|
Esnoga Bet Emunah 4544 Highline Dr. SE Olympia, WA 98501 United States of America © 2013 E-Mail: gkilli@aol.com |
|
Esnoga Bet El 102 Broken Arrow Dr. Paris TN 38242 United States of America © 2013 E-Mail: waltoakley@charter.net |
Triennial Cycle (Triennial
Torah Cycle) / Septennial Cycle (Septennial Torah Cycle)
|
Three and 1/2 year
Lectionary Readings |
Second Year of the
Triennial Reading Cycle |
|
Tammuz 14, 5773 – June
21/22, 2013 |
Fifth Year of the Shmita
Cycle |
Candle Lighting and Habdalah Times:
|
Conroe & Austin, TX, U.S. Fri. June 21 2013 – Candles at 8:18 PM Sat. June 22 2013 – Habdalah 9:17 PM |
Brisbane, Australia Fri. June 21 2013 – Candles at 4:43 PM Sat. June 22 2013 – Habdalah 5:40 PM |
Chattanooga, & Cleveland, TN,
U.S. Fri. June 21 2013 – Candles at 8:40 PM Sat. June 22 2013 – Habdalah 9:43 PM |
|
Jakarta, Indonesia Fri. June 21 2013 – Candles at 5:30 PM Sat. June 22 2013 – Habdalah 6:21 PM |
Manila & Cebu, Philippines Fri. June 21 2013 – Candles at 6:09 PM Sat. June 22 2013 – Habdalah 7:03 PM |
Miami, FL, U.S. Fri. June 21 2013 – Candles at 7:57 PM Sat. June 22 2013 – Habdalah 8:54 PM |
|
Olympia, WA, U.S. Fri. June 21 2013 – Candles at 8:52 PM Sat. June 22 2013 – Habdalah 10:12 PM |
Murray, KY, & Paris, TN. U.S. Fri. June 21 2013 – Candles at 7:59 PM Sat. June 22 2013 – Habdalah 9:04 PM |
San Antonio, TX, U.S. Fri. June 21 2013 – Candles at 8:19 PM Sat. June 22 2013 – Habdalah 9:19 PM |
|
Sheboygan &
Manitowoc, WI, US Fri. June 21 2013 – Candles at 8:18 PM Sat. June 22 2013 – Habdalah 9:32 PM |
Singapore, Singapore Fri. June 21 2013 – Candles at 6:54 PM Sat. June 22 2013 – Habdalah 7:46 PM |
St. Louis, MO, U.S. Fri. June 21 2013 – Candles at 8:11 PM Sat. June 22 2013 – Habdalah 9:17 PM |
For other places see: http://chabad.org/calendar/candlelighting.asp
Roll of Honor:
This Torah commentary comes to you courtesy of:
His Eminence Rabbi Dr. Hillel ben David and beloved wife HH Giberet
Batsheva bat Sarah
His Honor Paqid Adon David ben Abraham
Her Excellency Giberet Sarai bat Sarah & beloved family
His Excellency Adon Barth Lindemann & beloved family
His Excellency Adon John Batchelor & beloved wife
His Honor Paqid Adon Ezra ben Abraham and beloved wife HH Giberet Karmela
bat Sarah,
Her Excellency Giberet Laurie Taylor
His Eminence Rabbi Dr. Adon Eliyahu ben Abraham and beloved wife HH
Giberet Dr. Elisheba bat Sarah
Her Excellency Prof. Dr. Conny Williams & beloved family
His Excellency Adon Yoel ben Abraham and beloved family
For their regular and sacrificial
giving, providing the best oil for the lamps, we pray that G-d’s richest
blessings be upon their lives and those of their loved ones, together with all
Yisrael and her Torah Scholars, amen ve amen!
Also a great thank you and great blessings be upon all who send comments
to the list about the contents and commentary of the weekly Torah Seder and
allied topics.
If you want to subscribe to our list
and ensure that you never lose any of our commentaries, or would like your friends
also to receive this commentary, please do send me an E-Mail to benhaggai@GMail.com with your E-Mail or the E-Mail addresses of your friends. Toda Rabba!
Shabbat: “V’Eleh
HaMishpatim”
Sabbath: “And these are
the judgments”
|
Shabbat |
Torah Reading: |
Weekday Reading: |
|
וְאֵלֶּה,
הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים |
|
|
|
“V’Eleh
HaMishpatim” |
Reader 1 – Shemot 21:1-3 |
Reader 1 – Shemot 21:28-30 |
|
“And
these are the
judgments” |
Reader 2 – Shemot 21:4-6 |
Reader 2 – Shemot 21:30-32 |
|
“Y
estos son los
fallos” |
Reader 3 – Shemot 21:7-11 |
Reader 3 – Shemot 21:28-32 |
|
Shemot (Exod.) Ex 21:1–27 |
Reader 4 – Shemot 21:12-14 |
|
|
Ashlamatah: Is. 56:1-9
+ 57:19 |
Reader 5 – Shemot 21:15-17 |
|
|
|
Reader 6 – Shemot 21:18-21 |
Reader 1 – Shemot 21:28-30 |
|
Psalm 57:1-6 |
Reader 7 – Shemot 21:22-27 |
Reader 2 – Shemot 21:30-32 |
|
Abot: 3:3 |
Maftir:
Shemot 21:22-27 |
Reader 3 – Shemot 21:28-32 |
|
N.C.: Mk 7:17-23; Acts 15:19-21 |
Isaiah 56:1-9 + 57:19 |
|
Blessings Before
Torah Study
Blessed are You, Ha-Shem our G-d,
King of the universe, Who has sanctified us through Your commandments, and
commanded us to actively study Torah. Amen!
Please Ha-Shem, our G-d, sweeten the
words of Your Torah in our mouths and in the mouths of all Your people Israel.
May we and our offspring, and our offspring's offspring, and all the offspring
of Your people, the House of Israel, may we all, together, know Your Name and
study Your Torah for the sake of fulfilling Your desire. Blessed are You,
Ha-Shem, Who teaches Torah to His people Israel. Amen!
Blessed are You, Ha-Shem our G-d,
King of the universe, Who chose us from all the nations, and gave us the Torah.
Blessed are You, Ha-Shem, Giver of the Torah. Amen!
Ha-Shem spoke to Moses, explaining a
Commandment. "Speak to Aaron and his sons, and teach them the following
Commandment: This is how you should bless the Children of Israel. Say to the
Children of Israel:
May Ha-Shem bless you and keep watch
over you; - Amen!
May Ha-Shem make His Presence enlighten
you, and may He be kind to you; - Amen!
May Ha-Shem bestow favor on you, and
grant you peace. – Amen!
This way, the priests will link My
Name with the Israelites, and I will bless them."
These are the Laws for which the
Torah did not mandate specific amounts: How much growing produce must be left
in the corner of the field for the poor; how much of the first fruits must be
offered at the Holy Temple; how much one must bring as an offering when one
visits the Holy Temple three times a year; how much one must do when doing acts
of kindness; and there is no maximum amount of Torah that a person must study.
These are the Laws whose benefits a
person can often enjoy even in this world, even though the primary reward is in
the Next World: They are: Honouring one's father and mother; doing acts of
kindness; early attendance at the place of Torah study -- morning and night;
showing hospitality to guests; visiting the sick; providing for the financial
needs of a bride; escorting the dead; being very engrossed in prayer; bringing
peace between two people, and between husband and wife; but the study of Torah
is as great as all of them together. Amen!
Contents of the
Torah Seder
·
The order of Judgments –
Exodus 21:1
·
The Hebrew Servant –
Exodus 21:2-11
·
Laws Concerning Murder –
Exodus 21:12-14
·
Crimes Against Parents
& Kidnapping – Exodus 21:15-17
·
Personal Injuries – Exodus
21:18-27
Reading Assignment:
The Torah Anthology: Yalkut Me’Am Lo’Ez - Vol
VII: The Law
By: Rabbi Yaaqov Culi, Translated by: Rabbi
Aryeh Kaplan
Published by: Moznaim Publishing Corp. (New
York, 1979)
Vol. 7 – “The Law,”
pp. 3-83
Rashi & Targum Pseudo Jonathan
for: Shemot (Exod.) 21:1-27
|
RASHI |
TARGUM PSEUDO JONATHAN |
|
1. And these are the ordinances that you shall set before them. |
1. ¶ AND these are the orders of judgments which you will order before
them. |
|
2. Should you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall work [for] six years, and in
the seventh [year], he shall go out to freedom without charge. |
2. If you will have bought a son of Israel, on account of his theft,
six years he will serve, and at the incoming of the seventh he will go out
free without price. |
|
3. If he comes [in] alone, he shall go out alone; if he is a married
man, his wife shall go out with him. |
3. If he came in alone, he will go out alone: but if (he be) the
husband of a wife, a daughter of Israel, his wife will go out with him. |
|
4. If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters,
the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. |
4. If his master give him a wife, an handmaid, and she bear him sons or
daughters, the wife and her children will belong to his master, and he may go
out alone. |
|
5, But if the slave says, "I love my master, my wife, and my
children. I will not go free," |
5, But if the servant will affirm and say, I love my master, my wife,
and my children, (and) I will not go out free, |
|
6. his master shall bring him to the judges, and he shall bring him to
the door or to the doorpost, and his master shall bore his ear with an awl,
and he shall serve him forever. |
6. then his master will bring him before the judges, and will receive
from them the power, and bring him to the door that has posts; and his master
will pierce his right ear with an awl; and he will be a servant to serve him
until the Yobel. |
|
7. Now if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant, she shall not go
free as the slaves go free. |
7. ¶ And if a man of Israel sell his daughter, a little handmaid, she
will not go forth according to the going forth of the servants of the
Kenaanaee, who are set at liberty on account of the tooth or the eye; but in
the years of remission, and with tokens, and at the Yobel, and on the death
of her master, and by redemption with money. |
|
8. If she is displeasing to her master, who did not designate her [for
himself], then he shall enable her to be redeemed; he shall not rule over her
to sell her to another person, when he betrays her. |
8. If she has not found favour before her master who bought her, then
her father may redeem her; but to a foreigner he will not have power to sell
her; for as a vessel of her Lord he has power over her. |
|
9. And if he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her
according to the law of the daughters [of Israel]. |
9. And if he had intended her for the side of his son, he will do by
her after the manner of the daughters of Israel. |
|
10. If he takes another [wife] for himself, he shall not diminish her
sustenance, her clothing, or her marital relations. |
10. If he take another daughter of Israel to him beside her, her food,
her adorning, and her conjugal rights, he will not withhold from her. JERUSALEM: And if he take another wife beside her, of her food, her
adorning, and her going in and coming out with him, he shall not deprive her. |
|
11. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go free
without charge, without [payment of] money. |
11. And if these three things he does not for her, to covenant her to
himself, or to his son, or to release her into the hand of her father, she will
go free without payment, and a writing of release he will give her. |
|
12. One who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. |
12. ¶ Whosoever smites a son or a daughter of Israel, so as to cause
death, will be put to death with the sword. |
|
13. But one who did not stalk [him], but God brought [it] about into
his hand, I will make a place for you to which he shall flee. |
13. But he who did not attack him, but mischance from before the LORD
befell him at his hand, I will appoint you a place where he may flee. |
|
14. But if a man plots deliberately against his friend to slay him with
cunning, [even] from My altar you shall take him to die. |
14. But if a man come maliciously upon his neighbor to kill him with
craft, though the priests are ministering at My altar, thence you will take
him, and slay him with the sword. JERUSALEM: But if a man devises against his neighbor to kill him by
guile, though the high priest were standing to minister before Me, from
thence you will bring him, and put him to death. |
|
15. And one who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to
death. |
15. ¶ And he who wounds his father or his mother will die by
strangling. |
|
16. And whoever kidnaps a man, and he is found in his possession, shall
surely be put to death. |
16. ¶ And he who steals a soul of the children of Israel, and sells
him, or if he be found in his possession, will die by strangling. |
|
17. And one who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to
death. |
17. ¶ And he who curses his father or his mother by the Great Name,
dying he will die by being stoned with stones. |
|
18. And if men quarrel, and one strikes the other with a stone or with
a fist, and he does not die but is confined to [his] bed, |
18. ¶ And when men strive together, and one smite his neighbor with a
stone, or with his fist, so that he die not, but fall ill, |
|
19. if he gets up and walks about outside on his support, the assailant
shall be cleared; he shall give only [payment] for his [enforced] idleness,
and he shall provide for his cure. |
19. if he rise again from his illness, and walk in the street upon his
staff, he who smote him will be acquitted from the penalty of death; only for
his cessation from labor, his affliction, his injury, his disgrace, and the
hire of the physician, he will make good until he be cured. |
|
20. And should a man strike his manservant or his maidservant with a
rod, and [that one] die under his hand, he shall surely be avenged. |
20. ¶ And when a man has smitten his Kenaanite man-servant or
maid-servant with a staff, and he die the same day under his hand, he will be
judged with the judgment of death by the sword. |
|
21. But if he survives for a day or for two days, he shall not be
avenged, because he is his property. |
21. But if the wounded person continue one or two days from time to
time, he will not be (so) judged; because with money he had bought him. |
|
22. And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries
but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman's
husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to
the judges' [orders]. |
22. ¶ If men when striving strike a woman with child, and cause her to
miscarry, but not to lose her life, the fine on account of the infant which
the husband of the woman will lay upon him, he will pay according to the
sentence of the judges. |
|
23. But if there is a fatality, you shall give a life for a life, |
23. But if death befall her, then you will judge the life of the killer
for the life of the woman. |
|
24. an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot
for a foot, |
24. The value of an eye for an eye, the value of a tooth for a tooth,
the value of a hand for a hand, the value of a foot for a foot, |
|
25. a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise. |
25. all equivalent of the pain of burning for burning, and of wounding
for wounding, and of blow for blow. |
|
26. And if a man strikes the eye of his manservant or the eye of his
maidservant and destroys it, he shall set him free in return for his eye, |
26. ¶ And when a man strikes the eye of his Kenaanite servant or
handmaid, and causes blindness, he will let him go free, on account of the
eye. |
|
27. and if he knocks out the tooth of his manservant or the tooth of
his maidservant, he shall set him free in return for his tooth. |
27. And if he strike out the tooth of his Kenaanite man or
maid-servant, he will make the servant free on account of the tooth. |
|
|
|
Welcome to the
World of P’shat Exegesis
In order to understand the finished work of the P’shat mode of
interpretation of the Torah, one needs to take into account that the P’shat is
intended to produce a catechetical output, whereby a question/s is/are raised
and an answer/a is/are given using the seven Hermeneutic Laws of R. Hillel and
as well as the laws of Hebrew Grammar and Hebrew expression.
The Seven Hermeneutic Laws of R. Hillel are as follows
[cf. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=472&letter=R]:
1. Ḳal va-ḥomer: "Argumentum a minori ad
majus" or "a majori ad minus"; corresponding to the scholastic
proof a fortiori.
2. Gezerah shavah: Argument from analogy. Biblical
passages containing synonyms or homonyms are subject, however much they differ
in other respects, to identical definitions and applications.
3. Binyan ab mi-katub eḥad: Application of a provision found in
one passage only to passages which are related to the first in content but do
not contain the provision in question.
4. Binyan ab mi-shene ketubim: The same as the preceding, except
that the provision is generalized from two Biblical passages.
5. Kelal u-Peraṭ and Peraṭ u-kelal: Definition of the general by the particular, and of the particular by the
general.
6. Ka-yoẓe bo mi-maḳom aḥer: Similarity in content to another Scriptural passage.
7. Dabar ha-lamed me-'inyano: Interpretation deduced from the
context.
Rashi’s Commentary
for: Shemot (Exod.) 21:1-27
1 And these are the ordinances-Wherever it says, “these” [in the
Torah,] it [(this word) is used to] separate from what has been stated previously.
[Where it says,] “And these,” [it means that] it is adding to what has been
previously stated (Tanchuma Mishpatim 3). [Thus] just as what has been
previously stated [namely the Ten Commandments,] were from Sinai, these too
were from Sinai. Now why was the section dealing with laws juxtaposed to the
section dealing with the altar? To tell you that you shall place the Sanhedrin
adjacent to the Beth Hamikdash (other editions: the altar).-[From Mechilta]
that
you shall set before them-The Holy One, blessed is He, said to Moses: Do not think of
saying, “I will teach them the chapter or the law [both terms seemingly refer
to the Oral Torah] two or three times until they know it well, as it was
taught, but I will not trouble myself to enable them to understand the reasons
for the matter and its explanation.” Therefore, it is said: “you shall set
before them,” like a table, set [with food] and prepared to eat from, [placed]
before someone.-[From Mechilta, Eruvin 54b]
before
them
But not before gentiles. Even if you know that they [gentiles] judge a certain
law similarly to the laws of Israel, do not bring it to their courts, for one
who brings Jewish lawsuits before gentiles profanes the [Divine] Name and
honors the name of idols to praise them (other editions: to give them
importance), as it is said: “For not like our Rock [God] is their rock, but
[yet] our enemies judge [us]” (Deut. 32:31). When [we let] our enemies judge
[us], this is testimony to [our] esteem of their deity.-[From Tanchuma 3]
2 Should you buy a Hebrew slave A slave who is himself a Hebrew. Or
perhaps it means only a slave of a Hebrew, a Canaanite [servant] whom you
bought from a Hebrew. And concerning him, he [the Torah] says, “he shall work
[for] six years.” How [then] can I apply the [law in the following] verse, “and
you shall bequeath them” (Lev. 25:46) ? [Does this verse apply] concerning one
[a servant] purchased from a non-Jew, but one [a servant] purchased from an
Israelite goes free after six years? Therefore, the Torah states: “Should your
brother, a Hebrew man… be sold to you, [he shall serve you for six years]”
(Deut. 15:12). [This is the clarification that] I [God] said this only
regarding your brother.-[From Mechilta]
Should
you buy from the hand of the court, who sold him [into servitude] because
of his theft, as it is said: “If he has no [money], he shall be sold for his
theft” (Exod. 22:2). Or perhaps it refers only to one who sold oneself [into
servitude] because of poverty, but if the court sold him, he does not go free
after six [years]? When he [the Torah] says: “And if your brother becomes
impoverished beside you and is sold to you” (Lev. 25:39), one who sells oneself
because of poverty is mentioned [here]. So [to avoid repetition,] how do I
apply “Should you buy”? [By understanding that this is] concerning one sold by
the court.
to
freedom Heb. לַחָפְשִׁי, to freedom.
3 If he comes [in] alone Heb. בְּגַפּוֹ,
meaning that he was not married, as the Targum renders: אִם
בִּלְחוֹדוֹהִי. The expression בְּגַפּוֹ means “with his skirt,” [i.e., the skirt of his cloak, meaning]
that he came only as he was, alone within his clothing, in the skirt of his
garment.
he
shall go out alone-[This] tells [us] that if he was not married at first, his master
may not give him a Canaanite maidservant from whom to beget slaves.-[From Kid.
20a]
[if he is a married man-[Lit.,
if he is someone’s husband, meaning] an Israelite [woman].-[From Mechilta]
his
wife shall go out with him Now who brought her in that she should go out? Rather, the text
informs us that whoever purchases a Hebrew slave is [also] responsible for
supporting his wife and his children. [From Mechilta, Kid. 22a]
4 If his master gives him a wife From here we deduce that his master
has the option to give him [the slave] a Canaanite maidservant [in order] to
beget slaves from her. Or, perhaps this means only an Israelite woman?
Therefore, Scripture says: “The woman and her children shall belong to her
master.” Thus, He is speaking only about a Canaanite woman, for a Hebrew woman
she, too, goes free after six [years], and even before six [years], when she
develops signs [of puberty], she goes free, as it is said: “your brother, a
Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman [that one shall serve you for six years]” (Deut.
15:12). [This] teaches [us] that a Hebrew [maidservant] also goes free after
six [years].- [From Mechilta, Kid. 14b]
5 my wife-[This refers to] the maidservant.
6 to the judges Heb. אֶל-הָאֱלֽהִים, to the court to consult his sellers, for they sold him [the
slave] to him [to his master].-[From Mechilta]
to the
door or to the doorpost I might think that the doorpost is [a] qualified [place] on which
to bore [the servant’s ear]. Therefore, Scripture says: “and you shall thrust
it into his ear and into the door” (Deut. 15:17), [meaning] “into the door,”
but not “into the doorpost.” What then does or to the doorpost mean? [The text
is] comparing the door to the doorpost. Just as the doorpost is upright [i.e.,
attached to the house; otherwise it is not called a doorpost], so is the door
upright. [A detached door may not be used for the ritual of ear boring.]-[From
Mechilta, Kid. 22b]
and his
master shall bore his ear-[I.e.,] the right [ear]. Or perhaps it means the left one?
Therefore, the Torah states אֽזֶן “ear,” here and אֽזֶן [elsewhere] for [the purpose of making] a גְזֵרָה
שָׁוָה,
[which means two places having similar wording, which indicates that the
rulings pertaining to one situation also apply to the other]. It is stated
here: “and his master shall bore his ear,” and it is stated regarding the
mezora [person with the disease of zara’ath]: “the cartilage of the right ear
of the one who is becoming pure” (Lev. 14:14). Just as there the right [ear] is
specified, here too the right [ear] is meant. Now, why was the ear chosen to be
bored out of all the organs of the body? Rabban Jochanan ben Zakkai said: The
ear that heard on Mount Sinai, “You shall not steal” (Exod. 20:13) and [then]
went and stole, shall be bored. And if [the text is referring to] one who sold
himself [into servitude, the reason is that] the ear that heard, “For the
children of Israel are slaves to Me” (Lev. 25:55) and [then] went and acquired
a master for himself, [this ear] shall be bored. Rabbi Shimon used to interpret
this verse [in a beautiful manner] like a bundle of pearls [or a great amount
of perfume in this way:]-why were the door and the doorpost singled out from
all the fixtures in the house? The Holy One, blessed is He, said: The door and
the doorpost were witnesses in Egypt when I passed over the lintel and the two
doorposts, and I said, “For the children of Israel are slaves to Me; they are
My slaves,” but [they are] not slaves to slaves, and [yet] this one went and
acquired for himself a master-[his ear] shall be bored before them [for
everyone to see].-[From Kid. 22b]
and he
shall serve him forever-Heb. לְעֽלָם, until the Jubilee year [the fiftieth year of the cycle]. Or
perhaps it means literally forever, as its apparent meaning? Therefore, the
Torah states [in reference to the Jubilee year]: “and each man to his family
you shall return” (Lev. 25:10). [This] informs [us] that fifty years are called
עֽלָם. But [this does] not [mean] that he must serve him [his master]
the entire fifty years, but he must serve him until the Jubilee year,
regardless of whether it is near or far off.-[From Mechilta, Kid. 15a]
7 Now if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant Scripture is
referring [here] to a minor girl. I might think that even if she develops signs
[of initial puberty, the father may sell her]. [But] you must agree that a kal
vachomer [the inference of a major rule from a minor rule] applies here namely
if she who is already sold goes free with signs [that is, when she has signs of
initial puberty], as it is written: “she shall go out for nothing, without
money” (Exod. 21:11), which we interpret as referring to the signs of initial
puberty, does it not make sense that she who is not sold [and has initial signs
of puberty] should not be sold [at all]? -[From Mechilta, Arachin 29a] [At the
moment when a female has two pubic hairs, usually when she is twelve years old,
she is no longer considered a minor. She is then called נַעֲרָה.
She is, however, still under her father’s jurisdiction until six months later,
when her breasts have developed to a certain stage. Then she is called בּוֹגֶרֶת, a mature girl. In the case of a Hebrew maidservant, the father
may sell her only when she is a minor, not after she has become a נַעֲרָה
she
shall not go free as the slaves go free [I.e.,]-like the emancipation of
Canaanite slaves, who go free because of [the loss of] a tooth or an eye. [See
below, verses 26, 27.] This one [a Hebrew maidservant], however, will not go
free because of [the loss of] a tooth or an eye, but she will work for [her
complete] six years or until the Jubilee year or until she develops signs [of
initial puberty]. Whichever comes first will be the first [event] to effect her
emancipation, and [her master] will reimburse her for the value of her eye or
the value of her tooth. Or perhaps this is not so [i.e., the intention of the
verse], but “she shall not go free as the [male] slaves go free” [meaning]
after six years or in the Jubilee year? Therefore, the Torah states: “Should
your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, be sold to you…” (Deut. 15:12).
This compares the Hebrew woman to the Hebrew man in regard to all the ways he
can be emancipated: just as a Hebrew man goes free following six years [of
service] or in the Jubilee year, so too does a Hebrew woman go free following
six years [of service] or in the Jubilee year. What then is the meaning of “she
shall not go free as the slaves go free”? [This means] she shall not go free
with [the loss of] the tips of her limbs, as do the Canaanite slaves. I might
think [then] that [only a Hebrew maidservant does not go free due to the loss
of the tips of her limbs, but] a Hebrew man does go free with [the loss of] the
tips of his limbs. [Therefore, the Torah] compares the Hebrew man to the Hebrew
woman: just as the Hebrew woman does not go free with [the loss of] the tips of
her limbs, neither does the Hebrew man go free with [the loss of] the tips of
his limbs.-[From Mechilta]
8 If she is displeasing to her master- [Meaning] that she does not
please him to the extent that he would [want to] marry her.-[From Mechilta]
who did
not designate her For he should have designated her and married her, and the money
paid for her purchase is the money of her betrothal. Here Scripture hints that
it is a mitzvah [for the master] to perform יִעוּד,
designation for marriage, [with the maidservant] and it hints that she would
not require any other betrothal. [I.e., neither money nor articles of value
would have to be given to the girl’s father in order to marry her. The money
the father originally received for selling his daughter now would become the
money of betrothal from her master.]-[From Kid. 19b]
he
shall enable her to be redeemed-[This means] he [the master] should give her the opportunity to
be redeemed and go free, for he too assists in her redemption. Now what is this
opportunity that he gives her? That he deducts from her redemption, according
to the number of years that she worked for him, as if she had been hired by him
[and was not a slave]. How so? Let us say that he bought her for a maneh [one
hundred zuz], and she worked for him for two years. We say to him, “You knew
that she would ultimately leave at the end of six years. This means that you
bought each year’s work for one-sixth of a maneh, and she has worked for you
for two years, which equals one-third of a maneh. Accept two-thirds of a maneh
[from her, to pay for the remaining four years] and let her leave you.”-[from
Kid. 14b] to
another
person
Heb. לְעַם
נָכְרִי.
[Meaning] that neither the master nor the father has the right to sell her to
anyone else.- [from Kid. 18a]
when he
betrays her If he [the master] comes to betray her and not fulfill the
commandment of designation, and the father, too, since he betrayed her and sold
her to this one.
9 And if he designates her for his son-[I.e., if] the master [chooses
her as a wife for his son]. [This] teaches [us] that his son also stands in his
[the master’s] place to designate her if his father so desires, and he does not
require another betrothal, but he [can] say to her, “Behold, you are designated
to me with the money your father received [originally] for your value.”-[From
Kid. 18b]
according
to the law of the daughters [of Israel]-Meaning sustenance, clothing, and
marital relations.-[From Mechilta]
10 If he takes another [wife] for himself in addition to her.-[From
Mechilta]
he shall
not diminish her sustenance, her clothing, or her marital relations from the maidservant
whom he had already designated.-[From Mechilta]
her
sustenance Heb. שְׁאֵרָהּ, [referring to] food.-[From Mechilta, Keth. 47b]
her
clothing Heb. כְּסוּתָה, lit., her covering As its apparent meaning [namely her
clothing].
her
marital relations Heb. עֽנָתָה, [meaning physical] intimacy.-[From Mechilta, Keth. 47b]
11 And if he does not do these three things for her If he does not do
any one of these three things for her. Now what are these three things? He
should designate her for himself or for his son [as a wife], or he should
deduct from the money of her redemption and allow her to go free. But this one
[master] designated her neither for himself nor for his son, and she could not
afford to redeem herself [even after the deduction].-[From Mechilta]
she
shall go free without charge-[The text] adds [another means of] emancipation for this
[maidservant] beyond what it provided for male slaves. Now what is this [means
of] emancipation? וְיָצְאָה
חִנָם
informs you that she goes free when she shows [initial] signs [of puberty], and
she must stay with him until she develops [these] signs. If six years pass
before the appearance of these signs, we have already learned that she goes
free, as it is said: “Should your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman [be
sold to you, that one] shall serve you for six years” (Deut. 15:12). What then
is the meaning of “she shall go out without charge”? If the signs [of puberty]
precede the [end of] six years, she shall go free because of them. Or perhaps
it means only that she goes out when she reaches maturity [i.e., at twelve and
a half years]? Therefore, Scripture says: “without [payment of] money,” to
include her emancipation at maturity. If both of them [i.e., that she goes free
“without charge” and “without money”] were not stated, [and “she shall go out
without charge” was stated,] I would say that “she shall go out without charge”
refers to [her being freed at] maturity. Therefore, both of them were stated,
so that the disputant has no opportunity to differ. -[From Mechilta, Kid. 4a]
12 One who strikes a man so that he dies Several verses have been
written in the section dealing with murderers, and I will explain what I am able
to explain [about] why they [these verses] are needed.
One who
strikes a man so that he dies Why was this said? Because it says: “And if a man strikes down
any human being, he shall surely be put to death” (Lev. 24:17), I understand
[that even if he deals him] a blow without death. Therefore, the Torah says:
“He who strikes a man and he dies,” meaning that he is liable only for a blow
causing death. If it said: “He who strikes a man,” and it did not say, “And if
a man strikes down any human being,” I would say that one is liable only if one
strikes a man. If one strikes a woman or a minor, how do we know [that one is
liable]? Therefore, the Torah says: “if [a man] strikes down any human being,”
referring even to a minor or even a woman. Also, if it said: “He who strikes a
man,” I would understand that even a minor who struck and killed [someone] would
be liable. Therefore, the Torah [specifically] says: “if a man strikes down,”
but not a minor who strikes [someone] down. Also, “if… strikes down any human
being” implies even a nonviable infant. Therefore, the Torah [here] says: “He
who strikes a man,” implying one is liable only if one strikes a viable infant,
one [who is] capable of becoming a man [i.e., an adult]. -[From Mechilta]
13 But one who did not stalk [him] He did not lie in wait for him, and
he did not intend [to kill him]. -[From Sifrei, Num. 35:22]
stalk Heb. צָדָה,
an expression meaning “lie in wait.” And so does Scripture say: “but you are
stalking (צֽדֶה) my soul to take it” (I Sam. 24:12). It is, however, impossible
to say that צָדָה is an expression [that is] related to [hunting animals as in
the following verse:] “the one who hunted game (הַצָּד
צַיִד)
” (Gen. 27:33) [and to render: he did not hunt him down], because in [the
expression of] hunting beasts, there is no “hey” in its verb, and the noun
related to it is צַיִד, whereas the noun in this case is צְדִיָּה
(Num. 35:20), and its verb is צוֹדֶה, but the verb of this one [namely hunting] is צָּד.
I say, [therefore,] that this is to be interpreted as the Targum [Onkelos]
renders: But he who did not stalk [him]. Menachem, however, classified it
(Machbereth Menachem, p. 148) in the grouping along with הַצָּד צַיִד, but I disagree with him. If it is at all possible to classify
it in one of the groupings of צד [enumerated by Menachem], we may classify it in the grouping of
“on the side (צַד)
you shall be borne” (Isa. 66:12); “I shall shoot to the side (צִדָּה) ” (I Sam. 20:20); “And he will speak words against [lit., to
the side of] (לְצַד) the Most High” (Dan. 7:25). Here, too, אֲשֶׁר א
צָדָה
means that he did not look sideways (צִדֵּד) to find for him some occasion [lit., side] to kill him. This
[interpretation] too is questionable. In any case, it is an expression of
stalking.
[but God brought [it] about
into his hand Heb. אִנָּה, made it ready for his hand, an expression similar to “No harm
will be prepared (תְאוּנֶּה) for you” (Ps. 91:10); No wrong shall be prepared (יְאוּנֶּה) (Prov. 12:21); [and] “he is preparing himself (מִתְאַנֶה) against me” (II Kings 5:7), [meaning that] he is preparing
himself to find a pretext against me..
but God
brought [it] about into his hand Now why should this go out from before Him? That is what David
said, “As the proverb of the Ancient One says, ‘From the wicked comes forth
wickedness’”(I Sam. 24:14). The proverb of the Ancient One is the Torah, which
is the proverb of the Holy One, blessed is He, Who is the Ancient One of the
world. Now where did the Torah say, “From the wicked comes forth wickedness”?
[This refers to:] “but God brought [it] about into his hand.” To what is the
text referring? To two people, one who killed unintentionally and one who
killed intentionally, but there were no witnesses who would testify to the
matter. This one [who killed intentionally] was not executed, and that one [who
killed unintentionally] was not exiled [to the refuge cities]. So the Holy One,
blessed is He, brings them [both] to one inn. The one who killed intentionally
sits under a ladder, and the one who killed unintentionally is ascending the
ladder, and he falls on the one who had killed intentionally and kills him, and
witnesses testify about him and sentence him to exile. The result is that the
one who killed unintentionally is exiled, and the one who killed intentionally
was killed. -[From Mechilta, Makkoth 10b]
I will
make a place for you Even in the desert, where he [the man who has murdered] shall
flee, and what place affords him asylum? This is the camp of the Levites.
-[From Mechilta, Mak. 12b]
14 But if… plots deliberately Why was this said? Because it said: “One
who strikes [a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death]” (verse 12), I
[may] understand [this to apply to] a physician [who killed a patient], the
agent of the court who killed by [administering] forty lashes, the father who
strikes his son, the teacher who disciplines his pupil, and the unintentional
[killer]. Therefore, the Torah states: “But if [a man] plots deliberately,” but
not the unintentional [killer]; “to slay him with cunning,” but not the agent
of the court, the physician, or the one who disciplines his son or his pupil,
for although they are intentional [in striking], they do not act with cunning.
-[From Mechilta]
[even]
from My altar if he were a kohen and wanted to perform the [sacrificial]
service, you shall take him to die. [From Mechilta, Yoma 85a]
15 And one who strikes his father or his mother Since we learned that
one who strikes one’s fellow is liable to make monetary compensation (Exod.
21:18, 19, 24, 25), but he is not liable to death, the text had to state that
one who strikes his father is liable to the death penalty, but he is not liable
except for a blow that causes a wound. -[From Mechilta, Sanh. 84b]
his
father or his mother Either this one or that one. -[From Mechilta, Sanh. 85b]
shall
surely be put to death by strangulation. -[From Mechilta, Sanh. 85b]
16 And whoever kidnaps a man Why was this said [here since the law of
kidnapping is mentioned elsewhere (Ho’il Moshe)]? Since it says (Deut. 24:7):
“Should a man be found stealing a person from among his brothers” [meaning from
the children of Israel, and he has worked with him and sold him, that thief
shall die, and you shall clear away the evil from your midst]. [From here] I
know only [that] a man who kidnapped a person [is liable to death]. How do I
know if a woman, one of indeterminate sex, or a hermaphrodite kidnap [a person,
that they too are liable to death]? Therefore, the Torah states: “And whoever
kidnaps a man and sells him…” And since it says here: “And whoever kidnaps a
man,” I know only that one who kidnaps a man [is liable to death]. How do I
know that if one kidnaps a woman [he is also liable… to death]? Therefore, the
Torah states (Deut. 24:7): “stealing a person.” Therefore, both of them [both
verses] were needed; what one [verse] left out the other [verse] filled in
[lit., revealed]. -[From Mechilta, Sanh. 85b]
and he
is found in his possession [I.e., this means] that witnesses saw him that he kidnapped him
and sold him, and he [the kidnapped man] was found in his hand prior to the
sale. -[From Mechilta]
shall
surely be put to death By strangulation. Every death penalty mentioned in the Torah
without qualification is strangulation (Mechilta, Sanh. 84b). [God] interrupts
the subject [of discussing sins against parents] and writes, “and whoever
kidnaps a man” between [the verses] “one who strikes his father or his mother”
and “one who curses his father or his mother.” It appears to me that that is
[the underlying reason for] the controversy [found in Sanh. 85], that one
Tannaic master believes that we are comparing striking [someone] to cursing
[i.e., just as one is liable only if one curses a person who keeps the
commandments as befits a Jew (see Exod. 22:27), so too is one liable only for
striking a person who keeps the commandments, but not for striking a Cuthite],
and the other master believes that we do not compare cursing to striking [and
thus one would be liable for striking a Cuthite even though he does not keep
the commandments]. -[Rashi, referring to Sanh. 85b]
17 And one who curses his father or his mother Why was this said? Since
[Scripture] says: “any man, any man who curses his father [or his mother shall
surely be put to death]” (Lev. 20:9). [From there] I know only that if a man
curses his father [he is liable to death]. How do I know that if a woman curses
her father [she too is liable to death]? Therefore, Scripture says [here]: “And
one who curses his father or his mother….” It makes an unqualified statement,
meaning whether it is a man or a woman. If so, why does it say, “any man who
curses”? [In order] to exclude a minor. -[From Mechilta]
shall
surely be put to death By stoning. Wherever it says: “his blood is upon him,” [it means
that he is to be put to death] by stoning. The model for all of them is “with
rocks they shall stone them; their blood is upon them” (Lev. 20:27). Regarding
the one who curses his father, it says: “his blood is upon him” (Lev. 20:9).
-[From Mechilta; Sanh. 66a; Sifra, end of Kedoshim]
18 And if men quarrel Why was this said? Since it says: “An eye for an
eye” (Exod. 21: 24), we learn only [that if one assaults his fellow, he must
pay] the value of his limbs [which he amputated or rendered permanently
useless], but [payment for] idleness and healing we have not [yet] learned.
Therefore, this section, [which delineates those payments,] was stated. -[From
Mechilta]
but is
confined to [his] bed Heb. וְנָפַל
לְמִשְׁכָּב, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders: לְבוּטְלָן, and he falls into idleness, [meaning] into an illness that
prevents him from working.
19 [with what he relies
on, i.e.,] on his support Heb. עַל-מִשְׁעַנְתּוֹ, with his health and his strength. -[From Mechilta].
the
assailant shall be cleared Now would it enter your mind that one who did not kill should be killed?
But rather, [the Torah] teaches you here that they imprison him until it
becomes apparent whether this one [the victim] will get well, and this is its
meaning: When this one gets up and walks on his support, then the assailant
shall be cleared, but before this one [the victim] gets up, the assailant shall
not be cleared. -[From Keth. 33b]
only
[payment] for his [enforced] idleness Heb. שִׁבְתּוֹ, the [enforced] idleness from his work due to the illness. If
he cut off his hand or his foot, we assess [payment for] the idleness as if he
were a watchman of a cucumber field, because even after [recovery from] the
illness, he is not fit for work that requires a hand or foot, and he [the
assailant] already gave him as payment for his damage the value of his hand and
his foot, as it is said: “a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot” (Exod. 21:24).
-[From B.K. 83b, 85b, Tosefta B.K. 9:1]
and he
shall provide for his cure As the Targum [Onkelos] renders: and he shall pay the physician’s
fee.
20 And should a man strike his manservant or his maidservant The text
is referring to a Canaanite slave, or perhaps it is referring only to a Hebrew
[slave]? To clarify this, the Torah says: “because he is his property” (verse
21). Just as his property is his permanent acquisition, so is the slave [in
question] one who is his permanent acquisition. Now, was he [the one who kills
his slave] not included in “He who strikes a man and he dies” (above, verse 12)
? This verse was written [lit., came] to exclude him [the owner of the slave]
from the general rule [concerning murder], to be judged with the law of “a day
or two days” (verse 21), that if he did not die under his hand but lingered an
entire twenty-four-hour period, he is exempt. -[From Mechilta]
with a
rod
The verse refers to [a rod] that has sufficient [weight and strength] to kill
[someone]. Or perhaps that is not so, but [the master is liable] even if it
[the rod] does not have sufficient [weight and strength] to kill? Therefore,
the Torah says concerning an Israelite: “Or if he strikes him with a stone that
can be held in the hand, from which he may die” (Num. 35:17). (“Or if he
strikes him with a wooden instrument that can be held in the hand, from which
he may die”) (Num. 35:18). -[Mizrachi version] Now could the matter not be
understood by a kal vachomer [an inference from a major to a minor case], that
if [in the case of] an Israelite [victim], [a case] which is treated more
stringently, one is not liable unless he struck him [the victim] with an
article that has sufficient [weight and strength] to kill and the blow is on an
organ which could cause death, how much more should it be so [in the case of] a
slave, [a case] which is treated more leniently? -[From Mechilta]
he
shall surely be avenged [with] death by the sword [decapitation], and so does the Torah
say: “a sword avenging the vengeance of the covenant” (Lev. 26:25). -[From
Mechilta, Sanh. 52b] 21 But if he survives
for a
day or two he shall not be avenged If one day[’s survival] exempts him [from punishment], then would
not [survival of] two days be even more obvious? [Why then, is the word יומים
written?] Rather [it must be that we are speaking of] one day which is as two
days, and what [kind of day] is that? A full, twenty-four hour period.
he
shall not be avenged, because he is his property But if someone else
struck him, even if he lingered for twenty-four hours before he died, he [the
other person] is liable [to incur the death penalty].
22 And should men quarrel with one another, and [one] intended to
strike his fellow, and [instead] struck a woman. [From Sanh. 79a]
and hit
a pregnant woman Heb. נְגִיפָה
.וְנָגְפוּ
is only an expression of pushing and striking, as [in the following phrases:]
“lest you strike תִּגֽף your foot with a stone” (Ps. 91:12); “and before your feet are
bruised (יִתְנְַָפוּ) ” (Jer. 13:16); “and a stone upon which to dash oneself (נֶגֶף) ” (Isa. 8:14).
but
there is no fatality with the woman. -[From Sanh. 79a, Jonathan]
he
shall surely be punished to pay the value of the fetuses to the husband. They assess her
[for] how much she was valued to be sold in the market, increasing her value
because of her pregnancy. -[From B.K. 49a] I.e., the court figures how much she
would be worth if sold as a pregnant slave when customers would take into
account the prospect of the slaves she would bear, and her value as a slave
without the pregnancy. The assailant must pay the difference between these two
amounts. -[B.K. 48b, 49a]
he
shall surely be punished Heb. עָנוֹשׁ
יֵעָנֵשׁ.
They shall collect monetary payment from him, like וְעָנְשׁוּ [in the verse] “And they shall fine (וְעָנְשׁוּ) him one hundred [shekels of] silver” (Deut. 22:19). [From
Mechilta]
when
the woman’s husband makes demands of him When the husband sues him [the
assailant] in court to levy upon him punishment for that.
and he
shall give [restitution] The assailant [shall give] the value of the fetuses.
according
to the judges Heb. בִּפְלִלִים, according to the verdict of the judges. - [From Mechilta]
23 But if there is a fatality with the woman.
you
shall give a life for a life Our Rabbis differ on this matter. Some say [that he must]
actually [give up his] life, and some say [that he must pay] money, but not
actually a life, and if one intends to kill one person and kills another, he is
exempt from the death penalty and must pay his [the victim’s] heirs his value,
as [it would be if] he were sold in the marketplace. - [From Mechilta, Sanh.
79]
24 an eye for an eye If [a person] blinds his neighbor’s eye, he must
give him the value of his eye, [which is] how much his price to be sold in the
marketplace has decreased [without the eye]. So is the meaning of all of them
[i.e., all the injuries enumerated in the following verses], but not the actual
amputation of a limb, as our Rabbis interpreted it in the chapter entitled הַחוֹבֵל, he who assaults. -[From B.K. 83b, 84a]
25 a burn for a burn Heb. כְּוִיָּה,
a burn caused by fire. [Rashi probably alludes to מִכְוַת-אֵשׁ in Lev. 13:24.] Until now [the Torah] spoke of an injury that
decreases the value [of the victim], and now of [an injury] that does not
decrease the [victim’s] value [as a slave] but causes pain, for instance if he
[the assailant] burned him [the victim] on his nails with a spit, they [the
judges] compute how much [money] a person like him would be willing to take to
endure such pain. -[From B.K. 84a, Mechilta]
a wound Heb. פֶּצַע,
a wound that bleeds, where he wounded his [victim’s] flesh, navredure in Old French,
all according to what it [the wound] is. If it decreases his value, he [the
assailant must] pay [for the] damage; if he falls into idleness, he [must] pay
for idleness, and for healing, shame, and pain. This verse is superfluous
[because there is no difference between a wound and a burn. Whatever damage he
inflicts he must pay]. In [the chapter] הַחוֹבֵל
(B.K. 84a), our Rabbis interpreted it as making one liable for [the victim’s]
pain even where there is [permanent] damage [which he must pay for], because
although he pays him [the victim] the value of his hand, we do not exempt him
from the [payment compensating for the victim’s] pain, reasoning that since he
[the assailant] purchased his [the victim’s] hand [by giving the victim payment
for its value], he may amputate it with whatever he wants. We say, however,
that he should amputate it with a medication that lessens the pain. However,
[if] he cut it off with [an] iron [implement] and caused him pain [he must give
the victim compensation]. -[From B.K. 85a]
a
bruise
Heb. חַבּוּרָה. This is a blow in which blood collects but does not come out.
It only reddens the flesh on that spot. The term חַבּוּרָה
is equivalent to tache in Old French [meaning] a spot, like “or a leopard its
spots (חֲבַרְבֻּרֽתָיו) ” (Jer. 13:23). Its Aramaic translation is מַשְׁקוֹפֵי, an expression of beating, batedure in Old French, [meaning]
beating, knocking, and so, שְׁדֻפוֹת
קָדִּים
(Gen. 41:23) [is translated by Onkelos as:] שְׁקִיפָן
קִדּוּם,
[which means] “beaten by the [east] wind,” and similarly, “on the lintel (עַל
הַמַשְׁקוֹף)” (Exod. 12:7), [is given this appellation] because the door
bangs against it [the lintel]. [See commentary on Exod. 12:7.]
26 the eye of his manservant [This refers to] a Canaanite, but a
Hebrew [slave] does not go out with [the loss of his] tooth or [his] eye as we
have stated on “she shall not go out as the slaves go out” (Exod. 21:7).
in return for his eye And so it [the law] is with the twenty-four tips of limbs:
[i.e.,] the fingers and toes, the two ears and the nose, and the רֽאֽש
הַגְּוִיָה, which is the male organ. Why were [both] a tooth and an eye
mentioned [when the Torah could have mentioned only one]? Because if it had
mentioned an eye and did not mention a tooth, I would say that just as an eye
was created with him [at birth], so [does this apply to] everything that is
created with him, but a tooth was not created with him [at birth]. [Therefore,
I would say that if the master knocked out his slave’s tooth, the slave would
not be freed.] If it mentioned a tooth and did not mention an eye, I would say
[that] even [if the master knocked out] a baby tooth, which would be replaced
[by the natural growth of another tooth, the slave would be freed]. Therefore,
it mentions the eye [which cannot be replaced, to teach us that if the master
knocks out a baby tooth, the slave is not freed]. -[From Kid. 24a]
Welcome to the World of Remes
Exegesis
Thirteen rules compiled
by Rabbi Ishmael b. Elisha for the elucidation of
the Torah and for making halakic deductions from it. They are, strictly
speaking, mere amplifications of the seven Rules of Hillel, and are collected in
the Baraita of R. Ishmael, forming the
introduction to the Sifra and reading a follows:
Rules
seven to eleven are formed by a subdivision of the fifth rule of Hillel; rule
twelve corresponds to the seventh rule of Hillel, but is amplified in certain
particulars; rule thirteen does not occur in Hillel, while, on the other hand,
the sixth rule of Hillel is omitted by Ishmael. These rules are found also on
the morning prayers of any Jewish Orthodox Siddur together with a brief
explanation for each one of them.\
Ramban’s
Commentary for: Shemot (Exodus) 21:1-27
21:1.
AND THESE ARE THE ORDINANCES WHICH YOU WIL SET BEFORE THEM. The reason [why this whole
section dealing with mishpatim – civil laws – is placed
here, rather than being placed after the chukim – statutes – as is the order
in the commandments given at Marah],[1] is
that G-d wanted to explain to them first the civil laws. Thus we find that the
first of the Ten Commandments dealt with the obligation of knowing of the
existence of G-d, and the second one with the prohibition against idolatry,
after which [following the giving of the Ten Commandments] He again instructed
Moses, saying, Thus will you say unto the children of Israel: You yourselves have seen
that I have talked with you from heaven,[2]
meaning that you, [Moses] should warn them again to take to heart that which
they have seen, so that they will be careful to keep these precepts which I
have commanded them. For You yourselves have seen
corresponds to the commandment, I am the Eternal your G-d;[3] You
will not make with Me - gods of silver etc.[4] -
corresponds with You will have no other gods,[5]
thereby completing the subject of idolatry; likewise, And these are the ordinances
corresponds to You will not covet,[6]
for if a man does not know the laws of house and field or other possessions, he
might think that they belong to him and thus covet them and take them for himself.
This is why He said, you will set before them just
ordinances, which they should establish amongst themselves, so that they will
not covet that which does not legally belong to them. And thus did the Rabbis
say in Midrash Rabbah:[7] "The whole Torah depends on justice; that is why the Holy One,
blessed be He, gave the civil laws directly after the Ten Commandments."
Similarly G-d explains in this section of These are the ordinances additional
laws about idolatrv,[8]
the honor of parents,[9]
murder,[10]
and adultery[11]
- which are all mentioned in the Ten Commandments.
The Rabbis have explained:[12]
"Before them, but not before the Canaanites." This interpretation is
based on the observation that it should have said, "which tasim lahem"
("you will set for them ") just as He said, There
'sam lo' (He set for them) a statute and an ordinance;[13]
thus since He said, which you will set 'liphneihem.' (before them), we interpret this to mean that they should be the judges,
for it is with reference to a judge that this term [liphnei (before)] appears
in Scripture: And both the men, between whom the controversy is, will stand before
the Eternal, 'liphnei' (before) the priests and the judges;[14] Until
he stand 'liphnei' (before] the congregation for judgment;[15] 'liphnei'
(before) all who know law and judgment.[16]
The Rabbis further explained: "Before them, but not before laymen."
They interpreted [the verse in this way] because with reference to the
ordinances it is written: Then his master will bring him unto
'ha'elohim;'[17] the
cause of both parties will come before 'ha'elohim;’[18]
and it is also written, and he will give 'biphlilim' (as the judges
determine)[19]
- these terms referring to judges who are experts in the
law, and who had received ordination[20] [in
an unbroken chain from the time of those who had been duly ordained] by Moses
our Teacher. This is why He said here that these ordinances are to
be set
before them, meaning before the elohim
[expert, ordained judges] that He will mention further on, but not before
Canaanites, and not before one who is not a judge by the standard of the Torah,
such as a layman in this respect. It is forbidden to appear before such a
person to act as a judge, just as it is forbidden to bring it before the
Canaanites, even if he knows that this layman knows the correct law and will
render him a proper decision. Even so it is forbidden for the litigant to set
him up as a judge and complain before him so that he orders the other party to
come to court before him, and the layman himself is also forbidden to act as
their judge. Now even though the Sages have mentioned these two groups [the
layman and the Canaanite] together, there is a difference between them, in that
if the two litigants are willing to come before an Israelite who is a layman,
and accept him upon themselves, it is permissible for them to do so, and they
must abide by his decision, but to come before the Canaanites to act as judges
between them, is forbidden under all circumstances, even if the Canaanite laws
are in that particular case the same as our laws.
2.
IF YOU BUY A HERREW SERVANT.
G-d began the first ordinance with the subject of a Hebrew servant, because the
liberation of the servant in the seventh year contains a remembrance of the
departure from Egypt which is mentioned in the first commandment, just as He
said on it, And you will remember that you were a bondman in the land of Egypt, and
the Eternal your G-d redeemed you; therefore I command you this thing today.[21]
It also contains a remembrance of the creation, just as the Sabbath does, for
the seventh year signals to a servant a complete rest from the work of his
master, just as the seventh day of the week does. There is in addition a
'seventh' amongst the years, which is the jubilee, for seven is the chosen of
the days [to be the Sabbath], and of the years [to be the Sabbatical year] ,
and of the [seven] Sabbaticals [to be the jubilee]; and they all point
to one subject, namely, the secret of the days of the world - from Beresheet
(in the beginning) till vayechulu (and they were finished).[22]
Therefore this commandment deserved to be mentioned
first, because of its extreme importance, alluding as it does to great things
in the process of creation.[23]
This is why the prophet Jeremiah was very stringent about it and said, Thus
says the Eternal, the G-d of Israel: I made a covenant with your fathers;[24] At
the end of the seven years you will let go everyone his manservant, and
everyone his maidservant.[25]
And on account of its violation, G-d decreed the exile,[26]
just as the Torah decreed exile for the Sabbatical rest of the land which was
not observed,[27]
as I will yet write,[28]
with the help of the Rock.
When He finished stating the
ordinance of this [first] commandment as it applies to Hebrew servants, He
began the ordinance of the commandment, You will not murder.[29]
since it is the worst [sin] and then [He stated the ordinances of the
commandments] to honor one's parents, and of You will not steal,[30]
and then He went back to the ordinance of one who smites his fellow-man but did
not kill him,[31]
and then to the murder of a bondman, which is worse than the killing of an
offspring,[32]
and after that to [injury to] the limbs of Israelites and bondmen,[33]
and then to cases of death inflicted by cattle which cause injury.[34]
All the sections are thus arranged in logical sequence and in proper order.
3.
THEN HIS WIFE WILL GO OUT WITH HIM.
Rashi commented: "But who brought her in, that Scripture need say that she
will
go out with him? But [by saying this], Scripture tells us that he who
acquires a Hebrew servant is obliged to provide for the food of his wife and
children." This is a Midrash of the Sages.[35]
Now [even though the children are not mentioned in this verse, but only his
wife,] the Rabbis have included the children together with the wife in this
duty of the master, on the basis of what is written further on, Then
he will go out from you, he and his children with him.[36]
I am not clear on this law as to
whether the earnings of the woman and children belong to the master during the
time he is supporting them. It appears to me that the master takes the place of
the husband [in this respect]. For the Torah had compassion on the wife and
children, whose lives are hanging in suspense,[37]
and who expect [to be supported from] the husband's earnings, since now that he
is sold as a servant, they are in danger of being lost in their misery.
Therefore the Torah commanded the master who is now entitled to the servant's
labor, to act towards them as he [the servant] would. If so, the master only
has to assume the responsibilities of the husband, [and no more]; thus he is
entitled to their labor as is the husband, and in return he must feed and
support them. This is the meaning of the expression, then his wife will go out with
him, since the servant's wife was together with him as a handmaid to
his master, for the labor of both of them belongs to him, in return for which
he is obliged to give them food. Thus the only difference between husband and
wife is that the wife has a right to go away as she pleases, [and is not bound
to work for her husband's master if she does not want to be supported by him,
whilst the husband, who is the servant, is bound to the master]. Similarly, the
master's obligation to support the children is limited to the time that the
father is responsible for them, namely when they are minors, or as long as is
customary to feed them, as Rashi explained in Tractate Kiddushin.[38]
All this is out of G-d's compassion for them [the wife and children], and for
the servant as well so that he should not die in his anguish, in the knowledge
that whilst he is toiling in a strange house, his children and wife are
neglected. Now even though he is not obliged by law of the Torah to support
them, as has been explained in the Talmud, Tractate Kethuboth.[39]
but since it is the normal way of life for a man to support his wife and small
children, G-d in His mercies commanded the buyer [of the servant] to act to
them as a merciful father. The meaning of the Sages in speaking of banav
[literally: "his sons"] is both sons and daughters.
I have seen written in the
Mechilta:[40]
"I might think that the master is obliged to support the betrothed [of the
servant] and the childless widow of his brother who is waiting for him to marry
or reject her? Scripture therefore says, his wife, thus excluding the
brother's childless widow who is waiting for him, since she is not yet his
wife. With him, this excludes the betrothed who, [even though she is
his wife], is not yet with him." This Mechilta is a
proof to the law which I have stated, for since it is not customary for the
betrothed and the childless brother's widow to be supported by the man [in this
case the servant], therefore the Torah did not impose their support upon the
master either. And even if the brother-in-law or the bridegroom became liable
by law at a certain time known in the Talmud[41]
to support them, that obligation was in the nature of other debts they may
have, and therefore the master did not become liable to support them.
Again I have found in another
Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon:[42]
"If he be married then his wife will go out with him. Just as
the master is obliged to feed the servant, so he is obliged to feed his wife
and children. Still I might say: if the servant had a wife and children before
he was bought, then his master is obliged to feed them, because he bought him
on that condition, but if he had a wife and children only after he was bought I
might think that his master is not obliged to feed them. Scripture therefore
says, If he be married[43]
etc. There are thus two wives mentioned here, one referring to a wife that he
had before his master bought him, and the other referring to a wife he had
after he was bought. I might think that even if he had just a betrothed wife,
or a childless brother's widow who is waiting for him, whom the servant himself
is not obliged to feed, that nonetheless his master is obliged to support them,
and proof for that argument I might find in the fact that the husband himself
is not obliged [by law of the Torah, as explained above] to feed his own wife
and children, and yet, the master of the servant is obliged to feed the wife
and children of his servant; Scripture therefore says, then his wife will go out with
him - that wife who is with him, the master is obliged to feed, but he
is not bound to feed a wife who is not with him. I might think that even if the
servant's wife was one with whom it is not correct for him to continue living -
such as a widow married to a High Priest, or a divorcee or profaned woman
married to a common priest[44] -
[that the master is bound to feed her]; Scripture therefore says, then
his wife will go out with him - one that is fit to live with him, but
not this one etc. I might think that even if he married without the master's
knowledge [the master is obliged to feed her]; Scripture therefore says, if
'he' be married - just as 'he' was acquired with the master's
knowledge, so his wife [whom the master must support] means one taken with the
master's knowledge. I might think that the earnings of his sons and daughters
belong to the master, and it is logical that it be so: for if we see in the
case of a Canaanite bondman, whose master is not bound to feed him, that
nonetheless the earnings of his sons and daughters belong to the master, then
surely it is logical that in the case of a Hebrew servant, whose master is
obliged to feed him, that the earnings of his sons and daughters should belong
to his master! Scripture therefore says: he (If 'he' be married) - it is he
whose earnings belong to his master, but not those of his sons and daughters. Then
his wife will go out with him - do not separate him from his wife; do
not separate him from his children," Thus far the language of this
Baraitha.[45]
Yet I continue to say[46]
as I have written above that if the servant's wife and children want to be
supported by the master, that he may take their earnings, and this Baraitha
quoted above intends only to tell us that they are not his by absolute right,
as is the law of the Canaanite bondman, or as is the law of the Hebrew servant
himself, [who must of necessity work for then master], but they [the wife and
children of the Hebrew servant] can say to him: "We will not be fed by
you, and we will not work for you." What is new in this Baraitha is that
if the servant married without the consent of his master, he is not bound to
feed the wife or her children, for since it is within the power of his master
to gi\e him a Canaanite bondmaid, he is not obliged to feed this Israelite
woman. The Rabbis further interpreted the word imo (with
him) to teach us that you are not to separate him from his wife and
children, which means to say that the master cannot tell him: "Be together
with the handmaid I gave you and sleep with her at night, and not with the
Israelite wife," but the servant has the right to choose for himself.
4.
IF HIS MASTER GIVE HIM A WIFE.
"Scripture is speaking of a Canaanite woman. Or perhaps this is not so;
but Scripture here speaks only of an Israelite woman?! Scripture therefore
says, the wife and her children will be her master's. Consequently,
it must be speaking of a Canaanite woman." This is the language of the
Baraitha[47]
taught in the Mechilta.[48]
Now Rashi wrote [in explanation of this Mechilta]: "For a Hebrew
maidservant also goes free at the end of six years [just as a Hebrew manservant
does], or even before the end of six years if she shows signs of puberty, for
it is said, If your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto you, he
will serve you six years."[49]
But this is not quite correct.
For if we say [as the Baraitha above attempted to,] that the verse here speaks
of an Israelite woman, it could no longer refer to the case of a father selling
his minor daughter, about whom the law is given that when she shows signs of
puberty she goes free, for how could the master give her as a wife to his
Hebrew servant, since he has no power to hand her over to any other man [except
to designate her to be his own wife, or that of his son - as is explained
further in Verses 8-9]![50]
Similarly, the proof that Rashi mentioned, namely that she also goes free at
the end of six years, is only so in accordance with his own words which he
wrote[51]
that a person who sells himself [on account of his destitution] is sold for a
maximum of six years; but in the Talmud[52]
these are the words of a single Sage [Rabbi Eliezer], but the accepted opinion
is that one who sells himself can be sold for six years or more. Now if so, the
case of a woman who goes free at the end of six years can only be when her
father sold her [as a minor, but in that case the master has no right to give
her as a wife to his Hebrew servant, but only to designate her as his own wife
or that of his son]![53]
But that which the Rabbis have
said [in the Baraitha above, on the basis of the verse, the wife and her children shall
be the master's]: "Consequently, Scripture must be speaking of a
Canaanite woman" - the meaning thereof is as follows: Since He stated, the
wife and her children shall be the master's [it must be speaking only
of a Canaanite woman], for the children of a Canaanite bondmaid are the
master's since her child has the same status as she does, but in the case of an
Israelite woman - even if she were of age [in which case her master could give
her to his Hebrew servant as a wife], and even if we were to say that a woman
may sell herself as a maidservant[54]_her
children are the father's [not the master's].
6.
THEN HIS MASTER WILL BRING HIM UNTO 'HA'ELOHIM' - "to the court. The
servant must take counsel with those who sold him."[55]
[Thus is the language of Rashi.] And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that the
judges are called Elohim because they uphold the laws of G-d on earth.
In my opinion Scripture uses
these expressions: Then his master will bring him unto 'ha'elohim;' the cause of
both parties will come before 'ha 'elohim'[56]
in order to indicate that G-d will be with the judges in giving their judgment.
It is He Who declares who is just, and it is He Who
declares who is wicked. It is with reference to this that Scripture
says, he whom 'Elohim' (G-d) will condemn.[57]
And so did Moses say, for the judgment is G-d's;[58]
so also did Jehoshaphat say, for you judge not for man, but for the
Eternal, and He is with you in giving judgment.[59]
Similarly Scripture says, G-d stands in the congregation of G-d; in
the midst of 'elohim' (the judges) He judges,[60]
that is to say, in the midst of a congregation of judges He judges, for it is
G-d Who is the Judge. And so also it says, Then both men, between whom the controversy
is, will stand before the Eternal.[61]
And this is the purport of the verse, For I will not justify the wicked,[62]
according to the correct interpretation. In Eleh Shemoth Rabbah I have seen it
said:[63] "But when the judge sits and renders judgment in truth, the Holy
One, blessed be He, leaves, as it were, the supreme heavens and causes His
Presence to dwell next to him, for it is said, When the Eternal raised them up judges, then the Eternal was with the
judge.[64]
AND
HE SHALL SERVE HIM 'L'OLAM' (FOREVER).
Our Rabbis interpreted[65]
this to mean until the jubilee year. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra
wrote that "the meaning of olam in the Sacred Language is
'time.' It has been already, 'l'olamim' which were before us means 'the
times' [or 'the ages'] which were before us.[66] And
there he may abide 'ad olam'[67]
[cannot mean 'forever,' for Samuel did not stay all his life in Shiloh; it must
therefore mean 'until a certain time,' i.e., until he comes of age]. This is
why the Rabbis have said, and he will serve him l'olam means
up to the time of the jubilee year, for of all appointed seasons In Israel the
jubilee year is the most remote, and the going out to freedom is as if the
world was made anew for him. The sense of the verse is then, that he should
return to his status in his first time, when he was free." The student
learned [in the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand that l'olam
is to be taken in its usual sense [i.e., forever], for he who works until the
jubilee year has worked all the days of old.[68] In
the words of the Mechilta:[69]
"Rabbi[70]
says: Come and see that olam
cannot mean more than fifty years, for it is said and he will serve him 'I'olam,' which means until the jubilee
year." Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra forgot that which he wrote
with understanding in another place.[71]
7.
SHE WILL NOT GO OUT AS THE MENSERVANTS DO. This means that the Hebrew maidservant does not go
out free "in consequence of the loss of a tooth or an eye, as Canaanite
slaves do."[72]
Thus is Rashi's language, and our Rabbis interpreted it likewise.[73]
Indeed it is so, for a Hebrew servant is not called ebed[74]
without any further qualification.
But I wonder: why does Scripture
find it necessary altogether to tell us this [that a Hebrew maidservant docs
not go out free because of the loss of a tooth or eye, as Canaanite bondmen
do]?[75]
Perhaps it is to tell us that we should not argue by applying the method of kal
vachomer[76]
from a Canaanite women, that a Hebrew maidservant goes out free because of the
loss of a tooth or eye. This law is stated expressly in the case of a Hebrew
woman, but such is also the law for a Hebrew man, who has been compared to her
[thus he too does not go out free because of the loss of any of the chief
external organs]. The author of the 'Hilchoth Gedoloth,'[77]
wrote, however, that [the verse is not needed to exclude this kal
vachomer,[78]
for even if Scripture had not excluded it, we could not have argued that a
Hebrew woman should go out free in consequence of the loss of a tooth or eye],
because the going forth to freedom by slaves on account of the loss of a tooth
or eye is a penalty [to the master], and you cannot derive a law by
logical argument from penalties. The author of the 'Hilchoth Gedoloth' thus
considered this verse a negative commandment[79]
wherein G-d warns the master that if he wants to send her out free because of
the loss of a tooth or eye, that he transgresses a prohibition; but instead he
is to pay her monetary compensation for the tooth or eye, and she shall stay
with him up to the time [of six years, or before if she produces signs of
puberty], to be designated as the master's wife [or his son's]. For it would be
a great injustice if, after causing her the loss of a tooth in his anger and
blemishing her thereby, he would then send her out of his house, when she had
hoped to become his wife. Moreover, many times the monetary compensation for
the damage done to the chief external organs, is more than the earnings for her
labor if her days as a handmaid have nearly terminated. Therefore
Scripture was strict upon the master and made a clear prohibition, so that he should
not rob her of the monetary compensation due to her for the loss of any of her
chief organs, even if he should want to let her go free on account of them. It
may be that sending her to freedom is itself forbidden before the fixed time,
for Scripture has obliged the master to support her and that she stay with him,
in case she finds favor in his eyes and becomes his wife; just as He warned him
with a prohibition that [after he marries her and takes another wife] her
food, her raiment, and her conjugal rights will he not diminish.[80]
In accordance with this opinion [the author of the 'Hilchoth Gedoloth'] counted
the verse, She will not go out as the menservants do among the three
hundred and sixty-five negative commandments.
8.
'L'AM NOCHRI' HE WILL HAVE NO POWER TO SELL HER. "Neither her master nor her
father has the right to sell her to another [Hebrew man].[81]
Seeing he has dealt deceitfully with her - if he [i.e. the master] intends to
act deceitfully towards her and not to fulfill the commandment of designating
her as his wife [or his son's]. So also did her father act deceitfully towards
her, by selling her to this master." Thus far Rashi's language. And if so,
l'am
nochri would be like l'ish nochri (to a strange man), but
we find in all Scripture no parallel to such a usage [that am (people) should be
understood in the sense of "man"]. Perhaps the letter lamed
in the word l'am draws along with it a similar letter in the next word,
thus making it: 'l'am l'nochri' he will have no power to sell her,
and the explanation thereof would be similar to the verse, You gave him to be food 'l'am
l'tziyim' (to the folk inhabiting the wilderness)[82]
where the second word l'tziyim explains: who is the folk?
- the men who inhabit the wilderness; so here too He says, he will have no power to sell her
'l'am', and He explains: who is l'am? - l'nochri, that is to say,
to any stranger from the whole people [i.e., to another Israelite]. The term nochri
here will then be similar in usage to the expressions: and your labors in the house of a
'nochri' (stranger),[83]
which means in the house of another man; even from the 'nochriyah' (the
strange woman) that makes smooth her words,[84]
meaning the woman who is not his wife. All this I have written in order to uphold
the words of the Sages[85]
who say that a man is not permitted to sell his daughter twice
into the status of a handmaid, thus holding to the explanation: since he has once dealt deceitfully with her [by selling her to such a
status of a handmaid], he has no more the right to sell her.
But I have seen in the Mechilta:[86]
"'L 'am nochri' he will have no power to sell her, - this is a
warning to the court that he [i.e., the father] should not sell her to an alien
[i.e., anon-Israelite]." It would thus appear from their
language that this verse is not meant as an admonition against the father
reselling her to this Israelite master or to another one, but is a prohibition
against her being sold altogether [even the first time] to a non-Israelite, so
that a man may not sell his minor daughter to an idolater as a handmaid.
[It was necessary for this to be stated] because in the case of a Hebrew
servant He said, and he sell himself unto the stranger who is a settler with you, or to
the offshoot of a stranger's family,[87]
therefore it had to say that this should not be done to a woman. The reason for
it is obvious.[88]
This surely is the plain meaning of Scripture, that after the father - the
vendor - redeemed her from her first master, he cannot sell her to an idolater,
and the same law applies to the original sale. Scripture, however, [had to
state this prohibition in the case of a re-sale], because sometimes a man may
very much want to redeem his daughter from a master who did not take her as his
wife, and will want to sell her to an idolater for a year or two with the
intention of then taking her out from him; therefore Scripture warned him
against doing this. Or it may be that this expression [i.e., 'l'am
nochri' he will have no power to sell her] refers back to the beginning
of this subject: And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant[89]
- he will have no power to sell her to a foreign man. If so, then the Rabbis'
interpretation in the Talmud[90]
that a man may not resell his daughter into the status of a handmaid, [even to
an Israelite], is derived [not from 'l'am
nochri' he will have no power to sell her, but] from the [apparently]
superfluous expression: seeing he has dealt deceitfully with her.
For to a non-Israelite he never has power to sell her; so why did G-d say: seeing
he has dealt deceitfully with her, [since he cannot sell her even once
to a foreign man], and the meaning of that expression is that since he acted
once deceitfully with her by selling her into a status of a handmaid, he cannot
do so another time. Therefore the Rabbis interpreted the verse thus: "to a foreign people he will have no power to sell her [altogether], and
when he hath dealt deceitfully with her [he also has no power to sell her];"
that is to say, he will have no power to sell her if he dealt deceitfully with
her, for after he sold her once [to an Israelite], he cannot sell her again.
There are many instances where the Rabbis interpreted the verses in such a
manner. [Thus we find: Unto the stranger that is within your gates
you will give it that he may eat it, or you may sell it unto a foreigner[91]
- which Rabbi Meir interpreted]:[92]
"Read the verse thus: unto the stranger that is within your gates you will
give it that he may eat it, or you may sell it; you will give it that he may
eat it or you may sell it unto a foreigner." Similarly they interpreted
here[93] then
will she go out for nothing, without money,[94]
which, on account of the redundant language, ["for nothing,"
"without money"] they made the basis for two additional ways of the
Hebrew maidservant regaining her freedom: "she will go out for nothing,
and she will go out without money;" thus establishing that she goes out to
freedom when she produces signs of puberty, or signs of fuller development if
she had no signs of puberty - this being that maturity of the barren woman,
[who is incapable of conception] , as is stated in the beginning of Tractate
Kiddushin.[95]
The plain meaning of Scripture in
this section is as follows: If a man sell his minor daughter to be a
maidservant, she will not go out as these menservants, [i.e., the Hebrew
menservants] mentioned [above in Verses 2-6,] who go out to freedom in the
seventh year and in the jubilee year: for the master[96]
can never send her away from his house if the maiden pleases him and she obtains kindness of him,[97]
but he is to take her for a wife as is his will. But if she pleases not her master,
who has not espoused her to be his wife - for he who buys an Israelite's
daughter does so with the intention of taking her as his wife, thus she is
under ordinary conditions designated for him; but now if her master does not
desire her, then will the father mentioned redeem her, for as soon as the
master says: "I do not want to marry her," it is forbidden for the
father to leave her any longer under his authority, nor may he sell her to a
foreign people in case he comes to deal deceitfully with her, for it is deceit
for a man to sell his daughter except to someone who can marry her. Or the meaning thereof may be that anyone who sells his daughter [even
to an Israelite], deals deceitfully with her.
9.
AND IF 'YI'ODENAH' (HE ESPOUSE HER) UNTO HIS SON, HE WILL DEAL WITH HER AFTER
THE MANNER OF DAUGHTERS.
In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, it is possible that G-d is saying
that if the buyer yi'odenah for his son, which means that he espoused her to him
- for the term yi'ud is an expression of appointing, such as: he
tarried longer than the set time which 'y'ado' (he had appointed him)'[98] -
then
he will do unto her after the manner that a man does for his own daughters
- he is to give her of his own according to the dowry of virgins.[99]
He thus commanded this as He did in the law of outfitting the emancipated
servant,'[100]
and it is all an expression of His goodness, magnified be He! And in accordance
with the interpretation of our Rabbis, which is the truth, the meaning of the
verse is: after the manner of daughters whom parents marry off, so will
the son [of the master] deal with her. And then He explains
[what is "the manner of daughters"] that If he take him another wife, her
food, her raiment, and her conjugal rights - that is, of this one [the
former maidservant] - he will not diminish.[101]
It is obvious that if he did not marry another woman he must not diminish her
rights, but Scripture speaks of that which is usual.[102]
Now Rashi explained: "sh'eirah[103]
means food; k'suthah is, as the literal sense of the word, raiment; onatha
is the marital duty." And so did Onkelos render sh 'eirah: zivanah
(food). But in the Gemara[104]
the Rabbis said with reference to the Sage who held this opinion [that sh'eirah
means food]: "And this Tanna[105]
holds that the alimentation of one's wife is a law of the Torah. For we have
been taught: sh'eirah this means her food, and so it says, He
caused 'sh'eir' (flesh) to rain upon them as the dust[106]
etc." And from the subject under discussion in that Gemara it is
understood that this is the opinion of a single Sage, whilst the
accepted law is that the alimentation of one's wife is a Rabbinical enactment.
And even according to the plain meaning of Scripture, why should it mention
food under the term sh'eir which means "flesh;" it should rather have
mentioned lachmah (her bread), for man lives by bread[107]
and his obligation towards her is [mainly] in that sustenance. Now Rabbi
Abraham ibn Ezra thought to correct this, and so he explained sh'eirah
as meaning food which builds up her sh'eir, namely her flesh. But there
is no sense in Scripture saying that the "husband diminish not her
flesh!"
Therefore I say that the meaning
of sh'eir
everywhere is flesh close and near to one's own, the root thereof being derived
from the expression sh'eir b'saro,[108]
that is his close flesh outside that of the flesh of his own body. Thus
relatives are called sh'eir: to any sh'eir b'sara, (that is
near of kin to him);[109]
they are 'sha'arah' (near kinswomen),[110]
this being associated with the expressions: surely you are my bone and my
flesh;[111] of
whom the flesh is half consumed.[112]
Similarly, And I will cut off from Babylon a name, 'ush'ar' offshoot and offspring,[113]
means a child related to him. Likewise, when your flesh 'ush'eirecha' are consumed,[114]
which means "yourself and your children" who are the flesh closest to
you. Thus meat is called sh'eir - He caused 'sh'eir' to rain upon
them as the dust[115]
- because meat when eaten is absorbed by the eater and becomes part of his
flesh. It is possible that this is the meaning of the expression, when your
flesh 'ush'eirecha' is consumed.[116]
meaning: when the original flesh of your body, and the nutriment of flesh which
came from the food, will be consumed and will no longer be part of your flesh.
Thus a woman in relation to her husband is called sh'eir - just as the Rabbis interpreted:[117]
"except for 'lish'eiro,[118] sh'eir
means his wife;" - the usage of the term being derived from the idea that
G-d stated, and he will cleave unto his wife, and they will be one flesh.[119]
Thus sh'eira
here means "the nearness of her flesh;" k'suthah is "the
cover of her bed," just as it is said, for that is his only 'k'suthoh'
(covering)... wherein shall he sleep?[120]
and onathah
is "her time," that he come to her at times of love. And even if we
say as some commentators do, that the meaning of sh'eir is like "his
flesh," and the expression, to any 'sh'eir' b'saro'[121]
is like "to any flesh of his flesh," just as it says, for
he is our brother, our flesh[122]
- in that case we would still explain 'sh'eirah '... he will not diminish
as meaning that he will not diminish from her, her flesh; that is, the flesh
due to her, namely, the flesh of her husband who with her is one
flesh. Thus the meaning of the verse is, that G-d says that if the master
takes another wife, he will not diminish from this one the nearness of her flesh,
the cover of her bed, and her time of love, for such is the manner of daughters.
And the intention is that the other woman should not be sitting upon
a stately bed,[123] and
there they will be one flesh,[124]
whilst this one is to him merely like a concubine, with whom he lives only by
chance, and upon the ground, just like one comes to a harlot. It is for this
reason that Scripture has forbidden him to act in this way. And so did the
Sages say:[125]
"sh'eirah
means the nearness of flesh, that he should not behave to her as is the custom
among the Persians, who perform their marital rights in their clothes."
This is a correct interpretation, for such is the style of Scripture always to
mention sexual intercourse in clean and brief language. Therefore it mentions
these duties by means of allusion: sh'eirah k'sutha v'onatha, referring
to the three things which are usual when a man comes together with his wife.
Thus the verse is properly explained in accordance with the accepted law, whilst alimentation of one's wife and provision of her raiment are
duties put upon the husband by ordinance of the Rabbis.
11.
AND IF THESE THREE
- designating her to himself as his wife, or to his son, or allowing her to be
redeemed - HE DO NOT UNTO HER, then WILL SHE GO OUT FOR NOTHING, WITHOUT MONEY,
as do the menservants mentioned.[126]
15.
AND HE THAT SMITES HIS FATHER, OR HIS MOTHER, WILL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH. Our Sages have already taught[127]
that his death is by strangulation. This is why He placed next to it, And
he that steals a man, and sells him,[128]
for he too is punished by the same death. He separated it from the later verse,
And
he that curses his father or his mother,[129]
because his death is by stoning, as it is said concerning him, he
has cursed his father or his mother; his blood will be upon him,[130]
and whenever such an expression [his blood be upon him] is used
about someone, his death is by stoning, this being derived from that which is
written, They will stone them with stones; their blood will be upon them.[131]
The reason why He was more severe as to the manner of death of the one who
curses his mother or father than as to the manner of death of one who smites
them,[132]
is because the sin a cursing is more common, for when the fool gets angry he
frets himself and curses by his king[133]
and father and mother the whole day, and a crime that is frequently committed
needs a greater punishment [than one rarely committed]. Or it may be that cursing
involves a greater sin, because he uses the Name of G-d,[134]
and therefore he has to be punished for his sin against his father and mother,
and also for taking G-d's Name in transgression and sin. Now the Gaon Rav
Saadia[135]
said, that the reason why He placed the matter of stealing a human being
between that of smiting one's parents and cursing them, is because most people
are kidnapped when they are young, and they grow up in a strange place unaware
of who their parents are, and thus they may come to smite them or to curse them
[not knowing that they are their parents]; therefore it is fitting that the
thief too be punished by death as they are, since he is responsible for the
punishment that is visited upon the child [who smites or curses either of his
parents, and for that reason the verse dealing with the thief's punishment is
mentioned between those dealing with smiting one's parents and cursing them].
16.
AND HE THAT STEALS A MAN, AND SELLS HIM, AND HE BE FOUND IN HIS HAND - "previously, before the
sale." This is Rashi's language. But I have not understood it.[136]
If Rashi means that witnesses must have seen him [the stolen person] in the
thief's possession before he had sold him - could it even enter your mind that
the thief be subject to the death penalty without witnesses having seen him
stealing and also seeing him selling! It would therefore have been sufficient
if Scripture were to say: "and he that steals a man and sells him".
Further, his being found in the thief's possession is no real proof that he
stole him! Rather, this verse is the source for that which we have been taught
in a Mishnah:[137]
"He that steals a person is not liable to the punishment unless he brings
him into his own possession," and in a Baraitha the Rabbis have said:[138]
"If he stole him but did not sell him, or if he sold him but he is still
in his [the thief's], possession, he is free [from the death penalty]."
The meaning of this is to teach us that the law applying to the thief of a
human being is [in one respect] similar to that of thieves of other, i.e.,
monetary, matters; namely, that if a thief killed or sold [an ox or a sheep]
within the domain of the owner, he is free [from paying five oxen for an ox and
four sheeps for a sheep],[139]
but if he lifted them up [thereby acquiring possession of them], or removed
them from the domain of the owner, he is liable to pay. Similarly, this thief
of a human being must first have brought the stolen person into his own domain
[in order to be liable to death]. Likewise if he lifted the lad upon his shoulder,
and sold him to another person, he is liable to the death penalty, because this
too is called if he be found in his hand, since it is not logical that a
man's ground should have a greater power of taking possession of a thing for
the owner, than his own hand has. In a similar way, that which the Rabbis said
[in the Baraitha mentioned above]: "or if he sold him but he is still in
his [the thief's] possession etc.," means that the buyer did not remove
him at all from the thief's domain, even though he paid him the money, and
since he did not remove him from there, the thief is free [from the death
penalty]. Now I do not know whether this is to say that [in order to make the
thief of a human being liable to the death penalty] the buyer must perform a
formal act of acquisition, as is the law in other transactions, that the buyer
does not take ownership of the article until he draws it from the domain of the
seller into a simta, [an alley adjoining an open place] or until he lifts it
[even within the domain of the seller] - or it may be that it is a special
Scriptural decree in the case of the sale of a stolen human being, that even if
the sale has been finalized between them, and the buyer has taken ownership
from the seller by lifting him or by drawing him along in ground which belongs
to both of them, [in which case usually the act of drawing the purchased
article is a valid act of acquisition even if not done in a simta],
that the thief is nonetheless free from the death penalty until the stolen
person goes out from his domain into the domain of the buyer. And so indeed it
would appear to be [as the latter exposition].
Now Rashi in his commentaries
there in the Gemara[140]
explained [the phrase of the Baraitha]: "if he sold him but he is still in
his possession" as meaning "if he is still in the stolen
person's domain,[141]
in which case the thief is free from punishment because there has been no real
theft at all." But if so, nothing new has been established here which is
unlike the ordinary law of theft in monetary matters![142]
However, it may be, the words of
the verse [to be interpreted properly, must be transposed as follows]: "and he
that steals a man, and he be found in his hand, and he sells him. he will
surely be put to death." But it is still possible that the verse
may be explained properly in the order it is written in. Thus: And
he that steals a man, and sells him, and he be found in the hand of the buyer
[he - the thief - shall surely be put to death]; for if he stole a
human being and brought him to his house. and then he brought the buyer there
and sold him without the buyer taking him out from there, the thief is not
liable, because the sale has not been completed between them, or even if the
sale has been completed, he is still free of the death penalty, as I have
written above.
Ketubim:
Tehillim (Psalms) 57:1-6
|
Rashi |
Targum |
|
1. For the
conductor, al tashcheth, of David a michtam, when he fled from before Saul in
the cave. |
1. For praise, concerning the
distress at the time when David said, "Do not harm." It was spoken
by David, humble and innocent, when he fled from Saul's presence in the cave.
|
|
2. Be gracious to me, O God, be gracious to me, because my soul took
refuge in You, and in the shadow of Your wings I will take refuge until the
destruction passes. |
2. Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me, for in Your word my soul
has trusted, and in the shade of Your Presence I will be confident until the
turmoil passes. |
|
3. I will call upon the Most High God, upon the God Who completes
[what He promised] for me. |
3. I will pray before God Most High, the mighty one, who commanded the
spider who completed a web for me. |
|
4. He will send from Heaven and save me from the disgrace of him who
yearns to swallow me up forever; God will send His kindness and His truth. |
4. He will send His angel from heaven above, and He will redeem me; He
has put to shame the one who bruises me, forever; God will send His goodness
and His truth. |
|
5. My soul is among lions; I lie among men who are aflame; their teeth
are [like] spears and arrows, and their tongue is [like] a sharp sword. |
5. My soul glows while in the midst of flames; I will sleep among
coals that burn, the sons of men whose teeth are like lances and arrows, and
whose tongue is like a sharp sword. |
|
6. Be exalted above the heavens, O God; over all the earth be Your
glory. |
6. Be exalted over the angels of heaven, O God; Your glory is over all
those who dwell on earth. |
|
|
|
Rashi’s Commentary for: Psalms
57:1-6
For the
conductor, al tashcheth David called this psalm by this name because he was near death,
and he established this psalm, saying, “Do not destroy me, O Lord.”
2 Be gracious to me, etc., be gracious to me that I should neither
kill nor be killed.
until
the destruction passes Heb. הוות, until the evil passes.
4 from the disgrace of him who yearns to swallow me up And He will
save me from the disgrace of שֽאַפִי, who says to swallow me up, golosa moy in Old French, longs to
swallow me up. (See above 56:2.)
5 My soul is among lions Abner and Amassa, who were “lions” [leaders]
the in Torah, and who do not protest against Saul.
I lie
among men who are aflame En flanboyanz, or enflamoyonz, among those who are flaming. Among
the Ziphim, who are aflame after slander.
6 Be exalted above the
heavens Withdraw from the earthlings, who are unworthy of having Your
Shechinah rest among them, and on the earth You shall be honored by this.
Meditation from the Psalms
Psalms 57:1-6
By: H.Em. Rabbi Dr. Hillel ben
David
David composed this psalm, this
michtam when he fled from[143]
Saul in the cave. The narrative of
Shmuel alef (I Samuel) chapter
24, serves as the background for this psalm. Saul and three thousand men search
for David in the rocky caves of the wilderness of En-Gedi. All alone, Saul
inadvertently entered the cave in which David and his men were hiding. Instead
of yielding to his men’s demands that he kill Saul, David contented himself
with cutting off a corner from a garment, which Saul had momentarily removed.
In this manner, David sought to impress upon Saul that he was not his enemy and
that Saul was unjustified in hating and pursuing him.[144]
This
highly dramatic moment, fraught with danger for both Saul and David, prompted
David to compose this psalm.
Our psalm
is the first of three psalms (57-59) which refer to Saul’s pursuit of David;
all begin with the plea ‘Al Tashchet’ - ‘Do
not destroy’! These four psalms will
carry us from the Shabbat before Tammuz 17 till the Shabbat after Tisha B’Ab,
Shabbat Nachamu I. We will cover the entire three weeks of mourning[145]
– with these special psalms of ‘Al Tashchet’ - ‘Do not destroy’! We will be
reading these psalms (57-59) at the same time of the year when the first and
second Temples were both destroyed. We have one hope, that HaShem will not
destroy the Temple of Living Stones. Clearly these psalms have a special
meaning for this time of the year.
To
help drive this poignant note home, let us examine the incidents that took
place on this day in history:
Tammuz
17:
·
Noach
sent out the first dove to see if the Flood waters had receded, in 1650. Beresheet 8:8, Seder Olam Rabba, Ch.4
·
Joseph
and Samuel are born. It is 40 weeks after Tishri 1.
·
The
sin of he golden calf is committed (yom chamashi). Shemot
32:20, Seder Olam 6, Taanit 30b
- Rashi
·
Moses
breaks the tablets containing the Ten Commandments, after 40 days
on Mt. Sinai. Exodus
24:18 - 31:18, Taanit 28b
·
Levites
kill 3000 Israelites and become set apart to HaShem. Exodus 32:25-29
·
Cessation
of the daily sacrifice in the first temple in 3184. Taanit 28b
·
Jerusalem walls
destroyed. Titus takes the outer city. Tamid offering ceased. Erachin
11b
·
King
Menashe had an idol placed in the Holy Sanctuary of
the Temple. Melachim II 21:7
·
Apostomos,
captain of the occupation forces, publicly burned the Torah. Masechet
Taanit 28b
·
Titus
and Rome breached the walls of Jerusalem in
3760. Taanit 28b
·
Fast
of Tammuz. the beginning of a three-week period of semi-mourning for the
destruction of the Temple. Zechariah
9:19
The
Sabbaths between Tammuz 17 and Tisha B’Ab are also given special names: Shabbat
Dibre Yirmeyahu (Tammuz
21), Shabbat Shim’u (Tammuz 28), and Shabbat
Hazon (Ab 6).[146]
According
to Rashi, this psalm is entitled ‘Al Tashchet’ because David composed it when
he was on the brink of destruction and death; thus, he was pleading to God for
salvation.
According
to Alshich, David’s righteousness and humility were truly astounding. Despite
Saul’s threat and his implacable hatred, David persisted in accepting him as
his king and refused to injure his sovereign in any way. David’s primary
concern was not for his own life, but for Saul’s. David’s men forcefully
insisted that it would be suicidal not to exploit this God-given opportunity to
slay their pursuer, Saul; but David held them back, shouting, ‘Al Tashchet’ – ‘do not destroy’!
The
Midrash[147] notes that centuries
earlier, David’s ancestor, Lot, was saved from the destruction of Sodom by
hiding in a cave. Thus David prayed, ‘Master of the Universe! Even before I
entered this cave, You showed kindness to others for my sake and saved them in
a cave! (Lot) Therefore, now that I myself am in a cave,[148]
I beg of You, be kind and do not
destroy!’
Beresheet (Genesis) 19:30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the
mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and
he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
Our psalm is naturally divided
into two separate pieces by the following verse which is the same as the last
verse:
Tehillim
(Psalms) 57:6 Be
You exalted, O God, above the heavens; Your glory be above all the earth.
Thus we are not too surprised
that this short psalm is divided into two parts and read on two separate
Shabbats. This means that we will read the first half before the fast of Tammuz
17, and we will read the second half on the Shabbat after the fast of Tammuz
17.
Lets examine the events of Tammuz
17 to discover why this Psalm is titled ‘Al
Tashchet’ - ‘Do not destroy’.
The Talmud explains that we fast
on Tammuz 17 because of the five tragedies that befell the nation of Israel on
this day:
Ta'anith 26b … ON THE SEVENTEENTH OF
TAMMUZ THE TABLES [OF THE LAW] WERE SHATTERED, THE DAILY OFFERING WAS
DISCONTINUED, A BREACH WAS MADE IN THE CITY AND APOSTOMOS BURNED THE SCROLL OF
THE LAW AND PLACED AN IDOL IN THE TEMPLE.
The five tragedies mentioned in
the Gemara are:
1.
The "Luchot," the tablets upon which the Ten Commandments were
engraved, were broken by Moshe;
2.
The Korban Tamid, the continual daily sacrifice, was discontinued;
3.
The wall around the city of Jerusalem was breached;
4.
Apostamus burnt the Torah scroll;
5.
An idolatrous image was placed in the Bet HaMikdash, the Holy Temple.
The
Talmud tells us the
source of our knowledge that these things happened on this day:
Ta'anith
28b FIVE
MISFORTUNES BEFELL OUR FATHERS ON THE SEVENTEENTH OF TAMMUZ etc. Whence is it
known that the Tables [of the Law] were shattered [on the seventeenth of
Tammuz]? For it has been taught: On the sixth of the month [of Sivan] the Ten
Commandments were given to Israel; R. Jose says: On the seventh of the month.
He who says that they were given on the sixth takes the view that on the sixth
they were given and on the seventh Moshe ascended the mount. And he who says
that they were given on the seventh holds that they were given on the seventh
and on the seventh Moshe ascended the mount. For it is written, And the seventh
day he called unto Moshe, and it is further written, And Moshe entered into the
midst of the cloud, and went up into the mount; and Moshe was in the mount
forty days and forty nights. The [remaining] twenty-four days of Sivan and the
sixteen days of Tammuz make altogether forty. On the seventeenth of Tammuz he
came down [from the mountain] and shattered the Tables, as it is written, And
it came to pass as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf . .
. and he cast the tables out of his hands, and broke them beneath the mount.
[THE DAILY
OFFERING] WAS DISCONTINUED. This is a tradition.
A BREACH WAS MADE IN THE CITY. Did this then happen
on the seventeenth? Is it not written, In the fourth month, in the ninth day of
the month, the famine was sore in the city etc., and in the following verse it
is written, Then a breach was made in the city etc.! — Raba said: This is no
contradiction. The one refers to the First Temple and the other to the Second
Temple. For it has been taught: In the First Temple the breach was made in the
city on the ninth of Tammuz, but in the Second Temple on the seventeenth of
Tammuz.
APOSTOMOS BURNED THE SCROLL OF THE LAW. This is a
tradition.
AND PLACED AN IDOL IN THE TEMPLE. Whence do we know
this? — For it is written, And from the time that the continual burnt-offering
shall be taken away and the detestable thing that causeth appalment set up. Was
there then only one detestable thing? Is it not written, And upon the wing of
detestable things shall be that which causeth appalment? — Raba replied: There
were two [idols] and one fell upon the other and broke its hand and upon it was
found inscribed You desired to destroy the Temple, but I have handed over your
hand to Him.
Now we can understand why this
psalm is entitled: ‘Al Tashchet’ - ‘Do not destroy’! We can also see how
appropriate these psalms are for the three weeks between the fast of Tammuz 17
and the fast of Tisha B’Ab.
Finally,
here are some biblical events that are taking place near this Shabbat:
Tammuz 13:
·
Ezekiel is made a watchman
for Israel. Ezekiel 3:17-21
·
HaShem speaks to Ezekiel on the
plain. He is shut in his house and bound by a rope. Ezekiel
3:22-27
Tammuz
16:
·
Aaron
fashions a golden calf, from jewelry, and an alter for offerings. Exodus 32:1-5, Seder Olam 6
·
Hur,
the son of Miriam, was killed when he attempted to dissuade the Israelites from
demanding a golden calf. Sanhedrin
7a
Tammuz
18:
·
Moses
ascended Mt. Sinai for the second time. He remained there for 40 days, pleading
for the Jews who were guilty of the sin of the golden calf (Rashi, Exodus
33:11).
Ashlamatah: Yeshayahu (Isaiah) 56:1-9 + 57:19
|
Rashi |
Targum |
|
1. ¶ So
says the Lord, "Keep justice (Heb. מִשְׁפָּט שִׁמְרוּ – Shim’ru Mishpat) and practice righteousness (Heb. צְדָקָה וַעֲשׂוּ – Va’Asu Ts’daqah), for My salvation is near to come, and My
benevolence to be revealed." |
1. ¶ Thus says the LORD: "Keep judgment (Heb. מִשְׁפָּט שִׁמְרוּ – Shim’ru Mishpat) and do righteousness/
generosity, for My salvation is near to come, and My virtue to be revealed. |
|
2. Fortunate is the man who will do this and the person who will hold
fast to it, he who keeps the Sabbath from profaning it and
guards his hand from doing any evil. |
2. Blessed is the man who will do this, and a son of man who will hold
it fast, who will keep the sabbath from profaning it, and will
keep his hands from doing any evil." |
|
3. Now let not the foreigner who joined the Lord,
say, "The Lord will surely separate me from His people,"
and let not the eunuch say, "Behold, I am a dry tree." {P} |
3. Let not a son of Gentiles who has been added to
the people of the LORD say, "The LORD will surely separate me from His
people"; and let not the eunuch say, "Behold, I am like
a dry tree." {P} |
|
4. ¶ For so says the Lord to the eunuchs who will keep My Sabbaths and
will choose what I desire and hold fast to My covenant, |
4. ¶ For thus says the LORD: "To the eunuchs who keep the days of
the Sabbaths that are Mine, who are pleased with the things I wish and hold
fast My covenants, |
|
5. "I will give them in My house and in My
walls a place and a name, better than sons and daughters; an everlasting name
I will give him, which will not be discontinued. {S} |
5. I will give them in My sanctuary and within the
land of My Shekhinah’s house a place and a name better than sons and
daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which will not cease.
{S} |
|
6. And the foreigners who join with the Lord to
serve Him and to love the name of the Lord, to be His servants, everyone who
observes the Sabbath from profaning it and who holds fast to My covenant. |
6. And the sons of the Gentiles who have been added
to the people of the LORD, to minister to Him, to love the name of the LORD,
and to be His servants, everyone who will keep the Sabbath from profaning it,
and hold fast My covenants- |
|
7. I will bring them to My holy mount, and I will cause them to
rejoice in My house of prayer, their burnt offerings and their sacrifices
shall be acceptable upon My altar, for My house shall be called a
house of prayer for all peoples. |
7. these I wil1 bring to the holy mountain, and make them joyful in My
house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their holy sacrifices will even go
up for [My] pleasure on my altar; for My sanctuary will be a
house of prayer for all the peoples. |
|
8. So says the Lord God, Who gathers in the dispersed of Israel, I will yet gather others to him, together with his
gathered ones. |
8. Thus says the LORD God who is about to gather the outcasts of
Israel, I will yet bring near their exiles, to gather
them." |
|
9. All the beasts of the field, come to devour all the beasts in the
forest. {P} |
9. All the kings of the peoples who were gathered to distress you,
Jerusalem, will be cast in your midst; they will be food for the beasts of
the field - every beast of the forest will eat to satiety from them. {P} |
|
10. ¶ His lookouts are all blind, they do not know, dumb dogs who
cannot bark; they lie slumbering, loving to slumber. |
10. ¶ All their watchmen are blind, they are all without any knowledge;
dumb dogs, they cannot bark; slumbering, laying down, loving to sleep. |
|
11. And the dogs are of greedy disposition, they know not satiety; and
they are shepherds who know not to understand; they all turned to their way,
each one to his gain, every last one. |
11. The dogs have a strong appetite; they do not know satiety. And
they who do evil do not know [how] to understand; they have all gone into
exile, each his own way, each to plunder the mammon of Israel. |
|
12. "Come, I will take wine, and let us guzzle old wine, and
tomorrow shall be like this, [but] greater [and] much more." |
12. They say, "Come, and let us guzzle wine, let us be drunk with
old wine; and our feast of tomorrow will be better than this day’s, very
great." |
|
|
|
|
1. The
righteous man has perished, but no one takes it to heart, and men of kindness
are taken away, with no one understanding that because of the evil the righteous
man has been taken away. |
1. The righteous/generous die, and no one lays My fear to heart; and
men of recompenses of mercy are gathered, while they do not understand. For
from before the evil which is about to come the righteous/ generous are
gathered, |
|
2. He shall come in peace; they shall rest in their
resting- place, whoever walks in his uprightness. {S} |
2. they will enter into peace; they will rest in the place of
their bedroom who perform His Law. {S} |
|
3. And you, draw near hither, children of sorcery; children who commit
adultery, and played the whore. |
3. But you, draw near hither, people of the generation whose deeds are
evil, whose plant was from a holy plant, and they are adulterers and harlots. |
|
4. On whom will you [rely to] enjoy yourselves; against whom do you
open your mouth wide; against whom do you stick out your tongue? Are you not
children of transgression, seed of falsehood? |
4. Of whom are you making sport? And before whom will you open your
mouth and continue speaking great things? Are you not children of a rebel.
the offspring of deceit, |
|
5. You who inflame yourselves among the terebinths, under every green
tree, who slaughter the children in the valleys, under the clefts of the
rocks. |
5. you who serve idols under every green tree and sacrifice children
in the valleys, under the clefts of the rocks? |
|
6. Of the smooth [stones] of the valley is your portion; they, they
are your lot; to them too you have poured out libations, offered up
sacrifices; in the face of these shall I relent? |
6. Among the smooth rock of the valley is your portion; even there
they are your lot; to them you have poured out drink offerings, you have
brought offerings. Will My Memra repent for these things? |
|
7. On a high and lofty mountain you placed your couch; there too you
went to slaughter sacrifices. |
7. Upon a high and lofty mountain you have set the place of your
camping, and thither you went up to offer sacrifice. |
|
8. And behind the door and the doorpost you have directed your
thoughts, for while with Me, you uncovered [us] and went up, you widened your
couch and made for yourself [a covenant] with them; you loved their couch, you
chose a place. |
8. Behind the door and the doorpost you have set the symbol of your
idols; you resembled a woman who was beloved by her husband and strayed after
strangers, you have made wide the place of your camping; and you have made a
covenant for yourself with them, you have loved the place of their bedroom,
you have chosen a place. |
|
9. And you brought a gift to the king with oil, and you increased your
perfumes; and you sent your ambassadors far off, and you humbled them to the
grave. |
9. When you performed the Law for yourself. you prospered in the
kingdom, and when you multiplied for yourself deeds, your armies were many;
you sent your messengers far off, and humbled the strong ones of the peoples
to Sheol. |
|
10. With the length of your way you became wearied; you did not say,
"Despair." The power of your hand you found; therefore, you were
not stricken ill. |
10. In the length of your ways you promised to repent; you increased
many possessions, and so you did not hope to repent. |
|
11. And whom did you dread and fear, that you failed, and you did not
remember Me; you did not lay [Me] to your heart. Indeed, I am silent and from
everlasting, but you do not fear Me. |
11. Whom did you dread and before whom fear, so that you continued to
speak lies, and did not remember My service, did not lay My fear upon your
heart? Have I not given you respite for a long time, that if you repented-and
before Me you did not repent? |
|
12. I tell your righteousness and your deeds,
and they shall not avail you. |
12. I have told you that good deeds are virtues for
you, but you increased for yourself evil deeds which will not
profit you. |
|
13. When you cry out, let your collections save you; wind shall carry
all of them off, a breath shall take them, but he who
trusts in Me shall inherit the land and shall inherit My holy mount. |
13. Cry out, if now the deeds of your deceit with which you were
labouring from your childhood will deliver you! The wind will carry them all
off, they will be for nothing. But he who trusts in My Memra
will possess the land, and will inherit My holy mountain. |
|
14. And he shall say, "Pave, pave, clear the
way; remove the obstacles from the way of My people." {S} |
14. And he will say, "Teach, and exhort, turn
the heart of the people to a correct way, remove the obstruction of the
wicked from the way of the congregation of My people." {S} |
|
15. For so said the High and Exalted One, Who dwells to eternity, and
His name is Holy, "With the lofty and the holy ones I dwell, and with
the crushed and humble in spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble and to
revive the heart of the crushed. |
15. For thus says the high and lofty One who dwells in the heavens,
whose name is Holy; in the height He dwells, and His Shekhinah is holy. He
promises to deliver the broken in heart and the humble of spirit, to
establish the spirit of the humble, and to help the heart of the broken. |
|
16. For I will not contend forever, neither will I be wroth to
eternity, when a spirit from before Me humbles itself, and souls [which] I
have made. |
16. "For I will not so avenge forever, nor will my anger always
be (so); for I am about to restore the spirits of the dead, and the breathing
beings I have made. |
|
17. For the iniquity of his thievery I became wroth, and I smote him,
I hid Myself and became wroth, for he went rebelliously in the way of his
heart. |
17. Because of the sins of their mammon, which they robbed, My anger
was upon them, I smote them, removed My Shekhinah from them and cast them
out; I scattered their exiles because they went astray after the fantasy of
their heart. |
|
18. I saw his ways and I will heal him, and I will
lead him and requite with consolations him and his mourners. |
18. The way of their repentance is disclosed before
Me, and I will forgive them; I will have compassion on them and requite them
with consolations, and those who mourn them. |
|
19. [I] create the speech of the lips; peace, peace
to the far and to the near," says the Lord, "and I will heal
him." |
19. The one who creates speech of lips in the mouth
of every man says, Peace will be done for the righteous/ generous, who have
kept My Law from the beginning, and peace will be done for the penitent, who
have repented to My Law recently, says the LORD; and I will forgive them. |
|
20. But the wicked are like the turbulent sea, for it cannot rest, and
its waters cast up mud and dirt. |
20. But the wicked are like the tossing sea which seeks to rest and it
cannot, and its waters disturb mire and dirt. |
|
21. "There is no peace," says my God, "for the
wicked." {P} |
21. There is no peace, says my God, for the wicked." {P} |
|
|
|
Rashi’s
Commentary on Yeshayahu (Isaiah) 56:1-9
+ 57:19
Chapter
56
2 who will do this who observes the Sabbath, etc.
3 “The Lord will surely separate me from His people,” Why should I
become converted? Will not the Holy One, blessed be He, separate me from His
people when He pays their reward.
Let not
the eunnuch say Why should I better my ways and my deeds? I am like a withered
tree, for lack of remembrance.
4 and hold fast Heb. וּמַחֲזִיקִים, and hold fast.
7 for all peoples Not only for Israel, but also
for the proselytes.
8 I will yet gather of the heathens ([Mss. and K’li
Paz:] of the nations) who will convert and join them.
together
with his gathered ones In addition to the gathered ones of Israel.)
9 All the beasts of the field All the proselytes of the heathens
([Mss. and K’li Paz:] All the nations) come and draw near to Me, and you shall
devour all the beasts in the forest, the mighty of the heathens ([Mss. and K’li
Paz:] the mighty of the nations) who hardened their heart and refrained from
converting.
the
beasts of the field [The beast of the field is not as strong as the beast of the
forest.] The beast of the field is weaker and of weaker strength than the beast
of the forest. Since he stated, “I will yet gather others to him,” he stated
this verse.
10 His lookouts are all blind Since he said, “Seek the Lord,” and the
entire section, and they do not heed, he returns and says, Behold the prophets
cry out to them ([Mss.:] to you) and announce concerning repentance, so that it
will be good for them. Yet their leaders are all like blind men, and they do
not see the results, like a lookout appointed to see the approaching army, to
warn the people, but he is blind, unable to see whether the army is coming, and
dumb, unable to warn the people, like a dog that was appointed to guard the
house, but he is dumb, unable to bark. Similarly, the leaders of Israel do not
warn them to repent to do good.
they
lie slumbering Heb. הֽזִים. Dunash (Teshuvoth Dunash p. 24) explained: lying sound asleep,
and Jonathan rendered: lying slumbering, and there is no comparable word in
Scripture.
11 And the dogs are of greedy disposition wanting to fill their
stomachs [engrote talent in O.F.], sick with hunger.
and
they are shepherds Just as the dogs know no satiety, neither do the shepherds know
to understand what will occur at the end of days.
they
all
turned to the way of their benefit, each one to his gain, to rob the rest of
the people over whom they are appointed.
every
last one Heb. מִקָּצֵהוּ, [lit. from its end.] Comp. (Gen. 19:4) “all the people from
the end (מִקָּצֶה),” from one end of their number until its other end, they all
behave in this manner.
12 Come, I will take wine So would they say to one another.
and
tomorrow shall be like this with feasting and drinking.
Chapter
57
1 The righteous man such as Josiah.
but no
one takes it to heart why he departed.
with no
one understanding what the Holy One, blessed be He, saw to take him away.
that
because of the evil destined to befall the generation, the righteous man perished.
2 He shall come in peace for so says the Holy One, blessed be He, Let
this righteous man come to his forefathers in peace, and let him not see the
evil.
they
shall rest in their resting place when the evil occurs, he who was walking נְכֽחוֹ,
in his uprightness. Comp. (Amos 3:10) “To act rightly (נְכֽחָה).”
3 And you, draw near hither The survivors after the righteous have
departed, and receive your sentences.
children
of sorcery Heb. בְּנֵי
עֽנְנָה,
children of sorcery.
children
who commit adultery That the male commits adultery.
and
played the whore the female.
4 On whom will you [rely to] enjoy yourselves Since you have turned
away from following Me, on whom will you rely to enjoy yourselves with good.
Had you merited, you would then enjoy yourselves with the Lord, but now, on
whom will you rely to enjoy yourselves?
against
whom do you open your mouth wide when you scorned and mocked His prophets.
5 You who inflame yourselves among the terebinths Who stimulate
themselves with semen under the אֵלִים, they are the terebinth and the oak.
who
slaughter the children for a sacrifice to the idols.
clefts Heb. סְעִפֵי, the clefts of the rocks. Comp. (Jud. 15:11) “to the cleft (סְעִיף)of the rock.”
6 Of the smooth [stones] of the valley [Lit. of the smooth ones of
the valley, i.e.,] among the smooth stones that are in the valley.
your
portion With them they will stone you.
they,
they are your lot to be saddened with them. Why? For to them too you have poured
out libations.
in the
face of these shall I relent from doing harm to you?
7 you placed your couch The couch of your adultery to idolatry on the
high mountains.
8 And behind the door and the doorpost you have directed your thoughts
Since he compares her to an adulterous woman, for whom her paramours look and
wait before the door of her house, while she, lying beside her husband, directs
her heart and her thoughts to the door and the doorpost, how she will open the
door and come out to them.
for
while with Me, you uncovered [us] and went up You were lying beside Me, and you
removed the cover with which we were covered together, and you went up from
beside Me.
you
widened your couch to accommodate many adulterers.
and
made for yourself a covenant with them.
you
loved their couch when you chose for yourself יָד, a place, to
demonstrate to them your love.
a place Heb. יָד,
aise or ajjse in O.F., a side. Comp. (II Sam. 14:30) “See Joab’s field is near
mine (עַל
יָדִי).”
9 And you brought a gift to the king with oil Heb. וַתָּשֻׁרִי. Originally, I aggrandized you, and you would greet your king
with all sorts of delights. וַתָּשֻׁרִי is an expression of an audience. Comp. (Num. 24:17) “I see him (אֲשׁוּרֶנוּ) but he is not near.” [Also] (I Sam. 9:7), “And there is no
present (תְּשׁוּרָה) to bring,” [i.e.,] a gift for an audience.
and you
sent your ambassadors Your messenger afar to collect tribute from the heathen kings.
([Manuscripts and K’li Paz read:] the kings of the nations.)
and you
humbled the laws of the heathens (of the nations [Mss. and K’li Paz]) to
the grave. Jonathan rendered it in this manner.
10 With the length of your way you became wearied You engaged in your
necessities, in the filling of your lust, to increase your wealth.
you did
not say, “Despair.” I will despair of these and I will no longer care to engage in
them, but I will pay my attention to Torah and precepts.
The
power of your hand you found Heb. חַיַּת, the necessity of your hand you have found; you have succeeded
in your deeds.
therefore,
you were not stricken ill Your heart was not stricken ill to worry about My service, to
engage in the Torah. חַיַּת is an Arabic word, meaning necessity.
11 And whom did you dread Of whom were you afraid?
that
you failed Heb. תְּכַזֵּבִי, that you ceased to worship Me and you betrayed Me. Comp.
(infra 58: 11) “Whose water shall not fail (יְכַזְּבוּ).” Comp. also (Psalms 116:11) “Every man is a traitor (כּֽזֵב).” Falajjnc in O.F., to fail. Likewise, every expression of כָּזָב
means one upon whom people rely, and he fails and betrays them.
Indeed,
I am silent I kept silent in the face of many transgressions that you transgressed
against Me.
12 I tell your righteousness Constantly, I tell you things to do, so
that you will be righteous.
and
your deeds that you do against My will shall not avail you at the time of
your distress.
13 When you cry out, let your collections save you Let the collection
of your idols and your graven images [and those who deny the Torah] that you
collected, rise and save you when you cry out from your distress. Indeed, wind
will carry all of them off, and they will not rise, neither will they be able
to save.
14 And he shall say, “Pave, pave” So will the prophet say in My name
to My people, “Pave, pave a paved highway, clear away the evil inclination from
your ways.”
remove
the obstacle Remove the stones upon which your feet stumble; they are wicked
thoughts.
15 “With the lofty and the holy ones” I dwell, and thence I am with
the crushed and the humble in spirit, upon whom I lower My Presence.
humble...crushed Suffering from
poverty and illnesses.
16 For I will not contend forever If I bring afflictions upon a
person, My contention with him is not for a long time, neither is My anger
forever.
when a
spirit from before Me humbles itself Heb. יַעֲטוֹף. When the spirit of man, which is from before Me,
humbles itself, confesses and humbles itself because of its betrayal.
Comp. (Lam. 2:19) “humbled (הָעֲטוּפִים) with hunger,” “when the small child and the suckling are
humbled (בֵּעָטֵף).” And the souls which I made.
when a
spirit from before Me Heb. כִּי.
This instance of the word כִּי is used as an expression of “when.” Comp. (infra 58:7) “When you
see (כִּי
תִרְאֶה)
”; (Deut. 26:1) “When you come (כִּי
תָבוֹא).”
That is to say, when his spirit is humbled, and he is humbled, I terminate My
quarrel and My anger from upon him.
17 For the iniquity of his thievery Heb. בִּצְעוֹ,
his thievery.
I
became wroth at the beginning and I smote him, always hiding My face from his
distress and I was wroth for he went rebelliously in the way of his heart.
Transpose the verse and explain it thus: For the iniquity of his thievery and
the fact that he went rebelliously in the way of his heart, I became wroth and
smote him.
18 I saw his ways when he humbled himself before Me, when troubles
befell him.
and I
will heal him, and I will lead him Heb. וְאַנְחֵהוּ. I will lead him in the way of healing. Alternatively, וְאַנְחֵהוּ is an expression of rest and tranquility.
him and
his mourners to those who are troubled over him.
19 [I] create the speech of the lips I create for him a
new manner of speech. In contrast to the trouble that befell him, and everyone
was degrading him, they will call, “Peace, peace.”
to the
far and to the near Both are equal; he who aged and was accustomed to My Torah and My
worship from his youth, and he who drew near now, just recently to repent of
his evil way. Said the Lord, “I will heal him of his malady and of his sins.”
20 But the wicked who do not give a thought to repent.
like
the turbulent sea This seaits waves raise themselves high and strive to go out of
the boundary of sand that I made as a boundary for the sea, and when it reaches
there, against its will it breaks. The next wave sees all this, yet does not
turn back. Similarly, the wicked man sees his friend being punished for his
wickedness; yet he does not turn back. Also, just as the sea has its mud and
its offensive matter on its mouth, [i.e., on its surface,] so do the wicked
have their offensive matter in their mouth; e.g., Pharaoh said, (Exodus 5:2)
“Who is the Lord?” Sennacherib said (supra 36:20), “Who are they among all the
Gods of the lands...?” Nebuchadnezzar said, (supra 14:14) “I will liken myself
to the Most High.”
like
the turbulent sea Like the sea, which is turbulent, that casts up all day mud and
dirt.
21 There is no peace In
contrast to what he said to the righteous and the repentant, “Peace, peace to
the far, etc.,” he returned and said, “There is no peace for the wicked.”
Pirqe Abot
Mishnah
3:3
Rabbi Chanania ben Teradyon said: When two people
sit and there are no words of Torah between them, it is a session of scoffers.
It is thus written, "[Happy is the
man ... ] who does not sit in a session of scoffers" (Psalms 1:1). But
when two people sit together and there are words of Torah between them, the
Divine Presence is between them. It is thus written, "Then those who feared Cod spoke to one another, and Cod listened
and heard. It was written in a record book before Him, for those who fear Cod
and respect His name" (Malachi 3:16). I do not have [evidence] except
for two. From where [is it derived] that even when one person sits and engages
in [study of] the Torah the Blessed Holy One fixes His reward? It is written, "He sits alone and is silent, but he
receives [reward] for it" (Lamentations 3:28).
Rabbi Chanania ben Teradyon,
together with Rabbi Shimeon and Rabbi Chanina ben Chakhinai, who are mentioned
later (3:4, 5) give further advice how to avoid sin. The three things upon
which Akavia ben Mahalalel said to meditate upon (3:1) are not sufficient. Even
fear of the authorities (3:2) is not always sufficient, since when a person
wishes to commit a crime, he does it by night, secretly, where no one will see
him.
The only remedy strong enough to keep
man from sin is the study of Torah.
There are three categories of
sins: First in the category of words (Sug Ha-Debarim). second is the
category of deeds (Sug HaMa’asim); and the third is the category of thoughts (Sug
HaMachashao’oth).
The category of words denotes
sinning with speech and nothing else. In this category are such sins as
character assassination (Lashon HaRa), profanity (Navluth
Ha-Peh), lying, tale bearing (Rekhiluth), and dishonoring a
fellow man. All these only involve words.
The category of deeds involve
sins that primarily involve action, (Ma’aseh BeYadaim), such as lasciviousness
(zenuth)
murder, robbery, stealing, and the like.
The category of thought involves
sins with thought alone, where no words at all are uttered, and no deed is
done. This includes such sins as heresy (kefiruth) and thinking of sin.
Each of the three masters
discussed one of these categories. They spoke about areas which people do not
consider to be forbidden. Although the prohibition may not be apparent in the
cases discussed, it is actually very serious.
Rabbi Chanania ben Teradyon, the
master mentioned in this Mishnah, is speaking of the category of speech. He is
speaking of simple conversation where one engages in chatter with his friend
regarding worldly affairs. A person considers this to be the most innocent
occupation, since he is not maligning anyone, speaking profanity, or discussing
any sin. He may even exercise great care not to commit any actual sin in his
speech.
Still, their very conversation
comprises one of the most serious sins. It is the sin of scoffing (letzanuth).
Even if they are not scoffing at any religious principle, or mocking any
person, what they are doing is still considered scoffing. As soon as two people
sit together, if they are not engrossed in words of Torah, then it is
considered a "sitting of scoffers" (moshav letzim). It is no
better than a session of scoffers.
The first verse of the Psalms (Tehillim)
thus states, "Happy is the man who does not walk in the advice of the wicked,
who does not stand in the way of the sinners, and who does not sit in a sitting
of scoffers; But his delight is in God's Torah ... " (Psalms 1:1).
This indicates that you can tell the person who is not sitting in a session of
scoffers, because he "delights in God's Torah."
If he has been studying God's Torah, he is not part of the session of scoffers.
This demonstrates that if a
person is not studying Torah, if he is talking to another, he is in a session
of scoffers, even though he is not actually saying anything forbidden. Thus,
there is no way to escape sin other than through words of Torah.
There is an important reason why
sitting and not studying Torah is considered to be scoffing and scorning the
Torah. Imagine a person who is told to count gold coins on the condition that
he can keep all that he counts in one hour. If this person sits idly and does
not count his coins, it is a clear demonstration that he considers them
worthless and of no value.
The same is true of Torah study.
We know how great is the reward for every moment of Torah study. Therefore, if
a person neglects the Torah and engages in idle chatter (Debarim Betelim), it is
as if he is scorning the Torah and scoffing at its value. Therefore the person
who is negligent (Batlan) in studying, is counted as if he is treating the Torah
with scorn (LeTzanuth).
We thus see that studying the
Torah results in great reward, and also prevents sin. Also, when two people
discuss a Torah concept, the Divine Presence (Shekhinah) is with them.
Conversely, when they constitute a session of scoffers, the Divine Presence
leaves them.
It is thus written, "Then
those who feared God spoke to one another; and God listed and heard. It was
written in a record book before Him, for those who fear God and respect His
name" (Malachi 3:16). This indicates that when God-fearing friends
converse, God is there listening to them. Not only that, He is recording their
words in the book of remembrances, which is open before God. It is clear the
verse says that when two companions are discussing words of Torah, the Divine
Presence is between them, listening to their discussion and study.
Although the verse does not
specifically state that the two are discussing words of Torah (Dib'rey
Torah), but merely says that they "spoke," it is
understood that the subject of their conversation was Torah. If they had been
engaged in idle chatter, the Divine Presence - obviously would not have been listening
to their nonsense. Rather, the Divine Presence would have left them, since they
would have constituted a session of scoffers."
So great is the merit of Torah
study, that even if a person is alone, having no one with whom to discuss his studies,
sitting silently, thinking and contemplating words of Torah, God grants him
reward for the Torah he has in his mind. Even though he does not express his
thoughts verbally, he has the same merit as if he had recited them out loud.
It is thus written, "He
sits alone and is silent, but he receives the full reward [reward] for it"
(Lamentations 3:28). This indicates that even though a person is alone and
silent, as long as he is reflecting on words of Torah, he receives for Torah
study. It is exactly the same as if he had expressed it verbally.
Nazarean
Talmud
Sidra
of Shmot (Ex.) Ex 21:1–27
“V’Eleh HaMishpatim”
“And these are the judgments”
By:
H. Em Rabbi Dr. Adon Eliyahu ben Abraham &
H.
Em.Hakham Dr. Yosef ben Haggai
|
School of Hakham Tsefet Peshat Mordechai (Mk) 7:17-23 Mishnah א:א |
|
And when he entered into the house away from the
congregation, his talmidim asked him about the riddle. And he said to them,
“So are you having trouble accepting[149]
what I said? Do you not accept that not everything that is outside that goes
into a person is able to defile him? For it does not enter into his heart[150]
but into his stomach, and is expelled.” And he said, “What comes out of a
person, that defiles a person. For from within, from the heart of people,
come evil plans, sexual immoralities, thefts, murders, adulteries, acts
of greed, malicious deeds, deceit, licentiousness, envy, Lashon HaRa (abusive speech), pride, and foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile
a person.” |
|
|
|
School of Hakham Shaul Remes 2 Luqas (Acts) 15:19-21 Mishnah א:א |
|
Therefore, my judgment[151]
is that we should not cause difficulty for those from among the Gentiles
who turn to God, but we should write a letter to them to abstain from the
pollution of idols and from sexual immorality and from what has been
strangled and from blood. For [the rest you have] Moshe who has those proclaiming him in
every city from ancient generations, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every
Sabbath.” |
Nazarean Codicil to be read in conjunction
with the following Torah Seder
|
*Ex 21:1-27 |
Psa. 57:1-6 |
Is 56:1-9 + 57:19 |
Mk 7:17-23 |
Acts 15:19-21 |
Commentary to
Hakham Tsefet’s School of Peshat
We have
addressed that which defiles a man (the riddle of food) in the previous week commentary.
Commentary to
Hakham Shaul’s School of Remes
The principal
discussion in this commentary is based on much of the information found in his
Eminence Rabbi Dr Hillel’s article on the Noahide laws (http://www.betemunah.org/noachide.html). Please refer
to this article for those aspects that we are not able to cover due to time and
space restraints.
In my Judgment
Giving the
enormity of the subject materials we will try to make a brief assessment of the
Remes of II Luqas 15:19-21. The magnititude cannot be covered in a few words.
The question which many scholars ask when they come to II Luqas (Acts) 15 is
what did the nazarean Council decide concerning Gentiles, circumcision,
conversion and the Torah. In reading the pericope carefully the reader will
understand that close scrutiny of the text reveals a partial answer.
Note that Hakham
Ya’aqob begins our pericope by saying “Therefore,
my judgment.”The reader should be taken directly to the opening statement
of our Torah Seder, “Sh’mot (Exod.) 21:1”Now
these are the judgments which you will set before them.”
Consequently, we have a verbal tally to Sh’mot 21:1. Conversely, we must be
mindful of halakhic terminology. There are varried forms of “mitzvoth” cited in
the Torah. We have discussed at length in other places one of the main
categories of the mitzvoth called “Chukhim,” which are laws that seem to defy
human understanding. In the present case with the Torah Seder and the Nazarean
Codicil we have “mishpatim” (Judgments),
which in most cases are commandments “bein L’Chabero” (between man and his
fellow). In the Torah Seder the speaker is G-d (Elohim – the Judge) and in the
Nazarean Codicil the speaker is Hakham Ya’aqob. There is a difference here in the
level of application per se. This is because in the Nazarean Codicil Hakham
Ya’aqob is making a proposal to the Nazarean Bet Din. In this pericope there is
no final resolve, only proposition. It would appear that Hakham Ya’aqob is the
principal Hakham of the Bet Din. While this is not explicitly stated his
authority seems to be implicit. We accept the fact that Hakham Ya’aqob is
making a proposed judgment for the nazarean Bet Din. At this point we must know
that no resolution has been accepted by the Bet Din as yet.
Jewish view of the Gentile in the
First Century
The Jewish view of the Gentile in
the first century is very important to understand before we can fully
comprehend the proceedings of this Nazarean Bet Din. Our Peshat text of
Mordechai 7:17-33 posits Yeshua speaking to a Gentile, Syrophoenician woman, on
the subject of dogs and crumbs. When Yeshua speaks of the dogs eating table
scraps he is not speaking of the adorable pets that we have come to love. His
subject on “dogs” brings to mind wild dogs like the coyote, wolf of dingo with
vicious physiognomies. In polling Hakham Shaul’s writings we find that he
referred to the Gentiles as “sinners, pagans and idolaters” only to name a few
titles. This is an essential part of understanding the resolution of the
Nazarean Bet Din.
Paula Fredriksen Aurelio
Professor of Scripture emerita at Boston University suggests that the typical
Jewish view of the Gentile in the first century was less than desirable. As
noted from our comments above Professor Fredriksen sees that Jewish opinion of
the Gentiles as follows:
What
did the average Jew think of the average Gentile? I think that we can rely here
on Paul who, even when addressing Gentiles and in some sense acting as their
advocate, refers to them, quite unselfconsciously, as ‘sinners’ (Gal.2: 15).
Their characteristic social and sexual sins—slander, insolence, deceit,
malicious gossip, envy, heartlessness, disrespect of parents, homosexual and
heterosexual fornication—are the varied expression of a more fundamental
spiritual error: they worship idols. Could there be such a thing, then, as a
morally good Gentile?[152]
As can be seen from Professor
Fredrikson’s summation, the Jewish view of Gentiles was not positive. The
interesting point is that Professor Fredrikson cites Hakham Shaul as her
source. Therefore, we might think that the typical Nazarean Jew held similar
opinions. Consequently, we see that Hakham Ya’aqob addresses what seem to be
the essential fundamental problems found in the typical Gentile namely, idolatry, sexual immorality,
things strangled (non-kosher killed animals) and blood (murder, trespass of
Niddah, and eating the limb of a living animal). We note that these suggestions
are only elemental. Each category serves as a “pars pro toto” for a number of
categorical mitzvoth. Our key point here is that Hakham Ya’aqob addresses and
immediate situation. The typical Gentile following these practices and desiring
to “turn to G-d” must cease from these practices immediately! The
phrase “turning to G-d” is vital to
our understanding here. Hakham Ya’aqob does not say that the Gentiles are
“turning to Messiah.” While the
elemental work of Messiah is the motivational factor in early conversions to
Judaism, the master pointed towards G-d. Please note our final comment in the
Peshat commentary above.
Here we must also posit the truth
that these four categories were not an end in and of themselves, they were the
“immediate” response to the Gentile who would find his fulfillment in
conversion to Judaism. Professor Fredrikson also notes that there were those
Gentiles who liked the best of both worlds[153].
In other words, they possibly attended the Esnoga (Synagogue) and the Pagan
Festivals where they indulged in all associated pagan rites.[154]
Who
are the God fearers? They are Gentiles, but not proselytes; if they were
proselytes, they would then be Jews. To think of them as “semi-proselytes” is
unhelpful: the word suggests some sort of arrested development or objective
impediment.[155]
George Foot Moore makes this point
clear.
Nothing
but misunderstanding can come from calling the ger toshab a “proselyte” or semi-proselyte;” he was not a convert
to Judaism at all. [156]
Seeing Cornelius as a “G-d
fearer” in II Luqas (Acts) chapter 10 makes us understand that he and his
family were “Gentiles” not “semi-proselytes.” However, as a Gentile “turning to
G-d” we see that Cornelius was in the process of conversion. He was educated in
the Siddur and other mitzvoth such as Shabbat etc. Therefore, Cornelius serves
as a prototypical Gentile “turning to G-d.” By taking a cursory look at that II
Luqas chapter 10 it would appear that he had abandoned typical Gentile
practices, namely, idolatry,
sexual immorality,
things strangled (non-kosher killed animals) and blood (murder, trespass of
Niddah and eating the limb of a living animal).
How many Special People does G-d have?
In last week’s Torah Seder, we
saw that G-d chose the Jewish people for Himself as a “special people.”
…“then you will be Mine own 's'gulah' (treasure) from
among all peoples.” This means “you will be a
treasure 'in My hand,”[157]
In review of that Torah Seder, we
do not find the words, “you will be one of my special peoples.” Again, the
words of Hakham Ya’aqob resonate, the truth, the Gentiles “turning to G-d.”
So, what is troubling (causing difficulty) to the Gentiles? Of
course, all the so-called scholars look at these poor Gentiles saying that
conversion “is a yoke too great to bear.[158] Perhaps Prof. Bruce needs a new pair of
glasses. The II Luqas (Acts) text never says that the Talmidim of Yeshua or
anyone else for that matter is placing an unbearable yoke on the Gentiles.
II Luqas (Acts)
15:10 Hakham Tsefet continued saying “So now why are you putting God to the
test[159] by placing on the neck of
the talmidim
(not on
the Gentiles) a yoke[160]
that neither our fathers nor we have strength to bear?
Hakham Tsefet’s “we” does not
include the Gentiles at this point of the Bet Din’s proceedings. Furthermore,
there are a number of Converts in this august body. We have yet to hear one of
those Converts saying, “This is too much!” Machiavelic questions are another
issue all together.
Cornelius and his family had
voluntarily accepted certain Jewish practices.[161]
The narrative on Cornelius shows his willing acceptance of the Torah.
Therefore, we must deduce through Sevarah (Rabbinic Logic) that he did not
think that he was being “troubled.”
So, what’s troubling (causing difficulty) to the Gentiles?
The Gentiles who encountered Judaism came face to face with their mortality.
They were forbidden any afterlife or entrance into the Olam HaBa.
The Tosefta explicitly stated that R. Eliezer (From the Shammaite
School) forbade Gentile Conversion. This is deduced partially by Severah, by
noting that R. Eliezer believes Gentiles have no part in the Olam HaBa. If R.
Eliezer is of the opinion that converts are Jews and therefore, have a part in
the Olam HaBa we could understand his statement. However, this does not seem
plausible or apparent since R. Eliezer is of the stricter School of
Shammai.
t. San
13:2 Another matter: Root—this refers to the soul. And
branch—this refers to the body. And the children of the wicked among the
heathen will not live [in the world to come] nor be judged. R. Eliezer says
(from the stricter School of Shammai), "None of the gentiles has a portion in the
world to come, "as it is said, The wicked shall return to Sheol, all the
gentiles who forget God (Ps. 9:17). "The wicked shall return to
Sheol—these are the wicked Israelites." [Supply: "And all the
gentiles who forget God—these are the nations."] Said to him R. Joshua (from the School of Hillel),
"If it had been written, 'The wicked shall return to Sheol—all the
gentiles' and then said nothing further, I should have maintained as you do.
"Now that it is in fact written, All the gentiles who forget God, it
indicates that there also are righteous people among the nations of the world,
who do have a portion in the world to come."
Therefore, they would have found
their “Predicament” most troubling. Once the Nazarean Bet Din overturned the 18
Shammaite Edicts the Gentiles were no longer troubled. Also, note that the
Mishnah followed the halakhic decision of the Nazarean Bet Din. It is possible
the Hakham Ya’aqob was formerly a student of the Shammaite School. However, the
voice of “Prophecy” (Ruach HaKodesh) informs the Nazarean Bet Din that it has
always been G-d’s desire for the Gentiles to have access to G-d through
conversion.
How Many Laws?
As we have noted above the number
of mitzvoth for the B’ne Noach is more fluid than concrete. The four
categorical headings seem to be the things that the Gentiles must abandon “immediately.” In concurring
with His Eminence Rabbi Dr Hillel ben David, these four “mishpatim” (judgments) may very well have been the seminal origins
of the “Seven Noahide Laws.”
Now, it does not seem appropriate
to discuss at length the number of Laws etc. We have referred our readers to
His Eminence Rabbi Dr Hillel ben David’s article on the Seven Noahide Laws
above.[162]
As we recapitulate the thoughts expressed above, the number of mitzvoth is not
the principal argument. The argument is built upon what Gentiles MUST DO immediately when they begin to “turn to G-d.”
It is noteworthy now to point out
that there are 613 mitzvoth in the Torah. For those who want to claim that they
would rather follow the mitzvoth found in the Nazarean Codicil we say amen we
agree. While the dominant populace of Christian laity and scholarship believes,
there are only two. (1), Love G-d with all your heart, etc., and (2), Love your
neighbor as yourself,[163]
they would be greatly mistaken. Finis Jennings Dake has codified the mitzvoth
of the Nazarean Codicil (New Testament) finding 1050 commandments.[164]
While these mitzvoth need review, it paints a picture that Christian scholars
and laity do not want to see. It is also noteworthy to mention that Dake
nowhere suggests that these 1050 commandments are an “unbearable yoke.”
Regardless of the possible
mitzvot implicated, the situation at hand is what a Gentile does in preparation
for conversion. The subject at hand is not Gentiles turning to G-d. Those turning to G-d must accept the authority of the
Jewish Bet Din and their full interpretation and implementation of the Torah.
Questions
for Reflection
Blessing
After Torah Study
Barúch Atáh Adonai,
Elohénu Meléch HaOlám,
Ashér Natán Lánu Torát
Emét, V'Chayéi Olám Natá B'Tochénu.
Barúch Atáh Adonái,
Notén HaToráh. Amen!
Blessed is Ha-Shem our
God, King of the universe,
Who has given us a
teaching of truth, implanting within us eternal life.
Blessed is Ha-Shem,
Giver of the Torah. Amen!
“Now unto Him who is
able to preserve you faultless, and spotless, and to establish you without a
blemish,
before His majesty,
with joy, [namely,] the only one God, our Deliverer, by means of Yeshua the
Messiah our Master, be praise, and dominion, and honor, and majesty, both now
and in all ages. Amen!”
Next Shabbat
1st
Sabath of Penitence
Shabbat: “Dibre Yirmeyahu” – Sabbath: “The words of Jeremiah”
|
Shabbat |
Torah Reading: |
Weekday Reading: |
|
וְכִי-יִגַּח
שׁוֹר |
|
|
|
“V’Ki
Yigach Shor” |
Reader 1 – Shemot 21:28-32 |
Reader 1 – Shemot 22:24-26 |
|
“And
when gores an ox” |
Reader 2 – Shemot 21:33-36 |
Reader 2 – Shemot 22:27-29 |
|
“Si
un buey acorneare” |
Reader 3 – Shemot 21:37-22:3 |
Reader 3 – Shemot 22:24-30 |
|
Shemot (Exod.) 21:28 – 22:23 |
Reader 4 – Shemot 22:4-8 |
|
|
Ashlamatah: Ezek
34:20-27, 30-31 |
Reader 5 – Shemot 22:9-12 |
|
|
Special:
Jeremiah 1:1 - 2:3 |
Reader 6 – Shemot 22:13-16 |
Reader 1 – Shemot 22:24-26 |
|
Psalm 57:7-12 |
Reader 7 – Shemot 22:17-23 |
Reader 2 – Shemot 22:27-29 |
|
Abot: 3:4 |
Maftir:
Shemot 22:17-23 |
Reader 3 – Shemot 22:24-30 |
|
N.C.: Mk 7:24-30; Acts 15:22-29 |
Jeremiah 1:1 – 2:3 |
|
Coming Fast
Fast of the 17th of Tammuz
Forth
further info. Please see:
http://www.betemunah.org/mourning.html
& http://www.betemunah.org/tamuz17.html
Shabbat Shalom!
Hakham Dr. Yosef ben Haggai
Rabbi Dr. Hillel ben David
Rabbi Dr. Eliyahu ben Abraham
[1] Above, 15:25: There He made for them 'chock' (a statute)
'umishpat' (and an ordinance). The "statutes" are the
precepts for which the reasons are generally unknown. See Vol. I, p. 331.
[2] Above, 20:19.
[3] Ibid., Verse 2.
[4] Ibid., Verse 20.
[5] Ibid., Verse 3.
[6] Ibid., Verse 14.
[7] Shemoth Rabbah 30:15.
[8] Further, 22:19.
[9] Further, Verses 15 and 17.
[10] Ibid., Verses 12-14.
[11] Ibid., 22:15-16.
[12] Tanchuma Mishpatim, 6.
[13] Above, 15:25.
[14] Deuteronomy 19:17.
[15] Numbers 35:12.
[16] Esther 1:13.
[17] Further, Verse 6.
[18] Ibid.,22:8.
[19] Further, Verse 22.
[20] The process of investiture with
judicial rights and functions. Ordination was conferred by three Sages, only
one of whom himself had to be duly ordained. Ordination was valid only if both
the ordainers and the ordained were in the Land of Israel. Once received in the
Land of Israel, however, the authority of ordination became effective outside
the Land as well.
[21] Deuteronomy 15:15.
[22] Genesis 2:1. See Ramban Vol. I, pp. 61-64.
[23] Rambans reticent and challenging language is
illuminated in an essay by l. Weinstock (B'maglei Haniglah V'hanistar, pp.
151-241) where he traces the development of this Cabalistic doctrine: The universe is subject to cycles of seven thousand years; after each
six thousand years of growth and activity the seventh thousand is one of
"rest" - destruction. This process repeats itself seven times -
representing a total of forty-nine thousand years, the fiftieth thousand being
the jubilee when all existence returns to its beginnings. This phenomenon
applies to the planet on which we live as well as to the worlds above us. One
can thus get a glimpse into the meaning of Ramban's words before us, that this
commandment "alludes to great things in the process of creation."
[24] Jeremiah 34:13.
[25] Ibid., Verses 14 and 10 (Ramban combined here parts of
these verses).
[26] Ibid., Verses 17-22.
[27] Leviticus 26:34-35.
[28] Ibid., 25:2.
[29] Above, 20:13.
[30] Above, 20:13.
[31] Further, Verses 18-19.
[32] See further Verse 22 - that for killing an unborn
child a fine is paid, while in the case of the bondman, if he did not survive
for twenty-four hours after he was struck by the master, the master is liable
to death (Verses 20-21).
[33] Ibid., Verses 24-27.
[34] Ibid., Verses 28-32.
[35] Mechilta on the Verse here.
[36] Leviticus 25:41.
[37] See Deuteronomy 28:66.
[38] Kiddushin 22 a. See my Hebrew commentary p. 413.
[39] Kethuboth 49 a-b.
[40] Mechilta on the Verse here.
[41] According to a first [i.e., an older] Mishnah, if
after such time as the law allows for the preparation of the wedding, the
bridegroom postponed it, he is liable to support her, and she may eat from his
goods, so that if she is an Israelite's daughter and betrothed to a priest, she
may eat terumah (the heave-offering) as if she was already his wife. A later
Mishnah though, ruled that a woman may not eat heave-offering until she has
entered the bride-chamber (Kethuboth 57 b).
[42] In Hoffman's edition, p. 120. - See Vol. I, p. 603,
Note 245, for explanation of the term "another."
[43] Literally: "if he be the husband of a wife, then his wife will go out with him." The word "wife" is thus mentioned twice, once to indicate etc. (see text).
[44] See Leviticus 21:7:14.
[45] See Seder Bo,
[46] In spite of the fact that this Baraitha apparently
contradicts what Ramban said above - namely, that during the time of the Hebrew
servant's servitude the earnings of his wife and minor children belong to his
master, since he is obliged to feed them, whereas here the Baraitha seems to be
saying the opposite - "Yet I continue to say" writes Ramban, "as
I have written above etc,"
[47] See Seder Bo,
[48] Mechilta on the verse here.
[49] Deuteronomy 15:12. "This teaches you that a
Hebrew maidservant also goes free after six years' service" (Rashi).
Consequently the verse here which states the wife [and her children] shall be her
master's can only be speaking of a Canaanite woman.
[50] Accordingly, the Baraitha above that attempted to
argue that Scripture here speaks of an Israelite woman [given by the master to
his Hebrew servant] , must refer only to a Hebrew woman of age who sold herself
as a maidservant. So how then could Rashi support his argument [that if she
were an Israelite woman, she would go free "if she shows signs of
puberty]." when the Baraitha must of necessity be referring not to a minor
but to a woman of age? (Mizrachi).
[51] Above, Verse 2, Rashi.
[52] Kiddushin 14b.
[53] So both proofs of Rashi as to why Scripture cannot be
speaking here of an Israelite woman, [1. that a Hebrew maidservant also goes
free at the end of six years; 2. that even before the end of six years, she
goes free if she shows signs of puberty], have no application here for reasons
explained above.
[54] A woman really cannot sell herself; as the Mechilta
puts it: "And if a man sell (Verse 7) - a man can sell himself, but a
woman cannot sell herself." But Ramban is writing only on the assumption
that the Baraitha introduced this as a hypothesis finally to be disproved. See
my Hebrew commentary pp. 515-516.
[55] This section speaks here of one who was sold by the
court for a theft which he had committed and was not able to pay for (further,
22:2). On refusing to go free at the end of his six years of service, the
servant is to take counsel with his vendors [the court] "and they
will advise him to go free, for when he is free he can serve G-d in more ways
than he could as a servant etc." (Zeh Yenachmeinu commentary on
the Mechilta).
[56] Further, 22:8.
[57] Ibid.
[58] Deuteronomy 1:17.
[59] II Chronicles, 19:6.
[60] Psalms 82:l.
[61] Deuteronomy 19:17.
[62] Further, 23:7.
[63] Shemoth Rabbah 30:20.
[64] Judges 2:18.
[65] Mechilta here on the Verse.
[66] Ecclesiastes 1:10.
[67] I Samuel 1:22.
[68] Isaiah 63:9.
[69] Mechilta here on the Verse.
[70] The epithet for Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi, the redactor of
the Mishnah , or as he is often known Rabbenu Hakadosh, "Our holy
teacher," or simply "Rabbi.”
[71] In his commentary to Leviticus 25:40-41, Ibn Ezra
wrote on the verses. He will serve with you unto the year of jubilee. Then will he go out
from you ... :
"This is what the Rabbis have received by tradition concerning the verse, and
he will serve him 't'olam;" meaning that he is to serve him until
the jubilee year." Thus Ibn Ezra did understand the verses there and found
in them Scriptural proof that olam means fifty years, whilst here
he wrote that it means "time." Apparently, "he forgot" - as
Ramban puts it - "what he wrote with understanding elsewhere."
[72] See further, Verses 26-27.
[73] Mechilta here on the Verse.
[74] The Hebrew servant may be called ebed ivri [as in Verse 2
here: if you buy an 'ebed ivri' - a Hebrew servant] but never just ebed,
which term by itself signifies a Canaanite bondman. Here in Verse 7 where it
just says ha'avadim (menservants) it must therefore refer to the
Canaanite bondmen. For a similar statement of Ramban see also further Verse 20.
[75] For what reason might I have thought that she does go
out free, so that Scripture should find it necessary to tell us that such is
not the case?
[76] See in Seder Bo - The kal vachomer in this case
would be as follows: A Canaanite bondwoman who does not go out free at the end
of six years or in the jubilee year, does so out free because of the loss of
any of the chief external organs. It is therefore only logical that a Hebrew
maidservant, who does go out free at the end of six years or in the jubilee,
should surely go out free because of the loss of any chief external organs.
[77] Rabbi Shimon Kairo, who flourished in the second half of the eighth century - when the Gaonic period was at its height. Considered a most authoritative work on Rabbinic Law, the 'Hilchoth Gedoloth' was a pioneer in the field of Taryag (613) Commandments, for in a preface to this work the author was the first scholar who attempted to define each separate commandment (see my foreword to "The Commandments," Vol. I pp. viii - ix).
[78] See note 76 above.
[79] As opposed to a mere "negation," where the
verse just negates a certain law from being applicable, without constituting a
prohibition. In his Book of the Commandments, Maimonides dedicated the eighth
principle to the clarification of this distinction between a negation and a
prohibition, and without mentioning the name of the author of the 'Hilchoth
Gedoloth,' differs with him on the interpretation of this verse, which in his
opinion merely states that there is no obligation on the part of the master to
let her go free where he causes her the loss of one of her organs. [See in my
translation, "The Commandments," Vol. II pp. 390-393.] In his notes
to Maimonides' Book of Commandments, Ramban came to the defense of the
'Hilchoth Gedoloth.'
[80] Verse 10.
[81] Rashi thus interprets l 'arn nochri [literally:
"unto a foreign people"] as signifying "unto a strange
man," i.e , to another Israelite. Thus the verse is stating that neither
the father nor the master has a right to resell her. Ramban will question this
interpretation.
[82] Psalms 74:14.
[83] Proverbs 5:10.
[84] Ibid., 2:16.
[85] Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Shimon - in Kiddushin 18a.
[86] Mechilta here on the Verse.
[87] Leviticus 25:47.
[88] "That she not be exposed to the dangers of
immorality." (Bachya).
[89] Verse 7.
[90] Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Shimon - in Kiddushin 18a.
[91] Deuteronomy 14:21.
[92] Pesachim 21b.
[93] Kiddushin 4a.
[94] Verse 11.
[95] Kiddushin 4a.
[96] In the Tur who quotes Ramban: "the father."
That is to say, if the maiden pleased the master and he wishes to marry her,
the father cannot take her out from his house.
[97] See Esther 2:9.
[98] II Samuel 20:5.
[99] Further, 22:6.
[100] Deuteronomy 15:13-14.
[101] Verse 10.
[102] Le., if he does marry another woman he is more likely
to diminish the rights of this one; hence Scripture speaks of the case 'if' he
take him another wife. But this is by no means to be
understood that it was "the usual" thing to take another wife.
[103] Verse 10.
[104] Kethuboth 47b. - For the meaning of the term Gernara
see in Seder Bo.
[105] See in Seder Yithro
[106] Psalms 78:27.
[107] See Deuteronomy 8:3.
[108] Leviticus 18:6. Generally translated: "that
is near of kin to him." According to Ramban the literal meaning
would be: "the flesh close and near to his flesh."
[109] Ibid.
[110] Ibid., Verse 17.
[111] Genesis 29:14.
[112] Numbers 12:12. "The flesh" here refers to
Miriam - Aaron's and Moses' sister.
[113] Isaiah 14:22.
[114] Proverbs 5:11.
[115] Psalms 78:27.
[116] Proverbs 5:11.
[117] Yebamoth 22 b.
[118] Leviticus 21:2.
[119] Genesis 2:24.
[120] Further, 22:26.
[121] Leviticus 18:6. Generally translated: "that
is near of kin to him." According to Ramban the literal meaning
would be: "the flesh close and near to his flesh."
[122] Genesis 37:27.
[123] Ezekiel 23:4l.
[124] Genesis 2:24.
[125] Kethuboth 48a.
[126] I.e., at the end of six years, or the jubilee year. It is thus in contrast to Verse 7 above: And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she will not go out as the menservants do. But if the master do not these three things to her [as explained], then she will go out as the menservants do. See Ramban above at the end of Verse 8 ["The plain meaning of Scripture in this section etc."]. To this he now adds that if the master fails to do any of the three ways to ameliorate her condition, then she will go out free for nothing, as menservants do.
[127] Sanhedrin 84b.
[128] Verse 16.
[129] Verse 17.
[130] Leviticus 20:9.
[131] Ibid., Verse 27.
[132] In the order of severity stoning is considered the
most stringent of the four deaths that the court had power to inflict, and
strangulation the least severe. Ramban's question is thus pertinent: why the
most severe punishment for the curser, and the least severe one for one who
smites?
[133] Isaiah 8:2l.
[134] Shebuoth 36a. Also in the Mechilta here: "One who
curses his father or his mother is not liable to the death penalty unless he
curses them by using the Divine Name." Needless to say cursing is strongly
forbidden by itself, even without using the Divine Name.
[135] Mentioned here in Ibn Ezra, Verse 16. - On Rav Saadia,
see in Seder Va'eira.
[136] Ramban argues that since Rashi made his comment upon
the phrase: and he be found in his hand, it would appear that the fact that
the witnesses saw him in his possession constitutes their proof that the holder
stole him. On this, Ramban asked: could you possibly think that the thief be
subject to death without the witnesses having seen the actual theft and the sale?
Their having seen him in the thief's possession is in fact no proof at all that
he had stolen him (Nimukei Shmuel).
[137] Sanhedrin 85b.
[138] Ibid.
[139] Further, Verse 37.
[140] Sanhedrin 85b.
[141] Not as we have explained it heretofore, according to
Ramban, that the reference is to the thief's domain.
[142] But according to Ramban, as explained above, there is
a new law established here: even if the thief brought the stolen person to his
domain, and the buyer came there and the sale was completely finalized, [by the
buyer lifting him, or drawing him into ground which belongs to both], the thief
is nevertheless free from the death penalty as long as the buyer did not remove
him from the seller's domain. In the case of theft of an ox or sheep under such
circumstances, the thief would be liable to pay five oxen for an ox and four
sheep for a sheep.
[143] The verbal
tally between the Torah and the Psalm is: Before / From - פנים, Strong’s
number 06440.
[144] The ArtScroll Tanach
Series, Tehillim, A new translation with a commentary anthologized from Talmudic,
Midrashic, and rabbinic sources. Commentary by Rabbi Avrohom Chaim Feuer,
Translation by Rabbi Avrohom Chaim Feuer in collaboration with Rabbi Nosson
Scherman.
[145] The Three
Weeks or Bein ha-Metzarim
(בין המצרים,
"Between the Straits" cf "In Dire Straits") is a period of
mourning commemorating the destruction of the first and second Jewish Temples.
The Three Weeks are historically a time of misfortune, since many tragedies and
calamities befell the Jewish people at this time. These tragedies include: the
breaking of the Tablets of the Law by Moses, when he saw the people worshipping
the golden calf; the burning of a Sefer Torah by Apostomus during the Second
Temple era; the destruction of both Temples on Tisha B'Av; the expulsion of the
Jews from Spain on Tisha B'Av 1492; and the outbreak of World War I on Tisha
B'Av 1914, which overturned many Jewish communities.
[146] By nearly universal custom, special haftarot (passages
from the Prophets) are read in the synagogue on each Sabbath of the Three
Weeks. Whereas most haftarot of the yearly cycle are selections reflecting the
theme of the day's Torah reading, these three—the "Three of
Affliction" - do not directly relate to the weekly Torah portions, but
instead contain certain prophecies of Jeremiah and Isaiah foreshadowing the
fall of Jerusalem.
[147] Beresheet
Rabbah 51:7
[148] Tehillim (Psalms) 57:1.
[149] ἀσύνετοί, from ἀσύνετος - to bring together. The talmidim are unable to put
the “riddle” together or think in terms that are more abstract.
[150] If the reader misses the analogy here, he will destroy
the context in which the riddle is given.
[151] Verbal connection to Shmot 21:1. This is the
“judgment” (שֶׁ֫פֶט)
of Hakham Ya’aqob or his expression of desire to the Bet Din - noun first person
singular, in "my judgment," this cannot be a
legal halakhic decision. This is because a single Judge (Hakham) cannot make a
halakhic ruling. Judgments are the result of a Bet Din [i.e.. multiple judges (Hakhamim)].
[152] Professor Paula Fredrikson, Journal of Theological Studies, N.S. 42 (1991) p534
[153] Ibid
[154] Ibid p. 542
[155] Ibid p. 541
[156] Moore, G. F.
(1960). Judaism In the First Centuries of the Christian Era: Age of the
Tannaim (Vol. I). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc. Vol 1 p. 339
[157] Tammuz 07, 5773
p. 22
[158] Bruce, F.
(1990). The Acts of the Apostles, A Greek Text with Introduction and
Commentary. (Third Revised and Enlarged Edition ed.). Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 295
[159] A verbal tally
to our Torah Seder
[160] m. Berakhot 2:2 “Why does [the passage
of] Shema precede [that of] And it shall come to pass [if you keep my
commandments]? “So that one may first accept
upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of heaven and afterwards may accept the
yoke of the commandments. “[Why does] And it shall come to pass [precede]
And G-d said? “For And it shall come to pass is recited by both day and night.
“[But] And G-d said is recited only by day.”
m. Abot 3:5 R. Nehunya b.
Haqqaneh says, “From whoever accepts upon himself the yoke of Torah do they
remove the yoke of the state and the yoke of hard labor. “And upon whoever
removes from himself the yoke of the Torah (yoke of the Kingdom i.e. recital of
the Shema D’barim 6:4f.) do they lay the
yoke of the state and the yoke of hard labor.” m. Shabbat 1:4 These are some of the laws which they
stated in the upper room of Hananiah b. Hezekiah b. Gurion when they went up to
visit him. They took a vote, and the House of Shammai outnumbered the House of
Hillel. And eighteen rules (of Shammai concerning Gentile conversion) did they
decree on that very day. b.
Shabbath 17a “And on that day Hillel sat submissive before Shammai, like
one of the disciples, and it was as grievous to Israel as the day when the
[golden] calf was made. Now, Shammai and Hillel enacted [this measure], but
they would not accept it from them; but their disciples came and enacted it,
and it was accepted from them.” We can also associate the “Yoke of the Kingdom”
with the Yoke of the (Master) Mesorah. (Mt 11:29-30)
Kilyaim Chapter 9 Halacha 7 Anyone who performs
labor with two species of animals or wild beasts together when one of them is
kosher and the other is not kosher is liable for lashes in all places, as
[Deuteronomy 22:10] states: "Do not plow with an ox and a donkey together.
"Whether one plows, seeds, has them pull a wagon, or a stone, or led them
together even with his voice [alone], he is liable for lashes. This is derived
from the term "together." If, however, one [merely] yokes them [to a
wagon], he is exempt unless he pulls them or leads them.
[161] We have read
Cornelius into the thoughts of Professor Paula Fredrikson, Journal of
Theological Studies, N.S. 42 (1991) p541
[163] Mk. 12:30-31
[164] Dake, F. J. (1963). Dake's Annotated Reference
Bible. Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, Inc. NT p. 312. Note that most
of the 613 Mitzvoth, with the exception of those commands in relation to the
Temple, death penalties and floggings, as well as those commandments for the
King and the Priesthood, are repeated in the 1050 commandments of the Nazarean
Codicil as identified by Dake.