הקם תקים עמו

by

Assist a beast of burden

Verse: הקם תקים עמו

Command: Assist a beast of burden

Devarim 22:4

Type: Positive

SMG Mitzva # 81

Cross-Ref:

SMG

The Mitzva to remove an [overloaded] burden or to help carry it is written in[1] Parshas כי תצא in the verse[i] (כי) [לא] תראה את חמור אחיך או שורו נופלים בדרך והתעלמת מהם, הקם תקים עמו. This is the Mitzva of טעינה, as was explained in the Gemara[ii] based on the word נופלים – which [plural] implies that they are falling to the ground, the animal and its burden[2]. As for what was said in Parshas משפטים in the verse[iii] כי תראה חמור שנאך רבץ תחת משאו וחדלת מעזב לו, עזב תעזב עמו. This is the Mitzva of פריקה, as was explained in the Gemara there – regarding if a person removed and resettled the burden again and again, even four or five times, he is still obligated [to continue assisting] since the Torah says עזב תעזב and הקם תקים (the duplication implying that this must continue to be done even when already done before). If the person struggling under the burden goes and sits [off to the side] and tells the Mitzva boy, ‘since you have the obligation by the Torah to help, if you want to help, do so’ then one is no longer obligated in the Mitzva, since the verse says עמו – with him. [α] If he was not feeling well, or old, he is [still] obligated. As for what we have said, that he is exempt, when the owner goes and sits off to the side – that is only when he [is requiring the bystander] to help for free [at which point the bystander can decline since the verse states that the Mitzva is עמו – with him], but if he [sat to the side, and] offered to pay – that the bystander should be paid to help him, then he is obligated to accept [the payment and assist] due to [the prohibition against allowing] an animal to be in pain. We’ve learnt, the Mitzva is לפרוק – unload for free, but one need not load [the animal] for free – but should accept payment for doing so. Rabbi Shimon though says that one is also obligated to loan the animal for free [so long as the owner is also working], but the Halaĉa follows the sages. The Gemara notes that the verse specifies:

  • רבץ, which excludes if the problem was caused by the owner, and also excludes when the animal is standing [without struggling] under the burden.
  • תחת משאו, which implies that the burden was already loaded, and what the person is being commanded in the Mitzva to do is to unload it for free, but not where the burden is arranged on the ground pending loading – one need not assist for free in that instance.

If the bystander was a Kohen, and the animal is struggling in a cemetery; just like the Kohen need not render himself טמא to return a lost object [that he sees in the cemetery – see positive Mitzva 74], so too he should not enter the cemetery to assist the struggling animal. Similarly, an Elder who does not normally load and unload burdens, need not do so as that would be beneath his dignity. This is the rule: in any situation, where if the burden and animal were his, he would load and unload – then when it comes to his friend’s burden, he must do the same. And if he was a Ĉossid and wanted to act beyond the letter of the law, he can assist him[3], as we find there with the story of Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yosi [who fulfilled the Mitzva twice in a row with the same person].[4] Since one is obligated to load and unload as many times as necessary, the sages established that the bystander should follow the porter for as much as a Parsa [to ensure the burden doesn’t become too burdensome again], and he may take compensation[5] for doing so.

When does the obligation kick in – when he can see them [from a distance that] is considered meeting them. As it says in the verse כי תראה and it also states [in the prior verse] [iv] כי תפגע [the term being juxtaposed to provide a delineation as to when the Mitzva begins]. The sages[v] measured this as being two hundred and sixty-six and two-thirds (266.66) amos distant, which is one seventh-and-a-half (1/7.5) of a Mil[6]. If the person was further away than that, he need not assist him, as we learnt in the Sifri and the Gemara[vi]. Elsewhere in the Gemara[vii] we learnt that the verse [and the Mitzva] applies to any [beast of burden], whether an ox, cow[7] or donkey, or any animal domestic or wild – whether for loading or unloading [β] or returning such an animal to its owner when lost. The Torah specified donkey only because that was the common beast of burden.

We learnt in the Tosefta[viii] and also something similar in the Gemara[ix] [the following cases]: donkeys which were passing by, one of which had a bad leg, one may not allow them to pass [without assisting].

  • If one was carrying a burden, and the other was being ridden, and the road narrowed [to the point where there was only room for one at a time] the one being ridden must move aside for the one carrying the burden.
  • If one was carrying a burden and one was not, the one who has no burden must move aside for the one carrying the burden.
  • If one was being ridden, and was not, the one who has no rider must move aside for the one being ridden.
  • If they are both being ridden or both carrying burdens or neither, they need to make a compromise between themselves.

We’ve said elsewhere in the Gemara[x] that one who comes across two [donkeys] one requiring a burden to be unloaded, and one needing a burden to be loaded – it is a Mitzva to unload first in consideration[8] of the discomfort being experienced by the animal – and then afterward one helps load the other animal. When does this apply, when the people involved were equally on bad terms or loved. But if it was his friend who needed assistance unloading and the one who is on bad terms needed help loading – it is a Mitzva to assist the one on bad terms with his loading first, in order to overcome the natural inclination [γ].[9] This was questioned elsewhere in the Gemara[xi] that with regard to the person hated, which the one whom the Torah is referring to; how can this even come about, doesn’t the Torah state לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך [see negative Mitzva 5] – the Torah must be talking about a case where the one hated was seen dong something forbidden [in a way] that it would be permissible to hate him when warned and he doesn’t desist, as it says in the verse יראת ה’ שנאת רע and the verse הלא משנאך ה’ אשנא. Nevertheless, [even with regard to such a person] the Torah admonished that we must have pity on them [when they are in a situation where they need assistance] and to help them with whatever they need as Yirmiyahu the prophet said[xii] אם ימדו שמים ממעל מלמעלה ויחקרו מוסדי ארץ למטה, גם אני אמאס בכל זרע ישראל על אשר עשו לי נאם ה’.[10] [δ]

[1] The SMG does not provide the first word of the verse – לא, but instead replaces it with the word כי. As noted previously by the Maharshal, who quotes this tendency from the introduction by the SMG, there are times when the SMG will deliberately misquote something in order to get the content of the message across without going into the underlying details.

One might think that here, the beginning of the verse is the source for the accompanying negative Mitzva 169, Do not turn a blind eye to a struggling beast of burden, and it is the end of the verse הקם תקים עמו which provides the source for the positive Mitzva 81. Rather than getting into that distinction, the SMG changed the starting word in the verse to indicate that – especially since that is how the verse for positive Mitzva 80 starts.

I do not believe this is the case. I believe instead this to be a scrivener’s error.

The SMG starts off with ‘מצות פריקה וטעינה’ which implies that he is about to discuss the source for both of those Mitzvos. And possibly did indeed do so. Then the people who copied it in the later years got confused between the verses and combined [Shemos 23:5] כי תראה חמור שנאך, the source for positive Mitzva 80, with [Devarim 22:4] לא תראה את חמור אחיך, the source for positive Mitzva 81 – resulting in the misquote noted above.

[2] This follows the opinion of the sages. Rabbi Shimon though derives that the verse is talking about where the burden is already on the ground, pending loading – in other words, the Mitzva is to assist in loading the animal properly, not in unloading an improperly balanced load. As this is a dissenting opinion, it is not quoted by the SMG.

[3] The SMG doesn’t specify what mitigating circumstance he is referring to that the Ĉossid would assist but a regular person wouldn’t. Perhaps because anyone who is a Ĉossid is automatically an Elder [see discussion on positive Mitzva 13], and therefore, by presenting the case as referring to a Ĉossid, the SMG need not explain any further.

[4] Rabbi Yishmael the son of Rabbi Yosi was walking on the road, and encountered a person who was carrying a bundle of wood. The person put the bundle down to rest – and when he saw Rabbi Yishmael coming, he called to him ‘help me lift it’. Rabbi Yishmael asked him how much it was worth, and when told it was worth a half Dinar, Rabbi Yishmael gave him the money [in exchange for the bundle of wood] and then declared the wood ownerless [and turned to walk away].

The man [understandably surprised] accepted the money, but then as the wood was now ownerless, he claimed ownership and once again asked Rabbi Yishmael to help him lift it. Once again Rabbi Yishmael gave him a half Dinar and declared the wood ownerless. When the man bent to take ownership of the wood again, Rabbi Yishmael said to him ‘I only declared it ownerless for others – not for you.’

Regardless of whether one is allowed to declare something partially ownerless or not, the ruse worked, and the man went away having effectively sold the wood for twice the value. [I would be surprised if he didn’t come back later to pick up the wood once Rabbi Yishmael had left.]

[5] Presumably for lost time.

[6] The Yerushalmi determines this distance based on the size of a standard stadium in those times known as a ריס. Presumably because that was the furthest distance one would normally be considered to have encountered someone, as in “I saw you yesterday at the stadium.” I guess outside the stadium the two would naturally drift closer to one another, and thus it would be difficult to determine how far apart they were when they could consider themselves as meeting the other person.

This measurement seems to be the equivalent of the typical width of a Roman stadium implying that the sages erred on the side of caution in providing this measurement, as they could have also stated the minimum size to meet someone is the length of the stadium.

There is an interesting study conducted with regard to testing the accuracy of eyewitness testimony observed from a distance. The study [cited below] concluded that there is a noticeable decrease in being able to recognize something at the rate of about 0.55% per yard. Accordingly, assuming the smallest equivalence of an Amah, this distance results in 421 feet, or just over 140 yards. With the decrease in recognition rate holding constant, that would mean at that point, one only has a one quarter chance of being able to distinguish who it is you are seeing.

Lampinen, J.M., Erickson, W.B., Moore, K.N. et al. Effects of distance on face recognition: implications for eyewitness identification. Psychon Bull Rev 21, 1489–1494 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0641-2

[7] Although the verse only states donkey – and thus there is no need for the SMG to note that oxen and cows are included when he already concludes [as does the Mishna] that all animals are included – the Gemara prior to stating this, recorded an argument about an animal rendering damages and discussed whether particular animals are meant in the verse, and why the verse would identify which animals were causing the damages. As that verse deals with oxen, donkeys and other animals, the SMG is continuing along those lines and notes that for this Mitzva, there is no distinction as to which animal is suffering.

[8] Meaning the animal’s pain takes precedence over the value of time being lost by the porter waiting for his animal to be loaded or similar considerations as discussed in the Gemara.

[9] Meaning either so that the person helping will get in the habit of ruling over his emotions, or so that the person on bad terms will be converted to being a friend by means of being helped even before helping someone known to be a friend.

[10] Yirmiyahu is brought as the epitome of this precept requiring us to help those in need no matter how justified a feeling of hatred might be. He was abused and persecuted by his brethren for prophesizing and begging them to turn from their evil ways to prevent the tragedy that eventually befell the Jewish people just as he predicted. There was no one to whom the precept requiring one to hate those who were performing evil and refusing to repent applied more – and yet, when the captives were being dragged to Babylon, he attempted to lift their chains and join them in their punishment and perhaps to some small degree mitigate the burden of the horrors they were facing.

[i] Devarim 22:4

[ii] Gem. Bava Metzia 32a

[iii] Shemos 23:5

[iv] Shemos 23:4

[v] Yer. Bava Metzia 2:10

[vi] Sifri Parshas תצא and Gem. Bava Metzia 33a

[vii] Gem. Bava Kama 54b

[viii] Tosefta Bava Kama 2:8

[ix] Similar to Gem. Sanhedrin 32b

[x] Gem. Bava Metzia 32b

[xi] Gem. Pesaĉim 113b

[xii] Yirmiyahu 31:36

AMUDAY SHLOMO

[The Maharshal comments on the second of the two (2) Mitzvos under discussion by the SMG.]

[α] This was already duplicated previously, and there[1] I [the Maharshal] wrote that the Ashiri disagrees.

[β] This is not in the Mishna. [The Mishna applies] the Mitzva of unloading [to both domestic and wild animals, not the Mitzva of loading. In other words, the Mishna does not require one to assist the loading of a burden onto a wild animal]. This is the same terminology the SMG employs previously in the [book on] Negative Mitzvos [see negative Mitzva 169]. Nevertheless, [even though the Mishna does not state that the Mitzva to load a burden applies to both domestic and wild animals] I [the Maharshal] still proved that the Mitzva of loading a burden applies to both [domestic and wild animals].

[γ] meaning the enmity [or awkwardness] is the result of a social faux pas such as not having spoken with each other for three (3) days and is not the result of his friend violating a prohibition from the Torah – which is what the verse is talking about in the Torah. This is also implied by Tosefos there.

[δ] meaning this is something impossible[2].

[1] It is unclear to where the Maharshal is referring. I think he is referring to his commentary on negative Mitzva 169, where the Maharshal notes the quotation by the SMG, but we have no further text in the Amuday Shlomo. Presumably the text was lost – as is the proof mentioned in his next comment on the SMG below.

[2] But didn’t the Gemara state [Ĉagiga 13a and Pesaĉim 94b] that from the world to heaven is a distance of five hundred years travel, and the thickness of each heaven is five hundred years travel, and between each heaven is five hundred years travel [which comes out to seven thousand years] – so we have measured the heavens above… Perhaps the Maharshal is stating that Yirmiyahu is stating we can’t use physical tools to measure heaven.

I think though that this statement by the Maharshal is a reference to the limits of science since the verse notes both the measurement of שמים above as being equally impossible as is the understanding of the foundations of the ארץ below. Modern science has indeed attempted to measure space above, and while they have decided on a size, they also admit that any attempts at an actual measurement is doomed to failure since the universe is expanding, so by the time a conclusion on its size is reached, it has already increased as compared to when the measurement started. Furthermore, science has also failed at plumbing the foundations of the universe. Each time they feel like they have reached the limits of the microscopic world – first the atom, then the protons neutrons and electron, and then the quantum world: leptons and hadrons, and their components quarks and antiquarks – each time they peel back more layers and discover that there is an entire world beneath. Science has no fundamental grasp of even the basic components of what is being observed and studied, let alone what they still haven’t even been able to identify – namely ‘dark’ matter and energy. Nor will it ever, for the power of the Creator is infinite – as is his love for the Jewish people.

RASHI

Rashi explicitly explains the פשט of the verses as presented by Halaĉa.

Discussion by SMS

Why is it the SMG identifies the Mitzva to unload a burden prior to the Mitzva of assisting in loading a burden, especially since in his discussion on the Mitzvos he first quotes the verse for the Mitzva of assisting in the loading of the burden and only then explains that the Mitzva to unload the burden is referenced in the other verse.

There is a famous teaching of the Ba’al Shem Tov regarding the source verse for this Mitzva. He views the verse as hinting to the following lesson:

  • כי תראה חמור שנאך – when you perceive the חמור, the coarse physical world, as something that is your enemy,
  • רבץ תחת משאו – the dinkey / body will then fight back and balk under what it perceives as the burden of Torah and Mitzvos,
  • וחדלת מעזב לו – and in turn the person will pull back and refrain from assisting the body. This will cause a vicious cycle of self-hatred and masochism. This is contrary to what G‑d wants, and accordingly he commands;
  • עזב תעזב עמו – assist the body with its burden. The soul wasn’t sent down to this world to burn the physical in favor of the spiritual, but to take the physical and elevate it by using it properly and bringing forth its potential to house G‑dliness.

Accordingly, we can understand why the Mitzva of unloading the burden for the ‘donkey’ comes before assisting it in taking up its task and purpose in life.

This also explains why the SMG ordered the Mitzvos in the same fashion, but in discussing the Mitzvos, he first needs to lay the groundwork and explain why it is important to work with the donkey and help with its burden.

Key

Etymology and Definitions of Defined Terms

  • פריקה – unloading
  • טעינה – loading

Leave a Comment