Author: Rabbi Milder

Posted on

Ki Sisa –

Reliving History
In this week’s Torah portion of Ki Sisa we find the tragic sin of the golden calf. When Moshe Rabbeinu came down from Mount Sinai and saw what was taking place he charged, “Who is for Hashem come to me” (Shemos 32:26).  The Daas Zekeinim says that what Moshe meant was, whoever stood with fear of Hashem and did not stumble in the sin of the golden calf should come to me.

The Daas Zekeinim continues, “Immediately all of the tribe of Levi gathered around Moshe, for the tribe was complete and not one man was effected but not one tribe was found completely unscathed by all the other tribes, and therefore it writes (Devarim 33:9), ‘who said of his father and his mother, I do not see him’ by the act of the golden calf,  ‘neither did he recognize his brothers,’ by the golden calf, ‘nor did he know his children,’ by the golden calf,  ‘for they [all] observed Your word,] as opposed to the other tribes.”

The Daas Zekeinim goes on to explain why only the tribe of Levi in its totality did not sin, “And it would seem because the tribe of Levi were relatives to Moshe, not one of them wanted to replace him with another leader. And in the book of the Rambam he says that Avraham gave over the acceptance of the Torah to Yitzchak, and Yitzchak to Yaakov, and Yaakov to Levi, and his children set up yeshivas so that Torah would not disappear from them at all. And therefore, they were not subjugated in Egyptian bondage for they weren’t involved in any other work in their lifetime except toiling in Torah. And it would appear that there were 3 groups by the sin of the golden calf: (1) One group said who will walk before us and they only intended to gain a leader. (2) Another group accepted it as an idol and they were the 3000 people that were killed by the sword. (3) The tribe of Levi who all clung to Hashem.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
There are many questions that can be asked on this Daas Zekeinim. Among them:
 (A) the reason why the tribe of Levi didn’t take part in the sin was because they couldn’t come to replace their relative even though it would seem he might not be coming back, though a new leader to lead this fledgling nation would be warranted; so why did the Daas Zekeinim then bring in the Rambam? And even if the first reason and the Rambam are two different reasons, corresponding to why the tribe of Levi were not in the first two groups, why then isn’t it expressed as two different reasons? It sounds from the flow of the Daas Zekeinim that he is adding a reason as to why they did not give up on their relative.
(B) Furthermore, why did he have to mention that for the reason the Rambam gave the tribe of Levi was not enslaved in Egypt? What does that have to do with not sinning by the golden calf?
(C) Also, the Daas Zekeinim had mentioned there were others who joined the tribe of Levi who feared Hashem and did not stumble in the sin of the golden calf, but it was just that no other complete tribe was sin-free besides Levi. So which group did they belong to?
(D) Lastly, if you look at the Rambam in the actual text, he did not quote the Rambam accurately; and even if he summarized the Rambam’s teaching, it would seem he missed the point?!
The Rambam wrote: “…He [Avraham] was [saved through] a miracle and left for Charan. [There,] he began to call in a loud voice to all people and inform them that there is one God in the entire world and it is proper to serve Him. He would go out and call to the people, gathering them in city after city and country after country, until he came to the land of Canaan – proclaiming [God’s existence the entire time] – as [Genesis 21:33] states: ‘And He called there in the name of the Lord, the eternal God.’ When the people would gather around him and ask him about his statements, he would explain [them] to each one of them according to their understanding, until they turned to the path of truth. Ultimately, thousands and myriads gathered around him. These are the men of the house of Avraham. He planted in their hearts this great fundamental principle, composed texts about it, and taught it to Yitzchak, his son. Yitzchak also taught others and turned [their hearts to God]. He also taught Yaakov and appointed him as a teacher. [Yaakov] taught others and turned [the hearts] of all those who gathered around him [to God]. He also taught all of his children. He selected Levi and appointed him as the leader. He established him [as the head of] the yeshiva to teach them the way of God and observe the mitzvos of Avraham. [Yaakov] commanded his sons that the leadership should not depart from the descendants of Levi, so that the teachings would not be forgotten. This concept proceeded and gathered strength among the descendants of Jacob and those who collected around them, until there became a nation within the world which knew God. When the Jews extended their stay in Egypt, however, they learned from the [Egyptians’] deeds and began worshiping the stars as they did, with the exception of the tribe of Levi, who clung to the mitzvos of the patriarchs – the tribe of Levi never served false gods. Within a short time, the fundamental principle that Avraham had planted would have been uprooted, and the descendants of Yaacov would have returned to the errors of the world and their crookedness. Because of God’s love for us, and to uphold the oath He made to Avraham, our patriarch, He brought forth Moshe, our teacher, the master of all prophets, and sent him [to redeem the Jews]. After Moshe, our teacher, prophesied, and God chose Israel as His inheritance, He crowned them with mitzvos and informed them of the path to serve Him, [teaching them] the judgement prescribed for idol worshipers and all those who stray after it” (Rambam Hilchos Avodas Kochavim 1:3).

The Torah is the blueprints of creation and the handbook for mankind, and in fact it was always around and taught and observed by people from the beginning of time. For example, Yeshiva Shem viEver (See the Kesef Mishna on this Rambam). However, until the Jewish people as a nation accepted the Torah on Har Sinai, Torah, observance was not an obligation for anyone but just the right thing to do, which Avraham figured out on his own after it was lost to the masses for many years. He gave over his beliefs and the Torah he was able to figure out on his own to Yitzchak, who in turn taught it to Yaakov, who, in turn, in fact taught it to all his children, the 12 tribes, but appointed Levi as the leader of the mesora, tradition, and the leadership of the mesora was to be passed down from generation to generation through the tribe of Levi. So, it would seem that the reason why the tribe of Levi never stumbled in idol worship was because they felt a responsibility as leaders to uphold the mesora their forefathers gave them of keeping the Torah. If that is the case, what does that have to do with what the Daas Zekeinim said that they “set up yeshivas so that Torah would not disappear from them at all?” Where is that mentioned anywhere in the Rambam? The reason why they weren’t involved in idol worship and therefore were not involved in the sin of the golden calf was because they felt obligated to stick to a higher moral standard since they were expected to be leaders, not because they opened up yeshivas and were constantly engrossed in Torah learning?!

It would seem though that the Daas Zekeinim understood that even leaders with expectations of higher moral standards can fall prey to the temptations around them in an immoral society. Therefore it must be that only because they were so involved in toiling in Torah that it became their life force, their bloodline, to the extent that even the Egyptians saw their commitment and allowed them to not join the physical workforce of slavery. Not only was the leader of the generation involved in Torah learning, but the entire tribe was involved in opening up yeshivas and learning in them fulltime, and it made an impact on others, causing them to join at least on some level, which instilled in them Fear of Heaven and a moral code. For this reason, the tribe of Levi as a whole did not sin at all by the golden calf, and presumably those who felt a profound influence from the tribe of Levi were included in the group of those who were G-D fearing and did not succumb to the sin of the golden calf. Also, without that commitment to the Torah and its moral code, presumably they would not have been steadfast to their relative, Moshe Rabbeinu, and they would have lost hope, as others did, of him ever returning.

We learn from here that there must be a group of people who are totally committed to being completely engrossed in the learning and teaching of Torah to themselves and the masses in order for Torah to be correctly observed and preserved. We see this is true even today. What is happening now, in this day and age with the Jewish landscape seems to mirror what the Rambam is describing. May we find our “Moshe Rabbeinu” who will redeem us and brings us to the Final Redemption, speedily in our days.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #179

1.    Question: What’s the difference between pillows and cushions which aren’t nullified to the Sukkah in order to make it less than 20 amos high since most people would not want to just nullify their pillow and cushions which are laying in the Sukkah but on Pesach we do say people would nullify chometz even though a lot of it could get expensive like pillows and cushions so most people wouldn’t for such a thing?

Background:

A. Granted there is a prohibition of owning chometz so you would want to nullify it but there is a mitzvah to live in a Sukkah so you’d want to fulfill it.

B. Nullifying is to treat it as the dust of the earth which a typical person would not want to do to his pillows and cushions so the same should apply to a lot of food.

C. The Torah really takes chometz out of your property but puts it back in to your possession to give you a sin but it’s not really yours until after Pesach.

 Answer: By chometz you don’t need the chometz itself to be like dust rather just in your eyes it’s like dust so that the Torah takes it out of your property and keeps it out so your knowledge isn’t nullified to everyone else’s. But by the pillows and cushions your attitude has to really be that they are like the dirt of the ground so that it will minimize the space of the height of the Sukkah therefore we say one thought is nullified to what the world would think and they would never treat them that way so the pillows and cushions cannot be nullified.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #178

1.    Question: Why do the poskim say you are allowed to sell chometz with just money even though there is an argument whether you can even use money as a means of acquisition with a non-Jew or do you need to actually have him pick it up or push it, and since this is a money question and there is a question if money even works then chazaka should say that the food still belongs to the Jew and he is definitely violating owning chometz on Pesach?

Background:

A. The question of whether acquisition with money works with a non-Jew can be treated leniently in this case since the whole question is whether the food can be used after Pesach which is only a rabbinic issue since chometz left over Pesach is only prohibited after Pesach as a rabbinic fine. The problem is that this might not even be a question is the chezkas mamon can answer the question.

B. The gemara in the beginning of Pesachim says there are two things which don’t belong to a person but the Torah makes it as if it’s in your possession: Chometz found in your place on Pesach though the Torah nullifies it and a pit in the street if you undug it or opened it. The Torah just makes chometz in your possession yours in order to give you a prohibition of chometz on Pesach but you don’t actually own it.

C. The Pnei Yehoshua views the assumption of ownership for the original owner (chezkas Marie kamma) similar to the original assumed state of prohibition (chazaka dimi’ikara).

Answer: Chazaka dimi’ikara wouldn’t apply in this case because because the chometz is really taken out of your possession by the Torah on Pesach and the question is if it is put back in your possession as a new status, not as the original status or not, therefore we can be lenient and say it was in fact validly sold to the non-Jew and never went into your possession over Pesach. 

Posted on

Purim – Purim Meshulash

For Food for Thought in Spanish: Haga clic aquí y clic aquí para leer en español.Please share this with your Jewish Spanish speaking family, friends, and associates.

This Dvar Halacha is adapted from a shiur I heard around 20 years ago from my rebbe, Rav Avrohom Kanarek zt”l, who recently passed away. May the learning of his Torah be a zechus to his neshama. Yehi Zichro Baruch!

That year, as it is this year, is what’s called Purim Meshulash. The mitzvos of Purim are split into 3 days for Shushan Purim, observed, only in Yerushalayim, since it falls out on Shabbos. The mitzvos are split into 3 equal parts. There are 6 mitzvos:

On the 14th of Adar (Friday) the megillah is read the night before and that day and matanos li’evyonim (gifts to the poor) are given out.
On the 15th of Adar (Shabbos) al hanissim is recited in shemoneh esray as well as in bentching, and the portion of Amalek is read in the Torah.
On the 16th of Adar the Purim seuda (Purim feast) is held and mishloach manos are given out.

There is a question raised, that in order for the Torah reading to be done at least most of the minyan must be obligated, does this apply to reading megillah as well? The answer is that since Rashi says we need at least a minyan for publicizing the miracle then even if there are ten people that already heard megillah one can still read for himself since he is still publicizing the miracle. And whereas for Kaddish and Kedusha ten have to be in the same room in order to recite them, for megillah, as long as ten can hear, wherever they are, the individual fulfills reading with a minyan.

Reading Megillah is not an ordinary Rabbinic decree, it is MiDivrei Kabbala, an ordinance from the prophets, which means it was Divinely inspired. However, this is only true for the daytime. The nighttime reading was declared later by the Rabbis and is considered a Rabbinic ordinance.  

The question is,for those who live in a walled city like Yerushalayim and its surroundings, where they normally read megillah on the 15th of Adar, but this year, Purim Meshulash, when megillah reading is pushed back a day for them, is the mitzvah of reading during the day still MiDivrei Kabbala or is it only Rabbinic?

The Turei Even answers that it is dependent on an argument in the gemara between Abaye and Rabba as to why we don’t read megillah on Shabbos. Rabba says it is a decree lest a novice prohibitively walk in the public domain on Shabbos to practice reading by an expert. Abaye says the megillah reading is where the poor collects tzedakah and they cannot do that on Shabbos.

This is why the megillah reading is pushed back a day. If you say like Rabba then this is a later decree, for the original obligation was to read on Shabbos. The Rabbis came later and made a decree which permitted going against the prophets because a fence can passively uproot a Divrei Kabbala. However, according to Abaye the Anshei Knesses HaGedola, the Great Assembly, that wrote over the megillah originally made the decree themselves, since it is dependent on when the mitzvah of matanos li’evyonim is given out. Therefore it would still be a mitzvah from the prophets for walled cities even though they are reading a day earlier.

The Anshei Knesses HaGedola wrote up the megillah after it was given to them by Mordechai and Esther, which is why it is considered a davar shebikedusha, a holy matter, since it was written with Ruach Hakodesh, Divine inspiration.

Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, quoting a Rasha”sh gives another reason as to why it is still considered MiDivrei Kabbala, though it is read a day earlier than originally decreed. It is that since the Anshei Knesses HaGedola gave hints in the megillah by referring plurally, “zemaneihem,” that means it can be read even before (or after) the proper date when the megillah is supposed to be read (see the first Mishna in maseches Megillah), so we see that even for walled cities, reading megillah on the 14th can still be a mitzvah from the prophets.

Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank extended and applied this rule that megillah reading was originally decreed that it can be done for a number of days, for a boy who does not live in a walled city, for example he lives in America, or  Bnei Brak, Israel, and should normally listen to megillah on the 14th of Adar, however since he turns bar mitzvah on the 15th of Adar he has an obligation to read the megillah to himself on the 15th of Adar.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #177

2.    Question: Why can you have a snack before fulfilling the mitzvah of lulav and esrog if it’s delayed coming to you but if you are going to a later minyan to hear megilla you should not even snack until after you hear megilla?

Background:

A. The fast of Taanis Esther ends at nightfall but you shouldn’t eat anything until after you fulfill the mitzvah (of megilla) just as you shouldn’t eat anything until after you fulfill any other mitzvah like lulav or shofar etc.

 B. There is more of a mitzvah to fulfill the megilla reading in a congregation in order to publicize the miracle.

 Answer: You can taste before lulav and esrog if there is a delay because it’s a mitzvah you do by yourself. But megilla should be read in a group and we are concerned even if you eat a snack you might miss the mitzvah all together or at least the start of the reading, which means you’d have to hear it again by yourself not in a group. (Dirshu Mishna Berura back page 131 footnote 32)

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #176

1.    Question: How is it possible to fulfill the mitzvah of matanos li’evyonim when giving it to a father and son where the son is still dependent on the father?

 Background:

A. The mitzvah of matanos li’evyonim is two give money enough for a meal to two people.

B. The Aruch HaShulchan (693:2) says that if you give to a husband and wife or a father and son or daughter who relies on their parents for food it is not considered giving to two poor people, rather to only one poor person.

  Answer: The Responsa Hisorirus Teshuva (3:489) says that if you give the father and son on condition that the father has no permission to touch the son’s portion then you fulfill the mitzvah. (Dirshu Mishna Berura back page 134 footnote 13)

Posted on

Teruma/Purim –

Grace and a Good Name > Money
In the beginning of this week’s Torah portion of Terumah, Hashem tells Moshe, “”Speak to the children of Israel, and have them take for Me a gift…” (Shemos 25:2). The Medrish says that this alludes to the fact that in reality everything belongs to Hashem. The Maharz”u points out that this is the message the following Medrish Rabba gives when it connects this portion to Purim.

The Medrish Rabba in the beginning of Parshas Teruma quotes a pasuk from Mishley, “’A good name is more choice than great riches and beneficent grace than silver and gold’ (Mishley 22:1). [One of the things the medrish says] this pasuk relates to is Mordechai’s name being of choice more than the wealth of Haman. Rebbe Yoshia asked, ‘What did this wicked person (Haman) do?’ He took out all his silver and gold (The Etz Yosef said it really means most of his money) and gave it to Achashveirosh. Hashem told him ‘A good name is more choice… and beneficent grace than silver and gold.’ Esther’s grace was more choice, as it says, ‘that she [Esther] won favor in his eyes’ (Esther 5:2). When the wicked one (Haman) came with his money, the king said the money is given to you. Hashem said, if you sell what’s mine with what is mine, as it says ‘For My servants are the Jewish People’ (Vayikra 25:54), it also writes, ‘Mine is the silver, Mine is the gold’ (Chaggai 2:8), therefore Hashem swore, by your life when you said the money is given to you etc. rather, ‘On that day King Achashveirosh gave to Queen Esther the house of Haman’ (Esther 8:1), (Shemos Rabba 33:5).” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
Haman was extremely rich, in fact the Medrish says elsewhere in the name of Rebbe Pinchas that there were two rich people that stood out in world history, one Jewish and one non-Jewish, and their wealth was only for their bad. Korach, the Jew, found the treasure house of silver and gold that Yosef had accumulated and hidden. Haman, the gentile, found the treasure house of the kings of Yehuda. When King Achashveirosh saw his wealth and that his ten sons were ministers, he promoted Haman to a very high position (Esther Rabba 7:5). The Etz Yosef there in fact points out that Haman was a lowly advisor, known as Memuchan, who was listed last of the advisors in the first perek of megillas Esther. He was the one who gave advice to get rid of Vashti. It would seem that King Achasveirosh might have promoted Haman so that he can somehow get to Haman’s wealth, which in fact happened because the Medrish we saw in parshas Terumah says that Haman actually gave most his wealth to Achashveirosh as payment for letting him destroy the Jewish people but,as the Yefeh Toar points out, Achashveirosh gave it back to Haman as a deposit until Haman finished his job, as it says, “And the king said to Haman, “The silver is given to you,” (Esther 3:11), instead of saying “to him, it shall be given to you” which would have implied that Achashveirosh was paying Haman to kill the Jews. The Yefeh Toar concludes that with all the money Haman was willing to give to Achashveirosh to kill the Jews,  Achashveirosh still picked Esther’s grace over all that money Haman was watching for him. The Etz Yosef also points out that Mordechai’s good name, that was mentioned in Achashveirosh’s chronicles for saving his life, was considered more worthy than Haman’s wealth to the extent that he belittled Haman and disgraced him by having him lead Mordechai on the king’s horse through the streets of Shushan.

We must take this into perspective. King Achashveirosh had a tremendous lust for money as we saw from his extravagant parties in the beginning of the Purim story and he had in his grip most of Haman’s wealth still in all he risked throwing it all away and insulting Haman by forcing him to lead his archenemy through the streets of Shushan calling out Mordechai’s honor all because Mordechai saved his life.

As for Queen Esther, what was the grace that won over Achashveirosh? The Malbim relates that in fact Achashveirosh loved Esther so much that he never thought that the law which said nobody can enter the king’s courtyard without his permission applied to her and when he saw her sheepishly standing by the entrance, granted he felt he did not have to stretch out his scepter to allow her jn, but in her humility standing by the entrance to the courtyard, not barging in, that found favor (or grace) in his eyes, for he saw that this was  righteous humility in her heart, that she didn’t realize she did not have to abide by this law, therefore he stuck out his scepter as to accept her and whatever wishes she would ask for. Esther’s timid and modest character is what in fact caught Achashveirosh’s attention and made such an impact that he felt he had to grant whatever she asked for. In the end the Jews were saved, Haman was killed, and although he had such a crave for money, he gave all of Haman’s house and wealth away to Esther who in turn gave it to Mordechai. (Click here for Hebrew text.)

Besides seeing the clear picture that Hashem can orchestrate anything because He is the Almighty, we are His people and this was all His money that He can do what He wants with, however we also see that no matter how much of a draw and a desire the thirst for money is, a good name and a graceful character are more valuable.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #175

2. Question: According to Rav Moshe Feinstein why can a man who already heard megilla read it for a woman who has not heard megilla yet even according to the opinion that she is not part of arvus, every Jew is responsible for another which is why one can fulfill a mitzvah for someone else even if he already fulfilled the mitzvah himself?

Background:

A. The Digul merivivah says that women didn’t accept responsibility for each other to make sure we accomplish mitzvos, at Har Gerizim and Har Eival when we received the blessings and curses before entering the land. According to this opinion a man cannot fulfill a mitzvah for a woman, like kiddush or megilla, if he already fulfilled the mitzvah himself. He can’t do the mitzvah again.

B. Reading the megilla publicises the miracle. There is a mitzvah you get when publicizing the miracle.

 Answer: In the Igros Moshe (Orach Chaim first part chapter 190) Rav Moshe says that by megilla reading one who already read can help others fulfill the mitzvah even without the concept of arvus since the reading is to publicize the miracle and one who already fulfilled the mitzvah of reading still has a mitzvah to publicize the miracle as much as possible, so he still considered part of the mitzvah and can help others fulfill the mitzvah of reading megilla even if the concept of arvus doesn’t apply to them (See Dirshu Mishna Berura in back page 127, footnote 10).

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #174

1. Question: Why does one have to stand with the baal korei when he is saying the blessings on the megilla for you but he does not have to stand with the baal tefilla when he is saying the blessing for the omer for you?

Background:

A. Rav Dovid Cohen based on the teachings of the Chazon Ish said that the concept of “listening is like saying” is not just that he is saying it for you but by listening it’s as if you are saying it yourself.

B. Part of the mitzvah of saying the omer with the blessings is standing, just as hearing what’s being said is part of the mitzvah.

 C. One can technically sit when reciting and definitely listening to the megilla but should stand when saying the blessings.

 D. The concept of “listening is like saying” (שומע כעונה) applies to the mitzvah that the other is helping you fulfill but, for example people should stand during chazaras hashatz according to the Rema 124:4 out of respect for the blessings the chazzan is reciting when repeating shemone essay out loud and by doing so it’s as if the congregation says it based on “listening is like saying”.

Answer: By the omer since standing is part of the mitzvah so if the chazzan stands for you then you fulfill the mitzvah but by megilla the standing isn’t part of the mitzvah, you can really sit but out of respect for the blessing everyone should stand so it does not help if the one saying the megilla stands for you (See Dirshu Mishna Berura 690 footnote 2).

Posted on

Mishpatim – Excuses, Excuses, Excuses…


In an introduction to this week’s Torah portion of Mishpatim, the Rashbam mentions that even though the specific halachos gleaned from the Torah portion are the most important thing, which could be found in the Talmud and is brought by his grandfather, Rashi’s commentary on the Torah, here in there, but the Rashbam is coming to explain the basic understanding of each pasuk, and therefore he will explain each mitzvah and law according to derech eretz, the proper mussar lesson, i.e. character development, that can be learned through the general understanding of the pesukim. (Click Here for Hebrew text.)

As an example, within the Torah portion there is the discussion of the laws of damages, including damages due to a pit. “And if a person opens a pit, or if a person digs a pit and does not cover it, and a bull or a donkey falls into it, the owner of the pit shall pay; he shall return money to its owner, and the dead body shall be his” (Shemos 21:34, 34). The Gemara in Bava Kamma 51a asks why the Torah has to mention both opening and digging a pit, for if one is liable for opening a pit, all the more so he should be liable for digging a pit? The Rashbam on the Torah answers this question saying, “When a person opens a pit which is deep and finishes his job already and is negligent and does not close the pit, or even if a person digs a pit and does not cover it each day by nightfall when he finishes his work, since he has to enter it the next day and dig some more, and it’s a hassle for him to cover it each day, nevertheless he is liable.” 
The Rashbam is answering the gemara’s question by saying that if one is in the midst of digging a pit, let say at a jobsite, he has every excuse, which might even make sense, or he can at least convince himself he has a logical argument of why it’s not worth covering the pit at the end of every workday as long as he has not finished the job yet. Maybe he blocked it off, put warning signs next to it, but to properly cover it, why should that be needed; what could really happen from now until the job is finished? The Torah is emphasizing that this is a lazy excuse, and one must take proper precautions to remove the potential damage one creates, even if it means covering and uncovering the pit each day until the job is done.

The Chizkuni alludes to the point the Rashbam is making and then explains in more detail the parameters of this damage. There is an important lesson that will be learnt through our responsibility to act as cognizant, mindful human beings. The Chizkuni says, “Either when a person opens a pit which was already finished for some time, or even if he digs a pit now and does not cover it in the evening because he wants to come back to it the next day to do more work of digging in the pit and he does not cover it [then he is liable]. But if he covers it then he is exempt, but only if it was covered properly. What is considered properly? Heavy enough for a wagon carrying stones to be able to ride over it, as stated in the Gemara Yerushalmi Bava Kamma 5:6, ‘Don’t make a hole under the street unless a wagon carrying stones can ride over it.’ Now if an ox falls into the open pit [then there is liability], but not if a person falls in because a person is a mindful being who would be watching where he is going, so if he falls in, he is the cause of hurting himself. The pasuk also mentions a donkey, to exclude vessels, for vessels don’t move without the protection of a person, and since he didn’t watch them well, he caused a loss to himself.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
The Chizkuni explained all the basic laws of damages due to a pit. Whether a person opened a pit that was completed a while ago, or he is in the midst of digging a pit and is too lazy to cover it at the end of each day, which is granted not easy to do because the covering must be heavy and sturdy enough to hold a wagon carrying stones going across it. However, liability is only for animals that fall into it or tripped over it; injuries to human beings and their possessions who are not animals that have a “mind of their own,” the one responsible for the pit is exempt for those damages in general because a person is expected to have enough sense to take care of himself and his possessions and be cognizant of his surroundings.
One can still wonder why this is true, for the person who opened or dug up the pit was acting negligibly by not covering it up properly, and even with all his excuses and rationales he is still liable if an animal gets hurt by the pit. So why should human injury and his vessels be any different? The pit owner was still negligent, that hasn’t changed; why should anyone else be more careful, shouldn’t it be the person who dug up or opened the pit’s fault for causing such an obstruction and danger in the street?

We see from here, and when looking into the matter this is true by other damages as well, that Hashem expects human beings to use the gift He gave us of intellect and thought in order to be cognizant of our surroundings and to take proper precautions to not hurt anyone, but also not to get hurt when it can be avoided. It does not make a difference if you are the victim or the perpetrator you are still a human being and there are expectations from Hashem to use the gifts He has endowed us with. Even if there are times when the perpetrator isn’t liable for the damage to the victim because the victim is responsible to take care of himself that still does not exempt the perpetrator from putting in his efforts to avoid the damage, he just isn’t liable if damage happens. If we don’t use our sechel prpoerly then excuses we make up are just excuses.