Maseches Fogs

מתני׳ זאב אחד אינו אונס שני זאבים אונס רבי יהודה אומר בשעת משלחת זאבים אף זאב אחד אונס שני כלבים אינו אונס ידוע הבבלי אומר משום רבי מאיר מרוח אחת אינו אונס משתי רוחות אונס הלסטים הרי זה אונס הארי הדוב והנמר והברדלס והנחש הרי אלו אונס אימתי בזמן שבאו מאליהן אבל הוליכן למקום גדודי חיה ולסטים אינו אונס מתה כדרכה הרי זה אונס סגפה ומתה אינו אונס עלתה לראשי צוקין ונפלה הרי זה אונס העלה לראשי צוקין ונפלה ומתה אינו אונס:

Bava Metzia 93b:15-18

MISHNA: One wolf that approaches a flock and attacks is not considered a circumstance beyond one’s control, as the shepherd can drive it away, but an attack by two wolves is considered a circumstance beyond one’s control. Rabbi Yehuda says: At a time of wolf attacks, when many wolves come out of hiding and pounce on animals at every corner, even an attack by one wolf is considered a circumstance beyond one’s control. An attack by two dogs is not considered a circumstance beyond one’s control. Yadua the Babylonian says in the name of Rabbi Meir: If the two dogs came and attacked from one direction it is not considered a circumstance beyond one’s control, but if they attacked from two directions, this is considered a circumstance beyond one’s control, as the shepherd cannot protect his flock from both of them at once. If bandits came, this is considered a circumstance beyond one’s control. Likewise, with regard to an attack by a lion, a bear, a leopard, a cheetah, and a snake, these are each considered a circumstance beyond one’s control. When is an attack by one of the above considered beyond his control, which means that a paid bailee is exempt? It is when the dangerous beasts or bandits came of their own accord to the usual grazing spot. But if the shepherd led his flock to a place of groups of beasts or bandits, this is not considered a circumstance beyond one’s control, as he is at fault. If the animal died in its normal manner, this is considered a circumstance beyond one’s control; if he afflicted it by overworking it or by negligent treatment and it died, this is not considered a circumstance beyond one’s control. If the animal ascended to the top of a cliff and fell down and died, this is considered a circumstance beyond one’s control. If the shepherd himself brought it up to the top of a cliff and it fell down and died, this is not considered a circumstance beyond one’s control.

לִסְטִים מְזֻיָּן הֲרֵי הוּא אֹנֶס וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הָרוֹעֶה מְזֻיָּן וּבָא לוֹ לִסְטִים אֶחָד מְזֻיָּן הֲרֵי זֶה אֹנֶס שֶׁאֵין הָרוֹעֶה מוֹסֵר נַפְשׁוֹ כְּלִסְטִים. הָאֲרִי וְהַדֹּב וְהַנָּמֵר וְהַבַּרְדְּלָס וְהַנָּחָשׁ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֳנָסִין. אֵימָתַי בִּזְמַן שֶׁבָּאוּ מֵאֲלֵיהֶן. אֲבָל אִם הוֹלִיכָם לִמְקוֹם גְּדוּדֵי חַיּוֹת וְלִיסְטִים אֵין אֵלּוּ אֳנָסִין וְחַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם:

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.

A lion, a bear, a leopard, a cheetah or a snake are considered to be losses beyond his control.

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.

מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ הֲרֵי זֶה אֹנֶס וְהָרוֹעֶה פָּטוּר. סִגְפָהּ וּמֵתָה אֵינוֹ אֹנֶס. תְּקָפַתּוּ וְעָלְתָה לְרָאשֵׁי צוּקִין וּתְקָפַתּוּ וְנָפְלָה הֲרֵי זֶה אֹנֶס. 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. וְכֵן רוֹעֶה שֶׁהֶעֱבִיר הַבְּהֵמוֹת עַל הַגֶּשֶׁר וְדָחֲפָה אַחַת מֵהֶן לַחֲבֵרְתָהּ וְנָפְלָה לְשִׁבּלֶת הַנָּהָר הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לְהַעֲבִירָן אַחַת אַחַת שֶׁאֵין הַשּׁוֹמֵר נוֹטֵל שָׂכָר אֶלָּא לִשְׁמֹר שְׁמִירָה מְעֵלָּה וְהוֹאִיל וּפָשַׁע בַּתְּחִלָּה וְהֶעֱבִירָן כְּאֶחָד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּאֱנַס בַּסּוֹף בְּעֵת הַנְּפִילָה הֲרֵי הוּא חַיָּב:

If an animal dies in an ordinary manner, this is considered to be a loss beyond the shepherd's control, and he is not liable. If he oppressed it and it died, it is not considered a loss beyond his control. If it overcame the shepherd and ascended to a high cliff, and it overcame him and fell, it is considered to be a loss beyond his control. 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.

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. Indeed, the reason a shepherd receives a wage is to watch the animals in a 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.

מְתִיב רָמֵי בַּר חַמָּא הֶעֱלָהּ לְרָאשֵׁי צוּקִין וְנָפְלָה אֵין זֶה אוֹנֶס וְחַיָּיב הָא מֵתָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹנֶס וּפָטוּר וְאַמַּאי לֵימַא לֵיהּ אֲוֵירָא דְּהַר קַטְלַהּ אִי נַמִּי אובצנא דְּהַר קַטְלַהּ הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן שֶׁהֶעֱלָהּ לְמִרְעֶה שָׁמֵן וְטוֹב אִי הָכִי נָפְלָה נַמֵי שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לתוקפה וְלֹא תְּקָפָהּ אִי הָכִי אֵימָא רֵישָׁא עָלְתָה לְרָאשֵׁי צוּקִין וְנָפְלָה הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹנֶס אִיבָּעֵי לֵיהּ למיתקפה לֹא צְרִיכָא שֶׁתְּקָפַתּוּ וְעָלְתָה תְּקָפַתּוּ וְיָרְדָה

Rami bar Chama countered from the following Mishnah: If the watcher took it up to the top of a cliff, and it fell and died, it's not an oness, and he's liable. [Below 93b.] The implication: But if it died naturally up on the cliff, it's considered an oness, and he would be exempt. But why? Let the owner say to him, The cold mountain air killed it! Or even, The exhaustion of climbing the mountain killed it! What are we dealing with here? When he took it up to a fertile and good pasture ground. [He had a good reason to take it up there, so he is not considered negligent.] If so, he should be exempt even if it fell? He should have grabbed it, and he didn't grab it. If so, read [literally: say] the first clause: If it went up to the top of a cliff and fell down, it's an oness. But he should have grabbed it! No, the Mishnah is necessary when he grabbed it to hold it back, but it still went up, and he grabbed it when it began to fall, but it still fell. [It was too heavy for him.]

משנה תורה, הלכות יסודי התורה ה׳:ד׳

(ד) כָּל מִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ יַעֲבֹר וְאַל יֵהָרֵג וְנֶהֱרַג וְלֹא עָבַר הֲרֵי זֶה מִתְחַיֵּב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ. וְכָל מִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ יֵהָרֵג וְאַל יַעֲבֹר וְנֶהֱרַג וְלֹא עָבַר הֲרֵי זֶה קִדֵּשׁ אֶת הַשֵּׁם. וְאִם הָיָה בַּעֲשָׂרָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי זֶה קִדֵּשׁ אֶת הַשֵּׁם בָּרַבִּים כְּדָנִיֵּאל חֲנַנְיָה מִישָׁאֵל וַעֲזַרְיָה וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וַחֲבֵרָיו. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הֲרוּגֵי מַלְכוּת שֶׁאֵין מַעֲלָה עַל מַעֲלָתָן. וַעֲלֵיהֶן נֶאֱמַר (תהילים מד כג) "כִּי עָלֶיךָ הֹרַגְנוּ כָל הַיּוֹם נֶחְשַׁבְנוּ כְּצֹאן טִבְחָה". וַעֲלֵיהֶם נֶאֱמַר (תהילים נ ה) "אִסְפוּ לִי חֲסִידָי כֹּרְתֵי בְרִיתִי עֲלֵי זָבַח". וְכָל מִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ יֵהָרֵג וְאַל יַעֲבֹר וְעָבַר וְלֹא נֶהֱרַג הֲרֵי זֶה מְחַלֵּל אֶת הַשֵּׁם. וְאִם הָיָה בַּעֲשָׂרָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי זֶה חִלֵּל אֶת הַשֵּׁם בָּרַבִּים וּבִטֵּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהִיא קִדּוּשׁ הַשֵּׁם וְעָבַר עַל מִצְוַת לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהִיא חִלּוּל הַשֵּׁם. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעָבַר בְּאֹנֶס אֵין מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין מְמִיתִין אוֹתוֹ בֵּית דִּין אֲפִלּוּ הָרַג בְּאֹנֶס. שֶׁאֵין מַלְקִין וּמְמִיתִין אֶלָּא לְעוֹבֵר בִּרְצוֹנוֹ וּבְעֵדִים וְהַתְרָאָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּנוֹתֵן מִזַּרְעוֹ לַמּלֶךְ (ויקרא כ ה) "(וְנָתַתִּי) [וְשַׂמְתִּי] אֲנִי אֶת פָּנַי בָּאִישׁ הַהוּא". מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ הַהוּא לֹא אָנוּס וְלֹא שׁוֹגֵג וְלֹא מֻטְעֶה. וּמָה אִם עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁהִיא חֲמוּרָה מִן הַכּל הָעוֹבֵד אוֹתָהּ בְּאֹנֶס אֵינוֹ חַיָּב כָּרֵת וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין. קַל וָחֹמֶר לִשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה. וּבַעֲרָיוֹת הוּא אוֹמֵר (דברים כב כו) "וְלַנַּעֲרָה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה דָבָר". אֲבָל אִם יָכוֹל לְמַלֵּט נַפְשׁוֹ וְלִבְרֹחַ מִתַּחַת יַד הַמֶּלֶךְ הָרָשָׁע וְאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה הִנֵּה הוּא כְּכֶלֶב שָׁב עַל קֵאוֹ. וְהוּא נִקְרָא עוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים בְּמֵזִיד וְהוּא נִטְרָד מִן הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא וְיוֹרֵד לַמַּדְרֵגָה הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה שֶׁל גֵּיהִנֹּם:

Mishneh Torah, Foundations of the Torah 5:4

(4) Whosoever, of whom it is said that he shall transgress and not die, if he die and did not transgress, the guilt thereof be upon his soul;²Ibid. 27. Tosfot commends such act. C. G. and whosoever, concerning whom it is said that he shall die and not transgress, and he did die and did not transgress, he sanctified the Name of God; and if this happened in the presence of ten Israelites, he sanctified the Name of God among many, even like unto Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah and Rabbi Akiba and his associates, who have been slain by decree of a tyrannical government to which degree of martyrdom there is no parallel, concerning whom it is said: "But for Thy sake we are killed all the day; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter" (Ps. 44.23); and concerning whom it is moreover said: "Gather my saints together unto me, those that have made a covenant with Me by sacrifice" (Ibid. 50.5). And whosoever, concerning whom it is said that he shall die and not transgress, did transgress and did not die, blasphemed the Name of God, and if he did this in the presence of ten Israelites, he blasphemed the Name of God in the presence of many, violated the mandatory commandment of the sanctification of God, and transgressed the prohibitive commandment of blasphemy. Nevertheless, because he committed the transgression in duress, he is not lashed, needless to say that no punishment of death is inflicted upon him by a tribunal, even though he commit murder in duress; for no punishment of either lashes or death is inflicted unless one commits the crime willfully in the presence of witnesses, and received a warning not to do it, even as it is said of one who sacrifices his children to Mollech: "And I will set my face against that man" (Lev. 20.3), which is traditionally understood to mean that that man was not under duress, nor in error, nor in ignorance. Now, if idolatry, which is the capital offense of them all, yet whosoever worships it in duress, is not guilty to be cut off from among his people, not to say of being put to death by a tribunal, a minori ad majus that an offense against the other commandments enumerated in the Torah should remain as the major premise. Furthermore, concerning adultery it is said: "But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing" (Deut. 22. 26).³She was under duress. G. But if he can save his life and flee from the jurisdiction of such a wicked king, and he does it not, he is likened unto a dog that returneth to his vomit, and is called a willful worshipper of idolatry, and is deprived of the world to come, for he will descend into the nethermost level of the Gehenna.

שבת י״ט א:ח׳

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין מַפְלִיגִין בִּסְפִינָה פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים קוֹדֶם לַשַּׁבָּת. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — לִדְבַר הָרְשׁוּת, אֲבָל לִדְבַר מִצְוָה — שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי. וּפוֹסֵק עִמּוֹ עַל מְנָת לִשְׁבּוֹת, וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹבֵת — דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ. וּמִצּוֹר לְצַיְדָּן — אֲפִילּוּ בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת מוּתָּר.

Shabbat 19a:8

The Sages taught: One may not set sail on a ship fewer than three days before Shabbat, to avoid appearances that the Jew is performing a prohibited labor on Shabbat. In what case is this statement said? In a case where he set sail for a voluntary matter; however, if he sailed for a matter involving a mitzva, he may well do so. And, even then, he must stipulate with the gentile ship captain that this is on the condition that he rests, i.e., stops the ship, and even if the gentile does not rest. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He need not stipulate. And sailing on a ship that is traveling from Tyre to Sidon, a short journey by sea, is permitted even on Shabbat eve.

שבת קל״ד ב:א׳-ב׳

מַתְנִי׳ מַרְחִיצִין אֶת הַקָּטָן בֵּין לִפְנֵי הַמִּילָה וּבֵין לְאַחַר הַמִּילָה, וּמְזַלְּפִין עָלָיו בַּיָּד, אֲבָל לֹא בִּכְלִי. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר: מַרְחִיצִין אֶת הַקָּטָן בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי בַיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי בִּהְיוֹתָם כּוֹאֲבִים״. סָפֵק וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס — אֵין מְחַלְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר בְּאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס.

Shabbat 134b:1-2

MISHNA: One may wash the baby on Shabbat, both before the circumcision and after the circumcision. And one may sprinkle hot water on him by hand but not with a vessel, in order to depart from the usual manner in which this is done. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: One may wash the baby on the third day following his circumcision, even if that third day occurs on Shabbat. On the third day following circumcision, the baby is considered to be in danger, as it is stated with regard to the men of Shekhem, who were circumcised: “And it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain” (Genesis 34:25). This teaches us that on the third day the pain of circumcision poses a danger. If there is uncertainty whether or not to circumcise a baby, and likewise in the case of a hermaphrodite [androginos] baby, who possesses both male and female genitals, one does not desecrate Shabbat to perform the circumcision, since it is not certain that the circumcision is required. And Rabbi Yehuda permits doing so for a hermaphrodite baby.