ב"ה
Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day
Sechirut - Chapter 1, Sechirut - Chapter 2, Sechirut - Chapter 3
Sechirut - Chapter 1
“I will thankfully acknowledge You with an upright heart, as I study Your righteous judgments” Psalms 119:7.אוֹדְךָ בְּיֹשֶׁר לֵבָב בְּלָמְדִי מִשְׁפְּטֵי צִדְקֶךָ (תהילים קיט, ז).
The Thirteenth Bookוְהוּא סֵפֶר שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר
It consists of five halachot. They are, in order:הִלְכוֹתָיו חָמֵשׁ, וְזֶה הוּא סִדּוּרָן:
The Laws of Rentals and Employer-Employee Relations;הִלְכוֹת שְׂכִירוּת,
The Laws Governing Borrowing and Governing Entrusted Objects;הִלְכוֹת שְׁאֵלָה וּפִקָּדוֹן,
The Laws Pertaining to Lenders and Borrowers;הִלְכוֹת מַלְוֶה וְלֹוֶה,
The Laws Governing Disputes between Plaintiffs and Defendants;הִלְכוֹת טוֹעֵן וְנִטְעָן,
and The Laws Pertaining to Inheritances.הִלְכוֹת נְחָלוֹת.
The laws of rentals and employer-employee relationsהִלְכוֹת שְׂכִירוּת
They contain seven mitzvot: three positive mitzvot and four negative mitzvot.יֵשׁ בִּכְלָלָן שֶׁבַע מִצְווֹת: שָׁלוֹשׁ מִצְווֹת עֲשֵׂה, וְאַרְבַּע מִצְווֹת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה;
They are:וְזֶה הוּא פְּרָטָן:
1) The laws governing a hired worker and a paid watchman;א) דִּין שָׂכִיר וְשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר;
2) To pay a worker his wages when due;ב) לִתֵּן שְׂכַר שָׂכִיר בְּיוֹמוֹ;
3) Not to delay payment of a worker’s wage after it falls due;ג) שֶׁלֹּא יְאַחֵר שְׂכַר שָׂכִיר אַחַר זְמַנּוֹ;
4) For a worker to be allowed to eat from the produce with which he is working;ד) שֶׁיֹּאכַל הַשָּׂכִיר מִן הַמְּחֻבָּר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה בּוֹ;
5) That a worker not eat from the produce at the time he should be working;ה) שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכַל הַשָּׂכִיר מִן הַמְּחֻבָּר שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת גְּמָר מְלָאכָה;
6) That a worker not take more than what he
eats;ו) שֶׁלֹּא יוֹלִיךְ הַשָּׂכִיר בְּיָדוֹ יָתֵר עַל מַה שֶׁיֹאכַל;
eats;ו) שֶׁלֹּא יוֹלִיךְ הַשָּׂכִיר בְּיָדוֹ יָתֵר עַל מַה שֶׁיֹאכַל;
7) Not to muzzle an ox while it is threshing.ז) שֶׁלֹּא יַחְסֹם שׁוֹר בְּדִישׁוֹ.
These mitzvot are explained in the chapters that follow.וּבֵאוּר מִצְווֹת אֵלּוּ בִּפְרָקִים אֵלּוּ.
1The Torah mentions four types of watchmen, who are governed by three different rules. The four types of watchmen are an unpaid watchman, a borrower, a paid watchman and a renter.אאַרְבָּעָה שׁוֹמְרִים נֶאְמְרוּ בַּתּוֹרָה, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה דִּינִין יֵשׁ לָהֶם. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הָאַרְבָּעָה שׁוֹמְרִין: שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל, וְנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר, וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר.
2These are the three rules that govern cases involving these watchmen: When an entrusted article is stolen from or lost by an unpaid watchman and -needless to say, when the entrusted article is destroyed by forces beyond the watchman’s control- e.g., it was an animal and it died or was taken captive the watchman must take an oath that he guarded the article in a manner appropriate for a watchman, and then he is freed of liability, as Exodus 22:6-7 states: “And it was stolen from the man’s home... and the homeowner shall approach the judges.” A borrower must make restitution in all instances, whether the borrowed object was lost, stolen, or destroyed by factors beyond his control - e.g., a borrowed animal died, was injured or taken captive. For with regard to a borrower, ibid.: 13 states: “If it becomes injured or dies - when its owner is not with it - he must certainly make restitution.”בוְאֵלּוּ הֵן שְׁלֹשָׁה דִּינִין שֶׁלָּהֶן: שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם שֶׁנִּגְנַב הַפִּקָּדוֹן מִמֶּנּוּ אוֹ אָבַד, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם נֶאֱנַס הַפִּקָּדוֹן אֹנֶס גָּדוֹל, כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּהֵמָה וּמֵתָה אוֹ נִשְׁבָּת - הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע שֶׁשָּׁמַר כְּדֶרֶךְ הַשּׁוֹמְרִין, וּפָטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וְגֻנַּב מִבֵּית הָאִישׁ... וְנִקְרַב בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים" (שמות כב, ו-ז). הַשּׁוֹאֵל - מְשַׁלֵּם הַכֹּל, בֵּין שֶׁאָבַד דָּבָר הַשָּׁאוּל אוֹ נִגְנַב, בֵּין שֶׁאֵרְעוֹ אֹנֶס גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה, כְּגוֹן שֶׁמֵּתָה הַבְּהֵמָה הַשְּׁאוּלָה אוֹ נִשְׁבְּרָה אוֹ נִשְׁבָּת; שֶׁכָּךְ כָּתוּב בַּשּׁוֹאֵל "וְנִשְׁבַּר אוֹ מֵת בְּעָלָיו אֵין עִמּוֹ שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם" (שמות כב, יג).
A paid watchman and a renter are governed by the same laws. If the article that was rented or was entrusted for a fee was lost or stolen, they must make restitution. If the article is lost by forces beyond the watchman’s control - e.g., an animal died, was injured, was taken captive or was attacked by a wild animal - the watchman is required to take an oath, and then he is freed of liability, as ibid.:9-10 states: “If it died, was injured or taken captive, and there are no witnesses, an oath of God shall be between them.” And ibid.: 11 states: “If it is stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner.”נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר אוֹ הַשּׂוֹכֵר, שְׁנֵיהֶם דִּין אֶחָד יֵשׁ לָהֶן: אִם נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד הַדָּבָר הַשָּׂכוּר, אוֹ שֶׁנָּטַל שָׂכָר עַל שְׁמִירָתוֹ - הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מְשַׁלְּמִין; וְאִם אֵרְעוֹ אֹנֶס גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה, כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּהֵמָה וּמֵתָה אוֹ נִשְׁבְּרָה אוֹ נִשְׁבָּת אוֹ נִטְרְפָה - הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נִשְׁבָּעִין שֶׁנֶּאֶנְסָה, וּפְטוּרִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וּמֵת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אֵין רֹאֶה שְׁבֻעַת ה' תִּהְיֶה בֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶם..." (שמות כב, ט-י), וְנֶאֱמָר "אִם גָּנֹב יִגָּנֵב מֵעִמּוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם לִבְעָלָיו אִם טָרֹף יִטָּרֵף..." (שמות כב, יא-יב).
Thus, an unpaid watchman takes an oath in all instances. A borrower makes restitution in all instances except when an animal dies performing the labor for which it was borrowed, as will be explained. And a paid watchman and a renter make restitution when the article is lost or stolen, and take an oath when it is destroyed by forces beyond their control - e.g., it was injured, taken captive, died, attacked by beasts, lost in a ship that sank at sea, seized by armed thieves - or lost in any other major matter over which the watchman has no control.נִמְצֵאתָ אוֹמֵר: שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם נִשְׁבָּע עַל הַכֹּל. וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכֹּל, חוּץ מִן הַמֵּתָה בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר מְשַׁלְּמִין אֶת הָאֲבֵדָה וְאֶת הַגְּנֵבָה, וְנִשְׁבָּעִין עַל הָאֳנָסִין הַגְּדוֹלִים, כְּגוֹן שְׁבוּרָה וּשְׁבוּיָה וּמֵתָה וּטְרֵפָה, אוֹ שֶׁאָבַד הַדָּבָר בִּסְפִינָה שֶׁטָּבְעָה בַּיָּם, אוֹ נִלְקַח בְּלִסְטִיס מְזֻיָּן, וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֶא בְּאֵלּוּ מִשְּׁאָר אֳנָסִין גְּדוֹלִים.
3The following rules apply when a person entrusts an article to a colleague for safekeeping, whether he offers payment or not or lends an article or hires it out. If the watchman also asks the owner of the article to work for him or hires him together with the article, the watchman is never held liable at all. Even if the watchman is negligent in his care of the article he was watching, and it was lost because of his negligence, he is not liable, as Exodus 22:14 states: “If his owner is with him, he need not make restitution. If he is a hired worker, it comes with his wages.”גהַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ בֵּין בְּחִנָּם בֵּין בְּשָׂכָר, אוֹ הִשְׁאִילוֹ אוֹ הִשְׂכִּירוֹ, אִם שָׁאַל הַשּׁוֹמֵר אֶת הַבְּעָלִים עִם הַדָּבָר שֶׁלָּהֶן, אוֹ שְׂכָרָן - הֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹמֵר פָּטוּר מִכְּלוּם. אַפִלּוּ פָּשַׁע בַּדָּבָר שֶׁשָּׁמַר וְאָבַד מֵחֲמַת הַפְּשִׁיעָה - הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "אִם בְּעָלָיו עִמּוֹ לֹא יְשַׁלֵּם אִם שָׂכִיר הוּא בָּא בִּשְׂכָרוֹ" (שמות כב, יד).
When does the above apply? When the watchman asked or hired the owner to work at the time he took the article, even if the owner was not with him at the time the article was stolen, lost or destroyed by forces beyond his control. If, by contrast, he took the article and became responsible as a watchman at the outset, and afterwards asked or hired the owner to work, he is not absolved of responsibility. Even if the owner was standing nearby at the time the entrusted article was destroyed by forces beyond the watchman’s control, the watchman is liable to pay, as implied by ibid.:13: “If the owner is not with him, he must certainly make restitution.”בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? כְּשֶׁשָּׁאַל הַבְּעָלִים אוֹ שְׂכָרָן בְּעֵת שֶׁנָּטַל הַחֵפֶץ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַבְּעָלִים שָׁם עִמּוֹ בְּעֵת הַגְּנֵבָה וְהָאֲבֵדָה אוֹ בְּעֵת שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס. אֲבָל אִם נָטַל הַחֵפֶץ, וְנַעֲשָׂה עָלָיו שׁוֹמֵר תְּחִלָּה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׂכַר הַבְּעָלִים אוֹ שְׁאָלָן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיוּ הַבְּעָלִים עוֹמְדִין שָׁם בְּעֵת שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס הַדָּבָר הַשָּׁמוּר - הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "בְּעָלָיו אֵין עִמּוֹ שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם" (שמות כב, יג).
According to the Oral Tradition, these verses were interpreted to mean: If the owner was with the borrower at the time the article or animal was borrowed, he is not liable, even if he was not with him at the time it was stolen or died. If, however, he was not with the borrower at the time the article or animal was borrowed, he is liable, even if he was with him at the time it was stolen or died. The same laws apply to other watchmen. If the owners are “with them”, they are all free of liability. Even if they are negligent, if the owners are “with them”, they are all free of liability.מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ: הָיָה עִמּוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הַשְּׁאֵלָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּעֵת הַגְּנֵבָה וְהַמִּיתָה - פָּטוּר; לֹא הָיָה עִמּוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הַשְּׁאֵלָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיָה עִמּוֹ בְּעֵת הַמִּיתָה אוֹ הַשְּׁבִיָּה - חַיָּב. וְהוּא הַדִּין לִשְׁאָר הַשּׁוֹמְרִים, שֶׁכֻּלָּן בַּבְּעָלִים פְּטוּרִין. אַפִלּוּ פְּשִׁיעָה בַּבְּעָלִים, פָּטוּר.
4Whenever a watchman is negligent when he begins caring for the article, even though the article is ultimately destroyed by forces beyond his control, he is liable, as will be explained. A borrower is not allowed to lend the entrusted article to another person. Even if he borrows a Torah scroll - in which instance, anyone who reads it performs a mitzvah - he may not lend it to someone else. Similarly, a renter is not permitted to rent the entrusted article to another person. Even if a Torah scroll was rented to him, he may not rent it to someone else. The rationale is that the owner will tell the watchman: “I do not want my article to be in someone else’s hands.”דכָּל שׁוֹמֵר שֶׁפָּשַׁע בִּתְחִלָּתוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס בְּסוֹפוֹ - חַיָּב כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. וְאֵין הַשּׁוֹאֵל רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׁאִיל, אַפִלּוּ שָׁאַל סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה, שֶׁכָּל שֶׁקוֹרֵא בּוֹ עוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה - לֹא יַשְׁאִילֶנּוּ לְאַחֵר. וְכֵן אֵין הַשּׂוֹכֵר רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׂכִּיר, אַפִלּוּ הִשְׂכִּירוֹ סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה - לֹא יַשְׂכִּירֶנּוּ לְאַחֵר, שֶׁהֲרֵי זֶה אוֹמֵר לוֹ "אֵין רְצוֹנִי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה פִּקְדוֹנִי בְּיַד אַחֵר".
The following rules apply if the watchman transgressed and entrusted the article to another watchman. If there are witnesses who testify that the second watchman guarded the article in an appropriate manner, and the article was destroyed by forces beyond his control, the first watchman is not liable. For there are witnesses that the article was destroyed by forces beyond his control. If there are no witnesses to give such testimony, the first watchman is liable to pay the owners, for he entrusted the article to another watchman. Afterwards, he should enter into litigation with the second watchman.עָבַר הַשּׁוֹמֵר וּמָסַר לְשׁוֹמֵר שֵׁנִי: אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁשְּׁמָרָהּ הַשּׁוֹמֵר הַשֵּׁנִי כְּדֶרֶךְ הַשּׁוֹמְרִין, וְנֶאֱנַס - פָּטוּר הַשּׁוֹמֵר הָרִאשׁוֹן, שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס. וְאִם אֵין שָׁם עֵדִים - חַיָּב הַשּׁוֹמֵר הָרִאשׁוֹן לְשַׁלֵּם לַבְּעָלִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמָּסַר לְשׁוֹמֵר אַחֵר; וְיַעֲשֶׂה הוּא דִּין עִם הַשּׁוֹמֵר הַשֵּׁנִי.
Even if the first watchman was not paid for his services and he entrusted the article to a paid watchman, he is liable. For the owner of the article will tell him: “Although you are an unpaid watchman, you are trustworthy in my eyes, and I am willing to believe your oath. I don’t consider the other person trustworthy.”אַפִלּוּ הָיָה הָרִאשׁוֹן שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, וּמָסַר לְשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר – חַיָּב, שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ לְבַעַל הַחֵפֶץ לוֹמַר לוֹ 'אַתָּה נֶאֱמָן אֶצְלִי לְהִשָּׁבַע וְזֶה אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן'.
For this reason, if the owner of the article would frequently entrust articles of this nature to the second watchman, the first watchman is not required to make restitution. For he could tell the owner: “Yesterday, you were willing to entrust the article that you entrusted to me to this person.” In the above instance, the watchman is freed of liability only when he does not reduce the level of responsibility for watching the article.לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיָה דֶּרֶךְ הַבְּעָלִים לְהַפְקִיד תָּמִיד דָּבָר זֶה אֵצֶל הַשּׁוֹמֵר הַשֵּׁנִי, הֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹמֵר הָרִאשׁוֹן פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם - שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר לַבְּעָלִים 'זֶה הַדָּבָר שֶׁהִפְקַדְתֶּם אֶצְלִי אוֹ הִשְׁאַלְתֶּם, אֶמֶשׁ הֲיִיתֶם מַפְקִידִין אוֹתוֹ אֵצֶל זֶה שֶׁהִפְקַדְתִּי אֲנִי אֶצְלוֹ'. וְהוּא, שֶׁלֹּא יְמַעֵט שְׁמִירָתוֹ.
What is meant by reducing the level of responsibility for watching the article? For example, the article was entrusted to the first watchman for a fee, and he entrusted it to the second watchman without charge, or the first watchman was a borrower, and he entrusted it to a paid watchman. In such instances, since the watchman reduced the level of responsibility for watching the article, he is considered to be negligent and is required to pay. The above applies even if when the article was originally entrusted, the owner was working for or hired by the first watchman. For that watchman removed the entrusted article from his domain and entrusted it to another watchman.1כֵּיצַד יְמַעֵט שְׁמִירָתוֹ? כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה מֻפְקָד אֶצְלוֹ בְּשָׂכָר, וְהִפְקִידוֹ אֵצֶל אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁנִי בְּחִנָּם, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה שָׁאוּל אֶצְלוֹ, וְהִפְקִידוֹ אֵצֶל אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁנִי בְּשָׂכָר - הוֹאִיל וּמִעֵט שְׁמִירָתוֹ, פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא וּמְשַׁלֵּם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׁאַל אוֹ שֶׁשָּׂכַר בַּבְּעָלִים, שֶׁהֲרֵי הוֹצִיא הַדָּבָר הַשָּׁמוּר מִיָּדוֹ לְיַד שׁוֹמֵר אַחֵר.
5If the second watchman was able to bring proof that would free the first watchman from responsibility for guarding the article, he is not liable.הוְאִם הֵבִיא הַשּׁוֹמֵר הַשֵּׁנִי רְאָיָה שֶׁיִּפָּטֵר בָּהּ שׁוֹמֵר רִאשׁוֹן, כְּדִין שְׁמִירָתוֹ - הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר.
What is implied? A paid watchman entrusted an animal that was entrusted to him to an unpaid watchman. If the second watchman brought witnesses who testify that the animal died in a natural manner, the first watchman is not liable.2 The same principles apply in all analogous situations.כֵּיצַד? שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר שֶׁנָּתַן הַבְּהֵמָה הַשְּׁמוּרָה אֶצְלוֹ לְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם - אִם הֵבִיא הַשּׁוֹמֵר הַשֵּׁנִי עֵדִים שֶׁמֵּתָה הַבְּהֵמָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ, הֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹמֵר הָרִאשׁוֹן פָּטוּר. וְכֵן כֹּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָזֶה.
6When a watchman entrusted an animal entrusted to him to another watchman3 and increased the responsibility of the watchman and the animal died, the owner receives the benefit. What is implied? A person rents a cow from a colleague and then lends it to another person. Afterwards, the cow dies in an ordinary manner in the possession of the borrower. Since the borrower is required to make full restitution, he should return the worth of the cow to its owners. For the renter is not carrying out business with his colleague’s cow. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.ושׁוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּסַר לְשׁוֹמֵר אַחֵר, וְהוֹסִיף בִּשְׁמִירָתוֹ - הַהֲנָיָה לַבְּעָלִים. כֵּיצַד? הַשּׂוֹכֵר פָּרָה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ, וְהִשְׁאִילָהּ לְאַחֵר, וּמֵתָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ בְּיַד הַשּׁוֹאֵל - הוֹאִיל וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל חַיָּב בַּכֹּל, יַחְזְרוּ דְּמֵי הַפָּרָה לַבְּעָלִים, שֶׁאֵין זֶה הַשּׂוֹכֵר עוֹשֶׂה סְחוֹרָה, בְּפָרָתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ. וְכֵן כֹּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָזֶה.
The following rules apply when a person was in possession of an entrusted object belonging to a colleague and gave it to another person to bring to its owner. Since the first watchman is responsible for the article until it reaches its owner’s domain, if he desires to retrieve the article from the second watchman,4 he may. If it is established that the first watchman has denied that property was entrusted to him, he cannot retrieve the article from the second watchman5 although he remains responsible for the entrusted article.הָיָה בְּיָדוֹ פִּקָּדוֹן, וּשְׁלָחוֹ בְּיַד אַחֵר לִבְעָלָיו - הוֹאִיל וְהַשּׁוֹמֵר הָרִאשׁוֹן חַיָּב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְיַד הַבְּעָלִים, אִם בָּא לַחֲזֹר וּלְהַחֲזִיר הַפִּקָּדוֹן מִיַּד הַשּׁוֹמֵר הַשֵּׁנִי, מַחֲזִיר. וְאִם הֻחְזַק הַשּׁוֹמֵר הָרִאשׁוֹן כַּפְרָן - אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַחֲזִיר הַפִּקָּדוֹן מִיַּד הַשּׁוֹמֵר הַשֵּׁנִי, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן הַפִּקָּדוֹן בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן.
Sechirut - Chapter 2
1The three laws that the Torah states with regard to the four watchmen apply only with regard to movable property that is not consecrated and which belongs to a Jew. This is derived from Exodus 22:6, 9, which mentions: “money or articles and any animal.” This excludes landed property and slaves, for they are equated with landed property. And it excludes promissory notes, for they themselves are not money. And consecrated property is excluded, for ibid.:6 states: “When a person will give to his colleague.” And this also excludes property owned by gentiles.אשְׁלֹשָׁה דִּינִין הָאֲמוּרִין בַּתּוֹרָה בְּאַרְבָּעָה הַשּׁוֹמְרִין, אֵינָן אֶלָא בְּמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְשֶׁל הֶדְיוֹט, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵלִים" (שמות כב, ו) "וְכָל בְּהֵמָה" (שמות כב, ט) - יָצְאוּ קַרְקָעוֹת, וְיָצְאוּ הָעֲבָדִים שֶׁהֻקְּשׁוּ לְקַּרְקָעוֹת, וְיָצְאוּ הַשְּׁטָרוֹת שֶׁאֵין גּוּפָן מָמוֹן. וְיָצְאוּ הַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת, שֶׁנֶאֱמָר "כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ" (שמות כב, ו; שמות כב, ט). וְיָצְאוּ נִכְסֵי עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים.
Accordingly, our Sages stated: An unpaid watchman need not take an oath with regard to claims involving slaves, promissory notes, landed property and consecrated property. Similarly, a paid watchman or a renter need not pay if they are destroyed. If the watchman performed a kinyan confirming his responsibility for such articles, he is responsible for them.מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: הָעֲבָדִים וְהַשְּׁטָרוֹת וְהַקַּרְקָעוֹת וְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת - שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם שֶׁלָּהֶן אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע, וְנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר אוֹ שׂוֹכֵר אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם; וְאִם קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ, חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן.
2Our Sages ordained that the oaths required of watchmen should be taken with regard to consecrated property in the same manner as required by the Torah with regard to other property so that people should not deal lightly with consecrated property.בוְתִקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּעִין עַל הַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין כְּעֵין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְזַלְזְלוּ בַּהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת.
3It appears to me that a watchman who was negligent with regard to the care of slaves and the like is obligated to make restitution. For he is freed of responsibility with regard to slaves, landed property and promissory notes - only for the obligations stemming from theft, loss, death and the like. For if he was an unpaid watchman for movable property, and it was stolen or lost, he would be required to take an oath; but for slaves, landed property and promissory notes, he is not required to take an oath.גיֵרָאֶה לִי, שֶׁאִם פָּשַׁע הַשּׁוֹמֵר בַּעֲבָדִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן - חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם, שֶׁאֵינוֹ פָּטוּר בַּעֲבָדִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת וּשְׁטָרוֹת אֶלָא מִדִּין גְּנֵבָה וְאֲבֵדָה וּמֵּתָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. שֶׁאִם הָיָה שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם עַל מִּטַּלְטְלִין וְנִגְנְבוּ אוֹ אָבְדוּ, יִשָּׁבַע, וּבַעֲבָדִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת וּשְׁטָרוֹת, פָּטוּר מִשְּׁבוּעָה.
Similarly, if he was a paid watchman, he would be required to make restitution for movable property that was stolen or lost, but for these he is freed of liability.וְכֵן אִם הָיָה שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר שֶׁמְשַׁלֵּם גְּנֵבָה וַאֲבֵדָה בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין, פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם בְּאֵלּוּ.
If, however, he was negligent, he is required to make restitution. For everyone who is negligent is considered to be one who damages property, and there is no difference between the laws applying to a person who damages landed property and one who damages movable property. This is a true judgment, as those who understand will see, and this is the appropriate way to rule.אֲבָל אִם פָּשַׁע - חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם, שֶׁכָּל הַפּוֹשֵׁעַ מַזִּיק הוּא, וְאֵין הֶפְרֵשׁ בֵּין דִּין הַמַּזִּיק קַרְקַע, לְדִין הַמַּזִּיק מִטַּלְטְלִין. וְדִין אֱמֶת הוּא זֶה לַמְּבִינִים, וּבוֹ רָאוּי לָדוּן.
Similarly, my teachers issued the following rulings with regard to a person who entrusts his vine to a sharecropper or to a watchman and stipulates that he dig, prune or dust it from his own resources. If the watchman is negligent and does not perform the required task, he is liable as if he destroyed it with his hands.וְכֵן הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי, שֶׁהַמּוֹסֵר כַּרְמוֹ לְשׁוֹמֵר, בֵּין בַּאֲרִיסוּת בֵּין בִּשְׁמִירַת חִנָּם, וְהִתְנָה עִמּוֹ שֶׁיַּחְפֹּר אוֹ יִזְמֹר אוֹ יְאַבֵּק מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וּפָשַׁע וְלֹא עָשָׂה - חַיָּב, כְּמִי שֶׁהִפְסִיד בַּיָּדַיִם.
Similarly, he is liable in all instances where he causes a loss through his actions.וְכֵן כֹּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָזֶה, שֶׁהִפְסִיד בַּיָּדַיִם, חַיָּב עַל כָּל פָּנִים.
4When a person entrusts produce that is growing on land - even grapes that are ready to be harvested- to a colleague to watch, they are considered to be landed property with regard to the laws of watchman.דהַמּוֹסֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ דָּבָר הַמְּחֻבָּר לַקַּרְקַע לִשְׁמֹר, אַפִלּוּ הָיוּ עֲנָבִים הָעוֹמְדוֹת לְהִבָּצֵר - הֲרֵי הֵן כְּקַּרְקַע בְּדִין הַשּׁוֹמְרִין.
5The following principle applies if a person entrusts consecrated property to a watchman and then redeems it, and so it is no longer consecrated at the time the owner takes it from the watchman, or he lends it to a person when it was not consecrated and then consecrates it while it is in the borrower’s possession, or a gentile entrusts property and then converts. In all these situations, the laws of watchmen do not apply, unless the article was not consecrated property and belonged to a Jew from the beginning of the time the article was entrusted until the conclusion of that period.ההִפְקִיד הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ פָּדָהוּ וַהֲרֵי הוּא חֻלִּין בְּעֵת שֶׁנְּטָלוֹ מִיַּד הַשּׁוֹמֵר, אוֹ שֶׁהִשְׁאִילוֹ חֻלִּין, וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישׁ וְהוּא בְּיַד הַשּׁוֹאֵל, וְכֵן עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁהִפְקִיד, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְגַּיֵּר - כָּל אֵלּוּ אֵין בָּהֶן כָּל דִּינִי הַשּׁוֹמְרִין, עַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה תְּחִלָּתָן וְסוֹפָן נִכְסֵי הֶדְיוֹט וְנִכְסֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
6The laws applying to borrowers apply equally to men and to women. This applies if the woman is the owner of the entrusted article, or an article was entrusted to her care.ואֶחָד הָאִישׁ וְאֶחָד הָאִשָּׁה בְּדִין הַשּׁוֹמְרִין, בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה הַדָּבָר הַשָּׁמוּר שֶׁל אִשָּׁה, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה בְּיַד הָאִשָּׁה.
7When a minor entrusts an article to an adult or lends it to him, the adult must take the oaths required of a watchman to the minor.זקָטָן שֶׁהִפְקִיד בְּיַד גָּדוֹל אוֹ הִשְׁאִילוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה הַגָּדוֹל נִשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִים לַקָּטָן.
My teachers ruled that the adult is not taking the oath because of the claim of the minor in which instance, the oath would not be required. For an oath is never taken with regard to a claim made by a minor. The rationale is that all the oaths taken by watchmen are taken because of an indefinite claim.הוֹרוּ רִבּוֹתַי שֶׁאֵין זֶה נִשְׁבָּע בְּטַעֲנַת הַקָּטָן, כְּדֵי שֶׁנֹּאמַר אֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל טַעֲנַת קָטָן, שֶׁכָּל הַשּׁוֹמְרִין, שְׁבוּעָתָן שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁמָּא הִיא.
8Just as our Sages ordained that a purchaser must finalize his acquisition of an article through meshichah;1 so, too, they ordained that a watchman’s responsibility for an article is established through meshichah.חכְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁתִּקְּנוּ חַכָמִים מְשִׁיכָה בְּלָּקוֹחוֹת, כָּךְ תִּקְּנוּ מְשִׁיכָה בַּשּׁוֹמְרִין.
When a person tells a colleague: “Watch an article for me,” and he tells him: “Place it down in front of me,” he is an unpaid watchman.הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ 'שְׁמֹר לִי זֶה', וְאָמַר לוֹ 'הַנַּח לְפָנַי' - הֲרֵי זֶה שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם.
If he tells him: “Place it down before yourself,” or “Place it down” without saying anything else, or tells him: “My house is before you,” he is neither a paid watchman nor an unpaid watchman, nor is he obligated to take an oath at all.אָמַר לוֹ 'הַנַּח לְפָנֶיךָ', אוֹ 'הַנַּח סְתָם', אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ 'הֲרֵי הַבַּיִת לְפָנֶיךָ' - אֵינוֹ לֹא שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְלֹא שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה כְּלָל.
The owner of the article may, however, have a ban of ostracism issued applying to anyone who took his article and did not return it to its owner.2 Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.אֲבָל מַחֲרִים עַל מִי שֶׁלָּקַח הַפִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁלּוֹ, וְלֹא יַחֲזִירוֹ לִבְעָלָיו. וְכֵן כֹּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָזֶה.
Whenever a person entrusts, lends or rents an article to a colleague, the same laws apply whether or not the transfer was observed by witnesses. When the watchman himself admits that he served as a watchman, or he borrowed the article, he is required to take the oath required of watchmen. We do not employ the principle of miggo to absolve a person of the responsibility for an oath,3 but only to free him of the responsibility to make restitution.4אֶחָד הַמַּפְקִיד אוֹ הַמַּשְׁאִיל אוֹ הַמַּשְׂכִּיר אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בְּעֵדִים אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵדִים - דִּין אֶחָד יֵשׁ לָהֶן. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהוֹדָה זֶה מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמַר לוֹ אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁאַל מִמֶּנּוּ - הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין, שֶׁאֵין אוֹמְרִים מִגּוֹ לְפָטְרוֹ מִשְּׁבוּעָה אֶלָא לְפָטְרוֹ מִלְּשַׁלֵּם.
Even if the article that was borrowed, entrusted or rented was worth only a p’rutah,5 the watchman is required to take an oath concerning it. None of the watchmen are required to admit to a portion of the plaintiff’s claim before being required to take the oath.אַפִלּוּ הָיָה הַדָּבָר הַשָּׁאוּל, אוֹ הַמֻּפְקָד, אוֹ הַמֻּשְׂכָּר שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה - הֲרֵי זֶה הַשּׁוֹמֵר נִשְׁבָּע עָלָיו. וְאֵין אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוֹמְרִים צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדָיָה בְּמִקְצָת.
9An unpaid watchman may make a stipulation to be freed of the responsibility to take an oath, and a borrower may make a stipulation to be freed of the responsibility to make restitution. Similarly, the owner of the entrusted object may make a stipulation that an unpaid watchman, a paid watchman or a borrower will be liable in all situations as a borrower is. This is acceptable, for any stipulation regarding money or an oath that involves money that is agreed upon by both principals is binding.6 Neither a kinyan to affirm it nor witnesses are required.טמַתְנֶה שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם לִהְיוֹת פָּטוּר מִשְּׁבוּעָה, וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל לִהְיוֹת פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. וְכֵן מַתְנֶה בַּעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן עַל שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אוֹ נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְשׂוֹכֵר לִהְיוֹת חַיָּבִין בַּכֹּל כַּשּׁוֹאֵל. שֶׁכָּל תְּנַאי שֶׁבְּמָמוֹן אוֹ בִּשְׁבוּעוֹת שֶׁל מָמוֹן, קַיָּם; וְאֵין צָרִיךְ קִנְיָן, וְלֹא עֵדִים.
10When the owner claims that there was a stipulation made requiring the watchman to undertake more responsibility, and the watchman denies that such a stipulation was made, the watchman must take the oath required of a watchman, and on the basis of the principle of gilgul sh’vuah,7 he must includein his oath that there was no stipulation involved.יטָעַן זֶה שֶׁהָיָה שָׁם תְּנַאי, וְהַשּׁוֹמֵר אוֹמֵר 'לֹא הָיָה שָׁם תְּנַאי' - נִשְׁבָּע הַשּׁוֹמֵר שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין, וּמְגַלְגֵּל בָּהּ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה שָׁם תְּנַאי.
11If the owner of an object claims that he entrusted it to a watchman, and the watchman answers that he said merely: “Place the article down before yourself,” and thus never became obligated as a watchman, the defendant is required to take a sh’vuat hesset8 that this was the manner in which he received the article. He should include in his oath that he did not use it for his own purposes, destroy it with his own hands or cause it to be destroyed in a manner that would obligate him to make restitution.יאטָעַן שֶׁהִפְקִיד אֶצְלוֹ, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר 'לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָא הַנַּח לְפָנֶיךָ, וְלֹא נַעֲשֵׂיתִי לוֹ שׁוֹמֵר' - נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא קִבְּלוֹ אֶלָא בְּדֶרֶךְ זוֹ, וְכוֹלֵל בִּשְׁבוּעָתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא שָׁלַח בּוֹ יָד, וְלֹא אִבְּדוֹ בַּיָּדַיִם, וְלֹא בִּגְרָם שֶׁגָּרַם לוֹ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם.
12If the owner of an object claims: “I lent it to you,” “I rented it to you,” or “I entrusted it to you,” and the defendant responds: “This never took place,” or “That is true, but I returned it to you, and my responsibility was concluded. There is no obligation between us at all,” the defendant must take a sh’vuat hesset. He is then freed of responsibility.יבזֶה אוֹמֵר 'הִשְׁאַלְתִּיךָ' אוֹ 'הִשְׂכַּרְתִּיךָ' אוֹ 'הִפְקַדְתִּי', וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר 'לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם', אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר 'כֵּן הָיָה אֲבָל הֶחֱזַרְתִּי לָךְ וְנִסְתַּלְּקָה הַשְּׁמִירָה וְלֹא נִשְׁאֲרָה בֵּינֵינוּ תְּבִיעָה' - הֲרֵי הַנִּתְבָּע נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת, וְנִפְטָר.
When does this apply? When the watchman’s responsibility is not recorded in a legal document. If, however, a legal document recorded that the article was entrusted, rented or lent, and the watchman claims that he returned the article, he must affirm his statement with an oath taken while holding a sacred article.בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? כְּשֶׁלֹּא הָיָה שָׁם שְׁטָר. אֲבָל אִם הִפְקִיד אֶצְלוֹ אוֹ הִשְׂכִּיר אוֹ הִשְׁאִיל בִּשְּׁטָר, וְאָמַר לוֹ 'הֶחֱזַרְתִּי לָךְ' - הֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹמֵר נִשְׁבָּע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ.
The rationale for this ruling is that since an unpaid watchman could claim that the article was stolen or lost, and a borrower could claim that it died because he was working with it, his word is accepted when he says he returned it. But just as if he claimed that it was destroyed by forces beyond his control, he would have been required to take a Scriptural oath while holding a sacred article; so, too, when he claims to have returned it, he is required to take an oath resembling a Scriptural oath. The rationale is that the plaintiff has a legal document recording that the article was entrusted.שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד, וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל מֵתָה בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה - נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר הֶחֱזַרְתִּי; וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאִם טָעַן שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס, נִשְׁבָּע מִן הַתּוֹרָה בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ - כָּךְ אִם טָעַן הֶחֱזַרְתִּי, יִשָּׁבַע כְּעֵין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה, הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ שָׁם שְׁטָר בְּיַד הַתּוֹבֵעַ.
When does the above apply? When the watchman could have claimed that the article was destroyed by forces beyond his control without having to bring proof of his claim.בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? כְּשֶׁהָיָה הַשּׁוֹמֵר יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן וְלוֹמַר נֶאְנְסוּ, וְלֹא נַצְרִיךְ אוֹתוֹ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ.
If, however, he would have to bring proof of his claim,9 as will be explained, his word is not accepted if he claims that he returned the article. Instead, the plaintiff in possession of the legal document should take an oath while holding a sacred article that the watchman did not return anything to him.10 The watchman is then required to make restitution.אֲבָל אִם הָיָה חַיָּב לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר - אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר הֶחֱזַרְתִּי, אֶלָא יִשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ שֶׁלֹּא הֶחֱזִיר לוֹ, וִישַׁלֵּם.
There is no other instance where a defendant is obligated to take an oath while holding a sacred article because he could have used another argument, except a watchman against whom a legal document serves as evidence.אֵין לְךָ מִי שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּע מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר כָּךְ וְכָּךְ וְיִשָּׁבַע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ, אֶלָא זֶה הַשּׁוֹמֵר בִּלְבָד שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו שְׁטָר.
Whenever any other defendant is obligated an opportunity to take an oath, because he could have used another argument, all that is involved is a sh’vuat hesset.אֲבָל שְׁאָר כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בְּדִין מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר - אֵינָן נִשְׁבָּעִין אֶלָא הֶסֵּת.
Sechirut - Chapter 3
1The following rules apply when a watchman claims that the entrusted article was destroyed by a major factor over which he had no control- e.g., it was broken or it died. If the loss occurred in a place where witnesses are ordinarily present, we require him to bring proof to support his claim that it was destroyed by factors beyond his control. He is then freed of liability, even for a watchman’s oath.אשׁוֹמֵר שֶׁטָּעַן שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס אֹנֶס גָּדוֹל, כְּגוֹן שְׁבוּרָה וּמֵתָה - אִם נֶאֱנַס בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהָעֵדִים מְצוּיִין שָׁם, מַצְרִיכִין אוֹתוֹ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס, וְיִפָּטֵר אַף מִשְּׁבוּעָה.
If he does not bring proof, he is required to make restitution, as Exodus 22:9-10 states: “If there are none who see, the oath of God will be between the two of them.” This implies that in a place where it is possible to bring proof, he cannot free himself of responsibility by taking an oath. Either he brings proof or he makes restitution.וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה - יְשַׁלֵּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "אֵין רֹאֶה שְׁבֻעַת ה' תִּהְיֶה בֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶם" (שמות כב, ט-י) - הָא בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה, אֵין שָׁם שְׁבוּעָה; אֶלָא אוֹ יָבִיא רְאָיָה אוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם.
If, however, the watchman claims that the article was destroyed in a place where witnesses are not ordinarily present, we do not require him to prove his claim. Instead, he must take an oath that it was destroyed by factors beyond his control, and then he is freed of responsibility.אֲבָל אִם טָעַן שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין הָעֵדִים מְצוּיִין שָׁם - אֵין מַצְרִיכִין אוֹתוֹ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה, אֶלָא יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס וְיִפָּטֵר.
If he brings witnesses who testify that he was not negligent in his care for the article, he is not liable; he is not even required to take an oath.וְאִם הֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁלֹּא פָשַׁע, נִפְטָר אַף מִן הַשְּׁבוּעָה.
An incident occurred with regard to a person who was hired to transfer a jug of wine and it broke in the market place of Mechuzah. The matter was brought before the Sages and they said that people are ordinarily present in the market place where the watchman claimed that the jug was broken. Hence they required him to either bring proof that he was not negligent, but instead stumbled and fell or make restitution. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהֶעֱבִיר חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן בְּשָׂכָר, וְשִׁבְּרָהּ בַּשּׁוּק שֶׁל מְחוֹזָא. וּבָאוּ לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְאָמְרוּ: שׁוּק זֶה שֶׁטָּעַנְתָּ שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרָה בּוֹ הֶחָבִית - בְּנֵי אָדָם מְצוּיִין שָׁם, אוֹ תָּבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁלֹּא פָשַׁעְתָּ אֶלָא נִתְקַלְתָּ וְנָפַלְתָּ, אוֹ תְּשַׁלֵּם דָּמֶיהָ. וְכֵן כֹּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָזֶה.
2When a person is hired to transfer a jug from place to place for a wage, and the jug is broken, according to Scriptural Law, he should be required to pay. For this is not a major factor that is beyond the porter’s control; breaking an article is equivalent to its being stolen or lost,1 for which he is liable.2בהַמַּעֲבִיר חָבִית מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם בְּשָׂכָר, וְנִשְׁבְּרָה - דִּין תּוֹרָה הוּא שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּם; שֶׁאֵין זֶה אֹנֶס גָּדוֹל, וַהֲרֵי הַשְּׁבִירָה כִּגְנֵבָה וַאֲבֵדָה שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב בָּהֶן.
Nevertheless, our Sages ordained that the porter should be liable merely to take an oath that he was not negligent in caring for it. For if he were required to make financial restitution, no person would ever carry a jug for a colleague. Therefore, the Sages ordained that the breaking of a jug is equivalent to the death or the injury of an animal.אֲבָל תִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים, שֶׁיִּהְיֶה חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא פָשַׁע בָּהּ - שֶׁאִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר יְשַׁלֵּם, אֵין לְךָ אָדָם שֶׁיַּעֲבִיר חָבִית לַחֲבֵרוֹ; לְפִיכָּךְ עָשׂוּ שְׁבִירַת הֶחָבִית, כְּמִיתַת הַבְּהֵמָה וּשְׁבִירָתָהּ.
With regard to this matter, our Sages also ordained that if two people were carrying a jug with shafts,3 and it was broken, they should pay half the damages. For since this burden is very great for one person, but light for two people, it can be considered both similar and dissimilar to a loss due to factors beyond one’s control.4 Therefore, if there are witnesses who testify that they were not negligent, they should pay half the damages.וְעוֹד תִּקְּנוּ בְּדָבָר זֶה, שֶׁאִם נָשְׂאוּ אוֹתָהּ שְׁנַיִם בְּמוֹט, וְנִשְׁבְּרָה - מְשַׁלְּמִין חֲצִי דָּמֶיהָ; הוֹאִיל וּמַשּׂוֹי זֶה גָּדוֹל לְגַבֵּי אֶחָד וְקַל לְגַבֵּי שְׁנַיִם, הֲרֵי הוּא כְּאֹנֶס וְאֵינוֹ אֹנֶס - וּמְשַׁלְּמִין מֶחְצָה, אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁלֹּא פָשְׁעוּ בָּהּ.
If the jug was broken in a place where witnesses are not ordinarily present, the porters must take an oath that they did not break it through negligence. Afterwards, they are required to pay half the damages. For each one of should not have attempted to transport anything more than a burden that he could transport on his own.5נִשְׁבְּרָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין הָעֵדִים מְצוּיִין - נִשְׁבָּעִין שֶׁלֹּא שִׁבְּרוּהָ בִּפְשִׁיעָה, וּמְשַׁלְּמִין חֲצִי דָּמֶיהָ; שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא הָיָה לְכָל אֶחָד לְהַעֲבִיר, אֶלָא מַשּׂוֹי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְהַעֲבִירוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ.
From this, one can derive that when a person transports a large jug that a porter would not ordinarily transport, he is considered to be negligent. If it breaks in his hands, he must make full restitution.מִכָּאן אַתָּה לָמֵד שֶׁהָאֶחָד שֶׁהֶעֱבִיר חָבִית גְּדוֹלָה, שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ כָּל הַסַּבָּלִים לְהַעֲבִירהּ - שֶׁהוּא פּוֹשֵׁעַ; וְאִם נִשְׁבְּרָה מִיָּדוֹ, מְשַׁלֵּם הַכֹּל.
3The following rules apply when a porter breaks a jug of wine belonging to a merchant and was obligated to make restitution,6 and the jug was worth four zuzim on a market day, and three zuzim on other days. If he makes restitution on a market day, he must give him either a jug of wine or four zuzim.גהַסַּבָּל שֶׁשִּׁבֵּר חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן לְחֶנְוָנִי, וְנִתְחַיֵּב לְשַׁלֵּם, וַהֲרֵי הִיא שָׁוָה בְּיוֹם הַשּׁוּק אַרְבָּעָה, וּבִשְׁאָר הַיָּמִים שְׁלֹשָׁה - אִם הֶחֱזִירוּ בְּיוֹם הַשּׁוּק, חַיָּבִין לְהַחֲזִיר חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן אוֹ יְשַׁלְּמוּ לוֹ אַרְבָּעָה.
This applies if the merchant does not possess other wine to sell on the market day. If the merchant possesses other wine, the porter is required to pay only three.7 If the porter makes restitution on another day, he is required to return only three. Whenever the porter makes restitution, a deduction is made for the effort the merchant would have to undertake in selling the jug, the damage the hole causes in the jug,8 and other similar matters.וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לוֹ יַיִן לִמְכֹּר בְּיוֹם הַשּׁוּק. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה לוֹ יַיִן, מַחֲזִירין לוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה. הֶחֱזִירוּ לוֹ בִּשְׁאָר הַיָּמִים, מַחֲזִירין לוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה. וּמְנַכִּין לוֹ בְּכָל זְמָן, טֹרַח שֶׁהָיָה טוֹרֵחַ בִּמְכִירָתָהּ, וּפְגָם הַנֶּקֶב שֶׁהָיָה נוֹקֵב הֶחָבִית; וְכֵן כֹּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָזֶה.
4The following rules apply when wolves come and attack herds being watched by a shepherd and seize some of them. If there is only one wolf, it is not considered to be a loss due to factors beyond his control. This applies even when there is an outbreak of wolves. If there are two wolves, it is considered to be a loss beyond his control. Two dogs are not considered to be a loss beyond his control, even if they come from two directions. If there are more than two, it is considered to be a loss beyond his control. Armed thieves are considered to be a loss beyond his control. This applies even if the shepherd was armed and only one armed thief opposed him; it is considered to be a loss beyond his control. For a shepherd will not risk his life as a thief will.דרוֹעֶה שֶׁבָּאוּ זְאֵבִים, וְטָרְפוּ מִמֶּנּוּ: אִם הָיָה זְאֵב אֶחָד - אֵין זֶה אֹנֶס, אַפִלּוּ בִּשְׁעַת מִשְׁלַחַת זְאֵבִים; וְאִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵי זְאֵבִים - הֲרֵי זֶה אֹנֶס. שְׁנֵי כְּלָבִים - אֵינָן אֹנֶס, אַפִלּוּ בָּאוּ מִשְּׁתֵּי רוּחוֹת; הָיוּ יָתֵר עַל שְׁנַיִם, הֲרֵי זֶה אֹנֶס. לִסְטִים אֶחָד מְזֻיָּן, הֲרֵי הוּא אֹנֶס. וְאַפִלּוּ הָיָה הָרוֹעֶה מְזֻיָּן, וּבָא לוֹ לִסְטִים אֶחָד מְזֻיָּן - הֲרֵי זֶה אֹנֶס, שֶׁאֵין הָרוֹעֶה מוֹסֵר נַפְשׁוֹ כַּלִסְטִים.
A lion, a bear, a leopard, a cheetah or a snake are considered to be losses beyond his control.הָאֲרִי וְהַדֹּב וְהַנָּמֵר וְהַבַּרְדְּלַס וְהַנָּחָשׁ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֳנָסִין.
When does this apply? When they come on their own initiative. If, however, the shepherd brings his herd to a place of wild beasts or thieves, losses incurred because of them are not considered to be losses beyond his control, and the shepherd is liable to make restitution.אֵימָתַי? בִּזְמָן שֶׁבָּאוּ מֵאֵלֵיהֶן. אֲבָל אִם הוֹלִיכָם לִמְקוֹם גְּדוּדֵי חַיּוֹת וְלִסְטִים - אֵין אֵלּוּ אֳנָסִין, וְחַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם.
5When a shepherd encounters a thief and begins to boast to him, trying to show him that he is not concerned with him, saying: “We are in this and this place. We have these and these many shepherds, and these and these types of weapons,” and the thief comes and overcomes him and seizes the animals, the shepherd is liable. For there is no difference between bringing the animals to a place of beasts and thieves, or boasting and thus bringing the thieves to the place of the animals.הרוֹעֶה שֶׁמָּצָא גַּנָּב, וְהִתְחִיל לְהִתְגָּרוֹת בּוֹ וּלְהַרְאוֹתוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ, וְאָמַר לוֹ 'הֲרֵי אָנוּ בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וְכָּךְ וְכָּךְ רוֹעִים אֲנַחְנוּ וְכָּךְ וְכָּךְ כְּלֵי מִלְחָמָה יֵשׁ לָנוּ, וּבָא אוֹתוֹ הַלִסְטִים וְנִצְּחוֹ וְלָקַח מֵהֶן' - הֲרֵי הָרוֹעֶה חַיָּב. שֶׁאֶחָד הַמּוֹלִיךְ אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה לִמְקוֹם גְּדוּדֵי חַיּוֹת וְלִסְטִים אוֹ הַמֵּבִיא אֶת הַלִּסְטִים בְּהִתְגָּרוּתוֹ לִמְקוֹם הַבְּהֵמָה.
6If a shepherd had the opportunity of saving an animal that was preyed upon or taken captive by calling to other shepherds or bringing staves, and he did not call to other shepherds or bring staves to save the animal, he is liable. This applies to both an unpaid watchman and a paid watchman.ורוֹעֶה שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לְהַצִּיל הַטְּרֵפָה אוֹ הַשְּׁבוּיָה בְּרוֹעִים אֲחֵרִים וּבְמַקְלוֹת, וְלֹא קָרָא רוֹעִים אֲחֵרִים וְלֹא הֵבִיא מַקְלוֹת לְהַצִּיל - הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב, אֶחָד שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְאֶחָד שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר.
The difference is that an unpaid watchman should call to other watchman and bring staves without charge. If he cannot find any available for free, he is not liable. A paid watchman, by contrast, is obligated to hire other shepherds and staves until the value of the animals in order to save them. Afterwards, he should collect their hire from the owner. If he does not do so and had the opportunity to hire others and did not avail himself of it, he is considered to be negligent and is liable to make restitution.9אֶלָא שֶׁשּׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם קוֹרֵא רוֹעִים, וּמֵבִיא מַקְלוֹת בְּחִנָּם; וְאִם לֹא מָצָא, פָּטוּר. אֲבָל שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר חַיָּב לִשְׂכֹּר הָרוֹעִים וְהַמַּקְלוֹת, עַד כְּדֵי דְּמֵי הַבְּהֵמָה כְּדֵי לְהַצִּיל; וְחוֹזֵר וְלוֹקֵחַ שְׂכָרָן מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת. וְאִם לֹא עָשָׂה כֵּן, וְהָיָה לוֹ לִשְׂכֹּר וְלֹא שָׂכָר - הֲרֵי זֶה פּוֹשֵׁעַ וְחַיָּב.
7When a shepherd claims that he hired other shepherds to save a herd from danger, he is required to take an oath. He may then collect the amount that he claims. The rationale is that he cannot claim more than the value of the herd and he could have claimed that the herd was preyed upon.10זרוֹעֶה שֶׁטָּעַן שֶׁהִצַּלְתִּי עַל יְדֵי רוֹעִים בְּשָׂכָר - נִשְׁבָּע, וְנוֹטֵל מַה שֶׁטָּעַן. שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן אֶלָא עַד כְּדֵי דְּמֵיהֶן, וְיָכוֹל הָיָה לוֹמַר 'נִטְרְפָה'.
He is required to take an oath while holding a sacred object, as required of all those who take oaths and expropriate property.וְיִשָּׁבַע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ, כְּדִין כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין.
8The following laws apply when a shepherd abandoned his herd and came to the city - whether at the time the shepherds usually come to the city or at a time when this is not their practice - and wolves came and preyed upon the herd, or lions came and attacked them. We do not postulate that if he had been there, he definitely could have saved the animals.חרוֹעֶה שֶׁהִנִּיחַ עֶדְרוֹ וּבָא לָעִיר, בֵּין בְּעֵת שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ הָרוֹעִים לְהִכָּנֵס, וּבֵין בְּעֵת שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ הָרוֹעִים לְהִכָּנֵס, וּבָאוּ זְאֵבִים וְטָרְפוּ, אֲרִי וְדָרַס - אֵין אוֹמְרִים 'אִלּוּ הָיָה שָׁם הָיָה מַצִּיל'.
Instead, we assess the situation. If he could have saved them - even by hiring other shepherds and staves - he is liable. If not, he is not liable. If it is impossible to make such an assessment, he is liable.אֶלָא אוֹמְדִין אוֹתוֹ: אִם יָכוֹל לְהַצִּיל אַפִלּוּ עַל יְדֵי רוֹעִים וּמַקְלוֹת - חַיָּב; וְאִם לָאו, פָּטוּר; וְאִם אֵין הַדָּבָר יָדוּעַ, חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם.
9If an animal dies in an ordinary manner, this is considered to be a loss beyond the shepherd’s control, and he is not liable.טמֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ - הֲרֵי זֶה אֹנֶס, וְהָרוֹעֶה פָּטוּר.
If he oppressed it and it died, it is not considered a loss beyond his control.סִגְּפָהּ, וּמֵתָה - אֵינוֹ אֹנֶס.
If it overcame the shepherd and ascended to a high cliff, and it overcame him11 and fell, it is considered to be a loss beyond his control.תְּקָפַתּוּ וְעָלְתָה לְרָאשֵׁי צוּקִין, וּתְקָפַתּוּ וְנָפְלָה - הֲרֵי זֶה אֹנֶס.
If he led it up a steep cliff or it ascended on its own accord, but he could have prevented it from doing so and failed to do so, even though it overcame him and fell and died or was injured, he is liable. For whenever there is negligence at the outset, but ultimately the actual loss happens because of factors beyond the watchman’s control, he is liable.הֶעֱלָהּ לְרָאשֵׁי צוּקִין אוֹ שֶׁעָלְתָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ, וְהוּא יָכוֹל לְמָנְעָהּ, וְלֹא מְנָעָהּ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁתְּקָפַתּוּ, וְנָפְלָה וּמֵתָה אוֹ נִשְׁבְּרָה – חַיָּב; שֶׁכָּל שֶׁתְּחִלָּתוֹ בִּפְשִׁיעָה וְסוֹפוֹ בְּאֹנֶס - חַיָּב.
Similarly, when a shepherd leads animals across a bridge, and one pushes another and it falls into the current of the river, the shepherd is liable. The rationale is that he should have brought them over one by one.וְכֵן רוֹעֶה שֶׁהֶעֱבִיר הַבְּהֵמוֹת עַל הַגֶּשֶׁר, וְדָחֲפָה אַחַת מֵהֶן לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ, וְנָפְלָה לְשִׁבֹּלֶת הַנָּהָר - הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב, שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לְהַעֲבִירן אַחַת אַחַת.
Indeed, the reason a shepherd receives a wage is to watch the animals in an effective manner. Since he was negligent at the outset, by causing them to cross together, even though when the animal fell, the loss was beyond his control, he is liable.שֶׁאֵין הַשּׁוֹמֵר נוֹטֵל שָׂכָר, אֶלָא לִשְׁמֹר שְׁמִירָה מְעֻלָּה; וְהוֹאִיל וּפָשַׁע בַּתְּחִלָּה, וְהֶעֱבִירָן כְּאַחַת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס בַּסּוֹף בְּעֵת הַנְּפִילָה, הֲרֵי הוּא חַיָּב.
10If the shepherd was negligent12 and the animal went out to a swamp and died in an ordinary manner, he is not liable. For the animal’s going there did not cause it to be lost due to forces beyond the shepherd’s control. Since it died in an ordinary manner, what difference is it whether it died in the watchman’s house or in the swamp?יפָּשַׁע בָּהּ, וְיָצְאָה לַאֲגַם וּמֵתָה שָׁם כְּדַרְכָּהּ - פָּטוּר, שֶׁאֵין יְצִיאָתָהּ גָּרְמָה לָהּ שֶׁתָּבוֹא לִידֵי אֹנֶס זֶה; הוֹאִיל וּכְדַרְכָּהּ מֵתָה, מַה לִי בְּבֵית שׁוֹמֵר מַה לִי בַּאֲגַם?
If, by contrast, a thief stole it from the swamp, and it died in an ordinary manner in the thief’s house, the watchman is liable, even if he is an unpaid watchman. For even if it had not died, it would have been lost to its owner in the possession of the thief, and its going out to the swamp allowed it to be stolen.13 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.אֲבָל אִם גְּנָבָהּ גַּנָב מֵהָאֲגַם, וּמֵתָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ בְּבֵית הַגַּנָּב - הֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹמֵר חַיָּב, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם; שֶׁאַפִלּוּ לֹא מֵתָה, הֲרֵי הִיא אָבְדָה בְּיַד הַגַּנָּב, וִיצִיאָתָהּ גָּרְמָה לָהּ לְהִגָּנֵב. וְכֵן כֹּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָזֶה.
Quiz Yourself on Sechirut Chapter 1
Quiz Yourself on Sechirut Chapter 2
Quiz Yourself on Sechirut Chapter 3
Footnotes for Sechirut - Chapter 1
1.
The concept that a watchman is free from liability because the owner of the article is “with him” applies only when the article is in his domain. For when the article is entrusted to the second watchman, the owner is not “with” the person caring for his article (Maggid Mishneh).
The Kessef Mishneh provides a different explanation, stating that giving the article to another watchman whose level of caring for the article is less encompassing is equivalent to intentionally damaging the article.
2.
This ruling is significant in analyzing the principle: “Whenever a watchman is negligent when he begins caring for the article, even though [the article] is ultimately destroyed by forces beyond his control, he is liable.” Seemingly, since the first watchman is considered negligent in entrusting the object to the second watchman, he should be liable even though the object was destroyed by forced beyond his control. The intent of this general principle, however, is that the negligence must lead to the article being destroyed by forces beyond the watchman’s control- e.g., an animal that was allowed to stray and then attacked by predators. If, however, the destruction of the article is totally unrelated to the watchman’s negligence, as in the case at hand, the watchman is not liable (Siftei Cohen 291:46).
3.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Metzia 3:2) the Rambam states that this law applies in a situation where the owner gave the renter permission to lend it to another person. Otherwise, the renter would be liable, as stated in Halachah 4.
4.
I.e., the messenger charged with delivering it.
5.
For in this instance, we assume that the owner would be happy that his article was taken from the possession of the first watchman (Gittin 14a).
Footnotes for Sechirut - Chapter 2
1.
See Hilchot Mechirah, Chapter 3, which explains that according to Scriptural Law, the sale of movable property is finalized through the payment of money. Nevertheless, our Sages ordained that the sale not take effect until the purchaser performs meshichah, pulling the article after him.
2.
The Geonim allowed the plaintiff to issue such a ban in situations where he cannot require the defendant to take an oath. Although the ban is not specifically directed at the defendant, if he is in fact liable, it falls upon him. It was hoped that the dread of the spiritual punishment such a ban carries would be enough to intimidate the defendant and prevent him from lying.
3.
The principle of miggo can be explained as follows: We accept the defendant’s statements, because had he desired to lie, he could have offered a more powerful defense. For example, in the case at hand, in an instance where there were no witnesses who observed the transfer, had the watchman desired to lie, he could have denied ever serving as a watchman. There would be no way that the plaintiff could prove that the defendant had ever accepted responsibility. Hence, in that instance, an oath would not be required of him. Therefore, one might be inclined to accept the defendant’s statement that the article was destroyed by forces beyond his control without requiring an oath, for had he desired to lie, he could have denied the matter entirely.
Similarly, if the article was entrusted to the watchman in the presence of witnesses, if he had desired to lie, he could have claimed that he returned it. For he would not have been required to return it in the presence of witnesses.
4.
The Rambam does accept the principle of miggo with regard to financial responsibility, but not with regard to the obligation to take an oath. The difference between the two situations can be described as follows. When there is a financial obligation under discussion, and the plaintiff desires to expropriate money from the defendant, the principle of miggo is employed as a means of clarifying whether the defendant is under obligation or not. An oath, however, is itself a means of clarifying whether an obligation exists, and it is a more effective means of clarification than the principle of miggo. Hence, we employ it, rather than the principle of miggo (Sefer Me'irat Einayim 296:1).
5.
A copper coin of minimal worth. If, however, the article was not worth a p’rutah, the claim is not considered significant and an oath is not required of the watchman (Hilchot To’en V’Nit’an 3:6).
6.
Agreeing to the stipulation is considered equivalent to waiving a financial obligation that is due one. Therefore, we do not say that following the stipulation runs contrary to Torah law.
7.
As the Rambam explains in Hilchot To’en V’Nit’an 1:12, whenever a person is required to take an oath, the plaintiff can compel the defendant to include in the oath a response to any other complaint the plaintiff lodges against him.
8.
As required of a person who denies entirely a claim that is being made against him.
9.
I.e., witnesses to testify to that effect, as explained in Chapter 3, Halachah 1.
10.
As is required when a person takes an oath and then expropriates property, as stated in Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an 1:2.
Footnotes for Sechirut - Chapter 3
1.
These are situations in which the watchman is not responsible for causing the loss. Nevertheless, had he shown extra care, he could have prevented this loss from taking place. Since he was being paid for watching the article - or derived benefit that is equivalent to receiving payment - we postulate that he should have shown this extra measure of care (Sefer Me'irat Einayim 304:2).
2.
For he is a paid watchman. Implied is that an unpaid watchman would not be liable.
3.
I.e., the two porters suspended the jug from two poles and carried it in that manner.
4.
Since when the weight of the jug was divided in two, each person is carrying a burden that is lighter than what he would ordinarily carry, there is room to say that it was broken due to forces beyond their control. On the other hand, since in total, the load was, nevertheless, greater than one person would normally carry, there is a certain dimension of negligence involved (Maggid Mishneh).
5.
I.e., even with the other person's help, he should not have attempted to transport such a burden.
6.
Because it was broken due to his negligence, or it was broken in a place where witnesses are usually present, but the porter was unable to find witnesses to testify that he was not negligent (Maggid Mishneh).
7.
Even when he returns it on a market day. Since the merchant had no need for it on the market day, it is just as if it was returned on an ordinary day.
8.
I.e., it is necessary to make a hole to pour out the wine, and a jug with a hole is not worth as much as a jug without one.
9.
The Ra’avad clarifies the sum the shepherd is required to pay. He is not necessarily required to pay the entire value of the herd, for first we deduct the amount of money the owner would have had to pay to hire shepherds and guards to protect his animals. We then add the amount a person would pay for not having to go to the trouble of selecting and purchasing animals of this quality.
10.
I.e., the Rambam is referring to the principle of miggo - had the watchman desired to lie, he could have done so more effectively. He could have sold the sheep and then claimed that they had been seized by predators.
11.
When he was trying to bring it down.
12.
He did not lock it securely in its place (Rashi, Bava Metzia 36b).
13.
The fact that the animal died in an ordinary manner does not absolve the watchman of liability that he already incurred.
Rabbi Eliyahu Touger is a noted author and translator, widely published for his works on Chassidut and Maimonides.
Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
Vowelized Hebrew text courtesy Torat Emet under CC 2.5 license.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
