The Obligation to Guard the Fences that Guard the Fundamental Commandments of the Torah
טיב הקהילה English | February 18, 2025
Print This Article
View Original PDF

The Obligation to Guard the Fences that Guard the Fundamental Commandments of the Torah

טיב הקהילה English | June 27, 2025

From the posukim before us, we see that the obligation to observe the boundaries and safeguards instituted solely to distance a person from sin is just as binding as the obligation to observe the fundamental commandments of the Torah. One who belittles these safeguards is considered as one who directly belittles the core prohibitions themselves, Rachmana litzlan.

Behold, the first posuk discusses the payment imposed on the owner of an “innocent ox” (shor tam) that killed another ox, which is “half-damages” (chatzi nezek), while the following posuk discusses the payment imposed on the owner of a “warned ox” (shor mu‘ad), which is “full damages” (nezek shalem).

Now, one might ask: Why is the owner of the tam required to pay anything at all? After all, he had no knowledge that he owned a goring ox! However, the very fact that he owns an ox is already a reason for him to guard it carefully, as he must suspect that his ox might be prone to goring. And even if it has not yet demonstrated such behavior, he must be concerned that one day it may turn into a goring ox. For although habitual goring oxen are rare, he must worry that his ox might be among that small number, or that it may eventually join them in the future.

Nevertheless, the owner of the tam is only required to pay “half-damages” because, in practice, he was not explicitly warned to take extra precautions. The situation is different for the owner of the mu‘ad, who already knows with certainty that his ox is prone to goring, and he has also been officially warned about it (“and its owner has been warned” – hu‘ad bi‘va‘alav). He was therefore obligated to exercise extra caution to prevent his ox from causing damage. Since he neglected these precautions, he is penalized twice as much and must pay “full damages.”

Thus, we learn that negligence regarding safeguards and precautions is as severe as negligence regarding the transgression itself. Just as punishment is imposed for the transgression itself, so too is it imposed for failing to observe the necessary safeguards and precautions.

From the posukim before us, we see that the obligation to observe the boundaries and safeguards instituted solely to distance a person from sin is just as binding as the obligation to observe the fundamental commandments of the Torah. One who belittles these safeguards is considered as one who directly belittles the core prohibitions themselves, Rachmana litzlan.

Behold, the first posuk discusses the payment imposed on the owner of an “innocent ox” (shor tam) that killed another ox, which is “half-damages” (chatzi nezek), while the following posuk discusses the payment imposed on the owner of a “warned ox” (shor mu‘ad), which is “full damages” (nezek shalem).

Now, one might ask: Why is the owner of the tam required to pay anything at all? After all, he had no knowledge that he owned a goring ox! However, the very fact that he owns an ox is already a reason for him to guard it carefully, as he must suspect that his ox might be prone to goring. And even if it has not yet demonstrated such behavior, he must be concerned that one day it may turn into a goring ox. For although habitual goring oxen are rare, he must worry that his ox might be among that small number, or that it may eventually join them in the future.

Nevertheless, the owner of the tam is only required to pay “half-damages” because, in practice, he was not explicitly warned to take extra precautions. The situation is different for the owner of the mu‘ad, who already knows with certainty that his ox is prone to goring, and he has also been officially warned about it (“and its owner has been warned” – hu‘ad bi‘va‘alav). He was therefore obligated to exercise extra caution to prevent his ox from causing damage. Since he neglected these precautions, he is penalized twice as much and must pay “full damages.”

Thus, we learn that negligence regarding safeguards and precautions is as severe as negligence regarding the transgression itself. Just as punishment is imposed for the transgression itself, so too is it imposed for failing to observe the necessary safeguards and precautions.

PDF Preview