Halakha Ulangan 22:9: Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat, Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods & Mishneh Torah, Negative Mitzvot

[With respect to] the laws of damage caused indirectly,³⁵B.K. 98b; Ket. 86a where it is related that in the case of an action for damage caused indirectly, Rafram (in accord with R. Meir ibid. 100a) compelled R. Ashi, who in his childhood had destroyed by burning, the bond of a creditor, to make payment ‘like a beam fit for decorative mouldings,’ i.e., a proverbial expression for ‘straight and exact’ and out of the best of one’s estate (v. ibid. 5a), whence we see that payment for indirect damage (גרמי) may be collected even by laymen Judges outside the Land of Israel, and such payment is not regarded as a fine (קנס). , Yad Ḥobel u-Mazzik VII, 9. There are three expressions used in Talmudical terminology with reference to different categories of damage that require elucidation, viz., a) היזק שאינו ניכר — damage not discernible in the object itself, such as, leavened matter over which Passover has passed (which had been in the house during Passover) that becomes forbidden for use after Passover, although the damage is not evident here; b) דינא דגרמי — indirect damage which is discernible and is not the result of any action performed, such as, in the case of the fence of a vineyard that has been broken down and the owner of the adjoining cornfield requires the owner of the vineyard to restore it. If the owner of the vineyard neglects the matter and does not restore it, he thereby causes his neighbour’s produce to become forfeit (Deut. XXII, 9) and is held responsible for the loss; c) גרמא בנזקין — where the damage caused indirectly is not evident, e.g., when one places a ladder near his neighbour’s dovecote, thereby causing indirectly a marten to jump in, the law is that since there is also the possibility that the marten will not jump in, hence the one who placed the ladder is not held responsible — N.Yos. to B.K. Cf. ‘Ar. Comp. II, p. 365 s.v. גרם and v. infra § 386 on further distinctions between גרמא and גרמי. Cf. also infra § 66, 32; B.B. 94a, RaShBaM s.v. נותן לו. and likewise, [regarding] the law of the informer,³⁶B.K. 116b-117a records a number of cases regarding ‘informers’ which were adjudicated by the Amoraim in Babylon. , Yad, Gezelah wa-Abedah IX, 3. — Judges who are not duly ordained in the Land of Israel³⁷ supra par. 1, n. 1. may adjudicate them.³⁸One may be compelled nowadays to support his minor children since it is a religious duty and does not belong to the category of fines — K.H. Gloss: Witnesses who offered false evidence and were found Zomemim,³⁹Zomemim, plur. of Zomem, from the rt. זמם ‘to plot’ or ‘to scheme.’ This refers to witnesses whose personal presence at the alleged offence is challenged by other witnesses. In other words, they are proven to have been ‘schemers’ or ‘plotters,’ and they are punished by the law of retaliation (Deut. XIX, 16ff.). According to W.G., Isserles mentions this ruling here, since as in the aforementioned law of the ‘informer’ damage is caused by mere speech without tangible action (this is also apparent in Mord. to B.K. VIII, the source of this ruling) contra M.E. who writes that Isserles states this here as an independent law. and they [the Judges] had [already] collected payment on [the strength of] their testimony,⁴⁰This applies only if money had already been collected on their testimony, although the principle, as he had purposed to do (Deut. ibid.) and not as he had done (v. Ḥul. 11b, Rashi s.v. אין נהרגין and Torah Temimah ibid.) would imply that only if the money had not yet been collected from the person against whom they plotted is payment exacted from th Zomemim witnesses, but not if payment had been ordered and paid, — nevertheless, in civil liability (as in the present case) the above principle (which is of a penal nature) is not applicable (v. B.K. 4b, Tosaf. s.v. עדים). The reason why the example of הזמה (the refutation of the witnesses by another set of witnesses by proving an alibi, e.g., ‘How can you offer this testimony, if, at the time you state that the alleged offence was committed, you were present with us in another locality?’) is mentioned, and not the example of הכחשה (counter-evidence which contradicts the testimony of the first set of witnesses), is because in the latter case when two witnesses state that So-and-So borrowed money from So-and-So, as a result of which money was collected on their testimony, and subsequently, two other witnesses came and offered counterevidence, the former set of witnesses cannot be ordered to make payment, for we may say, that the evidence offered by the second set of witnesses does not carry more weight than that of the first set. Not so, however, if the witnesses are proven Zomemim (v. infra § 31, 38; § 46, 37) — M.E. , also infra § 28, 3, Gloss. However, if the testimony of the witnesses, who were subsequently proven Zomemim, merely exempted the defendant from taking an oath, thereby causing damage to the claimant, — for if the defendant would have had to take an oath (which, now it appears would have been a false oath), he would have made payment instead of swearing falsely, — nevertheless, the Zomemim witnesses are not required to make restitution, for this is not considered a case of דינא דגרמי (indirect damage which is discernible. , supra n. 35) but rather belongs to the category of גרמא בנזקין (indirect damage which is not evident. , ibid.) — P.Tesh. and it is impossible to recover [the payment now],⁴¹e., the claimant who received payment on the testimony of the witnesses who were proven Zommim, had already spent the money. — [the law is that] they judge them and order them to pay.⁴²Mord. to B.K. VIII beg. — G. Thus also RaShaL ibid. Infra § 29, par. 2.

Unter Weinbergsmischfrüchten versteht man Getreide oder Grünes, welches zwischen den Weinstöcken gesät wurde, wobei es sich ganz gleichbleibt, ob ein Israelit oder ein Nichtisraelit es gesät, oder ob es von selbst ausgewachsen, oder ob man den Weinstock zwischen das Grüne gepflanzt, — jedenfalls bleiben Weinstöcke und Getreide, oder Grünwerk, sowohl zum Essen als zur Nutznießung verboten, denn es heißt: »Damit nicht ausgeartet (entweiht) werde die Fülle der Saat die du säen wirst, so wie auch die Lese des Weinbergs« (Deut. 22:9), was so viel sagen will, als: Du könntest durch Übertretung beides verboten machen.

Dies gilt jedoch nur dann, wenn diese Mischsaat im gelobten Lande stattfand, im Auslande aber sind die Weinbergsmischfrüchte bloß nach Vorschrift der Weisen verboten; in der Abhandlung über Mischfrüchte wird auseinandergesetzt werden, welche Gattung von Gewächsen als Weinbergsmischfrüchte verboten sind und welche es nicht sind, wann das Verbot beginnt, welcher Gegenstand »die Entweihung« bedingt und welcher nicht.