Introduction: The Torah allows slavery, and slavery has laws attached to it. One can't do with a slave girl anything he wants. America made a terrible mistake in freeing its slaves and now they are ruling over everyone else. Americans thought the Torah is bad because it allows slavery. Instead of thinking they were superior to the Torah, they ought to have learned its lessons.]
First of all in the Torah we have five kinds of Guilt offerings. That is let us say there is a slave woman who has two owners and one of the owners lets her go. So she is half slave and half free. Now if she would be free, one could marry her. But a Jew can't have sex with a slave woman. So what happens if a Jew has sex with this half free and half slave woman? That is the case of one of the guilt offerings. [The half free slave girl offering in Leviticus.]
The law concerning a half freed slave girl is in order for the law of the Torah to apply she needs to do it on purpose but he can do it by accident or on purpose. That is he depends on her. If she did it by accident, then not only does she not get lashes, but he brings no guilt offering.
Thus if she is underage, neither she nor he is obligated in anything. But if she is older than 12, and he is under age, she gets lashes if she did it on purpose, and he brings a sacrifice.
[In other words: In Kritut we learn he depends on her. If she is not obligated in makot [lashes] then he does not bring a guilt offering. So if he is over 13 and she is younger neither is obligated.]
But if he is less than 13 and she is older, the Rambam says she gets lashes and he brings the guilt offering. The Raavad disagrees and says since he is less than 13 both are not obligated in anything;
The Rambam is hard to understand How can he be liable, when he is underage?
Rav Elazar Menachem Shach has an idea that might help us to understand the Rambam..
Rav Elazar Menachem Shach says when we say as a rule that and accident is not liable in punishment the reason is there is something lacking in the act--not just the person. So now we can understand the Rambam. Since she is doing the deed on purpose, and he is underage there is nothing lacking in the deed. [The reason is because slave girl needs to do it on purpose for there to be a punishment, but he does not need to be on purpose.]
This idea of Rav Shach is something that I and my learning partner have been puzzling about. What would be the difference if doing an act by accident would be a lack in the person, not in the deed? What would change in our case? Rav Shach is giving a reason for the Rambam that when he is under 13 and she is above 12 there is an obligation.That is his being under age does not present a lack in the deed. But that just seems like a different way of saying the same thing. How does this help us?
______________________________________
_________________________________________
One kind of אשם is for having sex with a שפחה חר.
The law concerning a half freed slave girl is in order for the law of the Torah to apply she needs to do it on purpose but he can do it by שוגג or on purpose. That is he depends on her. If she did it by accident then not only does she not get lashes but he brings no guilt offering.
Thus if she is underage neither she nor he is obligated in anything. But if she is older than 12 an he is under age she gets lashes if she did it on purpose and he brings a sacrifice.
רב אלעזר מנחם שך has an idea that might help us to understand the רמב''ם..
But before I can present his idea let me say over briefly the רמב''ם he is talking about.
First of all in the Torah we have five kinds of אשמות. One of them is for a שפחה חרופה. That is let us say you have a slave woman who has two owners and one of the owner lets he go. So she is half slave and half free. Now if she would be free, one could marry her. But a regular Jew can't have sex with a שפחה. So what happens if a Jew has sex with this half free and half slave woman? That is the case of one of the אשמות.
The other guilt offerings are for גזלה,that is אשם גזלות, and for using an object that was sanctified for the Temple אשם מעילות and few other things. You can look them up at the beginning of ויקרא.
In כריתות we learn he depends on her. If she is not obligated in מכות then he does not bring a אשם offering. So if he is over שלש עשרה שנים and she is פחות משתים עשרה neither is obligated. But if he is less than שלש עשרה and she is older the רמב''ם says she gets מלקות and he brings the אשם. The ראב''ד disagrees and says since he is less than שלש עשרה both are not obligated in anything;
The רמב''ם is hard to understand. How can he be liable when he is underage? רב שך says when we say as a rule that an שוגג is not liable in punishment the reason is there is something lacking in the act, not just the person. So now we can understand the רמב''ם. Since she is doing the deed on purpose and he is underage there is nothing lacking in the deed. The reason is because שפחה חרופה needs to do it on purpose for there to be a punishment but he does not need to be on purpose.
____________________________________________________________________________
קודם כל בתורה יש לנו חמישה סוגים של אשם. אחד מהם הוא לשפחה חרופה, היינו שיש שפחה שיש לה שני קונים, ואחד מהקונים מאפשר לה ללכת. אז היא חצי שפחה וחצי בת חורין. עכשיו, אם היא תהיה חופשית, אפשר להתחתן איתה. אבל יהודי רגיל לא יכול לקיים יחסי מין עם שפחה. אז מה קורה אם יהודי מקיים יחסי מין עם אישה הזאת חצי שפחה וחצי חפשית? זה המקרה אחד של אשם
סוג אחד של אשם הוא לקיום יחסי מין עם שפחה חרופה (חצי משוחררת). את החוק הנוגע לשפחה חרופה הוא שהיא צריכה לעשות את זה בכוונה, אבל הוא יכול לעשות את זה על ידי שוגג או בכוונה. כלומר הוא תלוי בה. אם היא עשתה את זה בטעות, אז לא רק שהיא לא תקבל עונש אלא גם הוא לא מביא אשם. לכן, אם היא קטינה לא היא ולא הוא מחויבים בכל דבר. אבל אם היא יותר מי''ב והוא מתחת לגיל י''ג היא מקבלת מלקות אם היא עשתה את זה בכוונה, והוא מביא קרבן.
בכריתות אנו לומדים שהוא תלוי בה. אם היא אינה מחויבת במכות, אז הוא לא מביא קרבן אשם. אז אם הוא יותר משלש עשר שנים והיא פחות משתים עשרה, היא לא מחויבת. אבל אם הוא פחות משלש עשרה והיא מבוגרת לרמב''ם שהיא מקבלת מלקות והוא מביא אשם. הראב''ד אינו מסכים, ואומר שאם הוא פחות משלש עשרה שניהם אינם מחויבים בשום דבר. הרמב''ם קשה להבין. איך הוא יכול להיות אחראי כשהוא קטן?
לרב אלעזר מנחם שך יש רעיון שיכול לעזור לנו להבין את הרמב''ם.
רב שך אומר כשאנחנו אומרים ככלל כי שוגג אינו אחראי בעונש הסיבה לכך היא שיש משהו חסר במעשה, לא רק את האדם. אז עכשיו אנחנו יכולים להבין את הרמב''ם. מאז היא עושה מעשה במזיד והוא קטן אין שום דבר חסר במעשה. הסיבה לכך היא משום שפחה חרופה צריכה לעשות את זה בכוונה כדי להיות עונש, אבל הוא לא צריך להיות בכוונה.
First of all in the Torah we have five kinds of Guilt offerings. That is let us say there is a slave woman who has two owners and one of the owners lets her go. So she is half slave and half free. Now if she would be free, one could marry her. But a Jew can't have sex with a slave woman. So what happens if a Jew has sex with this half free and half slave woman? That is the case of one of the guilt offerings. [The half free slave girl offering in Leviticus.]
The other guilt offerings are for armed robbery, and for using an object that was sanctified for the Temple and few other things. You can look them up at the beginning of Leviticus.
The law concerning a half freed slave girl is in order for the law of the Torah to apply she needs to do it on purpose but he can do it by accident or on purpose. That is he depends on her. If she did it by accident, then not only does she not get lashes, but he brings no guilt offering.
Thus if she is underage, neither she nor he is obligated in anything. But if she is older than 12, and he is under age, she gets lashes if she did it on purpose, and he brings a sacrifice.
[In other words: In Kritut we learn he depends on her. If she is not obligated in makot [lashes] then he does not bring a guilt offering. So if he is over 13 and she is younger neither is obligated.]
But if he is less than 13 and she is older, the Rambam says she gets lashes and he brings the guilt offering. The Raavad disagrees and says since he is less than 13 both are not obligated in anything;
The Rambam is hard to understand How can he be liable, when he is underage?
Rav Elazar Menachem Shach has an idea that might help us to understand the Rambam..
Rav Elazar Menachem Shach says when we say as a rule that and accident is not liable in punishment the reason is there is something lacking in the act--not just the person. So now we can understand the Rambam. Since she is doing the deed on purpose, and he is underage there is nothing lacking in the deed. [The reason is because slave girl needs to do it on purpose for there to be a punishment, but he does not need to be on purpose.]
This idea of Rav Shach is something that I and my learning partner have been puzzling about. What would be the difference if doing an act by accident would be a lack in the person, not in the deed? What would change in our case? Rav Shach is giving a reason for the Rambam that when he is under 13 and she is above 12 there is an obligation.That is his being under age does not present a lack in the deed. But that just seems like a different way of saying the same thing. How does this help us?
______________________________________
_________________________________________
One kind of אשם is for having sex with a שפחה חר.
The law concerning a half freed slave girl is in order for the law of the Torah to apply she needs to do it on purpose but he can do it by שוגג or on purpose. That is he depends on her. If she did it by accident then not only does she not get lashes but he brings no guilt offering.
Thus if she is underage neither she nor he is obligated in anything. But if she is older than 12 an he is under age she gets lashes if she did it on purpose and he brings a sacrifice.
רב אלעזר מנחם שך has an idea that might help us to understand the רמב''ם..
But before I can present his idea let me say over briefly the רמב''ם he is talking about.
First of all in the Torah we have five kinds of אשמות. One of them is for a שפחה חרופה. That is let us say you have a slave woman who has two owners and one of the owner lets he go. So she is half slave and half free. Now if she would be free, one could marry her. But a regular Jew can't have sex with a שפחה. So what happens if a Jew has sex with this half free and half slave woman? That is the case of one of the אשמות.
The other guilt offerings are for גזלה,that is אשם גזלות, and for using an object that was sanctified for the Temple אשם מעילות and few other things. You can look them up at the beginning of ויקרא.
In כריתות we learn he depends on her. If she is not obligated in מכות then he does not bring a אשם offering. So if he is over שלש עשרה שנים and she is פחות משתים עשרה neither is obligated. But if he is less than שלש עשרה and she is older the רמב''ם says she gets מלקות and he brings the אשם. The ראב''ד disagrees and says since he is less than שלש עשרה both are not obligated in anything;
The רמב''ם is hard to understand. How can he be liable when he is underage? רב שך says when we say as a rule that an שוגג is not liable in punishment the reason is there is something lacking in the act, not just the person. So now we can understand the רמב''ם. Since she is doing the deed on purpose and he is underage there is nothing lacking in the deed. The reason is because שפחה חרופה needs to do it on purpose for there to be a punishment but he does not need to be on purpose.
קודם כל בתורה יש לנו חמישה סוגים של אשם. אחד מהם הוא לשפחה חרופה, היינו שיש שפחה שיש לה שני קונים, ואחד מהקונים מאפשר לה ללכת. אז היא חצי שפחה וחצי בת חורין. עכשיו, אם היא תהיה חופשית, אפשר להתחתן איתה. אבל יהודי רגיל לא יכול לקיים יחסי מין עם שפחה. אז מה קורה אם יהודי מקיים יחסי מין עם אישה הזאת חצי שפחה וחצי חפשית? זה המקרה אחד של אשם
סוג אחד של אשם הוא לקיום יחסי מין עם שפחה חרופה (חצי משוחררת). את החוק הנוגע לשפחה חרופה הוא שהיא צריכה לעשות את זה בכוונה, אבל הוא יכול לעשות את זה על ידי שוגג או בכוונה. כלומר הוא תלוי בה. אם היא עשתה את זה בטעות, אז לא רק שהיא לא תקבל עונש אלא גם הוא לא מביא אשם. לכן, אם היא קטינה לא היא ולא הוא מחויבים בכל דבר. אבל אם היא יותר מי''ב והוא מתחת לגיל י''ג היא מקבלת מלקות אם היא עשתה את זה בכוונה, והוא מביא קרבן.
בכריתות אנו לומדים שהוא תלוי בה. אם היא אינה מחויבת במכות, אז הוא לא מביא קרבן אשם. אז אם הוא יותר משלש עשר שנים והיא פחות משתים עשרה, היא לא מחויבת. אבל אם הוא פחות משלש עשרה והיא מבוגרת לרמב''ם שהיא מקבלת מלקות והוא מביא אשם. הראב''ד אינו מסכים, ואומר שאם הוא פחות משלש עשרה שניהם אינם מחויבים בשום דבר. הרמב''ם קשה להבין. איך הוא יכול להיות אחראי כשהוא קטן?
לרב אלעזר מנחם שך יש רעיון שיכול לעזור לנו להבין את הרמב''ם.
רב שך אומר כשאנחנו אומרים ככלל כי שוגג אינו אחראי בעונש הסיבה לכך היא שיש משהו חסר במעשה, לא רק את האדם. אז עכשיו אנחנו יכולים להבין את הרמב''ם. מאז היא עושה מעשה במזיד והוא קטן אין שום דבר חסר במעשה. הסיבה לכך היא משום שפחה חרופה צריכה לעשות את זה בכוונה כדי להיות עונש, אבל הוא לא צריך להיות בכוונה.
