Mishpatim - 2nd Portion

Join as we learned Kumish for Monday Paras Mishbatim, the second Torah reading. Yesterday in the Torah reading, we spoke about the different laws pertaining to a Jewish bondsman, the damages that a person may do, hitting one, hitting another person, hitting their father, cursing their parents, or when people get into an argument and one hits and then damages one another, what the laws may be. As we learned yesterday, the rashis are very extensive covering many different laws pertaining that are discussed in the track dates of Baba Bababas Mitsia and so to today as we continue into these laws. The rashies are are also very extensive into explaining and telling us the v the variety of laws which are learned and derived from the laws mentioned in this week's Torah reading. Chapter 21 verse 20, the second Torah reading. Today we're going to begin by learning about the non-Jewish bondsman, the non-Jewish slave. And the Torah tells us as follows. If a man strikes a non-Jewish slave or a non-Jewishmade servant with it with a rod and she or he dies under his hand he must be avenged. What that does mean as we soon see Rashi explains what does the rod mean? Who are we talking about? And how all these things are explained. Rashi verse 20 when we talk about this word verse it doesn't say clearly in the verse if you see if it's a Jewish or non-Jewish slave so Rash's question is which one are we talking about here therefore if you continue into the verse it tells us in the next verse in verse 21 he tells us why this person may be avenged is because it is his money. Just like your money is yours for eternity. So too, we're talking about a slave who is yours forever. Forever means in this case until the Jubilee year and uh and however a Jewish slave goes out in the Jubilee or in six years later, this non-Jewish slave is his for eternity. So therefore, if it's talking about a non-Jewish slave, we already previously learned that if a person kills somebody, he li he's liable of capital punishment himself. And it doesn't differentiate between Jew or non-Jew. You kill a person. This Jewish non-Jewish slave is already part of that uh verse that tells us about killing an individual because of the verse comes here and he takes him out of the rule. meaning we're going to learn in the next few verses that in the next verse verse 21 that if this person survives a day 24 hours then the owner is not liable to c capital punishment because it's considered that he survives then it wasn't considered an in unintentional manslaughter. However, when it comes to anybody else that he k that gets killed, not a slave, if they survive even after the 24 hours and then they die from that wound, they are still liable capital punishment. Over here, the Torah is making an exception to the slave and for this reason tells us a unique a unique verse telling us pertaining the laws of the slave. How did he hit the slave shave it with a rod? So the asks this rod when he hit him was did it have the ability to kill him or is it talking about any instance where a person hits him even if it would not have the ability that means there wasn't enough strength in it to kill him and this person anyways killed in what case would we say that they're liable of capital punishment comes to teach us when a person kills a Jewish person The Torah uses the terminology. It says that he uses a stone that killed the individual or a or a wooden vessel, a wooden tool that killed the individual. Meaning that the as Rash continues to say, only if he killed the individual with something that has the ability to kill him. That means as the Torah uses the terminology, it had to be a a tool that was had the strength to kill the person. So now if we look at the two instances and we compare the two if a Jew which his case is more strict and stringent he's only liable of capital punishment if he was hit with something which had the ability to kill him. and also was hid in a place and in a position that that would be able to kill that was a life-threatening that was lethal that he should be killed with this type of blow that he got. Ev a slave hakal who has more lenient in laws. How much more so that in order to be liable of capital punishment, it would have to be done with a tool that is lethal and in a limb that is lethal that can kill the individual. What does it mean that he must be avenged? It means as follows that this master is then killed with capital punishment with a sword as we find in the verse it says in the book Leviticus that the sword is the one that avenges takes revenge of the covenant. So therefore we see anytime with the terminology of revenge or avenge is talking about the punishment that comes with the sword. verse 21. However, there's an exception where he would not be liable for capital punishment, which is if he survives for a day or two afterwards, this slave gets up and he's a fine. He survives for that full day, then what happens? What happens if he survives for at least a full day? then he shall not be avenged since he is not avenged because he is his property and therefore he is not liable and the leniency applies only to a slave but not to anybody else as we learned previously in Rashi. Let's see this in the words of Rashi. What is this Torah telling us? Is it a day or two? Which one is it? What why does the Torah have to tell me a day or two? If the guy gets up after a day and he's fine, how much more? So, if he gets up after two days and he's fine, that he'll still be exempt. What's the Torah telling us here? It's talking about a day that is like two days. What is a day that's like two days? That's a full 24-hour period. Being that the slave is part of his property, therefore, if he a if he survives the 24 hours, he's not liable of capital punishment. Oh, what do I learn from here? Another individual and he made a fit. Even though the person survives 24 hours before he dies, is still liable of capital punishment. Verse 22, the Torah now goes on to tell us about a fight between two individuals and compensation of any injuries. As we mentioned earlier, verse 22, when men are fighting, and they accidentally collide with a pregnant woman, the causing the woman to miscarry her fetuses. However, though there was a there was a miscarriage, but there was no fatal injury as well. The guilty party then is fined according to what the woman's husband sues that individual and he shall pay at the court's discretion according to what the judge is decide how much he should pay. So let's understand what happens here how the court determines what is the actual incident. Rashi goes on to explain. So Rashi says as follows verse when two people are fighting the two people are fighting one with another and he really intended to hit his friend who he's fighting with but accidentally he hit the woman that means this woman was not an intentional hit not intentional blow when they were uh the verse is also telling us as Well, that this intentional blow fighting with one another could have been he also intended to kill one another as we'll see later on in verse 23. What does the word mean? And they uh they collide the word over here which means colliding or hitting the comes from the word of pushing or hitting. And therefore when you continue to say and there was no um there was no fatal incident here as we're soon going to see also comes with the word when a person hits his foot on the stone tells the Jewish people before your hits get before you stumble on the stone or the person stumbled on the stone. So we see the word neckf means to hit to push to get in contact with and there was no fatal incident to who was there no fatal incident is the woman survived but because of the blow she miscarried she survived the fetuses did not he gets fined why does he get finedal he has to pay for the fetuses to the husband but they're not liable obligation of of capital punishment for killing the fetuses. How do we then decide how much the fetuses are worth? We value the woman. How much would this woman be able to be sold in the marketplace? Meaning how much would somebody pay for a woman which is pregnant versus a woman which is not pregnant. And now because of that you have the difference of what those fetuses are paid for are worth and that's how much you would have to pay for to the husband. And one of the reasons in general why a woman who's pregnant was worth more for example a maidervant who sold that's pregnant is worth more because since they have children those children will eventually be the slaves of whoever buys this maidervant. This fellow gets punished who makes sure that he gets punished. the bestd the rabbitical court will make sure will go and take money from him like we find in the book of Deuteronomy when in other cases where the person gets punished and he has to pay a certain amount of a fine based when the the husband sues this individual in rabbitical court to be able to advance a punishment a fine against this person who has to pay the The person who hit this woman caused the fetuses to be m miscarried. He's the one that has to pay. What does the word beim mean? Means in judgment according to what the judges have to say. That's in a case where no in there was no fatal there was no fatal injuries. However, if there was a fatal injury, for example, verse 23, if however somebody does fatal an injury, you shall exact the uh money a life for a life. What does this mean? Rashi tells us who is the one that gets injured. If the woman we're not talking about the individual that he that he's fighting with the woman who he collided with was killed then what does this mean the rabbis have a difference of opinion about this yeah some people say have to kill the individual who hit her gets literally killed others say that in this case he has to just pay for that woman that he killed to the heirs of the woman because and you're not actually killing the person actually. Why? Because the law is that if I intend to kill one person but mistakenly kill another person, the person is not liable of capital punishment because there was no intent in killing the person that he did. though he intended to kill but it was the different person and because of that he's not liable of capital punishment and he has to pay the would have to pay the ears the amount of money that this person would be worth if he were to be sold in the market verse 24 general monetary compensations are done an eye is must be made for the loss of an eye shame a tooth for a tooth a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot. What does this mean? How you compensate? It's not that you literally take an eye and give it to the other person. So, as Rashi explains, if you blinded another person's eye, you have to give them the value of what this person's eye is worth. How would that be done? You would see how much you would sell a person in the market missing one eye and the difference would be paid. Kulam the same is true with all of them with the hand with the tooth with the foot and with the leg and with the arm all of these things it's not that you god forbid take off another person's limb because of it you see how much that person would be worth missing any one of those limbs it doesn't mean that you take off and you destroy the person's limb literally like the rabbis explain in chapter of verse Likewise, if somebody suffered suffers because of another person uh suffering because of a burn must be paid with a burn wound for a wound bruise for a bruise. What does the word mean? In this case, means it means a burn. Until now, he was talking about paying for damages for wounds that have less of a money because of the wound. The following ones, the wound, the blow or the injury are in or the bruise, those are that there are less. There is almost no money paid because there's no less of value because the person has a burn wound. It is only that he has to pay for the pain that happens because of it. For example, if a person burned an individual with a torch on his nails and because of that the person's still able to work but he caused them pain and suffering, he still has to pay him for the pain and suffering. We evaluate. How do you evaluate how much this is worth? You would say how much would a person rather not have this pain? How much would he would pay willing to have such pain happened to him? And this changes from person to person. You have some people who have a higher pain tolerance and some people with a lower pain tolerance. Peta, what is a wound? A wound for a wound. A wound in this case is referring to a wound that causes it to bleed. that he made a cut, the laceration in his um in his flesh. And now everything has to be evaluated. Every wound according to what it is. That means if it's a wound that is so severe that because of that it loses his value in money. Then he has to pay for also the damages of the value of money. And because of this wound, the person has to be bedritten and chavest and he has to give him the amount of time that he had to be off work. And if he needs healing through a doctor, he has to pay as well for the doctor fees. And if it's bishious, if because of that he's embarrassed, he has to pay also defamation fees and and pain. So one may ask, why does this Torah verse what is it extra? Why is it telling me? What's the extra learning that why does it tell me all these cases and the chapter of that we mentioned previously in the rabbis explain that this verse is actually coming to explain something which is more than we know before that we learned previously that a person has to pay for the damages and doctor fees and defamation it's telling us as well that even though you may say well I paid a guy already the guy for damages why should exempt pain for pain and suffering as well. You do not get exempt from paying for pain and suffering saying this. You can say well I paid for damages of the hand and I should be able to acquire it how much I want and I what's the big deal and we'll tell the person no you want to say well I paid for his arm and I already paid for the differentiation of a person that has an arm or doesn't have an arm. So why now do I have to pay for the pain and suffering as well is because when a person loses his arm there's different ways how a person can lose an arm. If a person has to lose an arm in the least painful way they can put up poison whatever it may be and over here you went and did in a very in a way that makes a person suffer much more. So therefore you're liable to pay for the pain and suffering that he went through not only for the damages. And that's why the Torah repeats in this case about the wounds and about the burns that you not only are you liable to pay for the wound but you also liable to pay for the pain and suffering that comes with it. What's the difference between a wound and a bruise? A bruise, it's a place where you see the bruise, but the blood stays underneath the skin and doesn't come out. What we would call today a black and blue mark. The skin underneath it becomes red. The word comes from like the word a stain on the flesh. the way it looks when a person gets a bruise. And we also with the in the book of Genesis, it talks about the wheat that was in Pharaoh's dream that looks like they were beaten. And the reason why it's called that looks like they were beaten is from the same terminology that the door stops on the lintil that comes from the roof and it bangs on it. So make sure the door doesn't go swinging through. So too this the idea of or all come from that same terminology banged against it. Verse 26. Now going back to the stories of if a person hurting his non-Jewish bondsman bondsman when a person uh strikes the eye of his non-Jewish slave or the eye of his non-Jewish maidervant that and because of that he destroys it that will then make him free he gets sent away he accomplishes this he gets the compensation because of his eye let's see in a rashi as over here we're talking about what kind of slave a slave non-Jewish slave however a Jewish slave does not go free because he was struck in his tooth or eye as we explained this previously in verse 7 yesterday when we spoke about that the Jewish slaves does not go out like the regular slaves which the regular slaves do go out if they get injured. A Jewish slave does not because of his eye. It's not only his eye, but this would apply to any of the 24 main limbs. For example, the fingers of the feet or the toe is two ears nose other major body parts within the individual. Why then doesn't pick the tooth and the eye? If every single if it applies to every one of these 24 main limbs and the Torah says as follow explains as follow if it only say the not say the tooth I would have said what's the unique just like the you born with it so to the only time that a slave would go free is if you injure one of the limbs that a person's born with but so then say to and a tooth the person wasn't born with it. So maybe you shouldn't go free with it. But if it would only would have said a tooth and not say an I mean I would have said and the difference between a tooth is that can be exchanged and therefore a person that the tooth for example a person has a baby tooth and then they get another tooth and therefore because it's going to um come get a new one. So therefore, and we still see that the slave goes out for free, and therefore it tells us an eye, then not by a baby tooth because it's going to be a new one. However, the eye comes to tell us that it has to be such a type of limb, even a limb the person wasn't born with. But what kind of limb? One that's not going to grow back. So for example, if it was a tooth though he wasn't born with it, but if it was a baby tooth that it's going to come in a new one for that he will not go uh he will not go free because the tooth that we're talking about here is a tooth an adult tooth that will not grow back. Verse 27. So too, if he knocks out the permanent tooth, as we just said read in Rashi, of his servant or maid servant, and we're talking about the non-Jewish one, he would go free because of his tooth. Verse 28. Now we're going to now we finish with the person himself doing injuries and we're going to see what happens if the person's property does injuries. So in this case we're talking about if an ax gores a man or woman and because of that the ax kills the individual the victim dies. The ax must be stoned. You're not allowed to eat its meat and the owner of the ax is not punished. This is not only referencing to an ox. This is not only an ox that uses the yaks as the metaphor, but this refers to any animal that a person owns. The talk, the Torah is talking about a case of a usual case, which is you don't have a sheep usually goring people. An ox usually gores and therefore it talks about the ax. The very fact that it says, "Suckle, you suck a shirt that the ox has to be stoned. Don't I know that this is already a corpse that's not allowed to be eaten, a corpse is prohibited from eating? Why does the Torah tell that you not eat its flesh? Even if a person decides to go ahead and slaughter his animal even after it is already condemned that it was going to be sto stoned before it was stoned and the guy goes runs ahead and goes to slaughter it and he thinks that he's going to be a smart alec and he's going to be able to have it before it's stoned it's prohibited to eat it. How do I know that not only to eat it but you're also to have it any pleasure from it? Therefore, the Torah says and the owner of the ox is clean. Meaning it's like a person that tells his friend after he lost his pants. He goes, "This guy walked out empty. He doesn't have he's clean. Nothing that he remained from him at all." So too in this case, the fellow is clean. Meaning he gets nothing whatsoever. Even if he slaughtered it, he can't even eat it. He can't have any pleasure from it. Rashi adds on and says, That is the medashic interpretation. The simple interpretation simply being that he says later on when it comes to a goring animal that has already been gored three times that also its owners are linable and therefore they also deserve capital punishment. Therefore, when it tells us about an innocent ox which this is the first time that it happened that the owner is not liable. Verse 29. However, if this ax it's not his first time and he already has gored on previous oations when yesterday and the day before that means three times already he's been goring and they warned the they warned the owner to be able to guard his animal and not to let him out and he wasn't protecting he did not guard his animal and now his animal is went and killed a man and woman or a woman you suck The anks shall be stoned and the owners are also liable of capital punishment. What does it mean yesterday and the day before? So you have yesterday, the day before and now today. So you have a total of three. Now he becomes a liability. They warned him. They warned him in front of witnesses like the guy warned us. because he says he ged a do I know that he killed him by goring him what happens if the ax doesn't necessarily gore maybe he bit him maybe he pushed him maybe he kicked it how do I know that those are the same exact laws when it comes to goring therefore the Torah says and killed him doesn't make a difference which way he killed him the gamble of humus and the li owners are liable of capital punishment but in this day in this case they are are they which punishment are They which capital punishment are they liable of it by having God kills them or is the best and liable of capital punish liable to kill. Therefore, the Torah tells us the very fact that the Torah stresses the fact that he should be put to death means because in the other case when it talks about a murderer, it says and he shall be put to death, not that he dies. Meaning in that case when a person kills an individual on his own, then he is liable of capital punishment. However, in this case that it was his animal that's killed somebody, he is only liable of capital punishment in the hands of heaven. Verse 30. And even though that it's the heavenly court that he's put to death by still in all the court on this world, the bestd the rabbitical court then has to give him a fine when atonement fine is imposed upon him. He shall pay whatever sum is imposed on him. Whatever they say should be paid for the ransom of his life. What does this mean? This is not about an if. For it's not if the best gives him a fine. When the best gives him a fine then he has to pay the money of damaged. How much is he going to pay? And the question is does he pay the value of the person that he damaged or the value of the the damager or the damage? That means the one that got damaged which we would call the Nisik or the one who damaged. So what what value? According to Rabi Schmal, it's the value of the person who got damaged. According to Rabaka, he pays the value of how much the actual ax was worth and that's what he pays for the individual. Verse 31. What happens if this ax appla kills a boy or a girl which means under the age of barbas the same shall be dealt a same law applies meaning a son that's a child that's under barbas because he used previously in the verse he says man or woman so I would think this only applies to adults people over therefore the Torah has to tell us a He brings us the case of the boy or girls to say that he's just as liable when if it's a when it's somebody under the age of 32. What happens if this ox scores a non-Jewish slave or a non-Jewish made servant will have to pay then the amount of 30 silver shekele has to pay to the master but the ax continues to be stoned. We're talking about non-Jewish ones. This is a decree of the verse. There is no logical reason for it. It is the Torah says this is how much it should be. It doesn't make a difference if you say your slave was a top slave in the market. He would be worth a thousand dinar. Or if you say the slave was barely moving around, it doesn't make a difference. 30 shekel is what's paid for a slave. How much is 30 shekel? is weight of our boss dinar. This is the weight according to the city of Kuno that will be a half of unk. This is the measurement that Rashi is determining according to the uh uh times at the time. For example, the city Colonia Colonia which was then on this during the era of Germany around that place and over there there were people that knew exactly what kind of coins they made it to the exact measurement and exact weight and most of the people of that area Germany, Spain, France would go according to that weight of that coin that was made in the place Colonia and therefore rashi references to that place to get an idea of how much the weight of the shekel is. Verse 33. Now we have in the next case that's where a person's ax hurt an individual. The next thing is if a person's property hurt somebody for example if a person uncovers a pit or he digs a pit. This is talking about as we're in a play a pit. does not cover it and he's not protected. And because he didn't protect it, an ox or a donkey fell in it was covered and this guy came along and uncovered it that he dug it. If you're already liable because since you just uncovered a pit, how much more so if you're the one that dug the pit? It's coming to tell you that if a person went and he makes the the uh the pit deeper than it was previously that he would be still liable and doesn't cover it. But if he did cover it, then he wouldn't be liable because he did his due diligence and making sure somebody doesn't hurt himself. Here it's coming to tell us as well that this is referring to a case where a person digs a pit in the public domain. But if you do it in your own property and you make a pit, that's the other person. What's the guy doing in your property? And therefore, you're not liable for that ox or a donkey. This applies to any animal. Anytime that the Torah generally tells us about an ox or a donkey, anytime that the Torah tells us about an ox or a donkey, we learn it from the laws of Shabas that it refers to and this applies to any animal. The reason why the Torah and this is because the Torah says all your all your animals. So too in this case where it says or a donkey also refers to all kinds of animals as well. The only reason why the Torah says telling us specifically an ox and not a human and not the person's vessels and therefore it's talking about specifically on live animals. Uh to verse for 34 the owner of the pit is reliable to make restitution for whatever was injured to who? He has to pay the money to the owners the hbe and he can enjoy and keep the carcass the uh and the carcass remains the owner's property balab is the owner of the ditch meaning the guy who caused it that means if you see a ditch not the guy that was covered and then you went and uncovered it the one that's responsible is the guy that uncovered not the original guy of the ditch it could be even if it's not your ditch was made. For example, if you made a dish in a public domain, say, "Yeah, it's not mine. It's a public domain." But the very fact that you dug the dish in the public domain, the Torah makes it yours that you are now liable for any damages that happen. What does it mean return? It comes to include that means that not necessarily does he have to pay him actual money, but he can also pay him the value of money. Even the most cheapest type of wheat, he can sell it because anything that the person can sell and get value of money for it, he can pay with who's the one that gets the carcass that the purse that was damaged. He still So what happens over here is he doesn't being that the Torah doesn't clear say clearly who gets the carcass. The sages explain over here that what this means is that the they take this actual carcass and they see what it's worth. Now what can you get for it for the skin, for the meat and different types of things of what it's worth. So then they he has to pay what it's worth the money. Then part of his payment is that he also gets back with the uh he gets the carcass to keep it as well. And besides that, he has to pay the difference of what it would be a live animal versus a dead animal. And plus, he gets to keep his carcass. He does however get to deduct the value of the animal's carcass when he pays him for the damage of the actual animal. Verse 35. What happens if one man's animal now his ox attacks another fellow's ox and because of that the ox dies? So it's one person's property. Now before we spoke about property hitting an individual, now it's property hitting property. What they will do is then they can then sell the live ax the casp they divide the proceeds the and then they also divide the value of the carcass. So this way the owner of the attacking ax compensates the owner of the attacked ax for his losses. As we'll see, Rashi goes on to explain at length how this goes about the word means to push. It doesn't make a difference how he pushed it. Whether it was with his horns, with his body, with his feet, whether he bit it, with his teeth, all of them are all part of pushing of goring. The word goring is just the way he hit him. the ax that belong to a person and they sell this ax is talking about in a way that they're able to sell the ax and that the ax that was gored and the ax that died are of equal value. Now for example each ax was worth 200 and the one that he killed was also worth 200. Now whether this carcass is worth a lot or whether the carcass is worth a little. So in this way when you want to take the live ox and the carcass you want to make it that they should split it between the two individuals when this guy is now going to take half of the dead animal which is the carcass half of the live animal. And this guy gets half and this guy and the other half. What you're achieving here is that each person loses half of the damage because of because the two animals are goring one another. They're each reliable. So the each one gets half of the damages. So they both lose. So for example, like we mentioned before, each one's worth additionally 200 versus 200. The carcass is worth 100. So now what do you have to damage is 100. So each one takes gets 150 because they take the live one they split it in half so they each get 100. They take the carcass and split it in half which was worth 100. So they each get 150. So when we will come out from here they both lose half of damage. Each one loses 50. From here we learn that a animal on its first time goring has to pay half a damage. You learn from a case where it's equal to a case where it's not equal. The law is that when it comes to a goring an animal that never goured before that he has to pay only a half a dam half the damage assessed and not more and not less and they don't have to divide between the two of them. Or one can say is this. Do we say that you all have to pay half exactly half only when the animals are both of equal value or even when they're not of equal value you should pay half because if you're going to say you can say that because if you're going to say that there could be that the sometimes if you're going to say that the Torah tells us that anytime there's a damage when one property against another one one you're always going to split it in half a value regardless of what they're worth then sometimes it can actually happen that the damager should walk out making money. For example, when this carcass is worth more to sell to nonres for the meat of it can be worth more than the actual ax goring ox of the animal. So for example, let's say the ax that gored was worth 50. The carcass is worth 100. When they're going to split it, each one has to get 75 now. So he's going to make more on the deal. It doesn't make sense that the Torah would tell us that in a case where there's a goring animal, the damager should make money off the deal. Or you should say that the guy that got damaged should get more than full compensation, more full damages. Where at times you can have that half of the value of the goring animal could be worth more than the animal itself of the one that was damaged. The im Because if you're going to say so, then you can have a case where it's a tam. A tom means an animal that was only killed once that only did a goring once would be more strict than a mu which is a goring animal because we know by a goring animal he has to pay full damages. By a simple animal we'll call it a tom animal that only damaged once he's only has to pay a half a damage. And if you're going to pay if you're going to say this that it's always going to be split in half, you can have a case where his animal that only gored once, he's going to have to pay even more than regular damages. Therefore tells us the Torah when the Torah tells us they have to split it in half is talking about where both animals are of equal value is telling us it's coming to tell me that a one-time goring animal only pays half and from here you learn that in a case where it's not of equal value also the also that animal will only have to pay half an in you'll to then take and evaluate the carcass and whatever this animal became less in value because it's now dead. You then evaluate half of that and that's what he gets. So then you may ask why does the Torah say it in a case where they're only of equal value could have just said clearly pay half. It's also coming to tell us another law that when it comes to a comes to an animal that it was only his first time goring you can only pay from the actual animal for example if it was gored and it died later all the damage or guess it's only the car carcass and he can't even get and touch to the value of half of its profits he loses let's say if you have an ox it's worth 100 and it gores an ox it's worth 500 And he doesn't take the he only takes the ox which is worth 100 and he doesn't get even the half of damages because you're not obligated to pay from the higher tier. Therefore, the Torah tells us clearly where it's equal to tell us two things. Number one, only when it's equal does he get half. When it's not equal, he still only gets half of the damages. But what happens in the case where the half of the damages would be worth more than his own animal, then he only gets worth of his own animal? Because when it's a one-time animal that g you only get half a payment and you only get up to the amount of payment of what the animal was worth. You don't get more than that verse 36. However, if it was known that this is a growing animal from yesterday and from the day before he did not watch it, the owners did not take good care of it, then then he has to pay for the car. Then he has to pay for the full value and compensation of the ax and the carcass remains in the owner's property. What does this mean was known? There was no simple animal meaning they were all goring animals. They knew that this is a goring animal. Not only today, today, yesterday already gored three times. Then the person has to pay you has to pay full damages for whatever oxy destroyed. The the carcass belongs to the person who was damaged. And the difference he has to pay that means the carcass if the carcass is worth only 100 the animal was worth 200 the guy gets the carcass and then he has to pay him another hundred on top of it to make sure that he gets to the full damage of how much his animal was worth 37. What happens now we're going to the laws pertaining to theft. If a person steals an ox, sheep or a goat and he slaughters it or he sells it, he has to then pay five oxen in place of the ox and four sheep in place of the sheep that he stole which is now slaughtered and uh soldi for the axe. and four for the sheep. And a fascinating thing that the Torah tells us of here brought from the Talmud says God cared about the honor, the respect of the human beings of the creations. An ox that can walk on its own and therefore the thief was not embarrassed while he was stealing it. So therefore, he has to pay five because he doesn't have any embarrassment. However, a lamb sh that he has to go carry it on his shoulders and therefore there's embarrassment even while he's stealing it. Malari only pays for because there was certain level of embarrassment to it. We see over here that the Torah even though the guy's a thief but because there was a level of embarrassment while he was stealing it he pays less. Mayor Rabi mayor says look how great is the power of work. meaning a ax which caused that the individual who now does not have the axe that was stolen from him. He was not able to work the the fellow who stole it has to be has to pay five. However, a lamb being that it's not meant for work. Therefore, when it was stolen, he wasn't losing any work for it. There's no compensation of work that has to be given. Therefore, our boy only pays for the Torah says it twice, for the ox and for the sheep. To teach us that this only applies by an ox and a sheep and not by any other live animal. If a thief is caught while breaking in the hookah and he is struck by the person who's guarding and he sees that this guy is sneaking in say he hits him and because he hit him he killed him then d him he has no blood guilt in this case you were protecting yourself self-defense and there's no problem this guy was digging on the outside and he was trying to sneak inside to make a hole and crack in the wall to able to get in. This is not considered murder. It's as if this guy put his uh his dead from the beginning because you you were attacking somebody over here. The Torah is teaching us a major important principle. If a person comes to kill you, you kill him first. He doesn't kill you. this thief was coming to kill you because he knew that if he's coming to steal, the person's not going to give up his money easily. A person doesn't say, "Okay, no problem. Go steal my money." And he's quiet. If he sees somebody trying to steal his money, he's going to make him put up a fight. Therefore, he came to sneak in because if the guy that owns the money is going to oppose him, he's going to kill him. So therefore, you go kill him first before he kills you. And over here with the Torah teaches us the law that we are allowed to have self-defense. And as that's why this is applies as well as we know as the Reb would quoted many times with Israeli defense forces that they should not be passive and wait until they're hurt. On the contrary, we have an obligation that if they are planning to kill you, you have to wipe them out first. Verse two, if the sun shone on him, meaning if it's clear and that he will not kill you, then you are liable of murder. Then you must make full restitution for what he steals. And if he does not have the money to pay, then he must be sold. As we mentioned before in the beginning, how do you have a Jewish slave is if he doesn't have money then he's sold in order to pay back what he sold. Let's see here. The terminology is says this is only like a an example. It's a metaphor. If you know clearly that this person wants to make peace with you says that just like the son which brings peace to the world meaning that he's not going to kill you even if you put up a fight not to take the money for example a father is coming to take his money son's money he knows he's not going to kill his son and he knows that the father will never kill his own son so therefore there's he does no right to kill him. He's considered like somebody alive and it's considered murder if he kills him. Now being this is going back before talking about when a person steals uh kidnaps he's liable capital punishment. Therefore the Torah tells us that if a person stealing only money property then he has to pay only liable to pay for the money but not liable to capital punishment. Here explains if witnesses are there that means they see him doing it that means over here he's not talking about that the person sees him but he talks about if there's witnesses and he's saying as follows Rashi says that took a different interpretation saying that if witnesses found him before the owner came and then when the owner came they warned him we shouldn't kill him because they are witnesses Then the owners because he's considered liable of capital punishment, he's liable as a murderer. Meaning because there are witnesses, we know that if there are witnesses, the guy is not going to kill him because he's afraid that there are witnesses. And now you go ahead. You don't have the right to kill him because since we see clearly he's not going to kill you because there are witnesses there. Verse three. If however you find the stolen article is still with the individual, that means he didn't sell it. He didn't get ru get rid of it. He still has it. Whether it's a o ax or a donkey or a sheep, then he has to repay with two live animals. He has to pay double. Rashi verse three. He didn't. It's still in his domain. It's still in his property that he didn't slaughter to sell it. Everything applies that you have to pay double life doesn't have life. As it says later on in verse eight that when a person says that he stole something, whether it's a sheep, clothing, any article, he always has to pay double. He has to pay him two animals, not two dead animals. They has to be alive. Just like he stole whatever he stole. That's what he has to pay doubled. He has to either pay two live animals or the money worth of two live animals. This concludes the tow the second Torah reading for paras Mishbat.