WEEKLY DAFootnotes #10
Bava Kama 65-71; Issue #10
Week of 13-19 Tishrei 5762 / 30 Sept.- 6 Oct. 2001
WHEN COMPENSATION IS ATONEMENT
If a Jew denies his responsibility regarding theft, loan, found object or any other monetary claim and takes a false oath to substantiate his denial, when he subsequently confesses his sin he is obligated to follow the procedure described in Vayikra 5:10 and Bamidbar 5.
He must pay to the claimant the full amount which he attempted to deprive him of, plus an added "chomesh" (a quarter of the principle which, when added to the principle, is a fifth (chomesh) of the total). On top of this, he is required to provide a ram as an "asham" sin offering.
The term "asham" (literally "guilt") is used by the Torah in two contexts regarding this atonement. In Vayikra 5:25, this word refers to the sacrifice, while in Bamidbar 5:7 it means the principle which must be repaid. (Rashi cites both of these passages in his commentary on this gemara, and it was perhaps his intention to call attention to this distinction. (See Rashash's comment on Rashi.)
But why should the term "asham," which always means a sin offering (e.g., regarding nazir, metzora and the other four asham categories listed in the mishna we say each morning in "Eizehu Mekomon"), also be applied to what appears to be an ordinary financial compensation?
The answer lies in a rule stated by the Sage Rava (Bava Kama 110a) regarding the restrictions which the Torah places on the method of compensation which this repentant sinner must make for taking a false oath to deny a financial claim against him. Should he make this payment at night or should he pay it in installments, states Rava, he has not achieved his atonement. The reason given is that by referring to this payment as an "asham" the Torah equated it with a sin offering which cannot be offered at night nor offered in sections.
The underlying principle is that one who exacerbated his sin of dishonesty to his fellow man by taking the Name of Hashem in vain must view even the compensation component of his repentance as a sacrificial atonement.
Bava Kama 65a
A RAM IS A RAM IS A RAM
When is an ox called an ox and when is a ram called a ram?
The relevance of this question to our gemara is the question of whether a stolen calf is considered as having undergone a change in name by growing into an ox while in the thief's possession, and, similarly, whether a lamb growing into a ram has undergone a name change.
The position put forward by the Sage Rava is that even if there is a significant physical change in the animal - calf and lamb are terms applied to these animals only during their first year of life - their name has not changed because "an day-old ox is already called an ox, and day-old ram is already called a ram." In regard to age eligibility for sacrificial purposes, the Torah (Vayikra 22:27) speaks of an "ox…that will be born," which indicates that already at birth it is called an ox. Yaakov Avinu protests his honesty to his father-in-law Lavan (Bereishet 31:38) by declaring that during his 20 years of caring for his cattle "I never ate from your rams." Since Yaakov certainly did not mean to imply that he did eat from the younger sheep, we must conclude that even the youngest lamb is included in the designation "ram."
Although it emerges from our gemara that there is no difference in common perception between ram and lamb to consider the growth of one into the other as a name change, we are reminded by Tosefot that there is a difference when it comes to eligibility as a sacrifice. Since the Torah sometimes designates a lamb for sacrificial purposes and at other times a ram, we conclude that there is a difference in the age requirement. Where a lamb is designated, the animal is eligible only during its first year, while the designation of ram requires the same animal to be from one year and a month old until the end of its second year.
Another difference is found in regard to the quantity of flour and wine offered as mincha and nesachim (gift and libation) along with the lamb or ram being sacrificed (Bamidbar 15:5-6). In this area, however, the ox remains an ox from birth to maturity, for the gemara (Menachot 91b) deduces from a Torah passage in the aforementioned chapter that there is no difference in the mincha and nesachim which accompany a calf and those accompanying the ox (or bullock) that is offered.
Bava Kama 65b
The Jewish Learning Exchange (JLE) of Ohr Somayach offers summer and winter programs in Israel that attract hundreds of university students from around the world for 3 to 8 weeks of study and touring.
Copyright © 2001 Ohr Somayach International.
Send us feedback. Dedication opportunities are available for Weekly DAFootnotes. Please contact us for details.
