English translation — משפטים א

Sicha 1<pg>102</pg>

A.

The Rambam wrote in ch.6 of the Laws of Damages by Property<sup>1</sup>

: "An ox that was warned and was sold or given as a gift returns to its innocuousness, for the ownership that changed changes its law"

(And its source<sup>2</sup>

in the Gemara<sup>3</sup>,

that Amoraim disagree whether ownership changes [the law] or not,

and the Rambam ruled like the one who says<sup>4</sup>

that "ownership changes [the law]").

And behold, this law of "change of ownership" the Rambam also brought earlier in ch.4 there<sup>5</sup>,

and his language: "If it<sup>6</sup>

when it is tam and was warned in the house of the borrower and he returned it to its owner, it returns to its tam status, since its ownership changed the warning is nullified and the owners pay half damages and the borrower is exempt, for he returned it."

And it is puzzling the reason for the change in the language of the Rambam,

that regarding change of ownership through sale or gift he stated "that the ownership that changed changes its law",

and regarding a borrower he wrote "since its ownership changed the warning is nullified".

Also see the language of the Rambam at the end of this halacha

(regarding a borrower)

"and the borrower is exempt because he returned it",

for seemingly it should have said that he is exempt because the status of an attested gorer has been nullified from the ox and "it has returned to its innocuous state" and consequently they are no longer liable for more than half-damages

(and it is obvious that the liability for half-damages of an innocuous ox applies to the owner).

And even though the source of the Rambam is in the language of the baraitha<sup>7</sup>

"the owners pay half-damages and the borrower is exempt from anything",

behold there the reason "because he returned it"<sup>8</sup> is not stated,

and it can be explained that the reason is because it returned to its innocuous state,

but the Rambam explains the reason that the borrower is exempt "because he returned it".

2.

And this will be understood with the introduction of the explanation and elucidation of this law of "change of ownership",

for at first glance it is puzzling: what reason is it said that a change of ownership will nullify the status of muad from the ox — for "muad" means

(in the language of the Rambam<sup>9</sup>)

"one who does an act that is his way to do it always",

and a tam that becomes muad is that when "he became accustomed in his deviation many times, he becomes muad for that thing to which he became accustomed",

and why should the status of muad be nullified because of a change of ownership?

<pg>103</pg>

And in the Meiri<sup>10</sup>

he wrote that "the going out of the ox from domain to domain changes its mazal and nature"<sup>11</sup>.

And at first glance it is puzzling,

why should a change of ownership cause a change in the mazal and nature of the ox.

And although it can be said that this is from the aspect of the law of the Torah,

and as we find that the law of the Torah effects a change in the nature of the world<sup>12</sup>,

it is difficult to say so in our case,

for where do we find in the Torah

(even in a hint)

that a change of ownership effects a change in the "mazal and nature" of the ox.

3.

And behold, in Rashi¹³

he wrote "A change of domain,

once it left this domain and came into the hands of other owners, the domain changes the law of its testimony."

And it appears to explain the intention of Rashi,

that the explanation is not that the nature of the ox changed,

that the nature of goring was nullified from it,

but rather this is a matter of law,

that "the law of its testimony" was nullified.

And the explanation of the matter:

We learned in a baraita¹⁴

"The ox does not become forewarned until they testify about it in the presence of the owner and in the presence of the court"

(as we derive¹⁵

from what is written¹⁶

"And it has been testified to its owner",

that "there is no¹⁷

testimony except in a court").

That is to say,

that even if the owner knows that his ox is a gorer,

and even if two witnesses came to him and told him so,

nevertheless "the ox does not become forewarned until they testify about it in the presence of the owner and in the presence of the court",

for such is the decree of the verse¹⁸

that there must be testimony and warning in court,

and until then the owners are not liable for full damages.

And from this it is understood,

that in the law of a forewarned [ox],

"And it has been testified to its owner",

there are two matters: a)

regarding the ox,

that by this ox goring three times it is established that "it is an ox that gores"¹⁹

and it is "forewarned for that thing to which it has become accustomed",

b)

regarding the owners,

that they are not liable for full damages unless they are first warned three times,

and as Rashi explains on "And it has been testified to its owner" — "an expression of warning with witnesses"²⁰.

[And although it is a question in the Gemara<sup>21</sup>

"to designate the ox or to designate the man"<sup>22</sup>

— this is only regarding "the three days that it teaches"<sup>23</sup>,

for in the Mishnah<sup>24</sup>

it is stated that "a goring ox is any for which they testified three days",

and about this it asks in the Gemara whether that which we require three days is only that the three gorings of the ox must be in three days

(and not in one day),

or<pg>104</pg>

that

(also<sup>25</sup>)

the three testimonies

(warnings)

to the owner before the court must be in three days

(and the practical difference is if "there come<sup>26</sup>

three groups of witnesses in one day",

and "they testified<sup>27</sup>

about three gorings of three days")

;

But in essence, the matter of the warning they do not disagree that there are in it the two aspects of to designate the ox and to designate the man²⁸,

for also according to the reasoning that three days is only "to designate the ox",

behold there is no [way] to obligate the owners for full damage until they testify before them

(at least in one day)

about the three gorings].

And based on this we can say,

that this is what Rashi wrote that "the ownership changes the law of its warning",

that his intention in "its warning" is not about the law of the ox being established as a goring ox,

but rather about the law of the warning of the owners²⁹,

for since it is a decree of the Scripture that it is impossible to obligate the owners without a warning before them and before the court,

therefore when the ownership changes,

the new owners need a new warning.

And even though when they bought the ox they knew that it is a goring ox,

nevertheless,

this is a law of the Torah that it is impossible to obligate him for full damage without a warning before them and before the court.

And just as regarding the first owners,

behold even if two witnesses warned them not before the court that the ox gored three times and consequently they know that the ox is a goring ox,

nevertheless,

without a warning in court we do not obligate them,

even though the nature of the ox is to gore — so if there are new owners the warning of the first owners is nullified,

and there must be a new warning of the new owners,

even though the ox is a goring ox³⁰.

4.

But see the Meiri's method, who wrote explicitly that "the ox's going from domain to domain changes its mazal and nature"³¹.

And it can be said,

that the Meiri holds,

that this is a matter that is in nature,

because new owners conduct themselves in new ways and orders,

and by this the manner of the ox's conduct changes.

And especially that with the previous owners the ox became a goring ox because of the lack<pg>105</pg>

the guarding,

behold it is possible and close to say that the new owners will be careful with a superior guarding³²,

and through this itself the nature changes³³

the ox.

And as we find regarding this that the nature of the ox to damage depends on the situation around it,

and like "a muad for Shabbasos is not a muad for weekdays"³⁴,

for the situation of Shabbas caused

(in a natural way)

its gorings

(as Rashi³⁵

that on Shabbas "because he is idle from work and his mind is haughty upon him",

and in Tosafos³⁶

they brought from Yerushalmi that on Shabbas "he sees them in other nice garments and they are important in his eyes strangers and he does not recognize them"),

and so in our case,

that it is possible and close to say that the manner of conduct of the first owners with him caused his gorings,

and the new situation with the new owners causes a change in the nature of the ox.

And we find to learn,

that there are two manners in the explanation of the law of "change of ownership": a)

that change of ownership nullifies the law of the testimony of the owners,

b)

that by means of this the nature of the ox changes.

[And there is a practical difference in halacha between these two manners — if in the first ownership it was "forewarned for everything"&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;

(for several species&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;),

and afterwards in the new ownership it became again forewarned only for one species: if we say that the nature of the ox changed,

it is simple that it is forewarned only for this species; but if you say that the nature of the ox did not change,

and it is an ox that gored as before,

and only a decree of the verse is that there is no liability for the new owners until they warn him in front of the court,

one can say,

that after they warned him and "and it was testified to its owner" was fulfilled in him, he is again liable not only for this species but remains "forewarned for everything"&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;.

And this requires further study&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;].

5.

And it can be said,

that the Rambam holds that the law of "change of ownership" includes both manners,

except that it depends in which manner: regarding a sale or a gift that is a change of ownership completely

(that passes to a new ownership actually)

we say that the change of conduct of the new owners causes a change in the nature of the ox; but when there is not a complete change of ownership,

and like an ox in the possession of a borrower that is not a complete change of ownership,

since the ox is still of the owners and only that they lent it to him,

and in the language of the Gemara⁴¹

that still "the name of its owner is upon it",

then it is not logical that the nature of the ox changed,

because certainly the borrower will not change so much from the custom of the owners toward the ox

(since he must return it),

and regarding this it is logical to say that the law of "change of ownership" is only because of nullification of the law of testimony of the owners.

And this is the distinction in the language of the Rambam between the two above laws:

Regarding a borrower

("The warning was given to the borrower and he returned it to its owner")

Says "since the ownership changed, the warning is nullified",

and the intention is to the nullification of the &lt;pg&gt;106&lt;/pg&gt;

warning⁴²

(the warning)

to the owners⁴³,

for even regarding a borrower the nature of the ox did not change,

nevertheless,

since the warning was given to the borrower,

it does not obligate the lender when the ox returns to his domain,

for he requires a warning on its own.

And based on this, also the conclusion of the Rambam's words is understood: "And the borrower is exempt, for he returned it": since the nature of the ox did not change and it is a goring ox,

It could be said that even though the ox was already returned to the domain of the owner,

nevertheless,

since the borrower made it into a goring ox

(and it is still goring),

we would obligate the borrower to pay half damages

(the second)

which it is impossible to obligate the owner&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;.

That is,

since that the ox "returned to its innocuousness" is only in that it is impossible to obligate the owner for full damages

(because there was no warning in front of the owners),

but the ox is attested,

then there is to obligate the borrower to pay the loss

(half damages of full damages)

since he caused that the ox become attested.

And the Rambam teaches us that since he returned it, all liability of the borrower is nullified and there is no obligation upon him for any money.

But regarding sale and gift, the Rambam infers: "since the domain that changed changes its law"

(and not that "the warning is nullified"),

for here a more fundamental change applies to it,

that the law of the ox is changed,

that there is no longer upon it a presumption of attestedness,

and this is because the nature of the ox is changed and consequently there is no law of attestedness upon it.

And based on this, the language of the Rambam in the continuation of this halacha is precise: "But if he borrowed it or entrusted it to a guardian, it remains in its presumption,

And similarly, an ox that was warned in front of guardians, and the deaf person regained his senses, etc., even though the guardians were nullified, they remain warned in their presumption, since they are in the domain of the owners" — he did not simply state "it remains warned" and the like,

Rather, he is precise that it remains in its presumption,

For this is the contrast to the beginning of the halacha,

That in sale and gift, the presumption

(and nature)

of the ox changed,

But not so with a borrower, guardian, and administrator,

The presumption of a goring ox did not change,

Because there is no complete change of domain here,

For also a borrower and guardian "the name of the owner is upon it"&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;,

And all the more so an administrator, "they are in the domain of the owners".

[And one could say,

That what the Rambam wrote regarding an administrator "since they are in the domain of the owners",

The intention is not only to the law of domain,

But also "domain" in its simple sense,

That regarding an administrator, the ox remains in the domain and house of the orphans,

And if so, it is even more simple&lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt;

That the nature of the ox did not change when "the administrators were nullified"].

6.

According to all the above, the law of "authority changes" in Remez will be well explained,

in the inner meaning of the matters:

"Ox" — refers to the animal soul in man,

that one must guard it so that it does not do something undesirable, G-d forbid,

and on the contrary,

one must utilize&lt;pg&gt;107&lt;/pg&gt;

Also the power of the "ox" that is in man

(his animal soul)

to matters of good and holiness.

And since the animal soul of Israel is from the kelipah of nogah, which has good and evil,

behold there are in its nature also good traits&lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;,

and furthermore,

that from the essence of its nature the animal soul of Israel does not desire forbidden things but only permissible desires&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;.

And this is the matter of an ox that is tam

("the one that changes and does an act that is not the way of all its kind to do always"&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;)

in service,

namely when it desires forbidden things

(which is not the nature of the animal soul of Israel)

until it stumbles, may G-d spare us, into a transgression,

that then it is in the category of "tam".

And the matter of an "ox that is muad" is when "it has become accustomed to its deviation many times"&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;,

that it repeats this act several times until it becomes habituated to it

(and it becomes for it as if permitted&lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;),

that "it becomes muad for that thing to which it has become accustomed",

meaning that the undesirable conduct becomes for him like a nature.

And behold, in general,

the method to nullify the status of a forewarned ox is by means of that "it withdrew from the matter for which it was forewarned..

An ox that was forewarned to gore and withdrew from goring..

behold it is a tam regarding goring, and from when is its return? Until the children touch it and it does not gore"⁵⁰,

and so it is in the spiritual aspects of matters,

that in order that the nature of his animal soul return to its "tamut"

(that this habituation be nullified from him)

he must toil with his animal soul to nullify the force of his desires etc. until this evil nature is nullified

(to which he had accustomed himself),

and until he can test himself that he will not fall into this again

(as per the saying of our Sages, of blessed memory,⁵¹

that "complete teshuvah"⁵²

is when a matter that he transgressed comes into his hand,

"in that same place etc.",

and nevertheless he is not ensnared).

7.

And regarding this there is instruction and learning from the law of "change of domain",

that there is another way to nullify the status of "forewarned" from his animal soul,

and to elevate it from immersion in evil, heaven forbid,

and it is through the concept of change of domain.

For even if the person did not work with his animal soul until he refined it,

but rather changed his domain,

that he immersed himself with his entire essence in a new world of holiness,

whether in the study of Torah or in the work of prayer or in deeds of lovingkindness,

then automatically the dominion of the evil inclination in this matter to which he was accustomed was removed from him and "it returned to its tamut".

[And see what was explained elsewhere&lt;sup&gt;53&lt;/sup&gt;

In explanation of the content of the matter: one of the ways of repentance is "change of name"&lt;sup&gt;54&lt;/sup&gt;,

And as the Rambam wrote&lt;sup&gt;55&lt;/sup&gt;

"And he changes his name, meaning: I am another and I am not that person who did those deeds",

That the definition of this repentance is — a change of the person.

For in general, the matter of repentance that atones comes about through abandoning the sin,

regret over the past and acceptance for the future&lt;sup&gt;56&lt;/sup&gt;,

And when this repentance is in truth

(up to "complete repentance" as above),

then his iniquity is atoned for him;

But the matter of "he changes his name" is,

that when a person changes the entirety of his existence,

And as the Rambam wrote there "and he changes all his deeds for the good",

behold, that they do not punish him for the transgressions he committed is not because he nullified his sins,

but rather because he has become a new existence,

"I am not that person who did those deeds" and consequently the person who committed the transgressions is not before us to punish him].

And in this itself it is possible to say two ways:&lt;pg&gt;108&lt;/pg&gt;

A)

That the nature of the animal soul did not change,

But that nevertheless it returned to its innocence,

And in avodah [service] this means that the very revelation of the G-dly soul,

Through its investment in the light of holiness in the domain

(And its level)

The new,

Causes that his animal soul will be subjugated to the revelation of the light of holiness,

And consequently the nature of evil

(That he became accustomed to previously)

Does not affect him.

b)

In a deeper manner,

that he becomes like a completely new person,

that this "change of domain",

that he invested himself in the world of holiness,

affects all his matters in an internal way,

until even the nature of his animal soul is changed and refined,

that his evil nature is entirely nullified from him,

and "returns to his temimus",

including the inner explanation of this — from the language of temimus and shleimus,

that he becomes "to be⁵⁷

completely good,

like a yetzer tov literally".

(From the sicha of the night of the fourth day of Sukkos 5748)