֶס וְעָזְנִיָּה אֵינָן מְצוּיִין בְּיִשּׁוּב אֶלָּא בְּמִדְבָּרוֹת אִיֵּי הַיָּם הָרְחוֹקוֹת עַד מְאֹד שֶׁהֵן סוֹף הַיִּשּׁוּב: \n", + "הָיָה הַקֻּרְקְבָן נִקְלָף בְּסַכִּין וְאֵינוֹ נִקְלָף בְּיָד וְאֵין בּוֹ סִימָן אַחֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ דּוֹרֵס הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק. הָיָה חָזָק וְדָבֵק וְהִנִּיחוֹ בַּשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְנִתְרַפָּה וְנִקְלָף בְּיָד הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר: \n", + "אָמְרוּ הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁמָּסֹרֶת הִיא בִּידֵיהֶם שֶׁאֵין מוֹרִין לְהַתִּיר עוֹף הַבָּא בְּסִימָן אֶחָד אֶלָּא אִם הָיָה אוֹתוֹ סִימָן שֶׁיִּקָּלֵף קֻרְקְבָנוֹ בְּיָד. אֲבָל אִם אֵינוֹ נִקְלָף בְּיָד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ זֶפֶק אוֹ אֶצְבַּע יְתֵרָה מֵעוֹלָם לֹא הִתִּירוּהוּ: \n", + "כָּל עוֹף שֶׁחוֹלֵק אֶת רַגְלָיו כְּשֶׁמּוֹתְחִין לוֹ חוּט שְׁתַּיִם לְכָאן וּשְׁתַּיִם לְכָאן. אוֹ שֶׁקּוֹלֵט מִן הָאֲוִיר וְאוֹכֵל בָּאֲוִיר. הֲרֵי זֶה דּוֹרֵס וְטָמֵא. וְכָל הַשּׁוֹכֵן עִם הַטְּמֵאִים וְנִדְמֶה לָהֶם הֲרֵי זֶה טָמֵא: \n", + "וּמִינֵי חֲגָבִים שֶׁהִתִּירָה תּוֹרָה שְׁמוֹנָה. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. א) חָגָב. ב) מִין חָגָב וְהוּא הָרַזְבָנִית. ג) חַרְגּל. ד) וּמִין חַרְגּל וְהוּא עַרְצוּבְיָא. ה) אַרְבֶּה. ו) וּמִין אַרְבֶּה וְהִיא צִפֹּרֶת כְּרָמִים. ז) סָלְעָם. ח) וּמִין סָלְעָם וְהִיא יוֹחָנָא יְרוּשַׁלְמִית: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהוּא בָּקִי בָּהֶן וּבִשְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן אוֹכֵל. וְהַצַּיָּד נֶאֱמָן עֲלֵיהֶן כְּעוֹף. ומִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּקִי בָּהֶן בּוֹדֵק בְּסִימָנִין. וּשְׁלֹשָׁה סִימָנִין יֵשׁ בָּהֶן. כָּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אַרְבַּע רַגְלַיִם. וְאַרְבַּע כְּנָפַיִם שֶׁחוֹפוֹת רֹב אֹרֶךְ גּוּפוֹ וְרֹב הֶקֵּף גּוּפוֹ. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי כְּרָעַיִם לְנַתֵּר בָּהֶם הֲרֵי זֶה מִין טָהוֹר. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרֹאשׁוֹ אָרֹךְ וְיֵשׁ לוֹ זָנָב אִם הָיָה שְׁמוֹ חָגָב טָהוֹר: \n", + "מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ עַכְשָׁו כְּנָפַיִם אוֹ כְּרָעַיִם אוֹ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כְּנָפַיִם הַחוֹפִין אֶת רֻבּוֹ וְעָתִיד לְגַדֵּל אוֹתָן אַחַר זְמַן כְּשֶׁיַּגְדִּיל הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר מֵעַתָּה: \n", + "וּבְדָגִים שְׁנֵי סִימָנִין. סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת. וּסְנַפִּיר הוּא שֶׁפּוֹרֵחַ בּוֹ. וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת הִיא הַדְּבוּקָה בְּכָל גּוּפוֹ. וְכָל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת יֵשׁ לוֹ סְנַפִּיר. אֵין לוֹ עַכְשָׁו וּכְשֶׁיַּגְדִּיל יִהְיֶה לוֹ אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת כְּשֶׁהוּא בַּיָּם וּכְשֶׁיַּעֲלֶה יַשִּׁיר קַשְׂקַשָּׂיו הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וּמִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קַשְׂקַשִּׂים הַחוֹפִין אֶת כֻּלּוֹ מֻתָּר. אֲפִלּוּ אֵין בּוֹ אֶלָּא סְנַפִּיר אַחַת וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת אַחַת הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר: \n" + ], + [ + "מִכְּלָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד ו) \"וְכָל בְּהֵמָה מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה וְשֹׁסַעַת שֶׁסַע שְׁתֵּי פְרָסוֹת מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה\" שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁכָּל שֶׁאֵינָהּ מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה וּמַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה אֲסוּרָה. וְלָאו הַבָּא מִכְּלַל עֲשֵׂה עֲשֵׂה הוּא. וּבְגָמָל וּבַחֲזִיר וּבְאַרְנֶבֶת וּבְשָׁפָן נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא יא ד) (דברים יד ז) \"אֶת זֶה לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִמַּעֲלֵי הַגֵּרָה וּמִמַּפְרִיסֵי הַפַּרְסָה\" וְגוֹ' הֲרֵי לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁהֵן בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן סִימָן אֶחָד. וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן שְׁאָר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה וְחַיָּה טְמֵאָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ סִימָן כְּלָל שֶׁאִסּוּר אֲכִילָתָם בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה יֶתֶר עַל עֲשֵׂה הַבָּא מִכְּלַל אוֹתָהּ תֹּאכְלוּ: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ כָּל הָאוֹכֵל מִבְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה טְמֵאָה כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה. בֵּין שֶׁאָכַל מִן הַבָּשָׂר בֵּין שֶׁאָכַל מִן הַחֵלֶב. לֹא חִלֵּק הַכָּתוּב בִּטְמֵאִים בֵּין בְּשָׂרָם לְחֶלְבָּם: \n", + "הָאָדָם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ (בראשית ב ז) \"וַיְהִי הָאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה\" אֵינוֹ מִכְּלַל מִינֵי חַיָּה בַּעֲלַת פַּרְסָה לְפִיכָךְ אֵינוֹ בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה. וְהָאוֹכֵל מִבְּשַׂר הָאָדָם אוֹ מֵחֶלְבּוֹ בֵּין מִן הַחַי בֵּין מִן הַמֵּת אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. אֲבָל אָסוּר הוּא בַּעֲשֵׂה שֶׁהֲרֵי מָנָה הַכָּתוּב שִׁבְעַת מִינֵי חַיָּה וְאָמַר בָּהֶן (ויקרא יא ב) \"זֹאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ\" הָא כָּל שֶׁהוּא חוּץ מֵהֶן לֹא תֹּאכְלוּ וְלָאו הַבָּא מִכְּלַל עֲשֵׂה עֲשֵׂה: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִבְּשַׂר עוֹף טָמֵא לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא יג) \"וְאֶת אֵלֶּה תְּשַׁקְּצוּ מִן הָעוֹף לֹא יֵאָכְלוּ\". וַהֲרֵי עָבַר עַל עֲשֵׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד יא) \"כָּל צִפּוֹר טְהֹרָה תֹּאכֵלוּ\" הָא טְמֵאָה לֹא תֹּאכְלוּ. וְכֵן הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִדָּג טָמֵא לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא יא) \"וְשֶׁקֶץ יִהְיוּ לָכֶם\" (ויקרא יא יא) \"מִבְּשָׂרָם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ\". וְעָבַר עַל עֲשֵׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד ט) \"כּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת תֹּאכֵלוּ\" מִכְּלַל שֶׁמִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת לֹא יֵאָכֵל. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁכָּל הָאוֹכֵל דָּג טָמֵא אוֹ בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה טְמֵאָה אוֹ עוֹף טָמֵא בִּטֵּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה וְעָבַר עַל לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה: \n", + "חָגָב טָמֵא הֲרֵי הוּא בִּכְלַל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף וְהָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִשֶּׁרֶץ הָעוֹף לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד יט) \"כָּל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם לֹא יֵאָכֵלוּ\". וְאֵי זֶהוּ שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף כְּגוֹן זְבוּב אוֹ יַתּוּשׁ וְצִרְעָה וּדְבוֹרָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִשֶּׁרֶץ הָאָרֶץ לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא מא) \"וְכָל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ שֶׁקֶץ הוּא לֹא יֵאָכֵל\". וְאֵי זֶהוּ שֶׁרֶץ הָאָרֶץ כְּגוֹן נְחָשִׁים וְעַקְרַבִּים וְחִפְשִׁית וְנַדָּל וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן: \n", + "וּשְׁמוֹנָה שְׁרָצִים הָאֲמוּרִים בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁהֵן (ויקרא יא כט) \"הַחלֶד וְהָעַכְבָּר וְהַצָּב\" (ויקרא יא ל) \"וְהָאֲנָקָה וְהַכֹּחַ וְהַלְּטָאָה וְהַחֹמֶט וְהַתִּנְשֶׁמֶת\" הָאוֹכֵל מִבְּשָׂרָם כַּעֲדָשָׁה לוֹקֶה. שִׁעוּר אֲכִילָתָן כְּשִׁעוּר טֻמְאָתָן. וְכֻלָּם מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁאָכַל מֵהֶן אַחַר מִיתָתָן. אֲבָל הַחוֹתֵךְ אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי מִן אֶחָד מֵהֶן וַאֲכָלוֹ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עָלָיו עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בּוֹ כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר. וְכֻלָּן מִצְטָרְפִין לִכְזַיִת. אָכַל אֵיבָר שָׁלֵם מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ אַחַר שֶׁמֵּת אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בּוֹ כַּעֲדָשָׁה: \n", + "דַּם שְׁמוֹנָה שְׁרָצִים וּבְשָׂרָן מִצְטָרֵף לְכַעֲדָשָׁה וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַדָּם מְחֻבָּר לַבָּשָׂר. וְכֵן דַּם הַנָּחָשׁ מִצְטָרֵף לִבְשָׂרוֹ לִכְזַיִת וְלוֹקֶה עָלָיו לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּשָׂרוֹ חָלוּק מִדָּמוֹ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ מִשְּׁאָר שְׁרָצִים שֶׁאֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין: \n", + "דַּם שְׁרָצִים שֶׁפָּרַשׁ וּכְנָסוֹ וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה עָלָיו בִּכְזַיִת. וְהוּא שֶׁיַּתְרוּ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל שֶׁרֶץ. אֲבָל אִם הִתְרוּ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל דָּם פָּטוּר. שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין אֶלָּא עַל דַּם בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף: \n", + "כָּל הַשִּׁעוּרִין וּמַחְלְקוֹתָם הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִשֶּׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא מג) \"אַל תְּשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בְּכָל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ וְלֹא תִטַּמְּאוּ בָּהֶם\". הֲרֵי כָּלַל בְּלָאו זֶה שֶׁרֶץ הָאָרֶץ וְשֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף וְשֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם. אֵי זֶהוּ שֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם אֵלּוּ הַבְּרִיּוֹת הַקְּטַנּוֹת כְּמוֹ הַתּוֹלָעִים וְהָעֲלוּקָה שֶׁבַּמַּיִם וְהַבְּרִיּוֹת הַגְּדוֹלוֹת בְּיוֹתֵר שֶׁהֵן חַיּוֹת הַיָּם. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר כָּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּצוּרַת הַדָּגִים לֹא דָּג טָמֵא וְלֹא דָּג טָהוֹר כְּגוֹן כֶּלֶב הַמַּיִם וְהַדַּלְפוֹן וְהַצְּפַרְדֵּעַ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן: \n", + "אֵלּוּ הַמִּינִין שֶׁנִּבְרָאִין בְּאַשְׁפּוֹת וּבְגוּפֵי הַנְּבֵלוֹת כְּגוֹן רִמָּה וְתוֹלַעַת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁאֵינָן נִבְרָאִין מִזָּכָר וּנְקֵבָה אֶלָּא מִן הַגְּלָלִים שֶׁהִסְרִיחוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הֵן הַנִּקְרָאִין רוֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ. וְהָאוֹכֵל מֵהֶן כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא מד) \"וְלֹא תְטַמְּאוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בְּכָל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ\" וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין פָּרִין וְרָבִין. אֲבָל (ויקרא יא מא מב) \"הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשּׁוֹרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ\" הוּא שֶׁפָּרֶה וְרָבֶה מִזָּכָר וּנְקֵבָה: \n", + "אֵלּוּ הַמִּינִין הַנִּבְרָאִין בְּפֵרוֹת וּבְמַאֲכָלוֹת אִם פָּרְשׁוּ וְיָצְאוּ לָאָרֶץ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזְרוּ לְתוֹךְ הָאֹכֶל מִי שֶׁאָכַל מֵהֶן כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא מב) \"לְכָל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ\" לֶאֱסֹר אֵלּוּ שֶׁפָּרְשׁוּ לָאָרֶץ. אֲבָל אִם לֹא פָּרְשׁוּ מֻתָּר לֶאֱכל הַפְּרִי וְהַתּוֹלַעַת שֶׁבְּתוֹכוֹ: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁהִתְלִיעַ הָאֹכֶל אַחַר שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר מִן הָאָרֶץ. אֲבָל אִם הִתְלִיעַ וְהוּא מְחֻבָּר. אוֹתָהּ הַתּוֹלַעַת אֲסוּרָה כְּאִלּוּ פֵּרְשָׁה לָאָרֶץ שֶׁעַל הָאָרֶץ נִבְרֵאת וְלוֹקִין עָלֶיהָ. וְאִם סָפֵק אֲסוּרָה. לְפִיכָךְ כָּל מִינֵי פֵּרוֹת שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְהַתְלִיעַ כְּשֶׁהֵן מְחֻבָּרִין לֹא יֹאכַל עַד שֶׁיִּבְדֹּק הַפְּרִי מִתּוֹכוֹ שֶׁמָּא יֵשׁ בּוֹ תּוֹלַעַת. וְאִם שָׁהָה הַפְּרִי אַחַר שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ אוֹכֵל בְּלֹא בְּדִיקָה שֶׁאֵין תּוֹלַעַת שֶׁבּוֹ מִתְקַיֶּמֶת שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ: \n", + "פָּרְשׁוּ לָאֲוִיר וְלֹא נָגְעוּ לָאָרֶץ. אוֹ שֶׁפָּרְשׁוּ מִקְצָתָן לָאָרֶץ. אוֹ שֶׁפָּרְשׁוּ אַחַר שֶׁמֵּתוּ. אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת תּוֹלַעַת עַל הַגַּרְעִינָה מִבִּפְנִים. אוֹ שֶׁיָּצְאוּ מִתּוֹךְ הָאֹכֶל לְתוֹךְ אֹכֶל אַחֵר. כָּל אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין מִסָּפֵק וְאֵין לוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶן: \n", + "תּוֹלַעַת הַנִּמְצֵאת בִּמְעֵי הַדָּגִים וּבַמֹּחַ שֶׁבְּרֹאשׁ הַבְּהֵמָה וְהַנִּמְצֵאת בַּבָּשָׂר אֲסוּרָה. אֲבָל דָּג מָלִיחַ שֶׁהִתְלִיעַ הֲרֵי הַתּוֹלַעַת שֶׁבּוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. שֶׁהֵן כְּפֵרוֹת שֶׁהִתְלִיעוּ אַחַר שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרוּ מִן הָאָרֶץ שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְאָכְלָן כֻּלָּן כְּאַחַת בַּתּוֹלַעַת שֶׁבְּתוֹכָן. וְכֵן הַמַּיִם שֶׁבַּכֵּלִים שֶׁהִשְׁרִיצוּ הֲרֵי אוֹתָן שְׁרָצִים מֻתָּר לִשְׁתּוֹתָן עִם הַמַּיִם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא ט) \"וְכָל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת בַּמַּיִם בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים אֹתָם תֹּאכֵלוּ\". כְּלוֹמַר בַּמַּיִם וּבַיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים הוּא שֶׁאַתָּה אוֹכֵל אֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ וְאֵין אַתָּה אוֹכֵל אֶת שֶׁאֵין לוֹ. אֲבָל בְּכֵלִים בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בֵּין שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מֻתָּר: \n", + "שֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם הַנִּבְרָא בְּבוֹרוֹת וּבְשִׁיחִין וּבִמְעָרוֹת הוֹאִיל וְאֵינָן מַיִם נוֹבְעִין וַהֲרֵי הֵן עֲצוּרִים הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמַיִם שֶׁבְּכֵלִים וּמֻתָּר. וְשׁוֹחֶה וְשׁוֹתֶה וְאֵינוֹ נִמְנָע וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבּוֹלֵעַ בִּשְׁעַת שְׁתִיָּה מֵאוֹתָן הַשְּׁרָצִים הַדַּקִּים: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁלֹּא פָּרְשׁוּ מִמְּקוֹם בְּרִיָּתָן. אֲבָל אִם פֵּרַשׁ הַשֶּׁרֶץ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזַר לְתוֹךְ הַכְּלִי אוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַבּוֹר אָסוּר. פָּרַשׁ לְדָפְנֵי הֶחָבִית וְחָזַר וְנָפַל לְתוֹךְ הַמַּיִם אוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַשֵּׁכָר מֻתָּר. וְכֵן אִם פָּרַשׁ לְדָפְנֵי הַבּוֹר אוֹ הַמְּעָרָה וְחָזַר לַמַּיִם מֻתָּר: \n", + "הַמְסַנֵּן אֶת הַיַּיִן אוֹ אֶת הַחֹמֶץ אוֹ אֶת הַשֵּׁכָר וְאָכַל אֶת הַיַּבְחוּשִׁים אוֹ אֶת הַיַּתּוּשִׁין וְהַתּוֹלָעוֹת שֶׁסִּנֵּן לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם שֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם אוֹ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף (וְשֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם) אֲפִלּוּ חָזַר לַכְּלִי אַחַר שֶׁסִּנְּנָן שֶׁהֲרֵי פָּרְשׁוּ מִמְּקוֹם בְּרִיָּתָן. אֲבָל אִם לֹא סִנְּנָן שׁוֹתֶה וְאֵינוֹ נִמְנָע כְּמוֹ שֶׁפֵּרַשְׁנוּ: \n", + "זֶה שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ בְּפֶרֶק זֶה הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת. כְּשֶׁאָכַל כְּזַיִת מִבְּרִיָּה גְּדוֹלָה אוֹ שֶׁצֵּרֵף מְעַט מִבְּרִיָּה זוֹ וּמְעַט מִבְּרִיָּה זוֹ שֶׁבְּמִינָהּ עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל כְּזַיִת. אֲבָל הָאוֹכֵל בְּרִיָּה טְמֵאָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ כֻּלָּהּ הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה פְּחוּתָה מִן הַחַרְדָּל. בֵּין שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ מֵתָה בֵּין שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ חַיָּה. וַאֲפִלּוּ סָרְחָה הַבְּרִיָּה וְנִשְׁתַּנֵּית צוּרָתָהּ הוֹאִיל וַאֲכָלָהּ כֻּלָּהּ לוֹקֶה: \n", + "נְמָלָה שֶׁחֲסֵרָה אֲפִלּוּ אַחַת מֵרַגְלֶיהָ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא בִּכְזַיִת. לְפִיכָךְ הָאוֹכֵל זְבוּב שָׁלֵם אוֹ יַתּוּשׁ שָׁלֵם בֵּין חַי וּבֵין מֵת לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף: \n", + "הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיְתָה הַבְּרִיָּה מִשֶּׁרֶץ הָעוֹף וּמִשֶּׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם וּמִשֶּׁרֶץ הָאָרֶץ כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ לָהּ כְּנָפַיִם וְהִיא מְהַלֶּכֶת עַל הָאָרֶץ כִּשְׁאָר שְׁרָצִים וְהָיְתָה רָבָה בַּמַּיִם וַאֲכָלָהּ לוֹקֶה שָׁלֹשׁ מַלְקִיּוֹת. וְאִם הָיְתָה יֶתֶר עַל זֶה מִן הַמִּינִין שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ בְּפֵרוֹת לוֹקֶה עָלֶיהָ אַרְבַּע מַלְקִיּוֹת. וְאִם הָיְתָה מִן הַמִּינִין שֶׁפָּרִין וְרָבִין לוֹקֶה חָמֵשׁ. וְאִם הָיְתָה מִכְּלַל עוֹף טָמֵא יֶתֶר עַל הֱיוֹתָהּ מִשֶּׁרֶץ הָעוֹף לוֹקֶה עָלֶיהָ שֵׁשׁ מַלְקִיּוֹת. מִשּׁוּם עוֹף טָמֵא. וּמִשּׁוּם שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף. וּמִשּׁוּם שֶׁרֶץ הָאָרֶץ. וּמִשּׁוּם שֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם. וּמִשּׁוּם רוֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ. וּמִשּׁוּם תּוֹלַעַת הַפֵּרוֹת. בֵּין שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ כֻּלָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁאָכַל מִמֶּנָּה כְּזַיִת. לְפִיכָךְ הָאוֹכֵל נְמָלָה הַפּוֹרַחַת הַגְּדֵלָה בַּמַּיִם לוֹקֶה חָמֵשׁ מַלְקִיּוֹת: \n", + "רִסֵּק נְמָלִים וְהֵבִיא אַחַת שְׁלֵמָה וְצֵרְפָהּ לְאֵלּוּ שֶׁנִּתְרַסְּקוּ וְנַעֲשָׂה הַכּל כְּזַיִת וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה שֵׁשׁ מַלְקִיּוֹת. חָמֵשׁ מִשּׁוּם הַנְּמָלָה הָאַחַת וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם כְּזַיִת מִנִּבְלַת הַטְּמֵאִים: \n" + ], + [ + "כָּל מַאֲכָל הַיּוֹצֵא מִמִּין מִן הַמִּינִין הָאֲסוּרִין שֶׁלּוֹקִין עַל אֲכִילָתָן הֲרֵי אוֹתוֹ הַמַּאֲכָל אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה. כְּגוֹן חֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה הַטְּמֵאִים וּבֵיצֵי עוֹף וְדָג הַטְּמֵאִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא טז) (דברים יד טו) \"וְאֵת בַּת הַיַּעֲנָה\" זוֹ בֵּיצָתָהּ. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְכָל הָאָסוּר כְּיַעֲנָה וּלְכָל הַדְּבָרִים הַדּוֹמִין לְבֵיצָה: \n", + "חֲלֵב הָאָדָם מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבְּשַׂר הָאָדָם אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהוּא בַּעֲשֵׂה: \n", + "דְּבַשׁ דְּבוֹרִים וּדְבַשׁ צְרָעִים מֻתָּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתַּמְצִית גּוּפָן אֶלָּא כּוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ מִן הָעֲשָׂבִים בְּתוֹךְ פִּיהֶן וּמְקִיאִין אוֹתוֹ בַּכַּוֶּרֶת כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּמְצְאוּ אוֹתוֹ לֶאֱכל מִמֶּנּוּ בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים: \n", + "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחֲלֵב אָדָם מֻתָּר אָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים לְגָדוֹל לִינֹק אוֹתוֹ מִן הַשָּׁדַיִם אֶלָּא חוֹלֶבֶת אִשָּׁה לְתוֹךְ הַכְּלִי וְשׁוֹתֶה. וְגָדוֹל שֶׁיָּנַק מִן הַשָּׁד כְּיוֹנֵק שֶׁרֶץ וּמַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: \n", + "יוֹנֵק תִּינוֹק וְהוֹלֵךְ אֲפִלּוּ אַרְבַּע אוֹ חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים. וְאִם גְּמָלוּהוּ וּפָרַשׁ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים אוֹ יֶתֶר מֵחֲמַת בֻּרְיוֹ לֹא מֵחֲמַת חָלְיוֹ אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר וְיוֹנֵק. וְהוּא שֶׁגְּמָלוּהוּ אַחַר כ\"ד חֹדֶשׁ. אֲבָל בְּתוֹךְ זְמַן זֶה אֲפִלּוּ גְּמָלוּהוּ חֹדֶשׁ אוֹ שְׁנַיִם מֻתָּר לַחֲזֹר וְלִינֹק עַד סוֹף כ\"ד חֹדֶשׁ: \n", + "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה וּבֵיצֵי עוֹף טָמֵא אֲסוּרִין מִן הַתּוֹרָה אֵין לוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא ח) (דברים יד ח) \"מִבְּשָׂרָם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ\" עַל הַבָּשָׂר הוּא לוֹקֶה וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. עַל הַבֵּיצָה וְעַל הֶחָלָב. וַהֲרֵי הָאוֹכֵל אוֹתָן כְּאוֹכֵל חֲצִי שִׁעוּר שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֲבָל מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: \n", + "יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁהָאוֹכֵל בֵּיצֵי דָּגִים טְמֵאִים הַנִּמְצָאִים בִּמְעֵיהֶם כְּאוֹכֵל קִרְבֵי דָּגִים טְמֵאִים וְלוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וְכֵן בֵּיצֵי הָעוֹף הַטָּמֵא הַתְּלוּיוֹת בְּאֶשְׁכּוֹל שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא פָּרְשׁוּ וְנִגְמְרוּ. הָאוֹכֵל אוֹתָן לוֹקֶה כְּאוֹכֵל בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם שֶׁלָּהֶן: \n", + "בֵּיצַת עוֹף טָמֵא שֶׁהִתְחִיל הָאֶפְרוֹחַ לְהִתְרַקֵּם בָּהּ וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף. אֲבָל בֵּיצַת הָעוֹף טָהוֹר שֶׁהִתְחִיל הָאֶפְרוֹחַ לְהִתְרַקֵּם בָּהּ וַאֲכָלָהּ מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: \n", + "נִמְצָא עָלֶיהָ קֹרֶט דָּם. אִם עַל הַחֶלְבּוֹן זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם וְאוֹכֵל אֶת הַשְּׁאָר. וְאִם עַל הַחֶלְמוֹן אֲסוּרָה כֻּלָּהּ. בֵּיצָה הַמּוּזֶרֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַיָּפָה תֹּאכְלֶנָּה: \n", + "אֶפְרוֹחַ שֶׁנּוֹלַד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְפַּתְּחוּ עֵינָיו מֻתָּר לְאָכְלוֹ. בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה שֶׁנִּטְרְפָה חֲלָבָהּ אָסוּר כַּחֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה. וְכֵן בֵּיצַת עוֹף טָהוֹר שֶׁנִּטְרַף כְּבֵיצַת עוֹף טָמֵא וְאָסוּר: \n", + "אֶפְרוֹחַ שֶׁנּוֹלַד מִבֵּיצַת טְרֵפָה מֻתָּר שֶׁאֵין מִינוֹ טָמֵא. הָיָה הָעוֹף סְפֵק טְרֵפָה כָּל הַבֵּיצִים שֶׁתֵּלֵד בַּעֲרֵמָה רִאשׁוֹנָה מַשְׁהִין אוֹתָן. אִם טָעֲנָה עֲרֵמָה שְׁנִיָּה וְהִתְחִילָה לֵילֵד הֻתְּרוּ הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת שֶׁאִם הָיְתָה טְרֵפָה לֹא הָיְתָה יוֹלֶדֶת עוֹד. וְאִם לֹא יָלְדָה הֲרֵי הֵן אֲסוּרוֹת: \n", + "חֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אֵינוֹ נִקְפֶּה וְעוֹמֵד כַּחֲלֵב הַטְּהוֹרָה. וְאִם נִתְעָרֵב חֲלֵב טְמֵאָה בַּחֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה כְּשֶׁתַּעֲמִיד אוֹתוֹ יַעֲמוֹד חֲלֵב הַטְּהוֹרָה וְיֵצֵא חֲלֵב הַטֻּמְאָה עִם הַקּוֹם שֶׁל גְּבִינָה: \n", + "וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה יִתֵּן הַדִּין שֶׁכָּל חָלָב הַנִּמְצָא בְּיַד עַכּוּ\"ם אָסוּר שֶׁמָּא עֵרֵב בּוֹ חֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה. וּגְבִינַת הָעַכּוּ\"ם מֻתֶּרֶת שֶׁאֵין חֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מִתְגַּבֵּן. אֲבָל בִּימֵי חַכְמֵי מִשְׁנָה גָּזְרוּ עַל גְּבִינַת הָעַכּוּ\"ם וַאֲסָרוּם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּעוֹר קֵבָה שֶׁל שְׁחִיטָתָן שֶׁהִיא נְבֵלָה. וְאִם תֹּאמַר וַהֲלֹא עוֹר הַקֵּבָה דָּבָר קָטָן הוּא עַד מְאֹד בֶּחָלָב שֶׁעָמַד בּוֹ וְלָמָּה לֹא יִבָּטֵל בְּמִעוּטוֹ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא הַמַּעֲמִיד הַגְּבִינָה. וְהוֹאִיל וְדָבָר הָאָסוּר הוּא שֶׁהֶעֱמִיד הֲרֵי הַכּל אָסוּר כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר: \n", + "גְּבִינָה שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ הָעַכּוּ\"ם בַּעֲשָׂבִים אוֹ בְּמֵי פֵּרוֹת כְּגוֹן שְׂרַף הַתְּאֵנִים וַהֲרֵי הֵן נִכָּרִין בַּגְּבִינָה הוֹרוּ מִקְצָת הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה. שֶׁכְּבָר גָּזְרוּ עַל כָּל גְּבִינַת הָעַכּוּ\"ם בֵּין שֶׁהֶעֱמִידוּהָ בְּדָבָר אָסוּר בֵּין שֶׁהֶעֱמִידוּהָ בְּדָבָר הַמֻּתָּר גְּזֵרָה מִשּׁוּם שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּדָבָר הָאָסוּר: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל גְּבִינַת הָעַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ חָלָב שֶׁחֲלָבוֹ עַכּוּ\"ם וְאֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל רוֹאֵהוּ מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. הַחֶמְאָה שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם מִקְצָת הַגְּאוֹנִים הִתִּירוּהָ שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא גָּזְרוּ עַל הַחֶמְאָה וַחֲלֵב הַטְּמֵאָה אֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד. וּמִקְצָת הַגְּאוֹנִים אֲסָרוּהָ מִפְּנֵי צִחְצוּחֵי חָלָב שֶׁיִּשָּׁאֵר בָּהּ. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַקּוֹם שֶׁבַּחֶמְאָה אֵינוֹ מְעֹרָב עִם הַחֶמְאָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּבָּטֵל בְּמִעוּטוֹ. וְכָל חָלָב שֶׁלָּהֶן חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא עֵרְבוּ בּוֹ חֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה: \n", + "יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאִם לָקַח חֶמְאָה מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם וּבִשְּׁלָהּ עַד שֶׁהָלְכוּ לָהֶן צִחְצוּחֵי חָלָב הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. שֶׁאִם תֹּאמַר נִתְעָרְבוּ עִמָּן וְנִתְבַּשְּׁלוּ כֻּלָּן בָּטְלוּ בְּמִעוּטָם. אֲבָל הַחֶמְאָה שֶׁבִּשְּׁלוּ אוֹתָהּ עַכּוּ\"ם אֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם גִּעוּלֵי עַכּוּ\"ם כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר: \n", + "יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיָּשַׁב בְּצַד הָעֵדֶר שֶׁל נָכְרִי וּבָא הַנָּכְרִי וְהֵבִיא לוֹ חָלָב מִן הָעֵדֶר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּעֵדֶר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתָּר. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה אוֹתוֹ חוֹלֵב. וְהוּא שֶׁיָּכוֹל לִרְאוֹתוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא חוֹלֵב כְּשֶׁיַּעֲמֹד. שֶׁהַנָּכְרִי מִתְיָרֵא לַחֲלֹב מִן הַטְּמֵאָה שֶׁמָּא יַעֲמֹד וְיִרְאֶה אוֹתוֹ: \n", + "בֵּיצָה שֶׁשְּׁנֵי רָאשֶׁיהָ כַּדִּין אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁנֵי רָאשֶׁיהָ חַדִּין. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה חֶלְמוֹן מִבַּחוּץ וְחֶלְבּוֹן מִבִּפְנִים בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהוּא בֵּיצַת עוֹף טָמֵא. רֹאשָׁהּ אֶחָד כַּד וְרֹאשָׁהּ אֶחָד חַד וְחֶלְבּוֹן מִבַּחוּץ וְחֶלְמוֹן מִבִּפְנִים. אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁהִיא בֵּיצַת עוֹף טָמֵא וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁהִיא בֵּיצַת עוֹף טָהוֹר. לְפִיכָךְ שׁוֹאֵל לַצַּיָּד יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁמּוֹכְרָהּ. אִם אָמַר לוֹ שֶׁל עוֹף פְּלוֹנִי הוּא וְעוֹף טָהוֹר הוּא סוֹמֵךְ עָלָיו. וְאִם אָמַר שֶׁל עוֹף טָהוֹר וְלֹא אָמַר לוֹ שְׁמוֹ אֵינוֹ סוֹמֵךְ עָלָיו: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לוֹקְחִים בֵּיצִים מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֶלָּא אִם הָיָה מַכִּיר אוֹתָן וְיֵשׁ לוֹ בָּהֶן טְבִיעוּת עַיִן שֶׁהֵן בֵּיצֵי עוֹף פְּלוֹנִי הַטָּהוֹר. וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהֶן שֶׁמָּא הֵן בֵּיצֵי טְרֵפָה אוֹ בֵּיצֵי נְבֵלָה. וְאֵין לוֹקְחִין מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם בֵּיצָה טְרוּפָה כְּלָל: \n", + "בֵּיצֵי דָּגִים סִימָנֵיהֶם כְּסִימָנֵי בֵּיצֵי הָעוֹף. אִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵי רָאשֶׁיהָ כַּדִּין אוֹ חַדִּין טְמֵאָה. אֶחָד כַּד וְאֶחָד חַד שׁוֹאֵל לְיִשְׂרְאֵלִי הַמּוֹכֵר. אִם אָמַר לוֹ אֲנִי מְלַחְתִּים וְהוֹצֵאתִים מִדָּג טָהוֹר אוֹכֵל עַל פִּיו. וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ טְהוֹרִין הֵם אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה אָדָם שֶׁהֻחְזַק בְּכַשְׁרוּת: \n", + "וְכֵן אֵין לוֹקְחִין גְּבִינָה וַחֲתִיכַת דָּג שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ סִימָן אֶלָּא מִיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי שֶׁהֻחְזַק בְּכַשְׁרוּת. אֲבָל בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּשֶׁהָיְתָה רֻבָּהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לוֹקְחִין מִכָּל יִשְׂרְאֵלִי שֶׁבָּהּ. וְהֶחָלָב לוֹקְחִין אוֹתוֹ מִכָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל מִכָּל מָקוֹם: \n", + "הַכּוֹבֵשׁ דָּגִים טְמֵאִים צִירָן אָסוּר. אֲבָל צִיר חֲגָבִים טְמֵאִים מֻתָּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם לַחְלוּחִית. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לוֹקְחִין צִיר מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה בּוֹ דָּג טָהוֹר מְשׁוֹטֵט בּוֹ אֲפִלּוּ דָּג אֶחָד: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁהֵבִיא עֲרֵבָה מְלֵאָה חָבִיּוֹת פְּתוּחוֹת שֶׁל צִיר וְדָג אֶחָד טָהוֹר בְּאַחַת מֵהֶם כֻּלָּן מֻתָּרוֹת. הָיוּ סְתוּמוֹת פָּתַח אַחַת וְנִמְצָא בָּהּ דָּג טָהוֹר שְׁנִיָּה וְנִמְצָא בָּהּ טָהוֹר כֻּלָּן מֻתָּרוֹת. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל דָּג וּשְׁדֵרוֹ קַיָּם כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא נִכָּר שֶׁהוּא דָּג טָהוֹר. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לוֹקְחִין דָּגִים מְרוֹצָצִין מְלוּחִין מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְהֵם הַנִּקְרָאִים טָרִית טְרוּפָה. וְאִם הָיָה רֹאשׁ הַדָּג וּשְׁדֵרוֹ נִכָּר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מְרוֹצָץ מֻתָּר לִקַּח אוֹתוֹ מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁהֵבִיא גָּרָב שֶׁל חֲתִיכוֹת דָּג שֶׁחִתּוּכָן שָׁוֶה וְהֵן נִכָּרִין שֶׁכֻּלָּן מִדָּג אֶחָד וּמָצָא בַּחֲתִיכָה אַחַת מֵהֶן קַשְׂקַשִּׂין הֲרֵי כֻּלָּן מֻתָּרוֹת: \n" + ], + [ + "הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִבְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה שֶׁמֵּתָה אוֹ חַיָּה שֶׁמֵּתָה אוֹ עוֹף שֶׁמֵּת לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד כא) \"לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כָל נְבֵלָה\". וְכָל שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחֲטָה כָּרָאוּי הֲרֵי זוֹ מֵתָה. וּבְהִלְכוֹת הַשְּׁחִיטָה יִתְבָּאֵר הַשְּׁחִיטָה שֶׁהִיא כָּרָאוּי וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ כָּרָאוּי: \n", + "אֵין אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם נְבֵלָה אֶלָּא מִינִים טְהוֹרִים בִּלְבַד מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן רְאוּיִין לִשְׁחִיטָה וְאִם נִשְׁחֲטוּ שְׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה יִהְיוּ מֻתָּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה. אֲבָל מִינִין טְמֵאִין שֶׁאֵין שְׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בָּהֶן בֵּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה כָּרָאוּי בֵּין שֶׁמֵּתָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁחָתַךְ בָּשָׂר מִן הַחַי מִמֶּנָּה וַאֲכָלוֹ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל בְּשַׂר טְמֵאָה: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל עוֹף טָהוֹר חַי כָּל שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל נְבֵלָה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כְּזַיִת הוֹאִיל וַאֲכָלוֹ כֻּלּוֹ. וְאִם אֲכָלוֹ אַחַר שֶׁמֵּת עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בּוֹ כְּזַיִת. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בְּכֻלּוֹ בָּשָׂר כְּזַיִת הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ בְּכֻלּוֹ כְּזַיִת חַיָּב עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם נְבֵלָה: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִבְּשַׂר נֵפֶל בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל נְבֵלָה. וְאָסוּר לֶאֱכל מִן הַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה עַד לֵיל שְׁמִינִי שֶׁכָּל שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהָה שְׁמוֹנָה יָמִים בִּבְהֵמָה הֲרֵי זֶה כְּנֵפֶל. וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו. וְאִם נוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁכָּלוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו בַּבֶּטֶן וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹלַד שֶׁהֵן תִּשְׁעָה חֳדָשִׁים לִבְהֵמָה גַּסָּה וַחֲמִשָּׁה לְדַקָּה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בַּיּוֹם שֶׁנּוֹלַד: \n", + "הַשִּׁלְיָא שֶׁיָּצָאת עִם הַוָּלָד אֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה וְהָאוֹכְלָהּ פָּטוּר שֶׁאֵינָהּ בָּשָׂר: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִבְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה אוֹ חַיָּה אוֹ עוֹף טְהוֹרִים שֶׁנִּטְרְפוּ לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ל) \"וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ לַכֶּלֶב תַּשְׁלִכוּן אֹתוֹ\". טְרֵפָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה זוֹ שֶׁטָּרְפָה אוֹתָהּ חַיַּת הַיַּעַר כְּגוֹן אֲרִי וְנָמֵר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. וְכֵן עוֹף שֶׁטָּרַף אוֹתוֹ עוֹף הַדּוֹרֵס כְּגוֹן נֵץ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ. וְאֵין אַתָּה יָכוֹל לוֹמַר שֶׁטָּרְפָה אוֹתָהּ וְהֵמִיתָה אוֹתָהּ שֶׁאִם מֵתָה הֲרֵי הִיא נְבֵלָה. וּמַה לִּי מֵתָה מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָהּ אוֹ הִכָּה בְּסַיִף וֶהֱמִיתָהּ אוֹ שְׁבָרָהּ אֲרִי וֶהֱמִיתָהּ. הָא אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁנִּטְרְפָה וְלֹא מֵתָה: \n", + "וְאִם הַטְּרֵפָה שֶׁלֹּא מֵתָה אֲסוּרָה יָכוֹל אִם בָּא זְאֵב וְגָרַר הַגְּדִי בְּרַגְלוֹ אוֹ בִּזְנָבוֹ אוֹ בְּאָזְנוֹ וְרָדַף אָדָם וְהִצִּילוֹ מִפִּיו יִהְיֶה אָסוּר שֶׁהֲרֵי נִטְרַף תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (שמות כב ל) \"וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה\" וְגוֹ' (שמות כב ל) \"לַכֶּלֶב תַּשְׁלִיכוּן אֹתוֹ\". עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ בָּשָׂר הָרְאוּיָה לַכֶּלֶב. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁהַטְּרֵפָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה הִיא שֶׁטָּרְפָה אוֹתוֹ חַיַּת הַיַּעַר וְשָׁבְרָה אוֹתָהּ וְנָטָה לָמוּת וַעֲדַיִן לֹא מֵתָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּדַם וּשְׁחָטָהּ קֹדֶם שֶׁתָּמוּת הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה הוֹאִיל וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּחְיֶה מִמַּכָּה זוֹ הַבָּאָה עָלֶיהָ: \n", + "נִמְצֵאתָ לָמֵד שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה אָסְרָה הַמֵּתָה וְהִיא הַנְּבֵלָה. וְאָסְרָה הַנּוֹטָה לָמוּת מֵחֲמַת מַכּוֹתֶיהָ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא מֵתָה וְהִיא הַטְּרֵפָה. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁלֹּא תַּחֲלֹק בְּמִיתָה בֵּין מֵתָה מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָהּ בֵּין שֶׁנָּפְלָה וָמֵתָה בֵּין שֶׁחֲנָקָהּ עַד שֶׁמֵּתָה בֵּין שֶׁדְּרָסַתָּה חַיָּה וַהֲרָגַתָּה. כָּךְ לֹא תַּחֲלֹק בְּנוֹטָה לָמוּת בֵּין שֶׁטְּרָפַתָּה חַיָּה וּשְׁבָרַתָּה בֵּין שֶׁנָּפְלָה מִן הַגַּג וְנִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ רֹב צַלְעוֹתֶיהָ בֵּין שֶׁנָּפְלָה וְנִתְרַסְּקוּ אֵיבָרֶיהָ בֵּין שֶׁזָּרַק בָּהּ חֵץ וְנָקַב לִבָּהּ אוֹ רֵאָתָהּ בֵּין שֶׁבָּא לָהּ חלִי מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָהּ וְנָקַב לִבָּהּ אוֹ רֵאָתָהּ אוֹ שִׁבֵּר רֹב צַלְעוֹתֶיהָ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. הוֹאִיל וְהִיא נוֹטָה לָמוּת מִכָּל מָקוֹם הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה הַגּוֹרֵם בִּידֵי בָּשָׂר וָדָם בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה (שמות כב ל) \"טְרֵפָה\". דִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב בַּהוֹוֶה. שֶׁאִם לֹא תֹּאמַר כֵּן לֹא תֵּאָסֵר אֶלָּא אוֹתָהּ שֶׁנִּטְרְפָה בַּשָּׂדֶה אֲבָל אִם נִטְרְפָה בֶּחָצֵר לֹא תֵּאָסֵר. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאֵין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בַּהוֹוֶה: \n", + "וְעִנְיַן הַכָּתוּב שֶׁהַנּוֹטָה לָמוּת מֵחֲמַת מַכּוֹתֶיהָ וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לָהּ לִחְיוֹת מֵחֲמַת מַכָּה זוֹ אֲסוּרָה. מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל שֶׁאֵין כָּמוֹהָ חַיָּה טְרֵפָה. וּבְהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה יִתְבָּאֵר אֵי זֶה חלִי עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ טְרֵפָה וְאֵי זֶה חלִי אֵין עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ טְרֵפָה: \n", + "וְכֵן הַחוֹתֵךְ בָּשָׂר מִן הַחַי מִן הַטְּהוֹרִים הֲרֵי אוֹתוֹ הַבָּשָׂר טְרֵפָה וְהָאוֹכֵל מִמֶּנּוּ כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל טְרֵפָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי בָּשָׂר זֶה מִבְּהֵמָה שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחֲטָה וְלֹא מֵתָה. מַה לִּי טָרְפָה אוֹתָהּ חַיָּה מַה לִּי חֲתָכָהּ בְּסַכִּין מַה לִּי בְּכֻלָּהּ מַה לִּי בְּמִקְצָתָהּ. הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (שמות כב ל) \"וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ\" כֵּיוָן שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית הַבְּהֵמָה בָּשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה הֲרֵי הִיא טְרֵפָה: \n", + "בְּהֵמָה שֶׁהִיא חוֹלָה מֵחֲמַת שֶׁתָּשַׁשׁ כֹּחָהּ וְנָטְתָה לָמוּת הוֹאִיל וְלֹא אֵרְעָה מַכָּה בְּאֵיבָר מֵאֵיבָרֶיהָ הַמְּמִיתִים אוֹתָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. שֶׁלֹּא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא כְּעֵין טְרֵפַת חַיַּת הַיַּעַר שֶׁהֲרֵי עָשָׂה בָּהּ מַכָּה הַמְּמִיתָה אוֹתָהּ: \n", + "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת גְּדוֹלֵי הַחֲכָמִים לֹא הָיוּ אוֹכְלִין מִבְּהֵמָה שֶׁמְּמַהֲרִין וְשׁוֹחֲטִין אוֹתָהּ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תָּמוּת וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁפִּרְכְּסָה בְּסוֹף שְׁחִיטָה. וְדָבָר זֶה אֵין בּוֹ אִסּוּר אֶלָּא כָּל הָרוֹצֶה לְהַחֲמִיר עַל עַצְמוֹ בְּדָבָר זֶה הֲרֵי זֶה מְשֻׁבָּח: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף וְלֹא יָצָא מֵהֶן דָּם הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין וְאֵין אוֹמְרִין שֶׁמָּא מֵתִים הָיוּ. וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַבְּרִיאָה וְלֹא פִּרְכְּסָה הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. אֲבָל הַמְסֻכֶּנֶת וְהִיא כָּל שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ וְאֵינָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא אוֹכֶלֶת מַאֲכַל בְּרִיאוֹת אִם שְׁחָטָהּ וְלֹא פִּרְכְּסָה כְּלָל הֲרֵי זוֹ נְבֵלָה וְלוֹקִין עָלֶיהָ. וְאִם פִּרְכְּסָה הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַפִּרְכּוּס בְּסוֹף הַשְּׁחִיטָה. אֲבָל בִּתְחִלָּתָהּ אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל: \n", + "כֵּיצַד הוּא הַפִּרְכּוּס בִּבְהֵמָה דַּקָּה וּבְחַיָּה גַּסָּה וְדַקָּה. בֵּין שֶׁפָּשְׁטָה יָדָהּ וְהֶחֱזִירָה אוֹ שֶׁפָּשְׁטָה רַגְלָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הֶחֱזִירָה אוֹ שֶׁכְּפָפָה רַגְלָהּ בִּלְבַד הֲרֵי זֶה פִּרְכּוּס וּמֻתָּר. אֲבָל אִם פָּשְׁטָה יָדָהּ וְלֹא הֶחֱזִירָתָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה שֶׁאֵין זוֹ אֶלָּא הוֹצָאַת נֶפֶשׁ בִּלְבַד. וּבִבְהֵמָה גַּסָּה אֶחָד הַיָּד וְאֶחָד הָרֶגֶל בֵּין שֶׁפָּשְׁטָה וְלֹא כָּפְפָה בֵּין כָּפְפָה וְלֹא פָּשְׁטָה הֲרֵי זוֹ פִּרְכּוּס וּמֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם לֹא פָּשְׁטָה לֹא יָד וְלֹא רֶגֶל וְלֹא כָּפְפָה כְּלָל הֲרֵי זוֹ נְבֵלָה. וּבְעוֹף אֲפִלּוּ לֹא רִפְרֵף אֶלָּא בְּעֵינוֹ וְלֹא כִּשְׁכֵּשׁ אֶלָּא בִּזְנָבוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה פִּרְכּוּס: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַמְסֻכֶּנֶת בַּלַּיְלָה וְלֹא יָדַע אִם פִּרְכְּסָה אוֹ לֹא פִּרְכְּסָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נְבֵלָה וַאֲסוּרָה: \n", + "כָּל אִסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה חוּץ מֵאִסּוּרֵי נָזִיר כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר שָׁם. לְפִיכָךְ הַלּוֹקֵחַ מְעַט חֵלֶב וּמְעַט דָּם וּמְעַט בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה וּמְעַט בְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה וּמְעַט בְּשַׂר דָּג טָמֵא וּמְעַט בְּשַׂר עוֹף טָמֵא וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּאֵלּוּ מִשְּׁאָר הָאִסּוּרִין וְצֵרֵף מִן הַכּל כְּזַיִת וַאֲכָלוֹ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה וְדִינוֹ כְּדִין אוֹכֵל חֲצִי שִׁעוּר: \n", + "כָּל הַנְּבֵלוֹת מִצְטָרְפוֹת זוֹ עִם זוֹ. וּנְבֵלָה מִצְטָרֶפֶת עִם טְרֵפָה. וְכֵן כָּל בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה הַטְּמֵאִים מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. אֲבָל בְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה עִם בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. כֵּיצַד. הַלּוֹקֵחַ מִנִּבְלַת הַשּׁוֹר וְנִבְלַת הַצְּבִי וְנִבְלַת הַתַּרְנְגוֹל וְקִבֵּץ מִן הַכּל כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה. וְכֵן אִם קִבֵּץ חֲצִי זַיִת מִנִּבְלַת בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה וַחֲצִי זַיִת מִן הַטְּרֵפָה אוֹ חֲצִי זַיִת מִבְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה וַחֲצִי זַיִת מִבָּשָׂר מִן הַחַי מִן הַטְּהוֹרָה וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה. וְכֵן בְּשַׂר הַגָּמָל וְהַחֲזִיר וְהָאַרְנֶבֶת שֶׁקִּבֵּץ מִכֻּלָּם כְּזַיִת וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה. אֲבָל אִם צֵרֵף חֲצִי זַיִת מִנִּבְלַת הַשּׁוֹר וַחֲצִי זַיִת מִבְּשַׂר הַגָּמָל אֵינָן מִצְטָרְפִין. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְכֵן בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה וְעוֹף טָמֵא אוֹ דָּג טָמֵא אֵין בְּשַׂר שְׁנֵיהֶן מִצְטָרֵף. לְפִי שֶׁהֵן שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת. שֶׁהֲרֵי כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּלָאו בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֲבָל כָּל הָעוֹפוֹת הַטְּמֵאִין מִצְטָרְפִין כְּמוֹ שֶׁמִּצְטָרְפִין כָּל בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה הַטְּמֵאִין. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל שֶׁאִסּוּרָן בְּלָאו אֶחָד מִצְטָרְפִין. בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. חוּץ מִנְּבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה הוֹאִיל וְהַטְּרֵפָה תְּחִלַּת נְבֵלָה הִיא: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל מִנְּבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה אוֹ מִבְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה הַטְּמֵאִים מִן הָעוֹר וּמִן הָעֲצָמוֹת וּמִן הַגִּידִים וּמִן הַקַּרְנַיִם וּמִן הַטְּלָפַיִם וּמִן הַצִּפָּרְנַיִם שֶׁל עוֹף מִמְּקוֹמוֹת שֶׁמְּבַצְבֵּץ מִשָּׁם הַדָּם כְּשֶׁיֵּחָתְכוּ וּמִן הַשִּׁלְיָא שֶׁלָּהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵלּוּ אֵינָן רְאוּיִין לַאֲכִילָה וְאֵין מִצְטָרְפִין עִם הַבָּשָׂר לִכְזַיִת: \n", + "קֵיבַת הַנְּבֵלָה וְקֵיבַת הַטְּמֵאָה מֻתֶּרֶת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כִּשְׁאָר טִנֹּפֶת שֶׁבַּגּוּף. וּלְפִיכָךְ מֻתָּר לְהַעֲמִיד הַגְּבִינָה בְּקֵיבַת שְׁחִיטַת הָעַכּוּ\"ם וּבְקֵיבַת בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה טְמֵאָה. אֲבָל עוֹר הַקֵּבָה הֲרֵי הוּא כִּשְׁאָר הַמֵּעַיִם וְאָסוּר: \n", + "עוֹר הַבָּא כְּנֶגֶד פָּנָיו שֶׁל חֲמוֹר מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּמוֹ הַפֶּרֶשׁ וּמֵי רַגְלַיִם שֶׁהֵן מֻתָּרִין. יֵשׁ עוֹרוֹת שֶׁהֵן כְּבָשָׂר וְהָאוֹכֵל מֵהֶן כְּזַיִת כְּאוֹכֵל מִן הַבָּשָׂר. וְהוּא כְּשֶׁיֹּאכַל אוֹתָן כְּשֶׁהֵן רַכִּים: \n", + "וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁעוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן כִּבְשָׂרָן. עוֹר הָאָדָם וְעוֹר הַחֲזִיר שֶׁל יִשּׁוּב וְעוֹר חֲטוֹטֶרֶת שֶׁל גָּמָל שֶׁלֹּא טָעֲנוּ עָלָיו מַשָּׂא מֵעוֹלָם וְלֹא הִגִּיעַ לְמַשָּׂא שֶׁעֲדַיִן הִיא רַכָּה וְעוֹר בֵּית הַבּשֶׁת וְעוֹר שֶׁתַּחַת הָאַלְיָה וְעוֹר הַשָּׁלִיל וְעוֹר הָאֲנָקָה וְהַכֹּחַ וְהַלְּטָאָה וְהַחֹמֶט. כָּל אֵלּוּ הָעוֹרוֹת כְּשֶׁהֵן רַכּוֹת הֲרֵי הֵן כְּבָשָׂר לְכָל דָּבָר בֵּין לְאִסּוּר אֲכִילָה בֵּין לְטֻמְאָה: \n", + "נֶאֱמַר בְּשׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל (שמות כא כח) \"וְלֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ\". וְהֵיאַךְ הָיָה אֶפְשָׁר לְאָכְלוֹ אַחַר שֶׁנִּסְקַל וַהֲרֵי הוּא נְבֵלָה. אֶלָּא לֹא בָּא הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ לִסְקִילָה נֶאֱסַר וְנַעֲשָׂה כִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה. וְאִם קָדַם וּשְׁחָטוֹ שְׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה. וְאִם אָכַל מִבְּשָׂרוֹ כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה. וְכֵן כְּשֶׁיִּסָּקֵל לֹא יִמָּכֵר וְלֹא יִתְּנֶנּוּ לִכְלָבִים וְלֹא לְעַכּוּ\"ם לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר לֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ. וּפֶרֶשׁ שֶׁל שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה. נוֹדַע שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר מִסְּקִילָה אַחַר שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוּזְמוּ הָעֵדִים יֵצֵא וְיִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר. וְאִם נוֹדַע אַחַר שֶׁנִּסְקָל הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה: \n" + ], + [ + "מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה (דברים יב כג) \"לֹא תֹאכַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ עִם הַבָּשָׂר\" לֶאֱסֹר אֵיבָר שֶׁנֶּחְתַּךְ מִן הַחַי. וְעַל אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי הוּא אוֹמֵר לְנֹחַ (בראשית ט ד) \"אַךְ בָּשָׂר בְּנַפְשׁוֹ דָמוֹ לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ\". וְאִסּוּר אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי נוֹהֵג בִּבְהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף בִּטְהוֹרִים אֲבָל לֹא בִּטְמֵאִים: \n", + "אֶחָד אֵיבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ בָּשָׂר וְגִידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת כְּגוֹן הַיָּד וְהָרֶגֶל. וְאֶחָד אֵיבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ עֶצֶם כְּגוֹן הַלָּשׁוֹן וְהַבֵּיצִים וְהַטְּחוֹל וְהַכְּלָיוֹת וְחֵלֶב וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. אֶלָּא שֶׁהָאֵיבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ עֶצֶם בֵּין שֶׁחָתַךְ כֻּלּוֹ בֵּין שֶׁחָתַךְ מִקְצָתוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי. וְהָאֵיבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ עֶצֶם אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי עַד שֶׁיִּפְרשׁ כִּבְרִיָּתוֹ בָּשָׂר וְגִידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת. אֲבָל אִם פָּרַשׁ מִן הַחַי הַבָּשָׂר בִּלְבַד חַיָּב עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ לֹא מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל מֵאֵיבָר מִן הַחַי כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה וַאֲפִלּוּ אָכַל אֵיבָר שָׁלֵם אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּזַיִת חַיָּב פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת פָּטוּר. חָתַךְ מִן הָאֵיבָר כִּבְרִיָּתוֹ בָּשָׂר וְגִידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת כְּזַיִת וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ בָּשָׂר אֶלָּא כָּל שֶׁהוּא. אֲבָל אִם הִפְרִיד הָאֵיבָר אַחַר שֶׁתְּלָשׁוֹ מִן הַחַי וְהִפְרִיד הַבָּשָׂר מִן הַגִּידִים וּמִן הָעֲצָמוֹת אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל כְּזַיִת מִן הַבָּשָׂר לְבַדּוֹ. וְאֵין הָעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִים מִצְטָרְפִין בּוֹ לִכְזַיִת מֵאַחַר שֶׁשִּׁנָּה בְּרִיָּתוֹ: \n", + "חִלְּקוֹ לְאֵיבָר זֶה וַאֲכָלוֹ מְעַט מְעַט. אִם יֵשׁ בְּמַה שֶּׁאָכַל כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר חַיָּב וְאִם לָאו פָּטוּר. לָקַח כְּזַיִת מִן הָאֵיבָר כִּבְרִיָּתוֹ בָּשָׂר וְגִידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת וַאֲכָלוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּחְלַק בְּפִיו בִּפְנִים קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּבְלָעֶנּוּ חַיָּב: \n", + "תָּלַשׁ אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי וְנִטְרְפָה בִּנְטִילָתוֹ וַאֲכָלוֹ חַיָּב שְׁתַּיִם. מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי וּמִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה שֶׁהֲרֵי שְׁנֵי הָאִסּוּרִין בָּאִין כְּאַחַת. וְכֵן הַתּוֹלֵשׁ חֵלֶב מִן הַחַי וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם. מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי וּמִשּׁוּם חֵלֶב. תָּלַשׁ חֵלֶב מִן הַטְּרֵפָה וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה שָׁלֹשׁ: \n", + "בָּשָׂר הַמְדֻלְדָּל בִּבְהֵמָה וְאֵיבָר הַמְדֻלְדָּל בָּהּ אִם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר וְלִחְיוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פָּרַשׁ אֶלָּא אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה אָסוּר וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו. וְאִם מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִלּוּ נָפַל מֵחַיִּים. לְפִיכָךְ לוֹקִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי. אֲבָל הַיָּכוֹל לַחֲזֹר וְלִחְיוֹת אִם נִשְׁחֲטָה הַבְּהֵמָה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר: \n", + "שָׁמַט אֵיבָר אוֹ מְעָכוֹ אוֹ דָּכוֹ כְּגוֹן הַבֵּיצִים שֶׁמָּעַךְ אוֹתָן אוֹ נִתְּקָן הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת חַיִּים. וּלְפִיכָךְ אֵין מַסְרִיחַ. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן אָסוּר לְאָכְלוֹ מִמִּנְהָג שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל מִקֶּדֶם שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא דּוֹמֶה לְאֵיבָר מִן הַחַי: \n", + "עֶצֶם שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר אִם הָיָה הַבָּשָׂר אוֹ הָעוֹר חוֹפֶה רֹב עָבְיוֹ שֶׁל עֶצֶם הַנִּשְׁבָּר וְרֹב הֶקֵּף הַשֶּׁבֶר הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְאִם יָצָא הָעֶצֶם לַחוּץ הֲרֵי הָאֵיבָר אָסוּר. וּכְשֶׁיִּשְׁחֹט הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ הָעוֹף יַחְתֹּךְ מִמְּקוֹם הַשֶּׁבֶר וְיַשְׁלִיכוֹ וְהַשְּׁאָר מֻתָּר. נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם וְהַבָּשָׂר חוֹפֶה אֶת רֻבּוֹ אֲבָל הָיָה אוֹתוֹ בָּשָׂר מְרֻסָּס אוֹ נִתְאַכֵּל כְּבָשָׂר שֶׁהָרוֹפֵא גּוֹרְרוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מִתְלַקֵּט הָרֹב מִמְּקוֹמוֹת הַרְבֵּה. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁעָלָיו נְקָבִים נְקָבִים. אוֹ שֶׁנִּסְדַּק הַבָּשָׂר. אוֹ שֶׁנִּקְדַר כְּמִין טַבַּעַת. אוֹ שֶׁנִּגְרַר הַבָּשָׂר מִלְּמַעְלָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁאַר מִן הַבָּשָׂר אֶלָּא כִּקְלִיפָה. אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְאַכֵּל הַבָּשָׂר מִלְּמַטָּה מֵעַל הָעֶצֶם שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר עַד שֶׁנִּמְצָא הַבָּשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֵינוֹ נוֹגֵעַ בָּעֶצֶם. בְּכָל אֵלּוּ מוֹרִין לְאִסּוּר עַד שֶׁיִּתְרַפֵּא הַבָּשָׂר. וְאִם אָכַל מִכָּל אֵלּוּ מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: \n", + "הַמּוֹשִׁיט יָדוֹ לִמְעֵי הַבְּהֵמָה וְחָתַךְ מִן הַטְּחוֹל וּמִן הַכְּלָיוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וְהִנִּיחַ הַחֲתִיכוֹת בְּתוֹךְ מֵעֶיהָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שְׁחָטָהּ. הֲרֵי אוֹתָן הַחֲתִיכוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בְּתוֹךְ מֵעֶיהָ. אֲבָל אִם חָתַךְ מִן הָעֻבָּר שֶׁבְּמֵעֶיהָ וְלֹא הוֹצִיאוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שְׁחָטָהּ הֲרֵי חֲתִיכַת הָעֻבָּר אוֹ אֵיבָרוֹ מֻתָּר הוֹאִיל וְלֹא יָצָא. עֻבָּר שֶׁהוֹצִיא יָדוֹ אוֹ רַגְלוֹ נֶאֱסַר אוֹתוֹ אֵיבָר לְעוֹלָם בֵּין שֶׁחֲתָכוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּשָּׁחֵט אִמּוֹ בֵּין שֶׁחֲתָכוֹ אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה אִמּוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הֶחֱזִיר אוֹתוֹ אֵיבָר לִמְעֵי אִמּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁחַט אוֹ נוֹלַד הַוָּלָד וְחָיָה כַּמָּה שָׁנִים הֲרֵי אוֹתוֹ הָאֵיבָר אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה. שֶׁכָּל בָּשָׂר שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לִמְחִצָּתוֹ נֶאֱסַר כְּבָשָׂר שֶׁפָּרַשׁ מִן הַחַי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ל) \"וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה\" כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצָא לְמָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא לוֹ כְּשָׂדֶה נַעֲשָׂה טְרֵפָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "הוֹצִיא מִקְצָת הָאֵיבָר וְנִשְׁאַר מִקְצָתוֹ בִּפְנִים אֲפִלּוּ לֹא נִשְׁאַר אֶלָּא מִעוּטוֹ הַיּוֹצֵא אָסוּר וְשֶׁבִּפְנִים מֻתָּר. וְאִם חָתַךְ הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הָאֵיבָר אַחַר שֶׁהֶחְזִירוֹ וְנִשְׁחֲטָה. אוֹתוֹ שֶׁיָּצָא בִּלְבַד אָסוּר וּשְׁאָר הָאֵיבָר מֻתָּר. וְאִם לֹא הֶחְזִירוֹ וַחֲתָכוֹ וְהוּא בַּחוּץ. בֵּין שֶׁחֲתָכוֹ קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה אוֹ אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה. מְקוֹם הַחֲתָךְ אָסוּר. וְהוּא הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁנֶּגֶד הָאֲוִיר. אַחַר שֶׁיֵּחָתֵךְ הַיּוֹצֵא חוֹזֵר וְחוֹתֵךְ מְקוֹם הַחֲתָךְ: \n", + "כָּל אֵיבָר עֻבָּר שֶׁיָּצָא וַחֲתָכוֹ קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה וְהוּא בַּחוּץ הֲרֵי זֶה אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי וְלוֹקִין עָלָיו. וַאֲפִלּוּ מֵת הָעֻבָּר קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה. וְאִם נֶחְתַּךְ אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה הָאוֹכְלוֹ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה וַאֲפִלּוּ מֵת. וְאִם מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ חֲתָכוֹ הָאוֹכְלוֹ לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי: \n", + "עֻבָּר שֶׁהוֹצִיא אֵיבָר וְנֶאֱסַר הָאֵיבָר וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹלַד וַהֲרֵי הִיא נְקֵבָה. הֶחָלָב שֶׁלָּהּ אָסוּר לִשְׁתּוֹתוֹ מִסָּפֵק. הוֹאִיל וְהוּא בָּא מִכְּלָל הָאֵיבָרִין וְיֵשׁ בָּהּ אֵיבָר אֶחָד אָסוּר. וַהֲרֵי זֶה כַּחֲלֵב טְרֵפָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בַּחֲלֵב טְהוֹרָה: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה מְעֻבֶּרֶת וּמָצָא בָּהּ שָׁלִיל בֵּין חַי בֵּין מֵת הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה. וַאֲפִלּוּ שִׁלְיָא מֻתֶּרֶת בַּאֲכִילָה. וְשִׁלְיָא שֶׁיָּצָאת מִקְצָתָהּ וְשָׁחַט אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה. אִם הָיְתָה שִׁלְיָא זוֹ קְשׁוּרָה בַּוָּלָד מַה שֶּׁיָּצָא מִמֶּנָּה אָסוּר וְהַשְּׁאָר מֻתָּר. וְאִם לֹא הָיְתָה קְשׁוּרָה בּוֹ כֻּלָּהּ אֲסוּרָה. שֶׁמָּא שִׁלְיָא זוֹ שֶׁיָּצָאת מִקְצָתָהּ הָלַךְ לוֹ וָלָד שֶׁהָיָה בָּהּ וְוָלָד זֶה שֶׁנִּמְצָא בַּבֶּטֶן הָלְכָה שִׁלְיָא שֶׁלּוֹ. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁאִם לֹא נִמְצָא בַּבֶּטֶן וָלָד כְּלָל שֶׁהַשִּׁלְיָא כֻּלָּהּ אֲסוּרָה: \n", + "מָצָא בָּהּ עֻבָּר חַי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה חֳדָשִׁים גְּמוּרִין וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּחְיֶה אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ. וְאִם הִפְרִיס עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע צָרִיךְ שְׁחִיטָה: \n", + "קָרַע אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ שָׁחַט בְּהֵמָה טְרֵפָה וּמָצָא בָּהּ בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה חַי צָרִיךְ שְׁחִיטָה לְהַתִּירוֹ וְאֵין שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מוֹעֶלֶת לוֹ. וְאִם לֹא גָּמְרוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא חַי בִּמְעֵי הַטְּרֵפָה הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּאֵיבָר מֵאִמּוֹ. כָּל עֻבָּר שֶׁהוֹצִיא רֹאשׁוֹ וְהֶחְזִירוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת אִמּוֹ אֵין שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מוֹעֶלֶת לוֹ וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּיָלוּד וְצָרִיךְ שְׁחִיטָה: \n" + ], + [ + "הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִן הַדָּם בְּמֵזִיד חַיָּב כָּרֵת בְּשׁוֹגֵג מֵבִיא חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה. וְדָבָר מְפֹרָשׁ בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא עַל דַּם בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף בִּלְבַד בֵּין טְמֵאִין בֵּין טְהוֹרִין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ז כו) \"וְכָל דָּם לֹא תֹאכְלוּ בְּכל מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם לָעוֹף וְלַבְּהֵמָה\". וְחַיָּה בִּכְלַל בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד ד) \"זֹאת הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכֵלוּ שׁוֹר\" וְגוֹ' (דברים יד ה) \"אַיָּל וּצְבִי\" וְגוֹ'. אֲבָל דַּם דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים וּשְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים וְדַם הָאָדָם אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם דָּם. לְפִיכָךְ דַּם דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים טְהוֹרִים מֻתָּר לְאָכְלוֹ וַאֲפִלּוּ כְּנָסוֹ בִּכְלִי וְשָׁתָהוּ מֻתָּר. וְדַם חֲגָבִים וְדָגִים טְמֵאִים אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא תַּמְצִית גּוּפָן כַּחֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה. וְדַם שְׁקָצִים כִּבְשָׂרָן כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "דַּם הָאָדָם אָסוּר מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים אִם פֵּרַשׁ. וּמַכִּין עָלָיו מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. אֲבָל דַּם הַשִּׁנַּיִם בּוֹלְעוֹ וְאֵינוֹ נִמְנַע. הֲרֵי שֶׁנָּשַׁךְ בְּפַת וּמָצָא עָלֶיהָ דָּם גּוֹרֵר אֶת הַדָּם וְאַחַר כָּךְ אוֹכֵל שֶׁהֲרֵי פֵּרַשׁ: \n", + "אֵין חַיָּבִין כָּרֵת אֶלָּא עַל דָּם הַיּוֹצֵא בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה וּנְחִירָה אוֹ הַתָּזַת הָרֹאשׁ כָּל זְמַן שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אַדְמוּמִית. וְעַל הַדָּם הַכָּנוּס בְּתוֹךְ הַלֵּב. וְעַל דַּם הַקָּזָה כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהוּא מְקַלֵּחַ וְיוֹצֵא. אֲבָל הַדָּם הַשּׁוֹתֵת בִּתְחִלַּת הַקָּזָה קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּתְחִיל לְקַלֵּחַ וְדָם הַשּׁוֹתֵת בְּסוֹף הַקָּזָה כְּשֶׁיַּתְחִיל הַדָּם לִפְסֹק אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּדַם הָאֵיבָרִים. שֶׁדַּם הַקִּלּוּחַ הוּא הַדָּם שֶׁהַנֶּפֶשׁ יוֹצְאָה בּוֹ: \n", + "דַּם הַתַּמְצִית וְדַם הָאֵיבָרִין כְּגוֹן דַּם הַטְּחוֹל וְדַם הַכְּלָיוֹת וְדַם בֵּיצִים וְדָם הַמִּתְכַּנֵּס לַלֵּב בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה וְדָם הַנִּמְצָא בַּכָּבֵד אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. אֲבָל הָאוֹכֵל מִמֶּנּוּ כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ג יז) (ויקרא ז כו) \"וְכָל דָּם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ\". וּבְחִיּוּב כָּרֵת הוּא אוֹמֵר (ויקרא יז יא) \"כִּי נֶפֶשׁ הַבָּשָׂר בַּדָּם הִיא\" אֵינוֹ חַיָּב כָּרֵת אֶלָּא עַל הַדָּם שֶׁהַנֶּפֶשׁ יוֹצְאָה בּוֹ: \n", + "הַשָּׁלִיל הַנִּמְצָא בִּמְעֵי הַבְּהֵמָה הֲרֵי דָּמוֹ כְּדַם הַיָּלוּד. לְפִיכָךְ הַדָּם הַנִּמְצָא כָּנוּס בְּתוֹךְ לִבּוֹ חַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת אֲבָל שְׁאָר דָּמוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּדַם הָאֵיבָרִין: \n", + "הַלֵּב בֵּין לְצָלִי בֵּין לִקְדֵרָה קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת דָּמוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מוֹלְחוֹ. וְאִם בִּשֵּׁל הַלֵּב וְלֹא קְרָעוֹ קוֹרְעוֹ אַחַר שֶׁבִּשְּׁלוֹ וּמֻתָּר. וְאִם לֹא קְרָעוֹ וַאֲכָלוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עָלָיו כָּרֵת. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּלֵב הָעוֹף שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כְּזַיִת דָּם. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה לֵב בְּהֵמָה חַיָּב כָּרֵת שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּזַיִת מִדָּם שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַלֵּב שֶׁחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת: \n", + "הַכָּבֵד אִם חֲתָכָהּ וְהִשְׁלִיכָהּ לְתוֹךְ הַחֹמֶץ אוֹ לְתוֹךְ מַיִם רוֹתְחִין עַד שֶׁתִּתְלַבֵּן הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַשֵּׁל אוֹתָהּ אַחַר כֵּן. וּכְבָר נָהֲגוּ כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַבְהֲבָהּ עַל הָאוּר וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְבַשְּׁלִין אוֹתָהּ בֵּין שֶׁבִּשְּׁלָהּ לְבַדָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁבִּשְּׁלָהּ עִם בָּשָׂר אַחֵר. וְכֵן מִנְהָג פָּשׁוּט שֶׁאֵין מְבַשְּׁלִין הַמֹּחַ שֶׁל רֹאשׁ וְלֹא קוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁמְּהַבְהֲבִין אוֹתוֹ בָּאוּר: \n", + "הַכָּבֵד שֶׁבִּשְּׁלָהּ וְלֹא הִבְהֲבָהּ עַל הָאוּר וְלֹא חֲלָטָהּ בְּחֹמֶץ אוֹ בְּרוֹתְחִין הֲרֵי הַקְּדֵרָה כֻּלָּהּ אֲסוּרָה הַכָּבֵד וְכָל שֶׁנִתְבַּשֵּׁל עִמָּהּ. וּמֻתָּר לִצְלוֹת כָּבֵד עִם הַבָּשָׂר בְּשִׁפּוּד אֶחָד וְהוּא שֶׁתִּהְיֶה הַכָּבֵד לְמַטָּה. וְאִם עָבַר וּצְלָאָהּ לְמַעְלָה מִבָּשָׂר הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכְלוֹ: \n", + "הַטְּחוֹל מֻתָּר לְבַשְּׁלוֹ אֲפִלּוּ עִם הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁאֵינוֹ דָּם אֶלָּא בָּשָׂר הַדּוֹמֶה לְדָם. הַשּׁוֹבֵר מִפְרֶקֶת בְּהֵמָה קֹדֶם שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ הֲרֵי הַדָּם נִבְלַע בָּאֵיבָרִים וְאָסוּר לֶאֱכל מִמֶּנָּה בָּשָׂר חַי וַאֲפִלּוּ חֲלָטוֹ. אֶלָּא כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה. יַחְתֹּךְ הַחֲתִיכָה וְיִמְלַח יָפֶה יָפֶה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יְבַשֵּׁל אוֹ יִצְלֶה. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף וְלֹא יָצָא מֵהֶן דָּם שֶׁהֵן מֻתָּרִין: \n", + "אֵין הַבָּשָׂר יוֹצֵא מִידֵי דָּמוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מוֹלְחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה וּמְדִיחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה. כֵּיצַד עוֹשֶׂה. מֵדִיחַ הַבָּשָׂר תְּחִלָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ מוֹלְחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה וּמַנִּיחוֹ בְּמִלְחוֹ כְּדֵי הִלּוּךְ מִיל. וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְדִיחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה עַד שֶׁיֵּצְאוּ הַמַּיִם זַכִּים וּמַשְׁלִיכוֹ מִיָּד לְתוֹךְ מַיִם רוֹתְחִין אֲבָל לֹא לְפוֹשְׁרִין כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּתְלַבֵּן מִיָּד וְלֹא יֵצֵא דָּם: \n", + "כְּשֶׁמּוֹלְחִין הַבָּשָׂר אֵין מוֹלְחִין אוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא בִּכְלִי מְנֻקָּב. וְאֵין מוֹלְחִין אֶלָּא בְּמֶלַח עָבֶה כְּחוֹל הַגַּס. שֶׁהַמֶּלַח דַּק כְּקֶמַח יִבָּלַע בַּבָּשָׂר וְלֹא יוֹצִיא דָּם. וְצָרִיךְ לְנַפֵּץ הַבָּשָׂר מִן הַמֶּלַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ יְדִיחֶנּוּ: \n", + "כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ לְבָשָׂר שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְבַשְּׁלוֹ אֲבָל לְצָלִי מוֹלֵחַ וְצוֹלֶה מִיָּד. וְהָרוֹצֶה לֶאֱכל בָּשָׂר חַי מוֹלְחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה וּמְדִיחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יֹאכַל. וְאִם חֲלָטוֹ בְּחֹמֶץ מֻתָּר לְאָכְלוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא חַי. וּמֻתָּר לִשְׁתּוֹת הַחֹמֶץ שֶׁחֲלָטוֹ בּוֹ שֶׁאֵין הַחֹמֶץ מוֹצִיא הַדָּם: \n", + "חֹמֶץ שֶׁחָלַט בּוֹ בָּשָׂר לֹא יַחְלֹט בּוֹ פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה. וַחֲתִיכָה שֶׁהֶאֱדִימָה בְּתוֹךְ הַחֹמֶץ הִיא וְהַחֹמֶץ אֲסוּרִין עַד שֶׁיִּמְלַח אוֹתָהּ יָפֶה יָפֶה וְיִצְלֶה. בָּשָׂר שֶׁהֶאְדִּים וְכֵן בֵּיצֵי בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה בִּקְלִיפָה שֶׁעֲלֵיהֶן. וְכֵן הָעֹרֶף שֶׁבּוֹ הַמִּזְרָקִים שֶׁהֵן מְלֵאִים דָּם. אִם חֲתָכָן וּמְלָחָן כַּדָּת מֻתָּר לְבַשְּׁלָן. וְאִם לֹא חֲתָכָן וּצְלָאָן בְּשִׁפּוּד וְצָלָה הָעֹרֶף וּפִיו לְמַטָּה אוֹ שֶׁצְּלָאָן כֻּלָּן עַל הַגֶּחָלִים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין: \n", + "רֹאשׁ הַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁצָּלָהוּ בְּתַנּוּר אוֹ בְּכִבְשָׁן אִם תָּלָהוּ וּבֵית שְׁחִיטָתוֹ לְמַטָּה מֻתָּר שֶׁהַדָּם יוֹצֵא וְשׁוֹתֵת. וְאִם הָיָה בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה מִן הַצַּד מֹחוֹ אָסוּר. שֶׁהַדָּם מִתְקַבֵּץ לְתוֹכוֹ. וּשְׁאָר הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁעַל הָעֲצָמוֹת מִבַּחוּץ מֻתָּר. הִנִּיחַ חָטְמוֹ לְמַטָּה אִם הִנִּיחַ בּוֹ גֶּמִי אוֹ קָנֶה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשָּׁאֵר פָּתוּחַ וְיֵצֵא דָּמוֹ דֶּרֶךְ חָטְמוֹ מֻתָּר וְאִם לָאו מֹחוֹ אָסוּר: \n", + "אֵין מַנִּיחִין כְּלִי תַּחַת הַצָּלִי לְקַבֵּל מֵימָיו עַד שֶׁתִּכְלֶה כָּל מַרְאֶה אַדְמוּמִית שֶׁבּוֹ. וְכֵיצַד עוֹשִׂין. מַשְׁלִיכִין לְתוֹךְ הַכְּלִי מְעַט מֶלַח וּמַנִּיחַ הַכְּלִי עַד שֶׁיִּצָּלֶה וְלוֹקֵחַ הַשַּׁמְנוּנִית שֶׁל מַעְלָה וְהַמַּיִם שֶׁל מַטָּה שֶׁתַּחַת הַשַּׁמְנוּנִית אֲסוּרָה: \n", + "פַּת שֶׁחָתַךְ עָלֶיהָ בָּשָׂר צָלִי מֻתָּר לְאָכְלָהּ שֶׁאֵינָהּ אֶלָּא שַׁמְנוּנִית [א. ב] דָּגִים וְעוֹפוֹת שֶׁמְּלָחָן זֶה עִם זֶה אֲפִלּוּ בִּכְלִי מְנֻקָּב הַדָּגִים אֲסוּרִין שֶׁהַדָּג רָפֶה וּבוֹלֵעַ דָּם הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הָעוֹף. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם מָלַח דָּג עִם בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה אוֹ חַיָּה: \n", + "עוֹפוֹת שֶׁהִנִּיחָן שְׁלֵמִים וּמִלֵּא חֲלָלָן בָּשָׂר וּבֵיצִים וּבִשְּׁלָן אֲסוּרוֹת שֶׁהֲרֵי דָּם יוֹצֵא לְתוֹכָן וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּלָחָן יָפֶה יָפֶה. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁבְּתוֹכָן שָׁלוּק אוֹ צָלוּי. וְאִם צְלָאָן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַבָּשָׂר שֶׁבְּתוֹכָן חַי וַאֲפִלּוּ פִּיהֶן לְמַעְלָה: \n", + "בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם שֶׁמִּלְּאָן עַל דֶּרֶךְ זוֹ בְּבָשָׂר צָלוּי אוֹ שָׁלוּק אוֹ שֶׁמִּלְּאָן בְּבֵיצִים וּשְׁלָקָן אוֹ קְלָאָן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין שֶׁאֵין מַחֲזִיקִין דָּם בִּבְנֵי מֵעַיִם. וְכֵן הוֹרוּ הַגְּאוֹנִים: \n", + "עוֹפוֹת שֶׁטְּפָלָן בְּבָצֵק וּצְלָאָן בֵּין שְׁלֵמִים בֵּין מְחֻתָּכִין אִם טְפָלָן בְּסלֶת גַּסָּה אֲפִלּוּ הִסְמִיקָה הַטְּפֵלָה אוֹכֵל אֶת הַטְּפֵלָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁסּלֶת גַּסָּה מִתְפָּרֶרֶת וְיוֹצֵא הַדָּם. וְאִם טְפָלָן בְּקֶמַח חִטִּים שֶׁלָּתְתָן אִם הָיְתָה הַטְּפֵלָה לְבָנָה כְּמוֹ הַכֶּסֶף מֻתָּר לֶאֱכל מִמֶּנָּה וְאִם לָאו אֲסוּרָה. טְפָלָן בִּשְׁאָר קְמָחִין אִם הֶאְדִּימוּ אֲסוּרִין וְאִם לֹא הֶאְדִּימוּ מֻתָּרִין: \n", + "סַכִּין שֶׁשָּׁחַט בָּהּ אָסוּר לַחְתֹּךְ בָּהּ רוֹתֵחַ עַד שֶׁיְּלַבֵּן הַסַּכִּין בָּאוּר אוֹ יַשְׁחִיזֶנָּה בְּמַשְׁחֶזֶת אוֹ יִנְעָצֶנָּה בְּקַרְקַע קָשָׁה עֶשֶׂר פְּעָמִים. וְאִם חָתַךְ בָּהּ רוֹתֵחַ מֻתָּר. וְכֵן אֵינוֹ חוֹתֵךְ בָּהּ צְנוֹן וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ מִדְּבָרִים הַחֲרִיפִים לְכַתְּחִלָּה. וְאִם הֵדִיחַ הַסַּכִּין אוֹ שֶׁקִּנְּחָהּ בִּכְלִי מֻתָּר לַחְתֹּךְ בּוֹ צְנוֹן וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ אֲבָל לֹא רוֹתֵחַ: \n", + "קְעָרָה שֶׁמָּלַח בָּהּ בָּשָׂר אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה שׁוֹעָה בַּאֲבָר אָסוּר לֶאֱכל בָּהּ רוֹתֵחַ לְעוֹלָם שֶׁכְּבָר נִבְלַע הַדָּם בַּחֲרָסֶיהָ: \n" + ], + [ + "הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב בְּמֵזִיד חַיָּב כָּרֵת. בְּשׁוֹגֵג מֵבִיא חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה. וּבְפֵרוּשׁ אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא עַל שְׁלֹשָׁה מִינֵי בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה בִּלְבַד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ז כג) \"כָּל חֵלֶב שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ\" בֵּין שֶׁאָכַל מֵחֵלֶב שְׁחוּטָה בֵּין שֶׁאָכַל מֵחֵלֶב נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה שֶׁלָּהֶן. אֲבָל שְׁאָר בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה בֵּין טְמֵאָה בֵּין טְהוֹרָה חֶלְבָּהּ כִּבְשָׂרָהּ. וְכֵן נֵפֶל שֶׁל שְׁלֹשָׁה מִינֵי בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה חֶלְבּוֹ כִּבְשָׂרוֹ וְהָאוֹכֵל מֵחֶלְבּוֹ כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל נְבֵלָה: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל מֵחֵלֶב נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה חַיָּב מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל חֵלֶב וּמִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנּוֹסָף הָאִסּוּר בִּבְשָׂרָהּ שֶׁהָיָה מֻתָּר נוֹסָף עַל הַחֵלֶב וּלְפִיכָךְ לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה וּמָצָא בָּהּ שָׁלִיל כָּל חֶלְבּוֹ מֻתָּר וַאֲפִלּוּ מְצָאוֹ חַי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּאֵיבָר מִמֶּנָּה. וְאִם שָׁלְמוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו וּמְצָאוֹ חַי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִפְרִיס עַל הַקַּרְקַע וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שְׁחִיטָה חֶלְבּוֹ אָסוּר וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. וּמוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ כָּל הַחוּטִין וְהַקְּרוּמוֹת הָאֲסוּרִין כִּשְׁאָר הַבְּהֵמוֹת: \n", + "הוֹשִׁיט יָדוֹ לִמְעֵי בְּהֵמָה וְחָתַךְ מֵחֵלֶב הָעֻבָּר שֶׁכָּלוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו וְהוֹצִיאוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב עָלָיו כְּאִלּוּ חֲתָכוֹ מֵחֵלֶב הָאֵם עַצְמָהּ. שֶׁהֶחֳדָשִׁים הֵן הַגּוֹרְמִין לְאִסּוּר הַחֵלֶב: \n", + "שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָבִים הֵן שֶׁחַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶן כָּרֵת. חֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַקֶּרֶב וְשֶׁעַל שְׁתֵּי הַכְּלָיוֹת וְשֶׁעַל הַכְּסָלִים. אֲבָל הָאַלְיָה מֻתֶּרֶת בַּאֲכִילָה. לֹא נִקְרֵאת חֵלֶב אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן קָרְבָּן בִּלְבַד כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּקְרְאוּ חֲלָבִים כְּלָיוֹת וְיוֹתֶרֶת הַכָּבֵד לְעִנְיַן קָרְבָּן. כְּמוֹ שֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר (בראשית מה יח) \"חֵלֶב הָאָרֶץ\" וְ(דברים לב יד) \"חֵלֶב כִּלְיוֹת חִטָּה\" שֶׁהוּא טוּבָם. וּלְפִי שֶׁמְּרִימִין דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ מִן הַקָּרְבָּן לִשְׂרֵפָה לַשֵּׁם נִקְרְאוּ חֵלֶב. שֶׁאֵין שֵׁם דָּבָר טוֹב אֶלָּא הַמּוּרָם לַשֵּׁם. וּלְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר בִּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר (במדבר יח ל לב) \"בַּהֲרִימְכֶם אֶת חֶלְבּוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ\": \n", + "חֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הֶמְסֵס וְשֶׁעַל בֵּית הַכּוֹסוֹת הוּא הַחֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַקֶּרֶב. וְחֵלֶב שֶׁבְּעִקְּרֵי הַיְרֵכוֹת מִבִּפְנִים חַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת וְהוּא הַחֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַכְּסָלִים. וְיֵשׁ שָׁם חֵלֶב עַל הַקֵּבָה עָקֹם כְּמוֹ קֶשֶׁת וְהוּא הָאָסוּר וְחוּט מָשׁוּךְ כְּמוֹ יֶתֶר וְהוּא מֻתָּר. חוּטִין שֶׁבַּחֵלֶב אֲסוּרִין וְאֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶן כָּרֵת: \n", + "חֵלֶב שֶׁהַבָּשָׂר חוֹפֶה אוֹתוֹ מֻתָּר. שֶׁעַל הַכְּסָלִים אָסַר הַכָּתוּב לֹא שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַכְּסָלִים. וְכֵן חֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַכְּלָיוֹת נֶאֱסַר וְלֹא שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַכְּלָיוֹת. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵּן נוֹטֵל אָדָם לֹבֶן שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַכּוּלְיָא וְאַחַר כָּךְ אוֹכֵל אוֹתָהּ וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְחַטֵּט אַחֲרָיו: \n", + "יֵשׁ כְּמוֹ שְׁתֵּי פְּתִילוֹת שֶׁל חֵלֶב בְּעִקְּרֵי הַמָּתְנַיִם סָמוּךְ לְרֹאשׁ הַיָּרֵךְ. כְּשֶׁהַבְּהֵמָה חַיָּה חֵלֶב זֶה נִרְאֶה בַּמֵּעַיִם. וּכְשֶׁתָּמוּת יִדְבַּק בָּשָׂר בְּבָשָׂר וְיִתְכַּסֶּה חֵלֶב זֶה וְאֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה עַד שֶׁיִּתְפָּרֵק הַבָּשָׂר מִן הַבָּשָׂר. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר. שֶׁאֵין זֶה חֵלֶב שֶׁהַבָּשָׂר חוֹפֶה אוֹתוֹ. וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁתִּמְצָא בּוֹ הַחֵלֶב תַּחַת הַבָּשָׂר וְהַבָּשָׂר מַקִּיף אוֹתוֹ מִכָּל סְבִיבָיו וְלֹא יֵרָאֶה עַד שֶׁיִּקָּרַע הַבָּשָׂר הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר: \n", + "חֵלֶב הַלֵּב וְחֵלֶב הַמֵּעַיִם וְהֵן הַדַּקִּין הַמְלֻפָּפִין כֻּלָּן מֻתָּרִין וַהֲרֵי הֵם כְּשֻׁמָּן שֶׁהוּא מֻתָּר. חוּץ מֵרֹאשׁ הַמְּעִי שֶׁסָּמוּךְ לַקֵּבָה שֶׁהוּא תְּחִלַּת בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִגְרֹר הַחֵלֶב שֶׁעָלָיו וְזֶהוּ חֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַדַּקִּין שֶׁאָסוּר. וְיֵשׁ מִן הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁאוֹמֵר שֶׁרֹאשׁ הַמְּעִי שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְגָרְרוֹ הוּא הַמְּעִי שֶׁיֵּצֵא בּוֹ הָרְעִי שֶׁהוּא סוֹף הַמֵּעַיִם: \n", + "יֵשׁ בְּגוּף הַבְּהֵמָה חוּטִין וּקְרוּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין. מֵהֶם מִשּׁוּם חֵלֶב וּמֵהֶן מִשּׁוּם דָּם. וְכָל חוּט אוֹ קְרוּם שֶׁאָסוּר מִשּׁוּם (ויקרא ג יז) (ויקרא ז כו) \"כָּל דָּם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ\" צָרִיךְ לְנָטְלוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִמְלַח וִיבַשֵּׁל הַבָּשָׂר כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ. וְאִם חֲתָכוֹ וּמְלָחוֹ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְנָטְלוֹ. וְכֵן לְצָלִי (אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְנָטְלוֹ). וְכָל חוּט אוֹ קְרוּם שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם כָּל חֵלֶב בֵּין לְצָלִי בֵּין לְבִשּׁוּל צָרִיךְ לְנָטְלוֹ מִן הַבְּהֵמָה: \n", + "חֲמִשָּׁה חוּטִין יֵשׁ בַּכְּסָלִים. שְׁלֹשָׁה מִן הַיָּמִין וּשְׁנַיִם מִן הַשְּׂמֹאל. הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁמִּן הַיָּמִין מִתְפַּצֵּל כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶם לִשְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם. וְהַשְּׁנַיִם שֶׁמִּן הַשְּׂמֹאל מִתְפַּצְּלִין לִשְׁלֹשָׁה שְׁלֹשָׁה. וְכֻלָּן מִשּׁוּם חֵלֶב. וְחוּטֵי הַטְּחוֹל וְחוּטֵי הַכְּלָיוֹת מִשּׁוּם חֵלֶב. וְכֵן קְרוּם שֶׁעַל הַטְּחוֹל וּקְרוּם שֶׁעַל הַכְּסָלִים וּקְרוּם שֶׁעַל הַכְּלָיוֹת אֲסוּרִין מִשּׁוּם חֵלֶב. וּקְרוּם שֶׁעַל דַּד הַטְּחוֹל חַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. וּשְׁאָר הַקְּרוּם אָסוּר וְאֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו: \n", + "וּשְׁנֵי קְרוּמוֹת יֵשׁ לַכּוּלְיָא. הָעֶלְיוֹן חַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת כַּחֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַכּוּלְיָא. וְהַתַּחְתּוֹן הֲרֵי הוּא כִּשְׁאָר קְרוּמוֹת. וְחוּטִין שֶׁבָּהֶן אֲסוּרִין וְאֵין בָּהֶן כָּרֵת: \n", + "חוּטֵי הַלֵּב וְחוּטֵי הַיָּד וְחוּטֵי הָעֹקֶץ וְחוּטֵי הַלְּחִי הַתַּחְתּוֹן שֶׁבְּצַד הַלָּשׁוֹן מִיכָּן וּמִיכָּן. וְכֵן הַחוּטִין הַדַּקִּין שֶׁהֵן בְּתוֹךְ חֵלֶב הַדַּקִּין כְּמוֹ בֵּית עַכָּבִישׁ מְסֻבָּכִין זֶה בָּזֶה. וּקְרוּם שֶׁעַל הַמֹּחַ שֶׁבַּקֹּדְקֹד. וּקְרוּם שֶׁעַל הַבֵּיצִים. הַכּל אֲסוּרִין מִשּׁוּם דָּם: \n", + "בֵּיצֵי גְּדִי אוֹ טָלֶה שֶׁלֹּא הִשְׁלִים שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם מֻתָּר לְבַשְּׁלָן בְּלֹא קְלִיפָה. לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אִם נִרְאֶה בָּהֶן חוּטִין דַּקִּין אֲדֻמִּים בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהָלַךְ בָּהֶם הַדָּם וְלֹא יְבַשֵּׁל עַד שֶׁיִּקְלֹף אוֹ עַד שֶׁיֵּחָתֵךְ וְיִמָלַּח כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאִם עֲדַיִן לֹא נִרְאוּ בָּהֶן חוּטִין הָאֲדֻמִּים מֻתָּרִין: \n", + "וְכָל בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם שֶׁהַמַּאֲכָל סוֹבֵב בַּחֲלָלָן אֵין מַחֲזִיקִין בָּהֶן דָּם: \n", + "יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁכָּל אֵלּוּ הַחוּטִין וְהַקְּרוּמוֹת אִסּוּרָן מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים וְאִם תֹּאמַר שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין מִן הַתּוֹרָה בִּכְלַל (ויקרא ג יז) \"כָּל חֵלֶב וְכָל דָּם\" אֵין לוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶן אֶלָּא מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת וְיִהְיוּ כַּחֲצִי שִׁעוּר שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו: \n", + "אֵין מוֹלְחִין חֲלָבִים עִם הַבָּשָׂר וְלֹא מְדִיחִין חֲלָבִים עִם בָּשָׂר. וְסַכִּין שֶׁחָתַךְ בָּהּ חֲלָבִים לֹא יַחְתֹּךְ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר. וּכְלִי שֶׁהֵדִיחַ בּוֹ חֲלָבִים לֹא יָדִיחַ בּוֹ בָּשָׂר. לְפִיכָךְ צָרִיךְ הַטַּבָּח לְהַתְקִין שָׁלֹשׁ סַכִּינִין. אַחַת שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט בָּהּ. וְאַחַת שֶׁמְּחַתֵּךְ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר. וְאַחַת שֶׁמְּחַתֵּךְ בָּהּ חֲלָבִים: \n", + "וְאִם דֶּרֶךְ אוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם שֶׁיָּדִיחַ הַטַּבָּח הַבָּשָׂר בַּחֲנוּת. צָרִיךְ לְהַתְקִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים שֶׁל מַיִם אֶחָד שֶׁמֵּדִיחַ בּוֹ בָּשָׂר וְאֶחָד שֶׁמֵּדִיחַ בּוֹ חֲלָבִים: \n", + "וְאָסוּר לַטַּבָּח לִפְרשֹׁ חֵלֶב הַכְּסָלִים עַל הַבָּשָׂר כְּדֵי לְנָאוֹתוֹ. שֶׁהַקְּרוּם שֶׁעַל הַחֵלֶב דַּק וְיִתְמַעֵךְ בְּיַד הַטַּבָּח וְיָזוּב הַחֵלֶב וְיִבָּלַע בַּבָּשָׂר. וְכָל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹתָן. וִאִם נַעֲשׂוּ לֹא נֵאֻסַר הַבָּשָׂר. וִאֵין מַכִּין אֶת הָעוֹשֶׂה אֶלָּא מְלַמְּדִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה: \n", + "וְכֵן אֵין מוֹלְחִין אֶת הַבָּשָׂר קֹדֶם שֶׁיָּסִיר מִמֶּנּוּ אֶת הַקְּרוּמוֹת וְאֶת הַחוּטִין הָאֲסוּרִין. וְאִם מָלַח מְסִירָם אַחַר שֶׁנִּמְלְחוּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה בָּהֶן גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה מְסִירוֹ אַחַר שֶׁנִּמְלַח וּמְבַשֵּׁל: \n", + "וְטַבָּח שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְנַקּוֹת הַבָּשָׂר וְנִמְצָא אַחֲרָיו חוּט אוֹ קְרוּם מְלַמְּדִין אוֹתוֹ וּמַזְהִירִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יְזַלְזֵל בְּאִסּוּרִין. אֲבָל אִם נִמְצָא אַחֲרָיו חֵלֶב אִם הָיָה כִּשְׂעוֹרָה מַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ. וְאִם נִמְצָא אַחֲרָיו כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב אֲפִלּוּ בִּמְקוֹמוֹת הַרְבֵּה מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת וּמַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַטַּבָּח נֶאֱמָן עַל הַחֵלֶב: \n" + ], + [ + "גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה נוֹהֵג בִּבְהֵמָה וְחַיָּה הַטְּהוֹרִין וַאֲפִלּוּ בִּנְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶן. וְנוֹהֵג בְּשָׁלִיל וּבְמֻקְדָּשִׁין בֵּין קָדָשִׁים הַנֶּאֱכָלִים בֵּין קָדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין. וְנוֹהֵג בְּיָרֵךְ שֶׁל יָמִין וּבְיָרֵךְ שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל. וְאֵין אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא שֶׁעַל כַּף הַיָּרֵךְ בִּלְבַד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית לב לג) \"אֲשֶׁר עַל כַּף הַיָּרֵךְ\". אֲבָל שְׁאָר הַגִּיד שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה מִן הַכַּף וְשֶׁלְּמַטָּה עַד סוֹפוֹ וְכֵן חֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַגִּיד אֵינוֹ אָסוּר אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. וּשְׁנֵי גִּידִין הֵן. הַפְּנִימִי הַסָּמוּךְ לָעֶצֶם אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וְהָעֶלְיוֹן כֻּלּוֹ אָסוּר מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל מִגִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה הַפְּנִימִי מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁעַל הַכַּף לוֹקֶה. וְאִם אָכַל מֵחֶלְבּוֹ אוֹ מִשְּׁאָר הַגִּיד הַפְּנִימִי אוֹ מִכָּל הַחִיצוֹן מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. וְכַמָּה שִׁעוּר אֲכִילָה. כְּזַיִת. וְאִם אָכַל הַגִּיד שֶׁעַל הַכַּף כֻּלּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כִּבְרִיָּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ: \n", + "אָכַל כְּזַיִת מִגִּיד שֶׁל יָמִין וּכְזַיִת מִגִּיד שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל. אוֹ שֶׁאָכַל שְׁנֵי גִּידִים כֻּלָּן. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה שְׁמוֹנִים. (וְכֵן הוּא לוֹקֶה עַל כָּל גִּיד וְגִיד): \n", + "הָעוֹף אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כַּף יָרֵךְ אֶלָּא יְרֵכוֹ אָרֹךְ. וְאִם נִמְצָא עוֹף שֶׁיְּרֵכוֹ כְּיֶרֶךְ הַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ כַּף גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁלּוֹ אָסוּר וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו. וְכֵן בְּהֵמָה שֶׁכַּף יְרֵכָהּ אָרֹךְ כְּשֶׁל עוֹף גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁלָּהּ אָסוּר וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה מִבְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה הַטְּמֵאִים פָּטוּר לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בִּטְמֵאָה אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה שֶׁכֻּלָּהּ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאֵינוֹ כְּאוֹכֵל מִשְּׁאָר גּוּפָהּ שֶׁאֵין הַגִּידִים מִכְּלַל הַבָּשָׂר כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאִם אָכַל מֵחֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַגִּיד הֲרֵי זֶה כְּאוֹכֵל מִבְּשָׂרָהּ: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁל נְבֵלָה אוֹ שֶׁל טְרֵפָה אוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָה חַיָּב שְׁתַּיִם. מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנִּכְלָל בְּאִסּוּר שְׁאָר גּוּפָהּ שֶׁהָיָה מֻתָּר נִכְלָל גַּם הַגִּיד וְנוֹסָף עָלָיו אִסּוּר אַחֵר: \n", + "הַנּוֹטֵל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה צָרִיךְ לְחַטֵּט אַחֲרָיו עַד שֶׁלֹּא יַשְׁאִיר מִמֶּנּוּ כְּלוּם. וְנֶאֱמָן הַטַּבָּח עַל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנֶּאֱמָן עַל הַחֵלֶב. וְאֵין לוֹקְחִין בָּשָׂר מִכָּל טַבָּח אֶלָּא אִם הָיָה אָדָם כָּשֵׁר וּמֻחְזָק בְּכַשְׁרוּת הוּא שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט לְעַצְמוֹ וּמוֹכֵר וְנֶאֱמָן: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. אֲבָל בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּזְמַן שֶׁכֻּלָּהּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לוֹקְחִין מִכָּל אָדָם: \n", + "טַבָּח הַנֶּאֱמָן לִמְכֹּר בָּשָׂר וְנִמְצָא בְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה אוֹ בְּשַׂר טְרֵפָה יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ. מַחֲזִיר אֶת הַדָּמִים לַבְּעָלִים ומְשַׁמְּתִין אוֹתוֹ וּמַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ. וְאֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה לְעוֹלָם לִקַּח מִמֶּנּוּ בָּשָׂר עַד שֶׁיֵּלֵךְ לְמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַכִּירִין אוֹתוֹ וְיַחֲזִיר אֲבֵדָה בְּדָבָר חָשׁוּב אוֹ יִשְׁחֹט לְעַצְמוֹ וְיוֹצִיא טְרֵפָה לְעַצְמוֹ בְּמָמוֹן חָשׁוּב שֶׁוַּדַּאי עָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה בְּלֹא הַעֲרָמָה: \n", + "הַלּוֹקֵחַ בָּשָׂר וּשְׁלָחוֹ בְּיַד אֶחָד מֵעַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן עָלָיו. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֻחְזָק בְּכַשְׁרוּת אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא יַחֲלִיף. וַאֲפִלּוּ עַבְדֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאַמְהוֹתֵיהֶן נֶאֱמָנִין בְּדָבָר זֶה. אֲבָל לֹא עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁמָּא יַחֲלִיף: \n", + "עֶשֶׂר חֲנֻיּוֹת תֵּשַׁע מוֹכְרוֹת בְּשַׂר שְׁחוּטָה וְאַחַת מוֹכֶרֶת נְבֵלוֹת וְלָקַח בָּשָׂר מֵאַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ מֵאֵיזֶה מֵהֶן לָקַח הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר שֶׁכָּל קָבוּעַ כְּמֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה דָּמִי. אֲבָל בָּשָׂר הַנִּמְצָא מֻשְׁלָךְ בַּשּׁוּק הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הָרֹב דְּכָל דְּפָרִישׁ מֵרֻבָּא פָּרִישׁ. אִם הָיוּ רֹב הַמּוֹכְרִים עַכּוּ\"ם אָסוּר. וְאִם הָיוּ רֹב הַמּוֹכְרִים יִשְׂרָאֵל מֻתָּר: \n", + "וְכֵן בָּשָׂר הַנִּמְצָא בְּיַד עַכּוּ\"ם וְאֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ מִמִּי לָקַח אִם הָיוּ מוֹכְרֵי הַבָּשָׂר יִשְׂרָאֵל מֻתָּר. זֶה הוּא דִּין תּוֹרָה. וּכְבָר אָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים כָּל הַבָּשָׂר הַנִּמְצָא בֵּין בַּשּׁוּק בֵּין בְּיַד עַכּוּ\"ם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּל הַשּׁוֹחֲטִין וְכָל הַמּוֹכְרִין יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא הַלּוֹקֵחַ בָּשָׂר וְהִנִּיחוֹ בְּבֵיתוֹ וְנֶעֱלַם מִן הָעַיִן אָסוּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה לוֹ בּוֹ סִימָן אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ בּוֹ טְבִיעַת עַיִן וְהוּא מַכִּירוֹ וַדַּאי שֶׁהוּא זֶה אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה צָרוּר וְחָתוּם: \n", + "תָּלָה כְּלִי מָלֵא חֲתִיכוֹת בָּשָׂר וְנִשְׁבַּר הַכְּלִי וְנָפְלוּ הַחֲתִיכוֹת לָאָרֶץ וּבָא וּמָצָא חֲתִיכוֹת וְאֵין לוֹ בָּהֶן סִימָן וְלֹא טְבִיעַת עַיִן הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹמַר אוֹתוֹ בָּשָׂר שֶׁהָיָה בַּכְּלִי גְּרָרַתּוּ חַיָּה אוֹ שֶׁרֶץ וְזֶה בָּשָׂר אַחֵר הוּא: \n", + "גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה. לְפִיכָךְ מֻתָּר לְאָדָם לִשְׁלֹחַ לְעַכּוּ\"ם יָרֵךְ שֶׁגִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה בְּתוֹכָהּ. וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ הַיָּרֵךְ שְׁלֵמָה בִּפְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא יֹאכַל מִמֶּנָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל זֶה קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּנָּטֵל הַגִּיד שֶׁהֲרֵי מְקוֹמוֹ נִכָּר. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיְתָה הַיָּרֵךְ חֲתוּכָה לֹא יִתְּנֶנָּה לְעַכּוּ\"ם בִּפְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד שֶׁיִּטּל הַגִּיד שֶׁמָּא יֹאכַל מִמֶּנָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל: \n", + "כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה לֹא תֹאכַל לֹא תֹאכְלוּ לֹא יֹאכְלוּ לֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶחָד אִסּוּר אֲכִילָה וְאֶחָד אִסּוּר הֲנָאָה בְּמַשְׁמָע עַד שֶׁיִּפְרֹט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁפֵּרֵט לְךָ בִּנְבֵלָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד כא) \"לַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תִּתְּנֶנָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ\" וְכַחֵלֶב שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ (ויקרא ז כד) \"יֵעָשֶׂה לְכָל מְלָאכָה\". אוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּתְפָּרֵשׁ בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה שֶׁהוּא מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה. כְּגוֹן שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים וְדָם וְאֵיבָר מִן הַחַי וְגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה. שֶׁכָּל אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין בַּהֲנָאָה מִפִּי הַקַּבָּלָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה: \n", + "כָּל מַאֲכָל שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה אִם נֶהֱנָה וְלֹא אָכַל כְּגוֹן שֶׁמָּכַר אוֹ נָתַן לְעַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ לִכְלָבִים אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. וּמַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת וְהַדָּמִים מֻתָּרִין. וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁאָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּמֻתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ סְחוֹרָה וּלְכַוֵּן מְלַאכְתּוֹ בִּדְבָרִים אֲסוּרִים חוּץ מִן הַחֵלֶב שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ (ויקרא ז כד) \"יֵעָשֶׂה לְכָל מְלָאכָה\". לְפִיכָךְ אֵין עוֹשִׂין סְחוֹרָה לֹא בִּנְבֵלוֹת וְלֹא בִּטְרֵפוֹת וְלֹא בִּשְׁקָצִים וְלֹא בִּרְמָשִׂים: \n", + "הַצַּיָּד שֶׁנִּזְדַּמְּנוּ לוֹ חַיָּה אוֹ עוֹף וְדָג טְמֵאִים וְצָדָן אוֹ שֶׁנִּצּוֹדוּ לוֹ טְמֵאִים וּטְהוֹרִים מֻתָּר לְמָכְרָן. אֲבָל לֹא יְכַוֵּן מְלַאכְתּוֹ לִטְמֵאִים. וּמֻתָּר לַעֲשׂוֹת סְחוֹרָה בְּחָלָב שֶׁחֲלָבוֹ עַכּוּ\"ם וְאֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל רוֹאֵהוּ וּבִגְבִינוֹת הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן: \n", + "זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל שֶׁאִסּוּרוֹ מִן הַתּוֹרָה אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ סְחוֹרָה וְכָל שֶׁאִסּוּרוֹ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם מֻתָּר לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ סְחוֹרָה בֵּין בִּסְפֵקוֹ בֵּין בְּוַדָּאוֹ: \n" + ], + [ + "בָשָׂר בְּחָלָב אָסוּר לְבַשְּׁלוֹ וְאָסוּר לְאָכְלוֹ מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וְאָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. וְקוֹבְרִין אוֹתוֹ. וְאֶפְרוֹ אָסוּר כְּאֵפֶר כָּל הַנִּקְבָּרִין. וּמִי שֶׁיְּבַשֵּׁל מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם כְּזַיִת כְּאֶחָד לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כג יט) (שמות לד כו) (דברים יד כא) \"לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ\". וְכֵן הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם מֵהַבָּשָׂר וְהֶחָלָב שֶׁנִּתְבַּשְּׁלוּ כְּאֶחָד לוֹקֶה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא בִּשֵּׁל: ", + "לֹא שָׁתַק הַכָּתוּב מִלֶּאֱסֹר הָאֲכִילָה אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָסַר הַבִּשּׁוּל כְּלוֹמַר וַאֲפִלּוּ בִּשּׁוּלוֹ אָסוּר וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אֲכִילָתוֹ. כְּמוֹ שֶׁשָּׁתַק מִלֶּאֱסֹר הַבַּת מֵאַחַר שֶׁאָסַר בַּת הַבַּת: ", + "אֵין אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה בַּחֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כג יט) (שמות לד כו) (דברים יד כא) \"לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ\". וּגְדִי הוּא כּוֹלֵל וְלַד הַשּׁוֹר וְלַד הַשֶּׂה וְלַד הָעֵז עַד שֶׁיִּפְרֹט וְיֹאמַר גְּדִי עִזִּים וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב בַּהוֹוֶה. אֲבָל בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה (שֶׁבִּשְּׁלוֹ) בַּחֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה. אוֹ בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה (שֶׁבִּשְּׁלוֹ) בַּחֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה מֻתָּר לְבַשֵּׁל וּמֻתֶּרֶת בַּהֲנָיָה וְאֵין חַיָּבִין עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ מִשּׁוּם בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב: ", + "וְכֵן בְּשַׂר חַיָּה וְעוֹף בֵּין בַּחֲלֵב חַיָּה בֵּין בַּחֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה אֵינוֹ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה לְפִיכָךְ מֻתָּר לְבַשְּׁלוֹ וּמֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה. וְאָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִפְשְׁעוּ הָעָם וְיָבוֹאוּ לִידֵי אִסּוּר בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב שֶׁל תּוֹרָה וְיֹאכְלוּ בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה בַּחֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין מַשְׁמַע הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ מַמָּשׁ. לְפִיכָךְ אָסְרוּ כָּל בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב: ", + "דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים מֻתָּר לְאָכְלָן בְּחָלָב. וְהַשּׁוֹחֵט עוֹף וְנִמְצָא בּוֹ בֵּיצִים גְּמוּרוֹת מֻתָּר לְאָכְלָן בְּחָלָב: ", + "הַמְעֻשָּׁן וְהַמְבֻשָּׁל בְּחַמֵּי טְבֶרְיָא וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן אֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו. וְכֵן הַמְבַשֵּׁל בָּשָׂר בְּמֵי חָלָב אוֹ בַּחֲלֵב מֵתָה אוֹ בַּחֲלֵב זָכָר אוֹ שֶׁבִּשֵּׁל דָּם בְּחָלָב פָּטוּר וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ מִשּׁוּם בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב. אֲבָל הַמְבַשֵּׁל בְּשַׂר מֵתָה אוֹ חֵלֶב וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן בְּחָלָב לוֹקֶה עַל בִּשּׁוּלוֹ וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ מִשּׁוּם בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב. שֶׁאֵין אִסּוּר בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב חָל עַל אִסּוּר נְבֵלָה אוֹ אִסּוּר חֵלֶב. שֶׁאֵין כָּאן לֹא אִסּוּר כּוֹלֵל וְלֹא אִסּוּר מוֹסִיף וְלֹא אִסּוּר בַּת אַחַת: ", + "הַמְבַשֵּׁל שָׁלִיל בְּחָלָב חַיָּב וְכֵן הָאוֹכְלוֹ. אֲבָל הַמְבַשֵּׁל שִׁלְיָא אוֹ עוֹר וְגִידִין וַעֲצָמוֹת וְעִקְּרֵי קַרְנַיִם וּטְלָפַיִם הָרַכִּים בְּחָלָב פָּטוּר. וְכֵן הָאוֹכְלָן פָּטוּר: ", + "בָּשָׂר שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ הֶחָלָב אוֹ חָלָב שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ הַבָּשָׂר וְנִתְבַּשֵּׁל עִמּוֹ שִׁעוּרוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. כֵּיצַד. חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל בָּשָׂר שֶׁנָּפְלָה לִקְדֵרָה רוֹתַחַת שֶׁל חָלָב. טוֹעֵם הַנָּכְרִי אֶת הַקְּדֵרָה. אִם אָמַר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ טַעַם בָּשָׂר אֲסוּרָה. וְאִם לָאו מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאוֹתָהּ חֲתִיכָה אֲסוּרָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁקָּדַם וְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַחֲתִיכָה קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּפְלֹט חָלָב שֶׁבָּלְעָה. אֲבָל אִם לֹא סִלֵּק מְשַׁעֲרִים אוֹתָהּ בְּשִׁשִּׁים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֶחָלָב שֶׁנִּבְלָע בָּהּ וְנֶאֱסַר יָצָא וְנִתְעָרֵב עִם שְׁאָר הֶחָלָב: ", + "נָפַל חָלָב לְתוֹךְ קְדֵרָה שֶׁל בָּשָׂר טוֹעֲמִין אֶת הַחֲתִיכָה שֶׁנָּפַל עָלֶיהָ חָלָב. אִם אֵין בָּהּ טַעַם חָלָב הַכּל מֻתָּר. וְאִם יֵשׁ בַּחֲתִיכָה טַעַם חָלָב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאִם תִּסָּחֵט הַחֲתִיכָה לֹא יִשָּׁאֵר בָּהּ טַעַם. הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ בָּהּ עַתָּה טַעַם חָלָב נֶאֶסְרָה אוֹתָהּ חֲתִיכָה. וּמְשַׁעֲרִין בְּכֻלָּהּ אִם הָיָה בְּכָל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בַּקְּדֵרָה מִן הַחֲתִיכוֹת וְהָיָּרָק וְהַמָּרָק וְהַתַּבְלִין כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּהְיֶה חֲתִיכָה זוֹ אֶחָד מִשִּׁשִּׁים מִן הַכּל הַחֲתִיכָה אֲסוּרָה וְהַשְּׁאָר מֻתָּר: ", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁלֹּא נִעֵר אֶת הַקְּדֵרָה בַּתְּחִלָּה כְּשֶׁנָּפַל הֶחָלָב אֶלָּא לְבַסּוֹף וְלֹא כִּסָּה. אֲבָל אִם נִעֵר מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף אוֹ שֶׁכִּסָּה מִשְּׁעַת נְפִילָה עַד סוֹף הֲרֵי זֶה בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. וְכֵן אִם נָפַל חָלָב לְתוֹךְ הַמָּרָק אוֹ לְכָל הַחֲתִיכוֹת וְלֹא נוֹדַע לְאֵי זֶה חֲתִיכָה נָפַל. נוֹעֵר אֶת הַקְּדֵרָה כֻּלָּהּ עַד שֶׁתָּשׁוּב וְיִתְעָרֵב הַכּל. אִם יֵשׁ בַּקְּדֵרָה כֻּלָּהּ טַעַם חָלָב אֲסוּרָה וְאִם לָאו מֻתֶּרֶת. אִם לֹא נִמְצָא נָכְרִי שֶׁיִּטְעֹם וְנִסְמֹךְ עָלָיו מְשַׁעֲרִים בְּשִׁשִּׁים בֵּין בָּשָׂר לְתוֹךְ חָלָב בֵּין חָלָב לְתוֹךְ בָּשָׂר אֶחָד מִשִּׁשִּׁים מֻתָּר פָּחוֹת מִשִּׁשִּׁים אָסוּר: ", + "קְדֵרָה שֶׁבִּשֵּׁל בָּהּ בָּשָׂר לֹא יְבַשֵּׁל בָּהּ חָלָב. וְאִם בִּשֵּׁל בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם: ", + "הַכְּחַל אָסוּר מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. שֶׁאֵין בָּשָׂר שֶׁנִתְבַּשֵּׁל בַּחֲלֵב שְׁחוּטָה אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם קְרָעוֹ וּמֵרֵק הֶחָלָב שֶׁבּוֹ מֻתָּר לִצְלוֹתוֹ וּלְאָכְלוֹ. וְאִם קְרָעוֹ שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב וְטָחוֹ בַּכֹּתֶל עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁאַר בּוֹ לַחְלוּחִית חָלָב מֻתָּר לְבַשְּׁלוֹ עִם הַבָּשָׂר. וּכְחַל שֶׁלֹּא קְרָעוֹ בֵּין שֶׁל קְטַנָּה שֶׁלֹּא הֵינִיקָה בֵּין שֶׁל גְּדוֹלָה אָסוּר לְבַשְּׁלוֹ. וְאִם עָבַר וּבִשְּׁלוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ מֻתָּר לְאָכְלוֹ. וְאִם בִּשְּׁלוֹ עִם בָּשָׂר אַחֵר מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשִׁשִּׁים וּכְחַל מִן הַמִּנְיָן: ", + "כֵּיצַד. אִם הָיָה הַכּל עִם הַכְּחַל כְּמוֹ שִׁשִּׁים בַּכְּחַל הַכְּחַל אָסוּר וְהַשְּׁאָר מֻתָּר. וְאִם הָיָה בְּפָחוֹת מִשִּׁשִּׁים הַכּל אָסוּר. בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ אִם נָפַל לִקְדֵרָה אַחֶרֶת אוֹסֵר אוֹתָהּ וּמְשַׁעֲרִין בּוֹ בְּשִׁשִּׁים כְּבָרִאשׁוֹנָה. שֶׁהַכְּחַל עַצְמוֹ שֶׁנִתְבַּשֵּׁל נַעֲשָׂה כַּחֲתִיכָה הָאֲסוּרָה וְאֵין מְשַׁעֲרִין בּוֹ אֶלָּא כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא בְּעֵת שֶׁנִתְבַּשֵּׁל לֹא כְּמוֹת שֶׁהָיָה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁנָּפַל: ", + "אֵין צוֹלִין אֶת הַכְּחַל שֶׁחֲתָכוֹ [לְמַעְלָה] מִן הַבָּשָׂר בְּשִׁפּוּד. וְאִם צָלָהוּ הַכּל מֻתָּר: ", + "קֵבָה שֶׁבִּשְּׁלָהּ בֶּחָלָב שֶׁבָּהּ מֻתֶּרֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ חָלָב אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הוּא כְּטִנֹּפֶת שֶׁהֲרֵי יִשְׁתַּנֶּה בַּמֵּעַיִם: ", + "אָסוּר לְהַעֲמִיד הַגְּבִינָה בְּעוֹר הַקֵּבָה שֶׁל שְׁחוּטָה. וְאִם הֶעֱמִיד טוֹעֵם אֶת הַגְּבִינָה אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ טַעַם בָּשָׂר אֲסוּרָה וְאִם לָאו מֻתֶּרֶת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַמַּעֲמִיד דָּבָר הַמֻּתָּר הוּא. שֶׁקֵּיבַת שְׁחוּטָה הִיא. וְאֵין כָּאן אֶלָּא אִסּוּר בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב שֶׁשִּׁעוּרוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. אֲבָל הַמַּעֲמִיד בְּעוֹר קֵיבַת נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה וּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה הוֹאִיל וְהַמַּעֲמִיד דָּבָר הָאָסוּר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ נֶאֶסְרָה הַגְּבִינָה מִשּׁוּם נְבֵלָה לֹא מִשּׁוּם בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב. וּמִפְּנֵי חֲשָׁשׁ זֶה אָסְרוּ גְּבִינַת עַכּוּ\"ם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: ", + "הַבָּשָׂר לְבַדּוֹ מֻתָּר וְהֶחָלָב לְבַדּוֹ מֻתָּר וּבְהִתְעָרֵב שְׁנֵיהֶן עַל יְדֵי בִּשּׁוּל יֵאָסְרוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁנִּתְבַּשְּׁלוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּיַחַד אוֹ שֶׁנָּפַל חַם לְתוֹךְ חַם אוֹ צוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ חַם. אֲבָל אִם נָפַל אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם וְהוּא חַם לְתוֹךְ הַשֵּׁנִי וְהוּא צוֹנֵן קוֹלֵף הַבָּשָׂר כֻּלּוֹ שֶׁנָּגַע בּוֹ הֶחָלָב וְאוֹכֵל הַשְּׁאָר. וְאִם נָפַל צוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן מֵדִיחַ הַחֲתִיכָה וְאוֹכְלָהּ. לְפִיכָךְ מֻתָּר לִצְרֹר בָּשָׂר וּגְבִינָה בְּמִטְפַּחַת אַחַת וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִגְּעוּ זֶה בָּזֶה. וְאִם נָגְעוּ מֵדִיחַ הַבָּשָׂר וּמֵדִיחַ הַגְּבִינָה וְאוֹכֵל: ", + "מָלִיחַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל מֵחֲמַת מִלְחוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרוֹתֵחַ. וְאִם נֶאֱכָל כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא כְּמוֹ הַכּוּתָח אֵינוֹ כְּרוֹתֵחַ: ", + "עוֹף שָׁחוּט שֶׁנָּפַל לְחָלָב אוֹ לְכוּתָח שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ חָלָב. אִם חַי הוּא מְדִיחוֹ וּמֻתָּר. וְאִם צָלִי קוֹלְפוֹ. וְאִם הָיוּ בּוֹ פְּלָחִים פְּלָחִים אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מְתֻבָּל בְּתַבְלִין וְנָפַל לְחָלָב אוֹ לְכוּתָח הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר: ", + "אָסוּר לְהַעֲלוֹת הָעוֹף עִם הַגְּבִינָה עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן שֶׁהוּא אוֹכֵל עָלָיו גְּזֵרָה מִשּׁוּם הֶרְגֵּל עֲבֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאכַל זֶה עִם זֶה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָעוֹף בְּחָלָב אָסוּר מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים: ", + "שְׁנֵי אַכְסַנָּאִין שֶׁאֵינָם מַכִּירִין זֶה אֶת זֶה אוֹכְלִין עַל שֻׁלְחָן אֶחָד זֶה בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה וְזֶה גְּבִינָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין זֶה גַּס לִבּוֹ בָּזֶה כְּדֵי שֶׁיֹּאכַל עִמּוֹ: ", + "אֵין לָשִׁין הָעִסָּה בְּחָלָב וְאִם לָשׁ כָּל הַפַּת אֲסוּרָה מִפְּנֵי הֶרְגֵּל עֲבֵרָה. שֶׁמָּא יֹאכַל בָּהּ בָּשָׂר. וְאֵין טָשִׁין אֶת הַתַּנּוּר בְּאַלְיָה. וְאִם טָשׁ כָּל הַפַּת אֲסוּרָה עַד שֶׁיַּסִּיק אֶת הַתַּנּוּר שֶׁמָּא יֹאכַל בָּהּ חָלָב. וְאִם שִׁנָּה בְּצוּרַת הַפַּת עַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה נִכֶּרֶת כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכַל בָּהּ לֹא בָּשָׂר וְלֹא חָלָב הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר: ", + "פַּת שֶׁאֲפָאָהּ עִם הַצָּלִי וְדָגִים שֶׁצְּלָאָן עִם הַבָּשָׂר אָסוּר לְאָכְלָן בְּחָלָב. קְעָרָה שֶׁאָכְלוּ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר וּבִשְּׁלוּ בָּהּ דָּגִים אוֹתָן הַדָּגִים מֻתָּר לְאָכְלָן בְּכוּתָח: ", + "סַכִּין שֶׁחָתַךְ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר צָלִי וְחָזַר וְחָתַךְ בָּהּ צְנוֹן וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ מִדְּבָרִים חֲרִיפִין אָסוּר לְאָכְלָן בְּכוּתָח. אֲבָל אִם חָתַךְ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר וְחָזַר וְחָתַךְ בָּהּ קִישׁוּת אוֹ אֲבַטִּיחַ גּוֹרֵד מְקוֹם הַחֲתָךְ וְאוֹכֵל הַשְּׁאָר בְּחָלָב: ", + "אֵין מַנִּיחִין כַּד שֶׁל מֶלַח בְּצַד כַּד שֶׁל כְּמָךְ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשּׁוֹאֵב מִמֶּנּוּ וְנִמְצָא מְבַשֵּׁל הַבָּשָׂר בְּמֶלַח זֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ טַעַם הֶחָלָב. אֲבָל מַנִּיחַ כַּד הַחֹמֶץ בְּצַד כַּד הַכְּמָךְ שֶׁאֵין הַחֹמֶץ שׁוֹאֵב מִמֶּנּוּ: ", + "מִי שֶׁאָכַל גְּבִינָה אוֹ חָלָב תְּחִלָּה מֻתָּר לֶאֱכל אַחֲרָיו בָּשָׂר מִיָּד. וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיָּדִיחַ יָדָיו וִיקַנֵּחַ פִּיו בֵּין הַגְּבִינָה וּבֵין הַבָּשָׂר. וּבְמַה מְקַנֵּחַ פִּיו בְּפַת אוֹ בְּפֵרוֹת שֶׁלּוֹעֲסָן וּבוֹלְעָן אוֹ פּוֹלְטָן. וּבַכּל מְקַנְּחִין אֶת הַפֶּה חוּץ מִתְּמָרִים אוֹ קֶמַח אוֹ יְרָקוֹת שֶׁאֵין אֵלּוּ מְקַנְּחִין יָפֶה: ", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּבְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה אוֹ חַיָּה. אֲבָל אִם אָכַל בְּשַׂר עוֹף אַחַר שֶׁאָכַל הַגְּבִינָה אוֹ הֶחָלָב אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לֹא קִנּוּחַ הַפֶּה וְלֹא נְטִילַת יָדַיִם: ", + "מִי שֶׁאָכַל בָּשָׂר בַּתְּחִלָּה בֵּין בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה בֵּין בְּשַׂר עוֹף לֹא יֹאכַל אַחֲרָיו חָלָב עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בֵּינֵיהֶן כְּדֵי שִׁעוּר סְעֻדָּה אַחֶרֶת וְהוּא כְּמוֹ שֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת מִפְּנֵי הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁל בֵּין הַשִּׁנַּיִם שֶׁאֵינוֹ סָר בְּקִנּוּחַ: " + ], + [ + "כָּל אִסּוּרִין שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ הֵן בְּמִינֵי נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה. וְיֵשׁ אִסּוּרִין אֲחֵרִים שֶׁל תּוֹרָה בְּזֶרַע הָאָרֶץ וְהֵן הֶחָדָשׁ וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם וְהַטֶּבֶל וְהָעָרְלָה: \n", + "הֶחָדָשׁ כֵּיצַד. כָּל אֶחָד מֵחֲמִשָּׁה מִינֵי תְּבוּאָה בִּלְבַד אָסוּר לֶאֱכל מֵהֶחָדָשׁ שֶׁלּוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּקָּרֵב הָעֹמֶר בְּט\"ז בְּנִיסָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כג יד) \"וְלֶחֶם וְקָלִי וְכַרְמֶל לֹא תֹאכְלוּ\". וְכָל הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת חָדָשׁ קֹדֶם הַקְרָבַת הָעֹמֶר לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם וּבְכָל זְמַן בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ בֵּין בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת. אֶלָּא שֶׁבִּזְמַן שֶׁיֵּשׁ מִקְדָּשׁ מִשֶּׁיִּקָּרֵב הָעֹמֶר הֻתַּר הֶחָדָשׁ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם. וְהַמְּקוֹמוֹת הָרְחוֹקִין מֻתָּרִין אַחַר חֲצוֹת שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין מִתְעַצְּלִין בּוֹ עַד אַחַר חֲצוֹת. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁאֵין בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ כָּל הַיּוֹם כֻּלּוֹ אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וּבַזְּמַן הַזֶּה בִּמְקוֹמוֹת שֶׁעוֹשִׂין שְׁנֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים הֶחָדָשׁ אָסוּר כָּל יוֹם י\"ז בְּנִיסָן עַד לָעֶרֶב מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל לֶחֶם וְקָלִי וְכַרְמֶל כְּזַיִת מִכָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד לוֹקֶה שָׁלֹשׁ מַלְקִיּוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כג יד) \"וְלֶחֶם וְקָלִי וְכַרְמֶל לֹא תֹאכְלוּ\". מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁשְּׁלָשְׁתָּן בַּלָּאוִין חֲלוּקִין זֶה מִזֶּה: \n", + "כָּל תְּבוּאָה שֶׁהִשְׁרִישָׁה קֹדֶם הַקְרָבַת הָעֹמֶר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה אֶלָּא אַחַר שֶׁקָּרַב מֻתֶּרֶת בַּאֲכִילָה מִשֶּׁקָּרַב הָעֹמֶר. וּתְבוּאָה שֶׁהִשְׁרִישָׁה אַחַר שֶׁקָּרַב הָעֹמֶר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיְתָה זְרוּעָה קֹדֶם שֶׁקָּרַב הָעֹמֶר הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה עַד שֶׁיִּקָּרֵב הָעֹמֶר שֶׁל שָׁנָה הַבָּאָה. וְדִין זֶה בְּכָל מָקוֹם וּבְכָל זְמַן מִן הַתּוֹרָה: \n", + "תְּבוּאָה שֶׁהִשְׁרִישָׁה אַחַר הָעֹמֶר וּקְצָרָה וְזָרַע מִן הַחִטִּים בַּקַּרְקַע. וְאַחַר כָּךְ קָרַב הָעֹמֶר הַבָּא וַעֲדַיִן הַחִטִּים בַּקַּרְקַע. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ סָפֵק אִם הִתִּירָן הָעֹמֶר כְּאִלּוּ הָיוּ מֻנָּחִין בְּכַד. אוֹ לֹא יַתִּיר אוֹתָן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבָּטְלוּ בַּקַּרְקַע. לְפִיכָךְ אִם לִקֵּט מֵהֶם וְאָכַל אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. וּמַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. וְכֵן שִׁבּלֶת שֶׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ מִלִּפְנֵי הָעֹמֶר וַעֲקָרָהּ וּשְׁתָלָהּ אַחַר שֶׁקָּרַב הָעֹמֶר וְהוֹסִיפָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק אִם תִּהְיֶה אֲסוּרָה מִפְּנֵי הַתּוֹסֶפֶת עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא הָעֹמֶר הַבָּא אוֹ לֹא תִּהְיֶה אֲסוּרָה שֶׁהֲרֵי הִשְׁרִישָׁה קֹדֶם הָעֹמֶר: \n", + "כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם כֵּיצַד. מִין מִמִּינֵי תְּבוּאָה אוֹ מִינֵי יְרָקוֹת שֶׁנִּזְרְעוּ עִם הַגֶּפֶן. בֵּין שֶׁזָּרַע יִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּין שֶׁזָּרַע נָכְרִי. בֵּין שֶׁעָלוּ מֵאֲלֵיהֶן. בֵּין שֶׁנָּטַע הַגֶּפֶן בְּתוֹךְ הָיָּרָק. שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲסוּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה וּבַהֲנָיָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב ט) \"פֶּן תִּקְדַּשׁ הַמְּלֵאָה הַזֶּרַע אֲשֶׁר תִּזְרָע וּתְבוּאַת הַכָּרֶם\". כְּלוֹמַר פֶּן תִּתְרַחֵק וְתֶאֱסֹר שְׁנֵיהֶם: \n", + "וְהָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִכִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם בֵּין מִן הַיָּרָק בֵּין מִן הָעֲנָבִים לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁנִּזְרְעוּ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. אֲבָל בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. וּבְהִלְכוֹת כִּלְאַיִם יִתְבָּאֵר אֵי זֶה מִין אָסוּר בְּכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם וְאֵי זֶה מִין אֵינוֹ אָסוּר וְהֵיאַךְ יֶאֱסֹר וּמָתַי יֵאָסֵר וְאֵי זֶה דָּבָר מְקַדֵּשׁ וְאֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ מְקַדֵּשׁ: \n", + "הָעָרְלָה כֵּיצַד. כָּל הַנּוֹטֵעַ אִילַן מַאֲכָל כָּל פֵּרוֹת שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ אִילָן שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים מִשֶּׁנָּטַע הֲרֵי הֵן אֲסוּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה וּבַהֲנָאָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט כג) \"שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים יִהְיֶה לָכֶם עֲרֵלִים לֹא יֵאָכֵל\". וְכָל הָאוֹכֵל מֵהֶם כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּנוֹטֵעַ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט כג) \"כִּי תָבֹאוּ אֶל הָאָרֶץ\" וְגוֹ'. אֲבָל אִסּוּר עָרְלָה בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי שֶׁוַּדַּאי הָעָרְלָה בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ אֲסוּרָה וּסְפֵקָהּ מֻתָּר. וּבְהִלְכוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי יִתְבָּאֵר דְּבָרִים הָאֲסוּרִין מִשּׁוּם עָרְלָה וּדְבָרִים הַמֻּתָּרִין: \n", + "סְפֵק עָרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אָסוּר. בְּסוּרְיָא וְהִיא אֲרָצוֹת שֶׁכָּבַשׁ דָּוִד מֻתָּר. כֵּיצַד. הָיָה כֶּרֶם וְעָרְלָה וַעֲנָבִים נִמְכָּרוֹת חוּצָה לוֹ. הָיָה יָרָק זָרוּעַ בְּתוֹכוֹ וְיָרָק נִמְכָּר חוּצָה לוֹ. שֶׁמָּא מִמֶּנּוּ הוּא זֶה שֶׁמָּא מֵאַחֵר. בְּסוּרְיָא מֻתָּר. וּבְחוּץ לָאָרֶץ אֲפִלּוּ רָאָה הָעֲנָבִים יוֹצְאוֹת מִכֶּרֶם עָרְלָה אוֹ יָרָק יוֹצֵא מִן הַכֶּרֶם לוֹקֵחַ מֵהֶן. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִרְאֶה אוֹתוֹ בּוֹצֵר מִן הָעָרְלָה אוֹ לוֹקֵט הַיָּרָק בְּיָדוֹ: \n", + "כֶּרֶם שֶׁהוּא סְפֵק עָרְלָה אוֹ סְפֵק כִּלְאַיִם בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אָסוּר וּבְסוּרְיָא מֻתָּר. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ: \n", + "חָבִית יַיִן הַנִּמְצֵאת טְמוּנָה בְּפַרְדֵּס שֶׁל עָרְלָה אֲסוּרָה בִּשְׁתִיָּה וּמֻתֶּרֶת בַּהֲנָיָה שֶׁאֵין הַגַּנָּב גּוֹנֵב מִמָּקוֹם וְטוֹמֵן בּוֹ. אֲבָל עֲנָבִים הַנִּמְצָאִין טְמוּנִים שָׁם אֲסוּרִים שֶׁמָּא מִשָּׁם נִלְקְטוּ וְהִצְנִיעָן שָׁם: \n", + "נָכְרִי וְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיוּ שֻׁתָּפִין בִּנְטִיעָה אִם הִתְנוּ מִתְּחִלַּת הַשֻּׁתָּפוּת שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַנָּכְרִי אוֹכֵל שְׁנֵי עָרְלָה וְיִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹכֵל שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים מִשְּׁנֵי הֶתֵּר כְּנֶגֶד שְׁנֵי הָעָרְלָה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְאִם לֹא הִתְנוּ מִתְּחִלָּה אָסוּר וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יָבֹאוּ לְחֶשְׁבּוֹן. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁיַּחְשֹׁב כַּמָּה פֵּרוֹת אָכַל הַנָּכְרִי בִּשְׁנֵי עָרְלָה עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּנֶגֶד אוֹתָן הַפֵּרוֹת. אִם הִתְנוּ כָּזֶה אָסוּר שֶׁהֲרֵי זֶה כְּמַחֲלִיף פֵּרוֹת עָרְלָה: \n", + "יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאֵין דִּין נֶטַע רְבָעִי נוֹהֵג בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ אֶלָּא אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת שָׁנָה רְבִיעִית בְּלֹא פִּדְיוֹן כְּלָל שֶׁלֹּא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא הָעָרְלָה. וְקַל וָחֹמֶר הַדְּבָרִים וּמַה סּוּרְיָא שֶׁהִיא חַיֶּבֶת בְּמַעַשְׂרוֹת וּבִשְׁבִיעִית מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם אֵינָהּ חַיֶּבֶת בְּנֶטַע רְבָעִי כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה נֶטַע רְבָעִי נוֹהֵג בָּהּ. אֲבָל בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹהֵג בָּהּ בֵּין בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת. וְהוֹרוּ מִקְצָת גְּאוֹנִים שֶׁכֶּרֶם רְבָעִי לְבַדּוֹ פּוֹדִין אוֹתוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִהְיֶה מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה. וְאֵין לְדָבָר זֶה עִקָּר: \n", + "פֵּרוֹת שָׁנָה רְבִיעִית כֻּלָּהּ אָסוּר לֶאֱכל מֵהֶן בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד שֶׁיִּפָּדוּ. וּבְהִלְכוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי יִתְבָּאֵר מִשְׁפְּטֵי פִּדְיוֹנָן וְדִין אֲכִילָתָן וּמֵאֵימָתַי מוֹנִין לְעָרְלָה וְלִרְבָעִי: \n", + "כֵּיצַד פּוֹדִין פֵּרוֹת נֶטַע רְבָעִי בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה. אַחַר שֶׁאוֹסֵף אוֹתָן מְבָרֵךְ. בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה' אֱלֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ עַל פִּדְיוֹן נֶטַע רְבָעִי. וְאַחַר כָּךְ פּוֹדֶה אֶת כֻּלָּן וַאֲפִלּוּ בִּפְרוּטָה אַחַת וְאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּדוּיִין בִּפְרוּטָה זוֹ וּמַשְׁלִיךְ אוֹתָהּ פְּרוּטָה לְיָם הַמֶּלַח אוֹ מְחַלְּלָן עַל שְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה מִפֵּרוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת. וְאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת הָאֵלּוּ מְחֻלָּלִין עַל חִטִּים אֵלּוּ אוֹ עַל שְׂעוֹרִים אֵלּוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. וְשׂוֹרֵף אוֹתָן כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ תַּקָּלָה לַאֲחֵרִים. וְאוֹכֵל כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת: \n", + "הוֹרוּ מִקְצָת הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁפָּדָה פֵּרוֹת שָׁנָה רְבִיעִית אוֹ חִלְּלָן אָסוּר לְאָכְלָן עַד שֶׁתִּכָּנֵס שָׁנָה חֲמִישִׁית. וְדָבָר זֶה אֵין לוֹ עִקָּר. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁזּוֹ שִׁגְגַת הוֹרָאָה וְהַטַּעַם לְפִי שֶׁכָּתוּב (ויקרא יט כה) \"וּבַשָּׁנָה הַחֲמִישִׁת תֹּאכְלוּ אֶת פִּרְיוֹ\" וְאֵין עִנְיָן הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא שֶׁבַּשָּׁנָה הַחֲמִישִׁית תֹּאכְלוּ פִּרְיוֹ בְּלֹא פִּדְיוֹן כְּכָל חֻלִּין שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם. וְאֵין רָאוּי לָחוּשׁ לְהוֹרָאָה זוֹ: \n", + "הַטֶּבֶל כֵּיצַד. כָּל אֹכֶל שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לְהַפְרִישׁ מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּפְרִישׁ מִמֶּנּוּ נִקְרָא טֶבֶל וְאָסוּר לֶאֱכל מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב טו) \"וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת קָדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵת אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ לַה'\". כְּלוֹמַר לֹא יִנְהֲגוּ בָּהֶן מִנְהַג חֻלִּין וַעֲדַיִן קָדָשִׁים שֶׁעֲתִידִין לְהִתָּרֵם לֹא הוּרְמוּ. וְהָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִן הַטֶּבֶל קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּפְרִישׁ מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר חַיָּב מִיתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת קָדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ' וְהִשִּׂיאוּ אוֹתָם עֲוֹן אַשְׁמָה: \n", + "אֲבָל הָאוֹכֵל מִדָּבָר שֶׁנִּטְּלָה מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וַעֲדַיִן לֹא הִפְרִישׁ מִמֶּנּוּ מַעַשְׂרוֹת וַאֲפִלּוּ לֹא נִשְׁאַר בּוֹ אֶלָּא מַעֲשַׂר עָנִי הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל טֶבֶל. וְאֵין בּוֹ מִיתָה שֶׁאֵין עֲוֹן מִיתָה אֶלָּא בִּתְרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר: \n", + "אַזְהָרָה לָאוֹכֵל טֶבֶל שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמוּ מִמֶּנּוּ מַעַשְׂרוֹת בִּכְלָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יב יז) \"לֹא תוּכַל לֶאֱכל בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ מַעֲשַׂר דְּגָנְךָ\" וְגוֹ'. וּבְהִלְכוֹת תְּרוּמוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת יִתְבָּאֵר אֵיזֶה דָּבָר חַיָּב בִּתְרוּמָה וּבְמַעַשְׂרוֹת וְאֵי זֶה דָּבָר פָּטוּר. וְאֵי זֶה דָּבָר הוּא חַיָּב מִן הַתּוֹרָה וְאֵי זֶהוּ הַחַיָּב מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. וְהָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִטֶּבֶל שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם אוֹ מִכִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם וְעָרְלָה שֶׁל חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: \n", + "הַטֶּבֶל וְהֶחָדָשׁ וְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁ וּסְפִיחֵי שְׁבִיעִית וְהַכִּלְאַיִם וְהָעָרְלָה מַשְׁקִין הַיּוֹצְאִין מִפֵּרוֹתֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִים כְּמוֹתָן וְאֵין לוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶן. חוּץ מִיַּיִן וְשֶׁמֶן שֶׁל עָרְלָה וְיַיִן שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם שֶׁלּוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶן כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁלּוֹקִין עַל הַזֵּיתִים וְעַל הָעֲנָבִים שֶׁלָּהֶן: \n", + "וְיֵשׁ בְּקָדָשִׁים אִסּוּרִין אֲחֵרִים בְּמַאֲכָלוֹת וְכֻלָּן שֶׁל תּוֹרָה הֵן. כְּגוֹן אִסּוּרִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בַּאֲכִילַת תְּרוּמוֹת וּבִכּוּרִים וְחַלָּה וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. וְאִסּוּרִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּקָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ כְּגוֹן פִּגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. וְכָל אֶחָד מֵהֶן יִתְבָּאֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ: \n", + "וְשִׁעוּר כָּל אֲכִילָה מֵהֶן כְּזַיִת בֵּין לְמַלְקוֹת בֵּין לְכָרֵת. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ אִסּוּר חָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח וְדִינָיו בְּהִלְכוֹת חָמֵץ וּמַצָּה. אֲבָל אִסּוּר אֲכִילָה בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אִסּוּר מִין בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. וְכֵן אִסּוּר יוֹצֵא מִגֶּפֶן עַל הַנָּזִיר אֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה בַּכּל. וּלְפִיכָךְ יִתְבָּאֵר אִסּוּר כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְשִׁעוּרוֹ וְדִינָיו בִּמְקוֹמוֹ הָרָאוּי לוֹ: \n" + ], + [ + "יַיִן שֶׁנִּתְנַסֵּךְ לְעַכּוּ\"ם אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה. וְהַשּׁוֹתֶה מִמֶּנּוּ כָּל שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וְכֵן הָאוֹכֵל כָּל שֶׁהוּא מִתִּקְרֹבֶת עַכּוּ\"ם מִבָּשָׂר אוֹ מִפֵּרוֹת אֲפִלּוּ מַיִם וּמֶלַח הָאוֹכֵל מֵהֶן כָּל שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים לב לח) \"אֲשֶׁר חֵלֶב זְבָחֵימוֹ יֹאכֵלוּ יִשְׁתּוּ יֵין נְסִיכָם יָקוּמוּ\" וְגוֹ': \n", + "יַיִן שֶׁנִּתְנַסֵּךְ לָהּ כְּזֶבַח שֶׁקָּרֵב לָהּ וְכֵיוָן שֶׁאִסּוּר זֶה מִשּׁוּם עַכּוּ\"ם הוּא אֵין לוֹ שִׁעוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וּמַזָּלוֹת (דברים יג יח) \"וְלֹא יִדְבַּק בְּיָדְךָ מְאוּמָה מִן הַחֵרֶם\": \n", + "יֵין הָעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין אִם נִתְנַסֵּךְ אוֹ לֹא נִתְנַסֵּךְ וְהוּא הַנִּקְרָא סְתַם יֵינָם אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה כְּמוֹ יַיִן שֶׁנִּתְנַסֵּךְ. וְדָבָר זֶה מִגְּזֵרוֹת סוֹפְרִים הוּא. וְהַשּׁוֹתֶה מִסְּתַם יֵינָם רְבִיעִית מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: \n", + "וְכָל יַיִן שֶׁיִּגַּע בּוֹ הָעַכּוּ\"ם הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר שֶׁמָּא נִסֵּךְ אוֹתוֹ שֶׁמַּחְשֶׁבֶת הָעַכּוּ\"ם לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁיֵּין יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּגַע בּוֹ הָעַכּוּ\"ם דִּינוֹ כִּסְתַם יֵינָם שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנָּגַע בְּיַיִן שֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוָּנָה וְכֵן תִּינוֹק עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנָּגַע בְּיַיִן אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה וּמֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה. הַלּוֹקֵחַ עֲבָדִים מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם וּמָלוּ וְטָבְלוּ מִיָּד אֵין מְנַסְּכִין וְיַיִן שֶׁנָּגְעוּ בּוֹ מֻתָּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נָהֲגוּ בְּדָתֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא פָּסְקָה עַכּוּ\"ם מִפִּיהֶם: \n", + "בְּנֵי הַשְּׁפָחוֹת הָעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ בִּרְשׁוּת יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמָלוּ וַעֲדַיִן לֹא טָבְלוּ הַגְּדוֹלִים אוֹסְרִין הַיַּיִן כְּשֶׁיִּגְּעוּ בּוֹ וְהַקְּטַנִּים אֵינָן אוֹסְרִין: \n", + "גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב וְהוּא שֶׁקִּבֵּל עָלָיו שֶׁבַע מִצְוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ יֵינוֹ אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה וּמֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה. וּמְיַחֲדִין אֶצְלוֹ יַיִן וְאֵין מַפְקִידִין אֶצְלוֹ יַיִן. וְכֵן כָּל עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד עַכּוּ\"ם כְּגוֹן אֵלּוּ הַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים יֵינָן אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה וּמֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה. וְכֵן הוֹרוּ כָּל הַגְּאוֹנִים. אֲבָל אוֹתָם הָעוֹבְדִים עַכּוּ\"ם סְתַם יֵינָם אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה: \n", + "כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּעִנְיָן זֶה שֶׁהַיַּיִן אָסוּר אִם הָיָה עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנֶּאֱסַר הַיַּיִן בִּגְלָלוֹ עוֹבֵד עַכּוּ\"ם הֲרֵי הוּא אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה. וְאִם אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד עַכּוּ\"ם הֲרֵי הוּא אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה בִּלְבַד. וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר עַכּוּ\"ם סְתָם הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹבֵד עַכּוּ\"ם: \n", + "אֵין מִתְנַסֵּךְ לְעַכּוּ\"ם אֶלָּא יַיִן שֶׁרָאוּי לְהַקְרִיב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה כְּשֶׁגָּזְרוּ עַל סְתַם יֵינָם וְגָזְרוּ עַל כָּל יַיִן שֶׁיִּגַּע בּוֹ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה לֹא גָּזְרוּ אֶלָּא עַל הַיַּיִן הָרָאוּי לְהִתְנַסֵּךְ. לְפִיכָךְ יַיִן מְבֻשָּׁל שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּגַע בּוֹ הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֵינוֹ אָסוּר וּמֻתָּר לִשְׁתּוֹת עִם הָעַכּוּ\"ם בְּכוֹס אֶחָד. אֲבָל יַיִן מָזוּג וְיַיִן שֶׁהִתְחִיל לְהַחֲמִיץ וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּשְׁתֶּה אִם נָגַע בּוֹ נֶאֱסַר: \n", + "הוֹרוּ גְּאוֹנֵי הַמַּעֲרָב שֶׁאִם נִתְעָרֵב בְּיֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל מְעַט דְּבַשׁ אוֹ מְעַט שְׂאוֹר הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לַמִּזְבֵּחַ הֲרֵי הוּא כִּמְבֻשָּׁל אוֹ כְּשֵׁכָר וְאֵינוֹ מִתְנַסֵּךְ וּמֻתָּר לִשְׁתּוֹתוֹ עִם הָעַכּוּ\"ם: \n", + "מֵאֵימָתַי יֵאָסֵר יֵין הָעַכּוּ\"ם מִשֶּׁיִּדְרֹךְ וְיִמָּשֵׁךְ הַיַּיִן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא יָרַד לַבּוֹר אֶלָּא עֲדַיִן הוּא בַּגַּת הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין דּוֹרְכִין עִם הָעַכּוּ\"ם בַּגַּת שֶׁמָּא יִגַּע בְּיָדוֹ וִינַסֵּךְ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה כָּפוּת. וְאֵין לוֹקְחִין מִמֶּנּוּ גַּת דְּרוּכָה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן הַיַּיִן מְעֹרָב עִם הַחַרְצַנִּים וְזַגִּין וְלֹא יָרַד לַבּוֹר: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁדָּרַךְ הַיַּיִן וְלֹא נָגַע בּוֹ וַהֲרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבָּיו וְיִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא שֶׁכְּנָסוֹ בֶּחָבִית הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה: \n", + "הַחֹמֶץ שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה יֵין נֶסֶךְ קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּחְמִיץ. עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁהָיָה דּוֹרֵס עֲנָבִים בְּחָבִית אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַיַּיִן צָף עַל גַּבֵּי יָדָיו אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין מִשּׁוּם יֵין נֶסֶךְ. הָיָה אוֹכֵל מִן הַסַּלִּים וְהוֹתִיר כִּסְאָה וּכְסָאתַיִם וּזְרָקָן בַּגַּת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַיַּיִן מִגִּתּוֹ עַל הָעֲנָבִים אֵין עוֹשֶׂה יֵין נֶסֶךְ: \n", + "הַחַרְצַנִּים וְהַזַּגִּין שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם אֲסוּרִים כָּל י\"ב חֹדֶשׁ. וּלְאַחַר י\"ב חֹדֶשׁ כְּבָר יָבְשׁוּ וְלֹא נִשְׁאֲרָה בָּהֶן לַחְלוּחִית וּמֻתָּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה. וְכֵן שְׁמָרִים שֶׁל יַיִן שֶׁיָּבְשׁוּ לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ מֻתָּרִין שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נִשְׁאַר בָּהֶן רֵיחַ יַיִן וַהֲרֵי הֵן כֶּעָפָר וְכַאֲדָמָה: \n", + "נֹאדוֹת הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְקַנְקְנֵיהֶן שֶׁהִכְנִיסוּ בָּהֶן הָעַכּוּ\"ם יֵינָם אָסוּר לִתֵּן לְתוֹכָן יַיִן עַד שֶׁיְּיַשְּׁנָן שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ אוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּחֲזִירָן לָאוּר עַד שֶׁיִּתְרַפֶּה הַזֶּפֶת שֶׁעֲלֵיהֶן אוֹ שֶׁיֵּחַמּוּ אוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן לְתוֹכָן מַיִם שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים מֵעֵת לְעֵת וּמְעָרֶה הַמַּיִם וּמַחֲלִיף מַיִם אֲחֵרִים כָּל מֵעֵת לְעֵת שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים בִּשְׁלֹשֶׁת הַיָּמִים. בֵּין שֶׁהָיוּ הַכֵּלִים שֶׁלָּהֶן בֵּין שֶׁהָיוּ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְשָׁאֲלוּ אוֹתָן וְהִכְנִיסוּ בָּהֶן יֵינָם. וְאִם נָתַן לְתוֹכָם יַיִן קֹדֶם שֶׁיְּטַהֵר אוֹתָן הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה: \n", + "וּמֻתָּר לִתֵּן לְתוֹכָן שֵׁכָר אוֹ צִיר אוֹ מוּרְיָס מִיָּד וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לִכְלוּם. וּמֻתָּר לִתֵּן הַיַּיִן לְתוֹכָן אַחַר שֶׁנּוֹתֵן הַצִּיר אוֹ הַמּוּרְיָס שֶׁהַמֶּלַח שׂוֹרְפָן: \n", + "הַלּוֹקֵחַ כֵּלִים חֲדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינָם מְזֻפָּתִים מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם נוֹתֵן לְתוֹכָן יַיִן מִיָּד וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא נָתְנוּ בָּהֶן יֵין נֶסֶךְ. וְאִם הָיוּ מְזֻפָּתִין מְדִיחָן וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן חֲדָשִׁים. וְכֵן כְּלִי שֶׁנָּתְנוּ בּוֹ יֵין נֶסֶךְ וְאֵין מַכְנִיסוֹ לְקִיּוּם כְּגוֹן כְּלִי שֶׁחוֹשֵׂף בּוֹ אוֹ הַמַּשְׁפֵּךְ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ מְשַׁכְשְׁכוֹ בְּמַיִם וְדַיּוֹ: \n", + "וְכֵן כּוֹס שֶׁל חֶרֶס שֶׁשָּׁתָה בּוֹ הָעַכּוּ\"ם אָסוּר לִשְׁתּוֹת בּוֹ. הֱדִיחוֹ פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה וּשְׁלִישִׁית מֻתָּר שֶׁכְּבָר הָלְכוּ צִחְצוּחֵי הַיַּיִן שֶׁבּוֹ. וְהוּא שֶׁהָיָה מְצֻפֶּה בַּאֲבָר כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַיּוֹצְרִין עוֹשִׂין אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מְזֻפָּת. אֲבָל שֶׁל חֶרֶס צָרִיךְ הֲדָחָה: \n", + "כְּלֵי חֶרֶס הַשּׁוֹעִים בַּאֲבָר שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בָּהֶן בְּיֵין נֶסֶךְ אִם הָיוּ לְבָנִים אוֹ אֲדֻמִּים אוֹ שְׁחוֹרִים מֻתָּרִין. וְאִם הָיוּ יְרֻקִּין אֲסוּרִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן בּוֹלְעִים. וְאִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶם מָקוֹם מְגֻלֶּה שֶׁל חֶרֶס בֵּין לְבָנִים בֵּין יְרֻקִּים אֲסוּרִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵם בּוֹלְעִין. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאֵין הַדָּבָר אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁכָּנְסוּ בָּהֶם לְקִיּוּם. אֲבָל לֹא כָּנְסוּ בָּהֶם לְקִיּוּם מְדִיחָן וּמֻתָּרִין וַאֲפִלּוּ הֵם שֶׁל חֶרֶס: \n", + "גַּת שֶׁל אֶבֶן וְשֶׁל עֵץ שֶׁדָּרַךְ בָּהֶן הָעַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ גַּת שֶׁל אֶבֶן שֶׁזִּפְּתָהּ הָעַכּוּ\"ם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא דָּרַךְ בָּהּ מְדִיחָן בְּמַיִם וּבְאֵפֶר אַרְבַּע פְּעָמִים וְדוֹרֵךְ בָּהֶן. וְאִם הָיְתָה בָּהֶם לַחְלוּחִית מַקְדִּים הָאֵפֶר לַמַּיִם. וְאִם לָאו מַקְדִּים הַמַּיִם: \n", + "גַּת שֶׁל אֶבֶן מְזֻפֶּפֶת שֶׁדָּרַךְ בָּהּ הָעַכּוּ\"ם. אוֹ גַּת שֶׁל עֵץ זְפוּתָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא דָּרַךְ בָּהּ צָרִיךְ לִקְלֹף אֶת הַזֶּפֶת. וְאִם יִשְּׁנָהּ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ אוֹ נָתַן בָּהּ מַיִם שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים מֵעֵת לְעֵת אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִקְלֹף. לֹא תִּהְיֶה הַגַּת חֲמוּרָה יֶתֶר מִן הַקַּנְקַנִּים. לֹא נֶאֱמַר יִקְלֹף אֶלָּא לְהַתִּירָהּ מִיָּד: \n", + "גַּת שֶׁל חֶרֶס אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּלַף אֶת הַזֶּפֶת אָסוּר לִדְרֹךְ בָּהּ מִיָּד עַד שֶׁיָּחֵם אוֹתָהּ בְּאֵשׁ עַד שֶׁיִּרְפֶּה הַזֶּפֶת. וְאִם יִשְּׁנָהּ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ אוֹ נָתַן בָּהּ מַיִם שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים מֻתֶּרֶת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "מְשַׁמֶּרֶת שֶׁל יַיִן שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם אִם הָיְתָה שֶׁל שֵׂעָר מְדִיחָהּ וּמְשַׁמֵּר בָּהּ. וְאִם הָיְתָה שֶׁל צֶמֶר מְדִיחָהּ בְּמַיִם וּבְאֵפֶר אַרְבַּע פְּעָמִים וּמְדִיחָהּ עַד שֶׁתִּנָּגֵב וּמְשַׁמֵּר בָּהּ. וְאִם הָיְתָה שֶׁל שֵׁשׁ מְיַשְּׁנָהּ י\"ב חֹדֶשׁ. וְאִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶן קְשָׁרִים מַתִּירָן. וְכֵן כְּלֵי חֵלֶף וְהוּצִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן מִכְּפִיפוֹת שֶׁדּוֹרְכִין בָּהֶן יַיִן אִם הָיוּ תְּפוּרִין בַּחֲבָלִים מְדִיחָן. וְאִם הָיוּ אֲחוּזוֹת זוֹ בְּסִבּוּךְ קָשֶׁה מְדִיחָן בְּאֵפֶר וּבְמַיִם אַרְבַּע פְּעָמִים וּמְנַגְּבָן וּמִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן. וְאִם הָיוּ תְּפוּרוֹת בְּפִשְׁתָּן מְיַשְּׁנָן שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. וְאִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶן קְשָׁרִים מַתִּירָן: \n", + "כְּלֵי הַגַּת שֶׁדָּרַךְ בָּהֶן הָעַכּוּ\"ם יֵין נֶסֶךְ כֵּיצַד מְטַהֲרִין אוֹתָן כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּדְרֹךְ בָּהֶן הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל. הַדַּפִּין וְהָעֲדָשִׁים וְהַלּוּלָבִין מְדִיחָן. הָעֲקָלִין. שֶׁל נְסָרִין וְשֶׁל בִּצְבּוּץ מְנַגְּבָן. שֶׁל שִׁיפָה וְשֶׁל גֶּמִי מְיַשְּׁנָן שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. וְאִם רָצָה לְטַהֲרָן מִיָּד מַגְעִילָן בְּרוֹתְחִין אוֹ חוֹלְטָן בְּמֵי זֵיתִים אוֹ מַנִּיחָן תַּחַת צִנּוֹר שֶׁמֵּימָיו מְקֻלָּחִין אוֹ בְּמַעְיָן שֶׁמֵּימָיו רוֹדְפִין שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁעוֹת וְאַחַר כָּךְ יֻתְּרוּ: \n", + "בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָיְתָה אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל כֻּלָּהּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הָיוּ לוֹקְחִין הַיַּיִן מִכָּל אָדָם מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ. וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לֹא הָיוּ לוֹקְחִין אֶלָּא מֵאָדָם שֶׁהֻחְזַק בְּכַשְׁרוּת. וּבַזְּמַן הַזֶּה אֵין לוֹקְחִין יַיִן בְּכָל מָקוֹם אֶלָּא מֵאָדָם שֶׁהֻחְזַק בְּכַשְׁרוּת. וְכֵן הַבָּשָׂר וְהַגְּבִינָה וַחֲתִיכַת דָּג שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ סִימָן כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "הַמִּתְאָרֵחַ אֵצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת בְּכָל מָקוֹם וּבְכָל זְמַן וְהֵבִיא לוֹ יַיִן אוֹ בָּשָׂר אוֹ גְּבִינָה וַחֲתִיכַת דָּג הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִשְׁאל עָלָיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַכִּירוֹ אֶלָּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא יְהוּדִי בִּלְבַד. וְאִם הֻחְזַק שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר וְלֹא מְדַקְדֵּק בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ אָסוּר לְהִתְאָרֵחַ אֶצְלוֹ. וְאִם עָבַר וְנִתְאָרֵחַ אֶצְלוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל בָּשָׂר וְלֹא שׁוֹתֶה יַיִן עַל פִּיו עַד שֶׁיָּעִיד לוֹ אָדָם כָּשֵׁר עֲלֵיהֶם: \n" + ], + [ + "כֵּיצַד הִיא הַנְּגִיעָה שִׁאוֹסֵר בָּהּ הָעַכּוּ\"ם הַיַּיִן. הוּא שֶׁיִּגַּע בַּיַּיִן עַצְמוֹ בֵּין בְּיָדוֹ בֵּין בִּשְׁאָר אֵיבָרָיו שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְנַסֵּךְ בָּהֶן וִישַׁכְשֵׁךְ. אֲבָל אִם פָּשַׁט יָדוֹ לְחָבִית וְתָפְסוּ אֶת יָדוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁיּוֹצִיאָהּ וְלֹא יְנִידָהּ וּפָתְחוּ הֶחָבִית מִלְּמַטָּה עַד שֶׁיָּצָא הַיַּיִן וְיָרַד לְמַטָּה מִיָּדוֹ לֹא נֶאֱסַר הַיַּיִן. וְכֵן אִם אָחַז כְּלִי פָּתוּחַ שֶׁל יַיִן וְשִׁכְשְׁכוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִגְבִּיהַּ הַכְּלִי וְלֹא נָגַע בַּיַּיִן נֶאֱסַר הַיַּיִן: \n", + "נָטַל כְּלִי שֶׁל יַיִן וְהִגְבִּיהוֹ וְיָצַק הַיַּיִן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא שִׁכְשֵׁךְ נֶאֱסַר שֶׁהֲרֵי בָּא הַיַּיִן מִכֹּחוֹ. הִגְבִּיהַּ וְלֹא שִׁכְשֵׁךְ וְלֹא נָגַע מֻתָּר: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁהָיָה אוֹחֵז הַכְּלִי בַּקַּרְקַע וְיִשְׂרָאֵל יָצַק לְתוֹכוֹ יַיִן הַיַּיִן מֻתָּר. וְאִם נִדְנֵד הָעַכּוּ\"ם הַכְּלִי נֶאֱסַר הַיַּיִן: \n", + "כְּלִי סָתוּם מֻתָּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ הָעַכּוּ\"ם מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַיַּיִן מִתְנַדְנֵד שֶׁאֵין זֶה דֶּרֶךְ הַנִּסּוּךְ. הֶעֱבִיר נוֹד שֶׁל יַיִן מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם וְהוּא אוֹחֵז פִּי הַנּוֹד בְּיָדוֹ. בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה הַנּוֹד מָלֵא אוֹ חָסֵר מֻתָּר. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַיַּיִן מִתְנַדְנֵד. הֶעֱבִיר כְּלִי חֶרֶס פָּתוּחַ מָלֵא יַיִן אָסוּר שֶׁמָּא נָגַע בּוֹ. וְאִם הָיָה חָסֵר מֻתָּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן שִׁכְשְׁכוֹ: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנָּגַע בְּיַיִן וְלֹא נִתְכַּוֵּן לָזֶה הֲרֵי הַיַּיִן מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה בִּלְבַד. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּפַל עַל נוֹד שֶׁל יַיִן אוֹ שֶׁהוֹשִׁיט יָדוֹ לְחָבִית עַל מְנָת שֶׁהִיא שֶׁמֶן וְנִמְצֵאת יַיִן: \n", + "בָּא הַיַּיִן מִכֹּחוֹ שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם בְּלֹא כַּוָּנָה הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נָגַע בַּיַּיִן הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִגְבִּיהַּ כְּלִי שֶׁל יַיִן וְיָצַק לִכְלִי אַחֵר וְהוּא מְדַמֶּה שֶׁהוּא שֵׁכָר אוֹ שֶׁמֶן הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר: \n", + "נִכְנַס הָעַכּוּ\"ם לְבַיִת אוֹ לַחֲנוּת לְבַקֵּשׁ יַיִן וּפָשַׁט יָדוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא מְחַפֵּשׂ וְנָגַע בַּיַּיִן אָסוּר שֶׁהֲרֵי לְיַיִן נִתְכַּוֵּן וְאֵין זֶה נוֹגֵעַ בְּלֹא כַּוָּנָה: \n", + "חָבִית שֶׁנִּסְדְּקָה לְאָרְכָּהּ וְקָדַם הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְחִבְּקָה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִתְפָּרְדוּ הַחֲרָסִים הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה. אֲבָל אִם נִסְדְּקָה לְרָחְבָּהּ וְתָפַס בַּסֶּדֶק הָעֶלְיוֹן כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִפּל הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין הַיַּיִן עַל כֹּחוֹ שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנָּפַל לְבוֹר שֶׁל יַיִן וְהֶעֱלוּהוּ מִשָּׁם מֵת. אוֹ שֶׁמָּדַד הַבּוֹר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ הַיַּיִן בְּקָנֶה. אוֹ שֶׁהִתִּיז אֶת הַזְּבוּב וְהַצִּרְעָה מֵעָלָיו בְּקָנֶה. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מְטַפֵּחַ עַל פִּי הֶחָבִית הָרוֹתַחַת כְּדֵי שֶׁתָּנוּחַ הָרְתִיחָה. אוֹ שֶׁנָּטַל חָבִית וּזְרָקָהּ בַּחֲמָתוֹ לַבּוֹר. הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה בִּלְבַד. וְאִם עָלָה הָעַכּוּ\"ם חַי הַיַּיִן אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה: \n", + "חָבִית שֶׁהָיָה נֶקֶב בְּצִדָּהּ וְנִשְׁמַט הַפְּקָק מִן הַנֶּקֶב וְהִנִּיחַ הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֶצְבָּעוֹ בִּמְקוֹם הַנֶּקֶב כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֵצֵא הַיַּיִן כָּל הַיַּיִן שֶׁמֵּרֹאשׁ הֶחָבִית עַד הַנֶּקֶב אָסוּר. וְשֶׁתַּחַת הַנֶּקֶב מֻתָּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה: \n", + "מֵינֶקֶת כְּפוּפָה שֶׁעוֹשִׂין אוֹתָהּ מִמַּתֶּכֶת אוֹ מִזְּכוּכִית וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶם. שֶׁהִנִּיחַ רֹאשָׁהּ לְתוֹךְ הַיַּיִן שֶׁבֶּחָבִית וְהָרֹאשׁ הָאַחֵר חוּץ לֶחָבִית וּמָצַץ הַיַּיִן וְהִתְחִיל הַיַּיִן לֵירֵד כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁעוֹשִׂין תָּמִיד. וּבָא הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְהִנִּיחַ אֶצְבָּעוֹ עַל פִּי הַמֵּינֶקֶת וּמָנַע הַיַּיִן מִלֵּירֵד נֶאֱסַר כָּל הַיַּיִן שֶׁבֶּחָבִית. שֶׁהַכּל הָיָה יוֹצֵא וְנִגְרָר לוּלֵי יָדוֹ וְנִמְצָא הַכּל כְּבָא מִכֹּחוֹ: \n", + "הַמְעָרֶה יַיִן לְתוֹךְ כְּלִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ יֵין עַכּוּ\"ם נֶאֱסַר כָּל הַיַּיִן שֶׁבַּכְּלִי הָעֶלְיוֹן. שֶׁהֲרֵי הָעַמּוּד הַנִּצֹּק מְחַבֵּר בֵּין הַיַּיִן שֶׁבַּכְּלִי הָעֶלְיוֹן וּבֵין הַיַּיִן שֶׁבַּכְּלִי הַתַּחְתּוֹן. לְפִיכָךְ הַמּוֹדֵד לְעַכּוּ\"ם לְתוֹךְ כְּלִי שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ יְנַפֵּץ נְפִיצָה אוֹ יִזְרֹק זְרִיקָה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה נִצֹּק חִבּוּר וְיֶאֱסֹר עָלָיו מַה שֶּׁיִּשָּׁאֵר בַּכְּלִי הָעֶלְיוֹן: \n", + "מַשְׁפֵּךְ שֶׁמָּדַד בּוֹ לְעַכּוּ\"ם אִם יֵשׁ בִּקְצֵה הַמַּשְׁפֵּךְ עֲכָּבַת יַיִן לֹא יִמְדֹּד בּוֹ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַד שֶׁיְּדִיחֶנּוּ וִינַגֵּב. וְאִם לֹא הֵדִיחַ הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר: \n", + "כְּלִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ כְּמִין שְׁנֵי חֳטָמִין יוֹצְאִין מִמֶּנּוּ כְּמוֹ הַכֵּלִים שֶׁנּוֹטְלִין בָּהֶם לַיָּדַיִם שֶׁהָיָה מָלֵא יַיִן בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהָיָה יִשְׂרָאֵל מוֹצֵץ וְשׁוֹתֶה מֵחֹטֶם זֶה וְהָעַכּוּ\"ם מוֹצֵץ וְשׁוֹתֶה מִן הַחֹטֶם הַשֵּׁנִי הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְהוּא שֶׁיַּקְדִּים הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי וְיִפְסֹק וַעֲדַיִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם שׁוֹתֶה. שֶׁמִּשֶּׁיִּפְסֹק הָעַכּוּ\"ם יַחֲזֹר הַיַּיִן שֶׁיִּשָּׁאֵר בַּחֹטֶם לַכְּלִי וְיֶאֱסֹר כָּל מַה שֶּׁיִּשָּׁאֵר בּוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי בָּא הַיַּיִן מִכֹּחוֹ: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁמָּצַץ הַיַּיִן מִן הֶחָבִית בְּמֵינֶקֶת אָסַר כָּל הַיַּיִן שֶׁבָּהּ. שֶׁכְּשֶׁיִּפָּסֵק יַחֲזֹר הַיַּיִן שֶׁעָלָה בַּמֵּינֶקֶת בִּמְצִיצָתוֹ וְיִפּל לֶחָבִית וְיֶאֱסֹר הַכּל: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁהָיָה מַעֲבִיר עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל כַּדֵּי יַיִן מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם וְהוּא הוֹלֵךְ אַחֲרֵיהֶן לְשָׁמְרָן אֲפִלּוּ הִפְלִיגוּ מִמֶּנּוּ כְּדֵי מִיל הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרוֹת. שֶׁאֵימָתוֹ עֲלֵיהֶן וְאוֹמֵר עַתָּה יֵצֵא לְפָנֵינוּ וְיִרְאֶה אוֹתָנוּ. וְאִם אָמַר לָהֶם לְכוּ וַאֲנִי אָבוֹא אַחֲרֵיכֶם אִם נִתְעַלְּמוּ מֵעֵינָיו כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּפְתְּחוּ פִּי הַכַּד וְיַחְזְרוּ וְיָגִיפוּ אוֹתָהּ וְתִיגוֹב הֲרֵי הַיַּיִן כֻּלּוֹ אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה. אִם פָּחוֹת מִכֵּן מֻתָּר: \n", + "וְכֵן הַמֵּנִיחַ עַכּוּ\"ם בַּחֲנוּתוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא יוֹצֵא וְנִכְנַס כָּל הַיּוֹם כֻּלּוֹ הַיַּיִן מֻתָּר. וְאִם מוֹדִיעוֹ שֶׁהוּא מַפְלִיג וְשָׁהָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּפְתַּח וְיִגֹּף וְתִיגוֹב הַיַּיִן אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה. וְכֵן הַמֵּנִיחַ יֵינוֹ בְּקָרוֹן אוֹ בִּסְפִינָה עִם הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְנִכְנַס לָעִיר לַעֲשׂוֹת צְרָכָיו הַיַּיִן מֻתָּר. וְאִם הוֹדִיעָן שֶׁהוּא מַפְלִיג וְשָׁהָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּפְתַּח וְיִגֹּף וְתִיגוֹב הַיַּיִן אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה. וְכָל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ בְּחָבִיּוֹת סְתוּמוֹת. אֲבָל בִּפְתוּחוֹת אֲפִלּוּ לֹא שָׁהָה מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוֹדִיעָן שֶׁהוּא מַפְלִיג הַיַּיִן אָסוּר: \n", + "יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיָה אוֹכֵל עִם הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְהִנִּיחַ יַיִן פָּתוּחַ עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן וְיַיִן פָּתוּחַ עַל הַדֻּלְפְּקִי וְיָצָא. שֶׁעַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן אָסוּר וְשֶׁעַל הַדֻּלְפְּקִי מֻתָּר. וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ מְזֹג וּשְׁתֵה כָּל הַיַּיִן הַפָּתוּחַ שֶׁבַּבַּיִת אָסוּר: \n", + "הָיָה שׁוֹתֶה עִם הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְשָׁמַע קוֹל תְּפִלָּה בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת וְיָצָא אַף הַיַּיִן הַפָּתוּחַ מֻתָּר. שֶׁהַנָּכְרִי אוֹמֵר עַתָּה יִזְכֹּר הַיַּיִן וְיָבוֹא בִּמְהֵרָה וְיִמְצָא אוֹתִי נוֹגֵעַ בְּיֵינוֹ וּלְפִי זֶה אֵינוֹ זָז מִמְּקוֹמוֹ וְאֵין נֶאֱסַר אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁלְּפָנָיו בִּלְבַד: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם וְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיוּ דָּרִין בֶּחָצֵר אַחַת וְיָצְאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּבֶהָלָה לִרְאוֹת חָתָן אוֹ הֶסְפֵּד. וְחָזַר הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְסָגַר הַפֶּתַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי הַיַּיִן הַפָּתוּחַ שֶׁבְּבֵית יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּהֶתֵּרוֹ. שֶׁלֹּא סָגַר הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֶלָּא עַל דַּעַת שֶׁכְּבָר נִכְנַס הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי לְבֵיתוֹ וְלֹא נִשְׁאַר אָדָם בַּחוּץ וְכִמְדֻמֶּה לוֹ שֶׁהוּא קְדָמוֹ: \n", + "יַיִן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְשֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם בְּבַיִת אֶחָד וְהָיוּ חָבִיּוֹת פְּתוּחוֹת וְנִכְנַס הָעַכּוּ\"ם לַבַּיִת וְנָעַל הַדֶּלֶת בַּעֲדוֹ נֶאֱסַר כָּל הַיַּיִן. וְאִם יֵשׁ חַלּוֹן בַּדֶּלֶת שֶׁמִּסְתַּכֵּל מִמֶּנּוּ הָעוֹמֵד אֲחוֹרֵי הַפֶּתַח וְרוֹאֶה כְּנֶגְדּוֹ כָּל הֶחָבִיּוֹת שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד הַחַלּוֹן מֻתָּרוֹת. וְשֶׁמִּן הַצְּדָדִין אֲסוּרוֹת שֶׁהֲרֵי מְפַחֵד מִן הָרוֹאֶה אוֹתוֹ: \n", + "וְכֵן אִם שָׁאַג אֲרִי וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ וּבָרַח הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְנֶחְבָּא בֵּין הֶחָבִיּוֹת הַפְּתוּחוֹת הַיַּיִן מֻתָּר שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר נֶחְבָּא כָּאן וְהוּא רוֹאֶה אוֹתִי כְּשֶׁאֶגַּע: \n", + "אוֹצָר שֶׁל יַיִן שֶׁהָיוּ חָבִיּוֹתָיו פְּתוּחוֹת וְיֵשׁ לְעַכּוּ\"ם חָבִיּוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת בְּאוֹתוֹ הַפֻּנְדָּק. וְנִמְצָא הָעַכּוּ\"ם עוֹמֵד בֵּין חָבִיּוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַפְּתוּחוֹת. אִם נִבְהַל כְּשֶׁנִּמְצָא וְנִתְפַּשׂ עָלָיו כְּגַנָּב הַיַּיִן מֻתָּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה שֶׁמִּפַּחְדּוֹ וְיִרְאָתוֹ אֵין לוֹ פְּנַאי לְנַסֵּךְ. וְאִם לֹא נִתְפַּשׂ כְּגַנָּב אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הוּא בּוֹטֵחַ שָׁם הַיַּיִן אָסוּר. וְתִינוֹק הַנִּמְצָא בֵּין הֶחָבִיּוֹת בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ כָּל הַיַּיִן מֻתָּר: \n", + "גְּדוּד שֶׁנִּכְנַס לַמְּדִינָה דֶּרֶךְ שָׁלוֹם כָּל הֶחָבִיּוֹת הַפְּתוּחוֹת שֶׁבַּחֲנוּיוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת וּסְתוּמוֹת מֻתָּרוֹת. וּבִשְׁעַת מִלְחָמָה אִם פָּשַׁט הַגְּדוּד בַּמְּדִינָה וְעָבַר אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ מֻתָּרוֹת שֶׁאֵין פְּנַאי לְנַסֵּךְ: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנִּמְצָא עוֹמֵד בְּצַד הַבּוֹר שֶׁל יַיִן אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ מִלְוֶה עַל אוֹתוֹ הַיַּיִן הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלִּבּוֹ גַּס בּוֹ שׁוֹלֵחַ יָדוֹ וּמְנַסֵּךְ. וְאִם אֵין לוֹ עָלָיו מִלְוֶה הַיַּיִן מֻתָּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה: \n", + "זוֹנָה עַכּוּ\"ם בִּמְסִבָּה שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל הַיַּיִן מֻתָּר שֶׁאֵימָתָן עָלֶיהָ וְלֹא תִּגַּע. אֲבָל זוֹנָה יִשְׂרְאֵלִית בִּמְסִבַּת עַכּוּ\"ם יֵינָהּ שֶׁלְּפָנֶיהָ בְּכֵלֶיהָ אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן נוֹגְעִין בּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתָּהּ: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם הַנִּמְצָא בְּבֵית הַגַּת אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם לַחְלוּחִית יַיִן כְּדֵי לִבְלל הַכַּף עַד שֶׁתִּבְלל הַכַּף לְכַף שְׁנִיָּה צָרִיךְ לְהָדִיחַ כָּל בֵּית הַגַּת וִינַגֵּב. וְאִם לָאו מֵדִיחַ בִּלְבַד וְזוֹ הַרְחָקָה יְתֵרָה: \n", + "חָבִית שֶׁצָּפָה בַּנָּהָר אִם נִמְצֵאת כְּנֶגֶד עִיר שֶׁרֻבָּהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מֻתֶּרֶת בַּהֲנָיָה. כְּנֶגֶד עִיר שֶׁרֻבָּהּ עַכּוּ\"ם אֲסוּרָה: \n", + "מָקוֹם שֶׁהָיוּ רֹב מוֹכְרֵי הַיַּיִן בּוֹ יִשְׂרְאֵלִים וְנִמְצְאוּ בּוֹ כֵּלִים גְּדוֹלִים מְלֵאִים יַיִן וְהֵם כֵּלִים שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ הַמּוֹכְרִין לְבַדָּם לִכְנֹס בָּהֶם הַיַּיִן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין בַּהֲנָיָה. חָבִית שֶׁפְּתָחוּהָ גַּנָּבִים אִם רֹב גַּנָּבֵי הָעִיר יִשְׂרָאֵל הַיַּיִן מֻתָּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה וְאִם לָאו אָסוּר: \n" + ], + [ + "הַלוֹקֵחַ בַּיִת אוֹ שֶׁשָּׂכָר בַּיִת בַּחֲצֵרוֹ שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם וּמִלְּאָהוּ יַיִן אִם הָיָה הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי דָּר בְּאוֹתָהּ חָצֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַפֶּתַח פָּתוּחַ הַיַּיִן מֻתָּר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָעַכּוּ\"ם מְפַחֵד תָּמִיד וְאוֹמֵר עַתָּה יִכָּנֵס לְבֵיתוֹ פִּתְאֹם וְיִמְצָא אוֹתִי בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ. וְאִם הָיָה דָּר בְּחָצֵר אַחֶרֶת לֹא יֵצֵא עַד שֶׁיִּסְגֹּר הַבַּיִת וְיִהְיֶה הַמַּפְתֵּחַ וְהַחוֹתָם בְּיָדוֹ. וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא יְזַיֵּף הָעַכּוּ\"ם מַפְתֵּחַ הַבַּיִת: \n", + "יָצָא וְלֹא סָגַר הַפֶּתַח אוֹ שֶׁסָּגַר וְהִנִּיחַ הַמַּפְתֵּחַ בְּיַד עַכּוּ\"ם הֲרֵי הַיַּיִן אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה. שֶׁמָּא נִכְנַס הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְנִסֵּךְ. שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי שָׁם. וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ אֱחֹז לִי מַפְתֵּחַ זֶה עַד שֶׁאָבוֹא הַיַּיִן מֻתָּר שֶׁלֹּא מָסַר לוֹ שְׁמִירַת הַבַּיִת אֶלָּא שְׁמִירַת הַמַּפְתֵּחַ: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁשָּׂכַר יִשְׂרָאֵל לִדְרֹךְ לוֹ יֵינוֹ בְּטָהֳרָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מֻתָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקָּחוּהוּ מִמֶּנּוּ וְהָיָה הַיַּיִן בְּבֵיתוֹ שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם. אִם הָיָה יִשִׂרָאֵל זֵה שֵׁשּׁוֹמֵר הַיַּיִן דָּר בְּאוֹתָהּ חָצֵר הַיַּיִן מֻתָּר. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַפֶּתַח פָּתוּחַ וְהַשּׁוֹמֵר נִכְנָס וְיוֹצֵא. וְאִם הָיָה הַשּׁוֹמֵר דָּר בְּחָצֵר אַחֶרֶת הַיַּיִן אָסוּר. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַמַּפְתֵּחַ וְהַחוֹתָם בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל. שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁהַיַּיִן שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם וּבִרְשׁוּתוֹ אֵינוֹ מְפַחֵד לְזַיֵּף וּלְהִכָּנֵס לַבַּיִת וְיֹאמַר וִיהִי מָה אִם יֵדְעוּ בּוֹ לֹא יִקְחוּ מִמֶּנִּי: \n", + "אֲפִלּוּ כָּתַב הָעַכּוּ\"ם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּתְקַבֵּל מִמֶּנּוּ הַמָּעוֹת לִמְכֹּר לוֹ בָּהֶן יַיִן הוֹאִיל וְאֵין הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ מֵרְשׁוּת הָעַכּוּ\"ם עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן לוֹ הַמָּעוֹת הֲרֵי הוּא שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם וְאָסוּר. אֶלָּא אִם הָיָה הַשּׁוֹמֵר דָּר שָׁם בֶּחָצֵר. וְאֵין הַשּׁוֹמֵר צָרִיךְ לִהְיוֹת יוֹשֵׁב וּמְשַׁמֵּר תָּמִיד אֶלָּא נִכְנָס וְיוֹצֵא כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת בַּעַל הַיַּיִן בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת עַכּוּ\"ם אַחֵר: \n", + "הָיָה יַיִן זֶה הַטָּהוֹר שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם מֻנָּח בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אוֹ בְּבַיִת הַפָּתוּחַ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְיִשְׂרָאֵל הוֹלְכִים וְשָׁבִים מֻתָּר. שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נִכְנַס בִּרְשׁוּת הָעַכּוּ\"ם: \n", + "וְאַשְׁפָּה וְחַלּוֹן וְדֶקֶל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ פֵּרוֹת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. וְחָבִית יַיִן שָׁם וְעַכּוּ\"ם הַנִּמְצָא שָׁם אֵינוֹ אוֹסְרָהּ. וּבַיִת הַפָּתוּחַ לְשָׁם הֲרֵי הוּא כְּפָתוּחַ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים: \n", + "חָצֵר הַחֲלוּקָה בִּמְסִיפִים וְעַכּוּ\"ם בְּצַד זֶה וְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּצַד אַחֵר. וְכֵן שְׁנֵי גַּגִּין שֶׁהָיָה גַּג יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמַעְלָה וְגַג הָעַכּוּ\"ם לְמַטָּה. אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ זֶה בְּצַד זֶה וְיֵשׁ בֵּינֵיהֶן מְסִיפִים. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיַּד הָעַכּוּ\"ם מַגַּעַת לְחֵלֶק יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ מִשּׁוּם יֵין נֶסֶךְ וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם טָהֳרוֹת: \n", + "מֻתָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַפְקִיד יֵינוֹ בִּכְלִי סָתוּם בְּיַד עַכּוּ\"ם וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לוֹ בּוֹ שְׁנֵי סִימָנִין. וְזֶה הוּא הַנִּקְרָא חוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם. כֵּיצַד. סָתַם הֶחָבִית בִּכְלִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְהֻדָּק כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁסּוֹתְמִין כָּל אָדָם וְטָח בְּטִיט הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹתָם אֶחָד. הָיָה כְּלִי מְהֻדָּק וְטָח עָלָיו מִלְּמַעְלָה הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם. וְכֵן אִם צָר פִּי הַנּוֹד הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹתָם אֶחָד. הָפַךְ פִּי הַנּוֹד לְתוֹכוֹ וְצָר עָלָיו הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם. וְכֵן כָּל שִׁנּוּי שֶׁמְּשַׁנֶּה מִדְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ כָּל אָדָם הֲרֵי הֵן כְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד וְהַטִּיחָה אוֹ הַקְּשִׁירָה חוֹתָם שֵׁנִי: \n", + "וְאִם הִפְקִיד בְּיַד עַכּוּ\"ם בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה וּמֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה וְהוּא שֶׁיְּיַחֵד לוֹ קֶרֶן זָוִית: \n", + "יַיִן מְבֻשָּׁל וְהַשֵּׁכָר אוֹ יַיִן שֶׁעֵרְבוֹ עִם דְּבָרִים אֲחֵרִים כְּגוֹן דְּבַשׁ וְשֶׁמֶן וְכֵן הַחֹמֶץ וְהַגְּבִינָה וְהֶחָלָב וְכָל שֶׁאִסּוּרוֹ מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים שֶׁהִפְקִידוֹ בְּיַד עַכּוּ\"ם אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שְׁנֵי חוֹתָמוֹת אֶלָּא חוֹתָם אֶחָד בִּלְבַד דַּיּוֹ. אֲבָל הַיַּיִן וְהַבָּשָׂר וַחֲתִיכַת דָּג שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ סִימָן שֶׁהִפְקִידָן בְּיַד עַכּוּ\"ם צְרִיכִין שְׁנֵי חוֹתָמוֹת: \n", + "יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁכָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ בְּעִנְיָן זֶה בְּיַיִן שֶׁלָּנוּ שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה וּמֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה מִפְּנֵי צַד נְגִיעָה שֶׁנָּגַע בּוֹ הָעַכּוּ\"ם כְּשֶׁהָיָה הָעַכּוּ\"ם עוֹבֵד עַכּוּ\"ם. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה אִסּוּרוֹ בִּגְלַל עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד עַכּוּ\"ם כְּגוֹן יִשְׁמְעֵאלִי שֶׁנָּגַע בַּיַּיִן שֶׁלָּנוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוָּנָה אוֹ שֶׁטִּפַּח עַל פִּי הֶחָבִית הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "אֲבָל הַמַּפְקִיד יַיִן בְּיַד גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁלָחוֹ עִמּוֹ וְהִפְלִיג אוֹ שֶׁהֵנִיחַ בֵּיתוֹ פָּתוּחַ בַּחֲצַר גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה. שֶׁכָּל חֲשָׁשׁ שֶׁל חִלּוּף וְזִיּוּף יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁכָּל הָעַכּוּ\"ם שָׁוִים בּוֹ הוֹאִיל וְנַעֲשָׂה הַיַּיִן בִּרְשׁוּתָן נֶאֱסַר בִּשְׁתִיָּה עַל כָּל פָּנִים: \n", + "יֵשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם אִסּוּר נִסּוּךְ כְּלָל וְאָסְרוּ אוֹתָם חֲכָמִים כְּדֵי לְהַרְחִיק מִן הַנִּסּוּךְ. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. לֹא יִמְזֹג הָעַכּוּ\"ם הַמַּיִם לְתוֹךְ הַיַּיִן שֶׁבְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא לִצֹּק הַיַּיִן לְתוֹךְ הַמַּיִם. וְלֹא יוֹלִיךְ הָעַכּוּ\"ם עֲנָבִים לַגַּת שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא לִדְרֹךְ אוֹ לִגַּע. וְלֹא יְסַיֵּעַ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמֵּרִיק מִכְּלִי לִכְלִי שֶׁמָּא יַנִּיחַ הַכְּלִי בְּיַד הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְנִמְצָא הַיַּיִן בָּא מִכֹּחוֹ. וְאִם סִיֵּעַ אוֹ מָזַג הַמַּיִם אוֹ הֵבִיא עֲנָבִים מֻתָּר: \n", + "וְכֵן מֻתָּר שֶׁיָּרִיחַ הָעַכּוּ\"ם בְּחָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן שֶׁלָּנוּ. וּמֻתָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לְהָרִיחַ בְּחָבִית שֶׁל יֵין נֶסֶךְ וְאֵין בָּזֶה שֵׁם אִסּוּר שֶׁאֵין הָרֵיחַ כְּלוּם לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ: \n", + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁכָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה אִם עָבַר וּמָכְרוּ דָּמָיו מֻתָּרִין חוּץ מֵעַכּוּ\"ם וּמְשַׁמְּשֶׁיהָ וְתִקְרֹבֶת שֶׁלָּהּ וְיַיִן שֶׁנִּתְנַסֵּךְ לָהּ. וְהֶחְמִירוּ חֲכָמִים בִּסְתַם יֵינָם לִהְיוֹת דָּמָיו אֲסוּרִין כִּדְמֵי יַיִן שֶׁנִּתְנַסֵּךְ לְעַכּוּ\"ם. לְפִיכָךְ עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁשָּׂכַר אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמּוֹ בְּיַיִן שְׂכָרוֹ אָסוּר: \n", + "וְכֵן הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַחֲמוֹר לְהָבִיא עָלָיו יַיִן אוֹ שֶׁשָּׂכַר סְפִינָה לְהָבִיא בָּהּ יַיִן שְׂכָרָן אָסוּר. אִם מָעוֹת נָתְנוּ לוֹ יוֹלִיכֵן לְיָם הַמֶּלַח. וְאִם נָתְנוּ לוֹ בִּשְׂכָרוֹ כְּסוּת אוֹ כֵּלִים אוֹ פֵּרוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה יִשְׂרֹף אוֹתָן וְיִקְבֹּר הָאֵפֶר כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא לֵהָנוֹת בּוֹ: \n", + "שָׂכַר לָעַכּוּ\"ם חֲמוֹר לִרְכֹּב עָלָיו וְהִנִּיחַ עָלָיו לוֹגִין שֶׁל יַיִן שְׂכָרוֹ מֻתָּר. שְׂכָרוֹ לְשַׁבֵּר כַּדֵּי יֵין נֶסֶךְ שְׂכָרוֹ מֻתָּר וְתָבוֹא עָלָיו בְּרָכָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּמַעֵט בְּתִפְלָה: \n", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל וְאָמַר לוֹ הַעֲבֵר לִי מֵאָה חָבִיּוֹת שֶׁל שֵׁכָר בְּמֵאָה פְּרוּטוֹת וְנִמְצָא אַחַת מֵהֶן יַיִן שְׂכָרוֹ כֻּלּוֹ אָסוּר: \n", + "אָמַר לוֹ הַעֲבֵר לִי חָבִית בִּפְרוּטָה חָבִית בִּפְרוּטָה וְהֶעֱבִיר וְנִמְצָא בֵּינֵיהֶן חָבִיּוֹת שֶׁל יַיִן. שְׂכַר חָבִיּוֹת שֶׁל יַיִן אָסוּר וּשְׁאָר שְׂכָרוֹ מֻתָּר: \n", + "אֻמְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁשָּׁלַח לָהֶם עַכּוּ\"ם חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן בִּשְׂכָרָן מֻתָּר שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ תֵּן לָנוּ אֶת דָּמֶיהָ. וְאִם מִשֶּׁנִּכְנְסָה לִרְשׁוּתָן אָסוּר: \n", + "יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיָה נוֹשֶׁה בְּעַכּוּ\"ם מָנֶה. הָלַךְ הָעַכּוּ\"ם וּמָכַר עַבוֹדָה זָרָה וְיֵין נֶסֶךְ וְהֵבִיא לוֹ דְּמֵיהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּמְכֹּר הַמְתֵּן לִי עַד שֶׁאֶמְכֹּר עַבוֹדָה זָרָה אוֹ יֵין נֶסֶךְ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי וְאָבִיא לְךָ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא סְתַם יֵינוֹ. וּמָכַר וְהֵבִיא לוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי רוֹצֶה בְּקִיּוּמוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּפְרַע מִמֶּנּוּ חוֹבוֹ: \n", + "וְכֵן גֵּר וְעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁהָיוּ שֻׁתָּפִין וּבָאוּ לַחֲלֹק. אֵין הַגֵּר יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לָעַכּוּ\"ם טֹל אַתָּה עַבוֹדָה זָרָה וַאֲנִי מָעוֹת. אַתָּה יַיִן וַאֲנִי פֵּרוֹת שֶׁהֲרֵי רוֹצֶה בְּקִיּוּמָן כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּטּל כְּנֶגְדָּן. אֲבָל גֵּר וְעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁיָּרְשׁוּ אֶת אֲבִיהֶן עַכּוּ\"ם יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ טֹל אַתָּה עַבוֹדָה זָרָה וַאֲנִי מָעוֹת. אַתָּה יַיִן וַאֲנִי שֶׁמֶן. קַל הוּא שֶׁהֵקֵלּוּ בִּירֻשַּׁת הַגֵּר כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יַחֲזֹר לְסוּרוֹ. וְאִם מִשֶּׁבָּאוּ לִרְשׁוּת הַגֵּר אָסוּר: \n", + "יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁמָּכַר יֵינוֹ לְעַכּוּ\"ם פָּסַק עַד שֶׁלֹּא מָדַד לוֹ דָּמָיו מֻתָּרִין. שֶׁמִּשֶּׁפָּסַק סָמְכָה דַּעְתּוֹ וּמִשֶּׁמָּשַׁךְ קָנָה וְיֵין נֶסֶךְ אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה עַד שֶׁיִּגַּע בּוֹ. נִמְצָא בִּשְׁעַת מְכִירָה הָיָה מֻתָּר. מָדַד לוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַק הַדָּמִים דָּמָיו אֲסוּרִין. שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא סָמְכָה דַּעְתּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמָּשַׁךְ וְנִמְצָא כְּשֶׁנָּגַע עֲדַיִן לֹא סָמְכָה דַּעְתּוֹ לִקַּח וְנֶאֱסַר הַיַּיִן בִּנְגִיעָתוֹ וַהֲרֵי זֶה כְּמוֹכֵר סְתַם יֵינָם: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁמָּדַד הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי לְכֵלָיו. אֲבָל אִם מָדַד לִכְלִי הָעַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ לִכְלִי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁבְּיַד הָעַכּוּ\"ם צָרִיךְ לִקַּח אֶת הַדָּמִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִמְדֹּד. וְאִם מָדַד וְלֹא לָקַח דָּמִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁפָּסַק דָּמָיו אֲסוּרִים שֶׁמִּשֶּׁיַגִּיעַ לַכְּלִי נֶאֱסַר כִּסְתָם יֵינָם: \n", + "הַנּוֹתֵן דִּינָר לְחֶנְוָנִי עַכּוּ\"ם וְאָמַר לְפוֹעֲלוֹ הָעַכּוּ\"ם לֵךְ וּשְׁתֵה וֶאֱכל מִן הַחֶנְוָנִי וַאֲנִי מְחַשֵּׁב לוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁתֶּה יַיִן. שֶׁזֶּה כְּמִי שֶׁקָּנָה לוֹ יֵין נֶסֶךְ וְהִשְׁקָהוּ. וּכְנֶגֶד זֶה בִּשְׁבִיעִית אָסוּר כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּתַן דִּינָר לְחֶנְוָנִי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַם הָאָרֶץ וְאָמַר לְפוֹעֲלוֹ הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי לֵךְ וֶאֱכל וַאֲנִי מְחַשֵּׁב לוֹ. וְאִם אָכַל הַפּוֹעֵל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעֵשָּׂר אָסוּר: \n", + "אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לָהֶם אִכְלוּ וּשְׁתוּ בְּדִינָר זֶה. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶם אִכְלוּ וּשְׁתוּ עָלַי מִן הַחֶנְוָנִי וַאֲנִי פּוֹרֵעַ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּעְבֵּד הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נִתְיַחֵד שִׁעְבּוּדוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ לֹא מִשּׁוּם יֵין נֶסֶךְ וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבִיעִית וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם מַעֲשֵׂר: \n", + "מֶלֶךְ שֶׁהָיָה מְחַלֵּק יֵינוֹ לָעָם וְלוֹקֵחַ מֵהֶן דָּמָיו כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה. אַל יֹאמַר אָדָם לְעַכּוּ\"ם הֵא לְךָ מָאתַיִם זוּז וְהִכָּנֵס תַּחְתַּי בְּאוֹצַר הַמֶּלֶךְ כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּקַּח עַכּוּ\"ם הַיַּיִן שֶׁכָּתְבוּ בְּשֵׁם יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִתֵּן הָעַכּוּ\"ם הַדָּמִים לַמֶּלֶךְ. אֲבָל אוֹמֵר לוֹ הֵא לְךָ מָאתַיִם זוּז וּמַלְּטֵנִי מִן הָאוֹצָר: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנָּגַע בְּיֵינוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל לְאָנְסוֹ מֻתָּר לִמְכֹּר אוֹתוֹ יַיִן לְאוֹתוֹ הָעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁאֲסָרוֹ לְבַדּוֹ. שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּן זֶה הָעַכּוּ\"ם לְהַזִּיקוֹ וְלֶאֱסֹר יֵינוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמוֹ שֶׁשְּׁבָרוֹ אוֹ שְׂרָפוֹ שֶׁחַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. וְנִמְצְאוּ הַדָּמִים שֶׁלּוֹקֵחַ מִמֶּנּוּ דְּמֵי הַהֶזֵּק וְלֹא דְּמֵי הַמְּכִירָה: \n" + ], + [ + "כָּל אִסּוּרֵי מַאֲכָלוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה שִׁעוּרָן בִּכְזַיִת בֵּינוֹנִי בֵּין לְמַלְקוֹת בֵּין לְכָרֵת בֵּין לְמִיתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁכָּל הַמְחֻיָּב כָּרֵת אוֹ מִיתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם עַל מַאֲכָל לוֹקֶה: \n", + "וְשִׁעוּר זֶה עִם כָּל הַשִּׁעוּרִין הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי הֵם. וְאָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה לֶאֱכל כָּל שֶׁהוּא מִדָּבָר הָאָסוּר. אֲבָל אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶלָּא עַל כְּזַיִת. וְאִם אָכַל כָּל שֶׁהוּא פָּחוֹת מִכַּשִּׁעוּר מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: \n", + "כְּזַיִת שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ חוּץ מִשֶּׁל בֵּין הַשִּׁנַּיִם. אֲבָל מַה שֶּׁל בֵּין הַחֲנִיכַיִם מִצְטָרֵף לְמַה שֶּׁבָּלַע שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶהֱנָה גְּרוֹנוֹ מִכְּזַיִת. אֲפִלּוּ אָכַל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וֶהֱקִיאוֹ וְחָזַר וְאָכַל אוֹתוֹ חֲצִי זַיִת עַצְמוֹ שֶׁהֵקִיא חַיָּב. שֶׁאֵין הַחִיּוּב אֶלָּא עַל הֲנָאַת הַגָּרוֹן בִּכְזַיִת מִדָּבָר הָאָסוּר: \n", + "כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב אוֹ נְבֵלָה אוֹ פִּגּוּל אוֹ נוֹתָר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁהִנִּיחוֹ בַּחַמָּה וְנִתְמַעֵט. הָאוֹכְלוֹ פָּטוּר. חָזַר וְהִנִּיחוֹ בַּגְּשָׁמִים וְנִתְפַּח חַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת אוֹ מַלְקוֹת. הָיָה פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת מִבַּתְּחִלָּה וְנִתְפַּח וְעָמַד עַל כְּזַיִת אָסוּר וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו: \n", + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁכָּל אִסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה לִכְזַיִת. חוּץ מִבְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה עִם בְּשַׂר טְרֵפָה וְאִסּוּרֵי נָזִיר שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֲרוּ בִּמְקוֹמָן. וַחֲמֵשֶׁת מִינֵי תְּבוּאָה וּקְמָחִין שֶׁלָּהֶן וְהַבְּצֵקוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶן הַכּל מִצְטָרְפִים לִכְזַיִת בֵּין לְאִסּוּר חָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח. בֵּין לְאִסּוּר חָדָשׁ מִלִּפְנֵי הָעֹמֶר. בֵּין לְאִסּוּרֵי מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וּתְרוּמוֹת: \n", + "יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁכָּל הַחַיָּב בִּתְרוּמָה וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת מִצְטָרֵף לִכְזַיִת בְּטֶבֶל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא שֵׁם אֶחָד. הָא לְמַה זֶּה דּוֹמֶה לְנִבְלַת הַשּׁוֹר וְנִבְלַת הַשֶּׂה וְנִבְלַת הַצְּבִי שֶׁהֵן מִצְטָרְפִין לִכְזַיִת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל אֲכִילָה גְּדוֹלָה מִדָּבָר אָסוּר אֵין מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ מַלְקוֹת אוֹ כָּרֵת עַל כָּל כְּזַיִת וּכְזַיִת אֶלָּא חִיּוּב אֶחָד לְכָל הָאֲכִילָה. וְאִם הָיוּ הָעֵדִים מַתְרִים בּוֹ בִּשְׁעַת אֲכִילָה עַל כָּל כְּזַיִת וּכְזַיִת חַיָּב עַל כָּל הַתְרָאָה וְהַתְרָאָה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא אֲכִילָה אַחַת וְלֹא הִפְסִיק: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל כִּשְׂעוֹרָה אוֹ כְּחַרְדָּל מֵאֶחָד מִכָּל מַאֲכָלוֹת הָאֲסוּרִים וְשָׁהָה מְעַט וְחָזַר וְאָכַל כְּחַרְדָּל. וְכֵן עַד שֶׁהִשְׁלִים כְּזַיִת. בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד. אִם שָׁהָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף כְּדֵי אֲכִילַת שָׁלֹשׁ בֵּיצִים יִצְטָרֵף הַכּל וַהֲרֵי הוּא חַיָּב כָּרֵת אוֹ מַלְקוֹת אוֹ קָרְבָּן כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָכַל כְּזַיִת בְּבַת אַחַת. וְאִם שָׁהָה יֶתֶר מִזֶּה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהָה בֵּינֵיהֶן אֶלָּא אָכַל כְּחַרְדָּל אַחַר כְּחַרְדָּל הוֹאִיל וְלֹא הִשְׁלִים כְּזַיִת אֶלָּא בְּיֶתֶר מִכְּדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס אֵינָן מִצְטָרְפִין וּפָטוּר: \n", + "וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹתֶה רְבִיעִית שֶׁל סְתָם יֵינָם מְעַט מְעַט. אוֹ שֶׁהִמְחָה אֶת הֶחָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח אוֹ אֶת הַחֵלֶב וּגְמָעוֹ מְעַט מְעַט. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁתָה מִן הַדָּם מְעַט מְעַט. אִם שָׁהָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף כְּדֵי שְׁתִיַּת רְבִיעִית מִצְטָרְפִין. וְאִם לָאו אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין: \n", + "כָּל הָאֳכָלִין הָאֲסוּרִין אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עֲלֵיהֶם עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל אוֹתָן דֶּרֶךְ הֲנָאָה חוּץ מִבָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר בָּהֶן אֲכִילָה אֶלָּא הוֹצִיא אִסּוּר אֲכִילָתָן בְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֶרֶת בִּלְשׁוֹן בִּשּׁוּל וּבִלְשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ לֶאֱסוֹר אוֹתָן וַאֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא כְּדֶרֶךְ הֲנָיָה: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁהִמְחָה אֶת הַחֵלֶב וּגְמָעוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא חַם עַד שֶׁנִּכְוָה גְּרוֹנוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ אוֹ שֶׁאָכַל חֵלֶב חַי. אוֹ שֶׁעֵרֵב דְּבָרִים מָרִים כְּגוֹן רֹאשׁ וְלַעֲנָה לְתוֹךְ יֵין נֶסֶךְ אוֹ לְתוֹךְ קְדֵרָה שֶׁל נְבֵלָה וַאֲכָלָן כְּשֶׁהֵן מָרִין. אוֹ שֶׁאָכַל אֹכֶל הָאָסוּר אַחַר שֶׁהִסְרִיחַ וְהִבְאִישׁ וּבָטַל מֵאֹכֶל אָדָם הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. וְאִם עֵרֵב דָּבָר מַר בְּתוֹךְ קְדֵרָה שֶׁל בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב אוֹ בְּיֵין כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם וַאֲכָלוֹ חַיָּב: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל מַאֲכָל מִמַּאֲכָלוֹת הָאֲסוּרוֹת דֶּרֶךְ שְׂחוֹק אוֹ כְּמִתְעַסֵּק. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְכַּוֵּן לְגוּף הָאֲכִילָה. הוֹאִיל וְנֶהֱנָה חַיָּב כְּמִי שֶׁמִּתְכַּוֵּן לְעַצְמָהּ שֶׁל אֲכִילָה. וַהֲנָיָה הַבָּאָה לוֹ לְאָדָם בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ בְּאִסּוּר מִכָּל הָאִסּוּרִין אִם נִתְכַּוֵּן אָסוּר וְאִם לֹא נִתְכַּוֵּן מֻתָּר: \n", + "הָאוֹכֵל מַאֲכָל אָסוּר לְתֵאָבוֹן אוֹ מִפְּנֵי הָרָעָב חַיָּב. וְאִם הָיָה תּוֹעֶה בַּמִּדְבָּר וְאֵין לוֹ מַה יֹּאכַל אֶלָּא דְּבַר אִסּוּר הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר מִפְּנֵי סַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת: \n", + "עֻבָּרָה שֶׁהֵרִיחָה מַאֲכָל אָסוּר כְּגוֹן בְּשַׂר קֹדֶשׁ אוֹ בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר. מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתָהּ מִן הַמָּרָק. אִם נִתְיַשְּׁבָה דַּעְתָּהּ מוּטָב. וְאִם לָאו מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתָהּ פָּחוֹת מִכַּשִּׁעוּר. וְאִם לֹא נִתְיַשְּׁבָה דַּעְתָּהּ מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתָהּ עַד שֶׁתִּתְיַשֵּׁב דַּעְתָּהּ: \n", + "וְכֵן הַחוֹלֶה שֶׁהֵרִיחַ דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ חֹמֶץ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ מִדְּבָרִים שֶׁמְּעַרְעֲרִין אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ דִּינוֹ כְּעֻבָּרָה: \n", + "מִי שֶׁאָחֲזוֹ בֻּלְמוֹס מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ דְּבָרִים הָאֲסוּרִים מִיָּד עַד שֶׁיֵּאוֹרוּ עֵינָיו. וְאֵין מְחַזְּרִין עַל דָּבָר הַמֻּתָּר אֶלָּא מְמַהֲרִין בַּנִּמְצָא. וּמַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ הַקַּל הַקַּל תְּחִלָּה. אִם הֵאִירוּ עֵינָיו דַּיּוֹ. וְאִם לָאו מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ הֶחָמוּר: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. הָיוּ לְפָנֵינוּ טֶבֶל וּנְבֵלָה מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ נְבֵלָה תְּחִלָּה שֶׁהַטֶּבֶל בְּמִיתָה. נְבֵלָה וּסְפִיחֵי שְׁבִיעִית מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ סְפִיחֵי שְׁבִיעִית שֶׁאֲסוּרִין מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁמִטָּה. טֶבֶל וּשְׁבִיעִית מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ שְׁבִיעִית. טֶבֶל וּתְרוּמָה אִם אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְתַקֵּן הַטֶּבֶל מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ טֶבֶל שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ כִּתְרוּמָה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁאֵין אִסּוּר חָל עַל אִסּוּר אֶלָּא אִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵי הָאִסּוּרִין בָּאִין כְּאַחַת אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אִסּוּר מוֹסִיף אוֹ אִסּוּר כּוֹלֵל. לְפִיכָךְ יֵשׁ אוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת אֶחָד וְלוֹקֶה עָלָיו חָמֵשׁ מַלְקִיּוֹת. וְהוּא שֶׁהִתְרוּ בּוֹ בַּחֲמִשָּׁה אִסּוּרִין שֶׁנִּתְקַבְּצוּ בּוֹ. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב שֶׁנּוֹתַר מִן הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁים בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל חֵלֶב. וּמִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל נוֹתָר. וּמִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים. וּמִשּׁוּם טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל קֹדֶשׁ. וּמִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה מִן הַקֹּדֶשׁ וּמָעַל: \n", + "וְלָמָּה חָל כָּאן אִסּוּר עַל אִסּוּר. שֶׁבְּהֵמָה זוֹ הָיָה חֶלְבָּהּ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּמֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה. הִקְדִּישָׁהּ נֶאֱסַר חֶלְבָּהּ בַּהֲנָיָה וּמִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנּוֹסַף בּוֹ אִסּוּר הֲנָיָה נוֹסַף עָלָיו אִסּוּר קָדָשִׁים. וַעֲדַיִן הָיָה חֵלֶב זֶה מֻתָּר לְגָבוֹהַּ וְאָסוּר לְהֶדְיוֹט. נַעֲשָׂה נוֹתָר מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנּוֹסַף בּוֹ אִסּוּר לְגָבוֹהַּ נֶאֱסַר לְהֶדְיוֹט. וְהָאוֹכֵל הַזֶּה הָיָה מֻתָּר בִּבְשַׂר הַבְּהֵמָה וְאָסוּר בְּחֶלְבָּהּ. נִטְמָא נֶאֱסַר אַף בִּבְשָׂרָהּ נוֹסַף לוֹ אִסּוּר עַל הַחֵלֶב. בָּא יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים כָּלַל כָּל הָאֳכָלִין. וּמִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱסַר אַף בְּחֻלִּין נוֹסַף אִסּוּרוֹ בְּחֵלֶב זֶה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n" + ], + [ + "דָבָר אָסוּר שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּדָבָר מֻתָּר מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. וּמִין בְּמִינוֹ שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲמֹד עַל טַעֲמוֹ יִבָּטֵל בְּרֹב: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. חֵלֶב הַכְּלָיוֹת שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ הַגְּרִיסִין וְנִמּוֹחַ הַכּל. טוֹעֲמִין אֶת הַגְּרִיסִין. אִם לֹא נִמְצָא בָּהֶן טַעַם חֵלֶב הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. וְאִם נִמְצָא בָּהֶם טַעַם חֵלֶב וְהָיָה בָּהֶן מַמָּשׁוֹ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין מִן הַתּוֹרָה. נִמְצָא בָּהֶן טַעֲמוֹ וְלֹא הָיָה בָּהֶן מַמָּשׁוֹ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים: \n", + "כֵּיצַד הוּא מַמָּשׁוֹ. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה מִן הַחֵלֶב כְּזַיִת בְּכָל שָׁלֹשׁ בֵּיצִים מִן הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת. אִם אָכַל מִן הַגְּרִיסִין הָאֵלּוּ כְּשָׁלֹשׁ בֵּיצִים הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶן כְּזַיִת מִן הַחֵלֶב לוֹקֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי טַעַם הָאִסּוּר וּמַמָּשׁוֹ קַיָּם. אֲבָל פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁלֹשׁ בֵּיצִים מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. וְכֵן אִם לֹא הָיָה בַּתַּעֲרֹבֶת כְּזַיִת בְּכָל שָׁלֹשׁ בֵּיצִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן טַעַם חֵלֶב וְאָכַל כָּל הַקְּדֵרָה אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶלָּא מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: \n", + "נָפַל חֵלֶב כְּלָיוֹת לְחֵלֶב הָאַלְיָה וְנִמּוֹחַ הַכּל. אִם הָיָה חֵלֶב הָאַלְיָה כִּשְׁנַיִם בְּחֵלֶב הַכְּלָיוֹת הֲרֵי הַכּל מֻתָּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה. אֲפִלּוּ חֲתִיכַת נְבֵלָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בִּשְׁתֵּי חֲתִיכוֹת שֶׁל שְׁחוּטָה הַכּל מֻתָּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה. אֲבָל מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים הַכּל אָסוּר עַד שֶׁיְּאַבֵּד דָּבָר הָאָסוּר מֵעֹצֶם מִעוּטוֹ וְלֹא יִהְיֶה דָּבָר חָשׁוּב שֶׁעֵינוֹ עוֹמֶדֶת כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר: \n", + "וּבְכַמָּה יִתְעָרֵב דָּבָר הָאָסוּר וִיאַבֵּד בְּעֹצֶם מִעוּטוֹ. כַּשִּׁעוּר שֶׁנָּתְנוּ בּוֹ חֲכָמִים. יֵשׁ דָּבָר שֶׁשִּׁעוּרוֹ בְּשִׁשִּׁים. וְיֵשׁ שֶׁשִּׁעוּרוֹ בְּמֵאָה. וְיֵשׁ שֶׁשִּׁעוּרוֹ בְּמָאתַיִם: \n", + "נִמְצֵאתָ לָמֵד שֶׁכָּל אִסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. בֵּין אִסּוּרֵי מַלְקוֹת. בֵּין אִסּוּרֵי כָּרֵת. בֵּין אִסּוּרֵי הֲנָיָה. שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בַּמַּאֲכָל הַמֻּתָּר מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. מִין בְּמִינוֹ שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲמֹד עַל הַטַּעַם שִׁעוּרוֹ בְּשִׁשִּׁים אוֹ בְּמֵאָה אוֹ בְּמָאתַיִם. חוּץ מִיֵּין נֶסֶךְ מִפְּנֵי חֻמְרַת עַבוֹדָה זָרָה. וְחוּץ מִטֶּבֶל שֶׁהֲרֵי אֶפְשָׁר לְתַקְּנוֹ. וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה אוֹסְרִין בְּמִינָן בְּכָל שֶׁהֵן. וְשֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם כִּשְׁאָר כָּל הָאִסּוּרִין: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. טִפַּת יֵין נֶסֶךְ שֶׁנָּפְלוּ עָלֶיהָ כַּמָּה חָבִיּוֹת שֶׁל יַיִן הַכּל אָסוּר כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. וְכֵן כּוֹס שֶׁל יֵין טֶבֶל שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּחָבִית הַכּל טֶבֶל עַד שֶׁיַּפְרִישׁ תְּרוּמוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת הָרְאוּיִין לְתַעֲרֹבֶת כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ: \n", + "פֵּרוֹת שְׁבִיעִית אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאִם נִתְעָרְבוּ בְּמִינָן בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא וְשֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם אֵינָן בִּכְלָל אִסּוּרֵי תּוֹרָה שֶׁאֵין אוֹתָהּ הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת אֲסוּרָה. אֶלָּא חַיָּב לֶאֱכל כָּל הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת בִּקְדֻשַּׁת שְׁבִיעִית כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ: \n", + "חָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מֵאִסּוּרֵי תּוֹרָה אֵינוֹ בִּכְלָלוֹת אֵלּוּ. לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת אֲסוּרָה לְעוֹלָם שֶׁהֲרֵי לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח תִּהְיֶה כָּל הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת מֻתֶּרֶת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. לְפִיכָךְ אוֹסֵר בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא בֵּין בְּמִינוֹ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ: \n", + "וְהוּא הַדִּין לִתְבוּאָה חֲדָשָׁה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בִּישָׁנָה מִלִּפְנֵי הָעֹמֶר אוֹסֶרֶת בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא. שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ לָהּ מַתִּירִין שֶׁלְּאַחַר הָעֹמֶר יֻתַּר הַכּל. וְכֵן כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה אִסּוּרוֹ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם כְּגוֹן אִסּוּר מֻקְצֶה וְנוֹלָד בְּיוֹם טוֹב לֹא נָתְנוּ בּוֹ חֲכָמִים שִׁעוּר אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ אֶחָד בְּכַמָּה אֲלָפִים אֵינוֹ בָּטֵל. שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ דֶּרֶךְ שֶׁיֻּתַּר בָּהּ כְּגוֹן הֶקְדֵּשׁ וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן: \n", + "אֲבָל הָעָרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם וְחֵלֶב וְדָם וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וְכֵן תְּרוּמוֹת נָתְנוּ חֲכָמִים בָּהֶן שִׁעוּר שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן דֶּרֶךְ הֶתֵּר לְכָל אָדָם: \n", + "יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין אִם נִתְעָרֵב בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ וְלֹא נָתַן טַעַם מֻתָּר. לֹא יִהְיֶה זֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין חָמוּר מִטֶּבֶל שֶׁהֲרֵי אֶפְשָׁר לְתַקְּנוֹ וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵּן שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאַל תִּתְמַהּ עַל חָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה (שמות יב כ) \"כָּל מַחְמֶצֶת לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ\" לְפִיכָךְ הֶחְמִירוּ בּוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַשִּׁעוּרִין שֶׁנָּתְנוּ חֲכָמִים. הַתְּרוּמָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְהַחַלָּה וְהַבִּכּוּרִים עוֹלִין בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה וְצָרִיךְ לְהָרִים וּמִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. וְכֵן פְּרוּסָה שֶׁל לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים לְתוֹךְ פְּרוּסוֹת שֶׁל חֻלִּין עוֹלִין בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה. כֵּיצַד. סְאָה קֶמַח מֵאֶחָד מֵאֵלּוּ. אוֹ סְאָה מִכֻּלָּם שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה סְאָה קֶמַח שֶׁל חֻלִּין וְנִתְעָרֵב הַכּל. מֵרִים מִן הַכּל סְאָה אַחַת כְּנֶגֶד סְאָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה וְהַשְּׁאָר מֻתָּר לְכָל אָדָם. נָפְלָה לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה נַעֲשֶׂה הַכּל מְדֻמָּע: \n", + "הָעָרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם עוֹלִין בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם וּמִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָרִים. כֵּיצַד. רְבִיעִית שֶׁל יֵין עָרְלָה אוֹ כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה הָרְבִיעִית מִצְטָרֶפֶת מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְתוֹךְ מָאתַיִם רְבִיעִיּוֹת שֶׁל יַיִן הַכּל מֻתָּר וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָרִים כְּלוּם. נָפְלָה לְפָחוֹת מִמָּאתַיִם הַכּל אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה: \n", + "וְלָמָּה צָרִיךְ לְהָרִים הַתְּרוּמָה וְלֹא יָרִים עָרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם. שֶׁהַתְּרוּמָה מָמוֹן כֹּהֲנִים. לְפִיכָךְ כָּל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁאֵין הַכֹּהֲנִים מַקְפִּידִין עָלֶיהָ כְּגוֹן תְּרוּמַת הַכְּלִיסִין וְהַחֲרוּבִין וּשְׂעוֹרִין שֶׁבֶּאֱדוֹם אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָרִים: \n", + "וְלָמָּה כָּפְלוּ שִׁעוּר עָרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין בַּהֲנָיָה. וְלָמָּה סָמְכוּ עַל שִׁעוּר מֵאָה בִּתְרוּמוֹת שֶׁהֲרֵי תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר אֶחָד מִמֵּאָה וּמְקַדֵּשׁ הַכּל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יח כט) \"אֶת מִקְדְּשׁוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ\" אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים דָּבָר שֶׁאַתָּה מֵרִים מִמֶּנּוּ אִם חָזַר לְתוֹכוֹ מְקַדְּשׁוֹ: \n", + "שְׁאָר אִסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּן כְּגוֹן בְּשַׂר שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים וְחֵלֶב וְדָם וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שִׁעוּרָן בְּשִׁשִּׁים. כֵּיצַד. כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב כְּלָיוֹת שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ שִׁשִּׁים כְּזַיִת מֵחֵלֶב הָאַלְיָה הַכּל מֻתָּר. נָפַל לְפָחוֹת מִשִּׁשִּׁים הַכּל אָסוּר. וְכֵן אִם נָפַל כִּשְׂעוֹרָה חֵלֶב צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה שָׁם כְּמוֹ שִׁשִּׁים שְׂעוֹרָה. וְכֵן בִּשְׁאָר אִסּוּרִין. וְכֵן שֻׁמָּן שֶׁל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁנָּפַל לִקְדֵרָה שֶׁל בָּשָׂר מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשִׁשִּׁים. וְאֵין שֻׁמַּן הַגִּיד מִן הַמִּנְיָן. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשֻּׁמַּן גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. הוֹאִיל וְגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה בְּרִיָּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ הֶחְמִירוּ בּוֹ בְּאִסּוּרֵי תּוֹרָה. וְהַגִּיד עַצְמוֹ אֵין מְשַׁעֲרִין בּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר שֶׁאֵין בַּגִּידִים בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם: \n", + "אֲבָל כְּחַל שֶׁנִתְבַּשֵּׁל עִם הַבָּשָׂר בְּשִׁשִּׁים וּכְחַל מִן הַמִּנְיָן. הוֹאִיל וְהַכְּחַל מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ הֵקֵלּוּ בְּשִׁעוּרוֹ: \n", + "בֵּיצָה שֶׁנִּמְצָא בָּהּ אֶפְרוֹחַ שֶׁנִּשְׁלְקָה עִם בֵּיצִים הַמֻּתָּרוֹת אִם הָיְתָה עִם שִׁשִּׁים וְאַחַת וְהִיא הֲרֵי הֵן מֻתָּרוֹת. הָיְתָה עִם שִׁשִּׁים בִּלְבַד נֶאֶסְרוּ הַכּל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא בְּרִיָּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ עָשׂוּ הֶכֵּר בָּהּ וְהוֹסִיפוּ בְּשִׁעוּרָהּ: \n", + "אֲבָל בֵּיצַת עוֹף טָמֵא שֶׁנִּשְׁלְקָה עִם בֵּיצֵי עוֹף טָהוֹר לֹא אָסְרָה אוֹתָם. וְאִם טָרַף אֵלּוּ עִם אֵלּוּ. אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בֵּיצַת עוֹף טָמֵא אוֹ בֵּיצַת טְרֵפָה עִם בֵּיצִים אֲחֵרוֹת שִׁעוּרָן בְּשִׁשִּׁים: \n", + "וּמִנַּיִן סָמְכוּ חֲכָמִים עַל שִׁעוּר שִׁשִּׁים. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַמּוּרָם מֵאֵיל נָזִיר וְהִיא הַזְּרוֹעַ אֶחָד מִשִּׁשִּׁים מִשְּׁאָר הָאַיִל וְהִיא מִתְבַּשֶּׁלֶת עִמּוֹ וְאֵינָהּ אוֹסֶרֶת אוֹתוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ו יט) \"וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַזְּרֹעַ בְּשֵׁלָה מִן הָאַיִל\": \n", + "מִין בְּמִינוֹ וְדָבָר אַחֵר שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ כְּגוֹן קְדֵרָה שֶׁהָיָה בָּהּ חֵלֶב אַלְיָה וּגְרִיסִין וְנָפַל לְתוֹכָהּ חֵלֶב הַכְּלָיוֹת וְנִמְחָה הַכּל וְנַעֲשָׂה גּוּף אֶחָד. רוֹאִין אֶת חֵלֶב הָאַלְיָה וְאֶת הַגְּרִיסִין כְּאִלּוּ הֵן גּוּף אֶחָד וּמְשַׁעֲרִין חֵלֶב הַכְּלָיוֹת כִּגְרִיסִין וּכְאַלְיָּה. אִם הָיָה אֶחָד מִשִּׁשִּׁים מֻתָּר. שֶׁהֲרֵי אִי אֶפְשָׁר כָּאן לַעֲמֹד עַל הַטַּעַם: \n", + "וְהוּא הַדִּין לַתְּרוּמוֹת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ לְשַׁעֲרָן בְּמֵאָה. וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם אוֹ עָרְלָה לְשַׁעֵר אוֹתָן בְּמָאתַיִם: \n", + "כְּשֶׁמְּשַׁעֲרִין בְּכָל הָאִסּוּרִין בֵּין בְּשִׁשִּׁים בֵּין בְּמֵאָה בֵּין בְּמָאתַיִם. מְשַׁעֲרִין בַּמָּרָק וּבַתַּבְלִין וּבְכָל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בַּקְּדֵרָה וּבְמַה שֶּׁבָּלְעָה קְדֵרָה מֵאַחַר שֶׁנָּפַל הָאִסּוּר לְפִי אֹמֶד הַדַּעַת. שֶׁהֲרֵי אִי אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲמֹד עַל מַה שֶּׁבָּלְעָה בְּצִמְצוּם: \n", + "אָסוּר לְבַטֵּל אִסּוּרִין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה לְכַתְּחִלָּה. וְאִם בִּטֵּל הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן קָנְסוּ אוֹתוֹ חֲכָמִים וְאָסְרוּ הַכּל. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא קְנָס אֵין אוֹסְרִין תַּעֲרֹבֶת זוֹ אֶלָּא עַל זֶה הָעוֹבֵר שֶׁבִּטֵּל הָאִסּוּר. אֲבָל לַאֲחֵרִים הַכּל מֻתָּר: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁנָּפְלָה סְאָה שֶׁל עָרְלָה לְתוֹךְ מֵאָה סְאָה שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱסַר הַכּל. לֹא יָבִיא מֵאָה סְאָה אֲחֵרוֹת וִיצָרֵף כְּדֵי שֶׁתַּעֲלֶה בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם. וְאִם עָבַר וְעָשָׂה כֵּן הַכּל מֻתָּר. אֲבָל בְּאִסּוּר שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם מְבַטְּלִין הָאִסּוּר לְכַתְּחִלָּה: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. חָלָב שֶׁנָּפַל לִקְדֵרָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ בְּשַׂר עוֹף וְנָתַן טַעַם בַּקְּדֵרָה מַרְבֶּה עָלָיו בְּשַׂר עוֹף אַחֵר עַד שֶׁיִּבָּטֵל הַטַּעַם. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁאִם נָתַן דָּבָר הָאָסוּר טַעֲמוֹ בְּדָבָר הַמֻּתָּר נֶאֱסַר הַכּל. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחוֹ. אֲבָל אִם פָּגַם זֶה הָאָסוּר לַמֻּתָּר וְהִפְסִיד טַעֲמוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה פּוֹגֵם מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף. אֲבָל אִם פָּגַם בַּתְּחִלָּה וְסוֹפוֹ לְהַשְׁבִּיחַ. אוֹ הִשְׁבִּיחַ בַּתְּחִלָּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁסּוֹפוֹ לִפְגֹּם הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר: \n", + "וּמִי יִטְעֹם אֶת הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת. אִם הָיָה הַמְעֹרָב תְּרוּמוֹת עִם הַחֻלִּין טוֹעֵם אוֹתָן הַכֹּהֵן. אִם הָיָה טַעַם הַתְּרוּמָה נִכָּר הַכּל מְדֻמָּע. וּבְהִלְכוֹת תְּרוּמוֹת יִתְבָּאֵר דִּין הַמְדֻמָּע: \n", + "וְאִם הָיָה בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב אוֹ יֵין נֶסֶךְ וְיֵין עָרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לִדְבַשׁ. אוֹ בְּשַׂר שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים שֶׁנִּתְבַּשֵּׁל עִם הָיָּרָק וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. טוֹעֵם אוֹתָן הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְסוֹמְכִין עַל פִּיו. אִם אָמַר אֵין בּוֹ טַעַם אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר יֵשׁ בּוֹ טַעַם וּמִטַּעַם רַע הוּא וַהֲרֵי פְּגָמוֹ הַכּל מֻתָּר. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה סוֹפוֹ לְהַשְׁבִּיחַ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאִם אֵין שָׁם עַכּוּ\"ם לִטְעֹם מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשִׁעוּרוֹ בְּשִׁשִּׁים אוֹ בַּמֵּאָה אוֹ בְּמָאתַיִם: \n", + "עַכְבָּר שֶׁנָּפַל לְשֵׁכָר אוֹ לְחֹמֶץ מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשִׁשִּׁים. שֶׁאָנוּ חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא טַעֲמוֹ בַּשֵּׁכָר וּבַחֹמֶץ מַשְׁבִּיחַ. אֲבָל אִם נָפַל לְיַיִן אוֹ לְשֶׁמֶן אוֹ לִדְבַשׁ מֻתָּר וַאֲפִלּוּ נָתַן טַעַם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁטַּעֲמוֹ פּוֹגֵם. שֶׁכָּל אֵלּוּ צְרִיכִין לִהְיוֹתָן מְבֻשָּׂמִים וְזֶה מַסְרִיחָן וּמַפְסִיד טַעֲמָן: \n", + "גְּדִי שֶׁצְּלָאוֹ בְּחֶלְבּוֹ אָסוּר לֶאֱכל אֲפִלּוּ מִקְצֵה אָזְנוֹ. שֶׁהָחֵלֶב נִבְלָע בְּאֵיבָרָיו וְהוּא מַשְׁבִּיחוֹ וְנוֹתֵן בּוֹ טַעַם. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיָה כָּחוּשׁ וְלֹא הָיָה בּוֹ חֵלֶב כְּלָיוֹת וְלֹא חֵלֶב קֶרֶב אֶלָּא מְעַט כְּאֶחָד מִשִּׁשִּׁים קוֹלֵף וְאוֹכֵל עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לַחֵלֶב. וְכֵן יָרֵךְ שֶׁצְּלָאָהּ בְּגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁבָּהּ קוֹלֵף וְאוֹכֵל עַד שֶׁהוּא מַגִּיעַ לַגִּיד וּמַשְׁלִיכוֹ. וְכֵן בְּהֵמָה שֶׁצְּלָאָהּ שְׁלֵמָה וְלֹא הֵסִיר לֹא חוּטִין וְלֹא קְרוּמוֹת הָאֲסוּרוֹת קוֹלֵף וְאוֹכֵל. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְדָבָר אָסוּר חוֹתְכוֹ וּמַשְׁלִיכוֹ שֶׁאֵין בַּגִּידִים בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם כְּדֵי לְשַׁעֵר בָּהֶן: \n", + "אֵין צוֹלִין בְּשַׂר שְׁחוּטָה עִם בְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה אוֹ בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה בְּתַנּוּר אֶחָד. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין נוֹגְעִין זֶה בָּזֶה. וְאִם צְלָאָן הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה הָאֲסוּרָה שְׁמֵנָה הַרְבֵּה וְהַמֻּתֶּרֶת רָזָה שֶׁהָרֵיחַ אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר. וְאֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר אֶלָּא טַעֲמוֹ שֶׁל אִסּוּר: \n", + "בְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה מָלִיחַ שֶׁנִּבְלַל עִמּוֹ בְּשַׂר שְׁחוּטָה הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱסַר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁתַּמְצִית הַנְּבֵלָה נִבְלַעַת בְּגוּף בְּשַׂר הַשְּׁחוּטָה וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲמֹד כָּאן לֹא עַל הַטַּעַם וְלֹא עַל הַשִּׁעוּר. וְכֵן בְּשַׂר דָּג טָמֵא מָלִיחַ שֶׁנִּבְלַל עִמּוֹ דָּג תָּפֵל טָהוֹר נֶאֱסַר מִפְּנֵי צִירוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה הַמָּלִיחַ טָהוֹר וְהַתָּפֵל דָּג טָמֵא לֹא נֶאֱסַר הַמָּלִיחַ [אַף עַל פִּי] שֶׁהַתָּפֵל בּוֹלֵעַ מִן הַמָּלִיחַ [ אֵינוֹ בּוֹלֵעַ כָּל כָּךְ שֶׁיַּחְזֹר וְיִפְלֹט]. דָּג טָמֵא שֶׁכְּבָשׁוֹ עִם דָּג טָהוֹר הַכּל אָסוּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה הַטָּמֵא אֶחָד מִמָּאתַיִם מִן הַטָּהוֹר: \n" + ], + [ + "כָּל הַשִּׁעוּרִים הָאֵלּוּ שְׁנָּתְנוּ חֲכָמִים לְדָבָר הָאָסוּר שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמִינוֹ הַמֻּתָּר בְּשֶׁלֹּא הָיָה הַדָּבָר הָאָסוּר מְחַמֵּץ אוֹ מְתַבֵּל. אוֹ דָּבָר חָשׁוּב שֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא וְלֹא נִתְעָרֵב וְנִדְמָע בְּדָבָר הַמֻּתָּר. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה מְחַמֵּץ אוֹ מְתַבֵּל אוֹ דָּבָר חָשׁוּב אוֹסֵר בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. שְׂאוֹר שֶׁל חִטִּין שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ עִסַּת חִטִּין שֶׁל חֻלִּין וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ הֲרֵי הָעִסָּה כֻּלָּהּ מְדֻמָּע. וְכֵן תַּבְלִין שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לִקְדֵרַת חֻלִּין וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶן כְּדֵי לְתַבֵּל וְהֵן מִמִּין הַחֻלִּין הַכּל מְדֻמָּע. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַשְּׂאוֹר אוֹ הַתַּבְלִין אֶחָד מֵאֶלֶף. וְכֵן שְׂאוֹר שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם לְתוֹךְ הָעִסָּה אוֹ תַּבְלִין שֶׁל עָרְלָה לְתוֹךְ הַקְּדֵרָה הַכּל אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה: \n", + "דָּבָר חָשׁוּב שֶׁהוּא אוֹסֵר בְּמִינוֹ בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא שִׁבְעָה דְּבָרִים וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. אֱגוֹזֵי פֶּרֶךְ. וְרִמּוֹנֵי בְּדַן. וְחָבִיּוֹת סְתוּמוֹת. וַחֲלַפוֹת תְּרָדִין. וְקִלְחֵי כְּרוּב. וּדְלַעַת יְוָנִית. וְכִכָּרוֹת שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. רִמּוֹן אֶחָד מֵרִמּוֹנֵי בְּדַן שֶׁהָיָה עָרְלָה וְנִתְעָרֵב בְּכַמָּה אֲלָפִים רִמּוֹנִים הַכּל אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה. וְכֵן חָבִית סְתוּמָה שֶׁל יֵין עָרְלָה אוֹ שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּכַמָּה אֲלָפִים חָבִיּוֹת סְתוּמוֹת הַכּל אֲסוּרִים בַּהֲנָיָה. וְכֵן שְׁאָר הַשִּׁבְעָה דְּבָרִים: \n", + "וְכֵן חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל נְבֵלָה אוֹ שֶׁל בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה אוֹ חַיָּה אוֹ עוֹף אוֹ דָּג הַטְּמֵאִין שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּכַמָּה אֲלָפִים חֲתִיכוֹת הַכּל אָסוּר עַד שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהַּ אוֹתָהּ חֲתִיכָה. וְאַחַר כָּךְ יְשַׁעֵר הַשְּׁאָר בְּשִׁשִּׁים. שֶׁאִם לֹא הִגְבִּיהָהּ הֲרֵי הַדָּבָר הָאָסוּר עוֹמֵד וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּנָּה וְהַחֲתִיכָה חֲשׁוּבָה אֶצְלוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי מִתְכַּבֵּד בָּהּ לִפְנֵי הָאוֹרְחִין: \n", + "וְהוּא הַדִּין בַּחֲתִיכָה שֶׁל בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב אוֹ שֶׁל חֻלִּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בָּעֲזָרָה שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵן אֲסוּרִים מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן בַּהֲנָיָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה אוֹסְרִין בְּכָל שֶׁהֵן עַד שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהַּ אוֹתָן. וְכֵן גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁנִּתְבַּשֵּׁל עִם הַגִּידִין אוֹ עִם הַבָּשָׂר בִּזְמַן שֶׁמַּכִּירוֹ מַגְבִּיהוֹ וְהַשְּׁאָר מֻתָּר שֶׁאֵין בַּגִּידִים בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. וְאִם אֵינוֹ מַכִּירוֹ הַכּל אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בְּרִיָּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא חָשׁוּב וְאוֹסֵר בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא: \n", + "וְכֵן כָּל בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים חֲשׁוּבִין הֵן וְאֵינָם בְּטֵלִין. לְפִיכָךְ שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּאֶלֶף שְׁוָרִים וְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה בְּאֶלֶף עֶגְלוֹת. אוֹ צִפּוֹר מְצֹרָע הַשְּׁחוּטָה בְּאֶלֶף צִפֳּרִים אוֹ פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר בְּאֶלֶף חֲמוֹרִים כֻּלָּן אֲסוּרִין בַּהֲנָיָה. אֲבָל שְׁאָר הַדְּבָרִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לִמָּנוֹת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ עוֹלִין בְּשִׁעוּרָן: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. אֲגֻדָּה שֶׁל יָרָק מִכִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּמָאתַיִם אֲגֻדּוֹת. אוֹ אֶתְרוֹג שֶׁל עָרְלָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמָאתַיִם אֶתְרוֹגִים. הַכּל מֻתָּר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁכָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא חָשׁוּב אֵצֶל בְּנֵי מָקוֹם מִן הַמְּקוֹמוֹת. כְּגוֹן אֱגוֹזֵי פֶּרֶךְ וְרִמּוֹנֵי בְּדַן בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּאוֹתָן הַזְּמַנִּים. שֶׁהוּא אוֹסֵר בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא לְפִי חֲשִׁיבוּתוֹ בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם וּבְאוֹתוֹ זְמַן. וְלֹא הֻזְכְּרוּ אֵלּוּ אֶלָּא לְפִי שֶׁהֵן אוֹסְרִין כָּל שֶׁהֵן בְּכָל מָקוֹם. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן בִּשְׁאָר מְקוֹמוֹת. וְדָבָר בָּרוּר הוּא שֶׁכָּל אִסּוּרִין הָאֵלּוּ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם: \n", + "נָפַל רִמּוֹן אֶחָד מִן הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת הַזֹּאת לִשְׁנֵי רִמּוֹנִים אֲחֵרִים מֵרִמּוֹנֵי בְּדַן. וְנָפַל מִן הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה רִמּוֹן אֶחָד לְרִמּוֹנִים אֲחֵרִים. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ הָאֲחֵרִים מֻתָּרִין שֶׁהֲרֵי הָרִמּוֹן שֶׁל תַּעֲרֹבֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה בָּטֵל בְּרֹב. וְאִם נָפַל מִן הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה רִמּוֹן לְאֶלֶף כֻּלָּן אֲסוּרִין. לֹא נֶאֱמַר בָּטֵל בְּרֹב אֶלָּא לְהַתִּיר סְפֵק סְפֵקָן שֶׁאִם יִפּל מִן הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "נִתְפַּצְּעוּ אֱגוֹזִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁנֶּאֶסְרוּ כֻּלָּן מִפְּנֵי אֱגוֹז עָרְלָה שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶן אוֹ נִתְפָּרְרוּ הָרִמּוֹנִים וְנִתְפַּתְּחוּ הֶחָבִיּוֹת וְנִתְחַתְּכוּ הַדְּלוּעִין וְנִתְפָּרְסוּ הַכִּכָּרוֹת אַחַר שֶׁנֶּאֶסְרוּ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יַעֲלוּ בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם. וְהוּא הַדִּין לַחֲתִיכַת נְבֵלָה שֶׁנִּדּוֹכָה בְּכָל הַחֲתִיכוֹת וְנַעֲשָׂה הַכּל כְּמוֹת שֶׁהִיא עוֹלֶה בְּשִׁשִּׁים: \n", + "וְאָסוּר לִפְצֹעַ הָאֱגוֹזִים וּלְפָרֵר הָרִמּוֹנִים וְלִפְתֹּחַ הֶחָבִיּוֹת אַחַר שֶׁנֶּאֶסְרוּ כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּעֲלוּ בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם שֶׁאֵין מְבַטְּלִין אִסּוּר לְכַתְּחִלָּה. וְאִם עָשָׂה כֵּן קוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ וְאוֹסְרִין עָלָיו כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "שְׂאוֹר שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם וְשֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לְתוֹךְ הָעִסָּה לֹא בָּזֶה כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ וְלֹא בָּזֶה כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ וּבִשְׁנֵיהֶם כְּשֶׁיִּצְטָרְפוּ יֵשׁ בָּהֶם כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ. אוֹתָהּ עִסָּה אֲסוּרָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וּמֻתֶּרֶת לַכֹּהֲנִים. וְכֵן תַּבְלִין שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה וְשֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לְתוֹךְ הַקְּדֵרָה. וְלֹא בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן כְּדֵי לְתַבֵּל וּבִשְׁנֵיהֶם כְּדֵי לְתַבֵּל. אוֹתָהּ קְדֵרָה אֲסוּרָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהֲרֵי דָּבָר הָאָסוּר לָהֶם תִּבְּלָה. וּמֻתֶּרֶת לַכֹּהֲנִים: \n", + "תַּבְלִין שֶׁהֵם שְׁנַיִם אוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה שֵׁמוֹת מִמִּין אֶחָד אוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה מִינִין מִשֵּׁם אֶחָד מִצְטָרְפִין לְתַבֵּל וְלֶאֱסֹר וְכֵן לְחַמֵּץ. כֵּיצַד. שְׂאוֹר שֶׁל חִטִּין וּשְׂאוֹר שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִים הוֹאִיל וְשֵׁם שְׂאוֹר אֶחָד הוּא אֵינָן כְּמִין וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ. אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמִין אֶחָד וּמִצְטָרֵף לְשַׁעֵר בָּהֶן כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ בְּעִסָּה שֶׁל חִטִּין אִם הָיָה טַעַם שְׁנֵיהֶם טַעַם חִטִּין. אוֹ כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ בְּעִסָּה שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִין אִם הָיָה טַעַם שְׁנֵיהֶם טַעַם שְׂעוֹרִים: \n", + "שְׁלֹשָׁה שֵׁמוֹת מִמִּין אֶחָד כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן כַּרְפַּס שֶׁל נְהָרוֹת וְכַרְפַּס שֶׁל אֲפָר וְכַרְפַּס שֶׁל גִּנָּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן שֵׁם בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ הוֹאִיל וְהֵם מִין אֶחָד מִצְטָרְפִין לְתַבֵּל: \n", + "עִסָּה מְחֻמֶּצֶת שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹכָהּ שְׂאוֹר שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה אוֹ שְׂאוֹר שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם. וְכֵן קְדֵרָה מְתֻבֶּלֶת שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לְתוֹכָהּ תַּבְלִין שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה אוֹ שֶׁל עָרְלָה וְשֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם. אִם יֵשׁ בַּשְּׂאוֹר כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ אִלּוּ הָיְתָה הָעִסָּה מַצָּה. וּבַתַּבְלִין כְּדֵי לְתַבֵּל הַקְּדֵרָה אִלּוּ הָיְתָה תְּפֵלָה הֲרֵי הַכּל אָסוּר. וְאִם אֵין בָּהֶם כְּדֵי לְתַבֵּל וּלְחַמֵּץ יַעֲלוּ בְּשִׁעוּרָן. תְּרוּמָה בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה וְעָרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם: \n", + "הַתְּרוּמָה מַעְלָה אֶת הָעָרְלָה וְאֶת כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם. כֵּיצַד. סְאָה תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְתִשְׁעָה וְתִשְׁעִים חֻלִּין וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָפַל לְכָל חֲצִי סְאָה שֶׁל עָרְלָה אוֹ שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם אֵין כָּאן אִסּוּר עָרְלָה וְלֹא אִסּוּר כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם. שֶׁהֲרֵי עָלָה בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּקְצָת הַמָּאתַיִם תְּרוּמָה: \n", + "וְכֵן הָעָרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם מַעֲלִין אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה. כֵּיצַד. מֵאָה סְאָה שֶׁל עָרְלָה אוֹ שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לְתוֹךְ עֶשְׂרִים אֶלֶף שֶׁל חֻלִּין נַעֲשֵׂית כָּל הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת עֶשְׂרִים אֶלֶף וּמֵאָה. וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָפַל לְכָל מֵאָה סְאָה סְאָה שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה הֲרֵי הַכּל מֻתָּר וְתַעֲלֶה הַתְּרוּמָה בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּקְצָת הַמֵּאָה הַמַּעֲלִין אוֹתָהּ עָרְלָה אוֹ כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם: \n", + "וְכֵן הָעָרְלָה מַעֲלָה אֶת כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם. וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם אֶת הָעָרְלָה. וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם אֶת כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם. וְהָעָרְלָה אֶת הָעָרְלָה. כֵּיצַד. מָאתַיִם סְאָה שֶׁל עָרְלָה אוֹ שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לְאַרְבָּעִים אֶלֶף חֻלִּין. וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָפַל לְכָל מָאתַיִם סְאָה וּסְאָה שֶׁל עָרְלָה אוֹ שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם הַכּל מֻתָּר. שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁבָּטֵל הָאִסּוּר שֶׁנָּפַל תְּחִלָּה נַעֲשָׂה הַכּל כְּחֻלִּין הַמֻּתָּרִין: \n", + "בֶּגֶד שֶׁצְּבָעוֹ בִּקְלִפֵּי עָרְלָה יִשָּׂרֵף. נִתְעָרֵב בַּאֲחֵרִים יַעֲלֶה בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם. וְכֵן תַּבְשִׁיל שֶׁבִּשְּׁלוֹ בִּקְלִפֵּי עָרְלָה וּפַת שֶׁאֲפָאָהּ בִּקְלִפֵּי עָרְלָה אוֹ בְּכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם יִשָּׂרֵף הַתַּבְשִׁיל וְהַפַּת. שֶׁהֲרֵי הֲנָיָתוֹ נִכֶּרֶת בָּהֶן. נִתְעָרְבוּ בַּאֲחֵרִים יַעֲלוּ בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם: \n", + "וְכֵן בֶּגֶד שֶׁאָרַג בּוֹ מְלֹא הַסִּיט שֶׁצְּבָעוֹ בָּעָרְלָה וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵי זֶה הוּא יַעֲלֶה בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם. נִתְעָרְבוּ סַמָּנֵי עָרְלָה בְּסַמָּנֵי הֶתֵּר יַעֲלוּ בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם. מֵי צֶבַע בְּמֵי צֶבַע יִבָּטֵל בְּרֹב: \n", + "תַּנּוּר שֶׁהִסִּיקוֹ בִּקְלִפֵּי עָרְלָה וּבְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם בֵּין חָדָשׁ בֵּין יָשָׁן יוּצַן. וְאַחַר כָּךְ יָחֵם אוֹתוֹ בַּעֲצֵי הֶתֵּר. וְאִם בִּשֵּׁל בּוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁיּוּצַן בֵּין פַּת בֵּין תַּבְשִׁיל הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה. יֵשׁ שֶׁבַח עֲצֵי אִסּוּר בְּפַת אוֹ בְּתַבְשִׁיל. גָּרַף אֶת כָּל הָאֵשׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ בִּשֵּׁל אוֹ אָפָה בְּחֻמּוֹ שֶׁל תַּנּוּר הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר שֶׁהֲרֵי עֲצֵי אִסּוּר הָלְכוּ לָהֶן: \n", + "קְעָרוֹת וְכוֹסוֹת וּקְדֵרוֹת וּצְלוֹחִיּוֹת שֶׁבִּשְּׁלָן הַיּוֹצֵר בִּקְלִפֵּי עָרְלָה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין בַּהֲנָאָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי דָּבָר הָאָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה עָשָׂה אוֹתָן חָדָשׁ: \n", + "פַּת שֶׁבִּשְּׁלָהּ עַל גַּבֵּי גֶּחָלִים שֶׁל עֲצֵי עָרְלָה מֻתֶּרֶת. כֵּיוָן שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ גֶּחָלִים הָלַךְ אִסּוּרָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן בּוֹעֲרוֹת. קְדֵרָה שֶׁבִּשֵּׁל אוֹתָהּ בִּקְלִפֵּי עָרְלָה אוֹ בְּכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם וּבַעֲצֵי הֶתֵּר הֲרֵי הַתַּבְשִׁיל אָסוּר. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁזֶּה וְזֶה גּוֹרֵם. שֶׁבְּשָׁעָה שֶׁנִּתְבַּשְּׁלָה מֵחֲמַת עֲצֵי אִסּוּר עֲדַיִן לֹא בָּאוּ עֲצֵי הַהֶתֵּר וְנִמְצָא מִקְצָת הַבִּשּׁוּל בַּעֲצֵי הֶתֵּר וּמִקְצָתוֹ בְּאִסּוּר: \n", + "נְטִיעָה שֶׁל עָרְלָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בִּנְטִיעוֹת. וְכֵן עֲרוּגָה שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם בַּעֲרוּגוֹת. הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֵט לְכַתְּחִלָּה מִן הַכּל. וְאִם הָיְתָה נְטִיעָה בְּמָאתַיִם נְטִיעוֹת וַעֲרוּגָה בְּמָאתַיִם עֲרוּגוֹת הֲרֵי כָּל הַנִּלְקָט מֻתָּר. וְאִם הָיוּ בְּפָחוֹת מִזֶּה כָּל הַנִּלְקָט אָסוּר. וְלָמָּה הִתִּירוּ לוֹ לִלְקֹט לְכַתְּחִלָּה וְהָיָה מִן הַדִּין שֶׁאוֹסְרִין לוֹ הַכּל עַד שֶׁיִּטְרַח וְיוֹצִיא הַנְּטִיעָה וְהָעֲרוּגָה הָאֲסוּרָה. שֶׁהַדָּבָר חֲזָקָה שֶׁאֵין אָדָם אוֹסֵר כַּרְמוֹ בִּנְטִיעָה אַחַת וְאִלּוּ הָיָה יוֹדְעָהּ הָיָה מוֹצִיאָהּ: \n", + "הַמַּעֲמִיד גְּבִינָה בִּשְׂרַף פַּגֵּי עָרְלָה. אוֹ בְּקֵיבַת תִּקְרֹבֶת עַכּוּ\"ם. אוֹ בְּחֹמֶץ יַיִן שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם. הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָיָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא כָּל שֶׁהוּא. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַדָּבָר הָאָסוּר הוּא הַנִּכָּר וְהוּא שֶׁעָשָׂה אוֹתָהּ גְּבִינָה: \n", + "הָעָרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם דִּין הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶן שֶׁיִּשָּׂרְפוּ. וְהַמַּשְׁקִין שֶׁלָּהֶן יִקָּבְרוּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׂרֹף הַמַּשְׁקִין: \n", + "יַיִן שֶׁנִּתְנַסֵּךְ לְעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב עִם הַיַּיִן הַכּל אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁהוּרַק הַיַּיִן הַמֻּתָּר עַל טִפָּה שֶׁל יֵין נֶסֶךְ. אֲבָל אִם עֵרָה יֵין נֶסֶךְ מִצִּלְצוּל קָטָן לְתוֹךְ הַבּוֹר שֶׁל יַיִן. אֲפִלּוּ עֵרָה כָּל הַיּוֹם כֻּלּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן בָּטֵל. עֵרָה מִן הֶחָבִית בֵּין שֶׁעֵרָה מִן הַמֻּתָּר לָאָסוּר אוֹ מִן הָאָסוּר לַמֻּתָּר הַכּל אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָעַמּוּד הַיּוֹרֵד מִפִּי הֶחָבִית גָּדוֹל: \n", + "נִתְעָרֵב סְתָם יֵינָם בַּיַּיִן הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא בִּשְׁתִיָּה וְיִמָּכֵר כֻּלּוֹ לְעַכּוּ\"ם. וְלוֹקֵחַ דְּמֵי הַיַּיִן הָאָסוּר שֶׁבּוֹ וּמַשְׁלִיכוֹ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח וְיֵהָנֶה בִּשְׁאָר הַמָּעוֹת. וְכֵן אִם נִתְעָרְבָה חָבִית שֶׁל יֵין נֶסֶךְ בֵּין הֶחָבִיּוֹת הַכּל אֲסוּרִין בִּשְׁתִיָּה וּמֻתָּרִין בַּהֲנָיָה. וְיוֹלִיךְ דְּמֵי אוֹתָהּ חָבִית לְיָם הַמֶּלַח כְּשֶׁיִּמְכֹּר הַכּל לְעַכּוּ\"ם. וְכֵן בְּחָבִית שֶׁל סְתָם יֵינָם: \n", + "מַיִם שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בְּיַיִן אוֹ יַיִן בְּמַיִם בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁנָּפַל הַמַּשְׁקֶה הַמֻּתָּר לְתוֹךְ הַמַּשְׁקֶה הָאָסוּר. אֲבָל אִם נָפַל הַמַּשְׁקֶה הָאָסוּר לְתוֹךְ הַמַּשְׁקֶה הַמֻּתָּר רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן בָּטֵל. וְהוּא שֶׁיּוּרַק מִצִּלְצוּל קָטָן שֶׁהָיָה מֵרִיק וְיוֹרֵד מְעַט מְעַט. וְהֵיאַךְ יִהְיוּ הַמַּיִם אֲסוּרִים כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ נֶעֱבָדִין אוֹ תִּקְרֹבֶת עַכּוּ\"ם: \n", + "בּוֹר שֶׁל יַיִן שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹכוֹ קִיתוֹן שֶׁל מַיִם תְּחִלָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ יֵין נֶסֶךְ. רוֹאִים אֶת יֵין הַהֶתֵּר כְּאִלּוּ אֵינוֹ וְהַמַּיִם שֶׁנָּפְלוּ מְשַׁעֲרִין בָּהֶן עִם יֵין נֶסֶךְ. אִם רְאוּיִין לְבַטֵּל טַעַם אוֹתוֹ יֵין נֶסֶךְ הֲרֵי הַמַּיִם רָבִין עָלָיו וּמְבַטְּלִין אוֹתוֹ וְיִהְיֶה הַכּל מֻתָּר: \n", + "יֵין נֶסֶךְ שֶׁנָּפַל עַל הָעֲנָבִים יְדִיחֵם וְהֵן מֻתָּרוֹת בַּאֲכִילָה. וְאִם הָיוּ מְבֻקָּעוֹת בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה הַיַּיִן יָשָׁן בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה חָדָשׁ אִם נוֹתֵן טַעַם בָּעֲנָבִים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרוֹת בַּהֲנָיָה. וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרוֹת בַּאֲכִילָה: \n", + "נָפַל עַל גַּבֵּי תְּאֵנִים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרוֹת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַיַּיִן פּוֹגֵם בְּטַעַם הַתְּאֵנִים: \n", + "יֵין נֶסֶךְ שֶׁנָּפַל עַל הַחִטִּים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרוֹת בַּאֲכִילָה וּמֻתָּרוֹת בַּהֲנָיָה. וְלֹא יִמְכְּרֵם לְעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁמָּא יַחֲזֹר וְיִמְכְּרֵם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. אֶלָּא כֵּיצַד עוֹשֶׂה. טוֹחֵן אוֹתָן וְעוֹשֶׂה מֵהֶן פַּת וּמוֹכְרָהּ לְעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִקְּחוּ אוֹתָהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁהֲרֵי פַּת עַכּוּ\"ם אֲסוּרָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. וְלָמָּה אֵין בּוֹדְקִין אֶת הַחִטִּים בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן שׁוֹאֲבוֹת וְהַיַּיִן נִבְלָע בָּהֶן: \n", + "יֵין נֶסֶךְ שֶׁהֶחֱמִיץ וְנָפַל לְתוֹךְ חֹמֶץ שֵׁכָר אוֹסֵר בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בְּמִינוֹ שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶן חֹמֶץ הֵן. וְיַיִן שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב עִם הַחֹמֶץ בֵּין שֶׁנָּפַל חֹמֶץ לַיַּיִן בֵּין שֶׁנָּפַל יַיִן לַחֹמֶץ מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹתוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם: \n" + ], + [ + "קְדֵרָה שֶׁל חֶרֶס שֶׁנּתִבַּשֵּׁל בָּהּ בְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה אוֹ בְּשַׂר שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים לֹא יְבַשֵּׁל בָּהּ בְּשַׂר שְׁחוּטָה בְּאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם. וְאִם בִּשֵּׁל בָּהּ מִין בָּשָׂר הַתַּבְשִׁיל אָסוּר. בִּשֵּׁל בָּהּ מִין אַחֵר בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם: ", + "וְלֹא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא קְדֵרָה בַּת יוֹמָהּ בִּלְבַד הוֹאִיל וַעֲדַיִן לֹא נִפְגַּם הַשֻּׁמָּן שֶׁנִּבְלָע בַּקְּדֵרָה. וּמִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים לֹא יְבַשֵּׁל בָּהּ לְעוֹלָם. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לוֹקְחִין כְּלֵי חֶרֶס יְשָׁנִים מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בָּהֶן בְּחַמִּין כְּגוֹן קְדֵרוֹת וּקְעָרוֹת לְעוֹלָם. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ שׁוֹעִין בַּאֲבָר. וְאִם לָקַח וּבִשֵּׁל בָּהֶן מִיּוֹם שֵׁנִי וָהָלְאָה הַתַּבְשִׁיל מֻתָּר: ", + "הַלּוֹקֵחַ כְּלֵי תַּשְׁמִישׁ סְעֻדָּה מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם מִכְּלֵי מַתָּכוֹת וּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית. דְּבָרִים שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן כָּל עִקָּר מַטְבִּילָן בְּמֵי מִקְוֶה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִהְיוּ מֻתָּרִין לֶאֱכֹל בָּהֶן וְלִשְׁתּוֹת. וּדְבָרִים שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עַל יְדֵי צוֹנֵן כְּגוֹן כּוֹסוֹת וּצְלוֹחִיּוֹת וְקִיתוֹנִיּוֹת מְדִיחָן וּמַטְבִּילָן וְהֵן מֻתָּרוֹת. וּדְבָרִים שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עַל יְדֵי חַמִּין כְּגוֹן יוֹרוֹת וְקֻמְקְמוֹסִין וּמְחַמְּמֵי חַמִּין מַגְעִילָן וּמַטְבִּילָן וְהֵן מֻתָּרִין. וּדְבָרִים שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עַל יְדֵי הָאוּר כְּגוֹן שִׁפּוּדִין וְאַסְכְּלָאוֹת מְלַבְּנָן בָּאוּר עַד שֶׁתִּנְשַׁר קְלִפָּתָן וּמַטְבִּילָן וְהֵן מֻתָּרִין: ", + "כֵּיצַד מַגְעִילָן. נוֹתֵן יוֹרָה קְטַנָּה לְתוֹךְ יוֹרָה גְּדוֹלָה וּמְמַלֵּא עָלֶיהָ מַיִם עַד שֶׁיָּצוּפוּ עַל הַקְּטַנָּה וּמַרְתִּיחָהּ יָפֶה יָפֶה. וְאִם הָיְתָה יוֹרָה גְּדוֹלָה מַקִּיף עַל שְׂפָתָהּ בָּצֵק אוֹ טִיט וּמְמַלֵּא מַיִם עַד שֶׁיָּצוּפוּ הַמַּיִם עַל שְׂפָתָהּ וּמַרְתִּיחַ. וְכֻלָּן שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִרְתִּיחַ אוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵדִיחַ וְעַד שֶׁלֹּא הִלְבִּין וְעַד שֶׁלֹּא הִטְבִּיל מֻתָּר. שֶׁכָּל הַשֻּׁמָּן שֶׁבָּהֶן נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם הוּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: ", + "טְבִילָה זוֹ שֶׁמַּטְבִּילִין כְּלֵי הַסְּעֻדָּה הַנִּלְקָחִים מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְאַחַר כָּךְ יֻתְּרוּ לַאֲכִילָה וּשְׁתִיָּה אֵינָן לְעִנְיַן טֻמְאָה וְטָהֳרָה אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. וְרֶמֶז לָהּ (במדבר לא כג) \"כָּל דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יָבֹא בָאֵשׁ תַּעֲבִירוּ בָאֵשׁ וְטָהֵר\" וּמִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּטָהֳרָתָן מִידֵי גִּעוּלֵי עַכּוּ\"ם לֹא מִידֵי טֻמְאָה. שֶׁאֵין לְךָ טֻמְאָה עוֹלָה עַל יְדֵי הָאֵשׁ וְכָל הַטְּמֵאִים בִּטְבִילָה עוֹלִין מִטֻּמְאָתָן. וְטֻמְאַת מֵת בְּהַזָּאָה וּטְבִילָה וְאֵין שָׁם אֵשׁ כְּלָל. אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן גִּעוּלֵי עַכּוּ\"ם. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁכָּתוּב וְטָהֵר אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים הוֹסֵיף לוֹ טָהֳרָה אַחַר עֲבִירָתוֹ בָּאֵשׁ לְהַתִּירוֹ מִגִּעוּלֵי עַכּוּ\"ם: ", + "לֹא חִיְּבוּ בִּטְבִילָה זוֹ אֶלָּא כְּלֵי מַתָּכוֹת שֶׁל סְעֻדָּה הַנִּלְקָחִין מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם. אֲבָל הַשּׁוֹאֵל מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם. אוֹ שֶׁמִּשְׁכֵּן הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֶצְלוֹ כְּלֵי מַתָּכוֹת. מֵדִיחַ אוֹ מַרְתִּיחַ אוֹ מְלַבֵּן וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַטְבִּיל. וְכֵן אִם לָקַח כְּלֵי עֵץ אוֹ כְּלֵי אֲבָנִים מֵדִיחַ אוֹ מַרְתִּיחַ וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַטְבִּיל. וְכֵן כְּלֵי חָרָשִׂים אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַטְבִּיל. אֲבָל הַשּׁוֹעִין בַּאֲבָר הֲרֵי הֵן כִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת וּצְרִיכִין טְבִילָה: ", + "הַלּוֹקֵחַ סַכִּין מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם מְלַבְּנָהּ בָּאֵשׁ אוֹ מַשְׁחִיזָהּ בָּרֵחַיִם שֶׁלָּהּ. וְאִם הָיְתָה סַכִּין יָפָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ פְּגִימוֹת דַּי לוֹ אִם נְעָצָהּ בְּקַרְקַע קָשָׁה עֶשֶׂר פְּעָמִים וְאוֹכֵל בָּהּ צוֹנֵן. וְאִם הָיוּ בָּהּ פְּגִימוֹת אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה יָפָה וְרָצָה לֶאֱכֹל בָּהּ חַמִּין אוֹ לִשְׁחֹט בָּהּ מְלַבְּנָהּ אוֹ מַשְׁחִיזָהּ כֻּלָּהּ. שָׁחַט בָּהּ קֹדֶם שֶׁיְּטַהֲרֶנָּה מֵדִיחַ מְקוֹם הַשְּׁחִיטָה. וְאִם קִלֵּף הֲרֵי זֶה מְשֻׁבָּח: ", + "סַכִּין שֶׁשָּׁחַט בָּהּ טְרֵפָה לֹא יִשְׁחֹט בָּהּ עַד שֶׁיְּדִיחָהּ אֲפִלּוּ בְּצוֹנֵן אוֹ מְקַנְּחָהּ בִּבְלָיוֹת שֶׁל בְּגָדִים: ", + "וְיֵשׁ שָׁם דְּבָרִים אֲחֵרִים אָסְרוּ אוֹתָן חֲכָמִים וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לְאִסּוּרָן עִקָּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה גָּזְרוּ עֲלֵיהֶן כְּדֵי לְהִתְרַחֵק מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם עַד שֶׁלֹּא יִתְעָרְבוּ בָּהֶן יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיָבוֹאוּ לִידֵי חַתְנוּת. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. אָסְרוּ לִשְׁתּוֹת עִמָּהֶן וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין לָחוּשׁ לְיֵין נֶסֶךְ. וְאָסְרוּ לֶאֱכֹל פִּתָּן אוֹ בִּשּׁוּלֵיהֶן וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין לָחוּשׁ לְגִעוּלֵיהֶן: ", + "כֵּיצַד. לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה אָדָם בִּמְסִבָּה שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא יַיִן מְבֻשָּׁל שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱסָר. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה שׁוֹתֶה מִכֵּלָיו לְבַדּוֹ. וְאִם הָיָה רֹב הַמְּסִבָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל מֻתָּר. וְאֵין שׁוֹתִין שֵׁכָר שֶׁלָּהֶן שֶׁעוֹשִׂין מִן הַתְּמָרִים וְהַתְּאֵנִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. וְאֵינוֹ אָסוּר אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם מְכִירָתוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הֵבִיא הַשֵּׁכָר לְבֵיתוֹ וְשָׁתָהוּ שָׁם מֻתָּר שֶׁעִקַּר הַגְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יִסְעֹד אֶצְלוֹ: ", + "יֵין תַּפּוּחִים וְיֵין רִמּוֹנִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן מֻתָּר לִשְׁתּוֹתָן בְּכָל מָקוֹם. דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָצוּי לֹא גָּזְרוּ עָלָיו. יֵין צִמּוּקִים הֲרֵי הוּא כְּיַיִן וּמִתְנַסֵּךְ: ", + "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָסְרוּ פַּת עַכּוּ\"ם. יֵשׁ מְקוֹמוֹת שֶׁמְּקִלִּין בַּדָּבָר וְלוֹקְחִין פַּת הַנַּחְתּוֹם הָעַכּוּ\"ם בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין שָׁם נַחְתּוֹם יִשְׂרָאֵל וּבַשָּׂדֶה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא שְׁעַת הַדְּחָק. אֲבָל פַּת בַּעֲלֵי בָּתִּים אֵין שָׁם מִי שֶׁמּוֹרֶה בָּהּ לְהָקֵל שֶׁעִקַּר הַגְּזֵרָה מִשּׁוּם חַתְנוּת וְאִם יֹאכַל פַּת בַּעֲלֵי בָּתִּים יָבוֹא לִסְעֹד אֶצְלָן: ", + "הִדְלִיק הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֶת הַתַּנּוּר וְאָפָה בּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל. אוֹ שֶׁהִדְלִיק יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָפָה עַכּוּ\"ם. אוֹ שֶׁהִדְלִיק הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְאָפָה הָעַכּוּ\"ם וּבָא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנִעֵר הָאֵשׁ מְעַט אוֹ כְּבָשׁוֹ לָאֵשׁ הוֹאִיל וְנִשְׁתַּתֵּף בִּמְלֶאכֶת הַפַּת הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. וַאֲפִלּוּ לֹא זָרַק אֶלָּא עֵץ לְתוֹךְ הַתַּנּוּר הִתִּיר כָּל הַפַּת שֶׁבּוֹ. שֶׁאֵין הַדָּבָר אֶלָּא לִהְיוֹת הֶכֵּר שֶׁהַפַּת שֶׁלָּהֶן אֲסוּרָה: ", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁבִּשֵּׁל לָנוּ יַיִן אוֹ חָלָב אוֹ דְּבַשׁ אוֹ פְּרִישִׁין וְכַיּוֹצֵא בְּאֵלּוּ (מִכָּל) דָּבָר הַנֶּאֱכָל כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא חַי הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. וְלֹא גָּזְרוּ אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא חַי. כְּגוֹן בָּשָׂר וְדָג תָּפֵל וּבֵיצָה וִירָקוֹת. אִם בִּשְּׁלָן הָעַכּוּ\"ם מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּתֵּף יִשְׂרָאֵל עִמּוֹ בְּבִשּׁוּלָן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין מִשּׁוּם בִּשּׁוּלֵי עַכּוּ\"ם: ", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּדָבָר שֶׁהוּא עוֹלֶה עַל שֻׁלְחַן מְלָכִים לֶאֱכֹל בּוֹ אֶת הַפַּת. כְּגוֹן בָּשָׂר וּבֵיצִים וְדָגִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶם. אֲבָל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה עַל שֻׁלְחַן מְלָכִים לֶאֱכֹל בּוֹ אֶת הַפַּת כְּגוֹן תֻּרְמוֹסִין שֶׁשָּׁלְקוּ אוֹתָן עַכּוּ\"ם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין חַיִּין הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. שֶׁעִקַּר הַגְּזֵרָה מִשּׁוּם חַתְנוּת שֶׁלֹּא יְזַמְּנוֹ הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֶצְלוֹ בַּסְּעֻדָּה. וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה עַל שֻׁלְחַן מְלָכִים לֶאֱכֹל בּוֹ אֶת הַפַּת אֵין אָדָם מְזַמֵּן אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו: ", + "וְדָגִים קְטַנִּים שֶׁמְּלָחָן יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ עַכּוּ\"ם הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבַּשְּׁלוּ מִקְצָת בִּשּׁוּל. וְאִם צְלָאָן עַכּוּ\"ם אַחַר כֵּן מֻתָּרִין. וְכָל שֶׁבִּשְּׁלוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל מְעַט בִּשּׁוּלוֹ בֵּין בַּתְּחִלָּה בֵּין בַּסּוֹף מֻתָּר. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הִנִּיחַ הָעַכּוּ\"ם בָּשָׂר אוֹ קְדֵרָה עַל גַּבֵּי הָאֵשׁ וְהָפַךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּבָּשָׂר וְהֵגִיס בַּקְּדֵרָה אוֹ שֶׁהִנִּיחַ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגָמַר הָעַכּוּ\"ם הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר: ", + "דָּג שֶׁמְּלָחוֹ עַכּוּ\"ם וּפֵרוֹת שֶׁעִשְּׁנָן עַד שֶׁהִכְשִׁירָן לַאֲכִילָה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. מָלִיחַ אֵינוֹ כְּרוֹתֵחַ בִּגְזֵרָה זוֹ וְהַמְעֵשָּׁן אֵינוֹ כִּמְבֻשָּׁל. וְכֵן קְלָיוֹת שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם מֻתָּרִין וְלֹא גָּזְרוּ עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מְזַמֵּן חֲבֵרוֹ עַל הַקְּלָיוֹת: ", + "פּוֹלִין וַאֲפוּנִין וַעֲדָשִׁים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁשּׁוֹלְקִין אוֹתָן הָעַכּוּ\"ם וּמוֹכְרִין אוֹתָן אֲסוּרִין מִשּׁוּם בִּשּׁוּלֵי עַכּוּ\"ם בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁעוֹלִין עַל שֻׁלְחַן מְלָכִים מִשּׁוּם פַּרְפֶּרֶת. וּמִשּׁוּם גִּעוּלֵי עַכּוּ\"ם בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁמָּא יְבַשְּׁלוּ אוֹתָן עִם הַבָּשָׂר אוֹ בִּקְדֵרָה שֶׁבִּשְּׁלוּ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר. וְכֵן הַסֻּפְגָּנִין שֶׁקּוֹלִין אוֹתָן הָעַכּוּ\"ם בְּשֶׁמֶן אֲסוּרִין אַף מִשּׁוּם גִּעוּלֵי עַכּוּ\"ם: ", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁבִּשֵּׁל וְלֹא נִתְכַּוֵּן לְבִשּׁוּל הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. כֵּיצַד. עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁהִצִּית אוּר בַּאֲגַם כְּדֵי לְהַעֲבִיר הֶחָצִיר וְנִתְבַּשְּׁלוּ בָּהּ חֲגָבִים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהֵן עוֹלִין עַל שֻׁלְחַן מְלָכִים מִשּׁוּם פַּרְפֶּרֶת. וְכֵן אִם חָרַךְ הָרֹאשׁ לְהַעֲבִיר הַשֵּׂעָר מֻתָּר לֶאֱכֹל מִן הַדִּלְדּוּלִין וּמִן רֹאשׁ אָזְנַיִם שֶׁנִּצְּלוּ בִּשְׁעַת חֲרִיכָה: ", + "תְּמָרִים שֶׁשָּׁלְקוּ אוֹתָן עַכּוּ\"ם אִם הָיוּ מְתוּקִין מִתְּחִלָּתָן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. וְאִם הָיוּ מָרִין וּמְתַקְּנִין הַבִּשּׁוּל הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין. הָיוּ בֵּינוֹנִיִּים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין: ", + "קָלִי שֶׁל עֲדָשִׁים שֶׁלָּשׁוֹ בֵּין בְּמַיִם בֵּין בְּחֹמֶץ הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר. אֲבָל קָלִי שֶׁל חִטִּים וּשְׂעוֹרִים שֶׁלָּשִׁין אוֹתָן בְּמַיִם הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר: ", + "שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם מֻתָּר. וּמִי שֶׁאוֹסְרוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹמֵד בְּחֵטְא גָּדוֹל. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּמְרֶה עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין שֶׁהִתִּירוּהוּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ נִתְבַּשֵּׁל הַשֶּׁמֶן הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱסָר לֹא מִפְּנֵי בִּשּׁוּלֵי עַכּוּ\"ם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנֶּאֱכָל כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא חַי. וְלֹא מִפְּנֵי גִּעוּלֵי עַכּוּ\"ם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַבָּשָׂר פּוֹגֵם אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן וּמַסְרִיחוֹ: ", + "וְכֵן דְּבַשׁ שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנִּתְבַּשֵּׁל וְעָשׂוּ מִמֶּנּוּ מִינֵי מְתִיקָה מֻתָּר מִטַּעַם זֶה: ", + "כּוֹסְפָן שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ חַמִּין בֵּין בְּיוֹרָה גְּדוֹלָה בֵּין בְּיוֹרָה קְטַנָּה מֻתָּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנּוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם הוּא. וְכֵן כְּבָשִׁין שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכָּן לָתֵת לְתוֹכָן חֹמֶץ אוֹ יַיִן אוֹ זֵיתִים הַכְּבוּשִׁין וַחֲגָבִים הַכְּבוּשִׁין שֶׁבָּאִין מִן הָאוֹצָר מֻתָּרִין. אֲבָל חֲגָבִים וּכְבָשִׁים שֶׁמְּזַלְּפִין עֲלֵיהֶן יַיִן אֲסוּרִין. וְכֵן אִם הָיוּ מְזַלְּפִין עֲלֵיהֶן חֹמֶץ וַאֲפִלּוּ חֹמֶץ שֵׁכָר אֲסוּרִין: ", + "וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אָסְרוּ חֹמֶץ שֵׁכָר שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּשְׁלִיכִין לְתוֹכוֹ שִׁמְרֵי יַיִן. לְפִיכָךְ הַנִּלְקָח מִן הָאוֹצָר מֻתָּר: ", + "הַמּוּרְיָס בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לָתֵת לְתוֹכוֹ יַיִן אָסוּר. וְאִם הָיָה הַיַּיִן יָקָר מִן הַמּוּרְיָס מֻתָּר. וְכָזֶה מוֹרִין בְּכָל דָּבָר שֶׁחוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא עֵרְבוּ בּוֹ הָעַכּוּ\"ם דָּבָר אָסוּר. שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מְעָרֵב דָּבָר הַיָּקָר בְּזוֹל שֶׁהֲרֵי מַפְסִיד. אֲבָל מְעָרֵב הַזּוֹל בְּיָקָר כְּדֵי לְהִשְׂתַּכֵּר: ", + "קָטָן שֶׁאָכַל אֶחָד מִמַּאֲכָלוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת. אוֹ שֶׁעָשָׂה מְלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת. אֵין בֵּית דִּין מְצֻוִּין עָלָיו לְהַפְרִישׁוֹ לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ בֶּן דַּעַת. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁעָשָׂה מֵעַצְמוֹ. אֲבָל לְהַאֲכִילוֹ בְּיָדַיִם אָסוּר וַאֲפִלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאִסּוּרָן מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. וְכֵן אָסוּר לְהַרְגִּילוֹ בְּחִלּוּל שַׁבָּת וּמוֹעֵד וַאֲפִלּוּ בִּדְבָרִים שֶׁהֵן מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת: ", + "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין מְצֻוִּין לְהַפְרִישׁ אֶת הַקָּטָן. מִצְוָה עַל אָבִיו לִגְעֹר בּוֹ וּלְהַפְרִישׁוֹ כְּדֵי לְחַנְּכוֹ בִּקְדֻשָּׁה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי כב ו) \"חֲנֹךְ לַנַּעַר עַל פִּי דַרְכּוֹ\" וְגוֹ': ", + "אָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים מַאֲכָלוֹת וּמַשְׁקִין שֶׁנֶּפֶשׁ רֹב בְּנֵי אָדָם קִהָה מֵהֶן כְּגוֹן מַאֲכָלוֹת וּמַשְׁקִין שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בָּהֶן קִיא אוֹ צוֹאָה וְלֵחָה סְרוּחָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. וְכֵן אָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים לֶאֱכֹל וְלִשְׁתּוֹת בְּכֵלִים הַצּוֹאִים שֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מִתְאוֹנֶנֶת מֵהֶם. כְּגוֹן כְּלֵי בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא וּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית שֶׁל סַפָּרִין שֶׁגּוֹרְעִין בָּהֶם אֶת הַדָּם וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן: ", + "וְכֵן אָסְרוּ לֶאֱכֹל בְּיָדַיִם מְסֹאָבוֹת מְזֹהָמוֹת. וְעַל גַּבֵּי כֵּלִים מְלֻכְלָכִים. שֶׁכָּל דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ בִּכְלַל (ויקרא יא מג) \"אַל תְּשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם\". וְהָאוֹכֵל מַאֲכָלוֹת אֵלּוּ מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: ", + "וְכֵן אָסוּר לְאָדָם שֶׁיַּשְׁהֶה אֶת נְקָבָיו כְּלָל בֵּין גְּדוֹלִים בֵּין קְטַנִּים. וְכָל הַמַּשְׁהֶה נְקָבָיו הֲרֵי זֶה בִּכְלַל מְשַׁקֵּץ נַפְשׁוֹ. יֶתֶר עַל חֳלָאִים רָעִים שֶׁיָּבִיא עַל עַצְמוֹ וְיִתְחַיֵּב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ. אֶלָּא רָאוּי לוֹ לְהַרְגִּיל עַצְמוֹ בְּעִתִּים מְזֻמָּנִים כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִתְרַחֵק בִּפְנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם וְלֹא יְשַׁקֵּץ נַפְשׁוֹ: ", + "וְכָל הַנִּזְהָר בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ מֵבִיא קְדֻשָּׁה וְטָהֳרָה יְתֵרָה לְנַפְשׁוֹ. וּמְמָרֵק נַפְשׁוֹ לְשֵׁם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא מד) \"וְהִתְקַדִּשְׁתֶּם וִהְיִיתֶם קְדשִׁים כִּי קָדוֹשׁ אָנִי\": " + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Torat Emet 363", + "http://www.toratemetfreeware.com/index.html?downloads" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות מאכלות אסורות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Kedushah" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit/English/Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, edited by Philip Birnbaum, New York, 1967.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit/English/Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, edited by Philip Birnbaum, New York, 1967.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..49b58cc69b91c65f3412bcf090cf772b8183b998 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit/English/Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, edited by Philip Birnbaum, New York, 1967.json @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit", + "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002108864", + "versionTitle": "Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, edited by Philip Birnbaum, New York, 1967", + "status": "locked", + "priority": 1.0, + "digitizedBySefaria": true, + "versionTitleInHebrew": "משנה תורה להרמב״ם, נערך בידי פיליפ בירנבאום, ניו יורק 1967", + "shortVersionTitle": "Philip Birnbaum, 1967", + "purchaseInformationImage": "https://storage.googleapis.com/sefaria-physical-editions/6576fae6860e8fdd73892435c0e5ba08.png", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": false, + "isSource": false, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות שאלה ופיקדון", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "If a man borrowed implements, or an animal or any movables, from another person, and the thing borrowed was lost or stolen, even if subjected to a major accident, as in the case of an animal that was injured or captured or it died, he must make full restitution, as it is written: \"When a man borrows [an animal] from another and it is injured or dies, its owner not being with it, he must make full restitution\" (Exodus 22:13). This applies only when the accident happened while the animal was not at work ; if, however, a man borrowed an animal from another to plough with it and it died while ploughing, he is free from liability. But he is held liable if it died before or after the ploughing ; or if, instead of ploughing with it, he rode on it or threshed grain with it, and it died during the threshing or riding. And so it is in all similar cases.— —", + "", + "", + "", + "If a man borrowed an instrument or an animal from another for an indefinite period, the lender may demand its return at any time he pleases. If he borrowed the object for a definite period, once he acquired a right to it by drawing it [to himself], the owner cannot demand its return until the end of the borrowing term. — —", + "If a man borrowed from another an implement with which to do a certain piece of work, the lender cannot demand its return until the borrower has completed that particular work. So too, if one borrowed an animal to take him to a certain place, the lender cannot demand its return until the borrower has gone to that place and returned from it." + ], + [], + [], + [ + "If a man deposited anything with another gratuitously and it was stolen or lost, the bailee takes an oath and is released from liability, as it is written: \"When a man gives money or any article to another for safekeeping and it is stolen from the man's house … the owner of the house shall depose before the judges that he has not laid hands on his neighbor's property\" (Exodus 22:6-7). An additional oath is imposed on him : that it was not his fault but he took normal care of it, after the manner of bailees, and made no use of it before it was stolen. If the bailee had made use of the deposit before it was stolen, he is held responsible for it.", + "Since Scripture has acquitted a gratuitous guardian in the case of theft, it stands to reason that he is all the more free from liability in the case of such major accidents as injury, capture or death of an animal, provided that he did not make use of the object deposited; if he did, he is held responsible in the case of accidents. What is the normal manner of bailees? It is all according to the deposit. There is a deposit that is placed at the gate-house for safekeeping; for example, beams and stones; there is a type of deposit that is put in the courtyard for safekeeping; for example, large bundles of flax and the like; another type of deposit is placed in the house for safekeeping; for example, a garment or a cloak; still another type of deposit is put in a box or a chest and locked for safekeeping; for example, silk garments and silver or gold objects, and the like.", + "If a bailee put the deposit in an unsuitable place, and it was stolen from there or lost, even if a major accident befell it, as where a fire broke out and the entire house was burned down, he is charged with negligence and must make restitution. Even if the bailee put the deposit together with his own belongings, [the rule is that] if the place was suitable for safekeeping, he is free from liability; if the place was not suitable for safekeeping, he is liable. He is permitted to be careless with his own property, and not with the property of others." + ], + [ + "", + "If a man deposited money or valuable objects with another, and thieves came upon the bailee who forestalled them and gave them the deposit in order to save himself, he is held responsible if he was reputed to be a man of wealth, since the presumption is that the thieves came because of him, and that he saved himself with the other's money. But if he was not considered wealthy, the presumption is that they came only for the deposit, and he is free from responsibility. This applies to all similar cases." + ], + [], + [], + [ + "If a man left an animal or implements with another for safekeeping and they were stolen or lost, and the bailee said: \"I will rather make restitution than take an oath,\" and then the thief was found, the thief must make twofold restitution, and if he had slaughtered or sold the animal he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution to the bailee who had agreed to pay [rather than take an oath].— —", + "A gratuitous guardian who said it was my fault is entitled to the double payment, since he obligated himself to pay when he could have said it was stolen or lost and been free from liability. So too, a paid guardian or a hirer who said it was stolen is entitled to the double payment, since he obligated himself to pay when he could have said the animal died and been released from liability. The borrower, however, is not entitled to the double payment unless he has actually paid voluntarily. If he had paid before the thief was discovered, the latter must make the fourfold or fivefold restitution to the borrower.", + "Whoever is entitled to the double payment is entitled to the spontaneous increase in value. If, for example, a man deposited four measures of grain with another when they were worth one sela and they were stolen or lost, and the bailee said I will rather pay a sela than take an oath, and then they were discovered and found to be worth four selas, they belong to the bailee, and he pays only one sela to the owner.— —" + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit/English/Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit/English/Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9faa1adb048dd36415836841eb3e22d83406b3dc --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit/English/Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007.json @@ -0,0 +1,111 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit", + "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI", + "versionTitle": "Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007", + "status": "locked", + "priority": 2.0, + "license": "CC-BY-NC", + "versionNotes": "\n Dedicated in memory of Irving Montak, z\"l

© Published and Copyright by Moznaim Publications.
Must obtain written permission from Moznaim Publications for any commercial use. Any use must cite Copyright by Moznaim Publications. Released into the commons with a CC-BY-NC license.\n ", + "digitizedBySefaria": false, + "shortVersionTitle": "Trans. by Eliyahu Touger, Moznaim Publishing", + "purchaseInformationImage": "https://storage.googleapis.com/sefaria-physical-editions/touger-mishneh-torah-hilkhot-teshuvah-purchase-img.png", + "purchaseInformationURL": "https://moznaim.com/products/mishneh-torah-rambam", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": false, + "isSource": false, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות שאלה ופיקדון", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "When a person borrows utensils, an animal or other movable property from a colleague, and it is lost or stolen, or even if it is destroyed by factors beyond his control - e.g., an animal is injured, taken captive or dies - the borrower is required to make restitution for the entire worth of the article, as stated in Exodus 22:13: \"If a person borrows an animal from a colleague and it will become injured or die, and the owner is not with him, he must make financial restitution.\"
When does the above apply? When the loss due to factors beyond his control does not take place while the borrower is working with the animal. If, however, a person borrows a colleague's animal to plow, and it dies while plowing, the borrower is not liable. If, however, the animal dies before he plowed with it or after he plowed with it, or he rode upon it or threshed with it and the animal died while he was threshing or riding, the borrower is liable to make financial restitution. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Similarly, if a person borrows an animal to travel to a particular place and the animal dies under him on that journey, he borrows a bucket to fill water with it and it falls apart in the cistern while he is filling it, he borrows a hatchet to split wood and it breaks because of the chopping while he is splitting the wood, he is not liable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. The rationale is that he borrowed the article solely to perform this task, and he did not deviate from his original request.", + "The following rules apply when a person borrows an animal from a colleague, it dies, and the borrower claims that it died while in the midst of work. If he borrowed it to travel to a place where people are commonly present, he must bring witnesses who testify that it died or it was destroyed by forces beyond his control while he was working with it, and he did not deviate from his original request. He is then freed of liability. If he does not bring proof, he is liable.
Different rules apply when a person borrows an animal to fill up the earth in his ruin, i.e., a place where it is not common for witnesses to be present, or he borrowed a bucket to fill the cistern in his house and the bucket was destroyed in the cistern. If he brings proof that the animal or the object was destroyed in the process of performing the task for which it was borrowed, he is not liable even to take an oath. If he cannot bring proof, he must take the oath required of watchmen that the animal died during the performance of the task for which it was borrowed. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "When a person borrows a utensil from a colleague and it breaks, the utensil is evaluated in the same way as a utensil one damages is evaluated. We evaluate how much the object was worth while it was complete and how much it is worth in its present state. The borrower returns the broken utensil or the injured animal to the owner and makes financial restitution for the damages. Similarly, if the animal dies, he may return the carcass and make restitution for the animal's decrease in value.", + "When a person borrows an animal, he becomes liable to provide it with food from the time he performs meshichah until the conclusion of the time for which he borrowed it. If its meat depreciates in value, he is liable to pay for that reduction. If its meat depreciates in value because of the work the animal performs, he is not liable. He must, however, take the oath required of a watchman, swearing that it depreciated because of the work.", + "When a person borrows an article or an animal from a colleague without making any stipulation, the lender may require him to return it at any time. If he borrowed it for a set time, once he performs meshichah with it, he acquires it, and the owner may not compel the borrower to return it from his possession until the conclusion of the period for which it was borrowed. Indeed, even if the borrower dies, his heirs are entitled to continue using the borrowed article until the conclusion of the period for which it was lent out.
This concept can be appreciated by logical deduction. A purchaser acquires the body of the article he purchases forever in return for the money he gave. The recipient of a present acquires the body of the article he receives forever, although he did not give anything. Similarly, a renter acquires the body of an article for the sake of deriving benefit from it for a limited time in return for the money he gave. And a borrower acquires the body of an article for the sake of deriving benefit from it for a limited time without giving anything. Thus, just as the giver of a present resembles a seller in that he cannot retract his gift forever, so too, a person who lends an article resembles one who hires it out, in that he cannot retract in the midst of the term of the agreement.
When a father leaves his sons a cow that he had borrowed and it dies, they are not liable for the loss its owner suffers. If they thought that it belonged to their father and they slaughtered it and ate it, they are required to pay the price of its meat at a low price. If their father left them an estate, and the borrowed cow died or was slaughtered by them, they must pay its worth from the estate.", + "When a person borrows a utensil for the sake of performing a particular task, the person who lent it cannot force the borrower to return it from his possession until the borrower performs that task. Similarly, if he borrows an animal in order to travel to a particular place, the owner may not compel the borrower to return it until he goes to that place and returns.", + "When a person asks a colleague: \"Lend me your spade to hoe this orchard,\" he is allowed to hoe only that particular orchard. He may not hoe another orchard with it.
If the borrower said: \"to hoe an orchard\" without describing it further, he may use it to hoe any orchard he desires. If he borrowed it to hoe his orchards, he may hoe all the orchards he owns. Even if the iron of the spade becomes entirely worn away while hoeing, it is sufficient for him to return the wooden handle of the hoe. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "The following rule applies when a person borrows a utensil from a colleague to use and tells him: \"Lend me this item according to your generosity.\" That expression implies \"Don't lend it to me like others who lend out articles, but according to the goodness of your heart and your generosity, that you will not be concerned about the time, even if it becomes extended.\"
If a kinyan was established with the lender concerning this, the borrower may use the article without limit until it is no longer suitable to perform its function. He must then return its broken pieces or the remnants. The borrower may not, however, fix the utensil and thus make it useful again.", + "When a person asks a colleague: \"Lend me this stone tub of water,\" and it was destroyed, he may not rebuild it. If the borrower asks the owner: \"Lend me a stone tub,\" without any description, and it is destroyed, he may rebuild it.
If he asked him: \"Lend me the place of a stone tub,\" if a kinyan was established affirming this agreement, the borrower may build on the property of the lender until he constructs a stone tub that he may use to water his animal or irrigate his land, as he stipulated when speaking to the lender.", + "When a person borrows an inn from a colleague \"to spend the night,\" the intent is no less than one day. \"To spend the Sabbath,\" the intent is no less than two days. \"For marriage,\" the intent is no less than 30 days.
When a person borrows a garment from a colleague to visit a person in mourning, he may keep it for the time it takes to go and return. When a person borrows a garment to attend a wedding celebration, he may keep it for that entire day. If he borrows it for his own wedding, he may keep it for at least seven days." + ], + [ + "When a person borrows an article while the owner is working with him, he is not liable, even if the article that he borrowed is stolen or lost through negligence, as Exodus 22:14 states: \"If the owner is with him, he need not make restitution.\" This applies, provided he asked the owner to work with him at the time he borrowed the article, as we have explained.
This leniency applies whether the borrower asked the owner to work for him as a favor or hired him, and whether he asked him to perform the same work as he performs with the article, he asked him or hired him to perform another task, or he had him perform any task in the world. Even if he told a colleague, \"Give me a drink of water,\" and the person asking for the water asked to borrow his colleague's animal, if the owner gives him a drink and lends him the animal, it is considered as if he lent him the animal while \"with the owner,\" and he is not liable.
If the borrower performed meshichah with the animal first, and afterwards the owner gave him to drink, this is not considered to be borrowing an article while the owner is working with the borrower. The same principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "When a person lent or rented out his animal to carry a burden and went out to help the borrower or the renter to help him load his burden on it, this is considered to be borrowing an article while the owner is working with the borrower. If he goes out with him to inspect the burden and to see that he was not overloaded, it is not considered borrowing an article while the owner is working with the borrower.", + "The following rules apply with regard to a teacher of young children, a person who plants trees for a city, a bloodletter for the city and their scribe. On the day any one of these individuals - or a person in a similar position - sits to perform the work of the city's inhabitants, if he lends or rents out an article to any of the people whose work he is performing, it is considered as if the owner is working with the borrower. Even if the watchman was negligent, he is not liable. If, however, one of these individuals borrowed or rented an article from one of the inhabitants of the city, he is liable in the event of damages. For they do not perform work for him.", + "When a teacher reads to his students at will, at the time he desires, whichever tractate he desires, they are obligated to come to him at all times, and even if he has already started studying one tractate with them, he has the license to switch from tractate to tractate, they are considered to be at his command, and he is not at their command. On the day of public study, when everyone comes to hear about the matters that concern the festival, he is considered to be at their command, and they are not at his command.", + "When a person tells his agent: \"Go out and work together with my cow,\" it is not considered as if the owner is working with the borrower. This is intimated by Exodus 22:14: \"If the owners are with him, he need not make restitution.\" The wording implies that verse refers to the owners themselves, and not their agents.
If by contrast a person tells his Canaanite servant: \"Go out and work together with my cow,\" it is considered as if the owner is working with the borrower. The rationale is that a Canaanite servant is considered an extension of the physical person of his master.
If the servant goes to work for the borrower without his master's consent, it is not considered as if the owner is working with the borrower.", + "When a person borrows an article from a woman, and her husband is performing a task for the borrower, it is not considered as if the owner is working with the borrower. The rationale is that the right to benefit from property is not equivalent to ownership of the property itself. And a woman's husband is entitled only to benefit from her property. He is not the owner.", + "When a husband borrows property from his wife or when partners borrow property from each other, it is considered as if the owner is working with the borrower. If one partner says to the other, \"Lend me property today, and I will lend you tomorrow,\" it is not considered as if the owner is working with the borrower.", + "When a person borrows property from a partnership and also asks one of the partners to work for him, or if partners borrow property and one of the partners asks the owner to work for him, there is an unresolved doubt whether it is considered as if the owner is working with the borrower or not. Therefore, if the animal dies, the borrower is not required to make restitution. If, however, the owner seizes the value of the article from property belonging to the borrower, it should not be expropriated from his possession. If the borrower was negligent, he is required to make restitution.", + "There is an unresolved doubt whether a person who borrows an animal to sodomize it, or to create an impression, or to perform work that is worth less than a p'rutah, or borrowed two cows to do work that is worth one p'rutah while the owner is working with him is considered as an instance when an object is borrowed while the owner is working with the borrower or not.", + "If a person borrowed an animal while the owner was working for him, and before he returned it, rented it for an additional period while the owner was not working for him, he is not liable if the animal is not returned. The rental is dependent on - and considered as an extension of - the borrowing.
There is, by contrast, an unresolved doubt with regard to all of the following situations:
The person rented the animal while the owner was working for him, and before he returned it, borrowed it for an additional period while the owner was not working for him.
He borrowed an animal while the owner was working for him, and before he returned it, rented it for an additional period while the owner was not working for him and then borrowed it again while the owner was not working for him.
Or he rented an animal while the owner was working for him, and before he returned it, borrowed it for an additional period while the owner was not working for him, and then rented it again while the owner was not working for him.", + "When a woman borrows an article from one person and then marries another man, her husband is considered a purchaser - not a paid watchman nor a borrower. Accordingly, if the borrowed article was an animal that died, the husband is not liable even though he used it throughout the time that it was borrowed.This ruling applies even if he was negligent. The rationale is that he is considered as a purchaser.
When the woman receives money, she is obligated to make restitution. If she notified her husband that the article is borrowed, he undertakes her responsibility.
In all the situations that we have defined as borrowing while the owner is working for the borrower, if a renter or a paid watchman were involved, it would be considered as a rental while the owner is working for the renter, and he would not be held liable. Conversely, in all the situations that are not defined as borrowing while the owner is working for the borrower, if a renter or a paid watchman were involved, it would not be considered a rental while the owner is working for the renter. And with regard to all the situations for which there are unresolved doubts whether it is considered to be borrowing while the owner is working for the borrower; so, too, there are unresolved doubts with regard to rentals." + ], + [ + "When a person borrows a cow from a colleague and the colleague sends it to him with his own son, his agent or his servant, and it dies before it enters the borrower's domain, the borrower is not liable. This law applies even if the owner sends it with the son, the servant or the agent of the borrower.
If the borrower tells the owner: 'Send it to me with my son,' 'with my servant,' or 'with my agent,' or even 'with your Hebrew servant,' or 'with your agent,' the borrower is liable. This law also applies if the owner tells the borrower: 'I am sending it to you with your son,' 'with your servant,' 'with your agent,' 'with my son,' 'with my Hebrew servant,' or 'with my agent,' and the borrower agrees, the borrower is liable if he sends it and it dies on the way.
If the owner sends the cow with his own Canaanite servant, the borrower is not liable if the cow dies on the way after it is sent. This law applies even if the borrower consents. The rationale is that the servant is considered to be an extension of his master's physical person. Thus, the cow has never left its owner's domain.", + "The following rules apply when a person borrows a cow from a colleague, the borrower tells the owner: 'Switch it with a stick, and it will come on its own accord,' and the owner follows his instructions. The borrower is not liable until the cow enters his domain. If it dies on the way, he is not liable.
Similar laws apply when the borrower returns the animal to its owner. If he sends it with another person and it dies before it enters the owner's domain, he is liable, because it is still the borrower's responsibility. If he returned it with another person with the consent of the owner and it died, he is not liable. If he returned it with his own Canaanite servant, and it died on the way, he is liable, even if the owner consented. The rationale is that the servant is considered an extension of his master's physical person. Thus, the cow has never left the borrower's domain.
When does the above apply? When the borrower returned the animal during the time for which it was lent out. If, however, he returns it after the end of the time for which it was lent out, he is not liable if it dies on the way. For once the time for which it was lent out has concluded, the laws of borrowing no longer apply, and the person who had borrowed the animal is considered a paid watchman. Therefore, if the animal is taken captive or dies after the period for which it was lent out has concluded, the person who had borrowed the animal is not liable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "The following rules apply when a person borrows a cow from a colleague, the animal dies, and a dispute arises between the owner and the borrower concerning the circumstances of its death. For example, he borrowed it for half a day and rented it for half a day, borrowed it for one day and rented it for one day, or he borrowed one animal and rented another and one of the animals dies. The owner says: 'The borrowed animal died,' 'It died on the day it was borrowed,' or 'It died during the time it was borrowed,' and the borrower says: 'I don't know,' we follow the principle: When a person desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him. This principle also applies if the borrower says: 'The rented ox died,' 'It died on the day it was rented,' or 'It died during the time it was rented,' and the owner said: 'I don't know,' or they both said: 'I don't know.'
If the owner cannot bring proof that the borrowed ox died, the renter must take an oath that the rented ox died or that he does not know, and he is freed of liability.
If the owner claims that the borrowed ox died, and the the watchman claims that the rented ox died, the watchman must take an oath that the rented ox died in an ordinary manner as he claims. Because of the convention of gilgul sh'vuah, he must also include in his oath that it was the rented ox that died.", + "The following rules apply when a person borrows two cows from a colleague, borrowing them for half the day and renting them for half the day, and the cows die. If the owner claims 'They died during the time that they were borrowed,' and the watchman replies: 'One did die during the time it was borrowed, but I don't know about the other one,\" since the watchman is not able to take an oath that denies the owner's claim, he must make restitution for the two cows.
Similar rules apply if the owner gave the watchman three cows, two were borrowed and one was rented and two cows died. If the owner claims: 'It was the two borrowed cows that died,' and the watchman replies: 'Certainly, one of the borrowed cows died, but I do not know whether the second cow that died was the borrowed one or the rented one,' since the watchman cannot take an oath that denies the owner's claim - for he says that he does not know which one died - he must make restitution for the two cows.
In Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an, it is explained how and for which reasons a defendant is required to pay in this law and in all similar cases where a defendant is not able to take an oath." + ], + [ + "The following law applies when a person entrusts an article to a colleague without charge, and it is lost or stolen. The watchman is required to take an oath that the entrusted article was lost or stolen. He is then freed of liability, as Exodus 22:6-7 states: 'If it is stolen from the person's house..., the owner of the house shall approach the court and take an oath that he did not extend his hands to his colleague's undertakings.'
When he takes that oath, based on the convention of gilgul sh'vuah,the watchman must also include in the oath:
a) that he was not negligent, but rather guarded the article in the ordinary manner watchmen do, and
b) that he did not use the article for his personal use before if it was stolen. For if the article was stolen after he used it for his own purposes, he is responsible for it.", + "Since the Torah freed an unpaid watchman from responsibility when an article was stolen, we can certainly infer that he is freed of responsibility when the entrusted object is destroyed by major factors beyond the watchman's control; for example, an animal was injured, taken captive or died.
This leniency applies provided that the watchman does not misappropriate the entrusted article. If, however, he misappropriates the entrusted article, he is liable even though it is destroyed by forces beyond his control.
What is meant by 'in the ordinary manner watchmen do'? Everything depends on the entrusted article. There are certain entrusted articles that the manner in which they are watched is by placing them in a gatehouse - for example, beams and rocks. There are other entrusted articles that the manner in which they are watched is by placing them in a courtyard - for example, large packages of flax and the like. There are other entrusted articles that the manner in which they are watched is by placing them in a house - for example, dressings and garments. There are other entrusted articles that the manner in which they are watched is by placing them in a locked chest or a locked cabinet - e.g., silk clothes, silver objects, golden objects, and the like.", + "When a watchman placed an object in an inappropriate place and it was stolen from there or lost, he is considered negligent and is required to make restitution. This law applies even if it was destroyed by forces beyond the watchman's control - e.g., a fire broke out and consumed the entire house . It makes no difference whether the watchman placed the entrusted article together with his own property or not. If the place is fit for safekeeping, he is not liable. If it is not fit for safekeeping, he is liable. He may be careless with his own property. He does not have the right to treat another person's property in that manner.", + "The only appropriate way of guarding silver coins and dinarim of gold is to bury them in the ground, placing at least a handbreadth of earth over them, or to hide them in a wall within a handbreadth of the ceiling.
They should not be hidden in the midst of the wall, lest the thieves check thereand steal them. Even if a person locked them securely in a chest or hid them in a place where a person would not recognize or be aware of them, he is considered negligent and is liable to make restitution.
Several men of understanding have ruled that the same rules apply with regard to any object that is light and will not be destroyed speedily in the ground - e.g., slabs of silver. Needless to say, this applies to slabs of gold and to jewels. The only appropriate way of guarding such objects is in the ground. I tend to support this ruling.", + "When a person entrusts money to a colleague on Friday afternoon between the setting of the sun and the appearance of the stars, the watchman is not obligated to undertake the difficulty of burying it until Saturday night. If, however, he delayed burying it on Saturday night and before he buried it that night, it was stolen or destroyed by factors beyond his control, he is liable. If he is a Torah scholar, the watchman is not liable if he waits until after havdalah to bury it.", + "When a person entrusts money to a colleague on a journey to bring to his home, or sends money with him from one place to another, the money must be bound in a packet and held in the watchman's hand or tied on his stomach opposite his faceand carried in this fashion until he reaches his home and buries it in the appropriate manner. If he did not tie it in this manner, even if the money was lost because of factors beyond the watchman's control, he is liable. The rationale is that at the outset, he was negligent.
An incident once occurred concerning a person who entrusted money to a colleague. The colleague placed the money in a partition made from reeds. The money was hidden in the midst of the partition and was stolen from there. When the matter was brought to the Sages, they said: Although this is an excellent manner of guarding to prevent theft,it is not a proper place to guard money in the event of fire. Since he did not bury it in the ground or the walls of a building, he is considered negligent. Whenever a person is negligent in his care for the article at the outset, even if it is ultimately destroyed by forces beyond his control, he is liable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "The following law applies when a person entrusts either articles or money to a colleague. Should the owner demand of the watchman: 'Give me my entrusted article,' and the watchman tells him: 'I do not know where I placed the entrusted article,' or 'I do not know where I buried the money. Wait; I will look for it, find it and return it to you,' he is considered negligent and is required to make restitution immediately.", + "Whenever a person entrusts either articles or money to a colleague, he entrusts them with the understanding that they may be placed in the care of the person's wife, children or other members of his household who are above the age of majority. If, however, the watchman gave the entrusted article to his sons or the members of his household who are below majority, his servants - whether they are above or below majority - or one of his relatives who does not dwell in his home and is not dependent on his larder - needless, to say, this applies if he gives the article to a stranger - he is considered negligent and is required to make restitution, unless the second watchman brings proof that he was not negligent, as we have explained.
An incident occurred with regard to a person who entrusted money to a colleague. The watchman gave the money to his mother, who hid it but did not bury it. Our Sages ruled: The watchman is not liable to pay, because he gave the money to his mother, and whenever a person entrusts an article to a colleague, he entrusts it with the understanding that it may be placed in the care of his sons or the members of his household.
Even though the watchman did not tell his mother that the money was not his, but had been entrusted to him, he is not liable, for he could claim: 'Certainly, she would have cared for it more carefully if she thought it belonged to me.' Similarly, his mother is not liable, because he did not tell her that the money was entrusted to him.
Our Sages ruled: The watchman must take an oath that the money that was entrusted to him was the money that he gave his mother, and the mother must take an oath that she hid it and it was stolen. Afterwards, they are both absolved of liability. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "From the above, one may conclude that should a watchman give an entrusted article to his wife or to the members of his household and inform them that it was an entrusted article, if they did not guard it in a manner appropriate for a watchman, they are liable to pay the owner, and the person originally appointed as a watchman is not liable. The rationale is that whenever a person entrusts either articles or money to a colleague, he entrusts them with the understanding that they may be placed in the care of the person's wife or children.
An incident occurred with regard to a person who entrusted hops to a colleague. That colleague had other hops in his possession. The colleague told his attendant: 'Place these hops into the beer.' The attendant erred and took the hops that had been entrusted instead.
The Sages ruled that the attendant is not liable, because the watchman did not tell him: 'Place these hops, and do not place those hops.' Therefore, the attendant thought that he was merely recommending one pile, but not insisting on it. The owner is also not liable, because he instructed him to take the hops from his own pile. He is required to make restitution only for the benefit he received. Therefore, if the beer becomes vinegar, he is not liable to pay anything. Regardless of the outcome, the watchman is required to take an oath that these in fact were the circumstances. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations." + ], + [ + "If money designated to be given to the poor or to be used for the redemption of captives was given to a person, he was negligent in guarding it and it was stolen, the watchman is not liable. This is derived from Exodus 22:6, which states: \"If a man gives money or articles to his colleague to watch....\" The wording implies that obligations determined by the verse apply when the money or the article was given to watch, but not when it was given to divide among the poor. This decision is rendered, because there is no one to claim the money as his own.
Even if the thieves attacked the person and he saved himself by giving them the money designated for the redemption of captives, he is not liable. There is no greater redemption of captives than this.
When does the above apply? When the money was not entrusted to him for the sake of the poor people of a particular place or a designated group of captives. If, however, the money was designated for a particular group of poor people or captives, and is thus set aside for them, it is considered to be money that people can claim. Therefore, the watchman must pay if he was negligent, or take an oath that he was not negligent, as is required of all watchmen.", + "The following rules apply when a person entrusts money or valuable articles to a colleague, thieves come and attack him and he gives them the entrusted article before offering any of his other property to save himself. If the person has the reputation of being wealthy, he is liable. The rationale is that we may presume that the thieves came because of the watchman. Thus, he is saving himself with money belonging to a colleague. If the watchman does not have the reputation of being wealthy, we presume that the thieves came only because of the entrusted article. Hence, the watchman is not liable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "The following rules apply when a person entrusts articles or fruit to a colleague. If thieves come and steal the entrusted article in his presence and he remains silent, he may be held liable. If people would have come and rescued the entrusted article had he called out, he is considered negligent for remaining silent and he is obligated to make restitution. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "The following laws apply when two people entrusted money to a colleague, one 100 zuz and the other 200 zuz, both claim to have entrusted the 200 zuz, and the watchman does not recall which one deposited 200, and which one 100. Each of the claimants must take an oath that he was the one who deposited the 200 zuz He may then collect the money he claims, as is the law with regard to any person who takes an oath and collects his due. The watchman must pay each claimant 200, losing 100 zuz from his own resources. The rationale is that he was negligent, for he should have written down the name of each person on the packet that he entrusted.
Therefore, if the two people together brought him the 300 zuz in a single packet, and afterwards each claims that the 200 belongs to him, the watchman is not considered negligent if he does not remember who brought the larger sum. He should give each one a maneh, and the balance should remain in the watchman's possession forever, or until one of them acknowledges the other's claim. The rationale is that the watchman can explain: \"I saw that you two were not precise with each other, as indicated by the fact that you brought the money to me in a single packet. Therefore, I did not trouble myself to know and continuously remember who owned 100 and who owned 200.\"
Similar laws apply if two people entrusted one watchman with two utensils, one large and one small, each one claimed to be the owner of the larger utensil, and the watchman did not remember to whom it belonged. Each of the claimants must take an oath supporting his claim. The watchman must then give one of them the larger utensil, and the value of the larger one to the other. The smaller utensil remains his.If the two brought the two in a single container, he should give the smaller utensil to one and the worth of that utensil to the other. He may keep the remainder in his possession until one claimant acknowledges the other's claim or until eternity.
Similar laws apply if only one article was entrusted, and two people claim it as their own and the watchman says, \"One of you is the owner, but I do not know which one.\" He must pay both of them. Similarly, when two people each entrust an animal to a shepherd, and one animal dies, if the watchman does not know whose animal died, he must make restitution to both of them. If they placed them in his herd without informing him, he may place one animal between them and depart. That animal shall remain until one acknowledges the other's claim or until they desire to divide it.", + "When a person entrusts produce to a colleague, the watchman should not mix it together with his own produce. The following rules apply if the watchman transgressed and mixed the produce together. He should calculate the quantity of produce entrusted to him, see how much produce was lacking from the entire amount and estimate the amount of loss suffered by the entrusted produce. He should return this amount to the owner after he takes an oath.
If the watchman made use of the combined quantity of produce and did not know how much he used, he should subtract the standard norm before returning the produce. For example, for wheat and for shelled rice, he should subtract four and a half kabbin for every kor; for barley and for millet, he should subtract nine kabbin for each kor; and for buckwheat, flax seeds in their stalks and unshelled rice, he should subtract three se'ah for each kor.
When does the above apply? When the original measurement of the produce was made at harvest time, and it was returned during the harvest time. If, however, the watchman returns the produce in the rainy season, he should not make a deduction because of spoilage, for the produce swells.
Similarly, a watchman may deduct a sixth of a quantity of wine entrusted to him and three lugin for every 100 lugin of oil entrusted to him, one and half lugin for dregs and one and a half lugin for absorption. If the oil was refined, the watchman should not make a deduction for dregs. If the containers are old, he should not make a deduction for absorption.", + "When a person entrusts produce that has not been measured to a watchman, and the watchman mixes it together with his own produce without measuring it, the watchman is considered negligent.
If the owner of the fruit says, \"There was this and this amount of produce entrusted,\" and the watchman says, \"I don't know how much there was,\" he is liable. For he is obligated to take an oath and yet cannot take the oath. My teachers, Rav Yosef HaLevi and his teacher, ruled in this manner.
Similarly, whenever a watchman is obligated to pay, but does not know how much he is obligated to pay, if the owners say: \"It was worth such and such,\" they may collect this amount without taking an oath. This law applies provided the owner claims a sum or an object that he can be presumed to possess. The watchman may have a ban of ostracism issued against anyone who expropriates more than his due.
What is the rationale for this law? Consider: The owner entrusted a purse full of gold coins to the watchman, and the watchman was negligent. The owner says, \"It contained 200 dinarim, and the watchman says, \"It certainly contained dinarim, but I do not know how much it contained.\" Thus, a claim is being issued for 200. The watchman admits a portion of the claim, and does not know about the remainder of the claim. He is thus obligated to take an oath, but cannot. Hence, he is required to pay, as will be explained.", + "The following rules apply when a person's father died, leaving him a closed sack. The heir entrusted it to a colleague for safekeeping, the colleague was negligent in its care, and it was destroyed. The depositor says, \"I don't know what it contained. Maybe it contained pearls.\" Similarly, the watchman states: \"I don't know how much I am obligated to pay. Maybe it was filled with pieces of glass.\"
I maintain that the ruling in this instance is that, as our Sages required, the watchman should take an oath that the entrusted object is no longer in his domain. He should include in this oath that he does not know whether it was worth more than a specific amount. He must then pay the amount that he admits that it was worth. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
An incident occurred concerning a person who entrusted a closed sack to his colleague. The latter was negligent in its care, and it was lost. The owner said, \"It contained gold jewelry, pearls and the like.\" The watchman replied: \"I don't know. Perhaps all it contained were pieces of scrap metal or sand.\"
Our Sages ruled: \"The owner of the entrusted article may take an oath supporting his claim, and then collect the sum he claims, provided he claims a sum that he could be presumed to have entrusted to him.
Why must the owner of the entrusted article take an oath in this instance? Because in this instance, the watchman is not obligated to take an oath. For even if the watchman were to admit and say: \"I am definitely certain that it contained scrap metal,\" and the owner claimed: \"It contained pearls,\" the watchman could take a sh'vuat hesset and be freed of obligation. This resembles a case where the plaintiff demands wheat and the defendant admits owing barley. The same laws apply in all analogous situations. The fundamental principles upon which these laws revolve will be explained in Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an." + ], + [ + "The following rules apply when an unpaid watchman says, \"I desire to pay and not to take an oath: If the entrusted article is of a uniform type and it is possible to purchase such articles in the market-place - e.g., produce, reams of wool and flax that are entirely uniform, beams on which images have not been carved, or the like- he may pay the value of the article and be excused from taking an oath.
If, however, the entrusted article was an animal, a decorated garment, a utensil that had been fixed, or an article that is not easily available to purchase in the market place, we suspect that the watchman coveted it for himself. We therefore require him to take an oath as instituted by our Sages, while holding a sacred article, that the entrusted object is no longer in his possession. Afterwards, he must make restitution.
The same law applies to other watchmen - e.g., a borrower who says that an entrusted animal died or was stolen, or a paid watchman, or a renter who says that an entrusted article was stolen or lost. Even though they are obligated to pay, they are required to take an oath that the article is no longer in their possession. Afterwards, they must make financial restitution for the entrusted animal or article. The rationale is that we suspect that the watchman coveted it for himself.
If the owner claims that the entrusted article was worth more than the watchman admits, he must also include in his oath that it was worth only such and such. Thus, every watchman who takes the oath required of watchmen must include three matters in the oath:
a) that he cared for the article in a manner appropriate for a watchman;
b) that this and this happened to the article and it is no longer in his domain; and
c) that he did not use the article for his own purposes before the event that absolves him of responsibility took place.
If he desires to make financial restitution, he must take an oath that the article is no longer in his domain and include in his oath that it is worth such and such.", + "When accepting an article for safekeeping, a watchman may stipulate that he will not guard the articles in a manner appropriate for a watchman; instead: \"Money that is entrusted to me, I will keep in the corner of my house,\" or the like.
The following rule applies if the watchman claims that he made such a stipulation and the owner agreed, and the owner claims that such a stipulation was never made. The watchman's claim is accepted. This applies even if the owner entrusted it to him in the presence of witnesses. The rationale is that since he could have claimed: \"I guarded it in a manner appropriate for a watchman, but it was destroyed by forces beyond my control,\" we accept his claim that he made such a stipulation. Therefore, he must take an oath that he did not use the article for his own purposes, that it is not in his possession, and that he had made such a stipulation.", + "When an unpaid watchman brings proof that he was not negligent, he is not required to take an oath. We do not suspect that he used the article for his own purposes before it was lost.
If the owner of the entrusted article brings proof that the watchman was negligent, the watchman must make restitution. If he claims that the owner had agreed to his stipulation that he not be required to guard the article in the manner required by witnesses, his claim is not accepted. The rationale is that there are witnesses who testify that he was negligent.", + "When a person entrusts an article to a colleague in the presence of witnesses, there is a disagreement between the owner and the watchman, and the witnesses testify that the article that we see is the article that was entrusted in their presence, the watchman cannot claim: \"Afterwards, I purchased it from him,\" or \"He gave it to me as a present.\"
Therefore, if the watchman dies, the entrusted article may be expropriated from the orphans without an oath. Moreover, should a person come and tell an heir: \"I entrusted this and this article with your father,\" and give very explicit signs to identify the article, if the entrusted article is found as he described it, and the judge knows that the deceased was not likely to have such an article, the judge may award the article to the person who identified it with the signs.
This law applies provided the person who claims that the article is his would not frequently visit the deceased. If, however, he would frequently visit him we do not award him the article. We suspect that perhaps it belongs to another person, and the claimant merely became familiar with its identifying characteristics.
If witnesses come and testify that the deceased is not likely to have owned the article, we do not expropriate the article from the orphans because of their testimony. For their estimation of the deceased's financial capacity is not necessarily that of the judge, and the judge should follow only information that he feels that he can rely only, as will be explained in Hilchot Sanhedrin.
An incident occurred concerning a person who entrusted sesame seeds to a colleague in the presence of witnesses and later came to claim them. The watchman replied: \"I returned them.\"
The owner answered: \"They were of this and this measure and they are now held in your jug.\"
The watchman responded: \"I returned yours, and these are others.\"
The Sages ruled that the sesame seeds should not be expropriated from his possession, for perhaps these sesame seeds belonged to the watchman. Instead, the watchman is required to take an oath while holding a sacred object that he returned the entrusted object, as we have explained.", + "The following rules apply when the owner of an entrusted object asks for the return of that object and the watchman gives it to him, but a difference of opinion arises between them. For example, the owner claims: \"This is not the article I entrusted, but a different one,\" \"My article was whole, and you broke it,\" \"It was new and you used it,\" or \"I entrusted 100 se'ah to you, and there are only 50 here.\" The watchman responds to these claims, saying: \"This is the article you personally deposited. You will be taking what you gave me.\"
In all such instances, the watchman is required merely to take a sh'vuat hesset, as is required of others who must take oaths in response to such claims. For a watchman is not obligated to take the oath required of watchmen mentioned in the Torah unless he admits accepting responsibility for the very article that the owner claims, but asserts that it was stolen, it died, or it was captured.
The general principle is: When a watchman makes a claim that absolves him from payment, he is required to take the oath required of watchmen. If, however, he says, \"This is the article that you lent me,\" \"... hired to me,\" or \"... paid me for watching,\" and the owner claims that the article he seeks to return is not the one given or that it was changed from its original state, the renter is required to take merely a sh'vuat hesset, or a Scriptural oath if he admits a portion of the plaintiff's claim.
What is implied? If the owner claims: \"I entrusted 100 se'ah to you,\" and the watchman claims: \"You only entrusted 50,\" he is required to take a Scriptural oath, because he admitted a portion of the claim, not because it is the oath required of a watchman. If the owner claims: \"I entrusted 100 se'ah of wheat to you,\" and the watchman claims: \"You entrusted only 100 se'ah of barley,\" he is merely required to take a sh'vuat hesset, as others who would have to take an oath with regard to this claim." + ], + [ + "When a person entrusts produce to a colleague, the watchman should not touch it even though its quantity is dwindling and diminishing.
When does the above apply? When it is diminishing at the ordinary rate that could be expected each year. If, however, the amount is diminishing beyond the ordinary norms, the watchman should sell the produce in the presence of a court. It is as if he were returning a lost object to the owner.
When he sells the produce, he should sell it to priests at the price at which terumah is sold, for perhaps the owner designated it as terumah or terumat ma'aser for other produce.", + "When a person entrusts produce to a colleague and it spoils, honey that becomes ruined, or wine that sours, the watchman should perform a service to the owner and sell the entrusted object in the presence of a court.
This law applies even though the loss reached its limit and the produce would not spoil further, for the containers and the baskets would continue to spoil.", + "When a person entrusts leaven to a colleague and the Pesach holiday arrives, the watchman should not touch the produce until the fifth hour on the morning of the fourteenth of Nisan. After that, he should sell it in the market place at that hour, for it is like he is returning a lost object to the owner.
The same law applies to other entrusted objects. A watchman should not touch them even though he certainly knows that their value will diminish at this and this time, or they will be seized by the king, lest the owner come beforehand and take his property.", + "When a person entrusts a Torah scroll to a colleague, the watchman should roll the scroll once every twelve months. It is permitted for him to open it and read it while rolling it. He should not, however, open it for his own purposes and read. The same law applies with regard to other scrolls. If the watchman opened the scroll, read it and rolled it for his own purposes, he is considered to have misappropriated the entrusted article and is liable if it is destroyed by forces beyond his control.
If the owner entrusted a woolen garment to a colleague, he should shake it out once every 30 days. The same principles that apply with regard to lost objects apply to entrusted objects. He should care for other entrusted objects in a similar way; this is an obligation incumbent upon him, like the return of a lost article to its owner.
When does the above apply? With regard to an entrusted object whose owner has traveled overseas. If, however, the owner was together with the watchman in that same land, the watchman should not touch the entrusted object even though it is being ruined.", + "Whenever a person sells an entrusted object under the supervision of a court, he must sell it to others and may not purchase it himself, lest suspicion arise. The money should be kept in his possession, and he has the right to make use of it. Therefore, he is considered to be a paid watchman with regard to these funds even though he did not make use of them.", + "The following rules apply when a person entrusts money to a storekeeper or a moneychanger. If the money was bound in a bag and sealed or tied with an unordinary knot, the storekeeper or the moneychanger should not use it. Therefore, if it became lost or was stolen, he is not responsible for it.
If the money was neither sealed nor tied in an unordinary manner, even though it is bound in a bag, the storekeeper or the moneychanger has the right to use the money. Therefore, he is considered to be a paid watchman, and if it is lost or stolen, he is responsible for it. If it is lost due to forces beyond his control - e.g., they were taken by armed thieves - he is not liable.", + "When does the above apply? Before the storekeeper or the moneychanger used them. If, however, he does use the money, he is responsible for it until he returns it to the owner, as for any other loan in the world.", + "When a person entrusts money to a householder, whether it is bound or not, the watchman may not use it. Therefore, if it became lost or was stolen, he is not responsible for it, provided he buries it in the ground, as has been explained.", + "The following rules apply when a person entrusts a jug to a colleague regardless of whether or not the owner of the jug designated a specific place where he could put the jug down. If the watchman moved the jug for his own purposes, he is liable, whether the jug was broken in his hand or after he returned it to the place designated for it. If he moved it for the sake of the jug, he is not liable - whether the jug was broken in his hand or whether it was broken after it was put down in a different place.", + "One should not accept entrusted articles from married women, from servants or from children. If a person accepted an entrusted object from a woman, he should return it to her. If she dies, he should return it to her husband. If he accepts an entrusted object from a servant, he should return it to him. If he dies, he should return it to his master. If he accepts an entrusted object from a child, he should buy a Torah scroll for him or a date palm so that he can eat its fruits.
With regard to all the above individuals, the following principles should be adhered to if, at the time of their death, they said, \"The entrusted article belongs to so and so.\" If the watchman would accept their word, he should act upon their instructions. If not, he should return the entrusted article to their heirs.", + "One may demand the return of an entrusted object or an object that was lost and discovered only in the original place.
What is implied? If he entrusted the article to him in Jerusalem, he cannot demand its return in Nov. If the watchman returns it to him in Nov, he must accept it.
If a person entrusted an article to a colleague in a settled community, and that colleague brought the entrusted article with him to the desert, the owner is not required to accept it from him. Instead, the owner may tell the watchman: \"You are responsible for it until you return it to me as settled land, just like I entrusted it to you in a settled land.", + "A question arose when a person entrusts an article to a colleague and then journeys overseas, and afterwards, the watchman also desires to travel overseas or depart in a caravan. There is an authority who ruled that if the watchman brings the entrusted article to the Jewish court, he is absolved of his responsibility.
These are well-reasoned words. For we do not imprison the watchman in this city because of the object entrusted to him by the person who departed overseas. The watchman cannot take the entrusted article with him, lest it be destroyed by factors beyond his control. The court should then entrust the article to a faithful person. This is like returning a lost object to its owner." + ], + [ + "The following rules apply when a person entrusts an animal or articles to a colleague, and they were lost or stolen. If the watchman says, \"I will pay,\" because he does not desire to take an oath, he acquires the rights to certain profits that come because of the article.
If the thief is discovered, he must pay twice the value of the article. If he slaughtered it or sold it, he should pay four or five times the value of the stolen animal. To whom should restitution be made? To the person who has the rights to the article i.e., the watchman, for he said that he would make restitution.
If the animal itself is returned, it should be returned to the owner - it, its shearings and its offspring. For the watchman does not acquire the profits that come from its body, but only the profits that come because of outside factors. We have already explained that the thief is required to return only the shearings and the offspring that preceded the owner's despair of the recovery of his property.
If the watchman took the oath because he did not desire to pay, and afterwards the thief is discovered, the thief must pay twice the value of the article. If he slaughtered it or sold it, he should pay four or five times the value of the stolen animal. To whom should restitution be made? To the owner of the entrusted article.
Similarly, when a person rents a cow from a colleague and it is stolen, if he says, \"I am willing to pay and I will not take an oath,\" if the thief is discovered afterwards, he should pay double or four or five times to the renter. For had the renter desired, he could have taken an oath that the cow was stolen in a manner in which he could not control, and he would be released from liability.", + "When an unpaid watchman says, \"I was negligent,\" he acquires the right to the double payment because he obligated himself to make restitution. For had he said, \"It was stolen,\" or \"It was lost,\" he would not have been liable. Similarly, when a paid watchman or renter says, \"It was stolen,\" he acquires the right to the double payment because he obligated himself to make restitution. For had he said, \"It died,\" he would not have been liable.
A borrower, by contrast, does not acquire the right to the double payment until he makes restitution on his own initiative. If afterwards the thief is discovered, he makes the payment of four or five times the animal's value to the borrower.", + "Whenever a watchman acquires the rights to the double payment, he also acquires the rights to any profit that comes as a matter of course.
What is implied? A person entrusts four se'ah, worth a sela, to his colleague. They were stolen or lost. The watchman says, \"I will pay a sela; I do not desire to take the oath.\" If they were later discovered and at that time were worth four sela'im, they are granted to the watchman. He, however, is required to pay only a sela.
When does the above apply? When the watchman did not trouble the owner to undertake legal process to recover his money. Different rules apply, however, if the watchman admits that he was negligent and the court required him to pay, but he did not do so willingly and had to be compelled by the court, and it had to expropriate the money from him. If, afterwards, the thief is found or the entrusted article is discovered, it should be returned to the owner in its present condition. The money that was expropriated from the watchman should be returned to him. If the court expropriated utensils or land from the watchman after evaluating them, the watchman's utensils or land should be returned to him.", + "When the owner demanded the return of the entrusted article from a watchman, the watchman took an oath to free himself of responsibility, but made restitution regardless, if the thief was discovered afterwards, since the watchman made restitution willingly, he acquires the right to the double payment.
This applies despite the fact that at the outset, he troubled the owner to take him to court until he took an oath. Similarly, if at first the watchman said, \"I will not pay,\" and then he said, \"I will pay,\" he acquires the right to the double payment.", + "All the following situations represent questions left unresolved by the Talmud: The watchman said, \"I will pay\" and then said, \"I refuse to pay\";
the watchman said, \"I will pay\" and then died, and his children said, \"We refuse to pay\";
the owner was not able to demand payment from the watchman before the watchman died; he demanded payment of his sons and they paid;
the sons of the watchman paid the sons of the owner;
the watchman paid half the sum;
he borrowed two cows and paid for one of them;
he borrowed from partners and paid one of them;
partners borrowed and one of them paid;
he borrowed from a woman and paid her husband;
a woman borrowed and her husband paid.
There is unresolved doubt with regard to all the above instances. The ownership of the money is in doubt, and it is not in the hands of either of them. Therefore, the double payment or the increase in the value of the entrusted article is divided between the owner and the watchman. If, however, one of them took the initiative and seized the entire amount, it should not be expropriated from his possession. This applies even in the diaspora.", + "When the entrusted article was stolen in a manner beyond the watchman's control, and afterwards the thief was discovered, both an unpaid watchman and a paid watchman must lodge a legal claim against the thief. The watchman is not required to take an oath.
The following rules apply when the watchman hurried and took the oath before the thief was discovered, and then the thief was discovered. If he is an unpaid watchman, he may remain content with his oath if he desires. If he desires, he may lodge a legal claim against the thief. If he is a paid watchman, he must lodge a legal claim against him.
There is a question when an animal that was deposited as an entrusted article is stolen in a manner beyond the watchman's control and then returned by the thief to the watchman's house, and it dies there because of the watchman's negligence. There is an unresolved question whether his responsibility as a watchman was concluded when the article was stolen, and hence he is absolved of liability or his responsibility did not conclude. Hence, the watchman is not required to make restitution. If the owner seizes the animal's worth, it is not expropriated from his possession." + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit/English/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8dc234310dcf5b9adef3ff75a93134b12eba3551 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,104 @@ +{ + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah,_Borrowing_and_Deposit", + "text": [ + [ + "When a person borrows utensils, an animal or other movable property from a colleague, and it is lost or stolen, or even if it is destroyed by factors beyond his control - e.g., an animal is injured, taken captive or dies - the borrower is required to make restitution for the entire worth of the article, as stated in Exodus 22:13: \"If a person borrows an animal from a colleague and it will become injured or die, and the owner is not with him, he must make financial restitution.\"
When does the above apply? When the loss due to factors beyond his control does not take place while the borrower is working with the animal. If, however, a person borrows a colleague's animal to plow, and it dies while plowing, the borrower is not liable. If, however, the animal dies before he plowed with it or after he plowed with it, or he rode upon it or threshed with it and the animal died while he was threshing or riding, the borrower is liable to make financial restitution. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Similarly, if a person borrows an animal to travel to a particular place and the animal dies under him on that journey, he borrows a bucket to fill water with it and it falls apart in the cistern while he is filling it, he borrows a hatchet to split wood and it breaks because of the chopping while he is splitting the wood, he is not liable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. The rationale is that he borrowed the article solely to perform this task, and he did not deviate from his original request.", + "The following rules apply when a person borrows an animal from a colleague, it dies, and the borrower claims that it died while in the midst of work. If he borrowed it to travel to a place where people are commonly present, he must bring witnesses who testify that it died or it was destroyed by forces beyond his control while he was working with it, and he did not deviate from his original request. He is then freed of liability. If he does not bring proof, he is liable.
Different rules apply when a person borrows an animal to fill up the earth in his ruin, i.e., a place where it is not common for witnesses to be present, or he borrowed a bucket to fill the cistern in his house and the bucket was destroyed in the cistern. If he brings proof that the animal or the object was destroyed in the process of performing the task for which it was borrowed, he is not liable even to take an oath. If he cannot bring proof, he must take the oath required of watchmen that the animal died during the performance of the task for which it was borrowed. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "When a person borrows a utensil from a colleague and it breaks, the utensil is evaluated in the same way as a utensil one damages is evaluated. We evaluate how much the object was worth while it was complete and how much it is worth in its present state. The borrower returns the broken utensil or the injured animal to the owner and makes financial restitution for the damages. Similarly, if the animal dies, he may return the carcass and make restitution for the animal's decrease in value.", + "When a person borrows an animal, he becomes liable to provide it with food from the time he performs meshichah until the conclusion of the time for which he borrowed it. If its meat depreciates in value, he is liable to pay for that reduction. If its meat depreciates in value because of the work the animal performs, he is not liable. He must, however, take the oath required of a watchman, swearing that it depreciated because of the work.", + "When a person borrows an article or an animal from a colleague without making any stipulation, the lender may require him to return it at any time. If he borrowed it for a set time, once he performs meshichah with it, he acquires it, and the owner may not compel the borrower to return it from his possession until the conclusion of the period for which it was borrowed. Indeed, even if the borrower dies, his heirs are entitled to continue using the borrowed article until the conclusion of the period for which it was lent out.
This concept can be appreciated by logical deduction. A purchaser acquires the body of the article he purchases forever in return for the money he gave. The recipient of a present acquires the body of the article he receives forever, although he did not give anything. Similarly, a renter acquires the body of an article for the sake of deriving benefit from it for a limited time in return for the money he gave. And a borrower acquires the body of an article for the sake of deriving benefit from it for a limited time without giving anything. Thus, just as the giver of a present resembles a seller in that he cannot retract his gift forever, so too, a person who lends an article resembles one who hires it out, in that he cannot retract in the midst of the term of the agreement.
When a father leaves his sons a cow that he had borrowed and it dies, they are not liable for the loss its owner suffers. If they thought that it belonged to their father and they slaughtered it and ate it, they are required to pay the price of its meat at a low price. If their father left them an estate, and the borrowed cow died or was slaughtered by them, they must pay its worth from the estate.", + "When a person borrows a utensil for the sake of performing a particular task, the person who lent it cannot force the borrower to return it from his possession until the borrower performs that task. Similarly, if he borrows an animal in order to travel to a particular place, the owner may not compel the borrower to return it until he goes to that place and returns.", + "When a person asks a colleague: \"Lend me your spade to hoe this orchard,\" he is allowed to hoe only that particular orchard. He may not hoe another orchard with it.
If the borrower said: \"to hoe an orchard\" without describing it further, he may use it to hoe any orchard he desires. If he borrowed it to hoe his orchards, he may hoe all the orchards he owns. Even if the iron of the spade becomes entirely worn away while hoeing, it is sufficient for him to return the wooden handle of the hoe. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "The following rule applies when a person borrows a utensil from a colleague to use and tells him: \"Lend me this item according to your generosity.\" That expression implies \"Don't lend it to me like others who lend out articles, but according to the goodness of your heart and your generosity, that you will not be concerned about the time, even if it becomes extended.\"
If a kinyan was established with the lender concerning this, the borrower may use the article without limit until it is no longer suitable to perform its function. He must then return its broken pieces or the remnants. The borrower may not, however, fix the utensil and thus make it useful again.", + "When a person asks a colleague: \"Lend me this stone tub of water,\" and it was destroyed, he may not rebuild it. If the borrower asks the owner: \"Lend me a stone tub,\" without any description, and it is destroyed, he may rebuild it.
If he asked him: \"Lend me the place of a stone tub,\" if a kinyan was established affirming this agreement, the borrower may build on the property of the lender until he constructs a stone tub that he may use to water his animal or irrigate his land, as he stipulated when speaking to the lender.", + "When a person borrows an inn from a colleague \"to spend the night,\" the intent is no less than one day. \"To spend the Sabbath,\" the intent is no less than two days. \"For marriage,\" the intent is no less than 30 days.
When a person borrows a garment from a colleague to visit a person in mourning, he may keep it for the time it takes to go and return. When a person borrows a garment to attend a wedding celebration, he may keep it for that entire day. If he borrows it for his own wedding, he may keep it for at least seven days." + ], + [ + "When a person borrows an article while the owner is working with him, he is not liable, even if the article that he borrowed is stolen or lost through negligence, as Exodus 22:14 states: \"If the owner is with him, he need not make restitution.\" This applies, provided he asked the owner to work with him at the time he borrowed the article, as we have explained.
This leniency applies whether the borrower asked the owner to work for him as a favor or hired him, and whether he asked him to perform the same work as he performs with the article, he asked him or hired him to perform another task, or he had him perform any task in the world. Even if he told a colleague, \"Give me a drink of water,\" and the person asking for the water asked to borrow his colleague's animal, if the owner gives him a drink and lends him the animal, it is considered as if he lent him the animal while \"with the owner,\" and he is not liable.
If the borrower performed meshichah with the animal first, and afterwards the owner gave him to drink, this is not considered to be borrowing an article while the owner is working with the borrower. The same principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "When a person lent or rented out his animal to carry a burden and went out to help the borrower or the renter to help him load his burden on it, this is considered to be borrowing an article while the owner is working with the borrower. If he goes out with him to inspect the burden and to see that he was not overloaded, it is not considered borrowing an article while the owner is working with the borrower.", + "The following rules apply with regard to a teacher of young children, a person who plants trees for a city, a bloodletter for the city and their scribe. On the day any one of these individuals - or a person in a similar position - sits to perform the work of the city's inhabitants, if he lends or rents out an article to any of the people whose work he is performing, it is considered as if the owner is working with the borrower. Even if the watchman was negligent, he is not liable. If, however, one of these individuals borrowed or rented an article from one of the inhabitants of the city, he is liable in the event of damages. For they do not perform work for him.", + "When a teacher reads to his students at will, at the time he desires, whichever tractate he desires, they are obligated to come to him at all times, and even if he has already started studying one tractate with them, he has the license to switch from tractate to tractate, they are considered to be at his command, and he is not at their command. On the day of public study, when everyone comes to hear about the matters that concern the festival, he is considered to be at their command, and they are not at his command.", + "When a person tells his agent: \"Go out and work together with my cow,\" it is not considered as if the owner is working with the borrower. This is intimated by Exodus 22:14: \"If the owners are with him, he need not make restitution.\" The wording implies that verse refers to the owners themselves, and not their agents.
If by contrast a person tells his Canaanite servant: \"Go out and work together with my cow,\" it is considered as if the owner is working with the borrower. The rationale is that a Canaanite servant is considered an extension of the physical person of his master.
If the servant goes to work for the borrower without his master's consent, it is not considered as if the owner is working with the borrower.", + "When a person borrows an article from a woman, and her husband is performing a task for the borrower, it is not considered as if the owner is working with the borrower. The rationale is that the right to benefit from property is not equivalent to ownership of the property itself. And a woman's husband is entitled only to benefit from her property. He is not the owner.", + "When a husband borrows property from his wife or when partners borrow property from each other, it is considered as if the owner is working with the borrower. If one partner says to the other, \"Lend me property today, and I will lend you tomorrow,\" it is not considered as if the owner is working with the borrower.", + "When a person borrows property from a partnership and also asks one of the partners to work for him, or if partners borrow property and one of the partners asks the owner to work for him, there is an unresolved doubt whether it is considered as if the owner is working with the borrower or not. Therefore, if the animal dies, the borrower is not required to make restitution. If, however, the owner seizes the value of the article from property belonging to the borrower, it should not be expropriated from his possession. If the borrower was negligent, he is required to make restitution.", + "There is an unresolved doubt whether a person who borrows an animal to sodomize it, or to create an impression, or to perform work that is worth less than a p'rutah, or borrowed two cows to do work that is worth one p'rutah while the owner is working with him is considered as an instance when an object is borrowed while the owner is working with the borrower or not.", + "If a person borrowed an animal while the owner was working for him, and before he returned it, rented it for an additional period while the owner was not working for him, he is not liable if the animal is not returned. The rental is dependent on - and considered as an extension of - the borrowing.
There is, by contrast, an unresolved doubt with regard to all of the following situations:
The person rented the animal while the owner was working for him, and before he returned it, borrowed it for an additional period while the owner was not working for him.
He borrowed an animal while the owner was working for him, and before he returned it, rented it for an additional period while the owner was not working for him and then borrowed it again while the owner was not working for him.
Or he rented an animal while the owner was working for him, and before he returned it, borrowed it for an additional period while the owner was not working for him, and then rented it again while the owner was not working for him.", + "When a woman borrows an article from one person and then marries another man, her husband is considered a purchaser - not a paid watchman nor a borrower. Accordingly, if the borrowed article was an animal that died, the husband is not liable even though he used it throughout the time that it was borrowed.This ruling applies even if he was negligent. The rationale is that he is considered as a purchaser.
When the woman receives money, she is obligated to make restitution. If she notified her husband that the article is borrowed, he undertakes her responsibility.
In all the situations that we have defined as borrowing while the owner is working for the borrower, if a renter or a paid watchman were involved, it would be considered as a rental while the owner is working for the renter, and he would not be held liable. Conversely, in all the situations that are not defined as borrowing while the owner is working for the borrower, if a renter or a paid watchman were involved, it would not be considered a rental while the owner is working for the renter. And with regard to all the situations for which there are unresolved doubts whether it is considered to be borrowing while the owner is working for the borrower; so, too, there are unresolved doubts with regard to rentals." + ], + [ + "When a person borrows a cow from a colleague and the colleague sends it to him with his own son, his agent or his servant, and it dies before it enters the borrower's domain, the borrower is not liable. This law applies even if the owner sends it with the son, the servant or the agent of the borrower.
If the borrower tells the owner: 'Send it to me with my son,' 'with my servant,' or 'with my agent,' or even 'with your Hebrew servant,' or 'with your agent,' the borrower is liable. This law also applies if the owner tells the borrower: 'I am sending it to you with your son,' 'with your servant,' 'with your agent,' 'with my son,' 'with my Hebrew servant,' or 'with my agent,' and the borrower agrees, the borrower is liable if he sends it and it dies on the way.
If the owner sends the cow with his own Canaanite servant, the borrower is not liable if the cow dies on the way after it is sent. This law applies even if the borrower consents. The rationale is that the servant is considered to be an extension of his master's physical person. Thus, the cow has never left its owner's domain.", + "The following rules apply when a person borrows a cow from a colleague, the borrower tells the owner: 'Switch it with a stick, and it will come on its own accord,' and the owner follows his instructions. The borrower is not liable until the cow enters his domain. If it dies on the way, he is not liable.
Similar laws apply when the borrower returns the animal to its owner. If he sends it with another person and it dies before it enters the owner's domain, he is liable, because it is still the borrower's responsibility. If he returned it with another person with the consent of the owner and it died, he is not liable. If he returned it with his own Canaanite servant, and it died on the way, he is liable, even if the owner consented. The rationale is that the servant is considered an extension of his master's physical person. Thus, the cow has never left the borrower's domain.
When does the above apply? When the borrower returned the animal during the time for which it was lent out. If, however, he returns it after the end of the time for which it was lent out, he is not liable if it dies on the way. For once the time for which it was lent out has concluded, the laws of borrowing no longer apply, and the person who had borrowed the animal is considered a paid watchman. Therefore, if the animal is taken captive or dies after the period for which it was lent out has concluded, the person who had borrowed the animal is not liable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "The following rules apply when a person borrows a cow from a colleague, the animal dies, and a dispute arises between the owner and the borrower concerning the circumstances of its death. For example, he borrowed it for half a day and rented it for half a day, borrowed it for one day and rented it for one day, or he borrowed one animal and rented another and one of the animals dies. The owner says: 'The borrowed animal died,' 'It died on the day it was borrowed,' or 'It died during the time it was borrowed,' and the borrower says: 'I don't know,' we follow the principle: When a person desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him. This principle also applies if the borrower says: 'The rented ox died,' 'It died on the day it was rented,' or 'It died during the time it was rented,' and the owner said: 'I don't know,' or they both said: 'I don't know.'
If the owner cannot bring proof that the borrowed ox died, the renter must take an oath that the rented ox died or that he does not know, and he is freed of liability.
If the owner claims that the borrowed ox died, and the the watchman claims that the rented ox died, the watchman must take an oath that the rented ox died in an ordinary manner as he claims. Because of the convention of gilgul sh'vuah, he must also include in his oath that it was the rented ox that died.", + "The following rules apply when a person borrows two cows from a colleague, borrowing them for half the day and renting them for half the day, and the cows die. If the owner claims 'They died during the time that they were borrowed,' and the watchman replies: 'One did die during the time it was borrowed, but I don't know about the other one,\" since the watchman is not able to take an oath that denies the owner's claim, he must make restitution for the two cows.
Similar rules apply if the owner gave the watchman three cows, two were borrowed and one was rented and two cows died. If the owner claims: 'It was the two borrowed cows that died,' and the watchman replies: 'Certainly, one of the borrowed cows died, but I do not know whether the second cow that died was the borrowed one or the rented one,' since the watchman cannot take an oath that denies the owner's claim - for he says that he does not know which one died - he must make restitution for the two cows.
In Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an, it is explained how and for which reasons a defendant is required to pay in this law and in all similar cases where a defendant is not able to take an oath." + ], + [ + "The following law applies when a person entrusts an article to a colleague without charge, and it is lost or stolen. The watchman is required to take an oath that the entrusted article was lost or stolen. He is then freed of liability, as Exodus 22:6-7 states: 'If it is stolen from the person's house..., the owner of the house shall approach the court and take an oath that he did not extend his hands to his colleague's undertakings.'
When he takes that oath, based on the convention of gilgul sh'vuah,the watchman must also include in the oath:
a) that he was not negligent, but rather guarded the article in the ordinary manner watchmen do, and
b) that he did not use the article for his personal use before if it was stolen. For if the article was stolen after he used it for his own purposes, he is responsible for it.", + "Since the Torah freed an unpaid watchman from responsibility when an article was stolen, we can certainly infer that he is freed of responsibility when the entrusted object is destroyed by major factors beyond the watchman's control; for example, an animal was injured, taken captive or died.
This leniency applies provided that the watchman does not misappropriate the entrusted article. If, however, he misappropriates the entrusted article, he is liable even though it is destroyed by forces beyond his control.
What is meant by 'in the ordinary manner watchmen do'? Everything depends on the entrusted article. There are certain entrusted articles that the manner in which they are watched is by placing them in a gatehouse - for example, beams and rocks. There are other entrusted articles that the manner in which they are watched is by placing them in a courtyard - for example, large packages of flax and the like. There are other entrusted articles that the manner in which they are watched is by placing them in a house - for example, dressings and garments. There are other entrusted articles that the manner in which they are watched is by placing them in a locked chest or a locked cabinet - e.g., silk clothes, silver objects, golden objects, and the like.", + "When a watchman placed an object in an inappropriate place and it was stolen from there or lost, he is considered negligent and is required to make restitution. This law applies even if it was destroyed by forces beyond the watchman's control - e.g., a fire broke out and consumed the entire house . It makes no difference whether the watchman placed the entrusted article together with his own property or not. If the place is fit for safekeeping, he is not liable. If it is not fit for safekeeping, he is liable. He may be careless with his own property. He does not have the right to treat another person's property in that manner.", + "The only appropriate way of guarding silver coins and dinarim of gold is to bury them in the ground, placing at least a handbreadth of earth over them, or to hide them in a wall within a handbreadth of the ceiling.
They should not be hidden in the midst of the wall, lest the thieves check thereand steal them. Even if a person locked them securely in a chest or hid them in a place where a person would not recognize or be aware of them, he is considered negligent and is liable to make restitution.
Several men of understanding have ruled that the same rules apply with regard to any object that is light and will not be destroyed speedily in the ground - e.g., slabs of silver. Needless to say, this applies to slabs of gold and to jewels. The only appropriate way of guarding such objects is in the ground. I tend to support this ruling.", + "When a person entrusts money to a colleague on Friday afternoon between the setting of the sun and the appearance of the stars, the watchman is not obligated to undertake the difficulty of burying it until Saturday night. If, however, he delayed burying it on Saturday night and before he buried it that night, it was stolen or destroyed by factors beyond his control, he is liable. If he is a Torah scholar, the watchman is not liable if he waits until after havdalah to bury it.", + "When a person entrusts money to a colleague on a journey to bring to his home, or sends money with him from one place to another, the money must be bound in a packet and held in the watchman's hand or tied on his stomach opposite his faceand carried in this fashion until he reaches his home and buries it in the appropriate manner. If he did not tie it in this manner, even if the money was lost because of factors beyond the watchman's control, he is liable. The rationale is that at the outset, he was negligent.
An incident once occurred concerning a person who entrusted money to a colleague. The colleague placed the money in a partition made from reeds. The money was hidden in the midst of the partition and was stolen from there. When the matter was brought to the Sages, they said: Although this is an excellent manner of guarding to prevent theft,it is not a proper place to guard money in the event of fire. Since he did not bury it in the ground or the walls of a building, he is considered negligent. Whenever a person is negligent in his care for the article at the outset, even if it is ultimately destroyed by forces beyond his control, he is liable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "The following law applies when a person entrusts either articles or money to a colleague. Should the owner demand of the watchman: 'Give me my entrusted article,' and the watchman tells him: 'I do not know where I placed the entrusted article,' or 'I do not know where I buried the money. Wait; I will look for it, find it and return it to you,' he is considered negligent and is required to make restitution immediately.", + "Whenever a person entrusts either articles or money to a colleague, he entrusts them with the understanding that they may be placed in the care of the person's wife, children or other members of his household who are above the age of majority. If, however, the watchman gave the entrusted article to his sons or the members of his household who are below majority, his servants - whether they are above or below majority - or one of his relatives who does not dwell in his home and is not dependent on his larder - needless, to say, this applies if he gives the article to a stranger - he is considered negligent and is required to make restitution, unless the second watchman brings proof that he was not negligent, as we have explained.
An incident occurred with regard to a person who entrusted money to a colleague. The watchman gave the money to his mother, who hid it but did not bury it. Our Sages ruled: The watchman is not liable to pay, because he gave the money to his mother, and whenever a person entrusts an article to a colleague, he entrusts it with the understanding that it may be placed in the care of his sons or the members of his household.
Even though the watchman did not tell his mother that the money was not his, but had been entrusted to him, he is not liable, for he could claim: 'Certainly, she would have cared for it more carefully if she thought it belonged to me.' Similarly, his mother is not liable, because he did not tell her that the money was entrusted to him.
Our Sages ruled: The watchman must take an oath that the money that was entrusted to him was the money that he gave his mother, and the mother must take an oath that she hid it and it was stolen. Afterwards, they are both absolved of liability. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "From the above, one may conclude that should a watchman give an entrusted article to his wife or to the members of his household and inform them that it was an entrusted article, if they did not guard it in a manner appropriate for a watchman, they are liable to pay the owner, and the person originally appointed as a watchman is not liable. The rationale is that whenever a person entrusts either articles or money to a colleague, he entrusts them with the understanding that they may be placed in the care of the person's wife or children.
An incident occurred with regard to a person who entrusted hops to a colleague. That colleague had other hops in his possession. The colleague told his attendant: 'Place these hops into the beer.' The attendant erred and took the hops that had been entrusted instead.
The Sages ruled that the attendant is not liable, because the watchman did not tell him: 'Place these hops, and do not place those hops.' Therefore, the attendant thought that he was merely recommending one pile, but not insisting on it. The owner is also not liable, because he instructed him to take the hops from his own pile. He is required to make restitution only for the benefit he received. Therefore, if the beer becomes vinegar, he is not liable to pay anything. Regardless of the outcome, the watchman is required to take an oath that these in fact were the circumstances. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations." + ], + [ + "If money designated to be given to the poor or to be used for the redemption of captives was given to a person, he was negligent in guarding it and it was stolen, the watchman is not liable. This is derived from Exodus 22:6, which states: \"If a man gives money or articles to his colleague to watch....\" The wording implies that obligations determined by the verse apply when the money or the article was given to watch, but not when it was given to divide among the poor. This decision is rendered, because there is no one to claim the money as his own.
Even if the thieves attacked the person and he saved himself by giving them the money designated for the redemption of captives, he is not liable. There is no greater redemption of captives than this.
When does the above apply? When the money was not entrusted to him for the sake of the poor people of a particular place or a designated group of captives. If, however, the money was designated for a particular group of poor people or captives, and is thus set aside for them, it is considered to be money that people can claim. Therefore, the watchman must pay if he was negligent, or take an oath that he was not negligent, as is required of all watchmen.", + "The following rules apply when a person entrusts money or valuable articles to a colleague, thieves come and attack him and he gives them the entrusted article before offering any of his other property to save himself. If the person has the reputation of being wealthy, he is liable. The rationale is that we may presume that the thieves came because of the watchman. Thus, he is saving himself with money belonging to a colleague. If the watchman does not have the reputation of being wealthy, we presume that the thieves came only because of the entrusted article. Hence, the watchman is not liable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "The following rules apply when a person entrusts articles or fruit to a colleague. If thieves come and steal the entrusted article in his presence and he remains silent, he may be held liable. If people would have come and rescued the entrusted article had he called out, he is considered negligent for remaining silent and he is obligated to make restitution. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "The following laws apply when two people entrusted money to a colleague, one 100 zuz and the other 200 zuz, both claim to have entrusted the 200 zuz, and the watchman does not recall which one deposited 200, and which one 100. Each of the claimants must take an oath that he was the one who deposited the 200 zuz He may then collect the money he claims, as is the law with regard to any person who takes an oath and collects his due. The watchman must pay each claimant 200, losing 100 zuz from his own resources. The rationale is that he was negligent, for he should have written down the name of each person on the packet that he entrusted.
Therefore, if the two people together brought him the 300 zuz in a single packet, and afterwards each claims that the 200 belongs to him, the watchman is not considered negligent if he does not remember who brought the larger sum. He should give each one a maneh, and the balance should remain in the watchman's possession forever, or until one of them acknowledges the other's claim. The rationale is that the watchman can explain: \"I saw that you two were not precise with each other, as indicated by the fact that you brought the money to me in a single packet. Therefore, I did not trouble myself to know and continuously remember who owned 100 and who owned 200.\"
Similar laws apply if two people entrusted one watchman with two utensils, one large and one small, each one claimed to be the owner of the larger utensil, and the watchman did not remember to whom it belonged. Each of the claimants must take an oath supporting his claim. The watchman must then give one of them the larger utensil, and the value of the larger one to the other. The smaller utensil remains his.If the two brought the two in a single container, he should give the smaller utensil to one and the worth of that utensil to the other. He may keep the remainder in his possession until one claimant acknowledges the other's claim or until eternity.
Similar laws apply if only one article was entrusted, and two people claim it as their own and the watchman says, \"One of you is the owner, but I do not know which one.\" He must pay both of them. Similarly, when two people each entrust an animal to a shepherd, and one animal dies, if the watchman does not know whose animal died, he must make restitution to both of them. If they placed them in his herd without informing him, he may place one animal between them and depart. That animal shall remain until one acknowledges the other's claim or until they desire to divide it.", + "When a person entrusts produce to a colleague, the watchman should not mix it together with his own produce. The following rules apply if the watchman transgressed and mixed the produce together. He should calculate the quantity of produce entrusted to him, see how much produce was lacking from the entire amount and estimate the amount of loss suffered by the entrusted produce. He should return this amount to the owner after he takes an oath.
If the watchman made use of the combined quantity of produce and did not know how much he used, he should subtract the standard norm before returning the produce. For example, for wheat and for shelled rice, he should subtract four and a half kabbin for every kor; for barley and for millet, he should subtract nine kabbin for each kor; and for buckwheat, flax seeds in their stalks and unshelled rice, he should subtract three se'ah for each kor.
When does the above apply? When the original measurement of the produce was made at harvest time, and it was returned during the harvest time. If, however, the watchman returns the produce in the rainy season, he should not make a deduction because of spoilage, for the produce swells.
Similarly, a watchman may deduct a sixth of a quantity of wine entrusted to him and three lugin for every 100 lugin of oil entrusted to him, one and half lugin for dregs and one and a half lugin for absorption. If the oil was refined, the watchman should not make a deduction for dregs. If the containers are old, he should not make a deduction for absorption.", + "When a person entrusts produce that has not been measured to a watchman, and the watchman mixes it together with his own produce without measuring it, the watchman is considered negligent.
If the owner of the fruit says, \"There was this and this amount of produce entrusted,\" and the watchman says, \"I don't know how much there was,\" he is liable. For he is obligated to take an oath and yet cannot take the oath. My teachers, Rav Yosef HaLevi and his teacher, ruled in this manner.
Similarly, whenever a watchman is obligated to pay, but does not know how much he is obligated to pay, if the owners say: \"It was worth such and such,\" they may collect this amount without taking an oath. This law applies provided the owner claims a sum or an object that he can be presumed to possess. The watchman may have a ban of ostracism issued against anyone who expropriates more than his due.
What is the rationale for this law? Consider: The owner entrusted a purse full of gold coins to the watchman, and the watchman was negligent. The owner says, \"It contained 200 dinarim, and the watchman says, \"It certainly contained dinarim, but I do not know how much it contained.\" Thus, a claim is being issued for 200. The watchman admits a portion of the claim, and does not know about the remainder of the claim. He is thus obligated to take an oath, but cannot. Hence, he is required to pay, as will be explained.", + "The following rules apply when a person's father died, leaving him a closed sack. The heir entrusted it to a colleague for safekeeping, the colleague was negligent in its care, and it was destroyed. The depositor says, \"I don't know what it contained. Maybe it contained pearls.\" Similarly, the watchman states: \"I don't know how much I am obligated to pay. Maybe it was filled with pieces of glass.\"
I maintain that the ruling in this instance is that, as our Sages required, the watchman should take an oath that the entrusted object is no longer in his domain. He should include in this oath that he does not know whether it was worth more than a specific amount. He must then pay the amount that he admits that it was worth. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
An incident occurred concerning a person who entrusted a closed sack to his colleague. The latter was negligent in its care, and it was lost. The owner said, \"It contained gold jewelry, pearls and the like.\" The watchman replied: \"I don't know. Perhaps all it contained were pieces of scrap metal or sand.\"
Our Sages ruled: \"The owner of the entrusted article may take an oath supporting his claim, and then collect the sum he claims, provided he claims a sum that he could be presumed to have entrusted to him.
Why must the owner of the entrusted article take an oath in this instance? Because in this instance, the watchman is not obligated to take an oath. For even if the watchman were to admit and say: \"I am definitely certain that it contained scrap metal,\" and the owner claimed: \"It contained pearls,\" the watchman could take a sh'vuat hesset and be freed of obligation. This resembles a case where the plaintiff demands wheat and the defendant admits owing barley. The same laws apply in all analogous situations. The fundamental principles upon which these laws revolve will be explained in Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an." + ], + [ + "The following rules apply when an unpaid watchman says, \"I desire to pay and not to take an oath: If the entrusted article is of a uniform type and it is possible to purchase such articles in the market-place - e.g., produce, reams of wool and flax that are entirely uniform, beams on which images have not been carved, or the like- he may pay the value of the article and be excused from taking an oath.
If, however, the entrusted article was an animal, a decorated garment, a utensil that had been fixed, or an article that is not easily available to purchase in the market place, we suspect that the watchman coveted it for himself. We therefore require him to take an oath as instituted by our Sages, while holding a sacred article, that the entrusted object is no longer in his possession. Afterwards, he must make restitution.
The same law applies to other watchmen - e.g., a borrower who says that an entrusted animal died or was stolen, or a paid watchman, or a renter who says that an entrusted article was stolen or lost. Even though they are obligated to pay, they are required to take an oath that the article is no longer in their possession. Afterwards, they must make financial restitution for the entrusted animal or article. The rationale is that we suspect that the watchman coveted it for himself.
If the owner claims that the entrusted article was worth more than the watchman admits, he must also include in his oath that it was worth only such and such. Thus, every watchman who takes the oath required of watchmen must include three matters in the oath:
a) that he cared for the article in a manner appropriate for a watchman;
b) that this and this happened to the article and it is no longer in his domain; and
c) that he did not use the article for his own purposes before the event that absolves him of responsibility took place.
If he desires to make financial restitution, he must take an oath that the article is no longer in his domain and include in his oath that it is worth such and such.", + "When accepting an article for safekeeping, a watchman may stipulate that he will not guard the articles in a manner appropriate for a watchman; instead: \"Money that is entrusted to me, I will keep in the corner of my house,\" or the like.
The following rule applies if the watchman claims that he made such a stipulation and the owner agreed, and the owner claims that such a stipulation was never made. The watchman's claim is accepted. This applies even if the owner entrusted it to him in the presence of witnesses. The rationale is that since he could have claimed: \"I guarded it in a manner appropriate for a watchman, but it was destroyed by forces beyond my control,\" we accept his claim that he made such a stipulation. Therefore, he must take an oath that he did not use the article for his own purposes, that it is not in his possession, and that he had made such a stipulation.", + "When an unpaid watchman brings proof that he was not negligent, he is not required to take an oath. We do not suspect that he used the article for his own purposes before it was lost.
If the owner of the entrusted article brings proof that the watchman was negligent, the watchman must make restitution. If he claims that the owner had agreed to his stipulation that he not be required to guard the article in the manner required by witnesses, his claim is not accepted. The rationale is that there are witnesses who testify that he was negligent.", + "When a person entrusts an article to a colleague in the presence of witnesses, there is a disagreement between the owner and the watchman, and the witnesses testify that the article that we see is the article that was entrusted in their presence, the watchman cannot claim: \"Afterwards, I purchased it from him,\" or \"He gave it to me as a present.\"
Therefore, if the watchman dies, the entrusted article may be expropriated from the orphans without an oath. Moreover, should a person come and tell an heir: \"I entrusted this and this article with your father,\" and give very explicit signs to identify the article, if the entrusted article is found as he described it, and the judge knows that the deceased was not likely to have such an article, the judge may award the article to the person who identified it with the signs.
This law applies provided the person who claims that the article is his would not frequently visit the deceased. If, however, he would frequently visit him we do not award him the article. We suspect that perhaps it belongs to another person, and the claimant merely became familiar with its identifying characteristics.
If witnesses come and testify that the deceased is not likely to have owned the article, we do not expropriate the article from the orphans because of their testimony. For their estimation of the deceased's financial capacity is not necessarily that of the judge, and the judge should follow only information that he feels that he can rely only, as will be explained in Hilchot Sanhedrin.
An incident occurred concerning a person who entrusted sesame seeds to a colleague in the presence of witnesses and later came to claim them. The watchman replied: \"I returned them.\"
The owner answered: \"They were of this and this measure and they are now held in your jug.\"
The watchman responded: \"I returned yours, and these are others.\"
The Sages ruled that the sesame seeds should not be expropriated from his possession, for perhaps these sesame seeds belonged to the watchman. Instead, the watchman is required to take an oath while holding a sacred object that he returned the entrusted object, as we have explained.", + "The following rules apply when the owner of an entrusted object asks for the return of that object and the watchman gives it to him, but a difference of opinion arises between them. For example, the owner claims: \"This is not the article I entrusted, but a different one,\" \"My article was whole, and you broke it,\" \"It was new and you used it,\" or \"I entrusted 100 se'ah to you, and there are only 50 here.\" The watchman responds to these claims, saying: \"This is the article you personally deposited. You will be taking what you gave me.\"
In all such instances, the watchman is required merely to take a sh'vuat hesset, as is required of others who must take oaths in response to such claims. For a watchman is not obligated to take the oath required of watchmen mentioned in the Torah unless he admits accepting responsibility for the very article that the owner claims, but asserts that it was stolen, it died, or it was captured.
The general principle is: When a watchman makes a claim that absolves him from payment, he is required to take the oath required of watchmen. If, however, he says, \"This is the article that you lent me,\" \"... hired to me,\" or \"... paid me for watching,\" and the owner claims that the article he seeks to return is not the one given or that it was changed from its original state, the renter is required to take merely a sh'vuat hesset, or a Scriptural oath if he admits a portion of the plaintiff's claim.
What is implied? If the owner claims: \"I entrusted 100 se'ah to you,\" and the watchman claims: \"You only entrusted 50,\" he is required to take a Scriptural oath, because he admitted a portion of the claim, not because it is the oath required of a watchman. If the owner claims: \"I entrusted 100 se'ah of wheat to you,\" and the watchman claims: \"You entrusted only 100 se'ah of barley,\" he is merely required to take a sh'vuat hesset, as others who would have to take an oath with regard to this claim." + ], + [ + "When a person entrusts produce to a colleague, the watchman should not touch it even though its quantity is dwindling and diminishing.
When does the above apply? When it is diminishing at the ordinary rate that could be expected each year. If, however, the amount is diminishing beyond the ordinary norms, the watchman should sell the produce in the presence of a court. It is as if he were returning a lost object to the owner.
When he sells the produce, he should sell it to priests at the price at which terumah is sold, for perhaps the owner designated it as terumah or terumat ma'aser for other produce.", + "When a person entrusts produce to a colleague and it spoils, honey that becomes ruined, or wine that sours, the watchman should perform a service to the owner and sell the entrusted object in the presence of a court.
This law applies even though the loss reached its limit and the produce would not spoil further, for the containers and the baskets would continue to spoil.", + "When a person entrusts leaven to a colleague and the Pesach holiday arrives, the watchman should not touch the produce until the fifth hour on the morning of the fourteenth of Nisan. After that, he should sell it in the market place at that hour, for it is like he is returning a lost object to the owner.
The same law applies to other entrusted objects. A watchman should not touch them even though he certainly knows that their value will diminish at this and this time, or they will be seized by the king, lest the owner come beforehand and take his property.", + "When a person entrusts a Torah scroll to a colleague, the watchman should roll the scroll once every twelve months. It is permitted for him to open it and read it while rolling it. He should not, however, open it for his own purposes and read. The same law applies with regard to other scrolls. If the watchman opened the scroll, read it and rolled it for his own purposes, he is considered to have misappropriated the entrusted article and is liable if it is destroyed by forces beyond his control.
If the owner entrusted a woolen garment to a colleague, he should shake it out once every 30 days. The same principles that apply with regard to lost objects apply to entrusted objects. He should care for other entrusted objects in a similar way; this is an obligation incumbent upon him, like the return of a lost article to its owner.
When does the above apply? With regard to an entrusted object whose owner has traveled overseas. If, however, the owner was together with the watchman in that same land, the watchman should not touch the entrusted object even though it is being ruined.", + "Whenever a person sells an entrusted object under the supervision of a court, he must sell it to others and may not purchase it himself, lest suspicion arise. The money should be kept in his possession, and he has the right to make use of it. Therefore, he is considered to be a paid watchman with regard to these funds even though he did not make use of them.", + "The following rules apply when a person entrusts money to a storekeeper or a moneychanger. If the money was bound in a bag and sealed or tied with an unordinary knot, the storekeeper or the moneychanger should not use it. Therefore, if it became lost or was stolen, he is not responsible for it.
If the money was neither sealed nor tied in an unordinary manner, even though it is bound in a bag, the storekeeper or the moneychanger has the right to use the money. Therefore, he is considered to be a paid watchman, and if it is lost or stolen, he is responsible for it. If it is lost due to forces beyond his control - e.g., they were taken by armed thieves - he is not liable.", + "When does the above apply? Before the storekeeper or the moneychanger used them. If, however, he does use the money, he is responsible for it until he returns it to the owner, as for any other loan in the world.", + "When a person entrusts money to a householder, whether it is bound or not, the watchman may not use it. Therefore, if it became lost or was stolen, he is not responsible for it, provided he buries it in the ground, as has been explained.", + "The following rules apply when a person entrusts a jug to a colleague regardless of whether or not the owner of the jug designated a specific place where he could put the jug down. If the watchman moved the jug for his own purposes, he is liable, whether the jug was broken in his hand or after he returned it to the place designated for it. If he moved it for the sake of the jug, he is not liable - whether the jug was broken in his hand or whether it was broken after it was put down in a different place.", + "One should not accept entrusted articles from married women, from servants or from children. If a person accepted an entrusted object from a woman, he should return it to her. If she dies, he should return it to her husband. If he accepts an entrusted object from a servant, he should return it to him. If he dies, he should return it to his master. If he accepts an entrusted object from a child, he should buy a Torah scroll for him or a date palm so that he can eat its fruits.
With regard to all the above individuals, the following principles should be adhered to if, at the time of their death, they said, \"The entrusted article belongs to so and so.\" If the watchman would accept their word, he should act upon their instructions. If not, he should return the entrusted article to their heirs.", + "One may demand the return of an entrusted object or an object that was lost and discovered only in the original place.
What is implied? If he entrusted the article to him in Jerusalem, he cannot demand its return in Nov. If the watchman returns it to him in Nov, he must accept it.
If a person entrusted an article to a colleague in a settled community, and that colleague brought the entrusted article with him to the desert, the owner is not required to accept it from him. Instead, the owner may tell the watchman: \"You are responsible for it until you return it to me as settled land, just like I entrusted it to you in a settled land.", + "A question arose when a person entrusts an article to a colleague and then journeys overseas, and afterwards, the watchman also desires to travel overseas or depart in a caravan. There is an authority who ruled that if the watchman brings the entrusted article to the Jewish court, he is absolved of his responsibility.
These are well-reasoned words. For we do not imprison the watchman in this city because of the object entrusted to him by the person who departed overseas. The watchman cannot take the entrusted article with him, lest it be destroyed by factors beyond his control. The court should then entrust the article to a faithful person. This is like returning a lost object to its owner." + ], + [ + "The following rules apply when a person entrusts an animal or articles to a colleague, and they were lost or stolen. If the watchman says, \"I will pay,\" because he does not desire to take an oath, he acquires the rights to certain profits that come because of the article.
If the thief is discovered, he must pay twice the value of the article. If he slaughtered it or sold it, he should pay four or five times the value of the stolen animal. To whom should restitution be made? To the person who has the rights to the article i.e., the watchman, for he said that he would make restitution.
If the animal itself is returned, it should be returned to the owner - it, its shearings and its offspring. For the watchman does not acquire the profits that come from its body, but only the profits that come because of outside factors. We have already explained that the thief is required to return only the shearings and the offspring that preceded the owner's despair of the recovery of his property.
If the watchman took the oath because he did not desire to pay, and afterwards the thief is discovered, the thief must pay twice the value of the article. If he slaughtered it or sold it, he should pay four or five times the value of the stolen animal. To whom should restitution be made? To the owner of the entrusted article.
Similarly, when a person rents a cow from a colleague and it is stolen, if he says, \"I am willing to pay and I will not take an oath,\" if the thief is discovered afterwards, he should pay double or four or five times to the renter. For had the renter desired, he could have taken an oath that the cow was stolen in a manner in which he could not control, and he would be released from liability.", + "When an unpaid watchman says, \"I was negligent,\" he acquires the right to the double payment because he obligated himself to make restitution. For had he said, \"It was stolen,\" or \"It was lost,\" he would not have been liable. Similarly, when a paid watchman or renter says, \"It was stolen,\" he acquires the right to the double payment because he obligated himself to make restitution. For had he said, \"It died,\" he would not have been liable.
A borrower, by contrast, does not acquire the right to the double payment until he makes restitution on his own initiative. If afterwards the thief is discovered, he makes the payment of four or five times the animal's value to the borrower.", + "Whenever a watchman acquires the rights to the double payment, he also acquires the rights to any profit that comes as a matter of course.
What is implied? A person entrusts four se'ah, worth a sela, to his colleague. They were stolen or lost. The watchman says, \"I will pay a sela; I do not desire to take the oath.\" If they were later discovered and at that time were worth four sela'im, they are granted to the watchman. He, however, is required to pay only a sela.
When does the above apply? When the watchman did not trouble the owner to undertake legal process to recover his money. Different rules apply, however, if the watchman admits that he was negligent and the court required him to pay, but he did not do so willingly and had to be compelled by the court, and it had to expropriate the money from him. If, afterwards, the thief is found or the entrusted article is discovered, it should be returned to the owner in its present condition. The money that was expropriated from the watchman should be returned to him. If the court expropriated utensils or land from the watchman after evaluating them, the watchman's utensils or land should be returned to him.", + "When the owner demanded the return of the entrusted article from a watchman, the watchman took an oath to free himself of responsibility, but made restitution regardless, if the thief was discovered afterwards, since the watchman made restitution willingly, he acquires the right to the double payment.
This applies despite the fact that at the outset, he troubled the owner to take him to court until he took an oath. Similarly, if at first the watchman said, \"I will not pay,\" and then he said, \"I will pay,\" he acquires the right to the double payment.", + "All the following situations represent questions left unresolved by the Talmud: The watchman said, \"I will pay\" and then said, \"I refuse to pay\";
the watchman said, \"I will pay\" and then died, and his children said, \"We refuse to pay\";
the owner was not able to demand payment from the watchman before the watchman died; he demanded payment of his sons and they paid;
the sons of the watchman paid the sons of the owner;
the watchman paid half the sum;
he borrowed two cows and paid for one of them;
he borrowed from partners and paid one of them;
partners borrowed and one of them paid;
he borrowed from a woman and paid her husband;
a woman borrowed and her husband paid.
There is unresolved doubt with regard to all the above instances. The ownership of the money is in doubt, and it is not in the hands of either of them. Therefore, the double payment or the increase in the value of the entrusted article is divided between the owner and the watchman. If, however, one of them took the initiative and seized the entire amount, it should not be expropriated from his possession. This applies even in the diaspora.", + "When the entrusted article was stolen in a manner beyond the watchman's control, and afterwards the thief was discovered, both an unpaid watchman and a paid watchman must lodge a legal claim against the thief. The watchman is not required to take an oath.
The following rules apply when the watchman hurried and took the oath before the thief was discovered, and then the thief was discovered. If he is an unpaid watchman, he may remain content with his oath if he desires. If he desires, he may lodge a legal claim against the thief. If he is a paid watchman, he must lodge a legal claim against him.
There is a question when an animal that was deposited as an entrusted article is stolen in a manner beyond the watchman's control and then returned by the thief to the watchman's house, and it dies there because of the watchman's negligence. There is an unresolved question whether his responsibility as a watchman was concluded when the article was stolen, and hence he is absolved of liability or his responsibility did not conclude. Hence, the watchman is not required to make restitution. If the owner seizes the animal's worth, it is not expropriated from his possession." + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007", + "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות שאלה ופיקדון", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit/Hebrew/Torat Emet 363.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit/Hebrew/Torat Emet 363.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..733c7d672086ad5165e9b7efc2260aec7c794dec --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit/Hebrew/Torat Emet 363.json @@ -0,0 +1,108 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit", + "versionSource": "http://www.toratemetfreeware.com/index.html?downloads", + "versionTitle": "Torat Emet 363", + "status": "locked", + "priority": 1.0, + "license": "Public Domain", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "תורת אמת 363", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות שאלה ופיקדון", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "הַשּׁוֹאֵל כֵּלִים אוֹ בְּהֵמָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן מִשְּׁאָר מִטַּלְטְלִין מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וְאָבַד אוֹ נִגְנַב אֲפִלּוּ נֶאֱנַס אֹנֶס גָּדוֹל כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרָה הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ נִשְׁבֵּית אוֹ מֵתָה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם הַכּל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב יג) \"וְכִי יִשְׁאַל אִישׁ מֵעִם רֵעֵהוּ\" וְגוֹ' (שמות כב יג) \"וְנִשְׁבַּר אוֹ מֵת בְּעָלָיו אֵין עִמּוֹ שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם\". בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁנֶּאֱנַס שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה. אֲבָל אִם שָׁאַל בְּהֵמָה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ לַחְרשׁ בָּהּ וּמֵתָה כְּשֶׁהִיא חוֹרֶשֶׁת הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. אֲבָל אִם מֵתָה קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּחֲרשׁ בָּהּ אוֹ אַחַר שֶׁחָרַשׁ בָּהּ אוֹ שֶׁרָכַב עָלֶיהָ אוֹ דָּשׁ בָּהּ וּמֵתָה כְּשֶׁהִיא דָּשָׁה אוֹ בִּשְׁעַת רְכִיבָה הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹאֵל בְּהֵמָה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ לֵילֵךְ בָּהּ לְמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וּמֵתָה תַּחְתָּיו בְּאוֹתָהּ הַדֶּרֶךְ. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁאַל דְּלִי לְמַלְּאוֹת בּוֹ וְנִקְרַע בַּבּוֹר בִּשְׁעַת מִלּוּי. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁאַל קַרְדֹּם לְפַצֵּל בּוֹ עֵצִים וְנִשְׁבַּר בְּעֵת שֶׁפִּצֵּל בּוֹ מֵחֲמַת הַבִּקּוּעַ. וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר שֶׁלֹּא שָׁאַל אֶלָּא לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ מְלָאכָה זוֹ וַהֲרֵי לֹא שִׁנָּה: ", + "הַשּׁוֹאֵל בְּהֵמָה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וּמֵתָה וְטָעַן הַשּׁוֹאֵל שֶׁבִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה מֵתָה. אִם הָיָה הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁאֲלָה לֵילֵךְ בּוֹ מָקוֹם שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם מְצוּיִין שָׁם יָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁמֵּתָה אוֹ נֶאֶנְסָה בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה וְשֶׁלֹּא שִׁנָּה בָּהּ וְיִפָּטֵר. וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה מְשַׁלֵּם. שְאֲלָה מִמֶּנּוּ לְמַלְּאוֹת בָּהּ עָפָר שֶׁבְּחֻרְבָּתוֹ שֶׁאֵין הָעֵדִים מְצוּיִין שָׁם. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁאַל מִמֶּנּוּ דְּלִי לְמַלְּאוֹת בּוֹ הַבּוֹר בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וְנִקְרַע בַּבּוֹר. אִם הֵבִיא רְאָיָה יִפָּטֵר אַף מִשְּׁבוּעָה וְאִם לָאו יִשָּׁבַע הַשּׁוֹאֵל שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִים שֶׁמֵּתָה בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה וְיִפָּטֵר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "הַשּׁוֹאֵל כְּלִי מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וְנִשְׁבַּר שָׁמִין לוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁשָּׁמִין בִּנְזָקִין. אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה הָיָה שָׁוֶה שָׁלֵם וְכַמָּה הוּא שָׁוֶה עַתָּה וּמַחֲזִיר לוֹ הַכְּלִי אוֹ הַבְּהֵמָה הַשְּׁבוּרָה וּמְשַׁלֵּם הַפְּחָת. וְכֵן אִם מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה מַחְזִיר הַנְּבֵלָה וּמְשַׁלֵּם הַפְּחָת: ", + "הַשּׁוֹאֵל בְּהֵמָה חַיָּב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁמְּשָׁכָהּ עַד סוֹף יְמֵי שְׁאֵלָתָהּ. וְאִם כָּחַשׁ בְּשָׂרָהּ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁפָּחֲתָה בְּדָמֶיהָ. כָּחַשׁ בְּשָׂרָהּ מֵחֲמַת הַמְּלָאכָה פָּטוּר וְיִשָּׁבַע שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין שֶׁמֵּחֲמַת מְלָאכָה כָּחֲשָׁה: ", + "הַשּׁוֹאֵל כְּלִי מֵחֲבֵרוֹ אוֹ בְּהֵמָה סְתָם הֲרֵי הַמַּשְׁאִיל מַחְזִירוֹ בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. שְׁאָלוֹ לִזְמַן קָצוּב כֵּיוָן שֶׁמָּשַׁךְ וְזָכָה אֵין הַבְּעָלִים יְכוֹלִין לְהַחְזִירוֹ מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ עַד סוֹף יְמֵי הַשְּׁאֵלָה. וַאֲפִלּוּ מֵת הַשּׁוֹאֵל הֲרֵי הַיּוֹרְשִׁין מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בַּשְּׁאֵלָה עַד סוֹף הַזְּמַן. וְדִין הוּא. הַלּוֹקֵחַ קוֹנֶה הַגּוּף קִנְיַן עוֹלָם בַּדָּמִים שֶׁנָּתַן וּמְקַבֵּל מַתָּנָה קָנָה הַגּוּף קִנְיַן עוֹלָם וְלֹא נָתַן כְּלוּם וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר קָנָה הַגּוּף לְפֵרוֹתָיו עַד זְמַן קָצוּב בַּדָּמִים שֶׁנָּתַן וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל קָנָה הַגּוּף לְפֵרוֹתָיו עַד זְמַן קָצוּב וְלֹא נָתַן כְּלוּם. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַנּוֹתֵן כַּמּוֹכֵר שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר בּוֹ לְעוֹלָם כָּךְ הַמַּשְׁאִיל כַּמַּשְׂכִּיר שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר בְּתוֹךְ הַזְּמַן. הִנִּיחַ לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם פָּרָה שְׁאוּלָה וּמֵתָה אֵין חַיָּבִין בָּאֳנָסֶיהָ. חָשְׁבוּ שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל אֲבִיהֶם טְבָחוּהָ וַאֲכָלוּהָ מְשַׁלְּמִין דְּמֵי בָּשָׂר בְּזוֹל. וְאִם הִנִּיחַ לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם נְכָסִים וּמֵתָה אוֹ שֶׁטְּבָחוּהָ מְשַׁלְּמִין אֶת דָּמֶיהָ מִנְּכָסָיו: ", + "הַשּׁוֹאֵל כְּלִי מֵחֲבֵרוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ מְלָאכָה פְּלוֹנִית אֵין הַמַּשְׁאִיל יָכוֹל לְהַחְזִירוֹ מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בּוֹ אוֹתָהּ מְלָאכָה. וְכֵן אִם שָׁאַל מִמֶּנּוּ בְּהֵמָה לֵילֵךְ בָּהּ בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַחְזִירָהּ מִיַּד הַשּׁוֹאֵל עַד שֶׁיֵּלֵךְ בָּהּ לְשָׁם וְיַחְזֹר: ", + "הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ הַשְׁאִילֵנִי קַרְדֹּם לַעֲדֹר בּוֹ הַפַּרְדֵּס הַזֶּה עוֹדֵר בּוֹ אוֹתוֹ הַפַּרְדֵּס בִּלְבַד וְאֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לַעֲדֹר בּוֹ פַּרְדֵּס אַחֵר. אָמַר לוֹ פַּרְדֵּס סְתָם עוֹדֵר בּוֹ פַּרְדֵּס אַחֵר אֵי זֶה שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. שְׁאָלוֹ לַעֲדֹר בּוֹ פַּרְדֵּסִים (הַרְבֵּה שֶׁלּוֹ) עוֹדֵר בּוֹ כָּל הַפַּרְדֵּסִים שֶׁלּוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ נִשְׁחַת כָּל הַבַּרְזֶל בַּעֲדִירָה מַחְזִיר לוֹ הַנִּצָּב שֶׁל עֵץ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "הַשּׁוֹאֵל כְּלִי מֵחֲבֵרוֹ לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ הַשְׁאִילֵנִי דָּבָר פְּלוֹנִי בְּטוֹבָתְךָ כְּלוֹמַר אֵין אַתָּה מַשְׁאִיל לִי דָּבָר זֶה כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל הַמַּשְׁאִילִין אֶלָּא כְּפִי טוֹבַת לִבְּךָ וְנִדְבוֹתֶיךָ שֶׁאֵינְךָ מַקְפִּיד עַל הַזְּמַן אִם אָרַךְ. אִם קָנוּ מִיַּד הַמַּשְׁאִיל עַל זֶה הֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹאֵל מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ לְעוֹלָם עַד שֶׁיִּתְבַּטֵּל הַכְּלִי מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת מְלַאכְתּוֹ וְיַחְזִיר שְׁבָרָיו אוֹ שְׁיָרָיו. וְאֵין הַשּׁוֹאֵל רַשַּׁאי לַחְזֹר וּלְתַקֵּן הַכְּלִי אוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ פַּעַם אַחֶרֶת: ", + "הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ הַשְׁאִילֵנִי שֹׁקֶת זוֹ שֶׁל מַיִם וְנֶהֶרְסָה [אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִבְנוֹתָהּ. אָמַר לוֹ הַשְׁאִילֵנִי שֹׁקֶת סְתָם וְנֶהֶרְסָה] יֵשׁ לוֹ לִבְנוֹתָהּ. אָמַר לוֹ הַשְׁאִילֵנִי מְקוֹם שֹׁקֶת אִם קָנוֹ מִיַּד הַמַּשְׁאִיל הֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹאֵל בּוֹנֶה וְהוֹלֵךְ בְּקַרְקַע הַמַּשְׁאִיל עַד שֶׁתָּבוֹא לְיָדוֹ שֹׁקֶת שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לְהַשְׁקוֹת מִמֶּנָּה בְּהֶמְתּוֹ אוֹ אַרְצוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִתְנָה עִם הַמַּשְׁאִיל: ", + "הַשּׁוֹאֵל פֻּנְדָּק מֵחֲבֵרוֹ לְלִינָה אֵין פָּחוֹת מִיּוֹם אֶחָד. לִשְׁבִיתָה אֵין פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי יָמִים. לְנִשּׂוּאִים אֵין פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. שָׁאַל חָלוּק מֵחֲבֵרוֹ לֵילֵךְ בּוֹ לְבֵית הָאָבֵל כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּלֵךְ וְיַחְזֹר. שְׁאָלוֹ לְבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה כָּל אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם. שְׁאָלוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת הַמִּשְׁתֶּה שֶׁלּוֹ אֵין פָּחוֹת מִשִּׁבְעָה יָמִים: " + ], + [ + "הַשׁוֹאֵל בַּבְּעָלִים אֲפִלּוּ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד בִּפְשִׁיעָה פָּטוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב יד) \"אִם בְּעָלָיו עִמּוֹ לֹא יְשַׁלֵּם\". וּבִלְבַד שֶׁשָּׁאַל הַבְּעָלִים תְּחִלָּה עִם הַחֵפֶץ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאֶחָד הַשּׁוֹאֵל אֶת הַבְּעָלִים אוֹ שֶׁשְּׂכָרָן וְאֶחָד שֶׁשּׁוֹאֵל אֶת הַבְּעָלִים לְאוֹתָהּ הַמְּלָאכָה אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁאָלָן וּשְׂכָרָן לִמְלָאכָה אַחֶרֶת אוֹ לְשׁוּם דָּבָר בָּעוֹלָם. אֲפִלּוּ אָמַר לַחֲבֵרוֹ הַשְׁקֵנִי מַיִם וְשָׁאַל מִמֶּנּוּ בְּהֶמְתּוֹ וְהִשְׁקָהוּ וְנָתַן לוֹ אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה הֲרֵי זוֹ שְׁאֵלָה בִּבְעָלִים וּפָטוּר. מָשַׁךְ אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה בַּתְּחִלָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִשְׁקָהוּ אֵינָהּ שְׁאֵלָה בִּבְעָלִים. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "הִשְׁאִיל בְּהֶמְתּוֹ אוֹ הִשְׂכִּירָהּ לְמַשּׂוֹי וְיָצָא עִמָּהּ לְסָעֳדָהּ עִם הַשּׁוֹאֵל אוֹ הַשּׂוֹכֵר וְלִטְעֹן עִמּוֹ בְּמַשָּׂאוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ שְׁמִירָה בַּבְּעָלִים. וְאִם יָצָא לְבַקֵּר הַמַּשּׂאוֹי בִּלְבַד וְלִרְאוֹת שֶׁלֹּא יִטְעֲנוּ עָלֶיהָ יֶתֶר מִן הָרָאוּי אֵינָהּ שְׁמִירָה בַּבְּעָלִים: \n", + "מְלַמֵּד תִּינוֹקוֹת. וְהַנּוֹטֵעַ לִבְנֵי הַמְּדִינָה. וְהַמַּקִּיז לָהֶם אֶת הַדָּם. וְהַסּוֹפֵר שֶׁלָּהֶן. כָּל אֶחָד מֵאֵלּוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן בַּיּוֹם שֶׁהוּא יוֹשֵׁב בּוֹ לַעֲסֹק בִּמְלַאכְתָּן אִם הִשְׁאִיל אוֹ הִשְׂכִּיר לְאֶחָד מֵאֵלּוּ שֶׁהוּא עוֹסֵק בִּמְלַאכְתָּם הֲרֵי זוֹ שְׁמִירָה בַּבְּעָלִים וַאֲפִלּוּ פָּשַׁע בָּהּ הַשּׁוֹמֵר פָּטוּר. אֲבָל הוּא שֶׁשָּׁאַל אוֹ שֶׁשָּׂכַר מֵהֶן חַיָּב שֶׁאֵינָן שְׁאוּלִין לוֹ: \n", + "הָרַב שֶׁהוּא מַקְרִיא בִּרְצוֹנוֹ לַתַּלְמִידִים בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיִּרְצֶה וְאֵיזוֹ מַסֶּכְתָּא שֶׁיִּרְצֶה וְהֵם הָיוּ קְבוּעִים לָבוֹא תָּמִיד וְנִשְׁמַט לָהֶן מִמַּסֶּכְתָּא לְמַסֶּכְתָּא הֲרֵי הֵן שְׁאוּלִין אֶצְלוֹ וְאֵין הוּא שָׁאוּל לָהֶם. וּבְיוֹם הַפֶּרֶק שֶׁהַכּל בָּאִין לִשְׁמֹעַ עִנְיַן אוֹתוֹ מוֹעֵד הֲרֵי הוּא שָׁאוּל לָהֶם וְהֵם אֵינָן שְׁאוּלִין לוֹ: \n", + "הָאוֹמֵר לִשְׁלוּחוֹ צֵא וְהִשָּׁאֵל עִם פָּרָתִי אֵינָהּ שְׁאֵלָה בַּבְּעָלִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב יד) \"אִם בְּעָלָיו עִמּוֹ לֹא יְשַׁלֵּם\" הַבְּעָלִים עַצְמָן לֹא שָׁלִיחַ. אָמַר לְעַבְדּוֹ הַכְּנַעֲנִי צֵא וְהִשָּׁאֵל עִם פָּרָתִי הֲרֵי זוֹ שְׁאֵלָה בַּבְּעָלִים שֶׁיַּד הָעֶבֶד כְּיַד רַבּוֹ. נִשְׁאַל הָעֶבֶד עִמָּהּ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת רַבּוֹ אֵינָהּ שְׁאֵלָה בַּבְּעָלִים: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹאֵל מִן הָאִשָּׁה וְנִשְׁאַל לוֹ בַּעְלָהּ אֵינָהּ שְׁאֵלָה בַּבְּעָלִים שֶׁקִּנְיַן פֵּרוֹת אֵינוֹ כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף וְאֵין לַבַּעַל אֶלָּא פֵּרוֹת: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹאֵל מֵאִשְׁתּוֹ אוֹ שֻׁתָּפִין שֶּׁשָּׁאֲלוּ זֶה מִזֶּה הֲרֵי זוֹ שְׁאֵלָה בַּבְּעָלִים. וְאִם אָמַר הַשֻׁתָּף לַחֲבֵרוֹ הַשְׁאִילֵנִי הַיּוֹם וְאַשְׁאִילְךָ לְמָחָר אֵינָהּ שְׁאֵלָה בַּבְּעָלִים: \n", + "שָׁאַל מִן הַשֻּׁתָּפִין וְנִשְׁאַל לוֹ אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְכֵן הַשֻּׁתָּפִין שֶׁשָּׁאֲלוּ וְנִשְׁאַל לְאֶחָד מֵהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם הִיא שְׁאֵלָה בַּבְּעָלִים אִם אֵינָהּ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם מֵתָה אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם. וְאִם תָּפְסוּ הַבְּעָלִים אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדָם. פָּשַׁע בָּהּ הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹאֵל אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה בַּבְּעָלִים לְרָבְעָהּ אוֹ לְהַרְאוֹת בָּהּ אוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת בָּהּ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁאַל שְׁתֵּי פָּרוֹת לַעֲשׂוֹת בָּהֶן שְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה הֲרֵי כָּל אֵלּוּ סְפֵק שְׁאֵלָה בַּבְּעָלִים: \n", + "שְׁאָלָהּ בַּבְּעָלִים וּשְׂכָרָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בַּבְּעָלִים פָּטוּר שֶׁהַשְּׂכִירוּת תָּלוּי בַּשְּׁאֵלָה. אֲבָל אִם שְׂכָרָהּ בַּבְּעָלִים וְחָזַר וּשְׁאָלָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בַּבְּעָלִים אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁאָלָה בַּבְּעָלִים וְחָזַר וּשְׂכָרָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בַּבְּעָלִים וְחָזַר וּשְׁאָלָהּ (שֶׁלֹּא) בַּבְּעָלִים אוֹ שֶׁשְּׂכָרָהּ בַּבְּעָלִים וְחָזַר וּשְׁאָלָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בַּבְּעָלִים וְחָזַר וּשְׂכָרָהּ (שֶׁלֹּא) בַּבְּעָלִים כָּל אֵלּוּ סְפֵק שְׁמִירָה בַּבְּעָלִים הוּא: \n", + "אִשָּׁה שֶׁשָּׁאֲלָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשֵּׂאת הֲרֵי הַבַּעַל כְּלוֹקֵחַ מִמֶּנָּה וְאֵינוֹ לֹא שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר וְלֹא שׁוֹאֵל. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיְתָה דְּבַר הַשְּׁאֵלָה בְּהֵמָה וּמֵתָה הַבַּעַל פָּטוּר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהּ כָּל יְמֵי שְׁאֵלָתָהּ אֲפִלּוּ פָּשַׁע מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּלוֹקֵחַ וְהָאִשָּׁה חַיֶּבֶת לְשַׁלֵּם כְּשֶׁיִּהְיֶה לָהּ מָמוֹן. וְאִם הוֹדִיעָה אֶת בַּעְלָהּ שֶׁהִיא שְׁאוּלָה הֲרֵי זֶה נִכְנָס תַּחְתֶּיהָ. כָּל שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ שֶׁהִיא שְׁאֵלָה בַּבְּעָלִים כָּךְ אִם הָיָה שׂוֹכֵר אוֹ נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר הֲרֵי הִיא שְׂכִירוּת בַּבְּעָלִים וּפָטוּר. וְכָל שֶׁאֵינָהּ שְׁאֵלָה בַּבְּעָלִים כָּךְ אֵינָהּ שְׂכִירוּת בַּבְּעָלִים. וְכָל שֶׁהוּא סָפֵק בִּשְׁאֵלָה כָּךְ הוּא סָפֵק בִּשְׂכִירוּת: \n" + ], + [ + "הַשׁוֹאֵל אֶת הַפָּרָה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וּשְׁלָחָהּ לוֹ הַמַּשְׁאִיל בְּיַד בְּנוֹ אוֹ בְּיַד שְׁלוּחוֹ אוֹ בְּיַד עַבְדּוֹ. אֲפִלּוּ שְׁלָחָהּ לוֹ בְּיַד בְּנוֹ אוֹ בְּיַד עַבְדּוֹ אוֹ בְּיַד שְׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל שׁוֹאֵל וּמֵתָה קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּכָּנֵס לִרְשׁוּת הַשּׁוֹאֵל הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ הַשּׁוֹאֵל שַׁלְּחָהּ לִי בְּיַד בְּנִי בְּיַד עַבְדִּי בְּיַד שְׁלוּחִי אוֹ בְּיַד עַבְדְּךָ הָעִבְרִי אוֹ בְּיַד שְׁלוּחֲךָ. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הַמַּשְׁאִיל הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלְּחָהּ בְּיַד בִּנְךָ בְּיַד עַבְדְּךָ בְּיַד שְׁלוּחֲךָ בְּיַד בְּנִי בְּיַד עַבְדִּי הָעִבְרִי בְּיַד שְׁלוּחִי. וְאָמַר לוֹ הַשּׁוֹאֵל שְׁלַח וּשְׁלָחָהּ וּמֵתָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב. שְׁלָחָהּ לוֹ הַמַּשְׁאִיל בְּיַד עַבְדּוֹ הַכְּנַעֲנִי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הַשּׁוֹאֵל שְׁלַח וּמֵתָה פָּטוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּדוֹ כְּיַד רַבּוֹ וַעֲדַיִן לֹא יָצְאָה מֵרְשׁוּת הַמַּשְׁאִיל: \n", + "אָמַר לוֹ הַשּׁוֹאֵל הַכִּישָׁהּ בְּמַקֵּל וְהִיא תָּבוֹא מֵאֵלֶיהָ וְעָשָׂה הַמַּשְׁאִיל כָּךְ אֵין הַשּׁוֹאֵל חַיָּב בָּהּ עַד שֶׁתִּכָּנֵס לִרְשׁוּתוֹ. אֲבָל מֵתָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ פָּטוּר. וְכֵן בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמַּחְזִירָהּ הַשּׁוֹאֵל לַבְּעָלִים אִם שְׁלָחָהּ בְּיַד אַחֵר וּמֵתָה קֹדֶם שֶׁתַּגִּיעַ לִרְשׁוּת הַמַּשְׁאִיל הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב שֶׁעֲדַיִן הִיא בְּאַחֲרָיוּת הַשּׁוֹאֵל. וְאִם שְׁלָחָהּ מִדַּעַת הַמַּשְׁאִיל עַל יְדֵי אַחֵר וּמֵתָה פָּטוּר. שְׁלָחָהּ בְּיַד עַבְדּוֹ הַכְּנַעֲנִי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הַמַּשְׁאִיל שְׁלַח אִם מֵתָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ חַיָּב שֶׁיַּד הָעֶבֶד כְּיַד רַבּוֹ וַעֲדַיִן לֹא יָצָאת מִיַּד הַשּׁוֹאֵל. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁהֶחְזִירָהּ בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי שְׁאִילָתָהּ. אֲבָל אִם הֶחֱזִירָהּ אַחַר יְמֵי שְׁאִילָתָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר אִם מֵתָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ שֶׁאַחַר יְמֵי שְׁאֵלָתָהּ יָצָאתָ מִדִּין שְׁאֵלָה וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נִשְׁבֵּית אוֹ מֵתָה אַחֲרֵי יְמֵי שְׁאִילָתָהּ פָּטוּר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹאֵל פָּרָה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ. שְׁאָלָהּ חֲצִי הַיּוֹם וּשְׂכָרָהּ חֲצִי הַיּוֹם. שְׁאָלָהּ הַיּוֹם וּשְׂכָרָהּ לְמָחָר. שָׁאַל אַחַת וְשָׂכַר אַחַת וּמֵתָה אַחַת מֵהֶן. הַמַּשְׁאִיל אוֹמֵר שְׁאוּלָה מֵתָה בַּיּוֹם שֶׁהָיְתָה שְׁאוּלָה מֵתָה בַּשָּׁעָה שֶׁהָיְתָה שְׁאוּלָה מֵתָה וְהַשּׁוֹמֵר אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר הַשּׁוֹאֵל שְׂכוּרָה מֵתָה בַּיּוֹם שֶׁהָיְתָה שְׂכוּרָה מֵתָה בַּשָּׁעָה שֶׁהָיְתָה שְׂכוּרָה מֵתָה. וְהַמַּשְׁאִיל אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר זֶה אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ וְזֶה אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ. הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. לֹא הָיְתָה שָׁם רְאָיָה יִשָּׁבַע הַשּׂוֹכֵר עַל הַשְּׂכוּרָה שֶׁמֵּתָה אוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ וְיִפָּטֵר. זֶה אוֹמֵר שְׁאוּלָה וְזֶה אוֹמֵר שְׂכוּרָה יִשָּׁבַע הַשּׁוֹמֵר עַל הַשְּׂכוּרָה שֶׁמֵּתָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁטָּעַן וִיגַלְגֵּל עָלָיו שֶׁהַשְּׂכוּרָה הִיא שֶׁמֵּתָה: \n", + "הִשְׁאִילוֹ שְׁתֵּי פָּרוֹת חֲצִי הַיּוֹם בִּשְׁאֵלָה וַחֲצִי הַיּוֹם בִּשְׂכִירוּת. הַמַּשְׁאִיל אוֹמֵר בִּזְמַן הַשְּׁאֵלָה מֵתָה וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר אַחַת מֵתָה בִּזְמַן הַשְּׁאֵלָה וְהָאַחֶרֶת אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ. מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִשָּׁבַע יְשַׁלֵּם הַשְּׁתַּיִם. וְכֵן אִם מָסַר לוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ פָּרוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שְׁאוּלוֹת וְאַחַת שְׂכוּרָה. הַמַּשְׁאִיל אוֹמֵר שְׁתַּיִם הַשְּׁאוּלוֹת הֵן שֶׁמֵּתוּ וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל אוֹמֵר אַחַת הַשְּׁאוּלָה מֵתָה וַדַּאי אֲבָל הַשְּׁנִיָּה שֶׁמֵּתָה אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם הַשְּׁאוּלָה הָאַחֶרֶת אוֹ הַשְּׂכוּרָה. מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִשָּׁבַע שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ יְשַׁלֵּם הַשְּׁתַּיִם. וּבְהִלְכוֹת טוֹעֵן וְנִטְעָן יִתְבָּאֵר דִּין זֶה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ מִכָּל הַטּוֹעֲנִין שֶׁאֵינָן יְכוֹלִים לְהִשָּׁבַע וְכֵיצַד מְשַׁלְּמִין וּמֵאֵי זֶה טַעַם הֵם מְשַׁלְּמִים: \n" + ], + [ + "הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ בְּחִנָּם וְנִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנִפְטָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ו) \"וְגֻנַּב מִבֵּית הָאִישׁ\" וְגוֹ' (שמות כב ז) \"וְנִקְרַב בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים אִם לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ בִּמְלֶאכֶת רֵעֵהוּ\". וּמְגַלְגְּלִין עָלָיו בְּתוֹךְ הַשְּׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא פָּשַׁע אֶלָּא שָׁמַר כְּדֶרֶךְ הַשּׁוֹמְרִין וְלֹא שָׁלַח בּוֹ יָד וְאַחַר נִגְנַב. שֶׁאִם נִגְנַב אַחַר שֶׁשָּׁלַח יָד בַּפִּקָּדוֹן חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתוֹ: \n", + "הוֹאִיל וּפָטַר הַכָּתוּב אֶת שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם מִן הַגְּנֵבָה קַל וָחֹמֶר מִן הָאֳנָסִין הַגְּדוֹלִים כְּגוֹן שְׁבוּרָה וּשְׁבוּיָה וּמֵתָה וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא שָׁלַח יָד בַּפִּקָּדוֹן אֲבָל שָׁלַח יָד בַּפִּקָּדוֹן חַיָּב בְּאֳנָסָיו. כֵּיצַד דֶּרֶךְ הַשּׁוֹמְרִים. הַכּל לְפִי הַפִּקָּדוֹן. יֵשׁ פִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ שְׁמִירָתוֹ לְהַנִּיחוֹ בְּבֵית שַׁעַר כְּגוֹן הַקּוֹרוֹת וְהָאֲבָנִים. וְיֵשׁ פִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ שְׁמִירָתוֹ לְהַנִּיחוֹ בֶּחָצֵר כְּגוֹן חֲבִילוֹת פִּשְׁתָּן הַגְּדוֹלוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. וְיֵשׁ פִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ שְׁמִירָתוֹ לְהַנִּיחוֹ בַּבַּיִת כְּגוֹן שִׂמְלָה וְטַלִּית. וְיֵשׁ פִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ שְׁמִירָתוֹ לְהַנִּיחוֹ בְּתֵבָה אוֹ בְּמִגְדָּל וְנוֹעֵל עָלָיו כְּגוֹן בִּגְדֵי מֶשִׁי וּכְלֵי כֶּסֶף וּכְלֵי זָהָב וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹמֵר שֶׁהִנִּיחַ הַפִּקָּדוֹן בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לוֹ וְנִגְנַב מִשָּׁם אוֹ אָבַד אֲפִלּוּ נֶאֱנַס שָׁם כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּפְלָה דְּלֵקָה וְשָׂרַף כָּל הַבַּיִת הֲרֵי זֶה פּוֹשֵׁעַ וְחַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִנִּיחַ הַפִּקָּדוֹן עִם שֶׁלּוֹ אִם רָאוּי לִשְׁמִירָה פָּטוּר וְאִם אֵין הַמָּקוֹם רָאוּי לִשְׁמִירָה חַיָּב. בְּשֶׁלּוֹ הוּא רַשַּׁאי וְאֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי בְּשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים: \n", + "הַכְּסָפִים וְהַדִּינָרִין אֵין לָהֶם שְׁמִירָה אֶלָּא בַּקַּרְקַע וְיִתֵּן עֲלֵיהֶם טֶפַח עָפָר. אוֹ יִטְמְנֵם בַּכֹּתֶל בַּטֶּפַח הַסָּמוּךְ לַקּוֹרָה. אֲבָל לֹא בְּאֶמְצַע הַכֹּתֶל שֶׁמָּא יַחְפְּרוּ הַגַּנָּבִים שָׁם וְיִגְנְבוּ. אֲפִלּוּ נָעַל עֲלֵיהֶם כָּרָאוּי בְּתֵבָה אוֹ הֶחְבִּיא אוֹתָם בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מַכִּירוֹ וְלֹא מַרְגִּישׁ בּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה פּוֹשֵׁעַ וְחַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. הוֹרוּ מִקְצָת הַמְּבִינִים שֶׁהוּא הַדִּין לְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁמַּשָּׂאוֹ קַל וְאֵין הַקַּרְקַע מְאַבֶּדֶת אוֹתוֹ בִּמְהֵרָה כְּגוֹן לְשׁוֹנוֹת שֶׁל כֶּסֶף וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר לְשׁוֹנוֹת שֶׁל זָהָב וַאֲבָנִים טוֹבוֹת שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם שְׁמִירָה אֶלָּא בַּקַּרְקַע. וְלָזֶה דַּעְתִּי נוֹטֶה: \n", + "הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ כְּסָפִים עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לִטְרֹחַ וְלִקְבֹּר אוֹתָן עַד מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת. וְאִם נִתְאַחֵר לְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת כְּדֵי לְקָבְרָן וְלֹא קְבָרָן וְנִגְנְבוּ אוֹ נֶאֶנְסוּ חַיָּב. וְאִם תַּלְמִיד חָכָם הוּא אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁהֵא אַחַר שֶׁיַּבְדִּיל כְּדֵי לְקָבְרָן: \n", + "הִפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ כְּסָפִים בַּדֶּרֶךְ לְהוֹלִיכָם לְבֵיתוֹ אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁלַח עִמּוֹ מָעוֹת מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם צְרִיכִין שֶׁיִּהְיוּ צְרוּרִים וּמֻנָּחִים בְּיָדוֹ אוֹ קְשׁוּרִים כָּרָאוּי עַל בִּטְנוֹ מִכְּנֶגֶד פָּנָיו עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְבֵיתוֹ וְיִקְבְּרֵם כָּרָאוּי. וְאִם לֹא קְשָׁרָן בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֹּאת אֲפִלּוּ נֶאֶנְסוּ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם שֶׁהֲרֵי תְּחִלָּתוֹ בִּפְשִׁיעָה. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהִפְקִיד מָעוֹת אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ וְהִנִּיחָם בִּמְחִצָּה שֶׁל קָנִים וְהָיוּ טְמוּנִים בָּעֳבִי הַמְּחִצָּה וְנִגְנְבוּ מִשָּׁם וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁזּוֹ שְׁמִירָה מְעֻלָּה לְעִנְיַן גְּנֵבָה אֵינָהּ שְׁמִירָה כָּרָאוּי לְעִנְיַן הָאֵשׁ וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁלֹּא טְמָנוֹ בְּקַרְקַע אוֹ בְּכֹתֶל בִּנְיָן פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא וְכָל שֶׁתְּחִלָּתוֹ בִּפְשִׁיעָה וְסוֹפוֹ בְּאֹנֶס חַיָּב. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ בֵּין כֵּלִים בֵּין מָעוֹת וְאָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לִי פִּקְדוֹנִי וְאָמַר לוֹ הַשּׁוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אָנָּה הִנַּחְתִּי פִּקָּדוֹן זֶה אוֹ בְּאֵי זֶה מָקוֹם קָבַרְתִּי הַכְּסָפִים הַמְתֵּן לִי עַד שֶׁאֲבַקֵּשׁ וְאֶמְצָא וְאַחְזִיר לְךָ הֲרֵי זֶה פּוֹשֵׁעַ וְחַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם מִיָּד: \n", + "כָּל הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת בֵּין כֵּלִים בֵּין מָעוֹת עַל דַּעַת אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵּיתוֹ הַגְּדוֹלִים הוּא מַפְקִיד. אֲבָל אִם מְסָרָן לְבָנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵּיתוֹ הַקְּטַנִּים אוֹ לַעֲבָדָיו בֵּין גְּדוֹלִים בֵּין קְטַנִּים אוֹ לְאֶחָד מִקְּרוֹבָיו שֶׁאֵינָן שְׁרוּיִין עִמּוֹ בַּבַּיִת וְאֵין סוֹמְכִין עַל שֻׁלְחָנוֹ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם מְסָרָן לְאַחֵר הֲרֵי זֶה פּוֹשֵׁעַ וְחַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הֵבִיא הַשּׁוֹמֵר הַשֵּׁנִי רְאָיָה שֶׁלֹּא פָּשַׁע כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהִפְקִיד מָעוֹת אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ וּנְתָנָם הַשּׁוֹמֵר לְאִמּוֹ וְהֶחְבִּיאָה אוֹתָן וְלֹא טָמְנָה אוֹתָן וְנִגְנְבוּ וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֵין הַשּׁוֹמֵר חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנְּתָנָם לְאִמּוֹ שֶׁכָּל הַמַּפְקִיד עַל דַּעַת בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵּיתוֹ הוּא מַפְקִיד וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לָהּ פִּקָּדוֹן הֵם יֵשׁ לוֹ לִטְעֹן כָּל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁהִיא נִזְהֶרֶת בָּהֶן אִם הָיְתָה סְבוּרָה שֶׁהֵן שֶׁלִּי. וְכֵן אֵין אִמּוֹ חַיֶּבֶת לְשַׁלֵּם שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא אָמַר לָהּ שֶׁהֵן פִּקָּדוֹן. וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים יִשָּׁבַע הַשּׁוֹמֵר שֶׁאוֹתָן הַמָּעוֹת עַצְמָן הֵן שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְאִמּוֹ וְתִשָּׁבַע הָאֵם שֶׁהֶחְבִּיאָה אוֹתָן וְנִגְנְבוּ וְיִפָּטְרוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "מִכָּאן אַתָּה לָמֵד שֶׁהַשּׁוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּסַר הַפִּקָּדוֹן לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּבְנֵי בֵּיתוֹ וְהוֹדִיעָן שֶׁהוּא פִּקָּדוֹן וְלֹא שָׁמְרוּ כְּדֶרֶךְ הַשּׁוֹמְרִין שֶׁהֵן חַיָּבִין לְשַׁלֵּם לְבַעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת פָּטוּר שֶׁכָּל הַמַּפְקִיד עַל דַּעַת אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו הוּא מַפְקִיד. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהִפְקִיד כְּשׁוּת אֵצֶל אֶחָד וְהָיָה לוֹ לַשּׁוֹמֵר כְּשׁוּת אַחֶרֶת וְאָמַר לְשַׁמָּשׁוֹ מִזֶּה הַכְּשׁוּת תַּשְׁלִיךְ לְתוֹךְ הַשֵּׁכָר וְהָלַךְ הַשַּׁמָּשׁ וְהִשְׁלִיךְ מִכְּשׁוּת שֶׁל פִּקָּדוֹן. אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁהַשַּׁמָּשׁ פָּטוּר שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא אָמַר מִזֶּה הַשְׁלֵךְ וּמִזֶּה אַל תַּשְׁלֵךְ וְדִמָּה שֶׁהוּא מַרְאֶה מָקוֹם וְאֵינוֹ מַקְפִּיד עַל זֶה. וְכֵן בַּעַל הַבַּיִת פָּטוּר שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמַר לוֹ מִזֶּה הַשְׁלֵךְ וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא דְּמֵי מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנָה בִּלְבַד. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נַעֲשָׂה הַשֵּׁכָר חֹמֶץ פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. וּבֵין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ חַיָּב הַשּׁוֹמֵר שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁכָּךְ אֵרַע. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n" + ], + [ + "מִי שֶׁהִפְקִידוּ אֶצְלוֹ מָעוֹת שֶׁל עֲנִיִּים אוֹ שֶׁל פִּדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִים וּפָשַׁע בָּהֶם וְנִגְנְבוּ פָּטוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ו) \"לִשְׁמֹר\" וְלֹא לְחַלֵּק לָעֲנִיִּים וַהֲרֵי הוּא מָמוֹן שֶׁאֵין לוֹ תּוֹבְעִים. אֲפִלּוּ בָּאוּ עָלָיו גַּנָּבִים וְקָדַם וְהִצִּיל עַצְמוֹ בְּמָמוֹן שְׁבוּיִים פָּטוּר. אֵין לְךָ פִּדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִים גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁאֵין זֶה הַמָּמוֹן מֻפְקָד לַעֲנִיֵּי מָקוֹם זֶה אוֹ לִשְׁבוּיִים [אֵלּוּ]. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ לַעֲנִיִּים אֵלּוּ אוֹ לִשְׁבוּיִים אֵלּוּ וַהֲרֵי הוּא קָצוּץ לָהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה הַמָּמוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ תּוֹבְעִין וִישַׁלֵּם אִם פָּשַׁע אוֹ יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁלֹּא פָּשַׁע כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל הַשּׁוֹמְרִים: \n", + "הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ מָמוֹן אוֹ כֵּלִים חֲשׁוּבִין וּבָאוּ עָלָיו גַּנָּבִים וְקָדַם וְנָתַן לָהֶם הַפִּקָּדוֹן לְהַצִּיל עַצְמוֹ אִם הָיָה אָמוּד שֶׁהוּא בַּעַל מָמוֹן חַיָּב שֶׁחֶזְקָתוֹ שֶׁבִּגְלָלוֹ בָּאוּ הַגַּנָּבִים וְנִמְצָא זֶה מַצִּיל עַצְמוֹ בְּמָמוֹן חֲבֵרוֹ. וְאִם אֵינוֹ אָמוּד חֶזְקָתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בָּאוּ אֶלָּא לְשֵׁם הַפִּקָּדוֹן וּפָטוּר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ כֵּלִים אוֹ פֵּרוֹת וּבָאוּ גַּנָּבִים וּגְנָבוּם בְּפָנָיו וְאִלּוּ הָיָה צוֹוֵחַ הָיוּ בָּאִין בְּנֵי אָדָם וּמַצִּילִין אוֹתָן הוֹאִיל וְלֹא צָוַח הֲרֵי זֶה פּוֹשֵׁעַ וְחַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהִפְקִידוּ אֵצֶל אֶחָד זֶה מֵאָה וְזֶה מָאתַיִם וְכָל אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם אוֹמֵר אֲנִי הוּא שֶׁהִפְקַדְתִּי הַמָּאתַיִם וְהַשּׁוֹמֵר אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ יִשָּׁבַע כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן שֶׁהִפְקִיד מָאתַיִם וְנוֹטֵל כְּדִין כָּל נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. וְיִתֵּן מָאתַיִם לָזֶה וּמָאתַיִם לָזֶה וּמַפְסִיד מֵאָה מִבֵּיתוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא פּוֹשֵׁעַ שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לִכְתֹּב שֵׁם כָּל אֶחָד עַל כִּיס שֶׁלּוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הֵבִיאוּ לוֹ הַשְּׁנַיִם כְּאֶחָד שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת בְּכֶרֶךְ אֶחָד וּבָאוּ וְתָבְעוּ וְכָל אֶחָד אוֹמֵר הַמָּאתַיִם שֶׁלִּי נוֹתֵן מָנֶה לָזֶה וּמָנֶה לָזֶה וְהַשְּׁאָר יִהְיֶה מֻנָּח אֶצְלוֹ עַד לְעוֹלָם אוֹ עַד שֶׁיּוֹדֶה הָאֶחָד לַחֲבֵרוֹ. שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר לָהֶם כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאִיתִי שֶׁאֵין אַתֶּם מַקְפִּידִין זֶה עַל זֶה וַהֲבֵאתֶם בְּכֶרֶךְ אֶחָד לֹא הִטְרַחְתִּי עַצְמִי לֵידַע וְלִזְכֹּר תָּמִיד מִי בַּעַל הַמֵּאָה וּמִי בַּעַל הַמָּאתַיִם. וְכֵן אִם הִפְקִידוּ אֶצְלוֹ שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן וְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֲנִי הוּא בַּעַל הַגָּדוֹל וְהַשּׁוֹמֵר אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ יִשָּׁבְעוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם וְיִתֵּן הַגָּדוֹל לְאֶחָד מֵהֶם וּדְמֵי הַגָּדוֹל לַשֵּׁנִי וְיִשָּׁאֵר לוֹ הַקָּטָן. וְאִם הֱבִיאוּם בְּכֶרֶךְ אֶחָד כְּאֶחָד נוֹתֵן הַקָּטָן לָאֶחָד וּדְמֵי הַקָּטָן לַשֵּׁנִי וְהַשְּׁאָר יִהְיֶה מֻנָּח אֶצְלוֹ עַד שֶׁיּוֹדֶה הָאֶחָד לַחֲבֵרוֹ אוֹ עַד לְעוֹלָם. וְכֵן מִי שֶׁתְּבָעוּהוּ שְׁנַיִם זֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי הוּא בַּעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן וְזֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי הוּא וְהַשּׁוֹמֵר אוֹמֵר אֶחָד מִכֶּם הוּא וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מִי הוּא יְשַׁלֵּם לִשְׁנֵיהֶם. וְכֵן שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהִפְקִידוּ שְׁתֵּי בְּהֵמוֹת אֵצֶל רוֹעֶה וּמֵתָה אַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁל מִי הָיְתָה יְשַׁלֵּם לִשְׁנֵיהֶם. וְאִם הִפְקִידוּ בְּעֶדְרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ מַנִּיחַ הַבְּהֵמָה בֵּינֵיהֶם וּמִסְתַּלֵּק וְתִהְיֶה מֻנַּחַת עַד שֶׁיּוֹדֶה הָאֶחָד לַחֲבֵרוֹ אוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּרְצוּ לַחֲלֹק אוֹתָהּ: \n", + "הַמַּפְקִיד פֵּרוֹת אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יְעָרְבֵם עִם פֵּרוֹתָיו. עָבַר וְעֵרֵב יַחְשֹׁב כַּמָּה הָיָה הַפִּקָּדוֹן וְיִרְאֶה כַּמָּה חָסֵר הַכּל וְיַחְשֹׁב חֶסְרוֹן הַפִּקָּדוֹן וְיִתֵּן לוֹ אַחַר שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע. נִסְתַּפֵּק מֵהֶן וְלֹא יָדַע כַּמָּה נִסְתַּפֵּק יוֹצִיא לוֹ חֶסְרוֹנוֹ לְחִטִּים וּלְאֹרֶז קָלוּף אַרְבָּעָה קַבִּין וּמֶחֱצָה לְכָל כּוֹר. לִשְׂעוֹרִים וּלְדֹחַן תִּשְׁעָה קַבִּין לְכָל כּוֹר. לְכֻסְּמִין וּלְזֶרַע פִּשְׁתָּן בְּגִבְעוֹלָיו וּלְאֹרֶז שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָלוּף שָׁלֹשׁ סְאִין לְכָל כּוֹר. וְכַמִּדָּה הַזֹּאת לְכָל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁמָּדַד לוֹ בִּימוֹת הַגֹּרֶן וְהֶחֱזִיר לוֹ בִּימוֹת הַגֹּרֶן. אֲבָל מָדַד בִּימוֹת הַגֹּרֶן וְהֶחְזִיר לוֹ בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא לוֹ חֶסְרוֹנוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מוֹתִירוֹת. וְכֵן מוֹצִיא לוֹ שְׁתוּת לְיַיִן וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת לוֹגִין שֶׁמֶן לְמֵאָה לוֹגִין לוֹג וּמֶחֱצָה שְׁמָרִים וְלוֹג וּמֶחֱצָה בֶּלַע. אִם הָיָה מְזֻקָּק אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא לוֹ שְׁמָרִים. וְאִם הָיוּ הַקַּנְקַנִּים יְשָׁנִים אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא לוֹ בֶּלַע: \n", + "הִפְקִיד אֶצְלוֹ פֵּרוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן מְדוּדִין וְעֵרְבָן עִם פֵּרוֹתָיו וְלֹא מְדָדָן הֲרֵי זֶה פּוֹשֵׁעַ. בַּעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן אוֹמֵר כָּךְ וְכָךְ הָיוּ וְהַשּׁוֹמֵר אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ יְשַׁלֵּם בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁהֲרֵי חִיֵּב עַצְמוֹ בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ כַּמָּה הוּא חַיָּב וְנִמְצָא חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִשָּׁבַע. וְכָזֶה הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי הָרַב רַבֵּנוּ יוֹסֵף הַלֵּוִי וְרַבּוֹ זַ\"ל. וְכֵן כָּל שׁוֹמֵר שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב לְשַׁלֵּם וְאָמַר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ כַּמָּה דָּמִים אֲנִי חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם וְהַבְּעָלִים אוֹמְרִים אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין וְכָךְ וְכָךְ הָיָה שָׁוֶה יִטְּלוּ בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה וְהוּא שֶׁיִּטְעֲנוּ דָּבָר שֶׁהֵן אֲמוּדִין בּוֹ. וְיֵשׁ לַשּׁוֹמֵר לְהַחֲרִים עַל מִי שֶׁלָּקַח מִמֶּנּוּ יֶתֶר מִן הָרָאוּי לוֹ. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁהַדִּין כָּךְ הוּא הַגַּע עַצְמְךָ שֶׁהִפְקִיד אֶצְלוֹ כִּיס מָלֵא זְהוּבִים וּפָשַׁע בּוֹ הַבְּעָלִים אוֹמְרִים מָאתַיִם דִּינָר הָיוּ וְהַשּׁוֹמֵר אוֹמֵר וַדַּאי שֶׁהָיָה בּוֹ דִּינָרִים אֲבָל אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ כַּמָּה הָיוּ נִמְצָא זֶה כְּטוֹעֵן מָאתַיִם וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בְּמִקְצָת וְאָמַר הַשְּׁאָר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא מְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִשָּׁבַע וּמְשַׁלֵּם כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר: \n", + "מֵת אָבִיו וְהִנִּיחַ לוֹ שַׂק צָרוּר וְהִפְקִידוֹ אֶצְלוֹ חֲבֵרוֹ וּפָשַׁע בּוֹ הַמַּפְקִיד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מֶה הָיוּ בּוֹ שֶׁמָּא מַרְגָּלִיּוֹת הָיוּ בּוֹ וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹמֵר אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ כַּמָּה אֲנִי חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם שֶׁמָּא זְכוּכִית הָיָה מָלֵא. שׁוּרַת הַדִּין שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר בְּטַעֲנָה זוֹ שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע הַשּׁוֹמֵר בְּתַקָּנַת חֲכָמִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וְיִכְלל בִּשְׁבוּעָתוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁהָיָה בּוֹ יֶתֶר עַל שְׁוֵה כָּךְ וְכָךְ וִישַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁהוֹדָה בּוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהִפְקִיד שַׂק צָרוּר אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ וּפָשַׁע בּוֹ. הַמַּפְקִיד אוֹמֵר חֲלִי זָהָב וּמַרְגָּלִיּוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הָיוּ בּוֹ וְהַשּׁוֹמֵר אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁמָּא סִיגִים אוֹ חוֹל הָיוּ בּוֹ. וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים יִשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן וְיִטּל וְהוּא שֶׁיִּטְעֹן דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא אָמוּד בּוֹ אוֹ אָמוּד לְהַפְקִידוֹ אֶצְלוֹ. וְלָמָּה נִשְׁבָּע כָּאן בַּעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הַשּׁוֹמֵר מְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הוֹדָה וְאָמַר בָּרִי לִי שֶׁהָיָה מָלֵא סִיגִים וְהַמַּפְקִיד אוֹמֵר מַרְגָּלִיּוֹת הָיוּ הַשּׁוֹמֵר נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר כְּמוֹ שֶׁטְּעָנוֹ חִטִּים וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בִּשְׂעוֹרִים. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וּבְהִלְכוֹת טוֹעֵן וְנִטְעָן יִתְבָּאֲרוּ עִקְּרֵי הַדְּבָרִים: \n" + ], + [ + "שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם שֶׁאָמַר הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם וְאֵינִי נִשְׁבָּע אִם הַפִּקָּדוֹן דָּבָר שֶׁכָּל מִינוֹ שָׁוֶה וּמָצוּי בַּשּׁוּק לִקְנוֹת כְּמוֹתוֹ כְּגוֹן פֵּרוֹת אוֹ יְרִיעוֹת שֶׁל צֶמֶר וְשֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן הַשָּׁווֹת בְּכָל עִנְיָנָם אוֹ קוֹרוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן מְצֻיָּרוֹת וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם וְאֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה פִּקְדוֹן בְּהֵמָה אוֹ בֶּגֶד מְצֻיָּר אוֹ כְּלִי מְתֻקָּן אוֹ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹצֵא לִקְנוֹת כְּמוֹתוֹ בַּשּׁוּק חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא עֵינָיו נָתַן בּוֹ וּמַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ בְּתַקָּנַת חֲכָמִים שְׁבוּעָה בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְשַׁלֵּם. וְהוּא הַדִּין לִשְׁאָר הַשּׁוֹמְרִין כְּגוֹן הַשּׁוֹאֵל שֶׁאָמַר מֵתָה אוֹ נִגְנְבָה וְשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר שֶׁאָמַר נִגְנְבָה אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן חַיָּבִין לְשַׁלֵּם מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָן שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בִּרְשׁוּתָן וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְשַׁלְּמִין דְּמֵי הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ הַחֵפֶץ שֶׁאָנוּ חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא עֵינָיו נָתַן בָּהּ. וְאִם אָמְרוּ הַבְּעָלִים יֶתֶר עַל זֶה הָיָה שָׁוֶה כּוֹלֵל בִּשְׁבוּעָתוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ שָׁוָה אֶלָּא כָּךְ וְכָךְ. נִמְצָא כָּל שׁוֹמֵר שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין כּוֹלֵל בִּשְׁבוּעָתוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים. שֶׁשָּׁמַר כְּדֶרֶךְ הַשּׁוֹמְרִין. וְשֶׁאֵרְעוֹ כָּךְ וְכָךְ וְאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ. וְשֶׁלֹּא שָׁלַח בּוֹ יָד קֹדֶם שֶׁאֵרְעוֹ הַמְאֹרָע הַפּוֹטֵר אוֹתוֹ. וְאִם רָצָה לְשַׁלֵּם נִשְׁבָּע שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וְכוֹלֵל בִּשְׁבוּעָתוֹ שֶׁכָּךְ וְכָךְ הָיָה שָׁוֶה: \n", + "יֵשׁ לַשּׁוֹמֵר לְהַתְנוֹת שֶׁאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵר כְּדֶרֶךְ הַשּׁוֹמְרִין אֶלָּא מָעוֹת אֵלּוּ שֶׁהִפְקִיד אֶצְלִי בְּזָוִית בֵּיתִי אֲנִי מַנִּיחַ אוֹתָן וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. טָעַן הַשּׁוֹמֵר שֶׁתְּנַאי הָיָה בֵּינֵינוּ וּבַעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן אוֹמֵר לֹא הָיָה שָׁם תְּנַאי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִפְקִיד אֶצְלוֹ בְּעֵדִים מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר שָׁמַרְתִּי כְּדֶרֶךְ הַשּׁוֹמְרִין וְנֶאֱנַסְתִּי נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר שֶׁהָיָה בֵּינֵיהֶן תְּנַאי לְפִיכָךְ יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁלֹּא שָׁלַח יָד בּוֹ וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וְשֶׁהָיָה בֵּינֵיהֶן תְּנַאי: \n", + "שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם שֶׁהֵבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁלֹּא פָּשַׁע בָּהּ פָּטוּר מִשְּׁבוּעָה וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים שֶׁמָּא שָׁלַח בּוֹ יָד קֹדֶם שֶׁיֹּאבַד. וּבַעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁהֵבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁפָּשַׁע הַשּׁוֹמֵר מְשַׁלֵּם. וְאִם טָעַן וְאָמַר תְּנַאי הָיָה בֵּינֵינוּ אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁפָּשַׁע: \n", + "הִפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ בְּעֵדִים וּבָאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁזֶּה הַחֵפֶץ בְּפָנֵינוּ הִפְקִידוֹ אֶצְלוֹ אֵין הַשּׁוֹמֵר יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן וְלוֹמַר חָזַרְתִּי וּלְקַחְתִּיו מִמֶּנּוּ אוֹ נְתָנוֹ לִי בְּמַתָּנָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם מֵת הַשּׁוֹמֵר מוֹצִיאִין הַפִּקָּדוֹן עַצְמוֹ מִן הַיְתוֹמִים בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא מִי שֶׁבָּא וְאָמַר כָּךְ וְכָךְ הִפְקַדְתִּי אֵצֶל אֲבִיכֶם וְנָתַן סִימָנִין מֻבְהָקִין וְנִמְצָא הַפִּקָּדוֹן כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה יוֹדֵעַ הַדַּיָּן שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה הַמֵּת אָמוּד שֶׁזֶּה הַפִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁלּוֹ. יֵשׁ לוֹ לַדַּיָּן הַזֶּה לָתֵת הַפִּקָּדוֹן לְזֶה שֶׁנָּתַן סִימָנָיו. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה הַמַּפְקִיד רָגִיל לְהִכָּנֵס אֵצֶל זֶה שֶׁמֵּת אֲבָל אִם הָיָה רָגִיל לִכָּנֵס אֶצְלוֹ שֶׁמָּא שֶׁל אַחֵר הוּא וְהִכִּיר הַסִּימָנִין שֶׁלּוֹ. בָּאוּ עֵדִים וְהֵעִידוּ לַדַּיָּן שֶׁאֵין זֶה אָמוּד אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיַּד הַיְתוֹמִים בְּעֵדוּתָן שֶׁאֵין זֶה רְאָיָה בְּרוּרָה וְאֻמְדַּן דַּעְתָּן אֵינוֹ אֹמֶד דַּעְתּוֹ וְאֵין לוֹ לַדַּיָּן אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁדַּעְתּוֹ סוֹמֶכֶת עָלָיו כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת סַנְהֶדְרִין. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהִפְקִיד שֻׁמְשְׁמִין אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ בְּעֵדִים וּבָא לְתָבְעוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ הֶחְזַרְתִּים. אָמַר לוֹ הַמַּפְקִיד וַהֲלֹא כָּךְ וְכָךְ הִיא מִדָּתָם וַהֲרֵי הֵם מֻנָּחִים אֶצְלְךָ בְּחָבִיתְךָ. אָמַר לוֹ שֶׁלְּךָ הֶחְזַרְתִּי לְךָ וְאֵלּוּ אֲחֵרִים הֵן. וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ שֶׁמָּא אֵלּוּ הַשֻּׁמְשְׁמִין שֶׁל שׁוֹמֵר הֵן אֶלָּא יִשָּׁבַע הַשּׁוֹמֵר בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ שֶׁהֶחְזִיר כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "בַּעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁתָּבַע פִּקְדּוֹנוֹ וְנָתַן לוֹ הַשּׁוֹמֵר וְאָמַר הַמַּפְקִיד אֵין זֶה פִּקְדוֹנִי אֶלָּא אַחֵר הוּא אוֹ שָׁלֵם הָיָה וְאַתָּה שְׁבַרְתּוֹ אוֹ חָדָשׁ הָיָה וְנִשְׁתַּמַּשְׁתָּ בּוֹ. מֵאָה סְאִין הִפְקַדְתִּי אֶצְלְךָ וְאֵין אֵלּוּ אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹמֵר זֶהוּ שֶׁהִפְקַדְתָּ בְּעַצְמְךָ וּמַה שֶּׁנָּתַתָּ אַתָּה נוֹטֵל. הֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹמֵר נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת כִּשְׁאָר כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין שֶׁאֵין כָּל שׁוֹמֵר נִשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁמּוֹדֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ שֶׁל פִּקָּדוֹן כְּמוֹ שֶׁהַמַּפְקִיד אוֹמֵר וְטוֹעֵן שֶׁנִּגְנַב אוֹ מֵת אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר טוֹעֵן לִפְטֹר עַצְמוֹ מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין [נִשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת שׁוֹמְרִין]. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר זֶהוּ שֶׁהִשְׁאַלְתַּנִי אוֹ שֶׁהִשְׂכַּרְתָּ לִי אוֹ שֶׁנָּטַלְתִּי שָׂכָר עַל שְׁמִירָתִי וְהַבְּעָלִים אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ זֶה אֶלָּא אַחֵר אוֹ נִשְׁתַּנָּה מִכְּמוֹת שֶׁהָיָה הַשּׂוֹכֵר נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת אוֹ שְׁבוּעַת הַתּוֹרָה אִם הוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת. כֵּיצַד. מֵאָה סְאָה הִפְקַדְתִּי אֶצְלְךָ וְהַשּׁוֹמֵר אוֹמֵר לֹא הִפְקַדְתָּ אֶצְלִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים נִשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הַתּוֹרָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת לֹא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין. מֵאָה כּוֹר שֶׁל חִטִּים הִפְקַדְתִּי אֶצְלְךָ וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא הִפְקַדְתָּ אֶצְלִי אֶלָּא מֵאָה שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִים נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת כִּשְׁאָר כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בְּטַעֲנָה כָּזוֹ: \n" + ], + [ + "הַמַּפְקִיד פֵּרוֹת אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִגַּע בָּהֶן וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן חוֹסְרִין וּמִתְמַעֲטִין וְהוֹלְכִין. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁחָסְרוּ חִסָּרוֹן הָרָאוּי לָהֶן בְּכָל שָׁנָה. אֲבָל אִם חָסְרוּ יוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן מוֹכְרָן בְּבֵית דִּין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מֵשִׁיב אֲבֵדָה לַבְּעָלִים. וּכְשֶׁהוּא מוֹכְרָן יִמְכֹּר לַכֹּהֲנִים בִּדְמֵי תְּרוּמָה שֶׁמָּא עָשׂוּ אוֹתָן הַבְּעָלִים תְּרוּמָה אוֹ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עַל פֵּרוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת: \n", + "הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ פֵּרוֹת וְהִרְקִיבוּ דְּבַשׁ וְנִפְסַד יַיִן וְהֶחְמִיץ עוֹשֶׂה תַּקָּנָה לְבַעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן וּמוֹכְרָן בְּבֵית דִּין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעָמְדוּ בְּהֶפְסֵדָן וְאֵין הַהֶפְסֵד פּוֹשֶׂה בָּהֶן הֲרֵי הַקַּנְקַנִּים וְהַסַּלִּים מוֹסִיפִין הֶפְסֵד: \n", + "הַמַּפְקִיד חָמֵץ אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ וְהִגִּיעַ הַפֶּסַח הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִגַּע בּוֹ עַד שָׁעָה חֲמִישִׁית מִיּוֹם אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר. מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ יוֹצֵא וּמוֹכְרוֹ בַּשּׁוּק לִשְׁעָתוֹ מִשּׁוּם הֶשֵּׁב אֲבֵדָה לַבְּעָלִים. וְהוּא הַדִּין לִשְׁאָר הַפִּקְדוֹנוֹת שֶׁלֹּא יִגַּע בָּהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁיִּזּוֹלוּ בִּזְמַן פְּלוֹנִי אוֹ יֶאֱנֹס אוֹתָם הַמֶּלֶךְ שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא בַּעֲלֵיהֶן מִקֹּדֶם וְיִטְּלוּ מָמוֹנָם: \n", + "הַמַּפְקִיד סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ גּוֹלְלוֹ פַּעַם אַחַת לִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. וְאִם כְּשֶׁהוּא גּוֹלְלוֹ פּוֹתְחוֹ וְקָרָא בּוֹ מֻתָּר. אֲבָל לֹא יִפְתַּח בִּגְלַל עַצְמוֹ וְיִקְרָא. וְהוּא הַדִּין שְׁאָר סְפָרִים. וְאִם פָּתַח וְקָרָא וְגָלַל בִּגְלַל עַצְמוֹ הֲרֵי שָׁלַח יָד בַּפִּקָּדוֹן וְנִתְחַיֵּב בָּאֳנָסִין. הִפְקִיד אֶצְלוֹ כְּסוּת שֶׁל צֶמֶר מְנַעְנְעָהּ אַחַת לִשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאָמְרוּ בַּאֲבֵדָה כָּךְ אָמְרוּ בַּפִּקָּדוֹן. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה שֶׁזּוֹ חוֹבָה עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם הֶשֵּׁב אֲבֵדָה לַבְּעָלִים. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּפִקָּדוֹן שֶׁהָלְכוּ בְּעָלָיו לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ עִמּוֹ בְּאוֹתָהּ הָאָרֶץ הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִגַּע בּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא אָבֵד: \n", + "כָּל הַמּוֹכֵר פִּקָּדוֹן עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין הֲרֵי זֶה מוֹכֵר לַאֲחֵרִים וְאֵינוֹ מוֹכֵר לְעַצְמוֹ מִפְּנֵי הַחֲשָׁד וְהַדָּמִים יִהְיוּ מֻנָּחִים אֶצְלוֹ וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן. לְפִיכָךְ הֲרֵי הוּא עֲלֵיהֶן שׁוֹמֵר שׂוֹכֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן: \n", + "הַמַּפְקִיד מָעוֹת אֵצֶל חֶנְוָנִי אוֹ הַשֻּׁלְחָנִי אִם הָיוּ צְרוּרִין וַחֲתוּמִין אוֹ קְשׁוּרִין קֶשֶׁר מְשֻׁנֶּה הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן לְפִיכָךְ אִם אָבְדוּ אוֹ נִגְנְבוּ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן. וְאִם אֵינָן חֲתוּמִין וְלֹא קְשׁוּרִין קֶשֶׁר מְשֻׁנֶּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן צְרוּרִין יֵשׁ לוֹ לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן לְפִיכָךְ הוּא נַעֲשֶׂה עֲלֵיהֶם שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר וְאִם אָבְדוּ אוֹ נִגְנְבוּ חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן וְאִם נֶאֶנְסוּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָבְדוּ בְּלִסְטִים מְזֻיָּן הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן אֲבָל אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן נִתְחַיֵּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן כְּכָל מִלְוֶה שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם עַד שֶׁיַּחְזִירֵם לַבְּעָלִים: \n", + "הַמַּפְקִיד מָעוֹת אֵצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת בֵּין צְרוּרִין בֵּין מֻתָּרִין הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן לְפִיכָךְ אִם אָבְדוּ אוֹ נִגְנְבוּ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּטְמְנֵם בַּקַּרְקַע כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "הַמַּפְקִיד חָבִית אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ בֵּין שֶׁיִּחֲדוּ לָהּ הַבְּעָלִים מָקוֹם בֵּין לֹא יִחֲדוּ לָהּ מָקוֹם וְטִלְטְלָהּ לְצָרְכּוֹ וְנִשְׁבְּרָה בֵּין מִתּוֹךְ יָדוֹ נִשְׁבְּרָה בֵּין אַחַר שֶׁהֶחְזִירָהּ לַמָּקוֹם שֶׁיִּחֲדוּ לָהּ נִשְׁבְּרָה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. טִלְטְלָהּ לְצָרְכָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרָה מִתּוֹךְ יָדוֹ בֵּין שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרָה מִשֶּׁהֵנִיחָהּ בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר פָּטוּר: \n", + "אֵין מְקַבְּלִין פִּקְדוֹנוֹת לֹא מִן הַנָּשִׁים וְלֹא מִן הָעֲבָדִים וְלֹא מִן הַתִּינוֹקוֹת. קִבֵּל מִן הָאִשָּׁה יַחְזִיר לָאִשָּׁה. מֵתָה יַחְזִיר לְבַעֲלָהּ. קִבֵּל מִן הָעֶבֶד יַחְזִיר לָעֶבֶד. מֵת יַחְזִיר לְרַבּוֹ. קִבֵּל מִן הַקָּטָן יִקְנֶה לוֹ בּוֹ סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה אוֹ דֶּקֶל שֶׁיֹּאכַל בָּהֶן פֵּרוֹתָיו. וְכֻלָּן שֶׁאָמְרוּ בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָתָן שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי הֵם אִם נֶאֱמָנִין לוֹ יַעֲשֶׂה כְּפֵרוּשָׁן וְאִם לָאו יַחְזִיר לְיוֹרְשֵׁיהֶם: \n", + "הַפִּקָּדוֹן וְהָאֲבֵדָה לֹא נִתְּנוּ לִתָּבַע אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹמָם. כֵּיצַד. הִפְקִיד אֶצְלוֹ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְתָבְעוֹ בְּנֹב וְאִם הֶחְזִיר לוֹ בְּנֹב מְקַבְּלוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ. הִפְקִיד אֶצְלוֹ בַּיִּשּׁוּב וְהֵבִיא פִּקְדוֹנוֹ בַּמִּדְבָּר אֵינוֹ מְקַבְּלוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ אֶלָּא יֹאמַר לוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא בְּאַחְרָיוּתְךָ עַד שֶׁתַּחֲזִירֶנּוּ לִי בַּיִּשּׁוּב כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהִפְקַדְתִּי אֶצְלְךָ בַּיִּשּׁוּב: \n", + "הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ וְהָלַךְ בַּעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וַהֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹמֵר רָצָה לְפָרֵשׁ מִיַּבָּשָׁה לַיָּם אוֹ לָצֵאת בְּשַׁיָּרָא יֵשׁ מִי שֶׁהוֹרָה שֶׁאִם בָּא הַשּׁוֹמֵר וְהֵבִיא הַפִּקָּדוֹן לְבֵית דִּין נִפְטַר מֵאַחֲרָיוּת שְׁמִירָתוֹ וּדְבָרִים שֶׁל טַעַם הֵם שֶׁאֵין אוֹסְרִין זֶה בִּמְדִינָה זוֹ מִפְּנֵי פִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁל זֶה שֶׁהָלַךְ וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לְהוֹלִיכוֹ עִמּוֹ שֶׁמָּא יֶאֱרַע לוֹ אֹנֶס וְיִהְיֶה חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתוֹ וּבֵית דִּין מַפְקִידִין אוֹתוֹ בְּיַד נֶאֱמָן אֶצְלָם מִשּׁוּם הֶשֵּׁב אֲבֵדָה לַבְּעָלִים: \n" + ], + [ + "הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ בְּהֵמָה אוֹ כֵּלִים וְנִגְנְבוּ אוֹ אָבְדוּ אָמַר הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם וְאֵינִי נִשְׁבָּע וְנִמְצָא הַגַּנָּב מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶּפֶל. טָבַח אוֹ מָכַר מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. לְמִי מְשַׁלֵּם לְמִי שֶׁהָיָה הַפִּקָּדוֹן אֶצְלוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמַר אֲשַׁלֵּם. חָזְרָה הַבְּהֵמָה עַצְמָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת לִבְעָלֶיהָ הִיא וְגִזּוֹתֶיהָ וּוַלְדוֹתֶיהָ שֶׁאֵין זֶה הַשּׁוֹמֵר קוֹנֶה שֶׁבַח הַבָּא מִגּוּפָהּ אֶלָּא שֶׁבַח הַבָּא מֵאֵלָיו. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁאֵין הַגַּנָּב מַחְזִיר גִּזּוֹת וּוְלָדוֹת אֶלָּא לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ. נִשְׁבַּע הַשּׁוֹמֵר וְלֹא רָצָה לְשַׁלֵּם וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצָא הַגַּנָּב מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶּפֶל. טָבַח אוֹ מָכַר מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. לְמִי מְשַׁלֵּם לְבַעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן. וְכֵן הַשּׂוֹכֵר פָּרָה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וְנִגְנְבָה וְאָמַר הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם וְאֵינִי נִשְׁבָּע וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֻכַּר הַגַּנָּב מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶּפֶל וְתַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה לַשּׂוֹכֵר. שֶׁאִלּוּ רָצָה הַשּׂוֹכֵר הָיָה נִשְׁבָּע שֶׁנִּגְנְבָה בְּאֹנֶס וְנִפְטָר: \n", + "שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם שֶׁאָמַר פָּשַׁעְתִּי זָכָה בַּכֶּפֶל שֶׁהֲרֵי חִיֵּב עַצְמוֹ לְשַׁלֵּם וְאִלּוּ רָצָה אָמַר נִגְנְבָה אוֹ אָבְדָה וְהָיָה פָּטוּר. וְכֵן נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר שֶׁאָמַר נִגְנְבָה קָנָה הַכֶּפֶל שֶׁהֲרֵי חִיֵּב עַצְמוֹ לְשַׁלֵּם וְאִלּוּ רָצָה אָמַר מֵתָה וְהָיָה נִפְטָר. אֲבָל הַשּׁוֹאֵל אֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה הַכֶּפֶל עַד שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּם מֵעַצְמוֹ קָדַם וְשִׁלֵּם מֵעַצְמוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֻכַּר הַגַּנָּב מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה לַשּׁוֹאֵל: \n", + "כָּל הַקוֹנֶה הַכֶּפֶל קוֹנֶה הַשֶּׁבַח הַבָּא מֵאֵלָיו. כֵּיצַד. הִפְקִיד אַרְבַּע סְאִין אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ וַהֲרֵי הֵן שָׁוִין סֶלַע וְנִגְנְבוּ אוֹ אָבְדוּ וְאָמַר הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם סֶלַע וְאֵינִי נִשְׁבָּע וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצְאוּ וַהֲרֵי הֵן שָׁוִין אַרְבָּעָה סְלָעִים הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁל שׁוֹמֵר וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא סֶלַע. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁלֹּא הִטְרִיחָן לַבְּעָלִים בַּדִּין אֲבָל אִם הוֹדָה שֶׁפָּשַׁע וְחִיְּבוּהוּ בֵּית דִּין לִתֵּן וְלֹא נָתַן בִּרְצוֹנוֹ עַד שֶׁכָּפוּהוּ בֵּית דִּין עַל כָּרְחוֹ וְנָטְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֻכַּר הַגַּנָּב אוֹ נִמְצָא הַפִּקָּדוֹן יַחְזִיר לַבְּעָלִים כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא וּמַחְזִירִין לַשּׁוֹמֵר הַדָּמִים שֶׁלָּקְחוּ מִמֶּנּו. וְאִם כֵּלִים אוֹ קַרְקַע גָּבוּ בֵּית דִּין מִמֶּנּוּ בְּשׁוּמָא מַחְזִיר לַשּׁוֹמֵר כֵּלָיו אוֹ שָׂדֵהוּ: \n", + "תְּבָעוּהוּ בְּעָלִים לַשּׁוֹמֵר וְנִשְׁבַּע וְאַחַר כָּךְ שִׁלֵּם וְהֻכַּר הַגַּנָּב הוֹאִיל וְשִׁלֵּם בִּרְצוֹנוֹ זָכָה בַּכֶּפֶל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִטְרִיחוֹ בַּתְּחִלָּה לַדִּין עַד שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע. אָמַר הַשּׁוֹמֵר בַּתְּחִלָּה אֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם וְחָזַר וְאָמַר הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם זָכָה בַּכֶּפֶל: \n", + "אָמַר הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם וְחָזַר וְאָמַר אֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם וּמֵת וְאָמְרוּ הַבָּנִים אֵין אָנוּ מְשַׁלְּמִין. אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא הִסְפִּיק לִתְבֹּעַ אֶת הַשּׁוֹמֵר עַד שֶׁמֵּת וְתָבַע הַבָּנִים וְשִׁלְּמוּ בְּנֵי הַשּׁוֹמֵר. אוֹ שֶׁשִּׁלְּמוּ הַבָּנִים לַבָּנִים. אוֹ שֶׁשִּׁלֵּם הַשּׁוֹמֵר מֶחֱצָה. שָׁאַל שְׁתֵּי פָּרוֹת וְשִׁלֵּם אַחַת מֵהֶן. שָׁאַל מֵהַשֻּׁתָּפִין וְשִׁלֵּם לְאֶחָד מֵהֶן. שֻׁתָּפִין שֶׁשָּׁאֲלוּ וְשִׁלֵּם אֶחָד מֵהֶן. שָׁאַל מִן הָאִשָּׁה וְשִׁלֵּם לְבַעֲלָהּ. אִשָּׁה שֶׁשָּׁאֲלָה וְשִׁלֵּם בַּעְלָהּ. כָּל אֵלּוּ סָפֵק וַהֲרֵי הַכֶּפֶל מֻטָּל בְּסָפֵק וְאֵינוֹ תַּחַת יַד אֶחָד מֵהֶן לְפִיכָךְ חוֹלְקִין הַכֶּפֶל אוֹ הַשֶּׁבַח בֵּין בַּעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן וּבֵין הַשּׁוֹמֵר. וְאִם קָדַם אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְתָפַס הַכּל אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ: \n", + "נִגְנַב הַפִּקָּדוֹן בְּאֹנֶס וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֻכַּר הַגַּנָּב אֶחָד שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְאֶחָד שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר עוֹשֶׂה דִּין עִם הַגַּנָּב וְאֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע. קָדַם וְנִשְׁבָּע וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֻכַּר הַגַּנָּב אִם שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם הוּא רָצָה עוֹמֵד בִּשְׁבוּעָתוֹ רָצָה עוֹשֶׂה דִּין עִם הַגַּנָּב וְאִם שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר הוּא עוֹשֶׂה עִמּוֹ דִּין. נִגְנַב הַפִּקָּדוֹן בְּאֹנֶס וְהֶחֱזִירוֹ הַגַּנָּב לְבֵית הַשּׁוֹמֵר וַהֲרֵי הוּא בְּהֵמָה וּמֵתָה שָׁם בִּפְשִׁיעָה יֵשׁ בַּדָּבָר סָפֵק אִם כָּלְתָה שְׁמִירָתוֹ וְנִפְטַר אוֹ עֲדַיִן לֹא כָּלְתָה שְׁמִירָתוֹ לְפִיכָךְ הַשּׁוֹמֵר פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. וְאִם תָּפְסוּ הַבְּעָלִים אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדָם: סְלִיקוּ לְהוּ הִלְכוֹת שְׁאֵלָה וּפִּקָדוֹן \n" + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b03ec9ee7057c8b5d468eef98485fccff6dd95c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json @@ -0,0 +1,107 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit", + "versionSource": "http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94_%D7%9C%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%91%22%D7%9D", + "versionTitle": "Wikisource Mishneh Torah", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY-SA", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "משנה תורה (ויקיטקסט)", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות שאלה ופיקדון", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "השואל כלים או בהמה וכיוצא בהן משאר מטלטלין מחבירו ואבד או נגנב אפילו נאנס אונס גדול כגון שנשברה הבהמה או נשבית או מתה חייב לשלם הכל שנאמר וכי ישאל איש מעם רעהו וגו' ונשבר או מת בעליו אין עמו שלם ישלם במה דברים אמורים כשנאנס שלא בשעת מלאכה אבל אם שאל בהמה מחבירו לחרוש בה ומתה כשהיא חורשת ה\"ז פטור אבל אם מתה קודם שיחרוש בה או אחר שחרש בה או שרכב עליה או דש בה ומתה כשהיא דשה או בשעת רכיבה ה\"ז חייב לשלם וכן כל כיוצא בזה וכן השואל בהמה מחבירו לילך בה למקום פלוני ומתה תחתיו באותה הדרך או ששאל דלי למלאות בו ונקרע בבור בשעת מלוי או ששאל קרדום לפצל בו עצים ונשבר בעת שפצל בו מחמת הבקוע וכל כיוצא בזה ה\"ז פטור שלא שאל אלא לעשות בו מלאכה זו והרי לא שינה:", + "השואל בהמה מחבירו ומתה וטען השואל שבשעת מלאכה מתה אם היה המקום ששאלה לילך בו מקום שבני אדם מצויין שם יביא ראייה שמתה או נאנסה בשעת מלאכה ושלא שינה בה ויפטר ואם לא הביא ראיה משלם שאלה ממנו למלאות בה עפר שבחורבתו שאין העדים מצויין שם או ששאל ממנו דלי למלאות בו הבור בתוך ביתו ונקרע בבור אם הביא ראיה יפטר אף משבועה ואם לאו ישבע השואל שבועת השומרים שמתה בשעת מלאכה ויפטר וכן כל כיוצא בזה:", + "השואל כלי מחבירו ונשבר שמין לו כדרך ששמין בנזקין אומדין כמה היה שוה שלם וכמה הוא שוה עתה ומחזיר לו הכלי או הבהמה השבורה ומשלם הפחת וכן אם מתה הבהמה מחזיר הנבלה ומשלם הפחת:", + "השואל בהמה חייב במזונותיה משעה שמשכה עד סוף ימי שאלתה ואם כחש בשרה חייב לשלם מה שפחתה בדמיה כחש בשרה מחמת המלאכה פטור וישבע שבועת השומרין שמחמת מלאכה כחשה:", + "השואל כלי מחבירו או בהמה סתם הרי המשאיל מחזירו בכל עת שירצה שאלו לזמן קצוב כיון שמשך וזכה אין הבעלים יכולין להחזירו מתחת ידו עד סוף ימי השאלה ואפילו מת השואל הרי היורשין משתמשין בשאלה עד סוף הזמן ודין הוא הלוקח קונה הגוף קנין עולם בדמים שנתן ומקבל מתנה קנה הגוף קנין עולם ולא נתן כלום והשוכר קנה הגוף לפירותיו עד זמן קצוב בדמים שנתן והשואל קנה הגוף לפירותיו עד זמן קצוב ולא נתן כלום כשם שהנותן כמוכר שאינו יכול לחזור בו לעולם כך המשאיל כמשכיר שאינו יכול לחזור בתוך הזמן הניח להם אביהם פרה שאולה ומתה אין חייבין באונסיה חשבו שהיא של אביהם טבחוה ואכלוה משלמין דמי בשר בזול ואם הניח להם אביהם נכסים ומתה או שטבחוה משלמין את דמיה מנכסיו:", + "השואל כלי מחבירו לעשות בו מלאכה פלונית אין המשאיל יכול להחזירו מתחת ידו עד שיעשה בו אותה מלאכה וכן אם שאל ממנו בהמה לילך בה במקום פלוני אינו יכול להחזירה מיד השואל עד שילך בה לשם ויחזור:", + "האומר לחבירו השאילני קרדום לעדור בו הפרדס הזה עודר בו אותו הפרדס בלבד ואינו רשאי לעדור בו פרדס אחר אמר לו פרדס סתם עודר בו פרדס אחר אי זה שירצה שאלו לעדור בו פרדסים (הרבה שלו) עודר בו כל הפרדסים שלו ואפי' נשחת כל הברזל בעדירה מחזיר לו הנצב של עץ וכן כל כיוצא בזה:", + "השואל כלי מחבירו להשתמש בו ואמר לו השאילני דבר פלוני בטובתך כלומר אין אתה משאיל לי דבר זה כדרך כל המשאילין אלא כפי טובת לבך ונדבותיך שאינך מקפיד על הזמן אם ארך אם קנו מיד המשאיל על זה הרי השואל משתמש בו לעולם עד שיתבטל הכלי מלעשות מלאכתו ויחזיר שבריו או שיריו ואין השואל רשאי לחזור ולתקן הכלי או לעשותו פעם אחרת:", + "האומר לחבירו השאילני שוקת זו של מים ונהרסה [אינו יכול לבנותה אמר לו השאילני שוקת סתם ונהרסה] יש לו לבנותה אמר לו השאילני מקום שוקת אם קנו מיד המשאיל הרי השואל בונה והולך בקרקע המשאיל עד שתבא לידו שוקת שאפשר להשקות ממנה בהמתו או ארצו כמו שהתנה עם המשאיל:", + "השואל פונדק מחבירו ללינה אין פחות מיום אחד לשביתה אין פחות משני ימים לנשואים אין פחות מל' יום שאל חלוק מחבירו לילך בו לבית האבל כדי שילך ויחזור שאלו לבית המשתה כל אותו היום שאלו לעשות המשתה שלו אין פחות משבעה ימים:" + ], + [ + "השואל בבעלים אפילו נגנב או אבד בפשיעה פטור שנאמר אם בעליו עמו לא ישלם ובלבד ששאל הבעלים תחלה עם החפץ כמו שביארנו ואחד השואל את הבעלים או ששכרן ואחד ששואל את הבעלים לאותה המלאכה או ששאלן ושכרן למלאכה אחרת או לשום דבר בעולם אפילו אמר לחבירו השקני מים ושאל ממנו בהמתו והשקהו ונתן לו את הבהמה הרי זו שאלה בבעלים ופטור משך את הבהמה בתחלה ואחר כך השקהו אינה שאלה בבעלים וכן כל כיוצא בזה:", + "השאיל בהמתו או השכירה למשוי ויצא עמה לסעדה עם השואל או השוכר ולטעון עמו במשאו ה\"ז שמירה בבעלים ואם יצא לבקר המשאוי בלבד ולראות שלא יטענו עליה יתר מן הראוי אינה שמירה בבעלים:", + "מלמד תינוקות והנוטע לבני המדינה והמקיז להם את הדם והסופר שלהן כל אחד מאלו וכיוצא בהן ביום שהוא יושב בו לעסוק במלאכתן אם השאיל או השכיר לאחד מאלו שהוא עוסק במלאכתם ה\"ז שמירה בבעלים ואפילו פשע בה השומר פטור אבל הוא ששאל או ששכר מהן חייב שאינן שאולין לו:", + "הרב שהוא מקריא ברצונו לתלמידים בכל עת שירצה ואיזו מסכתא שירצה והם היו קבועים לבא תמיד ונשמט להן ממסכתא למסכתא הרי הן שאולין אצלו ואין הוא שאול להם וביום הפרק שהכל באין לשמוע ענין אותו מועד הרי הוא שאול להם והם אינן שאולין לו:", + "האומר לשלוחו צא והשאל עם פרתי אינה שאילה בבעלים שנא' אם בעליו עמו לא ישלם הבעלים עצמן לא שליח אמר לעבדו הכנעני צא והשאל עם פרתי ה\"ז שאילה בבעלים שיד העבד כיד רבו נשאל העבד עמה שלא מדעת רבו אינה שאילה בבעלים:", + "השואל מן האשה ונשאל לו בעלה אינה שאילה בבעלים שקניין פירות אינו כקניין הגוף ואין לבעל אלא פירות:", + "השואל מאשתו או שותפין ששאלו זה מזה ה\"ז שאילה בבעלים ואם אמר השותף לחבירו השאילני היום ואשאילך למחר אינה שאלה בבעלים:", + "שאל מן השותפין ונשאל לו אחד מהן וכן השותפין ששאלו ונשאל לאחד מהן ה\"ז ספק אם היא שאלה בבעלים אם אינה לפיכך אם מתה אינו משלם ואם תפסו הבעלים אין מוציאין מידם פשע בה השומר הרי זה משלם:", + "השואל את הבהמה בבעלים לרבעה או להראות בה או לעשות בה פחות משוה פרוטה או ששאל שתי פרות לעשות בהן שוה פרוטה הרי כל אלו ספק שאלה בבעלים:", + "שאלה בבעלים ושכרה שלא בבעלים פטור שהשכירות תלוי בשאלה אבל אם שכרה בבעלים וחזר ושאלה שלא בבעלים או ששאלה בבעלים וחזר ושכרה שלא בבעלים וחזר ושאלה (שלא) בבעלים או ששכרה בבעלים וחזר ושאלה שלא בבעלים וחזר ושכרה (שלא) בבעלים כל אלו ספק שמירה בבעלים הוא:", + "אשה ששאלה ואח\"כ נשאת הרי הבעל כלוקח ממנה ואינו לא ש\"ש ולא שואל לפיכך אם היתה דבר השאלה בהמה ומתה הבעל פטור אף על פי שהוא משתמש בה כל ימי שאלתה אפילו פשע מפני שהוא כלוקח והאשה חייבת לשלם כשיהיה לה ממון ואם הודיעה את בעלה שהיא שאולה ה\"ז נכנס תחתיה כל שאמרנו שהיא שאלה בבעלים כך אם היה שוכר או נושא שכר הרי היא שכירות בבעלים ופטור וכל שאינה שאלה בבעלים כך אינה שכירות בבעלים וכל שהוא ספק בשאלה כך הוא ספק בשכירות:" + ], + [ + "השואל את הפרה מחבירו ושלחה לו המשאיל ביד בנו או ביד שלוחו או ביד עבדו אפילו שלחה לו ביד בנו או ביד עבדו או ביד שלוחו של שואל ומתה קודם שתכנס לרשות השואל ה\"ז פטור ואם אמר לו השואל שלחה לי ביד בני ביד עבדי ביד שלוחי או ביד עבדך העברי או ביד שלוחך או שאמר לו המשאיל הריני משלחה ביד בנך ביד עבדך ביד שלוחך ביד בני ביד עבדי העברי ביד שלוחי ואמר לו השואל שלח ושלחה ומתה בדרך ה\"ז חייב שלחה לו המשאיל ביד עבדו הכנעני אע\"פ שאמר לו השואל שלח ומתה פטור מפני שידו כיד רבו ועדיין לא יצאה מרשות המשאיל:", + "אמר לו השואל הכישה במקל והיא תבא מאליה ועשה המשאיל כך אין השואל חייב בה עד שתכנס לרשותו אבל מתה בדרך פטור וכן בשעה שמחזירה השואל לבעלים אם שלחה ביד אחר ומתה קודם שתגיע לרשות המשאיל ה\"ז חייב שעדיין היא באחריות השואל ואם שלחה מדעת המשאיל ע\"י אחר ומתה פטור שלחה ביד עבדו הכנעני אף על פי שאמר לו השמאיל שלח אם מתה בדרך חייב שיד העבד כיד רבו ועדיין לא יצאת מיד השואל בד\"א בשהחזירה בתוך ימי שאלתה אבל אם החזירה אחר ימי שאלתה הרי זה פטור אם מתה בדרך שאחר ימי שאלתה יצאת מדין שאילה והרי הוא כשומר שכר לפיכך אם נשבית או מתה אחרי ימי שאילתה פטור וכן כל כיוצא בזה:", + "השואל פרה מחבירו שאלה חצי היום ושכרה חצי היום שאלה היום ושכרה למחר שאל אחת ושכר אחת ומתה אחת מהן המשאיל אומר שאולה מתה ביום שהיתה שאולה מתה בשעה שהיתה שאולה מתה והשומר אומר איני יודע או שאמר השואל שכורה מתה ביום שהיתה שכורה מתה בשעה שהיתה שכורה מתה והמשאיל אומר איני יודע או שאמר זה איני יודע וזה אומר איני יודע המע\"ה לא היתה שם ראיה ישבע השוכר על השכורה שמתה או שאינו יודע ויפטר זה אומר שאולה וזה אומר שכורה ישבע השומר על השכורה שמתה כדרכה כמו שטען ויגלגל עליו שהשכורה היא שמתה:", + "השאילו שתי פרות חצי היום בשאלה וחצי היום בשכירות המשאיל אומר בזמן השאלה מתה והלה אומר אחת מתה בזמן השאלה והאחרת איני יודע מתוך שאינו יכול לישבע ישלם השתים וכן אם מסר לו שלש פרות שתים שאולות ואחת שכורה המשאיל אומר שתים השאולות הן שמתו והשואל אומר אחת השאולה מתה ודאי אבל השניה שמתה איני יודע אם השאולה האחרת או השכורה מתוך שאינו יכול לישבע שהרי אומר איני יודע ישלם השתים ובהלכות טוען ונטען יתבאר דין זה וכיוצא בו מכל הטוענין שאינן יכולים להשבע וכיצד משלמין ומאי זה טעם הם משלמים:" + ], + [ + "המפקיד אצל חבירו בחנם ונגנב או אבד הרי זה נשבע ונפטר שנאמר וגונב מבית האיש וגו' ונקרב בעל הבית אל האלהים אם לא שלח ידו במלאכת רעהו ומגלגלין עליו בתוך השבועה שלא פשע אלא שמר כדרך השומרין ולא שלח בו יד ואחר נגנב שאם נגנב אחר ששלח יד בפקדון חייב באחריותו:", + "הואיל ופטר הכתוב את שומר חנם מן הגניבה קל וחומר מן האונסין הגדולים כגון שבורה ושבויה ומתה והוא שלא שלח יד בפקדון אבל שלח יד בפקדון חייב באונסיו כיצד דרך השומרים הכל לפי הפקדון יש פקדון שדרך שמירתו להניחו בבית שער כגון הקורות והאבנים ויש פקדון שדרך שמירתו להניחו בחצר כגון חבילות פשתן הגדולות וכיוצא בהן ויש פקדון שדרך שמירתו להניחו בבית כגון שמלה וטלית ויש פקדון שדרך שמירתו להניחו בתיבה או במגדל ונועל עליו כגון בגדי משי וכלי כסף וכלי זהב וכיוצא בהן:", + "השומר שהניח הפקדון במקום שאינו ראוי לו ונגנב משם או אבד אפילו נאנס שם כגון שנפלה דליקה ושרף כל הבית הרי זה פושע וחייב לשלם ואע\"פ שהניח הפקדון עם שלו אם ראוי לשמירה פטור ואם אין המקום ראוי לשמירה חייב בשלו הוא רשאי ואינו רשאי בשל אחרים:", + "הכספים והדינרין אין להם שמירה אלא בקרקע ויתן עליהם טפח עפר או יטמנם בכותל בטפח הסמוך לקורה אבל לא באמצע הכותל שמא יחפרו הגנבים שם ויגנבו אפילו נעל עליהם כראוי בתיבה או החביא אותם במקום שאין אדם מכירו ולא מרגיש בו ה\"ז פושע וחייב לשלם הורו מקצת המבינים שהוא הדין לכל דבר שמשאו קל ואין הקרקע מאבדת אותו במהרה כגון לשונות של כסף ואצ\"ל לשונות של זהב ואבנים טובות שאין להם שמירה אלא בקרקע ולזה דעתי נוטה:", + "המפקיד אצל חבירו כספים ע\"ש בין השמשות אינו חייב לטרוח ולקבור אותן עד מוצאי שבת ואם נתאחר למ\"ש כדי לקברן ולא קברן ונגנבו או נאנסו חייב ואם ת\"ח הוא אינו חייב עד שישהא אחר שיבדיל כדי לקברן:", + "הפקיד אצל חבירו כספים בדרך להוליכם לביתו או ששלח עמו מעות ממקום למקום צריכין שיהיו צרורים ומונחים בידו או קשורים כראוי על בטנו מכנגד פניו עד שיגיע לביתו ויקברם כראוי ואם קשרן בדרך הזאת אפילו נאנסו חייב לשלם שהרי תחלתו בפשיעה מעשה באחד שהפקיד מעות אצל חבירו והניחם במחיצה של קנים והיו טמונים בעובי המחיצה ונגנבו משם ואמרו חכמים אף על פי שזו שמירה מעולה לענין גניבה אינה שמירה כראוי לענין האש ומאחר שלא טמנו בקרקע או בכותל בניין פושע הוא וכל שתחלתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס חייב וכן כל כיוצא בזה:", + "המפקיד אצל חבירו בין כלים בין מעות ואמר לו תן לי פקדוני ואמר לו השומר איני יודע אנה הנחתי פקדון זה או באי זה מקום קברתי הכספים המתן לי עד שאבקש ואמצא ואחזיר לך הרי זה פושע וחייב לשלם מיד:", + "כל המפקיד אצל בעל הבית בין כלים בין מעות על דעת אשתו ובניו ובני ביתו הגדולים הוא מפקיד אבל אם מסרן לבניו ובני ביתו הקטנים או לעבדיו בין גדולים בין קטנים או לאחד מקרוביו שאינן שרויין עמו בבית ואין סומכין על שלחנו ואצ\"ל אם מסרן לאחר הרי זה פושע וחייב לשלם אא\"כ הביא השומר השני ראיה שלא פשע כמו שביארנו מעשה באחד שהפקיד מעות אצל חבירו ונתנם השומר לאמו והחביאה אותן ולא טמנה אותן ונגנבו ואמרו חכמים אין השומר חייב לשלם מפני שנתנם לאמו שכל המפקיד על דעת בניו ובני ביתו הוא מפקיד ואע\"פ שלא אמר לה פקדון הם יש לו לטעון כל שכן שהיא נזהרת בהן אם היתה סבורה שהן שלי וכן אין אמו חייבת לשלם שהרי לא אמר לה שהן פקדון ואמרו חכמים ישבע השומר שאותן המעות עצמן הן שנתנן לאמו ותשבע האם שהחביאה אותן ונגנבו ויפטרו שניהם וכן כל כיוצא בזה:", + "מכאן אתה למד שהשומר שמסר הפקדון לאשתו ובני ביתו והודיען שהוא פקדון ולא שמרו כדרך השומרין שהן חייבין לשלם לבעל הפקדון ובעל הבית פטור שכל המפקיד על דעת אשתו ובניו הוא מפקיד מעשה באחד שהפקיד כשות אצל אחד והיה לו לשומר כשות אחרת ואמר לשמשו מזה הכשות תשליך לתוך השכר והלך השמש והשליך מכשות של פקדון אמרו חכמים שהשמש פטור שהרי לא אמר מזה השלך ומזה אל תשלך ודימה שהוא מראה מקום ואינו מקפיד ע\"ז וכן בעה\"ב פטור שהרי אמר לו מזה השלך ואינו משלם אלא דמי מה שנהנה בלבד לפיכך אם נעשה השכר חומץ פטור מלשלם ובין כך ובין כך חייב השומר שבועה שכך אירע וכן כל כיוצא בזה:" + ], + [ + "מי שהפקידו אצלו מעות של עניים או של פדיון שבויים ופשע בהם ונגנבו פטור שנאמר לשמור ולא לחלק לעניים והרי הוא ממון שאין לו תובעים אפילו באו עליו גנבים וקדם והציל עצמו בממון שבויים פטור אין לך פדיון שבויים גדול מזה במה דברים אמורים בשאין זה הממון מופקד לעניי מקום זה או לשבויים [אלו] אבל אם היו לעניים אלו או לשבויים אלו והרי הוא קצוץ להן הרי זה הממון שיש לו תובעין וישלם אם פשע או ישבע שלא פשע כדרך כל השומרים:", + "המפקיד אצל חבירו ממון או כלים חשובין ובאו עליו גנבים וקדם ונתן להם הפקדון להציל עצמו אם היה אמוד שהוא בעל ממון חייב שחזקתו שבגללו באו הגנבים ונמצא זה מציל עצמו בממון חבירו ואם אינו אמוד חזקתו שלא באו אלא לשם הפקדון ופטור וכן כל כיוצא בזה:", + "המפקיד אצל חבירו כלים או פירות ובאו גנבים וגנבום בפניו ואילו היה צווח היו באין בני אדם ומצילין אותן הואיל ולא צווח הרי זה פושע וחייב לשלם וכן כל כיוצא בזה:", + "שנים שהפקידו אצל אחד זה מאה וזה מאתים וכל אחד משניהם אומר אני הוא שהפקדתי המאתים והשומר אומר איני יודע ישבע כל אחד מהן שהפקיד מאתים ונוטל כדין כל נשבע ונוטל ויתן מאתים לזה ומאתים לזה ומפסיד מאה מביתו שהרי הוא פושע שהיה לו לכתוב שם כל אחד על כיס שלו לפיכך אם הביאו לו השנים כאחד שלש מאות בכרך אחד ובאו ותבעו וכל אחד אומר המאתים שלי נותן מנה לזה ומנה לזה והשאר יהיה מונח אצלו עד לעולם או עד שיודה האחד לחבירו שהרי הוא אומר להם כיון שראיתי שאין אתם מקפידין זה על זה והבאתם בכרך אחד לא הטרחתי עצמי לידע ולזכור תמיד מי בעל המאה ומי בעל המאתים וכן אם הפקידו אצלו שני כלים אחד גדול ואחד קטן וכל אחד ואחד אומר אני הוא בעל הגדול והשומר אומר איני יודע ישבעו שניהם ויתן הגדול לאחד מהם ודמי הגדול לשני וישאר לו הקטן ואם הביאום בכרך אחד כאחד נותן הקטן לאחד ודמי הקטן לשני והשאר יהיה מונח אצלו עד שיודה האחד לחבירו או עד לעולם וכן מי שתבעוהו שנים זה אומר אני הוא בעל הפקדון וזה אומר אני הוא והשומר אומר אחד מכם הוא ואיני יודע מי הוא ישלם לשניהם וכן שנים שהפקידו שתי בהמות אצל רועה ומתה אחת מהן ואינו יודע של מי היתה ישלם לשניהם ואם הפקידו בעדרו שלא מדעתו מניח הבהמה ביניהם ומסתלק ותהיה מונחת עד שיודה האחד לחבירו או עד שירצו לחלוק אותה:", + "המפקיד פירות אצל חבירו ה\"ז לא יערבם עם פירותיו עבר ועירב יחשוב כמה היה הפקדון ויראה כמה חסר הכל ויחשוב חסרון הפקדון ויתן לו אחר שישבע נסתפק מהן ולא ידע כמה נסתפק יוציא לו חסרונו לחטים ולאורז קלוף ארבעה קבין ומחצה לכל כור לשעורים ולדוחן תשעה קבין לכל כור לכוסמין ולזרע פשתן בגבעוליו ולאורז שאינו קלוף שלש סאין לכל כור וכמדה הזאת לכל שנה ושנה בד\"א שמדד לו בימות הגורן והחזיר לו בימות הגורן אבל מדד בימות הגורן והחזיר לו בימות הגשמים אינו מוציא לו חסרונו מפני שהן מותירות וכן מוציא לו שתות ליין ושלשת לוגין שמן למאה לוגין לוג ומחצה שמרים ולוג ומחצה בלע אם היה מזוקק אינו מוציא לו שמרים ואם היו הקנקנים ישנים אינו מוציא לו בלע:", + "הפקיד אצלו פירות שאינן מדודין ועירבן עם פירותיו ולא מדדן ה\"ז פושע בעל הפקדון אומר כך וכך היו והשומר אומר איני יודע ישלם בלא שבועה שהרי חייב עצמו בתשלומין ואינו יודע כמה הוא חייב ונמצא חייב שבועה שאינו יכול להשבע וכזה הורו רבותי הרב ר' יוסף הלוי ורבו ז\"ל וכן כל שומר שנתחייב לשלם ואמר איני יודע כמה דמים אני חייב לשלם והבעלים אומרים אנו יודעין וכך וכך היה שוה יטלו בלא שבועה והוא שיטענו דבר שהן אמודין בו ויש לשומר להחרים על מי שלקח ממנו יתר מן הראוי לו ומנין שהדין כך הוא הגע עצמך שהפקיד אצלו כיס מלא זהובים ופשע בו הבעלים אומרים מאתים דינר היו והשומר אומר ודאי שהיה בו דינרים אבל איני יודע כמה היו נמצא זה כטוען מאתים והודה לו במקצת ואמר השאר איני יודע שהוא מחוייב שבועה ואינו יכול לישבע ומשלם כמו שיתבאר:", + "מת אביו והניח לו שק צרור והפקידו אצלו חבירו ופשע בו המפקיד אומר איני יודע מה היו בו שמא מרגליות היו בו וכן השומר אומר איני יודע כמה אני חייב לשלם שמא זכוכית היה מלא שורת הדין שאני אומר בטענה זו שישבע השומר בתקנת חכמים שאינו ברשותו ויכלול בשבועתו שאינו יודע בודאי שהיה בו יתר על שוה כך וכך וישלם מה שהודה בו וכן כל כיוצא בזה מעשה באחד שהפקיד שק צרור אצל חבירו ופשע בו המפקיד אומר חלי זהב ומרגליות וכיוצא בהן היו בו והשומר אומר איני יודע שמא סיגים או חול היו בו ואמרו חכמים ישבע בעל הפקדון ויטול והוא שיטעון דבר שהוא אמוד בו או אמוד להפקידו אצלו ולמה נשבע כאן בעל הפקדון לפי שאין השומר מחוייב שבועה שאפילו הודה ואמר ברי לי שהיה מלא סיגים והמפקיד אומר מרגליות היו השומר נשבע היסת ונפטר כמו שטענו חטים והודה לו בשעורים וכן כל כיוצא בזה ובהלכות טוען ונטען יתבארו עיקרי הדברים:" + ], + [ + "שומר חנם שאמר הריני משלם ואיני נשבע אם הפקדון דבר שכל מינו שוה ומצוי בשוק לקנות כמותו כגון פירות או יריעות של צמר ושל פשתן השוות בכל עניינם או קורות שאינן מצויירות וכל כיוצא בהן ה\"ז משלם ואינו נשבע אבל אם היה פקדון בהמה או בגד מצוייר או כלי מתוקן או דבר שאינו מוצא לקנות כמותו בשוק חוששין שמא עיניו נתן בו ומשביעין אותו בתקנת חכמים שבועה בנקיטת חפץ שאינו ברשותו ואחר כך משלם והוא הדין לשאר השומרין כגון השואל שאמר מתה או נגנבה ושומר שכר והשוכר שאמר נגנבה או שאבדה אף על פי שהן חייבין לשלם משביעין אותן שבועה שאינה ברשותן ואח\"כ משלמין דמי הבהמה או החפץ שאנו חוששין לו שמא עיניו נתן בה ואם אמרו הבעלים יתר על זה היה שוה כולל בשבועתו שאינה שוה אלא כך וכך נמצא כל שומר שנשבע שבועת השומרין כולל בשבועתו שלשה דברים ששמר כדרך השומרין ושארעו כך וכך ואינו ברשותו ושלא שלח בו יד קודם שארעו המאורע הפוטר אותו ואם רצה לשלם נשבע שאינו ברשותו וכולל בשבועתו שכך וכך היה שוה:", + "יש לשומר להתנות שאינו שומר כדרך השומרין אלא מעות אלו שהפקיד אצלי בזוית ביתי אני מניח אותן וכיוצא בזה טען השומר שתנאי היה בינינו ובעל הפקדון אומר לא היה שם תנאי אע\"פ שהפקיד אצלו בעדים מתוך שיכול לומר שמרתי כדרך השומרין ונאנסתי נאמן לומר שהיה ביניהן תנאי לפיכך ישבע שלא שלח יד בו ושאינו ברשותו ושהיה ביניהן תנאי:", + "שומר חנם שהביא ראייה שלא פשע בה פטור משבועה ואין אומרים שמא שלח בו יד קודם שיאבד ובעל הפקדון שהביא ראייה שפשע השומר משלם ואם טען ואמר תנאי היה בינינו אינו נאמן שהרי יש עדים שפשע:", + "הפקיד אצל חבירו בעדים ובאו עדים שזה החפץ בפנינו הפקידו אצלו אין השומר יכול לטעון ולומר חזרתי ולקחתיו ממנו או נתנו לי במתנה לפיכך אם מת השומר מוציאין הפקדון עצמו מן היתומים בלא שבועה ולא עוד אלא מי שבא ואמר כך וכך הפקדתי אצל אביכם ונתן סימנין מובהקין ונמצא הפקדון כמו שאמר והיה יודע הדיין שלא היה המת אמוד שזה הפקדון שלו יש לו לדיין הזה לתת הפקדון לזה שנתן סימניו והוא שלא יהיה המפקיד רגיל להכנס אצל זה שמת אבל אם היה רגיל ליכנס אצלו שמא של אחר הוא והכיר הסימנין שלו באו עדים והעידו לדיין שאין זה אמוד אין מוציאין מיד היתומים בעדותן שאין זה ראייה ברורה ואומדן דעתן אינו אומד דעתו ואין לו לדיין אלא מה שדעתו סומכת עליו כמו שיתבאר בהלכות סנהדרין מעשה באחד שהפקיד שומשמין אצל חבירו בעדים ובא לתבעו ואמר לו החזרתים אמר לו המפקיד והלא כך וכך היא מדתם והרי הם מונחים אצלך בחביתך אמר לו שלך החזרתי לך ואלו אחרים הן ואמרו חכמים אין מוציאין מידו שמא אלו השומשמין של שומר הן אלא ישבע השומר בנקיטת חפץ שהחזיר כמו שביארנו:", + "בעל הפקדון שתבע פקדונו ונתן לו השומר ואמר המפקיד אין זה פקדוני אלא אחר הוא או שלם היה ואתה שברתו או חדש היה ונשתמשת בו ק' סאין הפקדתי אצלך ואין אלו אלא ג' ובעל הבית אומר זהו שהפקדת בעצמך ומה שנתת אתה נוטל הרי השומר נשבע היסת כשאר כל הנשבעין שאין כל שומר נשבע שבועת השומרין האמורה בתורה אלא בזמן שמודה בעצמו של פקדון כמו שהמפקיד אומר וטוען שנגנב או מת או נשבה כללו של דבר טוען לפטור עצמו מן התשלומין [נשבע שבועת שומרין] אבל אם אמר זהו שהשאלתני או שהשכרת לי או שנטלתי שכר על שמירתי והבעלים אומרים אינו זה אלא אחר או נשתנה מכמות שהיה השוכר נשבע היסת או שבועת התורה אם הודה במקצת כיצד מאה סאה הפקדתי אצלך והשומר אומר לא הפקדת אצלי אלא חמשים נשבע שבועת התורה מפני שהודה במקצת לא משום שבועת השומרין מאה כור של חטים הפקדתי אצלך והוא אומר לא הפקדת אצלי אלא מאה של שעורים נשבע היסת כשאר כל הנשבעין בטענה כזו:" + ], + [ + "המפקיד פירות אצל חבירו ה\"ז לא יגע בהן ואף על פי שהן חוסרין ומתמעטין והולכין במה דברים אמורים כשחסרו חסרון הראוי להן בכל שנה אבל אם חסרו יותר מכדי חסרונן מוכרן בב\"ד מפני שהוא משיב אבידה לבעלים וכשהוא מוכרן ימכור לכהנים בדמי תרומה שמא עשו אותן הבעלים תרומה או תרומת מעשר על פירות אחרות:", + "המפקיד אצל חבירו פירות והרקיבו דבש ונפסד יין והחמיץ עושה תקנה לבעל הפקדון ומוכרן בב\"ד אע\"פ שעמדו בהפסדן ואין ההפסד פושה בהן הרי הקנקנים והסלים מוסיפין הפסד:", + "המפקיד חמץ אצל חבירו והגיע הפסח ה\"ז לא יגע בו עד שעה חמישית מיום י\"ד מכאן ואילך יוצא ומוכרו בשוק לשעתו משום השב אבידה לבעלים והוא הדין לשאר הפקדונות שלא יגע בהן אף על פי שהוא יודע בודאי שיזולו בזמן פלוני או יאנוס אותם המלך שמא יבא בעליהן מקודם ויטלו ממונם:", + "המפקיד ספר תורה אצל חבירו גוללו פעם אחת לי\"ב חדש ואם כשהוא גוללו פותחו וקרא בו מותר אבל לא יפתח בגלל עצמו ויקרא והוא הדין שאר ספרים ואם פתח וקרא וגלל בגלל עצמו הרי שלח יד בפקדון ונתחייב באונסין הפקיד אצלו כסות של צמר מנענעה אחת לשלשים יום כדרך שאמרו באבידה כך אמרו בפקדון וכן כל כיוצא בזה שזו חובה עליו משום השב אבידה לבעלים בד\"א בפקדון שהלכו בעליו למדינת הים אבל אם היו עמו באותה הארץ ה\"ז לא יגע בו אע\"פ שהוא אבד:", + "כל המוכר פקדון ע\"פ ב\"ד ה\"ז מוכר לאחרים ואינו מוכר לעצמו מפני החשד והדמים יהיו מונחים אצלו ויש לו להשתמש בהן לפיכך הרי הוא עליהן שומר שוכר אף על פי שעדיין לא נשתמש בהן:", + "המפקיד מעות אצל חנווני או השולחני אם היו צרורין וחתומין או קשורין קשר משונה ה\"ז לא ישתמש בהן לפיכך אם אבדו או נגנבו אינו חייב באחריותן ואם אינן חתומין ולא קשורין קשר משונה אע\"פ שהן צרורין יש לו להשתמש בהן לפיכך הוא נעשה עליהם ש\"ש ואם אבדו או נגנבו חייב באחריותן ואם נאנסו כגון שאבדו בליסטים מזויין ה\"ז פטור:", + "במה דברים אמורים קודם שישתמש בהן אבל אחר שנשתמש בהן נתחייב באחריותן ככל מלוה שבעולם עד שיחזירם לבעלים:", + "המפקיד מעות אצל בעה\"ב בין צרורין בין מותרין ה\"ז לא ישתמש בהן לפיכך אם אבדו או נגנבו אינו חייב באחריותן והוא שיטמנם בקרקע כמו שביארנו:", + "המפקיד חבית אצל חבירו בין שייחדו לה הבעלים מקום בין לא ייחדו לה מקום וטלטלה לצרכו ונשברה בין מתוך ידו נשברה בין אחר שהחזירה למקום שייחדו לה נשברה חייב לשלם טלטלה לצרכה בין שנשברה מתוך ידו בין שנשברה משהניחה במקום אחר פטור:", + "אין מקבלין פקדונות לא מן הנשים ולא מן העבדים ולא מן התינוקות קיבל מן האשה יחזיר לאשה מתה יחזיר לבעלה קיבל מן העבד יחזיר לעבד מת יחזיר לרבו קיבל מן הקטן יקנה לו בו ס\"ת או דקל שיאכל בהן פירותיו וכולן שאמרו בשעת מיתתן של פלוני הם אם נאמנין לו יעשה כפירושן ואם לאו יחזיר ליורשיהם:", + "הפקדון והאבידה לא ניתנו ליתבע אלא במקומם כיצד הפקיד אצלו בירושלים אינו יכול לתבעו בנוב ואם החזיר לו בנוב מקבלו ממנו הפקיד אצלו ביישוב והביא פקדונו במדבר אינו מקבלו ממנו אלא יאמר לו הרי הוא באחריותך עד שתחזירנו לי ביישוב כדרך שהפקדתי אצלך ביישוב:", + "המפקיד אצל חבירו והלך בעל הפקדון למדינת הים והרי השומר רצה לפרש מיבשה לים או לצאת בשיירא יש מי שהורה שאם בא השומר והביא הפקדון לב\"ד נפטר מאחריות שמירתו ודברים של טעם הם שאין אוסרין זה במדינה זו מפני פקדון של זה שהלך ואי אפשר לו להוליכו עמו שמא יארע לו אונס ויהיה חייב באחריותו וב\"ד מפקידין אותו ביד נאמן אצלם משום השב אבידה לבעלים:" + ], + [ + "המפקיד אצל חבירו בהמה או כלים ונגנבו או אבדו אמר הריני משלם ואיני נשבע ונמצא הגנב משלם תשלומי כפל טבח או מכר משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה למי משלם למי שהיה הפקדון אצלו שהרי אמר אשלם חזרה הבהמה עצמה חוזרת לבעליה היא וגזותיה וולדותיה שאין זה השומר קונה שבח הבא מגופה אלא שבח הבא מאליו וכבר ביארנו שאין הגנב מחזיר גזות וולדות אלא לפני יאוש נשבע השומר ולא רצה לשלם ואחר כך נמצא הגנב משלם תשלומי כפל טבח או מכר משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה למי משלם לבעל הפקדון וכן השוכר פרה מחבירו ונגנבה ואמר הריני משלם ואיני נשבע ואחר כך הוכר הגנב משלם תשלומי כפל ותשלומי ארבעה וחמשה לשוכר שאילו רצה השוכר היה נשבע שנגנבה באונס ונפטר:", + "שומר חנם שאמר פשעתי זכה בכפל שהרי חייב עצמו לשלם ואילו רצה אמר נגנבה או אבדה והיה פטור וכן נושא שכר והשוכר שאמר נגנבה קנה הכפל שהרי חייב עצמו לשלם ואילו רצה אמר מתה והיה נפטר אבל השואל אינו קונה הכפל עד שישלם מעצמו קידם ושלם מעצמו ואח\"כ הוכר הגנב משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה לשואל:", + "כל הקונה הכפל קונה השבח הבא מאליו כיצד הפקיד ארבע סאין אצל חבירו והרי הן שוין סלע ונגנבו או אבדו ואמר הריני משלם סלע ואיני נשבע ואחר כך נמצאו והרי הן שוין ארבע סלעים הרי הן של שומר ואינו משלם אלא סלע בד\"א בשלא הטריחן לבעלים בדין אבל אם הודה שפשע וחייבוהו ב\"ד ליתן ולא נתן ברצונו עד שכפוהו ב\"ד על כרחו ונטלו ממנו ואח\"כ הוכר הגנב או נמצא הפקדון יחזיר לבעלים כמות שהוא ומחזירין לשומר הדמים שלקחו ממנו ואם כלים או קרקע גבו ב\"ד ממנו בשומא מחזיר לשומר כליו או שדהו:", + "תבעוהו בעלים לשומר ונשבע ואחר כך שלם והוכר הגנב הואיל ושלם ברצונו זכה בכפל אף על פי שהטריחו בתחילה לדין עד שנשבע אמר השומר בתחלה איני משלם וחזר ואמר הריני משלם זכה בכפל:", + "אמר הריני משלם וחזר ואמר איני משלם או שאמר הריני משלם ומת ואמרו הבנים אין אנו משלמין או שלא הספיק לתבוע את השומר עד שמת ותבע הבנים ושלמו בני השומר או ששלמו הבנים לבנים או ששלם השומר מחצה שאל שתי פרות ושלם אחת מהן שאל מהשותפין ושלם לאחד מהן שותפין ששאלו ושלם אחד מהן שאל מן האשה ושלם לבעלה אשה ששאלה ושלם בעלה כל אלו ספק והרי הכפל מוטל בספק ואינו תחת יד אחד מהן לפיכך חולקין הכפל או השבח בין בעל הפקדון ובין השומר ואם קידם אחד מהן ותפס הכל אין מוציאין מידו ואפילו בח\"ל:", + "נגנב הפקדון באונס ואח\"כ הוכר הגנב אחד ש\"ח ואחד ש\"ש עושה דין עם הגנב ואינו נשבע קדם ונשבע ואחר כך הוכר הגנב אם ש\"ח הוא רצה עומד בשבועתו רצה עושה דין עם הגנב ואם ש\"ש הוא עושה עמו דין נגנב הפקדון באונס והחזירו הגנב לבית השומר והרי הוא בהמה ומתה שם בפשיעה יש בדבר ספק אם כלתה שמירתו ונפטר או עדיין לא כלתה שמירתו לפיכך השומר פטור מלשלם ואם תפסו הבעלים אין מוציאין מידם:סליקו להו הלכות שאלה ופקדון:" + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2bd7c3de83779af21439346becb6b5165b4c9f83 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,104 @@ +{ + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah,_Borrowing_and_Deposit", + "text": [ + [ + "הַשּׁוֹאֵל כֵּלִים אוֹ בְּהֵמָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן מִשְּׁאָר מִטַּלְטְלִין מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וְאָבַד אוֹ נִגְנַב אֲפִלּוּ נֶאֱנַס אֹנֶס גָּדוֹל כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרָה הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ נִשְׁבֵּית אוֹ מֵתָה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם הַכּל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב יג) \"וְכִי יִשְׁאַל אִישׁ מֵעִם רֵעֵהוּ\" וְגוֹ' (שמות כב יג) \"וְנִשְׁבַּר אוֹ מֵת בְּעָלָיו אֵין עִמּוֹ שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם\". בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁנֶּאֱנַס שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה. אֲבָל אִם שָׁאַל בְּהֵמָה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ לַחְרשׁ בָּהּ וּמֵתָה כְּשֶׁהִיא חוֹרֶשֶׁת הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. אֲבָל אִם מֵתָה קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּחֲרשׁ בָּהּ אוֹ אַחַר שֶׁחָרַשׁ בָּהּ אוֹ שֶׁרָכַב עָלֶיהָ אוֹ דָּשׁ בָּהּ וּמֵתָה כְּשֶׁהִיא דָּשָׁה אוֹ בִּשְׁעַת רְכִיבָה הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹאֵל בְּהֵמָה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ לֵילֵךְ בָּהּ לְמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וּמֵתָה תַּחְתָּיו בְּאוֹתָהּ הַדֶּרֶךְ. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁאַל דְּלִי לְמַלְּאוֹת בּוֹ וְנִקְרַע בַּבּוֹר בִּשְׁעַת מִלּוּי. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁאַל קַרְדֹּם לְפַצֵּל בּוֹ עֵצִים וְנִשְׁבַּר בְּעֵת שֶׁפִּצֵּל בּוֹ מֵחֲמַת הַבִּקּוּעַ. וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר שֶׁלֹּא שָׁאַל אֶלָּא לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ מְלָאכָה זוֹ וַהֲרֵי לֹא שִׁנָּה: ", + "הַשּׁוֹאֵל בְּהֵמָה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וּמֵתָה וְטָעַן הַשּׁוֹאֵל שֶׁבִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה מֵתָה. אִם הָיָה הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁאֲלָה לֵילֵךְ בּוֹ מָקוֹם שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם מְצוּיִין שָׁם יָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁמֵּתָה אוֹ נֶאֶנְסָה בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה וְשֶׁלֹּא שִׁנָּה בָּהּ וְיִפָּטֵר. וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה מְשַׁלֵּם. שְאֲלָה מִמֶּנּוּ לְמַלְּאוֹת בָּהּ עָפָר שֶׁבְּחֻרְבָּתוֹ שֶׁאֵין הָעֵדִים מְצוּיִין שָׁם. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁאַל מִמֶּנּוּ דְּלִי לְמַלְּאוֹת בּוֹ הַבּוֹר בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וְנִקְרַע בַּבּוֹר. אִם הֵבִיא רְאָיָה יִפָּטֵר אַף מִשְּׁבוּעָה וְאִם לָאו יִשָּׁבַע הַשּׁוֹאֵל שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִים שֶׁמֵּתָה בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה וְיִפָּטֵר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "הַשּׁוֹאֵל כְּלִי מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וְנִשְׁבַּר שָׁמִין לוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁשָּׁמִין בִּנְזָקִין. אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה הָיָה שָׁוֶה שָׁלֵם וְכַמָּה הוּא שָׁוֶה עַתָּה וּמַחֲזִיר לוֹ הַכְּלִי אוֹ הַבְּהֵמָה הַשְּׁבוּרָה וּמְשַׁלֵּם הַפְּחָת. וְכֵן אִם מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה מַחְזִיר הַנְּבֵלָה וּמְשַׁלֵּם הַפְּחָת: ", + "הַשּׁוֹאֵל בְּהֵמָה חַיָּב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁמְּשָׁכָהּ עַד סוֹף יְמֵי שְׁאֵלָתָהּ. וְאִם כָּחַשׁ בְּשָׂרָהּ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁפָּחֲתָה בְּדָמֶיהָ. כָּחַשׁ בְּשָׂרָהּ מֵחֲמַת הַמְּלָאכָה פָּטוּר וְיִשָּׁבַע שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין שֶׁמֵּחֲמַת מְלָאכָה כָּחֲשָׁה: ", + "הַשּׁוֹאֵל כְּלִי מֵחֲבֵרוֹ אוֹ בְּהֵמָה סְתָם הֲרֵי הַמַּשְׁאִיל מַחְזִירוֹ בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. שְׁאָלוֹ לִזְמַן קָצוּב כֵּיוָן שֶׁמָּשַׁךְ וְזָכָה אֵין הַבְּעָלִים יְכוֹלִין לְהַחְזִירוֹ מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ עַד סוֹף יְמֵי הַשְּׁאֵלָה. וַאֲפִלּוּ מֵת הַשּׁוֹאֵל הֲרֵי הַיּוֹרְשִׁין מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בַּשְּׁאֵלָה עַד סוֹף הַזְּמַן. וְדִין הוּא. הַלּוֹקֵחַ קוֹנֶה הַגּוּף קִנְיַן עוֹלָם בַּדָּמִים שֶׁנָּתַן וּמְקַבֵּל מַתָּנָה קָנָה הַגּוּף קִנְיַן עוֹלָם וְלֹא נָתַן כְּלוּם וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר קָנָה הַגּוּף לְפֵרוֹתָיו עַד זְמַן קָצוּב בַּדָּמִים שֶׁנָּתַן וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל קָנָה הַגּוּף לְפֵרוֹתָיו עַד זְמַן קָצוּב וְלֹא נָתַן כְּלוּם. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַנּוֹתֵן כַּמּוֹכֵר שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר בּוֹ לְעוֹלָם כָּךְ הַמַּשְׁאִיל כַּמַּשְׂכִּיר שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר בְּתוֹךְ הַזְּמַן. הִנִּיחַ לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם פָּרָה שְׁאוּלָה וּמֵתָה אֵין חַיָּבִין בָּאֳנָסֶיהָ. חָשְׁבוּ שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל אֲבִיהֶם טְבָחוּהָ וַאֲכָלוּהָ מְשַׁלְּמִין דְּמֵי בָּשָׂר בְּזוֹל. וְאִם הִנִּיחַ לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם נְכָסִים וּמֵתָה אוֹ שֶׁטְּבָחוּהָ מְשַׁלְּמִין אֶת דָּמֶיהָ מִנְּכָסָיו: ", + "הַשּׁוֹאֵל כְּלִי מֵחֲבֵרוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ מְלָאכָה פְּלוֹנִית אֵין הַמַּשְׁאִיל יָכוֹל לְהַחְזִירוֹ מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בּוֹ אוֹתָהּ מְלָאכָה. וְכֵן אִם שָׁאַל מִמֶּנּוּ בְּהֵמָה לֵילֵךְ בָּהּ בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַחְזִירָהּ מִיַּד הַשּׁוֹאֵל עַד שֶׁיֵּלֵךְ בָּהּ לְשָׁם וְיַחְזֹר: ", + "הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ הַשְׁאִילֵנִי קַרְדֹּם לַעֲדֹר בּוֹ הַפַּרְדֵּס הַזֶּה עוֹדֵר בּוֹ אוֹתוֹ הַפַּרְדֵּס בִּלְבַד וְאֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לַעֲדֹר בּוֹ פַּרְדֵּס אַחֵר. אָמַר לוֹ פַּרְדֵּס סְתָם עוֹדֵר בּוֹ פַּרְדֵּס אַחֵר אֵי זֶה שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. שְׁאָלוֹ לַעֲדֹר בּוֹ פַּרְדֵּסִים (הַרְבֵּה שֶׁלּוֹ) עוֹדֵר בּוֹ כָּל הַפַּרְדֵּסִים שֶׁלּוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ נִשְׁחַת כָּל הַבַּרְזֶל בַּעֲדִירָה מַחְזִיר לוֹ הַנִּצָּב שֶׁל עֵץ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "הַשּׁוֹאֵל כְּלִי מֵחֲבֵרוֹ לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ הַשְׁאִילֵנִי דָּבָר פְּלוֹנִי בְּטוֹבָתְךָ כְּלוֹמַר אֵין אַתָּה מַשְׁאִיל לִי דָּבָר זֶה כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל הַמַּשְׁאִילִין אֶלָּא כְּפִי טוֹבַת לִבְּךָ וְנִדְבוֹתֶיךָ שֶׁאֵינְךָ מַקְפִּיד עַל הַזְּמַן אִם אָרַךְ. אִם קָנוּ מִיַּד הַמַּשְׁאִיל עַל זֶה הֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹאֵל מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ לְעוֹלָם עַד שֶׁיִּתְבַּטֵּל הַכְּלִי מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת מְלַאכְתּוֹ וְיַחְזִיר שְׁבָרָיו אוֹ שְׁיָרָיו. וְאֵין הַשּׁוֹאֵל רַשַּׁאי לַחְזֹר וּלְתַקֵּן הַכְּלִי אוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ פַּעַם אַחֶרֶת: ", + "הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ הַשְׁאִילֵנִי שֹׁקֶת זוֹ שֶׁל מַיִם וְנֶהֶרְסָה [אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִבְנוֹתָהּ. אָמַר לוֹ הַשְׁאִילֵנִי שֹׁקֶת סְתָם וְנֶהֶרְסָה] יֵשׁ לוֹ לִבְנוֹתָהּ. אָמַר לוֹ הַשְׁאִילֵנִי מְקוֹם שֹׁקֶת אִם קָנוֹ מִיַּד הַמַּשְׁאִיל הֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹאֵל בּוֹנֶה וְהוֹלֵךְ בְּקַרְקַע הַמַּשְׁאִיל עַד שֶׁתָּבוֹא לְיָדוֹ שֹׁקֶת שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לְהַשְׁקוֹת מִמֶּנָּה בְּהֶמְתּוֹ אוֹ אַרְצוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִתְנָה עִם הַמַּשְׁאִיל: ", + "הַשּׁוֹאֵל פֻּנְדָּק מֵחֲבֵרוֹ לְלִינָה אֵין פָּחוֹת מִיּוֹם אֶחָד. לִשְׁבִיתָה אֵין פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי יָמִים. לְנִשּׂוּאִים אֵין פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. שָׁאַל חָלוּק מֵחֲבֵרוֹ לֵילֵךְ בּוֹ לְבֵית הָאָבֵל כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּלֵךְ וְיַחְזֹר. שְׁאָלוֹ לְבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה כָּל אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם. שְׁאָלוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת הַמִּשְׁתֶּה שֶׁלּוֹ אֵין פָּחוֹת מִשִּׁבְעָה יָמִים: " + ], + [ + "הַשׁוֹאֵל בַּבְּעָלִים אֲפִלּוּ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד בִּפְשִׁיעָה פָּטוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב יד) \"אִם בְּעָלָיו עִמּוֹ לֹא יְשַׁלֵּם\". וּבִלְבַד שֶׁשָּׁאַל הַבְּעָלִים תְּחִלָּה עִם הַחֵפֶץ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאֶחָד הַשּׁוֹאֵל אֶת הַבְּעָלִים אוֹ שֶׁשְּׂכָרָן וְאֶחָד שֶׁשּׁוֹאֵל אֶת הַבְּעָלִים לְאוֹתָהּ הַמְּלָאכָה אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁאָלָן וּשְׂכָרָן לִמְלָאכָה אַחֶרֶת אוֹ לְשׁוּם דָּבָר בָּעוֹלָם. אֲפִלּוּ אָמַר לַחֲבֵרוֹ הַשְׁקֵנִי מַיִם וְשָׁאַל מִמֶּנּוּ בְּהֶמְתּוֹ וְהִשְׁקָהוּ וְנָתַן לוֹ אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה הֲרֵי זוֹ שְׁאֵלָה בִּבְעָלִים וּפָטוּר. מָשַׁךְ אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה בַּתְּחִלָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִשְׁקָהוּ אֵינָהּ שְׁאֵלָה בִּבְעָלִים. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "הִשְׁאִיל בְּהֶמְתּוֹ אוֹ הִשְׂכִּירָהּ לְמַשּׂוֹי וְיָצָא עִמָּהּ לְסָעֳדָהּ עִם הַשּׁוֹאֵל אוֹ הַשּׂוֹכֵר וְלִטְעֹן עִמּוֹ בְּמַשָּׂאוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ שְׁמִירָה בַּבְּעָלִים. וְאִם יָצָא לְבַקֵּר הַמַּשּׂאוֹי בִּלְבַד וְלִרְאוֹת שֶׁלֹּא יִטְעֲנוּ עָלֶיהָ יֶתֶר מִן הָרָאוּי אֵינָהּ שְׁמִירָה בַּבְּעָלִים: \n", + "מְלַמֵּד תִּינוֹקוֹת. וְהַנּוֹטֵעַ לִבְנֵי הַמְּדִינָה. וְהַמַּקִּיז לָהֶם אֶת הַדָּם. וְהַסּוֹפֵר שֶׁלָּהֶן. כָּל אֶחָד מֵאֵלּוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן בַּיּוֹם שֶׁהוּא יוֹשֵׁב בּוֹ לַעֲסֹק בִּמְלַאכְתָּן אִם הִשְׁאִיל אוֹ הִשְׂכִּיר לְאֶחָד מֵאֵלּוּ שֶׁהוּא עוֹסֵק בִּמְלַאכְתָּם הֲרֵי זוֹ שְׁמִירָה בַּבְּעָלִים וַאֲפִלּוּ פָּשַׁע בָּהּ הַשּׁוֹמֵר פָּטוּר. אֲבָל הוּא שֶׁשָּׁאַל אוֹ שֶׁשָּׂכַר מֵהֶן חַיָּב שֶׁאֵינָן שְׁאוּלִין לוֹ: \n", + "הָרַב שֶׁהוּא מַקְרִיא בִּרְצוֹנוֹ לַתַּלְמִידִים בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיִּרְצֶה וְאֵיזוֹ מַסֶּכְתָּא שֶׁיִּרְצֶה וְהֵם הָיוּ קְבוּעִים לָבוֹא תָּמִיד וְנִשְׁמַט לָהֶן מִמַּסֶּכְתָּא לְמַסֶּכְתָּא הֲרֵי הֵן שְׁאוּלִין אֶצְלוֹ וְאֵין הוּא שָׁאוּל לָהֶם. וּבְיוֹם הַפֶּרֶק שֶׁהַכּל בָּאִין לִשְׁמֹעַ עִנְיַן אוֹתוֹ מוֹעֵד הֲרֵי הוּא שָׁאוּל לָהֶם וְהֵם אֵינָן שְׁאוּלִין לוֹ: \n", + "הָאוֹמֵר לִשְׁלוּחוֹ צֵא וְהִשָּׁאֵל עִם פָּרָתִי אֵינָהּ שְׁאֵלָה בַּבְּעָלִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב יד) \"אִם בְּעָלָיו עִמּוֹ לֹא יְשַׁלֵּם\" הַבְּעָלִים עַצְמָן לֹא שָׁלִיחַ. אָמַר לְעַבְדּוֹ הַכְּנַעֲנִי צֵא וְהִשָּׁאֵל עִם פָּרָתִי הֲרֵי זוֹ שְׁאֵלָה בַּבְּעָלִים שֶׁיַּד הָעֶבֶד כְּיַד רַבּוֹ. נִשְׁאַל הָעֶבֶד עִמָּהּ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת רַבּוֹ אֵינָהּ שְׁאֵלָה בַּבְּעָלִים: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹאֵל מִן הָאִשָּׁה וְנִשְׁאַל לוֹ בַּעְלָהּ אֵינָהּ שְׁאֵלָה בַּבְּעָלִים שֶׁקִּנְיַן פֵּרוֹת אֵינוֹ כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף וְאֵין לַבַּעַל אֶלָּא פֵּרוֹת: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹאֵל מֵאִשְׁתּוֹ אוֹ שֻׁתָּפִין שֶּׁשָּׁאֲלוּ זֶה מִזֶּה הֲרֵי זוֹ שְׁאֵלָה בַּבְּעָלִים. וְאִם אָמַר הַשֻׁתָּף לַחֲבֵרוֹ הַשְׁאִילֵנִי הַיּוֹם וְאַשְׁאִילְךָ לְמָחָר אֵינָהּ שְׁאֵלָה בַּבְּעָלִים: \n", + "שָׁאַל מִן הַשֻּׁתָּפִין וְנִשְׁאַל לוֹ אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְכֵן הַשֻּׁתָּפִין שֶׁשָּׁאֲלוּ וְנִשְׁאַל לְאֶחָד מֵהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם הִיא שְׁאֵלָה בַּבְּעָלִים אִם אֵינָהּ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם מֵתָה אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם. וְאִם תָּפְסוּ הַבְּעָלִים אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדָם. פָּשַׁע בָּהּ הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹאֵל אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה בַּבְּעָלִים לְרָבְעָהּ אוֹ לְהַרְאוֹת בָּהּ אוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת בָּהּ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁאַל שְׁתֵּי פָּרוֹת לַעֲשׂוֹת בָּהֶן שְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה הֲרֵי כָּל אֵלּוּ סְפֵק שְׁאֵלָה בַּבְּעָלִים: \n", + "שְׁאָלָהּ בַּבְּעָלִים וּשְׂכָרָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בַּבְּעָלִים פָּטוּר שֶׁהַשְּׂכִירוּת תָּלוּי בַּשְּׁאֵלָה. אֲבָל אִם שְׂכָרָהּ בַּבְּעָלִים וְחָזַר וּשְׁאָלָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בַּבְּעָלִים אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁאָלָה בַּבְּעָלִים וְחָזַר וּשְׂכָרָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בַּבְּעָלִים וְחָזַר וּשְׁאָלָהּ (שֶׁלֹּא) בַּבְּעָלִים אוֹ שֶׁשְּׂכָרָהּ בַּבְּעָלִים וְחָזַר וּשְׁאָלָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בַּבְּעָלִים וְחָזַר וּשְׂכָרָהּ (שֶׁלֹּא) בַּבְּעָלִים כָּל אֵלּוּ סְפֵק שְׁמִירָה בַּבְּעָלִים הוּא: \n", + "אִשָּׁה שֶׁשָּׁאֲלָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשֵּׂאת הֲרֵי הַבַּעַל כְּלוֹקֵחַ מִמֶּנָּה וְאֵינוֹ לֹא שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר וְלֹא שׁוֹאֵל. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיְתָה דְּבַר הַשְּׁאֵלָה בְּהֵמָה וּמֵתָה הַבַּעַל פָּטוּר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהּ כָּל יְמֵי שְׁאֵלָתָהּ אֲפִלּוּ פָּשַׁע מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּלוֹקֵחַ וְהָאִשָּׁה חַיֶּבֶת לְשַׁלֵּם כְּשֶׁיִּהְיֶה לָהּ מָמוֹן. וְאִם הוֹדִיעָה אֶת בַּעְלָהּ שֶׁהִיא שְׁאוּלָה הֲרֵי זֶה נִכְנָס תַּחְתֶּיהָ. כָּל שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ שֶׁהִיא שְׁאֵלָה בַּבְּעָלִים כָּךְ אִם הָיָה שׂוֹכֵר אוֹ נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר הֲרֵי הִיא שְׂכִירוּת בַּבְּעָלִים וּפָטוּר. וְכָל שֶׁאֵינָהּ שְׁאֵלָה בַּבְּעָלִים כָּךְ אֵינָהּ שְׂכִירוּת בַּבְּעָלִים. וְכָל שֶׁהוּא סָפֵק בִּשְׁאֵלָה כָּךְ הוּא סָפֵק בִּשְׂכִירוּת: \n" + ], + [ + "הַשׁוֹאֵל אֶת הַפָּרָה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וּשְׁלָחָהּ לוֹ הַמַּשְׁאִיל בְּיַד בְּנוֹ אוֹ בְּיַד שְׁלוּחוֹ אוֹ בְּיַד עַבְדּוֹ. אֲפִלּוּ שְׁלָחָהּ לוֹ בְּיַד בְּנוֹ אוֹ בְּיַד עַבְדּוֹ אוֹ בְּיַד שְׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל שׁוֹאֵל וּמֵתָה קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּכָּנֵס לִרְשׁוּת הַשּׁוֹאֵל הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ הַשּׁוֹאֵל שַׁלְּחָהּ לִי בְּיַד בְּנִי בְּיַד עַבְדִּי בְּיַד שְׁלוּחִי אוֹ בְּיַד עַבְדְּךָ הָעִבְרִי אוֹ בְּיַד שְׁלוּחֲךָ. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הַמַּשְׁאִיל הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלְּחָהּ בְּיַד בִּנְךָ בְּיַד עַבְדְּךָ בְּיַד שְׁלוּחֲךָ בְּיַד בְּנִי בְּיַד עַבְדִּי הָעִבְרִי בְּיַד שְׁלוּחִי. וְאָמַר לוֹ הַשּׁוֹאֵל שְׁלַח וּשְׁלָחָהּ וּמֵתָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב. שְׁלָחָהּ לוֹ הַמַּשְׁאִיל בְּיַד עַבְדּוֹ הַכְּנַעֲנִי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הַשּׁוֹאֵל שְׁלַח וּמֵתָה פָּטוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּדוֹ כְּיַד רַבּוֹ וַעֲדַיִן לֹא יָצְאָה מֵרְשׁוּת הַמַּשְׁאִיל: \n", + "אָמַר לוֹ הַשּׁוֹאֵל הַכִּישָׁהּ בְּמַקֵּל וְהִיא תָּבוֹא מֵאֵלֶיהָ וְעָשָׂה הַמַּשְׁאִיל כָּךְ אֵין הַשּׁוֹאֵל חַיָּב בָּהּ עַד שֶׁתִּכָּנֵס לִרְשׁוּתוֹ. אֲבָל מֵתָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ פָּטוּר. וְכֵן בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמַּחְזִירָהּ הַשּׁוֹאֵל לַבְּעָלִים אִם שְׁלָחָהּ בְּיַד אַחֵר וּמֵתָה קֹדֶם שֶׁתַּגִּיעַ לִרְשׁוּת הַמַּשְׁאִיל הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב שֶׁעֲדַיִן הִיא בְּאַחֲרָיוּת הַשּׁוֹאֵל. וְאִם שְׁלָחָהּ מִדַּעַת הַמַּשְׁאִיל עַל יְדֵי אַחֵר וּמֵתָה פָּטוּר. שְׁלָחָהּ בְּיַד עַבְדּוֹ הַכְּנַעֲנִי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הַמַּשְׁאִיל שְׁלַח אִם מֵתָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ חַיָּב שֶׁיַּד הָעֶבֶד כְּיַד רַבּוֹ וַעֲדַיִן לֹא יָצָאת מִיַּד הַשּׁוֹאֵל. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁהֶחְזִירָהּ בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי שְׁאִילָתָהּ. אֲבָל אִם הֶחֱזִירָהּ אַחַר יְמֵי שְׁאִילָתָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר אִם מֵתָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ שֶׁאַחַר יְמֵי שְׁאֵלָתָהּ יָצָאתָ מִדִּין שְׁאֵלָה וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נִשְׁבֵּית אוֹ מֵתָה אַחֲרֵי יְמֵי שְׁאִילָתָהּ פָּטוּר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹאֵל פָּרָה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ. שְׁאָלָהּ חֲצִי הַיּוֹם וּשְׂכָרָהּ חֲצִי הַיּוֹם. שְׁאָלָהּ הַיּוֹם וּשְׂכָרָהּ לְמָחָר. שָׁאַל אַחַת וְשָׂכַר אַחַת וּמֵתָה אַחַת מֵהֶן. הַמַּשְׁאִיל אוֹמֵר שְׁאוּלָה מֵתָה בַּיּוֹם שֶׁהָיְתָה שְׁאוּלָה מֵתָה בַּשָּׁעָה שֶׁהָיְתָה שְׁאוּלָה מֵתָה וְהַשּׁוֹמֵר אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר הַשּׁוֹאֵל שְׂכוּרָה מֵתָה בַּיּוֹם שֶׁהָיְתָה שְׂכוּרָה מֵתָה בַּשָּׁעָה שֶׁהָיְתָה שְׂכוּרָה מֵתָה. וְהַמַּשְׁאִיל אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר זֶה אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ וְזֶה אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ. הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. לֹא הָיְתָה שָׁם רְאָיָה יִשָּׁבַע הַשּׂוֹכֵר עַל הַשְּׂכוּרָה שֶׁמֵּתָה אוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ וְיִפָּטֵר. זֶה אוֹמֵר שְׁאוּלָה וְזֶה אוֹמֵר שְׂכוּרָה יִשָּׁבַע הַשּׁוֹמֵר עַל הַשְּׂכוּרָה שֶׁמֵּתָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁטָּעַן וִיגַלְגֵּל עָלָיו שֶׁהַשְּׂכוּרָה הִיא שֶׁמֵּתָה: \n", + "הִשְׁאִילוֹ שְׁתֵּי פָּרוֹת חֲצִי הַיּוֹם בִּשְׁאֵלָה וַחֲצִי הַיּוֹם בִּשְׂכִירוּת. הַמַּשְׁאִיל אוֹמֵר בִּזְמַן הַשְּׁאֵלָה מֵתָה וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר אַחַת מֵתָה בִּזְמַן הַשְּׁאֵלָה וְהָאַחֶרֶת אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ. מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִשָּׁבַע יְשַׁלֵּם הַשְּׁתַּיִם. וְכֵן אִם מָסַר לוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ פָּרוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שְׁאוּלוֹת וְאַחַת שְׂכוּרָה. הַמַּשְׁאִיל אוֹמֵר שְׁתַּיִם הַשְּׁאוּלוֹת הֵן שֶׁמֵּתוּ וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל אוֹמֵר אַחַת הַשְּׁאוּלָה מֵתָה וַדַּאי אֲבָל הַשְּׁנִיָּה שֶׁמֵּתָה אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם הַשְּׁאוּלָה הָאַחֶרֶת אוֹ הַשְּׂכוּרָה. מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִשָּׁבַע שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ יְשַׁלֵּם הַשְּׁתַּיִם. וּבְהִלְכוֹת טוֹעֵן וְנִטְעָן יִתְבָּאֵר דִּין זֶה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ מִכָּל הַטּוֹעֲנִין שֶׁאֵינָן יְכוֹלִים לְהִשָּׁבַע וְכֵיצַד מְשַׁלְּמִין וּמֵאֵי זֶה טַעַם הֵם מְשַׁלְּמִים: \n" + ], + [ + "הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ בְּחִנָּם וְנִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנִפְטָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ו) \"וְגֻנַּב מִבֵּית הָאִישׁ\" וְגוֹ' (שמות כב ז) \"וְנִקְרַב בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים אִם לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ בִּמְלֶאכֶת רֵעֵהוּ\". וּמְגַלְגְּלִין עָלָיו בְּתוֹךְ הַשְּׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא פָּשַׁע אֶלָּא שָׁמַר כְּדֶרֶךְ הַשּׁוֹמְרִין וְלֹא שָׁלַח בּוֹ יָד וְאַחַר נִגְנַב. שֶׁאִם נִגְנַב אַחַר שֶׁשָּׁלַח יָד בַּפִּקָּדוֹן חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתוֹ: \n", + "הוֹאִיל וּפָטַר הַכָּתוּב אֶת שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם מִן הַגְּנֵבָה קַל וָחֹמֶר מִן הָאֳנָסִין הַגְּדוֹלִים כְּגוֹן שְׁבוּרָה וּשְׁבוּיָה וּמֵתָה וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא שָׁלַח יָד בַּפִּקָּדוֹן אֲבָל שָׁלַח יָד בַּפִּקָּדוֹן חַיָּב בְּאֳנָסָיו. כֵּיצַד דֶּרֶךְ הַשּׁוֹמְרִים. הַכּל לְפִי הַפִּקָּדוֹן. יֵשׁ פִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ שְׁמִירָתוֹ לְהַנִּיחוֹ בְּבֵית שַׁעַר כְּגוֹן הַקּוֹרוֹת וְהָאֲבָנִים. וְיֵשׁ פִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ שְׁמִירָתוֹ לְהַנִּיחוֹ בֶּחָצֵר כְּגוֹן חֲבִילוֹת פִּשְׁתָּן הַגְּדוֹלוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. וְיֵשׁ פִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ שְׁמִירָתוֹ לְהַנִּיחוֹ בַּבַּיִת כְּגוֹן שִׂמְלָה וְטַלִּית. וְיֵשׁ פִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ שְׁמִירָתוֹ לְהַנִּיחוֹ בְּתֵבָה אוֹ בְּמִגְדָּל וְנוֹעֵל עָלָיו כְּגוֹן בִּגְדֵי מֶשִׁי וּכְלֵי כֶּסֶף וּכְלֵי זָהָב וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹמֵר שֶׁהִנִּיחַ הַפִּקָּדוֹן בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לוֹ וְנִגְנַב מִשָּׁם אוֹ אָבַד אֲפִלּוּ נֶאֱנַס שָׁם כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּפְלָה דְּלֵקָה וְשָׂרַף כָּל הַבַּיִת הֲרֵי זֶה פּוֹשֵׁעַ וְחַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִנִּיחַ הַפִּקָּדוֹן עִם שֶׁלּוֹ אִם רָאוּי לִשְׁמִירָה פָּטוּר וְאִם אֵין הַמָּקוֹם רָאוּי לִשְׁמִירָה חַיָּב. בְּשֶׁלּוֹ הוּא רַשַּׁאי וְאֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי בְּשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים: \n", + "הַכְּסָפִים וְהַדִּינָרִין אֵין לָהֶם שְׁמִירָה אֶלָּא בַּקַּרְקַע וְיִתֵּן עֲלֵיהֶם טֶפַח עָפָר. אוֹ יִטְמְנֵם בַּכֹּתֶל בַּטֶּפַח הַסָּמוּךְ לַקּוֹרָה. אֲבָל לֹא בְּאֶמְצַע הַכֹּתֶל שֶׁמָּא יַחְפְּרוּ הַגַּנָּבִים שָׁם וְיִגְנְבוּ. אֲפִלּוּ נָעַל עֲלֵיהֶם כָּרָאוּי בְּתֵבָה אוֹ הֶחְבִּיא אוֹתָם בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מַכִּירוֹ וְלֹא מַרְגִּישׁ בּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה פּוֹשֵׁעַ וְחַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. הוֹרוּ מִקְצָת הַמְּבִינִים שֶׁהוּא הַדִּין לְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁמַּשָּׂאוֹ קַל וְאֵין הַקַּרְקַע מְאַבֶּדֶת אוֹתוֹ בִּמְהֵרָה כְּגוֹן לְשׁוֹנוֹת שֶׁל כֶּסֶף וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר לְשׁוֹנוֹת שֶׁל זָהָב וַאֲבָנִים טוֹבוֹת שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם שְׁמִירָה אֶלָּא בַּקַּרְקַע. וְלָזֶה דַּעְתִּי נוֹטֶה: \n", + "הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ כְּסָפִים עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לִטְרֹחַ וְלִקְבֹּר אוֹתָן עַד מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת. וְאִם נִתְאַחֵר לְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת כְּדֵי לְקָבְרָן וְלֹא קְבָרָן וְנִגְנְבוּ אוֹ נֶאֶנְסוּ חַיָּב. וְאִם תַּלְמִיד חָכָם הוּא אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁהֵא אַחַר שֶׁיַּבְדִּיל כְּדֵי לְקָבְרָן: \n", + "הִפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ כְּסָפִים בַּדֶּרֶךְ לְהוֹלִיכָם לְבֵיתוֹ אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁלַח עִמּוֹ מָעוֹת מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם צְרִיכִין שֶׁיִּהְיוּ צְרוּרִים וּמֻנָּחִים בְּיָדוֹ אוֹ קְשׁוּרִים כָּרָאוּי עַל בִּטְנוֹ מִכְּנֶגֶד פָּנָיו עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְבֵיתוֹ וְיִקְבְּרֵם כָּרָאוּי. וְאִם לֹא קְשָׁרָן בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֹּאת אֲפִלּוּ נֶאֶנְסוּ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם שֶׁהֲרֵי תְּחִלָּתוֹ בִּפְשִׁיעָה. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהִפְקִיד מָעוֹת אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ וְהִנִּיחָם בִּמְחִצָּה שֶׁל קָנִים וְהָיוּ טְמוּנִים בָּעֳבִי הַמְּחִצָּה וְנִגְנְבוּ מִשָּׁם וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁזּוֹ שְׁמִירָה מְעֻלָּה לְעִנְיַן גְּנֵבָה אֵינָהּ שְׁמִירָה כָּרָאוּי לְעִנְיַן הָאֵשׁ וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁלֹּא טְמָנוֹ בְּקַרְקַע אוֹ בְּכֹתֶל בִּנְיָן פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא וְכָל שֶׁתְּחִלָּתוֹ בִּפְשִׁיעָה וְסוֹפוֹ בְּאֹנֶס חַיָּב. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ בֵּין כֵּלִים בֵּין מָעוֹת וְאָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לִי פִּקְדוֹנִי וְאָמַר לוֹ הַשּׁוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אָנָּה הִנַּחְתִּי פִּקָּדוֹן זֶה אוֹ בְּאֵי זֶה מָקוֹם קָבַרְתִּי הַכְּסָפִים הַמְתֵּן לִי עַד שֶׁאֲבַקֵּשׁ וְאֶמְצָא וְאַחְזִיר לְךָ הֲרֵי זֶה פּוֹשֵׁעַ וְחַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם מִיָּד: \n", + "כָּל הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת בֵּין כֵּלִים בֵּין מָעוֹת עַל דַּעַת אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵּיתוֹ הַגְּדוֹלִים הוּא מַפְקִיד. אֲבָל אִם מְסָרָן לְבָנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵּיתוֹ הַקְּטַנִּים אוֹ לַעֲבָדָיו בֵּין גְּדוֹלִים בֵּין קְטַנִּים אוֹ לְאֶחָד מִקְּרוֹבָיו שֶׁאֵינָן שְׁרוּיִין עִמּוֹ בַּבַּיִת וְאֵין סוֹמְכִין עַל שֻׁלְחָנוֹ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם מְסָרָן לְאַחֵר הֲרֵי זֶה פּוֹשֵׁעַ וְחַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הֵבִיא הַשּׁוֹמֵר הַשֵּׁנִי רְאָיָה שֶׁלֹּא פָּשַׁע כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהִפְקִיד מָעוֹת אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ וּנְתָנָם הַשּׁוֹמֵר לְאִמּוֹ וְהֶחְבִּיאָה אוֹתָן וְלֹא טָמְנָה אוֹתָן וְנִגְנְבוּ וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֵין הַשּׁוֹמֵר חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנְּתָנָם לְאִמּוֹ שֶׁכָּל הַמַּפְקִיד עַל דַּעַת בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵּיתוֹ הוּא מַפְקִיד וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לָהּ פִּקָּדוֹן הֵם יֵשׁ לוֹ לִטְעֹן כָּל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁהִיא נִזְהֶרֶת בָּהֶן אִם הָיְתָה סְבוּרָה שֶׁהֵן שֶׁלִּי. וְכֵן אֵין אִמּוֹ חַיֶּבֶת לְשַׁלֵּם שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא אָמַר לָהּ שֶׁהֵן פִּקָּדוֹן. וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים יִשָּׁבַע הַשּׁוֹמֵר שֶׁאוֹתָן הַמָּעוֹת עַצְמָן הֵן שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְאִמּוֹ וְתִשָּׁבַע הָאֵם שֶׁהֶחְבִּיאָה אוֹתָן וְנִגְנְבוּ וְיִפָּטְרוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "מִכָּאן אַתָּה לָמֵד שֶׁהַשּׁוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּסַר הַפִּקָּדוֹן לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּבְנֵי בֵּיתוֹ וְהוֹדִיעָן שֶׁהוּא פִּקָּדוֹן וְלֹא שָׁמְרוּ כְּדֶרֶךְ הַשּׁוֹמְרִין שֶׁהֵן חַיָּבִין לְשַׁלֵּם לְבַעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת פָּטוּר שֶׁכָּל הַמַּפְקִיד עַל דַּעַת אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו הוּא מַפְקִיד. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהִפְקִיד כְּשׁוּת אֵצֶל אֶחָד וְהָיָה לוֹ לַשּׁוֹמֵר כְּשׁוּת אַחֶרֶת וְאָמַר לְשַׁמָּשׁוֹ מִזֶּה הַכְּשׁוּת תַּשְׁלִיךְ לְתוֹךְ הַשֵּׁכָר וְהָלַךְ הַשַּׁמָּשׁ וְהִשְׁלִיךְ מִכְּשׁוּת שֶׁל פִּקָּדוֹן. אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁהַשַּׁמָּשׁ פָּטוּר שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא אָמַר מִזֶּה הַשְׁלֵךְ וּמִזֶּה אַל תַּשְׁלֵךְ וְדִמָּה שֶׁהוּא מַרְאֶה מָקוֹם וְאֵינוֹ מַקְפִּיד עַל זֶה. וְכֵן בַּעַל הַבַּיִת פָּטוּר שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמַר לוֹ מִזֶּה הַשְׁלֵךְ וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא דְּמֵי מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנָה בִּלְבַד. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נַעֲשָׂה הַשֵּׁכָר חֹמֶץ פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. וּבֵין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ חַיָּב הַשּׁוֹמֵר שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁכָּךְ אֵרַע. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n" + ], + [ + "מִי שֶׁהִפְקִידוּ אֶצְלוֹ מָעוֹת שֶׁל עֲנִיִּים אוֹ שֶׁל פִּדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִים וּפָשַׁע בָּהֶם וְנִגְנְבוּ פָּטוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ו) \"לִשְׁמֹר\" וְלֹא לְחַלֵּק לָעֲנִיִּים וַהֲרֵי הוּא מָמוֹן שֶׁאֵין לוֹ תּוֹבְעִים. אֲפִלּוּ בָּאוּ עָלָיו גַּנָּבִים וְקָדַם וְהִצִּיל עַצְמוֹ בְּמָמוֹן שְׁבוּיִים פָּטוּר. אֵין לְךָ פִּדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִים גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁאֵין זֶה הַמָּמוֹן מֻפְקָד לַעֲנִיֵּי מָקוֹם זֶה אוֹ לִשְׁבוּיִים [אֵלּוּ]. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ לַעֲנִיִּים אֵלּוּ אוֹ לִשְׁבוּיִים אֵלּוּ וַהֲרֵי הוּא קָצוּץ לָהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה הַמָּמוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ תּוֹבְעִין וִישַׁלֵּם אִם פָּשַׁע אוֹ יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁלֹּא פָּשַׁע כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל הַשּׁוֹמְרִים: \n", + "הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ מָמוֹן אוֹ כֵּלִים חֲשׁוּבִין וּבָאוּ עָלָיו גַּנָּבִים וְקָדַם וְנָתַן לָהֶם הַפִּקָּדוֹן לְהַצִּיל עַצְמוֹ אִם הָיָה אָמוּד שֶׁהוּא בַּעַל מָמוֹן חַיָּב שֶׁחֶזְקָתוֹ שֶׁבִּגְלָלוֹ בָּאוּ הַגַּנָּבִים וְנִמְצָא זֶה מַצִּיל עַצְמוֹ בְּמָמוֹן חֲבֵרוֹ. וְאִם אֵינוֹ אָמוּד חֶזְקָתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בָּאוּ אֶלָּא לְשֵׁם הַפִּקָּדוֹן וּפָטוּר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ כֵּלִים אוֹ פֵּרוֹת וּבָאוּ גַּנָּבִים וּגְנָבוּם בְּפָנָיו וְאִלּוּ הָיָה צוֹוֵחַ הָיוּ בָּאִין בְּנֵי אָדָם וּמַצִּילִין אוֹתָן הוֹאִיל וְלֹא צָוַח הֲרֵי זֶה פּוֹשֵׁעַ וְחַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהִפְקִידוּ אֵצֶל אֶחָד זֶה מֵאָה וְזֶה מָאתַיִם וְכָל אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם אוֹמֵר אֲנִי הוּא שֶׁהִפְקַדְתִּי הַמָּאתַיִם וְהַשּׁוֹמֵר אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ יִשָּׁבַע כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן שֶׁהִפְקִיד מָאתַיִם וְנוֹטֵל כְּדִין כָּל נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. וְיִתֵּן מָאתַיִם לָזֶה וּמָאתַיִם לָזֶה וּמַפְסִיד מֵאָה מִבֵּיתוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא פּוֹשֵׁעַ שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לִכְתֹּב שֵׁם כָּל אֶחָד עַל כִּיס שֶׁלּוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הֵבִיאוּ לוֹ הַשְּׁנַיִם כְּאֶחָד שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת בְּכֶרֶךְ אֶחָד וּבָאוּ וְתָבְעוּ וְכָל אֶחָד אוֹמֵר הַמָּאתַיִם שֶׁלִּי נוֹתֵן מָנֶה לָזֶה וּמָנֶה לָזֶה וְהַשְּׁאָר יִהְיֶה מֻנָּח אֶצְלוֹ עַד לְעוֹלָם אוֹ עַד שֶׁיּוֹדֶה הָאֶחָד לַחֲבֵרוֹ. שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר לָהֶם כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאִיתִי שֶׁאֵין אַתֶּם מַקְפִּידִין זֶה עַל זֶה וַהֲבֵאתֶם בְּכֶרֶךְ אֶחָד לֹא הִטְרַחְתִּי עַצְמִי לֵידַע וְלִזְכֹּר תָּמִיד מִי בַּעַל הַמֵּאָה וּמִי בַּעַל הַמָּאתַיִם. וְכֵן אִם הִפְקִידוּ אֶצְלוֹ שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן וְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֲנִי הוּא בַּעַל הַגָּדוֹל וְהַשּׁוֹמֵר אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ יִשָּׁבְעוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם וְיִתֵּן הַגָּדוֹל לְאֶחָד מֵהֶם וּדְמֵי הַגָּדוֹל לַשֵּׁנִי וְיִשָּׁאֵר לוֹ הַקָּטָן. וְאִם הֱבִיאוּם בְּכֶרֶךְ אֶחָד כְּאֶחָד נוֹתֵן הַקָּטָן לָאֶחָד וּדְמֵי הַקָּטָן לַשֵּׁנִי וְהַשְּׁאָר יִהְיֶה מֻנָּח אֶצְלוֹ עַד שֶׁיּוֹדֶה הָאֶחָד לַחֲבֵרוֹ אוֹ עַד לְעוֹלָם. וְכֵן מִי שֶׁתְּבָעוּהוּ שְׁנַיִם זֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי הוּא בַּעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן וְזֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי הוּא וְהַשּׁוֹמֵר אוֹמֵר אֶחָד מִכֶּם הוּא וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מִי הוּא יְשַׁלֵּם לִשְׁנֵיהֶם. וְכֵן שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהִפְקִידוּ שְׁתֵּי בְּהֵמוֹת אֵצֶל רוֹעֶה וּמֵתָה אַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁל מִי הָיְתָה יְשַׁלֵּם לִשְׁנֵיהֶם. וְאִם הִפְקִידוּ בְּעֶדְרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ מַנִּיחַ הַבְּהֵמָה בֵּינֵיהֶם וּמִסְתַּלֵּק וְתִהְיֶה מֻנַּחַת עַד שֶׁיּוֹדֶה הָאֶחָד לַחֲבֵרוֹ אוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּרְצוּ לַחֲלֹק אוֹתָהּ: \n", + "הַמַּפְקִיד פֵּרוֹת אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יְעָרְבֵם עִם פֵּרוֹתָיו. עָבַר וְעֵרֵב יַחְשֹׁב כַּמָּה הָיָה הַפִּקָּדוֹן וְיִרְאֶה כַּמָּה חָסֵר הַכּל וְיַחְשֹׁב חֶסְרוֹן הַפִּקָּדוֹן וְיִתֵּן לוֹ אַחַר שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע. נִסְתַּפֵּק מֵהֶן וְלֹא יָדַע כַּמָּה נִסְתַּפֵּק יוֹצִיא לוֹ חֶסְרוֹנוֹ לְחִטִּים וּלְאֹרֶז קָלוּף אַרְבָּעָה קַבִּין וּמֶחֱצָה לְכָל כּוֹר. לִשְׂעוֹרִים וּלְדֹחַן תִּשְׁעָה קַבִּין לְכָל כּוֹר. לְכֻסְּמִין וּלְזֶרַע פִּשְׁתָּן בְּגִבְעוֹלָיו וּלְאֹרֶז שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָלוּף שָׁלֹשׁ סְאִין לְכָל כּוֹר. וְכַמִּדָּה הַזֹּאת לְכָל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁמָּדַד לוֹ בִּימוֹת הַגֹּרֶן וְהֶחֱזִיר לוֹ בִּימוֹת הַגֹּרֶן. אֲבָל מָדַד בִּימוֹת הַגֹּרֶן וְהֶחְזִיר לוֹ בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא לוֹ חֶסְרוֹנוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מוֹתִירוֹת. וְכֵן מוֹצִיא לוֹ שְׁתוּת לְיַיִן וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת לוֹגִין שֶׁמֶן לְמֵאָה לוֹגִין לוֹג וּמֶחֱצָה שְׁמָרִים וְלוֹג וּמֶחֱצָה בֶּלַע. אִם הָיָה מְזֻקָּק אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא לוֹ שְׁמָרִים. וְאִם הָיוּ הַקַּנְקַנִּים יְשָׁנִים אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא לוֹ בֶּלַע: \n", + "הִפְקִיד אֶצְלוֹ פֵּרוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן מְדוּדִין וְעֵרְבָן עִם פֵּרוֹתָיו וְלֹא מְדָדָן הֲרֵי זֶה פּוֹשֵׁעַ. בַּעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן אוֹמֵר כָּךְ וְכָךְ הָיוּ וְהַשּׁוֹמֵר אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ יְשַׁלֵּם בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁהֲרֵי חִיֵּב עַצְמוֹ בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ כַּמָּה הוּא חַיָּב וְנִמְצָא חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִשָּׁבַע. וְכָזֶה הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי הָרַב רַבֵּנוּ יוֹסֵף הַלֵּוִי וְרַבּוֹ זַ\"ל. וְכֵן כָּל שׁוֹמֵר שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב לְשַׁלֵּם וְאָמַר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ כַּמָּה דָּמִים אֲנִי חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם וְהַבְּעָלִים אוֹמְרִים אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין וְכָךְ וְכָךְ הָיָה שָׁוֶה יִטְּלוּ בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה וְהוּא שֶׁיִּטְעֲנוּ דָּבָר שֶׁהֵן אֲמוּדִין בּוֹ. וְיֵשׁ לַשּׁוֹמֵר לְהַחֲרִים עַל מִי שֶׁלָּקַח מִמֶּנּוּ יֶתֶר מִן הָרָאוּי לוֹ. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁהַדִּין כָּךְ הוּא הַגַּע עַצְמְךָ שֶׁהִפְקִיד אֶצְלוֹ כִּיס מָלֵא זְהוּבִים וּפָשַׁע בּוֹ הַבְּעָלִים אוֹמְרִים מָאתַיִם דִּינָר הָיוּ וְהַשּׁוֹמֵר אוֹמֵר וַדַּאי שֶׁהָיָה בּוֹ דִּינָרִים אֲבָל אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ כַּמָּה הָיוּ נִמְצָא זֶה כְּטוֹעֵן מָאתַיִם וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בְּמִקְצָת וְאָמַר הַשְּׁאָר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא מְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִשָּׁבַע וּמְשַׁלֵּם כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר: \n", + "מֵת אָבִיו וְהִנִּיחַ לוֹ שַׂק צָרוּר וְהִפְקִידוֹ אֶצְלוֹ חֲבֵרוֹ וּפָשַׁע בּוֹ הַמַּפְקִיד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מֶה הָיוּ בּוֹ שֶׁמָּא מַרְגָּלִיּוֹת הָיוּ בּוֹ וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹמֵר אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ כַּמָּה אֲנִי חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם שֶׁמָּא זְכוּכִית הָיָה מָלֵא. שׁוּרַת הַדִּין שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר בְּטַעֲנָה זוֹ שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע הַשּׁוֹמֵר בְּתַקָּנַת חֲכָמִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וְיִכְלל בִּשְׁבוּעָתוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁהָיָה בּוֹ יֶתֶר עַל שְׁוֵה כָּךְ וְכָךְ וִישַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁהוֹדָה בּוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהִפְקִיד שַׂק צָרוּר אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ וּפָשַׁע בּוֹ. הַמַּפְקִיד אוֹמֵר חֲלִי זָהָב וּמַרְגָּלִיּוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הָיוּ בּוֹ וְהַשּׁוֹמֵר אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁמָּא סִיגִים אוֹ חוֹל הָיוּ בּוֹ. וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים יִשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן וְיִטּל וְהוּא שֶׁיִּטְעֹן דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא אָמוּד בּוֹ אוֹ אָמוּד לְהַפְקִידוֹ אֶצְלוֹ. וְלָמָּה נִשְׁבָּע כָּאן בַּעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הַשּׁוֹמֵר מְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הוֹדָה וְאָמַר בָּרִי לִי שֶׁהָיָה מָלֵא סִיגִים וְהַמַּפְקִיד אוֹמֵר מַרְגָּלִיּוֹת הָיוּ הַשּׁוֹמֵר נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר כְּמוֹ שֶׁטְּעָנוֹ חִטִּים וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בִּשְׂעוֹרִים. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וּבְהִלְכוֹת טוֹעֵן וְנִטְעָן יִתְבָּאֲרוּ עִקְּרֵי הַדְּבָרִים: \n" + ], + [ + "שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם שֶׁאָמַר הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם וְאֵינִי נִשְׁבָּע אִם הַפִּקָּדוֹן דָּבָר שֶׁכָּל מִינוֹ שָׁוֶה וּמָצוּי בַּשּׁוּק לִקְנוֹת כְּמוֹתוֹ כְּגוֹן פֵּרוֹת אוֹ יְרִיעוֹת שֶׁל צֶמֶר וְשֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן הַשָּׁווֹת בְּכָל עִנְיָנָם אוֹ קוֹרוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן מְצֻיָּרוֹת וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם וְאֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה פִּקְדוֹן בְּהֵמָה אוֹ בֶּגֶד מְצֻיָּר אוֹ כְּלִי מְתֻקָּן אוֹ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹצֵא לִקְנוֹת כְּמוֹתוֹ בַּשּׁוּק חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא עֵינָיו נָתַן בּוֹ וּמַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ בְּתַקָּנַת חֲכָמִים שְׁבוּעָה בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְשַׁלֵּם. וְהוּא הַדִּין לִשְׁאָר הַשּׁוֹמְרִין כְּגוֹן הַשּׁוֹאֵל שֶׁאָמַר מֵתָה אוֹ נִגְנְבָה וְשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר שֶׁאָמַר נִגְנְבָה אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן חַיָּבִין לְשַׁלֵּם מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָן שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בִּרְשׁוּתָן וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְשַׁלְּמִין דְּמֵי הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ הַחֵפֶץ שֶׁאָנוּ חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא עֵינָיו נָתַן בָּהּ. וְאִם אָמְרוּ הַבְּעָלִים יֶתֶר עַל זֶה הָיָה שָׁוֶה כּוֹלֵל בִּשְׁבוּעָתוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ שָׁוָה אֶלָּא כָּךְ וְכָךְ. נִמְצָא כָּל שׁוֹמֵר שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין כּוֹלֵל בִּשְׁבוּעָתוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים. שֶׁשָּׁמַר כְּדֶרֶךְ הַשּׁוֹמְרִין. וְשֶׁאֵרְעוֹ כָּךְ וְכָךְ וְאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ. וְשֶׁלֹּא שָׁלַח בּוֹ יָד קֹדֶם שֶׁאֵרְעוֹ הַמְאֹרָע הַפּוֹטֵר אוֹתוֹ. וְאִם רָצָה לְשַׁלֵּם נִשְׁבָּע שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וְכוֹלֵל בִּשְׁבוּעָתוֹ שֶׁכָּךְ וְכָךְ הָיָה שָׁוֶה: \n", + "יֵשׁ לַשּׁוֹמֵר לְהַתְנוֹת שֶׁאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵר כְּדֶרֶךְ הַשּׁוֹמְרִין אֶלָּא מָעוֹת אֵלּוּ שֶׁהִפְקִיד אֶצְלִי בְּזָוִית בֵּיתִי אֲנִי מַנִּיחַ אוֹתָן וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. טָעַן הַשּׁוֹמֵר שֶׁתְּנַאי הָיָה בֵּינֵינוּ וּבַעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן אוֹמֵר לֹא הָיָה שָׁם תְּנַאי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִפְקִיד אֶצְלוֹ בְּעֵדִים מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר שָׁמַרְתִּי כְּדֶרֶךְ הַשּׁוֹמְרִין וְנֶאֱנַסְתִּי נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר שֶׁהָיָה בֵּינֵיהֶן תְּנַאי לְפִיכָךְ יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁלֹּא שָׁלַח יָד בּוֹ וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וְשֶׁהָיָה בֵּינֵיהֶן תְּנַאי: \n", + "שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם שֶׁהֵבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁלֹּא פָּשַׁע בָּהּ פָּטוּר מִשְּׁבוּעָה וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים שֶׁמָּא שָׁלַח בּוֹ יָד קֹדֶם שֶׁיֹּאבַד. וּבַעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁהֵבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁפָּשַׁע הַשּׁוֹמֵר מְשַׁלֵּם. וְאִם טָעַן וְאָמַר תְּנַאי הָיָה בֵּינֵינוּ אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁפָּשַׁע: \n", + "הִפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ בְּעֵדִים וּבָאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁזֶּה הַחֵפֶץ בְּפָנֵינוּ הִפְקִידוֹ אֶצְלוֹ אֵין הַשּׁוֹמֵר יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן וְלוֹמַר חָזַרְתִּי וּלְקַחְתִּיו מִמֶּנּוּ אוֹ נְתָנוֹ לִי בְּמַתָּנָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם מֵת הַשּׁוֹמֵר מוֹצִיאִין הַפִּקָּדוֹן עַצְמוֹ מִן הַיְתוֹמִים בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא מִי שֶׁבָּא וְאָמַר כָּךְ וְכָךְ הִפְקַדְתִּי אֵצֶל אֲבִיכֶם וְנָתַן סִימָנִין מֻבְהָקִין וְנִמְצָא הַפִּקָּדוֹן כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה יוֹדֵעַ הַדַּיָּן שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה הַמֵּת אָמוּד שֶׁזֶּה הַפִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁלּוֹ. יֵשׁ לוֹ לַדַּיָּן הַזֶּה לָתֵת הַפִּקָּדוֹן לְזֶה שֶׁנָּתַן סִימָנָיו. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה הַמַּפְקִיד רָגִיל לְהִכָּנֵס אֵצֶל זֶה שֶׁמֵּת אֲבָל אִם הָיָה רָגִיל לִכָּנֵס אֶצְלוֹ שֶׁמָּא שֶׁל אַחֵר הוּא וְהִכִּיר הַסִּימָנִין שֶׁלּוֹ. בָּאוּ עֵדִים וְהֵעִידוּ לַדַּיָּן שֶׁאֵין זֶה אָמוּד אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיַּד הַיְתוֹמִים בְּעֵדוּתָן שֶׁאֵין זֶה רְאָיָה בְּרוּרָה וְאֻמְדַּן דַּעְתָּן אֵינוֹ אֹמֶד דַּעְתּוֹ וְאֵין לוֹ לַדַּיָּן אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁדַּעְתּוֹ סוֹמֶכֶת עָלָיו כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת סַנְהֶדְרִין. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהִפְקִיד שֻׁמְשְׁמִין אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ בְּעֵדִים וּבָא לְתָבְעוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ הֶחְזַרְתִּים. אָמַר לוֹ הַמַּפְקִיד וַהֲלֹא כָּךְ וְכָךְ הִיא מִדָּתָם וַהֲרֵי הֵם מֻנָּחִים אֶצְלְךָ בְּחָבִיתְךָ. אָמַר לוֹ שֶׁלְּךָ הֶחְזַרְתִּי לְךָ וְאֵלּוּ אֲחֵרִים הֵן. וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ שֶׁמָּא אֵלּוּ הַשֻּׁמְשְׁמִין שֶׁל שׁוֹמֵר הֵן אֶלָּא יִשָּׁבַע הַשּׁוֹמֵר בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ שֶׁהֶחְזִיר כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "בַּעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁתָּבַע פִּקְדּוֹנוֹ וְנָתַן לוֹ הַשּׁוֹמֵר וְאָמַר הַמַּפְקִיד אֵין זֶה פִּקְדוֹנִי אֶלָּא אַחֵר הוּא אוֹ שָׁלֵם הָיָה וְאַתָּה שְׁבַרְתּוֹ אוֹ חָדָשׁ הָיָה וְנִשְׁתַּמַּשְׁתָּ בּוֹ. מֵאָה סְאִין הִפְקַדְתִּי אֶצְלְךָ וְאֵין אֵלּוּ אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹמֵר זֶהוּ שֶׁהִפְקַדְתָּ בְּעַצְמְךָ וּמַה שֶּׁנָּתַתָּ אַתָּה נוֹטֵל. הֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹמֵר נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת כִּשְׁאָר כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין שֶׁאֵין כָּל שׁוֹמֵר נִשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁמּוֹדֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ שֶׁל פִּקָּדוֹן כְּמוֹ שֶׁהַמַּפְקִיד אוֹמֵר וְטוֹעֵן שֶׁנִּגְנַב אוֹ מֵת אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר טוֹעֵן לִפְטֹר עַצְמוֹ מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין [נִשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת שׁוֹמְרִין]. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר זֶהוּ שֶׁהִשְׁאַלְתַּנִי אוֹ שֶׁהִשְׂכַּרְתָּ לִי אוֹ שֶׁנָּטַלְתִּי שָׂכָר עַל שְׁמִירָתִי וְהַבְּעָלִים אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ זֶה אֶלָּא אַחֵר אוֹ נִשְׁתַּנָּה מִכְּמוֹת שֶׁהָיָה הַשּׂוֹכֵר נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת אוֹ שְׁבוּעַת הַתּוֹרָה אִם הוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת. כֵּיצַד. מֵאָה סְאָה הִפְקַדְתִּי אֶצְלְךָ וְהַשּׁוֹמֵר אוֹמֵר לֹא הִפְקַדְתָּ אֶצְלִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים נִשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הַתּוֹרָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת לֹא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין. מֵאָה כּוֹר שֶׁל חִטִּים הִפְקַדְתִּי אֶצְלְךָ וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא הִפְקַדְתָּ אֶצְלִי אֶלָּא מֵאָה שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִים נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת כִּשְׁאָר כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בְּטַעֲנָה כָּזוֹ: \n" + ], + [ + "הַמַּפְקִיד פֵּרוֹת אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִגַּע בָּהֶן וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן חוֹסְרִין וּמִתְמַעֲטִין וְהוֹלְכִין. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁחָסְרוּ חִסָּרוֹן הָרָאוּי לָהֶן בְּכָל שָׁנָה. אֲבָל אִם חָסְרוּ יוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן מוֹכְרָן בְּבֵית דִּין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מֵשִׁיב אֲבֵדָה לַבְּעָלִים. וּכְשֶׁהוּא מוֹכְרָן יִמְכֹּר לַכֹּהֲנִים בִּדְמֵי תְּרוּמָה שֶׁמָּא עָשׂוּ אוֹתָן הַבְּעָלִים תְּרוּמָה אוֹ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עַל פֵּרוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת: \n", + "הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ פֵּרוֹת וְהִרְקִיבוּ דְּבַשׁ וְנִפְסַד יַיִן וְהֶחְמִיץ עוֹשֶׂה תַּקָּנָה לְבַעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן וּמוֹכְרָן בְּבֵית דִּין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעָמְדוּ בְּהֶפְסֵדָן וְאֵין הַהֶפְסֵד פּוֹשֶׂה בָּהֶן הֲרֵי הַקַּנְקַנִּים וְהַסַּלִּים מוֹסִיפִין הֶפְסֵד: \n", + "הַמַּפְקִיד חָמֵץ אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ וְהִגִּיעַ הַפֶּסַח הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִגַּע בּוֹ עַד שָׁעָה חֲמִישִׁית מִיּוֹם אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר. מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ יוֹצֵא וּמוֹכְרוֹ בַּשּׁוּק לִשְׁעָתוֹ מִשּׁוּם הֶשֵּׁב אֲבֵדָה לַבְּעָלִים. וְהוּא הַדִּין לִשְׁאָר הַפִּקְדוֹנוֹת שֶׁלֹּא יִגַּע בָּהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁיִּזּוֹלוּ בִּזְמַן פְּלוֹנִי אוֹ יֶאֱנֹס אוֹתָם הַמֶּלֶךְ שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא בַּעֲלֵיהֶן מִקֹּדֶם וְיִטְּלוּ מָמוֹנָם: \n", + "הַמַּפְקִיד סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ גּוֹלְלוֹ פַּעַם אַחַת לִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. וְאִם כְּשֶׁהוּא גּוֹלְלוֹ פּוֹתְחוֹ וְקָרָא בּוֹ מֻתָּר. אֲבָל לֹא יִפְתַּח בִּגְלַל עַצְמוֹ וְיִקְרָא. וְהוּא הַדִּין שְׁאָר סְפָרִים. וְאִם פָּתַח וְקָרָא וְגָלַל בִּגְלַל עַצְמוֹ הֲרֵי שָׁלַח יָד בַּפִּקָּדוֹן וְנִתְחַיֵּב בָּאֳנָסִין. הִפְקִיד אֶצְלוֹ כְּסוּת שֶׁל צֶמֶר מְנַעְנְעָהּ אַחַת לִשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאָמְרוּ בַּאֲבֵדָה כָּךְ אָמְרוּ בַּפִּקָּדוֹן. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה שֶׁזּוֹ חוֹבָה עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם הֶשֵּׁב אֲבֵדָה לַבְּעָלִים. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּפִקָּדוֹן שֶׁהָלְכוּ בְּעָלָיו לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ עִמּוֹ בְּאוֹתָהּ הָאָרֶץ הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִגַּע בּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא אָבֵד: \n", + "כָּל הַמּוֹכֵר פִּקָּדוֹן עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין הֲרֵי זֶה מוֹכֵר לַאֲחֵרִים וְאֵינוֹ מוֹכֵר לְעַצְמוֹ מִפְּנֵי הַחֲשָׁד וְהַדָּמִים יִהְיוּ מֻנָּחִים אֶצְלוֹ וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן. לְפִיכָךְ הֲרֵי הוּא עֲלֵיהֶן שׁוֹמֵר שׂוֹכֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן: \n", + "הַמַּפְקִיד מָעוֹת אֵצֶל חֶנְוָנִי אוֹ הַשֻּׁלְחָנִי אִם הָיוּ צְרוּרִין וַחֲתוּמִין אוֹ קְשׁוּרִין קֶשֶׁר מְשֻׁנֶּה הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן לְפִיכָךְ אִם אָבְדוּ אוֹ נִגְנְבוּ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן. וְאִם אֵינָן חֲתוּמִין וְלֹא קְשׁוּרִין קֶשֶׁר מְשֻׁנֶּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן צְרוּרִין יֵשׁ לוֹ לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן לְפִיכָךְ הוּא נַעֲשֶׂה עֲלֵיהֶם שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר וְאִם אָבְדוּ אוֹ נִגְנְבוּ חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן וְאִם נֶאֶנְסוּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָבְדוּ בְּלִסְטִים מְזֻיָּן הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן אֲבָל אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן נִתְחַיֵּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן כְּכָל מִלְוֶה שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם עַד שֶׁיַּחְזִירֵם לַבְּעָלִים: \n", + "הַמַּפְקִיד מָעוֹת אֵצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת בֵּין צְרוּרִין בֵּין מֻתָּרִין הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן לְפִיכָךְ אִם אָבְדוּ אוֹ נִגְנְבוּ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּטְמְנֵם בַּקַּרְקַע כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "הַמַּפְקִיד חָבִית אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ בֵּין שֶׁיִּחֲדוּ לָהּ הַבְּעָלִים מָקוֹם בֵּין לֹא יִחֲדוּ לָהּ מָקוֹם וְטִלְטְלָהּ לְצָרְכּוֹ וְנִשְׁבְּרָה בֵּין מִתּוֹךְ יָדוֹ נִשְׁבְּרָה בֵּין אַחַר שֶׁהֶחְזִירָהּ לַמָּקוֹם שֶׁיִּחֲדוּ לָהּ נִשְׁבְּרָה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. טִלְטְלָהּ לְצָרְכָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרָה מִתּוֹךְ יָדוֹ בֵּין שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרָה מִשֶּׁהֵנִיחָהּ בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר פָּטוּר: \n", + "אֵין מְקַבְּלִין פִּקְדוֹנוֹת לֹא מִן הַנָּשִׁים וְלֹא מִן הָעֲבָדִים וְלֹא מִן הַתִּינוֹקוֹת. קִבֵּל מִן הָאִשָּׁה יַחְזִיר לָאִשָּׁה. מֵתָה יַחְזִיר לְבַעֲלָהּ. קִבֵּל מִן הָעֶבֶד יַחְזִיר לָעֶבֶד. מֵת יַחְזִיר לְרַבּוֹ. קִבֵּל מִן הַקָּטָן יִקְנֶה לוֹ בּוֹ סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה אוֹ דֶּקֶל שֶׁיֹּאכַל בָּהֶן פֵּרוֹתָיו. וְכֻלָּן שֶׁאָמְרוּ בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָתָן שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי הֵם אִם נֶאֱמָנִין לוֹ יַעֲשֶׂה כְּפֵרוּשָׁן וְאִם לָאו יַחְזִיר לְיוֹרְשֵׁיהֶם: \n", + "הַפִּקָּדוֹן וְהָאֲבֵדָה לֹא נִתְּנוּ לִתָּבַע אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹמָם. כֵּיצַד. הִפְקִיד אֶצְלוֹ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְתָבְעוֹ בְּנֹב וְאִם הֶחְזִיר לוֹ בְּנֹב מְקַבְּלוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ. הִפְקִיד אֶצְלוֹ בַּיִּשּׁוּב וְהֵבִיא פִּקְדוֹנוֹ בַּמִּדְבָּר אֵינוֹ מְקַבְּלוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ אֶלָּא יֹאמַר לוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא בְּאַחְרָיוּתְךָ עַד שֶׁתַּחֲזִירֶנּוּ לִי בַּיִּשּׁוּב כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהִפְקַדְתִּי אֶצְלְךָ בַּיִּשּׁוּב: \n", + "הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ וְהָלַךְ בַּעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וַהֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹמֵר רָצָה לְפָרֵשׁ מִיַּבָּשָׁה לַיָּם אוֹ לָצֵאת בְּשַׁיָּרָא יֵשׁ מִי שֶׁהוֹרָה שֶׁאִם בָּא הַשּׁוֹמֵר וְהֵבִיא הַפִּקָּדוֹן לְבֵית דִּין נִפְטַר מֵאַחֲרָיוּת שְׁמִירָתוֹ וּדְבָרִים שֶׁל טַעַם הֵם שֶׁאֵין אוֹסְרִין זֶה בִּמְדִינָה זוֹ מִפְּנֵי פִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁל זֶה שֶׁהָלַךְ וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לְהוֹלִיכוֹ עִמּוֹ שֶׁמָּא יֶאֱרַע לוֹ אֹנֶס וְיִהְיֶה חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתוֹ וּבֵית דִּין מַפְקִידִין אוֹתוֹ בְּיַד נֶאֱמָן אֶצְלָם מִשּׁוּם הֶשֵּׁב אֲבֵדָה לַבְּעָלִים: \n" + ], + [ + "הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ בְּהֵמָה אוֹ כֵּלִים וְנִגְנְבוּ אוֹ אָבְדוּ אָמַר הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם וְאֵינִי נִשְׁבָּע וְנִמְצָא הַגַּנָּב מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶּפֶל. טָבַח אוֹ מָכַר מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. לְמִי מְשַׁלֵּם לְמִי שֶׁהָיָה הַפִּקָּדוֹן אֶצְלוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמַר אֲשַׁלֵּם. חָזְרָה הַבְּהֵמָה עַצְמָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת לִבְעָלֶיהָ הִיא וְגִזּוֹתֶיהָ וּוַלְדוֹתֶיהָ שֶׁאֵין זֶה הַשּׁוֹמֵר קוֹנֶה שֶׁבַח הַבָּא מִגּוּפָהּ אֶלָּא שֶׁבַח הַבָּא מֵאֵלָיו. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁאֵין הַגַּנָּב מַחְזִיר גִּזּוֹת וּוְלָדוֹת אֶלָּא לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ. נִשְׁבַּע הַשּׁוֹמֵר וְלֹא רָצָה לְשַׁלֵּם וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצָא הַגַּנָּב מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶּפֶל. טָבַח אוֹ מָכַר מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. לְמִי מְשַׁלֵּם לְבַעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן. וְכֵן הַשּׂוֹכֵר פָּרָה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וְנִגְנְבָה וְאָמַר הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם וְאֵינִי נִשְׁבָּע וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֻכַּר הַגַּנָּב מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶּפֶל וְתַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה לַשּׂוֹכֵר. שֶׁאִלּוּ רָצָה הַשּׂוֹכֵר הָיָה נִשְׁבָּע שֶׁנִּגְנְבָה בְּאֹנֶס וְנִפְטָר: \n", + "שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם שֶׁאָמַר פָּשַׁעְתִּי זָכָה בַּכֶּפֶל שֶׁהֲרֵי חִיֵּב עַצְמוֹ לְשַׁלֵּם וְאִלּוּ רָצָה אָמַר נִגְנְבָה אוֹ אָבְדָה וְהָיָה פָּטוּר. וְכֵן נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר שֶׁאָמַר נִגְנְבָה קָנָה הַכֶּפֶל שֶׁהֲרֵי חִיֵּב עַצְמוֹ לְשַׁלֵּם וְאִלּוּ רָצָה אָמַר מֵתָה וְהָיָה נִפְטָר. אֲבָל הַשּׁוֹאֵל אֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה הַכֶּפֶל עַד שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּם מֵעַצְמוֹ קָדַם וְשִׁלֵּם מֵעַצְמוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֻכַּר הַגַּנָּב מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה לַשּׁוֹאֵל: \n", + "כָּל הַקוֹנֶה הַכֶּפֶל קוֹנֶה הַשֶּׁבַח הַבָּא מֵאֵלָיו. כֵּיצַד. הִפְקִיד אַרְבַּע סְאִין אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ וַהֲרֵי הֵן שָׁוִין סֶלַע וְנִגְנְבוּ אוֹ אָבְדוּ וְאָמַר הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם סֶלַע וְאֵינִי נִשְׁבָּע וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצְאוּ וַהֲרֵי הֵן שָׁוִין אַרְבָּעָה סְלָעִים הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁל שׁוֹמֵר וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא סֶלַע. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁלֹּא הִטְרִיחָן לַבְּעָלִים בַּדִּין אֲבָל אִם הוֹדָה שֶׁפָּשַׁע וְחִיְּבוּהוּ בֵּית דִּין לִתֵּן וְלֹא נָתַן בִּרְצוֹנוֹ עַד שֶׁכָּפוּהוּ בֵּית דִּין עַל כָּרְחוֹ וְנָטְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֻכַּר הַגַּנָּב אוֹ נִמְצָא הַפִּקָּדוֹן יַחְזִיר לַבְּעָלִים כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא וּמַחְזִירִין לַשּׁוֹמֵר הַדָּמִים שֶׁלָּקְחוּ מִמֶּנּו. וְאִם כֵּלִים אוֹ קַרְקַע גָּבוּ בֵּית דִּין מִמֶּנּוּ בְּשׁוּמָא מַחְזִיר לַשּׁוֹמֵר כֵּלָיו אוֹ שָׂדֵהוּ: \n", + "תְּבָעוּהוּ בְּעָלִים לַשּׁוֹמֵר וְנִשְׁבַּע וְאַחַר כָּךְ שִׁלֵּם וְהֻכַּר הַגַּנָּב הוֹאִיל וְשִׁלֵּם בִּרְצוֹנוֹ זָכָה בַּכֶּפֶל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִטְרִיחוֹ בַּתְּחִלָּה לַדִּין עַד שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע. אָמַר הַשּׁוֹמֵר בַּתְּחִלָּה אֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם וְחָזַר וְאָמַר הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם זָכָה בַּכֶּפֶל: \n", + "אָמַר הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם וְחָזַר וְאָמַר אֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם וּמֵת וְאָמְרוּ הַבָּנִים אֵין אָנוּ מְשַׁלְּמִין. אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא הִסְפִּיק לִתְבֹּעַ אֶת הַשּׁוֹמֵר עַד שֶׁמֵּת וְתָבַע הַבָּנִים וְשִׁלְּמוּ בְּנֵי הַשּׁוֹמֵר. אוֹ שֶׁשִּׁלְּמוּ הַבָּנִים לַבָּנִים. אוֹ שֶׁשִּׁלֵּם הַשּׁוֹמֵר מֶחֱצָה. שָׁאַל שְׁתֵּי פָּרוֹת וְשִׁלֵּם אַחַת מֵהֶן. שָׁאַל מֵהַשֻּׁתָּפִין וְשִׁלֵּם לְאֶחָד מֵהֶן. שֻׁתָּפִין שֶׁשָּׁאֲלוּ וְשִׁלֵּם אֶחָד מֵהֶן. שָׁאַל מִן הָאִשָּׁה וְשִׁלֵּם לְבַעֲלָהּ. אִשָּׁה שֶׁשָּׁאֲלָה וְשִׁלֵּם בַּעְלָהּ. כָּל אֵלּוּ סָפֵק וַהֲרֵי הַכֶּפֶל מֻטָּל בְּסָפֵק וְאֵינוֹ תַּחַת יַד אֶחָד מֵהֶן לְפִיכָךְ חוֹלְקִין הַכֶּפֶל אוֹ הַשֶּׁבַח בֵּין בַּעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן וּבֵין הַשּׁוֹמֵר. וְאִם קָדַם אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְתָפַס הַכּל אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ: \n", + "נִגְנַב הַפִּקָּדוֹן בְּאֹנֶס וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֻכַּר הַגַּנָּב אֶחָד שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְאֶחָד שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר עוֹשֶׂה דִּין עִם הַגַּנָּב וְאֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע. קָדַם וְנִשְׁבָּע וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֻכַּר הַגַּנָּב אִם שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם הוּא רָצָה עוֹמֵד בִּשְׁבוּעָתוֹ רָצָה עוֹשֶׂה דִּין עִם הַגַּנָּב וְאִם שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר הוּא עוֹשֶׂה עִמּוֹ דִּין. נִגְנַב הַפִּקָּדוֹן בְּאֹנֶס וְהֶחֱזִירוֹ הַגַּנָּב לְבֵית הַשּׁוֹמֵר וַהֲרֵי הוּא בְּהֵמָה וּמֵתָה שָׁם בִּפְשִׁיעָה יֵשׁ בַּדָּבָר סָפֵק אִם כָּלְתָה שְׁמִירָתוֹ וְנִפְטַר אוֹ עֲדַיִן לֹא כָּלְתָה שְׁמִירָתוֹ לְפִיכָךְ הַשּׁוֹמֵר פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. וְאִם תָּפְסוּ הַבְּעָלִים אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדָם: סְלִיקוּ לְהוּ הִלְכוֹת שְׁאֵלָה וּפִּקָדוֹן \n" + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Torat Emet 363", + "http://www.toratemetfreeware.com/index.html?downloads" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות שאלה ופיקדון", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor/English/Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, edited by Philip Birnbaum, New York, 1967.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor/English/Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, edited by Philip Birnbaum, New York, 1967.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..20c66d1d50ba7b97e92af133af404ba463200c1f --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor/English/Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, edited by Philip Birnbaum, New York, 1967.json @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor", + "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002108864", + "versionTitle": "Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, edited by Philip Birnbaum, New York, 1967", + "status": "locked", + "priority": 1.0, + "digitizedBySefaria": true, + "versionTitleInHebrew": "משנה תורה להרמב״ם, נערך בידי פיליפ בירנבאום, ניו יורק 1967", + "shortVersionTitle": "Philip Birnbaum, 1967", + "purchaseInformationImage": "https://storage.googleapis.com/sefaria-physical-editions/0764e2804bb6f859975bf73b29e7a28c.png", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": false, + "isSource": false, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות מלווה ולווה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "It is a biblical positive command to lend to Israelite poor people, as it is written: \"If you lend money to my people, to the poor among you\" (Exodus 22:24).— — This precept is greater than giving charity to a poor man who asks for it, since the one is already in need of begging while the other has not yet reached that stage. The Torah is strict with a person who refrains from lending to the poor, as it is written: \"Beware lest … you grudge help to your needy brother…\" (Deuteronomy 15:9).", + "Anyone who acts as a creditor toward the poor, when he knows that the debtor has nothing to repay, breaks a prohibitive command, as it is written: \"You shall not act like an extortioner toward him\" (Exodus 22:24).— —", + "One is forbidden to show himself to his debtor, or even to pass in front of him, when he knows that the debtor has no money to repay, lest he might frighten or embarrass him, although he makes no demand upon him, and needless to say if he does demand payment. Just as the creditor is forbidden to demand payment, so is the debtor forbidden to detain the creditor's money in his possession and to say to him go and come again, provided he has the money, as it is written: \"Do not say to your neighbor: Go, and come again\" (Proverbs 3:28). So too, the debtor is forbidden to borrow money and spend it for no purpose or waste it, so that the creditor will find nothing to collect, even if the creditor is very rich. Anyone who acts in this manner is evil, as it is written: \"The godless never pays back what he borrows\" (Psalm 38:21). The sages have enjoined: \"Let your friend's property be as precious to you as your own\" (Avoth 2:17)." + ], + [], + [], + [ + "The Hebrew terms neshekh and marbith (usury and interest) are one and the same thing, as it is written: \"Do not lend him your money at advance interest, do not give him your food at accrued interest\" (Leviticus 25:37). Thereafter the Torah says: \"You shall not deduct interest from loans to your brother, whether in money or food or anything else that can be deducted as interest\" (Deuteronomy 23:20). Why is it called neshekh (biting)? Because the usurer bites, inflicting pain to another person and eating his flesh. Why has Scripture used two different terms for interest? So that the usurer should be punished for transgressing two prohibitive commands.", + "Just as it is forbidden to lend money on interest, so is it forbidden to borrow on interest, as it is written: \"You shall not cause your brother to bite\" (20), which is traditionally interpreted as a warning to the borrower, namely: do not let yourself be bitten by your brother.— —" + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "If a man lent money to another in the presence of witnesses and told him: \"Pay me only in the presence of witnesses,\" the borrower must pay him in the presence of witnesses on account of the stipulation, whether the lender told him so at the time he made the loan or thereafter. If the borrower claimed, saying to him: \"I did what you told me and paid you in the presence of so-and-so who have gone overseas or died,\" he is believed, and he takes an exemption oath and is released.— — If, however, he told him: \"Pay me only in the presence of so-and-so,\" and the borrower said: \"I paid you in the presence of others who have died or have gone overseas,\" he is not believed. It was to forestall such a plea that the lender stipulated with the borrower, saying to him: \"Pay me only in the presence of Reuben and Simeon,\" who were staying with him in the same place, so that the borrower should not dismiss him by claiming: \"I have paid in the presence of others who are gone.\"", + "There are talumdic texts in which it is written: \"If a man said to another pay me only in the presence of witnesses, and the borrower then claimed I have paid you in the presence of so-and-so who have gone overseas, he is not believed.\" This is a scribal error. Those who have given a decision in accordance with those texts have been in error. I have examined the old texts and found therein that he is believed. In Egypt, I have obtained a fragment of an old text of the Talmud written on parchment, upon which they used to write some five hundred years ago, and I have found this halakhah (rule) written on two specimens of parchment as follows: \"If he said I have paid in the presence of so-and-so who have gone overseas, he is believed.\" Because of this error, which has occurred in some texts, some Geonim have taught that if he told him pay me only in the presence of so-and-so, and he paid him in the presence of others, he is not believed even if he has produced the witnesses in whose presence he paid him. This too is a serious error. The true law is that if witnesses came and testified that the borrower had paid the lender in their presence, the borrower is released; and there is no room here for any doubt.— —", + "If the lender stipulated with the borrower that he should be believed at any time he might say that the latter has not paid him, he collects what he claims without an oath, even though the borrower pleads that he has paid him. But if the borrower produced witnesses of payment, the lender collects nothing.", + "", + "If the borrower paid the debt and the lender claimed that he had not been paid, and the borrower paid him a second time because of the stipulation, the borrower may sue the lender, telling him: \"You owe me such an amount because I have paid you twice.\" If the lender has admitted, he must pay back the extra amount ; if he has denied, he must take an exemption oath to the effect that the borrower paid him only once. The same applies to all similar cases." + ], + [], + [], + [ + "If a man lent money to another vaguely (without express terms), all the debtor's estate serves as security for the loan. Accordingly, when the creditor comes to collect the debt, he sues the debtor first. If he has found property in his possession, whether movables or real estate, he collects out of these with the debtor's consent; and if the debtor has refused to give his consent, the court compels him to pay. If the debtor's available property has been insufficient to cover the amount of the promissory note, the creditor may collect out of all the landed property which belonged to the debtor previously, even though it has been sold, or transferred in the form of a gift to others. The creditor may evict the buyers or the donees, since the debtor sold the property, or transferred it in the form of a gift to others, after he had become obligated for the debt. A creditor seizing the property which has been sold by the debtor is called in Hebrew toref (seizor, one who seizes). This applies only to landed property owned by the debtor at the time he borrowed the money ; but property which he acquired after he had borrowed the money has not been mortgaged to the creditor, and he may not seize it. If, however, the creditor stipulated that all the property which the debtor should ever acquire should serve as mortgage for the payment of the debt, and the debtor acquired property after he had taken the loan and then sold it, or transferred it in the form of a gift, the creditor may seize it.", + "All this applies only to landed property, but movables do not serve as security.— — If, however, the debtor conveyed a security title to all his movables in conjunction with such title to his land, the creditor may seize such movables. — —" + ], + [], + [ + "If a man has many debts, the creditor whose loan was advanced first collects first whether from the property of the debtor himself or from the purchasers. If a creditor who is next in time hastened to collect first, the court takes it back from him, because the lender who is prior in time is prior in right. This rule applies only to landed property which the debtor owned at the time he took the loan ; however, the law of priority does not apply with respect to property which the debtor acquired after he had borrowed from many creditors, even if he did write in the note which he gave to each creditor: \"What I will acquire is mortgaged to you.\" All such creditors are equal, and if one of them collected first, he was entitled to do so, even if he was the last one.", + "— — The law of priority does not exist with respect to movables, but whoever hastened to collect from them was entitled to it, even if he was the last. If a non-creditor seized some of the debtor's movables to obtain title on behalf of one of the creditors, the latter has not acquired title, because anyone who seizes movables on behalf of a creditor where there is another debt outstanding against the debtor does not acquire title on behalf of such a creditor. But if there is no other debt outstanding against the debtor, he does acquire title on the creditor's behalf.— —" + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor/English/Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor/English/Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9fc13960d12bbc8c47d70373fa4bc6273e741150 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor/English/Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007.json @@ -0,0 +1,383 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor", + "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI", + "versionTitle": "Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007", + "status": "locked", + "priority": 2.0, + "license": "CC-BY-NC", + "versionNotes": "\n Dedicated in memory of Irving Montak, z\"l

© Published and Copyright by Moznaim Publications.
Must obtain written permission from Moznaim Publications for any commercial use. Any use must cite Copyright by Moznaim Publications. Released into the commons with a CC-BY-NC license.\n ", + "digitizedBySefaria": false, + "shortVersionTitle": "Trans. by Eliyahu Touger, Moznaim Publishing", + "purchaseInformationImage": "https://storage.googleapis.com/sefaria-physical-editions/touger-mishneh-torah-hilkhot-teshuvah-purchase-img.png", + "purchaseInformationURL": "https://moznaim.com/products/mishneh-torah-rambam", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": false, + "isSource": false, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות מלווה ולווה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "It is a positive commandment to lend money to the poor among Israel, as Exodus 23:24 states: \"If you will lend money to My nation, to the poor among you.\" Lest one think that this is a matter left to the person's choice, it is also stated Deuteronomy 15:8: \"You shall certainly loan to him.\"
This mitzvah surpasses the mitzvah of charity given to a poor person who asks for alms. For the latter person had already been compelled to ask, and this one has not yet sunk that low. Indeed, the Torah is very severe with regard to a person who does not lend money to a poor person, stating Ibid.:9: \"Beware lest there be a defiant thought in your heart... and you look badly upon your poor brother and you not give him.\"", + "Whenever a person presses a poor person for payment when he knows that he does not have the means to repay the debt, he transgresses a negative commandment, as Exodus 22:24 states: \"Do not act as a creditor toward him.\" It is, by contrast, a positive mitzvah to press a gentile for payment and to cause him exasperation, as Deuteronomy 15:3 states: \"Press a gentile for payment.\" According to the Oral Tradition, we have learned that this is a positive commandment.", + "It is forbidden for one to appear before a person who owes him money when he knows that the debtor does not have the means to repay the debt. It is even forbidden to pass before him, lest one frighten him or embarrass him, even though one does not demand payment. Needless to say, this applies if he demands payment.
Just as it is forbidden for a creditor to demand payment; so, too, it is forbidden for a borrower to withhold money that he possesses due a colleague, telling him: \"Go and return,\" as Proverbs 3:28 states: \"Do not tell your colleague: 'Go and return.'\"
Similarly, it is forbidden for a borrower to take a loan and use it when it is unnecessary and lose it, leaving his creditor without a source to collect the debt. This applies even if the owner is very wealthy. A person who acts in this way is wicked, as Psalms 37:21 states: \"A wicked man borrows and does not pay.\" Our Sages commanded: \"Treat money belonging to your colleague as dearly as your own.\"", + "When a lender demands payment of a loan - even if he is wealthy and the borrower is in a pressing situation and struggles to support his family - we are not merciful in judgment. Instead, we expropriate all the movable property\" that the person owns to pay the last penny of the debt. If the movable property he owns is not sufficient, we expropriate the landed property after issuing a ban of ostracism against any person who possesses movable property or knows of movable property he possesses and does not bring it to court.
We expropriate all the landed property the borrower possesses, even if it is on lien to the ketubah of the borrower's wife or to another creditor with a prior lien. We expropriate it for this creditor. If ultimately, the person with the prior lien will come to claim the property, he may expropriate it from the creditor to whom it was given.
If the lender claims that the movable property in his domain does not belong to him, but instead was entrusted to him, rented by him, or lent to him, we do not heed his words. He must prove his statements or the property will be expropriated by the creditor.", + "A creditor may not collect his due by expropriating the wardrobe of the debtor's wife or his sons, not from colored garments that were dyed for them even though they have not worn them yet, nor from new sandals that were purchased for them. These belong to the wife and the children themselves. When does the above apply? With regard to their weekday garments. The creditor may, by contrast, expropriate their Sabbath and festival garments. Needless to say, if they own rings or golden or silver ornaments, they must all be given to the creditor.", + "The following rules apply when a borrower owned movable property or landed property, but also had outstanding promissory notes owed to gentiles. If he says: \"All of my property is on lien to gentiles; if Jews take the property as payment for their debts, the gentiles will imprison me because of the debts I owe them, and I will be in captivity,\" my teachers have ruled that his words are not heeded, and the Jews are granted the right to expropriate his property. If the gentiles come and imprison him, all of Israel is commanded to redeem him.", + "We allow a debtor consideration in the same manner that consideration is granted to a person who makes a pledge to the Temple treasury and is unable to pay it.
What is implied? The court tells the borrower: \"Bring all the movable property that you own; don't leave anything, not even a needle.\"
After he brings his possessions, we give him from everything that he has brought:
a) food for 30 days;
b) clothing for 12 months that is appropriate for him - he should not wear silk clothes or a hat crowned with gold; instead, such garments are taken away from him and he is given appropriate garments for 12 months;
c) a couch to sit on and a bed and a mattress to sleep on; if he is a poor man, he is given a bed and a straw mattress to sleep on. These articles are not given to his wife or to his children, despite the fact that he is obligated to provide them with sustenance.
The borrower is also given his sandals and his tefillin. If he is a craftsman, he is given two of the tools of his craft of every type necessary. For example, if he is a carpenter, he is given two awls and two planes. If he has many types of one utensil and only one of another, he is granted two of the utensil of which he possesses many, and all that he owns of that he possesses one. We do not purchase other tools for him from the sale of those many tools.
Although the borrower is a farmer or a donkey driver, we do not grant him his team of oxen or his donkey. Similarly, if he is a sailor, we do not give him his ship, even though these are his only sources of livelihood. The rationale is that these articles are not considered utensils, but rather property. They should be sold with the other movable property in court and the proceeds given to the creditor.", + "The following law applies when a creditor comes to expropriate payment outside the presence of the borrower - e.g., the borrower journeyed to a distant country. If the borrower's wife seized possession of movable property belonging to her husband to sell so that she could derive her livelihood from it, it is expropriated from her and given to the creditor. The rationale is that even if her husband were present, he would not be entitled to provide for the sustenance of his wife and sons until he paid his debt in its entirety." + ], + [ + "According to Scriptural Law, when a creditor demands payment of his debt, and the debtor possesses some property, consideration is granted to the debtor and the remainder of the possessions are granted to the creditor, as explained.
If no property belonging to the debtor is found or only those items that are granted to him in consideration are found, the debtor is enabled to go free.
We do not imprison him, nor do we tell him: \"Bring proof that you are poor.\" We do not require him to take an oath that he has no possessions as the gentile legal process does. All of the above is included in the prohibition (Exodus 22:24 : \"Do not act as a creditor toward him.\" Instead, we tell the creditor: \"If you know that this person who owes you money possesses property, go and seize it.\"", + "If the creditor claims that the debtor possesses property, but is hiding it, and it is present within his home, according to law it is not proper for either the creditor or an agent of the court to enter his home to seize the property. Indeed, the Torah warned concerning this saying Deuteronomy 24:11: \"Stand outside.\" We do, however, issue a ban of ostracism against anyone who owns property and does not give it to his creditor.
When, however, the Geonim of the early generations who arose after the compilation of the Talmud saw that the number of deceitful people had increased and the possibility of obtaining loans was diminishing, they ordained that a debtor who claims bankruptcy should be required to take a severe oath, comparable to a Scriptural oath, administered while he is holding a sacred article, that he does not possess any property aside from what he is given in consideration, that he has not hidden his property in the hands of others, or given the property to others as a present with the intent that it be returned.
He should include in the oath that any profit he makes and everything that comes into his possession or domain which he acquires, he will not use to provide sustenance, clothing, or care for his wife or children, that he will not give any person in the world a present. Instead, he will take from everything that he earns food for 30 days and clothing for 12 months that is appropriate for him - not the food of gluttons or drunkards, nor that enjoyed by the sons of royalty, and not the garments of the officers of the royal court, but food and clothing that is commonplace for him. Anything beyond his needs, he should give to his creditor little by little until he pays his entire debt. Before the oath is administered, a ban of ostracism is issued against anyone who knows that so and so possesses property that is either revealed or hidden and does not inform the court.
Even after this oath was ordained, neither a creditor nor an agent of the court is allowed to enter the house of the debtor. For an ordinance was not instituted to uproot the Torah's laws themselves. Instead, the debtor himself must bring out his utensils or say: \"This and this is what I possess.\" We leave him what is appropriate for him, expropriate the rest and have him take the oath ordained as described above. This is the legal process among the Jewish community in all places.
If the debtor was seen with property after having taken this oath, and he tries to excuse himself, claiming that it belongs to others or that it was given to him as an investment, we do not accept his statements unless he brings proof. My teachers ruled in this manner.", + "When a person takes this oath that he is bankrupt and all that he earns will be given to his creditors, he may not be required to take this same oath by all of his creditors. Instead, one oath applies to all the creditors. The rationale is that this is an ordinance instituted by the later sages, and we are not precise in applying it stringently. On the contrary, we are lenient.", + "An exception to the above practice is made with regard to a person who has established a reputation for being poor and virtuous, and conducts himself in a trustworthy manner, and this is known to the judges and the majority of the people. If a creditor comes and seeks to make this person take the oath mentioned above, and it can be presumed that the plaintiff has no doubt about the debtor's state of poverty, but instead wishes to cause him exasperation with this oath, to torment him and to embarrass him publicly, to take revenge upon him or to force him to borrow money from gentiles or take property belonging to his wife to pay this creditor and absolve himself from taking this oath, it appears to me that it is forbidden for a God-fearing judge to have this oath administered. If he does administer this oath, he violates the Scriptural prohibition: \"Do not act as a creditor toward him.\"
Moreover, the judge should reproach the creditor and castigate him, for he is bearing a grudge and acting according to the reckless whims of his heart. Our Sages instituted this ordinance only because of deceitful people, as implied by Deuteronomy 22:2: \"Until your brother seeks it out,\" which can be interpreted to mean: Seek out whether your brother is deceitful or not. In this instance, since it is established knowledge that this person is poor and that he is not deceitful, it is forbidden to require him to take this oath.
Similarly, when it is established knowledge that a person is deceitful and he deals corruptly in financial matters, we presume that he possesses financial resources although he claims to be bankrupt, and he is eager to take this oath. I maintain that it is not appropriate to require him to take the oath. Instead, if it is possible for the judge to compel him to make restitution to his creditor or to place him under a ban of ostracism until he makes restitution, he should do so. The rationale is that he is presumed to possess financial resources, and paying a creditor is a mitzvah.
The general principle is: Whenever a judge performs one of these activities with the sole intent of pursuing justice, as we have been commanded to, without intending to favor either of the litigants in judgment, he has that authority, and he will receive a reward for his efforts, provided that they are carried out for the sake of heaven.", + "Whenever a person is obligated to take this oath because of a promissory note that he is liable for, he admitted owing money to other people, and he was able to amass more property than the minimum amount allotted to him, this extra amount should be given only to the creditors who possess promissory notes. The rationale is that we suspect that the debtor may be conspiring to perpetrate deception by making an admission of a debt concerning this property.", + "When Reuven owes Shimon 100 zuz and Levi owes Reuven 100 zuz, we should expropriate the money from Levi and give it to Shimon.
Therefore, if Reuven does not possess any property, but has promissory notes owed to him by Levi, those promissory notes are given to Shimon to collect. Accordingly, if Levi claims that the promissory note was given on faith or that it had already been paid, even though Reuven acknowledges the truth of Levi's statement, his admission is of no consequence. The rationale is that we fear that they may be conspiring to perpetrate deception to cause Shimon to lose his right to the money owed by Levi. Instead, Shimon may take an oath and expropriate the money from Levi. This is the law that applies to anyone who expropriates property; he may do so only after taking an oath.
Similarly, the following law applies to any person against whom there is an outstanding promissory note, who admits owing money to another person on his own initiative. If he does not possess enough property to pay both debts, the person with the promissory note alone is entitled to collect his due. This is ordained, because we suspect that they may be conspiring to perpetrate deception to undermine the power of the person's promissory note.", + "It is forbidden for one to lend money - even to a Torah scholar - without having witnesses observe the transaction unless the lender receives an article as collateral. It is even more commendable to have the loan supported by a promissory note.
Whenever a person gives a loan without having witnesses observe the transaction, he transgresses the prohibition (Leviticus 19:14 : \"Do not place a stumbling block before the blind\" and brings a curse upon himself.", + "When a master borrows money from his servant and afterwards frees him, he is not liable to him at all. The same laws apply when a husband borrows from his wife. The rationales are that everything that a servant acquires becomes acquired by his master, and any money that is in a woman's possession is assumed to belong to her husband, unless she brings proof that it comes from her dowry." + ], + [ + "Collateral may not be taken from a widow, whether she is rich or poor, whether it is taken at the time the loan is given, or after the time the loan is given, as Deuteronomy 24:17 states: \"You shall not take the garment of a widow as collateral.\" This prohibition applies even when the court would supervise the matter.
If a creditor takes such collateral, it must be returned, even against his will. If the widow admits the debt, she must pay. If she denies its existence, she must take an oath. If the security the creditor took became lost or was consumed by fire before he returns it, he is punished by lashes.", + "Similarly, whenever a person lends money to a colleague - whether he offers the loan in exchange for collateral, he takes collateral after the loan was given, or the collateral was given him by the court - he should not take utensils that are used for making food - e.g., a mill, kneading troughs, large cooking pots, a knife used for ritual slaughter or the like - as Deuteronomy 24:6 says: \"Do not take as collateral... for one is taking a life as collateral.\"
If a creditor takes such collateral, it must be returned, even against his will. If the security he took became lost or was consumed by fire before the creditor returns it, he is punished by lashes.", + "When a person takes several utensils that are used to produce food - e.g., he took a kneading trough, a pot and a knife - he is liable for each utensil independently. Even if he took two utensils that are used for the same activity, he is liable for taking two utensils and is given lashes for taking each of them.
This is implied by the verse cited above, which mentions taking \"a lower millstone and an upper millstone.\" This indicates that he is liable for each of the millstones independently. Just as the upper millstone and the lower millstone are two utensils that serve a single purpose, and the person is liable for each one independently; so, too, a person is liable for any other two utensils independently even though they serve the same purpose. Similarly, if he takes as collateral a yoke for oxen that plow, he is liable for two transgressions.", + "When a person gives a loan to a colleague - whether the borrower is rich or poor - he should not take security himself. Instead, he should charge the court with this responsibility.
Moreover, even an agent of the court who comes to collect security should not enter the borrower's house to collect the security. Instead, he should stand outside. The borrower should go into his own house and bring out the security for him, as Deuteronomy 24:11 states: \"You shall stand outside.\"
If so, one might ask: What is the difference between the creditor himself and the agent of the court? The agent of the court may take the security from the borrower by force and give it to the lender. The creditor himself, by contrast, may not take the security unless it is willingly given him by the borrower.
If the creditor transgressed and entered the house of the borrower and took security, or took collateral away from him by force, he is not punished by lashes. The rationale is that the prohibition can be corrected by the performance of a positive commandment, as Ibid.: 13 states: \"You shall certainly return the security to him before the setting of the sun.\"
If he did not fulfill the positive commandment concerning it - e.g., the collateral became lost or was consumed by fire - he is punished by lashes. In such an instance, the creditor should calculate the value of the collateral, subtract it from the debt, and lodge a suit for the remainder.", + "When a person takes collateral from a colleague, whether through the medium of the court, or he personally takes it from him either by force or by consent of the lender he is not always entitled to maintain possession. If the borrower is poor and the creditor took as collateral an article that the borrower needs, he is commanded to return the collateral to the borrower at the time that the borrower needs it. For example, he should return a pillow at night for him to sleep on it and a plow during the day for him to work with. This is implied by Deuteronomy 24:13: \"You must certainly return the collateral.\"
If the creditor transgressed and did not return to him a utensil to be used by day during the day, or a utensil to be used at night during the night, he transgresses a negative commandment, as ibid.:12 states: \"Do not sleep with his collateral.\" This means: \"Do not go to sleep while his collateral is in your possession\"; this refers to a garment worn at night. With regard to articles that he wears or uses to perform work during the day, Exodus 22:25 states: \"Until the setting of the sun, return it to him\" - this teaches that he must return it to him throughout the day.
If the creditor must return the collateral to the debtor when he needs it, and may take it only when he does not need it, of what benefit is the collateral to him?
a) So that the debt will not be nullified in the Sabbatical year;
b) So that the collateral will not be considered part of the movable property inherited by the debtor's sons. Instead, the creditor may take payment from the collateral after the borrower dies.
Thus, a person who takes an object as collateral from a poor person who needs it and fails to return it at the appropriate time violates three commandments: \"You shall not enter his house,\" \"You must certainly return the collateral,\" and \"Do not sleep with his collateral.\"
When does the above apply? When he took the collateral at a time other than the time the loan was given. If, however, he took the collateral from the debtor at the time the loan was given, he does not transgress these prohibitions.", + "An agent of the court who comes to take collateral should not take articles that a person cannot give as collateral - e.g., the garment he is wearing, the utensils with which he eats, or the like. He should leave a bed and a mattress for a rich man, or a bed and a straw mattress for a poor man. Whatever possessions the debtor has besides these should be taken as collateral. The creditor will then return to him an article used by day during the day, and an article used at night during the night.
If the debtor has two of a particular article, the creditor may take one, but must return the other.
Until when is the creditor obligated to return the collateral and then take it again? Forever. If, however, the collateral was an article that the debtor did not need, nor an article that is left for a debtor, the creditor must keep it for 30 days. Afterwards, he may sell the collateral in a court of law.
If the debtor dies, the creditor is not required to return the collateral to his sons. If the debtor dies after the collateral was returned to him, the creditor may pull it away from his sons and does not have to return it to them.", + "A creditor may take collateral from a guarantor by force. He may enter the guarantor's house and take the collateral, as Proverbs 20:16 states: \"Take his garment, because he guaranteed a stranger.\"
Similarly, a person who is owed a fee by a colleague - whether it be his own wages, a fee for his animal or his utensils, or rent for his house - may take collateral without consulting the court. He may enter his home and take collateral in lieu of his fee. If, however, he considered the fee as a loan, this is forbidden, as implied by Deuteronomy 24:10: \"When you extend a loan of any type....\"", + "The following rules apply with regard to a person who has in his possession collateral belonging to a poor person. If the fee for the rental of that article is more than the depreciation of the collateral - e.g., an ax, a large saw, or the like - it is permitted for him to rent it out and continually deduct the money he receives as its fee. This is like returning a lost object to its owner. He need not ask the owner for permission." + ], + [ + "Neshech and marbit are one in the same, as Leviticus 25:37 states: \"Do not give him your money with neshech and do not put forth your food at marbit.\" And further on, Deuteronomy 23:20 speaks of: \"Neshech from money, neshech from food, neshech from any substance that will accrue.\"
Why is interest called neshech? Because it bites. It causes pain to one's colleague and consumes his flesh. Why did the Torah refer to it with two terms? So that one would commit a twofold transgression when violating this prohibition.", + "Just as it is forbidden to give a loan at interest; so, too, it is forbidden to borrow at interest, as Deuteronomy, ibid., states: \"Do not offer interest to your brother.\" According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning to the borrower.
Similarly, it is forbidden to act as a broker between the borrower and the lender when interest is involved. Anyone involved, a guarantor, a scribe or a witness transgresses a negative commandment, as Exodus 22:24 states: \"Do not lay interest upon him.\" This is a warning against the witnesses, the guarantor and the scribe.
Thus, we see that a person who offers a loan at interest violates six prohibitions:
\"Do not act like a creditor toward him,\" \"Do not give him your money with neshech\" \"Do not put forth your food at marbit\" \"Do not take neshech and tarbit from him\" (Leviticus 25:36 , \"Do not lay interest upon him,\" and \"Do not place a stumbling block in front of the blind\" (Leviticus 19:14 .
A person who borrows at interest violates two prohibitions: \"Do not offer interest to your brother.\" \"Do not place a stumbling block in front of the blind\"
The guarantor, the witnesses and the like violate only the prohibition: \"Do not lay interest upon him.\" Any broker who connects between the lender and the borrower or assists or instructs one of them with regard to making the loan transgresses the commandment: \"Do not place a stumbling block in front of the blind\"", + "Although the lender and the borrower violate all the negative commandments mentioned above, they are not punished with lashes, because the interest must be returned. For whenever a person gives a loan at interest, if fixed interest is involved, it is forbidden by Scriptural Law and may be expropriated through legal process. The judges expropriate it from the lender and return it to the borrower. If the lender dies, it is not expropriated from his children's possessions.", + "When a father leaves his sons money obtained by taking interest, they are not obligated to return it, even though they know that it was obtained through interest. If, however, he leaves them a cow, a garment or any other specific article obtained through interest, they are obligated to return it as an expression of honor for their father.
When does the above apply? When their father repented, but was not able to return the article before he died. If, however, he did not repent, the sons need not be concerned with his honor. They are not required to return even a specific article.", + "When robbers and people who lend money at interest seek to return the money they took, we should not receive it from them. This will make the path of teshuvah more accessible to them. Whoever accepts repayment from them is not looked upon favorably by our Sages. If, however, the stolen article itself was intact or a specific article was given as interest, and it itself is there, it may be accepted.", + "When interest - whether fixed interest or interest forbidden by Rabbinic law - is mentioned in a promissory note, the lender may collect the principal, but not the interest. If he collected the entire amount, any fixed interest can be expropriated from him. \"The shade of interest\" - i.e., interest forbidden by Rabbinic law - may not be collected from the borrower by the lender, nor is it expropriated by the court from the lender for the borrower.", + "Whenever a person writes a promissory note that includes interest, it is as if he documents and has witnesses testify that he denies God, the Lord of Israel. Similarly, whenever a person borrows or lends money at interest in privacy he denies God, the Lord of Israel, and denies the exodus from Egypt, as Leviticus 25:37-38 states: \"Do not give him your money with neshech... I am God your Lord, who took you out of the land of Egypt.\"", + "It is forbidden for a person to borrow money from his sons or the members of his household at interest. This is forbidden even when he is not tightfisted and he is merely giving them a present. The rationale is that in doing so, he might habituate them to this practice.", + "When Torah scholars lend money to one another and the borrower returns more than the amount loaned him, it is permitted. It is obvious that the extra amount was only a present that he gave him. For they know the severity of the prohibition against taking interest.", + "The following laws apply when a person lends money to a colleague, and the borrower discovers more than the sum originally agreed upon, or the borrower returned a debt and the lender discovers more than the sum that was borrowed. If the additional amount was a sum about which a person might easily err, it must be returned. If not, we can assume that the borrower gave the lender a present, he had stolen property belonging to the lender in his possession and sought to return it together in the account without the lender being aware, or another person asked him to return money in such a manner.
What can be considered a sum about which a person might easily err? One, two, five or ten more. The latter figures are included, for perhaps the person counted out the sum in groups of five or ten.
Similarly, if the person found that a group of five or a group of ten had an additional one, he must return the extra amount. Maybe an additional one with which he was counting became mixed with a group of five or ten.", + "The following laws apply when a person lends a colleague according to a particular coinage, or stipulates in his wife's ketubah that a sum should be paid to her in a particular coinage, and then the ruling authorities increase the weight of that coinage. When the value of produce was reduced because of the increase, he should deduct the proportion of the increase, even if the increase was minimal. If, however, the value of produce is not reduced because of the addition, he need not deduct that proportion. Instead, he should pay him the coin used as currency at that time.
When does the above apply? When the addition was one fifth of its value -e.g., its weight was four units and it was increased to five. If, however, more than a fifth was added, he should deduct the entire proportionate amount of the increase, even though the price of produce did not increase. Similar laws apply with regard to a loan when the weight of a coin was decreased.", + "The following rules apply when a person lends a colleague according to a particular coinage, and that coinage is disqualified by the ruling authorities. If the lender could use the disqualified coin as legal tender in another country, and the lender has a way of getting to that country, the borrower may repay him in the coinage that he lent him, telling him: \"Go and use it in such and such a place.\" If the lender does not have a way of getting there, the borrower must repay him in the coinage that is legal tender at that time. Similar laws apply with regard to a ketubah.", + "Some of the Geonim have ruled that when a borrower forgoes the interest a lender charged or will charge on his behalf, his statements are of no consequence, even though he affirms his waiver with a kinyan or gives it as a present. Their rationale is that whenever interest is given, the borrower is waiving his rights. The Torah, however, does not accept this waiver and forbids it. Therefore, one cannot waive interest, even interest forbidden merely by Rabbinic Law on behalf of the lender.
It appears to me that this ruling is incorrect. Instead, since the lender is told to return the interest, and he knows that he violated a prohibition, and the borrower has the right to collect the money, if the borrower desires to waive the obligation to return the interest he may, just as a person may waive the return of a stolen article. Indeed, our Sages explicitly stated that when robbers and people who lent money at interest seek to return the money they took, we should not receive it from them. This indicates that the waiver of the obligation to return the interest is effective.", + "It is permitted to give property belonging to orphans to a faithful person who has valuable properties to offer as security, in an arrangement that is likely to lead to profit and unlikely to lead to loss.
What is implied? The court tells the person: \"Do business with their property. If there is a profit, give them a portion of the profit. If there is a loss, suffer the loss yourself.\" This is \"the shade of interest.\" Nevertheless, \"the shade of interest\" is forbidden only because of a Rabbinic decree, and our Sages did not apply their decree to property belonging to orphans." + ], + [ + "One may lend money to and borrow money from a gentile and a resident alien at interest, as implied by Deuteronomy 23:20: \"Do not offer interest to your brother.\" We may infer: Offering - and taking - interest from \"your brother\" is prohibited; from people at large, by contrast, it is permitted.
It is a positive mitzvah to lend money to a gentile at interest, as Ibid:21 states: \"You may offer interest to a gentile.\" The Oral Tradition teaches that this is a positive commandment. This is the Scriptural Law.", + "Our Sages, however, forbade a Jew from lending money to a gentile at a fixed rate of interest beyond what is necessary for him to earn his livelihood. They enacted this decree lest the lender learn from the gentile's deeds as a result of the large extent of his contact with him. Therefore even according to the Sages, it is permitted to borrow money from a gentile at interest, for the Jew will flee from him, and will not frequent his company.
Torah scholars will not learn from a gentile's conduct. Hence, it is permitted for them to lend money to a gentile at interest, even to make a profit. Any transactions in the category of \"the shade of interest\" that involve gentiles are permitted for everyone.", + "The following law applies when a Jew borrowed money from a gentile at interest, and when he seeks to return it to him another Jew meets him and tells him: \"Give it to me and I will pay you the rate of interest that you pay the gentile.\" This is forbidden, even if the original borrower brings the other Jew to the gentile. Instead, the gentile must take back his money and then give it as a loan to the other Jew.", + "When, by contrast, a gentile borrows money from a Jew at interest and desires to return it to him, and another Jew meets the gentile and tells him: \"Give it to me and I will pay you the rate of interest that you pay the other Jew,\" this is permitted. If, however, the gentile brought the Jewish borrower to the Jewish lender and informed him of the loan, this is considered fixed interest, for he gave the money with the knowledge of the Jewish lender. This applies even if the gentile gave the Jewish borrower the money.", + "It is forbidden for a Jew to entrust his money to a gentile so that he can lend them to a Jew at interest.
When a gentile loans money to a Jew at interest, it is forbidden for another Jew to serve as a guarantor. The rationale is that according to their laws, the lender may demand payment from the guarantor first. Thus, after paying the debt, the guarantor will demand payment for the interest that he is obligated to the gentile. Hence, if the gentile makes a commitment not to demand payment from the guarantor first, it is permitted.", + "The following laws apply when a Jew borrowed money from a gentile at interest and then the gentile converted. If a reckoning was made before he converted, the convert may collect the principal and the interest. If a reckoning was not made until after he converted, the convert may collect the principal, but not the interest.
Different rules apply when, by contrast, a gentile borrows money from a Jew at interest and then converts. After a reckoning is made, even if it was made after the conversion, the convert is required to pay the entire sum, the principal and the interest. This measure was instituted lest people say that the person converted for the sake of his money. Even after he converted, the Jew can collect the entire sum of interest for which he became liable while he was a gentile.", + "It is a mitzvah to lend money to a Jew without charge before lending money to a gentile at interest.", + "It is forbidden for a person to invest his money in a manner where his share in the profit is great and his share in the eventuality of loss is minimal. This is considered \"the shade of interest.\" A person who makes such investments is considered \"wicked.\"
If a person makes such an investment, the profits and the losses are divided according to the laws governing a hetter iska. A person who invests his money in a manner where his share in the profit is minimal and his share in the eventuality of loss is great is considered pious.", + "We may not appoint a person as a storekeeper in return for half of the profits, nor may one entrust a person with money to buy produce in return for half of the profits, nor may one buy eggs to place under another person's chickens in return for half of the profits, nor may one evaluate calves and young donkeys and then have them fattened in return for half of the profits.
These arrangements are permitted only when the investor pays the manager a wage for his efforts and reimbursement for the upkeep of the animals, or grants the manager a greater share of the profits than his share in the event of a loss, as we explained with regard to partnerships.", + "When a person enters into a partnership arrangement with a colleague, entrusting him with money or with land, or making an iska agreement, he should not include the profit together with the principal as a single sum in the promissory note, lest there be no profit and this lead to interest.
Similarly, a person should not give a colleague money as an iska or in a partnership, but have a promissory note written as if it were a loan. This is prohibited lest he die and the promissory note be given to his heir, who will use it to collect interest.", + "It is forbidden to pay interest before taking a loan or to pay it afterwards. What is implied? If a person thought about receiving a loan from a colleague and sent him presents so that he would grant him the loan, this is considered to be paying interest before giving a loan. If he took a loan from him and returned the debt, and then sent the lender a present for the fact that his money was in his possession without his receiving any benefit, this is considered as paying interest afterwards. If one transgresses and does this, this is \"the shade of interest.\"", + "When a person who borrowed money from a colleague would not ordinarily greet him first, it is forbidden for him to greet him first. Needless to say, it is forbidden for him to praise the lender in public or go to his home. These prohibitions are derived from the phrase Deuteronomy 23:20: \"All types of neshech\"; even words are forbidden.
Similarly, it is forbidden for the borrower to teach the lender Scripture or Talmud throughout the duration of the loan if the borrower was not accustomed to doing so previously, as implied by the phrase: \"All types of interest.\"", + "When a person lends money to a colleague, he should not tell the borrower: \"Take notice if so and so from this and this place comes.\" Implied is that the borrower should honor him and provide him with food and drink as is appropriate. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "There are practices that resemble interest, but which are permitted. What is implied? A person may purchase a promissory note from a colleague for less than its face value without any concern. A person may give a colleague a dinar so that he will lend a third party 100 dinarim. The rationale is that the Torah forbade only interest given by the borrower to the lender.
Similarly, a person may tell a colleague: \"Here is a dinar. Tell so and so to give me a loan.\" This is permitted, because he gave him a wage only for making the suggestion.", + "There are certain matters that are permitted, and yet are forbidden because they are ha'aramat ribit (a circumvention of the prohibition against interest).
What is implied? The borrower tells the lender: \"Lend me a maneh.\" The lender answers: \"I do not have a maneh. I have wheat worth a maneh,\" and he gave him the wheat for a maneh and then purchased it from him for 90 zuz. This is permitted, but it was forbidden by the Sages as a circumvention of the prohibition against interest. For he gave him 90 and received a maneh.
If the lender transgressed and carried out these transactions, the lender may expropriate 100 zuz from the borrower through legal process, because even \"the shade of interest\" is not involved. Similarly, if a field was given as security for a loan, the lender may not rent it back to the owner of the field, because this is a circumvention of the prohibition against interest. For the borrower is receiving the field that he owned and paying the lender rent each month because he lent him money.", + "It is forbidden to hire out dinarim. This does not resemble hiring out other utensils. In the latter case, the same utensil that was hired out is returned, In this instance, however, the recipient spends the dinarim he receives and pays him back with others. Hence, \"the shade of interest\" is involved.", + "The following rules apply when a king has established a law that whoever pays the head tax imposed on every person for a particular person has the right to take control of that person and treat him as a serf. If a person pays a dinar as the tax for a particular person and then has him work for more than a dinar, this is permitted. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations." + ], + [ + "Whenever a person gives a loan to a colleague of a sela for five dinarim, two se'ah of wheat for three, a selah for a selah and a se'ah or three se'ah for three se'ah and a dinar, it is forbidden. The general principle is whenever there is a stipulation that any increase be made to a loan, interest forbidden by Scriptural Law is involved, and it may be expropriated from the lender through legal process.
Similarly, when a person lends money to a colleague and makes a stipulation that he can live in the borrower's courtyard at no cost until he returns the loan, he rented the borrower's property for less than its fair value and established that this reduction would remain in force until he repaid the debt, or took as security property from which benefit can be derived at the time of the loan - e.g., the borrower gave the lender his courtyard as security with the intent that the lender dwell in it without charge - all the above are forms of interest forbidden by Scriptural Law and it may be expropriated from the lender through legal process.
Similarly, when a person sells a field or a courtyard through an asmachta, since the purchaser does not acquire the field itself, any produce that he consumes is interest and must be returned. Similar laws apply to any person who has not completed a transaction that is not fully binding at the outset. He must return all the produce. For if he consumes the produce, he will be taking interest according to Scriptural Law.
Any other matter forbidden as interest outside the above categories is prohibited by Rabbinic decree. These decrees were enforced lest this lead to the violation of interest forbidden by Scriptural Law. Interest forbidden by the Rabbis is called \"the shade of interest\" and may not be expropriated from the lender through legal process.", + "When a person lends money to a colleague, he should not take that colleague's servant to perform work for him even if the servant is sitting idly. He should not dwell in his courtyard without charge, even though this courtyard is not fit to be rented out and the owner does not ordinarily rent out his property. If the lender does dwell in it, he must pay rent to the owner/borrower. If he does not pay rent, it is considered as \"the shade of interest,\" because at the outset, he did not stipulate that if he makes the loan, he can dwell in his courtyard.
Therefore, the following rule applies if the borrower has not paid the debt and desires to deduct the rent for the courtyard in which the lender dwelled from the debt. If the rent is equivalent to the entire debt, he may not deduct the entire amount - only the sum that the judges specify. The rationale is that if the lender were sent away without receiving anything, it would be equivalent to expropriating the interest by the court. And \"the shade of interest\" is not expropriated by the court.", + "My teachers issued the following ruling when a person lends money to a colleague and afterwards demands payment of the debt. If the borrower tells the lender: \"Dwell in my courtyard until I repay the debt,\" it is considered as only \"the shade of interest.\" The rationale is that this condition was not specified at the time the loan was given, as can be inferred from Leviticus 25:37: \"Do not give him a loan with neshech.\"", + "The following rules apply when a person lends a colleague money and the borrower offers a field as security. Although the lender tells the borrower: \"If you do not return the debt to me within three years, the field belongs to me,\" he does not acquire it. The rationale is that the agreement is an asmachta and an asmachta is not binding. Accordingly, the lender must deduct all the produce he consumed from the sum of the loan. For consuming that produce is interest forbidden by Scriptural Law.
Different rules apply, however, if the seller/borrower tells the lender/purchaser: \"If I do not repay you within three years, acquire it retroactively from the present date.\" If the borrower brings the money to the lender within three years, the lender is not entitled to the produce. If he brings the money to the lender/purchaser after three years, all the produce belongs to the purchaser.", + "When a person sells a house or a field and tells the purchaser: \"When I obtain money, return the property to me,\" the purchaser does not acquire the field. All the produce that he consumes is considered as fixed interest and can be expropriated from him through legal process.
If, however, on his own initiative, the purchaser tells the seller: \"When you obtain money, I will return this field to you,\" it is permitted for him to do so. The purchaser may consume the produce until the seller returns his money.", + "The following laws apply when a person sells a field to a colleague and the purchaser pays a portion of the money to the seller. If the seller tells the purchaser: \"Acquire a portion of the property in proportion to the percentage of your payment,\" each of them is entitled to consume a share of the produce proportional to the percentage of the property he owns.
If the seller tells the purchaser: \"When you bring the remainder of the money, you will acquire the field retroactively to the present date,\" both of them are forbidden to benefit from the produce immediately. The seller is prohibited, lest the purchaser bring the remainder of the money and thus the field will belong to him from that date. Hence if the seller were to consume the produce, he would be receiving benefit from the money that the purchaser has yet to pay him.
Similarly, the purchaser is forbidden to benefit from the produce. The rationale is that perhaps he will not bring the remainder of the money and the transaction will be nullified. Thus, he will have benefited from the produce in consideration of the money he had given the seller. Therefore, the produce should be given to a third party until it is appropriate to give it to one of them.
If the seller tells the purchaser: \"When you bring the remainder of the money, you will acquire the field,\" the seller is entitled to benefit from the produce until the purchaser brings the money. If the purchaser consumes the produce, its value should be expropriated from him.
If the seller tells the purchaser: \"Acquire the field at present and the remainder of the money is considered as a debt,\" the purchaser should benefit from the produce. If the seller consumes the produce, everything that he consumed should be expropriated from him.", + "My masters ruled that the following principle applies when a person lends money to a colleague and the borrower gives the lender his field as security with the intent that the lender benefit from the produce while he was holding it as security. Even though the lender does not deduct anything, this is considered merely \"the shade of interest,\" and cannot be expropriated from the lender through legal process.
The rationale is that giving a field as security is different from giving a house as security. Because produce is not located in the field at the time the loan is given. It is possible that the lender will profit, for produce will grow, and it is possible that he will lose when sowing and working the field. Therefore, it is \"the shade of interest.\"
Similarly, giving a field as security does not resemble selling a field under an asmachta. When a person sells under an asmachta, he does not resolve to make the sale. When he gives a field as security, by contrast, he resolves to sell the potential to benefit from the land.
Similarly, from the Talmud, it appears that a property given as security involves \"the shade of interest,\" and that can be understood only if we say that it refers to a person who gives a field as security, as my masters ruled.
Thus, there are three ways in which property can be given as security: security where taking benefit involves fixed interest, security where taking benefit involves the shade of interest and security where taking benefit is permitted.
What is implied? If a person gave a colleague a property where benefit is continually present, e.g., a courtyard, a bathhouse, or a store, as security, it is considered as fixed interest. If he gave him a field or the like as security and it produced profit from which he benefited, it is considered as \"the shade of interest.\"
If he gave him a courtyard or the like as security and made a deduction, it is considered as \"the shade of interest.\" If he gave him a field as security and made a deduction, it is permitted.
What is meant by \"making a deduction\"? A person lent a colleague 100 dinarim. The borrower gave him his courtyard or his field as security and the lender told the borrower: \"I will deduct a silver me'ah each year as rent for the property, so that I can receive all of the benefit from the courtyard,\" or the like, it is forbidden. If he gives a field or the like as security, it is permitted.", + "Some of the Geonim have ruled that whenever property is given as security and nothing is deducted, it is considered to be fixed interest. They did not penetrate to the depth of the matter to distinguish between a field and a courtyard. Therefore, the words of the Talmud appeared problematic to them.
Similarly, they ruled that it is always forbidden to give property as security without a deduction being made, whether for a courtyard or a field, except according to the following arrangement.
What is implied? The lender loaned the borrower 100 dinarim, took a house or a field as security, and stipulated that after ten years the property would return to its owners at no charge. The lender is permitted to benefit from the produce of the property for the entire ten years, even if ordinarily its rent would be 1000 dinarim a year. For in effect, what he is doing is renting it at a lower price.
Similarly, it is permitted if the owner of the field added a stipulation that whenever he brought the renter or lender money, he would deduct a rent of ten dinarim a year from the amount and leave the property. Similarly, it is permitted if the borrower added a stipulation that whenever he desired, he could calculate the time that the lender or renter dwelled in the property and pay him the remainder and then he would leave the property. The rationale is that it is a rental that is involved, and any stipulation involving a rental is binding and permitted, as explained previously." + ], + [ + "The following rules apply when a person lends money to a colleague, and the borrower gives the lender his field as security for a set time or until the borrower repays the lender, at which time, the lender will leave the field.
Although the lender benefits from all of the produce of the field, even if he consumes the entire value of the debt, he should not be removed from the field without any payment. The rationale is that if he were removed without payment, it would be as if one had expropriated money taken as \"the shade of interest\" through legal process. Needless to say, if the produce that the lender consumes is worth more than the money he gave, the difference should not be expropriated by him. Similarly, we do not calculate from one promissory note to another promissory note when property is given as security.
When the property given as security belongs to orphans, and the lender consumes an amount of produce equivalent to his debt, he is removed from the property without any payment. If, however, the lender's benefit exceeded the amount of the debt, we do not expropriate the additional amount from him. In the case of orphans, we may calculate from one promissory note to another promissory note.
What is meant by \"calculating from one promissory note to another promissory note\"? One field was given to a lender as security for a debt of 100 dinarim and another field was given to him as security for another debt for another 100 dinarim. If both fields belonged to the same person and the lender consumed produce worth 50 from one field and produce worth 150 from the other field, we tell him: \"You already consumed 200 dinarim worth of produce; you are not owed anything more.\" For it is as if the two debts were one debt and security given for the entire sum as one.", + "In a place where it is customary to remove the lender from property given as security whenever the borrower pays the debt, it is as if this stipulation were explicitly stated. It is not necessary to make an explicit statement. Conversely, in a place where it is customary not to remove the lender from property until the conclusion of the term for which the property was given as security, it is as if this stipulation was explicitly stated.
Whenever a person gives property as security without specifying a term for the loan, he cannot remove the lender from the property until at least twelve months pass.", + "Even in a place where it is customary to remove the lender from property given as security whenever the borrower desires to pay the debt, that custom can be superseded by an explicit condition. If a lender makes a stipulation that the borrower will not remove him from the property until after the full term for which the property was given as security, the borrower cannot pay the debt earlier and have him removed from the property.
In a place where it is customary not to remove the lender from property until after the full term for which the property was given as security, although the lender accepts a stipulation that he will leave the property whenever the borrower brings him his money, the stipulation is binding only when the lender affirms his commitment with a kinyan.", + "In a place where it is customary to remove the lender from property given as security whenever the borrower pays the debt, a creditor of the lender is not entitled to expropriate this property to collect his debt, as he can other properties belonging to his debtor. Similarly, a firstborn does not receive a double portion of it, and the Sabbatical year nullifies the debt. When the borrower pays the debt and causes the lender to leave the field, the lender may not take even produce that is ripe and that has fallen to the ground. If, however, he lifted the produce up before he was forced to leave the property, he acquires the produce.
In a place where it is customary that the borrower cannot remove the lender from property given as security until the end of the term of the loan, a creditor of the lender may expropriate this property, a firstborn receives a double portion of it, and the Sabbatical year cannot nullify the debt.", + "Although giving a field as security is forbidden and involves \"the shade of interest,\" as explained, it is possible that this custom was established in error, in relation to a gentile, or practiced by a person who sinned and took property as security in that city. Since \"the shade of interest is involved,\" we follow the local custom. There is someone who ruled that this is what is meant by making a deduction when taking security.", + "When a gentile gives his courtyard as security to a Jew in return for a loan, and afterwards, the gentile sells it to another Jew, the person in possession of the security does not have to pay the Jewish owner rent from the time he purchased the courtyard. Instead, he may dwell in the courtyard without paying rent until the gentile repays the loan taken out against the courtyard. The rationale is that according to secular law, the property belongs to the person to whom it was given as security until the debt is repaid. Only then, he leaves the property.", + "The following rules apply when a person designates a house or a field as security for a loan in his colleague's possession and the owner of the land derives the benefits from it. If the lender tells the borrower: \"When you desire to sell this property, do not sell it to anyone but to me at this price,\" it is forbidden. If he told him: \"Do not sell it to anyone else but to me at its fair value. It is on this condition that I am making the loan,\" it is permitted.", + "It is permitted to increase the rent offered for land in return for delayed payment. What is implied? A person rents a colleague a courtyard and tells him: \"If you pay me now, it is yours at ten selaim a year. If you pay me month by month, the rent is a sela per month.\" This arrangement is permissible.", + "When a person rents a field to a colleague at ten korim a year, it is permissible for the tenant to tell the owner: \"Give me a loan of 200 zuz to improve the field and I will pay you twelve korim a year.\" This is not considered interest, because if he uses this money to improve the field, it will be worth more to rent.
Similarly, if a person rents a colleague a store or a ship for ten dinarim, it is permissible for the renter to tell the owner: \"Give me a loan of 200 zuz to use to remodel the store, decorate it and plaster it, or to improve the ship and its facilities, and I will pay you twelve dinarim per year.\" If, however, he tells him: \"Give me a loan of 200 zuz so that I can do business with them in the store, purchase merchandise for the ship with them, or hire sailors, and I will increase the fee,\" that is forbidden.", + "It is forbidden to increase the compensation paid a person in return for delayed payment. What is implied? A person should not tell a colleague: \"Perform work for me today that is worth one silver piece and I will perform work for you in a later week that is worth two silver pieces.", + "It is permissible for a person to tell a colleague: \"Weed with me today in my field, and I will weed with you tomorrow in your field,\" or \"Hoe with me today, and I will hoe with you tomorrow.\" He should not, however, tell him: \"Weed for me and I will hoe for you later,\" or \"Hoe for me and I will weed for you later.\" One law applies for the entire summer, and one law for the entire rainy season. A person should not, by contrast, say: \"Plow for me in the summer and I will plow for you in the rainy season,\" for there is greater difficulty in plowing during the rainy season. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "It is forbidden to hire a worker in the early winter to perform tasks in the later winter at a dinar a day and give him the money in advance, when a worker's wage in the winter is ordinarily a sela. The rationale is that it appears that he is giving him a loan immediately so that he will later reduce his wages.
It is, however, permissible for an employer to tell a worker: \"Work for me from today until this and this time at a dinar a day,\" even though his wages would ordinarily be a sela a day. The rationale is that since he already began working, the worker is not considered to be receiving benefit for money that was paid to him in advance." + ], + [ + "It is forbidden to increase the price offered for merchandise in return for delayed payment. What is implied? A person sold landed property or movable property to his colleague and told him: \"If you pay me now, the price is 100 zuzim. If you delay payment until this and this time, the price is 120.\" This is considered \"the shade of interest,\" for it is as if he takes 20 zuz in return for giving him 100 to use until the time specified.
If the seller calls the purchaser to court, he is liable to pay only the 100 that it was worth at the time of the sale. Alternatively, if the article he purchased is intact, he may return it. Similarly, it is forbidden to sell movable property for 100 zuz with the stipulation that payment need not be made until a certain time, when it is worth 90 zuz in the marketplace, if payment is to be given immediately.", + "When, however, a person purchased an article for its fair market value on the condition that he may delay payment for twelve months, the seller may tell him: \"Pay me a lesser amount now.\" There is no question of interest involved.", + "It is permissible to sell a colleague a jug of wine that is worth a dinar for two dinarim on the condition that he does not pay until the summer, provided that he accepts the stipulation that if an accident occurs to it, the jug is the seller's responsibility until the purchaser sells it - i.e., if it is lost or broken, the purchaser does not have to pay anything. Moreover, if he cannot find anyone to purchase it at a profit, he may return it to the owner.
Similarly, it is permissible for a person to sell a colleague wine for two dinarim and tell him: \"Anything more than two dinarim can be your profit, since you are involving yourself in its sale. And if you do not succeed in selling it at the price you desire, you can return it to me.\" In this situation, even if it is lost, stolen or becomes vinegar, it is the purchaser's responsibility.", + "The following rules apply when a person possesses produce that has a selling price of ten dinarim in the marketplace, but if the purchaser sought to purchase it, he would have to purchase it for twelve. It is permissible to sell the produce for twelve dinarim to be paid after a twelve-month period. The rationale is that even if the purchaser brought his money immediately, he would pay twelve dinarim for it. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "It is forbidden to purchase fruit from an orchard before its growth is completed and it becomes ripe. The rationale is that the seller will sell it for less - e.g., he will sell produce for ten now, even though it will be worth twenty when its growth is completed. Thus, the increase is being given for the delayed delivery.
It is permissible, however, if he purchases a calf for a low price on the condition that it remain in the previous owner's possession until it grows older. For if the calf dies or becomes weakened, it is in the owner's possession. And it is common and frequent that an animal will become weak or die.", + "The following rules apply when a person gives money to the owner of a vineyard for the twigs and branches that will eventually be cut off. When they are cut off, they will be expensive. At present, however, he purchases them at a low price because he must wait until they dry out and are cut off. He must till the land under the vines while they are still attached to the ground. Thus, he is buying a tree for its offshoots. If he does not till the land, the money he pays is like a loan. Since the branches are being purchased for a lower price because of the delayed delivery, it is forbidden.", + "The following rules apply when watchmen in a field are given wheat from the grain heap as their wages at a price lower than its market value. When they go to the grain heap to collect their wages, they must perform work at the grainheap, so that they will be receiving the wheat at the conclusion of the time for which they were hired. If they do not do so, their wages will be considered as a loan extended to the employers, and the fact that they were given the wheat at a low price will be considered to be interest paid to them in return for the delay in paying their wages until the harvest reached the grain heap.", + "Generally, the owners of fields would require sharecroppers to leave a field in Nissan. The sharecroppers would give the owners four se'ah for every portion of the field large enough to sow a kor as rent. It is permissible for an owner to allow his sharecroppers to remain in his field until lyyar, but to take from them six se'ah. This does not involve interest.", + "It is permissible for the seller to give a purchaser more than the measure originally stipulated when the purchaser does not collect payment until afterwards. For example, a person purchased four se'ah of wheat at a sela; this was the market price. He paid the money at that time, but did not come to collect the wheat until later. When he came, the seller increased the measure and gave him more. This is permitted, because he willingly gave him more. Had he not desired, he would not have given him more, because there was no stipulation to that effect.", + "When a person purchases a barrel of wine, it is permissible for him to pay the money to the seller and stipulate: \"If it becomes vinegar from now until such and such a date, you are responsible. If, however, it increases or decreases in value, the barrel is mine.\" Since the purchaser also accepted the possibility of a depreciation in value, the transaction is considered as having the possibility of both gain and loss. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
Similarly, it is permissible for a person to buy 100 jugs of wine in Tishrei for a dinar each, but not to collect them until Tevet. And when he collects them, he may check each one, returning those that have become vinegar and taking those that are good wine. For he purchased only good wine from him. Those jugs whose contents became vinegar were fit to sour at the outset; it is just that the matter did not become known until later.", + "In a place where it is customary to rent out ships and receive payment for them, it is permissible to include a stipulation that if the ship is damaged, those damages will be assessed and reimbursement made over and above the fee charged. Similarly, it is permissible to hire out a pot of brass and the like and receive payment for it, and also to receive compensation if its weight decreased. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "It is forbidden to accept tzon barzel from another Jew, because this is considered \"the shade of interest\"?
What is meant by the term tzon barzel? A person owned 100 sheep. A shepherd accepted the responsibility of caring for them on the condition that the shearing, the offspring and the milk would be split, either evenly, or one getting a third or a fourth for a year or two, as they stipulated. Included in the agreement is the condition that if the sheep die, the shepherd must make restitution for them.
This is forbidden, because the owner of the sheep is very likely to realize a profit, and highly unlikely to suffer a loss. Therefore, such an arrangement is permissible if the owner of the sheep accepts the condition that should the value of the sheep increase or decrease or should they be seized by predators, they are considered within his domain. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "The following laws apply when a person appraises an animal he receives from a colleague and tells him: \"If it dies, I accept responsibility for 30 dinarim, and I will pay you a sela a month as a fee.\" This is permitted, because he did not establish this as the animal's value when alive, but only after its death.", + "A woman may rent out a chicken to a friend so that it can sit on eggs until they hatch for two chicks. There is no question of interest involved.", + "When a person owed a colleague four dinarim as interest and gave him an article worth five dinarim instead, when the interest is expropriated from him, five dinarim are taken. The rationale is that he received it as interest. Similarly, if the borrower gave the lender a garment or a utensil, that garment or that utensil itself should be returned to him. If, in lieu of the four dinarim he owed him, he rented him a property that was normally rented for three dinarim, four dinarim are expropriated from him, because he accepted the rental as being worth that price." + ], + [ + "An order for produce cannot be placed until a market price has been established. Once a market price has been established, an order can be placed. Even though the person receiving the order does not have the desired produce, his colleague does.
What is implied? If the market price for wheat was fixed at four se'ah per sela, a purchaser may place an order of 100 se'ah and pay 25 sela. Even if the seller gives the purchaser the 100 se'ah of wheat later, at a time when a se'ah of wheat is selling for a sela, there is no interest involved at all. This applies even when the seller did not own any wheat at the time the order was placed.
When does the above apply? When the seller did not have in his possession any of the type of produce he sold. If, however, the seller had that type of produce in his possession, even if the work necessary to bring it to the market has not been completed, he may sell a produce order even though a market price has not been established. What is implied? If a farmer was one of the first to harvest, he may sell an order of grain even though the grain is still in the grainheap.
A person can sell an order for wine once the grapes have been reaped and placed in the vat. He can sell an order for oil, when it has been placed in the vat. An order for lime can be placed when it is lowered into the oven. And an order for earthenware vessels can be placed when the balls of clay are made.
When is that necessary? When using white clay. But if dark clay is used, an order for utensils to be made from it can be placed even if the balls have not been made, for that clay is readily available. Even if one person does not possess it, another does. Similarly, a order for fertilizer may be placed throughout the year, even though the seller does not possess fertilizer himself, because it is continuously available.", + "Whenever all that is necessary to complete a product is one or two tasks, an order can be placed with a seller. When three or more tasks are necessary, an order cannot be placed unless the market price has been issued. For since more than three tasks are necessary to complete the product, it is as if the person does not possess that type of substance at all, and as if it has not come into existence as of yet.
What is implied? When a grain heap must be a) placed in the sun to dry, b) threshed, and c) winnowed, the owner may not accept an order unless a market price has already been issued. If it was dry, and all that was necessary that it be threshed and winnowed, he may accept an order.
If balls of clay lack shaping, drying, being placed in the kiln, being fired and being removed, the owner may not accept an order. If they are dry, and all that was necessary that they be placed in the kiln and fired, he may accept an order. This applies when it is the custom of the buyer to remove the utensils from the kiln. If the seller is the one who removes them, they are considered to require the performance of three tasks. The owner may not accept an order unless a market price has already been issued. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "When a person who is going to milk his goats, shear his sheep or remove honey from his beehive meets a colleague, it is permissible for one to tell the other: \"What I will milk from my goats is sold to you,\" \"What I will shear from my sheep is sold to you,\" or \"What I will remove from my beehive is sold to you.\" It is, however, forbidden for one to tell the other: \"This and this amount of milk which I will milk from my goats is sold to you at this and this price,\" \"This and this amount of wool that I will shear from my sheep is sold to you at this and this price,\" or \"This and this amount of honey that I will remove from my beehive is sold to you at this and this price\" unless he takes an order at the market price. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "Orders cannot be placed based on the market price of towns, because it is not firmly established, only on a market price established in a large city. If new wheat was being sold in a city at four se'ah for a sela and older wheat at three se'ah for a sela, an order may not be placed until an equal price is established for both the new and the old grain.
If wheat sold by gatherers was selling at four se'ah for a sela and wheat sold by a householder at three, one may place an order from a gatherer at the price of the gatherers. An order from a householder at the price of the gatherers may not be placed unless the price for householders is established [at the same rate].", + "Once a market price has been established, it is permissible to place an order even for a high rate of exchange.
What is implied? Wheat was being sold at four se'ah for a sela and a purchaser placed an order that a seller would later give him wheat at a low rate of exchange. If the price of wheat was later established at ten se'ah for a sela, the seller must give him ten se'ah as is the market price, for he placed an order at the high rate of exchange.
If the purchaser gave the seller money without making a stipulation and without placing an order for the high rate of exchange, and the price of the produce fell, the seller may give the purchaser the produce at the price that the produce was worth when the money was paid. If a person reneges on his commitment, he receives the adjuration mi shepara.
When does the above apply? When a person is placing an order for himself. When, however, a person is acting as an agent, either for the buyer or the seller, either the purchaser receives at the lower price or the seller must return the funds. When an agent was involved, the purchaser is not required to receive the adjuration mi shepara if he retracts because of the agent's error. For he will say: \"I charged you with improving my position, not with undermining it,\" as explained above.", + "The following laws apply when wheat was being sold at four se'ah per sela, the seller took the money and promised to give the purchaser five se'ah for a sela. If the seller possesses wheat at that time, it is permitted. If the seller does not possess wheat, or even if he is owed a debt of wheat by others and he takes the money on condition that he collects what he is owed and gives it to the purchaser, it is forbidden. The rationale is that at the time of the transaction, the wheat has not yet been collected, and it is as if it does not exist. Hence, it is as if he fixed a time for a later delivery and reduced the price because of the postponement.", + "When wheat is selling at four se'ah for a sela in the large cities and six se'ah per sela in the villages, it is permitted to give a merchant a sela so that he will bring six se'ah from a village by a particular date. The wheat must, however, be considered to be in the possession of the purchaser. Thus, if is lost or stolen on the way, the purchaser suffers the loss.
It is forbidden for a distinguished person to carry out such a transaction. And if the transaction involves several types of merchandise, it is forbidden for all people to carry out such transactions. The rationale is that such types of merchandise are not continuously found in villages, in contrast to produce that is.", + "When donkey-drivers enter a city where the market-price is four se'ah for a sela, it is permitted for them to lower the price and sell wheat to their acquaintances or their brokers at five se'ah a sela in return for money given them at the outset, as soon as they enter the city, before they open their sacks and sell to others. The rationale is that they are not selling to them at the lower price because they gave them the money immediately and will not collect the produce until later, but because they inform them concerning the market price and offer them assistance.", + "The following rules apply when a person who is transporting his produce from one place to another place meets a colleague who tells him: \"Give me your produce and I will give you produce that I possess in return at your destination.\" If the purchaser possesses such produce at that place, the transaction is permitted. If not, it is forbidden.
Slightly different laws apply when a person was transporting merchandise from place to place and a colleague told him: \"Give me the merchandise and I will pay you the price it would be worth at your destination.\" If the seller is responsible for the merchandise until it reaches that destination, the transaction is permitted. If the purchaser is responsible, it is forbidden.", + "It is permissible for a person to give the owner of a garden payment for ten specific cucumbers or for ten specific watermelons, even though they are small and he stipulated that he would give them to him when they grow to full size. The rationale is that the seller leaves them and they grow by themselves. If he cut them off now, others would not grow in their place. Similar laws apply in all analogous cases where the seller will not suffer any loss or detriment by selling in advance." + ], + [ + "Just as it is permitted for a seller to take an order based on the market price; so, too, it is permitted to give a loan of produce without any conditions, to be returned without any conditions, without establishing a time when it must be returned once the market price has been established.
What is implied? If there was a fixed market price for wheat that was known by both the borrower and the lender, when the borrower borrows ten se'ah of wheat from a colleague, he is obligated to return ten se'ah, even though the price of wheat increased. The rationale is that when he borrowed the wheat from him, the market price was known. If he had wanted to, he could have purchased wheat and returned it, since a minimum term of the loan was not established.", + "If the borrower possesses some of the type of produce that he seeks to borrow, it is permissible for him to borrow this produce without any conditions, to be returned without any conditions, without establishing a time when it is due. Even if he possesses only a se'ah, he may borrow many se'ah because of it. Even if he possesses only a drop of oil or wine, he may borrow several jugs of wine and oil because of it.
If he did not possess any of that type of produce and the market price was not established yet, or the borrower and the lender did not know the market price, it is forbidden to lend a se'ah of produce for a se'ah to be returned at a later date. Similarly, with regard to other types of produce, a person should not lend them out until he establishes a financial equivalent. The following rules apply when a person makes a loan of produce without establishing a financial equivalent, and it decreases in value. The borrower must return the measure or the weight of the fruit he borrowed. If they increased in value, the lender may take only the amount they were worth at the time of the loan.
Even if a person possesses that type of produce, or the market price had already been established, it is forbidden to make a loan of produce that must be repaid on a specific date. Instead, the loan must be made without any stipulation, and it can be repaid whenever the borrower desires to repay it.", + "A person should not tell a colleague: \"Lend me a kor of wheat and I will return a kor to you at the time when wheat is brought to the granaries.\" He may, however, tell him: \"Lend me wheat until my son comes, or until I find the key to my storehouse.\"", + "The following rules apply if a person lent out produce until a fixed date: If the produce diminished in value, the borrower should return the produce at the time set. If the produce increased in value, the borrower should pay him the money that it was worth at the time of the loan.", + "A person may lend wheat to his sharecroppers to be used as seed, in return for wheat to be paid back after the harvest. This applies both before the sharecropper enters the field and after he entered the field.
When does this apply? In a place where it is customary that the sharecropper supplies the seed for the crops. For the owner of the field has the right to remove the sharecropper from the field whenever he does not supply it.
Different laws apply in places where it is customary for the owner of the field to provide the seed. If the sharecropper did not enter the field yet, it is permitted for the owner to lend wheat for wheat to be returned in the future, for he still has the prerogative of removing the sharecropper from the field. Thus, when the sharecropper entered the field, he entered with the intent of returning the wheat the owner lent him.
If, however, the loan was made after the sharecropper entered the field, since the owner can no longer have him removed, he is like any other person. It is forbidden to lend him wheat for seed in return for wheat to be paid back at a later date. He may, however, lend him wheat according to its market value if he does not make any stipulations.", + "A loan may not be repaid with a loan of produce. To explain: A person owed a colleague money. The lender told the borrower: \"Give me my money, because I want to purchase wheat with it.\"
The borrower responded: \"Go out and establish the money I owe you as a debt of wheat according to the present market price.\"
If the borrower possesses an equivalent quantity of wheat, this is permitted. If, however, he does not have that type of produce, this is forbidden. For our Sages said that it is permitted to place an order based on a commodity's market price, even though the seller does not possess any of that commodity, only when the purchaser is paying money for the acquisition. It is, however, forbidden to transfer a debt of money into a debt of produce unless the borrower possesses the produce.
The concept can be extended when, in the above situation, the borrower did possess wheat and the debt was transferred into a debt of wheat. Similar rules apply if afterwards the lender comes and tells him: \"Give me the wheat, because I want to sell it and use the money to purchase wine,\" and in response, the borrower tells him: \"Go out and consider the debt as a debt of wine, according to the present market price of wine.\" If he possesses wine, it is permitted and it is considered as if he owes him wine. If he does not possess wine, it is forbidden.
If the borrower did not possess the commodity desired, but nevertheless, transgressed and transferred the debt into a debt of that commodity, he is not required to pay the debt in the commodity. Even though he did purchase the commodity afterwards, he should pay the lender the money he lent him." + ], + [ + "When a person lends money to a colleague in the presence of witnesses, or a borrower tells witnesses: \"Serve as witnesses for me that I owe this person a maneh\" or \"You are my witnesses that I owe this person a maneh,\" the obligation established is referred to as a milveh b'al peh, \"a loan supported by an oral commitment.\" Such a debt need not be repaid in the presence of witnesses.' Therefore, if the debtor claims: \"I repaid the debt,\" he is required to take a sh'vuat hesset and is discharged.
When, by contrast, a person lends money to a colleague and has the debt supported by a promissory note, the debtor must repay him in the presence of witnesses. Therefore, if the debtor claims: \"I paid this promissory note,\" his words are not accepted. Instead, we tell him: \"Bring witnesses who testify that you paid or \"Arise and pay the debt you owe him.\"
Therefore, when a person tells witnesses: \"Serve as witnesses for me that I owe this person a maneh\" they may not write down a record of their testimony and give it to the lender, unless the borrower tells them: \"Write a promissory note, sign it and give it to the lender. The rationale is that their testimony, which is only oral, should not be given the legal power of a promissory note. Even when the borrower gives such instructions, they should consult with him after they have signed the promissory note. Only afterwards, may they give the promissory note to the lender in his hand.
If they performed a kinyan with the borrower affirming that he owes the lender a maneh, the witnesses may write a promissory note and give it to the lender, even though the borrower did not instruct them to do so. The rationale is that when a kinyan is performed without any further instructions, it is ready to be recorded in a legal document. There is no need to consult the borrower.", + "When a borrower writes a document by himself and witnesses write testimony upon it and give it to the lender, it is an acceptable promissory note.
Similarly, should the borrower compose a promissory note - even when there are no witnesses who sign it - and give it to the lender in the presence of witnesses, the loan is considered to be backed by a promissory note, provided that it is written with a script that cannot be forged and that the witnesses in whose presence it was transferred read it.
There are Geonim who ruled that the borrower should tell the witnesses in whose presence the promissory note was transferred: \"Sign the note or testify that it was transferred in your presence.\"", + "If the lender produces a note written by the borrower , which states that he owes the lender money, but there are no witnesses who have signed it, it is considered as merely a loan supported by an oral commitment with regard to all matters. This applies even if the authenticity of his writing was verified.
Hence, if the borrower claims to have paid the debt, and the lender denies receiving payment, the borrower need only take a sh'vuat hesset before being dismissed. Nor may the lender use this note to expropriate property from the heirs, nor from the purchasers.", + "Whenever a loan is supported by a promissory note, the lender may use this note to expropriate property from the heirs and from the purchasers, as will be explained. When, by contrast, a loan is merely supported by an oral commitment, the lender may expropriate payment from the heirs, but not from the purchasers. The rationale for this restriction is that such a loan does not become public knowledge. Therefore, the lender may not expropriate property because of such an obligation.
A loan supported by a promissory note, by contrast, does become public knowledge. Therefore, it may be used to expropriate property that was sold. The purchaser of such property caused himself a loss, because he did not inquire to the extent that he discovered that the property of the person he purchased it from was on lien because of the loan that person had taken. For according to Scriptural Law, all property belonging to a borrower is on lien to the loan.", + "When a person sells his field in the presence of witnesses, and a creditor of the seller expropriates the field from the purchaser, the purchaser may expropriate the money due him from property that was on lien to the sale that had been sold to others, as will be explained. The rationale is that whenever a person makes a sale, it is done in public and becomes common knowledge.", + "A loan that is supported by an oral commitment alone may be collected from heirs only in one of the following three instances:
a) the person who is liable admits his debt, and while mortally ill stated that he still owes so-and-so a debt;
b) the loan was given for a specific time, and the time for payment had not come; we operate under the presumption that a person will not pay a debt until it is due;
c) because of his failure to pay, the debtor was placed under a ban of ostracism until he would make restitution, and he died while under that ban.
In all these instances, the creditor may collect the debt from the heirs without having to take an oath. If, however, witnesses come and testify that the deceased owed a colleague a maneh, or that he borrowed money in their presence, the creditor may not collect anything from the heirs, because it is possible that the deceased repaid the loan. For a person who borrowed money from a colleague in the presence of witnesses does not have to repay him in the presence of witnesses. Similarly, if a person shows heirs a note from their father stating that he owes the claimant money, he may not collect anything because of it, as we have explained.", + "The following rules apply when a borrower does not own movable property, but does own landed property. If the court is aware that he has deposited his money in the hands of other people, we compel him to sell the landed property and pay his creditor.
If this is not known to them, they issue a ban of ostracism against anyone who knows that the debtor possesses movable property and does not bring it to court. Afterwards, they take possession of property he owns that is of intermediate worth and expropriate it for the creditor, as will be explained.
When does the above apply? When payment is collected from the debtor himself. When, however, a person comes to collect payment from heirs -whether they are above or below majority - he does not have the right to collect from the movable property belonging to the estate even if it was entrusted or loaned to another person. For movable property inherited by heirs is not under lien according to Scriptural Law. '", + "It is a mitzvah for the heirs to pay a debt left by their father from the movable property that he left. If an heir does not desire to make restitution, however, he is not compelled to do so. If the creditor seized property belonging to the debtor in the debtor's lifetime, he may collect his due from it.
If a creditor claims that he seized property during the debtor's lifetime, and the debtor's heir claims that the creditor seized the property after the debtor's death, the heir has the responsibility of proving his claim. Alternatively, the lender must take an oath that he was owed so-and-so much - he can claim up to the value of the property in his possession - and include in his oath that he seized the property in the debtor's lifetime.
If the property that he seized included promissory notes, and the lender claims that he is holding them as security for a debt and that he seized them during the debtor's lifetime, the lender must prove that he seized them during the debtor's lifetime. If he cannot bring proof, he should return them to the heirs. The difference is that with regard to promissory notes, he is not claiming the acquisition of the obligation itself, but rather proof that such an obligation exists.", + "When heirs expropriated landed property because of a debt that others owed their father, a creditor of their father's can expropriate it from them. The rationale is that this land was in effect their father's.", + "The above principles can be extended and applied in the following situation. Reuven sold a field to Shimon, accepting financial responsibility for the sale. Shimon did not pay immediately, but instead had Reuven consider the price of the field as a loan. Reuven died afterwards. Reuven's creditor then came to expropriate the field from Shimon. Instead of giving the creditor the field, Shimon appeased him with money, and he departed.
According to the law, Reuven's heirs may come and demand that Shimon pay the debt that he owed Reuven, for that loan is not on lien to Reuven's creditor.
Therefore, if Shimon is clever, he should give Reuven's heirs the land he purchased from them as payment for the debt that he accepted upon himself. He can then expropriate the property from them, because of the money that he gave to Reuven's creditor so that he would not expropriate it from him. This option is available because Reuven took financial responsibility for the field Shimon purchased.", + "All of the Geonim have ordained, however, that a creditor may expropriate movable property from the heirs in payment for a debt. This judgment is enforced universally in all courts of law.
In the West, however, they would have a provision written in the promissory notes giving the creditor the right to collect the debt from either landed property or movable property in the creditor's lifetime or after his death. Thus, this provision gives the creditor more power to collect the debt than the ordinance of the Geonim.
This is a great safeguard, because it is possible that the borrower will not have known about ordinance, and thus the property of the heirs will be expropriated unjustly, because an ordinance of the later Sages does not have the legal power to be binding upon heirs." + ], + [ + "We do not expropriate payment from heirs unless they are past majority. When the heirs are below majority, by contrast, we do not collect a debt supported by a promissory note from them.", + "Even if the promissory note contains all the stipulations in the world, the creditor may not use it to collect the debt until the heirs attain majority, lest they have proof that would disavow the promissory note.", + "If the loan was a debt at interest owed to a gentile, we appoint a guardian, attach the property that the minor inherited, sell it, and pay the debt. The rationale is that the interest consumes the estate.
Similarly, if a woman demands payment of the money due her by virtue of her ketubah - whether she is the deceased's widow or divorcee - we appoint a guardian for the heirs and attach the deceased's property, so that the woman will gain favor in the eyes of others; i.e., so that she will have a minimum of property so that she will remarry. Hence, if the woman hurried and remarried and then came to demand payment of the money due her by virtue of her ketubah from the estate acquired by the heirs, we do not pay heed to her until the heirs come of age.\" The rationale is that she is no longer entitled to receive her sustenance from the estate of the deceased, and she has remarried.", + "Several of the Geonim have ruled that if the estate left to the heirs does not have more than the money due the woman because of her ketubah, or it contains less than that amount, we do not pay heed to her. For the heirs will have no benefit from paying the money due the woman because of her ketubah.
According to this opinion, our Sages said: \"We attach the estate left to heirs to pay a woman the money due her by virtue of her ketubah from it,\" only so that the estate would not become devalued because of the need to pay for the widow's sustenance.\" And in this instance, since the woman takes everything, of what value is it to the heirs who are below majority that the property is attached? These views were not concerned with increasing the favor of the woman in the eyes of others.", + "If the testator gave a command, saying: \"Give a maneh to so-and-so,\" we pay heed to the claim, after appointing a guardian for the heirs to advance arguments on behalf of the interests of the heirs. If the testator says: \"Give this maneh to so-and-so\" or \"... this field to so-and-so,\" we make the endowment; there is no need to appoint a guardian for the heirs.", + "If it is discovered that land in the estate does not rightfully belong to the heirs, but instead, the plaintiff claims that the property was stolen by the person whose property they inherited, we pay heed to the claim and appoint a guardian to argue and enter into litigation on their behalf. If it is discovered that the property was in fact stolen, we return it to its owners.
Similarly, if a minor had his servants mount an attack and enter property belonging to a colleague and take control of it, we do not say that we will wait until he attains majority before the matter is adjudicated. Instead, we expropriate the property from him immediately. When he attains majority, if he has witnesses who support his claim, he should bring his witnesses.", + "When land is presumed to be the property of minors, the land is not expropriated from them until they attain majority even in the following situation. Another person comes and claims that he had purchased that land from the person from whom they inherited it, and the purchaser has witnesses who will testify that he established his possession of this land and benefited from it for three years in the lifetime of the deceased. The rationale is that we accept the testimony of witnesses only when delivered in the presence of the litigant against whom they are testifying. And the minor is considered as if he is not present.
If, however, the plaintiff produced a deed of sale that states that the field is property that he purchased, he must validate the authenticity of the deed of sale. Afterwards, he may expropriate the property from the heirs after a guardian is appointed for them.", + "When the court attaches property belonging to heirs for the purpose of selling it, they evaluate the property and then announce the sale for 30 consecutive days or on Mondays and Thursdays over the span of 60 consecutive days. Announcements are made in the morning and the evening, when workers enter the city, and when workers are sent out to their tasks. Whoever desires to purchase the property can bring his workers there to investigate it.
When an announcement is made, the borders of the field are clarified. They make known its yield, the evaluation given by the court and the reason it is being sold - to repay a creditor or to pay a woman the money due her by virtue of her ketubah. For there are some people who desire to repay a creditor and others who desire to pay a woman the money due her by virtue of her ketubah.", + "When an adrachta is written with regard to property belonging to heirs -whether they are above majority or below majority - the court must write: \"And we identified the property as belonging to so-and-so, the deceased.\" If they did not write this, the adrachta is invalid, and a purchaser may not benefit from the proceeds of the property even though the announcements of the property's sale were completed.", + "When a court sells property without announcing its sale beforehand, it is considered as if they erred in a matter explicitly stated in the Mishnah. The sale is nullified, and the property is sold again after announcements are made.
When a court sells property, the financial responsibility for it is incumbent on the heirs.", + "When a court made announcements in the proper manner, investigated the matter thoroughly and carefully evaluated the property, their sale is binding even though they erred and sold property worth a maneh for 200, or property worth 200 for a maneh.
The following rules apply when, by contrast, the court was not careful in evaluating the property or did not compose a notice of evaluation, which details its assessment and the announcement of the sale of the property, and it erred in its appraisal. If they evaluated it at a sixth more than its value or at a sixth less than its value, the sale is nullified. If the error was less than a sixth, the sale is binding.
Similar concepts apply if a court sold landed property at a time when it was not necessary to announce its sale beforehand. If it erred and devalued the property by a sixth or overvalued it by a sixth, their sale is nullified. This applies even if it announced the sale beforehand. If their error was less than a sixth, its sale is binding even though it did not announce the sale. For an announcement was not necessary in these situations.
In which situations is it not necessary to make announcements before the sale of property? When land is sold to bury the deceased, for the sustenance of his wife and his daughters, or to pay the head-tax to the king, it is not necessary to announce the sale, because the matter is pressing.
Similar concepts apply if a court sold types of property whose sale need not be announced beforehand. If it erred and devalued the property by a sixth or overvalued it by a sixth, the sale is nullified. If the error was less than a sixth, the sale is binding.
These are the types of property whose sale need not be announced beforehand: servants, promissory notes and movable property; servants, because they may flee; promissory notes and movable property, because they may be stolen. Instead, these articles should be evaluated by the court and sold immediately. If the market place is close to the city, they should be taken to the market place and sold there." + ], + [ + "The following laws apply when a lender comes to expropriate property on the basis of a promissory note in his possession and the borrower is not present: If it is possible to send a messenger to the borrower and notify him so that he can confront the lender in judgment, we send a messenger and notify him.
If it is impossible to notify the borrower speedily, we instruct the lender to take an oath, and then to expropriate property belonging to the borrower, either landed property or movable property. We do not consider the possibility that the borrower repaid the debt and the lender gave him a receipt.
This law is an ordinance of the Sages, enacted so that people at large would not take money belonging to a colleague and go to dwell in another city. For this would hinder the possibilities of loans being granted in the future", + "The lender must bring proof of three matters to the court before he can expropriate property from the borrower outside his presence:
a) he must verify the authenticity of the promissory note in his possession; b) he must prove that the debtor is in another city and is not present to defend himself in court;
c) he must prove that the property that he wishes to expropriate belongs to so-and-so, the borrower.", + "The following rules apply when a lender comes to the court, bringing security that is in his possession\" and says: \"This security belongs to so-and-so, and I desire to sell it to receive payment of the debt he owes me.\" The court does not take action and does not tell him: \"Wait until the borrower comes and lodges his claim.\" The rationale is that had the lender desired to say that the security had been purchased his word would be accepted. The court advises him to sell the security in the presence of witnesses, so that the borrower will know for how much the security was sold.
Similarly, when a person gives a loan to a colleague and receives security in return, and then both the borrower and the lender die - regardless of whether the borrower or the lender dies first the lender's heirs may take an oath and collect the debt.
The lender's heir must take an oath holding a sacred object, before he takes payment from the security, as is done by all those who take an oath and collect their due. His word is accepted, because he is taking payment from property that is in his physical possession. Had he desired, he could have said that he had purchased the property.
Why is the creditor not required only to take a sh'vuat hesset? Because he is not taking an oath that the security is his, but rather that the money is owed him. If he lodged a claim concerning the article itself, saying \"You sold it to us,\" or \"You gave it to us,\" he would be able to take a sh 'vuat hesset and be freed of responsibility. If, by contrast, there were witnesses who would testify that this article was given to the lender as security, but they did not know for what amount, he would be able to collect the money only after taking an oath. Since there are no witnesses, the lender would be able to claim: \"It is mine.\" Therefore, we accept his word when he says: \"So-and-so much money is owed to me and this is security for that debt,\" provided that he takes the same oath he would take if there were witnesses who would testify that the article was given as security.
We do not free him of the responsibility of the oath, because we do not employ the principle of miggo to free a person of the responsibility to take an oath, but only to free him of financial responsibility - i.e., he is not required to return the security before he takes what he claim.", + "The following rules apply when a person lends money to a colleague and receives security for the loan. Should the security be lost or stolen in a manner that is not beyond the lender's control, the lender is liable for the value of the security, as explained. If the lender says: \"I lent you a sela for that security, but it was worth only two dinarim\" and the borrower says: \"You lent me a sela for that security, and it was worth a sela\" the lender must first take the oath taken by watchmen that the article is not in his possession. The borrower then must take a sh'vuat hesset that the security was worth the amount of the debt, and he is freed of responsibility.
If the lender says: \"I lent you a sela for that security, but it was worth only two dinarim\" and the borrower says: \"You lent me a sela for that security, and it was worth three dinarim\" the lender must first take an oath that the article is not in his possession. Afterwards, the borrower must take a Scriptural oath how much the article was worth; this is required because he acknowledged a portion of the plaintiff's claim.33 He then pays the dinar that he admits to owing.
If the borrower says: \"You lent me a sela for that security, and it was worth two sela'im\" and the lender says: \"I lent you a sela for that security, and it was worth a sela\" the lender must take an oath that the article is not in his possessions and include in that oath that the security was worth only the amount of the debt.
If the borrower says: \"You lent me a sela for that security, and it was worth two sela'im,\" and lender says: \"I lent you a sela for that security, and it was worth only five dinarim, the lender must take an oath that the article is not in his possession and include in that oath that the security was not worth more than five dinarim. He must then pay the dinar.
If the lender says: \"I lent you a sela for that security, but it was worth only two dinarim\" and the borrower says: \"I do not know how much it was worth,\" the lender must take an oath that the article is not in his possession and include in that oath that the security was worth only two dinarim. The borrower must then pay the remainder of the debt. The rationale is that he definitely knows that he is liable for the two dinarim and does not know whether or not he repaid the debt.
If the borrower says: \"You lent me a sela for that security, and it was worth two sela'im\" and lender says: \"I lent you a sela for that security, and I do not know how much it was worth,\" the lender must take an oath that the article is not in his possession and include in that oath that he does not know that the security was worth even a p'rutah more than the debt. He is then freed of responsibility, because he did not obligate himself at all. If, however, the lender said; \"I know that the security was worth more than the loan, but I do not know how much more,\" he must pay everything that the borrower demands; the borrower is not even required to take an oath. This resembles an instance when a plaintiff lodges a claim for a 100 zuz, and the defendant responds: \"I owe you 50, but I do not know whether or not I owe you the other 50.\" Such a person is obligated to take an oath, but cannot take the oath. Therefore, he must pay, as will be explained. He may, however, have a ban of ostracism issued against anyone who makes a false claim.", + "When a person lends money to a colleague and establishes a date when the loan must be repaid, even though he does not affirm the matter with a kinyan, he may not demand payment until the conclusion of that period of time. This applies regardless of whether the loan is supported merely by an oral commitment, by a promissory note, or by security, or whether the borrower or the lender dies.
When no other term is mentioned, the term of a loan is 30 days. This applies regardless of whether the loan is supported merely by an oral commitment, by a promissory note or by security. If the lender stipulated that he could demand payment whenever he desires, he has the right to demand payment even on the day the loan was given. The rationale is that this is a stipulation involving monetary issues.", + "If the lender claims: \"Today is the conclusion of the term I established for the loan,\" and the borrower responds: \"You granted me another ten days,\" the borrower must take a sh'vuat hesset to support his claim. If there is one witness who testifies that the loan was due that day, the borrower must take a Scriptural oath, as is the law with regard to other claims.
If the lender claims: \"There are only five days left before the loan is due,\" and the borrower responds: \"There are ten days left,\" we tell the lender: \"Wait until the end of the five days and then have the borrower take an oath that five days remain.\"", + "If the loan was supported by a promissory note and the borrower claims: \"You established a time for me to pay the debt,\" it appears to me that the creditor should take a sh'vuat hesset that he did not place any time limit on the loan. He may then collect the loan immediately.", + "Payment for a loan may be demanded in any place.
What is implied? When a person lends money to a colleague in a settled place and demands payment from him in a desert, the borrower may not postpone payment. Instead, he is obligated to pay him wherever he demands payment.
If the borrower seeks to repay the loan in the desert, the lender is given the option. If he desires, he may accept payment. If he desires, he may tell him: \"Pay me back only in a settled area, just as I gave you the money in a settled area.\" The money then remains the borrower's responsibility until he pays the lender in a settled area." + ], + [ + "In the following situations, despite the fact that he possesses a promissory note, a lender may collect payment only after taking an oath that resembles one required by Scriptural Law:
a) a person who impairs the legal power of a promissory note;
b) a person who produces a promissory note that one witness testifies has been paid.
c) a person who seeks to collect payment outside the borrower's presence;
d) a person who expropriates property from purchasers;
e) a person who seeks to collect a debt from heirs, whether below majority or above majority.
When such a person comes to take the oath, we tell him: \"Take the oath and collect your due.\" If the loan was not due until a specific time, and he demands payment on the day the loan was due, he may collect payment without taking an oath. Once the day the loan is due has passed, he may collect payment only after taking an oath.", + "The following rules apply when a person demands payment from a colleague for a debt recorded in a promissory note, the borrower claims that he paid this promissory note, and the possessor of the note claims that he did not pay anything. The court tells the borrower: \"Pay him.\"
If the borrower demands: \"Have him take an oath for me that I did not pay him and then collect the debt,\" the court requires the lender to take an oath while holding a sacred object, that he did not pay him at all or that he paid him only such-and-such. Afterwards, he may collect his claim. If the lender is a Torah scholar, the court does not require him to take an oath.", + "There is a difference of opinion among the Geonim in the following situation. The lender produces a promissory note whose authenticity has been verified. The borrower claims: \"This promissory note is false, I never wrote it,\" \"This promissory note involves interest,\" \"... or a shade of interest,\" \"It was given on faith,\" \"I wrote it with the intention of borrowing, but I never took the loan\" - i.e., he issues a claim that if acknowledged by the lender would nullify the promissory note. The lender maintains that the promissory note is genuine and that the borrower is issuing a false claim. The borrower demands that the lender take an oath before collecting.
There is one opinion that rules that the holder of the promissory note is obligated to take an oath that resembles a Scriptural oath, just as when the borrower claimed that he paid the debt. My teachers by contrast ruled that the lender should not be compelled to take an oath unless the borrower claims that he paid him. The rationale is that he acknowledged the validity of the promissory note, and that debt is fit to be repaid. We do not, by contrast, accept the borrower's word with regard to all these other claims to nullify the legal power of a promissory note whose authenticity has been verified. Instead, the borrower should pay, and afterwards lodge any claim against the lender that he desires. If the lender acknowledges the claim, he will return the money to him. If he denies it, he will take a sh'vuat hesset. My opinion also leans towards this view.", + "Our Sages issued these rulings in the following situation: A lender produced a promissory note, demanding payment from a colleague. He claims that he was not paid at all. The borrower claims that he repaid half the debt, and witnesses testify that the entire debt was repaid. The borrower must take an oath and then pay the other half. The rationale is that he admits to owing a portion of the debt. He is not considered to be comparable to a person who returns a lost object, because the promissory note causes him to be afraid. The lender may expropriate this half of the debt only from landed property that is within the borrower's possession. He may not attach property that has been sold. The rationale is that the purchasers will say: \"We rely on the testimony of the witnesses and they have nullified the legal power of this promissory note.\"", + "The following rules apply when a lender produces a promissory note whose authenticity he is not able to verify, and the borrower says: \"It is true that I wrote this promissory note, but I repaid it,\" \"It was given on faith,\" \"I wrote it with the intention of borrowing, but I never took the loan,\" or another claim of this nature. Since the borrower could have claimed, \"This never happened,\" and our acceptance of the promissory note is dependent on his statements, his word is accepted. He may take a sh'vuat hesset and be freed of responsibility.
If the lender is able to verify the authenticity of the promissory note afterwards in court, it is considered as any other promissory note.", + "The lender's claim is not accepted in the following situation. The lender produces a promissory note whose authenticity has been verified, and the borrower claims: \"It is a forgery, and I never wrote it,\" or \"It was given on faith.\" The lender states: \"That is true, but I had an acceptable promissory note and it was lost.\" Although it was the lender who invalidated his promissory note, and had he desired, he could have said: \"It is not a forgery,\" for its authenticity was verified by the court, he cannot use it to expropriate property at all. Instead, the borrower may take a sh'vuat hesset and be freed of responsibility, for the promissory note is likened to a shard.", + "When a promissory note was used for a loan and then repaid, it may not be used again. For the lien it created was already waived, and it is likened to a shard.", + "The following laws apply when the lender produces a promissory note whose authenticity has been verified demanding payment from a colleague, the borrower replies: \"Did I not pay you,\" and the lender answers: \"You did, but I returned the money to you and then lent it to you a second time.\" The promissory note that he repaid is nullified, and it is likened to a shard.
If, however, the lender says: \"I returned the money to you, because the coins were not good so that you could exchange them,\" he did not nullify the promissory note, and the lien it created still exists.", + "A promissory note is disqualified in the following situation. A lender produces a promissory note whose authenticity has been verified that indicates that the borrower owes him a maneh. The borrower states: \"Did I not pay in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so.\" Those witnesses come and testify that the borrower indeed repaid the lender, but did not mention the promissory note. The lender replies: \"It is true that you paid me, but you repaid me for another debt that you owed me.\" The lender's word is not accepted, and the promissory note is nullified.
When does the above apply? When the witnesses testify that the borrower gave the lender the money as repayment of a debt. If, however, they saw him give him money, but did not know whether it was given as repayment of a debt, for safekeeping or as a present different rules apply.
If the possessor of the promissory note says: \"He never repaid me,\" he is established as a liar, and the promissory note is nullified. If he says: \"It was payment for another debt,\" his word is accepted. He must take an oath and then he may collect the money mentioned in the promissory note. The rationale is that the borrower did not repay him in the presence of witnesses. Hence, since the borrower can claim: \"You gave them to me as a present,\" his word is accepted if he says that the money was given him as repayment for another debt.
A promissory note is, by contrast, nullified in the following situation. The borrower told the lender: \"This promissory note was composed for the price of a steer that I purchased from you, and you collected the money for its meat already.\" The lender replied: \"Yes. The promissory note was composed for that purpose, but I collected the money for that debt with the understanding that the promissory note would apply to another debt that you owe me.\" The rationale is that the lender himself admitted that the debt mentioned in the promissory note was for the meat of the steer, and that he received payment for that debt. This applies even if there are no witnesses that the money was given for the payment of that debt. Hence, all that is necessary is that the borrower take a sh'vuat hesset that he paid the debt. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "When a lender produces a promissory note that is signed by one witness and the borrower claims that he paid the debt, the borrower is obligated to take an oath. And since he cannot take that oath, he must make financial restitution.
If the borrower demands of the lender: \"Take an oath that I did not pay the debt,\" he must take the oath. The rationale is that even if two witnesses were signed on the promissory note and the borrower demanded: \"Take an oath that I did not pay the debt,\" the lender would be obligated to take that oath, as we have explained.", + "Similarly, my teachers ruled that when a person denies a loan supported by an oral commitment in a court, and one witness testifies that he borrowed the money, the defendant is required to take a Scriptural oath. If the defendant reversed his position and said: \"Yes, I took the loan, but I repaid it,\" \"... the lender waived payment in my favor,\" or \"... owes me money because of another matter,\" we consider him to be a person who is required to take an oath, but who cannot take the oath, and must therefore make financial restitution.", + "The following rules apply when a defendant claims that he paid a promissory note, but says: \"Let the lender take an oath. If he does, he can collect the debt.\" We tell the defendant: \"Bring your money to the court. Then he will take the oath and collect the debt.\" If the defendant does not have the funds to pay, we require him to take an oath, as ordained by the Geonim, that he has no financial resources. When he acquires resources, he must pay the creditor, but first he may require him to take an oath that the debtor did not repay him previously. Afterwards, the debtor must pay him.", + "The following laws apply when a person is owed a debt by a colleague that is supported by a promissory note, the promissory note becomes lost, but the witnesses are still present. Even though the debt was affirmed in the presence of the witnesses by a kinyan, if the borrower claims that he paid the debt, he is required only to take a sh'vuat hesset.
My teachers ruled that even if the debt was given for a specific time, and the due date had not yet arrived, when a promissory note was written, it is no longer in his possession and the borrower claims that he repaid the debt, the borrower's word is accepted provided that he takes an oath that he paid the lender. The rationale is that we suspect that he paid him and for that reason he tore the promissory note or destroyed it by fire.
Similarly, my teachers ruled that even if the promissory note is in the possession of another person and the borrower claims: \"It fell from my possession after I paid it,\" he must take a sh'vuat hesset, and then he is released from all obligations. This applies even if the due date of the promissory note has not arrived. Since the promissory note is not in the possession of the lender, we do not operate under the presumption that the debt is outstanding.", + "The following laws apply when both the borrower and the lender are holding on to the promissory note, and the lender says: \"It is mine and I took it out to demand payment from you,\" and the borrower says: \"I repaid you and it fell from my possession.\" If the authenticity of the promissory note can be verified, both claimants are each required to take an oath that no less than half the value of the promissory note belongs to them. The borrower then pays half. If the authenticity of the promissory note cannot be verified, the borrower must take a sh'vuat hesset, and then he is released from all obligations.", + "Our Sages ordained that precautions be adopted to protect the borrower's interest in the following situation. A person claims of his colleague: \"You owe me a maneh.\" The colleague responds: \"I do not owe you anything\" or \"I paid you.\" The plaintiff demands: \"Take a sh'vuat hesset for me,\" and the borrower responds: \"You have a promissory note concerning this debt. You want to compel me to take an oath first and then produce the promissory note and use it to collect payment.\"
We tell the lender: \"Produce the promissory note.\" If the lender says: \"I never had a promissory note against this person,\" or \"I had a promissory note and I lost it,\" my teachers ruled that we tell the lender: \"Nullify the legal power of any promissory note you possess until the present time. Afterwards, you can require him to take a sh'vuat hesset. Alternatively, have a conditional ban of ostracism issued and go and seek until you find the promissory note." + ], + [ + "When a person lends money to a colleague in the presence of witnesses and tells the borrower: \"Do not repay me outside the presence of witnesses,\" the borrower must repay him in the presence of witnesses because of this stipulation. This applies whether he made this stipulation at the time the loan was given or after the loan was given.
If the borrower claims: \"I fulfilled the stipulation and repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, and they journeyed overseas or died,\" his word is accepted. He may take a sh'vuat hesset, and then he is freed of responsibility.
Similarly, if the lender states: \"Repay me only in the presence of Torah scholars,\" or \"... in the presence of doctors,\" and the borrower claims: \"I repaid you in their presence, but those witnesses in whose presence I repaid you died or journeyed overseas,\" his word is accepted. He may take a sh'vuat hesset, and then he is freed of responsibility.
If, however, the lender stipulates: \"Do not repay me except in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so and so,\" and the borrower claims: \"I repaid you in the presence of other witnesses, and they died or journeyed overseas,\" his word is not accepted. Indeed, the lender stipulated: \"Do not pay me except in the presence of Reuven and Shimon,\" who are standing with him, so that the borrower will not rebuff him, saying: \"I repaid you in the presence of other people, and they journeyed away.\"", + "There are versions of the Talmud that state that when a person tells a colleague: \"Do not repay outside the presence of witnesses,\" and the borrower claims: \"I fulfilled the stipulation and repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, and they journeyed overseas or died,\" his word is not accepted. This is a scribal error. For this reason, the halachic authorities erred because of those texts. I have researched ancient versions of the text and I found that they state that the borrower's word is accepted. In Egypt, a portion of an ancient text of the Talmud written on parchment, as was the custom in the era approximately 500 years before the present era, came to my possession. I found two versions of this law among those parchments. Both state: \"If he claims: 'I fulfilled the stipulation and repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, and they journeyed overseas or died,' his word is accepted.\"
Because of the error that occurred with regard to some texts, there are several Geonim who ruled that if the lender stipulates: \"Do not repay me except in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so,\" and the borrower repaid him in the presence of others, the borrower's word is not accepted even if he brought witnesses, and they testify that he paid him in their presence. This is also a great mistake. The true law is that if witnesses come and testify that he paid the lender in their presence, the borrower is freed from responsibility; there is no place for suspicion.
This ruling also stems from those texts that state with regard to a lender who tells his colleague: \" 'Repay me in the presence of witnesses who study Torah law,' and the borrower repaid him in the presence of ordinary witnesses....\" This is also a scribal error. In the above-mentioned parchments, I found it written: \"And he went and paid him in private.\"
Although these texts have been carefully edited, this appears to be the ruling based on the judgment of the Talmud. Moreover, these concepts make sense: \"What should the borrower do? The lender told him: \"Do not repay me except in the presence of witnesses,\" and he repaid him in the presence of witnesses. Should he have locked the witnesses in prison for their entire lives so that they do not depart? Besides, what could he do if they died? Thus, the borrower will be forced to pay the lender time after time until he brings witnesses to court. This makes this testimony equivalent to testimony recorded in a legal document. Thus, by saying: \"Do not repay except in the presence of witnesses,\" the lender endows the loan with the strength of a loan recorded in a promissory note. There is no one who would think that this is correct.
Instead, certainly, if the lender stipulated: \"Do not repay me except in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so,\" the borrower caused himself a loss if he repaid the loan in the presence of other witnesses who departed. If, however, these witnesses come and testify that he repaid the debt, there is no question that the borrower should not be held responsible. This is the manner in which judgment should be rendered and instruction should be given.", + "If the lender had the borrower agree to the stipulation that the lender's word would be accepted whenever he claimed that the borrower did not pay him, he may collect the debt without taking an oath. This applies even though the borrower claims that he paid him. If, however, the borrower brings witnesses who testify that he paid him, the lender is not entitled to expropriate any funds.", + "If the lender had the borrower agree to the stipulation that the lender's word would be accepted as the testimony of two witnesses, even if the borrower brings witnesses who testify that he paid him, he may collect the debt without taking an oath. For he accepted his word as that of two witnesses. ) This law applies even if the borrower brought 100 witnesses that he paid the lender, for the legal power of two witnesses is the same as that of 100 witnesses.
If, however, the borrower told the lender: \"I accept your word as that of three witnesses,\" since he mentioned a number, if the borrower pays the lender in the presence of four witnesses, we consider the debt to be paid. When a person accepted the lender's word as equivalent to that of two witnesses, how can he correct the matter? When he pays, he should have the promissory note ripped up, the lender testify that he nullifies every promissory note he has against so-and-so, the borrower, or the lender give testimony against himself outside the presence of the borrower that he received payment for all debts owed to him by so-and-so the borrower.", + "If the borrower pays the lender, the lender claims that he was not paid, and the borrower paid him a second time because of the stipulation, the borrower can lodge a suit against the lender claiming: \"You owe me such and such, because I paid you twice.\" If the lender acknowledges the borrower's claim, he must repay him. If he denies the claim, he is required to take a sh'vuat hesset, stating that the borrower paid him only once. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "When the borrower had the lender agree to the stipulation that the borrower's word would be accepted whenever he claimed that he paid the debt, the lender may not collect this debt on the basis of this promissory note - neither from the borrower's heir, nor from a person who purchased property from him. Moreover, even if the borrower said: \"I did not pay this debt,\" the lender may not use this promissory note to expropriate property from a person who purchased property from the borrower. The rationale is that we suspect that the lender and the borrower perpetrated an act of deception to take the purchaser's property.
If the borrower claims to have paid a portion of the debt recorded in this promissory note, and the lender claims that he did not pay anything, the borrower is required to pay the portion that he admitted to owing. With regard to the remainder, he is required to take a sh 'vuat hesset. The rationale is that the lender accepted his word. If he originally stipulates that his word would be accepted without having to take a sh'vuat hesset, he is not required to take that oath.", + "If the lender stipulates that his word will be accepted without his having to take an oath, he may collect the debt without taking an oath. If, however, he must collect the debt from the borrower's heirs, he must take an oath; only afterwards may he collect the debt. If, however, he stipulated that he would also be able to collect from the heirs without taking an oath, he may collect the debt from them without an oath.
Similarly, if the lender stipulates that he will be able to expropriate the most valuable property owned by the borrower, he may expropriate that property, even from the heirs. The rationale is that any stipulation made with regard to financial matters is binding.
If the lender comes to collect from a person who purchased property from the borrower, he may expropriate the property only after taking an oath. The rationale is that the borrower may not accept a stipulation that will cause a colleague a loss." + ], + [ + "The debt is the responsibility of the borrower until he pays the lender or the lender's agent. If the lender said: \"Throw the money owed to me and become freed of responsibility,\" the borrower threw it to him, and it became lost or destroyed by fire before it reaches the lender, the borrower is not responsible.
The following rules apply if the lender told him: \"Throw the money owed to me in a manner governed by the laws of a bill of divorce.\" If the money was closer to the borrower, it is still his responsibility. If it was closer to the lender, the borrower is no longer responsible. If it is half and half, and it is lost or stolen from there, the borrower is required to pay half of the debt.", + "When Reuven owes Shimon a maneh, gives the maneh to Levi and tells him: \"Give this maneh that I owe Shimon to him,\" Reuven may not retract. Nevertheless, he is held responsible for the maneh until it reaches Shimon.
If Levi returned the maneh to Reuven, they are both responsible for it until Shimon receives full payment for the debt owed him.", + "A transfer of a debt is rescinded in the following situation. Reuven owed Shimon a maneh. Shimon told Reuven: \"Take the maneh that you owe me and give it to Levi.\" Since the three were standing together and Levi agreed, the transfer would ordinarily be binding. Nevertheless, if it is discovered that Reuven is poor and does not have the resources to pay, Levi can ask Shimon for payment of the debt, for he deceived him.
If Levi knew ' that Reuven was poor at that time or Reuven was rich at that time and became impoverished afterwards, Levi cannot demand payment from Shimon, for he accepted the transfer.
If Levi argues that Reuven was poor at the time and Shimon deceived him, and Shimon maintains that he was wealthy and later became impoverished, it appears to me that Shimon must bring proof of his claim. Only then is he freed of responsibility from the debt he owes Levi. This is no different from an instance where he has a receipt in his hand, and we tell him: \"Prove the authenticity of your receipt, and then you will be freed of responsibility.\"", + "We already explained the following concept in the laws of business transactions. These laws apply when Reuven was not owed anything by Shimon, but did owe a maneh to Levi. If he told Levi to collect the debt from Shimon - even if he made that statement in the presence of the three of them -it is not binding. If Shimon does not desire to pay Levi, he need not. If, however, he does pay him, he may collect the money from Reuven, since he paid him because of his instructions.
Similarly, if Levi desires to retract and say: \"I do not desire to collect the debt from Shimon,\" he may collect the debt from Reuven. This applies even if he collected a portion of the debt from Shimon; he may collect the remainder from Reuven.", + "The following laws apply with regard to a store-keeper who would give a house-owner anything he desires on credit, postponing payment until the entire amount reaches a substantial sum, at which time he would pay him.
The employer says: \"Give my workers a sela...\" or \"... my creditor the maneh that I owe him and I will repay you.\" Afterwards, the storekeeper said: \"I gave the money you instructed me to give,\" and the worker or the creditor says: \"I did not receive it.\" The worker or the creditor must take an oath; he may then collect the debt owed him from the employer. Similarly, the store-keeper may take an oath and collect what he claims from the employer, for he told him to pay that money.
The worker must take the oath in the presence of the storekeeper, and the storekeeper must do so in the presence of the worker or the creditor, so that they will be embarrassed by each other. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
This oath is a Rabbinical ordinance, administered while the person holds a sacred article, because both claimants are coming to collect money. Therefore, if the storekeeper dies, the creditor may collect the debt without taking an oath. Similarly, if the worker or the creditor dies, the storekeeper may collect the claim he makes without taking an oath. The rationale is that in such a situation the employer is not losing anything and is making payment only once.", + "When the store-keeper says: \"You told me to give this person a maneh,\" or \"You commanded me and told me, 'If so-and-so comes, give him,'\" and the employer claims: \"I did not tell you,\" the employer must take a sh'vuat hesset to support his claim. He is then freed of responsibility. The store-keeper should then lodge a suit against the person he claims to have paid.
Similarly, if a storekeeper tells an employer with whom he has a credit arrangement: \"It is written in my account book that you owe me a maneh\" and the employer says: \"I don't know,\" the employer must take a sh'vuat hesset that he does not know. He is then freed of responsibility, as is the law with regard to any situation where one person lodges a claim against another. There is no Rabbinical ordinance governing such a situation.", + "When Reuven produces a promissory note that states that Shimon owes a debt to Levi, and claims that Shimon gave it to him by signing a deed acknowledging the transfer and giving it to him, but that the deed of transfer was lost, or he claims that Levi transferred the promissory note to him via the acquisition of land, he may collect the debt from Shimon. The rationale is that Reuven is in possession of the promissory note.
If Shimon claims that he paid Levi and demands that an oath be taken, Levi must take an oath to Shimon. Afterwards, Reuven may collect the debt. If Levi admits that Shimon paid him, Levi must pay Reuven. If Levi claims that he neither sold nor gave the promissory note to Reuven, Levi is required to take a sh'vuat hesset and is then freed of responsibility.", + "When a promissory note is in the hands of a third party, and he produces it in a court of law and says: \"It has been paid,\" his word is accepted. This applies even if the authenticity of the note has been verified. The rationale is that if he had desired, he could have burned it or torn it.
Similarly, if the third party died, and a note is found in his possession stating that the promissory note entrusted to him has been paid, we consider it paid. This applies even though the note stating the debt was paid is not signed by witnesses.
When, by contrast, a note is found in the creditor's possession that a particular promissory note has been paid, even if the note stating that the debt was paid is in the creditor's handwriting, it is considered to be merely facetious.", + "If witnesses signed the note discovered in the creditor's possession, when their signatures have been verified, the note is considered paid. If their signatures have not been verified, the witnesses who signed the receipt should be interrogated. If they do not know of the matter or if they are not present to be asked, the receipt is ignored, because it was found in the possession of the lender or his heirs.", + "If the promissory note mentioned in the note that was discovered was found among the promissory notes belonging to the lender that have been paid, we assume that it was paid, even if the note that was found was not signed by witnesses.
Similarly, if it is written on the promissory note itself - whether on its front or back, or even on only a portion of it - that this promissory note or a portion of it was paid, we follow those statements. This applies even though witnesses did not sign the statement, and the promissory note is in the possession of the lender. For if the promissory note had not been paid, he would not have written on the note itself.", + "When a person finds a promissory note among his other legal documents and he does not know its status, it should remain in his possession until Eliyahu comes.", + "When a person tells his sons: \"One of the promissory notes among my promissory notes has been paid and I don't know which one it is,\" all of the promissory notes are considered paid. If there are two promissory notes from one person, the greater one is considered paid and the lesser one is considered unpaid.
If a person tells a colleague: \"One of your promissory notes in my possession has been paid,\" the greater one is considered to be paid and the lesser one is considered to be unpaid. If he tells him: \"The debt you owe me has been paid,\" all of the promissory notes he has against him are considered paid." + ], + [ + "The following laws apply when a lender dies and his heir comes and demands payment from a borrower, because of the promissory note for which he is liable. If the borrower claims: \"I paid your father,\" and the heir says: \"I don't know whether you did or not,\" we tell the borrower: \"Arise and pay him.\"
If the borrower demands: \"Take an oath for me,\" the heir should take an oath, while holding a sacred object, that his father did not instruct him via another person that the debt was paid, that he did not tell him this verbally, and that he did not find a note saying that this promissory note was paid among his father's legal documents. After taking this oath, he may collect the debt.", + "If the borrower died after the lender died, and the lender's heir comes and demands payment from the borrower's heir, he may not collect payment unless he takes an oath. We tell him: \"Take an oath that 'My father did not instruct me...,' 'My father did not tell me...,' 'I did not find a note saying that this promissory note was paid among my father's legal documents.'\"
Even if the heir was a baby lying in a cradle when his father died, he must take this oath and collect. If the lender made a statement immediately before his death that this promissory note has not been paid, the lender's heir need not take an oath before exacting payment. This applies even if he is collecting payment] from the heir.", + "If, however, the borrower died first and then the lender died, the lender's heirs may not collect anything from the borrower's heirs. The rationale is that when the borrower died, the lender became obligated to take an oath before collecting, as we have explained in the previous halachah. He has already died, and a person does not bequeath an oath to his sons. For they are unable to take an oath that their father was not paid anything.
Nevertheless, if a judge transgressed and required the lender's heirs to take an oath and enabled them to collect their debt, the money that they collected should not be expropriated from their possession. Therefore, a promissory note that is used as the basis for a claim by the heirs of a lender who seek to collect from the heirs of a borrower when the borrower died first, should not be torn, nor should it be used to expropriate money.
It should not be used to expropriate money, because a person does not bequeath an oath to his sons, as explained. It should not, however, be torn, lest there be a judge who will expropriate money because of it.", + "In the situation described above, even if the debt was secured by a guarantor, the lender's heirs should not expropriate the debt from the guarantor. The rationale is that if they are told to collect the debt from the guarantor, the guarantor will go and seek payment from the borrower's heirs.", + "Extrapolation is not made from this law to a similar instance. Instead, when a person who impairs the legal power of a promissory note then dies -although he is not entitled to collect the debt unless he takes an oath - his children may take an oath that their father did not instruct them..., their father did not tell them..., they did not find a note saying that this promissory note was paid in its entirety among his father's legal documents. They may then collect the remainder of the sum stated in the promissory note from the lender or from his heirs.", + "When a lender's heir comes to collect payment of a promissory note from the borrower's heirs and the latter say: \"Our father told us: 'I did not borrow the money mentioned in this debt,'\" the lender's heirs may collect the debt without taking an oath. The rationale is that whenever a person says \"I did not borrow,\" it is as if he says: \"I did not pay.\"
Similarly, when the lender himself comes to collect payment from the heirs of a borrower, and they say: \"Our father told us: 'I did not borrow the money mentioned in this debt,'\" the lender may collect the debt without taking an oath. This applies even if in the promissory note the lender stated that he would accept the borrower's word whenever he claims to have paid the debt. For in this instance as well, we follow the rationale that whenever a person says \"I did not borrow,\" it is as if he says: \"I did not pay.\"", + "The following laws apply when the lender's heir comes and demands payment from a borrower on the basis of a promissory note that contains a stipulation that the borrower's word will be accepted, whenever the borrower says: \"I paid the debt.\" He is required to take a sh'vuat hesset that he paid this debt and is freed of liability. This applies even if the stipulation does not state: \"Your word will be accepted against a claim issued by my heirs.\" The rationale is that the very basis of the promissory note depends on this stipulation.
If the stipulation states that the borrower's word would be accepted without an oath, he is not required to take an oath, even to the lender's heirs.", + "The following laws apply when the lender's heir is below majority, he possesses a promissory noted owed to his father, but a receipt for this note was produced after the father's death. We do not rip up the promissory note, nor do we allow payment to be expropriated on its basis until the heir reaches majority. The rationale is that it is possible that the receipt is a forgery. That possibility is reinforced by the fact that the borrower did not produce it during the lender's lifetime.", + "When a person produces a promissory note against a colleague, stating that it was composed in Babylonia, he collects the debt in the coinage of Babylonia. If the promissory note was written in Eretz Yisrael, he should collect the debt in the coinage of Eretz Yisrael. This is not the case with regard to a ketubah
The following rules apply when the promissory note did not state the place where it was composed. If the lender produced it in Babylonia, he should collect the debt in the coinage of Babylonia. If he produced it in Eretz Yisrael, he should collect the debt in the coinage of Eretz Yisrael. If the lender sought to collect the debt in the coinage of the place where he produced the promissory note, and the borrower protested, claiming that he is obligated to pay in a coinage that is worth less than the local coinage, the lender should support his claim with an oath. He may then collect the debt. If the promissory note states that money is owed without any more specifics, the lender may collect only what the borrower agrees to pay.
From these laws, we can derive the following principles: A legal document that does not mention the place where it was composed is acceptable for all matters. Similarly, a legal document that is not dated is acceptable, even though it is testimony that cannot be nullified through hazamah. The rationale is that in financial laws, we are not stringent and do not subject the witnesses to precise cross-examination and interrogation, as will be explained. This leniency was adopted so as not to prevent loans from being granted. For this reason, post-dated promissory notes are acceptable, although the testimony of the witnesses who signed cannot be nullified through hazamah as will be explained in the appropriate place." + ], + [ + "When a person lends money to a colleague without any stipulations, all of the borrower's property is on lien and bound to the debt. Therefore, when the lender comes to collect his debt, he should demand payment from the debtor first. If the debtor does not have money, but is in possession of either landed or movable property, he may collect the debt from them with the borrower's consent. If the borrower did not give the property willingly, the lender should have the property expropriated by the court.
If the property in the borrower's possession was not equal in value to the amount stated in the promissory note, the lender may expropriate the debt from all the property that was in the borrower's possession, even though it is now sold or given as presents to others. The rationale is that since the borrower sold or gave away the property after it was subjugated to the lien of this debt, he may expropriate the property from the possession of purchasers or the recipients of the presents. This is called being toreif.
To what does the above apply? To landed property in the borrower's possession at the time of the loan. Property that the borrower acquired after the loan was given, by contrast, is not automatically on lien to the creditor, and he may not expropriate it from purchasers. If, however, the lender established the stipulation that all the property that the borrower will acquire afterwards will be on lien for him to collect the debt from it, property that the borrower acquired after taking the loan and subsequently sold or gave away may be expropriated by a creditor.", + "The above statements apply only to landed property. Movable property that has been sold, by contrast, is not on lien to a debt. Even property in the borrower's possession at the time of the loan may not be expropriated by his creditor.
If the debtor transferred a lien to all his movable property by virtue of the lien on landed property so that the creditor can expropriate everything, he may expropriate that movable property. This applies only when he writes in the promissory note: \"I have transferred to you a lien on my movable property by virtue of the lien on my landed property. This is not an asmachta, nor is this a standard form of a legal document.\"
Similarly, he may write: \"All of the property that I will purchase in the future, whether landed property or movable property, is on lien to you so that you can expropriate payment from it, and the lien on my movable property is transferred to you by virtue of the lien on my landed property, so that you can expropriate payment from them. This is not an asmachta, nor is this a standard form of a legal document.\" In such an instance, the creditor may expropriate even the movable property that the borrower purchased after he borrowed the money. The rationale is that any stipulation made concerning a financial transaction is binding.", + "The following laws apply when a person designates a field of his as an ipotiki for a creditor for a debt, or for a woman for her ketubah - i.e., he composed a legal document stating that they should collect payment from that source - and a river flooded the field. The creditor may expropriate other property as payment for the debt. If, however, it was stipulated that he should not derive payment from any place other than this, he should not expropriate other property.
Similarly, if a person borrowed money and explicitly stipulated that his property is not on lien to the debt, the creditor may never collect this debt from property that has been sold to others.", + "When a person designates a field of his as an ipotiki for a creditor for a debt, or for a woman for her ketubah and then sells it, the sale is binding. If when the creditor comes to collect his debt, he does not find any property that has not been sold, he may expropriate the field that had been designated from the person who purchased it.
When does the above apply? When the debtor sold the field for a limited amount of time. If, however, he desired to sell it forever, the sale is not binding.", + "When a person designates a servant as an ipotiki, a creditor can expropriate the servant in payment of the debt even if he was sold to another person. ' The rationale is that the matter will be publicized. If he designates his cow as an ipotiki, a creditor may not expropriate the cow. The same ruling applies with regard to other movable property, for the matter will not be publicized.", + "When a master designates his servant as an ipotiki and then frees him, he obtains his freedom. This applies even if he wrote in the promissory note: \"You will not receive payment from any source but this.\"
Similar rules apply if he consecrates the servant. The rationale is that [the prohibition against leaven, freeing a servant and consecration remove the lien from an article.
The creditor may collect his debt from the debtor. If he does not have the means to pay him, he must compose a promissory note acknowledging his debt, and with that promissory note he can expropriate property that was sold by the debtor after the date of this second promissory note.
Why is he obligated to pay the debt? Because he caused his colleague's money to be lost. And whenever a person causes a colleague a loss, he must make financial restitution, as explained in the appropriate place.
We also compel the servant's second master to free him as well. This is a measure enacted for the correction of society, lest the creditor encounter the servant in the marketplace at a later time and say: \"You are my slave.\"", + "When a person consecrates his property, the creditor cannot expropriate the property from the Temple treasury, for the consecration of property lifts the lien from it.
When the property is redeemed from the Temple treasury, we estimate how much a person would desire to give for this field, so that the creditor will be paid his due, or the woman the money due her by virtue of her ketubah. Therefore, when the field is redeemed and becomes unconsecrated property in the possession of the purchaser, the creditor can come and expropriate his debt from it, or the woman can take it as payment for the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, as we have explained in Hilchot Arachin.", + "When a creditor comes to expropriate a field from the purchaser, if the purchaser has money in his possession, he may eliminate the creditor's claim by paying him the money for which he is expropriating the field. The purchaser then demands repayment from the seller. If, however, the debtor had designated the field as an ipotiki, the purchaser may not eliminate the creditor's claim by paying him.", + "The purchaser is also given the upper hand in the following situation: Reuven owed Shimon 200 zuz. Reuven owned two fields. He sold one to Levi for a maneh, and then sold him the other one for a second maneh. Shimon expropriated one for a maneh and then sought to expropriate the other for the second maneh that was owed him. Levi brought 200 zuz in coin and told Shimon: \"If you desire to consider the field that you already expropriated as payment for the entire 200 zuz that you are owed, that is acceptable. If not, here are the 200 zuz of the debt; rescind your claim.\" Levi is given the upper hand.
If Shimon accepted Levi's proposition and kept the one field, Levi cannot demand payment from Reuven for more than one maneti, despite the fact that Shimon accepted it as compensation for 200 zuz.", + "The creditor, by contrast, is given the upper hand in the following situation. Reuven owed Shimon 200 zuz. Reuven died and left one field that was worth 100 zuz. Shimon came and expropriated it. The orphans gave Shimon 100 zuz worth from the movable property that their father left, and thus removed Shimon from it. Shimon may, however, return and expropriate it for the remainder of his debt. The rationale is that by giving him the 100 zuz, they performed a mitzvah, for it is a mitzvah for heirs to pay their father's debt.
If the heirs told Shimon: \"This 100 is for the field you expropriated,\" he cannot come back and expropriate it again for the remainder of the money owed him." + ], + [ + "When the court attaches the property of a borrower to expropriate it, they should expropriate only land of intermediate quality for a lender.
According to Scriptural Law, a creditor should receive only the property of inferior quality, as implied by Deuteronomy 24:11: \"You shall stand outside and the person who owes you the money shall bring the security out to you.\" What is the tendency of a person to bring out? The least valuable of his utensils. Our Sages, however, ordained that a creditor could expropriate property of intermediate quality, so that people would not refuse to give loans.
When does the above apply? When the lender comes to collect from the borrower himself. If, however, the borrower dies, and the lender comes to collect from his heirs - whether they are below or above the age of majority -he may collect only property of inferior value.", + "We do not collect payment from property that has been sold, when the debtor owns property that is still in his possession. [This applies even if the property in his possession is of inferior quality, and the property that has been sold is of intermediate or superior quality, and whether the property was sold or given away as presents.
If the property that has not been sold is flooded, the creditor may collect the property that has been sold. The rationale is that since it has been devastated, it is as if it no longer exists.", + "The creditor is given the upper hand in the following situation. Reuven sold all his fields to Shimon, and Shimon sold one of his fields to Levi. If one of Reuven's creditors comes to expropriate property in payment for his debt, he may expropriate property from either Shimon or Levi.
When does the above apply? When Levi purchased property of intermediate value. If, however, he purchased property that was of superior or inferior value, the creditor cannot expropriate property from Levi. For Levi will tell him: \"I purposely took the trouble of purchasing a field that you have no right to expropriate, so that you would not have a claim against me.\" Similarly, if Levi purchased a field of intermediate worth and left Shimon a field of intermediate worth similar to the one of intermediate worth that he expropriated, the creditor cannot expropriate the field from Levi, for he will tell the creditor: \"I left you property to expropriate as payment for your debt.\"", + "We have already explained that payment for damages should be expropriated from property of superior value, a lender should expropriate property of intermediate value, and the money due a woman by virtue of her ketubah should be expropriated from property of inferior value.
When a person owns only property of superior value and property of inferior value, damages should be expropriated from the property of superior value, and a lender and a woman collecting the money due her by virtue of her ketubah should expropriate the property of inferior value.
If he owns only property of superior value and property of intermediate value, damages should be expropriated from the property of superior value, and a lender and a woman collecting the money due her by virtue of her ketubah should expropriate the property of intermediate value.
If he owns only property of inferior value and property of intermediate value, damages and payment for a loan should be expropriated from the property of intermediate value, and a woman collecting the money due her by virtue of her ketubah should expropriate the property of inferior value.", + "When a person owns three fields and he sells them to three people at the same time, they all take the place of the previous owner. Thus, payment for damages should be expropriated from property of superior value, a lender should expropriate property of intermediate value and the money due a woman by virtue of her ketubah should be expropriated from property of inferior value.
If he sold them one after the other, they should all expropriate their due from the last purchaser. If the worth of that property was not sufficient, they should expropriate from the property purchased before it. If the worth of that property was also not sufficient, they should expropriate from the property purchased first.
This applies even if the last purchaser acquired the property of inferior quality. For the purchaser who preceded him can tell the person who seeks to expropriate property: \"I left you property from which you could collect your debt.\"", + "When a debtor sells all of his properties to one person, one after the other, that person takes the place of the original owner.
When does the above apply? When he purchased the property of superior quality last. When, however, he purchased the property of inferior quality last, all the creditors must collect their due from that property. For when a person comes to expropriate property, the purchaser will tell him: \"I left you property from which you can collect your debt.\"
Why does the creditor not tell this to a person who seeks to expropriate the property when he purchased the property of superior value first, and thus a woman collecting the money due her by virtue of her ketubah and a lender would also expropriate their due from the property of superior value? Because this possibility is an ordinance instituted for the sake of the purchaser. And he will tell them: \"I cannot accept this ordinance.\" Instead, each type of creditor will collect from the property fit for him.", + "Similarly, the following laws apply when the debtor sold all his properties to one person, one after the other, selling him the property of superior value last, and that purchaser sold the property of inferior and intermediate value to a third party and retained the property of superior value for himself. All the debtors collect their due from the property of superior value, for the purchaser does not have any property from the original debtor to divert them to.
When the purchaser sold the property of superior value and retained the properties of inferior and intermediate value, payment for damages should be expropriated from property of superior value in the possession of the second purchaser. The debt owed a lender and the money due a woman by virtue of her ketubah should be expropriated from the property of intermediate and inferior value that the first purchaser retained.", + "As reflected in the following situation, when a person limits his power to expropriate property, his waiver may extend beyond his original intent: One person borrowed money from a colleague. Afterwards, the borrower sold his property to two people each person purchasing a portion for himself, one after the other. The creditor wrote to the second purchaser, pledging that he would not expropriate the property as payment for the debt and affirmed his commitment with a kinyan. Our Sages ruled that he is also not able to expropriate the property sold to the first purchaser. For that purchaser will say to the creditor: \"I left you the opportunity of collecting the money owed you from the debtor by expropriating the property that the second purchaser bought after I did. You caused yourself a loss by removing your lien on it.\"
Similar laws apply with regard to a woman who seeks to collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah. If she writes such a waiver to the second purchaser, she loses the right to the money due her by virtue of her ketubah and cannot expropriate property. If, however, such persons write such a waiver to the first purchaser, they may expropriate the property from the second purchaser.
The following situation can occur when a borrower sells a field to a purchaser and then the purchaser sells it to a second purchaser. The lender writes to the first purchaser, pledging that he would not expropriate the property as payment for the debt and affirms his commitment with a kinyan. The creditor may expropriate the property from the second purchaser. The first purchaser may expropriate the property from the creditor, because he pledged that he would not expropriate the property, and he did. The second purchaser can then expropriate the property from the first purchaser, because he sold it to him. The creditor may then expropriate the property again from the second purchaser, and the cycle continues until they arrange a compromise.
Similar laws apply with regard to a woman who seeks to collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah and makes a pledge to the person who purchased her husband's property." + ], + [ + "When a person owes many debts, the person whose debt was made first has the right to expropriate property first - from the borrower himself and from his creditors. If a later creditor expropriated property before the first creditor, the first creditor may expropriate it from him. For the person whose debt was established first acquires the property.
To what does the above apply? To landed property that the borrower possessed at the time that he took the loan. When, however, he purchased landed property after borrowing from many creditors, no one is granted precedence over the others, even if the borrower wrote to each one in the promissory note: \"The property that I will purchase in the future is on lien to you.\" Instead, all are equal, and whoever comes first and expropriates the property acquires it, even if he was the last to make the loan.", + "When a borrower writes in the promissory note: \"What I will acquire in the future is on lien to you,\" afterwards purchases a field and then borrows from another person, the field is on lien to the first lender. He has the right to expropriate it first. Similar principles apply even if there are 100 creditors.
There is no concept of precedence with regard to the expropriation of movable property. Instead, whoever comes first and expropriates it acquires it, even if he was the last to make the loan.
If another person came and seized possession of movable property belonging to this debtor in order to acquire the property on behalf of one of the creditors, that person does not acquire the property. The rationale is that a person who seizes property on behalf of a creditor in a situation where a loss is caused to another person does not acquire it. If, however, seizing it would not cause a loss to other people, he does acquire it for him. Similarly, if the borrower tells him: \"Acquire this article on behalf of so-and-so,\" he acquires it for him. None of the other creditors can expropriate this movable property, because another person has already acquired it.", + "When promissory notes are all dated on the same date - or at the same hour, in a place where the hours are mentioned - whichever creditor comes first and expropriates property, whether landed property or movable property, acquires it.", + "The ensuing laws apply when creditors whose promissory notes are dated on the same date all come to expropriate property together, or when creditors whose promissory notes were dated before one another come to expropriate movable property, for there is no concept of precedence with regard to movable property, or creditors come to expropriate property that the borrower purchased after taking the loan dated last, and the property the borrower possesses is not sufficient to enable each one to collect the debt that is owed to them.
How is the property divided? If when the property is divided in equal portions according to the number of creditors, the person owed the least will receive the amount owed him or less, the property is divided into that number of equal portions.
If dividing the property into equal portions would give the person owed the least more than he is owed, this is what should be done: We divide the sum equally among the creditors so that the person owed the least will receive the money that he is owed. He then withdraws. The remaining creditors then divide the balance of the debtor's resources in the following manner.
What is implied? A person owed three debts: one of a maneh, one for 200 and one for 300. If all the resources of the debtor total 300 zuz, they are divided 100 for each. Similarly, if his resources are less than 300, they should be divided equally among the three.
If his resources total more than 300 zuz, the 300 should be divided equally and then the person owed 100 should withdraw. The remaining money should be divided equally in this same manner.
What is implied? If the debtor's resources total 500 or less, the 300 should be divided equally, and then the person owed 100 should withdraw. The balance of 200 or less should then be divided equally among the remaining creditors, and then the second one withdraws.
If the debtor's resources total 600, the 300 should be divided equally, and then the person owed 100 should withdraw. They then divide 200 between the two equally, and then the second one withdraws. The 100 that remain should then be given to the person owed 300; he thus receives only 300. The debtor's resources should be divided according to this pattern even if there are 100 creditors, if they come to divide the resources at the same time. There are, however, Geonim who rule that the resources should be divided in proportion to the amount owed each creditor.", + "The fact that a promissory note is not dated correctly creates difficulties for its bearer. For example, Reuven and Shimon each possess a promissory note, stating that Levi owes them money. The promissory note possessed by Reuven is dated Nissan 5, and that possessed by Shimon is dated Nissan, without specifying a day. Levi possesses only one field that is not equal in value to the debts owed them both. Reuven is allowed to take possession of the field, for perhaps the promissory note owed Shimon was signed at the end of Nissan.
Similarly, Shimon cannot expropriate a field that was sold by Levi from lyyar or afterwards. For the purchaser will tell him: \"Perhaps the date of your promissory note is the first of Nissan. There is a field that was not sold at that time in the possession of Reuven. Expropriate it and then let Reuven, whose promissory note is dated after yours, come and expropriate the field from me.\" Therefore, if Reuven and Shimon write each other a document granting power of attorney, they may expropriate a field that was sold after lyyar using both vantage points.
Similar laws apply if Levi sold one field twice, composing separate deeds of sale for Reuven and for Shimon, with one dated on the first of Nissan and one Nissan, without specifying a day." + ], + [ + "When a creditor expropriates a field, he may also expropriate the increase in value that the purchaser brings about within the field. This applies whether the field increases in value because of an investment, or it increases in value as a matter of course.
There is, however, a difference between the two instances. If it increases in value as a matter of course, the creditor may expropriate the entire increase in value. If it increased in value because of an investment, the creditor may expropriate only half the increase.
What is implied? Reuven was owed a debt of 200 zuz by Shimon. Shimon sold a field to Levi for a maneh. Levi made an investment in the field and caused its value to increase and it is now worth 200. When Reuven expropriates it from Levi, he expropriates it from him for 100 and also the 50 that constitutes half the increase of value. If it increased in value on its own accord - e.g., the price rose or trees grew - he can expropriate the entire amount.
Great sages issued a ruling stating that a purchaser should not have lesser legal power than a person who occupies a field belonging to a colleague without permission, in which instance the increase in the field's value is appraised, and the squatter is given the weaker position. Therefore, if the field increased 100 zuz in value and Levi spent 50, Levi should receive all of his expenses and half of the increase in value beyond the expenses. The other half of the increase in value, and the principal, should be expropriated by the creditor. These are words of logic, and it is appropriate to rule accordingly. The purchaser then returns and expropriates the principal from Shimon's property, including even property that he sold or gave away after the time he sold this field to Levi. The increase in value that the creditor expropriated from Levi, the purchaser - whether half the increase in value or the entire increase - Levi may then expropriate only from property in the possession of Shimon. For it is an enactment instituted for the sake of society not to expropriate a property's increase in value, nor produce eaten by a thief, nor the sustenance given a widow and the deceased's daughters from property that has been sold. The rationale is that these are matters that have no limit. And it is one of the leniencies associated with a ketubah that a woman is not granted the opportunity of expropriating the money due her by virtue of her ketubah from a property's increase in value.
Why is a creditor able to expropriate only half the increase of value that comes after the investment was made? Because the increase in value comes after Shimon, the original owner borrowed money from Reuven and sold the property to Levi. Thus, Reuven and Levi can be considered to be two creditors of Shimon's and the increase in the value of the field as an increase in the value of his property that came after he borrowed from both of them. In such an instance, they divide the increase equally, as we have explained. Accordingly, the following rules apply in the ensuing circumstance. Reuven borrowed a maneh from Shimon, and in the promissory note wrote that he is extending the lien to: \"the property that I will acquire in the future.\" He then borrowed 200 zuz from Levi, and in the promissory note wrote that he is extending the lien to: \"the property that I will acquire in the future.\" He then purchased a field and sold it to Yehudah for 150 zuz. Yehudah made an investment and caused its value to increase, and ultimately it was worth 300 zuz. Shimon and Levi expropriate the principal and divide it equally. Thus, each receives 75 zuz.
The three - Shimon, Levi and Yehudah - then divide the 150 zuz of the field's increase in value according to the principles that we explained. Thus, Shimon expropriates the complete payment of the maneh owed him from this field. Levi expropriates 137 1/2, and Yehudah receives 62 1/2 from the field's increase in value. They should divide the increase in value in this manner. These principles apply even if there are 100 creditors.", + "All of the produce that the purchaser consumed, however, is not expropriated from him. The produce that is attached to the land, by contrast, including even the produce that no longer needs the nurture of the land - e.g., grapes that are ready to be harvested - may be expropriated by a creditor in the same way as he expropriates the property's increase in value.", + "When the recipient of a present invests in it and causes its value to increase, the creditor may not expropriate any of its increase in value. Instead, we evaluate its worth at the time the present was given and allow him to expropriate that amount. If, however, it increases in value as a matter of course, the creditor may expropriate the entire field. If the person giving the present accepts responsibility for it, the creditor may expropriate the increase in value from this field just as he would if it were in the possession of a purchaser.
Why is a creditor given the right to expropriate half of a property's increase in value from a purchaser, but not from a person who receives a present? Because the seller of the property wrote to the purchaser in the deed of sale: \"I am obligated to you for the principal, the labor you invest in it, and the increase in value that you will bring to it. I take responsibility for everything.\" The purchaser accepted this stipulation. For the purchaser took possession of the field on the condition that if the increase in the value of the field was expropriated from him, he would seek recompense from the seller. Even if this stipulation was not written in the deed of sale, it is a matter of public knowledge that this is the law governing the seller's responsibility to the purchaser. With regard to a present, by contrast, this stipulation does not apply. Hence, a creditor may not expropriate any increase in value that the recipient of a present brought about through investment.", + "Similarly, if orphans who inherit an estate increase its value, a creditor of their father may not expropriate any of its increase in value. If, however, the property increases in value as a matter of course, he may expropriate the entire increase.", + "The following laws apply when a creditor expropriates property for a debt owed him from a purchaser from the principal and half of the increase in the property's value. We then consider what remains of the landed property. If the land that remains would be of value to the purchaser - e.g., in a field, an area where nine kabbin of grain could be sown, in a garden, an area where half a kab of vegetables could be sown - the creditor and the purchaser should become partners with regard to the land. If the property is not large enough to be divided in a manner that the smaller portion of sufficient size would be referred to as a field or as a garden, the creditor should reimburse the purchaser financially for the increase in the value of the field, as is due him.", + "The following rules apply when a field was designated as an ipotiki. The creditor may expropriate the entire field. We consider the half of the field's increase in value which must be repaid to the purchaser. If half of the increase in value exceeds the purchaser's investment, he should collect the amount he invested from the creditor. He is given only this amount, because the creditor can tell him: \"It is my field that increased in value.\" He should collect the remainder of the money due him from the field's increase in value from the seller.
If half of the field's increase in value is less than the purchaser's investment, the purchaser should be reimbursed by the person who expropriated the field for only half of the field's increase in value. He then collects from the seller the other half of the field's increase in value.", + "When a creditor comes to expropriate property from heirs, and the heirs claim: \"We caused the value of the property to increase,\" but the creditor claims: \"Perhaps it was your father who caused the property to increase in value,\" the burden of proof is on the heirs.
If the heirs bring proof that they increased the value of the property, we evaluate the increase and their expenses. They receive the lesser of the two, and they are given this amount in money.
When does the above apply? When the field was designated an ipotiki. If, however, it was not designated an ipotiki, if the heirs desire, they have the right to pay the creditor the debt he is owed and absolve his claim. Or if they desire, they may take a share of the land that is equivalent to the value of the increase they brought to the value of the property." + ], + [ + "This is the order in which debts are collected: When the creditor brings his promissory note to the court and the authenticity of the witnesses' signatures are verified, we tell the borrower: \"Pay.\" We do not attach his property until the creditor demands this. If a judge errs and gives the creditor access to the borrower's property before he demands it, we remove the creditor from it.
If the borrower responds: \"I will pay. Establish a date for me, so that I will have time to borrow money from another person, offer my land as collateral, sell property and bring the money,\" we grant him 30 days. We do not require that he bring security to the court. For if he possessed movable property, the court would expropriate it immediately.
If the creditor desires, he may have a conditional ban of ostracism issued against anyone who possesses money or movable property and uses arguments to avoid payment. We do not require the borrower to bring a guarantor until he pays.
If the borrower has not brought payment when these 30 days are concluded, the court composes an adrachta. Similarly, if at the outset, when the lender demanded payment of him, he said: \"I will not pay,\" we compose an adrachta against his property immediately and do not grant him any time. Similarly, if what is involved is a loan supported by a verbal commitment alone and the borrower admits his obligation, we compose an adrachta against the property that is presently in his possession.", + "The following rules apply when the borrower claims: \"The promissory note concerning which the signatures of the witnesses was validated is a forgery. I will bring proof and nullify the matter The witnesses are located in this and this place and their names are so-and-so and so-and-so.\" If it appears to the judges that there is substance to his words, a time is established in which he must bring his witnesses to court. If it appears to them that he is merely raising deceptive arguments and fallacious claims, they should tell him: \"Pay.\" Afterwards, if he brings proof of his claim, the money should be returned to him.
If the creditor is a man of force and it is possible that the money will not be able to be recovered from him, it should be entrusted to a third party.", + "When a time was established for the borrower to bring proof and nullify the promissory note, that time came and he did not come to court, we wait for three court sessions Monday, Thursday and Monday. If he does not come, we compose a peticha against him and place him under a ban of ostracism.
We give him a further respite of 90 days while he is under the ban of ostracism. The first 30, for perhaps he is seeking a loan, the middle 30, for perhaps he is seeking to sell property, and the final 30, for perhaps the person who purchased his property is seeking to bring him the money.
When these 90 days are completed and the borrower still does not appear in court, the court composes an adrachta against his property and releases him from the ban of ostracism.", + "If the borrower lives within a two-day journey or less from the court, we do not compose an adrachta until we send messengers and inform him of this impending step. If he lives further away, it is not necessary to inform him.
When does the above apply? When throughout the entire 90 days he would procrastinate and say: \"Just now, I will bring proof that nullifies the promissory note.\" If, however, he says: \"I refuse to appear in court,\" we compose an adrachta against both his movable and his landed property immediately. Similarly, if a person is being sued on the basis of a legal document recording an object entrusted to him for safekeeping, we do not wait 90 days and instead, we compose an adrachta against his property immediately.", + "The statements made above - that if the borrower does not come at the conclusion of the 90-day period we compose an adrachta - applies only with regard to landed property. With regard to movable property, by contrast, different rules apply. Even after 90 days, as long as the borrower says: \"I will bring a proof and nullify the promissory note,\" we do not allow the lender to expropriate movable property.
The rationale is that the alleged lender might consume it and afterwards, the borrower will bring the proof that nullifies the promissory note, and then he will not find property belonging to the alleged lender that he can collect for repayment. This applies even if the lender possesses landed property, for perhaps that property will decrease in value or become dried out.", + "How is the adrachta composed? If we are expropriating property that is in the borrower's possession, we write in that document:
\"So-and-so was obligated by a judgment to pay so-and-so this amount. He has not made this payment on his own volition. Hence, we have composed this adrachta against this and this field that he possesses.\"
Afterwards, three experts evaluate a portion of that field equivalent in value to the debt that he owes, and its prospective sale is announced according to the appraisal until those who add to the estimation make their bids. If there are no buyers, we transfer ownership of that portion of the field to the creditor because of his debt and rip up the promissory note, if such a document existed. If there was no landed property in the borrower's possession, we compose the adrachta which states:
So-and-so undertook an obligation to so-and-so as recorded in the promissory note possessed by the creditor. The debtor has not paid this debt. We have not found property that is presently in the debtor's possession. We have already torn up the promissory note that the creditor possessed and have given him license to seek out and research whether there are any properties that the debtor sold from this and this date and onward, with the intent that his hand be raised over them. He has license to derive payment and expropriate his debt from all such properties.", + "After this adrachta is composed, the lender goes and seeks property belonging or that once belonged to the borrower. If he finds property that is in his possession, they are evaluated for him. If he finds only property that has been sold after the date of his promissory note, he may expropriate it. We tear up the adrachta and write a tirpa.", + "How is the tirpa composed? We write:
Because of the debt of this and this amount that so-and-so owes him, so-and-so won in court the right to expropriate this and this field that so-and-so purchased for this and this amount at this and this time. We have already torn up the adrachta that was in his possession, and we have given him license to expropriate this and this amount from this property.
", + "After the tirpa is written so that the lender may expropriate the property, we bring three experts to that field who evaluate that field and appraise how much of the field should be given to him for the principal and half of the field's increase in value, as explained. We then announce the property's sale for thirty days in the same manner as we announce the sale of property inherited by orphans.", + "Afterwards, if the borrower is with us on the land, we require the borrower to take an oath that he is bankrupt, as ordained by our Sages. We also require the person expropriating the property to take an oath while holding a sacred object that he did not collect payment for this debt, that he did not waive payment of it, and that he did not sell it to another person. Afterwards, we give the lender possession of the purchaser's according to the assessment of the debt owed him, and we compose a horadah.", + "How is this document composed? The judges write:
After we had an evaluation of the property made for so-and-so, because of the debt he was owed, we announced the sale of the property as is fitting, and we required both the person expropriating the property and the debtor to take the appropriate oaths, we have given so-and-so possession of this and this field. He may use it as a person uses property that he has acquired.", + "From which time may the person who seeks to expropriate this property derive benefit from its produce? From the time the days of the announcement are completed.", + "Whenever an adrachta does not state: \"We have torn up the promissory note,\" it is not an acceptable adrachta. Whenever a tirpa does not state: \"We have torn up the adrachta\" it is not an acceptable tirpa. Whenever a shuma does not state: \"We have torn up the tirpa,\" it is not an acceptable shuma.", + "When three experts descend to evaluate a property, one evaluates it as worth a maneh and two evaluate it at 200 zuz, or one evaluates it at 200 zuz and the other two evaluate it as worth a maneh, the assessor who offers the lone opinion is considered insignificant.
If one assessor evaluates it as worth a maneh, another at 80 zuz, and the third at 120, it is considered to be worth 100. If one says 100, the second 90, and the third 130, it is considered worth 110. This is our pattern of evaluation.", + "When the court evaluated property belonging to a purchaser on behalf of a person who sought to expropriate it and erred - even if the error was concerning the smallest amount - the sale if nullified. The rationale is that since the court is considered to be an agent of the person expropriating the property and the purchaser, they have permission to expedite the matter, but not to impair anyone's position as is the law applying to an agent. All of the Halachic authorities ruled in that manner.", + "When the court evaluates and expropriates a property for a creditor -whether from property in the creditor's possession or property that was in the possession of a purchaser - and afterwards, the borrower, the person from whom the property was expropriated, or their heirs, acquires financial resources and pays the creditor his money, the creditor is removed from that landed property. For property that was evaluated and expropriated should always be returned to its owners, as mandated by Deuteronomy 6:18: \"And you shall do what is just and good.\"", + "When the court evaluates and expropriates a property for a creditor and then evaluates and expropriates a property for a creditor of that creditor, the original owner can redeem it. The legal power of the second creditor is no greater than that of the first.
When a creditor sold the property expropriated for him, gave it away as a present, gave it to his creditor voluntarily, or he died and the property was inherited, the original owner does not have the right to redeem it. If landed property was evaluated and expropriated for a woman and then she married, or property she owned was evaluated and expropriated from her and she married, her husband is considered to be a purchaser with regard to her property. He is not required to return it, nor must it be returned to him." + ], + [ + "Promissory notes that are predated are invalid, because they will be used to expropriate property from purchasers in an unlawful manner. Accordingly, our Sages penalized the lender, ruling that he may expropriate only property in the debtor's possession with a predated promissory note. This is a decree, enacted lest he expropriate property from the first, earlier, date.", + "Postdated promissory notes are acceptable. For the legal power of the possessor of the promissory note has been diminished, for the lender can expropriate only property from the date of the promissory note. Even if the document does not state that it was postdated, it is acceptable.", + "When a promissory note is written during the day and signed in the night that follows it, it is unacceptable, because it is predated. If, however, the borrower and the lender were involved in negotiating the matter until night fell and then they signed, it is acceptable, even when the kinyan was made at night.", + "When a promissory note is dated on the Sabbath or on the tenth of Tishrei, we assume that it was postdated and that it is acceptable. We do not suspect that perhaps it is predated and that it was written on Sunday or on the eleventh of Tishrei. Instead, we accept the presumption that the promissory note is acceptable. The rationale is that it is known that legal documents are not composed on the Sabbath. Therefore, it was postdated.", + "We may compose a promissory note for the borrower even though he is not accompanied by the lender. We do not, however, compose a promissory note for the lender unless he is accompanied by the borrower.
When does the above apply? With regard to a promissory note that was affirmed by a kinyan For from the time the kinyan was carried out, the borrower's property was on lien. When, however, a promissory note was not affirmed by a kinyan, we do not compose the note even for the borrower, unless he is accompanied by the lender and he gives the note to the lender in our presence. The rationale is that we suspect that the borrower may have the document composed at this time so that he can take a loan in Nissan, but in fact the loan will not be given until Tishrei. Thus, the lender will be able to use this promissory note to expropriate property that was in the borrower's possession unlawfully from Nissan, although the promissory note did not enter his possession until Tishrei.", + "The following rules apply when witnesses performed a kinyan with the borrower, the seller, or another person involved in a business agreement, but the composition of the legal document was delayed extensively. If they remembered the date on which the kinyan was established, they should write the date of the kinyan in the legal document, even though it was not the date that they signed the legal document. It is not necessary for them to state in the document: \"Our signatures were delayed until this-and-this date.\" If the witnesses do not know the date on which the kinyan was performed, they should date the legal document from the day on which it was composed.
Similarly, witnesses who observed a business transaction in one country and composed a legal document in another country should not record the place where they observed the testimony in the legal document. Instead, they should record the place where they signed the legal document.", + "When deeds of sale are not dated with the date of the transaction, even those that are postdated are not acceptable. The rationale is that the purchaser may use them to expropriate property in an unlawful manner.
What is implied? For example, the seller could have repurchased the field from the purchaser before the date of the postdated deed of sale. The purchaser could then produce the postdated deed of sale and say: \"I returned and purchased it from you a second time.\" He could thus expropriate property from a purchaser unlawfully.
Why don't we harbor the same suspicions with regard to a postdated promissory note? It is possible that the borrower paid the lender before the date stated in the promissory note, the lender will write him a receipt, and then produce the promissory note and expropriate property unlawfully. We do not harbor such suspicions, because whenever a person composes a postdated promissory note, he can protect himself by having the receipt composed without a date. Thus, whenever the lender will produce the promissory note, the borrower can nullify it by producing this receipt. If the borrower did not do this and allowed the receipt to be composed dated the day when the debt was repaid, he caused himself a loss.", + "When a person was compelled to sell his field against his will and issued a protest, or hurried and sold the field or gave it away to another person before he sold it to the person who compelled him to sell it, the money that the person who compelled him to sell it gave him is considered to be a loan supported by a verbal commitment alone. He may not use that deed of sale to expropriate any property that had been sold by the seller to others. This law was stated, because this deed of sale should not have been written, and it was written only under compulsion. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "It is possible for a person to expropriate property without a legal document, merely on the basis of verbal testimony.
What is implied? If a person has witnesses who will testify that property was stolen from his father. He can expropriate the property on the basis of this testimony, although there is no legal document. Similarly, if witnesses testify that a judgment was concluded for his father to expropriate property from so-and-so, for this-and-this amount, at this-and-this time, and his father died without expropriating the property, the son may expropriate property on the basis of this testimony.", + "Therefore, we should never compose two deeds of sale for the same property, lest the purchaser perpetrate deception together with the creditor and expropriate property unlawfully.
What is implied? This person will expropriate this field from the purchaser based on testimony that his father had the right to expropriate it. The purchaser will then use one deed of sale that he possesses to expropriate property from people who purchased property after he did from the borrower who sold him the property. The court will tear up the deed of sale that the initial purchaser possesses.
For the sake of deception, the person who expropriated the field will allow the purchaser to take possession of it again. He will then expropriate it again on the basis of the testimony of his witnesses. The purchaser will then produce the second deed of sale and expropriate property from other purchasers unlawfully.
If so, what should a person who has lost his deed of sale to a property do if the witnesses to the sale are still alive? A second deed of sale should be composed, saying: \"This deed of sale may not be used to expropriate property that has been sold, or property that is in the possession of the seller. We have composed it only to establish so-and-so, the purchaser, as the owner of the field, so that the seller or his heirs cannot expropriate it from him.\"", + "This principle does not apply with regard to promissory notes. Even though the witnesses to the loan are alive and entered into a kinyan with the borrower, if the lender returns immediately and tells the witnesses: \"The promissory note that you composed for me is now lost or was burnt,\" they should not compose a second promissory note for him. We suspect that the debt was paid or that he waived payment.
The above applies even if the loan was given for a period of time. The lender cannot collect any money on the basis of the testimony of these witnesses, unless the borrower states: \"The loan was never given.\" In that instance, he is established as a liar through their testimony, as will be explained.", + "When a promissory note in a person's possession is worn and it is beginning to become effaced, the lender should have witnesses look at it. He should then come to the court, and the court will validate it. The witnesses who signed the promissory note itself, however, may not compose another promissory note on their own initiative, even when the promissory note was blotted out in their presence. Instead, they should go to the court, and the court will validate the promissory note.", + "How should this promissory note be validated? The court composes a new document that states: \"We the court composed of so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so, saw how so-and-so, the son of so-and-so, produced a promissory note that was effaced in our presence. It was dated on this-and-this date. So-and-so, and so-and-so are his witnesses.\"
If they composed such a document and required the testimony of the witnesses, and their testimony was corroborated, the lender may collect the debt with this document that was composed for him. No further validation is required.
If the court did not compose such a document , if the debtor protests that the document is a forgery, the lender must also bring proof regarding the signatures of the original witnesses, so that their testimony will be validated.", + "When a promissory note is torn, it is acceptable. If its wording is in the process of being rubbed out or muddled, as long as the form of the original letters are recognizable, it is acceptable.
If it is torn as the court tears a legal document, it is unacceptable. In which manner does the court tear a legal document? Both horizontally and vertically.", + "The following laws apply when a person repays a portion of a debt recorded in a promissory note. If the lender desires, he may exchange the original promissory note, and the court composes a new document for him for the remainder of the debt, with the lien beginning on the original date. The witnesses to the original promissory note may not take this initiative. If he desires, he may write the borrower a receipt.", + "When a person comes to pay his debt, and the lender tells him: \"I lost my promissory note,\" the lender should compose a receipt for him and then the borrower should pay the entire debt. The borrower may, however, have a ban of ostracism issued against anyone who hides his promissory note and claims that it is lost.
If the borrower lodges a definite claim, saying: \"The promissory note is in his possession. He just placed it in his pocket,\" my masters have ruled that the lender should take a sh'vuat hesset that the promissory note was lost. Afterwards, the borrower should pay the debt and a receipt should be composed.", + "When a lender produces a promissory note for a maneh and asks that two promissory notes for 50 zuz be composed, we do not comply. The rationale is that it is of benefit for the borrower to have the entire debt recorded in a single promissory note. For if he pays him a portion of the debt, the legal power of the promissory note will be impaired.
Conversely, if the lender produced two promissory notes, each one for 50 zuz, and asks that one promissory note for 100 be composed, we do not comply. Instead, we validate both of them individually. The rationale is that it is of benefit for the borrower to have two promissory notes, so that the lender cannot compel him to pay the entire sum at one time.", + "When a lender produces a promissory note for 100 zuz and says: \"Tear it up and compose another promissory note for 50,\" we do not heed his request. We fear that perhaps the borrower repaid the entire amount, and the lender wrote a receipt for him. If the lender authenticated the new promissory note for 50 zuz and the borrower produced the receipt, he would tell the borrower: \"This is another promissory note.\"" + ], + [ + "We have already explained that a promissory note concerning a loan that was affirmed by a kinyan may be composed for a borrower even when the lender is not together with him. Similarly, we compose a deed of sale for a seller even though the purchaser is not together with him. And we compose a receipt for a lender even though the borrower is not together with him. We compose a receipt for a woman even though her husband is not together with her, and a bill of divorce for a man even though his wife is not with him.
We do not compose legal documents for consecration and marriage, sharecropping agreements, business contracts, the choice of judges, the claims of the litigants, and any act of court without the consent of both principals. It is necessary to be careful about all the particulars of the composition of these documents, as is the case with regard to other legal documents.", + "Who must pay the scribe's fee for the composition of these documents? With regard to promissory notes, the borrower must pay. With regard to deeds of sale, the purchaser must pay. The woman must pay the fee for the bill of divorce. The groom must pay the fee for documents for consecration and marriage. The recipient of the field, the sharecropper, or the worker must pay the fee for the composition of a contract. With regard to the document recording the choice of judges and the claims of litigants, both parties must share the fee.", + "The following law applies both to legal documents composed for one of the parties when the other is not present, and legal documents that can be composed only when both consent and both are present - e.g., a promissory note written at the request of the lender, or a deed of sale written at the request of the purchaser. In all instances, the witnesses must recognize the identity of the individuals mentioned in the legal document, that this is so-and-so, the son of so-and-so, and that this is so-and-so, the son of so-and-so. This is necessary, lest two individuals come and try to perpetrate deceit, changing their names to the names of other people, and then acknowledge obligations to each other.", + "Whenever a person has established a name for 30 days in a city, we do not suspect that he has another name and has changed his name to perpetrate deceit. For if we would raise such suspicions, there would be no end to the matter.
Therefore, if a person who has not established has name in a city for 30 days comes and asks: \"Write a promissory note for me that I am obligated to so-and-so\" - or \"... to this person for these and these many dinarim\" we do not compose such a document for him unless he brings proof that this is his name, or he waits until his identity is established.", + "The following laws apply when there is a dispute with regard to any promissory note produced before us. For example, the borrower claims: \"I do not owe anything. Maybe a charlatan pretended that his name was my name and acknowledged owing money to this person.\" Or he might claim: \"I do not owe anything to this person, but rather to another person. This plaintiff is a charlatan in claiming that his name is the same as the name of the person to whom I owe.\" Since it has not been established that there are two people in that city with the same name, we pay no attention to his claim. For it is an accepted presumption that witnesses will not sign a legal document unless they know the identity of the people mentioned within it.
Similarly, it is an accepted presumption that witnesses will not sign a legal document unless they know with certainty that the persons making the statements concerning themselves are adults and mentally competent. And witnesses will not sign a legal document unless they know how to read and sign their names.", + "When witnesses do not know how to sign their names, and the names of the witnesses were cut out from a blank paper and placed over the legal document, and then the witnesses \"signed\" with this script, they are given stripes for rebellious conduct, and the promissory note is unacceptable.", + "When the head of a court of law knows about the general circumstances described in a legal document, he may sign it even though he does not read it himself, but instead, it was read to him by one of his scribes. The rationale is that the head of the court trusts the scribe, and the scribe is afraid. No other person can do this. A witness may not sign a legal document until he reads it word for word.", + "The following laws apply when there are two people in a city, each named Yosef, the son of Shimon. Neither of them can demand payment from the other on the basis of a promissory note that he produces, nor can a third party demand payment from either of them on the basis of a promissory note that he produces unless the witnesses who signed the promissory note come themselves and testify: \"This is the promissory note concerning which we testified, and this is the person concerning whom we testified regarding the loan.\"
Similarly, such individuals cannot divorce their wives unless they do so in the presence of the other individual with the same name. Similarly, if a person finds a receipt among his legal documents saying, \"The promissory note concerning the debt owed to Yosef, the son of Shimon, has been paid,\" the debts recording in the promissory notes this person owes to both of these individuals with the same name are considered to be paid.
What should people whose names and the names of their parents are alike do to enable them to compose valid legal documents? They should write the third generation as identification in the legal document. If the names of their grandparents are the same, they should write a sign. If the signs also looked alike, they should write their family lineage. If they were both priests or both Levites, they should write further generations.", + "The following laws apply when a person produces a promissory note against a colleague that states: \"I, so-and-so, the son of so-and-so, borrowed a maneh from you.\" Although the name of the lender is not mentioned in the promissory note, any person who produces this promissory note from his possession can expropriate payment with it. The borrower cannot rebuff the plaintiff by saying that the promissory note belonged to another person from whom it fell.
Similarly, when there are two people named Yosef, the son of Shimon, dwelling in the same city and one of them produces a promissory note against one of the inhabitants of the city, the defendant cannot rebuff him by saying: \"I am obligated to so-and-so whose name is the same as yours and this promissory note fell from him.\" Instead, the person who produced the promissory note may use it to collect the debt. We do not suspect that the promissory note fell.", + "The following laws apply when two persons produce promissory notes against each other. The latter cannot tell the first: \"If I owed you money, why would you borrow from me?\" Instead, each one is entitled to collect the debt mentioned in his promissory note.
If both of the promissory notes were for 100 zuz, both of the principals possessed property of equivalent value, be it property of superior quality, property of intermediate quality, or property of inferior quality, we do not attend to them. Instead, each person remains with what he possesses. If one possesses property of superior quality and property of intermediate quality, and the other only property of inferior quality, the one should expropriate the property of intermediate quality, and the other should expropriate the property of inferior quality.", + "The following laws apply when a person produces a promissory note against a colleague and that person produces a deed of sale, stating that the alleged lender sold him a field. If they are in a place where the purchaser pays the money, and afterwards the seller writes the deed of sale, the promissory note is invalidated. The rationale is that the borrower will tell the alleged lender: \"If I was indebted to you, you should have used the money to pay the debt.\"
In a place where the deed of sale is composed and then the money is paid, however, the promissory note is viable. For the alleged lender can claim: \"I sold you the field so that you would have known property from which I could collect my debt if you claimed bankruptcy.\"" + ], + [ + "The following law applies when a person gives a loan to a colleague and afterwards, a third party says: \"I will act as a guarantor,\" the lender sues the borrower and a third party says: \"Let him go. I will act as a guarantor, or the lender was strangling the borrower in the market place and a third party says: \"Let him go. I will act as a guarantor.\" The guarantor is not obligated at all. Even if the prospective guarantor says in the presence of a court: \"I will guarantee the money,\" he is not liable.
If, however, he formalizes his commitment to guarantee the money with a kinyan, he becomes obligated in all the above situations. This applies whether the kinyan was made in the presence of the court, or together with the lender alone.", + "If, however, the guarantor told the lender when the money was being given: \"Lend him, and I will be the guarantor,\" he becomes responsible. In such a situation, a kinyan is not necessary.
Similarly, if a court appointed him a guarantor, he becomes liable even though he did not affirm his commitment with a kinyan. For example, the court desired to expropriate property from the borrower, and this person told them: \"Let him be. I will guarantee the debt for you.\" Since he receives satisfaction from being trusted by the court, he accepts a binding commitment upon himself.", + "When a person lends money to a colleague because of the commitment of a guarantor, although though the guarantor becomes responsible to the lender, the lender should not demand payment from the guarantor first. Instead, he should demand payment from the borrower first. If he does not pay him, he should return to the guarantor and collect payment from him. When does the above apply? When the borrower does not own property. If, however, the borrower does own property. He should not collect the debt from the guarantor at all. Instead, he should collect from the borrower.\"
If, however, the borrower is a man of force, and the court cannot expropriate money from him, or he refuses to come to the court, the lender may collect payment from the guarantor first. Afterwards, the guarantor will make a reckoning with the borrower. If the guarantor can extract payment from him, he should. If that is not possible, the court should place the borrower under a ban of ostracism until he repays the guarantor.", + "Although the lender makes a stipulation with the guarantor and tells him: \"I am giving the loan on the condition that I can collect the debt from whomever I desire,\" if the borrower possesses property, he should not collect the debt from the guarantor.
If he stipulated, \"I am giving the loan on the condition that I can collect the debt from whomever I desire first,\" or the guarantor was a kablan, the lender may demand payment from this guarantor or this kablan first. He may collect payment from them although the borrower possesses property.", + "Who is considered to be an ordinary guarantor and who is considered to be a kablan? If a person says: \"Give him the loan and I will give you,\" he is considered to be a kablan. The lender has the option of seeking repayment from him, even though he did not explicitly stipulate: \"On the condition that I can collect the debt from whomever I desire first.\"
If, however, he tells him: \"Lend him and I will act as a guarantor,\" \"Lend him and I will pay,\" \"Lend him and I am obligated,\" \"Lend him and I will give,\" \"Lend him and I will act as a kablan\" \"Give him and I will act as a kablan\" \"Give him and I will pay,\" \"Give him and I am obligated,\" or \"Give him and I will serve as a guarantor\" - all of these are statements that cause him to be considered a guarantor. The lender may not demand payment from him first. Nor may he collect payment from him in a situation where the lender possesses property unless he stipulates: \"On the condition that I can collect... from whomever I desire first\"", + "When a person guarantees a woman's ketubah he is not obligated to pay, even if he affirmed his commitment with a kinyan. The rationale is that he performed a mitzvah and did not cause her a financial loss. If a father guarantees his son's ketubah and affirms his commitment with a kinyan, the obligation is established. A person who becomes a kablan for a ketubah is liable.", + "The following rules apply when Reuven sells Shimon a field and Levi accepts financial responsibility for it. Levi is not considered responsible, for this is an asmachta. If he affirmed with a kinyan his commitment to pay the money involved in this sale whenever demanded to do so by Shimon, he is obligated to do so. My masters ruled in this manner.", + "Similarly, if a guarantor or a kablan make a conditional commitment, they do not become obligated even if the commitment is affirmed by a kinyan. The rationale is that this is an asmachta.
What is implied? For example, the guarantor told him: \"Give him the loan and I will give you if this-and-this will take place,\" or \"... if it will not take place.\" The rationale is that whenever a person undertakes an obligation for which he is personally not liable and makes it dependent on a condition: \"if this takes place,\" or \"if this does not take place,\" he never makes a wholehearted commitment or kinyan. Therefore, he does not become liable.", + "When two people take out loans from the same person and record their debts in the same promissory note or together purchase a single article, they are considered as having guaranteed the other person's commitment even though they do not explicitly agree to do so. The same law applies when one of a group of partners undertakes a loan or makes a purchase for the partnership.", + "When two people both commit themselves to guarantee a debt taken on by one person, when the lender comes to collect payment from the guarantor, he may collect from either one of them, as he desires. If, however, one of them does not possess the entire amount of the debt, the lender may demand payment of the remainder from the other guarantor.", + "If one person guarantees the debts of two different individuals, when a lender comes to collect payment he should tell the guarantor which of the two debts he is paying so that the guarantor will be able to seek reimbursement from the debtor.", + "When a person tells a colleague: \"Guarantee a debt for so-and-so for this-and-this amount and I will guarantee the sum to you,\" it is as if he tells him: \"Lend him the money and I will guarantee the debt.\" Just as the guarantor becomes obligated to the lender, the second guarantor becomes obligated to the first guarantor. The same laws that govern the relationship between the guarantor and the lender govern the relationship between the first guarantor and the second guarantor.", + "The following opinions were stated with regard to a person who did not limit the extent of the commitment he made to serve as a guarantor. For example, he told the lender: \"Give him whatever you give him, I will guarantee it,\" \"Sell to him, and I will guarantee it,\" or \"Lend him, and I will guarantee it.\"
There are Geonim who rule that even if the other person sells 10,000 zuz worth of merchandise or lends 100,000 zuz to the person named, the guarantor becomes responsible for the entire amount. It appears to me, by contrast, that the guarantor is not liable at all. Since he does not know for what he undertook the liability, he did not make a serious commitment and did not obligate himself. These are words of reason that a person of understanding will appreciate.", + "When a person tells a colleague: \"Lend him. I will guarantee the borrower's physical person,\" he did not make a commitment with regard to the money itself. What he meant was: Whenever you want, I will bring him to you.
Similar principles apply when, after the lender makes the loan and demands payment, a person says: \"Let him go. Whenever you lodge a claim against him, I will bring him to you.\" If he affirms his commitment with a kinyan, there are Geonim who rule that if the guarantor does not bring the borrower to the court, the guarantor is obligated to pay. There are, however, others who rule that even if he made a stipulation saying: \"If I do not bring him, or if he dies or he flees, I will be obligated to pay,\" the guarantor does not become liable, for this is an asmachta. I favor this understanding." + ], + [ + "The following law applies when a person gives a loan to a colleague that is supported by a promissory note. After the witnesses signed the promissory note, the guarantor came and made a guarantee for the borrower's debt. Although his commitment was affirmed with a kinyan and thus he become obligated to pay, as explained, when the lender comes to expropriate payment from the property of this guarantor, he may not expropriate property that has already been sold.
Different rules apply if the guarantor was mentioned in the promissory note itself before the signature of the witnesses. If they wrote: \"So-and-so is the guarantor,\" the lender may not expropriate property that has already been sold, because the guarantor's name is not associated together with that of the borrower with regard to the loan. If, however, the promissory note states: \"So-and-so borrowed such-and-such an amount from so-and-so and so-and-so guaranteed the loan, the guarantor affirmed his commitment with a kinyan, and then the witnesses signed the promissory note,\" the lender may expropriate property that has already been sold. The rationale is that the guarantor's name is associated together with that of the borrower in the promissory note.", + "When a lender demands payment from the borrower and discovers that he does not have property, he may not expropriate payment from the guarantor until 30 days after the guarantor became obligated to pay. The legal power of the guarantor should not be less than that of the borrower himself. The halachic authorities ruled in this manner. If, however, the lender made a stipulation with the guarantor about this matter, that stipulation is followed.\"", + "When a lender comes to demand payment from a borrower, the borrower cannot turn away the lender, telling him: \"Go to the kablan, because you have the right to demand payment from him first.\" Instead, the lender may demand payment from anyone he desires first. If, however, the kablan took the money from the lender and gave it to the borrower, the lender has nothing to do with the borrower. If the borrower was in another country and the lender cannot notify him -or the borrower died and left heirs below the age of majority, whose property the court cannot attach - the lender may demand payment from the guarantor first, because the borrower is not at hand.", + "When a lender demands payment from the borrower and discovers that he has become impoverished, he may not demand payment from the guarantor until the borrower takes an oath that he is bankrupt, as ordained by the later sages. The rationale is that we fear that the borrower and the lender might be trying to obtain the guarantor's property through deception.", + "The following law applies when a person has guaranteed a colleague with regard to a loan supported by a verbal commitment alone, the lender comes to demand payment from the guarantor, and the borrower is overseas. The guarantor may tell the lender: \"Bring proof that the borrower did not repay you and I will pay you.\"", + "When a guarantor takes the initiative and pays the debt to the creditor, he may come back and collect from the borrower everything that he paid on his account, even though the loan was supported by a verbal commitment alone or was not observed by witnesses.
When does the above apply? When, at the time the guarantor made his commitment, the borrower told him: \"Become my guarantor and pay.\" When, however, he acted independently and became a guarantor or a kablan, or the borrower told him: \"Guarantee the debt for me,\" but did not give him the authority to pay the debt, if he pays the debt, the borrower is not obligated to pay him anything. Similarly, if a person pays a promissory note of a colleague without that colleague's knowledge, even if it is a debt for which security was taken, the borrower is not obligated to pay him anything. Instead, he may take his security without paying anything; the other person forfeits his money. The rationale is that perhaps the borrower would have been able to appease the lender and have him waive the debt.
The following rules apply when the borrower dies, and the guarantor takes the initiative and pays the debt before he notifies the heirs. If it is known to us that the borrower did not pay the promissory note before he died - e.g., he admitted the debt on his deathbed, he was placed under a band of ostracism for failing to pay, and he died under that ban, or the due date of the loan did not arrive - he may collect from the heirs everything that he paid.
When the lender was a gentile, the heirs are not obligated to pay the guarantor. The rationale is that their parent might have given the guarantor the entire debt for which he was responsible. For a gentile demands payment from the guarantor first; for this reason the guarantor paid the gentile voluntarily before he notified the orphans. If, however, he notifies them that the gentile is demanding payment from him and that he is paying, the heirs are obligated to pay.", + "Whenever a guarantor comes to collect what he paid - whether he comes to collect from the borrower's heirs or from the borrower himself - he must bring proof that he paid the debt. The guarantor's possession of the promissory note is not considered proof. For perhaps the promissory note fell from the lender's hand, and the guarantor did not pay him at all.", + "In all the claims to be mentioned, and in all similar situations, we follow the principle: When a person who seeks to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is upon him:
a) a person tells a colleague, \"You agreed to serve as a guarantor for me,\" and the alleged guarantor denies accepting the obligation ;
b) the guarantor tells the borrower: \"You gave me the license to act as a guarantor for you and to pay,\" and the borrower tells him: \"You acted as a guarantor on your own initiative,\" or \"You were not a guarantor at all\";
c) the guarantor said: \"I paid the debt in your presence,\" and the borrower said: \"You did not\"; or he told him: \"I have already given you what you paid\"; or
d) the lender told the guarantor: \"You guaranteed 200,\" and the guarantor said: \"I guaranteed only a maneh.\"
Alternatively, the defendant should take a sh'vuat hessefi or a Scriptural oath if he agreed to a portion of the claim, as is the law with regard to all financial claims.", + "The following principles apply when a servant or a married woman borrows money or guarantees the debts of others and is obligated to pay: When the servant is freed and the woman is divorced or widowed, they must pay.", + "If a minor borrows, he is obligated to pay when he attains majority. We do not, however, write a promissory note against him. Instead, even though it was affirmed with a kinyan, the loan has the status of a loan supported by a verbal commitment alone. The rationale is that a kinyan undertaken by a minor is of no substance.", + "In a situation where a minor guaranteed others, the Geonim ruled that he is not liable to pay even after he attains majority. The person who lent his money because of a minor's word forfeits it. The rationale is that a minor does not have the intellectual responsibility to obligate himself in a matter in which he is not liable - not through becoming a guarantor, nor through other similar means. This is a ruling of truth and it is fitting to rule in this manner.", + "When a woman takes a loan that is supported by a promissory note or undertakes a commitment as a guarantor of a promissory note and then marries, she is obligated to pay even after she marries. If, however, it is a loan supported by a verbal commitment alone, it should not be repaid until she becomes divorced or widowed. The rationale is that her husband's authority is that of a purchaser, as we have explained in several sources. If, however, the money that was given as a loan is in her possession, it should be returned to the borrower." + ], + [ + "No matter which language and which characters a legal document is written in, if it is written according to the regulations for legal documents that prevail among the Jewish people, i.e., it cannot be forged, nor is it possible to add to or detract from the content of the document, and its witnesses are Jews and they know how to read it, it is acceptable and may be used to expropriate property that has been sold.
All documents that are signed by gentiles, by contrast, are not acceptable except for deeds of sale and promissory notes. For the latter to be acceptable, the principal must count the money in their presence and they must write on the legal document: \"In our presence, so-and-so counted out for so-and-so the money for the sale,\" or \"... the money for the debt.\" This applies provided that they were prepared by their legal authorities. If, however, the documents were prepared in their courts without being authorized by their judges, they are of no value. Similarly, Jewish witnesses must testify that the gentile witnesses who signed the document and the judge who authorized their signatures are not known to accept bribes. If legal documents composed by gentiles lack any of these qualifications, they are considered shards. Similarly, legal documents acknowledging an obligation, deeds recording presents, compromises, and waivers of obligations are considered shards even if they are composed with all the above qualifications.
My masters ruled that even promissory notes composed by them that state that the money was given in their presence are unacceptable. They accepted only deeds of sale when the money was given in their presence. I do not accept this ruling.
If the Jewish judges do not know how to read a legal document prepared by gentile authorities, they should give it to two gentiles, each one outside the presence of the other, and have them read. Thus, each one of them is reading as is his ordinary practice. The document may be used to expropriate property that has not been sold. It may not, however, be used to expropriate property that has been sold, because it does not become public knowledge. For the purchasers will not know of legal processes carried out by gentiles.", + "When a promissory note that was signed by gentile witnesses was given by the borrower to the lender or by the seller to the purchaser in the presence of two Jewish witnesses, it is acceptable and may be used to expropriate property that was not sold, even though it was not authenticated by the gentile legal authorities and was not prepared according to all the stipulations mentioned above. The above applies provided that the witnesses in whose presence the legal document was transferred were able to read it, they read it when it was transferred, and it was prepared according to the regulations for legal documents that prevail among the Jewish people, i.e., that it be composed in a manner that it cannot be forged, nor is it possible to add to or detract from the content of the document.
Why is it not acceptable to be used to expropriate property that has already been sold? Because it is not a matter of public knowledge.", + "The following regulations prevail for legal documents among the Jewish people: All legal documents must repeat the content of the legal document in the last line, because we do not take into consideration what was written in that line. The rationale is that we suspect the witnesses signed a line away from the body of the document and this falsifier came and wrote in the empty space of this line.", + "When the witnesses signed two lines or more from the conclusion of the writing, the document is not acceptable. If they leave less open space than this, it is acceptable.
The two lines mentioned refer to lines according to the handwriting of the witnesses and not according to the handwriting of the scribe. The rationale is that any person who forges will try to imitate the handwriting of the witnesses and not that of the scribe. The space of the two lines includes the lines and the space in between them, i.e., the space necessary to write a lamed above a final chaf.
If there was a space of more than two lines between the signature of the witnesses and the text of the documents, and they filled the space between the text and the signatures with the signatures of unacceptable witnesses and relatives, it is acceptable. For in this manner, it cannot be forged.
If the space was filled with lines of ink, it is unacceptable. For perhaps the witnesses signed for the lines of ink and not for the body of the document. If the document and the signatures of the witnesses were on one line, it is acceptable.", + "If the legal document was written on one line, and the witnesses signed on another line, it is unacceptable. We fear that possibly the witnesses had signed one line away from an acceptable legal document, and afterwards the person cut away that entire legal document and wrote the present document on that line. Thus, these witnesses were signed upon it.
A similar suspicion can arise when the document and the signatures of two witnesses were written on one line, two other witnesses were signed on a second line, and the maker of the legal document says: \"I intended to increase the number of witnesses.\"
We do not verify the authenticity of the document based on the signature of the witnesses below, in the second line, but rather on the signatures of those above. We fear that possibly there had been another document written originally, it was cut off, and the present document and the signatures of the two witnesses were written on the line between it and the witnesses who signed below.", + "The validation of the authenticity of the signatures of the witnesses by the court should be positioned next to their signatures, next to one of the sides of the legal document, or on its back, opposite the text. If there was a space of more than one line between the statement of validation and the legal document, it is invalid. We fear that someone might cut off the document that was validated and forge a new document and the signature of two witnesses on that one line. Thus, the validation would be on a forged document.", + "If the court wrote the validation more than two lines from the legal document and filled the entire empty space with lines of ink, the validation is acceptable, for there is no possibility of a forgery. ' And we do not suspect that the court would sign a validation of mere lines, but rather of the legal document itself.", + "Whenever words are written on a surface where there have been erasures, the scribe must write a validation of each of the these portions at the end of the legal document, stating: \"This-and-this letter...\", \"This-and-this word...\", or \"This-and-this line were written on a surface where there had been erasures,\" or \"... are attached between the lines. Everything is valid.\"
If the erasure is in the place where the document states sharir v'kayam, and is the size that it takes to write these words, it is not acceptable even if the scribe validates that these words were written on an erased surface. We fear that a person might have erased the words sharir v'kayam, then written a false statement and then validated the document in the space between the document and the signature of the witnesses.", + "When both a legal document and the signatures of the witnesses are written on a surface where there have been erasures, it is acceptable. If one might protest, saying: \"The person in possession of the document might erase it again and write a text that benefits him,\" that argument can be answered, for it is possible to differentiate between a surface that has been erased once and one that has been erased twice.
If one might protest, saying: \"Maybe the person erased only the surface where the witnesses would sign twice, and then after writing the legal document above the twice-erased surface and having the witnesses sign it, he erased the document and wrote whatever he desired.\" In such a situation, the document and the signatures of the witnesses appear the same, because everything was erased twice. This protest is untenable, because our Sages already ordained that witnesses should not sign a document written on a surface where there have been erasures, unless it was erased in their presence.", + "When a legal document and the signatures of the witnesses are both written on a surface where there have been erasures, and the validation of the authenticity of the signatures was written on paper that had never been erased, we do not validate the document because of the signatures of the witnesses who validated it previously, but because of the signatures of the witnesses who signed it originally.
The rationale is that it is possible that the validation of the document was written very far from the document itself, and the space between them was filled with lines of ink. We suspect that the person in possession of the document cut off the document itself, erased the lines of ink, and forged the document and the signatures of the witnesses on the portion that had been erased.", + "When a document is written on paper that had never been erased, and the witnesses signed on a surface where there were erasures, it is unacceptable. We suspect that the person might erase the document that the witnesses signed and replace it with a forgery. Thus, the document and the signatures of the witnesses will be on paper with erasures.
If the witnesses wrote: \"We, the witnesses, signed on the portion of the paper where there were erasures, while the document was written on the portion of the paper that has never been erased,\" the document is acceptable. This statement should be written between the signature of one witness and the other, so that deception is not possible.", + "When a legal document is written on a portion of a paper where there have been erasures and the witnesses sign on a portion of the paper that has never been erased, the document is not acceptable. This applies even if the witnesses write: \"We, the witnesses, signed on the portion of the paper that has never been erased, while the document was written on the portion where there were erasures.\"
The rationale is that we fear the person in possession of the document will erase it a second time and write on it anything that he desires. Since the document as a whole has been erased twice, the forgery will not be obvious.
If, by contrast, one portion of the document was erased once and the other twice, a distinction could be made.
Among the prevailing regulations for legal documents is to carefully scrutinize the document, seeing if the vavin and the zayinin are not squeezed between the letters, lest the person have forged this letter, adding it to the document. Similarly, these letters must not be too far from the other letters of the word, lest the person have erased a portion of one letter - e.g., a hei or a chet - and left one of its legs in the place of a vav. Similarly, in all analogous situations, we scrutinize the text in any language and with any characters.", + "The numbers from shalosh (three) to esser (ten) should not be written at the end of a line, for it is possible for the person in possession of the document to forge the text and make the shalosh, sheloshim (30), and the esser, essrim (20).
If it would happen that a scribe would have to write these numbers at the end of a line, he should repeat the text of the document several times until the numbers come out in the middle of the line.", + "When the upper portion of a promissory note speaks of a maneh and the lower portion speaks of 200 zuz, or the upper portion of a promissory note speaks of 200 zuz and the lower portion speaks of a maneh, everything follows what is written in the lower portion.
Why do we not follow the lesser of the two numbers? Because in this instance, one is not dependent on the other. If the promissory note had said: \"owes amaneh, which is 200 zuz\" or \"200 zuz, which is amaneh,\" the lender would be granted only a maneh. When, however, there are two matters stated in the document and the latter portion is not dependent on the former portion, we follow the latter portion.
When the upper portion of a legal document mentions one name and the lower portion mentions a name that resembles it, we follow the lower portion. If so, why do we write the upper portion? So that if one letter of the lower portion is rubbed out, one could learn from the upper portion. For example, if the upper portion stated Chanani or Anani and the lower portion stated Chanan or Anan, we can assume that it is referring to the person named in the upper portion. This applies regarding only one letter. We do not, however, resolve a doubt regarding two letters in the lower portion from the upper portion.", + "If the upper portion of a promissory note speaks of a sefel and the lower portion speaks of a kefel, we follow the wording of the latter portion, for a kefel is less than a sefel.
If the upper portion of a promissory note speaks of a kefel and the lower portion speaks of a sefel, we suspect that perhaps a fly caused the left leg of the kuf to be rubbed out and made it appear like a samech. Hence, the bearer may expropriate only a kefel, the lesser measure. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations, for the bearer of the promissory note has the weaker position.
An incident occurred concerning a promissory note that stated: \"600 and one zuz\" This raised a doubt. Was the intent 601 zuz or was the intent 600 isteira and one zuz? The Sages said: \"The bearer of the promissory note may collect only 600 isteira and a zuz, for the bearer of the promissory note has the weaker position.\"
If so, why did they not say that he should collect 600 p'rutot and a zuz? Because a scribe would count the p'rutot as zuzin before composing the promissory note. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations. In all times and in all places, we follow the accepted norms.", + "When a promissory note states: \"Isteira 100 m'ie,\" or \"100 m'ie isteira\" one should follow the lesser of the phrases. The person should receive only one isteira. The rationale is that the bearer of the promissory note has the weaker position, because he is trying to expropriate property from a colleague, and a person can expropriate property only when there is no doubt regarding his claim.
Similarly, whenever a promissory note could be interpreted in either of two ways, either this way or that way, the bearer receives the lesser of the amounts. If, however, he seizes possession of the greater amount, the borrower may not expropriate the money from him unless he can clearly prove the legitimacy of his own claim.", + "When a promissory note states: \"a gold coin,\" we assume that the intent is no less than a golden dinar. If it states \"gold of dinarim,\" or \"dinarim of gold,\" we assume that the intent is no less than the value of two dinarim of gold. If it states \"gold in dinarim\" we assume that the intent is no less than the value in gold of two silver dinarim. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
This concludes the Laws of Lenders and Borrowers, with God's help." + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1b64a9551d3a6d87cfcfa63d581edf5cc4084e88 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json @@ -0,0 +1,74 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org", + "versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": false, + "isSource": false, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות מלווה ולווה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "text": [ + [], + [], + [], + [ + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "Some of the Geonim have taught that the borrower who waives the interest a lender has charged or will in the future charge on his behalf, even if he [affirms his] waiver through kinyan or gives [it as] a present, [his words] accomplish nothing. [Their rationale is] that all interest [that is given], [the borrower] always waives it. But the Torah does not waive [it] and forbids this waiver [specifically]. Therefore, waiver of interest is not effective, even interest [forbidden by] the rulings [of the rabbis]. It appears to me that this teaching is not correct. Instead, because they tell the lender to return to him [the interest], and the lender knows that he did a prohibited thing, and [the borrower] can take from him [the money], if [the borrower] wants to waive [the obligation to return the interest], he can waive, just as a person can waive [the return of] a stolen object. The Sages said explicitly that when thieves and lenders [of money] at interest return [the interest], we should not receive it from them, from the general rule that waiver [of the requirement to return interest] is effective." + ], + [], + [ + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "Some of the Geonim have taught that all [that is given as] a pledge and nothing is deducted from it, it is fixed interest. They did not go down to the depth of the matter to differentiate between a field and a courtyard. Therefore, they were perplexed by the words of the Sages in the Gemara. Similarly, they taught that [giving property] as a pledge even with a deduction is prohibited, whether for a courtyard or a field, except in a certain situation. How so? . . ." + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "", + "", + "The [lender] produces a verified promissory note. The borrower makes a claim [before a court] and says, \"This note is a fake, and I never wrote it\"; or, \"It involves interest\" or \"a shade of interest\"; or, \"The note [was given] on faith\"; or, \"I wrote it [in order] to borrow, but I didn't borrow\" (that is, he makes a claim that if agreed to by the lender would make the note void). The lender maintains that his note [is valid] and says that [the borrower's] claim is false. The borrower demands [that the lender] take an oath [before] collecting. There is a disagreement between Geonim [regarding this situation]. There are Geonim that teach that the holder of the note is obligated to take an oath resembling one from the Torah, just like when [the borrower] claimed that he paid [the debt]. My teachers taught that the lender should only be made to swear when the borrower says that he paid [the debt]. [The rationale is that] he acknowledged the note and it remains to be paid. But we do not accept all these claims to extinguish a valid debt, rather [the borrower] should pay and after that make a claim against the lender to the extent he desires, that if [the lender] acknowledges [the claim] he shall return [the money] to him. If he denies [the claim], he should take sh'vua hesset. My opinion leans toward this [view]." + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "", + "", + "If there are many promissory notes each bearing the same date (or the same hour, where the custom is to write the time of day) - whoever claims first wins, whether with regards to land or movable property. " + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor/English/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..45aa8f45cdf9d9fdf961ecf57106c0e12d82ef32 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,376 @@ +{ + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah,_Creditor_and_Debtor", + "text": [ + [ + "It is a positive commandment to lend money to the poor among Israel, as Exodus 23:24 states: \"If you will lend money to My nation, to the poor among you.\" Lest one think that this is a matter left to the person's choice, it is also stated Deuteronomy 15:8: \"You shall certainly loan to him.\"
This mitzvah surpasses the mitzvah of charity given to a poor person who asks for alms. For the latter person had already been compelled to ask, and this one has not yet sunk that low. Indeed, the Torah is very severe with regard to a person who does not lend money to a poor person, stating Ibid.:9: \"Beware lest there be a defiant thought in your heart... and you look badly upon your poor brother and you not give him.\"", + "Whenever a person presses a poor person for payment when he knows that he does not have the means to repay the debt, he transgresses a negative commandment, as Exodus 22:24 states: \"Do not act as a creditor toward him.\" It is, by contrast, a positive mitzvah to press a gentile for payment and to cause him exasperation, as Deuteronomy 15:3 states: \"Press a gentile for payment.\" According to the Oral Tradition, we have learned that this is a positive commandment.", + "It is forbidden for one to appear before a person who owes him money when he knows that the debtor does not have the means to repay the debt. It is even forbidden to pass before him, lest one frighten him or embarrass him, even though one does not demand payment. Needless to say, this applies if he demands payment.
Just as it is forbidden for a creditor to demand payment; so, too, it is forbidden for a borrower to withhold money that he possesses due a colleague, telling him: \"Go and return,\" as Proverbs 3:28 states: \"Do not tell your colleague: 'Go and return.'\"
Similarly, it is forbidden for a borrower to take a loan and use it when it is unnecessary and lose it, leaving his creditor without a source to collect the debt. This applies even if the owner is very wealthy. A person who acts in this way is wicked, as Psalms 37:21 states: \"A wicked man borrows and does not pay.\" Our Sages commanded: \"Treat money belonging to your colleague as dearly as your own.\"", + "When a lender demands payment of a loan - even if he is wealthy and the borrower is in a pressing situation and struggles to support his family - we are not merciful in judgment. Instead, we expropriate all the movable property\" that the person owns to pay the last penny of the debt. If the movable property he owns is not sufficient, we expropriate the landed property after issuing a ban of ostracism against any person who possesses movable property or knows of movable property he possesses and does not bring it to court.
We expropriate all the landed property the borrower possesses, even if it is on lien to the ketubah of the borrower's wife or to another creditor with a prior lien. We expropriate it for this creditor. If ultimately, the person with the prior lien will come to claim the property, he may expropriate it from the creditor to whom it was given.
If the lender claims that the movable property in his domain does not belong to him, but instead was entrusted to him, rented by him, or lent to him, we do not heed his words. He must prove his statements or the property will be expropriated by the creditor.", + "A creditor may not collect his due by expropriating the wardrobe of the debtor's wife or his sons, not from colored garments that were dyed for them even though they have not worn them yet, nor from new sandals that were purchased for them. These belong to the wife and the children themselves. When does the above apply? With regard to their weekday garments. The creditor may, by contrast, expropriate their Sabbath and festival garments. Needless to say, if they own rings or golden or silver ornaments, they must all be given to the creditor.", + "The following rules apply when a borrower owned movable property or landed property, but also had outstanding promissory notes owed to gentiles. If he says: \"All of my property is on lien to gentiles; if Jews take the property as payment for their debts, the gentiles will imprison me because of the debts I owe them, and I will be in captivity,\" my teachers have ruled that his words are not heeded, and the Jews are granted the right to expropriate his property. If the gentiles come and imprison him, all of Israel is commanded to redeem him.", + "We allow a debtor consideration in the same manner that consideration is granted to a person who makes a pledge to the Temple treasury and is unable to pay it.
What is implied? The court tells the borrower: \"Bring all the movable property that you own; don't leave anything, not even a needle.\"
After he brings his possessions, we give him from everything that he has brought:
a) food for 30 days;
b) clothing for 12 months that is appropriate for him - he should not wear silk clothes or a hat crowned with gold; instead, such garments are taken away from him and he is given appropriate garments for 12 months;
c) a couch to sit on and a bed and a mattress to sleep on; if he is a poor man, he is given a bed and a straw mattress to sleep on. These articles are not given to his wife or to his children, despite the fact that he is obligated to provide them with sustenance.
The borrower is also given his sandals and his tefillin. If he is a craftsman, he is given two of the tools of his craft of every type necessary. For example, if he is a carpenter, he is given two awls and two planes. If he has many types of one utensil and only one of another, he is granted two of the utensil of which he possesses many, and all that he owns of that he possesses one. We do not purchase other tools for him from the sale of those many tools.
Although the borrower is a farmer or a donkey driver, we do not grant him his team of oxen or his donkey. Similarly, if he is a sailor, we do not give him his ship, even though these are his only sources of livelihood. The rationale is that these articles are not considered utensils, but rather property. They should be sold with the other movable property in court and the proceeds given to the creditor.", + "The following law applies when a creditor comes to expropriate payment outside the presence of the borrower - e.g., the borrower journeyed to a distant country. If the borrower's wife seized possession of movable property belonging to her husband to sell so that she could derive her livelihood from it, it is expropriated from her and given to the creditor. The rationale is that even if her husband were present, he would not be entitled to provide for the sustenance of his wife and sons until he paid his debt in its entirety." + ], + [ + "According to Scriptural Law, when a creditor demands payment of his debt, and the debtor possesses some property, consideration is granted to the debtor and the remainder of the possessions are granted to the creditor, as explained.
If no property belonging to the debtor is found or only those items that are granted to him in consideration are found, the debtor is enabled to go free.
We do not imprison him, nor do we tell him: \"Bring proof that you are poor.\" We do not require him to take an oath that he has no possessions as the gentile legal process does. All of the above is included in the prohibition (Exodus 22:24 : \"Do not act as a creditor toward him.\" Instead, we tell the creditor: \"If you know that this person who owes you money possesses property, go and seize it.\"", + "If the creditor claims that the debtor possesses property, but is hiding it, and it is present within his home, according to law it is not proper for either the creditor or an agent of the court to enter his home to seize the property. Indeed, the Torah warned concerning this saying Deuteronomy 24:11: \"Stand outside.\" We do, however, issue a ban of ostracism against anyone who owns property and does not give it to his creditor.
When, however, the Geonim of the early generations who arose after the compilation of the Talmud saw that the number of deceitful people had increased and the possibility of obtaining loans was diminishing, they ordained that a debtor who claims bankruptcy should be required to take a severe oath, comparable to a Scriptural oath, administered while he is holding a sacred article, that he does not possess any property aside from what he is given in consideration, that he has not hidden his property in the hands of others, or given the property to others as a present with the intent that it be returned.
He should include in the oath that any profit he makes and everything that comes into his possession or domain which he acquires, he will not use to provide sustenance, clothing, or care for his wife or children, that he will not give any person in the world a present. Instead, he will take from everything that he earns food for 30 days and clothing for 12 months that is appropriate for him - not the food of gluttons or drunkards, nor that enjoyed by the sons of royalty, and not the garments of the officers of the royal court, but food and clothing that is commonplace for him. Anything beyond his needs, he should give to his creditor little by little until he pays his entire debt. Before the oath is administered, a ban of ostracism is issued against anyone who knows that so and so possesses property that is either revealed or hidden and does not inform the court.
Even after this oath was ordained, neither a creditor nor an agent of the court is allowed to enter the house of the debtor. For an ordinance was not instituted to uproot the Torah's laws themselves. Instead, the debtor himself must bring out his utensils or say: \"This and this is what I possess.\" We leave him what is appropriate for him, expropriate the rest and have him take the oath ordained as described above. This is the legal process among the Jewish community in all places.
If the debtor was seen with property after having taken this oath, and he tries to excuse himself, claiming that it belongs to others or that it was given to him as an investment, we do not accept his statements unless he brings proof. My teachers ruled in this manner.", + "When a person takes this oath that he is bankrupt and all that he earns will be given to his creditors, he may not be required to take this same oath by all of his creditors. Instead, one oath applies to all the creditors. The rationale is that this is an ordinance instituted by the later sages, and we are not precise in applying it stringently. On the contrary, we are lenient.", + "An exception to the above practice is made with regard to a person who has established a reputation for being poor and virtuous, and conducts himself in a trustworthy manner, and this is known to the judges and the majority of the people. If a creditor comes and seeks to make this person take the oath mentioned above, and it can be presumed that the plaintiff has no doubt about the debtor's state of poverty, but instead wishes to cause him exasperation with this oath, to torment him and to embarrass him publicly, to take revenge upon him or to force him to borrow money from gentiles or take property belonging to his wife to pay this creditor and absolve himself from taking this oath, it appears to me that it is forbidden for a God-fearing judge to have this oath administered. If he does administer this oath, he violates the Scriptural prohibition: \"Do not act as a creditor toward him.\"
Moreover, the judge should reproach the creditor and castigate him, for he is bearing a grudge and acting according to the reckless whims of his heart. Our Sages instituted this ordinance only because of deceitful people, as implied by Deuteronomy 22:2: \"Until your brother seeks it out,\" which can be interpreted to mean: Seek out whether your brother is deceitful or not. In this instance, since it is established knowledge that this person is poor and that he is not deceitful, it is forbidden to require him to take this oath.
Similarly, when it is established knowledge that a person is deceitful and he deals corruptly in financial matters, we presume that he possesses financial resources although he claims to be bankrupt, and he is eager to take this oath. I maintain that it is not appropriate to require him to take the oath. Instead, if it is possible for the judge to compel him to make restitution to his creditor or to place him under a ban of ostracism until he makes restitution, he should do so. The rationale is that he is presumed to possess financial resources, and paying a creditor is a mitzvah.
The general principle is: Whenever a judge performs one of these activities with the sole intent of pursuing justice, as we have been commanded to, without intending to favor either of the litigants in judgment, he has that authority, and he will receive a reward for his efforts, provided that they are carried out for the sake of heaven.", + "Whenever a person is obligated to take this oath because of a promissory note that he is liable for, he admitted owing money to other people, and he was able to amass more property than the minimum amount allotted to him, this extra amount should be given only to the creditors who possess promissory notes. The rationale is that we suspect that the debtor may be conspiring to perpetrate deception by making an admission of a debt concerning this property.", + "When Reuven owes Shimon 100 zuz and Levi owes Reuven 100 zuz, we should expropriate the money from Levi and give it to Shimon.
Therefore, if Reuven does not possess any property, but has promissory notes owed to him by Levi, those promissory notes are given to Shimon to collect. Accordingly, if Levi claims that the promissory note was given on faith or that it had already been paid, even though Reuven acknowledges the truth of Levi's statement, his admission is of no consequence. The rationale is that we fear that they may be conspiring to perpetrate deception to cause Shimon to lose his right to the money owed by Levi. Instead, Shimon may take an oath and expropriate the money from Levi. This is the law that applies to anyone who expropriates property; he may do so only after taking an oath.
Similarly, the following law applies to any person against whom there is an outstanding promissory note, who admits owing money to another person on his own initiative. If he does not possess enough property to pay both debts, the person with the promissory note alone is entitled to collect his due. This is ordained, because we suspect that they may be conspiring to perpetrate deception to undermine the power of the person's promissory note.", + "It is forbidden for one to lend money - even to a Torah scholar - without having witnesses observe the transaction unless the lender receives an article as collateral. It is even more commendable to have the loan supported by a promissory note.
Whenever a person gives a loan without having witnesses observe the transaction, he transgresses the prohibition (Leviticus 19:14 : \"Do not place a stumbling block before the blind\" and brings a curse upon himself.", + "When a master borrows money from his servant and afterwards frees him, he is not liable to him at all. The same laws apply when a husband borrows from his wife. The rationales are that everything that a servant acquires becomes acquired by his master, and any money that is in a woman's possession is assumed to belong to her husband, unless she brings proof that it comes from her dowry." + ], + [ + "Collateral may not be taken from a widow, whether she is rich or poor, whether it is taken at the time the loan is given, or after the time the loan is given, as Deuteronomy 24:17 states: \"You shall not take the garment of a widow as collateral.\" This prohibition applies even when the court would supervise the matter.
If a creditor takes such collateral, it must be returned, even against his will. If the widow admits the debt, she must pay. If she denies its existence, she must take an oath. If the security the creditor took became lost or was consumed by fire before he returns it, he is punished by lashes.", + "Similarly, whenever a person lends money to a colleague - whether he offers the loan in exchange for collateral, he takes collateral after the loan was given, or the collateral was given him by the court - he should not take utensils that are used for making food - e.g., a mill, kneading troughs, large cooking pots, a knife used for ritual slaughter or the like - as Deuteronomy 24:6 says: \"Do not take as collateral... for one is taking a life as collateral.\"
If a creditor takes such collateral, it must be returned, even against his will. If the security he took became lost or was consumed by fire before the creditor returns it, he is punished by lashes.", + "When a person takes several utensils that are used to produce food - e.g., he took a kneading trough, a pot and a knife - he is liable for each utensil independently. Even if he took two utensils that are used for the same activity, he is liable for taking two utensils and is given lashes for taking each of them.
This is implied by the verse cited above, which mentions taking \"a lower millstone and an upper millstone.\" This indicates that he is liable for each of the millstones independently. Just as the upper millstone and the lower millstone are two utensils that serve a single purpose, and the person is liable for each one independently; so, too, a person is liable for any other two utensils independently even though they serve the same purpose. Similarly, if he takes as collateral a yoke for oxen that plow, he is liable for two transgressions.", + "When a person gives a loan to a colleague - whether the borrower is rich or poor - he should not take security himself. Instead, he should charge the court with this responsibility.
Moreover, even an agent of the court who comes to collect security should not enter the borrower's house to collect the security. Instead, he should stand outside. The borrower should go into his own house and bring out the security for him, as Deuteronomy 24:11 states: \"You shall stand outside.\"
If so, one might ask: What is the difference between the creditor himself and the agent of the court? The agent of the court may take the security from the borrower by force and give it to the lender. The creditor himself, by contrast, may not take the security unless it is willingly given him by the borrower.
If the creditor transgressed and entered the house of the borrower and took security, or took collateral away from him by force, he is not punished by lashes. The rationale is that the prohibition can be corrected by the performance of a positive commandment, as Ibid.: 13 states: \"You shall certainly return the security to him before the setting of the sun.\"
If he did not fulfill the positive commandment concerning it - e.g., the collateral became lost or was consumed by fire - he is punished by lashes. In such an instance, the creditor should calculate the value of the collateral, subtract it from the debt, and lodge a suit for the remainder.", + "When a person takes collateral from a colleague, whether through the medium of the court, or he personally takes it from him either by force or by consent of the lender he is not always entitled to maintain possession. If the borrower is poor and the creditor took as collateral an article that the borrower needs, he is commanded to return the collateral to the borrower at the time that the borrower needs it. For example, he should return a pillow at night for him to sleep on it and a plow during the day for him to work with. This is implied by Deuteronomy 24:13: \"You must certainly return the collateral.\"
If the creditor transgressed and did not return to him a utensil to be used by day during the day, or a utensil to be used at night during the night, he transgresses a negative commandment, as ibid.:12 states: \"Do not sleep with his collateral.\" This means: \"Do not go to sleep while his collateral is in your possession\"; this refers to a garment worn at night. With regard to articles that he wears or uses to perform work during the day, Exodus 22:25 states: \"Until the setting of the sun, return it to him\" - this teaches that he must return it to him throughout the day.
If the creditor must return the collateral to the debtor when he needs it, and may take it only when he does not need it, of what benefit is the collateral to him?
a) So that the debt will not be nullified in the Sabbatical year;
b) So that the collateral will not be considered part of the movable property inherited by the debtor's sons. Instead, the creditor may take payment from the collateral after the borrower dies.
Thus, a person who takes an object as collateral from a poor person who needs it and fails to return it at the appropriate time violates three commandments: \"You shall not enter his house,\" \"You must certainly return the collateral,\" and \"Do not sleep with his collateral.\"
When does the above apply? When he took the collateral at a time other than the time the loan was given. If, however, he took the collateral from the debtor at the time the loan was given, he does not transgress these prohibitions.", + "An agent of the court who comes to take collateral should not take articles that a person cannot give as collateral - e.g., the garment he is wearing, the utensils with which he eats, or the like. He should leave a bed and a mattress for a rich man, or a bed and a straw mattress for a poor man. Whatever possessions the debtor has besides these should be taken as collateral. The creditor will then return to him an article used by day during the day, and an article used at night during the night.
If the debtor has two of a particular article, the creditor may take one, but must return the other.
Until when is the creditor obligated to return the collateral and then take it again? Forever. If, however, the collateral was an article that the debtor did not need, nor an article that is left for a debtor, the creditor must keep it for 30 days. Afterwards, he may sell the collateral in a court of law.
If the debtor dies, the creditor is not required to return the collateral to his sons. If the debtor dies after the collateral was returned to him, the creditor may pull it away from his sons and does not have to return it to them.", + "A creditor may take collateral from a guarantor by force. He may enter the guarantor's house and take the collateral, as Proverbs 20:16 states: \"Take his garment, because he guaranteed a stranger.\"
Similarly, a person who is owed a fee by a colleague - whether it be his own wages, a fee for his animal or his utensils, or rent for his house - may take collateral without consulting the court. He may enter his home and take collateral in lieu of his fee. If, however, he considered the fee as a loan, this is forbidden, as implied by Deuteronomy 24:10: \"When you extend a loan of any type....\"", + "The following rules apply with regard to a person who has in his possession collateral belonging to a poor person. If the fee for the rental of that article is more than the depreciation of the collateral - e.g., an ax, a large saw, or the like - it is permitted for him to rent it out and continually deduct the money he receives as its fee. This is like returning a lost object to its owner. He need not ask the owner for permission." + ], + [ + "Neshech and marbit are one in the same, as Leviticus 25:37 states: \"Do not give him your money with neshech and do not put forth your food at marbit.\" And further on, Deuteronomy 23:20 speaks of: \"Neshech from money, neshech from food, neshech from any substance that will accrue.\"
Why is interest called neshech? Because it bites. It causes pain to one's colleague and consumes his flesh. Why did the Torah refer to it with two terms? So that one would commit a twofold transgression when violating this prohibition.", + "Just as it is forbidden to give a loan at interest; so, too, it is forbidden to borrow at interest, as Deuteronomy, ibid., states: \"Do not offer interest to your brother.\" According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning to the borrower.
Similarly, it is forbidden to act as a broker between the borrower and the lender when interest is involved. Anyone involved, a guarantor, a scribe or a witness transgresses a negative commandment, as Exodus 22:24 states: \"Do not lay interest upon him.\" This is a warning against the witnesses, the guarantor and the scribe.
Thus, we see that a person who offers a loan at interest violates six prohibitions:
\"Do not act like a creditor toward him,\" \"Do not give him your money with neshech\" \"Do not put forth your food at marbit\" \"Do not take neshech and tarbit from him\" (Leviticus 25:36 , \"Do not lay interest upon him,\" and \"Do not place a stumbling block in front of the blind\" (Leviticus 19:14 .
A person who borrows at interest violates two prohibitions: \"Do not offer interest to your brother.\" \"Do not place a stumbling block in front of the blind\"
The guarantor, the witnesses and the like violate only the prohibition: \"Do not lay interest upon him.\" Any broker who connects between the lender and the borrower or assists or instructs one of them with regard to making the loan transgresses the commandment: \"Do not place a stumbling block in front of the blind\"", + "Although the lender and the borrower violate all the negative commandments mentioned above, they are not punished with lashes, because the interest must be returned. For whenever a person gives a loan at interest, if fixed interest is involved, it is forbidden by Scriptural Law and may be expropriated through legal process. The judges expropriate it from the lender and return it to the borrower. If the lender dies, it is not expropriated from his children's possessions.", + "When a father leaves his sons money obtained by taking interest, they are not obligated to return it, even though they know that it was obtained through interest. If, however, he leaves them a cow, a garment or any other specific article obtained through interest, they are obligated to return it as an expression of honor for their father.
When does the above apply? When their father repented, but was not able to return the article before he died. If, however, he did not repent, the sons need not be concerned with his honor. They are not required to return even a specific article.", + "When robbers and people who lend money at interest seek to return the money they took, we should not receive it from them. This will make the path of teshuvah more accessible to them. Whoever accepts repayment from them is not looked upon favorably by our Sages. If, however, the stolen article itself was intact or a specific article was given as interest, and it itself is there, it may be accepted.", + "When interest - whether fixed interest or interest forbidden by Rabbinic law - is mentioned in a promissory note, the lender may collect the principal, but not the interest. If he collected the entire amount, any fixed interest can be expropriated from him. \"The shade of interest\" - i.e., interest forbidden by Rabbinic law - may not be collected from the borrower by the lender, nor is it expropriated by the court from the lender for the borrower.", + "Whenever a person writes a promissory note that includes interest, it is as if he documents and has witnesses testify that he denies God, the Lord of Israel. Similarly, whenever a person borrows or lends money at interest in privacy he denies God, the Lord of Israel, and denies the exodus from Egypt, as Leviticus 25:37-38 states: \"Do not give him your money with neshech... I am God your Lord, who took you out of the land of Egypt.\"", + "It is forbidden for a person to borrow money from his sons or the members of his household at interest. This is forbidden even when he is not tightfisted and he is merely giving them a present. The rationale is that in doing so, he might habituate them to this practice.", + "When Torah scholars lend money to one another and the borrower returns more than the amount loaned him, it is permitted. It is obvious that the extra amount was only a present that he gave him. For they know the severity of the prohibition against taking interest.", + "The following laws apply when a person lends money to a colleague, and the borrower discovers more than the sum originally agreed upon, or the borrower returned a debt and the lender discovers more than the sum that was borrowed. If the additional amount was a sum about which a person might easily err, it must be returned. If not, we can assume that the borrower gave the lender a present, he had stolen property belonging to the lender in his possession and sought to return it together in the account without the lender being aware, or another person asked him to return money in such a manner.
What can be considered a sum about which a person might easily err? One, two, five or ten more. The latter figures are included, for perhaps the person counted out the sum in groups of five or ten.
Similarly, if the person found that a group of five or a group of ten had an additional one, he must return the extra amount. Maybe an additional one with which he was counting became mixed with a group of five or ten.", + "The following laws apply when a person lends a colleague according to a particular coinage, or stipulates in his wife's ketubah that a sum should be paid to her in a particular coinage, and then the ruling authorities increase the weight of that coinage. When the value of produce was reduced because of the increase, he should deduct the proportion of the increase, even if the increase was minimal. If, however, the value of produce is not reduced because of the addition, he need not deduct that proportion. Instead, he should pay him the coin used as currency at that time.
When does the above apply? When the addition was one fifth of its value -e.g., its weight was four units and it was increased to five. If, however, more than a fifth was added, he should deduct the entire proportionate amount of the increase, even though the price of produce did not increase. Similar laws apply with regard to a loan when the weight of a coin was decreased.", + "The following rules apply when a person lends a colleague according to a particular coinage, and that coinage is disqualified by the ruling authorities. If the lender could use the disqualified coin as legal tender in another country, and the lender has a way of getting to that country, the borrower may repay him in the coinage that he lent him, telling him: \"Go and use it in such and such a place.\" If the lender does not have a way of getting there, the borrower must repay him in the coinage that is legal tender at that time. Similar laws apply with regard to a ketubah.", + "Some of the Geonim have ruled that when a borrower forgoes the interest a lender charged or will charge on his behalf, his statements are of no consequence, even though he affirms his waiver with a kinyan or gives it as a present. Their rationale is that whenever interest is given, the borrower is waiving his rights. The Torah, however, does not accept this waiver and forbids it. Therefore, one cannot waive interest, even interest forbidden merely by Rabbinic Law on behalf of the lender.
It appears to me that this ruling is incorrect. Instead, since the lender is told to return the interest, and he knows that he violated a prohibition, and the borrower has the right to collect the money, if the borrower desires to waive the obligation to return the interest he may, just as a person may waive the return of a stolen article. Indeed, our Sages explicitly stated that when robbers and people who lent money at interest seek to return the money they took, we should not receive it from them. This indicates that the waiver of the obligation to return the interest is effective.", + "It is permitted to give property belonging to orphans to a faithful person who has valuable properties to offer as security, in an arrangement that is likely to lead to profit and unlikely to lead to loss.
What is implied? The court tells the person: \"Do business with their property. If there is a profit, give them a portion of the profit. If there is a loss, suffer the loss yourself.\" This is \"the shade of interest.\" Nevertheless, \"the shade of interest\" is forbidden only because of a Rabbinic decree, and our Sages did not apply their decree to property belonging to orphans." + ], + [ + "One may lend money to and borrow money from a gentile and a resident alien at interest, as implied by Deuteronomy 23:20: \"Do not offer interest to your brother.\" We may infer: Offering - and taking - interest from \"your brother\" is prohibited; from people at large, by contrast, it is permitted.
It is a positive mitzvah to lend money to a gentile at interest, as Ibid:21 states: \"You may offer interest to a gentile.\" The Oral Tradition teaches that this is a positive commandment. This is the Scriptural Law.", + "Our Sages, however, forbade a Jew from lending money to a gentile at a fixed rate of interest beyond what is necessary for him to earn his livelihood. They enacted this decree lest the lender learn from the gentile's deeds as a result of the large extent of his contact with him. Therefore even according to the Sages, it is permitted to borrow money from a gentile at interest, for the Jew will flee from him, and will not frequent his company.
Torah scholars will not learn from a gentile's conduct. Hence, it is permitted for them to lend money to a gentile at interest, even to make a profit. Any transactions in the category of \"the shade of interest\" that involve gentiles are permitted for everyone.", + "The following law applies when a Jew borrowed money from a gentile at interest, and when he seeks to return it to him another Jew meets him and tells him: \"Give it to me and I will pay you the rate of interest that you pay the gentile.\" This is forbidden, even if the original borrower brings the other Jew to the gentile. Instead, the gentile must take back his money and then give it as a loan to the other Jew.", + "When, by contrast, a gentile borrows money from a Jew at interest and desires to return it to him, and another Jew meets the gentile and tells him: \"Give it to me and I will pay you the rate of interest that you pay the other Jew,\" this is permitted. If, however, the gentile brought the Jewish borrower to the Jewish lender and informed him of the loan, this is considered fixed interest, for he gave the money with the knowledge of the Jewish lender. This applies even if the gentile gave the Jewish borrower the money.", + "It is forbidden for a Jew to entrust his money to a gentile so that he can lend them to a Jew at interest.
When a gentile loans money to a Jew at interest, it is forbidden for another Jew to serve as a guarantor. The rationale is that according to their laws, the lender may demand payment from the guarantor first. Thus, after paying the debt, the guarantor will demand payment for the interest that he is obligated to the gentile. Hence, if the gentile makes a commitment not to demand payment from the guarantor first, it is permitted.", + "The following laws apply when a Jew borrowed money from a gentile at interest and then the gentile converted. If a reckoning was made before he converted, the convert may collect the principal and the interest. If a reckoning was not made until after he converted, the convert may collect the principal, but not the interest.
Different rules apply when, by contrast, a gentile borrows money from a Jew at interest and then converts. After a reckoning is made, even if it was made after the conversion, the convert is required to pay the entire sum, the principal and the interest. This measure was instituted lest people say that the person converted for the sake of his money. Even after he converted, the Jew can collect the entire sum of interest for which he became liable while he was a gentile.", + "It is a mitzvah to lend money to a Jew without charge before lending money to a gentile at interest.", + "It is forbidden for a person to invest his money in a manner where his share in the profit is great and his share in the eventuality of loss is minimal. This is considered \"the shade of interest.\" A person who makes such investments is considered \"wicked.\"
If a person makes such an investment, the profits and the losses are divided according to the laws governing a hetter iska. A person who invests his money in a manner where his share in the profit is minimal and his share in the eventuality of loss is great is considered pious.", + "We may not appoint a person as a storekeeper in return for half of the profits, nor may one entrust a person with money to buy produce in return for half of the profits, nor may one buy eggs to place under another person's chickens in return for half of the profits, nor may one evaluate calves and young donkeys and then have them fattened in return for half of the profits.
These arrangements are permitted only when the investor pays the manager a wage for his efforts and reimbursement for the upkeep of the animals, or grants the manager a greater share of the profits than his share in the event of a loss, as we explained with regard to partnerships.", + "When a person enters into a partnership arrangement with a colleague, entrusting him with money or with land, or making an iska agreement, he should not include the profit together with the principal as a single sum in the promissory note, lest there be no profit and this lead to interest.
Similarly, a person should not give a colleague money as an iska or in a partnership, but have a promissory note written as if it were a loan. This is prohibited lest he die and the promissory note be given to his heir, who will use it to collect interest.", + "It is forbidden to pay interest before taking a loan or to pay it afterwards. What is implied? If a person thought about receiving a loan from a colleague and sent him presents so that he would grant him the loan, this is considered to be paying interest before giving a loan. If he took a loan from him and returned the debt, and then sent the lender a present for the fact that his money was in his possession without his receiving any benefit, this is considered as paying interest afterwards. If one transgresses and does this, this is \"the shade of interest.\"", + "When a person who borrowed money from a colleague would not ordinarily greet him first, it is forbidden for him to greet him first. Needless to say, it is forbidden for him to praise the lender in public or go to his home. These prohibitions are derived from the phrase Deuteronomy 23:20: \"All types of neshech\"; even words are forbidden.
Similarly, it is forbidden for the borrower to teach the lender Scripture or Talmud throughout the duration of the loan if the borrower was not accustomed to doing so previously, as implied by the phrase: \"All types of interest.\"", + "When a person lends money to a colleague, he should not tell the borrower: \"Take notice if so and so from this and this place comes.\" Implied is that the borrower should honor him and provide him with food and drink as is appropriate. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "There are practices that resemble interest, but which are permitted. What is implied? A person may purchase a promissory note from a colleague for less than its face value without any concern. A person may give a colleague a dinar so that he will lend a third party 100 dinarim. The rationale is that the Torah forbade only interest given by the borrower to the lender.
Similarly, a person may tell a colleague: \"Here is a dinar. Tell so and so to give me a loan.\" This is permitted, because he gave him a wage only for making the suggestion.", + "There are certain matters that are permitted, and yet are forbidden because they are ha'aramat ribit (a circumvention of the prohibition against interest).
What is implied? The borrower tells the lender: \"Lend me a maneh.\" The lender answers: \"I do not have a maneh. I have wheat worth a maneh,\" and he gave him the wheat for a maneh and then purchased it from him for 90 zuz. This is permitted, but it was forbidden by the Sages as a circumvention of the prohibition against interest. For he gave him 90 and received a maneh.
If the lender transgressed and carried out these transactions, the lender may expropriate 100 zuz from the borrower through legal process, because even \"the shade of interest\" is not involved. Similarly, if a field was given as security for a loan, the lender may not rent it back to the owner of the field, because this is a circumvention of the prohibition against interest. For the borrower is receiving the field that he owned and paying the lender rent each month because he lent him money.", + "It is forbidden to hire out dinarim. This does not resemble hiring out other utensils. In the latter case, the same utensil that was hired out is returned, In this instance, however, the recipient spends the dinarim he receives and pays him back with others. Hence, \"the shade of interest\" is involved.", + "The following rules apply when a king has established a law that whoever pays the head tax imposed on every person for a particular person has the right to take control of that person and treat him as a serf. If a person pays a dinar as the tax for a particular person and then has him work for more than a dinar, this is permitted. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations." + ], + [ + "Whenever a person gives a loan to a colleague of a sela for five dinarim, two se'ah of wheat for three, a selah for a selah and a se'ah or three se'ah for three se'ah and a dinar, it is forbidden. The general principle is whenever there is a stipulation that any increase be made to a loan, interest forbidden by Scriptural Law is involved, and it may be expropriated from the lender through legal process.
Similarly, when a person lends money to a colleague and makes a stipulation that he can live in the borrower's courtyard at no cost until he returns the loan, he rented the borrower's property for less than its fair value and established that this reduction would remain in force until he repaid the debt, or took as security property from which benefit can be derived at the time of the loan - e.g., the borrower gave the lender his courtyard as security with the intent that the lender dwell in it without charge - all the above are forms of interest forbidden by Scriptural Law and it may be expropriated from the lender through legal process.
Similarly, when a person sells a field or a courtyard through an asmachta, since the purchaser does not acquire the field itself, any produce that he consumes is interest and must be returned. Similar laws apply to any person who has not completed a transaction that is not fully binding at the outset. He must return all the produce. For if he consumes the produce, he will be taking interest according to Scriptural Law.
Any other matter forbidden as interest outside the above categories is prohibited by Rabbinic decree. These decrees were enforced lest this lead to the violation of interest forbidden by Scriptural Law. Interest forbidden by the Rabbis is called \"the shade of interest\" and may not be expropriated from the lender through legal process.", + "When a person lends money to a colleague, he should not take that colleague's servant to perform work for him even if the servant is sitting idly. He should not dwell in his courtyard without charge, even though this courtyard is not fit to be rented out and the owner does not ordinarily rent out his property. If the lender does dwell in it, he must pay rent to the owner/borrower. If he does not pay rent, it is considered as \"the shade of interest,\" because at the outset, he did not stipulate that if he makes the loan, he can dwell in his courtyard.
Therefore, the following rule applies if the borrower has not paid the debt and desires to deduct the rent for the courtyard in which the lender dwelled from the debt. If the rent is equivalent to the entire debt, he may not deduct the entire amount - only the sum that the judges specify. The rationale is that if the lender were sent away without receiving anything, it would be equivalent to expropriating the interest by the court. And \"the shade of interest\" is not expropriated by the court.", + "My teachers issued the following ruling when a person lends money to a colleague and afterwards demands payment of the debt. If the borrower tells the lender: \"Dwell in my courtyard until I repay the debt,\" it is considered as only \"the shade of interest.\" The rationale is that this condition was not specified at the time the loan was given, as can be inferred from Leviticus 25:37: \"Do not give him a loan with neshech.\"", + "The following rules apply when a person lends a colleague money and the borrower offers a field as security. Although the lender tells the borrower: \"If you do not return the debt to me within three years, the field belongs to me,\" he does not acquire it. The rationale is that the agreement is an asmachta and an asmachta is not binding. Accordingly, the lender must deduct all the produce he consumed from the sum of the loan. For consuming that produce is interest forbidden by Scriptural Law.
Different rules apply, however, if the seller/borrower tells the lender/purchaser: \"If I do not repay you within three years, acquire it retroactively from the present date.\" If the borrower brings the money to the lender within three years, the lender is not entitled to the produce. If he brings the money to the lender/purchaser after three years, all the produce belongs to the purchaser.", + "When a person sells a house or a field and tells the purchaser: \"When I obtain money, return the property to me,\" the purchaser does not acquire the field. All the produce that he consumes is considered as fixed interest and can be expropriated from him through legal process.
If, however, on his own initiative, the purchaser tells the seller: \"When you obtain money, I will return this field to you,\" it is permitted for him to do so. The purchaser may consume the produce until the seller returns his money.", + "The following laws apply when a person sells a field to a colleague and the purchaser pays a portion of the money to the seller. If the seller tells the purchaser: \"Acquire a portion of the property in proportion to the percentage of your payment,\" each of them is entitled to consume a share of the produce proportional to the percentage of the property he owns.
If the seller tells the purchaser: \"When you bring the remainder of the money, you will acquire the field retroactively to the present date,\" both of them are forbidden to benefit from the produce immediately. The seller is prohibited, lest the purchaser bring the remainder of the money and thus the field will belong to him from that date. Hence if the seller were to consume the produce, he would be receiving benefit from the money that the purchaser has yet to pay him.
Similarly, the purchaser is forbidden to benefit from the produce. The rationale is that perhaps he will not bring the remainder of the money and the transaction will be nullified. Thus, he will have benefited from the produce in consideration of the money he had given the seller. Therefore, the produce should be given to a third party until it is appropriate to give it to one of them.
If the seller tells the purchaser: \"When you bring the remainder of the money, you will acquire the field,\" the seller is entitled to benefit from the produce until the purchaser brings the money. If the purchaser consumes the produce, its value should be expropriated from him.
If the seller tells the purchaser: \"Acquire the field at present and the remainder of the money is considered as a debt,\" the purchaser should benefit from the produce. If the seller consumes the produce, everything that he consumed should be expropriated from him.", + "My masters ruled that the following principle applies when a person lends money to a colleague and the borrower gives the lender his field as security with the intent that the lender benefit from the produce while he was holding it as security. Even though the lender does not deduct anything, this is considered merely \"the shade of interest,\" and cannot be expropriated from the lender through legal process.
The rationale is that giving a field as security is different from giving a house as security. Because produce is not located in the field at the time the loan is given. It is possible that the lender will profit, for produce will grow, and it is possible that he will lose when sowing and working the field. Therefore, it is \"the shade of interest.\"
Similarly, giving a field as security does not resemble selling a field under an asmachta. When a person sells under an asmachta, he does not resolve to make the sale. When he gives a field as security, by contrast, he resolves to sell the potential to benefit from the land.
Similarly, from the Talmud, it appears that a property given as security involves \"the shade of interest,\" and that can be understood only if we say that it refers to a person who gives a field as security, as my masters ruled.
Thus, there are three ways in which property can be given as security: security where taking benefit involves fixed interest, security where taking benefit involves the shade of interest and security where taking benefit is permitted.
What is implied? If a person gave a colleague a property where benefit is continually present, e.g., a courtyard, a bathhouse, or a store, as security, it is considered as fixed interest. If he gave him a field or the like as security and it produced profit from which he benefited, it is considered as \"the shade of interest.\"
If he gave him a courtyard or the like as security and made a deduction, it is considered as \"the shade of interest.\" If he gave him a field as security and made a deduction, it is permitted.
What is meant by \"making a deduction\"? A person lent a colleague 100 dinarim. The borrower gave him his courtyard or his field as security and the lender told the borrower: \"I will deduct a silver me'ah each year as rent for the property, so that I can receive all of the benefit from the courtyard,\" or the like, it is forbidden. If he gives a field or the like as security, it is permitted.", + "Some of the Geonim have ruled that whenever property is given as security and nothing is deducted, it is considered to be fixed interest. They did not penetrate to the depth of the matter to distinguish between a field and a courtyard. Therefore, the words of the Talmud appeared problematic to them.
Similarly, they ruled that it is always forbidden to give property as security without a deduction being made, whether for a courtyard or a field, except according to the following arrangement.
What is implied? The lender loaned the borrower 100 dinarim, took a house or a field as security, and stipulated that after ten years the property would return to its owners at no charge. The lender is permitted to benefit from the produce of the property for the entire ten years, even if ordinarily its rent would be 1000 dinarim a year. For in effect, what he is doing is renting it at a lower price.
Similarly, it is permitted if the owner of the field added a stipulation that whenever he brought the renter or lender money, he would deduct a rent of ten dinarim a year from the amount and leave the property. Similarly, it is permitted if the borrower added a stipulation that whenever he desired, he could calculate the time that the lender or renter dwelled in the property and pay him the remainder and then he would leave the property. The rationale is that it is a rental that is involved, and any stipulation involving a rental is binding and permitted, as explained previously." + ], + [ + "The following rules apply when a person lends money to a colleague, and the borrower gives the lender his field as security for a set time or until the borrower repays the lender, at which time, the lender will leave the field.
Although the lender benefits from all of the produce of the field, even if he consumes the entire value of the debt, he should not be removed from the field without any payment. The rationale is that if he were removed without payment, it would be as if one had expropriated money taken as \"the shade of interest\" through legal process. Needless to say, if the produce that the lender consumes is worth more than the money he gave, the difference should not be expropriated by him. Similarly, we do not calculate from one promissory note to another promissory note when property is given as security.
When the property given as security belongs to orphans, and the lender consumes an amount of produce equivalent to his debt, he is removed from the property without any payment. If, however, the lender's benefit exceeded the amount of the debt, we do not expropriate the additional amount from him. In the case of orphans, we may calculate from one promissory note to another promissory note.
What is meant by \"calculating from one promissory note to another promissory note\"? One field was given to a lender as security for a debt of 100 dinarim and another field was given to him as security for another debt for another 100 dinarim. If both fields belonged to the same person and the lender consumed produce worth 50 from one field and produce worth 150 from the other field, we tell him: \"You already consumed 200 dinarim worth of produce; you are not owed anything more.\" For it is as if the two debts were one debt and security given for the entire sum as one.", + "In a place where it is customary to remove the lender from property given as security whenever the borrower pays the debt, it is as if this stipulation were explicitly stated. It is not necessary to make an explicit statement. Conversely, in a place where it is customary not to remove the lender from property until the conclusion of the term for which the property was given as security, it is as if this stipulation was explicitly stated.
Whenever a person gives property as security without specifying a term for the loan, he cannot remove the lender from the property until at least twelve months pass.", + "Even in a place where it is customary to remove the lender from property given as security whenever the borrower desires to pay the debt, that custom can be superseded by an explicit condition. If a lender makes a stipulation that the borrower will not remove him from the property until after the full term for which the property was given as security, the borrower cannot pay the debt earlier and have him removed from the property.
In a place where it is customary not to remove the lender from property until after the full term for which the property was given as security, although the lender accepts a stipulation that he will leave the property whenever the borrower brings him his money, the stipulation is binding only when the lender affirms his commitment with a kinyan.", + "In a place where it is customary to remove the lender from property given as security whenever the borrower pays the debt, a creditor of the lender is not entitled to expropriate this property to collect his debt, as he can other properties belonging to his debtor. Similarly, a firstborn does not receive a double portion of it, and the Sabbatical year nullifies the debt. When the borrower pays the debt and causes the lender to leave the field, the lender may not take even produce that is ripe and that has fallen to the ground. If, however, he lifted the produce up before he was forced to leave the property, he acquires the produce.
In a place where it is customary that the borrower cannot remove the lender from property given as security until the end of the term of the loan, a creditor of the lender may expropriate this property, a firstborn receives a double portion of it, and the Sabbatical year cannot nullify the debt.", + "Although giving a field as security is forbidden and involves \"the shade of interest,\" as explained, it is possible that this custom was established in error, in relation to a gentile, or practiced by a person who sinned and took property as security in that city. Since \"the shade of interest is involved,\" we follow the local custom. There is someone who ruled that this is what is meant by making a deduction when taking security.", + "When a gentile gives his courtyard as security to a Jew in return for a loan, and afterwards, the gentile sells it to another Jew, the person in possession of the security does not have to pay the Jewish owner rent from the time he purchased the courtyard. Instead, he may dwell in the courtyard without paying rent until the gentile repays the loan taken out against the courtyard. The rationale is that according to secular law, the property belongs to the person to whom it was given as security until the debt is repaid. Only then, he leaves the property.", + "The following rules apply when a person designates a house or a field as security for a loan in his colleague's possession and the owner of the land derives the benefits from it. If the lender tells the borrower: \"When you desire to sell this property, do not sell it to anyone but to me at this price,\" it is forbidden. If he told him: \"Do not sell it to anyone else but to me at its fair value. It is on this condition that I am making the loan,\" it is permitted.", + "It is permitted to increase the rent offered for land in return for delayed payment. What is implied? A person rents a colleague a courtyard and tells him: \"If you pay me now, it is yours at ten selaim a year. If you pay me month by month, the rent is a sela per month.\" This arrangement is permissible.", + "When a person rents a field to a colleague at ten korim a year, it is permissible for the tenant to tell the owner: \"Give me a loan of 200 zuz to improve the field and I will pay you twelve korim a year.\" This is not considered interest, because if he uses this money to improve the field, it will be worth more to rent.
Similarly, if a person rents a colleague a store or a ship for ten dinarim, it is permissible for the renter to tell the owner: \"Give me a loan of 200 zuz to use to remodel the store, decorate it and plaster it, or to improve the ship and its facilities, and I will pay you twelve dinarim per year.\" If, however, he tells him: \"Give me a loan of 200 zuz so that I can do business with them in the store, purchase merchandise for the ship with them, or hire sailors, and I will increase the fee,\" that is forbidden.", + "It is forbidden to increase the compensation paid a person in return for delayed payment. What is implied? A person should not tell a colleague: \"Perform work for me today that is worth one silver piece and I will perform work for you in a later week that is worth two silver pieces.", + "It is permissible for a person to tell a colleague: \"Weed with me today in my field, and I will weed with you tomorrow in your field,\" or \"Hoe with me today, and I will hoe with you tomorrow.\" He should not, however, tell him: \"Weed for me and I will hoe for you later,\" or \"Hoe for me and I will weed for you later.\" One law applies for the entire summer, and one law for the entire rainy season. A person should not, by contrast, say: \"Plow for me in the summer and I will plow for you in the rainy season,\" for there is greater difficulty in plowing during the rainy season. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "It is forbidden to hire a worker in the early winter to perform tasks in the later winter at a dinar a day and give him the money in advance, when a worker's wage in the winter is ordinarily a sela. The rationale is that it appears that he is giving him a loan immediately so that he will later reduce his wages.
It is, however, permissible for an employer to tell a worker: \"Work for me from today until this and this time at a dinar a day,\" even though his wages would ordinarily be a sela a day. The rationale is that since he already began working, the worker is not considered to be receiving benefit for money that was paid to him in advance." + ], + [ + "It is forbidden to increase the price offered for merchandise in return for delayed payment. What is implied? A person sold landed property or movable property to his colleague and told him: \"If you pay me now, the price is 100 zuzim. If you delay payment until this and this time, the price is 120.\" This is considered \"the shade of interest,\" for it is as if he takes 20 zuz in return for giving him 100 to use until the time specified.
If the seller calls the purchaser to court, he is liable to pay only the 100 that it was worth at the time of the sale. Alternatively, if the article he purchased is intact, he may return it. Similarly, it is forbidden to sell movable property for 100 zuz with the stipulation that payment need not be made until a certain time, when it is worth 90 zuz in the marketplace, if payment is to be given immediately.", + "When, however, a person purchased an article for its fair market value on the condition that he may delay payment for twelve months, the seller may tell him: \"Pay me a lesser amount now.\" There is no question of interest involved.", + "It is permissible to sell a colleague a jug of wine that is worth a dinar for two dinarim on the condition that he does not pay until the summer, provided that he accepts the stipulation that if an accident occurs to it, the jug is the seller's responsibility until the purchaser sells it - i.e., if it is lost or broken, the purchaser does not have to pay anything. Moreover, if he cannot find anyone to purchase it at a profit, he may return it to the owner.
Similarly, it is permissible for a person to sell a colleague wine for two dinarim and tell him: \"Anything more than two dinarim can be your profit, since you are involving yourself in its sale. And if you do not succeed in selling it at the price you desire, you can return it to me.\" In this situation, even if it is lost, stolen or becomes vinegar, it is the purchaser's responsibility.", + "The following rules apply when a person possesses produce that has a selling price of ten dinarim in the marketplace, but if the purchaser sought to purchase it, he would have to purchase it for twelve. It is permissible to sell the produce for twelve dinarim to be paid after a twelve-month period. The rationale is that even if the purchaser brought his money immediately, he would pay twelve dinarim for it. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "It is forbidden to purchase fruit from an orchard before its growth is completed and it becomes ripe. The rationale is that the seller will sell it for less - e.g., he will sell produce for ten now, even though it will be worth twenty when its growth is completed. Thus, the increase is being given for the delayed delivery.
It is permissible, however, if he purchases a calf for a low price on the condition that it remain in the previous owner's possession until it grows older. For if the calf dies or becomes weakened, it is in the owner's possession. And it is common and frequent that an animal will become weak or die.", + "The following rules apply when a person gives money to the owner of a vineyard for the twigs and branches that will eventually be cut off. When they are cut off, they will be expensive. At present, however, he purchases them at a low price because he must wait until they dry out and are cut off. He must till the land under the vines while they are still attached to the ground. Thus, he is buying a tree for its offshoots. If he does not till the land, the money he pays is like a loan. Since the branches are being purchased for a lower price because of the delayed delivery, it is forbidden.", + "The following rules apply when watchmen in a field are given wheat from the grain heap as their wages at a price lower than its market value. When they go to the grain heap to collect their wages, they must perform work at the grainheap, so that they will be receiving the wheat at the conclusion of the time for which they were hired. If they do not do so, their wages will be considered as a loan extended to the employers, and the fact that they were given the wheat at a low price will be considered to be interest paid to them in return for the delay in paying their wages until the harvest reached the grain heap.", + "Generally, the owners of fields would require sharecroppers to leave a field in Nissan. The sharecroppers would give the owners four se'ah for every portion of the field large enough to sow a kor as rent. It is permissible for an owner to allow his sharecroppers to remain in his field until lyyar, but to take from them six se'ah. This does not involve interest.", + "It is permissible for the seller to give a purchaser more than the measure originally stipulated when the purchaser does not collect payment until afterwards. For example, a person purchased four se'ah of wheat at a sela; this was the market price. He paid the money at that time, but did not come to collect the wheat until later. When he came, the seller increased the measure and gave him more. This is permitted, because he willingly gave him more. Had he not desired, he would not have given him more, because there was no stipulation to that effect.", + "When a person purchases a barrel of wine, it is permissible for him to pay the money to the seller and stipulate: \"If it becomes vinegar from now until such and such a date, you are responsible. If, however, it increases or decreases in value, the barrel is mine.\" Since the purchaser also accepted the possibility of a depreciation in value, the transaction is considered as having the possibility of both gain and loss. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
Similarly, it is permissible for a person to buy 100 jugs of wine in Tishrei for a dinar each, but not to collect them until Tevet. And when he collects them, he may check each one, returning those that have become vinegar and taking those that are good wine. For he purchased only good wine from him. Those jugs whose contents became vinegar were fit to sour at the outset; it is just that the matter did not become known until later.", + "In a place where it is customary to rent out ships and receive payment for them, it is permissible to include a stipulation that if the ship is damaged, those damages will be assessed and reimbursement made over and above the fee charged. Similarly, it is permissible to hire out a pot of brass and the like and receive payment for it, and also to receive compensation if its weight decreased. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "It is forbidden to accept tzon barzel from another Jew, because this is considered \"the shade of interest\"?
What is meant by the term tzon barzel? A person owned 100 sheep. A shepherd accepted the responsibility of caring for them on the condition that the shearing, the offspring and the milk would be split, either evenly, or one getting a third or a fourth for a year or two, as they stipulated. Included in the agreement is the condition that if the sheep die, the shepherd must make restitution for them.
This is forbidden, because the owner of the sheep is very likely to realize a profit, and highly unlikely to suffer a loss. Therefore, such an arrangement is permissible if the owner of the sheep accepts the condition that should the value of the sheep increase or decrease or should they be seized by predators, they are considered within his domain. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "The following laws apply when a person appraises an animal he receives from a colleague and tells him: \"If it dies, I accept responsibility for 30 dinarim, and I will pay you a sela a month as a fee.\" This is permitted, because he did not establish this as the animal's value when alive, but only after its death.", + "A woman may rent out a chicken to a friend so that it can sit on eggs until they hatch for two chicks. There is no question of interest involved.", + "When a person owed a colleague four dinarim as interest and gave him an article worth five dinarim instead, when the interest is expropriated from him, five dinarim are taken. The rationale is that he received it as interest. Similarly, if the borrower gave the lender a garment or a utensil, that garment or that utensil itself should be returned to him. If, in lieu of the four dinarim he owed him, he rented him a property that was normally rented for three dinarim, four dinarim are expropriated from him, because he accepted the rental as being worth that price." + ], + [ + "An order for produce cannot be placed until a market price has been established. Once a market price has been established, an order can be placed. Even though the person receiving the order does not have the desired produce, his colleague does.
What is implied? If the market price for wheat was fixed at four se'ah per sela, a purchaser may place an order of 100 se'ah and pay 25 sela. Even if the seller gives the purchaser the 100 se'ah of wheat later, at a time when a se'ah of wheat is selling for a sela, there is no interest involved at all. This applies even when the seller did not own any wheat at the time the order was placed.
When does the above apply? When the seller did not have in his possession any of the type of produce he sold. If, however, the seller had that type of produce in his possession, even if the work necessary to bring it to the market has not been completed, he may sell a produce order even though a market price has not been established. What is implied? If a farmer was one of the first to harvest, he may sell an order of grain even though the grain is still in the grainheap.
A person can sell an order for wine once the grapes have been reaped and placed in the vat. He can sell an order for oil, when it has been placed in the vat. An order for lime can be placed when it is lowered into the oven. And an order for earthenware vessels can be placed when the balls of clay are made.
When is that necessary? When using white clay. But if dark clay is used, an order for utensils to be made from it can be placed even if the balls have not been made, for that clay is readily available. Even if one person does not possess it, another does. Similarly, a order for fertilizer may be placed throughout the year, even though the seller does not possess fertilizer himself, because it is continuously available.", + "Whenever all that is necessary to complete a product is one or two tasks, an order can be placed with a seller. When three or more tasks are necessary, an order cannot be placed unless the market price has been issued. For since more than three tasks are necessary to complete the product, it is as if the person does not possess that type of substance at all, and as if it has not come into existence as of yet.
What is implied? When a grain heap must be a) placed in the sun to dry, b) threshed, and c) winnowed, the owner may not accept an order unless a market price has already been issued. If it was dry, and all that was necessary that it be threshed and winnowed, he may accept an order.
If balls of clay lack shaping, drying, being placed in the kiln, being fired and being removed, the owner may not accept an order. If they are dry, and all that was necessary that they be placed in the kiln and fired, he may accept an order. This applies when it is the custom of the buyer to remove the utensils from the kiln. If the seller is the one who removes them, they are considered to require the performance of three tasks. The owner may not accept an order unless a market price has already been issued. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "When a person who is going to milk his goats, shear his sheep or remove honey from his beehive meets a colleague, it is permissible for one to tell the other: \"What I will milk from my goats is sold to you,\" \"What I will shear from my sheep is sold to you,\" or \"What I will remove from my beehive is sold to you.\" It is, however, forbidden for one to tell the other: \"This and this amount of milk which I will milk from my goats is sold to you at this and this price,\" \"This and this amount of wool that I will shear from my sheep is sold to you at this and this price,\" or \"This and this amount of honey that I will remove from my beehive is sold to you at this and this price\" unless he takes an order at the market price. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "Orders cannot be placed based on the market price of towns, because it is not firmly established, only on a market price established in a large city. If new wheat was being sold in a city at four se'ah for a sela and older wheat at three se'ah for a sela, an order may not be placed until an equal price is established for both the new and the old grain.
If wheat sold by gatherers was selling at four se'ah for a sela and wheat sold by a householder at three, one may place an order from a gatherer at the price of the gatherers. An order from a householder at the price of the gatherers may not be placed unless the price for householders is established [at the same rate].", + "Once a market price has been established, it is permissible to place an order even for a high rate of exchange.
What is implied? Wheat was being sold at four se'ah for a sela and a purchaser placed an order that a seller would later give him wheat at a low rate of exchange. If the price of wheat was later established at ten se'ah for a sela, the seller must give him ten se'ah as is the market price, for he placed an order at the high rate of exchange.
If the purchaser gave the seller money without making a stipulation and without placing an order for the high rate of exchange, and the price of the produce fell, the seller may give the purchaser the produce at the price that the produce was worth when the money was paid. If a person reneges on his commitment, he receives the adjuration mi shepara.
When does the above apply? When a person is placing an order for himself. When, however, a person is acting as an agent, either for the buyer or the seller, either the purchaser receives at the lower price or the seller must return the funds. When an agent was involved, the purchaser is not required to receive the adjuration mi shepara if he retracts because of the agent's error. For he will say: \"I charged you with improving my position, not with undermining it,\" as explained above.", + "The following laws apply when wheat was being sold at four se'ah per sela, the seller took the money and promised to give the purchaser five se'ah for a sela. If the seller possesses wheat at that time, it is permitted. If the seller does not possess wheat, or even if he is owed a debt of wheat by others and he takes the money on condition that he collects what he is owed and gives it to the purchaser, it is forbidden. The rationale is that at the time of the transaction, the wheat has not yet been collected, and it is as if it does not exist. Hence, it is as if he fixed a time for a later delivery and reduced the price because of the postponement.", + "When wheat is selling at four se'ah for a sela in the large cities and six se'ah per sela in the villages, it is permitted to give a merchant a sela so that he will bring six se'ah from a village by a particular date. The wheat must, however, be considered to be in the possession of the purchaser. Thus, if is lost or stolen on the way, the purchaser suffers the loss.
It is forbidden for a distinguished person to carry out such a transaction. And if the transaction involves several types of merchandise, it is forbidden for all people to carry out such transactions. The rationale is that such types of merchandise are not continuously found in villages, in contrast to produce that is.", + "When donkey-drivers enter a city where the market-price is four se'ah for a sela, it is permitted for them to lower the price and sell wheat to their acquaintances or their brokers at five se'ah a sela in return for money given them at the outset, as soon as they enter the city, before they open their sacks and sell to others. The rationale is that they are not selling to them at the lower price because they gave them the money immediately and will not collect the produce until later, but because they inform them concerning the market price and offer them assistance.", + "The following rules apply when a person who is transporting his produce from one place to another place meets a colleague who tells him: \"Give me your produce and I will give you produce that I possess in return at your destination.\" If the purchaser possesses such produce at that place, the transaction is permitted. If not, it is forbidden.
Slightly different laws apply when a person was transporting merchandise from place to place and a colleague told him: \"Give me the merchandise and I will pay you the price it would be worth at your destination.\" If the seller is responsible for the merchandise until it reaches that destination, the transaction is permitted. If the purchaser is responsible, it is forbidden.", + "It is permissible for a person to give the owner of a garden payment for ten specific cucumbers or for ten specific watermelons, even though they are small and he stipulated that he would give them to him when they grow to full size. The rationale is that the seller leaves them and they grow by themselves. If he cut them off now, others would not grow in their place. Similar laws apply in all analogous cases where the seller will not suffer any loss or detriment by selling in advance." + ], + [ + "Just as it is permitted for a seller to take an order based on the market price; so, too, it is permitted to give a loan of produce without any conditions, to be returned without any conditions, without establishing a time when it must be returned once the market price has been established.
What is implied? If there was a fixed market price for wheat that was known by both the borrower and the lender, when the borrower borrows ten se'ah of wheat from a colleague, he is obligated to return ten se'ah, even though the price of wheat increased. The rationale is that when he borrowed the wheat from him, the market price was known. If he had wanted to, he could have purchased wheat and returned it, since a minimum term of the loan was not established.", + "If the borrower possesses some of the type of produce that he seeks to borrow, it is permissible for him to borrow this produce without any conditions, to be returned without any conditions, without establishing a time when it is due. Even if he possesses only a se'ah, he may borrow many se'ah because of it. Even if he possesses only a drop of oil or wine, he may borrow several jugs of wine and oil because of it.
If he did not possess any of that type of produce and the market price was not established yet, or the borrower and the lender did not know the market price, it is forbidden to lend a se'ah of produce for a se'ah to be returned at a later date. Similarly, with regard to other types of produce, a person should not lend them out until he establishes a financial equivalent. The following rules apply when a person makes a loan of produce without establishing a financial equivalent, and it decreases in value. The borrower must return the measure or the weight of the fruit he borrowed. If they increased in value, the lender may take only the amount they were worth at the time of the loan.
Even if a person possesses that type of produce, or the market price had already been established, it is forbidden to make a loan of produce that must be repaid on a specific date. Instead, the loan must be made without any stipulation, and it can be repaid whenever the borrower desires to repay it.", + "A person should not tell a colleague: \"Lend me a kor of wheat and I will return a kor to you at the time when wheat is brought to the granaries.\" He may, however, tell him: \"Lend me wheat until my son comes, or until I find the key to my storehouse.\"", + "The following rules apply if a person lent out produce until a fixed date: If the produce diminished in value, the borrower should return the produce at the time set. If the produce increased in value, the borrower should pay him the money that it was worth at the time of the loan.", + "A person may lend wheat to his sharecroppers to be used as seed, in return for wheat to be paid back after the harvest. This applies both before the sharecropper enters the field and after he entered the field.
When does this apply? In a place where it is customary that the sharecropper supplies the seed for the crops. For the owner of the field has the right to remove the sharecropper from the field whenever he does not supply it.
Different laws apply in places where it is customary for the owner of the field to provide the seed. If the sharecropper did not enter the field yet, it is permitted for the owner to lend wheat for wheat to be returned in the future, for he still has the prerogative of removing the sharecropper from the field. Thus, when the sharecropper entered the field, he entered with the intent of returning the wheat the owner lent him.
If, however, the loan was made after the sharecropper entered the field, since the owner can no longer have him removed, he is like any other person. It is forbidden to lend him wheat for seed in return for wheat to be paid back at a later date. He may, however, lend him wheat according to its market value if he does not make any stipulations.", + "A loan may not be repaid with a loan of produce. To explain: A person owed a colleague money. The lender told the borrower: \"Give me my money, because I want to purchase wheat with it.\"
The borrower responded: \"Go out and establish the money I owe you as a debt of wheat according to the present market price.\"
If the borrower possesses an equivalent quantity of wheat, this is permitted. If, however, he does not have that type of produce, this is forbidden. For our Sages said that it is permitted to place an order based on a commodity's market price, even though the seller does not possess any of that commodity, only when the purchaser is paying money for the acquisition. It is, however, forbidden to transfer a debt of money into a debt of produce unless the borrower possesses the produce.
The concept can be extended when, in the above situation, the borrower did possess wheat and the debt was transferred into a debt of wheat. Similar rules apply if afterwards the lender comes and tells him: \"Give me the wheat, because I want to sell it and use the money to purchase wine,\" and in response, the borrower tells him: \"Go out and consider the debt as a debt of wine, according to the present market price of wine.\" If he possesses wine, it is permitted and it is considered as if he owes him wine. If he does not possess wine, it is forbidden.
If the borrower did not possess the commodity desired, but nevertheless, transgressed and transferred the debt into a debt of that commodity, he is not required to pay the debt in the commodity. Even though he did purchase the commodity afterwards, he should pay the lender the money he lent him." + ], + [ + "When a person lends money to a colleague in the presence of witnesses, or a borrower tells witnesses: \"Serve as witnesses for me that I owe this person a maneh\" or \"You are my witnesses that I owe this person a maneh,\" the obligation established is referred to as a milveh b'al peh, \"a loan supported by an oral commitment.\" Such a debt need not be repaid in the presence of witnesses.' Therefore, if the debtor claims: \"I repaid the debt,\" he is required to take a sh'vuat hesset and is discharged.
When, by contrast, a person lends money to a colleague and has the debt supported by a promissory note, the debtor must repay him in the presence of witnesses. Therefore, if the debtor claims: \"I paid this promissory note,\" his words are not accepted. Instead, we tell him: \"Bring witnesses who testify that you paid or \"Arise and pay the debt you owe him.\"
Therefore, when a person tells witnesses: \"Serve as witnesses for me that I owe this person a maneh\" they may not write down a record of their testimony and give it to the lender, unless the borrower tells them: \"Write a promissory note, sign it and give it to the lender. The rationale is that their testimony, which is only oral, should not be given the legal power of a promissory note. Even when the borrower gives such instructions, they should consult with him after they have signed the promissory note. Only afterwards, may they give the promissory note to the lender in his hand.
If they performed a kinyan with the borrower affirming that he owes the lender a maneh, the witnesses may write a promissory note and give it to the lender, even though the borrower did not instruct them to do so. The rationale is that when a kinyan is performed without any further instructions, it is ready to be recorded in a legal document. There is no need to consult the borrower.", + "When a borrower writes a document by himself and witnesses write testimony upon it and give it to the lender, it is an acceptable promissory note.
Similarly, should the borrower compose a promissory note - even when there are no witnesses who sign it - and give it to the lender in the presence of witnesses, the loan is considered to be backed by a promissory note, provided that it is written with a script that cannot be forged and that the witnesses in whose presence it was transferred read it.
There are Geonim who ruled that the borrower should tell the witnesses in whose presence the promissory note was transferred: \"Sign the note or testify that it was transferred in your presence.\"", + "If the lender produces a note written by the borrower , which states that he owes the lender money, but there are no witnesses who have signed it, it is considered as merely a loan supported by an oral commitment with regard to all matters. This applies even if the authenticity of his writing was verified.
Hence, if the borrower claims to have paid the debt, and the lender denies receiving payment, the borrower need only take a sh'vuat hesset before being dismissed. Nor may the lender use this note to expropriate property from the heirs, nor from the purchasers.", + "Whenever a loan is supported by a promissory note, the lender may use this note to expropriate property from the heirs and from the purchasers, as will be explained. When, by contrast, a loan is merely supported by an oral commitment, the lender may expropriate payment from the heirs, but not from the purchasers. The rationale for this restriction is that such a loan does not become public knowledge. Therefore, the lender may not expropriate property because of such an obligation.
A loan supported by a promissory note, by contrast, does become public knowledge. Therefore, it may be used to expropriate property that was sold. The purchaser of such property caused himself a loss, because he did not inquire to the extent that he discovered that the property of the person he purchased it from was on lien because of the loan that person had taken. For according to Scriptural Law, all property belonging to a borrower is on lien to the loan.", + "When a person sells his field in the presence of witnesses, and a creditor of the seller expropriates the field from the purchaser, the purchaser may expropriate the money due him from property that was on lien to the sale that had been sold to others, as will be explained. The rationale is that whenever a person makes a sale, it is done in public and becomes common knowledge.", + "A loan that is supported by an oral commitment alone may be collected from heirs only in one of the following three instances:
a) the person who is liable admits his debt, and while mortally ill stated that he still owes so-and-so a debt;
b) the loan was given for a specific time, and the time for payment had not come; we operate under the presumption that a person will not pay a debt until it is due;
c) because of his failure to pay, the debtor was placed under a ban of ostracism until he would make restitution, and he died while under that ban.
In all these instances, the creditor may collect the debt from the heirs without having to take an oath. If, however, witnesses come and testify that the deceased owed a colleague a maneh, or that he borrowed money in their presence, the creditor may not collect anything from the heirs, because it is possible that the deceased repaid the loan. For a person who borrowed money from a colleague in the presence of witnesses does not have to repay him in the presence of witnesses. Similarly, if a person shows heirs a note from their father stating that he owes the claimant money, he may not collect anything because of it, as we have explained.", + "The following rules apply when a borrower does not own movable property, but does own landed property. If the court is aware that he has deposited his money in the hands of other people, we compel him to sell the landed property and pay his creditor.
If this is not known to them, they issue a ban of ostracism against anyone who knows that the debtor possesses movable property and does not bring it to court. Afterwards, they take possession of property he owns that is of intermediate worth and expropriate it for the creditor, as will be explained.
When does the above apply? When payment is collected from the debtor himself. When, however, a person comes to collect payment from heirs -whether they are above or below majority - he does not have the right to collect from the movable property belonging to the estate even if it was entrusted or loaned to another person. For movable property inherited by heirs is not under lien according to Scriptural Law. '", + "It is a mitzvah for the heirs to pay a debt left by their father from the movable property that he left. If an heir does not desire to make restitution, however, he is not compelled to do so. If the creditor seized property belonging to the debtor in the debtor's lifetime, he may collect his due from it.
If a creditor claims that he seized property during the debtor's lifetime, and the debtor's heir claims that the creditor seized the property after the debtor's death, the heir has the responsibility of proving his claim. Alternatively, the lender must take an oath that he was owed so-and-so much - he can claim up to the value of the property in his possession - and include in his oath that he seized the property in the debtor's lifetime.
If the property that he seized included promissory notes, and the lender claims that he is holding them as security for a debt and that he seized them during the debtor's lifetime, the lender must prove that he seized them during the debtor's lifetime. If he cannot bring proof, he should return them to the heirs. The difference is that with regard to promissory notes, he is not claiming the acquisition of the obligation itself, but rather proof that such an obligation exists.", + "When heirs expropriated landed property because of a debt that others owed their father, a creditor of their father's can expropriate it from them. The rationale is that this land was in effect their father's.", + "The above principles can be extended and applied in the following situation. Reuven sold a field to Shimon, accepting financial responsibility for the sale. Shimon did not pay immediately, but instead had Reuven consider the price of the field as a loan. Reuven died afterwards. Reuven's creditor then came to expropriate the field from Shimon. Instead of giving the creditor the field, Shimon appeased him with money, and he departed.
According to the law, Reuven's heirs may come and demand that Shimon pay the debt that he owed Reuven, for that loan is not on lien to Reuven's creditor.
Therefore, if Shimon is clever, he should give Reuven's heirs the land he purchased from them as payment for the debt that he accepted upon himself. He can then expropriate the property from them, because of the money that he gave to Reuven's creditor so that he would not expropriate it from him. This option is available because Reuven took financial responsibility for the field Shimon purchased.", + "All of the Geonim have ordained, however, that a creditor may expropriate movable property from the heirs in payment for a debt. This judgment is enforced universally in all courts of law.
In the West, however, they would have a provision written in the promissory notes giving the creditor the right to collect the debt from either landed property or movable property in the creditor's lifetime or after his death. Thus, this provision gives the creditor more power to collect the debt than the ordinance of the Geonim.
This is a great safeguard, because it is possible that the borrower will not have known about ordinance, and thus the property of the heirs will be expropriated unjustly, because an ordinance of the later Sages does not have the legal power to be binding upon heirs." + ], + [ + "We do not expropriate payment from heirs unless they are past majority. When the heirs are below majority, by contrast, we do not collect a debt supported by a promissory note from them.", + "Even if the promissory note contains all the stipulations in the world, the creditor may not use it to collect the debt until the heirs attain majority, lest they have proof that would disavow the promissory note.", + "If the loan was a debt at interest owed to a gentile, we appoint a guardian, attach the property that the minor inherited, sell it, and pay the debt. The rationale is that the interest consumes the estate.
Similarly, if a woman demands payment of the money due her by virtue of her ketubah - whether she is the deceased's widow or divorcee - we appoint a guardian for the heirs and attach the deceased's property, so that the woman will gain favor in the eyes of others; i.e., so that she will have a minimum of property so that she will remarry. Hence, if the woman hurried and remarried and then came to demand payment of the money due her by virtue of her ketubah from the estate acquired by the heirs, we do not pay heed to her until the heirs come of age.\" The rationale is that she is no longer entitled to receive her sustenance from the estate of the deceased, and she has remarried.", + "Several of the Geonim have ruled that if the estate left to the heirs does not have more than the money due the woman because of her ketubah, or it contains less than that amount, we do not pay heed to her. For the heirs will have no benefit from paying the money due the woman because of her ketubah.
According to this opinion, our Sages said: \"We attach the estate left to heirs to pay a woman the money due her by virtue of her ketubah from it,\" only so that the estate would not become devalued because of the need to pay for the widow's sustenance.\" And in this instance, since the woman takes everything, of what value is it to the heirs who are below majority that the property is attached? These views were not concerned with increasing the favor of the woman in the eyes of others.", + "If the testator gave a command, saying: \"Give a maneh to so-and-so,\" we pay heed to the claim, after appointing a guardian for the heirs to advance arguments on behalf of the interests of the heirs. If the testator says: \"Give this maneh to so-and-so\" or \"... this field to so-and-so,\" we make the endowment; there is no need to appoint a guardian for the heirs.", + "If it is discovered that land in the estate does not rightfully belong to the heirs, but instead, the plaintiff claims that the property was stolen by the person whose property they inherited, we pay heed to the claim and appoint a guardian to argue and enter into litigation on their behalf. If it is discovered that the property was in fact stolen, we return it to its owners.
Similarly, if a minor had his servants mount an attack and enter property belonging to a colleague and take control of it, we do not say that we will wait until he attains majority before the matter is adjudicated. Instead, we expropriate the property from him immediately. When he attains majority, if he has witnesses who support his claim, he should bring his witnesses.", + "When land is presumed to be the property of minors, the land is not expropriated from them until they attain majority even in the following situation. Another person comes and claims that he had purchased that land from the person from whom they inherited it, and the purchaser has witnesses who will testify that he established his possession of this land and benefited from it for three years in the lifetime of the deceased. The rationale is that we accept the testimony of witnesses only when delivered in the presence of the litigant against whom they are testifying. And the minor is considered as if he is not present.
If, however, the plaintiff produced a deed of sale that states that the field is property that he purchased, he must validate the authenticity of the deed of sale. Afterwards, he may expropriate the property from the heirs after a guardian is appointed for them.", + "When the court attaches property belonging to heirs for the purpose of selling it, they evaluate the property and then announce the sale for 30 consecutive days or on Mondays and Thursdays over the span of 60 consecutive days. Announcements are made in the morning and the evening, when workers enter the city, and when workers are sent out to their tasks. Whoever desires to purchase the property can bring his workers there to investigate it.
When an announcement is made, the borders of the field are clarified. They make known its yield, the evaluation given by the court and the reason it is being sold - to repay a creditor or to pay a woman the money due her by virtue of her ketubah. For there are some people who desire to repay a creditor and others who desire to pay a woman the money due her by virtue of her ketubah.", + "When an adrachta is written with regard to property belonging to heirs -whether they are above majority or below majority - the court must write: \"And we identified the property as belonging to so-and-so, the deceased.\" If they did not write this, the adrachta is invalid, and a purchaser may not benefit from the proceeds of the property even though the announcements of the property's sale were completed.", + "When a court sells property without announcing its sale beforehand, it is considered as if they erred in a matter explicitly stated in the Mishnah. The sale is nullified, and the property is sold again after announcements are made.
When a court sells property, the financial responsibility for it is incumbent on the heirs.", + "When a court made announcements in the proper manner, investigated the matter thoroughly and carefully evaluated the property, their sale is binding even though they erred and sold property worth a maneh for 200, or property worth 200 for a maneh.
The following rules apply when, by contrast, the court was not careful in evaluating the property or did not compose a notice of evaluation, which details its assessment and the announcement of the sale of the property, and it erred in its appraisal. If they evaluated it at a sixth more than its value or at a sixth less than its value, the sale is nullified. If the error was less than a sixth, the sale is binding.
Similar concepts apply if a court sold landed property at a time when it was not necessary to announce its sale beforehand. If it erred and devalued the property by a sixth or overvalued it by a sixth, their sale is nullified. This applies even if it announced the sale beforehand. If their error was less than a sixth, its sale is binding even though it did not announce the sale. For an announcement was not necessary in these situations.
In which situations is it not necessary to make announcements before the sale of property? When land is sold to bury the deceased, for the sustenance of his wife and his daughters, or to pay the head-tax to the king, it is not necessary to announce the sale, because the matter is pressing.
Similar concepts apply if a court sold types of property whose sale need not be announced beforehand. If it erred and devalued the property by a sixth or overvalued it by a sixth, the sale is nullified. If the error was less than a sixth, the sale is binding.
These are the types of property whose sale need not be announced beforehand: servants, promissory notes and movable property; servants, because they may flee; promissory notes and movable property, because they may be stolen. Instead, these articles should be evaluated by the court and sold immediately. If the market place is close to the city, they should be taken to the market place and sold there." + ], + [ + "The following laws apply when a lender comes to expropriate property on the basis of a promissory note in his possession and the borrower is not present: If it is possible to send a messenger to the borrower and notify him so that he can confront the lender in judgment, we send a messenger and notify him.
If it is impossible to notify the borrower speedily, we instruct the lender to take an oath, and then to expropriate property belonging to the borrower, either landed property or movable property. We do not consider the possibility that the borrower repaid the debt and the lender gave him a receipt.
This law is an ordinance of the Sages, enacted so that people at large would not take money belonging to a colleague and go to dwell in another city. For this would hinder the possibilities of loans being granted in the future", + "The lender must bring proof of three matters to the court before he can expropriate property from the borrower outside his presence:
a) he must verify the authenticity of the promissory note in his possession; b) he must prove that the debtor is in another city and is not present to defend himself in court;
c) he must prove that the property that he wishes to expropriate belongs to so-and-so, the borrower.", + "The following rules apply when a lender comes to the court, bringing security that is in his possession\" and says: \"This security belongs to so-and-so, and I desire to sell it to receive payment of the debt he owes me.\" The court does not take action and does not tell him: \"Wait until the borrower comes and lodges his claim.\" The rationale is that had the lender desired to say that the security had been purchased his word would be accepted. The court advises him to sell the security in the presence of witnesses, so that the borrower will know for how much the security was sold.
Similarly, when a person gives a loan to a colleague and receives security in return, and then both the borrower and the lender die - regardless of whether the borrower or the lender dies first the lender's heirs may take an oath and collect the debt.
The lender's heir must take an oath holding a sacred object, before he takes payment from the security, as is done by all those who take an oath and collect their due. His word is accepted, because he is taking payment from property that is in his physical possession. Had he desired, he could have said that he had purchased the property.
Why is the creditor not required only to take a sh'vuat hesset? Because he is not taking an oath that the security is his, but rather that the money is owed him. If he lodged a claim concerning the article itself, saying \"You sold it to us,\" or \"You gave it to us,\" he would be able to take a sh 'vuat hesset and be freed of responsibility. If, by contrast, there were witnesses who would testify that this article was given to the lender as security, but they did not know for what amount, he would be able to collect the money only after taking an oath. Since there are no witnesses, the lender would be able to claim: \"It is mine.\" Therefore, we accept his word when he says: \"So-and-so much money is owed to me and this is security for that debt,\" provided that he takes the same oath he would take if there were witnesses who would testify that the article was given as security.
We do not free him of the responsibility of the oath, because we do not employ the principle of miggo to free a person of the responsibility to take an oath, but only to free him of financial responsibility - i.e., he is not required to return the security before he takes what he claim.", + "The following rules apply when a person lends money to a colleague and receives security for the loan. Should the security be lost or stolen in a manner that is not beyond the lender's control, the lender is liable for the value of the security, as explained. If the lender says: \"I lent you a sela for that security, but it was worth only two dinarim\" and the borrower says: \"You lent me a sela for that security, and it was worth a sela\" the lender must first take the oath taken by watchmen that the article is not in his possession. The borrower then must take a sh'vuat hesset that the security was worth the amount of the debt, and he is freed of responsibility.
If the lender says: \"I lent you a sela for that security, but it was worth only two dinarim\" and the borrower says: \"You lent me a sela for that security, and it was worth three dinarim\" the lender must first take an oath that the article is not in his possession. Afterwards, the borrower must take a Scriptural oath how much the article was worth; this is required because he acknowledged a portion of the plaintiff's claim.33 He then pays the dinar that he admits to owing.
If the borrower says: \"You lent me a sela for that security, and it was worth two sela'im\" and the lender says: \"I lent you a sela for that security, and it was worth a sela\" the lender must take an oath that the article is not in his possessions and include in that oath that the security was worth only the amount of the debt.
If the borrower says: \"You lent me a sela for that security, and it was worth two sela'im,\" and lender says: \"I lent you a sela for that security, and it was worth only five dinarim, the lender must take an oath that the article is not in his possession and include in that oath that the security was not worth more than five dinarim. He must then pay the dinar.
If the lender says: \"I lent you a sela for that security, but it was worth only two dinarim\" and the borrower says: \"I do not know how much it was worth,\" the lender must take an oath that the article is not in his possession and include in that oath that the security was worth only two dinarim. The borrower must then pay the remainder of the debt. The rationale is that he definitely knows that he is liable for the two dinarim and does not know whether or not he repaid the debt.
If the borrower says: \"You lent me a sela for that security, and it was worth two sela'im\" and lender says: \"I lent you a sela for that security, and I do not know how much it was worth,\" the lender must take an oath that the article is not in his possession and include in that oath that he does not know that the security was worth even a p'rutah more than the debt. He is then freed of responsibility, because he did not obligate himself at all. If, however, the lender said; \"I know that the security was worth more than the loan, but I do not know how much more,\" he must pay everything that the borrower demands; the borrower is not even required to take an oath. This resembles an instance when a plaintiff lodges a claim for a 100 zuz, and the defendant responds: \"I owe you 50, but I do not know whether or not I owe you the other 50.\" Such a person is obligated to take an oath, but cannot take the oath. Therefore, he must pay, as will be explained. He may, however, have a ban of ostracism issued against anyone who makes a false claim.", + "When a person lends money to a colleague and establishes a date when the loan must be repaid, even though he does not affirm the matter with a kinyan, he may not demand payment until the conclusion of that period of time. This applies regardless of whether the loan is supported merely by an oral commitment, by a promissory note, or by security, or whether the borrower or the lender dies.
When no other term is mentioned, the term of a loan is 30 days. This applies regardless of whether the loan is supported merely by an oral commitment, by a promissory note or by security. If the lender stipulated that he could demand payment whenever he desires, he has the right to demand payment even on the day the loan was given. The rationale is that this is a stipulation involving monetary issues.", + "If the lender claims: \"Today is the conclusion of the term I established for the loan,\" and the borrower responds: \"You granted me another ten days,\" the borrower must take a sh'vuat hesset to support his claim. If there is one witness who testifies that the loan was due that day, the borrower must take a Scriptural oath, as is the law with regard to other claims.
If the lender claims: \"There are only five days left before the loan is due,\" and the borrower responds: \"There are ten days left,\" we tell the lender: \"Wait until the end of the five days and then have the borrower take an oath that five days remain.\"", + "If the loan was supported by a promissory note and the borrower claims: \"You established a time for me to pay the debt,\" it appears to me that the creditor should take a sh'vuat hesset that he did not place any time limit on the loan. He may then collect the loan immediately.", + "Payment for a loan may be demanded in any place.
What is implied? When a person lends money to a colleague in a settled place and demands payment from him in a desert, the borrower may not postpone payment. Instead, he is obligated to pay him wherever he demands payment.
If the borrower seeks to repay the loan in the desert, the lender is given the option. If he desires, he may accept payment. If he desires, he may tell him: \"Pay me back only in a settled area, just as I gave you the money in a settled area.\" The money then remains the borrower's responsibility until he pays the lender in a settled area." + ], + [ + "In the following situations, despite the fact that he possesses a promissory note, a lender may collect payment only after taking an oath that resembles one required by Scriptural Law:
a) a person who impairs the legal power of a promissory note;
b) a person who produces a promissory note that one witness testifies has been paid.
c) a person who seeks to collect payment outside the borrower's presence;
d) a person who expropriates property from purchasers;
e) a person who seeks to collect a debt from heirs, whether below majority or above majority.
When such a person comes to take the oath, we tell him: \"Take the oath and collect your due.\" If the loan was not due until a specific time, and he demands payment on the day the loan was due, he may collect payment without taking an oath. Once the day the loan is due has passed, he may collect payment only after taking an oath.", + "The following rules apply when a person demands payment from a colleague for a debt recorded in a promissory note, the borrower claims that he paid this promissory note, and the possessor of the note claims that he did not pay anything. The court tells the borrower: \"Pay him.\"
If the borrower demands: \"Have him take an oath for me that I did not pay him and then collect the debt,\" the court requires the lender to take an oath while holding a sacred object, that he did not pay him at all or that he paid him only such-and-such. Afterwards, he may collect his claim. If the lender is a Torah scholar, the court does not require him to take an oath.", + "There is a difference of opinion among the Geonim in the following situation. The lender produces a promissory note whose authenticity has been verified. The borrower claims: \"This promissory note is false, I never wrote it,\" \"This promissory note involves interest,\" \"... or a shade of interest,\" \"It was given on faith,\" \"I wrote it with the intention of borrowing, but I never took the loan\" - i.e., he issues a claim that if acknowledged by the lender would nullify the promissory note. The lender maintains that the promissory note is genuine and that the borrower is issuing a false claim. The borrower demands that the lender take an oath before collecting.
There is one opinion that rules that the holder of the promissory note is obligated to take an oath that resembles a Scriptural oath, just as when the borrower claimed that he paid the debt. My teachers by contrast ruled that the lender should not be compelled to take an oath unless the borrower claims that he paid him. The rationale is that he acknowledged the validity of the promissory note, and that debt is fit to be repaid. We do not, by contrast, accept the borrower's word with regard to all these other claims to nullify the legal power of a promissory note whose authenticity has been verified. Instead, the borrower should pay, and afterwards lodge any claim against the lender that he desires. If the lender acknowledges the claim, he will return the money to him. If he denies it, he will take a sh'vuat hesset. My opinion also leans towards this view.", + "Our Sages issued these rulings in the following situation: A lender produced a promissory note, demanding payment from a colleague. He claims that he was not paid at all. The borrower claims that he repaid half the debt, and witnesses testify that the entire debt was repaid. The borrower must take an oath and then pay the other half. The rationale is that he admits to owing a portion of the debt. He is not considered to be comparable to a person who returns a lost object, because the promissory note causes him to be afraid. The lender may expropriate this half of the debt only from landed property that is within the borrower's possession. He may not attach property that has been sold. The rationale is that the purchasers will say: \"We rely on the testimony of the witnesses and they have nullified the legal power of this promissory note.\"", + "The following rules apply when a lender produces a promissory note whose authenticity he is not able to verify, and the borrower says: \"It is true that I wrote this promissory note, but I repaid it,\" \"It was given on faith,\" \"I wrote it with the intention of borrowing, but I never took the loan,\" or another claim of this nature. Since the borrower could have claimed, \"This never happened,\" and our acceptance of the promissory note is dependent on his statements, his word is accepted. He may take a sh'vuat hesset and be freed of responsibility.
If the lender is able to verify the authenticity of the promissory note afterwards in court, it is considered as any other promissory note.", + "The lender's claim is not accepted in the following situation. The lender produces a promissory note whose authenticity has been verified, and the borrower claims: \"It is a forgery, and I never wrote it,\" or \"It was given on faith.\" The lender states: \"That is true, but I had an acceptable promissory note and it was lost.\" Although it was the lender who invalidated his promissory note, and had he desired, he could have said: \"It is not a forgery,\" for its authenticity was verified by the court, he cannot use it to expropriate property at all. Instead, the borrower may take a sh'vuat hesset and be freed of responsibility, for the promissory note is likened to a shard.", + "When a promissory note was used for a loan and then repaid, it may not be used again. For the lien it created was already waived, and it is likened to a shard.", + "The following laws apply when the lender produces a promissory note whose authenticity has been verified demanding payment from a colleague, the borrower replies: \"Did I not pay you,\" and the lender answers: \"You did, but I returned the money to you and then lent it to you a second time.\" The promissory note that he repaid is nullified, and it is likened to a shard.
If, however, the lender says: \"I returned the money to you, because the coins were not good so that you could exchange them,\" he did not nullify the promissory note, and the lien it created still exists.", + "A promissory note is disqualified in the following situation. A lender produces a promissory note whose authenticity has been verified that indicates that the borrower owes him a maneh. The borrower states: \"Did I not pay in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so.\" Those witnesses come and testify that the borrower indeed repaid the lender, but did not mention the promissory note. The lender replies: \"It is true that you paid me, but you repaid me for another debt that you owed me.\" The lender's word is not accepted, and the promissory note is nullified.
When does the above apply? When the witnesses testify that the borrower gave the lender the money as repayment of a debt. If, however, they saw him give him money, but did not know whether it was given as repayment of a debt, for safekeeping or as a present different rules apply.
If the possessor of the promissory note says: \"He never repaid me,\" he is established as a liar, and the promissory note is nullified. If he says: \"It was payment for another debt,\" his word is accepted. He must take an oath and then he may collect the money mentioned in the promissory note. The rationale is that the borrower did not repay him in the presence of witnesses. Hence, since the borrower can claim: \"You gave them to me as a present,\" his word is accepted if he says that the money was given him as repayment for another debt.
A promissory note is, by contrast, nullified in the following situation. The borrower told the lender: \"This promissory note was composed for the price of a steer that I purchased from you, and you collected the money for its meat already.\" The lender replied: \"Yes. The promissory note was composed for that purpose, but I collected the money for that debt with the understanding that the promissory note would apply to another debt that you owe me.\" The rationale is that the lender himself admitted that the debt mentioned in the promissory note was for the meat of the steer, and that he received payment for that debt. This applies even if there are no witnesses that the money was given for the payment of that debt. Hence, all that is necessary is that the borrower take a sh'vuat hesset that he paid the debt. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "When a lender produces a promissory note that is signed by one witness and the borrower claims that he paid the debt, the borrower is obligated to take an oath. And since he cannot take that oath, he must make financial restitution.
If the borrower demands of the lender: \"Take an oath that I did not pay the debt,\" he must take the oath. The rationale is that even if two witnesses were signed on the promissory note and the borrower demanded: \"Take an oath that I did not pay the debt,\" the lender would be obligated to take that oath, as we have explained.", + "Similarly, my teachers ruled that when a person denies a loan supported by an oral commitment in a court, and one witness testifies that he borrowed the money, the defendant is required to take a Scriptural oath. If the defendant reversed his position and said: \"Yes, I took the loan, but I repaid it,\" \"... the lender waived payment in my favor,\" or \"... owes me money because of another matter,\" we consider him to be a person who is required to take an oath, but who cannot take the oath, and must therefore make financial restitution.", + "The following rules apply when a defendant claims that he paid a promissory note, but says: \"Let the lender take an oath. If he does, he can collect the debt.\" We tell the defendant: \"Bring your money to the court. Then he will take the oath and collect the debt.\" If the defendant does not have the funds to pay, we require him to take an oath, as ordained by the Geonim, that he has no financial resources. When he acquires resources, he must pay the creditor, but first he may require him to take an oath that the debtor did not repay him previously. Afterwards, the debtor must pay him.", + "The following laws apply when a person is owed a debt by a colleague that is supported by a promissory note, the promissory note becomes lost, but the witnesses are still present. Even though the debt was affirmed in the presence of the witnesses by a kinyan, if the borrower claims that he paid the debt, he is required only to take a sh'vuat hesset.
My teachers ruled that even if the debt was given for a specific time, and the due date had not yet arrived, when a promissory note was written, it is no longer in his possession and the borrower claims that he repaid the debt, the borrower's word is accepted provided that he takes an oath that he paid the lender. The rationale is that we suspect that he paid him and for that reason he tore the promissory note or destroyed it by fire.
Similarly, my teachers ruled that even if the promissory note is in the possession of another person and the borrower claims: \"It fell from my possession after I paid it,\" he must take a sh'vuat hesset, and then he is released from all obligations. This applies even if the due date of the promissory note has not arrived. Since the promissory note is not in the possession of the lender, we do not operate under the presumption that the debt is outstanding.", + "The following laws apply when both the borrower and the lender are holding on to the promissory note, and the lender says: \"It is mine and I took it out to demand payment from you,\" and the borrower says: \"I repaid you and it fell from my possession.\" If the authenticity of the promissory note can be verified, both claimants are each required to take an oath that no less than half the value of the promissory note belongs to them. The borrower then pays half. If the authenticity of the promissory note cannot be verified, the borrower must take a sh'vuat hesset, and then he is released from all obligations.", + "Our Sages ordained that precautions be adopted to protect the borrower's interest in the following situation. A person claims of his colleague: \"You owe me a maneh.\" The colleague responds: \"I do not owe you anything\" or \"I paid you.\" The plaintiff demands: \"Take a sh'vuat hesset for me,\" and the borrower responds: \"You have a promissory note concerning this debt. You want to compel me to take an oath first and then produce the promissory note and use it to collect payment.\"
We tell the lender: \"Produce the promissory note.\" If the lender says: \"I never had a promissory note against this person,\" or \"I had a promissory note and I lost it,\" my teachers ruled that we tell the lender: \"Nullify the legal power of any promissory note you possess until the present time. Afterwards, you can require him to take a sh'vuat hesset. Alternatively, have a conditional ban of ostracism issued and go and seek until you find the promissory note." + ], + [ + "When a person lends money to a colleague in the presence of witnesses and tells the borrower: \"Do not repay me outside the presence of witnesses,\" the borrower must repay him in the presence of witnesses because of this stipulation. This applies whether he made this stipulation at the time the loan was given or after the loan was given.
If the borrower claims: \"I fulfilled the stipulation and repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, and they journeyed overseas or died,\" his word is accepted. He may take a sh'vuat hesset, and then he is freed of responsibility.
Similarly, if the lender states: \"Repay me only in the presence of Torah scholars,\" or \"... in the presence of doctors,\" and the borrower claims: \"I repaid you in their presence, but those witnesses in whose presence I repaid you died or journeyed overseas,\" his word is accepted. He may take a sh'vuat hesset, and then he is freed of responsibility.
If, however, the lender stipulates: \"Do not repay me except in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so and so,\" and the borrower claims: \"I repaid you in the presence of other witnesses, and they died or journeyed overseas,\" his word is not accepted. Indeed, the lender stipulated: \"Do not pay me except in the presence of Reuven and Shimon,\" who are standing with him, so that the borrower will not rebuff him, saying: \"I repaid you in the presence of other people, and they journeyed away.\"", + "There are versions of the Talmud that state that when a person tells a colleague: \"Do not repay outside the presence of witnesses,\" and the borrower claims: \"I fulfilled the stipulation and repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, and they journeyed overseas or died,\" his word is not accepted. This is a scribal error. For this reason, the halachic authorities erred because of those texts. I have researched ancient versions of the text and I found that they state that the borrower's word is accepted. In Egypt, a portion of an ancient text of the Talmud written on parchment, as was the custom in the era approximately 500 years before the present era, came to my possession. I found two versions of this law among those parchments. Both state: \"If he claims: 'I fulfilled the stipulation and repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, and they journeyed overseas or died,' his word is accepted.\"
Because of the error that occurred with regard to some texts, there are several Geonim who ruled that if the lender stipulates: \"Do not repay me except in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so,\" and the borrower repaid him in the presence of others, the borrower's word is not accepted even if he brought witnesses, and they testify that he paid him in their presence. This is also a great mistake. The true law is that if witnesses come and testify that he paid the lender in their presence, the borrower is freed from responsibility; there is no place for suspicion.
This ruling also stems from those texts that state with regard to a lender who tells his colleague: \" 'Repay me in the presence of witnesses who study Torah law,' and the borrower repaid him in the presence of ordinary witnesses....\" This is also a scribal error. In the above-mentioned parchments, I found it written: \"And he went and paid him in private.\"
Although these texts have been carefully edited, this appears to be the ruling based on the judgment of the Talmud. Moreover, these concepts make sense: \"What should the borrower do? The lender told him: \"Do not repay me except in the presence of witnesses,\" and he repaid him in the presence of witnesses. Should he have locked the witnesses in prison for their entire lives so that they do not depart? Besides, what could he do if they died? Thus, the borrower will be forced to pay the lender time after time until he brings witnesses to court. This makes this testimony equivalent to testimony recorded in a legal document. Thus, by saying: \"Do not repay except in the presence of witnesses,\" the lender endows the loan with the strength of a loan recorded in a promissory note. There is no one who would think that this is correct.
Instead, certainly, if the lender stipulated: \"Do not repay me except in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so,\" the borrower caused himself a loss if he repaid the loan in the presence of other witnesses who departed. If, however, these witnesses come and testify that he repaid the debt, there is no question that the borrower should not be held responsible. This is the manner in which judgment should be rendered and instruction should be given.", + "If the lender had the borrower agree to the stipulation that the lender's word would be accepted whenever he claimed that the borrower did not pay him, he may collect the debt without taking an oath. This applies even though the borrower claims that he paid him. If, however, the borrower brings witnesses who testify that he paid him, the lender is not entitled to expropriate any funds.", + "If the lender had the borrower agree to the stipulation that the lender's word would be accepted as the testimony of two witnesses, even if the borrower brings witnesses who testify that he paid him, he may collect the debt without taking an oath. For he accepted his word as that of two witnesses. ) This law applies even if the borrower brought 100 witnesses that he paid the lender, for the legal power of two witnesses is the same as that of 100 witnesses.
If, however, the borrower told the lender: \"I accept your word as that of three witnesses,\" since he mentioned a number, if the borrower pays the lender in the presence of four witnesses, we consider the debt to be paid. When a person accepted the lender's word as equivalent to that of two witnesses, how can he correct the matter? When he pays, he should have the promissory note ripped up, the lender testify that he nullifies every promissory note he has against so-and-so, the borrower, or the lender give testimony against himself outside the presence of the borrower that he received payment for all debts owed to him by so-and-so the borrower.", + "If the borrower pays the lender, the lender claims that he was not paid, and the borrower paid him a second time because of the stipulation, the borrower can lodge a suit against the lender claiming: \"You owe me such and such, because I paid you twice.\" If the lender acknowledges the borrower's claim, he must repay him. If he denies the claim, he is required to take a sh'vuat hesset, stating that the borrower paid him only once. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "When the borrower had the lender agree to the stipulation that the borrower's word would be accepted whenever he claimed that he paid the debt, the lender may not collect this debt on the basis of this promissory note - neither from the borrower's heir, nor from a person who purchased property from him. Moreover, even if the borrower said: \"I did not pay this debt,\" the lender may not use this promissory note to expropriate property from a person who purchased property from the borrower. The rationale is that we suspect that the lender and the borrower perpetrated an act of deception to take the purchaser's property.
If the borrower claims to have paid a portion of the debt recorded in this promissory note, and the lender claims that he did not pay anything, the borrower is required to pay the portion that he admitted to owing. With regard to the remainder, he is required to take a sh 'vuat hesset. The rationale is that the lender accepted his word. If he originally stipulates that his word would be accepted without having to take a sh'vuat hesset, he is not required to take that oath.", + "If the lender stipulates that his word will be accepted without his having to take an oath, he may collect the debt without taking an oath. If, however, he must collect the debt from the borrower's heirs, he must take an oath; only afterwards may he collect the debt. If, however, he stipulated that he would also be able to collect from the heirs without taking an oath, he may collect the debt from them without an oath.
Similarly, if the lender stipulates that he will be able to expropriate the most valuable property owned by the borrower, he may expropriate that property, even from the heirs. The rationale is that any stipulation made with regard to financial matters is binding.
If the lender comes to collect from a person who purchased property from the borrower, he may expropriate the property only after taking an oath. The rationale is that the borrower may not accept a stipulation that will cause a colleague a loss." + ], + [ + "The debt is the responsibility of the borrower until he pays the lender or the lender's agent. If the lender said: \"Throw the money owed to me and become freed of responsibility,\" the borrower threw it to him, and it became lost or destroyed by fire before it reaches the lender, the borrower is not responsible.
The following rules apply if the lender told him: \"Throw the money owed to me in a manner governed by the laws of a bill of divorce.\" If the money was closer to the borrower, it is still his responsibility. If it was closer to the lender, the borrower is no longer responsible. If it is half and half, and it is lost or stolen from there, the borrower is required to pay half of the debt.", + "When Reuven owes Shimon a maneh, gives the maneh to Levi and tells him: \"Give this maneh that I owe Shimon to him,\" Reuven may not retract. Nevertheless, he is held responsible for the maneh until it reaches Shimon.
If Levi returned the maneh to Reuven, they are both responsible for it until Shimon receives full payment for the debt owed him.", + "A transfer of a debt is rescinded in the following situation. Reuven owed Shimon a maneh. Shimon told Reuven: \"Take the maneh that you owe me and give it to Levi.\" Since the three were standing together and Levi agreed, the transfer would ordinarily be binding. Nevertheless, if it is discovered that Reuven is poor and does not have the resources to pay, Levi can ask Shimon for payment of the debt, for he deceived him.
If Levi knew ' that Reuven was poor at that time or Reuven was rich at that time and became impoverished afterwards, Levi cannot demand payment from Shimon, for he accepted the transfer.
If Levi argues that Reuven was poor at the time and Shimon deceived him, and Shimon maintains that he was wealthy and later became impoverished, it appears to me that Shimon must bring proof of his claim. Only then is he freed of responsibility from the debt he owes Levi. This is no different from an instance where he has a receipt in his hand, and we tell him: \"Prove the authenticity of your receipt, and then you will be freed of responsibility.\"", + "We already explained the following concept in the laws of business transactions. These laws apply when Reuven was not owed anything by Shimon, but did owe a maneh to Levi. If he told Levi to collect the debt from Shimon - even if he made that statement in the presence of the three of them -it is not binding. If Shimon does not desire to pay Levi, he need not. If, however, he does pay him, he may collect the money from Reuven, since he paid him because of his instructions.
Similarly, if Levi desires to retract and say: \"I do not desire to collect the debt from Shimon,\" he may collect the debt from Reuven. This applies even if he collected a portion of the debt from Shimon; he may collect the remainder from Reuven.", + "The following laws apply with regard to a store-keeper who would give a house-owner anything he desires on credit, postponing payment until the entire amount reaches a substantial sum, at which time he would pay him.
The employer says: \"Give my workers a sela...\" or \"... my creditor the maneh that I owe him and I will repay you.\" Afterwards, the storekeeper said: \"I gave the money you instructed me to give,\" and the worker or the creditor says: \"I did not receive it.\" The worker or the creditor must take an oath; he may then collect the debt owed him from the employer. Similarly, the store-keeper may take an oath and collect what he claims from the employer, for he told him to pay that money.
The worker must take the oath in the presence of the storekeeper, and the storekeeper must do so in the presence of the worker or the creditor, so that they will be embarrassed by each other. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
This oath is a Rabbinical ordinance, administered while the person holds a sacred article, because both claimants are coming to collect money. Therefore, if the storekeeper dies, the creditor may collect the debt without taking an oath. Similarly, if the worker or the creditor dies, the storekeeper may collect the claim he makes without taking an oath. The rationale is that in such a situation the employer is not losing anything and is making payment only once.", + "When the store-keeper says: \"You told me to give this person a maneh,\" or \"You commanded me and told me, 'If so-and-so comes, give him,'\" and the employer claims: \"I did not tell you,\" the employer must take a sh'vuat hesset to support his claim. He is then freed of responsibility. The store-keeper should then lodge a suit against the person he claims to have paid.
Similarly, if a storekeeper tells an employer with whom he has a credit arrangement: \"It is written in my account book that you owe me a maneh\" and the employer says: \"I don't know,\" the employer must take a sh'vuat hesset that he does not know. He is then freed of responsibility, as is the law with regard to any situation where one person lodges a claim against another. There is no Rabbinical ordinance governing such a situation.", + "When Reuven produces a promissory note that states that Shimon owes a debt to Levi, and claims that Shimon gave it to him by signing a deed acknowledging the transfer and giving it to him, but that the deed of transfer was lost, or he claims that Levi transferred the promissory note to him via the acquisition of land, he may collect the debt from Shimon. The rationale is that Reuven is in possession of the promissory note.
If Shimon claims that he paid Levi and demands that an oath be taken, Levi must take an oath to Shimon. Afterwards, Reuven may collect the debt. If Levi admits that Shimon paid him, Levi must pay Reuven. If Levi claims that he neither sold nor gave the promissory note to Reuven, Levi is required to take a sh'vuat hesset and is then freed of responsibility.", + "When a promissory note is in the hands of a third party, and he produces it in a court of law and says: \"It has been paid,\" his word is accepted. This applies even if the authenticity of the note has been verified. The rationale is that if he had desired, he could have burned it or torn it.
Similarly, if the third party died, and a note is found in his possession stating that the promissory note entrusted to him has been paid, we consider it paid. This applies even though the note stating the debt was paid is not signed by witnesses.
When, by contrast, a note is found in the creditor's possession that a particular promissory note has been paid, even if the note stating that the debt was paid is in the creditor's handwriting, it is considered to be merely facetious.", + "If witnesses signed the note discovered in the creditor's possession, when their signatures have been verified, the note is considered paid. If their signatures have not been verified, the witnesses who signed the receipt should be interrogated. If they do not know of the matter or if they are not present to be asked, the receipt is ignored, because it was found in the possession of the lender or his heirs.", + "If the promissory note mentioned in the note that was discovered was found among the promissory notes belonging to the lender that have been paid, we assume that it was paid, even if the note that was found was not signed by witnesses.
Similarly, if it is written on the promissory note itself - whether on its front or back, or even on only a portion of it - that this promissory note or a portion of it was paid, we follow those statements. This applies even though witnesses did not sign the statement, and the promissory note is in the possession of the lender. For if the promissory note had not been paid, he would not have written on the note itself.", + "When a person finds a promissory note among his other legal documents and he does not know its status, it should remain in his possession until Eliyahu comes.", + "When a person tells his sons: \"One of the promissory notes among my promissory notes has been paid and I don't know which one it is,\" all of the promissory notes are considered paid. If there are two promissory notes from one person, the greater one is considered paid and the lesser one is considered unpaid.
If a person tells a colleague: \"One of your promissory notes in my possession has been paid,\" the greater one is considered to be paid and the lesser one is considered to be unpaid. If he tells him: \"The debt you owe me has been paid,\" all of the promissory notes he has against him are considered paid." + ], + [ + "The following laws apply when a lender dies and his heir comes and demands payment from a borrower, because of the promissory note for which he is liable. If the borrower claims: \"I paid your father,\" and the heir says: \"I don't know whether you did or not,\" we tell the borrower: \"Arise and pay him.\"
If the borrower demands: \"Take an oath for me,\" the heir should take an oath, while holding a sacred object, that his father did not instruct him via another person that the debt was paid, that he did not tell him this verbally, and that he did not find a note saying that this promissory note was paid among his father's legal documents. After taking this oath, he may collect the debt.", + "If the borrower died after the lender died, and the lender's heir comes and demands payment from the borrower's heir, he may not collect payment unless he takes an oath. We tell him: \"Take an oath that 'My father did not instruct me...,' 'My father did not tell me...,' 'I did not find a note saying that this promissory note was paid among my father's legal documents.'\"
Even if the heir was a baby lying in a cradle when his father died, he must take this oath and collect. If the lender made a statement immediately before his death that this promissory note has not been paid, the lender's heir need not take an oath before exacting payment. This applies even if he is collecting payment] from the heir.", + "If, however, the borrower died first and then the lender died, the lender's heirs may not collect anything from the borrower's heirs. The rationale is that when the borrower died, the lender became obligated to take an oath before collecting, as we have explained in the previous halachah. He has already died, and a person does not bequeath an oath to his sons. For they are unable to take an oath that their father was not paid anything.
Nevertheless, if a judge transgressed and required the lender's heirs to take an oath and enabled them to collect their debt, the money that they collected should not be expropriated from their possession. Therefore, a promissory note that is used as the basis for a claim by the heirs of a lender who seek to collect from the heirs of a borrower when the borrower died first, should not be torn, nor should it be used to expropriate money.
It should not be used to expropriate money, because a person does not bequeath an oath to his sons, as explained. It should not, however, be torn, lest there be a judge who will expropriate money because of it.", + "In the situation described above, even if the debt was secured by a guarantor, the lender's heirs should not expropriate the debt from the guarantor. The rationale is that if they are told to collect the debt from the guarantor, the guarantor will go and seek payment from the borrower's heirs.", + "Extrapolation is not made from this law to a similar instance. Instead, when a person who impairs the legal power of a promissory note then dies -although he is not entitled to collect the debt unless he takes an oath - his children may take an oath that their father did not instruct them..., their father did not tell them..., they did not find a note saying that this promissory note was paid in its entirety among his father's legal documents. They may then collect the remainder of the sum stated in the promissory note from the lender or from his heirs.", + "When a lender's heir comes to collect payment of a promissory note from the borrower's heirs and the latter say: \"Our father told us: 'I did not borrow the money mentioned in this debt,'\" the lender's heirs may collect the debt without taking an oath. The rationale is that whenever a person says \"I did not borrow,\" it is as if he says: \"I did not pay.\"
Similarly, when the lender himself comes to collect payment from the heirs of a borrower, and they say: \"Our father told us: 'I did not borrow the money mentioned in this debt,'\" the lender may collect the debt without taking an oath. This applies even if in the promissory note the lender stated that he would accept the borrower's word whenever he claims to have paid the debt. For in this instance as well, we follow the rationale that whenever a person says \"I did not borrow,\" it is as if he says: \"I did not pay.\"", + "The following laws apply when the lender's heir comes and demands payment from a borrower on the basis of a promissory note that contains a stipulation that the borrower's word will be accepted, whenever the borrower says: \"I paid the debt.\" He is required to take a sh'vuat hesset that he paid this debt and is freed of liability. This applies even if the stipulation does not state: \"Your word will be accepted against a claim issued by my heirs.\" The rationale is that the very basis of the promissory note depends on this stipulation.
If the stipulation states that the borrower's word would be accepted without an oath, he is not required to take an oath, even to the lender's heirs.", + "The following laws apply when the lender's heir is below majority, he possesses a promissory noted owed to his father, but a receipt for this note was produced after the father's death. We do not rip up the promissory note, nor do we allow payment to be expropriated on its basis until the heir reaches majority. The rationale is that it is possible that the receipt is a forgery. That possibility is reinforced by the fact that the borrower did not produce it during the lender's lifetime.", + "When a person produces a promissory note against a colleague, stating that it was composed in Babylonia, he collects the debt in the coinage of Babylonia. If the promissory note was written in Eretz Yisrael, he should collect the debt in the coinage of Eretz Yisrael. This is not the case with regard to a ketubah
The following rules apply when the promissory note did not state the place where it was composed. If the lender produced it in Babylonia, he should collect the debt in the coinage of Babylonia. If he produced it in Eretz Yisrael, he should collect the debt in the coinage of Eretz Yisrael. If the lender sought to collect the debt in the coinage of the place where he produced the promissory note, and the borrower protested, claiming that he is obligated to pay in a coinage that is worth less than the local coinage, the lender should support his claim with an oath. He may then collect the debt. If the promissory note states that money is owed without any more specifics, the lender may collect only what the borrower agrees to pay.
From these laws, we can derive the following principles: A legal document that does not mention the place where it was composed is acceptable for all matters. Similarly, a legal document that is not dated is acceptable, even though it is testimony that cannot be nullified through hazamah. The rationale is that in financial laws, we are not stringent and do not subject the witnesses to precise cross-examination and interrogation, as will be explained. This leniency was adopted so as not to prevent loans from being granted. For this reason, post-dated promissory notes are acceptable, although the testimony of the witnesses who signed cannot be nullified through hazamah as will be explained in the appropriate place." + ], + [ + "When a person lends money to a colleague without any stipulations, all of the borrower's property is on lien and bound to the debt. Therefore, when the lender comes to collect his debt, he should demand payment from the debtor first. If the debtor does not have money, but is in possession of either landed or movable property, he may collect the debt from them with the borrower's consent. If the borrower did not give the property willingly, the lender should have the property expropriated by the court.
If the property in the borrower's possession was not equal in value to the amount stated in the promissory note, the lender may expropriate the debt from all the property that was in the borrower's possession, even though it is now sold or given as presents to others. The rationale is that since the borrower sold or gave away the property after it was subjugated to the lien of this debt, he may expropriate the property from the possession of purchasers or the recipients of the presents. This is called being toreif.
To what does the above apply? To landed property in the borrower's possession at the time of the loan. Property that the borrower acquired after the loan was given, by contrast, is not automatically on lien to the creditor, and he may not expropriate it from purchasers. If, however, the lender established the stipulation that all the property that the borrower will acquire afterwards will be on lien for him to collect the debt from it, property that the borrower acquired after taking the loan and subsequently sold or gave away may be expropriated by a creditor.", + "The above statements apply only to landed property. Movable property that has been sold, by contrast, is not on lien to a debt. Even property in the borrower's possession at the time of the loan may not be expropriated by his creditor.
If the debtor transferred a lien to all his movable property by virtue of the lien on landed property so that the creditor can expropriate everything, he may expropriate that movable property. This applies only when he writes in the promissory note: \"I have transferred to you a lien on my movable property by virtue of the lien on my landed property. This is not an asmachta, nor is this a standard form of a legal document.\"
Similarly, he may write: \"All of the property that I will purchase in the future, whether landed property or movable property, is on lien to you so that you can expropriate payment from it, and the lien on my movable property is transferred to you by virtue of the lien on my landed property, so that you can expropriate payment from them. This is not an asmachta, nor is this a standard form of a legal document.\" In such an instance, the creditor may expropriate even the movable property that the borrower purchased after he borrowed the money. The rationale is that any stipulation made concerning a financial transaction is binding.", + "The following laws apply when a person designates a field of his as an ipotiki for a creditor for a debt, or for a woman for her ketubah - i.e., he composed a legal document stating that they should collect payment from that source - and a river flooded the field. The creditor may expropriate other property as payment for the debt. If, however, it was stipulated that he should not derive payment from any place other than this, he should not expropriate other property.
Similarly, if a person borrowed money and explicitly stipulated that his property is not on lien to the debt, the creditor may never collect this debt from property that has been sold to others.", + "When a person designates a field of his as an ipotiki for a creditor for a debt, or for a woman for her ketubah and then sells it, the sale is binding. If when the creditor comes to collect his debt, he does not find any property that has not been sold, he may expropriate the field that had been designated from the person who purchased it.
When does the above apply? When the debtor sold the field for a limited amount of time. If, however, he desired to sell it forever, the sale is not binding.", + "When a person designates a servant as an ipotiki, a creditor can expropriate the servant in payment of the debt even if he was sold to another person. ' The rationale is that the matter will be publicized. If he designates his cow as an ipotiki, a creditor may not expropriate the cow. The same ruling applies with regard to other movable property, for the matter will not be publicized.", + "When a master designates his servant as an ipotiki and then frees him, he obtains his freedom. This applies even if he wrote in the promissory note: \"You will not receive payment from any source but this.\"
Similar rules apply if he consecrates the servant. The rationale is that [the prohibition against leaven, freeing a servant and consecration remove the lien from an article.
The creditor may collect his debt from the debtor. If he does not have the means to pay him, he must compose a promissory note acknowledging his debt, and with that promissory note he can expropriate property that was sold by the debtor after the date of this second promissory note.
Why is he obligated to pay the debt? Because he caused his colleague's money to be lost. And whenever a person causes a colleague a loss, he must make financial restitution, as explained in the appropriate place.
We also compel the servant's second master to free him as well. This is a measure enacted for the correction of society, lest the creditor encounter the servant in the marketplace at a later time and say: \"You are my slave.\"", + "When a person consecrates his property, the creditor cannot expropriate the property from the Temple treasury, for the consecration of property lifts the lien from it.
When the property is redeemed from the Temple treasury, we estimate how much a person would desire to give for this field, so that the creditor will be paid his due, or the woman the money due her by virtue of her ketubah. Therefore, when the field is redeemed and becomes unconsecrated property in the possession of the purchaser, the creditor can come and expropriate his debt from it, or the woman can take it as payment for the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, as we have explained in Hilchot Arachin.", + "When a creditor comes to expropriate a field from the purchaser, if the purchaser has money in his possession, he may eliminate the creditor's claim by paying him the money for which he is expropriating the field. The purchaser then demands repayment from the seller. If, however, the debtor had designated the field as an ipotiki, the purchaser may not eliminate the creditor's claim by paying him.", + "The purchaser is also given the upper hand in the following situation: Reuven owed Shimon 200 zuz. Reuven owned two fields. He sold one to Levi for a maneh, and then sold him the other one for a second maneh. Shimon expropriated one for a maneh and then sought to expropriate the other for the second maneh that was owed him. Levi brought 200 zuz in coin and told Shimon: \"If you desire to consider the field that you already expropriated as payment for the entire 200 zuz that you are owed, that is acceptable. If not, here are the 200 zuz of the debt; rescind your claim.\" Levi is given the upper hand.
If Shimon accepted Levi's proposition and kept the one field, Levi cannot demand payment from Reuven for more than one maneti, despite the fact that Shimon accepted it as compensation for 200 zuz.", + "The creditor, by contrast, is given the upper hand in the following situation. Reuven owed Shimon 200 zuz. Reuven died and left one field that was worth 100 zuz. Shimon came and expropriated it. The orphans gave Shimon 100 zuz worth from the movable property that their father left, and thus removed Shimon from it. Shimon may, however, return and expropriate it for the remainder of his debt. The rationale is that by giving him the 100 zuz, they performed a mitzvah, for it is a mitzvah for heirs to pay their father's debt.
If the heirs told Shimon: \"This 100 is for the field you expropriated,\" he cannot come back and expropriate it again for the remainder of the money owed him." + ], + [ + "When the court attaches the property of a borrower to expropriate it, they should expropriate only land of intermediate quality for a lender.
According to Scriptural Law, a creditor should receive only the property of inferior quality, as implied by Deuteronomy 24:11: \"You shall stand outside and the person who owes you the money shall bring the security out to you.\" What is the tendency of a person to bring out? The least valuable of his utensils. Our Sages, however, ordained that a creditor could expropriate property of intermediate quality, so that people would not refuse to give loans.
When does the above apply? When the lender comes to collect from the borrower himself. If, however, the borrower dies, and the lender comes to collect from his heirs - whether they are below or above the age of majority -he may collect only property of inferior value.", + "We do not collect payment from property that has been sold, when the debtor owns property that is still in his possession. [This applies even if the property in his possession is of inferior quality, and the property that has been sold is of intermediate or superior quality, and whether the property was sold or given away as presents.
If the property that has not been sold is flooded, the creditor may collect the property that has been sold. The rationale is that since it has been devastated, it is as if it no longer exists.", + "The creditor is given the upper hand in the following situation. Reuven sold all his fields to Shimon, and Shimon sold one of his fields to Levi. If one of Reuven's creditors comes to expropriate property in payment for his debt, he may expropriate property from either Shimon or Levi.
When does the above apply? When Levi purchased property of intermediate value. If, however, he purchased property that was of superior or inferior value, the creditor cannot expropriate property from Levi. For Levi will tell him: \"I purposely took the trouble of purchasing a field that you have no right to expropriate, so that you would not have a claim against me.\" Similarly, if Levi purchased a field of intermediate worth and left Shimon a field of intermediate worth similar to the one of intermediate worth that he expropriated, the creditor cannot expropriate the field from Levi, for he will tell the creditor: \"I left you property to expropriate as payment for your debt.\"", + "We have already explained that payment for damages should be expropriated from property of superior value, a lender should expropriate property of intermediate value, and the money due a woman by virtue of her ketubah should be expropriated from property of inferior value.
When a person owns only property of superior value and property of inferior value, damages should be expropriated from the property of superior value, and a lender and a woman collecting the money due her by virtue of her ketubah should expropriate the property of inferior value.
If he owns only property of superior value and property of intermediate value, damages should be expropriated from the property of superior value, and a lender and a woman collecting the money due her by virtue of her ketubah should expropriate the property of intermediate value.
If he owns only property of inferior value and property of intermediate value, damages and payment for a loan should be expropriated from the property of intermediate value, and a woman collecting the money due her by virtue of her ketubah should expropriate the property of inferior value.", + "When a person owns three fields and he sells them to three people at the same time, they all take the place of the previous owner. Thus, payment for damages should be expropriated from property of superior value, a lender should expropriate property of intermediate value and the money due a woman by virtue of her ketubah should be expropriated from property of inferior value.
If he sold them one after the other, they should all expropriate their due from the last purchaser. If the worth of that property was not sufficient, they should expropriate from the property purchased before it. If the worth of that property was also not sufficient, they should expropriate from the property purchased first.
This applies even if the last purchaser acquired the property of inferior quality. For the purchaser who preceded him can tell the person who seeks to expropriate property: \"I left you property from which you could collect your debt.\"", + "When a debtor sells all of his properties to one person, one after the other, that person takes the place of the original owner.
When does the above apply? When he purchased the property of superior quality last. When, however, he purchased the property of inferior quality last, all the creditors must collect their due from that property. For when a person comes to expropriate property, the purchaser will tell him: \"I left you property from which you can collect your debt.\"
Why does the creditor not tell this to a person who seeks to expropriate the property when he purchased the property of superior value first, and thus a woman collecting the money due her by virtue of her ketubah and a lender would also expropriate their due from the property of superior value? Because this possibility is an ordinance instituted for the sake of the purchaser. And he will tell them: \"I cannot accept this ordinance.\" Instead, each type of creditor will collect from the property fit for him.", + "Similarly, the following laws apply when the debtor sold all his properties to one person, one after the other, selling him the property of superior value last, and that purchaser sold the property of inferior and intermediate value to a third party and retained the property of superior value for himself. All the debtors collect their due from the property of superior value, for the purchaser does not have any property from the original debtor to divert them to.
When the purchaser sold the property of superior value and retained the properties of inferior and intermediate value, payment for damages should be expropriated from property of superior value in the possession of the second purchaser. The debt owed a lender and the money due a woman by virtue of her ketubah should be expropriated from the property of intermediate and inferior value that the first purchaser retained.", + "As reflected in the following situation, when a person limits his power to expropriate property, his waiver may extend beyond his original intent: One person borrowed money from a colleague. Afterwards, the borrower sold his property to two people each person purchasing a portion for himself, one after the other. The creditor wrote to the second purchaser, pledging that he would not expropriate the property as payment for the debt and affirmed his commitment with a kinyan. Our Sages ruled that he is also not able to expropriate the property sold to the first purchaser. For that purchaser will say to the creditor: \"I left you the opportunity of collecting the money owed you from the debtor by expropriating the property that the second purchaser bought after I did. You caused yourself a loss by removing your lien on it.\"
Similar laws apply with regard to a woman who seeks to collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah. If she writes such a waiver to the second purchaser, she loses the right to the money due her by virtue of her ketubah and cannot expropriate property. If, however, such persons write such a waiver to the first purchaser, they may expropriate the property from the second purchaser.
The following situation can occur when a borrower sells a field to a purchaser and then the purchaser sells it to a second purchaser. The lender writes to the first purchaser, pledging that he would not expropriate the property as payment for the debt and affirms his commitment with a kinyan. The creditor may expropriate the property from the second purchaser. The first purchaser may expropriate the property from the creditor, because he pledged that he would not expropriate the property, and he did. The second purchaser can then expropriate the property from the first purchaser, because he sold it to him. The creditor may then expropriate the property again from the second purchaser, and the cycle continues until they arrange a compromise.
Similar laws apply with regard to a woman who seeks to collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah and makes a pledge to the person who purchased her husband's property." + ], + [ + "When a person owes many debts, the person whose debt was made first has the right to expropriate property first - from the borrower himself and from his creditors. If a later creditor expropriated property before the first creditor, the first creditor may expropriate it from him. For the person whose debt was established first acquires the property.
To what does the above apply? To landed property that the borrower possessed at the time that he took the loan. When, however, he purchased landed property after borrowing from many creditors, no one is granted precedence over the others, even if the borrower wrote to each one in the promissory note: \"The property that I will purchase in the future is on lien to you.\" Instead, all are equal, and whoever comes first and expropriates the property acquires it, even if he was the last to make the loan.", + "When a borrower writes in the promissory note: \"What I will acquire in the future is on lien to you,\" afterwards purchases a field and then borrows from another person, the field is on lien to the first lender. He has the right to expropriate it first. Similar principles apply even if there are 100 creditors.
There is no concept of precedence with regard to the expropriation of movable property. Instead, whoever comes first and expropriates it acquires it, even if he was the last to make the loan.
If another person came and seized possession of movable property belonging to this debtor in order to acquire the property on behalf of one of the creditors, that person does not acquire the property. The rationale is that a person who seizes property on behalf of a creditor in a situation where a loss is caused to another person does not acquire it. If, however, seizing it would not cause a loss to other people, he does acquire it for him. Similarly, if the borrower tells him: \"Acquire this article on behalf of so-and-so,\" he acquires it for him. None of the other creditors can expropriate this movable property, because another person has already acquired it.", + "When promissory notes are all dated on the same date - or at the same hour, in a place where the hours are mentioned - whichever creditor comes first and expropriates property, whether landed property or movable property, acquires it.", + "The ensuing laws apply when creditors whose promissory notes are dated on the same date all come to expropriate property together, or when creditors whose promissory notes were dated before one another come to expropriate movable property, for there is no concept of precedence with regard to movable property, or creditors come to expropriate property that the borrower purchased after taking the loan dated last, and the property the borrower possesses is not sufficient to enable each one to collect the debt that is owed to them.
How is the property divided? If when the property is divided in equal portions according to the number of creditors, the person owed the least will receive the amount owed him or less, the property is divided into that number of equal portions.
If dividing the property into equal portions would give the person owed the least more than he is owed, this is what should be done: We divide the sum equally among the creditors so that the person owed the least will receive the money that he is owed. He then withdraws. The remaining creditors then divide the balance of the debtor's resources in the following manner.
What is implied? A person owed three debts: one of a maneh, one for 200 and one for 300. If all the resources of the debtor total 300 zuz, they are divided 100 for each. Similarly, if his resources are less than 300, they should be divided equally among the three.
If his resources total more than 300 zuz, the 300 should be divided equally and then the person owed 100 should withdraw. The remaining money should be divided equally in this same manner.
What is implied? If the debtor's resources total 500 or less, the 300 should be divided equally, and then the person owed 100 should withdraw. The balance of 200 or less should then be divided equally among the remaining creditors, and then the second one withdraws.
If the debtor's resources total 600, the 300 should be divided equally, and then the person owed 100 should withdraw. They then divide 200 between the two equally, and then the second one withdraws. The 100 that remain should then be given to the person owed 300; he thus receives only 300. The debtor's resources should be divided according to this pattern even if there are 100 creditors, if they come to divide the resources at the same time. There are, however, Geonim who rule that the resources should be divided in proportion to the amount owed each creditor.", + "The fact that a promissory note is not dated correctly creates difficulties for its bearer. For example, Reuven and Shimon each possess a promissory note, stating that Levi owes them money. The promissory note possessed by Reuven is dated Nissan 5, and that possessed by Shimon is dated Nissan, without specifying a day. Levi possesses only one field that is not equal in value to the debts owed them both. Reuven is allowed to take possession of the field, for perhaps the promissory note owed Shimon was signed at the end of Nissan.
Similarly, Shimon cannot expropriate a field that was sold by Levi from lyyar or afterwards. For the purchaser will tell him: \"Perhaps the date of your promissory note is the first of Nissan. There is a field that was not sold at that time in the possession of Reuven. Expropriate it and then let Reuven, whose promissory note is dated after yours, come and expropriate the field from me.\" Therefore, if Reuven and Shimon write each other a document granting power of attorney, they may expropriate a field that was sold after lyyar using both vantage points.
Similar laws apply if Levi sold one field twice, composing separate deeds of sale for Reuven and for Shimon, with one dated on the first of Nissan and one Nissan, without specifying a day." + ], + [ + "When a creditor expropriates a field, he may also expropriate the increase in value that the purchaser brings about within the field. This applies whether the field increases in value because of an investment, or it increases in value as a matter of course.
There is, however, a difference between the two instances. If it increases in value as a matter of course, the creditor may expropriate the entire increase in value. If it increased in value because of an investment, the creditor may expropriate only half the increase.
What is implied? Reuven was owed a debt of 200 zuz by Shimon. Shimon sold a field to Levi for a maneh. Levi made an investment in the field and caused its value to increase and it is now worth 200. When Reuven expropriates it from Levi, he expropriates it from him for 100 and also the 50 that constitutes half the increase of value. If it increased in value on its own accord - e.g., the price rose or trees grew - he can expropriate the entire amount.
Great sages issued a ruling stating that a purchaser should not have lesser legal power than a person who occupies a field belonging to a colleague without permission, in which instance the increase in the field's value is appraised, and the squatter is given the weaker position. Therefore, if the field increased 100 zuz in value and Levi spent 50, Levi should receive all of his expenses and half of the increase in value beyond the expenses. The other half of the increase in value, and the principal, should be expropriated by the creditor. These are words of logic, and it is appropriate to rule accordingly. The purchaser then returns and expropriates the principal from Shimon's property, including even property that he sold or gave away after the time he sold this field to Levi. The increase in value that the creditor expropriated from Levi, the purchaser - whether half the increase in value or the entire increase - Levi may then expropriate only from property in the possession of Shimon. For it is an enactment instituted for the sake of society not to expropriate a property's increase in value, nor produce eaten by a thief, nor the sustenance given a widow and the deceased's daughters from property that has been sold. The rationale is that these are matters that have no limit. And it is one of the leniencies associated with a ketubah that a woman is not granted the opportunity of expropriating the money due her by virtue of her ketubah from a property's increase in value.
Why is a creditor able to expropriate only half the increase of value that comes after the investment was made? Because the increase in value comes after Shimon, the original owner borrowed money from Reuven and sold the property to Levi. Thus, Reuven and Levi can be considered to be two creditors of Shimon's and the increase in the value of the field as an increase in the value of his property that came after he borrowed from both of them. In such an instance, they divide the increase equally, as we have explained. Accordingly, the following rules apply in the ensuing circumstance. Reuven borrowed a maneh from Shimon, and in the promissory note wrote that he is extending the lien to: \"the property that I will acquire in the future.\" He then borrowed 200 zuz from Levi, and in the promissory note wrote that he is extending the lien to: \"the property that I will acquire in the future.\" He then purchased a field and sold it to Yehudah for 150 zuz. Yehudah made an investment and caused its value to increase, and ultimately it was worth 300 zuz. Shimon and Levi expropriate the principal and divide it equally. Thus, each receives 75 zuz.
The three - Shimon, Levi and Yehudah - then divide the 150 zuz of the field's increase in value according to the principles that we explained. Thus, Shimon expropriates the complete payment of the maneh owed him from this field. Levi expropriates 137 1/2, and Yehudah receives 62 1/2 from the field's increase in value. They should divide the increase in value in this manner. These principles apply even if there are 100 creditors.", + "All of the produce that the purchaser consumed, however, is not expropriated from him. The produce that is attached to the land, by contrast, including even the produce that no longer needs the nurture of the land - e.g., grapes that are ready to be harvested - may be expropriated by a creditor in the same way as he expropriates the property's increase in value.", + "When the recipient of a present invests in it and causes its value to increase, the creditor may not expropriate any of its increase in value. Instead, we evaluate its worth at the time the present was given and allow him to expropriate that amount. If, however, it increases in value as a matter of course, the creditor may expropriate the entire field. If the person giving the present accepts responsibility for it, the creditor may expropriate the increase in value from this field just as he would if it were in the possession of a purchaser.
Why is a creditor given the right to expropriate half of a property's increase in value from a purchaser, but not from a person who receives a present? Because the seller of the property wrote to the purchaser in the deed of sale: \"I am obligated to you for the principal, the labor you invest in it, and the increase in value that you will bring to it. I take responsibility for everything.\" The purchaser accepted this stipulation. For the purchaser took possession of the field on the condition that if the increase in the value of the field was expropriated from him, he would seek recompense from the seller. Even if this stipulation was not written in the deed of sale, it is a matter of public knowledge that this is the law governing the seller's responsibility to the purchaser. With regard to a present, by contrast, this stipulation does not apply. Hence, a creditor may not expropriate any increase in value that the recipient of a present brought about through investment.", + "Similarly, if orphans who inherit an estate increase its value, a creditor of their father may not expropriate any of its increase in value. If, however, the property increases in value as a matter of course, he may expropriate the entire increase.", + "The following laws apply when a creditor expropriates property for a debt owed him from a purchaser from the principal and half of the increase in the property's value. We then consider what remains of the landed property. If the land that remains would be of value to the purchaser - e.g., in a field, an area where nine kabbin of grain could be sown, in a garden, an area where half a kab of vegetables could be sown - the creditor and the purchaser should become partners with regard to the land. If the property is not large enough to be divided in a manner that the smaller portion of sufficient size would be referred to as a field or as a garden, the creditor should reimburse the purchaser financially for the increase in the value of the field, as is due him.", + "The following rules apply when a field was designated as an ipotiki. The creditor may expropriate the entire field. We consider the half of the field's increase in value which must be repaid to the purchaser. If half of the increase in value exceeds the purchaser's investment, he should collect the amount he invested from the creditor. He is given only this amount, because the creditor can tell him: \"It is my field that increased in value.\" He should collect the remainder of the money due him from the field's increase in value from the seller.
If half of the field's increase in value is less than the purchaser's investment, the purchaser should be reimbursed by the person who expropriated the field for only half of the field's increase in value. He then collects from the seller the other half of the field's increase in value.", + "When a creditor comes to expropriate property from heirs, and the heirs claim: \"We caused the value of the property to increase,\" but the creditor claims: \"Perhaps it was your father who caused the property to increase in value,\" the burden of proof is on the heirs.
If the heirs bring proof that they increased the value of the property, we evaluate the increase and their expenses. They receive the lesser of the two, and they are given this amount in money.
When does the above apply? When the field was designated an ipotiki. If, however, it was not designated an ipotiki, if the heirs desire, they have the right to pay the creditor the debt he is owed and absolve his claim. Or if they desire, they may take a share of the land that is equivalent to the value of the increase they brought to the value of the property." + ], + [ + "This is the order in which debts are collected: When the creditor brings his promissory note to the court and the authenticity of the witnesses' signatures are verified, we tell the borrower: \"Pay.\" We do not attach his property until the creditor demands this. If a judge errs and gives the creditor access to the borrower's property before he demands it, we remove the creditor from it.
If the borrower responds: \"I will pay. Establish a date for me, so that I will have time to borrow money from another person, offer my land as collateral, sell property and bring the money,\" we grant him 30 days. We do not require that he bring security to the court. For if he possessed movable property, the court would expropriate it immediately.
If the creditor desires, he may have a conditional ban of ostracism issued against anyone who possesses money or movable property and uses arguments to avoid payment. We do not require the borrower to bring a guarantor until he pays.
If the borrower has not brought payment when these 30 days are concluded, the court composes an adrachta. Similarly, if at the outset, when the lender demanded payment of him, he said: \"I will not pay,\" we compose an adrachta against his property immediately and do not grant him any time. Similarly, if what is involved is a loan supported by a verbal commitment alone and the borrower admits his obligation, we compose an adrachta against the property that is presently in his possession.", + "The following rules apply when the borrower claims: \"The promissory note concerning which the signatures of the witnesses was validated is a forgery. I will bring proof and nullify the matter The witnesses are located in this and this place and their names are so-and-so and so-and-so.\" If it appears to the judges that there is substance to his words, a time is established in which he must bring his witnesses to court. If it appears to them that he is merely raising deceptive arguments and fallacious claims, they should tell him: \"Pay.\" Afterwards, if he brings proof of his claim, the money should be returned to him.
If the creditor is a man of force and it is possible that the money will not be able to be recovered from him, it should be entrusted to a third party.", + "When a time was established for the borrower to bring proof and nullify the promissory note, that time came and he did not come to court, we wait for three court sessions Monday, Thursday and Monday. If he does not come, we compose a peticha against him and place him under a ban of ostracism.
We give him a further respite of 90 days while he is under the ban of ostracism. The first 30, for perhaps he is seeking a loan, the middle 30, for perhaps he is seeking to sell property, and the final 30, for perhaps the person who purchased his property is seeking to bring him the money.
When these 90 days are completed and the borrower still does not appear in court, the court composes an adrachta against his property and releases him from the ban of ostracism.", + "If the borrower lives within a two-day journey or less from the court, we do not compose an adrachta until we send messengers and inform him of this impending step. If he lives further away, it is not necessary to inform him.
When does the above apply? When throughout the entire 90 days he would procrastinate and say: \"Just now, I will bring proof that nullifies the promissory note.\" If, however, he says: \"I refuse to appear in court,\" we compose an adrachta against both his movable and his landed property immediately. Similarly, if a person is being sued on the basis of a legal document recording an object entrusted to him for safekeeping, we do not wait 90 days and instead, we compose an adrachta against his property immediately.", + "The statements made above - that if the borrower does not come at the conclusion of the 90-day period we compose an adrachta - applies only with regard to landed property. With regard to movable property, by contrast, different rules apply. Even after 90 days, as long as the borrower says: \"I will bring a proof and nullify the promissory note,\" we do not allow the lender to expropriate movable property.
The rationale is that the alleged lender might consume it and afterwards, the borrower will bring the proof that nullifies the promissory note, and then he will not find property belonging to the alleged lender that he can collect for repayment. This applies even if the lender possesses landed property, for perhaps that property will decrease in value or become dried out.", + "How is the adrachta composed? If we are expropriating property that is in the borrower's possession, we write in that document:
\"So-and-so was obligated by a judgment to pay so-and-so this amount. He has not made this payment on his own volition. Hence, we have composed this adrachta against this and this field that he possesses.\"
Afterwards, three experts evaluate a portion of that field equivalent in value to the debt that he owes, and its prospective sale is announced according to the appraisal until those who add to the estimation make their bids. If there are no buyers, we transfer ownership of that portion of the field to the creditor because of his debt and rip up the promissory note, if such a document existed. If there was no landed property in the borrower's possession, we compose the adrachta which states:
So-and-so undertook an obligation to so-and-so as recorded in the promissory note possessed by the creditor. The debtor has not paid this debt. We have not found property that is presently in the debtor's possession. We have already torn up the promissory note that the creditor possessed and have given him license to seek out and research whether there are any properties that the debtor sold from this and this date and onward, with the intent that his hand be raised over them. He has license to derive payment and expropriate his debt from all such properties.", + "After this adrachta is composed, the lender goes and seeks property belonging or that once belonged to the borrower. If he finds property that is in his possession, they are evaluated for him. If he finds only property that has been sold after the date of his promissory note, he may expropriate it. We tear up the adrachta and write a tirpa.", + "How is the tirpa composed? We write:
Because of the debt of this and this amount that so-and-so owes him, so-and-so won in court the right to expropriate this and this field that so-and-so purchased for this and this amount at this and this time. We have already torn up the adrachta that was in his possession, and we have given him license to expropriate this and this amount from this property.
", + "After the tirpa is written so that the lender may expropriate the property, we bring three experts to that field who evaluate that field and appraise how much of the field should be given to him for the principal and half of the field's increase in value, as explained. We then announce the property's sale for thirty days in the same manner as we announce the sale of property inherited by orphans.", + "Afterwards, if the borrower is with us on the land, we require the borrower to take an oath that he is bankrupt, as ordained by our Sages. We also require the person expropriating the property to take an oath while holding a sacred object that he did not collect payment for this debt, that he did not waive payment of it, and that he did not sell it to another person. Afterwards, we give the lender possession of the purchaser's according to the assessment of the debt owed him, and we compose a horadah.", + "How is this document composed? The judges write:
After we had an evaluation of the property made for so-and-so, because of the debt he was owed, we announced the sale of the property as is fitting, and we required both the person expropriating the property and the debtor to take the appropriate oaths, we have given so-and-so possession of this and this field. He may use it as a person uses property that he has acquired.", + "From which time may the person who seeks to expropriate this property derive benefit from its produce? From the time the days of the announcement are completed.", + "Whenever an adrachta does not state: \"We have torn up the promissory note,\" it is not an acceptable adrachta. Whenever a tirpa does not state: \"We have torn up the adrachta\" it is not an acceptable tirpa. Whenever a shuma does not state: \"We have torn up the tirpa,\" it is not an acceptable shuma.", + "When three experts descend to evaluate a property, one evaluates it as worth a maneh and two evaluate it at 200 zuz, or one evaluates it at 200 zuz and the other two evaluate it as worth a maneh, the assessor who offers the lone opinion is considered insignificant.
If one assessor evaluates it as worth a maneh, another at 80 zuz, and the third at 120, it is considered to be worth 100. If one says 100, the second 90, and the third 130, it is considered worth 110. This is our pattern of evaluation.", + "When the court evaluated property belonging to a purchaser on behalf of a person who sought to expropriate it and erred - even if the error was concerning the smallest amount - the sale if nullified. The rationale is that since the court is considered to be an agent of the person expropriating the property and the purchaser, they have permission to expedite the matter, but not to impair anyone's position as is the law applying to an agent. All of the Halachic authorities ruled in that manner.", + "When the court evaluates and expropriates a property for a creditor -whether from property in the creditor's possession or property that was in the possession of a purchaser - and afterwards, the borrower, the person from whom the property was expropriated, or their heirs, acquires financial resources and pays the creditor his money, the creditor is removed from that landed property. For property that was evaluated and expropriated should always be returned to its owners, as mandated by Deuteronomy 6:18: \"And you shall do what is just and good.\"", + "When the court evaluates and expropriates a property for a creditor and then evaluates and expropriates a property for a creditor of that creditor, the original owner can redeem it. The legal power of the second creditor is no greater than that of the first.
When a creditor sold the property expropriated for him, gave it away as a present, gave it to his creditor voluntarily, or he died and the property was inherited, the original owner does not have the right to redeem it. If landed property was evaluated and expropriated for a woman and then she married, or property she owned was evaluated and expropriated from her and she married, her husband is considered to be a purchaser with regard to her property. He is not required to return it, nor must it be returned to him." + ], + [ + "Promissory notes that are predated are invalid, because they will be used to expropriate property from purchasers in an unlawful manner. Accordingly, our Sages penalized the lender, ruling that he may expropriate only property in the debtor's possession with a predated promissory note. This is a decree, enacted lest he expropriate property from the first, earlier, date.", + "Postdated promissory notes are acceptable. For the legal power of the possessor of the promissory note has been diminished, for the lender can expropriate only property from the date of the promissory note. Even if the document does not state that it was postdated, it is acceptable.", + "When a promissory note is written during the day and signed in the night that follows it, it is unacceptable, because it is predated. If, however, the borrower and the lender were involved in negotiating the matter until night fell and then they signed, it is acceptable, even when the kinyan was made at night.", + "When a promissory note is dated on the Sabbath or on the tenth of Tishrei, we assume that it was postdated and that it is acceptable. We do not suspect that perhaps it is predated and that it was written on Sunday or on the eleventh of Tishrei. Instead, we accept the presumption that the promissory note is acceptable. The rationale is that it is known that legal documents are not composed on the Sabbath. Therefore, it was postdated.", + "We may compose a promissory note for the borrower even though he is not accompanied by the lender. We do not, however, compose a promissory note for the lender unless he is accompanied by the borrower.
When does the above apply? With regard to a promissory note that was affirmed by a kinyan For from the time the kinyan was carried out, the borrower's property was on lien. When, however, a promissory note was not affirmed by a kinyan, we do not compose the note even for the borrower, unless he is accompanied by the lender and he gives the note to the lender in our presence. The rationale is that we suspect that the borrower may have the document composed at this time so that he can take a loan in Nissan, but in fact the loan will not be given until Tishrei. Thus, the lender will be able to use this promissory note to expropriate property that was in the borrower's possession unlawfully from Nissan, although the promissory note did not enter his possession until Tishrei.", + "The following rules apply when witnesses performed a kinyan with the borrower, the seller, or another person involved in a business agreement, but the composition of the legal document was delayed extensively. If they remembered the date on which the kinyan was established, they should write the date of the kinyan in the legal document, even though it was not the date that they signed the legal document. It is not necessary for them to state in the document: \"Our signatures were delayed until this-and-this date.\" If the witnesses do not know the date on which the kinyan was performed, they should date the legal document from the day on which it was composed.
Similarly, witnesses who observed a business transaction in one country and composed a legal document in another country should not record the place where they observed the testimony in the legal document. Instead, they should record the place where they signed the legal document.", + "When deeds of sale are not dated with the date of the transaction, even those that are postdated are not acceptable. The rationale is that the purchaser may use them to expropriate property in an unlawful manner.
What is implied? For example, the seller could have repurchased the field from the purchaser before the date of the postdated deed of sale. The purchaser could then produce the postdated deed of sale and say: \"I returned and purchased it from you a second time.\" He could thus expropriate property from a purchaser unlawfully.
Why don't we harbor the same suspicions with regard to a postdated promissory note? It is possible that the borrower paid the lender before the date stated in the promissory note, the lender will write him a receipt, and then produce the promissory note and expropriate property unlawfully. We do not harbor such suspicions, because whenever a person composes a postdated promissory note, he can protect himself by having the receipt composed without a date. Thus, whenever the lender will produce the promissory note, the borrower can nullify it by producing this receipt. If the borrower did not do this and allowed the receipt to be composed dated the day when the debt was repaid, he caused himself a loss.", + "When a person was compelled to sell his field against his will and issued a protest, or hurried and sold the field or gave it away to another person before he sold it to the person who compelled him to sell it, the money that the person who compelled him to sell it gave him is considered to be a loan supported by a verbal commitment alone. He may not use that deed of sale to expropriate any property that had been sold by the seller to others. This law was stated, because this deed of sale should not have been written, and it was written only under compulsion. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "It is possible for a person to expropriate property without a legal document, merely on the basis of verbal testimony.
What is implied? If a person has witnesses who will testify that property was stolen from his father. He can expropriate the property on the basis of this testimony, although there is no legal document. Similarly, if witnesses testify that a judgment was concluded for his father to expropriate property from so-and-so, for this-and-this amount, at this-and-this time, and his father died without expropriating the property, the son may expropriate property on the basis of this testimony.", + "Therefore, we should never compose two deeds of sale for the same property, lest the purchaser perpetrate deception together with the creditor and expropriate property unlawfully.
What is implied? This person will expropriate this field from the purchaser based on testimony that his father had the right to expropriate it. The purchaser will then use one deed of sale that he possesses to expropriate property from people who purchased property after he did from the borrower who sold him the property. The court will tear up the deed of sale that the initial purchaser possesses.
For the sake of deception, the person who expropriated the field will allow the purchaser to take possession of it again. He will then expropriate it again on the basis of the testimony of his witnesses. The purchaser will then produce the second deed of sale and expropriate property from other purchasers unlawfully.
If so, what should a person who has lost his deed of sale to a property do if the witnesses to the sale are still alive? A second deed of sale should be composed, saying: \"This deed of sale may not be used to expropriate property that has been sold, or property that is in the possession of the seller. We have composed it only to establish so-and-so, the purchaser, as the owner of the field, so that the seller or his heirs cannot expropriate it from him.\"", + "This principle does not apply with regard to promissory notes. Even though the witnesses to the loan are alive and entered into a kinyan with the borrower, if the lender returns immediately and tells the witnesses: \"The promissory note that you composed for me is now lost or was burnt,\" they should not compose a second promissory note for him. We suspect that the debt was paid or that he waived payment.
The above applies even if the loan was given for a period of time. The lender cannot collect any money on the basis of the testimony of these witnesses, unless the borrower states: \"The loan was never given.\" In that instance, he is established as a liar through their testimony, as will be explained.", + "When a promissory note in a person's possession is worn and it is beginning to become effaced, the lender should have witnesses look at it. He should then come to the court, and the court will validate it. The witnesses who signed the promissory note itself, however, may not compose another promissory note on their own initiative, even when the promissory note was blotted out in their presence. Instead, they should go to the court, and the court will validate the promissory note.", + "How should this promissory note be validated? The court composes a new document that states: \"We the court composed of so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so, saw how so-and-so, the son of so-and-so, produced a promissory note that was effaced in our presence. It was dated on this-and-this date. So-and-so, and so-and-so are his witnesses.\"
If they composed such a document and required the testimony of the witnesses, and their testimony was corroborated, the lender may collect the debt with this document that was composed for him. No further validation is required.
If the court did not compose such a document , if the debtor protests that the document is a forgery, the lender must also bring proof regarding the signatures of the original witnesses, so that their testimony will be validated.", + "When a promissory note is torn, it is acceptable. If its wording is in the process of being rubbed out or muddled, as long as the form of the original letters are recognizable, it is acceptable.
If it is torn as the court tears a legal document, it is unacceptable. In which manner does the court tear a legal document? Both horizontally and vertically.", + "The following laws apply when a person repays a portion of a debt recorded in a promissory note. If the lender desires, he may exchange the original promissory note, and the court composes a new document for him for the remainder of the debt, with the lien beginning on the original date. The witnesses to the original promissory note may not take this initiative. If he desires, he may write the borrower a receipt.", + "When a person comes to pay his debt, and the lender tells him: \"I lost my promissory note,\" the lender should compose a receipt for him and then the borrower should pay the entire debt. The borrower may, however, have a ban of ostracism issued against anyone who hides his promissory note and claims that it is lost.
If the borrower lodges a definite claim, saying: \"The promissory note is in his possession. He just placed it in his pocket,\" my masters have ruled that the lender should take a sh'vuat hesset that the promissory note was lost. Afterwards, the borrower should pay the debt and a receipt should be composed.", + "When a lender produces a promissory note for a maneh and asks that two promissory notes for 50 zuz be composed, we do not comply. The rationale is that it is of benefit for the borrower to have the entire debt recorded in a single promissory note. For if he pays him a portion of the debt, the legal power of the promissory note will be impaired.
Conversely, if the lender produced two promissory notes, each one for 50 zuz, and asks that one promissory note for 100 be composed, we do not comply. Instead, we validate both of them individually. The rationale is that it is of benefit for the borrower to have two promissory notes, so that the lender cannot compel him to pay the entire sum at one time.", + "When a lender produces a promissory note for 100 zuz and says: \"Tear it up and compose another promissory note for 50,\" we do not heed his request. We fear that perhaps the borrower repaid the entire amount, and the lender wrote a receipt for him. If the lender authenticated the new promissory note for 50 zuz and the borrower produced the receipt, he would tell the borrower: \"This is another promissory note.\"" + ], + [ + "We have already explained that a promissory note concerning a loan that was affirmed by a kinyan may be composed for a borrower even when the lender is not together with him. Similarly, we compose a deed of sale for a seller even though the purchaser is not together with him. And we compose a receipt for a lender even though the borrower is not together with him. We compose a receipt for a woman even though her husband is not together with her, and a bill of divorce for a man even though his wife is not with him.
We do not compose legal documents for consecration and marriage, sharecropping agreements, business contracts, the choice of judges, the claims of the litigants, and any act of court without the consent of both principals. It is necessary to be careful about all the particulars of the composition of these documents, as is the case with regard to other legal documents.", + "Who must pay the scribe's fee for the composition of these documents? With regard to promissory notes, the borrower must pay. With regard to deeds of sale, the purchaser must pay. The woman must pay the fee for the bill of divorce. The groom must pay the fee for documents for consecration and marriage. The recipient of the field, the sharecropper, or the worker must pay the fee for the composition of a contract. With regard to the document recording the choice of judges and the claims of litigants, both parties must share the fee.", + "The following law applies both to legal documents composed for one of the parties when the other is not present, and legal documents that can be composed only when both consent and both are present - e.g., a promissory note written at the request of the lender, or a deed of sale written at the request of the purchaser. In all instances, the witnesses must recognize the identity of the individuals mentioned in the legal document, that this is so-and-so, the son of so-and-so, and that this is so-and-so, the son of so-and-so. This is necessary, lest two individuals come and try to perpetrate deceit, changing their names to the names of other people, and then acknowledge obligations to each other.", + "Whenever a person has established a name for 30 days in a city, we do not suspect that he has another name and has changed his name to perpetrate deceit. For if we would raise such suspicions, there would be no end to the matter.
Therefore, if a person who has not established has name in a city for 30 days comes and asks: \"Write a promissory note for me that I am obligated to so-and-so\" - or \"... to this person for these and these many dinarim\" we do not compose such a document for him unless he brings proof that this is his name, or he waits until his identity is established.", + "The following laws apply when there is a dispute with regard to any promissory note produced before us. For example, the borrower claims: \"I do not owe anything. Maybe a charlatan pretended that his name was my name and acknowledged owing money to this person.\" Or he might claim: \"I do not owe anything to this person, but rather to another person. This plaintiff is a charlatan in claiming that his name is the same as the name of the person to whom I owe.\" Since it has not been established that there are two people in that city with the same name, we pay no attention to his claim. For it is an accepted presumption that witnesses will not sign a legal document unless they know the identity of the people mentioned within it.
Similarly, it is an accepted presumption that witnesses will not sign a legal document unless they know with certainty that the persons making the statements concerning themselves are adults and mentally competent. And witnesses will not sign a legal document unless they know how to read and sign their names.", + "When witnesses do not know how to sign their names, and the names of the witnesses were cut out from a blank paper and placed over the legal document, and then the witnesses \"signed\" with this script, they are given stripes for rebellious conduct, and the promissory note is unacceptable.", + "When the head of a court of law knows about the general circumstances described in a legal document, he may sign it even though he does not read it himself, but instead, it was read to him by one of his scribes. The rationale is that the head of the court trusts the scribe, and the scribe is afraid. No other person can do this. A witness may not sign a legal document until he reads it word for word.", + "The following laws apply when there are two people in a city, each named Yosef, the son of Shimon. Neither of them can demand payment from the other on the basis of a promissory note that he produces, nor can a third party demand payment from either of them on the basis of a promissory note that he produces unless the witnesses who signed the promissory note come themselves and testify: \"This is the promissory note concerning which we testified, and this is the person concerning whom we testified regarding the loan.\"
Similarly, such individuals cannot divorce their wives unless they do so in the presence of the other individual with the same name. Similarly, if a person finds a receipt among his legal documents saying, \"The promissory note concerning the debt owed to Yosef, the son of Shimon, has been paid,\" the debts recording in the promissory notes this person owes to both of these individuals with the same name are considered to be paid.
What should people whose names and the names of their parents are alike do to enable them to compose valid legal documents? They should write the third generation as identification in the legal document. If the names of their grandparents are the same, they should write a sign. If the signs also looked alike, they should write their family lineage. If they were both priests or both Levites, they should write further generations.", + "The following laws apply when a person produces a promissory note against a colleague that states: \"I, so-and-so, the son of so-and-so, borrowed a maneh from you.\" Although the name of the lender is not mentioned in the promissory note, any person who produces this promissory note from his possession can expropriate payment with it. The borrower cannot rebuff the plaintiff by saying that the promissory note belonged to another person from whom it fell.
Similarly, when there are two people named Yosef, the son of Shimon, dwelling in the same city and one of them produces a promissory note against one of the inhabitants of the city, the defendant cannot rebuff him by saying: \"I am obligated to so-and-so whose name is the same as yours and this promissory note fell from him.\" Instead, the person who produced the promissory note may use it to collect the debt. We do not suspect that the promissory note fell.", + "The following laws apply when two persons produce promissory notes against each other. The latter cannot tell the first: \"If I owed you money, why would you borrow from me?\" Instead, each one is entitled to collect the debt mentioned in his promissory note.
If both of the promissory notes were for 100 zuz, both of the principals possessed property of equivalent value, be it property of superior quality, property of intermediate quality, or property of inferior quality, we do not attend to them. Instead, each person remains with what he possesses. If one possesses property of superior quality and property of intermediate quality, and the other only property of inferior quality, the one should expropriate the property of intermediate quality, and the other should expropriate the property of inferior quality.", + "The following laws apply when a person produces a promissory note against a colleague and that person produces a deed of sale, stating that the alleged lender sold him a field. If they are in a place where the purchaser pays the money, and afterwards the seller writes the deed of sale, the promissory note is invalidated. The rationale is that the borrower will tell the alleged lender: \"If I was indebted to you, you should have used the money to pay the debt.\"
In a place where the deed of sale is composed and then the money is paid, however, the promissory note is viable. For the alleged lender can claim: \"I sold you the field so that you would have known property from which I could collect my debt if you claimed bankruptcy.\"" + ], + [ + "The following law applies when a person gives a loan to a colleague and afterwards, a third party says: \"I will act as a guarantor,\" the lender sues the borrower and a third party says: \"Let him go. I will act as a guarantor, or the lender was strangling the borrower in the market place and a third party says: \"Let him go. I will act as a guarantor.\" The guarantor is not obligated at all. Even if the prospective guarantor says in the presence of a court: \"I will guarantee the money,\" he is not liable.
If, however, he formalizes his commitment to guarantee the money with a kinyan, he becomes obligated in all the above situations. This applies whether the kinyan was made in the presence of the court, or together with the lender alone.", + "If, however, the guarantor told the lender when the money was being given: \"Lend him, and I will be the guarantor,\" he becomes responsible. In such a situation, a kinyan is not necessary.
Similarly, if a court appointed him a guarantor, he becomes liable even though he did not affirm his commitment with a kinyan. For example, the court desired to expropriate property from the borrower, and this person told them: \"Let him be. I will guarantee the debt for you.\" Since he receives satisfaction from being trusted by the court, he accepts a binding commitment upon himself.", + "When a person lends money to a colleague because of the commitment of a guarantor, although though the guarantor becomes responsible to the lender, the lender should not demand payment from the guarantor first. Instead, he should demand payment from the borrower first. If he does not pay him, he should return to the guarantor and collect payment from him. When does the above apply? When the borrower does not own property. If, however, the borrower does own property. He should not collect the debt from the guarantor at all. Instead, he should collect from the borrower.\"
If, however, the borrower is a man of force, and the court cannot expropriate money from him, or he refuses to come to the court, the lender may collect payment from the guarantor first. Afterwards, the guarantor will make a reckoning with the borrower. If the guarantor can extract payment from him, he should. If that is not possible, the court should place the borrower under a ban of ostracism until he repays the guarantor.", + "Although the lender makes a stipulation with the guarantor and tells him: \"I am giving the loan on the condition that I can collect the debt from whomever I desire,\" if the borrower possesses property, he should not collect the debt from the guarantor.
If he stipulated, \"I am giving the loan on the condition that I can collect the debt from whomever I desire first,\" or the guarantor was a kablan, the lender may demand payment from this guarantor or this kablan first. He may collect payment from them although the borrower possesses property.", + "Who is considered to be an ordinary guarantor and who is considered to be a kablan? If a person says: \"Give him the loan and I will give you,\" he is considered to be a kablan. The lender has the option of seeking repayment from him, even though he did not explicitly stipulate: \"On the condition that I can collect the debt from whomever I desire first.\"
If, however, he tells him: \"Lend him and I will act as a guarantor,\" \"Lend him and I will pay,\" \"Lend him and I am obligated,\" \"Lend him and I will give,\" \"Lend him and I will act as a kablan\" \"Give him and I will act as a kablan\" \"Give him and I will pay,\" \"Give him and I am obligated,\" or \"Give him and I will serve as a guarantor\" - all of these are statements that cause him to be considered a guarantor. The lender may not demand payment from him first. Nor may he collect payment from him in a situation where the lender possesses property unless he stipulates: \"On the condition that I can collect... from whomever I desire first\"", + "When a person guarantees a woman's ketubah he is not obligated to pay, even if he affirmed his commitment with a kinyan. The rationale is that he performed a mitzvah and did not cause her a financial loss. If a father guarantees his son's ketubah and affirms his commitment with a kinyan, the obligation is established. A person who becomes a kablan for a ketubah is liable.", + "The following rules apply when Reuven sells Shimon a field and Levi accepts financial responsibility for it. Levi is not considered responsible, for this is an asmachta. If he affirmed with a kinyan his commitment to pay the money involved in this sale whenever demanded to do so by Shimon, he is obligated to do so. My masters ruled in this manner.", + "Similarly, if a guarantor or a kablan make a conditional commitment, they do not become obligated even if the commitment is affirmed by a kinyan. The rationale is that this is an asmachta.
What is implied? For example, the guarantor told him: \"Give him the loan and I will give you if this-and-this will take place,\" or \"... if it will not take place.\" The rationale is that whenever a person undertakes an obligation for which he is personally not liable and makes it dependent on a condition: \"if this takes place,\" or \"if this does not take place,\" he never makes a wholehearted commitment or kinyan. Therefore, he does not become liable.", + "When two people take out loans from the same person and record their debts in the same promissory note or together purchase a single article, they are considered as having guaranteed the other person's commitment even though they do not explicitly agree to do so. The same law applies when one of a group of partners undertakes a loan or makes a purchase for the partnership.", + "When two people both commit themselves to guarantee a debt taken on by one person, when the lender comes to collect payment from the guarantor, he may collect from either one of them, as he desires. If, however, one of them does not possess the entire amount of the debt, the lender may demand payment of the remainder from the other guarantor.", + "If one person guarantees the debts of two different individuals, when a lender comes to collect payment he should tell the guarantor which of the two debts he is paying so that the guarantor will be able to seek reimbursement from the debtor.", + "When a person tells a colleague: \"Guarantee a debt for so-and-so for this-and-this amount and I will guarantee the sum to you,\" it is as if he tells him: \"Lend him the money and I will guarantee the debt.\" Just as the guarantor becomes obligated to the lender, the second guarantor becomes obligated to the first guarantor. The same laws that govern the relationship between the guarantor and the lender govern the relationship between the first guarantor and the second guarantor.", + "The following opinions were stated with regard to a person who did not limit the extent of the commitment he made to serve as a guarantor. For example, he told the lender: \"Give him whatever you give him, I will guarantee it,\" \"Sell to him, and I will guarantee it,\" or \"Lend him, and I will guarantee it.\"
There are Geonim who rule that even if the other person sells 10,000 zuz worth of merchandise or lends 100,000 zuz to the person named, the guarantor becomes responsible for the entire amount. It appears to me, by contrast, that the guarantor is not liable at all. Since he does not know for what he undertook the liability, he did not make a serious commitment and did not obligate himself. These are words of reason that a person of understanding will appreciate.", + "When a person tells a colleague: \"Lend him. I will guarantee the borrower's physical person,\" he did not make a commitment with regard to the money itself. What he meant was: Whenever you want, I will bring him to you.
Similar principles apply when, after the lender makes the loan and demands payment, a person says: \"Let him go. Whenever you lodge a claim against him, I will bring him to you.\" If he affirms his commitment with a kinyan, there are Geonim who rule that if the guarantor does not bring the borrower to the court, the guarantor is obligated to pay. There are, however, others who rule that even if he made a stipulation saying: \"If I do not bring him, or if he dies or he flees, I will be obligated to pay,\" the guarantor does not become liable, for this is an asmachta. I favor this understanding." + ], + [ + "The following law applies when a person gives a loan to a colleague that is supported by a promissory note. After the witnesses signed the promissory note, the guarantor came and made a guarantee for the borrower's debt. Although his commitment was affirmed with a kinyan and thus he become obligated to pay, as explained, when the lender comes to expropriate payment from the property of this guarantor, he may not expropriate property that has already been sold.
Different rules apply if the guarantor was mentioned in the promissory note itself before the signature of the witnesses. If they wrote: \"So-and-so is the guarantor,\" the lender may not expropriate property that has already been sold, because the guarantor's name is not associated together with that of the borrower with regard to the loan. If, however, the promissory note states: \"So-and-so borrowed such-and-such an amount from so-and-so and so-and-so guaranteed the loan, the guarantor affirmed his commitment with a kinyan, and then the witnesses signed the promissory note,\" the lender may expropriate property that has already been sold. The rationale is that the guarantor's name is associated together with that of the borrower in the promissory note.", + "When a lender demands payment from the borrower and discovers that he does not have property, he may not expropriate payment from the guarantor until 30 days after the guarantor became obligated to pay. The legal power of the guarantor should not be less than that of the borrower himself. The halachic authorities ruled in this manner. If, however, the lender made a stipulation with the guarantor about this matter, that stipulation is followed.\"", + "When a lender comes to demand payment from a borrower, the borrower cannot turn away the lender, telling him: \"Go to the kablan, because you have the right to demand payment from him first.\" Instead, the lender may demand payment from anyone he desires first. If, however, the kablan took the money from the lender and gave it to the borrower, the lender has nothing to do with the borrower. If the borrower was in another country and the lender cannot notify him -or the borrower died and left heirs below the age of majority, whose property the court cannot attach - the lender may demand payment from the guarantor first, because the borrower is not at hand.", + "When a lender demands payment from the borrower and discovers that he has become impoverished, he may not demand payment from the guarantor until the borrower takes an oath that he is bankrupt, as ordained by the later sages. The rationale is that we fear that the borrower and the lender might be trying to obtain the guarantor's property through deception.", + "The following law applies when a person has guaranteed a colleague with regard to a loan supported by a verbal commitment alone, the lender comes to demand payment from the guarantor, and the borrower is overseas. The guarantor may tell the lender: \"Bring proof that the borrower did not repay you and I will pay you.\"", + "When a guarantor takes the initiative and pays the debt to the creditor, he may come back and collect from the borrower everything that he paid on his account, even though the loan was supported by a verbal commitment alone or was not observed by witnesses.
When does the above apply? When, at the time the guarantor made his commitment, the borrower told him: \"Become my guarantor and pay.\" When, however, he acted independently and became a guarantor or a kablan, or the borrower told him: \"Guarantee the debt for me,\" but did not give him the authority to pay the debt, if he pays the debt, the borrower is not obligated to pay him anything. Similarly, if a person pays a promissory note of a colleague without that colleague's knowledge, even if it is a debt for which security was taken, the borrower is not obligated to pay him anything. Instead, he may take his security without paying anything; the other person forfeits his money. The rationale is that perhaps the borrower would have been able to appease the lender and have him waive the debt.
The following rules apply when the borrower dies, and the guarantor takes the initiative and pays the debt before he notifies the heirs. If it is known to us that the borrower did not pay the promissory note before he died - e.g., he admitted the debt on his deathbed, he was placed under a band of ostracism for failing to pay, and he died under that ban, or the due date of the loan did not arrive - he may collect from the heirs everything that he paid.
When the lender was a gentile, the heirs are not obligated to pay the guarantor. The rationale is that their parent might have given the guarantor the entire debt for which he was responsible. For a gentile demands payment from the guarantor first; for this reason the guarantor paid the gentile voluntarily before he notified the orphans. If, however, he notifies them that the gentile is demanding payment from him and that he is paying, the heirs are obligated to pay.", + "Whenever a guarantor comes to collect what he paid - whether he comes to collect from the borrower's heirs or from the borrower himself - he must bring proof that he paid the debt. The guarantor's possession of the promissory note is not considered proof. For perhaps the promissory note fell from the lender's hand, and the guarantor did not pay him at all.", + "In all the claims to be mentioned, and in all similar situations, we follow the principle: When a person who seeks to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is upon him:
a) a person tells a colleague, \"You agreed to serve as a guarantor for me,\" and the alleged guarantor denies accepting the obligation ;
b) the guarantor tells the borrower: \"You gave me the license to act as a guarantor for you and to pay,\" and the borrower tells him: \"You acted as a guarantor on your own initiative,\" or \"You were not a guarantor at all\";
c) the guarantor said: \"I paid the debt in your presence,\" and the borrower said: \"You did not\"; or he told him: \"I have already given you what you paid\"; or
d) the lender told the guarantor: \"You guaranteed 200,\" and the guarantor said: \"I guaranteed only a maneh.\"
Alternatively, the defendant should take a sh'vuat hessefi or a Scriptural oath if he agreed to a portion of the claim, as is the law with regard to all financial claims.", + "The following principles apply when a servant or a married woman borrows money or guarantees the debts of others and is obligated to pay: When the servant is freed and the woman is divorced or widowed, they must pay.", + "If a minor borrows, he is obligated to pay when he attains majority. We do not, however, write a promissory note against him. Instead, even though it was affirmed with a kinyan, the loan has the status of a loan supported by a verbal commitment alone. The rationale is that a kinyan undertaken by a minor is of no substance.", + "In a situation where a minor guaranteed others, the Geonim ruled that he is not liable to pay even after he attains majority. The person who lent his money because of a minor's word forfeits it. The rationale is that a minor does not have the intellectual responsibility to obligate himself in a matter in which he is not liable - not through becoming a guarantor, nor through other similar means. This is a ruling of truth and it is fitting to rule in this manner.", + "When a woman takes a loan that is supported by a promissory note or undertakes a commitment as a guarantor of a promissory note and then marries, she is obligated to pay even after she marries. If, however, it is a loan supported by a verbal commitment alone, it should not be repaid until she becomes divorced or widowed. The rationale is that her husband's authority is that of a purchaser, as we have explained in several sources. If, however, the money that was given as a loan is in her possession, it should be returned to the borrower." + ], + [ + "No matter which language and which characters a legal document is written in, if it is written according to the regulations for legal documents that prevail among the Jewish people, i.e., it cannot be forged, nor is it possible to add to or detract from the content of the document, and its witnesses are Jews and they know how to read it, it is acceptable and may be used to expropriate property that has been sold.
All documents that are signed by gentiles, by contrast, are not acceptable except for deeds of sale and promissory notes. For the latter to be acceptable, the principal must count the money in their presence and they must write on the legal document: \"In our presence, so-and-so counted out for so-and-so the money for the sale,\" or \"... the money for the debt.\" This applies provided that they were prepared by their legal authorities. If, however, the documents were prepared in their courts without being authorized by their judges, they are of no value. Similarly, Jewish witnesses must testify that the gentile witnesses who signed the document and the judge who authorized their signatures are not known to accept bribes. If legal documents composed by gentiles lack any of these qualifications, they are considered shards. Similarly, legal documents acknowledging an obligation, deeds recording presents, compromises, and waivers of obligations are considered shards even if they are composed with all the above qualifications.
My masters ruled that even promissory notes composed by them that state that the money was given in their presence are unacceptable. They accepted only deeds of sale when the money was given in their presence. I do not accept this ruling.
If the Jewish judges do not know how to read a legal document prepared by gentile authorities, they should give it to two gentiles, each one outside the presence of the other, and have them read. Thus, each one of them is reading as is his ordinary practice. The document may be used to expropriate property that has not been sold. It may not, however, be used to expropriate property that has been sold, because it does not become public knowledge. For the purchasers will not know of legal processes carried out by gentiles.", + "When a promissory note that was signed by gentile witnesses was given by the borrower to the lender or by the seller to the purchaser in the presence of two Jewish witnesses, it is acceptable and may be used to expropriate property that was not sold, even though it was not authenticated by the gentile legal authorities and was not prepared according to all the stipulations mentioned above. The above applies provided that the witnesses in whose presence the legal document was transferred were able to read it, they read it when it was transferred, and it was prepared according to the regulations for legal documents that prevail among the Jewish people, i.e., that it be composed in a manner that it cannot be forged, nor is it possible to add to or detract from the content of the document.
Why is it not acceptable to be used to expropriate property that has already been sold? Because it is not a matter of public knowledge.", + "The following regulations prevail for legal documents among the Jewish people: All legal documents must repeat the content of the legal document in the last line, because we do not take into consideration what was written in that line. The rationale is that we suspect the witnesses signed a line away from the body of the document and this falsifier came and wrote in the empty space of this line.", + "When the witnesses signed two lines or more from the conclusion of the writing, the document is not acceptable. If they leave less open space than this, it is acceptable.
The two lines mentioned refer to lines according to the handwriting of the witnesses and not according to the handwriting of the scribe. The rationale is that any person who forges will try to imitate the handwriting of the witnesses and not that of the scribe. The space of the two lines includes the lines and the space in between them, i.e., the space necessary to write a lamed above a final chaf.
If there was a space of more than two lines between the signature of the witnesses and the text of the documents, and they filled the space between the text and the signatures with the signatures of unacceptable witnesses and relatives, it is acceptable. For in this manner, it cannot be forged.
If the space was filled with lines of ink, it is unacceptable. For perhaps the witnesses signed for the lines of ink and not for the body of the document. If the document and the signatures of the witnesses were on one line, it is acceptable.", + "If the legal document was written on one line, and the witnesses signed on another line, it is unacceptable. We fear that possibly the witnesses had signed one line away from an acceptable legal document, and afterwards the person cut away that entire legal document and wrote the present document on that line. Thus, these witnesses were signed upon it.
A similar suspicion can arise when the document and the signatures of two witnesses were written on one line, two other witnesses were signed on a second line, and the maker of the legal document says: \"I intended to increase the number of witnesses.\"
We do not verify the authenticity of the document based on the signature of the witnesses below, in the second line, but rather on the signatures of those above. We fear that possibly there had been another document written originally, it was cut off, and the present document and the signatures of the two witnesses were written on the line between it and the witnesses who signed below.", + "The validation of the authenticity of the signatures of the witnesses by the court should be positioned next to their signatures, next to one of the sides of the legal document, or on its back, opposite the text. If there was a space of more than one line between the statement of validation and the legal document, it is invalid. We fear that someone might cut off the document that was validated and forge a new document and the signature of two witnesses on that one line. Thus, the validation would be on a forged document.", + "If the court wrote the validation more than two lines from the legal document and filled the entire empty space with lines of ink, the validation is acceptable, for there is no possibility of a forgery. ' And we do not suspect that the court would sign a validation of mere lines, but rather of the legal document itself.", + "Whenever words are written on a surface where there have been erasures, the scribe must write a validation of each of the these portions at the end of the legal document, stating: \"This-and-this letter...\", \"This-and-this word...\", or \"This-and-this line were written on a surface where there had been erasures,\" or \"... are attached between the lines. Everything is valid.\"
If the erasure is in the place where the document states sharir v'kayam, and is the size that it takes to write these words, it is not acceptable even if the scribe validates that these words were written on an erased surface. We fear that a person might have erased the words sharir v'kayam, then written a false statement and then validated the document in the space between the document and the signature of the witnesses.", + "When both a legal document and the signatures of the witnesses are written on a surface where there have been erasures, it is acceptable. If one might protest, saying: \"The person in possession of the document might erase it again and write a text that benefits him,\" that argument can be answered, for it is possible to differentiate between a surface that has been erased once and one that has been erased twice.
If one might protest, saying: \"Maybe the person erased only the surface where the witnesses would sign twice, and then after writing the legal document above the twice-erased surface and having the witnesses sign it, he erased the document and wrote whatever he desired.\" In such a situation, the document and the signatures of the witnesses appear the same, because everything was erased twice. This protest is untenable, because our Sages already ordained that witnesses should not sign a document written on a surface where there have been erasures, unless it was erased in their presence.", + "When a legal document and the signatures of the witnesses are both written on a surface where there have been erasures, and the validation of the authenticity of the signatures was written on paper that had never been erased, we do not validate the document because of the signatures of the witnesses who validated it previously, but because of the signatures of the witnesses who signed it originally.
The rationale is that it is possible that the validation of the document was written very far from the document itself, and the space between them was filled with lines of ink. We suspect that the person in possession of the document cut off the document itself, erased the lines of ink, and forged the document and the signatures of the witnesses on the portion that had been erased.", + "When a document is written on paper that had never been erased, and the witnesses signed on a surface where there were erasures, it is unacceptable. We suspect that the person might erase the document that the witnesses signed and replace it with a forgery. Thus, the document and the signatures of the witnesses will be on paper with erasures.
If the witnesses wrote: \"We, the witnesses, signed on the portion of the paper where there were erasures, while the document was written on the portion of the paper that has never been erased,\" the document is acceptable. This statement should be written between the signature of one witness and the other, so that deception is not possible.", + "When a legal document is written on a portion of a paper where there have been erasures and the witnesses sign on a portion of the paper that has never been erased, the document is not acceptable. This applies even if the witnesses write: \"We, the witnesses, signed on the portion of the paper that has never been erased, while the document was written on the portion where there were erasures.\"
The rationale is that we fear the person in possession of the document will erase it a second time and write on it anything that he desires. Since the document as a whole has been erased twice, the forgery will not be obvious.
If, by contrast, one portion of the document was erased once and the other twice, a distinction could be made.
Among the prevailing regulations for legal documents is to carefully scrutinize the document, seeing if the vavin and the zayinin are not squeezed between the letters, lest the person have forged this letter, adding it to the document. Similarly, these letters must not be too far from the other letters of the word, lest the person have erased a portion of one letter - e.g., a hei or a chet - and left one of its legs in the place of a vav. Similarly, in all analogous situations, we scrutinize the text in any language and with any characters.", + "The numbers from shalosh (three) to esser (ten) should not be written at the end of a line, for it is possible for the person in possession of the document to forge the text and make the shalosh, sheloshim (30), and the esser, essrim (20).
If it would happen that a scribe would have to write these numbers at the end of a line, he should repeat the text of the document several times until the numbers come out in the middle of the line.", + "When the upper portion of a promissory note speaks of a maneh and the lower portion speaks of 200 zuz, or the upper portion of a promissory note speaks of 200 zuz and the lower portion speaks of a maneh, everything follows what is written in the lower portion.
Why do we not follow the lesser of the two numbers? Because in this instance, one is not dependent on the other. If the promissory note had said: \"owes amaneh, which is 200 zuz\" or \"200 zuz, which is amaneh,\" the lender would be granted only a maneh. When, however, there are two matters stated in the document and the latter portion is not dependent on the former portion, we follow the latter portion.
When the upper portion of a legal document mentions one name and the lower portion mentions a name that resembles it, we follow the lower portion. If so, why do we write the upper portion? So that if one letter of the lower portion is rubbed out, one could learn from the upper portion. For example, if the upper portion stated Chanani or Anani and the lower portion stated Chanan or Anan, we can assume that it is referring to the person named in the upper portion. This applies regarding only one letter. We do not, however, resolve a doubt regarding two letters in the lower portion from the upper portion.", + "If the upper portion of a promissory note speaks of a sefel and the lower portion speaks of a kefel, we follow the wording of the latter portion, for a kefel is less than a sefel.
If the upper portion of a promissory note speaks of a kefel and the lower portion speaks of a sefel, we suspect that perhaps a fly caused the left leg of the kuf to be rubbed out and made it appear like a samech. Hence, the bearer may expropriate only a kefel, the lesser measure. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations, for the bearer of the promissory note has the weaker position.
An incident occurred concerning a promissory note that stated: \"600 and one zuz\" This raised a doubt. Was the intent 601 zuz or was the intent 600 isteira and one zuz? The Sages said: \"The bearer of the promissory note may collect only 600 isteira and a zuz, for the bearer of the promissory note has the weaker position.\"
If so, why did they not say that he should collect 600 p'rutot and a zuz? Because a scribe would count the p'rutot as zuzin before composing the promissory note. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations. In all times and in all places, we follow the accepted norms.", + "When a promissory note states: \"Isteira 100 m'ie,\" or \"100 m'ie isteira\" one should follow the lesser of the phrases. The person should receive only one isteira. The rationale is that the bearer of the promissory note has the weaker position, because he is trying to expropriate property from a colleague, and a person can expropriate property only when there is no doubt regarding his claim.
Similarly, whenever a promissory note could be interpreted in either of two ways, either this way or that way, the bearer receives the lesser of the amounts. If, however, he seizes possession of the greater amount, the borrower may not expropriate the money from him unless he can clearly prove the legitimacy of his own claim.", + "When a promissory note states: \"a gold coin,\" we assume that the intent is no less than a golden dinar. If it states \"gold of dinarim,\" or \"dinarim of gold,\" we assume that the intent is no less than the value of two dinarim of gold. If it states \"gold in dinarim\" we assume that the intent is no less than the value in gold of two silver dinarim. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
This concludes the Laws of Lenders and Borrowers, with God's help." + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007", + "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות מלווה ולווה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor/Hebrew/Torat Emet 363.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor/Hebrew/Torat Emet 363.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..11378c781a20d160c9c9e755092b3b517f505a3c --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor/Hebrew/Torat Emet 363.json @@ -0,0 +1,380 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor", + "versionSource": "http://www.toratemetfreeware.com/index.html?downloads", + "versionTitle": "Torat Emet 363", + "status": "locked", + "priority": 1.0, + "license": "Public Domain", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "תורת אמת 363", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות מלווה ולווה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לְהַלְווֹת לַעֲנִיֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב כד) \"אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה אֶת עַמִּי אֶת הֶעָנִי עִמָּךְ\". יָכוֹל רְשׁוּת תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (דברים טו ח) \"הַעֲבֵט תַּעֲבִיטֶנּוּ\" וְגוֹ'. וּמִצְוָה זוֹ גְּדוֹלָה מִן הַצְּדָקָה אֶל הֶעָנִי הַשּׁוֹאֵל שֶׁזֶּה כְּבָר נִצְרַךְ לִשְׁאל וְזֶה עֲדַיִן לֹא הִגִּיעַ לְמִדָּה זוֹ. וְהַתּוֹרָה הִקְפִּידָה עַל מִי שֶׁיִּמָּנַע מִלְּהַלְווֹת לֶעָנִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים טו ט) \"וְרָעָה עֵינְךָ בְּאָחִיךָ הָאֶבְיוֹן\" וְגוֹ': \n", + "כָּל הַנּוֹגֵשׂ הֶעָנִי וְהוּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מַה יַּחֲזִיר לוֹ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב כד) \"לֹא תִהְיֶה לוֹ כְּנשֶׁה\". וּמִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לִנְגּשֹׁ אֶת הָעַכּוּ\"ם וּלְהָצֵר לוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים טו ג) \"לַנָּכְרִי תִּגּשֹׁ\" מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁזּוֹ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה: \n", + "אָסוּר לָאָדָם לְהַרְאוֹת עַצְמוֹ לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ בִּזְמַן שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ. אֲפִלּוּ לַעֲבֹר לְפָנָיו שֶׁלֹּא יַפְחִידוֹ אוֹ יַכְלִימוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ תּוֹבְעוֹ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם תְּבָעוֹ. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאָסוּר לְזֶה לִתְבֹּעַ כָּךְ אָסוּר לַלּוֶֹה לִכְבּשׁ מָמוֹן חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ וְלוֹמַר לוֹ לֵךְ וְשׁוּב וְהוּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ג כח) \"אַל תֹּאמַר לְרֵעֲךָ לֵךְ וְשׁוּב\". וְכֵן אָסוּר לַלּוֶֹה לִקַּח הַלְוָאָה וּלְהוֹצִיאָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לְצֹרֶךְ וּלְאַבְּדָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא יִמְצָא בַּעַל חוֹב מֵאַיִן יִגְבֶּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַמַּלְוֶה עָשִׁיר גָּדוֹל. וְעוֹשֶׂה זֶה רָשָׁע הוּא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהילים לז כא) \"לוֶֹה רָשָׁע וְלֹא יְשַׁלֵּם\". וְצִוּוּ חֲכָמִים (משנה אבות ב יב) \"יְהִי מָמוֹן חֲבֵרְךָ חָבִיב עָלֶיךָ כְּשֶׁלָּךְ\": \n", + "כְּשֶׁיִּתְבַּע הַמַּלְוֶה הַלְוָאָתוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא עָשִׁיר וְהַלּוֶֹה דָּחוּק וְטָרוּד בִּמְזוֹנוֹת אֵין מְרַחֲמִין בַּדִּין אֶלָּא גּוֹבִין לוֹ חוֹבוֹ עַד פְּרוּטָה אַחֲרוֹנָה מִכָּל מִטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁיִּמָּצְאוּ לוֹ. וְאִם לֹא הִסְפִּיקוּ הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין גּוֹבִין לוֹ מִן הַקַּרְקַע אַחַר שֶׁמַּחְרִימִין עַל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מִטַּלְטְלִין אוֹ מִי שֶׁיָּדַע לוֹ מִטַּלְטְלִין וְלֹא יְבִיאֵם לְבֵית דִּין. וְגוֹבִין מִכָּל קַרְקַע שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא מְשֻׁעְבֶּדֶת לִכְתֻבַּת אִשְׁתּוֹ אוֹ לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ שֶׁקָּדַם גּוֹבִין לָזֶה וְאִם יָבוֹא הָרִאשׁוֹן וְיִטְרֹף יִטְרֹף. טָעַן הַלּוֶֹה שֶׁמִּטַּלְטְלִין אֵלּוּ שֶׁבְּיָדִי אֵינָן שֶׁלִּי אֶלָּא פִּקָּדוֹן הֵם בְּיָדִי אוֹ שְׂכוּרִין אוֹ שְׁאוּלִין אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ אוֹ יָבִיא רְאָיָה אוֹ יִגְבֶּה מֵהֶן בַּעַל חוֹבוֹ: \n", + "אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה לֹא מִכְּסוּת אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו שֶׁל לוֶֹה וְלֹא מִבְּגָדִים צְבוּעִים שֶׁצְּבָעָן לִשְׁמָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא לָבְשׁוּ אוֹתָן וְלֹא מִסַּנְדָּלִים חֲדָשִׁים שֶׁלְּקָחָן לִשְׁמָן אֶלָּא הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלָּהֶן. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּכְלֵי הַחוֹל אֲבָל בִּגְדֵי שַׁבָּת וְהַמּוֹעֵד גּוֹבֶה אוֹתָן בַּעַל חוֹב וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם הָיוּ בָּהֶן טַבָּעוֹת וּכְלֵי זָהָב אוֹ כֶּסֶף שֶׁהַכּל לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ: \n", + "הָיוּ לוֹ מִטַּלְטְלִין אוֹ קַרְקַע וַהֲרֵי עָלָיו שְׁטַר חוֹבוֹת לָעַכּוּ\"ם וְאָמַר הֲרֵי כָּל נְכָסַי מְשֻׁעְבָּדִין לָעַכּוּ\"ם וְאִם יִטְּלוּ אוֹתָן הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִים בְּחוֹבָם יַאַסְרוּ אוֹתִי הָעַכּוּ\"ם בְּחוֹבָן וְאֶהְיֶה בַּשִּׁבְיָה. הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁאֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ וְיִגְבּוּ הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִים. וּכְשֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְיַאַסְרוּהוּ הֲרֵי כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל מְצֻוִּין לִפְדּוֹתוֹ: \n", + "מְסַדְּרִין לְבַעַל חוֹב כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמְּסַדְּרִין בַּעֲרָכִין. כֵּיצַד. אוֹמֵר לַלּוֶֹה הָבֵא כָּל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְךָ וְלֹא תַּנִּיחַ אֲפִלּוּ מַחַט אַחַת. וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ מִן הַכּל מְזוֹן [שְׁלֹשִׁים] יוֹם וּכְסוּת שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ מִכְּסוּת הָרְאוּיָה לוֹ. וְלֹא שֶׁיִּלְבַּשׁ בִּגְדֵי מֶשִׁי אוֹ מִצְנֶפֶת זְהוּבָה אֶלָּא מַעֲבִירִין אוֹתָהּ מִמֶּנּו. וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ כְּסוּת הָרְאוּיָה לוֹ לִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. וּמִטָּה לֵישֵׁב עָלֶיהָ וּמִטָּה וּמַצָּע הָרְאוּיִין לוֹ לִישֹׁן עֲלֵיהֶם. וְאִם הָיָה עָנִי מִטָּה וּמַפָּץ לִישֹׁן עָלָיו. וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין כֵּלִים כָּאֵלּוּ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֵיהֶם. וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ סַנְדָּלָיו וּתְפִלָּיו. הָיָה אֻמָּן נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי כְּלֵי אֻמָּנוּת מִכָּל מִין וּמִין כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה חָרָשׁ נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי מַעֲצָדִין וּשְׁתֵּי מְגֵרוֹת. הָיָה לוֹ מִין אֶחָד מְרֻבֶּה וּמִין אֶחָד מוּעָט נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שְׁנַיִם מִן הַמְרֻבֶּה וְכָל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מִן הַמּוּעָט. וְאֵין לוֹקְחִין לוֹ כֵּלִים מִדְּמֵי הַמְרֻבֶּה. הָיָה אִכָּר אוֹ חַמָּר אֵין נוֹתְנִין לוֹ לֹא צִמְדּוֹ וְלֹא חֲמוֹרוֹ. וְכֵן אִם הָיָה סַפָּן אֵין נוֹתְנִין לוֹ סְפִינָתוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מְזוֹנוֹת אֶלָּא מֵאֵלּוּ אֵין אֵלּוּ כֵּלִים אֶלָּא נְכָסִים וְיִמָּכְרוּ עִם שְׁאָר הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין בְּבֵית דִּין וְיִנָּתְנוּ לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ: \n", + "מַלְוֶה שֶׁבָּא לְהִפָּרַע שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַלּוֶֹה כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה הַלּוֶֹה בִּמְדִינָה רְחוֹקָה וְתָפְסָה הָאִשָּׁה מִטַּלְטְלִין מִנִּכְסֵי הַבַּעַל כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּזּוֹן מֵהֶן מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן מִיָּדָהּ וְנוֹתְנִין לְבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה בַּעְלָהּ עִמָּהּ לֹא הָיָה יָכוֹל לָזוּן אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו עַד שֶׁיִּפְרַע לוֹ כָּל חוֹבוֹ: \n" + ], + [ + "דִּין תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּזְמַן שֶׁיִּתְבַּע הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חוֹבוֹ אִם נִמְצְאוּ לַלּוֶֹה נְכָסִים מְסַדְּרִין לוֹ וְנוֹתְנִין לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ אֶת הַשְּׁאָר כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאִם לֹא נִמְצָא לַלּוֶֹה כְּלוּם אוֹ נִמְצְאוּ לוֹ דְּבָרִים שֶׁמְּסַדְּרִין לוֹ בִּלְבַד יֵלֵךְ הַלּוֶֹה לְדַרְכּוֹ וְאֵין אוֹסְרִין אוֹתוֹ וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים לוֹ הָבֵא רְאָיָה שֶׁאַתָּה עָנִי וְלֹא מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁדָּנִין הָעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב כד) \"לֹא תִהְיֶה לוֹ כְּנשֶׁה\". אֶלָּא אוֹמְרִים לַמַּלְוֶה אִם אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ נְכָסִים לְזֶה הַמְחֻיָּב לְךָ לֵךְ וּתְפֹס אוֹתָן: \n", + "טָעַן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ וְהֶחְבִּיא אוֹתָן וַהֲרֵי הֵן בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ אֵין מִן הַדִּין שֶׁיִּכָּנֵס לְבֵיתוֹ לֹא הוּא וְלֹא שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה הִקְפִּידָה עַל זֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד יא) \"בַּחוּץ תַּעֲמֹד\". אֲבָל מַחְרִימִין עַל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ וְלֹא יִתֵּן לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ. כְּשֶׁרָאוּ הַגְּאוֹנִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים שֶׁעָמְדוּ אַחַר חִבּוּר הַגְּמָרָא שֶׁרַבּוּ הָרַמָּאִים וְנִנְעֲלָה דֶּלֶת בִּפְנֵי לוִֹין הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁמַּשְׁבִּיעִין אֶת הַלּוֶֹה שְׁבוּעָה חֲמוּרָה כְּעֵין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כְּלוּם יֶתֶר עַל דְּבָרִים שֶׁמְּסַדְּרִין לוֹ. וְשֶׁלֹּא הֶחְבִּיאָן בְּיַד אֲחֵרִים וְשֶׁלֹּא נָתַן מַתָּנָה עַל מְנָת לְהַחְזִיר. וְכוֹלֵל בִּשְׁבוּעָה זוֹ שֶׁכָּל שֶׁיַּרְוִיחַ וְכָל שֶׁיָּבוֹא לְיָדוֹ אוֹ לִרְשׁוּתוֹ מֵאֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ לֹא יַאֲכִיל מִמֶּנּוּ כְּלוּם לֹא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא לְבָנָיו וְלֹא יַלְבִּישׁ אוֹתָן וְלֹא יְטַפֵּל בָּהֶן וְלֹא יִתֵּן מַתָּנָה לְאָדָם בָּעוֹלָם. אֶלָּא יוֹצִיא מִכָּל אֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ מְזוֹן שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּכְסוּת שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ מָזוֹן הָרָאוּי לוֹ וּכְסוּת הָרָאוּי לוֹ. לֹא אֲכִילַת הַזּוֹלְלִים וְהַסּוֹבְאִין אוֹ בְּנֵי מְלָכִים וְלֹא מַלְבּוּשֵׁי הַפָּחוֹת וְהַסְּגָנִים אֶלָּא כְּדַרְכּוֹ. וְכָל הַיֶּתֶר עַל צָרְכּוֹ יִתֵּן לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן עַד שֶׁיַּגְבֶּנּוּ כָּל חוֹבוֹ. וּמַחְרִימִין תְּחִלָּה עַל מִי שֶׁיֵּדַע לִפְלוֹנִי נְכָסִים גְּלוּיִין אוֹ טְמוּנִין וְלֹא יוֹדִיעַ לְבֵית דִּין. גַּם אַחַר הַתַּקָּנָה הַזֹּאת אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב יָכוֹל לְהִכָּנֵס לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁל לוֶֹה לֹא הוּא וְלֹא שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁלֹּא תִּקְּנוּ לַעֲקֹר גּוּף הַתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא הַלּוֶֹה עַצְמוֹ יוֹצִיא כֵּלָיו אוֹ יֹאמַר כָּךְ וְכָךְ הוּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי מַנִּיחִין הָרָאוּי לוֹ וְיוֹצִיא הַשְּׁאָר וְיִשָּׁבַע בְּתַקָּנָה זוֹ וְכָזֶה דָּנִין יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּכָל מְקוֹמוֹתָן. נִרְאֶה לוֹ מָמוֹן אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע שְׁבוּעָה זוֹ וְאָמַר שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים הוּא אוֹ עֵסֶק הוּא בְּיָדִי אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא רְאָיָה. וְכֵן הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי: \n", + "מִי שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע שְׁבוּעָה זוֹ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כְּלוּם וְכָל מַה שֶּׁיַּרְוִיחַ יִתֵּן לְבַעַל חוֹב אֵין כָּל אֶחָד מִבַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת בָּא וּמַשְׁבִּיעוֹ שֶׁשְּׁבוּעָה אַחַת כּוֹלֶלֶת כָּל בַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת. וְתַקָּנַת אַחֲרוֹנִים הִיא וְאֵין מְדַקְדְּקִין בָּהּ לְהַחְמִיר אֶלָּא לְהָקֵל: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהֻחְזַק שֶׁהוּא עָנִי וְכָשֵׁר וְהוֹלֵךְ בְּתֹם וְהַדָּבָר גָּלוּי וְיָדוּעַ לַדַּיָּן וּלְרֹב הָעָם וּבָא בַּעַל חוֹבוֹ לְהַשְׁבִּיעוֹ בְּתַקָּנָה זוֹ וְהֻחְזַק הַתּוֹבֵעַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִסְתַּפֵּק בַּעֲנִיּוּת זֶה אֶלָּא רוֹצֶה לְצַעֲרוֹ בִּשְׁבוּעָה זוֹ לְהָצֵר לוֹ וּלְבַיְּשׁוֹ בָּרַבִּים כְּדֵי לְהִנָּקֵם מִמֶּנּוּ אוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּלֵךְ וְיִלְוֶה מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ יִקַּח נִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְיִתֵּן לָזֶה עַד שֶׁיִּנָּצֵל מִשְּׁבוּעָה זוֹ. יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאָסוּר לְדַיָּן יְרֵא שָׁמַיִם לְהַשְׁבִּיעוֹ שְׁבוּעָה זוֹ וְאִם הִשְׁבִּיעוֹ בִּטֵּל לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה לֹא תִהְיֶה לוֹ כְּנשֶׁה. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא רָאוּי לַדַּיָּן לִגְעֹר בַּתּוֹבֵעַ וּלְטָרְדוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא נוֹטֵר וְהוֹלֵךְ בִּשְׁרִירוּת לִבּוֹ. שֶׁלֹּא תִּקְּנוּ הַגְּאוֹנִים תַּקָּנָה זוֹ אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי הָרַמָּאִין וַהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר (דברים כב ב) \"עַד דְּרשׁ אָחִיךָ אֹתוֹ\" דָּרְשֵׁהוּ אִם רַמַּאי הוּא אוֹ אֵינוֹ רַמַּאי וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁהֻחְזַק זֶה שֶׁהוּא עָנִי וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ רַמַּאי אָסוּר לְהַשְׁבִּיעוֹ. וְכֵן אֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁמִּי שֶׁהֻחְזַק רַמַּאי וּדְרָכָיו מְקֻלְקָלִין בְּמַשָּׂאוֹ וּמַתָּנוֹ וַהֲרֵי הוּא אָמוּד שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מָמוֹן וְטָעַן שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כְּלוּם וַהֲרֵי הוּא רָץ לְהִשָּׁבַע בְּתַקָּנָה זוֹ שֶׁאֵין רָאוּי לְהַשְׁבִּיעוֹ אֶלָּא אִם יֵשׁ כֹּחַ בַּדַּיָּן לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּפְרַע בַּעַל חוֹבוֹ אוֹ לְנַדּוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוּא אָמוּד. שֶׁפְּרִיעַת בַּעַל חוֹב מִצְוָה. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר כָּל שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה הַדַּיָּן מִדְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ וְכַוָּנָתוֹ לִרְדֹּף הַצֶּדֶק בִּלְבַד שֶׁנִּצְטַוֵּינוּ לְרָדְפוֹ וְלֹא לַעֲבֹר הַדִּין עַל אֶחָד מִבַּעֲלֵי דִּינִין הֲרֵי זֶה מֻרְשֶׁה לַעֲשׂוֹת וּמְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ מַעֲשָׂיו לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם: \n", + "מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב בִּשְׁבוּעָה זוֹ מִפְּנֵי שְׁטַר חוֹב שֶׁעָלָיו וְהוֹדָה לַאֲחֵרִים בְּחוֹבוֹת אֲחֵרִים וְהִשִּׂיגָה יָדוֹ יֶתֶר עַל הָרָאוּי לוֹ לֹא יִטּל הַיֶּתֶר אֶלָּא בַּעֲלֵי שְׁטָרוֹת בִּלְבַד. שֶׁמָּא קְנוּנְיָא עוֹשֶׂה בְּהוֹדָאָתוֹ עַל נְכָסָיו שֶׁל זֶה: \n", + "רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהָיָה חַיָּב לְשִׁמְעוֹן מֵאָה וְלֵוִי חַיָּב לִרְאוּבֵן מֵאָה מוֹצִיאִין מִלֵּוִי וְנוֹתְנִין לְשִׁמְעוֹן. לְפִיכָךְ אִם אֵין לִרְאוּבֵן נְכָסִים וְהָיוּ לוֹ שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב עַל לֵוִי וְאָמַר לֵוִי שְׁטַר אֲמָנָה הוּא פָּרוּעַ הוּא וְהוֹדָה לוֹ רְאוּבֵן אֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין עַל הוֹדָאָתוֹ שֶׁמָּא קְנוּנְיָא הֵם עוֹשִׂין לְאַבֵּד זְכוּתוֹ שֶׁל שִׁמְעוֹן אֶלָּא יִשָּׁבַע שִׁמְעוֹן וְיִטּל מִלֵּוִי כְּדִין כָּל טוֹרֵף שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִפְרָע אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה. וְכֵן כָּל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו שְׁטַר חוֹב וְהוֹדָה לְאַחֵר מֵעַצְמוֹ בְּחוֹב אַחֵר אִם אֵין לוֹ נְכָסִים כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּגְבּוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם גּוֹבֶה בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר בִּלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשׂוּ קְנוּנְיָא עַל שְׁטָרוֹ שֶׁל זֶה: \n", + "אָסוּר לָאָדָם לְהַלְווֹת מְעוֹתָיו בְּלֹא עֵדִים וַאֲפִלּוּ לְתַלְמִיד חָכָם אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִלְוָהוּ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן. וְהַמַּלְוֶה בִּשְׁטָר מְשֻׁבָּח יָתֵר. וְכָל הַמַּלְוֶה בְּלֹא עֵדִים עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם (ויקרא יט יד) \"וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשׁל\" וְגוֹרֵם קְלָלָה לְעַצְמוֹ: \n", + "הָרַב שֶׁלָּוָה מֵעַבְדּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שִׁחְרְרוֹ אוֹ לָוָה מֵאִשְׁתּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ גֵּרְשָׁהּ אֵין לָהֶן עָלָיו כְּלוּם שֶׁכָּל מַה שֶּׁקָּנָה עֶבֶד קָנָה רַבּוֹ וְכָל הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁבְּיַד הָאִשָּׁה בְּחֶזְקַת בַּעְלָהּ אֶלָּא אִם הֵבִיאָה רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵן מִנְּדֻנְיָתָהּ: \n" + ], + [ + "אַלְמָנָה בֵּין שֶׁהִיא עֲנִיָּה בֵּין שֶׁהִיא עֲשִׁירָה אֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתָהּ לֹא בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָה וְלֹא שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָה וְלֹא עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד יז) \"וְלֹא תַחֲבל בֶּגֶד אַלְמָנָה\". וְאִם חָבַל מַחֲזִירִין מִמֶּנּוּ בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ. וְאִם תּוֹדֶה לוֹ תְּשַׁלֵּם וְאִם תִּכְפֹּר תִּשָּׁבַע. אָבַד הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן אוֹ נִשְׂרַף קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּחְזִיר לוֹקֶה: \n", + "וְכֵן הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בֵּין שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן בֵּין שֶׁמִּשְׁכְּנוֹ אַחַר הַלְוָאָה בְּיָדוֹ אוֹ עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין לֹא יַחֲבל כֵּלִים שֶׁעוֹשִׂין בָּהֶם אֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ כְּגוֹן הָרֵחָיִם וְהָעֲרֵבוֹת שֶׁל עֵץ וְיוֹרוֹת שֶׁמְּבַשְּׁלִין בָּהֶם וְסַכִּין שֶׁל שְׁחִיטָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד ו) \"כִּי נֶפֶשׁ הוּא חֹבֵל\". וְאִם חָבַל מַחְזִיר בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ וְאִם אָבַד הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן אוֹ נִשְׂרַף קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּחְזִיר לוֹקֶה: \n", + "חָבַל כֵּלִים הַרְבֵּה שֶׁל אֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ כְּגוֹן שֶׁחָבַל עֲרֵבָה וְיוֹרָה וְסַכִּין חַיָּב עַל כָּל כְּלִי וּכְלִי בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. אֲפִלּוּ שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים שֶׁהֵן עוֹשִׂין מְלָאכָה אַחַת חַיָּב עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים וְלוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם עַל שְׁנֵיהֶם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד ו) \"לֹא יַחֲבל רֵחַיִם\" וָרָכֶב לְחַיֵּב עַל הָרֵחַיִם בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעַל הָרֶכֶב בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהָרֶכֶב וְהָרֵחַיִם מְיֻחָדִין שֶׁהֵן שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים וּמְשַׁמְּשִׁין מְלָאכָה אַחַת וְחַיָּב עַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ כָּךְ כָּל שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּשַׁמְּשִׁין מְלָאכָה אַחַת חַיָּב עַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. וְכֵן אִם חָבַל צֶמֶד בָּקָר הַחוֹרֵשׁ לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם: \n", + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ [אֶחָד] עָנִי וְאֶחָד עָשִׁיר לֹא יְמַשְׁכְּנֶנּוּ אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין וַאֲפִלּוּ שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁבָּא לְמַשְׁכֵּן לֹא יִכָּנֵס לְבֵיתוֹ וִימַשְׁכְּנֶנּוּ אֶלָּא עוֹמֵד בַּחוּץ וְהַלּוֶֹה נִכְנָס לְבֵיתוֹ וּמוֹצִיא לוֹ הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד יא) \"בַּחוּץ תַּעֲמֹד\". אִם כֵּן מַה בֵּין בַּעַל חוֹב לִשְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין. שֶׁשְּׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין יֵשׁ לוֹ לִקַּח הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן מִיַּד הַלּוֶֹה בִּזְרוֹעַ וְנוֹתְנוֹ לַמַּלְוֶה וּבַעַל חוֹב אֵין לוֹ לִקַּח הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן לוֹ הַלּוֶֹה מִדַּעְתּוֹ. עָבַר בַּעַל חוֹב וְנִכְנַס לְבֵית הַלּוֶֹה וּמִשְׁכְּנוֹ אוֹ שֶׁחָטַף הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן מִיָּדוֹ בִּזְרוֹעַ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי נִתַּק לַעֲשֵׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד יג) \"הָשֵׁב תָּשִׁיב לוֹ אֶת הַעֲבוֹט כְּבוֹא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ\". וְאִם לֹא קִיֵּם עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבָּהּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָבַד הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן אוֹ נִשְׂרַף לוֹקֶה. וּמְחַשֵּׁב דְּמֵי הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן וְתוֹבֵעַ הַשְּׁאָר בְּדִין: \n", + "אֶחָד הַמְמַשְׁכֵּן אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין אוֹ שֶׁמִּשְׁכְּנוֹ בְּיָדוֹ בִּזְרוֹעַ אוֹ מִדַּעַת הַלּוֶֹה אִם אִישׁ עָנִי הוּא וּמִשְׁכְּנוֹ דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מְצֻוֶּה לְהַחְזִיר לוֹ הָעֲבוֹט בְּעֵת שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לוֹ. מַחְזִיר לוֹ אֶת הַכַּר בַּלַּיְלָה כְּדֵי לִישֹׁן עָלָיו וְאֶת הַמַּחְרֵשָׁה בַּיּוֹם כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת בָּהּ מְלַאכְתּוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד יג) \"הָשֵׁב תָּשִׁיב לוֹ אֶת הַעֲבוֹט\". עָבַר וְלֹא הֵשִׁיב לוֹ כְּלִי הַיּוֹם בַּיּוֹם וּכְלִי הַלַּיְלָה בַּלַּיְלָה עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד יב) \"לֹא תִשְׁכַּב בַּעֲבֹטוֹ\" לֹא תִּשְׁכַּב וַעֲבוֹטוֹ אֶצְלְךָ זוֹ כְּסוּת לַיְלָה. וּבְכֵלִים שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בָּהֶן מְלַאכְתּוֹ בַּיּוֹם אוֹ לוֹבְשָׁן הוּא אוֹמֵר (שמות כב כה) \"עַד בֹּא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ תְּשִׁיבֶנּוּ לוֹ\" מְלַמֵּד שֶׁיַּחֲזִירוֹ כָּל הַיּוֹם. אִם כֵּן הוּא שֶׁמַּחְזִיר לוֹ הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן בְּעֵת שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לוֹ וְלוֹקֵחַ אוֹתָהּ בְּעֵת שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹ מַה יּוֹעִיל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן. כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִשָּׁמֵט הַחוֹב בִּשְׁבִיעִית וְלֹא יֵעָשֶׂה מִטַּלְטְלִין אֵצֶל בָּנָיו אֶלָּא יִפָּרַע מִן הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן אַחַר שֶׁמֵּת הַלּוֶֹה. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁהַמְמַשְׁכֵּן אֶת הֶעָנִי דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לוֹ וְלֹא הֶחֱזִירוֹ לוֹ בִּזְמַנּוֹ עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם שְׁלֹשָׁה שֵׁמוֹת מִשּׁוּם (דברים כד י) \"לֹא תָבֹא אֶל בֵּיתוֹ\" וּמִשּׁוּם הָשֵׁב תָּשִׁיב לוֹ אֶת הַעֲבוֹט וּמִשּׁוּם לֹא תִשְׁכַּב בַּעֲבֹטוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁמִּשְׁכְּנוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָתוֹ. אֲבָל אִם מִשְׁכְּנוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָתוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְהַחְזִיר כְּלָל וְאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר בְּשֵׁם מִן הַשֵּׁמוֹת הָאֵלּוּ: \n", + "שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁבָּא לְמַשְׁכֵּן לֹא יְמַשְׁכֵּן דְּבָרִים שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לָאָדָם לִתֵּן אוֹתָם מַשְׁכּוֹן כְּגוֹן בֶּגֶד שֶׁעָלָיו וּכְלִי שֶׁאוֹכֵל בּוֹ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בְּאֵלּוּ. וּמַנִּיחַ מִטָּה וּמַצָּע לֶעָשִׁיר וּמִטָּה וּמַפָּץ לֶעָנִי. וְכָל הַנִּמְצָא בְּיָדוֹ חוּץ מֵאֵלּוּ יֵשׁ לוֹ לְמַשְׁכְּנוֹ וְיַחְזִיר לוֹ כְּלִי הַיּוֹם בַּיּוֹם וּכְלִי הַלַּיְלָה בַּלַּיְלָה. הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים נוֹטֵל אֶחָד וּמַחֲזִיר אֶחָד. עַד מָתַי הוּא חַיָּב לְהַחְזִיר וְלִקַּח עַד לְעוֹלָם. וְאִם הָיָה הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן מִדְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לָהֶם וְאֵין מַנִּיחִין אוֹתָן לַלּוֶֹה הֲרֵי זֶה מַנִּיחוֹ אֶצְלוֹ עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּמִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וְאֵילָךְ מוֹכֵר הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן בְּבֵית דִּין. מֵת הַלּוֶֹה אֵינוֹ מַחְזִיר לְבָנָיו. מֵת הַלּוֶֹה אַחַר שֶׁהֵשִׁיב לוֹ הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן שׁוֹמְטוֹ הַמַּלְוֶה מֵעַל בָּנָיו וְאֵינוֹ מַחְזִיר: \n", + "הֶעָרֵב מֻתָּר לְמַשְׁכֵּן בִּזְרוֹעַ וּלְהִכָּנֵס לְבֵיתוֹ וְלִטּל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי כ טז) \"לְקַח בִּגְדוֹ כִּי עָרַב זָר\". וְכֵן מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שָׂכָר אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ בֵּין שְׂכַר מְלַאכְתּוֹ בֵּין שְׂכַר בְּהֶמְתּוֹ וְכֵלָיו בֵּין שְׂכַר בֵּיתוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לְמַשְׁכְּנוֹ שֶׁלֹּא עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין וְנִכְנָס לְבֵיתוֹ וְנוֹטֵל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן בִּשְׂכָרוֹ. וְאִם זָקַף עָלָיו הַשָּׂכָר בְּמִלְוֶה אָסוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד י) \"כִּי תַשֶּׁה בְרֵעֲךָ מַשַּׁאת מְאוּמָה\" וְגוֹ': \n", + "מִי שֶׁהָיָה בְּיָדוֹ מַשְׁכּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עָנִי אִם הָיָה שְׂכָרוֹ יָתֵר עַל פְּחָתוֹ כְּגוֹן קַרְדֹּם וּמַסַּר [הַגָּדוֹל] וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לְהַשְׂכִּירוֹ וּמְנַכֶּה שְׂכָרוֹ תָּמִיד בְּחוֹבוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁזֶּה כְּמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵדָה וְאֵין צָרִיךְ רְשׁוּת בְּעָלִים: \n" + ], + [ + "נֶשֶׁךְ וּמַרְבִּית אֶחָד הוּא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כה לז) \"אֶת כַּסְפְּךָ לֹא תִתֵּן לוֹ בְּנֶשֶׁךְ וּבְמַרְבִּית לֹא תִתֵּן אָכְלֶךָ\" וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר (דברים כג כ) \"נֶשֶׁךְ כֶּסֶף נֶשֶׁךְ אֹכֶל נֶשֶׁךְ כָּל דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׁךְ\". וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ נֶשֶׁךְ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא נוֹשֵׁךְ שֶׁמְּצַעֵר אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ וְאוֹכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ. וְלָמָּה חִלְּקָן הַכָּתוּב לַעֲבֹר עָלָיו בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין: \n", + "כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאָסוּר לְהַלְווֹת כָּךְ אָסוּר לִלְווֹת בְּרִבִּית שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג כ) \"לֹא תַשִּׁיךְ לְאָחִיךָ\" מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁזּוֹ אַזְהָרָה לַלּוֶֹה כְּלוֹמַר לֹא תִּנְשֹׁךְ לְאָחִיךְ. וְכֵן אָסוּר לְהִתְעַסֵּק בֵּין לוֶֹה וּמַלְוֶה בְּרִבִּית. וְכָל מִי שֶׁהָיָה עָרֵב אוֹ סוֹפֵר אוֹ עֵד בֵּינֵיהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב כד) \"לֹא תְשִׂימוּן עָלָיו נֶשֶׁךְ\" זוֹ אַזְהָרָה אַף לָעֵדִים וְלָעָרֵב וְלַסּוֹפֵר. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁהַמַּלְוֶה בְּרִבִּית עוֹבֵר עַל שִׁשָּׁה לָאוִין. (שמות כב כד) \"לֹא תִהְיֶה לוֹ כְּנשֶׁה\". (ויקרא כה לז) \"אֶת כַּסְפְּךָ לֹא תִתֵּן לוֹ בְּנֶשֶׁךְ\". (ויקרא כה לז) \"וּבְמַרְבִּית לֹא תִתֵּן אָכְלֶךָ\". (ויקרא כה לו) \"אַל תִּקַּח מֵאִתּוֹ נֶשֶׁךְ וְתַרְבִּית\". לֹא תְשִׂימוּן עָלָיו נֶשֶׁךְ. (ויקרא יט יד) \"וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשׁל\". וְהַלּוֶֹה עוֹבֵר בִּשְׁנַיִם. לֹא תַשִּׁיךְ לְאָחִיךָ. וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשׁל. עָרֵב וְעֵדִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן אֵין עוֹבְרִין אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם לֹא תְשִׂימוּן עָלָיו נֶשֶׁךְ. וְכָל מִי שֶׁהָיָה סַרְסוּר בֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶם אוֹ שֶׁסִּיֵּעַ אֶחָד מֵהֶן אוֹ הוֹרָהוּ עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם לִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשׁל: \n", + "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַמַּלְוֶה וְהַלּוֶֹה עוֹבְרִין עַל כָּל אֵלּוּ הַלָּאוִין אֵינָן לוֹקִין עָלָיו מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּתָּן לְהִשָּׁבוֹן. שֶׁכָּל הַמַּלְוֶה בְּרִבִּית אִם הָיְתָה רִבִּית קְצוּצָה שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה הֲרֵי זוֹ יוֹצְאָה בְּדַיָּנִין וּמוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִן הַמַּלְוֶה וּמַחְזִירִין לַלּוֶֹה. וְאִם מֵת הַמַּלְוֶה אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיַּד הַבָּנִים: \n", + "הִנִּיחַ לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם מָעוֹת שֶׁל רִבִּית אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן יוֹדְעִין שֶׁהֵן שֶׁל רִבִּית אֵינָן חַיָּבִים לְהַחְזִיר. הִנִּיחַ לָהֶם פָּרָה וְטַלִּית שֶׁל רִבִּית וְכָל דָּבָר הַמְסֻיָּם חַיָּבִים לְהַחְזִיר מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד אֲבִיהֶן. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁעָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְהַחְזִיר עַד שֶׁמֵּת. אֲבָל אִם לֹא עָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִכְבוֹדוֹ וַאֲפִלּוּ דָּבָר הַמְסֻיָּם אֵין מַחֲזִירִין: \n", + "הַגַּזְלָנִין וּמַלְוֵי בְּרִבִּית שֶׁהֶחְזִירוּ אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מֵהֶן כְּדֵי לִפְתֹּחַ לָהֶן דֶּרֶךְ לִתְשׁוּבָה. וְכָל הַמְקַבֵּל מֵהֶן אֵין רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה הֵימֶנּוּ. אִם הָיְתָה גְּזֵלָה קַיֶּמֶת וְהָרִבִּית דָּבָר הַמְסֻיָּם וַהֲרֵי הוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ מְקַבְּלִין מֵהֶן: \n", + "שְׁטָר שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ רִבִּית בֵּין קְצוּצָה בֵּין שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה אֶת הָרִבִּית. קָדַם וְגָבָה הַכּל מוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ הָרִבִּית קְצוּצָה. אֲבָל אֲבַק רִבִּית שֶׁהוּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִן הַלּוֶֹה לַמַּלְוֶה וְאֵין מַחֲזִירִין אוֹתוֹ מִן הַמַּלְוֶה לַלּוֶֹה: \n", + "כָּל הַכּוֹתֵב שְׁטַר רִבִּית הֲרֵי זֶה כְּכוֹתֵב וּמֵעִיד עָלָיו עֵדִים שֶׁכָּפַר בַּה' אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְכֵן כָּל הַלּוֶֹה וּמַלְוֶה בְּרִבִּית בֵּינָן לְבֵין עַצְמָן הֲרֵי הֵן כְּכוֹפְרִים בַּה' אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכָפְרוּ בִּיצִיאַת מִצְרַיִם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כה לז) \"אֶת כַּסְפְּךָ לֹא תִתֵּן לוֹ בְּנֶשֶׁךְ\" וְגוֹ' (ויקרא כה לח) \"אֲנִי ה' אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִי אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם\": \n", + "אָסוּר לְאָדָם לְהַלְווֹת בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵּיתוֹ בְּרִבִּית. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַקְפִּיד וּמַתָּנָה הוּא שֶׁנּוֹתֵן לָהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר שֶׁמָּא יַרְגִּילֵם בְּדָבָר זֶה: \n", + "תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁהִלְווּ זֶה אֶת זֶה וְנָתַן לוֹ יֶתֶר עַל מַה שֶּׁהִלְוָה מִמֶּנּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר שֶׁהַדָּבָר יָדוּעַ שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן לוֹ אֶלָּא מַתָּנָה שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵן יוֹדְעִין חֹמֶר אִסּוּר הָרִבִּית: \n", + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ וּמָצָא הַלּוֶֹה יוֹתֵר [אוֹ שֶׁהֶחְזִיר לוֹ חוֹבוֹ וּמָצָא הַמַּלְוֶה יוֹתֵר] אִם בִּכְדֵי שֶׁהַדַּעַת טוֹעָה חַיָּב לְהַחְזִיר וְאִם לָאו מַתָּנָה הוּא שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ אוֹ גְּזֵלָה הָיְתָה לוֹ בְּיָדוֹ וְהִבְלִיעַ לוֹ בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹן אוֹ אַחֵר צִוָּה לְהַבְלִיעַ לוֹ. בְּכַמָּה הַדַּעַת טוֹעָה בְּאֶחָד וּבִשְׁנַיִם אוֹ בַּחֲמִשָּׁה אוֹ בַּעֲשָׂרָה שֶׁמָּא מָנָה חֲמִשָּׁה חֲמִשָּׁה אוֹ עֲשָׂרָה עֲשָׂרָה. וְכֵן אִם מָצָא יָתֵר מִנְיַן הַחֲמִישִׁיּוֹת אוֹ מִנְיַן הָעֲשִׂירִיּוֹת אֶחָד אֶחָד חַיָּב לְהַחְזִיר לוֹ שֶׁמָּא הָאֲחָדִים שֶׁהָיָה מוֹנֶה בָּהֶן הַחֲמִישִׁיּוֹת אוֹ הָעֲשִׂירִיּוֹת נִתְעָרְבוּ עִמָּהֶם: \n", + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ עַל הַמַּטְבֵּעַ וְכֵן הַכּוֹתֵב לְאִשְׁתּוֹ בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ מַטְבֵּעַ יָדוּעַ וּפֵרֵשׁ מִשְׁקָלוֹ וְהוֹסִיפוּ עַל מִשְׁקָלוֹ אִם הוּזְלוּ הַפֵּרוֹת מֵחֲמַת הַתּוֹסֶפֶת מְנַכֶּה לוֹ שִׁעוּר הַתּוֹסֶפֶת וַאֲפִלּוּ הוֹסִיפוּ עָלָיו כָּל שֶׁהוּא. וְאִם לֹא הוּזְלוּ מֵחֲמַת הַתּוֹסֶפֶת אֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן לוֹ מִמַּטְבֵּעַ הַיּוֹצֵא בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁהוֹסִיפוּ עָלָיו עַד חֲמִישִׁיתוֹ כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה מִשְׁקָלוֹ אַרְבָּעָה וַעֲשָׂאוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה אֲבָל אִם הוֹסִיפוּ לוֹ יוֹתֵר עַל חֲמִישִׁיתוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ כָּל הַתּוֹסֶפֶת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הוּזְלוּ הַפֵּרוֹת. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְמַלְוֶה עַל הַמַּטְבֵּעַ וּפָחֲתוּ מִמֶּנּוּ: \n", + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ עַל הַמַּטְבֵּעַ וְנִפְסַל אִם יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ בִּמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת וְיֵשׁ לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ לְאוֹתָהּ מְדִינָה נוֹתֵן לוֹ מִמַּטְבֵּעַ שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ לֵךְ וְהוֹצִיאוֹ בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. וְאִם אֵין לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ לְשָׁם נוֹתֵן לוֹ מִמַּטְבֵּעַ הַיּוֹצֵא בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה. וְכֵן בִּכְתֻבָּה: \n", + "הוֹרוּ מִקְצָת הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁהַלּוֶֹה שֶׁמָּחַל לַמַּלְוֶה בְּרִבִּית שֶׁלָּקַח מִמֶּנּוּ אוֹ שֶׁעָתִיד לִקַּח אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ שֶׁמָּחַל אוֹ נָתַן מַתָּנָה אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל כְּלוּם שֶׁכָּל רִבִּית שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם מְחִילָה הִיא אֲבָל הַתּוֹרָה לֹא מָחֲלָה וְאָסְרָה מְחִילָה זוֹ וּלְפִיכָךְ אֵין הַמְּחִילָה מוֹעֶלֶת בְּרִבִּית אֲפִלּוּ בְּרִבִּית שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם. יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאֵין הוֹרָאָה זוֹ נְכוֹנָה אֶלָּא מֵאַחַר שֶׁאוֹמְרִים לַמַּלְוֶה לְהַחְזִיר לוֹ וְיָדַע הַמַּלְוֶה שֶׁדְּבַר אִסּוּר עָשָׂה וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לִטּל מִמֶּנּוּ אִם רָצָה לִמְחל מוֹחֵל כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמּוֹחֵל הַגֵּזֶל. וּבְפֵרוּשׁ אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁהַגַּזְלָנִין וּמַלְוֵי בְּרִבִּית שֶׁהֶחְזִירוּ אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מֵהֶן מִכְּלָל שֶׁהַמְּחִילָה מוֹעֶלֶת: \n", + "נִכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים מֻתָּר לִתֵּן אוֹתָם לְאָדָם נֶאֱמָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ נְכָסִים טוֹבִים קָרוֹב לְשָׂכָר וְרָחוֹק לְהֶפְסֵד. כֵּיצַד. אוֹמֵר לוֹ תִּהְיֶה נוֹשֵׂא וְנוֹתֵן בָּהֶן אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם רֶוַח תֵּן לָהֶם חֶלְקָן מִן הָרֶוַח וְאִם יֵשׁ שָׁם הֶפְסֵד תַּפְסִיד אַתָּה לְבַדְּךָ שֶׁזֶּה אֲבַק רִבִּית הוּא וְכָל אֲבַק רִבִּית אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם וּבְנִכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים לֹא גָּזְרוּ: \n" + ], + [ + "הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְגֵר תּוֹשָׁב לוִֹין מֵהֶן וּמַלְוִין אוֹתָן בְּרִבִּית שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג כ) \"לֹא תַשִּׁיךְ לְאָחִיךָ\" לְאָחִיךְ אָסוּר וְלִשְׁאָר הָעוֹלָם מֻתָּר. וּמִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לְהַשִּׁיךְ לְעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג כא) \"לַנָּכְרִי תַשִּׁיךְ\" מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁזּוֹ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה וְזֶהוּ דִּין תּוֹרָה: \n", + "אָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁיִּהְיֶה יִשְׂרָאֵל מַלְוֶה אֶת הָעַכּוּ\"ם בְּרִבִּית קְצוּצָה אֶלָּא בִּכְדֵי חַיָּיו. גָּזְרוּ שֶׁמָּא יִלְמֹד מִמַּעֲשָׂיו בְּרֹב יְשִׁיבָתוֹ עִמּוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ מֻתָּר לִלְווֹת מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם בְּרִבִּית שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא בּוֹרֵחַ מִלְּפָנָיו וְאֵינוֹ רָגִיל אֶצְלוֹ. וְתַלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָגִיל בּוֹ לִלְמֹד מִמַּעֲשָׂיו מֻתָּר לְהַלְווֹת לָעַכּוּ\"ם בְּרִבִּית אֲפִלּוּ לְהַרְוִיחַ. וְכָל אֲבַק רִבִּית עִם הָעַכּוּ\"ם מֻתֶּרֶת לַכּל: \n", + "יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלָּוָה מָעוֹת מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם בְּרִבִּית וּבִקֵּשׁ לְהַחְזִירָם לוֹ. מְצָאוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר וְאָמַר לוֹ תְּנֵם לִי וַאֲנִי מַעֲלֶה לְךָ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאַתָּה מַעֲלֶה לָעַכּוּ\"ם. הֲרֵי זוֹ רִבִּית קְצוּצָה אֲפִלּוּ הֶעֱמִידוֹ אֵצֶל הָעַכּוּ\"ם עַד שֶׁיִּטּל הָעַכּוּ\"ם מְעוֹתָיו וְיַחְזֹר וְיִתְּנֵם בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל הָאַחֵר: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁלָּוָה מָעוֹת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל בְּרִבִּית וּבִקֵּשׁ לְהַחְזִירָם לוֹ. מְצָאוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר וְאָמַר לוֹ תְּנֵם לִי וַאֲנִי מַעֲלֶה לְךָ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאַתָּה מַעֲלֶה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְאִם הֶעֱמִידוֹ אֵצֶל יִשְׂרָאֵל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּתַן הָעַכּוּ\"ם הַמָּעוֹת בְּיָדוֹ הוֹאִיל וּמִדַּעַת יִשְׂרָאֵל נָתַן הֲרֵי זוֹ רִבִּית קְצוּצָה: \n", + "אָסוּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לִתְלוֹת מְעוֹתָיו בְּיַד עַכּוּ\"ם כְּדֵי לְהַלְווֹתָן בְּרִבִּית לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. וְעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁהִלְוָה אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּרִבִּית אָסוּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר לִהְיוֹת לוֹ עָרֵב שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁבְּדִינֵיהֶם שֶׁתּוֹבֵעַ הֶעָרֵב תְּחִלָּה נִמְצָא הֶעָרֵב תּוֹבֵעַ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּרִבִּית שֶׁהֶעָרֵב חַיָּב בָּהּ לָעַכּוּ\"ם. לְפִיכָךְ אִם קִבֵּל עָלָיו הָעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁלֹּא יִתְבַּע אֶת הֶעָרֵב תְּחִלָּה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר: \n", + "יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלָּוָה מָעוֹת מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם בְּרִבִּית וּזְקָפָן עָלָיו בְּמִלְוֶה וְנִתְגַּיֵּר אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגַּיֵּר זְקָפָן עָלָיו בְּמִלְוֶה גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְהָרִבִּית וְאִם מִשֶּׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר זְקָפָן עָלָיו בְּמִלְוֶה גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא אֶת הָרִבִּית. אֲבָל עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁלָּוָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל בְּרִבִּית וְזָקַף עָלָיו אֶת הָרִבִּית בְּמִלְוֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁזְּקָפָן עָלָיו אַחֵר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאֶת הָרִבִּית שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ בִּשְׁבִיל מְעוֹתָיו נִתְגַּיֵּר זֶה. וְגוֹבֶה הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִמֶּנּוּ אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר כָּל מְעוֹת הָרִבִּית שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב בָּהֶן כְּשֶׁהָיָה עַכּוּ\"ם: \n", + "מִצְוָה לְהַקְדִּים הַלְוָאַת יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּחִנָּם לְהַלְוָאַת עַכּוּ\"ם בְּרִבִּית: \n", + "אָסוּר לְאָדָם שֶׁיִּתֵּן מְעוֹתָיו קָרוֹב לְשָׂכָר וְרָחוֹק לְהֶפְסֵד שֶׁזֶּה אֲבַק רִבִּית הוּא וְהָעוֹשֶׂה כֵן נִקְרָא רָשָׁע. וְאִם נָתַן חוֹלְקִין בַּשָּׂכָר וּבַהֶפְסֵד כְּדִין הָעֵסֶק. וְהַנּוֹתֵן מְעוֹתָיו קָרוֹב לְהֶפְסֵד וְרָחוֹק לְשָׂכָר הֲרֵי זֶה נִקְרָא חָסִיד: \n", + "אֵין מוֹשִׁיבִין חֶנְוָנִי לְמַחֲצִית שָׂכָר וְלֹא יִתֵּן מָעוֹת לִקַּח בָּהֶן פֵּרוֹת לְמַחֲצִית שָׂכָר וְלֹא בֵּיצִים לְהוֹשִׁיב תַּחַת הַתַּרְנְגוֹלִין שֶׁלּוֹ לְמַחֲצִית שָׂכָר וְאֵין שָׁמִין עֲגָלִים וּסְיָחִין לְפַטְּמָן לְמַחֲצִית שָׂכָר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נָתַן לוֹ שְׂכַר עֲמָלוֹ וּמְזוֹנוֹ. אוֹ יִהְיֶה רֶוַח הַמִּתְעַסֵּק יוֹתֵר עַל הֶפְסֵדוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּעִנְיַן הַשֻּׁתָּפוּת: \n", + "הַמִּשְׁתַּתֵּף עִם חֲבֵרוֹ בְּמָעוֹת אוֹ בְּקַרְקַע אוֹ הַנּוֹתֵן לוֹ עֵסֶק לֹא יְצָרֵף הַשָּׂכָר עִם הַקֶּרֶן שֶׁמָּא לֹא יִהְיֶה שָׁם שָׂכָר וְנִמְצְאוּ בָּאִין לִידֵי רִבִּית. וְכֵן לֹא יִתֵּן לוֹ מָעוֹת בְּתוֹרַת עֵסֶק אוֹ שֻׁתָּפוּת וְיִכְתֹּב אוֹתָן מִלְוֶה שֶׁמָּא יָמוּת וְנִמְצָא הַשְּׁטָר בְּיַד הַיּוֹרֵשׁ וְגוֹבֶה בּוֹ אֶת הָרִבִּית: \n", + "אָסוּר לְהַקְדִּים הָרִבִּית אוֹ לְאַחֵר אוֹתוֹ. כֵּיצַד. נָתַן עֵינָיו לִלְווֹת מִמֶּנּוּ וְהָיָה מְשַׁלֵּחַ לוֹ סִבְלוֹנוֹת בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיַּלְוֵהוּ זוֹ הִיא רִבִּית מֻקְדֶּמֶת. לָוָה מִמֶּנּוּ וְהֶחְזִיר לוֹ מְעוֹתָיו וְהָיָה מְשַׁלֵּחַ לוֹ סִבְלוֹנוֹת בִּשְׁבִיל מְעוֹתָיו שֶׁהָיוּ בְּטֵלִין אֶצְלוֹ זוֹ הִיא רִבִּית מְאֻחֶרֶת. וְאִם עָבַר וְעוֹשֶׂה כֵן הֲרֵי זֶה אֲבַק רִבִּית: \n", + "מִי שֶׁלָּוָה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וְלֹא הָיָה רָגִיל מִקֹּדֶם לְהַקְדִּים לוֹ שָׁלוֹם אָסוּר לְהַקְדִּים לוֹ שָׁלוֹם. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁיְּקַלְּסוֹ בִּדְבָרִים אוֹ יַשְׁכִּים לְפִתְחוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג כ) \"נֶשֶׁךְ כָּל דָּבָר\" אֲפִלּוּ דְּבָרִים אֲסוּרִים. וְכֵן אָסוּר לוֹ לְלַמֵּד אֶת הַמַּלְוֶה מִקְרָא אוֹ גְּמָרָא כָּל זְמַן שֶׁמְּעוֹתָיו בְּיָדוֹ אִם לֹא הָיָה רָגִיל בָּזֶה מִקֹּדֶם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר נֶשֶׁךְ כָּל דָּבָר: \n", + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ דַּע אִם בָּא אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי (כְּלוֹמַר) שֶׁתְּכַבְּדוֹ וְתַאֲכִילוֹ וְתַשְׁקֵהוּ כָּרָאוּי. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "יֵשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן כְּמוֹ רִבִּית וּמֻתָּרִין כֵּיצַד. לוֹקֵחַ אָדָם שִׁטְרוֹתָיו שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ בְּפָחוֹת וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. וּמֻתָּר לְאָדָם לִתֵּן לַחֲבֵרוֹ דִּינָר כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּלְוֶה לִפְלוֹנִי מֵאָה דִּינָרִין שֶׁלֹּא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא רִבִּית הַבָּאָה מִן הַלּוֶֹה לַמַּלְוֶה. וְכֵן אוֹמֵר אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ הֵא לְךָ דִּינָר זֶה וֶאֱמֹר לִפְלוֹנִי שֶׁיַּלְוֵנִי. שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן אֶלָּא שְׂכַר אֲמִירָה: \n", + "יֵשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן מֻתָּרִין וְאָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹתָן מִפְּנֵי הַעֲרָמַת רִבִּית. כֵּיצַד. אָמַר לוֹ הַלְוֵנִי מָנֶה אָמַר לוֹ מָנֶה אֵין לִי חִטִּים יֵשׁ לִי בְּמָנֶה וְנָתַן לוֹ חִטִּים בְּמָנֶה וְחָזַר וּלְקָחָן מִמֶּנּוּ בְּתִשְׁעִים הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. אֲבָל אֲסָרוּהוּ מִפְּנֵי הַעֲרָמַת רִבִּית שֶׁהֲרֵי נָתַן לוֹ תִּשְׁעִים וְלוֹקֵחַ מָנֶה. וְאִם עָבַר וְעָשָׂה כָּזֶה הֲרֵי הוּא מוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ מֵאָה בְּדִין שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ אֲבַק רִבִּית אֵין כָּאן. וְכֵן מִי שֶׁהָיְתָה שָׂדֶה מְמֻשְׁכֶּנֶת בְּיָדוֹ לֹא יַחְזֹר וְיַשְׂכִּיר אוֹתָהּ לְבַעַל הַשָּׂדֶה מִפְּנֵי הַעֲרָמַת רִבִּית שֶׁהֲרֵי זֶה עוֹמֵד בְּשָׂדֵהוּ כְּשֶׁהָיָה וְנוֹתֵן לָזֶה שָׂכָר בְּכָל חֹדֶשׁ בִּשְׁבִיל מְעוֹתָיו שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ: \n", + "אָסוּר לְהַשְׂכִּיר הַדִּינָרִין שֶׁאֵין זֶה דּוֹמֶה לְמַשְׂכִּיר אֶת הַכְּלִי שֶׁהַכְּלִי חוֹזֵר בְּעַצְמוֹ וְזֶה מוֹצִיא אֵלּוּ וּמֵבִיא דִּינָרִין אֲחֵרוֹת וְנִמְצָא זֶה אֲבַק רִבִּית: \n", + "מֶלֶךְ שֶׁהָיוּ דִּינָיו שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁיִּתֵּן הַמַּס הַקָּצוּב עַל כָּל אִישׁ וְאִישׁ עַל יְדֵי זֶה שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן יִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד בּוֹ וְנָתַן עַל יָדוֹ דִּינָר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּשַׁעְבֵּד בּוֹ יֶתֶר מִדִּינָר הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n" + ], + [ + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ סֶלַע בַּחֲמִשָּׁה דִּינָרִים אוֹ סָאתַיִם חִטִּים בְּשָׁלֹשׁ אוֹ סֶלַע בְּסֶלַע וּסְאָה אוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ סְאִין בְּשָׁלֹשׁ סְאִין וְדִינָר כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר כָּל הַלְוָאָה בְּתוֹסֶפֶת כָּל שֶׁהוּא הֲרֵי זוֹ רִבִּית שֶׁל תּוֹרָה וְיוֹצְאָה בְּדַיָּנִין. וְכֵן הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ וְהִתְנָה עִמּוֹ שֶׁיָּדוּר בַּחֲצֵרוֹ חִנָּם עַד שֶׁיַּחְזִיר לוֹ הַלְוָאָתוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׂכַר מִמֶּנּוּ בְּפָחוֹת וְקָצַב הַדָּבָר שֶׁפּוֹחֵת לוֹ מִן הַשָּׂכָר עַד שֶׁיַּחְזִיר לוֹ הַלְוָאָתוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁמִּשְׁכֵּן בְּיָדוֹ מָקוֹם שֶׁפֵּרוֹתָיו מְצוּיִין בְּעֵת הַהַלְוָאָה כְּגוֹן שֶׁמִּשְׁכֵּן חֲצֵרוֹ עַל מְנָת שֶׁיָּדוּר בּוֹ בְּחִנָּם. הֲרֵי זוֹ רִבִּית שֶׁל תּוֹרָה וְיוֹצְאָה בְּדַיָּנִין. וְכֵן הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה אוֹ חָצֵר בְּאַסְמַכְתָּא הוֹאִיל וְלֹא קָנָה הַגּוּף הֲרֵי כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל רִבִּית וּמַחֲזִיר אוֹתָן. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְכָל מִי [שֶׁלֹּא] קָנָה קִנְיָן גָּמוּר מִתְּחִלָּה שֶׁהוּא מַחְזִיר אֶת הַפֵּרוֹת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאִם אָכַל אֶת הַפֵּרוֹת הֲרֵי זוֹ רִבִּית שֶׁל תּוֹרָה. וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם רִבִּית חוּץ מֵאֵלּוּ הֲרֵי הוּא אָסוּר מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יָבֹא לְרִבִּית שֶׁל תּוֹרָה. וְהוּא הַנִּקְרָא אֲבַק רִבִּית וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בְּדַיָּנִין: \n", + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ לֹא יִמְשֹׁךְ אֶת עַבְדּוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בּוֹ מְלָאכָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָעֶבֶד יוֹשֵׁב וּבָטֵל. וְלֹא יָדוּר בַּחֲצֵרוֹ בְּחִנָּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הֶחָצֵר עֲשׂוּיָה לְשָׂכָר וְאֵין דֶּרֶךְ בַּעַל הֶחָצֵר לְהַשְׂכִּיר. וְאִם דָּר צָרִיךְ לְהַעֲלוֹת לוֹ שָׂכָר. וְאִם לֹא הֶעֱלָה לוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה אֲבַק רִבִּית לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא הִתְנָה עִמּוֹ שֶׁיַּלְוֵהוּ וְיָדוּר בַּחֲצֵרוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם עֲדַיִן לֹא הֶחְזִיר לוֹ חוֹבוֹ וּבָא לְנַכּוֹת שְׂכַר הֶחָצֵר שֶׁדָּר בָּהּ מִן הַחוֹב אִם הָיָה הַשָּׂכָר כְּנֶגֶד הַחוֹב אֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ הַכּל אֶלָּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּרְאוּ הַדַּיָּנִים. שֶׁאִם תְּסַלֵּק אוֹתוֹ בְּלֹא כְּלוּם הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמוֹ שֶׁהוֹצִיא אוֹתוֹ בְּדַיָּנִין וַאֲבַק רִבִּית אֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה בְּדַיָּנִין: \n", + "הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁהַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ וּלְאַחַר זְמַן תָּבַע חוֹבוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ הַלּוֶֹה דּוּר בַּחֲצֵרִי עַד שֶׁאַחְזִיר לְךָ חוֹבְךָ הֲרֵי זֶה אֲבַק רִבִּית לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא קָצַץ בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כה לז) \"לֹא תִתֵּן לוֹ בְּנֶשֶׁךְ\": \n", + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ עַל הַשָּׂדֶה וְאָמַר לוֹ אִם לֹא תַּחְזִיר לִי מִכָּאן עַד שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁלִּי הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא קָנָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא אַסְמַכְתָּא. לְפִיכָךְ מְנַכֶּה כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא רִבִּית שֶׁל תּוֹרָה. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ הַמּוֹכֵר אִם לֹא אַחְזִיר לְךָ עַד שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים קְנֵה אוֹתָהּ מֵעַכְשָׁו וְהֵבִיא לוֹ בְּתוֹךְ שָׁלֹשׁ אֵין לוֹ פֵּרוֹת. הֵבִיא לוֹ לְאַחַר שָׁלֹשׁ הֲרֵי כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת לַלּוֹקֵחַ: \n", + "הַמּוֹכֵר בַּיִת אוֹ שָׂדֶה וְאָמַר הַמּוֹכֵר לַלּוֹקֵחַ לִכְשֶׁיִּהְיוּ לִי מָעוֹת תַּחְזִיר לִי קַרְקָעִי לֹא קָנָה וְכָל הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל רִבִּית קְצוּצָה וּמוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָם בְּדַיָּנִין. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ הַלּוֹקֵחַ מִדַּעְתּוֹ כְּשֶׁיִּהְיוּ לְךָ מָעוֹת אֲנִי אַחְזִיר לְךָ קַרְקַע זֶה מֻתָּר וְהַלּוֹקֵחַ אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת עַד שֶׁיַּחְזִיר לוֹ מְעוֹתָיו: \n", + "מָכַר לוֹ אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה וְנָתַן לוֹ מִקְצָת הַדָּמִים אִם אָמַר לוֹ הַמּוֹכֵר לַלּוֹקֵחַ קְנֵה כְּשִׁעוּר מְעוֹתֶיךָ כָּל אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת כְּשִׁעוּר מְעוֹתָיו. אָמַר הַמּוֹכֵר לַלּוֹקֵחַ לִכְשֶׁתָּבִיא שְׁאָר הַמָּעוֹת תִּקְנֶה מֵעַכְשָׁו שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲסוּרִים לֶאֱכל הַפֵּרוֹת מִיָּד. הַמּוֹכֵר אָסוּר שֶׁמָּא יָבִיא הַלּוֹקֵחַ שְׁאָר הַמָּעוֹת וְנִמְצֵאת הַשָּׂדֶה שֶׁלּוֹ וְנִמְצָא הַמּוֹכֵר אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת בִּשְׁבִיל הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁנִּשְׁאֲרוּ לוֹ אֵצֶל הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְכֵן הַלּוֹקֵחַ אָסוּר שֶׁמָּא לֹא יָבִיא וְנִמְצָא שֶׁאָכַל בִּשְׁבִיל מִקְצָת הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אֵצֶל הַמּוֹכֵר. לְפִיכָךְ מַנִּיחִין אֶת הַפֵּרוֹת עַל יְדֵי שָׁלִישׁ עַד שֶׁיִּנָּתְנוּ לְאֶחָד מֵהֶן. אָמַר לוֹ הַמּוֹכֵר לִכְשֶׁתָּבִיא שְׁאָר הַמָּעוֹת תִּקְנֶה הֲרֵי הַמּוֹכֵר אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְאִם אָכַל הַלּוֹקֵחַ מוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ. אָמַר לוֹ הַמּוֹכֵר קְנֵה מֵעַכְשָׁו וּשְׁאָר הַמָּעוֹת הֲרֵי הֵן חוֹב אֶצְלְךָ הֲרֵי הַלּוֹקֵחַ אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת וְאִם אָכַל הַמּוֹכֵר מוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ כָּל מַה שֶּׁאָכַל: \n", + "הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁהַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ וּמִשְׁכֵּן לוֹ שָׂדֵהוּ עַל מְנָת שֶׁיֹּאכַל פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ כָּל יְמֵי הַמַּשְׁכּוֹנָא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ כְּלוּם הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲבַק רִבִּית וְאֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה בְּדַיָּנִין שֶׁאֵין הַמְמַשְׁכֵּן אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה דּוֹמֶה לִמְמַשְׁכֵּן בַּיִת שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין בַּשָּׂדֶה פֵּרוֹת מְצוּיִין בְּעֵת הַהַלְוָאָה וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיַּרְוִיחַ וְיִהְיוּ שָׁם פֵּרוֹת וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיַּפְסִיד בִּזְרִיעָתָהּ וַעֲבוֹדָתָהּ וּלְפִיכָךְ הִיא אֲבַק רִבִּית. וְכֵן אֵין הַמַּשְׁכּוֹנָא דּוֹמָה לְמִי שֶׁמָּכַר בְּאַסְמַכְתָּא שֶׁהַמּוֹכֵר בְּאַסְמַכְתָּא לֹא גָּמַר וְהִקְנָהוּ וְהַמְמַשְׁכֵּן גָּמַר וְהִקְנָהוּ גּוּף זֶה לְפֵרוֹתָיו. וְכָזֶה יֵרָאֶה מִן הַגְּמָרָא. שֶׁהַמַּשְׁכּוֹנָא אֲבַק רִבִּית וְאֵין לְךָ לְהַעֲמִידָהּ אֶלָּא בִּמְמַשְׁכֵּן שָׂדֵהוּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁהוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי. נִמְצֵאתָ לָמֵד שֶׁשָּׁלֹשׁ מַשְׁכּוֹנוֹת הֵן. מַשְׁכּוֹנָא שֶׁהִיא רִבִּית קְצוּצָה. וּמַשְׁכּוֹנָא שֶׁהִיא אֲבַק רִבִּית. וּמַשְׁכּוֹנָא שֶׁהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת. כֵּיצַד. מִשְׁכֵּן לוֹ מָקוֹם שֶׁפֵּרוֹתָיו מְצוּיִין תָּדִיר כְּגוֹן חָצֵר אוֹ מֶרְחָץ אוֹ חֲנוּת וְאָכַל פֵּרוֹתֵיהֶן הֲרֵי זוֹ רִבִּית קְצוּצָה. מִשְׁכֵּן לוֹ שָׂדֶה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ וּבָאוּ שָׁם פֵּרוֹת וַאֲכָלָן הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲבַק רִבִּית. וְכֵן אִם מִשְׁכֵּן חֲצֵרוֹ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ בְּנִכּוּי הֲרֵי זֶה אֲבַק רִבִּית. מִשְׁכֵּן שָׂדֵהוּ בְּנִכּוּי הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. כֵּיצַד הוּא הַנִּכּוּי. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ מֵאָה דִּינָרִין וּמִשְׁכֵּן לוֹ בָּהֶן חֲצֵרוֹ אוֹ שָׂדֵהוּ וְאָמַר לוֹ הַמַּלְוֶה הֲרֵינִי מְנַכֶּה לְךָ מָעָה כֶּסֶף בְּכָל שָׁנָה בִּשְׂכַר קַרְקַע זוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כָּל פֵּרוֹתָיו שֶׁלִּי בְּחָצֵר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ אָסוּר וּבְשָׂדֶה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ מֻתָּר: \n", + "הוֹרוּ מִקְצָת גְּאוֹנִים שֶׁכָּל מַשְׁכּוֹנָא שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ נִכּוּי כְּלָל הֲרֵי הִיא רִבִּית קְצוּצָה. וְלֹא יָרְדוּ לְעֹמֶק הַדָּבָר לְהַפְרִישׁ בֵּין שָׂדֶה לְחָצֵר וּלְפִיכָךְ נִתְקַשּׁוּ לָהֶן דִּבְרֵי חַכְמֵי הַגְּמָרָא. וְכֵן הוֹרוּ שֶׁכָּל מַשְׁכּוֹנָא אֲפִלּוּ בְּנִכּוּי אָסוּר בֵּין בְּחָצֵר בֵּין בְּשָׂדֶה וְאֵין לָהֶם מַשְׁכּוֹנָא מֻתֶּרֶת אֶלָּא בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֹּאת. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ מֵאָה דִּינָרִין וּמִשְׁכֵּן לוֹ בָּהֶן בַּיִת אוֹ שָׂדֶה וְהִתְנָה עִמּוֹ שֶׁאַחַר עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים תַּחְזֹר קַרְקַע זוֹ לִבְעָלֶיהָ חִנָּם הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לֶאֱכל פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ כָּל עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה שְׂכָרָהּ שָׁוֶה אֶלֶף דִּינָרִים בְּכָל שָׁנָה שֶׁאֵין זֶה אֶלָּא כְּמִי שֶׁשָּׂכַר בְּפָחוֹת. וְכֵן אִם הִתְנָה בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה עִמּוֹ כָּל זְמַן שֶׁיָּבִיא לוֹ מָעוֹת יֵחָשֵׁב לוֹ עֶשֶׂר בְּכָל שָׁנָה וִיסַלְּקוֹ מִמֶּנָּה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְכֵן אִם הִתְנָה הַלּוֶֹה שֶׁכָּל זְמַן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה מְחַשֵּׁב לוֹ מַה שֶּׁדָּר בּוֹ וְיַחְזִיר לוֹ שְׁאָר הַדָּמִים וְיִסְתַּלֵּק הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר שֶׁאֵין זֶה אֶלָּא כִּשְׂכִירוּת וְכָל תְּנַאי שֶׁבִּשְׂכִירוּת מֻתָּר כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n" + ], + [ + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ וּמִשְׁכֵּן לוֹ אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה עַד זְמַן קָצוּב אוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא לוֹ מָעוֹת וְיִסְתַּלֵּק וְהָיָה הַמַּלְוֶה אוֹכֵל כָּל פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ אֲפִלּוּ אָכַל כְּשִׁעוּר חוֹבוֹ אֵין מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ בְּלֹא כְּלוּם שֶׁאִם תְּסַלֵּק אוֹתוֹ בְּלֹא מָעוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִי שֶׁהוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ בְּדַיָּנִין. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁאִם אָכַל יֶתֶר עַל מְעוֹתָיו אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ. וְכֵן אֵין מְחַשְּׁבִין מִשְּׁטָר לִשְׁטָר בְּמַשְׁכּוֹנָא. הָיְתָה הַקַּרְקַע הַמְמֻשְׁכֶּנֶת בְּיָדוֹ שֶׁל יְתוֹמִים וְאָכַל שִׁעוּר חוֹבוֹ מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ בְּלֹא כְּלוּם. אֲבָל יֶתֶר עַל חוֹבוֹ אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ הַיֶּתֶר. וּמְחַשְּׁבִין לוֹ מִשְּׁטָר לִשְׁטָר. כֵּיצַד מְחַשְּׁבִין מִשְּׁטָר לִשְׁטָר. הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיְתָה שָׂדֶה זוֹ מְמֻשְׁכֶּנֶת לוֹ בְּמֵאָה דִּינָר וְשָׂדֶה אַחֶרֶת מְמֻשְׁכֶּנֶת לוֹ בִּשְׁטָר אַחֵר בְּמֵאָה דִּינָר וּשְׁתֵּי הַשָּׂדוֹת לְאָדָם אֶחָד וְאָכַל מִפֵּרוֹת הַשָּׂדֶה הָאַחַת בַּחֲמִשִּׁים וּמִפֵּרוֹת הַשְּׁנִיָּה בְּמֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים אוֹמְרִים לוֹ הֲרֵי אָכַלְתָּ מִן הַפֵּרוֹת בְּמָאתַיִם וְאֵין לְךָ כְּלוּם וּכְאִלּוּ הַשְּׁנֵי שְׁטָרוֹת שְׁטָר אֶחָד וּמַשְׁכּוֹנָא אַחַת: \n", + "מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְסַלֵּק הַמַּלְוֶה כָּל זְמַן שֶׁיָּבִיא לוֹ מָעוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמוֹ שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לְפָרֵשׁ דָּבָר זֶה. וְכֵן מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא יִסְתַּלֵּק הַמַּלְוֶה עַד סוֹף זְמַן הַמַּשְׁכּוֹנָא הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמוֹ שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ. וְכָל הַמְמַשְׁכֵּן סְתָם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְסַלְּקוֹ עַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ: \n", + "מָקוֹם שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְסַלֵּק הַמַּלְוֶה כָּל זְמַן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה הַלּוֶֹה וְהִתְנָה עִמּוֹ הַמַּלְוֶה שֶׁלֹּא יִסְתַּלֵּק עַד סוֹף זְמַן הַמַּשְׁכּוֹנָא הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְסַלְּקוֹ. הָיָה הַמִּנְהָג שֶׁאֵין הַמַּלְוֶה מִסְתַּלֵּק עַד סוֹף זְמַנּוֹ וְקִבֵּל הַמַּלְוֶה עָלָיו שֶׁיִּסְתַּלֵּק בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיָּבִיא לוֹ מְעוֹתָיו הֲרֵי זֶה צָרִיךְ לִקְנוֹת מִיָּדוֹ עַל כָּךְ: \n", + "הַמַּשְׁכּוֹנָא בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁמִּנְהָגָם לְסַלֵּק הַמַּלְוֶה בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיָּבִיא מְעוֹתָיו אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁל מַלְוֶה גּוֹבֶה מִמֶּנָּה כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁגּוֹבֶה מִן הַקַּרְקַע. וְאֵין הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל בָּהּ פִּי שְׁנַיִם. וּשְׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמַּטְתָּהּ. וּכְשֶׁמְּסַלֵּק אוֹתוֹ אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל אֲפִלּוּ פֵּרוֹת שֶׁבָּשְׁלוּ וְנָפְלוּ לָאָרֶץ. וְאִם הִגְבִּיהַּ אוֹתָן קֹדֶם שֶׁיְּסַלְּקוּ קָנָה אוֹתָן. וּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְסַלְּקוֹ עַד סוֹף זְמַנּוֹ בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה הֵימֶנּוּ. וְהַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם. וְאֵין הַשְּׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמַּטְתָּה: \n", + "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמַּשְׁכּוֹנָא זוֹ אֲסוּרָה הִיא וַאֲבַק רִבִּית כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מִנְהָג זֶה בְּטָעוּת אוֹ לָעַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ דֶּרֶךְ כָּל מִי שֶׁחוֹטֵא וּמִשְׁכֵּן בְּאוֹתָהּ מְדִינָה הוֹאִיל וַאֲבַק רִבִּית הוֹלְכִין אַחַר הַמִּנְהָג. וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁהוֹרָה שֶׁזֹּאת הַמַּשְׁכּוֹנָא בְּנִכּוּי: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁמִּשְׁכֵּן חֲצֵרוֹ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְחָזַר הָעַכּוּ\"ם וּמְכָרָהּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר אֵין הַמְמַשְׁכֵּן חַיָּב לְהַעֲלוֹת שָׂכָר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל מֵעֵת שֶׁקָּנָה הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל אֶלָּא דָּר בְּחָצֵר בְּלֹא שָׂכָר עַד שֶׁיַּחְזִיר לוֹ הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֶת הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עַל חָצֵר זוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא בִּרְשׁוּת הַמְמַשְׁכֵּן בְּדִינֵיהֶם עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן לוֹ מְעוֹתָיו וְיִסְתַּלֵּק: \n", + "הַמְמַשְׁכֵּן בַּיִת אוֹ שָׂדֶה בְּיַד חֲבֵרוֹ וְהָיָה בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ וְאָמַר לוֹ הַמַּלְוֶה לִכְשֶׁתִּמְכֹּר קַרְקַע זוֹ לֹא תִּמְכְּרֶנָּה אֶלָּא לִי בְּדָמִים אֵלּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר. וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ אַל תִּמְכְּרֶנָּה אֶלָּא לִי בְּשָׁוְיָהּ וְעַל מְנָת כֵּן אֲנִי מַלְוֶה אוֹתְךָ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר: \n", + "מֻתָּר לְהַרְבּוֹת בִּשְׂכַר הַקַּרְקַע. כֵּיצַד. הִשְׂכִּיר לוֹ אֶת הֶחָצֵר וְאָמַר לוֹ אִם מֵעַכְשָׁו אַתָּה נוֹתֵן לִי הֲרֵי הִיא לְךָ בְּעֶשֶׂר סְלָעִים בְּכָל שָׁנָה. וְאִם תִּתֵּן שְׂכַר חֹדֶשׁ בְּחֹדֶשׁ הֲרֵי הִיא בְּסֶלַע בְּכָל חֹדֶשׁ. הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר: \n", + "הַמַּשְׂכִּיר שָׂדֶה לַחֲבֵרוֹ בַּעֲשָׂרָה כּוֹרִים לְשָׁנָה. וְאָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז שֶׁאֲפַרְנֵס בָּהֶן אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה וַאֲנִי אֶתֵּן לְךָ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר כּוֹר בְּכָל שָׁנָה. הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאִם יְפַרְנֵס אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה בְּדִינָרִין אֵלּוּ יִהְיֶה שְׂכָרָהּ יוֹתֵר. וְכֵן אִם הִשְׂכִּיר לוֹ חֲנוּת אוֹ סְפִינָה בַּעֲשָׂרָה דִּינָרִין בְּשָׁנָה וְאָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז שֶׁאֶבְנֶה בָּהֶן חֲנוּת וַאֲצַיְּרֶנָּה וַאֲכַיְּרֶנָּה אוֹ אֲתַקֵּן בָּהֶן סְפִינָה זוֹ וּכְלֵי תַּשְׁמִישֶׁיהָ וַאֲנִי אַעֲלֶה לְךָ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר דִּינָר בְּכָל שָׁנָה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז כְּדֵי לְהִתְעַסֵּק בָּהֶן בַּחֲנוּת אוֹ אוֹצִיאֵם בִּסְחוֹרָה שֶׁל סְפִינָה אוֹ אֶשְׂכֹּר בָּהֶן מַלָּחִין וַאֲנִי אַעֲלֶה לְךָ בְּשָׂכָר הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר: \n", + "אָסוּר לְהַרְבּוֹת בִּשְׂכַר הָאָדָם. כֵּיצַד. לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ עֲשֵׂה עִמִּי הַיּוֹם מְלָאכָה זוֹ שֶׁהִיא שָׁוָה כֶּסֶף וַאֲנִי אֶעֱשֶׂה עִמְּךָ בְּשָׁבוּעַ אַחֵר מְלָאכָה שֶׁהִיא שָׁוָה שְׁתַּיִם: \n", + "מֻתָּר לָאָדָם לוֹמַר לַחֲבֵרוֹ נַכֵּשׁ עִמִּי הַיּוֹם וַאֲנַכֵּשׁ עִמְּךָ לְמָחָר עֲדֹר עִמִּי הַיּוֹם וְאֶעֱדֹר עִמְּךָ לְמָחָר. אֲבָל לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ נַכֵּשׁ עִמִּי וְאֶעֱדֹר עִמְּךָ עֲדֹר עִמִּי וַאֲנַכֵּשׁ עִמְּךָ. כָּל יְמֵי גָּרִיד אַחַת וְכָל יְמֵי רְבִיעָה אַחַת. וְלֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ חֲרשׁ עִמִּי בְּגָרִיד וַאֲנִי אֶחֱרשׁ עִמְּךָ בִּרְבִיעָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי טֹרַח הַחֲרִישָׁה בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים יָתֵר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל בִּימֵי הַחֹרֶף לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמּוֹ בִּימֵי הַקֹּר בְּדִינָר בְּכָל יוֹם וְנָתַן לוֹ הַשָּׂכָר וַהֲרֵי שְׂכָרוֹ שָׁוֶה בִּימֵי הַחֹרֶף סֶלַע בְּכָל יוֹם הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּמַלְוֶה אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם כְּדֵי שֶׁיּוֹזִיל לוֹ בִּשְׂכָרוֹ. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ עֲשֵׂה עִמִּי מֵהַיּוֹם וְעַד זְמַן פְּלוֹנִי בְּדִינָר בְּכָל יוֹם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׁוֶה שְׂכָרוֹ סֶלַע בְּכָל יוֹם הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר הוֹאִיל וְהוּא מַתְחִיל לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵעַתָּה אֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה כְּנוֹטֵל שְׂכַר מְעוֹתָיו שֶׁהִקְדִּים וּנְתָנָן לוֹ בִּשְׂכָרוֹ: \n" + ], + [ + "אָסוּר לְהַרְבּוֹת עַל הַמֶּכֶר. כֵּיצַד. הַמּוֹכֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ קַרְקַע אוֹ מִטַּלְטְלִין וְאָמַר לוֹ אִם מֵעַכְשָׁו תִּתֵּן לִי הַדָּמִים הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁלְּךָ בְּמֵאָה וְאִם עַד זְמַן פְּלוֹנִי הֲרֵי הֵם שֶׁלְּךָ בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּמֵאָה. הֲרֵי זֶה אֲבַק רִבִּית שֶׁזֶּה דּוֹמֶה כְּמִי שֶׁנּוֹטֵל עֶשְׂרִים בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ מֵאָה לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהּ עַד זְמַן פְּלוֹנִי וּכְשֶׁיִּתְבָּעֶנּוּ בַּדִּין אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לִתֵּן אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁהָיָה שָׁוֶה בִּשְׁעַת הַמֶּכֶר אוֹ יַחְזִיר מִמְכָּרוֹ מִיָּדוֹ אִם הָיָה קַיָּם. וְכֵן אִם מָכַר לוֹ מִטַּלְטְלִין עַד זְמַן פְּלוֹנִי בְּמֵאָה וְהָיוּ שָׁוִין בַּשּׁוּק לְמִי שֶׁקּוֹנֶה בִּמְעוֹתָיו מִיָּד תִּשְׁעִים הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר. וְאֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶלָּא תִּשְׁעִים אוֹ מַחְזִיר מִיָּדוֹ סְחוֹרָתוֹ אִם הָיְתָה קַיֶּמֶת: \n", + "הַלּוֹקֵחַ מֵחֲבֵרוֹ חֵפֶץ בְּשָׁוֵהוּ עַל מְנָת שֶׁיִּתֵּן לוֹ מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. הֲרֵי זֶה רַשַּׁאי לוֹמַר לוֹ תֵּן [לִי] מִיָּד בְּפָחוֹת וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ מִשּׁוּם רִבִּית: \n", + "חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן שֶׁהִיא שָׁוָה עַתָּה דִּינָר וּמְכָרָהּ לוֹ בִּשְׁנַיִם עַד הַקַּיִץ עַל מְנָת שֶׁאִם תֶּאֱרַע בָּהּ תַּקָּלָה הֲרֵי הִיא בִּרְשׁוּת הַמּוֹכֵר עַד שֶׁיִּמְכְּרֶנָּה הַלּוֹקֵחַ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. שֶׁאִם אָבְדָה אוֹ נִשְׁבְּרָה אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם כְּלוּם. וְאִם לֹא מָצָא לְמָכְרָהּ וּלְהַרְוִיחַ בָּהּ הָיָה לוֹ לְהַחְזִירָהּ לַבְּעָלִים. וְכֵן אִם מְכָרָהּ לוֹ בִּשְׁנַיִם וְאָמַר לוֹ הַיָּתֵר עַל שְׁנַיִם יִהְיֶה שְׂכָרְךָ בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁאַתָּה מְטַפֵּל לְמָכְרָהּ וְאִם לֹא תִּמְצָא לְמָכְרָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁתִּרְצֶה הַחֲזִירָהּ לִי הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאִם אָבְדָה אוֹ נִגְנְבָה אוֹ הֶחְמִיצָה תִּהְיֶה בִּרְשׁוּת הַלּוֹקֵחַ: \n", + "הָיוּ לוֹ פֵּרוֹת שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה לְמָכְרָן בַּשּׁוּק וְלִקַּח דְּמֵיהֶן מִיָּד מוֹכְרָן בַּעֲשָׂרָה. וְאִם תָּבַע אוֹתָן הַלּוֹקֵחַ לִקְנוֹתָן וְיִתֵּן הַמָּעוֹת מִיָּד יִקְנֶה אוֹתָן בִּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר. הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לְמָכְרָן בִּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר עַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הֵבִיא זֶה מְעוֹתָיו עַתָּה בִּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר הָיָה קוֹנֶה אוֹתָן. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "אָסוּר לִקְנוֹת פְּרִי הַפַּרְדֵּס קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּגָּמֵר וְיִתְבַּשֵּׁל. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁמּוֹכֵר בְּזוֹל עַתָּה בְּעֶשֶׂר הוּא פְּרִי שֶׁשָּׁוֶה עֶשְׂרִים כְּשֶׁיִּגָּמֵר. נִמְצֵאת הַתּוֹסֶפֶת בִּשְׁבִיל הַהַקָּפָה. אֲבָל אִם קָנָה עֵגֶל בְּזוֹל וְהָיָה אֵצֶל הַבְּעָלִים עַד שֶׁיַּגְדִּיל הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר שֶׁהֲרֵי אִם מֵת אוֹ כָּחַשׁ בִּרְשׁוּת הַלּוֹקֵחַ הוּא וְהַכַּחַשׁ וְהַמִּיתָה דָּבָר מָצוּי תָּמִיד: \n", + "הַנּוֹתֵן מָעוֹת לְבַעַל הַכֶּרֶם עַל הַשָּׂרִיגִים וְעַל הַזְּמוֹרוֹת לִכְשֶׁיִּכָּרְתוּ שֶׁהֵם בְּיֹקֶר וְהוּא קוֹנֶה אוֹתָן בְּזוֹל עַד שֶׁיִּבְשׁוּ וְיִכָּרְתוּ הֲרֵי זֶה צָרִיךְ לְהַפֵּךְ בָּהֶן כְּשֶׁהֵם מְחֻבָּרִים שֶׁנִּמְצָא כְּקוֹנֶה אִילָן לִזְמוֹרוֹתָיו. וְאִם לֹא הָפַךְ נִמְצְאוּ הַמָּעוֹת הַלְוָאָה וְהֵן לוֹקְחִין בְּזוֹל מִפְּנֵי הַהַקָּפָה וְאָסוּר: \n", + "שׁוֹמְרֵי הַשָּׂדוֹת שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לָהֶם חִטִּים בִּשְׂכָרָן בְּזוֹל מִן הַגֹּרֶן. כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ לַגֹּרֶן צְרִיכִין לְהִתְעַסֵּק עִמָּהֶן בִּמְלָאכָה בַּגֹּרֶן כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הַחִטִּים הָאֵלּוּ שֶׁנָּטְלוּ בְּסוֹף זְמַן הַשְּׂכִירוּת. וְאִם לֹא עָשׂוּ כָּךְ נִמְצֵאת הַשְּׂכִירוּת אֵצֶל הַבְּעָלִים כְּמִלְוֶה וְזֶה שֶׁלָּקְחוּ בְּזוֹל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאִחֲרוּ שְׂכָרָן עַד הַגֹּרֶן: \n", + "אֲרִיסִין שֶׁהָיוּ בַּעֲלֵי הַשָּׂדוֹת מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתָן מִן הַשָּׂדֶה בְּנִיסָן וְנוֹתְנִין לָהֶם הָאֲרִיסִין בְּכָל זֶרַע חֹמֶר אַרְבַּע סְאִין וְהִנִּיחַ זֶה אֲרִיסִין בְּתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ עַד אִיָּר וְנָטַל מֵהֶן שֵׁשׁ סְאִין הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר וְאֵין שָׁם רִבִּית: \n", + "הַלּוֹקֵחַ חִטִּים אַרְבַּע סְאִין בְּסֶלַע וְכֵן הַשַּׁעַר וְנָתַן לוֹ אֶת הַמָּעוֹת וּכְשֶׁבָּא לִגְבּוֹת אֶת הַחִטִּים לְאַחַר זְמַן הוֹסִיף לוֹ בַּמִּדָּה וְנָתַן לוֹ יֶתֶר. הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר שֶׁהֲרֵי בִּרְצוֹנוֹ הוֹסִיף לוֹ וְאִלּוּ רָצָה לֹא הוֹסִיף שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא הָיָה שָׁם תְּנַאי: \n", + "מֻתָּר לְאָדָם לִתֵּן דְּמֵי חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן לַחֲבֵרוֹ וְלוֹמַר לוֹ אִם הֶחְמִיצָה מִכָּאן עַד יוֹם פְּלוֹנִי בִּרְשׁוּתְךָ אֲבָל אִם הוֹזִילָה אוֹ הוֹקִירָה הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁלִּי. שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁקִּבֵּל עָלָיו הַזּוֹל הֲרֵי זֶה קָרוֹב לְשָׂכָר וּלְהֶפְסֵד. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְכֵן מֻתָּר לְאָדָם לִקְנוֹת מֵחֲבֵרוֹ בְּתִשְׁרֵי מֵאָה כַּדִּין שֶׁל יַיִן בְּדִינָר וְאֵינוֹ נוֹטְלָן עַד טֵבֵת. וּכְשֶׁנּוֹטְלָן בּוֹדֵק וּמַחֲזִיר הַחֹמֶץ וְלוֹקֵחַ הַיַּיִן הַטּוֹב. שֶׁלֹּא קָנָה מִמֶּנּוּ אֶלָּא יַיִן טוֹב וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁהֶחְמִיצוּ מִתְּחִלָּה הָיוּ רְאוּיִין לְהַחְמִיץ אֲבָל לֹא נוֹדַע הַדָּבָר עַד אַחַר הַזְּמַן: \n", + "מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לִשְׂכֹּר הַסְּפִינָה וְלִטּל שְׂכָרָהּ וְאִם נִשְׁבְּרָה שָׁמִין לוֹ מַה שֶּׁפָּחֲתָה וּמְשַׁלֵּם יֶתֶר עַל שְׂכָרָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְכֵן מֻתָּר לְהַשְׂכִּיר סִיר שֶׁל נְחשֶׁת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ וְנוֹטֵל הַשָּׂכָר וּדְמֵי מַה שֶּׁפָּחַת מִמִּשְׁקָלוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "אֵין מְקַבְּלִין צֹאן בַּרְזֶל מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא אֲבַק רִבִּית. וְכֵיצַד הֵן צֹאן בַּרְזֶל. הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ מֵאָה צֹאן וְקִבְּלָם מִמֶּנּוּ לְהִטַּפֵּל בָּהֶן וְיִהְיוּ הַגִּזּוֹת וְהַוְּלָדוֹת וְהֶחָלָב לָאֶמְצַע לִשְׁלִישׁ אוֹ לִרְבִיעַ עַד שָׁנָה אוֹ עַד שְׁנָתַיִם כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִתְנוּ בֵּינֵיהֶם וְאִם מֵתוּ הַצֹּאן הֲרֵי הַמְקַבֵּל מְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵיהֶם הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר שֶׁהֲרֵי בַּעַל הַצֹּאן קָרוֹב לְשָׂכָר וְרָחוֹק לְהֶפְסֵד. לְפִיכָךְ אִם קִבֵּל עָלָיו בַּעַל הַצֹּאן שֶׁאִם הוּקְרוּ אוֹ הוּזְלוּ אוֹ אִם נִטְרְפוּ הֲרֵי הֵן בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "הַשָּׁם פָּרָה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ אִם מֵתָה הֲרֵי הִיא עַתָּה עָלַי בִּשְׁלֹשִׁים דִּינָרִים וַאֲנִי אַעֲלֶה לְךָ סֶלַע בְּכָל חֹדֶשׁ מֻתָּר לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא עֲשָׂאָהּ מֵחַיִּים דָּמִים אֶלָּא לְאַחַר מִיתָה: \n", + "מַשְׂכֶּרֶת אִשָּׁה לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ תַּרְנְגלֶת לֵישֵׁב עַל הַבֵּיצִים בִּשְׁנֵי אֶפְרוֹחִים וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין מִשּׁוּם רִבִּית: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהָיָה נוֹשֶׁה בַּחֲבֵרוֹ אַרְבָּעָה דִּינָרִים שֶׁל רִבִּית וְנָתַן לוֹ בָּהֶן חֵפֶץ שֶׁשָּׁוֶה חֲמִשָּׁה כְּשֶׁמּוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ מוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ חֲמִשָּׁה הוֹאִיל וּבְתוֹרַת רִבִּית בָּא לְיָדוֹ. וְכֵן אִם נָתַן לוֹ בָּהֶן כְּסוּת אוֹ כְּלִי מוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ אֶת הַכְּלִי עַצְמוֹ וְאוֹתוֹ הַכְּסוּת עַצְמוֹ. הִשְׂכִּיר לוֹ בָּהֶן מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁוֶה שְׂכָרוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה דִּינָרִין כְּשֶׁמּוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ מוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ אַרְבָּעָה שֶׁהֲרֵי בְּאַרְבָּעָה שָׂכַר מִמֶּנּוּ מָקוֹם זֶה שֶׁקִּבֵּל עָלָיו: \n" + ], + [ + "אֵין פּוֹסְקִין עַל הַפֵּרוֹת עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא הַשַּׁעַר. יָצָא הַשַּׁעַר פּוֹסְקִין. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לָזֶה יֵשׁ לָזֶה. כֵּיצַד. הָיָה הַשַּׁעַר לַחִטִּים קָבוּעַ לַשּׁוּק אַרְבַּע סְאִין בְּסֶלַע הֲרֵי זֶה פּוֹסֵק עִמּוֹ עַל מֵאָה סְאִין וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ חָמֵשׁ וְעֶשְׂרִים סְלָעִים. וְאִם יִתֵּן לוֹ מֵאָה סְאָה שֶׁל חִטִּים אַחַר זְמַן בְּעֵת שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הַחִטִּים סְאָה בְּסֶלַע אֵין בָּזֶה רִבִּית כְּלָל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לַמּוֹכֵר חִטִּים כְּלָל בְּעֵת שֶׁפָּסַק. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לוֹ כְּלוּם מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין בְּעֵת שֶׁפָּסַק עָלָיו. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה לַמּוֹכֵר מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין כְּלוּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לִפְסֹק עָלָיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא יָצָא הַשַּׁעַר. כֵּיצַד. הָיָה הוּא תְּחִלָּה לַקּוֹצְרִים הֲרֵי זֶה פּוֹסֵק עַל הַחִטִּים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן הֵן גָּדִישׁ. וּפוֹסֵק עַל הַיַּיִן מִשֶּׁיִּבְצֹר הָעֲנָבִים וְיִתְּנֵם בְּעָבִיט וְעַל הַשֶּׁמֶן מִשֶּׁנָּתַן זֵיתִים בַּמַּעֲטָן וְעַל הַסִּיד מִשֶּׁיְּשַׁקְּעֶנָּה בַּכִּבְשָׁן. וְכֵן פּוֹסֵק עַל כְּלֵי חֶרֶשׂ מִשֶּׁיַּעֲשֶׂה הַיּוֹצֵר בֵּיצִים שֶׁלָּהֶן. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁהָיָה עֲפָרָן לָבָן אֲבָל עֲפָרָן שָׁחוֹר פּוֹסֵק עַל הַכֵּלִים הַנַּעֲשִׂין מִמֶּנּוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשׂוּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מָצוּי לַכּל וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לָזֶה יֵשׁ לָזֶה. וְכֵן פּוֹסֵק עִמּוֹ עַל הַזֶּבֶל כָּל יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ זֶבֶל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מָצוּי תָּמִיד: \n", + "כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מְחֻסַּר מְלָאכָה אַחַת אוֹ שְׁתַּיִם פּוֹסֵק עִמּוֹ עָלָיו. הָיָה מְחֻסַּר שָׁלֹשׁ מְלָאכוֹת אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵק אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יָצָא הַשַּׁעַר שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא מְחֻסַּר שָׁלֹשׁ מְלָאכוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין כְּלוּם וּכְמוֹ לֹא בָּא לָעוֹלָם עֲדַיִן. כֵּיצַד. גָּדִישׁ שֶׁהָיָה מְחֻסַּר הַנָּחָה בַּשֶּׁמֶשׁ שֶׁיִּבַשׁ וְדִישָׁה וּזְרִיָּה אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵק עָלָיו אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יָצָא הַשַּׁעַר. הָיָה יָבֵשׁ וְאֵינוֹ מְחֻסָּר אֶלָּא דִּישָׁה וּזְרִיָּה פּוֹסֵק עָלָיו. בֵּיצִים שֶׁל יוֹצֵר שֶׁהָיוּ מְחֻסָּרִין לְפִיפָה וְיִבּוּשׁ וְהוֹלָכָה לַכִּבְשָׁן וּשְׂרֵפָה וְהוֹצָאָה אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵק עֲלֵיהֶן. הָיוּ יְבֵשִׁין וְאֵינָן מְחֻסָּרִין אֶלָּא הוֹלָכָה לַכִּבְשָׁן וּשְׂרֵפָה פּוֹסֵק עֲלֵיהֶן. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה דֶּרֶךְ הַלּוֹקֵחַ לְהוֹצִיא אוֹתוֹ מִן הַכִּבְשָׁן. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה הַמּוֹכֵר הוּא שֶׁמּוֹצִיא הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מְחֻסָּרִין שָׁלֹשׁ וְאֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵק עֲלֵיהֶן עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא הַשַּׁעַר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "הַהוֹלֵךְ לַחֲלֹב אֶת עִזָּיו וְלִגְזֹז אֶת רְחֵלָיו וְלִרְדּוֹת אֶת כַּוַּרְתּוֹ וּמְצָאוֹ חֲבֵרוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ מַה שֶּׁעִזַּי חוֹלְבוֹת מָכוּר לְךָ מַה שֶּׁרְחֵלַי גּוֹזְזוֹת מָכוּר לְךָ מַה שֶּׁכַּוַּרְתִּי רוֹדָה מָכוּר לְךָ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. אֲבָל אָמַר לוֹ מַה שֶּׁעִזַּי חוֹלְבוֹת כָּךְ וְכָךְ מָכוּר לְךָ בְּכָךְ וְכָךְ. מַה שֶּׁרְחֵלַי גּוֹזְזוֹת כָּךְ וְכָךְ מָכוּר לְךָ בְּכָךְ וְכָךְ. מַה שֶּׁכַּוַּרְתִּי רוֹדָה כָּךְ וְכָךְ מָכוּר לְךָ בְּכָךְ וְכָךְ אָסוּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן פָּסַק עִמּוֹ כַּשַּׁעַר שֶׁבַּשּׁוּק. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "אֵין פּוֹסְקִין עַל שַׁעַר שֶׁל עֲיָרוֹת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין הַשַּׁעַר קָבוּעַ אֶלָּא עַל שַׁעַר שֶׁבַּמְּדִינָה. הָיוּ הַחִטִּים הַחֲדָשׁוֹת בַּמְּדִינָה אַרְבַּע סְאִין בְּסֶלַע וִישָׁנוֹת שָׁלֹשׁ בְּסֶלַע אֵין פּוֹסְקִין עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא הַשַּׁעַר לֶחָדָשׁ וְלַיָּשָׁן. הָיוּ חִטִּין שֶׁל לְקוּטוֹת אַרְבַּע סְאִין בְּסֶלַע וְשֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שָׁלֹשׁ פּוֹסֵק לַלְּקוּטוֹת כְּשַׁעַר לְקוּטוֹת וְלֹא יִפְסֹק לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת עַד שֶׁיִּקְבַּע הַשַּׁעַר לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת: \n", + "כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּקְבַּע הַשַּׁעַר מֻתָּר לִפְסֹק עַל הַשַּׁעַר הַגָּבוֹהַּ. כֵּיצַד. הָיוּ הַחִטִּים נִמְכָּרוֹת אַרְבַּע סְאִין בְּסֶלַע וּפָסַק עִמּוֹ שֶׁיִּתֵּן לוֹ הַחִטִּים כַּשַּׁעַר הַזּוֹל אִם עָמְדוּ אַחַר כֵּן עֶשֶׂר סְאִין בְּסֶלַע נוֹתֵן לוֹ עֶשֶׂר סְאִין כַּשַּׁעַר שֶׁהָיָה בַּשּׁוּק שֶׁהֲרֵי פָּסַק עִמּוֹ בְּשַׁעַר גָּבוֹהַּ. נָתַן לוֹ הַמָּעוֹת סְתָם וְלֹא פָּסַק עִמּוֹ בַּשַּׁעַר הַגָּבוֹהַּ וְהוּזְלוּ נוֹתֵן כַּשַּׁעַר שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁוִין כְּשֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ הַמָּעוֹת. וּמִי שֶׁחָזַר מְקַבֵּל מִי שֶׁפָּרַע. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּפוֹסֵק עַל דַּעַת עַצְמוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה שָׁלִיחַ לַאֲחֵרִים בֵּין הַמּוֹכֵר בֵּין הַלּוֹקֵחַ אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל אֶלָּא כַּשַּׁעַר הַזּוֹל אוֹ מַחְזִיר אֶת הַדָּמִים וְאֵינוֹ מְקַבֵּל מִי שֶׁפָּרַע בְּשָׁלִיחַ שֶׁהֲרֵי הַמְשַׁלֵּחַ אוֹמֵר לְתַקֵּן שְׁלַחְתִּיךָ וְלֹא לְעַוֵּת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "הָיוּ הַחִטִּים נִמְכָּרוֹת אַרְבַּע סְאִין בְּסֶלַע וְנָטַל אֶת הַדָּמִים וְנָתַן לוֹ חָמֵשׁ בְּסֶלַע אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ חִטִּים מֻתָּר. הָיוּ לוֹ חִטִּים חוֹב אֵצֶל אֲחֵרִים וְנָטַל הַמָּעוֹת עַד שֶׁיִּגְבֶּה חִטָּיו וְיִתֵּן לוֹ אָסוּר שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵן מְחֻסָּרִין גְּבִיָּה וּכְאִלּוּ אֵינָם וַהֲרֵי זֶה כְּקוֹבֵעַ לוֹ זְמַן וְהוֹזִיל לוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּקִּיפוֹ: \n", + "הָיוּ הַחִטִּים בַּמְּדִינָה אַרְבַּע סְאִין בְּסֶלַע וּבַכְּפָרִים שֵׁשׁ בַּסֶּלַע הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לִתֵּן סֶלַע לְתַגָּר כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּבִיא שֵׁשׁ סְאִין מִן הַכְּפָר. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ בִּרְשׁוּת הַלּוֹקֵחַ. אִם אָבְדוּ בַּדֶּרֶךְ אוֹ נִגְנְבוּ אָבְדוּ לוֹ. וְאָדָם חָשׁוּב אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת זֶה. ובְּמִינֵי סְחוֹרָה אָסוּר לְכָל אָדָם לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מִינֵי סְחוֹרָה מְצוּיִין כְּפֵרוֹת: \n", + "הַחַמָּרִין שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לָעִיר וַהֲרֵי הַחִטִּים אַרְבַּע סְאִין בְּסֶלַע. הוֹזִילוּ וּמָכְרוּ לְמַכִּירֵיהֶן אוֹ לְסַפְסָרֵיהֶן חָמֵשׁ בְּסֶלַע בַּמָּעוֹת שֶׁנָּתְנוּ לָהֶן תְּחִלָּה כְּשֶׁיִּכָּנְסוּ לָעִיר עַד שֶׁיִּפְתְּחוּ שַׂקֵּיהֶן וְיִמְכְּרוּ לְכָל אָדָם הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר שֶׁאֵין אֵלּוּ מוֹכְרִין לָהֶם בְּזוֹל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנָּתְנוּ מָעוֹת עַתָּה וְלֹא יִקְחוּ אֶלָּא לְאַחַר זְמַן אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמּוֹדִיעִין לָהֶם אֶת הַשַּׁעַר וּמְסַעֲדִין אוֹתָם: \n", + "הַמּוֹלִיךְ פֵּרוֹתָיו מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם מְצָאוֹ חֲבֵרוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ תְּנֵם לִי וַאֲנִי אַעֲלֶה לְךָ פֵּרוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי (בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי) בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם. אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ שָׁם מֻתָּר וְאִם לָאו אָסוּר. הָיָה מוֹלִיךְ סְחוֹרָה מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם אָמַר לוֹ תְּנֵם לִי וַאֲנִי אַעֲלֶה לְךָ דָּמֶיהָ כְּמוֹ שֶׁשָּׁוֶה בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם אִם הָיְתָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַמּוֹכֵר עַד שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְשָׁם מֻתָּר וְאִם הָיְתָה בִּרְשׁוּת לוֹקֵחַ אָסוּר: \n", + "הַנּוֹתֵן לְבַעַל הַגִּנָּה דְּמֵי עֲשָׂרָה קִשּׁוּאִין אֵלּוּ דְּמֵי עֲשָׂרָה אֲבַטִּיחִים אֵלּוּ וַהֲרֵי הֵן קְטַנִּים וְהִתְנָה עִמּוֹ שֶׁיִּתְּנֵם לוֹ לִכְשֶׁיַּגְדִּילוּ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא מַנִּיחָן וְהֵם גְּדֵלִים מֵאֲלֵיהֶן וְאִלּוּ קִצְּצָן עַתָּה כְּשֶׁהֵן קְטַנִּים לֹא הָיוּ בָּאִים אֲחֵרִים תַּחְתֵּיהֶן. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה מִדָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ הֶפְסֵד וְלֹא חִסָּרוֹן עַל הַמּוֹכֵר: \n" + ], + [ + "כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמֻּתָּר לַמּוֹכֵר לִפְסֹק עַל שַׁעַר שֶׁבַּשּׁוּק כָּךְ מֻתָּר לִלְווֹת הַפֵּרוֹת סְתָם וּפוֹרְעִין סְתָם בְּלֹא קְבִיעַת זְמַן עַל הַשַּׁעַר שֶׁבַּשּׁוּק. כֵּיצַד. הָיָה הַשַּׁעַר קָבוּעַ וְיָדוּעַ לִשְׁנֵיהֶם וְלָוָה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עֶשֶׂר סְאִין חַיָּב לְהַחְזִיר לוֹ עֶשֶׂר סְאִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּקְרוּ הַחִטִּים שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּשֶׁלָּוָה מִמֶּנּוּ הָיָה הַשַּׁעַר יָדוּעַ וְאִלּוּ רָצָה הָיָה קוֹנֶה וּמַחֲזִיר לוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא קָבַע לוֹ זְמַן: \n", + "הָיָה לוֹ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין שֶׁלָּוָה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לִלְווֹת סְתָם בְּלֹא קְבִיעַת זְמַן וּפוֹרֵעַ סְתָם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא יָצָא הַשַּׁעַר. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה לוֹ סְאָה בִּלְבַד לוֶֹה עָלֶיהָ כַּמָּה סְאִין. הָיְתָה לוֹ טִפָּה אַחַת שֶׁל שֶׁמֶן אוֹ שֶׁל יַיִן לוֶֹה עָלֶיהָ כַּמָּה גַרְבֵּי יַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן. לֹא הָיְתָה לוֹ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין כְּלוּם וְלֹא נִקְבַּע שַׁעַר הַשּׁוּק עֲדַיִן אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יָדְעוּ שַׁעַר הַשּׁוּק הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר לִלְווֹת סְאָה בִּסְאָה. וְכֵן בִּשְׁאָר הַפֵּרוֹת לֹא יַלְוֶה אוֹתָן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה אוֹתָן דָּמִים. וְאִם לָוָה וְלֹא עָשָׂה אוֹתָן [דָּמִים] וְהוּזְלוּ מַחְזִיר לוֹ פֵּרוֹת כַּמִּדָּה שֶׁלָּוָה אוֹ כַּמִּשְׁקָל. וְאִם הוּקַר נוֹטֵל דָּמִים שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁוִין בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה הַשַּׁעַר קָבוּעַ בַּשּׁוּק הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר לִלְווֹת פֵּרוֹת בְּפֵרוֹת עַד זְמַן קָבוּעַ אֶלָּא לוֶֹה סְתָם וּפוֹרֵעַ בְּאֵיזֶה זְמַן שֶׁיִּפְרַע: \n", + "לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ הַלְוֵינִי כּוֹר חִטִּים וַאֲנִי אַחְזִיר לְךָ כּוֹר לַגֹּרֶן אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ הַלְוֵינִי עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא בְּנִי אוֹ עַד שֶׁאֶמְצָא הַמַּפְתֵּחַ: \n", + "לָוָה פֵּרוֹת עַד זְמַן קָבוּעַ אִם הוּזְלוּ מַחְזִיר לוֹ פֵּרוֹת בַּזְּמַן שֶׁקָּבַע וְאִם הוּקְרוּ נוֹתֵן לוֹ דָּמִים שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁוִין בִּשְׁעַת הַהַלְוָאָה: \n", + "מַלְוֶה אָדָם אֶת אֲרִיסָיו חִטִּים בְּחִטִּים לְזֶרַע בֵּין קֹדֶם שֶׁיָּרַד הָאָרִיס לַשָּׂדֶה בֵּין אַחַר שֶׁיָּרַד. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁיִּתֵּן הָאָרִיס אֶת הַזֶּרַע שֶׁהֲרֵי בְּיַד בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע לְסַלְּקוֹ כָּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן. אֲבָל בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע לִתֵּן אֶת הַזֶּרַע אִם עֲדַיִן לֹא יָרַד הָאָרִיס הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לְהַלְווֹת חִטִּים בְּחִטִּים שֶׁעֲדַיִן יֵשׁ לוֹ לְסַלְּקוֹ נִמְצָא בְּעֵת שֶׁיָּרַד לַשָּׂדֶה יָרַד עַל דַּעַת שֶׁיַּחְזִיר לוֹ חִטִּים שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ. אֲבָל אַחַר שֶׁיָּרַד לַשָּׂדֶה הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְסַלְּקוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכָל אָדָם וְאָסוּר לְהַלְווֹתוֹ חִטִּים בַּחִטִּים לְזֶרַע אֲבָל מַלְוֵהוּ סְתָם עַל שַׁעַר שֶׁבַּשּׁוּק: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהָיָה נוֹשֶׁה בַּחֲבֵרוֹ מָעוֹת וְאָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לִי מְעוֹתַי שֶׁאֲנִי רוֹצֶה לִקַּח בָּהֶן חִטִּים. אָמַר לוֹ צֵא וַעֲשֵׂה אוֹתָן עָלַי כְּשַׁעַר שֶׁל עַכְשָׁו וְיִהְיֶה לְךָ אֶצְלִי חִטִּים בְּהַלְוָאָה. אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ חִטִּים כְּשִׁעוּר מְעוֹתָיו מֻתָּר וְאִם אֵין [לוֹ] אוֹתוֹ הַמִּין הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר. שֶׁלֹּא אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁמֻּתָּר לִפְסֹק עַל שַׁעַר שֶׁבַּשּׁוּק אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כְּלוּם מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין אֶלָּא בְּנוֹתֵן מְעוֹתָיו לִקְנוֹת בָּהֶן פֵּרוֹת. אֲבָל הָרוֹצֶה לְהַעֲמִיד הַלְוָאָתוֹ עַל גַּב הַפֵּרוֹת אָסוּר עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ לוֹ פֵּרוֹת. הָיָה לַלּוֶֹה חִטִּים וְעָשָׂה הַלְוָאָתוֹ עָלָיו חִטִּים וּבָא אַחַר זְמַן וְאָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לִי חִטִּים שֶׁאֲנִי רוֹצֶה לְמָכְרָן וְלִקַּח בִּדְמֵיהֶן יַיִן. אָמַר לוֹ צֵא וַעֲשֵׂה אוֹתָן עָלַי יַיִן כַּשַּׁעַר שֶׁבַּשּׁוּק עַתָּה. אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ יַיִן הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר וְנַעֲשֵׂית הַלְוָאָתוֹ אֶצְלוֹ יַיִן וְאִם אֵין לוֹ יַיִן אָסוּר. הֲרֵי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לוֹ וְעָבַר וְהֶחְזִיר הַהַלְוָאָה פֵּרוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּנָה פֵּרוֹת אַחַר כָּךְ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לִתֵּן לוֹ פֵּרוֹת אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן לוֹ מָעוֹת שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ: \n" + ], + [ + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בִּפני עֵדִים אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לְעֵדִים הֱיוּ עָלַי עֵדִים שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב לָזֶה מָנֶה אוֹ אַתֶּם עֵדַי שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב לָזֶה מָנֶה. זוֹ נִקְרֵאת מִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לְפָרְעוֹ בְּעֵדִים. לְפִיכָךְ אִם טָעַן וְאָמַר אַחַר כָּךְ פָּרַעְתִּי נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר. אֲבָל הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בִּשְׁטָר צָרִיךְ לְפָרְעוֹ בְּעֵדִים לְפִיכָךְ אִם טָעַן וְאָמַר פָּרַעְתִּי שְׁטָר זֶה אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן אֶלָּא אוֹמְרִים לוֹ אוֹ הָבֵא עֵדִים אוֹ עֲמֹד וְשַׁלֵּם לוֹ חוֹבוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ הָאוֹמֵר לְעֵדִים הֱיוּ עָלַי עֵדִים שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב לָזֶה מָנֶה אֵין כּוֹתְבִין עֵדוּתָן וְנוֹתְנִין לַמַּלְוֶה. שֶׁלֹּא יַחֲזִירוֹ לַמַּלְוֶה עַל פִּי עֵדוּת בִּשְׁטָר עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לָהֶן הַלּוֶֹה כִּתְבוּ שְׁטָר וְחִתְמוּ וּתְנוּ לוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶן כָּךְ צְרִיכִין לְהִמָּלֵךְ בּוֹ אַחַר שֶׁחָתְמוּ בַּשְּׁטָר וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹתְנִין הַשְּׁטָר בְּיַד הַמַּלְוֶה. קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ מָנֶה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כּוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לָהֶן כְּתֹבוּ שֶׁסְּתָם קִנְיָן לִכְתִיבָה עוֹמֵד וְאֵינָן צְרִיכִין לְהִמָּלֵךְ בּוֹ: \n", + "לוֶֹה שֶׁכָּתַב שְׁטָר בִּכְתַב יָדוֹ וְהֵעִיד בּוֹ עֵדִים וּנְתָנוֹ לַמַּלְוֶה הֲרֵי זֶה שְׁטָר כָּשֵׁר. וְכֵן אִם כָּתַב שְׁטָר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ עֵדִים וּנְתָנוֹ לַמַּלְוֶה בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים הֲרֵי זוֹ מִלְוֶה בִּשְׁטָר. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כְּתָב שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִזְדַּיֵּף וְיִקְרְאוּ אוֹתוֹ הָעֵדִים שֶׁנִּמְסַר בִּפְנֵיהֶם. וְיֵשׁ מִן הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁהוֹרָה שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לוֹמַר לָעֵדִים שֶׁמָּסְרוּ בִּפְנֵיהֶם חִתְמוּ וְהָעִידוּ שֶׁנִּמְסַר בִּפְנֵיכֶם: \n", + "הוֹצִיא עָלָיו כְּתַב יָדוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ וְאֵין שָׁם עֵדִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֻחְזַק כְּתַב יָדוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה לְכָל דָּבָר. וְאִם טָעַן שֶׁפָּרַע נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה בִּכְתָב זֶה לֹא מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין וְלֹא מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת: \n", + "כָּל מִלְוֶה בִּשְׁטָר גּוֹבֶה אוֹתָהּ מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין וּמִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. וּמִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה גּוֹבֶה אוֹתָהּ מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה אוֹתָהּ מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת לְפִי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ קוֹל לְפִיכָךְ לֹא יִטְרֹף בָּהּ. אֲבָל מִלְוֶה שֶׁבִּשְׁטָר קוֹל יֵשׁ לָהּ וְהַלּוֹקֵחַ הִפְסִיד עַל עַצְמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא שָׁאַל עַד שֶׁיָּדַע שֶׁנְּכָסָיו שֶׁל זֶה מְשֻׁעְבָּדִין בַּמִּלְוֶה שֶׁעָלָיו. שֶׁכָּל נִכְסֵי הַלּוֶֹה תַּחַת שִׁעְבּוּד הַמַּלְוֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה: \n", + "הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֵהוּ בְּעֵדִים וְיָצָאת מִתַּחַת יְדֵי הַלּוֹקֵחַ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם שְׁטָר בְּיַד הַלּוֹקֵחַ הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹזֵר וְטוֹרֵף מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. שֶׁכָּל הַמּוֹכֵר בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא מוֹכֵר וְקוֹל יֵשׁ לוֹ: \n", + "אֵין הַהַלְוָאָה שֶׁעַל פֶּה נִגְבֵּית מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין אֶלָּא בְּאֶחָד מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ. כְּשֶׁחַיָּב מוֹדֶה בָּהּ וְצִוָּה בְּחָלְיוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִפְלוֹנִי עָלָיו חוֹב עֲדַיִן. אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה הַהַלְוָאָה לִזְמַן וְלֹא הִגִּיעַ זְמַן לְפָרְעָהּ וַחֲזָקָה הִיא שֶׁאֵין אָדָם פּוֹרֵעַ בְּתוֹךְ זְמַנּוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁנִּדּוּהוּ עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן וּמֵת בְּנִדּוּיוֹ. כָּל אֵלּוּ גּוֹבִין מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה. אֲבָל אִם בָּאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁהָיָה חַיָּב לָזֶה מָנֶה אוֹ בְּפָנֵינוּ הִלְוָהוּ אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִן הַיּוֹרֵשׁ כְּלוּם שֶׁמָּא פְּרָעוֹ שֶׁהַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בְּעֵדִים אֵין צָרִיךְ לְפָרְעוֹ בְּעֵדִים. וְכֵן אִם מוֹצִיא כְּתַב יַד אֲבִיהֶן שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה בּוֹ כְּלוּם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "לוֶֹה שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מִטַּלְטְלִין וְיֵשׁ לוֹ קַרְקַע אִם נוֹדַע לְבֵית דִּין שֶׁתּוֹלֶה מְעוֹתָיו בְּיַד אֲחֵרִים כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לִמְכֹּר וְלִתֵּן לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ. וְאִם לֹא נוֹדַע לָהֶם דָּבָר זֶה מַחְרִימִין עַל מִי שֶׁיֵּדַע לוֹ מִטַּלְטְלִין וְלֹא יְבִיאֵם. וְאַחַר כָּךְ יוֹרְדִין לְבֵינוֹנִית שֶׁבִּנְכָסָיו וּמַגְבִּין לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּזְמַן שֶׁנִּפְרָעִין מִן הַלּוֶֹה עַצְמוֹ. אֲבָל הַבָּא לִפָּרַע מִן הַיּוֹרֵשׁ בֵּין קָטָן בֵּין גָּדוֹל לֹא יִפָּרַע מִן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין אֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ מֻפְקָדִין אוֹ מִלְוֶה אֵצֶל אֲחֵרִים. שֶׁהַמִּטַּלְטְלִין אֵינָן תַּחַת שִׁעְבּוּד בַּעַל חוֹב מִן הַתּוֹרָה: \n", + "מִצְוָה עַל הַיְתוֹמִין לִפְרֹעַ חוֹב אֲבִיהֶן מִן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁהִנִּיחַ. וְאִם לֹא רָצָה הַיּוֹרֵשׁ לִתֵּן אֵין כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ. וְאִם תָּפַס בַּעַל חוֹב מֵחַיִּים גּוֹבֶה מֵהֶן. טָעַן שֶׁמֵּחַיִּים תְּפָסָן וְהַיּוֹרֵשׁ טָעַן שֶׁאַחַר מִיתָה תָּפַס עַל הַיּוֹרֵשׁ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה אוֹ יִשָּׁבַע הַמַּלְוֶה שֶׁכָּךְ וְכָךְ הוּא חַיָּב לוֹ וְיָכוֹל לִטְעֹן עַד כְּדֵי דְּמֵיהֶן וְכוֹלֵל בִּשְׁבוּעָתוֹ שֶׁמֵּחַיִּים תָּפַס. הָיוּ הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁתָּפַס שְׁטָרוֹת וְטָעַן שֶׁהֵן מַשְׁכּוֹן בְּיָדוֹ עַל חוֹבוֹ וְשֶׁמֵּחַיִּים תָּפַס. עַל הַמַּלְוֶה לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁמֵּחַיִּים תָּפַס. וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה יַחְזִיר לַיּוֹרְשִׁים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ טוֹעֵן לִקְנוֹת גּוּפָם אֶלָּא לָרְאָיָה שֶׁבָּהֶן: \n", + "יְתוֹמִים שֶׁגָּבוּ קַרְקַע בְּחוֹב שֶׁהָיָה לַאֲבִיהֶן אֵצֶל אֲחֵרִים יֵשׁ לְבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁל אֲבִיהֶם לַחְזֹר וְלִגְבּוֹת אוֹתָהּ מֵהֶן שֶׁהֲרֵי קַרְקַע זוֹ שֶׁל אֲבִיהֶם הִיא: \n", + "רְאוּבֵן שֶׁמָּכַר שָׂדֶה לְשִׁמְעוֹן בְּאַחֲרָיוּת וְזָקַף שִׁמְעוֹן דְּמֵי הַשָּׂדֶה עָלָיו מִלְוֶה לִרְאוּבֵן וּמֵת רְאוּבֵן וּבָא בַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁל רְאוּבֵן לִטְרֹף מִשִּׁמְעוֹן הַשָּׂדֶה וּפִיְּסוֹ שִׁמְעוֹן בְּמָעוֹת וְהָלַךְ לוֹ. הַדִּין נוֹתֵן שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי רְאוּבֵן וְיִתְבְּעוּ שִׁמְעוֹן בַּמִּלְוֶה שֶׁזָּקַף עָלָיו שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ מְשֻׁעְבֶּדֶת לְבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁל רְאוּבֵן. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיָה שִׁמְעוֹן פִּקֵּחַ נוֹתֵן לָהֶן הַקַּרְקַע שֶׁלָּקַח מֵרְאוּבֵן בַּמִּלְוֶה שֶׁזָּקַף עַל עַצְמוֹ וְחוֹזֵר וְטוֹרֵף אוֹתָהּ מֵהֶן מִפְּנֵי הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁנָּתַן לְבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁל רְאוּבֵן כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִטְרֹף אוֹתָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁהֲרֵי בְּאַחֲרָיוּת לְקָחָהּ מֵרְאוּבֵן: \n", + "כְּבָר תִּקְּנוּ גְּאוֹנִים הָאַחֲרוֹנִים כֻּלָּם שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מִטַּלְטְלִין מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין. וְכֵן דָּנִין יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּכָל בֵּית דִּין שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם. אֲבָל בַּמַּעֲרָב הָיוּ כּוֹתְבִין בְּשִׁטְרֵי חוֹבוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִגְבּוֹת מִן הַקַּרְקַע וּמִן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין בֵּין בְּחַיָּיו בֵּין אַחַר מוֹתוֹ וְנִמְצָא גּוֹבֶה עַל תְּנַאי זֶה יוֹתֵר מִן הַתַּקָּנָה. וּסְיָג גָּדוֹל עָשׂוּ בַּדָּבָר שֶׁמָּא לֹא יֵדַע הַלּוֶֹה בְּתַקָּנָה זוֹ וְנִמְצָא מָמוֹן יְתוֹמִים יוֹצֵא שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין. שֶׁאֵין כֹּחַ בְּתַקָּנַת אַחֲרוֹנִים לְחַיֵּב בָּהּ יְתוֹמִים: \n" + ], + [ + "אֵין נִפְרָעִין מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיוּ גְּדוֹלִים. אֲבָל יוֹרְשִׁין קְטַנִּים אֵין נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן שְׁטַר חוֹב: \n", + "וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה בּוֹ כָּל תְּנַאי שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם לֹא יִפָּרַע בּוֹ הַמַּלְוֶה כְּלוּם עַד שֶׁיַּגְדִּילוּ הַיְתוֹמִים שֶׁמָּא יֵשׁ לָהֶן רְאָיָה שֶׁשּׁוֹבְרִין בָּהּ אֶת הַשְּׁטָר: \n", + "הָיְתָה הַמִּלְוֶה רִבִּית שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁהֲרֵי הָרִבִּית אוֹכֶלֶת בְּנִכְסֵיהֶן מַעֲמִידִין לָהֶם אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס וְנִזְקָקִין לְנִכְסֵיהֶן וּמוֹכְרִין וּפוֹרְעִין הַחוֹב. וְכֵן אִשָּׁה שֶׁתָּבְעָה כְּתֻבָּתָהּ בֵּין אַלְמָנָה בֵּין גְּרוּשָׁה מַעֲמִידִים לָהֶם אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס וְנִזְקָקִין מִשּׁוּם חֵן הָאִשָּׁה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לָהּ כְּלוּם שֶׁתִּנָּשֵׂא בּוֹ הָאִשָּׁה לְאַחֵר. לְפִיכָךְ אִם קָפְצָה הָאִשָּׁה וְנִשֵּׂאת וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאת לִתְבֹּעַ כְּתֻבָּתָהּ מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים אֵין נִזְקָקִין לָהּ עַד שֶׁיִּגְדְּלוּ הַיְתוֹמִים שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת וַהֲרֵי נִשֵּׂאת: \n", + "הוֹרוּ מִקְצָת הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁאִם הָיוּ הַנְּכָסִים כְּנֶגֶד הַכְּתֻבָּה בִּלְבַד אוֹ פְּחוּתִים מִמֶּנָּה אֵין נִזְקָקִין לָהּ שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין כָּאן זְכוּת לַיְתוֹמִים שֶׁלֹּא אָמְרוּ נִזְקָקִין לְנִכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים לְהִפָּרַע מֵהֶן הַכְּתוּבָה אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִפְחֲתוּ הַנְּכָסִים מֵחֲמַת הַמְּזוֹנוֹת וְזֹאת הוֹאִיל וְהִיא נוֹטֶלֶת הַכּל מַה זְּכוּת יֵשׁ לַיְתוֹמִים הַקְּטַנִּים בְּדָבָר זֶה עַד שֶׁנִּזְקָקִין לָהֶן. וְלֹא חָשׁוּ לְחֵן הָאִשָּׁה: \n", + "צִוָּה הַמּוֹרִישָׁן וְאָמַר תְּנוּ מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי נִזְקָקִין אַחַר שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין לָהֶן אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לִטְעֹן טַעֲנָתָם. אָמַר תְּנוּ מָנֶה זֶה לִפְלוֹנִי אוֹ שָׂדֶה זוֹ לִפְלוֹנִי נוֹתְנִין וְאֵין צְרִיכִים לְהַעֲמִיד לָהֶן אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס: \n", + "נִמְצֵאת קַרְקַע שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלָּהֶן אֶלָּא טָעַן הַטּוֹעֵן שֶׁהִיא גֵּזֶל בְּיַד מוֹרִישָׁיו נִזְקָקִין לָהֶן וּמַעֲמִידִים לָהֶן אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לִטְעֹן וְלָדוּן. אִם נִמְצֵאת גְּזוּלָה מַחְזִירִים אוֹתָהּ לִבְעָלֶיהָ. וְכֵן קָטָן שֶׁתָּקַף בַּעֲבָדָיו וְיָרַד לְתוֹךְ שְׂדֵה חֲבֵרוֹ וּכְבָשָׁהּ אֵין אוֹמְרִין נַמְתִּין לוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּגְדִּיל אֶלָּא מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדוֹ וְלִכְשֶׁיַּגְדִּיל אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ עֵדִים יָבִיא עֵדָיו: \n", + "קַרְקַע שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּחֶזְקַת קְטַנִּים וּבָא אַחֵר וְטָעַן שֶׁהִיא לְקוּחָה מִמּוֹרִישָׁן וְיֵשׁ לוֹ עֵדִים שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בָּהּ וַאֲכָלָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה בְּחַיֵּי אֲבִיהֶן אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדָן עַד שֶׁיַּגְדִּילוּ שֶׁאֵין מְקַבְּלִין עֵדִים שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי בַּעַל דִּין וְהַקָּטָן כְּאִלּוּ אֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד כָּאן הוּא חָשׁוּב. אֲבָל אִם הוֹצִיא שְׁטָר שֶׁהִיא לְקוּחָה בְּיָדוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מְקַיֵּם אֶת הַשְּׁטָר וּמוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדָן אַחַר שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִים לָהֶם אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס: \n", + "כְּשֶׁנִּזְקָקִין בֵּית דִּין לְנִכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים לִמְכֹּר שָׁמִין אֶת הַקַּרְקַע וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַכְרִיזִין עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם רְצוּפִין אוֹ שִׁשִּׁים יוֹם שֵׁנִי וַחֲמִישִׁי. וּמַכְרִיזִים בַּבֹּקֶר וּבָעֶרֶב בִּשְׁעַת הַכְנָסַת פּוֹעֲלִים וּבִשְׁעַת הוֹצָאַת פּוֹעֲלִין וְכָל מִי שֶׁרוֹצֶה לִקְנוֹת יוֹלִיךְ הַפּוֹעֲלִין לְבַקֵּר לוֹ. וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁמַּכְרִיזִין מְסַיְּמִים אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה בִּמְצָרֶיהָ וּמוֹדִיעִין כַּמָּה יָפָה וּבְכַמָּה הוּא שׁוּמָה וּמִפְּנֵי מָה רוֹצִים לְמָכְרָהּ אִם לְהַגְבּוֹת לְבַעַל חוֹב אוֹ לִכְתֻבַּת אִשָּׁה לְפִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ מִי שֶׁרוֹצֶה לִתֵּן לְבַעַל חוֹב וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁרוֹצֶה לְהַגְבּוֹת לְאִשָּׁה: \n", + "וּכְשֶׁכּוֹתְבִין הָאַדְרַכְתָּא עַל נִכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים בֵּין גְּדוֹלִים בֵּין קְטַנִּים כּוֹתְבִין בָּהּ וְהִכַּרְנוּ שֶׁהַנְּכָסִים הָאֵלּוּ הֵן שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי הַמֵּת. וְאִם לֹא כָּתְבוּ כָּךְ הֲרֵי אַדְרַכְתָּא זוֹ פְּסוּלָה וְאֵין אוֹכְלִין בָּהּ פֵּרוֹת אֲפִלּוּ לְאַחַר שֶׁשָּׁלְמוּ הַהַכְרָזוֹת: \n", + "בֵּית דִּין שֶׁמָּכְרוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּהַכְרָזָה נַעֲשׂוּ כְּמִי שֶׁטָּעוּ בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה וְחוֹזְרִים וּמוֹכְרִין בְּהַכְרָזָה. וּבֵית דִּין שֶׁמָּכְרוּ הָאַחֲרָיוּת עַל הַיְתוֹמִים: \n", + "וּבֵית דִּין שֶׁהִכְרִיזוּ כָּרָאוּי וּבָדְקוּ יָפֶה יָפֶה וְדִקְדְּקוּ בַּשּׁוּמָא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁטָּעוּ וּמָכְרוּ שְׁוֵה מָנֶה בְּמָאתַיִם אוֹ מָאתַיִם בְּמָנֶה הֲרֵי מִכְרָן קַיָּם. אֲבָל אִם לֹא בָּדְקוּ בַּשּׁוּמָא וְלֹא כָּתְבוּ אִגֶּרֶת בִּקֹּרֶת שֶׁהִיא דִּקְדּוּק הַשּׁוּמָא וְהַהַכְרָזָה וְטָעוּ וְהוֹתִירוּ שְׁתוּת אוֹ פָּחֲתוּ שְׁתוּת מִכְרָן בָּטֵל. פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁתוּת מִכְרָן קַיָּם. וְכֵן אִם מָכְרוּ קַרְקַע בְּעֵת שֶׁאֵינָן צְרִיכִין לְהַכְרִיז עָלֶיהָ וְטָעוּ שְׁתוּת אוֹ הוֹתִירוּ שְׁתוּת מִכְרָן בָּטֵל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִכְרִיזוּ. פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁתוּת מִכְרָן קַיָּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִכְרִיזוּ שֶׁאֵינָן צְרִיכִין הַכְרָזָה בְּאוֹתוֹ הָעֵת. אֵיזֶהוּ הָעֵת שֶׁאֵינָן צְרִיכִין הַכְרָזָה בְּעֵת שֶׁיִּמְכְּרוּ קַרְקַע לִקְבוּרָה אוֹ לִמְזוֹן הָאִשָּׁה וְהַבָּנוֹת אוֹ לִתֵּן מְנַת הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵין צְרִיכִין הַכְרָזָה לְפִי שֶׁהַדָּבָר נָחוּץ. וְכֵן בֵּית דִּין שֶׁמָּכְרוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָן טְעוּנִין הַכְרָזָה וְטָעוּ בִּשְׁתוּת מִכְרָן בָּטֵל. פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁתוּת מִכְרָן קַיָּם. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין מַכְרִיזִין עֲלֵיהֶם הָעֲבָדִים וְהַשְּׁטָרוֹת וְהַמִּטַּלְטְלִין. הָעֲבָדִים שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁמְעוּ וְיִבְרְחוּ. וְהַשְּׁטָרוֹת וְהַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁמָּא יִגָּנְבוּ. לְפִיכָךְ שָׁמִין אוֹתָן בְּבֵית דִּין וּמוֹכְרִין אוֹתָן מִיָּד. וְאִם הַשּׁוּק קָרוֹב לַמְּדִינָה מוֹלִיכִין אוֹתָן לַשּׁוּק: \n" + ], + [ + "מַלְוְה שֶׁבָּא לְהִפָּרַע בַּשְּׁטָר שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי לוֶֹה אִם יְכוֹלִין בֵּית דִּין לִשְׁלֹחַ אֵלָיו וּלְהוֹדִיעוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּעֲמֹד עִמּוֹ בַּדִּין שׁוֹלְחִין וּמוֹדִיעִין לוֹ. וְאִם אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְהוֹדִיעוֹ בִּמְהֵרָה אוֹמְרִים לַמַּלְוֶה שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע וְיִטּל מִנְּכָסָיו בֵּין מִן הַקַּרְקַע בֵּין מִן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִים. וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְשׁוֹבֵר. וְדִין זֶה תַּקָּנַת חֲכָמִים הוּא כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד נוֹטֵל מְעוֹתָיו שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ וְהוֹלֵךְ וְיוֹשֵׁב לוֹ בִּמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת וְנִמְצָא נוֹעֵל דֶּלֶת בִּפְנֵי לוִֹין: ", + "שָׁלֹשׁ רְאָיוֹת צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא לְבֵית דִּין וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִפָּרַע שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו. רְאָיָה רִאשׁוֹנָה לְקַיֵּם הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ. רְאָיָה שְׁנִיָּה שֶׁבַּעַל חוֹבוֹ בִּמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת וְאֵינוֹ מָצוּי בְּכָאן לַעֲמֹד עִמּוֹ בַּדִּין. רְאָיָה שְׁלִישִׁית שֶׁאֵלּוּ נְכָסִים שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי הַלּוֶֹה הֵם: ", + "מַלְוֶה שֶׁבָּא לְבֵית דִּין וְהֵבִיא מַשְׁכּוֹן בְּיָדוֹ וְאָמַר זֶה מַשְׁכּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי הוּא וַאֲנִי רוֹצֶה לְמָכְרוֹ וּלְהִפָּרַע חוֹבִי. אֵין בֵּית דִּין נִזְקָקִין לוֹמַר לוֹ הַמְתֵּן עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא לוֶֹה וְיִטְעֹן שֶׁאִם רוֹצֶה לוֹמַר לָקוּחַ הוּא בְּיָדִי אוֹמֵר וּמַשִּׂיאִין לוֹ עֵצָה לְמָכְרוֹ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּדַע לוֶֹה בְּכַמָּה נִמְכַּר. וְכֵן הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן וּמֵת הַלּוֶֹה וְהַמַּלְוֶה בֵּין שֶׁמֵּת הַלּוֶֹה תְּחִלָּה בֵּין שֶׁמֵּת מַלְוֶה תְּחִלָּה הוֹאִיל וְהוּא נִפְרָע מִמַּה שֶּׁתַּחַת יָדוֹ וְאִלּוּ רָצָה לוֹמַר לָקוּחַ הוּא בְּיָדִי אוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ וְנוֹטֵל כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע עַל עַצְמוֹ שֶׁל מַשְׁכּוֹן אֶלָּא עַל הַמָּמוֹן שֶׁלּוֹקֵחַ. שֶׁאִלּוּ אָמַר עַל עַצְמוֹ שֶׁל חֵפֶץ זֶה אַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי אַתָּה נְתַתּוֹ לִי הָיָה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ שָׁם עֵדִים שֶׁחֵפֶץ זֶה מַשְׁכּוֹן בְּיָדוֹ וְלֹא יָדְעוּ עַל כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטּל אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה וְהוֹאִיל וְאֵין שָׁם עֵדִים וְיָכוֹל לוֹמַר שֶׁלִּי הוּא נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר יֵשׁ לִי עָלָיו כָּךְ וְכָךְ בַּשְּׁבוּעָה עַצְמָהּ שֶׁהָיָה נִשְׁבָּע אִם הָיוּ שָׁם עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא מַשְׁכּוֹן. שֶׁאֵין אוֹמְרִין מִגּוֹ לְפָטְרוֹ מִשְּׁבוּעָה אֶלָּא לְפָטְרוֹ מִמָּמוֹן שֶׁלֹּא יַחְזִיר הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן עַד שֶׁיִּטּל מַה שֶּׁטָּעַן: ", + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן וְאָבַד אוֹ נִגְנַב בְּלֹא אֹנֶס שֶׁהֲרֵי הַמַּלְוֶה חַיָּב בִּדְמֵי הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאָמַר הַמַּלְוֶה סֶלַע הִלְוֵיתִיךָ עָלָיו וּשְׁנֵי דִּינָרִין הָיָה שָׁוֶה. וְלוֶֹה אוֹמֵר סֶלַע הִלְוֵיתַנִי עָלָיו וְסֶלַע הָיָה שָׁוֶה. הֲרֵי הַמַּלְוֶה נִשְׁבָּע תְּחִלָּה שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וְהַלּוֶֹה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁהָיָה שָׁוֶה כְּנֶגֶד הַחוֹב וְנִפְטָר. אָמַר הַמַּלְוֶה סֶלַע הִלְוֵיתִיךָ עָלָיו וְשֶׁקֶל הָיָה שָׁוֶה וְהַלּוֶֹה אוֹמֵר סֶלַע הִלְוֵיתַנִי עָלָיו וּשְׁלֹשָׁה דִּינָרִין הָיָה שָׁוֶה יִשָּׁבַע הַמַּלְוֶה תְּחִלָּה שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִשָּׁבַע הַלּוֶֹה כַּמָּה הָיָה שָׁוֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי הוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת וִישַׁלֵּם הַדִּינָר. אָמַר הַלּוֶֹה סֶלַע הִלְוֵיתַנִי עָלָיו וּשְׁתַּיִם הָיָה שָׁוֶה וְהַמַּלְוֶה אוֹמֵר סֶלַע הִלְוֵיתִיךָ עָלָיו וְסֶלַע הָיָה שָׁוֶה יִשָּׁבַע הַמַּלְוֶה שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וְכוֹלֵל בִּשְׁבוּעָתוֹ שֶׁהָיָה הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן כְּנֶגֶד הַחוֹב. אָמַר הַלּוֶֹה סֶלַע הִלְוֵיתַנִי עָלָיו וּשְׁתַּיִם הָיָה שָׁוֶה וְהַמַּלְוֶה אוֹמֵר סֶלַע הִלְוֵיתִיךָ עָלָיו וַחֲמִשָּׁה דִּינָרִין הָיָה שָׁוֶה יִשָּׁבַע הַמַּלְוֶה שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וְיִכְלל שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה שָׁוֶה יֶתֶר עַל חֲמִשָּׁה דִּינָרִים וִישַׁלֵּם הַדִּינָר. סֶלַע הִלְוֵיתִיךָ עָלָיו וּשְׁנֵי דִּינָרִין הָיָה שָׁוֶה וְהַלּוֶֹה אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ דָּמָיו יִשָּׁבַע מַלְוֶה שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וְכוֹלֵל בִּשְׁבוּעָתוֹ שֶׁשְּׁנֵי דִּינָרִין הָיָה שָׁוֶה וִישַׁלֵּם הַלּוֶֹה שְׁאָר הַחוֹב שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא יוֹדֵעַ בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אִם פְּרָעוֹ אִם לֹא פְּרָעוֹ. סֶלַע הִלְוֵיתַנִי עָלָיו וּשְׁתַּיִם הָיָה שָׁוֶה וְהַמַּלְוֶה אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ דָּמָיו יִשָּׁבַע הַמַּלְוֶה שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וְיִכְלל שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁדָּמָיו יֶתֶר עַל הַחוֹב אֲפִלּוּ פְּרוּטָה אַחַת וְיִפָּטֵר שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא חִיֵּב עַצְמוֹ בִּכְלוּם. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר הַמַּלְוֶה אֲנִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהָיָה שָׁוֶה יֶתֶר עַל הַחוֹב אֲבָל אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ כַּמָּה הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם כָּל מַה שֶּׁטָּעַן הַלּוֶֹה בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה כְּמִי שֶׁאָמַר חֲמִשִּׁים יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּיָדִי וַחֲמִשִּׁים אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא מְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִשָּׁבַע כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַחֲרִים עַל מִי שֶׁטּוֹעֵן שֶׁקֶר: ", + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ וְקָבַע לוֹ זְמַן לְפָרְעוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְתָבְעוֹ עַד סוֹף הַזְּמַן בֵּין בְּמִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה בֵּין בְּמִלְוֶה בִּשְׁטָר בֵּין שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן בֵּין שֶׁמֵּת לוֶֹה בֵּין שֶׁמֵּת מַלְוֶה. וּסְתָם מִלְוֶה שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם בֵּין בִּשְׁטָר בֵּין עַל פֶּה בֵּין עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן. וְאִם הִתְנָה שֶׁיִּתְבַּע בְּכָל זְמַן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה יֵשׁ לוֹ לְתָבְעוֹ בְּיוֹמוֹ שֶׁתְּנַאי מָמוֹן הוּא: ", + "טָעַן הַמַּלְוֶה וְאָמַר הַיּוֹם סוֹף הַזְּמַן שֶׁקָּבַעְתִּי וְהַלּוֶֹה אוֹמֵר עַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים קָבַעְתָּ הַלּוֶֹה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת. וְאִם הָיָה שָׁם עֵד אֶחָד שֶׁהַיּוֹם סוֹף זְמַנּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הַתּוֹרָה כִּשְׁאָר הַטְּעָנוֹת. זֶה אוֹמֵר חֲמִשָּׁה יָמִים נִשְׁאָר מִן הַזְּמַן וְזֶה אוֹמֵר עֲשָׂרָה אוֹמְרִים לַמַּלְוֶה הַמְתֵּן עוֹד עַד סוֹף הַחֲמִשָּׁה וְיִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת שֶׁנִּשְׁאַר עוֹד חֲמִשָּׁה יָמִים: ", + "הָיְתָה הַמִּלְוֶה בִּשְׁטָר וְטָעַן הַלּוֶֹה שֶׁזְּמַן קָבַעְתָּ לִי. יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע בַּעַל חוֹב הֶסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא קָבַע לוֹ זְמַן וְיִטּל הַמַּלְוֶה מִיָּד: ", + "הַמִּלְוֶה נִתְּנָה לִתָּבַע בְּכָל מָקוֹם. כֵּיצַד. הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בַּיִּשּׁוּב וּתְבָעוֹ בַּמִּדְבָּר אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִדְחוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא חַיָּב לִפְרֹעַ לוֹ בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁיִּתְבָּעֶנּוּ. בָּא הַלּוֶֹה לְפָרְעוֹ בַּמִּדְבָּר הָרְשׁוּת בְּיַד הַמַּלְוֶה אִם רָצָה מְקַבֵּל וְאִם רָצָה אוֹמֵר לוֹ אֵינִי נִפְרָע אֶלָּא בַּיִּשּׁוּב כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁנָּתַתִּי לְךָ בְּיִשּׁוּב. וַהֲרֵי הֵן בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּפְרָעֶנּוּ בַּיִּשּׁוּב: " + ], + [ + "הַפּוֹגֵם אֶת שְׁטָרוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁעֵד אֶחָד מֵעִיד עַל שְׁטָרוֹ שֶׁהוּא פָּרוּעַ. וְהַבָּא לִפָּרַע שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַלּוֶֹה. וְהַטּוֹרֵף מִיַּד הַלּוֹקֵחַ. וְהַנִּפְרָעִים מִן הַיּוֹרֵשׁ בֵּין קָטָן בֵּין גָּדוֹל. לֹא יִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה כְּעֵין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה. (וְאוֹמֵר) לוֹ כְּשֶׁיִּתְבַּע הִשָּׁבַע וְאַחַר כָּךְ תִּטּל. וְאִם הָיָה הַחוֹב לִזְמַן וְתָבַע בִּזְמַנּוֹ יִפָּרַע שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה. עָבַר זְמַנּוֹ לֹא יִגְבֶּה אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה: \n", + "הַתּוֹבֵעַ אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ לְפָרְעוֹ וְטָעַן הַלּוֶֹה שֶׁפָּרַע שְׁטָר זֶה אוֹ מִקְצָתוֹ וּבַעַל הַשְּׁטָר אוֹמֵר לֹא פָּרַעְתָּ כְּלוּם אוֹמְרִים לוֹ שַׁלֵּם לוֹ. טָעַן הַלּוֶֹה וְאָמַר יִשָּׁבַע לִי שֶׁלֹּא פְּרַעְתִּיו וְיִטּל מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ שֶׁלֹּא פְּרָעוֹ כְּלוּם אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא פְּרָעוֹ אֶלָּא כָּךְ וְכָךְ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִטּל. וְאִם הָיָה הַמַּלְוֶה תַּלְמִיד חָכָם אֵין נִזְקָקִין לִשְׁבוּעָתוֹ: \n", + "הוֹצִיא עָלָיו שְׁטָר מְקֻיָּם וְהַלּוֶֹה טוֹעֵן וְאוֹמֵר שְׁטָר מְזֻיָּף הוּא וּמֵעוֹלָם לֹא כָּתַבְתִּי שְׁטָר זֶה. אוֹ שֶׁטָּעַן שֶׁחוֹב זֶה רִבִּית הוּא אוֹ אֲבַק רִבִּית. אוֹ שֶׁטָּעַן שֶׁהוּא שְׁטַר אֲמָנָה אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר כָּתַבְתִּי לִלְווֹת וְלֹא לָוִיתִי. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר טוֹעֵן טַעֲנָה שֶׁאִם הוֹדָה בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר הָיָה הַשְּׁטָר בָּטֵל וְהַמַּלְוֶה עוֹמֵד בִּשְׁטָרוֹ וְאוֹמֵר שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁקֶר טוֹעֵן וְאָמַר הַלּוֶֹה יִשָּׁבַע לִי וְיִטּל הֲרֵי זוֹ מַחְלֹקֶת בֵּין הַגְּאוֹנִים יֵשׁ מִי שֶׁהוֹרָה שֶׁחַיָּב בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר לְהַשְׁבִּיעַ כְּעֵין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה כְּמִי שֶׁטָּעַן עָלָיו שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ. וְרַבּוֹתַי הוֹרוּ שֶׁלֹּא יִשָּׁבַע הַמַּלְוֶה אֶלָּא אִם טָעַן עָלָיו הַלּוֶֹה שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ בִּלְבַד. שֶׁהֲרֵי הוֹדָה בַּשְּׁטָר וּלְפֵרָעוֹן הוּא עוֹמֵד. אֲבָל כָּל אֵלּוּ הַטְּעָנוֹת לֹא כָּל הֵימֶנּוּ לְבַטֵּל שְׁטָר מְקֻיָּם אֶלָּא יְשַׁלֵּם וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִטְעֹן עַל הַמַּלְוֶה בְּמַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה שֶׁאִם יוֹדֶה יַחְזִיר לוֹ וְאִם כָּפַר יִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת. וְלָזֶה דַּעְתִּי נוֹטָה: \n", + "הַמּוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב עַל חֲבֵרוֹ מַלְוֶה אוֹמֵר לֹא נִפְרַעְתִּי כְּלוּם וְלוֶֹה אוֹמֵר פָּרַעְתִּי מֶחֱצָה וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִים שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ כֻּלּוֹ נִשְׁבָּע הַלּוֶֹה וְנוֹתֵן מֶחֱצָה שֶׁהֲרֵי הוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת וְאֵינוֹ כְּמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵדָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵימַת הַשְּׁטָר עָלָיו. וְאֵין הַמַּלְוֶה גּוֹבֶה הַמֶּחֱצָה אֶלָּא מִבְּנֵי חוֹרִין שֶׁהֲרֵי הַלָּקוֹחוֹת אוֹמְרִים אָנוּ עַל הָעֵדִים נִסְמֹךְ וַהֲרֵי בִּטְּלוּ שְׁטָר זֶה: \n", + "הוֹצִיא עָלָיו שְׁטַר חוֹב שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְקַיְּמוֹ וְאָמַר הַלּוֶֹה אֱמֶת שֶׁאֲנִי כָּתַבְתִּי שְׁטָר זֶה אֲבָל פְּרַעְתִּיו אוֹ אֲמָנָה הוּא אוֹ כָּתַבְתִּי לִלְווֹת וַעֲדַיִן לֹא לָוִיתִי וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה הוֹאִיל וְאִם רָצָה אָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם וַהֲרֵי מִפִּיו נִתְקַיֵּם הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן וְיִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת וְיִפָּטֵר. וְאִם קִיְּמוֹ הַמַּלְוֶה אַחַר כָּךְ בְּבֵית דִּין הֲרֵי הוּא כִּשְׁאָר הַשְּׁטָרוֹת: \n", + "הוֹצִיא עָלָיו שְׁטָר מְקֻיָּם וְאָמַר הַלּוֶֹה מְזֻיָּף הוּא וּמֵעוֹלָם לֹא כְּתַבְתִּיו אוֹ שְׁטַר אֲמָנָה הוּא וְאָמַר הַמַּלְוֶה כֵּן הַדְּבָרִים אֲבָל שְׁטָר כָּשֵׁר הָיָה לִי וְאָבַד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַמַּלְוֶה הוּא שֶׁשָּׁבַר אֶת שְׁטָרוֹ וְאִלּוּ רָצָה אָמַר אֵינוֹ מְזֻיָּף שֶׁהֲרֵי נִתְקַיֵּם בְּבֵית דִּין אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה בּוֹ כְּלוּם אֶלָּא נִשְׁבָּע הַלּוֶֹה הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר שֶׁהֲרֵי זֶה הַשְּׁטָר כְּחֶרֶס הוּא חָשׁוּב: \n", + "שְׁטָר שֶׁלָּוָה בּוֹ וּפְרָעוֹ אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר וְלוֶֹה בּוֹ שֶׁכְּבָר נִמְחַל שִׁעְבּוּדוֹ וְנַעֲשָׂה כְּחֶרֶס: \n", + "הַמּוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב מְקֻיָּם עַל חֲבֵרוֹ וְאָמַר הַלּוֶֹה הֲלֹא פְּרָעְתִּיךָ וְאָמַר לוֹ הַמַּלְוֶה כֵּן הָיָה אֲבָל חָזַרְתִּי וְהֶחְזַרְתִּי לְךָ הַמָּעוֹת וְהִלְוֵיתִי אוֹתְךָ פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה הֲרֵי בָּטֵל הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁנִּפְרַע וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּחֶרֶס. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ הֶחְזַרְתִּי לְךָ הַמָּעוֹת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ טוֹבוֹת עַד שֶׁתַּחֲלִיפֵם לֹא בָּטֵל הַשְּׁטָר וַעֲדַיִן שִׁעְבּוּדוֹ קַיָּם: \n", + "הוֹצִיא עָלָיו שְׁטָר מְקֻיָּם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עָלָיו מָנֶה וְאָמַר לוֹ הַלּוֶֹה הֲלֹא פְּרָעתִיךָ בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וּבָאוּ אֵלּוּ וְהֵעִידוּ שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ אֲבָל לֹא הִזְכִּיר לוֹ אֶת הַשְּׁטָר וְאָמַר לוֹ הַמַּלְוֶה כֵּן הוּא שֶׁפָּרַעְתָּ אֲבָל חוֹב אַחֵר פָּרַעְתָּ שֶׁהָיָה לִי אֶצְלְךָ הֲרֵי בָּטֵל הַשְּׁטָר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהֵעִידוּ שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ בְּתוֹרַת פֵּרָעוֹן אֲבָל אִם רָאוּהוּ נוֹתֵן לוֹ מָעוֹת וְלֹא יָדְעוּ אִם הוּא בְּתוֹרַת פֵּרָעוֹן אוֹ בְּתוֹרַת פִּקָּדוֹן אוֹ בְּתוֹרַת מַתָּנָה. אִם אָמַר בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם הֲרֵי הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן וּבָטֵל הַשְּׁטָר. וְאִם אָמַר פֵּרָעוֹן שֶׁל חוֹב אַחֵר הוּא הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן וְנִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל מַה שֶׁבַּשְּׁטָר שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא פְּרָעוֹ בְּעֵדִים. מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר מַתָּנָה נְתָנָם לִי נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר פֵּרָעוֹן שֶׁל חוֹב אַחֵר הֵן. אָמַר לוֹ הַלּוֶֹה וַהֲלֹא שְׁטַר חוֹב זֶה דְּמֵי שׁוֹר שֶׁלָּקַחְתִּי מִמְּךָ הוּא וְאַתָּה גָּבִיתָ דְּמֵי בְּשָׂרוֹ. וְאָמַר לוֹ בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר כֵּן אֲנִי גָּבִיתִי אֶת דָּמָיו מֵחוֹב אַחֵר שֶׁהָיָה לִי אֶצְלְךָ. הוֹאִיל וְהוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ שֶׁדְּמֵי הַשּׁוֹר הוּא הַחוֹב וּמִדָּמָיו נִפְרַע בָּטֵל הַשְּׁטָר. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים שֶׁפָּרַע מִדָּמוֹ יִשָּׁבַע הַלּוֶֹה הֶסֵּת שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "הוֹצִיא עָלָיו שְׁטַר חוֹב בְּעֵד אֶחָד וְלוֶֹה טוֹעֵן פָּרַעְתִּי הֲרֵי זֶה מְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵינִי יָכוֹל לִשָּׁבַע וּמְשַׁלֵּם. טָעַן וְאָמַר יִשָּׁבַע לִי שֶׁלֹּא פְּרַעְתִּיו הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ בַּשְּׁטָר שְׁנֵי עֵדִים וְאָמַר יִשָּׁבַע לִי שֶׁלֹּא פְּרַעְתִּיו הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "וְכֵן הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁהַכּוֹפֵר בְּמִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה בְּבֵית דִּין וּבָא עֵד אֶחָד שֶׁלָּוָה הֲרֵי זֶה יִשָּׁבַע שְׁבוּעַת הַתּוֹרָה. חָזַר וְאָמַר כֵּן הָיָה לָוִיתִי וּפָרַעְתִּי אוֹ מָחַל לִי אוֹ נִתְחַיֵּב לִי מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר הֲרֵי זֶה מְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִשָּׁבַע וּמְשַׁלֵּם: \n", + "מִי שֶׁטָּעַן שֶׁפָּרַע הַשְּׁטָר וְאָמַר יִשָּׁבַע הַמַּלְוֶה וְיִטּל אוֹמְרִים לוֹ הָבֵא מְעוֹתָיו וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִשָּׁבַע וְיִטּל. אִם אֵין לוֹ כְּלוּם לְשַׁלֵּם מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ כְּתַקָּנַת הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁאֵין לוֹ וְלִכְשֶׁתַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ יִתֵּן לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ וְיַשְׁבִּיעוֹ שֶׁלֹּא פָּרַע וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִתֵּן לוֹ: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ חוֹב עַל חֲבֵרוֹ בִּשְׁטָר וְאָבַד הַשְּׁטָר וַהֲרֵי הָעֵדִים קַיָּמִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ וְטָעַן שֶׁפָּרַע הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת. וְהוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַחוֹב לִזְמַן וַעֲדַיִן לֹא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ לְהִפָּרַע הוֹאִיל וְכָתְבוּ לוֹ הַשְּׁטָר וְאֵין בְּיָדוֹ שְׁטָר וְהַלּוֶֹה טוֹעֵן פָּרַעְתִּי נֶאֱמָן וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ שֶׁאָנוּ חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא פְּרָעוֹ וּלְפִיכָךְ קָרַע הַשְּׁטָר אוֹ שְׂרָפוֹ. וְכֵן הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַשְּׁטָר יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי אַחֵר וְהַלּוֶֹה טוֹעֵן מִמֶּנִּי נָפַל אַחַר שֶׁפָּרַעְתִּי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בְּתוֹךְ זְמַנּוֹ נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵין הַשְּׁטָר בְּיַד הַמַּלְוֶה אֵין שָׁם חֲזָקָה: \n", + "שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵן אוֹחֲזִין בִּשְׁטָר הַמַּלְוֶה אוֹמֵר שֶׁלִּי הוּא וְהוֹצֵאתִיו לְהִפָּרַע בּוֹ מִמְּךָ וְהַלּוֶֹה אוֹמֵר פְּרַעְתִּיו וּמִמֶּנִּי נָפַל. אִם הָיָה הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְקַיְּמוֹ זֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בְּדָמִים אֵלּוּ פָּחוֹת מֵחֶצְיָן וְזֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בַּדָּמִים פָּחוֹת מֵחֶצְיָן וִישַׁלֵּם הַלּוֶֹה מֶחֱצָה. וְאִם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְקַיְּמוֹ יִשָּׁבַע הַלּוֶֹה הֶסֵּת שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ וְיֵלֵךְ לוֹ: \n", + "הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ מָנֶה יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם אוֹ שֶׁאוֹמֵר פְּרַעְתִּיךָ. אָמַר לוֹ הַתּוֹבֵעַ הִשָּׁבַע לִי הֶסֵּת. אָמַר לוֹ הַנִּתְבָּע וַהֲלֹא שְׁטָר יֵשׁ לְךָ עָלַי וְאַתָּה רוֹצֶה לְהַשְׁבִּיעַ אוֹתִי תְּחִלָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ תּוֹצִיא הַשְּׁטָר הַפָּרוּעַ וְתִגְבֶּה בּוֹ. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ הָבֵא הַשְּׁטָר. אָמַר הַמַּלְוֶה אֵין לִי שְׁטָר עָלָיו מֵעוֹלָם אוֹ שְׁטָר הָיָה לִי וְאָבַד הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁאוֹמְרִים לַמַּלְוֶה בַּטֵּל כָּל שְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְךָ קֹדֶם זְמַן זֶה וְאַחַר כָּךְ תַּשְׁבִּיעֵהוּ הֶסֵּת אוֹ הַחֲרֵם חֵרֶם סְתָם וְלֵךְ וּבַקֵּשׁ עַד שֶׁתִּמְצָא הַשְּׁטָר: \n" + ], + [ + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בְּעֵדִים וְאָמַר אַל תִּפְרָעֵנִי אֶלָּא בְּעֵדִים בֵּין שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָה בֵּין שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ אַחַר שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ הֲרֵי זֶה צָרִיךְ לְפָרְעוֹ בְּעֵדִים מִפְּנֵי הַתְּנַאי. טָעַן הַלּוֶֹה וְאָמַר לוֹ וְכֵן עָשִׂיתִי וּפְרַעְתִּיךָ בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וְהָלְכוּ לָהֶם לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם אוֹ מֵתוּ הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן וְנִשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר אַל תִּפְרָעֵנִי אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים אוֹ בִּפְנֵי רוֹפְאִים וְאָמַר לוֹ בִּפְנֵיהֶם פְּרַעְתִּיךָ וְאוֹתָן הָעֵדִים שֶׁפְּרַעְתִּיךָ בִּפְנֵיהֶם מֵתוּ אוֹ הָלְכוּ לָהֶם לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ אַל תִּפְרָעֵנִי אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וְאָמַר לוֹ פְּרַעְתִּיךָ בִּפְנֵי אֲחֵרִים וּמֵתוּ אוֹ הָלְכוּ לָהֶם לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן שֶׁמִּפְּנֵי טַעֲנָה זוֹ הִתְנָה עָלָיו וְאָמַר לוֹ אַל תִּפְרָעֵנִי אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי רְאוּבֵן וְשִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁהֵם עוֹמְדִים עִמּוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִדְחֶה אוֹתוֹ וְיֹאמַר בִּפְנֵי אֲחֵרִים פָּרַעְתִּי וְהָלְכוּ לָהֶם: \n", + "יֵשׁ נֻסְחָאוֹת מִן הַגְּמָרָא שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהֶן שֶׁהָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ אַל תִּפְרָעֵנִי אֶלָּא בְּעֵדִים וְאָמַר לוֹ פְּרַעְתִּיךָ בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וְהָלְכוּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן וְטָעוּת סְפָרִים הוּא וּלְפִיכָךְ טָעוּ הַמּוֹרִים עַל פִּי אוֹתָן הַסְּפָרִים וּכְבָר חָקַרְתִּי עַל הַנֻּסְחָאוֹת הַיְשָׁנוֹת וּמָצָאתִי בָּהֶן שֶׁהוּא נֶאֱמָן וְהִגִּיעַ לְיָדִי בְּמִצְרַיִם מִקְצָת גְּמָרָא יְשָׁנָה כָּתוּב עַל הַגְּוִילִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ כּוֹתְבִין קֹדֶם לַזְּמַן הַזֶּה בְּקָרוֹב חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וּשְׁתֵּי נֻסְחָאוֹת מָצָאתִי מִן הַגְּוִילִים בַּהֲלָכָה זוֹ וּבִשְׁתֵּיהֶם כָּתוּב וְאִם אָמַר פָּרַעְתִּי בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וְהָלְכוּ לָהֶן לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם נֶאֱמָן. וּמִפְּנֵי טָעוּת זוֹ שֶׁאֵרַע לְמִקְצָת הַסְּפָרִים הוֹרוּ מִקְצָת גְּאוֹנִים שֶׁאִם אָמַר לוֹ אַל תִּפְרָעֵנִי אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְרָעוֹ בִּפְנֵי אֲחֵרִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁפָּרְעוּ בִּפְנֵיהֶם וְגַם זוֹ טָעוּת גְּדוֹלָה וְהַדִּין הָאֱמֶת שֶׁאִם בָּאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁפָּרְעוּ בִּפְנֵיהֶם נִפְטָר וְאֵין כָּאן מְקוֹם חֲשָׁשׁ. גַּם הַהוֹרָאָה הַזֹּאת עַל פִּי סִפְרֵיהֶן שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהֶן בְּאוֹתוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לַחֲבֵרוֹ פְּרָעֵנִי בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים שֶׁשָּׁנוּ הֲלָכוֹת וְהָלַךְ וּפְרָעוֹ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים וְטָעוּת סְפָרִים הוּא וּמָצָאתִי בַּגְּוִילִים כָּתוּב אָזַל פַּרְעֵיהּ בֵּינֵיהּ לְבֵין דִּילֵיהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַסְּפָרִים מֻגָּהִין כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ כָּךְ יֵרָאֶה מִדִּין הַגְּמָרָא. וְעוֹד דְּבָרִים שֶׁל דַּעַת הֵן וְכִי מֶה הָיָה לוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת אָמַר לוֹ אַל תִּפְרָעֵנִי אֶלָּא בְּעֵדִים פְּרָעוֹ בְּעֵדִים וְכִי יֵשׁ לוֹ לֶאֱסֹר אֶת הָעֵדִים בְּבֵית הַסֹּהַר כָּל יְמֵיהֶם שֶׁלֹּא יֵלְכוּ וְעוֹד אִם מֵתוּ מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה נִמְצָא זֶה פּוֹרֵעַ פַּעַם אַחַר פַּעַם לְעוֹלָם עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא עֵדִים אִם כֵּן נַעֲשֵׂית עֵדוּת זוֹ עֵדוּת בִּשְׁטָר וְנִמְצָא זֶה כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר אַל תִּפְרָעֵנִי אֶלָּא בְּעֵדִים נַעֲשֵׂית מִלְוֶה בִּשְׁטָר וְאֵין מִי שֶׁעָלָה עַל לִבּוֹ זֶה. אֲבָל וַדַּאי אִם אָמַר בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי הוּא הִפְסִיד עַל עַצְמוֹ שֶׁפָּרַע בִּפְנֵי אֲחֵרִים וְהָלְכוּ לָהֶם. אֲבָל אִם בָּאוּ וְהֵעִידוּ שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ אֵין כָּאן בֵּית מֵחוֹשׁ וְכָזֶה רָאוּי לָדוּן וּלְהוֹרוֹת: \n", + "הִתְנָה הַמַּלְוֶה עַל הַלּוֶֹה שֶׁיִּהְיֶה נֶאֱמָן בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיֹּאמַר שֶׁלֹּא פְּרָעוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה נוֹטֵל בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁטָּעַן שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ. וְאִם הֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל כְּלוּם: \n", + "הִתְנָה עָלָיו שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַמַּלְוֶה נֶאֱמָן כִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹבֶה מִמֶּנּוּ בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁהֲרֵי הֶאֱמִינוֹ כִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים. וַאֲפִלּוּ הֵבִיא מֵאָה עֵדִים (שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ הֲרֵי גּוֹבֶה מִמֶּנּוּ בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה וַאֲפִלּוּ הֵבִיא מֵאָה עֵדִים) שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ בִּפְנֵיהֶם שֶׁהַשְּׁנַיִם כְּמֵאָה. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ הֲרֵי אַתָּה נֶאֱמָן עָלַי כִּשְׁלֹשָׁה הוֹאִיל וְיָרַד לְמִנְיָן אִם פְּרָעוֹ בִּפְנֵי אַרְבָּעָה הֲרֵי זֶה פָּרוּעַ. זֶה שֶׁהֶאֱמִין הַמַּלְוֶה כִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים מַה תִּהְיֶה תַּקָּנָתוֹ כְּשֶׁיִּפָּרַע יִקְרַע הַשְּׁטָר אוֹ יָעִיד זֶה הַמַּלְוֶה עַל עַצְמוֹ שֶׁבִּטֵּל כָּל שְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עַל פְּלוֹנִי. אוֹ יָעִיד עַל עַצְמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַלּוֶֹה שֶׁקִּבֵּל כָּל חוֹב שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אֵצֶל פְּלוֹנִי: \n", + "הֲרֵי שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ וְטָעַן הַמַּלְוֶה שֶׁלֹּא נִפְרַע וּפְרָעוֹ פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה מִפְּנֵי הַתְּנַאי הֲרֵי הַלּוֶֹה חוֹזֵר וְתוֹבֵעַ אֶת הַמַּלְוֶה בְּדִין וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ כָּךְ וְכָךְ אַתָּה חַיָּב לִי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁפְּרָעְתִּיךָ שְׁתֵּי פְּעָמִים. אִם הוֹדָה יְשַׁלֵּם וְאִם כָּפַר יִשָּׁבַע שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת עַל כָּךְ שֶׁלֹּא פְּרָעוֹ אֶלָּא פַּעַם אַחַת. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "הִתְנָה הַלּוֶֹה שֶׁיִּהְיֶה נֶאֱמָן בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיֹּאמַר פָּרַעְתִּי אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה בִּשְׁטָר זֶה לֹא מִן הַיּוֹרֵשׁ וְלֹא מִן הַלּוֹקֵחַ. וַאֲפִלּוּ אָמַר לוֶֹה לֹא פָּרַעְתִּי אֵין הַמַּלְוֶה טוֹרֵף בִּשְׁטָר זֶה מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת שֶׁמָּא עָשׂוּ קְנוּנְיָא עַל נְכָסָיו שֶׁל זֶה. טָעַן הַלּוֶֹה בִּשְׁטָר זֶה וְאָמַר פָּרַעְתִּי מִקְצָתוֹ וְהַמַּלְוֶה אוֹמֵר לֹא פָּרַע כְּלוּם מְשַׁלֵּם הַמִּקְצָת שֶׁהוֹדָה בּוֹ וְנִשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת שֶׁהֲרֵי הֶאֱמִינוֹ. וְאִם הִתְנָה עָלָיו שֶׁיִּהְיֶה נֶאֱמָן בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע: \n", + "הִתְנָה הַמַּלְוֶה שֶׁיִּהְיֶה גּוֹבֶה בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹבֶה מִמֶּנּוּ בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה. אֲבָל אִם בָּא לִגְבּוֹת מִיּוֹרְשָׁיו יִשָּׁבַע וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִגְבֶּה. וְאִם הִתְנָה שֶׁיִּגְבֶּה אַף מִן הַיּוֹרֵשׁ בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה גּוֹבֶה בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה. וְכֵן אִם הִתְנָה שֶׁיִּגְבֶּה מִן הָעִידִית גּוֹבֶה מִן הָעִידִית אַף מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין. שֶׁכָּל תְּנַאי שֶׁבְּמָמוֹן קַיָּם. בָּא לִגְבּוֹת מִן הַלּוֹקֵחַ לֹא יִטְרֹף אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין זֶה מַתְנֶה לְאַבֵּד מָמוֹן חֲבֵרוֹ: \n" + ], + [ + "הַחוֹב בְּאַחֲרָיוּת הַלּוֶֹה עַד שֶׁיִּפְרָעֶנּוּ לְיד הַמַּלְוֶה אוֹ לְיַד שְׁלוּחוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ הַמַּלְוֶה זְרֹק לִי חוֹבִי וְהִפָּטֵר וּזְרָקוֹ וְאָבַד אוֹ נִשְׂרַף קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְיַד הַמַּלְוֶה פָּטוּר. אָמַר לוֹ זְרֹק לִי חוֹבִי בְּתוֹרַת גִּטִּין. הָיוּ הַמָּעוֹת קְרוֹבוֹת לַלּוֶֹה הֲרֵי עֲדַיִן בְּאַחֲרָיוּתוֹ. הָיוּ קְרוֹבוֹת לַמַּלְוֶה נִפְטָר הַלּוֶֹה. מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה אִם אָבְדוּ מִשָּׁם אוֹ נִגְנְבוּ מְשַׁלֵּם הַלּוֶֹה מֶחֱצָה: \n", + "הָיָה רְאוּבֵן חַיָּב לְשִׁמְעוֹן מָנֶה וְאָמַר לְלֵוִי הוֹלֵךְ לְשִׁמְעוֹן מָנֶה זֶה שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב לוֹ. אִם בָּא לַחְזֹר אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר וְהוּא חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ הַמָּנֶה לְשִׁמְעוֹן. הֶחְזִיר לֵוִי אֶת הַמָּנֶה לִרְאוּבֵן שְׁנֵיהֶן חַיָּבִין בְּאַחֲרָיוּתוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְיַד שִׁמְעוֹן כָּל חוֹבוֹ: \n", + "רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהָיָה חַיָּב לְשִׁמְעוֹן מָנֶה וְאָמַר שִׁמְעוֹן לִרְאוּבֵן מָנֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ תְּנֵהוּ לְלֵוִי וְהָיוּ שְׁלָשְׁתָּן עוֹמְדִין וְקִבֵּל לֵוִי וְנִמְצָא רְאוּבֵן עָנִי וְאֵין לוֹ מִמַּה שֶּׁיִּגְבֶּה מִמֶּנּוּ הֲרֵי לֵוִי חוֹזֵר בַּחוֹב שֶׁל שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁזֶּה הִטְעָהוּ. וְאִם יָדַע לֵוִי שֶׁהוּא עָנִי אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה עָשִׁיר בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה וְהֶעֱנִי אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר שֶׁהֲרֵי קִבֵּל. טָעַן לֵוִי שֶׁהָיָה רְאוּבֵן עָנִי וְהִטְעָהוּ וְשִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר עָשִׁיר הָיָה וְהֶעֱנִי יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁעַל שִׁמְעוֹן לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִפָּטֵר מֵחוֹב לֵוִי. לֹא יִהְיֶה אֶלָּא שׁוֹבֵר בְּיָדוֹ. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ קַיֵּם שׁוֹבֶרְךָ וְהִפָּטֵר: \n", + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר שֶׁרְאוּבֵן שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לוֹ אֵצֶל שִׁמְעוֹן כְּלוּם וְהָיָה רְאוּבֵן חַיָּב לְלֵוִי מָנֶה וְהִמְחָהוּ אֵצֶל שִׁמְעוֹן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִמְחָהוּ בְּמַעֲמַד שְׁלָשְׁתָּן לֹא קָנָה. וְאִם רָצָה שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁלֹּא יִתֵּן לֹא יִתֵּן וְאִם נָתַן חוֹזֵר וְגוֹבֶה מֵרְאוּבֵן שֶׁהֲרֵי עַל פִּיו נָתַן. וְכֵן אִם רָצָה לֵוִי לַחְזֹר וְלוֹמַר אֵינִי רוֹצֶה לִגְבּוֹת מִשִּׁמְעוֹן חוֹזֵר וְגוֹבֶה מֵרְאוּבֵן וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּפְרָע מִקְצָת מִשִּׁמְעוֹן חוֹזֵר וְגוֹבֶה הַשְּׁאָר מֵרְאוּבֵן: \n", + "חֶנְוָנִי שֶׁהָיָה נוֹתֵן לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת מִן הַחֲנוּת כָּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה בְּתוֹרַת הַלְוָאָה וּמַקִּיפוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּתְקַבֵּץ הַכּל וּפוֹרֵעַ לוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת תֵּן לַפּוֹעֲלִים סֶלַע אוֹ לְבַעַל חוֹבִי מָנֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אֶצְלִי וַאֲנִי אֶתֵּן לְךָ וַהֲרֵי הַחֶנְוָנִי אוֹמֵר נָתַתִּי וְהַפּוֹעֵל אוֹ בַּעַל חוֹבוֹ אוֹמֵר לֹא לָקַחְתִּי הֲרֵי הַפּוֹעֵל אוֹ בַּעַל חוֹב נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת חוֹבוֹ וְכֵן הַחֶנְוָנִי נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת מַה שֶּׁטָּעַן שֶׁנָּתַן שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא אָמַר לוֹ לִתֵּן. וְהַפּוֹעֵל נִשְׁבָּע בְּמַעֲמַד הַחֶנְוָנִי וְכֵן הַחֶנְוָנִי בְּמַעֲמַד הַפּוֹעֵל אוֹ בַּעַל חוֹב כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכָּלְמוּ זֶה מִזֶּה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וּשְׁבוּעָה זוֹ תַּקָּנַת חֲכָמִים הִיא בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבָּאִין שְׁנֵיהֶן לִטּל. לְפִיכָךְ אִם מֵת הַחֶנְוָנִי נוֹטֵל בַּעַל חוֹב בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה וְכֵן אִם מֵת פּוֹעֵל אוֹ בַּעַל חוֹב הַחֶנְוָנִי נוֹטֵל בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מַפְסִיד כְּלוּם וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא תַּשְׁלוּם אֶחָד: \n", + "הַחֶנְוָנִי אוֹמֵר אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ לִתֵּן לָזֶה מָנֶה אוֹ צִוִּיתָ וְאָמַרְתָּ לִי אִם יָבוֹא פְּלוֹנִי תֵּן לוֹ וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹמֵר לֹא אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ הֲרֵי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר וְהַחֶנְוָנִי עוֹשֶׂה דִּין עִם זֶה שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר הַחֶנְוָנִי לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת הַמַּקִּיפוֹ כָּתוּב בְּפִנְקָסִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי אֶצְלְךָ מָנֶה וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ נִשְׁבָּע בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הֶסֵּת שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ וְנִפְטָר כְּדִין כָּל טוֹעֵן עַל חֲבֵרוֹ לְכָל דָּבָר וְאֵין בָּזֶה תַּקָּנַת חֲכָמִים: \n", + "רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְלֵוִי עַל שִׁמְעוֹן וְטָעַן שֶׁלֵּוִי נְתָנוֹ לוֹ בִּכְתִיבָה וּמְסִירָה וְאָבַד הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁהִקְנָהוּ בּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁטָּעַן שֶׁהִקְנָהוּ לוֹ עַל גַּב הַקַּרְקַע הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹבֶה אוֹתוֹ מִשִּׁמְעוֹן הוֹאִיל וְיוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ. טָעַן שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁפָּרַע לְלֵוִי וְאָמַר יִשָּׁבַע לִי יִשָּׁבַע לֵוִי לְשִׁמְעוֹן וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִגְבֶּה רְאוּבֵן. הוֹדָה לוֹ שֶׁפָּרַע יְשַׁלֵּם לֵוִי לִרְאוּבֵן. טָעַן לֵוִי שֶׁלֹּא מָכַר וְלֹא נָתַן שְׁטָר זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר: \n", + "שְׁטָר שֶׁהָיָה בְּיַד שָׁלִישׁ וְהוֹצִיא מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין וְאָמַר פָּרוּעַ הוּא נֶאֱמָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַשְּׁטָר מְקֻיָּם שֶׁאִלּוּ רָצָה הָיָה שׂוֹרְפוֹ אוֹ קוֹרְעוֹ. וְכֵן אִם מֵת הַשָּׁלִישׁ וְנִמְצָא כְּתָב יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שָׁלִישׁ שֶׁשְּׁטָר זֶה הַמֻּנָּח אֶצְלוֹ פָּרוּעַ הוּא הֲרֵי זֶה פָּרוּעַ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עֵדִים עַל הַכְּתָב. אֲבָל כְּתָב שֶׁיָּצָא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי מַלְוֶה שֶׁשְּׁטָר פְּלוֹנִי פָּרוּעַ אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה בִּכְתַב יְדֵי הַמַּלְוֶה אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כְּמִשְׂחָק: \n", + "הָיוּ עֵדִים עַל הַכְּתָב אִם הָיוּ מְקֻיָּמִין הֲרֵי הַשְּׁטָר פָּרוּעַ. וְאִם אֵין עָלָיו קִיּוּם יִשְׁאֲלוּ הָעֵדִים הַחֲתוּמִין עַל זֶה הַשּׁוֹבֵר. אִם לֹא יָדְעוּ אוֹ שֶׁאֵין הָעֵדִים מְצוּיִין הוֹאִיל וּמִתַּחַת יְדֵי הַמַּלְוֶה אוֹ מִתַּחַת יְדֵי יוֹרְשָׁיו יָצָא אֵין הַשּׁוֹבֵר כְּלוּם: \n", + "נִמְצָא הַשְּׁטָר בֵּין שְׁטָרוֹת פְּרוּעִין הֲרֵי זֶה פָּרוּעַ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עֵדִים עַל הַכְּתָב הַנִּמְצָא. וְכֵן אִם נִמְצָא כָּתוּב בְּגוּפוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר בֵּין מִפָּנָיו בֵּין מֵאֲחוֹרָיו וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּמִקְצָתוֹ שְׁטָר זֶה פָּרוּעַ אוֹ נִפְרָע מִמֶּנּוּ כָּךְ וְכָךְ עוֹשִׂין עַל פִּי הַכְּתָב וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עַל הַכְּתָב עֵדִים וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיָּצָא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי הַמַּלְוֶה שֶׁאִלּוּ לֹא נִפְרָע לֹא הָיָה כּוֹתֵב עַל הַשְּׁטָר: \n", + "הַמּוֹצֵא שְׁטָר בֵּין שִׁטְרוֹתָיו וְאֵין יוֹדֵעַ מַה טִּיבוֹ יִהְיֶה מֻנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ: \n", + "הָאוֹמֵר לְבָנָיו שְׁטָר בֵּין שִׁטְרוֹתַי פָּרוּעַ וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶה הוּא שִׁטְרוֹתָיו כֻּלָּן פְּרוּעִין. נִמְצָא לְאֶחָד שָׁם שְׁנֵי שְׁטָרוֹת הַגָּדוֹל פָּרוּעַ וְהַקָּטָן אֵינוֹ פָּרוּעַ. אָמַר לַחֲבֵרוֹ שְׁטָר לְךָ בְּיָדִי פָּרוּעַ הַגָּדוֹל פָּרוּעַ וְהַקָּטָן אֵינוֹ פָּרוּעַ. חוֹב לְךָ בְּיָדִי פָּרוּעַ כָּל שְׁטָרוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עָלָיו כֻּלָּן פְּרוּעִין: \n" + ], + [ + "מַלְוְה שֶׁמֵּת וּבָא היּוֹרֵשׁ לִתְבֹּעַ אֶת הַלּוֶֹה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁעָלָיו וְאָמַר פָּרַעְתִּי לְאָבִיךָ וְהַיּוֹרֵשׁ אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אוֹמְרִים לוֹ עֲמֹד וְשַׁלֵּם לוֹ. אָמַר יִשָּׁבַע לִי הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ שֶׁלֹּא פְּקָדָנוּ אַבָּא עַל יְדֵי אַחֵר וְשֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא בְּפִיו וְשֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ בֵּין שִׁטְרוֹתָיו שֶׁל אַבָּא שֶׁשְּׁטָר זֶה פָּרוּעַ וְגוֹבֶה: \n", + "מֵת הַלּוֶֹה אַחַר שֶׁמֵּת הַמַּלְוֶה וּבָא הַיּוֹרֵשׁ לְהִפָּרַע מִן הַיּוֹרֵשׁ לֹא יִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ תְּחִלָּה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁלֹּא פְּקָדָנוּ אַבָּא וְשֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא וְלֹא מָצִינוּ בֵּין שִׁטְרוֹתָיו שֶׁל אַבָּא שֶׁשְּׁטָר זֶה פָּרוּעַ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַיּוֹרֵשׁ קָטָן הַמֻּטָּל בָּעֲרִיסָה כְּשֶׁמֵּת מוֹרִישׁוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. וְאִם צִוָּה הַמַּלְוֶה בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָתוֹ שֶׁשְּׁטָר זֶה אֵינוֹ פָּרוּעַ יִפָּרַע הַיּוֹרֵשׁ בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה אֲפִלּוּ מִן הַיּוֹרֵשׁ: \n", + "מֵת הַלּוֶֹה תְּחִלָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת הַמַּלְוֶה אֵין יוֹרְשֵׁי מַלְוֶה נוֹטְלִין מִיּוֹרְשֵׁי לוֶֹה כְּלוּם שֶׁבְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמֵּת הַלּוֶֹה נִתְחַיֵּב הַמַּלְוֶה לְהִשָּׁבַע וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִטּל כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ וּכְבָר מֵת וְאֵין אָדָם מוֹרִישׁ שְׁבוּעָה לְבָנָיו שֶׁאֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לְהִשָּׁבַע שֶׁלֹּא נִפְרַע אֲבִיהֶם כְּלוּם. וְאִם עָבַר הַדִּין וְהִשְׁבִּיעַ יוֹרְשֵׁי מַלְוֶה וְגָבוּ אֶת חוֹבָן אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדָם. לְפִיכָךְ שְׁטַר חוֹב שֶׁל יְתוֹמִים הַבָּאִים לְהִפָּרַע מִן הַיְתוֹמִים שֶׁמֵּת אֲבִיהֶן הַלּוֶֹה תְּחִלָּה אֵין קוֹרְעִין אוֹתוֹ וְאֵין מַגְבִּין בּוֹ. אֵין גּוֹבִין בּוֹ שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מוֹרִישׁ שְׁבוּעָה לְבָנָיו כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ וְאֵין קוֹרְעִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא דַּיָּן שֶׁיָּדוּן וְיוֹצִיא בּוֹ: \n", + "אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה שָׁם עָרֵב וּמֵת הַלּוֶֹה תְּחִלָּה לֹא יִפָּרְעוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי הַמַּלְוֶה מִן הֶעָרֵב. שֶׁאִם תֹּאמַר יִפָּרְעוּ מִן הֶעָרֵב הֲרֵי הֶעָרֵב חוֹזֵר וְנִפְרָע מִיּוֹרְשֵׁי לוֶֹה: \n", + "אֵין דָּנִין מִדִּין זֶה לְכָל הַדּוֹמֶה לוֹ אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הַפּוֹגֵם אֶת שְׁטָרוֹ וּמֵת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה הֲרֵי בָּנָיו נִשְׁבָּעִין שֶׁלֹּא פְּקָדָנוּ אַבָּא וְלֹא צִוָּנוּ אַבָּא וְלֹא מָצִינוּ בֵּין שִׁטְרוֹתָיו שֶׁל אַבָּא שֶׁכָּל הַשְּׁטָר הַזֶּה פָּרוּעַ וְגוֹבִין אֶת שְׁאָר הַשְּׁטָר בֵּין מִן הַמַּלְוֶה בֵּין מִיּוֹרְשָׁיו: \n", + "יוֹרֵשׁ שֶׁבָּא לִגְבּוֹת מִן הַיּוֹרֵשׁ וְאָמְרוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי לוֶֹה אָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא לֹא לָוִיתִי חוֹב זֶה הֲרֵי יוֹרְשֵׁי הַמַּלְוֶה גּוֹבִין שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה שֶׁכָּל הָאוֹמֵר לֹא לָוִיתִי כְּאוֹמֵר לֹא פָּרַעְתִּי דָּמִי. וְכֵן מַלְוֶה שֶׁבָּא לְהִפָּרַע מִיּוֹרְשֵׁי לוֶֹה וְאָמְרוּ אָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא לֹא לָוִיתִי חוֹב זֶה הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹבֵהוּ בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה אֲפִלּוּ הֶאֱמִינוֹ בַּשְּׁטָר כָּל זְמַן שֶׁאָמַר פָּרַעְתִּי שֶׁכָּל הָאוֹמֵר לֹא לָוִיתִי כְּאוֹמֵר לֹא פָּרַעְתִּי: \n", + "יוֹרֵשׁ שֶׁבָּא לְהִפָּרַע מִן הַלּוֶֹה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ נֶאֱמָנוּת לַלּוֶֹה כָּל זְמַן שֶׁיֹּאמַר פָּרַעְתִּי הֲרֵי הַלּוֶֹה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁפָּרַע לִשְׁטָר זֶה וְנִפְטָר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא כָּתַב לוֹ וַהֲרֵי אַתָּה נֶאֱמָן עַל יוֹרְשַׁי שֶׁעִקַּר הַשְּׁטָר עַל תְּנַאי זֶה הָיָה. אִם הִתְנָה עָלָיו שֶׁיְּהֵא נֶאֱמָן בְּלֹא שׁוּם שְׁבוּעָה אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע אֲפִלּוּ לְיוֹרְשֵׁי מַלְוֶה: \n", + "יוֹרֵשׁ קָטָן שֶׁהָיָה שְׁטַר חוֹב לְאָבִיו וְיָצָא עָלָיו שׁוֹבֵר אַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו אֵין קוֹרְעִין אֶת הַשְּׁטָר וְאֵין מַגְבִּין בּוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּגְדְּלוּ הַיְתוֹמִים שֶׁמָּא שׁוֹבֵר זֶה מְזֻיָּף הוּא וּלְפִיכָךְ לֹא הוֹצִיאוֹ הַלּוֶֹה בְּחַיֵּי אָבִיו: \n", + "הַמּוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב עַל חֲבֵרוֹ וְהָיָה כָּתוּב בְּבָבֶל מַגְבֵּהוּ מִמְּעוֹת בָּבֶל. הָיָה כָּתוּב בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל מַגְבֵּהוּ מִמְּעוֹת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּכְתֻבָּה. לֹא הָיָה בַּשְּׁטָר שֵׁם מָקוֹם וְהוֹצִיאוֹ בְּבָבֶל מַגְבֵּהוּ מִמְּעוֹת בָּבֶל. הוֹצִיאוֹ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל מַגְבֵּהוּ מִמְּעוֹת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. בָּא לִגְבּוֹת מִמְּעוֹת הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁיָּצָא בּוֹ הַשְּׁטָר וְטָעַן הַלּוֶֹה שֶׁהַמָּעוֹת שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב לוֹ מִכֶּסֶף שֶׁהוּא פָּחוֹת מִזֶּה הַמַּטְבֵּעַ יִשָּׁבַע הַמַּלְוֶה וְיִטּל. הָיָה בּוֹ כֶּסֶף סְתָם מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה לוֶֹה מַגְבֵּהוּ. מִכָּאן אַתָּה לָמֵד שֶׁשְּׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שֵׁם מָקוֹם שֶׁנִּכְתַּב בּוֹ כָּשֵׁר לְכָל דָּבָר. וְהוּא הַדִּין לִשְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ זְמַן כְּלָל שֶׁהוּא כָּשֵׁר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֵדוּת זוֹ אִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לַהֲזִמָּהּ שֶׁאֵין מְדַקְדְּקִין בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת בִּדְרִישָׁה וַחֲקִירָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּנְעל דֶּלֶת בִּפְנֵי לוֹוִין. וּלְפִיכָךְ שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב הַמְאֻחָרִין כְּשֵׁרִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין אַתָּה יָכוֹל לַהֲזִמָּן כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ: \n" + ], + [ + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ סְתָם הֲרֵי כָּל נְכָסָיו אַחְרָאִין וְעַרְבָאִין לְחוֹב זֶה. לְפִיכָךְ כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹא לִגְבּוֹת תּוֹבֵעַ אֶת בַּעַל חוֹבוֹ תְּחִלָּה אִם מָצָא עִמּוֹ נְכָסִים בֵּין מִטַּלְטְלִין בֵּין קַרְקָעוֹת גּוֹבֶה מֵהֶן בִּרְצוֹן הַלּוֶֹה. וְאִם לֹא נָתַן הַלּוֶֹה מִדַּעְתּוֹ מְגַבִּין אוֹתוֹ בֵּית דִּין. לֹא הִסְפִּיק לוֹ כָּל הַנִּמְצָא כְּנֶגֶד שְׁטַר חוֹבוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹבֶה מִכָּל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ לַלּוֶֹה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן עַתָּה מְכוּרִין לַאֲחֵרִים אוֹ נְתוּנִים בְּמַתָּנָה. הוֹאִיל וּמָכַר הַלּוֶֹה אוֹ נָתַן אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּעְבֵּד בְּחוֹב זֶה הֲרֵי זֶה מוֹצִיא מִיַּד הַלָּקוֹחוֹת אוֹ מִיַּד בַּעֲלֵי הַמַּתָּנוֹת וְזֶהוּ הַנִּקְרָא טוֹרֵף. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּקַרְקָעוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ בְּעֵת שֶׁלָּוָה. אֲבָל נְכָסִים הַבָּאִין לוֹ לְאַחַר שֶׁלָּוָה לֹא נִשְׁתַּעְבְּדוּ לְבַעַל חוֹב וְאֵינוֹ טוֹרְפָן. וְאִם הִתְנָה עָלָיו שֶׁכָּל נְכָסִים שֶׁיִּקְנֶה יִהְיוּ מְשֻׁעְבָּדִין לְהִפָּרַע מֵהֶן וְקָנָה אַחַר שֶׁלָּוָה וּמָכַר אוֹ נָתַן הֲרֵי בַּעַל חוֹב טוֹרֵף מֵהֶן: \n", + "אֵין כָּל הַדְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִין אֶלָּא בְּקַרְקַע אֲבָל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין אֵין עֲלֵיהֶן אַחֲרָיוּת אֲפִלּוּ מִטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ בְּעֵת שֶׁלָּוָה שֶׁמְּכָרָן לִשְׁעָתוֹ אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב טוֹרֵף אוֹתָן. הִקְנָה לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ כָּל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין עַל גַּב קַרְקַע שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ לִהְיוֹתוֹ נִפְרָע מִן הַכּל הֲרֵי זֶה טוֹרֵף מֵאוֹתָן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין וְהוּא שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב לוֹ בִּשְׁטַר חוֹבוֹ שֶׁהִקְנֵיתִי לְךָ מִטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי עַל גַּב הַקַּרְקַע שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי שֶׁלֹּא כְּאַסְמַכְתָּא וְשֶׁלֹּא כְּטָפְסֵי הַשְּׁטָרוֹת. וְכֵן אִם כָּתַב שֶׁכָּל נְכָסִים שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִקְנוֹת בֵּין קַרְקָעוֹת בֵּין מִטַּלְטְלִין הֲרֵי הֵן מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים לְךָ לְהִפָּרַע מֵהֶן וְהַמִּטַּלְטְלִין קְנוּיִין לְךָ עַל גַּב הַקַּרְקָעוֹת לְהִפָּרַע מֵהֶן שֶׁלֹּא כְּאַסְמַכְתָּא וְשֶׁלֹּא כְּטָפְסֵי הַשְּׁטָרוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה טוֹרֵף אַף מִן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁקָּנָה הַלּוֶֹה לְאַחַר שֶׁלָּוָה. שֶׁכָּל תְּנַאי שֶׁבְּמָמוֹן קַיָּם: \n", + "עָשָׂה שָׂדֵהוּ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ אוֹ לְאִשָּׁה בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ וְהוּא שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב לָהֶן מִכָּאן תִּגְבּוּ וּשְׁטָפוֹ נָהָר הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹבֶה מִשְּׁאָר נְכָסִים וְטוֹרֵף אוֹתָן. וְאִם הִתְנָה עִמּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה לוֹ פֵּרָעוֹן אֶלָּא מִזּוֹ אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִשְּׁאָר נְכָסִים. וְכֵן אִם לָוָה מִמֶּנּוּ וּפֵרֵשׁ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אַחֲרָיוּת עָלָיו הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִן הַמְשֻׁעְבָּדִין לְעוֹלָם: \n", + "עָשָׂה שָׂדֵהוּ אַפּוֹתֵיקִי לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ אוֹ לְאִשָּׁה בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ וּמְכָרָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְכוּרָה וּכְשֶׁיָּבוֹא בַּעַל חוֹב לִגְבּוֹת אִם לֹא יִמְצָא נְכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין יִטְרֹף אוֹתָהּ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁמָּכַר לִשְׁעָתָהּ אֲבָל מְכָרָהּ מִמְכַּר עוֹלָם אֵינָהּ מְכוּרָה: \n", + "עָשָׂה עַבְדּוֹ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי וּמְכָרוֹ הֲרֵי בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מִמֶּנּוּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קוֹל. עָשָׂה שׁוֹרוֹ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי וּמְכָרוֹ אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מִמֶּנּוּ. וְכֵן שְׁאָר הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן קוֹל: \n", + "עֶבֶד שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהוּ רַבּוֹ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי וְשִׁחְרְרוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּתַב לוֹ לֹא יִהְיֶה לְךָ פֵּרָעוֹן אֶלָּא מִזֶּה יֵצֵא לְחֵרוּת. וְכֵן אִם הִקְדִּישׁוֹ. שֶׁהֶחָמֵץ וְהַשִּׁחְרוּר וְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁ מַפְקִיעִין מִיַּד שִׁעְבּוּד וַהֲרֵי בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה חוֹבוֹ מִן הַלּוֶֹה וְכוֹתֵב עָלָיו שְׁטָר בְּחוֹבוֹ וְטוֹרֵף מִזְּמַן זֶה הַשְּׁטָר. וְלָמָּה הוּא חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁגּוֹרֵם לְאַבֵּד מָמוֹן חֲבֵרוֹ וְכָל הַגּוֹרֵם לְהַזִּיק מְשַׁלֵּם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. וְכוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ הַשֵּׁנִי לְשַׁחְרְרוֹ מִפְּנֵי תִּקּוּן הָעוֹלָם שֶׁלֹּא יִמְצָאֶנּוּ בַּשּׁוּק וְיֹאמַר לוֹ עַבְדִּי אַתָּה: \n", + "הַמַּקְדִּישׁ נְכָסָיו אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב יָכוֹל לִטְרֹף מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁהַהֶקְדֵּשׁ מַפְקִיעַ הַשִּׁעְבּוּד. וּכְשֶׁפּוֹדִין הַקַּרְקַע מִיַּד הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִתֵּן בְּשָׂדֶה זוֹ עַל מְנָת שֶׁיִּתֵּן לְבַעַל חוֹב אֶת חוֹבוֹ וּלְאִשָּׁה כְּתֻבָּתָהּ. לְפִיכָךְ לִכְשֶׁתִּפָּדֶה וְתֵצֵא לְחֻלִּין בְּיַד הַלּוֹקֵחַ יָבוֹא בַּעַל חוֹב וְיִטְרֹף אוֹתָהּ אוֹ הָאִשָּׁה בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בַּעֲרָכִין: \n", + "בַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁבָּא לִטְרֹף אִם יֵשׁ מָעוֹת לַלּוֹקֵחַ יָכוֹל לְסַלְּקוֹ וְלִתֵּן לוֹ דְּמֵי מַה שֶּׁהוּא טוֹרֵף וְחוֹזֵר הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְתוֹבֵעַ לַמּוֹכֵר. וְאִם עָשָׂה אוֹתוֹ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְסַלְּקוֹ בְּדָמִים: \n", + "רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהָיָה חַיָּב לְשִׁמְעוֹן מָאתַיִם וְהָיוּ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי שָׂדוֹת וּמָכַר אַחַת מֵהֶן לְלֵוִי בְּמָנֶה וְחָזַר וּמָכַר לוֹ הַשְּׁנִיָּה בְּמָנֶה וּבָא שִׁמְעוֹן וְטָרַף אַחַת בְּמָנֶה וְחָזַר לִטְרֹף הַשְּׁנִיָּה בַּמָּנֶה הַנִּשְׁאָר לוֹ וְהֵבִיא לוֹ מָאתַיִם וְאָמַר לוֹ אִם תִּרְצֶה לִהְיוֹת הַשָּׂדֶה שֶׁטָּרַפְתָּ שׁוּמָה לְךָ בְּכָל הַמָּאתַיִם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְךָ הֲרֵי מוּטָב וְאִם לָאו הֵילָךְ מָאתַיִם שֶׁל חוֹבְךָ וְהִסְתַּלֵּק. הַדִּין עִם לֵוִי. רָצָה שִׁמְעוֹן וְעָמַד בָּהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקִּבְּלָהּ בְּמָאתַיִם אֵין לֵוִי חוֹזֵר וְתוֹבֵעַ רְאוּבֵן אֶלָּא בְּמָנֶה: \n", + "מֵת רְאוּבֵן וְהִנִּיחַ שָׂדֶה אַחַת שָׁוָה מֵאָה וּבָא שִׁמְעוֹן וּטְרָפָהּ וְנָתְנוּ לוֹ הַיְתוֹמִים מֵאָה מִן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁהִנִּיחַ אֲבִיהֶן וְסִלְּקוּהוּ הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹזֵר וְטוֹרֵף אוֹתָהּ בִּשְׁאָר חוֹבוֹ. שֶׁמֵּאָה שֶׁנָּתְנוּ לוֹ מִצְוָה עָשׂוּ שֶׁמִּצְוָה עַל הַיְתוֹמִים לִפְרֹעַ חוֹבוֹת אֲבִיהֶם. וְאִם אָמְרוּ לוֹ אֵלּוּ בְּמֵאָה דְּמֵי הַשָּׂדֶה שֶׁטָּרַפְתָּ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר וְלִטְרֹף אוֹתָהּ פַּעַם אַחֶרֶת בִּשְׁאָר חוֹבוֹ: \n" + ], + [ + "כְּשֶׁיּוֹרְדִין בֵּית דִּין לְנִכְסֵי הַלּוֶֹה לִגְבּוֹת מֵהֶן לֹא יִגְבּוּ לְבַעַל חוֹב אֶלָּא מִן הַבֵּינוֹנִית שֶׁבְּקַרְקְעוֹתָיו. וְדִין תּוֹרָה שֶׁיִּגְבֶּה בַּעַל חוֹב מִן הַזִּבּוּרִית שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד יא) \"בַּחוּץ תַּעֲמֹד וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה נשֶׁה בוֹ יוֹצִיא\" וְגוֹ' מַה דַּרְכּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם לְהוֹצִיא פָּחוּת שֶׁבְּכֵלָיו. אֲבָל תִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים בְּבֵינוֹנִיּת כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּנְעל דֶּלֶת בִּפְנֵי לוֹוִין. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּבָא לִפָּרַע מִן הַלּוֶֹה עַצְמוֹ. אֲבָל הַבָּא לִפָּרַע מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין בֵּין קְטַנִּים בֵּין גְּדוֹלִים לֹא יִפָּרַע אֶלָּא מִן הַזִּבּוּרִית: \n", + "אֵין נִפְרָעִים מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִין בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ נְכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ בְּנֵי חוֹרִין זִבּוּרִית וְהַמְשֻׁעְבָּדִים בֵּינוֹנִית אוֹ עִידִית בֵּין שֶׁמְּכָרָם בֵּין שֶׁנְּתָנָם. נִשְׁתַּדְּפוּ בְּנֵי חוֹרִין הֲרֵי זֶה טוֹרֵף מִן הַמְשֻׁעְבָּדִין שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲתוּ כְּאִלּוּ אֵינָם: \n", + "רְאוּבֵן שֶׁמָּכַר כָּל שְׂדוֹתָיו לְשִׁמְעוֹן וְחָזַר שִׁמְעוֹן וּמָכַר שָׂדֶה אַחַת מֵהֶן לְלֵוִי וּבָא בַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁל רְאוּבֵן לִטְרֹף רָצָה מִזֶּה גּוֹבֶה רָצָה מִזֶּה גּוֹבֶה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁלָּקַח לֵוִי בֵּינוֹנִית. אֲבָל אִם לָקַח עִידִית אוֹ זִבּוּרִית אֵינוֹ טוֹרֵף מִלֵּוִי שֶׁהֲרֵי זֶה אוֹמֵר לוֹ מִפְּנֵי זֶה טָרַחְתִּי וְלָקַחְתִּי שָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵין דִּינְךָ לִגְבּוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ. וְכֵן אִם לָקַח לֵוִי בֵּינוֹנִית וְהִנִּיחַ אֵצֶל שִׁמְעוֹן בֵּינוֹנִית כְּמוֹ הַבֵּינוֹנִית שֶׁלָּקַח אֵינוֹ טוֹרֵף מִלֵּוִי שֶׁהֲרֵי זֶה אוֹמֵר לוֹ הִנַּחְתִּי לְךָ מָקוֹם לִגְבּוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ: \n", + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהַנִּזָּקִין שָׁמִין לָהֶן בְּעִידִית וּבַעַל חוֹב בְּבֵינוֹנִית וּכְתֻבַּת אִשָּׁה בְּזִבּוּרִית. הָיוּ לוֹ עִידִית וְזִבּוּרִית נִזָּקִין בְּעִידִית בַּעַל חוֹב [וּכְתֻבַּת אִשָּׁה] בְּזִבּוּרִית. הָיוּ לוֹ עִידִית וּבֵינוֹנִית נִזָּקִין בְּעִידִית וּבַעַל חוֹב וּכְתֻבַּת אִשָּׁה בְּבֵינוֹנִית. הָיוּ לוֹ זִבּוּרִית וּבֵינוֹנִית בִּלְבַד נִזָּקִין וּבַעַל חוֹב בְּבֵינוֹנִית וּכְתֻבַּת אִשָּׁה בְּזִבּוּרִית: \n", + "מְכָרָן לִשְׁלֹשָׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם בְּבַת אַחַת הֲרֵי כֻּלָּן נִכְנְסוּ תַּחַת הַבְּעָלִים וְהַנִּזָּקִין טוֹרְפִין מִן הָעִידִית וּבַעַל חוֹב טוֹרֵף מִן הַבֵּינוֹנִית וּכְתֻבַּת אִשָּׁה טוֹרֶפֶת מִן הַזִּבּוּרִית. מְכָרָן לָזֶה אַחַר זֶה כֻּלָּן טוֹרְפִין מִן הָאַחֲרוֹן. לֹא הִסְפִּיק טוֹרְפִין מִשֶּׁלְּפָנָיו. לֹא הִסְפִּיק טוֹרְפִין מִשֶּׁלִּפְנֵי פָנָיו. אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הָאַחֲרוֹן הוּא שֶׁלָּקַח הַזִּבּוּרִית שֶׁהֲרֵי הַלּוֹקֵחַ הַקּוֹדֵם אוֹמֵר לַטּוֹרֵף הִנַּחְתִּי לְךָ מָקוֹם לִגְבּוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ: \n", + "מְכָרָן לְאֶחָד זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ הֲרֵי הַלּוֹקֵחַ נִכְנָס תַּחַת הַבְּעָלִים. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁלָּקַח עִידִית בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה אֲבָל לָקַח זִבּוּרִית בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה כֻּלָּן גּוֹבִין מִן הַזִּבּוּרִית שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר לַטּוֹרֵף כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹא לִגְבּוֹת מִן הַשָּׂדֶה שֶׁלָּקַח תְּחִלָּה הֲרֵי הִנַּחְתִּי לְךָ מָקוֹם לִגְבּוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ. וְלָמָּה אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר לוֹ הַטּוֹרֵף כָּךְ אִם לָקַח עִידִית בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה וְתִגְבֶּה הָאִשָּׁה וּבַעַל חוֹב מִן הָעִידִית שֶׁלָּקַח בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה. שֶׁזּוֹ תַּקָּנָה הִיא לַלּוֹקֵחַ וַהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר לוֹקֵחַ לָהֶן אִי אֶפְשִׁי בְּתַקָּנָה זוֹ אֶלָּא כָּל אֶחָד מִכֶּם יִגְבֶּה מִן הָרָאוּי לוֹ: \n", + "מְכָרָן לְאֶחָד זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ וּמָכַר לוֹ עִידִית בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה וְחָזַר הַלּוֹקֵחַ וּמָכַר זִבּוּרִית וּבֵינוֹנִית וְשִׁיֵּר עִידִית לְפָנָיו כֻּלָּן גּוֹבִין מִן הָעִידִית שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין לוֹ בְּמָה יִדְחֶה אוֹתָם. מָכַר עִידִית וְהִנִּיחַ בֵּינוֹנִית וְזִבּוּרִית הַנִּזָּקִין טוֹרְפִין מִן הָעִידִית שֶׁבְּיַד לוֹקֵחַ הַשֵּׁנִי וּבַעַל חוֹב וּכְתֻבַּת אִשָּׁה גּוֹבִין מִבֵּינוֹנִית וְזִבּוּרִית שֶׁשִּׁיֵּר לְפָנָיו: \n", + "מִי שֶׁלָּוָה מֵאֶחָד וְאַחַר כָּךְ מָכַר הַלּוֶֹה נְכָסָיו לִשְׁנַיִם וְכָתַב בַּעַל חוֹב לְלוֹקֵחַ שֵׁנִי דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי עִמְּךָ וְקָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְרֹף מִלּוֹקֵחַ רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר לוֹ הִנַּחְתִּי לְךָ מָקוֹם לִגְבּוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ אֵצֶל בַּעַל חוֹבְךָ מִן הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁקָּנָה לוֹקֵחַ שֵׁנִי אַחֲרַי וְאַתָּה הִפְסַדְתָּ עַל עַצְמְךָ שֶׁהֲרֵי סִלַּקְתָּ עַצְמְךָ מֵהֶן. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְאִשָּׁה בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ אִם כָּתְבָה לַשֵּׁנִי. אִבְּדָה כְּתֻבָּתָהּ וְאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לִטְרֹף. אֲבָל אִם כָּתְבוּ לָרִאשׁוֹן טוֹרְפִין מִן הַשֵּׁנִי. מָכַר הַלּוֶֹה שָׂדֶה לַלּוֹקֵחַ וּמְכָרָהּ לוֹקֵחַ רִאשׁוֹן לְלוֹקֵחַ שֵׁנִי וְכָתַב הַמַּלְוֶה לְלוֹקֵחַ רִאשׁוֹן דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי עִמְּךָ וְקָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ הֲרֵי בַּעַל חוֹב טוֹרֵף מִלּוֹקֵחַ שֵׁנִי אוֹתָהּ הַשָּׂדֶה וְלוֹקֵחַ רִאשׁוֹן טוֹרֵף אוֹתָהּ מִבַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁהֲרֵי כָּתַב לוֹ וְלוֹקֵחַ שֵׁנִי טוֹרֵף אוֹתָהּ מִלּוֹקֵחַ רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא מְכָרָהּ לוֹ וּבַעַל חוֹב חוֹזֵר וְטוֹרֵף מִשֵּׁנִי וְחוֹזְרִין חֲלִילָה עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשׂוּ פְּשָׁרָה בֵּינֵיהֶן. וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ: \n" + ], + [ + "מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ חוֹבוֹת הַרְבֵּה כָּל שֶׁקָּדַם חוֹבוֹ גּוֹבֶה תְּחִלָּה בֵּין מִן הַלּוֶֹה עַצְמוֹ בֵּין מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת. וְאִם קָדַם הָאַחֲרוֹן וְגָבָה מוֹצִיאִים מִיָּדוֹ שֶׁכָּל שֶׁקָּדַם חוֹבוֹ זָכָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּקַרְקָעוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ בְּעֵת שֶׁלָּוָה אֲבָל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת שֶׁקָּנָה אַחַר שֶׁלָּוָה מִבַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת הַרְבֵּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּתַב לְכָל אֶחָד מֵהֶן מַה שֶּׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִקְנוֹת מְשֻׁעְבָּד לְךָ אֵין בָּהֶן דִּין קְדִימָה אֶלָּא כֻּלָּן שָׁוִין וְכָל שֶׁקָּדַם וְגָבָה זָכָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא אַחֲרוֹן: \n", + "לָוָה וְכָתַב לוֹ שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִקְנוֹת מְשֻׁעְבָּד לְךָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ קָנָה שָׂדֶה וְחָזַר וְלָוָה מֵאַחֵר הֲרֵי הַשָּׂדֶה מְשֻׁעְבָּד לָרִאשׁוֹן וְהוּא קוֹדֵם לִגְבּוֹת. וְכֵן אֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ מֵאָה אֵין דִּין קְדִימָה בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין אֶלָּא כָּל שֶׁקָּדַם וְגָבָה מֵהֶן זָכָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא אַחֲרוֹן. קִדֵּם אֶחָד מִשְּׁאָר אָדָם וְתָפַס מִן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁל זֶה כְּדֵי לִזְכּוֹת לְאֶחָד מִבַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת לֹא זָכָה שֶׁכָּל הַתּוֹפֵס לְבַעַל חוֹב בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו חוֹב לַאֲחֵרִים לֹא קָנָה. אֲבָל אֵין עָלָיו חוֹב לַאֲחֵרִים קָנָה לוֹ. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר לוֹ הַלּוֶֹה זְכֵה בְּחֵפֶץ זֶה לִפְלוֹנִי זָכָה לוֹ וְאֵין אֶחָד מִבַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת יְכוֹלִין לִגְבּוֹת מֵאֵלּוּ הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁכְּבָר זָכָה בָּהֶן אַחֵר: \n", + "שְׁטָרוֹת שֶׁזְּמַן כֻּלָּן יוֹם אֶחָד אוֹ שָׁעָה אַחַת בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁכּוֹתְבִין שָׁעוֹת כָּל שֶׁקָּדַם מֵהֶן וְגָבָה בֵּין קַרְקַע בֵּין מִטַּלְטְלִין זָכָה: \n", + "בָּאוּ כֻּלָּן בְּיַחַד לִגְבּוֹת. וְכֵן בַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת שֶׁכָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן קוֹדֵם לִזְמַן חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁבָּאוּ לִגְבּוֹת מִן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין בָּהֶן דִּין קְדִימָה. אוֹ שֶׁבָּאוּ לִגְבּוֹת מִקַּרְקַע שֶׁקָּנָה הַלּוֶֹה לְאַחַר שֶׁלָּוָה מִן הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁבָּהֶן וְאֵין בַּנְּכָסִים כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּגְבֶּה כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן אֶת חוֹבוֹ. מְחַלְּקִין בֵּינֵיהֶן. כֵּיצַד חוֹלְקִין. אִם כְּשֶׁיִּתְחַלֵּק הַמָּמוֹן הַנִּמְצָא עַל מִנְיָנָם יַגִּיעַ לַפָּחוּת שֶׁבָּהֶן כְּשִׁעוּר חוֹבוֹ אוֹ פָּחוֹת חוֹלְקִים לְפִי מִנְיָנָם בְּשָׁוֶה. וְאִם יַגִּיעַ לַפָּחוּת שֶׁבָּהֶם יוֹתֵר עַל חוֹבוֹ חוֹלְקִים מִכָּל הַמָּמוֹן בֵּינֵיהֶם כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לַפָּחוּת שֶׁבָּהֶם כְּשִׁעוּר חוֹבוֹ וְחוֹזְרִין הַנִּשְׁאָרִים מִבַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת וְחוֹלְקִין הַיֶּתֶר בֵּינֵיהֶן כַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֹּאת. כֵּיצַד. הָיוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה חוֹבוֹת שֶׁל זֶה מָנֶה וְשֶׁל זֶה מָאתַיִם וְשֶׁל זֶה שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת אִם הָיָה כָּל הַנִּמְצָא שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת נוֹטְלִין מֵאָה מֵאָה. וְכֵן אִם נִמְצָא שָׁם פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה. נִמְצָא שָׁם יֶתֶר עַל שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת חוֹלְקִין שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה וְיִסְתַּלֵּק בַּעַל הַמֵּאָה וּשְׁאָר הַמָּמוֹן חוֹלְקִין אוֹתוֹ הַשְּׁנַיִם עַל אוֹתָהּ הַדֶּרֶךְ. כֵּיצַד. נִמְצְאוּ שָׁם חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת אוֹ פָּחוֹת חוֹלְקִין שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה וְיִסְתַּלֵּק הָאֶחָד וְחוֹזְרִין וְחוֹלְקִין הַמָּאתַיִם אוֹ הַפָּחוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה וְיִסְתַּלֵּק הַשֵּׁנִי. נִמְצָא שָׁם שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת חוֹלְקִין שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה וְיִסְתַּלֵּק בַּעַל הַמָּנֶה וְחוֹזְרִין וְחוֹלְקִין הַמָּאתַיִם בֵּין הַשְּׁנַיִם בְּשָׁוֶה וְיִסְתַּלֵּק בַּעַל הַמָּאתַיִם. וְנוֹתְנִין הַמֵּאָה הַנִּשְׁאָרִים לְבַעַל הַשְּׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת וְנִמְצָא בְּיָדוֹ שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת בִּלְבַד. וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ זוֹ חוֹלְקִין אֲפִלּוּ הֵן מֵאָה כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ לִגְבּוֹת כְּאַחַת. וְיֵשׁ מִן הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁהוֹרוּ שֶׁחוֹלְקִין לְפִי מָמוֹנָם: \n", + "רְאוּבֵן וְשִׁמְעוֹן לְכָל אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם שְׁטַר חוֹב עַל לֵוִי רְאוּבֵן שְׁטָרוֹ בַּחֲמִישִׁי בְּנִיסָן וְשִׁמְעוֹן שְׁטָרוֹ בְּנִיסָן סְתָם וַהֲרֵי יֵשׁ לְלֵוִי שָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ כְּדֵי חוֹב שֶׁל שְׁנֵיהֶם מוֹרִידִין לְתוֹכָהּ רְאוּבֵן שֶׁמָּא שְׁטָרוֹ שֶׁל שִׁמְעוֹן בְּסוֹף נִיסָן הָיָה. וְכֵן אֵין שִׁמְעוֹן יָכוֹל לִטְרֹף מֵאִיָּר וְאֵילָךְ שֶׁהֲרֵי הַלּוֹקֵחַ אוֹמֵר לוֹ שֶׁמָּא בְּאֶחָד בְּנִיסָן הוּא זְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָרְךָ וַהֲרֵי שָׂדֶה בַּת חוֹרִין בְּיַד רְאוּבֵן שֶׁתִּגְבֶּה אוֹתָהּ וְיָבוֹא רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהוּא אַחַר זְמַנְּךָ וְהוּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ לִטְרֹף מִמֶּנּוּ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם כָּתְבוּ הַרְשָׁאָה זֶה לָזֶה טוֹרְפִין מֵאִיָּר וְאֵילָךְ מִכָּל צַד. וְהוּא הַדִּין בִּרְאוּבֵן וְשִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁמָּכַר לָהֶן לֵוִי שָׂדֶה אַחַת בִּשְׁנֵי שְׁטָרוֹת שְׁטָרוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בַּחֲמִשָּׁה בְּנִיסָן וּשְׁטָרוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בְּנִיסָן סְתָם: \n" + ], + [ + "בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחַ הַלּוֹקֵחַ בֵּין שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחוּ מֵחֲמַת הוֹצָאָה בֵּין שֶׁשָּׁבְחוּ נְכָסִים מֵאֲלֵיהֶן. אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם שָׁבְחוּ מֵאֲלֵיהֶן טוֹרֵף כָּל הַשֶּׁבַח וְאִם הִשְׁבִּיחוּ מֵחֲמַת הוֹצָאָה גּוֹבֶה חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח. כֵּיצַד. רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ חוֹב עַל שִׁמְעוֹן מָאתַיִם וּמָכַר שִׁמְעוֹן לְלֵוִי שָׂדֶה בְּמָנֶה וְהוֹצִיא עָלֶיהָ לֵוִי הוֹצָאוֹת וְהִשְׁבִּיחָהּ וַהֲרֵי הִיא שָׁוָה מָאתַיִם. כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹא רְאוּבֵן לִטְרֹף מִלֵּוִי טוֹרֵף מִמֶּנָּה בְּמֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁל חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח. וְאִם הִשְׁבִּיחָה מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָהּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוּקְרָה בְּדָמִים אוֹ עָלוּ בָּהּ אִילָנוֹת גּוֹבֶה אֶת כֻּלָּהּ. הוֹרוּ חֲכָמִים גְּדוֹלִים וְאָמְרוּ לֹא יְהֵא הַלּוֹקֵחַ רַע כֹּחוֹ מֵהַיּוֹרֵד לִשְׂדֵה חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת שֶׁשָּׁמִין לוֹ וְיָדוֹ עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה לְפִיכָךְ אִם הִשְׁבִּיחַ מֵאָה וְהוֹצִיא חֲמִשִּׁים נוֹטֵל כָּל הַהוֹצָאָה וַחֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח הַיָּתֵר עַל הַהוֹצָאָה וְהַחֲצִי עִם הַקֶּרֶן טוֹרֵף בַּעַל חוֹב [וּדְבָרִים שֶׁל טַעַם הֵם וְכָךְ רָאוּי לָדוּן] וְחוֹזֵר הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְגוֹבֶה אֶת הַקֶּרֶן מִנִּכְסֵי שִׁמְעוֹן אַף מִן הַמְשֻׁעְבָּדִין שֶׁמָּכַר אוֹ נָתַן מֵאַחַר זְמַן שֶׁמָּכַר בּוֹ לְלֵוִי. אֲבָל הַשֶּׁבַח שֶׁטָּרַף מִמֶּנּוּ בַּעַל חוֹב בֵּין בְּחֶצְיוֹ בֵּין בְּכֻלּוֹ אֵין לֵוִי גּוֹבֵהוּ אֶלָּא מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין שֶׁל שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁתַּקָּנַת עוֹלָם הִיא שֶׁלֹּא יִגְבֶּה הַשֶּׁבַח וְלֹא הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל הַגַּזְלָן וְלֹא מְזוֹן הָאִשָּׁה וְהַבָּנוֹת מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִין שֶׁאֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן קִצְבָה. וּמִקֻּלֵּי כְּתֻבָּה שֶׁלֹּא תִּטְרֹף אִשָּׁה מִן הַשֶּׁבַח כְּתֻבָּתָהּ. וְלָמָּה יִטְרֹף בַּעַל חוֹב חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח בִּלְבַד הַבָּאָה מֵחֲמַת הוֹצָאָה עַצְמָהּ לְפִי שֶׁהַשֶּׁבַח בָּא לְאַחַר שֶׁלָּוָה מֵרְאוּבֵן וּלְאַחַר שֶׁמָּכַר לְלֵוִי וְנִמְצָא רְאוּבֵן וְלֵוִי כִּשְׁנֵי בַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת לְשִׁמְעוֹן וְהַשֶּׁבַח בַּנְּכָסִים שֶׁבָּאוּ לוֹ אַחַר שֶׁלָּוָה מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם שֶׁהֵן חוֹלְקִין כְּאֶחָד כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. לְפִיכָךְ רְאוּבֵן שֶׁלָּוָה מִשִּׁמְעוֹן מָנֶה וְכָתַב לוֹ שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִקְנוֹת וְחָזַר וְלָוָה מִלֵּוִי מָאתַיִם וְכָתַב לוֹ שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִקְנוֹת וְקָנָה אַחַר כָּךְ שָׂדֶה וּמְכָרָהּ לִיהוּדָה בְּמֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים וְהִשְׁבִּיחָהּ יְהוּדָה בְּהוֹצָאָתוֹ וַהֲרֵי הִיא שָׁוָה שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת טוֹרֵף שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי הַקֶּרֶן וְחוֹלְקִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשָׁוֶה וְנִמְצָא בְּיַד זֶה חֲמִשָּׁה וְשִׁבְעִים וּבְיַד זֶה חֲמִשָּׁה וְשִׁבְעִים. וְחוֹזְרִין שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי וִיהוּדָה שְׁלָשְׁתָּן וְחוֹלְקִין מֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁל שֶׁבַח עַל הַדֶּרֶךְ שֶׁפֵּרַשְׁנוּ. נִמְצָא שִׁמְעוֹן טוֹרֵף מָנֶה שֶׁלּוֹ מִשָּׂדֶה זוֹ וְלֵוִי טוֹרֵף מֵאָה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁבְעָה וּמֶחֱצָה וִיהוּדָה נוֹטֵל מִן הַשֶּׁבַח שְׁנַיִם וְשִׁשִּׁים וּמֶחֱצָה. וְכָזֶה הֵן חוֹלְקִין אֲפִלּוּ הֵן מֵאָה: ", + "כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל הַלּוֹקֵחַ אֵינָן נִטְרָפִין מִמֶּנּוּ. אֲבָל הַפֵּרוֹת הַמְחֻבָּרִין לַקַּרְקַע אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן צְרִיכִין לַקַּרְקַע כַּעֲנָבִים שֶׁהִגִּיעוּ לְהִבָּצֵר הֲרֵי בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מֵהֶן כְּמוֹ שֶׁגּוֹבֶה מִן הַשֶּׁבַח: ", + "מַתָּנָה שֶׁשָּׁבְחָה מֵחֲמַת הוֹצָאָה אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מִשִּׁבְחָהּ כְּלוּם אֶלָּא רוֹאִין כַּמָּה הָיְתָה שָׁוָה בִּשְׁעַת מַתָּנָה וְגוֹבֶה. וְאִם שָׁבְחָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה אֶת כֻּלָּהּ. וְאִם קִבֵּל הַנּוֹתֵן אַחֲרָיוּת הַמַּתָּנָה הֲרֵי בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מִמֶּנָּה אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁגּוֹבִין מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת. וְלָמָּה יִטְרֹף בַּעַל חוֹב חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח מִן הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְלֹא יִטְרֹף מִמְּקַבֵּל מַתָּנָה כְּלוּם. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַמּוֹכֵר כּוֹתֵב לַלּוֹקֵחַ בִּשְׁטַר מְכִירָה שֶׁאֲנִי מְחֻיָּב לְךָ בַּקֶּרֶן וּבֵעָמָל שֶׁתַּעֲמל וּבַשֶּׁבַח שֶׁתַּשְׁבִּיחַ וְעָלַי אַחֲרָיוּת הַכּל וְרָצָה הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְקִבֵּל דָּבָר זֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי הַלּוֹקֵחַ יָרַד עַל תְּנַאי זֶה שֶׁאִם יִלָּקַח מִמֶּנּוּ הַשֶּׁבַח יַחְזֹר עַל הַמּוֹכֵר. וַאֲפִלּוּ לֹא כָּתַב כְּבָר נוֹדַע שֶׁזֶּה דִּין הַמּוֹכֵר עִם הַלּוֹקֵחַ. אֲבָל הַמַּתְנֶה שֶׁאֵין שָׁם תְּנַאי זֶה אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִשֶּׁבַח שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחָהּ בְּהוֹצָאָתוֹ כְּלוּם: ", + "וְכֵן יְתוֹמִים שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחוּ הַנְּכָסִים אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מִן הַשֶּׁבַח כְּלוּם. אֲבָל אִם שָׁבְחוּ נְכָסִים מֵאֲלֵיהֶן גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח כֻּלּוֹ: ", + "בַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁטָּרַף בְּחוֹבוֹ מִיַּד הַלּוֹקֵחַ מַה שֶּׁרָאוּי לוֹ מִן הַקֶּרֶן וַחֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח רוֹאִין הַנִּשְׁאָר מִן הַקַּרְקַע אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ תְּעָלָה לַלּוֹקֵחַ כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּשְׁאַר לוֹ בַּשָּׂדֶה בַּיִת תִּשְׁעָה קַבִּין וּבַגִּנָּה בַּיִת חֲצִי קַב יִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ בָּהּ שְׁנֵיהֶם. וְאִם לֹא נִשְׁאַר לוֹ דָּבָר שֶׁאִלּוּ יְחַלֵּק יִהְיֶה שֵׁם כֻּלּוֹ עָלָיו נוֹתֵן לוֹ בַּעַל חוֹב אֶת דָּמָיו: ", + "הָיְתָה הַשָּׂדֶה אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי בַּעַל חוֹב נוֹטֵל אֶת כֻּלָּהּ וְרוֹאִין חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח הַנִּשְׁאָר לַלּוֹקֵחַ אִם הָיָה חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח יֶתֶר עַל הַהוֹצָאָה נוֹטֵל הַהוֹצָאָה מִבַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר לוֹ בַּעַל חוֹב שָׂדִי הוּא שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחָה וְהַנִּשְׁאָר לוֹ מִן הַשֶּׁבַח נוֹטֵל מִן הַמּוֹכֵר וְאִם הָיָה חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח פָּחוֹת מִן הַהוֹצָאָה אֵין לוֹ מִן הַטּוֹרֵף אֶלָּא דְּמֵי חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח וְחוֹזֵר וְגוֹבֶה מִן הַמּוֹכֵר חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח שֶׁנִּטְרַף בִּלְבַד: ", + "בַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁבָּא לִטְרֹף מִן הַיְתוֹמִין. יְתוֹמִים אוֹמְרִים אָנוּ הִשְׁבַּחְנוּ וּבַעַל חוֹב אוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא אֲבִיכֶם הִשְׁבִּיחַ. עַל הַיְתוֹמִים לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה. הֵבִיאוּ רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵם הִשְׁבִּיחוּ שָׁמִין לָהֶן אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח וְאֶת הַהוֹצָאָה וְנוֹטְלִין הַפָּחוּת שֶׁבִּשְׁנֵיהֶן וּמַעֲלֶה אוֹתָן בְּדָמִים. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁעָשָׂה שָׂדֶה זוֹ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי. אֲבָל אִם לֹא עָשָׂהוּ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי אִם רָצוּ הַיְתוֹמִין לְסַלֵּק בַּעַל חוֹב בְּדָמִים מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ וְאִם רָצוּ נוֹטְלִין מִן הַקַּרְקַע שִׁעוּר שֶׁבַח שֶׁלָּהֶן: " + ], + [ + "סֵדֶר גְּבִיַּת הַחוֹב כָּךְ הוּא. כְּשֶׁיָּבִיא הַמַּלְוֶה שְׁטָרוֹ לְבֵית דִּין וְיִתְקַיֵּם אוֹמְרִים לַלּוֶֹה שַׁלֵּם. וְאֵין יוֹרְדִין לִנְכָסָיו תְּחִלָּה עַד שֶׁיִּתְבָּעֶנּוּ. וְאִם טָעָה הַדַּיָּן וְהוֹרִיד הַמַּלְוֶה לְנִכְסֵי לוֶֹה קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּתְבָּעֶנּוּ מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ. אָמַר הַלּוֶֹה הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם קִבְעוּ לִי זְמַן כְּדֵי שֶׁאֶלְוֶה מֵאַחֵר אוֹ אֲמַשְׁכֵּן אוֹ אֶמְכֹּר וְאָבִיא הַמָּעוֹת קוֹבְעִין לוֹ זְמַן שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וְאֵין מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ לִתֵּן מַשְׁכּוֹן שֶׁאִלּוּ הָיוּ שָׁם מִטַּלְטְלִים מִיָּד הָיוּ בֵּית דִּין גּוֹבִין מֵהֶן. וְאִם רָצָה הַמַּלְוֶה לְהַחֲרִים עַל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מָעוֹת אוֹ מִטַּלְטְלִין וּמַפְלִיג אוֹתוֹ בִּדְבָרִים הֲרֵי זֶה מַחֲרִים. וְאֵין מְחַיְּבִין הַלּוֶֹה לְהָבִיא עָרֵב עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן. שָׁלְמוּ הַשְּׁלֹשִׁים וְלֹא הֵבִיא בֵּית דִּין כּוֹתְבִין אַדְרַכְתָּא. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר בַּתְּחִלָּה כְּשֶׁתְּבָעוֹ אֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם כּוֹתְבִין אַדְרַכְתָּא עַל נְכָסָיו מִיָּד וְאֵין קוֹבְעִין לוֹ זְמַן. וְכֵן אִם אֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא מִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה אוֹ שֶׁהוֹדָה כּוֹתְבִין אַדְרַכְתָּא עַל נִכְסֵי בְּנֵי חוֹרִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ: \n", + "טָעַן וְאָמַר שְׁטָר זֶה שֶׁנִּתְקַיֵּם בִּפְנֵיהֶם מְזֻיָּף הוּא אֲנִי אָבִיא רְאָיָה וַאֲבַטְּלֶנּוּ וְעֵדַי בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וְהֵם פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי. אִם נִרְאֶה לַדַּיָּנִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו קוֹבְעִין לוֹ זְמַן לְהָבִיא עֵדָיו וְאִם נִרְאֶה לָהֶם שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּא אֶלָּא בַּעֲלִילוֹת דְּבָרִים וּבִטְעָנוֹת שֶׁל דֹּפִי אוֹמְרִים לוֹ שַׁלֵּם וְאַחַר כָּךְ אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ רְאָיָה יַחְזֹר. וְאִם הָיָה הַמַּלְוֶה אַלָּם וְשֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ מִיָּדוֹ מַנִּיחִין עַל יְדֵי שָׁלִישׁ: \n", + "קָבְעוּ לוֹ זְמַן לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה וּלְבַטֵּל הַשְּׁטָר וְהִגִּיעַ הַזְּמַן וְלֹא בָּא מַמְתִּינִין לוֹ שֵׁנִי וַחֲמִישִׁי וְשֵׁנִי. לֹא בָּא כּוֹתְבִין עָלָיו פְּתִיחָא וּמְשַׁמְּתִין אוֹתוֹ וּמַמְתִּינִין לוֹ וְהוּא בְּנִדּוּיוֹ תִּשְׁעִים יוֹם. שְׁלֹשִׁים רִאשׁוֹנִים שֶׁמָּא טוֹרֵחַ לִלְווֹת. אֶמְצָעִים שֶׁמָּא הוּא טוֹרֵחַ לִמְכֹּר. אַחֲרוֹנִים שֶׁמָּא הַלּוֹקֵחַ מִמֶּנּוּ טוֹרֵחַ לְהָבִיא מָעוֹת. שָׁלְמוּ תִּשְׁעִים יוֹם וְלֹא בָּא בֵּית דִּין כּוֹתְבִין לוֹ אַדְרַכְתָּא עַל נְכָסָיו וּמַתִּירִין לוֹ נִדּוּיוֹ: \n", + "אֵין כּוֹתְבִין אַדְרַכְתָּא עַד שֶׁשּׁוֹלְחִין וּמוֹדִיעִין לוֹ. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה קָרוֹב בְּבֵית דִּין מַהֲלַךְ שְׁנֵי יָמִים אוֹ פָּחוֹת. יֶתֶר עַל זֶה אֵין צְרִיכִין לְהוֹדִיעוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה כָּל הַתִּשְׁעִים יוֹם נִשְׁמָט וְאוֹמֵר עַתָּה אָבִיא רְאָיָה וַאֲבַטֵּל הַשְּׁטָר. אֲבָל אָמַר אֵינִי בָּא לְבֵית דִּין מִיָּד כּוֹתְבִין אַדְרַכְתָּא עַל נְכָסָיו בֵּין עַל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת בֵּין עַל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין. וְכֵן אִם הָיָה הַשְּׁטָר עַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן אֵין מַמְתִּינִין לוֹ תִּשְׁעִים יוֹם אֶלָּא כּוֹתְבִין אַדְרַכְתָּא עַל נְכָסָיו מִיָּד: \n", + "זֶה שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ שֶׁאִם לֹא בָּא בְּסוֹף הַתִּשְׁעִים כּוֹתְבִין אַדְרַכְתָּא עַל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת. אֲבָל עַל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין אֲפִלּוּ אַחַר תִּשְׁעִים יוֹם כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר עַתָּה אָבִיא רְאָיָה וַאֲבַטֵּל הַשְּׁטָר אֵין מוֹרִידִין הַמַּלְוֶה לַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁמָּא יֹאכַל אוֹתָם וְיָבִיא זֶה רְאָיָה וִיבַטֵּל הַשְּׁטָר וְלֹא יִמְצָא מַה יִּטּל. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה לַמַּלְוֶה קַרְקַע שֶׁמָּא תַּכְסִיף אוֹ תִּשְׁתַּדֵּף: \n", + "כֵּיצַד כּוֹתְבִין הָאַדְרַכְתָּא. אִם לִנְכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין הוֹרִידוּהוּ אוֹמְרִים אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי נִתְחַיֵּב לִפְלוֹנִי בַּדִּין כָּךְ וְכָךְ וְלֹא נָתַן לוֹ מֵעַצְמוֹ וְכָתַבְנוּ לוֹ אַדְרַכְתָּא זוֹ עַל שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית שֶׁלּוֹ. וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁמִין לוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה מֵאוֹתָהּ שָׂדֶה כְּנֶגֶד חוֹבוֹ וּמַכְרִיזִין עָלֶיהָ כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁיִּרְאוּ עַד שֶׁיִּפְסְקוּ הַמּוֹסִיפִין. וּמוֹרִידִין אוֹתוֹ בְּחוֹבוֹ לַחֵלֶק שֶׁשָּׁמוּ אוֹתוֹ וְקוֹרְעִין שְׁטַר הַחוֹב אִם הָיָה שָׁם שְׁטָר. וְאִם לֹא הָיוּ לוֹ נְכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין כּוֹתְבִין הָאַדְרַכְתָּא כָּךְ אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי נִתְחַיֵּב לִפְלוֹנִי כָּךְ בִּשְׁטָר חוֹב שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ וְלֹא נָתַן לוֹ חוֹבוֹ וְלֹא מָצָאנוּ לוֹ נְכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. וּכְבָר קָרַעְנוּ לַשְּׁטָר שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ עָלָיו וְנָתַנְנוּ לִפְלוֹנִי רְשׁוּת לִדְרשׁ וְלַחְקֹר וְלִהְיוֹת יָדוֹ נְטוּיָה עַל כָּל הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁיִּמָצְאוּ לוֹ וְכָל קַרְקָעוֹת שֶׁמָּכַר מִזְּמַן פְּלוֹנִי וָהָלְאָה יֵשׁ לוֹ לְהִפָּרַע לִגְבּוֹת חוֹבוֹ מִן הַכּל: \n", + "וְאַחַר שֶׁכּוֹתְבִין אַדְרַכְתָּא זוֹ הוֹלֵךְ הַמַּלְוֶה וּמְחַפֵּשׂ. אִם מָצָא לוֹ נְכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין שָׁמִין לוֹ מֵהֶן. מָצָא לוֹ נְכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִין מֵאַחַר זְמַן שְׁטָרוֹ טוֹרֵף מֵהֶן וְקוֹרְעִין שְׁטַר הָאַדְרַכְתָּא וְכוֹתְבִין לוֹ שְׁטַר הַטִּירְפָא: \n", + "כֵּיצַד כּוֹתְבִין. אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי זָכָה בַּדִּין לִטְרֹף בְּחוֹב שֶׁפְּלוֹנִי חַיָּב לוֹ שֶׁהוּא כָּךְ וְכָךְ מִשָּׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית שֶׁלָּקַח פְּלוֹנִי בְּכָךְ וְכָךְ מִזְּמַן פְּלוֹנִי. וּכְבָר קָרַעְנוּ הָאַדְרַכְתָּא שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּיָדוֹ וְהִרְשִׁינוּהוּ לִטְרֹף מִזֶּה בְּכָךְ וְכָךְ: \n", + "וְאַחַר שֶׁכּוֹתְבִין הַטִּירְפָא לִטְרֹף מוֹרִידִין שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּקִיאִין לְאוֹתָהּ שָׂדֶה וְשָׁמִין לוֹ מִמֶּנָּה כְּשִׁעוּר חוֹבוֹ כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁרָאוּי לוֹ מִן הַקֶּרֶן וַחֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וּמַכְרִיזִין עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמַּכְרִיזִין עַל נִכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים: \n", + "וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַשְׁבִּיעִין אֶת הַלּוֶֹה שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כְּלוּם כְּתַקָּנַת הַגְּאוֹנִים אִם הָיָה הַלּוֶֹה עִמָּנוּ בַּמְּדִינָה. וּמַשְׁבִּיעִין אֶת הַטּוֹרֵף בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְרַע חוֹב זֶה וְלֹא מְחָלוֹ וְלֹא מְכָרוֹ לְאַחֵר. וְאַחַר כָּךְ מוֹרִידִין אוֹתוֹ לְנִכְסֵי הַלּוֹקֵחַ בְּשׁוּמָא שֶׁלּוֹ וְכוֹתְבִין הוֹרָדָה: \n", + "וְכֵיצַד כּוֹתְבִין. אַחַר שֶׁשַּׁמְנוּ לִפְלוֹנִי בְּשׁוּמָא שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּיָדוֹ וְהִכְרַזְנוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם כָּרָאוּי וְהִשְׁבַּעְנוּ אֶת זֶה הַטּוֹרֵף וְאֶת בַּעַל חוֹב הוֹרַדְנוּהוּ לְשָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית לִהְיוֹת מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהּ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ אָדָם בְּקִנְיָנוֹ: \n", + "וּמֵאֵימָתַי אוֹכֵל הַטּוֹרֵף פֵּרוֹת שָׂדֶה זוֹ מִשֶּׁיִּפְסְקוּ יְמֵי הַהַכְרָזָה: \n", + "כָּל אַדְרַכְתָּא שֶׁאֵין כָּתוּב בָּהּ קְרַעְנוּהוּ לִשְׁטַר הַהַלְוָאָה אֵינָהּ אַדְרַכְתָּא. וְכָל טִירְפָא שֶׁאֵין כָּתוּב בָּהּ קְרַעְנוּהָ לָאַדְרַכְתָּא אֵינָהּ טִירְפָא. וְכָל שׁוּמָא דְּלָא כָּתוּב בָּהּ קְרַעְנוּהָ לַטִּירְפָא אֵינָהּ שׁוּמָא: \n", + "שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁיָּרְדוּ לָשׁוּם. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּמָנֶה וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים בְּמָאתַיִם אוֹ אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּמָאתַיִם וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים בְּמָנֶה. בָּטֵל יָחִיד בְּמִעוּטוֹ. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּמָנֶה וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁמוֹנִים וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּמֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים נִדּוֹן בְּמֵאָה. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר תִּשְׁעִים וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר מֵאָה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים נִדּוֹן בְּמֵאָה וַעֲשָׂרָה. וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ זוֹ שָׁמִין בֵּינֵיהֶן: \n", + "בֵּית דִּין שֶׁשָּׁמוּ לַטּוֹרֵף בְּנִכְסֵי לוֹקֵחַ וְטָעוּ בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא מִכְרָן בָּטֵל שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵן כְּשָׁלִיחַ לַטּוֹרֵף וְלַלּוֹקֵחַ וְיֵשׁ לָהֶן רְשׁוּת לְתַקֵּן אֲבָל לֹא לְעַוֵּת כְּשָׁלִיחַ. וְכָל הַמּוֹרִים כָּזֶה הוֹרוּ: \n", + "בֵּית דִּין שֶׁשָּׁמוּ לְבַעַל חוֹב בֵּין בְּנִכְסֵי לוֶֹה בֵּין בִּמְשֻׁעְבָּדִין שֶׁבְּיַד הַלּוֹקֵחַ וּלְאַחַר זְמַן הִשִּׂיגָה יָדוֹ שֶׁל לוֶֹה אוֹ שֶׁל נִטְרָף אוֹ שֶׁל יוֹרְשֵׁיהֶן וְהֵבִיאוּ לְבַעַל חוֹב אֶת מְעוֹתָיו מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ מֵאוֹתָהּ קַרְקַע. שֶׁהַשּׁוּמָא חוֹזֶרֶת לַבְּעָלִים לְעוֹלָם. מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ו יח) \"וְעָשִׂיתָ הַיָּשָׁר וְהַטּוֹב\": \n", + "קַרְקַע שֶׁשָּׁמוּ אוֹתָהּ לְבַעַל חוֹב וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁמוּהָ בֵּית דִּין לְבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁל זֶה הַמַּלְוֶה הֲרֵי זוֹ חוֹזֶרֶת. לֹא יְהֵא כֹּחוֹ גָּדוֹל מִכֹּחַ בַּעַל חוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן. מְכָרָהּ בַּעַל חוֹב אוֹ נְתָנָהּ בְּמַתָּנָה אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמָהּ לְבַעַל חוֹב מִדַּעְתּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁמֵּת וְהוֹרִישָׁהּ אֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת. שָׁמוּ קַרְקַע לְאִשָּׁה וְנִשֵּׂאת אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמוּ מִמֶּנָּה וְנִשֵּׂאת בַּעַל בְּנִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ כְּלוֹקֵחַ הוּא וְלֹא מַחְזִיר וְלֹא מַחֲזִירִין לוֹ: \n" + ], + [ + "שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב הַמֻּקְדָּמִים פְּסוּלִין שֶׁהֲרֵי טוֹרֵף בָּהֶן לָקוֹחוֹת שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין וּלְפִיכָךְ קָנְסוּ אוֹתוֹ חֲכָמִים וְלֹא יִגְבֶּה בִּשְׁטָר מֻקְדָּם אֶלָּא מִבְּנֵי חוֹרִין גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יִטְרֹף בּוֹ מִזְּמַן רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ: \n", + "שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב הַמְאֻחָרִין כְּשֵׁרִין שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּרַע כֹּחוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ טוֹרֵף אֶלָּא מִזְּמַן הַשְּׁטָר. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא כָּתְבוּ בּוֹ שֶׁהוּא מְאֻחָר הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר: \n", + "שְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוּהוּ בַּיּוֹם וְנֶחְתַּם בַּלַּיְלָה הַסָּמוּךְ לוֹ פָּסוּל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מֻקְדָּם. וְאִם הָיוּ עֲסוּקִים בָּעִנְיָן עַד שֶׁנִּכְנַס הַלַּיְלָה וַחֲתָמוּהוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּנוּ מִמֶּנּוּ בַּלַּיְלָה כָּשֵׁר: \n", + "שְׁטָר שֶׁזְּמַנּוֹ כָּתוּב בְּשַׁבָּת אוֹ בַּעֲשָׂרָה בְּתִשְׁרֵי שְׁטָר מְאֻחָר הוּא וְכָשֵׁר. וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא מֻקְדָּם הוּא וּבְאֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת אוֹ בְּי\"א בְּתִשְׁרֵי נִכְתַּב אֶלָּא מַעֲמִידִין הַשְּׁטָר עַל חֶזְקָתוֹ שֶׁהַדָּבָר יָדוּעַ הוּא שֶׁאֵין כּוֹתְבִין בְּשַׁבָּת וּלְפִיכָךְ אִחֲרוּהוּ: \n", + "כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָר לַלּוֶֹה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַמַּלְוֶה עִמּוֹ וְאֵין כּוֹתְבִין לַמַּלְוֶה עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לוֶֹה עִמּוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ קִנְיָן שֶׁהֲרֵי מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ נִשְׁתַּעְבְּדוּ נְכָסָיו. אֲבָל שְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ קִנְיָן אֵין כּוֹתְבִין אֲפִלּוּ לַלּוֶֹה עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מַלְוֶה עִמּוֹ וְיִתֵּן הַשְּׁטָר בְּיַד הַמַּלְוֶה בְּפָנֵינוּ שֶׁמָּא יִכְתֹּב עַתָּה לִלְווֹת מִמֶּנּוּ בְּנִיסָן וְלֹא יִלְוֶה מִמֶּנּוּ עַד תִּשְׁרֵי וְנִמְצָא הַמַּלְוֶה טוֹרֵף בִּשְׁטָר זֶה מִנִּיסָן שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ לְיָדוֹ עַד תִּשְׁרֵי: \n", + "עֵדִים שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיַּד הַלּוֶֹה אוֹ הַמּוֹכֵר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וְנִתְאַחֲרָה כְּתִיבַת הַשְּׁטָר זְמַן מְרֻבֶּה אִם יָדְעוּ יוֹם שֶׁקָּנוּ מִמֶּנּוּ בּוֹ כּוֹתְבִין בַּשְּׁטָר זְמַן הַקִּנְיָן וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ זְמַן חֲתִימָתָן. וְאֵין צְרִיכִין לוֹמַר וְנִתְאַחֲרָה כְּתִיבַת יָדֵינוּ עַד יוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. וְאִם לֹא יָדְעוּ יוֹם שֶׁקָּנוּ בּוֹ כּוֹתְבִין זְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר מִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה. וְכֵן מִי שֶׁנִּמְסְרָה לָהֶן הָעֵדוּת בִּמְדִינָה אַחַת וְכָתְבוּ הָעֵדִים בִּמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת אֵין מַזְכִּירִין בַּשְּׁטָר מָקוֹם שֶׁנִּמְסְרָה בּוֹ הָעֵדוּת אֶלָּא מָקוֹם שֶׁכָּתְבוּ בּוֹ חֲתִימַת יָדָן: \n", + "שִׁטְרֵי מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר שֶׁלֹּא נִכְתְּבוּ בִּזְמַנָּן אֲפִלּוּ הַמְאֻחָרִין פְּסוּלִין שֶׁהֲרֵי אֶפְשָׁר לִטְרֹף בָּהֶן שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁחָזַר הַמּוֹכֵר וְקָנָה הַשָּׂדֶה מִיַּד הַלּוֹקֵחַ קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ זְמַן הַשְּׁטָר הַמְאֻחָר וְיוֹצִיא הַלָּה הַשְּׁטָר הַמְאֻחָר וְיֹאמַר חָזַרְתִּי וּלְקַחְתִּיהָ פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה מִמְּךָ וְנִמְצָא טוֹרֵף שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין. וְלָמָּה לֹא נָחוּשׁ כֵּן לִשְׁטַר חוֹב הַמְאֻחָר שֶׁמָּא יִפְרָעֶנּוּ קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ וְיִכְתֹּב שׁוֹבֵר וְיַחְזֹר וְיוֹצִיא הַשְּׁטָר הַמְאֻחָר וְיִטְרֹף בּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין. לְפִי שֶׁכָּל הַכּוֹתֵב שְׁטָר מְאֻחָר תַּקָּנָתוֹ שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב הַשּׁוֹבֵר סְתָם שֶׁכָּל זְמַן שֶׁיֵּצֵא הַשְּׁטָר יִשְׁבֹּר אוֹתוֹ זֶה הַשּׁוֹבֵר. וְאִם לֹא עָשָׂה כֵן וְכָתַב הַשּׁוֹבֵר בִּזְמַן הַפֵּרָעוֹן הוּא הִפְסִיד עַל עַצְמוֹ: \n", + "מִי שֶׁמָּכַר שָׂדֵהוּ בְּאֹנֶס וּמָסַר מוֹדָעָא. אוֹ שֶׁקָּדַם וּמָכַר אוֹ נָתַן לְאַחֵר קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּמְכֹּר לְאַנָּס. הֲרֵי הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁל אַנָּס אֵצֶל הַמּוֹכֵר כְּמִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה וְאֵינוֹ טוֹרֵף בִּשְׁטַר מֶכֶר שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ כְּלוּם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין דִּין שְׁטָר זֶה שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב וְלֹא נִכְתַּב אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי הָאֹנֶס. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "אֶפְשָׁר לַטּוֹרֵף שֶׁיִּטְרֹף בְּלֹא שְׁטָר אֶלָּא בְּעֵדוּת עַל פֶּה. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עֵדוּת שֶׁזּוֹ גְּזוּלָה מֵאָבִיו הֲרֵי יֵשׁ לוֹ לְהוֹצִיא בְּעֵדִים אֵלּוּ וְאֵין כָּאן שְׁטָר. וְכֵן אִם הֵעִידוּ לוֹ שֶׁנִּגְמַר הַדִּין לְאָבִיו לִטְרֹף מִנִּכְסֵי פְּלוֹנִי בְּכָךְ וְכָךְ מִזְּמַן פְּלוֹנִי וּמֵת אָבִיו וַעֲדַיִן לֹא טָרַף הֲרֵי הַבֵּן טוֹרֵף בְּעֵדוּת זוֹ: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שְׁנֵי שִׁטְרוֹת מֶכֶר עַל שָׂדֶה אַחַת שֶׁמָּא יַעֲשֶׂה הַלּוֹקֵחַ קְנוּנְיָא עִם בַּעַל חוֹב וְיִטְרֹף שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין. כֵּיצַד. יָבוֹא זֶה וְיִטְרֹף שָׂדֶה זוֹ בְּעֵדוּת שֶׁהֵעִידוּ לוֹ מֵחֲמַת אָבִיו וְיַחְזֹר הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְיִטְרֹף בִּשְׁטַר הַמֶּכֶר שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת שֶׁלָּקְחוּ אַחֲרָיו וְיִקְרַע שְׁטַר הַמֶּכֶר שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ וְיַחְזֹר בִּקְנוּנְיָא וְיַעֲמֹד בַּשָּׂדֶה שֶׁנִּטְרְפָה מִמֶּנּוּ וְיָבוֹא הוּא שֶׁטְּרָפָהּ בְּעַצְמָהּ וְיִטְרֹף אוֹתָהּ פַּעַם אַחֶרֶת בְּעֵדוּת עֵדָיו וְיוֹצִיא הַלָּה שְׁטַר הַמֶּכֶר הַשֵּׁנִי וְיִטְרֹף בּוֹ לָקוֹחוֹת אֲחֵרִים שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין. אִם כֵּן מִי שֶׁנֶּאֱבַד לוֹ שְׁטַר הַמֶּכֶר וְעֵדָיו קַיָּמִין כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה. יִכְתְּבוּ שְׁטָר שֵׁנִי וְיֹאמְרוּ בּוֹ שְׁטָר זֶה אֵין גּוֹבִין בּוֹ לֹא מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים וְלֹא מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין וְלֹא כְּתַבְנוּהוּ אֶלָּא לְהַעֲמִיד שָׂדֶה זוֹ בְּיַד פְּלוֹנִי הַלּוֹקֵחַ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יוֹצִיאָהּ מִיָּדוֹ הַמּוֹכֵר וְלֹא יוֹרְשָׁיו: \n", + "בְּשִׁטְרֵי הַחוֹבוֹת אֵינוֹ כֵן. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֵדָיו קַיָּמִין וְקָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ וְחָזַר בִּשְׁעָתוֹ וְאָמַר שְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתַבְתֶּם לִי עַתָּה אָבַד אוֹ נִשְׂרַף אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לוֹ שְׁטָר שֵׁנִי שֶׁמָּא פְּרָעוֹ אוֹ מְחָלוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַחוֹב לִזְמַן וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה בְּעֵדִים אֵלּוּ כְּלוּם אֶלָּא אִם הַלּוֶֹה אוֹמֵר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם שֶׁזֶּה הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן בְּעֵדוּתָן כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר: \n", + "מִי שֶׁבָּלָה שְׁטַר חוֹבוֹ וַהֲרֵי הוּא הוֹלֵךְ לְהִמָּחֵק מַעֲמִיד עָלָיו עֵדִים וּבָא לְבֵית דִּין וְהֵם עוֹשִׂין לוֹ קִיּוּם. אֲבָל עֵדֵי הַשְּׁטָר עַצְמָן אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לוֹ שְׁטָר אַחֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּמְחַק בִּפְנֵיהֶם. אֲבָל בָּאִין לְבֵית דִּין וּבֵית דִּין עוֹשִׂין לוֹ קִיּוּם: \n", + "כֵּיצַד מְקַיְּמִין שְׁטָר זֶה. כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָר אַחֵר וְאוֹמְרִים אָנוּ בֵּית דִּין פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי הוֹצִיא פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי שְׁטָר מָחוּק לְפָנֵינוּ וּזְמַנּוֹ בְּיוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי עֵדָיו. וְאִם כָּתְבוּ וְהֻזְקַקְנוּ לְעֵדוּתָן שֶׁל עֵדִים וְנִמְצֵאת מְכֻוֶּנֶת גּוֹבֶה בִּשְׁטָר זֶה שֶׁכָּתְבוּ לוֹ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ קִיּוּם אַחֵר. וְאִם לֹא כָּתְבוּ כֵן צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה עַל הָעֵדִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים עַד שֶׁתִּתְקַיֵּם עֵדוּתָן: \n", + "שְׁטַר חוֹב שֶׁנִּתְקָרֵעַ כָּשֵׁר. נִמְחַק אוֹ נִתְטַשְׁטֵשׁ אִם רִשּׁוּמוֹ נִכָּר כָּשֵׁר. נִקְרָע קֶרַע בֵּית דִּין הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל. אֵיזֶהוּ קֶרַע בֵּית דִּין שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב: \n", + "מִי שֶׁפָּרַע מִקְצָת חוֹבוֹ אִם רָצָה מַחְלִיף וְכוֹתְבִין לוֹ בֵּית דִּין שְׁטָר אַחֵר בִּשְׁאָר הַחוֹב מִזְּמַן רִאשׁוֹן אֲבָל לֹא עֵדֵי הַשְּׁטָר. וְאִם רָצָה יִכְתֹּב שׁוֹבֵר: \n", + "הַבָּא לִפְרֹעַ חוֹבוֹ וְאָמַר הַמַּלְוֶה אָבַד לִי הַשְּׁטָר הֲרֵי זֶה יִכְתֹּב לוֹ שׁוֹבֵר וְיִפְרַע כָּל חוֹבוֹ. וְיֵשׁ לַלּוֶֹה לְהַחֲרִים סְתָם עַל מִי שֶׁכּוֹבֵשׁ שְׁטָרוֹ וְטוֹעֵן שֶׁאָבַד. וְאִם טָעַן הַלּוֶֹה טַעֲנַת וַדַּאי וְאָמַר הַשְּׁטָר אֶצְלוֹ וְעַתָּה הִנִּיחוֹ בְּכִיסוֹ הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע הַמַּלְוֶה הֶסֵּת שֶׁאָבַד הַשְּׁטָר וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִפְרַע חוֹבוֹ וְיִכְתֹּב שׁוֹבֵר: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב בְּמָנֶה וְאָמַר עֲשׂוּ לִי מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁנַיִם בַּחֲמִשִּׁים חֲמִשִּׁים אֵין עוֹשִׂין שֶׁזְּכוּת הוּא לַלּוֶֹה לִהְיוֹת הַכּל בִּשְׁטָר אֶחָד שֶׁאִם יִפְרָעֶנּוּ מִקְצָת נִמְצָא שְׁטָרוֹ פָּגוּם. וְכֵן אִם הוֹצִיא שְׁנֵי שְׁטָרוֹת בַּחֲמִשִּׁים חֲמִשִּׁים וְאָמַר עָשׂוּ לִי אוֹתָן בְּמֵאָה אֵין עוֹשִׂין לוֹ אֶלָּא עוֹשִׂין לוֹ קִיּוּם לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד שֶׁזְּכוּת הוּא לַלּוֶֹה לִהְיוֹת שְׁנַיִם שֶׁלֹּא יָכֹף אוֹתוֹ בַּדִּין בְּפַעַם אַחַת לִגְבּוֹת הַכּל: \n", + "הוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב בְּמֵאָה וְאָמַר קְרָעוּהוּ וְכִתְבוּ לִי שְׁטָר אַחֵר בַּחֲמִשִּׁים אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא פָּרְעוּ הַכּל וְכָתַב לוֹ שׁוֹבֵר עַל שְׁטָר שֶׁל מֵאָה וּכְשֶׁיַּחֲזֹר וְיוֹצִיא קִיּוּם זֶה עַל שְׁטַר חֲמִשִּׁים וְיוֹצִיא הַלּוֶֹה הַשּׁוֹבֵר יֹאמַר לוֹ זֶה שְׁטָר אַחֵר הוּא: \n" + ], + [ + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁשְּׁטַר חוֹב שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ קִנְיָן כּוֹתְבִין אוֹתוֹ לַלּוֶֹה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַמַּלְוֶה עִמּוֹ. וְכֵן כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָר לַמּוֹכֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַלּוֹקֵחַ עִמּוֹ. וְכֵן כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבֵר לַמַּלְוֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַלּוֶֹה עִמּוֹ וְשׁוֹבֵר לְאִשָּׁה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בַּעְלָהּ עִמָּהּ וְגֵט לְאִישׁ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ. אֲבָל אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שִׁטְרֵי אֵרוּסִין וְנִשּׂוּאִין וְשִׁטְרֵי אֲרִיסוּת וְקַבְּלָנוּת וּשְׁטַר בְּרֵרַת הַדַּיָּנִין אוֹ שְׁטַר טַעֲנַת בַּעֲלֵי דִּינִין וְכָל מַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת שְׁנֵיהֶם. וְכָל הַשְּׁטָרוֹת הָאֵלּוּ צְרִיכִין לְהִזָּהֵר בְּתִקּוּנָן כִּשְׁאָר הַשְּׁטָרוֹת: \n", + "וּמִי נוֹתֵן שְׂכַר הַסּוֹפֵר. בְּשִׁטְרֵי הַלְוָאָה הַלּוֶֹה נוֹתֵן שָׂכָר. וּבְשִׁטְרֵי מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר הַלּוֹקֵחַ נוֹתֵן שָׂכָר. וְהָאִשָּׁה נוֹתֶנֶת שְׂכַר הַגֵּט. וְהֶחָתָן נוֹתֵן שְׂכַר שְׁטַר הָאֵרוּסִין אוֹ הַנִּשּׂוּאִין. וְהַמְקַבֵּל וְכֵן הָאָרִיס אוֹ הַשָּׂכִיר נוֹתֵן שְׂכַר הַשְּׁטָר. אֲבָל שְׁטַר בְּרֵרַת הַדַּיָּנִין אוֹ טַעֲנוֹת בַּעֲלֵי דִּינִין שְׁנֵיהֶם נוֹתְנִין שָׂכָר: \n", + "אֶחָד הַשְּׁטָרוֹת הַנִּכְתָּבִין לְאֶחָד שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי חֲבֵרוֹ וְאֶחָד הַשְּׁטָרוֹת שֶׁאֵין כּוֹתְבִין אוֹתָן אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת שְׁנֵיהֶם וּשְׁנֵיהֶן עוֹמְדִין כְּגוֹן שְׁטָר שֶׁכּוֹתְבִין לַמַּלְוֶה אוֹ לַלּוֹקֵחַ כֻּלָּן צְרִיכִין שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הָעֵדִים מַכִּירִין הַשֵּׁמוֹת שׁבַּשְּׁטָר שֶׁזֶּה הוּא פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי וְזֶהוּ פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹאוּ שְׁנַיִם וְיַעֲשׂוּ קְנוּנְיָא וִישַׁנּוּ שְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן בְּשֵׁמוֹת אֲחֵרִים וְיוֹדוּ זֶה לָזֶה: \n", + "כָּל מִי שֶׁהֻחְזַק שְׁמוֹ בָּעִיר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא שֵׁם אַחֵר יֵשׁ לוֹ וְהוּא שִׁנָּהוּ כְּדֵי לְרַמּוֹת וְלַעֲשׂוֹת קְנוּנְיָא שֶׁאִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן אֵין לַדָּבָר סוֹף. לְפִיכָךְ מִי שֶׁלֹּא הֻחְזַק שְׁמוֹ בָּעִיר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּבָא וְאָמַר כִּתְבוּ עָלַי שְׁטָר שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב לִפְלוֹנִי אוֹ לָזֶה כָּךְ וְכָךְ דִּינָרִין. אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁזֶּה שְׁמוֹ אוֹ יֻחְזַק: \n", + "כָּל שְׁטָר שֶׁיָּצָא לְפָנֵינוּ וְיִטְעֹן הַלּוֶֹה וְיֹאמַר אֵינִי חַיָּב כְּלוּם שֶׁמָּא רַמַּאי אַחֵר הֶעֱלָה שְׁמוֹ כִּשְׁמִי וְהוֹדָה לָזֶה אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לֹא לָזֶה אֲנִי חַיָּב כְּלוּם אֶלָּא לְאַחֵר וְזֶה רַמַּאי הוּא וְהֶעֱלָה שְׁמוֹ כְּשֵׁם בַּעַל חוֹבִי. מֵאַחַר שֶׁלֹּא הֻחְזַק שָׁם שְׁנַיִם שֶׁשְּׁמוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁוִין אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִדְבָרָיו שֶׁחֲזָקָה הוּא שֶׁאֵין הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין עַל הַשְּׁטָר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מַכִּירִין אֵלּוּ הַנִּזְכָּרִים בּוֹ. וְכֵן חֲזָקָה שֶׁאֵין חוֹתְמִין עַל הַשְּׁטָר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נוֹדַע לָהֶם בְּוַדַּאי שָׁאֲלוּ שֶׁהֵעִידוּ עַל עַצְמָן גְּדוֹלִים וּבְנֵי דַּעַת. וְאֵין הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין עַל הַשְּׁטָר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יוֹדְעִים לִקְרוֹת וְלַחְתֹּם: \n", + "עֵדִים שֶׁאֵין יוֹדְעִין לַחְתֹּם וְקָרְעוּ לָהֶן נְיָר חָלָק וְחָתְמוּ עַל הָרָשׁוּם מַכִּין אוֹתָן מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת וְהַשְּׁטָר פָּסוּל: \n", + "רֹאשׁ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁהָיָה יוֹדֵעַ עִנְיַן הַשְּׁטָר וְקָרָא הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁלְּפָנָיו הַסּוֹפֵר שֶׁלּוֹ הוֹאִיל וְהוּא מַאֲמִין אוֹתוֹ וְאֵימָתוֹ עָלָיו הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹתֵם עַל הַשְּׁטָר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא קְרָאָהוּ הוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ. וְאֵין שְׁאָר הָעָם רַשָּׁאִין לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן עַד שֶׁיִּקְרָא הָעֵד הַשְּׁטָר מִלָּה מִלָּה: \n", + "שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ בָּעִיר שֵׁם כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן אֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לְהוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב זֶה עַל זֶה וְלֹא אַחֵר יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיא עֲלֵיהֶן שְׁטַר חוֹב אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן בָּאוּ עֵדֵי הַשְּׁטָר בְּעַצְמָן וְאָמְרוּ זֶהוּ הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁהֵעַדְנוּ עָלָיו וְזֶהוּ שֶׁהֵעַדְנוּ לוֹ בְּהַלְוָאָה. וְכֵן אֵין מְגָרְשִׁין נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן אֶלָּא זֶה בִּפְנֵי זֶה. וְכֵן אִם נִמְצָא לְאֶחָד בֵּין שִׁטְרוֹתָיו שׁוֹבֵר שֶׁשְּׁטָרוֹ שֶׁל יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן פָּרוּעַ שִׁטְרוֹת שְׁנֵיהֶן שֶׁעָלָיו פְּרוּעִין. וְכֵיצַד יַעֲשׂוּ אֵלּוּ שֶׁשְּׁמוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁוִין וּשְׁמוֹת אֲבִיהֶן שָׁוִין. יְשַׁלְּשׁוּ. הָיוּ שְׁמוֹת אֲבוֹת אֲבוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁוִין יִכְתְּבוּ סִימָנֵיהֶן. הָיוּ דּוֹמִין זֶה לָזֶה בְּצוּרָתָן יִכְתְּבוּ יִחוּסָן. הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם לְוִיִּם שְׁנֵיהֶם כֹּהֲנִים יִכְתְּבוּ דּוֹרוֹת: \n", + "הוֹצִיא עָלָיו שְׁטָר שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ אֲנִי פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי לָוִיתִי מִמְּךָ מָנֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שֵׁם הַמַּלְוֶה כָּל מִי שֶׁיָּצָא שְׁטָר זֶה מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ גּוֹבֶה בּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִדְחוֹתוֹ וְלוֹמַר שֶׁל אַחֵר הוּא וְנָפַל. וְכֵן שְׁנֵי יוֹסֵף בְּנֵי שִׁמְעוֹן הַדָּרִין בְּעִיר אַחַת שֶׁהוֹצִיא אֶחָד מֵהֶן שְׁטַר חוֹב עַל אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי הָעִיר אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִדְחוֹתוֹ וְלוֹמַר לוֹ לִפְלוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא כְּשִׁמְךָ אֲנִי חַיָּב וּמִמֶּנּוּ נָפַל הַשְּׁטָר אֶלָּא הֲרֵי זֶה שֶׁיָּצָא מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ גּוֹבֶה וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִנְפִילָה: \n", + "שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהוֹצִיאוּ כָּל אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם שְׁטַר חוֹב עַל חֲבֵרוֹ אֵין הָאַחֲרוֹן יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לָרִאשׁוֹן אִלּוּ הָיִיתִי חַיָּב לְךָ הֵיאַךְ אַתָּה לוֶֹה מִמֶּנִּי אֶלָּא זֶה גּוֹבֶה חוֹבוֹ וְזֶה גּוֹבֶה חוֹבוֹ. הָיָה זֶה בְּמֵאָה וְזֶה בְּמֵאָה וְיֵשׁ לָזֶה עִידִית וְלָזֶה עִידִית אוֹ לָזֶה בֵּינוֹנִית וְלָזֶה בֵּינוֹנִית לָזֶה זִבּוּרִית וְלָזֶה זִבּוּרִית אֵין נִזְקָקִין לָהֶן אֶלָּא כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד עוֹמֵד בְּשֶׁלּוֹ. הָיָה לָזֶה עִידִית וּבֵינוֹנִית וְלָזֶה זִבּוּרִית זֶה גּוֹבֶה מִן הַבֵּינוֹנִית וְזֶה גּוֹבֶה מִן הַזִּבּוּרִית: \n", + "הוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב עַל חֲבֵרוֹ וְהַלָּה מוֹצִיא שְׁטָר שֶׁמָּכַר לוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה אִם הָיוּ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹתֵן הַלּוֹקֵחַ הַמָּעוֹת וְאַחַר כָּךְ כּוֹתֵב לוֹ הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת הַשְּׁטָר הֲרֵי שְׁטַר חוֹבוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בָּטֵל שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר לוֹ אִלּוּ הָיִיתִי חַיָּב לְךָ הָיָה לְךָ לִפְרֹעַ חוֹבְךָ. אֲבָל בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁכּוֹתְבִין וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹתְנִין הֲרֵי שְׁטַר הַחוֹב קַיָּם שֶׁהֲרֵי זֶה אוֹמֵר מָכַרְתִּי לְךָ אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לְךָ נְכָסִים יְדוּעִים שֶׁאֶגְבֶּה מֵהֶן חוֹב שֶׁלִּי: \n" + ], + [ + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ וְאַחַר שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ אָמַר לוֹ אֶחָד אֲנִי עָרֵב. אוֹ שֶׁתָּבַע אֶת הַלּוֶֹה בַּדִּין וְאָמַר לוֹ אַחֵר הַנַּח וַאֲנִי עָרֵב. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה חוֹנֵק אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בַּשּׁוּק לִתֵּן לוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ הַנַּח וַאֲנִי עָרֵב. אֵין הֶעָרֵב חַיָּב כְּלוּם. וַאֲפִלּוּ אָמַר אֲנִי עָרֵב בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין. אֲבָל אִם קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ שֶׁהוּא עָרֵב מָמוֹן זֶה כָּל אֵלּוּ הַפָּנִים בֵּין בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין בֵּין בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין הַמַּלְוֶה נִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד: \n", + "אָמַר לוֹ בִּשְׁעַת מַתַּן מָעוֹת הַלְוֵהוּ וַאֲנִי עָרֵב נִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד הֶעָרֵב וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ קִנְיָן. וְכֵן אִם בֵּית דִּין עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ עָרֵב נִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ בֵּית דִּין רוֹצִין לִגְבּוֹת מִן הַלּוֶֹה וְאָמַר לָהֶם הַנִּיחוּהוּ וַאֲנִי עָרֵב לָכֶם הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ לוֹ הֲנָאָה שֶׁהֶאֱמִינוּהוּ בֵּית דִּין בְּאוֹתָהּ הֲנָיָה שִׁעְבֵּד עַצְמוֹ: \n", + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ עַל יְדֵי עָרֵב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֶעָרֵב מִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד לַמַּלְוֶה לֹא יִתְבַּע אֶת הֶעָרֵב תְּחִלָּה אֶלָּא תּוֹבֵעַ אֶת הַלּוֶֹה תְּחִלָּה. אִם לֹא נָתַן לוֹ חוֹזֵר אֵצֶל הֶעָרֵב וְנִפְרָע מִמֶּנּוּ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁאֵין נְכָסִים לַלּוֶֹה. אֲבָל אִם יֵשׁ נְכָסִים לַלּוֶֹה לֹא יִפָּרַע מִן הֶעָרֵב כְּלָל אֶלָּא מִן הַלּוֶֹה. הָיָה הַלּוֶֹה אַלָּם וְאֵין בֵּית דִּין יְכוֹלִין לְהוֹצִיא מִיָּדוֹ אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לַדִּין הֲרֵי זֶה נִפְרָע מִן הֶעָרֵב תְּחִלָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יַעֲשֶׂה הֶעָרֵב דִּין עִם הַלּוֶֹה אִם יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ מִיָּדוֹ יוֹצִיא אוֹ יְשַׁמְּתוּהוּ בֵּית דִּין עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן לוֹ: \n", + "הִתְנָה הַמַּלְוֶה עַל הֶעָרֵב וְאָמַר לוֹ עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֶפָּרַע מִמִּי שֶׁאֶרְצֶה אִם יֵשׁ נְכָסִים לַלּוֶֹה לֹא יִפָּרַע מִן הֶעָרֵב. אָמַר עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֶפָּרַע מִמִּי שֶׁאֶרְצֶה תְּחִלָּה אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה קַבְּלָן הֲרֵי זֶה יִתְבַּע אֶת הֶעָרֵב הַזֶּה אוֹ אֶת הַקַּבְּלָן תְּחִלָּה וְיִפָּרַע מֵהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ נְכָסִים לַלּוֶֹה: \n", + "אֵיזֶהוּ עָרֵב וְאֵיזֶהוּ קַבְּלָן. אָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לוֹ וַאֲנִי נוֹתֵן לְךָ זֶהוּ קַבְּלָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לַמַּלְוֶה לְהִפָּרַע מִמֶּנּוּ תְּחִלָּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פֵּרֵשׁ וְלֹא אָמַר עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֶפָּרַע מִמִּי שֶׁאֶרְצֶה. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ הַלְוֵהוּ וַאֲנִי עָרֵב הַלְוֵהוּ וַאֲנִי פּוֹרֵעַ הַלְוֵהוּ וַאֲנִי חַיָּב הַלְוֵהוּ וַאֲנִי נוֹתֵן הַלְוֵהוּ וַאֲנִי קַבְּלָן. תֵּן לוֹ וַאֲנִי קַבְּלָן תֵּן לוֹ וַאֲנִי פּוֹרֵעַ תֵּן לוֹ וַאֲנִי חַיָּב תֵּן לוֹ וַאֲנִי עָרֵב. כֻּלָּן לָשׁוֹן עַרְבָנוּת הֵן וְאֵינוֹ תּוֹבְעוֹ תְּחִלָּה וְלֹא נִפְרַע מִמֶּנּוּ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ נְכָסִים לַלּוֶֹה עַד שֶׁיְּפָרֵשׁ וְיֹאמַר מִמִּי שֶׁאֶרְצֶה אֶפָּרַע: \n", + "עָרֵב שֶׁל כְּתֻבָּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם שֶׁהֲרֵי מִצְוָה עָשָׂה וְלֹא חָסַר מָמוֹן. וְאִם הָיָה הָאָב עָרֵב לִכְתֻבַּת בְּנוֹ וְקָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ חַיָּב. וְקַבְּלָן שֶׁל כְּתֻבָּה חַיָּב: \n", + "רְאוּבֵן שֶׁמָּכַר לְשִׁמְעוֹן שָׂדֶה וּבָא לֵוִי וְקִבֵּל אַחֲרָיוּת עָלָיו לֹא נִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד לֵוִי שֶׁזּוֹ אַסְמַכְתָּא הִיא. וְאִם קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ שֶׁהוּא עָרֵב לְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי מֶכֶר זֶה כָּל עֵת שֶׁיִּרְצֶה שֶׁיִּתְבָּעֶנּוּ לְשִׁמְעוֹן הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב וְכָזֶה הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי: \n", + "וְכֵן הֶעָרֵב אוֹ הַקַּבְּלָן שֶׁחִיְּבוּ עַצְמָן עַל תְּנַאי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ לֹא נִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא אַסְמַכְתָּא. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לוֹ וַאֲנִי אֶתֵּן לְךָ אִם יִהְיֶה כָּךְ וְכָךְ אוֹ אִם לֹא יִהְיֶה. שֶׁכָּל הַתּוֹלֶה שִׁעְבּוּד שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב בּוֹ בְּאִם יִהְיֶה וְאִם לֹא יִהְיֶה לֹא גָּמַר וְהִקְנָה קִנְיָן שָׁלֵם וּלְפִיכָךְ לֹא נִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד: \n", + "שְׁנַיִם שֶׁלָּווּ בִּשְׁטָר אֶחָד אוֹ שֶׁלָּקְחוּ מִקָּח אֶחָד. וְכֵן הַשֻּׁתָּפִין שֶׁלָּוָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן אוֹ לָקַח בְּשֻׁתָּפוּת הֲרֵי הֵן עַרְבָאִין זֶה לָזֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פֵּרֵשׁ: \n", + "שְׁנַיִם שֶׁעָרְבוּ לָאֶחָד כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹא הַמַּלְוֶה לִפָּרַע מִן הֶעָרֵב יִפָּרַע מֵאֵי זֶה מֵהֶן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. וְאִם לֹא הָיָה לְאֶחָד כְּדֵי הַחוֹב חוֹזֵר וְתוֹבֵעַ הַשֵּׁנִי בִּשְׁאָר הַחוֹב: \n", + "וְאֶחָד שֶׁעָרַב לִשְׁנַיִם כְּשֶׁיִּפְרַע לַמַּלְוֶה יוֹדִיעוֹ עַל חוֹב אֵיזֶה מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם פּוֹרֵעַ כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּחֲזֹר עָלָיו: \n", + "הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ עֲרֹב לִפְלוֹנִי כָּךְ וְכָךְ וַאֲנִי עָרֵב לְךָ הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִי שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הַלְוֵהוּ וַאֲנִי עָרֵב. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּעְבֵּד הֶעָרֵב לַמַּלְוֶה כָּךְ נִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד עָרֵב לָעָרֵב רִאשׁוֹן. וְדִין הֶעָרֵב עִם הַמַּלְוֶה וְדִין עָרֵב רִאשׁוֹן עִם הַשֵּׁנִי דִּין אֶחָד הוּא: \n", + "מִי שֶׁלֹּא פֵּרֵשׁ קֶצֶב הַדָּבָר שֶׁעָרַב כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ כָּל מַה שֶּׁתִּתֵּן תֵּן לוֹ וַאֲנִי עָרֵב אוֹ מְכֹר לוֹ וַאֲנִי עָרֵב אוֹ הַלְוֵהוּ וַאֲנִי עָרֵב יֵשׁ מִן הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁהוֹרָה אֲפִלּוּ מָכַר לוֹ בַּעֲשֶׂרֶת אֲלָפִים אוֹ הִלְוָהוּ מֵאָה אֶלֶף נִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד הֶעָרֵב בַּכּל. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאֵין זֶה הֶעָרֵב חַיָּב כְּלוּם שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ הַדָּבָר שֶׁשִּׁעְבֵּד עַצְמוֹ בּוֹ לֹא סָמְכָה דַּעְתּוֹ וְלֹא שִׁעְבֵּד עַצְמוֹ וּדְבָרִים שֶׁל טַעַם הֵם לַמֵּבִין: \n", + "מִי שֶׁאָמַר לַחֲבֵרוֹ הַלְוֵהוּ וַאֲנִי עָרֵב לְגוּפוֹ שֶׁל לוֶֹה זֶה לֹא עָרַב לְעַצְמוֹ שֶׁל מָמוֹן אֶלָּא כָּל זְמַן שֶׁתִּרְצֶה אֲבִיאֶנּוּ לְךָ. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר לוֹ אַחַר שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ וּתְבָעוֹ הַנִּיחֵהוּ כָּל זְמַן שֶׁתִּתְבָּעֶנּוּ אֲבִיאֶנּוּ לְךָ וְקָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ עַל זֶה אִם לֹא יָבִיא זֶה הַלּוֶֹה יֵשׁ מִן הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁהוֹרָה שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁהוֹרָה שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הִתְנָה וְאָמַר אִם לֹא אֲבִיאֶנּוּ אוֹ שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ שֶׁבָּרַח אֶהְיֶה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם הֲרֵי זוֹ אַסְמַכְתָּא וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד. וְלָזֶה דַּעְתִּי נוֹטָה: \n" + ], + [ + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בִּשְׁטָר וְאַחַר שֶׁהֵעִידוּ הָעֵדִים בַּשְּׁטָר בָּא עָרֵב וְעָרַב אֶת הַלּוֶֹה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ וְנִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד לְשַׁלֵּם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹא הַמַּלְוֶה לְהִפָּרַע מִנִּכְסֵי הֶעָרֵב הַזֶּה אֵינוֹ טוֹרֵף מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים. הָיָה הֶעָרֵב בְּגוּפוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר קֹדֶם חֲתִימַת הָעֵדִים אִם כָּתְבוּ פְּלוֹנִי עָרֵב שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינוֹ מְעֹרָב עִם הַלּוֶֹה בַּמִּלְוֶה אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִמֶּנּוּ מִן הַמְשֻׁעְבָּדִים. אֲבָל אִם כָּתוּב בַּשְּׁטָר פְּלוֹנִי לָוָה מִפְּלוֹנִי כָּךְ וְכָךְ וּפְלוֹנִי עָרֵב שֶׁהֲרֵי עֵרְבוֹ לוֶֹה עִם עָרֵב בַּשְּׁטָר וְקָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ שֶׁל עָרֵב וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָתְמוּ עֵדִים בַּשְּׁטָר הֲרֵי זֶה נִפְרָע מִנִּכְסֵי עָרֵב הַמְשֻׁעְבָּדִים: ", + "מַלְוֶה שֶׁתָּבַע אֶת הַלּוֶֹה וְלֹא מָצָא לוֹ נְכָסִים אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִפָּרַע מִן הֶעָרֵב עַד אַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם מִיּוֹם שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב הֶעָרֵב לְשַׁלֵּם. לֹא יִהְיֶה כֹּחַ זֶה פָּחוֹת מִן הַלּוֶֹה עַצְמוֹ. וְכָזֶה הוֹרוּ הַמּוֹרִים. וְאִם הִתְנָה עִמּוֹ הַכּל לְפִי הַתְּנַאי: ", + "מַלְוֶה שֶׁבָּא לִתְבֹּעַ אֶת הַלּוֶֹה וְלֹא מָצָא לוֹ נְכָסִים אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִדְחוֹתוֹ וְלוֹמַר לֵךְ אֵצֶל הַקַּבְּלָן הֲרֵי יֵשׁ לְךָ לִתְבֹּעַ אוֹתוֹ תְּחִלָּה אֶלָּא תּוֹבֵעַ כָּל מִי שֶׁרָצָה תְּחִלָּה. וְאִם נָשָׂא הַקַּבְּלָן הַמָּעוֹת מִיַּד הַמַּלְוֶה וּנְתָנוֹ בְּיַד הַלּוֶֹה אֵין לַמַּלְוֶה בְּיַד הַלּוֶֹה כְּלוּם. הָיָה הַלּוֶֹה בִּמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹדִיעוֹ וְלֹא לֵילֵךְ אֵלָיו אוֹ שֶׁמֵּת הַלּוֶֹה וְהִנִּיחַ יְתוֹמִים קְטַנִּים שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין נִזְקָקִין לְנִכְסֵיהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה תּוֹבֵעַ אֶת הֶעָרֵב תְּחִלָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין הַלּוֶֹה מָצוּי: ", + "מַלְוֶה שֶׁתָּבַע אֶת הַלּוֶֹה וּמְצָאוֹ שֶׁהוּא עָנִי אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִפָּרַע מִן הֶעָרֵב עַד שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע הַלּוֶֹה בְּתַקָּנַת אַחֲרוֹנִים שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כְּלוּם שֶׁמָּא יַעֲשׂוּ קְנוּנְיָא עַל נְכָסָיו שֶׁל עָרֵב: ", + "מִי שֶׁהָיָה עָרֵב לַחֲבֵרוֹ בְּמִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה וּבָא הַמַּלְוֶה לִתְבֹּעַ אֶת הֶעָרֵב וַהֲרֵי הַלּוֶֹה בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם. אוֹמֵר לוֹ הֶעָרֵב הָבֵא רְאָיָה שֶׁלֹּא פְּרָעֲךָ הַלּוֶֹה וַאֲנִי אֲשַׁלֵּם לְךָ: ", + "עָרֵב שֶׁקָּדַם וְנָתַן לְבַעַל חוֹב אֶת חוֹבוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹזֵר וְגוֹבֶה מִן הַלּוֶֹה כָּל מַה שֶּׁפָּרַע עַל יָדוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיְתָה מִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה אוֹ בְּלֹא עֵדִים כְּלָל. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הַלּוֶֹה בְּעֵת שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה לוֹ עָרֵב עָרְבֵנִי וְשַׁלֵּם. אֲבָל אִם עָמַד בִּרְשׁוּת עַצְמוֹ וְנַעֲשָׂה לוֹ עָרֵב אוֹ קַבְּלָן אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הַלּוֶֹה עָרְבֵנִי וְלֹא הִרְשָׁהוּ שֶׁיִּתֵּן וְיִפְרַע הַחוֹב אֵין הַלּוֶֹה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם לוֹ כְּלוּם. וְכֵן הַפּוֹרֵעַ שְׁטַר חוֹבוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַחוֹב עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן אֵין הַלּוֶֹה חַיָּב כְּלוּם וְנוֹטֵל מַשְׁכּוֹנוֹ בְּחִנָּם וַהֲרֵי אִבֵּד זֶה הַנּוֹתֵן אֶת מְעוֹתָיו שֶׁמָּא הָיָה הַלּוֶֹה מְפַיֵּס אֶת הַמַּלְוֶה וּמוֹחֵל לוֹ. מֵת הַלּוֶֹה וְקָדַם הֶעָרֵב וּפָרַע הַחוֹב קֹדֶם שֶׁיּוֹדִיעַ אֶת הַיּוֹרְשִׁים אִם נוֹדַע לָנוּ שֶׁלֹּא פָּרַע הַלּוֶֹה שְׁטַר חוֹבוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁיָּמוּת כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוֹדָה בּוֹ קֹדֶם אוֹ שֶׁנִּדּוּהוּ וּמֵת בְּנִדּוּיוֹ אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַן הַמִּלְוֶה לְהִגָּבוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹזֵר וְגוֹבֶה מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין כָּל מַה שֶּׁפָּרַע. הָיָה הַמַּלְוֶה עַכּוּ\"ם אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין חַיָּבִין לְשַׁלֵּם שֶׁמָּא אֲבִיהֶן נָתַן לְיַד הֶעָרֵב כָּל הַחוֹב שֶׁהָיָה עָלָיו מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָעַכּוּ\"ם תּוֹבֵעַ אֶת הֶעָרֵב תְּחִלָּה וּלְפִיכָךְ פָּרַע זֶה מִדַּעְתּוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁיּוֹדִיעַ הַיְתוֹמִים. אֲבָל אִם הוֹדִיעָן שֶׁהָעַכּוּ\"ם תּוֹבֵעַ אוֹתוֹ וַהֲרֵי הוּא נוֹתֵן חַיָּבִין לְשַׁלֵּם: ", + "כָּל עָרֵב שֶׁבָּא לִטּל מַה שֶּׁפָּרַע בֵּין שֶׁבָּא לְהִפָּרַע מִיּוֹרְשֵׁי לוֶֹה בֵּין מִלֹּוֶה עַצְמוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁפָּרַע. וְאֵין מְצִיאַת שְׁטַר הַחוֹב שֶׁעָלָיו בְּיַד הֶעָרֵב רְאָיָה שֶׁמָּא נָפַל הַשְּׁטָר מִיַּד הַמַּלְוֶה וְלֹא פָּרַע זֶה כְּלוּם: ", + "הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ עָרַבְתָּ לִי וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא עָרַבְתִּי. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר הֶעָרֵב לַלּוֶֹה אַתָּה הִרְשֵׁיתַנִי לַעֲרֹב אוֹתְךָ וְלִתֵּן וְהוּא אוֹמֵר מִדַּעְתְּךָ עָרַבְתָּ אוֹ לֹא עָרַבְתָּ כְּלָל. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר הֶעָרֵב פָּרַעְתִּי הַמִּלְוֶה בְּפָנֶיךָ וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא פָּרַעְתָּ. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ כֵּן פָּרַעְתָּ וְנָתַתִּי לְךָ מַה שֶּׁפָּרַעְתָּ. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר הַמַּלְוֶה עָרַבְתָּ לִי מָאתַיִם וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא עָרַבְתִּי אֶלָּא מָנֶה. מִכָּל אֵלּוּ הַטְּעָנוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. אוֹ יִשָּׁבַע הַנִּתְבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת אוֹ שְׁבוּעַת הַתּוֹרָה אִם הוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת כִּשְׁאָר כָּל טַעֲנַת הַמָּמוֹן: ", + "עֶבֶד אוֹ אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁלָּווּ אוֹ שֶׁעָרְבוּ אֶת אֲחֵרִים וְנִתְחַיְּבוּ לְשַׁלֵּם. כְּשֶׁיִּשְׁתַּחְרֵר הָעֶבֶד וְתִתְגָּרֵשׁ הָאִשָּׁה אוֹ תִּתְאַלְמֵן יְשַׁלְּמוּ: ", + "קָטָן שֶׁלָּוָה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם כְּשֶׁיַּגְדִּיל וְאֵין כּוֹתְבִין עָלָיו שְׁטָר אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הִיא מִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ שֶׁאֵין קִנְיָן מִיַּד הַקָּטָן כְּלוּם: ", + "קָטָן שֶׁעָרַב אֶת אֲחֵרִים הוֹרוּ הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם כְּלוּם אַף כְּשֶׁיַּגְדִּיל וְזֶה שֶׁנָּתַן אֶת מְעוֹתָיו עַל פִּי הַקָּטָן אִבֵּד אֶת מְעוֹתָיו שֶׁאֵין לְקָטָן דַּעַת כְּדֵי לְשַׁעְבֵּד עַצְמוֹ בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב בּוֹ וְלֹא בְּעַרְבָנוּת וְלֹא בְּכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְדִין אֱמֶת הוּא וְכֵן רָאוּי לָדוּן: ", + "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁלָּוְתָה בִּשְׁטָר אוֹ עָרְבָה בִּשְׁטָר וְנִשֵּׂאת חַיֶּבֶת לְשַׁלֵּם אַחַר שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת. וְאִם הָיְתָה מִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה אֵינָהּ מְשַׁלֶּמֶת עַד שֶׁתִּתְגָּרֵשׁ אוֹ שֶׁתִּתְאַלְמֵן שֶׁרְשׁוּת בַּעַל כִּרְשׁוּת לוֹקֵחַ הוּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּכַמָּה מְקוֹמוֹת. וְאִם הָיוּ אוֹתָן מְעוֹת הַהַלְוָאָה עַצְמָן קַיָּמִין יַחְזִירוּ אוֹתָן לַמַּלְוֶה: " + ], + [ + "שְׁטָר שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּכָל לָשׁוֹן וּבְכָל כְּתָב אִם הָיָה עָשׂוּי כְּתִקּוּן שִׁטְרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לְהִזְדַּיֵּף וְלֹא לְהוֹסִיף וְלֹא לִגְרֹעַ וְהָיוּ עֵדָיו יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיוֹדְעִין לִקְרוֹתוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כָּשֵׁר וְגוֹבִין בּוֹ מִן הַמְשֻׁעְבָּדִין. אֲבָל כָּל הַשְּׁטָרוֹת שֶׁחוֹתְמֵיהֶן עַכּוּ\"ם הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּסוּלִין חוּץ מִשִּׁטְרֵי מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר וְשִׁטְרֵי חוֹב. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּתֵּן הַמָּעוֹת בִּפְנֵיהֶם וְיִכְתְּבוּ בַּשְּׁטָר לְפָנֵינוּ מָנָה פְּלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִי כָּךְ וְכָךְ דְּמֵי הַמֶּכֶר אוֹ מְעוֹת הַחוֹב. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ עֲשׂוּיִין בְּעַרְכָּאוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶם. אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם קִבּוּץ פְּלִילֵיהֶן בְּלֹא קִיּוּם הַשּׁוֹפֵט שֶׁלָּהֶם לֹא יוֹעִילוּ כְּלוּם. וְכֵן צְרִיכִין עֵדֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיָּעִידוּ עַל אֵלּוּ הָעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁהֵן עֵדֵי שְׁטָר וְעַל זֶה הַשּׁוֹפֵט שֶׁלָּהֶן שֶׁקִּיֵּם עֵדוּתָן שֶׁאֵינָן יְדוּעִין בְּקַבְּלָנוּת שֹׁחַד. וְאִם חָסְרוּ שִׁטְרֵי הָעַכּוּ\"ם דָּבָר מִכָּל אֵלּוּ הֲרֵי הֵן כְּחֶרֶס. וְכֵן שִׁטְרֵי [חוֹב] וְהוֹדָאוֹת וּמַתָּנוֹת וּפְשָׁרוֹת וּמְחִילוֹת שֶׁהֵן בְּעֵדִים שֶׁלָּהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן כָּל הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁמָּנִינוּ הֲרֵי הֵן כַּחֲרָסִים. וְהוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב שֶׁלָּהֶן שֶׁנָּתְנוּ הַמָּעוֹת בִּפְנֵיהֶם פְּסוּלִין וְלֹא הִכְשִׁירוּ אֶלָּא שִׁטְרֵי מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר שֶׁנָּתְנוּ הַמָּעוֹת בִּפְנֵיהֶם. וְאֵין אֲנִי מוֹדֶה בָּזֶה. אִם לֹא יָדְעוּ דַּיָּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לִקְרוֹת שְׁטָר זֶה הַנַּעֲשָׂה בְּעַרְכָּאוֹת שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם נוֹתְנוֹ לִשְׁנֵי עַכּוּ\"ם זֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי זֶה וְקוֹרִין לוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצָא כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן כְּמֵסִיחַ לְפִי תֻּמּוֹ וְגוֹבֶה בּוֹ מִבְּנֵי חוֹרִין אֲבָל אֵין טוֹרְפִין בּוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קוֹל שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא יָדְעוּ הַלָּקוֹחוֹת בְּמַה שֶּׁנַּעֲשָׂה בָּעַכּוּ\"ם: \n", + "שְׁטָר שֶׁעֵדָיו עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁמְּסָרוֹ הַלּוֶֹה לְיַד הַמַּלְוֶה אוֹ הַמּוֹכֵר לְיַד הַלּוֹקֵחַ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ עָשׂוּי בְּעַרְכָּאוֹת שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּל הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁמָּנִינוּ הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹבֶה מִבְּנֵי חוֹרִין. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הָעֵדִים שֶׁמָּסַר בִּפְנֵיהֶם יוֹדְעִין לִקְרוֹתוֹ וּקְרָאוּהוּ כְּשֶׁמְּסָרוֹ בִּפְנֵיהֶן וְיִהְיֶה כְּתִקּוּן שְׁטַר יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִזְדַּיֵּף וְלֹא לְהוֹסִיף וְלֹא לִגְרֹעַ. וְלָמָּה לֹא יִגְבֶּה בּוֹ מִן הַמְשֻׁעְבָּדִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קוֹל: \n", + "תִּקּוּן שִׁטְרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כָּךְ הוּא. כָּל הַשְּׁטָרוֹת כֻּלָּן צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּחֲזֹר מֵעִנְיָנוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר בְּשִׁיטָה אַחֲרוֹנָה [אֶלָּא] שֶׁאֵין לְמֵדִין מִשִּׁיטָה אַחֲרוֹנָה שֶׁמָּא הָיוּ הָעֵדִים מְרֻחָקִין מִגּוּפוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר בִּכְדֵי הַשִּׁיטָה וּבָא זֶה הַמְזַיֵּף וְכָתַב בְּאוֹתוֹ הָרֶוַח שִׁיטָה זוֹ: \n", + "עֵדִים שֶׁהָיוּ מְרֻחָקִין מִן הַכְּתָב שְׁתֵּי שִׁיטִין פָּסוּל. פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן כָּשֵׁר. שְׁתֵּי שִׁיטִין שֶׁאָמְרוּ בִּכְתַב יְדֵי עֵדִים וְלֹא בִּכְתַב יְדֵי סוֹפֵר שֶׁכָּל הַמְזַיֵּף אֵינוֹ הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַסּוֹפֵר אֶלָּא אַחַר הָעֵדִים. וּשְׁתֵּי שִׁיטִין אֵלּוּ הֵן וַאֲוִירָן כְּגוֹן לָמֶ\"ד עַל כָּ\"ף. הָיוּ הָעֵדִים מְרֻחָקִין מִן הַכְּתָב יֶתֶר עַל שְׁתֵּי שִׁיטִין וְהָיָה הָרֶוַח שֶׁבֵּין הַכְּתָב וְהָעֵדִים מָלֵא בְּעֵדִים פְּסוּלִין אוֹ קְרוֹבִים הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִזְדַּיֵּף. וְאִם מִלְּאָהוּ בִּשְׂרִיטָה שֶׁל דְּיוֹ פָּסוּל שֶׁמָּא הָעֵדִים עַל הַשְּׂרִיטוֹת חָתְמוּ וְלֹא עַל גּוּפוֹ [שֶׁל שְׁטָר]. הָיָה הַשְּׁטָר כֻּלּוֹ עִם עֵדָיו בְּשִׁיטָה אַחַת הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר: \n", + "הָיָה הַשְּׁטָר בְּשִׁיטָה זוֹ וְהָעֵדִים בְּשִׁיטָה שְׁנִיָּה פָּסוּל שֶׁמָּא אֵלּוּ הָעֵדִים הָיוּ מְרֻחָקִין מִן הַשְּׁטָר כָּשֵׁר שִׁיטָה אַחַת וְחָתַךְ כָּל הַשְּׁטָר וְכָתַב זֶה הַשְּׁטָר בְּאוֹתָהּ הַשִּׁיטָה וְנִמְצְאוּ כָּל אֵלּוּ הָעֵדִים חֲתוּמִים עָלָיו. וְכֵן אִם הָיָה הַשְּׁטָר וּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים בְּשִׁיטָה אַחַת וּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים אֲחֵרִים בְּשִׁיטָה שְׁנִיָּה וְאָמַר אֲנִי נִתְכַּוַּנְתִּי לְרַבּוֹת הָעֵדִים אֵין מְקַיְּמִין שְׁטָר זֶה מֵעֵדִים שֶׁל מַטָּה בְּשִׁיטָה שְׁנִיָּה אֶלָּא מֵעֵדִים שֶׁל מַעְלָה. שֶׁמָּא בַּשִּׁיטָה שֶׁהָיְתָה בֵּין הָעֵדִים שֶׁל מַטָּה וּבֵין הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁחָתַךְ כָּתַב שְׁטָר זֶה וּשְׁנֵי עֵדָיו: \n", + "קִיּוּם בֵּית דִּין צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה סָמוּךְ לִכְתַב יְדֵי עֵדִים אוֹ סָמוּךְ לְצַד הַשְּׁטָר אוֹ מֵאֲחוֹרָיו כְּנֶגֶד הַכְּתָב. וְאִם הָיָה בֵּין הַקִּיּוּם וְהַשְּׁטָר רֶוַח שִׁיטָה אַחַת פָּסוּל שֶׁמָּא יַחְתֹּךְ הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁנִּתְקַיֵּם וִיזַיֵּף בְּאוֹתָהּ שִׁיטָה שְׁטָר וּשְׁנֵי עֵדָיו. וְנִמְצָא הַקִּיּוּם עַל שְׁטָר מְזֻיָּף: \n", + "הִרְחִיק אֶת הַקִּיּוּם מִן הַשְּׁטָר יֶתֶר עַל שְׁתֵּי שִׁיטִין וּמָלֵא כָּל הָרֶוַח שְׂרִיטוֹת דְּיוֹ כָּשֵׁר שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְזַיֵּף וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְבֵית דִּין שֶׁיְּקַיְּמוּ קִיּוּם עַל הַשְּׂרִיטוֹת אֶלָּא עַל גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר: \n", + "כָּל הַמְּחָקִין כֻּלָּן צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב קִיּוּמֵיהֶן בְּסוֹף הַשְּׁטָר וְיֹאמַר אוֹת פְּלוֹנִית אוֹ מִלָּה פְּלוֹנִית אוֹ שִׁיטָה פְּלוֹנִית עַל מַחַק אוֹ תְּלוּיָה וְהַכּל קַיָּם. וְאִם הָיָה הַמַּחַק בְּמָקוֹם שָׁרִיר וְקַיָּם וּבְשִׁעוּר שָׁרִיר וְקַיָּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזַר וְקִיְּמוֹ פָּסוּל שֶׁמָּא מְחָקוֹ וְכָתַב דָּבָר שֶׁזִּיֵּף וְחָזַר וְקִיְּמוֹ בָּרֶוַח שֶׁבֵּין הַכְּתָב וְהָעֵדִים: \n", + "שְׁטָר הַבָּא הוּא וְעֵדָיו עַל הַמַּחַק כָּשֵׁר. וְאִם תֹּאמַר מוֹחֵק וְחוֹזֵר וּמוֹחֵק אֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה מִי שֶׁנִּמְחַק פַּעַם אַחַת לְנִמְחַק שְׁתֵּי פְּעָמִים. וְאִם תֹּאמַר שֶׁמָּא נִמְחַק שְׁתֵּי פְּעָמִים מְקוֹם הָעֵדִים וְאַחַר שֶׁכָּתַב הַשְּׁטָר חוֹזֵר וּמוֹחֲקוֹ וְכוֹתֵב כָּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא וְעֵדָיו כֻּלּוֹ שָׁוֶה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּמְחַק הַכּל שְׁתֵּי פְּעָמִים. כְּבָר תִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין עַל שְׁטָר מָחוּק אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִמְחַק בִּפְנֵיהֶם: \n", + "שְׁטָר הַבָּא הוּא וְעֵדָיו עַל הַמַּחַק וְהַקִּיּוּם מִלְּמַטָּה עַל הַנְּיָר אֵין מְקַיְּמִין אוֹתוֹ מֵעֵדֵי הַקִּיּוּם אֶלָּא מֵעֵדִים שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה שֶׁמָּא הַקִּיּוּם הָיָה רָחוֹק מִן הַשְּׁטָר הַרְבֵּה וְהָיָה הָרֶוַח מָלֵא שְׂרִיטוֹת שֶׁל דְּיוֹ וְחָתַךְ גּוּף הַשְּׁטָר וּמָחַק הַשְּׂרִיטוֹת וְכָתַב הַשְּׁטָר וְעֵדָיו עַל הַמַּחַק: \n", + "שְׁטָר הַבָּא עַל הַנְּיָר וְעֵדָיו עַל הַמַּחַק פָּסוּל שֶׁמָּא יִמְחֹק הַשְּׁטָר וְיִזְדַּיֵּף וְנִמְצָא הוּא וְעֵדָיו עַל הַמַּחַק. וְאִם כָּתְבוּ הָעֵדִים אֲנַחְנוּ הָעֵדִים חָתַמְנוּ עַל הַמַּחַק וְהַשְּׁטָר עַל הַנְּיָר כָּשֵׁר. וְכוֹתְבִין כֵּן בֵּין עֵד לְעֵד כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְזַיֵּף: \n", + "שְׁטָר הַבָּא עַל הַמַּחַק וְעֵדָיו עַל הַנְּיָר פָּסוּל. וַאֲפִלּוּ כָּתְבוּ הָעֵדִים אֲנַחְנוּ עֵדִים חָתַמְנוּ עַל הַנְּיָר וְהַשְּׁטָר עַל הַמַּחַק. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מוֹחֵק אוֹתוֹ פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה וְכוֹתֵב כָּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה וְכֵיוָן שֶׁכֻּלּוֹ נִמְחַק שְׁתֵּי פְּעָמִים אֵינוֹ נִכָּר. שֶׁאִלּוּ הָיָה בּוֹ מָקוֹם הַנִּמְחָק פַּעַם אַחַת וּמָקוֹם הַנִּמְחַק שְׁתֵּי פְּעָמִים הָיָה נִכָּר. וּמִתִּקּוּן הַשְּׁטָרוֹת לְהִתְבּוֹנֵן בַּשְּׁטָר בְּוָאוִי\"ן וְזַיִנִּי\"ן שֶׁלּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ דְּחוּקִין בֵּין הַתֵּבוֹת שֶׁמָּא זִיֵּף וְהוֹסִיף זוֹ. וְלֹא יִהְיוּ מְרֻחָקִין שֶׁמָּא מָחַק אוֹת אַחַת כְּגוֹן הֵ\"א אוֹ חֵי\"ת וְהִנִּיחַ רַגְלָהּ הָאַחַת מְקוֹם וָא\"ו. וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה מְדַקְדְּקִין בּוֹ בְּכָל לָשׁוֹן וּבְכָל כְּתָב: \n", + "מִשָּׁלֹשׁ וְעַד עֶשֶׂר אֵין כּוֹתְבִין בְּסוֹף שִׁיטָה שֶׁמָּא יְזַיֵּף וְיַחְזִיר הַשָּׁלֹשׁ לִשְׁלֹשִׁים וְהָעֶשֶׂר עֶשְׂרִים. וְאִם נִזְדַּמֵּן לוֹ בְּסוֹף שִׁיטָה מַחְזִיר הַדִּבּוּר בְּגוּפוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר פְּעָמִים רַבּוֹת עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא בְּאֶמְצַע הַשִּׁיטָה: \n", + "שְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ מִלְּמַעְלָה מָנֶה וּמִלְּמַטָּה מָאתַיִם מִלְּמַעְלָה מָאתַיִם וּמִלְּמַטָּה מָנֶה הַכּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַתַּחְתּוֹן. וְלָמָּה אֵין הוֹלְכִין אַחַר הַפָּחוּת שֶׁבִּשְׁנֵיהֶם לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הָאֶחָד תָּלוּי בַּחֲבֵרוֹ. שֶׁאִם הָיָה כָּתוּב בּוֹ מֵאָה שֶׁהֵן מָאתַיִם אוֹ מָאתַיִם שֶׁהֵן מֵאָה הָיָה נוֹטֵל מֵאָה. אֲבָל שְׁנֵי דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין הָאַחֲרוֹן תָּלוּי בָּרִאשׁוֹן הַלֵּךְ אַחַר אַחֲרוֹן. הָיָה בּוֹ מִלְּמַעְלָה שֵׁם וּלְמַטָּה שֵׁם קָרוֹב לוֹ הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַתַּחְתּוֹן. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה כּוֹתְבִין אֶת הָעֶלְיוֹן שֶׁמָּא תִּמָּחֵק אוֹת אַחַת מִן הַתַּחְתּוֹן וְיִלְמַד מִן הָעֶלְיוֹן כְּגוֹן הָיָה בָּעֶלְיוֹן חֲנָנִי אוֹ עֲנָנִי וּבַתַּחְתּוֹן חָנָן אוֹ עָנָן בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהוּא הַשֵּׁם הָעֶלְיוֹן. אֲבָל לֹא יִלְמֹד תַּחְתּוֹן מֵעֶלְיוֹן בִּשְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת: \n", + "כָּתוּב בּוֹ מִלְּמַעְלָה סֵפֶל וּמִלְּמַטָּה קֵפֶל הַכּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַתַּחְתּוֹן שֶׁהַקֵּפֶל פָּחוֹת מִן הַסֵּפֶל. כָּתוּב בּוֹ מִלְּמַעְלָה קֵפֶל וּמִלְּמַטָּה סֵפֶל חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא זְבוּב הֵסִיר רֶגֶל הַקּוּף וְנַעֲשֵׂית סָמֶ\"ךְ וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה אֶלָּא בְּמִדַּת קֵפֶל הַקְּטַנָּה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה שֶׁיַּד בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה. מַעֲשֶׂה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁהָיָה כָּתוּב בּוֹ שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת וְזוּז אֶחָד וַהֲרֵי הַדָּבָר סָפֵק אִם שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת זוּז וְזוּז אֶחָד אוֹ שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת אַסְתִּירָא וְזוּז. אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים יִטּל שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת אַסְתִּירָא וְזוּז שֶׁיַּד בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה לֹא נֶאֱמַר שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת פְּרוּטָה וְזוּז לְפִי שֶׁהַפְּרוּטוֹת כּוֹלֵל אוֹתָן הַסּוֹפֵר זוּזִין וְאַחַר כָּךְ כּוֹתְבִין. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה בְּכָל זְמַן וּבְכָל מָקוֹם לְפִי דַּרְכָּם הַיָּדוּעַ עַל פִּיו עוֹשִׂין: \n", + "שְׁטָר שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ אַסְתִּירָא מֵאָה מָעֵי אוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ מֵאָה מָעֵי אַסְתִּירָא הַלֵּךְ אַחַר פָּחוּת שֶׁבַּלְּשׁוֹנוֹת וְאֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל אֶלָּא אַסְתִּירָא אַחַת. שֶׁיַּד בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא אֶלָּא בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ סָפֵק. לְפִיכָךְ כָּל שְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מַשְׁמַע שְׁתֵּי לְשׁוֹנוֹת שֶׁמָּא כָּךְ אוֹ שֶׁמָּא כָּךְ אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל אֶלָּא הַפָּחוּת שֶׁבִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן. וְאִם תָּפַס בָּעֶלְיוֹנָה אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ אֶלָּא בִּרְאָיָה בְּרוּרָה: \n", + "כָּתוּב בּוֹ מַטְבֵּעַ זָהָב אֵין פָּחוֹת מִדִּינַר זָהָב. זָהָב דִּינָרִין אוֹ דִּינָרִין זָהָב אֵין פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁוֵה שְׁנֵי דִּינָרִין שֶׁל זָהָב. זָהָב בְּדִינָרִין אֵין פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁוֵה שְׁנֵי דִּינָרִין שֶׁל כֶּסֶף מִן הַזָּהָב. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: סְלִיקוּ לְהוּ הִלְכוֹת מַלְוֶה וְלֹוֶה \n" + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..93fe02f03eb06d3b9341c1438a492e2f739d7557 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json @@ -0,0 +1,360 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor", + "versionSource": "http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94_%D7%9C%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%91%22%D7%9D", + "versionTitle": "Wikisource Mishneh Torah", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY-SA", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "משנה תורה (ויקיטקסט)", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות מלווה ולווה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "מצות עשה להלוות לעניי ישראל שנאמר אם כסף תלוה את עמי את העני עמך, יכול רשות תלמוד לומר העבט תעביטנו וגו' ומצוה זו גדולה מן הצדקה אל העני השואל שזה כבר נצרך לשאול וזה עדיין לא הגיע למדה זו, והתורה הקפידה על מי שימנע מלהלוות לעני שנאמר ורעה עינך באחיך האביון וגו'.", + "כל הנוגש העני והוא יודע שאין לו מה יחזיר לו עובר בלא תעשה שנאמר לא תהיה לו כנושה, ומצות עשה לנגוש את העכו\"ם ולהצר לו שנאמר לנכרי תגוש מפי השמועה למדו שזו מצות עשה.", + "אסור לאדם להראות עצמו לבעל חובו בזמן שיודע שאין לו אפילו לעבור לפניו שלא יפחידו או יכלימו אע\"פ שאינו תובעו ואין צריך לומר אם תבעו, וכשם שאסור לזה לתבוע כך אסור ללוה לכבוש ממון חבירו שבידו ולומר לו לך ושוב והוא שיש לו שנאמר אל תאמר לרעך לך ושוב, וכן אסור ללוה ליקח הלואה ולהוציאה שלא לצורך ולאבדה עד שלא ימצא בעל חוב מאין יגבה אע\"פ שהמלוה עשיר גדול ועושה זה רשע הוא שנאמר לוה רשע ולא ישלם וצוו חכמים יהי ממון חברך חביב עליך כשלך.", + "כשיתבע המלוה הלואתו אע\"פ שהוא עשיר והלוה דחוק וטרוד במזונות אין מרחמין בדין אלא גובין לו חובו עד פרוטה אחרונה מכל מטלטלין שימצאו לו, ואם לא הספיקו המטלטלין גובין לו מן הקרקע אחר שמחרימין על מי שיש לו מטלטלין או מי שידע לו מטלטלין ולא יביאם לב\"ד, וגובין מכל קרקע שיש לו אע\"פ שהיא משועבדת לכתובת אשתו או לבעל חובו שקדם גובין לזה ואם יבא הראשון ויטרוף יטרוף, טען הלוה שמטלטלין אלו שבידי אינן שלי אלא פקדון הם בידי או שכורין או שאולין אין שומעין לו או יביא ראיה או יגבה מהן בעל חובו.", + "אין בעל חוב גובה לא מכסות אשתו ובניו של לוה ולא מבגדים צבועים שצבען לשמן אף על פי שעדיין לא לבשו אותן ולא מסנדלים חדשים שלקחן לשמן אלא הרי אלו שלהן, בד\"א בכלי החול אבל בגדי שבת והמועד גובה אותן בעל חוב ואין צריך לומר אם היו בהן טבעות וכלי זהב או כסף שהכל לבעל חובו.", + "היו לו מטלטלין או קרקע והרי עליו שטר חובות לעכו\"ם ואמר הרי כל נכסי משועבדין לעכו\"ם ואם יטלו אותן הישראלים בחובם יאסרו אותי העכו\"ם בחובן ואהיה בשביה, הורו רבותי שאין שומעין לו ויגבו הישראלים, וכשיבאו העכו\"ם ויאסרוהו הרי כל ישראל מצווין לפדותו.", + "מסדרין לבעל חוב כדרך שמסדרין בערכין, כיצד אומר ללוה הבא כל המטלטין שיש לך ולא תניח אפילו מחט אחת ונותנין לו מן הכל מזון [ל'] יום וכסות י\"ב חדש מכסות הראויה לו, ולא שילבש בגדי משי או מצנפת זהובה אלא מעבירין אותה ממנו ונותנין לו כסות הראויה לו לי\"ב חדש, ומטה לישב עליה ומטה ומצע הראויין לו לישן עליהם, ואם היה עני מטה ומפץ לישן עליו, ואין נותנין כלים כאלו לאשתו ובניו אע\"פ שהוא חייב במזונותיהם, ונותנין לו סנדליו ותפליו, היה אומן נותנין לו שני כלי אומנות מכל מין ומין כגון שהיה חרש נותנין לו שני מעצדין ושתי מגרות, היה לו מין אחד מרובה ומן אחד מועט נותנין לו שנים מן המרובה וכל שיש לו מן המועט, ואין לוקחין לו כלים מדמי המרובה, היה אכר או חמר אין נותנין לו לא צמדו ולא חמורו, וכן אם היה ספן אין נותנין לו ספינתו אע\"פ שאין לו מזונות אלא מאלו אין אלו כלים אלא נכסים וימכרו עם שאר המטלטלין בבית דין וינתנו לבעל חובו.", + "מלוה שבא להפרע שלא בפני הלוה כגון שהיה הלוה במדינה רחוקה ותפסה האשה מטלטלין מנכסי הבעל כדי שתזון מהן מוציאין אותן מידה ונותנין לבעל חוב שאפילו היה בעלה עמה לא היה יכול לזון את אשתו ובניו עד שיפרע לו כל חובו." + ], + [ + "דין תורה שבזמן שיתבע המלוה את חובו אם נמצאו ללוה נכסים מסדרין לו ונותנין לבעל חובו את השאר כמו שביארנו, ואם לא נמצא ללוה כלום או נמצאו לו דברים שמסדרין לו בלבד ילך הלוה לדרכו ואין אוסרין אותו ואין אומרים לו הבא ראייה שאתה עני ולא משביעין אותו כדרך שדנין העכו\"ם שנאמר לא תהיה לו כנושה, אלא אומרים למלוה אם אתה יודע נכסים לזה המחוייב לך לך ותפוס אותן.", + "טען שיש לו והחביא אותן והרי הן בתוך ביתו אין מן הדין שיכנס לביתו לא הוא ולא שליח ב\"ד שהתורה הקפידה על זה שנאמר בחוץ תעמוד, אבל מחרימין על מי שיש לו ולא יתן לבעל חובו, כשראו הגאונים הראשונים שעמדו אחר חבור הגמרא שרבו הרמאים וננעלה דלת בפני לוין התקינו שמשביעין את הלוה שבועה חמורה כעין של תורה בנקיטת חפץ שאין לו כלום יתר על דברים שמסדרין לו, ושלא החביאן ביד אחרים ושלא נתן מתנה ע\"מ להחזיר וכולל בשבועה זו שכל שירויח וכל שיבא לידו או לרשותו מאשר תשיג ידו לא יאכיל ממנו כלום לא לאשתו ולא לבניו ולא ילביש אותן ולא יטפל בהן ולא יתן מתנה לאדם בעולם, אלא יוציא מכל אשר תשיג ידו מזון ל' יום וכסות י\"ב חדש מזון הראוי לו וכסות הראוי לו, לא אכילת הזוללים והסובאין או בני מלכים ולא מלבושי הפחות והסגנים אלא כדרכו, וכל היתר על צרכו יתן לבעל חובו ראשון ראשון עד שיגבנו כל חובו, ומחרימין תחלה על מי שידע לפלוני נכסים גלויין או טמונין ולא יודיע לב\"ד, גם אחר התקנה הזאת אין בעל חוב יכול להכנס לתוך ביתו של לוה לא הוא ולא שליח ב\"ד שלא תקנו לעקור גוף התורה אלא הלוה עצמו יוציא כליו או יאמר כך וכך הוא שיש לי מניחין הראוי לו ויוציא השאר וישבע בתקנה זו וכזה דנין ישראל בכל מקומותן, נראה לו ממון אחר שנשבע שבועה זו ואמר של אחרים הוא או עסק הוא בידי אין שומעין לו עד שיביא ראייה וכן הורו רבותי.", + "מי שנשבע שבועה זו שאין לו כלום וכל מה שירויח יתן לב\"ח אין כל אחד מבעלי חובות בא ומשביעו ששבועה אחת כוללת כל בעלי חובות, ותקנת אחרונים היא ואין מדקדקין בה להחמיר אלא להקל.", + "מי שהוחזק שהוא עני וכשר והולך בתום והדבר גלוי וידוע לדיין ולרוב העם ובא בעל חובו להשביעו בתקנה זו והוחזק התובע שאינו מסתפק בעניות זה אלא רוצה לצערו בשבועה זו להצר לו ולביישו ברבים כדי להנקם ממנו או כדי שילך וילוה מן העכו\"ם או יקח נכסי אשתו ויתן לזה עד שינצל משבועה זו, יראה לי שאסור לדיין ירא שמים להשביעו שבועה זו ואם השביעו ביטל לא תעשה של תורה לא תהיה לו כנושה, ולא עוד אלא ראוי לדיין לגעור בתובע ולטרדו מפני שהוא נוטר והולך בשרירות לבו, שלא תקנו הגאונים תקנה זו אלא מפני הרמאין והרי נאמר עד דרוש אחיך אותו דרשהו אם רמאי הוא או אינו רמאי ומאחר שהוחזק זה שהוא עני ושאינו רמאי אסור להשביעו, וכן אני אומר שמי שהוחזק רמאי ודרכיו מקולקלין במשאו ומתנו והרי הוא אמוד שיש לו ממון וטען שאין לו כלום והרי הוא רץ להשבע בתקנה זו שאין ראוי להשביעו אלא אם יש כח בדיין לעשותו עד שיפרע בעל חובו או לנדותו עד שיתן יעשה מאחר שהוא אמוד שפריעת בעל חוב מצוה, כללו של דבר כל שיעשה הדיין מדברים אלו וכוונתו לרדוף הצדק בלבד שנצטוינו לרדפו ולא לעבור הדין על אחד מבעלי דינין ה\"ז מורשה לעשות ומקבל שכר, והוא שיהיו מעשיו לשם שמים.", + "מי שנתחייב בשבועה זו מפני שטר חוב שעליו והודה לאחרים בחובות אחרים והשיגה ידו יתר על הראוי לו לא יטול היתר אלא בעלי שטרות בלבד, שמא קנוניא עושה בהודאתו על נכסיו של זה.", + "ראובן שהיה חייב לשמעון מאה ולוי חייב לראובן מאה מוציאין מלוי ונותנין לשמעון, לפיכך אם אין לראובן נכסים והיו לו שטרי חוב על לוי ואמר לוי שטר אמנה הוא פרוע הוא והודה לו ראובן אין משגיחין על הודאתו שמא קנוניא הם עושין לאבד זכותו של שמעון אלא ישבע שמעון ויטול מלוי כדין כל טורף שאינו נפרע אלא בשבועה, וכן כל מי שיש עליו שטר חוב והודה לאחר מעצמו בחוב אחר אם אין לו נכסים כדי שיגבו שניהם גובה בעל השטר בלבד שלא יעשו קנוניא על שטרו של זה.", + "אסור לאדם להלוות מעותיו בלא עדים ואפילו לתלמיד חכם אלא אם כן הלוהו על המשכון והמלוה בשטר משובח יתר, וכל המלוה בלא עדים עובר משום ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול וגורם קללה לעצמו.", + "הרב שלוה מעבדו ואח\"כ שחררו או לוה מאשתו ואחר כך גירשה אין להן עליו כלום שכל מה שקנה עבד קנה רבו וכל המעות שביד האשה בחזקת בעלה אלא אם הביאה ראייה שהן מנדונייתה." + ], + [ + "אלמנה בין שהיא עניה בין שהיא עשירה אין ממשכנין אותה לא בשעת הלואה ולא שלא בשעת הלואה ולא על פי ב\"ד שנאמר ולא תחבול בגד אלמנה, ואם חבל מחזירין ממנו בעל כרחו ואם תודה לו תשלם ואם תכפור תשבע, אבד המשכון או נשרף קודם שיחזיר לוקה.", + "וכן המלוה את חבירו בין שהלוהו על המשכון בין שמשכנו אחר הלואה בידו או על פי ב\"ד לא יחבול כלים שעושין בהם אוכל נפש כגון הרחים והעריבות של עץ ויורות שמבשלין בהם וסכין של שחיטה וכיוצא בהן שנאמר כי נפש הוא חובל, ואם חבל מחזיר בעל כרחו ואם אבד המשכון או נשרף קודם שיחזיר לוקה.", + "חבל כלים הרבה של אוכל נפש כגון שחבל עריבה ויורה וסכין חייב על כל כלי וכלי בפני עצמו, אפילו שני כלים שהן עושין מלאכה אחת חייב עליהן משום שני כלים ולוקה שתים על שניהם שנאמר לא יחבול רחים ורכב לחייב על הרחים בפני עצמו ועל הרכב בפני עצמו כשם שהרכב והרחים מיוחדין שהן שני כלים ומשמשין מלאכה אחת וחייב ע\"ז =על זה= בפני עצמו ועל זה בפני עצמו כך כל שני כלים אע\"פ שמשמשין מלאכה אחת חייב על זה בפני עצמו ועל זה בפני עצמו, וכן אם חבל צמד בקר החורש לוקה שתים.", + "המלוה את חבירו [אחד] עני ואחד עשיר לא ימשכננו אלא בב\"ד ואפילו שליח ב\"ד שבא למשכן לא יכנס לביתו וימשכננו אלא עומד בחוץ והלוה נכנס לביתו ומוציא לו המשכון שנאמר בחוץ תעמוד, א\"כ מה בין בעל חוב לשליח ב\"ד ששליח ב\"ד יש לו ליקח המשכון מיד הלוה בזרוע ונותנו למלוה ובעל חוב אין לו ליקח המשכון עד שיתן לו הלוה מדעתו עבר ב\"ח ונכנס לבית הלוה ומשכנו או שחטף המשכון מידו בזרוע אינו לוקה שהרי ניתק לעשה שנאמר השב תשיב לו את העבוט כבוא השמש ואם לא קיים עשה שבה כגון שאבד המשכון או נשרף לוקה ומחשב דמי המשכון ותובע השאר בדין.", + "אחד הממשכן את חבירו בב\"ד או שמשכנו בידו בזרוע או מדעת הלוה אם איש עני הוא ומשכנו דבר שהוא צריך לו הרי זה מצווה להחזיר לו העבוט בעת שהוא צריך לו, מחזיר לו את הכר בלילה כדי לישן עליו ואת המחרישה ביום כדי לעשות בה מלאכתו שנאמר השב תשיב לו את העבוט, עבר ולא השיב לו כלי היום ביום וכלי הלילה בלילה עובר בלא תעשה שנאמר לא תשכב בעבוטו לא תשכב ועבוטו אצלך זו כסות לילה, ובכלים שהוא עושה בהן מלאכתו ביום או לובשן הוא אומר עד בוא השמש תשיבנו לו מלמד שיחזירו כל היום אם כן הוא שמחזיר לו המשכון בעת שהוא צריך לו ולוקח אותה בעת שאינו צריך לו מה יועיל המשכון כדי שלא ישמט החוב בשביעית ולא יעשה מטלטלין אצל בניו אלא יפרע מן המשכון אחר שמת הלוה, הא למדת שהממשכן את העני דבר שהוא צריך לו ולא החזירו לו בזמנו עובר משום שלשה שמות משום לא תבוא אל ביתו ומשום השב תשיב לו את העבוט ומשום לא תשכב בעבוטו, בד\"א שמשכנו שלא בשעת הלואתו אבל אם משכנו בשעת הלואתו אינו חייב להחזיר כלל ואינו עובר בשם מן השמות האלו.", + "שליח ב\"ד שבא למשכן לא ימשכן דברים שאי אפשר לאדם ליתן אותם משכון כגון בגד שעליו וכלי שאוכל בו וכיוצא באלו, ומניח מטה ומצע לעשיר ומטה ומפץ לעני, וכל הנמצא בידו חוץ מאלו יש לו למשכנו ויחזיר לו כלי היום ביום וכלי הלילה בלילה, היו לפניו שני כלים נוטל אחד ומחזיר אחד, עד מתי הוא חייב להחזיר וליקח עד לעולם, ואם היה המשכון מדברים שאינו צריך להם ואין מניחין אותן ללוה הרי זה מניחו אצלו עד שלשים יום ומשלשלים יום ואילך מוכר המשכון בבית דין, מת הלוה אינו מחזיר לבניו, מת הלוה אחר שהשיב לו המשכון שומטו המלוה מעל בניו ואינו מחזיר.", + "הערב מותר למשכן בזרוע ולהכנס לביתו וליטול המשכון שנאמר לקח בגדו כי ערב זר, וכן מי שיש לו שכר אצל חבירו בין שכר מלאכתו בין שכר בהמתו וכליו בין שכר ביתו ה\"ז מותר למשכנו שלא ע\"פ ב\"ד ונכנס לביתו ונוטל המשכון בשכרו, ואם זקף עליו השכר במלוה אסור שנאמר כי תשה ברעך משאת מאומה וגו'.", + "מי שהיה בידו משכונו של עני אם היה שכרו יתר על פחתו כגון קרדום ומסר [הגדול] וכיוצא בהן ה\"ז מותר להשכירו ומנכה שכרו תמיד בחובו מפני שזה כמשיב אבדה ואין צריך רשות בעלים." + ], + [ + "'נשך' ו'מרבית' אחד הוא שנאמר (ויקרא כה, לז): \"את כספך לא תתן לו בנשך, ובמרבית לא תתן אכלך\" ולהלן הוא אומר (דברים כג, כ): \"נשך כסף נשך אוכל, נשך כל דבר אשר ישך\", ולמה נקרא שמו נשך? מפני שהוא נושך, שמצער את חבירו ואוכל את בשרו. ולמה חלקן הכתוב? לעבור עליו בשני לאוין.", + "כדרך שאסור להלוות כך אסור ללוות ברבית שנאמר לא תשיך לאחיך מפי השמועה למדו שזו אזהרה ללוה כלומר לא תנשך לאחיך, וכן אסור להתעסק בין לוה ומלוה ברבית, וכל מי שהיה ערב או סופר או עד ביניהן ה\"ז עובר בלא תעשה, שנאמר לא תשימון עליו נשך זו אזהרה אף לעדים ולערב ולסופר, הא למדת שהמלוה בריבית עובר על ששה לאוין: לא תהיה לו כנושה, את כספך לא תתן לו בנשך, ובמרבית לא תתן אכלך, אל תקח מאתו נשך ותרבית, לא תשימון עליו נשך, ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול, והלוה עובר בשנים, לא תשיך לאחיך, ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול, ערב ועדים וכיוצא בהן אין עוברין אלא משום לא תשימון עליו נשך, וכל מי שהיה סרסור בין שניהם או שסייע אחד מהן או הורהו עובר משום לפני עור לא תתן מכשול.", + "אע\"פ שהמלוה והלוה עוברין על כל אלו הלאוין אין לוקין עליו מפני שניתן להשבון, שכל המלוה בריבית אם היתה ריבית קצוצה שהיא אסורה מן התורה הרי זו יוצאה בדיינין ומוציאין אותה מן המלוה ומחזירין ללוה, ואם מת המלוה אין מוציאין מיד הבנים.", + "הניח להם אביהם מעות של רבית אע\"פ שהן יודעין שהן של רבית אינן חייבים להחזיר, הניח להם פרה וטלית של ריבית וכל דבר המסויים חייבים להחזיר מפני כבוד אביהן, בד\"א כשעשה תשובה ולא הספיק להחזיר עד שמת אבל אם לא עשה תשובה אין חוששין לכבודו ואפילו דבר המסויים אין מחזירין.", + "הגזלנין ומלוה בריבית שהחזירו אין מקבלין מהן כדי לפתוח להן דרך לתשובה, וכל המקבל מהן אין רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו, אם היתה גזילה קיימת והרבית דבר המסויים והרי הוא בעצמו מקבלין מהן.", + "שטר שכתוב בו ריבית בין קצוצה בין של דבריהם גובה את הקרן ואינו גובה את הרבית, קדם וגבה הכל מוציאין ממנו הרבית קצוצה, אבל אבק ריבית שהוא מדבריהם אינו גובה מן הלוה למלוה ואין מחזירין אותו מן המלוה ללוה.", + "כל הכותב שטר רבית ה\"ז ככותב ומעיד עליו עדים שכפר בה' אלהי ישראל, וכן כל הלוה ומלוה ברבית בינן לבין עצמן הרי הן ככופרים בה' אלהי ישראל וכפרו ביציאת מצרים שנאמר את כספך לא תתן לו בנשך וגו' אני ה' אלהיכם אשר הוצאתי אתכם מארץ מצרים.", + "אסור לאדם להלוות בניו ובני ביתו ברבית אע\"פ שאינו מקפיד ומתנה הוא שנותן להן ה\"ז אסור שמא ירגילם בדבר זה.", + "תלמידי חכמים שהלוו זה את זה ונתן לו יתר על מה שהלוה ממנו הרי זה מותר שהדבר ידוע שלא נתן לו אלא מתנה שהרי הן יודעין חומר איסור הרבית.", + "המלוה את חבירו ומצא הלוה יותר [או שהחזיר לו חובו ומצא המלוה יותר] אם בכדי שהדעת טועה חייב להחזיר ואם לאו מתנה הוא שנתן לו או גזילה היתה לו בידו והבליע לו בחשבון או אחר צוה להבליע לו, בכמה הדעת טועה באחד ובשנים או בחמשה או בעשרה שמא מנה חמשה חמשה או עשרה עשרה, וכן אם מצא יתר מנין החמישיות או מנין העשיריות אחד אחד חייב להחזיר לו שמא האחדים שהיה מונה בהן החמשיות או העשיריות נתערבו עמהם.", + "המלוה את חבירו על המטבע וכן הכותב לאשתו בכתובתה מטבע ידוע ופירש משקלו והוסיפו על משקלו אם הוזלו הפירות מחמת התוספת מנכה לו שיעור התוספת ואפילו הוסיפו עליו כל שהוא, ואם לא הוזלו מחמת התוספת אינו מנכה לו אלא נותן לו ממטבע היוצא באותה שעה, בד\"א בשהוסיפו עליו עד חמישיתו כגון שהיה משקלו ד' ועשאו ה' אבל אם הוסיפו לו יותר על חמישיתו מנכה לו כל התוספת אע\"פ שלא הוזלו הפירות וה\"ה למלוה על המטבע ופחתו ממנו.", + "המלוה את חבירו על המטבע ונפסל אם יכול להוציאו במדינה אחרת ויש לו דרך לאותה מדינה נותן לו ממטבע שהלוהו ואומר לו לך והוציאו במקום פלוני, ואם אין לו דרך לשם נותן לו ממטבע היוצא באותה שעה, וכן בכתובה.", + "הורו מקצת הגאונים שהלוה שמחל למלוה ברבית שלקח ממנו או שעתיד ליקח אע\"פ שקנו מידו שמחל או נתן מתנה אינו מועיל כלום שכל רבית שבעולם מחילה היא אבל התורה לא מחלה ואסרה מחילה זו ולפיכך אין המחילה מועלת ברבית אפילו ברבית של דבריהם, יראה לי שאין הוראה זו נכונה אלא מאחר שאומרים למלוה להחזיר לו וידע המלוה שדבר איסור עשה ויש לו ליטול ממנו אם רצה למחול מוחל כדרך שמוחל הגזל, ובפירוש אמרו חכמים שהגזלנין ומלוי ברבית שהחזירו אין מקבלין מהן מכלל שהמחילה מועלת.", + "נכסי יתומים מותר ליתן אותם לאדם נאמן שיש לו נכסים טובים קרוב לשכר ורחוק להפסד, כיצד אומר לו תהיה נושא ונותן בהן אם יש שם ריוח תן להם חלקן מן הריוח ואם יש שם הפסד תפסיד אתה לבדך שזה אבק רבית הוא וכל אבק רבית אינה אסורה אלא מדבריהם ובנכסי יתומים לא גזרו.." + ], + [ + "העכו\"ם וגר תושב לוין מהן ומלוין אותן ברבית שנאמר לא תשיך לאחיך לאחיך אסור ולשאר העולם מותר, ומצות עשה להשיך לעכו\"ם שנאמר לנכרי תשיך מפי השמועה למדו שזו מצות עשה וזהו דין תורה.", + "אסרו חכמים שיהיה ישראל מלוה את העכו\"ם ברבית קצוצה אלא בכדי חייו גזרו שמא ילמוד ממעשיו ברוב ישיבתו עמו, לפיכך מותר ללוות מן העכו\"ם ברבית שהרי הוא בורח מלפניו ואינו רגיל אצלו, ותלמיד חכם שאינו רגיל בו ללמוד ממעשיו מותר להלוות לעכו\"ם ברבית אפילו להרויח, וכל אבק רבית עם העכו\"ם מותרת לכל.", + "ישראל שלוה מעות מן העכו\"ם ברבית וביקש להחזירם לו מצאו ישראל אחר ואמר לו תנם לי ואני מעלה לך כדרך שאתה מעלה לעכו\"ם הרי זו רבית קצוצה אפילו העמידו אצל העכו\"ם עד שיטול העכו\"ם מעותיו ויחזור ויתנם ביד ישראל האחר.", + "עכו\"ם שלוה מעות מישראל ברבית וביקש להחזירם לו מצאו ישראל אחר ואמר לו תנם לי ואני מעלה לך כדרך שאתה מעלה לישראל הרי זה מותר, ואם העמידו אצל ישראל אע\"פ שנתן העכו\"ם המעות בידו הואיל ומדעת ישראל נתן הרי זו רבית קצוצה.", + "אסור לישראל לתלות מעותיו ביד עכו\"ם כדי להלוותן ברבית לישראל, ועכו\"ם שהלוה את ישראל ברבית אסור לישראל אחר להיות לו ערב שכיון שבדיניהם שתובע הערב תחלה נמצא הערב תובע את ישראל ברבית שהערב חייב בה לעכו\"ם, לפיכך אם קבל עליו העכו\"ם שלא יתבע את הערב תחלה הרי זה מותר.", + "ישראל שלוה מעות מן העכו\"ם ברבית וזקפן עליו במלוה ונתגייר אם עד שלא נתגייר זקפן עליו במלוה גובה את הקרן והרבית ואם משנתגייר זקפן עליו במלוה גובה את הקרן ולא הרבית, אבל עכו\"ם שלוה מישראל ברבית וזקף עליו את הרבית במלוה אע\"פ שזקפן עליו אחר שנתגייר גובה את הקרן ואת הרבית שלא יאמרו בשביל מעותיו נתגייר זה, וגובה הישראל ממנו אחר שנתגייר כל מעות הרבית שנתחייב בהן כשהיה עכו\"ם.", + "מצוה להקדים הלואת ישראל בחנם להלואת עכו\"ם ברבית.", + "אסור לאדם שיתן מעותיו קרוב לשכר ורחוק להפסד שזה אבק רבית הוא והעושה כן נקרא רשע, ואם נתן חולקין בשכר ובהפסד כדין העסק, והנותן מעותיו קרוב להפסד ורחוק לשכר הרי זה נקרא חסיד.", + "אין מושיבין חנוני למחצית שכר ולא יתן מעות ליקח בהן פירות למחצית שכר ולא ביצים להושיב תחת התרנגולין שלו למחצית שכר ואין שמין עגלים וסייחין לפטמן למחצית שכר אלא א\"כ נתן לו שכר עמלו ומזונו, או יהיה ריוח המתעסק יותר על הפסדו כמו שביארנו בענין השותפות.", + "המשתתף עם חבירו במעות או בקרקע או הנותן לו עסק לא יצרף השכר עם הקרן שמא לא יהיה שם שכר ונמצאו באין לידי רבית, וכן לא יתן לו מעות בתורת עסק או שותפות ויכתוב אותן מלוה שמא ימות ונמצא השטר ביד היורש וגובה בו את הרבית.", + "אסור להקדים הרבית או לאחר אותו, כיצד נתן עיניו ללוות ממנו והיה משלח לו סבלונות בשביל שילוהו זו היא רבית מוקדמת, לוה ממנו והחזיר לו מעותיו והיה משלח לו סבלונות בשביל מעותיו שהיו בטילין אצלו זו היא רבית מאוחרת ואם עבר ועושה כן הרי זה אבק רבית.", + "מי שלוה מחבירו ולא היה רגיל מקודם להקדים לו שלום אסור להקדים לו שלום, ואצ\"ל שיקלסו בדברים או ישכים לפתחו שנאמר נשך כל דבר אפילו דברים אסורים, וכן אסור לו ללמד את המלוה מקרא או גמרא כל זמן שמעותיו בידו אם לא היה רגיל בזה מקודם שנא' נשך כל דבר.", + "המלוה את חבירו לא יאמר לו דע אם בא איש פלוני ממקום פלוני (כלומר) שתכבדו ותאכילו ותשקהו כראוי וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "יש דברים שהן כמו רבית ומותרין כיצד לוקח אדם שטרותיו של חבירו בפחות ואינו חושש, ומותר לאדם ליתן לחבירו דינר כדי שילוה לפלוני מאה דינרין שלא אסרה תורה אלא רבית הבאה מן הלוה למלוה, וכן אומר אדם לחבירו הא לך דינר זה ואמור לפלוני שילוני שלא נתן אלא שכר אמירה.", + "יש דברים שהן מותרין ואסור לעשותן מפני הערמת רבית, כיצד אמר לו הלוני מנה אמר לו מנה אין לי חטים יש לי במנה ונתן לו חטים במנה וחזר ולקחן ממנו בתשעים הרי זה מותר אבל אסרוהו מפני הערמת רבית שהרי נתן לו תשעים ולוקח מנה, ואם עבר ועשה כזה הרי הוא מוציא ממנו מאה בדין שאפילו אבק רבית אין כאן, וכן מי שהיתה שדה ממושכנת בידו לא יחזור וישכיר אותה לבעל השדה מפני הערמת רבית שהרי זה עומד בשדהו כשהיה ונותן לזה שכר בכל חדש בשביל מעותיו שהלוהו.", + "אסור להשכיר הדינרין שאין זה דומה למשכיר את הכלי שהכלי חוזר בעצמו וזה מוציא אלו ומביא דינרין אחרות ונמצא זה אבק רבית.", + "מלך שהיו דיניו שכל מי שיתן המס הקצוב על כל איש ואיש ע\"י זה שלא נתן יתשעבד בו ונתן על ידו דינר אע\"פ שמשעבד בו יתר מדינר ה\"ז מותר וכן כל כיוצא בזה." + ], + [ + "המלוה את חבירו סלע בחמשה דינרים או סאתים חטים בשלש או סלע בסלע וסאה או שלש סאין בשלש סאין ודינר כללו של דבר כל הלואה בתוספת כל שהו הרי זו רבית של תורה ויוצאה בדיינין, וכן המלוה את חבירו והתנה עמו שידור בחצרו חנם עד שיחזיר לו הלואתו, או ששכר ממנו בפחות וקצב הדבר שפוחת לו מן השכר עד שיחזיר לו הלואתו, או שמשכן בידו מקום שפירותיו מצויין בעת ההלואה כגון שמשכן חצרו ע\"מ שידור בו בחנם הרי זו רבית של תורה ויוצאה בדיינין, וכן המוכר שדה או חצר באסמכתא הואיל ולא קנה הגוף הרי כל הפירות שאכל רבית ומחזיר אותן, והוא הדין לכל מי [שלא] קנה קניין גמור מתחלה שהוא מחזיר את הפירות מפני שאם אכל את הפירות הרי זו רבית של תורה, וכל דבר שהוא אסור משום רבית חוץ מאלו הרי הוא אסור מדבריהם גזירה שמא יבא לרבית של תורה והוא הנקרא אבק רבית ואינו מוציא בדיינין.", + "המלוה את חבירו לא ימשוך את עבדו כדי שיעשה בו מלאכה אע\"פ שהעבד יושב ובטל, ולא ידור בחצרו בחנם אף על פי שאין החצר עשויה לשכר ואין דרך בעל החצר להשכיר, ואם דר צריך להעלות לו שכר, ואם לא העלה לו הרי זה אבק רבית לפי שלא התנה עמו שילוהו וידור בחצרו, לפיכך אם עדיין לא החזיר לו חובו ובא לנכות שכר החצר שדר בה מן החוב אם היה השכר כנגד החוב אינו מנכה לו הכל אלא כמו שיראו הדיינים, שאם תסלק אותו בלא כלום הרי זה כמו שהוציא אותו בדיינין ואבק רבית אינה יוצאה בדיינין.", + "הורו רבותי שהמלוה את חבירו ולאחר זמן תבע חובו ואמר לו הלוה דור בחצרי עד שאחזיר לך חובך ה\"ז אבק רבית לפי שלא קצץ בשעת הלואה שנאמר לא תתן לו בנשך.", + "המלוה את חבירו על השדה ואמר לו אם לא תחזיר לי מכאן עד שלש שנים הרי היא שלי הרי זה לא קנה מפני שהיא אסמכתא, לפיכך מנכה כל הפירות שאכל מפני שהוא רבית של תורה, אבל אם אמר לו המוכר אם לא אחזיר לך עד ג' שנים קנה אותה מעכשיו והביא לו בתוך שלש אין לו פירות הביא לו לאחר שלש הרי כל הפירות ללוקח.", + "המוכר בית או שדה ואמר המוכר ללוקח לכשיהיו לי מעות תחזיר לי קרקעי לא קנה וכל הפירות שאכל רבית קצוצה ומוציאין אותם בדיינין, אבל אם אמר לו הלוקח מדעתו כשיהיו לך מעות אני אחזיר לך קרקע זה מותר והלוקח אוכל פירות עד שיחזיר לו מעותיו.", + "מכר לו את השדה ונתן לו מקצת הדמים אם אמר לו המוכר ללוקח קנה כשיעור מעותיך כל אחד משניהם אוכל פירות כשיעור מעותיו, אמר המוכר ללוקח לכשתביא שאר המעות תקנה מעכשיו שניהם אסורים לאכול הפירות מיד, המוכר אסור שמא יביא הלוקח שאר המעות ונמצאת השדה שלו ונמצא המוכר אוכל פירות בשביל המעות שנשארו לו אצל הלוקח וכן הלוקח אסור שמא לא יביא ונמצא שאכל בשביל מקצת המעות שיש לו אצל המוכר, לפיכך מניחין את הפירות ע\"י שליש עד שינתנו לאחד מהן, אמר לו המוכר לכשתביא שאר המעות תקנה הרי המוכר אוכל פירות עד שיביא הלוקח ואם אכל הלוקח מוציאין ממנו, אמר לו המוכר קנה מעכשיו ושאר המעות הרי הן חוב אצלך הרי הלוקח אוכל פירות ואם אכל המוכר מוציאין ממנו כל מה שאכל.", + "הורו רבותי שהמלוה את חבירו ומשכן לו שדהו על מנת שיאכל פירותיה כל ימי המשכונא אע\"פ שאינו מנכה לו כלום הרי זו אבק רבית ואינה יוצאה בדיינין שאין הממשכן את השדה דומה לממשכן בית שהרי אין בשדה פירות מצויין בעת ההלואה ואפשר שירויח ויהיו שם פירות ואפשר שיפסיד בזריעתה ועבודתה ולפיכך היא אבק רבית, וכן אין המשכונא דומה למי שמכר באסמכתא שהמוכר באסמכתא לא גמר והקנהו והממשכן גמר והקנהו גוף זה לפירותיו וכזה יראה מן הגמרא שהמשכונא אבק רבית ואין לך להעמידה אלא בממשכן שדהו כמו שהורו רבותי, נמצאת למד ששלש משכונות הן: משכונא שהיא רבית קצוצה, ומשכונא שהיא אבק רבית, ומשכונא שהיא מותרת, כיצד משכן לו מקום שפירותיו מצויין תדיר כגון חצר או מרחץ או חנות ואכל פירותיהן ה\"ז רבית קצוצה, משכן לו שדה וכיוצא בה ובאו שם פירות ואכלן הרי זו אבק רבית, וכן אם משכן חצירו וכיוצא בה בנכוי ה\"ז אבק רבית, משכן שדהו בנכוי ה\"ז מותר, כיצד הוא הנכוי כגון שהלוהו מאה דינרין ומשכן לו בהן חצירו או שדהו ואמר לו המלוה הריני מנכה לך מעה כסף בכל שנה בשכר קרקע זו כדי שיהיו כל פירותיו שלי בחצר וכיוצא בה אסור ובשדה וכיוצא בה מותר.", + "הורו מקצת גאונים שכל משכונא שאין בה נכוי כלל הרי היא רבית קצוצה ולא ירדו לעומק הדבר להפריש בין שדה לחצר ולפיכך נתקשו להן דברי חכמי הגמרא, וכן הורו שכל משכונא אפילו בנכוי אסור בין בחצר בין בשדה ואין להם משכונא מותרת אלא בדרך הזאת, כיצד כגון שהלוהו מאה דינרין ומשכן לו בהן בית או שדה והתנה עמו שאחר עשר שנים תחזור קרקע זו לבעליה חנם ה\"ז מותר לאכול פירותיה כל עשר שנים אפילו היה שכרה שוה אלף דינרים בכל שנה שאין זה אלא כמי ששכר בפחות, וכן אם התנה בעל השדה עמו כל זמן שיביא לו מעות יחשב לו עשר בכל שנה ויסלקו ממנה ה\"ז מותר, וכן אם התנה הלוה שכל זמן שירצה מחשב לו מה שדר בו ויחזיר לו שאר הדמים ויסתלק ה\"ז מותר שאין זה אלא כשכירות וכל תנאי שבשכירות מותר כמו שביארנו." + ], + [ + "המלוה את חבירו ומשכן לו את השדה עד זמן קצוב או עד שיביא לו מעות ויסתלק והיה המלוה אוכל כל פירותיה אפילו אכל כשיעור חובו אין מסלקין אותו בלא כלום שאם תסלק אותו בלא מעות הרי זה כמי שהוציא ממנו בדיינין, ואין צריך לומר שאם אכל יתר על מעותיו אין מוציאין ממנו, וכן אין מחשבין משטר לשטר במשכונא, היתה הקרקע הממושכנת בידו של יתומים ואכל שיעור חובו מסלקין אותו בלא כלום, אבל יתר על חובו אין מוציאין ממנו היתר, ומחשבין לו משטר לשטר, כיצד מחשבין משטר לשטר הרי שהיתה שדה זו ממושכנת לו במאה דינר ושדה אחרת ממושכנת לו בשטר אחר במאה דינר ושתי השדות לאדם אחד ואכל מפירות השדה האחת בחמשים ומפירות השניה במאה וחמשים אומרים לו הרי אכלת מן הפירות במאתים ואין לך כלום וכאילו השני שטרות שטר אחד ומשכונא אחת.", + "מקום שנהגו לסלק המלוה כל זמן שיביא לו מעות ה\"ז כמו שפירש ואין צריך לפרש דבר זה, וכן מקום שנהגו שלא יסתלק המלוה עד סוף זמן המשכונא ה\"ז כמו שפירש, וכל הממשכן סתם אינו יכול לסלקו עד י\"ב חדש.", + "מקום שדרכן לסלק המלוה כל זמן שירצה הלוה והתנה עמו המלוה שלא יסתלק עד סוף זמן המשכונא ה\"ז אינו יכול לסלקו, היה המנהג שאין המלוה מסתלק עד סוף זמנו וקבל המלוה עליו שיסלק בכל עת שיביא לו מעותיו ה\"ז צריך לקנות מידו על כך.", + "המשכונה במקום שמנהגם לסלק המלוה בכל עת שיביא מעותיו אין בעל חוב של מלוה גובה ממנה כדרך שגובה מן הקרקע, ואין הבכור נוטל בה פי שנים, ושביעית משמטתה, וכשמסלק אותו אינו נוטל אפילו פירות שבשלו ונפלו לארץ, ואם הגביה אותן קודם שיסלקו קנה אותן, ומקום שאינו יכול לסלקו עד סוף זמנו בעל חוב גובה הימנו, והבכור נוטל פי שנים, ואין השביעית משמטתה.", + "אע\"פ שמשכונא זו אסורה היא ואבק רבית כמו שביארנו, אפשר שיהיה מנהג זה בטעות או לעכו\"ם או דרך כל מי שחוטא ומשכן באותה מדינה הואיל ואבק רבית הולכין אחר המנהג, ויש מי שהורה שזאת המשכונא בנכוי.", + "עכו\"ם שמשכן חצרו לישראל וחזר העכו\"ם ומכרה לישראל אחר אין הממשכן חייב להעלות שכר לישראל מעת שקנה הישראל אלא דר בחצר בלא שכר עד שיחזיר לו העכו\"ם את המעות שיש לו על חצר זו שהרי הוא ברשות הממשכן בדיניהם עד שיתן לו מעותיו ויסתלק.", + "הממשכן בית או שדה ביד חבירו והיה בעל הקרקע אוכל פירותיה ואמר לו המלוה לכשתמכור קרקע זו לא תמכרנה אלא לי בדמים אלו ה\"ז אסור, ואם אמר לו אל תמכרנה אלא לי בשוויה ועל מנת כן אני מלוה אותך ה\"ז מותר.", + "מותר להרבות בשכר הקרקע, כיצד השכיר לו את החצר ואמר לו אם מעכשיו אתה נותן לי הרי היא לך בעשר סלעים בכל שנה, ואם תתן שכר חדש בחדש הרי היא בסלע בכל חדש ה\"ז מותר.", + "המשכיר שדה לחבירו בעשרה כורים לשנה, ואמר לו תן לי מאתים זוז שאפרנס בהן את השדה ואני אתן לך י\"ב כור בכל שנה ה\"ז מותר מפני שאם יפרנס את השדה בדינרין אלו יהיה שכרה יותר, וכן אם השכיר לו חנות או ספינה בעשרה דינרין בשנה ואמר לו תן לי מאתים זוז שאבנה בהן חנות ואציירנה ואכיירנה או אתקן בהן ספינה זו וכלי תשמישיה ואני אעלה לך י\"ב דינר בכל שנה הרי זה מותר, אבל אם אמר לו תן לי מאתים זוז כדי להתעסק בהן בחנות או אוציאם בסחורה של ספינה או אשכור בהן מלחין ואני אעלה לך בשכר הרי זה אסור.", + "אסור להרבות בשכר האדם, כיצד לא יאמר לו עשה עמי היום מלאכה זו שהיא שוה כסף ואני אעשה עמך בשבוע אחר מלאכה שהיא שוה שתים.", + "מותר לאדם לומר לחבירו נכש עמי היום ואנכש עמך למחר עדור עמי היום ואעדור עמך למחר, אבל לא יאמר לו נכש עמי ואעדור עמך עדור עמי ואנכש עמך, כל ימי גריד אחת וכל ימי רביעה אחת, ולא יאמר לו חרוש עמי בגריד ואני אחרוש עמך ברביעה, שהרי טורח החרישה בימות הגשמים יתר וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "השוכר את הפועל בימי החורף לעשות עמו בימי הקור בדינר בכל יום ונתן לו השכר והרי שכרו שוה בימי החורף סלע בכל יום ה\"ז אסור מפני שנראה כמלוה אותו היום כדי שיוזיל לו בשכרו, אבל אם אמר לו עשה עמי מהיום ועד זמן פלוני בדינר בכל יום אע\"פ ששוה שכרו סלע בכל יום ה\"ז מותר הואיל והוא מתחיל לעשות מעתה אינו נראה כנוטל שכר מעותיו שהקדים ונתנן לו בשכרו." + ], + [ + "אסור להרבות על המכר, כיצד המוכר לחבירו קרקע או מטלטלין ואמר לו אם מעכשיו תתן לי הדמים הרי הן שלך במאה ואם עד זמן פלוני הרי הם שלך בעשרים ומאה, הרי זה אבק רבית שזה דומה כמי שנוטל עשרים בשביל שנתן לו מאה להשתמש בה עד זמן פלוני וכשיתבענו בדין אינו חייב ליתן אלא מה שהיה שוה בשעת המכר או יחזיר ממכרו מידו אם היה קיים, וכן אם מכר לו מטלטלין עד זמן פלוני במאה והיו שוין בשוק למי שקונה במעותיו מיד תשעים ה\"ז אסור, ואינו נותן לו אלא תשעים או מחזיר מידו סחורתו אם היתה קיימת.", + "הלוקח מחבירו חפץ בשוהו על מנת שיתן לו מכאן ועד י\"ב חדש, ה\"ז רשאי לומר לו תן [לי] מיד בפחות ואינו חושש משום רבית.", + "חבית של יין שהיא שוה עתה דינר ומכרה לו בשנים עד הקיץ על מנת שאם תארע בה תקלה הרי היא ברשות המוכר עד שימכרנה הלוקח ה\"ז מותר, שאם אבדה או נשברה אינו משלם כלום, ואם לא מצא למכרה ולהרויח בה היה לו להחזירה לבעלים, וכן אם מכרה לו בשנים ואמר לו היתר על שנים יהיה שכרך בשביל שאתה מטפל למכרה ואם לא תמצא למכרה כמו שתרצה החזירה לי ה\"ז מותר, אע\"פ שאם אבדה או נגנבה או החמיצה תהיה ברשות הלוקח.", + "היו לו פירות שאם ירצה למכרן בשוק וליקח דמיהן מיד מוכרן בעשרה, ואם תבע אותן הלוקח לקנותן ויתן המעות מיד יקנה אותן בי\"ב, ה\"ז מותר למכרן בי\"ב עד י\"ב חדש, שאפי' הביא זה מעותיו עתה בי\"ב היה קונה אותן וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "אסור לקנות פרי הפרדס קודם שיגמר ויתבשל, מפני שזה שמוכר בזול עתה בעשר הוא פרי ששוה עשרים כשיגמר נמצאת התוספת בשביל ההקפה, אבל אם קנה עגל בזול והיה אצל הבעלים עד שיגדיל ה\"ז מותר שהרי אם מת או כחש ברשות הלוקח הוא והכחש והמיתה דבר מצוי תמיד.", + "הנותן מעות לבעל הכרם על השריגים ועל הזמורות לכשיכרתו שהם ביוקר והוא קונה אותן בזול עד שיבשו ויכרתו ה\"ז צריך להפך בהן כשהם מחוברים שנמצא כקונה אילן לזמורותיו, ואם לא הפך נמצאו המעות הלואה והן לוקחין בזול מפני ההקפה ואסור.", + "שומרי השדות שנותנין להם חטים בשכרן בזול מן הגורן, כשיבאו לגורן צריכין להתעסק עמהן במלאכה בגורן כדי שיהיו החטים האלו שנטלו בסוף זמן השכירות, ואם לא עשו כך נמצאת השכירות אצל הבעלים כמלוה וזה שלקחן בזול מפני שאחרו שכרן עד הגורן.", + "אריסין שהיו בעלי השדות מסלקין אותן מן השדה בניסן ונותנין להם האריסין בכל זרע חומר ארבע סאין והניח זה אריסין בתוך שדהו עד אייר ונטל מהן שש סאין הרי זה מותר ואין שם רבית.", + "הלוקח חטים ארבע סאין בסלע וכן השער ונתן לו את המעות וכשבא לגבות את החטים לאחר זמן הוסיף לו במדה ונתן לו יתר, ה\"ז מותר שהרי ברצונו הוסיף לו ואילו רצה לא הוסיף שהרי לא היה שם תנאי.", + "מותר לאדם ליתן דמי חבית של יין לחבירו ולומר לו אם החמיצה מכאן עד יום פלוני ברשותך אבל אם הוזילה או הוקירה הרי היא שלי, שכיון שקיבל עליו הזול הרי זה קרוב לשכר ולהפסד וכן כל כיוצא בזה, וכן מותר לאדם לקנות מחבירו בתשרי מאה כדין של יין בדינר ואינו נוטלן עד טבת, וכשנוטלן בודק ומחזיר החומץ ולוקח היין הטוב שלא קנה ממנו אלא יין טוב ואלו שהחמיצו מתחלה היו ראויין להחמיץ אבל לא נודע הדבר עד אחר הזמן.", + "מקום שנהגו לשכור הספינה וליטול שכרה ואם נשברה שמין לו מה שפחתה ומשלם יתר על שכרה הרי זה מותר, וכן מותר להשכיר סיר של נחשת וכיוצא בו ונוטל השכר ודמי מה שפחת ממשקלו וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "אין מקבלין צאן ברזל מישראל מפני שהוא אבק רבית, וכיצד הן צאן ברזל הרי שהיה לו מאה צאן וקבלם ממנו להטפל בהן ויהיו הגזות והולדות והחלב לאמצע לשליש או לרביע עד שנה או עד שנתים כמו שהתנו ביניהם ואם מתו הצאן הרי המקבל משלם דמיהם ה\"ז אסור שהרי בעל הצאן קרוב לשכר ורחוק להפסד, לפיכך אם קיבל עליו בעל הצאן שאם הוקרו או הוזלו או אם נטרפו הרי הן ברשותו ה\"ז מותר וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "השם פרה מחבירו ואמר לו אם מתה הרי היא עתה עלי בשלשים דינרים ואני אעלה לך סלע בכל חדש מותר לפי שלא עשאה מחיים דמים אלא לאחר מיתה.", + "משכרת אשה לחברתה תרנגולת לישב על הביצים בשני אפרוחים ואין חוששין משום רבית.", + "מי שהיה נושה בחבירו ד' דינרים של רבית ונתן לו בהן חפץ ששוה חמשה כשמוציאין ממנו מוציאין ממנו חמשה הואיל ובתורת רבית בא לידו, וכן אם נתן לו בהן כסות או כלי מוציאין ממנו את הכלי עצמו ואותו הכסות עצמו, השכיר לו בהן מקום ששוה שכרו ג' דינרין כשמוציאין ממנו מוציאין ממנו ארבעה שהרי בארבעה שכר ממנו מקום זה שקיבל עליו." + ], + [ + "אין פוסקין על הפירות עד שיצא השער יצא השער פוסקין אע\"פ שאין לזה יש לזה, כיצד היה השער לחטים קבוע לשוק ד' סאין בסלע הרי זה פוסק עמו על מאה סאין ונותן לו חמש ועשרים סלעים, ואם יתן לו מאה סאה של חטים אחר זמן בעת שיהיו החטים סאה בסלע אין בזה רבית כלל אע\"פ שלא היה למוכר חטים כלל בעת שפסק, בד\"א בשלא היה לו כלום מאותו המין בעת שפסק עליו, אבל אם היה למוכר מאותו המין כלום אע\"פ שעדיין לא נגמרה מלאכתו הרי זה מותר לפסוק עליו אע\"פ שעדיין לא יצא השער, כיצד היה הוא תחלה לקוצרים הרי זה פוסק על החטים אע\"פ שעדיין הן גדיש, ופוסק על היין משיבצור הענבים ויתנם בעביט ועל השמן משנתן זיתים במעטן ועל הסיד משישקענה בכבשן, וכן פוסק על כלי חרש משיעשה היוצר ביצים שלהן, בד\"א בשהיה עפרן לבן אבל עפרן שחור פוסק על הכלים הנעשין ממנו אע\"פ שלא נעשו מפני שהוא מצוי לכל ואע\"פ שאין לזה יש לזה, וכן פוסק עמו על הזבל כל ימות השנה אע\"פ שאין לו זבל מפני שהוא מצוי תמיד.", + "כל דבר שהוא מחוסר מלאכה אחת או שתים פוסק עמו עליו, היה מחוסר שלש מלאכות אינו פוסק אלא א\"כ יצא השער שכיון שהוא מחוסר שלש מלאכות הרי זה כמי שאין לו מאותו המין כלום וכמו לא בא לעולם עדיין, כיצד גדיש שהיה מחוסר הנחה בשמש שיבש ודישה וזרייה אינו פוסק עליו אלא א\"כ יצא השער, היה יבש ואינו מחוסר אלא דישה וזרייה פוסק עליו, ביצים של יוצר שהיו מחוסרין לפיפה ויבוש והולכה לכבשן ושריפה והוצאה אינו פוסק עליהן היו יבשין ואינן מחוסרין אלא הולכה לכבשן ושריפה פוסק עליהן, והוא שיהיה דרך הלוקח להוציא אותו מן הכבשן, אבל אם היה המוכר הוא שמוציא הרי אלו מחוסרין ג' ואינו פוסק עליהן עד שיצא השער, וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "ההולך לחלוב את עזיו ולגזוז את רחליו ולרדות את כוורתו ומצאו חבירו ואמר לו מה שעזי חולבות מכור לך מה שרחלי גוזזות מכור לך מה שכוורתי רודה מכור לך הרי זה מותר, אבל אמר לו מה שעזי חולבות כך וכך מכור לך בכך וכך, מה שרחלי גוזזות כך וכך מכור לך בכך וכך, מה שכוורתי רודה כך וכך מכור לך בכך וכך אסור אא\"כ פסק עמו כשער שבשוק וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "אין פוסקין על שער של עיירות מפני שאין השער קבוע אלא על שער שבמדינה, היו החטים החדשות במדינה ארבע סאין בסלע וישנות שלש בסלע אין פוסקין עד שיצא השער לחדש ולישן, היו חטין של לקוטות ארבע סאין בסלע ושל בעל הבית שלש פוסק ללקוטות כשער לקוטות ולא יפסוק לבעל הבית עד שיקבע השער לבעל הבית.", + "כיון שנקבע השער מותר לפסוק על השער הגבוה, כיצד היו החטים נמכרות ד' סאין בסלע ופסק עמו שיתן לו החטים כשער הזול אם עמדו אחר כן י' סאין בסלע נותן לו י' סאין כשער שהיה בשוק שהרי פסק עמו בשער גבוה, נתן לו המעות סתם ולא פסק עמו בשער הגבוה והוזלו נותן כשער שהיו שוין כשנתן לו המעות ומי שחזר מקבל מי שפרע, בד\"א בפוסק על דעת עצמו אבל אם היה שליח לאחרים בין המוכר בין הלוקח אינו נוטל אלא כשער הזול או מחזיר את הדמים ואינו מקבל מי שפרע בשליח שהרי המשלח אומר לתקן שלחתיך ולא לעוות כמו שביארנו.", + "היו החטים נמכרות ד' סאין בסלע ונטל את הדמים ונתן לו ה' בסלע אם יש לו חטים מותר, היו לו חטים חוב אצל אחרים ונטל המעות עד שיגבה חטיו ויתן לו אסור שהרי הן מחוסרין גבייה וכאילו אינם והרי זה כקובע לו זמן והוזיל לו מפני שמקיפו.", + "היו החטים במדינה ארבע סאין בסלע ובכפרים שש בסלע ה\"ז מותר ליתן סלע לתגר כדי שיביא שש סאין מן הכפר, והוא שיהיו ברשות הלוקח אם אבדו בדרך או נגנבו אבדו לו, ואדם חשוב אסור לעשות זה, ובמיני סחורה אסור לכל אדם לפי שאין מיני סחורה מצויין כפירות.", + "החמרין שנכנסו לעיר והרי החטים ד' סאין בסלע הוזילו ומכרו למכיריהן או לספסריהן חמש בסלע במעות שנתנו להן תחלה כשיכנסו לעיר עד שיפתחו שקיהן וימכרו לכל אדם הרי זה מותר שאין אלו מוכרין להם בזול מפני שנתנו מעות עתה ולא יקחו אלא לאחר זמן אלא מפני שמודיעין להם את השער ומסעדין אותם.", + "המוליך פירותיו ממקום למקום מצאו חבירו ואמר לו תנם לי ואני אעלה לך פירות שיש לי במקום פלוני באותו מקום אם יש לו שם מותר ואם לאו אסור, היה מוליך סחורה ממקום למקום אמר לו תנם לי ואני אעלה לך דמיה כמו ששוה באותו מקום אם היתה ברשות המוכר עד שהגיע לשם מותר ואם היתה ברשות לוקח אסור.", + "הנותן לבעל הגנה דמי עשרה קשואין אלו דמי עשרה אבטיחים אלו והרי הן קטנים והתנה עמו שיתנם לו לכשיגדילו ה\"ז מותר שהרי הוא מניחן והם גדלים מאליהן ואילו קצצן עתה כשהן קטנים לא היו באים אחרים תחתיהן וכן כל כיוצא בזה מדבר שאין בו הפסד ולא חסרון על המוכר." + ], + [ + "כשם שמותר למוכר לפסוק על שער שבשוק כך מותר ללוות הפירות סתם ופורעין סתם בלא קביעת זמן על השער שבשוק, כיצד היה השער קבוע וידוע לשניהם ולוה מחבירו עשר סאין חייב להחזיר לו עשר סאין אע\"פ שהוקרו החיטים שהרי כשלוה ממנו היה השער ידוע ואילו רצה היה קונה ומחזיר לו שהרי לא קבע לו זמן.", + "היה לו מאותו המין שלוה ה\"ז מותר ללוות סתם בלא קביעת זמן ופורע סתם אע\"פ שעדיין לא יצא השער, ואפילו היתה לו סאה בלבד לוה עליה כמה סאין, היתה לו טיפה אחת של שמן או של יין לוה עליה כמה גרבי יין ושמן, לא היתה לו מאותו המין כלום ולא נקבע שער השוק עדיין או שלא ידעו שער השוק ה\"ז אסור ללוות סאה בסאה, וכן בשאר הפירות לא ילוה אותן עד שיעשה אותן דמים, ואם לוה ולא עשה אותן [דמים] והוזלו מחזיר לו פירות כמדה שלוה או כמשקל ואם הוקר נוטל דמים שהיו שוין בשעת הלואה, אע\"פ שיש לו מאותו המין או שהיה השער קבוע בשוק הרי זה אסור ללוות פירות בפירות עד זמן קבוע אלא לוה סתם ופורע באיזה זמן שיפרע.", + "לא יאמר אדם לחבירו הלוני כור חטים ואני אחזיר לך כור לגורן אלא אומר לו הלוני עד שיבא בני או עד שאמצע המפתח.", + "לוה פירות עד זמן קבוע אם הוזלו מחזיר לו פירות בזמן שקבע ואם הוקרו נותן לו דמים שהיו שוין בשעת ההלואה.", + "מלוה אדם את אריסיו חטים בחטים לזרע בין קודם שירד האריס לשדה בין אחר שירד, בד\"א במקום שנהגו שיתן האריס את הזרע שהרי ביד בעל הקרקע לסלקו כל זמן שלא נתן אבל במקום שדרך בעל הקרקע ליתן את הזרע אם עדיין לא ירד האריס ה\"ז מותר להלוות חטים בחטים שעדיין יש לו לסלקו נמצא בעת שירד לשדה ירד על דעת שיחזיר לו חטים שהלוהו, אבל אחר שירד לשדה הואיל ואינו יכול לסלקו הרי הוא ככל אדם ואסור להלוותו חטים בחטים לזרע אבל מלוהו סתם על שער שבשוק.", + "מי שהיה נושה בחבירו מעות ואמר לו תן לי מעותי שאני רוצה ליקח בהן חטים אמר לו צא ועשה אותן עלי כשער של עכשיו ויהיה לך אצלי חטים בהלואה, אם יש לו חטים כשיעור מעותיו מותר ואם אין [לו] אותו המין ה\"ז אסור שלא אמרו חכמים שמותר לפסוק על שער שבשוק אע\"פ שאין לו כלום מאותו המין אלא בנותן מעותיו לקנות בהן פירות אבל הרוצה להעמיד הלואתו על גב הפירות אסור עד שיהיו לו פירות, היה ללוה חטים ועשה הלואתו עליו חטים ובא אחר זמן ואמר לו תן לי חטים שאני רוצה למוכרן וליקח בדמיהן יין אמר לו צא ועשה אותן עלי יין כשער שבשוק עתה, אם יש לו יין הרי זה מותר ונעשית הלואתו אצלו יין ואם אין לו יין אסור, הרי שלא היה לו ועבר והחזיר ההלואה פירות אף על פי שקנה פירות אחר כך אינו חייב ליתן לו פירות אלא נותן לו מעות שהלוהו." + ], + [ + "המלוה את חבירו בפני עדים או שאמר לעדים היו עלי עדים שאני חייב לזה מנה או אתם עדי שאני חייב לזה מנה זו נקראת מלוה על פה וא\"צ לפורעו בעדים לפיכך אם טען ואמר אחר כך פרעתי נשבע היסת ונפטר, אבל המלוה את חבירו בשטר צריך לפרעו בעדים לפיכך אם טען ואמר פרעתי שטר זה אינו נאמן אלא אומרים לו או הבא עדים או עמוד ושלם לו חובו, לפיכך האומר לעדים היו עלי עדים שאני חייב לזה מנה אין כותבין עדותן ונותנין למלוה שלא יחזירו למלוה על פה עדות בשטר עד שיאמר להן הלוה כתבו שטר וחתמו ותנו לו, אף על פי שאמר להן כך צריכין להמלך בו אחר שחתמו בשטר ואח\"כ נותנין השטר ביד המלוה, קנו מידו שהוא חייב לו מנה הרי אלו כותבין ונותנין אע\"פ שלא אמר להן כתובו שסתם קנין לכתיבה עומד ואינן צריכין להמלך בו.", + "לוה שכתב שטר בכתב ידו והעיד בו עדים ונתנו למלוה הרי זה שטר כשר, וכן אם כתב שטר אע\"פ שאין בו עדים ונתנו למלוה בפני עדים הרי זו מלוה בשטר והוא שיהיה כתב שאינו יכול להזדייף ויקראו אותו העדים שנמסר בפניהם, ויש מן הגאונים שהורה שצריך לומר לעדים שמסרו בפניהם חתמו והעידו שנמסר בפניכם.", + "הוציא עליו כתב ידו שהוא חייב לו ואין שם עדים אע\"פ שהוחזק כתב ידו בבית דין הרי זה כמלוה ע\"פ לכל דבר, ואם טען שפרע נשבע היסת ונפטר ואינו גובה בכתב זה לא מן היורשין ולא מן הלקוחות.", + "כל מלוה בשטר גובה אותה מן היורשין ומן הלקוחות כמו שיתבאר, ומלוה על פה גובה אותה מן היורשין ואינו גובה אותה מן הלקוחות לפי שאין לה קול לפיכך לא יטרוף בה, אבל מלוה שבשטר קול יש לה והלוקח הפסיד על עצמו שלא שאל עד שידע שנכסיו של זה משועבדין במלוה שעליו, שכל נכסי הלוה תחת שיעבוד המלוה מן התורה.", + "המוכר שדהו בעדים ויצאת מתחת ידי הלוקח אע\"פ שאין שם שטר ביד הלוקח הרי זה חוזר וטורף מנכסים משועבדים כמו שיתבאר שכל המוכר בפרהסיא מוכר וקול יש לו.", + "אין ההלואה שעל פה נגבית מן היורשין אלא באחד מג' דברים אלו כשחייב מודה בה וצוה בחליו שיש לפלוני עליו חוב עדיין, או שהיתה ההלואה לזמן ולא הגיע זמן לפרעה וחזקה היא שאין אדם פורע בתוך זמנו, או שנדוהו עד שיתן ומת בנדויו כל אלו גובין מן היורשין בלא שבועה, אבל אם באו עדים שהיה חייב לזה מנה או בפנינו הלוהו אינו גובה מן היורש כלום שמא פרעו שהמלוה את חבירו בעדים אין צריך לפרעו בעדים, וכן אם מוציא כתב יד אביהן שהוא חייב לו אינו גובה בו כלום כמו שביארנו.", + "לוה שאין לו מטלטלין ויש לו קרקע אם נודע לבית דין שתולה מעותיו ביד אחרים כופין אותו למכור וליתן לבעל חובו, ואם לא נודע להם דבר זה מחרימין על מי שידע לו מטלטלין ולא יביאם ואח\"כ יורדין לבינונית שבנכסיו ומגבין לבעל חובו כמוש יתבאר, בד\"א בזמן שנפרעין מן הלוה עצמו אבל הבא ליפרע מן היורש בין קטן בין גדול לא יפרע מן המטלטלין אפילו היו מופקדין או מלוה אצל אחרים שהמטלטלין אינו תחת שיעבוד בעל חוב מן התורה.", + "מצוה על היתומין לפרוע חוב אביהן מן המטלטלין שהניח ואם לא רצה היורש ליתן אין כופין אותו ואם תפס ב\"ח מחיים גובה מהן, טען שמחיים תפסן והיורש טען שאחר מיתה תפס על היורש להביא ראיה או ישבע המלוה שכך וכך הוא חייב לו ויכול לטעון עד כדי דמיהן וכולל בשבועתו שמחיים תפס, היו הדברים שתפס שטרות וטען שהן משכון בידו על חובו ושמחיים תפס על המלוה להביא ראיה שמחיים תפס, ואם לא הביא ראיה יחזיר ליורשים מפני שאינו טוען לקנות גופם אלא לראיה שבהן.", + "יתומים שגבו קרקע בחוב שהיה לאביהן אצל אחרים יש לבעל חוב של אביהם לחזור ולגבות אותה מהן שהרי קרקע זו של אביהם היא.", + "ראובן שמכר שדה לשמעון באחריות וזקף שמעון דמי השדה עליו מלוה לראובן ומת ראובן ובא בעל חוב של ראובן לטרוף משמעון השדה ופייסו שמעון במעות והלך לו הדין נותן שיבאו יורשי ראובן ויתבעו שמעון במלוה שזקף עליו שהרי אינה משועבדת לב\"ח של ראובן, לפיכך אם היה שמעון פקח נותן להן הקרקע שלקח מראובן במלוה שזקף על עצמו וחוזר וטורף אותה מהן מפני המעות שנתן לב\"ח של ראובן כדי שלא יטרוף אותה ממנו שהרי באחריות לקחה מראובן.", + "כבר תקנו גאונים האחרונים כולם שיהיה ב\"ח גובה מטלטלין מן היורשין וכן דנין ישראל בכל ב\"ד שבעולם, אבל במערב היו כותבין בשטרי חובות שיש לגבות מן הקרקע ומן המטלטלין בין בחייו בין אחר מותו ונמצא גובה על תנאי זה יותר מן התקנה, וסייג גדול עשו בדבר שמא לא ידע הלוה בתקנה זו ונמצא ממון יתומים יוצא שלא כדין שאין כח בתקנת אחרונים לחייב בה יתומים." + ], + [ + "אין נפרעין מן היורשין אלא א\"כ היו גדולים אבל יורשין קטנים אין נפרעין מהן ש\"ח =שטר חוב=.", + "ואפילו היה בו כל תנאי שבעולם לא יפרע בו המלוה כלום עד שיגדילו היתומים שמא יש להן ראיה ששוברין בו את השטר.", + "היתה המלוה רבית של עכו\"ם שהרי הרבית אוכלת בנכסיהן מעמידין להם אפוטרופוס ונזקקין לנכסיהן ומוכרין ופורעין החוב, וכן אשה שתבעה כתובתה בין אלמנה בין גרושה מעמידים להם אפוטרופוס ונזקקין משום חן האשה כדי שיהיה לה כלום שתנשא בו האשה לאחר, לפיכך אם קפצה האשה ונשאת ואחר כך באת לתבוע כתובתה מנכסי יתומים אין נזקקין לה עד שיגדלו היתומים שהרי אין לה מזונות והרי נשאת.", + "הורו מקצת הגאונים שאם היו הנכסים כנגד הכתובה בלבד או פחותים ממנה אין נזקקין לה שהרי אין כאן זכות ליתומים שלא אמרו נזקקין לנכסי יתומים להפרע מהן הכתובה אלא כדי שלא יפחתו הנכסים מחמת המזונות וזאת הואיל והיא נוטלת הכל מה זכות יש ליתומים הקטנים בדבר זה עד שנזקקין להן ולא חשו לחן האשה.", + "צוה המורישן ואמר תנו מנה לפלוני נזקקין אחר שמעמידין להן אפוטרופוס לטעון טענתם, אמר תנו מנה זה לפלוני או שדה זו לפלוני נותנין ואין צריכים להעמיד להן אפוטרופוס.", + "נמצאת קרקע שאינה שלהן אלא טען הטוען שהיא גזל ביד מורישיו נזקקין להן ומעמידים להן אפוטרופוס לטעון ולדון, אם נמצאת גזולה מחזירים אותה לבעליה, וכן קטן שתקף בעבדיו וירד לתוך שדה חבירו וכבשה אין אומרין נמתין לו עד שיגדיל אלא מוציאין אותה מידו ולכשיגדיל אם יש לו עדים יביא עדיו.", + "קרקע שהיתה בחזקת קטנים ובא אחר וטען שהיא לקוחה ממורישן ויש לו עדים שהחזיק בה ואכלה שני חזקה בחיי אביהן אין מוציאין אותה מידן עד שיגדילו שאין מקבלין עדים שלא בפני בעל דין והקטן כאילו אינו עומד כאן הוא חשוב, אבל אם הוציא שטר שהיא לקוחה בידו הרי זה מקיים את השטר ומוציאין אותה מידן אחר שמעמידים להם אפוטרופוס.", + "כשנזקקין ב\"ד לנכסי יתומים למכור שמין את הקרקע ואח\"כ מכריזין עליה שלשים יום רצופין או ששים יום שני וחמישי ומכריזים בבקר ובערב בשעת הכנסת פועלים ובשעת הוצאת פועלין וכל מי שרוצה לקנות יוליך הפועלין לבקר לו, ובשעה שמכריזין מסיימים את השדה במצריה ומודיעין כמה יפה ובכמה הוא שומה ומפני מה רוצים למכרה אם להגבות לב\"ח או לכתובת אשה לפי שיש מי שרוצה ליתן לב\"ח ויש מי שרוצה להגבות לאשה.", + "וכשכותבין האדרכתא על נכסי יתומים בין גדולים בין קטנים כותבין בה והכרנו שהנכסים האלו הן של פלוני המת, ואם לא כתבו כך הרי אדרכתא זו פסולה ואין אוכלין בה פירות אפילו לאחר ששלמו ההכרזות.", + "בית דין שמכרו שלא בהכרזה נעשו כמי שטעו בדבר משנה וחוזרים ומוכרין בהכרזה, וב\"ד שמכרו האחריות על היתומים.", + "ובית דין שהכריזו כראוי ובדקו יפה יפה ודקדקו בשומא אע\"פ שטעו ומכרו שוה מנה במאתים או מאתים במנה הרי מכרן קיים, אבל אם לא בדקו בשומא ולא כתבו אגרת בקורת שהיא דקדוק השומא וההכרזה וטעו והותירו שתות או פחתו שתות מכרן בטל פחות משתות מכרן קיים, וכן אם מכרו קרקע בעת שאינן צריכין להכריז עליה וטעו שתות או הותירו שתות מכרן בטל אע\"פ שהכריזו, פחות משתות מכרן קיים אע\"פ שלא הכריזו שאינן צריכין הכרזה באותו העת, איזהו העת שאינן צריכין הכרזה בעת שימכרו קרקע לקבורה או למזון האשה והבנות או ליתן מנת המלך אין צריכין הכרזה לפי שהדבר נחוץ, וכן ב\"ד שמכרו דברים שאינן טעונין הכרזה וטעו בשתות מכרן בטל פחות משתות מכרן קיים, ואלו הן הדברים שאין מכריזין עליהם העבדים והשטרות והמטלטלין, העבדים שמא ישמעו ויברחו, והשטרות והמטלטלין שמא יגנבו, לפיכך שמין אותן בבית דין ומוכרין אותן מיד, ואם השוק קרוב למדינה מוליכין אותן לשוק." + ], + [ + "מלוה שבא להפרע בשטר שבידו שלא בפני לוה אם יכולין ב\"ד לשלוח אליו ולהודיעו עד שיעמוד עמו בדין שולחין ומודיעין לו, ואם אי אפשר להודיעו במהרה אומרים למלוה שישבע ויטול מנכסיו בין מן הקרקע בין מן המטלטלים ואין חוששין לשובר, ודין זה תקנת חכמים הוא כדי שלא יהיה כל אחד ואחד נוטל מעותיו של חבירו והולך ויושב לו במדינה אחרת ונמצא נועל דלת בפני לוין.", + "שלש ראיות צריך להביא לב\"ד ואחר כך יפרע שלא בפניו, ראיה ראשונה לקיים השטר שבידו ראיה שניה שבעל חובו במדינה אחרת ואינו מצוי בכאן לעמוד עמו בדין, ראיה שלישית שאלו נכסים של פלוני הלוה הם.", + "מלוה שבא לב\"ד והביא משכון בידו ואמר זה משכונו של פלוני הוא ואני רוצה למכרו ולהפרע חובי אין ב\"ד נזקקין לומר לו המתן עד שיבא לוה ויטעון שאם רוצה לומר לקוח הוא בידי אומר ומשיאין לו עצה למכרו בפני עדים כדי שידע לוה בכמה נמכר, וכן המלוה את חבירו על המשכון ומת הלוה והמלוה בין שמת הלוה תחלה בין שמת מלוה תחלה הואיל והוא נפרע ממה שתחת ידו ואילו רצה לומר לקוח הוא בידי אומר ה\"ז נשבע בנקיטת חפץ ונוטל כדרך כל הנשבעין ונוטלין, ומפני מה אינו נשבע היסת לפי שאינו נשבע על עצמו של משכון אלא על הממון שלוקח שאילו אמר על עצמו של חפץ זה אתה מכרתו לי אתה נתתו לי היה נשבע היסת ונפטר, אבל אם היו שם עדים שחפץ זה משכון בידו ולא ידעו על כמה וכמה אינו יכול ליטול אלא בשבועה והואיל ואין שם עדים ויכול לומר שלי הוא נאמן לומר יש לי עליו כך וכך בשבועה עצמה שהיה נשבע אם היו שם עדים שהוא משכון שאין אומרין מגו לפטרו משבועה אלא לפטרו מממון שלא יחזיר המשכון עד שיטול מה שטען.", + "המלוה את חבירו על המשכון ואבד או נגנב בלא אונס שהרי המלוה חייב בדמי המשכון כמו שביארנו, ואמר המלוה סלע הלויתיך עליו ושני דינרין היה שוה ולוה אומר סלע הלויתני עליו ושקל היה שוה, הרי המלוה נשבע תחלה שבועת השומרין שאינו ברשותו והלוה נשבע היסת שהיה שוה כנגד החוב ונפטר. אמר המלוה סלע הלויתיך עליו ושקל היה שוה והלוה אומר סלע הלויתני עליו ושלשה דינרין היה שוה ישבע המלוה תחלה שאינו ברשותו ואח\"כ ישבע הלוה כמה היה שוה שהרי הודה במקצת וישלם הדינר, אמר הלוה סלע הלויתני עליו ושתים היה שוה והמלוה אומר סלע הלויתיך עליו וסלע היה שוה ישבע המלוה שאינו ברשותו וכולל בשבועתו שהיה המשכון כנגד החוב, אמר הלוה סלע הלויתני עליו ושתים היה שוה והמלוה אומר סלע הלויתיך עליו וחמשה דינרין היה שוה ישבע המלוה שאינו ברשותו ויכלול שלא היה שוה יתר על ה' דינרים וישלם הדינר, סלע הלויתיך עליו ושני דינרין היה שוה והלוה אומר איני יודע דמיו ישבע מלוה שאינו ברשותו וכולל בשבועתו ששני דינרין היה שוה וישלם הלוה שאר החוב שהרי הוא יודע בודאי שהוא חייב לו ואינו יודע אם פרעו אם לא פרעו, סלע הלויתני עליו ושתים היה שוה והמלוה אומר איני יודע דמיו ישבע המלוה שאינו ברשותו ויכלול שאינו יודע שדמיו יתר על החוב אפילו פרוטה אחת ויפטר שהרי לא חייב עצמו בכלום, אבל אם אמר המלוה אני יודע שהיה שוה יתר על החוב אבל איני יודע כמה ה\"ז משלם כל מה שטען הלוה בלא שבועה כמי שאמר חמשים יש לך בידי וחמשים איני יודע שהוא מחוייב שבועה ואינו יכול להשבע כמו שיתבאר, ויש לו להחרים על מי שטוען שקר.", + "המלוה את חבירו וקבע לו זמן לפרעו אע\"פ שלא קנו מידו אינו יכול לתבעו עד סוף הזמן בין במלוה על פה בין במלוה בשטר בין שהלוהו על המשכון בין שמת לוה בין שמת מלוה, וסתם מלוה ל' יום בין בשטר בין על פה בין על המשכון, ואם התנה שיתבע בכל זמן שירצה יש לו לתבעו ביומו שתנאי ממון הוא.", + "טען המלוה ואמר היום סוף הזמן שקבעתי והלוה אומר עד י' ימים קבעת הלוה נשבע היסת, ואם היה שם עד אחד שהיום סוף זמנו ה\"ז נשבע שבועת התורה כשאר הטענות, זה אומר ה' ימים נשאר מן הזמן וזה אומר י' אומרים למלוה המתן עוד עד סוף החמשה וישבע היסת שנשאר עוד ה' ימים.", + "היתה המלוה בשטר וטען הלוה שזמן קבעת לי, יראה לי שישבע בעל חוב היסת שלא קבע לו זמן ויטול המלוה מיד.", + "המלוה נתנה ליתבע בכל מקום כיצד המלוה את חבירו בישוב ותבעו במדבר אינו יכול לדחותו אלא חייב לפרוע לו בכל מקום שיתבענו, בא הלוה לפרעו במדבר הרשות ביד המלוה אם רצה מקבל ואם רצה אומר לו איני נפרע אלא בישוב כדרך שנתתי לך בישוב והרי הן ברשותו עד שיפרענו בישוב." + ], + [ + "הפוגם את שטרו, או שעד אחד מעיד על שטרו שהוא פרוע, והבא ליפרע שלא בפני הלוה, והטורף מיד הלוקח, והנפרעים מן היורש בין קטן בין גדול לא יפרע אלא בשבועה כעין של תורה (ואומר) לו כשיתבע השבע ואח\"כ תטול, ואם היה החוב לזמן ותבע בזמנו יפרע שלא בשבועה, עבר זמנו לא יגבה אלא בשבועה.", + "התובע את חבירו לפרעו וטען הלוה שפרע שטר זה או מקצתו ובעל השטר אומר לא פרעת כלום אומרים לו שלם לו, טען הלוה ואמר ישבע לי שלא פרעתיו ויטול משביעין אותו בנקיטת חפץ שלא פרעו כלום או שלא פרעו אלא כך וכך ואחר כך יטול, ואם היה המלוה תלמיד חכם אין נזקקין לשבועתו.", + "הוציא עליו שטר מקויים והלוה טוען ואומר שטר מזויף הוא ומעולם לא כתבתי שטר זה, או שטען שחוב זה רבית הוא או אבק רבית, או שטען שהוא שטר אמנה או שאמר כתבתי ללוות ולא לויתי, כללו של דבר טוען טענה שאם הודה בעל השטר היה השטר בטל, והמלוה עומד בשטרו ואומר שזה שקר טוען ואמר הלוה ישבע לי ויטול ה\"ז מחלוקת בין הגאונים יש מי שהורה שחייב בעל השטר להשביע כעין של תורה כמי שטען עליו שפרעו, ורבותי הורו שלא ישבע המלוה אלא אם טען עליו הלוה שפרעו בלבד, שהרי הודה בשטר ולפרעון הוא עומד, אבל כל אלו הטענות לא כל הימנו לבטל שטר מקויים אלא ישלם ואחר כך יטעון על המלוה במה שירצה שאם יודה יחזיר לו ואם כפר ישבע היסת ולזה דעתי נוטה.", + "המוציא שטר חוב על חבירו מלוה אומר לא נפרעתי כלום ולוה אומר פרעתי מחצה והעדים מעידים שפרעו כולו נשבע הלוה ונותן מחצה שהרי הודה במקצת ואינו כמשיב אבידה מפני שאימת השטר עליו, ואין המלוה גובה המחצה אלא מבני חורין שהרי הלקוחות אומרים אנו על העדים נסמוך והרי בטלו שטר זה.", + "הוציא עליו שטר חוב שאינו יכול לקיימו ואמר הלוה אמת שאני כתבתי שטר זה אבל פרעתיו או אמנה הוא או כתבתי ללוות ועדיין לא לויתי וכל כיוצא בזה הואיל ואם רצה אמר לא היו דברים מעולם והרי מפיו נתקיים הרי זה נאמן וישבע היסת ויפטר, ואם קיימו המלוה אח\"כ בב\"ד הרי היא כשאר השטרות.", + "הוציא עליו שטר מקויים ואמר הלוה מזויף הוא ומעולם לא כתבתיו או שטר אמנה הוא ואמר המלוה כן הדברים אבל שטר כשר היה לי ואבד אע\"פ שהמלוה הוא ששבר את שטרו ואילו רצה אמר אינו מזויף שהרי נתקיים בב\"ד אינו גובה בו כלום אלא נשבע הלוה היסת ונפטר שהרי זה השטר כחרס הוא חשוב.", + "שטר שלוה בו ופרעו אינו חוזר ולוה בו שכבר נמחל שעבודו ונעשה כחרס.", + "המוציא שטר חוב מקויים על חבירו ואמר הלוה הלא פרעתיך ואמר לו המלוה כן היה אבל חזרתי והחזרתי לך המעות והלויתי אותך פעם שניה הרי בטל השטר שנפרע והרי הוא כחרס, אבל אם אמר לו החזרתי לך המעות מפני שלא היו טובות עד שתחליפם לא בטל השטר ועדיין שעבודו קיים.", + "הוציא עליו שטר מקויים שיש לו עליו מנה ואמר לו הלוה הלא פרעתיך בפני פלוני ופלוני ובאו אלו והעידו שפרעו אבל לא הזכיר לו את השטר ואמר לו המלוה כן הוא שפרעת אבל חוב אחר פרעת שהיה לי אצלך הרי בטל השטר, בד\"א כשהעידו שנתן לו בתורת פרעון אבל אם ראוהו נותן לו מעות ולא ידעו אם הוא בתורת פרעון או בתורת פקדון או בתורת מתנה, אם אמר בעל השטר לא היו דברים מעולם הרי הוחזק כפרן ובטל השטר, ואם אמר פרעון של חוב אחר הוא הרי זה נאמן ונשבע ונוטל מה שבשטר שהרי לא פרעו בעדים מתוך שיכול לומר מתנה נתנם לי נאמן לומר פרעון של חוב אחר הן, אמר לו הלוה והלא שטר חוב זה דמי שור שלקחתי ממך הוא ואתה גבית דמי בשרו, ואמר לו בעל השטר כן אני גביתי את דמיו מחוב אחר שהיה לי אצלך הואיל והודה מעצמו שדמי השור הוא החוב ומדמיו נפרע בטל השטר, ואע\"פ שאין עליו עדים שפרע מדמיו ישבע הלוה היסת שפרעו וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "הוציא עליו שטר חוב בעד אחד ולוה טען פרעתי הרי זה מחוייב שבועה ואיני יכול לישבע ומשלם, טען ואמר ישבע לי שלא פרעתיו ה\"ז נשבע שאפילו היו בשטר שני עדים ואמר ישבע לי שלא פרעתיו הרי זה נשבע כמו שביארנו.", + "וכן הורו רבותי שהכופר במלוה על פה בבית דין ובא עד אחד שלוה ה\"ז ישבע שבועת התורה, חזר ואמר כן היה לויתי ופרעתי או מחל לי או נתחייב לי ממקום אחר ה\"ז מחוייב שבועה ואינו יכול לישבע ומשלם.", + "מי שטען שפרע השטר ואמר ישבע המלוה ויטול אומרים לו הבא מעותיו ואחר כך ישבע ויטול, אם אין לו כלום לשלם משביעין אותו כתקנת הגאונים שאין לו ולכשתשיג ידו יתן לבעל חובו וישביעו שלא פרע ואח\"כ יתן לו.", + "מי שהיה לו חוב על חבירו בשטר ואבד השטר והרי העדים קיימין אע\"פ שקנו מידו וטען שפרע ה\"ז נשבע היסת, והורו רבותי שאפילו היה החוב לזמן ועדיין לא הגיע זמנו להפרע הואיל וכתבו לו השטר ואין בידו שטר והלוה טוען פרעתי נאמן ונשבע היסת שפרעו שאנו חוששין שמא פרעו ולפיכך קרע השטר או שרפו, וכן הורו רבותי שאפילו היה השטר יוצא מתחת ידי אחר והלוה טוען ממני נפל אחר שפרעתי אע\"פ שהוא בתוך זמנו נשבע היסת ונפטר שכיון שאין השטר ביד המלוה אין שם חזקה.", + "שנים שהן אוחזין בשטר המלוה אומר שלי הוא והוצאתיו להפרע בו ממך והלוה אומר פרעתיו וממני נפל, אם היה השטר שיכול לקיימו זה נשבע שאין לו בדמים אלו פחות מחציין וזה ישבע שאין לו בדמים פחות מחציין וישלם הלוה מחצה, ואם אינו יכול לקיימו ישבע הלוה היסת שפרעו וילך לו.", + "האומר לחבירו מנה יש לי בידך והלה אומר אין לך בידי כלום או שאומר פרעתיך אמר לו התובע השבע לי היסת אמר לו הנתבע והלא שטר יש לך עלי ואתה רוצה להשביע אותי תחלה ואחר כך תוציא השטר הפרוע ותגבה בו אומרים לו הבא השטר, אמר המלוה אין לי שטר עליו מעולם או שטר היה לי ואבד הורו רבותי שאומרים למלוה בטל כל שטר שיש לך קודם זמן זה ואחר כך תשביעהו היסת או החרם חרם סתם ולך ובקש עד שתמצא השטר." + ], + [ + "המלוה את חבירו בעדים ואמר אל תפרעני אלא בעדים בין שאמר לו בשעת הלואה בין שאמר לו אחר שהלוהו ה\"ז צריך לפרעו בעדים מפני התנאי, טען הלוה ואמר לו וכן עשיתי ופרעתיך בפני פלוני ופלוני והלכו להם למדינת הים או מתו הרי זה נאמן ונשבע שבועת היסת ונפטר, וכן אם אמר אל תפרעני אלא בפני תלמידי חכמים או בפני רופאים ואמר לו בפניהם פרעתיך ואותן העדים שפרעתיך בפניהם מתו או הלכו להם למדינת הים הרי זה נאמן ונשבע היסת ונפטר, אבל אם אמר לו אל תפרעני אלא בפני פלוני ופלוני ואמר לו פרעתיך בפני אחרים ומתו או הלכו להם למדינת הים אינו נאמן שמפני טענה זו התנה עליו ואמר לו אל תפרעני אלא בפני ראובן ושמעון שהם עומדים עמו כדי שלא ידחה אותו ויאמר בפני אחרים פרעתי והלכו להם.", + "יש נוסחאות מן הגמרא שכתוב בהן שהאומר לחבירו אל תפרעני אלא בעדים ואמר לו פרעתיך בפני פלוני ופלוני והלכו למדינת הים אינו נאמן וטעות ספרים הוא ולפיכך טעו המורים על פי אותן הספרים וכבר חקרתי על הנוסחאות הישנות ומצאתי בהן שהוא נאמן והגיע לידי במצרים מקצת גמרא ישנה כתוב על הגוילים כמו שהיו כותבין קודם לזמן הזה בקרוב חמש מאות שנה ושתי נוסחאות מצאתי מן הגוילים בהלכה זו ובשתיהם כתוב ואם אמר פרעתי בפני פלוני ופלוני והלכו להן למדינת הים נאמן, ומפני טעות זו שאירע למקצת הספרים הורו מקצת גאונים שאם אמר לו אל תפרעני אלא בפני פלוני ופלוני ופרעו בפני אחרים שאינו נאמן אע\"פ שהביא עדים שפרעו בפניהם וגם זו טעות גדולה והדין האמת שאם באו עדים שפרעו בפניהם נפטר ואין כאן מקום חשש. גם ההוראה הזאת על פי ספריהן שכתוב בהן באותו שאמר לחבירו פרעני בפני עדים ששנו הלכות והלך ופרעו בפני עדים וטעות ספרים הוא ומצאתי בגוילים כתוב אזל פרעיה ביניה לבין דיליה אע\"פ שהספרים מוגהין כמו שביארנו כך יראה מדין הגמרא, ועוד דברים של דעת הן וכי מה היה לו לעשות אמר לו אל תפרעני אלא בעדים פרעו בעדים וכי יש לו לאסור את העדים בבית הסוהר כל ימיהם שלא ילכו ועוד אם מתו מה יעשה נמצא זה פורע פעם אחר פעם לעולם עד שיביא עדים א\"כ נעשית עדות זו עדות בשטר ונמצא זה כיון שאמר אל תפרעני אלא בעדים נעשת מלוה בשטר ואין מי שעלה על לבו זה, אבל ודאי אם אמר בפני פלוני ופלוני הוא הפסיד על עצמו שפרע בפני אחרים והלכו להם, אבל אם באו והעידו שפרעו אין כאן בית מחוש וכזה ראוי לדון ולהורות.", + "התנה המלוה על הלוה שיהיה נאמן בכל עת שיאמר שלא פרעו ה\"ז נוטל בלא שבועה אע\"פ שטען שפרעו, ואם הביא עדים שפרעו אינו נוטל כלום.", + "התנה עליו שיהיה המלוה נאמן כשני עדים אע\"פ שהביא עדים שפרעו ה\"ז גובה ממנו בלא שבועה שהרי האמינו כשני עדים, ואפילו הביא מאה עדים (שפרעו הרי גובה ממנו בלא שבועה ואפילו הביא מאה עדים) שפרעו בפניהם שהשנים כמאה, אבל אם אמר לו הרי אתה נאמן עלי כשלשה הואיל וירד למנין אם פרעו בפני ארבעה ה\"ז פרוע, זה שהאמין המלוה כשני עדים מה תהיה תקנתו כשיפרע יקרע השטר או יעיד זה המלוה על עצמו שבטל כל שטר שיש לו על פלוני, או יעיד על עצמו שלא בפני הלוה שקיבל כל חוב שיש לו אצל פלוני.", + "הרי שפרעו וטען המלוה שלא נפרע ופרעו פעם שניה מפני התנאי הרי הלוה חוזר ותובע את המלוה בדין ואומר לו כך וכך אתה חייב לי מפני שפרעתיך שתי פעמים אם הודה ישלם ואם כפר ישבע שבועת היסת על כך שלא פרעו אלא פעם אחת וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "התנה הלוה שיהיה נאמן בכל עת שיאמר פרעתי אינו גובה בשטר זה לא מן היורש ולא מן הלוקח, ואפילו אמר לוה לא פרעתי אין המלוה טורף בשטר זה מן הלקוחות שמא עשו קנוניא על נכסיו של זה, טען הלוה בשטר זה ואמר פרעתי מקצתו והמלוה אומר לא פרע כלום משלם המקצת שהודה בו ונשבע שבועת היסת שהרי האמינו, ואם התנה עליו שיהיה נאמן בלא שבועת היסת אינו נשבע.", + "התנה המלוה שיהיה גובה בלא שבועה ה\"ז גובה ממנו בלא שבועה, אבל אם בא לגבות מיורשיו ישבע ואחר כך יגבה, ואם התנה שיגבה אף מן היורש בלא שבועה גובה בלא שבועה, וכן אם התנה שיגבה מן העידית גובה מן העידית אף מן היורשין שכל תנאי שבממון קיים, בא לגבות מן הלוקח לא יטרוף אלא בשבועה שאין זה מתנה לאבד ממון חבירו." + ], + [ + "החוב באחריות הלוה עד שיפרענו ליד המלוה או ליד שלוחו, אמר לו המלוה זרוק לי חובי והפטר וזרקו ואבד או נשרף קודם שיגיע ליד המלוה פטור, אמר לו זרוק לי חובי בתורת גיטין היו המעות קרובות ללוה הרי עדיין באחריותו, היו קרובות למלוה נפטר הלוה, מחצה על מחצה אם אבדו משם או נגנבו משלם הלוה מחצה.", + "היה ראובן חייב לשמעון מנה ואמר ללוי הולך לשמעון מנה זה שאני חייב לו אם בא לחזור אינו חוזר והוא חייב באחריותו עד שיגיע המנה לשמעון, החזיר לוי את המנה לראובן שניהן חייבין באחריותו עד שיגיע ליד שמעון כל חובו.", + "ראובן שהיה חייב לשמעון מנה ואמר שמעון לראובן מנה שיש לי בידך תנהו ללוי והיו שלשתן עומדין וקיבל לוי ונמצא ראובן עני ואין לו ממה שיגבה ממנו הרי לוי חוזר בחוב של שמעון שזה הטעהו, ואם ידע לוי שהוא עני או שהיה עשיר באותה שעה והעני אינו יכול לחזור שהרי קיבל, טען לוי שהיה ראובן עני והטעהו ושמעון אומר עשיר היה והעני יראה לי שעל שמעון להביא ראיה ואח\"כ יפטר מחוב לוי לא יהיה אלא שובר בידו אומרים לו קיים שוברך והפטר.", + "כבר ביארנו בהלכות מקח וממכר שראובן שלא היה לו אצל שמעון כלום והיה ראובן חייב ללוי מנה והמחהו אצל שמעון אע\"פ שהמחהו במעמד שלשתן לא קנה, ואם רצה שמעון שלא יתן לא יתן ואם נתן חוזר וגובה מראובן שהרי על פיו נתן, וכן אם רצה לוי לחזור ולומר איני רוצה לגבות משמעון חוזר וגובה מראובן ואע\"פ שנפרע מקצת משמעון חוזר וגובה השאר מראובן.", + "חנוני שהיה נותן לבעל הבית מן החנות כל מה שירצה בתורת הלואה ומקיפו עד שיתקבץ הכל ופורע לו ואמר לו בעל הבית תן לפועלים סלע או לבעל חובי מנה שיש לו אצלי ואני אתן לך והרי החנוני אומר נתתי והפועל או בעל חובו אומר לא לקחתי הרי הפועל או בעל חוב נשבע ונוטל מבעל הבית חובו וכן החנוני נשבע ונוטל מבעל הבית מה שטען שנתן שהרי הוא אמר לו ליתן, והפועל נשבע במעמד החנוני וכן החנוני במעמד הפועל או בעל חוב כדי שיכלמו זה מזה וכן כל כיוצא בזה ושבועה זו תקנת חכמים היא בנקיטת חפץ מפני שבאין שניהן ליטול, לפיכך אם מת החנוני נוטל בעל חוב בלא שבועה וכן אם מת פועל או בעל חוב החנוני נוטל בלא שבועה שהרי אין בעל הבית מפסיד כלום ואינו משלם אלא תשלום אחד.", + "החנוני אומר אתה אמרת ליתן לזה מנה או צוית ואמרת לי אם יבא פלוני תן לו ובעל הבית אומר לא אמרתי לך הרי בעל הבית נשבע היסת ונפטר והחנוני עושה דין עם זה שנתן לו, וכן אם אמר החנוני לבעל הבית המקיפו כתוב בפנקסי שיש לי אצלך מנה ובעל הבית אומר איני יודע נשבע בעל הבית היסת שאינו יודע ונפטר כדין כל טוען על חבירו לכל דבר ואין בזה תקנת חכמים.", + "ראובן שהוציא שטר חוב שיש ללוי על שמעון וטען שלוי נתנו לו בכתיבה ומסירה ואבד השטר שהקנהו בו או שטען שהקנהו לו על גב הקרקע הרי זה גובה אותו משמעון הואיל ויוצא מתחת ידו, טען שמעון שפרע ללוי ואמר ישבע לי ישבע לוי לשמעון ואח\"כ יגבה ראובן, הודה לו שפרע ישלם לוי לראובן, טען לוי שלא מכר ולא נתן שטר זה נשבע היסת ונפטר.", + "שטר שהיה ביד שליש והוציא מתחת ידו בבית דין ואמר פרוע הוא נאמן אע\"פ שהשטר מקויים שאילו רצה היה שורפו או קורעו, וכן אם מת השליש ונמצא כתב יוצא מתחת ידי שליש ששטר זה המונח אצלו פרוע הוא ה\"ז פרוע אע\"פ שאין עדים על הכתב, אבל כתב שיצא מתחת ידי מלוה ששטר פלוני פרוע אפילו היה בכתב ידי המלוה אינו אלא כמשחק.", + "היו עדים על הכתב אם היו מקויימין הרי השטר פרוע, ואם אין עליו קיום ישאלו העדים החתומין על זה השובר, אם לא ידעו או שאין העדים מצויין הואיל ומתחת ידי המלוה או מתחת ידי יורשיו יצא אין השובר כלום.", + "נמצא השטר בין שטרות פרועין ה\"ז פרוע ואע\"פ שאין עדים על הכתב הנמצא, וכן אם נמצא כתוב בגופו של שטר בין מפניו בין מאחוריו ואפילו במקצתו שטר זה פרוע או נפרע ממנו כך וכך עושין ע\"פ הכתב ואע\"פ שאין על הכתב עדים ואע\"פ שיצא מתחת ידי המלוה שאילו לא נפרע לא היה כותב על השטר.", + "המוצא שטר בין שטרותיו ואין יודע מה טיבו יהיה מונח עד שיבא אליהו.", + "האומר לבניו שטר בין שטרותי פרוע ואיני יודע איזה הוא שטרותיו כולן פרועין, נמצא לאחד שם שני שטרות הגדול פרוע והקטן אינו פרוע אמר לחבירו שטר לך בידי פרוע הגדול פרוע והקטן אינו פרוע, חוב לך בידי פרוע כל שטרות שיש לו עליו כולן פרועין." + ], + [ + "מלוה שמת, ובא היורש לתבוע את הלוה בשטר שעליו; ואמר \"פרעתי לאביך\", והיורש אומר \"איני יודע\" – אומרים לו \"עמוד ושלם לו\".אמר: \"ישבע לי\" – הרי זה נשבע בנקיטת חפץ: \"שלא פקדנו אבא על ידי אחר\", ו\"שלא אמר לנו אבא בפיו\", ו\"שלא מצינו בין שטרותיו של אבא ששטר זה פרוע\", וגובה.", + "מת הלוה אחר שמת המלוה, ובא היורש להפרע מן היורש – לא יפרע אלא בשבועה. ואומר לו תחילה: \"ישבע שלא פקדנו אבא, ושלא אמר לנו אבא, ולא מצינו בין שטרותיו של אבא ששטר זה פרוע\".ואפילו היה היורש קטן המוטל בעריסה כשמת מורישו – הרי זה נשבע ונוטל. ואם צוה המלוה בשעת מיתתו ששטר זה אינו פרוע – יפרע היורש בלא שבועה אפילו מן היורש.", + "מת הלוה תחלה ואחר כך מת המלוה אין יורשי מלוה נוטלין מיורשי לוה כלום שבשעה שמת הלוה נתחייב המלוה להשבע ואח\"כ יטול כמו שביארנו וכבר מת ואין אדם מוריש שבועה לבניו שאינן יכולין להשבע שלא נפרע אביהם כלום, ואם עבר הדיין והשביע יורשי מלוה וגבו את חובן אין מוציאין מידם לפיכך שטר חוב של יתומים הבאים להפרע מן היתומים שמת אביהן הלוה תחלה אין קורעין אותו ואין מגבין בו, אין גובין בו שאין אדם מוריש שבועה לבניו כמו שביארנו ואין קורעין אותו שמא יבא דיין שידון ויוציא בו.", + "אפילו היה שם ערב ומת הלוה תחלה לא יפרעו יורשי המלוה מן הערב, שאם תאמר יפרעו מן הערב הרי הערב חוזר ונפרע מיורשי לוה.", + "אין דנין מדין זה לכל הדומה לו אלא הרי הפוגם את שטרו ומת אע\"פ שאינו גובה אלא בשבועה הרי בניו נשבעין שלא פקדנו אבא ולא צונו אבא ולא מצינו בין שטרותיו של אבא שכל השטר הזה פרוע וגובין את שאר השטר בין מן המלוה בין מיורשיו.", + "יורש שבא לגבות מן היורש ואמרו יורשי לוה אמר לנו אבא לא לויתי חוב זה הרי יורשי המלוה גובין שלא בשבועה שכל האומר לא לויתי כאומר לא פרעתי דמי, וכן מלוה שבא להפרע מיורשי לוה ואמרו אמר לנו אבא לא לויתי חוב זה ה\"ז גובהו בלא שבועה אפילו האמינו בשטר כל זמן שאמר פרעתי שכל האומר לא לויתי כאומר לא פרעתי.", + "יורש שבא להפרע מן הלוה בשטר שיש בו נאמנות ללוה כל זמן שיאמר פרעתי הרי הלוה נשבע היסת שפרע לשטר זה ונפטר אע\"פ שלא כתב לו והרי אתה נאמן על יורשי שעיקר השטר על תנאי זה היה, אם התנה עליו שיהא נאמן בלא שום שבועה אינו נשבע אפילו ליורשי מלוה.", + "יורש קטן שהיה שט\"ח לאביו ויצא עליו שובר אחר מיתת אביו אין קורעין את השטר ואין מגבין בו עד שיגדלו היתומים שמא שובר זה מזוייף הוא ולפיכך לא הוציאו הלוה בחיי אביו.", + "המוציא שטר חוב על חבירו והיה כתוב בבבל מגבהו ממעות בבל, היה כתוב בארץ ישראל מגבהו ממעות ארץ ישראל מה שאין כן בכתובה, לא היה בשטר שם מקום והוציאו בבבל מגבהו ממעות בבל הוציאו בארץ ישראל מגבהו ממעות א\"י, בא לגבות ממעות המקום שיצא בו השטר וטען הלוה שהמעות שאני חייב לו מכסף שהוא פחות מזה המטבע ישבע המלוה ויטול, היה בו כסף סתם מה שירצה לוה מגבהו, מכאן אתה למד ששטר שאין בו שם מקום שנכתב בו כשר לכל דבר, והוא הדין לשטר שאין בו זמן כלל שהוא כשר אע\"פ שעדות זו אי אתה יכול להזימה שאין מדקדקין בדיני ממונות בדרישה וחקירה כמו שיתבאר כדי שלא תנעול דלת בפני לווין, ולפיכך שטרי חוב המאוחרין כשרין אע\"פ שאין אתה יכול להזימן כמו שיתבאר במקומו." + ], + [ + "המלוה את חבירו סתם הרי כל נכסיו אחראין וערבאין לחוב זה, לפיכך כשיבא לגבות תובע את בעל חובו תחלה אם מצא עמו נכסים בין מטלטלין בין קרקעות גובה מהן ברצון הלוה, ואם לא נתן הלוה מדעתו מגבין אותו ב\"ד, לא הספיק לו כל הנמצא כנגד שטר חובו הרי זה גובה מכל הקרקעות שהיו ללוה אע\"פ שהן עתה מכורין לאחרים או נתונים במתנה, הואיל ומכר הלוה או נתן אחר שנשתעבד בחוב זה ה\"ז מוציא מיד הלקוחות או מיד בעלי המתנות וזהו הנקרא טורף, בד\"א בקרקעות שהיו לו בעת שלוה, אבל נכסים הבאין לו לאחר שלוה לא נשתעבדו לב\"ח ואינו טורפן, ואם התנה עליו שכל נכסים שיקנה יהיו משועבדין להפרע מהן וקנה אחר שלוה ומכר או נתן הרי בעל חוב טורף מהן.", + "אין כל הדברים אמורין אלא בקרקע אבל המטלטלין אין עליהן אחריות אפילו מטלטלין שהיו לו בעת שלוה שמכרן לשעתו אין בעל חוב טורף אותן, הקנה לבעל חובו כל המטלטלין על גב קרקע שיש לו להיותו נפרע מן הכל הרי זה טורף מאותן המטלטלין והוא שיכתוב לו בשטר חובו שהקניתי לך מטלטלין שיש לי על גב הקרקע שיש לי שלא כאסמכתא ושלא כטופסי השטרות, וכן אם כתב שכל נכסים שאני עתיד לקנות בין קרקעות בין מטלטלין הרי הן משועבדים לך להפרע מהן והמטלטלין קנויין לך על גב הקרקעות להפרע מהן שלא כאסמכתא ושלא כטופסי השטרות ה\"ז טורף אף מן המטלטלין שקנה הלוה לאחר שלוה שכל תנאי שבממון קיים.", + "עשה שדהו אפותיקי לבעל חובו או לאשה בכתובתה והוא שיכתוב להן מכאן תגבו ושטפו נהר ה\"ז גובה משאר נכסים וטורף אותן, ואם התנה עמו שלא יהיה לו פרעון אלא מזו אינו גובה משאר נכסים, וכן אם לוה ממנו ופירש שאין לו אחריות עליו הרי זה אינו גובה מן המשועבדין לעולם.", + "עשה שדהו אפותיקי לבעל חובו או לאשה בכתובתה ומכרה ה\"ז מכורה וכשיבא ב\"ח לגבות אם לא ימצא נכסים בני חורין יטרוף אותה, בד\"א בשמכר לשעתה אבל מכרה ממכר עולם אינה מכורה.", + "עשה עבדו אפותיקי ומכרו הרי בעל חוב גובה ממנו מפני שיש לו קול, עשה שורו אפותיקי ומכרו אין ב\"ח גובה ממנו וכן שאר המטלטלין מפני שאין להן קול.", + "עבד שעשאהו רבו אפותיקי ושחררו אע\"פ שכתב לו לא יהיה לך פרעון אלא מזה יצא לחירות, וכן אם הקדישו שהחמץ והשחרור וההקדש מפקיעין מיד שיעבוד והרי ב\"ח גובה חובו מן הלוה וכותב עליו שטר בחובו וטורף מזמן זה השטר, ולמה הוא חייב לשלם מפני שגורם לאבד ממון חבירו וכל הגורם להזיק משלם כמו שבארנו במקומו, וכופין את רבו השני לשחררו מפני תקון העולם שלא ימצאנו בשוק ויאמר לו עבדי אתה.", + "המקדיש נכסיו אין בעל חוב יכול לטרוף מן ההקדש שההקדש מפקיע השיעבוד וכשפודין הקרקע מיד ההקדש אומדין כמה אדם רוצה ליתן בשדה זו על מנת שיתן לבעל חוב את חובו ולאשה כתובתה, לפיכך לכשתפדה ותצא לחולין ביד הלוקח יבא בעל חוב ויטרוף אותה או האשה בכתובתה כמו שביארנו בערכין.", + "בעל חוב שבא לטרוף אם יש מעות ללוקח יכול לסלקו וליתן לו דמי מה שהוא טורף וחוזר הלוקח ותובע למוכר, ואם עשה אותו אפותיקי אינו יכול לסלקו בדמים.", + "ראובן שהיה חייב לשמעון מאתים והיו לו שתי שדות ומכר אחת מהן ללוי במנה וחזר ומכר לו השניה במנה ובא שמעון וטרף אחת במנה וחזר לטרוף השניה במנה הנשאר לו והביא לו מאתים ואמר לו אם תרצה להיות השדה שטרפת שומה לך בכל המאתים שיש לך הרי מוטב ואם לאו הילך מאתים של חובך והסתלק הדין עם לוי, רצה שמעון ועמד בה אע\"פ שקבלה במאתים אין לוי חוזר ותובע ראובן אלא במנה.", + "מת ראובן והניח שדה אחת שוה מאה ובא שמעון וטרפה ונתנו לו היתומים מאה מן המטלטלין שהניח אביהן וסילקוהו ה\"ז חוזר וטורף אותה בשאר חובו שמאה שנתנו לו מצוה עשו שמצוה על היתומים לפרוע חובות אביהם, ואם אמרו לו אלו במאה דמי השדה שטרפת אינו יכול לחזור ולטרוף אותה פעם אחרת בשאר חובו." + ], + [ + "כשיורדין בית דין לנכסי הלוה לגבות מהן לא יגבו לבעל חוב אלא מן הבינונית שבקרקעותיו, ודין תורה שיגבה בעל חוב מן הזיבורית שנאמר בחוץ תעמוד והאיש אשר אתה נושה בו יוציא וגו' מה דרכו של אדם להוציא פחות שבכליו אבל תקנו חכמים בבינוניות כדי שלא תנעול דלת בפני לווין, במה דברים אמורים בבא ליפרע מן הלוה עצמו אבל הבא ליפרע מן היורשין בין קטנים בין גדולים לא יפרע אלא מן הזיבורית.", + "אין נפרעים מנכסים משועבדין במקום שיש נכסים בני חורין ואפילו היו בני חורין זיבורית והמשועבדים בינונית או עידית בין שמכרם בין שנתנם, נשתדפו בני חורין ה\"ז טורף מן המשועבדין שכיון שנשחתו כאילו אינם.", + "ראובן שמכר כל שדותיו לשמעון וחזר שמעון ומכר שדה אחת מהן ללוי ובא ב\"ח של ראובן לטרוף רצה מזה גובה רצה מזה גובה, בד\"א כשלקח לוי בינונית, אבל אם לקח עידית או זיבורית אינו טורף מלוי שהרי זה אומר לו מפני זה טרחתי ולקחתי שדה שאין דינך לגבות ממנו, וכן אם לקח לוי בינונית והניח אצל שמעון בינונית כמו הבינונית שלקח אינו טורף מלוי שהרי זה אומר לו הנחתי לך מקום לגבות ממנו.", + "כבר ביארנו שהנזקין שמין להן בעידית ובעל חוב בבינונית וכתובת אשה בזיבורית, היו לו עידית וזיבורית ניזקין בעידית בעל חוב [וכתובת אשה] בזיבורית, היו לו עידית ובינונית ניזקין בעידית ובעל חוב וכתובת אשה בבינונית, היו לו זיבורית ובינונית בלבד ניזקין ובעל חוב בבינונית וכתובת אשה בזיבורית.", + "מכרן לשלשה בני אדם בבת אחת הרי כולן נכנסו תחת הבעלים והניזקין טורפין מן העידית ובעל חוב טורף מן הבינונית וכתובת אשה טורפת מן הזיבורית, מכרן לזה אחר זה כולן טורפין מן האחרון לא הספיק טורפין משלפניו לא הספיק טורפין משלפני פניו, אפילו היה האחרון הוא שלקח הזיבורית שהרי הלוקח הקודם אומר לטורף הנחתי לך מקום לגבות ממנו.", + "מכרן לאחד זו אחר זו הרי הלוקח נכנס תחת הבעלים, בד\"א שלקח עידית באחרונה אבל לקח זיבורית באחרונה כולן גובין מן הזיבורית שהרי אומר לטורף כשיבא לגבות מן השדה שלקח תחלה הרי הנחתי לך מקום לגבות ממנו, ולמה אינו אומר לו הטורף כך אם לקח עידית באחרונה ותגבה האשה ובעל חוב מן העידית שלקח באחרונה, שזו תקנה היא ללוקח והרי אומר לוקח להן אי אפשי בתקנה זו אלא כל אחד מכם יגבה מן הראוי לו.", + "מכרן לאחד זו אחר זו ומכר לו עידית באחרונה וחזר הלוקח ומכר זיבורית ובינונית ושייר עידית לפניו כולן גובין מן העידית שהרי אין לו במה ידחה אותם, מכר עידית והניח בינונית וזיבורית הניזקין טורפין מן העידית שביד לוקח השני ובעל חוב וכתובת אשה גובין מבינונית וזיבורית ששייר לפניו.", + "מי שלוה מאחד ואחר כך מכר הלוה נכסיו לשנים וכתב בעל חוב ללוקח שני דין ודברים אין לי עמך וקנו מידו אינו יכול לטרוף מלוקח ראשון שהרי אומר לו הנחתי לך מקום לגבות ממנו אצל בעל חובך מן הנכסים שקנה לוקח שני אחרי ואתה הפסדת על עצמך שהרי סלקת עצמך מהן, והוא הדין לאשה בכתובתה אם כתבה לשני, אבדה כתובתה ואינה יכולה לטרוף, אבל אם כתבו לראשון טורפין מן השני, מכר הלוה שדה ללוקח ומכרה לוקח ראשון ללוקח שני וכתב המלוה ללוקח ראשון דין ודברים אין לי עמך וקנו מידו הרי ב\"ח טורף מלוקח שני אותה השדה ולוקח ראשון טורף אותה מב\"ח שהרי כתב לו ולוקח שני טורף אותה מלוקח ראשון שהרי הוא מכרה לו וב\"ח חוזר וטורף משני וחוזרין הלילה /חלילה/ עד שיעשו פשרה ביניהן וכן האשה בכתובתה." + ], + [ + "מי שיש לו חובות הרבה כל שקדם חובו גובה תחלה בין מן הלוה עצמו בין מן הלקוחות, ואם קדם האחרון וגבה מוציאים מידו שכל שקדם חובו זכה, בד\"א בקרקעות שהיו לו בעת שלוה אבל הקרקעות שקנה אחר שלוה מבעלי חובות הרבה אע\"פ שכתב לכל אחד מהן מה שאני עתיד לקנות משועבד לך אין בהן דין קדימה אלא כולן שוין וכל שקדם וגבה זכה אע\"פ שהוא אחרון.", + "לוה וכתב לו שאני עתיד לקנות משועבד לך ואחר כך קנה שדה וחזר ולוה מאחר הרי השדה משועבד לראשון והוא קודם לגבות, וכן אפילו היו מאה אין דין קדימה במטלטלין אלא כל שקדם וגבה מהן זכה אע\"פ שהוא אחרון, קידם אחד משאר אדם ותפס מן המטלטלין של זה כדי לזכות לאחד מבעלי חובות לא זכה שכל התופס לבעל חוב במקום שיש עליו חוב לאחרים לא קנה, אבל אין עליו חוב לאחרים קנה לו, וכן אם אמר לו הלוה זכה בחפץ זה לפלוני זכה לו ואין אחד מבעלי חובות יכולין לגבות מאלו המטלטלין שכבר זכה בהן אחר.", + "שטרות שזמן כולן יום אחד או שעה אחת במקום שכותבין שעות כל שקדם מהן וגבה בין קרקע בין מטלטלין זכה.", + "באו כולן ביחד לגבות, וכן בעלי חובות שכל אחד מהן קודם לזמן חבירו שבאו לגבות מן המטלטלין שהרי אין בהן דין קדימה, או שבאו לגבות מקרקע שקנה הלוה לאחר שלוה מן האחרון שבהן ואין בנכסים כדי שיגבה כל אחד מהן את חובו מחלקין ביניהן, כיצד חולקין אם כשיתחלק הממון הנמצא על מנינם יגיע לפחות שבהן כשיעור חובו או פחות חולקים לפי מנינם בשוה, ואם יגיע לפחות שבהם יותר על חובו חולקים מכל הממון ביניהם כדי שיגיע לפחות שבהם כשיעור חובו וחוזרין הנשארים מבעלי חובות וחולקין היתר ביניהן כדרך הזאת, כיצד היו ג' חובות של זה מנה ושל זה מאתים ושל זה ג' מאות אם היה כל הנמצא ג' מאות נוטלין מאה מאה, וכן אם נמצא שם פחות מג' מאות חולקין בשוה, נמצא שם יתר על ג' מאות חולקין ג' מאות בשוה ויסתלק בעל המאה ושאר הממון חולקין אותו השנים על אותה הדרך, כיצד נמצאו שם ה' מאות או פחות חולקין ג' מאות בשוה ויסתלק האחד וחוזרין וחולקין המאתים או הפחות בשוה ויסתלק השני, נמצא שם שש מאות חולקין שלש מאות בשוה ויסתלק בעל המנה וחוזרין וחולקין המאתים בין השנים בשוה ויסתלק בעל המאתים, ונותנין המאה הנשארים לבעל השלש מאות ונמצא בידו שלש מאות בלבד, ועל דרך זו חולקין אפילו הן מאה כשיבאו לגבות כאחת, ויש מן הגאונים שהורו שחולקין לפי ממונם.", + "ראובן ושמעון לכל אחד משניהם שטר חוב על לוי ראובן שטרו בה' בניסן ושמעון שטרו בניסן סתם והרי יש ללוי שדה שאינה כדי חוב של שניהם מורידין לתוכה ראובן שמא שטרו של שמעון בסוף ניסן היה, וכן אין שמעון יכול לטרוף מאייר ואילך שהרי הלוקח אומר לו שמא באחד בניסן הוא זמנו של שטרך והרי שדה בת חורין ביד ראובן שתגבה אותה ויבא ראובן שהוא אחר זמנך והוא שיש לו לטרוף ממנו, לפיכך אם כתבו הרשאה זה לזה טורפין מאייר ואילך מכל צד, והוא הדין בראובן ושמעון שמכר להן לוי שדה אחת בשני שטרות שטרו של זה בחמשה בניסן ושטרו של זה בניסן סתם." + ], + [ + "בעל חוב גובה את השבח שהשביח הלוקח בין שהשביחו מחמת הוצאה בין ששבחו נכסים מאליהן, אלא שאם שבחו מאליהן טורף כל השבח ואם השביחו מחמת הוצאה גובה חצי השבח, כיצד ראובן שהיה לו חוב על שמעון מאתים ומכר שמעון ללוי שדה במנה והוציא עליה לוי הוצאות והשביחה והרי היא שוה מאתים, כשיבא ראובן לטרוף מלוי טורף ממנה במאה וחמשים של חצי השבח, ואם השביחה מחמת עצמה כגון שהוקרה בדמים או עלו בה אילנות גובה את כולה, הורו חכמים גדולים ואמרו לא יהא הלוקח רע כחו מהיורד לשדה חבירו שלא ברשות ששמין לו וידו על התחתונה לפיכך אם השביח מאה והוציא חמשים נוטל כל ההוצאה וחצי השבח היתר על ההוצאה והחצי עם עם הקרן טורף ב\"ח [ודברים של טעם הם וכך ראוי לדון] וחוזר הלוקח וגובה את הקרן מנכסי שמעון אף מן המשועבדין שמכר או נתן מאחר זמן שמכר בו ללוי אבל השבח שטרף ממנו ב\"ח בין בחציו בין בכולו אין לוי גובהו אלא מנכסים בני חורין של שמעון שתקנת עולם היא שלא יגבה השבח ולא הפירות שאכל הגזלן ולא מזון האשה והבנות מנכסים משועבדין שאלו דברים שאין להן קצבה, ומקולי כתובה שלא תטרוף אשה מן השבח כתובתה ולמה יטרוף בעל חוב חצי השבח בלבד הבאה מחמת הוצאה עצמה לפי שהשבח בא לאחר שלוה מראובן ולאחר שמכר ללוי ונמצא ראובן ולוי כשני בעלי חובות לשמעון והשבח בנכסים שבאו לו אחר שלוה משניהם שהן חולקין כאחד כמו שביארנו. לפיכך ראובן שלוה משמעון מנה וכתב לו שאני עתיד לקנות וחזר ולוה מלוי מאתים וכתב לו שאני עתיד לקנות וקנה אחר כך שדה ומכרה ליהודה במאה וחמשים והשביחה יהודה בהוצאתו והרי היא שוה שלש מאות טורף שמעון ולוי הקרן וחולקין אותו בשוה ונמצא ביד זה ע\"ה וביד זה ע\"ה, וחוזרין שמעון ולוי ויהודה שלשתן וחולקין מאה וחמשים של שבח על הדרך שפירשנו, נמצא שמעון טורף מנה שלו משדה זו ולוי טורף מאה ושלשים ושבעה ומחצה ויהודה נוטל מן השבח שנים וששים ומחצה, וכזה הן חולקין אפילו הן מאה.", + "כל הפירות שאכל הלוקח אינן נטרפין ממנו, אבל הפירות המחוברין לקרקע אע\"פ שאינן צריכין לקרקע כענבים שהגיעו להבצר הרי ב\"ח גובה מהן כמו שגובה מן השבח.", + "מתנה ששבחה מחמת הוצאה אין בעל חוב גובה משבחה כלום אלא רואין כמה היתה שוה בשעת מתנה וגובה, ואם שבחה מאיליה ב\"ח גובה את כולה, ואם קיבל הנותן אחריות המתנה הרי ב\"ח גובה ממנה את השבח כדרך שגובין מן הלקוחות, ולמה יטרוף בעל חוב חצי השבח מן הלוקח ולא יטרוף ממקבל מתנה כלום מפני שהמוכר כותב ללוקח בשטר מכירה שאני מחוייב לך בקרן ובעמל שתעמול ובשבח שתשביח ועלי אחריות הכל ורצה הלוקח וקיבל דבר זה שהרי הלוקח ירד על תנאי זה שאם ילקח ממנו השבח יחזור על המוכר, ואפילו לא כתב כבר נודע שזה דין המוכר עם הלוקח, אבל המתנה שאין שם תנאי זה אינו גובה משבח שהשביחה בהוצאתו כלום.", + "וכן יתומים שהשביחו הנכסים אין ב\"ח גובה מן השבח כלום, אבל אם שבחו נכסים מאליהן גובה את השבח כולו.", + "ב\"ח שטרף בחובו מיד הלוקח מה שראוי לו מן הקרן וחצי השבח רואין הנשאר מן הקרקע אם יש בו תעלה ללוקח כגון שנשאר לו בשדה בית תשעה קבין ובגנה בית חצי קב ישתתפו בה שניהם, ואם לא נשאר לו דבר שאילו יחלק יהיה שם כולו עליו נותן לו בעל חוב את דמיו.", + "היתה השדה אפותיקי בעל חוב נוטל את כולה ורואין חצי השבח הנשאר ללוקח אם היה חצי השבח יתר על ההוצאה נוטל ההוצאה מבעל חוב שהרי אומר לו בעל חוב שדי הוא שהשביחה והנשאר לו מן השבח נוטל מן המוכר ואם היה חצי השבח פחות מן ההוצאה אין לו מן הטורף אלא דמי חצי השבח וחוזר וגובה מן המוכר חצי השבח שנטרף בלבד.", + "בע\"ח שבא לטרוף מן היתומין יתומים אומרים אנו השבחנו ובעל חוב אומר שמא אביכם השביח על היתומים להביא ראיה, הביאו ראיה שהם השביחו שמין להן את השבח ואת ההוצאה ונוטלין הפחות שבשניהן ומעלה אותן בדמים, בד\"א בשעשה שדה זו אפותיקי אבל אם לא עשהו אפותיקי אם רצו היתומין לסלק בעל חוב בדמים מסלקין אותו ואם רצו נוטלין מן הקרקע שיעור שבח שלהן." + ], + [ + "סדר גביית החוב כך הוא כשיביא המלוה שטרו לבית דין ויתקיים אומרים ללוה שלם ואין יורדין לנכסיו תחלה עד שיתבענו, ואם טעה הדיין והוריד המלוה לנכסי לוה קודם שיתבענו מסלקין אותו, אמר הלוה הריני משלם קבעו לי זמן כדי שאלוה מאחר או אמשכן או אמכור ואביא המעות קובעין לו זמן שלשים יום ואין מחייבין אותו ליתן משכון שאילו היו שם מטלטלים מיד היו ב\"ד גובין מהן, ואם רצה המלוה להחרים על מי שיש לו מעות או מטלטלין ומפליג אותו בדברים ה\"ז מחרים, ואין מחייבין הלוה להביא ערב עד שיתן, שלמו השלשים ולא הביא בית דין כותבין אדרכתא, וכן אם אמר בתחלה כשתבעו איני משלם כותבין אדרכתא על נכסיו מיד ואין קובעין לו זמן, וכן אם אין שם אלא מלוה על פה או שהודה כותבין אדרכתא על נכסי בני חורין שיש לו.", + "טען ואמר שטר זה שנתקיים בפניהם מזוייף הוא אני אביא ראיה ואבטלנו והעד במקום פלוני והם פלוני ופלוני, אם נראה לדיינין שיש ממש בדבריו קובעין לו זמן להביא עדיו ואם נראה להם שאינו בא אלא בעלילות דברים ובטענות של דופי אומרים לו שלם ואח\"כ אם יש לו ראיה יחזור, ואם היה מלוה אלם ושמא אינו יכול להוציאו מידו מניחין על ידי שליש.", + "קבעו לו זמן להביא ראיה ולבטל השטר והגיע הזמן ולא בא ממתינין לו שני וחמישי ושני, לא בא כותבין עליו פתיחא ומשמתין אותו וממתינין לו והוא בנידויו תשעים יום, שלשים ראשונים שמא טורח ללוות, אמצעים שמא הוא טורח למכור, אחרונים שמא הלוקח ממנו טורח להביא מעות, שלמו תשעים יום ולא בא בית דין כותבין לו אדרכתא על נכסיו ומתירין לו נדויו.", + "אין כותבין אדרכתא עד ששולחין ומודיעין לו, והוא שיהיה קרוב בבית דין מהלך שני ימים או פחות, יתר על זה אין צריכין להודיעו, בד\"א כשהיה כל התשעים יום נשמט ואומר עתה אביא ראיה ואבטל השטר, אבל אמר איני בא לבית דין מיד כותבין אדרכתא על נכסיו בין על הקרקעות בין על המטלטלין, וכן אם היה השטר על הפקדון אין ממתינין לו תשעים יום אלא כותבין אדרכתא על נכסיו מיד.", + "זה שאמרנו שאם לא בא בסוף התשעים כותבין אדרכתא על הקרקעות, אבל על המטלטלין אפילו אחר צ' יום כל זמן שהוא אומר עתה אביא ראיה ואבטל השטר אין מורידין המלוה למטלטלין שמא יאכל אותם ויביא זה ראיה ויבטל השטר ולא ימצא מה יטול, ואפילו היה למלוה קרקע שמא תכסיף או תשתדף.", + "כיצד כותבין האדרכתא אם לנכסים בני חורין הורידוהו אומרים איש פלוני נתחייב לפלוני בדין כך וכך ולא נתן לו מעצמו וכתבנו לו אדרכתא זו על שדה פלונית שלו, ואחר כך שמין לו שלשה מאותה שדה כנגד חובו ומכריזין עליה כפי מה שיראו עד שיפסקו המוסיפין, ומורידין אותו בחובו לחלק ששמו אותו וקורעין שטר החוב אם היה שם שטר, ואם לא היו לו נכסים בני חורין כותבין האדרכתא כך איש פלוני נתחייב לפלוני כך בשטר חוב שיש בידו ולא נתן לו חובו ולא מצאנו לו נכסים בני חורין, וכבר קרענו לשטר שהיה לו עליו ונתננו לפלוני רשות לדרוש ולחקור ולהיות ידו נטויה על כל הנכסים שימצאו לו וכל קרקעות שמכר מזמן פלוני והלאה יש לו להפרע לגבות חובו מן הכל.", + "ואחר שכותבין אדרכתא זו הולך המלוה ומחפש אם מצא לו נכסים בני חורין שמין לו מהן, מצא לו נכסים משועבדין מאחר זמן שטרו טורף מהן וקורעין שטר האדרכתא וכותבין לו שטר הטירפא.", + "כיצד כותבין איש פלוני בן פלוני זכה בדין לטרוף בחוב שפלוני חייב לו שהוא כך וכך משדה פלונית שלקח פלוני בכך וכך מזמן פלוני, וכבר קרענו האדרכתא שהיתה בידו והרשינוהו לטרוף מזה בכך וכך.", + "ואחר שכותבין הטירפא לטרוף מורידין שלשה בקיאין לאותה שדה ושמין לו ממנה כשיעור חובו כפי מה שראוי לו מן הקרן וחצי השבח כמו שביארנו, ומכריזין עליה שלשים יום כדרך שמכריזין על נכסי יתומים.", + "ואח\"כ משביעין את הלוה שאין לו כלום כתקנת הגאונים אם היה הלוה עמנו במדינה, ומשביעין את הטורף בנקיטת חפץ שלא נפרע חוב זה ולא מחלו ולא מכרו לאחר, ואח\"כ מורידין אותו לנכסי הלוקח בשומא שלו וכותבין הורדה.", + "וכיצד כותבין, אחר ששמנו לפלוני בשומא שהיתה בידו והכרזנו שלשים יום כראוי והשבענו את זה הטורף ואת בעל חוב הורדנוהו לשדה פלונית להיות משתמש בה כדרך שמשתמש אדם בקנינו.", + "ומאימתי אוכל הטורף פירות שדה זו משיפסקו ימי ההכרזה.", + "כל אדרכתא שאין כתוב בה קרענוהו לשטר ההלואה אינה אדרכתא, וכל טירפא שאין כתוב בה קרענוה לאדרכתא אינה טירפא, וכל שומא דלא כתוב בה קרענוה לטירפא אינה שומא.", + "שלשה שירדו לשום אחד אומר במנה ושנים אומרים במאתים או אחד אומר במאתים ושנים אומרים במנה בטל יחיד במיעוטו, אחד אומר במנה ואחד אומר בשמונים ואחד אומר במאה ועשרים נדון במאה, אחד אומר במאה ואחד אומר תשעים ואחד אומר מאה ושלשים נדון במאה ועשרה ועל דרך זו שמין ביניהן.", + "בית דין ששמו לטורף בנכסי לוקח וטעו בכל שהוא מכרן בטל שהרי הן כשליח לטורף וללוקח ויש להן רשות לתקן אבל לא לעוות כשליח וכל המורים כזה הורו.", + "בית דין ששמו לבעל חוב בין בנכסי לוה בין במשועבדין שביד הלוקח ולאחר זמן השיגה ידו של לוה או של נטרף או של יורשיהן והביאו לבעל חוב את מעותיו מסלקין אותו מאותה קרקע שהשומא חוזרת לבעלים לעולם, משום שנאמר ועשית הישר והטוב.", + "קרקע ששמו אותה לבעל חוב ואח\"כ שמוה בית דין לבעל חוב של זה המלוה הרי זו חוזרת, לא יהא כחו גדול מכח ב\"ח הראשון, מכרה בעל חוב או נתנה במתנה או ששמה לבעל חוב מדעתו או שמת והורישה אינה חוזרת, שמו קרקע לאשה ונשאת או ששמו ממנה ונשאת בעל בנכסי אשתו כלוקח הוא ולא מחזיר ולא מחזירין לו." + ], + [ + "שטרי חוב המוקדמים פסולין שהרי טורף בהן לקוחות שלא כדין ולפיכך קנסו אותו חכמים ולא יגבה בשטר מוקדם אלא מבני חורין גזירה שמא יטרוף בו מזמן ראשון שהקדימו.", + "שטרי חוב המאוחרין כשרין שהרי הורע כחו של בעל השטר שאינו טורף אלא מזמן השטר, ואע\"פ שלא כתבו בו שהוא מאוחר הרי זה כשר.", + "שטר שכתבוהו ביום ונחתם בלילה הסמוך לו פסול מפני שהוא מוקדם, ואם היו עסוקים בענין עד שנכנס הלילה וחתמוהו אף על פי שקנו ממנו בלילה כשר.", + "שטר שזמנו כתוב בשבת או בעשרה בתשרי שטר מאוחר הוא וכשר, ואין חוששין שמא מוקדם הוא ובאחד בשבת או בי\"א בתשרי נכתב אלא מעמידין השטר על חזקתו שהדבר ידוע הוא שאין כותבין בשבת ולפיכך אחרוהו.", + "כותבין שטר ללוה אע\"פ שאין המלוה עמו ואין כותבין למלוה עד שיהיה לוה עמו, בד\"א בשטר שיש בו קנין שהרי משעה שקנו מידו נשתעבדו נכסיו, אבל שטר שאין בו קנין אין כותבין אפילו ללוה עד שיהיה מלוה עמו ויתן השטר ביד המלוה בפנינו שמא יכתוב עתה ללוות ממנו בניסן ולא ילוה ממנו עד תשרי ונמצא המלוה טורף בשטר זה מניסן שלא כדין שלא הגיע לידו עד תשרי.", + "עדים שקנו מיד הלוה או המוכר וכיוצא בהן ונתאחרה כתיבת השטר זמן מרובה אם ידעו יום שקנו ממנו בו כותבין בשטר זמן הקנין ואע\"פ שאינו זמן חתימתן ואין צריכין לומר ונתאחרה כתיבת ידינו עד יום פלוני, ואם לא ידעו יום שקנו בו כותבין זמנו של שטר משעת כתיבה, וכן מי שנמסרה להן העדות במדינה אחת וכתבו העדים במדינה אחרת אין מזכירין בשטר מקום שנמסרה בו העדות אלא מקום שכתבו בו חתימת ידן.", + "שטרי מקח וממכר שלא נכתבו בזמנן אפילו המאוחרין פסולין שהרי אפשר לטרוף בהן שלא כדין, כיצד כגון שחזר המוכר וקנה השדה מיד הלוקח קודם שיגיע זמן השטר המאוחר ויוציא הלה השטר המאוחר ויאמר חזרתי ולקחתיה פעם שניה ממך ונמצא טורף שלא כדין, ולמה לא נחוש כן לשטר חוב המאוחר שמא יפרענו קודם שיגיע זמנו ויכתוב שובר ויחזור ויוציא השטר המאוחר ויטרוף בו שלא כדין לפי שכל הכותב שטר מאוחר תקנתו שיכתוב השוכר סתם שכל זמן שיצא השטר ישבור אותו זה השובר, ואם לא עשה כן וכתב השובר בזמן הפרעון הוא הפסיד על עצמו.", + "מי שמכר שדהו באונס ומסר מודעא, או שקדם ומכר או נתן לאחר קודם שימכור לאנס, הרי המעות של אנס אצל המוכר כמלוה על פה ואינו טורף בשטר מכר שבידו כלום מפני שאין דין שטר זה שיכתוב ולא נכתב אלא מפני האונס וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "אפשר לטורף שיטרוף בלא שטר אלא בעדות על פה, כיצד כגון שיש לו עדות שזו גזולה מאביו הרי יש לו להוציא בעדים אלו ואין כאן שטר, וכן אם העידו לו שנגמר הדין לאביו לטרוף מנכסי פלוני בכך וכך מזמן פלוני ומת אביו ועדיין לא טרף הרי הבן טורף בעדות זו.", + "לפיכך אין כותבין שני שטרות מכר על שדה אחת שמא יעשה הלוקח קנוניא עם בעל חוב ויטרוף שלא כדין, כיצד יבא זה ויטרוף שדה זו בעדות שהעידו לו מחמת אביו ויחזור הלוקח ויטרוף בשטר המכר שבידו מן הלקוחות שלקחו אחריו ויקרע שטר המכר שבידו ויחזור בקנוניא ויעמוד בשדה שנטרפה ממנו ויבא הוא שטרפה בעצמה ויטרוף אותה פעם אחרת בעדות עדיו ויוציא הלה שטר המכר השני ויטרוף בו לקוחות אחרים שלא כדין, אם כן מי שנאבד לו שטר המכר ועדיו קיימין כיצד יעשה יכתבו שטר שני ויאמרו בו שטר זה אין גובין בו לא מנכסים משועבדים ולא מנכסים בני חורין ולא כתבנוהו אלא להעמיד שדה זו ביד פלוני הלוקח כדי שלא יוציאה מידו המוכר ולא יורשיו.", + "בשטרי החובות אינו כן אע\"פ שעדיו קיימין וקנו מידו וחזר בשעתו ואמר שטר שכתבתם לי עתה אבד או נשרף אין כותבין לו שטר שני שמא פרעו או מחלו, ואפילו היה החוב לזמן ואינו גובה בעדים אלו כלום אלא אם הלוה אומר לא היו דברים מעולם שזה הוחזק כפרן בעדותן כמו שיתבאר.", + "מי שבלה שטר חובו והרי הוא הולך להמחק מעמיד עליו עדים ובא לב\"ד והם עושין לו קיום, אבל עדי השטר עצמן אין כותבין לו שטר אחר אע\"פ שנמחק בפניהם, אבל באין לבית דין וב\"ד עושין לו קיום.", + "כיצד מקיימין שטר זה כותבין שטר אחר ואומרים אנו בית דין פלוני ופלוני ופלוני הוציא פלוני בן פלוני שטר נמחק לפנינו וזמנו ביום פלוני ופלוני ופלוני עדיו, ואם כתבו והוזקקנו לעדותן של עדים ונמצאת מכוונת גובה בשטר זה שכתבו לו ואין צריך קיום אחר, ואם לא כתבו כן צריך להביא ראיה על העדים הראשונים עד שתתקיים עדותן.", + "שטר חוב שנתקרע כשר, נמחק או נתטשטש אם רשומו ניכר כשר, נקרע קרע ב\"ד ה\"ז פסול, איזהו קרע ב\"ד שתי וערב.", + "מי שפרע מקצת חובו אם רצה מחליף וכותבין לו ב\"ד שטר אחר בשאר החוב מזמן ראשון אבל לא עדי השטר, ואם רצה יכתוב שובר.", + "הבא לפרוע חובו ואמר המלוה אבד לי השטר ה\"ז יכתוב לו שובר ויפרע כל חובו, ויש ללוה להחרים סתם על מי שכובש שטרו וטוען שאבד, ואם טען הלוה טענת ודאי ואמר השטר אצלו ועתה הניחו בכיסו הורו רבותי שישבע המלוה היסת שאבד השטר ואח\"כ יפרע חובו ויכתוב שובר.", + "מי שהוציא שטר חוב במנה ואמר עשו לי ממנו שנים בחמשים חמשים אין עושין שזכות הוא ללוה להיות הכל בשטר אחד שאם יפרענו מקצת נמצא שטרו פגום, וכן אם הוציא שני שטרות בחמשים חמשים ואמר עשו לי אותן במאה אין עושין לו אלא עושין לו קיום לכל אחד ואחד שזכות הוא ללוה להיות שנים שלא יכוף אותו בדין בפעם אחת לגבות הכל.", + "הוציא שטר חוב במאה ואמר קרעוהו וכתבו לי שטר אחר בחמשים אין שומעין לו שמא פרעו הכל וכתב לו שובר על שטר של מאה וכשיחזור ויוציא קיום זה על שטר חמשים ויוציא הלוה השובר יאמר לו זה שטר אחר הוא." + ], + [ + "כבר ביארנו ששטר חוב שיש בו קנין כותבין אותו ללוה אע\"פ שאין המלוה עמו, וכן כותבין שטר למוכר אע\"פ שאין הלוקח עמו, וכן כותבין שובר למלוה אע\"פ שאין הלוה עמו ושובר לאשה אף על פי שאין בעלה עמה וגט לאיש אע\"פ שאין אשתו עמו, אבל אין כותבין שטרי אירוסין ונישואין ושטרי אריסות וקבלנות ושטר ברירת הדיינין או שטר טענת בעלי דינין וכל מעשה ב\"ד אלא מדעת שניהם, וכל השטרות האלו צריכין להזהר בתקונן כשאר השטרות.", + "ומי נותן שכר הסופר, בשטרי הלואה הלוה נותן שכר, ובשטרי מקח וממכר הלוקח נותן שכר, והאשה נותנת שכר הגט, והחתן נותן שכר שטר האירוסין או הנישואין, והמקבל וכן האריס או השכיר נותן שכר השטר, אבל שטר ברירת הדיינין או טענות בעלי דינין שניהם נותנין שכר.", + "אחד השטרות הנכתבין לאחד שלא בפני חבירו ואחד השטרות שאין כותבין אותן אלא מדעת שניהם ושניהן עומדין כגון שטר שכותבין למלוה או ללוקח כולן צריכין שיהיו העדים מכירין השמות שבשטר שזה הוא פלוני בן פלוני וזהו פלוני בן פלוני שמא יבואו שנים ויעשו קנוניא וישנו שמותיהן בשמות אחרים ויודו זה לזה.", + "כל מי שהוחזק שמו בעיר שלשים יום אין חוששין לו שמא שם אחר יש לו והוא שינהו כדי לרמות ולעשות קנוניא שאם אתה אומר כן אין לדבר סוף, לפיכך מי שלא הוחזק שמו בעיר שלשים יום ובא ואמר כתבו עלי שטר שאני חייב לפלוני או לזה כך וכך דינרין, אין כותבין לו עד שיביא ראיה שזה שמו או יוחזק.", + "כל שטר שיצא לפנינו ויטעון הלוה ויאמר איני חייב כלום שמא רמאי אחר העלה שמו כשמי והודה לזה או שאמר לא לזה אני חייב כלום אלא לאחר וזה רמאי הוא והעלה שמו כשם בעל חובי, מאחר שלא הוחזק שם שנים ששמותיהן שוין אין חוששין לדבריו שחזקה הוא שאין העדים חותמין על השטר אלא א\"כ מכירין אלו הנזכרים בו, וכן חזקה שאין חותמין על השטר אלא א\"כ נודע להם בודאי שאלו שהעידו על עצמן גדולים ובני דעת, ואין העדים חותמין על השטר אלא אם כן יודעים לקרות ולחתום.", + "עדים שאין יודעין לחתום וקרעו להן נייר חלק וחתמו על הרשום מכין אותן מכת מרדות והשטר פסול.", + "ראש ב\"ד שהיה יודע ענין השטר וקרא השט' לפניו הסופר שלו הואיל והוא מאמין אותו ואימתו עליו הרי זה חותם על השטר אע\"פ שלא קראהו הוא בעצמו ואין שאר העם רשאין לעשות כן עד שיקרא העד השטר מלה מלה.", + "שנים שהיו בעיר שם כל אחד מהן יוסף בן שמעון אינן יכולין להוציא שטר חוב זה על זה ולא אחר יכול להוציא עליהן שטר חוב אלא א\"כ באו עדי השטר בעצמן ואמרו זהו השטר שהעדנו עליו וזהו שהעדנו לו בהלואה, וכן אין מגרשין נשותיהן אלא זה בפני זה, וכן אם נמצא לאחד בין שטרותיו שובר ששטרו של יוסף בן שמעון פרוע שטרות שניהן שעליו פרועין, וכיצד יעשו אלו ששמותיהן שוין ושמות אביהן שוין ישלשו, היו שמות אבות אבותיהן שוין יכתבו סימניהן, היו דומין זה לזה בצורתן יכתבו יחוסן, היו שניהם לוים שניהם כהנים יכתבו דורות.", + "הוציא עליו שטר שכתוב בו אני פלוני בן פלוני לויתי ממך מנה אע\"פ שאין בו שם המלוה כל מי שיצא שטר זה מתחת ידו גובה בו ואינו יכול לדחותו ולומר של אחר הוא ונפל, וכן שני יוסף בני שמעון הדרין בעיר אחת שהוציא אחד מהן שטר חוב על אחד מבני העיר אינו יכול לדחותו ולומר לו לפלוני שהוא כשמך אני חייב וממנו נפל השטר אלא הרי זה שיצא מתחת ידו גובה ואין חוששין לנפילה.", + "שנים שהוציאו כל אחד משניהם שטר חוב על חבירו אין האחרון יכול לומר לראשון אילו הייתי חייב לך היאך אתה לוה ממני אלא זה גובה חובו וזה גובה חובו, היה זה במאה וזה במאה ויש לזה עידית ולזה עידית או לזה בינונית ולזה בינונית לזה זיבורית ולזה זיבורית אין נזקקין להן אלא כל אחד ואחד עומד בשלו, היה לזה עידית ובינונית ולזה זיבורית זה גובה מן הבינונית וזה גובה מן הזיבורית.", + "הוציא שטר חוב על חבירו והלה מוציא שטר שמכר לו השדה אם היו במקום שנותן הלוקח המעות ואח\"כ כותב לו המוכר את השטר הרי שטר חובו של זה בטל שהרי אומר לו אילו הייתי חייב לך היה לך לפרוע חובך, אבל במקום שכותבין ואחר כך נותנין הרי שטר החוב קיים שהרי זה אומר מכרתי לך את השדה כדי שיהיה לך נכסים ידועים שאגבה מהן חוב שלי." + ], + [ + "המלוה את חבירו ואחר שהלוהו אמר לו אחד אני ערב, או שתבע את הלוה בדין ואמר לו אחר הנח ואני ערב, או שהיה חונק את חבירו בשוק ליתן לו ואמר לו הנח ואני ערב אין הערב חייב כלום, ואפילו אמר אני ערב בפני ב\"ד, אבל אם קנו מידו שהוא ערב ממון זה כל אלו הפנים בין בפני ב\"ד בין בינו לבין המלוה נתשעבד.", + "אמר לו בשעת מתן מעות הלוהו ואני ערב נתשעבד הערב ואינו צריך קנין, וכן אם ב\"ד עשו אותו ערב נשתעבד אע\"פ שלא קנו מידו, כגון שהיו ב\"ד רוצין לגבות מן הלוה ואמר להם הניחוהו ואני ערב לכם הואיל ויש לו הנאה שהאמינוהו ב\"ד באותה הנייה שעבד עצמו.", + "המלוה את חבירו ע\"י ערב אע\"פ שהערב משתעבד למלוה לא יתבע את הערב תחלה אלא תובע את הלוה תחלה אם לא נתן לו חוזר אצל הערב ונפרע ממנו, בד\"א בשאין נכסים ללוה, אבל אם יש נכסים ללוה לא יפרע מן הערב כלל אלא מן הלוה, היה הלוה אלם ואין ב\"ד יכולין להוציא מידו או שלא בא לדין ה\"ז נפרע מן הערב תחלה ואח\"כ יעשה הערב דין עם הלוה אם יכול להוציאו מידו יוציא או ישמתוהו ב\"ד עד שיתן לו.", + "התנה המלוה על הערב ואמר לו על מנת שאפרע ממי שאצרה אם יש נכסים ללוה לא יפרע מן הערב, אמר על מנת שאפרע ממי שארצה תחלה או שהיה קבלן הרי זה יתבע את הערב הזה או את הקבלן תחלה ויפרע מהן אף על פי שיש נכסים ללוה.", + "איזהו ערב ואיזהו קבלן אמר לו תן לו ואני נותן לך זהו קבלן שיש למלוה להפרע ממנו תחלה אע\"פ שלא פירש ולא אמר על מנת שאפרע ממי שארצה, אבל אם אמר לו הלוהו ואני ערב הלוהו ואני פורע הלוהו ואני חייב הלוהו ואני נותן הלוהו ואני קבלן, תן לו ואני קבלן תן לו ואני פורע תן לו ואני חייב תן לו ואני ערב, כולן לשון ערבנות הן ואינו תובעו תחלה ולא נפרע ממנו במקום שיש נכסים ללוה עד שיפרש ויאמר ממי שארצה אפרע.", + "ערב של כתובה אע\"פ שקנו מידו פטור מלשלם שהרי מצוה עשה ולא חסר ממון, ואם היה האב ערב לכתובת בנו וקנו מידו חייב, וקבלן של כתובה חייב.", + "ראובן שמכר לשמעון שדה ובא לוי וקיבל אחריות עליו לא נשתעבד לוי שזו אסמכתא היא, ואם קנו מידו שהוא ערב לשלם דמי מכר זה כל עת שירצה שיתבענו לשמעון הרי זה חייב וכזה הורו רבותי.", + "וכן הערב או הקבלן שחייבו עצמן על תנאי אע\"פ שקנו מידו לא נשתעבד מפני שהוא אסמכתא, כיצד כגון שאמר לו תן לו ואני אתן לך אם יהיה כך וכך או אם לא יהיה, שכל התולה שיעבוד שאינו חייב בו באם יהיה ואם לא יהיה לא גמר והקנה קנין שלם ולפיכך לא נשתעבד.", + "שנים שלוו בשטר אחד או שלקחו מקח אחד, וכן השותפין שלוה אחד מהן או לקח בשותפות הרי הן ערבאין זה לזה אע\"פ שלא פירש.", + "שנים שערבו לאחד כשיבוא המלוה ליפרע מן הערב יפרע מאי זה מהן שירצה, ואם לא היה לאחד כדי החוב חוזר ותובע השני בשאר החוב.", + "ואחד שערב לשנים כשיפרע למלוה יודיעו על חוב איזה משניהם פורע כדי שיחזור עליו.", + "האומר לחבירו ערוב לפלוני כך וכך ואני ערב לך הרי זה כמי שאמר לו הלוהו ואני ערב, וכשם שנשתעבד הערב למלוה כך נשתעבד ערב לערב ראשון, ודין הערב עם המלוה ודין ערב ראשון עם השני דין אחד הוא.", + "מי שלא פירש קצב הדבר שערב כגון שאמר לו כל מה שתתן תן לו ואני ערב או מכור לו ואני ערב או הלוהו ואני ערב יש מן הגאונים שהורה אפילו מכר לו בעשרת אלפים או הלוה מאה אלף נשתעבד הערב בכל, ויראה לי שאין זה הערב חייב כלום שכיון שאינו יודע הדבר ששיעבד עצמו בו לא סמכה דעתו ולא שיעבד עצמו ודברים של טעם הם למבין.", + "מי שאמר לחבירו הלוהו ואני ערב לגופו של לוה זה לא ערב לעצמו של ממון אלא כל זמן שתרצה אביאנו לך, וכן אם אמר לו אחר שהלוהו ותבעו הניחהו כל זמן שתתבענו אביאנו לך וקנו מידו על זה אם לא יביא זה הלוה יש מן הגאונים שהורה שהוא חייב לשלם, ויש מי שהורה שאפילו התנה ואמר אם לא אביאנו או שמת או שברח אהיה חייב לשלם הרי זו אסמכתא ולא נשתעבד ולזה דעתי נוטה." + ], + [ + "המלוה את חבירו בשטר ואחר שהעידו העדים בשטר בא ערב וערב את הלוה אע\"פ שקנו מידו ונשתעבד לשלם כמו שביארנו כשיבא המלוה להפרע מנכסי הערב הזה אינו טורף מנכסים משועבדים, היה הערב בגופו של שטר קודם חתימת העדים אם כתבו פלוני ערב שהרי אינו מעורב עם הלוה במלוה אינו גובה ממנו מן המשועבדים אבל אם כתוב בשטר פלוני לוה מפלוני כך וכך ופלוני ערב שהרי ערבו לוה עם ערב בשטר וקנו מידו של ערב ואח\"כ חתמו עדים בשטר ה\"ז נפרע מנכסי ערב המשועבדים.", + "מלוה שתבע את הלוה ולא מצא לו נכסים אינו יכול להפרע מן הערב עד אחר שלשים יום מיום שנתחייב הערב לשלם לא יהיה כח זה פחות מן הלוה עצמו וכזה הורו המורים, ואם התנה עמו הכל לפי התנאי.", + "מלוה שבא לתבוע את הלוה ולא מצא לו נכסים אינו יכול לדחותו ולומר לך אצל הקבלן הרי יש לך לתבוע אותו תחלה אלא תובע כל מי שרצה תחלה, ואם נשא הקבלן המעות מיד המלוה ונתנו ביד הלוה אין למלוה ביד הלוה כלום, היה הלוה במדינה אחרת שאינו יכול להודיעו ולא לילך אליו או שמת הלוה והניח יתומים קטנים שאין ב\"ד נזקקין לנכסיהן ה\"ז תובע את הערב תחלה שהרי אין הלוה מצוי.", + "מלוה שתבע את הלוה ומצאו שהוא עני אינו יכול להפרע מן הערב עד שישבע הלוה בתקנת אחרונים שאין לו כלום שמא יעשו קנוניא על נכסיו של ערב.", + "מי שהיה ערב לחבירו במלוה על פה ובא המלוה לתבוע את הערב והרי הלוה במדינת הים, אומר לו הערב הבא ראיה שלא פרעך הלוה ואני אשלם לך.", + "ערב שקידם ונתן לבעל חוב את חובו הרי זה חוזר וגובה מן הלוה כל מה שפרע על ידו אף על פי שהיתה מלוה על פה או בלא עדים כלל, בד\"א כשאמר לו הלוה בעת שנעשה לו ערב ערבני ושלם, אבל אם עמד ברשות עצמו ונעשה לו ערב או קבלן או שאמר לו הלוה ערבני ולא הרשהו שיתן ויפרע החוב אין הלוה חייב לשלם לו כלום, וכן הפורע שטר חובו של חבירו שלא מדעתו אפילו היה החוב על המשכון אין הלוה חייב כלום ונוטל משכונו בחנם והרי אבד זה הנותן את מעותיו שמא היה הלוה מפייס את המלוה ומוחל לו, מת הלוה וקידם הערב ופרע החוב קודם שיודיע את היורשים אם נודע לנו שלא פרע הלוה שטר חובו קודם שימות כגון שהודה בו קודם או שנדוהו ומת בנדויו או שלא הגיע זמן המלוה להגבות ה\"ז חוזר וגובה מן היורשין כל מה שפרע, היה המלוה עכו\"ם אין היורשין חייבין לשלם שמא אביהן נתן ליד הערב כל החוב שהיה עליו מפני שהעכו\"ם תובע את הערב תחילה ולפיכך פרע זה מדעתו קודם שיודיע היתומים, אבל אם הודיען שהעכו\"ם תובע אותו והרי הוא נותן חייבין לשלם.", + "כל ערב שבא ליטול מה שפרע בין שבא להפרע מיורשי לוה בין מלוה עצמו ה\"ז צריך להביא ראיה שפרע ואין מציאת שטר החוב שעליו ביד הערב ראיה שמא נפל השטר מיד המלוה ולא פרע זה כלום.", + "האומר לחבירו ערבת לי והוא אומר לא ערבתי, או שאמר הערב ללוה אתה הרשיתני לערוב אותך וליתן והוא אומר מדעתך ערבת או לא ערבת כלל, או שאמר הערב פרעתי המלוה בפניך והלה אומר לא פרעת, או שאמר לו כן פרעת ונתתי לך מה שפרעת, או שאמר המלוה ערבת לי מאתים והוא אומר לא ערבתי אלא מנה, מכל אלו הטענות וכיוצא בהן המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, או ישבע הנתבע שבועת היסת או שבועת התורה אם הודה במקצת כשאר כל טענת הממון.", + "עבד או אשת איש שלוו או שערבו את אחרים ונתחייבו לשלם, כשישתחרר העבד ותתגרש האשה או תתאלמן ישלמו.", + "קטן שלוה חייב לשלם כשיגדיל ואין כותבין עליו שטר אלא הרי היא מלוה על פה אע\"פ שקנו מידו שאין קנין מיד הקטן כלום.", + "קטן שערב את אחרים הורו הגאונים שאינו חייב לשלם כלום אף כשיגדיל וזה שנתן את מעותיו על פי הקטן אבד את מעותיו שאין לקטן דעת כדי לשעבד עצמו בדבר שאינו חייב בו ולא בערבנות ולא בכל כיוצא בזה ודין אמת הוא וכן ראוי לדון.", + "האשה שלותה בשטר או ערבה בשטר ונשאת חייבת לשלם אחר שנשאת, ואם היתה מלוה על פה אינה משלמת עד שתתגרש או שתתאלמן שרשות בעל כרשות לוקח הוא כמו שביארנו בכמה מקומות, ואם היו אותן מעות ההלואה עצמן קיימין יחזירו אותן למלוה." + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..93c7b9b61a89e8de24910e12d606d5845a9cba58 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,376 @@ +{ + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah,_Creditor_and_Debtor", + "text": [ + [ + "מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לְהַלְווֹת לַעֲנִיֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב כד) \"אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה אֶת עַמִּי אֶת הֶעָנִי עִמָּךְ\". יָכוֹל רְשׁוּת תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (דברים טו ח) \"הַעֲבֵט תַּעֲבִיטֶנּוּ\" וְגוֹ'. וּמִצְוָה זוֹ גְּדוֹלָה מִן הַצְּדָקָה אֶל הֶעָנִי הַשּׁוֹאֵל שֶׁזֶּה כְּבָר נִצְרַךְ לִשְׁאל וְזֶה עֲדַיִן לֹא הִגִּיעַ לְמִדָּה זוֹ. וְהַתּוֹרָה הִקְפִּידָה עַל מִי שֶׁיִּמָּנַע מִלְּהַלְווֹת לֶעָנִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים טו ט) \"וְרָעָה עֵינְךָ בְּאָחִיךָ הָאֶבְיוֹן\" וְגוֹ': \n", + "כָּל הַנּוֹגֵשׂ הֶעָנִי וְהוּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מַה יַּחֲזִיר לוֹ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב כד) \"לֹא תִהְיֶה לוֹ כְּנשֶׁה\". וּמִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לִנְגּשֹׁ אֶת הָעַכּוּ\"ם וּלְהָצֵר לוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים טו ג) \"לַנָּכְרִי תִּגּשֹׁ\" מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁזּוֹ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה: \n", + "אָסוּר לָאָדָם לְהַרְאוֹת עַצְמוֹ לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ בִּזְמַן שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ. אֲפִלּוּ לַעֲבֹר לְפָנָיו שֶׁלֹּא יַפְחִידוֹ אוֹ יַכְלִימוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ תּוֹבְעוֹ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם תְּבָעוֹ. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאָסוּר לְזֶה לִתְבֹּעַ כָּךְ אָסוּר לַלּוֶֹה לִכְבּשׁ מָמוֹן חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ וְלוֹמַר לוֹ לֵךְ וְשׁוּב וְהוּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ג כח) \"אַל תֹּאמַר לְרֵעֲךָ לֵךְ וְשׁוּב\". וְכֵן אָסוּר לַלּוֶֹה לִקַּח הַלְוָאָה וּלְהוֹצִיאָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לְצֹרֶךְ וּלְאַבְּדָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא יִמְצָא בַּעַל חוֹב מֵאַיִן יִגְבֶּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַמַּלְוֶה עָשִׁיר גָּדוֹל. וְעוֹשֶׂה זֶה רָשָׁע הוּא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהילים לז כא) \"לוֶֹה רָשָׁע וְלֹא יְשַׁלֵּם\". וְצִוּוּ חֲכָמִים (משנה אבות ב יב) \"יְהִי מָמוֹן חֲבֵרְךָ חָבִיב עָלֶיךָ כְּשֶׁלָּךְ\": \n", + "כְּשֶׁיִּתְבַּע הַמַּלְוֶה הַלְוָאָתוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא עָשִׁיר וְהַלּוֶֹה דָּחוּק וְטָרוּד בִּמְזוֹנוֹת אֵין מְרַחֲמִין בַּדִּין אֶלָּא גּוֹבִין לוֹ חוֹבוֹ עַד פְּרוּטָה אַחֲרוֹנָה מִכָּל מִטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁיִּמָּצְאוּ לוֹ. וְאִם לֹא הִסְפִּיקוּ הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין גּוֹבִין לוֹ מִן הַקַּרְקַע אַחַר שֶׁמַּחְרִימִין עַל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מִטַּלְטְלִין אוֹ מִי שֶׁיָּדַע לוֹ מִטַּלְטְלִין וְלֹא יְבִיאֵם לְבֵית דִּין. וְגוֹבִין מִכָּל קַרְקַע שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא מְשֻׁעְבֶּדֶת לִכְתֻבַּת אִשְׁתּוֹ אוֹ לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ שֶׁקָּדַם גּוֹבִין לָזֶה וְאִם יָבוֹא הָרִאשׁוֹן וְיִטְרֹף יִטְרֹף. טָעַן הַלּוֶֹה שֶׁמִּטַּלְטְלִין אֵלּוּ שֶׁבְּיָדִי אֵינָן שֶׁלִּי אֶלָּא פִּקָּדוֹן הֵם בְּיָדִי אוֹ שְׂכוּרִין אוֹ שְׁאוּלִין אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ אוֹ יָבִיא רְאָיָה אוֹ יִגְבֶּה מֵהֶן בַּעַל חוֹבוֹ: \n", + "אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה לֹא מִכְּסוּת אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו שֶׁל לוֶֹה וְלֹא מִבְּגָדִים צְבוּעִים שֶׁצְּבָעָן לִשְׁמָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא לָבְשׁוּ אוֹתָן וְלֹא מִסַּנְדָּלִים חֲדָשִׁים שֶׁלְּקָחָן לִשְׁמָן אֶלָּא הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלָּהֶן. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּכְלֵי הַחוֹל אֲבָל בִּגְדֵי שַׁבָּת וְהַמּוֹעֵד גּוֹבֶה אוֹתָן בַּעַל חוֹב וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם הָיוּ בָּהֶן טַבָּעוֹת וּכְלֵי זָהָב אוֹ כֶּסֶף שֶׁהַכּל לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ: \n", + "הָיוּ לוֹ מִטַּלְטְלִין אוֹ קַרְקַע וַהֲרֵי עָלָיו שְׁטַר חוֹבוֹת לָעַכּוּ\"ם וְאָמַר הֲרֵי כָּל נְכָסַי מְשֻׁעְבָּדִין לָעַכּוּ\"ם וְאִם יִטְּלוּ אוֹתָן הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִים בְּחוֹבָם יַאַסְרוּ אוֹתִי הָעַכּוּ\"ם בְּחוֹבָן וְאֶהְיֶה בַּשִּׁבְיָה. הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁאֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ וְיִגְבּוּ הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִים. וּכְשֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְיַאַסְרוּהוּ הֲרֵי כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל מְצֻוִּין לִפְדּוֹתוֹ: \n", + "מְסַדְּרִין לְבַעַל חוֹב כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמְּסַדְּרִין בַּעֲרָכִין. כֵּיצַד. אוֹמֵר לַלּוֶֹה הָבֵא כָּל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְךָ וְלֹא תַּנִּיחַ אֲפִלּוּ מַחַט אַחַת. וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ מִן הַכּל מְזוֹן [שְׁלֹשִׁים] יוֹם וּכְסוּת שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ מִכְּסוּת הָרְאוּיָה לוֹ. וְלֹא שֶׁיִּלְבַּשׁ בִּגְדֵי מֶשִׁי אוֹ מִצְנֶפֶת זְהוּבָה אֶלָּא מַעֲבִירִין אוֹתָהּ מִמֶּנּו. וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ כְּסוּת הָרְאוּיָה לוֹ לִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. וּמִטָּה לֵישֵׁב עָלֶיהָ וּמִטָּה וּמַצָּע הָרְאוּיִין לוֹ לִישֹׁן עֲלֵיהֶם. וְאִם הָיָה עָנִי מִטָּה וּמַפָּץ לִישֹׁן עָלָיו. וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין כֵּלִים כָּאֵלּוּ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֵיהֶם. וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ סַנְדָּלָיו וּתְפִלָּיו. הָיָה אֻמָּן נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי כְּלֵי אֻמָּנוּת מִכָּל מִין וּמִין כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה חָרָשׁ נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי מַעֲצָדִין וּשְׁתֵּי מְגֵרוֹת. הָיָה לוֹ מִין אֶחָד מְרֻבֶּה וּמִין אֶחָד מוּעָט נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שְׁנַיִם מִן הַמְרֻבֶּה וְכָל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מִן הַמּוּעָט. וְאֵין לוֹקְחִין לוֹ כֵּלִים מִדְּמֵי הַמְרֻבֶּה. הָיָה אִכָּר אוֹ חַמָּר אֵין נוֹתְנִין לוֹ לֹא צִמְדּוֹ וְלֹא חֲמוֹרוֹ. וְכֵן אִם הָיָה סַפָּן אֵין נוֹתְנִין לוֹ סְפִינָתוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מְזוֹנוֹת אֶלָּא מֵאֵלּוּ אֵין אֵלּוּ כֵּלִים אֶלָּא נְכָסִים וְיִמָּכְרוּ עִם שְׁאָר הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין בְּבֵית דִּין וְיִנָּתְנוּ לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ: \n", + "מַלְוֶה שֶׁבָּא לְהִפָּרַע שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַלּוֶֹה כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה הַלּוֶֹה בִּמְדִינָה רְחוֹקָה וְתָפְסָה הָאִשָּׁה מִטַּלְטְלִין מִנִּכְסֵי הַבַּעַל כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּזּוֹן מֵהֶן מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן מִיָּדָהּ וְנוֹתְנִין לְבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה בַּעְלָהּ עִמָּהּ לֹא הָיָה יָכוֹל לָזוּן אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו עַד שֶׁיִּפְרַע לוֹ כָּל חוֹבוֹ: \n" + ], + [ + "דִּין תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּזְמַן שֶׁיִּתְבַּע הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חוֹבוֹ אִם נִמְצְאוּ לַלּוֶֹה נְכָסִים מְסַדְּרִין לוֹ וְנוֹתְנִין לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ אֶת הַשְּׁאָר כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאִם לֹא נִמְצָא לַלּוֶֹה כְּלוּם אוֹ נִמְצְאוּ לוֹ דְּבָרִים שֶׁמְּסַדְּרִין לוֹ בִּלְבַד יֵלֵךְ הַלּוֶֹה לְדַרְכּוֹ וְאֵין אוֹסְרִין אוֹתוֹ וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים לוֹ הָבֵא רְאָיָה שֶׁאַתָּה עָנִי וְלֹא מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁדָּנִין הָעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב כד) \"לֹא תִהְיֶה לוֹ כְּנשֶׁה\". אֶלָּא אוֹמְרִים לַמַּלְוֶה אִם אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ נְכָסִים לְזֶה הַמְחֻיָּב לְךָ לֵךְ וּתְפֹס אוֹתָן: \n", + "טָעַן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ וְהֶחְבִּיא אוֹתָן וַהֲרֵי הֵן בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ אֵין מִן הַדִּין שֶׁיִּכָּנֵס לְבֵיתוֹ לֹא הוּא וְלֹא שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה הִקְפִּידָה עַל זֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד יא) \"בַּחוּץ תַּעֲמֹד\". אֲבָל מַחְרִימִין עַל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ וְלֹא יִתֵּן לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ. כְּשֶׁרָאוּ הַגְּאוֹנִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים שֶׁעָמְדוּ אַחַר חִבּוּר הַגְּמָרָא שֶׁרַבּוּ הָרַמָּאִים וְנִנְעֲלָה דֶּלֶת בִּפְנֵי לוִֹין הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁמַּשְׁבִּיעִין אֶת הַלּוֶֹה שְׁבוּעָה חֲמוּרָה כְּעֵין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כְּלוּם יֶתֶר עַל דְּבָרִים שֶׁמְּסַדְּרִין לוֹ. וְשֶׁלֹּא הֶחְבִּיאָן בְּיַד אֲחֵרִים וְשֶׁלֹּא נָתַן מַתָּנָה עַל מְנָת לְהַחְזִיר. וְכוֹלֵל בִּשְׁבוּעָה זוֹ שֶׁכָּל שֶׁיַּרְוִיחַ וְכָל שֶׁיָּבוֹא לְיָדוֹ אוֹ לִרְשׁוּתוֹ מֵאֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ לֹא יַאֲכִיל מִמֶּנּוּ כְּלוּם לֹא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא לְבָנָיו וְלֹא יַלְבִּישׁ אוֹתָן וְלֹא יְטַפֵּל בָּהֶן וְלֹא יִתֵּן מַתָּנָה לְאָדָם בָּעוֹלָם. אֶלָּא יוֹצִיא מִכָּל אֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ מְזוֹן שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּכְסוּת שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ מָזוֹן הָרָאוּי לוֹ וּכְסוּת הָרָאוּי לוֹ. לֹא אֲכִילַת הַזּוֹלְלִים וְהַסּוֹבְאִין אוֹ בְּנֵי מְלָכִים וְלֹא מַלְבּוּשֵׁי הַפָּחוֹת וְהַסְּגָנִים אֶלָּא כְּדַרְכּוֹ. וְכָל הַיֶּתֶר עַל צָרְכּוֹ יִתֵּן לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן עַד שֶׁיַּגְבֶּנּוּ כָּל חוֹבוֹ. וּמַחְרִימִין תְּחִלָּה עַל מִי שֶׁיֵּדַע לִפְלוֹנִי נְכָסִים גְּלוּיִין אוֹ טְמוּנִין וְלֹא יוֹדִיעַ לְבֵית דִּין. גַּם אַחַר הַתַּקָּנָה הַזֹּאת אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב יָכוֹל לְהִכָּנֵס לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁל לוֶֹה לֹא הוּא וְלֹא שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁלֹּא תִּקְּנוּ לַעֲקֹר גּוּף הַתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא הַלּוֶֹה עַצְמוֹ יוֹצִיא כֵּלָיו אוֹ יֹאמַר כָּךְ וְכָךְ הוּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי מַנִּיחִין הָרָאוּי לוֹ וְיוֹצִיא הַשְּׁאָר וְיִשָּׁבַע בְּתַקָּנָה זוֹ וְכָזֶה דָּנִין יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּכָל מְקוֹמוֹתָן. נִרְאֶה לוֹ מָמוֹן אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע שְׁבוּעָה זוֹ וְאָמַר שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים הוּא אוֹ עֵסֶק הוּא בְּיָדִי אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא רְאָיָה. וְכֵן הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי: \n", + "מִי שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע שְׁבוּעָה זוֹ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כְּלוּם וְכָל מַה שֶּׁיַּרְוִיחַ יִתֵּן לְבַעַל חוֹב אֵין כָּל אֶחָד מִבַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת בָּא וּמַשְׁבִּיעוֹ שֶׁשְּׁבוּעָה אַחַת כּוֹלֶלֶת כָּל בַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת. וְתַקָּנַת אַחֲרוֹנִים הִיא וְאֵין מְדַקְדְּקִין בָּהּ לְהַחְמִיר אֶלָּא לְהָקֵל: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהֻחְזַק שֶׁהוּא עָנִי וְכָשֵׁר וְהוֹלֵךְ בְּתֹם וְהַדָּבָר גָּלוּי וְיָדוּעַ לַדַּיָּן וּלְרֹב הָעָם וּבָא בַּעַל חוֹבוֹ לְהַשְׁבִּיעוֹ בְּתַקָּנָה זוֹ וְהֻחְזַק הַתּוֹבֵעַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִסְתַּפֵּק בַּעֲנִיּוּת זֶה אֶלָּא רוֹצֶה לְצַעֲרוֹ בִּשְׁבוּעָה זוֹ לְהָצֵר לוֹ וּלְבַיְּשׁוֹ בָּרַבִּים כְּדֵי לְהִנָּקֵם מִמֶּנּוּ אוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּלֵךְ וְיִלְוֶה מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ יִקַּח נִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְיִתֵּן לָזֶה עַד שֶׁיִּנָּצֵל מִשְּׁבוּעָה זוֹ. יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאָסוּר לְדַיָּן יְרֵא שָׁמַיִם לְהַשְׁבִּיעוֹ שְׁבוּעָה זוֹ וְאִם הִשְׁבִּיעוֹ בִּטֵּל לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה לֹא תִהְיֶה לוֹ כְּנשֶׁה. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא רָאוּי לַדַּיָּן לִגְעֹר בַּתּוֹבֵעַ וּלְטָרְדוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא נוֹטֵר וְהוֹלֵךְ בִּשְׁרִירוּת לִבּוֹ. שֶׁלֹּא תִּקְּנוּ הַגְּאוֹנִים תַּקָּנָה זוֹ אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי הָרַמָּאִין וַהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר (דברים כב ב) \"עַד דְּרשׁ אָחִיךָ אֹתוֹ\" דָּרְשֵׁהוּ אִם רַמַּאי הוּא אוֹ אֵינוֹ רַמַּאי וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁהֻחְזַק זֶה שֶׁהוּא עָנִי וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ רַמַּאי אָסוּר לְהַשְׁבִּיעוֹ. וְכֵן אֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁמִּי שֶׁהֻחְזַק רַמַּאי וּדְרָכָיו מְקֻלְקָלִין בְּמַשָּׂאוֹ וּמַתָּנוֹ וַהֲרֵי הוּא אָמוּד שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מָמוֹן וְטָעַן שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כְּלוּם וַהֲרֵי הוּא רָץ לְהִשָּׁבַע בְּתַקָּנָה זוֹ שֶׁאֵין רָאוּי לְהַשְׁבִּיעוֹ אֶלָּא אִם יֵשׁ כֹּחַ בַּדַּיָּן לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּפְרַע בַּעַל חוֹבוֹ אוֹ לְנַדּוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוּא אָמוּד. שֶׁפְּרִיעַת בַּעַל חוֹב מִצְוָה. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר כָּל שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה הַדַּיָּן מִדְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ וְכַוָּנָתוֹ לִרְדֹּף הַצֶּדֶק בִּלְבַד שֶׁנִּצְטַוֵּינוּ לְרָדְפוֹ וְלֹא לַעֲבֹר הַדִּין עַל אֶחָד מִבַּעֲלֵי דִּינִין הֲרֵי זֶה מֻרְשֶׁה לַעֲשׂוֹת וּמְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ מַעֲשָׂיו לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם: \n", + "מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב בִּשְׁבוּעָה זוֹ מִפְּנֵי שְׁטַר חוֹב שֶׁעָלָיו וְהוֹדָה לַאֲחֵרִים בְּחוֹבוֹת אֲחֵרִים וְהִשִּׂיגָה יָדוֹ יֶתֶר עַל הָרָאוּי לוֹ לֹא יִטּל הַיֶּתֶר אֶלָּא בַּעֲלֵי שְׁטָרוֹת בִּלְבַד. שֶׁמָּא קְנוּנְיָא עוֹשֶׂה בְּהוֹדָאָתוֹ עַל נְכָסָיו שֶׁל זֶה: \n", + "רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהָיָה חַיָּב לְשִׁמְעוֹן מֵאָה וְלֵוִי חַיָּב לִרְאוּבֵן מֵאָה מוֹצִיאִין מִלֵּוִי וְנוֹתְנִין לְשִׁמְעוֹן. לְפִיכָךְ אִם אֵין לִרְאוּבֵן נְכָסִים וְהָיוּ לוֹ שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב עַל לֵוִי וְאָמַר לֵוִי שְׁטַר אֲמָנָה הוּא פָּרוּעַ הוּא וְהוֹדָה לוֹ רְאוּבֵן אֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין עַל הוֹדָאָתוֹ שֶׁמָּא קְנוּנְיָא הֵם עוֹשִׂין לְאַבֵּד זְכוּתוֹ שֶׁל שִׁמְעוֹן אֶלָּא יִשָּׁבַע שִׁמְעוֹן וְיִטּל מִלֵּוִי כְּדִין כָּל טוֹרֵף שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִפְרָע אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה. וְכֵן כָּל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו שְׁטַר חוֹב וְהוֹדָה לְאַחֵר מֵעַצְמוֹ בְּחוֹב אַחֵר אִם אֵין לוֹ נְכָסִים כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּגְבּוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם גּוֹבֶה בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר בִּלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשׂוּ קְנוּנְיָא עַל שְׁטָרוֹ שֶׁל זֶה: \n", + "אָסוּר לָאָדָם לְהַלְווֹת מְעוֹתָיו בְּלֹא עֵדִים וַאֲפִלּוּ לְתַלְמִיד חָכָם אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִלְוָהוּ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן. וְהַמַּלְוֶה בִּשְׁטָר מְשֻׁבָּח יָתֵר. וְכָל הַמַּלְוֶה בְּלֹא עֵדִים עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם (ויקרא יט יד) \"וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשׁל\" וְגוֹרֵם קְלָלָה לְעַצְמוֹ: \n", + "הָרַב שֶׁלָּוָה מֵעַבְדּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שִׁחְרְרוֹ אוֹ לָוָה מֵאִשְׁתּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ גֵּרְשָׁהּ אֵין לָהֶן עָלָיו כְּלוּם שֶׁכָּל מַה שֶּׁקָּנָה עֶבֶד קָנָה רַבּוֹ וְכָל הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁבְּיַד הָאִשָּׁה בְּחֶזְקַת בַּעְלָהּ אֶלָּא אִם הֵבִיאָה רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵן מִנְּדֻנְיָתָהּ: \n" + ], + [ + "אַלְמָנָה בֵּין שֶׁהִיא עֲנִיָּה בֵּין שֶׁהִיא עֲשִׁירָה אֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתָהּ לֹא בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָה וְלֹא שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָה וְלֹא עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד יז) \"וְלֹא תַחֲבל בֶּגֶד אַלְמָנָה\". וְאִם חָבַל מַחֲזִירִין מִמֶּנּוּ בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ. וְאִם תּוֹדֶה לוֹ תְּשַׁלֵּם וְאִם תִּכְפֹּר תִּשָּׁבַע. אָבַד הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן אוֹ נִשְׂרַף קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּחְזִיר לוֹקֶה: \n", + "וְכֵן הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בֵּין שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן בֵּין שֶׁמִּשְׁכְּנוֹ אַחַר הַלְוָאָה בְּיָדוֹ אוֹ עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין לֹא יַחֲבל כֵּלִים שֶׁעוֹשִׂין בָּהֶם אֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ כְּגוֹן הָרֵחָיִם וְהָעֲרֵבוֹת שֶׁל עֵץ וְיוֹרוֹת שֶׁמְּבַשְּׁלִין בָּהֶם וְסַכִּין שֶׁל שְׁחִיטָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד ו) \"כִּי נֶפֶשׁ הוּא חֹבֵל\". וְאִם חָבַל מַחְזִיר בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ וְאִם אָבַד הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן אוֹ נִשְׂרַף קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּחְזִיר לוֹקֶה: \n", + "חָבַל כֵּלִים הַרְבֵּה שֶׁל אֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ כְּגוֹן שֶׁחָבַל עֲרֵבָה וְיוֹרָה וְסַכִּין חַיָּב עַל כָּל כְּלִי וּכְלִי בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. אֲפִלּוּ שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים שֶׁהֵן עוֹשִׂין מְלָאכָה אַחַת חַיָּב עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים וְלוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם עַל שְׁנֵיהֶם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד ו) \"לֹא יַחֲבל רֵחַיִם\" וָרָכֶב לְחַיֵּב עַל הָרֵחַיִם בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעַל הָרֶכֶב בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהָרֶכֶב וְהָרֵחַיִם מְיֻחָדִין שֶׁהֵן שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים וּמְשַׁמְּשִׁין מְלָאכָה אַחַת וְחַיָּב עַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ כָּךְ כָּל שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּשַׁמְּשִׁין מְלָאכָה אַחַת חַיָּב עַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. וְכֵן אִם חָבַל צֶמֶד בָּקָר הַחוֹרֵשׁ לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם: \n", + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ [אֶחָד] עָנִי וְאֶחָד עָשִׁיר לֹא יְמַשְׁכְּנֶנּוּ אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין וַאֲפִלּוּ שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁבָּא לְמַשְׁכֵּן לֹא יִכָּנֵס לְבֵיתוֹ וִימַשְׁכְּנֶנּוּ אֶלָּא עוֹמֵד בַּחוּץ וְהַלּוֶֹה נִכְנָס לְבֵיתוֹ וּמוֹצִיא לוֹ הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד יא) \"בַּחוּץ תַּעֲמֹד\". אִם כֵּן מַה בֵּין בַּעַל חוֹב לִשְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין. שֶׁשְּׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין יֵשׁ לוֹ לִקַּח הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן מִיַּד הַלּוֶֹה בִּזְרוֹעַ וְנוֹתְנוֹ לַמַּלְוֶה וּבַעַל חוֹב אֵין לוֹ לִקַּח הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן לוֹ הַלּוֶֹה מִדַּעְתּוֹ. עָבַר בַּעַל חוֹב וְנִכְנַס לְבֵית הַלּוֶֹה וּמִשְׁכְּנוֹ אוֹ שֶׁחָטַף הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן מִיָּדוֹ בִּזְרוֹעַ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי נִתַּק לַעֲשֵׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד יג) \"הָשֵׁב תָּשִׁיב לוֹ אֶת הַעֲבוֹט כְּבוֹא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ\". וְאִם לֹא קִיֵּם עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבָּהּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָבַד הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן אוֹ נִשְׂרַף לוֹקֶה. וּמְחַשֵּׁב דְּמֵי הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן וְתוֹבֵעַ הַשְּׁאָר בְּדִין: \n", + "אֶחָד הַמְמַשְׁכֵּן אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין אוֹ שֶׁמִּשְׁכְּנוֹ בְּיָדוֹ בִּזְרוֹעַ אוֹ מִדַּעַת הַלּוֶֹה אִם אִישׁ עָנִי הוּא וּמִשְׁכְּנוֹ דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מְצֻוֶּה לְהַחְזִיר לוֹ הָעֲבוֹט בְּעֵת שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לוֹ. מַחְזִיר לוֹ אֶת הַכַּר בַּלַּיְלָה כְּדֵי לִישֹׁן עָלָיו וְאֶת הַמַּחְרֵשָׁה בַּיּוֹם כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת בָּהּ מְלַאכְתּוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד יג) \"הָשֵׁב תָּשִׁיב לוֹ אֶת הַעֲבוֹט\". עָבַר וְלֹא הֵשִׁיב לוֹ כְּלִי הַיּוֹם בַּיּוֹם וּכְלִי הַלַּיְלָה בַּלַּיְלָה עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד יב) \"לֹא תִשְׁכַּב בַּעֲבֹטוֹ\" לֹא תִּשְׁכַּב וַעֲבוֹטוֹ אֶצְלְךָ זוֹ כְּסוּת לַיְלָה. וּבְכֵלִים שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בָּהֶן מְלַאכְתּוֹ בַּיּוֹם אוֹ לוֹבְשָׁן הוּא אוֹמֵר (שמות כב כה) \"עַד בֹּא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ תְּשִׁיבֶנּוּ לוֹ\" מְלַמֵּד שֶׁיַּחֲזִירוֹ כָּל הַיּוֹם. אִם כֵּן הוּא שֶׁמַּחְזִיר לוֹ הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן בְּעֵת שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לוֹ וְלוֹקֵחַ אוֹתָהּ בְּעֵת שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹ מַה יּוֹעִיל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן. כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִשָּׁמֵט הַחוֹב בִּשְׁבִיעִית וְלֹא יֵעָשֶׂה מִטַּלְטְלִין אֵצֶל בָּנָיו אֶלָּא יִפָּרַע מִן הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן אַחַר שֶׁמֵּת הַלּוֶֹה. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁהַמְמַשְׁכֵּן אֶת הֶעָנִי דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לוֹ וְלֹא הֶחֱזִירוֹ לוֹ בִּזְמַנּוֹ עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם שְׁלֹשָׁה שֵׁמוֹת מִשּׁוּם (דברים כד י) \"לֹא תָבֹא אֶל בֵּיתוֹ\" וּמִשּׁוּם הָשֵׁב תָּשִׁיב לוֹ אֶת הַעֲבוֹט וּמִשּׁוּם לֹא תִשְׁכַּב בַּעֲבֹטוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁמִּשְׁכְּנוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָתוֹ. אֲבָל אִם מִשְׁכְּנוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָתוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְהַחְזִיר כְּלָל וְאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר בְּשֵׁם מִן הַשֵּׁמוֹת הָאֵלּוּ: \n", + "שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁבָּא לְמַשְׁכֵּן לֹא יְמַשְׁכֵּן דְּבָרִים שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לָאָדָם לִתֵּן אוֹתָם מַשְׁכּוֹן כְּגוֹן בֶּגֶד שֶׁעָלָיו וּכְלִי שֶׁאוֹכֵל בּוֹ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בְּאֵלּוּ. וּמַנִּיחַ מִטָּה וּמַצָּע לֶעָשִׁיר וּמִטָּה וּמַפָּץ לֶעָנִי. וְכָל הַנִּמְצָא בְּיָדוֹ חוּץ מֵאֵלּוּ יֵשׁ לוֹ לְמַשְׁכְּנוֹ וְיַחְזִיר לוֹ כְּלִי הַיּוֹם בַּיּוֹם וּכְלִי הַלַּיְלָה בַּלַּיְלָה. הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים נוֹטֵל אֶחָד וּמַחֲזִיר אֶחָד. עַד מָתַי הוּא חַיָּב לְהַחְזִיר וְלִקַּח עַד לְעוֹלָם. וְאִם הָיָה הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן מִדְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לָהֶם וְאֵין מַנִּיחִין אוֹתָן לַלּוֶֹה הֲרֵי זֶה מַנִּיחוֹ אֶצְלוֹ עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּמִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וְאֵילָךְ מוֹכֵר הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן בְּבֵית דִּין. מֵת הַלּוֶֹה אֵינוֹ מַחְזִיר לְבָנָיו. מֵת הַלּוֶֹה אַחַר שֶׁהֵשִׁיב לוֹ הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן שׁוֹמְטוֹ הַמַּלְוֶה מֵעַל בָּנָיו וְאֵינוֹ מַחְזִיר: \n", + "הֶעָרֵב מֻתָּר לְמַשְׁכֵּן בִּזְרוֹעַ וּלְהִכָּנֵס לְבֵיתוֹ וְלִטּל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי כ טז) \"לְקַח בִּגְדוֹ כִּי עָרַב זָר\". וְכֵן מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שָׂכָר אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ בֵּין שְׂכַר מְלַאכְתּוֹ בֵּין שְׂכַר בְּהֶמְתּוֹ וְכֵלָיו בֵּין שְׂכַר בֵּיתוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לְמַשְׁכְּנוֹ שֶׁלֹּא עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין וְנִכְנָס לְבֵיתוֹ וְנוֹטֵל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן בִּשְׂכָרוֹ. וְאִם זָקַף עָלָיו הַשָּׂכָר בְּמִלְוֶה אָסוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד י) \"כִּי תַשֶּׁה בְרֵעֲךָ מַשַּׁאת מְאוּמָה\" וְגוֹ': \n", + "מִי שֶׁהָיָה בְּיָדוֹ מַשְׁכּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עָנִי אִם הָיָה שְׂכָרוֹ יָתֵר עַל פְּחָתוֹ כְּגוֹן קַרְדֹּם וּמַסַּר [הַגָּדוֹל] וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לְהַשְׂכִּירוֹ וּמְנַכֶּה שְׂכָרוֹ תָּמִיד בְּחוֹבוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁזֶּה כְּמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵדָה וְאֵין צָרִיךְ רְשׁוּת בְּעָלִים: \n" + ], + [ + "נֶשֶׁךְ וּמַרְבִּית אֶחָד הוּא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כה לז) \"אֶת כַּסְפְּךָ לֹא תִתֵּן לוֹ בְּנֶשֶׁךְ וּבְמַרְבִּית לֹא תִתֵּן אָכְלֶךָ\" וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר (דברים כג כ) \"נֶשֶׁךְ כֶּסֶף נֶשֶׁךְ אֹכֶל נֶשֶׁךְ כָּל דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׁךְ\". וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ נֶשֶׁךְ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא נוֹשֵׁךְ שֶׁמְּצַעֵר אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ וְאוֹכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ. וְלָמָּה חִלְּקָן הַכָּתוּב לַעֲבֹר עָלָיו בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין: \n", + "כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאָסוּר לְהַלְווֹת כָּךְ אָסוּר לִלְווֹת בְּרִבִּית שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג כ) \"לֹא תַשִּׁיךְ לְאָחִיךָ\" מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁזּוֹ אַזְהָרָה לַלּוֶֹה כְּלוֹמַר לֹא תִּנְשֹׁךְ לְאָחִיךְ. וְכֵן אָסוּר לְהִתְעַסֵּק בֵּין לוֶֹה וּמַלְוֶה בְּרִבִּית. וְכָל מִי שֶׁהָיָה עָרֵב אוֹ סוֹפֵר אוֹ עֵד בֵּינֵיהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב כד) \"לֹא תְשִׂימוּן עָלָיו נֶשֶׁךְ\" זוֹ אַזְהָרָה אַף לָעֵדִים וְלָעָרֵב וְלַסּוֹפֵר. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁהַמַּלְוֶה בְּרִבִּית עוֹבֵר עַל שִׁשָּׁה לָאוִין. (שמות כב כד) \"לֹא תִהְיֶה לוֹ כְּנשֶׁה\". (ויקרא כה לז) \"אֶת כַּסְפְּךָ לֹא תִתֵּן לוֹ בְּנֶשֶׁךְ\". (ויקרא כה לז) \"וּבְמַרְבִּית לֹא תִתֵּן אָכְלֶךָ\". (ויקרא כה לו) \"אַל תִּקַּח מֵאִתּוֹ נֶשֶׁךְ וְתַרְבִּית\". לֹא תְשִׂימוּן עָלָיו נֶשֶׁךְ. (ויקרא יט יד) \"וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשׁל\". וְהַלּוֶֹה עוֹבֵר בִּשְׁנַיִם. לֹא תַשִּׁיךְ לְאָחִיךָ. וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשׁל. עָרֵב וְעֵדִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן אֵין עוֹבְרִין אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם לֹא תְשִׂימוּן עָלָיו נֶשֶׁךְ. וְכָל מִי שֶׁהָיָה סַרְסוּר בֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶם אוֹ שֶׁסִּיֵּעַ אֶחָד מֵהֶן אוֹ הוֹרָהוּ עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם לִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשׁל: \n", + "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַמַּלְוֶה וְהַלּוֶֹה עוֹבְרִין עַל כָּל אֵלּוּ הַלָּאוִין אֵינָן לוֹקִין עָלָיו מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּתָּן לְהִשָּׁבוֹן. שֶׁכָּל הַמַּלְוֶה בְּרִבִּית אִם הָיְתָה רִבִּית קְצוּצָה שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה הֲרֵי זוֹ יוֹצְאָה בְּדַיָּנִין וּמוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִן הַמַּלְוֶה וּמַחְזִירִין לַלּוֶֹה. וְאִם מֵת הַמַּלְוֶה אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיַּד הַבָּנִים: \n", + "הִנִּיחַ לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם מָעוֹת שֶׁל רִבִּית אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן יוֹדְעִין שֶׁהֵן שֶׁל רִבִּית אֵינָן חַיָּבִים לְהַחְזִיר. הִנִּיחַ לָהֶם פָּרָה וְטַלִּית שֶׁל רִבִּית וְכָל דָּבָר הַמְסֻיָּם חַיָּבִים לְהַחְזִיר מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד אֲבִיהֶן. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁעָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְהַחְזִיר עַד שֶׁמֵּת. אֲבָל אִם לֹא עָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִכְבוֹדוֹ וַאֲפִלּוּ דָּבָר הַמְסֻיָּם אֵין מַחֲזִירִין: \n", + "הַגַּזְלָנִין וּמַלְוֵי בְּרִבִּית שֶׁהֶחְזִירוּ אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מֵהֶן כְּדֵי לִפְתֹּחַ לָהֶן דֶּרֶךְ לִתְשׁוּבָה. וְכָל הַמְקַבֵּל מֵהֶן אֵין רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה הֵימֶנּוּ. אִם הָיְתָה גְּזֵלָה קַיֶּמֶת וְהָרִבִּית דָּבָר הַמְסֻיָּם וַהֲרֵי הוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ מְקַבְּלִין מֵהֶן: \n", + "שְׁטָר שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ רִבִּית בֵּין קְצוּצָה בֵּין שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה אֶת הָרִבִּית. קָדַם וְגָבָה הַכּל מוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ הָרִבִּית קְצוּצָה. אֲבָל אֲבַק רִבִּית שֶׁהוּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִן הַלּוֶֹה לַמַּלְוֶה וְאֵין מַחֲזִירִין אוֹתוֹ מִן הַמַּלְוֶה לַלּוֶֹה: \n", + "כָּל הַכּוֹתֵב שְׁטַר רִבִּית הֲרֵי זֶה כְּכוֹתֵב וּמֵעִיד עָלָיו עֵדִים שֶׁכָּפַר בַּה' אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְכֵן כָּל הַלּוֶֹה וּמַלְוֶה בְּרִבִּית בֵּינָן לְבֵין עַצְמָן הֲרֵי הֵן כְּכוֹפְרִים בַּה' אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכָפְרוּ בִּיצִיאַת מִצְרַיִם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כה לז) \"אֶת כַּסְפְּךָ לֹא תִתֵּן לוֹ בְּנֶשֶׁךְ\" וְגוֹ' (ויקרא כה לח) \"אֲנִי ה' אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִי אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם\": \n", + "אָסוּר לְאָדָם לְהַלְווֹת בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵּיתוֹ בְּרִבִּית. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַקְפִּיד וּמַתָּנָה הוּא שֶׁנּוֹתֵן לָהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר שֶׁמָּא יַרְגִּילֵם בְּדָבָר זֶה: \n", + "תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁהִלְווּ זֶה אֶת זֶה וְנָתַן לוֹ יֶתֶר עַל מַה שֶּׁהִלְוָה מִמֶּנּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר שֶׁהַדָּבָר יָדוּעַ שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן לוֹ אֶלָּא מַתָּנָה שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵן יוֹדְעִין חֹמֶר אִסּוּר הָרִבִּית: \n", + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ וּמָצָא הַלּוֶֹה יוֹתֵר [אוֹ שֶׁהֶחְזִיר לוֹ חוֹבוֹ וּמָצָא הַמַּלְוֶה יוֹתֵר] אִם בִּכְדֵי שֶׁהַדַּעַת טוֹעָה חַיָּב לְהַחְזִיר וְאִם לָאו מַתָּנָה הוּא שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ אוֹ גְּזֵלָה הָיְתָה לוֹ בְּיָדוֹ וְהִבְלִיעַ לוֹ בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹן אוֹ אַחֵר צִוָּה לְהַבְלִיעַ לוֹ. בְּכַמָּה הַדַּעַת טוֹעָה בְּאֶחָד וּבִשְׁנַיִם אוֹ בַּחֲמִשָּׁה אוֹ בַּעֲשָׂרָה שֶׁמָּא מָנָה חֲמִשָּׁה חֲמִשָּׁה אוֹ עֲשָׂרָה עֲשָׂרָה. וְכֵן אִם מָצָא יָתֵר מִנְיַן הַחֲמִישִׁיּוֹת אוֹ מִנְיַן הָעֲשִׂירִיּוֹת אֶחָד אֶחָד חַיָּב לְהַחְזִיר לוֹ שֶׁמָּא הָאֲחָדִים שֶׁהָיָה מוֹנֶה בָּהֶן הַחֲמִישִׁיּוֹת אוֹ הָעֲשִׂירִיּוֹת נִתְעָרְבוּ עִמָּהֶם: \n", + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ עַל הַמַּטְבֵּעַ וְכֵן הַכּוֹתֵב לְאִשְׁתּוֹ בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ מַטְבֵּעַ יָדוּעַ וּפֵרֵשׁ מִשְׁקָלוֹ וְהוֹסִיפוּ עַל מִשְׁקָלוֹ אִם הוּזְלוּ הַפֵּרוֹת מֵחֲמַת הַתּוֹסֶפֶת מְנַכֶּה לוֹ שִׁעוּר הַתּוֹסֶפֶת וַאֲפִלּוּ הוֹסִיפוּ עָלָיו כָּל שֶׁהוּא. וְאִם לֹא הוּזְלוּ מֵחֲמַת הַתּוֹסֶפֶת אֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן לוֹ מִמַּטְבֵּעַ הַיּוֹצֵא בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁהוֹסִיפוּ עָלָיו עַד חֲמִישִׁיתוֹ כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה מִשְׁקָלוֹ אַרְבָּעָה וַעֲשָׂאוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה אֲבָל אִם הוֹסִיפוּ לוֹ יוֹתֵר עַל חֲמִישִׁיתוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ כָּל הַתּוֹסֶפֶת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הוּזְלוּ הַפֵּרוֹת. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְמַלְוֶה עַל הַמַּטְבֵּעַ וּפָחֲתוּ מִמֶּנּוּ: \n", + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ עַל הַמַּטְבֵּעַ וְנִפְסַל אִם יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ בִּמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת וְיֵשׁ לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ לְאוֹתָהּ מְדִינָה נוֹתֵן לוֹ מִמַּטְבֵּעַ שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ לֵךְ וְהוֹצִיאוֹ בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. וְאִם אֵין לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ לְשָׁם נוֹתֵן לוֹ מִמַּטְבֵּעַ הַיּוֹצֵא בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה. וְכֵן בִּכְתֻבָּה: \n", + "הוֹרוּ מִקְצָת הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁהַלּוֶֹה שֶׁמָּחַל לַמַּלְוֶה בְּרִבִּית שֶׁלָּקַח מִמֶּנּוּ אוֹ שֶׁעָתִיד לִקַּח אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ שֶׁמָּחַל אוֹ נָתַן מַתָּנָה אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל כְּלוּם שֶׁכָּל רִבִּית שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם מְחִילָה הִיא אֲבָל הַתּוֹרָה לֹא מָחֲלָה וְאָסְרָה מְחִילָה זוֹ וּלְפִיכָךְ אֵין הַמְּחִילָה מוֹעֶלֶת בְּרִבִּית אֲפִלּוּ בְּרִבִּית שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם. יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאֵין הוֹרָאָה זוֹ נְכוֹנָה אֶלָּא מֵאַחַר שֶׁאוֹמְרִים לַמַּלְוֶה לְהַחְזִיר לוֹ וְיָדַע הַמַּלְוֶה שֶׁדְּבַר אִסּוּר עָשָׂה וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לִטּל מִמֶּנּוּ אִם רָצָה לִמְחל מוֹחֵל כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמּוֹחֵל הַגֵּזֶל. וּבְפֵרוּשׁ אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁהַגַּזְלָנִין וּמַלְוֵי בְּרִבִּית שֶׁהֶחְזִירוּ אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מֵהֶן מִכְּלָל שֶׁהַמְּחִילָה מוֹעֶלֶת: \n", + "נִכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים מֻתָּר לִתֵּן אוֹתָם לְאָדָם נֶאֱמָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ נְכָסִים טוֹבִים קָרוֹב לְשָׂכָר וְרָחוֹק לְהֶפְסֵד. כֵּיצַד. אוֹמֵר לוֹ תִּהְיֶה נוֹשֵׂא וְנוֹתֵן בָּהֶן אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם רֶוַח תֵּן לָהֶם חֶלְקָן מִן הָרֶוַח וְאִם יֵשׁ שָׁם הֶפְסֵד תַּפְסִיד אַתָּה לְבַדְּךָ שֶׁזֶּה אֲבַק רִבִּית הוּא וְכָל אֲבַק רִבִּית אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם וּבְנִכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים לֹא גָּזְרוּ: \n" + ], + [ + "הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְגֵר תּוֹשָׁב לוִֹין מֵהֶן וּמַלְוִין אוֹתָן בְּרִבִּית שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג כ) \"לֹא תַשִּׁיךְ לְאָחִיךָ\" לְאָחִיךְ אָסוּר וְלִשְׁאָר הָעוֹלָם מֻתָּר. וּמִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לְהַשִּׁיךְ לְעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג כא) \"לַנָּכְרִי תַשִּׁיךְ\" מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁזּוֹ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה וְזֶהוּ דִּין תּוֹרָה: \n", + "אָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁיִּהְיֶה יִשְׂרָאֵל מַלְוֶה אֶת הָעַכּוּ\"ם בְּרִבִּית קְצוּצָה אֶלָּא בִּכְדֵי חַיָּיו. גָּזְרוּ שֶׁמָּא יִלְמֹד מִמַּעֲשָׂיו בְּרֹב יְשִׁיבָתוֹ עִמּוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ מֻתָּר לִלְווֹת מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם בְּרִבִּית שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא בּוֹרֵחַ מִלְּפָנָיו וְאֵינוֹ רָגִיל אֶצְלוֹ. וְתַלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָגִיל בּוֹ לִלְמֹד מִמַּעֲשָׂיו מֻתָּר לְהַלְווֹת לָעַכּוּ\"ם בְּרִבִּית אֲפִלּוּ לְהַרְוִיחַ. וְכָל אֲבַק רִבִּית עִם הָעַכּוּ\"ם מֻתֶּרֶת לַכּל: \n", + "יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלָּוָה מָעוֹת מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם בְּרִבִּית וּבִקֵּשׁ לְהַחְזִירָם לוֹ. מְצָאוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר וְאָמַר לוֹ תְּנֵם לִי וַאֲנִי מַעֲלֶה לְךָ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאַתָּה מַעֲלֶה לָעַכּוּ\"ם. הֲרֵי זוֹ רִבִּית קְצוּצָה אֲפִלּוּ הֶעֱמִידוֹ אֵצֶל הָעַכּוּ\"ם עַד שֶׁיִּטּל הָעַכּוּ\"ם מְעוֹתָיו וְיַחְזֹר וְיִתְּנֵם בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל הָאַחֵר: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁלָּוָה מָעוֹת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל בְּרִבִּית וּבִקֵּשׁ לְהַחְזִירָם לוֹ. מְצָאוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר וְאָמַר לוֹ תְּנֵם לִי וַאֲנִי מַעֲלֶה לְךָ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאַתָּה מַעֲלֶה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְאִם הֶעֱמִידוֹ אֵצֶל יִשְׂרָאֵל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּתַן הָעַכּוּ\"ם הַמָּעוֹת בְּיָדוֹ הוֹאִיל וּמִדַּעַת יִשְׂרָאֵל נָתַן הֲרֵי זוֹ רִבִּית קְצוּצָה: \n", + "אָסוּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לִתְלוֹת מְעוֹתָיו בְּיַד עַכּוּ\"ם כְּדֵי לְהַלְווֹתָן בְּרִבִּית לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. וְעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁהִלְוָה אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּרִבִּית אָסוּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר לִהְיוֹת לוֹ עָרֵב שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁבְּדִינֵיהֶם שֶׁתּוֹבֵעַ הֶעָרֵב תְּחִלָּה נִמְצָא הֶעָרֵב תּוֹבֵעַ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּרִבִּית שֶׁהֶעָרֵב חַיָּב בָּהּ לָעַכּוּ\"ם. לְפִיכָךְ אִם קִבֵּל עָלָיו הָעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁלֹּא יִתְבַּע אֶת הֶעָרֵב תְּחִלָּה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר: \n", + "יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלָּוָה מָעוֹת מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם בְּרִבִּית וּזְקָפָן עָלָיו בְּמִלְוֶה וְנִתְגַּיֵּר אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגַּיֵּר זְקָפָן עָלָיו בְּמִלְוֶה גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְהָרִבִּית וְאִם מִשֶּׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר זְקָפָן עָלָיו בְּמִלְוֶה גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא אֶת הָרִבִּית. אֲבָל עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁלָּוָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל בְּרִבִּית וְזָקַף עָלָיו אֶת הָרִבִּית בְּמִלְוֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁזְּקָפָן עָלָיו אַחֵר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאֶת הָרִבִּית שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ בִּשְׁבִיל מְעוֹתָיו נִתְגַּיֵּר זֶה. וְגוֹבֶה הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִמֶּנּוּ אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר כָּל מְעוֹת הָרִבִּית שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב בָּהֶן כְּשֶׁהָיָה עַכּוּ\"ם: \n", + "מִצְוָה לְהַקְדִּים הַלְוָאַת יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּחִנָּם לְהַלְוָאַת עַכּוּ\"ם בְּרִבִּית: \n", + "אָסוּר לְאָדָם שֶׁיִּתֵּן מְעוֹתָיו קָרוֹב לְשָׂכָר וְרָחוֹק לְהֶפְסֵד שֶׁזֶּה אֲבַק רִבִּית הוּא וְהָעוֹשֶׂה כֵן נִקְרָא רָשָׁע. וְאִם נָתַן חוֹלְקִין בַּשָּׂכָר וּבַהֶפְסֵד כְּדִין הָעֵסֶק. וְהַנּוֹתֵן מְעוֹתָיו קָרוֹב לְהֶפְסֵד וְרָחוֹק לְשָׂכָר הֲרֵי זֶה נִקְרָא חָסִיד: \n", + "אֵין מוֹשִׁיבִין חֶנְוָנִי לְמַחֲצִית שָׂכָר וְלֹא יִתֵּן מָעוֹת לִקַּח בָּהֶן פֵּרוֹת לְמַחֲצִית שָׂכָר וְלֹא בֵּיצִים לְהוֹשִׁיב תַּחַת הַתַּרְנְגוֹלִין שֶׁלּוֹ לְמַחֲצִית שָׂכָר וְאֵין שָׁמִין עֲגָלִים וּסְיָחִין לְפַטְּמָן לְמַחֲצִית שָׂכָר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נָתַן לוֹ שְׂכַר עֲמָלוֹ וּמְזוֹנוֹ. אוֹ יִהְיֶה רֶוַח הַמִּתְעַסֵּק יוֹתֵר עַל הֶפְסֵדוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּעִנְיַן הַשֻּׁתָּפוּת: \n", + "הַמִּשְׁתַּתֵּף עִם חֲבֵרוֹ בְּמָעוֹת אוֹ בְּקַרְקַע אוֹ הַנּוֹתֵן לוֹ עֵסֶק לֹא יְצָרֵף הַשָּׂכָר עִם הַקֶּרֶן שֶׁמָּא לֹא יִהְיֶה שָׁם שָׂכָר וְנִמְצְאוּ בָּאִין לִידֵי רִבִּית. וְכֵן לֹא יִתֵּן לוֹ מָעוֹת בְּתוֹרַת עֵסֶק אוֹ שֻׁתָּפוּת וְיִכְתֹּב אוֹתָן מִלְוֶה שֶׁמָּא יָמוּת וְנִמְצָא הַשְּׁטָר בְּיַד הַיּוֹרֵשׁ וְגוֹבֶה בּוֹ אֶת הָרִבִּית: \n", + "אָסוּר לְהַקְדִּים הָרִבִּית אוֹ לְאַחֵר אוֹתוֹ. כֵּיצַד. נָתַן עֵינָיו לִלְווֹת מִמֶּנּוּ וְהָיָה מְשַׁלֵּחַ לוֹ סִבְלוֹנוֹת בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיַּלְוֵהוּ זוֹ הִיא רִבִּית מֻקְדֶּמֶת. לָוָה מִמֶּנּוּ וְהֶחְזִיר לוֹ מְעוֹתָיו וְהָיָה מְשַׁלֵּחַ לוֹ סִבְלוֹנוֹת בִּשְׁבִיל מְעוֹתָיו שֶׁהָיוּ בְּטֵלִין אֶצְלוֹ זוֹ הִיא רִבִּית מְאֻחֶרֶת. וְאִם עָבַר וְעוֹשֶׂה כֵן הֲרֵי זֶה אֲבַק רִבִּית: \n", + "מִי שֶׁלָּוָה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וְלֹא הָיָה רָגִיל מִקֹּדֶם לְהַקְדִּים לוֹ שָׁלוֹם אָסוּר לְהַקְדִּים לוֹ שָׁלוֹם. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁיְּקַלְּסוֹ בִּדְבָרִים אוֹ יַשְׁכִּים לְפִתְחוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג כ) \"נֶשֶׁךְ כָּל דָּבָר\" אֲפִלּוּ דְּבָרִים אֲסוּרִים. וְכֵן אָסוּר לוֹ לְלַמֵּד אֶת הַמַּלְוֶה מִקְרָא אוֹ גְּמָרָא כָּל זְמַן שֶׁמְּעוֹתָיו בְּיָדוֹ אִם לֹא הָיָה רָגִיל בָּזֶה מִקֹּדֶם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר נֶשֶׁךְ כָּל דָּבָר: \n", + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ דַּע אִם בָּא אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי (כְּלוֹמַר) שֶׁתְּכַבְּדוֹ וְתַאֲכִילוֹ וְתַשְׁקֵהוּ כָּרָאוּי. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "יֵשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן כְּמוֹ רִבִּית וּמֻתָּרִין כֵּיצַד. לוֹקֵחַ אָדָם שִׁטְרוֹתָיו שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ בְּפָחוֹת וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. וּמֻתָּר לְאָדָם לִתֵּן לַחֲבֵרוֹ דִּינָר כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּלְוֶה לִפְלוֹנִי מֵאָה דִּינָרִין שֶׁלֹּא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא רִבִּית הַבָּאָה מִן הַלּוֶֹה לַמַּלְוֶה. וְכֵן אוֹמֵר אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ הֵא לְךָ דִּינָר זֶה וֶאֱמֹר לִפְלוֹנִי שֶׁיַּלְוֵנִי. שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן אֶלָּא שְׂכַר אֲמִירָה: \n", + "יֵשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן מֻתָּרִין וְאָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹתָן מִפְּנֵי הַעֲרָמַת רִבִּית. כֵּיצַד. אָמַר לוֹ הַלְוֵנִי מָנֶה אָמַר לוֹ מָנֶה אֵין לִי חִטִּים יֵשׁ לִי בְּמָנֶה וְנָתַן לוֹ חִטִּים בְּמָנֶה וְחָזַר וּלְקָחָן מִמֶּנּוּ בְּתִשְׁעִים הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. אֲבָל אֲסָרוּהוּ מִפְּנֵי הַעֲרָמַת רִבִּית שֶׁהֲרֵי נָתַן לוֹ תִּשְׁעִים וְלוֹקֵחַ מָנֶה. וְאִם עָבַר וְעָשָׂה כָּזֶה הֲרֵי הוּא מוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ מֵאָה בְּדִין שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ אֲבַק רִבִּית אֵין כָּאן. וְכֵן מִי שֶׁהָיְתָה שָׂדֶה מְמֻשְׁכֶּנֶת בְּיָדוֹ לֹא יַחְזֹר וְיַשְׂכִּיר אוֹתָהּ לְבַעַל הַשָּׂדֶה מִפְּנֵי הַעֲרָמַת רִבִּית שֶׁהֲרֵי זֶה עוֹמֵד בְּשָׂדֵהוּ כְּשֶׁהָיָה וְנוֹתֵן לָזֶה שָׂכָר בְּכָל חֹדֶשׁ בִּשְׁבִיל מְעוֹתָיו שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ: \n", + "אָסוּר לְהַשְׂכִּיר הַדִּינָרִין שֶׁאֵין זֶה דּוֹמֶה לְמַשְׂכִּיר אֶת הַכְּלִי שֶׁהַכְּלִי חוֹזֵר בְּעַצְמוֹ וְזֶה מוֹצִיא אֵלּוּ וּמֵבִיא דִּינָרִין אֲחֵרוֹת וְנִמְצָא זֶה אֲבַק רִבִּית: \n", + "מֶלֶךְ שֶׁהָיוּ דִּינָיו שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁיִּתֵּן הַמַּס הַקָּצוּב עַל כָּל אִישׁ וְאִישׁ עַל יְדֵי זֶה שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן יִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד בּוֹ וְנָתַן עַל יָדוֹ דִּינָר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּשַׁעְבֵּד בּוֹ יֶתֶר מִדִּינָר הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n" + ], + [ + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ סֶלַע בַּחֲמִשָּׁה דִּינָרִים אוֹ סָאתַיִם חִטִּים בְּשָׁלֹשׁ אוֹ סֶלַע בְּסֶלַע וּסְאָה אוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ סְאִין בְּשָׁלֹשׁ סְאִין וְדִינָר כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר כָּל הַלְוָאָה בְּתוֹסֶפֶת כָּל שֶׁהוּא הֲרֵי זוֹ רִבִּית שֶׁל תּוֹרָה וְיוֹצְאָה בְּדַיָּנִין. וְכֵן הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ וְהִתְנָה עִמּוֹ שֶׁיָּדוּר בַּחֲצֵרוֹ חִנָּם עַד שֶׁיַּחְזִיר לוֹ הַלְוָאָתוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׂכַר מִמֶּנּוּ בְּפָחוֹת וְקָצַב הַדָּבָר שֶׁפּוֹחֵת לוֹ מִן הַשָּׂכָר עַד שֶׁיַּחְזִיר לוֹ הַלְוָאָתוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁמִּשְׁכֵּן בְּיָדוֹ מָקוֹם שֶׁפֵּרוֹתָיו מְצוּיִין בְּעֵת הַהַלְוָאָה כְּגוֹן שֶׁמִּשְׁכֵּן חֲצֵרוֹ עַל מְנָת שֶׁיָּדוּר בּוֹ בְּחִנָּם. הֲרֵי זוֹ רִבִּית שֶׁל תּוֹרָה וְיוֹצְאָה בְּדַיָּנִין. וְכֵן הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה אוֹ חָצֵר בְּאַסְמַכְתָּא הוֹאִיל וְלֹא קָנָה הַגּוּף הֲרֵי כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל רִבִּית וּמַחֲזִיר אוֹתָן. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְכָל מִי [שֶׁלֹּא] קָנָה קִנְיָן גָּמוּר מִתְּחִלָּה שֶׁהוּא מַחְזִיר אֶת הַפֵּרוֹת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאִם אָכַל אֶת הַפֵּרוֹת הֲרֵי זוֹ רִבִּית שֶׁל תּוֹרָה. וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם רִבִּית חוּץ מֵאֵלּוּ הֲרֵי הוּא אָסוּר מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יָבֹא לְרִבִּית שֶׁל תּוֹרָה. וְהוּא הַנִּקְרָא אֲבַק רִבִּית וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בְּדַיָּנִין: \n", + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ לֹא יִמְשֹׁךְ אֶת עַבְדּוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בּוֹ מְלָאכָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָעֶבֶד יוֹשֵׁב וּבָטֵל. וְלֹא יָדוּר בַּחֲצֵרוֹ בְּחִנָּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הֶחָצֵר עֲשׂוּיָה לְשָׂכָר וְאֵין דֶּרֶךְ בַּעַל הֶחָצֵר לְהַשְׂכִּיר. וְאִם דָּר צָרִיךְ לְהַעֲלוֹת לוֹ שָׂכָר. וְאִם לֹא הֶעֱלָה לוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה אֲבַק רִבִּית לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא הִתְנָה עִמּוֹ שֶׁיַּלְוֵהוּ וְיָדוּר בַּחֲצֵרוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם עֲדַיִן לֹא הֶחְזִיר לוֹ חוֹבוֹ וּבָא לְנַכּוֹת שְׂכַר הֶחָצֵר שֶׁדָּר בָּהּ מִן הַחוֹב אִם הָיָה הַשָּׂכָר כְּנֶגֶד הַחוֹב אֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ הַכּל אֶלָּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּרְאוּ הַדַּיָּנִים. שֶׁאִם תְּסַלֵּק אוֹתוֹ בְּלֹא כְּלוּם הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמוֹ שֶׁהוֹצִיא אוֹתוֹ בְּדַיָּנִין וַאֲבַק רִבִּית אֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה בְּדַיָּנִין: \n", + "הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁהַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ וּלְאַחַר זְמַן תָּבַע חוֹבוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ הַלּוֶֹה דּוּר בַּחֲצֵרִי עַד שֶׁאַחְזִיר לְךָ חוֹבְךָ הֲרֵי זֶה אֲבַק רִבִּית לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא קָצַץ בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כה לז) \"לֹא תִתֵּן לוֹ בְּנֶשֶׁךְ\": \n", + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ עַל הַשָּׂדֶה וְאָמַר לוֹ אִם לֹא תַּחְזִיר לִי מִכָּאן עַד שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁלִּי הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא קָנָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא אַסְמַכְתָּא. לְפִיכָךְ מְנַכֶּה כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא רִבִּית שֶׁל תּוֹרָה. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ הַמּוֹכֵר אִם לֹא אַחְזִיר לְךָ עַד שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים קְנֵה אוֹתָהּ מֵעַכְשָׁו וְהֵבִיא לוֹ בְּתוֹךְ שָׁלֹשׁ אֵין לוֹ פֵּרוֹת. הֵבִיא לוֹ לְאַחַר שָׁלֹשׁ הֲרֵי כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת לַלּוֹקֵחַ: \n", + "הַמּוֹכֵר בַּיִת אוֹ שָׂדֶה וְאָמַר הַמּוֹכֵר לַלּוֹקֵחַ לִכְשֶׁיִּהְיוּ לִי מָעוֹת תַּחְזִיר לִי קַרְקָעִי לֹא קָנָה וְכָל הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל רִבִּית קְצוּצָה וּמוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָם בְּדַיָּנִין. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ הַלּוֹקֵחַ מִדַּעְתּוֹ כְּשֶׁיִּהְיוּ לְךָ מָעוֹת אֲנִי אַחְזִיר לְךָ קַרְקַע זֶה מֻתָּר וְהַלּוֹקֵחַ אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת עַד שֶׁיַּחְזִיר לוֹ מְעוֹתָיו: \n", + "מָכַר לוֹ אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה וְנָתַן לוֹ מִקְצָת הַדָּמִים אִם אָמַר לוֹ הַמּוֹכֵר לַלּוֹקֵחַ קְנֵה כְּשִׁעוּר מְעוֹתֶיךָ כָּל אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת כְּשִׁעוּר מְעוֹתָיו. אָמַר הַמּוֹכֵר לַלּוֹקֵחַ לִכְשֶׁתָּבִיא שְׁאָר הַמָּעוֹת תִּקְנֶה מֵעַכְשָׁו שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲסוּרִים לֶאֱכל הַפֵּרוֹת מִיָּד. הַמּוֹכֵר אָסוּר שֶׁמָּא יָבִיא הַלּוֹקֵחַ שְׁאָר הַמָּעוֹת וְנִמְצֵאת הַשָּׂדֶה שֶׁלּוֹ וְנִמְצָא הַמּוֹכֵר אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת בִּשְׁבִיל הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁנִּשְׁאֲרוּ לוֹ אֵצֶל הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְכֵן הַלּוֹקֵחַ אָסוּר שֶׁמָּא לֹא יָבִיא וְנִמְצָא שֶׁאָכַל בִּשְׁבִיל מִקְצָת הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אֵצֶל הַמּוֹכֵר. לְפִיכָךְ מַנִּיחִין אֶת הַפֵּרוֹת עַל יְדֵי שָׁלִישׁ עַד שֶׁיִּנָּתְנוּ לְאֶחָד מֵהֶן. אָמַר לוֹ הַמּוֹכֵר לִכְשֶׁתָּבִיא שְׁאָר הַמָּעוֹת תִּקְנֶה הֲרֵי הַמּוֹכֵר אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְאִם אָכַל הַלּוֹקֵחַ מוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ. אָמַר לוֹ הַמּוֹכֵר קְנֵה מֵעַכְשָׁו וּשְׁאָר הַמָּעוֹת הֲרֵי הֵן חוֹב אֶצְלְךָ הֲרֵי הַלּוֹקֵחַ אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת וְאִם אָכַל הַמּוֹכֵר מוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ כָּל מַה שֶּׁאָכַל: \n", + "הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁהַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ וּמִשְׁכֵּן לוֹ שָׂדֵהוּ עַל מְנָת שֶׁיֹּאכַל פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ כָּל יְמֵי הַמַּשְׁכּוֹנָא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ כְּלוּם הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲבַק רִבִּית וְאֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה בְּדַיָּנִין שֶׁאֵין הַמְמַשְׁכֵּן אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה דּוֹמֶה לִמְמַשְׁכֵּן בַּיִת שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין בַּשָּׂדֶה פֵּרוֹת מְצוּיִין בְּעֵת הַהַלְוָאָה וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיַּרְוִיחַ וְיִהְיוּ שָׁם פֵּרוֹת וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיַּפְסִיד בִּזְרִיעָתָהּ וַעֲבוֹדָתָהּ וּלְפִיכָךְ הִיא אֲבַק רִבִּית. וְכֵן אֵין הַמַּשְׁכּוֹנָא דּוֹמָה לְמִי שֶׁמָּכַר בְּאַסְמַכְתָּא שֶׁהַמּוֹכֵר בְּאַסְמַכְתָּא לֹא גָּמַר וְהִקְנָהוּ וְהַמְמַשְׁכֵּן גָּמַר וְהִקְנָהוּ גּוּף זֶה לְפֵרוֹתָיו. וְכָזֶה יֵרָאֶה מִן הַגְּמָרָא. שֶׁהַמַּשְׁכּוֹנָא אֲבַק רִבִּית וְאֵין לְךָ לְהַעֲמִידָהּ אֶלָּא בִּמְמַשְׁכֵּן שָׂדֵהוּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁהוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי. נִמְצֵאתָ לָמֵד שֶׁשָּׁלֹשׁ מַשְׁכּוֹנוֹת הֵן. מַשְׁכּוֹנָא שֶׁהִיא רִבִּית קְצוּצָה. וּמַשְׁכּוֹנָא שֶׁהִיא אֲבַק רִבִּית. וּמַשְׁכּוֹנָא שֶׁהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת. כֵּיצַד. מִשְׁכֵּן לוֹ מָקוֹם שֶׁפֵּרוֹתָיו מְצוּיִין תָּדִיר כְּגוֹן חָצֵר אוֹ מֶרְחָץ אוֹ חֲנוּת וְאָכַל פֵּרוֹתֵיהֶן הֲרֵי זוֹ רִבִּית קְצוּצָה. מִשְׁכֵּן לוֹ שָׂדֶה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ וּבָאוּ שָׁם פֵּרוֹת וַאֲכָלָן הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲבַק רִבִּית. וְכֵן אִם מִשְׁכֵּן חֲצֵרוֹ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ בְּנִכּוּי הֲרֵי זֶה אֲבַק רִבִּית. מִשְׁכֵּן שָׂדֵהוּ בְּנִכּוּי הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. כֵּיצַד הוּא הַנִּכּוּי. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ מֵאָה דִּינָרִין וּמִשְׁכֵּן לוֹ בָּהֶן חֲצֵרוֹ אוֹ שָׂדֵהוּ וְאָמַר לוֹ הַמַּלְוֶה הֲרֵינִי מְנַכֶּה לְךָ מָעָה כֶּסֶף בְּכָל שָׁנָה בִּשְׂכַר קַרְקַע זוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כָּל פֵּרוֹתָיו שֶׁלִּי בְּחָצֵר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ אָסוּר וּבְשָׂדֶה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ מֻתָּר: \n", + "הוֹרוּ מִקְצָת גְּאוֹנִים שֶׁכָּל מַשְׁכּוֹנָא שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ נִכּוּי כְּלָל הֲרֵי הִיא רִבִּית קְצוּצָה. וְלֹא יָרְדוּ לְעֹמֶק הַדָּבָר לְהַפְרִישׁ בֵּין שָׂדֶה לְחָצֵר וּלְפִיכָךְ נִתְקַשּׁוּ לָהֶן דִּבְרֵי חַכְמֵי הַגְּמָרָא. וְכֵן הוֹרוּ שֶׁכָּל מַשְׁכּוֹנָא אֲפִלּוּ בְּנִכּוּי אָסוּר בֵּין בְּחָצֵר בֵּין בְּשָׂדֶה וְאֵין לָהֶם מַשְׁכּוֹנָא מֻתֶּרֶת אֶלָּא בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֹּאת. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ מֵאָה דִּינָרִין וּמִשְׁכֵּן לוֹ בָּהֶן בַּיִת אוֹ שָׂדֶה וְהִתְנָה עִמּוֹ שֶׁאַחַר עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים תַּחְזֹר קַרְקַע זוֹ לִבְעָלֶיהָ חִנָּם הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לֶאֱכל פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ כָּל עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה שְׂכָרָהּ שָׁוֶה אֶלֶף דִּינָרִים בְּכָל שָׁנָה שֶׁאֵין זֶה אֶלָּא כְּמִי שֶׁשָּׂכַר בְּפָחוֹת. וְכֵן אִם הִתְנָה בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה עִמּוֹ כָּל זְמַן שֶׁיָּבִיא לוֹ מָעוֹת יֵחָשֵׁב לוֹ עֶשֶׂר בְּכָל שָׁנָה וִיסַלְּקוֹ מִמֶּנָּה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְכֵן אִם הִתְנָה הַלּוֶֹה שֶׁכָּל זְמַן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה מְחַשֵּׁב לוֹ מַה שֶּׁדָּר בּוֹ וְיַחְזִיר לוֹ שְׁאָר הַדָּמִים וְיִסְתַּלֵּק הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר שֶׁאֵין זֶה אֶלָּא כִּשְׂכִירוּת וְכָל תְּנַאי שֶׁבִּשְׂכִירוּת מֻתָּר כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n" + ], + [ + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ וּמִשְׁכֵּן לוֹ אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה עַד זְמַן קָצוּב אוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא לוֹ מָעוֹת וְיִסְתַּלֵּק וְהָיָה הַמַּלְוֶה אוֹכֵל כָּל פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ אֲפִלּוּ אָכַל כְּשִׁעוּר חוֹבוֹ אֵין מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ בְּלֹא כְּלוּם שֶׁאִם תְּסַלֵּק אוֹתוֹ בְּלֹא מָעוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִי שֶׁהוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ בְּדַיָּנִין. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁאִם אָכַל יֶתֶר עַל מְעוֹתָיו אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ. וְכֵן אֵין מְחַשְּׁבִין מִשְּׁטָר לִשְׁטָר בְּמַשְׁכּוֹנָא. הָיְתָה הַקַּרְקַע הַמְמֻשְׁכֶּנֶת בְּיָדוֹ שֶׁל יְתוֹמִים וְאָכַל שִׁעוּר חוֹבוֹ מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ בְּלֹא כְּלוּם. אֲבָל יֶתֶר עַל חוֹבוֹ אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ הַיֶּתֶר. וּמְחַשְּׁבִין לוֹ מִשְּׁטָר לִשְׁטָר. כֵּיצַד מְחַשְּׁבִין מִשְּׁטָר לִשְׁטָר. הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיְתָה שָׂדֶה זוֹ מְמֻשְׁכֶּנֶת לוֹ בְּמֵאָה דִּינָר וְשָׂדֶה אַחֶרֶת מְמֻשְׁכֶּנֶת לוֹ בִּשְׁטָר אַחֵר בְּמֵאָה דִּינָר וּשְׁתֵּי הַשָּׂדוֹת לְאָדָם אֶחָד וְאָכַל מִפֵּרוֹת הַשָּׂדֶה הָאַחַת בַּחֲמִשִּׁים וּמִפֵּרוֹת הַשְּׁנִיָּה בְּמֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים אוֹמְרִים לוֹ הֲרֵי אָכַלְתָּ מִן הַפֵּרוֹת בְּמָאתַיִם וְאֵין לְךָ כְּלוּם וּכְאִלּוּ הַשְּׁנֵי שְׁטָרוֹת שְׁטָר אֶחָד וּמַשְׁכּוֹנָא אַחַת: \n", + "מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְסַלֵּק הַמַּלְוֶה כָּל זְמַן שֶׁיָּבִיא לוֹ מָעוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמוֹ שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לְפָרֵשׁ דָּבָר זֶה. וְכֵן מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא יִסְתַּלֵּק הַמַּלְוֶה עַד סוֹף זְמַן הַמַּשְׁכּוֹנָא הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמוֹ שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ. וְכָל הַמְמַשְׁכֵּן סְתָם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְסַלְּקוֹ עַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ: \n", + "מָקוֹם שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְסַלֵּק הַמַּלְוֶה כָּל זְמַן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה הַלּוֶֹה וְהִתְנָה עִמּוֹ הַמַּלְוֶה שֶׁלֹּא יִסְתַּלֵּק עַד סוֹף זְמַן הַמַּשְׁכּוֹנָא הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְסַלְּקוֹ. הָיָה הַמִּנְהָג שֶׁאֵין הַמַּלְוֶה מִסְתַּלֵּק עַד סוֹף זְמַנּוֹ וְקִבֵּל הַמַּלְוֶה עָלָיו שֶׁיִּסְתַּלֵּק בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיָּבִיא לוֹ מְעוֹתָיו הֲרֵי זֶה צָרִיךְ לִקְנוֹת מִיָּדוֹ עַל כָּךְ: \n", + "הַמַּשְׁכּוֹנָא בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁמִּנְהָגָם לְסַלֵּק הַמַּלְוֶה בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיָּבִיא מְעוֹתָיו אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁל מַלְוֶה גּוֹבֶה מִמֶּנָּה כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁגּוֹבֶה מִן הַקַּרְקַע. וְאֵין הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל בָּהּ פִּי שְׁנַיִם. וּשְׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמַּטְתָּהּ. וּכְשֶׁמְּסַלֵּק אוֹתוֹ אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל אֲפִלּוּ פֵּרוֹת שֶׁבָּשְׁלוּ וְנָפְלוּ לָאָרֶץ. וְאִם הִגְבִּיהַּ אוֹתָן קֹדֶם שֶׁיְּסַלְּקוּ קָנָה אוֹתָן. וּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְסַלְּקוֹ עַד סוֹף זְמַנּוֹ בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה הֵימֶנּוּ. וְהַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם. וְאֵין הַשְּׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמַּטְתָּה: \n", + "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמַּשְׁכּוֹנָא זוֹ אֲסוּרָה הִיא וַאֲבַק רִבִּית כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מִנְהָג זֶה בְּטָעוּת אוֹ לָעַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ דֶּרֶךְ כָּל מִי שֶׁחוֹטֵא וּמִשְׁכֵּן בְּאוֹתָהּ מְדִינָה הוֹאִיל וַאֲבַק רִבִּית הוֹלְכִין אַחַר הַמִּנְהָג. וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁהוֹרָה שֶׁזֹּאת הַמַּשְׁכּוֹנָא בְּנִכּוּי: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁמִּשְׁכֵּן חֲצֵרוֹ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְחָזַר הָעַכּוּ\"ם וּמְכָרָהּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר אֵין הַמְמַשְׁכֵּן חַיָּב לְהַעֲלוֹת שָׂכָר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל מֵעֵת שֶׁקָּנָה הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל אֶלָּא דָּר בְּחָצֵר בְּלֹא שָׂכָר עַד שֶׁיַּחְזִיר לוֹ הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֶת הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עַל חָצֵר זוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא בִּרְשׁוּת הַמְמַשְׁכֵּן בְּדִינֵיהֶם עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן לוֹ מְעוֹתָיו וְיִסְתַּלֵּק: \n", + "הַמְמַשְׁכֵּן בַּיִת אוֹ שָׂדֶה בְּיַד חֲבֵרוֹ וְהָיָה בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ וְאָמַר לוֹ הַמַּלְוֶה לִכְשֶׁתִּמְכֹּר קַרְקַע זוֹ לֹא תִּמְכְּרֶנָּה אֶלָּא לִי בְּדָמִים אֵלּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר. וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ אַל תִּמְכְּרֶנָּה אֶלָּא לִי בְּשָׁוְיָהּ וְעַל מְנָת כֵּן אֲנִי מַלְוֶה אוֹתְךָ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר: \n", + "מֻתָּר לְהַרְבּוֹת בִּשְׂכַר הַקַּרְקַע. כֵּיצַד. הִשְׂכִּיר לוֹ אֶת הֶחָצֵר וְאָמַר לוֹ אִם מֵעַכְשָׁו אַתָּה נוֹתֵן לִי הֲרֵי הִיא לְךָ בְּעֶשֶׂר סְלָעִים בְּכָל שָׁנָה. וְאִם תִּתֵּן שְׂכַר חֹדֶשׁ בְּחֹדֶשׁ הֲרֵי הִיא בְּסֶלַע בְּכָל חֹדֶשׁ. הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר: \n", + "הַמַּשְׂכִּיר שָׂדֶה לַחֲבֵרוֹ בַּעֲשָׂרָה כּוֹרִים לְשָׁנָה. וְאָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז שֶׁאֲפַרְנֵס בָּהֶן אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה וַאֲנִי אֶתֵּן לְךָ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר כּוֹר בְּכָל שָׁנָה. הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאִם יְפַרְנֵס אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה בְּדִינָרִין אֵלּוּ יִהְיֶה שְׂכָרָהּ יוֹתֵר. וְכֵן אִם הִשְׂכִּיר לוֹ חֲנוּת אוֹ סְפִינָה בַּעֲשָׂרָה דִּינָרִין בְּשָׁנָה וְאָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז שֶׁאֶבְנֶה בָּהֶן חֲנוּת וַאֲצַיְּרֶנָּה וַאֲכַיְּרֶנָּה אוֹ אֲתַקֵּן בָּהֶן סְפִינָה זוֹ וּכְלֵי תַּשְׁמִישֶׁיהָ וַאֲנִי אַעֲלֶה לְךָ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר דִּינָר בְּכָל שָׁנָה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז כְּדֵי לְהִתְעַסֵּק בָּהֶן בַּחֲנוּת אוֹ אוֹצִיאֵם בִּסְחוֹרָה שֶׁל סְפִינָה אוֹ אֶשְׂכֹּר בָּהֶן מַלָּחִין וַאֲנִי אַעֲלֶה לְךָ בְּשָׂכָר הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר: \n", + "אָסוּר לְהַרְבּוֹת בִּשְׂכַר הָאָדָם. כֵּיצַד. לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ עֲשֵׂה עִמִּי הַיּוֹם מְלָאכָה זוֹ שֶׁהִיא שָׁוָה כֶּסֶף וַאֲנִי אֶעֱשֶׂה עִמְּךָ בְּשָׁבוּעַ אַחֵר מְלָאכָה שֶׁהִיא שָׁוָה שְׁתַּיִם: \n", + "מֻתָּר לָאָדָם לוֹמַר לַחֲבֵרוֹ נַכֵּשׁ עִמִּי הַיּוֹם וַאֲנַכֵּשׁ עִמְּךָ לְמָחָר עֲדֹר עִמִּי הַיּוֹם וְאֶעֱדֹר עִמְּךָ לְמָחָר. אֲבָל לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ נַכֵּשׁ עִמִּי וְאֶעֱדֹר עִמְּךָ עֲדֹר עִמִּי וַאֲנַכֵּשׁ עִמְּךָ. כָּל יְמֵי גָּרִיד אַחַת וְכָל יְמֵי רְבִיעָה אַחַת. וְלֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ חֲרשׁ עִמִּי בְּגָרִיד וַאֲנִי אֶחֱרשׁ עִמְּךָ בִּרְבִיעָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי טֹרַח הַחֲרִישָׁה בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים יָתֵר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל בִּימֵי הַחֹרֶף לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמּוֹ בִּימֵי הַקֹּר בְּדִינָר בְּכָל יוֹם וְנָתַן לוֹ הַשָּׂכָר וַהֲרֵי שְׂכָרוֹ שָׁוֶה בִּימֵי הַחֹרֶף סֶלַע בְּכָל יוֹם הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּמַלְוֶה אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם כְּדֵי שֶׁיּוֹזִיל לוֹ בִּשְׂכָרוֹ. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ עֲשֵׂה עִמִּי מֵהַיּוֹם וְעַד זְמַן פְּלוֹנִי בְּדִינָר בְּכָל יוֹם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׁוֶה שְׂכָרוֹ סֶלַע בְּכָל יוֹם הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר הוֹאִיל וְהוּא מַתְחִיל לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵעַתָּה אֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה כְּנוֹטֵל שְׂכַר מְעוֹתָיו שֶׁהִקְדִּים וּנְתָנָן לוֹ בִּשְׂכָרוֹ: \n" + ], + [ + "אָסוּר לְהַרְבּוֹת עַל הַמֶּכֶר. כֵּיצַד. הַמּוֹכֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ קַרְקַע אוֹ מִטַּלְטְלִין וְאָמַר לוֹ אִם מֵעַכְשָׁו תִּתֵּן לִי הַדָּמִים הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁלְּךָ בְּמֵאָה וְאִם עַד זְמַן פְּלוֹנִי הֲרֵי הֵם שֶׁלְּךָ בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּמֵאָה. הֲרֵי זֶה אֲבַק רִבִּית שֶׁזֶּה דּוֹמֶה כְּמִי שֶׁנּוֹטֵל עֶשְׂרִים בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ מֵאָה לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהּ עַד זְמַן פְּלוֹנִי וּכְשֶׁיִּתְבָּעֶנּוּ בַּדִּין אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לִתֵּן אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁהָיָה שָׁוֶה בִּשְׁעַת הַמֶּכֶר אוֹ יַחְזִיר מִמְכָּרוֹ מִיָּדוֹ אִם הָיָה קַיָּם. וְכֵן אִם מָכַר לוֹ מִטַּלְטְלִין עַד זְמַן פְּלוֹנִי בְּמֵאָה וְהָיוּ שָׁוִין בַּשּׁוּק לְמִי שֶׁקּוֹנֶה בִּמְעוֹתָיו מִיָּד תִּשְׁעִים הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר. וְאֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶלָּא תִּשְׁעִים אוֹ מַחְזִיר מִיָּדוֹ סְחוֹרָתוֹ אִם הָיְתָה קַיֶּמֶת: \n", + "הַלּוֹקֵחַ מֵחֲבֵרוֹ חֵפֶץ בְּשָׁוֵהוּ עַל מְנָת שֶׁיִּתֵּן לוֹ מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. הֲרֵי זֶה רַשַּׁאי לוֹמַר לוֹ תֵּן [לִי] מִיָּד בְּפָחוֹת וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ מִשּׁוּם רִבִּית: \n", + "חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן שֶׁהִיא שָׁוָה עַתָּה דִּינָר וּמְכָרָהּ לוֹ בִּשְׁנַיִם עַד הַקַּיִץ עַל מְנָת שֶׁאִם תֶּאֱרַע בָּהּ תַּקָּלָה הֲרֵי הִיא בִּרְשׁוּת הַמּוֹכֵר עַד שֶׁיִּמְכְּרֶנָּה הַלּוֹקֵחַ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. שֶׁאִם אָבְדָה אוֹ נִשְׁבְּרָה אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם כְּלוּם. וְאִם לֹא מָצָא לְמָכְרָהּ וּלְהַרְוִיחַ בָּהּ הָיָה לוֹ לְהַחְזִירָהּ לַבְּעָלִים. וְכֵן אִם מְכָרָהּ לוֹ בִּשְׁנַיִם וְאָמַר לוֹ הַיָּתֵר עַל שְׁנַיִם יִהְיֶה שְׂכָרְךָ בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁאַתָּה מְטַפֵּל לְמָכְרָהּ וְאִם לֹא תִּמְצָא לְמָכְרָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁתִּרְצֶה הַחֲזִירָהּ לִי הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאִם אָבְדָה אוֹ נִגְנְבָה אוֹ הֶחְמִיצָה תִּהְיֶה בִּרְשׁוּת הַלּוֹקֵחַ: \n", + "הָיוּ לוֹ פֵּרוֹת שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה לְמָכְרָן בַּשּׁוּק וְלִקַּח דְּמֵיהֶן מִיָּד מוֹכְרָן בַּעֲשָׂרָה. וְאִם תָּבַע אוֹתָן הַלּוֹקֵחַ לִקְנוֹתָן וְיִתֵּן הַמָּעוֹת מִיָּד יִקְנֶה אוֹתָן בִּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר. הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לְמָכְרָן בִּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר עַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הֵבִיא זֶה מְעוֹתָיו עַתָּה בִּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר הָיָה קוֹנֶה אוֹתָן. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "אָסוּר לִקְנוֹת פְּרִי הַפַּרְדֵּס קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּגָּמֵר וְיִתְבַּשֵּׁל. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁמּוֹכֵר בְּזוֹל עַתָּה בְּעֶשֶׂר הוּא פְּרִי שֶׁשָּׁוֶה עֶשְׂרִים כְּשֶׁיִּגָּמֵר. נִמְצֵאת הַתּוֹסֶפֶת בִּשְׁבִיל הַהַקָּפָה. אֲבָל אִם קָנָה עֵגֶל בְּזוֹל וְהָיָה אֵצֶל הַבְּעָלִים עַד שֶׁיַּגְדִּיל הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר שֶׁהֲרֵי אִם מֵת אוֹ כָּחַשׁ בִּרְשׁוּת הַלּוֹקֵחַ הוּא וְהַכַּחַשׁ וְהַמִּיתָה דָּבָר מָצוּי תָּמִיד: \n", + "הַנּוֹתֵן מָעוֹת לְבַעַל הַכֶּרֶם עַל הַשָּׂרִיגִים וְעַל הַזְּמוֹרוֹת לִכְשֶׁיִּכָּרְתוּ שֶׁהֵם בְּיֹקֶר וְהוּא קוֹנֶה אוֹתָן בְּזוֹל עַד שֶׁיִּבְשׁוּ וְיִכָּרְתוּ הֲרֵי זֶה צָרִיךְ לְהַפֵּךְ בָּהֶן כְּשֶׁהֵם מְחֻבָּרִים שֶׁנִּמְצָא כְּקוֹנֶה אִילָן לִזְמוֹרוֹתָיו. וְאִם לֹא הָפַךְ נִמְצְאוּ הַמָּעוֹת הַלְוָאָה וְהֵן לוֹקְחִין בְּזוֹל מִפְּנֵי הַהַקָּפָה וְאָסוּר: \n", + "שׁוֹמְרֵי הַשָּׂדוֹת שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לָהֶם חִטִּים בִּשְׂכָרָן בְּזוֹל מִן הַגֹּרֶן. כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ לַגֹּרֶן צְרִיכִין לְהִתְעַסֵּק עִמָּהֶן בִּמְלָאכָה בַּגֹּרֶן כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הַחִטִּים הָאֵלּוּ שֶׁנָּטְלוּ בְּסוֹף זְמַן הַשְּׂכִירוּת. וְאִם לֹא עָשׂוּ כָּךְ נִמְצֵאת הַשְּׂכִירוּת אֵצֶל הַבְּעָלִים כְּמִלְוֶה וְזֶה שֶׁלָּקְחוּ בְּזוֹל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאִחֲרוּ שְׂכָרָן עַד הַגֹּרֶן: \n", + "אֲרִיסִין שֶׁהָיוּ בַּעֲלֵי הַשָּׂדוֹת מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתָן מִן הַשָּׂדֶה בְּנִיסָן וְנוֹתְנִין לָהֶם הָאֲרִיסִין בְּכָל זֶרַע חֹמֶר אַרְבַּע סְאִין וְהִנִּיחַ זֶה אֲרִיסִין בְּתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ עַד אִיָּר וְנָטַל מֵהֶן שֵׁשׁ סְאִין הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר וְאֵין שָׁם רִבִּית: \n", + "הַלּוֹקֵחַ חִטִּים אַרְבַּע סְאִין בְּסֶלַע וְכֵן הַשַּׁעַר וְנָתַן לוֹ אֶת הַמָּעוֹת וּכְשֶׁבָּא לִגְבּוֹת אֶת הַחִטִּים לְאַחַר זְמַן הוֹסִיף לוֹ בַּמִּדָּה וְנָתַן לוֹ יֶתֶר. הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר שֶׁהֲרֵי בִּרְצוֹנוֹ הוֹסִיף לוֹ וְאִלּוּ רָצָה לֹא הוֹסִיף שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא הָיָה שָׁם תְּנַאי: \n", + "מֻתָּר לְאָדָם לִתֵּן דְּמֵי חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן לַחֲבֵרוֹ וְלוֹמַר לוֹ אִם הֶחְמִיצָה מִכָּאן עַד יוֹם פְּלוֹנִי בִּרְשׁוּתְךָ אֲבָל אִם הוֹזִילָה אוֹ הוֹקִירָה הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁלִּי. שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁקִּבֵּל עָלָיו הַזּוֹל הֲרֵי זֶה קָרוֹב לְשָׂכָר וּלְהֶפְסֵד. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְכֵן מֻתָּר לְאָדָם לִקְנוֹת מֵחֲבֵרוֹ בְּתִשְׁרֵי מֵאָה כַּדִּין שֶׁל יַיִן בְּדִינָר וְאֵינוֹ נוֹטְלָן עַד טֵבֵת. וּכְשֶׁנּוֹטְלָן בּוֹדֵק וּמַחֲזִיר הַחֹמֶץ וְלוֹקֵחַ הַיַּיִן הַטּוֹב. שֶׁלֹּא קָנָה מִמֶּנּוּ אֶלָּא יַיִן טוֹב וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁהֶחְמִיצוּ מִתְּחִלָּה הָיוּ רְאוּיִין לְהַחְמִיץ אֲבָל לֹא נוֹדַע הַדָּבָר עַד אַחַר הַזְּמַן: \n", + "מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לִשְׂכֹּר הַסְּפִינָה וְלִטּל שְׂכָרָהּ וְאִם נִשְׁבְּרָה שָׁמִין לוֹ מַה שֶּׁפָּחֲתָה וּמְשַׁלֵּם יֶתֶר עַל שְׂכָרָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְכֵן מֻתָּר לְהַשְׂכִּיר סִיר שֶׁל נְחשֶׁת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ וְנוֹטֵל הַשָּׂכָר וּדְמֵי מַה שֶּׁפָּחַת מִמִּשְׁקָלוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "אֵין מְקַבְּלִין צֹאן בַּרְזֶל מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא אֲבַק רִבִּית. וְכֵיצַד הֵן צֹאן בַּרְזֶל. הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ מֵאָה צֹאן וְקִבְּלָם מִמֶּנּוּ לְהִטַּפֵּל בָּהֶן וְיִהְיוּ הַגִּזּוֹת וְהַוְּלָדוֹת וְהֶחָלָב לָאֶמְצַע לִשְׁלִישׁ אוֹ לִרְבִיעַ עַד שָׁנָה אוֹ עַד שְׁנָתַיִם כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִתְנוּ בֵּינֵיהֶם וְאִם מֵתוּ הַצֹּאן הֲרֵי הַמְקַבֵּל מְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵיהֶם הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר שֶׁהֲרֵי בַּעַל הַצֹּאן קָרוֹב לְשָׂכָר וְרָחוֹק לְהֶפְסֵד. לְפִיכָךְ אִם קִבֵּל עָלָיו בַּעַל הַצֹּאן שֶׁאִם הוּקְרוּ אוֹ הוּזְלוּ אוֹ אִם נִטְרְפוּ הֲרֵי הֵן בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "הַשָּׁם פָּרָה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ אִם מֵתָה הֲרֵי הִיא עַתָּה עָלַי בִּשְׁלֹשִׁים דִּינָרִים וַאֲנִי אַעֲלֶה לְךָ סֶלַע בְּכָל חֹדֶשׁ מֻתָּר לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא עֲשָׂאָהּ מֵחַיִּים דָּמִים אֶלָּא לְאַחַר מִיתָה: \n", + "מַשְׂכֶּרֶת אִשָּׁה לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ תַּרְנְגלֶת לֵישֵׁב עַל הַבֵּיצִים בִּשְׁנֵי אֶפְרוֹחִים וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין מִשּׁוּם רִבִּית: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהָיָה נוֹשֶׁה בַּחֲבֵרוֹ אַרְבָּעָה דִּינָרִים שֶׁל רִבִּית וְנָתַן לוֹ בָּהֶן חֵפֶץ שֶׁשָּׁוֶה חֲמִשָּׁה כְּשֶׁמּוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ מוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ חֲמִשָּׁה הוֹאִיל וּבְתוֹרַת רִבִּית בָּא לְיָדוֹ. וְכֵן אִם נָתַן לוֹ בָּהֶן כְּסוּת אוֹ כְּלִי מוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ אֶת הַכְּלִי עַצְמוֹ וְאוֹתוֹ הַכְּסוּת עַצְמוֹ. הִשְׂכִּיר לוֹ בָּהֶן מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁוֶה שְׂכָרוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה דִּינָרִין כְּשֶׁמּוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ מוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ אַרְבָּעָה שֶׁהֲרֵי בְּאַרְבָּעָה שָׂכַר מִמֶּנּוּ מָקוֹם זֶה שֶׁקִּבֵּל עָלָיו: \n" + ], + [ + "אֵין פּוֹסְקִין עַל הַפֵּרוֹת עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא הַשַּׁעַר. יָצָא הַשַּׁעַר פּוֹסְקִין. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לָזֶה יֵשׁ לָזֶה. כֵּיצַד. הָיָה הַשַּׁעַר לַחִטִּים קָבוּעַ לַשּׁוּק אַרְבַּע סְאִין בְּסֶלַע הֲרֵי זֶה פּוֹסֵק עִמּוֹ עַל מֵאָה סְאִין וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ חָמֵשׁ וְעֶשְׂרִים סְלָעִים. וְאִם יִתֵּן לוֹ מֵאָה סְאָה שֶׁל חִטִּים אַחַר זְמַן בְּעֵת שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הַחִטִּים סְאָה בְּסֶלַע אֵין בָּזֶה רִבִּית כְּלָל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לַמּוֹכֵר חִטִּים כְּלָל בְּעֵת שֶׁפָּסַק. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לוֹ כְּלוּם מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין בְּעֵת שֶׁפָּסַק עָלָיו. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה לַמּוֹכֵר מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין כְּלוּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לִפְסֹק עָלָיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא יָצָא הַשַּׁעַר. כֵּיצַד. הָיָה הוּא תְּחִלָּה לַקּוֹצְרִים הֲרֵי זֶה פּוֹסֵק עַל הַחִטִּים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן הֵן גָּדִישׁ. וּפוֹסֵק עַל הַיַּיִן מִשֶּׁיִּבְצֹר הָעֲנָבִים וְיִתְּנֵם בְּעָבִיט וְעַל הַשֶּׁמֶן מִשֶּׁנָּתַן זֵיתִים בַּמַּעֲטָן וְעַל הַסִּיד מִשֶּׁיְּשַׁקְּעֶנָּה בַּכִּבְשָׁן. וְכֵן פּוֹסֵק עַל כְּלֵי חֶרֶשׂ מִשֶּׁיַּעֲשֶׂה הַיּוֹצֵר בֵּיצִים שֶׁלָּהֶן. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁהָיָה עֲפָרָן לָבָן אֲבָל עֲפָרָן שָׁחוֹר פּוֹסֵק עַל הַכֵּלִים הַנַּעֲשִׂין מִמֶּנּוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשׂוּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מָצוּי לַכּל וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לָזֶה יֵשׁ לָזֶה. וְכֵן פּוֹסֵק עִמּוֹ עַל הַזֶּבֶל כָּל יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ זֶבֶל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מָצוּי תָּמִיד: \n", + "כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מְחֻסַּר מְלָאכָה אַחַת אוֹ שְׁתַּיִם פּוֹסֵק עִמּוֹ עָלָיו. הָיָה מְחֻסַּר שָׁלֹשׁ מְלָאכוֹת אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵק אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יָצָא הַשַּׁעַר שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא מְחֻסַּר שָׁלֹשׁ מְלָאכוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין כְּלוּם וּכְמוֹ לֹא בָּא לָעוֹלָם עֲדַיִן. כֵּיצַד. גָּדִישׁ שֶׁהָיָה מְחֻסַּר הַנָּחָה בַּשֶּׁמֶשׁ שֶׁיִּבַשׁ וְדִישָׁה וּזְרִיָּה אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵק עָלָיו אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יָצָא הַשַּׁעַר. הָיָה יָבֵשׁ וְאֵינוֹ מְחֻסָּר אֶלָּא דִּישָׁה וּזְרִיָּה פּוֹסֵק עָלָיו. בֵּיצִים שֶׁל יוֹצֵר שֶׁהָיוּ מְחֻסָּרִין לְפִיפָה וְיִבּוּשׁ וְהוֹלָכָה לַכִּבְשָׁן וּשְׂרֵפָה וְהוֹצָאָה אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵק עֲלֵיהֶן. הָיוּ יְבֵשִׁין וְאֵינָן מְחֻסָּרִין אֶלָּא הוֹלָכָה לַכִּבְשָׁן וּשְׂרֵפָה פּוֹסֵק עֲלֵיהֶן. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה דֶּרֶךְ הַלּוֹקֵחַ לְהוֹצִיא אוֹתוֹ מִן הַכִּבְשָׁן. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה הַמּוֹכֵר הוּא שֶׁמּוֹצִיא הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מְחֻסָּרִין שָׁלֹשׁ וְאֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵק עֲלֵיהֶן עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא הַשַּׁעַר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "הַהוֹלֵךְ לַחֲלֹב אֶת עִזָּיו וְלִגְזֹז אֶת רְחֵלָיו וְלִרְדּוֹת אֶת כַּוַּרְתּוֹ וּמְצָאוֹ חֲבֵרוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ מַה שֶּׁעִזַּי חוֹלְבוֹת מָכוּר לְךָ מַה שֶּׁרְחֵלַי גּוֹזְזוֹת מָכוּר לְךָ מַה שֶּׁכַּוַּרְתִּי רוֹדָה מָכוּר לְךָ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. אֲבָל אָמַר לוֹ מַה שֶּׁעִזַּי חוֹלְבוֹת כָּךְ וְכָךְ מָכוּר לְךָ בְּכָךְ וְכָךְ. מַה שֶּׁרְחֵלַי גּוֹזְזוֹת כָּךְ וְכָךְ מָכוּר לְךָ בְּכָךְ וְכָךְ. מַה שֶּׁכַּוַּרְתִּי רוֹדָה כָּךְ וְכָךְ מָכוּר לְךָ בְּכָךְ וְכָךְ אָסוּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן פָּסַק עִמּוֹ כַּשַּׁעַר שֶׁבַּשּׁוּק. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "אֵין פּוֹסְקִין עַל שַׁעַר שֶׁל עֲיָרוֹת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין הַשַּׁעַר קָבוּעַ אֶלָּא עַל שַׁעַר שֶׁבַּמְּדִינָה. הָיוּ הַחִטִּים הַחֲדָשׁוֹת בַּמְּדִינָה אַרְבַּע סְאִין בְּסֶלַע וִישָׁנוֹת שָׁלֹשׁ בְּסֶלַע אֵין פּוֹסְקִין עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא הַשַּׁעַר לֶחָדָשׁ וְלַיָּשָׁן. הָיוּ חִטִּין שֶׁל לְקוּטוֹת אַרְבַּע סְאִין בְּסֶלַע וְשֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שָׁלֹשׁ פּוֹסֵק לַלְּקוּטוֹת כְּשַׁעַר לְקוּטוֹת וְלֹא יִפְסֹק לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת עַד שֶׁיִּקְבַּע הַשַּׁעַר לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת: \n", + "כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּקְבַּע הַשַּׁעַר מֻתָּר לִפְסֹק עַל הַשַּׁעַר הַגָּבוֹהַּ. כֵּיצַד. הָיוּ הַחִטִּים נִמְכָּרוֹת אַרְבַּע סְאִין בְּסֶלַע וּפָסַק עִמּוֹ שֶׁיִּתֵּן לוֹ הַחִטִּים כַּשַּׁעַר הַזּוֹל אִם עָמְדוּ אַחַר כֵּן עֶשֶׂר סְאִין בְּסֶלַע נוֹתֵן לוֹ עֶשֶׂר סְאִין כַּשַּׁעַר שֶׁהָיָה בַּשּׁוּק שֶׁהֲרֵי פָּסַק עִמּוֹ בְּשַׁעַר גָּבוֹהַּ. נָתַן לוֹ הַמָּעוֹת סְתָם וְלֹא פָּסַק עִמּוֹ בַּשַּׁעַר הַגָּבוֹהַּ וְהוּזְלוּ נוֹתֵן כַּשַּׁעַר שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁוִין כְּשֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ הַמָּעוֹת. וּמִי שֶׁחָזַר מְקַבֵּל מִי שֶׁפָּרַע. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּפוֹסֵק עַל דַּעַת עַצְמוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה שָׁלִיחַ לַאֲחֵרִים בֵּין הַמּוֹכֵר בֵּין הַלּוֹקֵחַ אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל אֶלָּא כַּשַּׁעַר הַזּוֹל אוֹ מַחְזִיר אֶת הַדָּמִים וְאֵינוֹ מְקַבֵּל מִי שֶׁפָּרַע בְּשָׁלִיחַ שֶׁהֲרֵי הַמְשַׁלֵּחַ אוֹמֵר לְתַקֵּן שְׁלַחְתִּיךָ וְלֹא לְעַוֵּת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "הָיוּ הַחִטִּים נִמְכָּרוֹת אַרְבַּע סְאִין בְּסֶלַע וְנָטַל אֶת הַדָּמִים וְנָתַן לוֹ חָמֵשׁ בְּסֶלַע אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ חִטִּים מֻתָּר. הָיוּ לוֹ חִטִּים חוֹב אֵצֶל אֲחֵרִים וְנָטַל הַמָּעוֹת עַד שֶׁיִּגְבֶּה חִטָּיו וְיִתֵּן לוֹ אָסוּר שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵן מְחֻסָּרִין גְּבִיָּה וּכְאִלּוּ אֵינָם וַהֲרֵי זֶה כְּקוֹבֵעַ לוֹ זְמַן וְהוֹזִיל לוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּקִּיפוֹ: \n", + "הָיוּ הַחִטִּים בַּמְּדִינָה אַרְבַּע סְאִין בְּסֶלַע וּבַכְּפָרִים שֵׁשׁ בַּסֶּלַע הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לִתֵּן סֶלַע לְתַגָּר כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּבִיא שֵׁשׁ סְאִין מִן הַכְּפָר. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ בִּרְשׁוּת הַלּוֹקֵחַ. אִם אָבְדוּ בַּדֶּרֶךְ אוֹ נִגְנְבוּ אָבְדוּ לוֹ. וְאָדָם חָשׁוּב אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת זֶה. ובְּמִינֵי סְחוֹרָה אָסוּר לְכָל אָדָם לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מִינֵי סְחוֹרָה מְצוּיִין כְּפֵרוֹת: \n", + "הַחַמָּרִין שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לָעִיר וַהֲרֵי הַחִטִּים אַרְבַּע סְאִין בְּסֶלַע. הוֹזִילוּ וּמָכְרוּ לְמַכִּירֵיהֶן אוֹ לְסַפְסָרֵיהֶן חָמֵשׁ בְּסֶלַע בַּמָּעוֹת שֶׁנָּתְנוּ לָהֶן תְּחִלָּה כְּשֶׁיִּכָּנְסוּ לָעִיר עַד שֶׁיִּפְתְּחוּ שַׂקֵּיהֶן וְיִמְכְּרוּ לְכָל אָדָם הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר שֶׁאֵין אֵלּוּ מוֹכְרִין לָהֶם בְּזוֹל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנָּתְנוּ מָעוֹת עַתָּה וְלֹא יִקְחוּ אֶלָּא לְאַחַר זְמַן אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמּוֹדִיעִין לָהֶם אֶת הַשַּׁעַר וּמְסַעֲדִין אוֹתָם: \n", + "הַמּוֹלִיךְ פֵּרוֹתָיו מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם מְצָאוֹ חֲבֵרוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ תְּנֵם לִי וַאֲנִי אַעֲלֶה לְךָ פֵּרוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי (בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי) בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם. אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ שָׁם מֻתָּר וְאִם לָאו אָסוּר. הָיָה מוֹלִיךְ סְחוֹרָה מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם אָמַר לוֹ תְּנֵם לִי וַאֲנִי אַעֲלֶה לְךָ דָּמֶיהָ כְּמוֹ שֶׁשָּׁוֶה בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם אִם הָיְתָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַמּוֹכֵר עַד שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְשָׁם מֻתָּר וְאִם הָיְתָה בִּרְשׁוּת לוֹקֵחַ אָסוּר: \n", + "הַנּוֹתֵן לְבַעַל הַגִּנָּה דְּמֵי עֲשָׂרָה קִשּׁוּאִין אֵלּוּ דְּמֵי עֲשָׂרָה אֲבַטִּיחִים אֵלּוּ וַהֲרֵי הֵן קְטַנִּים וְהִתְנָה עִמּוֹ שֶׁיִּתְּנֵם לוֹ לִכְשֶׁיַּגְדִּילוּ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא מַנִּיחָן וְהֵם גְּדֵלִים מֵאֲלֵיהֶן וְאִלּוּ קִצְּצָן עַתָּה כְּשֶׁהֵן קְטַנִּים לֹא הָיוּ בָּאִים אֲחֵרִים תַּחְתֵּיהֶן. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה מִדָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ הֶפְסֵד וְלֹא חִסָּרוֹן עַל הַמּוֹכֵר: \n" + ], + [ + "כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמֻּתָּר לַמּוֹכֵר לִפְסֹק עַל שַׁעַר שֶׁבַּשּׁוּק כָּךְ מֻתָּר לִלְווֹת הַפֵּרוֹת סְתָם וּפוֹרְעִין סְתָם בְּלֹא קְבִיעַת זְמַן עַל הַשַּׁעַר שֶׁבַּשּׁוּק. כֵּיצַד. הָיָה הַשַּׁעַר קָבוּעַ וְיָדוּעַ לִשְׁנֵיהֶם וְלָוָה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עֶשֶׂר סְאִין חַיָּב לְהַחְזִיר לוֹ עֶשֶׂר סְאִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּקְרוּ הַחִטִּים שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּשֶׁלָּוָה מִמֶּנּוּ הָיָה הַשַּׁעַר יָדוּעַ וְאִלּוּ רָצָה הָיָה קוֹנֶה וּמַחֲזִיר לוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא קָבַע לוֹ זְמַן: \n", + "הָיָה לוֹ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין שֶׁלָּוָה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לִלְווֹת סְתָם בְּלֹא קְבִיעַת זְמַן וּפוֹרֵעַ סְתָם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא יָצָא הַשַּׁעַר. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה לוֹ סְאָה בִּלְבַד לוֶֹה עָלֶיהָ כַּמָּה סְאִין. הָיְתָה לוֹ טִפָּה אַחַת שֶׁל שֶׁמֶן אוֹ שֶׁל יַיִן לוֶֹה עָלֶיהָ כַּמָּה גַרְבֵּי יַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן. לֹא הָיְתָה לוֹ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין כְּלוּם וְלֹא נִקְבַּע שַׁעַר הַשּׁוּק עֲדַיִן אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יָדְעוּ שַׁעַר הַשּׁוּק הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר לִלְווֹת סְאָה בִּסְאָה. וְכֵן בִּשְׁאָר הַפֵּרוֹת לֹא יַלְוֶה אוֹתָן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה אוֹתָן דָּמִים. וְאִם לָוָה וְלֹא עָשָׂה אוֹתָן [דָּמִים] וְהוּזְלוּ מַחְזִיר לוֹ פֵּרוֹת כַּמִּדָּה שֶׁלָּוָה אוֹ כַּמִּשְׁקָל. וְאִם הוּקַר נוֹטֵל דָּמִים שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁוִין בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה הַשַּׁעַר קָבוּעַ בַּשּׁוּק הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר לִלְווֹת פֵּרוֹת בְּפֵרוֹת עַד זְמַן קָבוּעַ אֶלָּא לוֶֹה סְתָם וּפוֹרֵעַ בְּאֵיזֶה זְמַן שֶׁיִּפְרַע: \n", + "לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ הַלְוֵינִי כּוֹר חִטִּים וַאֲנִי אַחְזִיר לְךָ כּוֹר לַגֹּרֶן אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ הַלְוֵינִי עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא בְּנִי אוֹ עַד שֶׁאֶמְצָא הַמַּפְתֵּחַ: \n", + "לָוָה פֵּרוֹת עַד זְמַן קָבוּעַ אִם הוּזְלוּ מַחְזִיר לוֹ פֵּרוֹת בַּזְּמַן שֶׁקָּבַע וְאִם הוּקְרוּ נוֹתֵן לוֹ דָּמִים שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁוִין בִּשְׁעַת הַהַלְוָאָה: \n", + "מַלְוֶה אָדָם אֶת אֲרִיסָיו חִטִּים בְּחִטִּים לְזֶרַע בֵּין קֹדֶם שֶׁיָּרַד הָאָרִיס לַשָּׂדֶה בֵּין אַחַר שֶׁיָּרַד. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁיִּתֵּן הָאָרִיס אֶת הַזֶּרַע שֶׁהֲרֵי בְּיַד בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע לְסַלְּקוֹ כָּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן. אֲבָל בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע לִתֵּן אֶת הַזֶּרַע אִם עֲדַיִן לֹא יָרַד הָאָרִיס הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לְהַלְווֹת חִטִּים בְּחִטִּים שֶׁעֲדַיִן יֵשׁ לוֹ לְסַלְּקוֹ נִמְצָא בְּעֵת שֶׁיָּרַד לַשָּׂדֶה יָרַד עַל דַּעַת שֶׁיַּחְזִיר לוֹ חִטִּים שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ. אֲבָל אַחַר שֶׁיָּרַד לַשָּׂדֶה הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְסַלְּקוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכָל אָדָם וְאָסוּר לְהַלְווֹתוֹ חִטִּים בַּחִטִּים לְזֶרַע אֲבָל מַלְוֵהוּ סְתָם עַל שַׁעַר שֶׁבַּשּׁוּק: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהָיָה נוֹשֶׁה בַּחֲבֵרוֹ מָעוֹת וְאָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לִי מְעוֹתַי שֶׁאֲנִי רוֹצֶה לִקַּח בָּהֶן חִטִּים. אָמַר לוֹ צֵא וַעֲשֵׂה אוֹתָן עָלַי כְּשַׁעַר שֶׁל עַכְשָׁו וְיִהְיֶה לְךָ אֶצְלִי חִטִּים בְּהַלְוָאָה. אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ חִטִּים כְּשִׁעוּר מְעוֹתָיו מֻתָּר וְאִם אֵין [לוֹ] אוֹתוֹ הַמִּין הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר. שֶׁלֹּא אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁמֻּתָּר לִפְסֹק עַל שַׁעַר שֶׁבַּשּׁוּק אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כְּלוּם מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין אֶלָּא בְּנוֹתֵן מְעוֹתָיו לִקְנוֹת בָּהֶן פֵּרוֹת. אֲבָל הָרוֹצֶה לְהַעֲמִיד הַלְוָאָתוֹ עַל גַּב הַפֵּרוֹת אָסוּר עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ לוֹ פֵּרוֹת. הָיָה לַלּוֶֹה חִטִּים וְעָשָׂה הַלְוָאָתוֹ עָלָיו חִטִּים וּבָא אַחַר זְמַן וְאָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לִי חִטִּים שֶׁאֲנִי רוֹצֶה לְמָכְרָן וְלִקַּח בִּדְמֵיהֶן יַיִן. אָמַר לוֹ צֵא וַעֲשֵׂה אוֹתָן עָלַי יַיִן כַּשַּׁעַר שֶׁבַּשּׁוּק עַתָּה. אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ יַיִן הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר וְנַעֲשֵׂית הַלְוָאָתוֹ אֶצְלוֹ יַיִן וְאִם אֵין לוֹ יַיִן אָסוּר. הֲרֵי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לוֹ וְעָבַר וְהֶחְזִיר הַהַלְוָאָה פֵּרוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּנָה פֵּרוֹת אַחַר כָּךְ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לִתֵּן לוֹ פֵּרוֹת אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן לוֹ מָעוֹת שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ: \n" + ], + [ + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בִּפני עֵדִים אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לְעֵדִים הֱיוּ עָלַי עֵדִים שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב לָזֶה מָנֶה אוֹ אַתֶּם עֵדַי שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב לָזֶה מָנֶה. זוֹ נִקְרֵאת מִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לְפָרְעוֹ בְּעֵדִים. לְפִיכָךְ אִם טָעַן וְאָמַר אַחַר כָּךְ פָּרַעְתִּי נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר. אֲבָל הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בִּשְׁטָר צָרִיךְ לְפָרְעוֹ בְּעֵדִים לְפִיכָךְ אִם טָעַן וְאָמַר פָּרַעְתִּי שְׁטָר זֶה אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן אֶלָּא אוֹמְרִים לוֹ אוֹ הָבֵא עֵדִים אוֹ עֲמֹד וְשַׁלֵּם לוֹ חוֹבוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ הָאוֹמֵר לְעֵדִים הֱיוּ עָלַי עֵדִים שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב לָזֶה מָנֶה אֵין כּוֹתְבִין עֵדוּתָן וְנוֹתְנִין לַמַּלְוֶה. שֶׁלֹּא יַחֲזִירוֹ לַמַּלְוֶה עַל פִּי עֵדוּת בִּשְׁטָר עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לָהֶן הַלּוֶֹה כִּתְבוּ שְׁטָר וְחִתְמוּ וּתְנוּ לוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶן כָּךְ צְרִיכִין לְהִמָּלֵךְ בּוֹ אַחַר שֶׁחָתְמוּ בַּשְּׁטָר וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹתְנִין הַשְּׁטָר בְּיַד הַמַּלְוֶה. קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ מָנֶה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כּוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לָהֶן כְּתֹבוּ שֶׁסְּתָם קִנְיָן לִכְתִיבָה עוֹמֵד וְאֵינָן צְרִיכִין לְהִמָּלֵךְ בּוֹ: \n", + "לוֶֹה שֶׁכָּתַב שְׁטָר בִּכְתַב יָדוֹ וְהֵעִיד בּוֹ עֵדִים וּנְתָנוֹ לַמַּלְוֶה הֲרֵי זֶה שְׁטָר כָּשֵׁר. וְכֵן אִם כָּתַב שְׁטָר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ עֵדִים וּנְתָנוֹ לַמַּלְוֶה בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים הֲרֵי זוֹ מִלְוֶה בִּשְׁטָר. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כְּתָב שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִזְדַּיֵּף וְיִקְרְאוּ אוֹתוֹ הָעֵדִים שֶׁנִּמְסַר בִּפְנֵיהֶם. וְיֵשׁ מִן הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁהוֹרָה שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לוֹמַר לָעֵדִים שֶׁמָּסְרוּ בִּפְנֵיהֶם חִתְמוּ וְהָעִידוּ שֶׁנִּמְסַר בִּפְנֵיכֶם: \n", + "הוֹצִיא עָלָיו כְּתַב יָדוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ וְאֵין שָׁם עֵדִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֻחְזַק כְּתַב יָדוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה לְכָל דָּבָר. וְאִם טָעַן שֶׁפָּרַע נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה בִּכְתָב זֶה לֹא מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין וְלֹא מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת: \n", + "כָּל מִלְוֶה בִּשְׁטָר גּוֹבֶה אוֹתָהּ מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין וּמִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. וּמִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה גּוֹבֶה אוֹתָהּ מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה אוֹתָהּ מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת לְפִי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ קוֹל לְפִיכָךְ לֹא יִטְרֹף בָּהּ. אֲבָל מִלְוֶה שֶׁבִּשְׁטָר קוֹל יֵשׁ לָהּ וְהַלּוֹקֵחַ הִפְסִיד עַל עַצְמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא שָׁאַל עַד שֶׁיָּדַע שֶׁנְּכָסָיו שֶׁל זֶה מְשֻׁעְבָּדִין בַּמִּלְוֶה שֶׁעָלָיו. שֶׁכָּל נִכְסֵי הַלּוֶֹה תַּחַת שִׁעְבּוּד הַמַּלְוֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה: \n", + "הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֵהוּ בְּעֵדִים וְיָצָאת מִתַּחַת יְדֵי הַלּוֹקֵחַ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם שְׁטָר בְּיַד הַלּוֹקֵחַ הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹזֵר וְטוֹרֵף מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. שֶׁכָּל הַמּוֹכֵר בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא מוֹכֵר וְקוֹל יֵשׁ לוֹ: \n", + "אֵין הַהַלְוָאָה שֶׁעַל פֶּה נִגְבֵּית מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין אֶלָּא בְּאֶחָד מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ. כְּשֶׁחַיָּב מוֹדֶה בָּהּ וְצִוָּה בְּחָלְיוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִפְלוֹנִי עָלָיו חוֹב עֲדַיִן. אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה הַהַלְוָאָה לִזְמַן וְלֹא הִגִּיעַ זְמַן לְפָרְעָהּ וַחֲזָקָה הִיא שֶׁאֵין אָדָם פּוֹרֵעַ בְּתוֹךְ זְמַנּוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁנִּדּוּהוּ עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן וּמֵת בְּנִדּוּיוֹ. כָּל אֵלּוּ גּוֹבִין מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה. אֲבָל אִם בָּאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁהָיָה חַיָּב לָזֶה מָנֶה אוֹ בְּפָנֵינוּ הִלְוָהוּ אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִן הַיּוֹרֵשׁ כְּלוּם שֶׁמָּא פְּרָעוֹ שֶׁהַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בְּעֵדִים אֵין צָרִיךְ לְפָרְעוֹ בְּעֵדִים. וְכֵן אִם מוֹצִיא כְּתַב יַד אֲבִיהֶן שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה בּוֹ כְּלוּם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "לוֶֹה שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מִטַּלְטְלִין וְיֵשׁ לוֹ קַרְקַע אִם נוֹדַע לְבֵית דִּין שֶׁתּוֹלֶה מְעוֹתָיו בְּיַד אֲחֵרִים כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לִמְכֹּר וְלִתֵּן לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ. וְאִם לֹא נוֹדַע לָהֶם דָּבָר זֶה מַחְרִימִין עַל מִי שֶׁיֵּדַע לוֹ מִטַּלְטְלִין וְלֹא יְבִיאֵם. וְאַחַר כָּךְ יוֹרְדִין לְבֵינוֹנִית שֶׁבִּנְכָסָיו וּמַגְבִּין לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּזְמַן שֶׁנִּפְרָעִין מִן הַלּוֶֹה עַצְמוֹ. אֲבָל הַבָּא לִפָּרַע מִן הַיּוֹרֵשׁ בֵּין קָטָן בֵּין גָּדוֹל לֹא יִפָּרַע מִן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין אֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ מֻפְקָדִין אוֹ מִלְוֶה אֵצֶל אֲחֵרִים. שֶׁהַמִּטַּלְטְלִין אֵינָן תַּחַת שִׁעְבּוּד בַּעַל חוֹב מִן הַתּוֹרָה: \n", + "מִצְוָה עַל הַיְתוֹמִין לִפְרֹעַ חוֹב אֲבִיהֶן מִן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁהִנִּיחַ. וְאִם לֹא רָצָה הַיּוֹרֵשׁ לִתֵּן אֵין כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ. וְאִם תָּפַס בַּעַל חוֹב מֵחַיִּים גּוֹבֶה מֵהֶן. טָעַן שֶׁמֵּחַיִּים תְּפָסָן וְהַיּוֹרֵשׁ טָעַן שֶׁאַחַר מִיתָה תָּפַס עַל הַיּוֹרֵשׁ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה אוֹ יִשָּׁבַע הַמַּלְוֶה שֶׁכָּךְ וְכָךְ הוּא חַיָּב לוֹ וְיָכוֹל לִטְעֹן עַד כְּדֵי דְּמֵיהֶן וְכוֹלֵל בִּשְׁבוּעָתוֹ שֶׁמֵּחַיִּים תָּפַס. הָיוּ הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁתָּפַס שְׁטָרוֹת וְטָעַן שֶׁהֵן מַשְׁכּוֹן בְּיָדוֹ עַל חוֹבוֹ וְשֶׁמֵּחַיִּים תָּפַס. עַל הַמַּלְוֶה לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁמֵּחַיִּים תָּפַס. וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה יַחְזִיר לַיּוֹרְשִׁים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ טוֹעֵן לִקְנוֹת גּוּפָם אֶלָּא לָרְאָיָה שֶׁבָּהֶן: \n", + "יְתוֹמִים שֶׁגָּבוּ קַרְקַע בְּחוֹב שֶׁהָיָה לַאֲבִיהֶן אֵצֶל אֲחֵרִים יֵשׁ לְבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁל אֲבִיהֶם לַחְזֹר וְלִגְבּוֹת אוֹתָהּ מֵהֶן שֶׁהֲרֵי קַרְקַע זוֹ שֶׁל אֲבִיהֶם הִיא: \n", + "רְאוּבֵן שֶׁמָּכַר שָׂדֶה לְשִׁמְעוֹן בְּאַחֲרָיוּת וְזָקַף שִׁמְעוֹן דְּמֵי הַשָּׂדֶה עָלָיו מִלְוֶה לִרְאוּבֵן וּמֵת רְאוּבֵן וּבָא בַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁל רְאוּבֵן לִטְרֹף מִשִּׁמְעוֹן הַשָּׂדֶה וּפִיְּסוֹ שִׁמְעוֹן בְּמָעוֹת וְהָלַךְ לוֹ. הַדִּין נוֹתֵן שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי רְאוּבֵן וְיִתְבְּעוּ שִׁמְעוֹן בַּמִּלְוֶה שֶׁזָּקַף עָלָיו שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ מְשֻׁעְבֶּדֶת לְבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁל רְאוּבֵן. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיָה שִׁמְעוֹן פִּקֵּחַ נוֹתֵן לָהֶן הַקַּרְקַע שֶׁלָּקַח מֵרְאוּבֵן בַּמִּלְוֶה שֶׁזָּקַף עַל עַצְמוֹ וְחוֹזֵר וְטוֹרֵף אוֹתָהּ מֵהֶן מִפְּנֵי הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁנָּתַן לְבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁל רְאוּבֵן כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִטְרֹף אוֹתָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁהֲרֵי בְּאַחֲרָיוּת לְקָחָהּ מֵרְאוּבֵן: \n", + "כְּבָר תִּקְּנוּ גְּאוֹנִים הָאַחֲרוֹנִים כֻּלָּם שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מִטַּלְטְלִין מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין. וְכֵן דָּנִין יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּכָל בֵּית דִּין שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם. אֲבָל בַּמַּעֲרָב הָיוּ כּוֹתְבִין בְּשִׁטְרֵי חוֹבוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִגְבּוֹת מִן הַקַּרְקַע וּמִן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין בֵּין בְּחַיָּיו בֵּין אַחַר מוֹתוֹ וְנִמְצָא גּוֹבֶה עַל תְּנַאי זֶה יוֹתֵר מִן הַתַּקָּנָה. וּסְיָג גָּדוֹל עָשׂוּ בַּדָּבָר שֶׁמָּא לֹא יֵדַע הַלּוֶֹה בְּתַקָּנָה זוֹ וְנִמְצָא מָמוֹן יְתוֹמִים יוֹצֵא שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין. שֶׁאֵין כֹּחַ בְּתַקָּנַת אַחֲרוֹנִים לְחַיֵּב בָּהּ יְתוֹמִים: \n" + ], + [ + "אֵין נִפְרָעִין מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיוּ גְּדוֹלִים. אֲבָל יוֹרְשִׁין קְטַנִּים אֵין נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן שְׁטַר חוֹב: \n", + "וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה בּוֹ כָּל תְּנַאי שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם לֹא יִפָּרַע בּוֹ הַמַּלְוֶה כְּלוּם עַד שֶׁיַּגְדִּילוּ הַיְתוֹמִים שֶׁמָּא יֵשׁ לָהֶן רְאָיָה שֶׁשּׁוֹבְרִין בָּהּ אֶת הַשְּׁטָר: \n", + "הָיְתָה הַמִּלְוֶה רִבִּית שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁהֲרֵי הָרִבִּית אוֹכֶלֶת בְּנִכְסֵיהֶן מַעֲמִידִין לָהֶם אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס וְנִזְקָקִין לְנִכְסֵיהֶן וּמוֹכְרִין וּפוֹרְעִין הַחוֹב. וְכֵן אִשָּׁה שֶׁתָּבְעָה כְּתֻבָּתָהּ בֵּין אַלְמָנָה בֵּין גְּרוּשָׁה מַעֲמִידִים לָהֶם אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס וְנִזְקָקִין מִשּׁוּם חֵן הָאִשָּׁה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לָהּ כְּלוּם שֶׁתִּנָּשֵׂא בּוֹ הָאִשָּׁה לְאַחֵר. לְפִיכָךְ אִם קָפְצָה הָאִשָּׁה וְנִשֵּׂאת וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאת לִתְבֹּעַ כְּתֻבָּתָהּ מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים אֵין נִזְקָקִין לָהּ עַד שֶׁיִּגְדְּלוּ הַיְתוֹמִים שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת וַהֲרֵי נִשֵּׂאת: \n", + "הוֹרוּ מִקְצָת הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁאִם הָיוּ הַנְּכָסִים כְּנֶגֶד הַכְּתֻבָּה בִּלְבַד אוֹ פְּחוּתִים מִמֶּנָּה אֵין נִזְקָקִין לָהּ שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין כָּאן זְכוּת לַיְתוֹמִים שֶׁלֹּא אָמְרוּ נִזְקָקִין לְנִכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים לְהִפָּרַע מֵהֶן הַכְּתוּבָה אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִפְחֲתוּ הַנְּכָסִים מֵחֲמַת הַמְּזוֹנוֹת וְזֹאת הוֹאִיל וְהִיא נוֹטֶלֶת הַכּל מַה זְּכוּת יֵשׁ לַיְתוֹמִים הַקְּטַנִּים בְּדָבָר זֶה עַד שֶׁנִּזְקָקִין לָהֶן. וְלֹא חָשׁוּ לְחֵן הָאִשָּׁה: \n", + "צִוָּה הַמּוֹרִישָׁן וְאָמַר תְּנוּ מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי נִזְקָקִין אַחַר שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין לָהֶן אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לִטְעֹן טַעֲנָתָם. אָמַר תְּנוּ מָנֶה זֶה לִפְלוֹנִי אוֹ שָׂדֶה זוֹ לִפְלוֹנִי נוֹתְנִין וְאֵין צְרִיכִים לְהַעֲמִיד לָהֶן אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס: \n", + "נִמְצֵאת קַרְקַע שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלָּהֶן אֶלָּא טָעַן הַטּוֹעֵן שֶׁהִיא גֵּזֶל בְּיַד מוֹרִישָׁיו נִזְקָקִין לָהֶן וּמַעֲמִידִים לָהֶן אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לִטְעֹן וְלָדוּן. אִם נִמְצֵאת גְּזוּלָה מַחְזִירִים אוֹתָהּ לִבְעָלֶיהָ. וְכֵן קָטָן שֶׁתָּקַף בַּעֲבָדָיו וְיָרַד לְתוֹךְ שְׂדֵה חֲבֵרוֹ וּכְבָשָׁהּ אֵין אוֹמְרִין נַמְתִּין לוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּגְדִּיל אֶלָּא מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדוֹ וְלִכְשֶׁיַּגְדִּיל אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ עֵדִים יָבִיא עֵדָיו: \n", + "קַרְקַע שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּחֶזְקַת קְטַנִּים וּבָא אַחֵר וְטָעַן שֶׁהִיא לְקוּחָה מִמּוֹרִישָׁן וְיֵשׁ לוֹ עֵדִים שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בָּהּ וַאֲכָלָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה בְּחַיֵּי אֲבִיהֶן אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדָן עַד שֶׁיַּגְדִּילוּ שֶׁאֵין מְקַבְּלִין עֵדִים שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי בַּעַל דִּין וְהַקָּטָן כְּאִלּוּ אֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד כָּאן הוּא חָשׁוּב. אֲבָל אִם הוֹצִיא שְׁטָר שֶׁהִיא לְקוּחָה בְּיָדוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מְקַיֵּם אֶת הַשְּׁטָר וּמוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדָן אַחַר שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִים לָהֶם אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס: \n", + "כְּשֶׁנִּזְקָקִין בֵּית דִּין לְנִכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים לִמְכֹּר שָׁמִין אֶת הַקַּרְקַע וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַכְרִיזִין עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם רְצוּפִין אוֹ שִׁשִּׁים יוֹם שֵׁנִי וַחֲמִישִׁי. וּמַכְרִיזִים בַּבֹּקֶר וּבָעֶרֶב בִּשְׁעַת הַכְנָסַת פּוֹעֲלִים וּבִשְׁעַת הוֹצָאַת פּוֹעֲלִין וְכָל מִי שֶׁרוֹצֶה לִקְנוֹת יוֹלִיךְ הַפּוֹעֲלִין לְבַקֵּר לוֹ. וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁמַּכְרִיזִין מְסַיְּמִים אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה בִּמְצָרֶיהָ וּמוֹדִיעִין כַּמָּה יָפָה וּבְכַמָּה הוּא שׁוּמָה וּמִפְּנֵי מָה רוֹצִים לְמָכְרָהּ אִם לְהַגְבּוֹת לְבַעַל חוֹב אוֹ לִכְתֻבַּת אִשָּׁה לְפִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ מִי שֶׁרוֹצֶה לִתֵּן לְבַעַל חוֹב וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁרוֹצֶה לְהַגְבּוֹת לְאִשָּׁה: \n", + "וּכְשֶׁכּוֹתְבִין הָאַדְרַכְתָּא עַל נִכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים בֵּין גְּדוֹלִים בֵּין קְטַנִּים כּוֹתְבִין בָּהּ וְהִכַּרְנוּ שֶׁהַנְּכָסִים הָאֵלּוּ הֵן שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי הַמֵּת. וְאִם לֹא כָּתְבוּ כָּךְ הֲרֵי אַדְרַכְתָּא זוֹ פְּסוּלָה וְאֵין אוֹכְלִין בָּהּ פֵּרוֹת אֲפִלּוּ לְאַחַר שֶׁשָּׁלְמוּ הַהַכְרָזוֹת: \n", + "בֵּית דִּין שֶׁמָּכְרוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּהַכְרָזָה נַעֲשׂוּ כְּמִי שֶׁטָּעוּ בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה וְחוֹזְרִים וּמוֹכְרִין בְּהַכְרָזָה. וּבֵית דִּין שֶׁמָּכְרוּ הָאַחֲרָיוּת עַל הַיְתוֹמִים: \n", + "וּבֵית דִּין שֶׁהִכְרִיזוּ כָּרָאוּי וּבָדְקוּ יָפֶה יָפֶה וְדִקְדְּקוּ בַּשּׁוּמָא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁטָּעוּ וּמָכְרוּ שְׁוֵה מָנֶה בְּמָאתַיִם אוֹ מָאתַיִם בְּמָנֶה הֲרֵי מִכְרָן קַיָּם. אֲבָל אִם לֹא בָּדְקוּ בַּשּׁוּמָא וְלֹא כָּתְבוּ אִגֶּרֶת בִּקֹּרֶת שֶׁהִיא דִּקְדּוּק הַשּׁוּמָא וְהַהַכְרָזָה וְטָעוּ וְהוֹתִירוּ שְׁתוּת אוֹ פָּחֲתוּ שְׁתוּת מִכְרָן בָּטֵל. פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁתוּת מִכְרָן קַיָּם. וְכֵן אִם מָכְרוּ קַרְקַע בְּעֵת שֶׁאֵינָן צְרִיכִין לְהַכְרִיז עָלֶיהָ וְטָעוּ שְׁתוּת אוֹ הוֹתִירוּ שְׁתוּת מִכְרָן בָּטֵל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִכְרִיזוּ. פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁתוּת מִכְרָן קַיָּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִכְרִיזוּ שֶׁאֵינָן צְרִיכִין הַכְרָזָה בְּאוֹתוֹ הָעֵת. אֵיזֶהוּ הָעֵת שֶׁאֵינָן צְרִיכִין הַכְרָזָה בְּעֵת שֶׁיִּמְכְּרוּ קַרְקַע לִקְבוּרָה אוֹ לִמְזוֹן הָאִשָּׁה וְהַבָּנוֹת אוֹ לִתֵּן מְנַת הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵין צְרִיכִין הַכְרָזָה לְפִי שֶׁהַדָּבָר נָחוּץ. וְכֵן בֵּית דִּין שֶׁמָּכְרוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָן טְעוּנִין הַכְרָזָה וְטָעוּ בִּשְׁתוּת מִכְרָן בָּטֵל. פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁתוּת מִכְרָן קַיָּם. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין מַכְרִיזִין עֲלֵיהֶם הָעֲבָדִים וְהַשְּׁטָרוֹת וְהַמִּטַּלְטְלִין. הָעֲבָדִים שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁמְעוּ וְיִבְרְחוּ. וְהַשְּׁטָרוֹת וְהַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁמָּא יִגָּנְבוּ. לְפִיכָךְ שָׁמִין אוֹתָן בְּבֵית דִּין וּמוֹכְרִין אוֹתָן מִיָּד. וְאִם הַשּׁוּק קָרוֹב לַמְּדִינָה מוֹלִיכִין אוֹתָן לַשּׁוּק: \n" + ], + [ + "מַלְוְה שֶׁבָּא לְהִפָּרַע בַּשְּׁטָר שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי לוֶֹה אִם יְכוֹלִין בֵּית דִּין לִשְׁלֹחַ אֵלָיו וּלְהוֹדִיעוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּעֲמֹד עִמּוֹ בַּדִּין שׁוֹלְחִין וּמוֹדִיעִין לוֹ. וְאִם אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְהוֹדִיעוֹ בִּמְהֵרָה אוֹמְרִים לַמַּלְוֶה שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע וְיִטּל מִנְּכָסָיו בֵּין מִן הַקַּרְקַע בֵּין מִן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִים. וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְשׁוֹבֵר. וְדִין זֶה תַּקָּנַת חֲכָמִים הוּא כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד נוֹטֵל מְעוֹתָיו שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ וְהוֹלֵךְ וְיוֹשֵׁב לוֹ בִּמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת וְנִמְצָא נוֹעֵל דֶּלֶת בִּפְנֵי לוִֹין: ", + "שָׁלֹשׁ רְאָיוֹת צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא לְבֵית דִּין וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִפָּרַע שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו. רְאָיָה רִאשׁוֹנָה לְקַיֵּם הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ. רְאָיָה שְׁנִיָּה שֶׁבַּעַל חוֹבוֹ בִּמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת וְאֵינוֹ מָצוּי בְּכָאן לַעֲמֹד עִמּוֹ בַּדִּין. רְאָיָה שְׁלִישִׁית שֶׁאֵלּוּ נְכָסִים שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי הַלּוֶֹה הֵם: ", + "מַלְוֶה שֶׁבָּא לְבֵית דִּין וְהֵבִיא מַשְׁכּוֹן בְּיָדוֹ וְאָמַר זֶה מַשְׁכּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי הוּא וַאֲנִי רוֹצֶה לְמָכְרוֹ וּלְהִפָּרַע חוֹבִי. אֵין בֵּית דִּין נִזְקָקִין לוֹמַר לוֹ הַמְתֵּן עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא לוֶֹה וְיִטְעֹן שֶׁאִם רוֹצֶה לוֹמַר לָקוּחַ הוּא בְּיָדִי אוֹמֵר וּמַשִּׂיאִין לוֹ עֵצָה לְמָכְרוֹ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּדַע לוֶֹה בְּכַמָּה נִמְכַּר. וְכֵן הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן וּמֵת הַלּוֶֹה וְהַמַּלְוֶה בֵּין שֶׁמֵּת הַלּוֶֹה תְּחִלָּה בֵּין שֶׁמֵּת מַלְוֶה תְּחִלָּה הוֹאִיל וְהוּא נִפְרָע מִמַּה שֶּׁתַּחַת יָדוֹ וְאִלּוּ רָצָה לוֹמַר לָקוּחַ הוּא בְּיָדִי אוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ וְנוֹטֵל כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע עַל עַצְמוֹ שֶׁל מַשְׁכּוֹן אֶלָּא עַל הַמָּמוֹן שֶׁלּוֹקֵחַ. שֶׁאִלּוּ אָמַר עַל עַצְמוֹ שֶׁל חֵפֶץ זֶה אַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי אַתָּה נְתַתּוֹ לִי הָיָה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ שָׁם עֵדִים שֶׁחֵפֶץ זֶה מַשְׁכּוֹן בְּיָדוֹ וְלֹא יָדְעוּ עַל כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטּל אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה וְהוֹאִיל וְאֵין שָׁם עֵדִים וְיָכוֹל לוֹמַר שֶׁלִּי הוּא נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר יֵשׁ לִי עָלָיו כָּךְ וְכָךְ בַּשְּׁבוּעָה עַצְמָהּ שֶׁהָיָה נִשְׁבָּע אִם הָיוּ שָׁם עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא מַשְׁכּוֹן. שֶׁאֵין אוֹמְרִין מִגּוֹ לְפָטְרוֹ מִשְּׁבוּעָה אֶלָּא לְפָטְרוֹ מִמָּמוֹן שֶׁלֹּא יַחְזִיר הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן עַד שֶׁיִּטּל מַה שֶּׁטָּעַן: ", + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן וְאָבַד אוֹ נִגְנַב בְּלֹא אֹנֶס שֶׁהֲרֵי הַמַּלְוֶה חַיָּב בִּדְמֵי הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאָמַר הַמַּלְוֶה סֶלַע הִלְוֵיתִיךָ עָלָיו וּשְׁנֵי דִּינָרִין הָיָה שָׁוֶה. וְלוֶֹה אוֹמֵר סֶלַע הִלְוֵיתַנִי עָלָיו וְסֶלַע הָיָה שָׁוֶה. הֲרֵי הַמַּלְוֶה נִשְׁבָּע תְּחִלָּה שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וְהַלּוֶֹה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁהָיָה שָׁוֶה כְּנֶגֶד הַחוֹב וְנִפְטָר. אָמַר הַמַּלְוֶה סֶלַע הִלְוֵיתִיךָ עָלָיו וְשֶׁקֶל הָיָה שָׁוֶה וְהַלּוֶֹה אוֹמֵר סֶלַע הִלְוֵיתַנִי עָלָיו וּשְׁלֹשָׁה דִּינָרִין הָיָה שָׁוֶה יִשָּׁבַע הַמַּלְוֶה תְּחִלָּה שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִשָּׁבַע הַלּוֶֹה כַּמָּה הָיָה שָׁוֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי הוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת וִישַׁלֵּם הַדִּינָר. אָמַר הַלּוֶֹה סֶלַע הִלְוֵיתַנִי עָלָיו וּשְׁתַּיִם הָיָה שָׁוֶה וְהַמַּלְוֶה אוֹמֵר סֶלַע הִלְוֵיתִיךָ עָלָיו וְסֶלַע הָיָה שָׁוֶה יִשָּׁבַע הַמַּלְוֶה שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וְכוֹלֵל בִּשְׁבוּעָתוֹ שֶׁהָיָה הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן כְּנֶגֶד הַחוֹב. אָמַר הַלּוֶֹה סֶלַע הִלְוֵיתַנִי עָלָיו וּשְׁתַּיִם הָיָה שָׁוֶה וְהַמַּלְוֶה אוֹמֵר סֶלַע הִלְוֵיתִיךָ עָלָיו וַחֲמִשָּׁה דִּינָרִין הָיָה שָׁוֶה יִשָּׁבַע הַמַּלְוֶה שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וְיִכְלל שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה שָׁוֶה יֶתֶר עַל חֲמִשָּׁה דִּינָרִים וִישַׁלֵּם הַדִּינָר. סֶלַע הִלְוֵיתִיךָ עָלָיו וּשְׁנֵי דִּינָרִין הָיָה שָׁוֶה וְהַלּוֶֹה אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ דָּמָיו יִשָּׁבַע מַלְוֶה שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וְכוֹלֵל בִּשְׁבוּעָתוֹ שֶׁשְּׁנֵי דִּינָרִין הָיָה שָׁוֶה וִישַׁלֵּם הַלּוֶֹה שְׁאָר הַחוֹב שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא יוֹדֵעַ בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אִם פְּרָעוֹ אִם לֹא פְּרָעוֹ. סֶלַע הִלְוֵיתַנִי עָלָיו וּשְׁתַּיִם הָיָה שָׁוֶה וְהַמַּלְוֶה אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ דָּמָיו יִשָּׁבַע הַמַּלְוֶה שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וְיִכְלל שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁדָּמָיו יֶתֶר עַל הַחוֹב אֲפִלּוּ פְּרוּטָה אַחַת וְיִפָּטֵר שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא חִיֵּב עַצְמוֹ בִּכְלוּם. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר הַמַּלְוֶה אֲנִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהָיָה שָׁוֶה יֶתֶר עַל הַחוֹב אֲבָל אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ כַּמָּה הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם כָּל מַה שֶּׁטָּעַן הַלּוֶֹה בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה כְּמִי שֶׁאָמַר חֲמִשִּׁים יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּיָדִי וַחֲמִשִּׁים אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא מְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִשָּׁבַע כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַחֲרִים עַל מִי שֶׁטּוֹעֵן שֶׁקֶר: ", + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ וְקָבַע לוֹ זְמַן לְפָרְעוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְתָבְעוֹ עַד סוֹף הַזְּמַן בֵּין בְּמִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה בֵּין בְּמִלְוֶה בִּשְׁטָר בֵּין שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן בֵּין שֶׁמֵּת לוֶֹה בֵּין שֶׁמֵּת מַלְוֶה. וּסְתָם מִלְוֶה שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם בֵּין בִּשְׁטָר בֵּין עַל פֶּה בֵּין עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן. וְאִם הִתְנָה שֶׁיִּתְבַּע בְּכָל זְמַן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה יֵשׁ לוֹ לְתָבְעוֹ בְּיוֹמוֹ שֶׁתְּנַאי מָמוֹן הוּא: ", + "טָעַן הַמַּלְוֶה וְאָמַר הַיּוֹם סוֹף הַזְּמַן שֶׁקָּבַעְתִּי וְהַלּוֶֹה אוֹמֵר עַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים קָבַעְתָּ הַלּוֶֹה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת. וְאִם הָיָה שָׁם עֵד אֶחָד שֶׁהַיּוֹם סוֹף זְמַנּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הַתּוֹרָה כִּשְׁאָר הַטְּעָנוֹת. זֶה אוֹמֵר חֲמִשָּׁה יָמִים נִשְׁאָר מִן הַזְּמַן וְזֶה אוֹמֵר עֲשָׂרָה אוֹמְרִים לַמַּלְוֶה הַמְתֵּן עוֹד עַד סוֹף הַחֲמִשָּׁה וְיִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת שֶׁנִּשְׁאַר עוֹד חֲמִשָּׁה יָמִים: ", + "הָיְתָה הַמִּלְוֶה בִּשְׁטָר וְטָעַן הַלּוֶֹה שֶׁזְּמַן קָבַעְתָּ לִי. יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע בַּעַל חוֹב הֶסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא קָבַע לוֹ זְמַן וְיִטּל הַמַּלְוֶה מִיָּד: ", + "הַמִּלְוֶה נִתְּנָה לִתָּבַע בְּכָל מָקוֹם. כֵּיצַד. הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בַּיִּשּׁוּב וּתְבָעוֹ בַּמִּדְבָּר אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִדְחוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא חַיָּב לִפְרֹעַ לוֹ בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁיִּתְבָּעֶנּוּ. בָּא הַלּוֶֹה לְפָרְעוֹ בַּמִּדְבָּר הָרְשׁוּת בְּיַד הַמַּלְוֶה אִם רָצָה מְקַבֵּל וְאִם רָצָה אוֹמֵר לוֹ אֵינִי נִפְרָע אֶלָּא בַּיִּשּׁוּב כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁנָּתַתִּי לְךָ בְּיִשּׁוּב. וַהֲרֵי הֵן בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּפְרָעֶנּוּ בַּיִּשּׁוּב: " + ], + [ + "הַפּוֹגֵם אֶת שְׁטָרוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁעֵד אֶחָד מֵעִיד עַל שְׁטָרוֹ שֶׁהוּא פָּרוּעַ. וְהַבָּא לִפָּרַע שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַלּוֶֹה. וְהַטּוֹרֵף מִיַּד הַלּוֹקֵחַ. וְהַנִּפְרָעִים מִן הַיּוֹרֵשׁ בֵּין קָטָן בֵּין גָּדוֹל. לֹא יִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה כְּעֵין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה. (וְאוֹמֵר) לוֹ כְּשֶׁיִּתְבַּע הִשָּׁבַע וְאַחַר כָּךְ תִּטּל. וְאִם הָיָה הַחוֹב לִזְמַן וְתָבַע בִּזְמַנּוֹ יִפָּרַע שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה. עָבַר זְמַנּוֹ לֹא יִגְבֶּה אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה: \n", + "הַתּוֹבֵעַ אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ לְפָרְעוֹ וְטָעַן הַלּוֶֹה שֶׁפָּרַע שְׁטָר זֶה אוֹ מִקְצָתוֹ וּבַעַל הַשְּׁטָר אוֹמֵר לֹא פָּרַעְתָּ כְּלוּם אוֹמְרִים לוֹ שַׁלֵּם לוֹ. טָעַן הַלּוֶֹה וְאָמַר יִשָּׁבַע לִי שֶׁלֹּא פְּרַעְתִּיו וְיִטּל מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ שֶׁלֹּא פְּרָעוֹ כְּלוּם אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא פְּרָעוֹ אֶלָּא כָּךְ וְכָךְ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִטּל. וְאִם הָיָה הַמַּלְוֶה תַּלְמִיד חָכָם אֵין נִזְקָקִין לִשְׁבוּעָתוֹ: \n", + "הוֹצִיא עָלָיו שְׁטָר מְקֻיָּם וְהַלּוֶֹה טוֹעֵן וְאוֹמֵר שְׁטָר מְזֻיָּף הוּא וּמֵעוֹלָם לֹא כָּתַבְתִּי שְׁטָר זֶה. אוֹ שֶׁטָּעַן שֶׁחוֹב זֶה רִבִּית הוּא אוֹ אֲבַק רִבִּית. אוֹ שֶׁטָּעַן שֶׁהוּא שְׁטַר אֲמָנָה אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר כָּתַבְתִּי לִלְווֹת וְלֹא לָוִיתִי. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר טוֹעֵן טַעֲנָה שֶׁאִם הוֹדָה בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר הָיָה הַשְּׁטָר בָּטֵל וְהַמַּלְוֶה עוֹמֵד בִּשְׁטָרוֹ וְאוֹמֵר שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁקֶר טוֹעֵן וְאָמַר הַלּוֶֹה יִשָּׁבַע לִי וְיִטּל הֲרֵי זוֹ מַחְלֹקֶת בֵּין הַגְּאוֹנִים יֵשׁ מִי שֶׁהוֹרָה שֶׁחַיָּב בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר לְהַשְׁבִּיעַ כְּעֵין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה כְּמִי שֶׁטָּעַן עָלָיו שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ. וְרַבּוֹתַי הוֹרוּ שֶׁלֹּא יִשָּׁבַע הַמַּלְוֶה אֶלָּא אִם טָעַן עָלָיו הַלּוֶֹה שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ בִּלְבַד. שֶׁהֲרֵי הוֹדָה בַּשְּׁטָר וּלְפֵרָעוֹן הוּא עוֹמֵד. אֲבָל כָּל אֵלּוּ הַטְּעָנוֹת לֹא כָּל הֵימֶנּוּ לְבַטֵּל שְׁטָר מְקֻיָּם אֶלָּא יְשַׁלֵּם וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִטְעֹן עַל הַמַּלְוֶה בְּמַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה שֶׁאִם יוֹדֶה יַחְזִיר לוֹ וְאִם כָּפַר יִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת. וְלָזֶה דַּעְתִּי נוֹטָה: \n", + "הַמּוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב עַל חֲבֵרוֹ מַלְוֶה אוֹמֵר לֹא נִפְרַעְתִּי כְּלוּם וְלוֶֹה אוֹמֵר פָּרַעְתִּי מֶחֱצָה וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִים שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ כֻּלּוֹ נִשְׁבָּע הַלּוֶֹה וְנוֹתֵן מֶחֱצָה שֶׁהֲרֵי הוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת וְאֵינוֹ כְּמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵדָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵימַת הַשְּׁטָר עָלָיו. וְאֵין הַמַּלְוֶה גּוֹבֶה הַמֶּחֱצָה אֶלָּא מִבְּנֵי חוֹרִין שֶׁהֲרֵי הַלָּקוֹחוֹת אוֹמְרִים אָנוּ עַל הָעֵדִים נִסְמֹךְ וַהֲרֵי בִּטְּלוּ שְׁטָר זֶה: \n", + "הוֹצִיא עָלָיו שְׁטַר חוֹב שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְקַיְּמוֹ וְאָמַר הַלּוֶֹה אֱמֶת שֶׁאֲנִי כָּתַבְתִּי שְׁטָר זֶה אֲבָל פְּרַעְתִּיו אוֹ אֲמָנָה הוּא אוֹ כָּתַבְתִּי לִלְווֹת וַעֲדַיִן לֹא לָוִיתִי וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה הוֹאִיל וְאִם רָצָה אָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם וַהֲרֵי מִפִּיו נִתְקַיֵּם הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן וְיִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת וְיִפָּטֵר. וְאִם קִיְּמוֹ הַמַּלְוֶה אַחַר כָּךְ בְּבֵית דִּין הֲרֵי הוּא כִּשְׁאָר הַשְּׁטָרוֹת: \n", + "הוֹצִיא עָלָיו שְׁטָר מְקֻיָּם וְאָמַר הַלּוֶֹה מְזֻיָּף הוּא וּמֵעוֹלָם לֹא כְּתַבְתִּיו אוֹ שְׁטַר אֲמָנָה הוּא וְאָמַר הַמַּלְוֶה כֵּן הַדְּבָרִים אֲבָל שְׁטָר כָּשֵׁר הָיָה לִי וְאָבַד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַמַּלְוֶה הוּא שֶׁשָּׁבַר אֶת שְׁטָרוֹ וְאִלּוּ רָצָה אָמַר אֵינוֹ מְזֻיָּף שֶׁהֲרֵי נִתְקַיֵּם בְּבֵית דִּין אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה בּוֹ כְּלוּם אֶלָּא נִשְׁבָּע הַלּוֶֹה הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר שֶׁהֲרֵי זֶה הַשְּׁטָר כְּחֶרֶס הוּא חָשׁוּב: \n", + "שְׁטָר שֶׁלָּוָה בּוֹ וּפְרָעוֹ אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר וְלוֶֹה בּוֹ שֶׁכְּבָר נִמְחַל שִׁעְבּוּדוֹ וְנַעֲשָׂה כְּחֶרֶס: \n", + "הַמּוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב מְקֻיָּם עַל חֲבֵרוֹ וְאָמַר הַלּוֶֹה הֲלֹא פְּרָעְתִּיךָ וְאָמַר לוֹ הַמַּלְוֶה כֵּן הָיָה אֲבָל חָזַרְתִּי וְהֶחְזַרְתִּי לְךָ הַמָּעוֹת וְהִלְוֵיתִי אוֹתְךָ פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה הֲרֵי בָּטֵל הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁנִּפְרַע וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּחֶרֶס. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ הֶחְזַרְתִּי לְךָ הַמָּעוֹת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ טוֹבוֹת עַד שֶׁתַּחֲלִיפֵם לֹא בָּטֵל הַשְּׁטָר וַעֲדַיִן שִׁעְבּוּדוֹ קַיָּם: \n", + "הוֹצִיא עָלָיו שְׁטָר מְקֻיָּם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עָלָיו מָנֶה וְאָמַר לוֹ הַלּוֶֹה הֲלֹא פְּרָעתִיךָ בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וּבָאוּ אֵלּוּ וְהֵעִידוּ שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ אֲבָל לֹא הִזְכִּיר לוֹ אֶת הַשְּׁטָר וְאָמַר לוֹ הַמַּלְוֶה כֵּן הוּא שֶׁפָּרַעְתָּ אֲבָל חוֹב אַחֵר פָּרַעְתָּ שֶׁהָיָה לִי אֶצְלְךָ הֲרֵי בָּטֵל הַשְּׁטָר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהֵעִידוּ שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ בְּתוֹרַת פֵּרָעוֹן אֲבָל אִם רָאוּהוּ נוֹתֵן לוֹ מָעוֹת וְלֹא יָדְעוּ אִם הוּא בְּתוֹרַת פֵּרָעוֹן אוֹ בְּתוֹרַת פִּקָּדוֹן אוֹ בְּתוֹרַת מַתָּנָה. אִם אָמַר בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם הֲרֵי הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן וּבָטֵל הַשְּׁטָר. וְאִם אָמַר פֵּרָעוֹן שֶׁל חוֹב אַחֵר הוּא הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן וְנִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל מַה שֶׁבַּשְּׁטָר שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא פְּרָעוֹ בְּעֵדִים. מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר מַתָּנָה נְתָנָם לִי נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר פֵּרָעוֹן שֶׁל חוֹב אַחֵר הֵן. אָמַר לוֹ הַלּוֶֹה וַהֲלֹא שְׁטַר חוֹב זֶה דְּמֵי שׁוֹר שֶׁלָּקַחְתִּי מִמְּךָ הוּא וְאַתָּה גָּבִיתָ דְּמֵי בְּשָׂרוֹ. וְאָמַר לוֹ בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר כֵּן אֲנִי גָּבִיתִי אֶת דָּמָיו מֵחוֹב אַחֵר שֶׁהָיָה לִי אֶצְלְךָ. הוֹאִיל וְהוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ שֶׁדְּמֵי הַשּׁוֹר הוּא הַחוֹב וּמִדָּמָיו נִפְרַע בָּטֵל הַשְּׁטָר. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים שֶׁפָּרַע מִדָּמוֹ יִשָּׁבַע הַלּוֶֹה הֶסֵּת שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "הוֹצִיא עָלָיו שְׁטַר חוֹב בְּעֵד אֶחָד וְלוֶֹה טוֹעֵן פָּרַעְתִּי הֲרֵי זֶה מְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵינִי יָכוֹל לִשָּׁבַע וּמְשַׁלֵּם. טָעַן וְאָמַר יִשָּׁבַע לִי שֶׁלֹּא פְּרַעְתִּיו הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ בַּשְּׁטָר שְׁנֵי עֵדִים וְאָמַר יִשָּׁבַע לִי שֶׁלֹּא פְּרַעְתִּיו הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "וְכֵן הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁהַכּוֹפֵר בְּמִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה בְּבֵית דִּין וּבָא עֵד אֶחָד שֶׁלָּוָה הֲרֵי זֶה יִשָּׁבַע שְׁבוּעַת הַתּוֹרָה. חָזַר וְאָמַר כֵּן הָיָה לָוִיתִי וּפָרַעְתִּי אוֹ מָחַל לִי אוֹ נִתְחַיֵּב לִי מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר הֲרֵי זֶה מְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִשָּׁבַע וּמְשַׁלֵּם: \n", + "מִי שֶׁטָּעַן שֶׁפָּרַע הַשְּׁטָר וְאָמַר יִשָּׁבַע הַמַּלְוֶה וְיִטּל אוֹמְרִים לוֹ הָבֵא מְעוֹתָיו וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִשָּׁבַע וְיִטּל. אִם אֵין לוֹ כְּלוּם לְשַׁלֵּם מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ כְּתַקָּנַת הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁאֵין לוֹ וְלִכְשֶׁתַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ יִתֵּן לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ וְיַשְׁבִּיעוֹ שֶׁלֹּא פָּרַע וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִתֵּן לוֹ: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ חוֹב עַל חֲבֵרוֹ בִּשְׁטָר וְאָבַד הַשְּׁטָר וַהֲרֵי הָעֵדִים קַיָּמִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ וְטָעַן שֶׁפָּרַע הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת. וְהוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַחוֹב לִזְמַן וַעֲדַיִן לֹא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ לְהִפָּרַע הוֹאִיל וְכָתְבוּ לוֹ הַשְּׁטָר וְאֵין בְּיָדוֹ שְׁטָר וְהַלּוֶֹה טוֹעֵן פָּרַעְתִּי נֶאֱמָן וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ שֶׁאָנוּ חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא פְּרָעוֹ וּלְפִיכָךְ קָרַע הַשְּׁטָר אוֹ שְׂרָפוֹ. וְכֵן הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַשְּׁטָר יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי אַחֵר וְהַלּוֶֹה טוֹעֵן מִמֶּנִּי נָפַל אַחַר שֶׁפָּרַעְתִּי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בְּתוֹךְ זְמַנּוֹ נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵין הַשְּׁטָר בְּיַד הַמַּלְוֶה אֵין שָׁם חֲזָקָה: \n", + "שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵן אוֹחֲזִין בִּשְׁטָר הַמַּלְוֶה אוֹמֵר שֶׁלִּי הוּא וְהוֹצֵאתִיו לְהִפָּרַע בּוֹ מִמְּךָ וְהַלּוֶֹה אוֹמֵר פְּרַעְתִּיו וּמִמֶּנִּי נָפַל. אִם הָיָה הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְקַיְּמוֹ זֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בְּדָמִים אֵלּוּ פָּחוֹת מֵחֶצְיָן וְזֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בַּדָּמִים פָּחוֹת מֵחֶצְיָן וִישַׁלֵּם הַלּוֶֹה מֶחֱצָה. וְאִם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְקַיְּמוֹ יִשָּׁבַע הַלּוֶֹה הֶסֵּת שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ וְיֵלֵךְ לוֹ: \n", + "הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ מָנֶה יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם אוֹ שֶׁאוֹמֵר פְּרַעְתִּיךָ. אָמַר לוֹ הַתּוֹבֵעַ הִשָּׁבַע לִי הֶסֵּת. אָמַר לוֹ הַנִּתְבָּע וַהֲלֹא שְׁטָר יֵשׁ לְךָ עָלַי וְאַתָּה רוֹצֶה לְהַשְׁבִּיעַ אוֹתִי תְּחִלָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ תּוֹצִיא הַשְּׁטָר הַפָּרוּעַ וְתִגְבֶּה בּוֹ. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ הָבֵא הַשְּׁטָר. אָמַר הַמַּלְוֶה אֵין לִי שְׁטָר עָלָיו מֵעוֹלָם אוֹ שְׁטָר הָיָה לִי וְאָבַד הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁאוֹמְרִים לַמַּלְוֶה בַּטֵּל כָּל שְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְךָ קֹדֶם זְמַן זֶה וְאַחַר כָּךְ תַּשְׁבִּיעֵהוּ הֶסֵּת אוֹ הַחֲרֵם חֵרֶם סְתָם וְלֵךְ וּבַקֵּשׁ עַד שֶׁתִּמְצָא הַשְּׁטָר: \n" + ], + [ + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בְּעֵדִים וְאָמַר אַל תִּפְרָעֵנִי אֶלָּא בְּעֵדִים בֵּין שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָה בֵּין שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ אַחַר שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ הֲרֵי זֶה צָרִיךְ לְפָרְעוֹ בְּעֵדִים מִפְּנֵי הַתְּנַאי. טָעַן הַלּוֶֹה וְאָמַר לוֹ וְכֵן עָשִׂיתִי וּפְרַעְתִּיךָ בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וְהָלְכוּ לָהֶם לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם אוֹ מֵתוּ הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן וְנִשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר אַל תִּפְרָעֵנִי אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים אוֹ בִּפְנֵי רוֹפְאִים וְאָמַר לוֹ בִּפְנֵיהֶם פְּרַעְתִּיךָ וְאוֹתָן הָעֵדִים שֶׁפְּרַעְתִּיךָ בִּפְנֵיהֶם מֵתוּ אוֹ הָלְכוּ לָהֶם לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ אַל תִּפְרָעֵנִי אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וְאָמַר לוֹ פְּרַעְתִּיךָ בִּפְנֵי אֲחֵרִים וּמֵתוּ אוֹ הָלְכוּ לָהֶם לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן שֶׁמִּפְּנֵי טַעֲנָה זוֹ הִתְנָה עָלָיו וְאָמַר לוֹ אַל תִּפְרָעֵנִי אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי רְאוּבֵן וְשִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁהֵם עוֹמְדִים עִמּוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִדְחֶה אוֹתוֹ וְיֹאמַר בִּפְנֵי אֲחֵרִים פָּרַעְתִּי וְהָלְכוּ לָהֶם: \n", + "יֵשׁ נֻסְחָאוֹת מִן הַגְּמָרָא שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהֶן שֶׁהָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ אַל תִּפְרָעֵנִי אֶלָּא בְּעֵדִים וְאָמַר לוֹ פְּרַעְתִּיךָ בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וְהָלְכוּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן וְטָעוּת סְפָרִים הוּא וּלְפִיכָךְ טָעוּ הַמּוֹרִים עַל פִּי אוֹתָן הַסְּפָרִים וּכְבָר חָקַרְתִּי עַל הַנֻּסְחָאוֹת הַיְשָׁנוֹת וּמָצָאתִי בָּהֶן שֶׁהוּא נֶאֱמָן וְהִגִּיעַ לְיָדִי בְּמִצְרַיִם מִקְצָת גְּמָרָא יְשָׁנָה כָּתוּב עַל הַגְּוִילִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ כּוֹתְבִין קֹדֶם לַזְּמַן הַזֶּה בְּקָרוֹב חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וּשְׁתֵּי נֻסְחָאוֹת מָצָאתִי מִן הַגְּוִילִים בַּהֲלָכָה זוֹ וּבִשְׁתֵּיהֶם כָּתוּב וְאִם אָמַר פָּרַעְתִּי בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וְהָלְכוּ לָהֶן לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם נֶאֱמָן. וּמִפְּנֵי טָעוּת זוֹ שֶׁאֵרַע לְמִקְצָת הַסְּפָרִים הוֹרוּ מִקְצָת גְּאוֹנִים שֶׁאִם אָמַר לוֹ אַל תִּפְרָעֵנִי אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְרָעוֹ בִּפְנֵי אֲחֵרִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁפָּרְעוּ בִּפְנֵיהֶם וְגַם זוֹ טָעוּת גְּדוֹלָה וְהַדִּין הָאֱמֶת שֶׁאִם בָּאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁפָּרְעוּ בִּפְנֵיהֶם נִפְטָר וְאֵין כָּאן מְקוֹם חֲשָׁשׁ. גַּם הַהוֹרָאָה הַזֹּאת עַל פִּי סִפְרֵיהֶן שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהֶן בְּאוֹתוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לַחֲבֵרוֹ פְּרָעֵנִי בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים שֶׁשָּׁנוּ הֲלָכוֹת וְהָלַךְ וּפְרָעוֹ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים וְטָעוּת סְפָרִים הוּא וּמָצָאתִי בַּגְּוִילִים כָּתוּב אָזַל פַּרְעֵיהּ בֵּינֵיהּ לְבֵין דִּילֵיהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַסְּפָרִים מֻגָּהִין כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ כָּךְ יֵרָאֶה מִדִּין הַגְּמָרָא. וְעוֹד דְּבָרִים שֶׁל דַּעַת הֵן וְכִי מֶה הָיָה לוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת אָמַר לוֹ אַל תִּפְרָעֵנִי אֶלָּא בְּעֵדִים פְּרָעוֹ בְּעֵדִים וְכִי יֵשׁ לוֹ לֶאֱסֹר אֶת הָעֵדִים בְּבֵית הַסֹּהַר כָּל יְמֵיהֶם שֶׁלֹּא יֵלְכוּ וְעוֹד אִם מֵתוּ מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה נִמְצָא זֶה פּוֹרֵעַ פַּעַם אַחַר פַּעַם לְעוֹלָם עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא עֵדִים אִם כֵּן נַעֲשֵׂית עֵדוּת זוֹ עֵדוּת בִּשְׁטָר וְנִמְצָא זֶה כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר אַל תִּפְרָעֵנִי אֶלָּא בְּעֵדִים נַעֲשֵׂית מִלְוֶה בִּשְׁטָר וְאֵין מִי שֶׁעָלָה עַל לִבּוֹ זֶה. אֲבָל וַדַּאי אִם אָמַר בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי הוּא הִפְסִיד עַל עַצְמוֹ שֶׁפָּרַע בִּפְנֵי אֲחֵרִים וְהָלְכוּ לָהֶם. אֲבָל אִם בָּאוּ וְהֵעִידוּ שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ אֵין כָּאן בֵּית מֵחוֹשׁ וְכָזֶה רָאוּי לָדוּן וּלְהוֹרוֹת: \n", + "הִתְנָה הַמַּלְוֶה עַל הַלּוֶֹה שֶׁיִּהְיֶה נֶאֱמָן בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיֹּאמַר שֶׁלֹּא פְּרָעוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה נוֹטֵל בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁטָּעַן שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ. וְאִם הֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל כְּלוּם: \n", + "הִתְנָה עָלָיו שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַמַּלְוֶה נֶאֱמָן כִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹבֶה מִמֶּנּוּ בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁהֲרֵי הֶאֱמִינוֹ כִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים. וַאֲפִלּוּ הֵבִיא מֵאָה עֵדִים (שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ הֲרֵי גּוֹבֶה מִמֶּנּוּ בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה וַאֲפִלּוּ הֵבִיא מֵאָה עֵדִים) שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ בִּפְנֵיהֶם שֶׁהַשְּׁנַיִם כְּמֵאָה. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ הֲרֵי אַתָּה נֶאֱמָן עָלַי כִּשְׁלֹשָׁה הוֹאִיל וְיָרַד לְמִנְיָן אִם פְּרָעוֹ בִּפְנֵי אַרְבָּעָה הֲרֵי זֶה פָּרוּעַ. זֶה שֶׁהֶאֱמִין הַמַּלְוֶה כִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים מַה תִּהְיֶה תַּקָּנָתוֹ כְּשֶׁיִּפָּרַע יִקְרַע הַשְּׁטָר אוֹ יָעִיד זֶה הַמַּלְוֶה עַל עַצְמוֹ שֶׁבִּטֵּל כָּל שְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עַל פְּלוֹנִי. אוֹ יָעִיד עַל עַצְמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַלּוֶֹה שֶׁקִּבֵּל כָּל חוֹב שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אֵצֶל פְּלוֹנִי: \n", + "הֲרֵי שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ וְטָעַן הַמַּלְוֶה שֶׁלֹּא נִפְרַע וּפְרָעוֹ פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה מִפְּנֵי הַתְּנַאי הֲרֵי הַלּוֶֹה חוֹזֵר וְתוֹבֵעַ אֶת הַמַּלְוֶה בְּדִין וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ כָּךְ וְכָךְ אַתָּה חַיָּב לִי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁפְּרָעְתִּיךָ שְׁתֵּי פְּעָמִים. אִם הוֹדָה יְשַׁלֵּם וְאִם כָּפַר יִשָּׁבַע שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת עַל כָּךְ שֶׁלֹּא פְּרָעוֹ אֶלָּא פַּעַם אַחַת. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "הִתְנָה הַלּוֶֹה שֶׁיִּהְיֶה נֶאֱמָן בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיֹּאמַר פָּרַעְתִּי אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה בִּשְׁטָר זֶה לֹא מִן הַיּוֹרֵשׁ וְלֹא מִן הַלּוֹקֵחַ. וַאֲפִלּוּ אָמַר לוֶֹה לֹא פָּרַעְתִּי אֵין הַמַּלְוֶה טוֹרֵף בִּשְׁטָר זֶה מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת שֶׁמָּא עָשׂוּ קְנוּנְיָא עַל נְכָסָיו שֶׁל זֶה. טָעַן הַלּוֶֹה בִּשְׁטָר זֶה וְאָמַר פָּרַעְתִּי מִקְצָתוֹ וְהַמַּלְוֶה אוֹמֵר לֹא פָּרַע כְּלוּם מְשַׁלֵּם הַמִּקְצָת שֶׁהוֹדָה בּוֹ וְנִשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת שֶׁהֲרֵי הֶאֱמִינוֹ. וְאִם הִתְנָה עָלָיו שֶׁיִּהְיֶה נֶאֱמָן בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע: \n", + "הִתְנָה הַמַּלְוֶה שֶׁיִּהְיֶה גּוֹבֶה בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹבֶה מִמֶּנּוּ בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה. אֲבָל אִם בָּא לִגְבּוֹת מִיּוֹרְשָׁיו יִשָּׁבַע וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִגְבֶּה. וְאִם הִתְנָה שֶׁיִּגְבֶּה אַף מִן הַיּוֹרֵשׁ בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה גּוֹבֶה בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה. וְכֵן אִם הִתְנָה שֶׁיִּגְבֶּה מִן הָעִידִית גּוֹבֶה מִן הָעִידִית אַף מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין. שֶׁכָּל תְּנַאי שֶׁבְּמָמוֹן קַיָּם. בָּא לִגְבּוֹת מִן הַלּוֹקֵחַ לֹא יִטְרֹף אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין זֶה מַתְנֶה לְאַבֵּד מָמוֹן חֲבֵרוֹ: \n" + ], + [ + "הַחוֹב בְּאַחֲרָיוּת הַלּוֶֹה עַד שֶׁיִּפְרָעֶנּוּ לְיד הַמַּלְוֶה אוֹ לְיַד שְׁלוּחוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ הַמַּלְוֶה זְרֹק לִי חוֹבִי וְהִפָּטֵר וּזְרָקוֹ וְאָבַד אוֹ נִשְׂרַף קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְיַד הַמַּלְוֶה פָּטוּר. אָמַר לוֹ זְרֹק לִי חוֹבִי בְּתוֹרַת גִּטִּין. הָיוּ הַמָּעוֹת קְרוֹבוֹת לַלּוֶֹה הֲרֵי עֲדַיִן בְּאַחֲרָיוּתוֹ. הָיוּ קְרוֹבוֹת לַמַּלְוֶה נִפְטָר הַלּוֶֹה. מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה אִם אָבְדוּ מִשָּׁם אוֹ נִגְנְבוּ מְשַׁלֵּם הַלּוֶֹה מֶחֱצָה: \n", + "הָיָה רְאוּבֵן חַיָּב לְשִׁמְעוֹן מָנֶה וְאָמַר לְלֵוִי הוֹלֵךְ לְשִׁמְעוֹן מָנֶה זֶה שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב לוֹ. אִם בָּא לַחְזֹר אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר וְהוּא חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ הַמָּנֶה לְשִׁמְעוֹן. הֶחְזִיר לֵוִי אֶת הַמָּנֶה לִרְאוּבֵן שְׁנֵיהֶן חַיָּבִין בְּאַחֲרָיוּתוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְיַד שִׁמְעוֹן כָּל חוֹבוֹ: \n", + "רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהָיָה חַיָּב לְשִׁמְעוֹן מָנֶה וְאָמַר שִׁמְעוֹן לִרְאוּבֵן מָנֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ תְּנֵהוּ לְלֵוִי וְהָיוּ שְׁלָשְׁתָּן עוֹמְדִין וְקִבֵּל לֵוִי וְנִמְצָא רְאוּבֵן עָנִי וְאֵין לוֹ מִמַּה שֶּׁיִּגְבֶּה מִמֶּנּוּ הֲרֵי לֵוִי חוֹזֵר בַּחוֹב שֶׁל שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁזֶּה הִטְעָהוּ. וְאִם יָדַע לֵוִי שֶׁהוּא עָנִי אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה עָשִׁיר בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה וְהֶעֱנִי אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר שֶׁהֲרֵי קִבֵּל. טָעַן לֵוִי שֶׁהָיָה רְאוּבֵן עָנִי וְהִטְעָהוּ וְשִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר עָשִׁיר הָיָה וְהֶעֱנִי יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁעַל שִׁמְעוֹן לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִפָּטֵר מֵחוֹב לֵוִי. לֹא יִהְיֶה אֶלָּא שׁוֹבֵר בְּיָדוֹ. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ קַיֵּם שׁוֹבֶרְךָ וְהִפָּטֵר: \n", + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר שֶׁרְאוּבֵן שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לוֹ אֵצֶל שִׁמְעוֹן כְּלוּם וְהָיָה רְאוּבֵן חַיָּב לְלֵוִי מָנֶה וְהִמְחָהוּ אֵצֶל שִׁמְעוֹן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִמְחָהוּ בְּמַעֲמַד שְׁלָשְׁתָּן לֹא קָנָה. וְאִם רָצָה שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁלֹּא יִתֵּן לֹא יִתֵּן וְאִם נָתַן חוֹזֵר וְגוֹבֶה מֵרְאוּבֵן שֶׁהֲרֵי עַל פִּיו נָתַן. וְכֵן אִם רָצָה לֵוִי לַחְזֹר וְלוֹמַר אֵינִי רוֹצֶה לִגְבּוֹת מִשִּׁמְעוֹן חוֹזֵר וְגוֹבֶה מֵרְאוּבֵן וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּפְרָע מִקְצָת מִשִּׁמְעוֹן חוֹזֵר וְגוֹבֶה הַשְּׁאָר מֵרְאוּבֵן: \n", + "חֶנְוָנִי שֶׁהָיָה נוֹתֵן לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת מִן הַחֲנוּת כָּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה בְּתוֹרַת הַלְוָאָה וּמַקִּיפוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּתְקַבֵּץ הַכּל וּפוֹרֵעַ לוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת תֵּן לַפּוֹעֲלִים סֶלַע אוֹ לְבַעַל חוֹבִי מָנֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אֶצְלִי וַאֲנִי אֶתֵּן לְךָ וַהֲרֵי הַחֶנְוָנִי אוֹמֵר נָתַתִּי וְהַפּוֹעֵל אוֹ בַּעַל חוֹבוֹ אוֹמֵר לֹא לָקַחְתִּי הֲרֵי הַפּוֹעֵל אוֹ בַּעַל חוֹב נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת חוֹבוֹ וְכֵן הַחֶנְוָנִי נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת מַה שֶּׁטָּעַן שֶׁנָּתַן שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא אָמַר לוֹ לִתֵּן. וְהַפּוֹעֵל נִשְׁבָּע בְּמַעֲמַד הַחֶנְוָנִי וְכֵן הַחֶנְוָנִי בְּמַעֲמַד הַפּוֹעֵל אוֹ בַּעַל חוֹב כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכָּלְמוּ זֶה מִזֶּה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וּשְׁבוּעָה זוֹ תַּקָּנַת חֲכָמִים הִיא בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבָּאִין שְׁנֵיהֶן לִטּל. לְפִיכָךְ אִם מֵת הַחֶנְוָנִי נוֹטֵל בַּעַל חוֹב בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה וְכֵן אִם מֵת פּוֹעֵל אוֹ בַּעַל חוֹב הַחֶנְוָנִי נוֹטֵל בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מַפְסִיד כְּלוּם וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא תַּשְׁלוּם אֶחָד: \n", + "הַחֶנְוָנִי אוֹמֵר אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ לִתֵּן לָזֶה מָנֶה אוֹ צִוִּיתָ וְאָמַרְתָּ לִי אִם יָבוֹא פְּלוֹנִי תֵּן לוֹ וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹמֵר לֹא אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ הֲרֵי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר וְהַחֶנְוָנִי עוֹשֶׂה דִּין עִם זֶה שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר הַחֶנְוָנִי לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת הַמַּקִּיפוֹ כָּתוּב בְּפִנְקָסִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי אֶצְלְךָ מָנֶה וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ נִשְׁבָּע בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הֶסֵּת שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ וְנִפְטָר כְּדִין כָּל טוֹעֵן עַל חֲבֵרוֹ לְכָל דָּבָר וְאֵין בָּזֶה תַּקָּנַת חֲכָמִים: \n", + "רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְלֵוִי עַל שִׁמְעוֹן וְטָעַן שֶׁלֵּוִי נְתָנוֹ לוֹ בִּכְתִיבָה וּמְסִירָה וְאָבַד הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁהִקְנָהוּ בּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁטָּעַן שֶׁהִקְנָהוּ לוֹ עַל גַּב הַקַּרְקַע הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹבֶה אוֹתוֹ מִשִּׁמְעוֹן הוֹאִיל וְיוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ. טָעַן שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁפָּרַע לְלֵוִי וְאָמַר יִשָּׁבַע לִי יִשָּׁבַע לֵוִי לְשִׁמְעוֹן וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִגְבֶּה רְאוּבֵן. הוֹדָה לוֹ שֶׁפָּרַע יְשַׁלֵּם לֵוִי לִרְאוּבֵן. טָעַן לֵוִי שֶׁלֹּא מָכַר וְלֹא נָתַן שְׁטָר זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר: \n", + "שְׁטָר שֶׁהָיָה בְּיַד שָׁלִישׁ וְהוֹצִיא מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין וְאָמַר פָּרוּעַ הוּא נֶאֱמָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַשְּׁטָר מְקֻיָּם שֶׁאִלּוּ רָצָה הָיָה שׂוֹרְפוֹ אוֹ קוֹרְעוֹ. וְכֵן אִם מֵת הַשָּׁלִישׁ וְנִמְצָא כְּתָב יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שָׁלִישׁ שֶׁשְּׁטָר זֶה הַמֻּנָּח אֶצְלוֹ פָּרוּעַ הוּא הֲרֵי זֶה פָּרוּעַ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עֵדִים עַל הַכְּתָב. אֲבָל כְּתָב שֶׁיָּצָא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי מַלְוֶה שֶׁשְּׁטָר פְּלוֹנִי פָּרוּעַ אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה בִּכְתַב יְדֵי הַמַּלְוֶה אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כְּמִשְׂחָק: \n", + "הָיוּ עֵדִים עַל הַכְּתָב אִם הָיוּ מְקֻיָּמִין הֲרֵי הַשְּׁטָר פָּרוּעַ. וְאִם אֵין עָלָיו קִיּוּם יִשְׁאֲלוּ הָעֵדִים הַחֲתוּמִין עַל זֶה הַשּׁוֹבֵר. אִם לֹא יָדְעוּ אוֹ שֶׁאֵין הָעֵדִים מְצוּיִין הוֹאִיל וּמִתַּחַת יְדֵי הַמַּלְוֶה אוֹ מִתַּחַת יְדֵי יוֹרְשָׁיו יָצָא אֵין הַשּׁוֹבֵר כְּלוּם: \n", + "נִמְצָא הַשְּׁטָר בֵּין שְׁטָרוֹת פְּרוּעִין הֲרֵי זֶה פָּרוּעַ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עֵדִים עַל הַכְּתָב הַנִּמְצָא. וְכֵן אִם נִמְצָא כָּתוּב בְּגוּפוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר בֵּין מִפָּנָיו בֵּין מֵאֲחוֹרָיו וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּמִקְצָתוֹ שְׁטָר זֶה פָּרוּעַ אוֹ נִפְרָע מִמֶּנּוּ כָּךְ וְכָךְ עוֹשִׂין עַל פִּי הַכְּתָב וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עַל הַכְּתָב עֵדִים וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיָּצָא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי הַמַּלְוֶה שֶׁאִלּוּ לֹא נִפְרָע לֹא הָיָה כּוֹתֵב עַל הַשְּׁטָר: \n", + "הַמּוֹצֵא שְׁטָר בֵּין שִׁטְרוֹתָיו וְאֵין יוֹדֵעַ מַה טִּיבוֹ יִהְיֶה מֻנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ: \n", + "הָאוֹמֵר לְבָנָיו שְׁטָר בֵּין שִׁטְרוֹתַי פָּרוּעַ וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶה הוּא שִׁטְרוֹתָיו כֻּלָּן פְּרוּעִין. נִמְצָא לְאֶחָד שָׁם שְׁנֵי שְׁטָרוֹת הַגָּדוֹל פָּרוּעַ וְהַקָּטָן אֵינוֹ פָּרוּעַ. אָמַר לַחֲבֵרוֹ שְׁטָר לְךָ בְּיָדִי פָּרוּעַ הַגָּדוֹל פָּרוּעַ וְהַקָּטָן אֵינוֹ פָּרוּעַ. חוֹב לְךָ בְּיָדִי פָּרוּעַ כָּל שְׁטָרוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עָלָיו כֻּלָּן פְּרוּעִין: \n" + ], + [ + "מַלְוְה שֶׁמֵּת וּבָא היּוֹרֵשׁ לִתְבֹּעַ אֶת הַלּוֶֹה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁעָלָיו וְאָמַר פָּרַעְתִּי לְאָבִיךָ וְהַיּוֹרֵשׁ אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אוֹמְרִים לוֹ עֲמֹד וְשַׁלֵּם לוֹ. אָמַר יִשָּׁבַע לִי הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ שֶׁלֹּא פְּקָדָנוּ אַבָּא עַל יְדֵי אַחֵר וְשֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא בְּפִיו וְשֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ בֵּין שִׁטְרוֹתָיו שֶׁל אַבָּא שֶׁשְּׁטָר זֶה פָּרוּעַ וְגוֹבֶה: \n", + "מֵת הַלּוֶֹה אַחַר שֶׁמֵּת הַמַּלְוֶה וּבָא הַיּוֹרֵשׁ לְהִפָּרַע מִן הַיּוֹרֵשׁ לֹא יִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ תְּחִלָּה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁלֹּא פְּקָדָנוּ אַבָּא וְשֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא וְלֹא מָצִינוּ בֵּין שִׁטְרוֹתָיו שֶׁל אַבָּא שֶׁשְּׁטָר זֶה פָּרוּעַ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַיּוֹרֵשׁ קָטָן הַמֻּטָּל בָּעֲרִיסָה כְּשֶׁמֵּת מוֹרִישׁוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. וְאִם צִוָּה הַמַּלְוֶה בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָתוֹ שֶׁשְּׁטָר זֶה אֵינוֹ פָּרוּעַ יִפָּרַע הַיּוֹרֵשׁ בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה אֲפִלּוּ מִן הַיּוֹרֵשׁ: \n", + "מֵת הַלּוֶֹה תְּחִלָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת הַמַּלְוֶה אֵין יוֹרְשֵׁי מַלְוֶה נוֹטְלִין מִיּוֹרְשֵׁי לוֶֹה כְּלוּם שֶׁבְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמֵּת הַלּוֶֹה נִתְחַיֵּב הַמַּלְוֶה לְהִשָּׁבַע וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִטּל כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ וּכְבָר מֵת וְאֵין אָדָם מוֹרִישׁ שְׁבוּעָה לְבָנָיו שֶׁאֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לְהִשָּׁבַע שֶׁלֹּא נִפְרַע אֲבִיהֶם כְּלוּם. וְאִם עָבַר הַדִּין וְהִשְׁבִּיעַ יוֹרְשֵׁי מַלְוֶה וְגָבוּ אֶת חוֹבָן אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדָם. לְפִיכָךְ שְׁטַר חוֹב שֶׁל יְתוֹמִים הַבָּאִים לְהִפָּרַע מִן הַיְתוֹמִים שֶׁמֵּת אֲבִיהֶן הַלּוֶֹה תְּחִלָּה אֵין קוֹרְעִין אוֹתוֹ וְאֵין מַגְבִּין בּוֹ. אֵין גּוֹבִין בּוֹ שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מוֹרִישׁ שְׁבוּעָה לְבָנָיו כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ וְאֵין קוֹרְעִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא דַּיָּן שֶׁיָּדוּן וְיוֹצִיא בּוֹ: \n", + "אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה שָׁם עָרֵב וּמֵת הַלּוֶֹה תְּחִלָּה לֹא יִפָּרְעוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי הַמַּלְוֶה מִן הֶעָרֵב. שֶׁאִם תֹּאמַר יִפָּרְעוּ מִן הֶעָרֵב הֲרֵי הֶעָרֵב חוֹזֵר וְנִפְרָע מִיּוֹרְשֵׁי לוֶֹה: \n", + "אֵין דָּנִין מִדִּין זֶה לְכָל הַדּוֹמֶה לוֹ אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הַפּוֹגֵם אֶת שְׁטָרוֹ וּמֵת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה הֲרֵי בָּנָיו נִשְׁבָּעִין שֶׁלֹּא פְּקָדָנוּ אַבָּא וְלֹא צִוָּנוּ אַבָּא וְלֹא מָצִינוּ בֵּין שִׁטְרוֹתָיו שֶׁל אַבָּא שֶׁכָּל הַשְּׁטָר הַזֶּה פָּרוּעַ וְגוֹבִין אֶת שְׁאָר הַשְּׁטָר בֵּין מִן הַמַּלְוֶה בֵּין מִיּוֹרְשָׁיו: \n", + "יוֹרֵשׁ שֶׁבָּא לִגְבּוֹת מִן הַיּוֹרֵשׁ וְאָמְרוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי לוֶֹה אָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא לֹא לָוִיתִי חוֹב זֶה הֲרֵי יוֹרְשֵׁי הַמַּלְוֶה גּוֹבִין שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה שֶׁכָּל הָאוֹמֵר לֹא לָוִיתִי כְּאוֹמֵר לֹא פָּרַעְתִּי דָּמִי. וְכֵן מַלְוֶה שֶׁבָּא לְהִפָּרַע מִיּוֹרְשֵׁי לוֶֹה וְאָמְרוּ אָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא לֹא לָוִיתִי חוֹב זֶה הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹבֵהוּ בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה אֲפִלּוּ הֶאֱמִינוֹ בַּשְּׁטָר כָּל זְמַן שֶׁאָמַר פָּרַעְתִּי שֶׁכָּל הָאוֹמֵר לֹא לָוִיתִי כְּאוֹמֵר לֹא פָּרַעְתִּי: \n", + "יוֹרֵשׁ שֶׁבָּא לְהִפָּרַע מִן הַלּוֶֹה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ נֶאֱמָנוּת לַלּוֶֹה כָּל זְמַן שֶׁיֹּאמַר פָּרַעְתִּי הֲרֵי הַלּוֶֹה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁפָּרַע לִשְׁטָר זֶה וְנִפְטָר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא כָּתַב לוֹ וַהֲרֵי אַתָּה נֶאֱמָן עַל יוֹרְשַׁי שֶׁעִקַּר הַשְּׁטָר עַל תְּנַאי זֶה הָיָה. אִם הִתְנָה עָלָיו שֶׁיְּהֵא נֶאֱמָן בְּלֹא שׁוּם שְׁבוּעָה אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע אֲפִלּוּ לְיוֹרְשֵׁי מַלְוֶה: \n", + "יוֹרֵשׁ קָטָן שֶׁהָיָה שְׁטַר חוֹב לְאָבִיו וְיָצָא עָלָיו שׁוֹבֵר אַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו אֵין קוֹרְעִין אֶת הַשְּׁטָר וְאֵין מַגְבִּין בּוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּגְדְּלוּ הַיְתוֹמִים שֶׁמָּא שׁוֹבֵר זֶה מְזֻיָּף הוּא וּלְפִיכָךְ לֹא הוֹצִיאוֹ הַלּוֶֹה בְּחַיֵּי אָבִיו: \n", + "הַמּוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב עַל חֲבֵרוֹ וְהָיָה כָּתוּב בְּבָבֶל מַגְבֵּהוּ מִמְּעוֹת בָּבֶל. הָיָה כָּתוּב בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל מַגְבֵּהוּ מִמְּעוֹת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּכְתֻבָּה. לֹא הָיָה בַּשְּׁטָר שֵׁם מָקוֹם וְהוֹצִיאוֹ בְּבָבֶל מַגְבֵּהוּ מִמְּעוֹת בָּבֶל. הוֹצִיאוֹ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל מַגְבֵּהוּ מִמְּעוֹת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. בָּא לִגְבּוֹת מִמְּעוֹת הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁיָּצָא בּוֹ הַשְּׁטָר וְטָעַן הַלּוֶֹה שֶׁהַמָּעוֹת שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב לוֹ מִכֶּסֶף שֶׁהוּא פָּחוֹת מִזֶּה הַמַּטְבֵּעַ יִשָּׁבַע הַמַּלְוֶה וְיִטּל. הָיָה בּוֹ כֶּסֶף סְתָם מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה לוֶֹה מַגְבֵּהוּ. מִכָּאן אַתָּה לָמֵד שֶׁשְּׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שֵׁם מָקוֹם שֶׁנִּכְתַּב בּוֹ כָּשֵׁר לְכָל דָּבָר. וְהוּא הַדִּין לִשְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ זְמַן כְּלָל שֶׁהוּא כָּשֵׁר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֵדוּת זוֹ אִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לַהֲזִמָּהּ שֶׁאֵין מְדַקְדְּקִין בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת בִּדְרִישָׁה וַחֲקִירָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּנְעל דֶּלֶת בִּפְנֵי לוֹוִין. וּלְפִיכָךְ שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב הַמְאֻחָרִין כְּשֵׁרִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין אַתָּה יָכוֹל לַהֲזִמָּן כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ: \n" + ], + [ + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ סְתָם הֲרֵי כָּל נְכָסָיו אַחְרָאִין וְעַרְבָאִין לְחוֹב זֶה. לְפִיכָךְ כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹא לִגְבּוֹת תּוֹבֵעַ אֶת בַּעַל חוֹבוֹ תְּחִלָּה אִם מָצָא עִמּוֹ נְכָסִים בֵּין מִטַּלְטְלִין בֵּין קַרְקָעוֹת גּוֹבֶה מֵהֶן בִּרְצוֹן הַלּוֶֹה. וְאִם לֹא נָתַן הַלּוֶֹה מִדַּעְתּוֹ מְגַבִּין אוֹתוֹ בֵּית דִּין. לֹא הִסְפִּיק לוֹ כָּל הַנִּמְצָא כְּנֶגֶד שְׁטַר חוֹבוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹבֶה מִכָּל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ לַלּוֶֹה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן עַתָּה מְכוּרִין לַאֲחֵרִים אוֹ נְתוּנִים בְּמַתָּנָה. הוֹאִיל וּמָכַר הַלּוֶֹה אוֹ נָתַן אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּעְבֵּד בְּחוֹב זֶה הֲרֵי זֶה מוֹצִיא מִיַּד הַלָּקוֹחוֹת אוֹ מִיַּד בַּעֲלֵי הַמַּתָּנוֹת וְזֶהוּ הַנִּקְרָא טוֹרֵף. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּקַרְקָעוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ בְּעֵת שֶׁלָּוָה. אֲבָל נְכָסִים הַבָּאִין לוֹ לְאַחַר שֶׁלָּוָה לֹא נִשְׁתַּעְבְּדוּ לְבַעַל חוֹב וְאֵינוֹ טוֹרְפָן. וְאִם הִתְנָה עָלָיו שֶׁכָּל נְכָסִים שֶׁיִּקְנֶה יִהְיוּ מְשֻׁעְבָּדִין לְהִפָּרַע מֵהֶן וְקָנָה אַחַר שֶׁלָּוָה וּמָכַר אוֹ נָתַן הֲרֵי בַּעַל חוֹב טוֹרֵף מֵהֶן: \n", + "אֵין כָּל הַדְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִין אֶלָּא בְּקַרְקַע אֲבָל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין אֵין עֲלֵיהֶן אַחֲרָיוּת אֲפִלּוּ מִטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ בְּעֵת שֶׁלָּוָה שֶׁמְּכָרָן לִשְׁעָתוֹ אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב טוֹרֵף אוֹתָן. הִקְנָה לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ כָּל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין עַל גַּב קַרְקַע שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ לִהְיוֹתוֹ נִפְרָע מִן הַכּל הֲרֵי זֶה טוֹרֵף מֵאוֹתָן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין וְהוּא שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב לוֹ בִּשְׁטַר חוֹבוֹ שֶׁהִקְנֵיתִי לְךָ מִטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי עַל גַּב הַקַּרְקַע שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי שֶׁלֹּא כְּאַסְמַכְתָּא וְשֶׁלֹּא כְּטָפְסֵי הַשְּׁטָרוֹת. וְכֵן אִם כָּתַב שֶׁכָּל נְכָסִים שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִקְנוֹת בֵּין קַרְקָעוֹת בֵּין מִטַּלְטְלִין הֲרֵי הֵן מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים לְךָ לְהִפָּרַע מֵהֶן וְהַמִּטַּלְטְלִין קְנוּיִין לְךָ עַל גַּב הַקַּרְקָעוֹת לְהִפָּרַע מֵהֶן שֶׁלֹּא כְּאַסְמַכְתָּא וְשֶׁלֹּא כְּטָפְסֵי הַשְּׁטָרוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה טוֹרֵף אַף מִן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁקָּנָה הַלּוֶֹה לְאַחַר שֶׁלָּוָה. שֶׁכָּל תְּנַאי שֶׁבְּמָמוֹן קַיָּם: \n", + "עָשָׂה שָׂדֵהוּ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ אוֹ לְאִשָּׁה בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ וְהוּא שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב לָהֶן מִכָּאן תִּגְבּוּ וּשְׁטָפוֹ נָהָר הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹבֶה מִשְּׁאָר נְכָסִים וְטוֹרֵף אוֹתָן. וְאִם הִתְנָה עִמּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה לוֹ פֵּרָעוֹן אֶלָּא מִזּוֹ אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִשְּׁאָר נְכָסִים. וְכֵן אִם לָוָה מִמֶּנּוּ וּפֵרֵשׁ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אַחֲרָיוּת עָלָיו הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִן הַמְשֻׁעְבָּדִין לְעוֹלָם: \n", + "עָשָׂה שָׂדֵהוּ אַפּוֹתֵיקִי לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ אוֹ לְאִשָּׁה בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ וּמְכָרָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְכוּרָה וּכְשֶׁיָּבוֹא בַּעַל חוֹב לִגְבּוֹת אִם לֹא יִמְצָא נְכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין יִטְרֹף אוֹתָהּ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁמָּכַר לִשְׁעָתָהּ אֲבָל מְכָרָהּ מִמְכַּר עוֹלָם אֵינָהּ מְכוּרָה: \n", + "עָשָׂה עַבְדּוֹ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי וּמְכָרוֹ הֲרֵי בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מִמֶּנּוּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קוֹל. עָשָׂה שׁוֹרוֹ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי וּמְכָרוֹ אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מִמֶּנּוּ. וְכֵן שְׁאָר הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן קוֹל: \n", + "עֶבֶד שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהוּ רַבּוֹ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי וְשִׁחְרְרוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּתַב לוֹ לֹא יִהְיֶה לְךָ פֵּרָעוֹן אֶלָּא מִזֶּה יֵצֵא לְחֵרוּת. וְכֵן אִם הִקְדִּישׁוֹ. שֶׁהֶחָמֵץ וְהַשִּׁחְרוּר וְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁ מַפְקִיעִין מִיַּד שִׁעְבּוּד וַהֲרֵי בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה חוֹבוֹ מִן הַלּוֶֹה וְכוֹתֵב עָלָיו שְׁטָר בְּחוֹבוֹ וְטוֹרֵף מִזְּמַן זֶה הַשְּׁטָר. וְלָמָּה הוּא חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁגּוֹרֵם לְאַבֵּד מָמוֹן חֲבֵרוֹ וְכָל הַגּוֹרֵם לְהַזִּיק מְשַׁלֵּם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. וְכוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ הַשֵּׁנִי לְשַׁחְרְרוֹ מִפְּנֵי תִּקּוּן הָעוֹלָם שֶׁלֹּא יִמְצָאֶנּוּ בַּשּׁוּק וְיֹאמַר לוֹ עַבְדִּי אַתָּה: \n", + "הַמַּקְדִּישׁ נְכָסָיו אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב יָכוֹל לִטְרֹף מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁהַהֶקְדֵּשׁ מַפְקִיעַ הַשִּׁעְבּוּד. וּכְשֶׁפּוֹדִין הַקַּרְקַע מִיַּד הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִתֵּן בְּשָׂדֶה זוֹ עַל מְנָת שֶׁיִּתֵּן לְבַעַל חוֹב אֶת חוֹבוֹ וּלְאִשָּׁה כְּתֻבָּתָהּ. לְפִיכָךְ לִכְשֶׁתִּפָּדֶה וְתֵצֵא לְחֻלִּין בְּיַד הַלּוֹקֵחַ יָבוֹא בַּעַל חוֹב וְיִטְרֹף אוֹתָהּ אוֹ הָאִשָּׁה בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בַּעֲרָכִין: \n", + "בַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁבָּא לִטְרֹף אִם יֵשׁ מָעוֹת לַלּוֹקֵחַ יָכוֹל לְסַלְּקוֹ וְלִתֵּן לוֹ דְּמֵי מַה שֶּׁהוּא טוֹרֵף וְחוֹזֵר הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְתוֹבֵעַ לַמּוֹכֵר. וְאִם עָשָׂה אוֹתוֹ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְסַלְּקוֹ בְּדָמִים: \n", + "רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהָיָה חַיָּב לְשִׁמְעוֹן מָאתַיִם וְהָיוּ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי שָׂדוֹת וּמָכַר אַחַת מֵהֶן לְלֵוִי בְּמָנֶה וְחָזַר וּמָכַר לוֹ הַשְּׁנִיָּה בְּמָנֶה וּבָא שִׁמְעוֹן וְטָרַף אַחַת בְּמָנֶה וְחָזַר לִטְרֹף הַשְּׁנִיָּה בַּמָּנֶה הַנִּשְׁאָר לוֹ וְהֵבִיא לוֹ מָאתַיִם וְאָמַר לוֹ אִם תִּרְצֶה לִהְיוֹת הַשָּׂדֶה שֶׁטָּרַפְתָּ שׁוּמָה לְךָ בְּכָל הַמָּאתַיִם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְךָ הֲרֵי מוּטָב וְאִם לָאו הֵילָךְ מָאתַיִם שֶׁל חוֹבְךָ וְהִסְתַּלֵּק. הַדִּין עִם לֵוִי. רָצָה שִׁמְעוֹן וְעָמַד בָּהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקִּבְּלָהּ בְּמָאתַיִם אֵין לֵוִי חוֹזֵר וְתוֹבֵעַ רְאוּבֵן אֶלָּא בְּמָנֶה: \n", + "מֵת רְאוּבֵן וְהִנִּיחַ שָׂדֶה אַחַת שָׁוָה מֵאָה וּבָא שִׁמְעוֹן וּטְרָפָהּ וְנָתְנוּ לוֹ הַיְתוֹמִים מֵאָה מִן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁהִנִּיחַ אֲבִיהֶן וְסִלְּקוּהוּ הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹזֵר וְטוֹרֵף אוֹתָהּ בִּשְׁאָר חוֹבוֹ. שֶׁמֵּאָה שֶׁנָּתְנוּ לוֹ מִצְוָה עָשׂוּ שֶׁמִּצְוָה עַל הַיְתוֹמִים לִפְרֹעַ חוֹבוֹת אֲבִיהֶם. וְאִם אָמְרוּ לוֹ אֵלּוּ בְּמֵאָה דְּמֵי הַשָּׂדֶה שֶׁטָּרַפְתָּ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר וְלִטְרֹף אוֹתָהּ פַּעַם אַחֶרֶת בִּשְׁאָר חוֹבוֹ: \n" + ], + [ + "כְּשֶׁיּוֹרְדִין בֵּית דִּין לְנִכְסֵי הַלּוֶֹה לִגְבּוֹת מֵהֶן לֹא יִגְבּוּ לְבַעַל חוֹב אֶלָּא מִן הַבֵּינוֹנִית שֶׁבְּקַרְקְעוֹתָיו. וְדִין תּוֹרָה שֶׁיִּגְבֶּה בַּעַל חוֹב מִן הַזִּבּוּרִית שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד יא) \"בַּחוּץ תַּעֲמֹד וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה נשֶׁה בוֹ יוֹצִיא\" וְגוֹ' מַה דַּרְכּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם לְהוֹצִיא פָּחוּת שֶׁבְּכֵלָיו. אֲבָל תִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים בְּבֵינוֹנִיּת כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּנְעל דֶּלֶת בִּפְנֵי לוֹוִין. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּבָא לִפָּרַע מִן הַלּוֶֹה עַצְמוֹ. אֲבָל הַבָּא לִפָּרַע מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין בֵּין קְטַנִּים בֵּין גְּדוֹלִים לֹא יִפָּרַע אֶלָּא מִן הַזִּבּוּרִית: \n", + "אֵין נִפְרָעִים מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִין בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ נְכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ בְּנֵי חוֹרִין זִבּוּרִית וְהַמְשֻׁעְבָּדִים בֵּינוֹנִית אוֹ עִידִית בֵּין שֶׁמְּכָרָם בֵּין שֶׁנְּתָנָם. נִשְׁתַּדְּפוּ בְּנֵי חוֹרִין הֲרֵי זֶה טוֹרֵף מִן הַמְשֻׁעְבָּדִין שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲתוּ כְּאִלּוּ אֵינָם: \n", + "רְאוּבֵן שֶׁמָּכַר כָּל שְׂדוֹתָיו לְשִׁמְעוֹן וְחָזַר שִׁמְעוֹן וּמָכַר שָׂדֶה אַחַת מֵהֶן לְלֵוִי וּבָא בַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁל רְאוּבֵן לִטְרֹף רָצָה מִזֶּה גּוֹבֶה רָצָה מִזֶּה גּוֹבֶה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁלָּקַח לֵוִי בֵּינוֹנִית. אֲבָל אִם לָקַח עִידִית אוֹ זִבּוּרִית אֵינוֹ טוֹרֵף מִלֵּוִי שֶׁהֲרֵי זֶה אוֹמֵר לוֹ מִפְּנֵי זֶה טָרַחְתִּי וְלָקַחְתִּי שָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵין דִּינְךָ לִגְבּוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ. וְכֵן אִם לָקַח לֵוִי בֵּינוֹנִית וְהִנִּיחַ אֵצֶל שִׁמְעוֹן בֵּינוֹנִית כְּמוֹ הַבֵּינוֹנִית שֶׁלָּקַח אֵינוֹ טוֹרֵף מִלֵּוִי שֶׁהֲרֵי זֶה אוֹמֵר לוֹ הִנַּחְתִּי לְךָ מָקוֹם לִגְבּוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ: \n", + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהַנִּזָּקִין שָׁמִין לָהֶן בְּעִידִית וּבַעַל חוֹב בְּבֵינוֹנִית וּכְתֻבַּת אִשָּׁה בְּזִבּוּרִית. הָיוּ לוֹ עִידִית וְזִבּוּרִית נִזָּקִין בְּעִידִית בַּעַל חוֹב [וּכְתֻבַּת אִשָּׁה] בְּזִבּוּרִית. הָיוּ לוֹ עִידִית וּבֵינוֹנִית נִזָּקִין בְּעִידִית וּבַעַל חוֹב וּכְתֻבַּת אִשָּׁה בְּבֵינוֹנִית. הָיוּ לוֹ זִבּוּרִית וּבֵינוֹנִית בִּלְבַד נִזָּקִין וּבַעַל חוֹב בְּבֵינוֹנִית וּכְתֻבַּת אִשָּׁה בְּזִבּוּרִית: \n", + "מְכָרָן לִשְׁלֹשָׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם בְּבַת אַחַת הֲרֵי כֻּלָּן נִכְנְסוּ תַּחַת הַבְּעָלִים וְהַנִּזָּקִין טוֹרְפִין מִן הָעִידִית וּבַעַל חוֹב טוֹרֵף מִן הַבֵּינוֹנִית וּכְתֻבַּת אִשָּׁה טוֹרֶפֶת מִן הַזִּבּוּרִית. מְכָרָן לָזֶה אַחַר זֶה כֻּלָּן טוֹרְפִין מִן הָאַחֲרוֹן. לֹא הִסְפִּיק טוֹרְפִין מִשֶּׁלְּפָנָיו. לֹא הִסְפִּיק טוֹרְפִין מִשֶּׁלִּפְנֵי פָנָיו. אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הָאַחֲרוֹן הוּא שֶׁלָּקַח הַזִּבּוּרִית שֶׁהֲרֵי הַלּוֹקֵחַ הַקּוֹדֵם אוֹמֵר לַטּוֹרֵף הִנַּחְתִּי לְךָ מָקוֹם לִגְבּוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ: \n", + "מְכָרָן לְאֶחָד זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ הֲרֵי הַלּוֹקֵחַ נִכְנָס תַּחַת הַבְּעָלִים. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁלָּקַח עִידִית בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה אֲבָל לָקַח זִבּוּרִית בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה כֻּלָּן גּוֹבִין מִן הַזִּבּוּרִית שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר לַטּוֹרֵף כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹא לִגְבּוֹת מִן הַשָּׂדֶה שֶׁלָּקַח תְּחִלָּה הֲרֵי הִנַּחְתִּי לְךָ מָקוֹם לִגְבּוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ. וְלָמָּה אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר לוֹ הַטּוֹרֵף כָּךְ אִם לָקַח עִידִית בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה וְתִגְבֶּה הָאִשָּׁה וּבַעַל חוֹב מִן הָעִידִית שֶׁלָּקַח בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה. שֶׁזּוֹ תַּקָּנָה הִיא לַלּוֹקֵחַ וַהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר לוֹקֵחַ לָהֶן אִי אֶפְשִׁי בְּתַקָּנָה זוֹ אֶלָּא כָּל אֶחָד מִכֶּם יִגְבֶּה מִן הָרָאוּי לוֹ: \n", + "מְכָרָן לְאֶחָד זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ וּמָכַר לוֹ עִידִית בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה וְחָזַר הַלּוֹקֵחַ וּמָכַר זִבּוּרִית וּבֵינוֹנִית וְשִׁיֵּר עִידִית לְפָנָיו כֻּלָּן גּוֹבִין מִן הָעִידִית שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין לוֹ בְּמָה יִדְחֶה אוֹתָם. מָכַר עִידִית וְהִנִּיחַ בֵּינוֹנִית וְזִבּוּרִית הַנִּזָּקִין טוֹרְפִין מִן הָעִידִית שֶׁבְּיַד לוֹקֵחַ הַשֵּׁנִי וּבַעַל חוֹב וּכְתֻבַּת אִשָּׁה גּוֹבִין מִבֵּינוֹנִית וְזִבּוּרִית שֶׁשִּׁיֵּר לְפָנָיו: \n", + "מִי שֶׁלָּוָה מֵאֶחָד וְאַחַר כָּךְ מָכַר הַלּוֶֹה נְכָסָיו לִשְׁנַיִם וְכָתַב בַּעַל חוֹב לְלוֹקֵחַ שֵׁנִי דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי עִמְּךָ וְקָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְרֹף מִלּוֹקֵחַ רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר לוֹ הִנַּחְתִּי לְךָ מָקוֹם לִגְבּוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ אֵצֶל בַּעַל חוֹבְךָ מִן הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁקָּנָה לוֹקֵחַ שֵׁנִי אַחֲרַי וְאַתָּה הִפְסַדְתָּ עַל עַצְמְךָ שֶׁהֲרֵי סִלַּקְתָּ עַצְמְךָ מֵהֶן. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְאִשָּׁה בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ אִם כָּתְבָה לַשֵּׁנִי. אִבְּדָה כְּתֻבָּתָהּ וְאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לִטְרֹף. אֲבָל אִם כָּתְבוּ לָרִאשׁוֹן טוֹרְפִין מִן הַשֵּׁנִי. מָכַר הַלּוֶֹה שָׂדֶה לַלּוֹקֵחַ וּמְכָרָהּ לוֹקֵחַ רִאשׁוֹן לְלוֹקֵחַ שֵׁנִי וְכָתַב הַמַּלְוֶה לְלוֹקֵחַ רִאשׁוֹן דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי עִמְּךָ וְקָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ הֲרֵי בַּעַל חוֹב טוֹרֵף מִלּוֹקֵחַ שֵׁנִי אוֹתָהּ הַשָּׂדֶה וְלוֹקֵחַ רִאשׁוֹן טוֹרֵף אוֹתָהּ מִבַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁהֲרֵי כָּתַב לוֹ וְלוֹקֵחַ שֵׁנִי טוֹרֵף אוֹתָהּ מִלּוֹקֵחַ רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא מְכָרָהּ לוֹ וּבַעַל חוֹב חוֹזֵר וְטוֹרֵף מִשֵּׁנִי וְחוֹזְרִין חֲלִילָה עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשׂוּ פְּשָׁרָה בֵּינֵיהֶן. וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ: \n" + ], + [ + "מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ חוֹבוֹת הַרְבֵּה כָּל שֶׁקָּדַם חוֹבוֹ גּוֹבֶה תְּחִלָּה בֵּין מִן הַלּוֶֹה עַצְמוֹ בֵּין מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת. וְאִם קָדַם הָאַחֲרוֹן וְגָבָה מוֹצִיאִים מִיָּדוֹ שֶׁכָּל שֶׁקָּדַם חוֹבוֹ זָכָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּקַרְקָעוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ בְּעֵת שֶׁלָּוָה אֲבָל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת שֶׁקָּנָה אַחַר שֶׁלָּוָה מִבַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת הַרְבֵּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּתַב לְכָל אֶחָד מֵהֶן מַה שֶּׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִקְנוֹת מְשֻׁעְבָּד לְךָ אֵין בָּהֶן דִּין קְדִימָה אֶלָּא כֻּלָּן שָׁוִין וְכָל שֶׁקָּדַם וְגָבָה זָכָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא אַחֲרוֹן: \n", + "לָוָה וְכָתַב לוֹ שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִקְנוֹת מְשֻׁעְבָּד לְךָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ קָנָה שָׂדֶה וְחָזַר וְלָוָה מֵאַחֵר הֲרֵי הַשָּׂדֶה מְשֻׁעְבָּד לָרִאשׁוֹן וְהוּא קוֹדֵם לִגְבּוֹת. וְכֵן אֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ מֵאָה אֵין דִּין קְדִימָה בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין אֶלָּא כָּל שֶׁקָּדַם וְגָבָה מֵהֶן זָכָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא אַחֲרוֹן. קִדֵּם אֶחָד מִשְּׁאָר אָדָם וְתָפַס מִן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁל זֶה כְּדֵי לִזְכּוֹת לְאֶחָד מִבַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת לֹא זָכָה שֶׁכָּל הַתּוֹפֵס לְבַעַל חוֹב בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו חוֹב לַאֲחֵרִים לֹא קָנָה. אֲבָל אֵין עָלָיו חוֹב לַאֲחֵרִים קָנָה לוֹ. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר לוֹ הַלּוֶֹה זְכֵה בְּחֵפֶץ זֶה לִפְלוֹנִי זָכָה לוֹ וְאֵין אֶחָד מִבַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת יְכוֹלִין לִגְבּוֹת מֵאֵלּוּ הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁכְּבָר זָכָה בָּהֶן אַחֵר: \n", + "שְׁטָרוֹת שֶׁזְּמַן כֻּלָּן יוֹם אֶחָד אוֹ שָׁעָה אַחַת בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁכּוֹתְבִין שָׁעוֹת כָּל שֶׁקָּדַם מֵהֶן וְגָבָה בֵּין קַרְקַע בֵּין מִטַּלְטְלִין זָכָה: \n", + "בָּאוּ כֻּלָּן בְּיַחַד לִגְבּוֹת. וְכֵן בַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת שֶׁכָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן קוֹדֵם לִזְמַן חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁבָּאוּ לִגְבּוֹת מִן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין בָּהֶן דִּין קְדִימָה. אוֹ שֶׁבָּאוּ לִגְבּוֹת מִקַּרְקַע שֶׁקָּנָה הַלּוֶֹה לְאַחַר שֶׁלָּוָה מִן הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁבָּהֶן וְאֵין בַּנְּכָסִים כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּגְבֶּה כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן אֶת חוֹבוֹ. מְחַלְּקִין בֵּינֵיהֶן. כֵּיצַד חוֹלְקִין. אִם כְּשֶׁיִּתְחַלֵּק הַמָּמוֹן הַנִּמְצָא עַל מִנְיָנָם יַגִּיעַ לַפָּחוּת שֶׁבָּהֶן כְּשִׁעוּר חוֹבוֹ אוֹ פָּחוֹת חוֹלְקִים לְפִי מִנְיָנָם בְּשָׁוֶה. וְאִם יַגִּיעַ לַפָּחוּת שֶׁבָּהֶם יוֹתֵר עַל חוֹבוֹ חוֹלְקִים מִכָּל הַמָּמוֹן בֵּינֵיהֶם כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לַפָּחוּת שֶׁבָּהֶם כְּשִׁעוּר חוֹבוֹ וְחוֹזְרִין הַנִּשְׁאָרִים מִבַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת וְחוֹלְקִין הַיֶּתֶר בֵּינֵיהֶן כַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֹּאת. כֵּיצַד. הָיוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה חוֹבוֹת שֶׁל זֶה מָנֶה וְשֶׁל זֶה מָאתַיִם וְשֶׁל זֶה שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת אִם הָיָה כָּל הַנִּמְצָא שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת נוֹטְלִין מֵאָה מֵאָה. וְכֵן אִם נִמְצָא שָׁם פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה. נִמְצָא שָׁם יֶתֶר עַל שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת חוֹלְקִין שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה וְיִסְתַּלֵּק בַּעַל הַמֵּאָה וּשְׁאָר הַמָּמוֹן חוֹלְקִין אוֹתוֹ הַשְּׁנַיִם עַל אוֹתָהּ הַדֶּרֶךְ. כֵּיצַד. נִמְצְאוּ שָׁם חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת אוֹ פָּחוֹת חוֹלְקִין שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה וְיִסְתַּלֵּק הָאֶחָד וְחוֹזְרִין וְחוֹלְקִין הַמָּאתַיִם אוֹ הַפָּחוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה וְיִסְתַּלֵּק הַשֵּׁנִי. נִמְצָא שָׁם שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת חוֹלְקִין שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה וְיִסְתַּלֵּק בַּעַל הַמָּנֶה וְחוֹזְרִין וְחוֹלְקִין הַמָּאתַיִם בֵּין הַשְּׁנַיִם בְּשָׁוֶה וְיִסְתַּלֵּק בַּעַל הַמָּאתַיִם. וְנוֹתְנִין הַמֵּאָה הַנִּשְׁאָרִים לְבַעַל הַשְּׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת וְנִמְצָא בְּיָדוֹ שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת בִּלְבַד. וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ זוֹ חוֹלְקִין אֲפִלּוּ הֵן מֵאָה כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ לִגְבּוֹת כְּאַחַת. וְיֵשׁ מִן הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁהוֹרוּ שֶׁחוֹלְקִין לְפִי מָמוֹנָם: \n", + "רְאוּבֵן וְשִׁמְעוֹן לְכָל אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם שְׁטַר חוֹב עַל לֵוִי רְאוּבֵן שְׁטָרוֹ בַּחֲמִישִׁי בְּנִיסָן וְשִׁמְעוֹן שְׁטָרוֹ בְּנִיסָן סְתָם וַהֲרֵי יֵשׁ לְלֵוִי שָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ כְּדֵי חוֹב שֶׁל שְׁנֵיהֶם מוֹרִידִין לְתוֹכָהּ רְאוּבֵן שֶׁמָּא שְׁטָרוֹ שֶׁל שִׁמְעוֹן בְּסוֹף נִיסָן הָיָה. וְכֵן אֵין שִׁמְעוֹן יָכוֹל לִטְרֹף מֵאִיָּר וְאֵילָךְ שֶׁהֲרֵי הַלּוֹקֵחַ אוֹמֵר לוֹ שֶׁמָּא בְּאֶחָד בְּנִיסָן הוּא זְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָרְךָ וַהֲרֵי שָׂדֶה בַּת חוֹרִין בְּיַד רְאוּבֵן שֶׁתִּגְבֶּה אוֹתָהּ וְיָבוֹא רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהוּא אַחַר זְמַנְּךָ וְהוּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ לִטְרֹף מִמֶּנּוּ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם כָּתְבוּ הַרְשָׁאָה זֶה לָזֶה טוֹרְפִין מֵאִיָּר וְאֵילָךְ מִכָּל צַד. וְהוּא הַדִּין בִּרְאוּבֵן וְשִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁמָּכַר לָהֶן לֵוִי שָׂדֶה אַחַת בִּשְׁנֵי שְׁטָרוֹת שְׁטָרוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בַּחֲמִשָּׁה בְּנִיסָן וּשְׁטָרוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בְּנִיסָן סְתָם: \n" + ], + [ + "בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחַ הַלּוֹקֵחַ בֵּין שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחוּ מֵחֲמַת הוֹצָאָה בֵּין שֶׁשָּׁבְחוּ נְכָסִים מֵאֲלֵיהֶן. אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם שָׁבְחוּ מֵאֲלֵיהֶן טוֹרֵף כָּל הַשֶּׁבַח וְאִם הִשְׁבִּיחוּ מֵחֲמַת הוֹצָאָה גּוֹבֶה חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח. כֵּיצַד. רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ חוֹב עַל שִׁמְעוֹן מָאתַיִם וּמָכַר שִׁמְעוֹן לְלֵוִי שָׂדֶה בְּמָנֶה וְהוֹצִיא עָלֶיהָ לֵוִי הוֹצָאוֹת וְהִשְׁבִּיחָהּ וַהֲרֵי הִיא שָׁוָה מָאתַיִם. כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹא רְאוּבֵן לִטְרֹף מִלֵּוִי טוֹרֵף מִמֶּנָּה בְּמֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁל חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח. וְאִם הִשְׁבִּיחָה מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָהּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוּקְרָה בְּדָמִים אוֹ עָלוּ בָּהּ אִילָנוֹת גּוֹבֶה אֶת כֻּלָּהּ. הוֹרוּ חֲכָמִים גְּדוֹלִים וְאָמְרוּ לֹא יְהֵא הַלּוֹקֵחַ רַע כֹּחוֹ מֵהַיּוֹרֵד לִשְׂדֵה חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת שֶׁשָּׁמִין לוֹ וְיָדוֹ עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה לְפִיכָךְ אִם הִשְׁבִּיחַ מֵאָה וְהוֹצִיא חֲמִשִּׁים נוֹטֵל כָּל הַהוֹצָאָה וַחֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח הַיָּתֵר עַל הַהוֹצָאָה וְהַחֲצִי עִם הַקֶּרֶן טוֹרֵף בַּעַל חוֹב [וּדְבָרִים שֶׁל טַעַם הֵם וְכָךְ רָאוּי לָדוּן] וְחוֹזֵר הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְגוֹבֶה אֶת הַקֶּרֶן מִנִּכְסֵי שִׁמְעוֹן אַף מִן הַמְשֻׁעְבָּדִין שֶׁמָּכַר אוֹ נָתַן מֵאַחַר זְמַן שֶׁמָּכַר בּוֹ לְלֵוִי. אֲבָל הַשֶּׁבַח שֶׁטָּרַף מִמֶּנּוּ בַּעַל חוֹב בֵּין בְּחֶצְיוֹ בֵּין בְּכֻלּוֹ אֵין לֵוִי גּוֹבֵהוּ אֶלָּא מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין שֶׁל שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁתַּקָּנַת עוֹלָם הִיא שֶׁלֹּא יִגְבֶּה הַשֶּׁבַח וְלֹא הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל הַגַּזְלָן וְלֹא מְזוֹן הָאִשָּׁה וְהַבָּנוֹת מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִין שֶׁאֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן קִצְבָה. וּמִקֻּלֵּי כְּתֻבָּה שֶׁלֹּא תִּטְרֹף אִשָּׁה מִן הַשֶּׁבַח כְּתֻבָּתָהּ. וְלָמָּה יִטְרֹף בַּעַל חוֹב חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח בִּלְבַד הַבָּאָה מֵחֲמַת הוֹצָאָה עַצְמָהּ לְפִי שֶׁהַשֶּׁבַח בָּא לְאַחַר שֶׁלָּוָה מֵרְאוּבֵן וּלְאַחַר שֶׁמָּכַר לְלֵוִי וְנִמְצָא רְאוּבֵן וְלֵוִי כִּשְׁנֵי בַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת לְשִׁמְעוֹן וְהַשֶּׁבַח בַּנְּכָסִים שֶׁבָּאוּ לוֹ אַחַר שֶׁלָּוָה מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם שֶׁהֵן חוֹלְקִין כְּאֶחָד כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. לְפִיכָךְ רְאוּבֵן שֶׁלָּוָה מִשִּׁמְעוֹן מָנֶה וְכָתַב לוֹ שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִקְנוֹת וְחָזַר וְלָוָה מִלֵּוִי מָאתַיִם וְכָתַב לוֹ שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִקְנוֹת וְקָנָה אַחַר כָּךְ שָׂדֶה וּמְכָרָהּ לִיהוּדָה בְּמֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים וְהִשְׁבִּיחָהּ יְהוּדָה בְּהוֹצָאָתוֹ וַהֲרֵי הִיא שָׁוָה שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת טוֹרֵף שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי הַקֶּרֶן וְחוֹלְקִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשָׁוֶה וְנִמְצָא בְּיַד זֶה חֲמִשָּׁה וְשִׁבְעִים וּבְיַד זֶה חֲמִשָּׁה וְשִׁבְעִים. וְחוֹזְרִין שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי וִיהוּדָה שְׁלָשְׁתָּן וְחוֹלְקִין מֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁל שֶׁבַח עַל הַדֶּרֶךְ שֶׁפֵּרַשְׁנוּ. נִמְצָא שִׁמְעוֹן טוֹרֵף מָנֶה שֶׁלּוֹ מִשָּׂדֶה זוֹ וְלֵוִי טוֹרֵף מֵאָה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁבְעָה וּמֶחֱצָה וִיהוּדָה נוֹטֵל מִן הַשֶּׁבַח שְׁנַיִם וְשִׁשִּׁים וּמֶחֱצָה. וְכָזֶה הֵן חוֹלְקִין אֲפִלּוּ הֵן מֵאָה: ", + "כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל הַלּוֹקֵחַ אֵינָן נִטְרָפִין מִמֶּנּוּ. אֲבָל הַפֵּרוֹת הַמְחֻבָּרִין לַקַּרְקַע אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן צְרִיכִין לַקַּרְקַע כַּעֲנָבִים שֶׁהִגִּיעוּ לְהִבָּצֵר הֲרֵי בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מֵהֶן כְּמוֹ שֶׁגּוֹבֶה מִן הַשֶּׁבַח: ", + "מַתָּנָה שֶׁשָּׁבְחָה מֵחֲמַת הוֹצָאָה אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מִשִּׁבְחָהּ כְּלוּם אֶלָּא רוֹאִין כַּמָּה הָיְתָה שָׁוָה בִּשְׁעַת מַתָּנָה וְגוֹבֶה. וְאִם שָׁבְחָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה אֶת כֻּלָּהּ. וְאִם קִבֵּל הַנּוֹתֵן אַחֲרָיוּת הַמַּתָּנָה הֲרֵי בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מִמֶּנָּה אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁגּוֹבִין מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת. וְלָמָּה יִטְרֹף בַּעַל חוֹב חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח מִן הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְלֹא יִטְרֹף מִמְּקַבֵּל מַתָּנָה כְּלוּם. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַמּוֹכֵר כּוֹתֵב לַלּוֹקֵחַ בִּשְׁטַר מְכִירָה שֶׁאֲנִי מְחֻיָּב לְךָ בַּקֶּרֶן וּבֵעָמָל שֶׁתַּעֲמל וּבַשֶּׁבַח שֶׁתַּשְׁבִּיחַ וְעָלַי אַחֲרָיוּת הַכּל וְרָצָה הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְקִבֵּל דָּבָר זֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי הַלּוֹקֵחַ יָרַד עַל תְּנַאי זֶה שֶׁאִם יִלָּקַח מִמֶּנּוּ הַשֶּׁבַח יַחְזֹר עַל הַמּוֹכֵר. וַאֲפִלּוּ לֹא כָּתַב כְּבָר נוֹדַע שֶׁזֶּה דִּין הַמּוֹכֵר עִם הַלּוֹקֵחַ. אֲבָל הַמַּתְנֶה שֶׁאֵין שָׁם תְּנַאי זֶה אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִשֶּׁבַח שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחָהּ בְּהוֹצָאָתוֹ כְּלוּם: ", + "וְכֵן יְתוֹמִים שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחוּ הַנְּכָסִים אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מִן הַשֶּׁבַח כְּלוּם. אֲבָל אִם שָׁבְחוּ נְכָסִים מֵאֲלֵיהֶן גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח כֻּלּוֹ: ", + "בַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁטָּרַף בְּחוֹבוֹ מִיַּד הַלּוֹקֵחַ מַה שֶּׁרָאוּי לוֹ מִן הַקֶּרֶן וַחֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח רוֹאִין הַנִּשְׁאָר מִן הַקַּרְקַע אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ תְּעָלָה לַלּוֹקֵחַ כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּשְׁאַר לוֹ בַּשָּׂדֶה בַּיִת תִּשְׁעָה קַבִּין וּבַגִּנָּה בַּיִת חֲצִי קַב יִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ בָּהּ שְׁנֵיהֶם. וְאִם לֹא נִשְׁאַר לוֹ דָּבָר שֶׁאִלּוּ יְחַלֵּק יִהְיֶה שֵׁם כֻּלּוֹ עָלָיו נוֹתֵן לוֹ בַּעַל חוֹב אֶת דָּמָיו: ", + "הָיְתָה הַשָּׂדֶה אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי בַּעַל חוֹב נוֹטֵל אֶת כֻּלָּהּ וְרוֹאִין חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח הַנִּשְׁאָר לַלּוֹקֵחַ אִם הָיָה חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח יֶתֶר עַל הַהוֹצָאָה נוֹטֵל הַהוֹצָאָה מִבַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר לוֹ בַּעַל חוֹב שָׂדִי הוּא שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחָה וְהַנִּשְׁאָר לוֹ מִן הַשֶּׁבַח נוֹטֵל מִן הַמּוֹכֵר וְאִם הָיָה חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח פָּחוֹת מִן הַהוֹצָאָה אֵין לוֹ מִן הַטּוֹרֵף אֶלָּא דְּמֵי חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח וְחוֹזֵר וְגוֹבֶה מִן הַמּוֹכֵר חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח שֶׁנִּטְרַף בִּלְבַד: ", + "בַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁבָּא לִטְרֹף מִן הַיְתוֹמִין. יְתוֹמִים אוֹמְרִים אָנוּ הִשְׁבַּחְנוּ וּבַעַל חוֹב אוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא אֲבִיכֶם הִשְׁבִּיחַ. עַל הַיְתוֹמִים לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה. הֵבִיאוּ רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵם הִשְׁבִּיחוּ שָׁמִין לָהֶן אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח וְאֶת הַהוֹצָאָה וְנוֹטְלִין הַפָּחוּת שֶׁבִּשְׁנֵיהֶן וּמַעֲלֶה אוֹתָן בְּדָמִים. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁעָשָׂה שָׂדֶה זוֹ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי. אֲבָל אִם לֹא עָשָׂהוּ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי אִם רָצוּ הַיְתוֹמִין לְסַלֵּק בַּעַל חוֹב בְּדָמִים מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ וְאִם רָצוּ נוֹטְלִין מִן הַקַּרְקַע שִׁעוּר שֶׁבַח שֶׁלָּהֶן: " + ], + [ + "סֵדֶר גְּבִיַּת הַחוֹב כָּךְ הוּא. כְּשֶׁיָּבִיא הַמַּלְוֶה שְׁטָרוֹ לְבֵית דִּין וְיִתְקַיֵּם אוֹמְרִים לַלּוֶֹה שַׁלֵּם. וְאֵין יוֹרְדִין לִנְכָסָיו תְּחִלָּה עַד שֶׁיִּתְבָּעֶנּוּ. וְאִם טָעָה הַדַּיָּן וְהוֹרִיד הַמַּלְוֶה לְנִכְסֵי לוֶֹה קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּתְבָּעֶנּוּ מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ. אָמַר הַלּוֶֹה הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם קִבְעוּ לִי זְמַן כְּדֵי שֶׁאֶלְוֶה מֵאַחֵר אוֹ אֲמַשְׁכֵּן אוֹ אֶמְכֹּר וְאָבִיא הַמָּעוֹת קוֹבְעִין לוֹ זְמַן שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וְאֵין מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ לִתֵּן מַשְׁכּוֹן שֶׁאִלּוּ הָיוּ שָׁם מִטַּלְטְלִים מִיָּד הָיוּ בֵּית דִּין גּוֹבִין מֵהֶן. וְאִם רָצָה הַמַּלְוֶה לְהַחֲרִים עַל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מָעוֹת אוֹ מִטַּלְטְלִין וּמַפְלִיג אוֹתוֹ בִּדְבָרִים הֲרֵי זֶה מַחֲרִים. וְאֵין מְחַיְּבִין הַלּוֶֹה לְהָבִיא עָרֵב עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן. שָׁלְמוּ הַשְּׁלֹשִׁים וְלֹא הֵבִיא בֵּית דִּין כּוֹתְבִין אַדְרַכְתָּא. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר בַּתְּחִלָּה כְּשֶׁתְּבָעוֹ אֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם כּוֹתְבִין אַדְרַכְתָּא עַל נְכָסָיו מִיָּד וְאֵין קוֹבְעִין לוֹ זְמַן. וְכֵן אִם אֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא מִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה אוֹ שֶׁהוֹדָה כּוֹתְבִין אַדְרַכְתָּא עַל נִכְסֵי בְּנֵי חוֹרִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ: \n", + "טָעַן וְאָמַר שְׁטָר זֶה שֶׁנִּתְקַיֵּם בִּפְנֵיהֶם מְזֻיָּף הוּא אֲנִי אָבִיא רְאָיָה וַאֲבַטְּלֶנּוּ וְעֵדַי בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וְהֵם פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי. אִם נִרְאֶה לַדַּיָּנִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו קוֹבְעִין לוֹ זְמַן לְהָבִיא עֵדָיו וְאִם נִרְאֶה לָהֶם שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּא אֶלָּא בַּעֲלִילוֹת דְּבָרִים וּבִטְעָנוֹת שֶׁל דֹּפִי אוֹמְרִים לוֹ שַׁלֵּם וְאַחַר כָּךְ אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ רְאָיָה יַחְזֹר. וְאִם הָיָה הַמַּלְוֶה אַלָּם וְשֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ מִיָּדוֹ מַנִּיחִין עַל יְדֵי שָׁלִישׁ: \n", + "קָבְעוּ לוֹ זְמַן לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה וּלְבַטֵּל הַשְּׁטָר וְהִגִּיעַ הַזְּמַן וְלֹא בָּא מַמְתִּינִין לוֹ שֵׁנִי וַחֲמִישִׁי וְשֵׁנִי. לֹא בָּא כּוֹתְבִין עָלָיו פְּתִיחָא וּמְשַׁמְּתִין אוֹתוֹ וּמַמְתִּינִין לוֹ וְהוּא בְּנִדּוּיוֹ תִּשְׁעִים יוֹם. שְׁלֹשִׁים רִאשׁוֹנִים שֶׁמָּא טוֹרֵחַ לִלְווֹת. אֶמְצָעִים שֶׁמָּא הוּא טוֹרֵחַ לִמְכֹּר. אַחֲרוֹנִים שֶׁמָּא הַלּוֹקֵחַ מִמֶּנּוּ טוֹרֵחַ לְהָבִיא מָעוֹת. שָׁלְמוּ תִּשְׁעִים יוֹם וְלֹא בָּא בֵּית דִּין כּוֹתְבִין לוֹ אַדְרַכְתָּא עַל נְכָסָיו וּמַתִּירִין לוֹ נִדּוּיוֹ: \n", + "אֵין כּוֹתְבִין אַדְרַכְתָּא עַד שֶׁשּׁוֹלְחִין וּמוֹדִיעִין לוֹ. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה קָרוֹב בְּבֵית דִּין מַהֲלַךְ שְׁנֵי יָמִים אוֹ פָּחוֹת. יֶתֶר עַל זֶה אֵין צְרִיכִין לְהוֹדִיעוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה כָּל הַתִּשְׁעִים יוֹם נִשְׁמָט וְאוֹמֵר עַתָּה אָבִיא רְאָיָה וַאֲבַטֵּל הַשְּׁטָר. אֲבָל אָמַר אֵינִי בָּא לְבֵית דִּין מִיָּד כּוֹתְבִין אַדְרַכְתָּא עַל נְכָסָיו בֵּין עַל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת בֵּין עַל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין. וְכֵן אִם הָיָה הַשְּׁטָר עַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן אֵין מַמְתִּינִין לוֹ תִּשְׁעִים יוֹם אֶלָּא כּוֹתְבִין אַדְרַכְתָּא עַל נְכָסָיו מִיָּד: \n", + "זֶה שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ שֶׁאִם לֹא בָּא בְּסוֹף הַתִּשְׁעִים כּוֹתְבִין אַדְרַכְתָּא עַל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת. אֲבָל עַל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין אֲפִלּוּ אַחַר תִּשְׁעִים יוֹם כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר עַתָּה אָבִיא רְאָיָה וַאֲבַטֵּל הַשְּׁטָר אֵין מוֹרִידִין הַמַּלְוֶה לַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁמָּא יֹאכַל אוֹתָם וְיָבִיא זֶה רְאָיָה וִיבַטֵּל הַשְּׁטָר וְלֹא יִמְצָא מַה יִּטּל. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה לַמַּלְוֶה קַרְקַע שֶׁמָּא תַּכְסִיף אוֹ תִּשְׁתַּדֵּף: \n", + "כֵּיצַד כּוֹתְבִין הָאַדְרַכְתָּא. אִם לִנְכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין הוֹרִידוּהוּ אוֹמְרִים אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי נִתְחַיֵּב לִפְלוֹנִי בַּדִּין כָּךְ וְכָךְ וְלֹא נָתַן לוֹ מֵעַצְמוֹ וְכָתַבְנוּ לוֹ אַדְרַכְתָּא זוֹ עַל שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית שֶׁלּוֹ. וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁמִין לוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה מֵאוֹתָהּ שָׂדֶה כְּנֶגֶד חוֹבוֹ וּמַכְרִיזִין עָלֶיהָ כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁיִּרְאוּ עַד שֶׁיִּפְסְקוּ הַמּוֹסִיפִין. וּמוֹרִידִין אוֹתוֹ בְּחוֹבוֹ לַחֵלֶק שֶׁשָּׁמוּ אוֹתוֹ וְקוֹרְעִין שְׁטַר הַחוֹב אִם הָיָה שָׁם שְׁטָר. וְאִם לֹא הָיוּ לוֹ נְכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין כּוֹתְבִין הָאַדְרַכְתָּא כָּךְ אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי נִתְחַיֵּב לִפְלוֹנִי כָּךְ בִּשְׁטָר חוֹב שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ וְלֹא נָתַן לוֹ חוֹבוֹ וְלֹא מָצָאנוּ לוֹ נְכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. וּכְבָר קָרַעְנוּ לַשְּׁטָר שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ עָלָיו וְנָתַנְנוּ לִפְלוֹנִי רְשׁוּת לִדְרשׁ וְלַחְקֹר וְלִהְיוֹת יָדוֹ נְטוּיָה עַל כָּל הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁיִּמָצְאוּ לוֹ וְכָל קַרְקָעוֹת שֶׁמָּכַר מִזְּמַן פְּלוֹנִי וָהָלְאָה יֵשׁ לוֹ לְהִפָּרַע לִגְבּוֹת חוֹבוֹ מִן הַכּל: \n", + "וְאַחַר שֶׁכּוֹתְבִין אַדְרַכְתָּא זוֹ הוֹלֵךְ הַמַּלְוֶה וּמְחַפֵּשׂ. אִם מָצָא לוֹ נְכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין שָׁמִין לוֹ מֵהֶן. מָצָא לוֹ נְכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִין מֵאַחַר זְמַן שְׁטָרוֹ טוֹרֵף מֵהֶן וְקוֹרְעִין שְׁטַר הָאַדְרַכְתָּא וְכוֹתְבִין לוֹ שְׁטַר הַטִּירְפָא: \n", + "כֵּיצַד כּוֹתְבִין. אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי זָכָה בַּדִּין לִטְרֹף בְּחוֹב שֶׁפְּלוֹנִי חַיָּב לוֹ שֶׁהוּא כָּךְ וְכָךְ מִשָּׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית שֶׁלָּקַח פְּלוֹנִי בְּכָךְ וְכָךְ מִזְּמַן פְּלוֹנִי. וּכְבָר קָרַעְנוּ הָאַדְרַכְתָּא שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּיָדוֹ וְהִרְשִׁינוּהוּ לִטְרֹף מִזֶּה בְּכָךְ וְכָךְ: \n", + "וְאַחַר שֶׁכּוֹתְבִין הַטִּירְפָא לִטְרֹף מוֹרִידִין שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּקִיאִין לְאוֹתָהּ שָׂדֶה וְשָׁמִין לוֹ מִמֶּנָּה כְּשִׁעוּר חוֹבוֹ כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁרָאוּי לוֹ מִן הַקֶּרֶן וַחֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וּמַכְרִיזִין עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמַּכְרִיזִין עַל נִכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים: \n", + "וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַשְׁבִּיעִין אֶת הַלּוֶֹה שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כְּלוּם כְּתַקָּנַת הַגְּאוֹנִים אִם הָיָה הַלּוֶֹה עִמָּנוּ בַּמְּדִינָה. וּמַשְׁבִּיעִין אֶת הַטּוֹרֵף בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְרַע חוֹב זֶה וְלֹא מְחָלוֹ וְלֹא מְכָרוֹ לְאַחֵר. וְאַחַר כָּךְ מוֹרִידִין אוֹתוֹ לְנִכְסֵי הַלּוֹקֵחַ בְּשׁוּמָא שֶׁלּוֹ וְכוֹתְבִין הוֹרָדָה: \n", + "וְכֵיצַד כּוֹתְבִין. אַחַר שֶׁשַּׁמְנוּ לִפְלוֹנִי בְּשׁוּמָא שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּיָדוֹ וְהִכְרַזְנוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם כָּרָאוּי וְהִשְׁבַּעְנוּ אֶת זֶה הַטּוֹרֵף וְאֶת בַּעַל חוֹב הוֹרַדְנוּהוּ לְשָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית לִהְיוֹת מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהּ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ אָדָם בְּקִנְיָנוֹ: \n", + "וּמֵאֵימָתַי אוֹכֵל הַטּוֹרֵף פֵּרוֹת שָׂדֶה זוֹ מִשֶּׁיִּפְסְקוּ יְמֵי הַהַכְרָזָה: \n", + "כָּל אַדְרַכְתָּא שֶׁאֵין כָּתוּב בָּהּ קְרַעְנוּהוּ לִשְׁטַר הַהַלְוָאָה אֵינָהּ אַדְרַכְתָּא. וְכָל טִירְפָא שֶׁאֵין כָּתוּב בָּהּ קְרַעְנוּהָ לָאַדְרַכְתָּא אֵינָהּ טִירְפָא. וְכָל שׁוּמָא דְּלָא כָּתוּב בָּהּ קְרַעְנוּהָ לַטִּירְפָא אֵינָהּ שׁוּמָא: \n", + "שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁיָּרְדוּ לָשׁוּם. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּמָנֶה וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים בְּמָאתַיִם אוֹ אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּמָאתַיִם וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים בְּמָנֶה. בָּטֵל יָחִיד בְּמִעוּטוֹ. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּמָנֶה וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁמוֹנִים וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּמֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים נִדּוֹן בְּמֵאָה. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר תִּשְׁעִים וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר מֵאָה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים נִדּוֹן בְּמֵאָה וַעֲשָׂרָה. וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ זוֹ שָׁמִין בֵּינֵיהֶן: \n", + "בֵּית דִּין שֶׁשָּׁמוּ לַטּוֹרֵף בְּנִכְסֵי לוֹקֵחַ וְטָעוּ בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא מִכְרָן בָּטֵל שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵן כְּשָׁלִיחַ לַטּוֹרֵף וְלַלּוֹקֵחַ וְיֵשׁ לָהֶן רְשׁוּת לְתַקֵּן אֲבָל לֹא לְעַוֵּת כְּשָׁלִיחַ. וְכָל הַמּוֹרִים כָּזֶה הוֹרוּ: \n", + "בֵּית דִּין שֶׁשָּׁמוּ לְבַעַל חוֹב בֵּין בְּנִכְסֵי לוֶֹה בֵּין בִּמְשֻׁעְבָּדִין שֶׁבְּיַד הַלּוֹקֵחַ וּלְאַחַר זְמַן הִשִּׂיגָה יָדוֹ שֶׁל לוֶֹה אוֹ שֶׁל נִטְרָף אוֹ שֶׁל יוֹרְשֵׁיהֶן וְהֵבִיאוּ לְבַעַל חוֹב אֶת מְעוֹתָיו מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ מֵאוֹתָהּ קַרְקַע. שֶׁהַשּׁוּמָא חוֹזֶרֶת לַבְּעָלִים לְעוֹלָם. מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ו יח) \"וְעָשִׂיתָ הַיָּשָׁר וְהַטּוֹב\": \n", + "קַרְקַע שֶׁשָּׁמוּ אוֹתָהּ לְבַעַל חוֹב וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁמוּהָ בֵּית דִּין לְבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁל זֶה הַמַּלְוֶה הֲרֵי זוֹ חוֹזֶרֶת. לֹא יְהֵא כֹּחוֹ גָּדוֹל מִכֹּחַ בַּעַל חוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן. מְכָרָהּ בַּעַל חוֹב אוֹ נְתָנָהּ בְּמַתָּנָה אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמָהּ לְבַעַל חוֹב מִדַּעְתּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁמֵּת וְהוֹרִישָׁהּ אֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת. שָׁמוּ קַרְקַע לְאִשָּׁה וְנִשֵּׂאת אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמוּ מִמֶּנָּה וְנִשֵּׂאת בַּעַל בְּנִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ כְּלוֹקֵחַ הוּא וְלֹא מַחְזִיר וְלֹא מַחֲזִירִין לוֹ: \n" + ], + [ + "שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב הַמֻּקְדָּמִים פְּסוּלִין שֶׁהֲרֵי טוֹרֵף בָּהֶן לָקוֹחוֹת שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין וּלְפִיכָךְ קָנְסוּ אוֹתוֹ חֲכָמִים וְלֹא יִגְבֶּה בִּשְׁטָר מֻקְדָּם אֶלָּא מִבְּנֵי חוֹרִין גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יִטְרֹף בּוֹ מִזְּמַן רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ: \n", + "שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב הַמְאֻחָרִין כְּשֵׁרִין שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּרַע כֹּחוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ טוֹרֵף אֶלָּא מִזְּמַן הַשְּׁטָר. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא כָּתְבוּ בּוֹ שֶׁהוּא מְאֻחָר הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר: \n", + "שְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוּהוּ בַּיּוֹם וְנֶחְתַּם בַּלַּיְלָה הַסָּמוּךְ לוֹ פָּסוּל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מֻקְדָּם. וְאִם הָיוּ עֲסוּקִים בָּעִנְיָן עַד שֶׁנִּכְנַס הַלַּיְלָה וַחֲתָמוּהוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּנוּ מִמֶּנּוּ בַּלַּיְלָה כָּשֵׁר: \n", + "שְׁטָר שֶׁזְּמַנּוֹ כָּתוּב בְּשַׁבָּת אוֹ בַּעֲשָׂרָה בְּתִשְׁרֵי שְׁטָר מְאֻחָר הוּא וְכָשֵׁר. וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא מֻקְדָּם הוּא וּבְאֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת אוֹ בְּי\"א בְּתִשְׁרֵי נִכְתַּב אֶלָּא מַעֲמִידִין הַשְּׁטָר עַל חֶזְקָתוֹ שֶׁהַדָּבָר יָדוּעַ הוּא שֶׁאֵין כּוֹתְבִין בְּשַׁבָּת וּלְפִיכָךְ אִחֲרוּהוּ: \n", + "כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָר לַלּוֶֹה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַמַּלְוֶה עִמּוֹ וְאֵין כּוֹתְבִין לַמַּלְוֶה עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לוֶֹה עִמּוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ קִנְיָן שֶׁהֲרֵי מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ נִשְׁתַּעְבְּדוּ נְכָסָיו. אֲבָל שְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ קִנְיָן אֵין כּוֹתְבִין אֲפִלּוּ לַלּוֶֹה עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מַלְוֶה עִמּוֹ וְיִתֵּן הַשְּׁטָר בְּיַד הַמַּלְוֶה בְּפָנֵינוּ שֶׁמָּא יִכְתֹּב עַתָּה לִלְווֹת מִמֶּנּוּ בְּנִיסָן וְלֹא יִלְוֶה מִמֶּנּוּ עַד תִּשְׁרֵי וְנִמְצָא הַמַּלְוֶה טוֹרֵף בִּשְׁטָר זֶה מִנִּיסָן שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ לְיָדוֹ עַד תִּשְׁרֵי: \n", + "עֵדִים שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיַּד הַלּוֶֹה אוֹ הַמּוֹכֵר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וְנִתְאַחֲרָה כְּתִיבַת הַשְּׁטָר זְמַן מְרֻבֶּה אִם יָדְעוּ יוֹם שֶׁקָּנוּ מִמֶּנּוּ בּוֹ כּוֹתְבִין בַּשְּׁטָר זְמַן הַקִּנְיָן וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ זְמַן חֲתִימָתָן. וְאֵין צְרִיכִין לוֹמַר וְנִתְאַחֲרָה כְּתִיבַת יָדֵינוּ עַד יוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. וְאִם לֹא יָדְעוּ יוֹם שֶׁקָּנוּ בּוֹ כּוֹתְבִין זְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר מִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה. וְכֵן מִי שֶׁנִּמְסְרָה לָהֶן הָעֵדוּת בִּמְדִינָה אַחַת וְכָתְבוּ הָעֵדִים בִּמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת אֵין מַזְכִּירִין בַּשְּׁטָר מָקוֹם שֶׁנִּמְסְרָה בּוֹ הָעֵדוּת אֶלָּא מָקוֹם שֶׁכָּתְבוּ בּוֹ חֲתִימַת יָדָן: \n", + "שִׁטְרֵי מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר שֶׁלֹּא נִכְתְּבוּ בִּזְמַנָּן אֲפִלּוּ הַמְאֻחָרִין פְּסוּלִין שֶׁהֲרֵי אֶפְשָׁר לִטְרֹף בָּהֶן שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁחָזַר הַמּוֹכֵר וְקָנָה הַשָּׂדֶה מִיַּד הַלּוֹקֵחַ קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ זְמַן הַשְּׁטָר הַמְאֻחָר וְיוֹצִיא הַלָּה הַשְּׁטָר הַמְאֻחָר וְיֹאמַר חָזַרְתִּי וּלְקַחְתִּיהָ פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה מִמְּךָ וְנִמְצָא טוֹרֵף שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין. וְלָמָּה לֹא נָחוּשׁ כֵּן לִשְׁטַר חוֹב הַמְאֻחָר שֶׁמָּא יִפְרָעֶנּוּ קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ וְיִכְתֹּב שׁוֹבֵר וְיַחְזֹר וְיוֹצִיא הַשְּׁטָר הַמְאֻחָר וְיִטְרֹף בּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין. לְפִי שֶׁכָּל הַכּוֹתֵב שְׁטָר מְאֻחָר תַּקָּנָתוֹ שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב הַשּׁוֹבֵר סְתָם שֶׁכָּל זְמַן שֶׁיֵּצֵא הַשְּׁטָר יִשְׁבֹּר אוֹתוֹ זֶה הַשּׁוֹבֵר. וְאִם לֹא עָשָׂה כֵן וְכָתַב הַשּׁוֹבֵר בִּזְמַן הַפֵּרָעוֹן הוּא הִפְסִיד עַל עַצְמוֹ: \n", + "מִי שֶׁמָּכַר שָׂדֵהוּ בְּאֹנֶס וּמָסַר מוֹדָעָא. אוֹ שֶׁקָּדַם וּמָכַר אוֹ נָתַן לְאַחֵר קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּמְכֹּר לְאַנָּס. הֲרֵי הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁל אַנָּס אֵצֶל הַמּוֹכֵר כְּמִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה וְאֵינוֹ טוֹרֵף בִּשְׁטַר מֶכֶר שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ כְּלוּם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין דִּין שְׁטָר זֶה שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב וְלֹא נִכְתַּב אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי הָאֹנֶס. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "אֶפְשָׁר לַטּוֹרֵף שֶׁיִּטְרֹף בְּלֹא שְׁטָר אֶלָּא בְּעֵדוּת עַל פֶּה. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עֵדוּת שֶׁזּוֹ גְּזוּלָה מֵאָבִיו הֲרֵי יֵשׁ לוֹ לְהוֹצִיא בְּעֵדִים אֵלּוּ וְאֵין כָּאן שְׁטָר. וְכֵן אִם הֵעִידוּ לוֹ שֶׁנִּגְמַר הַדִּין לְאָבִיו לִטְרֹף מִנִּכְסֵי פְּלוֹנִי בְּכָךְ וְכָךְ מִזְּמַן פְּלוֹנִי וּמֵת אָבִיו וַעֲדַיִן לֹא טָרַף הֲרֵי הַבֵּן טוֹרֵף בְּעֵדוּת זוֹ: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שְׁנֵי שִׁטְרוֹת מֶכֶר עַל שָׂדֶה אַחַת שֶׁמָּא יַעֲשֶׂה הַלּוֹקֵחַ קְנוּנְיָא עִם בַּעַל חוֹב וְיִטְרֹף שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין. כֵּיצַד. יָבוֹא זֶה וְיִטְרֹף שָׂדֶה זוֹ בְּעֵדוּת שֶׁהֵעִידוּ לוֹ מֵחֲמַת אָבִיו וְיַחְזֹר הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְיִטְרֹף בִּשְׁטַר הַמֶּכֶר שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת שֶׁלָּקְחוּ אַחֲרָיו וְיִקְרַע שְׁטַר הַמֶּכֶר שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ וְיַחְזֹר בִּקְנוּנְיָא וְיַעֲמֹד בַּשָּׂדֶה שֶׁנִּטְרְפָה מִמֶּנּוּ וְיָבוֹא הוּא שֶׁטְּרָפָהּ בְּעַצְמָהּ וְיִטְרֹף אוֹתָהּ פַּעַם אַחֶרֶת בְּעֵדוּת עֵדָיו וְיוֹצִיא הַלָּה שְׁטַר הַמֶּכֶר הַשֵּׁנִי וְיִטְרֹף בּוֹ לָקוֹחוֹת אֲחֵרִים שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין. אִם כֵּן מִי שֶׁנֶּאֱבַד לוֹ שְׁטַר הַמֶּכֶר וְעֵדָיו קַיָּמִין כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה. יִכְתְּבוּ שְׁטָר שֵׁנִי וְיֹאמְרוּ בּוֹ שְׁטָר זֶה אֵין גּוֹבִין בּוֹ לֹא מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים וְלֹא מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין וְלֹא כְּתַבְנוּהוּ אֶלָּא לְהַעֲמִיד שָׂדֶה זוֹ בְּיַד פְּלוֹנִי הַלּוֹקֵחַ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יוֹצִיאָהּ מִיָּדוֹ הַמּוֹכֵר וְלֹא יוֹרְשָׁיו: \n", + "בְּשִׁטְרֵי הַחוֹבוֹת אֵינוֹ כֵן. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֵדָיו קַיָּמִין וְקָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ וְחָזַר בִּשְׁעָתוֹ וְאָמַר שְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתַבְתֶּם לִי עַתָּה אָבַד אוֹ נִשְׂרַף אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לוֹ שְׁטָר שֵׁנִי שֶׁמָּא פְּרָעוֹ אוֹ מְחָלוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַחוֹב לִזְמַן וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה בְּעֵדִים אֵלּוּ כְּלוּם אֶלָּא אִם הַלּוֶֹה אוֹמֵר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם שֶׁזֶּה הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן בְּעֵדוּתָן כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר: \n", + "מִי שֶׁבָּלָה שְׁטַר חוֹבוֹ וַהֲרֵי הוּא הוֹלֵךְ לְהִמָּחֵק מַעֲמִיד עָלָיו עֵדִים וּבָא לְבֵית דִּין וְהֵם עוֹשִׂין לוֹ קִיּוּם. אֲבָל עֵדֵי הַשְּׁטָר עַצְמָן אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לוֹ שְׁטָר אַחֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּמְחַק בִּפְנֵיהֶם. אֲבָל בָּאִין לְבֵית דִּין וּבֵית דִּין עוֹשִׂין לוֹ קִיּוּם: \n", + "כֵּיצַד מְקַיְּמִין שְׁטָר זֶה. כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָר אַחֵר וְאוֹמְרִים אָנוּ בֵּית דִּין פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי הוֹצִיא פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי שְׁטָר מָחוּק לְפָנֵינוּ וּזְמַנּוֹ בְּיוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי עֵדָיו. וְאִם כָּתְבוּ וְהֻזְקַקְנוּ לְעֵדוּתָן שֶׁל עֵדִים וְנִמְצֵאת מְכֻוֶּנֶת גּוֹבֶה בִּשְׁטָר זֶה שֶׁכָּתְבוּ לוֹ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ קִיּוּם אַחֵר. וְאִם לֹא כָּתְבוּ כֵן צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה עַל הָעֵדִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים עַד שֶׁתִּתְקַיֵּם עֵדוּתָן: \n", + "שְׁטַר חוֹב שֶׁנִּתְקָרֵעַ כָּשֵׁר. נִמְחַק אוֹ נִתְטַשְׁטֵשׁ אִם רִשּׁוּמוֹ נִכָּר כָּשֵׁר. נִקְרָע קֶרַע בֵּית דִּין הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל. אֵיזֶהוּ קֶרַע בֵּית דִּין שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב: \n", + "מִי שֶׁפָּרַע מִקְצָת חוֹבוֹ אִם רָצָה מַחְלִיף וְכוֹתְבִין לוֹ בֵּית דִּין שְׁטָר אַחֵר בִּשְׁאָר הַחוֹב מִזְּמַן רִאשׁוֹן אֲבָל לֹא עֵדֵי הַשְּׁטָר. וְאִם רָצָה יִכְתֹּב שׁוֹבֵר: \n", + "הַבָּא לִפְרֹעַ חוֹבוֹ וְאָמַר הַמַּלְוֶה אָבַד לִי הַשְּׁטָר הֲרֵי זֶה יִכְתֹּב לוֹ שׁוֹבֵר וְיִפְרַע כָּל חוֹבוֹ. וְיֵשׁ לַלּוֶֹה לְהַחֲרִים סְתָם עַל מִי שֶׁכּוֹבֵשׁ שְׁטָרוֹ וְטוֹעֵן שֶׁאָבַד. וְאִם טָעַן הַלּוֶֹה טַעֲנַת וַדַּאי וְאָמַר הַשְּׁטָר אֶצְלוֹ וְעַתָּה הִנִּיחוֹ בְּכִיסוֹ הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע הַמַּלְוֶה הֶסֵּת שֶׁאָבַד הַשְּׁטָר וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִפְרַע חוֹבוֹ וְיִכְתֹּב שׁוֹבֵר: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב בְּמָנֶה וְאָמַר עֲשׂוּ לִי מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁנַיִם בַּחֲמִשִּׁים חֲמִשִּׁים אֵין עוֹשִׂין שֶׁזְּכוּת הוּא לַלּוֶֹה לִהְיוֹת הַכּל בִּשְׁטָר אֶחָד שֶׁאִם יִפְרָעֶנּוּ מִקְצָת נִמְצָא שְׁטָרוֹ פָּגוּם. וְכֵן אִם הוֹצִיא שְׁנֵי שְׁטָרוֹת בַּחֲמִשִּׁים חֲמִשִּׁים וְאָמַר עָשׂוּ לִי אוֹתָן בְּמֵאָה אֵין עוֹשִׂין לוֹ אֶלָּא עוֹשִׂין לוֹ קִיּוּם לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד שֶׁזְּכוּת הוּא לַלּוֶֹה לִהְיוֹת שְׁנַיִם שֶׁלֹּא יָכֹף אוֹתוֹ בַּדִּין בְּפַעַם אַחַת לִגְבּוֹת הַכּל: \n", + "הוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב בְּמֵאָה וְאָמַר קְרָעוּהוּ וְכִתְבוּ לִי שְׁטָר אַחֵר בַּחֲמִשִּׁים אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא פָּרְעוּ הַכּל וְכָתַב לוֹ שׁוֹבֵר עַל שְׁטָר שֶׁל מֵאָה וּכְשֶׁיַּחֲזֹר וְיוֹצִיא קִיּוּם זֶה עַל שְׁטַר חֲמִשִּׁים וְיוֹצִיא הַלּוֶֹה הַשּׁוֹבֵר יֹאמַר לוֹ זֶה שְׁטָר אַחֵר הוּא: \n" + ], + [ + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁשְּׁטַר חוֹב שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ קִנְיָן כּוֹתְבִין אוֹתוֹ לַלּוֶֹה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַמַּלְוֶה עִמּוֹ. וְכֵן כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָר לַמּוֹכֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַלּוֹקֵחַ עִמּוֹ. וְכֵן כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבֵר לַמַּלְוֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַלּוֶֹה עִמּוֹ וְשׁוֹבֵר לְאִשָּׁה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בַּעְלָהּ עִמָּהּ וְגֵט לְאִישׁ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ. אֲבָל אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שִׁטְרֵי אֵרוּסִין וְנִשּׂוּאִין וְשִׁטְרֵי אֲרִיסוּת וְקַבְּלָנוּת וּשְׁטַר בְּרֵרַת הַדַּיָּנִין אוֹ שְׁטַר טַעֲנַת בַּעֲלֵי דִּינִין וְכָל מַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת שְׁנֵיהֶם. וְכָל הַשְּׁטָרוֹת הָאֵלּוּ צְרִיכִין לְהִזָּהֵר בְּתִקּוּנָן כִּשְׁאָר הַשְּׁטָרוֹת: \n", + "וּמִי נוֹתֵן שְׂכַר הַסּוֹפֵר. בְּשִׁטְרֵי הַלְוָאָה הַלּוֶֹה נוֹתֵן שָׂכָר. וּבְשִׁטְרֵי מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר הַלּוֹקֵחַ נוֹתֵן שָׂכָר. וְהָאִשָּׁה נוֹתֶנֶת שְׂכַר הַגֵּט. וְהֶחָתָן נוֹתֵן שְׂכַר שְׁטַר הָאֵרוּסִין אוֹ הַנִּשּׂוּאִין. וְהַמְקַבֵּל וְכֵן הָאָרִיס אוֹ הַשָּׂכִיר נוֹתֵן שְׂכַר הַשְּׁטָר. אֲבָל שְׁטַר בְּרֵרַת הַדַּיָּנִין אוֹ טַעֲנוֹת בַּעֲלֵי דִּינִין שְׁנֵיהֶם נוֹתְנִין שָׂכָר: \n", + "אֶחָד הַשְּׁטָרוֹת הַנִּכְתָּבִין לְאֶחָד שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי חֲבֵרוֹ וְאֶחָד הַשְּׁטָרוֹת שֶׁאֵין כּוֹתְבִין אוֹתָן אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת שְׁנֵיהֶם וּשְׁנֵיהֶן עוֹמְדִין כְּגוֹן שְׁטָר שֶׁכּוֹתְבִין לַמַּלְוֶה אוֹ לַלּוֹקֵחַ כֻּלָּן צְרִיכִין שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הָעֵדִים מַכִּירִין הַשֵּׁמוֹת שׁבַּשְּׁטָר שֶׁזֶּה הוּא פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי וְזֶהוּ פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹאוּ שְׁנַיִם וְיַעֲשׂוּ קְנוּנְיָא וִישַׁנּוּ שְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן בְּשֵׁמוֹת אֲחֵרִים וְיוֹדוּ זֶה לָזֶה: \n", + "כָּל מִי שֶׁהֻחְזַק שְׁמוֹ בָּעִיר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא שֵׁם אַחֵר יֵשׁ לוֹ וְהוּא שִׁנָּהוּ כְּדֵי לְרַמּוֹת וְלַעֲשׂוֹת קְנוּנְיָא שֶׁאִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן אֵין לַדָּבָר סוֹף. לְפִיכָךְ מִי שֶׁלֹּא הֻחְזַק שְׁמוֹ בָּעִיר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּבָא וְאָמַר כִּתְבוּ עָלַי שְׁטָר שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב לִפְלוֹנִי אוֹ לָזֶה כָּךְ וְכָךְ דִּינָרִין. אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁזֶּה שְׁמוֹ אוֹ יֻחְזַק: \n", + "כָּל שְׁטָר שֶׁיָּצָא לְפָנֵינוּ וְיִטְעֹן הַלּוֶֹה וְיֹאמַר אֵינִי חַיָּב כְּלוּם שֶׁמָּא רַמַּאי אַחֵר הֶעֱלָה שְׁמוֹ כִּשְׁמִי וְהוֹדָה לָזֶה אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לֹא לָזֶה אֲנִי חַיָּב כְּלוּם אֶלָּא לְאַחֵר וְזֶה רַמַּאי הוּא וְהֶעֱלָה שְׁמוֹ כְּשֵׁם בַּעַל חוֹבִי. מֵאַחַר שֶׁלֹּא הֻחְזַק שָׁם שְׁנַיִם שֶׁשְּׁמוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁוִין אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִדְבָרָיו שֶׁחֲזָקָה הוּא שֶׁאֵין הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין עַל הַשְּׁטָר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מַכִּירִין אֵלּוּ הַנִּזְכָּרִים בּוֹ. וְכֵן חֲזָקָה שֶׁאֵין חוֹתְמִין עַל הַשְּׁטָר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נוֹדַע לָהֶם בְּוַדַּאי שָׁאֲלוּ שֶׁהֵעִידוּ עַל עַצְמָן גְּדוֹלִים וּבְנֵי דַּעַת. וְאֵין הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין עַל הַשְּׁטָר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יוֹדְעִים לִקְרוֹת וְלַחְתֹּם: \n", + "עֵדִים שֶׁאֵין יוֹדְעִין לַחְתֹּם וְקָרְעוּ לָהֶן נְיָר חָלָק וְחָתְמוּ עַל הָרָשׁוּם מַכִּין אוֹתָן מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת וְהַשְּׁטָר פָּסוּל: \n", + "רֹאשׁ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁהָיָה יוֹדֵעַ עִנְיַן הַשְּׁטָר וְקָרָא הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁלְּפָנָיו הַסּוֹפֵר שֶׁלּוֹ הוֹאִיל וְהוּא מַאֲמִין אוֹתוֹ וְאֵימָתוֹ עָלָיו הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹתֵם עַל הַשְּׁטָר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא קְרָאָהוּ הוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ. וְאֵין שְׁאָר הָעָם רַשָּׁאִין לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן עַד שֶׁיִּקְרָא הָעֵד הַשְּׁטָר מִלָּה מִלָּה: \n", + "שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ בָּעִיר שֵׁם כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן אֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לְהוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב זֶה עַל זֶה וְלֹא אַחֵר יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיא עֲלֵיהֶן שְׁטַר חוֹב אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן בָּאוּ עֵדֵי הַשְּׁטָר בְּעַצְמָן וְאָמְרוּ זֶהוּ הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁהֵעַדְנוּ עָלָיו וְזֶהוּ שֶׁהֵעַדְנוּ לוֹ בְּהַלְוָאָה. וְכֵן אֵין מְגָרְשִׁין נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן אֶלָּא זֶה בִּפְנֵי זֶה. וְכֵן אִם נִמְצָא לְאֶחָד בֵּין שִׁטְרוֹתָיו שׁוֹבֵר שֶׁשְּׁטָרוֹ שֶׁל יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן פָּרוּעַ שִׁטְרוֹת שְׁנֵיהֶן שֶׁעָלָיו פְּרוּעִין. וְכֵיצַד יַעֲשׂוּ אֵלּוּ שֶׁשְּׁמוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁוִין וּשְׁמוֹת אֲבִיהֶן שָׁוִין. יְשַׁלְּשׁוּ. הָיוּ שְׁמוֹת אֲבוֹת אֲבוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁוִין יִכְתְּבוּ סִימָנֵיהֶן. הָיוּ דּוֹמִין זֶה לָזֶה בְּצוּרָתָן יִכְתְּבוּ יִחוּסָן. הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם לְוִיִּם שְׁנֵיהֶם כֹּהֲנִים יִכְתְּבוּ דּוֹרוֹת: \n", + "הוֹצִיא עָלָיו שְׁטָר שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ אֲנִי פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי לָוִיתִי מִמְּךָ מָנֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שֵׁם הַמַּלְוֶה כָּל מִי שֶׁיָּצָא שְׁטָר זֶה מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ גּוֹבֶה בּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִדְחוֹתוֹ וְלוֹמַר שֶׁל אַחֵר הוּא וְנָפַל. וְכֵן שְׁנֵי יוֹסֵף בְּנֵי שִׁמְעוֹן הַדָּרִין בְּעִיר אַחַת שֶׁהוֹצִיא אֶחָד מֵהֶן שְׁטַר חוֹב עַל אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי הָעִיר אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִדְחוֹתוֹ וְלוֹמַר לוֹ לִפְלוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא כְּשִׁמְךָ אֲנִי חַיָּב וּמִמֶּנּוּ נָפַל הַשְּׁטָר אֶלָּא הֲרֵי זֶה שֶׁיָּצָא מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ גּוֹבֶה וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִנְפִילָה: \n", + "שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהוֹצִיאוּ כָּל אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם שְׁטַר חוֹב עַל חֲבֵרוֹ אֵין הָאַחֲרוֹן יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לָרִאשׁוֹן אִלּוּ הָיִיתִי חַיָּב לְךָ הֵיאַךְ אַתָּה לוֶֹה מִמֶּנִּי אֶלָּא זֶה גּוֹבֶה חוֹבוֹ וְזֶה גּוֹבֶה חוֹבוֹ. הָיָה זֶה בְּמֵאָה וְזֶה בְּמֵאָה וְיֵשׁ לָזֶה עִידִית וְלָזֶה עִידִית אוֹ לָזֶה בֵּינוֹנִית וְלָזֶה בֵּינוֹנִית לָזֶה זִבּוּרִית וְלָזֶה זִבּוּרִית אֵין נִזְקָקִין לָהֶן אֶלָּא כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד עוֹמֵד בְּשֶׁלּוֹ. הָיָה לָזֶה עִידִית וּבֵינוֹנִית וְלָזֶה זִבּוּרִית זֶה גּוֹבֶה מִן הַבֵּינוֹנִית וְזֶה גּוֹבֶה מִן הַזִּבּוּרִית: \n", + "הוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב עַל חֲבֵרוֹ וְהַלָּה מוֹצִיא שְׁטָר שֶׁמָּכַר לוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה אִם הָיוּ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹתֵן הַלּוֹקֵחַ הַמָּעוֹת וְאַחַר כָּךְ כּוֹתֵב לוֹ הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת הַשְּׁטָר הֲרֵי שְׁטַר חוֹבוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בָּטֵל שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר לוֹ אִלּוּ הָיִיתִי חַיָּב לְךָ הָיָה לְךָ לִפְרֹעַ חוֹבְךָ. אֲבָל בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁכּוֹתְבִין וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹתְנִין הֲרֵי שְׁטַר הַחוֹב קַיָּם שֶׁהֲרֵי זֶה אוֹמֵר מָכַרְתִּי לְךָ אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לְךָ נְכָסִים יְדוּעִים שֶׁאֶגְבֶּה מֵהֶן חוֹב שֶׁלִּי: \n" + ], + [ + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ וְאַחַר שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ אָמַר לוֹ אֶחָד אֲנִי עָרֵב. אוֹ שֶׁתָּבַע אֶת הַלּוֶֹה בַּדִּין וְאָמַר לוֹ אַחֵר הַנַּח וַאֲנִי עָרֵב. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה חוֹנֵק אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בַּשּׁוּק לִתֵּן לוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ הַנַּח וַאֲנִי עָרֵב. אֵין הֶעָרֵב חַיָּב כְּלוּם. וַאֲפִלּוּ אָמַר אֲנִי עָרֵב בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין. אֲבָל אִם קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ שֶׁהוּא עָרֵב מָמוֹן זֶה כָּל אֵלּוּ הַפָּנִים בֵּין בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין בֵּין בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין הַמַּלְוֶה נִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד: \n", + "אָמַר לוֹ בִּשְׁעַת מַתַּן מָעוֹת הַלְוֵהוּ וַאֲנִי עָרֵב נִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד הֶעָרֵב וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ קִנְיָן. וְכֵן אִם בֵּית דִּין עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ עָרֵב נִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ בֵּית דִּין רוֹצִין לִגְבּוֹת מִן הַלּוֶֹה וְאָמַר לָהֶם הַנִּיחוּהוּ וַאֲנִי עָרֵב לָכֶם הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ לוֹ הֲנָאָה שֶׁהֶאֱמִינוּהוּ בֵּית דִּין בְּאוֹתָהּ הֲנָיָה שִׁעְבֵּד עַצְמוֹ: \n", + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ עַל יְדֵי עָרֵב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֶעָרֵב מִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד לַמַּלְוֶה לֹא יִתְבַּע אֶת הֶעָרֵב תְּחִלָּה אֶלָּא תּוֹבֵעַ אֶת הַלּוֶֹה תְּחִלָּה. אִם לֹא נָתַן לוֹ חוֹזֵר אֵצֶל הֶעָרֵב וְנִפְרָע מִמֶּנּוּ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁאֵין נְכָסִים לַלּוֶֹה. אֲבָל אִם יֵשׁ נְכָסִים לַלּוֶֹה לֹא יִפָּרַע מִן הֶעָרֵב כְּלָל אֶלָּא מִן הַלּוֶֹה. הָיָה הַלּוֶֹה אַלָּם וְאֵין בֵּית דִּין יְכוֹלִין לְהוֹצִיא מִיָּדוֹ אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לַדִּין הֲרֵי זֶה נִפְרָע מִן הֶעָרֵב תְּחִלָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יַעֲשֶׂה הֶעָרֵב דִּין עִם הַלּוֶֹה אִם יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ מִיָּדוֹ יוֹצִיא אוֹ יְשַׁמְּתוּהוּ בֵּית דִּין עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן לוֹ: \n", + "הִתְנָה הַמַּלְוֶה עַל הֶעָרֵב וְאָמַר לוֹ עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֶפָּרַע מִמִּי שֶׁאֶרְצֶה אִם יֵשׁ נְכָסִים לַלּוֶֹה לֹא יִפָּרַע מִן הֶעָרֵב. אָמַר עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֶפָּרַע מִמִּי שֶׁאֶרְצֶה תְּחִלָּה אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה קַבְּלָן הֲרֵי זֶה יִתְבַּע אֶת הֶעָרֵב הַזֶּה אוֹ אֶת הַקַּבְּלָן תְּחִלָּה וְיִפָּרַע מֵהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ נְכָסִים לַלּוֶֹה: \n", + "אֵיזֶהוּ עָרֵב וְאֵיזֶהוּ קַבְּלָן. אָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לוֹ וַאֲנִי נוֹתֵן לְךָ זֶהוּ קַבְּלָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לַמַּלְוֶה לְהִפָּרַע מִמֶּנּוּ תְּחִלָּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פֵּרֵשׁ וְלֹא אָמַר עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֶפָּרַע מִמִּי שֶׁאֶרְצֶה. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ הַלְוֵהוּ וַאֲנִי עָרֵב הַלְוֵהוּ וַאֲנִי פּוֹרֵעַ הַלְוֵהוּ וַאֲנִי חַיָּב הַלְוֵהוּ וַאֲנִי נוֹתֵן הַלְוֵהוּ וַאֲנִי קַבְּלָן. תֵּן לוֹ וַאֲנִי קַבְּלָן תֵּן לוֹ וַאֲנִי פּוֹרֵעַ תֵּן לוֹ וַאֲנִי חַיָּב תֵּן לוֹ וַאֲנִי עָרֵב. כֻּלָּן לָשׁוֹן עַרְבָנוּת הֵן וְאֵינוֹ תּוֹבְעוֹ תְּחִלָּה וְלֹא נִפְרַע מִמֶּנּוּ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ נְכָסִים לַלּוֶֹה עַד שֶׁיְּפָרֵשׁ וְיֹאמַר מִמִּי שֶׁאֶרְצֶה אֶפָּרַע: \n", + "עָרֵב שֶׁל כְּתֻבָּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם שֶׁהֲרֵי מִצְוָה עָשָׂה וְלֹא חָסַר מָמוֹן. וְאִם הָיָה הָאָב עָרֵב לִכְתֻבַּת בְּנוֹ וְקָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ חַיָּב. וְקַבְּלָן שֶׁל כְּתֻבָּה חַיָּב: \n", + "רְאוּבֵן שֶׁמָּכַר לְשִׁמְעוֹן שָׂדֶה וּבָא לֵוִי וְקִבֵּל אַחֲרָיוּת עָלָיו לֹא נִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד לֵוִי שֶׁזּוֹ אַסְמַכְתָּא הִיא. וְאִם קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ שֶׁהוּא עָרֵב לְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי מֶכֶר זֶה כָּל עֵת שֶׁיִּרְצֶה שֶׁיִּתְבָּעֶנּוּ לְשִׁמְעוֹן הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב וְכָזֶה הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי: \n", + "וְכֵן הֶעָרֵב אוֹ הַקַּבְּלָן שֶׁחִיְּבוּ עַצְמָן עַל תְּנַאי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ לֹא נִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא אַסְמַכְתָּא. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לוֹ וַאֲנִי אֶתֵּן לְךָ אִם יִהְיֶה כָּךְ וְכָךְ אוֹ אִם לֹא יִהְיֶה. שֶׁכָּל הַתּוֹלֶה שִׁעְבּוּד שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב בּוֹ בְּאִם יִהְיֶה וְאִם לֹא יִהְיֶה לֹא גָּמַר וְהִקְנָה קִנְיָן שָׁלֵם וּלְפִיכָךְ לֹא נִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד: \n", + "שְׁנַיִם שֶׁלָּווּ בִּשְׁטָר אֶחָד אוֹ שֶׁלָּקְחוּ מִקָּח אֶחָד. וְכֵן הַשֻּׁתָּפִין שֶׁלָּוָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן אוֹ לָקַח בְּשֻׁתָּפוּת הֲרֵי הֵן עַרְבָאִין זֶה לָזֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פֵּרֵשׁ: \n", + "שְׁנַיִם שֶׁעָרְבוּ לָאֶחָד כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹא הַמַּלְוֶה לִפָּרַע מִן הֶעָרֵב יִפָּרַע מֵאֵי זֶה מֵהֶן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. וְאִם לֹא הָיָה לְאֶחָד כְּדֵי הַחוֹב חוֹזֵר וְתוֹבֵעַ הַשֵּׁנִי בִּשְׁאָר הַחוֹב: \n", + "וְאֶחָד שֶׁעָרַב לִשְׁנַיִם כְּשֶׁיִּפְרַע לַמַּלְוֶה יוֹדִיעוֹ עַל חוֹב אֵיזֶה מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם פּוֹרֵעַ כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּחֲזֹר עָלָיו: \n", + "הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ עֲרֹב לִפְלוֹנִי כָּךְ וְכָךְ וַאֲנִי עָרֵב לְךָ הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִי שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הַלְוֵהוּ וַאֲנִי עָרֵב. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּעְבֵּד הֶעָרֵב לַמַּלְוֶה כָּךְ נִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד עָרֵב לָעָרֵב רִאשׁוֹן. וְדִין הֶעָרֵב עִם הַמַּלְוֶה וְדִין עָרֵב רִאשׁוֹן עִם הַשֵּׁנִי דִּין אֶחָד הוּא: \n", + "מִי שֶׁלֹּא פֵּרֵשׁ קֶצֶב הַדָּבָר שֶׁעָרַב כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ כָּל מַה שֶּׁתִּתֵּן תֵּן לוֹ וַאֲנִי עָרֵב אוֹ מְכֹר לוֹ וַאֲנִי עָרֵב אוֹ הַלְוֵהוּ וַאֲנִי עָרֵב יֵשׁ מִן הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁהוֹרָה אֲפִלּוּ מָכַר לוֹ בַּעֲשֶׂרֶת אֲלָפִים אוֹ הִלְוָהוּ מֵאָה אֶלֶף נִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד הֶעָרֵב בַּכּל. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאֵין זֶה הֶעָרֵב חַיָּב כְּלוּם שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ הַדָּבָר שֶׁשִּׁעְבֵּד עַצְמוֹ בּוֹ לֹא סָמְכָה דַּעְתּוֹ וְלֹא שִׁעְבֵּד עַצְמוֹ וּדְבָרִים שֶׁל טַעַם הֵם לַמֵּבִין: \n", + "מִי שֶׁאָמַר לַחֲבֵרוֹ הַלְוֵהוּ וַאֲנִי עָרֵב לְגוּפוֹ שֶׁל לוֶֹה זֶה לֹא עָרַב לְעַצְמוֹ שֶׁל מָמוֹן אֶלָּא כָּל זְמַן שֶׁתִּרְצֶה אֲבִיאֶנּוּ לְךָ. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר לוֹ אַחַר שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ וּתְבָעוֹ הַנִּיחֵהוּ כָּל זְמַן שֶׁתִּתְבָּעֶנּוּ אֲבִיאֶנּוּ לְךָ וְקָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ עַל זֶה אִם לֹא יָבִיא זֶה הַלּוֶֹה יֵשׁ מִן הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁהוֹרָה שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁהוֹרָה שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הִתְנָה וְאָמַר אִם לֹא אֲבִיאֶנּוּ אוֹ שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ שֶׁבָּרַח אֶהְיֶה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם הֲרֵי זוֹ אַסְמַכְתָּא וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד. וְלָזֶה דַּעְתִּי נוֹטָה: \n" + ], + [ + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בִּשְׁטָר וְאַחַר שֶׁהֵעִידוּ הָעֵדִים בַּשְּׁטָר בָּא עָרֵב וְעָרַב אֶת הַלּוֶֹה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ וְנִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד לְשַׁלֵּם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹא הַמַּלְוֶה לְהִפָּרַע מִנִּכְסֵי הֶעָרֵב הַזֶּה אֵינוֹ טוֹרֵף מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים. הָיָה הֶעָרֵב בְּגוּפוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר קֹדֶם חֲתִימַת הָעֵדִים אִם כָּתְבוּ פְּלוֹנִי עָרֵב שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינוֹ מְעֹרָב עִם הַלּוֶֹה בַּמִּלְוֶה אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִמֶּנּוּ מִן הַמְשֻׁעְבָּדִים. אֲבָל אִם כָּתוּב בַּשְּׁטָר פְּלוֹנִי לָוָה מִפְּלוֹנִי כָּךְ וְכָךְ וּפְלוֹנִי עָרֵב שֶׁהֲרֵי עֵרְבוֹ לוֶֹה עִם עָרֵב בַּשְּׁטָר וְקָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ שֶׁל עָרֵב וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָתְמוּ עֵדִים בַּשְּׁטָר הֲרֵי זֶה נִפְרָע מִנִּכְסֵי עָרֵב הַמְשֻׁעְבָּדִים: ", + "מַלְוֶה שֶׁתָּבַע אֶת הַלּוֶֹה וְלֹא מָצָא לוֹ נְכָסִים אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִפָּרַע מִן הֶעָרֵב עַד אַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם מִיּוֹם שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב הֶעָרֵב לְשַׁלֵּם. לֹא יִהְיֶה כֹּחַ זֶה פָּחוֹת מִן הַלּוֶֹה עַצְמוֹ. וְכָזֶה הוֹרוּ הַמּוֹרִים. וְאִם הִתְנָה עִמּוֹ הַכּל לְפִי הַתְּנַאי: ", + "מַלְוֶה שֶׁבָּא לִתְבֹּעַ אֶת הַלּוֶֹה וְלֹא מָצָא לוֹ נְכָסִים אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִדְחוֹתוֹ וְלוֹמַר לֵךְ אֵצֶל הַקַּבְּלָן הֲרֵי יֵשׁ לְךָ לִתְבֹּעַ אוֹתוֹ תְּחִלָּה אֶלָּא תּוֹבֵעַ כָּל מִי שֶׁרָצָה תְּחִלָּה. וְאִם נָשָׂא הַקַּבְּלָן הַמָּעוֹת מִיַּד הַמַּלְוֶה וּנְתָנוֹ בְּיַד הַלּוֶֹה אֵין לַמַּלְוֶה בְּיַד הַלּוֶֹה כְּלוּם. הָיָה הַלּוֶֹה בִּמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹדִיעוֹ וְלֹא לֵילֵךְ אֵלָיו אוֹ שֶׁמֵּת הַלּוֶֹה וְהִנִּיחַ יְתוֹמִים קְטַנִּים שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין נִזְקָקִין לְנִכְסֵיהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה תּוֹבֵעַ אֶת הֶעָרֵב תְּחִלָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין הַלּוֶֹה מָצוּי: ", + "מַלְוֶה שֶׁתָּבַע אֶת הַלּוֶֹה וּמְצָאוֹ שֶׁהוּא עָנִי אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִפָּרַע מִן הֶעָרֵב עַד שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע הַלּוֶֹה בְּתַקָּנַת אַחֲרוֹנִים שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כְּלוּם שֶׁמָּא יַעֲשׂוּ קְנוּנְיָא עַל נְכָסָיו שֶׁל עָרֵב: ", + "מִי שֶׁהָיָה עָרֵב לַחֲבֵרוֹ בְּמִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה וּבָא הַמַּלְוֶה לִתְבֹּעַ אֶת הֶעָרֵב וַהֲרֵי הַלּוֶֹה בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם. אוֹמֵר לוֹ הֶעָרֵב הָבֵא רְאָיָה שֶׁלֹּא פְּרָעֲךָ הַלּוֶֹה וַאֲנִי אֲשַׁלֵּם לְךָ: ", + "עָרֵב שֶׁקָּדַם וְנָתַן לְבַעַל חוֹב אֶת חוֹבוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹזֵר וְגוֹבֶה מִן הַלּוֶֹה כָּל מַה שֶּׁפָּרַע עַל יָדוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיְתָה מִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה אוֹ בְּלֹא עֵדִים כְּלָל. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הַלּוֶֹה בְּעֵת שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה לוֹ עָרֵב עָרְבֵנִי וְשַׁלֵּם. אֲבָל אִם עָמַד בִּרְשׁוּת עַצְמוֹ וְנַעֲשָׂה לוֹ עָרֵב אוֹ קַבְּלָן אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הַלּוֶֹה עָרְבֵנִי וְלֹא הִרְשָׁהוּ שֶׁיִּתֵּן וְיִפְרַע הַחוֹב אֵין הַלּוֶֹה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם לוֹ כְּלוּם. וְכֵן הַפּוֹרֵעַ שְׁטַר חוֹבוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַחוֹב עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן אֵין הַלּוֶֹה חַיָּב כְּלוּם וְנוֹטֵל מַשְׁכּוֹנוֹ בְּחִנָּם וַהֲרֵי אִבֵּד זֶה הַנּוֹתֵן אֶת מְעוֹתָיו שֶׁמָּא הָיָה הַלּוֶֹה מְפַיֵּס אֶת הַמַּלְוֶה וּמוֹחֵל לוֹ. מֵת הַלּוֶֹה וְקָדַם הֶעָרֵב וּפָרַע הַחוֹב קֹדֶם שֶׁיּוֹדִיעַ אֶת הַיּוֹרְשִׁים אִם נוֹדַע לָנוּ שֶׁלֹּא פָּרַע הַלּוֶֹה שְׁטַר חוֹבוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁיָּמוּת כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוֹדָה בּוֹ קֹדֶם אוֹ שֶׁנִּדּוּהוּ וּמֵת בְּנִדּוּיוֹ אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַן הַמִּלְוֶה לְהִגָּבוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹזֵר וְגוֹבֶה מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין כָּל מַה שֶּׁפָּרַע. הָיָה הַמַּלְוֶה עַכּוּ\"ם אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין חַיָּבִין לְשַׁלֵּם שֶׁמָּא אֲבִיהֶן נָתַן לְיַד הֶעָרֵב כָּל הַחוֹב שֶׁהָיָה עָלָיו מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָעַכּוּ\"ם תּוֹבֵעַ אֶת הֶעָרֵב תְּחִלָּה וּלְפִיכָךְ פָּרַע זֶה מִדַּעְתּוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁיּוֹדִיעַ הַיְתוֹמִים. אֲבָל אִם הוֹדִיעָן שֶׁהָעַכּוּ\"ם תּוֹבֵעַ אוֹתוֹ וַהֲרֵי הוּא נוֹתֵן חַיָּבִין לְשַׁלֵּם: ", + "כָּל עָרֵב שֶׁבָּא לִטּל מַה שֶּׁפָּרַע בֵּין שֶׁבָּא לְהִפָּרַע מִיּוֹרְשֵׁי לוֶֹה בֵּין מִלֹּוֶה עַצְמוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁפָּרַע. וְאֵין מְצִיאַת שְׁטַר הַחוֹב שֶׁעָלָיו בְּיַד הֶעָרֵב רְאָיָה שֶׁמָּא נָפַל הַשְּׁטָר מִיַּד הַמַּלְוֶה וְלֹא פָּרַע זֶה כְּלוּם: ", + "הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ עָרַבְתָּ לִי וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא עָרַבְתִּי. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר הֶעָרֵב לַלּוֶֹה אַתָּה הִרְשֵׁיתַנִי לַעֲרֹב אוֹתְךָ וְלִתֵּן וְהוּא אוֹמֵר מִדַּעְתְּךָ עָרַבְתָּ אוֹ לֹא עָרַבְתָּ כְּלָל. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר הֶעָרֵב פָּרַעְתִּי הַמִּלְוֶה בְּפָנֶיךָ וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא פָּרַעְתָּ. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ כֵּן פָּרַעְתָּ וְנָתַתִּי לְךָ מַה שֶּׁפָּרַעְתָּ. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר הַמַּלְוֶה עָרַבְתָּ לִי מָאתַיִם וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא עָרַבְתִּי אֶלָּא מָנֶה. מִכָּל אֵלּוּ הַטְּעָנוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. אוֹ יִשָּׁבַע הַנִּתְבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת אוֹ שְׁבוּעַת הַתּוֹרָה אִם הוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת כִּשְׁאָר כָּל טַעֲנַת הַמָּמוֹן: ", + "עֶבֶד אוֹ אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁלָּווּ אוֹ שֶׁעָרְבוּ אֶת אֲחֵרִים וְנִתְחַיְּבוּ לְשַׁלֵּם. כְּשֶׁיִּשְׁתַּחְרֵר הָעֶבֶד וְתִתְגָּרֵשׁ הָאִשָּׁה אוֹ תִּתְאַלְמֵן יְשַׁלְּמוּ: ", + "קָטָן שֶׁלָּוָה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם כְּשֶׁיַּגְדִּיל וְאֵין כּוֹתְבִין עָלָיו שְׁטָר אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הִיא מִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ שֶׁאֵין קִנְיָן מִיַּד הַקָּטָן כְּלוּם: ", + "קָטָן שֶׁעָרַב אֶת אֲחֵרִים הוֹרוּ הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם כְּלוּם אַף כְּשֶׁיַּגְדִּיל וְזֶה שֶׁנָּתַן אֶת מְעוֹתָיו עַל פִּי הַקָּטָן אִבֵּד אֶת מְעוֹתָיו שֶׁאֵין לְקָטָן דַּעַת כְּדֵי לְשַׁעְבֵּד עַצְמוֹ בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב בּוֹ וְלֹא בְּעַרְבָנוּת וְלֹא בְּכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְדִין אֱמֶת הוּא וְכֵן רָאוּי לָדוּן: ", + "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁלָּוְתָה בִּשְׁטָר אוֹ עָרְבָה בִּשְׁטָר וְנִשֵּׂאת חַיֶּבֶת לְשַׁלֵּם אַחַר שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת. וְאִם הָיְתָה מִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה אֵינָהּ מְשַׁלֶּמֶת עַד שֶׁתִּתְגָּרֵשׁ אוֹ שֶׁתִּתְאַלְמֵן שֶׁרְשׁוּת בַּעַל כִּרְשׁוּת לוֹקֵחַ הוּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּכַמָּה מְקוֹמוֹת. וְאִם הָיוּ אוֹתָן מְעוֹת הַהַלְוָאָה עַצְמָן קַיָּמִין יַחְזִירוּ אוֹתָן לַמַּלְוֶה: " + ], + [ + "שְׁטָר שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּכָל לָשׁוֹן וּבְכָל כְּתָב אִם הָיָה עָשׂוּי כְּתִקּוּן שִׁטְרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לְהִזְדַּיֵּף וְלֹא לְהוֹסִיף וְלֹא לִגְרֹעַ וְהָיוּ עֵדָיו יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיוֹדְעִין לִקְרוֹתוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כָּשֵׁר וְגוֹבִין בּוֹ מִן הַמְשֻׁעְבָּדִין. אֲבָל כָּל הַשְּׁטָרוֹת שֶׁחוֹתְמֵיהֶן עַכּוּ\"ם הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּסוּלִין חוּץ מִשִּׁטְרֵי מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר וְשִׁטְרֵי חוֹב. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּתֵּן הַמָּעוֹת בִּפְנֵיהֶם וְיִכְתְּבוּ בַּשְּׁטָר לְפָנֵינוּ מָנָה פְּלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִי כָּךְ וְכָךְ דְּמֵי הַמֶּכֶר אוֹ מְעוֹת הַחוֹב. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ עֲשׂוּיִין בְּעַרְכָּאוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶם. אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם קִבּוּץ פְּלִילֵיהֶן בְּלֹא קִיּוּם הַשּׁוֹפֵט שֶׁלָּהֶם לֹא יוֹעִילוּ כְּלוּם. וְכֵן צְרִיכִין עֵדֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיָּעִידוּ עַל אֵלּוּ הָעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁהֵן עֵדֵי שְׁטָר וְעַל זֶה הַשּׁוֹפֵט שֶׁלָּהֶן שֶׁקִּיֵּם עֵדוּתָן שֶׁאֵינָן יְדוּעִין בְּקַבְּלָנוּת שֹׁחַד. וְאִם חָסְרוּ שִׁטְרֵי הָעַכּוּ\"ם דָּבָר מִכָּל אֵלּוּ הֲרֵי הֵן כְּחֶרֶס. וְכֵן שִׁטְרֵי [חוֹב] וְהוֹדָאוֹת וּמַתָּנוֹת וּפְשָׁרוֹת וּמְחִילוֹת שֶׁהֵן בְּעֵדִים שֶׁלָּהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן כָּל הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁמָּנִינוּ הֲרֵי הֵן כַּחֲרָסִים. וְהוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב שֶׁלָּהֶן שֶׁנָּתְנוּ הַמָּעוֹת בִּפְנֵיהֶם פְּסוּלִין וְלֹא הִכְשִׁירוּ אֶלָּא שִׁטְרֵי מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר שֶׁנָּתְנוּ הַמָּעוֹת בִּפְנֵיהֶם. וְאֵין אֲנִי מוֹדֶה בָּזֶה. אִם לֹא יָדְעוּ דַּיָּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לִקְרוֹת שְׁטָר זֶה הַנַּעֲשָׂה בְּעַרְכָּאוֹת שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם נוֹתְנוֹ לִשְׁנֵי עַכּוּ\"ם זֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי זֶה וְקוֹרִין לוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצָא כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן כְּמֵסִיחַ לְפִי תֻּמּוֹ וְגוֹבֶה בּוֹ מִבְּנֵי חוֹרִין אֲבָל אֵין טוֹרְפִין בּוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קוֹל שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא יָדְעוּ הַלָּקוֹחוֹת בְּמַה שֶּׁנַּעֲשָׂה בָּעַכּוּ\"ם: \n", + "שְׁטָר שֶׁעֵדָיו עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁמְּסָרוֹ הַלּוֶֹה לְיַד הַמַּלְוֶה אוֹ הַמּוֹכֵר לְיַד הַלּוֹקֵחַ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ עָשׂוּי בְּעַרְכָּאוֹת שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּל הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁמָּנִינוּ הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹבֶה מִבְּנֵי חוֹרִין. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הָעֵדִים שֶׁמָּסַר בִּפְנֵיהֶם יוֹדְעִין לִקְרוֹתוֹ וּקְרָאוּהוּ כְּשֶׁמְּסָרוֹ בִּפְנֵיהֶן וְיִהְיֶה כְּתִקּוּן שְׁטַר יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִזְדַּיֵּף וְלֹא לְהוֹסִיף וְלֹא לִגְרֹעַ. וְלָמָּה לֹא יִגְבֶּה בּוֹ מִן הַמְשֻׁעְבָּדִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קוֹל: \n", + "תִּקּוּן שִׁטְרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כָּךְ הוּא. כָּל הַשְּׁטָרוֹת כֻּלָּן צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּחֲזֹר מֵעִנְיָנוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר בְּשִׁיטָה אַחֲרוֹנָה [אֶלָּא] שֶׁאֵין לְמֵדִין מִשִּׁיטָה אַחֲרוֹנָה שֶׁמָּא הָיוּ הָעֵדִים מְרֻחָקִין מִגּוּפוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר בִּכְדֵי הַשִּׁיטָה וּבָא זֶה הַמְזַיֵּף וְכָתַב בְּאוֹתוֹ הָרֶוַח שִׁיטָה זוֹ: \n", + "עֵדִים שֶׁהָיוּ מְרֻחָקִין מִן הַכְּתָב שְׁתֵּי שִׁיטִין פָּסוּל. פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן כָּשֵׁר. שְׁתֵּי שִׁיטִין שֶׁאָמְרוּ בִּכְתַב יְדֵי עֵדִים וְלֹא בִּכְתַב יְדֵי סוֹפֵר שֶׁכָּל הַמְזַיֵּף אֵינוֹ הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַסּוֹפֵר אֶלָּא אַחַר הָעֵדִים. וּשְׁתֵּי שִׁיטִין אֵלּוּ הֵן וַאֲוִירָן כְּגוֹן לָמֶ\"ד עַל כָּ\"ף. הָיוּ הָעֵדִים מְרֻחָקִין מִן הַכְּתָב יֶתֶר עַל שְׁתֵּי שִׁיטִין וְהָיָה הָרֶוַח שֶׁבֵּין הַכְּתָב וְהָעֵדִים מָלֵא בְּעֵדִים פְּסוּלִין אוֹ קְרוֹבִים הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִזְדַּיֵּף. וְאִם מִלְּאָהוּ בִּשְׂרִיטָה שֶׁל דְּיוֹ פָּסוּל שֶׁמָּא הָעֵדִים עַל הַשְּׂרִיטוֹת חָתְמוּ וְלֹא עַל גּוּפוֹ [שֶׁל שְׁטָר]. הָיָה הַשְּׁטָר כֻּלּוֹ עִם עֵדָיו בְּשִׁיטָה אַחַת הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר: \n", + "הָיָה הַשְּׁטָר בְּשִׁיטָה זוֹ וְהָעֵדִים בְּשִׁיטָה שְׁנִיָּה פָּסוּל שֶׁמָּא אֵלּוּ הָעֵדִים הָיוּ מְרֻחָקִין מִן הַשְּׁטָר כָּשֵׁר שִׁיטָה אַחַת וְחָתַךְ כָּל הַשְּׁטָר וְכָתַב זֶה הַשְּׁטָר בְּאוֹתָהּ הַשִּׁיטָה וְנִמְצְאוּ כָּל אֵלּוּ הָעֵדִים חֲתוּמִים עָלָיו. וְכֵן אִם הָיָה הַשְּׁטָר וּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים בְּשִׁיטָה אַחַת וּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים אֲחֵרִים בְּשִׁיטָה שְׁנִיָּה וְאָמַר אֲנִי נִתְכַּוַּנְתִּי לְרַבּוֹת הָעֵדִים אֵין מְקַיְּמִין שְׁטָר זֶה מֵעֵדִים שֶׁל מַטָּה בְּשִׁיטָה שְׁנִיָּה אֶלָּא מֵעֵדִים שֶׁל מַעְלָה. שֶׁמָּא בַּשִּׁיטָה שֶׁהָיְתָה בֵּין הָעֵדִים שֶׁל מַטָּה וּבֵין הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁחָתַךְ כָּתַב שְׁטָר זֶה וּשְׁנֵי עֵדָיו: \n", + "קִיּוּם בֵּית דִּין צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה סָמוּךְ לִכְתַב יְדֵי עֵדִים אוֹ סָמוּךְ לְצַד הַשְּׁטָר אוֹ מֵאֲחוֹרָיו כְּנֶגֶד הַכְּתָב. וְאִם הָיָה בֵּין הַקִּיּוּם וְהַשְּׁטָר רֶוַח שִׁיטָה אַחַת פָּסוּל שֶׁמָּא יַחְתֹּךְ הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁנִּתְקַיֵּם וִיזַיֵּף בְּאוֹתָהּ שִׁיטָה שְׁטָר וּשְׁנֵי עֵדָיו. וְנִמְצָא הַקִּיּוּם עַל שְׁטָר מְזֻיָּף: \n", + "הִרְחִיק אֶת הַקִּיּוּם מִן הַשְּׁטָר יֶתֶר עַל שְׁתֵּי שִׁיטִין וּמָלֵא כָּל הָרֶוַח שְׂרִיטוֹת דְּיוֹ כָּשֵׁר שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְזַיֵּף וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְבֵית דִּין שֶׁיְּקַיְּמוּ קִיּוּם עַל הַשְּׂרִיטוֹת אֶלָּא עַל גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר: \n", + "כָּל הַמְּחָקִין כֻּלָּן צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב קִיּוּמֵיהֶן בְּסוֹף הַשְּׁטָר וְיֹאמַר אוֹת פְּלוֹנִית אוֹ מִלָּה פְּלוֹנִית אוֹ שִׁיטָה פְּלוֹנִית עַל מַחַק אוֹ תְּלוּיָה וְהַכּל קַיָּם. וְאִם הָיָה הַמַּחַק בְּמָקוֹם שָׁרִיר וְקַיָּם וּבְשִׁעוּר שָׁרִיר וְקַיָּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזַר וְקִיְּמוֹ פָּסוּל שֶׁמָּא מְחָקוֹ וְכָתַב דָּבָר שֶׁזִּיֵּף וְחָזַר וְקִיְּמוֹ בָּרֶוַח שֶׁבֵּין הַכְּתָב וְהָעֵדִים: \n", + "שְׁטָר הַבָּא הוּא וְעֵדָיו עַל הַמַּחַק כָּשֵׁר. וְאִם תֹּאמַר מוֹחֵק וְחוֹזֵר וּמוֹחֵק אֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה מִי שֶׁנִּמְחַק פַּעַם אַחַת לְנִמְחַק שְׁתֵּי פְּעָמִים. וְאִם תֹּאמַר שֶׁמָּא נִמְחַק שְׁתֵּי פְּעָמִים מְקוֹם הָעֵדִים וְאַחַר שֶׁכָּתַב הַשְּׁטָר חוֹזֵר וּמוֹחֲקוֹ וְכוֹתֵב כָּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא וְעֵדָיו כֻּלּוֹ שָׁוֶה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּמְחַק הַכּל שְׁתֵּי פְּעָמִים. כְּבָר תִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין עַל שְׁטָר מָחוּק אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִמְחַק בִּפְנֵיהֶם: \n", + "שְׁטָר הַבָּא הוּא וְעֵדָיו עַל הַמַּחַק וְהַקִּיּוּם מִלְּמַטָּה עַל הַנְּיָר אֵין מְקַיְּמִין אוֹתוֹ מֵעֵדֵי הַקִּיּוּם אֶלָּא מֵעֵדִים שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה שֶׁמָּא הַקִּיּוּם הָיָה רָחוֹק מִן הַשְּׁטָר הַרְבֵּה וְהָיָה הָרֶוַח מָלֵא שְׂרִיטוֹת שֶׁל דְּיוֹ וְחָתַךְ גּוּף הַשְּׁטָר וּמָחַק הַשְּׂרִיטוֹת וְכָתַב הַשְּׁטָר וְעֵדָיו עַל הַמַּחַק: \n", + "שְׁטָר הַבָּא עַל הַנְּיָר וְעֵדָיו עַל הַמַּחַק פָּסוּל שֶׁמָּא יִמְחֹק הַשְּׁטָר וְיִזְדַּיֵּף וְנִמְצָא הוּא וְעֵדָיו עַל הַמַּחַק. וְאִם כָּתְבוּ הָעֵדִים אֲנַחְנוּ הָעֵדִים חָתַמְנוּ עַל הַמַּחַק וְהַשְּׁטָר עַל הַנְּיָר כָּשֵׁר. וְכוֹתְבִין כֵּן בֵּין עֵד לְעֵד כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְזַיֵּף: \n", + "שְׁטָר הַבָּא עַל הַמַּחַק וְעֵדָיו עַל הַנְּיָר פָּסוּל. וַאֲפִלּוּ כָּתְבוּ הָעֵדִים אֲנַחְנוּ עֵדִים חָתַמְנוּ עַל הַנְּיָר וְהַשְּׁטָר עַל הַמַּחַק. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מוֹחֵק אוֹתוֹ פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה וְכוֹתֵב כָּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה וְכֵיוָן שֶׁכֻּלּוֹ נִמְחַק שְׁתֵּי פְּעָמִים אֵינוֹ נִכָּר. שֶׁאִלּוּ הָיָה בּוֹ מָקוֹם הַנִּמְחָק פַּעַם אַחַת וּמָקוֹם הַנִּמְחַק שְׁתֵּי פְּעָמִים הָיָה נִכָּר. וּמִתִּקּוּן הַשְּׁטָרוֹת לְהִתְבּוֹנֵן בַּשְּׁטָר בְּוָאוִי\"ן וְזַיִנִּי\"ן שֶׁלּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ דְּחוּקִין בֵּין הַתֵּבוֹת שֶׁמָּא זִיֵּף וְהוֹסִיף זוֹ. וְלֹא יִהְיוּ מְרֻחָקִין שֶׁמָּא מָחַק אוֹת אַחַת כְּגוֹן הֵ\"א אוֹ חֵי\"ת וְהִנִּיחַ רַגְלָהּ הָאַחַת מְקוֹם וָא\"ו. וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה מְדַקְדְּקִין בּוֹ בְּכָל לָשׁוֹן וּבְכָל כְּתָב: \n", + "מִשָּׁלֹשׁ וְעַד עֶשֶׂר אֵין כּוֹתְבִין בְּסוֹף שִׁיטָה שֶׁמָּא יְזַיֵּף וְיַחְזִיר הַשָּׁלֹשׁ לִשְׁלֹשִׁים וְהָעֶשֶׂר עֶשְׂרִים. וְאִם נִזְדַּמֵּן לוֹ בְּסוֹף שִׁיטָה מַחְזִיר הַדִּבּוּר בְּגוּפוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר פְּעָמִים רַבּוֹת עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא בְּאֶמְצַע הַשִּׁיטָה: \n", + "שְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ מִלְּמַעְלָה מָנֶה וּמִלְּמַטָּה מָאתַיִם מִלְּמַעְלָה מָאתַיִם וּמִלְּמַטָּה מָנֶה הַכּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַתַּחְתּוֹן. וְלָמָּה אֵין הוֹלְכִין אַחַר הַפָּחוּת שֶׁבִּשְׁנֵיהֶם לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הָאֶחָד תָּלוּי בַּחֲבֵרוֹ. שֶׁאִם הָיָה כָּתוּב בּוֹ מֵאָה שֶׁהֵן מָאתַיִם אוֹ מָאתַיִם שֶׁהֵן מֵאָה הָיָה נוֹטֵל מֵאָה. אֲבָל שְׁנֵי דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין הָאַחֲרוֹן תָּלוּי בָּרִאשׁוֹן הַלֵּךְ אַחַר אַחֲרוֹן. הָיָה בּוֹ מִלְּמַעְלָה שֵׁם וּלְמַטָּה שֵׁם קָרוֹב לוֹ הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַתַּחְתּוֹן. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה כּוֹתְבִין אֶת הָעֶלְיוֹן שֶׁמָּא תִּמָּחֵק אוֹת אַחַת מִן הַתַּחְתּוֹן וְיִלְמַד מִן הָעֶלְיוֹן כְּגוֹן הָיָה בָּעֶלְיוֹן חֲנָנִי אוֹ עֲנָנִי וּבַתַּחְתּוֹן חָנָן אוֹ עָנָן בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהוּא הַשֵּׁם הָעֶלְיוֹן. אֲבָל לֹא יִלְמֹד תַּחְתּוֹן מֵעֶלְיוֹן בִּשְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת: \n", + "כָּתוּב בּוֹ מִלְּמַעְלָה סֵפֶל וּמִלְּמַטָּה קֵפֶל הַכּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַתַּחְתּוֹן שֶׁהַקֵּפֶל פָּחוֹת מִן הַסֵּפֶל. כָּתוּב בּוֹ מִלְּמַעְלָה קֵפֶל וּמִלְּמַטָּה סֵפֶל חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא זְבוּב הֵסִיר רֶגֶל הַקּוּף וְנַעֲשֵׂית סָמֶ\"ךְ וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה אֶלָּא בְּמִדַּת קֵפֶל הַקְּטַנָּה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה שֶׁיַּד בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה. מַעֲשֶׂה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁהָיָה כָּתוּב בּוֹ שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת וְזוּז אֶחָד וַהֲרֵי הַדָּבָר סָפֵק אִם שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת זוּז וְזוּז אֶחָד אוֹ שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת אַסְתִּירָא וְזוּז. אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים יִטּל שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת אַסְתִּירָא וְזוּז שֶׁיַּד בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה לֹא נֶאֱמַר שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת פְּרוּטָה וְזוּז לְפִי שֶׁהַפְּרוּטוֹת כּוֹלֵל אוֹתָן הַסּוֹפֵר זוּזִין וְאַחַר כָּךְ כּוֹתְבִין. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה בְּכָל זְמַן וּבְכָל מָקוֹם לְפִי דַּרְכָּם הַיָּדוּעַ עַל פִּיו עוֹשִׂין: \n", + "שְׁטָר שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ אַסְתִּירָא מֵאָה מָעֵי אוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ מֵאָה מָעֵי אַסְתִּירָא הַלֵּךְ אַחַר פָּחוּת שֶׁבַּלְּשׁוֹנוֹת וְאֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל אֶלָּא אַסְתִּירָא אַחַת. שֶׁיַּד בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא אֶלָּא בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ סָפֵק. לְפִיכָךְ כָּל שְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מַשְׁמַע שְׁתֵּי לְשׁוֹנוֹת שֶׁמָּא כָּךְ אוֹ שֶׁמָּא כָּךְ אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל אֶלָּא הַפָּחוּת שֶׁבִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן. וְאִם תָּפַס בָּעֶלְיוֹנָה אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ אֶלָּא בִּרְאָיָה בְּרוּרָה: \n", + "כָּתוּב בּוֹ מַטְבֵּעַ זָהָב אֵין פָּחוֹת מִדִּינַר זָהָב. זָהָב דִּינָרִין אוֹ דִּינָרִין זָהָב אֵין פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁוֵה שְׁנֵי דִּינָרִין שֶׁל זָהָב. זָהָב בְּדִינָרִין אֵין פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁוֵה שְׁנֵי דִּינָרִין שֶׁל כֶּסֶף מִן הַזָּהָב. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: סְלִיקוּ לְהוּ הִלְכוֹת מַלְוֶה וְלֹוֶה \n" + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Torat Emet 363", + "http://www.toratemetfreeware.com/index.html?downloads" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות מלווה ולווה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Hiring/English/Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, edited by Philip Birnbaum, New York, 1967.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Hiring/English/Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, edited by Philip Birnbaum, New York, 1967.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..78bc9735b4b791746a28ebfab207f729371862af --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Hiring/English/Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, edited by Philip Birnbaum, New York, 1967.json @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Hiring", + "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002108864", + "versionTitle": "Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, edited by Philip Birnbaum, New York, 1967", + "status": "locked", + "priority": 1.0, + "digitizedBySefaria": true, + "versionTitleInHebrew": "משנה תורה להרמב״ם, נערך בידי פיליפ בירנבאום, ניו יורק 1967", + "shortVersionTitle": "Philip Birnbaum, 1967", + "purchaseInformationImage": "https://storage.googleapis.com/sefaria-physical-editions/19c6502e660443eff0cc12033660a5d6.png", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": false, + "isSource": false, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות שכירות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "Four guardians have been mentioned in the Torah, but only three rules govern their liability. The four guardians are: 1) the gratuitous guardian 2) the borrower, 3) the paid guardian, and 4) the hirer.", + "The three rules that govern their liability are:
a) A gratuitous guardian from whom the deposited object was stolen or lost, and needless to say if it was overcome by a major accident, as in the case of an animal that dropped dead or was carried off, may take an oath that he had guarded it properly and be free from liability, as it is written: \"When a man gives money or goods to another for safekeeping, and they are stolen from the man's house … the owner of the house shall depose before the judges (Exodus 22:6-7).
b) A borrower must make restitution in every case, whether the object borrowed was lost or stolen or overcome by a major accident, as when a borrowed animal dropped dead or was injured or carried off. Concerning the borrower it is written: \"When a man borrows [an animal] from another, and it was injured or died, its owner not being with it, he must make restitution\" (13).
c) A paid guardian and a hirer are both subject to one rule. They are obligated to make restitution if either the hired object or the deposit for a fee was stolen or lost. But if something worse happened [through a superior force], as in the case of an animal that dropped dead or was injured, carried off, or torn by beasts, the paid guardian or the hirer may take an oath that the animal met with an accident and be released from liability, as it is written: \"When a man gives to another a donkey, an ox, a sheep or any other animal to guard, and it dies or is injured, or is carried off, with no witness about, an oath before the Lord shall decide between the two of them\" (9-10). It is written moreover: \"But if it was stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner\" (11).
Hence it follows that the gratuitous guardian clears himself by his oath in all cases; the borrower pays in all cases, except in the case of an animal that died from work, as will be explained ; the receiver of a fee and the hirer pay for what is lost or stolen, but they take an oath about the major accidents, namely about the injured or captured or dead or torn animal; or in a case where the object was lost in shipwreck or was taken by armed robbers; and so too, all similar major accidents.
3. When a man gives something to another for safekeeping, whether gratuitously or for a fee, or if he lent or rented it to him, the guardian is free from all responsibility if he borrowed or hired the services of the owner. Even if he was negligent with regard to the safekeeping of the object and it was lost through his fault, he is not answerable, as it is written: \"If its owner was with it, no restitution need be paid; but if it was hired, he loses the hiring fee\" (14).— — This [biblical verse] has been traditionally interpreted to mean that if the lender was with the borrower at the moment of the borrowing, though he was not with him at the time of the theft or the death of the animal, the borrower is exempt. But if the lender was not with the borrower at the moment of the borrowing, even though he was with him at the time the animal died or was carried off, the borrower is liable. The same rule applies to all other bailees: they are exempt if the owners were present, even in a case of negligence." + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "", + "If a man rented his house to another for a year, and it became a leap-year, the advantage of an extra month is gained by the tenant. If the lease was made by the month, the benefit of the extra month accrues to the lessor.— —", + "", + "", + "If a man leased an orchard, or if it was mortgaged to him, for ten years, and it dried up during the term of the lease, the dead trees should be sold and land should be purchased for the price realized from the sale. The lessee or mortgagee may enjoy its fruit products until the end of the lease or the mortgage. Neither the creditor nor the debtor may use the trees that dried up or were cut, since they would constitute a form of usury." + ], + [ + "", + "The man who rents a field or an orchard to cultivate and to spend money on it, giving the landowner one-third or one-fourth of the produce, or anything they have stipulated, is called share-cropper. Whatever is spent on fencing the land, the landowner is required to pay ; and whatever is spent on extra precaution, the tenant or share-cropper is required to pay.— —", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "If one leased a field from another and refused to weed it, saying to the lessor: \"What are you losing? I am paying you rent, anyway,\" we should not listen to him, since the lessor may reply: \"Tomorrow you may probably vacate it, and it will yield me nothing but weeds.\" Even if the lessee said: \"I will plough it up at the end of my term,\" we should not listen to him.", + "If one leased a field from another to sow it in barley, he may not sow it in wheat, since wheat exhausts the soil more than barley. If he leased it to sow it in wheat, he may sow it in barley; in pulse, he may not sow it in grain; in grain, he may sow it in pulse.— —" + ], + [ + "If a man hired workers and told them to work early or to work late, he cannot compel them to do so where it is customary not to work early or not to work late.— —", + "", + "If a man said to his agent: \"Go and hire workers for me at three zuz,\" and he went and hired them at four, then if the agent said to them: \"I am responsible for your wages,\" he must pay them four even though he receives only three from the employer, and he loses one out of his own pocket. If, however, he said to them: \"The employer is responsible for your wages,\" the employer should pay them according to local custom.— —" + ], + [], + [ + "It is a positive command to pay the hired man his wages on time, as it is written: \"You must pay him his wages on the same day\" (Deuteronomy 24:15). If the employer delayed the payment till after it was due, he has transgressed a prohibitive command, as it is written: \"Let not the sun go down upon it.\" The transgressor is not to be lashed for this, since he is required to pay money. One must pay on time not only the hire of a human being but also the hire of an animal and the hire of implements. If one put off the payment, he has transgressed a prohibitive command.— —", + "Anyone who detains the wages of a hired man is as if he took his life, as it is written: \"His life depends on it\" (15). — — When are wages due? A hireling for the day collects his wages all night, and about him it is written: \"You shall not detain overnight the wages of your day laborer until morning\" (Leviticus 19:13). A hireling for the night collects all day, and about him it is written: \"You must pay him his wages on the same day\" (Deuteronomy 24:15). A hireling by the hour during the day collects all day; a hireling by the hour during the night collects all that night ; a hireling by the week, by the month, by the year, by a seven-year period, collects all day if his term ends in the daytime; if his term ends in the night, he collects all that night.", + "If a man gave his garment to a craftsman and the craftsman completed his work on it and informed the owner about it, the latter has not broken a law even if he has delayed the payment for a period of ten days, as long as the object remains in the hands of the craftsman. If the craftsman gave him the garment in the middle of the day, the owner has transgressed the law against withholding the wages overnight as soon as the sun went down, because contract work is like hire, and the employer is required to pay the employee on time.", + "If a man said to his agent: \"Go and hire workers for me,\" and the agent told them: \"The employer is responsible for your wages,\" neither of them transgresses the law against withholding overnight: the employer, because he did not hire them ; and the agent, because they did not work for him. If, however, the agent did not say to them: \"The employer is responsible for your wages,\" the agent commits a transgression if they are not paid on time. The hirer commits a transgression only when the employee has asked for the wages and he has failed to pay. But if the employee has not asked to be paid, or if he did ask and the employer did not have the money to pay, or if he gave the employee a draft on another person and the employee accepted it, the employer is free from liability [if the employee fails to collect the draft within the set time].", + "If a man withheld the wages of an employee until after it was due, he must pay him immediately even though he has already transgressed a positive as well as a negative command. And as long as he keeps withholding the wages thereafter, he transgresses a negative command based on the words of the sages, as it is written: \"Never say to your fellow man: Go, and come again\" (Proverbs 3:28).", + "If an employee that was hired in the presence of witnesses demanded his wages within the set time and the employer told him : \"I have given you your wages,\" while the employee claimed: \"I have received nothing,\" then, by an enactment of the sages, the employee should take an oath while holding a sacred object in his hand, and collect what he claims, as in the case of any claimant who swears and collects, because the employer is preoccupied with his workmen [and may have forgotten to pay], while the employee sets his heart upon this wage. Even if the employer is a minor, the employee takes an oath and collects.
If, however, the employer hired the man in the absence of witnesses, he is believed when he says: \"I have hired you and paid your wage,\" since he could say: \"Nothing of the sort, I have never hired you.\" The employer therefore takes a rabbinic oath of exemption that he has paid, or a biblical oath if he admitted part of the claim, as in the case of all other lawsuits.
If the employee had one witness that the man hired him, he is of no help to him. So too, if the employee asked to be paid subsequent to the time when the wage was due, even though he had been hired in the presence of witnesses, [the rule applied to him is that] the man who claims anything from another must bring proof. If the employee has produced no evidence [that he had been asking for his wage ever since it had become due], the employer takes a rabbinic exemption oath. If, however, the employee has produced evidence that he had been demanding the wage all the time, he takes an oath and collects the same day of his demand. If, for example, he worked for the employer on a Monday until evening, payment is due throughout the night preceding Tuesday, but he cannot take an oath and collect on Tuesday. If, however, he has brought witnesses that he had been demanding his wage throughout the night preceding Tuesday, he takes an oath and collects throughout Tuesday. But from the night preceding Wednesday and thereafter, the rule is applied: the man who claims anything from another must produce proof. So too, if he has brought witnesses that he had kept demanding his wage until Thursday, he takes an oath and collects throughout Thursday.", + "If the employer says: \"I have agreed to pay you two zuz,\" and the employee claims: \"You have agreed to pay me three zuz,\" in such a case the sages have not enacted that the employee should take an oath, but: the man who claims anything from another must produce proof. If he has brought no evidence, the employer takes an oath while holding a sacred object, even though he has already given him two zuz or told him: \"Here they are.\" This rule is by rabbinic enactment, so that the employee should not walk away discouraged. This applies only where the hiring took place in the presence of witnesses who did not know how much the employer agreed to pay to the employee, who demanded his wage within the set time. If, however, he was hired in the absence of witnesses, or if he demanded his wage after the time it had become due, let the employer take an exemption oath that he did not agree to pay the employee more than what he has already paid him, or that he owes him no more than what he has offered to pay, as is the rule regarding all claims.", + "If a man gives his garment to a craftsman for repair and then the craftsman says: \"You have stipulated to pay me two zuz,\" and the employer says: \"I have stipulated only one,\" as long as the garment is in the hands of the craftsman and he is in position to claim that he has acquired it by purchase, he may take an oath while holding a sacred object and collect. He may claim it for all it is worth as his payment. But if the garment is out of his possession or if he has no ḥazakah (right of possession) in it and cannot claim that he has acquired it by purchase, [the rule applied is :] the man who claims anything from another must produce evidence. If he has not produced evidence, the owner of the garment takes an exemption oath, or a biblical oath if he has admitted part of the claim, as is the rule in all claims. The law of a hired man is not applicable to such a case.", + "A hired worker who comes to take an oath should not be treated with strictness, and should not be made to take additional oaths at all; he is to swear only that he has not received his wage and be paid. All others who come to take an oath are not to be treated as leniently as a hired man, for whom we should make it easy. The court should open proceedings by saying to him: \"Do not grieve; take an oath and collect.\" Even if his wage was only a penny, and the employer claims I have paid it, the hired man can collect only by oath. So too, all the claimants who take an oath and collect cannot collect even a penny without a quasi-biblical oath [while holding a sacred object]." + ], + [ + "When men are working at anything that grows from the soil, while the work is yet unfinished, whether it is detached from the soil or still attached to it and the men are engaged in the final processing, the employer is enjoined to allow them to eat of whatever they are working on, as it is written: \"When you enter your neighbor's vineyard, you may eat as many of his grapes as you wish … When you go through your neighbor's grainfield, you may pluck some of the ears with your hand…\" (Deuteronomy 23:25-26). Traditionally interpreted, this verse refers only to a hired worker. If he was not hired, who permitted him to enter the vineyard or the grainfield of his neighbor without the latter's consent? Hence, Scripture means to say: if you enter the owner's domain for work, you may eat.", + "What difference is there between one who is working on something that is detached from the soil and one who is working on something that is still attached to the soil? The man who is working at a fruit already plucked may partake of it until it has been completely processed, and is forbidden to partake of it after it has been completely processed; but the one who is working at something that is still attached to the soil, such as a gatherer of grapes or a reaper, may partake of it only after he has completed his work. If, for example, the hired worker gathered the grapes, filled the basket, shook it out into another place, came back and filled the basket with more grapes that he gathered, he might not partake of the grapes until he filled all the baskets.— —", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "If a man, working together with his wife, children and servants, stipulated with the employer that none of them should partake of what they were working on, they must not eat of it. This rule applies only to adults who, being sensible, are fully aware that they have renounced their privilege to eat; but as to minors, one may not stipulate that they shall not eat, because what they eat neither belongs to their father nor to their master; it belongs to God." + ], + [ + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "Just as the employer is warned against robbing the wage of the poor workman, and against delaying it, so is the poor workman warned against robbing the employer by idling away his time on the job, a little here and a little there, thus wasting the entire day deceitfully. He must be scrupulous throughout the time of work. Also, he is required to work to the best of his ability, as the upright Jacob said: \"I have served your father with all my strength\" (Genesis 31:6). For this reason, he was rewarded even in this world, as it is written: \"The man became exceedingly rich\" (30:43)." + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Hiring/English/Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Hiring/English/Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9c714380d757468330e368183948aa471dc9b2c4 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Hiring/English/Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007.json @@ -0,0 +1,182 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Hiring", + "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI", + "versionTitle": "Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007", + "status": "locked", + "priority": 2.0, + "license": "CC-BY-NC", + "versionNotes": "\n Dedicated in memory of Irving Montak, z\"l

© Published and Copyright by Moznaim Publications.
Must obtain written permission from Moznaim Publications for any commercial use. Any use must cite Copyright by Moznaim Publications. Released into the commons with a CC-BY-NC license.\n ", + "digitizedBySefaria": false, + "shortVersionTitle": "Trans. by Eliyahu Touger, Moznaim Publishing", + "purchaseInformationImage": "https://storage.googleapis.com/sefaria-physical-editions/touger-mishneh-torah-hilkhot-teshuvah-purchase-img.png", + "purchaseInformationURL": "https://moznaim.com/products/mishneh-torah-rambam", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": false, + "isSource": false, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות שכירות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "The Torah mentions four types of watchmen, who are governed by three different rules. The four types of watchmen are an unpaid watchman, a borrower, a paid watchman and a renter.", + "These are the three rules that govern cases involving these watchmen: When an entrusted article is stolen from or lost by an unpaid watchman and - needless to say, when the entrusted article is destroyed by forces beyond the watchman's control - e.g., it was an animal and it died or was taken captive -the watchman must take an oath that he guarded the article in a manner appropriate for a watchman, and then he is freed of liability, as Exodus 22:6-7 states: \"And it was stolen from the man's home... and the homeowner shall approach the judges.\"
A borrower must make restitution in all instances, whether the borrowed object was lost, stolen, or destroyed by factors beyond his control - e.g., a borrowed animal died, was injured or taken captive. For with regard to a borrower, ibid.:13 states: \"If it becomes injured or dies - when its owner is not with it - he must certainly make restitution.\"
A paid watchman and a renter are governed by the same laws. If the article that was rented or was entrusted for a fee was lost or stolen, they must make restitution. If the article is lost by forces beyond the watchman's control - e.g., an animal died, was injured, was taken captive or was attacked by a wild animal - the watchman is required to take an oath, and then he is freed of liability, as ibid.:9-10 states: \"If it died, was injured or taken captive, and there are no witnesses, an oath of God shall be between them.\" And ibid.:11 states: \"If it is stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner.\"
Thus, an unpaid watchman takes an oath in all instances. A borrower makes restitution in all instances except when an animal dies performing the labor for which it was borrowed, as will be explained. And a paid watchman and a renter make restitution when the article is lost or stolen, and take an oath when it is destroyed by forces beyond their control - e.g., it was injured, taken captive, died, attacked by beasts, lost in a ship that sank at sea, seized by armed thieves - or lost in any other major matter over which the watchman has no control.", + "The following rules apply when a person entrusts an article to a colleague for safekeeping, whether he offers payment or not or lends an article or hires it out. If the watchman also asks the owner of the article to work for him or hires him together with the article, the watchman is never held liable at all. Even if the watchman is negligent in his care of the article he was watching, and it was lost because of his negligence, he is not liable, as Exodus 22:14 states: \"If his owner is with him, he need not make restitution. If he is a hired worker, it comes with his wages.\"
When does the above apply? When the watchman asked or hired the owner to work at the time he took the article, even if the owner was not with him at the time the article was stolen, lost or destroyed by forces beyond his control. If, by contrast, he took the article and became responsible as a watchman at the outset, and afterwards asked or hired the owner to work, he is not absolved of responsibility. Even if the owner was standing nearby at the time the entrusted article was destroyed by forces beyond the watchman's control, the watchman is liable to pay, as implied by ibid.: 13: \"If the owner is not with him, he must certainly make restitution.\"
According to the Oral Tradition, these verses were interpreted to mean: If the owner was with the borrower at the time the article or animal was borrowed, he is not liable, even if he was not with him at the time it was stolen or died. If, however, he was not with the borrower at the time the article or animal was borrowed, he is liable, even if he was with him at the time it was stolen or died. The same laws apply to other watchmen. If the owners are \"with them\", they are all free of liability. Even if they are negligent, if the owners are \"with them\", they are all free of liability.", + "Whenever a watchman is negligent when he begins caring for the article, even though the article is ultimately destroyed by forces beyond his control, he is liable, as will be explained.
A borrower is not allowed to lend the entrusted article to another person. Even if he borrows a Torah scroll - in which instance, anyone who reads it performs a mitzvah - he may not lend it to someone else. Similarly, a renter is not permitted to rent the entrusted article to another person. Even if a Torah scroll was rented to him, he may not rent it to someone else. The rationale is that the owner will tell the watchman: \"I do not want my article to be in someone else's hands.\"
The following rules apply if the watchman transgressed and entrusted the article to another watchman. If there are witnesses who testify that the second watchman guarded the article in an appropriate manner, and the article was destroyed by forces beyond his control, the first watchman is not liable. For there are witnesses that the article was destroyed by forces beyond his control.
If there are no witnesses to give such testimony, the first watchman is liable to pay the owners, for he entrusted the article to another watchman. Afterwards, he should enter into litigation with the second watchman. Even if the first watchman was not paid for his services and he entrusted the article to a paid watchman, he is liable. For the owner of the article will tell him: \"Although you are an unpaid watchman, you are trustworthy in my eyes, and I am willing to believe your oath. I don't consider the other person trustworthy.\"
For this reason, if the owner of the article would frequently entrust articles of this nature to the second watchman, the first watchman is not required to make restitution. For he could tell the owner: \"Yesterday, you were willing to entrust the article that you entrusted to me to this person.\"
In the above instance, the watchman is freed of liability only when he does not reduce the level of responsibility for watching the article. What is meant by reducing the level of responsibility for watching the article? For example, the article was entrusted to the first watchman for a fee, and he entrusted it to the second watchman without charge, or the first watchman was a borrower, and he entrusted it to a paid watchman. In such instances, since the watchman reduced the level of responsibility for watching the article, he is considered to be negligent and is required to pay.
[The above applies] even if when the article was originally entrusted, the owner was working for or hired by the first watchman. For that watchman removed the entrusted article from his domain and entrusted it to another watchman.", + "If the second watchman was able to bring proof that would free the first watchman from responsibility for guarding the article, he is not liable.
What is implied? A paid watchman entrusted an animal that was entrusted to him to an unpaid watchman. If the second watchman brought witnesses who testify that the animal died in a natural manner, the first watchman is not liable. The same principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "When a watchman entrusted an animal entrusted to him to another watchman and increased the responsibility of the watchman and the animal died, the owner receives the benefit.
What is implied? A person rents a cow from a colleague and then lends it to another person. Afterwards, the cow dies in an ordinary manner in the possession of the borrower. Since the borrower is required to make full restitution, he should return the worth of the cow to its owners. For the renter is not carrying out business with his colleague's cow. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
The following rules apply when a person was in possession of an entrusted object belonging to a colleague and gave it to another person to bring to its owner. Since the first watchman is responsible for the article until it reaches its owner's domain, if he desires to retrieve the article from the second watchman, he may. If it is established that the first watchman has denied that property was entrusted to him, he cannot retrieve the article from the second watchman although he remains responsible for the entrusted article." + ], + [ + "The three laws that the Torah states with regard to the four watchmen apply only with regard to movable property that is not consecrated and which belongs to a Jew.
This is derived from Exodus 22:6,9, which mentions: \"money or articles and any animal.\" This excludes landed property and slaves, for they are equated with landed property. And it excludes promissory notes, for they themselves are not money.
And consecrated property is excluded, for ibid.:6 states: \"When a person will give to his colleague.\" And this also excludes property owned by gentiles. Accordingly, our Sages stated: An unpaid watchman need not take an oath with regard to claims involving slaves, promissory notes, landed property and consecrated property. Similarly, a paid watchman or a renter need not pay if they are destroyed. If the watchman performed a kinyan confirming his responsibility for such articles, he is responsible for them.", + "Our Sages ordained that the oaths required of watchmen should be taken with regard to consecrated property in the same manner as required by the Torah with regard to other property so that people should not deal lightly with consecrated property.", + "It appears to me that a watchman who was negligent with regard to the care of slaves and the like is obligated to make restitution. For he is freed of responsibility with regard to slaves, landed property and promissory notes -only for the obligations stemming from theft, loss, death and the like. For if he was an unpaid watchman for movable property, and it was stolen or lost, he would be required to take an oath; but for slaves, landed property and promissory notes, he is not required to take an oath. Similarly, if he was a paid watchman, he would be required to make restitution for movable property that was stolen or lost, but for these he is freed of liability. If, however, he was negligent, he is required to make restitution. For everyone who is negligent is considered to be one who damages property, and there is no difference between the laws applying to a person who damages landed property and one who damages movable property.
This is a true judgment, as those who understand will see, and this is the appropriate way to rule. Similarly, my teachers issued the following rulings with regard to a person who entrusts his vine to a sharecropper or to a watchman and stipulates that he dig, prune or dust it from his own resources. If the watchman is negligent and does not perform the required task, he is liable as if he destroyed it with his hands. Similarly, he is liable in all instances where he causes a loss through his actions.", + "When a person entrusts produce that is growing on land - even grapes that are ready to be harvested - to a colleague to watch, they are considered to be landed property with regard to the laws of watchman.", + "The following principle applies if a person entrusts consecrated property to a watchman and then redeems it, and so it is no longer consecrated at the time the owner takes it from the watchman, or he lends it to a person when it was not consecrated and then consecrates it while it is in the borrower's possession, or a gentile entrusts property and then converts. In all these situations, the laws of watchmen do not apply, unless the article was not consecrated property and belonged to a Jew from the beginning of the time the article was entrusted until the conclusion of that period.", + "The laws applying to borrowers apply equally to men and to women. This applies if the woman is the owner of the entrusted article, or an article was entrusted to her care.", + "When a minor entrusts an article to an adult or lends it to him, the adult must take the oaths required of a watchman to the minor. My teachers ruled that the adult is not taking the oath because of the claim of the minor in which instance, the oath would not be required. For an oath is never taken with regard to a claim made by a minor. The rationale is that all the oaths taken by watchmen are taken because of an indefinite claim.", + "Just as our Sages ordained that a purchaser must finalize his acquisition of an article through meshichah; so, too, they ordained that a watchman's responsibility for an article is established through meshichah.
When a person tells a colleague: \"Watch an article for me,\" and he tells him: \"Place it down in front of me,\" he is an unpaid watchman. If he tells him: \"Place it down before yourself,\" or \"Place it down\" without saying anything else, or tells him: \"My house is before you,\" he is neither a paid watchman nor is an unpaid watchman, nor is he obligated to take an oath at all. The owner of the article may, however, have a ban of ostracism issued applying to anyone who took his article and did not return it to its owner. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
Whenever a person entrusts, lends or rents an article to a colleague, the same laws apply whether or not the transfer was observed by witnesses. When the watchman himself admits that he served as a watchman, or he borrowed the article, he is required to take the oath required of watchmen. We do not employ the principle of miggo to absolve a person of the responsibility for an oath, but only to free him of the responsibility to make restitution.
Even if the article that was borrowed, entrusted or rented was worth only a p'rutah, the watchman is required to take an oath concerning it. None of the watchmen are required to admit to a portion of the plaintiff's claim before being required to take the oath.", + "An unpaid watchman may make a stipulation to be freed of the responsibility to take an oath, and a borrower may make a stipulation to be freed of the responsibility to make restitution. Similarly, the owner of the entrusted object may make a stipulation that an unpaid watchman, a paid watchman or a borrower will be liable in all situations as a borrower is. This is acceptable, for any stipulation regarding money or an oath that involves money that is agreed upon by both principals is binding. Neither a kinyan to affirm it nor witnesses are required.", + "When the owner claims that there was a stipulation made requiring the watchman to undertake more responsibility, and the watchman denies that such a stipulation was made, the watchman must take the oath required of a watchman, and on the basis of the principle of gilgul sh'vuah he must include in his oath that there was no stipulation involved.", + "If the owner of an object claims that he entrusted it to a watchman, and the watchman answers that he said merely: \"Place the article down before yourself,\" and thus never became obligated as a watchman, the defendant is required to take a sh'vuat hesset that this was the manner in which he received the article. He should include in his oath that he did not use it for his own purposes, destroy it with his own hands or cause it to be destroyed in a manner that would obligate him to make restitution.", + "If the owner of an object claims: \"I lent it to you,\" \"I rented it to you,\" or \"I entrusted it to you,\" and the defendant responds: \"This never took place,\" or \"That is true, but I returned it to you, and my responsibility was concluded. There is no obligation between us at all,\" the defendant must take a sh'vuat hesset. He is then freed of responsibility.
When does this apply? When the watchman's responsibility is not recorded in a legal document. If, however, a legal document recorded that the article was entrusted, rented or lent, and the watchman claims that he returned the article, he must affirm his statement with an oath taken while holding a sacred article. The rationale for this ruling is that since an unpaid watchman could claim that the article was stolen or lost, and a borrower could claim that it died because he was working with it, his word is accepted when he says he returned it. But just as if he claimed that it was destroyed by forces beyond his control, he would have been required to take a Scriptural oath while holding a sacred article; so, too, when he claims to have returned it, he is required to take an oath resembling a Scriptural oath. The rationale is that the plaintiff has a legal document recording that the article was entrusted.
When does the above apply? When the watchman could have claimed that the article was destroyed by forces beyond his control without having to bring proof of his claim. If, however, he would have to bring proof of his claim, as will be explained, his word is not accepted if he claims that he returned the article. Instead, the plaintiff in possession of the legal document should take an oath while holding a sacred article that the watchman did not return anything to him. The watchman is then required to make restitution.
There is no other instance where a defendant is obligated to take an oath while holding a sacred article because he could have used another argument, except a watchman against whom a legal document serves as evidence. Whenever any other defendant is obligated an opportunity to take an oath, because he could have used another argument, all that is involved is a sh'vuat hesset." + ], + [ + "The following rules apply when a watchman claims that the entrusted article was destroyed by a major factor over which he had no control - e.g., it was broken or it died. If the loss occurred in a place where witnesses are ordinarily present, we require him to bring proof to support his claim that it was destroyed by factors beyond his control. He is then freed of liability, even for a watchman's oath. If he does not bring proof, he is required to make restitution, as Exodus 22:9-10 states: \"If there are none who see, the oath of God will be between the two of them.\" This implies that in a place where it is possible to bring proof, he cannot free himself of responsibility by taking an oath. Either he brings proof or he makes restitution.
If, however, the watchman claims that the article was destroyed in a place where witnesses are not ordinarily present, we do not require him to prove his claim. Instead, he must take an oath that it was destroyed by factors beyond his control, and then he is freed of responsibility. If he brings witnesses who testify that he was not negligent in his care for the article, he is not liable; he is not even required to take an oath.
An incident occurred with regard to a person who was hired to transfer a jug of wine and it broke in the market place of Mechuzah. The matter was brought before the Sages and they said that people are ordinarily present in the market place where the watchman claimed that the jug was broken. Hence they required him to either bring proof that he was not negligent, but instead stumbled and fell or make restitution. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "When a person is hired to transfer a jug from place to place for a wage, and the jug is broken, according to Scriptural Law, he should be required to pay. For this is not a major factor that is beyond the porter's control; breaking an article is equivalent to its being stolen or lost, for which he is liable.
Nevertheless, our Sages ordained that the porter should be liable merely to take an oath that he was not negligent in caring for it. For if he were required to make financial restitution, no person would ever carry a jug for a colleague. Therefore, the Sages ordained that the breaking of a jug is equivalent to the death or the injury of an animal.
With regard to this matter, our Sages also ordained that if two people were carrying a jug with shafts, and it was broken, they should pay half the damages. For since this burden is very great for one person, but light for two people, it can be considered both similar and dissimilar to a loss due to factors beyond one's control. Therefore, if there are witnesses who testify that they were not negligent, they should pay half the damages.
If the jug was broken in a place where witnesses are not ordinarily present, the porters must take an oath that they did not break it through negligence. Afterwards, they are required to pay half the damages. For each one of them should not have attempted to transport anything more than a burden that he could transport on his own. From this, one can derive that when a person transports a large jug that a porter would not ordinarily transport, he is considered to be negligent. If it breaks in his hands, he must make full restitution.", + "The following rules apply when a porter breaks a jug of wine belonging to a merchant and was obligated to make restitution, and the jug was worth four zuzim on a market day, and three zuzim on other days. If he makes restitution on a market day, he must give him either a jug of wine or four zuzim This applies if the merchant does not possess other wine to sell on the market day. If the merchant possesses other wine, the porter is required to pay only three. If the porter makes restitution on another day, he is required to return only three.
Whenever the porter makes restitution, a deduction is made for the effort the merchant would have to undertake in selling the jug, the damage the hole causes in the jug, and other similar matters.", + "The following rules apply when wolves come and attack herds being watched by a shepherd and seize some of them. If there is only one wolf, it is not considered to be a loss due to factors beyond his control. This applies even when there is an outbreak of wolves. If there are two wolves, it is considered to be a loss beyond his control. Two dogs are not considered to be a loss beyond his control, even if they come from two directions. If there are more than two, it is considered to be a loss beyond his control.
Armed thieves are considered to be a loss beyond his control. This applies even if the shepherd was armed and only one armed thief opposed him; it is considered to be a loss beyond his control. For a shepherd will not risk his life as a thief will.
A lion, a bear, a leopard, a cheetah or a snake are considered to be losses beyond his control.
When does this apply? When they come on their own initiative. If, however, the shepherd brings his herd to a place of wild beasts or thieves, losses incurred because of them are not considered to be losses beyond his control, and the shepherd is liable to make restitution.", + "When a shepherd encounters a thief and begins to boast to him, trying to show him that he is not concerned with him, saying: \"We are in this and this place. We have these and these many shepherds, and these and these types of weapons,\" and the thief comes and overcomes him and seizes the animals, the shepherd is liable. For there is no difference between bringing the animal(s) to a place of beasts and thieves, or boasting and thus bringing the thieves to the place of the animal(s).", + "If a shepherd had the opportunity of saving an animal that was preyed upon or taken captive by calling to other shepherds or bringing staves, and he did not call to other shepherds or bring staves to save the animal, he is liable. This applies to both an unpaid watchman and a paid watchman. The difference is that an unpaid watchman should call to other watchman and bring staves without charge. If he cannot find any available for free, he is not liable. A paid watchman, by contrast, is obligated to hire other shepherds and staves until the value of the animal(s) in order to save them. Afterwards, he should collect their hire from the owner. If he does not do so and had the opportunity to hire others and did not avail himself of it, he is considered to be negligent and is liable to make restitution.", + "When a shepherd claims that he hired other shepherds to save a herd from danger, he is required to take an oath. He may then collect the amount that he claims. The rationale is that he cannot claim more than the value of the herd and he could have claimed that the herd was preyed upon. He is required to take an oath while holding a sacred object, as required of all those who take oaths and expropriate property.", + "The following laws apply when a shepherd abandoned his herd and came to the city - whether at the time the shepherds usually come to the city or at a time when this is not their practice - and wolves came and preyed upon the herd, or lions came and attacked them. We do not postulate that if he had been there, he definitely could have saved the animals. Instead, we assess the situation. If he could have saved them - even by hiring other shepherds and staves - he is liable. If not, he is not liable. If it is impossible to make such an assessment, he is liable.", + "If an animal dies in an ordinary manner, this is considered to be a loss beyond the shepherd's control, and he is not liable. If he oppressed it and it died, it is not considered a loss beyond his control. If it overcame the shepherd and ascended to a high cliff, and it overcame him and fell, it is considered to be a loss beyond his control. If he led it up a steep cliff or it ascended on its own accord, but he could have prevented it from doing so and failed to do so, even though it overcame him and fell and died or was injured, he is liable. For whenever there is negligence at the outset, but ultimately the actual loss happens because of factors beyond the watchman's control, he is liable.
Similarly, when a shepherd leads animals across a bridge, and one pushes another and it falls into the current of the river, the shepherd is liable. The rationale is that he should have brought them over one by one. Indeed, the reason a shepherd receives a wage is to watch the animals in an effective manner. Since he was negligent at the outset, by causing them to cross together, even though when the animal fell, the loss was beyond his control, he is liable.", + "If the shepherd was negligent and the animal went out to a swamp and died in an ordinary manner, he is not liable. For the animal's going there did not cause it to be lost due to forces beyond the shepherd's control. Since it died in an ordinary manner, what difference is it whether it died in the watchman's house or in the swamp?
If, by contrast, a thief stole it from the swamp, and it died in an ordinary manner in the thief's house, the watchman is liable, even if he is an unpaid watchman. For even if it had not died, it would have been lost to its owner in the possession of the thief, and its going out to the swamp allowed it to be stolen. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations." + ], + [ + "When a person rents a donkey to lead it through the mountains, and instead leads it through a valley, he is not liable if it slips, even though he went against the intentions of the owners. If it is harmed due to heat, the renter is liable. If he rented it to lead it through a valley, and instead leads it through a mountain, he is liable if it slips, because one is more likely to slip in a mountain than in a valley. If it is harmed due to heat, the renter is not liable, since valleys are warmer than mountains, because there is wind blowing in the mountains. If, however, it becomes overheated due to the effort in climbing to the heights, he is liable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Similarly, if a person rents a cow to plow on a mountain and plows with it in a valley, the renter is not liable should the cylinder of the plow break. The owner of the cow may sue the workers who did the plowing. Similarly, if the renter did not go against the owner's instructions and the cylinder of the plow broke, the owner of the cow may sue the workers. If he rented it to plow in a valley, and instead plowed on a mountain, and the cylinder of the plow breaks, the renter is liable. The renter may sue the workers.", + "What is the ruling regarding the workers who break a plow while plowing? They must pay.
Who must pay? The one who holds the utensil while plowing. If, however, the field has several plateaus, they share the liability for the cost of the cylinder - both the person holding the guiding pole and the person holding the utensil.", + "If a person rented a cow to thresh beans and he used it to thresh grain, he is not liable if it slips. If he rented it for grain and used it to thresh beans, he is liable, for beans cause slippage.
An incident occurred with regard to a person who rented his donkey to a colleague and told him: \"Do not go with it on the way of the Pikud Ravine, where there is water, but rather on the way of the Neresh Ravine, where there is no water.\" The person who hired the donkey went on the way of the Pikud Ravine and the donkey died. There were no witnesses who were able to testify to which way he went, but the person himself admitted: \"I went on the way of the Pikud Ravine, but there was no water, and the donkey died due to natural causes.\"
Our Sages ruled: \"Since there are witnesses that there is always water in the Pikud Ravine, he is obligated to pay, for he deviated from the instructions of the owner. And we do not say: \"Of what value would it be for him to lie,\" in a situation where witnesses were present.", + "When a person rents an animal to bring 200 litra of wheat, and instead, brings 200 litra of barley, he is liable if the animal dies. For the additional volume is more difficult to carry, and barley takes more space than wheat. The same laws apply if he hired an animal to carry grain, and instead used it to carry straw. If, by contrast, he rented an animal to carry barley and instead, brought the same weight of wheat, he is not liable if the animal dies. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "If a person rented an animal for a man to ride upon, he should not have a woman ride upon it. If he rented it for a woman to ride upon, he may have a man ride upon it. And he may have any woman ride upon it, whether she is small or large, even if she is both nursing and pregnant.", + "The following rules apply when a person rents an animal with the intent that it carry a burden of a specific weight, and the renter added to that weight. If he added a thirtieth to the weight that he specified, and the animal died, he is liable. If it was a lesser measure, he is not liable. He must, however, pay the fee appropriate for the extra measure.
If the renter rented the animal without specifying a measure, he may load upon it the burden that is the local standard for that animal. If he added more than a thirtieth to that weight - e.g., it usually carried 30 measures and he loads it with 31 - and it dies or becomes injured, he is liable. Similarly, if a person loaded a ship with one thirtieth more than its ordinary cargo and it sank, he is liable to make restitution for its worth.", + "When a person added one kav to the burden of a porter, and the porter was injured because of this burden, the other person is liable for his injury. For although the porter is a conscious being and feels the weight of the extra burden, he might think that it feels heavy because he is ill.", + "When a person rents a donkey with the intent of riding upon it, he may place his garments, his flask, and his food for this journey upon it, for it is not customary for a renter to stop at each inn to purchase food. The owner of the donkey may prevent the renter from carrying with him anything more.
Similarly, the owner of the donkey may place barley and straw for the donkey's food on it for that day. The renter may prevent him from loading anything more, for it is possible for him to purchase these supplies at every inn. Therefore, if there is no place for him to purchase, he may load his food and food for his animal for the entire journey.
All of these guidelines apply when a person hires an animal without making any specifications in a place that has no known custom. If, however, there is an accepted local custom, everything follows that custom." + ], + [ + "The following rules apply when a person rents an animal and it becomes sick, goes mad, or is conscripted for the king's service, even when it will not be returned. If it was taken or became sick or mad as the renter was journeying to his destination, the owner may tell the renter: \"Behold the animal you hired is before you,\" and the renter is required to pay the full fee. When does the above apply? When he rented it to carry a burden that can be thrown to the ground without worry. If, however, he rented the donkey with the intent of riding on it or carrying glass utensils or the like, the owner of the donkey is required to provide another donkey for him if he hired a donkey without making any further specifications. If he does not provide another donkey, he must return the fee, and then a calculation should be made with regard to how much he should be paid for the portion of the journey that he traveled.", + "The following rules apply in the above situation if the animal died or was injured, regardless of whether it was rented to carry a burden or to ride. If the owner said: \"I am renting you a donkey,\" without specifying the beast, he is required to provide another donkey for the renter. If he does not, the renter may sell the animal and purchase another animal with [the proceeds], or rent another animal until he arrives at the destination agreed upon if the proceeds are not sufficient to purchase another animal.
Different rules apply if the owner told the renter: \"I am renting you this donkey.\" When he rented it to ride upon it or to carry glass utensils and it died in the middle of the way, he should purchase another animal with the proceeds from the sale of the carcass if that is possible. If the proceeds are not sufficient for that, he should rent an animal, even if this demands all the proceeds of the sale to transport him to the destination specified. If the proceeds are not sufficient - neither to purchase nor to rent an animal - the renter must pay the owner the fee for the portion of the journey. With regard to the remainder, all he has against him is complaints.
If he hired it to carry a burden that was not fragile, since the owner said \"this donkey,\" and it died in the middle of the journey, he is not required to provide another donkey for him. Instead, the renter must pay him the fee for the portion of the journey and leave him the carcass.", + "The following rules apply when a person hires a ship and it sinks in the midst of the journey. If the owner told the renter, \"I am renting you this ship,\" and the renter hired it to carry wine without specifying which wine he would be carrying, even if the renter already paid the owner his fee, the owner must return it in its entirety. For the renter can tell him: \"Bring the actual ship that I rented from you, for I was very specific in wanting this ship. When you do, I will bring wine and transport it on it.\"
If the owner does not specify a ship and the renter hires one to transport a specific shipment of wine, even though he did not pay the owner any portion of the fee, he is required to pay him the entire amount. For the owner can tell him: \"Bring me the wine that you specified and I will transport it for you.\" He must, however, deduct compensation for the difficulty for half the journey, for a person who works to sail a ship cannot be compared to someone who is idle.
The following rules apply if the owner told the renter: \"I am renting you this ship,\" and the renter mentioned a specific shipment of wine. If the renter already paid the owner his fee, he cannot require him to return it. If the renter did not pay it, he need not. The rationale is that the owner cannot bring that ship, nor can the renter bring that wine. If the rental agreement did not specify the ship or the wine, the fee should be divided between them.", + "When a person rents a ship and unloads in the midst of the journey, he must pay the fee for the entire journey. If, however, the renter finds another person who will rent the ship in his place until the location he originally agreed, he may rent it out to him. The owner of the ship has, however, a complaint against him.
Similarly, if the renter sold all the merchandise on the ship to another person in the middle of the way and descended, and the purchaser ascended in his place, the owner of the ship takes half the rent from the first one and half from the second. The owner has a complaint against the renter, because he required him to accommodate the opinion of another person with whom he is not familiar. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "From this, I conclude that when a person rents a house from a colleague for a specific period and the renter desires to sublet the house to another person until the end of the lease, he may, provided there are the same number of people in the subletter's household as in his own. If, however, there are four in his own household, he should not sublet it to a household of five. The rationale is that our Sages' statement that a renter may not sublet the object that he rents applies only with regard to movable property.
The motivating principle for that restriction is that the owner may tell the renter: \"I do not desire that my object be entrusted to the hands of another person.\" With regard to landed property or a ship, by contrast, its owner is with it at all times, and this objection is not relevant.
Similarly, I conclude that if the owner of the home tells the renter: \"Why should you trouble yourself to rent my house to others? If you do not desire to continue dwelling within it, leave and leave it alone; I am freeing you from the rent,\" the renter may not sublet it to anyone else. For in such an instance, the charge: \"Do not withhold good from its owner\" applies. For instead of renting it out to someone else, the tenant should leave this person his own home.
There are those who rule that the renter may not sublet the dwelling at all and must pay the rent until the appointed time. To me, this does not appear a true ruling.", + "When a person tells a colleague: \"I am renting you this house,\" and after he rented it to him, it fell, he is not required to rebuild it for him. Instead, he should calculate the amount of rent due for the time during which he used it and return the remainder of the rent. If, however, the owner tears down the house, he is obligated to provide another home for the renter or rent a similar dwelling for him.
Similarly, if after renting the house to this person, he rented it or sold it to a gentile or to a person who does not abide by the law who supplanted the rental of the first person, the owner is obligated to rent a similar house for him. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "If a person rented a house to a colleague without specifying the house, and afterwards the house fell, the owner is required to build it for him or provide him with another house. Even if the new house he gives him is smaller than the house that fell, the renter cannot prevent him from giving him this one, provided it is called a house. If, however, he told him: \"I am renting you a house like this,\" the owner is obligated to provide him with a house that it is the same length and width as the house that he originally showed him. He cannot tell him: \"My intent was only that the house should be close to the river,\" \"... to the marketplace,\" or \"... to the bathhouse, as this one is.\" Instead, he is obligated to provide him with a house of that size and shape.
Therefore, if it was large, he should not make it small. If it was small, he should not make it large. If it was a one-room apartment, he should not make it two. If it was a two-room apartment he should not make it one. He should not reduce the number of windows that it possessed, nor should he add to them unless they both agree.", + "When a person rents out a loft without any specifications, he is required to provide any such structure for the renter. If the owner tells him: \"I am renting you the loft on top of this house,\" he made the house subservient to the loft. Therefore, if four handbreadths or more of the loft become ruined, the owner is obligated to fix it. If he does not fix it, the renter may descend and dwell in the house together with the owner until he fixes it.
The following rules apply when there are two lofts, one on top of the other: if the upper loft becomes ruined, he may dwell in the lower one. If the lower one becomes ruined, there is a doubt whether he has the right to dwell in the upper loft or the house. Therefore, he should not dwell in either of them. If, however, he dwells in one of them, he cannot be forced to leave.
An incident occurred when a person told a colleague: \"I am renting you this vine that is draped over this peach tree,\" and then the peach tree became uprooted from its place. The question was brought to the Sages and they told the owner: \"You are obligated to provide the peach tree for him for as long as the vine exists.\" Similar laws apply in all analogous situations." + ], + [ + "When a person rents an apartment to a colleague in a large building, the renter may use the protrusions and the walls of the larger structure for four cubits. He may also use the garden in the courtyard and the yard behind the building. In a place where it is customary to use the thickness of the walls, the renter may use the thickness of walls.
In all these matters, we follow the prevailing local custom and the terminology that is in common usage, as we have stated with regard to purchases and sales.", + "When a person rents out his courtyard without making any specific statements, we assume that he did not rent out the barn located within it.", + "When a person rents a house to a colleague, he is obligated to provide doors for him, to open any windows that have been damaged, to strengthen the roof, to support a beam that is broken, to make a bolt and a lock, and to provide any other necessity that requires a craftsman's work and that is a fundamental necessity when dwelling in a home and courtyard.
The renter is required to make a guardrail, affix a mezuzah and prepare the place for the mezuzah from his own resources. Similarly, if he desires to build a ladder, fix a slanted roof, or plaster the roof, he should do this from his own resources.", + "When a person rents out a loft to a colleague and its floor becomes opened for four square handbreadths or more, the owner is obligated to fix the ceiling of the lower apartment and the plaster upon it, for the plaster is support for the ceiling.", + "The dung in the courtyard belongs to the renter. Therefore, he is responsible to make the effort of clearing it out. If, however, there is a prevailing local custom, it takes precedence.
When does the above apply? When the animals that made the dung belong to the renter. If, however, the animals belong to other people, the dung belongs to the owner of the courtyard. For a courtyard that belongs to a person acquires property on his behalf without his knowledge, even when it is rented out to another person.", + "When a person rents out a house, a courtyard, a store or another property for a fixed time, the owner has the right to compel the renter to leave at the end of the prescribed period. He is not required to wait even one hour for him.
When a person rents a house to sleep in without making any specifications, the minimum is one night. If he rents it for the Sabbath, the minimum is two days. If he rents it for a marriage, the minimum is 30 days.", + "When a person rents a house to a colleague without specifying the termination of the contract, he may not force him to leave the home unless he notifies him 30 days in advance, so that he can look for another place and will not be homeless. After 30 days, however, he must leave.
When does the above apply? In the summer. In the winter, by contrast, he may not force him to leave from Sukkot until Pesach.
When the owner gives the renter 30 days notice before Sukkot, if even one day from the 30 is after Sukkot, the owner may not compel him to leave until after Pesach. And he must notify him 30 days previously.
When does the above apply? In small towns. In large cities, by contrast, whether in the summer or the winter, the owner must notify the renter twelve months in advance.
Similarly, with regard to a store, whether in a large city or in a small town, the owner must notify the renter twelve months in advance.", + "Just as the owner is obligated to notify the renter, the renter is obligated to notify the owner 30 days before leaving in a small town and twelve months before leaving in a large city, in order for the owner to be able to look for a tenant so that his house will not be empty. If he does not notify him, he may not leave unless he pays rent regardless.", + "Although the owner may not send away the renter, nor may the renter leave the dwelling until one notifies the other a proper time beforehand, if the price of renting homes increases, the owner can raise the rent and tell the renter: \"Either rent it at its present value or depart.\"
Similarly, if the price of renting homes decreases, the renter may decrease the rent, telling the owner: \"Either rent me your home at its present value, or I am leaving it for you.\"
If the house in which the owner is living falls, he may compel the renter to leave his house, telling him: \"It is not appropriate that you dwell in my home until you find a dwelling while I am homeless. You have no greater right to this home than I do.\"", + "The following rules apply when the owner gives the house to his son to hold a wedding with his wife. If he knew that his son was getting married at this and this time and he could have notified the tenant earlier, but failed to do so, the owner may not force the tenant to leave.
If, however, the marriage came about suddenly and the son is wedding the woman in the immediate future, the owner may compel the renter to leave the home. For it is not appropriate that the renter dwell in the owner's home while the owner's son must rent a home in which to make the wedding.", + "If the owner sold the dwelling, gave it as a present or died and it was transferred as part of his inheritance, the new owner may not compel the renter to leave unless he notifies him 30 days or twelve months beforehand. For the renter may tell the new owner: \"You have no greater privileges than the person from whom you acquired the home.\"" + ], + [ + "Just as a person may make any stipulation that he desires with regard to a purchase or a sale; so, too, may he make any stipulation he desires with regard to a rental. For a rental is a sale for a limited amount of time.
Whenever a person's sale of his property is upheld, the rental of his property will also be upheld. Conversely, when a person is not granted power to sell his property, he may not rent out that property. The only exception is when all he owns is the right to the produce of the property. In such an instance, he may rent out the property, but he may not sell it.", + "When a person rents out a house to a colleague for a year, and a leap year is declared, the extra month is granted to the tenant. If, by contrast, the agreement is made according to months, the extra month is granted to the owner.
If the rental agreement mentions both months and years, the extra month is granted to the owner. This applies regardless of whether the owner said: \"A dinar every month, twelve dinarim a year,\" or \"Twelve dinarim a year, a dinar every month.\" The rationale is that the land is in the possession of its owner and we may not expropriate anything from the owner of the land without a clear proof.
Similarly, when the owner of a home says: \"I rented out the house for a specific time,\" and the tenant says: \"I rented it without any specifics,\" or \"for a longer period,\" the renter must prove his claim. If he does not prove his claim, the owner may support his claim with a sh'vuat hesset and have the tenant removed from the home.", + "The following rules apply when the tenant claims: \"I paid the rent that I was obligated for the house,\" and the owner claims: \"I have yet to collect it.\" The same rules apply whether the agreement was recorded in a contract or observed by witnesses.
If the owner demands payment within 30 days of the beginning of the rental, the burden of proof is on the renter. Alternatively, he must pay. He may then have a ban of ostracism issued against anyone who took money from him. Or the tenant may lodge a suit against the owner for the money he originally gave him as a separate claim and require the owner to take a sh'vuat hesset.
If the owner demanded payment after 30 days passed or even on the thirtieth day, the owner must bring proof that he was not paid. Otherwise, the tenant may take an oath that he already paid him the rent and thus be released from any obligation.
Similarly, if when the tenant rented the property, he stipulated that he would pay him the rent annually - if the owner demands payment within the year, the tenant is obligated to bring proof that he already paid. If he demands payment after the year - even if he demands payment on the twenty-ninth day of Elul - the owner is obligated to bring proof that he was not paid.", + "The following rules apply when a person rents out a house to a colleague for ten years, has a rental contract composed, but does not date that contract. If the tenant claims: \"Only one year passed from the time the document was composed,\" but the owner claims: \"The entire period of the rental agreement has passed, and you have dwelled in the house for ten years,\" the tenant is required to bring proof to support his claim. If he does not do so, the owner may take a sh'vuat hesset and compel him to leave the dwelling.", + "The following rules apply when a person rents an orchard - or it was entrusted to him as security - for ten years and it dries up. The tenant should sell the trees, purchase land with the proceeds, and benefit from the produce of that land until the conclusion of the rental contract or the period for which the security was entrusted. As a safeguard against the violation of the prohibition against taking interest, both the owner of the orchard - the borrower and the creditor are prohibited against taking the trees themselves that became dried out or were cut down.", + "The following rules apply when a contract for rental or security mentions \"years\" without stating the number of years. If the tenant claims that the agreement was for three years, and the owner of the land claims that it was for two years, and the renter - or the creditor - came and made use of the produce of the third year, we assume that the produce belonged to the person who made use of it unless the owner of the land brings proof that this is not so.
A difficulty could arise if the tenant or the creditor derived benefit from the property for three years and the legal record became misplaced. If he said: \"I am entitled to the produce for five years,\" and the owner of the land says, \"The agreement was only for three,\" we tell the concerned parties: \"Show the legal record.\"
If the owner says: \"It was lost,\" the tenant's claim is accepted, for if he would have claimed that he had purchased it, his claim would also be accepted since he derived benefit from it for three years.", + "The following rules apply when a person brings his produce into his colleague's property without his consent or beguiled him into allowing him to bring in his produce and then left it and departed. The owner of the property may sell that produce in order to pay for workers to take it away and bring it to the market place.
It is pious conduct for the owner of the property to notify the court and rent a storage place with part of the funds in order to prevent the destruction of his colleague's property, even if that colleague acted in an improper manner.", + "The following rules apply when a person rents a mill from a colleague on the condition that the renter will grind 20 se'ah of grain for the owner every month as rent and afterwards, the owner of the mill became wealthy. Since he no longer needs to have his grain ground there he asks the renter to pay him the equivalent of the wage he would earn for grinding the 20 se'ah.
If the renter has wheat of his own or of others that he can grind instead, we compel him to pay the owner the wage he receives for grinding 20 se'ah. Not to pay him would be an expression of the qualities of Sodom. If the renter does not have wheat of his own or customers, he may tell the owner: \"I don't have the funds. I am prepared to grind grain for you, as stated in the rental agreement. If you don't need this, sell the ground wheat to others.\" Similar laws apply in all analogous situations." + ], + [ + "The same laws apply when a person rents a field from a colleague to sow, or a vineyard to benefit from its fruits and agrees to pay him money or agrees to pay him a fixed amount of produce - e.g., he rented a particular field for 20 kor of grain a year or a particular vineyard for 20 jugs of wine a year. A person who rents property and agrees to pay in produce is called a chocher.", + "When a person takes a field or an orchard with the intent of working it, investing in it and giving the owner a third, a fourth or whatever other percentage of the harvest that they agree to, he is called a mekabel.
The following rules apply with regard to all the types of contracts mentioned above. Whenever an improvement is necessary for the sake of the land itself, it is the responsibility of the owner of the land to provide it. Whenever an improvement is an added measure of security, the renter is responsible for it.
The ax that is used to break up the land, the containers used to carry away earth, the bucket, the jug or the like that is used to draw water are the responsibility of the owner of the land. Digging the irrigation ditches, by contrast, is the responsibility of the renter.", + "When a person rents or makes a sharecropping agreement with regard to a colleague's field for only a few years, he should not sow flax. If he rents it or enters a sharecropping agreement for seven years, he may sow flax for the first year. The Sabbatical year is not included in this reckoning. If he rents it or enters a sharecropping agreement for a seven-year period, the Sabbatical year is included in this reckoning.", + "The following laws apply when a person rents or makes a sharecropping agreement with regard to a colleague's field that is parched and requires irrigation, and the spring used to irrigate the field dries up, but the larger river has not ceased to flow, and it is possible to carry water from it in a bucket. The renter may not reduce his payments. If this is a problem that affects the entire region - e.g., the river itself dried up - he may reduce his payments. Similar laws apply if one rents an orchard and the trees of the orchard are cut down.
Different rules apply when the owner was standing in his field and told the renter: \"I am renting you this parched field,\" or \"I am renting you this orchard.\" If the spring dries up or the tree is chopped down, he may reduce his payments. Since he was standing in the property when he made that statement, we assume that by saying: \"this field\" or \"this orchard,\" his intent was: \"I am renting it to you in its present condition.\"
Therefore, when the owner is not standing in his field and told the renter: \"I am renting you this parched field,\" or \"I am renting you this orchard.\" If the spring dries up or the tree is chopped down, he may not reduce his payments.", + "The following rules apply when a person rents or makes a sharecropping agreement with regard to a colleague's field, and the crops are eaten by locusts or destroyed by drought. If this condition prevailed among the majority of the fields of that city, he may reduce his payments according to the extent of the loss that he suffered. If this blight did not prevail among the majority of the fields, he may not reduce his payments. This law applies even though all the fields belonging to this land owner were ravaged.
If all the fields of the renter or the sharecropper were ravaged, even though the blight also affected most of the other fields, he may not reduce his payment. For the loss is dependent on the renter's bad fortune, as evidenced by the fact that all his fields were ravaged.
If the owner stipulated that the renter should sow the field with wheat, and he sowed it with barley, did not sow it at all or sowed it and nothing grew, the renter may not reduce his payments even though locusts or a drought came and the majority of the fields were ravaged. Until when must he till it and sow it a second time if the first crop does not grow? Until the time when it is fit to sow in that place.", + "The following rules apply when a person rents or makes a sharecropping agreement with regard to a colleague's field. If it is customary in that locale to cut down the crops, the renter should cut them down. He is not permitted to uproot them. If it is customary to uproot the crops, the renter should uproot them. He is not permitted to cut them down. Either of them can prevent the custom from being changed.
In a locale where it is customary to plow after the harvesting, the renter should plow. In a locale where it is customary to rent trees together with land, they are considered to have been rented out. This applies even though the owner rented the property for a price that is lower than usual. In a locale where it is not customary to rent trees together with land, they are not considered to have been rented out. This applies even though the owner rented the property for a price that is higher than usual. Everything follows the local custom.", + "When a person rents a field from a colleague for ten kor of wheat and it suffered blight, he may pay the owner from the wheat of that field. Conversely, if it produces extremely high quality wheat, he should not tell the owner: \"I will purchase wheat for you from the marketplace.\" Instead, he must give him the wheat from the field.
If a person rents a vineyard for ten baskets of grapes and they become sour after they were harvested, the renter may give the owner the grapes from the vineyard. A similar ruling applies to sheaves of grain that became ruined after they were harvested. If, however, a person rents a vineyard for ten jugs of wine, and the wine becomes sour, he is obligated to provide the owner with good wine.
The following rules apply when a person rented a field for 100 sheaves of cattle fodder, sowed another crop and then plowed the field and sowed it with cattle fodder. If it suffered blight, the renter may not give the owner the cattle fodder growing in it. Instead, he must give him high quality fodder, for he deviated from the terms of the initial agreement. Similar rules apply even if he sowed it with fodder at the outset, plowed it and then sowed it again and it suffered blight or in any other situation where the damage to the crops comes after the renter deviates from the initial agreement.", + "The following rules apply when a person rents a field from a colleague, but does not desire to weed it. Although the renter tells the owner: \"What will you suffer? I will give you the amount stipulated regardless,\" his words are not heeded. For the owner may respond: \"Ultimately, you will leave it, and it will grow weeds for me.\"
Even if the renter says: \"At the end I will plow it,\" his words are not heeded.", + "When a person rents a field with the stated intent of sowing barley, he should not sow wheat, because wheat saps the nutrients of the land more than barley. If he rented it with the intent of sowing wheat, he may sow barley.
If his original intent was to sow legumes, he may not sow grain. If his original intent was grain, he may sow legumes. In Babylon and lands of that nature, he should not sow legumes, for legumes sap the nutrients of the land.", + "When a person rents a field from a colleague for a few years according to a sharecropping agreement, the sharecropper does not receive a share of the wood that grows from the wild fig trees and the like, nor in the appreciation in the value of the field due to the trees growing in the field. We do, however, consider the place of the trees as if it were filled with the type of crop that was planted in the field. This applies provided the trees grew in a place that is fit to sow. If, however, they grow in a place that is not fit to sow, the sharecropper is not given any consideration. If the sharecropper rents the field for seven years or more, he is entitled to a share of the wood that grows from the wild fig trees and the like.
If at the time the sharecropper's lease runs out, there are plants in the field that have not reached the stage at which they are fit to be sold, or they have reached that stage, but the market day has not come yet, they should be evaluated and the sharecropper given his share by the owner of the land.
In the same manner as the sharecropper and the owner divide the grain; so, too, they should divide the straw and the stubble. In the same manner as they divide the wine; so, too, they should divide the twigs. Different rules apply with regard to the rods that are placed beneath the vine for support. If they were purchased in partnership, they should be divided in the same manner. If they were purchased by one party, they belong to the one who purchased them. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "When a person rents a field from a colleague according to a sharecropping agreement in order to plant vines, the owner accepts the possibility that there will be ten non-productive vines in an area sufficient to grow a se'ah of grain. If there are more non-productive vines, the sharecropper must pay for the entire area as if all the vines were productive.", + "The following rules apply when a person rents a field from a colleague under a sharecropping agreement and the field does not produce a significant yield. If its yield appears sufficient to produce at least two se'ah more than the investment made in it, the sharecropper is obligated to take care of it. For in the sharecropping agreement, he promises the owner of the land: \"I will rise, plow the land, sow it, reap it, tie it in sheaves, thresh it and make a grain heap before you, and you will receive half - or whatever other portion they agreed upon - and I will receive the remainder as payment for my work and the expenses that I undertook.\"", + "The following rule applies when a person rents a field from a colleague under a sharecropping agreement, and after taking possession of the field decides to leave it fallow. We evaluate the amount the field could be expected to produce and require the sharecropper to give the owner the portion agreed upon. For in the sharecropping agreement, he promises the owner of the land: \"If I leave it fallow and do not till it, I will pay according to its best yield.\" The same rule applies if he left only a portion of it fallow.
Why is the renter obligated to pay? Because he did not stipulate that he would pay a fixed amount, in which instance we would say that it is an asmachta, but instead promised to pay the field's best yield. Therefore, he made a binding commitment.
If, however, he stipulated: \"If I leave it fallow, I will pay you 100 dinarim\" this is considered an asmachta and he is not obligated to pay that amount. Instead, he should give the owner only his share of what the field would be expected to produce.", + "The following rule applies when a person rents a field from a colleague under a sharecropping agreement with the intent of sowing sesame seeds, but instead, sows wheat. If the field produces a crop of wheat that is worth the same as the yield of sesame seeds could have been expected to be worth, the owner may have no more than complaints against him.
If the field produces a crop of wheat that is worth less than the yield of sesame seeds could have been expected to be worth, the sharecropper must pay the amount the crop of sesame seeds could have expected to yield. If the field produces a crop of wheat that is worth more than the yield of sesame seeds could have been expected to be worth, they should divide the crop according to their original stipulation although the owner of the land profits." + ], + [ + "The following rule applies when a person hires workers and tells them: \"Get up early and work late.\" In a place where it is not customary for workers to get up early and work late, he cannot compel them to keep the times he desires. In a place where it is customary for an employer to provide his workers' meals, he must provide their meals. If it is customary for him to provide dried figs, dates and the like for the workers, he must. Everything follows the local custom.", + "When a person hires a worker and tells him: \"I will pay you like any other worker in the city,\" we check the lowest wage paid and the highest wage paid and arrive at an average.", + "The following rules apply when a person tells his agent: \"Go out and hire workers for me for three zuz,\" and the agent hires them for four. If the agent told them: \"I am responsible for your wage,\" he must pay them four. He receives three zuz from the employer, and forfeits one zuz of his own.
If he told them: \"The employer is responsible for your wages,\" the employer should pay them according to the local custom. If there are some in that city who are hired at three and others at four, he is not required to pay them more than three. They have, however, justified complaints'3 against the agent.
When does the above apply? When it cannot be determined that they invested extra effort in their work. If, however, it is obvious that they invested extra effort in their work, and it is worth four zuz, the employer must pay them four. For had the agent not told them four, they would not have worked harder and produced work that is worth four.
If the employer told the agent: \"Hire workers for me at four,\" and the agent goes and hires them at three, they receive no more than three. This applies even when their work is worth four. For they accepted the lower amount. They do, however, have a complaint against the agent.
If the employer told the agent three zuz, and the agent hires them for four, but the workers say: \"We will work for what the employer says,\" their intent is that the employer will pay them more than four zuz. Therefore, we evaluate their work. If it is worth four, they should receive four zuz from the employer. If the value of their work is not obvious or it is not worth four, they may be paid only three.
If the employer told the agent to hire workers at four zuz, and he hired them at three, but they say: \"We will work for what the employer says,\" they may be paid only three. This applies even if their work is worth four, for they heard the agent say three and agreed.", + "When a person hires workers and the workers hoax the employer or the employer hoaxes the workers, all they have is complaints against each other.
When does the above apply? When the workers did not go to the appointed place. Different rules apply, however, if donkey drivers went to the appointed place and did not find any grain, workers went to a field and found that the ground was wet, or the employer hired workers to irrigate his field and they discovered that it was filled with water. If the owner checked the area that required work on the previous evening and saw that the workers were necessary, the workers are not entitled to any reimbursement. What could the owner have done? If, however, he did not check the land where he wants the work to be performed beforehand, he must pay them as an idle worker. For a person who comes carrying a burden cannot be compared to someone who comes empty-handed, nor can a person who performs labor be compared to someone who does not.
When does the above apply? When they did not begin doing work. If, however, the worker began doing his work different rules apply. A worker may quit his work even in the middle of the day. This is derived from Leviticus 25:55: \"The children of Israel are servants to Me\" - i.e., to Me alone. They are not servants to servants.
What is the law that applies to a worker who quits after having started work? We evaluate the work that he performed and he is paid that amount. If he is a contractor, we evaluate the work that still must be performed. Whether the price of labor was low at the time he was hired or it was not low, whether it was reduced afterwards or whether it was not reduced, we evaluate the work that must be performed.
What is implied? A person agreed to harvest standing grain for two selaim. He harvested half of the grain, but left half unharvested. Similarly, a person agreed to weave a garment for two selaim. He wove half of the garment, but left half unwoven. If the remainder would cost six dinarim to complete, the original contractor is paid a shekel or he is given the option of completing his work. If the remainder was worth only two dinarim, the owner need not pay the contractor more than a sela, because he did not perform more than half the work.
When does the above apply? With regard to work that does not involve an immediate loss. If, however, the work involves an immediate loss - e.g., he hired the workers to remove flax from the vat, or he hired a donkey to bring flutes for a funeral or for a wedding or the like - neither a worker nor a contractor may retract unless he is held back by forces beyond his control -e.g., he became ill or a close relative died. If the worker is not held back by forces beyond his control, and he retracts, the owner may hire others on their account or deceive them.
What is meant by deceiving them? He tells them: \"I agreed to pay you a sela; take two so that you will complete your work.\" Afterwards, he is not required to give them anything more than he originally agreed. Moreover, even if he gave them two, he can compel them to return the additional amount.
What is meant by hiring others on their account? He hires other workers who complete their task so that he will not suffer a loss. Whatever he must add to pay these later workers beyond the amount the first workers agreed upon, he may take from the first workers.
To what extent are the first workers responsible? For their entire wage. Moreover, if they have property that is in the employer's possession, the employer can use that property to hire workers to complete their work until he pays each worker 40 or 50 zuz a day although he originally hired the worker at three or four zuz.
When does the above apply? When there are no workers available to hire at the wage to be paid the original workers. If, however, such workers are available and the original workers tell the employer: \"Go out and hire from these to complete your work so that you will not suffer a loss,\" whether a worker or a contractor is involved, the employer has only complaints against them. To determine the wage that should be paid, we follow these guidelines: For a worker, we calculate the work he already performed and for a contractor, we calculate the work that must be performed.", + "When a person hires a worker, but [the worker] is then taken to perform the king's service, the worker need not be paid for a full day's work. Instead, the employer should pay him only for the work he performed.", + "The following rules apply when a person hires a worker to irrigate his field from a particular river, and that river dried up in the middle of the day. If the river does not ordinarily dry up, the workers need only be paid for the work they performed.
Similarly, if the inhabitants of the city frequently dam the river, and they stop its flow in the middle of the day, the workers need only be paid for the work they performed. The rationale is that the workers know the pattern of this river. If, however, the river often dries up on its own accord, the employer must pay the workers their entire wage. For it was his responsibility to inform them.
If a person hires workers to irrigate a field and it rains and completes the watering of the field, the workers need only be paid for the work they performed. If a river rises and irrigates the field, they should be paid their entire wage. From heaven, they were granted help.
When does the above apply? With regard to a worker. Different rules apply, however, when a person stipulates with a sharecropper that if he waters a field four times a day, he will receive half the crop, in contrast to other sharecroppers who water the field twice a day and receive a fourth of the crop. If rain comes and he does not have to draw water to irrigate the crop, he still receives half the crops, as he stipulated. The rationale is that a sharecropper is considered to be a partner, not a worker.", + "The following rules apply when a person hires a worker to perform work for an entire day and he completes it in half the day. If the employer has another task that is as - or less - difficult, he may have the worker perform it for the remainder of the day. If he does not have a task for him to perform, he should pay him as an idle worker. When the worker is one who digs, labors in the field or performs heavy labor of this nature and hence will become ill if he does not work, the employer must pay him his entire wage even if he is idle.", + "When a person hires a worker to bring him an object from one place to another, and the worker goes to the designated place but cannot find the object specified, the employer is obligated to pay him his entire wage.
If a person hires a worker to bring rods to use as supports for a vineyard, but the worker can not find them, and hence does not bring them, the employer must pay the worker his wage.
If he hired him to bring cabbage or prunes for a sick person, the worker went and when he returned, the sick person either died or recovered, the employer should not tell the worker: \"Take what you brought as your payment.\" Instead, he must pay him the entire wage he promised him. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "When a person hires a worker to perform work in his own field, but shows him a field belonging to a colleague and has him perform work there, he must pay him his entire wage. Afterwards, he may require his colleague to reimburse him for the benefit he received from this work.", + "When a person hires a worker to work together with him with straw, stubble and the like, he is not given the option of telling the worker: \"Take what you did as your payment.\" If, however, he made such an offer, and the worker agreed, he is not given the option of changing his mind and telling the worker: \"Take your wage and I will take my straw.\"", + "An ownerless object discovered by a worker belongs to him. This law applies even when the employer told him: \"Work for me today.\" Needless to say, it applies if he told him: \"Hoe for me.\"
If, however, he hired him to take possession of ownerless objects - e.g., a river dried up and he hired him to collect the fish in a nearby marsh -whatever he finds, even a wallet filled with silver coins, belongs to the owner." + ], + [ + "The following rules apply when a person gives a loan to a colleague and takes security in return. He is considered to be a paid watchman. This applies regardless of whether he lent him money or lent him produce, and regardless of whether he took the security at the time when he gave him the loan or afterwards.
Accordingly, if the security is lost or stolen, he is responsible for its value. If the security was lost because of causes beyond the lender's control -e.g., it was taken by armed thieves or the like - the lender must take an oath that it was lost due to forces beyond his control, and the owner of the security must repay his debt until the last p'rutah.", + "Whenever a person tells a colleague: \"Watch my article for me and I will watch your article for you,\" it is considered as if the owner was employed by the watchman.
If, however, he tells his colleague: \"Watch an article for me today, and I will watch an article for you tomorrow,\" \"Lend an article to me today and I will lend an article to you tomorrow,\" \"Watch an article for me today, and I will lend an article to you tomorrow,\" or \"Lend an article to me today and I will watch an article for you tomorrow,\" they are each considered to be paid watchman for the other.", + "All craftsmen are considered to be paid watchman. Whenever a craftsman says: \"Take your article and pay for it,\" or \"I have completed it,\" and the owner does not take the article, the craftsman is considered to be an unpaid watchman from that time onward.
If, however, the craftsman says: \"Bring money and take your article,\" he is considered a paid watchman as before.", + "If a person gives an article to a craftsman to fix and the craftsman ruins it, the craftsman is liable to make restitution.
What is implied? If a person gives a carpenter a chest, a box or a closet to place a nail into, and he breaks the article he must make restitution. Similarly, if a person gives a carpenter the wood to make a chest, a box or a closet, and he breaks them after he completes making them, the carpenter must pay the employer for a chest, a box or a closet. The rationale is that the craftsman does not acquire a share in the increase in the value of the article.
If a person gives a craftsman wool to dye, and the vat in which he dyes it boils until the water evaporates, thus destroying the wool, the dyer must reimburse the owner for his wool.
The following rules apply in the ensuing situations: The dyer dyed the wool unattractively, the owner asked him to dye it red and he dyed it black, he asked him to dye it black and he dyed it red, or he gave wood to a carpenter to make an attractive chair, and he made a poor chair or a bench. In all these instances, if the increase in the value of the article exceeds the cost, all the owner of the article is required to pay is the cost. If the cost exceeds the increase in the value of the article, all the owner of the article is required to pay is the increase in the value of the article.
If the owner of the article says: \"I do not desire this dispensation. I would prefer that he give me the value of the wool or the value of the wood,\" we do not heed his request. Conversely, if the craftsman says: \"Here is the cost of your wool or your wood, depart,\" he is not heeded. The rationale is that the craftsman does not acquire a share in the increase in the value of the article.", + "When a person brings raw materials to a professional and he ruins them, the professional is liable to reimburse the owner for their value, for he is like a paid watchman. For example, a person gave wheat to a miller to grind and he did not soak it. Hence the flour came out as bran or coarse flour. A person gave flour to a baker and he made bread that crumbles, or a person brought an animal to a slaughterer and he slaughtered it unacceptably. They are all liable to make restitution.
Therefore, if an expert slaughterer slaughters an animal without charge and he caused it to be unacceptable, he is not liable to make restitution. If he is not an expert, even if he works without charge, he is required to make restitution.
Similar rules apply when a person shows a coin to a money changer and he says that it is acceptable, and it is discovered to be unacceptable. If he charged for his services, he is obligated to pay even though he is an expert and does not require further training. If he did not charge, he is not liable, provided he is an expert and does not require further training. If he is not an expert, he must reimburse the questioner even when he does not charge for his services.
The above applies when the questioner tells the money changer: \"I am relying upon you,\" or it is obvious from the situation that he is relying on his opinion and is not seeking another opinion.
When a ritual slaughterer slaughtered an animal without charge, but rendered it unfit, a money changer said that a coin was acceptable, and it was not, or in any similar situation, the person who caused the damage must supply proof that he is an expert. If he cannot supply proof, he is required to make restitution.", + "The following rules apply in a place where it is customary for a person who plants trees to receive half of the increase in value, and for the owner of the land to receive half of the increase in value. If he planted trees in a portion of the land and increased the value, but planted other trees in another portion of the land and caused a loss, we calculate the half of the profit that is due the planter and deduct the entire loss he caused. He then receives the remainder. Even if he stipulated that if he causes a loss in a certain portion of the land, he will not receive any profit at all, his words are not heeded and only the loss he actually caused is deducted from his profits. The rationale is that this stipulation is an asmachta.
When the person who plants trees terminates his relationship with the owner before reaping the crop, he bears the responsibility for his actions. To illustrate this principle: The local custom is that the person who plants receives half of the profits and the owner of the land, the other half. A sharecropper receives a lesser share, one third of the crop. The person who planted the trees caused the land to increase in value and then wished to terminate his relationship with the owner, forcing the owner to employ a sharecropper. The owner of the land may employ a sharecropper. Even so, the owner of the land receives half of the profits; he does not suffer a loss.
The sharecropper receives a third and the remaining sixth is given to the person who planted the trees. Since he willingly terminated his relationship, he suffers the consequences.", + "The following principle applies with regard to a person who plants trees on behalf of all the members of a city who caused a loss; similarly, a ritual slaughterer of a village who rendered an animal unacceptable for consumption, a blood-letter who caused an injury, a scribe who erred in composing a legal document, a teacher who was negligent with the children and did not teach them or taught them in error, or any other professional who made an error that cannot be corrected. They may be removed from their positions without warning, for the warning for them to perform their work carefully is self evident. They must faithfully apply themselves to their tasks, for they were appointed by the community to discharge this responsibility." + ], + [ + "It is a positive commandment to pay a worker his wage on time, as Deuteronomy 24:15 states: \"On the day it is due, pay him his wage.\" If an employer delays payment, he violates a negative commandment, as that verse continues: \"Do not let the sun set without him receiving it.\" Lashes are not given for the violation of this prohibition, for he is liable to pay.
This principle applies to the wage of a person or the fee for hiring an animal or a utensil. In all these instances, one is obligated to make payment when due, and if one delays payment, one violates a negative commandment.
The obligation to pay a wage when due applies to a resident alien, but one does not transgress a negative commandment if one delays paying him.", + "Whenever a person withholds the payment of a worker's wage, it is as if he takes his soul from him, as Deuteronomy 24:16 continues: \"Because of it, he puts his life in his hand.\" He violates four admonitions and a positive commandment: He transgresses the commandments not to oppress a colleague, not to steal, not to hold overnight the wage of a worker and not to allow the sun to set before having paid him, and the positive commandment to pay him on time.
When are a worker's wages due? A person who is hired to work during the day should collect his wages at any time throughout the following night. With regard to him, Leviticus 19:13 states: \"Do not hold the wage of a worker in your possession overnight until the morning.\"
A person who is hired to work during the night should collect his wages at any time throughout the following day. Concerning him, it is written: \"On the day it is due, pay him his wage.\"
A person who is hired to work several hours during the day should collect his wage during the remainder of the day. A person who is hired to work several hours during the night, should collect his wage during the remainder of the night.
The following principles apply with regard to a person hired for a week, for a month, for a year or for a seven-year period. If he leaves his work during the day, he should collect his wage during the remainder of the day. If he leaves his work during the night, he should collect his wage during the remainder of the night.", + "If a person gives his garment to a tailor, and the tailor completes it and notifies him, the owner does not transgress this commandment as long as the garment is in the possession of the tailor. This applies even if he delays paying him for ten days.
If the tailor returned it in the middle of the day, once the sun sets, the employer transgresses the commandment for holding the worker's wage past its due date. For contracting work is governed by the same laws as hired labor, and the craftsman must be paid when his wage is due.", + "The following rules apply when a person tells his agent: \"Go out and hire workers for me,\" and the agent tells them: \"The employer is responsible for your wages.\" They both do not transgress the prohibition against delaying payment of the worker's wages. The owner is not culpable, because he did not hire them, and the agent is not culpable, because he does not benefit from the workers' activity. If, however, the agent did not tell them: \"The employer is responsible for your wages,\" the agent is considered to be transgressing the prohibition.
The employer does not transgress this prohibition unless the worker demanded payment and he did not give it to him. If, however, the worker did not demand payment or he demanded payment and the employer did not have the money to pay him, or he directed the worker to another person who accepted the responsibility of paying him, the employer is not culpable.", + "When a person delays payment of a worker's wages until after they are due, he is liable to pay him immediately, although he has already violated the positive and the negative commandment mentioned above. Throughout the time he delays payment, he transgresses a Rabbinic commandment, as alluded to by Proverbs 3:28: \"Do not tell your colleague, 'Go and return for tomorrow I will pay.'\"", + "The following rules apply whenever a worker who was hired in the presence of witnesses demands payment from his employer at the appointed time, the owner claims to have paid the wage, and the worker claims not to have received it. Our Sages ordained that, while holding a sacred object, the worker should take an oath that he did not receive his wage. He may then collect it according to the laws governing all those who take oaths and then collect their due.
The rationale for this ruling is that the employer is busy managing his workers and the worker is pinning his soul on his wage. Even if the worker is a minor, the worker may take an oath and collect his wage.
Different rules apply when the employer hired the worker without witnesses observing. Since the employer could say: \"Such a thing never happened; I never hired you,\" we accept his claim when he says: \"I hired you, and I paid you.\" Hence, the employer must take a sh'vuat hesset if he denies owing anything to the worker or a Scriptural oath if he admits a portion of his claim, as applies in all other suits. If there is one witness who testifies that the worker was hired, it is of no consequence.
Similarly, if the worker demands payment after the day on which his wage is due, we follow the principle: \"A person who wishes to expropriate money from a colleague must prove his claim.\" This applies even if there are witnesses that the employer hired him. If he does not prove his claim, the employer may support his claim with a sh'vuat hesset and be freed of liability. If the worker proves that he has been continually demanding payment, he may take an oath and collect his wage on the day on which he demands payment.
What is implied? The worker performed labor for the employer on Monday until the evening. The time he should be paid is Monday night. On Tuesday, he can no longer take an oath and collect his wage. If he brings witnesses who testify that he demanded his wage throughout Monday night, he may take an oath and collect his wage throughout the day on Tuesday, but from Tuesday night onward, we follow the principle: \"A person who wishes to expropriate money from a colleague must prove his claim.\"
Similarly, if he has witnesses who testify that he had demanded his wage until Thursday, he may take an oath and collect his wage throughout the day on Thursday.", + "The following rules apply when there is a difference between the employer and the worker with regard to the wage promised - e.g., the employer states \"I promised you two zuz\" and the worker states: \"You promised me three.\"
In this instance, our Sages did not entitle the worker to support his claim with an oath. Instead, they applied the principle: \"A person who wishes to expropriate money from a colleague must prove his claim,\" If the worker did not prove his claim, even though the employer already gave him the two zuz he admits owing him or says: \"Here is your money,\" the employer must take an oath holding a sacred object. This oath was ordained by the Sages so that the worker will not depart with an unsatisfied soul.
When does the above apply? When the employer hired the worker in the presence of witnesses who did not know the wage they agreed on, and also when the worker demanded his wage on time. If, however, the employer hired the worker without this being observed by witnesses or the worker demanded payment after the time for payment passed, the employer is required to take only a sh'vuat hesset that he agreed to pay him no more than he already gave him or no more than he admits to owe him and told him that he was willing to pay, as is true with regard to all other claims.", + "The following rules apply when a person gives a garment to a tailor to mend, and a difference of opinion arises concerning the payment due the tailor. The tailor says: \"You promised me two zuz,\" and the owner says: \"I promised to pay only one.\"
As long as the garment is in the possession of the tailor, and he would be able to claim that he purchased it, the tailor is given the opportunity of taking an oath while holding a sacred object and collecting the amount he claims. He may claim up to the amount of the article's worth as his wage. Once the garment has departed from his possession, or in a situation when we would not presume that he is the owner and he cannot claim that he purchased the garment, we follow the principle: \"A person who wishes to expropriate money from a colleague must prove his claim.\" If he does not bring proof of his claim, the owner of the garment is required to take a sh'vuat hesset if he denies owing the tailor anything more than he paid him or a Scriptural oath if he admits a portion of the tailor's claim, as is the law with regard to other claims. Such a situation is not governed by the special leniencies granted with regard to the laws applying to a worker.", + "When a worker comes to take an oath, we do not deal severely with him, nor is he required to take an oath with regard to other claims based on the principle of gilgul sh'vuah. Instead, he takes an oath that he did not receive payment and collects his due.
We are not lenient with any other people who come to take oaths, with the exception of a worker. In his case, we are lenient and invite him to take the oath, saying: \"Do not cause yourself exasperation. Take the oath and collect your due.\"
Even when his wage is only a p'rutah, if the owner claims to have paid him already, he should collect it only after taking an oath. Similarly, whenever a person takes an oath and collects his due, even if the claim is only one p'rutah, he may not collect it unless he takes an oath resembling one required by Scriptural Law." + ], + [ + "When workers are performing activities with produce that grows from the earth, but the work required for it has not been completed, and their actions bring the work to its completion, the employer is commanded to allow them to eat from the produce with which they are working. This applies whether they are working with produce that has been harvested or produce that is still attached to the ground.
This is derived from Deuteronomy 23:25, which states: \"When you enter the vineyard of your colleague, you may eat grapes as you desire,\" and ibid.:26, which states: \"When you enter the standing grain belonging to your colleague, you may break off stalks by hand.\" According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that these verses are speaking solely about a paid worker. For if the owner of the produce did not hire him, what right does the person have to enter his colleague's vineyard or standing grain without his permission? Instead, the interpretation of the verse is that when you enter the domain of your employer for work, you may eat.", + "What are the differences in the application of this mitzvah between a person who performs work with produce that has been reaped and one who works with produce that is still attached to the ground? A person who performs work with produce that has been reaped may partake of the produce as long as the work necessary for it has not been completed. Once the work necessary for it has been completed, he may not eat. By contrast, a person who performs work with produce that is still attached to the ground - e.g., a harvester of grapes or a reaper of grain - may not partake of the produce until he has completed his work.
For example, a person harvests grapes and puts them into a large basket. When the basket is filled, it is taken away and emptied in another place. According to Scriptural Law, the worker may eat only when the basket has been filled. Nevertheless, in order to prevent the owner from suffering a loss, the Sages ruled that the workers may eat while they are walking from one row to another and while they are returning from the vat, so that they will not neglect their work to sit down and eat. Instead, they were granted permission to eat while they are performing their work, so that they will not neglect it.", + "When a person neglects his work and eats or eats when he has not completed his work, he transgresses a negative commandment, as Deuteronomy 23:26 states: \"You shall not lift a sickle against your colleague's standing grain.\"
According to the Oral Tradition, it is explained that as long as the worker is involved in reaping, he should not lift a sickle in order to partake of the produce himself. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Similarly, a worker who carries home produce with which he had worked or who takes more than he can eat himself and gives to others transgresses a negative commandment, as ibid.:28 states: \"You may not place in your containers.\" The violation of these two prohibitions is not punishable by lashes, because a person who ate when one should not have or took produce home is liable to make financial restitution.", + "A person who milks an animal, one who makes butter, and one who makes cheese may not partake of that food, for it is not a product of the earth.
When a person hoes around onion heads and garlic heads, even though he removes small ones from the larger ones, or the like, he may not partake of them, because this activity does not constitute the completion of the task.
Needless to say, watchmen over gardens, orchards and fields where any crops are grown - e.g., cucumber gardens and gourd gardens - may not partake of the produce growing there at all.", + "A person who separates dates and figs [that have already been harvested and are stuck together] may not partake of them, for the work that obligates the performance of the mitzvah of tithing has been completed.
A person who works with wheat and the like after they have been tithed - e.g., a person was hired to remove pebbles from grain, to sift the kernels or to grind them - may partake of them, for the work that obligates the performance of the mitzvah of challah has not been completed. When, however, a person kneads dough, bastes loaves or bakes, he may not partake of the food, because the work that obligates the performance of the mitzvah of challah has become completed. And a worker may not partake of produce except when the work that obligates the performance of the mitzvah of tithing or challah has not been completed.", + "If the cakes of figs belonging to a person become broken up, his barrels of wine become open, or his gourds become cut, and he hires workers to tend to the produce, they may not partake of it, for the work necessary for them has been completed and they have become obligated to be tithed. Indeed, they are tevel. If, however, the owner did not notify the workers, he must tithe the produce and allow them to partake of it.
Workers may not partake of the crops in a field that was consecrated to the Temple treasury. This is derived from Deuteronomy 23:25, which speaks of \"your colleague's vineyard.\"", + "When a person hires workers to work with produce that is neta reva'i, they may not partake of it. If he did not inform them that it was neta reva'i, he must redeem it, and allow them to partake of it.", + "Workers who reap, thresh, winnow, separate unwanted matter from food, harvest olives or grapes, tread grapes, or perform any other tasks of this nature are granted the right to partake of the produce with which they working by Scriptural Law.", + "Watchmen for vats, grain heaps and any produce that has been separated from the ground, for which the work that obligates tithing has not been completed may partake of the produce because of local convention. They are not granted this privilege according to Scriptural Law, because a watchman is not considered to be one who performs an action.
If, however, a person works with his limbs whether with his hands, his feet or even with his shoulders, he is entitled to partake of produce according to the Torah.", + "A worker who is working with figs may not partake of grapes. One who is working with grapes may not partake of figs. These laws are derived from Deuteronomy 23:25, which states: \"When you enter the vineyard of your colleague, you may eat grapes.\"
When a person is working with one vine, he may not eat from another vine. Nor may he partake of grapes together with other food; he should not partake of them together with bread or salt. If, however, the worker set a limit concerning the quantity that he may eat, he may eat the produce with salt, with bread or with any other food that he desires.
It is forbidden for a worker to suck the juice from grapes, for the verse states: \"And you shall eat grapes.\" Neither the worker's sons nor his wife may roast the kernels of grain in a fire for him. This is implied by the above verse, which states: \"You may eat grapes as you desire.\" The implication is that you must desire the grapes as they are. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "It is forbidden for a worker to eat an inordinate amount of the produce with which he is working. This is implied by the above verse, which states: \"You may eat... as you desire, to your satisfaction.\" It is permitted, however, for him to delay eating until he reaches the place of higher quality grapes and eat there.
A worker may eat even a dinar's worth of cucumbers or dates even though he was hired to work only for a silver me'ah. Nevertheless, we teach a person not to be a glutton, so that he will not close the doors in his own face. if a person is guarding four or five grain heaps, he should not eat his fill from only one of them. Instead, he should eat an equal amount from each one.", + "Workers who have not walked both lengthwise and laterally in a vat may eat grapes but may not drink wine, for at that time they are still working solely with grapes. When they have treaded in the vat and walked both lengthwise and laterally, they may eat grapes and drink the grape juice, for they are working with both the grapes and the wine.", + "When a worker says: \"Give my wife and my children what I would eat,\" or \"I will give a small amount of what I have taken to eat to my wife and my children,\" he is not given this prerogative. For the Torah has granted this right only to a worker himself. Even when a nazarite who is working with grapes says, \"Give some to my wife and children,\" his words are of no consequence.", + "When a worker - and his wife, his children and his slaves - were all employed to work with produce, and the worker stipulated that they - neither he nor the members of his household - should not partake of the produce, they may not partake of it.
When does the above apply? When they are past majority, because they are intellectually mature, responsible for their decisions, and willingly gave up the right the Torah granted them. If, however, the children are minors, their father cannot pledge that they will not eat, for they are not eating from his property or from what the employer grants them, but rather from what they were granted by God." + ], + [ + "An animal should be given the opportunity to eat whenever it works with produce, whether the produce is still attached to the ground or has been harvested. Similarly, it may partake of produce from the burden it is carrying until it has been unloaded, provided that the person caring for the animal does not take the produce in his hand and feed it.", + "Whoever prevents an animal from eating while it is working should be punished by lashes, as Deuteronomy 25:4 states: \"Do not muzzle an ox while threshing.\"
The prohibition applies to an ox and to all other species of animals and beasts, whether a kosher animal or a non-kosher animal. Similarly, it applies with regard to threshing and all other types of work with produce. The Torah speaks about an ox threshing only to mention the most common instance.
An employer is not liable if he muzzles a worker. He is, however, liable for muzzling an animal. This applies whether he muzzles the animal while he is working with it or muzzles it beforehand and works with it while muzzled. He is liable even if he \"muzzles it\" with his mouth.
When a person rents an animal, muzzles it and then threshes with it, he receives lashes and must pay the owners the value of four kabbin of grain for a cow, and three kabbin for a donkey. Although generally a person does not receive both lashes and a financial penalty for the same transgression, an exception is made in this instance, because the renter was obligated to provide the animal with its sustenance from the time he pulled it after him, and he is not liable for lashes until he threshes with the animal while muzzled.", + "When a Jew threshes with a cow belonging to a gentile, he is subject to violating the prohibition against muzzling. When, by contrast, a gentile threshes with an ox belonging to Jew, he is not subject to violating this prohibition.
If a Jew tells a gentile: \"Muzzle my ox and thresh with it,\" a thorn becomes lodged in the ox's mouth and he threshes with it so it does not eat, he places a lion outside the threshing floor, he places the animal's son outside the threshing floor, he does not provide the animal with drink when it is thirsty, or spreads a hide over the grain so that it will not eat - all of these and similar acts are forbidden, but the person does not receive lashes.
When the produce with which the animal is working is bad for its digestion and will damage the animal's health or when the animal is sick and eating will cause it to become diarrheic, it is permitted to prevent the animal from eating. The rationale is that the Torah enacted this prohibition so that the animal would benefit, and in such an instance it does not benefit.", + "When a priest is threshing grain that is terumah or grain that is definitely terumat ma'aser with a cow that belongs to an Israelite, he is not subject to violating the prohibition against muzzling them.
This law also applies when cows thresh grain that is ma'aser sheni and when cows veer from the path. Nevertheless, because of the impression that might be created, when the cows are threshing grain that is terumah or ma'aser sheni the worker should bring that type of grain and place it in the food sack hanging below their mouths.", + "When a person muzzles a cow that is threshing produce that is ma'aser sheni which is demai terumat ma'aser which is demai or produce that grew from terumah he violates the prohibition against muzzling the animal.", + "The owner of an ox is permitted to make his animal hungry and aggrieve it so that it will eat a large quantity of the grain that it is threshing. Conversely, the renter of the ox may feed it hay so that it will not eat a large quantity of the grain that it is threshing.
Similarly, an employer may provide his workers with wine so that they will not eat many grapes. Conversely, the workers may dip their bread in brine so they will eat many grapes.
A worker may not, however, perform work at night and then hire himself out during the day, or work with his ox in the evening and then rent it out in the morning. Similarly, he should not starve and aggrieve himself and give his food to his sons, because this leads to stealing from the work due his employer, for his energy will be sapped and his thinking unclear, and he will not be able to perform his work robustly.", + "Just as the employer is warned not to steal the wage of the poor person or to withhold it from him, the poor person is forewarned not to steal from the work due his employer and neglect his work slightly here and there, spending the entire day in deceit.
Instead, he is obligated to be precise with regard to his time. The importance of such preciseness is indicated by our Sages' ruling that workers should not recite the fourth blessing of grace, so as not to neglect their work.
Similarly, a worker is obligated to work with all his strength, for Jacob the righteous man said Genesis 31:7: \"I served your father with all my strength.\" Therefore, he was granted a reward even in this world, as indicated by ibid. 30:43: \"And the man became prodigiously wealthy.\"
Blessed be God who grants assistance." + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Hiring/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Hiring/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..66e90dfbc6167b7446a337f937d710715c90575b --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Hiring/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Hiring", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org", + "versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "תרגום קהילת ספריא", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": false, + "isSource": false, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות שכירות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "The Torah lists four types of bailees, and three laws apply to them. The four bailees are: the unpaid bailee, the borrower, the paid bailee, and the renter.", + "These are the three laws that apply to them. If the deposit is stolen from the unpaid bailee or it is lost and, of course, if the deposit is lost through force majeure - for example [the deposit] was livestock and it died or was taken captive: [The bailee] swears that he exercised the ordinary care of bailees and is exempt. As is written \"And it is stolen from the man's home\" (Exodus 22:6); \"And the house-holder shall approach God\" (Exodus 22:7). The borrower repays [the owner] in all situations, whether the borrowed item is lost, or stolen, or whether there was force majeure e.g. the borrowed animal died or was injured or taken captive, for thus is written about the borrower: \"If [the animal] was injured or died and its owner was not with it - he shall pay\" (Exodus 22:13). The same law applies to the paid bailee and to the renter. If the object which [the bailee] rented or was paid to guard was stolen or lost - they pay [the owner]. But if there is force majeure - e.g. there was an animal and it died or was injured or taken captive or became afflicted with a fatal disease - [the paid bailee and the renter] swear that it was force majeure and they are exempt. As it is written: \"If it dies or is injured or taken captive and there is no witness\" (Exodus 22:9) \"the oath of the Lord ...\" (Exodus 22:10), and it is written: \"If it is stolen from him, he must pay its owner...\" (Exodus 22:11). In summary: An unpaid bailee takes an oath in every situation. And a borrower pays in all situations, unless it dies while it is working, as will be explained. A paid bailee and a renter pay for a lost or stolen [deposit], but they take an oath in cases of force majeure such as when the animal is injured or taken captive or killed or develops fatal disease. Or if the object is lost in a boat that sinks or is taken by armed bandits or anything like this that is a case of force majeure.", + "One who deposits [property] with his fellow - whether for free, or the owner paid the bailee, or the owner lent it to him, or he rented it out to him - if the bailee also took the owner for free along with his property - or hired [the owner for money] - the bailee is completely exempt from all [loss to the property]. As it is said: \"If [the property's] owner is with it, he need not pay; if [the property's owner] is a hired worker, [the risk of damage to his property] is included in his wage\" (Exodus 22:14). In what circumstances does this apply? When the owners volunteered or were hired at the same time as [the bailee] took the object, even if the owner was not with the object at the time of the theft or the loss or when the [object was lost through] force majeure. But if [the bailee] took the object - and first became a bailee - and only afterwards hired the owners or had them volunteer - even if the owner is standing there at the time when the deposited object is harmed - the [bailee] must pay. As it is written \"If its owner is not with it - [the bailee] must pay.\" (Exodus 22:13). They learned from tradition: If [the owner] was with it at the time of borrowing, even though he was not there at the time of the theft or the death - [the bailee] is exempt. If [the owner] was not with it at the time of borrowing, even though he was with it at the time of death or capture - [the bailee] is liable. And this is the case for the other [types of] bailees. If any of [the objects] come with their owners - [the bailees] are exempt. Even if [the bailee] is negligent - if the object came with its owner, [the bailee] is exempt.", + "If a bailee was at fault at the beginning, even though the object was - in the end - lost through force majeure, [the bailee] may be liable, as will be explained. And the borrower is not permitted to lend [what he borrowed] to a third party. Even if he borrowed a Torah scroll - where everyone who reads from it performs a mitzvah - he may not lend it to a third party. Likewise, the renter is not permitted to rent out [the object] [to a third party]. Even if [the owner] rented a Torah scroll to him, he may not rent it to a third party, for [the owner] can say to [the bailee]: I don't want my deposit to be in the hands of a third party. If the bailee transgresses and passes the [object] to a second bailee - if there are witnesses that the second bailee exercised the ordinary care of bailees and [the object was lost through] force majeure, the first bailee is not liable - because there are witnesses that [the loss occurred through force majeure. But if there are no witnesses there, the first bailee has to pay the owner, because he passed [the object] to another bailee. And [the first bailee] may recover from the second bailee. Even if the first bailee was an unpaid bailee and he passed [the object] to a paid bailee - [the first bailee is] liable, because the object's owner can say to him: I trust you to take an oath, but I don't trust [the paid bailee's oath]. Therefore, if the owner habitually deposits this object with the second bailee, the first bailee is not liable to pay, because he can say to the owner: this object that you deposited with me or lent to me last night - you used to deposit it with this person with whom I deposited it. But this is only in a case where [the bailee] does not reduce the duty of care. What is a case of reducing the duty of care? If it was deposited with him for money, and he deposited it with the second [bailee] without payment, or if he had borrowed the object, and he deposited it with the second [bailee] for money. Since [the first bailee] lowered the duty of care, he is at fault and he pays [the owner]. Even if [the first bailee] acquired the services of the object's owner for free or by paying [the owner], he has removed the deposited object from his possession to the possession of a different bailee [and must repay the owner]." + ], + [], + [ + "1", + "2", + "3", + "4", + "5", + "6", + "7", + "8 A shepherd who neglected his flock and came to the city, whether at a time when it would be expected for all shepherds to come into the city, and whether it was a time when the shepherds did not go into the city, and wolves came and preyed or a lion came and mauled the sheep. We don't say \"We assume if he would have been present he would have saved the flock, rather we estimate the situation; if he would have been able to save the sheep with extra shepherds and sticks he is liable, and if not he is exempt. If it is unclear if he could have done anything, he is liable for the damage." + ], + [], + [], + [ + "He who lets a house to another for an unspecified term may not dispossessed the lessee from the house unless he notifies him 30 days in advance, so as to enable him to find a place and prevent his being thrown into the street. The 30 day period is applicable only during the warm season. In the rainy season, from Sukkot to Pesach, the lessor may not dispossess the lessee." + ], + [], + [ + "", + "The man who rents a field or an orchard to cultivate and to spend money on it, giving the landowner one-third or one-fourth of the produce, or anything they have stipulated, is called share-cropper. Whatever is spent on fencing the land, the landowner is required to pay ; and whatever is spent on extra precaution, the tenant or share-cropper is required to pay.— " + ], + [ + "The following rule applies when a person hires workers and tells them: \"Get up early and work late.\" In a place where it is not customary for workers to get up early and work late, he cannot compel them to keep the times he desires. In a place where it is customary for an employer to provide his workers' meals, he must provide their meals. If it is customary for him to provide dried figs, dates and the like for the workers, he must. Everything follows the local custom.", + "When a person hires a worker and tells him: \"I will pay you like any other worker in the city,\" we check the lowest wage paid and the highest wage paid and arrive at an average.", + "The following rules apply when a person tells his agent: \"Go out and hire workers for me for three zuz,\" and the agent hires them for four. If the agent told them: \"I am responsible for your wage,\" he must pay them four. He receives three zuz from the employer, and forfeits one zuz of his own. If he told them: \"The employer is responsible for your wages,\" the employer should pay them according to the local custom. If there are some in that city who are hired at three and others at four, he is not required to pay them more than three. They have, however, justified complaints'3 against the agent. When does the above apply? When it cannot be determined that they invested extra effort in their work. If, however, it is obvious that they invested extra effort in their work, and it is worth four zuz, the employer must pay them four. For had the agent not told them four, they would not have worked harder and produced work that is worth four. If the employer told the agent: \"Hire workers for me at four,\" and the agent goes and hires them at three, they receive no more than three. This applies even when their work is worth four. For they accepted the lower amount. They do, however, have a complaint against the agent. If the employer told the agent three zuz, and the agent hires them for four, but the workers say: \"We will work for what the employer says,\" their intent is that the employer will pay them more than four zuz. Therefore, we evaluate their work. If it is worth four, they should receive four zuz from the employer. If the value of their work is not obvious or it is not worth four, they may be paid only three. If the employer told the agent to hire workers at four zuz, and he hired them at three, but they say: \"We will work for what the employer says,\" they may be paid only three. This applies even if their work is worth four, for they heard the agent say three and agreed.", + "When a person hires workers and the workers hoax the employer or the employer hoaxes the workers, all they have is complaints against each other. When does the above apply? When the workers did not go to the appointed place. Different rules apply, however, if donkey drivers went to the appointed place and did not find any grain, workers went to a field and found that the ground was wet, or the employer hired workers to irrigate his field and they discovered that it was filled with water. If the owner checked the area that required work on the previous evening and saw that the workers were necessary, the workers are not entitled to any reimbursement. What could the owner have done? If, however, he did not check the land where he wants the work to be performed beforehand, he must pay them as an idle worker. For a person who comes carrying a burden cannot be compared to someone who comes empty-handed, nor can a person who performs labor be compared to someone who does not. When does the above apply? When they did not begin doing work. If, however, the worker began doing his work different rules apply. A worker may quit his work even in the middle of the day. This is derived from Leviticus 25:55: \"The children of Israel are servants to Me\" - i.e., to Me alone. They are not servants to servants. What is the law that applies to a worker who quits after having started work? We evaluate the work that he performed and he is paid that amount. If he is a contractor, we evaluate the work that still must be performed. Whether the price of labor was low at the time he was hired or it was not low, whether it was reduced afterwards or whether it was not reduced, we evaluate the work that must be performed. What is implied? A person agreed to harvest standing grain for two selaim. He harvested half of the grain, but left half unharvested. Similarly, a person agreed to weave a garment for two selaim. He wove half of the garment, but left half unwoven. If the remainder would cost six dinarim to complete, the original contractor is paid a shekel or he is given the option of completing his work. If the remainder was worth only two dinarim, the owner need not pay the contractor more than a sela, because he did not perform more than half the work. When does the above apply? With regard to work that does not involve an immediate loss. If, however, the work involves an immediate loss - e.g., he hired the workers to remove flax from the vat, or he hired a donkey to bring flutes for a funeral or for a wedding or the like - neither a worker nor a contractor may retract unless he is held back by forces beyond his control -e.g., he became ill or a close relative died. If the worker is not held back by forces beyond his control, and he retracts, the owner may hire others on their account or deceive them.What is meant by deceiving them? He tells them: \"I agreed to pay you a sela; take two so that you will complete your work.\" Afterwards, he is not required to give them anything more than he originally agreed. Moreover, even if he gave them two, he can compel them to return the additional amount. What is meant by hiring others on their account? He hires other workers who complete their task so that he will not suffer a loss. Whatever he must add to pay these later workers beyond the amount the first workers agreed upon, he may take from the first workers. To what extent are the first workers responsible? For their entire wage. Moreover, if they have property that is in the employer's possession, the employer can use that property to hire workers to complete their work until he pays each worker 40 or 50 zuz a day although he originally hired the worker at three or four zuz. When does the above apply? When there are no workers available to hire at the wage to be paid the original workers. If, however, such workers are available and the original workers tell the employer: \"Go out and hire from these to complete your work so that you will not suffer a loss,\" whether a worker or a contractor is involved, the employer has only complaints against them. To determine the wage that should be paid, we follow these guidelines: For a worker, we calculate the work he already[ performed and for a contractor, we calculate the work that must be performed.", + "When a person hires a worker, but [the worker is then taken to perform the king's service, the worker need not be paid for a full day's work. Instead, the employer should pay him only for the work he performed.", + "The following rules apply when a person hires a worker to irrigate his field from a particular river, and that river dried up in the middle of the day. If the river does not ordinarily dry up, the workers need only be paid for the work they performed. Similarly, if the inhabitants of the city frequently dam the river, and they stop its flow in the middle of the day, the workers need only be paid for the work they performed. The rationale is that the workers know the pattern of this river. If, however, the river often dries up on its own accord, the employer must pay the workers their entire wage. For it was his responsibility to inform them. If a person hires workers to irrigate a field and it rains and completes the watering of the field, the workers need only be paid for the work they performed. If a river rises and irrigates the field, they should be paid their entire wage. From heaven, they were granted help. When does the above apply? With regard to a worker. Different rules apply, however, when a person stipulates with a sharecropper that if he waters a field four times a day, he will receive half the crop, in contrast to other sharecroppers who water the field twice a day and receive a fourth of the crop. If rain comes and he does not have to draw water to irrigate the crop, he still receives half the crops, as he stipulated. The rationale is that a sharecropper is considered to be a partner, not a worker. ", + "The following rules apply when a person hires a worker to perform work for an entire day and he completes it in half the day. If the employer has another task that is as - or less - difficult, he may have the worker perform it for the remainder of the day. If he does not have a task for him to perform, he should pay him as an idle worker. When the worker is one who digs, labors in the field or performs heavy labor of this nature and hence will become ill if he does not work, the employer must pay him his entire wage even if he is idle.", + "When a person hires a worker to bring him an object from one place to another, and the worker goes to the designated place but cannot find the object specified, the employer is obligated to pay him his entire wage. If a person hires a worker to bring rods to use as supports for a vineyard, but the worker can not find them, and hence does not bring them, the employer must pay the worker his wage. If he hired him to bring cabbage or prunes for a sick person, the worker went and when he returned, the sick person either died or recovered, the employer should not tell the worker: \"Take what you brought as your payment.\" Instead, he must pay him the entire wage he promised him. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "When a person hires a worker to perform work in his own field, but shows him a field belonging to a colleague and has him perform work there, he must pay him his entire wage. Afterwards, he may require his colleague to reimburse him for the benefit he received from this work.", + "When a person hires a worker to work together with him with straw, stubble and the like, he is not given the option of telling the worker: \"Take what you did as your payment.\" If, however, he made such an offer, and the worker agreed, he is not given the option of changing his mind and telling the worker: \"Take your wage and I will take my straw.\"", + "An ownerless object discovered by a worker belongs to him. This law applies even when the employer told him: \"Work for me today.\" Needless to say, it applies if he told him: \"Hoe for me.\" If, however, he hired him to take possession of ownerless objects - e.g., a river dried up and he hired him to collect the fish in a nearby marsh -whatever he finds, even a wallet filled with silver coins, belongs to the owner." + ], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + ".....Just as the employer is cautioned to not steal wages from the poor and not to withhold them, so too are the poor cautioned to not \"steal\" from the work of his employer by being idle a little here and a little there until he has spent the whole day in deception. Rather, he is obligated to be punctilious with himself regarding time. After all (the sages) were punctilious in the matter of the fourth blessing of the grace after meals, that the employee should not recite it (so as not to take him away from his work), so too the employee is obligated to work with all his strength. Behold, Jacob the righteous said \"with all my strength I worked with your father\" (Genesis 31:6) he therefore received reward for it, even in this world, as it is stated \"and the man profited very much\" (Genesis 30:43)" + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Hiring/English/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Hiring/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c47691082007344e145040471c6ade6ea2799f16 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Hiring/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,175 @@ +{ + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Hiring", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah,_Hiring", + "text": [ + [ + "The Torah mentions four types of watchmen, who are governed by three different rules. The four types of watchmen are an unpaid watchman, a borrower, a paid watchman and a renter.", + "These are the three rules that govern cases involving these watchmen: When an entrusted article is stolen from or lost by an unpaid watchman and - needless to say, when the entrusted article is destroyed by forces beyond the watchman's control - e.g., it was an animal and it died or was taken captive -the watchman must take an oath that he guarded the article in a manner appropriate for a watchman, and then he is freed of liability, as Exodus 22:6-7 states: \"And it was stolen from the man's home... and the homeowner shall approach the judges.\"
A borrower must make restitution in all instances, whether the borrowed object was lost, stolen, or destroyed by factors beyond his control - e.g., a borrowed animal died, was injured or taken captive. For with regard to a borrower, ibid.:13 states: \"If it becomes injured or dies - when its owner is not with it - he must certainly make restitution.\"
A paid watchman and a renter are governed by the same laws. If the article that was rented or was entrusted for a fee was lost or stolen, they must make restitution. If the article is lost by forces beyond the watchman's control - e.g., an animal died, was injured, was taken captive or was attacked by a wild animal - the watchman is required to take an oath, and then he is freed of liability, as ibid.:9-10 states: \"If it died, was injured or taken captive, and there are no witnesses, an oath of God shall be between them.\" And ibid.:11 states: \"If it is stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner.\"
Thus, an unpaid watchman takes an oath in all instances. A borrower makes restitution in all instances except when an animal dies performing the labor for which it was borrowed, as will be explained. And a paid watchman and a renter make restitution when the article is lost or stolen, and take an oath when it is destroyed by forces beyond their control - e.g., it was injured, taken captive, died, attacked by beasts, lost in a ship that sank at sea, seized by armed thieves - or lost in any other major matter over which the watchman has no control.", + "The following rules apply when a person entrusts an article to a colleague for safekeeping, whether he offers payment or not or lends an article or hires it out. If the watchman also asks the owner of the article to work for him or hires him together with the article, the watchman is never held liable at all. Even if the watchman is negligent in his care of the article he was watching, and it was lost because of his negligence, he is not liable, as Exodus 22:14 states: \"If his owner is with him, he need not make restitution. If he is a hired worker, it comes with his wages.\"
When does the above apply? When the watchman asked or hired the owner to work at the time he took the article, even if the owner was not with him at the time the article was stolen, lost or destroyed by forces beyond his control. If, by contrast, he took the article and became responsible as a watchman at the outset, and afterwards asked or hired the owner to work, he is not absolved of responsibility. Even if the owner was standing nearby at the time the entrusted article was destroyed by forces beyond the watchman's control, the watchman is liable to pay, as implied by ibid.: 13: \"If the owner is not with him, he must certainly make restitution.\"
According to the Oral Tradition, these verses were interpreted to mean: If the owner was with the borrower at the time the article or animal was borrowed, he is not liable, even if he was not with him at the time it was stolen or died. If, however, he was not with the borrower at the time the article or animal was borrowed, he is liable, even if he was with him at the time it was stolen or died. The same laws apply to other watchmen. If the owners are \"with them\", they are all free of liability. Even if they are negligent, if the owners are \"with them\", they are all free of liability.", + "Whenever a watchman is negligent when he begins caring for the article, even though the article is ultimately destroyed by forces beyond his control, he is liable, as will be explained.
A borrower is not allowed to lend the entrusted article to another person. Even if he borrows a Torah scroll - in which instance, anyone who reads it performs a mitzvah - he may not lend it to someone else. Similarly, a renter is not permitted to rent the entrusted article to another person. Even if a Torah scroll was rented to him, he may not rent it to someone else. The rationale is that the owner will tell the watchman: \"I do not want my article to be in someone else's hands.\"
The following rules apply if the watchman transgressed and entrusted the article to another watchman. If there are witnesses who testify that the second watchman guarded the article in an appropriate manner, and the article was destroyed by forces beyond his control, the first watchman is not liable. For there are witnesses that the article was destroyed by forces beyond his control.
If there are no witnesses to give such testimony, the first watchman is liable to pay the owners, for he entrusted the article to another watchman. Afterwards, he should enter into litigation with the second watchman. Even if the first watchman was not paid for his services and he entrusted the article to a paid watchman, he is liable. For the owner of the article will tell him: \"Although you are an unpaid watchman, you are trustworthy in my eyes, and I am willing to believe your oath. I don't consider the other person trustworthy.\"
For this reason, if the owner of the article would frequently entrust articles of this nature to the second watchman, the first watchman is not required to make restitution. For he could tell the owner: \"Yesterday, you were willing to entrust the article that you entrusted to me to this person.\"
In the above instance, the watchman is freed of liability only when he does not reduce the level of responsibility for watching the article. What is meant by reducing the level of responsibility for watching the article? For example, the article was entrusted to the first watchman for a fee, and he entrusted it to the second watchman without charge, or the first watchman was a borrower, and he entrusted it to a paid watchman. In such instances, since the watchman reduced the level of responsibility for watching the article, he is considered to be negligent and is required to pay.
[The above applies] even if when the article was originally entrusted, the owner was working for or hired by the first watchman. For that watchman removed the entrusted article from his domain and entrusted it to another watchman.", + "If the second watchman was able to bring proof that would free the first watchman from responsibility for guarding the article, he is not liable.
What is implied? A paid watchman entrusted an animal that was entrusted to him to an unpaid watchman. If the second watchman brought witnesses who testify that the animal died in a natural manner, the first watchman is not liable. The same principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "When a watchman entrusted an animal entrusted to him to another watchman and increased the responsibility of the watchman and the animal died, the owner receives the benefit.
What is implied? A person rents a cow from a colleague and then lends it to another person. Afterwards, the cow dies in an ordinary manner in the possession of the borrower. Since the borrower is required to make full restitution, he should return the worth of the cow to its owners. For the renter is not carrying out business with his colleague's cow. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
The following rules apply when a person was in possession of an entrusted object belonging to a colleague and gave it to another person to bring to its owner. Since the first watchman is responsible for the article until it reaches its owner's domain, if he desires to retrieve the article from the second watchman, he may. If it is established that the first watchman has denied that property was entrusted to him, he cannot retrieve the article from the second watchman although he remains responsible for the entrusted article." + ], + [ + "The three laws that the Torah states with regard to the four watchmen apply only with regard to movable property that is not consecrated and which belongs to a Jew.
This is derived from Exodus 22:6,9, which mentions: \"money or articles and any animal.\" This excludes landed property and slaves, for they are equated with landed property. And it excludes promissory notes, for they themselves are not money.
And consecrated property is excluded, for ibid.:6 states: \"When a person will give to his colleague.\" And this also excludes property owned by gentiles. Accordingly, our Sages stated: An unpaid watchman need not take an oath with regard to claims involving slaves, promissory notes, landed property and consecrated property. Similarly, a paid watchman or a renter need not pay if they are destroyed. If the watchman performed a kinyan confirming his responsibility for such articles, he is responsible for them.", + "Our Sages ordained that the oaths required of watchmen should be taken with regard to consecrated property in the same manner as required by the Torah with regard to other property so that people should not deal lightly with consecrated property.", + "It appears to me that a watchman who was negligent with regard to the care of slaves and the like is obligated to make restitution. For he is freed of responsibility with regard to slaves, landed property and promissory notes -only for the obligations stemming from theft, loss, death and the like. For if he was an unpaid watchman for movable property, and it was stolen or lost, he would be required to take an oath; but for slaves, landed property and promissory notes, he is not required to take an oath. Similarly, if he was a paid watchman, he would be required to make restitution for movable property that was stolen or lost, but for these he is freed of liability. If, however, he was negligent, he is required to make restitution. For everyone who is negligent is considered to be one who damages property, and there is no difference between the laws applying to a person who damages landed property and one who damages movable property.
This is a true judgment, as those who understand will see, and this is the appropriate way to rule. Similarly, my teachers issued the following rulings with regard to a person who entrusts his vine to a sharecropper or to a watchman and stipulates that he dig, prune or dust it from his own resources. If the watchman is negligent and does not perform the required task, he is liable as if he destroyed it with his hands. Similarly, he is liable in all instances where he causes a loss through his actions.", + "When a person entrusts produce that is growing on land - even grapes that are ready to be harvested - to a colleague to watch, they are considered to be landed property with regard to the laws of watchman.", + "The following principle applies if a person entrusts consecrated property to a watchman and then redeems it, and so it is no longer consecrated at the time the owner takes it from the watchman, or he lends it to a person when it was not consecrated and then consecrates it while it is in the borrower's possession, or a gentile entrusts property and then converts. In all these situations, the laws of watchmen do not apply, unless the article was not consecrated property and belonged to a Jew from the beginning of the time the article was entrusted until the conclusion of that period.", + "The laws applying to borrowers apply equally to men and to women. This applies if the woman is the owner of the entrusted article, or an article was entrusted to her care.", + "When a minor entrusts an article to an adult or lends it to him, the adult must take the oaths required of a watchman to the minor. My teachers ruled that the adult is not taking the oath because of the claim of the minor in which instance, the oath would not be required. For an oath is never taken with regard to a claim made by a minor. The rationale is that all the oaths taken by watchmen are taken because of an indefinite claim.", + "Just as our Sages ordained that a purchaser must finalize his acquisition of an article through meshichah; so, too, they ordained that a watchman's responsibility for an article is established through meshichah.
When a person tells a colleague: \"Watch an article for me,\" and he tells him: \"Place it down in front of me,\" he is an unpaid watchman. If he tells him: \"Place it down before yourself,\" or \"Place it down\" without saying anything else, or tells him: \"My house is before you,\" he is neither a paid watchman nor is an unpaid watchman, nor is he obligated to take an oath at all. The owner of the article may, however, have a ban of ostracism issued applying to anyone who took his article and did not return it to its owner. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
Whenever a person entrusts, lends or rents an article to a colleague, the same laws apply whether or not the transfer was observed by witnesses. When the watchman himself admits that he served as a watchman, or he borrowed the article, he is required to take the oath required of watchmen. We do not employ the principle of miggo to absolve a person of the responsibility for an oath, but only to free him of the responsibility to make restitution.
Even if the article that was borrowed, entrusted or rented was worth only a p'rutah, the watchman is required to take an oath concerning it. None of the watchmen are required to admit to a portion of the plaintiff's claim before being required to take the oath.", + "An unpaid watchman may make a stipulation to be freed of the responsibility to take an oath, and a borrower may make a stipulation to be freed of the responsibility to make restitution. Similarly, the owner of the entrusted object may make a stipulation that an unpaid watchman, a paid watchman or a borrower will be liable in all situations as a borrower is. This is acceptable, for any stipulation regarding money or an oath that involves money that is agreed upon by both principals is binding. Neither a kinyan to affirm it nor witnesses are required.", + "When the owner claims that there was a stipulation made requiring the watchman to undertake more responsibility, and the watchman denies that such a stipulation was made, the watchman must take the oath required of a watchman, and on the basis of the principle of gilgul sh'vuah he must include in his oath that there was no stipulation involved.", + "If the owner of an object claims that he entrusted it to a watchman, and the watchman answers that he said merely: \"Place the article down before yourself,\" and thus never became obligated as a watchman, the defendant is required to take a sh'vuat hesset that this was the manner in which he received the article. He should include in his oath that he did not use it for his own purposes, destroy it with his own hands or cause it to be destroyed in a manner that would obligate him to make restitution.", + "If the owner of an object claims: \"I lent it to you,\" \"I rented it to you,\" or \"I entrusted it to you,\" and the defendant responds: \"This never took place,\" or \"That is true, but I returned it to you, and my responsibility was concluded. There is no obligation between us at all,\" the defendant must take a sh'vuat hesset. He is then freed of responsibility.
When does this apply? When the watchman's responsibility is not recorded in a legal document. If, however, a legal document recorded that the article was entrusted, rented or lent, and the watchman claims that he returned the article, he must affirm his statement with an oath taken while holding a sacred article. The rationale for this ruling is that since an unpaid watchman could claim that the article was stolen or lost, and a borrower could claim that it died because he was working with it, his word is accepted when he says he returned it. But just as if he claimed that it was destroyed by forces beyond his control, he would have been required to take a Scriptural oath while holding a sacred article; so, too, when he claims to have returned it, he is required to take an oath resembling a Scriptural oath. The rationale is that the plaintiff has a legal document recording that the article was entrusted.
When does the above apply? When the watchman could have claimed that the article was destroyed by forces beyond his control without having to bring proof of his claim. If, however, he would have to bring proof of his claim, as will be explained, his word is not accepted if he claims that he returned the article. Instead, the plaintiff in possession of the legal document should take an oath while holding a sacred article that the watchman did not return anything to him. The watchman is then required to make restitution.
There is no other instance where a defendant is obligated to take an oath while holding a sacred article because he could have used another argument, except a watchman against whom a legal document serves as evidence. Whenever any other defendant is obligated an opportunity to take an oath, because he could have used another argument, all that is involved is a sh'vuat hesset." + ], + [ + "The following rules apply when a watchman claims that the entrusted article was destroyed by a major factor over which he had no control - e.g., it was broken or it died. If the loss occurred in a place where witnesses are ordinarily present, we require him to bring proof to support his claim that it was destroyed by factors beyond his control. He is then freed of liability, even for a watchman's oath. If he does not bring proof, he is required to make restitution, as Exodus 22:9-10 states: \"If there are none who see, the oath of God will be between the two of them.\" This implies that in a place where it is possible to bring proof, he cannot free himself of responsibility by taking an oath. Either he brings proof or he makes restitution.
If, however, the watchman claims that the article was destroyed in a place where witnesses are not ordinarily present, we do not require him to prove his claim. Instead, he must take an oath that it was destroyed by factors beyond his control, and then he is freed of responsibility. If he brings witnesses who testify that he was not negligent in his care for the article, he is not liable; he is not even required to take an oath.
An incident occurred with regard to a person who was hired to transfer a jug of wine and it broke in the market place of Mechuzah. The matter was brought before the Sages and they said that people are ordinarily present in the market place where the watchman claimed that the jug was broken. Hence they required him to either bring proof that he was not negligent, but instead stumbled and fell or make restitution. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "When a person is hired to transfer a jug from place to place for a wage, and the jug is broken, according to Scriptural Law, he should be required to pay. For this is not a major factor that is beyond the porter's control; breaking an article is equivalent to its being stolen or lost, for which he is liable.
Nevertheless, our Sages ordained that the porter should be liable merely to take an oath that he was not negligent in caring for it. For if he were required to make financial restitution, no person would ever carry a jug for a colleague. Therefore, the Sages ordained that the breaking of a jug is equivalent to the death or the injury of an animal.
With regard to this matter, our Sages also ordained that if two people were carrying a jug with shafts, and it was broken, they should pay half the damages. For since this burden is very great for one person, but light for two people, it can be considered both similar and dissimilar to a loss due to factors beyond one's control. Therefore, if there are witnesses who testify that they were not negligent, they should pay half the damages.
If the jug was broken in a place where witnesses are not ordinarily present, the porters must take an oath that they did not break it through negligence. Afterwards, they are required to pay half the damages. For each one of them should not have attempted to transport anything more than a burden that he could transport on his own. From this, one can derive that when a person transports a large jug that a porter would not ordinarily transport, he is considered to be negligent. If it breaks in his hands, he must make full restitution.", + "The following rules apply when a porter breaks a jug of wine belonging to a merchant and was obligated to make restitution, and the jug was worth four zuzim on a market day, and three zuzim on other days. If he makes restitution on a market day, he must give him either a jug of wine or four zuzim This applies if the merchant does not possess other wine to sell on the market day. If the merchant possesses other wine, the porter is required to pay only three. If the porter makes restitution on another day, he is required to return only three.
Whenever the porter makes restitution, a deduction is made for the effort the merchant would have to undertake in selling the jug, the damage the hole causes in the jug, and other similar matters.", + "The following rules apply when wolves come and attack herds being watched by a shepherd and seize some of them. If there is only one wolf, it is not considered to be a loss due to factors beyond his control. This applies even when there is an outbreak of wolves. If there are two wolves, it is considered to be a loss beyond his control. Two dogs are not considered to be a loss beyond his control, even if they come from two directions. If there are more than two, it is considered to be a loss beyond his control.
Armed thieves are considered to be a loss beyond his control. This applies even if the shepherd was armed and only one armed thief opposed him; it is considered to be a loss beyond his control. For a shepherd will not risk his life as a thief will.
A lion, a bear, a leopard, a cheetah or a snake are considered to be losses beyond his control.
When does this apply? When they come on their own initiative. If, however, the shepherd brings his herd to a place of wild beasts or thieves, losses incurred because of them are not considered to be losses beyond his control, and the shepherd is liable to make restitution.", + "When a shepherd encounters a thief and begins to boast to him, trying to show him that he is not concerned with him, saying: \"We are in this and this place. We have these and these many shepherds, and these and these types of weapons,\" and the thief comes and overcomes him and seizes the animals, the shepherd is liable. For there is no difference between bringing the animal(s) to a place of beasts and thieves, or boasting and thus bringing the thieves to the place of the animal(s).", + "If a shepherd had the opportunity of saving an animal that was preyed upon or taken captive by calling to other shepherds or bringing staves, and he did not call to other shepherds or bring staves to save the animal, he is liable. This applies to both an unpaid watchman and a paid watchman. The difference is that an unpaid watchman should call to other watchman and bring staves without charge. If he cannot find any available for free, he is not liable. A paid watchman, by contrast, is obligated to hire other shepherds and staves until the value of the animal(s) in order to save them. Afterwards, he should collect their hire from the owner. If he does not do so and had the opportunity to hire others and did not avail himself of it, he is considered to be negligent and is liable to make restitution.", + "When a shepherd claims that he hired other shepherds to save a herd from danger, he is required to take an oath. He may then collect the amount that he claims. The rationale is that he cannot claim more than the value of the herd and he could have claimed that the herd was preyed upon. He is required to take an oath while holding a sacred object, as required of all those who take oaths and expropriate property.", + "The following laws apply when a shepherd abandoned his herd and came to the city - whether at the time the shepherds usually come to the city or at a time when this is not their practice - and wolves came and preyed upon the herd, or lions came and attacked them. We do not postulate that if he had been there, he definitely could have saved the animals. Instead, we assess the situation. If he could have saved them - even by hiring other shepherds and staves - he is liable. If not, he is not liable. If it is impossible to make such an assessment, he is liable.", + "If an animal dies in an ordinary manner, this is considered to be a loss beyond the shepherd's control, and he is not liable. If he oppressed it and it died, it is not considered a loss beyond his control. If it overcame the shepherd and ascended to a high cliff, and it overcame him and fell, it is considered to be a loss beyond his control. If he led it up a steep cliff or it ascended on its own accord, but he could have prevented it from doing so and failed to do so, even though it overcame him and fell and died or was injured, he is liable. For whenever there is negligence at the outset, but ultimately the actual loss happens because of factors beyond the watchman's control, he is liable.
Similarly, when a shepherd leads animals across a bridge, and one pushes another and it falls into the current of the river, the shepherd is liable. The rationale is that he should have brought them over one by one. Indeed, the reason a shepherd receives a wage is to watch the animals in an effective manner. Since he was negligent at the outset, by causing them to cross together, even though when the animal fell, the loss was beyond his control, he is liable.", + "If the shepherd was negligent and the animal went out to a swamp and died in an ordinary manner, he is not liable. For the animal's going there did not cause it to be lost due to forces beyond the shepherd's control. Since it died in an ordinary manner, what difference is it whether it died in the watchman's house or in the swamp?
If, by contrast, a thief stole it from the swamp, and it died in an ordinary manner in the thief's house, the watchman is liable, even if he is an unpaid watchman. For even if it had not died, it would have been lost to its owner in the possession of the thief, and its going out to the swamp allowed it to be stolen. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations." + ], + [ + "When a person rents a donkey to lead it through the mountains, and instead leads it through a valley, he is not liable if it slips, even though he went against the intentions of the owners. If it is harmed due to heat, the renter is liable. If he rented it to lead it through a valley, and instead leads it through a mountain, he is liable if it slips, because one is more likely to slip in a mountain than in a valley. If it is harmed due to heat, the renter is not liable, since valleys are warmer than mountains, because there is wind blowing in the mountains. If, however, it becomes overheated due to the effort in climbing to the heights, he is liable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Similarly, if a person rents a cow to plow on a mountain and plows with it in a valley, the renter is not liable should the cylinder of the plow break. The owner of the cow may sue the workers who did the plowing. Similarly, if the renter did not go against the owner's instructions and the cylinder of the plow broke, the owner of the cow may sue the workers. If he rented it to plow in a valley, and instead plowed on a mountain, and the cylinder of the plow breaks, the renter is liable. The renter may sue the workers.", + "What is the ruling regarding the workers who break a plow while plowing? They must pay.
Who must pay? The one who holds the utensil while plowing. If, however, the field has several plateaus, they share the liability for the cost of the cylinder - both the person holding the guiding pole and the person holding the utensil.", + "If a person rented a cow to thresh beans and he used it to thresh grain, he is not liable if it slips. If he rented it for grain and used it to thresh beans, he is liable, for beans cause slippage.
An incident occurred with regard to a person who rented his donkey to a colleague and told him: \"Do not go with it on the way of the Pikud Ravine, where there is water, but rather on the way of the Neresh Ravine, where there is no water.\" The person who hired the donkey went on the way of the Pikud Ravine and the donkey died. There were no witnesses who were able to testify to which way he went, but the person himself admitted: \"I went on the way of the Pikud Ravine, but there was no water, and the donkey died due to natural causes.\"
Our Sages ruled: \"Since there are witnesses that there is always water in the Pikud Ravine, he is obligated to pay, for he deviated from the instructions of the owner. And we do not say: \"Of what value would it be for him to lie,\" in a situation where witnesses were present.", + "When a person rents an animal to bring 200 litra of wheat, and instead, brings 200 litra of barley, he is liable if the animal dies. For the additional volume is more difficult to carry, and barley takes more space than wheat. The same laws apply if he hired an animal to carry grain, and instead used it to carry straw. If, by contrast, he rented an animal to carry barley and instead, brought the same weight of wheat, he is not liable if the animal dies. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "If a person rented an animal for a man to ride upon, he should not have a woman ride upon it. If he rented it for a woman to ride upon, he may have a man ride upon it. And he may have any woman ride upon it, whether she is small or large, even if she is both nursing and pregnant.", + "The following rules apply when a person rents an animal with the intent that it carry a burden of a specific weight, and the renter added to that weight. If he added a thirtieth to the weight that he specified, and the animal died, he is liable. If it was a lesser measure, he is not liable. He must, however, pay the fee appropriate for the extra measure.
If the renter rented the animal without specifying a measure, he may load upon it the burden that is the local standard for that animal. If he added more than a thirtieth to that weight - e.g., it usually carried 30 measures and he loads it with 31 - and it dies or becomes injured, he is liable. Similarly, if a person loaded a ship with one thirtieth more than its ordinary cargo and it sank, he is liable to make restitution for its worth.", + "When a person added one kav to the burden of a porter, and the porter was injured because of this burden, the other person is liable for his injury. For although the porter is a conscious being and feels the weight of the extra burden, he might think that it feels heavy because he is ill.", + "When a person rents a donkey with the intent of riding upon it, he may place his garments, his flask, and his food for this journey upon it, for it is not customary for a renter to stop at each inn to purchase food. The owner of the donkey may prevent the renter from carrying with him anything more.
Similarly, the owner of the donkey may place barley and straw for the donkey's food on it for that day. The renter may prevent him from loading anything more, for it is possible for him to purchase these supplies at every inn. Therefore, if there is no place for him to purchase, he may load his food and food for his animal for the entire journey.
All of these guidelines apply when a person hires an animal without making any specifications in a place that has no known custom. If, however, there is an accepted local custom, everything follows that custom." + ], + [ + "The following rules apply when a person rents an animal and it becomes sick, goes mad, or is conscripted for the king's service, even when it will not be returned. If it was taken or became sick or mad as the renter was journeying to his destination, the owner may tell the renter: \"Behold the animal you hired is before you,\" and the renter is required to pay the full fee. When does the above apply? When he rented it to carry a burden that can be thrown to the ground without worry. If, however, he rented the donkey with the intent of riding on it or carrying glass utensils or the like, the owner of the donkey is required to provide another donkey for him if he hired a donkey without making any further specifications. If he does not provide another donkey, he must return the fee, and then a calculation should be made with regard to how much he should be paid for the portion of the journey that he traveled.", + "The following rules apply in the above situation if the animal died or was injured, regardless of whether it was rented to carry a burden or to ride. If the owner said: \"I am renting you a donkey,\" without specifying the beast, he is required to provide another donkey for the renter. If he does not, the renter may sell the animal and purchase another animal with [the proceeds], or rent another animal until he arrives at the destination agreed upon if the proceeds are not sufficient to purchase another animal.
Different rules apply if the owner told the renter: \"I am renting you this donkey.\" When he rented it to ride upon it or to carry glass utensils and it died in the middle of the way, he should purchase another animal with the proceeds from the sale of the carcass if that is possible. If the proceeds are not sufficient for that, he should rent an animal, even if this demands all the proceeds of the sale to transport him to the destination specified. If the proceeds are not sufficient - neither to purchase nor to rent an animal - the renter must pay the owner the fee for the portion of the journey. With regard to the remainder, all he has against him is complaints.
If he hired it to carry a burden that was not fragile, since the owner said \"this donkey,\" and it died in the middle of the journey, he is not required to provide another donkey for him. Instead, the renter must pay him the fee for the portion of the journey and leave him the carcass.", + "The following rules apply when a person hires a ship and it sinks in the midst of the journey. If the owner told the renter, \"I am renting you this ship,\" and the renter hired it to carry wine without specifying which wine he would be carrying, even if the renter already paid the owner his fee, the owner must return it in its entirety. For the renter can tell him: \"Bring the actual ship that I rented from you, for I was very specific in wanting this ship. When you do, I will bring wine and transport it on it.\"
If the owner does not specify a ship and the renter hires one to transport a specific shipment of wine, even though he did not pay the owner any portion of the fee, he is required to pay him the entire amount. For the owner can tell him: \"Bring me the wine that you specified and I will transport it for you.\" He must, however, deduct compensation for the difficulty for half the journey, for a person who works to sail a ship cannot be compared to someone who is idle.
The following rules apply if the owner told the renter: \"I am renting you this ship,\" and the renter mentioned a specific shipment of wine. If the renter already paid the owner his fee, he cannot require him to return it. If the renter did not pay it, he need not. The rationale is that the owner cannot bring that ship, nor can the renter bring that wine. If the rental agreement did not specify the ship or the wine, the fee should be divided between them.", + "When a person rents a ship and unloads in the midst of the journey, he must pay the fee for the entire journey. If, however, the renter finds another person who will rent the ship in his place until the location he originally agreed, he may rent it out to him. The owner of the ship has, however, a complaint against him.
Similarly, if the renter sold all the merchandise on the ship to another person in the middle of the way and descended, and the purchaser ascended in his place, the owner of the ship takes half the rent from the first one and half from the second. The owner has a complaint against the renter, because he required him to accommodate the opinion of another person with whom he is not familiar. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "From this, I conclude that when a person rents a house from a colleague for a specific period and the renter desires to sublet the house to another person until the end of the lease, he may, provided there are the same number of people in the subletter's household as in his own. If, however, there are four in his own household, he should not sublet it to a household of five. The rationale is that our Sages' statement that a renter may not sublet the object that he rents applies only with regard to movable property.
The motivating principle for that restriction is that the owner may tell the renter: \"I do not desire that my object be entrusted to the hands of another person.\" With regard to landed property or a ship, by contrast, its owner is with it at all times, and this objection is not relevant.
Similarly, I conclude that if the owner of the home tells the renter: \"Why should you trouble yourself to rent my house to others? If you do not desire to continue dwelling within it, leave and leave it alone; I am freeing you from the rent,\" the renter may not sublet it to anyone else. For in such an instance, the charge: \"Do not withhold good from its owner\" applies. For instead of renting it out to someone else, the tenant should leave this person his own home.
There are those who rule that the renter may not sublet the dwelling at all and must pay the rent until the appointed time. To me, this does not appear a true ruling.", + "When a person tells a colleague: \"I am renting you this house,\" and after he rented it to him, it fell, he is not required to rebuild it for him. Instead, he should calculate the amount of rent due for the time during which he used it and return the remainder of the rent. If, however, the owner tears down the house, he is obligated to provide another home for the renter or rent a similar dwelling for him.
Similarly, if after renting the house to this person, he rented it or sold it to a gentile or to a person who does not abide by the law who supplanted the rental of the first person, the owner is obligated to rent a similar house for him. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "If a person rented a house to a colleague without specifying the house, and afterwards the house fell, the owner is required to build it for him or provide him with another house. Even if the new house he gives him is smaller than the house that fell, the renter cannot prevent him from giving him this one, provided it is called a house. If, however, he told him: \"I am renting you a house like this,\" the owner is obligated to provide him with a house that it is the same length and width as the house that he originally showed him. He cannot tell him: \"My intent was only that the house should be close to the river,\" \"... to the marketplace,\" or \"... to the bathhouse, as this one is.\" Instead, he is obligated to provide him with a house of that size and shape.
Therefore, if it was large, he should not make it small. If it was small, he should not make it large. If it was a one-room apartment, he should not make it two. If it was a two-room apartment he should not make it one. He should not reduce the number of windows that it possessed, nor should he add to them unless they both agree.", + "When a person rents out a loft without any specifications, he is required to provide any such structure for the renter. If the owner tells him: \"I am renting you the loft on top of this house,\" he made the house subservient to the loft. Therefore, if four handbreadths or more of the loft become ruined, the owner is obligated to fix it. If he does not fix it, the renter may descend and dwell in the house together with the owner until he fixes it.
The following rules apply when there are two lofts, one on top of the other: if the upper loft becomes ruined, he may dwell in the lower one. If the lower one becomes ruined, there is a doubt whether he has the right to dwell in the upper loft or the house. Therefore, he should not dwell in either of them. If, however, he dwells in one of them, he cannot be forced to leave.
An incident occurred when a person told a colleague: \"I am renting you this vine that is draped over this peach tree,\" and then the peach tree became uprooted from its place. The question was brought to the Sages and they told the owner: \"You are obligated to provide the peach tree for him for as long as the vine exists.\" Similar laws apply in all analogous situations." + ], + [ + "When a person rents an apartment to a colleague in a large building, the renter may use the protrusions and the walls of the larger structure for four cubits. He may also use the garden in the courtyard and the yard behind the building. In a place where it is customary to use the thickness of the walls, the renter may use the thickness of walls.
In all these matters, we follow the prevailing local custom and the terminology that is in common usage, as we have stated with regard to purchases and sales.", + "When a person rents out his courtyard without making any specific statements, we assume that he did not rent out the barn located within it.", + "When a person rents a house to a colleague, he is obligated to provide doors for him, to open any windows that have been damaged, to strengthen the roof, to support a beam that is broken, to make a bolt and a lock, and to provide any other necessity that requires a craftsman's work and that is a fundamental necessity when dwelling in a home and courtyard.
The renter is required to make a guardrail, affix a mezuzah and prepare the place for the mezuzah from his own resources. Similarly, if he desires to build a ladder, fix a slanted roof, or plaster the roof, he should do this from his own resources.", + "When a person rents out a loft to a colleague and its floor becomes opened for four square handbreadths or more, the owner is obligated to fix the ceiling of the lower apartment and the plaster upon it, for the plaster is support for the ceiling.", + "The dung in the courtyard belongs to the renter. Therefore, he is responsible to make the effort of clearing it out. If, however, there is a prevailing local custom, it takes precedence.
When does the above apply? When the animals that made the dung belong to the renter. If, however, the animals belong to other people, the dung belongs to the owner of the courtyard. For a courtyard that belongs to a person acquires property on his behalf without his knowledge, even when it is rented out to another person.", + "When a person rents out a house, a courtyard, a store or another property for a fixed time, the owner has the right to compel the renter to leave at the end of the prescribed period. He is not required to wait even one hour for him.
When a person rents a house to sleep in without making any specifications, the minimum is one night. If he rents it for the Sabbath, the minimum is two days. If he rents it for a marriage, the minimum is 30 days.", + "When a person rents a house to a colleague without specifying the termination of the contract, he may not force him to leave the home unless he notifies him 30 days in advance, so that he can look for another place and will not be homeless. After 30 days, however, he must leave.
When does the above apply? In the summer. In the winter, by contrast, he may not force him to leave from Sukkot until Pesach.
When the owner gives the renter 30 days notice before Sukkot, if even one day from the 30 is after Sukkot, the owner may not compel him to leave until after Pesach. And he must notify him 30 days previously.
When does the above apply? In small towns. In large cities, by contrast, whether in the summer or the winter, the owner must notify the renter twelve months in advance.
Similarly, with regard to a store, whether in a large city or in a small town, the owner must notify the renter twelve months in advance.", + "Just as the owner is obligated to notify the renter, the renter is obligated to notify the owner 30 days before leaving in a small town and twelve months before leaving in a large city, in order for the owner to be able to look for a tenant so that his house will not be empty. If he does not notify him, he may not leave unless he pays rent regardless.", + "Although the owner may not send away the renter, nor may the renter leave the dwelling until one notifies the other a proper time beforehand, if the price of renting homes increases, the owner can raise the rent and tell the renter: \"Either rent it at its present value or depart.\"
Similarly, if the price of renting homes decreases, the renter may decrease the rent, telling the owner: \"Either rent me your home at its present value, or I am leaving it for you.\"
If the house in which the owner is living falls, he may compel the renter to leave his house, telling him: \"It is not appropriate that you dwell in my home until you find a dwelling while I am homeless. You have no greater right to this home than I do.\"", + "The following rules apply when the owner gives the house to his son to hold a wedding with his wife. If he knew that his son was getting married at this and this time and he could have notified the tenant earlier, but failed to do so, the owner may not force the tenant to leave.
If, however, the marriage came about suddenly and the son is wedding the woman in the immediate future, the owner may compel the renter to leave the home. For it is not appropriate that the renter dwell in the owner's home while the owner's son must rent a home in which to make the wedding.", + "If the owner sold the dwelling, gave it as a present or died and it was transferred as part of his inheritance, the new owner may not compel the renter to leave unless he notifies him 30 days or twelve months beforehand. For the renter may tell the new owner: \"You have no greater privileges than the person from whom you acquired the home.\"" + ], + [ + "Just as a person may make any stipulation that he desires with regard to a purchase or a sale; so, too, may he make any stipulation he desires with regard to a rental. For a rental is a sale for a limited amount of time.
Whenever a person's sale of his property is upheld, the rental of his property will also be upheld. Conversely, when a person is not granted power to sell his property, he may not rent out that property. The only exception is when all he owns is the right to the produce of the property. In such an instance, he may rent out the property, but he may not sell it.", + "When a person rents out a house to a colleague for a year, and a leap year is declared, the extra month is granted to the tenant. If, by contrast, the agreement is made according to months, the extra month is granted to the owner.
If the rental agreement mentions both months and years, the extra month is granted to the owner. This applies regardless of whether the owner said: \"A dinar every month, twelve dinarim a year,\" or \"Twelve dinarim a year, a dinar every month.\" The rationale is that the land is in the possession of its owner and we may not expropriate anything from the owner of the land without a clear proof.
Similarly, when the owner of a home says: \"I rented out the house for a specific time,\" and the tenant says: \"I rented it without any specifics,\" or \"for a longer period,\" the renter must prove his claim. If he does not prove his claim, the owner may support his claim with a sh'vuat hesset and have the tenant removed from the home.", + "The following rules apply when the tenant claims: \"I paid the rent that I was obligated for the house,\" and the owner claims: \"I have yet to collect it.\" The same rules apply whether the agreement was recorded in a contract or observed by witnesses.
If the owner demands payment within 30 days of the beginning of the rental, the burden of proof is on the renter. Alternatively, he must pay. He may then have a ban of ostracism issued against anyone who took money from him. Or the tenant may lodge a suit against the owner for the money he originally gave him as a separate claim and require the owner to take a sh'vuat hesset.
If the owner demanded payment after 30 days passed or even on the thirtieth day, the owner must bring proof that he was not paid. Otherwise, the tenant may take an oath that he already paid him the rent and thus be released from any obligation.
Similarly, if when the tenant rented the property, he stipulated that he would pay him the rent annually - if the owner demands payment within the year, the tenant is obligated to bring proof that he already paid. If he demands payment after the year - even if he demands payment on the twenty-ninth day of Elul - the owner is obligated to bring proof that he was not paid.", + "The following rules apply when a person rents out a house to a colleague for ten years, has a rental contract composed, but does not date that contract. If the tenant claims: \"Only one year passed from the time the document was composed,\" but the owner claims: \"The entire period of the rental agreement has passed, and you have dwelled in the house for ten years,\" the tenant is required to bring proof to support his claim. If he does not do so, the owner may take a sh'vuat hesset and compel him to leave the dwelling.", + "The following rules apply when a person rents an orchard - or it was entrusted to him as security - for ten years and it dries up. The tenant should sell the trees, purchase land with the proceeds, and benefit from the produce of that land until the conclusion of the rental contract or the period for which the security was entrusted. As a safeguard against the violation of the prohibition against taking interest, both the owner of the orchard - the borrower and the creditor are prohibited against taking the trees themselves that became dried out or were cut down.", + "The following rules apply when a contract for rental or security mentions \"years\" without stating the number of years. If the tenant claims that the agreement was for three years, and the owner of the land claims that it was for two years, and the renter - or the creditor - came and made use of the produce of the third year, we assume that the produce belonged to the person who made use of it unless the owner of the land brings proof that this is not so.
A difficulty could arise if the tenant or the creditor derived benefit from the property for three years and the legal record became misplaced. If he said: \"I am entitled to the produce for five years,\" and the owner of the land says, \"The agreement was only for three,\" we tell the concerned parties: \"Show the legal record.\"
If the owner says: \"It was lost,\" the tenant's claim is accepted, for if he would have claimed that he had purchased it, his claim would also be accepted since he derived benefit from it for three years.", + "The following rules apply when a person brings his produce into his colleague's property without his consent or beguiled him into allowing him to bring in his produce and then left it and departed. The owner of the property may sell that produce in order to pay for workers to take it away and bring it to the market place.
It is pious conduct for the owner of the property to notify the court and rent a storage place with part of the funds in order to prevent the destruction of his colleague's property, even if that colleague acted in an improper manner.", + "The following rules apply when a person rents a mill from a colleague on the condition that the renter will grind 20 se'ah of grain for the owner every month as rent and afterwards, the owner of the mill became wealthy. Since he no longer needs to have his grain ground there he asks the renter to pay him the equivalent of the wage he would earn for grinding the 20 se'ah.
If the renter has wheat of his own or of others that he can grind instead, we compel him to pay the owner the wage he receives for grinding 20 se'ah. Not to pay him would be an expression of the qualities of Sodom. If the renter does not have wheat of his own or customers, he may tell the owner: \"I don't have the funds. I am prepared to grind grain for you, as stated in the rental agreement. If you don't need this, sell the ground wheat to others.\" Similar laws apply in all analogous situations." + ], + [ + "The same laws apply when a person rents a field from a colleague to sow, or a vineyard to benefit from its fruits and agrees to pay him money or agrees to pay him a fixed amount of produce - e.g., he rented a particular field for 20 kor of grain a year or a particular vineyard for 20 jugs of wine a year. A person who rents property and agrees to pay in produce is called a chocher.", + "When a person takes a field or an orchard with the intent of working it, investing in it and giving the owner a third, a fourth or whatever other percentage of the harvest that they agree to, he is called a mekabel.
The following rules apply with regard to all the types of contracts mentioned above. Whenever an improvement is necessary for the sake of the land itself, it is the responsibility of the owner of the land to provide it. Whenever an improvement is an added measure of security, the renter is responsible for it.
The ax that is used to break up the land, the containers used to carry away earth, the bucket, the jug or the like that is used to draw water are the responsibility of the owner of the land. Digging the irrigation ditches, by contrast, is the responsibility of the renter.", + "When a person rents or makes a sharecropping agreement with regard to a colleague's field for only a few years, he should not sow flax. If he rents it or enters a sharecropping agreement for seven years, he may sow flax for the first year. The Sabbatical year is not included in this reckoning. If he rents it or enters a sharecropping agreement for a seven-year period, the Sabbatical year is included in this reckoning.", + "The following laws apply when a person rents or makes a sharecropping agreement with regard to a colleague's field that is parched and requires irrigation, and the spring used to irrigate the field dries up, but the larger river has not ceased to flow, and it is possible to carry water from it in a bucket. The renter may not reduce his payments. If this is a problem that affects the entire region - e.g., the river itself dried up - he may reduce his payments. Similar laws apply if one rents an orchard and the trees of the orchard are cut down.
Different rules apply when the owner was standing in his field and told the renter: \"I am renting you this parched field,\" or \"I am renting you this orchard.\" If the spring dries up or the tree is chopped down, he may reduce his payments. Since he was standing in the property when he made that statement, we assume that by saying: \"this field\" or \"this orchard,\" his intent was: \"I am renting it to you in its present condition.\"
Therefore, when the owner is not standing in his field and told the renter: \"I am renting you this parched field,\" or \"I am renting you this orchard.\" If the spring dries up or the tree is chopped down, he may not reduce his payments.", + "The following rules apply when a person rents or makes a sharecropping agreement with regard to a colleague's field, and the crops are eaten by locusts or destroyed by drought. If this condition prevailed among the majority of the fields of that city, he may reduce his payments according to the extent of the loss that he suffered. If this blight did not prevail among the majority of the fields, he may not reduce his payments. This law applies even though all the fields belonging to this land owner were ravaged.
If all the fields of the renter or the sharecropper were ravaged, even though the blight also affected most of the other fields, he may not reduce his payment. For the loss is dependent on the renter's bad fortune, as evidenced by the fact that all his fields were ravaged.
If the owner stipulated that the renter should sow the field with wheat, and he sowed it with barley, did not sow it at all or sowed it and nothing grew, the renter may not reduce his payments even though locusts or a drought came and the majority of the fields were ravaged. Until when must he till it and sow it a second time if the first crop does not grow? Until the time when it is fit to sow in that place.", + "The following rules apply when a person rents or makes a sharecropping agreement with regard to a colleague's field. If it is customary in that locale to cut down the crops, the renter should cut them down. He is not permitted to uproot them. If it is customary to uproot the crops, the renter should uproot them. He is not permitted to cut them down. Either of them can prevent the custom from being changed.
In a locale where it is customary to plow after the harvesting, the renter should plow. In a locale where it is customary to rent trees together with land, they are considered to have been rented out. This applies even though the owner rented the property for a price that is lower than usual. In a locale where it is not customary to rent trees together with land, they are not considered to have been rented out. This applies even though the owner rented the property for a price that is higher than usual. Everything follows the local custom.", + "When a person rents a field from a colleague for ten kor of wheat and it suffered blight, he may pay the owner from the wheat of that field. Conversely, if it produces extremely high quality wheat, he should not tell the owner: \"I will purchase wheat for you from the marketplace.\" Instead, he must give him the wheat from the field.
If a person rents a vineyard for ten baskets of grapes and they become sour after they were harvested, the renter may give the owner the grapes from the vineyard. A similar ruling applies to sheaves of grain that became ruined after they were harvested. If, however, a person rents a vineyard for ten jugs of wine, and the wine becomes sour, he is obligated to provide the owner with good wine.
The following rules apply when a person rented a field for 100 sheaves of cattle fodder, sowed another crop and then plowed the field and sowed it with cattle fodder. If it suffered blight, the renter may not give the owner the cattle fodder growing in it. Instead, he must give him high quality fodder, for he deviated from the terms of the initial agreement. Similar rules apply even if he sowed it with fodder at the outset, plowed it and then sowed it again and it suffered blight or in any other situation where the damage to the crops comes after the renter deviates from the initial agreement.", + "The following rules apply when a person rents a field from a colleague, but does not desire to weed it. Although the renter tells the owner: \"What will you suffer? I will give you the amount stipulated regardless,\" his words are not heeded. For the owner may respond: \"Ultimately, you will leave it, and it will grow weeds for me.\"
Even if the renter says: \"At the end I will plow it,\" his words are not heeded.", + "When a person rents a field with the stated intent of sowing barley, he should not sow wheat, because wheat saps the nutrients of the land more than barley. If he rented it with the intent of sowing wheat, he may sow barley.
If his original intent was to sow legumes, he may not sow grain. If his original intent was grain, he may sow legumes. In Babylon and lands of that nature, he should not sow legumes, for legumes sap the nutrients of the land.", + "When a person rents a field from a colleague for a few years according to a sharecropping agreement, the sharecropper does not receive a share of the wood that grows from the wild fig trees and the like, nor in the appreciation in the value of the field due to the trees growing in the field. We do, however, consider the place of the trees as if it were filled with the type of crop that was planted in the field. This applies provided the trees grew in a place that is fit to sow. If, however, they grow in a place that is not fit to sow, the sharecropper is not given any consideration. If the sharecropper rents the field for seven years or more, he is entitled to a share of the wood that grows from the wild fig trees and the like.
If at the time the sharecropper's lease runs out, there are plants in the field that have not reached the stage at which they are fit to be sold, or they have reached that stage, but the market day has not come yet, they should be evaluated and the sharecropper given his share by the owner of the land.
In the same manner as the sharecropper and the owner divide the grain; so, too, they should divide the straw and the stubble. In the same manner as they divide the wine; so, too, they should divide the twigs. Different rules apply with regard to the rods that are placed beneath the vine for support. If they were purchased in partnership, they should be divided in the same manner. If they were purchased by one party, they belong to the one who purchased them. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "When a person rents a field from a colleague according to a sharecropping agreement in order to plant vines, the owner accepts the possibility that there will be ten non-productive vines in an area sufficient to grow a se'ah of grain. If there are more non-productive vines, the sharecropper must pay for the entire area as if all the vines were productive.", + "The following rules apply when a person rents a field from a colleague under a sharecropping agreement and the field does not produce a significant yield. If its yield appears sufficient to produce at least two se'ah more than the investment made in it, the sharecropper is obligated to take care of it. For in the sharecropping agreement, he promises the owner of the land: \"I will rise, plow the land, sow it, reap it, tie it in sheaves, thresh it and make a grain heap before you, and you will receive half - or whatever other portion they agreed upon - and I will receive the remainder as payment for my work and the expenses that I undertook.\"", + "The following rule applies when a person rents a field from a colleague under a sharecropping agreement, and after taking possession of the field decides to leave it fallow. We evaluate the amount the field could be expected to produce and require the sharecropper to give the owner the portion agreed upon. For in the sharecropping agreement, he promises the owner of the land: \"If I leave it fallow and do not till it, I will pay according to its best yield.\" The same rule applies if he left only a portion of it fallow.
Why is the renter obligated to pay? Because he did not stipulate that he would pay a fixed amount, in which instance we would say that it is an asmachta, but instead promised to pay the field's best yield. Therefore, he made a binding commitment.
If, however, he stipulated: \"If I leave it fallow, I will pay you 100 dinarim\" this is considered an asmachta and he is not obligated to pay that amount. Instead, he should give the owner only his share of what the field would be expected to produce.", + "The following rule applies when a person rents a field from a colleague under a sharecropping agreement with the intent of sowing sesame seeds, but instead, sows wheat. If the field produces a crop of wheat that is worth the same as the yield of sesame seeds could have been expected to be worth, the owner may have no more than complaints against him.
If the field produces a crop of wheat that is worth less than the yield of sesame seeds could have been expected to be worth, the sharecropper must pay the amount the crop of sesame seeds could have expected to yield. If the field produces a crop of wheat that is worth more than the yield of sesame seeds could have been expected to be worth, they should divide the crop according to their original stipulation although the owner of the land profits." + ], + [ + "The following rule applies when a person hires workers and tells them: \"Get up early and work late.\" In a place where it is not customary for workers to get up early and work late, he cannot compel them to keep the times he desires. In a place where it is customary for an employer to provide his workers' meals, he must provide their meals. If it is customary for him to provide dried figs, dates and the like for the workers, he must. Everything follows the local custom.", + "When a person hires a worker and tells him: \"I will pay you like any other worker in the city,\" we check the lowest wage paid and the highest wage paid and arrive at an average.", + "The following rules apply when a person tells his agent: \"Go out and hire workers for me for three zuz,\" and the agent hires them for four. If the agent told them: \"I am responsible for your wage,\" he must pay them four. He receives three zuz from the employer, and forfeits one zuz of his own.
If he told them: \"The employer is responsible for your wages,\" the employer should pay them according to the local custom. If there are some in that city who are hired at three and others at four, he is not required to pay them more than three. They have, however, justified complaints'3 against the agent.
When does the above apply? When it cannot be determined that they invested extra effort in their work. If, however, it is obvious that they invested extra effort in their work, and it is worth four zuz, the employer must pay them four. For had the agent not told them four, they would not have worked harder and produced work that is worth four.
If the employer told the agent: \"Hire workers for me at four,\" and the agent goes and hires them at three, they receive no more than three. This applies even when their work is worth four. For they accepted the lower amount. They do, however, have a complaint against the agent.
If the employer told the agent three zuz, and the agent hires them for four, but the workers say: \"We will work for what the employer says,\" their intent is that the employer will pay them more than four zuz. Therefore, we evaluate their work. If it is worth four, they should receive four zuz from the employer. If the value of their work is not obvious or it is not worth four, they may be paid only three.
If the employer told the agent to hire workers at four zuz, and he hired them at three, but they say: \"We will work for what the employer says,\" they may be paid only three. This applies even if their work is worth four, for they heard the agent say three and agreed.", + "When a person hires workers and the workers hoax the employer or the employer hoaxes the workers, all they have is complaints against each other.
When does the above apply? When the workers did not go to the appointed place. Different rules apply, however, if donkey drivers went to the appointed place and did not find any grain, workers went to a field and found that the ground was wet, or the employer hired workers to irrigate his field and they discovered that it was filled with water. If the owner checked the area that required work on the previous evening and saw that the workers were necessary, the workers are not entitled to any reimbursement. What could the owner have done? If, however, he did not check the land where he wants the work to be performed beforehand, he must pay them as an idle worker. For a person who comes carrying a burden cannot be compared to someone who comes empty-handed, nor can a person who performs labor be compared to someone who does not.
When does the above apply? When they did not begin doing work. If, however, the worker began doing his work different rules apply. A worker may quit his work even in the middle of the day. This is derived from Leviticus 25:55: \"The children of Israel are servants to Me\" - i.e., to Me alone. They are not servants to servants.
What is the law that applies to a worker who quits after having started work? We evaluate the work that he performed and he is paid that amount. If he is a contractor, we evaluate the work that still must be performed. Whether the price of labor was low at the time he was hired or it was not low, whether it was reduced afterwards or whether it was not reduced, we evaluate the work that must be performed.
What is implied? A person agreed to harvest standing grain for two selaim. He harvested half of the grain, but left half unharvested. Similarly, a person agreed to weave a garment for two selaim. He wove half of the garment, but left half unwoven. If the remainder would cost six dinarim to complete, the original contractor is paid a shekel or he is given the option of completing his work. If the remainder was worth only two dinarim, the owner need not pay the contractor more than a sela, because he did not perform more than half the work.
When does the above apply? With regard to work that does not involve an immediate loss. If, however, the work involves an immediate loss - e.g., he hired the workers to remove flax from the vat, or he hired a donkey to bring flutes for a funeral or for a wedding or the like - neither a worker nor a contractor may retract unless he is held back by forces beyond his control -e.g., he became ill or a close relative died. If the worker is not held back by forces beyond his control, and he retracts, the owner may hire others on their account or deceive them.
What is meant by deceiving them? He tells them: \"I agreed to pay you a sela; take two so that you will complete your work.\" Afterwards, he is not required to give them anything more than he originally agreed. Moreover, even if he gave them two, he can compel them to return the additional amount.
What is meant by hiring others on their account? He hires other workers who complete their task so that he will not suffer a loss. Whatever he must add to pay these later workers beyond the amount the first workers agreed upon, he may take from the first workers.
To what extent are the first workers responsible? For their entire wage. Moreover, if they have property that is in the employer's possession, the employer can use that property to hire workers to complete their work until he pays each worker 40 or 50 zuz a day although he originally hired the worker at three or four zuz.
When does the above apply? When there are no workers available to hire at the wage to be paid the original workers. If, however, such workers are available and the original workers tell the employer: \"Go out and hire from these to complete your work so that you will not suffer a loss,\" whether a worker or a contractor is involved, the employer has only complaints against them. To determine the wage that should be paid, we follow these guidelines: For a worker, we calculate the work he already performed and for a contractor, we calculate the work that must be performed.", + "When a person hires a worker, but [the worker] is then taken to perform the king's service, the worker need not be paid for a full day's work. Instead, the employer should pay him only for the work he performed.", + "The following rules apply when a person hires a worker to irrigate his field from a particular river, and that river dried up in the middle of the day. If the river does not ordinarily dry up, the workers need only be paid for the work they performed.
Similarly, if the inhabitants of the city frequently dam the river, and they stop its flow in the middle of the day, the workers need only be paid for the work they performed. The rationale is that the workers know the pattern of this river. If, however, the river often dries up on its own accord, the employer must pay the workers their entire wage. For it was his responsibility to inform them.
If a person hires workers to irrigate a field and it rains and completes the watering of the field, the workers need only be paid for the work they performed. If a river rises and irrigates the field, they should be paid their entire wage. From heaven, they were granted help.
When does the above apply? With regard to a worker. Different rules apply, however, when a person stipulates with a sharecropper that if he waters a field four times a day, he will receive half the crop, in contrast to other sharecroppers who water the field twice a day and receive a fourth of the crop. If rain comes and he does not have to draw water to irrigate the crop, he still receives half the crops, as he stipulated. The rationale is that a sharecropper is considered to be a partner, not a worker.", + "The following rules apply when a person hires a worker to perform work for an entire day and he completes it in half the day. If the employer has another task that is as - or less - difficult, he may have the worker perform it for the remainder of the day. If he does not have a task for him to perform, he should pay him as an idle worker. When the worker is one who digs, labors in the field or performs heavy labor of this nature and hence will become ill if he does not work, the employer must pay him his entire wage even if he is idle.", + "When a person hires a worker to bring him an object from one place to another, and the worker goes to the designated place but cannot find the object specified, the employer is obligated to pay him his entire wage.
If a person hires a worker to bring rods to use as supports for a vineyard, but the worker can not find them, and hence does not bring them, the employer must pay the worker his wage.
If he hired him to bring cabbage or prunes for a sick person, the worker went and when he returned, the sick person either died or recovered, the employer should not tell the worker: \"Take what you brought as your payment.\" Instead, he must pay him the entire wage he promised him. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "When a person hires a worker to perform work in his own field, but shows him a field belonging to a colleague and has him perform work there, he must pay him his entire wage. Afterwards, he may require his colleague to reimburse him for the benefit he received from this work.", + "When a person hires a worker to work together with him with straw, stubble and the like, he is not given the option of telling the worker: \"Take what you did as your payment.\" If, however, he made such an offer, and the worker agreed, he is not given the option of changing his mind and telling the worker: \"Take your wage and I will take my straw.\"", + "An ownerless object discovered by a worker belongs to him. This law applies even when the employer told him: \"Work for me today.\" Needless to say, it applies if he told him: \"Hoe for me.\"
If, however, he hired him to take possession of ownerless objects - e.g., a river dried up and he hired him to collect the fish in a nearby marsh -whatever he finds, even a wallet filled with silver coins, belongs to the owner." + ], + [ + "The following rules apply when a person gives a loan to a colleague and takes security in return. He is considered to be a paid watchman. This applies regardless of whether he lent him money or lent him produce, and regardless of whether he took the security at the time when he gave him the loan or afterwards.
Accordingly, if the security is lost or stolen, he is responsible for its value. If the security was lost because of causes beyond the lender's control -e.g., it was taken by armed thieves or the like - the lender must take an oath that it was lost due to forces beyond his control, and the owner of the security must repay his debt until the last p'rutah.", + "Whenever a person tells a colleague: \"Watch my article for me and I will watch your article for you,\" it is considered as if the owner was employed by the watchman.
If, however, he tells his colleague: \"Watch an article for me today, and I will watch an article for you tomorrow,\" \"Lend an article to me today and I will lend an article to you tomorrow,\" \"Watch an article for me today, and I will lend an article to you tomorrow,\" or \"Lend an article to me today and I will watch an article for you tomorrow,\" they are each considered to be paid watchman for the other.", + "All craftsmen are considered to be paid watchman. Whenever a craftsman says: \"Take your article and pay for it,\" or \"I have completed it,\" and the owner does not take the article, the craftsman is considered to be an unpaid watchman from that time onward.
If, however, the craftsman says: \"Bring money and take your article,\" he is considered a paid watchman as before.", + "If a person gives an article to a craftsman to fix and the craftsman ruins it, the craftsman is liable to make restitution.
What is implied? If a person gives a carpenter a chest, a box or a closet to place a nail into, and he breaks the article he must make restitution. Similarly, if a person gives a carpenter the wood to make a chest, a box or a closet, and he breaks them after he completes making them, the carpenter must pay the employer for a chest, a box or a closet. The rationale is that the craftsman does not acquire a share in the increase in the value of the article.
If a person gives a craftsman wool to dye, and the vat in which he dyes it boils until the water evaporates, thus destroying the wool, the dyer must reimburse the owner for his wool.
The following rules apply in the ensuing situations: The dyer dyed the wool unattractively, the owner asked him to dye it red and he dyed it black, he asked him to dye it black and he dyed it red, or he gave wood to a carpenter to make an attractive chair, and he made a poor chair or a bench. In all these instances, if the increase in the value of the article exceeds the cost, all the owner of the article is required to pay is the cost. If the cost exceeds the increase in the value of the article, all the owner of the article is required to pay is the increase in the value of the article.
If the owner of the article says: \"I do not desire this dispensation. I would prefer that he give me the value of the wool or the value of the wood,\" we do not heed his request. Conversely, if the craftsman says: \"Here is the cost of your wool or your wood, depart,\" he is not heeded. The rationale is that the craftsman does not acquire a share in the increase in the value of the article.", + "When a person brings raw materials to a professional and he ruins them, the professional is liable to reimburse the owner for their value, for he is like a paid watchman. For example, a person gave wheat to a miller to grind and he did not soak it. Hence the flour came out as bran or coarse flour. A person gave flour to a baker and he made bread that crumbles, or a person brought an animal to a slaughterer and he slaughtered it unacceptably. They are all liable to make restitution.
Therefore, if an expert slaughterer slaughters an animal without charge and he caused it to be unacceptable, he is not liable to make restitution. If he is not an expert, even if he works without charge, he is required to make restitution.
Similar rules apply when a person shows a coin to a money changer and he says that it is acceptable, and it is discovered to be unacceptable. If he charged for his services, he is obligated to pay even though he is an expert and does not require further training. If he did not charge, he is not liable, provided he is an expert and does not require further training. If he is not an expert, he must reimburse the questioner even when he does not charge for his services.
The above applies when the questioner tells the money changer: \"I am relying upon you,\" or it is obvious from the situation that he is relying on his opinion and is not seeking another opinion.
When a ritual slaughterer slaughtered an animal without charge, but rendered it unfit, a money changer said that a coin was acceptable, and it was not, or in any similar situation, the person who caused the damage must supply proof that he is an expert. If he cannot supply proof, he is required to make restitution.", + "The following rules apply in a place where it is customary for a person who plants trees to receive half of the increase in value, and for the owner of the land to receive half of the increase in value. If he planted trees in a portion of the land and increased the value, but planted other trees in another portion of the land and caused a loss, we calculate the half of the profit that is due the planter and deduct the entire loss he caused. He then receives the remainder. Even if he stipulated that if he causes a loss in a certain portion of the land, he will not receive any profit at all, his words are not heeded and only the loss he actually caused is deducted from his profits. The rationale is that this stipulation is an asmachta.
When the person who plants trees terminates his relationship with the owner before reaping the crop, he bears the responsibility for his actions. To illustrate this principle: The local custom is that the person who plants receives half of the profits and the owner of the land, the other half. A sharecropper receives a lesser share, one third of the crop. The person who planted the trees caused the land to increase in value and then wished to terminate his relationship with the owner, forcing the owner to employ a sharecropper. The owner of the land may employ a sharecropper. Even so, the owner of the land receives half of the profits; he does not suffer a loss.
The sharecropper receives a third and the remaining sixth is given to the person who planted the trees. Since he willingly terminated his relationship, he suffers the consequences.", + "The following principle applies with regard to a person who plants trees on behalf of all the members of a city who caused a loss; similarly, a ritual slaughterer of a village who rendered an animal unacceptable for consumption, a blood-letter who caused an injury, a scribe who erred in composing a legal document, a teacher who was negligent with the children and did not teach them or taught them in error, or any other professional who made an error that cannot be corrected. They may be removed from their positions without warning, for the warning for them to perform their work carefully is self evident. They must faithfully apply themselves to their tasks, for they were appointed by the community to discharge this responsibility." + ], + [ + "It is a positive commandment to pay a worker his wage on time, as Deuteronomy 24:15 states: \"On the day it is due, pay him his wage.\" If an employer delays payment, he violates a negative commandment, as that verse continues: \"Do not let the sun set without him receiving it.\" Lashes are not given for the violation of this prohibition, for he is liable to pay.
This principle applies to the wage of a person or the fee for hiring an animal or a utensil. In all these instances, one is obligated to make payment when due, and if one delays payment, one violates a negative commandment.
The obligation to pay a wage when due applies to a resident alien, but one does not transgress a negative commandment if one delays paying him.", + "Whenever a person withholds the payment of a worker's wage, it is as if he takes his soul from him, as Deuteronomy 24:16 continues: \"Because of it, he puts his life in his hand.\" He violates four admonitions and a positive commandment: He transgresses the commandments not to oppress a colleague, not to steal, not to hold overnight the wage of a worker and not to allow the sun to set before having paid him, and the positive commandment to pay him on time.
When are a worker's wages due? A person who is hired to work during the day should collect his wages at any time throughout the following night. With regard to him, Leviticus 19:13 states: \"Do not hold the wage of a worker in your possession overnight until the morning.\"
A person who is hired to work during the night should collect his wages at any time throughout the following day. Concerning him, it is written: \"On the day it is due, pay him his wage.\"
A person who is hired to work several hours during the day should collect his wage during the remainder of the day. A person who is hired to work several hours during the night, should collect his wage during the remainder of the night.
The following principles apply with regard to a person hired for a week, for a month, for a year or for a seven-year period. If he leaves his work during the day, he should collect his wage during the remainder of the day. If he leaves his work during the night, he should collect his wage during the remainder of the night.", + "If a person gives his garment to a tailor, and the tailor completes it and notifies him, the owner does not transgress this commandment as long as the garment is in the possession of the tailor. This applies even if he delays paying him for ten days.
If the tailor returned it in the middle of the day, once the sun sets, the employer transgresses the commandment for holding the worker's wage past its due date. For contracting work is governed by the same laws as hired labor, and the craftsman must be paid when his wage is due.", + "The following rules apply when a person tells his agent: \"Go out and hire workers for me,\" and the agent tells them: \"The employer is responsible for your wages.\" They both do not transgress the prohibition against delaying payment of the worker's wages. The owner is not culpable, because he did not hire them, and the agent is not culpable, because he does not benefit from the workers' activity. If, however, the agent did not tell them: \"The employer is responsible for your wages,\" the agent is considered to be transgressing the prohibition.
The employer does not transgress this prohibition unless the worker demanded payment and he did not give it to him. If, however, the worker did not demand payment or he demanded payment and the employer did not have the money to pay him, or he directed the worker to another person who accepted the responsibility of paying him, the employer is not culpable.", + "When a person delays payment of a worker's wages until after they are due, he is liable to pay him immediately, although he has already violated the positive and the negative commandment mentioned above. Throughout the time he delays payment, he transgresses a Rabbinic commandment, as alluded to by Proverbs 3:28: \"Do not tell your colleague, 'Go and return for tomorrow I will pay.'\"", + "The following rules apply whenever a worker who was hired in the presence of witnesses demands payment from his employer at the appointed time, the owner claims to have paid the wage, and the worker claims not to have received it. Our Sages ordained that, while holding a sacred object, the worker should take an oath that he did not receive his wage. He may then collect it according to the laws governing all those who take oaths and then collect their due.
The rationale for this ruling is that the employer is busy managing his workers and the worker is pinning his soul on his wage. Even if the worker is a minor, the worker may take an oath and collect his wage.
Different rules apply when the employer hired the worker without witnesses observing. Since the employer could say: \"Such a thing never happened; I never hired you,\" we accept his claim when he says: \"I hired you, and I paid you.\" Hence, the employer must take a sh'vuat hesset if he denies owing anything to the worker or a Scriptural oath if he admits a portion of his claim, as applies in all other suits. If there is one witness who testifies that the worker was hired, it is of no consequence.
Similarly, if the worker demands payment after the day on which his wage is due, we follow the principle: \"A person who wishes to expropriate money from a colleague must prove his claim.\" This applies even if there are witnesses that the employer hired him. If he does not prove his claim, the employer may support his claim with a sh'vuat hesset and be freed of liability. If the worker proves that he has been continually demanding payment, he may take an oath and collect his wage on the day on which he demands payment.
What is implied? The worker performed labor for the employer on Monday until the evening. The time he should be paid is Monday night. On Tuesday, he can no longer take an oath and collect his wage. If he brings witnesses who testify that he demanded his wage throughout Monday night, he may take an oath and collect his wage throughout the day on Tuesday, but from Tuesday night onward, we follow the principle: \"A person who wishes to expropriate money from a colleague must prove his claim.\"
Similarly, if he has witnesses who testify that he had demanded his wage until Thursday, he may take an oath and collect his wage throughout the day on Thursday.", + "The following rules apply when there is a difference between the employer and the worker with regard to the wage promised - e.g., the employer states \"I promised you two zuz\" and the worker states: \"You promised me three.\"
In this instance, our Sages did not entitle the worker to support his claim with an oath. Instead, they applied the principle: \"A person who wishes to expropriate money from a colleague must prove his claim,\" If the worker did not prove his claim, even though the employer already gave him the two zuz he admits owing him or says: \"Here is your money,\" the employer must take an oath holding a sacred object. This oath was ordained by the Sages so that the worker will not depart with an unsatisfied soul.
When does the above apply? When the employer hired the worker in the presence of witnesses who did not know the wage they agreed on, and also when the worker demanded his wage on time. If, however, the employer hired the worker without this being observed by witnesses or the worker demanded payment after the time for payment passed, the employer is required to take only a sh'vuat hesset that he agreed to pay him no more than he already gave him or no more than he admits to owe him and told him that he was willing to pay, as is true with regard to all other claims.", + "The following rules apply when a person gives a garment to a tailor to mend, and a difference of opinion arises concerning the payment due the tailor. The tailor says: \"You promised me two zuz,\" and the owner says: \"I promised to pay only one.\"
As long as the garment is in the possession of the tailor, and he would be able to claim that he purchased it, the tailor is given the opportunity of taking an oath while holding a sacred object and collecting the amount he claims. He may claim up to the amount of the article's worth as his wage. Once the garment has departed from his possession, or in a situation when we would not presume that he is the owner and he cannot claim that he purchased the garment, we follow the principle: \"A person who wishes to expropriate money from a colleague must prove his claim.\" If he does not bring proof of his claim, the owner of the garment is required to take a sh'vuat hesset if he denies owing the tailor anything more than he paid him or a Scriptural oath if he admits a portion of the tailor's claim, as is the law with regard to other claims. Such a situation is not governed by the special leniencies granted with regard to the laws applying to a worker.", + "When a worker comes to take an oath, we do not deal severely with him, nor is he required to take an oath with regard to other claims based on the principle of gilgul sh'vuah. Instead, he takes an oath that he did not receive payment and collects his due.
We are not lenient with any other people who come to take oaths, with the exception of a worker. In his case, we are lenient and invite him to take the oath, saying: \"Do not cause yourself exasperation. Take the oath and collect your due.\"
Even when his wage is only a p'rutah, if the owner claims to have paid him already, he should collect it only after taking an oath. Similarly, whenever a person takes an oath and collects his due, even if the claim is only one p'rutah, he may not collect it unless he takes an oath resembling one required by Scriptural Law." + ], + [ + "When workers are performing activities with produce that grows from the earth, but the work required for it has not been completed, and their actions bring the work to its completion, the employer is commanded to allow them to eat from the produce with which they are working. This applies whether they are working with produce that has been harvested or produce that is still attached to the ground.
This is derived from Deuteronomy 23:25, which states: \"When you enter the vineyard of your colleague, you may eat grapes as you desire,\" and ibid.:26, which states: \"When you enter the standing grain belonging to your colleague, you may break off stalks by hand.\" According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that these verses are speaking solely about a paid worker. For if the owner of the produce did not hire him, what right does the person have to enter his colleague's vineyard or standing grain without his permission? Instead, the interpretation of the verse is that when you enter the domain of your employer for work, you may eat.", + "What are the differences in the application of this mitzvah between a person who performs work with produce that has been reaped and one who works with produce that is still attached to the ground? A person who performs work with produce that has been reaped may partake of the produce as long as the work necessary for it has not been completed. Once the work necessary for it has been completed, he may not eat. By contrast, a person who performs work with produce that is still attached to the ground - e.g., a harvester of grapes or a reaper of grain - may not partake of the produce until he has completed his work.
For example, a person harvests grapes and puts them into a large basket. When the basket is filled, it is taken away and emptied in another place. According to Scriptural Law, the worker may eat only when the basket has been filled. Nevertheless, in order to prevent the owner from suffering a loss, the Sages ruled that the workers may eat while they are walking from one row to another and while they are returning from the vat, so that they will not neglect their work to sit down and eat. Instead, they were granted permission to eat while they are performing their work, so that they will not neglect it.", + "When a person neglects his work and eats or eats when he has not completed his work, he transgresses a negative commandment, as Deuteronomy 23:26 states: \"You shall not lift a sickle against your colleague's standing grain.\"
According to the Oral Tradition, it is explained that as long as the worker is involved in reaping, he should not lift a sickle in order to partake of the produce himself. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Similarly, a worker who carries home produce with which he had worked or who takes more than he can eat himself and gives to others transgresses a negative commandment, as ibid.:28 states: \"You may not place in your containers.\" The violation of these two prohibitions is not punishable by lashes, because a person who ate when one should not have or took produce home is liable to make financial restitution.", + "A person who milks an animal, one who makes butter, and one who makes cheese may not partake of that food, for it is not a product of the earth.
When a person hoes around onion heads and garlic heads, even though he removes small ones from the larger ones, or the like, he may not partake of them, because this activity does not constitute the completion of the task.
Needless to say, watchmen over gardens, orchards and fields where any crops are grown - e.g., cucumber gardens and gourd gardens - may not partake of the produce growing there at all.", + "A person who separates dates and figs [that have already been harvested and are stuck together] may not partake of them, for the work that obligates the performance of the mitzvah of tithing has been completed.
A person who works with wheat and the like after they have been tithed - e.g., a person was hired to remove pebbles from grain, to sift the kernels or to grind them - may partake of them, for the work that obligates the performance of the mitzvah of challah has not been completed. When, however, a person kneads dough, bastes loaves or bakes, he may not partake of the food, because the work that obligates the performance of the mitzvah of challah has become completed. And a worker may not partake of produce except when the work that obligates the performance of the mitzvah of tithing or challah has not been completed.", + "If the cakes of figs belonging to a person become broken up, his barrels of wine become open, or his gourds become cut, and he hires workers to tend to the produce, they may not partake of it, for the work necessary for them has been completed and they have become obligated to be tithed. Indeed, they are tevel. If, however, the owner did not notify the workers, he must tithe the produce and allow them to partake of it.
Workers may not partake of the crops in a field that was consecrated to the Temple treasury. This is derived from Deuteronomy 23:25, which speaks of \"your colleague's vineyard.\"", + "When a person hires workers to work with produce that is neta reva'i, they may not partake of it. If he did not inform them that it was neta reva'i, he must redeem it, and allow them to partake of it.", + "Workers who reap, thresh, winnow, separate unwanted matter from food, harvest olives or grapes, tread grapes, or perform any other tasks of this nature are granted the right to partake of the produce with which they working by Scriptural Law.", + "Watchmen for vats, grain heaps and any produce that has been separated from the ground, for which the work that obligates tithing has not been completed may partake of the produce because of local convention. They are not granted this privilege according to Scriptural Law, because a watchman is not considered to be one who performs an action.
If, however, a person works with his limbs whether with his hands, his feet or even with his shoulders, he is entitled to partake of produce according to the Torah.", + "A worker who is working with figs may not partake of grapes. One who is working with grapes may not partake of figs. These laws are derived from Deuteronomy 23:25, which states: \"When you enter the vineyard of your colleague, you may eat grapes.\"
When a person is working with one vine, he may not eat from another vine. Nor may he partake of grapes together with other food; he should not partake of them together with bread or salt. If, however, the worker set a limit concerning the quantity that he may eat, he may eat the produce with salt, with bread or with any other food that he desires.
It is forbidden for a worker to suck the juice from grapes, for the verse states: \"And you shall eat grapes.\" Neither the worker's sons nor his wife may roast the kernels of grain in a fire for him. This is implied by the above verse, which states: \"You may eat grapes as you desire.\" The implication is that you must desire the grapes as they are. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "It is forbidden for a worker to eat an inordinate amount of the produce with which he is working. This is implied by the above verse, which states: \"You may eat... as you desire, to your satisfaction.\" It is permitted, however, for him to delay eating until he reaches the place of higher quality grapes and eat there.
A worker may eat even a dinar's worth of cucumbers or dates even though he was hired to work only for a silver me'ah. Nevertheless, we teach a person not to be a glutton, so that he will not close the doors in his own face. if a person is guarding four or five grain heaps, he should not eat his fill from only one of them. Instead, he should eat an equal amount from each one.", + "Workers who have not walked both lengthwise and laterally in a vat may eat grapes but may not drink wine, for at that time they are still working solely with grapes. When they have treaded in the vat and walked both lengthwise and laterally, they may eat grapes and drink the grape juice, for they are working with both the grapes and the wine.", + "When a worker says: \"Give my wife and my children what I would eat,\" or \"I will give a small amount of what I have taken to eat to my wife and my children,\" he is not given this prerogative. For the Torah has granted this right only to a worker himself. Even when a nazarite who is working with grapes says, \"Give some to my wife and children,\" his words are of no consequence.", + "When a worker - and his wife, his children and his slaves - were all employed to work with produce, and the worker stipulated that they - neither he nor the members of his household - should not partake of the produce, they may not partake of it.
When does the above apply? When they are past majority, because they are intellectually mature, responsible for their decisions, and willingly gave up the right the Torah granted them. If, however, the children are minors, their father cannot pledge that they will not eat, for they are not eating from his property or from what the employer grants them, but rather from what they were granted by God." + ], + [ + "An animal should be given the opportunity to eat whenever it works with produce, whether the produce is still attached to the ground or has been harvested. Similarly, it may partake of produce from the burden it is carrying until it has been unloaded, provided that the person caring for the animal does not take the produce in his hand and feed it.", + "Whoever prevents an animal from eating while it is working should be punished by lashes, as Deuteronomy 25:4 states: \"Do not muzzle an ox while threshing.\"
The prohibition applies to an ox and to all other species of animals and beasts, whether a kosher animal or a non-kosher animal. Similarly, it applies with regard to threshing and all other types of work with produce. The Torah speaks about an ox threshing only to mention the most common instance.
An employer is not liable if he muzzles a worker. He is, however, liable for muzzling an animal. This applies whether he muzzles the animal while he is working with it or muzzles it beforehand and works with it while muzzled. He is liable even if he \"muzzles it\" with his mouth.
When a person rents an animal, muzzles it and then threshes with it, he receives lashes and must pay the owners the value of four kabbin of grain for a cow, and three kabbin for a donkey. Although generally a person does not receive both lashes and a financial penalty for the same transgression, an exception is made in this instance, because the renter was obligated to provide the animal with its sustenance from the time he pulled it after him, and he is not liable for lashes until he threshes with the animal while muzzled.", + "When a Jew threshes with a cow belonging to a gentile, he is subject to violating the prohibition against muzzling. When, by contrast, a gentile threshes with an ox belonging to Jew, he is not subject to violating this prohibition.
If a Jew tells a gentile: \"Muzzle my ox and thresh with it,\" a thorn becomes lodged in the ox's mouth and he threshes with it so it does not eat, he places a lion outside the threshing floor, he places the animal's son outside the threshing floor, he does not provide the animal with drink when it is thirsty, or spreads a hide over the grain so that it will not eat - all of these and similar acts are forbidden, but the person does not receive lashes.
When the produce with which the animal is working is bad for its digestion and will damage the animal's health or when the animal is sick and eating will cause it to become diarrheic, it is permitted to prevent the animal from eating. The rationale is that the Torah enacted this prohibition so that the animal would benefit, and in such an instance it does not benefit.", + "When a priest is threshing grain that is terumah or grain that is definitely terumat ma'aser with a cow that belongs to an Israelite, he is not subject to violating the prohibition against muzzling them.
This law also applies when cows thresh grain that is ma'aser sheni and when cows veer from the path. Nevertheless, because of the impression that might be created, when the cows are threshing grain that is terumah or ma'aser sheni the worker should bring that type of grain and place it in the food sack hanging below their mouths.", + "When a person muzzles a cow that is threshing produce that is ma'aser sheni which is demai terumat ma'aser which is demai or produce that grew from terumah he violates the prohibition against muzzling the animal.", + "The owner of an ox is permitted to make his animal hungry and aggrieve it so that it will eat a large quantity of the grain that it is threshing. Conversely, the renter of the ox may feed it hay so that it will not eat a large quantity of the grain that it is threshing.
Similarly, an employer may provide his workers with wine so that they will not eat many grapes. Conversely, the workers may dip their bread in brine so they will eat many grapes.
A worker may not, however, perform work at night and then hire himself out during the day, or work with his ox in the evening and then rent it out in the morning. Similarly, he should not starve and aggrieve himself and give his food to his sons, because this leads to stealing from the work due his employer, for his energy will be sapped and his thinking unclear, and he will not be able to perform his work robustly.", + "Just as the employer is warned not to steal the wage of the poor person or to withhold it from him, the poor person is forewarned not to steal from the work due his employer and neglect his work slightly here and there, spending the entire day in deceit.
Instead, he is obligated to be precise with regard to his time. The importance of such preciseness is indicated by our Sages' ruling that workers should not recite the fourth blessing of grace, so as not to neglect their work.
Similarly, a worker is obligated to work with all his strength, for Jacob the righteous man said Genesis 31:7: \"I served your father with all my strength.\" Therefore, he was granted a reward even in this world, as indicated by ibid. 30:43: \"And the man became prodigiously wealthy.\"
Blessed be God who grants assistance." + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007", + "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות שכירות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Hiring/Hebrew/Torat Emet 363.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Hiring/Hebrew/Torat Emet 363.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fcd34af7dc4982888b46c7ca550eb8362ef1b58b --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Hiring/Hebrew/Torat Emet 363.json @@ -0,0 +1,179 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Hiring", + "versionSource": "http://www.toratemetfreeware.com/index.html?downloads", + "versionTitle": "Torat Emet 363", + "status": "locked", + "priority": 1.0, + "license": "Public Domain", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "תורת אמת 363", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות שכירות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "אַרְבָּעָה שׁוֹמְרִים נֶאֶמְרוּ בַּתּוֹרָה וּשְׁלֹשָׁה דִּינִין יֵשׁ לָהֶם. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הָאַרְבָּעָה שׁוֹמְרִין. שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל. וְנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר. וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר: \n", + "וְאֵלּוּ הֵן שְׁלֹשָׁה דִּינִין שֶׁלָּהֶן. שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם שֶׁנִּגְנַב הַפִּקָּדוֹן מִמֶּנּוּ אוֹ אָבַד וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם נֶאֱנַס הַפִּקָּדוֹן אֹנֶס גָּדוֹל כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּהֵמָה וּמֵתָה אוֹ נִשְׁבֵּית הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע שֶׁשָּׁמַר כְּדֶרֶךְ הַשּׁוֹמְרִין וּפָטוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ו) \"וְגֻנַּב מִבֵּית הָאִישׁ\" וְגוֹ' (שמות כב ז) \"וְנִקְרַב בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים\". הַשּׁוֹאֵל מְשַׁלֵּם הַכּל בֵּין שֶׁאָבַד דָּבָר הַשָּׁאוּל אוֹ נִגְנַב בֵּין שֶׁאֵרְעוֹ אֹנֶס גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה כְּגוֹן שֶׁמֵּתָה הַבְּהֵמָה הַשְּׁאוּלָה אוֹ נִשְׁבְּרָה אוֹ נִשְׁבֵּית שֶׁכָּךְ כָּתוּב בְּשׁוֹאֵל (שמות כב יג) \"וְנִשְׁבַּר אוֹ מֵת בְּעָלָיו אֵין עִמּוֹ שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם\". נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר אוֹ הַשּׂוֹכֵר שְׁנֵיהֶם דִּין אֶחָד יֵשׁ לָהֶן אִם נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד הַדָּבָר הַשָּׂכוּר אוֹ שֶׁנָּטַל שָׂכָר עַל שְׁמִירָתוֹ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מְשַׁלְּמִים. וְאִם אֵרְעוֹ אֹנֶס גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּהֵמָה וּמֵתָה אוֹ נִשְׁבְּרָה אוֹ נִשְׁבֵּית אוֹ נִטְרְפָה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נִשְׁבָּעִין שֶׁנֶּאֶנְסָה וּפְטוּרִין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ט) \"וּמֵת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אֵין רֹאֶה\" (שמות כב י) \"שְׁבֻעַת ה'\" וְגוֹ' וּכְתִיב (שמות כב יא) \"אִם גָּנֹב יִגָּנֵב מֵעִמּוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם לִבְעָלָיו\" וְגוֹ'. נִמְצֵאתָ אוֹמֵר שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם נִשְׁבָּע עַל הַכּל. וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכּל חוּץ מִן הַמֵּתָה בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר מְשַׁלְּמִין אֶת הָאֲבֵדָה וְאֶת הַגְּנֵבָה וְנִשְׁבָּעִין עַל הָאֳנָסִין הַגְּדוֹלִים כְּגוֹן שְׁבוּרָה וּשְׁבוּיָה וּמֵתָה וּטְרֵפָה. אוֹ שֶׁאָבַד הַדָּבָר בִּסְפִינָה שֶׁטָּבְעָה בַּיָּם אוֹ נִלְקַח בְּלִסְטִים מְזֻיָּן וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בְּאֵלּוּ מִשְּׁאָר אֳנָסִין הַגְּדוֹלִים: \n", + "הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ בֵּין בְּחִנָּם בֵּין בְּשָׂכָר אוֹ הִשְׁאִילוֹ אוֹ הִשְׂכִּירוֹ אִם שָׁאַל הַשּׁוֹמֵר אֶת הַבְּעָלִים עִם הַדָּבָר שֶׁלָּהֶן אוֹ שְׂכָרָן הֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹמֵר פָּטוּר מִכְּלוּם. אֲפִלּוּ פָּשַׁע בַּדָּבָר שֶׁשָּׁמַר וְאָבַד מֵחֲמַת הַפְּשִׁיעָה הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב יד) \"אִם בְּעָלָיו עִמּוֹ לֹא יְשַׁלֵּם אִם שָׂכִיר הוּא בָּא בִּשְׂכָרוֹ\". בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁשָּׁאַל הַבְּעָלִים אוֹ שְׂכָרָן בְּעֵת שֶׁנָּטַל הַחֵפֶץ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַבְּעָלִים שָׁם עִמּוֹ בְּעֵת הַגְּנֵבָה וְהָאֲבֵדָה אוֹ בְּעֵת שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס. אֲבָל נָטַל הַחֵפֶץ וְנַעֲשָׂה עָלָיו שׁוֹמֵר תְּחִלָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׂכַר הַבְּעָלִים אוֹ שְׁאָלָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיוּ הַבְּעָלִים עוֹמְדִין שָׁם בְּעֵת שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס הַדָּבָר הַשָּׁמוּר הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב יג) \"בְּעָלָיו אֵין עִמּוֹ שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם\" מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ הָיָה עִמּוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הַשְׁאָלָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּעֵת הַגְּנֵבָה וְהַמִּיתָה פָּטוּר לֹא הָיָה עִמּוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הַשְׁאָלָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיָה עִמּוֹ בְּעֵת הַמִּיתָה אוֹ הַשְּׁבִיָּה חַיָּב. וְהוּא הַדִּין לִשְׁאָר הַשּׁוֹמְרִים שֶׁכֻּלָּן בִּבְעָלִים פְּטוּרִין אֲפִלּוּ פְּשִׁיעָה בִּבְעָלִים פָּטוּר: \n", + "כָּל שׁוֹמֵר שֶׁפָּשַׁע בִּתְחִלָּתוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס בְּסוֹפוֹ חַיָּב כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. וְאֵין הַשּׁוֹאֵל רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׁאִיל אֲפִלּוּ שָׁאַל סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה שֶׁכָּל שֶׁקּוֹרֵא בּוֹ עוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה לֹא יַשְׁאִילֶנּוּ לְאַחֵר. וְכֵן אֵין הַשּׂוֹכֵר רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׂכִּיר אֲפִלּוּ הִשְׂכִּירוֹ סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה לֹא יַשְׂכִּירֶנּוּ לְאַחֵר שֶׁהֲרֵי זֶה אוֹמֵר לוֹ אֵין רְצוֹנִי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה פִּקְדוֹנִי בְּיַד אַחֵר. עָבַר הַשּׁוֹמֵר וּמָסַר לַשּׁוֹמֵר הַשֵּׁנִי אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁשְּׁמָרָהּ הַשּׁוֹמֵר הַשֵּׁנִי כְּדֶרֶךְ הַשּׁוֹמְרִין וְנֶאֱנַס פָּטוּר הַשּׁוֹמֵר הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס. וְאִם אֵין שָׁם עֵדִים חַיָּב הַשּׁוֹמֵר הָרִאשׁוֹן לְשַׁלֵּם לַבְּעָלִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמָּסַר לְשׁוֹמֵר אַחֵר וְיַעֲשֶׂה הוּא דִּין עִם הַשּׁוֹמֵר הַשֵּׁנִי. אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הָרִאשׁוֹן שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וּמָסַר לְשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר חַיָּב שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ לְבַעַל הַחֵפֶץ לוֹמַר לוֹ אַתָּה נֶאֱמָן אֶצְלִי לְהִשָּׁבַע וְזֶה אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיָה דֶּרֶךְ הַבְּעָלִים לְהַפְקִיד תָּמִיד דָּבָר זֶה אֵצֶל הַשּׁוֹמֵר הַשֵּׁנִי הֲרֵי זֶה הַשּׁוֹמֵר הָרִאשׁוֹן פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר לַבְּעָלִים זֶה הַדָּבָר שֶׁהִפְקַדְתֶּם אֶצְלִי אוֹ הִשְׁאַלְתֶּם אֶמֶשׁ הֱיִיתֶם מַפְקִידִין אוֹתוֹ אֵצֶל זֶה שֶׁהִפְקַדְתִּי אֲנִי אֶצְלוֹ. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יְמַעֵט שְׁמִירָתוֹ. כֵּיצַד יְמַעֵט שְׁמִירָתוֹ. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה מֻפְקָד אֶצְלוֹ בְּשָׂכָר וְהִפְקִידוֹ אֵצֶל אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁנִי בְּחִנָּם אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה שָׁאוּל אֶצְלוֹ וְהִפְקִידוֹ אֵצֶל אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁנִי בְּשָׂכָר הוֹאִיל וּמִעֵט שְׁמִירָתוֹ פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא וּמְשַׁלֵּם. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׁאַל אוֹ שֶׁשָּׂכַר בַּבְּעָלִים הֲרֵי הוּא הוֹצִיא הַדָּבָר הַשָּׁמוּר מִיָּדוֹ לְיַד שׁוֹמֵר אַחֵר: \n", + "וְאִם הֵבִיא הַשּׁוֹמֵר הַשֵּׁנִי הָרְאָיָה שֶׁיִּפָּטֵר בָּהּ שׁוֹמֵר רִאשׁוֹן כְּדִין שְׁמִירָתוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. כֵּיצַד. שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר שֶׁנָּתַן הַבְּהֵמָה הַשְּׁמוּרָה אֶצְלוֹ לְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אִם הֵבִיא הַשּׁוֹמֵר הַשֵּׁנִי עֵדִים שֶׁמֵּתָה הַבְּהֵמָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ הֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹמֵר הָרִאשׁוֹן פָּטוּר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "שׁוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּסַר לְשׁוֹמֵר אַחֵר וְהוֹסִיף בִּשְׁמִירָתוֹ וּמֵתָה הַהֲנָאָה לַבְּעָלִים. כֵּיצַד. הַשּׂוֹכֵר פָּרָה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וְהִשְׁאִילָהּ לְאַחֵר וּמֵתָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ בְּיַד הַשּׁוֹאֵל הוֹאִיל וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל חַיָּב בַּכּל יַחְזִירוּ דְּמֵי הַפָּרָה לַבְּעָלִים שֶׁאֵין זֶה הַשּׂוֹכֵר עוֹשֶׂה סְחוֹרָה בְּפָרָתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. הָיָה בְּיָדוֹ פִּקָּדוֹן וּשְׁלָחוֹ בְּיַד אַחֵר לִבְעָלָיו הוֹאִיל וְהַשּׁוֹמֵר הָרִאשׁוֹן חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְיַד הַבְּעָלִים אִם בָּא לַחְזֹר וּלְהַחְזִיר הַפִּקָּדוֹן מִיַּד הַשּׁוֹמֵר הַשֵּׁנִי מַחְזִיר. וְאִם הֻחְזַק הַשּׁוֹמֵר הָרִאשׁוֹן כַּפְרָן אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַחְזִיר הַפִּקָּדוֹן מִיַּד הַשּׁוֹמֵר הַשֵּׁנִי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן הַפִּקָּדוֹן בְּאַחֲרָיוּתוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן: \n" + ], + [ + "שְׁלֹשָׁה דִּינִין הָאֲמוּרִין בַּתּוֹרָה בְּאַרְבָּעָה הַשּׁוֹמְרִין אֵינָן אֶלָּא בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְשֶׁל הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ו) \"כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵלִים\" (שמות כב ט) \"וְכָל בְּהֵמָה\" יָצְאוּ קַרְקָעוֹת וְיָצְאוּ הָעֲבָדִים שֶׁהֻקְּשׁוּ לְקַרְקָעוֹת וְיָצְאוּ הַשְּׁטָרוֹת שֶׁאֵין גּוּפָן מָמוֹן וְיָצְאוּ הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ו) \"כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ\" וְיָצְאוּ נִכְסֵי עַכּוּ\"ם. מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים הָעֲבָדִים וְהַשְּׁטָרוֹת וְהַקַּרְקָעוֹת וְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם שֶׁלָּהֶן אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע. וְנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר אוֹ שׂוֹכֵר אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם. וְאִם קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן: \n", + "וְתִקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּעִין עַל הַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין כְּעֵין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְזַלְזְלוּ בַּהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת: \n", + "יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאִם פָּשַׁע הַשּׁוֹמֵר בַּעֲבָדִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. שֶׁאֵינוֹ פָּטוּר בַּעֲבָדִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת וּשְׁטָרוֹת אֶלָּא מִדִּין גְּנֵבָה וַאֲבֵדָה וּמֵתָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. שֶׁאִם הָיָה שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם עַל מִטַּלְטְלִין וְנִגְנְבוּ אוֹ אָבְדוּ יִשָּׁבַע וּבַעֲבָדִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת וּשְׁטָרוֹת פָּטוּר מִשְּׁבוּעָה. וְכֵן אִם הָיָה שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר שֶׁמְּשַׁלֵּם גְּנֵבָה וַאֲבֵדָה בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם בְּאֵלּוּ. אֲבָל אִם פָּשַׁע בָּהּ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם שֶׁכָּל הַפּוֹשֵׁעַ מַזִּיק הוּא. וְאֵין הֶפְרֵשׁ בֵּין דִּין הַמַּזִּיק קַרְקַע לְדִין הַמַּזִּיק מִטַּלְטְלִין. וְדִין אֱמֶת הוּא זֶה לַמְּבִינִים וְכֵן רָאוּי לָדוּן. וְכֵן הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁהַמּוֹסֵר כַּרְמוֹ לְשׁוֹמֵר בֵּין בַּאֲרִיסוּת בֵּין בִּשְׁמִירוּת חִנָּם וְהִתְנָה עִמּוֹ שֶׁיַּחְפֹּר אוֹ יִזְמֹר אוֹ יְאַבֵּק מִשֶּׁלּוֹ וּפָשַׁע וְלֹא עָשָׂה חַיָּב כְּמִי שֶׁהִפְסִיד בַּיָּדַיִם. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה שֶׁהִפְסִיד בַּיָּדַיִם חַיָּב עַל כָּל פָּנִים: \n", + "הַמּוֹסֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ דָּבָר הַמְחֻבָּר לַקַּרְקַע לִשְׁמֹר אֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ עֲנָבִים הָעוֹמְדוֹת לְהִבָּצֵר הֲרֵי הֵן כְּקַרְקַע בְּדִין הַשּׁוֹמְרִין: \n", + "הִפְקִיד הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ פָּדָהוּ וַהֲרֵי הוּא חֻלִּין בְּעֵת שֶׁנְּטָלוֹ מִיַּד הַשּׁוֹמֵר. אוֹ שֶׁהִשְׁאִילוֹ חֻלִּין וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישׁ וְהוּא בְּיַד הַשּׁוֹאֵל. וְכֵן עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁהִפְקִיד וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְגַּיֵּר. כָּל אֵלּוּ אֵין בָּהֶן כָּל דִּינֵי הַשּׁוֹמְרִין עַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה תְּחִלָּתָן וְסוֹפָן נִכְסֵי הֶדְיוֹט וְנִכְסֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל: \n", + "אֶחָד הָאִישׁ וְאֶחָד הָאִשָּׁה בְּדִין הַשּׁוֹמְרִין בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה הַדָּבָר הַשָּׁמוּר שֶׁל אִשָּׁה אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה בְּיַד הָאִשָּׁה: \n", + "קָטָן שֶׁהִפְקִיד בְּיַד גָּדוֹל אוֹ הִשְׁאִילוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה הַגָּדוֹל נִשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִים לַקָּטָן. הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁאֵין זֶה נִשְׁבָּע בְּטַעֲנַת הַקָּטָן כְּדֵי שֶׁנֹּאמַר אֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל טַעֲנַת קָטָן שֶׁכָּל הַשּׁוֹמְרִין שְׁבוּעָתָן שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁמָּא הִיא: \n", + "כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁתִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים מְשִׁיכָה בְּלָקוֹחוֹת כָּךְ תִּקְּנוּ מְשִׁיכָה בְּשׁוֹמְרִין. הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ שְׁמֹר לִי זֶה וְאָמַר לוֹ הַנַּח לְפָנַי הֲרֵי זֶה שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. אָמַר לוֹ הַנַּח לְפָנֶיךָ אוֹ הַנַּח סְתָם אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הֲרֵי הַבַּיִת לְפָנֶיךָ אֵינוֹ לֹא שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְלֹא שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה כְּלָל אֲבָל מַחֲרִים עַל מִי שֶׁלָּקַח הַפִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁלּוֹ וְלֹא יַחֲזִירוֹ לִבְעָלָיו. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. אֶחָד הַמַּפְקִיד אוֹ הַמַּשְׁאִיל אוֹ הַמַּשְׂכִּיר אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בְּעֵדִים אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵדִים דִּין אֶחָד יֵשׁ לָהֶן כֵּיוָן שֶׁהוֹדָה זֶה מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמַר לוֹ אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁאַל מִמֶּנּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין שֶׁאֵין אוֹמְרִים מִגּוֹ לְפָטְרוֹ מִשְּׁבוּעָה אֶלָּא לְפָטְרוֹ מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַדָּבָר הַשָּׁאוּל אוֹ הַמֻּפְקָד אוֹ הַמֻּשְׂכָּר שְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה הֲרֵי זֶה הַשּׁוֹמֵר נִשְׁבָּע עָלָיו. וְאֵין אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוֹמְרִים צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדָיָה בְּמִקְצָת: \n", + "מַתְנֶה שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם לִהְיוֹת פָּטוּר מִשְּׁבוּעָה וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל לִהְיוֹת פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. וְכֵן מַתְנֶה בַּעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן עַל שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אוֹ נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְשׂוֹכֵר לִהְיוֹת חַיָּבִין בַּכּל כְּשׁוֹאֵל. שֶׁכָּל תְּנַאי בְּמָמוֹן אוֹ בִּשְׁבוּעוֹת שֶׁל מָמוֹן קַיָּם וְאֵין צָרִיךְ קִנְיָן וְלֹא עֵדִים: \n", + "טָעַן זֶה שֶׁהָיָה שָׁם תְּנַאי וְהַשּׁוֹמֵר אוֹמֵר לֹא הָיָה שָׁם תְּנַאי נִשְׁבָּע הַשּׁוֹמֵר שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין וּמְגַלְגֵּל בָּהּ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה שָׁם תְּנַאי: \n", + "טָעַן שֶׁהִפְקִיד אֶצְלוֹ וְזֶה אוֹמֵר לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא הַנַּח לְפָנֶיךָ וְלֹא נַעֲשֵׂיתִי לוֹ שׁוֹמֵר נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא קִבְּלוֹ אֶלָּא בְּדֶרֶךְ זוֹ וְכוֹלֵל בִּשְׁבוּעָתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא שָׁלַח בּוֹ יָד וְלֹא אִבְּדוֹ בַּיָּדַיִם וְלֹא בִּגְרָם שֶׁגָּרַם לוֹ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם: \n", + "זֶה אוֹמֵר הִשְׁאַלְתִּיךָ אוֹ הִשְׂכַּרְתִּיךָ אוֹ הִפְקַדְתִּיךָ וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר כֵּן הָיָה אֲבָל הְחֶזַרְתִּי לְךָ וְנִסְתַּלְּקָה הַשְּׁמִירָה וְלֹא נִשְׁאֲרָה בֵּינֵינוּ תְּבִיעָה. הֲרֵי הַנִּתְבָּע נִשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁלֹּא הָיָה שָׁם שְׁטָר. אֲבָל אִם הִפְקִיד אוֹ הִשְׂכִּיר אוֹ הִשְׁאִיל בִּשְׁטָר וְאָמַר לוֹ הֶחְזַרְתִּי לְךָ הֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹמֵר נִשְׁבָּע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם שֶׁנִּגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל מֵתָה בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר הֶחְזַרְתִּי. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאִם טָעַן שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס נִשְׁבָּע מִן הַתּוֹרָה בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ כָּךְ אִם טָעַן הְחֶזַרְתִּי יִשָּׁבַע כְּעֵין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ שָׁם שְׁטָר בְּיַד הַתּוֹבֵעַ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה הַשּׁוֹמֵר יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן וְלוֹמַר נֶאֶנְסוּ וְלֹא נַצְרִיךְ אוֹתוֹ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה חַיָּב לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר הֶחְזַרְתִּי אֶלָּא יִשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ שֶׁלֹּא הֶחְזִיר לוֹ וִישַׁלֵּם. אֵין לְךָ מִי שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּע מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר כָּךְ וְכָךְ וְיִשָּׁבַע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ אֶלָּא זֶה הַשּׁוֹמֵר בִּלְבַד שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו שְׁטָר אֲבָל שְׁאָר כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בַּדִּין מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר אֵינָן נִשְׁבָּעִין אֶלָּא הֶסֵּת: \n" + ], + [ + "שׁוֹמֵר שֶׁטָּעַן שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס אֹנֶס גָּדוֹל כְּגוֹן שְׁבוּרָה וּמֵתָה. אִם נֶאֱנַס בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהָעֵדִים מְצוּיִין שָׁם מַצְרִיכִין אוֹתוֹ רְאָיָה עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס וְיִפָּטֵר אַף מִשְּׁבוּעַת שׁוֹמְרִים וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה יְשַׁלֵּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ט) \"אֵין רֹאֶה\" (שמות כב י) \"שְׁבֻעַת ה' תִּהְיֶה בֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶם\" הָא בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה אֵין שָׁם שְׁבוּעָה אֶלָּא אוֹ יָבִיא רְאָיָה אוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם. אֲבָל אִם טָעַן שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין הָעֵדִים מְצוּיִין שָׁם אֵין מַצְרִיכִין אוֹתוֹ רְאָיָה אֶלָּא יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס וְיִפָּטֵר. וְאִם הֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁלֹּא פָּשַׁע בָּהּ נִפְטָר אַף מִן הַשְּׁבוּעָה. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהֵבִיא חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן בְּשָׂכָר וּשְׁבָרָהּ בַּשּׁוּק שֶׁל מְחוֹזָא וּבָאוּ לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְאָמְרוּ שׁוּק זֶה שֶׁטָּעַנְתָּ שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרָה בּוֹ חָבִית בְּנֵי אָדָם מְצוּיִין שָׁם אוֹ תָּבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁלֹּא פָּשַׁעְתָּ אֶלָּא נִתְקַלְתָּ וְנָפַלְתָּ אוֹ תְּשַׁלֵּם דָּמֶיהָ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "הַמַּעֲבִיר חָבִית מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם בְּשָׂכָר וְנִשְׁבְּרָה דִּין תּוֹרָה הוּא שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּם שֶׁאֵין זֶה אֹנֶס גָּדוֹל וַהֲרֵי הַשְּׁבִירָה כִּגְנֵבָה וַאֲבֵדָה שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב בָּהֶן. אֲבָל תִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁיִּהְיֶה חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא פָּשַׁע בָּהּ שֶׁאִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר יְשַׁלֵּם אֵין לְךָ אָדָם שֶׁיַּעֲבִיר חָבִית לַחֲבֵרוֹ לְפִיכָךְ עָשׂוּ בּוֹ שְׁבִירַת הֶחָבִית כְּמִיתַת הַבְּהֵמָה וּשְׁבִירָתָהּ. וְעוֹד תִּקְּנוּ בְּדָבָר זֶה שֶׁאִם נָשְׂאוּ אוֹתָהּ שְׁנַיִם בְּמוֹט וְנִשְׁבְּרָה מְשַׁלְּמִין חֲצִי דָּמֶיהָ הוֹאִיל וּמַשּׂוֹי זֶה גָּדוֹל לְגַבֵּי אֶחָד וְקַל לְגַבֵּי שְׁנַיִם הֲרֵי הוּא כְּאֹנֶס וְאֵינוֹ אֹנֶס וּמְשַׁלְּמִין מֶחֱצָה אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁלֹּא פָּשְׁעוּ בָּהּ. נִשְׁבְּרָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין הָעֵדִים מְצוּיִין נִשְׁבָּעִין שֶׁלֹּא שְׁבָרוּהָ בִּפְשִׁיעָה וּמְשַׁלְּמִין חֲצִי דָּמֶיהָ. שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא הָיָה לְכָל אֶחָד לְהַעֲבִיר אֶלָּא מַשּׂוֹי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְהַעֲבִירוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. מִכָּאן אַתָּה לָמֵד שֶׁהָאֶחָד שֶׁהֶעֱבִיר חָבִית גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ כָּל הַסַּבָּלִים לְהַעֲבִירָהּ שֶׁהוּא פּוֹשֵׁעַ וְאִם נִשְׁבְּרָה בְּיָדוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם הַכּל: ", + "הַסַּבָּל שֶׁשָּׁבַר חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן לְחֶנְוָנִי וְנִתְחַיֵּב לְשַׁלֵּם וַהֲרֵי הִיא שָׁוָה בְּיוֹם הַשּׁוּק אַרְבָּעָה וּבִשְׁאָר הַיָּמִים שְׁלֹשָׁה אִם הֶחְזִירוֹ בְּיוֹם הַשּׁוּק חַיָּבִין לְהַחְזִיר חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן אוֹ יְשַׁלְּמוּ לוֹ אַרְבָּעָה וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לוֹ יַיִן לִמְכֹּר בְּיוֹם הַשּׁוּק אֲבָל אִם הָיָה לוֹ יַיִן מַחֲזִירִין לוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה. הֶחְזִירוּ לוֹ בִּשְׁאָר הַיָּמִים מַחֲזִירִין לוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה וּמְנַכִּין לוֹ בְּכָל זְמַן טֹרַח שֶׁהָיָה טוֹרֵחַ בִּמְכִירָתָהּ וּפְגַם הַנֶּקֶב שֶׁהָיָה נוֹקֵב הֶחָבִית וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "רוֹעֶה שֶׁבָּאוּ זְאֵבִים וְטָרְפוּ מִמֶּנּוּ אִם הָיָה זְאֵב אֶחָד אֵין זֶה אֹנֶס אֲפִלּוּ בִּשְׁעַת מִשְׁלַחַת זְאֵבִים. וְאִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵי זְאֵבִים הֲרֵי זֶה אֹנֶס. שְׁנֵי כְּלָבִים אֵינָן אֹנֶס אֲפִלּוּ בָּאוּ מִשְּׁתֵי רוּחוֹת. הָיוּ יֶתֶר עַל שְׁנַיִם הֲרֵי זֶה אֹנֶס. לִסְטִים מְזֻיָּן הֲרֵי הוּא אֹנֶס וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הָרוֹעֶה מְזֻיָּן וּבָא לוֹ לִסְטִים אַחֵר מְזֻיָּן הֲרֵי זֶה אֹנֶס שֶׁאֵין הָרוֹעֶה מוֹסֵר נַפְשׁוֹ כְּלִסְטִים. הָאֲרִי וְהַדֹּב וְהַנָּמֵר וְהַבַּרְדְּלָס וְהַנָּחָשׁ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֳנָסִין. אֵימָתַי בִּזְמַן שֶׁבָּאוּ מֵאֲלֵיהֶן. אֲבָל אִם הוֹלִיכָם לִמְקוֹם גְּדוּדֵי חַיּוֹת וְלִיסְטִים אֵין אֵלּוּ אֳנָסִין וְחַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם: ", + "רוֹעֶה שֶׁמָּצָא גַּנָּב וְהִתְחִיל לְהִתְגָּרוֹת בּוֹ וּלְהַרְאוֹתוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ וְאָמַר לוֹ הֲרֵי אָנוּ בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וְכָךְ וְכָךְ רוֹעִים אֲנַחְנוּ וְכָךְ וְכָךְ כְּלֵי מִלְחָמָה יֵשׁ לָנוּ וּבָא אוֹתוֹ הַלִּסְטִים וְנִצְּחוֹ וְלָקַח מֵהֶן הֲרֵי הָרוֹעֶה חַיָּב שֶׁאֶחָד הַמּוֹלִיךְ אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה לִמְקוֹם גְּדוּדֵי חַיּוֹת וְלִסְטִים אוֹ מֵבִיא אֶת הַלִּסְטִים בְּהִתְגָּרוּתוֹ לִמְקוֹם הַבְּהֵמָה: ", + "רוֹעֶה שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לְהַצִּיל הַטְּרֵפָה אוֹ הַשְּׁבוּיָה בְּרוֹעִים אֲחֵרִים וּבְמַקְלוֹת וְלֹא קָרָא רוֹעִים אֲחֵרִים וְלֹא הֵבִיא מַקְלוֹת לְהַצִּיל הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב אֶחָד שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְאֶחָד שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר אֶלָּא שֶׁשּׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם קוֹרֵא רוֹעִים וּמֵבִיא מַקְלוֹת בְּחִנָּם וְאִם לֹא מָצָא פָּטוּר אֲבָל שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר חַיָּב לִשְׂכֹּר הָרוֹעִים וְהַמַּקְלוֹת עַד כְּדֵי דְּמֵי הַבְּהֵמָה כְּדֵי לְהַצִּיל וְחוֹזֵר וְלוֹקֵחַ שְׂכָרָן מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת. וְאִם לֹא עָשָׂה כֵן וְהָיָה לוֹ לִשְׂכֹּר וְלֹא שָׂכַר הֲרֵי זֶה פּוֹשֵׁעַ וְחַיָּב: ", + "רוֹעֶה שֶׁטָּעַן שֶׁהִצַּלְתִּי עַל יְדֵי רוֹעִים בְּשָׂכָר נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל מַה שֶּׁטָּעַן שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן אֶלָּא עַד כְּדֵי דְּמֵיהֶן וְיָכוֹל הָיָה לוֹמַר נִטְרְפָה וְיִשָּׁבַע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ כְּדִין כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין: ", + "רוֹעֶה שֶׁהִנִּיחַ עֶדְרוֹ וּבָא לָעִיר בֵּין בְּעֵת שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ הָרוֹעִים לְהִכָּנֵס וּבֵין בְּעֵת שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ הָרוֹעִים לְהִכָּנֵס וּבָאוּ זְאֵבִים וּטְרָפוֹ אֲרִי וְדָרַס אֵין אוֹמְרִים אִלּוּ הָיָה שָׁם הָיָה מַצִּיל אֶלָּא אוֹמְדִין אוֹתוֹ אִם יָכוֹל לְהַצִּיל עַל יְדֵי רוֹעִים וּמַקְלוֹת חַיָּב וְאִם לָאו פָּטוּר וְאִם אֵין הַדָּבָר יָדוּעַ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם: ", + "מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ הֲרֵי זֶה אֹנֶס וְהָרוֹעֶה פָּטוּר. סִגְפָהּ וּמֵתָה אֵינוֹ אֹנֶס. תְּקָפַתּוּ וְעָלְתָה לְרָאשֵׁי צוּקִין וּתְקָפַתּוּ וְנָפְלָה הֲרֵי זֶה אֹנֶס. הֶעֱלָהּ לְרָאשֵׁי צוּקִין אוֹ שֶׁעָלְתָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ וְהוּא יָכוֹל לְמָנְעָהּ וְלֹא מְנָעָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁתְּקָפַתּוּ וְנָפְלָה וּמֵתָה אוֹ נִשְׁבְּרָה חַיָּב שֶׁכָּל שֶׁתְּחִלָּתוֹ בִּפְשִׁיעָה וְסוֹפוֹ בְּאֹנֶס חַיָּב. וְכֵן רוֹעֶה שֶׁהֶעֱבִיר הַבְּהֵמוֹת עַל הַגֶּשֶׁר וְדָחֲפָה אַחַת מֵהֶן לַחֲבֵרְתָהּ וְנָפְלָה לְשִׁבּלֶת הַנָּהָר הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לְהַעֲבִירָן אַחַת אַחַת שֶׁאֵין הַשּׁוֹמֵר נוֹטֵל שָׂכָר אֶלָּא לִשְׁמֹר שְׁמִירָה מְעֵלָּה וְהוֹאִיל וּפָשַׁע בַּתְּחִלָּה וְהֶעֱבִירָן כְּאֶחָד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס בַּסּוֹף בְּעֵת הַנְּפִילָה הֲרֵי הוּא חַיָּב: ", + "פָּשַׁע בָּהּ וְיָצְאָה לַאֲגַם וּמֵתָה שָׁם כְּדַרְכָּהּ פָּטוּר שֶׁאֵין יְצִיאָתָהּ גָּרְמָה לָהּ שֶׁתָּבוֹא לִידֵי אֹנֶס זֶה הוֹאִיל וּכְדַרְכָּהּ מֵתָה מַה לִּי בְּבֵית שׁוֹמֵר מַה לִּי בָּאֲגַם. אֲבָל אִם גְּנָבָהּ גַּנָּב מֵהָאֲגַם וּמֵתָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ בְּבֵית הַגַּנָּב הֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹמֵר חַיָּב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ לֹא מֵתָה הֲרֵי הִיא אֲבֵדָה בְּיַד הַגַּנָּב וִיצִיאָתָהּ גָּרְמָה לָהּ לְהִגָּנֵב. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: " + ], + [ + "הַשׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַחֲמוֹר לְהוֹלִיכָהּ בָּהָר וְהוֹלִיכָהּ בַּבִּקְעָה אִם הֻחְלְקָה פָּטוּר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעָבַר עַל דַּעַת הַבְּעָלִים. וְאִם הוּחַמָּה חַיָּב. שְׂכָרָהּ לְהוֹלִיכָהּ בַּבִּקְעָה וְהוֹלִיכָהּ בָּהָר אִם הֻחְלְקָה חַיָּב שֶׁהַחֲלָקוּת יֶתֶר בָּהָר מִן הַבִּקְעָה. וְאִם הוּחַמָּה פָּטוּר שֶׁחֲמִימוּת בַּבִּקְעָה יֶתֶר מִן הָהָר מִפְּנֵי הָרוּחַ שֶׁמְּנַשֶּׁבֶת בְּרֹאשׁ הֶהָרִים. וְאִם הוּחַמָּה מֵחֲמַת הַמַּעֲלָה חַיָּב וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְכֵן הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפָּרָה לַחְרשׁ בָּהָר וְחָרַשׁ בַּבִּקְעָה וְנִשְׁבַּר הַקַּנְקַן וְהוּא הַכְּלִי שֶׁחוֹרֵשׁ בּוֹ הֲרֵי הַשּׂוֹכֵר פָּטוּר וְדִין בַּעַל הַפָּרָה עִם הָאֻמָּנִין שֶׁחָרְשׁוּ. וְכֵן אִם לֹא שִׁנָּה עַל דַּעַת הַבְּעָלִים וְנִשְׁבַּר הַקַּנְקַן דִּין בַּעַל הַפָּרָה עִם הָאֻמָּנִין. שְׂכָרָהּ לַחְרשׁ בַּבִּקְעָה וְחָרַשׁ בָּהָר וְנִשְׁבַּר הַקַּנְקַן הַשּׂוֹכֵר חַיָּב וְדִינוֹ שֶׁל שׂוֹכֵר עִם הָאֻמָּנִים: \n", + "וּמַהוּ דִּין הָאֻמָּנִין שֶׁשָּׁבְרוּ בְּעֵת חֲרִישָׁה שֶׁמְּשַׁלְּמִין. מִי מְשַׁלֵּם זֶה הָאוֹחֵז אֶת הַכְּלִי בְּעֵת הַחֲרִישָׁה. וְאִם הָיְתָה הַשָּׂדֶה מַעֲלוֹת מַעֲלוֹת שְׁנֵיהֶם חַיָּבִים בִּדְמֵי הַקַּנְקַן. הַמַּנְהִיג אוֹתָהּ בְּמַלְמַד וְהָאוֹחֵז אֶת הַכְּלִי: \n", + "שְׂכָרָהּ לָדוּשׁ בְּקִטְנִית וְדָשׁ בִּתְבוּאָה וְהֻחְלְקָה פָּטוּר בִּתְבוּאָה וְדָשׁ בְּקִטְנִית חַיָּב שֶׁהַקִּטְנִית מַחְלֶקֶת. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהִשְׂכִּיר חֲמוֹר לַחֲבֵרוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ לֹא תֵּלֵךְ בּוֹ בְּדֶרֶךְ נָהָר פְּקוֹד שֶׁהַמַּיִם מְצוּיִין שָׁם אֶלָּא בְּדֶרֶךְ נֶרֶשׁ שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ מַיִם. הָלַךְ בְּדֶרֶךְ נָהָר פְּקוֹד וּמֵת הַחֲמוֹר וְלֹא הָיוּ שָׁם עֵדִים שֶׁמְּעִידִים בְּאֵי זֶה דֶּרֶךְ הָלַךְ אֶלָּא הוּא מֵעַצְמוֹ אָמַר בְּנָהָר פְּקוֹד הָלָכְתִּי וְלֹא הָיוּ שָׁם מַיִם וּמֵחֲמַת עַצְמוֹ מֵת וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁהַמַּיִם בְּנָהָר פְּקוֹד מְצוּיִין חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם שֶׁהֲרֵי שִׁנָּה עַל דַּעַת הַבְּעָלִים וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים מַה לִּי לְשַׁקֵּר בִּמְקוֹם עֵדִים: \n", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה לְהָבִיא עָלֶיהָ מָאתַיִם לִיטְרִין שֶׁל חִטִּים וְהֵבִיא מָאתַיִם לִיטְרִין שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִים וּמֵתָה חַיָּב מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַנֶּפַח קָשֶׁה לְמַשּׂאוֹי וְהַשְּׂעוֹרִין יֵשׁ לָהֶן נֶפַח. וְכֵן אִם שְׂכָרָהּ לְהָבִיא תְּבוּאָה וְהֵבִיא בְּמִשְׁקָלָהּ תֶּבֶן. אֲבָל אִם שְׂכָרָהּ לְהָבִיא עָלֶיהָ שְׂעוֹרִים וְהֵבִיא בְּמִשְׁקָלָן חִטִּים וּמֵתָה פָּטוּר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "שָׂכַר אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה לִרְכֹּב עָלֶיהָ אִישׁ לֹא יַרְכִּיב עָלֶיהָ אִשָּׁה. שְׂכָרָהּ לִרְכֹּב עָלֶיהָ אִשָּׁה מַרְכִּיב עָלֶיהָ אִישׁ. וּמַרְכִּיב עָלֶיהָ כָּל אִשָּׁה בֵּין קְטַנָּה בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה וַאֲפִלּוּ מְעֵבֶּרֶת שֶׁהִיא מֵינִיקָה: \n", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה לָשֵׂאת עָלֶיהָ מִשְׁקָל יָדוּעַ וְהוֹסִיף עַל מַשָּׂאוֹ אִם הוֹסִיף חֵלֶק מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים עַל הַשִּׁעוּר שֶׁפָּסַק עִמּוֹ וּמֵתָה חַיָּב פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן פָּטוּר אֲבָל נוֹתֵן הוּא שְׂכַר הַתּוֹסֶפֶת. שָׂכַר סְתָם אֵינוֹ נוֹשֵׂא אֶלָּא בְּמִשְׁקָל הַיָּדוּעַ בַּמְּדִינָה לְאוֹתָהּ בְּהֵמָה. וְאִם הוֹסִיף חֵלֶק מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים כְּגוֹן שֶׁדַּרְכָּהּ לָשֵׂאת שְׁלֹשִׁים וְטָעַן עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשִׁים וְאֶחָד וּמֵתָה אוֹ נִשְׁבְּרָה חַיָּב. וְכֵן סְפִינָה שֶׁהוֹסִיף בָּהּ אֶחָד מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים עַל מַשָּׂאָהּ וְטָבְעָה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם דָּמֶיהָ: \n", + "הַכַּתָּף שֶׁהוֹסִיף עַל מַשָּׂאוֹ קַב אֶחָד הֻזַּק בְּמַשָּׂא זֶה חַיָּב בִּנְזָקָיו. שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בֶּן דַּעַת וַהֲרֵי הוּא מַרְגִּישׁ בְּכֹבֶד הַמַּשָּׂא יַעֲלֶה עַל לִבּוֹ שֶׁמָּא מֵחֲמַת חָלְיוֹ הוּא זֶה הַכֹּבֶד: \n", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַחֲמוֹר לִרְכֹּב עָלֶיהָ יֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַנִּיחַ עָלֶיהָ כְּסוּתוֹ וְלָגִינוֹ וּמְזוֹנוֹתָיו שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ הַדֶּרֶךְ לְפִי שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ הַשּׂוֹכֵר לַחְזֹר בְּכָל מָלוֹן וּמָלוֹן לִקְנוֹת מְזוֹנוֹת. יֶתֶר עַל זֶה הֲרֵי מְעַכֵּב עָלָיו בַּעַל הַחֲמוֹר. וְכֵן יֵשׁ לְבַעַל הַחֲמוֹר לְהַנִּיחַ עָלֶיהָ שְׂעוֹרִים וְתֶבֶן וּמְזוֹנוֹת שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם יֶתֶר עַל זֶה הַשּׂוֹכֵר מְעַכֵּב מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לִקְנוֹת בְּכָל מָלוֹן וּמָלוֹן. לְפִיכָךְ אִם אֵין שָׁם מֵאַיִן יִקְנֶה מַנִּיחַ עָלָיו מְזוֹנוֹתָיו וּמְזוֹנוֹת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ שֶׁל כָּל אוֹתָהּ הַדֶּרֶךְ. וְכָל אֵלּוּ הַדְּבָרִים בְּשׂוֹכֵר סְתָם וּבְמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מִנְהָג יָדוּעַ. אֲבָל בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ מִנְהָג הַכּל לְפִי הַמִּנְהָג: \n" + ], + [ + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְחָלְתָה אוֹ נִשְׁתטֵּית אוֹ נִלְקְחָה לַעֲבוֹדַת הַמֶּלֶךְ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין סוֹפָהּ לַחְזֹר אִם נִלְקְחָה דֶּרֶךְ הֲלִיכָה הֲרֵי הַמַּשְׂכִּיר אוֹמֵר לַשּׂוֹכֵר הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ וְחַיָּב לִתֵּן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ מָשְׁלָם. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁשְּׂכָרָהּ לָשֵׂאת עָלֶיהָ מַשּׂוֹי שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לְהַשְׁלִיכוֹ בְּלֹא הַקְפָּדָה אֲבָל אִם שְׂכָרָהּ לִרְכֹּב עָלֶיהָ אוֹ לָשֵׂאת עָלֶיהָ כְּלֵי זְכוּכִית וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן חַיָּב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ חֲמוֹר אַחֵר אִם שָׂכַר מִמֶּנּוּ חֲמוֹר וְאִם לֹא הֶעֱמִיד יַחְזִיר הַשָּׂכָר וְיַחְשֹׁב עִמּוֹ עַל שָׂכָר כַּמָּה שֶׁהָלַךְ בָּהּ: \n", + "מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ נִשְׁבְּרָה בֵּין שֶׁשְּׂכָרָהּ לָשֵׂאת בֵּין שֶׁשְּׂכָרָהּ לִרְכֹּב אִם אָמַר לוֹ חֲמוֹר סְתָם אֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיר לְךָ חַיָּב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ חֲמוֹר אַחֵר מִכָּל מָקוֹם. וְאִם לֹא הֶעֱמִיד יֵשׁ לַשּׂוֹכֵר לִמְכֹּר הַבְּהֵמָה וְלִקַּח בָּהּ בְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת אוֹ שׂוֹכֵר בְּהֵמָה בְּדָמֶיהָ אִם אֵין בְּדָמֶיהָ לִקַּח עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְמָקוֹם שֶׁפָּסַק בּוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ חֲמוֹר זֶה אֲנִי שׂוֹכֵר לְךָ אִם שְׂכָרָהּ לִרְכֹּב עָלֶיהָ אוֹ לִכְלֵי זְכוּכִית וּמֵתָה בַּחֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ אִם יֵשׁ בְּדָמֶיהָ לִקַּח בְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת יִקַּח וְאִם אֵין בְּדָמֶיהָ לִקַּח שׂוֹכֵר אֲפִלּוּ בִּדְמֵי כֻּלָּהּ עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לַמָּקוֹם שֶׁפָּסַק עִמּוֹ. וְאִם אֵין בְּדָמֶיהָ לֹא לִקַּח וְלֹא לִשְׂכֹּר נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ שֶׁל חֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ וְאֵין לוֹ עָלָיו אֶלָּא תַּרְעֹמֶת. שְׂכָרָהּ לְמַשָּׂא הוֹאִיל וְאָמַר לוֹ חֲמוֹר זֶה וּמֵת בַּחֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ אַחֵר אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ שֶׁל חֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ וּמַנִּיחַ לוֹ נִבְלָתוֹ: \n", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַסְּפִינָה וטָבְעָה לוֹ בַּחֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ. אִם אָמַר לוֹ סְפִינָה זוֹ אֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיר לְךָ וּשְׂכָרָהּ הַשּׂוֹכֵר לְהוֹלִיךְ בָּהּ יַיִן סְתָם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ הַשָּׂכָר יַחְזִיר כָּל הַשָּׂכָר שֶהֲרֵי זֶה אוֹמֵר לוֹ הָבֵא לִי הַסְּפִינָה עַצְמָהּ שֶשָּׂכַרְתִּי שֶׁהַקְפָּדָה גְּדוֹלָה יֵשׁ בִּסְפִינָה זוֹ וַאֲנִי אָבִיא יַיִן מִכָּל מָקוֹם וְאוֹלִיךְ בָּהּ. אָמַר לוֹ סְפִינָה סְתָם אֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיר לְךָ וּשְׂכָרָהּ הַשּׂוֹכֵר לְהוֹלִיךְ בָּהּ יַיִן זֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן לוֹ מִן הַשָּׂכָר כְּלוּם חַיָּב לִתֵּן כָּל הַשָּׂכָר. שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר לוֹ הָבֵא לִי הַיַּיִן עַצְמוֹ וַאֲנִי אָבִיא לְךָ סְפִינָה מִכָּל מָקוֹם וְאוֹלִיכוֹ. אֲבָל צָרִיךְ לְנַכּוֹת כְּדֵי הַטֹּרַח שֶׁל חֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ שֶׁאֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה הַמְטַפֵּל בְּהוֹלָכַת הַסְּפִינָה לְיוֹשֵׁב וּבָטֵל. אָמַר לוֹ סְפִינָה זוֹ אֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיר וְשָׂכַר הַשּׂוֹכֵר לְהוֹלִיךְ בָּהּ יַיִן זֶה אִם נָתַן הַשָּׂכָר אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַחְזִירוֹ וְאִם לֹא נָתַן לֹא יִתֵּן שֶׁאֵין זֶה יָכוֹל לְהָבִיא הַסְּפִינָה עַצְמָהּ וְלֹא זֶה יָכוֹל לְהָבִיא יַיִן עַצְמוֹ. שָׂכַר סְפִינָה סְתָם לְיַיִן סְתָם הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חוֹלְקִין הַשָּׂכָר: \n", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַסְּפִינָה וּפָרְקָה בַּחֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכַר כָּל הַדֶּרֶךְ וְאִם מָצָא הַשּׂוֹכֵר מִי שֶׁיַּשְׂכִּיר אוֹתָהּ לוֹ עַד הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁפָּסַק שׂוֹכֵר וְיֵשׁ לְבַעַל הַסְּפִינָה עָלָיו תַּרְעֹמֶת. וְכֵן אִם מָכַר כָּל הַסְּחוֹרָה שֶׁבַּסְּפִינָה לְאִישׁ אַחֵר בַּחֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ וְיָרַד וְעָלָה הַלּוֹקֵחַ נוֹטֵל שְׂכַר חֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן וּשְׂכַר הַחֵצִי מִזֶּה הָאַחֲרוֹן וְיֵשׁ לְבַעַל הַסְּפִינָה עָלָיו תַּרְעֹמֶת שֶׁגָּרַם לוֹ לִסְבּל דַּעַת אִישׁ אַחֵר שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא הֻרְגַּל בּוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "מִכָּאן אֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁהַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵרוֹ עַד זְמַן קָצוּב וְרָצָה הַשּׂוֹכֵר לְהַשְׂכִּיר הַבַּיִת לְאַחֵר עַד סוֹף זְמַנּוֹ מַשְׂכִּיר לַאֲחֵרִים אִם יֵשׁ בְּנֵי בַּיִת כְּמִנְיַן בְּנֵי בֵּיתוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ אַרְבָּעָה לֹא יִשְׂכֹּר לַחֲמִשָּׁה. שֶׁלֹּא אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֵין הַשּׂוֹכֵר רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׂכִּיר אֶלָּא מִטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר לוֹ אֵין רְצוֹנִי שֶׁיְּהֵא פִּקְדוֹנִי בְּיַד אַחֵר אֲבָל בְּקַרְקַע אוֹ בִּסְפִינָה שֶׁהֲרֵי בַּעְלָהּ עִמָּהּ אֵין אוֹמֵר כֵּן. וְכֵן אֲנִי אוֹמֵר אִם אָמַר לוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לַשּׂוֹכֵר לָמָּה תִּטְרַח וְתַשְׂכִּיר בֵּיתִי לַאֲחֵרִים אִם לֹא תִּרְצֶה לַעֲמֹד בּוֹ צֵא הַנִּיחוֹ וְאַתָּה פָּטוּר מִשְּׂכִירָתוֹ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַשְׂכִּירוֹ לְאַחֵר שֶׁזֶּה בְּאַל תִּמְנַע טוֹב מִבְּעָלָיו עַד שֶׁאַתָּה מַשְׂכִּירוֹ לְאַחֵר תַּנִּיחַ לָזֶה בֵּיתוֹ. וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁהוֹרָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַשְׂכִּירוֹ לְאַחֵר כְּלָל וְיִתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ עַד סוֹף זְמַנּוֹ וְלֹא יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁדִּין זֶה אֱמֶת: \n", + "בַּיִת זֶה אֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיר לְךָ וְאַחַר שֶׁהִשְׂכִּירוֹ נָפַל אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לִבְנוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא מְחַשֵּׁב עַל מַה שֶּׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ וּמַחֲזִיר לוֹ שְׁאָר הַשְּׂכִירוּת. אֲבָל אִם סְתָרוֹ חַיָּב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ בַּיִת אַחֵר אוֹ יַשְׂכִּיר לוֹ כְּמוֹתוֹ. וְכֵן אִם חָזַר אַחַר שֶׁהִשְׂכִּירוֹ לָזֶה וְהִשְׂכִּירוֹ אוֹ מְכָרוֹ לְעַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ אַנָּס שֶׁהִפְקִיעַ שְׂכִירוּת הָרִאשׁוֹן הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב לְהַשְׂכִּיר לוֹ בַּיִת אַחֵר כְּמוֹתוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "הִשְׂכִּיר לוֹ בַּיִת סְתָם וְאַחַר שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ בַּיִת נָפַל חַיָּב לִבְנוֹתוֹ אוֹ יִתֵּן לוֹ בַּיִת אַחֵר. וְאִם הָיָה קָטָן מִן הַבַּיִת שֶׁנָּפַל אֵין הַשּׂוֹכֵר יָכוֹל לְעַכֵּב עָלָיו. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה קָרוּי בַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא הִשְׂכִּיר אֶלָּא בַּיִת סְתָם. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ בַּיִת כָּזֶה אֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיר לְךָ חַיָּב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ בַּיִת כְּמִדַּת אָרְכּוֹ וּמִדַּת רָחְבּוֹ שֶׁל בַּיִת זֶה שֶׁהֶרְאָהוּ. וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ לֹא הָיָה עִנְיַן דְּבָרַי אֶלָּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה קָרוֹב לַנָּהָר אוֹ לַשּׁוּק אוֹ לַמֶּרְחָץ כָּזֶה אֶלָּא חַיָּב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ בַּיִת כְּמִדָּתוֹ וּכְצוּרָתוֹ לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיָה קָטָן לֹא יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ גָּדוֹל גָּדוֹל לֹא יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ קָטָן אֶחָד לֹא יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם לֹא יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ אֶחָד. וְלֹא יִפְחֹת מִן הַחַלּוֹנוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ בּוֹ וְלֹא יוֹסִיף עֲלֵיהֶן אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת שְׁנֵיהֶם: \n", + "הַמַּשְׂכִּיר עֲלִיָּה סְתָם חַיָּב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ עֲלִיָּה. אָמַר לוֹ עֲלִיָּה זוֹ שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי בַּיִת זֶה אֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיר לְךָ הֲרֵי שִׁעְבֵּד בַּיִת לַעֲלִיָּה לְפִיכָךְ אִם נִפְחֲתָה הָעֲלִיָּה בְּאַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים אוֹ יֶתֶר חַיָּב הַמַּשְׂכִּיר לְתַקֵּן וְאִם לֹא תִּקֵּן הֲרֵי הַשּׂוֹכֵר יוֹרֵד וְדָר בַּבַּיִת עִם בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עַד שֶׁיְּתַקֵּן. הָיוּ שְׁתֵּי עֲלִיּוֹת זוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי זוֹ וְנִפְחֲתָה הָעֶלְיוֹנָה דָּר בַּתַּחְתּוֹנָה. נִפְחֲתָה הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם יָדוּר בָּעֶלְיוֹנָה אוֹ בַּבַּיִת לְפִיכָךְ לֹא יָדוּר וְאִם דָּר אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִשָּׁם. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁאָמַר לַחֲבֵרוֹ דַּלִּית זוֹ שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַפַּרְסֵק הַזֶּה אֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיר לְךָ וְנֶעֱקַר אִילָן הַפַּרְסֵק מִמְּקוֹמוֹ וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ חַיָּב אַתָּה לְהַעֲמִיד הַפַּרְסֵק כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהַדַּלִּית קַיֶּמֶת. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n" + ], + [ + "הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵרוֹ בְּבִירָה גְּדוֹלָה מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּזִיזֶיהָ וּבִכְתָלֶיהָ עַד אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וּבְתַרְבַּץ שֶׁל חָצֵר וּבָרְחָבָה שֶׁאֲחוֹרֵי הַבָּתִּים. וּמָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּעֳבִי הַכְּתָלִים מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּעֳבִי הַכְּתָלִים. וּבְכָל אֵלּוּ הַדְּבָרִים הוֹלְכִין אַחַר מִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה וְהַשֵּׁמוֹת הַיְדוּעִין לָהֶם כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ בְּעִנְיַן מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר: \n", + "הַמַּשְׂכִּיר חֲצֵרוֹ סְתָם לֹא הִשְׂכִּיר הָרֶפֶת שֶׁבָּהּ: \n", + "הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵרוֹ חַיָּב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ דְּלָתוֹת וְלִפְתֹּחַ לוֹ הַחַלּוֹנוֹת שֶׁנִּתְקַלְקְלוּ וּלְחַזֵּק אֶת הַתִּקְרָה וְלִסְמֹךְ אֶת הַקּוֹרָה שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרָה וְלַעֲשׂוֹת נֶגֶר וּמַנְעוּל וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בְּאֵלּוּ מִדְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן מַעֲשֵׂה אֻמָּן וְהֵם עִקָּר גָּדוֹל בִּישִׁיבַת הַבָּתִּים וְהַחֲצֵרוֹת. הַשּׂוֹכֵר חַיָּב לַעֲשׂוֹת מַעֲקֶה וּמְזוּזָה וּלְתַקֵּן מְקוֹם הַמְּזוּזָה מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. וְכֵן אִם רָצָה לַעֲשׂוֹת סֻלָּם אוֹ מַרְזֵב אוֹ לְהָטִיחַ גַּגּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹשֶׂה מִשֶּׁל עַצְמוֹ: \n", + "הַמַּשְׂכִּיר עֲלִיָּה לַחֲבֵרוֹ וְנִפְחֲתָה בְּאַרְבָּעָה אוֹ יֶתֶר חַיָּב לְתַקֵּן הַתִּקְרָה וְהַמַּעֲזִיבָה שֶׁעָלֶיהָ שֶׁהַמַּעֲזִיבָה חִזּוּק הַתִּקְרָה הִיא: \n", + "הַזֶּבֶל שֶׁבֶּחָצֵר הֲרֵי הוּא שֶׁל שׂוֹכֵר לְפִיכָךְ הוּא מְטַפֵּל בּוֹ לְהוֹצִיאוֹ וְאִם יֵשׁ שָׁם מִנְהָג הוֹלְכִין אַחֵר הַמִּנְהָג. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיוּ הַבְּהֵמוֹת שֶׁעָשׂוּ הַזֶּבֶל שֶׁל שׂוֹכֵר אֲבָל אִם הַבְּהֵמוֹת שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים הַזֶּבֶל שֶׁל בַּעַל הֶחָצֵר שֶׁחֲצֵרוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם קוֹנָה שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא שְׂכוּרָה בְּיַד אֲחֵרִים: \n", + "הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת אוֹ חָצֵר אוֹ מֶרְחָץ אוֹ חֲנוּת אוֹ שְׁאָר הַמְּקוֹמוֹת עַד זְמַן קָצוּב הֲרֵי זֶה כּוֹפֵהוּ לָצֵאת בְּסוֹף זְמַנּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מַמְתִּין לוֹ אֲפִלּוּ שָׁעָה אַחַת. שָׂכַר לוֹ בַּיִת סְתָם לְלִינָה אֵין פָּחוֹת מִיּוֹם אֶחָד. לִשְׁבִיתָה אֵין פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי יָמִים. לְנִשּׂוּאִין אֵין פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם: \n", + "הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵרוֹ סְתָם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ עַד שֶׁיּוֹדִיעוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם מִקֹּדֶם כְּדֵי לְבַקֵּשׁ מָקוֹם וְלֹא יִהְיֶה מֻשְׁלָךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ וּלְסוֹף הַשְּׁלֹשִׁים יֵצֵא. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה אֲבָל בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ מִן הֶחָג וְעַד הַפֶּסַח. קָבַע לוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים לִפְנֵי הֶחָג אִם נִשְׁאַר מִן הַשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אֲפִלּוּ יוֹם אֶחָד לְאַחַר הֶחָג אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ עַד מוֹצָאֵי הַפֶּסַח וְהוּא שֶׁיּוֹדִיעוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם מִקֹּדֶם. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בַּעֲיָרוֹת אֲבָל בַּכְּרַכִּים אֶחָד יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה וְאֶחָד יְמוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעוֹ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ מִקֹּדֶם. וְכֵן בַּחֲנוּת בֵּין בַּכְּרַכִּים בֵּין בַּעֲיָרוֹת צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעוֹ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ מִקֹּדֶם: \n", + "כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמַּשְׂכִּיר חַיָּב לְהוֹדִיעוֹ כָּךְ הַשּׂוֹכֵר חַיָּב לְהוֹדִיעוֹ מִקֹּדֶם שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם בַּעֲיָרוֹת אוֹ מִקֹּדֶם שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ בַּכְּרַכִּים כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּבַקֵּשׁ שָׁכֵן וְלֹא יִשָּׁאֵר בֵּיתוֹ פָּנוּי. וְאִם לֹא הוֹדִיעוֹ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לָצֵאת אֶלָּא יִתֵּן הַשָּׂכָר: \n", + "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַמַּשְׂכִּיר יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ וְלֹא הַשּׂוֹכֵר יָכוֹל לָצֵאת עַד שֶׁיּוֹדִיעוֹ מִקֹּדֶם. אִם הוּקְרוּ הַבָּתִּים יֵשׁ לַמַּשְׂכִּיר לְהוֹסִיף עָלָיו וְלוֹמַר לַשּׂוֹכֵר אוֹ שְׂכֹר בְּשָׁוֶה עַד שֶׁתִּמְצָא אוֹ תֵּצֵא. וְכֵן אִם הוּזְלוּ הַבָּתִּים יֵשׁ לַשּׂוֹכֵר לִפְחוֹת הַשָּׂכָר וְלוֹמַר לַמַּשְׂכִּיר אוֹ הַשְׂכֵּר לִי כְּשַׁעַר שֶׁל עַתָּה אוֹ הֲרֵי בֵּיתְךָ לְפָנֶיךָ. נָפַל בֵּית הַמַּשְׂכִּיר שֶׁהָיָה דָּר בּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה יֵשׁ לוֹ לְהוֹצִיא הַשּׂוֹכֵר מִבֵּיתוֹ וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ אֵינוֹ בְּדִין שֶׁתִּהְיֶה אַתָּה יוֹשֵׁב בְּבֵיתִי עַד שֶׁתִּמְצָא מָקוֹם וַאֲנִי מֻשְׁלָךְ בְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאֵין אַתָּה בַּעַל זְכוּת בְּבַיִת זֶה יוֹתֵר מִמֶּנִּי: \n", + "נָתַן הַבַּיִת לִבְנוֹ לִשָּׂא בּוֹ אִשָּׁה אִם הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁבְּנוֹ נַעֲשָׂה חָתָן בִּזְמַן פְּלוֹנִי וְהָיָה אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לְהוֹדִיעוֹ מִקֹּדֶם וְלֹא הוֹדִיעוֹ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ. וְאִם עַכְשָׁו נִזְדַּמְּנָה לוֹ אִשָּׁה וַהֲרֵי הוּא נוֹשְׂאָהּ מִיָּד הֲרֵי זֶה יֵשׁ לוֹ לְהוֹצִיאוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּדִין שֶׁיִּהְיֶה זֶה יוֹשֵׁב בְּבֵיתוֹ וּבֶן בַּעַל הַבַּיִת יִשְׂכֹּר בַּיִת שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בּוֹ חֲתֻנָּה: \n", + "מָכַר אֶת הַבַּיִת אוֹ נְתָנוֹ אוֹ הוֹרִישׁוֹ אֵין הַשֵּׁנִי יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ עַד שֶׁיּוֹדִיעוֹ מִקֹּדֶם שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אוֹ מִקֹּדֶם שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַשּׂוֹכֵר אוֹמֵר לוֹ אֵין כֹּחֲךָ יֶתֶר מִכֹּחַ זֶה שֶׁזָּכִיתָ בְּבַיִת זֶה מֵחֲמָתוֹ: \n" + ], + [ + "כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמַּתְנֶה אָדָם כָּל תְּנַאי שֶׁיִּרְצֶה בְּמִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר כָּךְ מַתְנֶה בִּשְׂכִירוּת שֶׁהַשְּׂכִירוּת מְכִירָה לִזְמַן קָצוּב הִיא וְכָל שֶׁמִּמְכָּרוֹ בִּנְכָסָיו מִמְכָּר שׂוֹכֵר שְׂכִירוּתוֹ שְׂכִירוּת. וְכָל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ לִמְכֹּר כָּךְ אֵין לוֹ לִשְׂכֹּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יֵשׁ לוֹ פֵּרוֹת בִּלְבַד בְּאוֹתָהּ הַקַּרְקַע הֲרֵי זֶה שׂוֹכֵר וְאֵינוֹ מוֹכֵר: \n", + "הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵרוֹ לְשָׁנָה וְנִתְעַבְּרָה הַשָּׁנָה נִתְעַבְּרָה לַשּׂוֹכֵר. הִשְׂכִּיר לֶחֳדָשִׁים נִתְעַבְּרָה לַמַּשְׂכִּיר. הִזְכִּיר לוֹ חֳדָשִׁים וְשָׁנָה בֵּין שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ דִּינָר לְחֹדֶשׁ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר דִּינָר בְּשָׁנָה. בֵּין שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר דִּינָר לְשָׁנָה דִּינָר בְּכָל חֹדֶשׁ. הֲרֵי חֹדֶשׁ הָעִבּוּר שֶׁל מַשְׂכִּיר שֶׁהַקַּרְקַע בְּחֶזְקַת בְּעָלִים וְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין דָּבָר מִיַּד בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע אֶלָּא בִּרְאָיָה בְּרוּרָה. וְכֵן בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁאָמַר לִזְמַן זֶה הִשְׂכַּרְתִּי לְךָ וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר אוֹמֵר לֹא שָׂכַרְתִּי אֶלָּא סְתָם אוֹ לִזְמַן אָרֹךְ עַל הַשּׂוֹכֵר לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא בַּעַל הַבַּיִת נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וּמוֹצִיאוֹ מִן הַבַּיִת: \n", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר שֶׁאָמַר נָתַתִּי שְׂכַר הַבַּיִת שֶׁנִּתְחַיַּבְתִּי בּוֹ וְהַמַּשְׂכִּיר אוֹמֵר עֲדַיִן לֹא נָטַלְתִּי בֵּין שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּשְׁטָר בֵּין שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּעֵדִים. אִם תְּבָעוֹ בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם עַל הַשּׂוֹכֵר לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה אוֹ יִתֵּן וְיַחֲרִים עַל מִי שֶׁלָּקַח מִמֶּנּוּ אוֹ יִטְעֹן עָלָיו בְּדָמִים שֶׁנָּתַן תְּחִלָּה טַעֲנָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וְיַשְׁבִּיעֵהוּ הֶסֵּת. תְּבָעוֹ הַמַּשְׂכִּיר לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וַאֲפִלּוּ בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלֹשִׁים עַל הַמַּשְׂכִּיר לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה אוֹ יִשָּׁבַע הַשּׂוֹכֵר שֶׁכְּבָר נָתַן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ וְיִפָּטֵר. וְכֵן אִם שָׂכַר מִמֶּנּוּ וּפֵרֵשׁ שֶׁיִּתֵּן לוֹ הַשָּׂכָר שָׁנָה בְּשָׁנָה וּתְבָעוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הַשָּׁנָה עַל הַשּׂוֹכֵר לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה. תְּבָעוֹ לְאַחַר הַשָּׁנָה וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּיוֹם תִּשְׁעָה וְעֶשְׂרִים בֶּאֱלוּל עַל הַמַּשְׂכִּיר לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה: \n", + "הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵרוֹ בִּשְׁטָר לְעֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים וְאֵין בּוֹ זְמַן הַשּׂוֹכֵר אוֹמֵר עֲדַיִן לֹא עָבַר מִזְּמַן הַשְּׁטָר אֶלָּא שָׁנָה וְהַמַּשְׂכִּיר אוֹמֵר כְּבָר עָבְרוּ וְשָׁלְמוּ שְׁנֵי הַשְּׂכִירוּת וְשָׁכַנְתָּ עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים. עַל הַשּׂוֹכֵר לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה יִשָּׁבַע הַמַּשְׂכִּיר הֶסֵּת וְיוֹצִיאוֹ: \n", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר פַּרְדֵּס אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מַשְׁכּוֹן בְּיָדוֹ לְעֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים וְיָבֵשׁ הַפַּרְדֵּס בְּתוֹךְ הַזְּמַן יִמָּכְרוּ עֵצָיו וְיִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְיֹאכַל פֵּרוֹתָיו עַד סוֹף זְמַן שְׂכִירוּתוֹ אוֹ זְמַן הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן. וְגוּף הָאִילָנוֹת שֶׁיָּבְשׁוּ אוֹ נִקְצְצוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם רִבִּית הַמַּלְוֶה וְהַלּוֶֹה: \n", + "שְׁטַר הַשְּׂכִירוּת אוֹ שְׁטַר הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהּ שָׁנִים סְתָם. בַּעַל הַפֵּרוֹת אוֹמֵר שָׁלֹשׁ וּבַעַל הַקַּרְקַע אוֹמֵר שְׁתַּיִם וְקָדַם זֶה הַשּׂוֹכֵר אוֹ הַמַּלְוֶה וְאָכַל הַפֵּרוֹת הֲרֵי הַפֵּרוֹת בְּחֶזְקַת אוֹכְלֵיהֶן עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע רְאָיָה. אֲכָלָהּ הַשּׂוֹכֵר אוֹ הַמְמַשְׁכֵּן שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְכָבַשׁ הַשְּׁטָר וְאָמַר לְחָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים יֵשׁ לִי פֵּרוֹת וּבַעַל הַקַּרְקַע אוֹמֵר שָׁלֹשׁ אָמְרוּ לוֹ הָבֵא שְׁטָרְךָ וְאָמַר אָבַד הַשּׂוֹכֵר נֶאֱמָן שֶׁאִלּוּ רָצָה אָמַר לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי שֶׁהֲרֵי אֲכָלָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהִכְנִיס פֵּרוֹתָיו לְבֵית חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהִטְעוּהוּ עַד שֶׁהִכְנִיס פֵּרוֹתָיו וְהִנִּיחָם וְהָלַךְ יֵשׁ לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת לִמְכֹּר לוֹ מֵאוֹתָן הַפֵּרוֹת כְּדֵי לִתֵּן שְׂכַר הַפּוֹעֲלִים שֶׁמּוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן וּמַשְׁלִיכִין אוֹתָם לַשּׁוּק. וּמִדַּת חֲסִידוּת הוּא שֶׁיּוֹדִיעַ לְבֵית דִּין וְיַשְׂכִּירוּ מִמִּקְצָת דְּמֵיהֶן מָקוֹם מִשּׁוּם הֶשֵּׁב אֲבֵדָה לַבְּעָלִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה כַּהֹגֶן: \n", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר רֵחַיִם מֵחֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁיִּטְחֹן לוֹ עֶשְׂרִים סְאָה בְּכָל חֹדֶשׁ בִּשְׂכָרוֹ וְהֶעֱשִׁיר בַּעַל הָרֵחַיִם וַהֲרֵי אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִטְחֹן שָׁם אִם יֵשׁ לַשּׂוֹכֵר חִטִּים שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִטְחֹן לְעַצְמוֹ אוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לִתֵּן דְּמֵי טְחִינַת עֶשְׂרִים סְאָה שֶׁזּוֹ מִדַּת סְדוֹם הִיא. וְאִם אֵין לוֹ יָכוֹל לוֹמַר אֵין לִי דָּמִים וַהֲרֵינִי טוֹחֵן לְךָ כְּמוֹ שֶׁשָּׂכַרְתִּי וְאִם אֵין אַתָּה צָרִיךְ מְכֹר לַאֲחֵרִים. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n" + ], + [ + "אֶחָד הַשּׂוֹכֵר מֵחֲבֵרוֹ שָׂדֶה לְזָרְעָהּ אוֹ כֶּרֶם לֶאֱכל פֵּרוֹתָיו בְּדָמִים אוֹ שֶׁשָּׂכַר מִמֶּנּוּ בְּפֵרוֹת קְצוּבִים כְּגוֹן שֶׁשָּׂכַר מִמֶּנּוּ שָׂדֶה זוֹ בְּעֶשְׂרִים כּוֹר בְּשָׁנָה וְכֶרֶם זֶה בְּעֶשְׂרִים כַּדֵּי יַיִן בְּכָל שָׁנָה שְׁנֵיהֶן דִּין אֶחָד יֵשׁ לָהֶן. וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר בְּפֵרוֹת הוּא הַנִּקְרָא חוֹכֵר: \n", + "הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה אוֹ פַּרְדֵּס כְּדֵי לַעֲבֹד אוֹתוֹ וּלְהוֹצִיא עָלָיו יְצִיאוֹת וְיִתֵּן לְבַעַל הַקַּרְקַע שְׁלִישׁ הַתְּבוּאוֹת אוֹ רְבִיעַ אוֹ מַה שֶּׁיַּתְנוּ בֵּינֵיהֶן וְהוּא הַנִּקְרָא מְקַבֵּל. כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא לִסְיַג הָאָרֶץ בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע חַיָּב בּוֹ וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא שְׁמִירָה יְתֵרָה הַחוֹכֵר אוֹ הַמְקַבֵּל חַיָּב בּוֹ. הַקַּרְדֹּם שֶׁחוֹפְרִין בּוֹ הָאָרֶץ וְהַכֵּלִים שֶׁנּוֹשְׂאִין בָּהֶן הֶעָפָר וְהַדְּלִי וְהַכַּד וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁדּוֹלִין בָּהֶן הַמַּיִם עַל בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע. וַחֲטִיטַת הַמְּקוֹמוֹת שֶׁמְּקַבְּצִין בָּהֶן הַמַּיִם עַל הַחוֹכֵר אוֹ עַל הַמְקַבֵּל: \n", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אוֹ הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ לְשָׁנִים מוּעָטוֹת לֹא יִזְרָעֶנָּה פִּשְׁתָּן. שְׂכָרָהּ אוֹ קִבְּלָהּ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים זוֹרְעָהּ שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה פִּשְׁתָּן וְאֵין הַשְּׁבִיעִית מִן הַמִּנְיָן. שְׂכָרָהּ אוֹ קִבְּלָהּ שָׁבוּעַ אֶחָד שְׁבִיעִית מִן הַמִּנְיָן: \n", + "הַחוֹכֵר אוֹ הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וְהִיא בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין אוֹ בֵּית הָאִילָן וְיָבְשָׁה מַעְיַן בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין וְלֹא פָּסַק הַנָּהָר הַגָּדוֹל אֶלָּא אֶפְשָׁר לְהָבִיא מִמֶּנּוּ בִּדְלִי. אוֹ שֶׁנִּקְצַץ הָאִילָן שֶׁל בֵּית הָאִילָנוֹת אֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מֵחַכִּירוֹ. וְאִם מַכַּת מְדִינָה הִיא כְּגוֹן שֶׁיָּבַשׁ הַנָּהָר מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מֵחַכִּירוֹ. הָיָה עוֹמֵד בְּתוֹךְ הַשָּׂדֶה וְאָמַר לוֹ בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין הַזֶּה אֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיר לְךָ בֵּית הָאִילָן זֶה אֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיר יָבֵשׁ הַמַּעְיָן אוֹ נִקְצַץ הָאִילָן מְנַכֶּה מֵחַכִּירוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא עוֹמֵד בְּתוֹכָהּ וְלֹא אָמַר לוֹ הַזֶּה אֶלָּא כְּמִי שֶּׁאוֹמֵר כְּמוֹת שֶׁהִיא עַתָּה אֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיר לְפִיכָךְ אִם לֹא הָיָה עוֹמֵד בְּתוֹכָהּ וְאָמַר לוֹ בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין אֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיר לְךָ אוֹ בֵּית הָאִילָן וְיָבֵשׁ הַמַּעְיָן אוֹ שֶׁנִּקְצַץ הָאִילָן אֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מֵחַכִּירוֹ: \n", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אוֹ הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וַאֲכָלָהּ חָגָב אוֹ נִשְׁתַּדְּפָה אִם אֵרַע דָּבָר זֶה לְרֹב הַשָּׂדוֹת שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מֵחַכִּירוֹ הַכּל לְפִי הַהֶפְסֵד שֶׁאֵרְעוֹ וְאִם לֹא פָּשְׁטָה הַמַּכָּה בְּרֹב הַשָּׂדוֹת אֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מֵחַכִּירוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּדְּפוּ כָּל הַשָּׂדוֹת שֶׁל בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע. נִשְׁתַּדְּפוּ כָּל הַשָּׂדוֹת שֶׁל הַשּׂוֹכֵר אוֹ הַמְקַבֵּל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁפָּשְׁטָה הַמַּכָּה בְּרֹב הַשָּׂדוֹת אֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מֵחַכִּירוֹ שֶׁאֵין זֶה הַהֶפְסֵד תָּלוּי אֶלָּא בַּשּׂוֹכֵר שֶׁהֲרֵי כָּל שְׂדוֹתָיו נִשְׁתַּדְּפוּ. הִתְנָה עָלָיו בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע שֶׁיִּזְרָעֶנָּה חִטִּים וּזְרָעָהּ שְׂעוֹרִים אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא זְרָעָהּ כְּלָל אוֹ שֶׁזְּרָעָהּ וְלֹא צָמְחָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּא חָגָב אוֹ שִׁדָּפוֹן וְהֻכְּתָה רֹב הַמְּדִינָה אֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מֵחַכִּירוֹ. וְעַד מָתַי חַיָּב לְהִטַּפֵּל וְלִזְרֹעַ פַּעַם אַחֶרֶת אִם לֹא צָמְחָה כָּל זְמַן שֶׁרָאוּי לִזְרִיעָה בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם: \n", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אוֹ הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לִקְצֹר יִקְצֹר וְאֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לַעֲקֹר. לַעֲקֹר יַעֲקֹר וְאֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לִקְצֹר. וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מְעַכְּבִין זֶה עַל זֶה. וּמָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לַחְרשׁ אַחֲרָיו יַחְרשׁ. מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהַשְׂכִּיר אִילָנוֹת עַל גַּב קַרְקַע מַשְׂכִּירִין וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִשְׂכִּיר לוֹ סְתָם בְּפָחוֹת מִן הַיָּדוּעַ. וּמָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְהַשְׂכִּיר אִילָנוֹת אֵין לוֹ אִילָנוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׂכַר מִמֶּנּוּ בְּיֶתֶר עַל הַיָּדוּעַ. הַכּל כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה: \n", + "הַחוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ בַּעֲשָׂרָה כּוֹר חִטִּים וְלָקְתָה נוֹתֵן לוֹ מִתּוֹכָהּ. הָיוּ חִטֶּיהָ יָפוֹת לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ הֲרֵינִי לוֹקֵחַ לְךָ מִן הַשּׁוּק אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן לוֹ מִתּוֹכָהּ. חָכַר מִמֶּנּוּ כֶּרֶם בַּעֲשָׂרָה סַלֵּי עֲנָבִים וְהִקְרִיסוּ אַחַר שֶׁנִּבְצְרוּ וְכֵן עֳמָרִים שֶׁלָקוּ אַחַר שֶׁנִּקְצְרוּ נוֹתֵן לוֹ מִתּוֹכָן. חֲכָרוֹ בַּעֲשָׂרָה כַּדֵּי יַיִן וְהֶחְמִיץ חַיָּב לִתֵּן לוֹ יַיִן טוֹב. חֲכָרָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ בְּמֵאָה עֳמָרִים שֶׁל אַסְפַּסְתָּא וּזְרָעָהּ מִין אַחֵר וְאַחַר כָּךְ חֲרָשָׁהּ וּזְרָעָהּ אַסְפַּסְתָּא וְלָקְתָה אוֹ שֶׁזְּרָעָהּ בַּתְּחִלָּה אַסְפַּסְתָּא וַחֲרָשָׁהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ זְרָעָהּ פַּעַם אַחֶרֶת וְלָקְתָה אֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן לוֹ מִתּוֹכָהּ אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן לוֹ אַסְפַּסְתָּא טוֹבָה שֶׁהֲרֵי שִׁנָּה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "הַחוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וְלֹא רָצָה לְנַכֵּשׁ וְאָמַר לוֹ מַה הֶפְסֵד יֵשׁ לְךָ הֲרֵינִי נוֹתֵן לְךָ חַכִּירְךָ אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ לְמָחָר אַתָּה יוֹצֵא מִמֶּנָּה וְהִיא מַעֲלָה עֲשָׂבִים. וַאֲפִלּוּ אָמַר לוֹ בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה אֲנִי חוֹרֵשׁ אוֹתָהּ אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ: \n", + "הַחוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ לְזָרְעָהּ שְׂעוֹרִים לֹא יִזְרָעֶנָּה חִטִּים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַחִטִּין מַכְחִישׁוֹת אֶת הַקַּרְקַע יֶתֶר מֵהַשְּׂעוֹרִים. שְׂכָרָהּ לְזָרְעָהּ חִטִּים יִזְרָעֶנָּה שְׂעוֹרִים. קִטְנִית לֹא יִזְרָעֶנָּה תְּבוּאָה. תְּבוּאָה יִזְרָעֶנָּה קִטְנִית. וּבְבָבֶל וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ לֹא יִזְרָעֶנָּה קִטְנִית מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַקִּטְנִית שָׁם מַכְחֶשֶׁת אֶת הָאָרֶץ: \n", + "הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ לְשָׁנִים מוּעָטוֹת אֵין לַמְקַבֵּל כְּלוּם בְּקוֹרַת הַשִּׁקְמָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ וְלֹא בְּשֶׁבַח הָאִילָנוֹת שֶׁיָּצְאוּ מֵאֲלֵיהֶן בַּשָּׂדֶה. אֲבָל מְחַשְּׁבִין לוֹ מְקוֹם הָאִילָנוֹת כְּאִלּוּ הָיָה בָּהֶן אוֹתוֹ זֶרַע שֶׁזָּרַע בְּכָל הַשָּׂדֶה. וְהוּא שֶׁצָּמְחוּ הָאִילָנוֹת בְּמָקוֹם הָרָאוּי לִזְרִיעָה אֲבָל אִם יָצְאוּ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִזְרִיעָה אֵין מְחַשְּׁבִין לוֹ כְּלוּם. וְאִם קִבְּלָהּ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים אוֹ יֶתֶר יֵשׁ לוֹ בְּקוֹרַת הַשִּׁקְמָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ. הִגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ לְהִסְתַּלֵּק מִן הַשָּׂדֶה וְהָיוּ שָׁם זְרָעִים שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא הִגִּיעוּ לְהִמָּכֵר אוֹ שֶׁנִּגְמְרוּ וְלֹא הִגִּיעַ יוֹם הַשּׁוּק לְמָכְרָן שָׁמִין אוֹתָן וְנוֹטֵל מִבַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁחוֹלְקִין הַמְקַבֵּל וּבַעַל הַקַּרְקַע בַּתְּבוּאָה כָּךְ חוֹלְקִין בַּתֶּבֶן וּבַקַּשׁ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁחוֹלְקִין בַּיַּיִן כָּךְ חוֹלְקִין בַּזְּמוֹרוֹת. אֲבָל הַקָּנִים הַמַּעֲמִידִים תַּחַת הַגְּפָנִים אִם קָנוּ אוֹתָן בְּשֻׁתָּפוּת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חוֹלְקִין בָּהֶן וְאִם הֵן מִשֶּׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן זֶה שֶׁקָּנָה אוֹתָן הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁלּוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ לִטַּע מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה עֲשָׂרָה בּוֹרְאוֹת לִסְאָה. יֶתֶר עַל זֶה מְגַלְגְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַכּל: \n", + "הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וְלֹא עָשְׂתָה אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ כְּדֵי שֶׁתּוֹצִיא סָאתַיִם יֶתֶר עַל הַהוֹצָאָה חַיָּב הַמְקַבֵּל לִטָּפֵל בָּהּ. שֶׁכָּךְ כּוֹתֵב לְבַעַל הַקַּרְקַע אָנָּא אֵיקוּם וְאָנִיר וְאֶזְרַע וְאֶקְצֹר וְאֶעֱמֹר וְאָדוּשׁ וְאֶזְרֶה וְאַעֲמִיד כְּרִי לְפָנֶיךָ וְתִטּל אֶת חֶצְיוֹ אוֹ מַה שֶּׁיִּתְּנוּ וַאֲנִי אֶטּל הַשְּׁאָר בִּשְׂכַר עֲמָלִי וּבְמַה שֶּׁהוֹצֵאתִי: \n", + "הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וְאַחַר שֶׁזָּכָה בָּהּ הוֹבִירָהּ שָׁמִין אוֹתָהּ כַּמָּה הִיא רְאוּיָה לַעֲשׂוֹת וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מַגִּיעַ לוֹ. שֶׁכָּךְ כּוֹתֵב לְבַעַל הַקַּרְקַע אִם אוֹבִיר וְלֹא אַעֲבִיד אֲשַׁלֵּם בְּמֵיטָבָא. וְהוּא הַדִּין אִם הוֹבִיר מִקְצָתָהּ. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה נִתְחַיֵּב לְשַׁלֵּם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַק עַל עַצְמוֹ דָּבָר קָצוּב כְּדֵי שֶׁנֹּאמַר הֲרֵי הִיא כְּאַסְמַכְתָּא אֶלָּא הִתְנָה שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּם בְּמֵיטָבָא וּלְפִיכָךְ גָּמַר וְשִׁעְבֵּד עַצְמוֹ. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר אִם אוֹבִיר וְלֹא אַעֲבִיד אֶתֵּן לְךָ מֵאָה דִּינָרִין הֲרֵי זוֹ אַסְמַכְתָּא וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁרְאוּיָה לַעֲשׂוֹת בִּלְבַד: \n", + "הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה לְזָרְעָהּ שֻׁמְשְׁמִין וּזְרָעָהּ חִטִּים וְעָשְׂתָה חִטִּים שֶׁשָּׁוִין כַּמָּה שֶׁהִיא רְאוּיָה לַעֲשׂוֹת מִן הַשֻּׁמְשְׁמִין אֵין לוֹ עָלָיו אֶלָּא תַּרְעֹמֶת. עָשְׂתָה פָּחוֹת מִמַּה שֶּׁהִיא רְאוּיָה לַעֲשׂוֹת מִן הַשֻּׁמְשְׁמִין מְשַׁלֵּם לוֹ הַמְקַבֵּל כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁהִיא רְאוּיָה לַעֲשׂוֹת מִן הַשֻּׁמְשְׁמִין. עָשְׂתָה חִטִּים יֶתֶר מִמַּה שֶּׁהִיא רְאוּיָה לַעֲשׂוֹת מִן הַשֻּׁמְשְׁמִין חוֹלְקִין לְפִי הַתְּנַאי שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּשְׂתַּכֵּר בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע: \n" + ], + [ + "הַשׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֲלִים וְאָמַר לָהֶם לְהַשְׁכִּים וּלְהַעֲרִיב מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְהַשְׁכִּים וְשֶׁלֹּא לְהַעֲרִיב אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְכוּפָן. מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לָזוּן יָזוּן. לְסַפֵּק בִּגְרוֹגָרוֹת אוֹ בִּתְמָרִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן לְפוֹעֲלִים יְסֻפַּק הַכּל כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה: ", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל וְאָמַר לוֹ כְּאֶחָד וְכִשְׁנַיִם מִבְּנֵי הָעִיר רוֹאִין הַפָּחוּת שֶׁבַּשְּׂכִירוּת וְהַיָּתֵר שֶׁבַּשְּׂכִירוּת וּמְשַׁמְּנִין בֵּינֵיהֶן: ", + "אָמַר לִשְׁלוּחוֹ צֵא וּשְׂכֹר לִי פּוֹעֲלִים בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה וְהָלַךְ וּשְׂכָרָן בְּאַרְבָּעָה אִם אָמַר לָהֶם הַשָּׁלִיחַ שְׂכַרְכֶם עָלַי נוֹתֵן לָהֶם אַרְבָּעָה וְנוֹטֵל מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת שְׁלֹשָׁה וּמַפְסִיד אֶחָד מִכִּיסוֹ. אָמַר לָהֶם שְׂכַרְכֶם עַל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת נוֹתֵן לָהֶם בַּעַל הַבַּיִת כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה. הָיָה בַּמְּדִינָה מִי שֶׁנִּשְׂכַּר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה וּמִי שֶׁנִּשְׂכַּר בְּאַרְבָּעָה אֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן לָהֶם אֶלָּא שְׁלֹשָׁה וְיֵשׁ לָהֶם תַּרְעֹמֶת עַל הַשָּׁלִיחַ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁאֵין מְלַאכְתָּן נִכֶּרֶת אֲבָל הָיְתָה מְלַאכְתָּן נִכֶּרֶת וַהֲרֵי הִיא שָׁוָה אַרְבָּעָה נוֹתֵן לָהֶם בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אַרְבָּעָה שֶׁאִלּוּ לֹא אָמַר לָהֶם שְׁלוּחוֹ אַרְבָּעָה לֹא טָרְחוּ וְעָשׂוּ שָׁוֶה אַרְבָּעָה. אָמַר לוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שְׂכֹר לִי בְּאַרְבָּעָה וְהָלַךְ הַשָּׁלִיחַ וְשָׂכַר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֲרֵי מְלַאכְתָּן שָׁוָה אַרְבָּעָה אֵין לָהֶם אֶלָּא שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁהֲרֵי קִבְּלוּ עַל עַצְמָן וְיֵשׁ לָהֶם תַּרְעֹמֶת עַל הַשָּׁלִיחַ. אָמַר לוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה וְהָלַךְ הַשָּׁלִיחַ וְאָמַר לָהֶם בְּאַרְבָּעָה וְאָמְרוּ הֲרֵינוּ כְּמָה שֶּׁאָמַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֵין דַּעְתָּם אֶלָּא שֶׁיִּתֵּן בַּעַל הַבַּיִת יֶתֶר עַל אַרְבָּעָה לְפִיכָךְ שָׁמִין מַה שֶּׁעָשׂוּ אִם שָׁוָה אַרְבָּעָה נוֹטְלִין אַרְבָּעָה מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת וְאִם אֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ אוֹ אֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה אֵין לָהֶם אֶלָּא שְׁלֹשָׁה. אָמַר לוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת בְּאַרְבָּעָה וְהָלַךְ הַשָּׁלִיחַ וְאָמַר לָהֶם בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ כְּמָה שֶׁאָמַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּלַאכְתָּן שָׁוֶה אַרְבָּעָה אֵין לָהֶם אֶלָּא שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁהֲרֵי שָׁמְעוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה וְקִבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶם: ", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֲלִים וְהִטְעוּ אֶת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הִטְעָה אוֹתָם אֵין לָהֶם זֶה עַל זֶה אֶלָּא תַּרְעֹמֶת. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁלֹּא הָלְכוּ. אֲבָל הָלְכוּ הַחַמָּרִין וְלֹא מָצְאוּ תְּבוּאָה. פּוֹעֲלִים וּמָצְאוּ שָׂדֶה כְּשֶׁהִיא לָחָה. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׂכַר לְהַשְׁקוֹת הַשָּׂדֶה וּמְצָאוּהָ שֶׁנִּתְמַלְּאָה מַיִם. אִם בִּקֵּר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מְלַאכְתּוֹ מִבָּעֶרֶב וּמָצָא שֶׁצְּרִיכָה פּוֹעֲלִים אֵין לַפּוֹעֲלִים כְּלוּם מַה בְּיָדוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת. וְאִם לֹא בִּקֵּר נוֹתֵן לָהֶם שְׂכָרָן כְּפוֹעֵל בָּטֵל שֶׁאֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה הַבָּא טָעוּן לְבָא רֵיקָן וְעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה לְבַטֵּל. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁלֹּא הִתְחִילוּ בִּמְלָאכָה. אֲבָל אִם הִתְחִיל הַפּוֹעֵל בַּמְּלָאכָה וְחָזַר בּוֹ אֲפִלּוּ בַּחֲצִי הַיּוֹם חוֹזֵר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כה נה) \"כִּי לִי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲבָדִים\" וְלֹא עֲבָדִים לַעֲבָדִים. וְכֵיצַד דִּין הַפּוֹעֵל שֶׁחָזַר בּוֹ אַחַר שֶׁהִתְחִיל. שָׁמִין לוֹ מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה וְנוֹטֵל. וְאִם קַבְּלָן הוּא שָׁמִין לוֹ מַה שֶּׁעָתִיד לַעֲשׂוֹת. בֵּין שֶׁהוּזְלוּ בְּעֵת שֶׁשְּׂכָרָן בֵּין לֹא הוּזְלוּ בֵּין שֶׁהוּזְלָה מְלָאכָה אַחַר כֵּן בֵּין לֹא הוּזְלָה שָׁמִין לוֹ מַה שֶּׁעָתִיד לַעֲשׂוֹת. כֵּיצַד. קִבֵּל מִמֶּנּוּ קָמָה לִקְצֹר בִּשְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים קָצַר חֶצְיָהּ וְהִנִּיחַ חֶצְיָהּ. בֶּגֶד לֶאֱרֹג בִּשְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים אָרַג חֶצְיוֹ וְהִנִּיחַ חֶצְיוֹ. שָׁמִין לוֹ מַה שֶּׁעָתִיד לַעֲשׂוֹת. אִם הָיָה שָׁוֶה שִׁשָּׁה דִּינָרִין נוֹתֵן לוֹ שֶׁקֶל אוֹ יִגְמְרוּ אֶת מְלַאכְתָּן. וְאִם הָיָה הַנִּשְׁאָר יָפֶה שְׁנַיִם דִּינָרִין אֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן לָהֶן אֶלָּא סֶלַע שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא עָשׂוּ אֶלָּא חֲצִי מְלָאכָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ אָבוּד אֲבָל בְּדָבָר הָאָבוּד כְּגוֹן פִּשְׁתָּנוֹ לְהַעֲלוֹת מִן הַמִּשְׁרָה אוֹ שֶׁשָּׂכַר חֲמוֹר לְהָבִיא חֲלִילִין לְמֵת אוֹ לְכַלָּה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן אֶחָד פּוֹעֵל וְאֶחָד קַבְּלָן אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר בּוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נֶאֱנַס כְּגוֹן שֶׁחָלָה אוֹ שָׁמַע שֶׁמֵּת לוֹ מֵת. וְאִם לֹא נֶאֱנַס וְחָזַר בּוֹ שׂוֹכֵר עֲלֵיהֶן אוֹ מַטְעָן. כֵּיצַד מַטְעָן. אוֹמֵר לָהֶם סֶלַע קָצַצְתִּי לָכֶם בּוֹאוּ וּטְלוּ שְׁתַּיִם עַד שֶׁיִּגְמְרוּ מְלַאכְתָּן וְלֹא יִתֵּן לָהֶם אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁפָּסַק תְּחִלָּה וַאֲפִלּוּ נָתַן לָהֶם הַשְּׁתַּיִם מַחְזִיר מֵהֶן הַתּוֹסֶפֶת. כֵּיצַד שׂוֹכֵר עֲלֵיהֶן. שׂוֹכֵר פּוֹעֲלִים אֲחֵרִים וְגוֹמְרִים מְלַאכְתָּן שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאבַד וְכָל שֶׁיּוֹסִיף לְאֵלּוּ הַפּוֹעֲלִין הָאֲחֵרִים עַל מַה שֶּׁפָּסַק לָרִאשׁוֹנִים נוֹטֵל מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנִים. עַד כַּמָּה עַד כְּדֵי שְׂכָרָן שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹנִים. וְאִם הָיָה לָהֶם מָמוֹן תַּחַת יָדוֹ שׂוֹכֵר לְהַשְׁלִים הַמְּלָאכָה עַד אַרְבָּעִים וַחֲמִשִּׁים זוּז בְּכָל יוֹם לְכָל פּוֹעֵל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׂכַר הַפּוֹעֵל שְׁלֹשָׁה אוֹ אַרְבָּעָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁאֵין שָׁם פּוֹעֲלִים לִשְׂכֹּר בִּשְׂכָרָן לְהַשְׁלִים הַמְּלָאכָה אֲבָל יֵשׁ פּוֹעֲלִים לִשְׂכֹּר בִּשְׂכָרָן וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ צֵא וּשְׂכֹר מֵאֵלּוּ לְהַשְׁלִים מְלַאכְתְּךָ וְלֹא תֹּאבַד בֵּין שׂוֹכֵר בֵּין קַבְּלָן אֵין לוֹ עֲלֵיהֶן אֶלָּא תַּרְעֹמֶת וְשָׁמִין לַשּׂוֹכֵר מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה וְלַקַּבְּלָן מַה שֶּׁעָתִיד לַעֲשׂוֹת: ", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל וְנֶאֱחָז לַעֲבוֹדַת הַמֶּלֶךְ לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ הֲרֵינִי לְפָנֶיךָ אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכַר מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה: ", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל לְהַשְׁקוֹת אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה מִזֶּה הַנָּהָר וּפָסַק הַנָּהָר בַּחֲצִי הַיּוֹם אִם אֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהַפְסִיק אֵין לָהֶן אֶלָּא שְׂכַר מַה שֶּׁעָשׂוּ. וְכֵן אִם דַּרְכּוֹ שֶׁיַּפְסִיקוּ אוֹתוֹ בְּנֵי הָעִיר וְהִפְסִיקוּהוּ בַּחֲצִי הַיּוֹם אֵין לָהֶן אֶלָּא שְׂכַר מַה שֶּׁעָשׂוּ שֶׁהֲרֵי יָדְעוּ הַפּוֹעֲלִים דַּרְכּוֹ שֶׁל נָהָר. וְאִם דַּרְכּוֹ לְהַפְסִיק מֵאֵלָיו נוֹתֵן לָהֶם שְׂכַר כָּל הַיּוֹם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לְהוֹדִיעָם. שְׂכָרָן לְהַשְׁקוֹת הַשָּׂדֶה וּבָא הַמָּטָר וְהִשְׁקָה אֵין לָהֶן אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁעָשׂוּ. בָּא הַנָּהָר וְהִשְׁקָה נוֹתֵן לָהֶן כָּל שְׂכָרָן. מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם נִסְתַּיְּעוּ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּפוֹעֵל. אֲבָל מִי שֶׁפָּסַק עִם אֲרִיסוֹ שֶׁאִם יַשְׁקֶה שָׂדֶה זוֹ אַרְבַּע פְּעָמִים בְּיוֹם יִטּל חֲצִי הַפֵּרוֹת וְכָל הָאֲרִיסִין שֶׁהֵן מַשְׁקִין שְׁתֵּי פְּעָמִים אֵינָן נוֹטְלִין אֶלָּא רְבִיעַ הַפֵּרוֹת וּבָא הַמָּטָר וְלֹא הֻצְרַךְ לִדְלוֹת וּלְהַשְׁקוֹת נוֹטֵל חֲצִי הַפֵּרוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁפָּסַק עִמּוֹ שֶׁהָאָרִיס כְּשֻׁתָּף וְאֵינוֹ כְּפוֹעֵל: ", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה כָּל הַיּוֹם וְשָׁלְמָה הַמְּלָאכָה בַּחֲצִי הַיּוֹם אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ מְלָאכָה אַחֶרֶת כְּמוֹתָהּ אוֹ קַלָּה מִמֶּנָּה עוֹשֶׂה שְׁאָר הַיּוֹם. וְאִם אֵין לוֹ מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ כְּפוֹעֵל בָּטֵל. וְאִם הָיָה מִן הַחוֹפְרִים אוֹ עוֹבְדֵי אֲדָמָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לִטְרֹחַ הַרְבֵּה וְאִם לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה בִּמְלָאכָה יֶחֱלֶה נוֹתֵן לוֹ כָּל שְׂכָרוֹ: ", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל לְהָבִיא לוֹ שְׁלִיחוּת מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם וְהָלַךְ וְלֹא מָצָא שָׁם מַה יָּבִיא נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ מָשְׁלָם. שְׂכָרוֹ לְהָבִיא קָנִים לַכֶּרֶם וְהָלַךְ וְלֹא מָצָא וְלֹא הֵבִיא נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ מָשְׁלָם. שְׂכָרוֹ לְהָבִיא כְּרוּב וּדוֹרְמַסְקְנִין לַחוֹלֶה וְהָלַךְ וּמְצָאוֹ שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ הִבְרִיא לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ טל מַה שֶּׁהֵבֵאתָ בִּשְׂכָרְךָ אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן לוֹ כָּל שְׂכָרוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמּוֹ בְּשֶׁלּוֹ וְהֶרְאָהוּ בְּשֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ נוֹתֵן כָּל שְׂכָרוֹ וְחוֹזֵר וְלוֹקֵחַ מֵחֲבֵרוֹ מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנָה בְּזוֹ הַמְּלָאכָה: ", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמּוֹ בְּתֶבֶן וְקַשׁ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וְאָמַר לוֹ טל מַה שֶּׁעָשִׂיתָ בִּשְׂכָרְךָ אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. וְאִם מִשֶּׁקִּבֵּל עָלָיו אָמַר לוֹ הֵילָךְ שְׂכָרְךָ וַאֲנִי אֶטּל אֶת שֶׁלִּי אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ: ", + "מְצִיאַת הַפּוֹעֵל לְעַצְמוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ עֲשֵׂה עִמִּי מְלָאכָה הַיּוֹם. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם אָמַר לוֹ עֲדֹר עִמִּי הַיּוֹם. אֲבָל אִם שְׂכָרוֹ לִלְקֹט מְצִיאוֹת כְּגוֹן שֶׁחָסַר הַנָּהָר וּשְׂכָרוֹ לִלְקֹט הַדָּגִים הַנִּמְצָאִין בַּאֲגַם הֲרֵי מְצִיאָתוֹ לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת וַאֲפִלּוּ מָצָא כִּיס מָלֵא דִּינָרִין: " + ], + [ + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן בֵּין שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ מָעוֹת בֵּין שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ פֵּרוֹת בֵּין שֶׁמִּשְׁכְּנוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָתוֹ בֵּין שֶׁמִּשְׁכְּנוֹ אַחַר שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ הֲרֵי זֶה שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. לְפִיכָךְ אִם אָבַד הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן אוֹ נִגְנַב חַיָּב בְּדָמָיו. וְאִם נֶאֱנַס הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּלְקַח בְּלִסְטִים מְזֻיָּן וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ מִשְּׁאָר אֳנָסִין יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס וִישַׁלֵּם בַּעַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן אֶת חוֹבוֹ עַד פְּרוּטָה אַחֲרוֹנָה: \n", + "כָּל הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ שְׁמֹר לִי וְאֶשְׁמֹר לְךָ הֲרֵי זֶה שְׁמִירָה בַּבְּעָלִים. אָמַר לוֹ שְׁמֹר לִי הַיּוֹם וְאֶשְׁמֹר לְךָ לְמָחָר. הַשְׁאִילֵנִי הַיּוֹם וַאֲנִי אַשְׁאִילְךָ לְמָחָר. שְׁמֹר לִי הַיּוֹם וְאַשְׁאִילְךָ לְמָחָר. הַשְׁאִילֵנִי הַיּוֹם וְאֶשְׁמֹר לְךָ לְמָחָר. כֻּלָּן נַעֲשׂוּ שׁוֹמְרֵי שָׂכָר זֶה לָזֶה: \n", + "כָּל הָאֻמָּנִין שׁוֹמְרֵי שָׂכָר הֵן. וְכֻלָּן שֶׁאָמְרוּ טל אֶת שֶׁלְּךָ וְהָבֵא מָעוֹת אוֹ שֶׁאוֹמֵר לוֹ הָאֻמָּן גְּמַרְתִּיו וְלֹא לָקְחוּ הַבְּעָלִים אֶת הַכְּלִי הָאֻמָּן שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר הָאֻמָּן הָבֵא מָעוֹת וְטל שֶׁלְּךָ עֲדַיִן הוּא נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר כְּשֶׁהָיָה: \n", + "נָתַן לְאֻמָּנִין לְתַקֵּן וְקִלְקְלוּ חַיָּבִין לְשַׁלֵּם. כֵּיצַד. נָתַן לְחֵרֵשׁ שִׁדָּה תֵּבָה וּמִגְדָּל לִקְבֹּעַ בָּהֶן מַסְמֵר וּשְׁבָרוֹ אוֹ שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ אֶת הָעֵצִים לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵהֶן שִׁדָּה תֵּבָה וּמִגְדָּל וְנִשְׁבְּרוּ אַחַר שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ מְשַׁלֵּם לוֹ דְּמֵי שִׁדָּה תֵּבָה וּמִגְדָּל. שֶׁאֵין הָאֻמָּן קוֹנֶה בְּשֶׁבַח הַכְּלִי. נָתַן צֶמֶר לְצַבָּע וְהִקְדִיחַתּוּ יוֹרָה נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי צִמְרוֹ. צְבָעוֹ כָּעוּר אוֹ נְתָנוֹ לוֹ לְצָבְעוֹ אָדֹם וּצְבָעוֹ שָׁחוֹר שָׁחוֹר וּצְבָעוֹ אָדֹם. נָתַן עֵצִים לְחָרָשׁ לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵהֶן כִּסֵּא נָאֶה וְעָשָׂה כִּסֵּא רַע אוֹ סַפְסָל. אִם הַשֶּׁבַח יָתֵר עַל הַהוֹצָאָה נוֹתֵן בַּעַל הַכְּלִי אֶת הַהוֹצָאָה וְאִם הַהוֹצָאָה יְתֵרָה עַל הַשֶּׁבַח נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח בִּלְבַד. אָמַר בַּעַל הַכְּלִי אֵינִי רוֹצֶה בְּתַקָּנָה זוֹ אֶלָּא יִתֵּן לִי דְּמֵי הַצֶּמֶר אוֹ דְּמֵי הָעֵצִים אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר הָאֻמָּן הֵא לְךָ דְּמֵי צִמְרְךָ אוֹ דְּמֵי עֵצְךָ וְלֵךְ אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ שֶׁאֵין הָאֻמָּן קוֹנֶה בְּשֶׁבַח כְּלִי שֶׁעָשָׂה: \n", + "הַמּוֹלִיךְ חִטִּין לִטְחֹן וְלֹא לְתָתָן וַעֲשָׂאָן סֻבִּין אוֹ מֻרְסָן. נָתַן הַקֶּמַח לְנַחְתּוֹם וַעֲשָׂאוֹ פַּת נְפוֹלִין. בְּהֵמָה לְטַבָּח וְנִבְּלָהּ. חַיָּבִין לְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵיהֶן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן נוֹשְׂאֵי שָׂכָר. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיָה טַבָּח מֻמְחֶה וְשָׁחַט בְּחִנָּם פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם וְאֵינוֹ מֻמְחֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בְּחִנָּם חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. וְכֵן הַמַּרְאֶה דִּינָר לְשֻׁלְחָנִי וְאָמַר לוֹ יָפֶה הוּא וְנִמְצָא רַע אִם בְּשָׂכָר רָאָהוּ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בָּקִי וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהִתְלַמֵּד. וְאִם בְּחִנָּם רָאָהוּ פָּטוּר וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בָּקִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהִתְלַמֵּד. וְאִם אֵינוֹ בָּקִי חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בְּחִנָּם וְהוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר לַשֻּׁלְחָנִי עָלֶיךָ אֲנִי סוֹמֵךְ אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ הַדְּבָרִים מַרְאִין שֶׁהוּא סוֹמֵךְ עַל רְאִיָּתוֹ וְלֹא יַרְאֶה לַאֲחֵרִים. טַבָּח שֶׁעָשָׂה בְּחִנָּם וְנִבֵּל וְכֵן שֻׁלְחָנִי שֶׁאָמַר יָפֶה וְנִמְצָא רַע וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה עֲלֵיהֶן לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵן מֻמְחִין. וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיאוּ רְאָיָה מְשַׁלְּמִין: \n", + "מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַנּוֹטֵעַ אִילָנוֹת נוֹטֵל חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח וּבַעַל הַקַּרְקַע חֲצִי וְנָטַע וְהִשְׁבִּיחַ וְנָטַע וְהִפְסִיד מְחַשְּׁבִין לוֹ חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ וּמְנַכִּין מִמֶּנּוּ מַה שֶּׁהִפְסִיד וְנוֹטֵל הַשְּׁאָר. וַאֲפִלּוּ הִתְנָה עַל עַצְמוֹ שֶׁאִם הִפְסִיד לֹא יִטּל כְּלוּם הֲרֵי זֶה אַסְמַכְתָּא וְאֵין מְנַכִּין לוֹ אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁהִפְסִיד. הָיָה מִנְהָגָם שֶׁיִּטּל הַנּוֹטֵעַ מֶחֱצָה וּבַעַל הַקַּרְקַע מֶחֱצָה וְכָךְ הָיָה מִנְהָגָם שֶׁיִּטּל הָאָרִיס שְׁלִישׁ. אִם נָטַע הַנּוֹטֵעַ וְהִשְׁבִּיחַ וְרָצָה לְהִסְתַּלֵּק שֶׁנִּמְצָא בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע צָרִיךְ לְהוֹרִיד לָהּ אָרִיס הֲרֵי בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע מוֹרִיד אָרִיס וְיִטּל בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע חֶצְיוֹ וְלֹא יַפְסִיד בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע כְּלוּם וְיִטּל הָאָרִיס שְׁלִישׁ וְהַשְּׁתוּת הַנִּשְׁאָר שֶׁל נוֹטֵעַ שֶׁהֲרֵי סִלֵּק עַצְמוֹ בִּרְצוֹנוֹ: \n", + "הַנּוֹטֵעַ אִילָנוֹת לִבְנֵי הַמְּדִינָה שֶׁהִפְסִיד. וְכֵן טַבָּח שֶׁל בְּנֵי הָעִיר שֶׁנִּבֵּל הַבְּהֵמוֹת. וְהַמַּקִּיז דָּם שֶׁחָבַל. וְהַסּוֹפֵר שֶׁטָּעָה בִּשְׁטָרוֹת. וּמְלַמֵּד תִּינוֹקוֹת שֶׁפָּשַׁע בְּתִינוֹקוֹת וְלֹא לִמֵּד אוֹ לִמֵּד בְּטָעוּת. וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בְּאֵלּוּ הָאֻמָּנִים שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיַּחְזִירוּ הַהֶפְסֵד שֶׁהִפְסִידוּ. מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתָן בְּלֹא הַתְרָאָה שֶׁהֵן כְּמֻתְרִין וְעוֹמְדִין עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּדְּלוּ בִּמְלַאכְתָּן הוֹאִיל וְהֶעֱמִידוּ אוֹתָן הַצִּבּוּר עֲלֵיהֶם: \n" + ], + [ + "מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לִתֵּן שְׂכַר הַשָּׂכִיר בִּזְמַנּוֹ שׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד טו) \"בְּיוֹמוֹ תִתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ\" וְגוֹ'. וְאִם אִחֲרוֹ לְאַחַר זְמַנּוֹ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד טו) \"וְלֹא תָבוֹא עָלָיו הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ\". וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. אֶחָד שְׂכַר הָאָדָם וְאֶחָד שְׂכַר הַבְּהֵמָה וְאֶחָד שְׂכַר הַכֵּלִים חַיָּב לִתֵּן בִּזְמַנּוֹ וְאִם אִחֵר לְאַחַר זְמַן עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה. וְגֵר תּוֹשָׁב יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם בְּיוֹמוֹ תִתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ וְאִם אִחֲרוֹ אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה: \n", + "כָּל הַכּוֹבֵשׁ שְׂכַר שָׂכִיר כְּאִלּוּ נָטַל נַפְשׁוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד טו) \"וְאֵלָיו הוּא נשֵֹׁא אֶת נַפְשׁוֹ\". וְעוֹבֵר בְּאַרְבַּע אַזְהָרוֹת וַעֲשֵׂה. עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם בַּל (ויקרא יט יג) \"תַּעֲשֹׁק\" וּמִשּׁוּם בַּל (ויקרא יט יג) \"תִּגְזל\" וּמִשּׁוּם לֹא תָלִין פְּעֵלַּת שָׂכִיר וּמִשּׁוּם (דברים כד טו) \"לֹא תָבוֹא עָלָיו הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ\" וּמִשּׁוּם (דברים כד טו) \"בְּיוֹמוֹ תִתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ\". אֵי זֶהוּ זְמַנּוֹ שְׂכִיר יוֹם גּוֹבֶה כָּל הַלַּיְלָה וְעָלָיו נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא יט יג) \"לֹא תָלִין פְּעֵלַּת שָׂכִיר אִתְּךָ עַד בֹּקֶר\". וּשְׂכִיר לַיְלָה גּוֹבֶה כָּל הַיּוֹם וְעָלָיו נֶאֱמַר בְּיוֹמוֹ תִתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ. וּשְׂכִיר שָׁעוֹת שֶׁל יוֹם גּוֹבֶה כָּל הַיּוֹם וּשְׂכִיר שָׁעוֹת שֶׁל לַיְלָה גּוֹבֶה כָּל הַלַּיְלָה. שְׂכִיר שַׁבָּת שְׂכִיר חֹדֶשׁ שְׂכִיר שָׁנָה שְׂכִיר שָׁבוּעַ יָצָא בַּיּוֹם גּוֹבֶה כָּל הַיּוֹם יָצָא בַּלַּיְלָה גּוֹבֶה כָּל (אוֹתוֹ) הַלַּיְלָה: \n", + "נָתַן טַלִּיתוֹ לְאֻמָּן וּגְמָרָהּ וְהוֹדִיעוֹ אֲפִלּוּ אִחֲרוֹ עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהַכְּלִי בְּיַד הָאֻמָּן אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר. נְתָנָהּ בַּחֲצִי הַיּוֹם כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁקְעָה עָלָיו חַמָּה עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם בַּל (ויקרא יט יג) \"תָּלִין\" שֶׁהַקַּבְּלָנוּת כִּשְׂכִירוּת הִיא וְחַיָּב לִתֵּן לוֹ בִּזְמַנּוֹ: \n", + "הָאוֹמֵר לִשְׁלוּחוֹ צֵא וּשְׂכֹר לִי פּוֹעֲלִים. אָמַר לָהֶם שְׂכַרְכֶם עַל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שְׁנֵיהֶם אֵינָן עוֹבְרִין מִשּׁוּם בַּל (ויקרא יט יג) \"תָּלִין\" זֶה לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא שְׂכָרָן וְזֶה לְפִי שֶׁאֵין פְּעֻלָּתָן אֶצְלוֹ. וְאִם לֹא אָמַר לָהֶם שְׂכַרְכֶם עַל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הַשָּׁלִיחַ עוֹבֵר. אֵין הַשּׂוֹכֵר עוֹבֵר אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁתְּבָעוֹ הַשָּׂכִיר וְלֹא נָתַן לוֹ אֲבָל אִם לֹא תְּבָעוֹ אוֹ שֶׁתְּבָעוֹ וְלֹא הָיָה לוֹ מַה יִּתֵּן לוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהִמְחָהוּ אֵצֶל אַחֵר וְקִבֵּל הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר: \n", + "הַמַּשְׁהֶה שְׂכַר שָׂכִיר עַד אַחַר זְמַנּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכְּבָר עָבַר בַּעֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב לִתֵּן מִיָּד. וְכָל עֵת שֶׁיִּשְׁהֶה עוֹבֵר עַל לָאו שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ג כח) \"אַל תֹּאמַר לְרֵעֲךָ לֵךְ וָשׁוּב\": \n", + "כָּל שָׂכִיר שֶׁשְּׂכָרוֹ בְּעֵדִים וּתְבָעוֹ בִּזְמַנּוֹ וְאָמַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת נָתַתִּי לְךָ שְׂכָרְךָ וְהַשָּׂכִיר אוֹמֵר לֹא נָטַלְתִּי כְּלוּם תִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע הַשָּׂכִיר בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ וְיִטּל כְּדִין כָּל נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבַּעַל הַבַּיִת טָרוּד בְּפוֹעֲלָיו וְזֶה הַשָּׂכִיר נוֹשֵׂא נַפְשׁוֹ לָזֶה. אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַשָּׂכִיר קָטָן הַשָּׂכִיר נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. שְׂכָרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵדִים מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם וְלֹא שְׂכַרְתִּיךָ נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר שְׂכַרְתִּיךָ וְנָתַתִּי לְךָ שְׂכָרְךָ וְיִשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הֶסֵּת שֶׁנָּתַן אוֹ שְׁבוּעַת הַתּוֹרָה אִם הוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת כִּשְׁאָר הַטְּעָנוֹת. הָיָה לוֹ עֵד אֶחָד שֶׁשְּׂכָרוֹ אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל לוֹ כְּלוּם וְכֵן אִם תְּבָעוֹ אַחֵר זְמַנּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשְּׂכָרוֹ בְּעֵדִים הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה יִשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הֶסֵּת. הֵבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁתְּבָעוֹ כָּל זְמַנּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל כָּל אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם שֶׁל תְּבִיעָה. כֵּיצַד. הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה עִמּוֹ בְּיוֹם שֵׁנִי עַד הָעֶרֶב זְמַנּוֹ כָּל לֵיל שְׁלִישִׁי וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. וְאִם הֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁהָיָה תּוֹבְעוֹ כָּל לֵיל שְׁלִישִׁי הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל כָּל יוֹם שְׁלִישִׁי. אֲבָל מִלֵּיל רְבִיעִי וָהָלְאָה הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. וְכֵן אִם הֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁהָיָה תּוֹבְעוֹ וְהוֹלֵךְ עַד יוֹם חֲמִישִׁי הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל כָּל יוֹם חֲמִישִׁי: \n", + "בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹמֵר שְׁתַּיִם קָצַצְתִּי לְךָ וְהַשָּׂכִיר אוֹמֵר שָׁלֹשׁ קָצַצְתָּ לִי לֹא תִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע הַשָּׂכִיר כָּאן אֶלָּא הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכְּבָר נָתַן לוֹ שְׁתַּיִם אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הֵילָךְ הֲרֵי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת נִשְׁבָּע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ וְדָבָר זֶה תַּקָּנַת חֲכָמִים הוּא כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֵלֵךְ הַשָּׂכִיר בְּפַחֵי נֶפֶשׁ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁשְּׂכָרוֹ בְּעֵדִים וְלֹא יָדְעוּ כַּמָּה פָּסַק לוֹ וּתְבָעוֹ בִּזְמַנּוֹ אֲבָל אִם שְׂכָרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵדִים אוֹ שֶׁתְּבָעוֹ אַחַר זְמַנּוֹ יִשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הֶסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא קָצַץ לוֹ אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁכְּבָר נָתַן לוֹ אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁאַר לוֹ אֶצְלוֹ אֶלָּא זֶה שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הֵילָךְ כְּדִין כָּל הַטְּעָנוֹת: \n", + "הַנּוֹתֵן טַלִּיתוֹ לְאֻמָּן אֻמָּן אוֹמֵר שְׁנַיִם קָצַצְתָּ לִי וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא קָצַצְתִּי אֶלָּא אֶחָד כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהַטַּלִּית בְּיַד הָאֻמָּן אִם יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן שֶׁהִיא לְקוּחָה בְּיָדוֹ הֲרֵי הָאֻמָּן נִשְׁבָּע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ וְנוֹטֵל. וְיָכוֹל לִטְעֹן שֶׁהִיא בִּשְׂכָרוֹ עַד כְּדֵי דָּמֶיהָ. וְאִם יָצָאת טַלִּית מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ אוֹ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ חֲזָקָה וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן שֶׁהִיא לְקוּחָה בְּיָדוֹ הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה יִשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַטַּלִּית הֶסֵּת אוֹ שְׁבוּעַת הַתּוֹרָה אִם הוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת כְּדִין כָּל הַטְּעָנוֹת. שֶׁאֵין זֶה כְּדִין הַשָּׂכִיר: \n", + "שָׂכִיר הַבָּא לְהִשָּׁבַע אֵין מַחֲמִירִין עָלָיו וְאֵין מְגַלְגְּלִין עָלָיו כְּלָל אֶלָּא נִשְׁבָּע שֶׁלֹּא נָטַל וְיִטּל. וּלְכָל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין אֵין מְקִלִּין חוּץ מִן הַשָּׂכִיר שֶׁמְּקִלִּין עָלָיו וּפוֹתְחִין לוֹ תְּחִלָּה וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ אַל תְּצַעֵר עַצְמְךָ הִשָּׁבַע וְטל. אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה שְׂכָרוֹ פְּרוּטָה אַחַת וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹמֵר נְתַתִּיהָ לֹא יִטּל אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה. וְכֵן כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל אֲפִלּוּ לֹא יִטְעֹן אֶלָּא פְּרוּטָה אַחַת לֹא יִטּל אוֹתָהּ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה כְּעֵין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה: \n" + ], + [ + "הַפּוֹעֲלִים שֶׁהֵן עוֹשִׂין בְּדָבָר שֶׁגִּדּוּלוֹ מִן הָאָרֶץ וַעֲדַיִן לֹא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ בֵּין בְּתָלוּשׁ בֵּין בִּמְחֻבָּר וְיִהְיוּ מַעֲשֵׂיהֶן גְּמִירַת הַמְּלָאכָה הֲרֵי עַל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מִצְוָה שֶׁיַּנִּיחַ אוֹתָן לֶאֱכל מִמַּה שֶּׁהֵן עוֹשִׂין בּוֹ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג כה) \"כִּי תָבֹא בְּכֶרֶם רֵעֶךָ\" וְגוֹ' וְכָתוּב (דברים כג כו) \"כִּי תָבֹא בְּקָמַת רֵעֶךָ\". מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁאֵין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּשָׂכִיר וְכִי אִלּוּ לֹא שְׂכָרוֹ מִי הִתִּיר לוֹ שֶׁיָּבוֹא בְּכֶרֶם רֵעֵהוּ בַּקָּמָה שֶׁלּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ אֶלָּא כָּךְ הוּא אוֹמֵר כִּי תָבֹא לִרְשׁוּת בְּעָלִים לַעֲבוֹדָה תֹּאכַל: \n", + "מַה בֵּין הָעוֹשֶׂה בְּתָלוּשׁ לְעוֹשֶׂה בִּמְחֻבָּר. שֶׁהָעוֹשֶׂה בְּתָלוּשׁ אוֹכֵל בַּדָּבָר עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר מְלַאכְתּוֹ וּמִשֶּׁתִּגָּמֵר מְלַאכְתּוֹ אָסוּר לוֹ לֶאֱכל. וְהָעוֹשֶׂה בִּמְחֻבָּר כְּגוֹן בּוֹצֵר וְקוֹצֵר אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁיִּגְמֹר עֲבוֹדָתוֹ כְּגוֹן שֶׁיִּבְצֹר וְיִתֵּן בַּסַּל עַד שֶׁיְּמַלְּאֶנּוּ וִינַפֵּץ הַסַּל לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר וְיַחְזֹר וְיִבְצֹר וִימַלְּאֶנּוּ וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל אֶלָּא עַד אַחַר שֶׁיְּמַלֵּא הַסַּל. אֲבָל מִפְּנֵי הֶשֵּׁב אֲבֵדָה לַבְּעָלִים אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הַפּוֹעֲלִין אוֹכְלִין בַּהֲלִיכָתָן מֵאֹמֶן לְאֹמֶן וּבַחֲזִירָתָן מִן הַגַּת כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִבָּטְלוּ מִמְּלַאכְתָּן וְיֵשְׁבוּ לֶאֱכל אֶלָּא אוֹכְלִין בְּתוֹךְ הַמְּלָאכָה כְּשֶׁהֵן מְהַלְּכִין וְאֵינָן מְבַטְּלִין: \n", + "הַמְבַטֵּל מִמְּלַאכְתּוֹ וְאָכַל אוֹ שֶׁאָכַל שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת גְּמַר מְלָאכָה הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג כו) \"וְחֶרְמֵשׁ לֹא תָנִיף\" וְגוֹ'. מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁכָּל זְמַן שֶׁהוּא עוֹסֵק בִּקְצִירָה לֹא יָנִיף חֶרְמֵשׁ לַאֲכִילָתוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְכֵן פּוֹעֵל שֶׁהוֹלִיךְ בְּיָדוֹ מִמַּה שֶּׁעָשָׂה אוֹ שֶׁלָּקַח יֶתֶר עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ וְנוֹתֵן לַאֲחֵרִים עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג כה) \"וְאֶל כֶּלְיְךָ לֹא תִתֵּן\". וְאֵין לוֹקִין עַל שְׁנֵי לָאוִין אֵלּוּ שֶׁאִם אָכַל אוֹ הוֹלִיךְ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם: \n", + "הַחוֹלֵב וְהַמְחַבֵּץ וְהַמְגַבֵּן אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָן גִּדּוּלֵי קַרְקַע. הַמְנַכֵּשׁ בִּבְצָלִים וּבְשׁוּמִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁתּוֹלְשִׁין קְטַנִּים מִבֵּין הַגְּדוֹלִים וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם גְּמַר מְלָאכָה. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שׁוֹמְרֵי גִּנּוֹת וּפַרְדֵּסִים וְכָל דָּבָר הַמְחֻבָּר כַּמִּקְשָׁאוֹת וְהַמִּדְלָעוֹת שֶׁאֵין אוֹכְלִין כְּלָל: \n", + "הַבּוֹדֵל בִּתְמָרִים וּבִגְרוֹגָרוֹת אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתָּן לְמַעֲשֵׂר. הָעוֹשֶׂה בְּחִטִּים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן אַחַר שֶׁעָשׂוּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁשְּׂכָרָן לָבוּר צְרוֹרוֹת אוֹ לְנַפֵּחַ אוֹתָן אוֹ לִטְחֹן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אוֹכְלִין שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתָּן לְחַלָּה. אֲבָל הַלָּשׁ וְהַמְקַטֵּף וְהָאוֹפֶה אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתָּן לְחַלָּה וְאֵין הַפּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל אֶלָּא מִדָּבָר שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְחַלָּה וּלְמַעֲשֵׂר: \n", + "נִתְפָּרְסוּ עִגּוּלָיו וְנִתְפַּתְּחוּ חָבִיּוֹתָיו [וְנֶחְתְּכוּ דְּלוּעָיו] וּשְׂכָרָן לַעֲשׂוֹת בָּהֶן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לֹא יֹאכְלוּ שֶׁהֲרֵי נִגְמְרוּ מְלַאכְתָּן וְנִקְבְּעוּ לְמַעֲשֵׂר וַהֲרֵי הֵן טֶבֶל. וְאִם לֹא הוֹדִיעָן מְעַשֵּׂר וּמַאֲכִילָן. אֵין הַפּוֹעֲלִים אוֹכְלִין בְּשֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג כה) \"בְּכֶרֶם רֵעֶךָ\": \n", + "שָׂכַר פּוֹעֲלִין לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּנֶטַע רְבָעִי שֶׁלּוֹ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לֹא יֹאכְלוּ. וְאִם לֹא הוֹדִיעָם פּוֹדֶה וּמַאֲכִילָן: \n", + "הַקּוֹצֵר וְהַדָּשׁ וְהַזּוֹרֶה וְהַבּוֹרֵר וְהַמּוֹסֵק וְהַבּוֹצֵר וְהַדּוֹרֵךְ וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בִּמְלָאכוֹת אֵלּוּ הֲרֵי הֵם אוֹכְלִין מִן הַתּוֹרָה: \n", + "שׁוֹמְרֵי גִּתּוֹת וַעֲרֵמוֹת וְכָל דָּבָר הַתָּלוּשׁ מִן הַקַּרְקַע שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתָּן לְמַעֲשֵׂר אוֹכְלִין מֵהִלְכוֹת מְדִינָה שֶׁהַשּׁוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ כְּעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה. אֲבָל אִם עָשָׂה בְּאֵיבָרָיו בֵּין בְּיָדָיו בֵּין בְּרַגְלָיו אֲפִלּוּ בִּכְתֵפָיו הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכֵל מִן הַתּוֹרָה: \n", + "הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה בִּתְאֵנִים לֹא יֹאכַל בַּעֲנָבִים בַּעֲנָבִים לֹא יֹאכַל בִּתְאֵנִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג כה) \"בְּכֶרֶם\" \"וְאָכַלְתָּ עֲנָבִים\". וְהָעוֹשֶׂה בְּגֶפֶן זוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל בְּגֶפֶן אַחֶרֶת. וְלֹא יֹאכַל עֲנָבִים וְדָבָר אַחֵר. וְלֹא יֹאכַל בְּפַת וְלֹא בְּמֶלַח וְאִם קָצַץ עַל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עַל שִׁעוּר מַה שֶּׁיֹּאכַל אוֹכֵל אוֹתוֹ בֵּין בְּמֶלַח בֵּין בְּפַת בֵּין בְּכָל דָּבָר שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. אָסוּר לְפוֹעֵל לָמֹץ בַּעֲנָבִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְאָכַלְתָּ עֲנָבִים. וְלֹא יִהְיוּ בָּנָיו אוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ מְהַבְהֲבִין לוֹ הַשִּׁבֳּלִין בָּאוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג כה) \"וְאָכַלְתָּ עֲנָבִים כְּנַפְשְׁךָ\" עֲנָבִים כְּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "אָסוּר לַפּוֹעֵל לֶאֱכל מִמַּה שֶּׁהוּא אוֹכֵל אֲכִילָה גַּסָּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כְּנַפְשְׁךָ שָׂבְעֶךָ. וּמֻתָּר לוֹ לִמְנֹעַ אֶת עַצְמוֹ עַד מְקוֹם הַיָּפוֹת וְאוֹכֵל. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לֶאֱכל קִישׁוּת אֲפִלּוּ בְּדִינָר וְכוֹתֶבֶת אֲפִלּוּ בְּדִינָר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשְּׂכָרוֹ בְּמָעָה כֶּסֶף שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג כה) \"כְּנַפְשְׁךָ שָׂבְעֶךָ\". אֲבָל מְלַמְּדִין אֶת הָאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה רְעַבְתָּן וְיִהְיֶה סוֹתֵם אֶת הַפֶּתַח בְּפָנָיו. הָיָה מְשַׁמֵּר אַרְבַּע אוֹ חָמֵשׁ עֲרֵמוֹת לֹא יְמַלֵּא כְּרֵסוֹ מֵאַחַת מֵהֶן אֶלָּא אוֹכֵל מִכָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן: \n", + "הַפּוֹעֲלִים שֶׁלֹּא הָלְכוּ שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב בַּגַּת אוֹכְלִין עֲנָבִים וְאֵין שׁוֹתִין יַיִן שֶׁעֲדַיִן אֵינָן עוֹשִׂין אֶלָּא בַּעֲנָבִים בִּלְבַד. וּמִשֶּׁיִּדְרְכוּ בַּגַּת וִיהַלְּכוּ בָּהּ שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב יֵשׁ לָהֶן לֶאֱכל מִן הָעֲנָבִים וְלִשְׁתּוֹת מִן הַתִּירוֹשׁ שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵן עוֹשִׂין בָּעֲנָבִים וּבַיַּיִן: \n", + "פּוֹעֵל שֶׁאָמַר תְּנוּ לְאִשְׁתִּי וּבָנַי מַה שֶּׁאֲנִי אוֹכֵל אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר הֲרֵינִי נוֹתֵן מְעַט מִזֶּה שֶׁנָּטַלְתִּי לֶאֱכל לְאִשְׁתִּי וּבָנַי אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא זִכְּתָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא לַפּוֹעֵל עַצְמוֹ. אֲפִלּוּ נָזִיר שֶׁהָיָה עוֹשֶׂה בָּעֲנָבִים וְאָמַר תְּנוּ לְאִשְׁתִּי וּבָנַי אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ: \n", + "פּוֹעֵל שֶׁהָיָה עוֹשֶׂה הוּא וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו וַעֲבָדָיו וְהִתְנָה עִם הַבַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכְלוּ מִמַּה שֶּׁהֵן עוֹשִׂין לֹא הוּא וְלֹא הֵם הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֵינָן אוֹכְלִין. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּגְדוֹלִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶם דַּעַת וַהֲרֵי מָחֲלוּ אֲבָל קְטַנִּים אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִפְסֹק עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכְלוּ שֶׁאֵינָן אוֹכְלִין מִשֶּׁל אֲבִיהֶן אוֹ מִשֶּׁל אֲדוֹנֵיהֶם אֶלָּא מִשֶּׁל שָׁמַיִם: \n" + ], + [ + "הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹכֶלֶת כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא עוֹשָׂה בְּגִדּוּלֵי קַרְקַע בֵּין בִּמְחֻבָּר בֵּין בְּתָלוּשׁ. וְאוֹכֶלֶת מִמַּשּׂאוֹי שֶׁעַל גַּבָּהּ עַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה פּוֹרֶקֶת וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִטּל בְּיָדוֹ וְיַאֲכִילֶנָּה: \n", + "כָּל הַמּוֹנֵעַ הַבְּהֵמָה מִלֶּאֱכל בִּשְׁעַת מְלַאכְתָּהּ לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כה ד) \"לֹא תַחְסֹם שׁוֹר בְּדִישׁוֹ\". אֶחָד שׁוֹר וְאֶחָד כָּל מִינֵי בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה בֵּין טְמֵאִין בֵּין טְהוֹרִין וְאֶחָד הַדִּישָׁה וְאֶחָד כָּל שְׁאָר הַמְּלָאכוֹת שֶׁל גִּדּוּלֵי קַרְקַע וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר שׁוֹר בְּדִישׁוֹ אֶלָּא בָּהוֹוֶה. וְהַחוֹסֵם אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל פָּטוּר. אֶחָד הַחוֹסֵם אוֹתָהּ בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה וְאֶחָד הַחוֹסֵם אוֹתָהּ מִקֹּדֶם וְעָשָׂה בָּהּ מְלָאכָה וְהִיא חֲסוּמָה אֲפִלּוּ חֲסָמָהּ בְּקוֹל לוֹקֶה. שָׂכַר בְּהֵמָה וַחֲסָמָהּ וְדָשׁ בָּהּ לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם לַבְּעָלִים אַרְבַּעַת קַבִּין לְפָרָה וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין לַחֲמוֹר שֶׁמִּשְּׁעַת מְשִׁיכָה נִתְחַיֵּב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ. וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב מַלְקוֹת עַד שֶׁיָּדוּשׁ בָּהּ חֲסוּמָה: \n", + "יִשְׂרָאֵל הַדָּשׁ בְּפָרָתוֹ שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם בַּל (דברים כה ד) \"תַחְסֹם\". וְהָעַכּוּ\"ם הַדָּשׁ בְּפָרָתוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם בַּל תַחְסֹם. אָמַר לְעַכּוּ\"ם חֲסֹם פָּרָתִי וְדוּשׁ בָּהּ. יָשַׁב לָהּ קוֹץ בְּפִיהָ וְדָשׁ בָּהּ וַהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת. הִרְבִּיץ לָהּ אֲרִי מִבַּחוּץ אוֹ שֶׁהִרְבִּיץ בְּנָהּ מִבַּחוּץ. הֲרֵי שֶׁצָּמְאָה וְאֵינוֹ מַשְׁקֶה אוֹתָהּ. פָּרַס עוֹר עַל גַּבֵּי הַדַּיִשׁ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאכַל. כָּל זֶה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ אָסוּר וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. הָיָה הַדָּבָר שֶׁהִיא עוֹשָׂה בּוֹ רַע לִבְנֵי מֵעֶיהָ וּמַזִּיקָהּ אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה חוֹלָה וְאִם תֹּאכַל מִזֶּה מַתְרֶזֶת מֻתָּר לְמָנְעָהּ. שֶׁלֹּא הִקְפִּידָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא עַל הֲנָאָתָהּ וַהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ נֶהֱנֵית: \n", + "פָּרָה שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיָה כֹּהֵן דָּשׁ בָּהּ בִּתְרוּמָה וּבִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל וַדַּאי. וְכֵן פָּרוֹת הַדָּשׁוֹת בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. וּפָרוֹת הַמְהַלְּכוֹת עַל הַתְּבוּאָה. לְפִי שֶׁיָּרַט לָהֶן הַדֶּרֶךְ אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם בַּל (דברים כה ד) \"תַּחְסֹם\". אֲבָל מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן אִם הָיוּ דָּשׁוֹת בִּתְרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי מֵבִיא מְעַט מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין וְתוֹלֶה לָהֶן בַּקְּרֻסְטְלִין שֶׁבְּפִיהֶן: \n", + "הַדָּשׁ בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁל דְּמַאי וּבִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי וּבְגִדּוּלֵי תְּרוּמָה עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם בַּל (דברים כה ד) \"תַּחְסֹם\": \n", + "רַשַּׁאי בַּעַל הַפָּרָה לְהַרְעִיב פָּרָתוֹ וּלְסַגְּפָהּ כְּדֵי שֶׁתֹּאכַל הַרְבֵּה מִן הַדַּיִשׁ. וְרַשַּׁאי הַשּׂוֹכֵר לְהַאֲכִילָהּ פְּקִיעֵי עָמִיר כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאכַל הַרְבֵּה מִן הַדַּיִשׁ. כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ רַשַּׁאי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לְהַשְׁקוֹת פּוֹעֲלִים יַיִן כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכְלוּ עֲנָבִים הַרְבֵּה. וְרַשָּׁאִין פּוֹעֲלִין לִטְבּל פִּתָּן בְּצִיר כְּדֵי שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ עֲנָבִים הַרְבֵּה. אֲבָל אֵין הַפּוֹעֵל רַשַּׁאי לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלַאכְתּוֹ בַּלַּיְלָה וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר עַצְמוֹ בַּיּוֹם אוֹ לָדוּשׁ בְּפָרָתוֹ עַרְבִית וּלְהַשְׂכִּירָהּ שַׁחֲרִית. וְלֹא יִהְיֶה מַרְעִיב וּמְסַגֵּף עַצְמוֹ וּמַאֲכִיל מְזוֹנוֹתָיו לְבָנָיו מִפְּנֵי גֵּזֶל מְלַאכְתּוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. שֶׁהֲרֵי תָּשֵׁשׁ כֹּחוֹ וְתֵחָלֵשׁ דַּעְתּוֹ וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בְּכֹחַ: \n", + "כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמֻּזְהָר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא יִגְזל שְׂכַר עָנִי וְלֹא יְעַכְּבֶנּוּ כָּךְ הֶעָנִי מֻזְהָר שֶׁלֹּא יִגְזל מְלֶאכֶת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת וְיִבָּטֵל מְעַט בְּכָאן וּמְעַט בְּכָאן וּמוֹצִיא כָּל הַיּוֹם בְּמִרְמָה אֶלָּא חַיָּב לְדַקְדֵּק עַל עַצְמוֹ בַּזְּמַן שֶׁהֲרֵי הִקְפִּידוּ עַל בְּרָכָה רְבִיעִית שֶׁל בִּרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן שֶׁלֹּא יְבָרֵךְ אוֹתָהּ. וְכֵן חַיָּב לַעֲבֹד בְּכָל כֹּחוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי יַעֲקֹב הַצַּדִּיק אָמַר כִּי בְּכָל כֹּחִי עָבַדְתִּי אֶת אֲבִיכֶן. לְפִיכָךְ נָטַל שְׂכַר זֹאת אַף בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ל מג) \"וַיִּפְרֹץ הָאִישׁ מְאֹד מְאֹד\": סְלִיקוּ לְהוּ הִלְכוֹת שְׂכִירוּת \n" + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Hiring/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Hiring/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7025f2279e96929afb4439654a97405bcbd05ffe --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Hiring/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json @@ -0,0 +1,177 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Hiring", + "versionSource": "http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94_%D7%9C%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%91%22%D7%9D", + "versionTitle": "Wikisource Mishneh Torah", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY-SA", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "משנה תורה (ויקיטקסט)", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות שכירות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "ארבעה שומרים נאמרו בתורה ושלשה דינין יש להם ואלו הן הארבעה שומרין שומר חנם והשואל ונושא שכר והשוכר:", + "ואלו הן שלשה דינין שלהן:ש\"ח שנגנב הפקדון ממנו או אבד ואין צריך לומר אם נאנס הפקדון אונס גדול כגון שהיתה בהמה ומתה או נשבית ה\"ז נשבע ששמר כדרך השומרין ופטור שנאמר וגונב מבית האיש וגו' ונקרב בעל הבית אל האלהים השואל משלם הכל בין שאבד דבר השאול או נגנב בין שארעו אונס גדול מזה כגון שמתה הבהמה השאולה או נשברה או נשבית שכך כתוב בשואל ונשבר או מת בעליו אין עמו שלם ישלם נושא שכר או השוכר שניהם דין אחד יש להן אם נגנב או אבד הדבר השכור או שנטל שכר על שמירתו הרי אלו משלמים ואם ארעו אונס גדול מזה כגון שהיתה בהמה ומתה או נשברה או נשבית או נטרפה הרי אלו נשבעין שנאנסה ופטורין שנאמר ומת או נשבר או נשבה אין רואה שבועת ה' וגו' וכתיב אם גנוב יגנב מעמו ישלם לבעליו וגו' נמצאת אומר שומר חנם נשבע על הכל והשואל משלם את הכל חוץ מן המתה בשעת מלאכה כמו שיתבאר נושא שכר והשוכר משלמין את האבידה ואת הגניבה ונשבעין על האונסין הגדולים כגון שבורה ושבויה ומתה וטריפה או שאבד הדבר בספינה שטבעה בים או נלקח בלסטים מזויין וכל כיוצא באלו משאר אונסין הגדולים:", + "המפקיד אצל חבירו בין בחנם בין בשכר או השאילו או השכירו אם שאל השומר את הבעלים עם הדבר שלהן או שכרן הרי השומר פטור מכלום אפילו פשע בדבר ששמר ואבד מחמת הפשיעה ה\"ז פטור שנאמר אם בעליו עמו לא ישלם אם שכיר הוא בא בשכרו בד\"א כששאל הבעלים או שכרן בעת שנטל החפץ אף על פי שאין הבעלים שם עמו בעת הגניבה והאבידה או בעת שנאנס אבל נטל החפץ ונעשה עליו שומר תחלה ואחר כך שכר הבעלים או שאלן אע\"פ שהיו הבעלים עומדין שם בעת שנאנס הדבר השמור ה\"ז משלם שנאמר בעליו אין עמו שלם ישלם מפי השמועה למדו היה עמו בשעת השאלה אף על פי שאינו בעת הגניבה והמיתה פטור לא היה עמו בשעת השאלה אע\"פ שהיה עמו בעת המיתה או השבייה חייב והוא הדין לשאר השומרים שכולן בבעלים פטורין אפילו פשיעה בבעלים פטור:", + "כל שומר שפשע בתחלתו אף על פי שנאנס בסופו חייב כמו שיתבאר ואין השואל רשאי להשאיל אפילו שאל ספר תורה שכל שקורא בו עושה מצוה לא ישאילנו לאחר וכן אין השוכר רשאי להשכיר אפילו השכירו ס\"ת לא ישכירנו לאחר שהרי זה אומר לו אין רצוני שיהיה פקדוני ביד אחר עבר השומר ומסר לשומר השני אם יש עדים ששמרה השומר השני כדרך השומרין ונאנס פטור השומר הראשון שהרי יש עדים שנאנס ואם אין שם עדים חייב השומר הראשון לשלם לבעלים מפני שמסר לשומר אחר ויעשה הוא דין עם השומר השני אפילו היה הראשון ש\"ח ומסר לשומר שכר חייב שהרי יש לבעל החפץ לומר לו אתה נאמן אצלי להשבע וזה אינו נאמן לפיכך אם היה דרך הבעלים להפקיד תמיד דבר זה אצל השומר השני ה\"ז השומר הראשון פטור מלשלם שהרי הוא אומר לבעלים זה הדבר שהפקדתם אצלי או השאלתם אמש הייתם מפקידין אותו אצל זה שהפקדתי אני אצלו והוא שלא ימעט שמירתו כיצד ימעט שמירתו כגון שהיה מופקד אצלו בשכר והפקידו אצל אותו השני בחנם או שהיה שאול אצלו והפקידו אצל אותו השני בשכר הואיל ומיעט שמירתו פושע הוא ומשלם אע\"פ ששאל או ששכר בבעלים הרי הוא הוציא הדבר השמור מידו ליד שומר אחר:", + "ואם הביא השומר השני הראייה שיפטר בה שומר ראשון כדין שמירתו הרי זה פטור כיצד שומר שכר שנתן הבהמה השמורה אצלו לש\"ח אם הביא השומר השני עדים שמתה הבהמה כדרכה הרי השומר הראשון פטור וכן כל כיוצא בזה:", + "שומר שמסר לשומר אחר והוסיף בשמירתו ומתה ההנאה לבעלים כיצד השוכר פרה מחבירו והשאילה לאחר ומתה כדרכה ביד השואל הואיל והשואל חייב בכל יחזירו דמי הפרה לבעלים שאין זה השוכר עושה סחורה בפרתו של חבירו וכן כל כיוצא בזה היה בידו פקדון ושלחו ביד אחר לבעליו הואיל והשומר הראשון חייב באחריותו עד שיגיע ליד הבעלים אם בא לחזור ולהחזיר הפקדון מיד השומר השני מחזיר ואם הוחזק השומר הראשון כפרן אינו יכול להחזיר הפקדון מיד השומר השני אף על פי שעדיין הפקדון באחריותו של ראשון:" + ], + [ + "שלשה דינין האמורין בתורה בארבעה השומרין אינן אלא במטלטלין של ישראל ושל הדיוט שנאמר כסף או כלים וכל בהמה יצאו קרקעות ויצאו העבדים שהוקשו לקרקעות ויצאו השטרות שאין גופן ממון ויצאו הקדשות שנא' כי יתן איש אל רעהו ויצאו נכסי עכו\"ם מכאן אמרו חכמים העבדים והשטרות והקרקעות וההקדשות ש\"ח שלהן אינו נשבע ונושא שכר או שוכר אינו משלם ואם קנו מידו חייב באחריותן:", + "ותקנו חכמים שנשבעין על ההקדשות שבועת השומרין כעין של תורה כדי שלא יזלזלו בהקדשות:", + "יראה לי שאם פשע השומר בעבדים וכיוצא בהן חייב לשלם שאינו פטור בעבדים וקרקעות ושטרות אלא מדין גניבה ואבידה ומתה וכיוצא בהן שאם היה ש\"ח על מטלטלין ונגנבו או אבדו ישבע ובעבדים וקרקעות ושטרות פטור משבועה וכן אם היה שומר שכר שמשלם גניבה ואבידה במטלטלין פטור מלשלם באלו אבל אם פשע בה חייב לשלם שכל הפושע מזיק הוא ואין הפרש בין דין המזיק קרקע לדין המזיק מטלטלין ודין אמת הוא זה למבינים וכן ראוי לדון וכן הורו רבותי שהמוסר כרמו לשומר בין באריסות בין בשמירות חנם והתנה עמו שיחפור או יזמור או יאבק משלו ופשע ולא עשה חייב כמי שהפסיד בידים וכן כל כיוצא בזה שהפסיד בידים חייב על כל פנים:", + "המוסר לחבירו דבר המחובר לקרקע לשמור אפילו היו ענבים העומדות להבצר הרי הן כקרקע בדין השומרין:", + "הפקיד הקדש ואח\"כ פדהו והרי הוא חולין בעת שנטלו מיד השומר או שהשאילו חולין ואחר כך הקדיש והוא ביד השואל וכן עכו\"ם שהפקיד ואחר כך נתגייר כל אלו אין בהן כל דיני השומרין עד שתהיה תחלתן וסופן נכסי הדיוט ונכסי ישראל:", + "אחד האיש ואחד האשה בדין השומרין בין שהיה הדבר השמור של אשה או שהיה ביד האשה:", + "קטן שהפקיד ביד גדול או השאילו הרי זה הגדול נשבע שבועת השומרים לקטן הורו רבותי שאין זה נשבע בטענת הקטן כדי שנאמר אין נשבעין על טענת קטן שכל השומרין שבועתן שבועת שמא היא:", + "כדרך שתקנו חכמים משיכה בלקוחות כך תקנו משיכה בשומרין האומר לחבירו שמור לי זה ואמר לו הנח לפני הרי זה ש\"ח אמר לו הנח לפניך או הנח סתם או שאמר לו הרי הבית לפניך אינו לא ש\"ח ולא שומר שכר ואינו חייב שבועה כלל אבל מחרים על מי שלקח הפקדון שלו ולא יחזירו לבעליו וכן כל כיוצא בזה אחד המפקיד או המשאיל או המשכיר את חבירו בעדים או שלא בעדים דין אחד יש להן כיון שהודה זה מפי עצמו ששמר לו או ששאל ממנו הרי זה נשבע שבועת השומרין שאין אומרים מיגו לפוטרו משבועה אלא לפוטרו מלשלם אפילו היה הדבר השאול או המופקד או המושכר שוה פרוטה הרי זה השומר נשבע עליו ואין אחד מן השומרים צריך להודייה במקצת:", + "מתנה שומר חנם להיות פטור משבועה והשואל להיות פטור מלשלם וכן מתנה בעל הפקדון על ש\"ח או נושא שכר ושוכר להיות חייבין בכל כשואל שכל תנאי בממון או בשבועות של ממון קיים וא\"צ קניין ולא עדים:", + "טען זה שהיה שם תנאי והשומר אומר לא היה שם תנאי נשבע השומר שבועת השומרין ומגלגל בה שלא היה שם תנאי:", + "טען שהפקיד אצלו וזה אומר לא אמרתי אלא הנח לפניך ולא נעשיתי לו שומר נשבע היסת שלא קבלו אלא בדרך זו וכולל בשבועתו שלא שלח בו יד ולא אבדו בידים ולא בגרם שגרם לו שיהיה חייב לשלם:", + "זה אומר השאלתיך או השכרתיך או הפקדתיך והלה אומר לא היו דברים מעולם או שאמר כן היה אבל החזרתי לך ונסתלקה השמירה ולא נשארה בינינו תביעה הרי הנתבע נשבע שבועת היסת ונפטר במה דברים אמורים כשלא היה שם שטר אבל אם הפקיד או השכיר או השאיל בשטר ואמר לו החזרתי לך הרי השומר נשבע בנקיטת חפץ מתוך שיכול לומר ש\"ח שנגנב או אבד והשואל מתה בשעת מלאכה נאמן לומר החזרתי וכשם שאם טען שנאנס נשבע מן התורה בנקיטת חפץ כך אם טען החזרתי ישבע כעין של תורה הואיל ויש שם שטר ביד התובע בד\"א כשהיה השומר יכול לטעון ולומר נאנסו ולא נצריך אותו להביא ראייה על טענתו אבל אם היה חייב להביא ראייה על טענתו כמו שיתבאר אינו נאמן לומר החזרתי אלא ישבע בעל השטר בנקיטת חפץ שלא החזיר לו וישלם אין לך מי שנשבע מתוך שיכול לומר כך וכך וישבע בנקיטת חפץ אלא זה השומר בלבד שיש עליו שטר אבל שאר כל הנשבעין בדין מתוך שיכול לומר אינן נשבעין אלא היסת:" + ], + [ + "שומר שטען שנאנס אונס גדול כגון שבורה ומתה אם נאנס במקום שהעדים מצויין שם מצריכין אותו ראייה על טענתו שנאנס ויפטר אף משבועת שומרים ואם לא הביא ראייה ישלם שנאמר אין רואה שבועת ה' תהיה בין שניהם הא במקום שאפשר להביא ראייה אין שם שבועה אלא או יביא ראייה או ישלם אבל אם טען שנאנס במקום שאין העדים מצויין שם אין מצריכין אותו ראייה אלא ישבע שנאנס ויפטר ואם הביא עדים שלא פשע בה נפטר אף מן השבועה מעשה באחד שהביא חבית של יין בשכר ושברה בשוק של מחוזא ובאו לפני חכמים ואמרו שוק זה שטענת שנשברה בו חבית בני אדם מצויין שם או תביא ראייה שלא פשעת אלא נתקלת ונפלת או תשלם דמיה וכן כל כיוצא בזה:", + "המעביר חבית ממקום למקום בשכר ונשברה דין תורה הוא שישלם שאין זה אונס גדול והרי השבירה כגניבה ואבידה שהוא חייב בהן אבל תקנו חכמים שיהיה חייב שבועה שלא פשע בה שאם אתה אומר ישלם אין לך אדם שיעביר חבית לחבירו לפיכך עשו בו שבירת החבית כמיתת הבהמה ושבירתה ועוד תקנו בדבר זה שאם נשאו אותה שנים במוט ונשברה משלמין חצי דמיה הואיל ומשוי זה גדול לגבי אחד וקל לגבי שנים הרי הוא כאונס ואינו אונס ומשלמין מחצה אם יש עדים שלא פשעו בה נשברה במקום שאין העדים מצויין נשבעין שלא שברוה בפשיעה ומשלמין חצי דמיה שהרי לא היה לכל אחד להעביר אלא משוי שיכול להעבירו בפני עצמו מכאן אתה למד שהאחד שהעביר חבית גדולה שאין דרך כל הסבלים להעבירה שהוא פושע ואם נשברה בידו משלם הכל:", + "הסבל ששבר חבית של יין לחנווני ונתחייב לשלם והרי היא שוה ביום השוק ארבעה ובשאר הימים שלשה אם החזירו ביום השוק חייבין להחזיר חבית של יין או ישלמו לו ארבעה והוא שלא היה לו יין למכור ביום השוק אבל אם היה לו יין מחזירין לו שלשה החזירו לו בשאר הימים מחזירין לו שלשה ומנכין לו בכל זמן טורח שהיה טורח במכירתה ופגם הנקב שהיה נוקב החבית וכן כל כיוצא בזה:", + "רועה שבאו זאבים וטרפו ממנו אם היה זאב אחד אין זה אונס אפילו בשעת משלחת זאבים ואם היו שני זאבים ה\"ז אונס שני כלבים אינן אונס אפילו באו משתי רוחות היו יתר על שנים ה\"ז אונס ליסטים מזויין הרי הוא אונס ואפילו היה הרועה מזויין ובא לו ליסטים אחר מזויין הרי זה אונס שאין הרועה מוסר נפשו כליסטים הארי והדוב והנמר והברדלס והנחש הרי אלו אונסין אימתי בזמן שבאו מאליהן אבל אם הוליכם למקום גדודי חיות וליסטים אין אלו אונסין וחייב לשלם:", + "רועה שמצא גנב והתחיל להתגרות בו ולהראותו שאינו חושש ממנו ואמר לו הרי אנו במקום פלוני וכך וכך רועים אנחנו וכך וכך כלי מלחמה יש לנו ובא אותו הליסטים ונצחו ולקח מהן הרי הרועה חייב שאחד המוליך את הבהמה למקום גדודי חיות וליסטים או מביא את הליסטים בהתגרותו למקום הבהמה:", + "רועה שהיה לו להציל הטריפה או השבויה ברועים אחרים ובמקלות ולא קרא רועים אחרים ולא הביא מקלות להציל הרי זה חייב אחד ש\"ח ואחד ש\"ש אלא שש\"ח קורא רועים ומביא מקלות בחנם ואם לא מצא פטור אבל ש\"ש חייב לשוכר הרועים והמקלות עד כדי דמי הבהמה כדי להציל וחוזר ולוקח שכרן מבעל הבית ואם לא עשה כן והיה לו לשכור ולא שכר ה\"ז פושע וחייב:", + "רועה שטען שהצלתיע\"ירועים בשכר נשבע ונוטל מה שטען שאינו יכול לטעון אלא עד כדי דמיהן ויכול היה לומר נטרפה וישבע בנקיטת חפץ כדין כל הנשבעין ונוטלין:", + "רועה שהניח עדרו ובא לעיר בין בעת שדרך הרועים להכנס ובין בעת שאין דרך הרועים להכנס ובאו זאבים וטרפו ארי ודרס אין אומרים אילו היה שם היה מציל אלא אומדין אותו אם יכול להציל על ידי רועים ומקלות חייב ואם לאו פטור ואם אין הדבר ידוע חייב לשלם:", + "מתה הבהמה כדרכה ה\"ז אונס והרועה פטור סגפה ומתה אינו אונס תקפתו ועלתה לראשי צוקין ותקפתו ונפלה הרי זה אונס העלה לראשי צוקין או שעלתה מאליה והוא יכול למנעה ולא מנעה אף על פי שתקפתו ונפלה ומתה או נשברה חייב שכל שתחלתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס חייב וכן רועה שהעביר הבהמות על הגשר ודחפה אחת מהן לחבירתה ונפלה לשבולת הנהר ה\"ז חייב שהיה לו להעבירן אחת אחת שאין השומר נוטל שכר אלא לשמור שמירה מעולה והואיל ופשע בתחלה והעבירן כאחד אע\"פ שנאנס בסוף בעת הנפילה הרי הוא חייב:", + "פשע בה ויצאה לאגם ומתה שם כדרכה פטור שאין יציאתה גרמה לה שתבוא לידי אונס זה הואיל וכדרכה מתה מה לי בבית שומר מה לי באגם אבל אם גנבה גנב מהאגם ומתה כדרכה בבית הגנב הרי השומר חייב אף על פי שהוא ש\"ח שאפילו לא מתה הרי היא אבדה ביד הגנב ויציאתה גרמה לה להגנב וכן כל כיוצא בזה:" + ], + [ + "השוכר את החמור להוליכה בהר והוליכה בבקעה אם הוחלקה פטור אע\"פ שעבר על דעת הבעלים ואם הוחמה חייב שכרה להוליכה בבקעה והוליכה בהר אם הוחלקה חייב שהחלקות יתר בהר מן הבקעה ואם הוחמה פטור שחמימות בבקעה יתר מן ההר מפני הרוח שמנשבת בראש ההרים ואם הוחמה מחמת המעלה חייב וכן כל כיוצא בזה וכן השוכר את הפרה לחרוש בהר וחרש בבקעה ונשבר הקנקן והוא הכלי שחורש בו הרי השוכר פטור ודין בעל הפרה עם האומנין שחרשו וכן אם לא שינה על דעת הבעלים ונשבר הקנקן דין בעל הפרה עם האומנין שכרה לחרוש בבקעה וחרש בהר ונשבר הקנקן השוכר חייב ודינו של שוכר עם האומנים:", + "ומהו דין האומנין ששברו בעת חרישה שמשלמין מי משלם זה האוחז את הכלי בעת החרישה ואם היתה השדה מעלות מעלות שניהם חייבים בדמי הקנקן המנהיג אותה במלמד והאוחז את הכלי:", + "שכרה לדוש בקטנית ודש בתבואה והוחלקה פטור בתבואה ודש בקטנית חייב שהקטנית מחלקת מעשה באחד שהשכיר חמור לחבירו ואמר לו לא תלך בו בדרך נהר פקוד שהמים מצויין שם אלא בדרך גרש שאין בה מים הלך בדרך נהר פקוד ומת החמור ולא היו שם עדים שמעידים באי זה דרך הלך אלא הוא מעצמו אמר בנהר פקוד הלכתי ולא היו שם מים ומחמת עצמו מת ואמרו חכמים הואיל ויש עדים שהמים בנהר פקוד מצויין חייב לשלם שהרי שינה על דעת הבעלים ואין אומרים מה לי לשקר במקום עדים:", + "השוכר את הבהמה להביא עליה מאתים ליטרין של חטים והביא מאתים ליטרין של שעורים ומתה חייב מפני שהנפח קשה למשאוי והשעורין יש להן נפח וכן אם שכרה להביא תבואה והביא במשקלה תבן אבל אם שכרה להביא עליה שעורים והביא במשקלן חטים ומתה פטור וכן כל כיוצא בזה:", + "שכר את הבהמה לרכוב עליה איש לא ירכיב עליה אשה שכרה לרכוב עליה אשה מרכיב עליה איש ומרכיב עליה כל אשה בין קטנה בין גדולה ואפילו מעוברת שהיא מניקה:", + "השוכר את הבהמה לשאת עליה משקל ידוע והוסיף על משאו אם הוסיף חלק משלשים על השיעור שפסק עמו ומתה חייב פחות מכאן פטור אבל נותן הוא שכר התוספת שכר סתם אינו נושא אלא במשקל הידוע במדינה לאותה בהמה ואם הוסיף חלק משלשים כגון שדרכה לשאת שלשים וטען עליה ל\"א ומתה או נשברה חייב וכן ספינה שהוסיף בה אחד משלשים על משאה וטבעה חייב לשלם דמיה:", + "הכתף שהוסיף על משאו קב אחד הוזק במשא זה חייב בנזקיו שאף על פי שהוא בן דעת והרי הוא מרגיש בכובד המשא יעלה על לבו שמא מחמת חוליו הוא זה הכובד:", + "השוכר את החמור לרכוב עליה יש לו להניח עליה כסותו ולגינו ומזונותיו של אותו הדרך לפי שאין דרך השוכר לחזור בכל מלון ומלון לקנות מזונות יתר על זה הרי מעכב עליו בעל החמור וכן יש לבעל החמור להניח עליה שעורים ותבן מזונות של אותו היום יתר על זה השוכר מעכב מפני שאפשר לו לקנות בכל מלון ומלון לפיכך אם אין שם מאין יקנה מניח עליו מזונותיו ומזונות בהמתו של כל אותה הדרך וכל אלו הדברים בשוכר סתם ובמקום שאין מנהג ידוע אבל במקום שיש מנהג הכל לפי המנהג:" + ], + [ + "השוכר את הבהמה וחלתה או נשתטית או נלקחה לעבודת המלך אע\"פ שאין סופה לחזור אם נלקחה דרך הליכה הרי המשכיר אומר לשוכר הרי שלך לפניך וחייב ליתן לו שכרו משלם בד\"א בששכרה לשאת עליה משוי שאפשר להשליכו בלא הקפדה אבל אם שכרה לרכוב עליה או לשאת עליה כלי זכוכית וכיוצא בהן חייב להעמיד לו חמור אחר אם שכר ממנו חמור ואם לא העמיד יחזיר השכר ויחשוב עמו על שכר כמה שהלך בה:", + "מתה הבהמה או נשברה בין ששכרה לשאת בין ששכרה לרכוב אם אמר לו חמור סתם אני משכיר לך חייב להעמיד לו חמור אחר מכל מקום ואם לא העמיד יש לשוכר למכור הבהמה וליקח בה בהמה אחרת או שוכר בהמה בדמיה אם אין בדמיה ליקח עד שיגיע למקום שפסק בו אמר לו חמור זה אני שוכר לך אם שכרה לרכוב עליה או לכלי זכוכית ומתה בחצי הדרך אם יש בדמיה ליקח בהמה אחרת יקח ואם אין בדמיה ליקח שוכר אפילו בדמי כולה עד שיגיע למקום שפסק עמו ואם אין בדמיה לא ליקח ולא לשכור נותן לו שכרו של חצי הדרך ואין לו עליו אלא תרעומת שכרה למשא הואיל ואמר לו חמור זה ומת בחצי הדרך אינו חייב להעמיד לו אחר אלא נותן לו שכרו של חצי הדרך ומניח לו נבלתו:", + "השוכר את הספינה וטבעה לו בחצי הדרך אם אמר לו ספינה זו אני משכיר לך ושכרה השוכר להוליך בה יין סתם אף על פי שנתן לו השכ' יחזיר כל השכר שה\"ז אומר לו הבא לי הספינה עצמה ששכרתי שהקפדה גדולה יש בספינה זו ואני אביא יין מכל מקום ואוליך בה אמר לו ספינה סתם אני משכיר לך ושכרה השוכר להוליך בה יין זה אע\"פ שלא נתן לו מן השכר כלום חייב ליתן כל השכר שהרי אומר לו הבא לי היין עצמו ואני אביא לך ספינה מכל מקום ואוליכו אבל צריך לנכות כדי הטורח של חצי הדרך שאינו דומה המטפל בהולכת הספינה ליושב ובטל אמר לו ספינה זו אני משכיר ושכר השוכר להוליך בה יין זה אם נתן השכר אינו יכול להחזירו ואם לא נתן לא יתן שאין זה יכול להביא הספינה עצמה ולא זה יכול להביא יין עצמו שכר ספינה סתם ליין סתם הרי אלו חולקין השכר:", + "השוכר את הספינה ופרקה בחצי הדרך נותן לו שכר כל הדרך ואם מצא השוכר מי שישכיר אותה לו עד המקום שפסק שוכר ויש לבעל הספינה עליו תרעומת וכן אם מכר כל הסחורה שבספינה לאיש אחר בחצי הדרך וירד ועלה הלוקח נוטל שכר חצי הדרך מן הראשון ושכר החצי מזה האחרון ויש לבעל הספינה עליו תרעומת שגרם לו לסבול דעת איש אחר שעדיין לא הורגל בו וכן כל כיוצא בזה:", + "מכאן אני אומר שהמשכיר בית לחבירו עד זמן קצוב ורצה השוכר להשכיר הבית לאחר עד סוף זמנו משכיר לאחרים אם יש בני בית כמנין בני ביתו אבל אם היו ארבעה לא ישכור לחמשה שלא אמרו חכמים אין השוכר רשאי להשכיר אלא מטלטין שהרי אומר לו אין רצוני שיהא פקדוני ביד אחר אבל בקרקע או בספינה שהרי בעלה עמה אין אומר כן וכן אני אומר אם אמר לו בעה\"ב לשוכר למה תטרח ותשכיר ביתי לאחרים אם לא תרצה לעמוד בו צא הניחו ואתה פטור משכירתו אינו יכול להשכירו לאחר שזה באל תמנע טוב מבעליו עד שאתה משכירו לאחר תניח לזה ביתו ויש מי שהורה שאינו יכול להשכירו לאחר כלל ויתן שכרו עד סוף זמנו ולא יראה לי שדין זה אמת:", + "בית זה אני משכיר לך ואחר שהשכירו נפל אינו חייב לבנותו אלא מחשב על מה שנשתמש בו ומחזיר לו שאר השכירות אבל אם סתרו חייב להעמיד לו בית אחר או ישכיר לו כמותו וכן אם חזר אחר שהשכירו לזה והשכירו או מכרו לעכו\"ם או אנס שהפקיע שכירות הראשון הרי זה חייב להשכיר לו בית אחר כמותו וכן כל כיוצא בזה:", + "השכיר לו בית סתם ואחר שנתן לו בית נפל חייב לבנותו או יתן לו בית אחר ואם היה קטן מן הבית שנפל אין השוכר יכול לעכב עליו והוא שיהיה קרוי בית שלא השכיר אלא בית סתם אבל אם אמר לו בית כזה אני משכיר לך חייב להעמיד לו בית כמדת ארכו ומדת רחבו של בית זה שהראהו ואינו יכול לומר לו לא היה ענין דברי אלא שיהיה קרוב לנהר או לשוק או למרחץ כזה אלא חייב להעמיד לו בית כמדתו וכצורתו לפיכך אם היה קטן לא יעשנו גדול גדול לא יעשנו קטן אחד לא יעשנו שנים שנים לא יעשנו אחד ולא יפחות מן החלונות שהיו בו ולא יוסיף עליהן אלא מדעת שניהם:", + "המשכיר עלייה סתם חייב להעמיד לו עלייה אמר לו עלייה זו שעל גבי בית זה אני משכיר לך הרי שעבד בית לעלייה לפיכך אם נפחתה העלייה בארבעה טפחים או יתר חייב המשכיר לתקן ואם לא תקן הרי השוכר יורד ודר בבית עם בעה\"ב עד שיתקן היו שתי עליות זו על גבי זו ונפחתה העליונה דר בתחתונה נפחתה התחתונה ה\"ז ספק אם ידור בעליונה או בבית לפיכך לא ידור ואם דר אין מוציאין אותו משם מעשה באחד שאמר לחבירו דלית זו שעל גבי הפרסק הזה אני משכיר לך ונעקר אילן הפרסק ממקומו ובא מעשה לפני חכמים ואמרו לו חייב אתה להעמיד הפרסק כל זמן שהדלית קיימת וכן כל כיוצא בזה:" + ], + [ + "המשכיר בית לחבירו בבירה גדולה משתמש בזיזיה ובכותליה עד ד\"א ובתרבץ של חצר וברחבה שאחורי הבתים ומקום שנהגו להשתמש בעובי הכותלים משתמש בעובי הכותלים ובכל אלו הדברים הולכין אחר מנהג המדינה והשמות הידועין להם כדרך שאמרנו בענין מקח וממכר:", + "המשכיר חצירו סתם לא השכיר הרפת שבה:", + "המשכיר בית לחבירו חייב להעמיד לו דלתות ולפתוח לו החלונות שנתקלקלו ולחזק את התקרה ולסמוך את הקורה שנשברה ולעשות נגר ומנעול וכל כיוצא באלו מדברים שהן מעשה אומן והם עיקר גדול בישיבת הבתים והחצרות השוכר חייב לעשות מעקה ומזוזה ולתקן מקום המזוזה משלו וכן אם רצה לעשות סולם או מרזב או להטיח גגו הרי זה עושה משל עצמו:", + "המשכיר עלייה לחבירו ונפחתה בארבעה או יתר חייב לתקן התקרה והמעזיבה שעליה שהמעזיבה חזוק התקרה היא:", + "הזבל שבחצר הרי הוא של שוכר לפיכך הוא מטפל בו להוציאו ואם יש שם מנהג הולכין אחר המנהג בד\"א כשהיו הבהמות שעשו הזבל של שוכר אבל אם הבהמות של אחרים הזבל של בעל החצר שחצירו של אדם קונה שלא מדעתו אף על פי שהיא שכורה ביד אחרים:", + "המשכיר בית או חצר או מרחץ או חנות או שאר המקומות עד זמן קצוב ה\"ז כופהו לצאת בסוף זמנו ואינו ממתין לו אפילו שעה אחת שכר לו בית סתם ללינה אין פחות מיום אחד לשביתה אין פחות משני ימים לנישואין אין פחות משלשים יום:", + "המשכיר בית לחבירו סתם אינו יכול להוציאו עד שיודיעו שלשים יום מקודם כדי לבקש מקום ולא יהיה מושלך בדרך ולסוף השלשים יצא בד\"א בימות החמה אבל בימות הגשמים אינו יכול להוציאו מן החג ועד הפסח קבע לו שלשים לפני החג אם נשאר מן השלשים יום אפילו יום אחד לאחר החג אינו יכול להוציאו עד מוצאי הפסח והוא שיודיעו ל' יום מקודם במה דברים אמורים בעיירות אבל בכרכים אחד ימות החמה ואחד ימות הגשמים צריך להודיעו י\"ב חדש מקודם וכן בחנות בין בכרכים בין בעיירות צריך להודיעו י\"ב חדש מקודם:", + "כשם שהמשכיר חייב להודיעו כך השוכר חייב להודיעו מקודם ל' יום בעיירות או מקודם שנים עשר חדש בכרכים כדי שיבקש שכן ולא ישאר ביתו פנוי ואם לא הודיעו אינו יכול לצאת אלא יתן השכר:", + "אע\"פ שאין המשכיר יכול להוציאו ולא השוכר יכול לצאת עד שיודיעו מקודם אם הוקרו הבתים יש למשכיר להוסיף עליו ולומר לשוכר או השכר בשוה עד שתמצא או תצא וכן אם הוזלו הבתים יש לשוכר לפחות השכר ולומר למשכיר או השכר לי כשער של עתה או הרי ביתך לפניך נפל בית המשכיר שהיה דר בו הרי זה יש לו להוציא השוכר מביתו ואומר לו אינו בדין שתהיה אתה יושב בביתי עד שתמצא מקום ואני מושלך בדרך שאין אתה בעל זכות בבית זה יותר ממנו:", + "נתן הבית לבנו לישא בו אשה אם היה יודע שבנו נעשה חתן בזמן פלוני והיה אפשר לו להודיעו מקודם ולא הודיעו אינו יכול להוציאו ואם עכשיו נזדמנה לו אשה והרי הוא נושאה מיד הרי זה יש לו להוציאו שאינו בדין שיהיה זה יושב בביתו ובן בעה\"ב ישכור בית שיעשה בו חתונה:", + "מכר את הבית או נתנו או הורישו אין השני יכול להוציאו עד שיודיעו מקודם שלשים יום או מקודם שנים עשר חדש שהרי השוכר אומר לו אין כחך יתר מכח זה שזכית בבית זה מחמתו:" + ], + [ + "כשם שמתנה אדם כל תנאי שירצה במקח וממכר כך מתנה בשכירות שהשכירות מכירה לזמן קצוב היא וכל שממכרו בנכסיו ממכר שוכר שכירותו שכירות וכל שאין לו למכור כך אין לו לשכור אלא א\"כ יש לו פירות בלבד באותה הקרקע הרי זה שוכר ואינו מוכר:", + "המשכיר בית לחבירו לשנה ונתעברה השנה נתעברה לשוכר השכיר לחדשים נתעברה למשכיר הזכיר לו חדשים ושנה בין שאמר לו דינר לחדש י\"ב דינר בשנה בין שאמר לו שנים עשר דינר לשנה דינר בכל חדש הרי חדש העיבור של משכיר שהקרקע בחזקת בעלים ואין מוציאין דבר מיד בעל הקרקע אלא בראיה ברורה וכן בעה\"ב שאמר לזמן זה השכרתי לך והשוכר אומר לא שכרתי אלא סתם או לזמן ארוך על השוכר להביא ראיה ואם לא הביא בעה\"ב נשבע היסת ומוציאו מן הבית:", + "השוכר שאמר נתתי שכר הבית שנתחייבתי בו והמשכיר אומר עדיין לא נטלתי בין שהיתה בשטר בין שהיתה בעדים אם תבעו בתוך שלשים יום על השוכר להביא ראיה או יתן ויחרים על מי שלקח ממנו או יטעון עליו בדמים שנתן תחלה טענה בפני עצמה וישביעהו היסת תבעו המשכיר לאחר שלשים יום ואפילו ביום הל' על המשכיר להביא ראיה או ישבע השוכר שכבר נתן לו שכרו ויפטר וכן אם שכר ממנו ופירש שיתן לו השכר שנה בשנה ותבעו בתוך השנה על השוכר להביא ראיה תבעו לאחר השנה ואפילו ביום תשעה ועשרים באלול על המשכיר להביא ראייה:", + "המשכיר בית לחבירו בשטר לעשר שנים ואין בו זמן השוכר אומר עדיין לא עבר מזמן השטר אלא שנה והמשכיר אומר כבר עברו ושלמו שני השכירות ושכנת עשר שנים על השוכר להביא ראיה ואם לא הביא ראיה ישבע המשכיר היסת ויוציאו:", + "השוכר פרדס או שהיה משכון בידו לי' שנים ויבש הפרדס בתוך הזמן ימכרו עציו וילקח בהן קרקע ויאכל פירותיו עד סוף זמן שכירותו או זמן המשכון וגוף האילנות שיבשו או נקצצו שניהן אסורין בהן משום רבית המלוה והלוה:", + "שטר השכירות או שטר המשכון שכתוב בה שנים סתם בעל הפירות אומר ג' ובעל הקרקע אומר שנים וקדם זה השוכר או המלוה ואכל הפירות הרי הפירות בחזקת אוכליהן עד שיביא בעל הקרקע ראיה אכלה השוכר או הממשכן שלש שנים וכבש השטר ואמר לחמש שנים יש לי פירות ובעל הקרקע אומר שלש אמרו לו הבא שטרך ואמר אבד השוכר נאמן שאילו רצה אמר לקוחה היא בידי שהרי אכלה שלש שנים:", + "מי שהכניס פירותיו לבית חבירו שלא מדעתו או שהטעוהו עד שהכניס פירותיו והניחם והלך יש לבעל הבית למכור לו מאותן הפירות כדי ליתן שכר הפועלים שמוציאין אותן ומשליכין אותם לשוק ומדת חסידות הוא שיודיע לבית דין וישכירו ממקצת דמיהן מקום משום השב אבידה לבעלים אף על פי שלא עשה כהוגן:", + "השוכר ריחיים מחבירו שיטחון לו כ' סאה בכל חדש בשכרו והעשיר בעל הריחיים והרי אינו צריך לטחון שם אם יש לשוכר חטים שצריך לטחון לעצמו או לאחרים כופין אותו ליתן דמי טחינת כ' סאה שזו מדת סדום היא ואם אין לו יכול לומר אין לי דמים והריני טוחן לך כמו ששכרתי ואם אין אתה צריך מכור לאחרים וכן כל כיוצא בזה:" + ], + [ + "אחד השוכר מחבירו שדה לזורעה או כרם לאכול פירותיו בדמים או ששכר ממנו בפירות קצובים כגון ששכר ממנו שדה זו בעשרים כור בשנה וכרם זה בעשרים כדי יין בכל שנה שניהן דין אחד יש להן והשוכר בפירות הוא הנקרא חוכר:", + "המקבל שדה או פרדס כדי לעבוד אותו ולהוציא עליו יציאות ויתן לבעל הקרקע שליש התבואות או רביע או מה שיתנו ביניהן והוא הנקרא מקבל כל דבר שהוא לסייג הארץ בעל הקרקע חייב בו וכל דבר שהוא שמירה יתירה החוכר או המקבל חייב בו הקרדום שחופרין בו הארץ והכלים שנושאין בהן העפר והדלי והכד וכיוצא בהן שדולין בהן המים על בעל הקרקע וחטיטת המקומות שמקבצין בהן המים על החוכר או על המקבל:", + "השוכר או המקבל שדה מחבירו לשנים מועטות לא יזרענה פשתן שכרה או קבלה ז' שנים זורעה שנה ראשונה פשתן ואין השביעית מן המניין שכרה או קבלה שבוע אחד שביעית מן המניין:", + "החוכר או המקבל שדה מחבירו והיא בית השלחין או בית האילן ויבשה מעיין בית השלחין ולא פסק הנהר הגדול אלא אפשר להביא ממנו בדלי או שנקצץ האילן של בית האילנות אינו מנכה לו מחכירו ואם מכת מדינה היא כגון שיבש הנהר מנכה לו מחכירו היה עומד בתוך השדה ואמר לו בית השלחין הזה אני משכיר לך בית האילן זה אני משכיר יבש המעיין או נקצץ האילן מנכה מחכירו שהרי הוא עומד בתוכה ולא אמר לו הזה אלא כמי שאומר כמות שהיא עתה אני משכיר לפיכך אם לא היה עומד בתוכה ואמר לו בית השלחין אני משכיר לך או בית האילן ויבש המעיין או שנקצץ האילן אינו מנכה לו מחכירו:", + "השוכר או המקבל שדה מחבירו ואכלה חגב או נשתדפה אם אירע דבר זה לרוב השדות של אותה העיר מנכה לו מחכירו הכל לפי ההפסד שארעו ואם לא פשטה המכה ברוב השדות אינו מנכה לו מחכירו אע\"פ שנשתדפו כל השדות של בעל הקרקע נשתדפו כל השדות של השוכר או המקבל אף על פי שפשטה המכה ברוב השדות אינו מנכה לו מחכירו שאין זה ההפסד תלוי אלא בשוכר שהרי כל שדותיו נשתדפו התנה עליו בעל הקרקע שיזרענה חטים וזרעה שעורים או שלא זרעה כלל או שזרעה ולא צמחה אע\"פ שבא חגב או שדפון והוכתה רוב המדינה אינו מנכה לו מחכירו ועד מתי חייב להטפל ולזרוע פעם אחרת אם לא צמחה כל זמן שראוי לזריעה באותו מקום:", + "השוכר או המקבל שדה מחבירו מקום שנהגו לקצור יקצור ואינו רשאי לעקור לעקור יעקור ואינו רשאי לקצור ושניהם מעכבין זה על זה ומקום שנהגו לחרוש אחריו יחרוש מקום שנהגו להשכיר אילנות על גב קרקע משכירין ואף על פי שהשכיר לו סתם בפחות מן הידוע ומקום שנהגו שלא להשכיר אילנות אין לו אילנות אע\"פ ששכר ממנו ביתר על הידוע הכל כמנהג המדינה:", + "החוכר שדה מחבירו בעשרה כור חטים ולקתה נותן לו מתוכה היו חטיה יפות לא יאמר לו הריני לוקח לך מן השוק אלא נותן לו מתוכה חכר ממנו כרם בעשרה סלי ענבים והקריסו אחר שנבצרו וכן עומרים שלקו אחר שנקצרו נותן לו מתוכן חכרו בעשרה כדי יין והחמיץ חייב ליתן לו יין טוב חכרה ממנו במאה עמרים של אספסתא וזרעה מין אחר ואח\"כ חרשה וזרעה אספסתא ולקתה או שזרעה בתחלה אספסתא וחרשה ואח\"כ זרעה פעם אחרת ולקתה אינו נותן לו מתוכה אלא נותן לו אספסתא טובה שהרי שינה וכן כל כיוצא בזה:", + "החוכר שדה מחבירו ולא רצה לנכש ואמר לו מה הפסד יש לך הריני נותן לך חכירך אין שומעין לו שהרי הוא אומר לו למחר אתה יוצא ממנה והיא מעלה עשבים ואפילו אמר לו באחרונה אני חורש אותה אין שומעין לו:", + "החוכר שדה מחבירו לזורעה שעורים לא יזרענה חטים מפני שהחטין מכחישות את הקרקע יתר מהשעורים שכרה לזרעה חטים יזרענה שעורים קטנית לא יזרענה תבואה תבואה יזרענה קטנית ובבבל וכיוצא בה לא יזרענה קטנית מפני שהקטנית שם מכחשת את הארץ:", + "המקבל שדה מחבירו לשנים מועטות אין למקבל כלום בקורת השקמה וכיוצא בה ולא בשבח האילנות שיצאו מאליהן בשדה אבל מחשבין לו מקום האילנות כאילו היה בהן אותו זרע שזרע בכל השדה והוא שצמחו האילנות במקום הראוי לזריעה אבל אם יצאו במקום שאינו ראוי לזריעה אין מחשבין לו כלום ואם קיבלה שבע שנים או יתר יש לו בקורת השקמה וכיוצא בה הגיע זמנו להסתלק מן השדה והיו שם זרעים שעדיין לא הגיעו להמכר או שנגמרו ולא הגיע יום השוק למכרן שמין אותן ונוטל מבעל הקרקע כשם שחולקין המקבל ובעל הקרקע בתבואה כך חולקין בתבן ובקש כשם שחולקין ביין כך חולקין בזמירות אבל הקנים המעמידים תחת הגפנים אם קנו אותן בשותפות הרי אלו חולקין בהן ואם הן משל אחד מהן זה שקנה אותן הרי הן שלו וכן כל כיוצא בזה:", + "המקבל שדה מחבירו ליטע מקבל עליו בעל השדה עשרה בוראות לסאה יתר על זה מגלגלין עליו את הכל:", + "המקבל שדה מחבירו ולא עשתה אם יש בה כדי שתוציא סאתים יתר על ההוצאה חייב המקבל ליטפל בה שכך כותב לבעל הקרקע אנא איקום ואניר ואזרע ואקצור ואעמור ואדוש ואזרה ואעמיד כרי לפניך ותטול את חציו או מה שיתנו ואני אטול השאר בשכר עמלי ובמה שהוצאתי:", + "המקבל שדה מחבירו ואחר שזכה בה הובירה שמין אותה כמה היא ראויה לעשות ונותן לו חלקו שהיה מגיע לו שכך כותב לבעל הקרקע אם אוביר ולא אעביד אשלם במיטבא והוא הדין אם הוביר מקצתה ומפני מה נתחייב לשלם מפני שלא פסק על עצמו דבר קצוב כדי שנאמר הרי היא כאסמכתא אלא התנה שישלם במיטבא ולפיכך גמר ושיעבד עצמו אבל אם אמר אם אוביר ולא אעביד אתן לך מאה דינרין הרי זה אסמכתא ואינו חייב לשלם אלא נותן כפי מה שראויה לעשות בלבד:", + "המקבל שדה לזורעה שומשמין וזרעה חטים ועשתה חטים ששוין כמה שהיא ראויה לעשות מן השומשמין אין לו עליו אלא תרעומת עשתה פחות ממה שהיא ראויה לעשות מן השומשמין משלם לו המקבל כפי מה שהיא ראויה לעשות מן השומשמין עשתה חטים יתר ממה שהיא ראויה לעשות מן השומשמין חולקין לפי התנאי שביניהן אף על פי שמשתכר בעל הקרקע:" + ], + [ + "השוכר את הפועלים ואמר להם להשכים ולהעריב מקום שנהגו שלא להשכים ושלא להעריב אינו יכול לכופן מקום שנהגו לזון יזון לספק בגרוגרות או בתמרים וכיוצא בהן לפועלים יספק הכל כמנהג המדינה:", + "השוכר את הפועל ואמר לו כאחד וכשנים מבני העיר רואין הפחות שבשכירות והיתר שבשכירות ומשמנין ביניהן:", + "אמר לשלוחו צא ושכור לי פועלים בשלשה והלך ושכרן בארבעה אם אמר להם השליח שכרכם עלי נותן להם ארבעה ונוטל מבעל הבית שלשה ומפסיד אחד מכיסו אמר להם שכרכם על בעה\"ב נותן להם בעה\"ב כמנהג המדינה היה במדינה מי שנשכר בשלשה ומי שנשכר בארבעה אינו נותן להם אלא שלשה ויש להם תרעומת על השליח בד\"א כשאין מלאכתן ניכרת אבל היתה מלאכתן ניכרת והרי היא שוה ארבעה נותן להם בעה\"ב ארבעה שאילו לא אמר להם שלוחו ארבעה לא טרחו ועשו שוה ארבעה אמר לו בעה\"ב שכור לי בארבעה והלך השליח ושכר בשלשה אע\"פ שהרי מלאכתן שוה ארבעה אין להם אלא שלשה שהרי קבלו על עצמן ויש להם תרעומת על השליח אמר לו בעה\"ב בשלשה והלך השליח ואמר להם בארבעה ואמרו הרינו כמה שאמר בעה\"ב אין דעתם אלא שיתן בעה\"ב יתר על ארבעה לפיכך שמין מה שעשו אם שוה ארבעה נוטלין ארבעה מבעל הבית ואם אינו ידוע או אינו שוה אין להם אלא שלשה אמר לו בעל הבית בארבעה והלך השליח ואמר להם בשלשה ואמרו לו כמה שאמר בעה\"ב אף על פי שמלאכתן שוה ארבעה אין להם אלא שלשה שהרי שמעו שלשה וקבלו עליהם:", + "השוכר את הפועלים והטעו את בעה\"ב או בעה\"ב הטעה אותם אין להם זה על זה אלא תרעומת במה דברים אמורים בשלא הלכו אבל הלכו החמרין ולא מצאו תבואה פועלים ומצאו שדה כשהיא לחה או ששכר להשקות השדה ומצאוה שנתמלאה מים אם ביקר בעה\"ב מלאכתו מבערב ומצא שצריכה פועלים אין לפועלים כלום מה בידו לעשות ואם לא ביקר נותן להם שכרן כפועל בטל שאינו דומה הבא טעון לבא ריקן ועושה מלאכה לבטל בד\"א בשלא התחילו במלאכה אבל אם התחיל הפועל במלאכה וחזר בו אפילו בחצי היום חוזר שנאמר כי לי בני ישראל עבדים ולא עבדים לעבדים וכיצד דין הפועל שחזר בו אחר שהתחיל שמין לו מה שעשה ונוטל ואם קבלן הוא שמין לו מה שעתיד לעשות בין שהוזלו בעת ששכרן בין לא הוזלו בין שהוזלה מלאכה אחר כן בין לא הוזלה שמין לו מה שעתיד לעשות כיצד קיבל ממנו קמה לקצור בשתי סלעים קצר חציה והניח חציה בגד לארוג בשתי סלעים ארג חציו והניח חציו שמין לו מה שעתיד לעשות אם היה שוה ששה דינרין נותן לו שקל או יגמרו את מלאכתן ואם היה הנשאר יפה שנים דינרין אינו נותן להן אלא סלע שהרי לא עשו אלא חצי מלאכה במה דברים אמורים בדבר שאינו אבוד אבל בדבר האבוד כגון פשתנו להעלות מן המשרה או ששכר חמור להביא חלילין למת או לכלה וכיוצא בהן אחד פועל ואחד קבלן אינו יכול לחזור בו אלא אם כן נאנס כגון שחלה או שמע שמת לו מת ואם לא נאנס וחזר בו שוכר עליהן או מטען:כיצד מטען אומר להם סלע קצצתי לכם בואו וטלו שתים עד שיגמרו מלאכתן ולא יתן להם אלא מה שפסק תחלה ואפילו נתן להם השתים מחזיר מהן התוספת כיצד שוכר עליהן שוכר פועלים אחרים וגומרים מלאכתן שלא תאבד וכל שיוסיף לאלו הפועלין האחרים על מה שפסק לראשונים נוטל מן הראשונים עד כמה עד כדי שכרן של ראשונים ואם היה להם ממון תחת ידו שוכר להשלים המלאכה עד ארבעים וחמשים זוז בכל יום לכל פועל אע\"פ ששכר הפועל שלשה או ארבעה בד\"א שאין שם פועלים לשכור בשכרן להשלים המלאכה אבל יש פועלים לשכור בשכרן ואמרו לו צא ושכור מאלו להשלים מלאכתך ולא תאבד בין שוכר בין קבלן אין עליהן אלא תרעומת ושמין לשוכר מה שעשה ולקבלן מה שעתיד לעשות:", + "השוכר את הפועל ונאחז לעבודת המלך לא יאמר לו הריני לפניך אלא נותן לו שכר מה שעשה:", + "השוכר את הפועל להשקות את השדה מזה הנהר ופסק הנהר בחצי היום אם אין דרכו להפסיק אין להן אלא שכר מה שעשו וכן אם דרכו שיפסיקו אותו בני העיר והפסיקוהו בחצי היום אין להן אלא שכר מה שעשו שהרי ידעו הפועלים דרכו של נהר ואם דרכו להפסיק מאליו נותן להם שכר כל היום מפני שהיה לו להודיעם שכרן להשקות השדה ובא המטר והשקה אין להן אלא מה שעשו בא הנהר והשקה נותן להן כל שכרן מן השמים נסתייעו בד\"א בפועל אבל מי שפסק עם אריסו שאם ישקה שדה זו ארבע פעמים ביום יטול חצי הפירות וכל האריסין שהן משקין שתי פעמים אינן נוטלין אלא רביע הפירות ובא המטר ולא הוצרך לדלות ולהשקות נוטל חצי הפירות כמו שפסק עמו שהאריס כשותף ואינו כפועל:", + "השוכר את הפועל לעשות מלאכה כל היום ושלמה המלאכה בחצי היום אם יש לו מלאכה אחרת כמותה או קלה ממנה עושה שאר היום ואם אין לו מה יעשה נותן לו שכרו כפועל בטל ואם יהיה מן החופרים או עובדי אדמה וכיוצא בהן שדרכו לטרוח הרבה ואם לא יעשה במלאכה יחלה נותן לו כל שכרו:", + "השוכר את הפועל להביא לו שליחות ממקום למקום והלך ולא מצא שם מה יביא נותן לו שכרו משלם שכרו להביא קנים לכרם והלך ולא מצא ולא הביא נותן לו שכרו משלם שכרו להביא כרוב ודורמסקנין לחולה והלך ומצאו שמת או הבריא לא יאמר לו טול מה שהבאת בשכרך אלא נותן לו כל שכרו וכן כל כיוצא בזה:", + "השוכר את הפועל לעשות עמו בשלו והראהו בשל חבירו נותן כל שכרו וחוזר ולוקח מחבירו מה שנהנה בזו המלאכה:", + "השוכר את הפועל לעשות עמו בתבן וקש וכיוצא בהן ואמר לו טול מה שעשית בשכרך אין שומעין לו ואם משקיבל עליו אמר לו הילך שכרך ואני אטול את שלי אין שומעין לו:", + "מציאת הפועל לעצמו אע\"פ שאמר לו עשה עמי מלאכה היום ואין צריך לומר אם אמר לו עדור עמי היום אבל אם שכרו ללקט מציאות כגון שחסר הנהר ושכרו ללקט הדגים הנמצאין באגם הרי מציאתו לבעל הבית ואפילו מצא כיס מלא דינרין:" + ], + [ + "המלוה את חבירו על המשכון בין שהלוהו מעות בין שהלוהו פירות בין שמשכנו בשעת הלואתו בין שמשכנו אחר שהלוהו הרי זה שומר שכר לפיכך אם אבד המשכון או נגנב חייב בדמיו ואם נאנס המשכון כגון שנלקח בלסטים מזויין וכיוצא בו משאר אונסין ישבע שנאנס וישלם בעל המשכון את חובו עד פרוטה אחרונה:", + "כל האומר לחבירו שמור לי ואשמור לך הרי זה שמירה בבעלים אמר לו שמור לי היום ואשמור לך למחר השאילני היום ואני אשאילך למחר שמור לי היום ואשאילך למחר השאילני היום ואשמור לך למחר כולן נעשו שומרי שכר זה לזה:", + "כל האומנין שומרי שכר הן וכולן שאמרו טול את שלך והבא מעות או שאומר לו האומן גמרתיו ולא לקחו הבעלים את הכלי האומן שומר חנם אבל אם אמר האומן הבא מעות וטול שלך עדיין הוא נושא שכר כשהיה:", + "נתן לאומנין לתקן וקלקלו חייבין לשלם כיצד נתן לחרש שידה תיבה ומגדל לקבוע בהן מסמר ושברו או שנתן לו את העצים לעשות מהן שידה תיבה ומגדל ונשברו אחר שנעשו משלם לו דמי שידה תיבה ומגדל שאין האומן קונה בשבח הכלי נתן צמר לצבע והקדיחתו יורה נותן לו דמי צמרו צבעו כעור או נתנו לו לצבעו אדום וצבעו שחור שחור וצבעו אדום נתן עצים לחרש לעשות מהן כסא נאה ועשה כסא רע או ספסל אם השבח יתר על ההוצאה נותן בעל הכלי את ההוצאה ואם ההוצאה יתירה על השבח נותן לו את השבח בלבד אמר בעל הכלי איני רוצה בתקנה זו אלא יתן לי דמי הצמר או דמי העצים אין שומעין לו וכן אם אמר האומן הא לך דמי צמרך או דמי עצך ולך אין שומעין לו שאין האומן קונה בשבח כלי שעשה:", + "המוליך חטין לטחון ולא לתתן ועשאן סובין או מורסן נתן הקמח לנחתום ועשאו פת נפולין בהמה לטבח ונבלה חייבין לשלם דמיהן מפני שהן נושאי שכר לפיכך אם היה טבח מומחה ושחט בחנם פטור מלשלם ואינו מומחה אף על פי שהוא בחנם חייב לשלם וכן המראה דינר לשולחני ואמר לו יפה הוא ונמצא רע אם בשכר ראהו חייב לשלם אע\"פ שהוא בקי ואינו צריך להתלמד ואם בחנם ראהו פטור והוא שיהיה בקי שאינו צריך להתלמד ואם אינו בקי חייב לשלם אף על פי שהוא בחנ' והוא שיאמר לשולחני עליך אני סומך או שהיו הדברים מראין שהוא סומך על ראייתו ולא יראה לאחרים טבח שעשה בחנם וניבל וכן שולחני שאמר יפה ונמצא רע וכן כל כיוצא בזה עליהן להביא ראייה שהן מומחין ואם לא הביאו ראייה משלמין:", + "מקום שנהגו שיהיה הנוטע אילנות נוטל חצי השבח ובעל הקרקע חצי ונטע והשביח ונטע והפסיד מחשבין לו חצי השבח שיש לו ומנכין ממנו מה שהפסיד ונוטל השאר ואפילו התנה על עצמו שאם הפסיד לא יטול כלום ה\"ז אסמכתא ואין מנכין לו אלא מה שהפסיד היה מנהגם שיטול הנוטע מחצה ובעל הקרקע מחצה [אם] היה מנהגם שיטול האריס שליש אם נטע הנוטע והשביח ורצה להסתלק שנמצא בעל הקרקע צריך להוריד לה אריס הרי בעל הקרקע מוריד אריס ויטול בעל הקרקע חציו ולא יפסיד בעל הקרקע כלום ויטול האריס שליש והשתות הנשאר של נוטע שהרי סילק עצמו ברצונו:", + "הנוטע אילנות לבני המדינה שהפסיד וכן טבח של בני העיר שנבל הבהמות והמקיז דם שחבל והסופר שטעה בשטרות ומלמד תינוקות שפשע בתינוקות ולא למד או למד בטעות וכל כיוצא באלו האומנים שאי אפשר שיחזירו ההפסד שהפסידו מסלקין אותן בלא התראה שהן כמותרין ועומדין עד שישתדלו במלאכתן הואיל והעמידו אותן הצבור עליהם:" + ], + [ + "מצות עשה ליתן שכר השכיר בזמנו שנאמר ביומו תתן שכרו וגו' ואם איחרו לאחר זמנו עובר בל\"ת שנאמר ולא תבוא עליו השמש ואין לוקין עליו שהרי הוא חייב לשלם אחד שכר האדם ואחד שכר הבהמה ואחד שכר הכלים חייב ליתן בזמנו ואם איחר לאחר זמן עובר בל\"ת וגר תושב יש בו משום ביומו תתן שכרו ואם איחרו אינו עובר בל\"ת:", + "כל הכובש שכר שכיר כאילו נטל נפשו ממנו שנאמר ואליו הוא נושא את נפשו ועובר בארבע אזהרות ועשה עובר משום בל תעשוק ומשום בל תגזול ומשום לא תלין פעולת שכיר ומשום לא תבא עליו השמש ומשום ביומו תתן שכרו אי זהו זמנו שכיר יום גובה כל הלילה ועליו נאמר לא תלין פעולת שכיר אתך עד בקר ושכיר לילה גובה כל היום ועליו נאמר ביומו תתן שכרו ושכיר שעות של יום גובה כל היום ושכיר שעות של לילה גובה כל הלילה שכיר שבת שכיר חדש שכיר שנה שכיר שבוע יצא ביום גובה כל היום יצא בלילה גובה כל (אותו) הלילה:", + "נתן טליתו לאומן וגמרה והודיעו אפילו איחרו עשרה ימים כל זמן שהכלי ביד האומן אינו עובר נתנה בחצי היום כיון ששקעה עליו חמה עובר משום בל תלין שהקבלנות כשכירות היא וחייב ליתן לו בזמנו:", + "האומר לשלוחו צא ושכור לי פועלים אמר להם שכרכם על בעה\"ב שניהם אינן עוברין משום בל תלין זה לפי שלא שכרן וזה לפי שאין פעולתן אצלו ואם לא אמר להם שכרכם על בעל הבית השליח עובר אין השוכר עובר אלא בזמן שתבעו השכיר ולא נתן לו אבל אם לא תבעו או שתבעו ולא היה לו מה יתן לו או שהמחהו אצל אחר וקבל ה\"ז פטור:", + "המשהה שכר שכיר עד אחר זמנו אע\"פ שכבר עבר בעשה ול\"ת ה\"ז חייב ליתן מיד וכל עת שישהה עובר על לאו של דבריהם שנאמר אל תאמר לרעך לך ושוב:", + "כל שכיר ששכרו בעדים ותבעו בזמנו ואמר בעל הבית נתתי לך שכרך והשכיר אומר לא נטלתי כלום תקנו חכמים שישבע השכיר בנקיטת חפץ ויטול כדין כל נשבע ונוטל מפני שבעל הבית טרוד בפועליו וזה השכיר נושא נפשו לזה אפילו היה השכיר קטן השכיר נשבע ונוטל שכרו שלא בעדים מתוך שיכול לומר לא היו דברים מעולם ולא שכרתיך נאמן לומר שכרתיך ונתתי לך שכרך וישבע בעל הבית היסת שנתן או שבועת התורה אם הודה במקצת כשאר הטענות היה לו עד אחד ששכרו אינו מועיל לו כלום וכן אם תבעו אחר זמנו אף על פי ששכרו בעדים המוציא מחבירו עליו הראייה ואם לא הביא ראייה ישבע בעל הבית היסת הביא ראייה שתבעו כל זמנו ה\"ז נשבע ונוטל כל אותו היום של תביעה כיצד היה עושה עמו ביום שני עד הערב זמנו כל ליל שלישי וביום השלישי אינו נשבע ונוטל ואם הביא עדים שהיה תובעו כל ליל שלישי ה\"ז נשבע ונוטל כל יום שלישי אבל מליל רביעי והלאה המוציא מחבירו עליו הראייה וכן אם הביא עדים שהיה תובעו והולך עד יום ה' ה\"ז נשבע ונוטל כל יום ה':", + "בעה\"ב אומר שתים קצצתי לך והשכיר אומר שלש קצצת לי לא תקנו חכמים שישבע השכיר כאן אלא המוציא מחבירו עליו הראייה ואם לא הביא ראיה אע\"פ שכבר נתן לו שתים או שאמר לו הילך הרי בעל הבית נשבע בנקיטת חפץ ודבר זה תקנת חכמים הוא כדי שלא ילך השכיר בפחי נפש במה דברים אמורים בששכרו בעדים ולא ידעו כמה פסק לו ותבעו בזמנו אבל אם שכרו שלא בעדים או שתבעו אחר זמנו ישבע בעה\"ב היסת שלא קצץ לו אלא מה שכבר נתן לו או שלא נשאר לו אצלו אלא זה שאמר לו הילך כדין כל הטענות:", + "הנותן טליתו לאומן אומן אומר ב' קצצת לי והלה אומר לא קצצתי אלא אחד כל זמן שהטלית ביד האומן אם יכול לטעון שהיא לקוחה בידו הרי האומן נשבע בנקיטת חפץ ונוטל ויכול לטעון שהיא בשכרו עד כדי דמיה ואם יצאת טלית מתחת ידו או שאין לו בה חזקה ואינו יכול לטעון שהיא לקוחה בידו המוציא מחבירו עליו הראייה ואם לא הביא ראייה ישבע בעל הטלית היסת או שבועת התורה אם הודה במקצת כדין כל הטענות שאין זה כדין השכיר:", + "שכיר הבא להשבע אין מחמירין עליו ואין מגלגלין עליו כלל אלא נשבע שלא נטל ויטול ולכל הנשבעין אין מקילין חוץ מן השכיר שמקילין עליו ופותחין לו תחלה ואומרים לו אל תצער עצמך השבע וטול אפילו היה שכרו פרוטה אחת ובעה\"ב אומר נתתיה לא יטול אלא בשבועה וכן כל הנשבע ונוטל אפילו לא יטעון אלא פרוטה אחת לא יטול אותה אלא בשבועה כעין של תורה:" + ], + [ + "הפועלים שהן עושין בדבר שגדולו מן הארץ ועדיין לא נגמרה מלאכתו בין בתלוש בין במחובר ויהיו מעשיהן גמירת המלאכה הרי על בעה\"ב מצוה שיניח אותן לאכול ממה שהן עושין בו שנאמר כי תבא בכרם רעך וגו' וכתוב כי תבא בקמת רעך מפי השמועה למדו שאין הכתוב מדבר אלא בשכיר וכי אילו לא שכרו מי התיר לו שיבא בכרם רעהו בקמה שלו שלא מדעתו אלא כך הוא אומר כי תבא לרשות בעלים לעבודה תאכל:", + "מה בין העושה בתלוש לעושה במחובר שהעושה בתלוש אוכל בדבר עד שלא נגמר מלאכתו ומשתגמר מלאכתו אסור לו לאכול והעושה במחובר כגון בוצר וקוצר אינו אוכל אלא כשיגמור עבודתו כגון שיבצור ויתן בסל עד שימלאנו וינפץ הסל למקום אחר ויחזור ויבצור וימלאנו ואינו אוכל אלא עד אחר שימלא הסל אבל מפני השב אבידה לבעלים אמרו חכמים שיהיו הפועלין אוכלין בהליכתן מאומן לאומן ובחזירתן מן הגת כדי שלא יבטלו ממלאכתן וישבו לאכול אלא אוכלין בתוך המלאכה כשהן מהלכין ואינן מבטלין:", + "המבטל ממלאכתו ואכל או שאכל שלא בשעת גמר מלאכה הרי זה עובר בל\"ת שנאמר וחרמש לא תניף וגו' מפי השמועה למדו שכל זמן שהוא עוסק בקצירה לא יניף חרמש לאכילתו וכן כל כיוצא בזה וכן פועל שהוליך בידו ממה שעשה או שלקח יתר על אכילתו ונותן לאחרים עובר בלא תעשה שנאמר ואל כליך לא תתן ואין לוקין על שני לאוין אלו שאם אכל או הוליך חייב לשלם:", + "החולב והמחבץ והמגבן אינו אוכל מפני שאינן גידולי קרקע המנכש בבצלים ובשומין אף על פי שתולשין קטנים מבין הגדולים וכל כיוצא בזה אינו אוכל מפני שאין מעשיהם גמר מלאכה ואין צ\"ל שומרי גנות ופרדסים וכל דבר המחובר כמקשאות והמדלעות שאן אוכלין כלל:", + "הבודל בתמרים ובגרוגרות אינו אוכל מפני שנגמרה מלאכתן למעשר העושה בחטים וכיוצא בהן אחר שעשו כגון ששכרן לבור צרורות או לנפח אותן או לטחון הרי אלו אוכלין שעדיין לא נגמרה מלאכתן לחלה אבל הלש והמקטף והאופה אינו אוכל מפני שנגמרה מלאכתן לחלה ואין הפועל אוכל אלא מדבר שעדיין לא נגמרה מלאכתו לחלה ולמעשר נתפרסו עגוליו ונתפתחו חביותיו [ונחתכו דלועיו] ושכרן לעשות בהן הרי אלו לא יאכלו שהרי נגמרו מלאכתן ונקבעו למעשר והרי הן טבל ואם לא הודיען מעשר ומאכילן אין הפועלים אוכלין בשל הקדש שנאמר בכרם רעך:", + "שכר פועלין לעשות בנטע רבעי שלו הרי אלו לא יאכלו ואם לא הודיעם פודה ומאכילן:", + "הקוצר והדש והזורה והבורר והמוסק והבוצר והדורך וכל כיוצא במלאכות אלו הרי הם אוכלין מן התורה:", + "שומרי גתות וערמות וכל דבר התלוש מן הקרקע שעדיין לא נגמרה מלאכתן למעשר אוכלין מהלכות מדינה שהשומר אינו כעושה מעשה אבל אם עשה באיבריו בין בידיו בין ברגליו אפילו בכתפיו הרי זה אוכל מן התורה:", + "היה עושה בתאנים לא יאכל בענבים בענבים לא יאכל בתאנים שנאמר בכרם ואכלת ענבים והעושה בגפן זו אינו אוכל בגפן אחרת ולא יאכל ענבים ודבר אחר ולא יאכל בפת ולא במלח ואם קצץ על בעל הבית על שיעור מה שיאכל אוכל אותו בין במלח בין בפת בין בכל דבר שירצה אסור לפועל למוץ בענבים שנאמר ואכלת ענבים ולא יהיו בניו או אשתו מהבהבין לו השבלין באור שנאמר ואכלת ענבים כנפשך ענבים כמות שהן וכן כל כיוצא בזה:", + "אסור לפועל לאכול ממה שהוא אוכל אכילה גסה שנאמר כנפשך שבעך ומותר לו למנוע את עצמו עד מקום היפות ואוכל ויש לו לאכול קישות אפילו בדינר וכותבת אפילו בדינר אע\"פ ששכרו במעה כסף שנאמר כנפשך שבעך אבל מלמדין את האדם שלא יהיה רעבתן ויהיה סותם את הפתח בפניו היה משמר ד' או ה' ערמות לא ימלא כרסו מאחת מהן אלא אוכל מכל אחת ואחת לפי חשבון:", + "הפועלים שלא הלכו שתי וערב בגת אוכלין ענבים ואין שותין יין שעדיין אינן עושין אלא בענבים בלבד ומשידרכו בגת ויהלכו בה שתי וערב יש להן לאכול מן הענבים ולשתות מן התירוש שהרי הן עושין בענבים וביין:", + "פועל שאמר תנו לאשתי ובני מה שאני אוכל או שאמר הריני נותן מעט מזה שנטלתי לאכול לאשתי ובני אין שומעין לו שלא זכתה תורה אלא לפועל עצמו אפילו נזיר שהיה עושה בענבים ואמר תנו לאשתי ובני אין שומעין לו:", + "פועל שהיה עושה הוא ואשתו ובניו ועבדיו והתנה עם הבעה\"ב שלא יאכלו ממה שהן עושין לא הוא ולא הם הרי אלו אינן אוכלין בד\"א בגדולים מפני שיש בהם דעת והרי מחלו אבל קטנים אינו יכול לפסוק עליהם שלא יאכלו שאינן אוכלין משל אביהן או משל אדוניהם אלא משל שמים:" + ], + [ + "הבהמה אוכלת כל זמן שהיא עושה בגידולי קרקע בין במחובר בין בתלוש ואוכלת ממשאוי שעל גבה עד שתהיה פורקת ובלבד שלא יטול בידו ויאכילנה:", + "כל המונע הבהמה מלאכול בשעת מלאכתה לוקה שנאמר לא תחסום שור בדישו אחד שור ואחד כל מיני בהמה וחיה בין טמאין בין טהורין ואחד הדישה ואחד כל שאר המלאכות של גידולי קרקע ולא נאמר שור בדישו אלא בהווה והחוסם את הפועל פטור אחד החוסם אותה בשעת מלאכה ואחד החוסם אותה מקודם ועשה בה מלאכה והיא חסומה אפילו חסמה בקול לוקה שכר בהמה וחסמה ודש בה לוקה ומשלם לבעלים ארבעת קבין לפרה ושלשת קבין לחמור שמשעת משיכה נתחייב במזונותיה ואינו חייב מלקות עד שידוש בה חסומה:", + "ישראל הדש בפרתו של עכו\"ם עובר משום בל תחסום והעכו\"ם הדש בפרתו של ישראל אינו עובר משום בל תחסום אמר לעכו\"ם חסום פרתי ודוש בה ישב לה קוץ בפיה ודש בה והרי אינה אוכלת הרביץ לה ארי מבחוץ או שהרביץ בנה מבחוץ הרי שצמאה ואינו משקה אותה פרס עור ע\"ג הדייש כדי שלא תאכל כל זה וכיוצא בו אסור ואינו לוקה היה הדבר שהיא עושה בו רע לבני מעיה ומזיקה או שהיתה חולה ואם תאכל מזה מתרזת מותר למנעה שלא הקפידה תורה אלא על הנאתה והרי אינה נהנית:", + "פרה של ישראל שהיה כהן דש בה בתרומה ובתרומת מעשר של ודאי וכן פרות הדשות במעשר שני ופרות המהלכות על התבואה לפי שירט להן הדרך אינו עובר עליהן משום בל תחסום אבל מפני מראית העין אם היו דשות בתרומה ומעשר שני מביא מעט מאותו המין ותולה להן בקרסטלין שבפיהן:", + "הדש במעשר שני של דמאי ובתרומת מעשר של דמאי ובגידולי תרומה עובר משום בל תחסום:", + "רשאי בעל הפרה להרעיב פרתו ולסגפה כדי שתאכל הרבה מן הדייש ורשאי השוכר להאכילה פקיעי עמיר כדי שלא תאכל הרבה מן הדייש כיוצא בו רשאי בעה\"ב להשקות פועלים יין כדי שלא יאכלו ענבים הרבה ורשאין פועלין לטבול פתן בציר כדי שיאכלו ענבים הרבה אבל אין הפועל רשאי לעשות מלאכתו בלילה ולהשכיר עצמו ביום או לדוש בפרתו ערבית ולהשכירה שחרית ולא יהיה מרעיב ומסגף עצמו ומאכיל מזונותיו לבניו מפני גזל מלאכתו של בעה\"ב שהרי תשש כחו ותחלש דעתו ולא יעשה מלאכה בכח:", + "כדרך שמוזהר בעה\"ב שלא יגזול שכר עני ולא יעכבנו כך העני מוזהר שלא יגזול מלאכת בעה\"ב ויבטל מעט בכאן ומעט בכאן ומוציא כל היום במרמה אלא חייב לדקדק על עצמו בזמן שהרי הקפידו על ברכה רביעית של ברכת המזון שלא יברך אותה וכן חייב לעבוד בכל כחו שהרי יעקב הצדיק אמר כי בכל כחי עבדתי את אביכן לפיכך נטל שכר זאת אף בעולם הזה שנאמר ויפרץ האיש מאד מאד:" + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Hiring/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Hiring/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dab2962dd859e2164ea67ec4e1b195df7c6bdc93 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Hiring/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,175 @@ +{ + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Hiring", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah,_Hiring", + "text": [ + [ + "אַרְבָּעָה שׁוֹמְרִים נֶאֶמְרוּ בַּתּוֹרָה וּשְׁלֹשָׁה דִּינִין יֵשׁ לָהֶם. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הָאַרְבָּעָה שׁוֹמְרִין. שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל. וְנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר. וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר: \n", + "וְאֵלּוּ הֵן שְׁלֹשָׁה דִּינִין שֶׁלָּהֶן. שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם שֶׁנִּגְנַב הַפִּקָּדוֹן מִמֶּנּוּ אוֹ אָבַד וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם נֶאֱנַס הַפִּקָּדוֹן אֹנֶס גָּדוֹל כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּהֵמָה וּמֵתָה אוֹ נִשְׁבֵּית הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע שֶׁשָּׁמַר כְּדֶרֶךְ הַשּׁוֹמְרִין וּפָטוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ו) \"וְגֻנַּב מִבֵּית הָאִישׁ\" וְגוֹ' (שמות כב ז) \"וְנִקְרַב בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים\". הַשּׁוֹאֵל מְשַׁלֵּם הַכּל בֵּין שֶׁאָבַד דָּבָר הַשָּׁאוּל אוֹ נִגְנַב בֵּין שֶׁאֵרְעוֹ אֹנֶס גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה כְּגוֹן שֶׁמֵּתָה הַבְּהֵמָה הַשְּׁאוּלָה אוֹ נִשְׁבְּרָה אוֹ נִשְׁבֵּית שֶׁכָּךְ כָּתוּב בְּשׁוֹאֵל (שמות כב יג) \"וְנִשְׁבַּר אוֹ מֵת בְּעָלָיו אֵין עִמּוֹ שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם\". נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר אוֹ הַשּׂוֹכֵר שְׁנֵיהֶם דִּין אֶחָד יֵשׁ לָהֶן אִם נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד הַדָּבָר הַשָּׂכוּר אוֹ שֶׁנָּטַל שָׂכָר עַל שְׁמִירָתוֹ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מְשַׁלְּמִים. וְאִם אֵרְעוֹ אֹנֶס גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּהֵמָה וּמֵתָה אוֹ נִשְׁבְּרָה אוֹ נִשְׁבֵּית אוֹ נִטְרְפָה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נִשְׁבָּעִין שֶׁנֶּאֶנְסָה וּפְטוּרִין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ט) \"וּמֵת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אֵין רֹאֶה\" (שמות כב י) \"שְׁבֻעַת ה'\" וְגוֹ' וּכְתִיב (שמות כב יא) \"אִם גָּנֹב יִגָּנֵב מֵעִמּוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם לִבְעָלָיו\" וְגוֹ'. נִמְצֵאתָ אוֹמֵר שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם נִשְׁבָּע עַל הַכּל. וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכּל חוּץ מִן הַמֵּתָה בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר מְשַׁלְּמִין אֶת הָאֲבֵדָה וְאֶת הַגְּנֵבָה וְנִשְׁבָּעִין עַל הָאֳנָסִין הַגְּדוֹלִים כְּגוֹן שְׁבוּרָה וּשְׁבוּיָה וּמֵתָה וּטְרֵפָה. אוֹ שֶׁאָבַד הַדָּבָר בִּסְפִינָה שֶׁטָּבְעָה בַּיָּם אוֹ נִלְקַח בְּלִסְטִים מְזֻיָּן וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בְּאֵלּוּ מִשְּׁאָר אֳנָסִין הַגְּדוֹלִים: \n", + "הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ בֵּין בְּחִנָּם בֵּין בְּשָׂכָר אוֹ הִשְׁאִילוֹ אוֹ הִשְׂכִּירוֹ אִם שָׁאַל הַשּׁוֹמֵר אֶת הַבְּעָלִים עִם הַדָּבָר שֶׁלָּהֶן אוֹ שְׂכָרָן הֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹמֵר פָּטוּר מִכְּלוּם. אֲפִלּוּ פָּשַׁע בַּדָּבָר שֶׁשָּׁמַר וְאָבַד מֵחֲמַת הַפְּשִׁיעָה הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב יד) \"אִם בְּעָלָיו עִמּוֹ לֹא יְשַׁלֵּם אִם שָׂכִיר הוּא בָּא בִּשְׂכָרוֹ\". בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁשָּׁאַל הַבְּעָלִים אוֹ שְׂכָרָן בְּעֵת שֶׁנָּטַל הַחֵפֶץ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַבְּעָלִים שָׁם עִמּוֹ בְּעֵת הַגְּנֵבָה וְהָאֲבֵדָה אוֹ בְּעֵת שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס. אֲבָל נָטַל הַחֵפֶץ וְנַעֲשָׂה עָלָיו שׁוֹמֵר תְּחִלָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׂכַר הַבְּעָלִים אוֹ שְׁאָלָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיוּ הַבְּעָלִים עוֹמְדִין שָׁם בְּעֵת שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס הַדָּבָר הַשָּׁמוּר הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב יג) \"בְּעָלָיו אֵין עִמּוֹ שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם\" מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ הָיָה עִמּוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הַשְׁאָלָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּעֵת הַגְּנֵבָה וְהַמִּיתָה פָּטוּר לֹא הָיָה עִמּוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הַשְׁאָלָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיָה עִמּוֹ בְּעֵת הַמִּיתָה אוֹ הַשְּׁבִיָּה חַיָּב. וְהוּא הַדִּין לִשְׁאָר הַשּׁוֹמְרִים שֶׁכֻּלָּן בִּבְעָלִים פְּטוּרִין אֲפִלּוּ פְּשִׁיעָה בִּבְעָלִים פָּטוּר: \n", + "כָּל שׁוֹמֵר שֶׁפָּשַׁע בִּתְחִלָּתוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס בְּסוֹפוֹ חַיָּב כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. וְאֵין הַשּׁוֹאֵל רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׁאִיל אֲפִלּוּ שָׁאַל סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה שֶׁכָּל שֶׁקּוֹרֵא בּוֹ עוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה לֹא יַשְׁאִילֶנּוּ לְאַחֵר. וְכֵן אֵין הַשּׂוֹכֵר רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׂכִּיר אֲפִלּוּ הִשְׂכִּירוֹ סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה לֹא יַשְׂכִּירֶנּוּ לְאַחֵר שֶׁהֲרֵי זֶה אוֹמֵר לוֹ אֵין רְצוֹנִי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה פִּקְדוֹנִי בְּיַד אַחֵר. עָבַר הַשּׁוֹמֵר וּמָסַר לַשּׁוֹמֵר הַשֵּׁנִי אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁשְּׁמָרָהּ הַשּׁוֹמֵר הַשֵּׁנִי כְּדֶרֶךְ הַשּׁוֹמְרִין וְנֶאֱנַס פָּטוּר הַשּׁוֹמֵר הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס. וְאִם אֵין שָׁם עֵדִים חַיָּב הַשּׁוֹמֵר הָרִאשׁוֹן לְשַׁלֵּם לַבְּעָלִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמָּסַר לְשׁוֹמֵר אַחֵר וְיַעֲשֶׂה הוּא דִּין עִם הַשּׁוֹמֵר הַשֵּׁנִי. אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הָרִאשׁוֹן שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וּמָסַר לְשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר חַיָּב שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ לְבַעַל הַחֵפֶץ לוֹמַר לוֹ אַתָּה נֶאֱמָן אֶצְלִי לְהִשָּׁבַע וְזֶה אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיָה דֶּרֶךְ הַבְּעָלִים לְהַפְקִיד תָּמִיד דָּבָר זֶה אֵצֶל הַשּׁוֹמֵר הַשֵּׁנִי הֲרֵי זֶה הַשּׁוֹמֵר הָרִאשׁוֹן פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר לַבְּעָלִים זֶה הַדָּבָר שֶׁהִפְקַדְתֶּם אֶצְלִי אוֹ הִשְׁאַלְתֶּם אֶמֶשׁ הֱיִיתֶם מַפְקִידִין אוֹתוֹ אֵצֶל זֶה שֶׁהִפְקַדְתִּי אֲנִי אֶצְלוֹ. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יְמַעֵט שְׁמִירָתוֹ. כֵּיצַד יְמַעֵט שְׁמִירָתוֹ. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה מֻפְקָד אֶצְלוֹ בְּשָׂכָר וְהִפְקִידוֹ אֵצֶל אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁנִי בְּחִנָּם אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה שָׁאוּל אֶצְלוֹ וְהִפְקִידוֹ אֵצֶל אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁנִי בְּשָׂכָר הוֹאִיל וּמִעֵט שְׁמִירָתוֹ פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא וּמְשַׁלֵּם. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׁאַל אוֹ שֶׁשָּׂכַר בַּבְּעָלִים הֲרֵי הוּא הוֹצִיא הַדָּבָר הַשָּׁמוּר מִיָּדוֹ לְיַד שׁוֹמֵר אַחֵר: \n", + "וְאִם הֵבִיא הַשּׁוֹמֵר הַשֵּׁנִי הָרְאָיָה שֶׁיִּפָּטֵר בָּהּ שׁוֹמֵר רִאשׁוֹן כְּדִין שְׁמִירָתוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. כֵּיצַד. שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר שֶׁנָּתַן הַבְּהֵמָה הַשְּׁמוּרָה אֶצְלוֹ לְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אִם הֵבִיא הַשּׁוֹמֵר הַשֵּׁנִי עֵדִים שֶׁמֵּתָה הַבְּהֵמָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ הֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹמֵר הָרִאשׁוֹן פָּטוּר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "שׁוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּסַר לְשׁוֹמֵר אַחֵר וְהוֹסִיף בִּשְׁמִירָתוֹ וּמֵתָה הַהֲנָאָה לַבְּעָלִים. כֵּיצַד. הַשּׂוֹכֵר פָּרָה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וְהִשְׁאִילָהּ לְאַחֵר וּמֵתָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ בְּיַד הַשּׁוֹאֵל הוֹאִיל וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל חַיָּב בַּכּל יַחְזִירוּ דְּמֵי הַפָּרָה לַבְּעָלִים שֶׁאֵין זֶה הַשּׂוֹכֵר עוֹשֶׂה סְחוֹרָה בְּפָרָתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. הָיָה בְּיָדוֹ פִּקָּדוֹן וּשְׁלָחוֹ בְּיַד אַחֵר לִבְעָלָיו הוֹאִיל וְהַשּׁוֹמֵר הָרִאשׁוֹן חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְיַד הַבְּעָלִים אִם בָּא לַחְזֹר וּלְהַחְזִיר הַפִּקָּדוֹן מִיַּד הַשּׁוֹמֵר הַשֵּׁנִי מַחְזִיר. וְאִם הֻחְזַק הַשּׁוֹמֵר הָרִאשׁוֹן כַּפְרָן אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַחְזִיר הַפִּקָּדוֹן מִיַּד הַשּׁוֹמֵר הַשֵּׁנִי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן הַפִּקָּדוֹן בְּאַחֲרָיוּתוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן: \n" + ], + [ + "שְׁלֹשָׁה דִּינִין הָאֲמוּרִין בַּתּוֹרָה בְּאַרְבָּעָה הַשּׁוֹמְרִין אֵינָן אֶלָּא בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְשֶׁל הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ו) \"כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵלִים\" (שמות כב ט) \"וְכָל בְּהֵמָה\" יָצְאוּ קַרְקָעוֹת וְיָצְאוּ הָעֲבָדִים שֶׁהֻקְּשׁוּ לְקַרְקָעוֹת וְיָצְאוּ הַשְּׁטָרוֹת שֶׁאֵין גּוּפָן מָמוֹן וְיָצְאוּ הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ו) \"כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ\" וְיָצְאוּ נִכְסֵי עַכּוּ\"ם. מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים הָעֲבָדִים וְהַשְּׁטָרוֹת וְהַקַּרְקָעוֹת וְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם שֶׁלָּהֶן אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע. וְנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר אוֹ שׂוֹכֵר אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם. וְאִם קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן: \n", + "וְתִקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּעִין עַל הַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין כְּעֵין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְזַלְזְלוּ בַּהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת: \n", + "יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאִם פָּשַׁע הַשּׁוֹמֵר בַּעֲבָדִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. שֶׁאֵינוֹ פָּטוּר בַּעֲבָדִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת וּשְׁטָרוֹת אֶלָּא מִדִּין גְּנֵבָה וַאֲבֵדָה וּמֵתָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. שֶׁאִם הָיָה שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם עַל מִטַּלְטְלִין וְנִגְנְבוּ אוֹ אָבְדוּ יִשָּׁבַע וּבַעֲבָדִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת וּשְׁטָרוֹת פָּטוּר מִשְּׁבוּעָה. וְכֵן אִם הָיָה שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר שֶׁמְּשַׁלֵּם גְּנֵבָה וַאֲבֵדָה בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם בְּאֵלּוּ. אֲבָל אִם פָּשַׁע בָּהּ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם שֶׁכָּל הַפּוֹשֵׁעַ מַזִּיק הוּא. וְאֵין הֶפְרֵשׁ בֵּין דִּין הַמַּזִּיק קַרְקַע לְדִין הַמַּזִּיק מִטַּלְטְלִין. וְדִין אֱמֶת הוּא זֶה לַמְּבִינִים וְכֵן רָאוּי לָדוּן. וְכֵן הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁהַמּוֹסֵר כַּרְמוֹ לְשׁוֹמֵר בֵּין בַּאֲרִיסוּת בֵּין בִּשְׁמִירוּת חִנָּם וְהִתְנָה עִמּוֹ שֶׁיַּחְפֹּר אוֹ יִזְמֹר אוֹ יְאַבֵּק מִשֶּׁלּוֹ וּפָשַׁע וְלֹא עָשָׂה חַיָּב כְּמִי שֶׁהִפְסִיד בַּיָּדַיִם. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה שֶׁהִפְסִיד בַּיָּדַיִם חַיָּב עַל כָּל פָּנִים: \n", + "הַמּוֹסֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ דָּבָר הַמְחֻבָּר לַקַּרְקַע לִשְׁמֹר אֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ עֲנָבִים הָעוֹמְדוֹת לְהִבָּצֵר הֲרֵי הֵן כְּקַרְקַע בְּדִין הַשּׁוֹמְרִין: \n", + "הִפְקִיד הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ פָּדָהוּ וַהֲרֵי הוּא חֻלִּין בְּעֵת שֶׁנְּטָלוֹ מִיַּד הַשּׁוֹמֵר. אוֹ שֶׁהִשְׁאִילוֹ חֻלִּין וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישׁ וְהוּא בְּיַד הַשּׁוֹאֵל. וְכֵן עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁהִפְקִיד וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְגַּיֵּר. כָּל אֵלּוּ אֵין בָּהֶן כָּל דִּינֵי הַשּׁוֹמְרִין עַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה תְּחִלָּתָן וְסוֹפָן נִכְסֵי הֶדְיוֹט וְנִכְסֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל: \n", + "אֶחָד הָאִישׁ וְאֶחָד הָאִשָּׁה בְּדִין הַשּׁוֹמְרִין בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה הַדָּבָר הַשָּׁמוּר שֶׁל אִשָּׁה אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה בְּיַד הָאִשָּׁה: \n", + "קָטָן שֶׁהִפְקִיד בְּיַד גָּדוֹל אוֹ הִשְׁאִילוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה הַגָּדוֹל נִשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִים לַקָּטָן. הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁאֵין זֶה נִשְׁבָּע בְּטַעֲנַת הַקָּטָן כְּדֵי שֶׁנֹּאמַר אֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל טַעֲנַת קָטָן שֶׁכָּל הַשּׁוֹמְרִין שְׁבוּעָתָן שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁמָּא הִיא: \n", + "כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁתִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים מְשִׁיכָה בְּלָקוֹחוֹת כָּךְ תִּקְּנוּ מְשִׁיכָה בְּשׁוֹמְרִין. הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ שְׁמֹר לִי זֶה וְאָמַר לוֹ הַנַּח לְפָנַי הֲרֵי זֶה שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. אָמַר לוֹ הַנַּח לְפָנֶיךָ אוֹ הַנַּח סְתָם אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הֲרֵי הַבַּיִת לְפָנֶיךָ אֵינוֹ לֹא שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְלֹא שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה כְּלָל אֲבָל מַחֲרִים עַל מִי שֶׁלָּקַח הַפִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁלּוֹ וְלֹא יַחֲזִירוֹ לִבְעָלָיו. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. אֶחָד הַמַּפְקִיד אוֹ הַמַּשְׁאִיל אוֹ הַמַּשְׂכִּיר אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בְּעֵדִים אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵדִים דִּין אֶחָד יֵשׁ לָהֶן כֵּיוָן שֶׁהוֹדָה זֶה מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמַר לוֹ אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁאַל מִמֶּנּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין שֶׁאֵין אוֹמְרִים מִגּוֹ לְפָטְרוֹ מִשְּׁבוּעָה אֶלָּא לְפָטְרוֹ מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַדָּבָר הַשָּׁאוּל אוֹ הַמֻּפְקָד אוֹ הַמֻּשְׂכָּר שְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה הֲרֵי זֶה הַשּׁוֹמֵר נִשְׁבָּע עָלָיו. וְאֵין אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוֹמְרִים צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדָיָה בְּמִקְצָת: \n", + "מַתְנֶה שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם לִהְיוֹת פָּטוּר מִשְּׁבוּעָה וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל לִהְיוֹת פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. וְכֵן מַתְנֶה בַּעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן עַל שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אוֹ נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְשׂוֹכֵר לִהְיוֹת חַיָּבִין בַּכּל כְּשׁוֹאֵל. שֶׁכָּל תְּנַאי בְּמָמוֹן אוֹ בִּשְׁבוּעוֹת שֶׁל מָמוֹן קַיָּם וְאֵין צָרִיךְ קִנְיָן וְלֹא עֵדִים: \n", + "טָעַן זֶה שֶׁהָיָה שָׁם תְּנַאי וְהַשּׁוֹמֵר אוֹמֵר לֹא הָיָה שָׁם תְּנַאי נִשְׁבָּע הַשּׁוֹמֵר שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין וּמְגַלְגֵּל בָּהּ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה שָׁם תְּנַאי: \n", + "טָעַן שֶׁהִפְקִיד אֶצְלוֹ וְזֶה אוֹמֵר לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא הַנַּח לְפָנֶיךָ וְלֹא נַעֲשֵׂיתִי לוֹ שׁוֹמֵר נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא קִבְּלוֹ אֶלָּא בְּדֶרֶךְ זוֹ וְכוֹלֵל בִּשְׁבוּעָתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא שָׁלַח בּוֹ יָד וְלֹא אִבְּדוֹ בַּיָּדַיִם וְלֹא בִּגְרָם שֶׁגָּרַם לוֹ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם: \n", + "זֶה אוֹמֵר הִשְׁאַלְתִּיךָ אוֹ הִשְׂכַּרְתִּיךָ אוֹ הִפְקַדְתִּיךָ וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר כֵּן הָיָה אֲבָל הְחֶזַרְתִּי לְךָ וְנִסְתַּלְּקָה הַשְּׁמִירָה וְלֹא נִשְׁאֲרָה בֵּינֵינוּ תְּבִיעָה. הֲרֵי הַנִּתְבָּע נִשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁלֹּא הָיָה שָׁם שְׁטָר. אֲבָל אִם הִפְקִיד אוֹ הִשְׂכִּיר אוֹ הִשְׁאִיל בִּשְׁטָר וְאָמַר לוֹ הֶחְזַרְתִּי לְךָ הֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹמֵר נִשְׁבָּע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם שֶׁנִּגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל מֵתָה בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר הֶחְזַרְתִּי. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאִם טָעַן שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס נִשְׁבָּע מִן הַתּוֹרָה בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ כָּךְ אִם טָעַן הְחֶזַרְתִּי יִשָּׁבַע כְּעֵין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ שָׁם שְׁטָר בְּיַד הַתּוֹבֵעַ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה הַשּׁוֹמֵר יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן וְלוֹמַר נֶאֶנְסוּ וְלֹא נַצְרִיךְ אוֹתוֹ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה חַיָּב לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר הֶחְזַרְתִּי אֶלָּא יִשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ שֶׁלֹּא הֶחְזִיר לוֹ וִישַׁלֵּם. אֵין לְךָ מִי שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּע מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר כָּךְ וְכָךְ וְיִשָּׁבַע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ אֶלָּא זֶה הַשּׁוֹמֵר בִּלְבַד שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו שְׁטָר אֲבָל שְׁאָר כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בַּדִּין מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר אֵינָן נִשְׁבָּעִין אֶלָּא הֶסֵּת: \n" + ], + [ + "שׁוֹמֵר שֶׁטָּעַן שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס אֹנֶס גָּדוֹל כְּגוֹן שְׁבוּרָה וּמֵתָה. אִם נֶאֱנַס בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהָעֵדִים מְצוּיִין שָׁם מַצְרִיכִין אוֹתוֹ רְאָיָה עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס וְיִפָּטֵר אַף מִשְּׁבוּעַת שׁוֹמְרִים וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה יְשַׁלֵּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ט) \"אֵין רֹאֶה\" (שמות כב י) \"שְׁבֻעַת ה' תִּהְיֶה בֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶם\" הָא בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה אֵין שָׁם שְׁבוּעָה אֶלָּא אוֹ יָבִיא רְאָיָה אוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם. אֲבָל אִם טָעַן שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין הָעֵדִים מְצוּיִין שָׁם אֵין מַצְרִיכִין אוֹתוֹ רְאָיָה אֶלָּא יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס וְיִפָּטֵר. וְאִם הֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁלֹּא פָּשַׁע בָּהּ נִפְטָר אַף מִן הַשְּׁבוּעָה. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהֵבִיא חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן בְּשָׂכָר וּשְׁבָרָהּ בַּשּׁוּק שֶׁל מְחוֹזָא וּבָאוּ לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְאָמְרוּ שׁוּק זֶה שֶׁטָּעַנְתָּ שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרָה בּוֹ חָבִית בְּנֵי אָדָם מְצוּיִין שָׁם אוֹ תָּבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁלֹּא פָּשַׁעְתָּ אֶלָּא נִתְקַלְתָּ וְנָפַלְתָּ אוֹ תְּשַׁלֵּם דָּמֶיהָ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "הַמַּעֲבִיר חָבִית מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם בְּשָׂכָר וְנִשְׁבְּרָה דִּין תּוֹרָה הוּא שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּם שֶׁאֵין זֶה אֹנֶס גָּדוֹל וַהֲרֵי הַשְּׁבִירָה כִּגְנֵבָה וַאֲבֵדָה שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב בָּהֶן. אֲבָל תִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁיִּהְיֶה חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא פָּשַׁע בָּהּ שֶׁאִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר יְשַׁלֵּם אֵין לְךָ אָדָם שֶׁיַּעֲבִיר חָבִית לַחֲבֵרוֹ לְפִיכָךְ עָשׂוּ בּוֹ שְׁבִירַת הֶחָבִית כְּמִיתַת הַבְּהֵמָה וּשְׁבִירָתָהּ. וְעוֹד תִּקְּנוּ בְּדָבָר זֶה שֶׁאִם נָשְׂאוּ אוֹתָהּ שְׁנַיִם בְּמוֹט וְנִשְׁבְּרָה מְשַׁלְּמִין חֲצִי דָּמֶיהָ הוֹאִיל וּמַשּׂוֹי זֶה גָּדוֹל לְגַבֵּי אֶחָד וְקַל לְגַבֵּי שְׁנַיִם הֲרֵי הוּא כְּאֹנֶס וְאֵינוֹ אֹנֶס וּמְשַׁלְּמִין מֶחֱצָה אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁלֹּא פָּשְׁעוּ בָּהּ. נִשְׁבְּרָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין הָעֵדִים מְצוּיִין נִשְׁבָּעִין שֶׁלֹּא שְׁבָרוּהָ בִּפְשִׁיעָה וּמְשַׁלְּמִין חֲצִי דָּמֶיהָ. שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא הָיָה לְכָל אֶחָד לְהַעֲבִיר אֶלָּא מַשּׂוֹי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְהַעֲבִירוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. מִכָּאן אַתָּה לָמֵד שֶׁהָאֶחָד שֶׁהֶעֱבִיר חָבִית גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ כָּל הַסַּבָּלִים לְהַעֲבִירָהּ שֶׁהוּא פּוֹשֵׁעַ וְאִם נִשְׁבְּרָה בְּיָדוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם הַכּל: ", + "הַסַּבָּל שֶׁשָּׁבַר חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן לְחֶנְוָנִי וְנִתְחַיֵּב לְשַׁלֵּם וַהֲרֵי הִיא שָׁוָה בְּיוֹם הַשּׁוּק אַרְבָּעָה וּבִשְׁאָר הַיָּמִים שְׁלֹשָׁה אִם הֶחְזִירוֹ בְּיוֹם הַשּׁוּק חַיָּבִין לְהַחְזִיר חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן אוֹ יְשַׁלְּמוּ לוֹ אַרְבָּעָה וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לוֹ יַיִן לִמְכֹּר בְּיוֹם הַשּׁוּק אֲבָל אִם הָיָה לוֹ יַיִן מַחֲזִירִין לוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה. הֶחְזִירוּ לוֹ בִּשְׁאָר הַיָּמִים מַחֲזִירִין לוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה וּמְנַכִּין לוֹ בְּכָל זְמַן טֹרַח שֶׁהָיָה טוֹרֵחַ בִּמְכִירָתָהּ וּפְגַם הַנֶּקֶב שֶׁהָיָה נוֹקֵב הֶחָבִית וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "רוֹעֶה שֶׁבָּאוּ זְאֵבִים וְטָרְפוּ מִמֶּנּוּ אִם הָיָה זְאֵב אֶחָד אֵין זֶה אֹנֶס אֲפִלּוּ בִּשְׁעַת מִשְׁלַחַת זְאֵבִים. וְאִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵי זְאֵבִים הֲרֵי זֶה אֹנֶס. שְׁנֵי כְּלָבִים אֵינָן אֹנֶס אֲפִלּוּ בָּאוּ מִשְּׁתֵי רוּחוֹת. הָיוּ יֶתֶר עַל שְׁנַיִם הֲרֵי זֶה אֹנֶס. לִסְטִים מְזֻיָּן הֲרֵי הוּא אֹנֶס וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הָרוֹעֶה מְזֻיָּן וּבָא לוֹ לִסְטִים אַחֵר מְזֻיָּן הֲרֵי זֶה אֹנֶס שֶׁאֵין הָרוֹעֶה מוֹסֵר נַפְשׁוֹ כְּלִסְטִים. הָאֲרִי וְהַדֹּב וְהַנָּמֵר וְהַבַּרְדְּלָס וְהַנָּחָשׁ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֳנָסִין. אֵימָתַי בִּזְמַן שֶׁבָּאוּ מֵאֲלֵיהֶן. אֲבָל אִם הוֹלִיכָם לִמְקוֹם גְּדוּדֵי חַיּוֹת וְלִיסְטִים אֵין אֵלּוּ אֳנָסִין וְחַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם: ", + "רוֹעֶה שֶׁמָּצָא גַּנָּב וְהִתְחִיל לְהִתְגָּרוֹת בּוֹ וּלְהַרְאוֹתוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ וְאָמַר לוֹ הֲרֵי אָנוּ בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וְכָךְ וְכָךְ רוֹעִים אֲנַחְנוּ וְכָךְ וְכָךְ כְּלֵי מִלְחָמָה יֵשׁ לָנוּ וּבָא אוֹתוֹ הַלִּסְטִים וְנִצְּחוֹ וְלָקַח מֵהֶן הֲרֵי הָרוֹעֶה חַיָּב שֶׁאֶחָד הַמּוֹלִיךְ אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה לִמְקוֹם גְּדוּדֵי חַיּוֹת וְלִסְטִים אוֹ מֵבִיא אֶת הַלִּסְטִים בְּהִתְגָּרוּתוֹ לִמְקוֹם הַבְּהֵמָה: ", + "רוֹעֶה שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לְהַצִּיל הַטְּרֵפָה אוֹ הַשְּׁבוּיָה בְּרוֹעִים אֲחֵרִים וּבְמַקְלוֹת וְלֹא קָרָא רוֹעִים אֲחֵרִים וְלֹא הֵבִיא מַקְלוֹת לְהַצִּיל הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב אֶחָד שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְאֶחָד שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר אֶלָּא שֶׁשּׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם קוֹרֵא רוֹעִים וּמֵבִיא מַקְלוֹת בְּחִנָּם וְאִם לֹא מָצָא פָּטוּר אֲבָל שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר חַיָּב לִשְׂכֹּר הָרוֹעִים וְהַמַּקְלוֹת עַד כְּדֵי דְּמֵי הַבְּהֵמָה כְּדֵי לְהַצִּיל וְחוֹזֵר וְלוֹקֵחַ שְׂכָרָן מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת. וְאִם לֹא עָשָׂה כֵן וְהָיָה לוֹ לִשְׂכֹּר וְלֹא שָׂכַר הֲרֵי זֶה פּוֹשֵׁעַ וְחַיָּב: ", + "רוֹעֶה שֶׁטָּעַן שֶׁהִצַּלְתִּי עַל יְדֵי רוֹעִים בְּשָׂכָר נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל מַה שֶּׁטָּעַן שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן אֶלָּא עַד כְּדֵי דְּמֵיהֶן וְיָכוֹל הָיָה לוֹמַר נִטְרְפָה וְיִשָּׁבַע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ כְּדִין כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין: ", + "רוֹעֶה שֶׁהִנִּיחַ עֶדְרוֹ וּבָא לָעִיר בֵּין בְּעֵת שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ הָרוֹעִים לְהִכָּנֵס וּבֵין בְּעֵת שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ הָרוֹעִים לְהִכָּנֵס וּבָאוּ זְאֵבִים וּטְרָפוֹ אֲרִי וְדָרַס אֵין אוֹמְרִים אִלּוּ הָיָה שָׁם הָיָה מַצִּיל אֶלָּא אוֹמְדִין אוֹתוֹ אִם יָכוֹל לְהַצִּיל עַל יְדֵי רוֹעִים וּמַקְלוֹת חַיָּב וְאִם לָאו פָּטוּר וְאִם אֵין הַדָּבָר יָדוּעַ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם: ", + "מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ הֲרֵי זֶה אֹנֶס וְהָרוֹעֶה פָּטוּר. סִגְפָהּ וּמֵתָה אֵינוֹ אֹנֶס. תְּקָפַתּוּ וְעָלְתָה לְרָאשֵׁי צוּקִין וּתְקָפַתּוּ וְנָפְלָה הֲרֵי זֶה אֹנֶס. הֶעֱלָהּ לְרָאשֵׁי צוּקִין אוֹ שֶׁעָלְתָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ וְהוּא יָכוֹל לְמָנְעָהּ וְלֹא מְנָעָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁתְּקָפַתּוּ וְנָפְלָה וּמֵתָה אוֹ נִשְׁבְּרָה חַיָּב שֶׁכָּל שֶׁתְּחִלָּתוֹ בִּפְשִׁיעָה וְסוֹפוֹ בְּאֹנֶס חַיָּב. וְכֵן רוֹעֶה שֶׁהֶעֱבִיר הַבְּהֵמוֹת עַל הַגֶּשֶׁר וְדָחֲפָה אַחַת מֵהֶן לַחֲבֵרְתָהּ וְנָפְלָה לְשִׁבּלֶת הַנָּהָר הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לְהַעֲבִירָן אַחַת אַחַת שֶׁאֵין הַשּׁוֹמֵר נוֹטֵל שָׂכָר אֶלָּא לִשְׁמֹר שְׁמִירָה מְעֵלָּה וְהוֹאִיל וּפָשַׁע בַּתְּחִלָּה וְהֶעֱבִירָן כְּאֶחָד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס בַּסּוֹף בְּעֵת הַנְּפִילָה הֲרֵי הוּא חַיָּב: ", + "פָּשַׁע בָּהּ וְיָצְאָה לַאֲגַם וּמֵתָה שָׁם כְּדַרְכָּהּ פָּטוּר שֶׁאֵין יְצִיאָתָהּ גָּרְמָה לָהּ שֶׁתָּבוֹא לִידֵי אֹנֶס זֶה הוֹאִיל וּכְדַרְכָּהּ מֵתָה מַה לִּי בְּבֵית שׁוֹמֵר מַה לִּי בָּאֲגַם. אֲבָל אִם גְּנָבָהּ גַּנָּב מֵהָאֲגַם וּמֵתָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ בְּבֵית הַגַּנָּב הֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹמֵר חַיָּב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ לֹא מֵתָה הֲרֵי הִיא אֲבֵדָה בְּיַד הַגַּנָּב וִיצִיאָתָהּ גָּרְמָה לָהּ לְהִגָּנֵב. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: " + ], + [ + "הַשׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַחֲמוֹר לְהוֹלִיכָהּ בָּהָר וְהוֹלִיכָהּ בַּבִּקְעָה אִם הֻחְלְקָה פָּטוּר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעָבַר עַל דַּעַת הַבְּעָלִים. וְאִם הוּחַמָּה חַיָּב. שְׂכָרָהּ לְהוֹלִיכָהּ בַּבִּקְעָה וְהוֹלִיכָהּ בָּהָר אִם הֻחְלְקָה חַיָּב שֶׁהַחֲלָקוּת יֶתֶר בָּהָר מִן הַבִּקְעָה. וְאִם הוּחַמָּה פָּטוּר שֶׁחֲמִימוּת בַּבִּקְעָה יֶתֶר מִן הָהָר מִפְּנֵי הָרוּחַ שֶׁמְּנַשֶּׁבֶת בְּרֹאשׁ הֶהָרִים. וְאִם הוּחַמָּה מֵחֲמַת הַמַּעֲלָה חַיָּב וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְכֵן הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפָּרָה לַחְרשׁ בָּהָר וְחָרַשׁ בַּבִּקְעָה וְנִשְׁבַּר הַקַּנְקַן וְהוּא הַכְּלִי שֶׁחוֹרֵשׁ בּוֹ הֲרֵי הַשּׂוֹכֵר פָּטוּר וְדִין בַּעַל הַפָּרָה עִם הָאֻמָּנִין שֶׁחָרְשׁוּ. וְכֵן אִם לֹא שִׁנָּה עַל דַּעַת הַבְּעָלִים וְנִשְׁבַּר הַקַּנְקַן דִּין בַּעַל הַפָּרָה עִם הָאֻמָּנִין. שְׂכָרָהּ לַחְרשׁ בַּבִּקְעָה וְחָרַשׁ בָּהָר וְנִשְׁבַּר הַקַּנְקַן הַשּׂוֹכֵר חַיָּב וְדִינוֹ שֶׁל שׂוֹכֵר עִם הָאֻמָּנִים: \n", + "וּמַהוּ דִּין הָאֻמָּנִין שֶׁשָּׁבְרוּ בְּעֵת חֲרִישָׁה שֶׁמְּשַׁלְּמִין. מִי מְשַׁלֵּם זֶה הָאוֹחֵז אֶת הַכְּלִי בְּעֵת הַחֲרִישָׁה. וְאִם הָיְתָה הַשָּׂדֶה מַעֲלוֹת מַעֲלוֹת שְׁנֵיהֶם חַיָּבִים בִּדְמֵי הַקַּנְקַן. הַמַּנְהִיג אוֹתָהּ בְּמַלְמַד וְהָאוֹחֵז אֶת הַכְּלִי: \n", + "שְׂכָרָהּ לָדוּשׁ בְּקִטְנִית וְדָשׁ בִּתְבוּאָה וְהֻחְלְקָה פָּטוּר בִּתְבוּאָה וְדָשׁ בְּקִטְנִית חַיָּב שֶׁהַקִּטְנִית מַחְלֶקֶת. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהִשְׂכִּיר חֲמוֹר לַחֲבֵרוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ לֹא תֵּלֵךְ בּוֹ בְּדֶרֶךְ נָהָר פְּקוֹד שֶׁהַמַּיִם מְצוּיִין שָׁם אֶלָּא בְּדֶרֶךְ נֶרֶשׁ שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ מַיִם. הָלַךְ בְּדֶרֶךְ נָהָר פְּקוֹד וּמֵת הַחֲמוֹר וְלֹא הָיוּ שָׁם עֵדִים שֶׁמְּעִידִים בְּאֵי זֶה דֶּרֶךְ הָלַךְ אֶלָּא הוּא מֵעַצְמוֹ אָמַר בְּנָהָר פְּקוֹד הָלָכְתִּי וְלֹא הָיוּ שָׁם מַיִם וּמֵחֲמַת עַצְמוֹ מֵת וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁהַמַּיִם בְּנָהָר פְּקוֹד מְצוּיִין חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם שֶׁהֲרֵי שִׁנָּה עַל דַּעַת הַבְּעָלִים וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים מַה לִּי לְשַׁקֵּר בִּמְקוֹם עֵדִים: \n", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה לְהָבִיא עָלֶיהָ מָאתַיִם לִיטְרִין שֶׁל חִטִּים וְהֵבִיא מָאתַיִם לִיטְרִין שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִים וּמֵתָה חַיָּב מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַנֶּפַח קָשֶׁה לְמַשּׂאוֹי וְהַשְּׂעוֹרִין יֵשׁ לָהֶן נֶפַח. וְכֵן אִם שְׂכָרָהּ לְהָבִיא תְּבוּאָה וְהֵבִיא בְּמִשְׁקָלָהּ תֶּבֶן. אֲבָל אִם שְׂכָרָהּ לְהָבִיא עָלֶיהָ שְׂעוֹרִים וְהֵבִיא בְּמִשְׁקָלָן חִטִּים וּמֵתָה פָּטוּר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "שָׂכַר אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה לִרְכֹּב עָלֶיהָ אִישׁ לֹא יַרְכִּיב עָלֶיהָ אִשָּׁה. שְׂכָרָהּ לִרְכֹּב עָלֶיהָ אִשָּׁה מַרְכִּיב עָלֶיהָ אִישׁ. וּמַרְכִּיב עָלֶיהָ כָּל אִשָּׁה בֵּין קְטַנָּה בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה וַאֲפִלּוּ מְעֵבֶּרֶת שֶׁהִיא מֵינִיקָה: \n", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה לָשֵׂאת עָלֶיהָ מִשְׁקָל יָדוּעַ וְהוֹסִיף עַל מַשָּׂאוֹ אִם הוֹסִיף חֵלֶק מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים עַל הַשִּׁעוּר שֶׁפָּסַק עִמּוֹ וּמֵתָה חַיָּב פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן פָּטוּר אֲבָל נוֹתֵן הוּא שְׂכַר הַתּוֹסֶפֶת. שָׂכַר סְתָם אֵינוֹ נוֹשֵׂא אֶלָּא בְּמִשְׁקָל הַיָּדוּעַ בַּמְּדִינָה לְאוֹתָהּ בְּהֵמָה. וְאִם הוֹסִיף חֵלֶק מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים כְּגוֹן שֶׁדַּרְכָּהּ לָשֵׂאת שְׁלֹשִׁים וְטָעַן עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשִׁים וְאֶחָד וּמֵתָה אוֹ נִשְׁבְּרָה חַיָּב. וְכֵן סְפִינָה שֶׁהוֹסִיף בָּהּ אֶחָד מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים עַל מַשָּׂאָהּ וְטָבְעָה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם דָּמֶיהָ: \n", + "הַכַּתָּף שֶׁהוֹסִיף עַל מַשָּׂאוֹ קַב אֶחָד הֻזַּק בְּמַשָּׂא זֶה חַיָּב בִּנְזָקָיו. שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בֶּן דַּעַת וַהֲרֵי הוּא מַרְגִּישׁ בְּכֹבֶד הַמַּשָּׂא יַעֲלֶה עַל לִבּוֹ שֶׁמָּא מֵחֲמַת חָלְיוֹ הוּא זֶה הַכֹּבֶד: \n", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַחֲמוֹר לִרְכֹּב עָלֶיהָ יֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַנִּיחַ עָלֶיהָ כְּסוּתוֹ וְלָגִינוֹ וּמְזוֹנוֹתָיו שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ הַדֶּרֶךְ לְפִי שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ הַשּׂוֹכֵר לַחְזֹר בְּכָל מָלוֹן וּמָלוֹן לִקְנוֹת מְזוֹנוֹת. יֶתֶר עַל זֶה הֲרֵי מְעַכֵּב עָלָיו בַּעַל הַחֲמוֹר. וְכֵן יֵשׁ לְבַעַל הַחֲמוֹר לְהַנִּיחַ עָלֶיהָ שְׂעוֹרִים וְתֶבֶן וּמְזוֹנוֹת שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם יֶתֶר עַל זֶה הַשּׂוֹכֵר מְעַכֵּב מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לִקְנוֹת בְּכָל מָלוֹן וּמָלוֹן. לְפִיכָךְ אִם אֵין שָׁם מֵאַיִן יִקְנֶה מַנִּיחַ עָלָיו מְזוֹנוֹתָיו וּמְזוֹנוֹת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ שֶׁל כָּל אוֹתָהּ הַדֶּרֶךְ. וְכָל אֵלּוּ הַדְּבָרִים בְּשׂוֹכֵר סְתָם וּבְמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מִנְהָג יָדוּעַ. אֲבָל בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ מִנְהָג הַכּל לְפִי הַמִּנְהָג: \n" + ], + [ + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְחָלְתָה אוֹ נִשְׁתטֵּית אוֹ נִלְקְחָה לַעֲבוֹדַת הַמֶּלֶךְ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין סוֹפָהּ לַחְזֹר אִם נִלְקְחָה דֶּרֶךְ הֲלִיכָה הֲרֵי הַמַּשְׂכִּיר אוֹמֵר לַשּׂוֹכֵר הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ וְחַיָּב לִתֵּן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ מָשְׁלָם. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁשְּׂכָרָהּ לָשֵׂאת עָלֶיהָ מַשּׂוֹי שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לְהַשְׁלִיכוֹ בְּלֹא הַקְפָּדָה אֲבָל אִם שְׂכָרָהּ לִרְכֹּב עָלֶיהָ אוֹ לָשֵׂאת עָלֶיהָ כְּלֵי זְכוּכִית וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן חַיָּב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ חֲמוֹר אַחֵר אִם שָׂכַר מִמֶּנּוּ חֲמוֹר וְאִם לֹא הֶעֱמִיד יַחְזִיר הַשָּׂכָר וְיַחְשֹׁב עִמּוֹ עַל שָׂכָר כַּמָּה שֶׁהָלַךְ בָּהּ: \n", + "מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ נִשְׁבְּרָה בֵּין שֶׁשְּׂכָרָהּ לָשֵׂאת בֵּין שֶׁשְּׂכָרָהּ לִרְכֹּב אִם אָמַר לוֹ חֲמוֹר סְתָם אֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיר לְךָ חַיָּב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ חֲמוֹר אַחֵר מִכָּל מָקוֹם. וְאִם לֹא הֶעֱמִיד יֵשׁ לַשּׂוֹכֵר לִמְכֹּר הַבְּהֵמָה וְלִקַּח בָּהּ בְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת אוֹ שׂוֹכֵר בְּהֵמָה בְּדָמֶיהָ אִם אֵין בְּדָמֶיהָ לִקַּח עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְמָקוֹם שֶׁפָּסַק בּוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ חֲמוֹר זֶה אֲנִי שׂוֹכֵר לְךָ אִם שְׂכָרָהּ לִרְכֹּב עָלֶיהָ אוֹ לִכְלֵי זְכוּכִית וּמֵתָה בַּחֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ אִם יֵשׁ בְּדָמֶיהָ לִקַּח בְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת יִקַּח וְאִם אֵין בְּדָמֶיהָ לִקַּח שׂוֹכֵר אֲפִלּוּ בִּדְמֵי כֻּלָּהּ עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לַמָּקוֹם שֶׁפָּסַק עִמּוֹ. וְאִם אֵין בְּדָמֶיהָ לֹא לִקַּח וְלֹא לִשְׂכֹּר נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ שֶׁל חֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ וְאֵין לוֹ עָלָיו אֶלָּא תַּרְעֹמֶת. שְׂכָרָהּ לְמַשָּׂא הוֹאִיל וְאָמַר לוֹ חֲמוֹר זֶה וּמֵת בַּחֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ אַחֵר אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ שֶׁל חֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ וּמַנִּיחַ לוֹ נִבְלָתוֹ: \n", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַסְּפִינָה וטָבְעָה לוֹ בַּחֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ. אִם אָמַר לוֹ סְפִינָה זוֹ אֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיר לְךָ וּשְׂכָרָהּ הַשּׂוֹכֵר לְהוֹלִיךְ בָּהּ יַיִן סְתָם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ הַשָּׂכָר יַחְזִיר כָּל הַשָּׂכָר שֶהֲרֵי זֶה אוֹמֵר לוֹ הָבֵא לִי הַסְּפִינָה עַצְמָהּ שֶשָּׂכַרְתִּי שֶׁהַקְפָּדָה גְּדוֹלָה יֵשׁ בִּסְפִינָה זוֹ וַאֲנִי אָבִיא יַיִן מִכָּל מָקוֹם וְאוֹלִיךְ בָּהּ. אָמַר לוֹ סְפִינָה סְתָם אֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיר לְךָ וּשְׂכָרָהּ הַשּׂוֹכֵר לְהוֹלִיךְ בָּהּ יַיִן זֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן לוֹ מִן הַשָּׂכָר כְּלוּם חַיָּב לִתֵּן כָּל הַשָּׂכָר. שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר לוֹ הָבֵא לִי הַיַּיִן עַצְמוֹ וַאֲנִי אָבִיא לְךָ סְפִינָה מִכָּל מָקוֹם וְאוֹלִיכוֹ. אֲבָל צָרִיךְ לְנַכּוֹת כְּדֵי הַטֹּרַח שֶׁל חֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ שֶׁאֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה הַמְטַפֵּל בְּהוֹלָכַת הַסְּפִינָה לְיוֹשֵׁב וּבָטֵל. אָמַר לוֹ סְפִינָה זוֹ אֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיר וְשָׂכַר הַשּׂוֹכֵר לְהוֹלִיךְ בָּהּ יַיִן זֶה אִם נָתַן הַשָּׂכָר אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַחְזִירוֹ וְאִם לֹא נָתַן לֹא יִתֵּן שֶׁאֵין זֶה יָכוֹל לְהָבִיא הַסְּפִינָה עַצְמָהּ וְלֹא זֶה יָכוֹל לְהָבִיא יַיִן עַצְמוֹ. שָׂכַר סְפִינָה סְתָם לְיַיִן סְתָם הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חוֹלְקִין הַשָּׂכָר: \n", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַסְּפִינָה וּפָרְקָה בַּחֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכַר כָּל הַדֶּרֶךְ וְאִם מָצָא הַשּׂוֹכֵר מִי שֶׁיַּשְׂכִּיר אוֹתָהּ לוֹ עַד הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁפָּסַק שׂוֹכֵר וְיֵשׁ לְבַעַל הַסְּפִינָה עָלָיו תַּרְעֹמֶת. וְכֵן אִם מָכַר כָּל הַסְּחוֹרָה שֶׁבַּסְּפִינָה לְאִישׁ אַחֵר בַּחֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ וְיָרַד וְעָלָה הַלּוֹקֵחַ נוֹטֵל שְׂכַר חֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן וּשְׂכַר הַחֵצִי מִזֶּה הָאַחֲרוֹן וְיֵשׁ לְבַעַל הַסְּפִינָה עָלָיו תַּרְעֹמֶת שֶׁגָּרַם לוֹ לִסְבּל דַּעַת אִישׁ אַחֵר שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא הֻרְגַּל בּוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "מִכָּאן אֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁהַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵרוֹ עַד זְמַן קָצוּב וְרָצָה הַשּׂוֹכֵר לְהַשְׂכִּיר הַבַּיִת לְאַחֵר עַד סוֹף זְמַנּוֹ מַשְׂכִּיר לַאֲחֵרִים אִם יֵשׁ בְּנֵי בַּיִת כְּמִנְיַן בְּנֵי בֵּיתוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ אַרְבָּעָה לֹא יִשְׂכֹּר לַחֲמִשָּׁה. שֶׁלֹּא אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֵין הַשּׂוֹכֵר רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׂכִּיר אֶלָּא מִטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר לוֹ אֵין רְצוֹנִי שֶׁיְּהֵא פִּקְדוֹנִי בְּיַד אַחֵר אֲבָל בְּקַרְקַע אוֹ בִּסְפִינָה שֶׁהֲרֵי בַּעְלָהּ עִמָּהּ אֵין אוֹמֵר כֵּן. וְכֵן אֲנִי אוֹמֵר אִם אָמַר לוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לַשּׂוֹכֵר לָמָּה תִּטְרַח וְתַשְׂכִּיר בֵּיתִי לַאֲחֵרִים אִם לֹא תִּרְצֶה לַעֲמֹד בּוֹ צֵא הַנִּיחוֹ וְאַתָּה פָּטוּר מִשְּׂכִירָתוֹ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַשְׂכִּירוֹ לְאַחֵר שֶׁזֶּה בְּאַל תִּמְנַע טוֹב מִבְּעָלָיו עַד שֶׁאַתָּה מַשְׂכִּירוֹ לְאַחֵר תַּנִּיחַ לָזֶה בֵּיתוֹ. וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁהוֹרָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַשְׂכִּירוֹ לְאַחֵר כְּלָל וְיִתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ עַד סוֹף זְמַנּוֹ וְלֹא יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁדִּין זֶה אֱמֶת: \n", + "בַּיִת זֶה אֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיר לְךָ וְאַחַר שֶׁהִשְׂכִּירוֹ נָפַל אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לִבְנוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא מְחַשֵּׁב עַל מַה שֶּׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ וּמַחֲזִיר לוֹ שְׁאָר הַשְּׂכִירוּת. אֲבָל אִם סְתָרוֹ חַיָּב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ בַּיִת אַחֵר אוֹ יַשְׂכִּיר לוֹ כְּמוֹתוֹ. וְכֵן אִם חָזַר אַחַר שֶׁהִשְׂכִּירוֹ לָזֶה וְהִשְׂכִּירוֹ אוֹ מְכָרוֹ לְעַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ אַנָּס שֶׁהִפְקִיעַ שְׂכִירוּת הָרִאשׁוֹן הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב לְהַשְׂכִּיר לוֹ בַּיִת אַחֵר כְּמוֹתוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "הִשְׂכִּיר לוֹ בַּיִת סְתָם וְאַחַר שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ בַּיִת נָפַל חַיָּב לִבְנוֹתוֹ אוֹ יִתֵּן לוֹ בַּיִת אַחֵר. וְאִם הָיָה קָטָן מִן הַבַּיִת שֶׁנָּפַל אֵין הַשּׂוֹכֵר יָכוֹל לְעַכֵּב עָלָיו. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה קָרוּי בַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא הִשְׂכִּיר אֶלָּא בַּיִת סְתָם. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ בַּיִת כָּזֶה אֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיר לְךָ חַיָּב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ בַּיִת כְּמִדַּת אָרְכּוֹ וּמִדַּת רָחְבּוֹ שֶׁל בַּיִת זֶה שֶׁהֶרְאָהוּ. וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ לֹא הָיָה עִנְיַן דְּבָרַי אֶלָּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה קָרוֹב לַנָּהָר אוֹ לַשּׁוּק אוֹ לַמֶּרְחָץ כָּזֶה אֶלָּא חַיָּב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ בַּיִת כְּמִדָּתוֹ וּכְצוּרָתוֹ לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיָה קָטָן לֹא יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ גָּדוֹל גָּדוֹל לֹא יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ קָטָן אֶחָד לֹא יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם לֹא יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ אֶחָד. וְלֹא יִפְחֹת מִן הַחַלּוֹנוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ בּוֹ וְלֹא יוֹסִיף עֲלֵיהֶן אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת שְׁנֵיהֶם: \n", + "הַמַּשְׂכִּיר עֲלִיָּה סְתָם חַיָּב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ עֲלִיָּה. אָמַר לוֹ עֲלִיָּה זוֹ שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי בַּיִת זֶה אֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיר לְךָ הֲרֵי שִׁעְבֵּד בַּיִת לַעֲלִיָּה לְפִיכָךְ אִם נִפְחֲתָה הָעֲלִיָּה בְּאַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים אוֹ יֶתֶר חַיָּב הַמַּשְׂכִּיר לְתַקֵּן וְאִם לֹא תִּקֵּן הֲרֵי הַשּׂוֹכֵר יוֹרֵד וְדָר בַּבַּיִת עִם בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עַד שֶׁיְּתַקֵּן. הָיוּ שְׁתֵּי עֲלִיּוֹת זוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי זוֹ וְנִפְחֲתָה הָעֶלְיוֹנָה דָּר בַּתַּחְתּוֹנָה. נִפְחֲתָה הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם יָדוּר בָּעֶלְיוֹנָה אוֹ בַּבַּיִת לְפִיכָךְ לֹא יָדוּר וְאִם דָּר אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִשָּׁם. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁאָמַר לַחֲבֵרוֹ דַּלִּית זוֹ שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַפַּרְסֵק הַזֶּה אֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיר לְךָ וְנֶעֱקַר אִילָן הַפַּרְסֵק מִמְּקוֹמוֹ וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ חַיָּב אַתָּה לְהַעֲמִיד הַפַּרְסֵק כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהַדַּלִּית קַיֶּמֶת. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n" + ], + [ + "הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵרוֹ בְּבִירָה גְּדוֹלָה מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּזִיזֶיהָ וּבִכְתָלֶיהָ עַד אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וּבְתַרְבַּץ שֶׁל חָצֵר וּבָרְחָבָה שֶׁאֲחוֹרֵי הַבָּתִּים. וּמָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּעֳבִי הַכְּתָלִים מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּעֳבִי הַכְּתָלִים. וּבְכָל אֵלּוּ הַדְּבָרִים הוֹלְכִין אַחַר מִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה וְהַשֵּׁמוֹת הַיְדוּעִין לָהֶם כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ בְּעִנְיַן מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר: \n", + "הַמַּשְׂכִּיר חֲצֵרוֹ סְתָם לֹא הִשְׂכִּיר הָרֶפֶת שֶׁבָּהּ: \n", + "הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵרוֹ חַיָּב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ דְּלָתוֹת וְלִפְתֹּחַ לוֹ הַחַלּוֹנוֹת שֶׁנִּתְקַלְקְלוּ וּלְחַזֵּק אֶת הַתִּקְרָה וְלִסְמֹךְ אֶת הַקּוֹרָה שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרָה וְלַעֲשׂוֹת נֶגֶר וּמַנְעוּל וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בְּאֵלּוּ מִדְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן מַעֲשֵׂה אֻמָּן וְהֵם עִקָּר גָּדוֹל בִּישִׁיבַת הַבָּתִּים וְהַחֲצֵרוֹת. הַשּׂוֹכֵר חַיָּב לַעֲשׂוֹת מַעֲקֶה וּמְזוּזָה וּלְתַקֵּן מְקוֹם הַמְּזוּזָה מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. וְכֵן אִם רָצָה לַעֲשׂוֹת סֻלָּם אוֹ מַרְזֵב אוֹ לְהָטִיחַ גַּגּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹשֶׂה מִשֶּׁל עַצְמוֹ: \n", + "הַמַּשְׂכִּיר עֲלִיָּה לַחֲבֵרוֹ וְנִפְחֲתָה בְּאַרְבָּעָה אוֹ יֶתֶר חַיָּב לְתַקֵּן הַתִּקְרָה וְהַמַּעֲזִיבָה שֶׁעָלֶיהָ שֶׁהַמַּעֲזִיבָה חִזּוּק הַתִּקְרָה הִיא: \n", + "הַזֶּבֶל שֶׁבֶּחָצֵר הֲרֵי הוּא שֶׁל שׂוֹכֵר לְפִיכָךְ הוּא מְטַפֵּל בּוֹ לְהוֹצִיאוֹ וְאִם יֵשׁ שָׁם מִנְהָג הוֹלְכִין אַחֵר הַמִּנְהָג. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיוּ הַבְּהֵמוֹת שֶׁעָשׂוּ הַזֶּבֶל שֶׁל שׂוֹכֵר אֲבָל אִם הַבְּהֵמוֹת שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים הַזֶּבֶל שֶׁל בַּעַל הֶחָצֵר שֶׁחֲצֵרוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם קוֹנָה שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא שְׂכוּרָה בְּיַד אֲחֵרִים: \n", + "הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת אוֹ חָצֵר אוֹ מֶרְחָץ אוֹ חֲנוּת אוֹ שְׁאָר הַמְּקוֹמוֹת עַד זְמַן קָצוּב הֲרֵי זֶה כּוֹפֵהוּ לָצֵאת בְּסוֹף זְמַנּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מַמְתִּין לוֹ אֲפִלּוּ שָׁעָה אַחַת. שָׂכַר לוֹ בַּיִת סְתָם לְלִינָה אֵין פָּחוֹת מִיּוֹם אֶחָד. לִשְׁבִיתָה אֵין פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי יָמִים. לְנִשּׂוּאִין אֵין פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם: \n", + "הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵרוֹ סְתָם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ עַד שֶׁיּוֹדִיעוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם מִקֹּדֶם כְּדֵי לְבַקֵּשׁ מָקוֹם וְלֹא יִהְיֶה מֻשְׁלָךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ וּלְסוֹף הַשְּׁלֹשִׁים יֵצֵא. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה אֲבָל בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ מִן הֶחָג וְעַד הַפֶּסַח. קָבַע לוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים לִפְנֵי הֶחָג אִם נִשְׁאַר מִן הַשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אֲפִלּוּ יוֹם אֶחָד לְאַחַר הֶחָג אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ עַד מוֹצָאֵי הַפֶּסַח וְהוּא שֶׁיּוֹדִיעוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם מִקֹּדֶם. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בַּעֲיָרוֹת אֲבָל בַּכְּרַכִּים אֶחָד יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה וְאֶחָד יְמוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעוֹ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ מִקֹּדֶם. וְכֵן בַּחֲנוּת בֵּין בַּכְּרַכִּים בֵּין בַּעֲיָרוֹת צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעוֹ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ מִקֹּדֶם: \n", + "כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמַּשְׂכִּיר חַיָּב לְהוֹדִיעוֹ כָּךְ הַשּׂוֹכֵר חַיָּב לְהוֹדִיעוֹ מִקֹּדֶם שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם בַּעֲיָרוֹת אוֹ מִקֹּדֶם שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ בַּכְּרַכִּים כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּבַקֵּשׁ שָׁכֵן וְלֹא יִשָּׁאֵר בֵּיתוֹ פָּנוּי. וְאִם לֹא הוֹדִיעוֹ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לָצֵאת אֶלָּא יִתֵּן הַשָּׂכָר: \n", + "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַמַּשְׂכִּיר יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ וְלֹא הַשּׂוֹכֵר יָכוֹל לָצֵאת עַד שֶׁיּוֹדִיעוֹ מִקֹּדֶם. אִם הוּקְרוּ הַבָּתִּים יֵשׁ לַמַּשְׂכִּיר לְהוֹסִיף עָלָיו וְלוֹמַר לַשּׂוֹכֵר אוֹ שְׂכֹר בְּשָׁוֶה עַד שֶׁתִּמְצָא אוֹ תֵּצֵא. וְכֵן אִם הוּזְלוּ הַבָּתִּים יֵשׁ לַשּׂוֹכֵר לִפְחוֹת הַשָּׂכָר וְלוֹמַר לַמַּשְׂכִּיר אוֹ הַשְׂכֵּר לִי כְּשַׁעַר שֶׁל עַתָּה אוֹ הֲרֵי בֵּיתְךָ לְפָנֶיךָ. נָפַל בֵּית הַמַּשְׂכִּיר שֶׁהָיָה דָּר בּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה יֵשׁ לוֹ לְהוֹצִיא הַשּׂוֹכֵר מִבֵּיתוֹ וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ אֵינוֹ בְּדִין שֶׁתִּהְיֶה אַתָּה יוֹשֵׁב בְּבֵיתִי עַד שֶׁתִּמְצָא מָקוֹם וַאֲנִי מֻשְׁלָךְ בְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאֵין אַתָּה בַּעַל זְכוּת בְּבַיִת זֶה יוֹתֵר מִמֶּנִּי: \n", + "נָתַן הַבַּיִת לִבְנוֹ לִשָּׂא בּוֹ אִשָּׁה אִם הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁבְּנוֹ נַעֲשָׂה חָתָן בִּזְמַן פְּלוֹנִי וְהָיָה אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לְהוֹדִיעוֹ מִקֹּדֶם וְלֹא הוֹדִיעוֹ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ. וְאִם עַכְשָׁו נִזְדַּמְּנָה לוֹ אִשָּׁה וַהֲרֵי הוּא נוֹשְׂאָהּ מִיָּד הֲרֵי זֶה יֵשׁ לוֹ לְהוֹצִיאוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּדִין שֶׁיִּהְיֶה זֶה יוֹשֵׁב בְּבֵיתוֹ וּבֶן בַּעַל הַבַּיִת יִשְׂכֹּר בַּיִת שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בּוֹ חֲתֻנָּה: \n", + "מָכַר אֶת הַבַּיִת אוֹ נְתָנוֹ אוֹ הוֹרִישׁוֹ אֵין הַשֵּׁנִי יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ עַד שֶׁיּוֹדִיעוֹ מִקֹּדֶם שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אוֹ מִקֹּדֶם שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַשּׂוֹכֵר אוֹמֵר לוֹ אֵין כֹּחֲךָ יֶתֶר מִכֹּחַ זֶה שֶׁזָּכִיתָ בְּבַיִת זֶה מֵחֲמָתוֹ: \n" + ], + [ + "כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמַּתְנֶה אָדָם כָּל תְּנַאי שֶׁיִּרְצֶה בְּמִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר כָּךְ מַתְנֶה בִּשְׂכִירוּת שֶׁהַשְּׂכִירוּת מְכִירָה לִזְמַן קָצוּב הִיא וְכָל שֶׁמִּמְכָּרוֹ בִּנְכָסָיו מִמְכָּר שׂוֹכֵר שְׂכִירוּתוֹ שְׂכִירוּת. וְכָל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ לִמְכֹּר כָּךְ אֵין לוֹ לִשְׂכֹּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יֵשׁ לוֹ פֵּרוֹת בִּלְבַד בְּאוֹתָהּ הַקַּרְקַע הֲרֵי זֶה שׂוֹכֵר וְאֵינוֹ מוֹכֵר: \n", + "הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵרוֹ לְשָׁנָה וְנִתְעַבְּרָה הַשָּׁנָה נִתְעַבְּרָה לַשּׂוֹכֵר. הִשְׂכִּיר לֶחֳדָשִׁים נִתְעַבְּרָה לַמַּשְׂכִּיר. הִזְכִּיר לוֹ חֳדָשִׁים וְשָׁנָה בֵּין שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ דִּינָר לְחֹדֶשׁ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר דִּינָר בְּשָׁנָה. בֵּין שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר דִּינָר לְשָׁנָה דִּינָר בְּכָל חֹדֶשׁ. הֲרֵי חֹדֶשׁ הָעִבּוּר שֶׁל מַשְׂכִּיר שֶׁהַקַּרְקַע בְּחֶזְקַת בְּעָלִים וְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין דָּבָר מִיַּד בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע אֶלָּא בִּרְאָיָה בְּרוּרָה. וְכֵן בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁאָמַר לִזְמַן זֶה הִשְׂכַּרְתִּי לְךָ וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר אוֹמֵר לֹא שָׂכַרְתִּי אֶלָּא סְתָם אוֹ לִזְמַן אָרֹךְ עַל הַשּׂוֹכֵר לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא בַּעַל הַבַּיִת נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וּמוֹצִיאוֹ מִן הַבַּיִת: \n", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר שֶׁאָמַר נָתַתִּי שְׂכַר הַבַּיִת שֶׁנִּתְחַיַּבְתִּי בּוֹ וְהַמַּשְׂכִּיר אוֹמֵר עֲדַיִן לֹא נָטַלְתִּי בֵּין שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּשְׁטָר בֵּין שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּעֵדִים. אִם תְּבָעוֹ בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם עַל הַשּׂוֹכֵר לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה אוֹ יִתֵּן וְיַחֲרִים עַל מִי שֶׁלָּקַח מִמֶּנּוּ אוֹ יִטְעֹן עָלָיו בְּדָמִים שֶׁנָּתַן תְּחִלָּה טַעֲנָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וְיַשְׁבִּיעֵהוּ הֶסֵּת. תְּבָעוֹ הַמַּשְׂכִּיר לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וַאֲפִלּוּ בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלֹשִׁים עַל הַמַּשְׂכִּיר לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה אוֹ יִשָּׁבַע הַשּׂוֹכֵר שֶׁכְּבָר נָתַן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ וְיִפָּטֵר. וְכֵן אִם שָׂכַר מִמֶּנּוּ וּפֵרֵשׁ שֶׁיִּתֵּן לוֹ הַשָּׂכָר שָׁנָה בְּשָׁנָה וּתְבָעוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הַשָּׁנָה עַל הַשּׂוֹכֵר לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה. תְּבָעוֹ לְאַחַר הַשָּׁנָה וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּיוֹם תִּשְׁעָה וְעֶשְׂרִים בֶּאֱלוּל עַל הַמַּשְׂכִּיר לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה: \n", + "הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵרוֹ בִּשְׁטָר לְעֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים וְאֵין בּוֹ זְמַן הַשּׂוֹכֵר אוֹמֵר עֲדַיִן לֹא עָבַר מִזְּמַן הַשְּׁטָר אֶלָּא שָׁנָה וְהַמַּשְׂכִּיר אוֹמֵר כְּבָר עָבְרוּ וְשָׁלְמוּ שְׁנֵי הַשְּׂכִירוּת וְשָׁכַנְתָּ עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים. עַל הַשּׂוֹכֵר לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה יִשָּׁבַע הַמַּשְׂכִּיר הֶסֵּת וְיוֹצִיאוֹ: \n", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר פַּרְדֵּס אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מַשְׁכּוֹן בְּיָדוֹ לְעֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים וְיָבֵשׁ הַפַּרְדֵּס בְּתוֹךְ הַזְּמַן יִמָּכְרוּ עֵצָיו וְיִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְיֹאכַל פֵּרוֹתָיו עַד סוֹף זְמַן שְׂכִירוּתוֹ אוֹ זְמַן הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן. וְגוּף הָאִילָנוֹת שֶׁיָּבְשׁוּ אוֹ נִקְצְצוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם רִבִּית הַמַּלְוֶה וְהַלּוֶֹה: \n", + "שְׁטַר הַשְּׂכִירוּת אוֹ שְׁטַר הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהּ שָׁנִים סְתָם. בַּעַל הַפֵּרוֹת אוֹמֵר שָׁלֹשׁ וּבַעַל הַקַּרְקַע אוֹמֵר שְׁתַּיִם וְקָדַם זֶה הַשּׂוֹכֵר אוֹ הַמַּלְוֶה וְאָכַל הַפֵּרוֹת הֲרֵי הַפֵּרוֹת בְּחֶזְקַת אוֹכְלֵיהֶן עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע רְאָיָה. אֲכָלָהּ הַשּׂוֹכֵר אוֹ הַמְמַשְׁכֵּן שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְכָבַשׁ הַשְּׁטָר וְאָמַר לְחָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים יֵשׁ לִי פֵּרוֹת וּבַעַל הַקַּרְקַע אוֹמֵר שָׁלֹשׁ אָמְרוּ לוֹ הָבֵא שְׁטָרְךָ וְאָמַר אָבַד הַשּׂוֹכֵר נֶאֱמָן שֶׁאִלּוּ רָצָה אָמַר לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי שֶׁהֲרֵי אֲכָלָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהִכְנִיס פֵּרוֹתָיו לְבֵית חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהִטְעוּהוּ עַד שֶׁהִכְנִיס פֵּרוֹתָיו וְהִנִּיחָם וְהָלַךְ יֵשׁ לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת לִמְכֹּר לוֹ מֵאוֹתָן הַפֵּרוֹת כְּדֵי לִתֵּן שְׂכַר הַפּוֹעֲלִים שֶׁמּוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן וּמַשְׁלִיכִין אוֹתָם לַשּׁוּק. וּמִדַּת חֲסִידוּת הוּא שֶׁיּוֹדִיעַ לְבֵית דִּין וְיַשְׂכִּירוּ מִמִּקְצָת דְּמֵיהֶן מָקוֹם מִשּׁוּם הֶשֵּׁב אֲבֵדָה לַבְּעָלִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה כַּהֹגֶן: \n", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר רֵחַיִם מֵחֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁיִּטְחֹן לוֹ עֶשְׂרִים סְאָה בְּכָל חֹדֶשׁ בִּשְׂכָרוֹ וְהֶעֱשִׁיר בַּעַל הָרֵחַיִם וַהֲרֵי אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִטְחֹן שָׁם אִם יֵשׁ לַשּׂוֹכֵר חִטִּים שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִטְחֹן לְעַצְמוֹ אוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לִתֵּן דְּמֵי טְחִינַת עֶשְׂרִים סְאָה שֶׁזּוֹ מִדַּת סְדוֹם הִיא. וְאִם אֵין לוֹ יָכוֹל לוֹמַר אֵין לִי דָּמִים וַהֲרֵינִי טוֹחֵן לְךָ כְּמוֹ שֶׁשָּׂכַרְתִּי וְאִם אֵין אַתָּה צָרִיךְ מְכֹר לַאֲחֵרִים. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n" + ], + [ + "אֶחָד הַשּׂוֹכֵר מֵחֲבֵרוֹ שָׂדֶה לְזָרְעָהּ אוֹ כֶּרֶם לֶאֱכל פֵּרוֹתָיו בְּדָמִים אוֹ שֶׁשָּׂכַר מִמֶּנּוּ בְּפֵרוֹת קְצוּבִים כְּגוֹן שֶׁשָּׂכַר מִמֶּנּוּ שָׂדֶה זוֹ בְּעֶשְׂרִים כּוֹר בְּשָׁנָה וְכֶרֶם זֶה בְּעֶשְׂרִים כַּדֵּי יַיִן בְּכָל שָׁנָה שְׁנֵיהֶן דִּין אֶחָד יֵשׁ לָהֶן. וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר בְּפֵרוֹת הוּא הַנִּקְרָא חוֹכֵר: \n", + "הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה אוֹ פַּרְדֵּס כְּדֵי לַעֲבֹד אוֹתוֹ וּלְהוֹצִיא עָלָיו יְצִיאוֹת וְיִתֵּן לְבַעַל הַקַּרְקַע שְׁלִישׁ הַתְּבוּאוֹת אוֹ רְבִיעַ אוֹ מַה שֶּׁיַּתְנוּ בֵּינֵיהֶן וְהוּא הַנִּקְרָא מְקַבֵּל. כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא לִסְיַג הָאָרֶץ בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע חַיָּב בּוֹ וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא שְׁמִירָה יְתֵרָה הַחוֹכֵר אוֹ הַמְקַבֵּל חַיָּב בּוֹ. הַקַּרְדֹּם שֶׁחוֹפְרִין בּוֹ הָאָרֶץ וְהַכֵּלִים שֶׁנּוֹשְׂאִין בָּהֶן הֶעָפָר וְהַדְּלִי וְהַכַּד וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁדּוֹלִין בָּהֶן הַמַּיִם עַל בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע. וַחֲטִיטַת הַמְּקוֹמוֹת שֶׁמְּקַבְּצִין בָּהֶן הַמַּיִם עַל הַחוֹכֵר אוֹ עַל הַמְקַבֵּל: \n", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אוֹ הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ לְשָׁנִים מוּעָטוֹת לֹא יִזְרָעֶנָּה פִּשְׁתָּן. שְׂכָרָהּ אוֹ קִבְּלָהּ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים זוֹרְעָהּ שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה פִּשְׁתָּן וְאֵין הַשְּׁבִיעִית מִן הַמִּנְיָן. שְׂכָרָהּ אוֹ קִבְּלָהּ שָׁבוּעַ אֶחָד שְׁבִיעִית מִן הַמִּנְיָן: \n", + "הַחוֹכֵר אוֹ הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וְהִיא בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין אוֹ בֵּית הָאִילָן וְיָבְשָׁה מַעְיַן בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין וְלֹא פָּסַק הַנָּהָר הַגָּדוֹל אֶלָּא אֶפְשָׁר לְהָבִיא מִמֶּנּוּ בִּדְלִי. אוֹ שֶׁנִּקְצַץ הָאִילָן שֶׁל בֵּית הָאִילָנוֹת אֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מֵחַכִּירוֹ. וְאִם מַכַּת מְדִינָה הִיא כְּגוֹן שֶׁיָּבַשׁ הַנָּהָר מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מֵחַכִּירוֹ. הָיָה עוֹמֵד בְּתוֹךְ הַשָּׂדֶה וְאָמַר לוֹ בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין הַזֶּה אֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיר לְךָ בֵּית הָאִילָן זֶה אֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיר יָבֵשׁ הַמַּעְיָן אוֹ נִקְצַץ הָאִילָן מְנַכֶּה מֵחַכִּירוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא עוֹמֵד בְּתוֹכָהּ וְלֹא אָמַר לוֹ הַזֶּה אֶלָּא כְּמִי שֶּׁאוֹמֵר כְּמוֹת שֶׁהִיא עַתָּה אֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיר לְפִיכָךְ אִם לֹא הָיָה עוֹמֵד בְּתוֹכָהּ וְאָמַר לוֹ בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין אֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיר לְךָ אוֹ בֵּית הָאִילָן וְיָבֵשׁ הַמַּעְיָן אוֹ שֶׁנִּקְצַץ הָאִילָן אֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מֵחַכִּירוֹ: \n", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אוֹ הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וַאֲכָלָהּ חָגָב אוֹ נִשְׁתַּדְּפָה אִם אֵרַע דָּבָר זֶה לְרֹב הַשָּׂדוֹת שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מֵחַכִּירוֹ הַכּל לְפִי הַהֶפְסֵד שֶׁאֵרְעוֹ וְאִם לֹא פָּשְׁטָה הַמַּכָּה בְּרֹב הַשָּׂדוֹת אֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מֵחַכִּירוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּדְּפוּ כָּל הַשָּׂדוֹת שֶׁל בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע. נִשְׁתַּדְּפוּ כָּל הַשָּׂדוֹת שֶׁל הַשּׂוֹכֵר אוֹ הַמְקַבֵּל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁפָּשְׁטָה הַמַּכָּה בְּרֹב הַשָּׂדוֹת אֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מֵחַכִּירוֹ שֶׁאֵין זֶה הַהֶפְסֵד תָּלוּי אֶלָּא בַּשּׂוֹכֵר שֶׁהֲרֵי כָּל שְׂדוֹתָיו נִשְׁתַּדְּפוּ. הִתְנָה עָלָיו בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע שֶׁיִּזְרָעֶנָּה חִטִּים וּזְרָעָהּ שְׂעוֹרִים אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא זְרָעָהּ כְּלָל אוֹ שֶׁזְּרָעָהּ וְלֹא צָמְחָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּא חָגָב אוֹ שִׁדָּפוֹן וְהֻכְּתָה רֹב הַמְּדִינָה אֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מֵחַכִּירוֹ. וְעַד מָתַי חַיָּב לְהִטַּפֵּל וְלִזְרֹעַ פַּעַם אַחֶרֶת אִם לֹא צָמְחָה כָּל זְמַן שֶׁרָאוּי לִזְרִיעָה בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם: \n", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אוֹ הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לִקְצֹר יִקְצֹר וְאֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לַעֲקֹר. לַעֲקֹר יַעֲקֹר וְאֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לִקְצֹר. וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מְעַכְּבִין זֶה עַל זֶה. וּמָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לַחְרשׁ אַחֲרָיו יַחְרשׁ. מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהַשְׂכִּיר אִילָנוֹת עַל גַּב קַרְקַע מַשְׂכִּירִין וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִשְׂכִּיר לוֹ סְתָם בְּפָחוֹת מִן הַיָּדוּעַ. וּמָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְהַשְׂכִּיר אִילָנוֹת אֵין לוֹ אִילָנוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׂכַר מִמֶּנּוּ בְּיֶתֶר עַל הַיָּדוּעַ. הַכּל כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה: \n", + "הַחוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ בַּעֲשָׂרָה כּוֹר חִטִּים וְלָקְתָה נוֹתֵן לוֹ מִתּוֹכָהּ. הָיוּ חִטֶּיהָ יָפוֹת לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ הֲרֵינִי לוֹקֵחַ לְךָ מִן הַשּׁוּק אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן לוֹ מִתּוֹכָהּ. חָכַר מִמֶּנּוּ כֶּרֶם בַּעֲשָׂרָה סַלֵּי עֲנָבִים וְהִקְרִיסוּ אַחַר שֶׁנִּבְצְרוּ וְכֵן עֳמָרִים שֶׁלָקוּ אַחַר שֶׁנִּקְצְרוּ נוֹתֵן לוֹ מִתּוֹכָן. חֲכָרוֹ בַּעֲשָׂרָה כַּדֵּי יַיִן וְהֶחְמִיץ חַיָּב לִתֵּן לוֹ יַיִן טוֹב. חֲכָרָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ בְּמֵאָה עֳמָרִים שֶׁל אַסְפַּסְתָּא וּזְרָעָהּ מִין אַחֵר וְאַחַר כָּךְ חֲרָשָׁהּ וּזְרָעָהּ אַסְפַּסְתָּא וְלָקְתָה אוֹ שֶׁזְּרָעָהּ בַּתְּחִלָּה אַסְפַּסְתָּא וַחֲרָשָׁהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ זְרָעָהּ פַּעַם אַחֶרֶת וְלָקְתָה אֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן לוֹ מִתּוֹכָהּ אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן לוֹ אַסְפַּסְתָּא טוֹבָה שֶׁהֲרֵי שִׁנָּה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "הַחוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וְלֹא רָצָה לְנַכֵּשׁ וְאָמַר לוֹ מַה הֶפְסֵד יֵשׁ לְךָ הֲרֵינִי נוֹתֵן לְךָ חַכִּירְךָ אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ לְמָחָר אַתָּה יוֹצֵא מִמֶּנָּה וְהִיא מַעֲלָה עֲשָׂבִים. וַאֲפִלּוּ אָמַר לוֹ בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה אֲנִי חוֹרֵשׁ אוֹתָהּ אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ: \n", + "הַחוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ לְזָרְעָהּ שְׂעוֹרִים לֹא יִזְרָעֶנָּה חִטִּים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַחִטִּין מַכְחִישׁוֹת אֶת הַקַּרְקַע יֶתֶר מֵהַשְּׂעוֹרִים. שְׂכָרָהּ לְזָרְעָהּ חִטִּים יִזְרָעֶנָּה שְׂעוֹרִים. קִטְנִית לֹא יִזְרָעֶנָּה תְּבוּאָה. תְּבוּאָה יִזְרָעֶנָּה קִטְנִית. וּבְבָבֶל וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ לֹא יִזְרָעֶנָּה קִטְנִית מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַקִּטְנִית שָׁם מַכְחֶשֶׁת אֶת הָאָרֶץ: \n", + "הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ לְשָׁנִים מוּעָטוֹת אֵין לַמְקַבֵּל כְּלוּם בְּקוֹרַת הַשִּׁקְמָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ וְלֹא בְּשֶׁבַח הָאִילָנוֹת שֶׁיָּצְאוּ מֵאֲלֵיהֶן בַּשָּׂדֶה. אֲבָל מְחַשְּׁבִין לוֹ מְקוֹם הָאִילָנוֹת כְּאִלּוּ הָיָה בָּהֶן אוֹתוֹ זֶרַע שֶׁזָּרַע בְּכָל הַשָּׂדֶה. וְהוּא שֶׁצָּמְחוּ הָאִילָנוֹת בְּמָקוֹם הָרָאוּי לִזְרִיעָה אֲבָל אִם יָצְאוּ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִזְרִיעָה אֵין מְחַשְּׁבִין לוֹ כְּלוּם. וְאִם קִבְּלָהּ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים אוֹ יֶתֶר יֵשׁ לוֹ בְּקוֹרַת הַשִּׁקְמָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ. הִגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ לְהִסְתַּלֵּק מִן הַשָּׂדֶה וְהָיוּ שָׁם זְרָעִים שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא הִגִּיעוּ לְהִמָּכֵר אוֹ שֶׁנִּגְמְרוּ וְלֹא הִגִּיעַ יוֹם הַשּׁוּק לְמָכְרָן שָׁמִין אוֹתָן וְנוֹטֵל מִבַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁחוֹלְקִין הַמְקַבֵּל וּבַעַל הַקַּרְקַע בַּתְּבוּאָה כָּךְ חוֹלְקִין בַּתֶּבֶן וּבַקַּשׁ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁחוֹלְקִין בַּיַּיִן כָּךְ חוֹלְקִין בַּזְּמוֹרוֹת. אֲבָל הַקָּנִים הַמַּעֲמִידִים תַּחַת הַגְּפָנִים אִם קָנוּ אוֹתָן בְּשֻׁתָּפוּת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חוֹלְקִין בָּהֶן וְאִם הֵן מִשֶּׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן זֶה שֶׁקָּנָה אוֹתָן הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁלּוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ לִטַּע מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה עֲשָׂרָה בּוֹרְאוֹת לִסְאָה. יֶתֶר עַל זֶה מְגַלְגְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַכּל: \n", + "הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וְלֹא עָשְׂתָה אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ כְּדֵי שֶׁתּוֹצִיא סָאתַיִם יֶתֶר עַל הַהוֹצָאָה חַיָּב הַמְקַבֵּל לִטָּפֵל בָּהּ. שֶׁכָּךְ כּוֹתֵב לְבַעַל הַקַּרְקַע אָנָּא אֵיקוּם וְאָנִיר וְאֶזְרַע וְאֶקְצֹר וְאֶעֱמֹר וְאָדוּשׁ וְאֶזְרֶה וְאַעֲמִיד כְּרִי לְפָנֶיךָ וְתִטּל אֶת חֶצְיוֹ אוֹ מַה שֶּׁיִּתְּנוּ וַאֲנִי אֶטּל הַשְּׁאָר בִּשְׂכַר עֲמָלִי וּבְמַה שֶּׁהוֹצֵאתִי: \n", + "הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וְאַחַר שֶׁזָּכָה בָּהּ הוֹבִירָהּ שָׁמִין אוֹתָהּ כַּמָּה הִיא רְאוּיָה לַעֲשׂוֹת וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מַגִּיעַ לוֹ. שֶׁכָּךְ כּוֹתֵב לְבַעַל הַקַּרְקַע אִם אוֹבִיר וְלֹא אַעֲבִיד אֲשַׁלֵּם בְּמֵיטָבָא. וְהוּא הַדִּין אִם הוֹבִיר מִקְצָתָהּ. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה נִתְחַיֵּב לְשַׁלֵּם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַק עַל עַצְמוֹ דָּבָר קָצוּב כְּדֵי שֶׁנֹּאמַר הֲרֵי הִיא כְּאַסְמַכְתָּא אֶלָּא הִתְנָה שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּם בְּמֵיטָבָא וּלְפִיכָךְ גָּמַר וְשִׁעְבֵּד עַצְמוֹ. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר אִם אוֹבִיר וְלֹא אַעֲבִיד אֶתֵּן לְךָ מֵאָה דִּינָרִין הֲרֵי זוֹ אַסְמַכְתָּא וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁרְאוּיָה לַעֲשׂוֹת בִּלְבַד: \n", + "הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה לְזָרְעָהּ שֻׁמְשְׁמִין וּזְרָעָהּ חִטִּים וְעָשְׂתָה חִטִּים שֶׁשָּׁוִין כַּמָּה שֶׁהִיא רְאוּיָה לַעֲשׂוֹת מִן הַשֻּׁמְשְׁמִין אֵין לוֹ עָלָיו אֶלָּא תַּרְעֹמֶת. עָשְׂתָה פָּחוֹת מִמַּה שֶּׁהִיא רְאוּיָה לַעֲשׂוֹת מִן הַשֻּׁמְשְׁמִין מְשַׁלֵּם לוֹ הַמְקַבֵּל כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁהִיא רְאוּיָה לַעֲשׂוֹת מִן הַשֻּׁמְשְׁמִין. עָשְׂתָה חִטִּים יֶתֶר מִמַּה שֶּׁהִיא רְאוּיָה לַעֲשׂוֹת מִן הַשֻּׁמְשְׁמִין חוֹלְקִין לְפִי הַתְּנַאי שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּשְׂתַּכֵּר בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע: \n" + ], + [ + "הַשׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֲלִים וְאָמַר לָהֶם לְהַשְׁכִּים וּלְהַעֲרִיב מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְהַשְׁכִּים וְשֶׁלֹּא לְהַעֲרִיב אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְכוּפָן. מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לָזוּן יָזוּן. לְסַפֵּק בִּגְרוֹגָרוֹת אוֹ בִּתְמָרִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן לְפוֹעֲלִים יְסֻפַּק הַכּל כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה: ", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל וְאָמַר לוֹ כְּאֶחָד וְכִשְׁנַיִם מִבְּנֵי הָעִיר רוֹאִין הַפָּחוּת שֶׁבַּשְּׂכִירוּת וְהַיָּתֵר שֶׁבַּשְּׂכִירוּת וּמְשַׁמְּנִין בֵּינֵיהֶן: ", + "אָמַר לִשְׁלוּחוֹ צֵא וּשְׂכֹר לִי פּוֹעֲלִים בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה וְהָלַךְ וּשְׂכָרָן בְּאַרְבָּעָה אִם אָמַר לָהֶם הַשָּׁלִיחַ שְׂכַרְכֶם עָלַי נוֹתֵן לָהֶם אַרְבָּעָה וְנוֹטֵל מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת שְׁלֹשָׁה וּמַפְסִיד אֶחָד מִכִּיסוֹ. אָמַר לָהֶם שְׂכַרְכֶם עַל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת נוֹתֵן לָהֶם בַּעַל הַבַּיִת כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה. הָיָה בַּמְּדִינָה מִי שֶׁנִּשְׂכַּר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה וּמִי שֶׁנִּשְׂכַּר בְּאַרְבָּעָה אֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן לָהֶם אֶלָּא שְׁלֹשָׁה וְיֵשׁ לָהֶם תַּרְעֹמֶת עַל הַשָּׁלִיחַ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁאֵין מְלַאכְתָּן נִכֶּרֶת אֲבָל הָיְתָה מְלַאכְתָּן נִכֶּרֶת וַהֲרֵי הִיא שָׁוָה אַרְבָּעָה נוֹתֵן לָהֶם בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אַרְבָּעָה שֶׁאִלּוּ לֹא אָמַר לָהֶם שְׁלוּחוֹ אַרְבָּעָה לֹא טָרְחוּ וְעָשׂוּ שָׁוֶה אַרְבָּעָה. אָמַר לוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שְׂכֹר לִי בְּאַרְבָּעָה וְהָלַךְ הַשָּׁלִיחַ וְשָׂכַר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֲרֵי מְלַאכְתָּן שָׁוָה אַרְבָּעָה אֵין לָהֶם אֶלָּא שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁהֲרֵי קִבְּלוּ עַל עַצְמָן וְיֵשׁ לָהֶם תַּרְעֹמֶת עַל הַשָּׁלִיחַ. אָמַר לוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה וְהָלַךְ הַשָּׁלִיחַ וְאָמַר לָהֶם בְּאַרְבָּעָה וְאָמְרוּ הֲרֵינוּ כְּמָה שֶּׁאָמַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֵין דַּעְתָּם אֶלָּא שֶׁיִּתֵּן בַּעַל הַבַּיִת יֶתֶר עַל אַרְבָּעָה לְפִיכָךְ שָׁמִין מַה שֶּׁעָשׂוּ אִם שָׁוָה אַרְבָּעָה נוֹטְלִין אַרְבָּעָה מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת וְאִם אֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ אוֹ אֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה אֵין לָהֶם אֶלָּא שְׁלֹשָׁה. אָמַר לוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת בְּאַרְבָּעָה וְהָלַךְ הַשָּׁלִיחַ וְאָמַר לָהֶם בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ כְּמָה שֶׁאָמַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּלַאכְתָּן שָׁוֶה אַרְבָּעָה אֵין לָהֶם אֶלָּא שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁהֲרֵי שָׁמְעוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה וְקִבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶם: ", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֲלִים וְהִטְעוּ אֶת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הִטְעָה אוֹתָם אֵין לָהֶם זֶה עַל זֶה אֶלָּא תַּרְעֹמֶת. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁלֹּא הָלְכוּ. אֲבָל הָלְכוּ הַחַמָּרִין וְלֹא מָצְאוּ תְּבוּאָה. פּוֹעֲלִים וּמָצְאוּ שָׂדֶה כְּשֶׁהִיא לָחָה. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׂכַר לְהַשְׁקוֹת הַשָּׂדֶה וּמְצָאוּהָ שֶׁנִּתְמַלְּאָה מַיִם. אִם בִּקֵּר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מְלַאכְתּוֹ מִבָּעֶרֶב וּמָצָא שֶׁצְּרִיכָה פּוֹעֲלִים אֵין לַפּוֹעֲלִים כְּלוּם מַה בְּיָדוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת. וְאִם לֹא בִּקֵּר נוֹתֵן לָהֶם שְׂכָרָן כְּפוֹעֵל בָּטֵל שֶׁאֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה הַבָּא טָעוּן לְבָא רֵיקָן וְעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה לְבַטֵּל. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁלֹּא הִתְחִילוּ בִּמְלָאכָה. אֲבָל אִם הִתְחִיל הַפּוֹעֵל בַּמְּלָאכָה וְחָזַר בּוֹ אֲפִלּוּ בַּחֲצִי הַיּוֹם חוֹזֵר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כה נה) \"כִּי לִי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲבָדִים\" וְלֹא עֲבָדִים לַעֲבָדִים. וְכֵיצַד דִּין הַפּוֹעֵל שֶׁחָזַר בּוֹ אַחַר שֶׁהִתְחִיל. שָׁמִין לוֹ מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה וְנוֹטֵל. וְאִם קַבְּלָן הוּא שָׁמִין לוֹ מַה שֶּׁעָתִיד לַעֲשׂוֹת. בֵּין שֶׁהוּזְלוּ בְּעֵת שֶׁשְּׂכָרָן בֵּין לֹא הוּזְלוּ בֵּין שֶׁהוּזְלָה מְלָאכָה אַחַר כֵּן בֵּין לֹא הוּזְלָה שָׁמִין לוֹ מַה שֶּׁעָתִיד לַעֲשׂוֹת. כֵּיצַד. קִבֵּל מִמֶּנּוּ קָמָה לִקְצֹר בִּשְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים קָצַר חֶצְיָהּ וְהִנִּיחַ חֶצְיָהּ. בֶּגֶד לֶאֱרֹג בִּשְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים אָרַג חֶצְיוֹ וְהִנִּיחַ חֶצְיוֹ. שָׁמִין לוֹ מַה שֶּׁעָתִיד לַעֲשׂוֹת. אִם הָיָה שָׁוֶה שִׁשָּׁה דִּינָרִין נוֹתֵן לוֹ שֶׁקֶל אוֹ יִגְמְרוּ אֶת מְלַאכְתָּן. וְאִם הָיָה הַנִּשְׁאָר יָפֶה שְׁנַיִם דִּינָרִין אֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן לָהֶן אֶלָּא סֶלַע שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא עָשׂוּ אֶלָּא חֲצִי מְלָאכָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ אָבוּד אֲבָל בְּדָבָר הָאָבוּד כְּגוֹן פִּשְׁתָּנוֹ לְהַעֲלוֹת מִן הַמִּשְׁרָה אוֹ שֶׁשָּׂכַר חֲמוֹר לְהָבִיא חֲלִילִין לְמֵת אוֹ לְכַלָּה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן אֶחָד פּוֹעֵל וְאֶחָד קַבְּלָן אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר בּוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נֶאֱנַס כְּגוֹן שֶׁחָלָה אוֹ שָׁמַע שֶׁמֵּת לוֹ מֵת. וְאִם לֹא נֶאֱנַס וְחָזַר בּוֹ שׂוֹכֵר עֲלֵיהֶן אוֹ מַטְעָן. כֵּיצַד מַטְעָן. אוֹמֵר לָהֶם סֶלַע קָצַצְתִּי לָכֶם בּוֹאוּ וּטְלוּ שְׁתַּיִם עַד שֶׁיִּגְמְרוּ מְלַאכְתָּן וְלֹא יִתֵּן לָהֶם אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁפָּסַק תְּחִלָּה וַאֲפִלּוּ נָתַן לָהֶם הַשְּׁתַּיִם מַחְזִיר מֵהֶן הַתּוֹסֶפֶת. כֵּיצַד שׂוֹכֵר עֲלֵיהֶן. שׂוֹכֵר פּוֹעֲלִים אֲחֵרִים וְגוֹמְרִים מְלַאכְתָּן שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאבַד וְכָל שֶׁיּוֹסִיף לְאֵלּוּ הַפּוֹעֲלִין הָאֲחֵרִים עַל מַה שֶּׁפָּסַק לָרִאשׁוֹנִים נוֹטֵל מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנִים. עַד כַּמָּה עַד כְּדֵי שְׂכָרָן שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹנִים. וְאִם הָיָה לָהֶם מָמוֹן תַּחַת יָדוֹ שׂוֹכֵר לְהַשְׁלִים הַמְּלָאכָה עַד אַרְבָּעִים וַחֲמִשִּׁים זוּז בְּכָל יוֹם לְכָל פּוֹעֵל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׂכַר הַפּוֹעֵל שְׁלֹשָׁה אוֹ אַרְבָּעָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁאֵין שָׁם פּוֹעֲלִים לִשְׂכֹּר בִּשְׂכָרָן לְהַשְׁלִים הַמְּלָאכָה אֲבָל יֵשׁ פּוֹעֲלִים לִשְׂכֹּר בִּשְׂכָרָן וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ צֵא וּשְׂכֹר מֵאֵלּוּ לְהַשְׁלִים מְלַאכְתְּךָ וְלֹא תֹּאבַד בֵּין שׂוֹכֵר בֵּין קַבְּלָן אֵין לוֹ עֲלֵיהֶן אֶלָּא תַּרְעֹמֶת וְשָׁמִין לַשּׂוֹכֵר מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה וְלַקַּבְּלָן מַה שֶּׁעָתִיד לַעֲשׂוֹת: ", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל וְנֶאֱחָז לַעֲבוֹדַת הַמֶּלֶךְ לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ הֲרֵינִי לְפָנֶיךָ אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכַר מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה: ", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל לְהַשְׁקוֹת אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה מִזֶּה הַנָּהָר וּפָסַק הַנָּהָר בַּחֲצִי הַיּוֹם אִם אֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהַפְסִיק אֵין לָהֶן אֶלָּא שְׂכַר מַה שֶּׁעָשׂוּ. וְכֵן אִם דַּרְכּוֹ שֶׁיַּפְסִיקוּ אוֹתוֹ בְּנֵי הָעִיר וְהִפְסִיקוּהוּ בַּחֲצִי הַיּוֹם אֵין לָהֶן אֶלָּא שְׂכַר מַה שֶּׁעָשׂוּ שֶׁהֲרֵי יָדְעוּ הַפּוֹעֲלִים דַּרְכּוֹ שֶׁל נָהָר. וְאִם דַּרְכּוֹ לְהַפְסִיק מֵאֵלָיו נוֹתֵן לָהֶם שְׂכַר כָּל הַיּוֹם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לְהוֹדִיעָם. שְׂכָרָן לְהַשְׁקוֹת הַשָּׂדֶה וּבָא הַמָּטָר וְהִשְׁקָה אֵין לָהֶן אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁעָשׂוּ. בָּא הַנָּהָר וְהִשְׁקָה נוֹתֵן לָהֶן כָּל שְׂכָרָן. מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם נִסְתַּיְּעוּ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּפוֹעֵל. אֲבָל מִי שֶׁפָּסַק עִם אֲרִיסוֹ שֶׁאִם יַשְׁקֶה שָׂדֶה זוֹ אַרְבַּע פְּעָמִים בְּיוֹם יִטּל חֲצִי הַפֵּרוֹת וְכָל הָאֲרִיסִין שֶׁהֵן מַשְׁקִין שְׁתֵּי פְּעָמִים אֵינָן נוֹטְלִין אֶלָּא רְבִיעַ הַפֵּרוֹת וּבָא הַמָּטָר וְלֹא הֻצְרַךְ לִדְלוֹת וּלְהַשְׁקוֹת נוֹטֵל חֲצִי הַפֵּרוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁפָּסַק עִמּוֹ שֶׁהָאָרִיס כְּשֻׁתָּף וְאֵינוֹ כְּפוֹעֵל: ", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה כָּל הַיּוֹם וְשָׁלְמָה הַמְּלָאכָה בַּחֲצִי הַיּוֹם אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ מְלָאכָה אַחֶרֶת כְּמוֹתָהּ אוֹ קַלָּה מִמֶּנָּה עוֹשֶׂה שְׁאָר הַיּוֹם. וְאִם אֵין לוֹ מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ כְּפוֹעֵל בָּטֵל. וְאִם הָיָה מִן הַחוֹפְרִים אוֹ עוֹבְדֵי אֲדָמָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לִטְרֹחַ הַרְבֵּה וְאִם לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה בִּמְלָאכָה יֶחֱלֶה נוֹתֵן לוֹ כָּל שְׂכָרוֹ: ", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל לְהָבִיא לוֹ שְׁלִיחוּת מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם וְהָלַךְ וְלֹא מָצָא שָׁם מַה יָּבִיא נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ מָשְׁלָם. שְׂכָרוֹ לְהָבִיא קָנִים לַכֶּרֶם וְהָלַךְ וְלֹא מָצָא וְלֹא הֵבִיא נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ מָשְׁלָם. שְׂכָרוֹ לְהָבִיא כְּרוּב וּדוֹרְמַסְקְנִין לַחוֹלֶה וְהָלַךְ וּמְצָאוֹ שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ הִבְרִיא לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ טל מַה שֶּׁהֵבֵאתָ בִּשְׂכָרְךָ אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן לוֹ כָּל שְׂכָרוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמּוֹ בְּשֶׁלּוֹ וְהֶרְאָהוּ בְּשֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ נוֹתֵן כָּל שְׂכָרוֹ וְחוֹזֵר וְלוֹקֵחַ מֵחֲבֵרוֹ מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנָה בְּזוֹ הַמְּלָאכָה: ", + "הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמּוֹ בְּתֶבֶן וְקַשׁ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וְאָמַר לוֹ טל מַה שֶּׁעָשִׂיתָ בִּשְׂכָרְךָ אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. וְאִם מִשֶּׁקִּבֵּל עָלָיו אָמַר לוֹ הֵילָךְ שְׂכָרְךָ וַאֲנִי אֶטּל אֶת שֶׁלִּי אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ: ", + "מְצִיאַת הַפּוֹעֵל לְעַצְמוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ עֲשֵׂה עִמִּי מְלָאכָה הַיּוֹם. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם אָמַר לוֹ עֲדֹר עִמִּי הַיּוֹם. אֲבָל אִם שְׂכָרוֹ לִלְקֹט מְצִיאוֹת כְּגוֹן שֶׁחָסַר הַנָּהָר וּשְׂכָרוֹ לִלְקֹט הַדָּגִים הַנִּמְצָאִין בַּאֲגַם הֲרֵי מְצִיאָתוֹ לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת וַאֲפִלּוּ מָצָא כִּיס מָלֵא דִּינָרִין: " + ], + [ + "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן בֵּין שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ מָעוֹת בֵּין שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ פֵּרוֹת בֵּין שֶׁמִּשְׁכְּנוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָתוֹ בֵּין שֶׁמִּשְׁכְּנוֹ אַחַר שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ הֲרֵי זֶה שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. לְפִיכָךְ אִם אָבַד הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן אוֹ נִגְנַב חַיָּב בְּדָמָיו. וְאִם נֶאֱנַס הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּלְקַח בְּלִסְטִים מְזֻיָּן וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ מִשְּׁאָר אֳנָסִין יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס וִישַׁלֵּם בַּעַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן אֶת חוֹבוֹ עַד פְּרוּטָה אַחֲרוֹנָה: \n", + "כָּל הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ שְׁמֹר לִי וְאֶשְׁמֹר לְךָ הֲרֵי זֶה שְׁמִירָה בַּבְּעָלִים. אָמַר לוֹ שְׁמֹר לִי הַיּוֹם וְאֶשְׁמֹר לְךָ לְמָחָר. הַשְׁאִילֵנִי הַיּוֹם וַאֲנִי אַשְׁאִילְךָ לְמָחָר. שְׁמֹר לִי הַיּוֹם וְאַשְׁאִילְךָ לְמָחָר. הַשְׁאִילֵנִי הַיּוֹם וְאֶשְׁמֹר לְךָ לְמָחָר. כֻּלָּן נַעֲשׂוּ שׁוֹמְרֵי שָׂכָר זֶה לָזֶה: \n", + "כָּל הָאֻמָּנִין שׁוֹמְרֵי שָׂכָר הֵן. וְכֻלָּן שֶׁאָמְרוּ טל אֶת שֶׁלְּךָ וְהָבֵא מָעוֹת אוֹ שֶׁאוֹמֵר לוֹ הָאֻמָּן גְּמַרְתִּיו וְלֹא לָקְחוּ הַבְּעָלִים אֶת הַכְּלִי הָאֻמָּן שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר הָאֻמָּן הָבֵא מָעוֹת וְטל שֶׁלְּךָ עֲדַיִן הוּא נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר כְּשֶׁהָיָה: \n", + "נָתַן לְאֻמָּנִין לְתַקֵּן וְקִלְקְלוּ חַיָּבִין לְשַׁלֵּם. כֵּיצַד. נָתַן לְחֵרֵשׁ שִׁדָּה תֵּבָה וּמִגְדָּל לִקְבֹּעַ בָּהֶן מַסְמֵר וּשְׁבָרוֹ אוֹ שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ אֶת הָעֵצִים לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵהֶן שִׁדָּה תֵּבָה וּמִגְדָּל וְנִשְׁבְּרוּ אַחַר שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ מְשַׁלֵּם לוֹ דְּמֵי שִׁדָּה תֵּבָה וּמִגְדָּל. שֶׁאֵין הָאֻמָּן קוֹנֶה בְּשֶׁבַח הַכְּלִי. נָתַן צֶמֶר לְצַבָּע וְהִקְדִיחַתּוּ יוֹרָה נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי צִמְרוֹ. צְבָעוֹ כָּעוּר אוֹ נְתָנוֹ לוֹ לְצָבְעוֹ אָדֹם וּצְבָעוֹ שָׁחוֹר שָׁחוֹר וּצְבָעוֹ אָדֹם. נָתַן עֵצִים לְחָרָשׁ לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵהֶן כִּסֵּא נָאֶה וְעָשָׂה כִּסֵּא רַע אוֹ סַפְסָל. אִם הַשֶּׁבַח יָתֵר עַל הַהוֹצָאָה נוֹתֵן בַּעַל הַכְּלִי אֶת הַהוֹצָאָה וְאִם הַהוֹצָאָה יְתֵרָה עַל הַשֶּׁבַח נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח בִּלְבַד. אָמַר בַּעַל הַכְּלִי אֵינִי רוֹצֶה בְּתַקָּנָה זוֹ אֶלָּא יִתֵּן לִי דְּמֵי הַצֶּמֶר אוֹ דְּמֵי הָעֵצִים אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר הָאֻמָּן הֵא לְךָ דְּמֵי צִמְרְךָ אוֹ דְּמֵי עֵצְךָ וְלֵךְ אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ שֶׁאֵין הָאֻמָּן קוֹנֶה בְּשֶׁבַח כְּלִי שֶׁעָשָׂה: \n", + "הַמּוֹלִיךְ חִטִּין לִטְחֹן וְלֹא לְתָתָן וַעֲשָׂאָן סֻבִּין אוֹ מֻרְסָן. נָתַן הַקֶּמַח לְנַחְתּוֹם וַעֲשָׂאוֹ פַּת נְפוֹלִין. בְּהֵמָה לְטַבָּח וְנִבְּלָהּ. חַיָּבִין לְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵיהֶן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן נוֹשְׂאֵי שָׂכָר. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיָה טַבָּח מֻמְחֶה וְשָׁחַט בְּחִנָּם פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם וְאֵינוֹ מֻמְחֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בְּחִנָּם חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. וְכֵן הַמַּרְאֶה דִּינָר לְשֻׁלְחָנִי וְאָמַר לוֹ יָפֶה הוּא וְנִמְצָא רַע אִם בְּשָׂכָר רָאָהוּ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בָּקִי וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהִתְלַמֵּד. וְאִם בְּחִנָּם רָאָהוּ פָּטוּר וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בָּקִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהִתְלַמֵּד. וְאִם אֵינוֹ בָּקִי חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בְּחִנָּם וְהוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר לַשֻּׁלְחָנִי עָלֶיךָ אֲנִי סוֹמֵךְ אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ הַדְּבָרִים מַרְאִין שֶׁהוּא סוֹמֵךְ עַל רְאִיָּתוֹ וְלֹא יַרְאֶה לַאֲחֵרִים. טַבָּח שֶׁעָשָׂה בְּחִנָּם וְנִבֵּל וְכֵן שֻׁלְחָנִי שֶׁאָמַר יָפֶה וְנִמְצָא רַע וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה עֲלֵיהֶן לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵן מֻמְחִין. וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיאוּ רְאָיָה מְשַׁלְּמִין: \n", + "מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַנּוֹטֵעַ אִילָנוֹת נוֹטֵל חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח וּבַעַל הַקַּרְקַע חֲצִי וְנָטַע וְהִשְׁבִּיחַ וְנָטַע וְהִפְסִיד מְחַשְּׁבִין לוֹ חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ וּמְנַכִּין מִמֶּנּוּ מַה שֶּׁהִפְסִיד וְנוֹטֵל הַשְּׁאָר. וַאֲפִלּוּ הִתְנָה עַל עַצְמוֹ שֶׁאִם הִפְסִיד לֹא יִטּל כְּלוּם הֲרֵי זֶה אַסְמַכְתָּא וְאֵין מְנַכִּין לוֹ אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁהִפְסִיד. הָיָה מִנְהָגָם שֶׁיִּטּל הַנּוֹטֵעַ מֶחֱצָה וּבַעַל הַקַּרְקַע מֶחֱצָה וְכָךְ הָיָה מִנְהָגָם שֶׁיִּטּל הָאָרִיס שְׁלִישׁ. אִם נָטַע הַנּוֹטֵעַ וְהִשְׁבִּיחַ וְרָצָה לְהִסְתַּלֵּק שֶׁנִּמְצָא בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע צָרִיךְ לְהוֹרִיד לָהּ אָרִיס הֲרֵי בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע מוֹרִיד אָרִיס וְיִטּל בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע חֶצְיוֹ וְלֹא יַפְסִיד בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע כְּלוּם וְיִטּל הָאָרִיס שְׁלִישׁ וְהַשְּׁתוּת הַנִּשְׁאָר שֶׁל נוֹטֵעַ שֶׁהֲרֵי סִלֵּק עַצְמוֹ בִּרְצוֹנוֹ: \n", + "הַנּוֹטֵעַ אִילָנוֹת לִבְנֵי הַמְּדִינָה שֶׁהִפְסִיד. וְכֵן טַבָּח שֶׁל בְּנֵי הָעִיר שֶׁנִּבֵּל הַבְּהֵמוֹת. וְהַמַּקִּיז דָּם שֶׁחָבַל. וְהַסּוֹפֵר שֶׁטָּעָה בִּשְׁטָרוֹת. וּמְלַמֵּד תִּינוֹקוֹת שֶׁפָּשַׁע בְּתִינוֹקוֹת וְלֹא לִמֵּד אוֹ לִמֵּד בְּטָעוּת. וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בְּאֵלּוּ הָאֻמָּנִים שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיַּחְזִירוּ הַהֶפְסֵד שֶׁהִפְסִידוּ. מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתָן בְּלֹא הַתְרָאָה שֶׁהֵן כְּמֻתְרִין וְעוֹמְדִין עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּדְּלוּ בִּמְלַאכְתָּן הוֹאִיל וְהֶעֱמִידוּ אוֹתָן הַצִּבּוּר עֲלֵיהֶם: \n" + ], + [ + "מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לִתֵּן שְׂכַר הַשָּׂכִיר בִּזְמַנּוֹ שׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד טו) \"בְּיוֹמוֹ תִתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ\" וְגוֹ'. וְאִם אִחֲרוֹ לְאַחַר זְמַנּוֹ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד טו) \"וְלֹא תָבוֹא עָלָיו הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ\". וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. אֶחָד שְׂכַר הָאָדָם וְאֶחָד שְׂכַר הַבְּהֵמָה וְאֶחָד שְׂכַר הַכֵּלִים חַיָּב לִתֵּן בִּזְמַנּוֹ וְאִם אִחֵר לְאַחַר זְמַן עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה. וְגֵר תּוֹשָׁב יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם בְּיוֹמוֹ תִתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ וְאִם אִחֲרוֹ אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה: \n", + "כָּל הַכּוֹבֵשׁ שְׂכַר שָׂכִיר כְּאִלּוּ נָטַל נַפְשׁוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד טו) \"וְאֵלָיו הוּא נשֵֹׁא אֶת נַפְשׁוֹ\". וְעוֹבֵר בְּאַרְבַּע אַזְהָרוֹת וַעֲשֵׂה. עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם בַּל (ויקרא יט יג) \"תַּעֲשֹׁק\" וּמִשּׁוּם בַּל (ויקרא יט יג) \"תִּגְזל\" וּמִשּׁוּם לֹא תָלִין פְּעֵלַּת שָׂכִיר וּמִשּׁוּם (דברים כד טו) \"לֹא תָבוֹא עָלָיו הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ\" וּמִשּׁוּם (דברים כד טו) \"בְּיוֹמוֹ תִתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ\". אֵי זֶהוּ זְמַנּוֹ שְׂכִיר יוֹם גּוֹבֶה כָּל הַלַּיְלָה וְעָלָיו נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא יט יג) \"לֹא תָלִין פְּעֵלַּת שָׂכִיר אִתְּךָ עַד בֹּקֶר\". וּשְׂכִיר לַיְלָה גּוֹבֶה כָּל הַיּוֹם וְעָלָיו נֶאֱמַר בְּיוֹמוֹ תִתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ. וּשְׂכִיר שָׁעוֹת שֶׁל יוֹם גּוֹבֶה כָּל הַיּוֹם וּשְׂכִיר שָׁעוֹת שֶׁל לַיְלָה גּוֹבֶה כָּל הַלַּיְלָה. שְׂכִיר שַׁבָּת שְׂכִיר חֹדֶשׁ שְׂכִיר שָׁנָה שְׂכִיר שָׁבוּעַ יָצָא בַּיּוֹם גּוֹבֶה כָּל הַיּוֹם יָצָא בַּלַּיְלָה גּוֹבֶה כָּל (אוֹתוֹ) הַלַּיְלָה: \n", + "נָתַן טַלִּיתוֹ לְאֻמָּן וּגְמָרָהּ וְהוֹדִיעוֹ אֲפִלּוּ אִחֲרוֹ עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהַכְּלִי בְּיַד הָאֻמָּן אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר. נְתָנָהּ בַּחֲצִי הַיּוֹם כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁקְעָה עָלָיו חַמָּה עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם בַּל (ויקרא יט יג) \"תָּלִין\" שֶׁהַקַּבְּלָנוּת כִּשְׂכִירוּת הִיא וְחַיָּב לִתֵּן לוֹ בִּזְמַנּוֹ: \n", + "הָאוֹמֵר לִשְׁלוּחוֹ צֵא וּשְׂכֹר לִי פּוֹעֲלִים. אָמַר לָהֶם שְׂכַרְכֶם עַל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שְׁנֵיהֶם אֵינָן עוֹבְרִין מִשּׁוּם בַּל (ויקרא יט יג) \"תָּלִין\" זֶה לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא שְׂכָרָן וְזֶה לְפִי שֶׁאֵין פְּעֻלָּתָן אֶצְלוֹ. וְאִם לֹא אָמַר לָהֶם שְׂכַרְכֶם עַל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הַשָּׁלִיחַ עוֹבֵר. אֵין הַשּׂוֹכֵר עוֹבֵר אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁתְּבָעוֹ הַשָּׂכִיר וְלֹא נָתַן לוֹ אֲבָל אִם לֹא תְּבָעוֹ אוֹ שֶׁתְּבָעוֹ וְלֹא הָיָה לוֹ מַה יִּתֵּן לוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהִמְחָהוּ אֵצֶל אַחֵר וְקִבֵּל הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר: \n", + "הַמַּשְׁהֶה שְׂכַר שָׂכִיר עַד אַחַר זְמַנּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכְּבָר עָבַר בַּעֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב לִתֵּן מִיָּד. וְכָל עֵת שֶׁיִּשְׁהֶה עוֹבֵר עַל לָאו שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ג כח) \"אַל תֹּאמַר לְרֵעֲךָ לֵךְ וָשׁוּב\": \n", + "כָּל שָׂכִיר שֶׁשְּׂכָרוֹ בְּעֵדִים וּתְבָעוֹ בִּזְמַנּוֹ וְאָמַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת נָתַתִּי לְךָ שְׂכָרְךָ וְהַשָּׂכִיר אוֹמֵר לֹא נָטַלְתִּי כְּלוּם תִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע הַשָּׂכִיר בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ וְיִטּל כְּדִין כָּל נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבַּעַל הַבַּיִת טָרוּד בְּפוֹעֲלָיו וְזֶה הַשָּׂכִיר נוֹשֵׂא נַפְשׁוֹ לָזֶה. אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַשָּׂכִיר קָטָן הַשָּׂכִיר נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. שְׂכָרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵדִים מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם וְלֹא שְׂכַרְתִּיךָ נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר שְׂכַרְתִּיךָ וְנָתַתִּי לְךָ שְׂכָרְךָ וְיִשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הֶסֵּת שֶׁנָּתַן אוֹ שְׁבוּעַת הַתּוֹרָה אִם הוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת כִּשְׁאָר הַטְּעָנוֹת. הָיָה לוֹ עֵד אֶחָד שֶׁשְּׂכָרוֹ אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל לוֹ כְּלוּם וְכֵן אִם תְּבָעוֹ אַחֵר זְמַנּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשְּׂכָרוֹ בְּעֵדִים הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה יִשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הֶסֵּת. הֵבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁתְּבָעוֹ כָּל זְמַנּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל כָּל אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם שֶׁל תְּבִיעָה. כֵּיצַד. הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה עִמּוֹ בְּיוֹם שֵׁנִי עַד הָעֶרֶב זְמַנּוֹ כָּל לֵיל שְׁלִישִׁי וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. וְאִם הֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁהָיָה תּוֹבְעוֹ כָּל לֵיל שְׁלִישִׁי הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל כָּל יוֹם שְׁלִישִׁי. אֲבָל מִלֵּיל רְבִיעִי וָהָלְאָה הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. וְכֵן אִם הֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁהָיָה תּוֹבְעוֹ וְהוֹלֵךְ עַד יוֹם חֲמִישִׁי הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל כָּל יוֹם חֲמִישִׁי: \n", + "בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹמֵר שְׁתַּיִם קָצַצְתִּי לְךָ וְהַשָּׂכִיר אוֹמֵר שָׁלֹשׁ קָצַצְתָּ לִי לֹא תִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע הַשָּׂכִיר כָּאן אֶלָּא הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכְּבָר נָתַן לוֹ שְׁתַּיִם אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הֵילָךְ הֲרֵי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת נִשְׁבָּע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ וְדָבָר זֶה תַּקָּנַת חֲכָמִים הוּא כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֵלֵךְ הַשָּׂכִיר בְּפַחֵי נֶפֶשׁ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁשְּׂכָרוֹ בְּעֵדִים וְלֹא יָדְעוּ כַּמָּה פָּסַק לוֹ וּתְבָעוֹ בִּזְמַנּוֹ אֲבָל אִם שְׂכָרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵדִים אוֹ שֶׁתְּבָעוֹ אַחַר זְמַנּוֹ יִשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הֶסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא קָצַץ לוֹ אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁכְּבָר נָתַן לוֹ אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁאַר לוֹ אֶצְלוֹ אֶלָּא זֶה שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הֵילָךְ כְּדִין כָּל הַטְּעָנוֹת: \n", + "הַנּוֹתֵן טַלִּיתוֹ לְאֻמָּן אֻמָּן אוֹמֵר שְׁנַיִם קָצַצְתָּ לִי וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא קָצַצְתִּי אֶלָּא אֶחָד כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהַטַּלִּית בְּיַד הָאֻמָּן אִם יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן שֶׁהִיא לְקוּחָה בְּיָדוֹ הֲרֵי הָאֻמָּן נִשְׁבָּע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ וְנוֹטֵל. וְיָכוֹל לִטְעֹן שֶׁהִיא בִּשְׂכָרוֹ עַד כְּדֵי דָּמֶיהָ. וְאִם יָצָאת טַלִּית מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ אוֹ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ חֲזָקָה וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן שֶׁהִיא לְקוּחָה בְּיָדוֹ הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה יִשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַטַּלִּית הֶסֵּת אוֹ שְׁבוּעַת הַתּוֹרָה אִם הוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת כְּדִין כָּל הַטְּעָנוֹת. שֶׁאֵין זֶה כְּדִין הַשָּׂכִיר: \n", + "שָׂכִיר הַבָּא לְהִשָּׁבַע אֵין מַחֲמִירִין עָלָיו וְאֵין מְגַלְגְּלִין עָלָיו כְּלָל אֶלָּא נִשְׁבָּע שֶׁלֹּא נָטַל וְיִטּל. וּלְכָל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין אֵין מְקִלִּין חוּץ מִן הַשָּׂכִיר שֶׁמְּקִלִּין עָלָיו וּפוֹתְחִין לוֹ תְּחִלָּה וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ אַל תְּצַעֵר עַצְמְךָ הִשָּׁבַע וְטל. אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה שְׂכָרוֹ פְּרוּטָה אַחַת וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹמֵר נְתַתִּיהָ לֹא יִטּל אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה. וְכֵן כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל אֲפִלּוּ לֹא יִטְעֹן אֶלָּא פְּרוּטָה אַחַת לֹא יִטּל אוֹתָהּ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה כְּעֵין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה: \n" + ], + [ + "הַפּוֹעֲלִים שֶׁהֵן עוֹשִׂין בְּדָבָר שֶׁגִּדּוּלוֹ מִן הָאָרֶץ וַעֲדַיִן לֹא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ בֵּין בְּתָלוּשׁ בֵּין בִּמְחֻבָּר וְיִהְיוּ מַעֲשֵׂיהֶן גְּמִירַת הַמְּלָאכָה הֲרֵי עַל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מִצְוָה שֶׁיַּנִּיחַ אוֹתָן לֶאֱכל מִמַּה שֶּׁהֵן עוֹשִׂין בּוֹ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג כה) \"כִּי תָבֹא בְּכֶרֶם רֵעֶךָ\" וְגוֹ' וְכָתוּב (דברים כג כו) \"כִּי תָבֹא בְּקָמַת רֵעֶךָ\". מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁאֵין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּשָׂכִיר וְכִי אִלּוּ לֹא שְׂכָרוֹ מִי הִתִּיר לוֹ שֶׁיָּבוֹא בְּכֶרֶם רֵעֵהוּ בַּקָּמָה שֶׁלּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ אֶלָּא כָּךְ הוּא אוֹמֵר כִּי תָבֹא לִרְשׁוּת בְּעָלִים לַעֲבוֹדָה תֹּאכַל: \n", + "מַה בֵּין הָעוֹשֶׂה בְּתָלוּשׁ לְעוֹשֶׂה בִּמְחֻבָּר. שֶׁהָעוֹשֶׂה בְּתָלוּשׁ אוֹכֵל בַּדָּבָר עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר מְלַאכְתּוֹ וּמִשֶּׁתִּגָּמֵר מְלַאכְתּוֹ אָסוּר לוֹ לֶאֱכל. וְהָעוֹשֶׂה בִּמְחֻבָּר כְּגוֹן בּוֹצֵר וְקוֹצֵר אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁיִּגְמֹר עֲבוֹדָתוֹ כְּגוֹן שֶׁיִּבְצֹר וְיִתֵּן בַּסַּל עַד שֶׁיְּמַלְּאֶנּוּ וִינַפֵּץ הַסַּל לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר וְיַחְזֹר וְיִבְצֹר וִימַלְּאֶנּוּ וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל אֶלָּא עַד אַחַר שֶׁיְּמַלֵּא הַסַּל. אֲבָל מִפְּנֵי הֶשֵּׁב אֲבֵדָה לַבְּעָלִים אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הַפּוֹעֲלִין אוֹכְלִין בַּהֲלִיכָתָן מֵאֹמֶן לְאֹמֶן וּבַחֲזִירָתָן מִן הַגַּת כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִבָּטְלוּ מִמְּלַאכְתָּן וְיֵשְׁבוּ לֶאֱכל אֶלָּא אוֹכְלִין בְּתוֹךְ הַמְּלָאכָה כְּשֶׁהֵן מְהַלְּכִין וְאֵינָן מְבַטְּלִין: \n", + "הַמְבַטֵּל מִמְּלַאכְתּוֹ וְאָכַל אוֹ שֶׁאָכַל שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת גְּמַר מְלָאכָה הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג כו) \"וְחֶרְמֵשׁ לֹא תָנִיף\" וְגוֹ'. מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁכָּל זְמַן שֶׁהוּא עוֹסֵק בִּקְצִירָה לֹא יָנִיף חֶרְמֵשׁ לַאֲכִילָתוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְכֵן פּוֹעֵל שֶׁהוֹלִיךְ בְּיָדוֹ מִמַּה שֶּׁעָשָׂה אוֹ שֶׁלָּקַח יֶתֶר עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ וְנוֹתֵן לַאֲחֵרִים עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג כה) \"וְאֶל כֶּלְיְךָ לֹא תִתֵּן\". וְאֵין לוֹקִין עַל שְׁנֵי לָאוִין אֵלּוּ שֶׁאִם אָכַל אוֹ הוֹלִיךְ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם: \n", + "הַחוֹלֵב וְהַמְחַבֵּץ וְהַמְגַבֵּן אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָן גִּדּוּלֵי קַרְקַע. הַמְנַכֵּשׁ בִּבְצָלִים וּבְשׁוּמִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁתּוֹלְשִׁין קְטַנִּים מִבֵּין הַגְּדוֹלִים וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם גְּמַר מְלָאכָה. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שׁוֹמְרֵי גִּנּוֹת וּפַרְדֵּסִים וְכָל דָּבָר הַמְחֻבָּר כַּמִּקְשָׁאוֹת וְהַמִּדְלָעוֹת שֶׁאֵין אוֹכְלִין כְּלָל: \n", + "הַבּוֹדֵל בִּתְמָרִים וּבִגְרוֹגָרוֹת אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתָּן לְמַעֲשֵׂר. הָעוֹשֶׂה בְּחִטִּים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן אַחַר שֶׁעָשׂוּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁשְּׂכָרָן לָבוּר צְרוֹרוֹת אוֹ לְנַפֵּחַ אוֹתָן אוֹ לִטְחֹן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אוֹכְלִין שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתָּן לְחַלָּה. אֲבָל הַלָּשׁ וְהַמְקַטֵּף וְהָאוֹפֶה אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתָּן לְחַלָּה וְאֵין הַפּוֹעֵל אוֹכֵל אֶלָּא מִדָּבָר שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ לְחַלָּה וּלְמַעֲשֵׂר: \n", + "נִתְפָּרְסוּ עִגּוּלָיו וְנִתְפַּתְּחוּ חָבִיּוֹתָיו [וְנֶחְתְּכוּ דְּלוּעָיו] וּשְׂכָרָן לַעֲשׂוֹת בָּהֶן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לֹא יֹאכְלוּ שֶׁהֲרֵי נִגְמְרוּ מְלַאכְתָּן וְנִקְבְּעוּ לְמַעֲשֵׂר וַהֲרֵי הֵן טֶבֶל. וְאִם לֹא הוֹדִיעָן מְעַשֵּׂר וּמַאֲכִילָן. אֵין הַפּוֹעֲלִים אוֹכְלִין בְּשֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג כה) \"בְּכֶרֶם רֵעֶךָ\": \n", + "שָׂכַר פּוֹעֲלִין לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּנֶטַע רְבָעִי שֶׁלּוֹ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לֹא יֹאכְלוּ. וְאִם לֹא הוֹדִיעָם פּוֹדֶה וּמַאֲכִילָן: \n", + "הַקּוֹצֵר וְהַדָּשׁ וְהַזּוֹרֶה וְהַבּוֹרֵר וְהַמּוֹסֵק וְהַבּוֹצֵר וְהַדּוֹרֵךְ וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בִּמְלָאכוֹת אֵלּוּ הֲרֵי הֵם אוֹכְלִין מִן הַתּוֹרָה: \n", + "שׁוֹמְרֵי גִּתּוֹת וַעֲרֵמוֹת וְכָל דָּבָר הַתָּלוּשׁ מִן הַקַּרְקַע שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתָּן לְמַעֲשֵׂר אוֹכְלִין מֵהִלְכוֹת מְדִינָה שֶׁהַשּׁוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ כְּעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה. אֲבָל אִם עָשָׂה בְּאֵיבָרָיו בֵּין בְּיָדָיו בֵּין בְּרַגְלָיו אֲפִלּוּ בִּכְתֵפָיו הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכֵל מִן הַתּוֹרָה: \n", + "הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה בִּתְאֵנִים לֹא יֹאכַל בַּעֲנָבִים בַּעֲנָבִים לֹא יֹאכַל בִּתְאֵנִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג כה) \"בְּכֶרֶם\" \"וְאָכַלְתָּ עֲנָבִים\". וְהָעוֹשֶׂה בְּגֶפֶן זוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל בְּגֶפֶן אַחֶרֶת. וְלֹא יֹאכַל עֲנָבִים וְדָבָר אַחֵר. וְלֹא יֹאכַל בְּפַת וְלֹא בְּמֶלַח וְאִם קָצַץ עַל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עַל שִׁעוּר מַה שֶּׁיֹּאכַל אוֹכֵל אוֹתוֹ בֵּין בְּמֶלַח בֵּין בְּפַת בֵּין בְּכָל דָּבָר שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. אָסוּר לְפוֹעֵל לָמֹץ בַּעֲנָבִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְאָכַלְתָּ עֲנָבִים. וְלֹא יִהְיוּ בָּנָיו אוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ מְהַבְהֲבִין לוֹ הַשִּׁבֳּלִין בָּאוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג כה) \"וְאָכַלְתָּ עֲנָבִים כְּנַפְשְׁךָ\" עֲנָבִים כְּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "אָסוּר לַפּוֹעֵל לֶאֱכל מִמַּה שֶּׁהוּא אוֹכֵל אֲכִילָה גַּסָּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כְּנַפְשְׁךָ שָׂבְעֶךָ. וּמֻתָּר לוֹ לִמְנֹעַ אֶת עַצְמוֹ עַד מְקוֹם הַיָּפוֹת וְאוֹכֵל. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לֶאֱכל קִישׁוּת אֲפִלּוּ בְּדִינָר וְכוֹתֶבֶת אֲפִלּוּ בְּדִינָר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשְּׂכָרוֹ בְּמָעָה כֶּסֶף שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג כה) \"כְּנַפְשְׁךָ שָׂבְעֶךָ\". אֲבָל מְלַמְּדִין אֶת הָאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה רְעַבְתָּן וְיִהְיֶה סוֹתֵם אֶת הַפֶּתַח בְּפָנָיו. הָיָה מְשַׁמֵּר אַרְבַּע אוֹ חָמֵשׁ עֲרֵמוֹת לֹא יְמַלֵּא כְּרֵסוֹ מֵאַחַת מֵהֶן אֶלָּא אוֹכֵל מִכָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן: \n", + "הַפּוֹעֲלִים שֶׁלֹּא הָלְכוּ שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב בַּגַּת אוֹכְלִין עֲנָבִים וְאֵין שׁוֹתִין יַיִן שֶׁעֲדַיִן אֵינָן עוֹשִׂין אֶלָּא בַּעֲנָבִים בִּלְבַד. וּמִשֶּׁיִּדְרְכוּ בַּגַּת וִיהַלְּכוּ בָּהּ שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב יֵשׁ לָהֶן לֶאֱכל מִן הָעֲנָבִים וְלִשְׁתּוֹת מִן הַתִּירוֹשׁ שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵן עוֹשִׂין בָּעֲנָבִים וּבַיַּיִן: \n", + "פּוֹעֵל שֶׁאָמַר תְּנוּ לְאִשְׁתִּי וּבָנַי מַה שֶּׁאֲנִי אוֹכֵל אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר הֲרֵינִי נוֹתֵן מְעַט מִזֶּה שֶׁנָּטַלְתִּי לֶאֱכל לְאִשְׁתִּי וּבָנַי אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא זִכְּתָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא לַפּוֹעֵל עַצְמוֹ. אֲפִלּוּ נָזִיר שֶׁהָיָה עוֹשֶׂה בָּעֲנָבִים וְאָמַר תְּנוּ לְאִשְׁתִּי וּבָנַי אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ: \n", + "פּוֹעֵל שֶׁהָיָה עוֹשֶׂה הוּא וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו וַעֲבָדָיו וְהִתְנָה עִם הַבַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכְלוּ מִמַּה שֶּׁהֵן עוֹשִׂין לֹא הוּא וְלֹא הֵם הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֵינָן אוֹכְלִין. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּגְדוֹלִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶם דַּעַת וַהֲרֵי מָחֲלוּ אֲבָל קְטַנִּים אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִפְסֹק עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכְלוּ שֶׁאֵינָן אוֹכְלִין מִשֶּׁל אֲבִיהֶן אוֹ מִשֶּׁל אֲדוֹנֵיהֶם אֶלָּא מִשֶּׁל שָׁמַיִם: \n" + ], + [ + "הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹכֶלֶת כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא עוֹשָׂה בְּגִדּוּלֵי קַרְקַע בֵּין בִּמְחֻבָּר בֵּין בְּתָלוּשׁ. וְאוֹכֶלֶת מִמַּשּׂאוֹי שֶׁעַל גַּבָּהּ עַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה פּוֹרֶקֶת וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִטּל בְּיָדוֹ וְיַאֲכִילֶנָּה: \n", + "כָּל הַמּוֹנֵעַ הַבְּהֵמָה מִלֶּאֱכל בִּשְׁעַת מְלַאכְתָּהּ לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כה ד) \"לֹא תַחְסֹם שׁוֹר בְּדִישׁוֹ\". אֶחָד שׁוֹר וְאֶחָד כָּל מִינֵי בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה בֵּין טְמֵאִין בֵּין טְהוֹרִין וְאֶחָד הַדִּישָׁה וְאֶחָד כָּל שְׁאָר הַמְּלָאכוֹת שֶׁל גִּדּוּלֵי קַרְקַע וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר שׁוֹר בְּדִישׁוֹ אֶלָּא בָּהוֹוֶה. וְהַחוֹסֵם אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל פָּטוּר. אֶחָד הַחוֹסֵם אוֹתָהּ בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה וְאֶחָד הַחוֹסֵם אוֹתָהּ מִקֹּדֶם וְעָשָׂה בָּהּ מְלָאכָה וְהִיא חֲסוּמָה אֲפִלּוּ חֲסָמָהּ בְּקוֹל לוֹקֶה. שָׂכַר בְּהֵמָה וַחֲסָמָהּ וְדָשׁ בָּהּ לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם לַבְּעָלִים אַרְבַּעַת קַבִּין לְפָרָה וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין לַחֲמוֹר שֶׁמִּשְּׁעַת מְשִׁיכָה נִתְחַיֵּב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ. וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב מַלְקוֹת עַד שֶׁיָּדוּשׁ בָּהּ חֲסוּמָה: \n", + "יִשְׂרָאֵל הַדָּשׁ בְּפָרָתוֹ שֶׁל עַכּוּ\"ם עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם בַּל (דברים כה ד) \"תַחְסֹם\". וְהָעַכּוּ\"ם הַדָּשׁ בְּפָרָתוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם בַּל תַחְסֹם. אָמַר לְעַכּוּ\"ם חֲסֹם פָּרָתִי וְדוּשׁ בָּהּ. יָשַׁב לָהּ קוֹץ בְּפִיהָ וְדָשׁ בָּהּ וַהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת. הִרְבִּיץ לָהּ אֲרִי מִבַּחוּץ אוֹ שֶׁהִרְבִּיץ בְּנָהּ מִבַּחוּץ. הֲרֵי שֶׁצָּמְאָה וְאֵינוֹ מַשְׁקֶה אוֹתָהּ. פָּרַס עוֹר עַל גַּבֵּי הַדַּיִשׁ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאכַל. כָּל זֶה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ אָסוּר וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. הָיָה הַדָּבָר שֶׁהִיא עוֹשָׂה בּוֹ רַע לִבְנֵי מֵעֶיהָ וּמַזִּיקָהּ אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה חוֹלָה וְאִם תֹּאכַל מִזֶּה מַתְרֶזֶת מֻתָּר לְמָנְעָהּ. שֶׁלֹּא הִקְפִּידָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא עַל הֲנָאָתָהּ וַהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ נֶהֱנֵית: \n", + "פָּרָה שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיָה כֹּהֵן דָּשׁ בָּהּ בִּתְרוּמָה וּבִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל וַדַּאי. וְכֵן פָּרוֹת הַדָּשׁוֹת בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. וּפָרוֹת הַמְהַלְּכוֹת עַל הַתְּבוּאָה. לְפִי שֶׁיָּרַט לָהֶן הַדֶּרֶךְ אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם בַּל (דברים כה ד) \"תַּחְסֹם\". אֲבָל מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן אִם הָיוּ דָּשׁוֹת בִּתְרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי מֵבִיא מְעַט מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין וְתוֹלֶה לָהֶן בַּקְּרֻסְטְלִין שֶׁבְּפִיהֶן: \n", + "הַדָּשׁ בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁל דְּמַאי וּבִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי וּבְגִדּוּלֵי תְּרוּמָה עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם בַּל (דברים כה ד) \"תַּחְסֹם\": \n", + "רַשַּׁאי בַּעַל הַפָּרָה לְהַרְעִיב פָּרָתוֹ וּלְסַגְּפָהּ כְּדֵי שֶׁתֹּאכַל הַרְבֵּה מִן הַדַּיִשׁ. וְרַשַּׁאי הַשּׂוֹכֵר לְהַאֲכִילָהּ פְּקִיעֵי עָמִיר כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאכַל הַרְבֵּה מִן הַדַּיִשׁ. כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ רַשַּׁאי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לְהַשְׁקוֹת פּוֹעֲלִים יַיִן כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכְלוּ עֲנָבִים הַרְבֵּה. וְרַשָּׁאִין פּוֹעֲלִין לִטְבּל פִּתָּן בְּצִיר כְּדֵי שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ עֲנָבִים הַרְבֵּה. אֲבָל אֵין הַפּוֹעֵל רַשַּׁאי לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלַאכְתּוֹ בַּלַּיְלָה וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר עַצְמוֹ בַּיּוֹם אוֹ לָדוּשׁ בְּפָרָתוֹ עַרְבִית וּלְהַשְׂכִּירָהּ שַׁחֲרִית. וְלֹא יִהְיֶה מַרְעִיב וּמְסַגֵּף עַצְמוֹ וּמַאֲכִיל מְזוֹנוֹתָיו לְבָנָיו מִפְּנֵי גֵּזֶל מְלַאכְתּוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. שֶׁהֲרֵי תָּשֵׁשׁ כֹּחוֹ וְתֵחָלֵשׁ דַּעְתּוֹ וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בְּכֹחַ: \n", + "כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמֻּזְהָר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא יִגְזל שְׂכַר עָנִי וְלֹא יְעַכְּבֶנּוּ כָּךְ הֶעָנִי מֻזְהָר שֶׁלֹּא יִגְזל מְלֶאכֶת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת וְיִבָּטֵל מְעַט בְּכָאן וּמְעַט בְּכָאן וּמוֹצִיא כָּל הַיּוֹם בְּמִרְמָה אֶלָּא חַיָּב לְדַקְדֵּק עַל עַצְמוֹ בַּזְּמַן שֶׁהֲרֵי הִקְפִּידוּ עַל בְּרָכָה רְבִיעִית שֶׁל בִּרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן שֶׁלֹּא יְבָרֵךְ אוֹתָהּ. וְכֵן חַיָּב לַעֲבֹד בְּכָל כֹּחוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי יַעֲקֹב הַצַּדִּיק אָמַר כִּי בְּכָל כֹּחִי עָבַדְתִּי אֶת אֲבִיכֶן. לְפִיכָךְ נָטַל שְׂכַר זֹאת אַף בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ל מג) \"וַיִּפְרֹץ הָאִישׁ מְאֹד מְאֹד\": סְלִיקוּ לְהוּ הִלְכוֹת שְׂכִירוּת \n" + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Torat Emet 363", + "http://www.toratemetfreeware.com/index.html?downloads" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות שכירות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Inheritances/English/Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, edited by Philip Birnbaum, New York, 1967.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Inheritances/English/Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, edited by Philip Birnbaum, New York, 1967.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..78161fe2a5abdc4d7e9b3b38dde032f5a8b616e4 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Inheritances/English/Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, edited by Philip Birnbaum, New York, 1967.json @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Inheritances", + "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002108864", + "versionTitle": "Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, edited by Philip Birnbaum, New York, 1967", + "status": "locked", + "priority": 1.0, + "digitizedBySefaria": true, + "versionTitleInHebrew": "משנה תורה להרמב״ם, נערך בידי פיליפ בירנבאום, ניו יורק 1967", + "shortVersionTitle": "Philip Birnbaum, 1967", + "purchaseInformationImage": "https://storage.googleapis.com/sefaria-physical-editions/54055d082f267ad65f680e60872f38eb.png", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": false, + "isSource": false, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות נחלות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "Following is the order of legal heirs: If a man died, his children are his heirs; they have priority over anyone else; the males have priority over the females.", + "A female does not share an inheritance with a male. If a man died without leaving children, his father inherits his property; the mother does not inherit from her children. This rule is based upon tradition.", + "Whoever has priority in the order of heirs, his descendants have priority likewise. Accordingly, if anyone died, man or woman, leaving a son, he inherits everything. If there is no son living, we look carefully into the son's descendants, males or females ; even the son's daughter's daughter's daughter, to the end of the line, shall inherit everything. If the son left no descendants, we resort to the daughter, who inherits everything. If there is no daughter living, we look to the daughter's descendants, males or females, to the end of the line, who shall inherit everything. If his daughter left no offspring, the inheritance returns to his father. If his father is not living, we look to the father's offspring, being the brothers of the deceased. If he had a brother, or the descendant of a brother, he shall inherit everything; if not, we resort to the sister. If the deceased had a sister living, or her children, they shall inherit everything.— — In this manner the inheritance keeps ascending to the beginning of the generations. Accordingly, there is no man in Israel without an heir." + ], + [ + "The firstborn son receives a double share of his father's estate, as it is written: \"To give him a double portion\" (Deuteronomy 21:17).— —", + "The firstborn son who was born after his father's death does not receive a double share of his father's estate, as it is written: \"When he wills his property to his sons … he must recognize as his firstborn the son of the unloved one\" (16-17).— —", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "The firstborn does not receive a double share of his mother's estate. A firstborn and a plain brother, for example, share equally their mother's estate ; it makes no difference whether he is a firstborn [from the side of his father] with the privilege of a double share or a firstling [from the side of his mother].", + "A firstborn with the privilege of a double share is the first son of his father, as it is written: \"Since he is the first fruit of his vigor\" (17). We disregard the mother: even if she previously gave birth to several children, the firstborn from the side of his father inherits a double share." + ], + [ + "The firstborn does not receive a double share of the property that is due to his father posthumously, but only of property held in the possession of his father, as it is written: \"Of whatever he happens to own\" (17).— —" + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Inheritances/English/Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Inheritances/English/Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..639b1d0a6ee941a891276e2dbed7a04687e2f4a4 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Inheritances/English/Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007.json @@ -0,0 +1,169 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Inheritances", + "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI", + "versionTitle": "Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007", + "status": "locked", + "priority": 2.0, + "license": "CC-BY-NC", + "versionNotes": "\n Dedicated in memory of Irving Montak, z\"l

© Published and Copyright by Moznaim Publications.
Must obtain written permission from Moznaim Publications for any commercial use. Any use must cite Copyright by Moznaim Publications. Released into the commons with a CC-BY-NC license.\n ", + "digitizedBySefaria": false, + "shortVersionTitle": "Trans. by Eliyahu Touger, Moznaim Publishing", + "purchaseInformationImage": "https://storage.googleapis.com/sefaria-physical-editions/touger-mishneh-torah-hilkhot-teshuvah-purchase-img.png", + "purchaseInformationURL": "https://moznaim.com/products/mishneh-torah-rambam", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": false, + "isSource": false, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות נחלות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "This is the order of inheritance: When a person dies, his children inherit his estate. They receive priority over everyone else, and the sons receive priority over the daughters.", + "In every situation, a female does not inherit together with a male.
If a person does not have children, his father inherits his estate. A mother does not inherit her son's estate. This has been conveyed by the Oral Tradition.", + "With regard to every concept of precedence for an inheritance, a person's blood descendants receive precedence. Therefore, when a person - either a man or a woman - dies and he leaves a son, he inherits everything. If the son is no longer alive, we look to see if the son left descendants. If there are descendants of the son, whether male or female - even the daughter of the daughter of the son's daughter, and this chain can be continued endlessly -that descendant inherits everything.
If the son does not have descendants, we return to the deceased's daughter. If there are descendants of the daughter, whether male or female - and this chain can be continued endlessly - that descendant inherits everything.
If the son does not have descendants, the estate returns to the deceased's father. If the father is no longer alive, -we look to see if the father left descendants - i.e., the brothers of the deceased. If there is a brother of the deceased or the descendant of a brother, he inherits everything. If there are no brothers, we return and look to see if the deceased had a sister. If there is a sister or the descendant of a sister, that person inherits everything.
If there are no descendants of the deceased's brothers or sisters, since there are no descendants of the deceased's father, the estate returns to the deceased's paternal grandfather. If the paternal grandfather is no longer alive, we look to see if the paternal grandfather left descendants - i.e., the uncles or aunts of the deceased. The males receive precedence over the females, and even the descendants of the males receive precedence over the females, as is the law with regard to the descendants of the deceased himself.
If there are no uncles or none of their descendants, the estate returns to the deceased's paternal great-grandfather. Following this pattern, the chain of inheritance continues to extend until Reuven the son of Jacob. Thus the order of inheritance is as follows: A son takes precedence over a daughter. Similarly, all of the son's descendants take precedence over the daughter. The daughter takes precedence over her paternal grandfather, and similarly, all her descendants take precedence over her paternal grandfather.
The deceased's father takes precedence over the deceased's brothers, because they are the father's descendants. The deceased's brothers take precedence over his sisters. Similarly, all their descendants take precedence over the sister.
The deceased's sister takes precedence over her paternal grandfather, and similarly, all her descendants take precedence over her paternal grandfather.
The deceased's paternal grandfather takes precedence over the deceased's uncles. The uncles take precedence over the aunts. Indeed, all the uncles' descendants take precedence over the aunts. The aunts take precedence over the deceased's paternal great-grandfather. Indeed, all the aunts' descendants take precedence over the deceased's paternal great-grandfather. This pattern should be continued until the beginning of all generations. Thus, there is no Jew who does not have heirs.", + "When a person dies and leaves a daughter and the daughter of a son - or even the daughter of the son's daughter and this chain can continue for several generations - the son's daughter takes precedence. She inherits everything; the deceased's daughter does not receive anything.
Similar laws applies when a person is survived by his brother's daughter and his sister, by his uncle's daughter and his aunt, or in all other analogous situations.", + "A woman is, however, given full rights in the following situation. A person had two sons who died in his lifetime. One of the sons left three sons and the other left a daughter. Afterwards, the elder man died. The three grandsons inherit half of the inheritance and the granddaughter inherits the other half. For each inherits their father's portion. Similar laws apply with regard to the division of an estate among the children of the deceased's brothers, the children of his uncles, or the children of other relatives extending back until the beginning of all generations.", + "With regard to the concept of inheritance, the family of a person's mother is not considered family. Inheritance is relevant only with regard to one's father's family. Therefore, maternal brothers do not inherit each other's estates, while paternal brothers do. This applies to brothers who share only a father or who share both a father and a mother.", + "All relatives who were conceived through forbidden relations have equal inheritance rights to those who are conceived through permitted relations.
What is implied? When a person has a son or a brother who is a mamzer, he is treated like any of the other sons or any of the other brothers when it comes to the concept of inheritance. A person's son who is born by a maid-servant or a gentile woman is not considered his son at all, and has no right of inheritance whatsoever.", + "A woman does not inherit her husband's estate at all.
A husband inherits all his wife's property, according to the words of our Sages. He takes precedence over all others with regard to inheriting her estate. This applies even if she is forbidden to him - e.g., a widow who was married to a High Priest, or a divorcee or a woman who had performed chalitzah who was married to an ordinary priest. Similarly, this applies even if the woman was below majority. Even though a husband is a deaf-mute, he inherits his wife's estate.", + "We have already explained in Hilchot Ishut that a husband does not inherit his wife's estate until she enters his domain, and that a man who is mentally aware does not inherit the estate of a woman whom he married as a deaf mute. This applies even if she later becomes fully mentally aware.
There we also explained that a husband inherits the property that enters his wife's domain and which she took possession of during her lifetime. This applies to the property she brought to his household as a dowry, and property that she did not bring to his household. When a husband attempted to divorce his wife, although there is a question about the validity of the divorce, her husband does not inherit her estate after her death.", + "When a man marries a young girl who does not need the right of
to nullify a marriage, he does not inherit her estate, because there is no marriage. Similarly, when a man who was mentally or emotionally unstable married a mentally aware woman, or a mentally aware man married a woman who was mentally or emotionally unstable, the husband does not inherit his wife's estate, for our Sages did not ordain marriage for such individuals.", + "When a man's wife died, and afterwards her father, her brother, or any of the other individuals whose estate she may inherit dies, her husband does not inherit their estate. Instead, the estate should be inherited by her descendants, if she has descendants. If not, the right of inheritance should return to the family of her father's home. The rationale is that the husband does not inherit property that is fit to become hers afterwards, only property that she already inherited before she died.", + "Similarly, a husband does not inherit his wife's estate while he is in the grave as is the ordinary pattern of inheritance for members of his father's family.
What is implied? A man died, and afterwards his wife died. We do not say: Since the husband receives precedence over all others with regard to the inheritance, the husband's heirs should receive precedence over the woman's other heirs. Instead, the woman's heirs from her father's family inherit her estate if she dies after her husband.", + "Similarly, a son does not inherit his mother's estate while he is in the grave, so that the estate will be inherited by his paternal brothers.
What is implied? A person died, and afterwards his mother died. We do not say that if the son were alive, he would take precedence in the inheritance of her estate, and hence, the heirs of the son take precedence over the heirs of this woman. According to the latter conception, the son's paternal brothers would inherit the estate of his mother after her death. This view is not accepted. Instead, if the son has children, they should inherit his mother's estate. If he does not have children, the estate should return to her father's family.
If, however, the mother died first and then the son died, even if he was a newborn baby who was born prematurely, since he survived his mother and then died, he inherits his mother's estate and then transfers the rights to that estate to the family of his father." + ], + [ + "A firstborn receives a double portion of his father's estate, as Deuteronomy 21:17 states: \"To give him twice the portion.\"
What is implied? If a father left five sons, one the firstborn, the firstborn receives a third of the estate and each of the other four receives a sixth. If he left nine sons, the firstborn receives a fifth and each of the other eight receive a tenth. We follow this pattern in dividing the estate in all instances.", + "When a firstborn is born after his father's death, he does not receive a double portion. This is derived from ibid.: 16-17: \"On the day when he transfers his inheritance to his sons... he shall recognize the firstborn, the son of the hated one.\" If his forehead emerged during the lifetime of his father, even though his entire head did not emerge until after his father's death, he receives a double portion.", + "When a firstborn was born with his genitals covered by flesh and afterwards, an operation was performed and it was discovered that he was male, he does not receive a double portion. Conversely, when an ordinary son was born with a similar condition and after the operation was performed, it was discovered that he was male, he does not reduce the firstborn's share. These concepts are derived from ibid.:15 \"And she will bear him sons.\" Implied is that the sons must be sons from the moment of birth.", + "What is meant by saying that such a son does not reduce the firstborn's share? A person had a firstborn, two ordinary sons, and this son whose genitals were covered by flesh and afterwards were revealed through an operation. The firstborn receives one fourth of the estate as his extra share as the firstborn, as if there were only two other sons. The remaining three fourths of the estate are divided equally among the two ordinary sons, the son who underwent the operation, and the firstborn.", + "A child who lived for only one day reduces the portion of the firstborn, but a fetus does not. Similarly, a son born after his father's death, does not reduce the portion of the firstborn.", + "When there is a question if a son is a firstborn or an ordinary son - e.g., the firstborn became mixed together with another - he does not receive a double portion.
What is done? If at first, the babies were distinct and then they became mixed together,\" they may compose a document granting power of attorney to each other, and on that basis take the portion of the firstborn with their brothers. If the identity of the firstborn was never known - e.g., the two wives gave birth in one hiding place, - they should not compose a document granting power of attorney to each other, for there is no extra portion for the firstborn.", + "The following laws apply when a person had two sons - a firstborn and an ordinary son - and they both died in his lifetime, after fathering children. The firstborn left a daughter and the ordinary son left a son. The son of the ordinary son inherits one third of the estate of his grandfather - i.e., his father's portion. And the daughter of the firstborn inherits two thirds of that estate, her father's portion.
The same laws apply with regard to the sons of the deceased's brothers, or the sons of his uncles, or any other set of heirs. If the father of any of the heirs was a firstborn, the person who inherits his share of the estate also receives the firstborn's share.", + "A firstborn does not receive a double portion of his mother's estate. What is implied? When a firstborn and an ordinary son inherit their mother's estate, they divide it equally. This applies with regard to a son who was the firstborn with regard to the laws of inheritance, and to one who \"open his mother's womb.\"", + "The firstborn with regard to the laws of inheritance is the first child born to the father, as ibid.:17 states: \"Because he is the first manifestation of his strength.\" We do not pay attention to the child's status vis-a-vis his mother. o Even if she gave birth to several sons previously, since this was the first son born to the father, he receives a double portion of the inheritance.", + "A son who is born after stillborn babies, even if the stillborn baby was alive when its head emerged from the womb, is considered the firstborn with regard to the laws of inheritance. Similarly, when a fetus was born after a full-term pregnancy, but was not alive when its head emerged, the son who follows is considered the firstborn with regard to the laws of inheritance.
The term \"the first of his strength,\" Deuteronomy 21:17, used with regard to the firstborn implies that no child before him emerged alive into the world. Hence, when a fetus was alive after its head emerged after a full-term pregnancy, a son born afterwards in not a firstborn even the first baby died immediately thereafter.", + "Neither a son born by Cesarean section, nor the son born after him, is considered \"the firstborn.\" The first son was never \"born,\" and ibid.: 15 states \"and she bore sons to him.\" And the second son is not given this privilege, for he was preceded by another.", + "When a person had sons as a gentile and then converted, he does not have a firstborn with regard to the rights of inheritance. If, however, a Jewish man fathered sons from a maid-servant or from a gentile woman, since they are not considered his sons, a son he fathers afterwards from a Jewish woman is considered his firstborn with regard to the laws of inheritance, and he receives a double portion of his father's estate.", + "Even if the firstborn is a mamzer, he receives a double portion. This is reflected by Deuteronomy 21:16: \"But rather he will recognize the firstborn, the son of the hated one.\" This refers to a woman whose marriage is \"hated.\" Needless to say, this applies if the firstborn is the son of a divorcee or a woman who performed chalitzah.", + "There are three individuals whose word is accepted with regard to the designation of a firstborn: the midwife, the mother and the father.
The midwife's word is accepted only at the moment of birth. For example, a woman gave birth to twins; if the midwife said: \"This one emerged first,\" her word is accepted.
His mother's word is accepted for the first seven days after birth, when she says: \"This one is the firstborn.\"
His father's word is always accepted. Even if the father said that a person who was not known to be his son was his firstborn son, his word is accepted. Similarly, his word is accepted if he says that the person whom we consider to be his firstborn is not his firstborn.", + "When a father loses his ability to speak, we check the soundness of his intellect in the same way as is done with regard to a bill of divorce. If through his motions he indicates - or he writes - that this is his firstborn son, that son receives a double portion.", + "If witnesses testify that they heard a father make certain statements that clearly indicate that a child is his firstborn son, the son receives a double portion even though the father did not explicitly say: \"This is my firstborn son.\"", + "If the father was heard saying: \"This son of mine is a firstborn,\" the son does not necessarily receive a double portion of the estate because of this testimony. Perhaps the son was the mother's firstborn, and this was his father's intent. For the son to receive a double portion, the father must call him: \"My son, my firstborn.\"" + ], + [ + "A firstborn does not receive a double portion of property that will later accrue to his father's estate, only of that property that was in his father's possession and had already entered his domain at the time of his death. This is derived from Deuteronomy 21:17 which states: \"of everything that he possesses.\"
What is implied? If one of the people whose estate the father would inherit dies after he did, the firstborn and an ordinary son receive equal shares. Similarly, if the father was owed a debt or he owned a ship at sea, all sons share the inheritance equally.", + "If the father left his sons a cow that was rented out, hired out, or that was pasturing in open territory and it gave birth, the firstborn receives a double share of it and its offspring.", + "If one of the colleagues of a person's father slaughtered an animal and then the father died, the son is entitled to a double portion of the presents from that animal.", + "A firstborn does not receive a double portion of an increase to the value of the estate that accrued after his father's death. Instead, he should have the value of that increase assessed, and he should give the financial equivalent of the difference to the ordinary sons.
The above applies provided the property undergoes a change, e.g., budding grain became ears, or budding dates became dates. If, however, the value of the land improved as a matter of course, without undergoing a change - e.g., a small tree grew taller and thicker, or sediment was washed up onto land, the firstborn receives a double portion of the increase in value. If the property increased in value because of investment, he does not receive a double portion.", + "A firstborn does not receive a double share of a debt owed to his father. This applies even though the debt was supported by a promissory note and land was expropriated to pay the debt.
If the father was owed a debt by the firstborn, there is an unresolved doubt concerning the matter. It might be said that he should receive a double portion, because the money was in his possession. It could, however, be argued that he should not receive the extra amount, since he is inheriting it because of his father, and it did not enter his father's possession before his death. Therefore, he should take half of the firstborn's portion from it.", + "When a firstborn sells his extra share of the inheritance before the estate is divided, the sale is binding. For the firstborn's extra share is distinct, even before the estate is divided. Therefore, if initially, the firstborn divides a portion of the estate, either landed property or movable property, and accepts the same portion as an ordinary son, he is considered to have waived his right to an extra portion with regard to the entire estate. He receives only an ordinary son's share of the remainder.
When does the above apply? When he did not protest. If, however, he protested against his brothers and said in the presence of two witnesses: \"Although I am dividing these grapes equally with my brothers, I have not waived my right to the firstborn's share,\" his protest is significant and he is not considered to have waived his right to the other property.
Even if he protested with regard to the division of grapes while they were still attached to the earth, and yet agreed to divide them equally after the harvest, he is not considered to have waived his right to the other property. If, however, the grapes were pressed, and he divided the wine equally with them and did not issue a protest when the wine was made, he is considered to have waived his right to the other property. To what can the matter be compared? To a person who issued a protest when grapes were divided but then divided olives equally, in which instance he is considered to have waived his rights to an extra portion of the entire estate.", + "The brother who performs the rite of yibbum, marrying his brother's childless widow, inherits all of the property in his estate at the time of his brother's death. With regard to any property that is fit to enter the deceased's estate afterwards, he receives the same share as the others. This concept is derived from the fact that the verse refers to him as a \"firstborn,\" as Deuteronomy 25:6 states: \"And the firstborn that she will bear will take the place of the brother who died, and thus his name will not be wiped out among Israel.\"
Just as the brother who performs the rite of yibbum does not acquire property that is fit to be acquired by the estate, in contrast to property that is within the estate; so, too, he does not acquire the increase in the estate's value.
To what does the latter phrase refer? To the increase in his deceased brother's share in his father's estate, which increased in value in the time between his father's death and the division of that estate among his brothers. Even if the property increased in value after he married his brother's widow, but before it was divided, he receives the same share of the increase as the other brothers. This applies despite the fact that he receives two shares of this property, his own share and the share of his brother whose widow he married. For the father died while they were all alive.", + "We already explained in Hilchot Shechenim that the firstborn is given his two portions of a field together. This does not apply with regard to a person who marries his brother's childless widow. He receives his portion and his brother's portion by lot. If it happens that he is allotted portions in two different places, these are the portions he receives.", + "The following laws apply when a childless widow who was waiting to be married by her deceased husband's brother dies. They apply even when one of the brothers designated her for marriage. Her family from her father's household inherit her nichsei m'log and half of her nichsei tzon barzel, and her husband's heirs inherit the money due her by virtue of her ketubah and the other half of her nichsei tzon barzel.
Since they inherit the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, her husband's heirs are obligated to bury her, as we have explained in the appropriate place." + ], + [ + "When a person says: \"This is my son,\" \"This is my brother,\" \"This is my uncle,\" or identifies a person as any of his other heirs, his word is accepted and that person inherits his estate. This applies even when he makes this acknowledgment concerning people who are not recognized to be his relatives. And it applies whether he made such a statement when he was healthy or when he is on his deathbed. Even if he lost his power of speech and identified a person as his heir in writing, his word is accepted, provided we test his powers of understanding as we test a man with regard to divorce.", + "When one person is recognized to be another person's brother or cousin, and the latter says: \"He is not my brother,\" or \"He is not my cousin,\" his word is not accepted. His word is accepted, however, with regard to a person who is recognized to be his son. If he says he is not his son, he does not inherit his estate.
It appears to me that even if the son already fathered children - although at that point, the father's word is no longer acceptable with regard to the determination of his lineage, and we do not consider him a mamzer because of his father's statement - his father's word is, nevertheless, accepted with regard to the concept of inheritance. He should not inherit his father's estate.", + "When a person states: \"This is my son,\" and afterwards, says: \"He is my servant,\" his latter statement is not accepted.
If he states: \"He is my servant,\" and afterwards, says: \"He is my son,\" his latter statement is accepted. This applies even though the \"son\" serves him like a servant. We interpret his statement that he is his servant to mean that he relies on him like a servant. Nevertheless, if people would call this individual \"A slave worth 100 zuz\" or the like - i.e., expressions that are appropriate only for servants - the deceased's retraction is not accepted.", + "If a person had to pass through customs and identified an individual as his son, but afterwards identified him as a servant, his later statement is accepted. We assume that he identified him as his son only to avoid paying customs duty. If, however, in customs, he identified a person as his servant, and afterwards identified him as his son, his word is not accepted.", + "A person should not call a servant Papa Joe or a maidservant Mama Sarah lest this lead to an undesirable outcome and a blemish be placed on his lineage. Therefore, if there were servants or maidservants who were very distinguished personages, their reputations are well known, and everyone in the community recognizes them and the children and servants of their master - e.g., the servants of the nasi - it is permitted for the children of that household to refer to the servants in the above manner.", + "The following rules apply when a person had a maidservant and fathered a son with her, and he would treat the son as one treats a son or said: \"He is my son and his mother was freed.\" If the person involved is a Torah scholar or an honorable person whose conduct has been scrutinized and he is found to be precise in the observance of the details of the mitzvot, the \"son\" may share in the inheritance of his estate. Nevertheless, this \"son\" may not marry a Jewish woman until he brings proof that his mother was freed before she gave birth. The rationale for this stringency is that it has been established for us that the woman is a maidservant. If the person is one of the ordinary people - and needless to say, if he is one of those who act loosely in this manner - the \"son\" is presumed to be a servant with regard to all matters. His paternal brothers may sell him. If his father does not have any children other than him, the father's wife must undergo the rite of yibbum.
This is the law as it appears to me, for it follows the fundamental principles of the received tradition. There are, however, authorities who do not make a distinction between honorable people and people at large, except with regard to the ruling that his brothers may not sell him. ' And there are others who rule that this \"son\" may even inherit his father's estate, so that a distinction is not made with regard to Jews. It is not appropriate to rely on this ruling.", + "All the heirs may inherit on the basis of the prevailing presumption that they are the deceased relatives. What is implied? When witnesses testify that the prevailing presumption is that a person is an individual's son or his brother, the former may inherit the latter's estate on the basis of this testimony, even though the witnesses do not testify concerning the person's lineage, nor do they possess indubitable knowledge concerning his lineage.", + "A person's statements regarding his relatives affect his share of an inheritance, but not that of his brothers. To illustrate by example: Jacob died and left two sons: Reuven and Shimon. The prevailing presumption was that he did not have any sons other than these two.
Reuven took Levi from among people at large and said: \"He is also our brother.\" Shimon replied: \"I don't know.\" Shimon is granted half the estate. Reuven is given a third, for he acknowledged that they are three brothers, and Levi is given a sixth.
If Levi dies, that sixth is returned to Reuven. If other property had been acquired by Levi, it should be divided between Reuven and Shimon, for Reuven acknowledges Shimon's claim to a portion of the estate, because Levi is their brother.
Different rules apply if the sixth that Levi was given increased in value on its own accord and then Levi died. If the increase were crops that were almost ready to be reaped - e.g., grapes that are ready to be harvested - they are considered to be property acquired from others and should be divided among the two brothers. If they are not ready to be reaped, they belong to Reuven alone.
If Shimon said explicitly: \"Levi is not my brother,\" and Levi received part of Reuven's share, as explained above, and then died, Shimon should not inherit any part of his estate. Instead, Reuven should inherit both the sixth from his share and any other property that Levi left. These principles apply with regard to any other heirs when a portion of them acknowledge the existence of other heirs that the remaining portion do not acknowledge." + ], + [ + "The following principles apply with regard to questions concerning the right of inheritance: Whenever there are two prospective heirs, one who is definitely an heir and one whose right to inherit is a matter of question, the person whose right is in doubt does not receive anything. If there are two claimants whose rights are a matter of question, perhaps this one is an heir or perhaps the other is an heir, they divide the estate equally.
Accordingly, if a person died and left a son and a tumtuni or an androgynous? the son inherits the entire estate. For the status of the tumtum or the androgynous is a matter of question. If he left daughters and a tumtum or an androgynous, they share equally in the inheritance. The tumtum or androgynous is considered as one of the daughters.", + "In Hilchot Ishut, we explained the laws pertaining to the portions of an estate given to daughters from the sons' share to provide for the daughters' sustenance? and for their livelihood. There' we explained that the sustenance of the daughters is one of the provisions of the ketubah.
When the estate is ample,\" the daughters receive only their sustenance. The sons inherit everything, and they should give dowries to the daughters of a tenth of the estate each so that men will desire to marry them as husbands. When the estate is limited, the sons do not receive anything. Instead, everything is set aside for the daughters' sustenance.
Accordingly, the following rules apply when a person died and left sons, daughters and a tumtum or an androgynous. If the estate is ample, the sons inherit the estate and compel the tumtum to be treated as one of the daughters. He is given only his sustenance as they are. If the estate is limited, the daughters compel the tumtum to be treated as one of the sons. They tell him: \"You are a male and hence you are not entitled to receive your sustenance as we are.\"", + "The following rules apply when a woman did not wait three months after parting from her husband, but instead, married within that time and gave birth to a son. We do not know if the son was born after nine months and is her first husband's child or was born after seven months and was her second husband's son.
This son does not inherit the estate of either father, because his claim is doubtful. If this son dies, both of them inherit his estate, sharing it equally, because both of their claims are doubtful. Maybe this one is his father? Or maybe the other one?", + "The following laws apply when a childless widow did not wait three months after her first husband's death, married her husband's brother and bore a son. We do not know if the son was born after nine months and is her first husband's child, or was born after seven months and was her second husband's son.
With regard to the inheritance of the estate of the woman's first husband, the son whose parentage is doubtful says: \"Perhaps I am the son of the deceased, in which instance I would inherit my father's entire estate. You would not be fit to marry my mother, for she would not be required to perform the rite of yibbumP
The brother who married her says: \"Perhaps you are my son and thus your mother was required to perform the rite of yibbwn. You have no right to my brother's estate.\"
Since not only the status of the \"son,\" but also that of the brother who married the widow is doubtful, they share the estate equally. The same laws apply when this \"son\" whose status is doubtful and the other sons of the brother who married the widow come to divide the estate of the brother whose widow was married. They divide the estate equally. The \"son\" whose status is doubtful receives half, and the other sons of the brother who married the widow receive half.
If the brother who married the widow died after dividing the estate of his deceased brother with the son whose status is doubtful, the sons of that brother who are fit to inherit his estate are granted it. The son whose status is doubtful may feel entitled to claim: \"If I am your brother, give me a share in this estate. And if I am not your brother, return to me the half of my father's estate that your father took.\" This claim is not accepted. Instead, the son whose status is doubtful is not given any share in the estate of the brother who married the widow; he does not expropriate property from them.", + "The following rules apply when the son whose status is doubtful and the brother who married the widow come to divide the estate of the father of the family. The brother who married the widow is definitely an heir. In this instance as well, there is a question concerning the rights of the son whose status is doubtful. If he is the son of the deceased brother, he receives half; if he is the son of the brother who married the widow, he does not receive anything. Therefore, the estate should be given to the brother and the son whose status is doubtful should be overlooked.
The following principles apply with regard to the inheritance of the grandfather's estate if the brother who married the widow left two sons whose lineage is definite and died. The son whose status is doubtful claims: \"I am the son of the deceased brother. Hence, I should receive half and you two should receive half.\"
The two sons say: \"You are our brother and the son of the brother who married the widow. Hence, you deserve only one third of the estate of our grandfather.\" ?
The two sons receive the half that the son whose status is doubtful acknowledges as belonging to them. The third that they acknowledge as belonging to him is given to him, and the remaining sixth is divided equally: he receives half of it and they receive half of it. ?
If the son whose status is doubtful dies, the brother who married the widow may claim: \"Perhaps he is my son and I have the right to inherit his estate.\" His father may say: \"Perhaps he is the son of my deceased son and I have the right to inherit his estate.\" In such a situation, they should divide the estate equally.
(If the son who married the widow died, the son whose status is doubtful may claim: \"He is my father and I have the right to inherit his estate.\" His father may say: \"Perhaps you are the son of my other son and this is your father's brother. Thus, I have the right to inherit his estate.\" In such a situation, they should divide the estate equally.)", + "The following rules apply when a house fell on a person and his wife and they both died. It is not known if the woman died first, in which instance the heirs of her husband inherit her entire estate, or the husband died first, and the woman's heirs inherit her estate.
How is the issue resolved? We consider the nichsei m'log to be in the possession of the woman's heirs. The money due her by virtue of her ketubah - both the essential obligation and the additional amount - are considered to be in the possession of her husband's heirs. Her nichsei tzon barzel are divided, half are given to the woman's heirs and half to the husband's heirs.
If a house fell on a person and his mother, the estate of the mother may be retained by her heirs from her father's household, for they are definitely heirs. The status of the heirs of the son, by contrast, is doubtful. For if the son died first, his paternal brothers do not have a share in the inheritance of his mother, as we have explained.", + "The following rules apply if a house fell on a person and his daughter's son. If the father died first, his daughter's son would inherit his estate, and thus the estate would be given to the son's heirs. If his daughter's son died first, the son does not inherit his mother's estate after his death as we have explained. Thus, the estate would be given to the father's heirs. Since we do not know who died first, the father's heirs should divide his estate with the heirs of his daughter's son.
Similar rules apply if the father was taken captive and died while in captivity, and his daughter's son died in his city, or conversely, the son was taken captive and died while in captivity and his mother's father died in his city. Since we do not know who died first, the father's heirs should divide his estate with the heirs of his daughter's son.", + "The following rules apply if a house fell on a person and his father or on other person whose estates he would acquire, and the son was responsible for the money due his wife by virtue of her ketubah and other debts. The father's heirs claim that the son died first without leaving an estate. Hence, the debts will remain unpaid. The creditors maintain that the father died first, and thus the son acquired the inheritance. Hence, they have a source from which they can collect the debts owed them. The estate is considered to be in the possession of the heirs. The son's wife or the creditors must prove that the father died first, or they must depart without receiving anything.", + "The same laws apply to people who die in a landslide, were drowned at sea, fell into a fire, or died on the same day in different countries. For in all these and other analogous situations, we do not know who died first." + ], + [ + "Although all that is involved is money, a person may not give property as an inheritance to a person who is not fit to inherit, nor may he exclude a rightful heir from inheriting. This is derived from the verse in the passage concerning inheritance, Numbers 27:11: \"And it shall be for the children of Israel as a statute of judgment.\"
This verse implies that this statute will never change, and no stipulation can be made with regard to it. Whether a person made statements while he was healthy or on his deathbed, whether orally or in writing, they are of no consequence.", + "Therefore, if a person states: \"So-and-so is my firstborn son, he should not receive a double portion,\" or \"My son so-and-so should not inherit my estate together with his brothers,\" his statements are of no consequence. Similarly, if he says: \"Let so-and-so inherit my estate\" when the dying man has a daughter, or \"Let my daughter inherit my estate\" when he has a son, his statements are of no consequence. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
If, however, he had many heirs - e.g., many sons, brothers, or many daughters - and he says while on his deathbed: \"Of all my brothers, only my brother so-and-so should inherit my estate,\" or \"Of all my daughters, only my daughter so-and-so should inherit my estate,\" his words are binding. This applies whether he made these statements orally or in writing.
If, however, he states: \"My son so-and-so should be my sole heir,\" different rules apply]. If he made this statement orally, his words are binding. If, however, he had a document composed stating that his entire estate should be given to one son, he is considered merely to have appointed him as a guardian, as explained.", + "If a person states: \"So-and-so my son should inherit half my estate and my other sons should inherit the other half,\" his words are binding. If, however, he states: \"My firstborn should inherit as an ordinary son,\" or \"My firstborn should not receive a double portion among his brothers,\" his words are of no consequence. This is derived from Deuteronomy 21:16-17: \"He cannot give the firstborn rights to the son of the beloved instead of the firstborn, the son of the hated. Instead, he shall recognize the firstborn, the son of the hated.\"i4", + "If the person desiring to bequeath his estate was healthy, he may not increase or decrease either the portion of the firstborn or that of any other heirs.", + "When does the above apply? When the person making the bequest uses the expression \"inherit.\" If, however, he gives a present, his statements are binding.
Accordingly, when a person apportions his estate verbally to his sons on his deathbed, his statements are binding even though he gave a greater portion to one, reduced the portion of another and equated the portion of the firstborn with that of his other sons. If, however, he used wording that speaks of \"inheritance,\" his statements are of no consequence.", + "If, when apportioning his estate, a person wrote that he is giving his estate as a present, whether at the beginning, the middle, or the end, his statement is binding even though he also spoke of an inheritance.
What is implied? The person said: \"Have this-and-this field given to so-and-so, my son, and let him inherit it,\" \"Let him inherit this-and-this field, have it given to him and let him inherit it,\" or \"Let him inherit it and have it given to him.\" Since he mentioned a present, even though he spoke of an inheritance at the beginning and/or at the end of his statements, his words are binding.
Similarly, if he was apportioning three fields to three different heirs, and he said: \"May so-and-so inherit this-and-this field. This-and-this field should be given to so-and-so, and so-and-so should inherit this-and-this field,\" the intended recipients acquire the gifts even though wording indicating an inheritance was used with regard to one individual, and wording indicating a present was used with regard to another.
This applies provided that the person making the bequest did not make a significant pause between his statements. If, however, he paused, he must mention giving a present with regard to all three individuals.", + "What is implied? If the wording mentioning a present was in the middle, he should say: \"So-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so, should inherit this-and-this field, this-and-this field, and this-and-this field that I gave them as a present, and they should inherit it.\"
If the wording mentioning a present was in the beginning, he should say: \"May this-and-this field, this-and-this field, and this-and-this field be given to so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so, and they should inherit it.\"
If the wording mentioning a present was at the end, he should say: \"May so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so, inherit this-and-this field, this-and-this field, and this-and-this field that I gave to them as a present.\"", + "Although a husband's right to inherit his wife's estate is a Rabbinic decree, our Sages reinforced their words and gave them the strength of Scriptural Law. Hence, a stipulation in which the husband waives his right to her inheritance is not effective unless he made this stipulation while the woman was consecrated, as we have explained in Hilchot Ishut.", + "According to Scriptural Law, a gentile inherits his father's estate. With regard to other inheritances, we allow them to follow their own customs.", + "A convert does not inherit the estate of his father, a gentile. Nevertheless, our Sages ordained that he be able to inherit the estate as he was entitled previously, lest he return to rebellion against God.
It appears to me that a stipulation can be made with regard to this inheritance, for a gentile is not obligated to accept our Sages' ordinances.
A gentile does not inherit the estate of his father, a convert, nor does one convert inherit another convert's estate, neither according to Scriptural Law nor according to Rabbinic Law.", + "Our Sages did not derive satisfaction from a person who gives his property to others, taking it away from his heirs. This applies even when the heirs do not conduct themselves properly toward him. Nevertheless, the recipients acquire everything that was given to them.
It is an attribute of piety for a pious person not to act as a witness with regard to a will in which property is being taken from an heir. This applies even when the property is being taken from a son who does not conduct himself properly, and being given to a brother who is wise and who conducts himself properly.", + "Although a Jew converts out of the faith, he retains the right to inherit the estates of his Jewish relatives as before. If, however, the court sees fit to make him forfeit his money and penalize him by preventing him from receiving the inheritance so as not to strengthen his hand, they have that power. If he has children \" among the Jewish people, the inheritance due their father, the apostate, should be given to them. This is the custom that is always followed in the West.", + "Our Sages commanded that a person should not differentiate between his children in his lifetime, even with regard to a small matter, lest this spawn competition and envy as happened with Joseph and his brothers." + ], + [ + "Heirs are not given their inheritance until they bring clear proof that the person whose estate they are inheriting did in fact die. Even if they heard that he died, or gentiles mentioned that he died in the course of conversation, despite the fact that this is sufficient for license to be given for the person's wife to remarry and to receive the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, the heirs do not receive their inheritance on this basis.", + "When a woman comes and states: \"My husband died,\" although her testimony is accepted and she is given license to remarry and to receive the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, the heirs do not receive their inheritance on this basis.
If she testifies: \"My husband died,\" and is married by his brother, the brother receives the deceased's estate on the basis of her testimony. This is derived from Deuteronomy 25:6: \"He will assume the name of his deceased brother,\" and he has assumed his position.", + "When a person drowned in a body of water that has no end, and witnesses testify that he drowned in their presence and all traces of him were lost, his heirs may inherit his estate on the basis of their testimony, despite the fact that, at the outset, his wife is not permitted to remarry in this situation.
Similarly, if witnesses come and testify that they saw a person fall into a lions' or tigers' den, they saw him crucified with birds eating from his body, he was pierced in battle and died, or he was killed, but his face was not recognizable, but there were definitive signs on his body and they were identified - with regard to these and similar situations, if all traces of the person were lost afterwards, the heirs may assume possession of the inheritance because of such testimony, although the person's wife is not given license to marry.
I maintain that our Sages were stringent concerning these matters only because of the severity of the prohibition involving karet involved. With regard to financial matters, by contrast, if witnesses testify with regard to matters that we can presume will lead to death, saying that they saw these matters, all traces of the person are lost, and afterwards it is heard that he died, we allow the heirs to assume possession of the estate on this basis. This is the standard practice followed on an everyday basis in all courts of law. We have not heard about anyone who rules differently regarding this matter.", + "When a report was heard that a person who had been captive died, and the heirs assumed possession of his estate and divided it among themselves, we do not expropriate it from their possession. A similar law applies when a report is heard about the death of a person who fled because of danger to his life.\"
If, however, a report was heard that a person who voluntarily left his city died, and the heirs assumed possession of his estate and divided it among themselves, we do expropriate it from their possession unless they bring proof that this person died.", + "The court is obligated to take responsibility for the property belonging to a person who was taken captive or one who fled because of mortal danger.
What do they do? They entrust all the movable property to a person deemed trustworthy by the court for safekeeping. They give possession of the landed property to relatives who are fit to inherit it, so that they would work the land and care for the property until they know whether the person died or he comes.
When the person who was taken captive or who fled comes, we evaluate the increase in value brought about by the relatives who were granted trusteeship and the benefit they received according to the norms applying to sharecroppers in that region.
Why does the court not appoint a guardian at all times, both for movable property and for landed property, until the owners come or until it is definitely known that they died? Because the court is not obligated to appoint guardians for adults who are intellectually mature.", + "When a person was taken captive or fled because of danger and left standing grain to reap, or grapes, dates or olives to harvest, the court takes possession of their property and appoints a guardian who will reap or harvest this produce and sell it. The money is then entrusted to the court for safekeeping together with the remainder of the movable property. Afterwards, the relative is given possession of the property as stated in the previous halachah. This procedure is followed because if the relative were given the land at the outset, he might harvest this produce - for it is already as if it had been reaped - and consume it.
This concept also applies with regard to courtyards, inns and stores that are fit to be rented out, do not need work, for here is no difficulty in tending to them, and they are usually not given out in a sharecropping agreement. We do not place them in the possession of an heir, for he would collect the rent and consume it.
What is done instead? The court appoints a collector and has the rent placed in the court until the heir brings proof that the owner died or until the owner comes and takes his property.", + "A relative is never given possession of property other than fields, gardens, vineyards and the like. In these properties, he is considered as a sharecropper. This measure is instituted so that the properties will not be ruined and be left fallow and desolate.", + "The following laws apply when a person left his dwelling place voluntarily, abandoning his property, and we do not where he went or what happened to him. We do not give his property to a relative. If, however, a relative takes possession of it, we do not remove him from it. The court does not have the responsibility to tend to such a person's property and appoint a guardian, neither for the landed property nor for the movable property. The rationale is that he voluntarily departed and abandoned his property.
What are the laws governing this person's property? The movable property should remain in the possession of the person in whose domain it is found until this person comes and claims it or until he dies and it is claimed by heirs.", + "With regard to landed property in which he left someone dwelling, we do not collect rent from him. If there is a field or a vineyard left to a sharecropper, it should remain as he left it until he comes. If he left a field or a vineyard fallow, it should be left fallow. The rationale is that he willingly caused the loss of his property, and when a person willingly forfeits his property, we are not required to return it.", + "If we hear a report that the person who had left voluntarily died, the court collects all the movable property belonging to him and entrusts it to a person whom they consider faithful. They give the fields and vineyards to a relative to care for as a sharecropper, until the heirs bring clear proof that the owner died or until the owner comes." + ], + [ + "When the fields of a person who was taken captive, or who fled, or who left voluntarily but was reported to have died are given to a relative in a share-cropping arrangement, we do not entrust them to a minor, lest he ruin the property.
Conversely, we do not give a minor's property to a relative in a share-cropping arrangement. This is a safeguard, lest that person claim that the property belongs to him, that it is his portion that he received through inheritance. The minor's property is not even given to a relative of a relative.
What is implied? There were two brothers, one older and one younger, and the younger was taken captive or fled, we do not give the younger brother's field to the older brother. For the younger brother will not be able to protest. Perhaps the older brother will take possession of the property and after many years, he will claim: \"This is my portion that I received through inheritance; I took possession as an inheritance.\"
Even the son of the brother of the minor who was taken captive is not given the property in a share-cropping agreement, lest he claim: \"I inherited this portion because of my father.\"", + "No relative is ever given possession of the property of a minor, not even a person whose family connection stems from one's maternal brother, who is not fit to inherit. This is an extra safeguard.
Even if there is a document recording the division of the estate, whether homes or courtyards, the property should not be given to the relative. Even if the relative states: \"Write a document stating that I received the field as part of a sharecropping agreement,\" he should not be given the field. Perhaps the documents will be lost, and after a long period the person will claim that he received it as an inheritance, or that he received it as an inheritance from a relative who received it as an inheritance.
An incident once occurred concerning an old woman who had three daughters. The old woman and one daughter were taken captive. A second daughter died and left a son below the age of majority. The Sages said: We do not give the property to the remaining daughter in a sharecropping agreement, for perhaps the elderly woman died and thus one third of the estate would belong to the minor, and we do not give a relative property belonging to a minor. Similarly, we do not give the property to the minor. For perhaps the old woman is still alive, and the property of a person taken captive should not be given to a minor.
\"What should be done instead? Since a guardian must be appointed for the half designated for the minor, we appoint a guardian for the old woman's entire estate.\"
Afterwards, it was reported that the older woman died. Our Sages said: \"The remaining daughter should receive the third that is her portion of the inheritance. The minor should receive the third that is his portion of the older woman's estate. And a guardian should be appointed for the third that belongs to the daughter in captivity, because of the portion of it that the minor might receive. For if the daughter in captivity also dies, the minor would receive one half of her third.\" Similar principles apply in all analogous situations." + ], + [ + "When brothers have not yet divided the inheritance they received from their father, but instead all use the estate together, they are considered partners with regard to all matters. Similarly, all the other heirs are considered partners with regard to the estate of the person they inherited. Whenever any of them does business with the resources of this estate, the profits are split equally.", + "When there were heirs above majority and others below majority, and those above majority improved the estate, the increment is split equally. If they said: \"See the estate that our father left us. We will work it and benefit from the increase,\" the persons who brought about the increase are entitled to it. This applies provided the increase comes about because of the expenses undertaken by those persons. If the value of the estate increased on its own accord, that increase is shared equally.", + "Similar laws apply if the wife of the deceased was also his relative and had a right to inherit the estate together with her sisters or her cousins. If she increased the value of the estate, the increase is shared equally. If she said: \"See the estate that my husband left me. I will work it and benefit from the increase,\" should she increase the value of the estate through investments she made, the increase belongs to her.", + "The following rules apply when a person inherits his father's estate, improves its value by planting trees and building structures, and afterwards he discovers that he has brothers in another country. If they are minors, the increase in value is divided equally. If they are above majority, since he did not know that he had brothers, he is given a portion as if he was a sharecropper.\"
Similarly, if a brother took possession of property belonging to a minor and improved it, he is not given a portion as if he were a sharecropper. Instead, the increase of the entire estate is divided equally, because he did not have permission to make use of the property.", + "The following rule applies when one of the brothers took money from the inheritance and engaged in commerce with it. If he is a great Torah scholar who ordinarily does not abandon his Torah study for one moment, the profits are given to him. For he would not abandon his Torah studies to engage in commerce for the sake of his brothers.", + "The following laws apply when a king appoints one of the brothers who share in the father's estate as a tax collector, an accountant who supervises the influx and efflux of the king's monies, or to another one of the positions in the king's service. If the son was appointed for his father's sake - i.e., his father was renowned for this skill, and the king said: \"Let us appoint his son in his stead in order to act graciously to the orphans,\" the portion that the son who receives the appointment receives and any wages he earns in this task should be shared among all the brothers. This ruling applies even if that son is very wise and fit to be appointed on his own merit. If the king appointed him on his own merit, his wages are his alone.", + "The following laws apply when one of the brothers was carrying out transactions on behalf of the household and purchased servants as his own individual property, or lent money to others and had the promissory note written to him alone. If he says: \"The money that I lent or with which I purchased the servants is my own. It came to me as an inheritance from my maternal grandfather, I found an ownerless object, or a present was given to me,\" he is required to verify the authenticity of his statements.
Similar laws apply when a married woman was carrying out transactions on behalf of the household and deeds of purchase of servants and promissory notes were composed in her own name. If she says: \"The money belonged to me. I received it as an inheritance from my father's family,\" she is required to verify the authenticity of her statements. Similar laws apply when a widow was carrying out transactions with funds belonging to orphans, and deeds of purchase and promissory notes were circulated in her personal name. If she claimed them as her own, saying: \"It came to me as an inheritance, I found an ownerless object, or a present was given to me,\" she is required to verify the authenticity of her statements.
If she said: \"I took them from the resources of my dowry,\" her word is accepted. If, however, she does not have a dowry, or in the situation described in the previous clauses, she did not bring proof of her statement, everything is assumed to be owned by the heirs.", + "When does the above apply? When the brothers or the widow do not eat separately. When, however, they eat separately, we suspect that they saved from their food allowance. Hence, the other brothers must prove that the money was taken from the estate. Similarly, if the brother who was managing the funds died, the other brothers are required to bring proof that the money was taken from the estate, even though they did not eat separately.", + "The following laws apply when one of the brothers is in possession of a promissory note owed to his father. He is obligated to bring proof that his father gave him the note, signing and transferring a document attesting to the fact that the note was given as a gift, or that, at the time of his death, the father commanded that it be given to that brother. If the brother in possession does not bring proof of this nature, the note must be shared equally as part of the estate.", + "When does the above apply? With regard to brothers, because the prevailing assumption is that they take from each other. When, however, a promissory note is in the possession of another person who claims that the creditor gave it to him or that he purchased it from him, he may collect the debt. He is not required to bring proof of his claim.", + "If one of the brothers took 200 zuz from his share of the estate to study Torah or to study a profession, the other brothers may tell him: \"If you do not live together with us, we will not give you a food allocation beyond what it would cost were you living with us.\" For the food expenses incurred by an individual living alone are much higher than they would be were he to live with others.", + "When a person died, leaving sons past majority and under majority, the older sons cannot be required to receive only what is allocated for the younger sons' living expenses. Nor may younger sons be required to receive only what is allocated for the older sons' food expenses. Instead, the estate should be divided equally.
If the older brothers married after their father's death using the funds of the estate, the younger brothers may marry using the funds of the estate, and then divide it. If the older brothers married during their father's lifetime, we do not heed the requests of the younger brothers who say: \"Let us marry using the funds of the estate, as you married.\" Instead, whatever the father gave the older brothers is considered as a present.", + "The following laws apply when a father married off one of his sons and made a feast for him, paying for the expenses himself. If a wedding gift was sent to this son during the father's lifetime, should the wedding gift have to be repaid after the father's death, it should be repaid by the estate as a whole. If, however, the brother paid for the expenses of the wedding feast from his own resources, the brother who received the gift must repay it from his portion alone.", + "When the father sent a wedding gift to a friend in the name of one of his sons, when that wedding gift is repaid to that son, it is his alone. If, however, the father sent the wedding gift in the name of his sons without making any specification, when it is repaid, it should be repaid to the estate as a whole.
The person to whom the wedding gift was sent is not required to return it unless all the brothers rejoice together with him, for they are all members of the wedding party and the gift was sent in all of their names. Therefore, if he rejoiced with only several of them, he need return only the portion appropriate for those with whom he rejoiced. The money he repays is shared by the estate as a whole.", + "When the oldest of the brothers dresses and garbs himself in fine raiment, he may purchase these garments from the funds of the estate if this brings his brothers benefit, i.e., because of his fine clothing, his words are heeded by other people." + ], + [ + "When two brothers divided an estate and then a third brother came from overseas, or when three brothers divided an estate and then a creditor came and expropriated the portion of one of them, the division is nullified. They should return and divide the remainder equally. This applies even if originally one brother took land and the other cash.", + "When, before his death, a person commanded that so-and-so be given a palm tree or a field from his property, but the brothers divided the estate without giving that person anything, their division is negated. What should they do? The entity concerning which the deceased commanded should be given to that person, and then they should divide the estate anew.", + "When brothers divide an estate, we evaluate the clothes they are wearing. We do not evaluate the clothes that their sons and daughters are wearing that they purchased with the funds of the estate. Similarly, the clothes that their wives are wearing are considered as if they have already been acquired by them.
When does the above apply? With regard to weekday garments. With regard to Sabbath and festival garments, we evaluate what the women and children are wearing.", + "The following law applies when a person died leaving some orphans who are past majority, and others who are below majority. If they desired to divide their father's estate so that the older brothers could receive their portion, the court appoints a guardian for the minors and chooses a good portion for them. Once they come of age, they may not protest the division, because it was made by the court. If, however, the court erred in its evaluation of the estate's worth and reduced their portion by a sixth, they may issue a protest. In that instance, a new division is made after they come of age.", + "When a person dies, leaving some orphans who are past majority and others who are below majority, he must appoint a guardian before his death, who will care for the portion of the minors until they come of age.\" If the father does not appoint such a guardian, the court is obligated to appoint a guardian for them until they come of age. For the court acts as the parents of the orphans.", + "If the dying person ordered: \"Give the minor's portion of my estate to him. Let him do whatever he wants with it,\" he has the license to deal with his own estate in this manner.\"
Similarly, if the dying person appointed a minor, a woman or a servant as the guardian for the minors, he has the license to deal with his own estate in this manner. A court, by contrast, should not appoint a woman, a servant, a minor or an unlearned person who is suspect to violate the Torah's prohibitions' as a guardian.
Instead, they should seek out a faithful and courageous person who knows how to advance the claims of the orphans and bring arguments on their behalf, one who is capable with regard to worldly matters to protect their property and secure a profit for them. Such a person is appointed a guardian over the minors whether or not he is related to them. If he is a relative, however, he should not take control of the landed property.", + "When the court appointed a guardian and afterwards heard that he was eating, drinking and making other expenses beyond what he could be expected to, they should suspect that he is using the resources of the orphans. They should remove him from his position and appoint someone else.
If, however, the guardian was appointed by the orphan's father, he should not be removed in such a situation; it is possible that he found an ownerless article. If, however, witnesses come and testify that he is ruining the orphans' estate, he is removed from his position.The Geonim agreed that he should be required to take an oath in such a situation, for he is causing the orphans a loss.
Similarly, when a guardian was appointed by the orphans' father who had a praiseworthy reputation, was known to be upright and to pursue the mitzvot, and he became a glutton and a drunkard and began following paths that arouse suspicion, or became reckless with regard to vows and the shade of theft, the court is required to remove him from his position and require him to take an oath. Afterwards, they appoint an appropriate guardian. These matters are dependent on the perception of the local judge. For each and every court must act as the parents of the orphans.", + "When a minor attains majority, even if he eats and drinks excessively, ruins his estate and follows an undesirable path, the court does not withhold his property from him, nor does it appoint a guardian, unless his father or the person whose property he inherited ordered that the property not be given to him unless he conducts himself uprightly and successfully, or that it not be given to him until later.
A person who is mentally or emotionally unstable or a deaf-mute are considered as minors, and a guardian should be appointed for them." + ], + [ + "Money belonging to orphans that was left to them by their father does not require a guardian. What, instead, is done with it?
We search for a person who owns property that can be expropriated by a creditor and that is of high quality. This person should be trustworthy, one who heeds the laws of the Torah, and who was never placed under a ban of ostracism. He is given the money in the presence of the court to invest in a manner that will most likely lead to a profit and will not likely lead to loss. Thus, the orphans will derive benefit from the investment of the money.
Similarly, if such a person does not have landed property, he should give bars of gold that do not have any identifying marks as security. The court takes the security and gives him the money to invest in a manner that will most likely lead to a profit and will not likely lead to loss.
Why does he not give golden utensils or golden jewelry as security? For perhaps these articles belong to another person. We fear that in the event of the investor's death, that other person will claim these articles by identifying them with signs. They will then be given to him if the judge knows that the investor was unlikely to possess such articles.
How much should be given to the orphans as profit? As the judges determine, a third of the profits, half of them, or even a fourth of them; if the judges ascertain that this is in the best interests of the orphans, such an arrangement is followed.
If the court cannot find a person to give the money to invest in a manner that will not likely lead to loss and will most likely lead to a profit, they should use a small amount of the money to provide the orphans with their livelihood until they use the money to purchase land that they entrust to a guardian whom they appoint.", + "Movable property inherited by orphans should be evaluated and sold in the presence of a court. If the marketplace is close to their city of residence, we have the articles brought to the marketplace. They are sold and the proceeds added to the financial resources of the orphans.\"", + "The following principle applies when a person possesses beer belonging to orphans and he is beset by a quandary: If he leaves it in its place until it is sold it might sour, and if he brings it to the marketplace it might become lost because of factors beyond his control. Our Sages ruled that he should do as he would do with his own beer. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "When the court appoints a guardian, he is given all the property of the minor: the landed property and the movable property that was not sold. He sells and purchases whatever he determines is necessary; he builds and he destroys; he rents, plants, sows and does whatever he thinks is in the best interests of the orphans. He should provide them with food and drink and provide them with their expenses according to their financial capacity and their social standing. He should not be overly generous with them, nor should he be overly parsimonious.", + "When the orphans come of age, the guardian should give them the property of the person whose estate they inherited. He does not have to give them an account of what he purchased and what he sold. Instead, he tells them: \"This is what remains,\" and takes an oath holding a sacred article that he did not steal anything from them.
When does this apply? When the guardian was appointed by the court. When, however, the guardian was appointed by the orphans' father or other relatives, he is not required to take an oath because of an indefinite claim.
A guardian may dress and garb himself in a distinguished manner using the fund belonging to the orphans, so that he will be esteemed and his words will be heeded, provided that the orphans will benefit from the fact that he is esteemed and his words are heeded.", + "A guardian may sell animals, servants, maidservants, fields and vineyards belonging to the estate to provide sustenance for the orphans. He may not sell these assets and hoard the money. Nor may he sell fields to purchase servants, nor sell servants to purchase fields, for perhaps he will not be successful. He may, however, sell fields to purchase oxen to work other fields, for oxen are the fundamental element of the fields one possesses.", + "The guardian is not permitted to sell a field located far from the city and purchase a field close to the city, nor may he sell a poor field and purchase a good field, for perhaps his purchases will not be successful.
Similarly, a guardian may not enter into a lawsuit to argue on behalf of the orphans with regard to a claim registered against them, with the intent of benefiting them. The rationale is that he may not be successful, and the claim against them will be substantiated.", + "The guardians are not permitted to grant Canaanite servants their freedom. They may not even take money from the servant so that he will be released. Instead, they sell the servants to others and take the money from them with the intent that they grant them their freedom. It is those purchasers who release the servants.", + "The guardians should separate terumah and the tithes from the crops of the orphans so that they can provide them with food. . For we may not feed the orphans forbidden substances. They may not, however, tithe or separate terumah so that the produce will be ready for use. Instead, they should sell it as tevel. Those who desire to make it ready for use will do so.", + "The guardians must make a lulav, a sukkah, tzitzit, a shofar, a Torah scroll, tefillin, mezuzot and a megillah on behalf of the orphans. The general principle is: All mitzvot that have a fixed measure - whether of Scriptural or Rabbinic origin - should be made available for them, although they are obligated in these mitzvot only as part of their education. We do not, however, levy charitable assessments against their property, even for the sake of the redemption of captives. The rationale is that such mitzvot have no limit to them.", + "When a person loses his intellectual faculties or becomes a deaf-mute, the court levies charitable assessments against his property if he has the means.", + "Although a guardian does not have to make an accounting, as mentioned above, he must keep a personal account, being extremely precise, so as not to incur the wrath of the Father of these orphans, He who rides upon the heavens, as Psalms 68:5-6 states: \"Make a path for He who rides upon the heavens... the Father of orphans.\"" + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Inheritances/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Inheritances/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0c61649cf6017ad293b18dd96883b71ecc3271b4 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Inheritances/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json @@ -0,0 +1,71 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Inheritances", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org", + "versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": false, + "isSource": false, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות נחלות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "A husband whose wife dies, and afterwards her father dies, or her brothers, or one of her heirs, the husband does not inherit them. Instead, the inheritance goes to her living heirs, and if there are none the inheritance returns to her father's family. For the husband does not inherit assets that come to him after her death, only those who already came before she died. " + ], + [ + "", + "", + "", + "", + "A day-old child reduces from the firstborn share, though this is not the case by a fetus. [Likewise,] a son born after the death of his father does not cause a reduction of the firstborn share." + ], + [ + "The firstborn does not take a double share from property destined to come after the death of his father; rather, just property that is [already] held by his father that [already] came into his domain, as it says (in Deuteronomy 21 17) \"in all that is found to him\". For example, if one of those from whom his father would inherit dies after his father's death, the firstborn and regular son inherit that one's estate as one [i.e. on equal footing]. Likewise, if his father was due repayment of a loan [he had made to a borrower] or if he owned a ship at sea [at the time of his death], they inherit [these not yet present assets on equal footing, i.e. with no special double portion for the firstborn]." + ], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "If someone voluntarily departed [from his place of residence] and left his property and it is unknown where he went or what happened to him, [the court] does not give his estate over to a relative [of his who stands to inherit it]. If, however, [the relative] takes possession [of the estate on his own, the court] does not remove [the relative from the estate]. The court is not required to tend to [such an abandoned estate] nor to appoint [for it] a guardian, neither for real estate nor for movables, for he voluntarily departed and left his property. How should this [abandoned] property be treated legally? The movables remain with the one in whose possession they are till [the owner] comes and claims them or until he dies and the heirs claim [them]." + ], + [ + "When the [court designates] a relative [to attend] to the properties of the captive or fleer [about whom it is suspected that they are deceased], or to the properties of the one who departed voluntarily, about whom it was heard that he is deceased, [the court] does not [appoint] a minor [to attend the properties] lest he cause a loss to the properties. [The courts also] do not [appoint] a relative [to attend in a sharecropping arragnement] to the property of a minor, lest [the relative] will [take advantage of the minor's inexperience and falsely] claim, \"This [property] is my share that belongs to me through my own inheritance.\" Even a relative of a relative is not [given the property to attend, because of this concern]. What is an example [of this law]? [If] there were two brothers, one an adult and one a minor, and the minor was taken captive or fled, [the court] does not [appoint] the adult [brother as a sharecropper] of [the minor's] field, since the minor [brother] cannot protest [effectively if] the [adult] brother takes possession [of the field] and after [some] years claims, \"This is my portion that I received in my own inheritance and it is in my possession because of [my own] inheritance.\" Even a nephew of this minor who was taken captive is not given the property [in a share-cropping arrangement], lest he say that, \"I inherited this portion because of my [own] father.\"" + ], + [ + "The brothers that did not yet divide their inheritance from their father, but rather they are all using what their father left them together, they are considered like partners for every matter [related to the inherited estate]. Likewise other heirs [to an estate] are considered partners with regard to the estate of the one they inherit. And whenever any of them engaged in [profitable] transactions using the money [of the estate], the profit goes to the middle [i.e. is shared]." + ], + [], + [ + "", + "", + "If someone has in his possession [investment] beer that belongs to orphans [and there is a risk that] if he leaves it [in place] until it is sold, it may sour, but if he brings it to the market [there's a risk that] an accident may occur to it en route - he should treat it as he would treat his own [investment beer]. Likewise for all similar cases." + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Inheritances/English/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Inheritances/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b0e38965af506f4a084f429728317ca2ac8d00b8 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Inheritances/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,162 @@ +{ + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Inheritances", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah,_Inheritances", + "text": [ + [ + "This is the order of inheritance: When a person dies, his children inherit his estate. They receive priority over everyone else, and the sons receive priority over the daughters.", + "In every situation, a female does not inherit together with a male.
If a person does not have children, his father inherits his estate. A mother does not inherit her son's estate. This has been conveyed by the Oral Tradition.", + "With regard to every concept of precedence for an inheritance, a person's blood descendants receive precedence. Therefore, when a person - either a man or a woman - dies and he leaves a son, he inherits everything. If the son is no longer alive, we look to see if the son left descendants. If there are descendants of the son, whether male or female - even the daughter of the daughter of the son's daughter, and this chain can be continued endlessly -that descendant inherits everything.
If the son does not have descendants, we return to the deceased's daughter. If there are descendants of the daughter, whether male or female - and this chain can be continued endlessly - that descendant inherits everything.
If the son does not have descendants, the estate returns to the deceased's father. If the father is no longer alive, -we look to see if the father left descendants - i.e., the brothers of the deceased. If there is a brother of the deceased or the descendant of a brother, he inherits everything. If there are no brothers, we return and look to see if the deceased had a sister. If there is a sister or the descendant of a sister, that person inherits everything.
If there are no descendants of the deceased's brothers or sisters, since there are no descendants of the deceased's father, the estate returns to the deceased's paternal grandfather. If the paternal grandfather is no longer alive, we look to see if the paternal grandfather left descendants - i.e., the uncles or aunts of the deceased. The males receive precedence over the females, and even the descendants of the males receive precedence over the females, as is the law with regard to the descendants of the deceased himself.
If there are no uncles or none of their descendants, the estate returns to the deceased's paternal great-grandfather. Following this pattern, the chain of inheritance continues to extend until Reuven the son of Jacob. Thus the order of inheritance is as follows: A son takes precedence over a daughter. Similarly, all of the son's descendants take precedence over the daughter. The daughter takes precedence over her paternal grandfather, and similarly, all her descendants take precedence over her paternal grandfather.
The deceased's father takes precedence over the deceased's brothers, because they are the father's descendants. The deceased's brothers take precedence over his sisters. Similarly, all their descendants take precedence over the sister.
The deceased's sister takes precedence over her paternal grandfather, and similarly, all her descendants take precedence over her paternal grandfather.
The deceased's paternal grandfather takes precedence over the deceased's uncles. The uncles take precedence over the aunts. Indeed, all the uncles' descendants take precedence over the aunts. The aunts take precedence over the deceased's paternal great-grandfather. Indeed, all the aunts' descendants take precedence over the deceased's paternal great-grandfather. This pattern should be continued until the beginning of all generations. Thus, there is no Jew who does not have heirs.", + "When a person dies and leaves a daughter and the daughter of a son - or even the daughter of the son's daughter and this chain can continue for several generations - the son's daughter takes precedence. She inherits everything; the deceased's daughter does not receive anything.
Similar laws applies when a person is survived by his brother's daughter and his sister, by his uncle's daughter and his aunt, or in all other analogous situations.", + "A woman is, however, given full rights in the following situation. A person had two sons who died in his lifetime. One of the sons left three sons and the other left a daughter. Afterwards, the elder man died. The three grandsons inherit half of the inheritance and the granddaughter inherits the other half. For each inherits their father's portion. Similar laws apply with regard to the division of an estate among the children of the deceased's brothers, the children of his uncles, or the children of other relatives extending back until the beginning of all generations.", + "With regard to the concept of inheritance, the family of a person's mother is not considered family. Inheritance is relevant only with regard to one's father's family. Therefore, maternal brothers do not inherit each other's estates, while paternal brothers do. This applies to brothers who share only a father or who share both a father and a mother.", + "All relatives who were conceived through forbidden relations have equal inheritance rights to those who are conceived through permitted relations.
What is implied? When a person has a son or a brother who is a mamzer, he is treated like any of the other sons or any of the other brothers when it comes to the concept of inheritance. A person's son who is born by a maid-servant or a gentile woman is not considered his son at all, and has no right of inheritance whatsoever.", + "A woman does not inherit her husband's estate at all.
A husband inherits all his wife's property, according to the words of our Sages. He takes precedence over all others with regard to inheriting her estate. This applies even if she is forbidden to him - e.g., a widow who was married to a High Priest, or a divorcee or a woman who had performed chalitzah who was married to an ordinary priest. Similarly, this applies even if the woman was below majority. Even though a husband is a deaf-mute, he inherits his wife's estate.", + "We have already explained in Hilchot Ishut that a husband does not inherit his wife's estate until she enters his domain, and that a man who is mentally aware does not inherit the estate of a woman whom he married as a deaf mute. This applies even if she later becomes fully mentally aware.
There we also explained that a husband inherits the property that enters his wife's domain and which she took possession of during her lifetime. This applies to the property she brought to his household as a dowry, and property that she did not bring to his household. When a husband attempted to divorce his wife, although there is a question about the validity of the divorce, her husband does not inherit her estate after her death.", + "When a man marries a young girl who does not need the right of
to nullify a marriage, he does not inherit her estate, because there is no marriage. Similarly, when a man who was mentally or emotionally unstable married a mentally aware woman, or a mentally aware man married a woman who was mentally or emotionally unstable, the husband does not inherit his wife's estate, for our Sages did not ordain marriage for such individuals.", + "When a man's wife died, and afterwards her father, her brother, or any of the other individuals whose estate she may inherit dies, her husband does not inherit their estate. Instead, the estate should be inherited by her descendants, if she has descendants. If not, the right of inheritance should return to the family of her father's home. The rationale is that the husband does not inherit property that is fit to become hers afterwards, only property that she already inherited before she died.", + "Similarly, a husband does not inherit his wife's estate while he is in the grave as is the ordinary pattern of inheritance for members of his father's family.
What is implied? A man died, and afterwards his wife died. We do not say: Since the husband receives precedence over all others with regard to the inheritance, the husband's heirs should receive precedence over the woman's other heirs. Instead, the woman's heirs from her father's family inherit her estate if she dies after her husband.", + "Similarly, a son does not inherit his mother's estate while he is in the grave, so that the estate will be inherited by his paternal brothers.
What is implied? A person died, and afterwards his mother died. We do not say that if the son were alive, he would take precedence in the inheritance of her estate, and hence, the heirs of the son take precedence over the heirs of this woman. According to the latter conception, the son's paternal brothers would inherit the estate of his mother after her death. This view is not accepted. Instead, if the son has children, they should inherit his mother's estate. If he does not have children, the estate should return to her father's family.
If, however, the mother died first and then the son died, even if he was a newborn baby who was born prematurely, since he survived his mother and then died, he inherits his mother's estate and then transfers the rights to that estate to the family of his father." + ], + [ + "A firstborn receives a double portion of his father's estate, as Deuteronomy 21:17 states: \"To give him twice the portion.\"
What is implied? If a father left five sons, one the firstborn, the firstborn receives a third of the estate and each of the other four receives a sixth. If he left nine sons, the firstborn receives a fifth and each of the other eight receive a tenth. We follow this pattern in dividing the estate in all instances.", + "When a firstborn is born after his father's death, he does not receive a double portion. This is derived from ibid.: 16-17: \"On the day when he transfers his inheritance to his sons... he shall recognize the firstborn, the son of the hated one.\" If his forehead emerged during the lifetime of his father, even though his entire head did not emerge until after his father's death, he receives a double portion.", + "When a firstborn was born with his genitals covered by flesh and afterwards, an operation was performed and it was discovered that he was male, he does not receive a double portion. Conversely, when an ordinary son was born with a similar condition and after the operation was performed, it was discovered that he was male, he does not reduce the firstborn's share. These concepts are derived from ibid.:15 \"And she will bear him sons.\" Implied is that the sons must be sons from the moment of birth.", + "What is meant by saying that such a son does not reduce the firstborn's share? A person had a firstborn, two ordinary sons, and this son whose genitals were covered by flesh and afterwards were revealed through an operation. The firstborn receives one fourth of the estate as his extra share as the firstborn, as if there were only two other sons. The remaining three fourths of the estate are divided equally among the two ordinary sons, the son who underwent the operation, and the firstborn.", + "A child who lived for only one day reduces the portion of the firstborn, but a fetus does not. Similarly, a son born after his father's death, does not reduce the portion of the firstborn.", + "When there is a question if a son is a firstborn or an ordinary son - e.g., the firstborn became mixed together with another - he does not receive a double portion.
What is done? If at first, the babies were distinct and then they became mixed together,\" they may compose a document granting power of attorney to each other, and on that basis take the portion of the firstborn with their brothers. If the identity of the firstborn was never known - e.g., the two wives gave birth in one hiding place, - they should not compose a document granting power of attorney to each other, for there is no extra portion for the firstborn.", + "The following laws apply when a person had two sons - a firstborn and an ordinary son - and they both died in his lifetime, after fathering children. The firstborn left a daughter and the ordinary son left a son. The son of the ordinary son inherits one third of the estate of his grandfather - i.e., his father's portion. And the daughter of the firstborn inherits two thirds of that estate, her father's portion.
The same laws apply with regard to the sons of the deceased's brothers, or the sons of his uncles, or any other set of heirs. If the father of any of the heirs was a firstborn, the person who inherits his share of the estate also receives the firstborn's share.", + "A firstborn does not receive a double portion of his mother's estate. What is implied? When a firstborn and an ordinary son inherit their mother's estate, they divide it equally. This applies with regard to a son who was the firstborn with regard to the laws of inheritance, and to one who \"open his mother's womb.\"", + "The firstborn with regard to the laws of inheritance is the first child born to the father, as ibid.:17 states: \"Because he is the first manifestation of his strength.\" We do not pay attention to the child's status vis-a-vis his mother. o Even if she gave birth to several sons previously, since this was the first son born to the father, he receives a double portion of the inheritance.", + "A son who is born after stillborn babies, even if the stillborn baby was alive when its head emerged from the womb, is considered the firstborn with regard to the laws of inheritance. Similarly, when a fetus was born after a full-term pregnancy, but was not alive when its head emerged, the son who follows is considered the firstborn with regard to the laws of inheritance.
The term \"the first of his strength,\" Deuteronomy 21:17, used with regard to the firstborn implies that no child before him emerged alive into the world. Hence, when a fetus was alive after its head emerged after a full-term pregnancy, a son born afterwards in not a firstborn even the first baby died immediately thereafter.", + "Neither a son born by Cesarean section, nor the son born after him, is considered \"the firstborn.\" The first son was never \"born,\" and ibid.: 15 states \"and she bore sons to him.\" And the second son is not given this privilege, for he was preceded by another.", + "When a person had sons as a gentile and then converted, he does not have a firstborn with regard to the rights of inheritance. If, however, a Jewish man fathered sons from a maid-servant or from a gentile woman, since they are not considered his sons, a son he fathers afterwards from a Jewish woman is considered his firstborn with regard to the laws of inheritance, and he receives a double portion of his father's estate.", + "Even if the firstborn is a mamzer, he receives a double portion. This is reflected by Deuteronomy 21:16: \"But rather he will recognize the firstborn, the son of the hated one.\" This refers to a woman whose marriage is \"hated.\" Needless to say, this applies if the firstborn is the son of a divorcee or a woman who performed chalitzah.", + "There are three individuals whose word is accepted with regard to the designation of a firstborn: the midwife, the mother and the father.
The midwife's word is accepted only at the moment of birth. For example, a woman gave birth to twins; if the midwife said: \"This one emerged first,\" her word is accepted.
His mother's word is accepted for the first seven days after birth, when she says: \"This one is the firstborn.\"
His father's word is always accepted. Even if the father said that a person who was not known to be his son was his firstborn son, his word is accepted. Similarly, his word is accepted if he says that the person whom we consider to be his firstborn is not his firstborn.", + "When a father loses his ability to speak, we check the soundness of his intellect in the same way as is done with regard to a bill of divorce. If through his motions he indicates - or he writes - that this is his firstborn son, that son receives a double portion.", + "If witnesses testify that they heard a father make certain statements that clearly indicate that a child is his firstborn son, the son receives a double portion even though the father did not explicitly say: \"This is my firstborn son.\"", + "If the father was heard saying: \"This son of mine is a firstborn,\" the son does not necessarily receive a double portion of the estate because of this testimony. Perhaps the son was the mother's firstborn, and this was his father's intent. For the son to receive a double portion, the father must call him: \"My son, my firstborn.\"" + ], + [ + "A firstborn does not receive a double portion of property that will later accrue to his father's estate, only of that property that was in his father's possession and had already entered his domain at the time of his death. This is derived from Deuteronomy 21:17 which states: \"of everything that he possesses.\"
What is implied? If one of the people whose estate the father would inherit dies after he did, the firstborn and an ordinary son receive equal shares. Similarly, if the father was owed a debt or he owned a ship at sea, all sons share the inheritance equally.", + "If the father left his sons a cow that was rented out, hired out, or that was pasturing in open territory and it gave birth, the firstborn receives a double share of it and its offspring.", + "If one of the colleagues of a person's father slaughtered an animal and then the father died, the son is entitled to a double portion of the presents from that animal.", + "A firstborn does not receive a double portion of an increase to the value of the estate that accrued after his father's death. Instead, he should have the value of that increase assessed, and he should give the financial equivalent of the difference to the ordinary sons.
The above applies provided the property undergoes a change, e.g., budding grain became ears, or budding dates became dates. If, however, the value of the land improved as a matter of course, without undergoing a change - e.g., a small tree grew taller and thicker, or sediment was washed up onto land, the firstborn receives a double portion of the increase in value. If the property increased in value because of investment, he does not receive a double portion.", + "A firstborn does not receive a double share of a debt owed to his father. This applies even though the debt was supported by a promissory note and land was expropriated to pay the debt.
If the father was owed a debt by the firstborn, there is an unresolved doubt concerning the matter. It might be said that he should receive a double portion, because the money was in his possession. It could, however, be argued that he should not receive the extra amount, since he is inheriting it because of his father, and it did not enter his father's possession before his death. Therefore, he should take half of the firstborn's portion from it.", + "When a firstborn sells his extra share of the inheritance before the estate is divided, the sale is binding. For the firstborn's extra share is distinct, even before the estate is divided. Therefore, if initially, the firstborn divides a portion of the estate, either landed property or movable property, and accepts the same portion as an ordinary son, he is considered to have waived his right to an extra portion with regard to the entire estate. He receives only an ordinary son's share of the remainder.
When does the above apply? When he did not protest. If, however, he protested against his brothers and said in the presence of two witnesses: \"Although I am dividing these grapes equally with my brothers, I have not waived my right to the firstborn's share,\" his protest is significant and he is not considered to have waived his right to the other property.
Even if he protested with regard to the division of grapes while they were still attached to the earth, and yet agreed to divide them equally after the harvest, he is not considered to have waived his right to the other property. If, however, the grapes were pressed, and he divided the wine equally with them and did not issue a protest when the wine was made, he is considered to have waived his right to the other property. To what can the matter be compared? To a person who issued a protest when grapes were divided but then divided olives equally, in which instance he is considered to have waived his rights to an extra portion of the entire estate.", + "The brother who performs the rite of yibbum, marrying his brother's childless widow, inherits all of the property in his estate at the time of his brother's death. With regard to any property that is fit to enter the deceased's estate afterwards, he receives the same share as the others. This concept is derived from the fact that the verse refers to him as a \"firstborn,\" as Deuteronomy 25:6 states: \"And the firstborn that she will bear will take the place of the brother who died, and thus his name will not be wiped out among Israel.\"
Just as the brother who performs the rite of yibbum does not acquire property that is fit to be acquired by the estate, in contrast to property that is within the estate; so, too, he does not acquire the increase in the estate's value.
To what does the latter phrase refer? To the increase in his deceased brother's share in his father's estate, which increased in value in the time between his father's death and the division of that estate among his brothers. Even if the property increased in value after he married his brother's widow, but before it was divided, he receives the same share of the increase as the other brothers. This applies despite the fact that he receives two shares of this property, his own share and the share of his brother whose widow he married. For the father died while they were all alive.", + "We already explained in Hilchot Shechenim that the firstborn is given his two portions of a field together. This does not apply with regard to a person who marries his brother's childless widow. He receives his portion and his brother's portion by lot. If it happens that he is allotted portions in two different places, these are the portions he receives.", + "The following laws apply when a childless widow who was waiting to be married by her deceased husband's brother dies. They apply even when one of the brothers designated her for marriage. Her family from her father's household inherit her nichsei m'log and half of her nichsei tzon barzel, and her husband's heirs inherit the money due her by virtue of her ketubah and the other half of her nichsei tzon barzel.
Since they inherit the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, her husband's heirs are obligated to bury her, as we have explained in the appropriate place." + ], + [ + "When a person says: \"This is my son,\" \"This is my brother,\" \"This is my uncle,\" or identifies a person as any of his other heirs, his word is accepted and that person inherits his estate. This applies even when he makes this acknowledgment concerning people who are not recognized to be his relatives. And it applies whether he made such a statement when he was healthy or when he is on his deathbed. Even if he lost his power of speech and identified a person as his heir in writing, his word is accepted, provided we test his powers of understanding as we test a man with regard to divorce.", + "When one person is recognized to be another person's brother or cousin, and the latter says: \"He is not my brother,\" or \"He is not my cousin,\" his word is not accepted. His word is accepted, however, with regard to a person who is recognized to be his son. If he says he is not his son, he does not inherit his estate.
It appears to me that even if the son already fathered children - although at that point, the father's word is no longer acceptable with regard to the determination of his lineage, and we do not consider him a mamzer because of his father's statement - his father's word is, nevertheless, accepted with regard to the concept of inheritance. He should not inherit his father's estate.", + "When a person states: \"This is my son,\" and afterwards, says: \"He is my servant,\" his latter statement is not accepted.
If he states: \"He is my servant,\" and afterwards, says: \"He is my son,\" his latter statement is accepted. This applies even though the \"son\" serves him like a servant. We interpret his statement that he is his servant to mean that he relies on him like a servant. Nevertheless, if people would call this individual \"A slave worth 100 zuz\" or the like - i.e., expressions that are appropriate only for servants - the deceased's retraction is not accepted.", + "If a person had to pass through customs and identified an individual as his son, but afterwards identified him as a servant, his later statement is accepted. We assume that he identified him as his son only to avoid paying customs duty. If, however, in customs, he identified a person as his servant, and afterwards identified him as his son, his word is not accepted.", + "A person should not call a servant Papa Joe or a maidservant Mama Sarah lest this lead to an undesirable outcome and a blemish be placed on his lineage. Therefore, if there were servants or maidservants who were very distinguished personages, their reputations are well known, and everyone in the community recognizes them and the children and servants of their master - e.g., the servants of the nasi - it is permitted for the children of that household to refer to the servants in the above manner.", + "The following rules apply when a person had a maidservant and fathered a son with her, and he would treat the son as one treats a son or said: \"He is my son and his mother was freed.\" If the person involved is a Torah scholar or an honorable person whose conduct has been scrutinized and he is found to be precise in the observance of the details of the mitzvot, the \"son\" may share in the inheritance of his estate. Nevertheless, this \"son\" may not marry a Jewish woman until he brings proof that his mother was freed before she gave birth. The rationale for this stringency is that it has been established for us that the woman is a maidservant. If the person is one of the ordinary people - and needless to say, if he is one of those who act loosely in this manner - the \"son\" is presumed to be a servant with regard to all matters. His paternal brothers may sell him. If his father does not have any children other than him, the father's wife must undergo the rite of yibbum.
This is the law as it appears to me, for it follows the fundamental principles of the received tradition. There are, however, authorities who do not make a distinction between honorable people and people at large, except with regard to the ruling that his brothers may not sell him. ' And there are others who rule that this \"son\" may even inherit his father's estate, so that a distinction is not made with regard to Jews. It is not appropriate to rely on this ruling.", + "All the heirs may inherit on the basis of the prevailing presumption that they are the deceased relatives. What is implied? When witnesses testify that the prevailing presumption is that a person is an individual's son or his brother, the former may inherit the latter's estate on the basis of this testimony, even though the witnesses do not testify concerning the person's lineage, nor do they possess indubitable knowledge concerning his lineage.", + "A person's statements regarding his relatives affect his share of an inheritance, but not that of his brothers. To illustrate by example: Jacob died and left two sons: Reuven and Shimon. The prevailing presumption was that he did not have any sons other than these two.
Reuven took Levi from among people at large and said: \"He is also our brother.\" Shimon replied: \"I don't know.\" Shimon is granted half the estate. Reuven is given a third, for he acknowledged that they are three brothers, and Levi is given a sixth.
If Levi dies, that sixth is returned to Reuven. If other property had been acquired by Levi, it should be divided between Reuven and Shimon, for Reuven acknowledges Shimon's claim to a portion of the estate, because Levi is their brother.
Different rules apply if the sixth that Levi was given increased in value on its own accord and then Levi died. If the increase were crops that were almost ready to be reaped - e.g., grapes that are ready to be harvested - they are considered to be property acquired from others and should be divided among the two brothers. If they are not ready to be reaped, they belong to Reuven alone.
If Shimon said explicitly: \"Levi is not my brother,\" and Levi received part of Reuven's share, as explained above, and then died, Shimon should not inherit any part of his estate. Instead, Reuven should inherit both the sixth from his share and any other property that Levi left. These principles apply with regard to any other heirs when a portion of them acknowledge the existence of other heirs that the remaining portion do not acknowledge." + ], + [ + "The following principles apply with regard to questions concerning the right of inheritance: Whenever there are two prospective heirs, one who is definitely an heir and one whose right to inherit is a matter of question, the person whose right is in doubt does not receive anything. If there are two claimants whose rights are a matter of question, perhaps this one is an heir or perhaps the other is an heir, they divide the estate equally.
Accordingly, if a person died and left a son and a tumtuni or an androgynous? the son inherits the entire estate. For the status of the tumtum or the androgynous is a matter of question. If he left daughters and a tumtum or an androgynous, they share equally in the inheritance. The tumtum or androgynous is considered as one of the daughters.", + "In Hilchot Ishut, we explained the laws pertaining to the portions of an estate given to daughters from the sons' share to provide for the daughters' sustenance? and for their livelihood. There' we explained that the sustenance of the daughters is one of the provisions of the ketubah.
When the estate is ample,\" the daughters receive only their sustenance. The sons inherit everything, and they should give dowries to the daughters of a tenth of the estate each so that men will desire to marry them as husbands. When the estate is limited, the sons do not receive anything. Instead, everything is set aside for the daughters' sustenance.
Accordingly, the following rules apply when a person died and left sons, daughters and a tumtum or an androgynous. If the estate is ample, the sons inherit the estate and compel the tumtum to be treated as one of the daughters. He is given only his sustenance as they are. If the estate is limited, the daughters compel the tumtum to be treated as one of the sons. They tell him: \"You are a male and hence you are not entitled to receive your sustenance as we are.\"", + "The following rules apply when a woman did not wait three months after parting from her husband, but instead, married within that time and gave birth to a son. We do not know if the son was born after nine months and is her first husband's child or was born after seven months and was her second husband's son.
This son does not inherit the estate of either father, because his claim is doubtful. If this son dies, both of them inherit his estate, sharing it equally, because both of their claims are doubtful. Maybe this one is his father? Or maybe the other one?", + "The following laws apply when a childless widow did not wait three months after her first husband's death, married her husband's brother and bore a son. We do not know if the son was born after nine months and is her first husband's child, or was born after seven months and was her second husband's son.
With regard to the inheritance of the estate of the woman's first husband, the son whose parentage is doubtful says: \"Perhaps I am the son of the deceased, in which instance I would inherit my father's entire estate. You would not be fit to marry my mother, for she would not be required to perform the rite of yibbumP
The brother who married her says: \"Perhaps you are my son and thus your mother was required to perform the rite of yibbwn. You have no right to my brother's estate.\"
Since not only the status of the \"son,\" but also that of the brother who married the widow is doubtful, they share the estate equally. The same laws apply when this \"son\" whose status is doubtful and the other sons of the brother who married the widow come to divide the estate of the brother whose widow was married. They divide the estate equally. The \"son\" whose status is doubtful receives half, and the other sons of the brother who married the widow receive half.
If the brother who married the widow died after dividing the estate of his deceased brother with the son whose status is doubtful, the sons of that brother who are fit to inherit his estate are granted it. The son whose status is doubtful may feel entitled to claim: \"If I am your brother, give me a share in this estate. And if I am not your brother, return to me the half of my father's estate that your father took.\" This claim is not accepted. Instead, the son whose status is doubtful is not given any share in the estate of the brother who married the widow; he does not expropriate property from them.", + "The following rules apply when the son whose status is doubtful and the brother who married the widow come to divide the estate of the father of the family. The brother who married the widow is definitely an heir. In this instance as well, there is a question concerning the rights of the son whose status is doubtful. If he is the son of the deceased brother, he receives half; if he is the son of the brother who married the widow, he does not receive anything. Therefore, the estate should be given to the brother and the son whose status is doubtful should be overlooked.
The following principles apply with regard to the inheritance of the grandfather's estate if the brother who married the widow left two sons whose lineage is definite and died. The son whose status is doubtful claims: \"I am the son of the deceased brother. Hence, I should receive half and you two should receive half.\"
The two sons say: \"You are our brother and the son of the brother who married the widow. Hence, you deserve only one third of the estate of our grandfather.\" ?
The two sons receive the half that the son whose status is doubtful acknowledges as belonging to them. The third that they acknowledge as belonging to him is given to him, and the remaining sixth is divided equally: he receives half of it and they receive half of it. ?
If the son whose status is doubtful dies, the brother who married the widow may claim: \"Perhaps he is my son and I have the right to inherit his estate.\" His father may say: \"Perhaps he is the son of my deceased son and I have the right to inherit his estate.\" In such a situation, they should divide the estate equally.
(If the son who married the widow died, the son whose status is doubtful may claim: \"He is my father and I have the right to inherit his estate.\" His father may say: \"Perhaps you are the son of my other son and this is your father's brother. Thus, I have the right to inherit his estate.\" In such a situation, they should divide the estate equally.)", + "The following rules apply when a house fell on a person and his wife and they both died. It is not known if the woman died first, in which instance the heirs of her husband inherit her entire estate, or the husband died first, and the woman's heirs inherit her estate.
How is the issue resolved? We consider the nichsei m'log to be in the possession of the woman's heirs. The money due her by virtue of her ketubah - both the essential obligation and the additional amount - are considered to be in the possession of her husband's heirs. Her nichsei tzon barzel are divided, half are given to the woman's heirs and half to the husband's heirs.
If a house fell on a person and his mother, the estate of the mother may be retained by her heirs from her father's household, for they are definitely heirs. The status of the heirs of the son, by contrast, is doubtful. For if the son died first, his paternal brothers do not have a share in the inheritance of his mother, as we have explained.", + "The following rules apply if a house fell on a person and his daughter's son. If the father died first, his daughter's son would inherit his estate, and thus the estate would be given to the son's heirs. If his daughter's son died first, the son does not inherit his mother's estate after his death as we have explained. Thus, the estate would be given to the father's heirs. Since we do not know who died first, the father's heirs should divide his estate with the heirs of his daughter's son.
Similar rules apply if the father was taken captive and died while in captivity, and his daughter's son died in his city, or conversely, the son was taken captive and died while in captivity and his mother's father died in his city. Since we do not know who died first, the father's heirs should divide his estate with the heirs of his daughter's son.", + "The following rules apply if a house fell on a person and his father or on other person whose estates he would acquire, and the son was responsible for the money due his wife by virtue of her ketubah and other debts. The father's heirs claim that the son died first without leaving an estate. Hence, the debts will remain unpaid. The creditors maintain that the father died first, and thus the son acquired the inheritance. Hence, they have a source from which they can collect the debts owed them. The estate is considered to be in the possession of the heirs. The son's wife or the creditors must prove that the father died first, or they must depart without receiving anything.", + "The same laws apply to people who die in a landslide, were drowned at sea, fell into a fire, or died on the same day in different countries. For in all these and other analogous situations, we do not know who died first." + ], + [ + "Although all that is involved is money, a person may not give property as an inheritance to a person who is not fit to inherit, nor may he exclude a rightful heir from inheriting. This is derived from the verse in the passage concerning inheritance, Numbers 27:11: \"And it shall be for the children of Israel as a statute of judgment.\"
This verse implies that this statute will never change, and no stipulation can be made with regard to it. Whether a person made statements while he was healthy or on his deathbed, whether orally or in writing, they are of no consequence.", + "Therefore, if a person states: \"So-and-so is my firstborn son, he should not receive a double portion,\" or \"My son so-and-so should not inherit my estate together with his brothers,\" his statements are of no consequence. Similarly, if he says: \"Let so-and-so inherit my estate\" when the dying man has a daughter, or \"Let my daughter inherit my estate\" when he has a son, his statements are of no consequence. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
If, however, he had many heirs - e.g., many sons, brothers, or many daughters - and he says while on his deathbed: \"Of all my brothers, only my brother so-and-so should inherit my estate,\" or \"Of all my daughters, only my daughter so-and-so should inherit my estate,\" his words are binding. This applies whether he made these statements orally or in writing.
If, however, he states: \"My son so-and-so should be my sole heir,\" different rules apply]. If he made this statement orally, his words are binding. If, however, he had a document composed stating that his entire estate should be given to one son, he is considered merely to have appointed him as a guardian, as explained.", + "If a person states: \"So-and-so my son should inherit half my estate and my other sons should inherit the other half,\" his words are binding. If, however, he states: \"My firstborn should inherit as an ordinary son,\" or \"My firstborn should not receive a double portion among his brothers,\" his words are of no consequence. This is derived from Deuteronomy 21:16-17: \"He cannot give the firstborn rights to the son of the beloved instead of the firstborn, the son of the hated. Instead, he shall recognize the firstborn, the son of the hated.\"i4", + "If the person desiring to bequeath his estate was healthy, he may not increase or decrease either the portion of the firstborn or that of any other heirs.", + "When does the above apply? When the person making the bequest uses the expression \"inherit.\" If, however, he gives a present, his statements are binding.
Accordingly, when a person apportions his estate verbally to his sons on his deathbed, his statements are binding even though he gave a greater portion to one, reduced the portion of another and equated the portion of the firstborn with that of his other sons. If, however, he used wording that speaks of \"inheritance,\" his statements are of no consequence.", + "If, when apportioning his estate, a person wrote that he is giving his estate as a present, whether at the beginning, the middle, or the end, his statement is binding even though he also spoke of an inheritance.
What is implied? The person said: \"Have this-and-this field given to so-and-so, my son, and let him inherit it,\" \"Let him inherit this-and-this field, have it given to him and let him inherit it,\" or \"Let him inherit it and have it given to him.\" Since he mentioned a present, even though he spoke of an inheritance at the beginning and/or at the end of his statements, his words are binding.
Similarly, if he was apportioning three fields to three different heirs, and he said: \"May so-and-so inherit this-and-this field. This-and-this field should be given to so-and-so, and so-and-so should inherit this-and-this field,\" the intended recipients acquire the gifts even though wording indicating an inheritance was used with regard to one individual, and wording indicating a present was used with regard to another.
This applies provided that the person making the bequest did not make a significant pause between his statements. If, however, he paused, he must mention giving a present with regard to all three individuals.", + "What is implied? If the wording mentioning a present was in the middle, he should say: \"So-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so, should inherit this-and-this field, this-and-this field, and this-and-this field that I gave them as a present, and they should inherit it.\"
If the wording mentioning a present was in the beginning, he should say: \"May this-and-this field, this-and-this field, and this-and-this field be given to so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so, and they should inherit it.\"
If the wording mentioning a present was at the end, he should say: \"May so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so, inherit this-and-this field, this-and-this field, and this-and-this field that I gave to them as a present.\"", + "Although a husband's right to inherit his wife's estate is a Rabbinic decree, our Sages reinforced their words and gave them the strength of Scriptural Law. Hence, a stipulation in which the husband waives his right to her inheritance is not effective unless he made this stipulation while the woman was consecrated, as we have explained in Hilchot Ishut.", + "According to Scriptural Law, a gentile inherits his father's estate. With regard to other inheritances, we allow them to follow their own customs.", + "A convert does not inherit the estate of his father, a gentile. Nevertheless, our Sages ordained that he be able to inherit the estate as he was entitled previously, lest he return to rebellion against God.
It appears to me that a stipulation can be made with regard to this inheritance, for a gentile is not obligated to accept our Sages' ordinances.
A gentile does not inherit the estate of his father, a convert, nor does one convert inherit another convert's estate, neither according to Scriptural Law nor according to Rabbinic Law.", + "Our Sages did not derive satisfaction from a person who gives his property to others, taking it away from his heirs. This applies even when the heirs do not conduct themselves properly toward him. Nevertheless, the recipients acquire everything that was given to them.
It is an attribute of piety for a pious person not to act as a witness with regard to a will in which property is being taken from an heir. This applies even when the property is being taken from a son who does not conduct himself properly, and being given to a brother who is wise and who conducts himself properly.", + "Although a Jew converts out of the faith, he retains the right to inherit the estates of his Jewish relatives as before. If, however, the court sees fit to make him forfeit his money and penalize him by preventing him from receiving the inheritance so as not to strengthen his hand, they have that power. If he has children \" among the Jewish people, the inheritance due their father, the apostate, should be given to them. This is the custom that is always followed in the West.", + "Our Sages commanded that a person should not differentiate between his children in his lifetime, even with regard to a small matter, lest this spawn competition and envy as happened with Joseph and his brothers." + ], + [ + "Heirs are not given their inheritance until they bring clear proof that the person whose estate they are inheriting did in fact die. Even if they heard that he died, or gentiles mentioned that he died in the course of conversation, despite the fact that this is sufficient for license to be given for the person's wife to remarry and to receive the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, the heirs do not receive their inheritance on this basis.", + "When a woman comes and states: \"My husband died,\" although her testimony is accepted and she is given license to remarry and to receive the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, the heirs do not receive their inheritance on this basis.
If she testifies: \"My husband died,\" and is married by his brother, the brother receives the deceased's estate on the basis of her testimony. This is derived from Deuteronomy 25:6: \"He will assume the name of his deceased brother,\" and he has assumed his position.", + "When a person drowned in a body of water that has no end, and witnesses testify that he drowned in their presence and all traces of him were lost, his heirs may inherit his estate on the basis of their testimony, despite the fact that, at the outset, his wife is not permitted to remarry in this situation.
Similarly, if witnesses come and testify that they saw a person fall into a lions' or tigers' den, they saw him crucified with birds eating from his body, he was pierced in battle and died, or he was killed, but his face was not recognizable, but there were definitive signs on his body and they were identified - with regard to these and similar situations, if all traces of the person were lost afterwards, the heirs may assume possession of the inheritance because of such testimony, although the person's wife is not given license to marry.
I maintain that our Sages were stringent concerning these matters only because of the severity of the prohibition involving karet involved. With regard to financial matters, by contrast, if witnesses testify with regard to matters that we can presume will lead to death, saying that they saw these matters, all traces of the person are lost, and afterwards it is heard that he died, we allow the heirs to assume possession of the estate on this basis. This is the standard practice followed on an everyday basis in all courts of law. We have not heard about anyone who rules differently regarding this matter.", + "When a report was heard that a person who had been captive died, and the heirs assumed possession of his estate and divided it among themselves, we do not expropriate it from their possession. A similar law applies when a report is heard about the death of a person who fled because of danger to his life.\"
If, however, a report was heard that a person who voluntarily left his city died, and the heirs assumed possession of his estate and divided it among themselves, we do expropriate it from their possession unless they bring proof that this person died.", + "The court is obligated to take responsibility for the property belonging to a person who was taken captive or one who fled because of mortal danger.
What do they do? They entrust all the movable property to a person deemed trustworthy by the court for safekeeping. They give possession of the landed property to relatives who are fit to inherit it, so that they would work the land and care for the property until they know whether the person died or he comes.
When the person who was taken captive or who fled comes, we evaluate the increase in value brought about by the relatives who were granted trusteeship and the benefit they received according to the norms applying to sharecroppers in that region.
Why does the court not appoint a guardian at all times, both for movable property and for landed property, until the owners come or until it is definitely known that they died? Because the court is not obligated to appoint guardians for adults who are intellectually mature.", + "When a person was taken captive or fled because of danger and left standing grain to reap, or grapes, dates or olives to harvest, the court takes possession of their property and appoints a guardian who will reap or harvest this produce and sell it. The money is then entrusted to the court for safekeeping together with the remainder of the movable property. Afterwards, the relative is given possession of the property as stated in the previous halachah. This procedure is followed because if the relative were given the land at the outset, he might harvest this produce - for it is already as if it had been reaped - and consume it.
This concept also applies with regard to courtyards, inns and stores that are fit to be rented out, do not need work, for here is no difficulty in tending to them, and they are usually not given out in a sharecropping agreement. We do not place them in the possession of an heir, for he would collect the rent and consume it.
What is done instead? The court appoints a collector and has the rent placed in the court until the heir brings proof that the owner died or until the owner comes and takes his property.", + "A relative is never given possession of property other than fields, gardens, vineyards and the like. In these properties, he is considered as a sharecropper. This measure is instituted so that the properties will not be ruined and be left fallow and desolate.", + "The following laws apply when a person left his dwelling place voluntarily, abandoning his property, and we do not where he went or what happened to him. We do not give his property to a relative. If, however, a relative takes possession of it, we do not remove him from it. The court does not have the responsibility to tend to such a person's property and appoint a guardian, neither for the landed property nor for the movable property. The rationale is that he voluntarily departed and abandoned his property.
What are the laws governing this person's property? The movable property should remain in the possession of the person in whose domain it is found until this person comes and claims it or until he dies and it is claimed by heirs.", + "With regard to landed property in which he left someone dwelling, we do not collect rent from him. If there is a field or a vineyard left to a sharecropper, it should remain as he left it until he comes. If he left a field or a vineyard fallow, it should be left fallow. The rationale is that he willingly caused the loss of his property, and when a person willingly forfeits his property, we are not required to return it.", + "If we hear a report that the person who had left voluntarily died, the court collects all the movable property belonging to him and entrusts it to a person whom they consider faithful. They give the fields and vineyards to a relative to care for as a sharecropper, until the heirs bring clear proof that the owner died or until the owner comes." + ], + [ + "When the fields of a person who was taken captive, or who fled, or who left voluntarily but was reported to have died are given to a relative in a share-cropping arrangement, we do not entrust them to a minor, lest he ruin the property.
Conversely, we do not give a minor's property to a relative in a share-cropping arrangement. This is a safeguard, lest that person claim that the property belongs to him, that it is his portion that he received through inheritance. The minor's property is not even given to a relative of a relative.
What is implied? There were two brothers, one older and one younger, and the younger was taken captive or fled, we do not give the younger brother's field to the older brother. For the younger brother will not be able to protest. Perhaps the older brother will take possession of the property and after many years, he will claim: \"This is my portion that I received through inheritance; I took possession as an inheritance.\"
Even the son of the brother of the minor who was taken captive is not given the property in a share-cropping agreement, lest he claim: \"I inherited this portion because of my father.\"", + "No relative is ever given possession of the property of a minor, not even a person whose family connection stems from one's maternal brother, who is not fit to inherit. This is an extra safeguard.
Even if there is a document recording the division of the estate, whether homes or courtyards, the property should not be given to the relative. Even if the relative states: \"Write a document stating that I received the field as part of a sharecropping agreement,\" he should not be given the field. Perhaps the documents will be lost, and after a long period the person will claim that he received it as an inheritance, or that he received it as an inheritance from a relative who received it as an inheritance.
An incident once occurred concerning an old woman who had three daughters. The old woman and one daughter were taken captive. A second daughter died and left a son below the age of majority. The Sages said: We do not give the property to the remaining daughter in a sharecropping agreement, for perhaps the elderly woman died and thus one third of the estate would belong to the minor, and we do not give a relative property belonging to a minor. Similarly, we do not give the property to the minor. For perhaps the old woman is still alive, and the property of a person taken captive should not be given to a minor.
\"What should be done instead? Since a guardian must be appointed for the half designated for the minor, we appoint a guardian for the old woman's entire estate.\"
Afterwards, it was reported that the older woman died. Our Sages said: \"The remaining daughter should receive the third that is her portion of the inheritance. The minor should receive the third that is his portion of the older woman's estate. And a guardian should be appointed for the third that belongs to the daughter in captivity, because of the portion of it that the minor might receive. For if the daughter in captivity also dies, the minor would receive one half of her third.\" Similar principles apply in all analogous situations." + ], + [ + "When brothers have not yet divided the inheritance they received from their father, but instead all use the estate together, they are considered partners with regard to all matters. Similarly, all the other heirs are considered partners with regard to the estate of the person they inherited. Whenever any of them does business with the resources of this estate, the profits are split equally.", + "When there were heirs above majority and others below majority, and those above majority improved the estate, the increment is split equally. If they said: \"See the estate that our father left us. We will work it and benefit from the increase,\" the persons who brought about the increase are entitled to it. This applies provided the increase comes about because of the expenses undertaken by those persons. If the value of the estate increased on its own accord, that increase is shared equally.", + "Similar laws apply if the wife of the deceased was also his relative and had a right to inherit the estate together with her sisters or her cousins. If she increased the value of the estate, the increase is shared equally. If she said: \"See the estate that my husband left me. I will work it and benefit from the increase,\" should she increase the value of the estate through investments she made, the increase belongs to her.", + "The following rules apply when a person inherits his father's estate, improves its value by planting trees and building structures, and afterwards he discovers that he has brothers in another country. If they are minors, the increase in value is divided equally. If they are above majority, since he did not know that he had brothers, he is given a portion as if he was a sharecropper.\"
Similarly, if a brother took possession of property belonging to a minor and improved it, he is not given a portion as if he were a sharecropper. Instead, the increase of the entire estate is divided equally, because he did not have permission to make use of the property.", + "The following rule applies when one of the brothers took money from the inheritance and engaged in commerce with it. If he is a great Torah scholar who ordinarily does not abandon his Torah study for one moment, the profits are given to him. For he would not abandon his Torah studies to engage in commerce for the sake of his brothers.", + "The following laws apply when a king appoints one of the brothers who share in the father's estate as a tax collector, an accountant who supervises the influx and efflux of the king's monies, or to another one of the positions in the king's service. If the son was appointed for his father's sake - i.e., his father was renowned for this skill, and the king said: \"Let us appoint his son in his stead in order to act graciously to the orphans,\" the portion that the son who receives the appointment receives and any wages he earns in this task should be shared among all the brothers. This ruling applies even if that son is very wise and fit to be appointed on his own merit. If the king appointed him on his own merit, his wages are his alone.", + "The following laws apply when one of the brothers was carrying out transactions on behalf of the household and purchased servants as his own individual property, or lent money to others and had the promissory note written to him alone. If he says: \"The money that I lent or with which I purchased the servants is my own. It came to me as an inheritance from my maternal grandfather, I found an ownerless object, or a present was given to me,\" he is required to verify the authenticity of his statements.
Similar laws apply when a married woman was carrying out transactions on behalf of the household and deeds of purchase of servants and promissory notes were composed in her own name. If she says: \"The money belonged to me. I received it as an inheritance from my father's family,\" she is required to verify the authenticity of her statements. Similar laws apply when a widow was carrying out transactions with funds belonging to orphans, and deeds of purchase and promissory notes were circulated in her personal name. If she claimed them as her own, saying: \"It came to me as an inheritance, I found an ownerless object, or a present was given to me,\" she is required to verify the authenticity of her statements.
If she said: \"I took them from the resources of my dowry,\" her word is accepted. If, however, she does not have a dowry, or in the situation described in the previous clauses, she did not bring proof of her statement, everything is assumed to be owned by the heirs.", + "When does the above apply? When the brothers or the widow do not eat separately. When, however, they eat separately, we suspect that they saved from their food allowance. Hence, the other brothers must prove that the money was taken from the estate. Similarly, if the brother who was managing the funds died, the other brothers are required to bring proof that the money was taken from the estate, even though they did not eat separately.", + "The following laws apply when one of the brothers is in possession of a promissory note owed to his father. He is obligated to bring proof that his father gave him the note, signing and transferring a document attesting to the fact that the note was given as a gift, or that, at the time of his death, the father commanded that it be given to that brother. If the brother in possession does not bring proof of this nature, the note must be shared equally as part of the estate.", + "When does the above apply? With regard to brothers, because the prevailing assumption is that they take from each other. When, however, a promissory note is in the possession of another person who claims that the creditor gave it to him or that he purchased it from him, he may collect the debt. He is not required to bring proof of his claim.", + "If one of the brothers took 200 zuz from his share of the estate to study Torah or to study a profession, the other brothers may tell him: \"If you do not live together with us, we will not give you a food allocation beyond what it would cost were you living with us.\" For the food expenses incurred by an individual living alone are much higher than they would be were he to live with others.", + "When a person died, leaving sons past majority and under majority, the older sons cannot be required to receive only what is allocated for the younger sons' living expenses. Nor may younger sons be required to receive only what is allocated for the older sons' food expenses. Instead, the estate should be divided equally.
If the older brothers married after their father's death using the funds of the estate, the younger brothers may marry using the funds of the estate, and then divide it. If the older brothers married during their father's lifetime, we do not heed the requests of the younger brothers who say: \"Let us marry using the funds of the estate, as you married.\" Instead, whatever the father gave the older brothers is considered as a present.", + "The following laws apply when a father married off one of his sons and made a feast for him, paying for the expenses himself. If a wedding gift was sent to this son during the father's lifetime, should the wedding gift have to be repaid after the father's death, it should be repaid by the estate as a whole. If, however, the brother paid for the expenses of the wedding feast from his own resources, the brother who received the gift must repay it from his portion alone.", + "When the father sent a wedding gift to a friend in the name of one of his sons, when that wedding gift is repaid to that son, it is his alone. If, however, the father sent the wedding gift in the name of his sons without making any specification, when it is repaid, it should be repaid to the estate as a whole.
The person to whom the wedding gift was sent is not required to return it unless all the brothers rejoice together with him, for they are all members of the wedding party and the gift was sent in all of their names. Therefore, if he rejoiced with only several of them, he need return only the portion appropriate for those with whom he rejoiced. The money he repays is shared by the estate as a whole.", + "When the oldest of the brothers dresses and garbs himself in fine raiment, he may purchase these garments from the funds of the estate if this brings his brothers benefit, i.e., because of his fine clothing, his words are heeded by other people." + ], + [ + "When two brothers divided an estate and then a third brother came from overseas, or when three brothers divided an estate and then a creditor came and expropriated the portion of one of them, the division is nullified. They should return and divide the remainder equally. This applies even if originally one brother took land and the other cash.", + "When, before his death, a person commanded that so-and-so be given a palm tree or a field from his property, but the brothers divided the estate without giving that person anything, their division is negated. What should they do? The entity concerning which the deceased commanded should be given to that person, and then they should divide the estate anew.", + "When brothers divide an estate, we evaluate the clothes they are wearing. We do not evaluate the clothes that their sons and daughters are wearing that they purchased with the funds of the estate. Similarly, the clothes that their wives are wearing are considered as if they have already been acquired by them.
When does the above apply? With regard to weekday garments. With regard to Sabbath and festival garments, we evaluate what the women and children are wearing.", + "The following law applies when a person died leaving some orphans who are past majority, and others who are below majority. If they desired to divide their father's estate so that the older brothers could receive their portion, the court appoints a guardian for the minors and chooses a good portion for them. Once they come of age, they may not protest the division, because it was made by the court. If, however, the court erred in its evaluation of the estate's worth and reduced their portion by a sixth, they may issue a protest. In that instance, a new division is made after they come of age.", + "When a person dies, leaving some orphans who are past majority and others who are below majority, he must appoint a guardian before his death, who will care for the portion of the minors until they come of age.\" If the father does not appoint such a guardian, the court is obligated to appoint a guardian for them until they come of age. For the court acts as the parents of the orphans.", + "If the dying person ordered: \"Give the minor's portion of my estate to him. Let him do whatever he wants with it,\" he has the license to deal with his own estate in this manner.\"
Similarly, if the dying person appointed a minor, a woman or a servant as the guardian for the minors, he has the license to deal with his own estate in this manner. A court, by contrast, should not appoint a woman, a servant, a minor or an unlearned person who is suspect to violate the Torah's prohibitions' as a guardian.
Instead, they should seek out a faithful and courageous person who knows how to advance the claims of the orphans and bring arguments on their behalf, one who is capable with regard to worldly matters to protect their property and secure a profit for them. Such a person is appointed a guardian over the minors whether or not he is related to them. If he is a relative, however, he should not take control of the landed property.", + "When the court appointed a guardian and afterwards heard that he was eating, drinking and making other expenses beyond what he could be expected to, they should suspect that he is using the resources of the orphans. They should remove him from his position and appoint someone else.
If, however, the guardian was appointed by the orphan's father, he should not be removed in such a situation; it is possible that he found an ownerless article. If, however, witnesses come and testify that he is ruining the orphans' estate, he is removed from his position.The Geonim agreed that he should be required to take an oath in such a situation, for he is causing the orphans a loss.
Similarly, when a guardian was appointed by the orphans' father who had a praiseworthy reputation, was known to be upright and to pursue the mitzvot, and he became a glutton and a drunkard and began following paths that arouse suspicion, or became reckless with regard to vows and the shade of theft, the court is required to remove him from his position and require him to take an oath. Afterwards, they appoint an appropriate guardian. These matters are dependent on the perception of the local judge. For each and every court must act as the parents of the orphans.", + "When a minor attains majority, even if he eats and drinks excessively, ruins his estate and follows an undesirable path, the court does not withhold his property from him, nor does it appoint a guardian, unless his father or the person whose property he inherited ordered that the property not be given to him unless he conducts himself uprightly and successfully, or that it not be given to him until later.
A person who is mentally or emotionally unstable or a deaf-mute are considered as minors, and a guardian should be appointed for them." + ], + [ + "Money belonging to orphans that was left to them by their father does not require a guardian. What, instead, is done with it?
We search for a person who owns property that can be expropriated by a creditor and that is of high quality. This person should be trustworthy, one who heeds the laws of the Torah, and who was never placed under a ban of ostracism. He is given the money in the presence of the court to invest in a manner that will most likely lead to a profit and will not likely lead to loss. Thus, the orphans will derive benefit from the investment of the money.
Similarly, if such a person does not have landed property, he should give bars of gold that do not have any identifying marks as security. The court takes the security and gives him the money to invest in a manner that will most likely lead to a profit and will not likely lead to loss.
Why does he not give golden utensils or golden jewelry as security? For perhaps these articles belong to another person. We fear that in the event of the investor's death, that other person will claim these articles by identifying them with signs. They will then be given to him if the judge knows that the investor was unlikely to possess such articles.
How much should be given to the orphans as profit? As the judges determine, a third of the profits, half of them, or even a fourth of them; if the judges ascertain that this is in the best interests of the orphans, such an arrangement is followed.
If the court cannot find a person to give the money to invest in a manner that will not likely lead to loss and will most likely lead to a profit, they should use a small amount of the money to provide the orphans with their livelihood until they use the money to purchase land that they entrust to a guardian whom they appoint.", + "Movable property inherited by orphans should be evaluated and sold in the presence of a court. If the marketplace is close to their city of residence, we have the articles brought to the marketplace. They are sold and the proceeds added to the financial resources of the orphans.\"", + "The following principle applies when a person possesses beer belonging to orphans and he is beset by a quandary: If he leaves it in its place until it is sold it might sour, and if he brings it to the marketplace it might become lost because of factors beyond his control. Our Sages ruled that he should do as he would do with his own beer. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "When the court appoints a guardian, he is given all the property of the minor: the landed property and the movable property that was not sold. He sells and purchases whatever he determines is necessary; he builds and he destroys; he rents, plants, sows and does whatever he thinks is in the best interests of the orphans. He should provide them with food and drink and provide them with their expenses according to their financial capacity and their social standing. He should not be overly generous with them, nor should he be overly parsimonious.", + "When the orphans come of age, the guardian should give them the property of the person whose estate they inherited. He does not have to give them an account of what he purchased and what he sold. Instead, he tells them: \"This is what remains,\" and takes an oath holding a sacred article that he did not steal anything from them.
When does this apply? When the guardian was appointed by the court. When, however, the guardian was appointed by the orphans' father or other relatives, he is not required to take an oath because of an indefinite claim.
A guardian may dress and garb himself in a distinguished manner using the fund belonging to the orphans, so that he will be esteemed and his words will be heeded, provided that the orphans will benefit from the fact that he is esteemed and his words are heeded.", + "A guardian may sell animals, servants, maidservants, fields and vineyards belonging to the estate to provide sustenance for the orphans. He may not sell these assets and hoard the money. Nor may he sell fields to purchase servants, nor sell servants to purchase fields, for perhaps he will not be successful. He may, however, sell fields to purchase oxen to work other fields, for oxen are the fundamental element of the fields one possesses.", + "The guardian is not permitted to sell a field located far from the city and purchase a field close to the city, nor may he sell a poor field and purchase a good field, for perhaps his purchases will not be successful.
Similarly, a guardian may not enter into a lawsuit to argue on behalf of the orphans with regard to a claim registered against them, with the intent of benefiting them. The rationale is that he may not be successful, and the claim against them will be substantiated.", + "The guardians are not permitted to grant Canaanite servants their freedom. They may not even take money from the servant so that he will be released. Instead, they sell the servants to others and take the money from them with the intent that they grant them their freedom. It is those purchasers who release the servants.", + "The guardians should separate terumah and the tithes from the crops of the orphans so that they can provide them with food. . For we may not feed the orphans forbidden substances. They may not, however, tithe or separate terumah so that the produce will be ready for use. Instead, they should sell it as tevel. Those who desire to make it ready for use will do so.", + "The guardians must make a lulav, a sukkah, tzitzit, a shofar, a Torah scroll, tefillin, mezuzot and a megillah on behalf of the orphans. The general principle is: All mitzvot that have a fixed measure - whether of Scriptural or Rabbinic origin - should be made available for them, although they are obligated in these mitzvot only as part of their education. We do not, however, levy charitable assessments against their property, even for the sake of the redemption of captives. The rationale is that such mitzvot have no limit to them.", + "When a person loses his intellectual faculties or becomes a deaf-mute, the court levies charitable assessments against his property if he has the means.", + "Although a guardian does not have to make an accounting, as mentioned above, he must keep a personal account, being extremely precise, so as not to incur the wrath of the Father of these orphans, He who rides upon the heavens, as Psalms 68:5-6 states: \"Make a path for He who rides upon the heavens... the Father of orphans.\"" + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007", + "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות נחלות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Inheritances/Hebrew/Torat Emet 363.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Inheritances/Hebrew/Torat Emet 363.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7084c07e613b44c94aeafdc6d3552ab21f23758d --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Inheritances/Hebrew/Torat Emet 363.json @@ -0,0 +1,166 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Inheritances", + "versionSource": "http://www.toratemetfreeware.com/index.html?downloads", + "versionTitle": "Torat Emet 363", + "status": "locked", + "priority": 1.0, + "license": "Public Domain", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "תורת אמת 363", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות נחלות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "סֵדֶר נְחָלוֹת כָּךְ הִיא. מִי שֶׁמֵּת יִירָשׁוּהוּ בָּנָיו וְהֵם קוֹדְמִין לַכּל. וְהַזְּכָרִים קוֹדְמִין לִנְקֵבוֹת: ", + "בְּכָל מָקוֹם אֵין לִנְקֵבָה עִם הַזָּכָר יְרֻשָּׁה. אִם אֵין לוֹ בָּנִים יִירָשֶׁנּוּ אָבִיו. וְאֵין הָאֵם יוֹרֶשֶׁת אֶת בָּנֶיהָ וְדָבָר זֶה מִפִּי הַקַּבָּלָה: ", + "וְכָל הַקּוֹדֵם בְּנַחֲלָה יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵכוֹ קוֹדְמִין. לְפִיכָךְ מִי שֶׁמֵּת בֵּין אִישׁ בֵּין אִשָּׁה אִם הִנִּיחַ בֵּן יוֹרֵשׁ הַכּל. לֹא נִמְצָא לוֹ בֵּן לְעוֹלָם מְעַיְּנִין בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל בֵּן אִם נִמְצָא לִבְנוֹ זֶרַע בֵּין זְכָרִים בֵּין נְקֵבוֹת אֲפִלּוּ בַּת בַּת בַּת בְּנוֹ עַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם הִיא תִּירַשׁ אֶת הַכּל. לֹא נִמְצָא לוֹ זֶרַע בֶּן חוֹזְרִין אֵצֶל הַבַּת. הָיְתָה לוֹ בַּת תִּירַשׁ אֶת הַכּל לֹא נִמְצֵאת לוֹ בַּת בָּעוֹלָם מְעַיְּנִין עַל זֶרַע הַבַּת. אִם נִמְצָא לָהּ זֶרַע בֵּין זְכָרִים בֵּין נְקֵבוֹת עַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם הוּא יוֹרֵשׁ הַכּל. לֹא נִמְצָא לָהּ זֶרַע בַּת חוֹזֵר הַיְרֻשָּׁה לְאָבִיו. לֹא הָיָה אָבִיו קַיָּם מְעַיְּנִין עַל זֶרַע הָאָב שֶׁהֵן אֲחֵי הַמֵּת. נִמְצָא לוֹ אָח אוֹ זֶרַע אָח יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת הַכּל וְאִם לָאו חוֹזְרִין אֵצֶל אָחוֹת. נִמְצֵאת לוֹ אָחוֹת אוֹ זַרְעָהּ יוֹרֵשׁ הַכּל. וְאִם לֹא נִמְצֵאת לוֹ זֶרַע אַחִים וְלֹא זֶרַע אָחוֹת הוֹאִיל וְאֵין לָאָב זֶרַע תַּחְזֹר הַיְרֻשָּׁה לַאֲבִי הָאָב. לֹא הָיָה אֲבִי הָאָב קַיָּם מְעַיְּנִין עַל זֶרַע שֶׁל אֲבִי הָאָב שֶׁהֵן אֲחֵי אָבִיו שֶׁל מֵת וְהַזְּכָרִים קוֹדְמִין לִנְקֵבוֹת וְזַרְעָן שֶׁל זְכָרִים קוֹדְמִין לִנְקֵבוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁהָיָה הַדִּין בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל מֵת עַצְמוֹ. לֹא נִמְצְאוּ אַחִים לְאָבִיו לֹא הֵם וְלֹא זַרְעָן תַּחְזֹר הַיְרֻשָּׁה לַאֲבִי אֲבִי הָאָב. וְעַל הַדֶּרֶךְ הַזֹּאת נַחֲלָה מְמַשְׁמֶשֶׁת וְהוֹלֶכֶת עַד רְאוּבֵן. נִמְצֵאתָ אוֹמֵר הַבֵּן קוֹדֵם לַבַּת וְכָל יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵכוֹ שֶׁל בֵּן קוֹדְמִין לַבַּת וְהַבַּת קוֹדֶמֶת לַאֲבִי אָבִיהָ וְכָל יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵכָהּ קוֹדְמִין לַאֲבִי אָבִיהָ. וַאֲבִי הַמֵּת קוֹדֵם לַאֲחֵי הַמֵּת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵם יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵכוֹ וְהָאָח קוֹדֵם לָאָחוֹת. וְכָל יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵכוֹ שֶׁל אָח קוֹדְמִין לָאָחוֹת. וְאָחוֹת קוֹדֶמֶת לַאֲבִי אָבִיהָ. וְכָל יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵכָהּ קוֹדְמִין לַאֲבִי אָבִיהָ. אֲבִי הָאָב קוֹדֵם לַאֲחֵי הָאָב שֶׁל מֵת וַאֲחֵי אָבִיו קוֹדְמִין לַאֲחוֹת אָבִיו וְכָל יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵכוֹ שֶׁל אֲחֵי אָבִיו קוֹדְמִין לַאֲחוֹת אָבִיו וַאֲחוֹת אָבִיו קוֹדֶמֶת לַאֲבִי אֲבִי אָבִיו שֶׁל מֵת. וְכֵן כָּל יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵכָהּ שֶׁל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו קוֹדְמִין לַאֲבִי אֲבִי אָבִיו. וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ זוֹ הוֹלֵךְ וְעוֹלֶה עַד רֹאשׁ הַדּוֹרוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לְךָ אָדָם מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ יוֹרְשִׁין: ", + "מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ בַּת וּבַת הַבֵּן וַאֲפִלּוּ בַּת בַּת בַּת הַבֵּן עַד סוֹף כַּמָּה דּוֹרוֹת הִיא קוֹדֶמֶת וְתִירַשׁ הַכּל וְאֵין לַבַּת כְּלוּם. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְבַת הָאָח עִם הָאָחוֹת וּלְבַת בֶּן אֲחִי אָבִיו עִם אֲחוֹת אָבִיו. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן: ", + "מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי בָּנִים וּמֵתוּ הַשְּׁנֵי בָּנִים בְּחַיָּיו וְהִנִּיחַ הַבֵּן הָאֶחָד שְׁלֹשָׁה בָּנִים וְהִנִּיחַ הַבֵּן הַשֵּׁנִי בַּת אַחַת וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת הַזָּקֵן נִמְצְאוּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת בְּנֵי בָּנָיו יוֹרְשִׁין חֲצִי הַנַּחֲלָה וּבַת בְּנוֹ יוֹרֶשֶׁת הַחֵצִי שֶׁכָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מֵהֶן יוֹרֵשׁ חֵלֶק אָבִיו. וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ זוֹ חוֹלְקִין בְּנֵי הָאַחִים וּבְנֵי אֲחֵי הָאָב עַד רֹאשׁ הַדּוֹרוֹת: ", + "מִשְׁפַּחַת הָאֵם אֵינָהּ קְרוּיָה מִשְׁפָּחָה וְאֵין יְרֻשָּׁה אֶלָּא לְמִשְׁפַּחַת הָאָב. לְפִיכָךְ הָאַחִים מִן הָאֵם אֵין יוֹרְשִׁין זֶה אֶת זֶה וְאַחִין מִן הָאָב יוֹרְשִׁין זֶה אֶת זֶה. וְאֶחָד אָחִיו שֶׁהוּא מֵאָבִיו בִּלְבַד אוֹ אָחִיו מֵאָבִיו וּמֵאִמּוֹ: ", + "כָּל הַקְּרוֹבִין בַּעֲבֵרָה יוֹרְשִׁין כִּכְשֵׁרִים. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ בֵּן מַמְזֵר אוֹ אָח מַמְזֵר הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כִּשְׁאָר בָּנִים וְכִשְׁאָר אַחִים לַנַּחֲלָה. אֲבָל בְּנוֹ מִן הַשִּׁפְחָה אוֹ מִן הַנָּכְרִית אֵינוֹ בֵּן לְדָבָר מִן הַדְּבָרִים וְאֵינוֹ יוֹרֵשׁ כְּלָל: ", + "הָאִשָּׁה אֵינָהּ יוֹרֶשֶׁת בַּעְלָהּ כְּלָל. וְהַבַּעַל יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת כָּל נִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. וְהוּא קוֹדֵם לַכּל בִּירֻשָּׁתָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה עָלָיו. כְּגוֹן אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַבַּעַל חֵרֵשׁ הוּא יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ: ", + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת אִישׁוּת שֶׁאֵין הַבַּעַל יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ עַד שֶׁתִּכָּנֵס בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וְשֶׁאֵין הַפִּקֵּחַ יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת הַחֵרֶשֶׁת שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת כְּשֶׁהִיא חֵרֶשֶׁת אֲפִלּוּ נִתְפַּקְּחָה. וְשָׁם בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהוּא יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת נִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁבָּאוּ לִירֻשָּׁתָהּ וְהֻחְזְקוּ בֵּין נְכָסִים שֶׁהִכְנִיסָה לוֹ בִּנְדֻנְיָתָהּ בֵּין נְכָסִים שֶׁלֹּא הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ. וּמִי שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה סְפֵק גֵּרוּשִׁין וּמֵתָה אֵין הַבַּעַל יוֹרְשָׁהּ: ", + "בַּעַל שֶׁנָּשָׂא קְטַנָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה מֵאוּן אֵינוֹ יוֹרְשָׁהּ שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין כָּאן שׁוּם אִישׁוּת. וְכֵן שׁוֹטֶה שֶׁנָּשָׂא פִּקַּחַת אוֹ פִּקֵּחַ שֶׁנָּשָׂא שׁוֹטָה אֵינוֹ יוֹרְשָׁהּ שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא תִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים לָהֶן נִשּׂוּאִין: ", + "בַּעַל שֶׁמֵּתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת אָבִיהָ אוֹ אָחִיהָ אוֹ אֶחָד מִן הַמּוֹרִישִׁין אוֹתָהּ אֵין הַבַּעַל יוֹרֵשׁ אוֹתָן. אֶלָּא יוֹרֵשׁ אוֹתָן זַרְעָהּ אִם הָיָה לָהּ זֶרַע אוֹ תַּחְזֹר הַיְרֻשָּׁה לְמִשְׁפַּחַת בֵּית אָבִיהָ. שֶׁאֵין הַבַּעַל יוֹרֵשׁ נְכָסִים הָרְאוּיִין לָבֹא לְאַחַר מִכָּאן אֶלָּא לַנְּכָסִים שֶׁכְּבָר בָּאוּ לִירֻשָּׁה קֹדֶם שֶׁתָּמוּת: ", + "וְכֵן אֵין הַבַּעַל יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְהוּא בַּקֶּבֶר כִּשְׁאָר הַיּוֹרְשִׁין שֶׁל מִשְׁפַּחַת הָאָב. כֵּיצַד. בַּעַל שֶׁמֵּת וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ אֵין אוֹמְרִין הוֹאִיל וְהַבַּעַל הָיָה קוֹדֵם לְכָל אָדָם בִּירֻשָּׁתָהּ כָּךְ יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל יִקְדְּמוּ לִשְׁאָר יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאִשָּׁה אֶלָּא יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאִשָּׁה מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת בֵּית אָבִיהָ הֵם הַיּוֹרְשִׁים אוֹתָהּ אִם מֵתָה אַחַר בַּעְלָהּ: ", + "וְכֵן אֵין הַבֵּן יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִמּוֹ בַּקֶּבֶר כְּדֵי לְהַנְחִיל לְאֶחָיו מֵאָבִיו. כֵּיצַד. מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵתָה אִמּוֹ אֵין אוֹמְרִין הוֹאִיל וְאִלּוּ הָיָה הַבֵּן קַיָּם הָיָה קוֹדֵם אַף יוֹרְשִׁין שֶׁל בֶּן קוֹדְמִין לְיוֹרְשֶׁיהָ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה זוֹ וְנִמְצְאוּ אֶחָיו מֵאָבִיו יוֹרְשִׁין אֶת אִמּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה אַחַר מוֹתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה. אֶלָּא זֶרַע בְּנָהּ הוּא שֶׁיִּירָשֶׁנָּה אִם הָיָה לוֹ זֶרַע וְאִם אֵין לוֹ זֶרַע תַּחְזֹר יְרֻשָּׁתָהּ לְמִשְׁפַּחַת בֵּית אָבִיהָ. אֲבָל אִם מֵתָה הָאֵם תְּחִלָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת הַבֵּן אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה קָטָן בֶּן יוֹמוֹ וְלֹא כָּלוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו הוֹאִיל וְחָיָה אַחַר אִמּוֹ שָׁעָה אַחַת וּמֵת הֲרֵי זֶה נוֹחֵל אֶת אִמּוֹ וּמַנְחִיל הַנַּחֲלָה לְיוֹרְשָׁיו מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת אָבִיו: " + ], + [ + "הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּנִכְסֵי אָבִיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא יז) \"לָתֶת לוֹ פִּי שְׁנַיִם\". כֵּיצַד. הִנִּיחַ חֲמִשָּׁה בָּנִים וְאֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּכוֹר הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל שְׁלִישׁ הַמָּמוֹן וְכָל אֶחָד מֵהָאַרְבָּעָה פְּשׁוּטִים נוֹטֵל שְׁתוּת. הִנִּיחַ תִּשְׁעָה בָּנִים הֲרֵי (הָאֶחָד) הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל חֲמִישִׁית וְכָל אֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁמוֹנָה פְּשׁוּטִים נוֹטֵל עֲשִׂירִית וְכֵן עַל הַחֲלוּקָה הַזֹּאת חוֹלְקִין לְעוֹלָם: \n", + "בְּכוֹר שֶׁנּוֹלַד אַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא טז) \"וְהָיָה בְּיוֹם הַנְחִילוֹ אֶת בָּנָיו\" וְגוֹ' (דברים כא יז) \"כִּי אֶת הַבְּכֹר בֶּן הַשְּׂנוּאָה יַכִּיר\". וְאִם יָצָאת פַּדַּחְתּוֹ בְּחַיֵּי אָבִיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא כָּל רֹאשׁוֹ לַאֲוִיר הָעוֹלָם אֶלָּא לְאַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו הֲרֵי זֶה נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם: \n", + "בְּכוֹר שֶׁנִּקְרַע וְנִמְצָא זָכָר אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם וּפָשׁוּט שֶׁנִּקְרַע וְנִמְצָא זָכָר אֵינוֹ מְמַעֵט בְּחֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָהּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא טו) \"וְיָלְדוּ לוֹ בָנִים\" עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בֵּן מִשְּׁעַת לֵדָה: \n", + "כֵּיצַד אֵינוֹ מְמַעֵט בְּחֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה. הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ בֵּן בְּכוֹר וּשְׁנֵי פְּשׁוּטִים וְזֶה הַטֻּמְטוּם שֶׁנִּקְרַע וְנִמְצָא זָכָר. הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל רְבִיעַ הַמָּמוֹן בְּחֵלֶק הַבְּכוֹרָה וּכְאִלּוּ אֵין עִמּוֹ אֶלָּא שְׁנֵי הַפְּשׁוּטִים בִּלְבַד. וַחֲצִי וּרְבִיעַ הַנִּשְׁאָר חוֹלְקִין אוֹתוֹ שְׁנֵי הַפְּשׁוּטִין עִם הַנִּקְרָע וְעִם הַבְּכוֹר בְּשָׁוֶה: \n", + "קָטָן בֶּן יוֹם אֶחָד מְמַעֵט בְּחֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה אֲבָל לֹא הָעֻבָּר. וּבֵן שֶׁנּוֹלַד אַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו אֵינוֹ מְמַעֵט בְּחֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה: \n", + "בֵּן שֶׁנִּסְתַּפֵּק לָנוּ אִם הוּא בְּכוֹר אוֹ פָּשׁוּט כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב עִם אַחֵר אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם. וְכֵיצַד עוֹשִׂין. אִם הֻכְּרוּ וּלְבַסּוֹף נִתְעָרְבוּ כּוֹתְבִין הַרְשָׁאָה זֶה לָזֶה וְנוֹטְלִין חֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה עִם אֲחֵיהֶם. וְאִם לֹא הֻכְּרוּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁיְּלָדוֹ בְּמַחֲבוֹאָה אַחַת אֵין כּוֹתְבִין הַרְשָׁאָה וְאֵין כָּאן חֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי בָּנִים בְּכוֹר וּפָשׁוּט וּמֵתוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּחַיָּיו וְהִנִּיחוּ בָּנִים. הַבְּכוֹר הֵנִיחַ בַּת וְהַפָּשׁוּט הִנִּיחַ בֵּן. הֲרֵי בֶּן הַפָּשׁוּט יוֹרֵשׁ בְּנִכְסֵי הַזָּקֵן שְׁלִישׁ שֶׁהוּא חֵלֶק אָבִיו. וּבַת הַבְּכוֹר יוֹרֶשֶׁת שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישִׁים שֶׁהוּא חֵלֶק אָבִיהָ. וְכֵן הַדִּין בִּבְנֵי הָאַחִין וּבְנֵי אֲחֵי הָאָב וּבְכָל הַיּוֹרְשִׁין אִם הָיָה אֲבִי אֶחָד מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁים בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל חֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה שֶׁלּוֹ זֶה הַיּוֹרֵשׁ מֵחֲמָתוֹ: \n", + "אֵין הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּנִכְסֵי הָאֵם. כֵּיצַד. בְּכוֹר וּפָשׁוּט שֶׁיָּרְשׁוּ אִמָּן חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה בְּכוֹר לְנַחֲלָה בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם: \n", + "בְּכוֹר לְנַחֲלָה הוּא הַנּוֹלָד לָאָב רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא יז) \"כִּי הוּא רֵאשִׁית אֹנוֹ\". וְאֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין עַל הָאֵם אֲפִלּוּ יָלְדָה כַּמָּה בָּנִים הוֹאִיל וְזֶה רִאשׁוֹן לְאָבִיו יוֹרֵשׁ פִּי שְׁנַיִם: \n", + "הַבָּא אַחַר נְפָלִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיָּצָא רֹאשׁ הַנֵּפֶל כְּשֶׁהוּא חַי הַבָּא אַחֲרָיו בְּכוֹר לְנַחֲלָה. וְכֵן בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה שֶׁיָּצָא רֹאשׁוֹ מֵת הַבָּא אַחֲרָיו בְּכוֹר לְנַחֲלָה שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא יז) \"רֵאשִׁית אֹנוֹ\" הוּא שֶׁלֹּא נוֹלַד לוֹ קֹדֶם לָזֶה וָלָד שֶׁיָּצָא חַי לַאֲוִיר הָעוֹלָם. לְפִיכָךְ בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה שֶׁהוֹצִיא רֹב רֹאשׁוֹ חַי הַבָּא אַחֲרָיו אֵינוֹ בְּכוֹר: \n", + "יוֹצֵא דֹּפֶן וְהַבָּא אַחֲרָיו שְׁנֵיהֶן אֵינָן בְּכוֹרִים. הָרִאשׁוֹן לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נוֹלַד וְנֶאֱמַר (דברים כא טו) \"וְיָלְדוּ לוֹ בָנִים\". וְהַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁהֲרֵי קְדָמוֹ אַחֵר: \n", + "הָיוּ לוֹ בָּנִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה עַכּוּ\"ם וְנִתְגַּיֵּר אֵין לוֹ בְּכוֹר לְנַחֲלָה. אֲבָל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ בֵּן מִן הַשִּׁפְחָה וּמִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ קָרוּי בְּנוֹ הַבָּא לוֹ אַחֲרָיו מִן הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִית בְּכוֹר לְנַחֲלָה וְנוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם: \n", + "הָיָה הַבְּכוֹר מַמְזֵר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא יז) \"כִּי אֶת הַבְּכֹר בֶּן הַשְּׂנוּאָה יַכִּיר\" זוֹ שֶׁשְּׂנוּאָה בְּנִשּׂוּאֶיהָ. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם הָיָה בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶּן חֲלוּצָה: \n", + "שְׁלֹשָׁה נֶאֱמָנִין עַל הַבְּכוֹר. חַיָּה וְאִמּוֹ וְאָבִיו. חַיָּה מִיָּד שֶׁאִם אָמְרָה זֶה יָצָא רִאשׁוֹן נֶאֱמֶנֶת. אִמּוֹ כָּל שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַלֵּידָה נֶאֱמֶנֶת לוֹמַר זֶהוּ הַבְּכוֹר. אָבִיו לְעוֹלָם אֲפִלּוּ אָמַר הָאָב עַל מִי שֶׁלֹּא הֻחְזַק בְּנוֹ כְּלָל הוּא בְּנִי וּבְכוֹרִי הוּא נֶאֱמָן. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר עַל הַמֻּחְזָק לָנוּ שֶׁהוּא בְּכוֹרוֹ אֵינוֹ בְּכוֹר נֶאֱמָן: \n", + "הָאָב שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתֵּק בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבּוֹדְקִין לְגִטִּין. אִם רָמַז אוֹ כָּתַב שֶׁזֶּה בְּנוֹ בְּכוֹרוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם: \n", + "הֵעִידוּ עֵדִים שֶׁהֵן שָׁמְעוּ אָבִיו שֶׁל זֶה אוֹמֵר דְּבָרִים כָּךְ וְכָךְ שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹתָן הַדְּבָרִים יוֹדֵעַ מִכְּלָלָן שֶׁזֶּה בְּנוֹ בְּכוֹרוֹ. הֲרֵי זֶה נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר הָאָב בְּפֵרוּשׁ זֶה בְּנִי בְּכוֹרִי: \n", + "שָׁמְעוּ מִן הָאָב שֶׁאָמַר זֶה בְּנִי בְּכוֹר אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּעֵדוּת זוֹ שֶׁמָּא בְּכוֹר לְאִמּוֹ הוּא וְלָזֶה נִתְכַּוֵּן הָאָב עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר בְּנִי בְּכוֹרִי: \n" + ], + [ + "אֵין הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בִּנְכָסִים הָרְאוּיִין לָבוֹא לְאַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו אֶלָּא בִּנְכָסִים הַמֻּחְזָקִין לְאָבִיו שֶׁבָּאוּ לִרְשׁוּתוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא יז) \"בְּכל אֲשֶׁר יִמָּצֵא לוֹ\". כֵּיצַד. אֶחָד מִמּוֹרִישֵׁי אָבִיו שֶׁמֵּת לְאַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו הַבְּכוֹר וְהַפָּשׁוּט יוֹרְשִׁין כְּאֶחָד. וְכֵן אִם הָיְתָה לְאָבִיו מִלְוֶה אוֹ הָיְתָה לוֹ סְפִינָה בַּיָּם יוֹרְשִׁין כְּאֶחָד: \n", + "הִנִּיחַ לָהֶם פָּרָה מֻשְׂכֶּרֶת אוֹ מֻחְכֶּרֶת אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה רוֹעָה בָּאֲפָר וְיָלְדָה. הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל בָּהּ וּבִוְלָדָהּ פִּי שְׁנַיִם: \n", + "שָׁחַט אֶחָד מִמַּכִּירֵי אָבִיו בְּהֵמָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת אָבִיו נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בַּמַּתָּנוֹת שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ בְּהֵמָה: \n", + "אֵין הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בַּשֶּׁבַח שֶׁשָּׁבְחוּ נְכָסִים לְאַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו אֶלָּא מַעֲלֶה אוֹתוֹ הַשֶּׁבַח בְּדָמִים וְנוֹתֵן הַיֶּתֶר לַפָּשׁוּט. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּנּוּ הַנְּכָסִים כְּגוֹן כַּרְמֶל שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ שִׁבֳּלִים וְכִפְנִיּוֹת שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ תְּמָרִים. אֲבָל שָׁבְחוּ מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָן וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּנּוּ כְּגוֹן אִילָן קָטָן שֶׁגָּדַל וְעָבָה וְאֶרֶץ שֶׁהֶעֶלְתָה שִׂרְטוֹן הֲרֵי זֶה נוֹטֵל בַּשֶּׁבַח פִּי שְׁנַיִם. וְאִם מֵחֲמַת הוֹצָאָה הִשְׁבִּיחַ אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל: \n", + "אֵין הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּמִלְוֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בִּשְׁטָר אַף עַל גַּב שֶׁגָּבוּ קַרְקַע בְּחוֹב אֲבִיהֶם. הָיָה לְאָב מִלְוֶה בְּיַד הַבְּכוֹר הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם נוֹטֵל בָּהּ פִּי שְׁנַיִם הוֹאִיל וְיֶשְׁנָהּ תַּחַת יָדוֹ. אוֹ לֹא יִטּל הוֹאִיל וּמֵחֲמַת אָבִיו יִירָשֶׁנָּה וַעֲדַיִן לֹא בָּאָה לְיָדוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו. לְפִיכָךְ יִטּל מִמֶּנָּה חֲצִי חֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה: \n", + "בְּכוֹר שֶׁמָּכַר חֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה קֹדֶם חֲלוּקָה מִמְכָּרוֹ קַיָּם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לַבְּכוֹר חֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה קֹדֶם חֲלוּקָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם חָלַק עִם אֶחָיו קוֹדֵם בְּמִקְצָת נְכָסִים בֵּין בַּקַּרְקַע בֵּין בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין וְנָטַל חֵלֶק כְּפָשׁוּט וִתֵּר בְּכָל הַנְּכָסִים וְאֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל בִּשְׁאֵרָן אֶלָּא כְּפָשׁוּט. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁלֹּא מִחָה. אֲבָל אִם מִחָה בְּאֶחָיו וְאָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם עֲנָבִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֲנִי חוֹלֵק עִם אֶחָי בְּשָׁוֶה לֹא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמָּחַלְתִּי בְּחֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה הֲרֵי זֶה מְחָאָה וְלֹא וִתֵּר בִּשְׁאָר נְכָסִים. וַאֲפִלּוּ מִחָה בַּעֲנָבִים כְּשֶׁהֵן מְחֻבָּרִים וּבְצָרוּם וְחִלְּקוּם בְּשָׁוֶה לֹא וִתֵּר בִּשְׁאָר נְכָסִים. אֲבָל אִם דְּרָכוּם וְחָלַק עִמָּהֶן בְּשָׁוֶה בְּיַיִן וְלֹא מִחָה בָּהֶן מִשֶּׁנַּעֲשָׂה יַיִן וִתֵּר בִּשְׁאָר הַנְּכָסִים. הָא לְמָה זֶה דּוֹמֶה לְמִי שֶׁמִּחָה בַּעֲנָבִים וְחָלַק עִמָּהֶם בְּשָׁוֶה בַּזֵיתִים שֶׁהֲרֵי וִתֵּר בַּכּל. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "מִי שֶׁיִּבֵּם אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו הוּא יוֹרֵשׁ כָּל נִכְסֵי אֶחָיו הַמֻּחְזָקִים. וְכָל הָרְאוּיִין לָבוֹא לְאַחַר מִכָּאן הֲרֵי הוּא בָּהֶן כְּכָל הָאַחִים שֶׁהֲרֵי בְּכוֹר קָרָא אוֹתוֹ הַכָּתוּב שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כה ו) \"וְהָיָה הַבְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד יָקוּם עַל שֵׁם אָחִיו הַמֵּת וְלֹא יִמָּחֶה שְׁמוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל\". וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל מִמֶּנּוּ בְּרָאוּי כִּבְמֻחְזָק כָּךְ אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל בַּשֶּׁבַח שֶׁשָּׁבְחוּ נְכָסִים אַחֲרֵי מוֹת אָבִיו מִשְּׁעַת מִיתָה עַד שְׁעַת חֲלוּקָתוֹ עִם אֶחָיו בְּנִכְסֵי אָבִיו. וַאֲפִלּוּ הִשְׁבִּיחוּ נְכָסִים אַחַר שֶׁיִּבֵּם וְקֹדֶם שֶׁיַּחְלְקוּ הֲרֵי הוּא בַּשֶּׁבַח כְּאֶחָד מִן הָאַחִין. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנּוֹטֵל מִן הַנְּכָסִים אֵלּוּ שְׁנֵי חֲלָקִים חֶלְקוֹ וְחֵלֶק אָחִיו שֶׁיִּבֵּם אִשְׁתּוֹ הוֹאִיל וּמֵת הָאָב בְּחַיֵּי כֻּלָּן: \n", + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁכֵנִים שֶׁהַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל שְׁנֵי חֲלָקִים שֶׁלּוֹ כְּאֶחָד בְּמֵצַר אֶחָד. אֲבָל הַיָּבָם שֶׁחָלַק עִם אֶחָיו בְּנִכְסֵי אָבִיו נוֹטֵל חֶלְקוֹ וְחֵלֶק אָחִיו בְּגוֹרָל. וְאִם עָלָה גּוֹרָלוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת נוֹטֵל בִּשְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת: \n", + "שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁמֵּתָה אֲפִלּוּ עָשָׂה בָּהּ אֶחָד מִן הָאַחִים מַאֲמָר מִשְׁפַּחַת בֵּית אָבִיהָ יוֹרְשִׁין בְּנִכְסֵי מְלוֹג וַחֲצִי נִכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל. וְיוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל יוֹרְשִׁין כְּתֻבָּתָהּ עִם חֲצִי נִכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל. וְיוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל חַיָּבִין בִּקְבוּרָתָהּ הוֹאִיל וְהֵן יִירְשׁוּ כְּתֻבָּתָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בִּמְקוֹמוֹ: \n" + ], + [ + "הָאוֹמֵר זֶה בְּנִי אוֹ זֶה אָחִי אוֹ זֶה אֲחִי אָבִי אוֹ שְׁאָר הַיּוֹרְשִׁין אוֹתוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוֹדָה בַּאֲנָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינָן מֻחְזָקִין שֶׁהֵן קְרוֹבָיו הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן וְיִירָשֶׁנּוּ בֵּין שֶׁאָמַר כְּשֶׁהוּא בָּרִיא בֵּין שֶׁאָמַר כְּשֶׁהוּא שְׁכִיב מֵרַע. אֲפִלּוּ נִשְׁתַּתֵּק וְכָתַב בִּכְתַב יָדוֹ שֶׁזֶּה יוֹרְשׁוֹ בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבּוֹדְקִין לְגִטִּין: \n", + "הָיִינוּ מֻחְזָקִין בָּזֶה שֶׁהוּא אָחִיו אוֹ בֶּן דּוֹדוֹ וְאָמַר אֵינוֹ אָחִי וְאֵינוֹ בֶּן דּוֹדִי אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. אֲבָל נֶאֱמָן הוּא עַל מִי שֶׁהֻחְזַק שֶׁהוּא בְּנוֹ לוֹמַר אֵינוֹ בְּנִי וְלֹא יִירָשֶׁנּוּ. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ לַבֵּן בָּנִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן עָלָיו לוֹמַר אֵינוֹ בְּנִי לְעִנְיַן יִחוּס וְאֵין מַחֲזִיקִין אוֹתוֹ מַמְזֵר עַל פִּיו. נֶאֱמָן הוּא לְעִנְיַן יְרֻשָּׁה וְלֹא יִירָשֶׁנּוּ: \n", + "הָאוֹמֵר זֶה בְּנִי וְחָזַר וְאָמַר עַבְדִּי הוּא אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. אָמַר עַבְדִּי וְחָזַר וְאָמַר בְּנִי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מְשַׁמְּשׁוֹ כְּעֶבֶד נֶאֱמָן שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁאָמַר עַבְדִּי כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁהוּא לִי כְּעֶבֶד. וְאִם הָיוּ קוֹרִין לוֹ עֶבֶד בֶּן מֵאָה זוּז וְכַיּוֹצֵא בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין אוֹמְרִין אוֹתָן בְּיִחוּד אֶלָּא לַעֲבָדִים הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן: \n", + "הָיָה עוֹבֵר עַל בֵּית הַמֶּכֶס וְאָמַר בְּנִי הוּא זֶה וְחָזַר אַחַר כָּךְ וְאָמַר עַבְדִּי נֶאֱמָן. שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר בְּנִי אֶלָּא לְהַבְרִיחַ מִן הַמֶּכֶס. אָמַר בְּבֵית הַמּוֹכֵס עַבְדִּי הוּא וְחָזַר וְאָמַר בְּנִי הוּא אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן: \n", + "הָעֲבָדִים וְהַשְּׁפָחוֹת אֵין קוֹרִין לָהֶן אַבָּא פְּלוֹנִי וְאִמָּא פְּלוֹנִית שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹא מִן הַדָּבָר תַּקָּלָה וְנִמְצָא זֶה הַבֵּן נִפְגָּם. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיוּ הָעֲבָדִים וְהַשְּׁפָחוֹת חֲשׁוּבִין בְּיוֹתֵר וְיֵשׁ לָהֶן קוֹל וְכָל הַקָּהָל מַכִּירִין אוֹתָן וְאֶת בְּנֵי וְעַבְדֵי אֲדוֹנֵיהֶם כְּגוֹן עַבְדֵי הַנָּשִׂיא הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּר לִקְרוֹת לָהֶן אַבָּא וְאִמָּא: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ שִׁפְחָה וְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה בֵּן וְהָיָה נוֹהֵג בּוֹ מִנְהַג בָּנִים. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר בְּנִי הוּא וּמְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת הִיא אִמּוֹ. אִם תַּלְמִיד חָכָם הוּא אוֹ אָדָם כָּשֵׁר שֶׁהוּא בָּדוּק בְּדִקְדוּקֵי מִצְוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה יִירָשֶׁנּוּ. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן אֵינוֹ נוֹשֵׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּחְרְרָה אִמּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יָלְדָה שֶׁהֲרֵי הֻחְזְקָה שִׁפְחָה בְּפָנֵינוּ. וְאִם מִשְּׁאָר הֶדְיוֹטוֹת הוּא וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם הָיָה מִן הַמַּפְקִירִין עַצְמָן לְכָךְ הֲרֵי זֶה בְּחֶזְקַת עֶבֶד לְכָל דָּבָר וְאֶחָיו מֵאָבִיו מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ. וְאִם אֵין לְאָבִיו בֵּן חוּץ מִמֶּנּוּ אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו מִתְיַבֶּמֶת. וְזֶה הוּא הַדִּין שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה לִי שֶׁהוּא הוֹלֵךְ עַל עִקְּרֵי הַקַּבָּלָה. וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁלֹּא חִלֵּק בֵּין כְּשֵׁרִים לִשְׁאָר הָעָם אֶלָּא לְעִנְיָן שֶׁלֹּא יִמְכְּרוּהוּ אֶחָיו בִּלְבַד. וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁהוֹרָה שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ לְיָרְשׁוֹ לֹא נַחְלֹק בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֵין רָאוּי לִסְמֹךְ עַל דָּבָר זֶה: \n", + "כָּל הַיּוֹרְשִׁין יוֹרְשִׁין בַּחֲזָקָה. כֵּיצַד. עֵדִים שֶׁהֵעִידוּ שֶׁזֶּה מֻחְזָק לָנוּ שֶׁהוּא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי אוֹ אָחִיו. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן עֵדֵי יִחוּס וְלֹא יָדְעוּ אֲמִתַּת הַיּוּחֲסִין הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יוֹרְשִׁין בְּעֵדוּת זוֹ: \n", + "יַעֲקֹב שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ רְאוּבֵן וְשִׁמְעוֹן וְלֹא הֻחְזַק לוֹ בֵּן אֶלָּא שְׁנֵיהֶם. תָּפַס רְאוּבֵן לֵוִי מִן הַשּׁוּק וְאָמַר גַּם זֶה אָחִינוּ הוּא וְשִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ. הֲרֵי שִׁמְעוֹן נוֹטֵל חֲצִי הַמָּמוֹן וּרְאוּבֵן שְׁלִישׁ שֶׁהֲרֵי הוֹדָה שֶׁהֵם שְׁלֹשָׁה אַחִין וְלֵוִי נוֹטֵל שְׁתוּת. מֵת לֵוִי יַחְזֹר הַשְּׁתוּת לִרְאוּבֵן. נָפְלוּ לְלֵוִי נְכָסִים אֲחֵרִים יַחְלְקוּ אוֹתָן רְאוּבֵן וְשִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁהֲרֵי רְאוּבֵן מוֹדֶה לְשִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁלֵּוִי זֶה אֲחִיהֶן. הִשְׁבִּיחַ הַשְּׁתוּת מֵאֵלָיו וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת לֵוִי. אִם שֶׁבַח מַגִּיעַ לַכְּתֵפַיִם הוּא כְּגוֹן עֲנָבִים שֶׁהִגִּיעוּ לְהִבָּצֵר. הֲרֵי הַשֶּׁבַח הַזֶּה כִּנְכָסִים שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לוֹ מֵאֲחֵרִים וְיַחְלְקוּ בָּהֶן. וְאִם עֲדַיִן לֹא הִגִּיעוּ לְהִבָּצֵר הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁל רְאוּבֵן לְבַדּוֹ. אָמַר שִׁמְעוֹן אֵין לֵוִי זֶה אָחִי וְנָטַל לֵוִי בְּחֵלֶק רְאוּבֵן כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת לֵוִי לֹא יִירַשׁ שִׁמְעוֹן מִמֶּנּוּ כְּלוּם אֶלָּא רְאוּבֵן לְבַדּוֹ יִירַשׁ הַשְּׁתוּת עִם שְׁאָר נְכָסִים אֲחֵרִים שֶׁהִנִּיחַ לֵוִי. וְהוּא הַדִּין בְּכָל הַיּוֹרְשִׁין שֶׁיּוֹדוּ מִקְצָתָן בְּיוֹרְשִׁין אֲחֵרִים שֶׁלֹּא יוֹדוּ מִקְצָתָן: \n" + ], + [ + "זֶה הַכְּלָל בְּיוֹרְשִׁין. כָּל שְׁנֵי יוֹרְשִׁין שֶׁאֶחָד מֵהֶן יוֹרֵשׁ וַדַּאי וְהַשֵּׁנִי סָפֵק אֵין לַסָּפֵק כְּלוּם. וְאִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם סָפֵק שֶׁמָּא זֶהוּ הַיּוֹרֵשׁ אוֹ שֶׁמָּא זֶה הַיּוֹרֵשׁ חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה. לְפִיכָךְ מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ בֵּן וְטֻמְטוּם אוֹ אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס הֲרֵי הַבֵּן יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת הַכּל שֶׁהַטֻּמְטוּם וְהָאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס סָפֵק. הִנִּיחַ בָּנוֹת וְטֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס יוֹרְשׁוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּאַחַת מִן הַבָּנוֹת: \n", + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת אִישׁוּת דִּין הַבָּנוֹת עִם הַבָּנִים בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֵיהֶן וּבְפַרְנָסָתָן וְשָׁם בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהַמְּזוֹנוֹת מִתְּנָאֵי כְּתֻבָּה. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַנְּכָסִים מְרֻבִּין אֵין לַבָּנוֹת אֶלָּא מְזוֹנוֹתֵיהֶן וְהַבָּנִים יִירְשׁוּ הַכּל וְיִתְפַּרְנְסוּ הַבָּנוֹת בְּעִשּׂוּר נְכָסִים כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּנָּשְׂאוּ בּוֹ לְבַעְלֵיהֶן. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהַנְּכָסִים מוּעָטִין אֵין לַבָּנִים כְּלוּם אֶלָּא הַכּל לִמְזוֹן הַבָּנוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת וְטֻמְטוּם אוֹ אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַנְּכָסִים מְרֻבִּין הַבָּנִים יוֹרְשִׁין וְדוֹחִין הַטֻּמְטוּם אֵצֶל הַבָּנוֹת וְנִזּוֹן כְּמוֹתָן. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהַנְּכָסִין מוּעָטִין הַבָּנוֹת דּוֹחוֹת אֶת הַטֻּמְטוּם אֵצֶל הַבָּנִים וְאוֹמְרוֹת לוֹ זָכָר אַתָּה וְאֵין לְךָ עִמָּנוּ מְזוֹנוֹת: \n", + "מִי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהֲתָה אַחַר בַּעְלָהּ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים וְנִשֵּׂאת וְיָלְדָה בֵּן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה לְרִאשׁוֹן אוֹ בֶּן שִׁבְעָה לְאַחֲרוֹן אֵין זֶה הַבֵּן יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא סָפֵק. וְאִם מֵת הַבֵּן שְׁנֵיהֶן יוֹרְשִׁין אוֹתוֹ וְחוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם סָפֵק שֶׁמָּא זֶה אָבִיו אוֹ זֶה אָבִיו: \n", + "יְבָמָה שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהֲתָה שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים וְנִתְיַבְּמָה בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים וְיָלְדָה בֵּן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה לָרִאשׁוֹן אוֹ בֶּן שִׁבְעָה לָאַחֲרוֹן. זֶה הַסָּפֵק אוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא בֶּן הַמֵּת אֲנִי וְאִירַשׁ אֶת נִכְסֵי אָבִי כֻּלָּן וְאֵין אַתָּה רָאוּי לְיַבֵּם אוֹתָהּ שֶׁאֵין אִמִּי בַּת יִבּוּם וְהַיָּבָם אוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא בְּנִי אַתָּה וְאִמְּךָ רְאוּיָה לְיַבֵּם וְאֵין לְךָ בְּנִכְסֵי אָחִי כְּלוּם. הוֹאִיל וְגַם זֶה הַיָּבָם סָפֵק שֶׁמָּא יָבָם הוּא אוֹ אֵינוֹ יָבָם חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה. וְכֵן דִּין זֶה הַסָּפֵק עִם בְּנֵי הַיָּבָם בְּנִכְסֵי הַמֵּת שֶׁנִּתְיַבְּמָה אִשְׁתּוֹ חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה הַסָּפֵק נוֹטֵל מֶחֱצָה וּבְנֵי הַיָּבָם מֶחֱצָה. מֵת הַיָּבָם אַחַר שֶׁחָלַק עִם זֶה הַסָּפֵק וּבָאוּ בְּנֵי הַיָּבָם הָרְאוּיִים לִירַשׁ אֲבִיהֶם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְזֶה הַסָּפֵק לוֹמַר אִם אֲחִיכֶם אֲנִי תְּנוּ לִי חֵלֶק בִּירֻשָּׁה זוֹ וְאִם אֵינִי אֲחִיכֶם הַחְזִירוּ לִי הַחֵצִי שֶׁלָּקַח אֲבִיכֶם אֵין לְזֶה הַסָּפֵק בְּנִכְסֵי אֲבִיהֶן עִמָּהֶן כְּלוּם וְאֵין מוֹצִיא מִיָּדָן: \n", + "סָפֵק וְהַיָּבָם שֶׁבָּאוּ לַחְלֹק בְּנִכְסֵי הָאָב הֲרֵי הַיָּבָם יוֹרֵשׁ וַדַּאי וְזֶה הַסָּפֵק אִם הוּא בֶּן הַמֵּת יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲצִי הַמָּמוֹן וּלְזֶה הַיָּבָם חֲצִי. וְאִם הוּא בֶּן הַיָּבָם אֵין לוֹ כְּלוּם. לְפִיכָךְ הַיָּבָם יוֹרֵשׁ וְיִדָּחֶה הַסָּפֵק. הִנִּיחַ הַיָּבָם שְׁנֵי בָּנִים וַדָּאִין וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת הַיָּבָם הֲרֵי הַסָּפֵק אוֹמֵר אֲנִי בֶּן הַמֵּת וְיֵשׁ לִי מֶחֱצָה וְלִשְׁנֵיכֶם מֶחֱצָה וְהַשְּׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים אַתָּה אָחִינוּ וּבֶן הַיָּבָם אַתָּה וְאֵין לְךָ אֶלָּא שְׁלִישׁ בְּנִכְסֵי הַזָּקֵן הַחֵצִי שֶׁמּוֹדֶה לָהֶם בּוֹ נוֹטְלִין וְהִשְׁלִישׁ שֶׁמּוֹדִין הֵן לוֹ נוֹטֵל וְהַשְּׁתוּת הַנִּשְׁאָר חוֹלְקִים אוֹתוֹ בְּשָׁוֶה הוּא נוֹטֵל חֶצְיוֹ וּשְׁנֵיהֶם חֶצְיוֹ. מֵת הַסָּפֵק הֲרֵי הַיָּבָם אוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא בְּנִי הוּא וַאֲנִי אִירָשֶׁנּוּ וַאֲבִי הַיָּבָם אוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא בֶּן בְּנִי הַמֵּת הוּא וַאֲנִי אִירָשֶׁנּוּ חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה (מֵת הַיָּבָם הַסָּפֵק אוֹמֵר בְּנוֹ אֲנִי וְאִירָשֶׁנּוּ וַאֲבִי הַיָּבָם אוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא בֶּן בְּנִי הָאַחֵר אַתָּה וְזֶה אֲחִי אָבִיךָ הוּא וַאֲנִי אִירָשֶׁנּוּ חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה): \n", + "מִי שֶׁנָּפַל הַבַּיִת עָלָיו וְעַל אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם הָאִשָּׁה מֵתָה תְּחִלָּה וְנִמְצְאוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל יוֹרְשִׁין כָּל נְכָסֶיהָ אוֹ הַבַּעַל מֵת תְּחִלָּה וְנִמְצְאוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאִשָּׁה יוֹרְשִׁין כָּל נְכָסֶיהָ כֵּיצַד דִּינָם. מַעֲמִידִין נִכְסֵי מְלוֹג בְּחֶזְקַת יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאִשָּׁה וְהַכְּתֻבָּה עִקָּר וְהַתּוֹסֶפֶת בְּחֶזְקַת יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל וְחוֹלְקִין בְּנִכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאִשָּׁה נוֹטְלִין חֶצְיָן וְיוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל חֶצְיָן. אֲבָל אִם נָפַל הַבַּיִת עָלָיו וְעַל אִמּוֹ מַעֲמִידִין נִכְסֵי הָאֵם בְּחֶזְקַת יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאֵם שֶׁהֵם יוֹרְשִׁין וַדָּאִין אֲבָל יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבֵּן סָפֵק הֵם שֶׁאִם מֵת הַבֵּן תְּחִלָּה אֵין לְאֶחָיו מֵאָבִיו בְּנִכְסֵי אִמָּן כְּלוּם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "נָפַל הַבַּיִת עָלָיו וְעַל בֶּן בִּתּוֹ אִם הָאָב מֵת תְּחִלָּה בֶּן בִּתּוֹ יִירָשֶׁנּוּ וְנִמְצְאוּ הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁל יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבֵּן. וְאִם בֶּן בִּתּוֹ מֵת תְּחִלָּה אֵין הַבֵּן יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִמּוֹ בַּקֶּבֶר כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ וְנִמְצְאוּ הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁל יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב. לְפִיכָךְ יַחְלְקוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב עִם יוֹרְשֵׁי בֶּן הַבַּת. וְכֵן אִם [נִשְׁבָּה] הָאָב וּמֵת בֶּן בִּתּוֹ בַּמְּדִינָה אוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה הַבֵּן וּמֵת אֲבִי אִמּוֹ בַּמְּדִינָה יַחְלְקוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב עִם יוֹרְשֵׁי בֶּן הַבַּת: \n", + "נָפַל עָלָיו הַבַּיִת וְעַל אָבִיו אוֹ שְׁאָר מוֹרִישִׁין וְעָלָיו כְּתֻבַּת אִשָּׁה וּבַעֲלֵי חוֹב. יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב אוֹמְרִין מֵת הַבֵּן תְּחִלָּה וְלֹא הִנִּיחַ כְּלוּם וְאָבַד הַחוֹב וּבַעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת אוֹמְרִים הָאָב מֵת תְּחִלָּה וְזָכָה הַבֵּן בִּירֻשָּׁתוֹ וְיֵשׁ לָנוּ לִגְבּוֹת מֵחֶלְקוֹ. הֲרֵי הַנְּכָסִים בְּחֶזְקַת הַיּוֹרְשִׁין וְעַל הָאִשָּׁה וּבַעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה אוֹ יֵלְכוּ לָהֶם בְּלֹא כְּלוּם: \n", + "דִּין אֵלּוּ שֶׁמֵּתוּ תַּחַת הַמַּפּלֶת. אוֹ שֶׁטָּבְעוּ בַּיָּם. אוֹ שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָאֵשׁ. אוֹ שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד וְזֶה בִּמְדִינָה זוֹ וְהָאַחֵר בִּמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת. דִּין אֶחָד הוּא. שֶׁבְּכָל אֵלּוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן אֵין יוֹדְעִין מִי הוּא שֶׁמֵּת תְּחִלָּה: \n" + ], + [ + "אֵין אָדָם יָכוֹל לְהוֹרִישׁ לְמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְיָרְשׁוֹ וְלֹא לַעֲקֹר הַיְרֻשָּׁה מִן הַיּוֹרֵשׁ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁזֶּה מָמוֹן הוּא. לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּפָרָשַׁת נְחָלוֹת (במדבר כז יא) \"וְהָיְתָה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְחֻקַּת מִשְׁפָּט\" לוֹמַר שֶׁחֻקָּה זוֹ לֹא נִשְׁתַּנָּה וְאֵין הַתְּנַאי מוֹעִיל בָּהּ. בֵּין שֶׁצִּוָּה וְהוּא בָּרִיא בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה שְׁכִיב מֵרַע בֵּין עַל פֶּה בֵּין בִּכְתָב אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ הָאוֹמֵר אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בְּנִי בְּכוֹרִי לֹא יִטּל פִּי שְׁנַיִם. אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בְּנִי לֹא יִירַשׁ עִם אֶחָיו. לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי יִירָשֵׁנִי בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בַּת. בִּתִּי תִּירָשֵׁנִי בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בֵּן. לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. אֲבָל הָיוּ לוֹ יוֹרְשִׁין רַבִּים כְּגוֹן בָּנִים רַבִּים אוֹ אַחִים אוֹ בָּנוֹת וְאָמַר כְּשֶׁהוּא שְׁכִיב מֵרַע פְּלוֹנִי אָחִי יִירָשֵׁנִי מִכְּלַל אֶחַי אוֹ בִּתִּי פְּלוֹנִית תִּירָשֵׁנִי מִכְּלַל בְּנוֹתַי דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין בֵּין שֶׁאָמַר עַל פֶּה בֵּין שֶׁכָּתַב בִּכְתָב. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר פְּלוֹנִי בְּנִי יִירָשֵׁנִי לְבַדּוֹ אִם אָמַר עַל פֶּה דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין. אֲבָל אִם כָּתַב כָּל נְכָסָיו לִבְנוֹ לֹא עָשָׂהוּ אֶלָּא אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "אָמַר פְּלוֹנִי בְּנִי יִירַשׁ חֲצִי נְכָסַי וּשְׁאָר בָּנַי הַחֵצִי דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר הַבְּכוֹר יִירַשׁ כַּפָּשׁוּט אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לֹא יִירַשׁ פִּי שְׁנַיִם עִם אֶחָיו לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא טז) \"לֹא יוּכַל לְבַכֵּר אֶת בֶּן הָאֲהוּבָה עַל פְּנֵי בֶן הַשְּׂנוּאָה הַבְּכֹר\" (דברים כא יז) \"כִּי אֶת הַבְּכֹר בֶּן הַשְּׂנוּאָה יַכִּיר\": \n", + "וְאִם הָיָה בָּרִיא אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹסִיף וְלֹא לִגְרֹעַ לֹא לַבְּכוֹר וְלֹא לְאֶחָד מִשְּׁאָר הַיּוֹרְשִׁין: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁאָמַר בִּלְשׁוֹן יְרֻשָּׁה. אֲבָל אִם נָתַן מַתָּנָה דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין. לְפִיכָךְ הַמְחַלֵּק נְכָסָיו עַל פִּיו לְבָנָיו כְּשֶׁהוּא שְׁכִיב מֵרַע רִבָּה לְאֶחָד וּמִעֵט לְאֶחָד וְהִשְׁוָה לָהֶן הַבְּכוֹר דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין. וְאִם אָמַר מִשּׁוּם יְרֻשָּׁה לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם: \n", + "כָּתַב בֵּין בַּתְּחִלָּה בֵּין בָּאֶמְצַע בֵּין בַּסּוֹף מִשּׁוּם מַתָּנָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִזְכִּיר לְשׁוֹן יְרֻשָּׁה בַּתְּחִלָּה וּבַסּוֹף דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין. כֵּיצַד. תִּנָּתֵן שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִי בְּנִי וְיִירָשֶׁנָּה. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר יִירָשֶׁנָּה וְתִנָּתֵן לוֹ וְיִירָשֶׁנָּה. אוֹ יִירָשֶׁנָּה וְתִנָּתֵן לוֹ. הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ שָׁם לְשׁוֹן מַתָּנָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִזְכִּיר לְשׁוֹן יְרֻשָּׁה בַּתְּחִלָּה וּבַסּוֹף דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין. וְכֵן אִם הָיוּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׂדוֹת לִשְׁלֹשָׁה יוֹרְשִׁין וְאָמַר יִירַשׁ פְּלוֹנִי שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית וְתִנָּתֵן לִפְלוֹנִי שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית וְיִירַשׁ פְּלוֹנִי שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית קָנוּ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ בִּלְשׁוֹן יְרֻשָּׁה אֵינוֹ זֶה שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ בִּלְשׁוֹן מַתָּנָה. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁהֶה בֵּין אֲמִירָה לַאֲמִירָה כְּדֵי דִּבּוּר. אֲבָל אִם שָׁהָה צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא לְשׁוֹן הַמַּתָּנָה מְעֹרָב בִּשְׁלָשְׁתָּן: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. אִם הָיָה לְשׁוֹן הַמַּתָּנָה בָּאֶמְצַע יֹאמַר פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי יִירְשׁוּ שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי שֶׁנְּתַתִּים לָהֶן בְּמַתָּנָה וְיִירָשׁוּם. וְאִם הָיָה לְשׁוֹן הַמַּתָּנָה בַּתְּחִלָּה יֹאמַר תִּנָּתֵן שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וְיִירָשׁוּם. וְאִם הָיָה לְשׁוֹן הַמַּתָּנָה בַּסּוֹף יֹאמַר יִירַשׁ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי (וּפְלוֹנִי) שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי (וּפְלוֹנִי) שֶּׁנְּתַתִּים לָהֶן בְּמַתָּנָה: \n", + "יְרֻשַּׁת הַבַּעַל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם עָשׂוּ חִזּוּק לְדִבְרֵיהֶם כְּשֶׁל תּוֹרָה. וְאֵין הַתְּנַאי מוֹעִיל בָּהּ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִתְנָה עִמָּהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא אֲרוּסָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת אִישׁוּת: \n", + "הָעַכּוּ\"ם יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אָבִיו דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. אֲבָל שְׁאָר יְרֻשּׁוֹתֵיהֶן מַנִּיחִין אוֹתוֹ לְפִי מִנְהָגָם: \n", + "וְהַגֵּר אֵינוֹ יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אָבִיו הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם תִּקְּנוּ לוֹ שֶׁיִּירַשׁ כְּשֶׁהָיָה שֶׁמָּא יַחְזֹר לְמִרְדּוֹ. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁתְּנַאי מוֹעִיל בִּירֻשָּׁה זוֹ הוֹאִיל וְאֵין הָעַכּוּ\"ם מְחֻיָּב לַעֲמֹד בְּתַקָּנַת חֲכָמִים. וְאֵין הָעַכּוּ\"ם יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אָבִיו הַגֵּר וְלֹא גֵּר יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת גֵּר לֹא מִדִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה וְלֹא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים: \n", + "כָּל הַנּוֹתֵן נְכָסָיו לַאֲחֵרִים וְהִנִּיחַ הַיּוֹרְשִׁין. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין נוֹהֲגִין (בּוֹ) כַּשּׁוּרָה אֵין רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה הֵימֶנּוּ. וְזָכוּ הָאֲחֵרִים בְּכָל מַה שֶּׁנָּתַן לָהֶן. מִדַּת חֲסִידוּת הִיא שֶׁלֹּא יָעִיד אָדָם חָסִיד בְּצַוָּאָה שֶׁמַּעֲבִירִין בּוֹ הַיְרֻשָּׁה מִן הַיּוֹרֵשׁ אֲפִלּוּ מִבֵּן שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג כַּשּׁוּרָה לְאָחִיו חָכָם וְנוֹהֵג כַּשּׁוּרָה: \n", + "יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהֵמִיר יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת קְרוֹבָיו הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה. וְאִם רָאוּ בֵּית דִּין לְאַבֵּד אֶת מָמוֹנוֹ וּלְקָנְסוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִירַשׁ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא לְחַזֵּק אֶת יְדֵיהֶם הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדָן. וְאִם יֵשׁ לוֹ בָּנִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל תִּנָּתֵן יְרֻשַּׁת אֲבִיהֶן הַמּוּמָר לָהֶן. וְכֵן הַמִּנְהָג תָּמִיד בַּמַּעֲרָב: \n", + "צִוּוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁלֹּא יְשַׁנֶּה אָדָם בֵּין הַבָּנִים בְּחַיָּיו אֲפִלּוּ בְּדָבָר מוּעָט שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹאוּ לִידֵי תַּחֲרוּת וְקִנְאָה כַּאֲחֵי יוֹסֵף עִם יוֹסֵף: \n" + ], + [ + "אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין נוֹחֲלִין עַד שֶׁיָּבִיאוּ רְאָיָה בְּרוּרָה שֶׁמֵּת מוֹרִישָׁן. אֲבָל אִם שָׁמְעוּ בּוֹ שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ שֶׁבָּאוּ עַכּוּ\"ם מְשִׂיחִין לְפִי תֻּמָּן. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמַּשִּׂיאִין אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ עַל פִּיהֶם וְנוֹטֵל כְּתֻבָּתָהּ אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין נוֹחֲלִין עַל פִּיהֶם: \n", + "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁבָּאת וְאָמְרָה מֵת בַּעְלִי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא נֶאֱמֶנֶת וְתִנָּשֵׂא וְתִטּל כְּתֻבָּתָהּ אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין נִכְנָסִין לַנַּחֲלָה עַל פִּיהָ. אָמְרָה מֵת בַּעְלִי וְנִתְיַבְּמָה הֲרֵי יְבָמָהּ נִכְנַס לַנַּחֲלָה עַל פִּיהָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כה ו) \"יָקוּם עַל שֵׁם אָחִיו הַמֵּת\" וַהֲרֵי קָם: \n", + "מִי שֶׁטָּבַע בְּמַיִם שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם סוֹף וּבָאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁטָּבַע בִּפְנֵיהֶם וְאָבַד זִכְרוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מַשִּׂיאִין אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ לְכַתְּחִלָּה הֲרֵי הַיּוֹרְשִׁין נוֹחֲלִין עַל פִּיהֶם. וְכֵן אִם בָּאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁרָאוּהוּ שֶׁנָּפַל לְגוֹב אֲרָיוֹת וּנְמֵרִים אוֹ שֶׁרָאוּהוּ צָלוּב וְהָעוֹף אוֹכֵל בּוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁנִּדְקַר בַּמִּלְחָמָה וּמֵת אוֹ שֶׁנֶּהֱרַג וְלֹא הִכִּירוּ פָּנָיו אֲבָל הָיוּ לוֹ סִימָנִים מֻבְהָקִין בְּגוּפוֹ וְהִכִּירוּ אוֹתָם. בְּכָל אֵלּוּ הַדְּבָרִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן אִם אָבַד זִכְרוֹ אַחַר כָּךְ יוֹרְדִין לַנַּחֲלָה בְּעֵדוּת זוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מַשִּׂיאִין אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא הֶחְמִירוּ בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי אִסּוּר כָּרֵת. אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן מָמוֹן אִם הֵעִידוּ הָעֵדִים בִּדְבָרִים שֶׁחֶזְקָתָן לְמִיתָה וְהֵעִידוּ שֶׁרָאוּ אוֹתָן הַדְּבָרִים וְאָבַד זִכְרוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁמַע שֶׁמֵּת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נוֹחֲלִין עַל פִּיהֶן. וְכָזֶה מַעֲשִׂים בְּכָל יוֹם בְּכָל בָּתֵּי דִּינִין וְלֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ מִי שֶׁחָלַק בְּדָבָר זֶה: \n", + "שָׁבוּי שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה וְשָׁמְעוּ שֶׁמֵּת וְיָרְדוּ יוֹרְשָׁיו לַנַּחֲלָה וְחָלְקוּ אוֹתָהּ בֵּינֵיהֶם אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדָן. וְכֵן הַבּוֹרֵחַ מֵחֲמַת סַכָּנָה. אֲבָל הַיּוֹצֵא לְדַעַת שֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ בּוֹ שֶׁמֵּת וְיָרְדוּ יוֹרְשָׁיו לִנְכָסָיו וְחִלְּקוּם מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדָן עַד שֶׁיָּבִיאוּ רְאָיָה שֶׁמֵּת מוֹרִישָׁן: \n", + "שָׁבוּי שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה וּבָרַח מֵחֲמַת סַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת חַיָּבִין בֵּית דִּין לְהִתְעַסֵּק בְּנִכְסֵיהֶן. כֵּיצַד עוֹשִׂין. כָּל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין יִהְיוּ מֻפְקָדִין בְּיַד נֶאֱמָן עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין וּמוֹרִידִין לְתוֹךְ הַקַּרְקָעוֹת קְרוֹבִין הָרְאוּיִין לִירֻשָּׁה כְּדֵי לַעֲבֹד אֶת הַקַּרְקָעוֹת וּלְהִתְעַסֵּק בָּהֶן עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע שֶׁמֵּתוּ אוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ. וְלִכְשֶׁיָּבוֹא הַשָּׁבוּי וְהַבּוֹרֵחַ שָׁמִין אֵלּוּ הַקְּרוֹבִים שֶׁהוּרְדוּ מַה שֶּׁעָשׂוּ וּמַה שֶּׁאָכְלוּ כְּמִנְהַג כָּל הָאֲרִיסִין שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ הַמְּדִינָה. וְלָמָּה לֹא יַעֲמִידוּ בֵּית דִּין אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לְעוֹלָם בֵּין בְּמִטַּלְטְלִים בֵּין בְּקַרְקָעוֹת עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ הַבְּעָלִים אוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁמֵּתוּ. לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין חַיָּבִין לְהַעֲמִיד אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לִגְדוֹלִים שֶׁהֵן בְּנֵי דַּעַת: \n", + "נִשְׁבָּה הַשָּׁבוּי וּבָרַח הַמְסֻכָּן וְהִנִּיחַ קָמָה לִקְצֹר וַעֲנָבִים לִבְצֹר תְּמָרִים לִגְדֹּר וְזֵיתִים לִמְסֹק. בֵּית דִּין יוֹרְדִים לִנְכָסָיו וּמַעֲמִידִין לָהֶן אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס וְקוֹצֵר וּבוֹצֵר וְגוֹדֵר וּמוֹסֵק וּמוֹכֵר הַפֵּרוֹת. וּמַנִּיחִין דְּמֵיהֶן עִם שְׁאָר הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין בְּבֵית דִּין וְאַחַר כָּךְ מוֹרִידִין הַקָּרוֹב לִנְכָסָיו. שֶׁאִם יֵרֵד תְּחִלָּה שֶׁמָּא יִתְלֹשׁ אֵלּוּ הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁהֵן כִּתְלוּשִׁין וְיֹאכַל אוֹתָן. וְהוּא הַדִּין בַּחֲצֵרוֹת וּפֻנְדָּקִיּוֹת וַחֲנֻיּוֹת הָעֲשׂוּיוֹת לְשָׂכָר וְאֵינָן צְרִיכִין עֲבוֹדָה וְלֹא טוֹרֵחַ וְאֵין אָדָם נוֹתֵן אוֹתָן בַּאֲרִיסוּת. אֵין מוֹרִידִין לָהֶם יוֹרֵשׁ שֶׁהֲרֵי גּוֹבֶה הַשָּׂכָר וְאוֹכֵל. אֶלָּא כֵּיצַד עוֹשִׂין. בֵּית דִּין מַעֲמִידִין לָהֶן גַּבַּאי וְיִהְיֶה הַשָּׂכָר מֻנָּח בְּבֵית דִּין עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא וְיִטּל שֶׁלּוֹ: \n", + "וְאֵין מוֹרִידִין הַקָּרוֹב לְעוֹלָם אֶלָּא לְשָׂדוֹת וּלְגַנּוֹת וּכְרָמִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בָּהֶן כְּאָרִיס כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֻפְסְדוּ וְנִמְצְאוּ בּוּרִים וּנְשַׁמִּים: \n", + "מִי שֶׁיָּצָא לְדַעַת וְהִנִּיחַ נְכָסָיו וְאֵין יָדוּעַ לְהֵיכָן הָלַךְ וְלֹא מָה אֵרַע לוֹ. אֵין מוֹרִידִין קָרוֹב לִנְכָסָיו. וְאִם יָרַד אֵין מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ. וְאֵין בֵּית דִּין צְרִיכִין לְהִטַּפֵּל בּוֹ וּלְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לֹא לַקַּרְקַע וְלֹא לַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁהֲרֵי לְדַעְתּוֹ יָצָא וְהִנִּיחַ נְכָסָיו. וְכֵיצַד יִהְיֶה דִּין נִכְסֵי זֶה. מִטַּלְטְלִין יַעַמְדוּ בְּיַד זֶה שֶׁהֵן תַּחַת יָדוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא זֶה וְיִתְבַּע אוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת וְיִתְבְּעוּ הַיּוֹרְשִׁין: \n", + "וְהַקַּרְקָעוֹת מִי שֶׁהִנִּיחוּ שָׁכֵן אֵין לוֹקְחִין מִמֶּנּוּ שָׂכָר. וְשָׂדֶה אוֹ כֶּרֶם שֶׁהָיָה בָּהֶן אָרִיס יִשָּׁאֲרוּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִנִּיחוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא. וְשָׂדֶה אוֹ כֶּרֶם שֶׁהִנִּיחָם בּוּרִים יִשָּׁאֲרוּ בּוּרִים שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא בִּרְצוֹנוֹ אִבֵּד מָמוֹנוֹ וַאֲבֵדָה לְדַעַת אֵין אָנוּ מְצֻוִּין לְהַחְזִירָהּ: \n", + "שָׁמְעוּ בּוֹ שֶׁמֵּת הֲרֵי בֵּית דִּין מוֹצִיאִין כָּל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין וּמַנִּיחִין אוֹתָן אֵצֶל נֶאֱמָן עַל פִּיהֶן וּמוֹרִידִין הַקָּרוֹב לַשָּׂדוֹת וְלַכְּרָמִים בָּהֶן כְּאָרִיס עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא רְאָיָה בְּרוּרָה שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא: \n" + ], + [ + "כְּשֶׁמּוֹרִידִין קָרוֹב לְנִכְסֵי הַשָּׁבוּי אוֹ בּוֹרֵחַ אוֹ לְנִכְסֵי הַיּוֹצֵא לְדַעַת שֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ בּוֹ שֶׁמֵּת. לֹא יוֹרִידוּ קָטָן שֶׁמָּא יַפְסִיד הַנְּכָסִים. וְאֵין מוֹרִידִין קָרוֹב לְנִכְסֵי קָטָן שֶׁמָּא יִטְעֹן וְיֹאמַר זֶה חֶלְקִי הַמַּגִּיעַ לִי בִּירֻשָּׁתִי. וַאֲפִלּוּ קָרוֹב מֵחֲמַת קָרוֹב אֵין מוֹרִידִין. כֵּיצַד. הָיוּ שְׁנֵי אַחִים אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן וְנִשְׁבָּה הַקָּטָן אוֹ בָּרַח. אֵין מוֹרִידִין הַגָּדוֹל לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַקָּטָן אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִמְחוֹת. וְשֶׁמָּא יַחֲזִיק זֶה הָאָח וּלְאַחַר שָׁנִים יֹאמַר זֶה חֶלְקִי שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לִי בִּירֻשָּׁתִי וּמֵחֲמַת יְרוּשָׁה בָּאתִי. וַאֲפִלּוּ בֶּן אָחִיו שֶׁל זֶה הַקָּטָן הַנִּשְׁבָּה אֵין מוֹרִידִין אוֹתוֹ לִנְכָסָיו שֶׁמָּא יֹאמַר שֶׁמֵּחֲמַת אָבִי יָרַשְׁתִּי חֵלֶק זֶה: \n", + "לְעוֹלָם אֵין מוֹרִידִין קָרוֹב לְנִכְסֵי קָטָן אֲפִלּוּ קָרוֹב מֵחֲמַת אֲחֵי הַאֵם שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לִירַשׁ. הַרְחָקָה יְתֵרָה הִיא זוֹ וַאֲפִלּוּ יֵשׁ בֵּינֵיהֶן שְׁטַר חֲלוּקָה בֵּין בְּבָתִּים בֵּין בְּשָׂדוֹת לֹא יֵרֵד. וַאֲפִלּוּ אָמַר כִּתְבוּ עָלַי שְׁטַר אֲרִיסוּת לֹא יֵרֵד שֶׁמָּא יֹאבְדוּ הַשְּׁטָרוֹת וְיַאַרְכוּ הַיָּמִים וְיִטְעֹן וְיֹאמַר שֶׁזֶּה חֵלֶק יְרֻשָּׁה בָּא לוֹ (מֵחֲמָתוֹ אוֹ) מֵחֲמַת מוֹרִישָׁיו. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאִשָּׁה אַחַת שֶׁהָיוּ לָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ בָּנוֹת וְנִשְׁבֵּית הַזְּקֵנָה הִיא וּבַת אַחַת וּמֵתָה בַּת שְׁנִיָּה וְהִנִּיחָה בֵּן קָטָן. וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֵין מוֹרִידִין זוֹ הַבַּת הַנִּשְׁאָרָה לַנְּכָסִים שֶׁמָּא מֵתָה הַזְּקֵנָה וְנִמְצְאוּ שְׁלִישׁ נְכָסִים אֵלּוּ לַקָּטָן וְאֵין מוֹרִידִין קָרוֹב לְנִכְסֵי קָטָן. וְכֵן אֵין מוֹרִידִין לְזֶה הַקָּטָן בַּנְּכָסִים שֶׁמָּא עֲדַיִן הַזְּקֵנָה בַּחַיִּים וְאֵין מוֹרִידִין קָטָן לְנִכְסֵי שָׁבוּי. אֶלָּא כֵּיצַד עוֹשִׂין. מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְהַעֲמִיד אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לַחֲצִי שֶׁל קָטָן מַעֲמִידִין אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס עַל כָּל נִכְסֵי הַזְּקֵנָה. אַחַר זְמַן שָׁמְעוּ שֶׁמֵּתָה הַזְּקֵנָה אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים תֵּרֵד הַבַּת הַנִּשְׁאָרָה לִשְׁלִישׁ הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁהוּא חֵלֶק יְרֻשָּׁתָהּ וְיֵרֵד הַקָּטָן לִשְׁלִישׁ שֶׁהוּא חֶלְקוֹ מִנִּכְסֵי הַזְּקֵנָה. וְהַשְּׁלִישׁ שֶׁל בַּת הַשְּׁבוּיָה מַעֲמִידִין לוֹ אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס מִפְּנֵי חֵלֶק הַקָּטָן שֶׁמָּא מֵתָה גַּם הַבַּת הַשְּׁבוּיָה וְיֵשׁ לְזֶה הַקָּטָן חֲצִי הַשְּׁלִישׁ שֶׁלָּהּ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n" + ], + [ + "הָאַחִין שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא חָלְקוּ יְרֻשַּׁת אֲבִיהֶן אֶלָּא כֻּלָּן מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בְּיַחַד בְּמַה שֶּׁהִנִּיחַ לָהֶן הֲרֵי הֵן כְּשֻׁתָּפִין לְכָל דָּבָר. וְכֵן בִּשְׁאָר הַיּוֹרְשִׁין הֲרֵי הֵן שֻׁתָּפִין בְּנִכְסֵי מוֹרִישָׁן. וְכָל שֶׁנָּשָׂא וְנָתַן כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּמָמוֹן זֶה הַשָּׂכָר לָאֶמְצַע: \n", + "הָיוּ הַיּוֹרְשִׁין גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים וְהִשְׁבִּיחוּ הַגְּדוֹלִים אֶת הַנְּכָסִים הִשְׁבִּיחוּ לָאֶמְצַע. אָמְרוּ רְאוּ מַה שֶּׁהִנִּיחַ לָנוּ אַבָּא וַהֲרֵי אָנוּ עוֹשִׂין וְאוֹכְלִין. הַשֶּׁבַח שֶׁל מַשְׁבִּיחַ. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַשֶּׁבַח מֵחֲמַת הוֹצָאָה שֶׁהוֹצִיא הַמַּשְׁבִּיחַ. אֲבָל שָׁבְחוּ נְכָסִים מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָן הַשֶּׁבַח לָאֶמְצַע: \n", + "וְכֵן אִם הָיְתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל מֵת הִיא הַיּוֹרֶשֶׁת בִּכְלַל אַחְיוֹתֶיהָ אוֹ בִּכְלַל בְּנוֹת דּוֹדֶיהָ וְהִשְׁבִּיחָה הַנְּכָסִים הַשֶּׁבַח לָאֶמְצַע. וְאִם אָמְרָה רְאוּ מַה שֶּׁהִנִּיחַ לִי בַּעְלִי וַהֲרֵינִי עוֹשָׂה וְאוֹכֶלֶת הִשְׁבִּיחַ הַנְּכָסִים מֵחֲמַת הוֹצָאָה הֲרֵי הַשֶּׁבַח שֶׁלָּהּ: \n", + "מִי שֶׁיָּרַשׁ אֶת אָבִיו וְהִשְׁבִּיחַ הַנְּכָסִים וְנָטַע וּבָנָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹדַע שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אַחִין בִּמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת. אִם קְטַנִּים הֵן הַשֶּׁבַח לָאֶמְצַע וְאִם הָיוּ גְּדוֹלִים הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נוֹדַע שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אַחִין שָׁמִין לוֹ כְּאָרִיס. וְכֵן אָח שֶׁיָּרַד לְנִכְסֵי קָטָן וְהִשְׁבִּיחַ אֵין שָׁמִין לוֹ כְּאָרִיס. אֶלָּא הַשֶּׁבַח לָאֶמְצַע שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא בִּרְשׁוּת יָרַד: \n", + "אֶחָד מִן הָאַחִין שֶׁלָּקַח מָעוֹת וְעָשָׂה בָּהֶן סְחוֹרָה אִם הָיָה תַּלְמִיד חָכָם גָּדוֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַנִּיחַ תּוֹרָתוֹ שָׁעָה אַחַת. הֲרֵי הַשָּׂכָר שֶׁלּוֹ שֶׁאֵין זֶה מַנִּיחַ תּוֹרָתוֹ וּמִתְעַסֵּק לְצֹרֶךְ אֶחָיו: \n", + "אֶחָד מִן הָאַחִין שֶׁמִּנָּהוּ הַמֶּלֶךְ גַּבַּאי אוֹ סוֹפֵר שֶׁמַּכְנִיס וּמוֹצִיא בְּמָמוֹן הַמֶּלֶךְ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה מֵעֲבוֹדַת הַמְּלָכִים. אִם מֵחֲמַת אֲבִיהֶן מִנָּהוּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה אֲבִיהֶן יָדוּעַ בְּדָבָר זֶה וְאָמַר נַעֲמִיד תַּחְתָּיו בְּנוֹ כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת חֶסֶד עִם הַיְתוֹמִים. הַפְּרָס שֶׁיִּטּל וְכָל הַשָּׂכָר שֶׁיִּשְׂתַּכֵּר בַּעֲבוֹדָה לְכָל הָאַחִין. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה חָכָם בְּיוֹתֵר וְרָאוּי לְמַנּוֹתוֹ. וְאִם מֵחֲמַת עַצְמוֹ מִנּוּהוּ הֲרֵי זֶה לְעַצְמוֹ: \n", + "אֶחָד מִן הָאַחִין שֶׁהָיָה נוֹשֵׂא וְנוֹתֵן בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת וְקָנָה עֲבָדִים בִּשְׁמוֹ לְבַדּוֹ. הִלְוָה לַאֲחֵרִים וְהָיָה שְׁטַר הַחוֹב בִּשְׁמוֹ לְבַדּוֹ. וְאָמַר מָעוֹת אֵלּוּ שֶׁהִלְוֵיתִי אוֹ שֶׁקָּנִיתִי בָּהֶן עֲבָדִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁלִּי לְבַדִּי הֵן שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לִי מִבֵּית אָבִי אִמִּי. אוֹ מְצִיאָה מָצָאתִי אוֹ מַתָּנָה נִתְּנָה לִי. עָלָיו לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לוֹ יְרֻשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת אוֹ מָצָא מְצִיאָה אוֹ זָכָה בְּמַתָּנָה. וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָיְתָה נוֹשֵׂאת וְנוֹתֶנֶת בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת וְהָיוּ אוֹנוֹת שֶׁהֵן שִׁטְרֵי מִמְכַּר עֲבָדִים וְשִׁטְרֵי חוֹבוֹת יוֹצְאוֹת עַל שְׁמָהּ. וְאָמְרָה שֶׁלִּי הֵן שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לִי מִבֵּית אֲבוֹתַי. עָלֶיהָ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ לִירֻשָּׁה. וְכֵן אַלְמָנָה שֶׁהָיְתָה נוֹשֵׂאת וְנוֹתֶנֶת בְּנִכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים וְהָיוּ אוֹנוֹת וּשְׁטָרוֹת יוֹצְאוֹת עַל שְׁמָהּ וְאָמְרָה מִירֻשָּׁה נָפְלוּ לִי אוֹ מְצִיאָה מָצָאתִי אוֹ מַתָּנָה נִתְּנָה לִי. עָלֶיהָ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה. וְאִם יֵשׁ לָהּ נְדוּנְיָא וְאָמְרָה מִנְּדוּנְיָתִי לָקַחְתִּי נֶאֱמֶנֶת אֲבָל אִם אֵין לָהּ נְדוּנְיָא וְלֹא הֵבִיאָה רְאָיָה הֲרֵי הַכּל בְּחֶזְקַת הַיּוֹרְשִׁין: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּאַחִים וּבְאַלְמָנָה שֶׁאֵין חֲלוּקִין בְּעִסָּתָן. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ חֲלוּקִין בְּעִסָּתָן שֶׁמָּא מֵעִסָּתוֹ קָמַץ וְעַל הָאַחִין לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵן מִשֶּׁל אֶמְצַע. וְכֵן אִם מֵת זֶה הַנּוֹתֵן וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת עַל הָאַחִין לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ חֲלוּקִין בְּעִסָּתָן: \n", + "אֶחָד מִן הָאַחִין שֶׁשְּׁטַר חוֹב יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ עָלָיו לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁאָבִיו נְתָנוֹ לוֹ בִּכְתִיבָה וּמְסִירָה. אוֹ שֶׁצִּוָּה לוֹ בּוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא שְׁכִיב מֵרַע. וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה הֲרֵי הוּא לָאֶמְצַע: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּאַחִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֶזְקָתָן שׁוֹמְטִין זֶה מִזֶּה. אֲבָל אַחֵר שֶׁטָּעַן שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ אוֹ שֶׁקָּנָהוּ מִבְּעָלָיו גּוֹבֶה בּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה: \n", + "אֶחָד מִן הָאַחִין שֶׁנָּטַל מָאתַיִם זוּז לִלְמֹד תּוֹרָה אוֹ לִלְמֹד אֻמָּנוּת יְכוֹלִין הָאַחִין לוֹמַר לוֹ אִם אֵין אַתָּה אֶצְלֵנוּ אֵין לְךָ מְזוֹנוֹת אֶלָּא לְפִי בִּרְכַּת הַבַּיִת. שֶׁאֵין הוֹצָאַת מְזוֹנוֹת הָאֶחָד לְבַדּוֹ כְּהוֹצָאַת מְזוֹנוֹתָיו בֵּין רַבִּים: \n", + "מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ בָּנִים גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים אֵין הַגְּדוֹלִים מִתְפַּרְנְסִים פַּרְנָסַת הַקְּטַנִּים וְלֹא הַקְּטַנִּים נִזּוֹנִים מְזוֹנוֹת הַגְּדוֹלִים אֶלָּא חוֹלְקִים בְּשָׁוֶה. נִשְּׂאוּ גְּדוֹלִים לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן יִשְׂאוּ הַקְּטַנִּים כֵּן מִכְּלַל הַנְּכָסִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ יַחֲלֹקוּ. נִשְּׂאוּ הַגְּדוֹלִים בְּחַיֵּי אֲבִיהֶן וְאָמְרוּ הַקְּטַנִּים לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן הֲרֵי אָנוּ נוֹשְׂאִין כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁנְּשָׂאתֶם אַתֶּם. אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לָהֶן אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁנָּתַן לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם נָתַן: \n", + "הִשִּׂיא הָאָב אֶת בְּנוֹ וְעָשָׂה לוֹ מִשְׁתֶּה וְהָיְתָה הַהוֹצָאָה מִשֶּׁל אָב וְנִשְׁתַּלְּחָה שׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת לְזֶה הַבֵּן בְּחַיֵּי הָאָב. כְּשֶׁהִיא חוֹזֶרֶת לְאַחַר מִיתַת הָאָב חוֹזֶרֶת לָאֶמְצַע. אֲבָל הוֹצִיא הַבֵּן בַּמִּשְׁתֶּה מִשֶּׁלּוֹ אֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת אֶלָּא מֵחֵלֶק הַבֵּן שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּלְּחָה לוֹ בִּלְבַד: \n", + "הָאָב שֶׁשָּׁלַח שׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת בְּשֵׁם אֶחָד מִבָּנָיו כְּשֶׁתַּחְזֹר הַשּׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת לְאוֹתוֹ הַבֵּן הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁלּוֹ. אֲבָל אִם שְׁלָחָהּ הָאָב בְּשֵׁם בָּנָיו סְתָם כְּשֶׁתַּחְזֹר תַּחְזֹר לָאֶמְצַע. וְאֵין זֶה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּלְּחָה לוֹ חַיָּב לְהַחְזִירָהּ עַד שֶׁיִּשְׂמְחוּ עִמּוֹ הַבָּנִים כֻּלָּן. שֶׁהֲרֵי כֻּלָּן שׁוֹשְׁבִינִין שֶׁבְּשֵׁם כֻּלָּן נִשְׁתַּלְּחָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם שָׂמֵחַ בְּמִקְצָתָן מַחְזִיר חֵלֶק זֶה שֶׁשָּׂמַח עִמּוֹ בִּלְבַד וַהֲרֵי הוּא לָאֶמְצַע: \n", + "גְּדוֹל הָאַחִין שֶׁהָיָה לוֹבֵשׁ וּמִתְכַּסֶּה מַלְבּוּשִׁין נָאִים אִם יֵשׁ לָאַחִים הֲנָאָה מִמֶּנּוּ כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיוּ דְּבָרָיו נִשְׁמָעִין הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹבֵשׁ מִתְּפִיסַת הַבַּיִת: \n" + ], + [ + "שְׁנֵּי אַחִים שֶׁחָלְקוּ וּבָא לָהֶן אָח מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם. וְכֵן שְׁלֹשָׁה אַחִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ וּבָא בַּעַל חוֹב וְנָטַל חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן. אֲפִלּוּ נָטַל זֶה קַרְקַע וְזֶה כְּסָפִים בָּטְלָה מַחְלֹקֶת וְחוֹזְרִין וְחוֹלְקִין הַשְּׁאָר בְּשָׁוֶה: ", + "מִי שֶׁצִּוָּה בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָתוֹ שֶׁיִּתְּנוּ לִפְלוֹנִי דֶּקֶל אוֹ שָׂדֶה מִנְּכָסָיו וְחָלְקוּ הָאַחִין וְלֹא נָתְנוּ לִפְלוֹנִי כְּלוּם. הֲרֵי הַמַּחֲלֹקֶת בְּטֵלָה. וְכֵיצַד עוֹשִׂין. נוֹתְנִין מַה שֶּׁצִּוָּה מוֹרִישָׁן וְאַחַר כָּךְ חוֹזְרִין וְחוֹלְקִין כַּתְּחִלָּה: ", + "הָאַחִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ שָׁמִין לָהֶן מַה שֶּׁעֲלֵיהֶן. אֲבָל מַה שֶּׁעַל בְּנֵיהֶן וּבְנוֹתֵיהֶן שֶׁקָּנוּ לָהֶן מִתְּפִיסַת הַבַּיִת אֵין שָׁמִין. וְכֵן מַה שֶּׁעַל נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן. שֶׁכְּבָר זָכוּ בָּהֶן לְעַצְמָן. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּבִגְדֵי חֹל. אֲבָל בְּבִגְדֵי שַׁבָּת וּמוֹעֵד שָׁמִין מַה שֶּׁעֲלֵיהֶן: ", + "מִי שֶׁהִנִּיחַ יְתוֹמִים מִקְצָתָן גְּדוֹלִים וּמִקְצָתָן קְטַנִּים וְרָצוּ לַחְלֹק בְּנִכְסֵי אֲבִיהֶן כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּטְּלוּ הַגְּדוֹלִים חֶלְקָן. מַעֲמִידִין בֵּית דִּין אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לַקְּטַנִּים וּבוֹרֵר לָהֶן הַחֵלֶק הַיָּפֶה. וְאִם הִגְדִּילוּ אֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לִמְחוֹת שֶׁהֲרֵי עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין חָלְקוּ לָהֶם. וְאִם טָעוּ בֵּית דִּין בַּשּׁוּמָא וּפָחֲתוּ שְׁתוּת. יְכוֹלִין לִמְחוֹת וְחוֹלְקִין חֲלוּקָה אַחֶרֶת אַחַר שֶׁהִגְדִּילוּ: ", + "מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ יוֹרְשִׁין גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים צָרִיךְ לְמַנּוֹת אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מִתְעַסֵּק בְּחֵלֶק הַקָּטָן עַד שֶׁיַּגְדִּיל. וְאִם לֹא מִנָּה חַיָּבִין בֵּית דִּין לְהַעֲמִיד לָהֶן אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס עַד שֶׁיַּגְדִּילוּ. שֶׁבֵּית דִּין הוּא אֲבִיהֶן שֶׁל יְתוֹמִים: ", + "צִוָּה הַמּוֹרִישׁ וְאָמַר יִנָּתֵן חֵלֶק הַקָּטָן לַקָּטָן וּמַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה יַעֲשֶׂה בָּהּ הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ. וְכֵן אִם מִנָּה הַמּוֹרִישׁ אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס עַל הַקְּטַנִּים קָטָן אוֹ אִשָּׁה אוֹ עֶבֶד הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ. אֲבָל אֵין בֵּית דִּין מְמַנִּין אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לֹא אִשָּׁה וְלֹא עֶבֶד וְלֹא קָטָן וְלֹא עַם הָאָרֶץ. שֶׁהוּא בְּחֶזְקַת חָשׁוּד עַל הָעֲבֵרוֹת. אֶלָּא בּוֹדְקִין עַל אָדָם נֶאֱמָן וְאִישׁ חַיִל וְיוֹדֵעַ לְהַפֵּךְ בִּזְכוּת הַיְתוֹמִים וְטוֹעֵן טַעֲנָתָם וְשֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ כֹּחַ בְּעִסְקֵי הָעוֹלָם כְּדֵי לִשְׁמֹר נְכָסִים וּלְהַרְוִיחַ בָּהֶן וּמַעֲמִידִין אוֹתוֹ עַל הַקְּטַנִּים. בֵּין שֶׁיִּהְיֶה רָחוֹק בֵּין שֶׁיִּהְיֶה קָרוֹב לַקָּטָן. אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם הָיָה קָרוֹב לֹא יֵרֵד לַקַּרְקָעוֹת: ", + "בֵּית דִּין שֶׁהֶעֱמִידוּ אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס וְשָׁמְעוּ עָלָיו שֶׁהוּא אוֹכֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה וּמוֹצִיא הוֹצָאוֹת יֶתֶר מִדָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה אָמוּד בּוֹ יֵשׁ לָהֶן לָחוּשׁ לוֹ שֶׁמָּא מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים הוּא אוֹכֵל וּמְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ וּמַעֲמִידִין אַחֵר. אֲבָל אִם מִנָּהוּ אֲבִי יְתוֹמִים אֵין מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁמָּא מְצִיאָה מָצָא. אֲבָל אִם בָּאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא מַפְסִיד נִכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ. וּכְבָר הִסְכִּימוּ הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁמַּשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ הוֹאִיל וּמַפְסִיד. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְאַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס שֶׁמִּנָּהוּ אֲבִי יְתוֹמִים וְהָיְתָה שְׁמוּעָתוֹ טוֹבָה וְהָיָה יָשָׁר וְרוֹדֵף מִצְוֹת וְחָזַר לִהְיוֹת זוֹלֵל וְסוֹבֵא וְהוֹלֵךְ בְּדַרְכֵי הַחֲשָׁד אוֹ שֶׁפָּרַץ בִּנְדָרִים וּבַאֲבַק גֵּזֶל בֵּית דִּין חַיָּבִים לְסַלֵּק אוֹתוֹ וּלְהַשְׁבִּיעוֹ. וּלְמַנּוֹת לָהֶן אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס כָּשֵׁר. וְכָל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁיֵּרָאֶה לַדַּיָּן שֶׁכָּל בֵּית דִּין וּבֵית דִּין הוּא אֲבִיהֶן שֶׁל יְתוֹמִים: ", + "קָטָן שֶׁהִגְדִּיל אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה אוֹכֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה יוֹתֵר מִדַּאי וּמַפְסִיד וְהוֹלֵךְ בְּדֶרֶךְ רָעָה אֵין בֵּית דִּין מוֹנְעִין מִמֶּנּוּ מָמוֹנוֹ וְאֵין מַעֲמִידִין לוֹ אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס. אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן צִוָּה אָבִיו אוֹ מוֹרִישׁוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִתְּנוּ לוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יִהְיֶה כָּשֵׁר וּמַצְלִיחַ אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִתְּנוּ לוֹ עַד זְמַן מְרֻבֶּה. וְהַשּׁוֹטֶה וְהַחֵרֵשׁ הֲרֵי הֵן כִּקְטַנִּים וּמַעֲמִידִין לָהֶן אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס: " + ], + [ + "מָעוֹת שֶׁל יְתוֹמִים שֶׁהִנִּיחַ לָהֶן אֲבִיהֶן אֵינָן צְרִיכִין אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס. אֶלָּא כֵּיצַד עוֹשִׂין בָּהֶן. בּוֹדְקִין עַל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת וְיִהְיוּ עִדִּית וְיִהְיֶה אִישׁ נֶאֱמָן וְשׁוֹמֵעַ דִּינֵי תּוֹרָה וּמֵעוֹלָם לֹא קִבֵּל עָלָיו נִדּוּי. וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ הַמָּעוֹת בְּבֵית דִּין קָרוֹב לְשָׂכָר וְרָחוֹק לְהֶפְסֵד וְנִמְצְאוּ הַיְתוֹמִים נֶהֱנִין מִשְּׂכַר הַמָּעוֹת. וְכֵן אִם אֵין לוֹ קַרְקַע יִנָּתֵן לָהֶן מַשְׁכּוֹן זָהָב שָׁבוּר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ סִימָן וְנוֹטְלִין בֵּית דִּין הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ הַמָּעוֹת קָרוֹב לְשָׂכָר וְרָחוֹק לְהֶפְסֵד. וְלָמָּה לֹא יִקְחוּ מַשְׁכּוֹן כֵּלִים שֶׁל זָהָב אוֹ חֲלִי שֶׁל זָהָב. שֶׁמָּא שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים הוּא וְיִתְּנוּ סִימָן וְיִטְּלוּהוּ אַחַר מוֹתוֹ אִם יֵדַע הַדַּיָּן שֶׁאֵין זֶה אָמוּד. וְכַמָּה יִפְסְקוּ בְּשָׂכָר. כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁיִּרְאוּ הַדַּיָּנִין. אוֹ שְׁלִישׁ הַשָּׂכָר אוֹ חֶצְיוֹ אֲפִלּוּ רְבִיעַ הַשָּׂכָר לַיְתוֹמִים אִם רָאוּ שֶׁזּוֹ תַּקָּנָה לָהֶם עוֹשִׂין. לֹא מָצְאוּ אָדָם שֶׁיִּתְּנוּ לוֹ הַמָּעוֹת רָחוֹק לְהֶפְסֵד וְקָרוֹב לְשָׂכָר הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מוֹצִיאִין מֵהֶן מְזוֹנוֹת מְעַט. עַד שֶׁיִּקְנוּ לָהֶן בַּמָּעוֹת קַרְקַע וְיִמְסְרוּ אוֹתוֹ בְּיַד אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס שֶׁיַּעֲמִידוּ לָהֶן: ", + "כָּל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁל יְתוֹמִים שָׁמִין אוֹתָן וּמוֹכְרִין אוֹתָן בְּבֵית דִּין. וְאִם הָיָה הַשּׁוּק קָרוֹב לַמְּדִינָה. מוֹלִיכִין אוֹתָן לַשּׁוּק וּמוֹכְרִין אוֹתָן וְיִצְטָרְפוּ דְּמֵיהֶן עִם הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁל יְתוֹמִים: ", + "מִי שֶׁהָיָה בְּיָדוֹ שֵׁכָר שֶׁל יְתוֹמִים אִם יַנִּיחוֹ כָּאן עַד שֶׁיִּמָּכֵר שֶׁמָּא יַחְמִיץ. וְאִם יוֹלִיכוֹ לַשּׁוּק שֶׁמָּא יֶאֶרְעוֹ אֹנֶס בַּדֶּרֶךְ. הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹשֶׂה בּוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בְּשֶׁלּוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "כְּשֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין בֵּית דִּין לָהֶן אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס מוֹסְרִין לוֹ כָּל נִכְסֵי הַקָּטָן הַקַּרְקַע וְהַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁלֹּא נִמְכְּרוּ. וְהוּא מוֹצִיא וּמַכְנִיס וּבוֹנֶה וְסוֹתֵר וְשׁוֹבֵר וְנוֹטֵעַ וְזוֹרֵעַ וְעוֹשֶׂה כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁיִּרְאֶה שֶׁזֶּה טוֹב לַיְתוֹמִים וּמַאֲכִילָן וּמַשְׁקָן וְנוֹתֵן לָהֶן כָּל הַהוֹצָאָה כְּפִי הַמָּמוֹן וּכְפִי הָרָאוּי לָהֶן וְלֹא יַרְוִיחוּ לָהֶן יוֹתֵר מִדַּאי וְלֹא יְצַמְצֵם עֲלֵיהֶם יֶתֶר מִדַּאי: ", + "כְּשֶׁיַּגְדִּילוּ הַיְתוֹמִים נוֹתֵן לָהֶם מָמוֹן מוֹרִישָׁן וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת לָהֶן חֶשְׁבּוֹנוֹת מַה שֶּׁהִכְנִיס וְהוֹצִיא אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר לָהֶן זֶה הַנִּשְׁאָר. וְנִשְׁבָּע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ שֶׁלֹּא גְּזָלָן כְּלוּם. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁמִּנּוּהוּ בֵּית דִּין. אֲבָל אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס שֶׁמִּנָּהוּ אֲבִי יְתוֹמִים וְכֵן שְׁאָר הַמּוֹרִישָׁן אֵיִנוֹ נִשְׁבָּע עַל טַעֲנַת סָפֵק. יֵשׁ לְאַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לִלְבּשׁ וּלְהִתְכַּסּוֹת מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מְכֻבָּד וְיִהְיוּ דְּבָרָיו נִשְׁמָעִין וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לַיְתוֹמִים הֲנָאָה בְּנִכְסֵיהֶן בִּהְיוֹת דְּבָרָיו נִשְׁמָעִין: ", + "יֵשׁ לְאַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לִמְכֹּר בְּהֵמָה וַעֲבָדִים שְׁפָחוֹת שָׂדוֹת וּכְרָמִים לְהַאֲכִיל לַיְתוֹמִים. אֲבָל אֵין מוֹכְרִין וּמַנִּיחִין הַמָּעוֹת וְאֵין מוֹכְרִין שָׂדוֹת לִקַּח עֲבָדִים וְלֹא עֲבָדִים לִקַּח שָׂדוֹת שֶׁמָּא לֹא יַצְלִיחַ. אֲבָל מוֹכְרִין שָׂדֶה לִקַּח שְׁוָרִים לַעֲבוֹדַת שָׂדוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת שֶׁהַשְּׁוָרִים הֵן עִקַּר כָּל נִכְסֵי שָׂדוֹת: ", + "אֵין הָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפִּין רַשָּׁאִין לִמְכֹּר בְּרָחוֹק וְלִגְאל בְּקָרוֹב לִמְכֹּר בְּרָעָה וְלִגְאל בְּיָפָה. שֶׁמָּא לֹא יַצְלִיחַ זֶה שֶׁקָּנוּ. וְאֵין רַשָּׁאִין לָדוּן וְלָחוּב עַל מְנָת לִזְכּוֹת לַיְתוֹמִים שֶׁמָּא לֹא יִזְכּוּ וְנִמְצָא הַחוֹב קַיָּם: ", + "אֵין הָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפִּין רַשָּׁאִין לְהוֹצִיא עֲבָדִים לְחֵרוּת אֲפִלּוּ לִקַּח מִן הָעֶבֶד דָּמִים שֶׁיֵּצֵא לְחֵרוּת. אֲבָל מוֹכְרִין אוֹתָן לַאֲחֵרִים וְלוֹקְחִין מֵהֶן הַדָּמִים עַל מְנָת שֶׁיּוֹצִיאוּהוּ לְחֵרוּת וְאוֹתָן הָאֲ [חֵ] רִים הֵן שֶׁמְּשַׁ [חְ] רְרִין אוֹתָם: ", + "הָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפִּין תּוֹרְמִין וּמְעַשְּׂרִין נִכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים כְּדֵי לְהַאֲכִילָן. שֶׁאֵין מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הַיְתוֹמִים דָּבָר הָאָסוּר. אֲבָל לֹא יְעַשְּׂרוּ וְלֹא יִתְרֹמוּ כְּדֵי לְהַנִּיחַ פֵּרוֹת מְתֻקָּנִין אֶלָּא יִמְכְּרוּ אוֹתָן טֶבֶל וְהָרוֹצֶה לְתַקֵּן יְתַקֵּן: ", + "הָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפִּין עוֹשִׂין לַקְּטַנִּים לוּלָב וְסֻכָּה וְצִיצִית וְשׁוֹפָר סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה וּתְפִלִּין וּמְזוּזוֹת וּמְגִלָּה. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר כָּל מִצְוֹת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם קִצְבָה בֵּין שֶׁהוּא מִדִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה בֵּין שֶׁהוּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. עוֹשִׂין לָהֶם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן חַיָּבִין בְּמִצְוָה מִכָּל אֵלּוּ הַמִּצְוֹת אֶלָּא כְּדֵי לְחַנְּכָן. אֲבָל אֵין פּוֹסְקִין עֲלֵיהֶן צְדָקָה וַאֲפִלּוּ לְפִדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִים. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמִּצְוֹת אֵלּוּ אֵין לָהֶן קִצְבָה: ", + "וּמִי שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּטָּה אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְחָרֵשׁ בֵּית דִּין פּוֹסְקִין עָלָיו צְדָקָה אִם הָיָה רָאוּי: ", + "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס צָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת חֶשְׁבּוֹן כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. צָרִיךְ לַחְשֹׁב בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ לְדַקְדֵּק וּלְהִזָּהֵר הַרְבֵּה מֵאֲבִיהֶן שֶׁל אֵלּוּ הַיְתוֹמִים שֶׁהוּא רוֹכֵב עֲרָבוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהילים סח ה) \"סלוּ לָרֹכֵב בָּעֲרָבוֹת\" וְגוֹ' (תהילים סח ו) \"אֲבִי יְתוֹמִים\" וְגוֹ': " + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Inheritances/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Inheritances/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5b0b251214e725a75826fb2a5449008abd764046 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Inheritances/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json @@ -0,0 +1,166 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Inheritances", + "versionSource": "http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94_%D7%9C%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%91%22%D7%9D", + "versionTitle": "Wikisource Mishneh Torah", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY-SA", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "משנה תורה (ויקיטקסט)", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות נחלות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "סדר נחלות כך היא, מי שמת יירשוהו בניו והם קודמין לכל, והזכרים קודמין לנקבות.", + "בכל מקום אין לנקבה עם הזכר ירושה, אם אין לו בנים יירשנו אביו, ואין האם יורשת את בניה ודבר זה מפי הקבלה.", + "וכל הקודם בנחלה יוצאי ירכו קודמין, לפיכך מי שמת בין איש בין אשה אם הניח בן יורש הכל, לא נמצא לו בן לעולם מעיינין בזרעו של בן אם נמצא לבנו זרע בין זכרים בין נקבות אפילו בת בת בת בנו עד סוף העולם היא תירש את הכל, לא נמצא לו זרע בן חוזרין אצל הבת היתה לו בת תירש את הכל לא נמצאת לו בת בעולם מעיינין על זרע הבת, אם נמצא לה זרע בין זכרים בין נקבות עד סוף העולם הוא יורש הכל, לא נמצא לה זרע בת חוזר הירושה לאביו. לא היה אביו קיים מעיינין על זרע האב שהן אחי המת, נמצא לו אח או זרע אח יורש את הכל ואם לאו חוזרין אצל אחות, נמצאת לו אחות או זרעה יורש הכל, ואם לא נמצאת לו זרע אחים ולא זרע אחות הואיל ואין לאב זרע תחזור הירושה לאבי האב, לא היה אבי האב קיים מעיינין על זרע של אבי האב שהן אחי אביו של מת והזכרים קודמין לנקבות וזרען של זכרים קודמין לנקבות כמו שהיה הדין בזרעו של מת עצמו, לא נמצאו אחים לאביו לא הם ולא זרען תחזור הירושה לאבי האב, ועל הדרך הזאת נחלה ממשמשת והולכת עד ראובן, נמצאת אומר הבן קודם לבת וכל יוצאי ירכו של בן קודמין לבת והבת קודמת לאבי אביה וכל יוצאי ירכה קודמין לאבי אביה, ואבי המת קודם לאחי המת מפני שהם יוצאי ירכו והאח קודם לאחות, וכל יוצאי ירכו של אח קודמין לאחות, ואחות קודמת לאבי אביה, וכל יוצאי ירכה קודמין לאבי אביה, אבי האב קודם לאחי האב של מת ואחי אביו קודמין לאחות אביו וכל יוצאי ירכו של אחי אביו קודמין לאחות אביו ואחות אביו קודמת לאבי אבי אביו של מת, וכן כל יוצאי ירכה של אחות אביו קודמין לאבי אבי אביו, ועל דרך זו הולך ועולה עד ראש הדורות, לפיכך אין לך אדם מישראל שאין לו יורשין.", + "מי שמת והניח בת ובת הבן ואפילו בת בת בת הבן עד סוף כמה דורות היא קודמת ותירש הכל ואין לבת כלום, והוא הדין לבת האח עם האחות ולבת בן אחי אביו עם אחות אביו וכן כל כיוצא בהן.", + "מי שהיו לו שני בנים ומתו השני בנים בחייו והניח הבן האחד שלשה בנים והניח הבן השני בת אחת ואחר כך מת הזקן נמצאו שלשת בני בניו יורשין חצי הנחלה ובת בנו יורשת החצי שכל אחד ואחד מהן יורש חלק אביו ועל דרך זו חולקין בני האחים ובני אחי האב עד ראש הדורות.", + "משפחת האם אינה קרויה משפחה ואין ירושה אלא למשפחת האב, לפיכך האחים מן האם אין יורשין זה את זה ואחין מן האב יורשין זה את זה, ואחד אחיו שהוא מאביו בלבד או אחיו מאביו ומאמו.", + "כל הקרובין בעבירה יורשין בכשרים, כיצד כגון שהיה לו בן ממזר או אח ממזר הרי אלו כשאר בנים וכשאר אחים לנחלה, אבל בנו מן השפחה או מן הנכרית אינו בן לדבר מן הדברים ואינו יורש כלל.", + "האשה אינה יורשת בעלה כלל והבעל יורש את כל נכסי אשתו מדברי סופרים והוא קודם לכל בירושתה אע\"פ שהיא אסורה עליו, כגון אלמנה לכהן גדול גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט ואע\"פ שהיא קטנה ואע\"פ שהבעל חרש הוא יורש את אשתו.", + "כבר ביארנו בהלכות אישות שאין הבעל יורש את אשתו עד שתכנס ברשותו ושאין הפקח יורש את החרשת שנשאת כשהיא חרשת אפילו נתפקחה, ושם בארנו שהוא יורש את נכסי אשתו שבאו לירושתה והוחזקו בין נכסים שהכניסה לו בנדונייתה בין נכסים שלא הכניסה לו, ומי שנתגרשה ספק גירושין ומתה אין הבעל יורשה.", + "בעל שנשא קטנה שאינה צריכה מיאון אינו יורשה שהרי אין כאן שום אישות, וכן שוטה שנשא פקחת או פקח שנשא שוטה אינו יורשה שהרי לא תקנו חכמים להן נשואין.", + "בעל שמתה אשתו ואחר כך מת אביה או אחיה או אחד מן המורישין אותה אין הבעל יורש אותן, אלא יורש אותן זרעה אם היה לה זרע או תחזור הירושה למשפחת בית אביה, שאין הבעל יורש נכסים הראויין לבא לאחר מכאן אלא לנכסים שכבר באו לירושה קודם שתמות.", + "וכן אין הבעל יורש את אשתו והוא בקבר כשאר היורשין של משפחת האב, כיצד בעל שמת ואחר כך מתה אשתו אין אומרין הואיל והבעל היה קודם לכל אדם בירושתה כך יורשי הבעל יקדמו לשאר יורשי האשה אלא יורשי האשה ממשפחת בית אביה הם היורשים אותה אם מתה אחר בעלה.", + "וכן אין הבן יורש את אמו בקבר כדי להנחיל לאחיו מאביו, כיצד מי שמת ואחר כך מתה אמו אין אומרין הואיל ואילו היה הבן קיים היה קודם אף יורשין של בן קודמין ליורשיה של אשה זו ונמצאו אחיו מאביו יורשין את אמו של זה אחר מותו של זה, אלא זרע בנה הוא שיירשנה אם היה לו זרע ואם אין לו זרע תחזור ירושתה למשפחת בית אביה, אבל אם מתה האם תחלה ואחר כך מת הבן אפילו היה קטן בן יומו ולא כלו לו חדשיו הואיל וחיה אחר אמו שעה אחת ומת הרי זה נוחל את אמו ומנחיל הנחלה ליורשיו ממשפחת אביו." + ], + [ + "הבכור נוטל פי שנים בנכסי אביו שנאמר לתת לו פי שנים, כיצד הניח חמשה בנים ואחד מהן בכור הבכור נוטל שליש הממון וכל אחד מהארבעה פשוטים נוטל שתות, הניח תשעה בנים הרי (האחד) הבכור נוטל חמישית וכל אחד מן השמונה פשוטים נוטל עשירית וכן על החלוקה הזאת חולקין לעולם.", + "בכור שנולד אחר מיתת אביו אינו נוטל פי שנים, שנאמר והיה ביום הנחילו את בניו וגו' כי את הבכור בן השנואה יכיר, ואם יצאת פדחתו בחיי אביו אף על פי שלא יצא כל ראשו לאויר העולם אלא לאחר מיתת אביו הרי זה נוטל פי שנים.", + "בכור שנקרע ונמצא זכר אינו נוטל פי שנים ופשוט שנקרע ונמצא זכר אינו ממעט בחלק בכורה שנאמר וילדו לו בנים עד שיהיה בן משעת לידה.", + "כיצד אינו ממעט בחלק בכורה, הרי שהיה לו בן בכור ושני פשוטים וזה הטומטום שנקרע ונמצא זכר, הבכור נוטל רביע הממון בחלק הבכורה וכאילו אין עמו אלא שני הפשוטים בלבד, וחצי ורביע הנשאר חולקין אותו שני הפשוטין עם הנקרע ועם הבכור בשוה.", + "קטן בן יום אחד ממעט בחלק בכורה אבל לא העובר, ובן שנולד אחר מיתת אביו אינו ממעט בחלק בכורה.", + "בן שנסתפק לנו אם הוא בכור או פשוט כגון שנתערב עם אחר אינו נוטל פי שנים, וכיצד עושין אם הוכרו ולבסוף נתערבו כותבין הרשאה זה לזה ונוטלין חלק בכורה עם אחיהם, ואם לא הוכרו כגון שילדו במחבואה אחת אין כותבין הרשאה ואין כאן חלק בכורה.", + "מי שהיו לו שני בנים בכור ופשוט ומתו שניהם בחייו והניחו בנים, הבכור הניח בת והפשוט הניח בן, הרי בן הפשוט יורש בנכסי הזקן שליש שהוא חלק אביו, ובת הבכור יורשת שני שלישים שהוא חלק אביה, וכן הדין בבני האחין ובני אחי האב ובכל היורשין אם היה אבי אחד מן היורשים בכור נוטל חלק בכורה שלו זה היורש מחמתו.", + "אין הבכור נוטל פי שנים בנכסי האם, כיצד בכור ופשוט שירשו אמן חולקין בשוה בין שהיה בכור לנחלה בין שהיה פטר רחם.", + "בכור לנחלה הוא הנולד לאב ראשון שנאמר כי הוא ראשית אונו, ואין משגיחין על האם אפילו ילדה כמה בנים הואיל וזה ראשון לאביו יורש פי שנים.", + "הבא אחר נפלים אע\"פ שיצא ראש הנפל כשהוא חי הבא אחריו בכור לנחלה, וכן בן תשעה שיצא ראשו מת הבא אחריו בכור לנחלה שזה שנאמר ראשית אונו הוא שלא נולד לו קודם לזה ולד שיצא חי לאויר העולם, לפיכך בן תשעה שהוציא רוב ראשו חי הבא אחריו אינו בכור.", + "יוצא דופן והבא אחריו שניהן אינן בכורים, הראשון לפי שלא נולד ונאמר וילדו לו בנים והשני שהרי קדמו אחר.", + "היו לו בנים כשהיה עכו\"ם ונתגייר אין לו בכור לנחלה, אבל ישראל שהיה לו בן מן השפחה ומן העכו\"ם הואיל ואינו קרוי בנו הבא לו אחריו מן הישראלית בכור לנחלה ונוטל פי שנים.", + "היה הבכור ממזר נוטל פי שנים שנאמר כי את הבכור בן השנואה יכיר זו ששנואה בנישואיה ואין צריך לומר אם היה בן גרושה או בן חלוצה.", + "שלשה נאמנין על הבכור, חיה ואמו ואביו, חיה מיד שאם אמרה זה יצא ראשון נאמנת, אמו כל שבעת ימי הלידה נאמנת לומר זהו הבכור, אביו לעולם אפילו אמר האב על מי שלא הוחזק בנו כלל הוא בני ובכורי הוא נאמן, וכן אם אמר על המוחזק לנו שהוא בכורו אינו בכור נאמן.", + "האב שנשתתק בודקין אותו כדרך שבודקין לגיטין, אם רמז או כתב שזה בנו בכורו הרי זה נוטל פי שנים.", + "העידו עדים שהן שמעו אביו של זה אומר דברים כך וכך שהרי אותן הדברים יודע מכללן שזה בנו בכורו, הרי זה נוטל פי שנים אע\"פ שלא אמר האב בפירוש זה בני בכורי.", + "שמעו מן האב שאמר זה בני בכור אינו נוטל פי שנים בעדות זו שמא בכור לאמו הוא ולזה נתכוון האב עד שיאמר בני בכורי." + ], + [ + "אין הבכור נוטל פי שנים בנכסים הראויין לבא לאחר מיתת אביו אלא בנכסים המוחזקין לאביו שבאו לרשותו שנאמר בכל אשר ימצא לו, כיצד אחד ממורישי אביו שמת לאחר מיתת אביו הבכור והפשוט יורשין כאחד, וכן אם היתה לאביו מלוה או היתה לו ספינה בים יורשין כאחד.", + "הניח להם פרה מושכרת או מוחכרת או שהיתה רועה באפר וילדה הבכור נוטל בה ובולדה פי שנים.", + "שחט אחד ממכירי אביו בהמה ואחר כך מת אביו נוטל פי שנים במתנות של אותה בהמה.", + "אין הבכור נוטל פי שנים בשבח ששבחו נכסים לאחר מיתת אביו אלא מעלה אותו השבח בדמים ונותן היתר לפשוט, והוא שישתנו הנכסים כגון כרמל שנעשו שבלים וכפניות שנעשו תמרים, אבל שבחו מחמת עצמן ולא נשתנו כגון אילן קטן שגדל ועבה וארץ שהעלתה שרטון הרי זה נוטל בשבח פי שנים, ואם מחמת הוצאה השביח אינו נוטל.", + "אין הבכור נוטל פי שנים במלוה אע\"פ שהוא בשטר אע\"ג שגבו קרקע בחוב אביהם, היה לאב מלוה ביד הבכור הרי זה ספק אם נוטל בה פי שנים הואיל וישנה תחת ידו, או לא יטול הואיל ומחמת אביו יירשנה ועדיין לא באה לידו של אביו, לפיכך יטול ממנה חצי חלק בכורה.", + "בכור שמכר חלק בכורה קודם חלוקה ממכרו קיים מפני שיש לבכור חלק בכורה קודם חלוקה, לפיכך אם חלק עם אחיו קודם במקצת נכסים בין בקרקע בין במטלטלין ונטל חלק כפשוט ויתר בכל הנכסים אינו נוטל בשארן אלא כפשוט, במה דברים אמורים בשלא מיחה, אבל אם מיחה באחיו ואמר בפני שנים ענבים אלו שאני חולק עם אחי בשוה לא מפני שמחלתי בחלק בכורה הרי זה מחאה ולא ויתר בשאר נכסים, ואפילו מיחה בענבים כשהן מחוברים ובצרום וחלקום בשוה לא ויתר בשאר נכסים, אבל אם דרכום וחלק עמהן בשוה ביין ולא מיחה בהן משנעשה יין ויתר בשאר הנכסים, הא למה זה דומה למי שמיחה בענבים וחלק עמהם בשוה כזיתים שהרי ויתר בכל וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "מי שיבם אשת אחיו הוא יורש כל נכסי אחיו המוחזקים, וכל הראויין לבא לאחר מכאן הרי הוא בהן ככל האחים שהרי בכור קרא אותו הכתוב שנאמר והיה הבכור אשר תלד יקום על שם אחיו המת ולא ימחה שמו מישראל, וכשם שאינו נוטל ממנו בראוי כבמוחזק כך אינו נוטל בשבח ששבחו נכסים אחרי מות אביו משעת מיתה עד שעת חלוקתו עם אחיו בנכסי אביו, ואפילו השביחו נכסים אחר שיבם וקודם שיחלקו הרי הוא בשבח כאחד מן האחין, אע\"פ שנוטל מן הנכסים אלו שני חלקים חלקו וחלק אחיו שיבם אשתו הואיל ומת האב בחיי כולן.", + "כבר ביארנו בהלכות שכנים שהבכור נוטל שני חלקים שלו כאחד במצר אחד, אבל היבם שחלק עם אחיו בנכסי אביו נוטל חלקו וחלק אחיו בגורל, ואם עלה גורלו בשני מקומות נוטל בשני מקומות.", + "שומרת יבם שמתה אפילו עשה בה אחד מן האחים מאמר משפחת בית אביה יורשין בנכסי מלוג וחצי נכסי צאן ברזל, ויורשי הבעל יורשין כתובתה עם חצי נכסי צאן ברזל ויורשי הבעל חייבין בקבורתה הואיל והן יירשו כתובתה כמו שביארנו במקומו." + ], + [ + "האומר זה בני או זה אחי או זה אחי אבי או שאר היורשין אותו, אע\"פ שהודה באנשים שאינן מוחזקין שהן קרוביו הרי זה נאמן ויירשנו בין שאמר כשהוא בריא בין שאמר כשהוא שכיב מרע, אפילו נשתתק וכתב בכתב ידו שזה יורשו בודקין אותו כדרך שבודקין לגיטין.", + "היינו מוחזקין בזה שהוא אחיו או בן דודו ואמר אינו אחי ואין בן דודי אינו נאמן, אבל נאמן הוא על מי שהוחזק שהוא בנו לומר אינו בני ולא יירשנו, ויראה לי שאפילו היו לבן בנים אע\"פ שאינו נאמן עליו לומר אינו בני לענין יחוס ואין מחזיקין אותו ממזר על פיו, נאמן הוא לענין ירושה ולא יירשנו.", + "האומר זה בני וחזר ואמר עבדי הוא אינו נאמן, אמר עבדי וחזר ואמר בני אע\"פ שהוא משמשו כעבד נאמן שזה שאמר עבדי כלומר שהוא לי כעבד, ואם היו קורין לו עבד בן מאה זוז וכיוצא בדברים אלו שאין אומרין אותן ביחוד אלא לעבדים הרי זה אינו נאמן.", + "היה עובר על בית המכס ואמר בני הוא זה וחזר אחר כך ואמר עבדי נאמן, שלא אמר בני אלא להבריח מן המכס, אמר בבית המוכס עבדי הוא וחזר ואמר בני הוא אינו נאמן.", + "העבדים והשפחות אין קורין להן אבא פלוני ואימא פלונית שלא יבא מן הדבר תקלה ונמצא זה הבן נפגם, לפיכך אם היו העבדים והשפחות חשובין ביותר ויש להן קול וכל הקהל מכירין אותן ואת בני ועבדי אדוניהם כגון עבדי הנשיא הרי אלו מותר לקרות להן אבא ואימא.", + "מי שהיתה לו שפחה והוליד ממנה בן והיה נוהג בו מנהג בנים, או שאמר בני הוא ומשוחררת היא אמו, אם תלמיד חכם הוא או אדם כשר שהוא בדוק בדקדוקי מצות הרי זה יירשנו, ואעפ\"כ אינו נושא בת ישראל עד שיביא ראיה שנשתחררה אמו ואחר כך ילדה שהרי הוחזקה שפחה בפנינו, ואם משאר הדיוטות הוא ואין צריך לומר אם היה מן המפקירין עצמן לכך הרי זה בחזקת עבד לכל דבר ואחיו מאביו מוכרין אותו, ואם אין לאביו בן חוץ ממנו אשת אביו מתייבמת, וזה הוא הדין שיראה לי שהוא הולך על עיקרי הקבלה, ויש מי שלא חלק בין כשרים לשאר העם אלא לענין שלא ימכרוהו אחיו בלבד, ויש מי שהורה שאפילו ליורשו לא נחלוק בישראל ואין ראוי לסמוך על דבר זה.", + "כל היורשין יורשין בחזקה, כיצד עדים שהעידו שזה מוחזק לנו שהוא בנו של פלוני או אחיו, אע\"פ שאינן עדי יחוס ולא ידעו אמתת היוחסין הרי אלו יורשין בעדות זו.", + "יעקב שמת והניח ראובן ושמעון ולא הוחזק לו בן אלא שניהם, תפס ראובן לוי מן השוק ואמר גם זה אחינו הוא ושמעון אומר איני יודע, הרי שמעון נוטל חצי הממון וראובן שליש שהרי הודה שהם שלשה אחין ולוי נוטל שתות, מת לוי יחזור השתות לראובן, נפלו ללוי נכסים אחרים יחלקו אותן ראובן ושמעון שהרי ראובן מודה לשמעון שלוי זה אחיהן, השביח השתות מאליו ואחר כך מת לוי אם שבח מגיע לכתפים הוא כגון ענבים שהגיעו להבצר, הרי השבח הזה כנכסים שנפלו לו מאחרים ויחלקו בהן, ואם עדיין לא הגיעו להבצר הרי הן של ראובן לבדו, אמר שמעון אין לוי זה אחי ונטל לוי בחלק ראובן כמו שביארנו ואחר כך מת לוי לא יירש שמעון ממנו כלום אלא ראובן לבדו יירש השתות עם שאר נכסים אחרים שהניח לוי, והוא הדין בכל היורשין שיודו מקצתן ביורשין אחרים שלא יודו מקצתן." + ], + [ + "זה הכלל ביורשין, כל שני יורשין שאחד מהן יורש ודאי והשני ספק אין לספק כלום, ואם היו שניהם ספק שמא זהו היורש או שמא זה היורש חולקין בשוה, לפיכך מי שמת והניח בן וטומטום או אנדרוגינוס הרי הבן יורש את הכל שהטומטום והאנדרוגינוס ספק, הניח בנות וטומטום ואנדרוגינוס יורשות בשוה והרי הוא כאחת מן הבנות.", + "כבר ביארנו בהלכות אישות דין הבנות עם הבנים במזונותיהן ובפרנסתן ושם בארנו שהמזונות מתנאי כתובה, בזמן שהנכסים מרובין אין לבנות אלא מזונותיהן והבנים יירשו הכל ויתפרנסו הבנות בעשור נכסים כדי שינשאו בו לבעליהן, ובזמן שהנכסים מועטין אין לבנים כלום אלא הכל למזון הבנות, לפיכך מי שמת והניח בנים ובנות וטומטום או אנדרוגינוס, בזמן שהנכסים מרובין הבנים יורשין ודוחין הטומטום אצל הבנות ונזון כמותן, ובזמן שהנכסין מועטין הבנות דוחות את הטומטום אצל הבנים ואומרות לו זכר אתה ואין לך עמנו מזונות.", + "מי שלא שהתה אחר בעלה שלשה חדשים ונשאת וילדה בן ואין ידוע אם בן תשעה לראשון או בן שבעה לאחרון אין זה הבן יורש את אחד משניהם מפני שהוא ספק, ואם מת הבן שניהן יורשין אותו וחולקין בשוה מפני ששניהם ספק שמא זה אביו או זה אביו.", + "יבמה שלא שהתה שלשה חדשים ונתיבמה בתוך שלשה חדשים וילדה בן ואין ידוע אם בן תשעה לראשון או בן שבעה לאחרון, זה הספק אומר שמא בן המת אני ואירש את נכסי אבי כולן ואין אתה ראוי ליבם אותה שאין אמי בת יבום והיבם אומר שמא בני אתה ואמך ראויה ליבם ואין לך בנכסי אחי כלום, הואיל וגם זה היבם ספק שמא יבם הוא או אינו יבם חולקין בשוה, וכן דין זה הספק עם בני היבם בנכסי המת שנתיבמה אשתו חולקין בשוה הספק נוטל מחצה ובני היבם מחצה, מת היבם אחר שחלק עם זה הספק ובאו בני היבם הראויים לירש אביהם אע\"פ שיש לזה הספק לומר אם אחיכם אני תנו לי חלק בירושה זו ואם איני אחיכם החזירו לי החצי שלקח אביכם אין לזה הספק בנכסי אביהן עמהן כלום ואין מוציא מידן.", + "ספק והיבם שבאו לחלוק בנכסי האב הרי היבם יורש ודאי וזה הספק אם הוא בן המת יש לו חצי הממון ולזה היבם חצי, ואם הוא בן היבם אין לו כלום, לפיכך היבם יורש וידחה הספק, הניח היבם שני בנים ודאין ואחר כך מת היבם הרי הספק אומר אני בן המת ויש לי מחצה ולשניכם מחצה והשנים אומרים אתה אחינו ובן היבם אתה ואין לך אלא שליש בנכסי הזקן החצי שמודה להם בו נוטלין והשליש שמודין הן לו נוטל והשתות הנשאר חולקים אותו בשוה הוא נוטל חציו ושניהם חציו, מת הספק הרי היבם אומר שמא בני הוא ואני אירשנו ואבי היבם אומר שמא בן בני המת הוא ואני אירשנו חולקין בשוה (מת היבם הספק אומר בנו אני ואירשנו ואבי היבם אומר שמא בן בני האחר אתה וזה אחי אביך הוא ואני אירשנו חולקין בשוה).", + "מי שנפל הבית עליו ועל אשתו ואין ידוע אם האשה מתה תחלה ונמצאו יורשי הבעל יורשין כל נכסיה או הבעל מת תחלה ונמצאו יורשי האשה יורשין כל נכסיה כיצד דינם מעמידין נכסי מלוג בחזקת יורשי האשה והכתובה עיקר והתוספת בחזקת יורשי הבעל וחולקין בנכסי צאן ברזל יורשי האשה נוטלין חציין ויורשי הבעל חציין, אבל אם נפל הבית עליו ועל אמו מעמידין נכסי האם בחזקת יורשי האם שהם יורשין ודאין אבל יורשי הבן ספק הם שאם מת הבן תחלה אין לאחיו מאביו בנכסי אמן כלום כמו שביארנו.", + "נפל הבית עליו ועל בן בתו אם האב מת תחלה בן בתו יירשנו ונמצאו הנכסים של יורשי הבן, ואם בן בתו מת תחלה אין הבן יורש את אמו בקבר כמו שביארנו ונמצאו הנכסים של יורשי האב, לפיכך יחלקו יורשי האב עם יורשי בן הבת, וכן אם [נשבה] האב ומת בן בתו במדינה או שנשבה הבן ומת אבי אמו במדינה יחלקו יורשי האב עם יורשי בן הבת.", + "נפל עליו הבית ועל אביו או שאר מורישין ועליו כתובת אשה ובעלי חוב, יורשי האב אומרין מת הבן תחלה ולא הניח כלום ואבד החוב ובעלי חובות אומרים האב מת תחלה וזכה הבן בירושתו ויש לנו לגבות מחלקו, הרי הנכסים בחזקת היורשין ועל האשה ובעלי חובות להביא ראיה או ילכו להם בלא כלום.", + "דין אלו שמתו תחת המפולת, או שטבעו בים, או שנפלו לאש, או שמתו ביום אחד וזה במדינה זו והאחר במדינה אחרת דין אחד הוא שבכל אלו וכיוצא בהן אין יודעין מי הוא שמת תחלה." + ], + [ + "אין אדם יכול להוריש למי שאינו ראוי ליורשו ולא לעקור הירושה מן היורש אע\"פ שזה ממון הוא, לפי שנאמר בפרשת נחלות והיתה לבני ישראל לחוקת משפט לומר שחוקה זו לא נשתנה ואין התנאי מועיל בה, בין שצוה והוא בריא בין שהיה שכיב מרע בין על פה בין בכתב אינו מועיל.", + "לפיכך האומר איש פלוני בני בכורי לא יטול פי שנים, איש פלוני בני לא יירש עם אחיו לא אמר כלום, איש פלוני יירשני במקום שיש לו בת, בתי תירשני במקום שיש לו בן לא אמר כלום וכן כל כיוצא בזה, אבל היו לו יורשין רבים כגון בנים רבים או אחים או בנות ואמר כשהוא שכיב מרע פלוני אחי יירשני מכלל אחי או בתי פלונית תירשני מכלל בנותי דבריו קיימין בין שאמר על פה בין שכתב בכתב, אבל אם אמר פלוני בני יירשני לבדו אם אמר על פה דבריו קיימין, אבל אם כתב כל נכסיו לבנו לא עשהו אלא אפוטרופוס כמו שביארנו.", + "אמר פלוני בני יירש חצי נכסי ושאר בני החצי דבריו קיימין, אבל אם אמר הבכור יירש כפשוט או שאמר לא יירש פי שנים עם אחיו לא אמר כלום שנאמר לא יוכל לבכר את בן האהובה על פני בן השנואה הבכור כי את הבכור בן השנואה יכיר.", + "ואם היה בריא אינו יכול להוסיף ולא לגרוע לא לבכור ולא לאחד משאר היורשין.", + "במה דברים אמורים כשאמר בלשון ירושה, אבל אם נתן מתנה דבריו קיימין, לפיכך המחלק נכסיו על פיו לבניו כשהוא שכיב מרע ריבה לאחד ומיעט לאחד והשוה להן הבכור דבריו קיימין, ואם אמר משום ירושה לא אמר כלום.", + "כתב בין בתחלה בין באמצע בין בסוף משום מתנה אף על פי שהזכיר לשון ירושה בתחלה ובסוף דבריו קיימין, כיצד תנתן שדה פלוני לפלוני בני ויירשנה, או שאמר יירשנה ותנתן לו ויירשנה, או יירשנה ותנתן לו, הואיל ויש שם לשון מתנה אע\"פ שהזכיר לשון ירושה בתחלה ובסוף דבריו קיימין, וכן אם היו שלש שדות לשלשה יורשין ואמר יירש פלוני שדה פלונית ותנתן לפלוני שדה פלונית ויירש פלוני שדה פלונית קנו, אע\"פ שזה שאמר לו בלשון ירושה אינו זה שאמר לו בלשון מתנה, והוא שלא ישהה בין אמירה לאמירה כדי דבור, אבל אם שהה צריך שיהא לשון המתנה מעורב בשלשתן.", + "כיצד אם היה לשון המתנה באמצע יאמר פלוני ופלוני יירשו שדה פלוני ופלוני שנתתים להן במתנה ויירשום, ואם היה לשון המתנה בתחלה יאמר תנתן שדה פלוני ופלוני לפלוני ופלוני ויירשום, ואם היה לשון המתנה בסוף יאמר יירש פלוני ופלוני (ופלוני) שדה פלוני ופלוני (ופלוני) שנתתים להן במתנה.", + "ירושת הבעל אע\"פ שהיא מדבריהם עשו חזוק לדבריהם כשל תורה, ואין התנאי מועיל בה אלא אם כן התנה עמה כשהיא ארוסה כמו שביארנו בהלכות אישות.", + "העכו\"ם יורש את אביו דבר תורה, אבל שאר ירושותיהן מניחין אותו לפי מנהגם.", + "והגר אינו יורש את אביו העכו\"ם אלא מדבריהם תקנו לו שיירש כשהיה שמא יחזור למרדו, ויראה לי שתנאי מועיל בירושה זו הואיל ואין העכו\"ם מחוייב לעמוד בתקנת חכמים, ואין העכו\"ם יורש את אביו הגר ולא גר יורש את גר לא מדברי תורה ולא מדברי סופרים.", + "כל הנותן נכסיו לאחרים והניח היורשין, אע\"פ שאין היורשין נוהגין (בו) כשורה אין רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו, וזכו האחרים בכל מה שנתן להן, מדת חסידות היא שלא יעיד אדם חסיד בצוואה שמעבירין בו הירושה מן היורש אפילו מבן שאינו נוהג כשורה לאחיו חכם ונוהג כשורה.", + "ישראל שהמיר יורש את קרוביו הישראלים כשהיה, ואם ראו בית דין לאבד את ממונו ולקנסו שלא יירש כדי שלא לחזק את ידיהם הרשות בידן, ואם יש לו בנים בישראל תנתן ירושת אביהן המומר להן, וכן המנהג תמיד במערב.", + "צוו חכמים שלא ישנה אדם בין הבנים בחייו אפילו בדבר מועט שלא יבואו לידי תחרות וקנאה כאחי יוסף עם יוסף." + ], + [ + "אין היורשין נוחלין עד שיביאו ראיה ברורה שמת מורישן, אבל אם שמעו בו שמת או שבאו עכו\"ם משיחין לפי תומן, אע\"פ שמשיאין את אשתו על פיהם ונוטל כתובתה אין היורשין נוחלין על פיהם.", + "האשה שבאת ואמרה מת בעלי אע\"פ שהיא נאמנת ותנשא ותטול כתובתה אין היורשין נכנסין לנחלה על פיה, אמרה מת בעלי ונתייבמה הרי יבמה נכנס לנחלה על פיה שנאמר יקום על שם אחיו המת והרי קם.", + "מי שטבע במים שאין להם סוף ובאו עדים שטבע בפניהם ואבד זכרו, אע\"פ שאין משיאין את אשתו לכתחלה הרי היורשין נוחלין על פיהם, וכן אם באו עדים שראוהו שנפל לגוב אריות ונמרים או שראוהו צלוב והעוף אוכל בו, או שנדקר במלחמה ומת או שנהרג ולא הכירו פניו אבל היו לו סימנים מובהקין בגופו והכירו אותם, בכל אלו הדברים וכיוצא בהן אם אבד זכרו אחר כך יורדין לנחלה בעדות זו אף על פי שאין משיאין את אשתו, שאני אומר שלא החמירו בדברים אלו אלא מפני איסור כרת אבל לענין ממון אם העידו העדים בדברים שחזקתן למיתה והעידו שראו אותן הדברים ואבד זכרו ואחר כך נשמע שמת הרי אלו נוחלין על פיהן, וכזה מעשים בכל יום בכל בתי דינין ולא שמענו מי שחלק בדבר זה.", + "שבוי שנשבה ושמעו שמת וירדו יורשיו לנחלה וחלקו אותה ביניהם אין מוציאין אותה מידן, וכן הבורח מחמת סכנה, אבל היוצא לדעת ששמעו בו שמת וירדו יורשיו לנכסיו וחלקום מוציאין מידן עד שיביאו ראיה שמת מורישן.", + "שבוי שנשבה וברח מחמת סכנת נפשות חייבין בית דין להתעסק בנכסיהן, כיצד עושין, כל המטלטלין יהיו מופקדין ביד נאמן על פי בית דין ומורידין לתוך הקרקעות קרובין הראויין לירושה כדי לעבוד את הקרקעות ולהתעסק בהן עד שיודע שמתו או עד שיבואו, ולכשיבוא השבוי והבורח שמין אלו הקרובים שהורדו מה שעשו ומה שאכלו כמנהג כל האריסין של אותה המדינה, ולמה לא יעמידו בית דין אפוטרופוס לעולם בין במטלטלים בין בקרקעות עד שיבואו הבעלים או עד שיודע בודאי שמתו, לפי שאין בית דין חייבין להעמיד אפוטרופוס לגדולים שהן בני דעת.", + "נשבה השבוי וברח המסוכן והניח קמה לקצור וענבים לבצור תמרים לגדור וזיתים למסוק, בית דין יורדים לנכסיו ומעמידין להן אפוטרופוס וקוצר ובוצר וגודר ומוסק ומוכר הפירות, ומניחין דמיהן עם שאר המטלטלין בבית דין ואחר כך מורידין הקרוב לנכסיו, שאם ירד תחלה שמא יתלוש אלו הפירות שהן כתלושין ויאכל אותן, והוא הדין בחצרות ופונדקיות וחנויות העשויות לשכר ואינן צריכין עבודה ולא טורח ואין אדם נותן אותן באריסות, אין מורידין להם יורש שהרי גובה השכר ואוכל, אלא כיצד עושין, בית דין מעמידין להן גבאי ויהיה השכר מונח בבית דין עד שיביא ראיה שמת או עד שיבא ויטול שלו.", + "ואין מורידין הקרוב לעולם אלא לשדות ולגנות וכרמים וכיוצא בהן שיהיה בהן כאריס כדי שלא יפסדו ונמצאו בורים ונשמים.", + "מי שיצא לדעת והניח נכסיו ואין ידוע להיכן הלך ולא מה אירע לו, אין מורידין קרוב לנכסיו ואם ירד אין מסלקין אותו, ואין בית דין צריכין להטפל בו ולהעמיד לו אפוטרופוס לא לקרקע ולא למטלטלין שהרי לדעתו יצא והניח נכסיו, וכיצד יהיה דין נכסי זה, מטלטלין יעמדו ביד זה שהן תחת ידו עד שיבא זה ויתבע או עד שימות ויתבעו היורשין.", + "והקרקעות מי שהניחו שכן אין לוקחין ממנו שכר, ושדה או כרם שהיה בהן אריס ישארו כמו שהניחו עד שיבוא, ושדה או כרם שהניחם בורים ישארו בורים שהרי הוא ברצונו אבד ממונו ואבדה לדעת אין אנו מצווין להחזירה.", + "שמעו בו שמת הרי בית דין מוציאין כל המטלטלין ומניחין אותן אצל נאמן על פיהן ומורידין הקרוב לשדות ולכרמים בהן כאריס עד שיביא ראיה ברורה שמת או עד שיבוא." + ], + [ + "כשמורידין קרוב לנכסי השבוי או בורח או לנכסי היוצא לדעת ששמעו בו שמת, לא יורידו קטן שמא יפסיד הנכסים, ואין מורידין קרוב לנכסי קטן שמא יטעון ויאמר זה חלקי המגיע לי בירושתי ואפילו קרוב מחמת קרוב אין מורידין, כיצד היו שני אחים אחד גדול ואחד קטן ונשבה הקטן או ברח, אין מורידין הגדול לתוך שדהו מפני שהקטן אינו יכול למחות, ושמא יחזיק זה האח ולאחר שנים יאמר זה חלקי שהגיע לי בירושתי ומחמת ירושה באתי, ואפילו בן אחיו של זה הקטן הנשבה אין מורידין אותו לנכסיו שמא יאמר שמחמת אבי ירשתי חלק זה.", + "לעולם אין מורידין קרוב לנכסי קטן אפילו קרוב מחמת אחי האם שאינן ראויין לירש, הרחקה יתירה היא זו ואפילו יש ביניהן שטר חלוקה בין בבתים בין בשדות לא ירד, ואפילו אמר כתבו עלי שטר אריסות לא ירד שמא יאבדו השטרות ויארכו הימים ויטעון ויאמר שזה חלק ירושה בא לו (מחמתו או) מחמת מורישיו, מעשה באשה אחת שהיו לה שלש בנות ונשבית הזקנה היא ובת אחת ומתה בת שניה והניחה בן קטן, ואמרו חכמים אין מורידין זו הבת הנשארה לנכסים שמא מתה הזקנה ונמצאו שליש נכסים אלו לקטן ואין מורידין קרוב לנכסי קטן, וכן אין מורידין לזה הקטן בנכסים שמא עדיין הזקנה בחיים ואין מורידין קטן לנכסי שבוי, אלא כיצד עושין, מתוך שצריך להעמיד אפוטרופוס לחצי של קטן מעמידין אפוטרופוס על כל נכסי הזקנה, אחר זמן שמעו שמתה הזקנה אמרו חכמים תרד הבת הנשארה לשליש הנכסים שהוא חלק ירושתה וירד הקטן לשליש שהוא חלקו מנכסי הזקנה, והשליש של בת השבויה מעמידין לו אפוטרופוס מפני חלק הקטן שמא מתה גם הבת השבויה ויש לזה הקטן חצי השליש שלה וכן כל כיוצא בזה." + ], + [ + "האחין שעדיין לא חלקו ירושת אביהן אלא כולן משתמשין ביחד במה שהניח להן הרי הן כשותפין לכל דבר, וכן בשאר היורשין הרי הן שותפין בנכסי מורישן וכל שנשא ונתן כל אחד מהן בממון זה השכר לאמצע.", + "היו היורשין גדולים וקטנים והשביחו הגדולים את הנכסים השביחו לאמצע, אמרו ראו מה שהניח לנו אבא והרי אנו עושין ואוכלין השבח של משביח והוא שיהיה השבח מחמת הוצאה שהוציא המשביח, אבל שבחו נכסים מחמת עצמן השבח לאמצע.", + "וכן אם היתה אשתו של מת היא היורשת בכלל אחיותיה או בכלל בנות דודיה והשביחה הנכסים השבח לאמצע, ואם אמרה ראו מה שהניח לי בעלי והריני עושה ואוכלת השביח הנכסים מחמת הוצאה הרי השבח שלה.", + "מי שירש את אביו והשביח הנכסים ונטע ובנה ואחר כך נודע שיש לו אחין במדינה אחרת, אם קטנים הן השבח לאמצע ואם היו גדולים הואיל ולא נודע שיש לו אחין שמין לו כאריס, וכן אח שירד לנכסי קטן והשביח אין שמין לו כאריס, אלא השבח לאמצע שהרי לא ברשות ירד.", + "אחד מן האחין שלקח מעות ועשה בהן סחורה אם היה תלמיד חכם גדול שאינו מניח תורתו שעה אחת, הרי השכר שלו שאין זה מניח תורתו ומתעסק לצורך אחיו.", + "אחד מן האחין שמנהו המלך גבאי או סופר שמכניס ומוציא בממון המלך וכן כל כיוצא בזה מעבודת המלכים, אם מחמת אביהן מנהו כגון שהיה אביהן ידוע בדבר זה ואמר נעמיד תחתיו בנו כדי לעשות חסד עם היתומים, הפרס שיטול וכל השכר שישתכר בעבודה לכל האחין, ואפילו היה חכם ביותר וראוי למנותו, ואם מחמת עצמו מנוהו הרי זה לעצמו.", + "אחד מן האחין שהיה נושא ונותן בתוך הבית וקנה עבדים בשמו לבדו, הלוה לאחרים והיה שטר החוב בשמו לבדו, ואמר מעות אלו שהלויתי או שקניתי בהן עבדים אלו שלי לבדי הן שנפלו לי מבית אבי אמי, או מציאה מצאתי או מתנה ניתנה לי, עליו להביא ראיה שנפלה לו ירושה אחרת, או מצא מציאה, או זכה במתנה, וכן האשה שהיתה נושאת ונותנת בתוך הבית והיו אונות שהן שטרי ממכר עבדים ושטרי חובות יוצאות על שמה, ואמרה שלי הן שנפלו לי מבית אבותי עליה להביא ראיה שנפלו לה לירושה, וכן אלמנה שהיתה נושאת ונותנת בנכסי יתומים והיו אונות ושטרות יוצאות על שמה ואמרה מירושה נפלו לי או מציאה מצאתי או מתנה ניתנה לי עליה להביא ראיה, ואם יש לה נדוניא ואמרה מנדונייתי לקחתי נאמנת אבל אם אין לה נדוניא ולא הביאה ראיה הרי הכל בחזקת היורשין.", + "במה דברים אמורים באחים ובאלמנה שאין חלוקין בעיסתן, אבל אם היו חלוקין בעיסתן שמא מעיסתו קמץ ועל האחין להביא ראיה שהן משל אמצע, וכן אם מת זה הנותן והנושא בתוך הבית על האחין להביא ראיה אע\"פ שלא היו חלוקין בעיסתן.", + "אחד מן האחין ששטר חוב יוצא מתחת ידו עליו להביא ראיה שאביו נתנו לו בכתיבה ומסירה, או שצוה לו בו כשהוא שכיב מרע ואם לא הביא ראיה הרי הוא לאמצע.", + "במה דברים אמורים באחין מפני שחזקתן שומטין זה מזה, אבל אחר שטען שנתן לו או שקנהו מבעליו גובה בו ואינו צריך להביא ראיה.", + "אחד מן האחין שנטל מאתים זוז ללמוד תורה או ללמוד אומנות יכולין האחין לומר לו אם אין אתה אצלנו אין לך מזונות אלא לפי ברכת הבית, שאין הוצאת מזונות האחד לבדו כהוצאת מזונותיו בין רבים.", + "מי שמת והניח בנים גדולים וקטנים אין הגדולים מתפרנסים פרנסת הקטנים ולא הקטנים נזונים מזונות הגדולים אלא חולקים בשוה, נשאו גדולים לאחר מיתת אביהן ישאו הקטנים כן מכלל הנכסים ואחר כך יחלוקו, נשאו הגדולים בחיי אביהן ואמרו הקטנים לאחר מיתת אביהן הרי אנו נושאין כדרך שנשאתם אתם, אין שומעין להן אלא מה שנתן להם אביהם נתן.", + "השיא האב את בנו ועשה לו משתה והיתה ההוצאה משל אב ונשתלחה שושבינות לזה הבן בחיי האב, כשהיא חוזרת לאחר מיתת האב חוזרת לאמצע, אבל הוציא הבן במשתה משלו אינה חוזרת אלא מחלק הבן שנשתלחה לו בלבד.", + "האב ששלח שושבינות בשם אחד מבניו כשתחזור השושבינות לאותו הבן הרי היא שלו, אבל אם שלחה האב בשם בניו סתם כשתחזור תחזור לאמצע, ואין זה שנשתלחה לו חייב להחזירה עד שישמחו עמו הבנים כולן, שהרי כולן שושבינין שבשם כולן נשתלחה, לפיכך אם שמח במקצתן מחזיר חלק זה ששמח עמו בלבד והרי הוא לאמצע.", + "גדול האחין שהיה לובש ומתכסה מלבושין נאים אם יש לאחים הנאה ממנו כדי שיהיו דבריו נשמעין הרי זה לובש מתפיסת הבית." + ], + [ + "שני אחים שחלקו ובא להן אח ממדינת הים, וכן שלשה אחין שחלקו ובא בעל חוב ונטל חלקו של אחד מהן אפילו נטל זה קרקע וזה כספים בטלה מחלוקת וחוזרין וחולקין השאר בשוה.", + "מי שצוה בשעת מיתתו שיתנו לפלוני דקל או שדה מנכסיו וחלקו האחין ולא נתנו לפלוני כלום, הרי המחלוקת בטלה, וכיצד עושין נותנין מה שצוה מורישן ואחר כך חוזרין וחולקין כתחלה.", + "האחין שחלקו שמין להן מה שעליהן, אבל מה שעל בניהן ובנותיהן שקנו להן מתפיסת הבית אין שמין, וכן מה שעל נשותיהן שכבר זכו בהן לעצמן, במה דברים אמורים בבגדי חול, אבל בבגדי שבת ומועד שמין מה שעליהן.", + "מי שהניח יתומים מקצתן גדולים ומקצתן קטנים ורצו לחלוק בנכסי אביהן כדי שיטלו הגדולים חלקן, מעמידין בית דין אפוטרופוס לקטנים ובורר להן החלק היפה, ואם הגדילו אינן יכולין למחות שהרי על פי בית דין חלקו להם, ואם טעו בית דין בשומא ופחתו שתות, יכולין למחות וחולקין חלוקה אחרת אחר שהגדילו.", + "מי שמת והניח יורשין גדולים וקטנים צריך למנות אפוטרופוס שיהיה מתעסק בחלק הקטן עד שיגדיל, ואם לא מנה חייבין בית דין להעמיד להן אפוטרופוס עד שיגדילו שבית דין הוא אביהן של יתומים.", + "צוה המוריש ואמר ינתן חלק הקטן לקטן ומה שירצה יעשה בה הרשות בידו, וכן אם מנה המוריש אפוטרופוס על הקטנים קטן או אשה או עבד הרשות בידו, אבל אין בית דין ממנין אפוטרופוס לא אשה ולא עבד ולא קטן ולא עם הארץ, שהוא בחזקת חשוד על העבירות, אלא בודקין על אדם נאמן ואיש חיל ויודע להפך בזכות היתומים וטוען טענתם ושיש לו כח בעסקי העולם כדי לשמור נכסים ולהרויח בהן ומעמידין אותו על הקטנים, בין שיהיה רחוק בין שיהיה קרוב לקטן אלא שאם היה קרוב לא ירד לקרקעות.", + "בית דין שהעמידו אפוטרופוס ושמעו עליו שהוא אוכל ושותה ומוציא הוצאות יתר מדבר שהיה אמור בו יש להן לחוש לו שמא מנכסי יתומים הוא אוכל ומסלקין אותו ומעמידין אחר, אבל אם מנהו אבי יתומים אין מסלקין אותו שמא מציאה מצא, אבל אם באו עדים שהוא מפסיד נכסי יתומים מסלקין אותו וכבר הסכימו הגאונים שמשביעין אותו הואיל ומפסיד, והוא הדין לאפוטרופוס שמנהו אבי יתומים והיתה שמועתו טובה והיה ישר ורודף מצות וחזר להיות זולל וסובא והולך בדרכי החשד או שפרץ בנדרים ובאבק גזל בית דין חייבים לסלק אותו ולהשביעו, ולמנות להן אפוטרופוס כשר, וכל הדברים האלו כפי מה שיראה לדיין שכל בית דין ובית דין הוא אביהן של יתומים.", + "קטן שהגדיל אפילו היה אוכל ושותה יותר מדאי ומפסיד והולך בדרך רעה אין בית דין מונעין ממנו ממונו ואין מעמידין לו אפוטרופוס, אלא אם כן צוה אביו או מורישו שלא יתנו לו אלא אם כן יהיה כשר ומצליח או שלא יתנו לו עד זמן מרובה, והשוטה והחרש הרי הן כקטנים ומעמידין להן אפוטרופוס." + ], + [ + "מעות של יתומים שהניח להן אביהן אינן צריכין אפוטרופוס, אלא כיצד עושין בהן, בודקין על מי שיש לו נכסים שיש להם אחריות ויהיו עדית ויהיה איש נאמן ושומע דיני תורה ומעולם לא קבל עליו נדוי, ונותנין לו המעות בבית דין קרוב לשכר ורחוק להפסד ונמצאו היתומים נהנין משכר המעות, וכן אם אין לו קרקע ינתן להן משכון זהב שבור שאין בו סימן ונוטלין בית דין המשכון ונותנין לו המעות קרוב לשכר ורחוק להפסד, ולמה לא יקחו משכון כלים של זהב או חלי של זהב, שמא של אחרים הוא ויתנו סימן ויטלוהו אחר מותו אם ידע הדיין שאין זה אמוד, וכמה יפסקו בשכר כפי מה שיראו הדיינין, או שליש השכר או חציו אפילו רביע השכר ליתומים אם ראו שזו תקנה להם עושין, לא מצאו אדם שיתנו לו המעות רחוק להפסד וקרוב לשכר הרי אלו מוציאין מהן מזונות מעט, עד שיקנו להן במעות קרקע וימסרו אותו ביד אפוטרופוס שיעמידו להן.", + "כל המטלטלין של יתומים שמין אותן ומוכרין אותן בבית דין, ואם היה השוק קרוב למדינה, מוליכין אותן לשוק ומוכרין אותן ויצטרפו דמיהן עם המעות של יתומים.", + "מי שהיה בידו שכר של יתומים אם יניחו כאן עד שימכר שמא יחמיץ, ואם יוליכו לשוק שמא יארעו אונס בדרך, הרי זה עושה בו כדרך שהוא עושה בשלו וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "כשמעמידין בית דין להן אפוטרופוס מוסרין לו כל נכסי הקטן הקרקע והמטלטלין שלא נמכרו, והוא מוציא ומכניס ובונה וסותר ושובר ונוטע וזורע ועושה כפי מה שיראה שזה טוב ליתומים ומאכילן ומשקן ונותן להן כל ההוצאה כפי הממון וכפי הראוי להן ולא ירויחו להן יותר מדאי ולא יצמצם עליהם יתר מדאי.", + "כשיגדילו היתומים נותן להם ממון מורישן ואינו צריך לעשות להן חשבונות מה שהכניס והוציא אלא אומר להן זה הנשאר, ונשבע בנקיטת חפץ שלא גזלן כלום, במה דברים אמורים כשמנוהו בית דין אבל אפוטרופוס שמנהו אבי יתומים וכן שאר המורישן אינו נשבע על טענת ספק, יש לאפוטרופוס ללבוש ולהתכסות מנכסי יתומים כדי שיהיה מכובד ויהיו דבריו נשמעין והוא שיהיה ליתומים הנאה בנכסיהן בהיות דבריו נשמעין.", + "יש לאפוטרופוס למכור בהמה ועבדים שפחות שדות וכרמים להאכיל ליתומים, אבל אין מוכרין ומניחין המעות ואין מוכרין שדות ליקח עבדים ולא עבדים ליקח שדות שמא לא יצליח, אבל מוכרין שדה ליקח שוורים לעבודת שדות אחרות שהשוורים הן עקר כל נכסי שדות.", + "אין האפוטרופין רשאין למכור ברחוק ולגאול בקרוב למכור ברעה ולגאול ביפה, שמא לא יצליח זה שקנו, ואין רשאין לדון ולחוב על מנת לזכות ליתומים שמא לא יזכו ונמצא החוב קיים.", + "אין האפוטרופין רשאין להוציא עבדים לחירות אפילו ליקח מן העבד דמים שיצא לחירות, אבל מוכרין אותן לאחרים ולוקחין מהן הדמים על מנת שיוציאוהו לחירות ואותן האחרים הן שמשחררין אותם.", + "האפוטרופין תורמין ומעשרין נכסי יתומים כדי להאכילן, שאין מאכילין את היתומים דבר האסור, אבל לא יעשרו ולא יתרומו כדי להניח פירות מתוקנין אלא ימכרו אותן טבל והרוצה לתקן יתקן.", + "האפוטרופין עושין לקטנים לולב וסוכה וציצית ושופר ספר תורה ותפילין ומזוזות ומגילה, כללו של דבר כל מצות עשה שיש להם קצבה בין שהוא מדברי תורה בין שהוא מדברי סופרים, עושין להם אף על פי שאינן חייבין במצוה מכל אלו המצות אלא כדי לחנכן, אבל אין פוסקין עליהן צדקה ואפילו לפדיון שבוים, מפני שמצות אלו אין להן קצבה.", + "ומי שנשתטה או שנתחרש בית דין פוסקין עליו צדקה אם היה ראוי.", + "אע\"פ שאין האפוטרופוס צריך לעשות חשבון כמו שביארנו, צריך לחשב בינו לבין עצמו לדקדק ולהזהר הרבה מאביהן של אלו היתומים שהוא רוכב ערבות שנאמר סלו לרוכב בערבות וגו' אבי יתומים וגו'. ", + "סליקו להו הלכות נחלות בס\"ד. נגמר ספר שלשה עשר והוא ספר משפטים, הלכותיו חמשה, ופרקיו חמשה ושבעים. הלכות שכירות שלשה עשר פרקים, הלכות שאלה ופקדון שמונה פרקים, הלכות מלוה ולוה עשרים ושבעה פרקים, הלכות טוען ונטען ששה עשר פרקים, הלכות נחלות אחד עשר פרקים." + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Inheritances/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Inheritances/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..03fcd7ea027d4ac2127d5808331bf4f64370c7c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Inheritances/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,167 @@ +{ + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Inheritances", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah,_Inheritances", + "text": [ + [ + "סֵדֶר נְחָלוֹת כָּךְ הִיא. מִי שֶׁמֵּת יִירָשׁוּהוּ בָּנָיו וְהֵם קוֹדְמִין לַכּל. וְהַזְּכָרִים קוֹדְמִין לִנְקֵבוֹת: ", + "בְּכָל מָקוֹם אֵין לִנְקֵבָה עִם הַזָּכָר יְרֻשָּׁה. אִם אֵין לוֹ בָּנִים יִירָשֶׁנּוּ אָבִיו. וְאֵין הָאֵם יוֹרֶשֶׁת אֶת בָּנֶיהָ וְדָבָר זֶה מִפִּי הַקַּבָּלָה: ", + "וְכָל הַקּוֹדֵם בְּנַחֲלָה יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵכוֹ קוֹדְמִין. לְפִיכָךְ מִי שֶׁמֵּת בֵּין אִישׁ בֵּין אִשָּׁה אִם הִנִּיחַ בֵּן יוֹרֵשׁ הַכּל. לֹא נִמְצָא לוֹ בֵּן לְעוֹלָם מְעַיְּנִין בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל בֵּן אִם נִמְצָא לִבְנוֹ זֶרַע בֵּין זְכָרִים בֵּין נְקֵבוֹת אֲפִלּוּ בַּת בַּת בַּת בְּנוֹ עַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם הִיא תִּירַשׁ אֶת הַכּל. לֹא נִמְצָא לוֹ זֶרַע בֶּן חוֹזְרִין אֵצֶל הַבַּת. הָיְתָה לוֹ בַּת תִּירַשׁ אֶת הַכּל לֹא נִמְצֵאת לוֹ בַּת בָּעוֹלָם מְעַיְּנִין עַל זֶרַע הַבַּת. אִם נִמְצָא לָהּ זֶרַע בֵּין זְכָרִים בֵּין נְקֵבוֹת עַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם הוּא יוֹרֵשׁ הַכּל. לֹא נִמְצָא לָהּ זֶרַע בַּת חוֹזֵר הַיְרֻשָּׁה לְאָבִיו. לֹא הָיָה אָבִיו קַיָּם מְעַיְּנִין עַל זֶרַע הָאָב שֶׁהֵן אֲחֵי הַמֵּת. נִמְצָא לוֹ אָח אוֹ זֶרַע אָח יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת הַכּל וְאִם לָאו חוֹזְרִין אֵצֶל אָחוֹת. נִמְצֵאת לוֹ אָחוֹת אוֹ זַרְעָהּ יוֹרֵשׁ הַכּל. וְאִם לֹא נִמְצֵאת לוֹ זֶרַע אַחִים וְלֹא זֶרַע אָחוֹת הוֹאִיל וְאֵין לָאָב זֶרַע תַּחְזֹר הַיְרֻשָּׁה לַאֲבִי הָאָב. לֹא הָיָה אֲבִי הָאָב קַיָּם מְעַיְּנִין עַל זֶרַע שֶׁל אֲבִי הָאָב שֶׁהֵן אֲחֵי אָבִיו שֶׁל מֵת וְהַזְּכָרִים קוֹדְמִין לִנְקֵבוֹת וְזַרְעָן שֶׁל זְכָרִים קוֹדְמִין לִנְקֵבוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁהָיָה הַדִּין בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל מֵת עַצְמוֹ. לֹא נִמְצְאוּ אַחִים לְאָבִיו לֹא הֵם וְלֹא זַרְעָן תַּחְזֹר הַיְרֻשָּׁה לַאֲבִי אֲבִי הָאָב. וְעַל הַדֶּרֶךְ הַזֹּאת נַחֲלָה מְמַשְׁמֶשֶׁת וְהוֹלֶכֶת עַד רְאוּבֵן. נִמְצֵאתָ אוֹמֵר הַבֵּן קוֹדֵם לַבַּת וְכָל יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵכוֹ שֶׁל בֵּן קוֹדְמִין לַבַּת וְהַבַּת קוֹדֶמֶת לַאֲבִי אָבִיהָ וְכָל יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵכָהּ קוֹדְמִין לַאֲבִי אָבִיהָ. וַאֲבִי הַמֵּת קוֹדֵם לַאֲחֵי הַמֵּת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵם יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵכוֹ וְהָאָח קוֹדֵם לָאָחוֹת. וְכָל יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵכוֹ שֶׁל אָח קוֹדְמִין לָאָחוֹת. וְאָחוֹת קוֹדֶמֶת לַאֲבִי אָבִיהָ. וְכָל יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵכָהּ קוֹדְמִין לַאֲבִי אָבִיהָ. אֲבִי הָאָב קוֹדֵם לַאֲחֵי הָאָב שֶׁל מֵת וַאֲחֵי אָבִיו קוֹדְמִין לַאֲחוֹת אָבִיו וְכָל יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵכוֹ שֶׁל אֲחֵי אָבִיו קוֹדְמִין לַאֲחוֹת אָבִיו וַאֲחוֹת אָבִיו קוֹדֶמֶת לַאֲבִי אֲבִי אָבִיו שֶׁל מֵת. וְכֵן כָּל יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵכָהּ שֶׁל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו קוֹדְמִין לַאֲבִי אֲבִי אָבִיו. וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ זוֹ הוֹלֵךְ וְעוֹלֶה עַד רֹאשׁ הַדּוֹרוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לְךָ אָדָם מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ יוֹרְשִׁין: ", + "מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ בַּת וּבַת הַבֵּן וַאֲפִלּוּ בַּת בַּת בַּת הַבֵּן עַד סוֹף כַּמָּה דּוֹרוֹת הִיא קוֹדֶמֶת וְתִירַשׁ הַכּל וְאֵין לַבַּת כְּלוּם. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְבַת הָאָח עִם הָאָחוֹת וּלְבַת בֶּן אֲחִי אָבִיו עִם אֲחוֹת אָבִיו. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן: ", + "מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי בָּנִים וּמֵתוּ הַשְּׁנֵי בָּנִים בְּחַיָּיו וְהִנִּיחַ הַבֵּן הָאֶחָד שְׁלֹשָׁה בָּנִים וְהִנִּיחַ הַבֵּן הַשֵּׁנִי בַּת אַחַת וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת הַזָּקֵן נִמְצְאוּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת בְּנֵי בָּנָיו יוֹרְשִׁין חֲצִי הַנַּחֲלָה וּבַת בְּנוֹ יוֹרֶשֶׁת הַחֵצִי שֶׁכָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מֵהֶן יוֹרֵשׁ חֵלֶק אָבִיו. וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ זוֹ חוֹלְקִין בְּנֵי הָאַחִים וּבְנֵי אֲחֵי הָאָב עַד רֹאשׁ הַדּוֹרוֹת: ", + "מִשְׁפַּחַת הָאֵם אֵינָהּ קְרוּיָה מִשְׁפָּחָה וְאֵין יְרֻשָּׁה אֶלָּא לְמִשְׁפַּחַת הָאָב. לְפִיכָךְ הָאַחִים מִן הָאֵם אֵין יוֹרְשִׁין זֶה אֶת זֶה וְאַחִין מִן הָאָב יוֹרְשִׁין זֶה אֶת זֶה. וְאֶחָד אָחִיו שֶׁהוּא מֵאָבִיו בִּלְבַד אוֹ אָחִיו מֵאָבִיו וּמֵאִמּוֹ: ", + "כָּל הַקְּרוֹבִין בַּעֲבֵרָה יוֹרְשִׁין כִּכְשֵׁרִים. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ בֵּן מַמְזֵר אוֹ אָח מַמְזֵר הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כִּשְׁאָר בָּנִים וְכִשְׁאָר אַחִים לַנַּחֲלָה. אֲבָל בְּנוֹ מִן הַשִּׁפְחָה אוֹ מִן הַנָּכְרִית אֵינוֹ בֵּן לְדָבָר מִן הַדְּבָרִים וְאֵינוֹ יוֹרֵשׁ כְּלָל: ", + "הָאִשָּׁה אֵינָהּ יוֹרֶשֶׁת בַּעְלָהּ כְּלָל. וְהַבַּעַל יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת כָּל נִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. וְהוּא קוֹדֵם לַכּל בִּירֻשָּׁתָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה עָלָיו. כְּגוֹן אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַבַּעַל חֵרֵשׁ הוּא יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ: ", + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת אִישׁוּת שֶׁאֵין הַבַּעַל יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ עַד שֶׁתִּכָּנֵס בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וְשֶׁאֵין הַפִּקֵּחַ יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת הַחֵרֶשֶׁת שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת כְּשֶׁהִיא חֵרֶשֶׁת אֲפִלּוּ נִתְפַּקְּחָה. וְשָׁם בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהוּא יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת נִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁבָּאוּ לִירֻשָּׁתָהּ וְהֻחְזְקוּ בֵּין נְכָסִים שֶׁהִכְנִיסָה לוֹ בִּנְדֻנְיָתָהּ בֵּין נְכָסִים שֶׁלֹּא הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ. וּמִי שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה סְפֵק גֵּרוּשִׁין וּמֵתָה אֵין הַבַּעַל יוֹרְשָׁהּ: ", + "בַּעַל שֶׁנָּשָׂא קְטַנָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה מֵאוּן אֵינוֹ יוֹרְשָׁהּ שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין כָּאן שׁוּם אִישׁוּת. וְכֵן שׁוֹטֶה שֶׁנָּשָׂא פִּקַּחַת אוֹ פִּקֵּחַ שֶׁנָּשָׂא שׁוֹטָה אֵינוֹ יוֹרְשָׁהּ שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא תִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים לָהֶן נִשּׂוּאִין: ", + "בַּעַל שֶׁמֵּתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת אָבִיהָ אוֹ אָחִיהָ אוֹ אֶחָד מִן הַמּוֹרִישִׁין אוֹתָהּ אֵין הַבַּעַל יוֹרֵשׁ אוֹתָן. אֶלָּא יוֹרֵשׁ אוֹתָן זַרְעָהּ אִם הָיָה לָהּ זֶרַע אוֹ תַּחְזֹר הַיְרֻשָּׁה לְמִשְׁפַּחַת בֵּית אָבִיהָ. שֶׁאֵין הַבַּעַל יוֹרֵשׁ נְכָסִים הָרְאוּיִין לָבֹא לְאַחַר מִכָּאן אֶלָּא לַנְּכָסִים שֶׁכְּבָר בָּאוּ לִירֻשָּׁה קֹדֶם שֶׁתָּמוּת: ", + "וְכֵן אֵין הַבַּעַל יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְהוּא בַּקֶּבֶר כִּשְׁאָר הַיּוֹרְשִׁין שֶׁל מִשְׁפַּחַת הָאָב. כֵּיצַד. בַּעַל שֶׁמֵּת וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ אֵין אוֹמְרִין הוֹאִיל וְהַבַּעַל הָיָה קוֹדֵם לְכָל אָדָם בִּירֻשָּׁתָהּ כָּךְ יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל יִקְדְּמוּ לִשְׁאָר יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאִשָּׁה אֶלָּא יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאִשָּׁה מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת בֵּית אָבִיהָ הֵם הַיּוֹרְשִׁים אוֹתָהּ אִם מֵתָה אַחַר בַּעְלָהּ: ", + "וְכֵן אֵין הַבֵּן יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִמּוֹ בַּקֶּבֶר כְּדֵי לְהַנְחִיל לְאֶחָיו מֵאָבִיו. כֵּיצַד. מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵתָה אִמּוֹ אֵין אוֹמְרִין הוֹאִיל וְאִלּוּ הָיָה הַבֵּן קַיָּם הָיָה קוֹדֵם אַף יוֹרְשִׁין שֶׁל בֶּן קוֹדְמִין לְיוֹרְשֶׁיהָ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה זוֹ וְנִמְצְאוּ אֶחָיו מֵאָבִיו יוֹרְשִׁין אֶת אִמּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה אַחַר מוֹתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה. אֶלָּא זֶרַע בְּנָהּ הוּא שֶׁיִּירָשֶׁנָּה אִם הָיָה לוֹ זֶרַע וְאִם אֵין לוֹ זֶרַע תַּחְזֹר יְרֻשָּׁתָהּ לְמִשְׁפַּחַת בֵּית אָבִיהָ. אֲבָל אִם מֵתָה הָאֵם תְּחִלָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת הַבֵּן אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה קָטָן בֶּן יוֹמוֹ וְלֹא כָּלוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו הוֹאִיל וְחָיָה אַחַר אִמּוֹ שָׁעָה אַחַת וּמֵת הֲרֵי זֶה נוֹחֵל אֶת אִמּוֹ וּמַנְחִיל הַנַּחֲלָה לְיוֹרְשָׁיו מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת אָבִיו: " + ], + [ + "הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּנִכְסֵי אָבִיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא יז) \"לָתֶת לוֹ פִּי שְׁנַיִם\". כֵּיצַד. הִנִּיחַ חֲמִשָּׁה בָּנִים וְאֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּכוֹר הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל שְׁלִישׁ הַמָּמוֹן וְכָל אֶחָד מֵהָאַרְבָּעָה פְּשׁוּטִים נוֹטֵל שְׁתוּת. הִנִּיחַ תִּשְׁעָה בָּנִים הֲרֵי (הָאֶחָד) הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל חֲמִישִׁית וְכָל אֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁמוֹנָה פְּשׁוּטִים נוֹטֵל עֲשִׂירִית וְכֵן עַל הַחֲלוּקָה הַזֹּאת חוֹלְקִין לְעוֹלָם: \n", + "בְּכוֹר שֶׁנּוֹלַד אַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא טז) \"וְהָיָה בְּיוֹם הַנְחִילוֹ אֶת בָּנָיו\" וְגוֹ' (דברים כא יז) \"כִּי אֶת הַבְּכֹר בֶּן הַשְּׂנוּאָה יַכִּיר\". וְאִם יָצָאת פַּדַּחְתּוֹ בְּחַיֵּי אָבִיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא כָּל רֹאשׁוֹ לַאֲוִיר הָעוֹלָם אֶלָּא לְאַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו הֲרֵי זֶה נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם: \n", + "בְּכוֹר שֶׁנִּקְרַע וְנִמְצָא זָכָר אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם וּפָשׁוּט שֶׁנִּקְרַע וְנִמְצָא זָכָר אֵינוֹ מְמַעֵט בְּחֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָהּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא טו) \"וְיָלְדוּ לוֹ בָנִים\" עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בֵּן מִשְּׁעַת לֵדָה: \n", + "כֵּיצַד אֵינוֹ מְמַעֵט בְּחֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה. הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ בֵּן בְּכוֹר וּשְׁנֵי פְּשׁוּטִים וְזֶה הַטֻּמְטוּם שֶׁנִּקְרַע וְנִמְצָא זָכָר. הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל רְבִיעַ הַמָּמוֹן בְּחֵלֶק הַבְּכוֹרָה וּכְאִלּוּ אֵין עִמּוֹ אֶלָּא שְׁנֵי הַפְּשׁוּטִים בִּלְבַד. וַחֲצִי וּרְבִיעַ הַנִּשְׁאָר חוֹלְקִין אוֹתוֹ שְׁנֵי הַפְּשׁוּטִין עִם הַנִּקְרָע וְעִם הַבְּכוֹר בְּשָׁוֶה: \n", + "קָטָן בֶּן יוֹם אֶחָד מְמַעֵט בְּחֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה אֲבָל לֹא הָעֻבָּר. וּבֵן שֶׁנּוֹלַד אַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו אֵינוֹ מְמַעֵט בְּחֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה: \n", + "בֵּן שֶׁנִּסְתַּפֵּק לָנוּ אִם הוּא בְּכוֹר אוֹ פָּשׁוּט כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב עִם אַחֵר אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם. וְכֵיצַד עוֹשִׂין. אִם הֻכְּרוּ וּלְבַסּוֹף נִתְעָרְבוּ כּוֹתְבִין הַרְשָׁאָה זֶה לָזֶה וְנוֹטְלִין חֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה עִם אֲחֵיהֶם. וְאִם לֹא הֻכְּרוּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁיְּלָדוֹ בְּמַחֲבוֹאָה אַחַת אֵין כּוֹתְבִין הַרְשָׁאָה וְאֵין כָּאן חֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי בָּנִים בְּכוֹר וּפָשׁוּט וּמֵתוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּחַיָּיו וְהִנִּיחוּ בָּנִים. הַבְּכוֹר הֵנִיחַ בַּת וְהַפָּשׁוּט הִנִּיחַ בֵּן. הֲרֵי בֶּן הַפָּשׁוּט יוֹרֵשׁ בְּנִכְסֵי הַזָּקֵן שְׁלִישׁ שֶׁהוּא חֵלֶק אָבִיו. וּבַת הַבְּכוֹר יוֹרֶשֶׁת שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישִׁים שֶׁהוּא חֵלֶק אָבִיהָ. וְכֵן הַדִּין בִּבְנֵי הָאַחִין וּבְנֵי אֲחֵי הָאָב וּבְכָל הַיּוֹרְשִׁין אִם הָיָה אֲבִי אֶחָד מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁים בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל חֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה שֶׁלּוֹ זֶה הַיּוֹרֵשׁ מֵחֲמָתוֹ: \n", + "אֵין הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּנִכְסֵי הָאֵם. כֵּיצַד. בְּכוֹר וּפָשׁוּט שֶׁיָּרְשׁוּ אִמָּן חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה בְּכוֹר לְנַחֲלָה בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם: \n", + "בְּכוֹר לְנַחֲלָה הוּא הַנּוֹלָד לָאָב רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא יז) \"כִּי הוּא רֵאשִׁית אֹנוֹ\". וְאֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין עַל הָאֵם אֲפִלּוּ יָלְדָה כַּמָּה בָּנִים הוֹאִיל וְזֶה רִאשׁוֹן לְאָבִיו יוֹרֵשׁ פִּי שְׁנַיִם: \n", + "הַבָּא אַחַר נְפָלִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיָּצָא רֹאשׁ הַנֵּפֶל כְּשֶׁהוּא חַי הַבָּא אַחֲרָיו בְּכוֹר לְנַחֲלָה. וְכֵן בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה שֶׁיָּצָא רֹאשׁוֹ מֵת הַבָּא אַחֲרָיו בְּכוֹר לְנַחֲלָה שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא יז) \"רֵאשִׁית אֹנוֹ\" הוּא שֶׁלֹּא נוֹלַד לוֹ קֹדֶם לָזֶה וָלָד שֶׁיָּצָא חַי לַאֲוִיר הָעוֹלָם. לְפִיכָךְ בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה שֶׁהוֹצִיא רֹב רֹאשׁוֹ חַי הַבָּא אַחֲרָיו אֵינוֹ בְּכוֹר: \n", + "יוֹצֵא דֹּפֶן וְהַבָּא אַחֲרָיו שְׁנֵיהֶן אֵינָן בְּכוֹרִים. הָרִאשׁוֹן לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נוֹלַד וְנֶאֱמַר (דברים כא טו) \"וְיָלְדוּ לוֹ בָנִים\". וְהַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁהֲרֵי קְדָמוֹ אַחֵר: \n", + "הָיוּ לוֹ בָּנִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה עַכּוּ\"ם וְנִתְגַּיֵּר אֵין לוֹ בְּכוֹר לְנַחֲלָה. אֲבָל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ בֵּן מִן הַשִּׁפְחָה וּמִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ קָרוּי בְּנוֹ הַבָּא לוֹ אַחֲרָיו מִן הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִית בְּכוֹר לְנַחֲלָה וְנוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם: \n", + "הָיָה הַבְּכוֹר מַמְזֵר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא יז) \"כִּי אֶת הַבְּכֹר בֶּן הַשְּׂנוּאָה יַכִּיר\" זוֹ שֶׁשְּׂנוּאָה בְּנִשּׂוּאֶיהָ. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם הָיָה בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶּן חֲלוּצָה: \n", + "שְׁלֹשָׁה נֶאֱמָנִין עַל הַבְּכוֹר. חַיָּה וְאִמּוֹ וְאָבִיו. חַיָּה מִיָּד שֶׁאִם אָמְרָה זֶה יָצָא רִאשׁוֹן נֶאֱמֶנֶת. אִמּוֹ כָּל שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַלֵּידָה נֶאֱמֶנֶת לוֹמַר זֶהוּ הַבְּכוֹר. אָבִיו לְעוֹלָם אֲפִלּוּ אָמַר הָאָב עַל מִי שֶׁלֹּא הֻחְזַק בְּנוֹ כְּלָל הוּא בְּנִי וּבְכוֹרִי הוּא נֶאֱמָן. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר עַל הַמֻּחְזָק לָנוּ שֶׁהוּא בְּכוֹרוֹ אֵינוֹ בְּכוֹר נֶאֱמָן: \n", + "הָאָב שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתֵּק בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבּוֹדְקִין לְגִטִּין. אִם רָמַז אוֹ כָּתַב שֶׁזֶּה בְּנוֹ בְּכוֹרוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם: \n", + "הֵעִידוּ עֵדִים שֶׁהֵן שָׁמְעוּ אָבִיו שֶׁל זֶה אוֹמֵר דְּבָרִים כָּךְ וְכָךְ שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹתָן הַדְּבָרִים יוֹדֵעַ מִכְּלָלָן שֶׁזֶּה בְּנוֹ בְּכוֹרוֹ. הֲרֵי זֶה נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר הָאָב בְּפֵרוּשׁ זֶה בְּנִי בְּכוֹרִי: \n", + "שָׁמְעוּ מִן הָאָב שֶׁאָמַר זֶה בְּנִי בְּכוֹר אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּעֵדוּת זוֹ שֶׁמָּא בְּכוֹר לְאִמּוֹ הוּא וְלָזֶה נִתְכַּוֵּן הָאָב עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר בְּנִי בְּכוֹרִי: \n" + ], + [ + "אֵין הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בִּנְכָסִים הָרְאוּיִין לָבוֹא לְאַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו אֶלָּא בִּנְכָסִים הַמֻּחְזָקִין לְאָבִיו שֶׁבָּאוּ לִרְשׁוּתוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא יז) \"בְּכל אֲשֶׁר יִמָּצֵא לוֹ\". כֵּיצַד. אֶחָד מִמּוֹרִישֵׁי אָבִיו שֶׁמֵּת לְאַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו הַבְּכוֹר וְהַפָּשׁוּט יוֹרְשִׁין כְּאֶחָד. וְכֵן אִם הָיְתָה לְאָבִיו מִלְוֶה אוֹ הָיְתָה לוֹ סְפִינָה בַּיָּם יוֹרְשִׁין כְּאֶחָד: \n", + "הִנִּיחַ לָהֶם פָּרָה מֻשְׂכֶּרֶת אוֹ מֻחְכֶּרֶת אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה רוֹעָה בָּאֲפָר וְיָלְדָה. הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל בָּהּ וּבִוְלָדָהּ פִּי שְׁנַיִם: \n", + "שָׁחַט אֶחָד מִמַּכִּירֵי אָבִיו בְּהֵמָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת אָבִיו נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בַּמַּתָּנוֹת שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ בְּהֵמָה: \n", + "אֵין הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בַּשֶּׁבַח שֶׁשָּׁבְחוּ נְכָסִים לְאַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו אֶלָּא מַעֲלֶה אוֹתוֹ הַשֶּׁבַח בְּדָמִים וְנוֹתֵן הַיֶּתֶר לַפָּשׁוּט. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּנּוּ הַנְּכָסִים כְּגוֹן כַּרְמֶל שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ שִׁבֳּלִים וְכִפְנִיּוֹת שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ תְּמָרִים. אֲבָל שָׁבְחוּ מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָן וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּנּוּ כְּגוֹן אִילָן קָטָן שֶׁגָּדַל וְעָבָה וְאֶרֶץ שֶׁהֶעֶלְתָה שִׂרְטוֹן הֲרֵי זֶה נוֹטֵל בַּשֶּׁבַח פִּי שְׁנַיִם. וְאִם מֵחֲמַת הוֹצָאָה הִשְׁבִּיחַ אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל: \n", + "אֵין הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּמִלְוֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בִּשְׁטָר אַף עַל גַּב שֶׁגָּבוּ קַרְקַע בְּחוֹב אֲבִיהֶם. הָיָה לְאָב מִלְוֶה בְּיַד הַבְּכוֹר הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם נוֹטֵל בָּהּ פִּי שְׁנַיִם הוֹאִיל וְיֶשְׁנָהּ תַּחַת יָדוֹ. אוֹ לֹא יִטּל הוֹאִיל וּמֵחֲמַת אָבִיו יִירָשֶׁנָּה וַעֲדַיִן לֹא בָּאָה לְיָדוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו. לְפִיכָךְ יִטּל מִמֶּנָּה חֲצִי חֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה: \n", + "בְּכוֹר שֶׁמָּכַר חֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה קֹדֶם חֲלוּקָה מִמְכָּרוֹ קַיָּם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לַבְּכוֹר חֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה קֹדֶם חֲלוּקָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם חָלַק עִם אֶחָיו קוֹדֵם בְּמִקְצָת נְכָסִים בֵּין בַּקַּרְקַע בֵּין בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין וְנָטַל חֵלֶק כְּפָשׁוּט וִתֵּר בְּכָל הַנְּכָסִים וְאֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל בִּשְׁאֵרָן אֶלָּא כְּפָשׁוּט. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁלֹּא מִחָה. אֲבָל אִם מִחָה בְּאֶחָיו וְאָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם עֲנָבִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֲנִי חוֹלֵק עִם אֶחָי בְּשָׁוֶה לֹא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמָּחַלְתִּי בְּחֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה הֲרֵי זֶה מְחָאָה וְלֹא וִתֵּר בִּשְׁאָר נְכָסִים. וַאֲפִלּוּ מִחָה בַּעֲנָבִים כְּשֶׁהֵן מְחֻבָּרִים וּבְצָרוּם וְחִלְּקוּם בְּשָׁוֶה לֹא וִתֵּר בִּשְׁאָר נְכָסִים. אֲבָל אִם דְּרָכוּם וְחָלַק עִמָּהֶן בְּשָׁוֶה בְּיַיִן וְלֹא מִחָה בָּהֶן מִשֶּׁנַּעֲשָׂה יַיִן וִתֵּר בִּשְׁאָר הַנְּכָסִים. הָא לְמָה זֶה דּוֹמֶה לְמִי שֶׁמִּחָה בַּעֲנָבִים וְחָלַק עִמָּהֶם בְּשָׁוֶה בַּזֵיתִים שֶׁהֲרֵי וִתֵּר בַּכּל. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "מִי שֶׁיִּבֵּם אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו הוּא יוֹרֵשׁ כָּל נִכְסֵי אֶחָיו הַמֻּחְזָקִים. וְכָל הָרְאוּיִין לָבוֹא לְאַחַר מִכָּאן הֲרֵי הוּא בָּהֶן כְּכָל הָאַחִים שֶׁהֲרֵי בְּכוֹר קָרָא אוֹתוֹ הַכָּתוּב שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כה ו) \"וְהָיָה הַבְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד יָקוּם עַל שֵׁם אָחִיו הַמֵּת וְלֹא יִמָּחֶה שְׁמוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל\". וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל מִמֶּנּוּ בְּרָאוּי כִּבְמֻחְזָק כָּךְ אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל בַּשֶּׁבַח שֶׁשָּׁבְחוּ נְכָסִים אַחֲרֵי מוֹת אָבִיו מִשְּׁעַת מִיתָה עַד שְׁעַת חֲלוּקָתוֹ עִם אֶחָיו בְּנִכְסֵי אָבִיו. וַאֲפִלּוּ הִשְׁבִּיחוּ נְכָסִים אַחַר שֶׁיִּבֵּם וְקֹדֶם שֶׁיַּחְלְקוּ הֲרֵי הוּא בַּשֶּׁבַח כְּאֶחָד מִן הָאַחִין. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנּוֹטֵל מִן הַנְּכָסִים אֵלּוּ שְׁנֵי חֲלָקִים חֶלְקוֹ וְחֵלֶק אָחִיו שֶׁיִּבֵּם אִשְׁתּוֹ הוֹאִיל וּמֵת הָאָב בְּחַיֵּי כֻּלָּן: \n", + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁכֵנִים שֶׁהַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל שְׁנֵי חֲלָקִים שֶׁלּוֹ כְּאֶחָד בְּמֵצַר אֶחָד. אֲבָל הַיָּבָם שֶׁחָלַק עִם אֶחָיו בְּנִכְסֵי אָבִיו נוֹטֵל חֶלְקוֹ וְחֵלֶק אָחִיו בְּגוֹרָל. וְאִם עָלָה גּוֹרָלוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת נוֹטֵל בִּשְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת: \n", + "שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁמֵּתָה אֲפִלּוּ עָשָׂה בָּהּ אֶחָד מִן הָאַחִים מַאֲמָר מִשְׁפַּחַת בֵּית אָבִיהָ יוֹרְשִׁין בְּנִכְסֵי מְלוֹג וַחֲצִי נִכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל. וְיוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל יוֹרְשִׁין כְּתֻבָּתָהּ עִם חֲצִי נִכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל. וְיוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל חַיָּבִין בִּקְבוּרָתָהּ הוֹאִיל וְהֵן יִירְשׁוּ כְּתֻבָּתָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בִּמְקוֹמוֹ: \n" + ], + [ + "הָאוֹמֵר זֶה בְּנִי אוֹ זֶה אָחִי אוֹ זֶה אֲחִי אָבִי אוֹ שְׁאָר הַיּוֹרְשִׁין אוֹתוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוֹדָה בַּאֲנָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינָן מֻחְזָקִין שֶׁהֵן קְרוֹבָיו הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן וְיִירָשֶׁנּוּ בֵּין שֶׁאָמַר כְּשֶׁהוּא בָּרִיא בֵּין שֶׁאָמַר כְּשֶׁהוּא שְׁכִיב מֵרַע. אֲפִלּוּ נִשְׁתַּתֵּק וְכָתַב בִּכְתַב יָדוֹ שֶׁזֶּה יוֹרְשׁוֹ בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבּוֹדְקִין לְגִטִּין: \n", + "הָיִינוּ מֻחְזָקִין בָּזֶה שֶׁהוּא אָחִיו אוֹ בֶּן דּוֹדוֹ וְאָמַר אֵינוֹ אָחִי וְאֵינוֹ בֶּן דּוֹדִי אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. אֲבָל נֶאֱמָן הוּא עַל מִי שֶׁהֻחְזַק שֶׁהוּא בְּנוֹ לוֹמַר אֵינוֹ בְּנִי וְלֹא יִירָשֶׁנּוּ. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ לַבֵּן בָּנִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן עָלָיו לוֹמַר אֵינוֹ בְּנִי לְעִנְיַן יִחוּס וְאֵין מַחֲזִיקִין אוֹתוֹ מַמְזֵר עַל פִּיו. נֶאֱמָן הוּא לְעִנְיַן יְרֻשָּׁה וְלֹא יִירָשֶׁנּוּ: \n", + "הָאוֹמֵר זֶה בְּנִי וְחָזַר וְאָמַר עַבְדִּי הוּא אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. אָמַר עַבְדִּי וְחָזַר וְאָמַר בְּנִי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מְשַׁמְּשׁוֹ כְּעֶבֶד נֶאֱמָן שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁאָמַר עַבְדִּי כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁהוּא לִי כְּעֶבֶד. וְאִם הָיוּ קוֹרִין לוֹ עֶבֶד בֶּן מֵאָה זוּז וְכַיּוֹצֵא בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין אוֹמְרִין אוֹתָן בְּיִחוּד אֶלָּא לַעֲבָדִים הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן: \n", + "הָיָה עוֹבֵר עַל בֵּית הַמֶּכֶס וְאָמַר בְּנִי הוּא זֶה וְחָזַר אַחַר כָּךְ וְאָמַר עַבְדִּי נֶאֱמָן. שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר בְּנִי אֶלָּא לְהַבְרִיחַ מִן הַמֶּכֶס. אָמַר בְּבֵית הַמּוֹכֵס עַבְדִּי הוּא וְחָזַר וְאָמַר בְּנִי הוּא אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן: \n", + "הָעֲבָדִים וְהַשְּׁפָחוֹת אֵין קוֹרִין לָהֶן אַבָּא פְּלוֹנִי וְאִמָּא פְּלוֹנִית שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹא מִן הַדָּבָר תַּקָּלָה וְנִמְצָא זֶה הַבֵּן נִפְגָּם. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיוּ הָעֲבָדִים וְהַשְּׁפָחוֹת חֲשׁוּבִין בְּיוֹתֵר וְיֵשׁ לָהֶן קוֹל וְכָל הַקָּהָל מַכִּירִין אוֹתָן וְאֶת בְּנֵי וְעַבְדֵי אֲדוֹנֵיהֶם כְּגוֹן עַבְדֵי הַנָּשִׂיא הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּר לִקְרוֹת לָהֶן אַבָּא וְאִמָּא: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ שִׁפְחָה וְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה בֵּן וְהָיָה נוֹהֵג בּוֹ מִנְהַג בָּנִים. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר בְּנִי הוּא וּמְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת הִיא אִמּוֹ. אִם תַּלְמִיד חָכָם הוּא אוֹ אָדָם כָּשֵׁר שֶׁהוּא בָּדוּק בְּדִקְדוּקֵי מִצְוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה יִירָשֶׁנּוּ. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן אֵינוֹ נוֹשֵׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּחְרְרָה אִמּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יָלְדָה שֶׁהֲרֵי הֻחְזְקָה שִׁפְחָה בְּפָנֵינוּ. וְאִם מִשְּׁאָר הֶדְיוֹטוֹת הוּא וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם הָיָה מִן הַמַּפְקִירִין עַצְמָן לְכָךְ הֲרֵי זֶה בְּחֶזְקַת עֶבֶד לְכָל דָּבָר וְאֶחָיו מֵאָבִיו מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ. וְאִם אֵין לְאָבִיו בֵּן חוּץ מִמֶּנּוּ אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו מִתְיַבֶּמֶת. וְזֶה הוּא הַדִּין שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה לִי שֶׁהוּא הוֹלֵךְ עַל עִקְּרֵי הַקַּבָּלָה. וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁלֹּא חִלֵּק בֵּין כְּשֵׁרִים לִשְׁאָר הָעָם אֶלָּא לְעִנְיָן שֶׁלֹּא יִמְכְּרוּהוּ אֶחָיו בִּלְבַד. וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁהוֹרָה שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ לְיָרְשׁוֹ לֹא נַחְלֹק בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֵין רָאוּי לִסְמֹךְ עַל דָּבָר זֶה: \n", + "כָּל הַיּוֹרְשִׁין יוֹרְשִׁין בַּחֲזָקָה. כֵּיצַד. עֵדִים שֶׁהֵעִידוּ שֶׁזֶּה מֻחְזָק לָנוּ שֶׁהוּא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי אוֹ אָחִיו. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן עֵדֵי יִחוּס וְלֹא יָדְעוּ אֲמִתַּת הַיּוּחֲסִין הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יוֹרְשִׁין בְּעֵדוּת זוֹ: \n", + "יַעֲקֹב שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ רְאוּבֵן וְשִׁמְעוֹן וְלֹא הֻחְזַק לוֹ בֵּן אֶלָּא שְׁנֵיהֶם. תָּפַס רְאוּבֵן לֵוִי מִן הַשּׁוּק וְאָמַר גַּם זֶה אָחִינוּ הוּא וְשִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ. הֲרֵי שִׁמְעוֹן נוֹטֵל חֲצִי הַמָּמוֹן וּרְאוּבֵן שְׁלִישׁ שֶׁהֲרֵי הוֹדָה שֶׁהֵם שְׁלֹשָׁה אַחִין וְלֵוִי נוֹטֵל שְׁתוּת. מֵת לֵוִי יַחְזֹר הַשְּׁתוּת לִרְאוּבֵן. נָפְלוּ לְלֵוִי נְכָסִים אֲחֵרִים יַחְלְקוּ אוֹתָן רְאוּבֵן וְשִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁהֲרֵי רְאוּבֵן מוֹדֶה לְשִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁלֵּוִי זֶה אֲחִיהֶן. הִשְׁבִּיחַ הַשְּׁתוּת מֵאֵלָיו וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת לֵוִי. אִם שֶׁבַח מַגִּיעַ לַכְּתֵפַיִם הוּא כְּגוֹן עֲנָבִים שֶׁהִגִּיעוּ לְהִבָּצֵר. הֲרֵי הַשֶּׁבַח הַזֶּה כִּנְכָסִים שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לוֹ מֵאֲחֵרִים וְיַחְלְקוּ בָּהֶן. וְאִם עֲדַיִן לֹא הִגִּיעוּ לְהִבָּצֵר הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁל רְאוּבֵן לְבַדּוֹ. אָמַר שִׁמְעוֹן אֵין לֵוִי זֶה אָחִי וְנָטַל לֵוִי בְּחֵלֶק רְאוּבֵן כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת לֵוִי לֹא יִירַשׁ שִׁמְעוֹן מִמֶּנּוּ כְּלוּם אֶלָּא רְאוּבֵן לְבַדּוֹ יִירַשׁ הַשְּׁתוּת עִם שְׁאָר נְכָסִים אֲחֵרִים שֶׁהִנִּיחַ לֵוִי. וְהוּא הַדִּין בְּכָל הַיּוֹרְשִׁין שֶׁיּוֹדוּ מִקְצָתָן בְּיוֹרְשִׁין אֲחֵרִים שֶׁלֹּא יוֹדוּ מִקְצָתָן: \n" + ], + [ + "זֶה הַכְּלָל בְּיוֹרְשִׁין. כָּל שְׁנֵי יוֹרְשִׁין שֶׁאֶחָד מֵהֶן יוֹרֵשׁ וַדַּאי וְהַשֵּׁנִי סָפֵק אֵין לַסָּפֵק כְּלוּם. וְאִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם סָפֵק שֶׁמָּא זֶהוּ הַיּוֹרֵשׁ אוֹ שֶׁמָּא זֶה הַיּוֹרֵשׁ חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה. לְפִיכָךְ מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ בֵּן וְטֻמְטוּם אוֹ אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס הֲרֵי הַבֵּן יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת הַכּל שֶׁהַטֻּמְטוּם וְהָאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס סָפֵק. הִנִּיחַ בָּנוֹת וְטֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס יוֹרְשׁוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּאַחַת מִן הַבָּנוֹת: \n", + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת אִישׁוּת דִּין הַבָּנוֹת עִם הַבָּנִים בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֵיהֶן וּבְפַרְנָסָתָן וְשָׁם בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהַמְּזוֹנוֹת מִתְּנָאֵי כְּתֻבָּה. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַנְּכָסִים מְרֻבִּין אֵין לַבָּנוֹת אֶלָּא מְזוֹנוֹתֵיהֶן וְהַבָּנִים יִירְשׁוּ הַכּל וְיִתְפַּרְנְסוּ הַבָּנוֹת בְּעִשּׂוּר נְכָסִים כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּנָּשְׂאוּ בּוֹ לְבַעְלֵיהֶן. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהַנְּכָסִים מוּעָטִין אֵין לַבָּנִים כְּלוּם אֶלָּא הַכּל לִמְזוֹן הַבָּנוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת וְטֻמְטוּם אוֹ אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַנְּכָסִים מְרֻבִּין הַבָּנִים יוֹרְשִׁין וְדוֹחִין הַטֻּמְטוּם אֵצֶל הַבָּנוֹת וְנִזּוֹן כְּמוֹתָן. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהַנְּכָסִין מוּעָטִין הַבָּנוֹת דּוֹחוֹת אֶת הַטֻּמְטוּם אֵצֶל הַבָּנִים וְאוֹמְרוֹת לוֹ זָכָר אַתָּה וְאֵין לְךָ עִמָּנוּ מְזוֹנוֹת: \n", + "מִי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהֲתָה אַחַר בַּעְלָהּ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים וְנִשֵּׂאת וְיָלְדָה בֵּן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה לְרִאשׁוֹן אוֹ בֶּן שִׁבְעָה לְאַחֲרוֹן אֵין זֶה הַבֵּן יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא סָפֵק. וְאִם מֵת הַבֵּן שְׁנֵיהֶן יוֹרְשִׁין אוֹתוֹ וְחוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם סָפֵק שֶׁמָּא זֶה אָבִיו אוֹ זֶה אָבִיו: \n", + "יְבָמָה שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהֲתָה שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים וְנִתְיַבְּמָה בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים וְיָלְדָה בֵּן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה לָרִאשׁוֹן אוֹ בֶּן שִׁבְעָה לָאַחֲרוֹן. זֶה הַסָּפֵק אוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא בֶּן הַמֵּת אֲנִי וְאִירַשׁ אֶת נִכְסֵי אָבִי כֻּלָּן וְאֵין אַתָּה רָאוּי לְיַבֵּם אוֹתָהּ שֶׁאֵין אִמִּי בַּת יִבּוּם וְהַיָּבָם אוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא בְּנִי אַתָּה וְאִמְּךָ רְאוּיָה לְיַבֵּם וְאֵין לְךָ בְּנִכְסֵי אָחִי כְּלוּם. הוֹאִיל וְגַם זֶה הַיָּבָם סָפֵק שֶׁמָּא יָבָם הוּא אוֹ אֵינוֹ יָבָם חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה. וְכֵן דִּין זֶה הַסָּפֵק עִם בְּנֵי הַיָּבָם בְּנִכְסֵי הַמֵּת שֶׁנִּתְיַבְּמָה אִשְׁתּוֹ חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה הַסָּפֵק נוֹטֵל מֶחֱצָה וּבְנֵי הַיָּבָם מֶחֱצָה. מֵת הַיָּבָם אַחַר שֶׁחָלַק עִם זֶה הַסָּפֵק וּבָאוּ בְּנֵי הַיָּבָם הָרְאוּיִים לִירַשׁ אֲבִיהֶם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְזֶה הַסָּפֵק לוֹמַר אִם אֲחִיכֶם אֲנִי תְּנוּ לִי חֵלֶק בִּירֻשָּׁה זוֹ וְאִם אֵינִי אֲחִיכֶם הַחְזִירוּ לִי הַחֵצִי שֶׁלָּקַח אֲבִיכֶם אֵין לְזֶה הַסָּפֵק בְּנִכְסֵי אֲבִיהֶן עִמָּהֶן כְּלוּם וְאֵין מוֹצִיא מִיָּדָן: \n", + "סָפֵק וְהַיָּבָם שֶׁבָּאוּ לַחְלֹק בְּנִכְסֵי הָאָב הֲרֵי הַיָּבָם יוֹרֵשׁ וַדַּאי וְזֶה הַסָּפֵק אִם הוּא בֶּן הַמֵּת יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲצִי הַמָּמוֹן וּלְזֶה הַיָּבָם חֲצִי. וְאִם הוּא בֶּן הַיָּבָם אֵין לוֹ כְּלוּם. לְפִיכָךְ הַיָּבָם יוֹרֵשׁ וְיִדָּחֶה הַסָּפֵק. הִנִּיחַ הַיָּבָם שְׁנֵי בָּנִים וַדָּאִין וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת הַיָּבָם הֲרֵי הַסָּפֵק אוֹמֵר אֲנִי בֶּן הַמֵּת וְיֵשׁ לִי מֶחֱצָה וְלִשְׁנֵיכֶם מֶחֱצָה וְהַשְּׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים אַתָּה אָחִינוּ וּבֶן הַיָּבָם אַתָּה וְאֵין לְךָ אֶלָּא שְׁלִישׁ בְּנִכְסֵי הַזָּקֵן הַחֵצִי שֶׁמּוֹדֶה לָהֶם בּוֹ נוֹטְלִין וְהִשְׁלִישׁ שֶׁמּוֹדִין הֵן לוֹ נוֹטֵל וְהַשְּׁתוּת הַנִּשְׁאָר חוֹלְקִים אוֹתוֹ בְּשָׁוֶה הוּא נוֹטֵל חֶצְיוֹ וּשְׁנֵיהֶם חֶצְיוֹ. מֵת הַסָּפֵק הֲרֵי הַיָּבָם אוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא בְּנִי הוּא וַאֲנִי אִירָשֶׁנּוּ וַאֲבִי הַיָּבָם אוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא בֶּן בְּנִי הַמֵּת הוּא וַאֲנִי אִירָשֶׁנּוּ חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה (מֵת הַיָּבָם הַסָּפֵק אוֹמֵר בְּנוֹ אֲנִי וְאִירָשֶׁנּוּ וַאֲבִי הַיָּבָם אוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא בֶּן בְּנִי הָאַחֵר אַתָּה וְזֶה אֲחִי אָבִיךָ הוּא וַאֲנִי אִירָשֶׁנּוּ חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה): \n", + "מִי שֶׁנָּפַל הַבַּיִת עָלָיו וְעַל אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם הָאִשָּׁה מֵתָה תְּחִלָּה וְנִמְצְאוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל יוֹרְשִׁין כָּל נְכָסֶיהָ אוֹ הַבַּעַל מֵת תְּחִלָּה וְנִמְצְאוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאִשָּׁה יוֹרְשִׁין כָּל נְכָסֶיהָ כֵּיצַד דִּינָם. מַעֲמִידִין נִכְסֵי מְלוֹג בְּחֶזְקַת יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאִשָּׁה וְהַכְּתֻבָּה עִקָּר וְהַתּוֹסֶפֶת בְּחֶזְקַת יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל וְחוֹלְקִין בְּנִכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאִשָּׁה נוֹטְלִין חֶצְיָן וְיוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל חֶצְיָן. אֲבָל אִם נָפַל הַבַּיִת עָלָיו וְעַל אִמּוֹ מַעֲמִידִין נִכְסֵי הָאֵם בְּחֶזְקַת יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאֵם שֶׁהֵם יוֹרְשִׁין וַדָּאִין אֲבָל יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבֵּן סָפֵק הֵם שֶׁאִם מֵת הַבֵּן תְּחִלָּה אֵין לְאֶחָיו מֵאָבִיו בְּנִכְסֵי אִמָּן כְּלוּם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "נָפַל הַבַּיִת עָלָיו וְעַל בֶּן בִּתּוֹ אִם הָאָב מֵת תְּחִלָּה בֶּן בִּתּוֹ יִירָשֶׁנּוּ וְנִמְצְאוּ הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁל יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבֵּן. וְאִם בֶּן בִּתּוֹ מֵת תְּחִלָּה אֵין הַבֵּן יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִמּוֹ בַּקֶּבֶר כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ וְנִמְצְאוּ הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁל יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב. לְפִיכָךְ יַחְלְקוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב עִם יוֹרְשֵׁי בֶּן הַבַּת. וְכֵן אִם [נִשְׁבָּה] הָאָב וּמֵת בֶּן בִּתּוֹ בַּמְּדִינָה אוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה הַבֵּן וּמֵת אֲבִי אִמּוֹ בַּמְּדִינָה יַחְלְקוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב עִם יוֹרְשֵׁי בֶּן הַבַּת: \n", + "נָפַל עָלָיו הַבַּיִת וְעַל אָבִיו אוֹ שְׁאָר מוֹרִישִׁין וְעָלָיו כְּתֻבַּת אִשָּׁה וּבַעֲלֵי חוֹב. יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב אוֹמְרִין מֵת הַבֵּן תְּחִלָּה וְלֹא הִנִּיחַ כְּלוּם וְאָבַד הַחוֹב וּבַעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת אוֹמְרִים הָאָב מֵת תְּחִלָּה וְזָכָה הַבֵּן בִּירֻשָּׁתוֹ וְיֵשׁ לָנוּ לִגְבּוֹת מֵחֶלְקוֹ. הֲרֵי הַנְּכָסִים בְּחֶזְקַת הַיּוֹרְשִׁין וְעַל הָאִשָּׁה וּבַעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה אוֹ יֵלְכוּ לָהֶם בְּלֹא כְּלוּם: \n", + "דִּין אֵלּוּ שֶׁמֵּתוּ תַּחַת הַמַּפּלֶת. אוֹ שֶׁטָּבְעוּ בַּיָּם. אוֹ שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָאֵשׁ. אוֹ שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד וְזֶה בִּמְדִינָה זוֹ וְהָאַחֵר בִּמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת. דִּין אֶחָד הוּא. שֶׁבְּכָל אֵלּוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן אֵין יוֹדְעִין מִי הוּא שֶׁמֵּת תְּחִלָּה: \n" + ], + [ + "אֵין אָדָם יָכוֹל לְהוֹרִישׁ לְמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְיָרְשׁוֹ וְלֹא לַעֲקֹר הַיְרֻשָּׁה מִן הַיּוֹרֵשׁ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁזֶּה מָמוֹן הוּא. לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּפָרָשַׁת נְחָלוֹת (במדבר כז יא) \"וְהָיְתָה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְחֻקַּת מִשְׁפָּט\" לוֹמַר שֶׁחֻקָּה זוֹ לֹא נִשְׁתַּנָּה וְאֵין הַתְּנַאי מוֹעִיל בָּהּ. בֵּין שֶׁצִּוָּה וְהוּא בָּרִיא בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה שְׁכִיב מֵרַע בֵּין עַל פֶּה בֵּין בִּכְתָב אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ הָאוֹמֵר אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בְּנִי בְּכוֹרִי לֹא יִטּל פִּי שְׁנַיִם. אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בְּנִי לֹא יִירַשׁ עִם אֶחָיו. לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי יִירָשֵׁנִי בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בַּת. בִּתִּי תִּירָשֵׁנִי בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בֵּן. לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. אֲבָל הָיוּ לוֹ יוֹרְשִׁין רַבִּים כְּגוֹן בָּנִים רַבִּים אוֹ אַחִים אוֹ בָּנוֹת וְאָמַר כְּשֶׁהוּא שְׁכִיב מֵרַע פְּלוֹנִי אָחִי יִירָשֵׁנִי מִכְּלַל אֶחַי אוֹ בִּתִּי פְּלוֹנִית תִּירָשֵׁנִי מִכְּלַל בְּנוֹתַי דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין בֵּין שֶׁאָמַר עַל פֶּה בֵּין שֶׁכָּתַב בִּכְתָב. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר פְּלוֹנִי בְּנִי יִירָשֵׁנִי לְבַדּוֹ אִם אָמַר עַל פֶּה דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין. אֲבָל אִם כָּתַב כָּל נְכָסָיו לִבְנוֹ לֹא עָשָׂהוּ אֶלָּא אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "אָמַר פְּלוֹנִי בְּנִי יִירַשׁ חֲצִי נְכָסַי וּשְׁאָר בָּנַי הַחֵצִי דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר הַבְּכוֹר יִירַשׁ כַּפָּשׁוּט אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לֹא יִירַשׁ פִּי שְׁנַיִם עִם אֶחָיו לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא טז) \"לֹא יוּכַל לְבַכֵּר אֶת בֶּן הָאֲהוּבָה עַל פְּנֵי בֶן הַשְּׂנוּאָה הַבְּכֹר\" (דברים כא יז) \"כִּי אֶת הַבְּכֹר בֶּן הַשְּׂנוּאָה יַכִּיר\": \n", + "וְאִם הָיָה בָּרִיא אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹסִיף וְלֹא לִגְרֹעַ לֹא לַבְּכוֹר וְלֹא לְאֶחָד מִשְּׁאָר הַיּוֹרְשִׁין: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁאָמַר בִּלְשׁוֹן יְרֻשָּׁה. אֲבָל אִם נָתַן מַתָּנָה דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין. לְפִיכָךְ הַמְחַלֵּק נְכָסָיו עַל פִּיו לְבָנָיו כְּשֶׁהוּא שְׁכִיב מֵרַע רִבָּה לְאֶחָד וּמִעֵט לְאֶחָד וְהִשְׁוָה לָהֶן הַבְּכוֹר דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין. וְאִם אָמַר מִשּׁוּם יְרֻשָּׁה לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם: \n", + "כָּתַב בֵּין בַּתְּחִלָּה בֵּין בָּאֶמְצַע בֵּין בַּסּוֹף מִשּׁוּם מַתָּנָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִזְכִּיר לְשׁוֹן יְרֻשָּׁה בַּתְּחִלָּה וּבַסּוֹף דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין. כֵּיצַד. תִּנָּתֵן שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִי בְּנִי וְיִירָשֶׁנָּה. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר יִירָשֶׁנָּה וְתִנָּתֵן לוֹ וְיִירָשֶׁנָּה. אוֹ יִירָשֶׁנָּה וְתִנָּתֵן לוֹ. הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ שָׁם לְשׁוֹן מַתָּנָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִזְכִּיר לְשׁוֹן יְרֻשָּׁה בַּתְּחִלָּה וּבַסּוֹף דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין. וְכֵן אִם הָיוּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׂדוֹת לִשְׁלֹשָׁה יוֹרְשִׁין וְאָמַר יִירַשׁ פְּלוֹנִי שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית וְתִנָּתֵן לִפְלוֹנִי שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית וְיִירַשׁ פְּלוֹנִי שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית קָנוּ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ בִּלְשׁוֹן יְרֻשָּׁה אֵינוֹ זֶה שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ בִּלְשׁוֹן מַתָּנָה. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁהֶה בֵּין אֲמִירָה לַאֲמִירָה כְּדֵי דִּבּוּר. אֲבָל אִם שָׁהָה צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא לְשׁוֹן הַמַּתָּנָה מְעֹרָב בִּשְׁלָשְׁתָּן: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. אִם הָיָה לְשׁוֹן הַמַּתָּנָה בָּאֶמְצַע יֹאמַר פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי יִירְשׁוּ שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי שֶׁנְּתַתִּים לָהֶן בְּמַתָּנָה וְיִירָשׁוּם. וְאִם הָיָה לְשׁוֹן הַמַּתָּנָה בַּתְּחִלָּה יֹאמַר תִּנָּתֵן שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וְיִירָשׁוּם. וְאִם הָיָה לְשׁוֹן הַמַּתָּנָה בַּסּוֹף יֹאמַר יִירַשׁ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי (וּפְלוֹנִי) שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי (וּפְלוֹנִי) שֶּׁנְּתַתִּים לָהֶן בְּמַתָּנָה: \n", + "יְרֻשַּׁת הַבַּעַל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם עָשׂוּ חִזּוּק לְדִבְרֵיהֶם כְּשֶׁל תּוֹרָה. וְאֵין הַתְּנַאי מוֹעִיל בָּהּ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִתְנָה עִמָּהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא אֲרוּסָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת אִישׁוּת: \n", + "הָעַכּוּ\"ם יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אָבִיו דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. אֲבָל שְׁאָר יְרֻשּׁוֹתֵיהֶן מַנִּיחִין אוֹתוֹ לְפִי מִנְהָגָם: \n", + "וְהַגֵּר אֵינוֹ יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אָבִיו הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם תִּקְּנוּ לוֹ שֶׁיִּירַשׁ כְּשֶׁהָיָה שֶׁמָּא יַחְזֹר לְמִרְדּוֹ. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁתְּנַאי מוֹעִיל בִּירֻשָּׁה זוֹ הוֹאִיל וְאֵין הָעַכּוּ\"ם מְחֻיָּב לַעֲמֹד בְּתַקָּנַת חֲכָמִים. וְאֵין הָעַכּוּ\"ם יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אָבִיו הַגֵּר וְלֹא גֵּר יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת גֵּר לֹא מִדִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה וְלֹא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים: \n", + "כָּל הַנּוֹתֵן נְכָסָיו לַאֲחֵרִים וְהִנִּיחַ הַיּוֹרְשִׁין. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין נוֹהֲגִין (בּוֹ) כַּשּׁוּרָה אֵין רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה הֵימֶנּוּ. וְזָכוּ הָאֲחֵרִים בְּכָל מַה שֶּׁנָּתַן לָהֶן. מִדַּת חֲסִידוּת הִיא שֶׁלֹּא יָעִיד אָדָם חָסִיד בְּצַוָּאָה שֶׁמַּעֲבִירִין בּוֹ הַיְרֻשָּׁה מִן הַיּוֹרֵשׁ אֲפִלּוּ מִבֵּן שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג כַּשּׁוּרָה לְאָחִיו חָכָם וְנוֹהֵג כַּשּׁוּרָה: \n", + "יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהֵמִיר יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת קְרוֹבָיו הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה. וְאִם רָאוּ בֵּית דִּין לְאַבֵּד אֶת מָמוֹנוֹ וּלְקָנְסוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִירַשׁ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא לְחַזֵּק אֶת יְדֵיהֶם הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדָן. וְאִם יֵשׁ לוֹ בָּנִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל תִּנָּתֵן יְרֻשַּׁת אֲבִיהֶן הַמּוּמָר לָהֶן. וְכֵן הַמִּנְהָג תָּמִיד בַּמַּעֲרָב: \n", + "צִוּוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁלֹּא יְשַׁנֶּה אָדָם בֵּין הַבָּנִים בְּחַיָּיו אֲפִלּוּ בְּדָבָר מוּעָט שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹאוּ לִידֵי תַּחֲרוּת וְקִנְאָה כַּאֲחֵי יוֹסֵף עִם יוֹסֵף: \n" + ], + [ + "אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין נוֹחֲלִין עַד שֶׁיָּבִיאוּ רְאָיָה בְּרוּרָה שֶׁמֵּת מוֹרִישָׁן. אֲבָל אִם שָׁמְעוּ בּוֹ שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ שֶׁבָּאוּ עַכּוּ\"ם מְשִׂיחִין לְפִי תֻּמָּן. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמַּשִּׂיאִין אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ עַל פִּיהֶם וְנוֹטֵל כְּתֻבָּתָהּ אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין נוֹחֲלִין עַל פִּיהֶם: \n", + "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁבָּאת וְאָמְרָה מֵת בַּעְלִי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא נֶאֱמֶנֶת וְתִנָּשֵׂא וְתִטּל כְּתֻבָּתָהּ אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין נִכְנָסִין לַנַּחֲלָה עַל פִּיהָ. אָמְרָה מֵת בַּעְלִי וְנִתְיַבְּמָה הֲרֵי יְבָמָהּ נִכְנַס לַנַּחֲלָה עַל פִּיהָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כה ו) \"יָקוּם עַל שֵׁם אָחִיו הַמֵּת\" וַהֲרֵי קָם: \n", + "מִי שֶׁטָּבַע בְּמַיִם שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם סוֹף וּבָאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁטָּבַע בִּפְנֵיהֶם וְאָבַד זִכְרוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מַשִּׂיאִין אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ לְכַתְּחִלָּה הֲרֵי הַיּוֹרְשִׁין נוֹחֲלִין עַל פִּיהֶם. וְכֵן אִם בָּאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁרָאוּהוּ שֶׁנָּפַל לְגוֹב אֲרָיוֹת וּנְמֵרִים אוֹ שֶׁרָאוּהוּ צָלוּב וְהָעוֹף אוֹכֵל בּוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁנִּדְקַר בַּמִּלְחָמָה וּמֵת אוֹ שֶׁנֶּהֱרַג וְלֹא הִכִּירוּ פָּנָיו אֲבָל הָיוּ לוֹ סִימָנִים מֻבְהָקִין בְּגוּפוֹ וְהִכִּירוּ אוֹתָם. בְּכָל אֵלּוּ הַדְּבָרִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן אִם אָבַד זִכְרוֹ אַחַר כָּךְ יוֹרְדִין לַנַּחֲלָה בְּעֵדוּת זוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מַשִּׂיאִין אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא הֶחְמִירוּ בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי אִסּוּר כָּרֵת. אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן מָמוֹן אִם הֵעִידוּ הָעֵדִים בִּדְבָרִים שֶׁחֶזְקָתָן לְמִיתָה וְהֵעִידוּ שֶׁרָאוּ אוֹתָן הַדְּבָרִים וְאָבַד זִכְרוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁמַע שֶׁמֵּת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נוֹחֲלִין עַל פִּיהֶן. וְכָזֶה מַעֲשִׂים בְּכָל יוֹם בְּכָל בָּתֵּי דִּינִין וְלֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ מִי שֶׁחָלַק בְּדָבָר זֶה: \n", + "שָׁבוּי שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה וְשָׁמְעוּ שֶׁמֵּת וְיָרְדוּ יוֹרְשָׁיו לַנַּחֲלָה וְחָלְקוּ אוֹתָהּ בֵּינֵיהֶם אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדָן. וְכֵן הַבּוֹרֵחַ מֵחֲמַת סַכָּנָה. אֲבָל הַיּוֹצֵא לְדַעַת שֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ בּוֹ שֶׁמֵּת וְיָרְדוּ יוֹרְשָׁיו לִנְכָסָיו וְחִלְּקוּם מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדָן עַד שֶׁיָּבִיאוּ רְאָיָה שֶׁמֵּת מוֹרִישָׁן: \n", + "שָׁבוּי שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה וּבָרַח מֵחֲמַת סַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת חַיָּבִין בֵּית דִּין לְהִתְעַסֵּק בְּנִכְסֵיהֶן. כֵּיצַד עוֹשִׂין. כָּל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין יִהְיוּ מֻפְקָדִין בְּיַד נֶאֱמָן עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין וּמוֹרִידִין לְתוֹךְ הַקַּרְקָעוֹת קְרוֹבִין הָרְאוּיִין לִירֻשָּׁה כְּדֵי לַעֲבֹד אֶת הַקַּרְקָעוֹת וּלְהִתְעַסֵּק בָּהֶן עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע שֶׁמֵּתוּ אוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ. וְלִכְשֶׁיָּבוֹא הַשָּׁבוּי וְהַבּוֹרֵחַ שָׁמִין אֵלּוּ הַקְּרוֹבִים שֶׁהוּרְדוּ מַה שֶּׁעָשׂוּ וּמַה שֶּׁאָכְלוּ כְּמִנְהַג כָּל הָאֲרִיסִין שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ הַמְּדִינָה. וְלָמָּה לֹא יַעֲמִידוּ בֵּית דִּין אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לְעוֹלָם בֵּין בְּמִטַּלְטְלִים בֵּין בְּקַרְקָעוֹת עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ הַבְּעָלִים אוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁמֵּתוּ. לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין חַיָּבִין לְהַעֲמִיד אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לִגְדוֹלִים שֶׁהֵן בְּנֵי דַּעַת: \n", + "נִשְׁבָּה הַשָּׁבוּי וּבָרַח הַמְסֻכָּן וְהִנִּיחַ קָמָה לִקְצֹר וַעֲנָבִים לִבְצֹר תְּמָרִים לִגְדֹּר וְזֵיתִים לִמְסֹק. בֵּית דִּין יוֹרְדִים לִנְכָסָיו וּמַעֲמִידִין לָהֶן אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס וְקוֹצֵר וּבוֹצֵר וְגוֹדֵר וּמוֹסֵק וּמוֹכֵר הַפֵּרוֹת. וּמַנִּיחִין דְּמֵיהֶן עִם שְׁאָר הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין בְּבֵית דִּין וְאַחַר כָּךְ מוֹרִידִין הַקָּרוֹב לִנְכָסָיו. שֶׁאִם יֵרֵד תְּחִלָּה שֶׁמָּא יִתְלֹשׁ אֵלּוּ הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁהֵן כִּתְלוּשִׁין וְיֹאכַל אוֹתָן. וְהוּא הַדִּין בַּחֲצֵרוֹת וּפֻנְדָּקִיּוֹת וַחֲנֻיּוֹת הָעֲשׂוּיוֹת לְשָׂכָר וְאֵינָן צְרִיכִין עֲבוֹדָה וְלֹא טוֹרֵחַ וְאֵין אָדָם נוֹתֵן אוֹתָן בַּאֲרִיסוּת. אֵין מוֹרִידִין לָהֶם יוֹרֵשׁ שֶׁהֲרֵי גּוֹבֶה הַשָּׂכָר וְאוֹכֵל. אֶלָּא כֵּיצַד עוֹשִׂין. בֵּית דִּין מַעֲמִידִין לָהֶן גַּבַּאי וְיִהְיֶה הַשָּׂכָר מֻנָּח בְּבֵית דִּין עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא וְיִטּל שֶׁלּוֹ: \n", + "וְאֵין מוֹרִידִין הַקָּרוֹב לְעוֹלָם אֶלָּא לְשָׂדוֹת וּלְגַנּוֹת וּכְרָמִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בָּהֶן כְּאָרִיס כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֻפְסְדוּ וְנִמְצְאוּ בּוּרִים וּנְשַׁמִּים: \n", + "מִי שֶׁיָּצָא לְדַעַת וְהִנִּיחַ נְכָסָיו וְאֵין יָדוּעַ לְהֵיכָן הָלַךְ וְלֹא מָה אֵרַע לוֹ. אֵין מוֹרִידִין קָרוֹב לִנְכָסָיו. וְאִם יָרַד אֵין מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ. וְאֵין בֵּית דִּין צְרִיכִין לְהִטַּפֵּל בּוֹ וּלְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לֹא לַקַּרְקַע וְלֹא לַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁהֲרֵי לְדַעְתּוֹ יָצָא וְהִנִּיחַ נְכָסָיו. וְכֵיצַד יִהְיֶה דִּין נִכְסֵי זֶה. מִטַּלְטְלִין יַעַמְדוּ בְּיַד זֶה שֶׁהֵן תַּחַת יָדוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא זֶה וְיִתְבַּע אוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת וְיִתְבְּעוּ הַיּוֹרְשִׁין: \n", + "וְהַקַּרְקָעוֹת מִי שֶׁהִנִּיחוּ שָׁכֵן אֵין לוֹקְחִין מִמֶּנּוּ שָׂכָר. וְשָׂדֶה אוֹ כֶּרֶם שֶׁהָיָה בָּהֶן אָרִיס יִשָּׁאֲרוּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִנִּיחוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא. וְשָׂדֶה אוֹ כֶּרֶם שֶׁהִנִּיחָם בּוּרִים יִשָּׁאֲרוּ בּוּרִים שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא בִּרְצוֹנוֹ אִבֵּד מָמוֹנוֹ וַאֲבֵדָה לְדַעַת אֵין אָנוּ מְצֻוִּין לְהַחְזִירָהּ: \n", + "שָׁמְעוּ בּוֹ שֶׁמֵּת הֲרֵי בֵּית דִּין מוֹצִיאִין כָּל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין וּמַנִּיחִין אוֹתָן אֵצֶל נֶאֱמָן עַל פִּיהֶן וּמוֹרִידִין הַקָּרוֹב לַשָּׂדוֹת וְלַכְּרָמִים בָּהֶן כְּאָרִיס עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא רְאָיָה בְּרוּרָה שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא: \n" + ], + [ + "כְּשֶׁמּוֹרִידִין קָרוֹב לְנִכְסֵי הַשָּׁבוּי אוֹ בּוֹרֵחַ אוֹ לְנִכְסֵי הַיּוֹצֵא לְדַעַת שֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ בּוֹ שֶׁמֵּת. לֹא יוֹרִידוּ קָטָן שֶׁמָּא יַפְסִיד הַנְּכָסִים. וְאֵין מוֹרִידִין קָרוֹב לְנִכְסֵי קָטָן שֶׁמָּא יִטְעֹן וְיֹאמַר זֶה חֶלְקִי הַמַּגִּיעַ לִי בִּירֻשָּׁתִי. וַאֲפִלּוּ קָרוֹב מֵחֲמַת קָרוֹב אֵין מוֹרִידִין. כֵּיצַד. הָיוּ שְׁנֵי אַחִים אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן וְנִשְׁבָּה הַקָּטָן אוֹ בָּרַח. אֵין מוֹרִידִין הַגָּדוֹל לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַקָּטָן אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִמְחוֹת. וְשֶׁמָּא יַחֲזִיק זֶה הָאָח וּלְאַחַר שָׁנִים יֹאמַר זֶה חֶלְקִי שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לִי בִּירֻשָּׁתִי וּמֵחֲמַת יְרוּשָׁה בָּאתִי. וַאֲפִלּוּ בֶּן אָחִיו שֶׁל זֶה הַקָּטָן הַנִּשְׁבָּה אֵין מוֹרִידִין אוֹתוֹ לִנְכָסָיו שֶׁמָּא יֹאמַר שֶׁמֵּחֲמַת אָבִי יָרַשְׁתִּי חֵלֶק זֶה: \n", + "לְעוֹלָם אֵין מוֹרִידִין קָרוֹב לְנִכְסֵי קָטָן אֲפִלּוּ קָרוֹב מֵחֲמַת אֲחֵי הַאֵם שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לִירַשׁ. הַרְחָקָה יְתֵרָה הִיא זוֹ וַאֲפִלּוּ יֵשׁ בֵּינֵיהֶן שְׁטַר חֲלוּקָה בֵּין בְּבָתִּים בֵּין בְּשָׂדוֹת לֹא יֵרֵד. וַאֲפִלּוּ אָמַר כִּתְבוּ עָלַי שְׁטַר אֲרִיסוּת לֹא יֵרֵד שֶׁמָּא יֹאבְדוּ הַשְּׁטָרוֹת וְיַאַרְכוּ הַיָּמִים וְיִטְעֹן וְיֹאמַר שֶׁזֶּה חֵלֶק יְרֻשָּׁה בָּא לוֹ (מֵחֲמָתוֹ אוֹ) מֵחֲמַת מוֹרִישָׁיו. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאִשָּׁה אַחַת שֶׁהָיוּ לָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ בָּנוֹת וְנִשְׁבֵּית הַזְּקֵנָה הִיא וּבַת אַחַת וּמֵתָה בַּת שְׁנִיָּה וְהִנִּיחָה בֵּן קָטָן. וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֵין מוֹרִידִין זוֹ הַבַּת הַנִּשְׁאָרָה לַנְּכָסִים שֶׁמָּא מֵתָה הַזְּקֵנָה וְנִמְצְאוּ שְׁלִישׁ נְכָסִים אֵלּוּ לַקָּטָן וְאֵין מוֹרִידִין קָרוֹב לְנִכְסֵי קָטָן. וְכֵן אֵין מוֹרִידִין לְזֶה הַקָּטָן בַּנְּכָסִים שֶׁמָּא עֲדַיִן הַזְּקֵנָה בַּחַיִּים וְאֵין מוֹרִידִין קָטָן לְנִכְסֵי שָׁבוּי. אֶלָּא כֵּיצַד עוֹשִׂין. מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְהַעֲמִיד אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לַחֲצִי שֶׁל קָטָן מַעֲמִידִין אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס עַל כָּל נִכְסֵי הַזְּקֵנָה. אַחַר זְמַן שָׁמְעוּ שֶׁמֵּתָה הַזְּקֵנָה אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים תֵּרֵד הַבַּת הַנִּשְׁאָרָה לִשְׁלִישׁ הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁהוּא חֵלֶק יְרֻשָּׁתָהּ וְיֵרֵד הַקָּטָן לִשְׁלִישׁ שֶׁהוּא חֶלְקוֹ מִנִּכְסֵי הַזְּקֵנָה. וְהַשְּׁלִישׁ שֶׁל בַּת הַשְּׁבוּיָה מַעֲמִידִין לוֹ אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס מִפְּנֵי חֵלֶק הַקָּטָן שֶׁמָּא מֵתָה גַּם הַבַּת הַשְּׁבוּיָה וְיֵשׁ לְזֶה הַקָּטָן חֲצִי הַשְּׁלִישׁ שֶׁלָּהּ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n" + ], + [ + "הָאַחִין שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא חָלְקוּ יְרֻשַּׁת אֲבִיהֶן אֶלָּא כֻּלָּן מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בְּיַחַד בְּמַה שֶּׁהִנִּיחַ לָהֶן הֲרֵי הֵן כְּשֻׁתָּפִין לְכָל דָּבָר. וְכֵן בִּשְׁאָר הַיּוֹרְשִׁין הֲרֵי הֵן שֻׁתָּפִין בְּנִכְסֵי מוֹרִישָׁן. וְכָל שֶׁנָּשָׂא וְנָתַן כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּמָמוֹן זֶה הַשָּׂכָר לָאֶמְצַע: \n", + "הָיוּ הַיּוֹרְשִׁין גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים וְהִשְׁבִּיחוּ הַגְּדוֹלִים אֶת הַנְּכָסִים הִשְׁבִּיחוּ לָאֶמְצַע. אָמְרוּ רְאוּ מַה שֶּׁהִנִּיחַ לָנוּ אַבָּא וַהֲרֵי אָנוּ עוֹשִׂין וְאוֹכְלִין. הַשֶּׁבַח שֶׁל מַשְׁבִּיחַ. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַשֶּׁבַח מֵחֲמַת הוֹצָאָה שֶׁהוֹצִיא הַמַּשְׁבִּיחַ. אֲבָל שָׁבְחוּ נְכָסִים מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָן הַשֶּׁבַח לָאֶמְצַע: \n", + "וְכֵן אִם הָיְתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל מֵת הִיא הַיּוֹרֶשֶׁת בִּכְלַל אַחְיוֹתֶיהָ אוֹ בִּכְלַל בְּנוֹת דּוֹדֶיהָ וְהִשְׁבִּיחָה הַנְּכָסִים הַשֶּׁבַח לָאֶמְצַע. וְאִם אָמְרָה רְאוּ מַה שֶּׁהִנִּיחַ לִי בַּעְלִי וַהֲרֵינִי עוֹשָׂה וְאוֹכֶלֶת הִשְׁבִּיחַ הַנְּכָסִים מֵחֲמַת הוֹצָאָה הֲרֵי הַשֶּׁבַח שֶׁלָּהּ: \n", + "מִי שֶׁיָּרַשׁ אֶת אָבִיו וְהִשְׁבִּיחַ הַנְּכָסִים וְנָטַע וּבָנָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹדַע שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אַחִין בִּמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת. אִם קְטַנִּים הֵן הַשֶּׁבַח לָאֶמְצַע וְאִם הָיוּ גְּדוֹלִים הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נוֹדַע שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אַחִין שָׁמִין לוֹ כְּאָרִיס. וְכֵן אָח שֶׁיָּרַד לְנִכְסֵי קָטָן וְהִשְׁבִּיחַ אֵין שָׁמִין לוֹ כְּאָרִיס. אֶלָּא הַשֶּׁבַח לָאֶמְצַע שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא בִּרְשׁוּת יָרַד: \n", + "אֶחָד מִן הָאַחִין שֶׁלָּקַח מָעוֹת וְעָשָׂה בָּהֶן סְחוֹרָה אִם הָיָה תַּלְמִיד חָכָם גָּדוֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַנִּיחַ תּוֹרָתוֹ שָׁעָה אַחַת. הֲרֵי הַשָּׂכָר שֶׁלּוֹ שֶׁאֵין זֶה מַנִּיחַ תּוֹרָתוֹ וּמִתְעַסֵּק לְצֹרֶךְ אֶחָיו: \n", + "אֶחָד מִן הָאַחִין שֶׁמִּנָּהוּ הַמֶּלֶךְ גַּבַּאי אוֹ סוֹפֵר שֶׁמַּכְנִיס וּמוֹצִיא בְּמָמוֹן הַמֶּלֶךְ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה מֵעֲבוֹדַת הַמְּלָכִים. אִם מֵחֲמַת אֲבִיהֶן מִנָּהוּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה אֲבִיהֶן יָדוּעַ בְּדָבָר זֶה וְאָמַר נַעֲמִיד תַּחְתָּיו בְּנוֹ כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת חֶסֶד עִם הַיְתוֹמִים. הַפְּרָס שֶׁיִּטּל וְכָל הַשָּׂכָר שֶׁיִּשְׂתַּכֵּר בַּעֲבוֹדָה לְכָל הָאַחִין. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה חָכָם בְּיוֹתֵר וְרָאוּי לְמַנּוֹתוֹ. וְאִם מֵחֲמַת עַצְמוֹ מִנּוּהוּ הֲרֵי זֶה לְעַצְמוֹ: \n", + "אֶחָד מִן הָאַחִין שֶׁהָיָה נוֹשֵׂא וְנוֹתֵן בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת וְקָנָה עֲבָדִים בִּשְׁמוֹ לְבַדּוֹ. הִלְוָה לַאֲחֵרִים וְהָיָה שְׁטַר הַחוֹב בִּשְׁמוֹ לְבַדּוֹ. וְאָמַר מָעוֹת אֵלּוּ שֶׁהִלְוֵיתִי אוֹ שֶׁקָּנִיתִי בָּהֶן עֲבָדִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁלִּי לְבַדִּי הֵן שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לִי מִבֵּית אָבִי אִמִּי. אוֹ מְצִיאָה מָצָאתִי אוֹ מַתָּנָה נִתְּנָה לִי. עָלָיו לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לוֹ יְרֻשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת אוֹ מָצָא מְצִיאָה אוֹ זָכָה בְּמַתָּנָה. וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָיְתָה נוֹשֵׂאת וְנוֹתֶנֶת בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת וְהָיוּ אוֹנוֹת שֶׁהֵן שִׁטְרֵי מִמְכַּר עֲבָדִים וְשִׁטְרֵי חוֹבוֹת יוֹצְאוֹת עַל שְׁמָהּ. וְאָמְרָה שֶׁלִּי הֵן שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לִי מִבֵּית אֲבוֹתַי. עָלֶיהָ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ לִירֻשָּׁה. וְכֵן אַלְמָנָה שֶׁהָיְתָה נוֹשֵׂאת וְנוֹתֶנֶת בְּנִכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים וְהָיוּ אוֹנוֹת וּשְׁטָרוֹת יוֹצְאוֹת עַל שְׁמָהּ וְאָמְרָה מִירֻשָּׁה נָפְלוּ לִי אוֹ מְצִיאָה מָצָאתִי אוֹ מַתָּנָה נִתְּנָה לִי. עָלֶיהָ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה. וְאִם יֵשׁ לָהּ נְדוּנְיָא וְאָמְרָה מִנְּדוּנְיָתִי לָקַחְתִּי נֶאֱמֶנֶת אֲבָל אִם אֵין לָהּ נְדוּנְיָא וְלֹא הֵבִיאָה רְאָיָה הֲרֵי הַכּל בְּחֶזְקַת הַיּוֹרְשִׁין: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּאַחִים וּבְאַלְמָנָה שֶׁאֵין חֲלוּקִין בְּעִסָּתָן. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ חֲלוּקִין בְּעִסָּתָן שֶׁמָּא מֵעִסָּתוֹ קָמַץ וְעַל הָאַחִין לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵן מִשֶּׁל אֶמְצַע. וְכֵן אִם מֵת זֶה הַנּוֹתֵן וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת עַל הָאַחִין לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ חֲלוּקִין בְּעִסָּתָן: \n", + "אֶחָד מִן הָאַחִין שֶׁשְּׁטַר חוֹב יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ עָלָיו לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁאָבִיו נְתָנוֹ לוֹ בִּכְתִיבָה וּמְסִירָה. אוֹ שֶׁצִּוָּה לוֹ בּוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא שְׁכִיב מֵרַע. וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה הֲרֵי הוּא לָאֶמְצַע: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּאַחִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֶזְקָתָן שׁוֹמְטִין זֶה מִזֶּה. אֲבָל אַחֵר שֶׁטָּעַן שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ אוֹ שֶׁקָּנָהוּ מִבְּעָלָיו גּוֹבֶה בּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה: \n", + "אֶחָד מִן הָאַחִין שֶׁנָּטַל מָאתַיִם זוּז לִלְמֹד תּוֹרָה אוֹ לִלְמֹד אֻמָּנוּת יְכוֹלִין הָאַחִין לוֹמַר לוֹ אִם אֵין אַתָּה אֶצְלֵנוּ אֵין לְךָ מְזוֹנוֹת אֶלָּא לְפִי בִּרְכַּת הַבַּיִת. שֶׁאֵין הוֹצָאַת מְזוֹנוֹת הָאֶחָד לְבַדּוֹ כְּהוֹצָאַת מְזוֹנוֹתָיו בֵּין רַבִּים: \n", + "מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ בָּנִים גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים אֵין הַגְּדוֹלִים מִתְפַּרְנְסִים פַּרְנָסַת הַקְּטַנִּים וְלֹא הַקְּטַנִּים נִזּוֹנִים מְזוֹנוֹת הַגְּדוֹלִים אֶלָּא חוֹלְקִים בְּשָׁוֶה. נִשְּׂאוּ גְּדוֹלִים לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן יִשְׂאוּ הַקְּטַנִּים כֵּן מִכְּלַל הַנְּכָסִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ יַחֲלֹקוּ. נִשְּׂאוּ הַגְּדוֹלִים בְּחַיֵּי אֲבִיהֶן וְאָמְרוּ הַקְּטַנִּים לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן הֲרֵי אָנוּ נוֹשְׂאִין כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁנְּשָׂאתֶם אַתֶּם. אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לָהֶן אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁנָּתַן לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם נָתַן: \n", + "הִשִּׂיא הָאָב אֶת בְּנוֹ וְעָשָׂה לוֹ מִשְׁתֶּה וְהָיְתָה הַהוֹצָאָה מִשֶּׁל אָב וְנִשְׁתַּלְּחָה שׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת לְזֶה הַבֵּן בְּחַיֵּי הָאָב. כְּשֶׁהִיא חוֹזֶרֶת לְאַחַר מִיתַת הָאָב חוֹזֶרֶת לָאֶמְצַע. אֲבָל הוֹצִיא הַבֵּן בַּמִּשְׁתֶּה מִשֶּׁלּוֹ אֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת אֶלָּא מֵחֵלֶק הַבֵּן שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּלְּחָה לוֹ בִּלְבַד: \n", + "הָאָב שֶׁשָּׁלַח שׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת בְּשֵׁם אֶחָד מִבָּנָיו כְּשֶׁתַּחְזֹר הַשּׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת לְאוֹתוֹ הַבֵּן הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁלּוֹ. אֲבָל אִם שְׁלָחָהּ הָאָב בְּשֵׁם בָּנָיו סְתָם כְּשֶׁתַּחְזֹר תַּחְזֹר לָאֶמְצַע. וְאֵין זֶה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּלְּחָה לוֹ חַיָּב לְהַחְזִירָהּ עַד שֶׁיִּשְׂמְחוּ עִמּוֹ הַבָּנִים כֻּלָּן. שֶׁהֲרֵי כֻּלָּן שׁוֹשְׁבִינִין שֶׁבְּשֵׁם כֻּלָּן נִשְׁתַּלְּחָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם שָׂמֵחַ בְּמִקְצָתָן מַחְזִיר חֵלֶק זֶה שֶׁשָּׂמַח עִמּוֹ בִּלְבַד וַהֲרֵי הוּא לָאֶמְצַע: \n", + "גְּדוֹל הָאַחִין שֶׁהָיָה לוֹבֵשׁ וּמִתְכַּסֶּה מַלְבּוּשִׁין נָאִים אִם יֵשׁ לָאַחִים הֲנָאָה מִמֶּנּוּ כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיוּ דְּבָרָיו נִשְׁמָעִין הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹבֵשׁ מִתְּפִיסַת הַבַּיִת: \n" + ], + [ + "שְׁנֵּי אַחִים שֶׁחָלְקוּ וּבָא לָהֶן אָח מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם. וְכֵן שְׁלֹשָׁה אַחִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ וּבָא בַּעַל חוֹב וְנָטַל חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן. אֲפִלּוּ נָטַל זֶה קַרְקַע וְזֶה כְּסָפִים בָּטְלָה מַחְלֹקֶת וְחוֹזְרִין וְחוֹלְקִין הַשְּׁאָר בְּשָׁוֶה: ", + "מִי שֶׁצִּוָּה בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָתוֹ שֶׁיִּתְּנוּ לִפְלוֹנִי דֶּקֶל אוֹ שָׂדֶה מִנְּכָסָיו וְחָלְקוּ הָאַחִין וְלֹא נָתְנוּ לִפְלוֹנִי כְּלוּם. הֲרֵי הַמַּחֲלֹקֶת בְּטֵלָה. וְכֵיצַד עוֹשִׂין. נוֹתְנִין מַה שֶּׁצִּוָּה מוֹרִישָׁן וְאַחַר כָּךְ חוֹזְרִין וְחוֹלְקִין כַּתְּחִלָּה: ", + "הָאַחִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ שָׁמִין לָהֶן מַה שֶּׁעֲלֵיהֶן. אֲבָל מַה שֶּׁעַל בְּנֵיהֶן וּבְנוֹתֵיהֶן שֶׁקָּנוּ לָהֶן מִתְּפִיסַת הַבַּיִת אֵין שָׁמִין. וְכֵן מַה שֶּׁעַל נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן. שֶׁכְּבָר זָכוּ בָּהֶן לְעַצְמָן. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּבִגְדֵי חֹל. אֲבָל בְּבִגְדֵי שַׁבָּת וּמוֹעֵד שָׁמִין מַה שֶּׁעֲלֵיהֶן: ", + "מִי שֶׁהִנִּיחַ יְתוֹמִים מִקְצָתָן גְּדוֹלִים וּמִקְצָתָן קְטַנִּים וְרָצוּ לַחְלֹק בְּנִכְסֵי אֲבִיהֶן כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּטְּלוּ הַגְּדוֹלִים חֶלְקָן. מַעֲמִידִין בֵּית דִּין אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לַקְּטַנִּים וּבוֹרֵר לָהֶן הַחֵלֶק הַיָּפֶה. וְאִם הִגְדִּילוּ אֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לִמְחוֹת שֶׁהֲרֵי עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין חָלְקוּ לָהֶם. וְאִם טָעוּ בֵּית דִּין בַּשּׁוּמָא וּפָחֲתוּ שְׁתוּת. יְכוֹלִין לִמְחוֹת וְחוֹלְקִין חֲלוּקָה אַחֶרֶת אַחַר שֶׁהִגְדִּילוּ: ", + "מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ יוֹרְשִׁין גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים צָרִיךְ לְמַנּוֹת אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מִתְעַסֵּק בְּחֵלֶק הַקָּטָן עַד שֶׁיַּגְדִּיל. וְאִם לֹא מִנָּה חַיָּבִין בֵּית דִּין לְהַעֲמִיד לָהֶן אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס עַד שֶׁיַּגְדִּילוּ. שֶׁבֵּית דִּין הוּא אֲבִיהֶן שֶׁל יְתוֹמִים: ", + "צִוָּה הַמּוֹרִישׁ וְאָמַר יִנָּתֵן חֵלֶק הַקָּטָן לַקָּטָן וּמַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה יַעֲשֶׂה בָּהּ הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ. וְכֵן אִם מִנָּה הַמּוֹרִישׁ אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס עַל הַקְּטַנִּים קָטָן אוֹ אִשָּׁה אוֹ עֶבֶד הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ. אֲבָל אֵין בֵּית דִּין מְמַנִּין אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לֹא אִשָּׁה וְלֹא עֶבֶד וְלֹא קָטָן וְלֹא עַם הָאָרֶץ. שֶׁהוּא בְּחֶזְקַת חָשׁוּד עַל הָעֲבֵרוֹת. אֶלָּא בּוֹדְקִין עַל אָדָם נֶאֱמָן וְאִישׁ חַיִל וְיוֹדֵעַ לְהַפֵּךְ בִּזְכוּת הַיְתוֹמִים וְטוֹעֵן טַעֲנָתָם וְשֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ כֹּחַ בְּעִסְקֵי הָעוֹלָם כְּדֵי לִשְׁמֹר נְכָסִים וּלְהַרְוִיחַ בָּהֶן וּמַעֲמִידִין אוֹתוֹ עַל הַקְּטַנִּים. בֵּין שֶׁיִּהְיֶה רָחוֹק בֵּין שֶׁיִּהְיֶה קָרוֹב לַקָּטָן. אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם הָיָה קָרוֹב לֹא יֵרֵד לַקַּרְקָעוֹת: ", + "בֵּית דִּין שֶׁהֶעֱמִידוּ אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס וְשָׁמְעוּ עָלָיו שֶׁהוּא אוֹכֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה וּמוֹצִיא הוֹצָאוֹת יֶתֶר מִדָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה אָמוּד בּוֹ יֵשׁ לָהֶן לָחוּשׁ לוֹ שֶׁמָּא מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים הוּא אוֹכֵל וּמְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ וּמַעֲמִידִין אַחֵר. אֲבָל אִם מִנָּהוּ אֲבִי יְתוֹמִים אֵין מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁמָּא מְצִיאָה מָצָא. אֲבָל אִם בָּאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא מַפְסִיד נִכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ. וּכְבָר הִסְכִּימוּ הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁמַּשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ הוֹאִיל וּמַפְסִיד. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְאַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס שֶׁמִּנָּהוּ אֲבִי יְתוֹמִים וְהָיְתָה שְׁמוּעָתוֹ טוֹבָה וְהָיָה יָשָׁר וְרוֹדֵף מִצְוֹת וְחָזַר לִהְיוֹת זוֹלֵל וְסוֹבֵא וְהוֹלֵךְ בְּדַרְכֵי הַחֲשָׁד אוֹ שֶׁפָּרַץ בִּנְדָרִים וּבַאֲבַק גֵּזֶל בֵּית דִּין חַיָּבִים לְסַלֵּק אוֹתוֹ וּלְהַשְׁבִּיעוֹ. וּלְמַנּוֹת לָהֶן אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס כָּשֵׁר. וְכָל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁיֵּרָאֶה לַדַּיָּן שֶׁכָּל בֵּית דִּין וּבֵית דִּין הוּא אֲבִיהֶן שֶׁל יְתוֹמִים: ", + "קָטָן שֶׁהִגְדִּיל אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה אוֹכֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה יוֹתֵר מִדַּאי וּמַפְסִיד וְהוֹלֵךְ בְּדֶרֶךְ רָעָה אֵין בֵּית דִּין מוֹנְעִין מִמֶּנּוּ מָמוֹנוֹ וְאֵין מַעֲמִידִין לוֹ אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס. אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן צִוָּה אָבִיו אוֹ מוֹרִישׁוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִתְּנוּ לוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יִהְיֶה כָּשֵׁר וּמַצְלִיחַ אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִתְּנוּ לוֹ עַד זְמַן מְרֻבֶּה. וְהַשּׁוֹטֶה וְהַחֵרֵשׁ הֲרֵי הֵן כִּקְטַנִּים וּמַעֲמִידִין לָהֶן אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס: " + ], + [ + "מָעוֹת שֶׁל יְתוֹמִים שֶׁהִנִּיחַ לָהֶן אֲבִיהֶן אֵינָן צְרִיכִין אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס. אֶלָּא כֵּיצַד עוֹשִׂין בָּהֶן. בּוֹדְקִין עַל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת וְיִהְיוּ עִדִּית וְיִהְיֶה אִישׁ נֶאֱמָן וְשׁוֹמֵעַ דִּינֵי תּוֹרָה וּמֵעוֹלָם לֹא קִבֵּל עָלָיו נִדּוּי. וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ הַמָּעוֹת בְּבֵית דִּין קָרוֹב לְשָׂכָר וְרָחוֹק לְהֶפְסֵד וְנִמְצְאוּ הַיְתוֹמִים נֶהֱנִין מִשְּׂכַר הַמָּעוֹת. וְכֵן אִם אֵין לוֹ קַרְקַע יִנָּתֵן לָהֶן מַשְׁכּוֹן זָהָב שָׁבוּר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ סִימָן וְנוֹטְלִין בֵּית דִּין הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ הַמָּעוֹת קָרוֹב לְשָׂכָר וְרָחוֹק לְהֶפְסֵד. וְלָמָּה לֹא יִקְחוּ מַשְׁכּוֹן כֵּלִים שֶׁל זָהָב אוֹ חֲלִי שֶׁל זָהָב. שֶׁמָּא שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים הוּא וְיִתְּנוּ סִימָן וְיִטְּלוּהוּ אַחַר מוֹתוֹ אִם יֵדַע הַדַּיָּן שֶׁאֵין זֶה אָמוּד. וְכַמָּה יִפְסְקוּ בְּשָׂכָר. כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁיִּרְאוּ הַדַּיָּנִין. אוֹ שְׁלִישׁ הַשָּׂכָר אוֹ חֶצְיוֹ אֲפִלּוּ רְבִיעַ הַשָּׂכָר לַיְתוֹמִים אִם רָאוּ שֶׁזּוֹ תַּקָּנָה לָהֶם עוֹשִׂין. לֹא מָצְאוּ אָדָם שֶׁיִּתְּנוּ לוֹ הַמָּעוֹת רָחוֹק לְהֶפְסֵד וְקָרוֹב לְשָׂכָר הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מוֹצִיאִין מֵהֶן מְזוֹנוֹת מְעַט. עַד שֶׁיִּקְנוּ לָהֶן בַּמָּעוֹת קַרְקַע וְיִמְסְרוּ אוֹתוֹ בְּיַד אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס שֶׁיַּעֲמִידוּ לָהֶן: ", + "כָּל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁל יְתוֹמִים שָׁמִין אוֹתָן וּמוֹכְרִין אוֹתָן בְּבֵית דִּין. וְאִם הָיָה הַשּׁוּק קָרוֹב לַמְּדִינָה. מוֹלִיכִין אוֹתָן לַשּׁוּק וּמוֹכְרִין אוֹתָן וְיִצְטָרְפוּ דְּמֵיהֶן עִם הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁל יְתוֹמִים: ", + "מִי שֶׁהָיָה בְּיָדוֹ שֵׁכָר שֶׁל יְתוֹמִים אִם יַנִּיחוֹ כָּאן עַד שֶׁיִּמָּכֵר שֶׁמָּא יַחְמִיץ. וְאִם יוֹלִיכוֹ לַשּׁוּק שֶׁמָּא יֶאֶרְעוֹ אֹנֶס בַּדֶּרֶךְ. הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹשֶׂה בּוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בְּשֶׁלּוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "כְּשֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין בֵּית דִּין לָהֶן אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס מוֹסְרִין לוֹ כָּל נִכְסֵי הַקָּטָן הַקַּרְקַע וְהַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁלֹּא נִמְכְּרוּ. וְהוּא מוֹצִיא וּמַכְנִיס וּבוֹנֶה וְסוֹתֵר וְשׁוֹבֵר וְנוֹטֵעַ וְזוֹרֵעַ וְעוֹשֶׂה כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁיִּרְאֶה שֶׁזֶּה טוֹב לַיְתוֹמִים וּמַאֲכִילָן וּמַשְׁקָן וְנוֹתֵן לָהֶן כָּל הַהוֹצָאָה כְּפִי הַמָּמוֹן וּכְפִי הָרָאוּי לָהֶן וְלֹא יַרְוִיחוּ לָהֶן יוֹתֵר מִדַּאי וְלֹא יְצַמְצֵם עֲלֵיהֶם יֶתֶר מִדַּאי: ", + "כְּשֶׁיַּגְדִּילוּ הַיְתוֹמִים נוֹתֵן לָהֶם מָמוֹן מוֹרִישָׁן וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת לָהֶן חֶשְׁבּוֹנוֹת מַה שֶּׁהִכְנִיס וְהוֹצִיא אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר לָהֶן זֶה הַנִּשְׁאָר. וְנִשְׁבָּע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ שֶׁלֹּא גְּזָלָן כְּלוּם. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁמִּנּוּהוּ בֵּית דִּין. אֲבָל אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס שֶׁמִּנָּהוּ אֲבִי יְתוֹמִים וְכֵן שְׁאָר הַמּוֹרִישָׁן אֵיִנוֹ נִשְׁבָּע עַל טַעֲנַת סָפֵק. יֵשׁ לְאַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לִלְבּשׁ וּלְהִתְכַּסּוֹת מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מְכֻבָּד וְיִהְיוּ דְּבָרָיו נִשְׁמָעִין וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לַיְתוֹמִים הֲנָאָה בְּנִכְסֵיהֶן בִּהְיוֹת דְּבָרָיו נִשְׁמָעִין: ", + "יֵשׁ לְאַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לִמְכֹּר בְּהֵמָה וַעֲבָדִים שְׁפָחוֹת שָׂדוֹת וּכְרָמִים לְהַאֲכִיל לַיְתוֹמִים. אֲבָל אֵין מוֹכְרִין וּמַנִּיחִין הַמָּעוֹת וְאֵין מוֹכְרִין שָׂדוֹת לִקַּח עֲבָדִים וְלֹא עֲבָדִים לִקַּח שָׂדוֹת שֶׁמָּא לֹא יַצְלִיחַ. אֲבָל מוֹכְרִין שָׂדֶה לִקַּח שְׁוָרִים לַעֲבוֹדַת שָׂדוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת שֶׁהַשְּׁוָרִים הֵן עִקַּר כָּל נִכְסֵי שָׂדוֹת: ", + "אֵין הָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפִּין רַשָּׁאִין לִמְכֹּר בְּרָחוֹק וְלִגְאל בְּקָרוֹב לִמְכֹּר בְּרָעָה וְלִגְאל בְּיָפָה. שֶׁמָּא לֹא יַצְלִיחַ זֶה שֶׁקָּנוּ. וְאֵין רַשָּׁאִין לָדוּן וְלָחוּב עַל מְנָת לִזְכּוֹת לַיְתוֹמִים שֶׁמָּא לֹא יִזְכּוּ וְנִמְצָא הַחוֹב קַיָּם: ", + "אֵין הָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפִּין רַשָּׁאִין לְהוֹצִיא עֲבָדִים לְחֵרוּת אֲפִלּוּ לִקַּח מִן הָעֶבֶד דָּמִים שֶׁיֵּצֵא לְחֵרוּת. אֲבָל מוֹכְרִין אוֹתָן לַאֲחֵרִים וְלוֹקְחִין מֵהֶן הַדָּמִים עַל מְנָת שֶׁיּוֹצִיאוּהוּ לְחֵרוּת וְאוֹתָן הָאֲ [חֵ] רִים הֵן שֶׁמְּשַׁ [חְ] רְרִין אוֹתָם: ", + "הָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפִּין תּוֹרְמִין וּמְעַשְּׂרִין נִכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים כְּדֵי לְהַאֲכִילָן. שֶׁאֵין מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הַיְתוֹמִים דָּבָר הָאָסוּר. אֲבָל לֹא יְעַשְּׂרוּ וְלֹא יִתְרֹמוּ כְּדֵי לְהַנִּיחַ פֵּרוֹת מְתֻקָּנִין אֶלָּא יִמְכְּרוּ אוֹתָן טֶבֶל וְהָרוֹצֶה לְתַקֵּן יְתַקֵּן: ", + "הָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפִּין עוֹשִׂין לַקְּטַנִּים לוּלָב וְסֻכָּה וְצִיצִית וְשׁוֹפָר סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה וּתְפִלִּין וּמְזוּזוֹת וּמְגִלָּה. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר כָּל מִצְוֹת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם קִצְבָה בֵּין שֶׁהוּא מִדִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה בֵּין שֶׁהוּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. עוֹשִׂין לָהֶם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן חַיָּבִין בְּמִצְוָה מִכָּל אֵלּוּ הַמִּצְוֹת אֶלָּא כְּדֵי לְחַנְּכָן. אֲבָל אֵין פּוֹסְקִין עֲלֵיהֶן צְדָקָה וַאֲפִלּוּ לְפִדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִים. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמִּצְוֹת אֵלּוּ אֵין לָהֶן קִצְבָה: ", + "וּמִי שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּטָּה אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְחָרֵשׁ בֵּית דִּין פּוֹסְקִין עָלָיו צְדָקָה אִם הָיָה רָאוּי: ", + "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס צָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת חֶשְׁבּוֹן כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. צָרִיךְ לַחְשֹׁב בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ לְדַקְדֵּק וּלְהִזָּהֵר הַרְבֵּה מֵאֲבִיהֶן שֶׁל אֵלּוּ הַיְתוֹמִים שֶׁהוּא רוֹכֵב עֲרָבוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהילים סח ה) \"סלוּ לָרֹכֵב בָּעֲרָבוֹת\" וְגוֹ' (תהילים סח ו) \"אֲבִי יְתוֹמִים\" וְגוֹ': ", + "סליקו להו הלכות נחלות בס\"ד. נגמר ספר שלשה עשר והוא ספר משפטים, הלכותיו חמשה, ופרקיו חמשה ושבעים. הלכות שכירות שלשה עשר פרקים, הלכות שאלה ופקדון שמונה פרקים, הלכות מלוה ולוה עשרים ושבעה פרקים, הלכות טוען ונטען ששה עשר פרקים, הלכות נחלות אחד עשר פרקים." + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Torat Emet 363", + "http://www.toratemetfreeware.com/index.html?downloads" + ], + [ + "Wikisource Mishneh Torah", + "http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94_%D7%9C%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%91%22%D7%9D" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות נחלות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant/English/Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, edited by Philip Birnbaum, New York, 1967.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant/English/Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, edited by Philip Birnbaum, New York, 1967.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6035c3f42ab1f37cf99252685bb1d528167b994b --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant/English/Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, edited by Philip Birnbaum, New York, 1967.json @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant", + "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002108864", + "versionTitle": "Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, edited by Philip Birnbaum, New York, 1967", + "status": "locked", + "priority": 1.0, + "digitizedBySefaria": true, + "versionTitleInHebrew": "משנה תורה להרמב״ם, נערך בידי פיליפ בירנבאום, ניו יורק 1967", + "shortVersionTitle": "Philip Birnbaum, 1967", + "purchaseInformationImage": "https://storage.googleapis.com/sefaria-physical-editions/a36d49524b2a624cd36f9c25ce0ab336.png", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": false, + "isSource": false, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות טוען ונטען", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "If a man sues another concerning movables and the other admits that he owes a portion of the goods claimed, he must pay what he admits and take a biblical oath about the balance, as it is written: \"Where one claims that the thing is his, both parties shall present their case before the judges\" (Exodus 22:8). So too, if the defendant denies everything and says: \"It never happened,\" and one witness testifies that it did, he must take a biblical oath. It has been traditionally inferred that wherever the testimony of two witnesses subjects a party to payment liability, the testimony of one witness subjects him to taking an oath.— —", + "None but the following three is required to take a biblical oath: 1) one who admits that he owes a portion of the movables claimed ; 2) one against whom a single witness testifies that he owes money; 3) the bailee. — — Every one of these three takes an oath and is released from payment. But all those who take an oath and collect — — do so only by virtue of a rabbinic ordinance. All these oaths, though taken on rabbinic grounds, resemble the biblical oaths and are administered while holding a sacred object.", + "If a man lodged a claim against another concerning movables and the defendant denied the entire claim and said it is absolutely untrue, or if he admitted the claim in part and immediately handed it to him, saying: \"This is all you have on me, take it,\" or if the defendant said: \"It is true that you have had a claim on me, but you have remitted it to me,\" or \"you have presented it to me,\" — — in all such cases the defendant is exempt from a biblical oath, but the sages of the Talmud ordained that the defendant should take an exemption oath and be released. This oath is unlike the biblical oath, since it is administered without holding a sacred object. We have already explained, in the section concerning oaths, how the biblical oath and the exemption oath are administered.", + "", + "", + "Anyone who is required to take an exemption oath may shift it to the plaintiff, if he so desires, so that the plaintiff swears and collects from the defendant. This is the only case where the plaintiff collects from the defendant by taking the exemption oath which has been shifted to him by the defendant. Only an exemption oath can be so shifted; but a biblical oath, or a rabbinic oath that is quasi-biblical cannot be shifted.", + "An exemption oath is imposed only in the case of a certainty claim; if the claim is based on doubt, the defendant is exempt from such an oath. If, for example, the plaintiff says: \"It seems to me that you owe me one hundred zuz,\" or if he says: \"I lent you one hundred zuz, and it seems to me that you have not repaid me\" — — and the defendant says: \"I owe you nothing,\" he is free from taking even an exemption oath. The same applies to all similar cases." + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "If litigants came into the law court, and one of them said: \"I have a claim on this man for one hundred zuz which I lent him, deposited with him, he stole from me, he owes me in wages,\" and the like, and the defendant replied: \"I owe you nothing, you have no claim on me, you are making a false claim,\" it is not a correct answer. The court will say to him: \"Refute his claim, and be specific in your reply as he was in his claim. State whether you did or did not borrow money from him, whether he did or did not deposit with you, whether you did or did not rob him, whether you did or did not hire him. And so with other claims.
Why does not the court accept a reply that is not specific? For fear that the defendant is in error and might unwittingly swear falsely; for it is possible that the plaintiff lent money to the defendant, as he claims, and that the defendant paid the debt to the plaintiff's son or wife, or presented him with a gift equivalent to the debt, and he imagines that he has thereby been released from the debt. He is therefore told by the court: \"How can you say I owe him nothing when you may be lawfully required to make restitution without your being aware of it? Inform the judges precisely what you mean, and they will let you know whether or not you owe anything. Even if the defendant is a great scholar, he is told: \"You will lose nothing by replying to the plaintiff's claim and informing us as to why you do not owe him anything, whether because his claim is absolutely untrue or because you have repaid what you owed.— —
If the plaintiff lodged a claim against the defendant for one hundred zuz that he had lent him, and the defendant answered him it is absolutely untrue, and the plaintiff produced witnesses thereafter who testified that he had lent him the money in their presence, whereupon the defendant retracted and said : \"It was indeed so, but I borrowed and repaid,\" we should lend no attention to him; he is considered a liar, and must make restitution. If, however, he answered: \"I do not owe,\" or \"you have no claim on me,\" or \"you are making a false claim,\" and the like, and the plaintiff produced witnesses thereafter that he had lent him in their presence, while the defendant said: \"Yes indeed, it was so, but I have returned his deposit,\" or \"I have repaid what I owed him,\" he is not considered a liar; he takes an exemption oath and is released.", + "If witnesses saw a man count money and give it to another, but they did not know what the money was for, and then the first man lodged a claim against the other, demanding: \"Give me the money I lent you,\" and the second man said: \"You gave me the money as a gift,\" or \"in payment of a debt,\" he is believed ; he takes an exemption oath and is released. If, however, the defendant said it is absolutely untrue, and then witnesses appeared and testified that the plaintiff had counted the money and given it to the defendant in their presence, the defendant is deemed a liar. A man is never deemed dishonest unless he makes a denial in court and two witnesses come and contradict his denial." + ], + [], + [ + "All movable goods are presumed to be the property of the person in whose possession they are, even though the plaintiff has produced witnesses that those movables are known to be his. If, for example, the plaintiff says: \"This garment, or this instrument which you have in your hand, or in your house, is mine, or I deposited it with you, or I lent it to you, and here are witnesses who know that it was previously in my possession,\" while the defendant says: \"It is not so; you have sold it to me, or presented it to me as a gift,\" the defendant takes an exemption oath and is released.", + "", + "This applies only in regard to things that are not likely to be lent or rented out, such as garments, farm products, household utensils, merchandise, and the like. But things that are likely to be lent or rented out are presumed to be the property of the original owner, even though they are in the possession of the defendant, and even though the plaintiff did not lend or rent out the object in the presence of witnesses. If, for example, Reuben owned an instrument that was likely to be lent or rented out ; he has witnesses that it was known to be his ; the instrument is now in the possession of Simeon; Reuben claims that it was lent or rented, while Simeon claims: \"You have sold it to me, you have presented it to me as a gift, you have left it with me as a pledge,\" he is not believed. Reuben takes an exemption oath to offset Simeon's claim and recovers his instrument. Even if Simeon died, Reuben recovers the instrument. But the Geonim have taught that Reuben must take an exemption oath, because the court pleads for the heir.", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "Do not be confused, as many great men were, concerning the difference between things that are likely to be lent or rented out and things that are usually lent or rented out. Indeed, all things are suitable to be lent or rented out; even a man's undershirt, his mattress and bed are fit to be lent. But things that are likely to be lent or rented out are those instruments which the residents of a particular town produce primarily for the purpose of lending or renting them and receiving a fee for them. They are to the owner like landed property, the products of which he enjoys while the principal remains. These utensils, too, are made essentially for the purpose of enjoying the fee they bring, as in the case of the large copper kettles which are used for cooking at banquet halls, or the [gilded] copper ornament which is rented out to a bride for adornment. These objects are not made for sale or for use by the owner in his home, but for the purpose of lending them to others in order to receive in return an equivalent benefit, or renting them out and receiving a fee for their use.— —", + "— — This is an essential legal principle. It is sensible and should be relied upon in judging. It is clear to those who find knowledge, and the judge should duly place it before his eyes, so that he may not depart from the truth." + ], + [], + [], + [ + "All landed property known to belong to a certain owner is presumed to be the property of that owner, even though it is now in the possession of others. If, for example, Reuben was using a courtyard in the manner people use their courtyards: he lived in it or leased it to others, or built and tore down. But after some time Simeon came and lodged a claim against him, saying to him: \"This courtyard which is in your possession is mine; it is merely rented, or lent, to you.\" Whereupon Reuben answered him: \"It was yours and you sold it to me,\" or \"you presented it to me as a gift.\" If Simeon has no witnesses that the courtyard was known to have been his, Reuben takes an exemption oath and remains where he is; if, however, Simeon produced witnesses testifying that this courtyard was his, it is presumed to be the property of Simeon, and the court tells Reuben: \"Produce evidence that he has sold it to you or presented it to you.\" If he has not produced evidence, we evict him from the property and seize it for Simeon, even though Reuben does not admit that it was Simeon's; indeed, Simeon has witnesses to that effect.", + "What has just been stated, that we make it necessary for Reuben to produce evidence or else he is evicted from the property, applies only in case he has not been using the property for a long time. If, however, he has produced witnesses that he has enjoyed the produce of the land for three years in succession, and derived as much benefit from the whole of it as every person would from that type of land, provided the original owner could know that another took possession of it and he entered no protest, we let it remain in the possession of Reuben who takes an exemption oath that Simeon sold or presented it to him, and he is released. Because we say to Simeon: \"If what you claim is true, namely that you have neither sold it nor given it away, why have you not protested when this man has made use of your land year after year without your having a rent note or a mortgage note?\" If he put forth a claim, saying: \"Because I was in a distant country, the information failed to reach me,\" we say to him: \"It is impossible that the information should not have reached you in the course of three years, and when it reached you, you should have entered a protest in the presence of witnesses, telling them : So-and-so has robbed me ; I will sue him at law tomorrow. Since you have not protested, you have occasioned your own loss.\" Accordingly, if it was a time of war, or a dangerous road between the locality where Reuben was and the locality where Simeon was, the property is taken away from Reuben and restored to Simeon, even if Reuben enjoyed its produce for ten years, because Simeon may say : \"I was unaware that he was using my land.\"" + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant/English/Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant/English/Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8ea7d1f81b0a9108019f1ad6b906305d42e73a3c --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant/English/Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007.json @@ -0,0 +1,250 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant", + "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI", + "versionTitle": "Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007", + "status": "locked", + "priority": 2.0, + "license": "CC-BY-NC", + "versionNotes": "\n Dedicated in memory of Irving Montak, z\"l

© Published and Copyright by Moznaim Publications.
Must obtain written permission from Moznaim Publications for any commercial use. Any use must cite Copyright by Moznaim Publications. Released into the commons with a CC-BY-NC license.\n ", + "digitizedBySefaria": false, + "shortVersionTitle": "Trans. by Eliyahu Touger, Moznaim Publishing", + "purchaseInformationImage": "https://storage.googleapis.com/sefaria-physical-editions/touger-mishneh-torah-hilkhot-teshuvah-purchase-img.png", + "purchaseInformationURL": "https://moznaim.com/products/mishneh-torah-rambam", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": false, + "isSource": false, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות טוען ונטען", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "When a person who issues a claim against a colleague with regard to movable property, and the defendant acknowledges a portion of the claim, he must pay what he acknowledged, and take an oath with regard to the remainder. This is a Scriptural obligation, as Exodus 22:8 states: \"That this is it.\"
Similarly, if the defendant denies the entire obligation and says: \"Such a thing never happened,\" and one witness testifies that the defendant is obligated to the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated by Scriptural Law to take an oath. The Oral Tradition teaches: Whenever two witnesses would obligate the person to pay money, one witness obligates him to take an oath.
Similarly, it was derived through the Oral Tradition that one witness shall not rise up against any man for any iniquity or any sin. He may, however, rise up against him to obligate him to take an oath.", + "There are only three individuals who are obligated by Scriptural Law to take an oath: a person who denied a portion of a claim of movable property, a person obligated by one witness, and a watchman. For with regard to a watchman, Exodus 22:10 states: \"The oath of God shall be between them.\" We have already explained the oath required of watchman in Hilchot Sechirut.
Each of these three individuals takes an oath and becomes free of his obligation to pay. In contrast, those who take an oath and collect the money they claim, e.g., an employee, a person who was injured, a person who impairs the legal power of his promissory note and the like, and similarly, those who take an oath because there is a possibility of a claim being lodged against them, e.g., partners and sharecroppers, all take oaths because of our Sages' ordinances. Although all these oaths were ordained by Rabbinic decree, they all resemble a Scriptural oath, and all must be taken while holding a sacred article.", + "A defendant is not liable to take a Scriptural oath when a colleague claims that he owes movable property and the defendant:
a) denies the entire matter, saying: \"Such a thing never occurred\";
b) admitted a portion of the claim and gave it to him immediately, saying: \"This is all I owe you; here it is\";
c) admits that he had originally owed the plaintiff the debt, but claims that the plaintiff waived payment, gave him the object claimed as a present, or that he already returned the debt;
d) admits owing barley, while the plaintiff claims wheat.
Nevertheless, the Sages of the Gemara ordained that in all these situations, the defendant should take a sh'vuat heset, before being freed of liability. This oath does not resemble a Scriptural oath, because one need not hold a sacred article while taking it. We have already described the process of taking a Scriptural oath and that of taking a sh'vuat heset in Hilchot Sh'vuos.", + "Whenever anyone is required to take an oath by Scriptural Law, he may take the oath and free himself of obligations. If he does not desire to take the oath, we attach his property and expropriate everything the plaintiff claims. For the plaintiff will say: \"I will not budge from the Torah's ruling. Either take the oath or pay me.\" He may, however, have a conditional ban of ostracism issued against anyone who makes a false claim. He must then pay.
Different laws apply when, by contrast, a person is obligated to take an oath by Rabbinic degree. If he was one of those who must take an oath and collect his due, he cannot reverse the oath and require the defendant to take it. For the defendant will tell him: \"Take the oath and collect as the Sages ordained for you.\" If he does not desire to take an oath, he should depart.
My masters ruled that if the plaintiff says: \"I do not desire the ordinance which the Sages ordained on my behalf. Instead, I am no different than any other plaintiff,\" he may require the defendant to take a sh'vuat heset. If the defendant desires to reverse this oath and require the plaintiff to take it, we obligate the plaintiff to take the oath or to depart.", + "If a defendant was obligated by Rabbinic decree to take an oath to be released from responsibility, e.g., those who must take an oath because of a doubt or those required to take a sh'vuat heset, and he did not want to take an oath, he is placed under a ban of ostracism for 30 days. If he does not come and seek to be released from his ban, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.
Similarly, whenever a person has been placed under a ban of ostracism for 30 days, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct and then his ban is lifted. His property is not attached, because he is not required to take an oath by Scriptural Law.", + "Whenever a person is obligated to take a sh'vuat heset, if he desires, he may reverse the oath and obligate the plaintiff. The plaintiff may take the sh'vuat heset and then collect his claim from his colleague.
There is no other person who takes a sh'vuat heset and collects his claim from his colleague except this person for whom the obligation to take a sh'vuat heset. A Scriptural oath and a Rabbinic oath that resembles a Scriptural oath may not be reversed.", + "A person cannot be required to take a sh'vuat heset unless a definite claim is lodged against him. If, however, the plaintiff's claim is doubt, the defendant is not liable for the oath.
What is implied? The plaintiff says: \"It appears to me that you owe me a maneh,\" \"I lent you a maneh, it appears to me that you did not repay me,\" \"My father said that you owe me a maneh, \"My father declared to me in the presence of witnesses that you owe me a maneh,\" \"A certain article was stolen from my house. You were the only person there. In my eyes, it is likely that you stole it,\" \"I calculated the money I have and I found that I was lacking some. Perhaps you caused me to err in the accounting,\" and to all these complaints, the defendant states: \"I do not owe you anything,\" he is not liable even for a sh'vuat heset. The same applies in all analogous situations.", + "The defendant is required to take a sh'vuat heset in the following situations. The plaintiff claims: \"You definitely owe me a kor of wheat,\" and the defendant replies: \"I don't know. Maybe I owe you, maybe I do not owe you,\" the defendant must take a sh'vuat heset that he does not know of the obligation. He is then released. He is not liable, because he did not definitely obligate himself. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Similarly, if the plaintiff claims: \"You definitely owe me a kor of wheat,\" and the defendant replies: \"I don't know whether I owe you a kor of wheat or barley,\" the defendant must take a sh'vuat heset that he does not know and pay the plaintiff a kor of barley. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "Different rules apply when the plaintiff claims: \"You definitely owe me a maneh,\" and the defendant replies: \"I did owe you a maneh. I do not know, however, if I returned it to you or did not return it to you yet.\" The defendant is obligated to pay. The plaintiff is not obligated to take an oath at all, not even a sh'vuat heset.
The rationale is that the defendant knows that he was liable and the plaintiff is lodging a definite claim against him, and he does not know whether he fulfilled his obligation or not. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
This stringency does not apply if there is no plaintiff, i.e., on his own initiative, the defendant said: \"I stole from you...\", \"You lent me a maneh...\", \"Your father entrusted me with a maneh, and I do not know if I returned it to you or not, he is not liable at all. If he desires to fulfill his moral and spiritual obligations, he is liable to make restitution.", + "As mentioned above, a sh'vuat heset can be reversed. Thus if a plaintiff claims: \"You owe me a maneh,\" and the defendant responds: \"I do not owe you anything,\" the plaintiff may tell him: \"Take a sh'vuat heset and go on your way.\" And the defendant may respond: \"You take the sh'vuat heset and collect your claim.\" If the plaintiff says: \"I do not desire to take the oath,\" the defendant may tell him: \"Either take the oath and collect your claim or go away without anything.\" The obligation to take the oath may not be reversed again. The plaintiff may, however, have a conditional bill of ostracism issued against anyone who owes him money and refuses to pay.", + "My masters ruled that anyone who is obligated to take an oath - whether a Scriptural oath or a Rabbinic oath, even a sh'vuat heset - may, before taking the oath, have a conditional ban of ostracism issued against anyone who lodges a claim against him for money which he does not owe so that he will have to take an oath unnecessarily. The person requiring him to take the oath must answer Amen. Afterwards, the defendant must take that oath.
This is a proper ordinance for litigants so that they will refrain from making false claims and not cause God's name to be mentioned for no purpose, thus preventing them from lodging spurious suits.", + "Whenever a person is required to take an oath - whether a Scriptural oath or a Rabbinic oath - the plaintiff can require him to include in his oath a denial of any other claim that he desires which would obligate the defendant financially.
To what extent can he be forced to include a claim? Until the plaintiff has him include in the oath that he was not sold to the plaintiff as a Hebrew servant and is still under his bond.
As mentioned, a worker who is required to take an oath cannot be forced to include other claims in that oath.", + "The following principle applies whenever a person is obligated to take an oath, even a sh'vuat heset, and the plaintiff begins to demand that he include in the oath matters which were not included in the original claim. If the defendant sees this and says: \"I do not desire to take the oath. Instead, I will pay the original claim whose denial obligated me to take the oath,\" we do not accept his request. Instead, we tell him: \"Either pay all the definite claims he asked you to include in the oath or take the oath and be released of responsibility.\"", + "When a person lodges many claims against a colleague, the defendant cannot be forced to take an oath on each claim individually. Instead, he includes all the claims in one oath. If a person was obligated to take two oaths on two different claims, one lenient and one more severe, he is required to take the more severe oath and include in it the other claims based on the principle of gilgul sh'vuah.", + "When a person lodges a claim against a colleague which would not result in a financial obligation if he would acknowledge its truth, even if the defendant denies the claim, we do not require him to take a sh'vuat heset, nor do we issue a conditional ban of ostracism.
What is implied? The plaintiff claims: \"You promised to give me a maneh,\" and the defendant states: \"That never happened,\" the defendant is not required to take a sh'vuat heset, nor is a conditional ban of ostracism issued against him. The rationale is that even were he to have acknowledged making such a promise, he would not be obligated to fulfill it. Similarly, if a plaintiff claimed: \"You cursed me,\" or \"You spread a disparaging report about me,\" and the defendant replied: \"That never happened,\" a ban of ostracism is not issued in such a situation. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "If a plaintiff claims: \"You injured me,\" and the defendant states: \"That never happened,\" the defendant is required to take a sh'vuat heset. The rationale is although the defendant is not liable to pay a k'nas because of his own admission alone, he would be liable to pay the injured party for his unemployment, his medical expenses, and the embarrassment he suffered.
The following rule applies when a plaintiff claims: \"You embarrassed me,\" and the defendant states: \"That never happened.\" If they were in a place where claims involving k'nasot were collected, the defendant is required to take a sh'vuat heset, for if he would acknowledge the truth of the claim, he would be required to pay for the embarrassment he caused.", + "When do we apply the above statement: \"A person who admits his guilt with regard to a claim involving a k'nas is not liable\"? When the defendant says: \"I injured this person.\"
If, however, the defendant says: \"I injured this person. He brought witnesses against me in court and it obligated me to pay so and so much for his damages,\" he is liable. Accordingly, were the plaintiff to claim that a court obligated the defendant to pay him 100 dinarim because he injured him, and the defendant denied the claim, the defendant would be required to take a sh'vuat heset. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations." + ], + [ + "Whenever it is suspected that a person might take a false oath, no oath - neither a Scriptural oath, a Rabbinic oath, nor a sh'vuat heset - is administered to him. Even if the plaintiff desires that he take this oath, we do not heed his request.", + "A person who took a false oath - whether a sh'vuat bitui, a sh'vuat edut, or a sh'vuat hapikadon - or an unnecessary oath, he is considered suspect to take a false oath.
Similarly, a person who is not acceptable to serve as a witness because he committed a transgression, whether disqualified because of a Scriptural prohibition, e.g., a person who lends at interest, one who eats meat from an animal that was not ritually slaughtered, or a thief, or because of a Rabbinic prohibition, e.g., a dice-player or a dove racer, is considered suspect to take a false oath and we do not administer an oath to him.", + "A person is not deemed suspect to take a false oath until witnesses testify that he violated the transgression for which he is disqualified. Different rules apply, however, if a person himself admits that he is suspect to take a false oath, because he committed a transgression that disqualifies him.
We consider him under suspicion and it is not appropriate to make him a witness at the outset. Nevertheless, if he is obligated to take an oath, we administer that oath. For we tell him: \"If you are telling the truth, take the oath. The fact that you committed a sin does not make it forbidden for you to take a truthful oath. And if you are lying, acknowledge the other litigant's claim.\" When a person is deemed suspect because of the testimony of witnesses, we do not believe that he will take a truthful oath.", + "Our Sages ordained that whenever a person who is suspect to take a false oath is obligated to take a Scriptural Oath because of a definite claim, the plaintiff is given the option of taking a Rabbinic oath and may then collect what he claims.
If they were both suspect, the responsibility for taking the oath returns to the one obligated to take it, i.e., the defendant. Since he cannot take the oath, he is required to pay.
If the person who was suspect was a watchman who claims that the entrusted article was lost or stolen, the plaintiff cannot take an oath, because he does not have a definite claim that the watchman consumed it. Therefore, if the owner of the entrusted object claims: \"He used my entrusted article for his own purposesin my presence,\" or \"I know that he was negligent,\" the plaintiff may take an oath as ordained by our Sages and collect the money he claims.", + "The following laws apply if the person suspect to take a false oath was liable to take a Rabbinic oath. If he is one of those who takes an oath and collects, he may not take the oath and collect. Instead, the defendant is allowed to take a sh'vuat heset and then is freed of liability.
Similarly, when a person who is suspect impairs the legal power of his promissory note or the like and the borrower claims to have paid and requires the plaintiff to take an oath, the defendant is given the option of taking the oath, and in that way becoming released from the obligation of the promissory note.", + "If the person who is suspect was one of those who is required to take an oath because of an indefinite claim, he is not allowed to take the oath, nor does the plaintiff take the oath. The rationale is that the defendant was not obligated to take an oath by Scriptural Law and the plaintiff is not lodging a definite claim against him that he could support with an oath.", + "When a person who is suspect becomes obligated to take a sh'vuat heset, the plaintiff is not given the option of taking the oath and collecting what he claims. The rationale is that a sh'vuat heset is itself a measure ordained for the benefit of the plaintiff. Therefore we did not ordain a second measure for his benefit. Instead, the defendant is released from liability without taking an oath.", + "When a person is obligated to take a sh'vuat heset and the plaintiff is suspect to take a false oath, the defendant does not have the option of reversing the responsibility to take the oath. For the plaintiff is unable to take the oath. Instead, the defendant must pay the claim or take a sh'vuat heset.
We do not accept his request to make the judgment dependant on an impossible factor. This is comparable to a person who seeks to reverse the responsibility of an oath and place it upon a minor. We do not heed him. Instead, he must either take a sh'vuat heset or pay.", + "The following principle applies when a person was obligated to take an oath - whether of Scriptural or Rabbinic origin - and he took the oath and either collected his claim or was released and afterwards, witnesses came and testified that he was suspect to take a false oath. The oath which he took is of no consequence. The other litigant may expropriate the money which the person who was suspect collected from him or the other litigant may take an oath and collect his claim.", + "These principles are applied with regard to a person suspect of taking a false oath until he receives lashes in court. If there are witnesses that he received lashes and repented, his status is restored and he is acceptable both as a witness and to take an oath.", + "The following rules apply when a person lodges a claim against a colleague, the defendant denies the claim and supports his denial by taking either a Scriptural oath or a Rabbinic oath. If afterwards, witnesses come and testify that he took a false oath, he must pay the claim and is deemed suspect of taking a false oath.
We already explained in Hilchot Sh'vuot, that anyone who takes a false oath with regard to money belonging to his colleague and repents must add an additional fifth.", + "The following rule applies when a plaintiff claims that a defendant owes him a debt which was undertaken in the presence of witnesses and affirmed by a kinyan, and the defendant agrees that originally this was so, but claims to have paid the debt, or the defendant says: \"I do not owe you anything,\" and takes an oath to support either of these claims. If, afterwards, witnesses to the kinyan testify or the plaintiff produces a promissory note and verifies its authenticity, the defendant is obligated to pay. He is not, however, considered as suspect to take a false oath. For the witnesses did not testify that he did not pay. And the defendant did not say: \"This never happened.\" Similar principles apply in all analogous situations." + ], + [ + "A person who admits a portion of a claim is not liable to take a Scriptural oath until he admits an obligation of a p'rutah or more and denies owing two silver me'in or more.
How much is a p'rutah worth? The weight of half a barleycorn of pure silver. How much is two me'in worth? The weight of 32 barleycorns of pure silver.", + "Whenever the Torah speaks of kessef it refers to a holy shekel which is worth 20 me'in. Whenever the term kessef is used with regard to Rabbinic law, the intent is a coin used in Jerusalem referred to as a sela. This coin was one eighth silver and the remainder copper as we explained. A meah, by contrast, even in Jerusalem was pure silver; it was the smallest silver coin used in Jerusalem in that era.
Since the requirement that the claim denied be two measures of silver is Rabbinic in origin, the Sages established it as two silver coins of Jerusalem, i.e., two me'in, rather than two \"holy\" shekalim. This is the interpretation that appears correct with regard to the amount of money from the claim that must be denied for an oath to be required.
My teachers ruled that the amount of money from the claim that must be denied for an oath to be required is 19 and ½ barleycorns of silver. I have several proofs to refute the path of reasoning they adopted which led to their arriving at this figure. I think that it is an error.", + "When the plaintiff claims: \"You owe me two me'in and a p'rutah,\" and the defendant responds: \"I owe you only two p'rutot,\" he is not obligated to take this oath. The rationale is that he denied owing less than two me'in.
When the plaintiff claims: \"You owe me a maneh,\" and the defendant responds: \"I owe you only half a p'rutot,\" he is not obligated to take this oath. The rationale is that whenever a person acknowledges a debt of less than a p'rutah, it is as if he did not acknowledge any debt at all.", + "When the plaintiff claims: \"You owe me 100 dates,\" and the defendant responds: \"I owe you only ninety,\" we make calculations. If the ten dates that he denies are worth two me'in, he must take an oath. If they are not, he is not liable.
When the plaintiff claims: \"You owe me five or six nuts,\" and the defendant responds: \"I owe you only one,\" we make calculations. If the nut that he admits owing is equivalent to p'rutah, he must take an oath. If it is not, he is not liable. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "When does the above apply? With regard to money, merchandise, produce, or the like. With regard to utensils, by contrast, we do not evaluate their worth. Even when ten needles are being sold for a p'rutah, if a plaintiff claims two needles and the defendant admits owing one and denies owing the other, he is liable to take an oath.
This is derived from Exodus 22:6 which speaks of \"money or utensils....\" Implied is that all utensils are like money.
The following rules apply when the plaintiff claims that he is owed both money and utensils and the defendant admits owing the utensils, but denies owing the money. If the money he denies is equivalent to two me'in, he is obligated to take this oath. If not, he is under no obligation. Conversely, if he admits owing the money, but denies owing the utensils, he is liable if he admits owing a p'rutah. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "When one witness testifies against a colleague, stating that he owes money, he is required to take an oath even when he denied owing only a p'rutah. The rationale is that whenever the testimony of two witnesses would require a person to make a payment, the testimony of one witness obligates him to take an oath.
What is implied? The plaintiff claims: \"You owe a p'rutah,\" or \"...merchandise worth a p'rutah,\" the defendant responds: \"I don't owe you anything,\" and a witness testifies that he does owe the plaintiff, he is required to take an oath.
Similar concepts apply with regard to an oath taken by a watchman. Even if a person entrusted a p'rutah or the worth of a p'rutah to a colleague and that person claimed that it was lost, he is required to take an oath. Anything less than a p'rutah is not financially significant and the court does not concern itself with it. Similarly, all those who take oaths and collect their claim, they take their oaths and collect any claim equivalent to a p'rutah or more.", + "My teachers' ruled that a person who takes an oath and collects his claim does not have to issue a claim equivalent to two silver me'in. I differ and maintain that the defendant must deny a claim equivalent to two silver me'in for the plaintiff to be required to take an oath as ordained by the Sages to collect his claim. The rationale is that those who must take an oath because of a claim concerning which doubt exists are not required to take that oath unless there is a sum equivalent to two silver me'in which is denied.", + "A person who admits a portion of a claim is not obligated to take an oath unless the admission is of the same nature as the claim.
What is implied? The plaintiff claims: \"You owe me a kor of wheat.\" If the defendant responds: \"I only owe you a letach of wheat,\" he is liable to take the oath. If, however, the defendant responds: \"I only owe you a kor of barley,\" he is not liable. The rationale is that the defendant did not admit owing the species which the plaintiff claimed, and the plaintiff did not claim the species which the defendant admitted owing.
If the plaintiff claims: \"I gave you golden dinarim for safekeeping,\" and the defendant responds: \"You entrusted me only with silver dinarim,\" or the plaintiff claims: \"I gave you a silver meah for safekeeping,\" and the defendant responds: \"You entrusted me only with a p'rutah, the defendant is not liable, because the plaintiff claimed one species and the defendant admitted owing another.
Similarly, if the plaintiff claims: \"I gave you 10 Egyptian dinarim for safekeeping,\" and the defendant responds: \"You entrusted me only with Tyrian dinarim,\" he is not obligated to take an oath. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "If the plaintiff claims: \"You have a large lamp of mine,\" and the defendant responds: \"I have only a small lamp of yours,\" he is not liable. If, however, the plaintiff claimed a lamp weighing ten liter, and the defendant admitted owing a lamp weighing five liter, he is considered as one who has admitted a portion of a claim. The rationale is that one can cut away the larger lamp and cause it to weigh only five.
Similarly, if the plaintiff claimed being owed a large belt, and the defendant replied: \"I have only a small belt,\" he is not liable. If he claimed a curtain that was 20 cubits long and he admitted owing a curtain ten cubits long, he is required to take an oath, because it can be cut and limited to ten. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "If the plaintiff claims: \"You have a kor of wheat of mine in your possession,\" and the defendant answers: \"I have only a kor of barley,\" he is not liable, not even for the barley. The rationale is that the plaintiff states: \"You do not owe me barley.\" Thus the situation resembles one in which a person tells a colleague in court: \"I have a maneh of yours,\" and that colleague replies: \"You do not owe me anything.\" In such a situation, the court does not require the person making the admission to pay his colleague anything.
If the plaintiff who claims the wheat seizes possession of the barley, we do not expropriate it from him.", + "When a person claims that a colleague owes him two types of produce and the colleague admits owing only one, his admission is considered as the same type of the claim and he is required to take an oath. What is implied? The plaintiff claims: \"You have a kor of wheat and a kor of barley of mine in your possession,\" and the defendant answers: \"I have only a kor of wheat,\" he is liable.
The following rules apply when the plaintiff begins saying: \"You have a kor of wheat in your possession,\" and before the plaintiff can complete his statements and add: \"And you have a kor of barley of mine in your possession,\" the defendant answers: \"I have only a kor of barley.\" If it appears to the judges that the defendant is seeking to deceive, he is required to take the oath. If it appears, that he acted in good faith, he is not liable.", + "Different rules apply if the plaintiff does not issue both claims at once. For example, he claims: \"You have a kor of wheat of mine in your possession,\" and the defendant answers: \"Yes.\" And then he says: \"and a kor of barley,\" to which the defendant replies: \"I have no wheat of yours.\" He is not considered as admitting a portion of the claim unless the defendant makes these statements at one time. For an oath to be required, the plaintiff must claim: \"You have a kor of wheat and a kor of barley of mine in your possession,\" and the defendant must answer: \"I have only a kor of barley.\" Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "Similarly, the defendant is not held liable for an oath when the plaintiff claims: \"You have a quantity of oil large enough to fill ten jugs of mine in your possession,\" and the defendant answers: \"I owe you only ten empty jugs.\" The rationale is that the plaintiff claimed oil and the defendant admitted owing only earthenware.
Different rules apply if the plaintiff claimed: \"You have ten jugs of oil of mine in your possession,\" and the defendant answers: \"I owe you only ten empty jugs.\" The defendant is liable to take an oath. The rationale is that the plaintiff claimed both jugs and oil and the defendant admitted owing the jugs. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "My teachers ruled that the defendant is considered as admitting a portion of a claim and is required to take an oath when the plaintiff claims: \"You owe me a maneh which was given to you as a loan,\" and the defendant answers: \"That never happened. I never borrowed from you. I do, however, owe you 50 dinarim which you entrusted to me for safekeeping,\" \"...because of damages,\" or the like. The rationale is that the plaintiff claimed that the defendant owed him 100 and the defendant admitting owing 50. What difference does it make to me if he became liable because of a loan, as a trustee of an entrusted article, or because of damages? I also favor this approach.", + "When a plaintiff claims: \"You owe me a maneh and a utensil\" and the defendant responds: \"I owe you only the utensil. Here it is,\" the defendant is not required to take a Scriptural oath. He must, however, take a sh'vuat heset that this is all he owes him.
If the owner of the utensil claims that the utensil the defendant seeks to give him is not his own, the defendant must include in his oath that the utensil belongs to the plaintiff. If the defendant admits that this utensil is not the plaintiff's, but was exchanged for it, he is obligated to take an oath.
Whenever we have mentioned above that the defendant is not obligated, the intent is that he is not obligated to take a Scriptural oath. He is, however, obligated to take a sh'vuat heset as we explained on several occasions." + ], + [ + "A person who admits a portion of a claim is not required to take a Scriptural oath until the plaintiff lodges a claim against him for an entity with a specific measure, weight or number, and the defendant admits owing a portion of that measure, weight or number.
What is implied? A plaintiff claims: \"You owe me 10 dinarim,\" and the defendant responds: \"I owe you only five\"; \"You owe me a kor of wheat,\" \"I owe you only a letech\"; \"You owe me two litras of silk,\" \"I owe you only a rotel.\" In all these and in other similar situations, he is liable.
Different rules apply, however, if the plaintiff claims: \"I gave you a wallet full of coins,\" and the defendant answers: \"You gave me only 50,\" or he claims: \"I gave you 100 dinarim\" and the defendant answers: \"You gave me only this pouch, and you did not count the contents before me. I do not know what was in it. You are receiving what you gave me.\" In these and all similar situations, he is not liable to take an oath.", + "Similarly, if the plaintiff claims: \"I gave you a room full of grain,\" and the defendant answers: \"You gave me only ten korim\" or he claims: \"I gave you ten korim,\" and the defendant answers: \"I do not know how much you gave me, because you did not measure them before me. You are receiving what you gave me,\" the defendant is not liable.", + "If, however, if the plaintiff claims: \"I gave you this room that was filled with grain until the projection,\" and the defendant responded: \"It was filled only to the window,\" he is liable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "A person who admits a portion of a claim is not required to take a Scriptural oath, unless he makes his admission with regard to a matter that he could deny [owing.
What is implied? A plaintiff lodged a complaint against a colleague, saying: \"You owe me 100 dinarim. 50 are recorded in this promissory note, and 50 are not recorded in a promissory note.\" The defendant responds: \"I owe you only the 50 mentioned in the promissory note.\" He is not considered to be a person who admits a portion of a claim. For his denial would be of no consequence with regard to the sum mentioned in the promissory note. All of his property is on lien to it, and even if he denied it, he would be obligated to pay. Therefore, he is required to take only a sh'vuat hesset concerning the 50 that are not mentioned in the promissory note.", + "The following rules apply when a dispute arises concerning a promissory note that mentions that the defendant owes sela'im, but does not mentioned the number of sela'im he owes. The lender states: \"You owe me five sela'im, and that is the intent of the promissory note.\" The borrower counters: \"I owe you only three; that is what is implied by the promissory note.\"
Because of the promissory note alone, he would be obligated to pay only two sela'im\" He is, nevertheless, not liable to take a Scriptural oath ' despite the fact that he admitted owing a sela that he could have denied, because he is like a person who returns a lost article. And it is one of the ordinances instituted by our Sages that any person who returns a lost article should not be required to take an oath, as explained in the appropriate place.
Similarly, when a person tells his colleague: \"My father told me that you owe me a maneh.\" The defendant responded: \"I owe you only 50 dinarim.\" He is a person returning a lost object, and he is not liable even for a sh'vuat hesset. Needless to say, this applies if a person on his own initiative acknowledged: \"I owed your father a maneh. I repaid him 50 dinarim, but I still owe him 50.\" He is not liable even for a sh'vuat hesset.\"
If, however, the heir claims: \"I know with certainty that you...\" or \"...your father owe my father a maneh\" and the defendant responds: \"I owe your father only 50 dinarim\" or \"My father owes you only 50,\" he is considered to be a person who admits a portion of a claim and is required to take a Scriptural oath.", + "When a plaintiff claims: \"You owe me a maneh and this article is security for it,\" and the defendant claims: \"I owe you only 50 dinarim\" he is considered to be a person who admits a portion of a claim and must take a Scriptural oath.
If the security is worth only 50 dinarim or less, the defendant must take the oath and pay the 50 that he acknowledged owing. If the security was worth 100 dinarim or more, since the lender has the right to claim its value, the lender should take an oath and collect his claim from the value of the security.
If the security was worth 80 dinarim, the lender must take an oath that he is owed at least 80 and then he collects that amount from the security. The borrower must also take a Scriptural oath with regard to the 20 that he denies.
If the borrower denies the entire matter, saying: \"This is not security. Instead, it is an entrusted article and I do not owe him anything,\" the lender must take an oath that he is owed at least 80 and the borrower must take a sh'vuat hesset with regard to the 20 that he denies.", + "The following ruling applies when a plaintiff claims: \"You owe me a maneh\" and the defendant responds: \"I know that I owe you 50 dinarim, but I am unsure of whether or not I owe you the other 50.\" The defendant is obligated to take a Scriptural oath, because he acknowledged a portion of a claim. He cannot take an oath regarding the portion he denied owing, because he does not know whether he is liable or not. Therefore, he must pay the entire maneh; the lender is not required to take an oath. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
The defendant may have a conditional ban of ostracism issued against anyone who lodges a claim against him when the plaintiff is not certain that the defendant is obligated.", + "Similar concepts apply in the following situation. The plaintiff claims: \"I lent you a maneh and here is one witness who will testify that this is so.\" The defendant responds: \"That is true, but you owe me a maneh to match it.\" The defendant is obligated to take an oath, but cannot take that oath, and hence, is obligated to pay.
Why can he not take an oath? Because he acknowledges the content of the testimony of the witness. And a person who must take an oath because of the testimony of one witness may take the oath only when he contradicts the witness, denies his testimony and takes the oath to support his denial.
Similarly, when there is a promissory note signed by one witness and the defendant claims to have paid the debt, or a person denied a claim, a witness testified against him, and then the defendant stated that he paid the debt or returned the entrusted article, ? the defendant is obligated to take an oath, but may not take the oath. Hence, he must pay.
An incident once occurred concerning a person who seized a slab of silver from a colleague in the presence of one witness. Afterwards, he said: \"I seized it, but what I seized was mine.\" Our Sages said: \"He is obligated to take an oath, but may not take the oath. Hence, he must pay. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "The testimony of one witness is also significant in the following instance. The plaintiff claims: \"I lent you a maneh.\" The defendant denies the matter entirely, and the plaintiff brings one witness who testifies that the defendant took a loan in his presence. Had there been two witnesses, a presumption that the defendant is lying would have been established, and the defendant would be obligated to pay, as will be explained. Hence, the defendant is required to take an oath because of the testimony of one witness. For wherever the testimony of two witnesses requires a defendant to make financial restitution, the testimony of one witness requires him to take an oath.
If after the witness testifies, the defendant changes his claim and states that he paid the debt, he is required to make financial restitution. The plaintiff is not required to take an oath, as we have explained.", + "When a plaintiff claims: \"You owe me a maneh\" the defendant denies the claim entirely, and witnesses testify that the defendant still owes the plaintiff 50 dinarim, all of the Geonim have ruled that the law is that the defendant must pay 50 and take an oath concerning the remainder. The rationale is that the principal's own admission should not have greater legal power than the testimony of witnesses." + ], + [ + "An oath is not taken on claims concerning the following according to Scriptural Law: landed property, servants, promissory notes and consecrated property. Even though a defendant admitted a portion of a claim or a witness testified against him, or he served as a watchman and sought to free himself on the basis of one of the claims according to which a watchman is freed of liability, he is not required to take an oath. These concepts are derived from Exodus 22:6, which, with regard to the obligation to take an oath, states: \"When a person will give his colleague\" - this excludes consecrated property - \"money or utensils...\" - this excludes landed property. And it excludes servants, which the Torah associated with landed property. It also excludes promissory notes, for their actual substance is not of financial value like money or utensils. They only serve as proof of an obligation.
With regard to all of these matters, the defendant must take a sh 'vuat hesset if the plaintiff issues a definite claim with the exception of consecrated property. In that instance, even though a person is not liable to take an oath concerning them according to Scriptural Law, our Sages ordained that the defendant take an oath resembling a Scriptural oath. This requirement was instituted so that people would not treat consecrated property lightly.", + "Accordingly, when a plaintiff claims: \"You sold me two fields,\" and the defendant responds: \"I sold you only one,\" or he claims: \"I entrusted two servants...\" or \"...two promissory notes to you,\" and the defendant responds: \"You entrusted only one,\" the defendant is required to take only a sh'vuat hesset.
Similarly, if the plaintiff claims: \"This courtyard, this servant or this promissory note that is in your possession is mine; you sold it to me,\" and the defendant denies the existence of the matter entirely, he is required to take merely a sh'vuat hesset. This applies whether the plaintiff brings a witness to support his claim or not.
A similar law applies when a person digs cisterns, trenches or caves in his colleague's property, reducing its value, and the owner of the field claims that the digger is liable to make financial restitution. Regardless of whether the owner claimed that a defendant dug such caves, and the defendant responded: \"I did not dig anything,\" the owner claimed: \"You dug two caves,\" and the defendant answered, \"I dug only one,\" or one witness testified that he dug caves and the defendantresponded: \"I did not dig anything,\" the defendant is required to take only a sh'vuat hesset regarding the claim.", + "The following laws apply when the plaintiff claimed both utensils and landed property. Whether the defendant: acknowledged owing all of the landed property, but denied owing any of the utensils, acknowledged owing all the utensils, but denied owing any of the landed property, acknowledged owing some of the landed property, but denied owing the remainder as well as all of the utensils, he must take a sh'vuat hesset.
If, however, the defendant acknowledged owing some of the utensils and denied owing the remainder, as well as all of the landed property, since he is required to take an oath with regard to the utensils that he denied, he must also take an oath concerning the landed property that he denied together with them, for it is all one claim.
Similar laws apply when the plaintiff claims utensils and servants, or utensils and promissory notes, for all such claims are governed by the same legal process.", + "When a plaintiff lodges a claim concerning grapes that are ready to be harvested, or grain that has dried and is ready to be reaped, and the defendant accepts a portion of the claim and denies a portion of the claim, he must take an oath concerning those he denied, as is required with regard to other movable property, provided they no longer require the nurture of the ground. The rationale is whatever is ready to be harvested is considered as though it has been harvested with regard to the denial and admission of claims.
If, however, the crops require the nurture of the ground, they are considered to be landed property in all contexts, and only a sh'vuat hesset is required concerning them.", + "When a person lodges a claim against his colleague, saying: \"You dwelled in my courtyard for two months, and you owe me two months rent,\" and the defendant responds, \"I dwelled there for only one month,\" he is considered a person who denied a portion of a claim.
Thus, if the rent for the month that he denied owing is equivalent to two silver me'in, he must take an oath. The rationale is that the claim does not focus on the land itself, but on the rent for it, and that is movable property.", + "When a plaintiff claims: \"I gave you a promissory note that served as proof of a debt of ten dinarim,\" and the defendant denies the matter entirely, the defendant is required to take a sh'vuat hesset.
If he reverses the obligation for the oath, requiring it of the plaintiff, the plaintiff must take a sh'vuat hesset that the note served as proof of a debt of ten dinarim, which he lost when the promissory note was destroyed. Afterwards, he may collect his claim.
If the defendant admitted: \"It is true that you gave me the promissory note, and it was lost,\" he is not liable, even to take a sh 'vuat hesset. For even if he was negligent in its care and it was lost, he would not be liable, as we have explained in Hilchot Chovel.", + "When a person tells a colleague: \"The promissory note in your possession mentions a factor that is advantageous to me,\" and the colleague states: \"I will not produce my promissory note,\" or \"I do not know if it states anything that serves as support for your position,\" we compel him to produce the promissory note and bring it to court.", + "If the holder of the promissory note claims that it was lost, we issue a conditional ban of ostracism against him.
If, however, the person who desires to see the promissory note claims that he is certain that his colleague is holding a promissory note that mentions a factor that is advantageous to him, his colleague must take a sh'vuat hesset that the promissory note is no longer in his possession and it is lost. My teachers ruled in this manner.", + "An oath is never administered because of claims issued by deaf-mutes, mentally or emotionally incapable individuals and minors. In the latter instance, this principle applies regardless of whether the minor's claim involves his own issues or those of his father. For admitting a portion of a claim owed to a minor is like returning a lost article.
Similarly, if the defendant denied the entire debt, and one witness came and testified on behalf of the minor, the defendant is not required to take an oath. For it is as though there were one witness, but no plaintiff, because a claim lodge by a minor is not a substantial claim.
Thus, if a minor said to an adult: \"You owe me...\" or \"You owe my father a maneh,\" and the defendant said: \"I owe you only 50,\" or \"I do not owe you anything\" and there was one witness who corroborates the minor's claim, the defendant is not liable to take a Scriptural oath.
If, however, a person acted as a watchman for a minor and claimed that the entrusted article was lost, he is required to take the oath required of a watchman. The rationale is that this oath is not taken because of a claim.
Similarly, if a person admitted that he was a partner or a sharecropper of a minor, the court should appoint a guardian for the minor, and the partner or the like should take an oath despite the fact that there is only an indefinite claim against him.", + "My teachers ruled that although a Scriptural oath is not taken because of the claim of a minor, a sh'vuat hesset must be taken. This applies even when the minor is not resourceful with regard to financial matters. The rationale is that an opportunity should not be granted for a person to take money belonging to a minor, and depart without paying him at all. I also favor this approach, and think that it will lead to the improvement of society.
Thus, if a minor lodges a claim against an adult, whether the adult admits a portion of the claim or denies it entirely, whether there is a witness who supports the plaintiff or not, the defendant is required to take a sh'vuat hesset. He cannot reverse the responsibility for the oath, placing it on the minor, because an oath is never administered to a minor. Even a conditional ban of ostracism is not imposed upon the minor, for he does not know the severity of the retribution received for taking a false oath.", + "The following rules apply when an adult lodges a claim against a minor. If the claim involves a matter that will benefit the minor - e.g., a claim involving business transactions - and the minor admits his liability, we expropriate payment from the minor's property. If the minor does not possess any resources, we wait until he gains such. Then he must pay. If the minor denies the obligation, the plaintiff must wait until the minor attains majority. At that point, he is required to take a sh'vuat hesset.
The following rules apply when a person lodges a claim against a minor in a matter that will not benefit the minor - e.g., damages or personal injury. Even though the minor admits his responsibility and he has resources with which he could pay, he is not liable even after he attains majority. If the plaintiff was one of those who takes an oath and collects the money that he claims - e.g., an employee and the like - since the minor benefits from the fact that an employee will work for him, he may take an oath and collect from the minor. A storekeeper who takes an oath because of his account book, by contrast, may not take an oath and collect from a minor. The rationale is that the minor does not derive any benefit from this. For regardless, he must pay his workers who take oaths and collect from him. Thus it is the storekeeper who caused himself a loss, because he gave his money because of a minor's word. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "With regard to a deaf-mute and a mentally or emotionally incapable individual, we do not concern ourselves with them with regard to any claim, not a claim that they lodged against others, nor a claim that others lodge against them, nor for a lesser oath, and, needless to say, not for a severe oath or to compel them to make financial restitution. A blind man, by contrast, is considered to be a healthy person with regard to all matters concerning such subjects. He must take all types of oaths if required, and oaths are taken in response to his claims." + ], + [ + "The court requires that precise statements be made by the litigants. For example, litigants come to court and one of them claims: \"He owes me a maneh that I lent to him,\" \"... that I entrusted to him,\" \"... that he stole from me,\" \"... that he owes me as wages,\" or the like. Should the defendant answer: \"I do not owe you anything,\" \"I have nothing of yours,\" or \"You are issuing a false claim,\" this is not a proper response. Instead, we tell the defendant: \"Reply to his claim and clarify your answer as he clarified his claim. Say whether you borrowed from him or did not borrow from him,\" \"... whether he entrusted an article to you or did not,\" \"... whether you stole from him or did not,\" \"... whether he hired you or did not,\" or lodge any other specific claim. Why do we not accept the general answer? Because it is possible that the person is making an error and this will lead to his taking a false oath. For it is possible that he borrowed money as the plaintiff claims and returned the debt to the lender's son or wife, or gave the lender a present of the value of the debt, and thinks that because of this, he is no longer liable for the debt. Hence, the court tells him: \"Why are you saying that you are not liable? Maybe the law would hold you liable and you do not know. Instead, tell the judges the details of the matter, and they will tell you whether or not you are liable.\"
Even if the defendant is a wise man of great stature, we tell him: \"You have nothing to lose by responding to his claim and telling us why you are not liable to him, whether it is because nothing of that nature ever happened, or because you were liable and you repaid the debt. You will not lose, because we follow the principle of miggo.\"
Similarly, if the plaintiff claims: \"This person owes me a maneh,\" or \"He has a maneh of mine in his possession.\" We ask him: \"On what basis do you make this claim? Did you lend him money? Did you entrust it to him for safekeeping? Did he damage your property? Tell us why he is obligated to you.\" For it is possible that a person will think that a colleague is obligated to him when he is not - e.g., he suspects that he stole from him he promised him to give him a maneh but did not, or the like.
The defendant's word is not accepted in the following situation. The plaintiff claimed that he lent the defendant a maneh, and the defendant denied ever taking the loan. Afterwards, the plaintiff brought witnesses who testified that the loan was given in their presence. In response, the defendant replied that he took the loan, but repaid it. We do not accept his claim. Instead, a presumption that the defendant is lying is established, and he is required to pay.
If, however, in the latter situation, the defendant first replied: \"I am not liable,\" \"I do not owe you anything,\" \"You are lying,\" or the like a different rule applies. Even though the plaintiff brings witnesses who state that the loan was given in their presence, if the defendant says: \"That is true, but I returned the entrusted object\" or \"... repaid the loan,\" a presumption that the defendant is lying is not established. He may take a sh'vuat hesset and then is released of all obligations.", + "The following rules apply when witnesses see that the plaintiff counted out money and gave it to the defendant, but did not know for which reason. If the defendant demands payment in a court of law, saying: \"Give me the money that I lent you,\"\" and the defendant replied: \"You gave me a present,\" or \"You repaid a debt,\" his word is accepted. He may take a sh'vuat hesset and then is released of all obligations. If, however, he claims that he was never given any money, and the witnesses came and testified that money was counted out in their presence, a presumption that the defendant is lying is established.
A person is never presumed by the court to be a liar unless he denies a matter in court and two witnesses come and offer testimony that contradicts the denial he made.", + "There is a corollary to the above concept. The plaintiff claimed: \"I lent you a maneh.\" The defendant denied the matter in court, saying: \"The incident never occurred.\" Two witnesses came and testified that the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff and repaid the debt. After these comments were made, the lender stated: \"I did not receive payment.\" The defendant is obligated to pay. The rationale is that anyone who says: \"I did not borrow,\" is considered to have said: \"I did not repay the debt,\" in the event that witnesses come and establish that he in fact took a loan. Thus, in the above situation, it is as if the borrower said: \"I did not repay the debt,\" despite the fact that witnesses testify that he did. We postulate that the admission of the principal is considered as strong as the testimony of 100 witnesses and the borrower is held liable. The lender is not required to take an oath, for a presumption that the borrower is lying has been established.
A similar law applies if the lender produces a signed note saying that he is liable, and the borrower denies the entire matter and claims that he did not write the note. If the authenticity of the note was established in court or witnesses come and testify that it was his note, a presumption that the defendant is lying is established, and he is required to pay.", + "There are times, however, when a person is not presumed to be lying despite the fact that his statements conflict with the testimony of witnesses. For example, a plaintiff claims: \"I lent you a maneh, and it is in your possession.\" The defendant responds: \"I paid you in the presence of so-and-so-and so-and-so,\" but those two witnesses come and deny having observed the matter. We do not say that a presumption that the defendant is lying is established. The rationale is that witnesses will remember only a matter concerning which they were designated to serve as witnesses. Hence, a presumption that the defendant is lying is not established, and the borrower may take a sh'vuat hesset and be freed of responsibility.
Similarly, if the plaintiff claims: \"Give me the maneh that I lent you when you were standing next to this pillar,\" and the defendant responded: \"I never stood next to that pillar,\" a presumption that the defendant is lying is not established even though witnesses come and testify that he stood there. The rationale is that a person will not take notice of matters that are not significant. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "When a person lends money to a colleague in the presence of witnesses, the borrower is not required to repay him in the presence of witnesses, as explained. Accordingly, if the lender claims: \"Give me the maneh that I lent to you; here are the witnesses in whose presence the loan was given.\" And the defendant claims: \"I repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so,\" we tell the borrower: \"Bring them to court and be freed of responsibility.\" If they do not come, or they died, or they journeyed to another country, the borrower must take a sh'vuat hesset that he paid the debt. For the only reason we require the defendant to bring the witnesses is to clarify his position and be released from the obligation of an oath.", + "An admission made by the borrower outside of court may not be binding. For example, the plaintiff told the defendant in the presence of witnesses: \"You owe me a maneh\" and the defendant agreed. The following day, the plaintiff lodged a claim against the defendant in court and brought the witnesses to support his claim. If the defendant claimed: \"I was joking with you and I do not owe you anything,\" he is not held liable. He must merely take a sh'vuat hesset that he does not owe anything.
This ruling applies even when the defendant denies that the event ever happened. The rationale is that the defendant never designated the witnesses to serve in that capacity. And when a person is not charged with acting as a witness with regard to a situation, he will not necessarily remember its particulars. Therefore, even if the defendant said that the events did not ever take place, we do not accept the presumption that he is lying.", + "Morevoer, the defendant's denial is allowed to stand even in the following situation. The plaintiff hid witnesses behind a fence and told the defendant: \"You owe me a maneh,\" and the defendant agreed. The plaintiff then told him: \"Do you wish so-and-so and so-and-so to act as witnesses against you?\"
He replied: \"No. Lest you press me to judgment tomorrow; for I have nothing to pay you.\"
On the next day, he called him to court with these witnesses. Whether the defendant claimed: \"I was speaking frivolously,\" or whether he claimed that the matter never took place, he may take a sh'vuat hesset and is then released of responsibility. The rationale is the testimony is not committing until the borrower says: \"You are my witnesses,\" or the lender makes that statement in the presence of the borrower, and the borrower remains silent. The defendant is not presumed to be a liar, because of testimony of this nature.
An incident occurred concerning a person called kav r'shu (\"a full measure of indebtedness\") - i.e., that he had many debts. He would say: \"The only person to whom I owe money is so-and-so.\" When that person came and lodged a claim against him, he said: \"I do not owe him anything.\" Our Sages said: \"He may take a sh'vuat hesset and be released of all obligation.\"
Similarly, there was a person about whom people would gossip that he was wealthy. At the time of his death, he said: \"If I had money, would I not pay so-and-so and so-and-so.\" After his death, so-and-so and so-and-so lodged a claim against the estate. Our Sages said: \"They have no claim against the estate.\" For a person is wont to try to make himself appear as if he does not possess any money, and even as if he did not leave money to his children. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "As mentioned, witnesses who are hidden cannot give binding testimony, and similarly, when a person admits a debt on his own initiative while witnesses are listening, or a person tells a colleague in the presence of witnesses: \"You owe me a maneh\" and the colleague admits the obligation, the testimony of the witnesses is not significant. Nevertheless, in all these situations, when the principals come to the court, we tell the defendant: \"Why don't you pay the debt you owe him?\"
If he says: \"I do not owe him anything,\" we tell him: \"Behold you made a statement saying this-and-this in the presence of these individuals,\" or \"You admitted the obligation on your own initiative.\" If he arises and makes restitution, that is desirable. If he does not offer a defense, we do not suggest one for him. If, however, he claims: \"I was speaking frivolously with him,\" \"The event never occurred,\" or \"I did not want to appear wealthy,\" he is not liable and is required to take a sh'vuat hesset, as we have explained in the previous halachah." + ], + [ + "When a person admits that he owes a maneh to a colleague in the presence of two witnesses, and makes his statement as an admission and not as a casual matter of conversation, his remarks serve as the basis for testimony. This applies even if he did not charge the witnesses to serve in that capacity, and the plaintiff was not present. If the plaintiff lodged a claim against him and he denied making these statements, his words are not heeded, and he is required to make restitution on the basis of the testimony of the witnesses. If there was only one witness present when he made his statements, he is required to take an oath, for he made his statement as an admission.
If, after the witnesses came and testified, the defendant claimed: \"I made the admission in order not to appear wealthy,\" his word is accepted, but he is required to take a sh'vuat hesset. If the plaintiff was with the witnesses at the time the defendant made the admission, he cannot claim that he made the admission so as not to appear wealthy. If, however, he claims that he paid the debt afterwards, his word is accepted, but he is required to take a sh'vuat hesset.", + "Whenever a person makes an admission in the presence of two witnesses, he cannot claim again: \"I was speaking facetiously.\" Needless to say, this applies if he made the admission before three people. Instead, he is obligated to pay the sum that he admitted. For whenever a person makes a statement as an admission, it is as if he charges them with serving as witnesses.
Nevertheless, a legal record of his statements is not composed unless he charges them: \"Compose a record, sign it and give it to the plaintiff.\" Even if he charged them, they must consult with him a second time before they give it to the plaintiff, as we have explained.
Similarly, if a person makes an admission in the court after he was summoned, a legal record may be composed, as will be explained in the following halachah. This applies provided the court knows the identity of both principals,\" so that two people will not perpetrate deception to obligate another person.", + "The following rule applies when a court of three judges were sitting on their initiative in the place fixed for their sessions, and the plaintiff came and lodged a complaint in their presence. If they sent a messenger summoning the defendant, he came and admitted owing the debt in their presence, they may compose a legal record and give it to the plaintiff.
Different rules apply, however, if they were not in their fixed place, and they did not summon him, but instead, he collected them and caused the three judges to sit in session, admitting his debt in their presence and telling them: \"Act as judges with regard to my issue.\" If the plaintiff comes afterwards and says: \"Write down the admission for me,\" we do not compose the document. The rationale is that we suspect that the defendant paid him, and despite that, the plaintiff will try to lodge a claim against the defendant with the legal document. When does the above apply? With regard to a claim involving movable property. If, however, a person admitted an obligation involving landed property, the witnesses may compose a legal record and give it to him even though the admission was made only in the presence of two witnesses, the defendant did not affirm his statement with a kinyan, and the defendant did not instruct them: \"Compose a document and give it to him.\" The rationale is that we need not worry that the defendant will give the defendant the land and then the plaintiff will lodge a claim against him again.", + "Despite the fact that a legal record of a debtor's admission produced by the plaintiff does not state: \"The defendant told us: 'Write down this record, sign it, and give it to the plaintiff,'\" it is acceptable. For it is an accepted presumption that if the defendant had not given the witnesses such instructions, they would not have composed a legal record and given it to the plaintiff.
A question may arise if a legal document states only: \"So-and-so acknowledged a debt in our presence in court.\" If the document does not state that there were three judges present or state information that would indicate that there were three judges present, we suspect that there were only two people present, and they erred and thought that an admission made in the presence of two people is considered an admission made in court. Therefore, we do not regard such a record as a legal document.", + "We have already explained that an admission made in court or testimony given by witnesses in court has the same legal power as a loan supported by a promissory note.
When does the above apply? When the defendant did not accept the judgment until he was summoned and brought to court, as we have explained. If, however, two people come to a judgment and one lodges a claim against the other saying, \"You owe me a maneh\" and the defendant acknowledges the debt, his word is accepted if, after he departs, he claims to have paid the debt. He must, however, affirm that claim with a sh'vuat hesset.
The above applies whether the judges said: \"You are obligated to pay him,\" or \"Go out and pay him.\" Therefore, if the plaintiff comes back and says:
\"Write down the admission he made,\" we do not write it down, for it is possible that the defendant paid him.
Similarly, if a person who was obligated to take an oath in court leaves the court and then returns and said: \"I took the oath,\" his word is accepted. He is not required to take an oath that he took an oath. If there are witnesses who testify that he did not take an oath, a presumption that the defendant is lying with regard to that oath is established. His word is not accepted if he states that he took an oath unless the other litigant acknowledges - or he brings witnesses - that he took the oath in their presence.", + "The following rule applies when two people come to judgment, one is obligated to the other, and the judges tell him: \"Go out and pay him.\" If he leaves the court and then returns and said: \"I paid,\" but there are witnesses who testify that he did not pay, a presumption that the defendant is lying with regard to that money is established.
Different rules apply if the judges tell him: \"You are obligated to pay him.\" If he leaves the court and then returns and said: \"I paid,\" but there are witnesses who testify that he did not pay, we do not say that a presumption that the defendant is lying is established. The rationale is that we assume he is procrastinating until the judgment is researched.
Therefore, if on another occasion he claimed that he paid the money that he was obligated to pay by these judges and there are no witnesses who deny his statements this second time, he is required to take a sh'vuat hesset and is then released from all obligations. For this reason, the trained men of wisdom of Spain would, in the presence of the court, tell the judges and a lender who admitted a debt or who was obligated to take an oath in court: \"Serve as witnesses that he should not pay me or take an oath for me outside the presence of witnesses.\"", + "When a person acknowledges in court that he owes a plaintiff a maneh and then says: \"I now remember paying him the debt that I acknowledged and here are witnesses who substantiate my present claim,\" their testimony is effective, and the appropriate action is taken. The rationale is that he did not contradict the testimony of the witnesses, and it is not considered as if he said: \"I never took this loan.\"", + "A litigant who advanced a claim in court can return and issue a second claim that contradicts the first one. We rely on the second claim even though he did not provide an explanation why he originally lodged a different claim. Even if he left the court and returned he may change and reverse any claims he desires, until witnesses come and testify.
After witnesses come and contradict the final claim on which he relied, he cannot change it to another claim, unless he provides an explanation for the claim on which he relied that could extend its meaning to include also the claim that he made afterwards.
The above applies provided he did not depart from the court. If, however, he departed from the court, he cannot come back and issue a different claim after witnesses came and testified. This is not acceptable; we fear that perhaps wicked people taught him to issue false claims. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations." + ], + [ + "It is an accepted presumption that all movable property belongs to the person who is in physical possession of it.' This applies even if the plaintiff brought witnesses who testify that the movable property in question was known to belong to the plaintiff.
What is implied? A plaintiff lodges a claim against a defendant: \"This garment...\" or \"This utensil that is in your possession...\" or \"... that is in your house belongs to me..,\", \"... I entrusted it to you for safekeeping...\", or \"... I lent it to you. Here are witnesses who knew that it was previously in my domain.\"
The defendant responds: \"That is not so. You sold it to me,\" or \"...You gave it to me as a present,\" the defendant is required to take only a sh'vuat hesset and is freed of responsibility.", + "If the defendant claims that the movable property he is holding is security, he may claim up to its value. He must, however, take an oath while holding a sacred object. Afterwards, he may collect his due, as explained.", + "When does the above apply? To articles that are not made to lend out or rent out - e.g., garments, produce, household articles, merchandise and the like. Different rules apply with regard to articles that are made to lend out or rent out. Although they are found in the possession of a particular person and there are no witnesses that the original owner lent or rented out this article to this person, it is an accepted presumption that they belong to their original owner.
What is implied? Reuven owned a utensil that was made to lend or rent out, and he has witnesses who know that such an article belonged to him. This utensil is presently in the possession of Shimon. Reuven claims that he lent it or rented it to him,\" while Shimon claims that Reuven sold it to him, gave it to him as a present or entrusted it to him as security. We do not accept Shimon's claim. Instead, Reuven may take his utensil after taking a sh'vuat hesset in response to Shimon's claim.
Even if Shimon died, Reuven may take his utensil. The Geonim ruled that Reuven must take a sh'vuat hesset, for we advance claims on behalf of an heir.", + "When does the above apply? When the utensil can be seen in the possession of Shimon.
Different rules apply when, however, Reuven lodges a claim against Shimon saying: \"You have this-and-this utensil of mine. You rented it. Give it back to me. I have witnesses who know that it belongs to me.\" If Shimon responds: \"You sold it to me\" or \"You gave it to me,\" his word is accepted. He must take a sh'vuat hesset and then he is released of all obligations. The rationale is since he could say: \"Nothing like this ever happened. I do not have anything that belonged to you,\" we accept his word if he claims: \"I have the article, but you sold it to me.\"", + "The above-mentioned concepts apply only when the owner of the utensil claims: \"I entrusted it to you\" or \"I lent it to you.\" Different laws apply if, however, he claims: \"This article is mine. It was stolen, lost or taken by robbery.\" Although he brings witnesses who testify that the article was known to be his, if the person in possession of the article says: \"I do not know what you are talking about. Someone else sold it to me or gave it to me as a present,\" we allow it to remain in that person's possession although it is an article that is made to be lent out or rented out. He is not required to take an oath at all, because there is no claim against him.", + "If a well-founded report has circulated that utensils belonging to the original owner have been stolen, the person in possession of the article may take an oath while holding a sacred article, stating how much he spent on the article. The original owner must reimburse him for this expense and may then take his article, as stated in Hilchot Geneivah.
If the defendant claims: \"You sold it to me\" or \"You gave it to me as a present,\" he must take a sh'vuat hesset, and he is then allowed to maintain possession of the article, even though a well-founded report has circulated that utensils belonging to the original owner have been stolen, provided the article was not made to be lent or rented out.
From these laws, the following concept can be derived: A person has movable property in his possession and another person claims that it belongs to him. The defendant could claim that he purchased it. Thus, he would be required to take a sh'vuat hesset and would then be released of all obligations. Nevertheless, if the defendant says: \"It belongs to you, but you owe me this-and-this,\" he must take an oath while holding a sacred object. Afterwards, he collects his claim from the property in his possession, as is the law applying to all those who take oaths and collect their due.", + "When a person has in his possession articles that were made to lend or rent out, he is allowed to maintain possession even though he acknowledged the plaintiff's ownership, telling him: \"I know that this property was yours, but so-and-so sold it to me,\" or \"... gave it to me as a present,\" we do not expropriate it from the defendant's possession.
The above applies even if the plaintiff brings witnesses who testify that the property was known to belong to him. The rationale is that a person is wont to sell his personal property.", + "If, however, the plaintiff claims: \"I rented it to you,\" or \"I lent it to you,\" we expropriate it from his possession. If the object in question was not one that was made to lend or rent out, the defendant may retain possession of the article. He must, however, take a sh'vuat hesset that the plaintiff) did not lend or rent the article to him, but that he purchased it from so-and-so.", + "Do not err and interpret the phrase \"entities made to lend out or rent out\" as meaning \"entities that are wont to be lent out or rented out\" as did many, [including great sages. For all articles are fit to be lent out and are wont to be lent out. Even a person's cloak, mattress, and bed are fit to be lent out.
The phrase \"articles made to lend out or rent out,\" by contrast, refers to utensils that people in that country make initially with the intent that they be lent out or rented out, so that they can receive a fee for them. They are considered to belong to their owners like landed property, concerning which benefit is derived from its produce, but the land itself remains. Similarly, these utensils are made primarily to benefit from renting them out - e.g., large brass pots used for cooking at party halls, bronze jewelry inlaid with gold that are rented for brides to wear. Such articles are not made to be sold, nor for the owner to use them in his own home. Instead, they are lent out to others with the expectation of receiving benefit in recompense or of renting them out for a fee.
Similarly, if a person has ordinary utensils, but there are witnesses who will testify that he rents them out at all times and lends them, and it is an accepted presumption that he lends them and rents them, they are considered utensils that were made for the sake of being lent or rented.", + "When the possible damage to an article is greater than the fee one would receive for renting it out, and people are therefore careful not to lend such articles - e.g., a ritual slaughterer's knife - it is an accepted presumption that it was not made with the intent of being lent or rented out. Therefore, even if people came and testified that a person lent out or rented out such an article on several occasions, their testimony does not negate this presumption, and these utensils are considered to be all other utensils.
Proof of this position can be brought from the fact that Ravva expropriated tailor's scissors used to make a cloak, and an Aggadah scroll as articles that were made to be lent or rented out. Had it not been clarified to him through the testimony of witnesses that these were entities that were lent out, he would not have expropriated them from the orphans. It is evident that other scissors and other scrolls are not placed in this category even though they could be lent or rented out.
This concept is a fundamental principle of law and a point of logic that may be relied upon in judgment. It is clear to those who give forth knowledge. It is appropriate for a judge to keep it in mind at all times and not to sway from it." + ], + [ + "We do not accept it as a presumption that the utensils in the possession of a craftsman belong to him. This applies both to articles that are made to lend and rent out, and to other articles.
What is implied? A person sees his utensils in the possession of a craftsman. He brings witnesses who testify that they know that the article belongs to him and claims that he gave it to the craftsman to repair. The craftsman, by contrast, maintains that he purchased it, or that it was given to him as a present. Or he claims: \"After it was given to me to repair, you sold it to me or gave it to me as a present.\" Although the owner of the utensil did not give it to the craftsman in the presence of witnesses, his word is accepted and the article is expropriated from the craftsman. The owner must however, take an oath to support his claim.
There are Geonim who ruled that even though the owner did not bring witnesses to testify that the article was his, since he saw his article in the craftsman's possession and the craftsman admits that the article belonged to him, but claims that he sold it to him, the owner's word is accepted. If, however, the craftsman claimed: \"This never happened; the article is mine,\" the craftsman's word is accepted, provided that he takes a sh'vu'at hesset. If, however, the owner brings witnesses who testify that the article was known to belong to him, the craftsman's word is not accepted. This decision is incredulous in my eyes.", + "Different rules apply if the owner did not see his utensil in the possession of the craftsman, but instead claimed: \"I gave you this-and-this utensil to repair.\" If the craftsman claims: \"You came back and sold it to me\" or \"... gave it to me as a present,\" the craftsman is required to take a sh'vu'at hesset and is then released of responsibility. The rationale is that he could claim that the article was never given him.\"
Moreover, even if the owner gave the article to the craftsman to repair in the presence of witnesses, the craftsman's word is accepted, because he could claim: \"I returned it.\" For although an article is entrusted to a person in the presence of witnesses, he is not required to return it to him in the presence of witnesses. Therefore, the craftsman is required to take only a sh'vu'at hesset; we do not require him to produce the article.
If, however, he does produce the article, since it becomes visible, the owner may bring witnesses who testify that it belongs to him. He may then expropriate it even though he did not entrust it to the craftsman in the presence of witnesses, as explained in the previous halachah.
Based on the above, the following rules apply if the craftsman claimed: \"You agreed to pay me two dinarim as a wage,\" and the owner responded: \"I agreed to pay you only one.\" If the utensil was visible before them, since the craftsman's possession does not bring about an accepted presumption of ownership, and we would not accept his claim that he purchased the article, the owner's claim regarding the promised wage is accepted, provided that he takes a sh'vu'at hesset, as we stated in Hilchot Sechirut. He must pay that amount.
If, however, the utensil is not visible, since the craftsman could claim that he purchased the article, he can also claim a wage equal to its value. He must take an oath holding a sacred article. Then he may collect his claim, as do all those who take an oath and collect, as we have explained.", + "A craftsman who gave up his profession, and a craftsman's son are like any other person. When movable property is in their possession, we presume that it belongs to them, as we have explained.", + "The following rules apply when a person enters a colleague's house in the presence of the owner and leaves with utensils hidden under the corners of his garments, and witnesses see him. Afterwards, the owner lodges a claim against him, saying: \"Return the utensils that I lent you; here are witnesses.\" Although the defendant claims: \"I purchased them,\" his word is not accepted. Instead, the owner must take a sh'vu'at hesset to support his claim that he did not sell or give away the utensils. The court returns the utensils to the owner.
When does the above apply? With regard to an owner who is not accustomed to sell his property, when the person who removed the utensils under his cloak does not normally hide them, and when the utensils are not of the type that people would ordinarily hide. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the articles. We assume that he hid them only so that he could deny taking them.
If, however, an owner frequently sells his personal property, even though the person who took the utensils would not ordinarily hide them, and it is not ordinary practice for these utensils to be hidden under one's cloak, the defendant may take a sh'vu'at hesset that he purchased the articles.
Similarly, if he took the articles out so that they were visible for the witnesses to see, even when the owner does not frequently sell his personal property, the defendant's word is accepted when he says that he purchased the utensils, provided that the articles are not of the type that are made with the intent of being lent or rented out. For it is possible that the owner needed money, and hence sold his property.
If, however, the articles are of the type that are made with the intent of being lent or rented out, our presumption is always that they belong to their original owner, as we have explained. Even if the person took out such utensils in a visible manner and the owner was accustomed to selling his personal utensils, if he has witnesses that this utensil that was made with the intent of being lent or rented out was known to belong to him, he may expropriate the utensils from the defendant immediately, unless he brings proof that he sold it to him or gave it to him as a present, as is the law with regard to landed property.", + "In the above situation, if the person in whose possession the utensil was found died, we expropriate it from the heir. Moreover, the owner is not required to take an oath. An oath is not required because, since his father is not present to claim that that he purchased it or that it is security for a specific amount, the heir cannot require the owner to take an oath.
If the heir lodges a definite claim, saying: \"He gave it to my father - or sold it to him - in my presence,\" the owner is required to take a sh'vu'at hesset, as required of all those who are obligated to take oaths. We explained that there are opinions that require the owner to take a sh'vu'at hesset in all instances before his utensil is returned by the heir, but I do not accept this approach.", + "When a person takes an ax and says: \"I am going to chop down the palm tree belonging to so-and-so,\" if he in fact chops down the tree, we presume that it belonged to him. For a person would not be so bold as to cut down a tree that did not belong to him. If the owner claims that he did not sell it, the person who cut down the tree is required to take a sh'vu'at hesset that the tree belonged to him. He is then freed of responsibility. The rationale is that once the tree is cut down, it is like other movable property.
Similar laws apply when a person enters a colleague's field without permission and partakes of its produce for a year or two. If the owner claims that the person entered without permission, that he is a robber, and that he partook of the field's produce, and the owner brings witnesses who confirm that he partook of the produce, and the person claims that the owner gave him permission to partake of the produce, that person's word is accepted.
The rationale is that it is an accepted presumption that a person would not be so bold as to eat produce that does not belong to him. Although the land is presumed to belong to its original owner, the produce is not. For a person does not necessarily sell produce with a bill of sale, so that the purchaser could be told: \"Present your bill of sale.\"
Needless to say, these laws apply if the squatter partook of a field's produce for many years. In such a situation, since he could claim that he had purchased the field, his word is accepted when he says that he has a right only to the produce. He must, however, take a sh'vu'at hesset.", + "The following laws apply when two people are holding one article, both are riding on one animal, one was riding the animal and one was leading it, or they were sitting next to an ownerless pile of wheat that was located in a lane or in a courtyard belonging to both of them. If each claims that the article belongs to him in its entirety, they should both take an oath holding a sacred article that they own no less than half the article. Afterwards, it should be divided between them.
This oath was ordained by the Sages so that everyone will not grab unto a garment belonging to a colleague and take it without having to take an oath.", + "If one says: \"The entire article belongs to me,\" and the other says: \"Half of it belongs to me,\" the one who claims the entire article must take an oath that he owns no less than three fourths of the article, and the one who claims half the article must take an oath that he owns no less than one fourth. They then divide the article accordingly.
From this, one can learn that all those who take an oath to expropriate property - whether a minor oath or a severe oath - should not take that oath concerning what they claim, but rather what they will receive even though they claim more.", + "When two people were both clinging to a garment, and each claims that the entire garment belongs to him, each is awarded the portion he is holding. The remainder is divided equally after they take the appropriate oaths. Based on the principle of gilgul sh'vu'ah, each of the litigants can require the other to take an oath that he is legally entitled to everything he collects.", + "If one was holding the strings on one side of the garment, and the other holding the strings on the other side, they should divide the entire garment equally, after they take the required oaths.
When the term \"division\" is used in this context, it refers to a division of the article's value, not that a utensil itself or a garment should be divided and ruined, or that an animal should be killed.", + "If one person was holding onto the article in its entirety, and the other was struggling with him and clasping it, the article is considered to belong to the person holding it in its entirety.", + "The following rules apply when two people came to court holding onto the garment, and one pulled it away from the other in our presence. If at first the person from whom the garment was taken remained silent, even though afterwards he protested, we do not expropriate it from the possession of the one who seized it. The rationale is that since he remained silent at the outset, it is as if he acknowledged the other's ownership.
If the second person came and grabbed it from the one who seized it, even though that person protested continuously, the garment should be divided between the two of them.", + "The following laws apply when two people come to court holding onto a garment, and the court instructs them to go out and divide its value. They depart and return, but the article is now in the possession of only one of them. The person in possession claims: \"He acknowledged my claim and withdrew his claim from it,\" while the other person claims: \"I sold it to him,\" or \"He overcame me and seized it from me,\" we follow the principle: \"A person who seeks to expropriate property from a colleague must prove his claim.\" If he cannot bring proof of his claim, the other litigant may take an oath that the article belongs to him and be released of liability. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations." + ], + [ + "We do not presume that an animal or a beast that is not kept in an enclosed place, but instead roams freely and pastures everywhere, belongs to the person who seizes it if the animal is known to have a prior owner.
What is implied? When a plaintiff brings witnesses who testify that a certain animal is known to belong to him, and the person maintaining possession of the animal claims: \"You gave it to me\" or \"You sold it to me,\" the defendant's word is not accepted. The fact that the animal is in his possession is not considered proof of ownership, because it is possible that it roamed and entered his domain by itself. Therefore, if the defendant does not bring proof of his acquisition of the animal, it should be returned to its owner. The owner must, however, reinforce his claim by taking an oath.", + "If it was usual for an animal to be kept in an enclosed place or entrusted to a shepherd, we assume that it belongs to the person in whose possession it is found. This applies even if the plaintiff brings witnesses who testify that it belonged to him. Thus, if the person who holds the animal in his possession claims: \"You sold it to me\" or \"You gave it to me,\" he is required to take a sh'vu'at hesset that it belongs to him, and then he is released of all obligations.", + "Therefore, the following rules are applied when a person seizes possession of an animal belonging to a colleague that had been kept in an enclosed place or entrusted to a shepherd. If the owner claims: \"The animal went out and came to you on its own initiative,\" \"It was entrusted to you for safekeeping,\" or \"It was lent to you,\" and the person who seized it agrees, saying: \"It is not mine, but you owe me this-and-this much,\" \"You gave it to me as security for this-and-this much,\" or \"You owe me such-and-such for damages that you caused my property,\" his word is accepted if he claims the value of the animal or less. The rationale is that since he could claim that he purchased it, his word is accepted if he lodges another plausible claim. He must, however, take an oath holding a sacred article. Then he may collect his claim.", + "Similar laws apply with regard to servants. Since they can walk independently, the fact that they are in the physical possession of a person is not presumed to be a sign of ownership. Instead, if the plaintiff brings witnesses who testify that it is known that this servant belonged to the plaintiff, the defendant's word is not accepted if he claims: \"You sold him to me\" or \"You gave him to me as a present.\" Instead, the servant should be returned to its owner. He must, however, take an oath that he did not sell the servant or give him away as a present.
Different rules apply if the defendant who was asserted to have seized possession of the servant brought witnesses who testified that the servant was in his possession, day after day, for three consecutive years, and that the defendant would have him serve him as servants serve their masters. Since the original owner did not raise objections throughout all these years, the defendant's word is accepted. We allow him to maintain possession after he takes a sh'vu'at hesset that he purchased the servant from the original owner or the owner gave the servant to him as a present.
These rules do not apply to a servant who is a young child and cannot walk on his legs because of his youth. He is considered as other types of movable property. We presume that he is owned by the person in whose domain he is located, and we follow the principle: When a person seeks to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is upon him.", + "As we explained, a plaintiff can alter his statements and offer another claim if it is plausible. To apply that concept to the issues at hand: A person issued a claim against a colleague, stating: \"This garment...\", \"This animal...\", or \"This servant that is in your possession belongs to me. It was lent to you,\" \"... it is stolen,\" \"... I entrusted it to you,\" or \"... I rented it to you.\"
The defendant claimed, \"No. It is my money. I inherited it.\" The plaintiff then brought witnesses who testified that they know that this article, servant, or animal is known to belong to the plaintiff. The defendant then countered and replied: \"Yes. It was yours, but you gave it to me...\" or \"... you sold it to me. I said: 'I inherited it,' not because I inherited it from my father, but that my ownership is so strong that it is as if I inherited it.\" The defendant's claim is accepted provided that he supports it by taking a sh'vu'at hesset.", + "The following laws apply when two people are contending with regard to a boat or the like, each claiming: \"It belongs entirely to me.\" If they come to the court and one asks the court: \"Take possession of it until I bring witnesses to support my claim,\" the court should not take possession of it.
If the court took possession of it, that person went and did not find witnesses, and returned and asked: \"Leave it for us as before, and whoever will overcome the other will acquire it, as was the law before,\" it does not heed the request. Instead, the court does not release it from its possession until a claimant brings witnesses who support his claim, one acknowledges the truth of the other's claim, or they willingly agree to divide it after taking an oath, as we have explained." + ], + [ + "Whenever landed property is known to have belonged to a person, we presume that he is the owner even though the property is now in the possession of another person.
What is implied? Reuven was using a courtyard as a person would commonly use his own property, living in it, renting it to others, building and tearing down structures. After a while, Shimon came and lodged a claim against him, saying: \"The courtyard that is in your possession belongs to me. I rented it to you,\" or \"... I lent it to you.\"
Reuven replied: \"It was yours, but you sold it to me,\" or \"You gave it to me as a present.\"
If Shimon does not bring witnesses who testify that it was known to belong to him, Reuven is required to take a sh'vu'at hesset, and he is allowed to retain possession of the courtyard. If, however, Shimon brings witnesses who testify that this field belonged to him, our presumption is that Shimon is the owner. We tell Reuven: \"Bring proof that he sold it to you or gave it to you.\" If he does not bring proof, we force him to leave and establish Shimon as the owner. This law applies even when Reuven does not admit that the field ever belonged to Shimon, because there are witnesses who support Shimon's claim.", + "When do we require Reuven to bring proof that he acquired the field or to depart? When he did not use the property for an extended time. If, however, Reuven brings witnesses who testify that he partook of the produce of this field for three consecutive years and benefited from it in its entirety in the manner in which any person would benefit from that field, we allow Reuven to maintain possession. This applies provided that it was possible for the original owners to know that this person had taken possession of the field, and they did not lodge a protest against him. Reuven must take a sh'vu'at hesset that Shimon sold him the field or gave it to him, and then he is released of all obligation.
The rationale for this decision is that we tell Shimon: \"If your claim that you did not sell or give him the property is true, why is this person using your land year after year, when you do not have a legal document stating that it was rented to him or given to him as security for a loan, and yet you have not lodged a protest against him?\"
If the plaintiff responds to this by claiming that the news that the other person was using his property did not reach him because he was in a distant country, we tell him: \"It is impossible that the information did not reach you in three years. And when the information reached you, you should have lodged a protest in the presence of witnesses, telling them that 'So-and-so stole property from me, and in the future I will lodge a claim against him in court.' Since you did not issue a protest, you caused yourself a loss.\"
Therefore, if there was a war or a disruption of travel routes between the place where Reuven was located and the place where Shimon was located, we expropriate the property from Reuven even if he benefited from its produce for ten years. We return it to Shimon, because he could say: \"I did not know that this person was using my property.\"", + "Even in a situation where there was a war and a breakdown in communication, if Reuven brought witnesses who testify that each year Shimon came and stayed in this place\" for 30 days or less, we tell Shimon: \"Why didn't you protest when you came? You have lost your rights.\"
If Shimon claims: \"I was very much occupied at the business fair and I did not know that so-and-so was in my courtyard,\" his claim is respected. For it is possible that a person will be occupied at a business fair for 30 days. If he stayed for more than 30 days and did not protest, he loses his rights.
It appears to me that this law applies only in the villages, for the people there are very much occupied with their business fairs.", + "Why do we not tell Reuven: \"If it is true that he sold the property to you or gave it to you as a present, why did you not take care of your deed of acquisition?\" Because a person does not take care of his legal documents for his entire life, and it is an established presumption that a person will not take care of a legal document for more than three years. If by that time, he sees that no one is protesting his ownership, he will not take care of it any longer.", + "If Shimon issued a protest in a distant country, why can Reuven not claim: \"I did not hear that he lodged a protest against me so that I felt it necessary to safeguard my deed of acquisition\"?
Because we tell him: \"Your friend has a friend, and his friend has a friend. And it is an established presumption that word of the protest reached you. Hence, since you know that he lodged a protest against you within the three years, if it is true that you had a deed of acquisition and you did not safeguard it, you caused yourself a loss.\"", + "Therefore, if Shimon lodged a protest in the presence of witnesses, but told them: \"Do not utter a word about this protest,\" the protest is of no consequence. If, however, the witnesses said on their own volition: \"We will not utter a word about this,\" the protest is significant. For a person will ultimately speak of a matter that he was not charged to keep private.
Similarly, if the original owner told the witnesses: \"Don't tell the person who took possession of the property about my protest,\" or the witnesses said on their own volition: \"We will not notify him,\" the protest is of consequence. For even though they will not notify him, they will notify others, and ultimately the information will reach him.", + "What constitutes a protest? That the owner says in the presence of two witnesses: \"So-and-so who is using my field is a robber. In the future, I will call him to court.\" Similarly, if he says: \"The property is rented out to him or it was given to him as security for a loan. If he claims that I sold it to him or gave it to him as a present, I will lodge a claim against him in court.\" Similarly, if he makes other analogous statements, the protest is of consequence even though he did not issue it in the country where the person in possession of the land is located.
If, however, he told them merely: \"So-and-so who is using my field is a robber,\" that is not a valid protest, for Reuven will say: \"When I heard this, I said to myself: 'Maybe he was merely slandering me.' Therefore, I was not careful about keeping my deed of acquisition.\"", + "A protest made in the presence of two witnesses is of consequence. They may compose a legal record of it, even if the owner does not tell them to compose it.
Once the owner issued a protest in the first year, he does not have to issue another protest each year. There must not, however, be three full years between each protest. He must, therefore, issue a protest at the end of each three-year period. If he protested, delayed for three full years and protested afterwards, the protest is of no consequence.", + "If Reuven brought witnesses who testify that Shimon, the owner of the field, gathered the produce of the field together and gave it to Reuven, he is allowed to retain possession of the field. This applies even if Reuven claims that Shimon sold him or gave him the field that day. The rationale is that if he did not give him or sell him the field, he would not have helped Reuven in the field and given him its produce.", + "If Shimon responds, claiming: \"It's true; that event transpired. I sold him the rights to the field's produce and it belonged to him, but I never sold him the field itself,\" his word is accepted and the field should be returned to Shimon. There is, however, an exception: when Reuven partook of the produce for three years with Shimon's knowledge and Shimon did not protest against him, as explained." + ], + [ + "The three years mentioned in the previous chapter must be from day to day. Even if one day was lacking, a claim of ownership is not established and the person in possession of the property is removed from it.
When does the above apply? With regard to landed property that produces benefit at all times - e.g., houses, courtyards, cisterns, pits, storage cavities, stores, inns, bathhouses, dovecotes, olive presses, fields that are continually irrigated and hence can be used for sowing and for planting, gardens, and orchards, and also servants who go on their own initiative, as we have explained.
Different rules apply with regard to a field that is watered only from rain and a grove of trees. The \"threes years\" are not calculated from day to day.
Instead, after the person in possession partakes of three harvests from one type of produce, it is considered as if three years have passed.
What is implied? There was a date grove and the person in possession harvested it three times, a grape orchard and he harvested it three times, or an olive grove and he harvested it three times, he is considered to have established a claim of ownership. This applies even if the trees were planted one after the other, and there was not enough space left between them. Although ultimately, they will dry and have to be uprooted, since the person derived benefit from them for three harvests, he has established a claim of ownership.", + "If a person brings witnesses who testify that he dwelled in this courtyard for three years or rented it out to a tenant for three years, he establishes a claim of ownership.
If the owner of the courtyard claims: \"Maybe you - or your tenant - did not dwell there during the day and during the night,\" his claim is valid. We tell the person in possession: \"Bring witnesses that throughout these years, you dwelled there during the day and during the night, or depart.\"
Even when witnesses come and testify, saying: \"The person in possession rented the field to us, and we dwelled there during the day and during the night,\" if the owner of the field demands: \"Let them bring witnesses that they dwelled there during the day and during the night,\" these tenants must bring proof that they dwelled there at all times. The rationale is that the matter is dependent on them and is not dependent on the claim of the person in possession of the property that they should testify on his behalf.", + "Different laws apply if the person in possession of the property or the witnesses were traveling salesmen who journey from village to village or the like. In such a situation, the court makes a claim on behalf of the owner at the outset. When he brings witnesses to try to substantiate his claim of ownership, the court tells him: \"Bring witnesses who will testify that you manifested possession during the day and the night.\"
When does the above apply? With regard to courtyards, houses, and the like, in which people live during the day and the night. Different laws apply with regard to stores operated by merchants and the like, in which people dwell only during the day. In such a situation, if a person dwelled in the store for three years during the day, he establishes a claim of ownership.", + "The three years mentioned must be consecutive, one following the other. If a person in possession of a field sowed it one year and left it fallow the next year, and then sowed it one year and left it fallow the next year, he does not establish a claim of ownership. This applies even if he followed this pattern for many years.
If the custom of the farmers of that area was to leave fields fallow, the person is considered to have established a claim of ownership. This applies even if some of the local farmers sow their fields year after year, and some sow their fields for one year and leave them fallow the next. For the person in possession may claim: \"I left it fallow only so that it will produce more in the year that I sow it.\"", + "When two partners maintained possession of a field for six years, one partaking of the produce in the first, third and fifth years, and the other partaking of the produce in the second, fourth and sixth years, neither is considered to have established a claim of ownership. The rationale is that the owner of the field can say: \"Since I neither saw nor heard of one person maintaining possession year after year, I did not protest.\"
Accordingly, if these partners composed a legal document attesting to their partnership and stating that they should each utilize the field in successive years, if three years pass in which they use it, they establish a claim of ownership. The rationale is that a legal document becomes public knowledge. Hence, if the owner did not protest, he forfeited his right.
Similar laws apply if two people maintain possession of a servant and use his services year after year. Ordinarily, they do not establish a claim of ownership. If they compose a legal document concerning the servant, they do.", + "The following rules apply when a person who took possession of a property derived benefit from its produce for one year and then sold it, the purchaser derived benefit from its produce for one year and then sold it, and the second purchaser derived benefit from its produce for a year. If they sold it to each other with a deed of sale, the activities of the three are combined and a claim of ownership is established, because the previous owner did not protest.
If they did not record the transaction in a deed of sale, a claim of ownership is not established, because the original owners can say: \"Since one person did not maintain a presence within it for three years, there was no necessity to issue a protest.\"", + "When a father derived benefit from a property for one year, and his son derived benefit for two years, or the father derived benefit for two years, and his son derived benefit for one year, a claim of ownership is established.
The same law applies if the father derived benefit for a year, the son derived benefit for a year, and the person who purchased it derived benefit for a year, provided that he purchased it with a deed of sale.", + "When a person seeking to establish a claim of ownership partakes of produce from a field for one year in the presence of the father who was the owner, and two years in the presence of his son, or two years in the presence of the father and one year in the presence of the son, a claim of ownership is established.
Similarly, a claim of ownership is established when the person in possession of the field partakes of its produce for one year in the presence of the father, one year in the presence of the son, and one year in the presence of a person who purchased the field from the son. This law applies when the son sold the field together with all his fields. In such an instance, the person in possession of the field will not appreciate that it was sold, and hence will not necessarily be careful to maintain possession of his deed of acquisition beyond the three-year period. If, however, the son sold the field as a discrete entity the property is expropriated and given to the purchaser. For there can be no greater protest against the squatter's possession than this.", + "If the person in possession left the field fallow year after year - even for many years - since he did not derive any benefit from it, he does not establish a claim of ownership.
Similarly, if he irrigated it or even irrigated it and did no more than break up large clumps of earth, since he did not benefit from its produce, he does not establish a claim of ownership.", + "If the person in possession sowed it, but did not make any profit - i.e., he sowed a kor and reaped a kor - he does not establish a claim of ownership, since he did not derive any benefit from it.", + "If he harvests the field as straw, he does not establish a claim of ownership. If in that region it was common to sow to harvest straw because straw is very expensive, he does establish a claim of ownership.", + "If the person in possession partook of produce of a field that was orlah, grew during the Sabbatical year, or contained mixed species, he establishes a claim of ownership despite the fact that he derived benefit through transgression.", + "If the property in question was a stone or a rocky area unfit to be sown, the person in possession must benefit from the land in an appropriate manner - e.g., use it to spread out fruits to dry, as a place for an animal to pasture, or the like. If he does not derive benefit throughout all these three years in an appropriate manner, he does not establish a claim of ownership.", + "The following rules apply when a person would tie his animal in a specific place in a courtyard belonging to a colleague, he would raise chickens there, he would place an oven, a range or a mill there, or he would place his fertilizer there. Whether or not he erects a barrier there, if he uses the property for these purposes during the day and the night and claims that the owner of the courtyard sold or gave him that place, he establishes a claim of ownership.", + "The following rules apply when a field is surrounded by a fence and a person took possession of it and sowed crops outside the fence, deriving benefit from the portion that is not protected. Even though he derives benefit year after year, he does not establish a claim of ownership. The rationale is that the owner can claim: \"Since we saw that he was sowing crops in a place that was unprotected, we said: 'Whatever he sowed, the beasts of the field will eat. Therefore, we did not protest.'\" This law also applies to anyone who sows crops in a place that is not protected and the crops are accessible to animals and other people.", + "When the person in possession derives benefit from the entire property with the exception of one portion fit to sow a quarter of a kav of grain, he establishes a claim of ownership over the entire field, with the exception of the portion from which he did not benefit. Even if that was a rocky portion in the midst of the field, since he did not use it in a way appropriate for it, he does not establish a claim of ownership over it.", + "The following rules apply when one person took possession of trees and derived benefit from their produce, and another took possession of the land, sowed crops there, and derived benefit from them, and each of them claims that the entire property belongs to him, because he purchased it from the owner. The person in possession of the trees is given the trees and the land necessary to tend to them - i.e., the space in which a person picking fruit can stand together with his basket for each tree. The person in possession of the land receives the remainder of the land.", + "Similarly, when a person benefits from all the produce of a tree for three years and then issues a claim against the owner of the tree: \"You sold me this tree and its land,\" he is granted an amount of land equivalent to the thickness of the tree until the depths of the earth.", + "The following laws apply when there are 30 trees within a tree grove large enough to sow three se'ah of grain. If a person in possession benefited from ten trees in the first year, ten in the second year, and ten in the third, he establishes his possession over the entire grove.
The above applies when the ten trees from which he benefited were spread through the entire area of the field, and the other trees did not produce any fruit. If, however, the other trees produced fruit and he did not partake of it, he establishes a claim of ownership only on the produce from which he partook.", + "When does the above apply? When he benefited from some of the fruit and the people reaped the remainder of the fruit. If, however, he left the fruit on the trees and benefited from the fruit from several portions throughout the entire grove, he establishes a claim of ownership concerning the entire field, even though he did not collect all its produce." + ], + [ + "The following individuals are not given the privilege of establishing a claim of ownership even though they have benefited from a property for three years: craftsmen, sharecroppers, guardians, partners, a husband with regard to property belonging to his wife, a wife with regard to property belonging to her husband, a son with regard to property belonging to his father, and a father with regard to property belonging to his son.
The rationale is that in all these instances the owners will not be irritated if the other uses the property. Therefore, the fact that they benefited from it does not serve as proof of ownership, even though the owner did not protest. Instead, the property should be returned to the owner, provided that they bring proof that this land was known to belong to them, and that they take a sh'vu'at hesset that they did not sell or give away the land, as we have explained.", + "Similarly, the exilarchs of that period, a robber and a gentile cannot establish a claim of ownership because they benefited from a property. The rationale is that they are men of force.
Similarly, a deaf-mute, a mentally or emotionally unstable person and a minor cannot establish a claim of ownership through benefiting from a property. The rationale is that they do not have a claim on which the property could be awarded to them. Instead, the property should be returned to its owners. Conversely, if a person manifests ownership over his property for three years, the fact that he benefited from the property is not considered proof of ownership.", + "What is meant by the statement that they are not given the privilege of establishing a claim of ownership over property? Reuven benefited from a field originally belonging to Shimon for a sufficient number of years to establish a claim of ownership. He claims that he purchased the land. Shimon brought witnesses who testify that the property was known to belong to him. Similarly, he brought witnesses who testify that Reuven was known to be his partner, his sharecropper or his guardian. For this reason, he claims that he did not protest. The field is returned to Shimon, provided that he takes a sh'vu'at hesset that he did not sell or give the property to Reuven. Similar laws apply with regard to the others mentioned above.
Different laws apply, however, if Shimon does not bring proof that Reuven was his partner or sharecropper, but instead, Reuven made this admission on his own initiative, saying: \"Yes, he is my partner and he sold me the property.\" Since he benefited from the land for the number of years long enough to establish a claim of ownership and he could have said: \"He was never my partner,\" his word is accepted like the word of other persons.", + "What is meant by the exclusion of craftsmen? If a person was building a property or repairing it for many years he cannot establish a claim of ownership over it.
If the craftsman abandoned his profession and benefited from a property for three years after he abandoned the profession, he can establish a claim of ownership.", + "What is meant by the exclusion of sharecroppers? For example, a person worked as a sharecropper for the father of the owner of the property, or for another member of the family. Since he is a sharecropper who has worked for the family, the owner will not lodge a protest against him. If, however, a person becomes a sharecropper for the first time and then benefits from the land for the length of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership, he is allowed to retain possession. We tell the owners: \"How did you allow him to benefit from the property year after year without issuing a protest?\"", + "Moreover, even when a sharecropper who has worked for the family brings other sharecroppers to work in his place, he may establish a claim of ownership. For ordinarily, there is no way that a person will bring sharecroppers into a colleague's property, and the latter will remain silent.
If, however, he divided the land among other sharecroppers who also worked on that property, he may not establish a claim of ownership. For it is possible that the owner appointed him as a supervisor over the sharecroppers.
When a sharecropper ceases working in that capacity and afterwards benefits from the produce of the land on which he had been working for three years, he establishes a claim of ownership.", + "What is meant by the exclusion of guardians? The exclusion applies whether the guardian was charged with caring for a particular field or all of an heir's properties, whether he was appointed by the court or appointed by the father of the orphans, and the orphans came of age and allowed him to remain in that capacity, or whether an adult appointed a guardian to supervise his income and expenditures. Since these persons have permission to use the property, they cannot establish a claim of ownership. If a guardian left his position and benefited from the property for three years after leaving, he establishes a claim of ownership.", + "What is meant by the exclusion of partners? When a person is a partner in a field that is not required to be divided , even though he alone benefits from the entire field for several years, the field is still presumed to be owned by both of the partners.
If, however, it is large enough to be divided and only one of the partners benefited from it in its entirety for the years necessary to establish a claim of ownership, he establishes such a claim. For he may tell his partner: \"If it is true that you did not sell or give me your share of the field, why did I alone benefit from the entire field? Why did you remain silent and not protest for all these three years?\"
Similarly, when a man who had stipulated that he waives the right to benefit from his wife's property nevertheless derives benefit from his wife's property for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership, the fact that he derived benefit is of no consequence. This applies even when - while she was consecrated but not yet married - he stipulated that he would not inherit her property, and afterwards derived benefit from it, built or destroyed structures on it, doing whatever he desired.
Similarly, when a woman derived benefit from her husband's property and made use of it as she desired for several years, the fact that she derived benefit is of no consequence. This applies even if her husband designated another field for her to derive her livelihood from, and she benefited from other fields.
Similarly, when a son receives his livelihood at his father's home and is considered one of the members of his household, if he benefits from his father's property for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership, it is of no consequence. The same law applies when the father derives benefit from the property of this son, who derives his livelihood from him for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership.", + "If such a son leaves his father's household or a woman is divorced - this applies even if there is a question whether the divorce is effective - they are bound by the laws that apply to all other individuals.", + "The exilarchs of the Talmudic era could not establish a claim of ownership because they benefited from a field. The rationale is that they had the authority to rale over the people.
Similarly, when a person manifests ownership over property belonging to the exilarchs, even if he benefits from it for a number of years, the fact that he derived benefit is not significant. The rationale is that the exilarchs do not protest because they have the power to remove the other person from the property whenever they desire. Instead, they must take a sh'vu'at hesset that they did not sell or give that person the property. Conversely, if they took possession of the property of another person, and that person says that he did not sell the property, that person must take a sh'vu'at hesset that he did not sell or give them the property.", + "What is meant by the exclusion of robbers? When a person is presumed to have stolen this field, or his ancestors were presumed to kill people in order to take their property, although he benefits from a field for several years, he does not establish a claim of ownership, and the field should be returned to its owners." + ], + [ + "If any of the individuals who are not able to establish a claim of ownership by benefiting from a property bring witnesses who testify that the owner sold them this particular field or gave it to them as a present, the testimony is accepted as substantial. There are two exceptions: a robber, and a husband with regard to his wife's property. With regard to which property were the above statements made? With regard to nichsei tzon barzel, a field designated as payment for the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, a field belonging to her and mentioned in her ketubah, or a field that her husband had evaluated in her ketubah as a present for her. With regard to nichsei milog, by contrast, he may bring proof, as stated in Hilchot Ishut.", + "What is meant by saying that a robber cannot substantiate the sale of a property? Once it has been established that a person gained possession of a field through robbery, he cannot substantiate his possession of a field even though he brings proof that, in the presence of witnesses, the owner acknowledged the fact that he sold him this field and received payment for it. For the owner can say: \"We never sold the field; we acknowledged [the sale only out of fear.\" In such an instance, we expropriate the field from the robber, and he is not given anything.
If witnesses testify that the robber counted out a specific sum of money to the owner, we expropriate the field from the robber and require the owner to return the money, as stated in Hilchot Gezelah.", + "The following rules apply when the son of a craftsman, the son of a sharecropper, or the son of a guardian benefits from a field for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership. If these individuals claim that the owner sold the property to them, or gave it to them as a present, their claim is established. If, however, they claim that the property is an inheritance that they received from their father, who benefited from it for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership, their claim is not accepted.
If they bring witnesses who testify that the owner acknowledged to their father that he sold it or gave it to him, they are allowed to retain possession of the field.", + "Although the son of a robber brings proof that the owner acknowledged to their father that he sold a property to him, it is of no consequence, as explained above. When, however, a robber's grandson claims that he - or even his father - acquired a property, he can establish a claim of ownership. If, however, his claim is based on his grandfather's acquisition, he cannot establish a claim of ownership.", + "Even though a gentile benefited from a property for several years, he cannot establish a claim of ownership on this basis. If he does not bring a deed of sale, we require that the field be returned to its owner. An oath is not required, for a sh'vu'at hesset was ordained only when the plaintiff was Jewish.
When a Jew claims a property on the basis of the claim of a gentile, he is governed by the same laws as the gentile, and the fact that he benefited from the property is not significant.", + "If the Jew who acquired the property from the gentile claimed: \"In my presence, the gentile who sold me the land acquired this land from the Jew who is disputing my claim,\" his claim is accepted, provided that he supports it with a sh'vu 'at hesset. The rationale is that since the claimant could have asserted: \"I acquired it from you and I benefited from it for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership,\" we accept his word when he asserts: \"I acquired it from so-and-so who, in my presence, acquired it from you.\"", + "A claim of ownership cannot be established with regard to property inherited by a minor, even when the minor later attains majority. What is implied? A person benefited from property inherited by a minor for one year in the minor's presence before the minor attained majority, and for two years after he attained majority. Although he claims: \"You sold it to me\" or \"You gave it to me,\" his claim is not accepted unless he benefits from the property for three consecutive years after he attains majority.", + "The following rules apply when a person maintains possession of property belonging to a minor for many years and claims: \"I am maintaining possession of it as security, and I am owed this-and-this on its account.\" Since if he had desired, he could have said: \"I purchased it,\" his word is accepted, for it has not been established that the property belonged to this person's father. Hence, the person in possession may collect what he claims from the property' s increase in value. The property itself is then returned to the orphans.
If, however, the property is reputed to belong to the orphans, the claim of the person in possession is not accepted. The rationale is that a claim of ownership cannot be established over property belonging to a minor. Instead, the field and all the produce that the person used must be returned to the orphans. When they come of age, the plaintiff will lodge a claim against them. 6", + "Different rules apply if the person in possession benefited from the field for the time necessary to establish a claim of ownership during the lifetime of the orphans' father. Since he could have claimed that he is the owner because he purchased it from their father, we accept his word when he claims that a debt is owed him by their father. He collects the debt from the produce of the field. Since he could say that the produce belongs to him, he is not required to take an oath concerning it.", + "When a person has to flee because of a danger to his life - e.g., the king desired to kill him - a claim of ownership cannot be established with regard to his property. Even if the person in possession of it derived benefit for several years and claimed that he purchased it, the fact that he derived benefit is not significant. We do not tell the owner of the field: \"Why didn't you protest?\" For the answer is obvious; he was concerned over his life. If, however, a person flees because of financial matters, he is considered like any other person. Thus, if he does not protest, a claim of ownership can be established over his property.", + "A claim of ownership can be established over the property of a married woman.
What is implied? A person benefited from the land for a portion of the period necessary to establish a claim of ownership during the lifetime of the woman's husband, and for three years after the husband's death. If he claims: \"You and your husband sold it to me,\" he is allowed to maintain possession. The rationale is that since the person in possession could say: \"I purchased it from you after the death of your husband\" - for he benefited from it for the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership after the death of her husband and she did not protest his word is accepted with regard to the claim mentioned above.
If, however, he benefited from the property for several years during the lifetime of her husband, but did not benefit from it for the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership after the death of her husband, he does not establish a claim of ownership.", + "Possession of property for the time necessary to establish a claim of ownership is of no consequence unless it is accompanied by a claim of acquisition.
What is implied? A person benefited from the produce of a field for several years. Afterwards, the person raising the protest comes and claims: \"How did you acquire this field? It's mine.\"
The person in possession responds: \"I don't know who the owner is. Since no one said anything to me about it. I took possession of it.\"
This does not establish a claim of ownership. For he is not claiming that he acquired it, that it was given to him, or that he inherited it. Nevertheless, even though he does not issue such a demand, the field is not expropriated from him until the person protesting brings witnesses that the field belongs to him. When, however, he brings witnesses, the field and all the benefit that he received from it is expropriated from the squatter.
We do not open by asking the squatter: \"Perhaps you had a deed of acquisition and you lost it.\" He must make such a claim on his own. If he does not make such a claim, he must return all the produce that he reaped. Similarly, when a person benefits from a field for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership on the basis of a deed of sale, and that deed of sale was disqualified, the claim of ownership established is nullified. The field and all of the produce reaped must be returned to the original owner.", + "When a person claims ownership of a field as an inheritance, he must bring proof that his father dwelled in or used this field for even one day. Once that is accomplished, since he benefited from the field for three years on the basis of his father's ownership, he is allowed to retain possession.
If, however, he did not bring proof that his father lived in it at all, the field and all of the produce reaped must be returned to the person lodging the protest, if he brings witnesses who testify that the field belongs to him. The rationale is that the person in possession does not claim that the owner sold or gave him the field, and it is not known that the field belonged to his ancestors.
If the person in possession brought proof that his father was seen in the field, it is of no consequence. Perhaps he went to inspect it and did not purchase it. Instead, he must bring proof that his father dwelled there for at least one day.", + "The following laws apply when a person benefited from a field for many years and the person raising the protest states: \"What are you doing in this field?\"
The person in possession acknowledges the truth of his statements, but says: \"I know that it once belonged to you, but so-and-so sold it to me, and he purchased it from you.\"
The person raising the protest states: \"So-and-so, the person who sold you the field, is a robber.\"
Since the person in possession admitted that the field belonged to him and that he did not purchase it from him, the field and all of its produce must be returned to the person raising the protest. This applies even though that person does not bring witnesses that the field belongs to him. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
If the person in possession brings witnesses who testify that the person who sold the field to him lived in it for even one day or he told him, \"He purchased it from you in my presence and afterwards he sold it to me,\" he is allowed to retain possession, for he has a definite claim and he has established a claim of ownership. If he desired, he could have claimed: \"I purchased it from you.\" His claim would have been accepted, for he lived in it long enough to establish a claim of ownership." + ], + [ + "The following rules apply when a person raises a protest regarding the ownership of a particular field and brings witnesses who testify that it was known to belong to him. The person in possession produces a deed of sale that he purchased it from the protester and also brings witnesses who testify that he benefited from the land for enough time to establish a claim of ownership. We tell the person in possession at the outset: \"Validate your deed of sale.\" If the deed of sale is validated, it is preferable, and the judgment is based on the deed of sale. If he cannot validate the deed of sale, we rely on the witnesses who testify that he has established a claim of ownership. The person in possession must take a sh'vu'at hesset that he purchased it from the protester.", + "When there are differences between the testimony of the two witnesses who testify that a claim of ownership has been established - e.g., one testifies that the person in possession benefited from wheat for three years and the other testifies that he benefited from barley - their testimony is accepted. For witnesses are not concerned with these particulars. If one witness testifies that the person in possession benefited from the property in the first, third and fifth years, and the other testifies that he benefited in the second, fourth and sixth years, their testimonies cannot be linked together. The rationale is that neither testified concerning the year about which the other testified. Hence, the land and its produce must be returned.", + "If a person took possession of a field on the assumption that he is the heir and benefited from the field, and then it was discovered that there was another heir who shared a closer connection and is fit to inherit the field, the person who took possession of the field first is obligated to return all the produce that he ate. This applies whether witnesses testified to the closer relative's identity or the person who first took possession of the property acknowledged it.", + "The following laws apply when two people are disputing the ownership of a field, each claiming it to be his own, but neither has proof of his claim. These same laws apply when both claimants bring witnesses who testify that the field belongs to them or to their parents, or when each of them brings witnesses who testify that the claimants benefited from the field for the time necessary to establish a claim of ownership, and both pairs of witnesses testify about exactly the same time period. We leave the field in their hands, and whoever overcomes the other one assumes possession. If the other seeks to expropriate the field from him, he must bring proof of his ownership.
If a third party comes, seizes the property from them and takes possession of it, he is removed from it and it is returned to the others.", + "If one claimant brings witnesses who testify that the field belonged to his ancestors, that he benefited from it for the period necessary to establish a claim of ownership, and that it is in his possession, and the other brings witnesses who testify that he benefited from it for the period necessary to establish a claim of ownership and that it is in his possession, the testimonies regarding the claims of ownership contradict each other. We grant the field to the person who produced witnesses that it belonged to his ancestors, and give him possession of it.
If the second person also brought witnesses who testify that the field belonged to his ancestors, and so this testimony also involves a contradiction, the court rescinds its initial ruling, removes the first claimant from it, and leaves it in possession of both of them. The one who overpowers the other acquires the right of ownership.", + "When both claimants say that the field belonged to their ancestors, and one brings witnesses who testify that the field belonged to his ancestors, while the other brings witnesses who testify only that he benefited from the field for the period necessary to establish a claim of ownership, the field should be returned to the one who brought witnesses that it belonged to his ancestors. The other claimant must return the produce that he used. The rationale is that he did not issue a claim. Hence, his consumption of the produce does not serve as proof. For any claim of ownership that is not based on a assertion against the owners is of no consequence.
If the person in possession of the field retorts: \"Yes. It belonged to your ancestors and you sold it to me. When I originally claimed that it belonged to my ancestors, I meant that my claim of ownership over it is so strong that it is as if it belonged to my ancestors,\" or he states: \"It was my ancestors, because they purchased it from your ancestors, his claim is valid, for he gave an explanation for his original statements. Hence, we allow him to maintain possession.
If at the outset, he claimed: \"It belonged to my ancestors and not your ancestors,\" we do not accept his later claim. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "The following rules apply when Reuven was in possession of a field and Shimon came and protested his ownership. Reuven responded: \"I purchased this field from Levi and benefited from it for the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership.\"
Shimon answered him: \"I have a validated deed of sale in my possession that I purchased the field from Levi four years ago.\"
Reuven retorted: \"Do you think that it is only three years since I purchased. I purchased it many years ago? My claim precedes yours.\"
Reuven's claim is acceptable, for it is common for a person to call many years \"the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership.\" Therefore, if Reuven brings witnesses who testify that he benefited from the field for seven years - and he thus would have established a claim of ownership before Shimon purchased the field - he is allowed to retain possession. If, however, he benefited from it for less than seven years, the field is returned to Shimon. The rationale is that Levi could not have issued a greater protest over Reuven's use of the field than selling it to Shimon before Reuven established a claim of ownership.", + "The following rules apply when one claimant stated: \"The field belonged to my ancestors\" and brought witnesses who substantiate his claim and another claims: \"It belonged to my ancestors,\" but does not have witnesses. The field should be returned to the one who brought witnesses. All the produce that the other claimant acknowledges consuming is expropriated from him, even though there are no witnesses that he consumed it. The rationale is that he admits that he consumed produce because the field belonged to his ancestors, and there are witnesses that the field belonged to the ancestors of the other claimant. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "We apply the principle of miggo in the following situation: One person is in possession of a field. Another raises a protest, bringing witnesses who testify that the field once belonged to him. The person in possession states: \"I purchased it from you. Here is the deed of sale,\" and produces a deed that is validated.
The person raising the protest claims that the deed is a forgery. The one in possession admits this, but claims: \"I had a valid deed of sale, but I lost it. I took this so that I would have something in hand to intimidate him, so that he would admit that he actually sold it to me.\"
Since he could have stood by his deed of sale, for it has been validated, his word is accepted. We do not expropriate the field from his possession. He must, however, take a sh'vu'at hesset to support his claim.", + "The following rules apply when a person protests a colleague's ownership of a field and brings witnesses who testify that the field belongs to him. The person in possession claims: \"I purchased the field from you and benefited from it for the time necessary to establish a claim of ownership\" and brings witnesses who support his claim.
The protester responded, claiming: \"How could you claim that you purchased it from me on this date three years ago? At that time, I was not in this country.\"
To resolve the question, the court requires the person in possession to bring proof that the person raising the protest was together with him in that city at the time he claims that he sold him the field, even for one day, so that he could have sold it. If he did not bring proof, he is removed from the field.", + "The following rules apply when a person journeyed overseas, and the path to his field was lost. These laws apply whether the fields surrounding his field were owned by four different people or they were all purchased from one person. Each of the owners may turn away the claimant, telling him: \"What makes you say that your way passes through my property? Maybe it passes through the property of my colleagues?\" Hence, the claimant must purchase a path, even though it costs 100 maneh, or he must fly through the air.
Similarly, when the four fields belong to one person who purchased them from four people, he is not required to provide the claimant with a path. For he can tell him: \"If I now returned each one his deed of sale, you would not be able to pass through the property of any one of them. And I purchased from each one every right that he possessed.\"
If, however, there was one person who owned all four fields, and he was this person's neighbor from the beginning until the end, the claimant can tell him: \"You certainly must provide me with a path.\" Hence, he should be given the shortest path through any one of the fields that the owner chooses. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
If the claimant takes possession of a path saying: \"This is my path,\" he may not be removed from it unless the owner of that property brings explicit proof that it never belonged to him." + ], + [ + "A person's protests are not accepted in the following situation. Reuven sold a field to Shimon, and Levi was one of the witnesses who signed the deed of sale. Afterwards, Levi came and protested Shimon's ownership of the field, claiming that Reuven stole it from him. We do not heed Levi's protest, nor do we pay attention to the proofs he brings concerning his ownership of that field. He has forfeited all of his rights to it. For we tell him: \"How could you serve as a witness to the sale and then come and protest?\"
Similar concepts apply if Levi gives testimony in a legal document that speaks of \"the field belonging to Reuven on the east\" or \"... on the north.\" Since he referred to that field as an identification marker for the sake of another person and recorded this testimony in a legal document, he forfeited his right to it and cannot issue a protest concerning it. For we tell him: \"How could you serve as a witness in this legal document that mentions this field being near another field and then issue a protest concerning it?\"", + "If, in the above situation, the witness claimed: \"There is one row? that I designated as a sign, but not the entire field. That row that is next to the boundary of the field alone belongs to Reuven,\" this is a claim that is worthy of being heard. He may protest the ownership of the entire field, with the exception of that row.
All of the above concepts apply only with regard to one of the witnesses to the legal document who comes to protest. When, by contrast, a judge verified the authenticity of the signatures of the witnesses to a bill of sale, he may protest the ownership of a field even though it was mentioned in that bill of sale. The rationale is that he can claim: \"I did not know what was written in the bill of sale.\" For a judge may verify the authenticity of the signatures of the witnesses to a legal document even though he did not read it. Witnesses, by contrast, may not sign a legal document unless they read it in its entirety and paid attention to its details.", + "The following rules apply when Shimon comes and consults Levi, telling him: \"I am buying this-and-this field from Reuven. I will buy it with your advice.\" Even though Levi tells him: \"Go and buy it. It is good,\" Levi has the right to protest Shimon's ownership. He does not forfeit this right, because he did not perform a deed. He can tell Shimon: \"I desired that the field leave the hands of Reuven, for he is a man of force, so that I could lodge a claim in court and take possession of my field.\"", + "The following rules apply when Reuven protests Shimon's ownership of a field, and Shimon tells him: \"I don't know what you are talking about. I purchased this field from Levi. Here are witnesses who will testify that I benefited from it for the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership.\"
Reuven responds to him: \"I have witnesses who will testify that yesterday evening, you came to me and asked me to sell you this field.\" This is not proof of Reuven's ownership. For Shimon could say: \"I desired to purchase it from you so that you would not protest and trouble me to enter legal proceedings, even though I do not know whether or not it is really yours.\" Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
If Shimon does not make such a claim, the court does not advance it on his behalf, n", + "The following rules apply when Reuven protests and brings witnesses who testify that the field belongs to him, and Shimon who is in possession of it claims: \"You sold it to me and I benefited from it for the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership.\" Reuven responds: \"You benefited from the field as a robber.\"
Whether there were no witnesses that he benefited from the field or whether there was only one witness who testified that he benefited for three years, the person in possession is not required to return the produce that he consumed. The rationale is that he is claiming: \"I consumed my own produce,\" and there are no witnesses who are obligating him for the produce. On the contrary, he acknowledged it himself. And the witness who testified that he benefited from the property for three years is coming to reinforce the power of the person who benefited. Indeed, if there were another witness with him, the person in possession would be allowed to retain possession of the field.
Therefore, Reuven must take a sh'vu'at hesset that he did not sell the field, and then the field is returned to him. Shimon must take a sh'vu'at hesset that he does not owe Reuven anything because of the produce he consumed. He is then released of liability.", + "When there are two witnesses who testify that Shimon benefited from a field for less than the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership, he must return all the produce he consumed. Even if there is only one witness, he is liable to return all the produce because of his testimony. The rationale is that he is not contradicting the testimony of the witness. Instead, he is saying: \"He testified truthfully. I did consume the produce for two years, but I consumed what was mine.\" He is thus obligated to take an oath, but unable to do so. Hence, he must pay.", + "The following principle applies whenever a person is obligated to return the produce he consumed, the extent of the benefit is unknown, and the court is unable to estimate - i.e., in contrast to houses and the like, which have a standard rate - the benefit he received from the produce of trees or the produce of the fields. Since the owner does not have a definite claim, he is required to pay only what he admits to have consumed. We issue a conditional ban of ostracism against anyone who consumed more produce and did not make restitution.", + "The following laws apply whenever a person in possession of property is required to return it. If he rented the property to others while he was in possession of it, and the renters are accessible, we expropriate the rent from them a second time and give it to the owner of the land. They in turn should lodge a claim against a person who rented them land that he did not own.", + "It is forbidden for a person to lodge a false claim to distort a judgment or prevent its execution. What is implied? If a person was owed a maneh by a colleague, he may not lodge a claim against him for 200 zuz, so that he will admit owing the maneh and be obligated to take an oath.
If a person owes a colleague a maneh, and the colleague claims 200 from him, he should not say: \"I will deny the entire amount in court so that I will not be required to take an oath and acknowledge the debt of the maneh in private.\"", + "When a person owes money to three people, and he denies owing a debt to one of them the three should not collaborate and perpetrate the following scheme. One person will claim the entire sum, and the others will falsely testify to his claim. When the money is expropriated from him, they will then divide it. With regard to things of this nature and the like, the Torah Exodus 23:7 warned us: \"Keep a distance from words of falsehood.\"
This concludes the Laws Governing Disputes between Plaintiffs and Defendants, with God's help." + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a910d7724f9d43d674530d55a8c466cb67bdc1ed --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org", + "versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "תרגום קהילת ספריא", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": false, + "isSource": false, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות טוען ונטען", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "text": [ + [], + [], + [], + [ + "", + "", + "", + "One who makes a partial admission is not obligated to take an oath until he admits something he could have denied. How so? The plaintiff claimed that he was owed one hundred Dinars, fifty in this bill and fifty without, and the defendant responded \"I do not owe you but this fifty in the bill\" -- he is not one who has made a partial admission, for his denial of the bill shall have no effect, and all his assets are security for the loan, and if he denied he would still have to pay, therefore he takes a rabbinic oath on the [remaining] fifty." + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + ". . . There are Geonim who rules that even though the owner did not bring witnesses [to testify] that this is his item, since he saw his item in the possession of the craftsman and the craftsman agrees that with him that [the item] was his but [says that] he sold it to the owner, we believe [the owner]. But if [the craftsman] says, \"These things never happened, the item is mine,\" we believe the craftsman and he takes the customary oath (shevuat hesset). If the owner brings witnesses [who testify] that the item was known to be his, we do not believe the craftsman. This ruling is incredible in my eyes. ", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "Two that were holding one vessel or riding upon one animal, or one was riding and the other guiding, or sitting next to a pile of wheat placed in an alley, or a courtyard belonging to both of them. He says \"all of it is mine\" and he says \"all of it is mine\". Each one of them swears while holding an [holy] object that he has at least half of it, and they split it. And this oath is a decree of the Sages so that people will not grab their fellow's garment and take it without an oath.", + "", + "Two people are holding a garment, one says it's all mine and the other says it's all mine. One takes until the place that his hand grabs, the other takes until the place that his hand grabs, and the remainder is split after they swear upon it. And they both have the ability to make the other swear that all he has taken he has taken lawfully.", + "One was holding the fringes of the garment, the other was holding the other fringes, they split it equally after swearing upon it. And all divisions mentioned here are in value, so as not to devalue the vessel or garment itself or to kill the animal.", + "", + "If two came holding it [a garment] and one grabs it from the other in front of us [Beit Din] and the second is quiet, even if he later protests we don't take it from him [the first one], since he [the second one] was quiet at first, it's as though he admitted to him [that the garment was his]. If the second went back and grabbed it from the first, even though the first protests from the beginning to the end, we divide it.. . " + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant/English/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e8a7151aa84fd748f9f8992653d67eb627fd290b --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,243 @@ +{ + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah,_Plaintiff_and_Defendant", + "text": [ + [ + "When a person who issues a claim against a colleague with regard to movable property, and the defendant acknowledges a portion of the claim, he must pay what he acknowledged, and take an oath with regard to the remainder. This is a Scriptural obligation, as Exodus 22:8 states: \"That this is it.\"
Similarly, if the defendant denies the entire obligation and says: \"Such a thing never happened,\" and one witness testifies that the defendant is obligated to the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated by Scriptural Law to take an oath. The Oral Tradition teaches: Whenever two witnesses would obligate the person to pay money, one witness obligates him to take an oath.
Similarly, it was derived through the Oral Tradition that one witness shall not rise up against any man for any iniquity or any sin. He may, however, rise up against him to obligate him to take an oath.", + "There are only three individuals who are obligated by Scriptural Law to take an oath: a person who denied a portion of a claim of movable property, a person obligated by one witness, and a watchman. For with regard to a watchman, Exodus 22:10 states: \"The oath of God shall be between them.\" We have already explained the oath required of watchman in Hilchot Sechirut.
Each of these three individuals takes an oath and becomes free of his obligation to pay. In contrast, those who take an oath and collect the money they claim, e.g., an employee, a person who was injured, a person who impairs the legal power of his promissory note and the like, and similarly, those who take an oath because there is a possibility of a claim being lodged against them, e.g., partners and sharecroppers, all take oaths because of our Sages' ordinances. Although all these oaths were ordained by Rabbinic decree, they all resemble a Scriptural oath, and all must be taken while holding a sacred article.", + "A defendant is not liable to take a Scriptural oath when a colleague claims that he owes movable property and the defendant:
a) denies the entire matter, saying: \"Such a thing never occurred\";
b) admitted a portion of the claim and gave it to him immediately, saying: \"This is all I owe you; here it is\";
c) admits that he had originally owed the plaintiff the debt, but claims that the plaintiff waived payment, gave him the object claimed as a present, or that he already returned the debt;
d) admits owing barley, while the plaintiff claims wheat.
Nevertheless, the Sages of the Gemara ordained that in all these situations, the defendant should take a sh'vuat heset, before being freed of liability. This oath does not resemble a Scriptural oath, because one need not hold a sacred article while taking it. We have already described the process of taking a Scriptural oath and that of taking a sh'vuat heset in Hilchot Sh'vuos.", + "Whenever anyone is required to take an oath by Scriptural Law, he may take the oath and free himself of obligations. If he does not desire to take the oath, we attach his property and expropriate everything the plaintiff claims. For the plaintiff will say: \"I will not budge from the Torah's ruling. Either take the oath or pay me.\" He may, however, have a conditional ban of ostracism issued against anyone who makes a false claim. He must then pay.
Different laws apply when, by contrast, a person is obligated to take an oath by Rabbinic degree. If he was one of those who must take an oath and collect his due, he cannot reverse the oath and require the defendant to take it. For the defendant will tell him: \"Take the oath and collect as the Sages ordained for you.\" If he does not desire to take an oath, he should depart.
My masters ruled that if the plaintiff says: \"I do not desire the ordinance which the Sages ordained on my behalf. Instead, I am no different than any other plaintiff,\" he may require the defendant to take a sh'vuat heset. If the defendant desires to reverse this oath and require the plaintiff to take it, we obligate the plaintiff to take the oath or to depart.", + "If a defendant was obligated by Rabbinic decree to take an oath to be released from responsibility, e.g., those who must take an oath because of a doubt or those required to take a sh'vuat heset, and he did not want to take an oath, he is placed under a ban of ostracism for 30 days. If he does not come and seek to be released from his ban, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.
Similarly, whenever a person has been placed under a ban of ostracism for 30 days, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct and then his ban is lifted. His property is not attached, because he is not required to take an oath by Scriptural Law.", + "Whenever a person is obligated to take a sh'vuat heset, if he desires, he may reverse the oath and obligate the plaintiff. The plaintiff may take the sh'vuat heset and then collect his claim from his colleague.
There is no other person who takes a sh'vuat heset and collects his claim from his colleague except this person for whom the obligation to take a sh'vuat heset. A Scriptural oath and a Rabbinic oath that resembles a Scriptural oath may not be reversed.", + "A person cannot be required to take a sh'vuat heset unless a definite claim is lodged against him. If, however, the plaintiff's claim is doubt, the defendant is not liable for the oath.
What is implied? The plaintiff says: \"It appears to me that you owe me a maneh,\" \"I lent you a maneh, it appears to me that you did not repay me,\" \"My father said that you owe me a maneh, \"My father declared to me in the presence of witnesses that you owe me a maneh,\" \"A certain article was stolen from my house. You were the only person there. In my eyes, it is likely that you stole it,\" \"I calculated the money I have and I found that I was lacking some. Perhaps you caused me to err in the accounting,\" and to all these complaints, the defendant states: \"I do not owe you anything,\" he is not liable even for a sh'vuat heset. The same applies in all analogous situations.", + "The defendant is required to take a sh'vuat heset in the following situations. The plaintiff claims: \"You definitely owe me a kor of wheat,\" and the defendant replies: \"I don't know. Maybe I owe you, maybe I do not owe you,\" the defendant must take a sh'vuat heset that he does not know of the obligation. He is then released. He is not liable, because he did not definitely obligate himself. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Similarly, if the plaintiff claims: \"You definitely owe me a kor of wheat,\" and the defendant replies: \"I don't know whether I owe you a kor of wheat or barley,\" the defendant must take a sh'vuat heset that he does not know and pay the plaintiff a kor of barley. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "Different rules apply when the plaintiff claims: \"You definitely owe me a maneh,\" and the defendant replies: \"I did owe you a maneh. I do not know, however, if I returned it to you or did not return it to you yet.\" The defendant is obligated to pay. The plaintiff is not obligated to take an oath at all, not even a sh'vuat heset.
The rationale is that the defendant knows that he was liable and the plaintiff is lodging a definite claim against him, and he does not know whether he fulfilled his obligation or not. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
This stringency does not apply if there is no plaintiff, i.e., on his own initiative, the defendant said: \"I stole from you...\", \"You lent me a maneh...\", \"Your father entrusted me with a maneh, and I do not know if I returned it to you or not, he is not liable at all. If he desires to fulfill his moral and spiritual obligations, he is liable to make restitution.", + "As mentioned above, a sh'vuat heset can be reversed. Thus if a plaintiff claims: \"You owe me a maneh,\" and the defendant responds: \"I do not owe you anything,\" the plaintiff may tell him: \"Take a sh'vuat heset and go on your way.\" And the defendant may respond: \"You take the sh'vuat heset and collect your claim.\" If the plaintiff says: \"I do not desire to take the oath,\" the defendant may tell him: \"Either take the oath and collect your claim or go away without anything.\" The obligation to take the oath may not be reversed again. The plaintiff may, however, have a conditional bill of ostracism issued against anyone who owes him money and refuses to pay.", + "My masters ruled that anyone who is obligated to take an oath - whether a Scriptural oath or a Rabbinic oath, even a sh'vuat heset - may, before taking the oath, have a conditional ban of ostracism issued against anyone who lodges a claim against him for money which he does not owe so that he will have to take an oath unnecessarily. The person requiring him to take the oath must answer Amen. Afterwards, the defendant must take that oath.
This is a proper ordinance for litigants so that they will refrain from making false claims and not cause God's name to be mentioned for no purpose, thus preventing them from lodging spurious suits.", + "Whenever a person is required to take an oath - whether a Scriptural oath or a Rabbinic oath - the plaintiff can require him to include in his oath a denial of any other claim that he desires which would obligate the defendant financially.
To what extent can he be forced to include a claim? Until the plaintiff has him include in the oath that he was not sold to the plaintiff as a Hebrew servant and is still under his bond.
As mentioned, a worker who is required to take an oath cannot be forced to include other claims in that oath.", + "The following principle applies whenever a person is obligated to take an oath, even a sh'vuat heset, and the plaintiff begins to demand that he include in the oath matters which were not included in the original claim. If the defendant sees this and says: \"I do not desire to take the oath. Instead, I will pay the original claim whose denial obligated me to take the oath,\" we do not accept his request. Instead, we tell him: \"Either pay all the definite claims he asked you to include in the oath or take the oath and be released of responsibility.\"", + "When a person lodges many claims against a colleague, the defendant cannot be forced to take an oath on each claim individually. Instead, he includes all the claims in one oath. If a person was obligated to take two oaths on two different claims, one lenient and one more severe, he is required to take the more severe oath and include in it the other claims based on the principle of gilgul sh'vuah.", + "When a person lodges a claim against a colleague which would not result in a financial obligation if he would acknowledge its truth, even if the defendant denies the claim, we do not require him to take a sh'vuat heset, nor do we issue a conditional ban of ostracism.
What is implied? The plaintiff claims: \"You promised to give me a maneh,\" and the defendant states: \"That never happened,\" the defendant is not required to take a sh'vuat heset, nor is a conditional ban of ostracism issued against him. The rationale is that even were he to have acknowledged making such a promise, he would not be obligated to fulfill it. Similarly, if a plaintiff claimed: \"You cursed me,\" or \"You spread a disparaging report about me,\" and the defendant replied: \"That never happened,\" a ban of ostracism is not issued in such a situation. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "If a plaintiff claims: \"You injured me,\" and the defendant states: \"That never happened,\" the defendant is required to take a sh'vuat heset. The rationale is although the defendant is not liable to pay a k'nas because of his own admission alone, he would be liable to pay the injured party for his unemployment, his medical expenses, and the embarrassment he suffered.
The following rule applies when a plaintiff claims: \"You embarrassed me,\" and the defendant states: \"That never happened.\" If they were in a place where claims involving k'nasot were collected, the defendant is required to take a sh'vuat heset, for if he would acknowledge the truth of the claim, he would be required to pay for the embarrassment he caused.", + "When do we apply the above statement: \"A person who admits his guilt with regard to a claim involving a k'nas is not liable\"? When the defendant says: \"I injured this person.\"
If, however, the defendant says: \"I injured this person. He brought witnesses against me in court and it obligated me to pay so and so much for his damages,\" he is liable. Accordingly, were the plaintiff to claim that a court obligated the defendant to pay him 100 dinarim because he injured him, and the defendant denied the claim, the defendant would be required to take a sh'vuat heset. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations." + ], + [ + "Whenever it is suspected that a person might take a false oath, no oath - neither a Scriptural oath, a Rabbinic oath, nor a sh'vuat heset - is administered to him. Even if the plaintiff desires that he take this oath, we do not heed his request.", + "A person who took a false oath - whether a sh'vuat bitui, a sh'vuat edut, or a sh'vuat hapikadon - or an unnecessary oath, he is considered suspect to take a false oath.
Similarly, a person who is not acceptable to serve as a witness because he committed a transgression, whether disqualified because of a Scriptural prohibition, e.g., a person who lends at interest, one who eats meat from an animal that was not ritually slaughtered, or a thief, or because of a Rabbinic prohibition, e.g., a dice-player or a dove racer, is considered suspect to take a false oath and we do not administer an oath to him.", + "A person is not deemed suspect to take a false oath until witnesses testify that he violated the transgression for which he is disqualified. Different rules apply, however, if a person himself admits that he is suspect to take a false oath, because he committed a transgression that disqualifies him.
We consider him under suspicion and it is not appropriate to make him a witness at the outset. Nevertheless, if he is obligated to take an oath, we administer that oath. For we tell him: \"If you are telling the truth, take the oath. The fact that you committed a sin does not make it forbidden for you to take a truthful oath. And if you are lying, acknowledge the other litigant's claim.\" When a person is deemed suspect because of the testimony of witnesses, we do not believe that he will take a truthful oath.", + "Our Sages ordained that whenever a person who is suspect to take a false oath is obligated to take a Scriptural Oath because of a definite claim, the plaintiff is given the option of taking a Rabbinic oath and may then collect what he claims.
If they were both suspect, the responsibility for taking the oath returns to the one obligated to take it, i.e., the defendant. Since he cannot take the oath, he is required to pay.
If the person who was suspect was a watchman who claims that the entrusted article was lost or stolen, the plaintiff cannot take an oath, because he does not have a definite claim that the watchman consumed it. Therefore, if the owner of the entrusted object claims: \"He used my entrusted article for his own purposesin my presence,\" or \"I know that he was negligent,\" the plaintiff may take an oath as ordained by our Sages and collect the money he claims.", + "The following laws apply if the person suspect to take a false oath was liable to take a Rabbinic oath. If he is one of those who takes an oath and collects, he may not take the oath and collect. Instead, the defendant is allowed to take a sh'vuat heset and then is freed of liability.
Similarly, when a person who is suspect impairs the legal power of his promissory note or the like and the borrower claims to have paid and requires the plaintiff to take an oath, the defendant is given the option of taking the oath, and in that way becoming released from the obligation of the promissory note.", + "If the person who is suspect was one of those who is required to take an oath because of an indefinite claim, he is not allowed to take the oath, nor does the plaintiff take the oath. The rationale is that the defendant was not obligated to take an oath by Scriptural Law and the plaintiff is not lodging a definite claim against him that he could support with an oath.", + "When a person who is suspect becomes obligated to take a sh'vuat heset, the plaintiff is not given the option of taking the oath and collecting what he claims. The rationale is that a sh'vuat heset is itself a measure ordained for the benefit of the plaintiff. Therefore we did not ordain a second measure for his benefit. Instead, the defendant is released from liability without taking an oath.", + "When a person is obligated to take a sh'vuat heset and the plaintiff is suspect to take a false oath, the defendant does not have the option of reversing the responsibility to take the oath. For the plaintiff is unable to take the oath. Instead, the defendant must pay the claim or take a sh'vuat heset.
We do not accept his request to make the judgment dependant on an impossible factor. This is comparable to a person who seeks to reverse the responsibility of an oath and place it upon a minor. We do not heed him. Instead, he must either take a sh'vuat heset or pay.", + "The following principle applies when a person was obligated to take an oath - whether of Scriptural or Rabbinic origin - and he took the oath and either collected his claim or was released and afterwards, witnesses came and testified that he was suspect to take a false oath. The oath which he took is of no consequence. The other litigant may expropriate the money which the person who was suspect collected from him or the other litigant may take an oath and collect his claim.", + "These principles are applied with regard to a person suspect of taking a false oath until he receives lashes in court. If there are witnesses that he received lashes and repented, his status is restored and he is acceptable both as a witness and to take an oath.", + "The following rules apply when a person lodges a claim against a colleague, the defendant denies the claim and supports his denial by taking either a Scriptural oath or a Rabbinic oath. If afterwards, witnesses come and testify that he took a false oath, he must pay the claim and is deemed suspect of taking a false oath.
We already explained in Hilchot Sh'vuot, that anyone who takes a false oath with regard to money belonging to his colleague and repents must add an additional fifth.", + "The following rule applies when a plaintiff claims that a defendant owes him a debt which was undertaken in the presence of witnesses and affirmed by a kinyan, and the defendant agrees that originally this was so, but claims to have paid the debt, or the defendant says: \"I do not owe you anything,\" and takes an oath to support either of these claims. If, afterwards, witnesses to the kinyan testify or the plaintiff produces a promissory note and verifies its authenticity, the defendant is obligated to pay. He is not, however, considered as suspect to take a false oath. For the witnesses did not testify that he did not pay. And the defendant did not say: \"This never happened.\" Similar principles apply in all analogous situations." + ], + [ + "A person who admits a portion of a claim is not liable to take a Scriptural oath until he admits an obligation of a p'rutah or more and denies owing two silver me'in or more.
How much is a p'rutah worth? The weight of half a barleycorn of pure silver. How much is two me'in worth? The weight of 32 barleycorns of pure silver.", + "Whenever the Torah speaks of kessef it refers to a holy shekel which is worth 20 me'in. Whenever the term kessef is used with regard to Rabbinic law, the intent is a coin used in Jerusalem referred to as a sela. This coin was one eighth silver and the remainder copper as we explained. A meah, by contrast, even in Jerusalem was pure silver; it was the smallest silver coin used in Jerusalem in that era.
Since the requirement that the claim denied be two measures of silver is Rabbinic in origin, the Sages established it as two silver coins of Jerusalem, i.e., two me'in, rather than two \"holy\" shekalim. This is the interpretation that appears correct with regard to the amount of money from the claim that must be denied for an oath to be required.
My teachers ruled that the amount of money from the claim that must be denied for an oath to be required is 19 and ½ barleycorns of silver. I have several proofs to refute the path of reasoning they adopted which led to their arriving at this figure. I think that it is an error.", + "When the plaintiff claims: \"You owe me two me'in and a p'rutah,\" and the defendant responds: \"I owe you only two p'rutot,\" he is not obligated to take this oath. The rationale is that he denied owing less than two me'in.
When the plaintiff claims: \"You owe me a maneh,\" and the defendant responds: \"I owe you only half a p'rutot,\" he is not obligated to take this oath. The rationale is that whenever a person acknowledges a debt of less than a p'rutah, it is as if he did not acknowledge any debt at all.", + "When the plaintiff claims: \"You owe me 100 dates,\" and the defendant responds: \"I owe you only ninety,\" we make calculations. If the ten dates that he denies are worth two me'in, he must take an oath. If they are not, he is not liable.
When the plaintiff claims: \"You owe me five or six nuts,\" and the defendant responds: \"I owe you only one,\" we make calculations. If the nut that he admits owing is equivalent to p'rutah, he must take an oath. If it is not, he is not liable. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "When does the above apply? With regard to money, merchandise, produce, or the like. With regard to utensils, by contrast, we do not evaluate their worth. Even when ten needles are being sold for a p'rutah, if a plaintiff claims two needles and the defendant admits owing one and denies owing the other, he is liable to take an oath.
This is derived from Exodus 22:6 which speaks of \"money or utensils....\" Implied is that all utensils are like money.
The following rules apply when the plaintiff claims that he is owed both money and utensils and the defendant admits owing the utensils, but denies owing the money. If the money he denies is equivalent to two me'in, he is obligated to take this oath. If not, he is under no obligation. Conversely, if he admits owing the money, but denies owing the utensils, he is liable if he admits owing a p'rutah. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "When one witness testifies against a colleague, stating that he owes money, he is required to take an oath even when he denied owing only a p'rutah. The rationale is that whenever the testimony of two witnesses would require a person to make a payment, the testimony of one witness obligates him to take an oath.
What is implied? The plaintiff claims: \"You owe a p'rutah,\" or \"...merchandise worth a p'rutah,\" the defendant responds: \"I don't owe you anything,\" and a witness testifies that he does owe the plaintiff, he is required to take an oath.
Similar concepts apply with regard to an oath taken by a watchman. Even if a person entrusted a p'rutah or the worth of a p'rutah to a colleague and that person claimed that it was lost, he is required to take an oath. Anything less than a p'rutah is not financially significant and the court does not concern itself with it. Similarly, all those who take oaths and collect their claim, they take their oaths and collect any claim equivalent to a p'rutah or more.", + "My teachers' ruled that a person who takes an oath and collects his claim does not have to issue a claim equivalent to two silver me'in. I differ and maintain that the defendant must deny a claim equivalent to two silver me'in for the plaintiff to be required to take an oath as ordained by the Sages to collect his claim. The rationale is that those who must take an oath because of a claim concerning which doubt exists are not required to take that oath unless there is a sum equivalent to two silver me'in which is denied.", + "A person who admits a portion of a claim is not obligated to take an oath unless the admission is of the same nature as the claim.
What is implied? The plaintiff claims: \"You owe me a kor of wheat.\" If the defendant responds: \"I only owe you a letach of wheat,\" he is liable to take the oath. If, however, the defendant responds: \"I only owe you a kor of barley,\" he is not liable. The rationale is that the defendant did not admit owing the species which the plaintiff claimed, and the plaintiff did not claim the species which the defendant admitted owing.
If the plaintiff claims: \"I gave you golden dinarim for safekeeping,\" and the defendant responds: \"You entrusted me only with silver dinarim,\" or the plaintiff claims: \"I gave you a silver meah for safekeeping,\" and the defendant responds: \"You entrusted me only with a p'rutah, the defendant is not liable, because the plaintiff claimed one species and the defendant admitted owing another.
Similarly, if the plaintiff claims: \"I gave you 10 Egyptian dinarim for safekeeping,\" and the defendant responds: \"You entrusted me only with Tyrian dinarim,\" he is not obligated to take an oath. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "If the plaintiff claims: \"You have a large lamp of mine,\" and the defendant responds: \"I have only a small lamp of yours,\" he is not liable. If, however, the plaintiff claimed a lamp weighing ten liter, and the defendant admitted owing a lamp weighing five liter, he is considered as one who has admitted a portion of a claim. The rationale is that one can cut away the larger lamp and cause it to weigh only five.
Similarly, if the plaintiff claimed being owed a large belt, and the defendant replied: \"I have only a small belt,\" he is not liable. If he claimed a curtain that was 20 cubits long and he admitted owing a curtain ten cubits long, he is required to take an oath, because it can be cut and limited to ten. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "If the plaintiff claims: \"You have a kor of wheat of mine in your possession,\" and the defendant answers: \"I have only a kor of barley,\" he is not liable, not even for the barley. The rationale is that the plaintiff states: \"You do not owe me barley.\" Thus the situation resembles one in which a person tells a colleague in court: \"I have a maneh of yours,\" and that colleague replies: \"You do not owe me anything.\" In such a situation, the court does not require the person making the admission to pay his colleague anything.
If the plaintiff who claims the wheat seizes possession of the barley, we do not expropriate it from him.", + "When a person claims that a colleague owes him two types of produce and the colleague admits owing only one, his admission is considered as the same type of the claim and he is required to take an oath. What is implied? The plaintiff claims: \"You have a kor of wheat and a kor of barley of mine in your possession,\" and the defendant answers: \"I have only a kor of wheat,\" he is liable.
The following rules apply when the plaintiff begins saying: \"You have a kor of wheat in your possession,\" and before the plaintiff can complete his statements and add: \"And you have a kor of barley of mine in your possession,\" the defendant answers: \"I have only a kor of barley.\" If it appears to the judges that the defendant is seeking to deceive, he is required to take the oath. If it appears, that he acted in good faith, he is not liable.", + "Different rules apply if the plaintiff does not issue both claims at once. For example, he claims: \"You have a kor of wheat of mine in your possession,\" and the defendant answers: \"Yes.\" And then he says: \"and a kor of barley,\" to which the defendant replies: \"I have no wheat of yours.\" He is not considered as admitting a portion of the claim unless the defendant makes these statements at one time. For an oath to be required, the plaintiff must claim: \"You have a kor of wheat and a kor of barley of mine in your possession,\" and the defendant must answer: \"I have only a kor of barley.\" Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "Similarly, the defendant is not held liable for an oath when the plaintiff claims: \"You have a quantity of oil large enough to fill ten jugs of mine in your possession,\" and the defendant answers: \"I owe you only ten empty jugs.\" The rationale is that the plaintiff claimed oil and the defendant admitted owing only earthenware.
Different rules apply if the plaintiff claimed: \"You have ten jugs of oil of mine in your possession,\" and the defendant answers: \"I owe you only ten empty jugs.\" The defendant is liable to take an oath. The rationale is that the plaintiff claimed both jugs and oil and the defendant admitted owing the jugs. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "My teachers ruled that the defendant is considered as admitting a portion of a claim and is required to take an oath when the plaintiff claims: \"You owe me a maneh which was given to you as a loan,\" and the defendant answers: \"That never happened. I never borrowed from you. I do, however, owe you 50 dinarim which you entrusted to me for safekeeping,\" \"...because of damages,\" or the like. The rationale is that the plaintiff claimed that the defendant owed him 100 and the defendant admitting owing 50. What difference does it make to me if he became liable because of a loan, as a trustee of an entrusted article, or because of damages? I also favor this approach.", + "When a plaintiff claims: \"You owe me a maneh and a utensil\" and the defendant responds: \"I owe you only the utensil. Here it is,\" the defendant is not required to take a Scriptural oath. He must, however, take a sh'vuat heset that this is all he owes him.
If the owner of the utensil claims that the utensil the defendant seeks to give him is not his own, the defendant must include in his oath that the utensil belongs to the plaintiff. If the defendant admits that this utensil is not the plaintiff's, but was exchanged for it, he is obligated to take an oath.
Whenever we have mentioned above that the defendant is not obligated, the intent is that he is not obligated to take a Scriptural oath. He is, however, obligated to take a sh'vuat heset as we explained on several occasions." + ], + [ + "A person who admits a portion of a claim is not required to take a Scriptural oath until the plaintiff lodges a claim against him for an entity with a specific measure, weight or number, and the defendant admits owing a portion of that measure, weight or number.
What is implied? A plaintiff claims: \"You owe me 10 dinarim,\" and the defendant responds: \"I owe you only five\"; \"You owe me a kor of wheat,\" \"I owe you only a letech\"; \"You owe me two litras of silk,\" \"I owe you only a rotel.\" In all these and in other similar situations, he is liable.
Different rules apply, however, if the plaintiff claims: \"I gave you a wallet full of coins,\" and the defendant answers: \"You gave me only 50,\" or he claims: \"I gave you 100 dinarim\" and the defendant answers: \"You gave me only this pouch, and you did not count the contents before me. I do not know what was in it. You are receiving what you gave me.\" In these and all similar situations, he is not liable to take an oath.", + "Similarly, if the plaintiff claims: \"I gave you a room full of grain,\" and the defendant answers: \"You gave me only ten korim\" or he claims: \"I gave you ten korim,\" and the defendant answers: \"I do not know how much you gave me, because you did not measure them before me. You are receiving what you gave me,\" the defendant is not liable.", + "If, however, if the plaintiff claims: \"I gave you this room that was filled with grain until the projection,\" and the defendant responded: \"It was filled only to the window,\" he is liable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "A person who admits a portion of a claim is not required to take a Scriptural oath, unless he makes his admission with regard to a matter that he could deny [owing.
What is implied? A plaintiff lodged a complaint against a colleague, saying: \"You owe me 100 dinarim. 50 are recorded in this promissory note, and 50 are not recorded in a promissory note.\" The defendant responds: \"I owe you only the 50 mentioned in the promissory note.\" He is not considered to be a person who admits a portion of a claim. For his denial would be of no consequence with regard to the sum mentioned in the promissory note. All of his property is on lien to it, and even if he denied it, he would be obligated to pay. Therefore, he is required to take only a sh'vuat hesset concerning the 50 that are not mentioned in the promissory note.", + "The following rules apply when a dispute arises concerning a promissory note that mentions that the defendant owes sela'im, but does not mentioned the number of sela'im he owes. The lender states: \"You owe me five sela'im, and that is the intent of the promissory note.\" The borrower counters: \"I owe you only three; that is what is implied by the promissory note.\"
Because of the promissory note alone, he would be obligated to pay only two sela'im\" He is, nevertheless, not liable to take a Scriptural oath ' despite the fact that he admitted owing a sela that he could have denied, because he is like a person who returns a lost article. And it is one of the ordinances instituted by our Sages that any person who returns a lost article should not be required to take an oath, as explained in the appropriate place.
Similarly, when a person tells his colleague: \"My father told me that you owe me a maneh.\" The defendant responded: \"I owe you only 50 dinarim.\" He is a person returning a lost object, and he is not liable even for a sh'vuat hesset. Needless to say, this applies if a person on his own initiative acknowledged: \"I owed your father a maneh. I repaid him 50 dinarim, but I still owe him 50.\" He is not liable even for a sh'vuat hesset.\"
If, however, the heir claims: \"I know with certainty that you...\" or \"...your father owe my father a maneh\" and the defendant responds: \"I owe your father only 50 dinarim\" or \"My father owes you only 50,\" he is considered to be a person who admits a portion of a claim and is required to take a Scriptural oath.", + "When a plaintiff claims: \"You owe me a maneh and this article is security for it,\" and the defendant claims: \"I owe you only 50 dinarim\" he is considered to be a person who admits a portion of a claim and must take a Scriptural oath.
If the security is worth only 50 dinarim or less, the defendant must take the oath and pay the 50 that he acknowledged owing. If the security was worth 100 dinarim or more, since the lender has the right to claim its value, the lender should take an oath and collect his claim from the value of the security.
If the security was worth 80 dinarim, the lender must take an oath that he is owed at least 80 and then he collects that amount from the security. The borrower must also take a Scriptural oath with regard to the 20 that he denies.
If the borrower denies the entire matter, saying: \"This is not security. Instead, it is an entrusted article and I do not owe him anything,\" the lender must take an oath that he is owed at least 80 and the borrower must take a sh'vuat hesset with regard to the 20 that he denies.", + "The following ruling applies when a plaintiff claims: \"You owe me a maneh\" and the defendant responds: \"I know that I owe you 50 dinarim, but I am unsure of whether or not I owe you the other 50.\" The defendant is obligated to take a Scriptural oath, because he acknowledged a portion of a claim. He cannot take an oath regarding the portion he denied owing, because he does not know whether he is liable or not. Therefore, he must pay the entire maneh; the lender is not required to take an oath. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
The defendant may have a conditional ban of ostracism issued against anyone who lodges a claim against him when the plaintiff is not certain that the defendant is obligated.", + "Similar concepts apply in the following situation. The plaintiff claims: \"I lent you a maneh and here is one witness who will testify that this is so.\" The defendant responds: \"That is true, but you owe me a maneh to match it.\" The defendant is obligated to take an oath, but cannot take that oath, and hence, is obligated to pay.
Why can he not take an oath? Because he acknowledges the content of the testimony of the witness. And a person who must take an oath because of the testimony of one witness may take the oath only when he contradicts the witness, denies his testimony and takes the oath to support his denial.
Similarly, when there is a promissory note signed by one witness and the defendant claims to have paid the debt, or a person denied a claim, a witness testified against him, and then the defendant stated that he paid the debt or returned the entrusted article, ? the defendant is obligated to take an oath, but may not take the oath. Hence, he must pay.
An incident once occurred concerning a person who seized a slab of silver from a colleague in the presence of one witness. Afterwards, he said: \"I seized it, but what I seized was mine.\" Our Sages said: \"He is obligated to take an oath, but may not take the oath. Hence, he must pay. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "The testimony of one witness is also significant in the following instance. The plaintiff claims: \"I lent you a maneh.\" The defendant denies the matter entirely, and the plaintiff brings one witness who testifies that the defendant took a loan in his presence. Had there been two witnesses, a presumption that the defendant is lying would have been established, and the defendant would be obligated to pay, as will be explained. Hence, the defendant is required to take an oath because of the testimony of one witness. For wherever the testimony of two witnesses requires a defendant to make financial restitution, the testimony of one witness requires him to take an oath.
If after the witness testifies, the defendant changes his claim and states that he paid the debt, he is required to make financial restitution. The plaintiff is not required to take an oath, as we have explained.", + "When a plaintiff claims: \"You owe me a maneh\" the defendant denies the claim entirely, and witnesses testify that the defendant still owes the plaintiff 50 dinarim, all of the Geonim have ruled that the law is that the defendant must pay 50 and take an oath concerning the remainder. The rationale is that the principal's own admission should not have greater legal power than the testimony of witnesses." + ], + [ + "An oath is not taken on claims concerning the following according to Scriptural Law: landed property, servants, promissory notes and consecrated property. Even though a defendant admitted a portion of a claim or a witness testified against him, or he served as a watchman and sought to free himself on the basis of one of the claims according to which a watchman is freed of liability, he is not required to take an oath. These concepts are derived from Exodus 22:6, which, with regard to the obligation to take an oath, states: \"When a person will give his colleague\" - this excludes consecrated property - \"money or utensils...\" - this excludes landed property. And it excludes servants, which the Torah associated with landed property. It also excludes promissory notes, for their actual substance is not of financial value like money or utensils. They only serve as proof of an obligation.
With regard to all of these matters, the defendant must take a sh 'vuat hesset if the plaintiff issues a definite claim with the exception of consecrated property. In that instance, even though a person is not liable to take an oath concerning them according to Scriptural Law, our Sages ordained that the defendant take an oath resembling a Scriptural oath. This requirement was instituted so that people would not treat consecrated property lightly.", + "Accordingly, when a plaintiff claims: \"You sold me two fields,\" and the defendant responds: \"I sold you only one,\" or he claims: \"I entrusted two servants...\" or \"...two promissory notes to you,\" and the defendant responds: \"You entrusted only one,\" the defendant is required to take only a sh'vuat hesset.
Similarly, if the plaintiff claims: \"This courtyard, this servant or this promissory note that is in your possession is mine; you sold it to me,\" and the defendant denies the existence of the matter entirely, he is required to take merely a sh'vuat hesset. This applies whether the plaintiff brings a witness to support his claim or not.
A similar law applies when a person digs cisterns, trenches or caves in his colleague's property, reducing its value, and the owner of the field claims that the digger is liable to make financial restitution. Regardless of whether the owner claimed that a defendant dug such caves, and the defendant responded: \"I did not dig anything,\" the owner claimed: \"You dug two caves,\" and the defendant answered, \"I dug only one,\" or one witness testified that he dug caves and the defendantresponded: \"I did not dig anything,\" the defendant is required to take only a sh'vuat hesset regarding the claim.", + "The following laws apply when the plaintiff claimed both utensils and landed property. Whether the defendant: acknowledged owing all of the landed property, but denied owing any of the utensils, acknowledged owing all the utensils, but denied owing any of the landed property, acknowledged owing some of the landed property, but denied owing the remainder as well as all of the utensils, he must take a sh'vuat hesset.
If, however, the defendant acknowledged owing some of the utensils and denied owing the remainder, as well as all of the landed property, since he is required to take an oath with regard to the utensils that he denied, he must also take an oath concerning the landed property that he denied together with them, for it is all one claim.
Similar laws apply when the plaintiff claims utensils and servants, or utensils and promissory notes, for all such claims are governed by the same legal process.", + "When a plaintiff lodges a claim concerning grapes that are ready to be harvested, or grain that has dried and is ready to be reaped, and the defendant accepts a portion of the claim and denies a portion of the claim, he must take an oath concerning those he denied, as is required with regard to other movable property, provided they no longer require the nurture of the ground. The rationale is whatever is ready to be harvested is considered as though it has been harvested with regard to the denial and admission of claims.
If, however, the crops require the nurture of the ground, they are considered to be landed property in all contexts, and only a sh'vuat hesset is required concerning them.", + "When a person lodges a claim against his colleague, saying: \"You dwelled in my courtyard for two months, and you owe me two months rent,\" and the defendant responds, \"I dwelled there for only one month,\" he is considered a person who denied a portion of a claim.
Thus, if the rent for the month that he denied owing is equivalent to two silver me'in, he must take an oath. The rationale is that the claim does not focus on the land itself, but on the rent for it, and that is movable property.", + "When a plaintiff claims: \"I gave you a promissory note that served as proof of a debt of ten dinarim,\" and the defendant denies the matter entirely, the defendant is required to take a sh'vuat hesset.
If he reverses the obligation for the oath, requiring it of the plaintiff, the plaintiff must take a sh'vuat hesset that the note served as proof of a debt of ten dinarim, which he lost when the promissory note was destroyed. Afterwards, he may collect his claim.
If the defendant admitted: \"It is true that you gave me the promissory note, and it was lost,\" he is not liable, even to take a sh 'vuat hesset. For even if he was negligent in its care and it was lost, he would not be liable, as we have explained in Hilchot Chovel.", + "When a person tells a colleague: \"The promissory note in your possession mentions a factor that is advantageous to me,\" and the colleague states: \"I will not produce my promissory note,\" or \"I do not know if it states anything that serves as support for your position,\" we compel him to produce the promissory note and bring it to court.", + "If the holder of the promissory note claims that it was lost, we issue a conditional ban of ostracism against him.
If, however, the person who desires to see the promissory note claims that he is certain that his colleague is holding a promissory note that mentions a factor that is advantageous to him, his colleague must take a sh'vuat hesset that the promissory note is no longer in his possession and it is lost. My teachers ruled in this manner.", + "An oath is never administered because of claims issued by deaf-mutes, mentally or emotionally incapable individuals and minors. In the latter instance, this principle applies regardless of whether the minor's claim involves his own issues or those of his father. For admitting a portion of a claim owed to a minor is like returning a lost article.
Similarly, if the defendant denied the entire debt, and one witness came and testified on behalf of the minor, the defendant is not required to take an oath. For it is as though there were one witness, but no plaintiff, because a claim lodge by a minor is not a substantial claim.
Thus, if a minor said to an adult: \"You owe me...\" or \"You owe my father a maneh,\" and the defendant said: \"I owe you only 50,\" or \"I do not owe you anything\" and there was one witness who corroborates the minor's claim, the defendant is not liable to take a Scriptural oath.
If, however, a person acted as a watchman for a minor and claimed that the entrusted article was lost, he is required to take the oath required of a watchman. The rationale is that this oath is not taken because of a claim.
Similarly, if a person admitted that he was a partner or a sharecropper of a minor, the court should appoint a guardian for the minor, and the partner or the like should take an oath despite the fact that there is only an indefinite claim against him.", + "My teachers ruled that although a Scriptural oath is not taken because of the claim of a minor, a sh'vuat hesset must be taken. This applies even when the minor is not resourceful with regard to financial matters. The rationale is that an opportunity should not be granted for a person to take money belonging to a minor, and depart without paying him at all. I also favor this approach, and think that it will lead to the improvement of society.
Thus, if a minor lodges a claim against an adult, whether the adult admits a portion of the claim or denies it entirely, whether there is a witness who supports the plaintiff or not, the defendant is required to take a sh'vuat hesset. He cannot reverse the responsibility for the oath, placing it on the minor, because an oath is never administered to a minor. Even a conditional ban of ostracism is not imposed upon the minor, for he does not know the severity of the retribution received for taking a false oath.", + "The following rules apply when an adult lodges a claim against a minor. If the claim involves a matter that will benefit the minor - e.g., a claim involving business transactions - and the minor admits his liability, we expropriate payment from the minor's property. If the minor does not possess any resources, we wait until he gains such. Then he must pay. If the minor denies the obligation, the plaintiff must wait until the minor attains majority. At that point, he is required to take a sh'vuat hesset.
The following rules apply when a person lodges a claim against a minor in a matter that will not benefit the minor - e.g., damages or personal injury. Even though the minor admits his responsibility and he has resources with which he could pay, he is not liable even after he attains majority. If the plaintiff was one of those who takes an oath and collects the money that he claims - e.g., an employee and the like - since the minor benefits from the fact that an employee will work for him, he may take an oath and collect from the minor. A storekeeper who takes an oath because of his account book, by contrast, may not take an oath and collect from a minor. The rationale is that the minor does not derive any benefit from this. For regardless, he must pay his workers who take oaths and collect from him. Thus it is the storekeeper who caused himself a loss, because he gave his money because of a minor's word. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "With regard to a deaf-mute and a mentally or emotionally incapable individual, we do not concern ourselves with them with regard to any claim, not a claim that they lodged against others, nor a claim that others lodge against them, nor for a lesser oath, and, needless to say, not for a severe oath or to compel them to make financial restitution. A blind man, by contrast, is considered to be a healthy person with regard to all matters concerning such subjects. He must take all types of oaths if required, and oaths are taken in response to his claims." + ], + [ + "The court requires that precise statements be made by the litigants. For example, litigants come to court and one of them claims: \"He owes me a maneh that I lent to him,\" \"... that I entrusted to him,\" \"... that he stole from me,\" \"... that he owes me as wages,\" or the like. Should the defendant answer: \"I do not owe you anything,\" \"I have nothing of yours,\" or \"You are issuing a false claim,\" this is not a proper response. Instead, we tell the defendant: \"Reply to his claim and clarify your answer as he clarified his claim. Say whether you borrowed from him or did not borrow from him,\" \"... whether he entrusted an article to you or did not,\" \"... whether you stole from him or did not,\" \"... whether he hired you or did not,\" or lodge any other specific claim. Why do we not accept the general answer? Because it is possible that the person is making an error and this will lead to his taking a false oath. For it is possible that he borrowed money as the plaintiff claims and returned the debt to the lender's son or wife, or gave the lender a present of the value of the debt, and thinks that because of this, he is no longer liable for the debt. Hence, the court tells him: \"Why are you saying that you are not liable? Maybe the law would hold you liable and you do not know. Instead, tell the judges the details of the matter, and they will tell you whether or not you are liable.\"
Even if the defendant is a wise man of great stature, we tell him: \"You have nothing to lose by responding to his claim and telling us why you are not liable to him, whether it is because nothing of that nature ever happened, or because you were liable and you repaid the debt. You will not lose, because we follow the principle of miggo.\"
Similarly, if the plaintiff claims: \"This person owes me a maneh,\" or \"He has a maneh of mine in his possession.\" We ask him: \"On what basis do you make this claim? Did you lend him money? Did you entrust it to him for safekeeping? Did he damage your property? Tell us why he is obligated to you.\" For it is possible that a person will think that a colleague is obligated to him when he is not - e.g., he suspects that he stole from him he promised him to give him a maneh but did not, or the like.
The defendant's word is not accepted in the following situation. The plaintiff claimed that he lent the defendant a maneh, and the defendant denied ever taking the loan. Afterwards, the plaintiff brought witnesses who testified that the loan was given in their presence. In response, the defendant replied that he took the loan, but repaid it. We do not accept his claim. Instead, a presumption that the defendant is lying is established, and he is required to pay.
If, however, in the latter situation, the defendant first replied: \"I am not liable,\" \"I do not owe you anything,\" \"You are lying,\" or the like a different rule applies. Even though the plaintiff brings witnesses who state that the loan was given in their presence, if the defendant says: \"That is true, but I returned the entrusted object\" or \"... repaid the loan,\" a presumption that the defendant is lying is not established. He may take a sh'vuat hesset and then is released of all obligations.", + "The following rules apply when witnesses see that the plaintiff counted out money and gave it to the defendant, but did not know for which reason. If the defendant demands payment in a court of law, saying: \"Give me the money that I lent you,\"\" and the defendant replied: \"You gave me a present,\" or \"You repaid a debt,\" his word is accepted. He may take a sh'vuat hesset and then is released of all obligations. If, however, he claims that he was never given any money, and the witnesses came and testified that money was counted out in their presence, a presumption that the defendant is lying is established.
A person is never presumed by the court to be a liar unless he denies a matter in court and two witnesses come and offer testimony that contradicts the denial he made.", + "There is a corollary to the above concept. The plaintiff claimed: \"I lent you a maneh.\" The defendant denied the matter in court, saying: \"The incident never occurred.\" Two witnesses came and testified that the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff and repaid the debt. After these comments were made, the lender stated: \"I did not receive payment.\" The defendant is obligated to pay. The rationale is that anyone who says: \"I did not borrow,\" is considered to have said: \"I did not repay the debt,\" in the event that witnesses come and establish that he in fact took a loan. Thus, in the above situation, it is as if the borrower said: \"I did not repay the debt,\" despite the fact that witnesses testify that he did. We postulate that the admission of the principal is considered as strong as the testimony of 100 witnesses and the borrower is held liable. The lender is not required to take an oath, for a presumption that the borrower is lying has been established.
A similar law applies if the lender produces a signed note saying that he is liable, and the borrower denies the entire matter and claims that he did not write the note. If the authenticity of the note was established in court or witnesses come and testify that it was his note, a presumption that the defendant is lying is established, and he is required to pay.", + "There are times, however, when a person is not presumed to be lying despite the fact that his statements conflict with the testimony of witnesses. For example, a plaintiff claims: \"I lent you a maneh, and it is in your possession.\" The defendant responds: \"I paid you in the presence of so-and-so-and so-and-so,\" but those two witnesses come and deny having observed the matter. We do not say that a presumption that the defendant is lying is established. The rationale is that witnesses will remember only a matter concerning which they were designated to serve as witnesses. Hence, a presumption that the defendant is lying is not established, and the borrower may take a sh'vuat hesset and be freed of responsibility.
Similarly, if the plaintiff claims: \"Give me the maneh that I lent you when you were standing next to this pillar,\" and the defendant responded: \"I never stood next to that pillar,\" a presumption that the defendant is lying is not established even though witnesses come and testify that he stood there. The rationale is that a person will not take notice of matters that are not significant. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "When a person lends money to a colleague in the presence of witnesses, the borrower is not required to repay him in the presence of witnesses, as explained. Accordingly, if the lender claims: \"Give me the maneh that I lent to you; here are the witnesses in whose presence the loan was given.\" And the defendant claims: \"I repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so,\" we tell the borrower: \"Bring them to court and be freed of responsibility.\" If they do not come, or they died, or they journeyed to another country, the borrower must take a sh'vuat hesset that he paid the debt. For the only reason we require the defendant to bring the witnesses is to clarify his position and be released from the obligation of an oath.", + "An admission made by the borrower outside of court may not be binding. For example, the plaintiff told the defendant in the presence of witnesses: \"You owe me a maneh\" and the defendant agreed. The following day, the plaintiff lodged a claim against the defendant in court and brought the witnesses to support his claim. If the defendant claimed: \"I was joking with you and I do not owe you anything,\" he is not held liable. He must merely take a sh'vuat hesset that he does not owe anything.
This ruling applies even when the defendant denies that the event ever happened. The rationale is that the defendant never designated the witnesses to serve in that capacity. And when a person is not charged with acting as a witness with regard to a situation, he will not necessarily remember its particulars. Therefore, even if the defendant said that the events did not ever take place, we do not accept the presumption that he is lying.", + "Morevoer, the defendant's denial is allowed to stand even in the following situation. The plaintiff hid witnesses behind a fence and told the defendant: \"You owe me a maneh,\" and the defendant agreed. The plaintiff then told him: \"Do you wish so-and-so and so-and-so to act as witnesses against you?\"
He replied: \"No. Lest you press me to judgment tomorrow; for I have nothing to pay you.\"
On the next day, he called him to court with these witnesses. Whether the defendant claimed: \"I was speaking frivolously,\" or whether he claimed that the matter never took place, he may take a sh'vuat hesset and is then released of responsibility. The rationale is the testimony is not committing until the borrower says: \"You are my witnesses,\" or the lender makes that statement in the presence of the borrower, and the borrower remains silent. The defendant is not presumed to be a liar, because of testimony of this nature.
An incident occurred concerning a person called kav r'shu (\"a full measure of indebtedness\") - i.e., that he had many debts. He would say: \"The only person to whom I owe money is so-and-so.\" When that person came and lodged a claim against him, he said: \"I do not owe him anything.\" Our Sages said: \"He may take a sh'vuat hesset and be released of all obligation.\"
Similarly, there was a person about whom people would gossip that he was wealthy. At the time of his death, he said: \"If I had money, would I not pay so-and-so and so-and-so.\" After his death, so-and-so and so-and-so lodged a claim against the estate. Our Sages said: \"They have no claim against the estate.\" For a person is wont to try to make himself appear as if he does not possess any money, and even as if he did not leave money to his children. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "As mentioned, witnesses who are hidden cannot give binding testimony, and similarly, when a person admits a debt on his own initiative while witnesses are listening, or a person tells a colleague in the presence of witnesses: \"You owe me a maneh\" and the colleague admits the obligation, the testimony of the witnesses is not significant. Nevertheless, in all these situations, when the principals come to the court, we tell the defendant: \"Why don't you pay the debt you owe him?\"
If he says: \"I do not owe him anything,\" we tell him: \"Behold you made a statement saying this-and-this in the presence of these individuals,\" or \"You admitted the obligation on your own initiative.\" If he arises and makes restitution, that is desirable. If he does not offer a defense, we do not suggest one for him. If, however, he claims: \"I was speaking frivolously with him,\" \"The event never occurred,\" or \"I did not want to appear wealthy,\" he is not liable and is required to take a sh'vuat hesset, as we have explained in the previous halachah." + ], + [ + "When a person admits that he owes a maneh to a colleague in the presence of two witnesses, and makes his statement as an admission and not as a casual matter of conversation, his remarks serve as the basis for testimony. This applies even if he did not charge the witnesses to serve in that capacity, and the plaintiff was not present. If the plaintiff lodged a claim against him and he denied making these statements, his words are not heeded, and he is required to make restitution on the basis of the testimony of the witnesses. If there was only one witness present when he made his statements, he is required to take an oath, for he made his statement as an admission.
If, after the witnesses came and testified, the defendant claimed: \"I made the admission in order not to appear wealthy,\" his word is accepted, but he is required to take a sh'vuat hesset. If the plaintiff was with the witnesses at the time the defendant made the admission, he cannot claim that he made the admission so as not to appear wealthy. If, however, he claims that he paid the debt afterwards, his word is accepted, but he is required to take a sh'vuat hesset.", + "Whenever a person makes an admission in the presence of two witnesses, he cannot claim again: \"I was speaking facetiously.\" Needless to say, this applies if he made the admission before three people. Instead, he is obligated to pay the sum that he admitted. For whenever a person makes a statement as an admission, it is as if he charges them with serving as witnesses.
Nevertheless, a legal record of his statements is not composed unless he charges them: \"Compose a record, sign it and give it to the plaintiff.\" Even if he charged them, they must consult with him a second time before they give it to the plaintiff, as we have explained.
Similarly, if a person makes an admission in the court after he was summoned, a legal record may be composed, as will be explained in the following halachah. This applies provided the court knows the identity of both principals,\" so that two people will not perpetrate deception to obligate another person.", + "The following rule applies when a court of three judges were sitting on their initiative in the place fixed for their sessions, and the plaintiff came and lodged a complaint in their presence. If they sent a messenger summoning the defendant, he came and admitted owing the debt in their presence, they may compose a legal record and give it to the plaintiff.
Different rules apply, however, if they were not in their fixed place, and they did not summon him, but instead, he collected them and caused the three judges to sit in session, admitting his debt in their presence and telling them: \"Act as judges with regard to my issue.\" If the plaintiff comes afterwards and says: \"Write down the admission for me,\" we do not compose the document. The rationale is that we suspect that the defendant paid him, and despite that, the plaintiff will try to lodge a claim against the defendant with the legal document. When does the above apply? With regard to a claim involving movable property. If, however, a person admitted an obligation involving landed property, the witnesses may compose a legal record and give it to him even though the admission was made only in the presence of two witnesses, the defendant did not affirm his statement with a kinyan, and the defendant did not instruct them: \"Compose a document and give it to him.\" The rationale is that we need not worry that the defendant will give the defendant the land and then the plaintiff will lodge a claim against him again.", + "Despite the fact that a legal record of a debtor's admission produced by the plaintiff does not state: \"The defendant told us: 'Write down this record, sign it, and give it to the plaintiff,'\" it is acceptable. For it is an accepted presumption that if the defendant had not given the witnesses such instructions, they would not have composed a legal record and given it to the plaintiff.
A question may arise if a legal document states only: \"So-and-so acknowledged a debt in our presence in court.\" If the document does not state that there were three judges present or state information that would indicate that there were three judges present, we suspect that there were only two people present, and they erred and thought that an admission made in the presence of two people is considered an admission made in court. Therefore, we do not regard such a record as a legal document.", + "We have already explained that an admission made in court or testimony given by witnesses in court has the same legal power as a loan supported by a promissory note.
When does the above apply? When the defendant did not accept the judgment until he was summoned and brought to court, as we have explained. If, however, two people come to a judgment and one lodges a claim against the other saying, \"You owe me a maneh\" and the defendant acknowledges the debt, his word is accepted if, after he departs, he claims to have paid the debt. He must, however, affirm that claim with a sh'vuat hesset.
The above applies whether the judges said: \"You are obligated to pay him,\" or \"Go out and pay him.\" Therefore, if the plaintiff comes back and says:
\"Write down the admission he made,\" we do not write it down, for it is possible that the defendant paid him.
Similarly, if a person who was obligated to take an oath in court leaves the court and then returns and said: \"I took the oath,\" his word is accepted. He is not required to take an oath that he took an oath. If there are witnesses who testify that he did not take an oath, a presumption that the defendant is lying with regard to that oath is established. His word is not accepted if he states that he took an oath unless the other litigant acknowledges - or he brings witnesses - that he took the oath in their presence.", + "The following rule applies when two people come to judgment, one is obligated to the other, and the judges tell him: \"Go out and pay him.\" If he leaves the court and then returns and said: \"I paid,\" but there are witnesses who testify that he did not pay, a presumption that the defendant is lying with regard to that money is established.
Different rules apply if the judges tell him: \"You are obligated to pay him.\" If he leaves the court and then returns and said: \"I paid,\" but there are witnesses who testify that he did not pay, we do not say that a presumption that the defendant is lying is established. The rationale is that we assume he is procrastinating until the judgment is researched.
Therefore, if on another occasion he claimed that he paid the money that he was obligated to pay by these judges and there are no witnesses who deny his statements this second time, he is required to take a sh'vuat hesset and is then released from all obligations. For this reason, the trained men of wisdom of Spain would, in the presence of the court, tell the judges and a lender who admitted a debt or who was obligated to take an oath in court: \"Serve as witnesses that he should not pay me or take an oath for me outside the presence of witnesses.\"", + "When a person acknowledges in court that he owes a plaintiff a maneh and then says: \"I now remember paying him the debt that I acknowledged and here are witnesses who substantiate my present claim,\" their testimony is effective, and the appropriate action is taken. The rationale is that he did not contradict the testimony of the witnesses, and it is not considered as if he said: \"I never took this loan.\"", + "A litigant who advanced a claim in court can return and issue a second claim that contradicts the first one. We rely on the second claim even though he did not provide an explanation why he originally lodged a different claim. Even if he left the court and returned he may change and reverse any claims he desires, until witnesses come and testify.
After witnesses come and contradict the final claim on which he relied, he cannot change it to another claim, unless he provides an explanation for the claim on which he relied that could extend its meaning to include also the claim that he made afterwards.
The above applies provided he did not depart from the court. If, however, he departed from the court, he cannot come back and issue a different claim after witnesses came and testified. This is not acceptable; we fear that perhaps wicked people taught him to issue false claims. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations." + ], + [ + "It is an accepted presumption that all movable property belongs to the person who is in physical possession of it.' This applies even if the plaintiff brought witnesses who testify that the movable property in question was known to belong to the plaintiff.
What is implied? A plaintiff lodges a claim against a defendant: \"This garment...\" or \"This utensil that is in your possession...\" or \"... that is in your house belongs to me..,\", \"... I entrusted it to you for safekeeping...\", or \"... I lent it to you. Here are witnesses who knew that it was previously in my domain.\"
The defendant responds: \"That is not so. You sold it to me,\" or \"...You gave it to me as a present,\" the defendant is required to take only a sh'vuat hesset and is freed of responsibility.", + "If the defendant claims that the movable property he is holding is security, he may claim up to its value. He must, however, take an oath while holding a sacred object. Afterwards, he may collect his due, as explained.", + "When does the above apply? To articles that are not made to lend out or rent out - e.g., garments, produce, household articles, merchandise and the like. Different rules apply with regard to articles that are made to lend out or rent out. Although they are found in the possession of a particular person and there are no witnesses that the original owner lent or rented out this article to this person, it is an accepted presumption that they belong to their original owner.
What is implied? Reuven owned a utensil that was made to lend or rent out, and he has witnesses who know that such an article belonged to him. This utensil is presently in the possession of Shimon. Reuven claims that he lent it or rented it to him,\" while Shimon claims that Reuven sold it to him, gave it to him as a present or entrusted it to him as security. We do not accept Shimon's claim. Instead, Reuven may take his utensil after taking a sh'vuat hesset in response to Shimon's claim.
Even if Shimon died, Reuven may take his utensil. The Geonim ruled that Reuven must take a sh'vuat hesset, for we advance claims on behalf of an heir.", + "When does the above apply? When the utensil can be seen in the possession of Shimon.
Different rules apply when, however, Reuven lodges a claim against Shimon saying: \"You have this-and-this utensil of mine. You rented it. Give it back to me. I have witnesses who know that it belongs to me.\" If Shimon responds: \"You sold it to me\" or \"You gave it to me,\" his word is accepted. He must take a sh'vuat hesset and then he is released of all obligations. The rationale is since he could say: \"Nothing like this ever happened. I do not have anything that belonged to you,\" we accept his word if he claims: \"I have the article, but you sold it to me.\"", + "The above-mentioned concepts apply only when the owner of the utensil claims: \"I entrusted it to you\" or \"I lent it to you.\" Different laws apply if, however, he claims: \"This article is mine. It was stolen, lost or taken by robbery.\" Although he brings witnesses who testify that the article was known to be his, if the person in possession of the article says: \"I do not know what you are talking about. Someone else sold it to me or gave it to me as a present,\" we allow it to remain in that person's possession although it is an article that is made to be lent out or rented out. He is not required to take an oath at all, because there is no claim against him.", + "If a well-founded report has circulated that utensils belonging to the original owner have been stolen, the person in possession of the article may take an oath while holding a sacred article, stating how much he spent on the article. The original owner must reimburse him for this expense and may then take his article, as stated in Hilchot Geneivah.
If the defendant claims: \"You sold it to me\" or \"You gave it to me as a present,\" he must take a sh'vuat hesset, and he is then allowed to maintain possession of the article, even though a well-founded report has circulated that utensils belonging to the original owner have been stolen, provided the article was not made to be lent or rented out.
From these laws, the following concept can be derived: A person has movable property in his possession and another person claims that it belongs to him. The defendant could claim that he purchased it. Thus, he would be required to take a sh'vuat hesset and would then be released of all obligations. Nevertheless, if the defendant says: \"It belongs to you, but you owe me this-and-this,\" he must take an oath while holding a sacred object. Afterwards, he collects his claim from the property in his possession, as is the law applying to all those who take oaths and collect their due.", + "When a person has in his possession articles that were made to lend or rent out, he is allowed to maintain possession even though he acknowledged the plaintiff's ownership, telling him: \"I know that this property was yours, but so-and-so sold it to me,\" or \"... gave it to me as a present,\" we do not expropriate it from the defendant's possession.
The above applies even if the plaintiff brings witnesses who testify that the property was known to belong to him. The rationale is that a person is wont to sell his personal property.", + "If, however, the plaintiff claims: \"I rented it to you,\" or \"I lent it to you,\" we expropriate it from his possession. If the object in question was not one that was made to lend or rent out, the defendant may retain possession of the article. He must, however, take a sh'vuat hesset that the plaintiff) did not lend or rent the article to him, but that he purchased it from so-and-so.", + "Do not err and interpret the phrase \"entities made to lend out or rent out\" as meaning \"entities that are wont to be lent out or rented out\" as did many, [including great sages. For all articles are fit to be lent out and are wont to be lent out. Even a person's cloak, mattress, and bed are fit to be lent out.
The phrase \"articles made to lend out or rent out,\" by contrast, refers to utensils that people in that country make initially with the intent that they be lent out or rented out, so that they can receive a fee for them. They are considered to belong to their owners like landed property, concerning which benefit is derived from its produce, but the land itself remains. Similarly, these utensils are made primarily to benefit from renting them out - e.g., large brass pots used for cooking at party halls, bronze jewelry inlaid with gold that are rented for brides to wear. Such articles are not made to be sold, nor for the owner to use them in his own home. Instead, they are lent out to others with the expectation of receiving benefit in recompense or of renting them out for a fee.
Similarly, if a person has ordinary utensils, but there are witnesses who will testify that he rents them out at all times and lends them, and it is an accepted presumption that he lends them and rents them, they are considered utensils that were made for the sake of being lent or rented.", + "When the possible damage to an article is greater than the fee one would receive for renting it out, and people are therefore careful not to lend such articles - e.g., a ritual slaughterer's knife - it is an accepted presumption that it was not made with the intent of being lent or rented out. Therefore, even if people came and testified that a person lent out or rented out such an article on several occasions, their testimony does not negate this presumption, and these utensils are considered to be all other utensils.
Proof of this position can be brought from the fact that Ravva expropriated tailor's scissors used to make a cloak, and an Aggadah scroll as articles that were made to be lent or rented out. Had it not been clarified to him through the testimony of witnesses that these were entities that were lent out, he would not have expropriated them from the orphans. It is evident that other scissors and other scrolls are not placed in this category even though they could be lent or rented out.
This concept is a fundamental principle of law and a point of logic that may be relied upon in judgment. It is clear to those who give forth knowledge. It is appropriate for a judge to keep it in mind at all times and not to sway from it." + ], + [ + "We do not accept it as a presumption that the utensils in the possession of a craftsman belong to him. This applies both to articles that are made to lend and rent out, and to other articles.
What is implied? A person sees his utensils in the possession of a craftsman. He brings witnesses who testify that they know that the article belongs to him and claims that he gave it to the craftsman to repair. The craftsman, by contrast, maintains that he purchased it, or that it was given to him as a present. Or he claims: \"After it was given to me to repair, you sold it to me or gave it to me as a present.\" Although the owner of the utensil did not give it to the craftsman in the presence of witnesses, his word is accepted and the article is expropriated from the craftsman. The owner must however, take an oath to support his claim.
There are Geonim who ruled that even though the owner did not bring witnesses to testify that the article was his, since he saw his article in the craftsman's possession and the craftsman admits that the article belonged to him, but claims that he sold it to him, the owner's word is accepted. If, however, the craftsman claimed: \"This never happened; the article is mine,\" the craftsman's word is accepted, provided that he takes a sh'vu'at hesset. If, however, the owner brings witnesses who testify that the article was known to belong to him, the craftsman's word is not accepted. This decision is incredulous in my eyes.", + "Different rules apply if the owner did not see his utensil in the possession of the craftsman, but instead claimed: \"I gave you this-and-this utensil to repair.\" If the craftsman claims: \"You came back and sold it to me\" or \"... gave it to me as a present,\" the craftsman is required to take a sh'vu'at hesset and is then released of responsibility. The rationale is that he could claim that the article was never given him.\"
Moreover, even if the owner gave the article to the craftsman to repair in the presence of witnesses, the craftsman's word is accepted, because he could claim: \"I returned it.\" For although an article is entrusted to a person in the presence of witnesses, he is not required to return it to him in the presence of witnesses. Therefore, the craftsman is required to take only a sh'vu'at hesset; we do not require him to produce the article.
If, however, he does produce the article, since it becomes visible, the owner may bring witnesses who testify that it belongs to him. He may then expropriate it even though he did not entrust it to the craftsman in the presence of witnesses, as explained in the previous halachah.
Based on the above, the following rules apply if the craftsman claimed: \"You agreed to pay me two dinarim as a wage,\" and the owner responded: \"I agreed to pay you only one.\" If the utensil was visible before them, since the craftsman's possession does not bring about an accepted presumption of ownership, and we would not accept his claim that he purchased the article, the owner's claim regarding the promised wage is accepted, provided that he takes a sh'vu'at hesset, as we stated in Hilchot Sechirut. He must pay that amount.
If, however, the utensil is not visible, since the craftsman could claim that he purchased the article, he can also claim a wage equal to its value. He must take an oath holding a sacred article. Then he may collect his claim, as do all those who take an oath and collect, as we have explained.", + "A craftsman who gave up his profession, and a craftsman's son are like any other person. When movable property is in their possession, we presume that it belongs to them, as we have explained.", + "The following rules apply when a person enters a colleague's house in the presence of the owner and leaves with utensils hidden under the corners of his garments, and witnesses see him. Afterwards, the owner lodges a claim against him, saying: \"Return the utensils that I lent you; here are witnesses.\" Although the defendant claims: \"I purchased them,\" his word is not accepted. Instead, the owner must take a sh'vu'at hesset to support his claim that he did not sell or give away the utensils. The court returns the utensils to the owner.
When does the above apply? With regard to an owner who is not accustomed to sell his property, when the person who removed the utensils under his cloak does not normally hide them, and when the utensils are not of the type that people would ordinarily hide. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the articles. We assume that he hid them only so that he could deny taking them.
If, however, an owner frequently sells his personal property, even though the person who took the utensils would not ordinarily hide them, and it is not ordinary practice for these utensils to be hidden under one's cloak, the defendant may take a sh'vu'at hesset that he purchased the articles.
Similarly, if he took the articles out so that they were visible for the witnesses to see, even when the owner does not frequently sell his personal property, the defendant's word is accepted when he says that he purchased the utensils, provided that the articles are not of the type that are made with the intent of being lent or rented out. For it is possible that the owner needed money, and hence sold his property.
If, however, the articles are of the type that are made with the intent of being lent or rented out, our presumption is always that they belong to their original owner, as we have explained. Even if the person took out such utensils in a visible manner and the owner was accustomed to selling his personal utensils, if he has witnesses that this utensil that was made with the intent of being lent or rented out was known to belong to him, he may expropriate the utensils from the defendant immediately, unless he brings proof that he sold it to him or gave it to him as a present, as is the law with regard to landed property.", + "In the above situation, if the person in whose possession the utensil was found died, we expropriate it from the heir. Moreover, the owner is not required to take an oath. An oath is not required because, since his father is not present to claim that that he purchased it or that it is security for a specific amount, the heir cannot require the owner to take an oath.
If the heir lodges a definite claim, saying: \"He gave it to my father - or sold it to him - in my presence,\" the owner is required to take a sh'vu'at hesset, as required of all those who are obligated to take oaths. We explained that there are opinions that require the owner to take a sh'vu'at hesset in all instances before his utensil is returned by the heir, but I do not accept this approach.", + "When a person takes an ax and says: \"I am going to chop down the palm tree belonging to so-and-so,\" if he in fact chops down the tree, we presume that it belonged to him. For a person would not be so bold as to cut down a tree that did not belong to him. If the owner claims that he did not sell it, the person who cut down the tree is required to take a sh'vu'at hesset that the tree belonged to him. He is then freed of responsibility. The rationale is that once the tree is cut down, it is like other movable property.
Similar laws apply when a person enters a colleague's field without permission and partakes of its produce for a year or two. If the owner claims that the person entered without permission, that he is a robber, and that he partook of the field's produce, and the owner brings witnesses who confirm that he partook of the produce, and the person claims that the owner gave him permission to partake of the produce, that person's word is accepted.
The rationale is that it is an accepted presumption that a person would not be so bold as to eat produce that does not belong to him. Although the land is presumed to belong to its original owner, the produce is not. For a person does not necessarily sell produce with a bill of sale, so that the purchaser could be told: \"Present your bill of sale.\"
Needless to say, these laws apply if the squatter partook of a field's produce for many years. In such a situation, since he could claim that he had purchased the field, his word is accepted when he says that he has a right only to the produce. He must, however, take a sh'vu'at hesset.", + "The following laws apply when two people are holding one article, both are riding on one animal, one was riding the animal and one was leading it, or they were sitting next to an ownerless pile of wheat that was located in a lane or in a courtyard belonging to both of them. If each claims that the article belongs to him in its entirety, they should both take an oath holding a sacred article that they own no less than half the article. Afterwards, it should be divided between them.
This oath was ordained by the Sages so that everyone will not grab unto a garment belonging to a colleague and take it without having to take an oath.", + "If one says: \"The entire article belongs to me,\" and the other says: \"Half of it belongs to me,\" the one who claims the entire article must take an oath that he owns no less than three fourths of the article, and the one who claims half the article must take an oath that he owns no less than one fourth. They then divide the article accordingly.
From this, one can learn that all those who take an oath to expropriate property - whether a minor oath or a severe oath - should not take that oath concerning what they claim, but rather what they will receive even though they claim more.", + "When two people were both clinging to a garment, and each claims that the entire garment belongs to him, each is awarded the portion he is holding. The remainder is divided equally after they take the appropriate oaths. Based on the principle of gilgul sh'vu'ah, each of the litigants can require the other to take an oath that he is legally entitled to everything he collects.", + "If one was holding the strings on one side of the garment, and the other holding the strings on the other side, they should divide the entire garment equally, after they take the required oaths.
When the term \"division\" is used in this context, it refers to a division of the article's value, not that a utensil itself or a garment should be divided and ruined, or that an animal should be killed.", + "If one person was holding onto the article in its entirety, and the other was struggling with him and clasping it, the article is considered to belong to the person holding it in its entirety.", + "The following rules apply when two people came to court holding onto the garment, and one pulled it away from the other in our presence. If at first the person from whom the garment was taken remained silent, even though afterwards he protested, we do not expropriate it from the possession of the one who seized it. The rationale is that since he remained silent at the outset, it is as if he acknowledged the other's ownership.
If the second person came and grabbed it from the one who seized it, even though that person protested continuously, the garment should be divided between the two of them.", + "The following laws apply when two people come to court holding onto a garment, and the court instructs them to go out and divide its value. They depart and return, but the article is now in the possession of only one of them. The person in possession claims: \"He acknowledged my claim and withdrew his claim from it,\" while the other person claims: \"I sold it to him,\" or \"He overcame me and seized it from me,\" we follow the principle: \"A person who seeks to expropriate property from a colleague must prove his claim.\" If he cannot bring proof of his claim, the other litigant may take an oath that the article belongs to him and be released of liability. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations." + ], + [ + "We do not presume that an animal or a beast that is not kept in an enclosed place, but instead roams freely and pastures everywhere, belongs to the person who seizes it if the animal is known to have a prior owner.
What is implied? When a plaintiff brings witnesses who testify that a certain animal is known to belong to him, and the person maintaining possession of the animal claims: \"You gave it to me\" or \"You sold it to me,\" the defendant's word is not accepted. The fact that the animal is in his possession is not considered proof of ownership, because it is possible that it roamed and entered his domain by itself. Therefore, if the defendant does not bring proof of his acquisition of the animal, it should be returned to its owner. The owner must, however, reinforce his claim by taking an oath.", + "If it was usual for an animal to be kept in an enclosed place or entrusted to a shepherd, we assume that it belongs to the person in whose possession it is found. This applies even if the plaintiff brings witnesses who testify that it belonged to him. Thus, if the person who holds the animal in his possession claims: \"You sold it to me\" or \"You gave it to me,\" he is required to take a sh'vu'at hesset that it belongs to him, and then he is released of all obligations.", + "Therefore, the following rules are applied when a person seizes possession of an animal belonging to a colleague that had been kept in an enclosed place or entrusted to a shepherd. If the owner claims: \"The animal went out and came to you on its own initiative,\" \"It was entrusted to you for safekeeping,\" or \"It was lent to you,\" and the person who seized it agrees, saying: \"It is not mine, but you owe me this-and-this much,\" \"You gave it to me as security for this-and-this much,\" or \"You owe me such-and-such for damages that you caused my property,\" his word is accepted if he claims the value of the animal or less. The rationale is that since he could claim that he purchased it, his word is accepted if he lodges another plausible claim. He must, however, take an oath holding a sacred article. Then he may collect his claim.", + "Similar laws apply with regard to servants. Since they can walk independently, the fact that they are in the physical possession of a person is not presumed to be a sign of ownership. Instead, if the plaintiff brings witnesses who testify that it is known that this servant belonged to the plaintiff, the defendant's word is not accepted if he claims: \"You sold him to me\" or \"You gave him to me as a present.\" Instead, the servant should be returned to its owner. He must, however, take an oath that he did not sell the servant or give him away as a present.
Different rules apply if the defendant who was asserted to have seized possession of the servant brought witnesses who testified that the servant was in his possession, day after day, for three consecutive years, and that the defendant would have him serve him as servants serve their masters. Since the original owner did not raise objections throughout all these years, the defendant's word is accepted. We allow him to maintain possession after he takes a sh'vu'at hesset that he purchased the servant from the original owner or the owner gave the servant to him as a present.
These rules do not apply to a servant who is a young child and cannot walk on his legs because of his youth. He is considered as other types of movable property. We presume that he is owned by the person in whose domain he is located, and we follow the principle: When a person seeks to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is upon him.", + "As we explained, a plaintiff can alter his statements and offer another claim if it is plausible. To apply that concept to the issues at hand: A person issued a claim against a colleague, stating: \"This garment...\", \"This animal...\", or \"This servant that is in your possession belongs to me. It was lent to you,\" \"... it is stolen,\" \"... I entrusted it to you,\" or \"... I rented it to you.\"
The defendant claimed, \"No. It is my money. I inherited it.\" The plaintiff then brought witnesses who testified that they know that this article, servant, or animal is known to belong to the plaintiff. The defendant then countered and replied: \"Yes. It was yours, but you gave it to me...\" or \"... you sold it to me. I said: 'I inherited it,' not because I inherited it from my father, but that my ownership is so strong that it is as if I inherited it.\" The defendant's claim is accepted provided that he supports it by taking a sh'vu'at hesset.", + "The following laws apply when two people are contending with regard to a boat or the like, each claiming: \"It belongs entirely to me.\" If they come to the court and one asks the court: \"Take possession of it until I bring witnesses to support my claim,\" the court should not take possession of it.
If the court took possession of it, that person went and did not find witnesses, and returned and asked: \"Leave it for us as before, and whoever will overcome the other will acquire it, as was the law before,\" it does not heed the request. Instead, the court does not release it from its possession until a claimant brings witnesses who support his claim, one acknowledges the truth of the other's claim, or they willingly agree to divide it after taking an oath, as we have explained." + ], + [ + "Whenever landed property is known to have belonged to a person, we presume that he is the owner even though the property is now in the possession of another person.
What is implied? Reuven was using a courtyard as a person would commonly use his own property, living in it, renting it to others, building and tearing down structures. After a while, Shimon came and lodged a claim against him, saying: \"The courtyard that is in your possession belongs to me. I rented it to you,\" or \"... I lent it to you.\"
Reuven replied: \"It was yours, but you sold it to me,\" or \"You gave it to me as a present.\"
If Shimon does not bring witnesses who testify that it was known to belong to him, Reuven is required to take a sh'vu'at hesset, and he is allowed to retain possession of the courtyard. If, however, Shimon brings witnesses who testify that this field belonged to him, our presumption is that Shimon is the owner. We tell Reuven: \"Bring proof that he sold it to you or gave it to you.\" If he does not bring proof, we force him to leave and establish Shimon as the owner. This law applies even when Reuven does not admit that the field ever belonged to Shimon, because there are witnesses who support Shimon's claim.", + "When do we require Reuven to bring proof that he acquired the field or to depart? When he did not use the property for an extended time. If, however, Reuven brings witnesses who testify that he partook of the produce of this field for three consecutive years and benefited from it in its entirety in the manner in which any person would benefit from that field, we allow Reuven to maintain possession. This applies provided that it was possible for the original owners to know that this person had taken possession of the field, and they did not lodge a protest against him. Reuven must take a sh'vu'at hesset that Shimon sold him the field or gave it to him, and then he is released of all obligation.
The rationale for this decision is that we tell Shimon: \"If your claim that you did not sell or give him the property is true, why is this person using your land year after year, when you do not have a legal document stating that it was rented to him or given to him as security for a loan, and yet you have not lodged a protest against him?\"
If the plaintiff responds to this by claiming that the news that the other person was using his property did not reach him because he was in a distant country, we tell him: \"It is impossible that the information did not reach you in three years. And when the information reached you, you should have lodged a protest in the presence of witnesses, telling them that 'So-and-so stole property from me, and in the future I will lodge a claim against him in court.' Since you did not issue a protest, you caused yourself a loss.\"
Therefore, if there was a war or a disruption of travel routes between the place where Reuven was located and the place where Shimon was located, we expropriate the property from Reuven even if he benefited from its produce for ten years. We return it to Shimon, because he could say: \"I did not know that this person was using my property.\"", + "Even in a situation where there was a war and a breakdown in communication, if Reuven brought witnesses who testify that each year Shimon came and stayed in this place\" for 30 days or less, we tell Shimon: \"Why didn't you protest when you came? You have lost your rights.\"
If Shimon claims: \"I was very much occupied at the business fair and I did not know that so-and-so was in my courtyard,\" his claim is respected. For it is possible that a person will be occupied at a business fair for 30 days. If he stayed for more than 30 days and did not protest, he loses his rights.
It appears to me that this law applies only in the villages, for the people there are very much occupied with their business fairs.", + "Why do we not tell Reuven: \"If it is true that he sold the property to you or gave it to you as a present, why did you not take care of your deed of acquisition?\" Because a person does not take care of his legal documents for his entire life, and it is an established presumption that a person will not take care of a legal document for more than three years. If by that time, he sees that no one is protesting his ownership, he will not take care of it any longer.", + "If Shimon issued a protest in a distant country, why can Reuven not claim: \"I did not hear that he lodged a protest against me so that I felt it necessary to safeguard my deed of acquisition\"?
Because we tell him: \"Your friend has a friend, and his friend has a friend. And it is an established presumption that word of the protest reached you. Hence, since you know that he lodged a protest against you within the three years, if it is true that you had a deed of acquisition and you did not safeguard it, you caused yourself a loss.\"", + "Therefore, if Shimon lodged a protest in the presence of witnesses, but told them: \"Do not utter a word about this protest,\" the protest is of no consequence. If, however, the witnesses said on their own volition: \"We will not utter a word about this,\" the protest is significant. For a person will ultimately speak of a matter that he was not charged to keep private.
Similarly, if the original owner told the witnesses: \"Don't tell the person who took possession of the property about my protest,\" or the witnesses said on their own volition: \"We will not notify him,\" the protest is of consequence. For even though they will not notify him, they will notify others, and ultimately the information will reach him.", + "What constitutes a protest? That the owner says in the presence of two witnesses: \"So-and-so who is using my field is a robber. In the future, I will call him to court.\" Similarly, if he says: \"The property is rented out to him or it was given to him as security for a loan. If he claims that I sold it to him or gave it to him as a present, I will lodge a claim against him in court.\" Similarly, if he makes other analogous statements, the protest is of consequence even though he did not issue it in the country where the person in possession of the land is located.
If, however, he told them merely: \"So-and-so who is using my field is a robber,\" that is not a valid protest, for Reuven will say: \"When I heard this, I said to myself: 'Maybe he was merely slandering me.' Therefore, I was not careful about keeping my deed of acquisition.\"", + "A protest made in the presence of two witnesses is of consequence. They may compose a legal record of it, even if the owner does not tell them to compose it.
Once the owner issued a protest in the first year, he does not have to issue another protest each year. There must not, however, be three full years between each protest. He must, therefore, issue a protest at the end of each three-year period. If he protested, delayed for three full years and protested afterwards, the protest is of no consequence.", + "If Reuven brought witnesses who testify that Shimon, the owner of the field, gathered the produce of the field together and gave it to Reuven, he is allowed to retain possession of the field. This applies even if Reuven claims that Shimon sold him or gave him the field that day. The rationale is that if he did not give him or sell him the field, he would not have helped Reuven in the field and given him its produce.", + "If Shimon responds, claiming: \"It's true; that event transpired. I sold him the rights to the field's produce and it belonged to him, but I never sold him the field itself,\" his word is accepted and the field should be returned to Shimon. There is, however, an exception: when Reuven partook of the produce for three years with Shimon's knowledge and Shimon did not protest against him, as explained." + ], + [ + "The three years mentioned in the previous chapter must be from day to day. Even if one day was lacking, a claim of ownership is not established and the person in possession of the property is removed from it.
When does the above apply? With regard to landed property that produces benefit at all times - e.g., houses, courtyards, cisterns, pits, storage cavities, stores, inns, bathhouses, dovecotes, olive presses, fields that are continually irrigated and hence can be used for sowing and for planting, gardens, and orchards, and also servants who go on their own initiative, as we have explained.
Different rules apply with regard to a field that is watered only from rain and a grove of trees. The \"threes years\" are not calculated from day to day.
Instead, after the person in possession partakes of three harvests from one type of produce, it is considered as if three years have passed.
What is implied? There was a date grove and the person in possession harvested it three times, a grape orchard and he harvested it three times, or an olive grove and he harvested it three times, he is considered to have established a claim of ownership. This applies even if the trees were planted one after the other, and there was not enough space left between them. Although ultimately, they will dry and have to be uprooted, since the person derived benefit from them for three harvests, he has established a claim of ownership.", + "If a person brings witnesses who testify that he dwelled in this courtyard for three years or rented it out to a tenant for three years, he establishes a claim of ownership.
If the owner of the courtyard claims: \"Maybe you - or your tenant - did not dwell there during the day and during the night,\" his claim is valid. We tell the person in possession: \"Bring witnesses that throughout these years, you dwelled there during the day and during the night, or depart.\"
Even when witnesses come and testify, saying: \"The person in possession rented the field to us, and we dwelled there during the day and during the night,\" if the owner of the field demands: \"Let them bring witnesses that they dwelled there during the day and during the night,\" these tenants must bring proof that they dwelled there at all times. The rationale is that the matter is dependent on them and is not dependent on the claim of the person in possession of the property that they should testify on his behalf.", + "Different laws apply if the person in possession of the property or the witnesses were traveling salesmen who journey from village to village or the like. In such a situation, the court makes a claim on behalf of the owner at the outset. When he brings witnesses to try to substantiate his claim of ownership, the court tells him: \"Bring witnesses who will testify that you manifested possession during the day and the night.\"
When does the above apply? With regard to courtyards, houses, and the like, in which people live during the day and the night. Different laws apply with regard to stores operated by merchants and the like, in which people dwell only during the day. In such a situation, if a person dwelled in the store for three years during the day, he establishes a claim of ownership.", + "The three years mentioned must be consecutive, one following the other. If a person in possession of a field sowed it one year and left it fallow the next year, and then sowed it one year and left it fallow the next year, he does not establish a claim of ownership. This applies even if he followed this pattern for many years.
If the custom of the farmers of that area was to leave fields fallow, the person is considered to have established a claim of ownership. This applies even if some of the local farmers sow their fields year after year, and some sow their fields for one year and leave them fallow the next. For the person in possession may claim: \"I left it fallow only so that it will produce more in the year that I sow it.\"", + "When two partners maintained possession of a field for six years, one partaking of the produce in the first, third and fifth years, and the other partaking of the produce in the second, fourth and sixth years, neither is considered to have established a claim of ownership. The rationale is that the owner of the field can say: \"Since I neither saw nor heard of one person maintaining possession year after year, I did not protest.\"
Accordingly, if these partners composed a legal document attesting to their partnership and stating that they should each utilize the field in successive years, if three years pass in which they use it, they establish a claim of ownership. The rationale is that a legal document becomes public knowledge. Hence, if the owner did not protest, he forfeited his right.
Similar laws apply if two people maintain possession of a servant and use his services year after year. Ordinarily, they do not establish a claim of ownership. If they compose a legal document concerning the servant, they do.", + "The following rules apply when a person who took possession of a property derived benefit from its produce for one year and then sold it, the purchaser derived benefit from its produce for one year and then sold it, and the second purchaser derived benefit from its produce for a year. If they sold it to each other with a deed of sale, the activities of the three are combined and a claim of ownership is established, because the previous owner did not protest.
If they did not record the transaction in a deed of sale, a claim of ownership is not established, because the original owners can say: \"Since one person did not maintain a presence within it for three years, there was no necessity to issue a protest.\"", + "When a father derived benefit from a property for one year, and his son derived benefit for two years, or the father derived benefit for two years, and his son derived benefit for one year, a claim of ownership is established.
The same law applies if the father derived benefit for a year, the son derived benefit for a year, and the person who purchased it derived benefit for a year, provided that he purchased it with a deed of sale.", + "When a person seeking to establish a claim of ownership partakes of produce from a field for one year in the presence of the father who was the owner, and two years in the presence of his son, or two years in the presence of the father and one year in the presence of the son, a claim of ownership is established.
Similarly, a claim of ownership is established when the person in possession of the field partakes of its produce for one year in the presence of the father, one year in the presence of the son, and one year in the presence of a person who purchased the field from the son. This law applies when the son sold the field together with all his fields. In such an instance, the person in possession of the field will not appreciate that it was sold, and hence will not necessarily be careful to maintain possession of his deed of acquisition beyond the three-year period. If, however, the son sold the field as a discrete entity the property is expropriated and given to the purchaser. For there can be no greater protest against the squatter's possession than this.", + "If the person in possession left the field fallow year after year - even for many years - since he did not derive any benefit from it, he does not establish a claim of ownership.
Similarly, if he irrigated it or even irrigated it and did no more than break up large clumps of earth, since he did not benefit from its produce, he does not establish a claim of ownership.", + "If the person in possession sowed it, but did not make any profit - i.e., he sowed a kor and reaped a kor - he does not establish a claim of ownership, since he did not derive any benefit from it.", + "If he harvests the field as straw, he does not establish a claim of ownership. If in that region it was common to sow to harvest straw because straw is very expensive, he does establish a claim of ownership.", + "If the person in possession partook of produce of a field that was orlah, grew during the Sabbatical year, or contained mixed species, he establishes a claim of ownership despite the fact that he derived benefit through transgression.", + "If the property in question was a stone or a rocky area unfit to be sown, the person in possession must benefit from the land in an appropriate manner - e.g., use it to spread out fruits to dry, as a place for an animal to pasture, or the like. If he does not derive benefit throughout all these three years in an appropriate manner, he does not establish a claim of ownership.", + "The following rules apply when a person would tie his animal in a specific place in a courtyard belonging to a colleague, he would raise chickens there, he would place an oven, a range or a mill there, or he would place his fertilizer there. Whether or not he erects a barrier there, if he uses the property for these purposes during the day and the night and claims that the owner of the courtyard sold or gave him that place, he establishes a claim of ownership.", + "The following rules apply when a field is surrounded by a fence and a person took possession of it and sowed crops outside the fence, deriving benefit from the portion that is not protected. Even though he derives benefit year after year, he does not establish a claim of ownership. The rationale is that the owner can claim: \"Since we saw that he was sowing crops in a place that was unprotected, we said: 'Whatever he sowed, the beasts of the field will eat. Therefore, we did not protest.'\" This law also applies to anyone who sows crops in a place that is not protected and the crops are accessible to animals and other people.", + "When the person in possession derives benefit from the entire property with the exception of one portion fit to sow a quarter of a kav of grain, he establishes a claim of ownership over the entire field, with the exception of the portion from which he did not benefit. Even if that was a rocky portion in the midst of the field, since he did not use it in a way appropriate for it, he does not establish a claim of ownership over it.", + "The following rules apply when one person took possession of trees and derived benefit from their produce, and another took possession of the land, sowed crops there, and derived benefit from them, and each of them claims that the entire property belongs to him, because he purchased it from the owner. The person in possession of the trees is given the trees and the land necessary to tend to them - i.e., the space in which a person picking fruit can stand together with his basket for each tree. The person in possession of the land receives the remainder of the land.", + "Similarly, when a person benefits from all the produce of a tree for three years and then issues a claim against the owner of the tree: \"You sold me this tree and its land,\" he is granted an amount of land equivalent to the thickness of the tree until the depths of the earth.", + "The following laws apply when there are 30 trees within a tree grove large enough to sow three se'ah of grain. If a person in possession benefited from ten trees in the first year, ten in the second year, and ten in the third, he establishes his possession over the entire grove.
The above applies when the ten trees from which he benefited were spread through the entire area of the field, and the other trees did not produce any fruit. If, however, the other trees produced fruit and he did not partake of it, he establishes a claim of ownership only on the produce from which he partook.", + "When does the above apply? When he benefited from some of the fruit and the people reaped the remainder of the fruit. If, however, he left the fruit on the trees and benefited from the fruit from several portions throughout the entire grove, he establishes a claim of ownership concerning the entire field, even though he did not collect all its produce." + ], + [ + "The following individuals are not given the privilege of establishing a claim of ownership even though they have benefited from a property for three years: craftsmen, sharecroppers, guardians, partners, a husband with regard to property belonging to his wife, a wife with regard to property belonging to her husband, a son with regard to property belonging to his father, and a father with regard to property belonging to his son.
The rationale is that in all these instances the owners will not be irritated if the other uses the property. Therefore, the fact that they benefited from it does not serve as proof of ownership, even though the owner did not protest. Instead, the property should be returned to the owner, provided that they bring proof that this land was known to belong to them, and that they take a sh'vu'at hesset that they did not sell or give away the land, as we have explained.", + "Similarly, the exilarchs of that period, a robber and a gentile cannot establish a claim of ownership because they benefited from a property. The rationale is that they are men of force.
Similarly, a deaf-mute, a mentally or emotionally unstable person and a minor cannot establish a claim of ownership through benefiting from a property. The rationale is that they do not have a claim on which the property could be awarded to them. Instead, the property should be returned to its owners. Conversely, if a person manifests ownership over his property for three years, the fact that he benefited from the property is not considered proof of ownership.", + "What is meant by the statement that they are not given the privilege of establishing a claim of ownership over property? Reuven benefited from a field originally belonging to Shimon for a sufficient number of years to establish a claim of ownership. He claims that he purchased the land. Shimon brought witnesses who testify that the property was known to belong to him. Similarly, he brought witnesses who testify that Reuven was known to be his partner, his sharecropper or his guardian. For this reason, he claims that he did not protest. The field is returned to Shimon, provided that he takes a sh'vu'at hesset that he did not sell or give the property to Reuven. Similar laws apply with regard to the others mentioned above.
Different laws apply, however, if Shimon does not bring proof that Reuven was his partner or sharecropper, but instead, Reuven made this admission on his own initiative, saying: \"Yes, he is my partner and he sold me the property.\" Since he benefited from the land for the number of years long enough to establish a claim of ownership and he could have said: \"He was never my partner,\" his word is accepted like the word of other persons.", + "What is meant by the exclusion of craftsmen? If a person was building a property or repairing it for many years he cannot establish a claim of ownership over it.
If the craftsman abandoned his profession and benefited from a property for three years after he abandoned the profession, he can establish a claim of ownership.", + "What is meant by the exclusion of sharecroppers? For example, a person worked as a sharecropper for the father of the owner of the property, or for another member of the family. Since he is a sharecropper who has worked for the family, the owner will not lodge a protest against him. If, however, a person becomes a sharecropper for the first time and then benefits from the land for the length of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership, he is allowed to retain possession. We tell the owners: \"How did you allow him to benefit from the property year after year without issuing a protest?\"", + "Moreover, even when a sharecropper who has worked for the family brings other sharecroppers to work in his place, he may establish a claim of ownership. For ordinarily, there is no way that a person will bring sharecroppers into a colleague's property, and the latter will remain silent.
If, however, he divided the land among other sharecroppers who also worked on that property, he may not establish a claim of ownership. For it is possible that the owner appointed him as a supervisor over the sharecroppers.
When a sharecropper ceases working in that capacity and afterwards benefits from the produce of the land on which he had been working for three years, he establishes a claim of ownership.", + "What is meant by the exclusion of guardians? The exclusion applies whether the guardian was charged with caring for a particular field or all of an heir's properties, whether he was appointed by the court or appointed by the father of the orphans, and the orphans came of age and allowed him to remain in that capacity, or whether an adult appointed a guardian to supervise his income and expenditures. Since these persons have permission to use the property, they cannot establish a claim of ownership. If a guardian left his position and benefited from the property for three years after leaving, he establishes a claim of ownership.", + "What is meant by the exclusion of partners? When a person is a partner in a field that is not required to be divided , even though he alone benefits from the entire field for several years, the field is still presumed to be owned by both of the partners.
If, however, it is large enough to be divided and only one of the partners benefited from it in its entirety for the years necessary to establish a claim of ownership, he establishes such a claim. For he may tell his partner: \"If it is true that you did not sell or give me your share of the field, why did I alone benefit from the entire field? Why did you remain silent and not protest for all these three years?\"
Similarly, when a man who had stipulated that he waives the right to benefit from his wife's property nevertheless derives benefit from his wife's property for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership, the fact that he derived benefit is of no consequence. This applies even when - while she was consecrated but not yet married - he stipulated that he would not inherit her property, and afterwards derived benefit from it, built or destroyed structures on it, doing whatever he desired.
Similarly, when a woman derived benefit from her husband's property and made use of it as she desired for several years, the fact that she derived benefit is of no consequence. This applies even if her husband designated another field for her to derive her livelihood from, and she benefited from other fields.
Similarly, when a son receives his livelihood at his father's home and is considered one of the members of his household, if he benefits from his father's property for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership, it is of no consequence. The same law applies when the father derives benefit from the property of this son, who derives his livelihood from him for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership.", + "If such a son leaves his father's household or a woman is divorced - this applies even if there is a question whether the divorce is effective - they are bound by the laws that apply to all other individuals.", + "The exilarchs of the Talmudic era could not establish a claim of ownership because they benefited from a field. The rationale is that they had the authority to rale over the people.
Similarly, when a person manifests ownership over property belonging to the exilarchs, even if he benefits from it for a number of years, the fact that he derived benefit is not significant. The rationale is that the exilarchs do not protest because they have the power to remove the other person from the property whenever they desire. Instead, they must take a sh'vu'at hesset that they did not sell or give that person the property. Conversely, if they took possession of the property of another person, and that person says that he did not sell the property, that person must take a sh'vu'at hesset that he did not sell or give them the property.", + "What is meant by the exclusion of robbers? When a person is presumed to have stolen this field, or his ancestors were presumed to kill people in order to take their property, although he benefits from a field for several years, he does not establish a claim of ownership, and the field should be returned to its owners." + ], + [ + "If any of the individuals who are not able to establish a claim of ownership by benefiting from a property bring witnesses who testify that the owner sold them this particular field or gave it to them as a present, the testimony is accepted as substantial. There are two exceptions: a robber, and a husband with regard to his wife's property. With regard to which property were the above statements made? With regard to nichsei tzon barzel, a field designated as payment for the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, a field belonging to her and mentioned in her ketubah, or a field that her husband had evaluated in her ketubah as a present for her. With regard to nichsei milog, by contrast, he may bring proof, as stated in Hilchot Ishut.", + "What is meant by saying that a robber cannot substantiate the sale of a property? Once it has been established that a person gained possession of a field through robbery, he cannot substantiate his possession of a field even though he brings proof that, in the presence of witnesses, the owner acknowledged the fact that he sold him this field and received payment for it. For the owner can say: \"We never sold the field; we acknowledged [the sale only out of fear.\" In such an instance, we expropriate the field from the robber, and he is not given anything.
If witnesses testify that the robber counted out a specific sum of money to the owner, we expropriate the field from the robber and require the owner to return the money, as stated in Hilchot Gezelah.", + "The following rules apply when the son of a craftsman, the son of a sharecropper, or the son of a guardian benefits from a field for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership. If these individuals claim that the owner sold the property to them, or gave it to them as a present, their claim is established. If, however, they claim that the property is an inheritance that they received from their father, who benefited from it for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership, their claim is not accepted.
If they bring witnesses who testify that the owner acknowledged to their father that he sold it or gave it to him, they are allowed to retain possession of the field.", + "Although the son of a robber brings proof that the owner acknowledged to their father that he sold a property to him, it is of no consequence, as explained above. When, however, a robber's grandson claims that he - or even his father - acquired a property, he can establish a claim of ownership. If, however, his claim is based on his grandfather's acquisition, he cannot establish a claim of ownership.", + "Even though a gentile benefited from a property for several years, he cannot establish a claim of ownership on this basis. If he does not bring a deed of sale, we require that the field be returned to its owner. An oath is not required, for a sh'vu'at hesset was ordained only when the plaintiff was Jewish.
When a Jew claims a property on the basis of the claim of a gentile, he is governed by the same laws as the gentile, and the fact that he benefited from the property is not significant.", + "If the Jew who acquired the property from the gentile claimed: \"In my presence, the gentile who sold me the land acquired this land from the Jew who is disputing my claim,\" his claim is accepted, provided that he supports it with a sh'vu 'at hesset. The rationale is that since the claimant could have asserted: \"I acquired it from you and I benefited from it for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership,\" we accept his word when he asserts: \"I acquired it from so-and-so who, in my presence, acquired it from you.\"", + "A claim of ownership cannot be established with regard to property inherited by a minor, even when the minor later attains majority. What is implied? A person benefited from property inherited by a minor for one year in the minor's presence before the minor attained majority, and for two years after he attained majority. Although he claims: \"You sold it to me\" or \"You gave it to me,\" his claim is not accepted unless he benefits from the property for three consecutive years after he attains majority.", + "The following rules apply when a person maintains possession of property belonging to a minor for many years and claims: \"I am maintaining possession of it as security, and I am owed this-and-this on its account.\" Since if he had desired, he could have said: \"I purchased it,\" his word is accepted, for it has not been established that the property belonged to this person's father. Hence, the person in possession may collect what he claims from the property' s increase in value. The property itself is then returned to the orphans.
If, however, the property is reputed to belong to the orphans, the claim of the person in possession is not accepted. The rationale is that a claim of ownership cannot be established over property belonging to a minor. Instead, the field and all the produce that the person used must be returned to the orphans. When they come of age, the plaintiff will lodge a claim against them. 6", + "Different rules apply if the person in possession benefited from the field for the time necessary to establish a claim of ownership during the lifetime of the orphans' father. Since he could have claimed that he is the owner because he purchased it from their father, we accept his word when he claims that a debt is owed him by their father. He collects the debt from the produce of the field. Since he could say that the produce belongs to him, he is not required to take an oath concerning it.", + "When a person has to flee because of a danger to his life - e.g., the king desired to kill him - a claim of ownership cannot be established with regard to his property. Even if the person in possession of it derived benefit for several years and claimed that he purchased it, the fact that he derived benefit is not significant. We do not tell the owner of the field: \"Why didn't you protest?\" For the answer is obvious; he was concerned over his life. If, however, a person flees because of financial matters, he is considered like any other person. Thus, if he does not protest, a claim of ownership can be established over his property.", + "A claim of ownership can be established over the property of a married woman.
What is implied? A person benefited from the land for a portion of the period necessary to establish a claim of ownership during the lifetime of the woman's husband, and for three years after the husband's death. If he claims: \"You and your husband sold it to me,\" he is allowed to maintain possession. The rationale is that since the person in possession could say: \"I purchased it from you after the death of your husband\" - for he benefited from it for the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership after the death of her husband and she did not protest his word is accepted with regard to the claim mentioned above.
If, however, he benefited from the property for several years during the lifetime of her husband, but did not benefit from it for the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership after the death of her husband, he does not establish a claim of ownership.", + "Possession of property for the time necessary to establish a claim of ownership is of no consequence unless it is accompanied by a claim of acquisition.
What is implied? A person benefited from the produce of a field for several years. Afterwards, the person raising the protest comes and claims: \"How did you acquire this field? It's mine.\"
The person in possession responds: \"I don't know who the owner is. Since no one said anything to me about it. I took possession of it.\"
This does not establish a claim of ownership. For he is not claiming that he acquired it, that it was given to him, or that he inherited it. Nevertheless, even though he does not issue such a demand, the field is not expropriated from him until the person protesting brings witnesses that the field belongs to him. When, however, he brings witnesses, the field and all the benefit that he received from it is expropriated from the squatter.
We do not open by asking the squatter: \"Perhaps you had a deed of acquisition and you lost it.\" He must make such a claim on his own. If he does not make such a claim, he must return all the produce that he reaped. Similarly, when a person benefits from a field for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership on the basis of a deed of sale, and that deed of sale was disqualified, the claim of ownership established is nullified. The field and all of the produce reaped must be returned to the original owner.", + "When a person claims ownership of a field as an inheritance, he must bring proof that his father dwelled in or used this field for even one day. Once that is accomplished, since he benefited from the field for three years on the basis of his father's ownership, he is allowed to retain possession.
If, however, he did not bring proof that his father lived in it at all, the field and all of the produce reaped must be returned to the person lodging the protest, if he brings witnesses who testify that the field belongs to him. The rationale is that the person in possession does not claim that the owner sold or gave him the field, and it is not known that the field belonged to his ancestors.
If the person in possession brought proof that his father was seen in the field, it is of no consequence. Perhaps he went to inspect it and did not purchase it. Instead, he must bring proof that his father dwelled there for at least one day.", + "The following laws apply when a person benefited from a field for many years and the person raising the protest states: \"What are you doing in this field?\"
The person in possession acknowledges the truth of his statements, but says: \"I know that it once belonged to you, but so-and-so sold it to me, and he purchased it from you.\"
The person raising the protest states: \"So-and-so, the person who sold you the field, is a robber.\"
Since the person in possession admitted that the field belonged to him and that he did not purchase it from him, the field and all of its produce must be returned to the person raising the protest. This applies even though that person does not bring witnesses that the field belongs to him. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
If the person in possession brings witnesses who testify that the person who sold the field to him lived in it for even one day or he told him, \"He purchased it from you in my presence and afterwards he sold it to me,\" he is allowed to retain possession, for he has a definite claim and he has established a claim of ownership. If he desired, he could have claimed: \"I purchased it from you.\" His claim would have been accepted, for he lived in it long enough to establish a claim of ownership." + ], + [ + "The following rules apply when a person raises a protest regarding the ownership of a particular field and brings witnesses who testify that it was known to belong to him. The person in possession produces a deed of sale that he purchased it from the protester and also brings witnesses who testify that he benefited from the land for enough time to establish a claim of ownership. We tell the person in possession at the outset: \"Validate your deed of sale.\" If the deed of sale is validated, it is preferable, and the judgment is based on the deed of sale. If he cannot validate the deed of sale, we rely on the witnesses who testify that he has established a claim of ownership. The person in possession must take a sh'vu'at hesset that he purchased it from the protester.", + "When there are differences between the testimony of the two witnesses who testify that a claim of ownership has been established - e.g., one testifies that the person in possession benefited from wheat for three years and the other testifies that he benefited from barley - their testimony is accepted. For witnesses are not concerned with these particulars. If one witness testifies that the person in possession benefited from the property in the first, third and fifth years, and the other testifies that he benefited in the second, fourth and sixth years, their testimonies cannot be linked together. The rationale is that neither testified concerning the year about which the other testified. Hence, the land and its produce must be returned.", + "If a person took possession of a field on the assumption that he is the heir and benefited from the field, and then it was discovered that there was another heir who shared a closer connection and is fit to inherit the field, the person who took possession of the field first is obligated to return all the produce that he ate. This applies whether witnesses testified to the closer relative's identity or the person who first took possession of the property acknowledged it.", + "The following laws apply when two people are disputing the ownership of a field, each claiming it to be his own, but neither has proof of his claim. These same laws apply when both claimants bring witnesses who testify that the field belongs to them or to their parents, or when each of them brings witnesses who testify that the claimants benefited from the field for the time necessary to establish a claim of ownership, and both pairs of witnesses testify about exactly the same time period. We leave the field in their hands, and whoever overcomes the other one assumes possession. If the other seeks to expropriate the field from him, he must bring proof of his ownership.
If a third party comes, seizes the property from them and takes possession of it, he is removed from it and it is returned to the others.", + "If one claimant brings witnesses who testify that the field belonged to his ancestors, that he benefited from it for the period necessary to establish a claim of ownership, and that it is in his possession, and the other brings witnesses who testify that he benefited from it for the period necessary to establish a claim of ownership and that it is in his possession, the testimonies regarding the claims of ownership contradict each other. We grant the field to the person who produced witnesses that it belonged to his ancestors, and give him possession of it.
If the second person also brought witnesses who testify that the field belonged to his ancestors, and so this testimony also involves a contradiction, the court rescinds its initial ruling, removes the first claimant from it, and leaves it in possession of both of them. The one who overpowers the other acquires the right of ownership.", + "When both claimants say that the field belonged to their ancestors, and one brings witnesses who testify that the field belonged to his ancestors, while the other brings witnesses who testify only that he benefited from the field for the period necessary to establish a claim of ownership, the field should be returned to the one who brought witnesses that it belonged to his ancestors. The other claimant must return the produce that he used. The rationale is that he did not issue a claim. Hence, his consumption of the produce does not serve as proof. For any claim of ownership that is not based on a assertion against the owners is of no consequence.
If the person in possession of the field retorts: \"Yes. It belonged to your ancestors and you sold it to me. When I originally claimed that it belonged to my ancestors, I meant that my claim of ownership over it is so strong that it is as if it belonged to my ancestors,\" or he states: \"It was my ancestors, because they purchased it from your ancestors, his claim is valid, for he gave an explanation for his original statements. Hence, we allow him to maintain possession.
If at the outset, he claimed: \"It belonged to my ancestors and not your ancestors,\" we do not accept his later claim. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "The following rules apply when Reuven was in possession of a field and Shimon came and protested his ownership. Reuven responded: \"I purchased this field from Levi and benefited from it for the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership.\"
Shimon answered him: \"I have a validated deed of sale in my possession that I purchased the field from Levi four years ago.\"
Reuven retorted: \"Do you think that it is only three years since I purchased. I purchased it many years ago? My claim precedes yours.\"
Reuven's claim is acceptable, for it is common for a person to call many years \"the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership.\" Therefore, if Reuven brings witnesses who testify that he benefited from the field for seven years - and he thus would have established a claim of ownership before Shimon purchased the field - he is allowed to retain possession. If, however, he benefited from it for less than seven years, the field is returned to Shimon. The rationale is that Levi could not have issued a greater protest over Reuven's use of the field than selling it to Shimon before Reuven established a claim of ownership.", + "The following rules apply when one claimant stated: \"The field belonged to my ancestors\" and brought witnesses who substantiate his claim and another claims: \"It belonged to my ancestors,\" but does not have witnesses. The field should be returned to the one who brought witnesses. All the produce that the other claimant acknowledges consuming is expropriated from him, even though there are no witnesses that he consumed it. The rationale is that he admits that he consumed produce because the field belonged to his ancestors, and there are witnesses that the field belonged to the ancestors of the other claimant. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "We apply the principle of miggo in the following situation: One person is in possession of a field. Another raises a protest, bringing witnesses who testify that the field once belonged to him. The person in possession states: \"I purchased it from you. Here is the deed of sale,\" and produces a deed that is validated.
The person raising the protest claims that the deed is a forgery. The one in possession admits this, but claims: \"I had a valid deed of sale, but I lost it. I took this so that I would have something in hand to intimidate him, so that he would admit that he actually sold it to me.\"
Since he could have stood by his deed of sale, for it has been validated, his word is accepted. We do not expropriate the field from his possession. He must, however, take a sh'vu'at hesset to support his claim.", + "The following rules apply when a person protests a colleague's ownership of a field and brings witnesses who testify that the field belongs to him. The person in possession claims: \"I purchased the field from you and benefited from it for the time necessary to establish a claim of ownership\" and brings witnesses who support his claim.
The protester responded, claiming: \"How could you claim that you purchased it from me on this date three years ago? At that time, I was not in this country.\"
To resolve the question, the court requires the person in possession to bring proof that the person raising the protest was together with him in that city at the time he claims that he sold him the field, even for one day, so that he could have sold it. If he did not bring proof, he is removed from the field.", + "The following rules apply when a person journeyed overseas, and the path to his field was lost. These laws apply whether the fields surrounding his field were owned by four different people or they were all purchased from one person. Each of the owners may turn away the claimant, telling him: \"What makes you say that your way passes through my property? Maybe it passes through the property of my colleagues?\" Hence, the claimant must purchase a path, even though it costs 100 maneh, or he must fly through the air.
Similarly, when the four fields belong to one person who purchased them from four people, he is not required to provide the claimant with a path. For he can tell him: \"If I now returned each one his deed of sale, you would not be able to pass through the property of any one of them. And I purchased from each one every right that he possessed.\"
If, however, there was one person who owned all four fields, and he was this person's neighbor from the beginning until the end, the claimant can tell him: \"You certainly must provide me with a path.\" Hence, he should be given the shortest path through any one of the fields that the owner chooses. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
If the claimant takes possession of a path saying: \"This is my path,\" he may not be removed from it unless the owner of that property brings explicit proof that it never belonged to him." + ], + [ + "A person's protests are not accepted in the following situation. Reuven sold a field to Shimon, and Levi was one of the witnesses who signed the deed of sale. Afterwards, Levi came and protested Shimon's ownership of the field, claiming that Reuven stole it from him. We do not heed Levi's protest, nor do we pay attention to the proofs he brings concerning his ownership of that field. He has forfeited all of his rights to it. For we tell him: \"How could you serve as a witness to the sale and then come and protest?\"
Similar concepts apply if Levi gives testimony in a legal document that speaks of \"the field belonging to Reuven on the east\" or \"... on the north.\" Since he referred to that field as an identification marker for the sake of another person and recorded this testimony in a legal document, he forfeited his right to it and cannot issue a protest concerning it. For we tell him: \"How could you serve as a witness in this legal document that mentions this field being near another field and then issue a protest concerning it?\"", + "If, in the above situation, the witness claimed: \"There is one row? that I designated as a sign, but not the entire field. That row that is next to the boundary of the field alone belongs to Reuven,\" this is a claim that is worthy of being heard. He may protest the ownership of the entire field, with the exception of that row.
All of the above concepts apply only with regard to one of the witnesses to the legal document who comes to protest. When, by contrast, a judge verified the authenticity of the signatures of the witnesses to a bill of sale, he may protest the ownership of a field even though it was mentioned in that bill of sale. The rationale is that he can claim: \"I did not know what was written in the bill of sale.\" For a judge may verify the authenticity of the signatures of the witnesses to a legal document even though he did not read it. Witnesses, by contrast, may not sign a legal document unless they read it in its entirety and paid attention to its details.", + "The following rules apply when Shimon comes and consults Levi, telling him: \"I am buying this-and-this field from Reuven. I will buy it with your advice.\" Even though Levi tells him: \"Go and buy it. It is good,\" Levi has the right to protest Shimon's ownership. He does not forfeit this right, because he did not perform a deed. He can tell Shimon: \"I desired that the field leave the hands of Reuven, for he is a man of force, so that I could lodge a claim in court and take possession of my field.\"", + "The following rules apply when Reuven protests Shimon's ownership of a field, and Shimon tells him: \"I don't know what you are talking about. I purchased this field from Levi. Here are witnesses who will testify that I benefited from it for the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership.\"
Reuven responds to him: \"I have witnesses who will testify that yesterday evening, you came to me and asked me to sell you this field.\" This is not proof of Reuven's ownership. For Shimon could say: \"I desired to purchase it from you so that you would not protest and trouble me to enter legal proceedings, even though I do not know whether or not it is really yours.\" Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
If Shimon does not make such a claim, the court does not advance it on his behalf, n", + "The following rules apply when Reuven protests and brings witnesses who testify that the field belongs to him, and Shimon who is in possession of it claims: \"You sold it to me and I benefited from it for the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership.\" Reuven responds: \"You benefited from the field as a robber.\"
Whether there were no witnesses that he benefited from the field or whether there was only one witness who testified that he benefited for three years, the person in possession is not required to return the produce that he consumed. The rationale is that he is claiming: \"I consumed my own produce,\" and there are no witnesses who are obligating him for the produce. On the contrary, he acknowledged it himself. And the witness who testified that he benefited from the property for three years is coming to reinforce the power of the person who benefited. Indeed, if there were another witness with him, the person in possession would be allowed to retain possession of the field.
Therefore, Reuven must take a sh'vu'at hesset that he did not sell the field, and then the field is returned to him. Shimon must take a sh'vu'at hesset that he does not owe Reuven anything because of the produce he consumed. He is then released of liability.", + "When there are two witnesses who testify that Shimon benefited from a field for less than the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership, he must return all the produce he consumed. Even if there is only one witness, he is liable to return all the produce because of his testimony. The rationale is that he is not contradicting the testimony of the witness. Instead, he is saying: \"He testified truthfully. I did consume the produce for two years, but I consumed what was mine.\" He is thus obligated to take an oath, but unable to do so. Hence, he must pay.", + "The following principle applies whenever a person is obligated to return the produce he consumed, the extent of the benefit is unknown, and the court is unable to estimate - i.e., in contrast to houses and the like, which have a standard rate - the benefit he received from the produce of trees or the produce of the fields. Since the owner does not have a definite claim, he is required to pay only what he admits to have consumed. We issue a conditional ban of ostracism against anyone who consumed more produce and did not make restitution.", + "The following laws apply whenever a person in possession of property is required to return it. If he rented the property to others while he was in possession of it, and the renters are accessible, we expropriate the rent from them a second time and give it to the owner of the land. They in turn should lodge a claim against a person who rented them land that he did not own.", + "It is forbidden for a person to lodge a false claim to distort a judgment or prevent its execution. What is implied? If a person was owed a maneh by a colleague, he may not lodge a claim against him for 200 zuz, so that he will admit owing the maneh and be obligated to take an oath.
If a person owes a colleague a maneh, and the colleague claims 200 from him, he should not say: \"I will deny the entire amount in court so that I will not be required to take an oath and acknowledge the debt of the maneh in private.\"", + "When a person owes money to three people, and he denies owing a debt to one of them the three should not collaborate and perpetrate the following scheme. One person will claim the entire sum, and the others will falsely testify to his claim. When the money is expropriated from him, they will then divide it. With regard to things of this nature and the like, the Torah Exodus 23:7 warned us: \"Keep a distance from words of falsehood.\"
This concludes the Laws Governing Disputes between Plaintiffs and Defendants, with God's help." + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007", + "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות טוען ונטען", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant/Hebrew/Torat Emet 363.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant/Hebrew/Torat Emet 363.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..124659bdc8d3d4b61323395ce52e53a51cc6c95f --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant/Hebrew/Torat Emet 363.json @@ -0,0 +1,247 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant", + "versionSource": "http://www.toratemetfreeware.com/index.html?downloads", + "versionTitle": "Torat Emet 363", + "status": "locked", + "priority": 1.0, + "license": "Public Domain", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "תורת אמת 363", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות טוען ונטען", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "הַטוֹעֵן אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בְּמִקְצָת הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁהוֹדָה בּוֹ וְנִשְׁבָּע עַל הַשְּׁאָר מִן הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ח) \"אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר כִּי הוּא זֶה\". וְכֵן אִם כָּפַר בַּכּל וְאוֹמֵר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם וְעֵד אֶחָד מֵעִיד [שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ] הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע מִן הַתּוֹרָה. ומִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁכָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁשְּׁנַיִם מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ מָמוֹן אֶחָד מְחַיְּבוֹ שְׁבוּעָה. וְכֵן לָמְדוּ מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה שֶׁעֵד אֶחָד לְכָל עָוֹן וּלְכָל חַטָּאת אֵינוֹ קָם אֲבָל קָם הוּא לִשְׁבוּעָה: \n", + "אֵין לְךָ מְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה חוּץ מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה. מִי שֶׁהוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין. וּמִי שֶׁחִיְּבוֹ עֵד אֶחָד. וְהַשּׁוֹמֵר. שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר בְּשׁוֹמֵר (שמות כב י) \"שְׁבֻעַת ה' תִּהְיֶה בֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶם\". וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׂכִירוּת. וְכָל אֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה נִשְׁבָּע וְנִפְטָר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. אֲבָל כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין כְּגוֹן שָׂכִיר וְנֶחְבָּל וּפוֹגֵם אֶת שְׁטָרוֹ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בְּטַעֲנַת סָפֵק כְּגוֹן הַשֻּׁתָּפִין וְהָאֲרִיסִין. כֻּלָּן נִשְׁבָּעִין בְּתַקָּנַת חֲכָמִים. וְכָל אֵלּוּ הַשְּׁבוּעוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים הֲרֵי הֵן כְּעֵין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ: \n", + "הַטּוֹעֵן מִטַּלְטְלִין עַל חֲבֵרוֹ וְכָפַר בַּכּל וְאָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. אוֹ שֶׁהוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת וּנְתָנוֹ מִיָּד וְאָמַר אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא זֶה וְהֵילָךְ. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר אֱמֶת שֶׁהָיָה לְךָ אֶצְלִי אֲבָל מָחַלְתָּ לִי אוֹ נָתַתָּ לִי אוֹ מָכַרְתָּ לִי אוֹ הֶחְזַרְתִּי לְךָ. אוֹ שֶׁטְּעָנוֹ חִטִּים וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בִּשְׂעוֹרִים. בְּכָל אֵלּוּ פָּטוּר מִשְּׁבוּעַת הַתּוֹרָה. אֲבָל חַכְמֵי הַגְּמָרָא תִּקְּנוּ שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע הַנִּתְבָּע בְּכָל אֵלּוּ שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת וְיִפָּטֵר. וְאֵינוֹ כְּעֵין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן נְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ דֶּרֶךְ שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה וְדֶרֶךְ שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁבוּעוֹת: \n", + "כָּל מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב שְׁבוּעָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנִפְטָר. וְאִם לֹא רָצָה לְהִשָּׁבַע יוֹרְדִין לִנְכָסָיו וְגוֹבִין מֵהֶם כָּל מַה שֶּׁתָּבַע חֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַתּוֹבֵעַ אוֹמֵר לוֹ אֵינִי זָז מִדִּין תּוֹרָה אוֹ הִשָּׁבַע אוֹ תֵּן לִי. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַחֲרִים עַל מִי שֶׁטָּעַן עָלָיו דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ כֵּן וְנוֹתֵן. אֲבָל מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב שְׁבוּעָה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן אִם הָיָה מִן הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַפֵּךְ אֶת הַשְּׁבוּעָה שֶׁהֲרֵי הַנִּתְבָּע אוֹמֵר לוֹ הִשָּׁבַע וְטל כְּמוֹ שֶׁתִּקְּנוּ לְךָ. וְאִם לֹא רָצָה לְהִשָּׁבַע יֵלֵךְ לוֹ. וְהוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁאִם אָמַר הַתּוֹבֵעַ אֵינִי רוֹצֶה בְּתַקָּנָה זוֹ שֶׁתִּקְּנוּ לִי חֲכָמִים אֶלָּא הֲרֵינִי כִּשְׁאָר הַתּוֹבְעִים הֲרֵי זֶה מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֶת הַנִּתְבָּע הֶסֵּת. וְאִם רָצָה לְהָפְכָהּ עַל הַתּוֹבֵעַ מְחַיְּבִין אֶת הַתּוֹבֵעַ לְהִשָּׁבַע אוֹ יֵלֵךְ לוֹ: \n", + "הָיָה מְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם מִן הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין וְנִפְטָרִין כְּגוֹן הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין עַל טַעֲנַת סָפֵק אוֹ מִן הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין הֶסֵּת וְלֹא רָצָה לְהִשָּׁבַע מְשַׁמְּתִין אוֹתוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אִם לֹא בָּא וְלֹא תָּבַע נִדּוּיוֹ מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. וְכָל מִי שֶׁחָלָה עָלָיו שַׁמְתָּא שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַתִּירִין נִדּוּיוֹ. וְאֵין יוֹרְדִין לִנְכָסָיו לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה: \n", + "כָּל הַמְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת אִם רָצָה לַהֲפֹךְ הַשְּׁבוּעָה עַל הַתּוֹבֵעַ הֲרֵי הַתּוֹבֵעַ נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנוֹטֵל מֵחֲבֵרוֹ. וְאֵין לְךָ מִי שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנוֹטֵל מֵחֲבֵרוֹ אֶלָּא זֶה שֶׁנֶּהְפְּכָה עָלָיו שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת. וְאֵין לְךָ שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁתֵּהָפֵךְ אֶלָּא שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת בִּלְבַד. אֲבָל שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה אוֹ שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם שֶׁהִיא כְּעֵין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה אֵין הוֹפְכִין שְׁבוּעָתָן: \n", + "אֵין מַשְׁבִּיעִין שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת אֶלָּא עַל טַעֲנַת וַדַּאי אֲבָל עַל טַעֲנַת סָפֵק פָּטוּר. כֵּיצַד. כִּמְדֻמֶּה לִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי אֶצְלְךָ מָנֶה אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר מָנֶה הִלְוֵיתִיךָ וְכִמְדֻמֶּה לִי שֶׁלֹּא פְּרַעְתַּנִי. אָמַר לִי אַבָּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי אֶצְלְךָ מָנֶה אוֹ צִוָּה לִי בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי אֶצְלְךָ מָנֶה. דָּבָר פְּלוֹנִי נִגְנַב מִבֵּיתִי וְלֹא הָיָה שָׁם אֶלָּא אַתָּה קָרוֹב בְּעֵינֵי שֶׁאַתָּה גְּנָבַתּוּ. חִשַּׁבְתִּי מָעוֹת וּמָצָאתִי חָסֵר שֶׁמָּא אַתָּה הִטְעֵיתַנִי בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹן. וְהַנִּתְבָּע אוֹמֵר אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר אַף מִשְּׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "כּוֹר חִטִּים יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ בְּוַדַּאי וְהַנִּתְבָּע אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁמָּא יֵשׁ לְךָ שֶׁמָּא אֵין לְךָ הֲרֵי הַנִּתְבָּע יִשָּׁבַע שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ וְנִפְטָר. לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא חִיֵּב עַצְמוֹ בְּוַדַּאי. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. כּוֹר חִטִּים יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ בְּוַדַּאי וְהַנִּתְבָּע אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם חִטִּים הוּא אוֹ שְׂעוֹרִים הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ וּמְשַׁלֵּם שְׂעוֹרִין. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "מָנֶה יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ בְּוַדַּאי וְהַנִּתְבָּע אוֹמֵר כֵּן הָיָה לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֲבָל אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם הֶחְזַרְתִּי לְךָ אוֹ עֲדַיִן לֹא הֶחְזַרְתִּי לְךָ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם וְלֹא יִשָּׁבַע הַתּוֹבֵעַ כְּלָל אֲפִלּוּ שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב וַהֲרֵי זֶה טוֹעֵן אוֹתוֹ טַעֲנַת וַדַּאי וְנִסְתַּפֵּק אִם נִפְטַר אוֹ לֹא נִפְטַר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. אֲבָל אִם אֵין לוֹ תּוֹבֵעַ וְהוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ וְאָמַר גְּזַלְתִּיךָ אוֹ הִלְוֵיתַנִי מָנֶה. אָבִיךָ הִפְקִיד אֶצְלִי מָנֶה וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם הֶחְזַרְתִּיו אוֹ לֹא הֶחְזַרְתִּיו. אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. וְאִם בָּא לָצֵאת יְדֵי שָׁמַיִם חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם: \n", + "מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ. אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם. הִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת וְלֵךְ. הִשָּׁבַע אַתָּה הֶסֵּת וְטל. וְאָמַר הַתּוֹבֵעַ אֵינִי רוֹצֶה לְהִשָּׁבַע הֲרֵי הַנִּתְבָּע אוֹמֵר לוֹ הִשָּׁבַע וְטל אוֹ תֵּלֵךְ בְּלֹא כְּלוּם. וְאֵין שָׁם הִפּוּךְ אַחֵר וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַחֲרִים סְתָם עַל מִי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לִי וְלֹא יִתֵּן לִי: \n", + "הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב שְׁבוּעָה בֵּין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה בֵּין שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם אֲפִלּוּ הֶסֵּת. יֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַחֲרִים סְתָם קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע עַל מִי שֶׁיִּטְעֹן עָלָיו דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב בּוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּשְׁבִּיעַ אוֹתוֹ בְּחִנָּם וְיַעֲנֶה הַמַּשְׁבִּיעַ אָמֵן וְאַחַר יִשָּׁבַע. וְתַקָּנָה טוֹבָה לְבַעֲלֵי דִּינִין כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּמָּנְעוּ מִטַּעֲנַת שֶׁקֶר וְלֹא יִגְרְמוּ לְהוֹצִיא שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם לְבַטָּלָה וְלֹא יַשִּׂיאוֹ שֵׁמַע שָׁוְא: \n", + "כָּל מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב שְׁבוּעָה בֵּין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה בֵּין שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם מְגַלְגֵּל עָלָיו הַמַּשְׁבִּיעַ כָּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה מִדְּבָרִים שֶׁאִם יוֹדֶה בָּהֶן יִתְחַיֵּב מָמוֹן. וְעַד הֵיכָן כֹּחַ גִּלְגּוּל עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר וּבִכְלַל שְׁבוּעָה זוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נִמְכַּרְתָּ לִי בְּעֶבֶד עִבְרִי וַעֲדַיִן עַבְדִּי אַתָּה. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁאֵין מְגַלְגְּלִין עַל הַשָּׂכִיר: \n", + "מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב שְׁבוּעָה אֲפִלּוּ הֶסֵּת וְהִתְחִיל הַתּוֹבֵעַ לְגַלְגֵּל עָלָיו דְּבָרִים אֲחֵרִים שֶׁלֹּא טָעַן אוֹתָם. וְרָאָה הַנִּתְבָּע כָּךְ וְאָמַר אֵינִי רוֹצֶה לְהִשָּׁבַע אֶלָּא הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם הַטַּעֲנָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁנִּתְחַיַּבְתִּי עַל כְּפִירָתָהּ שְׁבוּעָה. אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ אֶלָּא אוֹמְרִים לַנִּתְבָּע אוֹ תֵּן לוֹ כָּל מַה שֶּׁגִּלְגֵּל עָלֶיךָ מִטְּעָנוֹת הַוַּדָּאִיּוֹת אוֹ הִשָּׁבַע וְהִפָּטֵר: \n", + "הַטּוֹעֵן אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ טְעָנוֹת הַרְבֵּה אֵין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ עַל כָּל טַעֲנָה וְטַעֲנָה אֶלָּא שְׁבוּעָה אַחַת עַל הַכּל. נִתְחַיֵּב שְׁתֵּי שְׁבוּעוֹת עַל שְׁתֵּי טְעָנוֹת קַלָּה וַחֲמוּרָה. מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ עַל הַחֲמוּרָה וּמְגַלְגְּלִין בָּהּ שְׁאָר דְּבָרִים: \n", + "כָּל הַטּוֹעֵן אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ טַעֲנָה שֶׁאִם הוֹדָה אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם מָמוֹן. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּפַר אֵין מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת וְלֹא חֵרֶם סְתָם. כֵּיצַד. אָמַרְתָּ שֶׁתִּתֵּן לִי מָנֶה. לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. אֵין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ הֶסֵּת וְלֹא חֵרֶם שֶׁאִלּוּ הוֹדָה בְּדָבָר זֶה אֵינוֹ חַיָּב כְּלוּם. אַתָּה קִלַּלְתָּ אוֹתִי אַתָּה הוֹצֵאתָ עָלַי שֵׁם רַע לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם אֵין מַחְרִימִין עַל זֶה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה מִדְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ: \n", + "אַתָּה חָבַלְתָּ בִּי לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם קְנָס עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם שֶׁבֶת וְרִפּוּי וּבשֶׁת. אַתָּה בִּיַּשְׁתַּנִי לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. אִם הָיוּ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁגּוֹבִין בּוֹ קְנָסוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת. שֶׁאִלּוּ הוֹדָה הָיָה מְשַׁלֵּם הַבֹּשֶׁת: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁהַמּוֹדֶה בִּקְנָס פָּטוּר כְּשֶׁהוֹדָה בְּדָבָר שֶׁחַיָּב עָלָיו קְנָס כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָמַר חָבַלְתִּי בָּזֶה. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר חָבַלְתִּי בָּזֶה וְהֵבִיא עָלַי עֵדִים בְּבֵית דִּין וְחִיְּבוּנִי לִתֵּן כָּךְ וְכָךְ בִּנְזָקַי הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. לְפִיכָךְ אִם טָעַן הַטּוֹעֵן שֶׁבֵּית דִּין חִיְּבוּךָ לְשַׁלֵּם לִי מֵאָה דִּינָרִין מִשּׁוּם שֶׁחָבַלְתָּ בִּי וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n" + ], + [ + "כָּל חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה אֵין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ לֹא שְׁבוּעַת הַתּוֹרָה וְלֹא שְׁבוּעָה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם וְלֹא שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת. וַאֲפִלּוּ רָצָה הַתּוֹבֵעַ אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ: \n", + "אֶחָד הַנִּשְׁבָּע לַשֶּׁקֶר שְׁבוּעַת בִּטּוּי. אוֹ שְׁבוּעַת עֵדוּת. אוֹ שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן. אוֹ שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. הֲרֵי הוּא חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה. וְכֵן כָּל הַפָּסוּל לְעֵדוּת מִשּׁוּם עֲבֵרָה. בֵּין פַּסְלָנוּת שֶׁל תּוֹרָה כְּגוֹן בַּעֲלֵי רִבִּית וְאוֹכְלֵי נְבֵלוֹת וְגַזְלָנִין. בֵּין פַּסְלָנוּת שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם כְּגוֹן מִשְׂחָק בְּקֻבִּיָּא וּמַפְרִיחֵי יוֹנִים. הֲרֵי הוּא חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה וְאֵין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ: \n", + "אֵין אָדָם נַעֲשֶׂה חָשׁוּד עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ עָלָיו עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא עָבַר עֲבֵרָה שֶׁנִּפְסַל בָּהּ. אֲבָל הַמּוֹדֶה מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ שֶׁהוּא חָשׁוּד וְשֶׁעָבַר עֲבֵרָה שֶׁנִּפְסַל בָּהּ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ וְאֵין רָאוּי לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ עֵד בַּתְּחִלָּה. אִם נִתְחַיֵּב שְׁבוּעָה מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמְרִים לוֹ אִם אֱמֶת אַתָּה אוֹמֵר הִשָּׁבַע וְלֹא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעָבַרְתָּ עֲבֵרָה אָסוּר לְךָ לְהִשָּׁבַע בֶּאֱמֶת. וְאִם שֶׁקֶר אַתָּה אוֹמֵר הוֹדֵה לְבַעַל דִּינְךָ. אֲבָל הַנֶּחְשָׁד בְּעֵדִים אֵין אָנוּ מַאֲמִינִים אוֹתוֹ שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע: \n", + "תַּקָּנַת חֲכָמִים הִיא שֶׁכָּל הַמְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה עַל טַעֲנַת וַדַּאי. אִם הָיָה חָשׁוּד הֲרֵי הַתּוֹבֵעַ נִשְׁבָּע מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם וְנוֹטֵל מַה שֶּׁטָּעַן. הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם חֲשׁוּדִין חָזְרָה שְׁבוּעָה לַמְחֻיָּב לָהּ שֶׁהוּא הַנִּתְבָּע וּמִתּוֹךְ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִשָּׁבַע מְשַׁלֵּם. הָיָה הֶחָשׁוּד שׁוֹמֵר וְטָעַן שֶׁאָבַד הַפִּקָּדוֹן אוֹ נִגְנַב שֶׁכְּנֶגְדוֹ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִשָּׁבַע וְלִטּל שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינוֹ טוֹעֲנוֹ וַדַּאי שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם טָעַן בַּעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן וְאָמַר בְּפָנַי שָׁלַח יָד בְּפִקְדוֹנִי אוֹ פָּשַׁע בּוֹ הֲרֵי הַתּוֹבֵעַ נִשְׁבָּע בְּתַקָּנַת חֲכָמִים וְנוֹטֵל: \n", + "נִתְחַיֵּב הֶחָשׁוּד שְׁבוּעָה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם אִם הָיָה מִן הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִשָּׁבַע וְלִטּל אֶלָּא הַנִּתְבָּע שֶׁכְּנֶגְדוֹ יִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת וְיִפָּטֵר. וְכֵן פּוֹגֵם שְׁטָרוֹ וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה שֶׁהָיָה חָשׁוּד וְטָעַן הַלּוֶֹה שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ וְאָמַר יִשָּׁבַע לִי הֲרֵי הַנִּתְבָּע נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְיִפָּטֵר מִן הַשְּׁטָר: \n", + "הָיָה הֶחָשׁוּד מִן הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בְּטַעֲנַת סָפֵק אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע וְאֵין שֶׁכְּנֶגְדוֹ נִשְׁבָּע לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַיֵּב זֶה שְׁבוּעָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וּלְפִי שֶׁאֵין הַתּוֹבֵעַ טוֹעֲנוֹ טַעֲנַת וַדַּאי כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ: \n", + "נִתְחַיֵּב הֶחָשׁוּד שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת אֵין שֶׁכְּנֶגְדוֹ נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. שֶׁשְּׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת עַצְמָהּ תַּקָּנָה הִיא וְלֹא עָשׂוּ לָהּ תַּקָּנָה אַחֶרֶת שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע הַתּוֹבֵעַ אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הַנִּתְבָּע נִפְטָר בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה: \n", + "מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת וְהָיָה הַתּוֹבֵעַ חָשׁוּד. אֵין הַנִּתְבָּע יָכוֹל לַהֲפֹךְ עָלָיו הַשְּׁבוּעָה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין יָכוֹל לְהִשָּׁבַע. אֶלָּא יְשַׁלֵּם אוֹ יִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת. וְאֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לָזֶה לִתְלוֹת בְּדָבָר שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר. וַהֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִי שֶׁהָפַךְ שְׁבוּעָתוֹ עַל הַקָּטָן שֶׁאֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ אֶלָּא אוֹ יִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת אוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם: \n", + "מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב שְׁבוּעָה בֵּין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה בֵּין שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם וְנִשְׁבַּע וְנָטַל אוֹ נִשְׁבַּע וְנִפְטַר. וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עָלָיו עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא חָשׁוּד. אֵין שְׁבוּעָתוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע כְּלוּם וְיֵשׁ לְבַעַל דִּינוֹ לְהוֹצִיא מִיָּדוֹ מַה שֶּׁנָּטַל אוֹ יִשָּׁבַע זֶה שֶׁכְּנֶגְדוֹ וְיִטּל מִמֶּנּוּ: \n", + "לְעוֹלָם כָּזֶה דָּנִין לֶחָשׁוּד עַד שֶׁיִּלְקֶה בְּבֵית דִּין. אִם הָיוּ עָלָיו עֵדִים שֶׁלָּקָה וְעָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה יַחְזֹר לְכַשְׁרוּתוֹ בֵּין לְעֵדוּת בֵּין לִשְׁבוּעָה: \n", + "מִי שֶׁטָּעַן עַל חֲבֵרוֹ וְכָפַר בּוֹ וְנִשְׁבַּע בֵּין שְׁבוּעַת הַתּוֹרָה בֵּין שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת. וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים וְהֵעִידוּ עָלָיו שֶׁעַל שֶׁקֶר נִשְׁבַּע. הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם וְהֻחְזַק חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ בִּשְׁבוּעוֹת שֶׁכָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּע עַל מָמוֹן חֲבֵרוֹ וְעָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה חַיָּב לְהוֹסִיף חֹמֶשׁ: \n", + "טְעָנוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ חוֹב אֶצְלוֹ בְּעֵדִים וְקִנְיָן וְאָמַר כֵּן הָיָה וּפְרַעְתִּיךָ. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר אֵינִי חַיָּב לְךָ כְּלוּם וְנִשְׁבַּע. וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדֵי הַקִּנְיָן אוֹ הוֹצִיא הַשְּׁטָר וְנִתְקַיֵּם הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם וְאֵינוֹ חָשׁוּד. שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא הֱעִידוֹ שֶׁלֹּא פְּרָעוֹ וְלֹא אָמַר הַנִּתְבָּע לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n" + ], + [ + "אֵין מוֹדֶה בְּמִקְצָת חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה עַד שֶׁיּוֹדֶה בִּפְרוּטָה אוֹ יֶתֶר וְיִכְפֹּר בִּשְׁתֵּי מָעִין כֶּסֶף אוֹ יֶתֶר. וְכַמָּה הִיא פְּרוּטָה מִשְׁקַל חֲצִי שְׂעוֹרָה שֶׁל כֶּסֶף נָקִי. וְכַמָּה הֵם שְׁתֵּי מָעִין מִשְׁקַל שְׁתַּיִם וּשְׁלֹשִׁים שְׂעוֹרוֹת כֶּסֶף מְזֻקָּק: ", + "כָּל כֶּסֶף הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה הוּא שֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ וְהוּא עֶשְׂרִים מָעָה וְכָל כֶּסֶף שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶן מִמַּטְבֵּעַ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם שֶׁהָיָה הַסֶּלַע שֶׁלָּהֶן אֶחָד מִשְּׁמֹנֶה בּוֹ כֶּסֶף וְהַשְּׁאָר נְחשֶׁת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֲבָל הַמָּעָה הִיא הָיְתָה כֶּסֶף נָקִי אֲפִלּוּ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם וְהִיא כֶּסֶף שֶׁל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם. וּלְפִי שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁהִצְרִיכוּ לִהְיוֹת כְּפִירַת הַטַּעֲנָה שְׁתֵּי כֶּסֶף הִיא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם עָשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ שְׁתֵּי כֶּסֶף שֶׁל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם שֶׁהֵן שְׁתֵּי מָעִין וְלֹא עָשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ שְׁנֵי שְׁקָלִים בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ. זֶהוּ הַדָּבָר הַנִּרְאֶה בְּשִׁעוּר כְּפִירַת הַטַּעֲנָה. וְרַבּוֹתַי הוֹרוּ שֶׁכְּפִירַת הַטַּעֲנָה הוּא מִשְׁקַל תְּשַׁע עֶשְׂרֵה שְׂעוֹרוֹת וַחֲצִי שְׂעוֹרָה מִן הַכֶּסֶף. וְיֵשׁ לִי כַּמָּה רְאָיוֹת לִסְתֹּר אוֹתָהּ הַדֶּרֶךְ שֶׁתָּפְסוּ עַד שֶׁיָּצָא לָהֶם זֶה הַחֶשְׁבּוֹן. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁהוּא טָעוּת: ", + "שְׁתֵּי מָעִין וּפְרוּטָה יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא פְּרוּטָה חַיָּב. אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא שְׁתֵּי פְּרוּטוֹת פָּטוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכָּפַר בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁתֵי מָעִין. מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲצִי פְּרוּטָה פָּטוּר שֶׁכָּל הַמּוֹדֶה בְּפָחוֹת מִפְּרוּטָה כְּאִלּוּ לֹא הוֹדָה בִּכְלוּם: ", + "מֵאָה תְּמָרִים יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא תִּשְׁעִים. רוֹאִים אִם הָיוּ שָׁוִין שָׁם הָעֶשֶׂר שֶׁכָּפַר בָּהֶן שְׁתֵּי מָעִין נִשְׁבָּע וְאִם לָאו פָּטוּר. חֲמִשָּׁה אוֹ שִׁשָּׁה אֱגוֹזִים יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ [בְּיָדִי] אֶלָּא אֱגוֹז אֶחָד רוֹאִין אִם שָׁוֶה הָאֶחָד פְּרוּטָה נִשְׁבָּע וְאִם לָאו פָּטוּר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּכֶסֶף אוֹ בְּמִינֵי סְחוֹרוֹת וּפֵרוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. אֲבָל הַכֵּלִים אֵין מְשַׁעֲרִין אֶת דְּמֵיהֶן וַאֲפִלּוּ הֵן עֶשֶׂר מְחָטִין בִּפְרוּטָה וּטְעָנוֹ שְׁתֵּי מְחָטִין הוֹדָה בְּאַחַת וְכָפַר בְּאַחַת חַיָּב. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ו) \"כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵלִים\" כָּל הַכֵּלִים כְּכֶסֶף. טְעָנוֹ כֶּסֶף וְכֵלִים וְהוֹדָה בַּכֵּלִים וְכָפַר בַּכֶּסֶף אִם יֵשׁ בַּכְּפִירָה שְׁתֵּי מָעִין חַיָּב וְאִם לָאו פָּטוּר. הוֹדָה בַּכֶּסֶף וְכָפַר בַּכֵּלִים אִם הוֹדָה בִּפְרוּטָה חַיָּב. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "הֵעִיד עָלָיו עֵד אֶחָד אֲפִלּוּ לֹא כָּפַר אֶלָּא פְּרוּטָה הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁשְּׁנַיִם מְחַיְּבִים אוֹתוֹ מָמוֹן אֶחָד מְחַיְּבוֹ שְׁבוּעָה. כֵּיצַד. פְּרוּטָה אוֹ שְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם וְעֵד אֶחָד מֵעִיד שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע. וְכֵן בִּשְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִים אֲפִלּוּ הִפְקִיד אֶצְלוֹ פְּרוּטָה אוֹ שְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה וְטָעַן שֶׁאָבְדָה נִשְׁבָּע. וְכָל פָּחוֹת מִפְּרוּטָה אֵינוֹ מָמוֹן וְאֵין בֵּית דִּין נִזְקָקִין לוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין נִשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין מִפְּרוּטָה וָמַעְלָה: ", + "הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁהַנִּשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין אֵינָן צְרִיכִין טַעֲנַת שְׁתֵּי כֶּסֶף. וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁצָּרִיךְ הַנִּתְבָּע שֶׁיִּכְפֹּר בִּשְׁתֵּי מָעִין וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִשָּׁבַע הַתּוֹבֵעַ בְּתַקָּנַת חֲכָמִים וְיִטּל. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בְּטַעֲנַת סָפֵק צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בֵּינֵיהֶם כְּפִירַת שְׁתֵּי מָעִין וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִשָּׁבַע מִסָּפֵק: ", + "אֵין מוֹדֶה בְּמִקְצָת חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה עַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה הוֹדָיָה מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה. כֵּיצַד. כּוֹר חִטִּים יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא לֶתֶךְ חִטִּים חַיָּב. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא כּוֹר שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִים פָּטוּר שֶׁהַמִּין שֶׁטְּעָנוֹ לֹא הוֹדָה לוֹ בּוֹ וְהַמִּין שֶׁהוֹדָה לוֹ בּוֹ לֹא טְעָנוֹ. דִּינַר זָהָב יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ פִּקָּדוֹן לֹא הִפְקַדְתָּ אֶצְלִי אֶלָּא דִּינַר כֶּסֶף. מָעָה כֶּסֶף הִפְקַדְתִּי אֶצְלְךָ לֹא הִפְקַדְתָּ אֶצְלִי אֶלָּא פְּרוּטָה פָּטוּר שֶׁטְּעָנוֹ מִין אֶחָד וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בְּמִין אַחֵר. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר לוֹ עֲשָׂרָה דִּינָרִים מִצְרִיּוֹת הִפְקַדְתִּי אֶצְלְךָ לֹא הִפְקַדְתָּ אֶצְלִי אֶלָּא עֲשָׂרָה צוֹרִיּוֹת פָּטוּר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "מְנוֹרָה גְּדוֹלָה יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא מְנוֹרָה קְטַנָּה הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. אֲבָל אִם טְעָנוֹ מְנוֹרָה בַּת עֶשֶׂר לִיטְרִין וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בִּמְנוֹרָה בַּת חָמֵשׁ לִיטְרִין הֲרֵי זֶה מוֹדֶה בְּמִקְצָת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְגָרְרָהּ וּלְהַעֲמִידָהּ עַל חָמֵשׁ. וְכֵן אִם טְעָנוֹ אֵזוֹר גָּדוֹל וְאָמַר לוֹ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא אֵזוֹר קָטָן פָּטוּר. אֲבָל אִם טְעָנוֹ יְרִיעָה בַּת עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בִּירִיעָה בַּת עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְחָתְכָהּ וּלְהַעֲמִידָהּ עַל עֶשֶׂר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "כּוֹר חִטִּים יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא כּוֹר שְׂעוֹרִים פָּטוּר אַף מִדְּמֵי שְׂעוֹרִים. שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר לוֹ אֵין לִי בְּיָדְךָ שְׂעוֹרִים וְנִמְצָא זֶה דּוֹמֶה לְמִי שֶׁאָמַר לַחֲבֵרוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין מָנֶה לְךָ בְּיָדִי וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ הָאַחֵר אֵין לִי בְּיָדְךָ שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ לִתֵּן לוֹ כְּלוּם. וְאִם תָּפַס הַתּוֹבֵעַ דְּמֵי הַשְּׂעוֹרִים אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ: ", + "הַטּוֹעֵן אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ שְׁנֵי מִינִין וְהוֹדָה בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן הֲרֵי הַהוֹדָיָה מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה וְנִשְׁבָּע. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן כּוֹר חִטִּין וְכוֹר שְׂעוֹרִין יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא כּוֹר חִטִּין חַיָּב. הִתְחִיל הַטּוֹעֵן וְאָמַר כּוֹר חִטִּין יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ וְקֹדֶם שֶׁיַּשְׁלִים דְּבָרָיו וְאָמַר כּוֹר שְׂעוֹרִים יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אָמַר לוֹ הַנִּטְעָן אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא כּוֹר שְׂעוֹרִים. אִם נִרְאֶה לַדַּיָּנִין שֶׁהַנִּטְעָן הֶעֱרִים חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה. וְאִם לְפִי תֻּמּוֹ פָּטוּר: ", + "כּוֹר חִטִּין יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אָמַר לוֹ הֵן וְכוֹר שְׂעוֹרִים אָמַר לוֹ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי שְׂעוֹרִין. הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר וְאֵין זֶה מוֹדֶה בְּמִקְצָת עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ בְּבַת אַחַת כּוֹר חִטִּים וְכוֹר שְׂעוֹרִין יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ וְיֹאמַר לוֹ הַנִּטְעָן אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא כּוֹר שְׂעוֹרִים. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "מְלֹא עֲשָׂרָה כַּדִּין שֶׁמֶן יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא עֲשָׂרָה כַּדִּין בְּלֹא שֶׁמֶן פָּטוּר. שֶׁהֲרֵי טְעָנוֹ שֶׁמֶן וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בָּחֲרָסִים. עֲשָׂרָה כַּדִּין שֶׁמֶן יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא עֲשָׂרָה כַּדִּין רֵיקָנִין חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁהֲרֵי טְעָנוֹ הַכַּדִּין וְהַשֶּׁמֶן וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בַּכַּדִּין. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "מָנֶה לִי אֶצְלְךָ הַלְוָאָה לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם וְלֹא לָוִיתִי מִמְּךָ אֲבָל חֲמִשִּׁים דִּינָרִין יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּיָדִי פִּקָּדוֹן אוֹ מִשּׁוּם נֵזֶק וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁזֶּה מוֹדֶה בְּמִקְצָת וְיִשָּׁבַע. שֶׁהֲרֵי טְעָנוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ מֵאָה וְהוֹדָה לוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב חֲמִשִּׁים וּמַה לִּי נִתְחַיֵּב לוֹ מִשּׁוּם הַלְוָאָה אוֹ מִשּׁוּם פִּקָּדוֹן אוֹ מִשּׁוּם נֵזֶק. וְלָזֶה דַּעְתִּי נוֹטָה: ", + "מָנֶה וּכְלִי יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא הַכְּלִי וְהֵא לְךָ. הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶצְלוֹ אֶלָּא זֶה. אָמַר בַּעַל הַכְּלִי אֵין זֶה הַכְּלִי כּוֹלֵל בִּשְׁבוּעָתוֹ שֶׁזֶּה כֶּלְיוֹ. הוֹדָה הַנִּטְעָן שֶׁאֵין זֶה כֶּלְיוֹ וְנִתְחַלֵּף לוֹ בְּאַחֵר הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּעִנְיָן זֶה פָּטוּר הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר מִשְּׁבוּעַת הַתּוֹרָה וְחַיָּב שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ כַּמָּה פְּעָמִים: " + ], + [ + "אֵין מוֹדֶה בְּמִקְצָת חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה עַד שֶׁיִּטְעָנֶנּוּ בְּדָבָר שֶׁבְּמִדָּה אוֹ בְּמִשְׁקָל אוֹ בְּמִנְיָן וְיוֹדֶה לוֹ בְּדָבָר שֶׁבְּמִדָּה אוֹ שֶׁבְּמִשְׁקָל אוֹ שֶׁבְּמִנְיָן. כֵּיצַד. עֲשָׂרָה דִּינָרִין יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשָּׁה. כּוֹר חִטִּים יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא לֶתֶךְ. שְׁתֵּי לִיטְרִין שֶׁל מֶשִׁי יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא רוֹטֶל הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. אֲבָל אָמַר לוֹ כִּיס מָלֵא דִּינָרִין מָסַרְתִּי לְךָ לֹא מָסַרְתָּ לִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים. מֵאָה דִּינָרִין מָסַרְתִּי לְךָ לֹא מָסַרְתָּ לִי אֶלָּא צְרוֹר שֶׁל דִּינָרִין וְלֹא מָנִיתָ אוֹתָן בְּפָנַי וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מֶה הָיָה בּוֹ וּמַה שֶּׁהִנַּחְתָּ אַתָּה נוֹטֵל הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "בַּיִת מָלֵא תְּבוּאָה מָסַרְתִּי לְךָ וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא מָסַרְתָּ לִי אֶלָּא עֲשָׂרָה כּוֹרִין. עֲשָׂרָה כּוֹרִין מָסַרְתִּי לְךָ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ כַּמָּה הֵם שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא מְדַדְתָּם בְּפָנַי אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁהִנַּחְתָּ אַתָּה נוֹטֵל פָּטוּר: \n", + "בַּיִת זֶה מָלֵא עַד הַזִּיז מָסַרְתִּי לְךָ וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר עַד הַחַלּוֹן חַיָּב. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "אֵין מוֹדֶה בְּמִקְצָת חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה עַד שֶׁיּוֹדֶה בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לִכְפֹּר בּוֹ. כֵּיצַד. מִי שֶׁטָּעַן חֲבֵרוֹ וְאָמַר מֵאָה דִּינָרִין יֵשׁ לִי אֶצְלְךָ חֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁבִּשְׁטָר זֶה וַחֲמִשִּׁים בְּלֹא שְׁטָר. אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁבַּשְּׁטָר אֵין זֶה מוֹדֶה בְּמִקְצָת שֶׁהַשְּׁטָר לֹא תּוֹעִיל בּוֹ כְּפִירָתוֹ וַהֲרֵי כָּל נְכָסָיו מְשֻׁעְבָּדִין בּוֹ וַאֲפִלּוּ כָּפַר בּוֹ הָיָה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. לְפִיכָךְ נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת עַל הַחֲמִשִּׁים: \n", + "שְׁטָר שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ סְלָעִים וְלֹא הִזְכִּיר מִנְיָן. מַלְוֶה אוֹמֵר חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ הֵם הַכְּתוּבִים בּוֹ וְהַלּוֶֹה אוֹמֵר אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא שָׁלֹשׁ וְהֵם הַכְּתוּבִים בַּשְּׁטָר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ בִּשְׁטָר זֶה אֶלָּא בִּשְׁתַּיִם וַהֲרֵי הוֹדָה בְּסֶלַע שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לִכְפֹּר בָּהּ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵדָה וְתַקָּנַת חֲכָמִים הִיא שֶׁכָּל שֶׁיָּשִׁיב אֲבֵדָה לֹא יִשָּׁבַע כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. וְכֵן הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ אָמַר לִי אַבָּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ מָנֶה וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים הֲרֵי זֶה מֵשִׁיב אֲבֵדָה וּפָטוּר אַף מִשְּׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם הוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ וְאָמַר מָנֶה הָיָה לְאָבִיךָ בְּיָדִי וְנָתַתִּי לוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים דִּינָרִין וְנִשְׁאַר לוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁזֶּה פָּטוּר אַף מִשְּׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת. אֲבָל יוֹרֵשׁ שֶׁטָּעַן וְאָמַר אֲנִי יוֹדֵעַ בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְאָבִי בְּיָדְךָ אוֹ בְּיַד אָבִיךָ מָנֶה וְהוּא אוֹמֵר אֵין לוֹ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים אוֹ אֵין לְךָ בְּיַד אָבִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים הֲרֵי זֶה מוֹדֶה מִקְצָת וְיִשָּׁבַע: \n", + "מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ עַל מַשְׁכּוֹן זֶה אֵין בְּיָדִי עָלָיו אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים הֲרֵי זֶה מוֹדֶה וְיִשָּׁבַע. אֵין הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן שָׁוֶה אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים אוֹ פָּחוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וּמְשַׁלֵּם הַחֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁהוֹדָה בָּהֶן. הָיָה הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן שָׁוֶה מֵאָה אוֹ יֶתֶר הוֹאִיל וְהַמַּלְוֶה יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן עָלָיו עַד כְּדֵי דָּמָיו הֲרֵי הַמַּלְוֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל מִדְּמֵי הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן. הָיָה שָׁוֶה שְׁמוֹנִים נִשְׁבָּע הַמַּלְוֶה שֶׁאֵין לוֹ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁמוֹנִים וְנוֹטְלָן מִן הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן. וְנִשְׁבָּע הַלּוֶֹה מִן הַתּוֹרָה עַל הָעֶשְׂרִים שֶׁכָּפַר בָּהֶן. כָּפַר בַּכּל וְאָמַר אֵין זֶה מַשְׁכּוֹן אֶלָּא פִּקָּדוֹן וְאֵין לוֹ אֶצְלִי כְּלוּם נִשְׁבָּע הַמַּלְוֶה שֶׁאֵין פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁמוֹנִים וְנִשְׁבָּע הַלּוֶֹה הֶסֵּת עַל הָעֶשְׂרִים: \n", + "מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר חֲמִשִּׁים וַדַּאי יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֲבָל הַחֲמִשִּׁים אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם אֲנִי חַיָּב בָּהֶן אוֹ לָאו הֲרֵי זֶה מְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִשָּׁבַע בַּמִּקְצָת שֶׁכָּפַר בּוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ לְפִיכָךְ מְשַׁלֵּם הַמָּנֶה בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַחֲרִים עַל מִי שֶׁטּוֹעֵן עָלַי דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב בּוֹ: \n", + "מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ וַהֲרֵי עֵד אֶחָד מֵעִיד עָלָיו וְהַנִּטְעָן אוֹמֵר כֵּן הוּא אֲבָל אַתָּה חַיָּב לִי כְּנֶגֶד אוֹתוֹ מָנֶה הֲרֵי זֶה מְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִשָּׁבַע וּמְשַׁלֵּם. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִשָּׁבַע שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא מוֹדֶה בְּמַה שֶּׁהֵעִיד בּוֹ הָעֵד וְאֵין הַנִּשְׁבָּע בְּהַעֲדָאַת עֵד אֶחָד נִשְׁבָּע עַד שֶׁיַּכְחִישׁ אֶת הָעֵד וְיִכְפֹּר בְּעֵדוּתוֹ וְיִשָּׁבַע עַל כְּפִירָתוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ שְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ עֵד אֶחָד וְטָעַן שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ. וְכֵן כַּפְרָן שֶׁבָּא עָלָיו עֵד אֶחָד וְטָעַן שֶׁפָּרַע אוֹ הֶחְזַרְתִּי לְךָ הַפִּקָּדוֹן הֲרֵי זֶה מְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִשָּׁבַע וּמְשַׁלֵּם. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁחָטַף לְשׁוֹן כֶּסֶף מֵחֲבֵרוֹ בִּפְנֵי עֵד אֶחָד וְאָמַר אַחַר כֵּן חָטַפְתִּי וְשֶׁלִּי חָטַפְתִּי וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים הֲרֵי זֶה מְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִשָּׁבַע וּמְשַׁלֵּם. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "מָנֶה הִלְוֵיתִיךָ לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם הֵבִיא עֵד אֶחָד שֶׁלָּוָה מִמֶּנּוּ בְּפָנָיו. הוֹאִיל וְאִלּוּ הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם הָיָה מֻחְזָק כַּפְרָן וּמְשַׁלֵּם כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד שֶׁכָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁשְּׁנַיִם מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ מָמוֹן אֶחָד מְחַיְּבוֹ שְׁבוּעָה. חָזַר וְאָמַר פָּרַעְתִּי מְשַׁלֵּם בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִין עָלָיו שֶׁעֲדַיִן יֵשׁ לוֹ אֶצְלוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים. פָּסְקוּ כָּל הַגְּאוֹנִים הֲלָכָה שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּם חֲמִשִּׁים וְיִשָּׁבַע עַל הַשְּׁאָר. שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא הוֹדָיַת פִּיו גְּדוֹלָה מֵהַעֲדָאַת עֵדִים: \n" + ], + [ + "וְאֵלוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִן הַתּוֹרָה. הַקַּרְקָעוֹת וְהָעֲבָדִים וְהַשְּׁטָרוֹת וְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו עֵד אֶחָד אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמַר וְטָעַן טַעֲנַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ו) \"כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ\" פְּרָט לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ. כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵּלִים פְּרָט לְקַרְקָעוֹת וְלַעֲבָדִים שֶׁהֻקְּשׁוּ לְקַרְקָעוֹת. וְכֵן יָצְאוּ שְׁטָרוֹת שֶׁאֵין גּוּפָן מָמוֹן כְּכֶסֶף וּכְכֵלִים וְאֵינָן אֶלָּא לָרְאָיָה שֶׁבָּהֶן. וְעַל כֻּלָּן נִשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת אִם הָיְתָה שָׁם טַעֲנַת וַדַּאי. חוּץ מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עֲלֵיהֶם שְׁבוּעָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה תִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע עֲלֵיהֶם כְּעֵין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְזַלְזְלוּ בַּהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת: \n", + "שְׁתֵּי שָׂדוֹת מָכַרְתָּ לִי לֹא מָכַרְתִּי לְךָ אֶלָּא אַחַת. שְׁנֵי עֲבָדִים אוֹ שְׁנֵי שְׁטָרוֹת יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא שְׁטָר אֶחָד אוֹ עֶבֶד אֶחָד. הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת. וְכֵן אִם טָעַן וְאָמַר חָצֵר זוֹ אוֹ עֶבֶד זֶה אוֹ שְׁטָר זֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ שֶׁלִּי הוּא וְאַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי וְהַנִּטְעָן אוֹמֵר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. בֵּין שֶׁהֵבִיא הַטּוֹעֵן עֵד אֶחָד בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא. הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר. וְכֵן הַחוֹפֵר בִּשְׂדֵה חֲבֵרוֹ בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת וְהִפְסידוּה והרי הוּא חיּב לְשַׁלֵּם בֵּין שֶׁטְּעָנוֹ שֶׁחָפַר וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא חָפַרְתִּי אוֹ שֶׁטְּעָנוֹ שֶׁחָפַר שְׁתֵּי מְעָרוֹת וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא חָפַרְתִּי אֶלָּא אַחַת אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה שָׁם עֵד אֶחָד שֶׁחָפַר וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא חָפַרְתִּי כְּלוּם. הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת עַל הַכּל: \n", + "טְעָנוֹ כֵּלִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת בֵּין שֶׁהוֹדָה בְּכָל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת וְכָפַר בְּכָל הַכֵּלִים בֵּין שֶׁהוֹדָה בְּכָל הַכֵּלִים וְכָפַר בְּכָל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת בֵּין שֶׁהוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת הַקַּרְקָעוֹת וְכָפַר בְּמִקְצָתָן עִם כָּל הַכֵּלִים. בְּכָל אֵלּוּ נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת. אֲבָל אִם הוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת כֵּלִים וְכָפַר בְּמִקְצָתָן עִם כָּל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה עַל מִקְצָת הַכֵּלִים שֶׁכָּפַר בָּהֶן נִשְׁבָּע אַף עַל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת שֶׁטְּעָנוֹ עִמָּהֶן שֶׁהַכּל טַעֲנָה אַחַת. וְכֵן הַדִּין בִּטְעָנוֹ כֵּלִים וַעֲבָדִים אוֹ כֵּלִים וּשְׁטָרוֹת הַכּל דִּין אֶחָד הוּא: \n", + "טְעָנוֹ עֲנָבִים הָעוֹמְדוֹת לִבָּצֵר וּתְבוּאָה יְבֵשָׁה הָעוֹמֶדֶת לְהִקָּצֵר וְהוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָתָן וְכָפַר בְּמִקְצָתָן הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע עֲלֵיהֶם כִּשְׁאָר הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין. וְהוּא שֶׁאֵינָן צְרִיכִין לַקַּרְקַע שֶׁכָּל הָעוֹמֵד לְהִבָּצֵר הֲרֵי הוּא כְּבָצוּר לְעִנְיַן כְּפִירָה וְהוֹדָיָה. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ צְרִיכִים לַקַּרְקַע הֲרֵי הֵן כְּקַרְקַע לְכָל דָּבָר וְאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶן אֶלָּא הֶסֵּת: \n", + "הַטּוֹעֵן עַל חֲבֵרוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ שְׁנֵי חֳדָשִׁים שָׁכַנְתָּ בַּחֲצֵרִי וְאַתָּה חַיָּב לִי שְׂכַר שְׁנֵי חֳדָשִׁים וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא שָׁכַנְתִּי אֶלָּא חֹדֶשׁ אֶחָד הֲרֵי זֶה מוֹדֶה בְּמִקְצָת. וְאִם הָיָה שְׂכַר הַחֹדֶשׁ שֶׁכָּפַר בּוֹ שָׁוֶה שְׁנֵי כֶּסֶף נִשְׁבָּע שֶׁאֵין הַטַּעֲנָה בְּגוּף הַקַּרְקַע אֶלָּא בִּשְׂכָרָהּ שֶׁהוּא מִטַּלְטְלִין: \n", + "שְׁטָר מָסַרְתִּי לְךָ וַעֲשָׂרָה דִּינָרִין הָיוּ לִי בּוֹ רְאָיָה לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם יִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת. הָפַךְ עָלָיו הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁהָיְתָה בּוֹ רְאָיָה לַעֲשָׂרָה דִּינָרִים וְאָבְדוּ בַּאֲבֵדַת הַשְּׁטָר וְיִטּל. וְאִם אָמַר הַנִּתְבָּע אֱמֶת מָסַרְתָּ לִי וְאָבַד הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר אַף מִשְּׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ פָּשַׁע בּוֹ וְאָבַד פָּטוּר כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת חוֹבֵל: \n", + "הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ שְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ זְכוּת יֵשׁ לִי בּוֹ וְזֶה אוֹמֵר אֵינִי מוֹצֵא שְׁטָרִי אוֹ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם יֵשׁ לְךָ בּוֹ רְאָיָה אוֹ לֹא כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיאוֹ: \n", + "טָעַן שֶׁאָבַד הַשְּׁטָר מַחְרִימִין אוֹתוֹ חֵרֶם סְתָם. טָעַן זֶה שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁהַשְּׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בּוֹ זְכוּת אֶצְלוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶצְלוֹ וְשֶׁאָבַד מִמֶּנּוּ וְכָזֶה הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי: \n", + "אֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל טַעֲנַת חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן. אֶחָד הַבָּא בְּטַעֲנַת עַצְמוֹ אוֹ בְּטַעֲנַת אָבִיו. לְפִי שֶׁזֶּה הַמִּקְצָת שֶׁהוֹדָה בּוֹ לַקָּטָן אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כְּמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵדָה. וְכֵן אִם כָּפַר בַּכּל וּבָא עֵד אֶחָד וְהֵעִיד לַקָּטָן אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע. שֶׁזֶּה עֵד אֶחָד וְאֵין שָׁם תּוֹבֵעַ שֶׁתְּבִיעַת קָטָן אֵינָהּ תְּבִיעָה גְּמוּרָה. נִמְצֵאתָ אוֹמֵר קָטָן שֶׁאָמַר לְגָדוֹל מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ. אוֹ אַבָּא הָיָה לוֹ בְּיָדְךָ. וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים אוֹ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם. וְעֵד אֶחָד מְעִידוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר מִשְּׁבוּעַת הַתּוֹרָה. אֲבָל אִם שָׁמַר לְקָטָן וְטָעַן שֶׁאָבַד הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע מֵחֲמַת טַעֲנָה. וְכֵן אִם הוֹדָה שֶׁהָיָה שֻׁתָּף לְקָטָן אוֹ אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס עָלָיו יַעֲמִידוּ בֵּית דִּין אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לַקָּטָן וְיִשָּׁבַע הַשֻׁתָּף וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ בְּטַעֲנַת שֶׁמָּא: \n", + "הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל טַעֲנַת קָטָן שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה אֲבָל שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת נִשְׁבָּעִין. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה קָטָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ חָרִיף לְעִנְיַן מַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן נִשְׁבָּעִין הֶסֵּת עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ. שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה זֶה נוֹטֵל מָמוֹנוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא קָטָן וְיֵלֵךְ לוֹ בְּחִנָּם. וְלָזֶה דַּעְתִּי נוֹטָה וְתִקּוּן עוֹלָם הוּא. נִמְצֵאתָ לָמֵד שֶׁהַקָּטָן שֶׁטָּעַן עַל הַגָּדוֹל בֵּין שֶׁהוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת בֵּין שֶׁכָּפַר בַּכּל בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה שָׁם עֵד בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה שָׁם עֵד. הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַהֲפֹךְ עַל הַקָּטָן שֶׁאֵין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אֶת הַקָּטָן כְּלָל. וַאֲפִלּוּ חֵרֶם סְתָם אֵינוֹ מְקַבֵּל לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ עֹנֶשׁ הַשְּׁבוּעָה: \n", + "קָטָן שֶׁטְּעָנוֹ הַגָּדוֹל. אִם טְעָנוֹ בְּדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ הֲנָיָה לַקָּטָן כְּגוֹן עֵסֶק מַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן וְהוֹדָה הַקָּטָן נִפְרָעִין מִנְּכָסָיו. וְאִם אֵין לוֹ יַמְתִּין עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לוֹ וִישַׁלֵּם. וְאִם כָּפַר הַקָּטָן מַמְתִּינִין עַד שֶׁיַּגְדִּיל וְיִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת. וְאִם טְעָנוֹ בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין לְקָטָן הֲנָיָה כְּגוֹן נְזָקִין וְחַבָּלוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמּוֹדֶה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מִמָּה יְשַׁלֵּם פָּטוּר וַאֲפִלּוּ לְאַחַר שֶׁהִגְדִּיל. וְאִם הָיָה הַתּוֹבֵעַ מִן הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין כְּגוֹן הַשָּׂכִיר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ הֲנָיָה לַקָּטָן שֶׁיִּשְׂתַּכֵּר לוֹ שָׂכִיר הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל מִן הַקָּטָן. אֲבָל חֶנְוָנִי שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּע עַל פִּנְקָסוֹ אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל מִן הַקָּטָן. שֶׁאֵין לַקָּטָן בָּזֶה הֲנָיָה שֶׁהֲרֵי חַיָּב לִתֵּן לְפוֹעֲלָיו וְנִשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין מִמֶּנּוּ. וְזֶה הַחֶנְוָנִי הִפְסִיד עַל נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁנָּתַן מָמוֹנוֹ עַל פִּי קָטָן. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "הַחֵרֵשׁ וְהַשּׁוֹטֶה אֵין נִזְקָקִין לָהֶן לְכָל טַעֲנָה לֹא לְטַעֲנָתָן עַל אֲחֵרִים וְלֹא לְטַעֲנַת אֲחֵרִים עֲלֵיהֶן. לֹא לִשְׁבוּעָה קַלָּה וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שְׁבוּעָה חֲמוּרָה אוֹ תַּשְׁלוּמִין. אֲבָל הַסּוּמָא הֲרֵי הוּא כְּבָרִיא לְכָל דָּבָר בְּעִנְיָנִים אֵלּוּ וְנִשְׁבָּע כָּל מִינֵי שְׁבוּעוֹת וְנִשְׁבָּעִין עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ: \n" + ], + [ + "בַּעֲלֵי דִּינִין שֶׁבָּאוּ לְבֵית דִּין טָעַן הָאֶחָד וְאָמַר מָנֶה יֵשׁ לִי אֵצֶל זֶה שֶׁהִלְוֵיתִיו אוֹ שֶׁהִפְקַדְתִּי אֶצְלוֹ אוֹ שֶׁגָּזַל מִמֶּנִּי אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי אֶצְלוֹ בְּשָׂכָר וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְהֵשִׁיב הַנִּטְעָן וְאָמַר אֵינִי חַיָּב כְּלוּם אוֹ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם אוֹ שֶׁקֶר אַתָּה טוֹעֵן. אֵין זוֹ תְּשׁוּבָה נְכוֹנָה אֶלָּא אוֹמְרִים בֵּית דִּין לַנִּטְעָן הָשֵׁב עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ וּפָרֵשׁ הַתְּשׁוּבָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ זֶה טַעֲנָתוֹ וֶאֱמֹר אִם לָוִיתָ מִמֶּנּוּ אִם לֹא לָוִיתָ. הִפְקִיד אֶצְלְךָ אוֹ לֹא הִפְקִיד. גְּזַלְתּוֹ אוֹ לֹא גְּזַלְתּוֹ. שְׂכַרְתּוֹ אוֹ לֹא שְׂכַרְתּוֹ. וְכֵן שְׁאָר הַטְּעָנוֹת. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אֵין מְקַבְּלִים מִמֶּנּוּ תְּשׁוּבָה זוֹ. שֶׁמָּא טוֹעֶה הוּא בְּדַעְתּוֹ וְיָבוֹא לְהִשָּׁבַע עַל שֶׁקֶר שֶׁהֲרֵי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁטָּעַן וְהֶחְזִיר זֶה אֶת הַחוֹב לִבְנוֹ אוֹ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה כְּנֶגֶד הַחוֹב וִידַמֶּה בְּדַעְתּוֹ שֶׁנִּפְטַר מִן הַחוֹב. לְפִיכָךְ אוֹמְרִים לוֹ הֵיאַךְ תֹּאמַר אֵינִי חַיָּב כְּלוּם שֶׁמָּא אַתָּה מִתְחַיֵּב מִן הַדִּין לְשַׁלֵּם וְאֵין אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ אֶלָּא הוֹדַע לַדַּיָּנִין פֵּרוּשׁ הַדְּבָרִים וְהֵם יוֹדִיעוּךָ אִם אַתָּה חַיָּב אוֹ אֵין אַתָּה חַיָּב. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה חָכָם גָּדוֹל אוֹמְרִים לוֹ אֵין לְךָ הֶפְסֵד שֶׁתָּשִׁיב עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ וְתוֹדִיעֶנּוּ כֵּיצַד אֵין אַתָּה חַיָּב לוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם אוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָיוּ וְהֶחֱזַרְתָּ לוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי אָנוּ דָּנִין בְּמִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר בְּכָל מָקוֹם. וְכֵן אִם טָעַן הַטּוֹעֵן וְאָמַר זֶה חַיָּב לִי מָנֶה. אוֹ מָנֶה יֵשׁ לִי אֶצְלוֹ. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ מֵאֵי זֶה פָּנִים. הִלְוֵיתָ אוֹתוֹ. אוֹ הִפְקַדְתָּ אֶצְלוֹ. אוֹ הִזִּיק מָמוֹנְךָ. אֱמֹר הֵיאַךְ נִתְחַיֵּב לְךָ. שֶׁהֲרֵי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּדְמֶה לוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ וְהוּא אֵינוֹ חַיָּב כְּגוֹן שֶׁחֲשָׁדוֹ שֶׁגְּנָבוֹ אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ שֶׁאֶתֵּן לְךָ מָנֶה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. הֲרֵי שֶׁטָּעַן עָלָיו שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ מָנֶה וְהֵשִׁיב זֶה וְאָמַר לוֹ לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֵבִיא הַטּוֹעֵן עֵדִים שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ בִּפְנֵיהֶם וְחָזַר הַנִּטְעָן וְאָמַר כֵּן הָיָה וְלָוִיתִי וּפָרַעְתִּי אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִמֶּנּוּ אֶלָּא הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן וּמְשַׁלֵּם. אֲבָל אִם הֵשִׁיב אֵינִי חַיָּב אוֹ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם אוֹ שֶׁקֶר אַתָּה טוֹעֵן. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְהָלַךְ הַתּוֹבֵעַ וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ בִּפְנֵיהֶם וְאָמַר (הַנִּתְבָּע) כֵּן הָיָה אֲבָל הֶחְזַרְתִּי לוֹ פִּקְדוֹנוֹ אוֹ פְּרַעְתִּיו חוֹבוֹ לֹא הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר: \n", + "רָאוּהוּ עֵדִים שֶׁמָּנָה לוֹ מָעוֹת וְלֹא יָדְעוּ מַה הֵן. וּתְבָעוֹ בְּדִין וְאָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לִי מְעוֹתַי שֶׁהִלְוֵיתִיךָ. וְאָמַר מַתָּנָה נָתַתָּ לִי אוֹ פֵּרָעוֹן הָיוּ. הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר. אָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁמָּנָה לוֹ בִּפְנֵיהֶם הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן. וּלְעוֹלָם אֵין אָדָם מֻחְזָק כַּפְרָן עַד שֶׁיִּכְפֹּר בְּבֵית דִּין וְיָבוֹאוּ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים וְיַכְחִישׁוּהוּ בְּמַה שֶּׁכָּפַר: \n", + "מָנֶה הִלְוֵיתִיךָ כָּפַר בְּבֵית דִּין וְאָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. וּבָאוּ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים שֶׁלָּוָה מִמֶּנּוּ מָנֶה וּפְרָעוֹ. וְהַמַּלְוֶה אוֹמֵר לֹא נִפְרַעְתִּי. הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. שֶׁכָּל הָאוֹמֵר לֹא לָוִיתִי וּבָאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁלָּוָה כְּאוֹמֵר לֹא פָּרַעְתִּי דָּמִי. וְנִמְצָא הַלּוֶֹה אוֹמֵר לֹא פָּרַעְתִּי וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִים אוֹתוֹ שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ הוֹדָאַת בַּעַל דִּין כְּמֵאָה עֵדִים דָּמֵי וְאֵין הַמַּלְוֶה חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁהֲרֵי הֻחְזַק זֶה כַּפְרָן. וְכֵן אִם הוֹצִיא עָלָיו כְּתַב יָדוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ וְאָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם וְזֶה אֵינוֹ כְּתַב יָדִי. אִם הֻחְזַק כְּתַב יָדוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין אוֹ שֶׁבָּאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא כְּתַב יָדוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן וּמְשַׁלֵּם: \n", + "מָנֶה הִלְוֵיתִיךָ וְהוּא לִי בְּיָדְךָ אָמַר לוֹ הַנִּטְעָן וַהֲלֹא פְּרַעְתִּיךָ בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי. וּבָאוּ עֵדִים וְאָמְרוּ לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. לֹא הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן שֶׁאֵין הָעֵדִים זוֹכְרִין אֶלָּא דָּבָר שֶׁהֵם עֵדִים בּוֹ לְפִיכָךְ לֹא הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן וְיִשָּׁבַע הַלּוֶֹה הֶסֵּת וְיִפָּטֵר. כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ תֵּן לִי מָנֶה שֶׁהִלְוֵיתִיךָ וְאַתָּה עָמַדְתָּ בְּצַד עַמּוּד זֶה וְאָמַר הַנִּטְעָן לֹא עָמַדְתִּי בְּצַד עַמּוּד זֶה מֵעוֹלָם וּבָאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁעָמַד לֹא הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן. שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מֵשִׂים דַּעְתּוֹ לִדְבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן מַמָּשׁ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "תֵּן לִי מָנֶה שֶׁהִלְוֵיתִיךָ וַהֲרֵי הָעֵדִים וְאָמַר הַנִּטְעָן פְּרַעְתִּיךָ בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי אוֹמְרִין לַלּוֶֹה הֲבִיאֵם וְהִפָּטֵר. לֹא בָּאוּ אוֹ שֶׁמֵּתוּ אוֹ שֶׁהָלְכוּ לִמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת. יִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ מַצְרִיכִים אוֹתוֹ לַהֲבִיאָן אֶלָּא לְבָרֵר דְּבָרָיו וּלְהִפָּטֵר אַף מִשְּׁבוּעָה. שֶׁהַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בְּעֵדִים אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְפָרְעוֹ בְּעֵדִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "אָמַר לוֹ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ אָמַר לוֹ הֵן. לְמָחָר תְּבָעוֹ בְּדִין וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים וְאָמַר מְשַׁטֶּה הָיִיתִי בְּךָ וְאֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם. פָּטוּר וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדוֹ כְּלוּם. וַאֲפִלּוּ אָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא אָמַר לָהֶם אַתֶּם עֵדַי וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ עֵדוּת אֵין אָדָם זוֹכְרוֹ. וּלְפִיכָךְ אִם אָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם לֹא הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן: \n", + "וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ הִטְמִין לוֹ עֵדִים אֲחוֹרֵי הַגָּדֵר וְאָמַר לוֹ מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ אָמַר לוֹ הֵן רְצוֹנְךָ שֶׁיָּעִידוּ בְּךָ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי אָמַר לוֹ לֹא שֶׁמָּא תִּכְפֵּנִי בְּדִין לְמָחָר וְאֵין לִי מָה אֶתֵּן לְךָ וּלְמָחָר תְּבָעוֹ בְּדִין בְּאֵלּוּ הָעֵדִים. בֵּין שֶׁטָּעַן וְאָמַר מְשַׁטֶּה הָיִיתִי בּוֹ בֵּין שֶׁאָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר. שֶׁאֵין כָּאן עֵדוּת עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר הַלּוֶֹה אַתֶּם עֵדַי אוֹ יֹאמַר הַמַּלְוֶה בִּפְנֵי הַלּוֶֹה וְיִשְׁתֹּק הַלּוֶֹה אֲבָל בָּעֵדוּת הַזֶּה לֹא הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהָיוּ קוֹרִין אוֹתוֹ קַב רְשׁוּ כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו חוֹבוֹת הַרְבֵּה. אָמַר מִי הוּא שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב לוֹ אֶלָּא פְּלוֹנִי וּבָא אוֹתוֹ פְּלוֹנִי וּתְבָעוֹ וְאָמַר הוּא אֵינִי חַיָּב לוֹ כְּלוּם. וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים יִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת וְיִפָּטֵר. וְכֵן אֶחָד הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים עָלָיו שֶׁהוּא בַּעַל מָמוֹן. בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָתוֹ אָמַר אִלּוּ הָיָה לִי מָמוֹן לֹא הָיִיתִי פּוֹרְעוֹ לִפְלוֹנִי וְלִפְלוֹנִי. וְאַחַר מִיתָתוֹ בָּאוּ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי לִתְבֹּעַ וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֵין לָהֶם כְּלוּם. שֶׁהָאָדָם עָשׂוּי לְהַרְאוֹת עַצְמוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בַּעַל מָמוֹן וְשֶׁלֹּא הִנִּיחַ בָּנָיו בַּעֲלֵי מָמוֹן וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ: \n", + "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַמַּטְמִין עֵדִים אֵינָהּ עֵדוּת וְכֵן הַמּוֹדֶה מֵעַצְמוֹ וְעֵדִים שׁוֹמְעִין אוֹתוֹ. וְכֵן הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ וְאָמַר לוֹ הֵן. בְּכָל הַדְּבָרִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ לְבֵית דִּין אוֹמְרִין לַנִּתְבָּע לָמָּה לֹא תִּתֵּן מַה שֶּׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אֶצְלְךָ. אָמַר אֵין לוֹ אֶצְלִי כְּלוּם. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ וַהֲלֹא אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ בִּפְנֵי אֵלּוּ כָּךְ וְכָךְ אוֹ הוֹדֵיתָ מֵעַצְמְךָ. אִם עָמַד וְשִׁלֵּם מוּטָב וְאִם לֹא טָעַן אֵין טוֹעֲנִין לוֹ. אֲבָל אִם טָעַן וְאָמַר מְשַׁטֶּה הָיִיתִי בּוֹ אוֹ לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לְהַשְׁבִּיעַ אֶת עַצְמִי נִתְכַּוַּנְתִּי פָּטוּר וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n" + ], + [ + "הַמּוֹדֶה בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִפְלוֹנִי אֶצְלוֹ מָנֶה וְאָמַר לָהֶן בְּדֶרֶךְ הוֹדָיָה לֹא דֶּרֶךְ שִׂיחָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר אַתֶּם עֵדַי וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַתּוֹבֵעַ עִמּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה עֵדוּת. תְּבָעוֹ בְּדִין אִם אָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ וּמְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּיהֶם. וְאִם הָיָה עֵד אֶחָד נִשְׁבָּע הוֹאִיל וְאָמַר דֶּרֶךְ הוֹדָיָה. טָעַן כְּשֶׁבָּאוּ אֵלּוּ הָעֵדִים וְאָמַר שֶׁלֹּא לְהַשְׁבִּיעַ אֶת עַצְמִי הוֹדֵיתִי נֶאֱמָן וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת. וְאִם כְּשֶׁהוֹדָה בִּפְנֵיהֶם הָיָה הַתּוֹבֵעַ עִמּוֹ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן וְלוֹמַר כְּדֵי לְהַרְאוֹת שֶׁאֵינִי עָשִׁיר הוֹדֵיתִי. אֲבָל אִם טָעַן שֶׁנָּתַן נֶאֱמָן וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת: \n", + "כָּל הַמּוֹדֶה בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר וְלוֹמַר מְשַׁטֶּה הָיִיתִי בּוֹ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם הוֹדָה בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה. אֲבָל מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ לִתֵּן בְּהוֹדָיַת פִּיו. שֶׁכָּל הָאוֹמֵר בְּדֶרֶךְ הוֹדָיָה הֲרֵי זֶה כְּאוֹמֵר אַתֶּם עֵדַי. אֲבָל אֵין כּוֹתְבִין אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן אָמַר לָהֶם כִּתְבוּ וְחִתְמוּ וּתְנוּ לוֹ. וּצְרִיכִין לְהִמָּלֵךְ בּוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְכֵן אִם הוֹדָה בְּבֵית דִּין אַחַר שֶׁשָּׁלְחוּ לוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כּוֹתְבִין. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ בֵּית דִּין מַכִּירִין אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲרִימוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם לְחַיֵּב אִישׁ אַחֵר: \n", + "בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁהָיוּ יוֹשְׁבִין מֵעַצְמָן בַּמָּקוֹם הַקָּבוּעַ לָהֶן וּבָא הַתּוֹבֵעַ וְקָבַל לִפְנֵיהֶם וְשָׁלְחוּ שָׁלִיחַ אֵצֶל הַנִּתְבָּע וּבָא וְהוֹדָה בִּפְנֵיהֶם הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כּוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין לְבַעַל דִּינוֹ. אֲבָל אִם לֹא הָיוּ קְבוּעִין וְלֹא שָׁלְחוּ לוֹ אֲפִלּוּ קִבֵּץ אוֹתָן וְהוֹשִׁיב הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה וְהוֹדָה בִּפְנֵיהֶן וְאָמַר לָהֶן הֱווּ עָלַי דַּיָּנִין וּבָא אַחַר כָּךְ הַתּוֹבֵעַ וְאָמַר כִּתְבוּ לִי הוֹדָיָתִי אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שֶׁמָּא יִתֵּן לוֹ וְנִמְצָא זֶה תּוֹבֵעַ אוֹתוֹ בִּשְׁטָר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין. אֲבָל אִם הוֹדָה בְּקַרְקָעוֹת אֲפִלּוּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ וְלֹא אָמַר לָהֶם כִּתְבוּ וּתְנוּ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כּוֹתְבִים וְנוֹתְנִין שֶׁאֵין כָּאן לָחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא יִתֵּן לוֹ וְנִמְצָא תּוֹבְעוֹ פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה: \n", + "שְׁטַר הוֹדָיָה שֶׁיָּצָא וְלֹא הָיָה כָּתוּב בּוֹ אָמַר לָנוּ כִּתְבוּ וְחִתְמוּ וּתְנוּ לוֹ. הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר שֶׁחֲזָקָה הִיא שֶׁאִלּוּ לֹא אָמַר לָהֶם כִּתְבוּ וְחִתְמוּ וּתְנוּ לֹא הָיוּ נוֹתְנִין. הָיָה כָּתוּב בַּשְּׁטָר הוֹדָה פְּלוֹנִי בְּפָנֵינוּ בֵּית דִּין. אִם אֵין כָּתוּב בּוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה אוֹ דְּבָרִים שֶׁשּׁוֹמְעִין מִכְּלָל שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא שְׁנַיִם הָיוּ וְטָעוּ וְדִמּוּ שֶׁהַהוֹדָיָה בִּשְׁנַיִם הוֹדָיָה בְּבֵית דִּין וּלְפִיכָךְ אֵין דָּנִין בּוֹ דִּין שְׁטָר: \n", + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהוֹדָיָה בְּבֵית דִּין אוֹ עֵדוּת בְּבֵית דִּין כְּמִלְוֶה הַכְּתוּבָה בִּשְׁטָר וּלְפִיכָךְ כּוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין לְבַעַל דִּינוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁלֹּא קִבֵּל אֶת הַדִּין עַד שֶׁשָּׁלְחוּ וֶהֱבִיאוּהוּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֲבָל שְׁנַיִם שֶׁבָּאוּ לְדִין וְתָבַע אֶחָד מֵהֶן אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ וְאָמַר מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ וְאָמַר לוֹ הַנִּתְבָּע הֵן יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּיָדִי. בֵּין שֶׁאָמְרוּ הַדַּיָּנִין חַיָּב אַתָּה לִתֵּן לוֹ בֵּין שֶׁאָמְרוּ צֵא תֵּן לוֹ וְיָצָא וְאָמַר פָּרַעְתִּי נֶאֱמָן וְיִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם חָזַר הַתּוֹבֵעַ לַדַּיָּנִים וְאָמַר כִּתְבוּ לִי הוֹדָיָתִי אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא פְּרָעוֹ. וְכֵן מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב שְׁבוּעָה בְּבֵית דִּין וְיָצָא וְאָמַר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי נֶאֱמָן וְאֵין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע. הָיוּ הָעֵדִים מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁבַּע הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן לְאוֹתָהּ שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן לְעוֹלָם לוֹמַר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי עַד שֶׁיּוֹדֶה לוֹ בַּעַל דִּינוֹ אוֹ יָבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע בִּפְנֵיהֶם: \n", + "שְׁנַיִם שֶׁבָּאוּ לְדִין וְנִתְחַיֵּב הָאֶחָד לַשֵּׁנִי וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ צֵא וְתֵן לוֹ וְיָצָא וְחָזַר וְאָמַר פָּרַעְתִּי וְעֵדִים מְעִידִים אוֹתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא פְּרָעוֹ הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן לְאוֹתוֹ מָמוֹן. אָמְרוּ לוֹ חַיָּב אַתָּה לִתֵּן לוֹ וְיָצָא וְחָזַר וְאָמַר פָּרַעְתִּי וְעֵדִים מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא פְּרָעוֹ לֹא הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן שֶׁזֶּה נִשְׁמָט מֵהֶן עַד שֶׁיַּחְקְרוּ דִּינוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם חָזַר פַּעַם אַחֶרֶת וְטָעַן שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ זֶה הַמָּמוֹן שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב בּוֹ בִּפְנֵיהֶם וְלֹא הָיוּ שָׁם עֵדִים שֶׁמַּכְחִישִׁין אוֹתוֹ פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ וְנִפְטָר. לְפִיכָךְ הָיוּ בְּקִיאֵי הַדַּעַת שֶׁבִּסְפָרַד כְּשֶׁיּוֹדֶה הַלּוֶֹה אוֹ כְּשֶׁיִּתְחַיֵּב שְׁבוּעָה בְּבֵית דִּין אוֹמֵר לוֹ בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין הֱיוּ עָלַי עֵדִים שֶׁלֹּא יִפְרָעֵנִי אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִשָּׁבַע לִי אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהוֹדָה בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב לְזֶה הַתּוֹבֵעַ מָנֶה וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָמַר נִזְכַּרְתִּי שֶׁפָּרַעְתִּי לוֹ חוֹבוֹ זֶה שֶׁהוֹדֵיתִי בּוֹ וַהֲרֵי עֵדִים. הֲרֵי זֶה עֵדוּת מוֹעֶלֶת וְעוֹשִׂין עַל פִּיהֶם שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא הִכְחִישׁ עֵדָיו וְאֵינוֹ כְּאוֹמֵר לֹא לָוִיתִי מֵעוֹלָם: \n", + "יֵשׁ לַטּוֹעֵן בְּבֵית דִּין לַחְזֹר וְלִטְעֹן טַעֲנָה אַחֶרֶת לְהַכְחִישׁ הַטַּעֲנָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְסוֹמְכִין עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ הָאַחֲרוֹנָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן אֲמַתְלָא לַטַּעֲנָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיָּצָא מִבֵּית דִּין וְחָזַר יֵשׁ לַחְזֹר וְלִטְעֹן וּלְהַפֵּךְ כָּל הַטְּעָנוֹת שֶׁיִּרְצֶה עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ עֵדִים. אֲבָל מֵאַחַר שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ עֵדִים וְיַכְחִישׁוּ טַעֲנָתוֹ הָאַחֲרוֹנָה שֶׁסָּמַךְ עָלֶיהָ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַשִּׁיאוֹ לְטַעֲנָה אַחֶרֶת אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נָתַן אֲמַתְלָא לַטַּעֲנָה שֶׁסָּמַךְ עָלֶיהָ. וְיֵשׁ בְּמַשְׁמָעָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִשִּׁיא בְּזֹאת הַטַּעֲנָה הָאַחֶרֶת. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא מִבֵּית דִּין. אֲבָל אִם יָצָא מִבֵּית דִּין אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר וְלִטְעֹן אַחַר שֶׁבָּאוּ עֵדִים. שֶׁמָּא אֲנָשִׁים רָעִים לִמְּדוּהוּ טְעָנוֹת שֶׁל שֶׁקֶר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n" + ], + [ + "כָּל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין בְּחֶזְקַת זֶה שֶׁהֵן תַּחַת יָדוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵבִיא הַתּוֹבֵעַ עֵדִים שֶׁהַמִּטַּלְטְלִין הַלָּלוּ יְדוּעִין לוֹ. כֵּיצַד. בֶּגֶד זֶה אוֹ כְּלִי זֶה שֶׁבְּיָדְךָ אוֹ שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתְךָ שֶׁלִּי הוּא. אוֹ הִפְקַדְתִּיהוּ אֶצְלְךָ. אוֹ הִשְׁאַלְתִּיהוּ לְךָ. וַהֲרֵי הָעֵדִים שֶׁהֵן יוֹדְעִין אוֹתוֹ מִקֹּדֶם בִּרְשׁוּתִי. וְהַנִּתְבָּע אוֹמֵר לֹא כִּי אֶלָּא אַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי אוֹ נְתַתּוֹ לִי בְּמַתָּנָה. הֲרֵי זֶה הַנִּתְבָּע נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר: \n", + "טָעַן שֶׁהוּא מַשְׁכּוֹן בְּיָדוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן עַד כְּדֵי דָּמָיו וְנִשְׁבָּע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ וְנוֹטֵל כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּדְבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָן עֲשׂוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר. כְּגוֹן בְּגָדִים וּפֵרוֹת וּכְלֵי תַּשְׁמִישׁ הַבַּיִת וּדְבָרִים שֶׁל סְחוֹרָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. אֲבָל דְּבָרִים הָעֲשׂוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן תַּחַת יָדוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִשְׁאִילוֹ כְּלִי זֶה וְלֹא הִשְׂכִּירוֹ לוֹ בְּעֵדִים הֲרֵי הֵן בְּחֶזְקַת בַּעֲלֵיהֶן. כֵּיצַד. רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ כְּלִי הֶעָשׂוּי לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר וְיֵשׁ לוֹ עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא יָדוּעַ לוֹ וַהֲרֵי אוֹתוֹ הַכְּלִי תַּחַת יַד שִׁמְעוֹן וּרְאוּבֵן טוֹעֵן שֶׁהוּא שָׁאוּל אוֹ שָׂכוּר. וְשִׁמְעוֹן טוֹעֵן אַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי אַתָּה נְתַתּוֹ לִי בְּמַתָּנָה אַתָּה מִשְׁכַּנְתּוֹ בְּיָדִי אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. אֶלָּא רְאוּבֵן נוֹטֵל כֶּלְיוֹ וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת עַל טַעֲנַת שִׁמְעוֹן. וַאֲפִלּוּ מֵת שִׁמְעוֹן הֲרֵי רְאוּבֵן נוֹטֵל כֶּלְיוֹ. וְהוֹרוּ הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת. שֶׁטּוֹעֲנִין לַיּוֹרֵשׁ: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה כְּלִי זֶה נִרְאֶה וְעוֹמֵד בְּיַד שִׁמְעוֹן. אֲבָל אִם רְאוּבֵן טָעַן וְאָמַר לְשִׁמְעוֹן כְּלִי פְּלוֹנִי יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ וְשָׂכוּר הוּא הוֹצִיאוֹ אֵלַי וַהֲרֵי יֵשׁ לִי עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא יָדוּעַ לִי. וְאָמַר לוֹ שִׁמְעוֹן אַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי אַתָּה נְתַתּוֹ לִי בְּמַתָּנָה נֶאֱמָן וְנִשְׁבָּע שִׁמְעוֹן הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר. מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם וְאֵין בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ אֶצְלִי וְאַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי: \n", + "אֵין כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ אֲמוּרִים אֶלָּא שֶׁהָיָה בַּעַל הַכְּלִי טוֹעֵן אֲנִי הִפְקַדְתִּיו אֶצְלְךָ אוֹ הִשְׁאַלְתִּיהוּ אֶצְלְךָ. אֲבָל אִם טָעַן שֶׁכְּלִי זֶה הָיָה שֶׁלִּי וְנִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד אוֹ נִגְזַל וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא יָדוּעַ לוֹ וְזֶה שֶׁתַּחַת יָדוֹ אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֲבָל אֲחֵרִים מְכָרוּהוּ לִי אוֹ נְתָנוּהוּ לִי בְּמַתָּנָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מִדְּבָרִים שֶׁעֲשׂוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר מַעֲמִידִין אוֹתוֹ בְּיַד זֶה שֶׁהוּא בְּיָדוֹ וְאֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע כְּלָל שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין לוֹ טוֹעֵן: \n", + "יָצָא לַבְּעָלִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים חֲזָקָה מִכְּלֵיהֶן שֶׁנִּגְנְבוּ. יִשָּׁבַע זֶה בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ כַּמָּה הוֹצִיא וְיִטּל וְיַחְזֹר הַכְּלִי לַבְּעָלִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת גְּנֵבָה. טָעַן אַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי אוֹ נְתַתּוֹ לִי בְּמַתָּנָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיָּצָא לוֹ שֵׁם גְּנֵבָה אִם לֹא הָיָה מִדְּבָרִים הָעֲשׂוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְיַעֲמֹד הַכְּלִי בְּיָדוֹ. מִכָּאן אַתָּה לָמֵד לְכָל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מִטַּלְטְלִין בְּיָדוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר שֶׁלְּקוּחִין הֵן בְּיָדִי וְיִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת וְיִפָּטֵר. אִם אָמַר שֶׁלְּךָ הֵן אֲבָל חַיָּב אַתָּה לִי כָּךְ וְכָךְ יִשָּׁבַע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִטּל כְּדִין כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהָיוּ בְּיָדוֹ דְּבָרִים הָעֲשׂוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוֹדָה וְאָמַר לוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁהֵם שֶׁלְּךָ אֲבָל פְּלוֹנִי מְכָרָם לִי אוֹ נְתָנָם לִי בְּמַתָּנָה אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן מִיָּדוֹ. אֲפִלּוּ הֵבִיא זֶה עֵדִים שֶׁהָיוּ יְדוּעִין לוֹ. שֶׁאָדָם עָשׂוּי לִמְכֹּר אֶת כֵּלָיו: \n", + "טָעַן זֶה עָלָיו וְאָמַר שֶׁאֲנִי הִשְׂכַּרְתִּים לְךָ אוֹ הִשְׁאַלְתִּים לְךָ מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן מִיָּדוֹ. וְאִם הָיוּ מִדְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָן עֲשׂוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא הִשְׁאִיל לוֹ וְלֹא הִשְׂכִּיר לוֹ אֶלָּא מִפְּלוֹנִי לָקַח וְיַעֲמִיד כֵּלָיו בְּיָדוֹ: \n", + "אַל תִּטְעֶה בֵּין דְּבָרִים הָעֲשׂוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר לִדְבָרִים שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר כְּמוֹ שֶׁטָּעוּ רַבִּים וּגְדוֹלִים. שֶׁכָּל הַדְּבָרִים רְאוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל וְדַרְכָּן לְהַשְׁאִיל אֲפִלּוּ חֲלוּקוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם וּמַצָּעוֹ וּמִטָּתוֹ רְאוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל. אֲבָל דְּבָרִים הָעֲשׂוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר הֵם הַכֵּלִים שֶׁבְּנֵי אוֹתָהּ מְדִינָה עוֹשִׂין אוֹתָן מִתְּחִלַּת עֲשִׂיָּתָן כְּדֵי לְהַשְׁאִילָן וּלְהַשְׂכִּירָן וְלִטּל שְׂכָרָן וַהֲרֵי הֵן לְבַעְלֵיהֶן. כְּמוֹ קַרְקַע שֶׁאוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ וְהַגּוּף קַיָּם כָּךְ אֵלּוּ הַכֵּלִים עִקַּר עֲשִׂיָּתָן כְּדֵי לֵהָנוֹת בִּשְׂכָרָן. כְּגוֹן הַיּוֹרוֹת הַגְּדוֹלוֹת שֶׁל נְחשֶׁת שֶׁמְּבַשְּׁלִין בָּהֶן בְּבֵית הַמִּשְׁתָּאוֹת. וּכְגוֹן כְּלִי נְחשֶׁת הַטּוּחַ בְּזָהָב שֶׁשּׂוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ לַכַּלָּה לְהִתְקַשֵּׁט בּוֹ. שֶׁעֲשִׂיַּת אֵלּוּ הַכֵּלִים אֵינָן לִמְכִירַת עַצְמָן וְלֹא לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן בַּעַל הַבַּיִת בְּבֵיתוֹ אֶלָּא לְהַשְׁאִילָן לַאֲחֵרִים כְּדֵי לֵהָנוֹת כְּנֶגְדָּן אוֹ לְהַשְׂכִּירָן וְלִטּל שְׂכָרָן. וְכֵן אִם הָיָה לְאָדָם מִשְּׁאָר הַכֵּלִים וְיֵשׁ לוֹ עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא מַשְׂכִּירוֹ תָּמִיד וּמַשְׁאִילוֹ וְהֻחְזַק לוֹ שֶׁהוּא לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר הֲרֵי הֵן כְּכֵלִים הָעֲשׂוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר: \n", + "וּכְלִי שֶׁהֶפְסֵדוֹ מְרֻבֶּה מִשְּׂכָרוֹ וּבְנֵי אָדָם מַקְפִּידִין עָלָיו שֶׁלֹּא יַשְׁאִילוּהוּ הֲרֵי הוּא בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁאֵינוֹ עָשׂוּי לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר כְּגוֹן סַכִּין שֶׁל שְׁחִיטָה. לְפִיכָךְ אֲפִלּוּ בָּאוּ בְּנֵי אָדָם וְהֵעִידוּ שֶׁהִשְׁאִילוֹ אוֹ הִשְׂכִּירוֹ זֶה אֵין מְבַטְּלִין בָּהֶן חֶזְקָתָן אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הֵן כְּכָל הַכֵּלִים. רְאָיָה לִדְבָרֵינוּ שֶׁהֲרֵי רָבָא הוֹצִיא זוּג שֶׁעוֹשִׂין בּוֹ הַסַּרְבָּל וְסֵפֶר הַגָּדָה בִּדְבָרִים הָעֲשׂוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר. וְלוּלֵי שֶׁנִּתְבָּרֵר לוֹ בְּעֵדִים שֶׁהֵן מִדְּבָרִים הָעֲשׂוּיִים לְהַשְׁאִיל לֹא הוֹצִיא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי יְתוֹמִים. הָא שְׁאָר הַזּוּגוֹת וּשְׁאָר הַסְּפָרִים אֵינָן בִּכְלַל דִּין זֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן רְאוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר. וְדָבָר זֶה עִקָּר גָּדוֹל בַּדִּין וְהוּא דָּבָר שֶׁל טַעַם שֶׁרָאוּי לִסְמֹךְ עָלָיו וְלָדוּן בּוֹ וּבָרוּר הוּא לְמוֹצְאֵי דַּעַת וְרָאוּי לַדַּיָּן לָשׂוּם אוֹתוֹ לְנֶגֶד עֵינָיו וְלֹא יָלוֹז: \n" + ], + [ + "הָאֻמָּן אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה בַּכֵּלִים שֶׁתַּחַת יָדוֹ. אֶחָד כֵּלִים הָעֲשׂוּיִים לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר וְאֶחָד שְׁאָר כֵּלִים. כֵּיצַד. רָאָה כֶּלְיוֹ בְּיַד הָאֻמָּן וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁהֵן יוֹדְעִין שֶׁהַכְּלִי זֶה שֶׁלּוֹ וְהוּא טוֹעֵן וְאוֹמֵר לְתַקֵּן נְתַתִּיו לְךָ. וְהָאֻמָּן אוֹמֵר לֹא בָּא לְיָדִי אֶלָּא בִּמְכִירָה אוֹ מַתָּנָה. אוֹ שֶׁטָּעַן אַתָּה נְתַתּוֹ לִי אַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי אַחַר שֶׁבָּא לְיָדִי לְתַקְּנוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּסָרוֹ לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵדִים בַּעַל הַכְּלִי נֶאֱמָן וּמוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִיַּד הָאֻמָּן וְיִשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הֶסֵּת עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ. וְיֵשׁ גְּאוֹנִים שֶׁדָּנוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עֵדִים שֶׁזֶּה הַכְּלִי שֶׁלּוֹ הוֹאִיל וְרָאָה כֶּלְיוֹ בְּיַד הָאֻמָּן וַהֲרֵי הָאֻמָּן מוֹדֶה לוֹ שֶׁהָיָה שֶׁלּוֹ וּמְכָרוֹ לוֹ נֶאֱמָן. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם וְשֶׁלִּי הוּא הַכְּלִי נֶאֱמָן הָאֻמָּן וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת. וְאִם הֵבִיא בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עֵדִים שֶׁהַכְּלִי הַזֶּה יָדוּעַ לוֹ אֵין הָאֻמָּן נֶאֱמָן. וְדִין זֶה פֶּלֶא הוּא בְּעֵינַי: \n", + "לֹא רָאָה הַכְּלִי בְּיַד הָאֻמָּן אֶלָּא טָעַן וְאָמַר כְּלִי פְּלוֹנִי נְתַתִּיו לוֹ לְתַקֵּן וְהָאֻמָּן אוֹמֵר חָזַרְתָּ וּמְכַרְתּוֹ אוֹ נְתַתּוֹ לִי הָאֻמָּן נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. וַאֲפִלּוּ מְסָרוֹ לְתַקֵּן בְּעֵדִים הָאֻמָּן נֶאֱמָן מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר הֶחְזַרְתִּי שֶׁהַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ בְּעֵדִים אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַחְזִיר לוֹ בְּעֵדִים. לְפִיכָךְ נִשְׁבָּע הָאֻמָּן הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר וְאֵין מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא הַכְּלִי. וְאִם הוֹצִיאוֹ הוֹאִיל וְנִרְאֶה הֲרֵי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא שֶׁלּוֹ וְנוֹטְלוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּסָרוֹ לוֹ בְּלֹא עֵדִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם טָעַן הָאֻמָּן וְאָמַר שְׁתַּיִם קָצַצְתָּ לִי בִּשְׂכָרִי וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹמֵר לֹא קָצַצְתִּי לְךָ אֶלָּא אַחַת אִם הָיָה הַכְּלִי נִרְאֶה בִּפְנֵיהֶם הוֹאִיל וְהָאֻמָּן אֵין לוֹ בּוֹ חֲזָקָה וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן שֶׁהוּא לָקוּחַ בְּיָדוֹ הֲרֵי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת נִשְׁבָּע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ עַל הַקְּצִיצָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בִּשְׂכִירוּת וְנוֹתֵן. וְאִם אֵין הַכְּלִי נִרְאֶה בִּפְנֵיהֶם הוֹאִיל וְהָאֻמָּן נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר לָקוּחַ הוּא בְּיָדִי יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן עַד כְּדֵי דָּמָיו וְנִשְׁבָּע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ וְנוֹטֵל כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "אֻמָּן שֶׁיָּרַד מֵאֻמָּנוּתוֹ וּבֶן הָאֻמָּן הֲרֵי הֵן כִּשְׁאָר כָּל אָדָם וְיֵשׁ לָהֶן חֲזָקָה בְּכָל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "מִי שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְבֵיתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ בִּפְנֵי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת וְיָצָא וְכֵלִים טְמוּנִין תַּחַת כְּנָפָיו וְהָעֵדִים רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ. וּלְאַחַר זְמַן תְּבָעוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת וְאָמַר לוֹ הַחְזֵר לִי כֵּלִים שֶׁהִשְׁאַלְתִּיךָ וַהֲרֵי הָעֵדִים וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לְקוּחִין הֵן בְּיָדִי אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. וְנִשְׁבָּע בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הֶסֵּת עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מְכָרָן וְלֹא נְתָנָן וְיַחֲזִירוּ בֵּית דִּין הַכֵּלִים לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁאֵינוֹ עָשׂוּי לִמְכֹּר אֶת כֵּלָיו. וְזֶה שֶׁהוֹצִיא הַכֵּלִים תַּחַת כְּנָפָיו אֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהַצְנִיעַ. וְאוֹתָן הַכֵּלִים אֵין דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם לְהַצְנִיעָן. לְפִיכָךְ חַיָּב לְהַחְזִיר לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא הִצְנִיעָן אֶלָּא לִכְפֹּר בָּהֶן. אֲבָל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הֶעָשׂוּי לִמְכֹּר אֶת כֵּלָיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין זֶה צָנוּעַ וְאֵין דֶּרֶךְ אוֹתָן הַכֵּלִים לְהַטְמִינָן תַּחַת הַכְּנָפַיִם הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁהֵן לְקוּחִין בְּיָדוֹ. וְכֵן אִם יָצָא בָּהֶן מְגֻלִּין בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עָשׂוּי לִמְכֹּר אֶת כֵּלָיו הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר לְקוּחִין הֵן בְּיָדִי. שֶׁמָּא נִצְטָרְכוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת וּמָכַר. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ מִדְּבָרִים הָעֲשׂוּיִים לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר. אֲבָל דְּבָרִים הָעֲשׂוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר לְעוֹלָם הֵן בְּחֶזְקַת בַּעֲלֵיהֶן כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוֹצִיאָן מְגֻלִּין וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבַּעַל הַבַּיִת הַזֶּה עָשׂוּי לִמְכֹּר אֶת כֵּלָיו הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ לוֹ עֵדִים שֶׁזֶּה הַכְּלִי עָשׂוּי לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר בִּלְבַד יָדוּעַ הוּא לוֹ מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן מִיַּד זֶה עַל כָּל פָּנִים עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁמְּכָרוֹ לוֹ אוֹ נְתָנוֹ לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה כְּדִין קַרְקָעוֹת: \n", + "אֲפִלּוּ מֵת זֶה שֶׁהַכְּלִי תַּחַת יָדוֹ מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִיַּד הַיּוֹרֵשׁ בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵין לְאָבִיו לִטְעֹן שֶׁלְּקָחוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהוּא מַשְׁכּוֹן כָּךְ אֵין זֶה יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁבִּיעוֹ. וְאִם טָעַן הַיּוֹרֵשׁ טַעֲנַת וַדַּאי וְאָמַר בְּפָנַי נְתָנוֹ לְאָבִי אוֹ מְכָרוֹ לוֹ הֲרֵי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת כִּשְׁאָר כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ מִי שֶׁהוֹרָה שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הֶסֵּת וְאַחַר כָּךְ יַחְזִיר כֶּלְיוֹ מִיַּד הַיּוֹרֵשׁ. וְאֵין דַּעְתִּי נוֹטָה לָזֶה: \n", + "מִי שֶׁלָּקַח קַרְדֹּם וְאָמַר הֲרֵינִי הוֹלֵךְ לִגְזֹר דִּקְלוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁמְּכָרוֹ לִי וְכָרַת הַדֶּקֶל הֲרֵי זֶה בְּחֶזְקָתוֹ. שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מֵעֵז פָּנָיו וְכוֹרֵת אִילָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. וְאִם טְעָנוֹ הַבְּעָלִים שֶׁלֹּא מְכָרוּהוּ נִשְׁבָּע זֶה הַכּוֹרֵת הֶסֵּת שֶׁהוּא שֶׁלּוֹ וְנִפְטָר. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁנִּכְרַת הֲרֵי הוּא כִּשְׁאָר כָּל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין. וְכֵן הַיּוֹרֵד לִשְׂדֵה חֲבֵרוֹ וְאָכַל פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ שָׁנָה אוֹ שְׁנָתַיִם וְהַבְּעָלִים טוֹעֲנִין שֶׁזֶּה יָרַד שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת וּגְזָלָן הוּא וְאָכַל וַהֲרֵי הָעֵדִים שֶׁאָכַל וְהַיּוֹרֵד אוֹמֵר בִּרְשׁוּתְךָ יָרַדְתִּי לֶאֱכל פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ. הֲרֵי זֶה הָאוֹכֵל נֶאֱמָן וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת עַל כָּךְ חֲזָקָה הִיא שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מֵעֵז פָּנָיו וְאוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן שֶׁלּוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַקַּרְקַע בְּחֶזְקַת בַּעֲלֵיהֶן אֵין הַפֵּרוֹת בְּחֶזְקַת הַבְּעָלִים. שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מוֹכֵר פֵּרוֹת שָׂדֵהוּ בִּשְׁטָר כְּדֵי שֶׁנֹּאמַר לְזֶה שֶׁאָכַל הָבֵא שְׁטָרְךָ. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁאִם אָכַל פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ שָׁנִים רַבּוֹת שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר לְפֵרוֹת יָרַדְתִּי וְיִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת: \n", + "שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹחֲזִין בִּכְלִי אֶחָד אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ רוֹכְבִין עַל גַּבֵּי בְּהֵמָה אַחַת. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד רוֹכֵב וְאֶחָד מַנְהִיג. אוֹ יוֹשְׁבִין בְּצַד עֲרֵמָה שֶׁל חִטִּים וּמֻנָּחוֹת בְּסִמְטָא אוֹ בְּחָצֵר שֶׁל שְׁנֵיהֶם. זֶה אוֹמֵר הַכּל שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר הַכּל שֶׁלִּי. כָּל אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶן נִשְׁבָּע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בְּזֶה הַדָּבָר פָּחוֹת מֵחֶצְיוֹ וְיַחְלֹקוּ. וּשְׁבוּעָה זוֹ תַּקָּנַת חֲכָמִים הִיא כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה כָּל אֶחָד תּוֹפֵס בְּטַלִּיתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ וְנוֹטֵל בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה: \n", + "זֶה אוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר חֶצְיָהּ שֶׁלִּי הָאוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָקִים. וְהָאוֹמֵר חֶצְיָהּ שֶׁלִּי יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ פָּחוֹת מֵרְבִיעַ. וְזֶה נוֹטֵל שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָקִים וְזֶה נוֹטֵל רְבִיעַ. מִכָּאן אַתָּה לָמֵד לְכָל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין לִטּל בֵּין שְׁבוּעָה קַלָּה בֵּין שְׁבוּעָה חֲמוּרָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע עַל מַה שֶּׁטּוֹעֵן אֶלָּא עַל מַה שֶּׁנּוֹטֵל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁטּוֹעֵן יוֹתֵר: \n", + "הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם אֲדוּקִין בְּטַלִּית זֶה אוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי. זֶה נוֹטֵל עַד מָקוֹם שֶׁיָּדוֹ מַגַּעַת וְזֶה נוֹטֵל עַד מָקוֹם שֶׁיָּדוֹ מַגַּעַת וְהַשְּׁאָר חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּעִין. וְיֵשׁ לְכָל אֶחָד לְגַלְגֵּל עַל חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁכָּל מַה שֶּׁנָּטַל כַּדִּין נָטַל: \n", + "הָיָה זֶה אוֹחֵז בַּחוּטִין שֶׁבִּשְׂפַת הַטַּלִּית וְזֶה בַּחוּטִין שֶׁבִּשְׂפַת הָאַחֶרֶת חוֹלְקִין כֻּלָּהּ בְּשָׁוֶה אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּעִין. וְכָל חֲלוּקָה הָאֲמוּרָה כָּאן בְּדָמִים לֹא שֶׁיַּפְסִידוּ עַצְמוֹ שֶׁל כְּלִי אוֹ שֶׁל טַלִּית אוֹ שֶׁיָּמִיתוּ הַבְּהֵמָה: \n", + "הָיָה אוֹחֵז הָאֶחָד אֶת כֻּלָּהּ וְזֶה מִתְאַבֵּק עִמּוֹ וְנִתְלֶה בָּהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת הָאוֹחֵז אֶת כֻּלָּהּ: \n", + "בָּאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲדוּקִין בָּהּ וּשְׁמָטָהּ הָאֶחָד מִיַּד חֲבֵרוֹ בְּפָנֵינוּ וְשָׁתַק הַשֵּׁנִי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזַר וְצָוַח אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁתַק בַּתְּחִלָּה הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמוֹדֶה לוֹ. חָזַר הַשֵּׁנִי וּתְקָפָהּ מֵרִאשׁוֹן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָרִאשׁוֹן (לֹא) צָוַח מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף חוֹלְקִין: \n", + "בָּאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲדוּקִין בְּטַלִּית וְאָמַרְנוּ לָהֶם צְאוּ וְחַלְּקוּ אֶת דָּמֶיהָ יָצְאוּ וְחָזְרוּ וַהֲרֵי הִיא תַּחַת יַד אֶחָד מֵהֶן זֶה טוֹעֵן הוֹדָה וְנִסְתַּלֵּק מִמֶּנָּה וְזֶה טוֹעֵן שֶׁמְּכַרְתִּיו לוֹ אוֹ נִתְגַּבֵּר עָלַי וַחֲטָפָהּ הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה יִשָּׁבַע זֶה שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלּוֹ וְיִפָּטֵר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n" + ], + [ + "בְּהֵמָה אוֹ חַיָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שְׁמוּרָה אֶלָּא מְהַלֶּכֶת בְּכָל מָקוֹם וְרוֹעָה. אֵינָהּ בְּחֶזְקַת זֶה שֶׁתְּפָסָהּ מֵאַחַר שֶׁהִיא יְדוּעָה לַבְּעָלִים. כֵּיצַד. הֵבִיא הַתּוֹבֵעַ עֵדִים שֶׁהַבְּהֵמָה הַזֹּאת יְדוּעָה לוֹ וְזֶה הַתּוֹפֵס טוֹעֵן אַתָּה נְתַתָּהּ לִי אַתָּה מְכַרְתָּהּ לִי אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. שֶׁאֵין הֱיוֹתָהּ תַּחַת יָדוֹ רְאָיָה שֶׁהֲרֵי הִיא הָלְכָה מֵעַצְמָהּ וְנִכְנְסָה בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם לֹא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה תַּחְזֹר הַבְּהֵמָה לִבְעָלֶיהָ וְיִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת עַל טַעֲנָה זוֹ: \n", + "הָיְתָה הַבְּהֵמָה שְׁמוּרָה אוֹ מְסוּרָה לְרוֹעֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵבִיא זֶה עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלּוֹ הֲרֵי הִיא בְּחֶזְקַת זֶה שֶׁהִיא תַּחַת יָדוֹ וְאִם טָעַן אַתָּה מְכַרְתָּהּ אוֹ נְתַתָּהּ לִי יִשָּׁבַע הַתּוֹפֵס הֶסֵּת שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלּוֹ וְיִפָּטֵר: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ מִי שֶׁתָּפַס בֶּהֱמַת חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה שְׁמוּרָה אוֹ בְּיַד רוֹעֶה. וְהַבְּעָלִים טוֹעֲנִין הִיא יָצָאת מֵעַצְמָהּ וּבָאָה אֶצְלְךָ אוֹ פִּקָּדוֹן הִיא בְּיָדְךָ אוֹ שְׁאוּלָה הִיא לְךָ. וְהַתּוֹפֵס אוֹמֵר כֵּן הוּא אֵינָהּ שֶׁלִּי אֲבָל אַתָּה חַיָּב לִי כָּךְ וְכָךְ אוֹ אַתָּה מִשְׁכַּנְתָּהּ בְּיָדִי עַל כָּךְ וְכָךְ אוֹ הִזַּקְתָּ אוֹתִי נֵזֶק שֶׁאַתָּה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם כָּךְ וְכָךְ. יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן עַד כְּדֵי דָּמֶיהָ מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי וְיִשָּׁבַע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ וְיִטּל: \n", + "וְכֵן הָעֲבָדִים שֶׁיְּכוֹלִין לְהַלֵּךְ אֵינָן בְּחֶזְקַת זֶה שֶׁהֵן תַּחַת יָדוֹ אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֵבִיא הַטּוֹעֵן עֵדִים שֶׁזֶּה יָדוּעַ שֶׁהוּא עַבְדּוֹ וְהַלָּה טוֹעֵן אַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי אַתָּה נְתַתּוֹ לִי בְּמַתָּנָה אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן וְיַחְזֹר הָעֶבֶד לִבְעָלָיו וְיִשָּׁבַע הַטּוֹעֵן שֶׁלֹּא מָכַר וְלֹא נָתַן. הֵבִיא זֶה הַנִּטְעָן שֶׁתָּפַס הָעֶבֶד עֵדִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְזֶה הָעֶבֶד אֶצְלוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים רְצוּפוֹת מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם וְהוּא מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהָעֲבָדִים מְשַׁמְּשִׁין אֶת רַבָּן הוֹאִיל וְלֹא מִחָה בּוֹ בְּכָל אֵלּוּ הַשָּׁנִים הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן וּמַעֲמִידִין אוֹתוֹ בְּיָדוֹ אַחַר שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת שֶׁלְּקָחוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ אוֹ נְתָנוֹ לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה. אֲבָל עֶבֶד קָטָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַלֵּךְ עַל רַגְלָיו מִפְּנֵי קַטְנוּתוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כִּשְׁאָר הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין וְכָל מִי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא בְּחֶזְקָתוֹ וְהַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה: \n", + "הַטּוֹעֵן אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ וְאָמַר בֶּגֶד אוֹ בְּהֵמָה אוֹ עֶבֶד זֶה שֶׁבְּיָדְךָ שֶׁלִּי הוּא אוֹ שָׁאוּל אוֹ גָּזוּל אוֹ הִפְקַדְתִּיו אֶצְלְךָ אוֹ שָׂכוּר לְךָ. וְהַנִּטְעָן אָמַר לֹא כִּי אֶלָּא זֶה מָמוֹנִי וִירֻשָּׁתִי. וְהֵבִיא הַטּוֹעֵן עֵדִים שֶׁהֵעִידוּ שֶׁהֵן יוֹדְעִין שֶׁזֶּה הַחֵפֶץ אוֹ הָעֶבֶד אוֹ הַבְּהֵמָה יְדוּעָה שֶׁהִיא הָיְתָה לָזֶה. חָזַר הַנִּטְעָן וְאָמַר כֵּן הָיָה שֶׁלְּךָ אֲבָל אַתָּה נְתַתּוֹ לִי אוֹ מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי וְזֶה שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי יְרֻשָּׁתִי לֹא שֶׁיְּרַשְׁתִּיו מֵאֲבוֹתַי אֶלָּא שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלִּי כְּאִלּוּ יְרַשְׁתִּיו. הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת. שֶׁכְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לַטּוֹעֵן לַחְזֹר לִטְעֹן דָּבָר הַנִּשְׁמָע: \n", + "סְפִינָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנַיִם נֶחְלָקִין עָלֶיהָ זֶה אוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וּבָאוּ לְבֵית דִּין וְאָמַר אֶחָד תִּפְסוּהָ עַד שֶׁאָבִיא עֵדִים אֵין תּוֹפְסִין אוֹתָהּ. וְאִם תְּפָסוּהָ בֵּית דִּין וְהָלַךְ וְלֹא מָצָא עֵדִים וְאָמַר הַנִּיחוּהָ בֵּינֵינוּ וְכָל הַמִּתְגַּבֵּר יִטּל כְּשֶׁהָיָה דִּינָהּ מִקֹּדֶם אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לָהֶן וְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ בֵּית דִּין מִיָּדָן עַד שֶׁיָּבִיאוּ עֵדִים אוֹ עַד שֶׁיּוֹדוּ זֶה לָזֶה אוֹ יַחֲלֹקוּ בִּרְצוֹנָם וּבִשְׁבוּעָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n" + ], + [ + "כָּל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת הַיְדוּעוֹת לבַעְלֵיהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן עַתָּה תַּחַת יַד אֲחֵרִים הֲרֵי הֵן בְּחֶזְקַת בַּעְלֵיהֶן. כֵּיצַד. רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהָיָה מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בֶּחָצֵר כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהָעָם מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בְּחַצְרוֹתֵיהֶן. דָּר בָּהּ וּמַשְׂכִּירָהּ לַאֲחֵרִים וּבוֹנֶה וְסוֹתֵר. וְאַחַר זְמַן בָּא שִׁמְעוֹן וְטָעַן עָלָיו וְאָמַר לוֹ חָצֵר זוֹ שֶׁתַּחַת יָדְךָ שֶׁלִּי הִיא וּשְׂכוּרָה הִיא בְּיָדְךָ אוֹ שְׁאוּלָה. וֶהֱשִׁיבוֹ רְאוּבֵן שֶׁלְּךָ הָיְתָה וְאַתָּה מְכַרְתָּהּ לִי אוֹ נְתַתָּהּ לִי בְּמַתָּנָה. אִם אֵין עֵדִים לְשִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה יְדוּעָה לוֹ נִשְׁבָּע רְאוּבֵן הֶסֵּת וְיַעֲמֹד בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הֵבִיא שִׁמְעוֹן עֵדִים שֶׁחָצֵר זוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ הָיְתָה הֲרֵי הִיא בְּחֶזְקַת שִׁמְעוֹן וְאוֹמְרִין לִרְאוּבֵן הָבֵא רְאָיָה שֶׁמְּכָרָהּ לְךָ אוֹ נְתָנָהּ לְךָ. וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ מִמֶּנָּה וּמַחֲזִיקִין אוֹתָהּ לְשִׁמְעוֹן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רְאוּבֵן מוֹדֶה לְשִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁהִיא הָיְתָה שֶׁלּוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ עֵדִים לְשִׁמְעוֹן: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁמַּצְרִיכִין רְאוּבֵן לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה אוֹ יִסְתַּלֵּק בְּשֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהּ זְמַן מְרֻבֶּה. אֲבָל אִם הֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁאָכַל פֵּרוֹת קַרְקַע שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים רְצוּפוֹת וְנֶהֱנָה בְּכֻלָּהּ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁנֶּהֱנִין כָּל אָדָם בְּאוֹתָהּ קַרְקַע. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה אֶפְשָׁר לַבְּעָלִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים שֶׁיֵּדְעוּ בָּזֶה שֶׁהֶחְזִיק וְלֹא מִחוּ בּוֹ. מַעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּיַד רְאוּבֵן וְיִשָּׁבַע רְאוּבֵן הֶסֵּת שֶׁמְּכָרָהּ לוֹ שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹ נְתָנָהּ לוֹ וְיִפָּטֵר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאוֹמְרִים לוֹ לְשִׁמְעוֹן אִם אֱמֶת אַתָּה טוֹעֵן שֶׁלֹּא מָכַרְתָּ וְלֹא נָתַתָּ לָמָּה הָיָה זֶה מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ שָׁנָה אַחַר שָׁנָה בְּקַרְקָעֲךָ וְאֵין לְךָ עָלָיו לֹא שְׁטַר שְׂכִירוּת וְלֹא שְׁטַר מַשְׁכּוֹנָהּ וְלֹא מָחִיתָ בּוֹ. טָעַן וְאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ אֵלַי הַדָּבָר שֶׁהֲרֵי הָיִיתִי בִּמְדִינָה רְחוֹקָה אוֹמְרִים אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא יַגִּיעַ לְיָדְךָ הַדָּבָר בְּשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְכֵיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְךָ הָיָה לְךָ לִמְחוֹת בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים וְתוֹדִיעַ אוֹתָם שֶׁפְּלוֹנִי גָּזַל אוֹתִי לְמָחָר אֶתְבָּעֶנּוּ בְּדִין. הוֹאִיל וְלֹא מָחִיתָ אַתָּה הִפְסַדְתָּ עַל עַצְמְךָ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיְתָה מִלְחָמָה וְשִׁבּוּשׁ דְּרָכִים בֵּין הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁהָיָה בּוֹ רְאוּבֵן וּבֵין הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁהָיָה בּוֹ שִׁמְעוֹן אֲפִלּוּ אֲכָלָהּ רְאוּבֵן עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ תַּחַת יָדוֹ וְחוֹזֶרֶת לְשִׁמְעוֹן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לֹא יָדַעְתִּי שֶׁזֶּה מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּקַרְקָעִי: \n", + "הֵבִיא רְאוּבֵן עֵדִים שֶׁהָיָה שִׁמְעוֹן בָּא בְּכָל שָׁנָה וְעוֹמֵד בְּמָקוֹם זֶה שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אוֹ פָּחוֹת. אוֹמְרִים לְשִׁמְעוֹן מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא מָחִיתָ כְּשֶׁבָּאתָ אִבַּדְתָּ זְכוּתְךָ. טָעַן שִׁמְעוֹן וְאָמַר טָרוּד הָיִיתִי בַּשּׁוּק וְלֹא יָדַעְתִּי שֶׁזֶּה בְּתוֹךְ חֲצֵרִי הֲרֵי זוֹ טַעֲנָה. שֶׁכָּל שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם יִהְיֶה אָדָם טָרוּד בַּשּׁוּק. וְאִם עָמַד יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וְלֹא מִחָה אִבֵּד אֶת זְכוּתוֹ. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁהַדִּין זֶה אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בַּכְּפָרִים שֶׁהָעָם טְרוּדִין בַּשְּׁוָקִים שֶׁלָּהֶן: \n", + "וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אֵין אוֹמְרִין לִרְאוּבֵן אִם אֱמֶת הַדָּבָר שֶׁמָּכַר לְךָ אוֹ נָתַן לְךָ בְּמַתָּנָה לָמָּה לֹא נִזְהַרְתָּ בַּשְּׁטָר שֶׁלְּךָ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין אָדָם נִזְהָר בִּשְׁטָרוֹ וְהוֹלֵךְ כָּל יָמָיו וַחֲזָקָה שֶׁאֵין אָדָם נִזְהָר בִּשְׁטָר אֶלָּא עַד שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁרוֹאֶה שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מְמַחֶה בּוֹ שׁוּב אֵינוֹ נִזְהָר: \n", + "הֲרֵי שֶׁמִּחָה שִׁמְעוֹן בִּמְדִינָה רְחוֹקָה מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא יִטְעֹן רְאוּבֵן וְיֹאמַר לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁמִּחָה בִּי כְּדֵי שֶׁאֶזָּהֵר בַּשְּׁטָר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאוֹמֵר לוֹ חֲבֵרְךָ יֵשׁ לוֹ חָבֵר וַחֲבֵרוֹ יֵשׁ לוֹ חָבֵר וַחֲזָקָה שֶׁהִגִּיעַ אֵלֶיךָ הַדָּבָר וְכֵיוָן שֶׁיָּדַעְתָּ שֶׁמִּחָה בְּךָ בְּתוֹךְ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים בֶּאֱמֶת הָיָה לְךָ שְׁטָר וְלֹא נִזְהַרְתָּ בּוֹ אַתָּה הִפְסַדְתָּ עַל עַצְמְךָ: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ אִם מִחָה שִׁמְעוֹן בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים וְאָמַר לָהֶם אַל תּוֹצִיאוּ דָּבָר זֶה מִפִּיכֶם אֵין זֶה מְחָאָה. אֲבָל אִם אָמְרוּ הָעֵדִים מֵעַצְמָן אֵין דָּבָר זֶה יוֹצֵא מִפִּינוּ הֲרֵי גַּם זוֹ מְחָאָה. שֶׁהַדָּבָר שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מְצֻוֶּה עָלָיו אוֹמְרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוָּנָה. וְכֵן אִם צִוָּה לְעֵדִים וְאָמַר לָהֶם אַל תּוֹדִיעוּהוּ אוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ הֵן מֵעַצְמָן אֵין אָנוּ מוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ גַּם זוֹ מְחָאָה הִיא. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן מוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ מוֹדִיעִין הֵם לַאֲחֵרִים וְדָבָר זֶה יַגִּיעַ אֵלָיו: \n", + "כֵּיצַד הַמְּחָאָה. אוֹמֵר בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בַּחֲצֵרִי אוֹ בְּשָׂדִי גַּזְלָן הוּא וּלְעָתִיד אֲנִי תּוֹבֵעַ אוֹתוֹ בְּדִין. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר לָהֶם שְׂכוּרָה הִיא בְּיָדוֹ אוֹ מַשְׁכּוֹנָה וְאִם יִטְעֹן עָלַי שֶׁמָּכַרְתִּי אוֹ נָתַתִּי אֲנִי תּוֹבֵעַ אוֹתוֹ בְּדִין. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה הֲרֵי זוֹ מְחָאָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא מִחָה בִּמְדִינָה זוֹ שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בָּהּ זֶה. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לָהֶן פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁמִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בַּחֲצֵרִי גַּזְלָן הוּא אֵין זוֹ מְחָאָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי רְאוּבֵן אוֹמֵר כְּשֶׁשָּׁמַעְתִּי אָמַרְתִּי שֶׁמָּא חֵרֵף אוֹתִי בִּלְבַד וּלְפִיכָךְ לֹא נִזְהַרְתִּי בִּשְׁטָרִי: \n", + "מְחָאָה בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם מְחָאָה וְכוֹתְבִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לָהֶם כְּתֹבוּ. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁמִּחָה בְּשָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לַחְזֹר וְלִמְחוֹת בְּכָל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה. אֲבָל צָרִיךְ שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה בֵּין מְחָאָה לִמְחָאָה שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים גְּמוּרוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ צָרִיךְ לִמְחוֹת בְּסוֹף כָּל שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים. וְאִם מִחָה וְעָמַד שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים גְּמוּרוֹת וְאַחַר כָּךְ מִחָה אֵינָהּ מְחָאָה: \n", + "הֵבִיא רְאוּבֵן עֵדִים שֶׁזֶּה שִׁמְעוֹן בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה קִבֵּץ פֵּרוֹת שָׂדֶה זוֹ וּנְתָנָם לִי תַּעֲמֹד הַשָּׂדֶה בְּיַד רְאוּבֵן וַאֲפִלּוּ טָעַן שֶׁשִּׁמְעוֹן מְכָרָהּ לוֹ אוֹ נָתַן לוֹ הַיּוֹם שֶׁאִלּוּ לֹא מָכַר אוֹ נָתַן לֹא הָיָה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ אֶת רְאוּבֵן בְּשָׂדֶה זוֹ וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ: \n", + "טָעַן שִׁמְעוֹן וְאָמַר אֱמֶת הָיָה הַדָּבָר וּלְפֵרוֹת הוֹרַדְתִּיו וְשֶׁלּוֹ הָיוּ הַפֵּרוֹת אֲבָל הַגּוּף לֹא מָכַרְתִּי נֶאֱמָן וְחוֹזֵר לְשִׁמְעוֹן אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן אֲכָלָהּ רְאוּבֵן בְּפָנָיו שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְלֹא מִחָה בּוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n" + ], + [ + "שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם אֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ חֲסֵרִים יוֹם אֶחָד לֹא הֶחֱזִיק וּמְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ מִמֶּנָּה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּקַרְקָעוֹת שֶׁהֵן עוֹשִׂין פֵּרוֹת תָּמִיד כְּגוֹן הַבָּתִּים וְהַחֲצֵרוֹת וְהַבּוֹרוֹת וְהַשִּׁיחִין וְהַמְּעָרוֹת וְהַחֲנֻיּוֹת וְהַפֻּנְדָּקוֹת וְהַמֶּרְחֲצָאוֹת וְהַשׁוֹבָכוֹת וּבָתֵּי הַבַּדִּין וּשְׂדֵה בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין שֶׁמַּשְׁקִין אוֹתָה תָּמִיד וְזוֹרְעִין בָּהּ וְנוֹטְעִין וְהַגַּנּוֹת וְהַפַּרְדֵּסִין. וְכֵן עֲבָדִים הַמְהַלְּכִין כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֲבָל שְׂדֵה הַבַּעַל שֶׁהִיא שׁוֹתָה מִמֵּי גְּשָׁמִים בִּלְבַד וּשְׂדֵה אִילָן אֵינָהּ מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָכְלוּ שָׁלֹשׁ תְּבוּאוֹת מִמִּין אֶחָד הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים. כֵּיצַד. הָיְתָה שְׂדֵה תְּמָרִים וְגָדַר שָׁלֹשׁ גְּדֵרוֹת אוֹ שְׂדֵה עֲנָבִים וּבָצַר שָׁלֹשׁ בְּצִירוֹת אוֹ שְׂדֵה זֵיתִים וּמָסַק שָׁלֹשׁ מְסִיקוֹת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְהֶחֱזִיק. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ הָאִילָנוֹת רְצוּפִין וְלֹא הָיָה בֵּינֵיהֶן הַרְחָקָה כָּרָאוּי שֶׁהֲרֵי סוֹפָן לִיבַשׁ הוֹאִיל וְאוֹכְלָן שָׁלֹשׁ תְּבוּאוֹת הֶחֱזִיק: \n", + "הֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁהָיָה דָּר בְּחָצֵר זוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים אוֹ שֶׁשְּׂכָרָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה. טָעַן בַּעַל הֶחָצֵר וְאָמַר שֶׁמָּא לֹא שָׁכַן בָּהּ בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה אוֹ שֶׁמָּא אֵלּוּ שֶׁהִשְׂכִּירוּ לָהֶם לֹא שָׁכְנוּ בָּהּ בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה הֲרֵי זוֹ טַעֲנָה. אוֹמְרִים לַמַּחֲזִיק אוֹ תָּבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁשָּׁנִים אֵלּוּ גְּמוּרוֹת בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה אוֹ הִסְתַּלֵּק. אֲפִלּוּ בָּאוּ עֵדִים וְאָמְרוּ לָנוּ הִשְׂכִּיר וְאָנוּ דַּרְנוּ בָּהּ בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה וְטָעַן בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה וְאָמַר יָבִיאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁדָּרוּ בָּהּ בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה. צְרִיכִין אֵלּוּ הַשּׂוֹכְרִין לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁדָּרוּ בָּהּ תָּמִיד. שֶׁזֶּה הַדָּבָר תָּלוּי בָּהֶן וְאֵין תָּלוּי בְּטַעֲנַת הַמַּחֲזִיק כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּעִידוּ לוֹ: \n", + "הָיָה זֶה הַמַּחֲזִיק אוֹ הָעֵדִים שֶׁדָּרוּ בָּהּ מִן הָרוֹכְלִין הַמְחַזְּרִין בַּעֲיָרוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. טוֹעֲנִין אוֹתוֹ לְכַתְּחִלָּה וּכְשֶׁיָּבִיא עֵדֵי חֲזָקָה אוֹמֵר לוֹ הָבֵא עֵדִים שֶׁהָיִיתָ מַחֲזִיק בָּהּ בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בַּחֲצֵרוֹת וּבָתִּים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁהֵן עֲשׂוּיוֹת לָדוּר בְּתוֹכָן בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה. אֲבָל הַחֲנֻיּוֹת שֶׁל תַּגָּרִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁאֵין דָּרִין בָּהֶן אֶלָּא בַּיּוֹם כֵּיוָן שֶׁדָּר בָּהּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים בַּיּוֹם הֲרֵי זֶה חֲזָקָה: \n", + "שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיוּ רְצוּפוֹת זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ. הֲרֵי שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בְּשָׂדֶה וּזְרָעָהּ שָׁנָה וְהוֹבִירָהּ שָׁנָה וּזְרָעָהּ שָׁנָה וְהוֹבִירָהּ שָׁנָה. אֲפִלּוּ עָשָׂה כֵן כַּמָּה שָׁנִים לֹא הֶחֱזִיק. הָיָה דַּרְכָּן שֶׁל בְּנֵי אוֹתוֹ הַמָּקוֹם לְהוֹבִיר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּקְצָתָן זוֹרְעִין שָׁנָה אַחַר שָׁנָה וּמִקְצָתָן זוֹרְעִין שָׁנָה וּמוֹבִירִין שָׁנָה הֲרֵי זֶה הֶחֱזִיק שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא הוֹבַרְתִּי אוֹתָהּ אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁתַּעֲשֶׂה הַרְבֵּה בִּשְׁנַת הַזְּרִיעָה: \n", + "שְׁנֵי שֻׁתָּפִין שֶׁהֶחְזִיקוּ בְּשָׂדֶה שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים הָאֶחָד אֲכָלָהּ רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁלִישִׁית וַחֲמִישִׁית. וְהַשֵּׁנִי אֲכָלָהּ שְׁנִיָּה וּרְבִיעִית וְשִׁשִּׁית לֹא עָלְתָה חֲזָקָה לְאֶחָד מֵהֶם. שֶׁהֲרֵי בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע אוֹמֵר כֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא רָאִיתִי וְלֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בָּהּ אָדָם אֶחָד שָׁנָה אַחַר שָׁנָה מִפְּנֵי זֶה לֹא מָחִיתִי. לְפִיכָךְ אִם כָּתְבוּ אֵלּוּ הַשֻּׁתָּפִין שְׁטָר בֵּינֵיהֶן שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בָּהּ שָׁנָה אַחַר שָׁנָה כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָבַר שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים עָלְתָה לָהֶן חֲזָקָה. שֶׁהַשְּׁטָר יֵשׁ לוֹ קוֹל וְהוֹאִיל וְלֹא מִחָה אִבֵּד זְכוּתוֹ. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְעֶבֶד שֶׁהֶחְזִיקוּ בּוֹ שְׁנַיִם וְנִשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בּוֹ שָׁנָה אַחַר שָׁנָה אִם כָּתְבוּ שְׁטָר בֵּינֵיהֶן הֲרֵי הֶחֱזִיקוּ: \n", + "אֲכָלָהּ שָׁנָה זֶה הַמַּחֲזִיק וּמְכָרָהּ וַאֲכָלָהּ הַלּוֹקֵחַ שָׁנָה וּמָכַר לְלוֹקֵחַ שֵׁנִי וַאֲכָלָהּ שָׁנָה. אִם מָכְרוּ זֶה לָזֶה בִּשְׁטָר שְׁלָשְׁתָּן מִצְטָרְפִין וַהֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא מִחָה. וְאִם מָכְרוּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁטָר אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה שֶׁהַבְּעָלִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים אוֹמְרִים כֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא עָמַד בָּהּ אִישׁ אֶחָד שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים לֹא הֻצְרַכְתִּי לִמְחוֹת: \n", + "אֲכָלָהּ הָאָב שָׁנָה וְהַבֵּן שְׁתַּיִם הָאָב שְׁתַּיִם וְהַבֵּן שָׁנָה הָאָב שָׁנָה וְהַבֵּן שָׁנָה וְהַלּוֹקֵחַ מִן הַבֵּן שָׁנָה הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה וְהוּא שֶׁלָּקַח בִּשְׁטָר: \n", + "אֲכָלָהּ בִּפְנֵי הָאָב שֶׁהָיָה בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה שָׁנָה וּבִפְנֵי בְּנוֹ שְׁתַּיִם. אוֹ בִּפְנֵי הָאָב שְׁתַּיִם וּבִפְנֵי הַבֵּן שָׁנָה. אוֹ בִּפְנֵי הָאָב שָׁנָה וּבִפְנֵי בְּנוֹ שָׁנָה וּבִפְנֵי לוֹקֵחַ מִן הַבֵּן שָׁנָה. הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה. וְהוּא שֶׁמָּכַר הַבֵּן זוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה בִּכְלַל שְׂדוֹתָיו שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא הִכִּיר הַמַּחֲזִיק שֶׁנִּמְכְּרָה וּלְפִיכָךְ לֹא נִזְהַר בִּשְׁטָרוֹ. אֲבָל אִם מָכַר הַבֵּן שָׂדֶה זוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ אֵין לְךָ מְחָאָה גְּדוֹלָה מִזּוֹ: \n", + "נָרָהּ שָׁנָה אַחַר שָׁנָה אֲפִלּוּ כַּמָּה שָׁנִים הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נֶהֱנָה בָּהּ אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה. וְכֵן אִם פָּתַח בָּהּ שְׁבִילֵי הַמַּיִם וּפָתַח וְשִׂדֵּד בִּלְבַד הוֹאִיל וְלֹא אָכַל פֵּרוֹת אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה: \n", + "זְרָעָהּ וְלֹא הִרְוִיחַ כְּלוּם אֶלָּא זָרַע כּוֹר וְאָסַף כּוֹר לֹא הֶחֱזִיק שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נֶהֱנָה: \n", + "אֲכָלָהּ שַׁחַת לֹא הֶחֱזִיק. וְאִם הָיָה הַמָּקוֹם דַּרְכָּן לִזְרֹעַ לְשַׁחַת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדָּמָיו יְקָרִין הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה: \n", + "אֲכָלָהּ עָרְלָה שְׁבִיעִית וְכִלְאַיִם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה בַּעֲבֵרָה הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה: \n", + "הָיָה הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בּוֹ סֶלַע אוֹ חַלָּמִישׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִזְרִיעָה צָרִיךְ לֵהָנוֹת בּוֹ בְּדָבָר הָרָאוּי לָהּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁיִּשְׁטַח בּוֹ הַפֵּרוֹת אוֹ יַעֲמִיד בּוֹ בְּהֵמָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְאִם לֹא נֶהֱנָה בּוֹ בְּכָל אוֹתָן הַשָּׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים בַּדָּבָר הָרָאוּי לוֹ לֹא הֶחֱזִיק: \n", + "הָיָה מַעֲמִיד בְּהֵמָה בְּמָקוֹם מְסֻיָּם מֵחֲצַר חֲבֵרוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מְגַדֵּל שָׁם תַּרְנְגוֹלִין אוֹ מַעֲמִיד שָׁם תַּנּוּר וְכִירַיִם וְרֵחַיִם. אוֹ שֶׁנָּתַן שָׁם זִבְלוֹ. בֵּין שֶׁהֶעֱמִיד שָׁם מְחִצָּה בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הֶעֱמִיד. אִם נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה וְטָעַן עַל בַּעַל הֶחָצֵר וְאָמַר אַתָּה נָתַתָּ לִי מָקוֹם זֶה אוֹ מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה: \n", + "שָׂדֶה שֶׁהִיא מֻקֶּפֶת גָּדֵר וּבָא זֶה שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בָּהּ וְזָרַע חוּץ לַגָּדֵר וְנֶהֱנָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁמוּר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ שָׁנָה אַחַר שָׁנָה לֹא עָלְתָה לוֹ חֲזָקָה. שֶׁהַבְּעָלִים טוֹעֲנִין וְאוֹמְרִין כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאִינוּ שֶׁזּוֹרֵעַ בְּמָקוֹם מֻפְקָר אָמַרְנוּ כָּל מַה שֶּׁזָּרַע חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ וּלְפִיכָךְ לֹא מָחִיתִי. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְכָל הַזּוֹרֵעַ מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁמוּר אֶלָּא רֶגֶל חַיָּה וְיַד כָּל אָדָם מְצוּיִין בּוֹ: \n", + "אֲכָלָהּ כֻּלָּהּ חוּץ מִבֵּית רֹבַע הֶחֱזִיק בְּכֻלָּהּ חוּץ מֵאוֹתוֹ בֵּית רֹבַע שֶׁלֹּא נֶהֱנָה בּוֹ. אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה חַלָּמִישׁ בְּתוֹךְ הַשָּׂדֶה הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ כָּרָאוּי לוֹ אֵין לָזֶה בּוֹ חֲזָקָה: \n", + "הֶחֱזִיק אֶחָד בָּאִילָנוֹת וְאָכַל פֵּרוֹתֵיהֶן וְאֶחָד הֶחֱזִיק בַּקַּרְקַע וּזְרָעָהּ וְאָכַל פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ וְכָל אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם טוֹעֵן שֶׁהַכּל שֶׁלִּי וַאֲנִי לְקַחְתִּיו. זֶה שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בָּאִילָנוֹת וַאֲכָלָן שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים יֵשׁ לוֹ הָאִילָנוֹת וְקַרְקַע שֶׁצְּרִיכִין לוֹ וְהוּא כִּמְלֹא הָאוֹרֶה וְסַלּוֹ חוּצָה לְכָל אִילָן וְאִילָן. וְזֶה שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בַּקַּרְקַע יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁאָר הַקַּרְקַע: \n", + "וְכֵן הָאוֹכֵל כָּל פֵּרוֹת אִילָן שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְטָעַן עַל בַּעַל הָאִילָן אַתָּה מָכַרְתָּ לִי אִילָן זֶה וְקַרְקָעוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה יֵשׁ לוֹ קַרְקַע כָּעֳבִי הָאִילָן עַד הַתְּהוֹם: \n", + "שְׂדֵה אִילָן שֶׁהָיוּ בּוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים אִילָנוֹת בְּתוֹךְ בֵּית שָׁלֹשׁ סְאִין וְאָכַל עֲשָׂרָה בְּשָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה וַעֲשָׂרָה בְּשָׁנָה שְׁנִיָּה וַעֲשָׂרָה בְּשָׁנָה שְׁלִישִׁית הֻחְזַק בַּכּל. וְהוּא שֶׁהָיוּ עֲשָׂרָה שֶׁאָכַל מְפֻזָּרוֹת בְּכָל בֵּית הַשָּׁלֹשׁ סְאִין וְלֹא הוֹצִיאוּ שְׁאָר הָאִילָנוֹת פֵּרוֹת. אֲבָל אִם הוֹצִיאוּ שְׁאָר הָאִילָנוֹת פֵּרוֹת וְלֹא אֲכָלָן לֹא הֻחְזַק אֶלָּא בְּמַה שֶּׁאָכַל: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁאָכַל הוּא מִקְצָת הַפֵּרוֹת וּבָזְזוּ הָעָם שְׁאָר הַפֵּרוֹת. אֲבָל אִם מֵנִיחַ פֵּרוֹתֵיהֶן עֲלֵיהֶן הוֹאִיל וְאָכַל אִילָן מִכָּאן וְאִילָן מִכָּאן מִכָּל הַשָּׂדֶה הֶחֱזִיק בְּכָל הַשָּׂדֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא אָסַף כָּל פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ: \n" + ], + [ + "וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין מַעֲמִידִין הַקַּרְקַע בְּיָדָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֲכָלוּם שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים. הָאֻמָּנִין וְהָאֲרִיסִין וְהָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפִּין וְהַשֻּׁתָּפִין וְהָאִישׁ בְּנִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְהָאִשָּׁה בְּנִכְסֵי בַּעְלָהּ וּבֵן בְּנִכְסֵי אָבִיו וְהָאָב בְּנִכְסֵי הַבֵּן. שֶׁכָּל אֶחָד מֵאֵלּוּ אֵין מַקְפִּידִין זֶה עַל זֶה. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין אֲכִילָתָן רְאָיָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא מִחוּ בָּהֶן הַבְּעָלִים אֶלָּא תַּחְזֹר הַקַּרְקַע לַבְּעָלִים שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ רְאָיָה שֶׁזֹּאת הַקַּרְקַע יְדוּעָה לָהֶן וְיִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא מְכָרוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא נְתָנוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: ", + "וְכֵן רָאשֵׁי גָּלֻיּוֹת שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ זְמַן וְהַגַּזְלָן וְהָעַכּוּ\"ם אֵין אֲכִילָתָן רְאָיָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן בַּעֲלֵי זְרוֹעַ. וְכֵן חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן אֵין אֲכִילָתָן רְאָיָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם טַעֲנָה כְּדֵי שֶׁתַּעֲמֹד הַקַּרְקַע בְּיָדָן אֶלָּא תַּחְזֹר לַבְּעָלִים. וְכֵן הַמַּחֲזִיק בְּנִכְסֵיהֶן אֵין אֲכִילָתָן רְאָיָה: ", + "כֵּיצַד אֵין מַעֲמִידִין אֶת הַקַּרְקַע בְּיָדָן. רְאוּבֵן שֶׁאָכַל שְׂדֵה שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה וְהוּא טָעַן שֶׁהִיא לְקוּחָה בְּיָדוֹ וְהֵבִיא שִׁמְעוֹן עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא יְדוּעָה לוֹ וְכֵן הֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁרְאוּבֵן יָדוּעַ שֶׁהוּא שֻׁתָּפוֹ אוֹ אֲרִיסוֹ אוֹ אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹסוֹ וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה לֹא מִחָה תַּחְזֹר הַשָּׂדֶה לְשִׁמְעוֹן וְיִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא מָכַר וְלֹא נָתַן. וְהוּא הַדִּין לִשְׁאָרָן. אֲבָל אִם לֹא הֵבִיא שִׁמְעוֹן רְאָיָה שֶׁרְאוּבֵן הָיָה שֻׁתָּף אוֹ אָרִיס אֶלָּא רְאוּבֵן הוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ וְאָמַר הֵן הוּא שֻׁתָּפִי וּמָכַר לִי. הוֹאִיל וְאָכַל שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה וְיָכוֹל לוֹמַר לֹא הָיָה שֻׁתָּפִי מֵעוֹלָם הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן כִּשְׁאָר כָּל אָדָם: ", + "הָאֻמָּנִין כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ בּוֹנִין בָּהּ אוֹ מְתַקְּנִין אוֹתָהּ שָׁנִים רַבּוֹת. יָרְדוּ מֵאֻמָּנוּתָן אִם אָכְלוּ אוֹתָן שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים מֵאַחַר שֶׁיָּרְדוּ מֵאֻמָּנוּתָן יֵשׁ לָהֶן חֲזָקָה: ", + "הָאֲרִיסִין כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה אָרִיס לְאָבִיו שֶׁל בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה אוֹ לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא אָרִיס שֶׁל בָּתֵּי אָבוֹת אֵין מְמַחִין הַבְּעָלִים בְּיָדוֹ. אֲבָל אִם זֶה הוּא שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה אָרִיס תְּחִלָּה הוֹאִיל וַאֲכָלָהּ כֻּלָּהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה מַעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּיָדוֹ. וְאוֹמְרִין לַבְּעָלִים הֵיאַךְ אָכַל שָׁנָה אַחַר שָׁנָה וְלֹא מָחִיתָ בּוֹ: ", + "אָרִיס שֶׁל בָּתֵּי אָבוֹת שֶׁהוֹרִיד אֲרִיסִין תַּחַת יָדוֹ יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה שֶׁאֵין מוֹרִידִין אֲרִיסִים אֲחֵרִים לְנִכְסֵי אָדָם וְהוּא שׁוֹתֵק. אֲבָל אִם חָלַק לַאֲרִיסִין אֲחֵרִים שֶׁהָיוּ בָּהּ אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה שֶׁמָּא מְמֻנֶּה עַל הָאֲרִיסִין עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ. וְאָרִיס שֶׁיָּרַד מֵאֲרִיסוּתוֹ וַאֲכָלָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים מֵאַחַר שֶׁיָּרַד הֶחֱזִיק: ", + "הָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹסִין כֵּיצַד. בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס עַל שָׂדֶה זוֹ בֵּין עַל שְׁאָר נְכָסִים בֵּין שֶׁמִּנּוּ אוֹתָם בֵּית דִּין בֵּין שֶׁמִּנָּה אוֹתָם אֲבִי יְתוֹמִים וְגָדְלוּ הַיְתוֹמִים וְהִנִּיחוּ אוֹתָן. בֵּין שֶׁמִּנָּה אָדָם אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס עַל הוֹצָאָתוֹ וְהַכְנָסָתוֹ. הוֹאִיל וְהֵן מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בִּרְשׁוּת אֵין לָהֶן חֲזָקָה. עָבְרוּ הָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפִּין מִמִּנּוּיָן וְאָכְלוּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים אַחַר שֶׁעָבְרוּ הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה: ", + "הַשֻּׁתָּפִין כֵּיצַד. אִם הָיָה שֻׁתָּף בְּשָׂדֶה זוֹ וְאֵין בָּהּ דִּין חֲלוּקָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָכַל אֶת כֻּלָּהּ הָאֶחָד מֵהֶן כַּמָּה שָׁנִים הֲרֵי הִיא בְּחֶזְקַת שְׁנֵיהֶם. וְאִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ דִּין חֲלוּקָה וַאֲכָלָהּ הָאֶחָד כֻּלָּהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר לְשֻׁתָּפוֹ אִם בֶּאֱמֶת שֶׁלֹּא מָכַרְתָּ וְלֹא נָתַתָּ הֵיאַךְ אָכַלְתִּי אֶת כֻּלָּהּ וְאַתָּה שׁוֹתֵק וְלֹא מָחִיתָ כָּל שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים. וְכֵן הָאִישׁ שֶׁאָכַל בְּנִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִתְנָה עִמָּהּ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ פֵּרוֹת בִּנְכָסֶיהָ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הִתְנָה עִמָּהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא אֲרוּסָה שֶׁלֹּא יִירָשֶׁנָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָכַל וּבָנָה וְהָרַס וְעָשָׂה כָּל מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה. וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָכְלָה פֵּרוֹת בְּנִכְסֵי בַּעְלָהּ וְנִשְׁתַּמְּשָׁה בָּהֶן כְּחֶפְצָהּ כַּמָּה שָׁנִים. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיִּחֵד לָהּ שָׂדֶה בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ וְאָכְלָה שָׂדוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת אֵין אֲכִילָתָן רְאָיָה. וְכֵן הַבֵּן שֶׁהוּא סוֹמֵךְ עַל שֻׁלְחָנוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו וְנֶחְשָׁב בִּכְלַל בְּנֵי בֵּיתוֹ אִם אָכַל נִכְסֵי אָבִיו שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. וְכֵן הָאָב שֶׁאָכַל נִכְסֵי בֵּן זֶה שֶׁהוּא סוֹמֵךְ עָלָיו שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. אֵין אֲכִילָתָן רְאָיָה: ", + "וּבֵן שֶׁפֵּרַשׁ מֵאָבִיו וְאִשָּׁה שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה אֲפִלּוּ סְפֵק גֵּרוּשִׁין הֲרֵי הֵן כִּשְׁאָר כָּל אָדָם: ", + "רָאשֵׁי גָּלֻיּוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ בִּימֵי חֲכָמִים לְפִי שֶׁהָיָה בָּהֶן כֹּחַ לִרְדּוֹת אֶת הָעָם אֵין אֲכִילָתָן רְאָיָה. וְכֵן אַחֵר שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בְּנִכְסֵיהֶן אֲפִלּוּ אָכַל כַּמָּה שָׁנִים אֵין אֲכִילָתָן רְאָיָה לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָן מְמַחִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּדָן תְּקֵפָה כָּל זְמַן שֶׁיִּרְצוּ מְסַלְּקִין זֶה מִמֶּנָּה. אֲבָל נִשְׁבָּעִין הֶסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא מָכְרוּ וְשֶׁלֹּא נָתְנוּ. וְאִם הֵן הֶחֱזִיקוּ בְּנִכְסֵי אַחֵר וְאָמַר שֶׁלֹּא מָכַר נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא מָכַר לָהֶן וְלֹא נָתַן לָהֶם: ", + "הַגַּזְלָן כֵּיצַד. מִי שֶׁהֻחְזַק גַּזְלָן עַל שָׂדֶה זוֹ אוֹ מִי שֶׁהֻחְזְקוּ אֲבוֹתָיו שֶׁהֵן הוֹרְגִין נְפָשׁוֹת עַל עִסְקֵי מָמוֹן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָכַל שָׂדֶה זוֹ כַּמָּה שָׁנִים לֹא הֶחֱזִיק וְתַחְזֹר שָׂדֶה לַבְּעָלִים: " + ], + [ + "כָּל אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין אֲכִילָתָן רְאָיָה אִם הֵבִיאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁמָּכְרוּ לָהֶם הַבְּעָלִים שָׂדֶה זוֹ אוֹ נְתָנוּהָ לָהֶן בְּמַתָּנָה רְאָיָתָן רְאָיָה. חוּץ מִן הַגַּזְלָן וְהַבַּעַל בְּנִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ. בְּאֵי זֶה נְכָסִים אָמְרוּ בְּנִכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל אוֹ בְּשָׂדֶה שֶׁיִּחֵד לָהּ בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ וּבְשָׂדֶה שֶׁכָּתַב לָהּ בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ וּבְשָׂדֶה שֶׁנָּתַן לָהּ בְּשׁוּם מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. אֲבָל בְּנִכְסֵי מְלוֹג יֵשׁ לוֹ רְאָיָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת אִישׁוּת: \n", + "כֵּיצַד הַגַּזְלָן אֵין לוֹ רְאָיָה. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֻחְזַק גַּזְלָן עַל שָׂדֶה זוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁהוֹדָה הַבַּעַל בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים שֶׁמָּכַר לוֹ שָׂדֶה זוֹ וְלָקַח דָּמִים וְהַבְּעָלִים אוֹמְרִים לֹא מָכַרְנוּ לְךָ אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי הַיִּרְאָה הוֹדִינוּ לוֹ מוֹצִיאִין אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה מִיָּדוֹ וְאֵין לוֹ כְּלוּם. וְאִם הֵעִידוּ הָעֵדִים שֶׁבִּפְנֵיהֶם מָנָה לוֹ כָּךְ וְכָךְ מוֹצִיאִין אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה מִיַּד הַגַּזְלָן וּמַחְזִירִין לוֹ הַבְּעָלִים אֶת הַדָּמִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת גְּזֵלָה: \n", + "בֶּן הָאֻמָּן וּבֶן הָאָרִיס וְכֵן הָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס שֶׁאָכְלוּ שָׂדֶה זוֹ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. אִם טָעֲנוּ שֶׁהַבְּעָלִים מָכְרוּ לָהֶן אוֹ נָתְנוּ לָהֶן יֵשׁ לָהֶן חֲזָקָה. וְאִם טָעֲנוּ שֶׁהִיא יְרֻשָּׁה לָהֶן מֵאֲבִיהֶם שֶׁאֲכָלוּהָ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה אֵין לָהֶן חֲזָקָה. וְאִם הֵבִיאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁהוֹדוּ הַבְּעָלִים לַאֲבִיהֶן שֶׁמְּכָרוּהָ לָהֶן אוֹ נְתָנוּהָ מַעֲמִידִין אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה בְּיָדָן: \n", + "בֶּן הַגַּזְלָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁהוֹדוּ הַבְּעָלִים לְאָבִיו שֶׁמָּכַר אֵינָהּ רְאָיָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֲבָל בֶּן בֶּן הַגַּזְלָן אֲפִלּוּ בָּא בְּטַעֲנַת אָבִיו יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה בָּא בְּטַעֲנַת אֲבִי אָבִיו אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה: \n", + "הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֲפִלּוּ אֲכָלָהּ כַּמָּה שָׁנִים אֵין אֲכִילָתוֹ רְאָיָה. וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא שְׁטָר תַּחְזֹר הַשָּׂדֶה לַבְּעָלִים בְּלֹא שׁוּם שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא תִּקְּנוּ שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת אֶלָּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִשְׂרָאֵל הַבָּא מֵחֲמַת הָעַכּוּ\"ם הֲרֵי הוּא כְּעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁאֵין אֲכִילָתוֹ רְאָיָה: \n", + "טָעַן זֶה הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל הַבָּא מֵחֲמַת הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְאָמַר בְּפָנַי לְקָחָהּ הָעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁמָּכַר לִי מִזֶּה הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל הַמְעַרְעֵר עָלַי הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן וְיִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת עַל כָּךְ מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר אֲנִי לְקַחְתִּיהָ מִמְּךָ וַהֲרֵי אֲכַלְתִּיהָ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה יָכוֹל לוֹמַר מִפְּלוֹנִי לְקַחְתִּיהָ שֶׁבְּפָנַי לְקָחָהּ מִמְּךָ: \n", + "אֵין מַחֲזִיקִין בְּנִכְסֵי קָטָן וַאֲפִלּוּ הִגְדִּיל. כֵּיצַד. אֲכָלָהּ בְּפָנָיו כְּשֶׁהוּא קָטָן שָׁנָה אַחַת וּשְׁתַּיִם אַחַר שֶׁהִגְדִּיל וְטָעַן אַתָּה מָכַרְתָּ לִי אַתָּה נָתַתָּ לִי אֵין זֶה כְּלוּם עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים רְצוּפוֹת אַחַר שֶׁהִגְדִּיל: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בְּנִכְסֵי קָטָן שָׁנִים רַבּוֹת וְטָעַן וְאָמַר מַשְׁכּוֹנָה הֵן בְּיָדִי וְיֵשׁ לִי חוֹבָה עֲלֵיהֶן כָּךְ וְכָךְ. הוֹאִיל וְאִלּוּ רָצָה אָמַר לְקוּחִים הֵן בְּיָדִי נֶאֱמָן שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ מֻחְזֶקֶת שֶׁהָיָה לְאָבִיו שֶׁל זֶה וַהֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹבֶה מִשִּׁבְחָהּ מַה שֶּׁטָּעַן וְתַחְזֹר לַיְתוֹמִים. אֲבָל אִם יָצָא עָלֶיהָ קוֹל שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל יְתוֹמִים אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין מַחֲזִיקִין בְּנִכְסֵי קָטָן וְתַחְזֹר הַשָּׂדֶה וְכָל הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל לַיְתוֹמִים עַד שֶׁיִּגְדְּלוּ וְיַעֲשֶׂה עִמָּהֶן דִּין: \n", + "אֲכָלָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה בְּחַיֵּי אֲבִיהֶן מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי מֵאֲבִיהֶן נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר חוֹב יֵשׁ לִי עַל אֲבִיהֶן. וְגוֹבֶה אוֹתוֹ מִן הַפֵּרוֹת וְגוֹבֵהוּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר שֶׁלִּי הֵן: \n", + "בּוֹרֵחַ שֶׁבָּרַח מֵחֲמַת סַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה הַמֶּלֶךְ מְבַקֵּשׁ לַהֲמִיתוֹ. אֵין מַחֲזִיקִין בִּנְכָסָיו אֲפִלּוּ אָכַל הַמַּחֲזִיק כַּמָּה שָׁנִים וְטָעַן שֶׁלָּקַח אֵין אֲכִילָתוֹ רְאָיָה. וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים לְבַעַל הַשָּׂדֶה לָמָּה לֹא מָחִיתָ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מִתְעַסֵּק בְּנַפְשׁוֹ. אֲבָל הַבּוֹרֵחַ מֵחֲמַת מָמוֹן הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכָל אָדָם וְאִם לֹא מִחָה מַחֲזִיקִין בִּנְכָסָיו: \n", + "מַחֲזִיקִין בְּנִכְסֵי אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. כֵּיצַד. אֲכָלָהּ מִקְצָת שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה בְּחַיֵּי הַבַּעַל וְשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים אַחַר מִיתַת הַבַּעַל. וְטָעַן וְאָמַר מְכַרְתָּהּ לִי אַתְּ וּבַעֲלֵךְ מַעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּיָדוֹ מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר מִמֵּךְ לְקַחְתִּיהָ אַחַר מוֹת בַּעֲלִיךְ שֶׁהֲרֵי אֲכָלָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה אַחַר מִיתַת הַבַּעַל וְלֹא מִחֵת בּוֹ. אֲבָל אִם אֲכָלָהּ בְּחַיֵּי בַּעְלָהּ כַּמָּה שָׁנִים וְלֹא אָכְלָה שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה אַחַר מִיתַת בַּעְלָהּ אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה: \n", + "כָּל חֲזָקָה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ טַעֲנָה אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה. כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁאָכַל פֵּרוֹת שָׂדֶה זוֹ כַּמָּה שָׁנִים וּבָא הַמְעַרְעֵר וְאָמַר לוֹ מֵאַיִן לְךָ שָׂדֶה זוֹ שֶׁלִּי הִיא הֱשִׁיבוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁל מִי הִיא וְכֵיוָן שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לִי אָדָם כְּלוּם יָרַדְתִּי לְתוֹכָהּ. אֵין זוֹ חֲזָקָה שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא טָעַן שֶׁלְּקָחָהּ וְלֹא שֶׁנְּתָנָהּ לוֹ וְלֹא שֶׁיְּרָשָׁהּ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא טָעַן אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא זֶה הַמְעַרְעֵר עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלּוֹ. הֵבִיא עֵדִים תַּחְזֹר לוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה וּמוֹצִיאִין מִזֶּה כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל וְאֵין פּוֹתְחִין לָזֶה הַמַּחֲזִיק תְּחִלָּה וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים שֶׁמָּא שְׁטָר הָיָה לְךָ וְאָבַד עַד שֶׁיִּטְעֹן מֵעַצְמוֹ וְאִם לֹא טָעַן יַחְזִיר כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל. וְכֵן הָאוֹכֵל שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה מֵחֲמַת שֶׁיֵּשׁ שְׁטָר בְּיָדוֹ וְנִמְצָא הַשְּׁטָר בָּטֵל בָּטְלָה הַחֲזָקָה וְתַחְזֹר הַשָּׂדֶה עִם כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת לַבְּעָלִים: \n", + "הַבָּא מֵחֲמַת יְרֻשָּׁה צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁדָּר אָבִיו בְּשָׂדֶה זוֹ אוֹ נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהּ אֲפִלּוּ יוֹם אֶחָד וְכֵיוָן שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ הוּא שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים מֵחֲמַת אָבִיו מַעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּיָדוֹ. אֲבָל אִם לֹא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁדָּר בָּהּ אָבִיו כְּלָל תַּחְזֹר הַשָּׂדֶה וְכָל הַפֵּרוֹת לַמְעַרְעֵר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא שֶׁלּוֹ. שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינוֹ טוֹעֵן עָלָיו שֶׁמָּכַר אוֹ נָתַן לוֹ וְלֹא נוֹדְעָה קַרְקַע זוֹ לַאֲבוֹתָיו. הֵבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁנִּרְאָה בָּהּ אָבִיו אֵינָהּ כְּלוּם שֶׁמָּא בָּא לְבַקֵּר אוֹתָהּ וְלֹא קְנָאָהּ. אֶלָּא צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁדָּר אָבִיו בָּהּ אֲפִלּוּ יוֹם אֶחָד: \n", + "הֲרֵי שֶׁאָכַל שָׂדֶה זוֹ שָׁנִים רַבּוֹת וּבָא הַמְעַרְעֵר וְאָמַר לוֹ מַה לְּךָ וּלְשָׂדֶה זוֹ הוֹדָה וְאָמַר לוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁהָיְתָה שֶׁלְּךָ אֲבָל פְּלוֹנִי מְכָרָהּ לִי וְהוּא לְקָחָהּ מִמְּךָ. וְאָמַר לוֹ הַמְעַרְעֵר פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁמָּכַר לְךָ גַּזְלָן הוּא. הוֹאִיל וְהוֹדָה שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלּוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא לְקָחָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ תַּחְזֹר הַשָּׂדֶה וְכָל הַפֵּרוֹת לַמְעַרְעֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לְזֶה הַמְעַרְעֵר עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלּוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. הֵבִיא זֶה הַמַּחֲזִיק עֵדִים שֶׁפְּלוֹנִי שֶׁמָּכַר לוֹ דָּר בָּהּ אֲפִלּוּ יוֹם אֶחָד אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ בְּפָנַי לָקַח מִמְּךָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְכָרָהּ לִי. מַעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּיָדוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ לוֹ טַעֲנָה עִם חֶזְקָתוֹ וְאִלּוּ רָצָה טָעַן וְאָמַר מִמְּךָ לְקַחְתִּיהָ שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה: \n" + ], + [ + "מִי שֶׁעִרְעֵר עַל שָׂדֶה זוֹ וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא יְדוּעָה לוֹ וְהֵבִיא זֶה שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ שְׁטָר שֶׁלְּקָחָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ בַּתְּחִלָּה קַיֵּם שְׁטָרְךָ. אִם נִתְקַיֵּם הֲרֵי טוֹב וְיָדוּן בַּשְּׁטָר. וְאִם אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לְקַיְּמוֹ סוֹמְכִין עַל עֵדֵי חֲזָקָה וְיִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת שֶׁלְּקָחָהּ: ", + "עֵדֵי הַחֲזָקָה שֶׁהֵעִיד אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ חִטִּים שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה וְהַשֵּׁנִי הֵעִיד שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שְׂעוֹרִים עֵדוּתָן קַיֶּמֶת שֶׁאֵין הָעֵד מְדַקְדֵּק בָּזֶה. הֵעִיד הָאֶחָד שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ זֶה שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה שְׁלִישִׁית וַחֲמִישִׁית וְהַשֵּׁנִי מֵעִיד שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שְׁנִיָּה וּרְבִיעִית וְשִׁשִּׁית אֵין עֵדוּתָן מִצְטָרֶפֶת. שֶׁבַּשָּׁנָה שֶׁמֵּעִיד בָּהּ זֶה לֹא הֵעִיד בָּהּ זֶה. וְתַחְזֹר הַקַּרְקַע וְהַפֵּרוֹת: ", + "מִי שֶׁיָּרַד לְשָׂדֶה בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא יוֹרֵשׁ וְאָכַל פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ וְנִמְצָא יוֹרֵשׁ אַחַר שֶׁהוּא קָרוֹב מִמֶּנּוּ וְרָאוּי לְיָרְשָׁהּ בֵּין שֶׁנִּמְצָא בְּעֵדִים בֵּין שֶׁהוֹדָה לוֹ זֶה שֶׁיָּרַד תְּחִלָּה חַיָּב לְהַחְזִיר כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל: ", + "שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹרְרִין עַל הַשָּׂדֶה זֶה אוֹמֵר שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר שֶׁלִּי וְאֵין לְאֶחָד מֵהֶן רְאָיָה. אוֹ שֶׁהֵבִיא כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶם עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁל אֲבוֹתָיו אוֹ שֶׁהֵבִיא כָּל אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם עֵדִים שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה וְהַשָּׁנִים שֶׁהֵעִידוּ בָּהֶן אֵלּוּ הֵן הַשָּׁנִים עַצְמָן שֶׁהֵעִידוּ בָּהֶן אֵלּוּ. מַנִּיחִין אוֹתָהּ בִּידֵיהֶן וְכָל הַמִּתְגַּבֵּר יֵרֵד בָּהּ וְיִהְיֶה הָאַחֵר מוֹצִיא מִיָּדוֹ וְעָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. וְאִם בָּא שְׁלִישִׁי וְתָקַף עֲלֵיהֶן וְיָרַד לְתוֹכָהּ מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ מִמֶּנָּה: ", + "הֵבִיא הָאֶחָד עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל אֲבוֹתָיו וְשֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה וַהֲרֵי הִיא תַּחַת יָדוֹ. וְהֵבִיא הָאַחֵר עֵדִים שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה וַהֲרֵי הִיא תַּחַת יָדוֹ. נִמְצֵאת עֵדוּת הַחֲזָקָה שֶׁל שְׁנֵיהֶם מֻכְחֶשֶׁת. מַעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּיַד זֶה שֶׁהֵעִידוּ עָלָיו עֵדֵי הַחֲזָקָה שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל אֲבוֹתָיו וּמוֹרִידִין אוֹתוֹ לְתוֹכָהּ. חָזַר הַשֵּׁנִי וְהֵבִיא אַף הוּא עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל אֲבוֹתָיו שֶׁהֲרֵי נִמְצֵאת גַּם עֵדוּת זוֹ מֻכְחֶשֶׁת. חוֹזְרִין בֵּית דִּין וּמְסַלְּקִין מִמֶּנָּה אַף הָרִאשׁוֹן וּמַנִּיחִין אוֹתָהּ בְּיַד שְׁנֵיהֶם וְכָל הַמִּתְגַּבֵּר יֵרֵד בָּהּ: ", + "זֶה אוֹמֵר שֶׁל אֲבוֹתַי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר שֶׁל אֲבוֹתַי זֶה הֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל אֲבוֹתָיו וְזֶה הֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה תַּחְזֹר לָזֶה שֶׁהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל אֲבוֹתָיו וְיַחְזִיר הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל. שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא טָעַן כְּלוּם וְאֵין אֲכִילָתוֹ רְאָיָה שֶׁכָּל חֲזָקָה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ טַעֲנָה עַל הַבְּעָלִים אֵינָהּ כְּלוּם. חָזַר זֶה הַמַּחֲזִיק וְאָמַר כֵּן שֶׁל אֲבוֹתֶיךָ הָיְתָה וְאַתָּה מְכַרְתָּהּ לִי וְזֶה שֶׁטָּעַנְתִּי תְּחִלָּה שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל אֲבוֹתַי כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁאֲנִי סוֹמֵךְ עָלֶיהָ וַהֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁלִּי כְּשֶׁל אֲבוֹתַי. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר שֶׁל אֲבוֹתַי שֶׁלְּקָחוּהָ מֵאֲבוֹתֶיךָ הֲרֵי זוֹ טַעֲנָה נְכוֹנָה שֶׁהֲרֵי נָתַן אֲמַתְלָא לִדְבָרָיו הָרִאשׁוֹנִים וּמַעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּיָדוֹ. וְאִם טָעַן בַּתְּחִלָּה וְאָמַר שֶׁל אֲבוֹתַי וְלֹא שֶׁל אֲבוֹתֶיךָ אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ בְּטַעֲנָה זוֹ הָאַחֶרֶת. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהָיָה בְּתוֹךְ שָׂדֶה וּבָא שִׁמְעוֹן וְעִרְעֵר עָלָיו וְאָמַר רְאוּבֵן שָׂדֶה זוֹ מִלֵּוִי קְנִיתִיהָ וְאָכַלְתִּי אוֹתָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה אָמַר לוֹ שִׁמְעוֹן וַהֲלֹא שְׁטָר זֶה מְקֻיָּם בְּיָדִי שֶׁאֲנִי לְקַחְתִּיהָ מִלֵּוִי מֵהַיּוֹם אַרְבַּע שָׁנִים. חָזַר רְאוּבֵן וְאָמַר וְכִי תַּעֲלֶה עַל דַּעְתְּךָ שֶׁשָּׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים בִּלְבַד יֵשׁ לִי מִשֶּׁקְּנִיתִיהָ שָׁנִים רַבּוֹת יֵשׁ לִי מִשֶּׁלְּקַחְתִּיהָ וַאֲנִי קְדַמְתִּיךָ. הֲרֵי טַעֲנַת רְאוּבֵן טַעֲנָה. שֶׁאָדָם קוֹרֵא לְשָׁנִים רַבּוֹת שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הֵבִיא רְאוּבֵן עֵדִים שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים שֶׁנִּמְצָא שֶׁאָכַל שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה קֹדֶם שֶׁלְּקָחָהּ שִׁמְעוֹן מַעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּיָדוֹ. אֲבָל אִם אֲכָלָהּ פָּחוֹת מִשֶּׁבַע שָׁנִים תַּחְזֹר לְשִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁאֵין לְךָ מְחָאָה גְּדוֹלָה מִזּוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי מְכָרָהּ קֹדֶם שֶׁהֶחְזִיק רְאוּבֵן: ", + "זֶה אוֹמֵר שֶׁל אֲבוֹתַי וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים וְזֶה אוֹמֵר שֶׁל אֲבוֹתַי וְאֵין לוֹ עֵדִים תַּחְזֹר לָזֶה שֶׁהֵבִיא עֵדִים וּמוֹצִיאִין מִזֶּה כָּל פֵּרוֹת שֶׁהוֹדָה בָּהֶן שֶׁאֲכָלָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים שֶׁאָכַל. שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר שֶׁמֵּחֲמַת אֲבוֹתָיו אָכַל וַהֲרֵי הָעֵדִים שֶׁהָיָה שֶׁל אֲבוֹתָיו שֶׁל זֶה הַטּוֹעֵן. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "הֵבִיא הַמְעַרְעֵר עֵדִים שֶׁזּוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה שֶׁלּוֹ וְזֶה שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ טוֹעֵן מִמְּךָ לְקַחְתִּיהָ וַהֲרֵי שְׁטָרִי וְהוֹצִיא שְׁטָר מְקֻיָּם. טָעַן הַמְעַרְעֵר שֶׁהוּא מְזֻיָּף וְהוֹדָה בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר וְאָמַר כֵּן הוּא אֲבָל הָיָה לִי שְׁטָר כָּשֵׁר וְאָבַד וְלָקַחְתִּי זֶה שֶׁבְּיָדִי כְּדֵי לְאַיֵּם עָלָיו שֶׁיּוֹדֶה שֶׁמָּכַר לִי בֶּאֱמֶת. הוֹאִיל וְאִלּוּ רָצָה הָיָה אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁטָרוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי מְקֻיָּם הוּא הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן וְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ וְיִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת: ", + "הֵבִיא הַמְעַרְעֵר עֵדִים שֶׁזּוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה שֶׁלּוֹ וְזֶה שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ טוֹעֵן מִמְּךָ לְקַחְתִּיהָ וַאֲכַלְתִּיהָ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה טָעַן הַמְעַרְעֵר וְאָמַר הֵיאַךְ תִּטְעֹן שֶׁלָּקַחְתָּ מִמֶּנִּי הַיּוֹם שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וּבְאוֹתוֹ הַזְּמַן לֹא הָיִיתִי בִּמְדִינָה זוֹ. מַצְרִיכִין זֶה שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁזֶּה פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁמְּעַרְעֵר הָיָה עִמּוֹ בַּמְּדִינָה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה שֶׁטּוֹעֵן שֶׁמָּכַר לוֹ בּוֹ אֲפִלּוּ יוֹם אֶחָד כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּמְכֹּר וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ: ", + "מִי שֶׁהָלַךְ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וְאָבְדָה דֶּרֶךְ שָׂדֵהוּ בֵּין שֶׁהָיוּ אַרְבַּע הַשָּׂדוֹת הַמַּקִּיפוֹת אוֹתָהּ לְאַרְבָּעָה אֲנָשִׁים בֵּין שֶׁהָיוּ הָאַרְבַּע שָׂדוֹת קְנוּיוֹת מֵאֶחָד הֲרֵי כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן דּוֹחֵהוּ וְאוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא דֶּרֶךְ שֶׁלְּךָ עַל חֲבֵרִי הוּא. לְפִיכָךְ יִקְנֶה לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ בְּמֵאָה מָנֶה אוֹ יִפְרַח בָּאֲוִיר. וְכֵן אִם הָיוּ אַרְבַּע הַשָּׂדוֹת לְאִישׁ אֶחָד שֶׁקָּנָה אוֹתָן מֵאַרְבָּעָה אֵין לוֹ עָלָיו דֶּרֶךְ שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר לוֹ עַתָּה אִם אַחְזִיר לְכָל אֶחָד שְׁטָרוֹ אֵין אַתָּה יָכוֹל לַעֲבֹר עַל אֶחָד מֵהֶן וַאֲנִי קָנִיתִי מִכָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן כָּל זְכוּת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה בַּעַל אַרְבַּע שָׂדוֹת הַמַּקִּיפוֹ אִישׁ אֶחָד וְהוּא בַּעַל הַמֵּצַר שֶׁלָּהּ מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹמֵר לוֹ מִכָּל מָקוֹם דַּרְכִּי עָלֶיךָ וְיֵלֵךְ לוֹ בִּקְצָרָה בְּאֵי זוֹ שָׂדֶה שֶׁיִּרְצֶה בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְאִם הֶחֱזִיק בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְאוֹמֵר זוֹ הִיא דַּרְכִּי אֵין מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ מִמֶּנָּה אֶלָּא בִּרְאָיָה בְּרוּרָה: " + ], + [ + "רְאוּבֵן שֶׁמָּכַר לְשִׁמְעוֹן שָׂדֶה וְהָיָה לֵוִי מֵעֵדֵי הַשְּׁטָר וּבָא לֵוִי לְעַרְעֵר עַל הַשָּׂדֶה וְלִטְעֹן שֶׁרְאוּבֵן גָּזַל אוֹתָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ. אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ וְאֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין עַל רְאָיוֹת שֶׁיָּבִיא עַל אוֹתָהּ שָׂדֶה וַהֲרֵי אִבֵּד כָּל זְכוּתוֹ שֶׁאוֹמֵר לוֹ הֵיאַךְ תָּעִיד עַל הַמֶּכֶר וְתָבוֹא וּתְעַרְעֵר. וְכֵן אִם הֵעִיד לֵוִי בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁל רְאוּבֵן מִצַּד מִזְרָח אוֹ מַעֲרָב הוֹאִיל וְעָשָׂה הַשָּׂדֶה סִימָן לְאַחֵר וְהֵעִיד בַּשְּׁטָר אִבֵּד אֶת זְכוּתוֹ וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר וּלְעַרְעֵר שֶׁאוֹמְרִים לוֹ הֵיאַךְ תָּעִיד בִּשְׁטָר זֶה שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה הַזֹּאת מִצַּד פְּלוֹנִי וְתַחְזֹר וּתְעַרְעֵר עָלֶיהָ: \n", + "טָעַן הָעֵד וְאָמַר תֶּלֶם אֶחָד הוּא שֶׁעָשִׂיתִי סִימָן וְלֹא כָּל הַשָּׂדֶה וְאוֹתוֹ הַתֶּלֶם הַסָּמוּךְ לַמֵּצַר בִּלְבַד הוּא שֶׁל רְאוּבֵן הֲרֵי זֶה טַעֲנָה הַנִּשְׁמַעַת וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְעַרְעֵר עַל כָּל הַשָּׂדֶה חוּץ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַתֶּלֶם. וְאֵין כָּל הַדְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים אֶלָּא בְּאֶחָד מֵעֵדֵי הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁבָּא לְעַרְעֵר. אֲבָל הַדַּיָּן שֶׁקִּיֵּם הַשְּׁטָר יֵשׁ לוֹ לְעַרְעֵר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לִטְעֹן וְלוֹמַר לֹא יָדַעְתִּי מֶה הָיָה כָּתוּב בַּשְּׁטָר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לַדַּיָּנִין לְקַיֵּם הַשְּׁטָר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא קְרָאוּהוּ. אֲבָל הָעֵדִים אֵין חוֹתְמִין עַל הַשְּׁטָר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן קְרָאוּהוּ כֻּלּוֹ וִידַקְדֵּק בּוֹ: \n", + "בָּא שִׁמְעוֹן וְנִמְלַךְ בְּלֵוִי וְאָמַר לוֹ הֲרֵינִי קוֹנֶה שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית מֵרְאוּבֵן וּבַעֲצָתְךָ אֶקְנֶה אוֹתָהּ. אָמַר לוֹ לֵוִי לֵךְ וּקְנֵה אוֹתָהּ טוֹבָה הִיא. יֵשׁ לוֹ לְלֵוִי לְעַרְעֵר עָלֶיהָ וְלֹא אִבֵּד זְכוּתוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לוֹמַר רְצוֹנִי הָיָה שֶׁתֵּצֵא מִתַּחַת יַד רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהוּא אַלָּם כְּדֵי שֶׁאֶתְבָּעֶנָּה בְּדִין וְאֶקַּח שָׂדִי: \n", + "רְאוּבֵן שֶׁעִרְעֵר עַל שִׁמְעוֹן וְשִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה אַתָּה סָח אֶלָּא שָׂדֶה זוֹ מִלֵּוִי לְקַחְתִּיהָ וַהֲרֵי עֵדִים שֶׁאֲכַלְתִּיהָ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. אָמַר לוֹ רְאוּבֵן וַהֲלֹא עֵדִים יֵשׁ לִי שֶׁבָּעֶרֶב בָּאתָ אֵלַי וְאָמַרְתָּ לִי מְכֹר לִי שָׂדֶה זוֹ אֵין זוֹ רְאָיָה. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְשִׁמְעוֹן לוֹמַר רָצִיתִי לִקְנוֹת מִמְּךָ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תְּעַרְעֵר וְלֹא תַּטְרִיחֵנִי בְּדִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם הִיא שֶׁלְּךָ אוֹ אֵינָהּ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְאִם לֹא טָעַן שִׁמְעוֹן טַעֲנָה זוֹ אֵין טוֹעֲנִין לוֹ: \n", + "רְאוּבֵן שֶׁעִרְעֵר וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁשָּׂדֶה זוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ וְשִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ טוֹעֵן אַתָּה מְכַרְתָּהּ לִי וַאֲכַלְתִּיהָ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. וּרְאוּבֵן אָמַר בְּגֵזֶל אָכַלְתָּ. בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ עֵדִים שֶׁאָכַל כְּלָל בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה שָׁם עֵד אֶחָד שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְהַחְזִיר הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר שֶׁלִּי אָכַלְתִּי וְאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים שֶׁמְּחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ בְּפֵרוֹת שֶׁהֲרֵי מֵעַצְמוֹ הוֹדָה. וְזֶה הָעֵד שֶׁהֵעִיד שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים לְיַפּוֹת כֹּחוֹ שֶׁל אוֹכֵל הוּא בָּא וְאִלּוּ הָיָה עִמּוֹ אַחֵר הָיְתָה הַשָּׂדֶה עוֹמֶדֶת בְּיָדוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ יִשָּׁבַע רְאוּבֵן הֶסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא מָכַר וְתַחְזֹר לוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה וְיִשָּׁבַע שִׁמְעוֹן הֶסֵּת שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב לוֹ כְּלוּם בַּפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל וְיִפָּטֵר: \n", + "הָיוּ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים מְעִידִים עַל שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי חֲזָקָה יַחְזִיר כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה עֵד אֶחָד חַיָּב לְהַחְזִיר עַל פִּיו שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינוֹ מַכְחִישׁ הָעֵד אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר אֱמֶת הֵעִיד וְאָכַלְתִּי שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים וְשֶׁלִּי אָכַלְתִּי. נִמְצָא מְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִשָּׁבַע וּמְשַׁלֵּם: \n", + "כָּל הַמְחֻיָּב לְהַחְזִיר הַפֵּרוֹת אִם לֹא הָיוּ יְדוּעִין וְאֵין בֵּית דִּין יְכוֹלִין לְשַׁעֵר אוֹתָן כְּשַׁעַר הַבָּתִּים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁהוּא יָדוּעַ. אֶלָּא הָיוּ פֵּרוֹת אִילָן אוֹ פֵּרוֹת שָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵינָן יְדוּעִין. הוֹאִיל וְאֵין כָּאן טַעֲנָה וַדָּאִית יְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁיּוֹדֶה בּוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ. וּמַחְרִימִין עַל מִי שֶׁאָכַל יוֹתֵר וְלֹא יְשַׁלֵּם: \n", + "כָּל הַמַּחֲזִיר קַרְקַע מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ אִם הִשְׂכִּירָהּ לַאֲחֵרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה מַחֲזִיק בָּהּ וְהָיוּ הַשּׂוֹכְרִין קַיָּמִין מוֹצִיאִין מֵהֶן הַשָּׂכָר פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה וְנוֹתְנִין לְבַעַל הַקַּרְקַע וְחוֹזְרִין וְתוֹבְעִין זֶה שֶׁהִשְׂכִּיר לָהֶם מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ: \n", + "אָסוּר לָאָדָם לִטְעֹן טַעֲנַת שֶׁקֶר כְּדֵי לְעַוֵּת הַדִּין אוֹ כְּדֵי לְעַכְּבוֹ. כֵּיצַד. הָיָה נוֹשֶׁה בַּחֲבֵרוֹ מָנֶה לֹא יִטְעָנֶנּוּ מָאתַיִם כְּדֵי שֶׁיּוֹדֶה בְּמָנֶה וְיִתְחַיֵּב שְׁבוּעָה. הָיָה נוֹשֶׁה מָנֶה וּטְעָנוֹ מָאתַיִם לֹא יֹאמַר אֶכְפֹּר הַכּל בְּבֵית דִּין וְאוֹדֶה לוֹ בְּמָנֶה בֵּינִי לְבֵינוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא אֶתְחַיֵּב לוֹ שְׁבוּעָה: \n", + "הָיוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה נוֹשִׁין מָנֶה בְּאֶחָד וְכָפַר בָּהֶן לֹא יִהְיֶה אֶחָד תּוֹבֵעַ וּשְׁנַיִם מְעִידִים וּכְשֶׁיּוֹצִיאוּ מִמֶּנּוּ יַחֲלֹקוּ. וְעַל דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הִזְהִיר הַכָּתוּב וְאָמַר מִדְּבַר שֶׁקֶר תִּרְחָק: סְלִיקוּ לְהוּ הִלְכוֹת טוֹעֵן וְנִטְעָן בְּסַ\"ד \n" + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..52624713b654fb9dfa36495b1dfac02b6e55fbd4 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json @@ -0,0 +1,246 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant", + "versionSource": "http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94_%D7%9C%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%91%22%D7%9D", + "versionTitle": "Wikisource Mishneh Torah", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY-SA", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "משנה תורה (ויקיטקסט)", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות טוען ונטען", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "הטוען את חבירו במטלטלין והודה לו במקצת הרי זה משלם מה שהודה בו ונשבע על השאר מן התורה שנאמר אשר יאמר כי הוא זה, וכן אם כפר בכל ואומר לא היו דברים מעולם ועד אחד מעיד [שהוא חייב לו] הרי זה נשבע מן התורה, ומפי השמועה למדו שכל מקום ששנים מחייבין אותו ממון אחד מחייבו שבועה, וכן למדו מפי השמועה שעד אחד לכל עון ולכל חטאת אינו קם אבל קם הוא לשבועה.", + "אין לך מחוייב שבועה מן התורה חוץ משלשה, מי שהודה במקצת המטלטלין, ומי שחייבו עד אחד, והשומר, שהרי נאמר בשומר שבועת ה' תהיה בין שניהם, וכבר ביארנו שבועת השומרין בהלכות שכירות, וכל אחד מן השלשה נשבע ונפטר מלשלם, אבל כל הנשבעין ונוטלין כגון שכיר ונחבל ופוגם את שטרו וכיוצא בו, וכן כל הנשבעין בטענת ספק כגון השותפין והאריסין כולן נשבעין בתקנת חכמים, וכל אלו השבועות אע\"פ שהן מדברי סופרים הרי הן כעין של תורה בנקיטת חפץ.", + "הטוען מטלטלין על חבירו וכפר בכל ואמר לא היו דברים מעולם, או שהודה במקצת ונתנו מיד ואמר אין לך בידי אלא זה והילך, או שאמר אמת שהיה לך אצלי אבל מחלת לי או נתת לי או מכרת לי או החזרתי לך או שטענו חטים והודה לו בשעורים בכל אלו פטור משבועת התורה, אבל חכמי הגמרא תקנו שישבע הנתבע בכל אלו שבועת היסת ויפטר, ואינו כעין של תורה לפי שאין בהן נקיטת חפץ, וכבר ביארנו דרך שבועה של תורה ודרך שבועת היסת בהלכות שבועות.", + "כל מי שנתחייב שבועה מן התורה הרי זה נשבע ונפטר, ואם לא רצה להשבע יורדין לנכסיו וגובין מהם כל מה שתבע חבירו עליו, שהרי התובע אומר לו איני זז מדין תורה או השבע או תן לי, ויש לו להחרים על מי שטען עליו דבר שאינו כן ונותן, אבל מי שנתחייב שבועה מדבריהן אם היה מן הנשבעין ונוטלין אינו יכול להפך את השבועה שהרי הנתבע אומר לו השבע וטול כמו שתקנו לך, ואם לא רצה להשבע ילך לו, והורו רבותי שאם אמר התובע איני רוצה בתקנה זו שתקנו לי חכמים אלא הריני כשאר התובעים הרי זה משביע את הנתבע היסת, ואם רצה להפכה על התובע מחייבין את התובע להשבע או ילך לו.", + "היה מחוייב שבועה מדבריהם מן הנשבעין ונפטרין כגון הנשבעין על טענת ספק או מן הנשבעין היסת ולא רצה להשבע משמתין אותו שלשים יום אם לא בא ולא תבע נידויו מלקין אותו מכת מרדות, וכל מי שחלה עליו שמתא שלשים יום מכין אותו מכת מרדות ואחר כך מתירין נדויו, ואין יורדין לנכסיו לפי שאינו מחוייב שבועה מן התורה.", + "כל המחוייב שבועת היסת אם רצה להפוך השבועה על התובע הרי התובע נשבע היסת ונוטל מחבירו, ואין לך מי שנשבע היסת ונוטל מחבירו אלא זה שנהפכה עליו שבועת היסת, ואין לך שבועה שתהפך אלא שבועת היסת בלבד, אבל שבועה של תורה או של דבריהם שהיא כעין של תורה אין הופכין שבועתן.", + "אין משביעין שבועת היסת אלא על טענת ודאי אבל על טענת ספק פטור, כיצד כמדומה לי שיש לי אצלך מנה או שאמר מנה הלויתיך וכמדומה לי שלא פרעתני, אמר לי אבא שיש לי אצלך מנה או צוה לי בפני עדים שיש לי אצלך מנה, דבר פלוני נגנב מביתי ולא היה שם אלא אתה קרוב בעיני שאתה גנבתו, חשבתי מעות ומצאתי חסר שמא אתה הטעיתני בחשבון, והנתבע אומר אין לך בידי כלום הרי זה פטור אף משבועת היסת וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "כור חטים יש לי בידך בודאי והנתבע אומר איני יודע שמא יש לך שמא אין לך הרי הנתבע ישבע שבועת היסת שאינו יודע ונפטר, לפי שלא חייב עצמו בודאי וכן כל כיוצא בזה, כור חטים יש לי בידך בודאי והנתבע אומר איני יודע אם חטים הוא או שעורים הרי זה נשבע היסת שאינו יודע ומשלם שעורין וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "מנה יש לי בידך בודאי והנתבע אומר כן היה לך בידי אבל איני יודע אם החזרתי לך או עדיין לא החזרתי לך חייב לשלם ולא ישבע התובע כלל אפילו שבועת היסת, מפני שהוא יודע בודאי שהוא חייב והרי זה טוען אותו טענת ודאי ונסתפק אם נפטר או לא נפטר וכן כל כיוצא בזה, אבל אם אין לו תובע והודה מעצמו ואמר גזלתיך או הלויתני מנה, אביך הפקיד אצלי מנה ואיני יודע אם החזרתיו או לא החזרתיו, אינו חייב לשלם, ואם בא לצאת ידי שמים חייב לשלם.", + "מנה לי בידך אין לך בידי כלום השבע היסת ולך השבע אתה היסת וטול, ואמר התובע איני רוצה להשבע הרי הנתבע אומר לו השבע וטול או תלך בלא כלום, ואין שם הפוך אחר ויש לו להחרים סתם על מי שהוא חייב לי ולא יתן לי.", + "הורו רבותי שכל מי שנתחייב שבועה בין של תורה בין של דבריהם אפילו היסת, יש לו להחרים סתם קודם שישבע על מי שיטעון עליו דבר שאינו חייב בו כדי שישביע אותו בחנם ויענה המשביע אמן ואחר ישבע, ותקנה טובה לבעלי דינין כדי שימנעו מטענת שקר ולא יגרמו להוציא שם שמים לבטלה ולא ישיאו שמע שוא.", + "כל מי שנתחייב שבועה בין של תורה בין של דבריהם מגלגל עליו המשביע כל מה שירצה מדברים שאם יודה בהן יתחייב ממון, ועד היכן כח גלגול עד שיאמר ובכלל שבועה זו שלא נמכרת לי בעבד עברי ועדיין עבדי אתה, וכבר ביארנו שאין מגלגלין על השכיר.", + "מי שנתחייב שבועה אפילו היסת והתחיל התובע לגלגל עליו דברים אחרים שלא טען אותם, וראה הנתבע כך ואמר איני רוצה להשבע אלא הריני משלם הטענה הראשונה שנתחייבתי על כפירתה שבועה, אין שומעין לו אלא אומרים לנתבע או תן לו כל מה שגלגל עליך מטענות הודאיות או השבע והפטר.", + "הטוען את חבירו טענות הרבה אין משביעין אותו על כל טענה וטענה אלא שבועה אחת על הכל, נתחייב שתי שבועות על שתי טענות קלה וחמורה, משביעין אותו על החמורה ומגלגלין בה שאר דברים.", + "כל הטוען את חבירו טענה שאם הודה אינו חייב לשלם ממון, אע\"פ שכפר אין מחייבין אותו שבועת היסת ולא חרם סתם, כיצד אמרת שתתן לי מנה לא היו דברים מעולם אין משביעין אותו היסת ולא חרם שאילו הודה בדבר זה אינו חייב כלום, אתה קללת אותי אתה הוצאת עלי שם רע לא היו דברים מעולם אין מחרימין על זה, וכן כל כיוצא בזה מדברים אלו.", + "אתה חבלת בי לא היו דברים מעולם, הרי זה נשבע היסת שאע\"פ שאינו משלם קנס על פי עצמו משלם שבת ורפוי ובשת, אתה ביישתני לא היו דברים מעולם, אם היו במקום שגובין בו קנסות הרי זה נשבע היסת, שאילו הודה היה משלם הבושת.", + "במה דברים אמורים שהמודה בקנס פטור כשהודה בדבר שחייב עליו קנס כגון שאמר חבלתי בזה, אבל אם אמר חבלתי בזה והביא עלי עדים בבית דין וחייבוני ליתן כך וכך בנזקי הרי זה חייב לשלם, לפיכך אם טען הטוען שבית דין חייבוך לשלם לי מאה דינרין משום שחבלת בי והוא אומר לא היו דברים מעולם, הרי זה נשבע היסת וכן כל כיוצא בזה.." + ], + [ + "כל חשוד על השבועה אין משביעין אותו לא שבועת התורה ולא שבועה מדבריהם ולא שבועת היסת, ואפילו רצה התובע אין שומעין לו.", + "אחד הנשבע לשקר שבועת בטוי, או שבועת עדות, או שבועת הפקדון, או שבועת שוא, הרי הוא חשוד על השבועה, וכן כל הפסול לעדות משום עבירה בין פסלנות של תורה כגון בעלי רבית, ואוכלי נבלות, וגזלנין, בין פסלנות של דבריהם כגון משחק בקוביא ומפריחי יונים הרי הוא חשוד על השבועה ואין משביעין אותו.", + "אין אדם נעשה חשוד עד שיבאו עליו עדים שהוא עבר עבירה שנפסל בה, אבל המודה מפי עצמו שהוא חשוד ושעבר עבירה שנפסל בה, אע\"פ שחוששין לו ואין ראוי לעשותו עד בתחלה, אם נתחייב שבועה משביעין אותו שהרי אומרים לו אם אמת אתה אומר השבע ולא מפני שעברת עבירה אסור לך להשבע באמת, ואם שקר אתה אומר הודה לבעל דינך, אבל הנחשד בעדים אין אנו מאמינים אותו שישבע.", + "תקנת חכמים היא שכל המחוייב שבועה מן התורה על טענת ודאי, אם היה חשוד הרי התובע נשבע מדבריהם ונוטל מה שטען, היו שניהם חשודין חזרה שבועה למחוייב לה שהוא הנתבע ומתוך שאינו יכול לישבע משלם, היה החשוד שומר וטען שאבד הפקדון או נגנב שכנגדו אינו יכול להשבע וליטול שהרי אינו טוענו ודאי שאכלו, לפיכך אם טען בעל הפקדון ואמר בפני שלח יד בפקדוני או פשע בו הרי התובע נשבע בתקנת חכמים ונוטל.", + "נתחייב החשוד שבועה מדבריהם אם היה מן הנשבעין ונוטלין אינו יכול להשבע וליטול אלא הנתבע שכנגדו ישבע היסת ויפטר, וכן פוגם שטרו וכל כיוצא בזה שהיה חשוד וטען הלוה שפרעו ואמר ישבע לי הרי הנתבע נשבע היסת ויפטר מן השטר.", + "היה החשוד מן הנשבעין בטענת ספק אינו נשבע ואין שכנגדו נשבע לפי שלא נתחייב זה שבועה מן התורה, ולפי שאין התובע טוענו טענת ודאי כדי שישבע על טענתו.", + "נתחייב החשוד שבועת היסת אין שכנגדו נשבע ונוטל, ששבועת היסת עצמה תקנה היא ולא עשו לה תקנה אחרת שישבע התובע אלא הרי הנתבע נפטר בלא שבועה.", + "מי שנתחייב שבועת היסת והיה התובע חשוד, אין הנתבע יכול להפוך עליו השבועה שהרי אין יכול להשבע, אלא ישלם או ישבע היסת, ואין שומעין לזה לתלות בדבר שאי אפשר, והרי זה כמי שהפך שבועתו על הקטן שאין שומעין לו אלא או ישבע היסת או ישלם.", + "מי שנתחייב שבועה בין של תורה בין של דבריהם ונשבע ונטל או נשבע ונפטר, ואחר כך באו עליו עדים שהוא חשוד, אין שבועתו שנשבע כלום ויש לבעל דינו להוציא מידו מה שנטל או ישבע זה שכנגדו ויטול ממנו.", + "לעולם כזה דנין לחשוד עד שילקה בבית דין, אם היו עליו עדים שלקה ועשה תשובה יחזור לכשרותו בין לעדות בין לשבועה.", + "מי שטען על חבירו וכפר בו ונשבע בין שבועת התורה בין שבועת היסת, ואחר כך באו עדים והעידו עליו שעל שקר נשבע הרי זה משלם והוחזק חשוד על השבועה, וכבר בארנו בשבועות שכל הנשבע על ממון חבירו ועשה תשובה חייב להוסיף חומש.", + "טענו שיש לו חוב אצלו בעדים וקנין ואמר כן היה ופרעתיך, או שאמר איני חייב לך כלום ונשבע ואחר כך באו עדי הקנין, או הוציא השטר ונתקיים הרי זה משלם ואינו חשוד, שהרי לא העידו שלא פרעו ולא אמר הנתבע לא היו דברים מעולם וכן כל כיוצא בזה." + ], + [ + "אין מודה במקצת חייב שבועה מן התורה עד שיודה בפרוטה או יתר ויכפור בשתי מעין כסף או יתר, וכמה היא פרוטה משקל חצי שעורה של כסף נקי, וכמה הם שתי מעין משקל שתים ושלשים שעורות כסף מזוקק.", + "כל כסף האמור בתורה היא שקל הקדש והוא עשרים מעה וכל כסף של דבריהן ממטבע ירושלים שהיה הסלע שלהן אחד משמנה בו כסף והשאר נחושת כמו שבארנו, אבל המעה היא היתה כסף נקי אפילו בירושלים והיא כסף של ירושלים, ולפי שזה שהצריכו להיות כפירת הטענה שתי כסף היא מדבריהם עשו אותה שתי כסף של ירושלים שהן שתי מעין ולא עשו אותה שני שקלים בשקל הקדש, זהו הדבר הנראה בשעור כפירת הטענה, ורבותי הורו שכפירת הטענה הוא משקל תשע עשרה שעורות וחצי שעורה מן הכסף, ויש לי כמה ראיות לסתור אותה הדרך שתפסו עד שיצא להם זה החשבון, ויראה לי שהוא טעות.", + "שתי מעין ופרוטה יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא פרוטה חייב, אין לך בידי אלא שתי פרוטות פטור מפני שכפר בפחות משתי מעין, מנה לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא חצי פרוטה פטור שכל המודה בפחות מפרוטה כאילו לא הודה בכלום.", + "מאה תמרים יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא תשעים, רואים אם היו שוין שם העשר שכפר בהן שתי מעין נשבע ואם לאו פטור, חמשה או ששה אגוזים יש לי בידך אין לך [בידי] אלא אגוז אחד רואין אם שוה האחד פרוטה נשבע ואם לאו פטור וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "במה דברים אמורים בכסף או במיני סחורות ופירות וכיוצא בהן, אבל הכלים אין משערין את דמיהן ואפילו הן עשר מחטין בפרוטה וטענו שתי מחטין הודה באחת וכפר באחת חייב, שנאמר כסף או כלים כל הכלים ככסף, טענו כסף וכלים והודה בכלים וכפר בכסף אם יש בכפירה שתי מעין חייב ואם לאו פטור, הודה בכסף וכפר בכלים אם הודה בפרוטה חייב וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "העיד עליו עד אחד אפילו לא כפר אלא פרוטה הרי זה נשבע שכל מי ששנים מחייבים אותו ממון אחד מחייבו שבועה, כיצד פרוטה או שוה פרוטה יש לי בידך אין לך בידי כלום ועד אחד מעיד שיש לו הרי זה נשבע, וכן בשבועת השומרים אפילו הפקיד אצלו פרוטה או שוה פרוטה וטען שאבדה נשבע, וכל פחות מפרוטה אינו ממון ואין בית דין נזקקין לו, וכן כל הנשבעין ונוטלין נשבעין ונוטלין מפרוטה ומעלה.", + "הורו רבותי שהנשבעין ונוטלין אינן צריכין טענת שתי כסף, ואני אומר שצריך הנתבע שיכפור בשתי מעין ואחר כך ישבע התובע בתקנת חכמים ויטול, שהרי הנשבעין בטענת ספק צריך שיהיה ביניהם כפירת שתי מעין ואחר כך ישבע מספק.", + "אין מודה במקצת חייב שבועה עד שתהיה הודיה ממין הטענה, כיצד כור חטים יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא לתך חטים חייב, אבל אם אמר לו אין לך בידי אלא כור של שעורים פטור שהמין שטענו לא הודה לו בו והמין שהודה לו בו לא טענו, דינר זהב יש לי בידך פקדון לא הפקדת אצלי אלא דינר כסף, מעה כסף הפקדתי אצלך לא הפקדת אצלי אלא פרוטה פטור שטענו מין אחד והודה לו במין אחר, וכן אם אמר לו עשרה דינרים מצריות הפקדתי אצלך לא הפקדת אצלי אלא עשרה צוריות פטור וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "מנורה גדולה יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא מנורה קטנה הרי זה פטור, אבל אם טענו מנורה בת עשר ליטרין והודה לו במנורה בת חמש ליטרין הרי זה מודה במקצת מפני שיכול לגררה ולהעמידה על חמש, וכן אם טענו אזור גדול ואמר לו אין לך בידי אלא אזור קטן פטור, אבל אם טענו יריעה בת עשרים אמה והודה לו ביריעה בת עשר אמות הרי זה נשבע מפני שיכול לחתכה ולהעמידה על עשר וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "כור חטים יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא כור שעורים פטור אף מדמי שעורים, שהרי אומר לו אין לי בידך שעורים ונמצא זה דומה למי שאמר לחבירו בבית דין מנה לך בידי ואומר לו האחר אין לי בידך שאין בית דין מחייבין אותו ליתן לו כלום, ואם תפס התובע דמי השעורים אין מוציאין מידו.", + "הטוען את חבירו שני מינין והודה באחד מהן הרי ההודיה ממון /ממין/ הטענה ונשבע, כיצד כגון כור חטין וכור שעורין יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא כור חטין חייב, התחיל הטוען ואמר כור חטין יש לי בידך וקודם שישלים דבריו ואמר כור שעורים יש לי בידך אמר לו הנטען אין לך בידי אלא כור שעורים, אם נראה לדיינין שהנטען הערים חייב שבועה, ואם לפי תומו פטור.", + "כור חטין יש לי בידך אמר לו הן וכור שעורים אמר לו אין לך בידי שעורין, הרי זה פטור ואין זה מודה במקצת עד שיאמר לו בבת אחת כור חטים וכור שעורין יש לי בידך ואמר לו הנטען אין לך בידי אלא כור שעורים וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "מלא עשרה כדין שמן יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא עשרה כדין בלא שמן פטור, שהרי טענו שמן והודה לו בחרסים, עשרה כדין שמן יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא עשרה כדין ריקנין חייב שבועה שהרי טענו הכדין והשמן והודה לו בכדין וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "מנה לי אצלך הלואה לא היו דברים מעולם ולא לויתי ממך אבל חמשים דינרין יש לך בידי פקדון או משום נזק וכיוצא בו הורו רבותי שזה מודה במקצת וישבע, שהרי טענו שהוא חייב לו מאה והודה לו שהוא חייב חמשים ומה לי נתחייב לו משום הלואה או משום פקדון או משום נזק, ולזה דעתי נוטה.", + "מנה וכלי יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא הכלי והא לך, הרי זה פטור ונשבע היסת שאין לו אצלו אלא זה, אמר בעל הכלי אין זה הכלי כולל בשבועתו שזה כליו, הודה הנטען שאין זה כליו ונתחלף לו באחר הרי זה חייב שבועה, כל מקום שנאמר בענין זה פטור הרי זה פטור משבועת התורה וחייב שבועת היסת כמו שבארנו כמה פעמים." + ], + [ + "אין מודה במקצת חייב שבועה מן התורה עד שיטעננו בדבר שבמדה או במשקל או במנין ויודה לו בדבר שבמדה או שבמשקל או שבמנין, כיצד עשרה דינרין יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא חמשה, כור חטים יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא לתך, שתי ליטרין של משי יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא רוטל הרי זה חייב וכן כל כיוצא בזה, אבל אמר לו כיס מלא דינרין מסרתי לך לא מסרת לי אלא חמשים, מאה דינרין מסרתי לך לא מסרת לי אלא צרור של דינרין ולא מנית אותן בפני ואיני יודע מה היה בו ומה שהנחת אתה נוטל הרי זה פטור וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "בית מלא תבואה מסרתי לך והלה אומר לא מסרת לי אלא עשרה כורין, עשרה כורין מסרתי לך איני יודע כמה הם שהרי לא מדדתם בפני אלא מה שהנחת אתה נוטל פטור.", + "בית זה מלא עד הזיז מסרתי לך והלה אומר עד החלון חייב, וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "אין מודה במקצת חייב שבועה עד שיודה בדבר שאפשר לו לכפור בו, כיצד מי שטען חבירו ואמר מאה דינרין יש לי אצלך חמשים שבשטר זה וחמשים בלא שטר, אין לך בידי אלא חמשים שבשטר אין זה מודה במקצת שהשטר לא תועיל בו כפירתו והרי כל נכסיו משועבדין בו ואפילו כפר בו היה חייב לשלם, לפיכך נשבע היסת על החמשים.", + "שטר שכתוב בו סלעים ולא הזכיר מנין, מלוה אומר חמש סלעים שיש לי בידך הם הכתובים בו והלוה אומר אין לך בידי אלא שלש והם הכתובים בשטר, אע\"פ שאין מחייבין אותו בשטר זה אלא בשתים והרי הודה בסלע שאפשר לכפור בה הרי זה פטור מפני שהוא כמשיב אבדה ותקנת חכמים היא שכל שישיב אבדה לא ישבע כמו שביארנו במקומו, וכן האומר לחבירו אמר לי אבא שיש לי בידך מנה והלה אומר אין לך בידי אלא חמשים הרי זה משיב אבדה ופטור אף משבועת היסת, ואין צריך לומר אם הודה מעצמו ואמר מנה היה לאביך בידי ונתתי לו חמשים דינרין ונשאר לו חמשים שזה פטור אף משבועת היסת, אבל יורש שטען ואמר אני יודע בודאי שיש לאבי בידך או ביד אביך מנה והוא אומר אין לו בידי אלא חמשים או אין לך ביד אבי אלא חמשים הרי זה מודה מקצת וישבע.", + "מנה לי בידך על משכון זה אין בידי עליו אלא חמשים הרי זה מודה וישבע, אין המשכון שוה אלא חמשים או פחות הרי זה נשבע ומשלם החמשים שהודה בהן, היה המשכון שוה מאה או יתר הואיל והמלוה יכול לטעון עליו עד כדי דמיו הרי המלוה נשבע ונוטל מדמי המשכון, היה שוה שמונים נשבע המלוה שאין לו פחות משמונים ונוטלן מן המשכון, ונשבע הלוה מן התורה על העשרים שכפר בהן, כפר בכל ואמר אין זה משכון אלא פקדון ואין לו אצלי כלום נשבע המלוה שאין פחות משמונים ונשבע הלוה היסת על העשרים.", + "מנה לי בידך והלה אומר חמשים ודאי יש לך בידי אבל החמשים איני יודע אם אני חייב בהן או לאו הרי זה מחוייב שבועה מפני שהודה במקצת ואינו יכול להשבע במקצת שכפר בו שהרי אינו יודע לפיכך משלם המנה בלא שבועה וכן כל כיוצא בזה, ויש לו להחרים על מי שטוען עלי דבר שאינו יודע בודאי שאני חייב בו.", + "מנה לי בידך והרי עד אחד מעיד עליו והנטען אומר כן הוא אבל אתה חייב לי כנגד אותו מנה הרי זה מחוייב שבועה ואינו יכול לישבע ומשלם, ומפני מה אינו יכול לישבע שהרי הוא מודה במה שהעיד בו העד ואין הנשבע בהעדאת עד אחד נשבע עד שיכחיש את העד ויכפור בעדותו וישבע על כפירתו, לפיכך שטר שיש בו עד אחד וטען שפרעו, וכן כפרן שבא עליו עד אחד וטען שפרע או החזרתי לך הפקדון הרי זה מחוייב שבועה ואינו יכול להשבע ומשלם, מעשה באחד שחטף לשון כסף מחבירו בפני עד אחד ואמר אחר כן חטפתי ושלי חטפתי ואמרו חכמים הרי זה מחוייב שבועה ואינו יכול להשבע ומשלם וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "מנה הלויתיך לא היו דברים מעולם הביא עד אחד שלוה ממנו בפניו, הואיל ואילו היו שנים היה מוחזק כפרן ומשלם כמו שיתבאר הרי זה נשבע על פי עד אחד שכל מקום ששנים מחייבין אותו ממון אחד מחייבו שבועה, חזר ואמר פרעתי משלם בלא שבועה כמו שבארנו.", + "מנה לי בידך אין לך בידי כלום והעדים מעידין עליו שעדיין יש לו אצלו חמשים, פסקו כל הגאונים הלכה שישלם חמשים וישבע על השאר שלא תהא הודיית פיו גדולה מהעדאת עדים." + ], + [ + "ואלו דברים שאין נשבעין עליהן מן התורה, הקרקעות והעבדים והשטרות וההקדשות אע\"פ שהודה במקצת או שיש עליו עד אחד או ששמר וטען טענת השומרין הרי זה פטור, שנאמר כי יתן איש אל רעהו פרט להקדש, כסף או כלים פרט לקרקעות ולעבדים שהוקשו לקרקעות, וכן יצאו שטרות שאין גופן ממון ככסף וככלים ואינן אלא לראיה שבהן, ועל כלן נשבע שבועת היסת אם היתה שם טענת ודאי, חוץ מן ההקדשות שאע\"פ שאינו חייב עליהם שבועה מן התורה תקנו חכמים שישבע עליהם כעין של תורה כדי שלא יזלזלו בהקדשות.", + "שתי שדות מכרת לי לא מכרתי לך אלא אחת, שני עבדים או שני שטרות יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא שטר אחד או עבד אחד הרי זה נשבע היסת, וכן אם טען ואמר חצר זו או עבד זה או שטר זה שיש לי בידך שלי הוא ואתה מכרתו לי והנטען אומר לא היו דברים מעולם, בין שהביא הטוען עד אחד בין שלא הביא הרי זה נשבע היסת ונפטר, וכן החופר בשדה חבירו בורות שיחין ומערות והפסידוה והרי הוא חייב לשלם בין שטענו שחפר והוא אומר לא חפרתי או שטענו שחפר שתי מערות והוא אומר לא חפרתי אלא אחת או שהיה שם עד אחד שחפר והוא אומר לא חפרתי כלום, הרי זה נשבע היסת על הכל.", + "טענו כלים וקרקעות בין שהודה בכל הקרקעות וכפר בכל הכלים בין שהודה בכל הכלים וכפר בכל הקרקעות בין שהודה במקצת הקרקעות וכפר במקצתן עם כל הכלים, בכל אלו נשבע היסת, אבל אם הודה במקצת כלים וכפר במקצתן עם כל הקרקעות מתוך שהוא חייב שבועה על מקצת הכלים שכפר בהן נשבע אף על הקרקעות שטענו עמהן שהכל טענה אחת, וכן הדין בטענו כלים ועבדים או כלים ושטרות הכל דין אחד הוא.", + "טענו ענבים העומדות ליבצר ותבואה יבשה העומדת להקצר והודה במקצתן וכפר במקצתן הרי זה נשבע עליהם כשאר המטלטלין, והוא שאינן צריכין לקרקע שכל העומד להבצר הרי הוא כבצור לענין כפירה והודייה, אבל אם היו צריכים לקרקע חרי הן כקרקע לכל דבר ואין נשבעין עליהן אלא היסת.", + "הטוען על חבירו ואמר לו שני חדשים שכנת בחצרי ואתה חייב לי שכר שני חדשים והוא אומר לא שכנתי אלא חדש אחד הרי זה מודה במקצת, ואם היה שכר החדש שכפר בו שוה שני כסף נשבע שאין הטענה בגוף הקרקע אלא בשכרה שהוא מטלטלין.", + "שטר מסרתי לך ועשרה דינרין היו לי בו ראיה לא היו דברים מעולם ישבע היסת, הפך עליו הרי זה נשבע היסת שהיתה בו ראיה לעשרה דינרים ואבדו באבדת השטר ויטול, ואם אמר הנתבע אמת מסרת לי ואבד הרי זה פטור אף משבועת היסת שאפילו פשע בו ואבד פטור כמו שבארנו בהלכות חובל.", + "האומר לחבירו שטר שיש לי בידך זכות יש לי בו וזה אומר איני מוצא שטרי או איני יודע אם יש לך בו ראיה או לא כופין אותו להוציאו.", + "טען שאבד השטר מחרימין אותו חרם סתם, טען זה שהוא יודע בודאי שהשטר שיש לו בו זכות אצלו הרי זה נשבע היסת שאינו אצלו ושאבד ממנו וכזה הורו רבותי.", + "אין נשבעין על טענת חרש שוטה וקטן, אחד הבא בטענת עצמו או בטענת אביו לפי שזה המקצת שהודה בו לקטן אינו אלא כמשיב אבדה, וכן אם כפר בכל ובא עד אחד והעיד לקטן אינו נשבע שזה עד אחד ואין שם תובע שתביעת קטן אינה תביעה גמורה, נמצאת אומר קטן שאמר לגדול מנה לי בידך, או אבא היה לו בידך והלה אומר אין לך בידי אלא חמשים או אין לך בידי כלום ועד אחד מעידו שיש לו הרי זה פטור משבועת התורה, אבל אם שמר לקטן וטען שאבד הרי זה נשבע שבועת השומרין לפי שאינו נשבע מחמת טענה, וכן אם הודה שהיה שותף לקטן או אפוטרופוס עליו יעמידו בית דין אפוטרופוס לקטן וישבע השותף וכיוצא בו בטענת שמא.", + "הורו רבותי שאין נשבעין על טענת קטן שבועה של תורה אבל שבועת היסת נשבעין, ואפילו היה קטן שאינו חריף לענין משא ומתן נשבעין היסת על טענתו, שלא יהיה זה נוטל ממונו כשהוא קטן וילך לו בחנם ולזה דעתי נוטה ותקון עולם הוא, נמאת למד שהקטן שטען על הגדול בין שהודה במקצת בין שכפר בכל בין שהיה שם עד בין שלא היה שם עד, הרי זה נשבע היסת ואינו יכול להפוך על הקטן שאין משביעין את הקטן כלל, ואפילו חרם סתם אינו מקבל לפי שאינו יודע עונש השבועה.", + "קטן שטענו הגדול, אם טענו בדבר שיש לו הנייה לקטן כגון עסק משא ומתן והודה הקטן נפרעין מנכסיו, ואם אין לו ימתין עד שיהיה לו וישלם, ואם כפר הקטן ממתינין עד שיגדיל וישבע היסת, ואם טענו בדבר שאין לקטן הנייה כגון נזקין וחבלות אע\"פ שמודה ואע\"פ שיש לו ממה ישלם פטור ואפילו לאחר שהגדיל, ואם היה התובע מן הנשבעין ונוטלין כגון השכיר וכיוצא בו שיש הנייה לקטן שישתכר לו שכיר הרי זה נשבע ונוטל מן הקטן, אבל חנוני שנשבע על פנקסו אינו נשבע ונוטל מן הקטן, שאין לקטן בזה הנייה שהרי חייב ליתן לפועליו ונשבעין ונוטלין ממנו, וזה החנוני הפסיד על נפשו שנתן ממונו על פי קטן וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "החרש והשוטה אין נזקקין להן לכל טענה לא לטענתן על אחרים ולא לטענת אחרים עליהן לא לשבועה קלה ואין צריך לומר שבועה חמורה או תשלומין, אבל הסומא הרי הוא כבריא לכל דבר בענינים אלו ונשבע כל מיני שבועות ונשבעין על טענתו." + ], + [ + "בעלי דינין שבאו לבית דין טען האחד ואמר מנה יש לי אצל זה שהלויתיו או שהפקדתי אצלו או שגזל ממני, או שיש לי אצלו בשכר וכן כל כיוצא בזה, והשיב הנטען ואמר איני חייב כלום, או אין לך בידי כלום, או שקר אתה טוען, אין זו תשובה נכונה אלא אומרים בית דין לנטען השב על טענתו ופרש התשובה כמו שפירש זה טענתו ואמור אם לוית ממנו אם לא לוית, הפקיד אצלך או לא הפקיד, גזלתו או לא גזלתו, שכרתו או לא שכרתו, וכן שאר הטענות, ומפני מה אין מקבלים ממנו תשובה זו, שמא טועה הוא בדעתו ויבא להשבע על שקר שהרי אפשר שהלוהו כמו שטען והחזיר זה את החוב לבנו או לאשתו או שנתן לו במתנה כנגד החוב וידמה בדעתו שנפטר מן החוב, לפיכך אומרים לו היאך תאמר איני חייב כלום שמא אתה מתחייב מן הדין לשלם ואין אתה יודע אלא הודע לדיינין פירוש הדברים והם יודיעוך אם אתה חייב או אין אתה חייב, ואפילו היה חכם גדול אומרים לו אין לך הפסד שתשיב על טענתו ותודיענו כיצד אין אתה חייב לו מפני שלא היו דברים מעולם או מפני שהיו והחזרת לו שהרי אנו דנין במתוך שיכול לומר בכל מקום. וכן אם טען הטוען ואמר זה חייב לי מנה, או מנה יש לי אצלו, אומרים לו מאי זה פנים, הלוית אותו, או הפקדת אצלו, או הזיק ממונך, אמור היאך נתחייב לך שהרי אפשר שידמה לו שהוא חייב לו והוא אינו חייב כגון שחשדו שגנבו או שאמר לו שאתן לך מנה וכיוצא בזה, הרי שטען עליו שהלוהו מנה והשיב זה ואמר לו לא היו דברים מעולם ואחר כך הביא הטוען עדים שהלוהו בפניהם וחזר הנטען ואמר כן היה ולויתי ופרעתי אין מקבלין ממנו אלא הוחזק כפרן ומשלם, אבל אם השיב איני חייב או אין לך בידי כלום או שקר אתה טוען וכן כל כיוצא בזה והלך התובע והביא עדים שהלוהו בפניהם ואמר (הנתבע) כן היה אבל חזרתי לו פקדונו או פרעתיו חובו לא הוחזק כפרן ונשבע היסת ונפטר.", + "ראוהו עדים שמנה לו מעות ולא ידעו מה הן, ותבעו בדין ואמר לו תן לי מעותי שהלויתיך ואמר מתנה נתת לי או פרעון היו הרי זה נאמן ונשבע היסת ונפטר, אמר לא היו דברים מעולם ואחר כך באו עדים שמנה לו בפניהם הוחזק כפרן, ולעולם אין אדם מוחזק כפרן עד שיכפור בבית דין ויבאו שני עדים ויכחישוהו במה שכפר.", + "מנה הלויתיך כפר בבית דין ואמר לא היו דברים מעולם, ובאו שני עדים שלוה ממנו מנה ופרעו, והמלוה אומר לא נפרעתי הרי זה חייב לשלם, שכל האומר לא לויתי ובאו עדים שלוה כאומר לא פרעתי דמי, ונמצא הלוה אומר לא פרעתי והעדים מעידים אותו שפרעו הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי ואין המלוה חייב שבועה שהרי הוחזק זה כפרן, וכן אם הוציא עליו כתב ידו שהוא חייב לו ואמר לא היו דברים מעולם וזה אינו כתב ידי, אם הוחזק כתב ידו בבית דין או שבאו עדים שהוא כתב ידו הרי זה הוחזק כפרן ומשלם.", + "מנה הלויתיך והוא לי בידך אמר לו הנטען והלא פרעתיך בפני פלוני ופלוני, ובאו עדים ואמרו לא היו דברים מעולם, לא הוחזק כפרן שאין העדים זוכרין אלא דבר שהם עדים בו לפיכך לא הוחזק כפרן וישבע הלוה היסת ויפטר, כיוצא בו תן לי מנה שהלויתיך ואתה עמדת בצד עמוד זה ואמר הנטען לא עמדתי בצד עמוד זה מעולם ובאו עדים שעמד לא הוחזק כפרן, שאין אדם משים דעתו לדברים שאין בהן ממש וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "תן לי מנה שהלויתיך והרי העדים ואמר הנטען פרעתיך בפני פלוני ופלוני אומרין ללוה הביאם והפטר, לא באו או שמתו או שהלכו למדינה אחרת, ישבע היסת שפרעו שאין אנו מצריכים אותו להביאן אלא לברר דבריו ולהפטר אף משבועה שהמלוה את חבירו בעדים אינו צריך לפרעו בעדים כמו שבארנו.", + "אמר לו בפני עדים מנה לי בידך אמר לו הן למחר תבעו בדין והביא עדים ואמר משטה הייתי בך ואין לך בידי כלום פטור ונשבע היסת שאין בידו כלום, ואפילו אמר לא היו דברים מעולם שהרי לא אמר להם אתה עדי ודבר שאינו עדות אין אדם זוכרו, ולפיכך אם אמר לא היו דברים מעולם לא הוחזק כפרן.", + "ולא עוד אלא אפילו הטמין לו עדים אחורי הגדר ואמר לו מנה לי בידך אמר לו הן רצונך שיעידו בך פלוני ופלוני אמר לו לא שמא תכפני בדין למחר ואין לי מה אתן לך ולמחר תבעו בדין באלו העדים, בין שטען ואמר משטה הייתי בו בין שאמר לא היו דברים מעולם הרי זה נשבע היסת ונפטר, שאין כאן עדות עד שיאמר הלוה אתם עדי או יאמר המלוה בפני הלוה וישתוק הלוה אבל בעדות הזה לא הוחזק כפרן מעשה באחד שהיו קורין אותו קב רשו כלומר שיש עליו חובות הרבה, אמר מי הוא שאני חייב לו אלא פלוני ובא אותו פלוני ותבעו ואמר הוא איני חייב לו כלום, ואמרו חכמים ישבע היסת ויפטר, וכן אחד היו אומרים עליו שהוא בעל ממון, בשעת מיתתו אמר אילו היה לי ממון לא הייתי פורעו לפלוני ולפלוני, ואחר מיתתו באו פלוני ופלוני לתבוע ואמרו חכמים אין להם כלום, שהאדם עשוי להראות עצמו שאינו בעל ממון ושלא הניח בניו בעלי ממון וכל כיוצא בדברים אלו.", + "אע\"פ שהמטמין עדים אינה עדות וכן המודה מעצמו ועדים שומעין אותו, וכן האומר לחבירו בפני עדים מנה לי בידך ואמר לו הן, בכל הדברים וכיוצא בהן כשיבאו לבית דין אומרין לנתבע למה לא תתן מה שיש לו אצלך, אמר אין לו אצלי כלום, אומרים לו והלא אתה אמרת בפני אלו כך וכך או הודית מעצמך, אם עמד ושלם מוטב ואם לא טען אין טוענין לו, אבל אם טען ואמר משטה הייתי בו או לא היו דברים מעולם או שלא להשביע את עצמי נתכוונתי פטור ונשבע היסת כמו שבארנו." + ], + [ + "המודה בפני שנים שיש לפלוני אצלו מנה ואמר להן בדרך הודיה לא דרך שיחה, אע\"פ שלא אמר אתם עדי ואע\"פ שאין התובע עמו הרי זה עדות, תבעו בדין אם אמר לא היו דברים מעולם אין שומעין לו ומשלם על פיהם, ואם היה עד אחד נשבע הואיל ואמר דרך הודיה, טען כשבאו אלו העדים ואמר שלא להשביע את עצמי הודיתי נאמן ונשבע היסת, ואם כשהודה בפניהם היה התובע עמו אינו יכול לטעון ולומר כדי להראות שאיני עשיר הודיתי, אבל אם טען שנתן נאמן ונשבע היסת.", + "כל המודה בפני שנים אינו יכול לחזור ולומר משטה הייתי בו ואין צריך לומר אם הודה בפני שלשה, אבל מחייבין אותו ליתן בהודית פיו, שכל האומר בדרך הודיה הרי זה כאומר אתם עדי, אבל אין כותבין אלא אם כן אמר להם כתבו וחתמו ותנו לו וצריכין להמלך בו כמו שבארנו, וכן אם הודה בבית דין אחר ששלחו לו כמו שיתבאר הרי אלו כותבין, והוא שיהיו בית דין מכירין את שניהם כדי שלא יערימו שניהם לחייב איש אחר.", + "בית דין של שלשה שהיו יושבין מעצמן במקום הקבוע להן ובא התובע וקבל לפניהם ושלחו שליח אצל הנתבע ובא והודה בפניהם הרי אלו כותבין ונותנין לבעל דינו, אבל אם לא היו קבועין ולא שלחו לו אפילו קבץ אותן והושיב השלשה והודה בפניהן ואמר להן הוו עלי דיינין ובא אחר כך התובע ואמר כתבו לי הודייתי אין כותבין שמא יתן לו ונמצא זה תובע אותו בשטר, במה דברים אמורים במטלטלין, אבל אם הודה בקרקעות אפילו בפני שנים אע\"פ שלא קנו מידו ולא אמר להם כתבו ותנו הרי אלו כותבים ונותנין שאין כאן לחוש שמא יתן לו ונמצא תובעו פעם שנייה.", + "שטר הודיה שיצא ולא היה כתוב בו אמר לנו כתבו וחתמו ותנו לו, הרי זה כשר שחזקה היא שאילו לא אמר להם כתבו וחתמו ותנו לא היו נותנין, היה כתוב בשטר הודה פלוני בפנינו בית דין, אם אין כתוב בו שהיו שלשה או דברים ששומעין מכלל שהיו שלשה חוששין שמא שנים היו וטעו ודימו שההודיה בשנים הודיה בבית דין ולפיכך אין דנין בו דין שטר.", + "כבר בארנו שהודיה בבית דין או עדות בבית דין כמלוה הכתובה בשטר ולפיכך כותבין ונותנין לבעל דינו, במה דברים אמורים בשלא קבל את הדין עד ששלחו והביאוהו כמו שבארנו, אבל שנים שבאו לדין ותבע אחד מהן את חבירו ואמר מנה לי בידך ואמר לו הנתבע הן יש לך בידי, בין שאמרו הדיינין חייב אתה ליתן לו בין שאמרו צא תן לו ויצא ואמר פרעתי נאמן וישבע היסת שפרעו, לפיכך אם התובע חזר לדיינים ואמר כתבו לי הודייתי אין כותבין לו שמא פרעו, וכן מי שנתחייב שבועה בבית דין ויצא ואמר נשבעתי נאמן ואין משביעין אותו שנשבע, היו העדים מעידין אותו שלא נשבע הוחזק כפרן לאותה שבועה ואינו נאמן לעולם לומר נשבעתי עד שיודה לו בעל דינו או יביא עדים שנשבע בפניהם.", + "שנים שבאו לדין ונתחייב האחד לשני ואמרו לו צא ותן לו ויצא וחזר ואמר פרעתי ועדים מעידים אותו שלא פרעו הוחזק כפרן לאותו ממון, אמרו לו חייב אתה ליתן לו ויצא וחזר ואמר פרעתי ועדים מעידין אותו שלא פרעו לא הוחזק כפרן שזה נשמט מהן עד שיחקרו דינו, לפיכך אם חזר פעם אחרת וטען שפרעו זה הממון שנתחייב בו בפניהם ולא היו שם עדים שמכחישין אותו פעם שניה הרי זה נשבע היסת שפרעו ונפטר, לפיכך היו בקיאי הדעת שבספרד כשיודה הלוה או כשיתחייב שבועה בבית דין אומר לו בפני בית דין היו עלי עדים שלא יפרעני או שלא ישבע לי אלא בפני עדים.", + "מי שהודה בבית דין שאני חייב לזה התובע מנה ואחר כך אמר נזכרתי שפרעתי לו חובו זה שהודיתי בו והרי עדים, הרי זה עדות מועלת ועושין על פיהם שהרי לא הכחיש עדיו ואינו כאומר לא לויתי מעולם.", + "יש לטוען בבית דין לחזור ולטעון טענה אחרת להכחיש הטענה הראשונה וסומכין על טענתו האחרונה, ואע\"פ שלא נתן אמתלא לטענה הראשונה, ואע\"פ שיצא מבית דין וחזר יש לחזור ולטעון ולהפך כל הטענות שירצה עד שיבאו עדים, אבל מאחר שיבאו עדים ויכחישו טענתו האחרונה שסמך עליה אינו יכול להשיאו לטענה אחרת אלא אם כן נתן אמתלא לטענה שסמך עליה, ויש במשמעה כמו שהשיא בזאת הטענה האחרת, והוא שלא יצא מבית דין, אבל אם יצא מבית דין אינו יכול לחזור ולטעון אחר שבאו עדים, שמא אנשים רעים למדוהו טענות של שקר וכן כל כיוצא בזה." + ], + [ + "כל המטלטלין בחזקת זה שהן תחת ידו, אע\"פ שהביא התובע עדים שהמטלטלין הללו ידועין לו, כיצד בגד זה או כלי זה שבידך או שבתוך ביתך שלי הוא, או הפקדתיהו אצלך, או השאלתיהו לך, והרי העדים שהן יודעין אותו מקודם ברשותי, והנתבע אומר לא כי אלא אתה מכרתו לי או נתתו לי במתנה הרי זה הנתבע נשבע היסת ונפטר.", + "טען שהוא משכון בידו יכול לטעון עד כדי דמיו ונשבע בנקיטת חפץ ונוטל כמו שביארנו.", + "במה דברים אמורים בדברים שאינן עשויין להשאיל ולהשכיר, כגון בגדים ופירות וכלי תשמיש הבית ודברים של סחורה וכיוצא בהן, אבל דברים העשויין להשאיל ולהשכיר אף על פי שהן תחת ידו של זה ואע\"פ שלא השאילו כלי זה ולא השכירו לו בעדים הרי הן בחזקת בעליהן, כיצד ראובן שהיה לו כלי העשוי להשאיל ולהשכיר ויש לו עדים שהוא ידוע לו והרי אותו הכלי תחת יד שמעון וראובן טוען שהוא שאול או שכור, ושמעון טוען אתה מכרתו לי אתה נתתו לי במתנה אתה משכנתו בידי אינו נאמן, אלא ראובן נוטל כליו ונשבע היסת על טענת שמעון, ואפילו מת שמעון הרי ראובן נוטל כליו, והורו הגאונים שישבע היסת שטוענין ליורש.", + "במה דברים אמורים כשהיה כלי זה נראה ועומד ביד שמעון, אבל אם ראובן טען ואמר לשמעון כלי פלוני יש לי בידך ושכור הוא הוציאו אלי והרי יש לי עדים שהוא ידוע לי, ואמר לו שמעון אתה מכרתו לי אתה נתתו לי במתנה נאמן ונשבע שמעון היסת ונפטר, מתוך שיכול לומר לא היו דברים מעולם ואין בידי כלום נאמן לומר שישנו אצלי ואתה מכרתו לי.", + "אין כל הדברים האלו אמורים אלא שהיה בעל הכלי טוען אני הפקדתיו אצלך או השאלתיהו אצלך, אבל אם טען שכלי זה היה שלי ונגנב או אבד או נגזל והביא עדים שהוא ידוע לו וזה שתחת ידו אומר איני יודע אבל אחרים מכרוהו לי או נתנוהו לי במתנה, אף על פי שהוא מדברים שעשויין להשאיל ולהשכיר מעמידין אותו ביד זה שהוא בידו ואינו נשבע כלל שהרי אין לו טוען.", + "יצא לבעלים הראשונים חזקה מכליהן שנגנבו, ישבע זה בנקיטת חפץ כמה הוציא ויטול ויחזור הכלי לבעלים הראשונים כמו שבארנו בהלכות גניבה, טען אתה מכרתו לי או נתתו לי במתנה, אע\"פ שיצא לו שם גניבה אם לא היה מדברים העשויין להשאיל ולהשכיר הרי זה נשבע היסת ויעמוד הכלי בידו, מכאן אתה למד לכל מי שיש לו מטלטלין בידו אע\"פ שיכול לומר שלקוחין הן בידי וישבע היסת ויפטר, אם אמר שלך הן אבל חייב אתה לי כך וכך ישבע בנקיטת חפץ ואחר כך יטול כדין כל הנשבעין ונוטלין.", + "מי שהיו בידו דברים העשויין להשאיל ולהשכיר אע\"פ שהודה ואמר לו יודע אני שהם שלך אבל פלוני מכרם לי או נתנם לי במתנה אין מוציאין אותן מידו, אפילו הביא זה עדים שהיו ידועין לו שאדם עשוי למכור את כליו.", + "טען זה עליו ואמר שאני השכרתים לך או השאלתים לך מוציאין אותן מידו, ואם היו מדברים שאינן עשויין להשאיל ולהשכיר הרי זה נשבע היסת שלא השאיל לו ולא השכיר לו אלא מפלוני לקח ויעמיד כליו בידו.", + "אל תטעה בין דברים העשויין להשאיל ולהשכיר לדברים שדרכן להשאיל ולהשכיר כמו שטעו רבים וגדולים שכל הדברים ראויין להשאיל ודרכן להשאיל אפילו חלוקו של אדם ומצעו ומטתו ראויין להשאיל, אבל דברים העשויין להשאיל ולהשכיר הם הכלים שבני אותה מדינה עושין אותן מתחלת עשייתן כדי להשאילן ולהשכירן וליטול שכרן והרי הן לבעליהן, כמו קרקע שאוכל פירותיה והגוף קיים כך אלו הכלים עיקר עשייתן כדי ליהנות בשכרן, כגון היורות הגדולות של נחשת שמבשלין בהן בבית המשתאות, וכגון כלי נחשת הטוח בזהב ששוכרין אותו לכלה להתקשט בו, שעשיית אלו הכלים אינן למכירת עצמן ולא להשתמש בהן בעל הבית בביתו אלא להשאילן לאחרים כדי ליהנות כנגדן או להשכירן וליטול שכרן, וכן אם היה לאדם משאר הכלים ויש לו עדים שהוא משכירו תמיד ומשאילו והוחזק לו שהוא להשאיל ולהשכיר הרי הן ככלים העשויין להשאיל ולהשכיר.", + "וכלי שהפסדו מרובה משכרו ובני אדם מקפידין עליו שלא ישאילוהו הרי הוא בחזקת שאינו עשוי להשאיל ולהשכיר כגון סכין של שחיטה, לפיכך אפילו באו בני אדם והעידו שהשאילו או השכירו זה אין מבטלין בהן חזקתן אלא הרי הן ככל הכלים, ראיה לדברינו שהרי רבא הוציא זוג שעושין בו הסרבל וספר הגדה בדברים העשויין להשאיל ולהשכיר, ולולי שנתברר לו בעדים שהן מדברים העשויים להשאיל לא הוציא מתחת ידי יתומים, הא שאר הזוגות ושאר הספרים אינן בכלל דין זה אע\"פ שהן ראויין להשאיל ולהשכיר, ודבר זה עיקר גדול בדין והוא דבר של טעם שראוי לסמוך עליו ולדון בו וברור הוא למוצאי דעת וראוי לדיין לשום אותו לנגד עיניו ולא ילוז." + ], + [ + "האומן אין לו חזקה בכלים שתחת ידו, אחד כלים העשויים להשאיל ולהשכיר ואחד שאר כלים, כיצד ראה כליו ביד האומן והביא עדים שהן יודעין שהכלי זה שלו והוא טוען ואומר לתקן נתתיו לך, והאומן אומר לא בא לידי אלא במכירה או מתנה, או שטען אתה נתתו לי אתה מכרתו לי אחר שבא לידי לתקנו, אף על פי שמסרו לו שלא בעדים בעל הכלי נאמן ומוציאין אותו מיד האומן וישבע בעל הבית היסת על טענתו, ויש גאונים שדנו אע\"פ שלא הביא בעל הבית עדים שזה הכלי שלו הואיל וראה כליו ביד האומן והרי האומן מודה לו שהיה שלו ומכרו לו נאמן, אבל אם אמר לא היו דברים מעולם ושלי הוא הכלי נאמן האומן ונשבע היסת, ואם הביא בעל הבית עדים שהכלי הזה ידוע לו אין האומן נאמן, ודין זה פלא הוא בעיני.", + "לא ראה הכלי ביד האומן אלא טען ואמר כלי פלוני נתתיו לו לתקן והאומן אומר חזרת ומכרתו או נתתו לי האומן נשבע היסת ונפטר מתוך שיכול לומר לא היו דברים מעולם, ואפילו מסרו לתקן בעדים האומן נאמן מתוך שיכול לומר החזרתי שהמפקיד אצל חבירו בעדים אינו צריך להחזיר לו בעדים, לפיכך נשבע האומן היסת ונפטר ואין מחייבין אותו להוציא הכלי, ואם הוציאו הואיל ונראה הרי בעל הבית מביא עדים שהוא שלו ונוטלו אע\"פ שמסרו לו בלא עדים כמו שבארנו, לפיכך אם טען האומן ואמר שתים קצצת לי בשכרי ובעל הבית אומר לא קצצתי לך אלא אחת אם היה הכלי נראה בפניהם הואיל והאומן אין לו בו חזקה ואינו יכול לטעון שהוא לקוח בידו הרי בעל הבית נשבע בנקיטת חפץ על הקציצה כמו שבארנו בשכירות ונותן, ואם אין הכלי נראה בפניהם הואיל והאומן נאמן לומר לקוח הוא בידי יכול לטעון עד כדי דמיו ונשבע בנקיטת חפץ ונוטל כדרך כל הנשבעין ונוטלין כמו שבארנו.", + "אומן שירד מאומנותו ובן האומן הרי הן כשאר כל אדם ויש להן חזקה בכל המטלטלין כמו שבארנו.", + "מי שנכנס לביתו של חבירו בפני בעל הבית ויצא וכלים טמונין תחת כנפיו והעדים רואין אותו, ולאחר זמן תבעו בעל הבית ואמר לו החזר לי כלים שהשאלתיך והרי העדים והוא אומר לקוחין הן בידי אינו נאמן, ונשבע בעל הבית היסת על טענתו שלא מכרן ולא נתנן ויחזירו בית דין הכלים לבעל הבית, במה דברים אמורים בבעל הבית שאינו עשוי למכור את כליו, וזה שהוציא הכלים תחת כנפיו אין דרכו להצניע, ואותן הכלים אין דרך בני אדם להצניען, לפיכך חייב להחזיר לפי שלא הצניען אלא לכפור בהן, אבל בעל הבית העשוי למכור את כליו אע\"פ שאין זה צנוע ואין דרך אותן הכלים להטמינן תחת הכנפים הרי זה נשבע היסת שהן לקוחין בידו, וכן אם יצא בהן מגולין בפני עדים אע\"פ שאין בעל הבית עשוי למכור את כליו הרי זה נאמן לומר לקוחין הן בידי, שמא נצטרכו לו מעות ומכר ובלבד שלא יהיו מדברים העשויים להשאיל ולהשכיר, אבל דברים העשויין להשאיל ולהשכיר לעולם הן בחזקת בעליהן כמו שבארנו, ואע\"פ שהוציאן מגולין ואע\"פ שבעל הבית הזה עשוי למכור את כליו הואיל ויש לו עדים שזה הכלי עשוי להשאיל ולהשכיר בלבד ידוע הוא לו מוציאין אותן מיד זה על כל פנים עד שיביא ראיה שמכרו לו או נתנו לו במתנה כדין קרקעות.", + "אפילו מת זה שהכלי תחת ידו מוציאין אותו מיד היורש בלא שבועה שכיון שאין לאביו לטעון שלקחו או שהוא משכון כך אין זה יכול להשביעו, ואם טען היורש טענת ודאי ואמר בפני נתנו לאבי או מכרו לו הרי בעל הבית נשבע היסת כשאר כל הנשבעין, וכבר בארנו שיש מי שהורה שישבע בעל הבית היסת ואחר כך יחזיר כליו מיד היורש ואין דעתי נוטה לזה.", + "מי שלקח קרדום ואמר הריני הולך לגזור דקלו של פלוני שמכרו לי וכרת הדקל הרי זה בחזקתו, שאין אדם מעיז פניו וכורת אילן שאינו שלו, ואם טענו הבעלים שלא מכרוהו נשבע זה הכורת היסת שהוא שלו ונפטר, וכיון שנכרת הרי הוא כשאר כל המטלטלין, וכן היורד לשדה חבירו ואכל פירותיה שנה או שנתים והבעלים טוענין שזה ירד שלא ברשות וגזלן הוא ואכל והרי העדים שאכל והיורד אומר ברשותך ירדתי לאכול פירותיה, הרי זה האוכל נאמן ונשבע היסת על כך חזקה היא שאין אדם מעיז פניו ואוכל פירות שאינן שלו, אע\"פ שהקרקע בחזקת בעליהן אין הפירות בחזקת הבעלים, שאין אדם מוכר פירות שדהו בשטר כדי שנאמר לזה שאכל הבא שטרך, ואין צריך לומר שאם אכל פירותיה שנים רבות שמתוך שיכול לומר לקוחה היא בידי נאמן לומר לפירות ירדתי וישבע היסת.", + "שנים שהיו אוחזין בכלי אחד או שהיו רוכבין על גבי בהמה אחת, או שהיה אחד רוכב ואחד מנהיג או יושבין בצד ערמה של חטים ומונחות בסמטא או בחצר של שניהם זה אומר הכל שלי וזה אומר הכל שלי כל אחד משניהן נשבע בנקיטת חפץ שאין לו בזה הדבר פחות מחציו ויחלוקו, ושבועה זו תקנת חכמים היא כדי שלא יהיה כל אחד תופס בטליתו של חבירו ונוטל בלא שבועה.", + "זה אומר כולה שלי וזה אומר חציה שלי האומר כולה שלי ישבע שאין לו בה פחות משלשה חלקים, והאומר חציה שלי ישבע שאין לו בה פחות מרביע, וזה נוטל שלשה חלקים וזה נוטל רביע מכאן אתה למד לכל הנשבעין ליטול בין שבועה קלה בין שבועה חמורה שאינו נשבע על מה שטוען אלא על מה שנוטל אע\"פ שטוען יותר.", + "היו שנים אדוקין בטלית זה אומר כולה שלי וזה אומר כולה שלי, זה נוטל עד מקום שידו מגעת וזה נוטל עד מקום שידו מגעת והשאר חולקין בשוה אחר שנשבעין, ויש לכל אחד לגלגל על חבירו שכל מה שנטל כדין נטל.", + "היה זה אוחז בחוטין שבשפת הטלית וזה בחוטין שבשפת האחרת חולקין כלה בשוה אחר שנשבעין, וכל חלוקה האמורה כאן בדמים לא שיפסידו עצמו של כלי או של טלית או שימיתו הבהמה.", + "היה אוחז האחד את כולה וזה מתאבק עמו ונתלה בה הרי זו בחזקת האוחז את כולה.", + "באו שניהם אדוקין בה ושמטה האחד מיד חבירו בפנינו ושתק השני אף על פי שחזר וצוח אין מוציאין אותה מידו כיון ששתק בתחלה הרי זה כמודה לו, חזר השני ותקפה מראשון אע\"פ שהראשון (לא) צוח מתחלה ועד סוף חולקין.", + "באו שניהם אדוקין בטלית ואמרנו להם צאו וחלקו את דמיה יצאו וחזרו והרי היא תחת יד אחד מהן זה טוען הודה ונסתלק ממנה וזה טוען שמכרתיו לו או נתגבר עלי וחטפה המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, ואם לא הביא ראיה ישבע זה שהיא שלו ויפטר וכן כל כיוצא בזה." + ], + [ + "בהמה או חיה שאינה שמורה אלא מהלכת בכל מקום ורועה, אינה בחזקת זה שתפסה מאחר שהיא ידועה לבעלים, כיצד הביא התובע עדים שהבהמה הזאת ידועה לו וזה התופס טוען אתה נתתה לי אתה מכרתה לי אינו נאמן, שאין היותה תחת ידו ראיה שהרי היא הלכה מעצמה ונכנסה ברשותו, לפיכך אם לא הביא ראיה תחזור הבהמה לבעליה וישבע היסת על טענה זו.", + "היתה הבהמה שמורה או מסורה לרועה אף על פי שהביא זה עדים שהיא שלו הרי היא בחזקת זה שהיא תחת ידו ואם טען אתה מכרתה או נתתה לי ישבע התופס היסת שהיא שלו ויפטר.", + "לפיכך מי שתפס בהמת חבירו שהיתה שמורה או ביד רועה, והבעלים טוענין היא יצאת מעצמה ובאה אצלך או פקדון היא בידך או שאולה היא לך, והתופס אומר כן הוא אינה שלי אבל אתה חייב לי כך וכך או אתה משכנתה בידי על כך וכך או הזקת אותי נזק שאתה חייב לשלם כך וכך יכול לטעון עד כדי דמיה מתוך שיכול לומר לקוחה היא בידי וישבע בנקיטת חפץ ויטול.", + "וכן העבדים שיכולין להלך אינן בחזקת זה שהן תחת ידו אלא כיון שהביא הטוען עדים שזה ידוע שהוא עבדו והלה טוען אתה מכרתו לי אתה נתתו לי במתנה אינו נאמן ויחזור העבד לבעליו וישבע הטוען שלא מכר ולא נתן, הביא זה הנטען שתפס העבד עדים שיש לזה העבד אצלו שלש שנים רצופות מיום ליום והוא משתמש בו כדרך שהעבדים משמשין את רבן הואיל ולא מיחה בו בכל אלו השנים הרי זה נאמן ומעמידין אותו בידו אחר שישבע היסת שלקחו ממנו או נתנו לו במתנה, אבל עבד קטן שאינו יכול להלך על רגליו מפני קטנותו הרי הוא כשאר המטלטלין וכל מי שיהיה ברשותו הרי הוא בחזקתו והמוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה.", + "הטוען את חבירו ואמר בגד או בהמה או עבד זה שבידך שלי הוא או שאול או גזול או הפקדתיו אצלך או שכור לך, והנטען אמר לא כי אלא זה ממוני וירושתי והביא הטוען עדים שהעידו שהן יודעין שזה החפץ או העבד או הבהמה ידועה שהיא היתה לזה, חזר הנטען ואמר כן היה שלך אבל אתה נתתו לי או מכרתו לי וזה שאמרתי ירושתי לא שירשתיו מאבותי אלא שהיא שלי כאילו ירשתיו הרי זה נאמן ונשבע היסת שכבר ביארנו שיש לטוען לחזור לטעון דבר הנשמע.", + "ספינה וכיוצא בה שהיו שנים נחלקין עליה זה אומר כולה שלי וזה אומר כולה שלי ובאו לבית דין ואמר אחד תפסוה עד שאביא עדים אין תופסין אותה, ואם תפסוה בית דין והלך ולא מצא עדים ואמר הניחוה בינינו וכל המתגבר יטול כשהיה דינה מקדם אין שומעין להן ואין מוציאין אותה בית דין מידן עד שיביאו עדים או עד שיודו זה לזה או יחלקו ברצונם ובשבועה כמו שביארנו." + ], + [ + "כל הקרקעות הידועות לבעליהן אע\"פ שהן עתה תחת יד אחרים הרי הן בחזקת בעליהן, כיצד ראובן שהיה משתמש בחצר כדרך שהעם משתמשין בחצרותיהן, דר בה ומשכירה לאחרים ובונה וסותר, ואחר זמן בא שמעון וטען עליו ואמר לו חצר זו שתחת ידך שלי היא ושכורה היא בידך או שאולה, והשיבו ראובן שלך היתה ואתה מכרתה לי או נתתה לי במתנה, אם אין עדים לשמעון שהיתה ידועה לו נשבע ראובן היסת ויעמוד במקומו, אבל אם הביא שמעון עדים שחצר זו שלו היתה הרי היא בחזקת שמעון ואומרין לראובן הבא ראיה שמכרה לך או נתנה לך, ואם לא הביא ראיה מסלקין אותו ממנה ומחזיקין אותה לשמעון אע\"פ שאין ראובן מודה לשמעון שהיא היתה שלו שהרי יש עדים לשמעון.", + "במה דברים אמורים שמצריכין ראובן להביא ראיה או יסתלק בשלא נשתמש בה זמן מרובה, אבל אם הביא עדים שאכל פירות קרקע שלש שנים רצופות ונהנה בכולה כדרך שנהנין כל אדם באותה קרקע, והוא שיהיה אפשר לבעלים הראשונים שידעו בזה שהחזיק ולא מיחו בו, מעמידין אותה ביד ראובן וישבע ראובן היסת שמכרה לו שמעון או נתנה לו ויפטר, מפני שאומרים לו לשמעון אם אמת אתה טוען שלא מכרת ולא נתת למה היה זה משתמש שנה אחר שנה בקרקעך ואין לך עליו לא שטר שכירות ולא שטר משכונה ולא מחית בו, טען ואמר מפני שלא הגיע אלי הדבר שהרי הייתי במדינה רחוקה אומרים אי אפשר שלא יגיע לידך הדבר בשלש שנים וכיון שהגיע לך היה לך למחות בפני עדים ותודיע אותם שפלוני גזל אותי למחר אתבענו בדין הואיל ולא מחית אתה הפסדת על עצמך, לפיכך אם היתה מלחמה ושבוש דרכים בין המקום שהיה בו ראובן ובין המקום שהיה בו שמעון אפילו אכלה ראובן עשר שנים מוציאין אותה תחת ידו וחוזרת לשמעון מפני שיכול לומר לא ידעתי שזה משתמש בקרקעי.", + "הביא ראובן עדים שהיה שמעון בא בכל שנה ועומד במקום זה שלשים יום או פחות, אומרים לשמעון מפני מה לא מחית כשבאת אבדת זכותך, טען שמעון ואמר טרוד הייתי בשוק ולא ידעתי שזה בתוך חצרי הרי זו טענה, שכל שלשים יום יהיה אדם טרוד בשוק, ואם עמד יותר משלשים יום ולא מיחה אבד את זכותו, ויראה לי שהדין זה אינו אלא בכפרים שהעם טרודין בשווקים שלהן.", + "ומפני מה אין אומרין לראובן אם אמת הדבר שמכר לך או נתן לך במתנה למה לא נזהרת בשטר שלך, מפני שאין אדם נזהר בשטרו והולך כל ימיו וחזקה שאין אדם נזהר בשטר אלא עד שלש שנים, וכיון שרואה שאין אדם ממחה בו שוב אינו נזהר.", + "הרי שמיחה שמעון במדינה רחוקה מפני מה לא יטעון ראובן ויאמר לא שמעתי שמיחה בי כדי שאזהר בשטר, מפני שאומר לו חברך יש לו חבר וחבירו יש לו חבר וחזקה שהגיע אליך הדבר וכיון שידעת שמיחה בך בתוך שלש שנים באמת היה לך שטר ולא נזהרת בו אתה הפסדת על עצמך.", + "לפיכך אם מיחה שמעון בפני עדים ואמר להם אל תוציאו דבר זה מפיכם אין זה מחאה, אבל אם אמרו העדים מעצמן אין דבר זה יוצא מפינו הרי גם זו מחאה, שהדבר שאין אדם מצווה עליו אומרו שלא בכוונה, וכן אם צוה לעדים ואמר להם אל תודיעוהו או שאמרו הן מעצמן אין אנו מודיעין אותו גם זו מחאה היא, אע\"פ שאינן מודיעין אותו מודיעין הם לאחרים ודבר זה יגיע אליו.", + "כיצד המחאה אומר בפני שנים פלוני שהוא משתמש בחצרי או בשדי גזלן הוא ולעתיד אני תובע אותו בדין, וכן אם אמר להם שכורה היא בידו או משכונה, ואם יטעון עלי שמכרתי או נתתי אני תובע אותו בדין וכן כל כיוצא בזה הרי זו מחאה, אע\"פ שלא מיחה במדינה זו שהחזיק בה זה, אבל אם אמר להן פלוני שמשתמש בחצרי גזלן הוא אין זו מחאה, שהרי ראובן אומר כששמעתי אמרתי שמא חרף אותי בלבד ולפיכך לא נזהרתי בשטרי.", + "מחאה בפני שנים מחאה וכותבין אע\"פ שלא אמר להם כתובו, וכיון שמיחה בשנה ראשונה אינו צריך לחזור ולמחות בכל שנה ושנה, אבל צריך שלא יהיה בין מחאה למחאה שלש שנים גמורות, לפיכך צריך למחות בסוף כל שלש שנים, ואם מיחה ועמד שלש שנים גמורות ואחר כך מיחה אינה מחאה.", + "הביא ראובן עדים שזה שמעון בעל השדה קבץ פירות שדה זו ונתנם לי תעמוד השדה ביד ראובן ואפילו טען ששמעון מכרה לו או נתן לו היום שאילו לא מכר או נתן לא היה משמש את ראובן בשדה זו ונותן לו פירותיה.", + "טען שמעון ואמר אמת היה הדבר ולפירות הורדתיו ושלו היו הפירות אבל הגוף לא מכרתי נאמן וחוזר לשמעון אלא אם כן אכלה ראובן בפניו שלש שנים ולא מיחה בו כמו שביארנו." + ], + [ + "שלש שנים שאמרנו מיום ליום אפילו היו חסרים יום אחד לא החזיק ומסלקין אותו ממנה, במה דברים אמורים בקרקעות שהן עושין פירות תמיד כגון הבתים והחצרות והבורות והשיחין והמערות והחנויות והפונדקות והמרחצאות והשובכות ובתי הבדין ושדה בית השלחין שמשקין אותם תמיד וזורעין בה ונוטעין והגנות והפרדסין, וכן עבדים המהלכין כמו שבארנו, אבל שדה הבעל שהיא שותה ממי גשמים בלבד ושדה אילן אינה מיום ליום אלא כיון שאכלו שלש תבואות ממין אחד הרי אלו כשלש שנים, כיצד היתה שדה תמרים וגדר שלש גדרות או שדה ענבים ובצר שלש בצירות או שדה זיתים ומסק שלש מסיקות הרי אלו כשלש שנים והחזיק, ואפילו היו האילנות רצופין ולא היה ביניהן הרחקה כראוי שהרי סופן ליבש הואיל ואוכלן שלש תבואות החזיק.", + "הביא עדים שהיה דר בחצר זו שלש שנים או ששכרה שלש שנים הרי זו חזקה, טען בעל החצר ואמר שמא לא שכן בה ביום ובלילה או שמא אלו שהשכירו להם לא שכנו בה ביום ובלילה הרי זו טענה, אומרים למחזיק או תביא עדים ששנים אלו גמורות ביום ובלילה או הסתלק, אפילו באו עדים ואמרו לנו השכיר ואנו דרנו בה ביום ובלילה וטען בעל השדה ואמר יביאו עדים שדרו בה ביום ובלילה, צריכין אלו השוכרין להביא ראיה שדרו בה תמיד, שזה הדבר תלוי בהן ואין תלוי בטענת המחזיק כדי שיעידו לו.", + "היה זה המחזיק או העדים שדרו בה מן הרוכלין המחזרין בעיירות וכיוצא בהן, טוענין אותו לכתחלה וכשיביא עדי חזקה אומר לו הבא עדים שהיית מחזיק בה ביום ובלילה, במה דברים אמורים בחצרות ובתים וכיוצא בהן שהן עשויות לדור בתוכן ביום ובלילה, אבל החנויות של תגרים וכיוצא כהן /בהן/ שאין דרין בהן אלא ביום כיון שדר בה שלש שנים ביום הרי זה חזקה.", + "שלש שנים שאמרנו צריך שיהיו רצופות זו אחר זו, הרי שהחזיק בשדה וזרעה שנה והובירה שנה וזרעה שנה והובירה שנה, אפילו עשה כן כמה שנים לא החזיק, היה דרכן של בני אותו המקום להוביר אע\"פ שמקצתן זורעין שנה אחר שנה ומקצתן זורעין שנה ומובירין שנה הרי זה החזיק שהרי הוא אומר לא הוברתי אותה אלא כדי שתעשה הרבה בשנת הזריעה.", + "שני שותפין שהחזיקו בשדה שש שנים האחד אכלה ראשונה ושלישית וחמישית, והשני אכלה שניה ורביעית וששית לא עלתה חזקה לאחד מהם, שהרי בעל הקרקע אומר כיון שלא ראיתי ולא שמעתי שהחזיק בה אדם אחד שנה אחר שנה מפני זה לא מחיתי, לפיכך אם כתבו אלו השותפין שטר ביניהן שישתמשו בה שנה אחר שנה כיון שעבר שלש שנים עלתה להן חזקה, שהשטר יש לו קול והואיל ולא מיחה אבד זכותו, והוא הדין לעבד שהחזיקו בו שנים ונשתמשו בו שנה אחר שנה אם כתבו שטר ביניהן הרי החזיקו.", + "אכלה שנה זה המחזיק ומכרה ואכלה הלוקח שנה ומכר ללוקח שני ואכלה שנה, אם מכרו זה לזה בשטר שלשתן מצטרפין והרי זו חזקה מפני שלא מיחה, ואם מכרו שלא בשטר אינה חזקה שהבעלים הראשונים אומרים כיון שלא עמד בה איש אחד שלש שנים לא הוצרכתי למחות.", + "אכלה האב שנה והבן שתים האב שתים והבן שנה האב שנה והבן שנה והלוקח מן הבן שנה הרי זו חזקה והוא שלקח בשטר.", + "אכלה בפני האב שהיה בעל השדה שנה ובפני בנו שתים, או בפני האב שתים ובפני הבן שנה, או בפני האב שנה ובפני בנו שנה ובפני לוקח מן הבן שנה, הרי זו חזקה, והוא שמכר הבן זו השדה בכלל שדותיו שהרי לא הכיר המחזיק שנמכרה ולפיכך לא נזהר בשטרו, אבל אם מכר הבן שדה זו בפני עצמה אין לך מחאה גדולה מזו.", + "נרה שנה אחר שנה אפילו כמה שנים הואיל ולא נהנה בה אינה חזקה, וכן אם פתח בה שבילי המים ופתח ושדד בלבד הואיל ולא אכל פירות אינה חזקה.", + "זרעה ולא הרויח כלום אלא זרע כור ואסף כור לא החזיק שהרי לא נהנה.", + "אכלה שחת לא החזיק, ואם היה המקום דרכן לזרוע לשחת מפני שדמיו יקרין הרי זו חזקה.", + "אכלה ערלה שביעית וכלאים אף על פי שנהנה בעבירה הרי זו חזקה.", + "היה המקום שהחזיק בו סלע או חלמיש שאינו ראוי לזריעה צריך ליהנות בו בדבר הראוי לה כגון שישטח בו הפירות או יעמיד בו בהמה וכיוצא בזה, ואם לא נהנה בו בכל אותן השלש שנים בדבר הראוי לו לא החזיק.", + "היה מעמיד בהמה במקום מסויים מחצר חבירו או שהיה מגדל שם תרנגולין או מעמיד שם תנור וכירים וריחים, או שנתן שם זבלו, בין שהעמיד שם מחיצה בין שלא העמיד, אם נשתמש בדברים אלו וכיוצא בהן שלש שנים ביום ובלילה וטען על בעל החצר ואמר אתה נתת לי מקום זה או מכרתו לי הרי זו חזקה.", + "שדה שהיא מוקפת גדר ובא זה שהחזיק בה וזרע חוץ לגדר ונהנה בכל מקום שאינו שמור, אע\"פ שאכלו שנה אחר שנה לא עלתה לו חזקה, שהבעלים טוענין ואומרין כיון שראינו שזורע במקום מופקר אמרנו כל מה שזרע חית השדה תאכלנו ולפיכך לא מחיתי, והוא הדין לכל הזורע מקום שאינו שמור אלא רגל חיה ויד כל אדם מצויין בו.", + "אכלה כולה חוץ מבית רובע החזיק בכולה חוץ מאותו בית רובע שלא נהנה בו, אפילו היה חלמיש בתוך השדה הואיל ולא נשתמש בו כראוי לו אין לזה בו חזקה.", + "החזיק אחד באילנות ואכל פירותיהן ואחד החזיק בקרקע וזרעה ואכל פירותיה וכל אחד משניהם טוען שהכל שלי ואני לקחתיו, זה שהחזיק באילנות ואכלן שלש שנים יש לו האילנות וקרקע שצריכין לו והוא כמלא האורה וסלו חוצה לכל אילן ואילן, וזה שהחזיק בקרקע יש לו שאר הקרקע.", + "וכן האוכל כל פירות אילן שלש שנים וטען על בעל האילן אתה מכרת לי אילן זה וקרקעו הרי זה יש לו קרקע כעובי האילן עד התהום.", + "שדה אילן שהיו בו שלשים אילנות בתוך בית שלש סאין ואכל עשרה בשנה ראשונה ועשרה בשנה שניה ועשרה בשנה שלישית הוחזק בכל, והוא שהיו עשרה שאכל מפוזרות בכל בית השלש סאין ולא הוציאו שאר האילנות פירות, אבל אם הוציאו שאר האילנות פירות ולא אכלן לא הוחזק אלא במה שאכל.", + "במה דברים אמורים בשאכל הוא מקצת הפירות ובזזו העם שאר הפירות, אבל אם מניח פירותיהן עליהן הואיל ואכל אילן מכאן ואילן מכאן מכל השדה החזיק בכל השדה אע\"פ שלא אסף כל פירותיה." + ], + [ + "ואלו שאין מעמידין הקרקע בידן אע\"פ שאכלום שלש שנים האומנין והאריסין והאפוטרופין והשותפין והאיש בנכסי אשתו והאשה בנכסי בעלה, ובן בנכסי אביו, והאב בנכסי הבן, שכל אחד מאלו אין מקפידין זה על זה, לפיכך אין אכילתן ראיה אע\"פ שלא מיחו בהן הבעלים אלא תחזור הקרקע לבעלים שהביאו ראיה שזאת הקרקע ידועה להן וישבע היסת שלא מכרו ושלא נתנו כמו שביארנו.", + "וכן ראשי גליות של אותו זמן והגזלן והעכו\"ם אין אכילתן ראיה מפני שהן בעלי זרוע, וכן חרש שוטה וקטן אין אכילתן ראיה מפני שאין להם טענה כדי שתעמוד הקרקע בידן אלא תחזור לבעלים, וכן המחזיק בנכסיהן אין אכילתן ראיה.", + "כיצד אין מעמידין את הקרקע בידן, ראובן שאכל שדה שמעון שני חזקה והוא טען שהיא לקוחה בידו והביא שמעון עדים שהיא ידועה לו וכן הביא עדים שראובן ידוע שהוא שותפו או אריסו או אפוטרופוסו ומפני זה לא מיחה תחזור השדה לשמעון וישבע היסת שלא מכר ולא נתן והוא הדין לשארן, אבל אם לא הביא שמעון ראיה שראובן היה שותף או אריס אלא ראובן הודה מעצמו ואמר הן הוא שותפו ומכר לי, הואיל ואכל שני חזקה ויכול לומר לא היה שותפי מעולם הרי זה נאמן כשאר כל אדם.", + "האומנין כיצד, כגון שהיו בונין בה או מתקנין אותה שנים רבות ירדו מאומנותן אם אכלו אותן שלש שנים מאחר שירדו מאומנותן יש להן חזקה.", + "האריסין כיצד, כגון שהיה אריס לאביו של בעל השדה או לאנשי משפחתו שכיון שהוא אריס של בתי אבות אין ממחין הבעלים בידו, אבל אם זה הוא שנעשה אריס תחלה הואיל ואכלה כולה שני חזקה מעמידין אותה בידו, ואומרין לבעלים היאך אכל שנה אחר שנה ולא מחית בו.", + "אריס של בתי אבות שהוריד אריסין תחת ידו יש לו חזקה שאין מורידין אריסים אחרים לנכסי אדם והוא שותק, אבל אם חלק לאריסין אחרים שהיו בה אין לו חזקה שמא ממונה על האריסין עשו אותו, ואריס שירד מאריסותו ואכלה שלש שנים מאחר שירד החזיק.", + "האפוטרופוסין כיצד, בין שהיה אפוטרופוס על שדה זו בין על שאר נכסים בין שמינו אותם בית דין בין שמינה אותם אבי יתומים וגדלו היתומים והניחו אותן, בין שמינה אדם אפוטרופוס על הוצאתו והכנסתו הואיל והן משתמשין ברשות אין להן חזקה, עברו האפוטרופין ממינויין ואכלו שלש שנים אחר שעברו הרי זו חזקה.", + "השותפין כיצד, אם היה שותף בשדה זו ואין בה דין חלוקה אע\"פ שאכל את כולה האחד מהן כמה שנים הרי היא בחזקת שניהם, ואם יש בה דין חלוקה ואכלה האחד כולה שני חזקה יש לו חזקה שהרי אומר לשותפו אם באמת שלא מכרת ולא נתת היאך אכלתי את כולה ואתה שותק ולא מחית כל שלש שנים, וכן האיש שאכל בנכסי אשתו שני חזקה אע\"פ שהתנה עמה שאין לו פירות בנכסיה, ואפילו התנה עמה כשהיא ארוסה שלא יירשנה ואחר כך אכל ובנה והרס ועשה כל מה שעשה, וכן האשה שאכלה פירות בנכסי בעלה ונשתמשה בהן כחפצה כמה שנים, אע\"פ שיחד לה שדה במזונותיה ואכלה שדות אחרות אין אכילתן ראיה, וכן הבן שהוא סומך על שלחנו של אביו ונחשב בכלל בני ביתו אם אכל נכסי אביו שני חזקה, וכן האב שאכל נכסי בן זה שהוא סומך עליו שני חזקה אין אכילתן ראיה.", + "ובן שפירש מאביו ואשה שנתגרשה אפילו ספק גירושין הרי הן כשאר כל אדם.", + "ראשי גליות שהיו בימי חכמים לפי שהיה בהן כח לרדות את העם אין אכילתן ראיה, וכן אחר שהחזיק בנכסיהן אפילו אכל כמה שנין אין אכילתן ראיה לפי שאינן ממחין מפני שידן תקפה כל זמן שירצו מסלקין זה ממנה, אבל נשבעין היסת שלא מכרו ושלא נתנו, ואם הן החזיקו בנכסי אחר ואמר שלא מכר נשבע היסת שלא מכר להן ולא נתן להם.", + "הגזלן כיצד מי שהוחזק גזלן על שדה זו או מי שהוחזקו אבותיו שהן הורגין נפשות על עסקי ממון אע\"פ שאכל שדה זו כמה שנים לא החזיק ותחזור שדה לבעלים." + ], + [ + "כל אלו שאין אכילתן ראיה אם הביאו עדים שמכרו להם הבעלים שדה זו או נתנוה להן במתנה ראייתן ראיה, חוץ מן הגזלן והבעל בנכסי אשתו, באי זה נכסים אמרו בנכסי צאן ברזל או בשדה שייחד לה בכתובתה ובשדה שכתב לה בכתובתה ובשדה שנתן לה בשום משלו אבל בנכסי מלוג יש לו ראיה כמו שבארנו בהלכות אישות.", + "כיצד הגזלן אין לו ראיה, כיון שהוחזק גזלן על שדה זו אע\"פ שהביא ראיה שהודה הבעל בפני עדים שמכר לו שדה זו ולקח דמים והבעלים אומרים לא מכרנו לך אלא מפני היראה הודינו לו מוציאין את השדה מידו ואין לו כלום, ואם העידו העדים שבפניהם מנה לו כך וכך מוציאין את השדה מיד הגזלן ומחזירין לו הבעלים את הדמים כמו שבארנו בהלכות גזלה.", + "בן האומן ובן האריס וכן /ובן/ האפוטרופוס שאכלו שדה זו שני חזקה, אם טענו שהבעלים מכרו להן או נתנו להן יש להן חזקה, ואם טענו שהיא ירושה להן מאביהם שאכלוה שני חזקה אין להן חזקה, ואם הביאו עדים שהודו הבעלים לאביהן שמכרוה להן או נתנוה מעמידין את השדה בידן.", + "בן הגזלן אע\"פ שהביא ראיה שהודו הבעלים לאביו שמכר אינה ראיה כמו שבארנו, אבל בן בן הגזלן אפילו בא בטענת אביו יש לו חזקה בא בטענת אבי אביו אין לו חזקה.", + "העכו\"ם אפילו אכלה כמה שנים אין אכילתו ראיה, ואם לא הביא שטר תחזור השדה לבעלים בלא שום שבועה שלא תקנו שבועת היסת אלא לישראל וישראל הבא מחמת העכו\"ם הרי הוא כעכו\"ם שאין אכילתו ראיה.", + "טען זה הישראל הבא מחמת העכו\"ם ואמר בפני לקחה העכו\"ם שמכר לי מזה הישראל המערער עלי הרי זה נאמן וישבע היסת על כך מתוך שיכול לומר אני לקחתיה ממך והרי אכלתיה שני חזקה יכול לומר מפלוני לקחתיה שבפני לקחה ממך.", + "אין מחזיקין בנכסי קטן ואפילו הגדיל, כיצד אכלה בפניו כשהוא קטן שנה אחת ושתים אחר שהגדיל וטען אתה מכרת לי אתה נתת לי אין זה כלום עד שיאכל שלש שנים רצופות אחר שהגדיל.", + "מי שהחזיק בנכסי קטן שנים רבות וטען ואמר משכונה הן בידי ויש לי חובה עליהן כך וכך, הואיל ואילו רצה אמר לקוחים הן בידי נאמן שהרי אינה מוחזקת שהיה לאביו של זה והרי זה גובה משבחה מה שטען ותחזור ליתומים, אבל אם יצא עליה קול שהיא של יתומים אינו נאמן שהרי אין מחזיקין בנכסי קטן ותחזור השדה וכל הפירות שאכל ליתומים עד שיגדלו ויעשה עמהן דין.", + "אכלה שני חזקה בחיי אביהן מתוך שיכול לומר לקוחה היא בידי מאביהן נאמן לומר חוב יש לי על אביהן, וגובה אותו מן הפירות וגובהו שלא בשבועה מתוך שיכול לומר שלי הן.", + "בורח שברח מחמת סכנת נפשות כגון שהיה המלך מבקש להמיתו, אין מחזיקין בנכסיו אפילו אכל המחזיק כמה שנים וטען שלקח אין אכילתו ראיה, ואין אומרים לבעל השדה למה לא מחית מפני שהוא מתעסק בנפשו, אבל הבורח מחמת ממון הרי הוא ככל אדם ואם לא מיחה מחזיקין בנכסיו.", + "מחזיקין בנכסי אשת איש, כיצד אכלה מקצת שני חזקה בחיי הבעל ושלש שנים אחר מיתת הבעל, וטען ואמר מכרתה /מכרת/ לי את ובעליך מעמידין אותה בידו מתוך שיכול לומר ממך לקחתיה אחר מות בעליך שהרי אכלה שני חזקה אחר מיתת הבעל ולא מיחת בו, אבל אם אכלה בחיי בעלה כמה שנים ולא אכלה שני חזקה אחר מיתת בעלה אין לו חזקה.", + "כל חזקה שאין עמה טענה אינה חזקה, כיצד הרי שאכל פירות שדה זו כמה שנים ובא המערער ואמר לו מאין לך שדה זו שלי הוא השיבו ואמר לו איני יודע של מי היא וכיון שלא אמר לי אדם כלום ירדתי לתוכה, אין זו חזקה שהרי לא טען שלקחה ולא שנתנה לו ולא שירשה, ואע\"פ שלא טען אין מוציאין אותה מידו עד שיביא זה המערער עדים שהיא שלו, הביא עדים תחזור לו השדה ומוציאין מזה כל הפירות שאכל ואין פותחין לזה המחזיק תחלה ואין אומרים שמא שטר היה לך ואבד עד שיטעון מעצמו ואם לא טען יחזיר כל הפירות שאכל, וכן האוכל שני חזקה מחמת שיש שטר בידו ונמצא השטר בטל בטלה החזקה ותחזור השדה עם כל הפירות לבעלים.", + "הבא מחמת ירושה צריך להביא ראיה שדר אביו בשדה זו או נשתמש בה אפילו יום אחד וכיון שאכלה הוא שלש שנים מחמת אביו מעמידין אותה בידו, אבל אם לא הביא ראיה שדר בה אביו כלל תחזור השדה וכל הפירות למערער שיש לו עדים שהוא שלו, שהרי אינו טוען עליו שמכר או נתן לו ולא נודעה קרקע זו לאבותיו, הביא ראיה שנראה בה אביו אינה כלום שמא בא לבקר אותה ולא קנאה, אלא צריך להביא ראיה שדר אביו בה אפילו יום אחד.", + "הרי שאכל שדה זו שנים רבות ובא המערער ואמר לו מה לך ולשדה זו הודה ואמר לו יודע אני שהיתה שלך אבל פלוני מכרה לי והוא לקחה ממך, ואמר לו המערער פלוני שמכר לך גזלן הוא, הואיל והודה שהוא שלו ושלא לקחה ממנו תחזור השדה וכל הפירות למערער אע\"פ שאין לזה המערער עדים שהיא שלו וכן כל כיוצא בזה, הביא זה המחזיק עדים שפלוני שמכר לו דר בה אפילו יום אחד או שאמר לו בפני לקח ממך ואחר כך מכרה לי, מעמידין אותה בידו שהרי יש לו טענה עם חזקתו ואילו רצה טען ואמר ממך לקחתיה שהרי יש לו שני חזקה." + ], + [ + "מי שערער על שדה זו והביא עדים שהיא ידועה לו והביא זה שבתוכה שטר שלקחה ממנו והביא עדים שאכלה שני חזקה, אומרים לו בתחלה קיים שטרך, אם נתקיים הרי טוב וידון בשטר, ואם אי אפשר לו לקיימו סומכין על עדי חזקה וישבע היסת שלקחה.", + "עדי החזקה שהעיד אחד משניהם שאכלה חטים שני חזקה והשני העיד שאכלה שעורים עדותן קיימת שאין העד מדקדק בזה, העיד האחד שאכלה זה שנה ראשונה שלישית וחמישית והשני מעיד שאכלה שניה ורביעית וששית אין עדותן מצטרפת, שבשנה שמעיד בה זה לא העיד בה זה ותחזור הקרקע והפירות.", + "מי שירד לשדה בחזקת שהוא יורש ואכל פירותיה ונמצא יורש אחר שהוא קרוב ממנו וראוי ליורשה בין שנמצא בעדים בין שהודה לו זה שירד תחלה חייב להחזיר כל הפירות שאכל.", + "שנים שהיו עוררין על השדה זה אומר שלי וזה אומר שלי ואין לאחד מהן ראיה, או שהביא כל אחד מהם עדים שהיא שלו או של אבותיו או שהביא כל אחד משניהם עדים שאכלה שני חזקה, והשנים שהעידו בהן אלו הן השנים עצמן שהעידו בהן אלו, מניחין אותה בידיהן וכל המתגבר ירד בה ויהיה האחר מוציא מידו ועליו הראיה, ואם בא שלישי ותקף עליהן וירד לתוכה מסלקין אותו ממנה.", + "הביא האחד עדים שהיא של אבותיו ושאכלה שני חזקה והרי היא תחת ידו, והביא האחר עדים שאכלה שני חזקה והרי היא תחת ידו, נמצאת עדות החזקה של שניהם מוכחשת, מעמידין אותה ביד זה שהעידו עליו עדי החזקה שהיא של אבותיו ומורידין אותו לתוכה, חזר השני והביא אף הוא עדים שהיא של אבותיו שהרי נמצאת גם עדות זו מוכחשת, חוזרין בית דין ומסלקין ממנה אף הראשון ומניחין אותה ביד שניהם וכל המתגבר ירד בה.", + "זה אומר של אבותי וזה אומר של אבותי זה הביא עדים שהיא של אבותיו וזה הביא עדים שאכלה שני חזקה תחזור לזה שהביא עדים שהיא של אבותיו ויחזיר הפירות שאכל, שהרי לא טען כלום ואין אכילתו ראיה שכל חזקה שאין עמה טענה על הבעלים אינה כלום, חזר זה המחזיק ואמר כן של אבותיך היתה ואתה מכרתה לי וזה שטענתי תחלה שהיא של אבותי כלומר שאני סומך עליה והרי היא שלי כשל אבותי, או שאמר של אבותי שלקחוה מאבותיך הרי זו טענה נכונה שהרי נתן אמתלא לדבריו הראשונים ומעמידין אותה בידו, ואם טען בתחלה ואמר של אבותי ולא של אבותיך אין שומעין לו בטענה זו האחרת וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "ראובן שהיה בתוך שדה ובא שמעון וערער עליו ואמר ראובן שדה זו מלוי קניתיה ואכלתי אותה שני חזקה אמר לו שמעון והלא שטר זה מקויים בידי שאני לקחתיה מלוי מהיום ארבע שנים חזר ראובן ואמר וכי תעלה על דעתך ששלש שנים בלבד יש לי משקניתיה שנים רבות יש לי משלקחתיה ואני קדמתיך, הרי טענת ראובן טענה, שאדם קורא לשנים רבות שני חזקה, לפיכך אם הביא ראובן עדים שאכלה שבע שנים שנמצא שאכל שני חזקה קודם שלקחה שמעון מעמידין אותה בידו, אבל אם אכלה פחות משבע שנים תחזור לשמעון שאין לך מחאה גדולה מזו שהרי מכרה קודם שהחזיק ראובן.", + "זה אומר של אבותי והביא עדים וזה אומר של אבותי ואין לו עדים תחזור לזה שהביא עדים ומוציאין מזה כל פירות שהודה בהן שאכלן אע\"פ שאין עליו עדים שאכל, שהרי הוא אומר שמחמת אבותיו אכל והרי העדים שהיה של אבותיו של זה הטוען וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "הביא המערער עדים שזו השדה שלו וזה שבתוכה טוען ממך לקחתיה והרי שטרי והוציא שטר מקויים טען המערער שהוא מזוייף והודה בעל השטר ואמר כן הוא אבל היה לי שטר כשר ואבד ולקחתי זה שבידי כדי לאיים עליו שיודה שמכר לי באמת, הואיל ואילו רצה היה אומר בשטרו שהרי מקויים הוא הרי זה נאמן ואין מוציאין את השדה מתחת ידו וישבע היסת.", + "הביא המערער עדים שזו השדה שלו וזה שבתוכה טוען ממך לקחתיה ואכלתיה שני חזקה והביא עדים שאכלה שני חזקה טען המערער ואמר היאך תטעון שלקחת ממני היום שלש שנים ובאותו הזמן לא הייתי במדינה זו, מצריכין זה שבתוכה להביא ראיה שזה פלוני שמערער היה עמו במדינה בזמן הזה שטוען שמכר לו בו אפילו יום אחד כדי שיהיה אפשר שימכור ואם לא הביא מסלקין אותו.", + "מי שהלך למדינת הים ואבדה דרך שדהו בין שהיו ארבע השדות המקיפות אותה לארבעה אנשים בין שהיו הארבע שדות קנויות מאחד הרי כל אחד מהן דוחהו ואומר שמא דרך שלך על חברי הוא, לפיכך יקנה לו דרך במאה מנה או יפרח באויר, וכן אם היו ארבע השדות לאיש אחד שקנה אותן מארבעה אין לו עליו דרך שהרי אומר לו עתה אם אחזיר לכל אחד שטרו אין אתה יכול לעבור על אחד מהן ואני קניתי מכל אחד מהן כל זכות שיש לו, אבל אם היה בעל ארבע שדות המקיפו איש אחד והוא בעל המצר שלה מתחלה ועד סוף הרי זה אומר לו מכל מקום דרכי עליך וילך לו בקצרה באי זו שדה שירצה בעל השדה וכן כל כיוצא בזה, ואם החזיק בדרך ואומר זו היא דרכי אין מסלקין אותו ממנה אלא בראיה ברורה." + ], + [ + "ראובן שמכר לשמעון שדה והיה לוי מעדי השטר ובא לוי לערער על השדה ולטעון שראובן גזל אותה ממנו, אין שומעין לו ואין משגיחין על ראיות שיביא על אותה שדה והרי אבד כל זכותו שאומר לו היאך תעיד על המכר ותבא ותערער, וכן אם העיד לוי בשטר שכתוב בו השדה פלוני של ראובן מצד מזרח או מערב הואיל ועשה השדה סימן לאחר והעיד בשטר אבד את זכותו ואינו יכול לחזור ולערער שאומרים לו היאך תעיד בשטר זה שכתוב בו השדה הזאת מצד פלוני ותחזור ותערער עליה.", + "טען העד ואמר תלם אחד הוא שעשיתי סימן ולא כל השדה ואותו התלם הסמוך למצר בלבד הוא של ראובן הרי זה טענה הנשמעת ויש לו לערער על כל השדה חוץ מאותו התלם, ואין כל הדברים אמורים אלא באחד מעדי השטר שבא לערער, אבל הדיין שקיים השטר יש לו לערער מפני שיכול לטעון ולומר לא ידעתי מה היה כתוב בשטר מפני שיש לדיינין לקיים השטר אע\"פ שלא קראוהו, אבל העדים אין חותמין על השטר אלא אם כן קראוהו כולו וידקדק בו.", + "בא שמעון ונמלך בלוי ואמר לו הריני קונה שדה פלונית מראובן ובעצתך אקנה אותה, אמר לו לוי לך וקנה אותה טובה היא, יש לו ללוי לערער עליה ולא איבד זכותו שהרי לא עשה מעשה ויש לו לומר רצוני היה שתצא מתחת יד ראובן שהוא אלם כדי שאתבענה בדין ואקח שדי.", + "ראובן שערער על שמעון ושמעון אמר איני יודע מה אתה סח אלא שדה זו מלוי לקחתיה והרי עדים שאכלתיה שני חזקה, אמר לו ראובן והלא עדים יש לי שבערב באת אלי ואמרת לי מכור לי שדה זו אין זו ראיה, ויש לו לשמעון לומר רציתי לקנות ממך כדי שלא תערער ולא תטריחני בדין אע\"פ שאיני יודע אם היה שלך או אינה, וכן כל כיוצא בזה, ואם לא טען שמעון טענה זו אין טוענין לו.", + "ראובן שערער והביא עדים ששדה זו שלו ושמעון שבתוכה טוען אתה מכרתה לי ואכלתיה שני חזקה, וראובן אמר בגזל אכלת, בין שלא היו עדים שאכל כלל בין שהיה שם עד אחד שאכלה שלש שנים אינו חייב להחזיר הפירות שאכל שהרי הוא אומר שלי אכלתי ואין עליו עדים שמחייבין אותו בפירות שהרי מעצמו הודה, וזה העד שהעיד שאכלה שלש שנים ליפות כחו של אוכל הוא בא ואילו היה עמו אחר היתה השדה עומדת בידו, לפיכך ישבע ראובן היסת שלא מכר ותחזור לו השדה וישבע שמעון היסת שאינו חייב לו כלום בפירות שאכל ויפטר.", + "היו שני עדים מעידים על שמעון שאכלה פחות משני חזקה יחזיר כל הפירות שאכל ואפילו היה עד אחד חייב להחזיר על פיו שהרי אינו מכחיש העד אלא אומר אמת העיד ואכלתי שתי שנים ושלי אכלתי, נמצא מחוייב שבועה ואינו יכול להשבע ומשלם.", + "כל המחוייב להחזיר הפירות אם לא היו ידועין ואין בית דין יכולין לשער אותן כשער הבתים וכיוצא בהן שהוא ידוע, אלא היו פירות אילן או פירות שדה שאינן ידועין הואיל ואין כאן טענה ודאית ישלם מה שיודה בו שאכלו, ומרחימין על מי שאכל יותר ולא ישלם.", + "כל המחזיר קרקע מתחת ידו אם השכירה לאחרים כשהיה מחזיק בה והיו השוכרין קיימין מוציאין מהן השכר פעם שנייה ונותנין לבעל הקרקע וחוזרין ותובעין זה שהשכיר להם מקום שאינו שלו.", + "אסור לאדם לטעון טענת שקר כדי לעות הדין או כדי לעכבו, כיצד היה נושה בחבירו מנה לא יטעננו מאתים כדי שיודה במנה ויתחייב שבועה, היה נושה מנה וטענו מאתים לא יאמר אכפור הכל בבית דין ואודה לו במנה ביני לבינו כדי שלא אתחייב לו שבועה.", + "היו שלשה נושין מנה באחד וכפר בהן לא יהיה אחד תובע ושנים מעידים וכשיוציאו ממנו יחלוקו, ועל דברים אלו וכיוצא בהן הזהיר הכתוב ואמר מדבר שקר תרחק. סליקו להו הלכות טוען ונטען בס\"ד." + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f3e29ef6db2e8a228e4955930e49272ac6494b8c --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,243 @@ +{ + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah,_Plaintiff_and_Defendant", + "text": [ + [ + "הַטוֹעֵן אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בְּמִקְצָת הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁהוֹדָה בּוֹ וְנִשְׁבָּע עַל הַשְּׁאָר מִן הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ח) \"אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר כִּי הוּא זֶה\". וְכֵן אִם כָּפַר בַּכּל וְאוֹמֵר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם וְעֵד אֶחָד מֵעִיד [שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ] הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע מִן הַתּוֹרָה. ומִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁכָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁשְּׁנַיִם מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ מָמוֹן אֶחָד מְחַיְּבוֹ שְׁבוּעָה. וְכֵן לָמְדוּ מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה שֶׁעֵד אֶחָד לְכָל עָוֹן וּלְכָל חַטָּאת אֵינוֹ קָם אֲבָל קָם הוּא לִשְׁבוּעָה: \n", + "אֵין לְךָ מְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה חוּץ מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה. מִי שֶׁהוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין. וּמִי שֶׁחִיְּבוֹ עֵד אֶחָד. וְהַשּׁוֹמֵר. שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר בְּשׁוֹמֵר (שמות כב י) \"שְׁבֻעַת ה' תִּהְיֶה בֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶם\". וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׂכִירוּת. וְכָל אֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה נִשְׁבָּע וְנִפְטָר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. אֲבָל כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין כְּגוֹן שָׂכִיר וְנֶחְבָּל וּפוֹגֵם אֶת שְׁטָרוֹ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בְּטַעֲנַת סָפֵק כְּגוֹן הַשֻּׁתָּפִין וְהָאֲרִיסִין. כֻּלָּן נִשְׁבָּעִין בְּתַקָּנַת חֲכָמִים. וְכָל אֵלּוּ הַשְּׁבוּעוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים הֲרֵי הֵן כְּעֵין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ: \n", + "הַטּוֹעֵן מִטַּלְטְלִין עַל חֲבֵרוֹ וְכָפַר בַּכּל וְאָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. אוֹ שֶׁהוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת וּנְתָנוֹ מִיָּד וְאָמַר אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא זֶה וְהֵילָךְ. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר אֱמֶת שֶׁהָיָה לְךָ אֶצְלִי אֲבָל מָחַלְתָּ לִי אוֹ נָתַתָּ לִי אוֹ מָכַרְתָּ לִי אוֹ הֶחְזַרְתִּי לְךָ. אוֹ שֶׁטְּעָנוֹ חִטִּים וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בִּשְׂעוֹרִים. בְּכָל אֵלּוּ פָּטוּר מִשְּׁבוּעַת הַתּוֹרָה. אֲבָל חַכְמֵי הַגְּמָרָא תִּקְּנוּ שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע הַנִּתְבָּע בְּכָל אֵלּוּ שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת וְיִפָּטֵר. וְאֵינוֹ כְּעֵין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן נְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ דֶּרֶךְ שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה וְדֶרֶךְ שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁבוּעוֹת: \n", + "כָּל מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב שְׁבוּעָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנִפְטָר. וְאִם לֹא רָצָה לְהִשָּׁבַע יוֹרְדִין לִנְכָסָיו וְגוֹבִין מֵהֶם כָּל מַה שֶּׁתָּבַע חֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַתּוֹבֵעַ אוֹמֵר לוֹ אֵינִי זָז מִדִּין תּוֹרָה אוֹ הִשָּׁבַע אוֹ תֵּן לִי. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַחֲרִים עַל מִי שֶׁטָּעַן עָלָיו דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ כֵּן וְנוֹתֵן. אֲבָל מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב שְׁבוּעָה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן אִם הָיָה מִן הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַפֵּךְ אֶת הַשְּׁבוּעָה שֶׁהֲרֵי הַנִּתְבָּע אוֹמֵר לוֹ הִשָּׁבַע וְטל כְּמוֹ שֶׁתִּקְּנוּ לְךָ. וְאִם לֹא רָצָה לְהִשָּׁבַע יֵלֵךְ לוֹ. וְהוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁאִם אָמַר הַתּוֹבֵעַ אֵינִי רוֹצֶה בְּתַקָּנָה זוֹ שֶׁתִּקְּנוּ לִי חֲכָמִים אֶלָּא הֲרֵינִי כִּשְׁאָר הַתּוֹבְעִים הֲרֵי זֶה מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֶת הַנִּתְבָּע הֶסֵּת. וְאִם רָצָה לְהָפְכָהּ עַל הַתּוֹבֵעַ מְחַיְּבִין אֶת הַתּוֹבֵעַ לְהִשָּׁבַע אוֹ יֵלֵךְ לוֹ: \n", + "הָיָה מְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם מִן הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין וְנִפְטָרִין כְּגוֹן הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין עַל טַעֲנַת סָפֵק אוֹ מִן הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין הֶסֵּת וְלֹא רָצָה לְהִשָּׁבַע מְשַׁמְּתִין אוֹתוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אִם לֹא בָּא וְלֹא תָּבַע נִדּוּיוֹ מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. וְכָל מִי שֶׁחָלָה עָלָיו שַׁמְתָּא שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַתִּירִין נִדּוּיוֹ. וְאֵין יוֹרְדִין לִנְכָסָיו לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה: \n", + "כָּל הַמְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת אִם רָצָה לַהֲפֹךְ הַשְּׁבוּעָה עַל הַתּוֹבֵעַ הֲרֵי הַתּוֹבֵעַ נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנוֹטֵל מֵחֲבֵרוֹ. וְאֵין לְךָ מִי שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנוֹטֵל מֵחֲבֵרוֹ אֶלָּא זֶה שֶׁנֶּהְפְּכָה עָלָיו שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת. וְאֵין לְךָ שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁתֵּהָפֵךְ אֶלָּא שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת בִּלְבַד. אֲבָל שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה אוֹ שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם שֶׁהִיא כְּעֵין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה אֵין הוֹפְכִין שְׁבוּעָתָן: \n", + "אֵין מַשְׁבִּיעִין שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת אֶלָּא עַל טַעֲנַת וַדַּאי אֲבָל עַל טַעֲנַת סָפֵק פָּטוּר. כֵּיצַד. כִּמְדֻמֶּה לִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי אֶצְלְךָ מָנֶה אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר מָנֶה הִלְוֵיתִיךָ וְכִמְדֻמֶּה לִי שֶׁלֹּא פְּרַעְתַּנִי. אָמַר לִי אַבָּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי אֶצְלְךָ מָנֶה אוֹ צִוָּה לִי בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי אֶצְלְךָ מָנֶה. דָּבָר פְּלוֹנִי נִגְנַב מִבֵּיתִי וְלֹא הָיָה שָׁם אֶלָּא אַתָּה קָרוֹב בְּעֵינֵי שֶׁאַתָּה גְּנָבַתּוּ. חִשַּׁבְתִּי מָעוֹת וּמָצָאתִי חָסֵר שֶׁמָּא אַתָּה הִטְעֵיתַנִי בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹן. וְהַנִּתְבָּע אוֹמֵר אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר אַף מִשְּׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "כּוֹר חִטִּים יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ בְּוַדַּאי וְהַנִּתְבָּע אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁמָּא יֵשׁ לְךָ שֶׁמָּא אֵין לְךָ הֲרֵי הַנִּתְבָּע יִשָּׁבַע שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ וְנִפְטָר. לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא חִיֵּב עַצְמוֹ בְּוַדַּאי. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. כּוֹר חִטִּים יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ בְּוַדַּאי וְהַנִּתְבָּע אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם חִטִּים הוּא אוֹ שְׂעוֹרִים הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ וּמְשַׁלֵּם שְׂעוֹרִין. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "מָנֶה יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ בְּוַדַּאי וְהַנִּתְבָּע אוֹמֵר כֵּן הָיָה לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֲבָל אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם הֶחְזַרְתִּי לְךָ אוֹ עֲדַיִן לֹא הֶחְזַרְתִּי לְךָ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם וְלֹא יִשָּׁבַע הַתּוֹבֵעַ כְּלָל אֲפִלּוּ שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב וַהֲרֵי זֶה טוֹעֵן אוֹתוֹ טַעֲנַת וַדַּאי וְנִסְתַּפֵּק אִם נִפְטַר אוֹ לֹא נִפְטַר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. אֲבָל אִם אֵין לוֹ תּוֹבֵעַ וְהוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ וְאָמַר גְּזַלְתִּיךָ אוֹ הִלְוֵיתַנִי מָנֶה. אָבִיךָ הִפְקִיד אֶצְלִי מָנֶה וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם הֶחְזַרְתִּיו אוֹ לֹא הֶחְזַרְתִּיו. אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. וְאִם בָּא לָצֵאת יְדֵי שָׁמַיִם חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם: \n", + "מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ. אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם. הִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת וְלֵךְ. הִשָּׁבַע אַתָּה הֶסֵּת וְטל. וְאָמַר הַתּוֹבֵעַ אֵינִי רוֹצֶה לְהִשָּׁבַע הֲרֵי הַנִּתְבָּע אוֹמֵר לוֹ הִשָּׁבַע וְטל אוֹ תֵּלֵךְ בְּלֹא כְּלוּם. וְאֵין שָׁם הִפּוּךְ אַחֵר וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַחֲרִים סְתָם עַל מִי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לִי וְלֹא יִתֵּן לִי: \n", + "הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב שְׁבוּעָה בֵּין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה בֵּין שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם אֲפִלּוּ הֶסֵּת. יֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַחֲרִים סְתָם קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע עַל מִי שֶׁיִּטְעֹן עָלָיו דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב בּוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּשְׁבִּיעַ אוֹתוֹ בְּחִנָּם וְיַעֲנֶה הַמַּשְׁבִּיעַ אָמֵן וְאַחַר יִשָּׁבַע. וְתַקָּנָה טוֹבָה לְבַעֲלֵי דִּינִין כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּמָּנְעוּ מִטַּעֲנַת שֶׁקֶר וְלֹא יִגְרְמוּ לְהוֹצִיא שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם לְבַטָּלָה וְלֹא יַשִּׂיאוֹ שֵׁמַע שָׁוְא: \n", + "כָּל מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב שְׁבוּעָה בֵּין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה בֵּין שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם מְגַלְגֵּל עָלָיו הַמַּשְׁבִּיעַ כָּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה מִדְּבָרִים שֶׁאִם יוֹדֶה בָּהֶן יִתְחַיֵּב מָמוֹן. וְעַד הֵיכָן כֹּחַ גִּלְגּוּל עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר וּבִכְלַל שְׁבוּעָה זוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נִמְכַּרְתָּ לִי בְּעֶבֶד עִבְרִי וַעֲדַיִן עַבְדִּי אַתָּה. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁאֵין מְגַלְגְּלִין עַל הַשָּׂכִיר: \n", + "מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב שְׁבוּעָה אֲפִלּוּ הֶסֵּת וְהִתְחִיל הַתּוֹבֵעַ לְגַלְגֵּל עָלָיו דְּבָרִים אֲחֵרִים שֶׁלֹּא טָעַן אוֹתָם. וְרָאָה הַנִּתְבָּע כָּךְ וְאָמַר אֵינִי רוֹצֶה לְהִשָּׁבַע אֶלָּא הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם הַטַּעֲנָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁנִּתְחַיַּבְתִּי עַל כְּפִירָתָהּ שְׁבוּעָה. אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ אֶלָּא אוֹמְרִים לַנִּתְבָּע אוֹ תֵּן לוֹ כָּל מַה שֶּׁגִּלְגֵּל עָלֶיךָ מִטְּעָנוֹת הַוַּדָּאִיּוֹת אוֹ הִשָּׁבַע וְהִפָּטֵר: \n", + "הַטּוֹעֵן אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ טְעָנוֹת הַרְבֵּה אֵין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ עַל כָּל טַעֲנָה וְטַעֲנָה אֶלָּא שְׁבוּעָה אַחַת עַל הַכּל. נִתְחַיֵּב שְׁתֵּי שְׁבוּעוֹת עַל שְׁתֵּי טְעָנוֹת קַלָּה וַחֲמוּרָה. מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ עַל הַחֲמוּרָה וּמְגַלְגְּלִין בָּהּ שְׁאָר דְּבָרִים: \n", + "כָּל הַטּוֹעֵן אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ טַעֲנָה שֶׁאִם הוֹדָה אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם מָמוֹן. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּפַר אֵין מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת וְלֹא חֵרֶם סְתָם. כֵּיצַד. אָמַרְתָּ שֶׁתִּתֵּן לִי מָנֶה. לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. אֵין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ הֶסֵּת וְלֹא חֵרֶם שֶׁאִלּוּ הוֹדָה בְּדָבָר זֶה אֵינוֹ חַיָּב כְּלוּם. אַתָּה קִלַּלְתָּ אוֹתִי אַתָּה הוֹצֵאתָ עָלַי שֵׁם רַע לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם אֵין מַחְרִימִין עַל זֶה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה מִדְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ: \n", + "אַתָּה חָבַלְתָּ בִּי לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם קְנָס עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם שֶׁבֶת וְרִפּוּי וּבשֶׁת. אַתָּה בִּיַּשְׁתַּנִי לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. אִם הָיוּ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁגּוֹבִין בּוֹ קְנָסוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת. שֶׁאִלּוּ הוֹדָה הָיָה מְשַׁלֵּם הַבֹּשֶׁת: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁהַמּוֹדֶה בִּקְנָס פָּטוּר כְּשֶׁהוֹדָה בְּדָבָר שֶׁחַיָּב עָלָיו קְנָס כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָמַר חָבַלְתִּי בָּזֶה. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר חָבַלְתִּי בָּזֶה וְהֵבִיא עָלַי עֵדִים בְּבֵית דִּין וְחִיְּבוּנִי לִתֵּן כָּךְ וְכָךְ בִּנְזָקַי הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. לְפִיכָךְ אִם טָעַן הַטּוֹעֵן שֶׁבֵּית דִּין חִיְּבוּךָ לְשַׁלֵּם לִי מֵאָה דִּינָרִין מִשּׁוּם שֶׁחָבַלְתָּ בִּי וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n" + ], + [ + "כָּל חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה אֵין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ לֹא שְׁבוּעַת הַתּוֹרָה וְלֹא שְׁבוּעָה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם וְלֹא שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת. וַאֲפִלּוּ רָצָה הַתּוֹבֵעַ אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ: \n", + "אֶחָד הַנִּשְׁבָּע לַשֶּׁקֶר שְׁבוּעַת בִּטּוּי. אוֹ שְׁבוּעַת עֵדוּת. אוֹ שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן. אוֹ שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. הֲרֵי הוּא חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה. וְכֵן כָּל הַפָּסוּל לְעֵדוּת מִשּׁוּם עֲבֵרָה. בֵּין פַּסְלָנוּת שֶׁל תּוֹרָה כְּגוֹן בַּעֲלֵי רִבִּית וְאוֹכְלֵי נְבֵלוֹת וְגַזְלָנִין. בֵּין פַּסְלָנוּת שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם כְּגוֹן מִשְׂחָק בְּקֻבִּיָּא וּמַפְרִיחֵי יוֹנִים. הֲרֵי הוּא חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה וְאֵין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ: \n", + "אֵין אָדָם נַעֲשֶׂה חָשׁוּד עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ עָלָיו עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא עָבַר עֲבֵרָה שֶׁנִּפְסַל בָּהּ. אֲבָל הַמּוֹדֶה מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ שֶׁהוּא חָשׁוּד וְשֶׁעָבַר עֲבֵרָה שֶׁנִּפְסַל בָּהּ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ וְאֵין רָאוּי לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ עֵד בַּתְּחִלָּה. אִם נִתְחַיֵּב שְׁבוּעָה מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמְרִים לוֹ אִם אֱמֶת אַתָּה אוֹמֵר הִשָּׁבַע וְלֹא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעָבַרְתָּ עֲבֵרָה אָסוּר לְךָ לְהִשָּׁבַע בֶּאֱמֶת. וְאִם שֶׁקֶר אַתָּה אוֹמֵר הוֹדֵה לְבַעַל דִּינְךָ. אֲבָל הַנֶּחְשָׁד בְּעֵדִים אֵין אָנוּ מַאֲמִינִים אוֹתוֹ שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע: \n", + "תַּקָּנַת חֲכָמִים הִיא שֶׁכָּל הַמְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה עַל טַעֲנַת וַדַּאי. אִם הָיָה חָשׁוּד הֲרֵי הַתּוֹבֵעַ נִשְׁבָּע מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם וְנוֹטֵל מַה שֶּׁטָּעַן. הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם חֲשׁוּדִין חָזְרָה שְׁבוּעָה לַמְחֻיָּב לָהּ שֶׁהוּא הַנִּתְבָּע וּמִתּוֹךְ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִשָּׁבַע מְשַׁלֵּם. הָיָה הֶחָשׁוּד שׁוֹמֵר וְטָעַן שֶׁאָבַד הַפִּקָּדוֹן אוֹ נִגְנַב שֶׁכְּנֶגְדוֹ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִשָּׁבַע וְלִטּל שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינוֹ טוֹעֲנוֹ וַדַּאי שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם טָעַן בַּעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן וְאָמַר בְּפָנַי שָׁלַח יָד בְּפִקְדוֹנִי אוֹ פָּשַׁע בּוֹ הֲרֵי הַתּוֹבֵעַ נִשְׁבָּע בְּתַקָּנַת חֲכָמִים וְנוֹטֵל: \n", + "נִתְחַיֵּב הֶחָשׁוּד שְׁבוּעָה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם אִם הָיָה מִן הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִשָּׁבַע וְלִטּל אֶלָּא הַנִּתְבָּע שֶׁכְּנֶגְדוֹ יִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת וְיִפָּטֵר. וְכֵן פּוֹגֵם שְׁטָרוֹ וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה שֶׁהָיָה חָשׁוּד וְטָעַן הַלּוֶֹה שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ וְאָמַר יִשָּׁבַע לִי הֲרֵי הַנִּתְבָּע נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְיִפָּטֵר מִן הַשְּׁטָר: \n", + "הָיָה הֶחָשׁוּד מִן הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בְּטַעֲנַת סָפֵק אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע וְאֵין שֶׁכְּנֶגְדוֹ נִשְׁבָּע לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַיֵּב זֶה שְׁבוּעָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וּלְפִי שֶׁאֵין הַתּוֹבֵעַ טוֹעֲנוֹ טַעֲנַת וַדַּאי כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ: \n", + "נִתְחַיֵּב הֶחָשׁוּד שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת אֵין שֶׁכְּנֶגְדוֹ נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. שֶׁשְּׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת עַצְמָהּ תַּקָּנָה הִיא וְלֹא עָשׂוּ לָהּ תַּקָּנָה אַחֶרֶת שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע הַתּוֹבֵעַ אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הַנִּתְבָּע נִפְטָר בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה: \n", + "מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת וְהָיָה הַתּוֹבֵעַ חָשׁוּד. אֵין הַנִּתְבָּע יָכוֹל לַהֲפֹךְ עָלָיו הַשְּׁבוּעָה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין יָכוֹל לְהִשָּׁבַע. אֶלָּא יְשַׁלֵּם אוֹ יִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת. וְאֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לָזֶה לִתְלוֹת בְּדָבָר שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר. וַהֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִי שֶׁהָפַךְ שְׁבוּעָתוֹ עַל הַקָּטָן שֶׁאֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ אֶלָּא אוֹ יִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת אוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם: \n", + "מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב שְׁבוּעָה בֵּין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה בֵּין שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם וְנִשְׁבַּע וְנָטַל אוֹ נִשְׁבַּע וְנִפְטַר. וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עָלָיו עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא חָשׁוּד. אֵין שְׁבוּעָתוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע כְּלוּם וְיֵשׁ לְבַעַל דִּינוֹ לְהוֹצִיא מִיָּדוֹ מַה שֶּׁנָּטַל אוֹ יִשָּׁבַע זֶה שֶׁכְּנֶגְדוֹ וְיִטּל מִמֶּנּוּ: \n", + "לְעוֹלָם כָּזֶה דָּנִין לֶחָשׁוּד עַד שֶׁיִּלְקֶה בְּבֵית דִּין. אִם הָיוּ עָלָיו עֵדִים שֶׁלָּקָה וְעָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה יַחְזֹר לְכַשְׁרוּתוֹ בֵּין לְעֵדוּת בֵּין לִשְׁבוּעָה: \n", + "מִי שֶׁטָּעַן עַל חֲבֵרוֹ וְכָפַר בּוֹ וְנִשְׁבַּע בֵּין שְׁבוּעַת הַתּוֹרָה בֵּין שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת. וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים וְהֵעִידוּ עָלָיו שֶׁעַל שֶׁקֶר נִשְׁבַּע. הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם וְהֻחְזַק חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ בִּשְׁבוּעוֹת שֶׁכָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּע עַל מָמוֹן חֲבֵרוֹ וְעָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה חַיָּב לְהוֹסִיף חֹמֶשׁ: \n", + "טְעָנוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ חוֹב אֶצְלוֹ בְּעֵדִים וְקִנְיָן וְאָמַר כֵּן הָיָה וּפְרַעְתִּיךָ. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר אֵינִי חַיָּב לְךָ כְּלוּם וְנִשְׁבַּע. וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדֵי הַקִּנְיָן אוֹ הוֹצִיא הַשְּׁטָר וְנִתְקַיֵּם הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם וְאֵינוֹ חָשׁוּד. שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא הֱעִידוֹ שֶׁלֹּא פְּרָעוֹ וְלֹא אָמַר הַנִּתְבָּע לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n" + ], + [ + "אֵין מוֹדֶה בְּמִקְצָת חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה עַד שֶׁיּוֹדֶה בִּפְרוּטָה אוֹ יֶתֶר וְיִכְפֹּר בִּשְׁתֵּי מָעִין כֶּסֶף אוֹ יֶתֶר. וְכַמָּה הִיא פְּרוּטָה מִשְׁקַל חֲצִי שְׂעוֹרָה שֶׁל כֶּסֶף נָקִי. וְכַמָּה הֵם שְׁתֵּי מָעִין מִשְׁקַל שְׁתַּיִם וּשְׁלֹשִׁים שְׂעוֹרוֹת כֶּסֶף מְזֻקָּק: ", + "כָּל כֶּסֶף הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה הוּא שֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ וְהוּא עֶשְׂרִים מָעָה וְכָל כֶּסֶף שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶן מִמַּטְבֵּעַ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם שֶׁהָיָה הַסֶּלַע שֶׁלָּהֶן אֶחָד מִשְּׁמֹנֶה בּוֹ כֶּסֶף וְהַשְּׁאָר נְחשֶׁת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֲבָל הַמָּעָה הִיא הָיְתָה כֶּסֶף נָקִי אֲפִלּוּ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם וְהִיא כֶּסֶף שֶׁל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם. וּלְפִי שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁהִצְרִיכוּ לִהְיוֹת כְּפִירַת הַטַּעֲנָה שְׁתֵּי כֶּסֶף הִיא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם עָשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ שְׁתֵּי כֶּסֶף שֶׁל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם שֶׁהֵן שְׁתֵּי מָעִין וְלֹא עָשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ שְׁנֵי שְׁקָלִים בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ. זֶהוּ הַדָּבָר הַנִּרְאֶה בְּשִׁעוּר כְּפִירַת הַטַּעֲנָה. וְרַבּוֹתַי הוֹרוּ שֶׁכְּפִירַת הַטַּעֲנָה הוּא מִשְׁקַל תְּשַׁע עֶשְׂרֵה שְׂעוֹרוֹת וַחֲצִי שְׂעוֹרָה מִן הַכֶּסֶף. וְיֵשׁ לִי כַּמָּה רְאָיוֹת לִסְתֹּר אוֹתָהּ הַדֶּרֶךְ שֶׁתָּפְסוּ עַד שֶׁיָּצָא לָהֶם זֶה הַחֶשְׁבּוֹן. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁהוּא טָעוּת: ", + "שְׁתֵּי מָעִין וּפְרוּטָה יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא פְּרוּטָה חַיָּב. אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא שְׁתֵּי פְּרוּטוֹת פָּטוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכָּפַר בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁתֵי מָעִין. מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲצִי פְּרוּטָה פָּטוּר שֶׁכָּל הַמּוֹדֶה בְּפָחוֹת מִפְּרוּטָה כְּאִלּוּ לֹא הוֹדָה בִּכְלוּם: ", + "מֵאָה תְּמָרִים יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא תִּשְׁעִים. רוֹאִים אִם הָיוּ שָׁוִין שָׁם הָעֶשֶׂר שֶׁכָּפַר בָּהֶן שְׁתֵּי מָעִין נִשְׁבָּע וְאִם לָאו פָּטוּר. חֲמִשָּׁה אוֹ שִׁשָּׁה אֱגוֹזִים יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ [בְּיָדִי] אֶלָּא אֱגוֹז אֶחָד רוֹאִין אִם שָׁוֶה הָאֶחָד פְּרוּטָה נִשְׁבָּע וְאִם לָאו פָּטוּר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּכֶסֶף אוֹ בְּמִינֵי סְחוֹרוֹת וּפֵרוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. אֲבָל הַכֵּלִים אֵין מְשַׁעֲרִין אֶת דְּמֵיהֶן וַאֲפִלּוּ הֵן עֶשֶׂר מְחָטִין בִּפְרוּטָה וּטְעָנוֹ שְׁתֵּי מְחָטִין הוֹדָה בְּאַחַת וְכָפַר בְּאַחַת חַיָּב. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ו) \"כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵלִים\" כָּל הַכֵּלִים כְּכֶסֶף. טְעָנוֹ כֶּסֶף וְכֵלִים וְהוֹדָה בַּכֵּלִים וְכָפַר בַּכֶּסֶף אִם יֵשׁ בַּכְּפִירָה שְׁתֵּי מָעִין חַיָּב וְאִם לָאו פָּטוּר. הוֹדָה בַּכֶּסֶף וְכָפַר בַּכֵּלִים אִם הוֹדָה בִּפְרוּטָה חַיָּב. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "הֵעִיד עָלָיו עֵד אֶחָד אֲפִלּוּ לֹא כָּפַר אֶלָּא פְּרוּטָה הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁשְּׁנַיִם מְחַיְּבִים אוֹתוֹ מָמוֹן אֶחָד מְחַיְּבוֹ שְׁבוּעָה. כֵּיצַד. פְּרוּטָה אוֹ שְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם וְעֵד אֶחָד מֵעִיד שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע. וְכֵן בִּשְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִים אֲפִלּוּ הִפְקִיד אֶצְלוֹ פְּרוּטָה אוֹ שְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה וְטָעַן שֶׁאָבְדָה נִשְׁבָּע. וְכָל פָּחוֹת מִפְּרוּטָה אֵינוֹ מָמוֹן וְאֵין בֵּית דִּין נִזְקָקִין לוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין נִשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין מִפְּרוּטָה וָמַעְלָה: ", + "הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁהַנִּשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין אֵינָן צְרִיכִין טַעֲנַת שְׁתֵּי כֶּסֶף. וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁצָּרִיךְ הַנִּתְבָּע שֶׁיִּכְפֹּר בִּשְׁתֵּי מָעִין וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִשָּׁבַע הַתּוֹבֵעַ בְּתַקָּנַת חֲכָמִים וְיִטּל. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בְּטַעֲנַת סָפֵק צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בֵּינֵיהֶם כְּפִירַת שְׁתֵּי מָעִין וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִשָּׁבַע מִסָּפֵק: ", + "אֵין מוֹדֶה בְּמִקְצָת חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה עַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה הוֹדָיָה מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה. כֵּיצַד. כּוֹר חִטִּים יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא לֶתֶךְ חִטִּים חַיָּב. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא כּוֹר שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִים פָּטוּר שֶׁהַמִּין שֶׁטְּעָנוֹ לֹא הוֹדָה לוֹ בּוֹ וְהַמִּין שֶׁהוֹדָה לוֹ בּוֹ לֹא טְעָנוֹ. דִּינַר זָהָב יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ פִּקָּדוֹן לֹא הִפְקַדְתָּ אֶצְלִי אֶלָּא דִּינַר כֶּסֶף. מָעָה כֶּסֶף הִפְקַדְתִּי אֶצְלְךָ לֹא הִפְקַדְתָּ אֶצְלִי אֶלָּא פְּרוּטָה פָּטוּר שֶׁטְּעָנוֹ מִין אֶחָד וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בְּמִין אַחֵר. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר לוֹ עֲשָׂרָה דִּינָרִים מִצְרִיּוֹת הִפְקַדְתִּי אֶצְלְךָ לֹא הִפְקַדְתָּ אֶצְלִי אֶלָּא עֲשָׂרָה צוֹרִיּוֹת פָּטוּר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "מְנוֹרָה גְּדוֹלָה יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא מְנוֹרָה קְטַנָּה הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. אֲבָל אִם טְעָנוֹ מְנוֹרָה בַּת עֶשֶׂר לִיטְרִין וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בִּמְנוֹרָה בַּת חָמֵשׁ לִיטְרִין הֲרֵי זֶה מוֹדֶה בְּמִקְצָת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְגָרְרָהּ וּלְהַעֲמִידָהּ עַל חָמֵשׁ. וְכֵן אִם טְעָנוֹ אֵזוֹר גָּדוֹל וְאָמַר לוֹ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא אֵזוֹר קָטָן פָּטוּר. אֲבָל אִם טְעָנוֹ יְרִיעָה בַּת עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בִּירִיעָה בַּת עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְחָתְכָהּ וּלְהַעֲמִידָהּ עַל עֶשֶׂר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "כּוֹר חִטִּים יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא כּוֹר שְׂעוֹרִים פָּטוּר אַף מִדְּמֵי שְׂעוֹרִים. שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר לוֹ אֵין לִי בְּיָדְךָ שְׂעוֹרִים וְנִמְצָא זֶה דּוֹמֶה לְמִי שֶׁאָמַר לַחֲבֵרוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין מָנֶה לְךָ בְּיָדִי וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ הָאַחֵר אֵין לִי בְּיָדְךָ שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ לִתֵּן לוֹ כְּלוּם. וְאִם תָּפַס הַתּוֹבֵעַ דְּמֵי הַשְּׂעוֹרִים אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ: ", + "הַטּוֹעֵן אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ שְׁנֵי מִינִין וְהוֹדָה בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן הֲרֵי הַהוֹדָיָה מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה וְנִשְׁבָּע. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן כּוֹר חִטִּין וְכוֹר שְׂעוֹרִין יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא כּוֹר חִטִּין חַיָּב. הִתְחִיל הַטּוֹעֵן וְאָמַר כּוֹר חִטִּין יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ וְקֹדֶם שֶׁיַּשְׁלִים דְּבָרָיו וְאָמַר כּוֹר שְׂעוֹרִים יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אָמַר לוֹ הַנִּטְעָן אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא כּוֹר שְׂעוֹרִים. אִם נִרְאֶה לַדַּיָּנִין שֶׁהַנִּטְעָן הֶעֱרִים חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה. וְאִם לְפִי תֻּמּוֹ פָּטוּר: ", + "כּוֹר חִטִּין יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אָמַר לוֹ הֵן וְכוֹר שְׂעוֹרִים אָמַר לוֹ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי שְׂעוֹרִין. הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר וְאֵין זֶה מוֹדֶה בְּמִקְצָת עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ בְּבַת אַחַת כּוֹר חִטִּים וְכוֹר שְׂעוֹרִין יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ וְיֹאמַר לוֹ הַנִּטְעָן אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא כּוֹר שְׂעוֹרִים. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "מְלֹא עֲשָׂרָה כַּדִּין שֶׁמֶן יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא עֲשָׂרָה כַּדִּין בְּלֹא שֶׁמֶן פָּטוּר. שֶׁהֲרֵי טְעָנוֹ שֶׁמֶן וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בָּחֲרָסִים. עֲשָׂרָה כַּדִּין שֶׁמֶן יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא עֲשָׂרָה כַּדִּין רֵיקָנִין חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁהֲרֵי טְעָנוֹ הַכַּדִּין וְהַשֶּׁמֶן וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בַּכַּדִּין. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "מָנֶה לִי אֶצְלְךָ הַלְוָאָה לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם וְלֹא לָוִיתִי מִמְּךָ אֲבָל חֲמִשִּׁים דִּינָרִין יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּיָדִי פִּקָּדוֹן אוֹ מִשּׁוּם נֵזֶק וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁזֶּה מוֹדֶה בְּמִקְצָת וְיִשָּׁבַע. שֶׁהֲרֵי טְעָנוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ מֵאָה וְהוֹדָה לוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב חֲמִשִּׁים וּמַה לִּי נִתְחַיֵּב לוֹ מִשּׁוּם הַלְוָאָה אוֹ מִשּׁוּם פִּקָּדוֹן אוֹ מִשּׁוּם נֵזֶק. וְלָזֶה דַּעְתִּי נוֹטָה: ", + "מָנֶה וּכְלִי יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא הַכְּלִי וְהֵא לְךָ. הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶצְלוֹ אֶלָּא זֶה. אָמַר בַּעַל הַכְּלִי אֵין זֶה הַכְּלִי כּוֹלֵל בִּשְׁבוּעָתוֹ שֶׁזֶּה כֶּלְיוֹ. הוֹדָה הַנִּטְעָן שֶׁאֵין זֶה כֶּלְיוֹ וְנִתְחַלֵּף לוֹ בְּאַחֵר הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּעִנְיָן זֶה פָּטוּר הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר מִשְּׁבוּעַת הַתּוֹרָה וְחַיָּב שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ כַּמָּה פְּעָמִים: " + ], + [ + "אֵין מוֹדֶה בְּמִקְצָת חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה עַד שֶׁיִּטְעָנֶנּוּ בְּדָבָר שֶׁבְּמִדָּה אוֹ בְּמִשְׁקָל אוֹ בְּמִנְיָן וְיוֹדֶה לוֹ בְּדָבָר שֶׁבְּמִדָּה אוֹ שֶׁבְּמִשְׁקָל אוֹ שֶׁבְּמִנְיָן. כֵּיצַד. עֲשָׂרָה דִּינָרִין יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשָּׁה. כּוֹר חִטִּים יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא לֶתֶךְ. שְׁתֵּי לִיטְרִין שֶׁל מֶשִׁי יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא רוֹטֶל הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. אֲבָל אָמַר לוֹ כִּיס מָלֵא דִּינָרִין מָסַרְתִּי לְךָ לֹא מָסַרְתָּ לִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים. מֵאָה דִּינָרִין מָסַרְתִּי לְךָ לֹא מָסַרְתָּ לִי אֶלָּא צְרוֹר שֶׁל דִּינָרִין וְלֹא מָנִיתָ אוֹתָן בְּפָנַי וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מֶה הָיָה בּוֹ וּמַה שֶּׁהִנַּחְתָּ אַתָּה נוֹטֵל הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "בַּיִת מָלֵא תְּבוּאָה מָסַרְתִּי לְךָ וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא מָסַרְתָּ לִי אֶלָּא עֲשָׂרָה כּוֹרִין. עֲשָׂרָה כּוֹרִין מָסַרְתִּי לְךָ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ כַּמָּה הֵם שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא מְדַדְתָּם בְּפָנַי אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁהִנַּחְתָּ אַתָּה נוֹטֵל פָּטוּר: \n", + "בַּיִת זֶה מָלֵא עַד הַזִּיז מָסַרְתִּי לְךָ וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר עַד הַחַלּוֹן חַיָּב. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "אֵין מוֹדֶה בְּמִקְצָת חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה עַד שֶׁיּוֹדֶה בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לִכְפֹּר בּוֹ. כֵּיצַד. מִי שֶׁטָּעַן חֲבֵרוֹ וְאָמַר מֵאָה דִּינָרִין יֵשׁ לִי אֶצְלְךָ חֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁבִּשְׁטָר זֶה וַחֲמִשִּׁים בְּלֹא שְׁטָר. אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁבַּשְּׁטָר אֵין זֶה מוֹדֶה בְּמִקְצָת שֶׁהַשְּׁטָר לֹא תּוֹעִיל בּוֹ כְּפִירָתוֹ וַהֲרֵי כָּל נְכָסָיו מְשֻׁעְבָּדִין בּוֹ וַאֲפִלּוּ כָּפַר בּוֹ הָיָה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. לְפִיכָךְ נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת עַל הַחֲמִשִּׁים: \n", + "שְׁטָר שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ סְלָעִים וְלֹא הִזְכִּיר מִנְיָן. מַלְוֶה אוֹמֵר חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ הֵם הַכְּתוּבִים בּוֹ וְהַלּוֶֹה אוֹמֵר אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא שָׁלֹשׁ וְהֵם הַכְּתוּבִים בַּשְּׁטָר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ בִּשְׁטָר זֶה אֶלָּא בִּשְׁתַּיִם וַהֲרֵי הוֹדָה בְּסֶלַע שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לִכְפֹּר בָּהּ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵדָה וְתַקָּנַת חֲכָמִים הִיא שֶׁכָּל שֶׁיָּשִׁיב אֲבֵדָה לֹא יִשָּׁבַע כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. וְכֵן הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ אָמַר לִי אַבָּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ מָנֶה וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים הֲרֵי זֶה מֵשִׁיב אֲבֵדָה וּפָטוּר אַף מִשְּׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם הוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ וְאָמַר מָנֶה הָיָה לְאָבִיךָ בְּיָדִי וְנָתַתִּי לוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים דִּינָרִין וְנִשְׁאַר לוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁזֶּה פָּטוּר אַף מִשְּׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת. אֲבָל יוֹרֵשׁ שֶׁטָּעַן וְאָמַר אֲנִי יוֹדֵעַ בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְאָבִי בְּיָדְךָ אוֹ בְּיַד אָבִיךָ מָנֶה וְהוּא אוֹמֵר אֵין לוֹ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים אוֹ אֵין לְךָ בְּיַד אָבִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים הֲרֵי זֶה מוֹדֶה מִקְצָת וְיִשָּׁבַע: \n", + "מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ עַל מַשְׁכּוֹן זֶה אֵין בְּיָדִי עָלָיו אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים הֲרֵי זֶה מוֹדֶה וְיִשָּׁבַע. אֵין הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן שָׁוֶה אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים אוֹ פָּחוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וּמְשַׁלֵּם הַחֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁהוֹדָה בָּהֶן. הָיָה הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן שָׁוֶה מֵאָה אוֹ יֶתֶר הוֹאִיל וְהַמַּלְוֶה יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן עָלָיו עַד כְּדֵי דָּמָיו הֲרֵי הַמַּלְוֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל מִדְּמֵי הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן. הָיָה שָׁוֶה שְׁמוֹנִים נִשְׁבָּע הַמַּלְוֶה שֶׁאֵין לוֹ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁמוֹנִים וְנוֹטְלָן מִן הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן. וְנִשְׁבָּע הַלּוֶֹה מִן הַתּוֹרָה עַל הָעֶשְׂרִים שֶׁכָּפַר בָּהֶן. כָּפַר בַּכּל וְאָמַר אֵין זֶה מַשְׁכּוֹן אֶלָּא פִּקָּדוֹן וְאֵין לוֹ אֶצְלִי כְּלוּם נִשְׁבָּע הַמַּלְוֶה שֶׁאֵין פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁמוֹנִים וְנִשְׁבָּע הַלּוֶֹה הֶסֵּת עַל הָעֶשְׂרִים: \n", + "מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר חֲמִשִּׁים וַדַּאי יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֲבָל הַחֲמִשִּׁים אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם אֲנִי חַיָּב בָּהֶן אוֹ לָאו הֲרֵי זֶה מְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִשָּׁבַע בַּמִּקְצָת שֶׁכָּפַר בּוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ לְפִיכָךְ מְשַׁלֵּם הַמָּנֶה בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַחֲרִים עַל מִי שֶׁטּוֹעֵן עָלַי דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב בּוֹ: \n", + "מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ וַהֲרֵי עֵד אֶחָד מֵעִיד עָלָיו וְהַנִּטְעָן אוֹמֵר כֵּן הוּא אֲבָל אַתָּה חַיָּב לִי כְּנֶגֶד אוֹתוֹ מָנֶה הֲרֵי זֶה מְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִשָּׁבַע וּמְשַׁלֵּם. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִשָּׁבַע שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא מוֹדֶה בְּמַה שֶּׁהֵעִיד בּוֹ הָעֵד וְאֵין הַנִּשְׁבָּע בְּהַעֲדָאַת עֵד אֶחָד נִשְׁבָּע עַד שֶׁיַּכְחִישׁ אֶת הָעֵד וְיִכְפֹּר בְּעֵדוּתוֹ וְיִשָּׁבַע עַל כְּפִירָתוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ שְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ עֵד אֶחָד וְטָעַן שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ. וְכֵן כַּפְרָן שֶׁבָּא עָלָיו עֵד אֶחָד וְטָעַן שֶׁפָּרַע אוֹ הֶחְזַרְתִּי לְךָ הַפִּקָּדוֹן הֲרֵי זֶה מְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִשָּׁבַע וּמְשַׁלֵּם. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁחָטַף לְשׁוֹן כֶּסֶף מֵחֲבֵרוֹ בִּפְנֵי עֵד אֶחָד וְאָמַר אַחַר כֵּן חָטַפְתִּי וְשֶׁלִּי חָטַפְתִּי וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים הֲרֵי זֶה מְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִשָּׁבַע וּמְשַׁלֵּם. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "מָנֶה הִלְוֵיתִיךָ לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם הֵבִיא עֵד אֶחָד שֶׁלָּוָה מִמֶּנּוּ בְּפָנָיו. הוֹאִיל וְאִלּוּ הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם הָיָה מֻחְזָק כַּפְרָן וּמְשַׁלֵּם כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד שֶׁכָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁשְּׁנַיִם מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ מָמוֹן אֶחָד מְחַיְּבוֹ שְׁבוּעָה. חָזַר וְאָמַר פָּרַעְתִּי מְשַׁלֵּם בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִין עָלָיו שֶׁעֲדַיִן יֵשׁ לוֹ אֶצְלוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים. פָּסְקוּ כָּל הַגְּאוֹנִים הֲלָכָה שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּם חֲמִשִּׁים וְיִשָּׁבַע עַל הַשְּׁאָר. שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא הוֹדָיַת פִּיו גְּדוֹלָה מֵהַעֲדָאַת עֵדִים: \n" + ], + [ + "וְאֵלוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִן הַתּוֹרָה. הַקַּרְקָעוֹת וְהָעֲבָדִים וְהַשְּׁטָרוֹת וְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו עֵד אֶחָד אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמַר וְטָעַן טַעֲנַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ו) \"כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ\" פְּרָט לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ. כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵּלִים פְּרָט לְקַרְקָעוֹת וְלַעֲבָדִים שֶׁהֻקְּשׁוּ לְקַרְקָעוֹת. וְכֵן יָצְאוּ שְׁטָרוֹת שֶׁאֵין גּוּפָן מָמוֹן כְּכֶסֶף וּכְכֵלִים וְאֵינָן אֶלָּא לָרְאָיָה שֶׁבָּהֶן. וְעַל כֻּלָּן נִשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת אִם הָיְתָה שָׁם טַעֲנַת וַדַּאי. חוּץ מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עֲלֵיהֶם שְׁבוּעָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה תִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע עֲלֵיהֶם כְּעֵין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְזַלְזְלוּ בַּהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת: \n", + "שְׁתֵּי שָׂדוֹת מָכַרְתָּ לִי לֹא מָכַרְתִּי לְךָ אֶלָּא אַחַת. שְׁנֵי עֲבָדִים אוֹ שְׁנֵי שְׁטָרוֹת יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא שְׁטָר אֶחָד אוֹ עֶבֶד אֶחָד. הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת. וְכֵן אִם טָעַן וְאָמַר חָצֵר זוֹ אוֹ עֶבֶד זֶה אוֹ שְׁטָר זֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ שֶׁלִּי הוּא וְאַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי וְהַנִּטְעָן אוֹמֵר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. בֵּין שֶׁהֵבִיא הַטּוֹעֵן עֵד אֶחָד בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא. הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר. וְכֵן הַחוֹפֵר בִּשְׂדֵה חֲבֵרוֹ בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת וְהִפְסידוּה והרי הוּא חיּב לְשַׁלֵּם בֵּין שֶׁטְּעָנוֹ שֶׁחָפַר וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא חָפַרְתִּי אוֹ שֶׁטְּעָנוֹ שֶׁחָפַר שְׁתֵּי מְעָרוֹת וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא חָפַרְתִּי אֶלָּא אַחַת אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה שָׁם עֵד אֶחָד שֶׁחָפַר וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא חָפַרְתִּי כְּלוּם. הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת עַל הַכּל: \n", + "טְעָנוֹ כֵּלִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת בֵּין שֶׁהוֹדָה בְּכָל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת וְכָפַר בְּכָל הַכֵּלִים בֵּין שֶׁהוֹדָה בְּכָל הַכֵּלִים וְכָפַר בְּכָל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת בֵּין שֶׁהוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת הַקַּרְקָעוֹת וְכָפַר בְּמִקְצָתָן עִם כָּל הַכֵּלִים. בְּכָל אֵלּוּ נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת. אֲבָל אִם הוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת כֵּלִים וְכָפַר בְּמִקְצָתָן עִם כָּל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה עַל מִקְצָת הַכֵּלִים שֶׁכָּפַר בָּהֶן נִשְׁבָּע אַף עַל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת שֶׁטְּעָנוֹ עִמָּהֶן שֶׁהַכּל טַעֲנָה אַחַת. וְכֵן הַדִּין בִּטְעָנוֹ כֵּלִים וַעֲבָדִים אוֹ כֵּלִים וּשְׁטָרוֹת הַכּל דִּין אֶחָד הוּא: \n", + "טְעָנוֹ עֲנָבִים הָעוֹמְדוֹת לִבָּצֵר וּתְבוּאָה יְבֵשָׁה הָעוֹמֶדֶת לְהִקָּצֵר וְהוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָתָן וְכָפַר בְּמִקְצָתָן הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע עֲלֵיהֶם כִּשְׁאָר הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין. וְהוּא שֶׁאֵינָן צְרִיכִין לַקַּרְקַע שֶׁכָּל הָעוֹמֵד לְהִבָּצֵר הֲרֵי הוּא כְּבָצוּר לְעִנְיַן כְּפִירָה וְהוֹדָיָה. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ צְרִיכִים לַקַּרְקַע הֲרֵי הֵן כְּקַרְקַע לְכָל דָּבָר וְאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶן אֶלָּא הֶסֵּת: \n", + "הַטּוֹעֵן עַל חֲבֵרוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ שְׁנֵי חֳדָשִׁים שָׁכַנְתָּ בַּחֲצֵרִי וְאַתָּה חַיָּב לִי שְׂכַר שְׁנֵי חֳדָשִׁים וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא שָׁכַנְתִּי אֶלָּא חֹדֶשׁ אֶחָד הֲרֵי זֶה מוֹדֶה בְּמִקְצָת. וְאִם הָיָה שְׂכַר הַחֹדֶשׁ שֶׁכָּפַר בּוֹ שָׁוֶה שְׁנֵי כֶּסֶף נִשְׁבָּע שֶׁאֵין הַטַּעֲנָה בְּגוּף הַקַּרְקַע אֶלָּא בִּשְׂכָרָהּ שֶׁהוּא מִטַּלְטְלִין: \n", + "שְׁטָר מָסַרְתִּי לְךָ וַעֲשָׂרָה דִּינָרִין הָיוּ לִי בּוֹ רְאָיָה לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם יִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת. הָפַךְ עָלָיו הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁהָיְתָה בּוֹ רְאָיָה לַעֲשָׂרָה דִּינָרִים וְאָבְדוּ בַּאֲבֵדַת הַשְּׁטָר וְיִטּל. וְאִם אָמַר הַנִּתְבָּע אֱמֶת מָסַרְתָּ לִי וְאָבַד הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר אַף מִשְּׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ פָּשַׁע בּוֹ וְאָבַד פָּטוּר כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת חוֹבֵל: \n", + "הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ שְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ זְכוּת יֵשׁ לִי בּוֹ וְזֶה אוֹמֵר אֵינִי מוֹצֵא שְׁטָרִי אוֹ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם יֵשׁ לְךָ בּוֹ רְאָיָה אוֹ לֹא כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיאוֹ: \n", + "טָעַן שֶׁאָבַד הַשְּׁטָר מַחְרִימִין אוֹתוֹ חֵרֶם סְתָם. טָעַן זֶה שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁהַשְּׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בּוֹ זְכוּת אֶצְלוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶצְלוֹ וְשֶׁאָבַד מִמֶּנּוּ וְכָזֶה הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי: \n", + "אֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל טַעֲנַת חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן. אֶחָד הַבָּא בְּטַעֲנַת עַצְמוֹ אוֹ בְּטַעֲנַת אָבִיו. לְפִי שֶׁזֶּה הַמִּקְצָת שֶׁהוֹדָה בּוֹ לַקָּטָן אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כְּמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵדָה. וְכֵן אִם כָּפַר בַּכּל וּבָא עֵד אֶחָד וְהֵעִיד לַקָּטָן אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע. שֶׁזֶּה עֵד אֶחָד וְאֵין שָׁם תּוֹבֵעַ שֶׁתְּבִיעַת קָטָן אֵינָהּ תְּבִיעָה גְּמוּרָה. נִמְצֵאתָ אוֹמֵר קָטָן שֶׁאָמַר לְגָדוֹל מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ. אוֹ אַבָּא הָיָה לוֹ בְּיָדְךָ. וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים אוֹ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם. וְעֵד אֶחָד מְעִידוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר מִשְּׁבוּעַת הַתּוֹרָה. אֲבָל אִם שָׁמַר לְקָטָן וְטָעַן שֶׁאָבַד הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע מֵחֲמַת טַעֲנָה. וְכֵן אִם הוֹדָה שֶׁהָיָה שֻׁתָּף לְקָטָן אוֹ אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס עָלָיו יַעֲמִידוּ בֵּית דִּין אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לַקָּטָן וְיִשָּׁבַע הַשֻׁתָּף וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ בְּטַעֲנַת שֶׁמָּא: \n", + "הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל טַעֲנַת קָטָן שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה אֲבָל שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת נִשְׁבָּעִין. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה קָטָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ חָרִיף לְעִנְיַן מַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן נִשְׁבָּעִין הֶסֵּת עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ. שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה זֶה נוֹטֵל מָמוֹנוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא קָטָן וְיֵלֵךְ לוֹ בְּחִנָּם. וְלָזֶה דַּעְתִּי נוֹטָה וְתִקּוּן עוֹלָם הוּא. נִמְצֵאתָ לָמֵד שֶׁהַקָּטָן שֶׁטָּעַן עַל הַגָּדוֹל בֵּין שֶׁהוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת בֵּין שֶׁכָּפַר בַּכּל בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה שָׁם עֵד בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה שָׁם עֵד. הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַהֲפֹךְ עַל הַקָּטָן שֶׁאֵין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אֶת הַקָּטָן כְּלָל. וַאֲפִלּוּ חֵרֶם סְתָם אֵינוֹ מְקַבֵּל לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ עֹנֶשׁ הַשְּׁבוּעָה: \n", + "קָטָן שֶׁטְּעָנוֹ הַגָּדוֹל. אִם טְעָנוֹ בְּדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ הֲנָיָה לַקָּטָן כְּגוֹן עֵסֶק מַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן וְהוֹדָה הַקָּטָן נִפְרָעִין מִנְּכָסָיו. וְאִם אֵין לוֹ יַמְתִּין עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לוֹ וִישַׁלֵּם. וְאִם כָּפַר הַקָּטָן מַמְתִּינִין עַד שֶׁיַּגְדִּיל וְיִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת. וְאִם טְעָנוֹ בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין לְקָטָן הֲנָיָה כְּגוֹן נְזָקִין וְחַבָּלוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמּוֹדֶה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מִמָּה יְשַׁלֵּם פָּטוּר וַאֲפִלּוּ לְאַחַר שֶׁהִגְדִּיל. וְאִם הָיָה הַתּוֹבֵעַ מִן הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין כְּגוֹן הַשָּׂכִיר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ הֲנָיָה לַקָּטָן שֶׁיִּשְׂתַּכֵּר לוֹ שָׂכִיר הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל מִן הַקָּטָן. אֲבָל חֶנְוָנִי שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּע עַל פִּנְקָסוֹ אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל מִן הַקָּטָן. שֶׁאֵין לַקָּטָן בָּזֶה הֲנָיָה שֶׁהֲרֵי חַיָּב לִתֵּן לְפוֹעֲלָיו וְנִשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין מִמֶּנּוּ. וְזֶה הַחֶנְוָנִי הִפְסִיד עַל נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁנָּתַן מָמוֹנוֹ עַל פִּי קָטָן. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "הַחֵרֵשׁ וְהַשּׁוֹטֶה אֵין נִזְקָקִין לָהֶן לְכָל טַעֲנָה לֹא לְטַעֲנָתָן עַל אֲחֵרִים וְלֹא לְטַעֲנַת אֲחֵרִים עֲלֵיהֶן. לֹא לִשְׁבוּעָה קַלָּה וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שְׁבוּעָה חֲמוּרָה אוֹ תַּשְׁלוּמִין. אֲבָל הַסּוּמָא הֲרֵי הוּא כְּבָרִיא לְכָל דָּבָר בְּעִנְיָנִים אֵלּוּ וְנִשְׁבָּע כָּל מִינֵי שְׁבוּעוֹת וְנִשְׁבָּעִין עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ: \n" + ], + [ + "בַּעֲלֵי דִּינִין שֶׁבָּאוּ לְבֵית דִּין טָעַן הָאֶחָד וְאָמַר מָנֶה יֵשׁ לִי אֵצֶל זֶה שֶׁהִלְוֵיתִיו אוֹ שֶׁהִפְקַדְתִּי אֶצְלוֹ אוֹ שֶׁגָּזַל מִמֶּנִּי אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי אֶצְלוֹ בְּשָׂכָר וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְהֵשִׁיב הַנִּטְעָן וְאָמַר אֵינִי חַיָּב כְּלוּם אוֹ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם אוֹ שֶׁקֶר אַתָּה טוֹעֵן. אֵין זוֹ תְּשׁוּבָה נְכוֹנָה אֶלָּא אוֹמְרִים בֵּית דִּין לַנִּטְעָן הָשֵׁב עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ וּפָרֵשׁ הַתְּשׁוּבָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ זֶה טַעֲנָתוֹ וֶאֱמֹר אִם לָוִיתָ מִמֶּנּוּ אִם לֹא לָוִיתָ. הִפְקִיד אֶצְלְךָ אוֹ לֹא הִפְקִיד. גְּזַלְתּוֹ אוֹ לֹא גְּזַלְתּוֹ. שְׂכַרְתּוֹ אוֹ לֹא שְׂכַרְתּוֹ. וְכֵן שְׁאָר הַטְּעָנוֹת. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אֵין מְקַבְּלִים מִמֶּנּוּ תְּשׁוּבָה זוֹ. שֶׁמָּא טוֹעֶה הוּא בְּדַעְתּוֹ וְיָבוֹא לְהִשָּׁבַע עַל שֶׁקֶר שֶׁהֲרֵי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁטָּעַן וְהֶחְזִיר זֶה אֶת הַחוֹב לִבְנוֹ אוֹ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה כְּנֶגֶד הַחוֹב וִידַמֶּה בְּדַעְתּוֹ שֶׁנִּפְטַר מִן הַחוֹב. לְפִיכָךְ אוֹמְרִים לוֹ הֵיאַךְ תֹּאמַר אֵינִי חַיָּב כְּלוּם שֶׁמָּא אַתָּה מִתְחַיֵּב מִן הַדִּין לְשַׁלֵּם וְאֵין אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ אֶלָּא הוֹדַע לַדַּיָּנִין פֵּרוּשׁ הַדְּבָרִים וְהֵם יוֹדִיעוּךָ אִם אַתָּה חַיָּב אוֹ אֵין אַתָּה חַיָּב. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה חָכָם גָּדוֹל אוֹמְרִים לוֹ אֵין לְךָ הֶפְסֵד שֶׁתָּשִׁיב עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ וְתוֹדִיעֶנּוּ כֵּיצַד אֵין אַתָּה חַיָּב לוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם אוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָיוּ וְהֶחֱזַרְתָּ לוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי אָנוּ דָּנִין בְּמִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר בְּכָל מָקוֹם. וְכֵן אִם טָעַן הַטּוֹעֵן וְאָמַר זֶה חַיָּב לִי מָנֶה. אוֹ מָנֶה יֵשׁ לִי אֶצְלוֹ. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ מֵאֵי זֶה פָּנִים. הִלְוֵיתָ אוֹתוֹ. אוֹ הִפְקַדְתָּ אֶצְלוֹ. אוֹ הִזִּיק מָמוֹנְךָ. אֱמֹר הֵיאַךְ נִתְחַיֵּב לְךָ. שֶׁהֲרֵי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּדְמֶה לוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ וְהוּא אֵינוֹ חַיָּב כְּגוֹן שֶׁחֲשָׁדוֹ שֶׁגְּנָבוֹ אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ שֶׁאֶתֵּן לְךָ מָנֶה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. הֲרֵי שֶׁטָּעַן עָלָיו שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ מָנֶה וְהֵשִׁיב זֶה וְאָמַר לוֹ לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֵבִיא הַטּוֹעֵן עֵדִים שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ בִּפְנֵיהֶם וְחָזַר הַנִּטְעָן וְאָמַר כֵּן הָיָה וְלָוִיתִי וּפָרַעְתִּי אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִמֶּנּוּ אֶלָּא הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן וּמְשַׁלֵּם. אֲבָל אִם הֵשִׁיב אֵינִי חַיָּב אוֹ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם אוֹ שֶׁקֶר אַתָּה טוֹעֵן. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְהָלַךְ הַתּוֹבֵעַ וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ בִּפְנֵיהֶם וְאָמַר (הַנִּתְבָּע) כֵּן הָיָה אֲבָל הֶחְזַרְתִּי לוֹ פִּקְדוֹנוֹ אוֹ פְּרַעְתִּיו חוֹבוֹ לֹא הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר: \n", + "רָאוּהוּ עֵדִים שֶׁמָּנָה לוֹ מָעוֹת וְלֹא יָדְעוּ מַה הֵן. וּתְבָעוֹ בְּדִין וְאָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לִי מְעוֹתַי שֶׁהִלְוֵיתִיךָ. וְאָמַר מַתָּנָה נָתַתָּ לִי אוֹ פֵּרָעוֹן הָיוּ. הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר. אָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁמָּנָה לוֹ בִּפְנֵיהֶם הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן. וּלְעוֹלָם אֵין אָדָם מֻחְזָק כַּפְרָן עַד שֶׁיִּכְפֹּר בְּבֵית דִּין וְיָבוֹאוּ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים וְיַכְחִישׁוּהוּ בְּמַה שֶּׁכָּפַר: \n", + "מָנֶה הִלְוֵיתִיךָ כָּפַר בְּבֵית דִּין וְאָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. וּבָאוּ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים שֶׁלָּוָה מִמֶּנּוּ מָנֶה וּפְרָעוֹ. וְהַמַּלְוֶה אוֹמֵר לֹא נִפְרַעְתִּי. הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. שֶׁכָּל הָאוֹמֵר לֹא לָוִיתִי וּבָאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁלָּוָה כְּאוֹמֵר לֹא פָּרַעְתִּי דָּמִי. וְנִמְצָא הַלּוֶֹה אוֹמֵר לֹא פָּרַעְתִּי וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִים אוֹתוֹ שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ הוֹדָאַת בַּעַל דִּין כְּמֵאָה עֵדִים דָּמֵי וְאֵין הַמַּלְוֶה חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁהֲרֵי הֻחְזַק זֶה כַּפְרָן. וְכֵן אִם הוֹצִיא עָלָיו כְּתַב יָדוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ וְאָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם וְזֶה אֵינוֹ כְּתַב יָדִי. אִם הֻחְזַק כְּתַב יָדוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין אוֹ שֶׁבָּאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא כְּתַב יָדוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן וּמְשַׁלֵּם: \n", + "מָנֶה הִלְוֵיתִיךָ וְהוּא לִי בְּיָדְךָ אָמַר לוֹ הַנִּטְעָן וַהֲלֹא פְּרַעְתִּיךָ בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי. וּבָאוּ עֵדִים וְאָמְרוּ לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. לֹא הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן שֶׁאֵין הָעֵדִים זוֹכְרִין אֶלָּא דָּבָר שֶׁהֵם עֵדִים בּוֹ לְפִיכָךְ לֹא הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן וְיִשָּׁבַע הַלּוֶֹה הֶסֵּת וְיִפָּטֵר. כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ תֵּן לִי מָנֶה שֶׁהִלְוֵיתִיךָ וְאַתָּה עָמַדְתָּ בְּצַד עַמּוּד זֶה וְאָמַר הַנִּטְעָן לֹא עָמַדְתִּי בְּצַד עַמּוּד זֶה מֵעוֹלָם וּבָאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁעָמַד לֹא הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן. שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מֵשִׂים דַּעְתּוֹ לִדְבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן מַמָּשׁ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "תֵּן לִי מָנֶה שֶׁהִלְוֵיתִיךָ וַהֲרֵי הָעֵדִים וְאָמַר הַנִּטְעָן פְּרַעְתִּיךָ בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי אוֹמְרִין לַלּוֶֹה הֲבִיאֵם וְהִפָּטֵר. לֹא בָּאוּ אוֹ שֶׁמֵּתוּ אוֹ שֶׁהָלְכוּ לִמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת. יִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ מַצְרִיכִים אוֹתוֹ לַהֲבִיאָן אֶלָּא לְבָרֵר דְּבָרָיו וּלְהִפָּטֵר אַף מִשְּׁבוּעָה. שֶׁהַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בְּעֵדִים אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְפָרְעוֹ בְּעֵדִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "אָמַר לוֹ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ אָמַר לוֹ הֵן. לְמָחָר תְּבָעוֹ בְּדִין וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים וְאָמַר מְשַׁטֶּה הָיִיתִי בְּךָ וְאֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם. פָּטוּר וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדוֹ כְּלוּם. וַאֲפִלּוּ אָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא אָמַר לָהֶם אַתֶּם עֵדַי וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ עֵדוּת אֵין אָדָם זוֹכְרוֹ. וּלְפִיכָךְ אִם אָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם לֹא הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן: \n", + "וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ הִטְמִין לוֹ עֵדִים אֲחוֹרֵי הַגָּדֵר וְאָמַר לוֹ מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ אָמַר לוֹ הֵן רְצוֹנְךָ שֶׁיָּעִידוּ בְּךָ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי אָמַר לוֹ לֹא שֶׁמָּא תִּכְפֵּנִי בְּדִין לְמָחָר וְאֵין לִי מָה אֶתֵּן לְךָ וּלְמָחָר תְּבָעוֹ בְּדִין בְּאֵלּוּ הָעֵדִים. בֵּין שֶׁטָּעַן וְאָמַר מְשַׁטֶּה הָיִיתִי בּוֹ בֵּין שֶׁאָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר. שֶׁאֵין כָּאן עֵדוּת עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר הַלּוֶֹה אַתֶּם עֵדַי אוֹ יֹאמַר הַמַּלְוֶה בִּפְנֵי הַלּוֶֹה וְיִשְׁתֹּק הַלּוֶֹה אֲבָל בָּעֵדוּת הַזֶּה לֹא הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהָיוּ קוֹרִין אוֹתוֹ קַב רְשׁוּ כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו חוֹבוֹת הַרְבֵּה. אָמַר מִי הוּא שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב לוֹ אֶלָּא פְּלוֹנִי וּבָא אוֹתוֹ פְּלוֹנִי וּתְבָעוֹ וְאָמַר הוּא אֵינִי חַיָּב לוֹ כְּלוּם. וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים יִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת וְיִפָּטֵר. וְכֵן אֶחָד הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים עָלָיו שֶׁהוּא בַּעַל מָמוֹן. בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָתוֹ אָמַר אִלּוּ הָיָה לִי מָמוֹן לֹא הָיִיתִי פּוֹרְעוֹ לִפְלוֹנִי וְלִפְלוֹנִי. וְאַחַר מִיתָתוֹ בָּאוּ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי לִתְבֹּעַ וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֵין לָהֶם כְּלוּם. שֶׁהָאָדָם עָשׂוּי לְהַרְאוֹת עַצְמוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בַּעַל מָמוֹן וְשֶׁלֹּא הִנִּיחַ בָּנָיו בַּעֲלֵי מָמוֹן וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ: \n", + "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַמַּטְמִין עֵדִים אֵינָהּ עֵדוּת וְכֵן הַמּוֹדֶה מֵעַצְמוֹ וְעֵדִים שׁוֹמְעִין אוֹתוֹ. וְכֵן הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ וְאָמַר לוֹ הֵן. בְּכָל הַדְּבָרִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ לְבֵית דִּין אוֹמְרִין לַנִּתְבָּע לָמָּה לֹא תִּתֵּן מַה שֶּׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אֶצְלְךָ. אָמַר אֵין לוֹ אֶצְלִי כְּלוּם. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ וַהֲלֹא אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ בִּפְנֵי אֵלּוּ כָּךְ וְכָךְ אוֹ הוֹדֵיתָ מֵעַצְמְךָ. אִם עָמַד וְשִׁלֵּם מוּטָב וְאִם לֹא טָעַן אֵין טוֹעֲנִין לוֹ. אֲבָל אִם טָעַן וְאָמַר מְשַׁטֶּה הָיִיתִי בּוֹ אוֹ לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לְהַשְׁבִּיעַ אֶת עַצְמִי נִתְכַּוַּנְתִּי פָּטוּר וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n" + ], + [ + "הַמּוֹדֶה בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִפְלוֹנִי אֶצְלוֹ מָנֶה וְאָמַר לָהֶן בְּדֶרֶךְ הוֹדָיָה לֹא דֶּרֶךְ שִׂיחָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר אַתֶּם עֵדַי וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַתּוֹבֵעַ עִמּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה עֵדוּת. תְּבָעוֹ בְּדִין אִם אָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ וּמְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּיהֶם. וְאִם הָיָה עֵד אֶחָד נִשְׁבָּע הוֹאִיל וְאָמַר דֶּרֶךְ הוֹדָיָה. טָעַן כְּשֶׁבָּאוּ אֵלּוּ הָעֵדִים וְאָמַר שֶׁלֹּא לְהַשְׁבִּיעַ אֶת עַצְמִי הוֹדֵיתִי נֶאֱמָן וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת. וְאִם כְּשֶׁהוֹדָה בִּפְנֵיהֶם הָיָה הַתּוֹבֵעַ עִמּוֹ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן וְלוֹמַר כְּדֵי לְהַרְאוֹת שֶׁאֵינִי עָשִׁיר הוֹדֵיתִי. אֲבָל אִם טָעַן שֶׁנָּתַן נֶאֱמָן וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת: \n", + "כָּל הַמּוֹדֶה בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר וְלוֹמַר מְשַׁטֶּה הָיִיתִי בּוֹ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם הוֹדָה בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה. אֲבָל מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ לִתֵּן בְּהוֹדָיַת פִּיו. שֶׁכָּל הָאוֹמֵר בְּדֶרֶךְ הוֹדָיָה הֲרֵי זֶה כְּאוֹמֵר אַתֶּם עֵדַי. אֲבָל אֵין כּוֹתְבִין אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן אָמַר לָהֶם כִּתְבוּ וְחִתְמוּ וּתְנוּ לוֹ. וּצְרִיכִין לְהִמָּלֵךְ בּוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְכֵן אִם הוֹדָה בְּבֵית דִּין אַחַר שֶׁשָּׁלְחוּ לוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כּוֹתְבִין. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ בֵּית דִּין מַכִּירִין אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲרִימוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם לְחַיֵּב אִישׁ אַחֵר: \n", + "בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁהָיוּ יוֹשְׁבִין מֵעַצְמָן בַּמָּקוֹם הַקָּבוּעַ לָהֶן וּבָא הַתּוֹבֵעַ וְקָבַל לִפְנֵיהֶם וְשָׁלְחוּ שָׁלִיחַ אֵצֶל הַנִּתְבָּע וּבָא וְהוֹדָה בִּפְנֵיהֶם הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כּוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין לְבַעַל דִּינוֹ. אֲבָל אִם לֹא הָיוּ קְבוּעִין וְלֹא שָׁלְחוּ לוֹ אֲפִלּוּ קִבֵּץ אוֹתָן וְהוֹשִׁיב הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה וְהוֹדָה בִּפְנֵיהֶן וְאָמַר לָהֶן הֱווּ עָלַי דַּיָּנִין וּבָא אַחַר כָּךְ הַתּוֹבֵעַ וְאָמַר כִּתְבוּ לִי הוֹדָיָתִי אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שֶׁמָּא יִתֵּן לוֹ וְנִמְצָא זֶה תּוֹבֵעַ אוֹתוֹ בִּשְׁטָר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין. אֲבָל אִם הוֹדָה בְּקַרְקָעוֹת אֲפִלּוּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ וְלֹא אָמַר לָהֶם כִּתְבוּ וּתְנוּ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כּוֹתְבִים וְנוֹתְנִין שֶׁאֵין כָּאן לָחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא יִתֵּן לוֹ וְנִמְצָא תּוֹבְעוֹ פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה: \n", + "שְׁטַר הוֹדָיָה שֶׁיָּצָא וְלֹא הָיָה כָּתוּב בּוֹ אָמַר לָנוּ כִּתְבוּ וְחִתְמוּ וּתְנוּ לוֹ. הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר שֶׁחֲזָקָה הִיא שֶׁאִלּוּ לֹא אָמַר לָהֶם כִּתְבוּ וְחִתְמוּ וּתְנוּ לֹא הָיוּ נוֹתְנִין. הָיָה כָּתוּב בַּשְּׁטָר הוֹדָה פְּלוֹנִי בְּפָנֵינוּ בֵּית דִּין. אִם אֵין כָּתוּב בּוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה אוֹ דְּבָרִים שֶׁשּׁוֹמְעִין מִכְּלָל שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא שְׁנַיִם הָיוּ וְטָעוּ וְדִמּוּ שֶׁהַהוֹדָיָה בִּשְׁנַיִם הוֹדָיָה בְּבֵית דִּין וּלְפִיכָךְ אֵין דָּנִין בּוֹ דִּין שְׁטָר: \n", + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהוֹדָיָה בְּבֵית דִּין אוֹ עֵדוּת בְּבֵית דִּין כְּמִלְוֶה הַכְּתוּבָה בִּשְׁטָר וּלְפִיכָךְ כּוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין לְבַעַל דִּינוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁלֹּא קִבֵּל אֶת הַדִּין עַד שֶׁשָּׁלְחוּ וֶהֱבִיאוּהוּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֲבָל שְׁנַיִם שֶׁבָּאוּ לְדִין וְתָבַע אֶחָד מֵהֶן אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ וְאָמַר מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ וְאָמַר לוֹ הַנִּתְבָּע הֵן יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּיָדִי. בֵּין שֶׁאָמְרוּ הַדַּיָּנִין חַיָּב אַתָּה לִתֵּן לוֹ בֵּין שֶׁאָמְרוּ צֵא תֵּן לוֹ וְיָצָא וְאָמַר פָּרַעְתִּי נֶאֱמָן וְיִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם חָזַר הַתּוֹבֵעַ לַדַּיָּנִים וְאָמַר כִּתְבוּ לִי הוֹדָיָתִי אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא פְּרָעוֹ. וְכֵן מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב שְׁבוּעָה בְּבֵית דִּין וְיָצָא וְאָמַר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי נֶאֱמָן וְאֵין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע. הָיוּ הָעֵדִים מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁבַּע הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן לְאוֹתָהּ שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן לְעוֹלָם לוֹמַר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי עַד שֶׁיּוֹדֶה לוֹ בַּעַל דִּינוֹ אוֹ יָבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע בִּפְנֵיהֶם: \n", + "שְׁנַיִם שֶׁבָּאוּ לְדִין וְנִתְחַיֵּב הָאֶחָד לַשֵּׁנִי וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ צֵא וְתֵן לוֹ וְיָצָא וְחָזַר וְאָמַר פָּרַעְתִּי וְעֵדִים מְעִידִים אוֹתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא פְּרָעוֹ הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן לְאוֹתוֹ מָמוֹן. אָמְרוּ לוֹ חַיָּב אַתָּה לִתֵּן לוֹ וְיָצָא וְחָזַר וְאָמַר פָּרַעְתִּי וְעֵדִים מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא פְּרָעוֹ לֹא הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן שֶׁזֶּה נִשְׁמָט מֵהֶן עַד שֶׁיַּחְקְרוּ דִּינוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם חָזַר פַּעַם אַחֶרֶת וְטָעַן שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ זֶה הַמָּמוֹן שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב בּוֹ בִּפְנֵיהֶם וְלֹא הָיוּ שָׁם עֵדִים שֶׁמַּכְחִישִׁין אוֹתוֹ פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ וְנִפְטָר. לְפִיכָךְ הָיוּ בְּקִיאֵי הַדַּעַת שֶׁבִּסְפָרַד כְּשֶׁיּוֹדֶה הַלּוֶֹה אוֹ כְּשֶׁיִּתְחַיֵּב שְׁבוּעָה בְּבֵית דִּין אוֹמֵר לוֹ בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין הֱיוּ עָלַי עֵדִים שֶׁלֹּא יִפְרָעֵנִי אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִשָּׁבַע לִי אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהוֹדָה בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב לְזֶה הַתּוֹבֵעַ מָנֶה וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָמַר נִזְכַּרְתִּי שֶׁפָּרַעְתִּי לוֹ חוֹבוֹ זֶה שֶׁהוֹדֵיתִי בּוֹ וַהֲרֵי עֵדִים. הֲרֵי זֶה עֵדוּת מוֹעֶלֶת וְעוֹשִׂין עַל פִּיהֶם שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא הִכְחִישׁ עֵדָיו וְאֵינוֹ כְּאוֹמֵר לֹא לָוִיתִי מֵעוֹלָם: \n", + "יֵשׁ לַטּוֹעֵן בְּבֵית דִּין לַחְזֹר וְלִטְעֹן טַעֲנָה אַחֶרֶת לְהַכְחִישׁ הַטַּעֲנָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְסוֹמְכִין עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ הָאַחֲרוֹנָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן אֲמַתְלָא לַטַּעֲנָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיָּצָא מִבֵּית דִּין וְחָזַר יֵשׁ לַחְזֹר וְלִטְעֹן וּלְהַפֵּךְ כָּל הַטְּעָנוֹת שֶׁיִּרְצֶה עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ עֵדִים. אֲבָל מֵאַחַר שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ עֵדִים וְיַכְחִישׁוּ טַעֲנָתוֹ הָאַחֲרוֹנָה שֶׁסָּמַךְ עָלֶיהָ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַשִּׁיאוֹ לְטַעֲנָה אַחֶרֶת אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נָתַן אֲמַתְלָא לַטַּעֲנָה שֶׁסָּמַךְ עָלֶיהָ. וְיֵשׁ בְּמַשְׁמָעָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִשִּׁיא בְּזֹאת הַטַּעֲנָה הָאַחֶרֶת. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא מִבֵּית דִּין. אֲבָל אִם יָצָא מִבֵּית דִּין אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר וְלִטְעֹן אַחַר שֶׁבָּאוּ עֵדִים. שֶׁמָּא אֲנָשִׁים רָעִים לִמְּדוּהוּ טְעָנוֹת שֶׁל שֶׁקֶר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n" + ], + [ + "כָּל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין בְּחֶזְקַת זֶה שֶׁהֵן תַּחַת יָדוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵבִיא הַתּוֹבֵעַ עֵדִים שֶׁהַמִּטַּלְטְלִין הַלָּלוּ יְדוּעִין לוֹ. כֵּיצַד. בֶּגֶד זֶה אוֹ כְּלִי זֶה שֶׁבְּיָדְךָ אוֹ שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתְךָ שֶׁלִּי הוּא. אוֹ הִפְקַדְתִּיהוּ אֶצְלְךָ. אוֹ הִשְׁאַלְתִּיהוּ לְךָ. וַהֲרֵי הָעֵדִים שֶׁהֵן יוֹדְעִין אוֹתוֹ מִקֹּדֶם בִּרְשׁוּתִי. וְהַנִּתְבָּע אוֹמֵר לֹא כִּי אֶלָּא אַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי אוֹ נְתַתּוֹ לִי בְּמַתָּנָה. הֲרֵי זֶה הַנִּתְבָּע נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר: \n", + "טָעַן שֶׁהוּא מַשְׁכּוֹן בְּיָדוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן עַד כְּדֵי דָּמָיו וְנִשְׁבָּע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ וְנוֹטֵל כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּדְבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָן עֲשׂוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר. כְּגוֹן בְּגָדִים וּפֵרוֹת וּכְלֵי תַּשְׁמִישׁ הַבַּיִת וּדְבָרִים שֶׁל סְחוֹרָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. אֲבָל דְּבָרִים הָעֲשׂוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן תַּחַת יָדוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִשְׁאִילוֹ כְּלִי זֶה וְלֹא הִשְׂכִּירוֹ לוֹ בְּעֵדִים הֲרֵי הֵן בְּחֶזְקַת בַּעֲלֵיהֶן. כֵּיצַד. רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ כְּלִי הֶעָשׂוּי לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר וְיֵשׁ לוֹ עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא יָדוּעַ לוֹ וַהֲרֵי אוֹתוֹ הַכְּלִי תַּחַת יַד שִׁמְעוֹן וּרְאוּבֵן טוֹעֵן שֶׁהוּא שָׁאוּל אוֹ שָׂכוּר. וְשִׁמְעוֹן טוֹעֵן אַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי אַתָּה נְתַתּוֹ לִי בְּמַתָּנָה אַתָּה מִשְׁכַּנְתּוֹ בְּיָדִי אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. אֶלָּא רְאוּבֵן נוֹטֵל כֶּלְיוֹ וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת עַל טַעֲנַת שִׁמְעוֹן. וַאֲפִלּוּ מֵת שִׁמְעוֹן הֲרֵי רְאוּבֵן נוֹטֵל כֶּלְיוֹ. וְהוֹרוּ הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת. שֶׁטּוֹעֲנִין לַיּוֹרֵשׁ: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה כְּלִי זֶה נִרְאֶה וְעוֹמֵד בְּיַד שִׁמְעוֹן. אֲבָל אִם רְאוּבֵן טָעַן וְאָמַר לְשִׁמְעוֹן כְּלִי פְּלוֹנִי יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ וְשָׂכוּר הוּא הוֹצִיאוֹ אֵלַי וַהֲרֵי יֵשׁ לִי עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא יָדוּעַ לִי. וְאָמַר לוֹ שִׁמְעוֹן אַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי אַתָּה נְתַתּוֹ לִי בְּמַתָּנָה נֶאֱמָן וְנִשְׁבָּע שִׁמְעוֹן הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר. מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם וְאֵין בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ אֶצְלִי וְאַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי: \n", + "אֵין כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ אֲמוּרִים אֶלָּא שֶׁהָיָה בַּעַל הַכְּלִי טוֹעֵן אֲנִי הִפְקַדְתִּיו אֶצְלְךָ אוֹ הִשְׁאַלְתִּיהוּ אֶצְלְךָ. אֲבָל אִם טָעַן שֶׁכְּלִי זֶה הָיָה שֶׁלִּי וְנִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד אוֹ נִגְזַל וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא יָדוּעַ לוֹ וְזֶה שֶׁתַּחַת יָדוֹ אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֲבָל אֲחֵרִים מְכָרוּהוּ לִי אוֹ נְתָנוּהוּ לִי בְּמַתָּנָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מִדְּבָרִים שֶׁעֲשׂוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר מַעֲמִידִין אוֹתוֹ בְּיַד זֶה שֶׁהוּא בְּיָדוֹ וְאֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע כְּלָל שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין לוֹ טוֹעֵן: \n", + "יָצָא לַבְּעָלִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים חֲזָקָה מִכְּלֵיהֶן שֶׁנִּגְנְבוּ. יִשָּׁבַע זֶה בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ כַּמָּה הוֹצִיא וְיִטּל וְיַחְזֹר הַכְּלִי לַבְּעָלִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת גְּנֵבָה. טָעַן אַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי אוֹ נְתַתּוֹ לִי בְּמַתָּנָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיָּצָא לוֹ שֵׁם גְּנֵבָה אִם לֹא הָיָה מִדְּבָרִים הָעֲשׂוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְיַעֲמֹד הַכְּלִי בְּיָדוֹ. מִכָּאן אַתָּה לָמֵד לְכָל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מִטַּלְטְלִין בְּיָדוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר שֶׁלְּקוּחִין הֵן בְּיָדִי וְיִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת וְיִפָּטֵר. אִם אָמַר שֶׁלְּךָ הֵן אֲבָל חַיָּב אַתָּה לִי כָּךְ וְכָךְ יִשָּׁבַע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִטּל כְּדִין כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהָיוּ בְּיָדוֹ דְּבָרִים הָעֲשׂוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוֹדָה וְאָמַר לוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁהֵם שֶׁלְּךָ אֲבָל פְּלוֹנִי מְכָרָם לִי אוֹ נְתָנָם לִי בְּמַתָּנָה אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן מִיָּדוֹ. אֲפִלּוּ הֵבִיא זֶה עֵדִים שֶׁהָיוּ יְדוּעִין לוֹ. שֶׁאָדָם עָשׂוּי לִמְכֹּר אֶת כֵּלָיו: \n", + "טָעַן זֶה עָלָיו וְאָמַר שֶׁאֲנִי הִשְׂכַּרְתִּים לְךָ אוֹ הִשְׁאַלְתִּים לְךָ מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן מִיָּדוֹ. וְאִם הָיוּ מִדְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָן עֲשׂוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא הִשְׁאִיל לוֹ וְלֹא הִשְׂכִּיר לוֹ אֶלָּא מִפְּלוֹנִי לָקַח וְיַעֲמִיד כֵּלָיו בְּיָדוֹ: \n", + "אַל תִּטְעֶה בֵּין דְּבָרִים הָעֲשׂוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר לִדְבָרִים שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר כְּמוֹ שֶׁטָּעוּ רַבִּים וּגְדוֹלִים. שֶׁכָּל הַדְּבָרִים רְאוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל וְדַרְכָּן לְהַשְׁאִיל אֲפִלּוּ חֲלוּקוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם וּמַצָּעוֹ וּמִטָּתוֹ רְאוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל. אֲבָל דְּבָרִים הָעֲשׂוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר הֵם הַכֵּלִים שֶׁבְּנֵי אוֹתָהּ מְדִינָה עוֹשִׂין אוֹתָן מִתְּחִלַּת עֲשִׂיָּתָן כְּדֵי לְהַשְׁאִילָן וּלְהַשְׂכִּירָן וְלִטּל שְׂכָרָן וַהֲרֵי הֵן לְבַעְלֵיהֶן. כְּמוֹ קַרְקַע שֶׁאוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ וְהַגּוּף קַיָּם כָּךְ אֵלּוּ הַכֵּלִים עִקַּר עֲשִׂיָּתָן כְּדֵי לֵהָנוֹת בִּשְׂכָרָן. כְּגוֹן הַיּוֹרוֹת הַגְּדוֹלוֹת שֶׁל נְחשֶׁת שֶׁמְּבַשְּׁלִין בָּהֶן בְּבֵית הַמִּשְׁתָּאוֹת. וּכְגוֹן כְּלִי נְחשֶׁת הַטּוּחַ בְּזָהָב שֶׁשּׂוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ לַכַּלָּה לְהִתְקַשֵּׁט בּוֹ. שֶׁעֲשִׂיַּת אֵלּוּ הַכֵּלִים אֵינָן לִמְכִירַת עַצְמָן וְלֹא לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן בַּעַל הַבַּיִת בְּבֵיתוֹ אֶלָּא לְהַשְׁאִילָן לַאֲחֵרִים כְּדֵי לֵהָנוֹת כְּנֶגְדָּן אוֹ לְהַשְׂכִּירָן וְלִטּל שְׂכָרָן. וְכֵן אִם הָיָה לְאָדָם מִשְּׁאָר הַכֵּלִים וְיֵשׁ לוֹ עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא מַשְׂכִּירוֹ תָּמִיד וּמַשְׁאִילוֹ וְהֻחְזַק לוֹ שֶׁהוּא לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר הֲרֵי הֵן כְּכֵלִים הָעֲשׂוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר: \n", + "וּכְלִי שֶׁהֶפְסֵדוֹ מְרֻבֶּה מִשְּׂכָרוֹ וּבְנֵי אָדָם מַקְפִּידִין עָלָיו שֶׁלֹּא יַשְׁאִילוּהוּ הֲרֵי הוּא בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁאֵינוֹ עָשׂוּי לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר כְּגוֹן סַכִּין שֶׁל שְׁחִיטָה. לְפִיכָךְ אֲפִלּוּ בָּאוּ בְּנֵי אָדָם וְהֵעִידוּ שֶׁהִשְׁאִילוֹ אוֹ הִשְׂכִּירוֹ זֶה אֵין מְבַטְּלִין בָּהֶן חֶזְקָתָן אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הֵן כְּכָל הַכֵּלִים. רְאָיָה לִדְבָרֵינוּ שֶׁהֲרֵי רָבָא הוֹצִיא זוּג שֶׁעוֹשִׂין בּוֹ הַסַּרְבָּל וְסֵפֶר הַגָּדָה בִּדְבָרִים הָעֲשׂוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר. וְלוּלֵי שֶׁנִּתְבָּרֵר לוֹ בְּעֵדִים שֶׁהֵן מִדְּבָרִים הָעֲשׂוּיִים לְהַשְׁאִיל לֹא הוֹצִיא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי יְתוֹמִים. הָא שְׁאָר הַזּוּגוֹת וּשְׁאָר הַסְּפָרִים אֵינָן בִּכְלַל דִּין זֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן רְאוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר. וְדָבָר זֶה עִקָּר גָּדוֹל בַּדִּין וְהוּא דָּבָר שֶׁל טַעַם שֶׁרָאוּי לִסְמֹךְ עָלָיו וְלָדוּן בּוֹ וּבָרוּר הוּא לְמוֹצְאֵי דַּעַת וְרָאוּי לַדַּיָּן לָשׂוּם אוֹתוֹ לְנֶגֶד עֵינָיו וְלֹא יָלוֹז: \n" + ], + [ + "הָאֻמָּן אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה בַּכֵּלִים שֶׁתַּחַת יָדוֹ. אֶחָד כֵּלִים הָעֲשׂוּיִים לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר וְאֶחָד שְׁאָר כֵּלִים. כֵּיצַד. רָאָה כֶּלְיוֹ בְּיַד הָאֻמָּן וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁהֵן יוֹדְעִין שֶׁהַכְּלִי זֶה שֶׁלּוֹ וְהוּא טוֹעֵן וְאוֹמֵר לְתַקֵּן נְתַתִּיו לְךָ. וְהָאֻמָּן אוֹמֵר לֹא בָּא לְיָדִי אֶלָּא בִּמְכִירָה אוֹ מַתָּנָה. אוֹ שֶׁטָּעַן אַתָּה נְתַתּוֹ לִי אַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי אַחַר שֶׁבָּא לְיָדִי לְתַקְּנוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּסָרוֹ לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵדִים בַּעַל הַכְּלִי נֶאֱמָן וּמוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִיַּד הָאֻמָּן וְיִשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הֶסֵּת עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ. וְיֵשׁ גְּאוֹנִים שֶׁדָּנוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עֵדִים שֶׁזֶּה הַכְּלִי שֶׁלּוֹ הוֹאִיל וְרָאָה כֶּלְיוֹ בְּיַד הָאֻמָּן וַהֲרֵי הָאֻמָּן מוֹדֶה לוֹ שֶׁהָיָה שֶׁלּוֹ וּמְכָרוֹ לוֹ נֶאֱמָן. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם וְשֶׁלִּי הוּא הַכְּלִי נֶאֱמָן הָאֻמָּן וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת. וְאִם הֵבִיא בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עֵדִים שֶׁהַכְּלִי הַזֶּה יָדוּעַ לוֹ אֵין הָאֻמָּן נֶאֱמָן. וְדִין זֶה פֶּלֶא הוּא בְּעֵינַי: \n", + "לֹא רָאָה הַכְּלִי בְּיַד הָאֻמָּן אֶלָּא טָעַן וְאָמַר כְּלִי פְּלוֹנִי נְתַתִּיו לוֹ לְתַקֵּן וְהָאֻמָּן אוֹמֵר חָזַרְתָּ וּמְכַרְתּוֹ אוֹ נְתַתּוֹ לִי הָאֻמָּן נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. וַאֲפִלּוּ מְסָרוֹ לְתַקֵּן בְּעֵדִים הָאֻמָּן נֶאֱמָן מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר הֶחְזַרְתִּי שֶׁהַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ בְּעֵדִים אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַחְזִיר לוֹ בְּעֵדִים. לְפִיכָךְ נִשְׁבָּע הָאֻמָּן הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר וְאֵין מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא הַכְּלִי. וְאִם הוֹצִיאוֹ הוֹאִיל וְנִרְאֶה הֲרֵי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא שֶׁלּוֹ וְנוֹטְלוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּסָרוֹ לוֹ בְּלֹא עֵדִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם טָעַן הָאֻמָּן וְאָמַר שְׁתַּיִם קָצַצְתָּ לִי בִּשְׂכָרִי וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹמֵר לֹא קָצַצְתִּי לְךָ אֶלָּא אַחַת אִם הָיָה הַכְּלִי נִרְאֶה בִּפְנֵיהֶם הוֹאִיל וְהָאֻמָּן אֵין לוֹ בּוֹ חֲזָקָה וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן שֶׁהוּא לָקוּחַ בְּיָדוֹ הֲרֵי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת נִשְׁבָּע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ עַל הַקְּצִיצָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בִּשְׂכִירוּת וְנוֹתֵן. וְאִם אֵין הַכְּלִי נִרְאֶה בִּפְנֵיהֶם הוֹאִיל וְהָאֻמָּן נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר לָקוּחַ הוּא בְּיָדִי יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן עַד כְּדֵי דָּמָיו וְנִשְׁבָּע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ וְנוֹטֵל כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "אֻמָּן שֶׁיָּרַד מֵאֻמָּנוּתוֹ וּבֶן הָאֻמָּן הֲרֵי הֵן כִּשְׁאָר כָּל אָדָם וְיֵשׁ לָהֶן חֲזָקָה בְּכָל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "מִי שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְבֵיתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ בִּפְנֵי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת וְיָצָא וְכֵלִים טְמוּנִין תַּחַת כְּנָפָיו וְהָעֵדִים רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ. וּלְאַחַר זְמַן תְּבָעוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת וְאָמַר לוֹ הַחְזֵר לִי כֵּלִים שֶׁהִשְׁאַלְתִּיךָ וַהֲרֵי הָעֵדִים וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לְקוּחִין הֵן בְּיָדִי אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. וְנִשְׁבָּע בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הֶסֵּת עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מְכָרָן וְלֹא נְתָנָן וְיַחֲזִירוּ בֵּית דִּין הַכֵּלִים לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁאֵינוֹ עָשׂוּי לִמְכֹּר אֶת כֵּלָיו. וְזֶה שֶׁהוֹצִיא הַכֵּלִים תַּחַת כְּנָפָיו אֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהַצְנִיעַ. וְאוֹתָן הַכֵּלִים אֵין דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם לְהַצְנִיעָן. לְפִיכָךְ חַיָּב לְהַחְזִיר לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא הִצְנִיעָן אֶלָּא לִכְפֹּר בָּהֶן. אֲבָל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הֶעָשׂוּי לִמְכֹּר אֶת כֵּלָיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין זֶה צָנוּעַ וְאֵין דֶּרֶךְ אוֹתָן הַכֵּלִים לְהַטְמִינָן תַּחַת הַכְּנָפַיִם הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁהֵן לְקוּחִין בְּיָדוֹ. וְכֵן אִם יָצָא בָּהֶן מְגֻלִּין בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עָשׂוּי לִמְכֹּר אֶת כֵּלָיו הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר לְקוּחִין הֵן בְּיָדִי. שֶׁמָּא נִצְטָרְכוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת וּמָכַר. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ מִדְּבָרִים הָעֲשׂוּיִים לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר. אֲבָל דְּבָרִים הָעֲשׂוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר לְעוֹלָם הֵן בְּחֶזְקַת בַּעֲלֵיהֶן כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוֹצִיאָן מְגֻלִּין וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבַּעַל הַבַּיִת הַזֶּה עָשׂוּי לִמְכֹּר אֶת כֵּלָיו הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ לוֹ עֵדִים שֶׁזֶּה הַכְּלִי עָשׂוּי לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר בִּלְבַד יָדוּעַ הוּא לוֹ מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן מִיַּד זֶה עַל כָּל פָּנִים עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁמְּכָרוֹ לוֹ אוֹ נְתָנוֹ לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה כְּדִין קַרְקָעוֹת: \n", + "אֲפִלּוּ מֵת זֶה שֶׁהַכְּלִי תַּחַת יָדוֹ מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִיַּד הַיּוֹרֵשׁ בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵין לְאָבִיו לִטְעֹן שֶׁלְּקָחוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהוּא מַשְׁכּוֹן כָּךְ אֵין זֶה יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁבִּיעוֹ. וְאִם טָעַן הַיּוֹרֵשׁ טַעֲנַת וַדַּאי וְאָמַר בְּפָנַי נְתָנוֹ לְאָבִי אוֹ מְכָרוֹ לוֹ הֲרֵי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת כִּשְׁאָר כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ מִי שֶׁהוֹרָה שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הֶסֵּת וְאַחַר כָּךְ יַחְזִיר כֶּלְיוֹ מִיַּד הַיּוֹרֵשׁ. וְאֵין דַּעְתִּי נוֹטָה לָזֶה: \n", + "מִי שֶׁלָּקַח קַרְדֹּם וְאָמַר הֲרֵינִי הוֹלֵךְ לִגְזֹר דִּקְלוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁמְּכָרוֹ לִי וְכָרַת הַדֶּקֶל הֲרֵי זֶה בְּחֶזְקָתוֹ. שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מֵעֵז פָּנָיו וְכוֹרֵת אִילָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. וְאִם טְעָנוֹ הַבְּעָלִים שֶׁלֹּא מְכָרוּהוּ נִשְׁבָּע זֶה הַכּוֹרֵת הֶסֵּת שֶׁהוּא שֶׁלּוֹ וְנִפְטָר. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁנִּכְרַת הֲרֵי הוּא כִּשְׁאָר כָּל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין. וְכֵן הַיּוֹרֵד לִשְׂדֵה חֲבֵרוֹ וְאָכַל פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ שָׁנָה אוֹ שְׁנָתַיִם וְהַבְּעָלִים טוֹעֲנִין שֶׁזֶּה יָרַד שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת וּגְזָלָן הוּא וְאָכַל וַהֲרֵי הָעֵדִים שֶׁאָכַל וְהַיּוֹרֵד אוֹמֵר בִּרְשׁוּתְךָ יָרַדְתִּי לֶאֱכל פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ. הֲרֵי זֶה הָאוֹכֵל נֶאֱמָן וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת עַל כָּךְ חֲזָקָה הִיא שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מֵעֵז פָּנָיו וְאוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן שֶׁלּוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַקַּרְקַע בְּחֶזְקַת בַּעֲלֵיהֶן אֵין הַפֵּרוֹת בְּחֶזְקַת הַבְּעָלִים. שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מוֹכֵר פֵּרוֹת שָׂדֵהוּ בִּשְׁטָר כְּדֵי שֶׁנֹּאמַר לְזֶה שֶׁאָכַל הָבֵא שְׁטָרְךָ. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁאִם אָכַל פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ שָׁנִים רַבּוֹת שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר לְפֵרוֹת יָרַדְתִּי וְיִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת: \n", + "שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹחֲזִין בִּכְלִי אֶחָד אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ רוֹכְבִין עַל גַּבֵּי בְּהֵמָה אַחַת. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד רוֹכֵב וְאֶחָד מַנְהִיג. אוֹ יוֹשְׁבִין בְּצַד עֲרֵמָה שֶׁל חִטִּים וּמֻנָּחוֹת בְּסִמְטָא אוֹ בְּחָצֵר שֶׁל שְׁנֵיהֶם. זֶה אוֹמֵר הַכּל שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר הַכּל שֶׁלִּי. כָּל אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶן נִשְׁבָּע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בְּזֶה הַדָּבָר פָּחוֹת מֵחֶצְיוֹ וְיַחְלֹקוּ. וּשְׁבוּעָה זוֹ תַּקָּנַת חֲכָמִים הִיא כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה כָּל אֶחָד תּוֹפֵס בְּטַלִּיתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ וְנוֹטֵל בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה: \n", + "זֶה אוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר חֶצְיָהּ שֶׁלִּי הָאוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָקִים. וְהָאוֹמֵר חֶצְיָהּ שֶׁלִּי יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ פָּחוֹת מֵרְבִיעַ. וְזֶה נוֹטֵל שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָקִים וְזֶה נוֹטֵל רְבִיעַ. מִכָּאן אַתָּה לָמֵד לְכָל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין לִטּל בֵּין שְׁבוּעָה קַלָּה בֵּין שְׁבוּעָה חֲמוּרָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע עַל מַה שֶּׁטּוֹעֵן אֶלָּא עַל מַה שֶּׁנּוֹטֵל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁטּוֹעֵן יוֹתֵר: \n", + "הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם אֲדוּקִין בְּטַלִּית זֶה אוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי. זֶה נוֹטֵל עַד מָקוֹם שֶׁיָּדוֹ מַגַּעַת וְזֶה נוֹטֵל עַד מָקוֹם שֶׁיָּדוֹ מַגַּעַת וְהַשְּׁאָר חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּעִין. וְיֵשׁ לְכָל אֶחָד לְגַלְגֵּל עַל חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁכָּל מַה שֶּׁנָּטַל כַּדִּין נָטַל: \n", + "הָיָה זֶה אוֹחֵז בַּחוּטִין שֶׁבִּשְׂפַת הַטַּלִּית וְזֶה בַּחוּטִין שֶׁבִּשְׂפַת הָאַחֶרֶת חוֹלְקִין כֻּלָּהּ בְּשָׁוֶה אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּעִין. וְכָל חֲלוּקָה הָאֲמוּרָה כָּאן בְּדָמִים לֹא שֶׁיַּפְסִידוּ עַצְמוֹ שֶׁל כְּלִי אוֹ שֶׁל טַלִּית אוֹ שֶׁיָּמִיתוּ הַבְּהֵמָה: \n", + "הָיָה אוֹחֵז הָאֶחָד אֶת כֻּלָּהּ וְזֶה מִתְאַבֵּק עִמּוֹ וְנִתְלֶה בָּהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת הָאוֹחֵז אֶת כֻּלָּהּ: \n", + "בָּאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲדוּקִין בָּהּ וּשְׁמָטָהּ הָאֶחָד מִיַּד חֲבֵרוֹ בְּפָנֵינוּ וְשָׁתַק הַשֵּׁנִי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזַר וְצָוַח אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁתַק בַּתְּחִלָּה הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמוֹדֶה לוֹ. חָזַר הַשֵּׁנִי וּתְקָפָהּ מֵרִאשׁוֹן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָרִאשׁוֹן (לֹא) צָוַח מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף חוֹלְקִין: \n", + "בָּאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲדוּקִין בְּטַלִּית וְאָמַרְנוּ לָהֶם צְאוּ וְחַלְּקוּ אֶת דָּמֶיהָ יָצְאוּ וְחָזְרוּ וַהֲרֵי הִיא תַּחַת יַד אֶחָד מֵהֶן זֶה טוֹעֵן הוֹדָה וְנִסְתַּלֵּק מִמֶּנָּה וְזֶה טוֹעֵן שֶׁמְּכַרְתִּיו לוֹ אוֹ נִתְגַּבֵּר עָלַי וַחֲטָפָהּ הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה יִשָּׁבַע זֶה שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלּוֹ וְיִפָּטֵר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n" + ], + [ + "בְּהֵמָה אוֹ חַיָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שְׁמוּרָה אֶלָּא מְהַלֶּכֶת בְּכָל מָקוֹם וְרוֹעָה. אֵינָהּ בְּחֶזְקַת זֶה שֶׁתְּפָסָהּ מֵאַחַר שֶׁהִיא יְדוּעָה לַבְּעָלִים. כֵּיצַד. הֵבִיא הַתּוֹבֵעַ עֵדִים שֶׁהַבְּהֵמָה הַזֹּאת יְדוּעָה לוֹ וְזֶה הַתּוֹפֵס טוֹעֵן אַתָּה נְתַתָּהּ לִי אַתָּה מְכַרְתָּהּ לִי אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. שֶׁאֵין הֱיוֹתָהּ תַּחַת יָדוֹ רְאָיָה שֶׁהֲרֵי הִיא הָלְכָה מֵעַצְמָהּ וְנִכְנְסָה בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם לֹא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה תַּחְזֹר הַבְּהֵמָה לִבְעָלֶיהָ וְיִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת עַל טַעֲנָה זוֹ: \n", + "הָיְתָה הַבְּהֵמָה שְׁמוּרָה אוֹ מְסוּרָה לְרוֹעֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵבִיא זֶה עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלּוֹ הֲרֵי הִיא בְּחֶזְקַת זֶה שֶׁהִיא תַּחַת יָדוֹ וְאִם טָעַן אַתָּה מְכַרְתָּהּ אוֹ נְתַתָּהּ לִי יִשָּׁבַע הַתּוֹפֵס הֶסֵּת שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלּוֹ וְיִפָּטֵר: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ מִי שֶׁתָּפַס בֶּהֱמַת חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה שְׁמוּרָה אוֹ בְּיַד רוֹעֶה. וְהַבְּעָלִים טוֹעֲנִין הִיא יָצָאת מֵעַצְמָהּ וּבָאָה אֶצְלְךָ אוֹ פִּקָּדוֹן הִיא בְּיָדְךָ אוֹ שְׁאוּלָה הִיא לְךָ. וְהַתּוֹפֵס אוֹמֵר כֵּן הוּא אֵינָהּ שֶׁלִּי אֲבָל אַתָּה חַיָּב לִי כָּךְ וְכָךְ אוֹ אַתָּה מִשְׁכַּנְתָּהּ בְּיָדִי עַל כָּךְ וְכָךְ אוֹ הִזַּקְתָּ אוֹתִי נֵזֶק שֶׁאַתָּה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם כָּךְ וְכָךְ. יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן עַד כְּדֵי דָּמֶיהָ מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי וְיִשָּׁבַע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ וְיִטּל: \n", + "וְכֵן הָעֲבָדִים שֶׁיְּכוֹלִין לְהַלֵּךְ אֵינָן בְּחֶזְקַת זֶה שֶׁהֵן תַּחַת יָדוֹ אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֵבִיא הַטּוֹעֵן עֵדִים שֶׁזֶּה יָדוּעַ שֶׁהוּא עַבְדּוֹ וְהַלָּה טוֹעֵן אַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי אַתָּה נְתַתּוֹ לִי בְּמַתָּנָה אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן וְיַחְזֹר הָעֶבֶד לִבְעָלָיו וְיִשָּׁבַע הַטּוֹעֵן שֶׁלֹּא מָכַר וְלֹא נָתַן. הֵבִיא זֶה הַנִּטְעָן שֶׁתָּפַס הָעֶבֶד עֵדִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְזֶה הָעֶבֶד אֶצְלוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים רְצוּפוֹת מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם וְהוּא מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהָעֲבָדִים מְשַׁמְּשִׁין אֶת רַבָּן הוֹאִיל וְלֹא מִחָה בּוֹ בְּכָל אֵלּוּ הַשָּׁנִים הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן וּמַעֲמִידִין אוֹתוֹ בְּיָדוֹ אַחַר שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת שֶׁלְּקָחוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ אוֹ נְתָנוֹ לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה. אֲבָל עֶבֶד קָטָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַלֵּךְ עַל רַגְלָיו מִפְּנֵי קַטְנוּתוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כִּשְׁאָר הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין וְכָל מִי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא בְּחֶזְקָתוֹ וְהַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה: \n", + "הַטּוֹעֵן אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ וְאָמַר בֶּגֶד אוֹ בְּהֵמָה אוֹ עֶבֶד זֶה שֶׁבְּיָדְךָ שֶׁלִּי הוּא אוֹ שָׁאוּל אוֹ גָּזוּל אוֹ הִפְקַדְתִּיו אֶצְלְךָ אוֹ שָׂכוּר לְךָ. וְהַנִּטְעָן אָמַר לֹא כִּי אֶלָּא זֶה מָמוֹנִי וִירֻשָּׁתִי. וְהֵבִיא הַטּוֹעֵן עֵדִים שֶׁהֵעִידוּ שֶׁהֵן יוֹדְעִין שֶׁזֶּה הַחֵפֶץ אוֹ הָעֶבֶד אוֹ הַבְּהֵמָה יְדוּעָה שֶׁהִיא הָיְתָה לָזֶה. חָזַר הַנִּטְעָן וְאָמַר כֵּן הָיָה שֶׁלְּךָ אֲבָל אַתָּה נְתַתּוֹ לִי אוֹ מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי וְזֶה שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי יְרֻשָּׁתִי לֹא שֶׁיְּרַשְׁתִּיו מֵאֲבוֹתַי אֶלָּא שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלִּי כְּאִלּוּ יְרַשְׁתִּיו. הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת. שֶׁכְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לַטּוֹעֵן לַחְזֹר לִטְעֹן דָּבָר הַנִּשְׁמָע: \n", + "סְפִינָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנַיִם נֶחְלָקִין עָלֶיהָ זֶה אוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וּבָאוּ לְבֵית דִּין וְאָמַר אֶחָד תִּפְסוּהָ עַד שֶׁאָבִיא עֵדִים אֵין תּוֹפְסִין אוֹתָהּ. וְאִם תְּפָסוּהָ בֵּית דִּין וְהָלַךְ וְלֹא מָצָא עֵדִים וְאָמַר הַנִּיחוּהָ בֵּינֵינוּ וְכָל הַמִּתְגַּבֵּר יִטּל כְּשֶׁהָיָה דִּינָהּ מִקֹּדֶם אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לָהֶן וְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ בֵּית דִּין מִיָּדָן עַד שֶׁיָּבִיאוּ עֵדִים אוֹ עַד שֶׁיּוֹדוּ זֶה לָזֶה אוֹ יַחֲלֹקוּ בִּרְצוֹנָם וּבִשְׁבוּעָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n" + ], + [ + "כָּל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת הַיְדוּעוֹת לבַעְלֵיהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן עַתָּה תַּחַת יַד אֲחֵרִים הֲרֵי הֵן בְּחֶזְקַת בַּעְלֵיהֶן. כֵּיצַד. רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהָיָה מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בֶּחָצֵר כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהָעָם מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בְּחַצְרוֹתֵיהֶן. דָּר בָּהּ וּמַשְׂכִּירָהּ לַאֲחֵרִים וּבוֹנֶה וְסוֹתֵר. וְאַחַר זְמַן בָּא שִׁמְעוֹן וְטָעַן עָלָיו וְאָמַר לוֹ חָצֵר זוֹ שֶׁתַּחַת יָדְךָ שֶׁלִּי הִיא וּשְׂכוּרָה הִיא בְּיָדְךָ אוֹ שְׁאוּלָה. וֶהֱשִׁיבוֹ רְאוּבֵן שֶׁלְּךָ הָיְתָה וְאַתָּה מְכַרְתָּהּ לִי אוֹ נְתַתָּהּ לִי בְּמַתָּנָה. אִם אֵין עֵדִים לְשִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה יְדוּעָה לוֹ נִשְׁבָּע רְאוּבֵן הֶסֵּת וְיַעֲמֹד בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הֵבִיא שִׁמְעוֹן עֵדִים שֶׁחָצֵר זוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ הָיְתָה הֲרֵי הִיא בְּחֶזְקַת שִׁמְעוֹן וְאוֹמְרִין לִרְאוּבֵן הָבֵא רְאָיָה שֶׁמְּכָרָהּ לְךָ אוֹ נְתָנָהּ לְךָ. וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ מִמֶּנָּה וּמַחֲזִיקִין אוֹתָהּ לְשִׁמְעוֹן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רְאוּבֵן מוֹדֶה לְשִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁהִיא הָיְתָה שֶׁלּוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ עֵדִים לְשִׁמְעוֹן: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁמַּצְרִיכִין רְאוּבֵן לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה אוֹ יִסְתַּלֵּק בְּשֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהּ זְמַן מְרֻבֶּה. אֲבָל אִם הֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁאָכַל פֵּרוֹת קַרְקַע שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים רְצוּפוֹת וְנֶהֱנָה בְּכֻלָּהּ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁנֶּהֱנִין כָּל אָדָם בְּאוֹתָהּ קַרְקַע. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה אֶפְשָׁר לַבְּעָלִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים שֶׁיֵּדְעוּ בָּזֶה שֶׁהֶחְזִיק וְלֹא מִחוּ בּוֹ. מַעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּיַד רְאוּבֵן וְיִשָּׁבַע רְאוּבֵן הֶסֵּת שֶׁמְּכָרָהּ לוֹ שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹ נְתָנָהּ לוֹ וְיִפָּטֵר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאוֹמְרִים לוֹ לְשִׁמְעוֹן אִם אֱמֶת אַתָּה טוֹעֵן שֶׁלֹּא מָכַרְתָּ וְלֹא נָתַתָּ לָמָּה הָיָה זֶה מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ שָׁנָה אַחַר שָׁנָה בְּקַרְקָעֲךָ וְאֵין לְךָ עָלָיו לֹא שְׁטַר שְׂכִירוּת וְלֹא שְׁטַר מַשְׁכּוֹנָהּ וְלֹא מָחִיתָ בּוֹ. טָעַן וְאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ אֵלַי הַדָּבָר שֶׁהֲרֵי הָיִיתִי בִּמְדִינָה רְחוֹקָה אוֹמְרִים אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא יַגִּיעַ לְיָדְךָ הַדָּבָר בְּשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְכֵיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְךָ הָיָה לְךָ לִמְחוֹת בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים וְתוֹדִיעַ אוֹתָם שֶׁפְּלוֹנִי גָּזַל אוֹתִי לְמָחָר אֶתְבָּעֶנּוּ בְּדִין. הוֹאִיל וְלֹא מָחִיתָ אַתָּה הִפְסַדְתָּ עַל עַצְמְךָ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיְתָה מִלְחָמָה וְשִׁבּוּשׁ דְּרָכִים בֵּין הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁהָיָה בּוֹ רְאוּבֵן וּבֵין הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁהָיָה בּוֹ שִׁמְעוֹן אֲפִלּוּ אֲכָלָהּ רְאוּבֵן עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ תַּחַת יָדוֹ וְחוֹזֶרֶת לְשִׁמְעוֹן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לֹא יָדַעְתִּי שֶׁזֶּה מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּקַרְקָעִי: \n", + "הֵבִיא רְאוּבֵן עֵדִים שֶׁהָיָה שִׁמְעוֹן בָּא בְּכָל שָׁנָה וְעוֹמֵד בְּמָקוֹם זֶה שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אוֹ פָּחוֹת. אוֹמְרִים לְשִׁמְעוֹן מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא מָחִיתָ כְּשֶׁבָּאתָ אִבַּדְתָּ זְכוּתְךָ. טָעַן שִׁמְעוֹן וְאָמַר טָרוּד הָיִיתִי בַּשּׁוּק וְלֹא יָדַעְתִּי שֶׁזֶּה בְּתוֹךְ חֲצֵרִי הֲרֵי זוֹ טַעֲנָה. שֶׁכָּל שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם יִהְיֶה אָדָם טָרוּד בַּשּׁוּק. וְאִם עָמַד יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וְלֹא מִחָה אִבֵּד אֶת זְכוּתוֹ. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁהַדִּין זֶה אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בַּכְּפָרִים שֶׁהָעָם טְרוּדִין בַּשְּׁוָקִים שֶׁלָּהֶן: \n", + "וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אֵין אוֹמְרִין לִרְאוּבֵן אִם אֱמֶת הַדָּבָר שֶׁמָּכַר לְךָ אוֹ נָתַן לְךָ בְּמַתָּנָה לָמָּה לֹא נִזְהַרְתָּ בַּשְּׁטָר שֶׁלְּךָ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין אָדָם נִזְהָר בִּשְׁטָרוֹ וְהוֹלֵךְ כָּל יָמָיו וַחֲזָקָה שֶׁאֵין אָדָם נִזְהָר בִּשְׁטָר אֶלָּא עַד שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁרוֹאֶה שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מְמַחֶה בּוֹ שׁוּב אֵינוֹ נִזְהָר: \n", + "הֲרֵי שֶׁמִּחָה שִׁמְעוֹן בִּמְדִינָה רְחוֹקָה מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא יִטְעֹן רְאוּבֵן וְיֹאמַר לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁמִּחָה בִּי כְּדֵי שֶׁאֶזָּהֵר בַּשְּׁטָר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאוֹמֵר לוֹ חֲבֵרְךָ יֵשׁ לוֹ חָבֵר וַחֲבֵרוֹ יֵשׁ לוֹ חָבֵר וַחֲזָקָה שֶׁהִגִּיעַ אֵלֶיךָ הַדָּבָר וְכֵיוָן שֶׁיָּדַעְתָּ שֶׁמִּחָה בְּךָ בְּתוֹךְ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים בֶּאֱמֶת הָיָה לְךָ שְׁטָר וְלֹא נִזְהַרְתָּ בּוֹ אַתָּה הִפְסַדְתָּ עַל עַצְמְךָ: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ אִם מִחָה שִׁמְעוֹן בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים וְאָמַר לָהֶם אַל תּוֹצִיאוּ דָּבָר זֶה מִפִּיכֶם אֵין זֶה מְחָאָה. אֲבָל אִם אָמְרוּ הָעֵדִים מֵעַצְמָן אֵין דָּבָר זֶה יוֹצֵא מִפִּינוּ הֲרֵי גַּם זוֹ מְחָאָה. שֶׁהַדָּבָר שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מְצֻוֶּה עָלָיו אוֹמְרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוָּנָה. וְכֵן אִם צִוָּה לְעֵדִים וְאָמַר לָהֶם אַל תּוֹדִיעוּהוּ אוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ הֵן מֵעַצְמָן אֵין אָנוּ מוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ גַּם זוֹ מְחָאָה הִיא. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן מוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ מוֹדִיעִין הֵם לַאֲחֵרִים וְדָבָר זֶה יַגִּיעַ אֵלָיו: \n", + "כֵּיצַד הַמְּחָאָה. אוֹמֵר בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בַּחֲצֵרִי אוֹ בְּשָׂדִי גַּזְלָן הוּא וּלְעָתִיד אֲנִי תּוֹבֵעַ אוֹתוֹ בְּדִין. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר לָהֶם שְׂכוּרָה הִיא בְּיָדוֹ אוֹ מַשְׁכּוֹנָה וְאִם יִטְעֹן עָלַי שֶׁמָּכַרְתִּי אוֹ נָתַתִּי אֲנִי תּוֹבֵעַ אוֹתוֹ בְּדִין. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה הֲרֵי זוֹ מְחָאָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא מִחָה בִּמְדִינָה זוֹ שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בָּהּ זֶה. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לָהֶן פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁמִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בַּחֲצֵרִי גַּזְלָן הוּא אֵין זוֹ מְחָאָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי רְאוּבֵן אוֹמֵר כְּשֶׁשָּׁמַעְתִּי אָמַרְתִּי שֶׁמָּא חֵרֵף אוֹתִי בִּלְבַד וּלְפִיכָךְ לֹא נִזְהַרְתִּי בִּשְׁטָרִי: \n", + "מְחָאָה בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם מְחָאָה וְכוֹתְבִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לָהֶם כְּתֹבוּ. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁמִּחָה בְּשָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לַחְזֹר וְלִמְחוֹת בְּכָל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה. אֲבָל צָרִיךְ שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה בֵּין מְחָאָה לִמְחָאָה שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים גְּמוּרוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ צָרִיךְ לִמְחוֹת בְּסוֹף כָּל שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים. וְאִם מִחָה וְעָמַד שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים גְּמוּרוֹת וְאַחַר כָּךְ מִחָה אֵינָהּ מְחָאָה: \n", + "הֵבִיא רְאוּבֵן עֵדִים שֶׁזֶּה שִׁמְעוֹן בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה קִבֵּץ פֵּרוֹת שָׂדֶה זוֹ וּנְתָנָם לִי תַּעֲמֹד הַשָּׂדֶה בְּיַד רְאוּבֵן וַאֲפִלּוּ טָעַן שֶׁשִּׁמְעוֹן מְכָרָהּ לוֹ אוֹ נָתַן לוֹ הַיּוֹם שֶׁאִלּוּ לֹא מָכַר אוֹ נָתַן לֹא הָיָה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ אֶת רְאוּבֵן בְּשָׂדֶה זוֹ וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ: \n", + "טָעַן שִׁמְעוֹן וְאָמַר אֱמֶת הָיָה הַדָּבָר וּלְפֵרוֹת הוֹרַדְתִּיו וְשֶׁלּוֹ הָיוּ הַפֵּרוֹת אֲבָל הַגּוּף לֹא מָכַרְתִּי נֶאֱמָן וְחוֹזֵר לְשִׁמְעוֹן אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן אֲכָלָהּ רְאוּבֵן בְּפָנָיו שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְלֹא מִחָה בּוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n" + ], + [ + "שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם אֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ חֲסֵרִים יוֹם אֶחָד לֹא הֶחֱזִיק וּמְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ מִמֶּנָּה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּקַרְקָעוֹת שֶׁהֵן עוֹשִׂין פֵּרוֹת תָּמִיד כְּגוֹן הַבָּתִּים וְהַחֲצֵרוֹת וְהַבּוֹרוֹת וְהַשִּׁיחִין וְהַמְּעָרוֹת וְהַחֲנֻיּוֹת וְהַפֻּנְדָּקוֹת וְהַמֶּרְחֲצָאוֹת וְהַשׁוֹבָכוֹת וּבָתֵּי הַבַּדִּין וּשְׂדֵה בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין שֶׁמַּשְׁקִין אוֹתָה תָּמִיד וְזוֹרְעִין בָּהּ וְנוֹטְעִין וְהַגַּנּוֹת וְהַפַּרְדֵּסִין. וְכֵן עֲבָדִים הַמְהַלְּכִין כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֲבָל שְׂדֵה הַבַּעַל שֶׁהִיא שׁוֹתָה מִמֵּי גְּשָׁמִים בִּלְבַד וּשְׂדֵה אִילָן אֵינָהּ מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָכְלוּ שָׁלֹשׁ תְּבוּאוֹת מִמִּין אֶחָד הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים. כֵּיצַד. הָיְתָה שְׂדֵה תְּמָרִים וְגָדַר שָׁלֹשׁ גְּדֵרוֹת אוֹ שְׂדֵה עֲנָבִים וּבָצַר שָׁלֹשׁ בְּצִירוֹת אוֹ שְׂדֵה זֵיתִים וּמָסַק שָׁלֹשׁ מְסִיקוֹת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְהֶחֱזִיק. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ הָאִילָנוֹת רְצוּפִין וְלֹא הָיָה בֵּינֵיהֶן הַרְחָקָה כָּרָאוּי שֶׁהֲרֵי סוֹפָן לִיבַשׁ הוֹאִיל וְאוֹכְלָן שָׁלֹשׁ תְּבוּאוֹת הֶחֱזִיק: \n", + "הֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁהָיָה דָּר בְּחָצֵר זוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים אוֹ שֶׁשְּׂכָרָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה. טָעַן בַּעַל הֶחָצֵר וְאָמַר שֶׁמָּא לֹא שָׁכַן בָּהּ בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה אוֹ שֶׁמָּא אֵלּוּ שֶׁהִשְׂכִּירוּ לָהֶם לֹא שָׁכְנוּ בָּהּ בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה הֲרֵי זוֹ טַעֲנָה. אוֹמְרִים לַמַּחֲזִיק אוֹ תָּבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁשָּׁנִים אֵלּוּ גְּמוּרוֹת בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה אוֹ הִסְתַּלֵּק. אֲפִלּוּ בָּאוּ עֵדִים וְאָמְרוּ לָנוּ הִשְׂכִּיר וְאָנוּ דַּרְנוּ בָּהּ בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה וְטָעַן בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה וְאָמַר יָבִיאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁדָּרוּ בָּהּ בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה. צְרִיכִין אֵלּוּ הַשּׂוֹכְרִין לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁדָּרוּ בָּהּ תָּמִיד. שֶׁזֶּה הַדָּבָר תָּלוּי בָּהֶן וְאֵין תָּלוּי בְּטַעֲנַת הַמַּחֲזִיק כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּעִידוּ לוֹ: \n", + "הָיָה זֶה הַמַּחֲזִיק אוֹ הָעֵדִים שֶׁדָּרוּ בָּהּ מִן הָרוֹכְלִין הַמְחַזְּרִין בַּעֲיָרוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. טוֹעֲנִין אוֹתוֹ לְכַתְּחִלָּה וּכְשֶׁיָּבִיא עֵדֵי חֲזָקָה אוֹמֵר לוֹ הָבֵא עֵדִים שֶׁהָיִיתָ מַחֲזִיק בָּהּ בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בַּחֲצֵרוֹת וּבָתִּים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁהֵן עֲשׂוּיוֹת לָדוּר בְּתוֹכָן בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה. אֲבָל הַחֲנֻיּוֹת שֶׁל תַּגָּרִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁאֵין דָּרִין בָּהֶן אֶלָּא בַּיּוֹם כֵּיוָן שֶׁדָּר בָּהּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים בַּיּוֹם הֲרֵי זֶה חֲזָקָה: \n", + "שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיוּ רְצוּפוֹת זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ. הֲרֵי שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בְּשָׂדֶה וּזְרָעָהּ שָׁנָה וְהוֹבִירָהּ שָׁנָה וּזְרָעָהּ שָׁנָה וְהוֹבִירָהּ שָׁנָה. אֲפִלּוּ עָשָׂה כֵן כַּמָּה שָׁנִים לֹא הֶחֱזִיק. הָיָה דַּרְכָּן שֶׁל בְּנֵי אוֹתוֹ הַמָּקוֹם לְהוֹבִיר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּקְצָתָן זוֹרְעִין שָׁנָה אַחַר שָׁנָה וּמִקְצָתָן זוֹרְעִין שָׁנָה וּמוֹבִירִין שָׁנָה הֲרֵי זֶה הֶחֱזִיק שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא הוֹבַרְתִּי אוֹתָהּ אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁתַּעֲשֶׂה הַרְבֵּה בִּשְׁנַת הַזְּרִיעָה: \n", + "שְׁנֵי שֻׁתָּפִין שֶׁהֶחְזִיקוּ בְּשָׂדֶה שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים הָאֶחָד אֲכָלָהּ רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁלִישִׁית וַחֲמִישִׁית. וְהַשֵּׁנִי אֲכָלָהּ שְׁנִיָּה וּרְבִיעִית וְשִׁשִּׁית לֹא עָלְתָה חֲזָקָה לְאֶחָד מֵהֶם. שֶׁהֲרֵי בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע אוֹמֵר כֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא רָאִיתִי וְלֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בָּהּ אָדָם אֶחָד שָׁנָה אַחַר שָׁנָה מִפְּנֵי זֶה לֹא מָחִיתִי. לְפִיכָךְ אִם כָּתְבוּ אֵלּוּ הַשֻּׁתָּפִין שְׁטָר בֵּינֵיהֶן שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בָּהּ שָׁנָה אַחַר שָׁנָה כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָבַר שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים עָלְתָה לָהֶן חֲזָקָה. שֶׁהַשְּׁטָר יֵשׁ לוֹ קוֹל וְהוֹאִיל וְלֹא מִחָה אִבֵּד זְכוּתוֹ. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְעֶבֶד שֶׁהֶחְזִיקוּ בּוֹ שְׁנַיִם וְנִשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בּוֹ שָׁנָה אַחַר שָׁנָה אִם כָּתְבוּ שְׁטָר בֵּינֵיהֶן הֲרֵי הֶחֱזִיקוּ: \n", + "אֲכָלָהּ שָׁנָה זֶה הַמַּחֲזִיק וּמְכָרָהּ וַאֲכָלָהּ הַלּוֹקֵחַ שָׁנָה וּמָכַר לְלוֹקֵחַ שֵׁנִי וַאֲכָלָהּ שָׁנָה. אִם מָכְרוּ זֶה לָזֶה בִּשְׁטָר שְׁלָשְׁתָּן מִצְטָרְפִין וַהֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא מִחָה. וְאִם מָכְרוּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁטָר אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה שֶׁהַבְּעָלִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים אוֹמְרִים כֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא עָמַד בָּהּ אִישׁ אֶחָד שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים לֹא הֻצְרַכְתִּי לִמְחוֹת: \n", + "אֲכָלָהּ הָאָב שָׁנָה וְהַבֵּן שְׁתַּיִם הָאָב שְׁתַּיִם וְהַבֵּן שָׁנָה הָאָב שָׁנָה וְהַבֵּן שָׁנָה וְהַלּוֹקֵחַ מִן הַבֵּן שָׁנָה הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה וְהוּא שֶׁלָּקַח בִּשְׁטָר: \n", + "אֲכָלָהּ בִּפְנֵי הָאָב שֶׁהָיָה בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה שָׁנָה וּבִפְנֵי בְּנוֹ שְׁתַּיִם. אוֹ בִּפְנֵי הָאָב שְׁתַּיִם וּבִפְנֵי הַבֵּן שָׁנָה. אוֹ בִּפְנֵי הָאָב שָׁנָה וּבִפְנֵי בְּנוֹ שָׁנָה וּבִפְנֵי לוֹקֵחַ מִן הַבֵּן שָׁנָה. הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה. וְהוּא שֶׁמָּכַר הַבֵּן זוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה בִּכְלַל שְׂדוֹתָיו שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא הִכִּיר הַמַּחֲזִיק שֶׁנִּמְכְּרָה וּלְפִיכָךְ לֹא נִזְהַר בִּשְׁטָרוֹ. אֲבָל אִם מָכַר הַבֵּן שָׂדֶה זוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ אֵין לְךָ מְחָאָה גְּדוֹלָה מִזּוֹ: \n", + "נָרָהּ שָׁנָה אַחַר שָׁנָה אֲפִלּוּ כַּמָּה שָׁנִים הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נֶהֱנָה בָּהּ אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה. וְכֵן אִם פָּתַח בָּהּ שְׁבִילֵי הַמַּיִם וּפָתַח וְשִׂדֵּד בִּלְבַד הוֹאִיל וְלֹא אָכַל פֵּרוֹת אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה: \n", + "זְרָעָהּ וְלֹא הִרְוִיחַ כְּלוּם אֶלָּא זָרַע כּוֹר וְאָסַף כּוֹר לֹא הֶחֱזִיק שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נֶהֱנָה: \n", + "אֲכָלָהּ שַׁחַת לֹא הֶחֱזִיק. וְאִם הָיָה הַמָּקוֹם דַּרְכָּן לִזְרֹעַ לְשַׁחַת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדָּמָיו יְקָרִין הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה: \n", + "אֲכָלָהּ עָרְלָה שְׁבִיעִית וְכִלְאַיִם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה בַּעֲבֵרָה הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה: \n", + "הָיָה הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בּוֹ סֶלַע אוֹ חַלָּמִישׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִזְרִיעָה צָרִיךְ לֵהָנוֹת בּוֹ בְּדָבָר הָרָאוּי לָהּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁיִּשְׁטַח בּוֹ הַפֵּרוֹת אוֹ יַעֲמִיד בּוֹ בְּהֵמָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְאִם לֹא נֶהֱנָה בּוֹ בְּכָל אוֹתָן הַשָּׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים בַּדָּבָר הָרָאוּי לוֹ לֹא הֶחֱזִיק: \n", + "הָיָה מַעֲמִיד בְּהֵמָה בְּמָקוֹם מְסֻיָּם מֵחֲצַר חֲבֵרוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מְגַדֵּל שָׁם תַּרְנְגוֹלִין אוֹ מַעֲמִיד שָׁם תַּנּוּר וְכִירַיִם וְרֵחַיִם. אוֹ שֶׁנָּתַן שָׁם זִבְלוֹ. בֵּין שֶׁהֶעֱמִיד שָׁם מְחִצָּה בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הֶעֱמִיד. אִם נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה וְטָעַן עַל בַּעַל הֶחָצֵר וְאָמַר אַתָּה נָתַתָּ לִי מָקוֹם זֶה אוֹ מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה: \n", + "שָׂדֶה שֶׁהִיא מֻקֶּפֶת גָּדֵר וּבָא זֶה שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בָּהּ וְזָרַע חוּץ לַגָּדֵר וְנֶהֱנָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁמוּר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ שָׁנָה אַחַר שָׁנָה לֹא עָלְתָה לוֹ חֲזָקָה. שֶׁהַבְּעָלִים טוֹעֲנִין וְאוֹמְרִין כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאִינוּ שֶׁזּוֹרֵעַ בְּמָקוֹם מֻפְקָר אָמַרְנוּ כָּל מַה שֶּׁזָּרַע חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ וּלְפִיכָךְ לֹא מָחִיתִי. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְכָל הַזּוֹרֵעַ מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁמוּר אֶלָּא רֶגֶל חַיָּה וְיַד כָּל אָדָם מְצוּיִין בּוֹ: \n", + "אֲכָלָהּ כֻּלָּהּ חוּץ מִבֵּית רֹבַע הֶחֱזִיק בְּכֻלָּהּ חוּץ מֵאוֹתוֹ בֵּית רֹבַע שֶׁלֹּא נֶהֱנָה בּוֹ. אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה חַלָּמִישׁ בְּתוֹךְ הַשָּׂדֶה הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ כָּרָאוּי לוֹ אֵין לָזֶה בּוֹ חֲזָקָה: \n", + "הֶחֱזִיק אֶחָד בָּאִילָנוֹת וְאָכַל פֵּרוֹתֵיהֶן וְאֶחָד הֶחֱזִיק בַּקַּרְקַע וּזְרָעָהּ וְאָכַל פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ וְכָל אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם טוֹעֵן שֶׁהַכּל שֶׁלִּי וַאֲנִי לְקַחְתִּיו. זֶה שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בָּאִילָנוֹת וַאֲכָלָן שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים יֵשׁ לוֹ הָאִילָנוֹת וְקַרְקַע שֶׁצְּרִיכִין לוֹ וְהוּא כִּמְלֹא הָאוֹרֶה וְסַלּוֹ חוּצָה לְכָל אִילָן וְאִילָן. וְזֶה שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בַּקַּרְקַע יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁאָר הַקַּרְקַע: \n", + "וְכֵן הָאוֹכֵל כָּל פֵּרוֹת אִילָן שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְטָעַן עַל בַּעַל הָאִילָן אַתָּה מָכַרְתָּ לִי אִילָן זֶה וְקַרְקָעוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה יֵשׁ לוֹ קַרְקַע כָּעֳבִי הָאִילָן עַד הַתְּהוֹם: \n", + "שְׂדֵה אִילָן שֶׁהָיוּ בּוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים אִילָנוֹת בְּתוֹךְ בֵּית שָׁלֹשׁ סְאִין וְאָכַל עֲשָׂרָה בְּשָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה וַעֲשָׂרָה בְּשָׁנָה שְׁנִיָּה וַעֲשָׂרָה בְּשָׁנָה שְׁלִישִׁית הֻחְזַק בַּכּל. וְהוּא שֶׁהָיוּ עֲשָׂרָה שֶׁאָכַל מְפֻזָּרוֹת בְּכָל בֵּית הַשָּׁלֹשׁ סְאִין וְלֹא הוֹצִיאוּ שְׁאָר הָאִילָנוֹת פֵּרוֹת. אֲבָל אִם הוֹצִיאוּ שְׁאָר הָאִילָנוֹת פֵּרוֹת וְלֹא אֲכָלָן לֹא הֻחְזַק אֶלָּא בְּמַה שֶּׁאָכַל: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁאָכַל הוּא מִקְצָת הַפֵּרוֹת וּבָזְזוּ הָעָם שְׁאָר הַפֵּרוֹת. אֲבָל אִם מֵנִיחַ פֵּרוֹתֵיהֶן עֲלֵיהֶן הוֹאִיל וְאָכַל אִילָן מִכָּאן וְאִילָן מִכָּאן מִכָּל הַשָּׂדֶה הֶחֱזִיק בְּכָל הַשָּׂדֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא אָסַף כָּל פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ: \n" + ], + [ + "וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין מַעֲמִידִין הַקַּרְקַע בְּיָדָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֲכָלוּם שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים. הָאֻמָּנִין וְהָאֲרִיסִין וְהָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפִּין וְהַשֻּׁתָּפִין וְהָאִישׁ בְּנִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְהָאִשָּׁה בְּנִכְסֵי בַּעְלָהּ וּבֵן בְּנִכְסֵי אָבִיו וְהָאָב בְּנִכְסֵי הַבֵּן. שֶׁכָּל אֶחָד מֵאֵלּוּ אֵין מַקְפִּידִין זֶה עַל זֶה. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין אֲכִילָתָן רְאָיָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא מִחוּ בָּהֶן הַבְּעָלִים אֶלָּא תַּחְזֹר הַקַּרְקַע לַבְּעָלִים שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ רְאָיָה שֶׁזֹּאת הַקַּרְקַע יְדוּעָה לָהֶן וְיִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא מְכָרוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא נְתָנוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: ", + "וְכֵן רָאשֵׁי גָּלֻיּוֹת שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ זְמַן וְהַגַּזְלָן וְהָעַכּוּ\"ם אֵין אֲכִילָתָן רְאָיָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן בַּעֲלֵי זְרוֹעַ. וְכֵן חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן אֵין אֲכִילָתָן רְאָיָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם טַעֲנָה כְּדֵי שֶׁתַּעֲמֹד הַקַּרְקַע בְּיָדָן אֶלָּא תַּחְזֹר לַבְּעָלִים. וְכֵן הַמַּחֲזִיק בְּנִכְסֵיהֶן אֵין אֲכִילָתָן רְאָיָה: ", + "כֵּיצַד אֵין מַעֲמִידִין אֶת הַקַּרְקַע בְּיָדָן. רְאוּבֵן שֶׁאָכַל שְׂדֵה שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה וְהוּא טָעַן שֶׁהִיא לְקוּחָה בְּיָדוֹ וְהֵבִיא שִׁמְעוֹן עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא יְדוּעָה לוֹ וְכֵן הֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁרְאוּבֵן יָדוּעַ שֶׁהוּא שֻׁתָּפוֹ אוֹ אֲרִיסוֹ אוֹ אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹסוֹ וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה לֹא מִחָה תַּחְזֹר הַשָּׂדֶה לְשִׁמְעוֹן וְיִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא מָכַר וְלֹא נָתַן. וְהוּא הַדִּין לִשְׁאָרָן. אֲבָל אִם לֹא הֵבִיא שִׁמְעוֹן רְאָיָה שֶׁרְאוּבֵן הָיָה שֻׁתָּף אוֹ אָרִיס אֶלָּא רְאוּבֵן הוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ וְאָמַר הֵן הוּא שֻׁתָּפִי וּמָכַר לִי. הוֹאִיל וְאָכַל שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה וְיָכוֹל לוֹמַר לֹא הָיָה שֻׁתָּפִי מֵעוֹלָם הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן כִּשְׁאָר כָּל אָדָם: ", + "הָאֻמָּנִין כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ בּוֹנִין בָּהּ אוֹ מְתַקְּנִין אוֹתָהּ שָׁנִים רַבּוֹת. יָרְדוּ מֵאֻמָּנוּתָן אִם אָכְלוּ אוֹתָן שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים מֵאַחַר שֶׁיָּרְדוּ מֵאֻמָּנוּתָן יֵשׁ לָהֶן חֲזָקָה: ", + "הָאֲרִיסִין כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה אָרִיס לְאָבִיו שֶׁל בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה אוֹ לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא אָרִיס שֶׁל בָּתֵּי אָבוֹת אֵין מְמַחִין הַבְּעָלִים בְּיָדוֹ. אֲבָל אִם זֶה הוּא שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה אָרִיס תְּחִלָּה הוֹאִיל וַאֲכָלָהּ כֻּלָּהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה מַעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּיָדוֹ. וְאוֹמְרִין לַבְּעָלִים הֵיאַךְ אָכַל שָׁנָה אַחַר שָׁנָה וְלֹא מָחִיתָ בּוֹ: ", + "אָרִיס שֶׁל בָּתֵּי אָבוֹת שֶׁהוֹרִיד אֲרִיסִין תַּחַת יָדוֹ יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה שֶׁאֵין מוֹרִידִין אֲרִיסִים אֲחֵרִים לְנִכְסֵי אָדָם וְהוּא שׁוֹתֵק. אֲבָל אִם חָלַק לַאֲרִיסִין אֲחֵרִים שֶׁהָיוּ בָּהּ אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה שֶׁמָּא מְמֻנֶּה עַל הָאֲרִיסִין עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ. וְאָרִיס שֶׁיָּרַד מֵאֲרִיסוּתוֹ וַאֲכָלָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים מֵאַחַר שֶׁיָּרַד הֶחֱזִיק: ", + "הָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹסִין כֵּיצַד. בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס עַל שָׂדֶה זוֹ בֵּין עַל שְׁאָר נְכָסִים בֵּין שֶׁמִּנּוּ אוֹתָם בֵּית דִּין בֵּין שֶׁמִּנָּה אוֹתָם אֲבִי יְתוֹמִים וְגָדְלוּ הַיְתוֹמִים וְהִנִּיחוּ אוֹתָן. בֵּין שֶׁמִּנָּה אָדָם אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס עַל הוֹצָאָתוֹ וְהַכְנָסָתוֹ. הוֹאִיל וְהֵן מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בִּרְשׁוּת אֵין לָהֶן חֲזָקָה. עָבְרוּ הָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפִּין מִמִּנּוּיָן וְאָכְלוּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים אַחַר שֶׁעָבְרוּ הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה: ", + "הַשֻּׁתָּפִין כֵּיצַד. אִם הָיָה שֻׁתָּף בְּשָׂדֶה זוֹ וְאֵין בָּהּ דִּין חֲלוּקָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָכַל אֶת כֻּלָּהּ הָאֶחָד מֵהֶן כַּמָּה שָׁנִים הֲרֵי הִיא בְּחֶזְקַת שְׁנֵיהֶם. וְאִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ דִּין חֲלוּקָה וַאֲכָלָהּ הָאֶחָד כֻּלָּהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר לְשֻׁתָּפוֹ אִם בֶּאֱמֶת שֶׁלֹּא מָכַרְתָּ וְלֹא נָתַתָּ הֵיאַךְ אָכַלְתִּי אֶת כֻּלָּהּ וְאַתָּה שׁוֹתֵק וְלֹא מָחִיתָ כָּל שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים. וְכֵן הָאִישׁ שֶׁאָכַל בְּנִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִתְנָה עִמָּהּ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ פֵּרוֹת בִּנְכָסֶיהָ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הִתְנָה עִמָּהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא אֲרוּסָה שֶׁלֹּא יִירָשֶׁנָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָכַל וּבָנָה וְהָרַס וְעָשָׂה כָּל מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה. וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָכְלָה פֵּרוֹת בְּנִכְסֵי בַּעְלָהּ וְנִשְׁתַּמְּשָׁה בָּהֶן כְּחֶפְצָהּ כַּמָּה שָׁנִים. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיִּחֵד לָהּ שָׂדֶה בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ וְאָכְלָה שָׂדוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת אֵין אֲכִילָתָן רְאָיָה. וְכֵן הַבֵּן שֶׁהוּא סוֹמֵךְ עַל שֻׁלְחָנוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו וְנֶחְשָׁב בִּכְלַל בְּנֵי בֵּיתוֹ אִם אָכַל נִכְסֵי אָבִיו שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. וְכֵן הָאָב שֶׁאָכַל נִכְסֵי בֵּן זֶה שֶׁהוּא סוֹמֵךְ עָלָיו שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. אֵין אֲכִילָתָן רְאָיָה: ", + "וּבֵן שֶׁפֵּרַשׁ מֵאָבִיו וְאִשָּׁה שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה אֲפִלּוּ סְפֵק גֵּרוּשִׁין הֲרֵי הֵן כִּשְׁאָר כָּל אָדָם: ", + "רָאשֵׁי גָּלֻיּוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ בִּימֵי חֲכָמִים לְפִי שֶׁהָיָה בָּהֶן כֹּחַ לִרְדּוֹת אֶת הָעָם אֵין אֲכִילָתָן רְאָיָה. וְכֵן אַחֵר שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בְּנִכְסֵיהֶן אֲפִלּוּ אָכַל כַּמָּה שָׁנִים אֵין אֲכִילָתָן רְאָיָה לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָן מְמַחִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּדָן תְּקֵפָה כָּל זְמַן שֶׁיִּרְצוּ מְסַלְּקִין זֶה מִמֶּנָּה. אֲבָל נִשְׁבָּעִין הֶסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא מָכְרוּ וְשֶׁלֹּא נָתְנוּ. וְאִם הֵן הֶחֱזִיקוּ בְּנִכְסֵי אַחֵר וְאָמַר שֶׁלֹּא מָכַר נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא מָכַר לָהֶן וְלֹא נָתַן לָהֶם: ", + "הַגַּזְלָן כֵּיצַד. מִי שֶׁהֻחְזַק גַּזְלָן עַל שָׂדֶה זוֹ אוֹ מִי שֶׁהֻחְזְקוּ אֲבוֹתָיו שֶׁהֵן הוֹרְגִין נְפָשׁוֹת עַל עִסְקֵי מָמוֹן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָכַל שָׂדֶה זוֹ כַּמָּה שָׁנִים לֹא הֶחֱזִיק וְתַחְזֹר שָׂדֶה לַבְּעָלִים: " + ], + [ + "כָּל אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין אֲכִילָתָן רְאָיָה אִם הֵבִיאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁמָּכְרוּ לָהֶם הַבְּעָלִים שָׂדֶה זוֹ אוֹ נְתָנוּהָ לָהֶן בְּמַתָּנָה רְאָיָתָן רְאָיָה. חוּץ מִן הַגַּזְלָן וְהַבַּעַל בְּנִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ. בְּאֵי זֶה נְכָסִים אָמְרוּ בְּנִכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל אוֹ בְּשָׂדֶה שֶׁיִּחֵד לָהּ בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ וּבְשָׂדֶה שֶׁכָּתַב לָהּ בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ וּבְשָׂדֶה שֶׁנָּתַן לָהּ בְּשׁוּם מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. אֲבָל בְּנִכְסֵי מְלוֹג יֵשׁ לוֹ רְאָיָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת אִישׁוּת: \n", + "כֵּיצַד הַגַּזְלָן אֵין לוֹ רְאָיָה. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֻחְזַק גַּזְלָן עַל שָׂדֶה זוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁהוֹדָה הַבַּעַל בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים שֶׁמָּכַר לוֹ שָׂדֶה זוֹ וְלָקַח דָּמִים וְהַבְּעָלִים אוֹמְרִים לֹא מָכַרְנוּ לְךָ אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי הַיִּרְאָה הוֹדִינוּ לוֹ מוֹצִיאִין אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה מִיָּדוֹ וְאֵין לוֹ כְּלוּם. וְאִם הֵעִידוּ הָעֵדִים שֶׁבִּפְנֵיהֶם מָנָה לוֹ כָּךְ וְכָךְ מוֹצִיאִין אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה מִיַּד הַגַּזְלָן וּמַחְזִירִין לוֹ הַבְּעָלִים אֶת הַדָּמִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת גְּזֵלָה: \n", + "בֶּן הָאֻמָּן וּבֶן הָאָרִיס וְכֵן הָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס שֶׁאָכְלוּ שָׂדֶה זוֹ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. אִם טָעֲנוּ שֶׁהַבְּעָלִים מָכְרוּ לָהֶן אוֹ נָתְנוּ לָהֶן יֵשׁ לָהֶן חֲזָקָה. וְאִם טָעֲנוּ שֶׁהִיא יְרֻשָּׁה לָהֶן מֵאֲבִיהֶם שֶׁאֲכָלוּהָ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה אֵין לָהֶן חֲזָקָה. וְאִם הֵבִיאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁהוֹדוּ הַבְּעָלִים לַאֲבִיהֶן שֶׁמְּכָרוּהָ לָהֶן אוֹ נְתָנוּהָ מַעֲמִידִין אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה בְּיָדָן: \n", + "בֶּן הַגַּזְלָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁהוֹדוּ הַבְּעָלִים לְאָבִיו שֶׁמָּכַר אֵינָהּ רְאָיָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֲבָל בֶּן בֶּן הַגַּזְלָן אֲפִלּוּ בָּא בְּטַעֲנַת אָבִיו יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה בָּא בְּטַעֲנַת אֲבִי אָבִיו אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה: \n", + "הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֲפִלּוּ אֲכָלָהּ כַּמָּה שָׁנִים אֵין אֲכִילָתוֹ רְאָיָה. וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא שְׁטָר תַּחְזֹר הַשָּׂדֶה לַבְּעָלִים בְּלֹא שׁוּם שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא תִּקְּנוּ שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת אֶלָּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִשְׂרָאֵל הַבָּא מֵחֲמַת הָעַכּוּ\"ם הֲרֵי הוּא כְּעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁאֵין אֲכִילָתוֹ רְאָיָה: \n", + "טָעַן זֶה הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל הַבָּא מֵחֲמַת הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְאָמַר בְּפָנַי לְקָחָהּ הָעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁמָּכַר לִי מִזֶּה הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל הַמְעַרְעֵר עָלַי הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן וְיִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת עַל כָּךְ מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר אֲנִי לְקַחְתִּיהָ מִמְּךָ וַהֲרֵי אֲכַלְתִּיהָ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה יָכוֹל לוֹמַר מִפְּלוֹנִי לְקַחְתִּיהָ שֶׁבְּפָנַי לְקָחָהּ מִמְּךָ: \n", + "אֵין מַחֲזִיקִין בְּנִכְסֵי קָטָן וַאֲפִלּוּ הִגְדִּיל. כֵּיצַד. אֲכָלָהּ בְּפָנָיו כְּשֶׁהוּא קָטָן שָׁנָה אַחַת וּשְׁתַּיִם אַחַר שֶׁהִגְדִּיל וְטָעַן אַתָּה מָכַרְתָּ לִי אַתָּה נָתַתָּ לִי אֵין זֶה כְּלוּם עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים רְצוּפוֹת אַחַר שֶׁהִגְדִּיל: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בְּנִכְסֵי קָטָן שָׁנִים רַבּוֹת וְטָעַן וְאָמַר מַשְׁכּוֹנָה הֵן בְּיָדִי וְיֵשׁ לִי חוֹבָה עֲלֵיהֶן כָּךְ וְכָךְ. הוֹאִיל וְאִלּוּ רָצָה אָמַר לְקוּחִים הֵן בְּיָדִי נֶאֱמָן שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ מֻחְזֶקֶת שֶׁהָיָה לְאָבִיו שֶׁל זֶה וַהֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹבֶה מִשִּׁבְחָהּ מַה שֶּׁטָּעַן וְתַחְזֹר לַיְתוֹמִים. אֲבָל אִם יָצָא עָלֶיהָ קוֹל שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל יְתוֹמִים אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין מַחֲזִיקִין בְּנִכְסֵי קָטָן וְתַחְזֹר הַשָּׂדֶה וְכָל הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל לַיְתוֹמִים עַד שֶׁיִּגְדְּלוּ וְיַעֲשֶׂה עִמָּהֶן דִּין: \n", + "אֲכָלָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה בְּחַיֵּי אֲבִיהֶן מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי מֵאֲבִיהֶן נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר חוֹב יֵשׁ לִי עַל אֲבִיהֶן. וְגוֹבֶה אוֹתוֹ מִן הַפֵּרוֹת וְגוֹבֵהוּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר שֶׁלִּי הֵן: \n", + "בּוֹרֵחַ שֶׁבָּרַח מֵחֲמַת סַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה הַמֶּלֶךְ מְבַקֵּשׁ לַהֲמִיתוֹ. אֵין מַחֲזִיקִין בִּנְכָסָיו אֲפִלּוּ אָכַל הַמַּחֲזִיק כַּמָּה שָׁנִים וְטָעַן שֶׁלָּקַח אֵין אֲכִילָתוֹ רְאָיָה. וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים לְבַעַל הַשָּׂדֶה לָמָּה לֹא מָחִיתָ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מִתְעַסֵּק בְּנַפְשׁוֹ. אֲבָל הַבּוֹרֵחַ מֵחֲמַת מָמוֹן הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכָל אָדָם וְאִם לֹא מִחָה מַחֲזִיקִין בִּנְכָסָיו: \n", + "מַחֲזִיקִין בְּנִכְסֵי אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. כֵּיצַד. אֲכָלָהּ מִקְצָת שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה בְּחַיֵּי הַבַּעַל וְשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים אַחַר מִיתַת הַבַּעַל. וְטָעַן וְאָמַר מְכַרְתָּהּ לִי אַתְּ וּבַעֲלֵךְ מַעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּיָדוֹ מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר מִמֵּךְ לְקַחְתִּיהָ אַחַר מוֹת בַּעֲלִיךְ שֶׁהֲרֵי אֲכָלָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה אַחַר מִיתַת הַבַּעַל וְלֹא מִחֵת בּוֹ. אֲבָל אִם אֲכָלָהּ בְּחַיֵּי בַּעְלָהּ כַּמָּה שָׁנִים וְלֹא אָכְלָה שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה אַחַר מִיתַת בַּעְלָהּ אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה: \n", + "כָּל חֲזָקָה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ טַעֲנָה אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה. כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁאָכַל פֵּרוֹת שָׂדֶה זוֹ כַּמָּה שָׁנִים וּבָא הַמְעַרְעֵר וְאָמַר לוֹ מֵאַיִן לְךָ שָׂדֶה זוֹ שֶׁלִּי הִיא הֱשִׁיבוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁל מִי הִיא וְכֵיוָן שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לִי אָדָם כְּלוּם יָרַדְתִּי לְתוֹכָהּ. אֵין זוֹ חֲזָקָה שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא טָעַן שֶׁלְּקָחָהּ וְלֹא שֶׁנְּתָנָהּ לוֹ וְלֹא שֶׁיְּרָשָׁהּ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא טָעַן אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא זֶה הַמְעַרְעֵר עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלּוֹ. הֵבִיא עֵדִים תַּחְזֹר לוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה וּמוֹצִיאִין מִזֶּה כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל וְאֵין פּוֹתְחִין לָזֶה הַמַּחֲזִיק תְּחִלָּה וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים שֶׁמָּא שְׁטָר הָיָה לְךָ וְאָבַד עַד שֶׁיִּטְעֹן מֵעַצְמוֹ וְאִם לֹא טָעַן יַחְזִיר כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל. וְכֵן הָאוֹכֵל שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה מֵחֲמַת שֶׁיֵּשׁ שְׁטָר בְּיָדוֹ וְנִמְצָא הַשְּׁטָר בָּטֵל בָּטְלָה הַחֲזָקָה וְתַחְזֹר הַשָּׂדֶה עִם כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת לַבְּעָלִים: \n", + "הַבָּא מֵחֲמַת יְרֻשָּׁה צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁדָּר אָבִיו בְּשָׂדֶה זוֹ אוֹ נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהּ אֲפִלּוּ יוֹם אֶחָד וְכֵיוָן שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ הוּא שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים מֵחֲמַת אָבִיו מַעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּיָדוֹ. אֲבָל אִם לֹא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁדָּר בָּהּ אָבִיו כְּלָל תַּחְזֹר הַשָּׂדֶה וְכָל הַפֵּרוֹת לַמְעַרְעֵר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא שֶׁלּוֹ. שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינוֹ טוֹעֵן עָלָיו שֶׁמָּכַר אוֹ נָתַן לוֹ וְלֹא נוֹדְעָה קַרְקַע זוֹ לַאֲבוֹתָיו. הֵבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁנִּרְאָה בָּהּ אָבִיו אֵינָהּ כְּלוּם שֶׁמָּא בָּא לְבַקֵּר אוֹתָהּ וְלֹא קְנָאָהּ. אֶלָּא צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁדָּר אָבִיו בָּהּ אֲפִלּוּ יוֹם אֶחָד: \n", + "הֲרֵי שֶׁאָכַל שָׂדֶה זוֹ שָׁנִים רַבּוֹת וּבָא הַמְעַרְעֵר וְאָמַר לוֹ מַה לְּךָ וּלְשָׂדֶה זוֹ הוֹדָה וְאָמַר לוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁהָיְתָה שֶׁלְּךָ אֲבָל פְּלוֹנִי מְכָרָהּ לִי וְהוּא לְקָחָהּ מִמְּךָ. וְאָמַר לוֹ הַמְעַרְעֵר פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁמָּכַר לְךָ גַּזְלָן הוּא. הוֹאִיל וְהוֹדָה שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלּוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא לְקָחָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ תַּחְזֹר הַשָּׂדֶה וְכָל הַפֵּרוֹת לַמְעַרְעֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לְזֶה הַמְעַרְעֵר עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלּוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. הֵבִיא זֶה הַמַּחֲזִיק עֵדִים שֶׁפְּלוֹנִי שֶׁמָּכַר לוֹ דָּר בָּהּ אֲפִלּוּ יוֹם אֶחָד אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ בְּפָנַי לָקַח מִמְּךָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְכָרָהּ לִי. מַעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּיָדוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ לוֹ טַעֲנָה עִם חֶזְקָתוֹ וְאִלּוּ רָצָה טָעַן וְאָמַר מִמְּךָ לְקַחְתִּיהָ שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה: \n" + ], + [ + "מִי שֶׁעִרְעֵר עַל שָׂדֶה זוֹ וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא יְדוּעָה לוֹ וְהֵבִיא זֶה שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ שְׁטָר שֶׁלְּקָחָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ בַּתְּחִלָּה קַיֵּם שְׁטָרְךָ. אִם נִתְקַיֵּם הֲרֵי טוֹב וְיָדוּן בַּשְּׁטָר. וְאִם אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לְקַיְּמוֹ סוֹמְכִין עַל עֵדֵי חֲזָקָה וְיִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת שֶׁלְּקָחָהּ: ", + "עֵדֵי הַחֲזָקָה שֶׁהֵעִיד אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ חִטִּים שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה וְהַשֵּׁנִי הֵעִיד שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שְׂעוֹרִים עֵדוּתָן קַיֶּמֶת שֶׁאֵין הָעֵד מְדַקְדֵּק בָּזֶה. הֵעִיד הָאֶחָד שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ זֶה שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה שְׁלִישִׁית וַחֲמִישִׁית וְהַשֵּׁנִי מֵעִיד שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שְׁנִיָּה וּרְבִיעִית וְשִׁשִּׁית אֵין עֵדוּתָן מִצְטָרֶפֶת. שֶׁבַּשָּׁנָה שֶׁמֵּעִיד בָּהּ זֶה לֹא הֵעִיד בָּהּ זֶה. וְתַחְזֹר הַקַּרְקַע וְהַפֵּרוֹת: ", + "מִי שֶׁיָּרַד לְשָׂדֶה בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא יוֹרֵשׁ וְאָכַל פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ וְנִמְצָא יוֹרֵשׁ אַחַר שֶׁהוּא קָרוֹב מִמֶּנּוּ וְרָאוּי לְיָרְשָׁהּ בֵּין שֶׁנִּמְצָא בְּעֵדִים בֵּין שֶׁהוֹדָה לוֹ זֶה שֶׁיָּרַד תְּחִלָּה חַיָּב לְהַחְזִיר כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל: ", + "שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹרְרִין עַל הַשָּׂדֶה זֶה אוֹמֵר שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר שֶׁלִּי וְאֵין לְאֶחָד מֵהֶן רְאָיָה. אוֹ שֶׁהֵבִיא כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶם עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁל אֲבוֹתָיו אוֹ שֶׁהֵבִיא כָּל אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם עֵדִים שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה וְהַשָּׁנִים שֶׁהֵעִידוּ בָּהֶן אֵלּוּ הֵן הַשָּׁנִים עַצְמָן שֶׁהֵעִידוּ בָּהֶן אֵלּוּ. מַנִּיחִין אוֹתָהּ בִּידֵיהֶן וְכָל הַמִּתְגַּבֵּר יֵרֵד בָּהּ וְיִהְיֶה הָאַחֵר מוֹצִיא מִיָּדוֹ וְעָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. וְאִם בָּא שְׁלִישִׁי וְתָקַף עֲלֵיהֶן וְיָרַד לְתוֹכָהּ מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ מִמֶּנָּה: ", + "הֵבִיא הָאֶחָד עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל אֲבוֹתָיו וְשֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה וַהֲרֵי הִיא תַּחַת יָדוֹ. וְהֵבִיא הָאַחֵר עֵדִים שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה וַהֲרֵי הִיא תַּחַת יָדוֹ. נִמְצֵאת עֵדוּת הַחֲזָקָה שֶׁל שְׁנֵיהֶם מֻכְחֶשֶׁת. מַעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּיַד זֶה שֶׁהֵעִידוּ עָלָיו עֵדֵי הַחֲזָקָה שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל אֲבוֹתָיו וּמוֹרִידִין אוֹתוֹ לְתוֹכָהּ. חָזַר הַשֵּׁנִי וְהֵבִיא אַף הוּא עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל אֲבוֹתָיו שֶׁהֲרֵי נִמְצֵאת גַּם עֵדוּת זוֹ מֻכְחֶשֶׁת. חוֹזְרִין בֵּית דִּין וּמְסַלְּקִין מִמֶּנָּה אַף הָרִאשׁוֹן וּמַנִּיחִין אוֹתָהּ בְּיַד שְׁנֵיהֶם וְכָל הַמִּתְגַּבֵּר יֵרֵד בָּהּ: ", + "זֶה אוֹמֵר שֶׁל אֲבוֹתַי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר שֶׁל אֲבוֹתַי זֶה הֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל אֲבוֹתָיו וְזֶה הֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה תַּחְזֹר לָזֶה שֶׁהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל אֲבוֹתָיו וְיַחְזִיר הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל. שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא טָעַן כְּלוּם וְאֵין אֲכִילָתוֹ רְאָיָה שֶׁכָּל חֲזָקָה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ טַעֲנָה עַל הַבְּעָלִים אֵינָהּ כְּלוּם. חָזַר זֶה הַמַּחֲזִיק וְאָמַר כֵּן שֶׁל אֲבוֹתֶיךָ הָיְתָה וְאַתָּה מְכַרְתָּהּ לִי וְזֶה שֶׁטָּעַנְתִּי תְּחִלָּה שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל אֲבוֹתַי כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁאֲנִי סוֹמֵךְ עָלֶיהָ וַהֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁלִּי כְּשֶׁל אֲבוֹתַי. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר שֶׁל אֲבוֹתַי שֶׁלְּקָחוּהָ מֵאֲבוֹתֶיךָ הֲרֵי זוֹ טַעֲנָה נְכוֹנָה שֶׁהֲרֵי נָתַן אֲמַתְלָא לִדְבָרָיו הָרִאשׁוֹנִים וּמַעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּיָדוֹ. וְאִם טָעַן בַּתְּחִלָּה וְאָמַר שֶׁל אֲבוֹתַי וְלֹא שֶׁל אֲבוֹתֶיךָ אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ בְּטַעֲנָה זוֹ הָאַחֶרֶת. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהָיָה בְּתוֹךְ שָׂדֶה וּבָא שִׁמְעוֹן וְעִרְעֵר עָלָיו וְאָמַר רְאוּבֵן שָׂדֶה זוֹ מִלֵּוִי קְנִיתִיהָ וְאָכַלְתִּי אוֹתָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה אָמַר לוֹ שִׁמְעוֹן וַהֲלֹא שְׁטָר זֶה מְקֻיָּם בְּיָדִי שֶׁאֲנִי לְקַחְתִּיהָ מִלֵּוִי מֵהַיּוֹם אַרְבַּע שָׁנִים. חָזַר רְאוּבֵן וְאָמַר וְכִי תַּעֲלֶה עַל דַּעְתְּךָ שֶׁשָּׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים בִּלְבַד יֵשׁ לִי מִשֶּׁקְּנִיתִיהָ שָׁנִים רַבּוֹת יֵשׁ לִי מִשֶּׁלְּקַחְתִּיהָ וַאֲנִי קְדַמְתִּיךָ. הֲרֵי טַעֲנַת רְאוּבֵן טַעֲנָה. שֶׁאָדָם קוֹרֵא לְשָׁנִים רַבּוֹת שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הֵבִיא רְאוּבֵן עֵדִים שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים שֶׁנִּמְצָא שֶׁאָכַל שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה קֹדֶם שֶׁלְּקָחָהּ שִׁמְעוֹן מַעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּיָדוֹ. אֲבָל אִם אֲכָלָהּ פָּחוֹת מִשֶּׁבַע שָׁנִים תַּחְזֹר לְשִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁאֵין לְךָ מְחָאָה גְּדוֹלָה מִזּוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי מְכָרָהּ קֹדֶם שֶׁהֶחְזִיק רְאוּבֵן: ", + "זֶה אוֹמֵר שֶׁל אֲבוֹתַי וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים וְזֶה אוֹמֵר שֶׁל אֲבוֹתַי וְאֵין לוֹ עֵדִים תַּחְזֹר לָזֶה שֶׁהֵבִיא עֵדִים וּמוֹצִיאִין מִזֶּה כָּל פֵּרוֹת שֶׁהוֹדָה בָּהֶן שֶׁאֲכָלָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים שֶׁאָכַל. שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר שֶׁמֵּחֲמַת אֲבוֹתָיו אָכַל וַהֲרֵי הָעֵדִים שֶׁהָיָה שֶׁל אֲבוֹתָיו שֶׁל זֶה הַטּוֹעֵן. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "הֵבִיא הַמְעַרְעֵר עֵדִים שֶׁזּוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה שֶׁלּוֹ וְזֶה שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ טוֹעֵן מִמְּךָ לְקַחְתִּיהָ וַהֲרֵי שְׁטָרִי וְהוֹצִיא שְׁטָר מְקֻיָּם. טָעַן הַמְעַרְעֵר שֶׁהוּא מְזֻיָּף וְהוֹדָה בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר וְאָמַר כֵּן הוּא אֲבָל הָיָה לִי שְׁטָר כָּשֵׁר וְאָבַד וְלָקַחְתִּי זֶה שֶׁבְּיָדִי כְּדֵי לְאַיֵּם עָלָיו שֶׁיּוֹדֶה שֶׁמָּכַר לִי בֶּאֱמֶת. הוֹאִיל וְאִלּוּ רָצָה הָיָה אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁטָרוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי מְקֻיָּם הוּא הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן וְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ וְיִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת: ", + "הֵבִיא הַמְעַרְעֵר עֵדִים שֶׁזּוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה שֶׁלּוֹ וְזֶה שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ טוֹעֵן מִמְּךָ לְקַחְתִּיהָ וַאֲכַלְתִּיהָ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה טָעַן הַמְעַרְעֵר וְאָמַר הֵיאַךְ תִּטְעֹן שֶׁלָּקַחְתָּ מִמֶּנִּי הַיּוֹם שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וּבְאוֹתוֹ הַזְּמַן לֹא הָיִיתִי בִּמְדִינָה זוֹ. מַצְרִיכִין זֶה שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁזֶּה פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁמְּעַרְעֵר הָיָה עִמּוֹ בַּמְּדִינָה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה שֶׁטּוֹעֵן שֶׁמָּכַר לוֹ בּוֹ אֲפִלּוּ יוֹם אֶחָד כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּמְכֹּר וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ: ", + "מִי שֶׁהָלַךְ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וְאָבְדָה דֶּרֶךְ שָׂדֵהוּ בֵּין שֶׁהָיוּ אַרְבַּע הַשָּׂדוֹת הַמַּקִּיפוֹת אוֹתָהּ לְאַרְבָּעָה אֲנָשִׁים בֵּין שֶׁהָיוּ הָאַרְבַּע שָׂדוֹת קְנוּיוֹת מֵאֶחָד הֲרֵי כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן דּוֹחֵהוּ וְאוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא דֶּרֶךְ שֶׁלְּךָ עַל חֲבֵרִי הוּא. לְפִיכָךְ יִקְנֶה לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ בְּמֵאָה מָנֶה אוֹ יִפְרַח בָּאֲוִיר. וְכֵן אִם הָיוּ אַרְבַּע הַשָּׂדוֹת לְאִישׁ אֶחָד שֶׁקָּנָה אוֹתָן מֵאַרְבָּעָה אֵין לוֹ עָלָיו דֶּרֶךְ שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר לוֹ עַתָּה אִם אַחְזִיר לְכָל אֶחָד שְׁטָרוֹ אֵין אַתָּה יָכוֹל לַעֲבֹר עַל אֶחָד מֵהֶן וַאֲנִי קָנִיתִי מִכָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן כָּל זְכוּת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה בַּעַל אַרְבַּע שָׂדוֹת הַמַּקִּיפוֹ אִישׁ אֶחָד וְהוּא בַּעַל הַמֵּצַר שֶׁלָּהּ מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹמֵר לוֹ מִכָּל מָקוֹם דַּרְכִּי עָלֶיךָ וְיֵלֵךְ לוֹ בִּקְצָרָה בְּאֵי זוֹ שָׂדֶה שֶׁיִּרְצֶה בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְאִם הֶחֱזִיק בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְאוֹמֵר זוֹ הִיא דַּרְכִּי אֵין מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ מִמֶּנָּה אֶלָּא בִּרְאָיָה בְּרוּרָה: " + ], + [ + "רְאוּבֵן שֶׁמָּכַר לְשִׁמְעוֹן שָׂדֶה וְהָיָה לֵוִי מֵעֵדֵי הַשְּׁטָר וּבָא לֵוִי לְעַרְעֵר עַל הַשָּׂדֶה וְלִטְעֹן שֶׁרְאוּבֵן גָּזַל אוֹתָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ. אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ וְאֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין עַל רְאָיוֹת שֶׁיָּבִיא עַל אוֹתָהּ שָׂדֶה וַהֲרֵי אִבֵּד כָּל זְכוּתוֹ שֶׁאוֹמֵר לוֹ הֵיאַךְ תָּעִיד עַל הַמֶּכֶר וְתָבוֹא וּתְעַרְעֵר. וְכֵן אִם הֵעִיד לֵוִי בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁל רְאוּבֵן מִצַּד מִזְרָח אוֹ מַעֲרָב הוֹאִיל וְעָשָׂה הַשָּׂדֶה סִימָן לְאַחֵר וְהֵעִיד בַּשְּׁטָר אִבֵּד אֶת זְכוּתוֹ וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר וּלְעַרְעֵר שֶׁאוֹמְרִים לוֹ הֵיאַךְ תָּעִיד בִּשְׁטָר זֶה שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה הַזֹּאת מִצַּד פְּלוֹנִי וְתַחְזֹר וּתְעַרְעֵר עָלֶיהָ: \n", + "טָעַן הָעֵד וְאָמַר תֶּלֶם אֶחָד הוּא שֶׁעָשִׂיתִי סִימָן וְלֹא כָּל הַשָּׂדֶה וְאוֹתוֹ הַתֶּלֶם הַסָּמוּךְ לַמֵּצַר בִּלְבַד הוּא שֶׁל רְאוּבֵן הֲרֵי זֶה טַעֲנָה הַנִּשְׁמַעַת וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְעַרְעֵר עַל כָּל הַשָּׂדֶה חוּץ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַתֶּלֶם. וְאֵין כָּל הַדְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים אֶלָּא בְּאֶחָד מֵעֵדֵי הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁבָּא לְעַרְעֵר. אֲבָל הַדַּיָּן שֶׁקִּיֵּם הַשְּׁטָר יֵשׁ לוֹ לְעַרְעֵר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לִטְעֹן וְלוֹמַר לֹא יָדַעְתִּי מֶה הָיָה כָּתוּב בַּשְּׁטָר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לַדַּיָּנִין לְקַיֵּם הַשְּׁטָר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא קְרָאוּהוּ. אֲבָל הָעֵדִים אֵין חוֹתְמִין עַל הַשְּׁטָר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן קְרָאוּהוּ כֻּלּוֹ וִידַקְדֵּק בּוֹ: \n", + "בָּא שִׁמְעוֹן וְנִמְלַךְ בְּלֵוִי וְאָמַר לוֹ הֲרֵינִי קוֹנֶה שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית מֵרְאוּבֵן וּבַעֲצָתְךָ אֶקְנֶה אוֹתָהּ. אָמַר לוֹ לֵוִי לֵךְ וּקְנֵה אוֹתָהּ טוֹבָה הִיא. יֵשׁ לוֹ לְלֵוִי לְעַרְעֵר עָלֶיהָ וְלֹא אִבֵּד זְכוּתוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לוֹמַר רְצוֹנִי הָיָה שֶׁתֵּצֵא מִתַּחַת יַד רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהוּא אַלָּם כְּדֵי שֶׁאֶתְבָּעֶנָּה בְּדִין וְאֶקַּח שָׂדִי: \n", + "רְאוּבֵן שֶׁעִרְעֵר עַל שִׁמְעוֹן וְשִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה אַתָּה סָח אֶלָּא שָׂדֶה זוֹ מִלֵּוִי לְקַחְתִּיהָ וַהֲרֵי עֵדִים שֶׁאֲכַלְתִּיהָ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. אָמַר לוֹ רְאוּבֵן וַהֲלֹא עֵדִים יֵשׁ לִי שֶׁבָּעֶרֶב בָּאתָ אֵלַי וְאָמַרְתָּ לִי מְכֹר לִי שָׂדֶה זוֹ אֵין זוֹ רְאָיָה. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְשִׁמְעוֹן לוֹמַר רָצִיתִי לִקְנוֹת מִמְּךָ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תְּעַרְעֵר וְלֹא תַּטְרִיחֵנִי בְּדִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם הִיא שֶׁלְּךָ אוֹ אֵינָהּ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְאִם לֹא טָעַן שִׁמְעוֹן טַעֲנָה זוֹ אֵין טוֹעֲנִין לוֹ: \n", + "רְאוּבֵן שֶׁעִרְעֵר וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁשָּׂדֶה זוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ וְשִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ טוֹעֵן אַתָּה מְכַרְתָּהּ לִי וַאֲכַלְתִּיהָ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. וּרְאוּבֵן אָמַר בְּגֵזֶל אָכַלְתָּ. בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ עֵדִים שֶׁאָכַל כְּלָל בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה שָׁם עֵד אֶחָד שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְהַחְזִיר הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר שֶׁלִּי אָכַלְתִּי וְאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים שֶׁמְּחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ בְּפֵרוֹת שֶׁהֲרֵי מֵעַצְמוֹ הוֹדָה. וְזֶה הָעֵד שֶׁהֵעִיד שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים לְיַפּוֹת כֹּחוֹ שֶׁל אוֹכֵל הוּא בָּא וְאִלּוּ הָיָה עִמּוֹ אַחֵר הָיְתָה הַשָּׂדֶה עוֹמֶדֶת בְּיָדוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ יִשָּׁבַע רְאוּבֵן הֶסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא מָכַר וְתַחְזֹר לוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה וְיִשָּׁבַע שִׁמְעוֹן הֶסֵּת שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב לוֹ כְּלוּם בַּפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל וְיִפָּטֵר: \n", + "הָיוּ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים מְעִידִים עַל שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי חֲזָקָה יַחְזִיר כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה עֵד אֶחָד חַיָּב לְהַחְזִיר עַל פִּיו שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינוֹ מַכְחִישׁ הָעֵד אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר אֱמֶת הֵעִיד וְאָכַלְתִּי שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים וְשֶׁלִּי אָכַלְתִּי. נִמְצָא מְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִשָּׁבַע וּמְשַׁלֵּם: \n", + "כָּל הַמְחֻיָּב לְהַחְזִיר הַפֵּרוֹת אִם לֹא הָיוּ יְדוּעִין וְאֵין בֵּית דִּין יְכוֹלִין לְשַׁעֵר אוֹתָן כְּשַׁעַר הַבָּתִּים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁהוּא יָדוּעַ. אֶלָּא הָיוּ פֵּרוֹת אִילָן אוֹ פֵּרוֹת שָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵינָן יְדוּעִין. הוֹאִיל וְאֵין כָּאן טַעֲנָה וַדָּאִית יְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁיּוֹדֶה בּוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ. וּמַחְרִימִין עַל מִי שֶׁאָכַל יוֹתֵר וְלֹא יְשַׁלֵּם: \n", + "כָּל הַמַּחֲזִיר קַרְקַע מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ אִם הִשְׂכִּירָהּ לַאֲחֵרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה מַחֲזִיק בָּהּ וְהָיוּ הַשּׂוֹכְרִין קַיָּמִין מוֹצִיאִין מֵהֶן הַשָּׂכָר פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה וְנוֹתְנִין לְבַעַל הַקַּרְקַע וְחוֹזְרִין וְתוֹבְעִין זֶה שֶׁהִשְׂכִּיר לָהֶם מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ: \n", + "אָסוּר לָאָדָם לִטְעֹן טַעֲנַת שֶׁקֶר כְּדֵי לְעַוֵּת הַדִּין אוֹ כְּדֵי לְעַכְּבוֹ. כֵּיצַד. הָיָה נוֹשֶׁה בַּחֲבֵרוֹ מָנֶה לֹא יִטְעָנֶנּוּ מָאתַיִם כְּדֵי שֶׁיּוֹדֶה בְּמָנֶה וְיִתְחַיֵּב שְׁבוּעָה. הָיָה נוֹשֶׁה מָנֶה וּטְעָנוֹ מָאתַיִם לֹא יֹאמַר אֶכְפֹּר הַכּל בְּבֵית דִּין וְאוֹדֶה לוֹ בְּמָנֶה בֵּינִי לְבֵינוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא אֶתְחַיֵּב לוֹ שְׁבוּעָה: \n", + "הָיוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה נוֹשִׁין מָנֶה בְּאֶחָד וְכָפַר בָּהֶן לֹא יִהְיֶה אֶחָד תּוֹבֵעַ וּשְׁנַיִם מְעִידִים וּכְשֶׁיּוֹצִיאוּ מִמֶּנּוּ יַחֲלֹקוּ. וְעַל דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הִזְהִיר הַכָּתוּב וְאָמַר מִדְּבַר שֶׁקֶר תִּרְחָק: סְלִיקוּ לְהוּ הִלְכוֹת טוֹעֵן וְנִטְעָן בְּסַ\"ד \n" + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Torat Emet 363", + "http://www.toratemetfreeware.com/index.html?downloads" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות טוען ונטען", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file