Halakhah su Deuteronomio 30:11

(Kof) “Robbing an ordinary person is more severe than robbing the Most High, (i.e., taking consecrated property). As with [robbing an ordinary person, the Torah] has sin precede me’ilah (trespass), [whereas with robbing the Most High], it has me’ilah preceding sin.” With robbing an ordinary person, it is written (Lev. 5:21), “If any one sin, and commit a trespass, etc.” But with one who misuses consecrated items, it is written (Lev. 5:15), “If any one trespasses in misuse (timol ma’al) and sins unwittingly, etc.” And this is a statement of Rabbi Levi in the chapter [entitled] HaSfina (Bava Batra ).⁵⁸Only the first part of this appears in our standard text of the Talmud, but the meaning is the same. And it requires explanation – as [just] because it had sin precede me’ilah, [does that mean] it is more severe? As both [terms] appear in both. And it appears to me that it can be explained according to that which is written by Rabbi Yitschak Arama in Parashat Chukkat of Akeidat Yitschak, that even the most complete person sins in something, etc. Indeed, he is compelled by his nature, as the verse states (Ecclesiastes 7:20), “For there is no man who is righteous in the world [… who does not sin].” But when it is in the manner of either being from the light sins or after complete repentance, he will certainly not be punished; as the Sages, may their memory be blessed, said (Rosh Hashanah 12b) “I am He before he sins, and I am He after he sins and repents.”⁵⁹The Talmud (the wording of which is slightly different than the quote) is referring to God’s attributes of mercy in Exod. 34:6). However we do not understand from this that no sinner is ever punished. As even though – in his not being God – he is compelled to sin, he is not compelled to wallow in sin and have it become habitual. See there. And [so] it is elucidated that man is not fitting to be punished for sinning, since he is compelled to it – and especially if it is from the lighter sins. Rather the main punishment comes in his wallowing in it and making it habitual, and not repenting. As anyone [can repent]; as it is written (Deut. 30:11), “it is not a wonder […] and not distant, etc.” – and the Sages, may their memory be blessed, say this is referring to repentance.⁶⁰The first known source for this is actually Ramban on this verse. And that is because while the [fulfillment of all the] actual commandments [is] a wonder for man and distant from him since he is a man and not divine, and is [so] compelled to sin – especially with the lighter sins – he is not compelled to wallow in them and make them habitual. And he needs to regret and repent, [as] the commandment of repentance is not a wonder and distant. And it is because of this that Rabbi Levi decides that stealing from an ordinary person is more severe than from the Most High. For with stealing from the Most High, [the Torah] had trespass precede sin; as since it is from the lighter sins, it is not called a sin for a man, given that “there is no man who is righteous in the world who only does good.” And the main sin [here] is because he wallows in it and does not immediately regret [it] after doing it. And that is why it has trespass before sin; as the sin is [afterwards] when he does not regret [it]. For this reason, it is written (Num. 5:7), “and they shall confess,”⁶¹In another section dealing with misusing sanctified property. such that they shall repent. But the trespass itself is not in the category of sin, since man is compelled to do such a light sin; which is not the case with robbing an ordinary person. [As] that is more severe, since a man can withstand [its temptation]. Even though he is not divine, he is not compelled to rob his fellow – [something that is] in the category of friendship and brotherhood. Hence with robbing an ordinary person, the trespass itself is the sin. And for this reason it had sin precede trespass.

How did Hafez Hayyim become aware of the fact that his cow had developed adhesions? Certainly not on the basis of some prophetic inspiration. Had such information been revealed to him, presumably he would have been duty-bound to inform his family so that they not inadvertently fall into transgression.⁷⁰Although the principle “it is not in heaven”(Deuteronomy 30:11) establishes that subsequent to revelation of the Torah at Sinai there will never be a supplemental revelation of halakhic information, that principle does not preclude prophetic revelation of factual information having halakhic ramifications. See R. Zevi Hirsch Chajes, Torat Nevi’im: Eleh ha-Miẓvot, chap. 2 and addendum to chap. 2, as well as R. Elchanan Wasserman, Kuntres Divrei Soferim (Pietrokow, 5684) no. 5, secs. 3-7. Republished in his Koveẓ Shi’urim, II (5720). There is a quite simple explanation for Hafez Hayyim's behavior. As animals age, they, no less so than humans, become prone to illness. Hafez Hayyim realized that his cow had reached a stage in bovine life at which disease and illness were more than remote possibilities. Concern for his spiritual welfare caused him to eschew milk that might be tainted with even the suspicion of spiritual harm. Was he halakhically required to act as he did? Certainly not. Unless empirically rebutted, the halakhic presumption that the majority of animals are not tereifot applies even to aging animals. Hafez Hayyim's avoidance of the milk of that particular cow reflected a finely-honed sensitivity to the possibility of transgression.