Rotzeach uShmirat Nefesh - Chapter 10

For Deuteronomy 21:1, the source for this mitzvah, speaks of “the land that God, your Lord, is giving you to inherit.”

The Rambam’s wording raises some questions with regard to the status of TransJordan. For on one hand, it appears to be distinct from Eretz Yisrael, and yet laws that apply only in Eretz Yisrael apply there.

Generally, when the Torah uses the word eglah, calf, with regard to sacrifices, the intent is that it may not be more than one year old. Nevertheless, with regard to the calf that is decapitated, Deuteronomy 21:3 states eglah bakar, “a calf of cattle,” implying that the calf could have already matured (the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, Sotah 11).

One day is regarded as an entire year (Rosh HaShanah 10a).

Although sacrificial animals may not be blemished, Sotah 45b explains that such a requirement does not apply with regard to the decapitated calf. Our Sages derive this concept as follows: With regard to the red heifer, Numbers 19:2 states explicitly that “it must have no blemish.” Since such a statement is not made with regard to the decapitated calf, one may conclude that this requirement does not apply.

Afflicted by a physical condition that will cause it to die within a year. As stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbe’ach 2:10, such an animal may not be used for a sacrificial offering.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Jerusalem Talmud (Sotah 9:5), the source for this law, also mentions that a calf that is lacking a limb is unacceptable for this purpose. The Kessef Mishneh questions why the Rambam does not mention this point.

See Hilchot Parah 1:7.

Although the calf carried the garment, since it was carrying it for its own benefit, it is not disqualified.

The Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, Parah 2:4, states that if the person places his garment on the calf without intending that it carry it, it is not disqualified, even though it did carry it and thus perform work.

1:7.

Hence just as sacrifices are offered only during the day, so too, the decapitation of the calf is performed only during the day.

This is not a sign of respect for the mitzvot, for by performing two mitzvot at the same time, neither is given its proper token of respect.

This is also derived from the fact that it is compared to the sacrificial offerings. Just as it is forbidden to benefit from those offerings, so too, it is forbidden to benefit from a decapitated calf.

Since it became forbidden during its lifetime, its status does not change. We do not say that its designation for decapitation by the court was conditional in nature, and since it was not used for that purpose, its status changes.

As explained in the previous chapter, from Halachah 11 onward.

See the previous chapter, Halachah 14.

I.e., a second pair of witnesses testified that the first pair of witnesses were not at the place where they claimed to be together with the first witness, but in another place, and the first witness was not there.

Some commentaries explain that the court had this possibility in mind when it set aside the calf. The calf thus becomes forbidden from the time that it is designated. (See the following note.) Others explain that since the calf was set aside in error, all the restrictions resulting from that designation are rescinded when the error is discovered.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that from Bechorot 24b, 25a, it would appear that either the calf should not be forbidden until it is decapitated (in contrast to the ruling in Halachah 6), or that the calf should be forbidden in this instance as well.
In reply, the Kessef Mishneh explains that we say that the court had in mind that possibly the identity of the murderer would be discovered, and therefore the designation of the calf was conditional in nature. This is in fact likely, because as mentioned previously, according to the Rambam, one of the reasons for the decapitation of the calf is to publicize the murder and bring it to the forefront of people’s attention.

We do not say that since the murderer was discovered, the decapitation of the calf was unnecessary, and we may therefore derive benefit from it.

I.e., it is sacrificed to atone for the murder when the identity of the murderer is not known.

I.e., we do not say that since the decapitation of the calf brought about atonement for the murder, there is no need to execute the murderer.

I.e., by executing the murderer.

I.e., even if the river dries up, it is forbidden to till the river bed.

Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 309) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 531) regard this as one of the Torah’s 613 commandments.

Although Yom Kippur generates atonement for sins that only God knows were committed, an exception is made with regard to the decapitated calf. Keritot 26a states that from Deuteronomy 21:5 “Atone for Your people Israel whom You have redeemed,” we can conclude that the atonement brought about by the decapitated calf affects even the Jews redeemed from Egypt, despite the fact that many Yom Kippurim have passed since then.