כ"ב סיון תשעו“  Tuesday, June 28 2016

בבא קמא כ“ח OVERVIEW of the Daf Distinctive INSIGHT 1) Taking the law into one’s own hands (cont.) Intervening to stop a sinner בעבד שמסר לו רבו שפחה כנענית The continues to try and cite a proof for the dispute between R’ Yehudah and R’ Nachman whether one is permitted to take the law into his own hands but all T he Gemara cited an argument regarding whether a the attempts prove unsuccessful. person is allowed to enforce the law for himself in a case where he is not at risk to lose money if he would wait to take the case to court. Yehuda held that a person is 2) : The Mishnah presents a dispute regarding not allowed to enforce the law for himself in such a case, the degree of liability in a case where a pitcher with water while said it is permitted. breaks in the public domain. As the Gemara attempts to show which opinion is cor-

rect, it brings a Baraisa where a Jewish slave who has com- 3) Damage to clothing pleted his term until Yovel is reluctant to leave the house R’ Yehudah in the name of Rav asserts that liability is of his master. The master may actively force him to leave, for the clothing but not for the person since it was the to the extent that if the master injures him, he is exempt. ground that caused the damage. This source for this halacha is identified as a verse in Bam- Shmuel asserted that the owner of the pitcher cannot idbar (35:32). We see, notes the Gemara, that Rav בור be responsible for the clothing since the owner of a Nachman is correct, and that the master may enforce the does not pay for clothing and the liability must be limited law and evict the ex-slave from the house, even if it means to damage to the person. injuring him. only if it is בור Rav responded that an object is a The Gemara rejects the proof, however, explaining that declared ownerless but if the owner retains ownership it is in until his being freed, the master was allowed to assign a . בור his property that and is not a maidservant to his Jewish slave, but this condition expires R’ Oshaya cites a Baraisa that contradicts both Rav with the slave’s release. It is therefore understandable for and Shmuel. the master to evict his Jewish resident, who is no longer a After clarifying the question the Gemara presents how slave. The dispensation to enforce his eviction is not due to Rav would explain the Baraisa and how Shmuel would the owner’s being allowed to take the law into his own explain the Baraisa. hands, but it is rather his being permitted to distance this R’ Elazar asserts that the Baraisa’s case of liability for former slave from the distinct risk of continuing to live placing a stone in the public domain applies only when with this maidservant, who is no longer permitted to him. someone trips on the stone and is damaged by the stone This Gemara suggests that a Jew may forcefully stop to) דגול מרבבה .but the owner of the stone is exempt if the person tripped another Jew who is about to violate a sin on the ground and was damaged by the stone. Yoreh De’ah 151:#6) cites the opinion of Sha”ch that the The Gemara notes that this interpretation does not only time one Jew is obligated to intervene to stop another follow R’ Nosson’s opinion about collecting damages from from sinning is when the sinner is acting inadvertently. If, more than one person who was involved in causing the however, the sinner is acting willfully, an observer is not (O.C. 316) בית שערים .damages. required to intercede to stop him According to a second version R’ Elazar explains the notes that our Gemara seems to suggest otherwise. The Baraisa in a way that is consistent with R’ Nosson. former owner of the slave is allowed to strike his slave who is supposed to go free in order to stop him from knowingly 4) Defining intent sinning with the maidservant, yet we have seen that where Rabbah offers a definition of the term intent used by the sinner acts intentionally, no one has the responsibility R’ Yehudah. to stop him. The answer may be, he says, that here the Abaye challenges this explanation. slave is sinning with the maidservant of the owner. Here, Rabbah responds with a clarification of R’ Meir’s view, the owner has an right to stop the sin from occurring. This explanation of R’ Meir’s view is challenged.  However, when someone is sinning intentionally with his own property, no one else has the obligation to in- volved.  בבא קמא כ“ח—Number 1427 HALACHAH Highlight REVIEW and Remember slave that נרצע Using force to make someone comply with the 1. Why is a slave owner allowed to hit his ?won’t leave מניין לנרצע שכלו לו ימיו ... וחבל ועשה בו חבורה שהוא פטור How do we know that a nirtza who completed his term … and [the ______master] hit him causing a wound is exempt from liability? 2. What steps can a person take to exempt himself from giving ma’aser? K etzos HaChoshen 1 writes that according to the opinion ______that maintains that a loan does not, Biblically, create a 3. What is the point of dispute between Rav and Shmuel? ______the authority that allows Beis Din to force a borrower , שיעבוד ? אונס רחמנא פטריה to pay back a loan is the general authority that permits Beis 4. What is the source for the principle Din to force a person to fulfill a mitzvah. Accordingly, only a ______possesses this authority and (מומחין) Beis Din of experts nowadays our right to exercise this authority is due to the fact that are between man and Hashem and mitzvos that are be- that we are agents of the earlier generations. Nesivos Hamish- tween man and his fellow man. When it comes to interperson- pat 2 notes that our Gemara that authorizes a slave owner to al mitzvos any person can prevent another from transgressing a strike his slave to stop him from maintaining a relationship prohibition, thus one may use force to stop Reuven from hit- with a non-Jewish maidservant indicates that everyone has the ting Shimon. In contrast, when someone is about to transgress authority to force a person to fulfill a mitzvah. Ketzos Hacho- a prohibition that is between man and Hashem only those shen 3 answers that there is a difference between forcing a per- people who are known to be righteous and act out of pure mo- son to fulfill a mitzvah and using force to separate a person tives for the sake of Hashem has the authority to use force to from committing a transgression. Only a Beis Din of experts prevent someone from committing a transgression. The rea- has the authority to use force to compel a person to fulfill a son, he explains, is out of concern that empty headed people mitzvah but any person has the authority to use force to pre- will start hitting others using the excuse that they were at- vent a person from transgressing a prohibition. tempting to prevent a transgression.  .1 קצות החושן סי ג‘ ‘ סק“א Yam Shel Shlomo 4 also writes that everyone is authorized .2 נתיבות המשפט שם סק“א -to use force to prevent a person from transgressing a prohibi .3 משובב נתיבות שם tion but he asserts that there is a difference between mitzvos .4 ים של שלמה פ“ ג סי ט‘ ‘  nullified this gezeirah, the Mishnah Beru- is absolved? In addition, who cares if he since he didn’t fulfill the פטור STORIES Off the Daf rah and many other authorities rule that is one who fulfills this decree will be mitzvah?” Mitigating circumstances blessed. 1 In addition, many pre-Chassidic The answered his own ques- sources mention that observing this taka- tion: “Hashem sees into a man’s heart. If אונס רחמנא פטריה nah is essential for true spiritual develop- a person yearns to do a mitzvah but truly A chassid once approached his rebbe, ment. Rav Chaim Kanievsky, shlit”a, cannot, it is as though the Torah itself Rav Yizchak of Vorke, zt”l, in a very bro- brings a list of some of these luminaries, fulfills the mitzvah for him!” ken-hearted manner. He had a physical including the Arizal, the Beis Yosef’s The chassid lingered in his rebbe’s ailment that contact with water severely , and the Reishish Chochmah. 2 presence, obviously unsatisfied with this exacerbated. When he had been ill the With all these sources it is no won- response. He clearly was hoping to re- doctor had declared with certainty that der that the young man felt frustrated by ceive a blessing that he would, in fact, be his illness was the result of contact with his inability to maintain this practice. able to immerse in the . water. Not surprisingly, they absolutely The Vorkever Rebbe turned to his young The rebbe admonished him, “Why forbade him from going to the mikveh follower and said, “In Bava Kama 28 we are you still standing here? Who will do  The Merciful the mitzvah better—you, or the Torah?” 3— אונס רחמנא פטריה ‘ :even after he recovered. find .1 בסימן פ“ ח בשם הפמ ג“ -Chassidim are generally very careful One’ absolves those constrained by miti .2 עיין אורחות יושר טהרה עמוד מ‘ -about ’s decree that a ba’al must gating circumstances.’ This seems super .3 גדולת הצדיקים עמ “נ‘ ה go to the mikveh, especially before daven- fluous. Why not just say that one who is ing. Although the halachah is that they constrained by mitigating circumstances

Daf Digest is published by the Chicago Center for Torah and Chesed, under the leadership of HaRav Yehoshua Eichenstein, shlit”a HaRav Pinchas Eichenstein, Nasi; HoRav Zalmen L. Eichenstein, Rov ;Rabbi Tzvi Bider, Executive Director, edited by Rabbi Ben-Zion Rand. Digest has been made possible through the generosity of Mr. & Mrs. Dennis Ruben.