Musar for Bava Kamma 51:14

כופר שלם בתם לרבי טרפון מנא ליה לאו משום דסבר ליה כרבי יוסי הגלילי דאמר תם משלם חצי כופר ברה"ר ומייתי לה מק"ו מרגל אלמא איכא כופר ברגל

with hardly any distinction; or shall it perhaps be argued that in the case of Horn there was on the part of the animal a determination to injure, whereas in this case the act was not prompted by a determination to injure? — Come and hear: In the case of an ox having been allowed [by its owner] to trespass upon somebody else's ground and there goring to death the owner of the premises, the ox will be stoned, while its owner must pay full ransom whether [the ox was] Tam or Mu'ad. This is the view of R. Tarfon. Now, whence could R. Tarfon infer the payment of full ransom in the case of Tam, unless he shared the view of R. Jose the Galilean maintaining21 that Tam involves the payment of half ransom for manslaughter committed on public ground, in which case he22

Shenei Luchot HaBerit

חטאתי כי לא ידעתי . At first glance it seems strange that if Bileam was not aware of the angel's presence, (which had impeded the she-ass's progress), how he could have sinned. Man is responsible for ignorance of certain laws however, if they were the ones he should have known. Otherwise there would be no point in G–d equipping us with a brain. Bileam's mental faculties were such that he should have seen the angel. If even his ass could see the angel, his own lack of awareness could only be due to a sinful outlook on his part. Man is duty-bound to always be on guard not to be the cause of something sinful.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Shenei Luchot HaBerit

It teaches us that intellectually alert people who conduct themselves with the proper degree of discretion and caution will assure themselves of the blessing in Daniel 12,3: "The wise will shine like the radiance of the firmament, and those who make the many righteous, like the stars, forever and ever."

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Shenei Luchot HaBerit

When an ox gores man, the Torah says: סקול יסקל, etc." (21,28). The Torah distinguishes between a שור תם, an ox that has a history of behaving peacefully, and one that has demonstrated aggressiveness. If the normally tame ox has killed a human being, it immediately is categorised as an aggressive beast, the owner being considered as having been forewarned. I have explained these distinctions at length in my commentary on פרשת וישב, in connection with the festival of חנוכה.
אדם הראשון, first man, was considered מועד לעולם, forewarned from the outset (Baba Kama 3). This means that he was unable to make excuses for his sin, having been told by G–d directly what he must not do. יעקב on the other hand, is described as איש תם (the choicest of human beings), and only had to pay half for any sins he had committed (i.e. cost of any damage he caused), since he never died (cf. Taanit 5, that יעקב אבינו לא מת). This means that though he "died," he did not die completely as was explained in that context (see Akeydat Yitzchak chapter 32).

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse