חדש באתר: NotebookLM עם כל תכני הרב מיכאל אברהם

Q&A: Letter Mem 10

Back to list  |  🌐 עברית  |  ℹ About
Originally published:
This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.

Letter Mem 10

Question

Hello Rabbi,
I have two questions, please.
1. There is a Mishnah in tractate Niddah 63b: “If she was accustomed to seeing on day 15 and changed to day 20, both this and that are forbidden….” In Kehati’s commentary, he explains that this means she saw on the 15th of the Hebrew month and then changed to the 20th of the Hebrew month. Later, when I learned the Talmud, the Talmud itself establishes the Mishnah only in the case of a skipping pattern, not according to the Hebrew date. So I looked in Schottenstein, and indeed there is no mention at all of anyone explaining the Mishnah as referring to a Hebrew calendar date, only to a skipping pattern. I was quite surprised—how could it be that there might be a mistake in Kehati’s commentary, even though I know that can’t be, and indeed I found in the Steinsaltz Talmud that he explains the Mishnah exactly like Kehati, but neither of them cites a source for this. It’s very strange to me, and I’d be glad for some help.
2. I wanted to ask regarding damages caused by an ox: what happens if one ox gored another ox (whether innocuous or forewarned) and injured it, but after a month the ox returned to its former condition—in other words, apparently there is no permanent damage here. Does its owner have to pay anything to the owner of the injured ox?
Thank you very much in advance.

Answer

1. Indeed, that is also what appears from the halakhic decisors (Maimonides and the Shulchan Arukh).
2. No. There is no compensation for loss of labor in the case of an ox, because that is indirect causation, and indirect causation in damages is exempt. Nor is there medical payment, etc., because this is property damage, not injury to a person.

Discussion on Answer

Moshe (2018-06-09)

Regarding the ox, suppose that along the way the ox destroyed some of the grain belonging to the owner of the forewarned / innocuous ox—he would be liable to pay for that, right?
If so, why is there no compensation for loss of labor in the case of an ox? While it is out of commission, I need another healthy ox to plow my fields. What’s the logic behind “there is no compensation for loss of labor for an ox”?

Michi (2018-06-09)

I explained that it is indirect causation, and indirect causation in damages is exempt.

Leave a Reply

Back to top button