Exodus · Chapter 22

If a thief is found breaking in and is struck and dies, there is no blood-guilt for him.

אם במחתרת means when he was breaking in into the house (i. e. in the very act of forcing an entry, but at no other moment). אין לו דמים THERE SHALL NO GUILT OF BLOOD BE INCURRED FOR HIM — This is not regarded as a murder; it is as though he (the thief) has been dead from the beginning of his criminal act (אין לו דמים is taken to mean: he, the thief, had no blood — no vitality). Here the Torah teaches you the rule: “If one comes with the intention of killing you, be quick and kill him”. — And this burglar actually came with the intention of killing you, for he knew full well that no one can hold himself in check, looking on whilst people are stealing his property before his eyes and doing nothing. He (the thief) therefore obviously came with this purpose in view — that in case the owner of the property would resist him, he would kill him (Sanhedrin 72a).

"If the thief is found in the underground passage" — in the night, for in the daytime one does not break through. The verse that follows it is the proof: "If the sun has risen." And the meaning of "there is no blood-guilt for him" is: there is no shedding-of-blood upon the one who kills him. One should marvel at those commentators who render דָּמִים as living souls [lit. lives] — if so, what is the meaning of "a man of blood" (II Samuel 16:8), or "his blood is upon him" (Leviticus 20:9)?

אם במחתרת ימצא הגנב, “if the thief was discovered while tunneling” (acting so as not to be discovered); according to Rashi he had left behind evidence of forcible entry into the victim’s house; אין לו דמים, “the owner is not guilty of having shed the blood of that thief.” The thief had made it plain that he was afraid of a potentially fatal confrontation with the owner of that house who would physically protect his belongings.

אם במחתרת ימצא הגנב, “If the thief is found while in hiding.” The word מחתרת suggests that he was tunneling his way into the house in the dark of night. אין לו דמים, “there is no blood-guilt on his account.” If the owner killed the thief believing his life to be in danger he is not accused of manslaughter. The Torah presumes that if someone breaks into a house at night he is also prepared to kill if discovered by the owner who would defend his property.

אם במחתרת, as well as at night, prepared to either kill or be killed in the pursuit of his quest. This is why there is no demand to account for his blood which has been shed. אין לו דמים, the killer does not even have to make financial restitution to the slain thief’s next of kin.

אם במחתרת ימצא הגנב, “if the thief is discovered while tunneling, underground, etc.;” the scenario described here where the owner of the house being burgled kills the intruder, and the Torah exonerates him, applies only when the thief had made an effort to remain undiscovered. If he broke in the front door and the owner harms or kills him, he is liable for damages or even murder, seeing that his life had not been endangered. The thief had obviously decided that if discovered he would flee the way he had entered, and not become violent.

If the eye of witnesses fell upon him, there is blood-guilt for him; he shall make full restitution. If he has nothing, he shall be sold for his theft.

אם זרחה השמש עליו IF THE SUN SHONE UPON HIM — This is only a metaphorical expression signifying: if the fact is clear to you that he is peaceably disposed towards you. The simile is: just as the sun brings peace (happiness) to the world so if it is evident to you that he did not come with the intention of killing, even if the owner of the property would resist him (Sanhedrin 72a), as, for instance, when a father breaks in to steal the money of his son, for it is certain that the father cherishes feelings of pity for his child and the matter of taking human life is not in his thoughts at all, — then דמים לו, then he is to be regarded as a living man (cf. Rashi’s explanation of אין לו דמים v. 1.), and it is murder if the householder kills him. שלם ישלם means the thief shall only restore the money he has stolen but is not subject to the death penalty. Onkelos who renders אם זרחה השמש עליו by, “If the eye of witnesses fall upon him” chose a different way of explaining the verse, namely, that if witnesses surprise him before the householder appears, and when the householder is going towards him they warn him not to kill him (the thief), then דמים לו, he is punishable if he kills him; for since there are people watching him the thief surely has no thought of taking human life and will not kill the owner of the property.

IF THE SUN HAS RISEN UPON HIM. “This is nothing but a metaphorical expression, [for did the sun rise upon him alone? Does it not rise upon the whole world? It means etc.] But Onkelos who rendered the phrase if the sun has risen upon him as: ‘if the eye of the witnesses fell upon him’ chose a different way of interpreting the verse, which is as follows: if the witnesses found the thief before the householder came, and when the householder came to resist the thief, they warned him not to kill the thief, then damim lo, he is liable if he killed him, for since there were witnesses watching him, the thief had no thought of taking human life, and he would not have killed the householder.” Thus is Rashi’s language. But I wonder! When He said above [in Verse 1], there shall be no guilt of blood incurred for him, thereby acquitting the householder for the murder of the thief, it must surely be speaking of a case where the witnesses warned him not to kill him, for no murderer is ever liable to death without prior warning. And if you say then that in stating: there shall be no guilt of blood incurred for him, Heaven permitted the thief’s blood to be shed, that is to say, it is permissible to kill him — that is not true! Rather, the first verse acquits the householder under all circumstances from the hand of Heaven, [where he had no prior warning], and from the court if he had prior warning, and the second verse [dealing as it does with another set of circumstances], holds him guilty by the law of both. Perhaps the Rabbi’s intention [i.e., Rashi’s intention in interpreting Onkelos’ translation], was to say that if the witnesses found the thief before the householder came, and recognized him, and the thief knew of their presence, then the thief no longer could have intended to take human life, since he saw that the witnesses recognized him and knew that if he would kill, the witnesses would come to court and have him put to death. And this is the reason for the expression, if the sun has risen upon him, for at night, seeing that the witnesses did not recognize him, he would kill the householder and escape. In my opinion Onkelos intended to say that if the thief has left the break-through, and the householder comes to court to say that he has witnesses that he was found breaking through, damim lo [literally: “he has blood”] as other living people do, and it is not permissible to kill him, and if the householder did kill him, he is to be put to death; but the thief is to pay if he took anything from there. Scripture uses the expression, if the sun be risen upon him because it speaks of the usual manner, for those who break into homes generally do so at night when no one recognizes them, and the one who kills them there is free and may do so with impunity. But if the thief stayed there until the sun had risen upon him, and then left in a stealthy manner and ran for his life, then if the householder comes to bring a charge against him with the help of witnesse...

"If the sun has risen, he shall make full restitution" — this returns to the verse above: "five oxen he shall pay" etc. (21:37), just as [a resumed antecedent works in] "to a foreign people" (ibid. 21:8), and "so shall you do for your maidservant as well" (Deuteronomy 15:17), for it reverts to the earlier verse, [as does] "you shall surely give him a gift" (ibid. 14). "And he shall be sold for his theft" — on account of his theft.

ונמכר בגנבתו, if the Torah had not legislated this form of paying off one’s debt for theft most of the poor people of the nation would become thieves, knowing that they did not have to make restitution except with liquid assets. As a result of such lack of legislation civilisation would disintegrate into anarchy.

אם זרחה השמש עליו, “if the thief had remained in full view of his potential victim;” (and the owner had killed him) דמים לו, “he is guilty of bloodshed;” the intended victim of the thief, the owner of the house. If it had been clear to that owner that the intruder did not mean to kill but only to steal, and he overreacted by killing him, then he must make restitution. Unless he felt immediately threatened by the intruder and had reason to be so, killing him is a form of manslaughter. He (the thief) has to pay fourfold or five fold its value as the case may be seeing he has disposed of it. If the thief cannot repay the value of the stolen items plus the penalty imposed upon him, he will be sold in order that the owner can be compensated. שלם ישלם The thief will be required to pay four or five times the value of the animal stolen.

אם זרחה השמש עליו, “if the sun shone upon him, etc.” If the thief entered in broad daylight or remained in the house of the victim till morning, דמים לו, “there is blood guilt on his account.” Anyone who kills unless his own life was in danger is subject to the penalty for murder or manslaughter. In this instance, when the identity of the thief has become known, he would not threaten his victim with death as he would be aware that he would suffer the penalty for murder. Seeing that the owner of the house was not in danger he must not kill the intruder. The reason why the Torah describes the sun shining by using the feminine form of the word זרחה, rather than the customary זרח (compare Kohelet 1,5 or Genesis 32,32) is that the Bible usually does so when it describes the sun spreading its rays over the earth during the day. Examples are: Samuel II 12,11 לעיני השמש הזאת, “in view of this bright sunlight.” The sun is described as masculine in the Bible when it is only at the beginning of its daily journey across the sky. Example: השמש יצא על הארץ, “the sun had risen over the earth” (Genesis 19,23). The author quotes additional examples. At any rate, the meaning is that if the sun has already spread its light all over the earth and it is clear that the thief will be caught and cannot escape, דמים לו, anyone killing him will be guilty. The words have a dual meaning, i.e. they also mean that the thief has to pay compensation to the victim failing which the court will sell his labor for the next 6 years to the kind of master described in 21,2 so that the owner of the stolen property can be compensated.

אם זרחה השמש עליו דמים לו, “If the sun illuminated the burglar, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text, the assumption of the Torah is that if someone breaks into a house at night he means to kill the owner (if he obstructs him in his attempt to steal) The murderer plans to flee by daylight when his being about does not arouse any suspicion. If the owner of the house kills the intruder, this is considered self defense even if the intruder had not yet laid a hand on the owner. When the intruder came by day, it is presumed that he had no intention to kill, and if nonetheless, the owner killed him, he is guilty of having shed his blood.

אם זרחה השמש, if he was stealing in broad daylight.

שלם ישלם שנים, “must pay twice the value of what he had destroyed” The Talmud tractate Baba Kamma, folio 60, quotes G–d as having said: “I have lit a destructive fire in Zion,” (Lamentations 4,11) it therefore behooves Me when (the time comes) to pay for the destruction I have caused.” This is the deeper meaning of what the prophet Zecharyah has said in Zecharyah 2,9, “I will be for Zion a (protective) wall of fire all around it.”

If the stolen property is actually found in his hand — from ox to donkey to sheep — alive, he shall pay double.

המצא תמצא IF THE THEFT BE CERTAINLY FOUND IN HIS HAND i. e. in his possession (Mekhilta), he having neither sold it nor slaughtered it he shall pay only double. משור עד חמור WHETHER IT BE AN OX OR AN ASS — Every thing stolen whether it be animate or inanimate comes under the category of things for which two-fold compensation (“kefel”) must be made, for it is said in another verse, (8) “[for every matter of tresspass whether it be for ox, for ass…], for sheep, for raiment or for any lost thing … he shall pay double unto his fellow-man”(Bava Kamma 62b). חיים שנים ישלם means, two living animals (חיים שנים) shall he pay and he shall not give dead animals in payment (Mekhilta) — but either living animals or the value of living animals.

"If it is found" — this verse encompasses every animal. The Sages received as a Scriptural decree that fourfold and fivefold payment applies only to an ox and a sheep.

אם המצא תמצא ביד הגנב, If it was indeed found in the hands of the thief, etc. The reason that the Torah repeats the word המצא "to be found" is, A) if there are witnesses who testify that the thief has stolen this particular animal; B) that the owner or others have found the animal in its original state in the possession of the thief. If neither of these two conditions exists the thief is presumed to have either sold or slaughtered the animal in question and he has to make four or five-fold restitution on the basis of this assumption. The words: "he shall pay double" apply only when the animal is located unharmed. You should appreciate also that the law of four or five-fold restitution applies not only in the examples cited by the Torah; the same applies if the animal was lost or the thief gave it away as a gift. As long as the animal left the domain of the thief he becomes liable for this four or five-fold payment. Baba Kama 79 states so explicitly. The same applies even if the thief donated the animal to the Temple. I believe we can use this nuance as proof that if someone stole from a pagan or idolator he is not liable either for the double payment or to be sold for such theft if he is unable to make restitution as provided for in verse two. I am basing this on the use of the word רעהו in connection with this legislation (compare verse 35). This word always refers to someone who is a fellow-Jew. Clearly, the legislation in 21,35 applies only to offences committed against fellow Jews as mentioned in the Mechilta. We also know that the situation of a Jew being sold into servitude when unable to make repayment for theft applies only when the theft had been perpetrated against a Jew. Theft from Temple property also does not carry this kind of a penalty. The above is the opinion of Maimonides expressed in chapter three of his Hilchot Geneyvah. Since Maimonides does not cite a reason for these rulings I have decided to suggest the reasons for his decisions.

חיים שנים ישלם, if the animal in question is still alive and well, he will pay twice its value. (including the live animal)

אם המצא תמצא בידו, he had not sold or otherwise disposed of the stolen animal; חיים, he had not slaughtered it preparatory to consuming it; then שנים ישלם, he pays only double its market value as restitution and not four or five times its value.

If a man causes a field or a vineyard to be consumed and lets his animal loose and it grazes in another's field, from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard he shall make restitution.

כי יבער … בעירה ובער All these terms are connected with the word בעיר which signifies “cattle”, as in (Numbers 20:4) אנחנו ובעירנו “we and our cattle" . כי יבער means accordingly, he takes his cattle into the field or the vineyard of his fellow-man and causes damage to him by one of these two ways: either by the mere fact that he lets his cattle go (tread) there (ושלח את בעירו), or by letting it graze there (ובער). Our Rabbis explained (Bava Kamma 2b), that ושלח refers to the damage done by “treading” (Rashi uses a Biblical phrase Deuteronomy 5:1. “treading of the hollow of the foot”) and ובער to the damage caused by the tooth that eats up and removes (מבערת) the crops (grazing). בשדה אחר means בשדה של אחר IN THE FIELD OF ANOTHER MAN (not “in another field”, when it would be punctuated בְּשָׂדֶה, for בִּשְׁדֵה is the construct form). מיטב שדהו … ישלם THE BEST OF HIS FIELD SHALL HE PAY — We assess the damage, and if the defendant proposes to make restitution to him for the damage he has suffered with “land’” then he has to pay him with the best of his fields. If for instance the damage amounted to a Sela he has to give him a Sela-worth of the best of the fields he possesses). Scripture teaches you that in cases of damages (which it is proposed to pay with land) we assess and collect them from the best land of the defendant (Mekhilta; Bava Kamma 6b).

"When a man causes grazing" — this too is connected to what precedes it, since the text just mentioned damage brought about through an ox, and now it says "when a man causes grazing," from the same root as "we and our cattle" (Numbers 20) — this is in the intensive conjugation [Pi'el]. And the meaning of "and it grazes in another's field" is: another person's field. Compare: "and you have grazed the vineyard" (Isaiah 3:14).

כי יבער איש שדה או כרם, within his own property, (originally) ובער בשדה אחר, even if the animal had wandered off into someone else’s field without encouragement by its owner, מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו ישלם, the quality of the restitution must consist of the best of the field or vineyard, seeing that animals wandering off to feed elsewhere is such a widespread phenomenon. [the author explains the apparent injustice of the restitution being worth more than the damage the injured party had sustained. Ed.]

כי יבער איש שדה, If a man cause a field to be consumed (the grain growing on it), etc. This verse has to be understood in conjunction with Baba Kama 56. Rav said that if someone places his own animal on a field of his neighbour, such field being full of growing grain, he is liable if his animal consumes some of it. The Talmud there adds that although this is obvious, we apply this rule even when the owner merely placed his ox in a position where it faced the growing field of his neighbour in every direction open to it; the owner of the ox is guilty although he had not actually led the animal by hand. The Torah writes: כי יבער איש, to tell us that even if the animal does not belong to the person who perpetrates this act, he is liable for the damage. The Torah goes on to say ושלח את בעירה, to tell us that even if he did not do what he did by hand but merely let loose his animal in the general direction of the neighbour's field failing to take precautions against his animal causing damage in his neighbour's field, he is liable for the damage caused by his beast.

כי יבער איש שדה או חרם, “when a man lets his livestock loose to graze in someone else’s field or vineyard;” the expression בער always describes destruction of something, as in Deuteronomy 21,9: ואתה תבער דם הנקי, “you must out eliminate innocently spilled blood;” [we are more familiar with the expression from getting rid of our chametz on the eve of Passover. The author quotes two more examples, which I omitted. Ed.] מיטב שדהו, “from the best quality of his own field;” Rashi explains that this verse teaches that whenever damages are paid in kind instead of in cash, the quality of the compensation is to be of the best that the offending party possesses. The reason for this is that most people always treasure what is personally their own to its equivalent in twice that in someone else’s possession. [The origin of that proverb is Talmud Baba Metziah folio 38. Ed.] Furthermore, what is his own he is familiar with and therefore prefers it to something he is not familiar with. Furthermore, in order to make a sure that people do not cause damage with their livestock in other people’s property this penalty is meant primarily to ensure that they make sure their animals do not stray to other people‘s property. When it comes to compensating a creditor for a borrower defaulting on a loan, another type of damage, the Torah allows the borrower to pay in kind by giving him the lowest quality of his land. The reason that the Torah applies a different yardstick there is to insure that owners of livestock have to pay such heavy fines so that no one will be scared to take out a loan as the chances of having to pay 4 or 5 times the amount owed is too daunting. The sages agreed therefore that the amount of land in lieu of cash repayment would taken from the medium quality of land owned by the person defaulting. In the case of a divorcee or a widow being paid out her ketuvah, financial settlement the husband or heirs may use the lowest grade land they own. After all, the woman in question had not sustained any loss as a result of which this payment had become due. מיטב שדהו, “from the best grade of soil that he owns;” here we speak of the land owned by the party that had caused the loss, i.e. the party who has to pay damages must do so during the harvest season when the value of the field is at its highest value. [This is the plain meaning of the text, whereas Rashi, above had not explained according to the plain meaning but had switched subjects in the verse. Ed.] The injured party, after all had lost the harvest from the area that the offender’ ox had grazed instead.

מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו ישלם, “from the best of his field or the best of his vineyard he shall make payment to him (restitution).” The Talmud (Gittin 48) uses this wording to arrive at the general ruling that when compensation is assessed by the court for damages caused willfully or through negligence, the guilty party’s most valuable agricultural property is used. If the court would be content to take comparable produce grown on inferior soil belonging to the party causing the damage this would encourage such a party to openly steal the best quality of produce of his neighbor and have the court replace it with inferior quality from his own field or vineyard. In such cases the guilty party would profit by his crime. In order to discourage a farmer from engaging in this kind of pilfering, the law is slanted in favor of the potential victim so that the potential thief will realize that it will not pay him to steal from his neighbor as the court’s order will soon result in his losing instead of profiting by his crime. When money is owed by a borrower who has failed to repay it on time, (an interest-free loan) the court assesses average quality of the debtor’s produce to be used to repay his debt. When a husband has to pay a wife whom he has divorced her marriage settlement, he is entitled to compensate her from the most inferior quality produce which his fields produce. Actually, if we were to proceed strictly according to Biblical law, the borrower would also have to be assessed only to make repayment from his most inferior produce. (They wanted to base this on Deut. 24,11 where the lender is not permitted to enter the borrower’s house to pick himself the kind of security he wants to hold onto until the debt has been paid. It is reasoned that just as in that instance the debtor will surely volunteer only the cheapest of his possessions as a pawn, so here too the Torah would take only from his most inferior produce to satisfy his creditor). However, if the sages had applied this ruling the lenders would have refused to extend loans to impecunious borrowers in the future. In order to forestall such a possibility and to help future borrowers to obtain loans, the sages decided to upgrade the kind of produce from which such a defaulting borrower has to make repayment. The sages also advance a reason based on psychology of women to explain why if her marriage settlement becomes due she is presumed as satisfied with unfavorable conditions. It is presumed that a woman’s desire to be married (and to enjoy that status) is greater than the comparable desire of her husband to marry her (Kidushin 49).

כי יבער, if he causes his beast to feed in someone else’s field מיטב שדהו, from the best quality of the offending party’s field he has to pay the injured party. This is the way our sages (Baba Kamma 6) have explained our verse. According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning is that the injured party will receive his compensation based on the best quality of the land he owns, not that of the offending party. The reason is that the animal causing the damage may have eaten some of that quality produce of the injured party’s fields.

If fire breaks out and spreads and finds thorns and consumes grain stacks, or standing grain, or a field, he who kindled the blaze shall make full restitution.

כי תצא אש IF A FIRE GOETH FORTH — i. e. even if it goeth forth (extends) by itself (Bava Kamma 24b) from the field in which it has been lit into another persons field. ומצאה קוצים AND CATCH IN THORNS —chardons in old French ונאכל גדיש SO THAT THE STACKS OF CORN [OR THE STANDING CORN] BE CONSUMED, because it (the fire) licked up the thorns and gradually reached the stacks of corn or the standing corn, i. e. corn that is still attached to the ground. או השדה OR THE FIELD — because it (the fire) liked up his furrow (the newly broken soil), so that it became hard and he (the owner) has to plough it again (Bava Kamma 60a). שלם ישלם המבער HE THAT KINDLED [THE CONFLAGRATION] SHALL SURELY PAY — Although he has lit the fire on his own soil and it extended by itself through the thorns which it came across, he has to make restitution because he did not guard his fire (lit., burning coals) that it should not extend and cause damage.

"When fire breaks out" — this too is connected, for it speaks of damage to a field. The meaning of הַמַּבְעִיר ["the one who kindles"] is not the same as יְבַעֵר אִישׁ ["a man causes grazing"] (v. 4), even though they come from the same conjugation, since the word "fire" indicates its meaning. This is the way of elegance in the Holy Tongue: to use the same word with two different meanings. So too: "with the jawbone of an ass — an ass, two piles of asses" (Judges 15:16); "riding on thirty she-asses, and thirty cities were theirs" (ibid. 10:4) — this second instance means cities, as proven by: "they are called Havvoth Jair" (ibid.).

כי תצא אש, If fire escapes (from someone's private domain), etc. The Torah means that even if one lights a fire in one's own private yard such a person is liable for damage caused by such fire outside his domain if the blaze was such that the owner should have foreseen it could extend beyond his own fence. If an individual lit a fire in his private yard which could not be expected to extend beyond his own boundaries he is free from responsibility if it happened unexpectedly. Such an accident would have to be considered an act of G'd (compare Baba Kama 61). When the Torah speaks about ומצאה קוצים, that the fire "finds thorns," it means that even if there were no other inflammables in its path, the fact that the stack of corn is consumed by fire results in the person starting the fire having to make repayment, שלם ישלם. He will have to pay for either the stack of corn or the field in which the corn is still growing, as the case may be. He will even have to pay for the stalks though the latter were a contributing cause to the corn being burned. All of this applies only if the fire "found" the thorns. If a person other than the one who started the fire contributed to its spreading, then that second person is liable for the entire damage which occurs as a result. The Torah repeats the words המבעיר את הבערה "he who kindled the fire," to hint that the guilty party has to pay even for the stalks which were the real culprits in spreading the blaze. Another aspect addressed by the word ומצאה, "and finds," is a situation where the person kindling the fire was unaware that there were any thorns in the vicinity, or where these thorns at least had not been present at the time the fire was kindled. It is presumed here that some third person came along and placed these thorns in a position where they created a hazard. In all of these situations the person kindling the fire is still liable for damage caused. There is, of course, also a moral/ethical approach to this whole paragraph. The Torah describes the wicked practicing their wickedness in order to awaken man from his lethargic and mindless sleep when he observes how evil takes root all around him. The Torah says כי תצא אש, "when fire spreads," a simile traditionally describing people's problems. We find a description of this in Yuma 77 [discussing certain aspects of the prophet Ezekiel's vision in Ezekiel chapter 10, Ed.] where the archangel Gabriel is portrayed as asking the "man clothed in linen," (an angel in charge of fire) to prepare the destruction of Jerusalem by fire. This angel is to be regarded as a symbol of an intensified attribute of Justice at work. When the Torah speaks of ומצאה קוצים, this is a reference to the wicked who are considered nothing but painful thorns. The expression ומצאה may be understood in a sense similar to Deut. 31,21 that "trouble befell them." The justification for using the word מצאה is that the wicked have no one who is responsible for them, either benevolently or oth...

כי תצא אש, “if a fire is started and spreads, etc.” by itself; שלם ישלם המבעיר את הבערה, “the party who started the conflagration must pay compensation.” The party who had started the fire is the root-cause of the damage. Had he not started it the fire could not have spread and burned standing corn or stacked, harvested grain. The sages in Baba Kama 60 use this verse to see an allusion in it to the destruction by fire of the Holy Temple. They quote G’d as saying that He Himself must compensate the Jewish people for the burning down of the Temple as He had started the fire. The sages quote Isaiah 64,10: “our Holy Temple, our pride, where our fathers praised You, has been consumed by fire; all that was dear to us has been ruined.” Seeing that the Jews attribute the destruction to their own faults, G’d was willing to describe Himself as the root-cause and assumes the burden of compensating the Jewish people as if He had started the fire (compare Rashi there).

כי תצא אש, the one lighting the fire was negligent in not taking sufficient precautions that the fire be confined to his own property assuming no extraordinary wind is blowing. גדיש, a stack of grain which had already been harvested, or even הקמה, while it was still growing on the field. Or even השדה, the “field,” i.e. the soil on which the crops grow was damaged by the flames licking it.

If a man gives his neighbor silver or goods to keep, and they are stolen from the man's house — if the thief is found, he shall pay double.

וגנב מבית האיש AND IT BE STOLEN OUT OF THE MAN’S HOUSE — i. e. according to his statement), אם ימצה הגנב ישלם IF THE THIEF BE FOUND HE — the thief — SHALL PAY שנים DOUBLE to the owner (to the bailor not to the bailee) (Bava Kamma 63b).

IF A MAN DELIVER UNTO HIS NEIGHBOR MONEY OR VESSELS TO KEEP. This section [Verses 6-8] speaks of an unpaid guardian, therefore He has freed him from payment in case the money or vessels are lost or stolen, as is the Tradition of our Rabbis. Scripture mentioned it without specifying what the case is because those who guard money or vessels generally do so without reward. The second section [Verses 9-12] speaking of a paid guardian mentions an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, because it is the customary way to give over cattle into the hands of shepherds who pasture them for payment. AND IT BE STOLEN OUT OF THE MAN’S HOUSE. Rashi explained it as meaning that it was stolen out of the man’s house “according to his statement,” meaning that this is what the unpaid guardian claims. Scholars have brought parallel cases in Scripture [as proof to Rashi’s explanation]. Thus: If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet; Hananiah the son of Azzur the prophet, for he is not referred to by that epithet [“prophet”] as a true description, but only because he claimed to be so. But there is no need for this. For Scripture is stating that if it was really stolen out of the man’s house and the thief be found, he shall pay double; and if the thief be not found, they shall come to court and the guardian shall swear concerning the stolen article whether he have not put his hand unto his neighbor’s goods, and he whom the court condemns as the thief of this article shall pay double, as the court will not convict anyone and make him pay double unless he stole it, since the law of twofold restitution applies only to a thief, as He said above, If the theft be found in his hand alive… he shall pay double.

"When he gives" — this too is connected, for it speaks about theft, to complete the laws of theft.

כסף או כלים, examples of the items most commonly entrusted to one’s neighbour for safekeeping during the owner’s absence from his home. These are looked after on a reciprocal basis, no fee being charged for this service.

כי יתן איש אל רעהו כסף, If a man deliver money to his neighbour (to keep), etc. Our sages in Baba Metzia 94 understood this passage as speaking of a שומר חנם, a trustee who does not get compensation for his trouble. As such he is not liable in the event the item on deposit with him was either stolen or lost. The sages there consider such a trustee as guilty of rendering an oath concerning any kind of misconduct a trustee could have committed. I do not know whence the sages derive their conclusion. The Torah obligated said trustee to swear that he had not been negligent in guarding the item properly against theft or disappearnce. Having sworn this oath he is free of any further liability. Rashi, (folio 95) in his commentary on the case of someone who borrows a neighbour's tools or beasts (without paying for the use) and who was guilty of some form of abuse, writes as follows in his introduction to the discussion of a שומר חנם. "The Torah deals with a situation where a wrong was committed, seeing the Torah uses the expression על כל דבר פשע in connection with the oath to be rendered." Whence does Rashi conclude that verse 6 speaks of a שומר חנם? Perhaps Rashi's reasoning is that the fact that verse 6 describes items such as money or utensils which normally do not require any special supervision seeing that they do not move about. It is likely that these are the items which a neighbour would undertake to guard without compensation. In verse 9, however, the Torah chooses as its examples such animals as a donkey, an ox, etc., animals which require much more supervision, something that one cannot expect from one's neighbour unless one pays him for his troubles. אל רעהו, to his neighbour, etc. Our sages in Baba Metzia 56 understand this word as excluding a situation where the item was deposited with the Temple Treasurer for safe-keeping. The reason that such a Temple treasury is not liable for any damages is that there is no time when G'd Himself does not supervise everything entrusted to the Temple treasury. Requiring confirmation by an oath would be most inappropriate then. כסף או כלים, money or utensils, etc. The Torah did not really have to write more than "when a man gives to his neighbour to keep, etc." Verse eight already lists all the various things which are subject to safe-keeping. Our sages deduce from here all the details of liability if the trustee did not exercise due care. If the verse had spoken about a keeper who does not receive compensation, the Torah needed to mention only money, why did the Torah add the additional "or utensils?" The Mechilta suggests that just as money is something one is in the habit of counting, the utensils mentioned are also of the kind which are normally counted; this statement is used for the principle that any claim not involving something that can be measured, counted, or weighed is not a true claim. Thus far the text of the Mechilta. There is no contradiction with what we have written. I believe that an ...

כסף או כלים לשמור, “money or chattels for safekeeping.” Rashi here states that in this verse the Torah speaks of a shomer chinom, of a friend or relative who undertook this task without charging a fee. The logic is that when you undertake to look after such things as money or inert chattels, no additional labour or expense is involved by the party under whose care this service is performed. He simply stores these items in the same place where he stores his own valuables. This is why, if they were stolen or lost, the keeper is not held responsible as he had given them the same attention as he had given to his own valuables. וגנב מבית האיש, “and it has been stolen from the house of the man;” the reason for this verse is to tell us that what follows applies only if these goods had been stolen from the original keeper, not if in the meantime they had been stolen again from the thief. ישלם שנים, “the second party will not only have to make restitution but will have to pay double as if he had stolen it in the first place. The reason is that this so called “safekeeper,” had explained the object’s disappearance by claiming that it had been stolen from him. His penalty is the same as if he personally had stolen it. ישלם שנים לרעהו. He is to pay twice its value to his fellowman, i.e. the one who had entrusted the object to him. This appears to contradict another verse in Leviticus 5,24 where we have been told that when someone had sworn a false oath concerning illegally misappropriated property, that he had to pay a penalty of only one fifth of the value of said property. How do we reconcile these two verses? When someone had admitted his fault after first having denied it on oath, he repays the value of said object and adds one fifth [of the value plus a penalty of 25%, actually, so that of the combined value the portion that is penalty represents one fifth. Ed.] whereas if he had denied it and was found guilty through witnesses testifying against him, he has to pay twice the value of the stolen object as penalty including the original value of the misappropriated object. (Mechilta Mishpatim, 15)

כי יתן איש אל רעהו כסף או כלים, “if a man shall give money or vessels to his fellow to safeguard, etc.” Our sages (Baba Kama 93) describe four categories of people who keep other people’s property for them. The first category is known as שומר חנם “a keeper who does not receive compensation.” The second category is a paid guardian known as שומר שכר. The third category is known as שואל, a borrower of someone else’s utensils. The fourth category is known as שוכר, someone who rents other people’s tools, etc. The laws applying to these various שומרים differ in relation to the use they get out of the items for whose safekeeping they have made themselves responsible. The paragraph commencing here speaks of someone who does someone else a favor by accepting something in trust by neither receiving nor asking compensation for his trouble. It is after all something quite common for neighbors to do each other such a favor. The next paragraph commencing with the words: “if someone gives his fellow a donkey or an ox, etc.,” speaks about a keeper who is being paid for his trouble. After all, animals have to be fed and cared for; most people expect to be compensated for their trouble in taking care of them. The third paragraph commencing with the words: “when someone borrows from his fellow, etc.,” clearly speaks of borrowers who use their relationship with the owner to borrow his tools or domestic beast for free. Finally, the last part of that same paragraph: “if he is a renter,” describes use of other people’s property against payment of a fee. You should know that as a general rule the שומר חנם is not liable to make good the loss of the item under his care if it was stolen or became lost, and most certainly not if some unforeseeable accident happened to it such as an earthquake, etc. After all, he had done the owner a favor accepting a responsibility without charging for it. The exact opposite is the case in the case of a person who had borrowed a neighbor's tools or animal and made use of it as if they were his own. He is liable not only for theft and disappearance of the borrowed object but also if it became damaged or lost through accident. Instead of having done a favour to the owner, the owner had done him a favor by loaning the object in question to him for his use. Our sages summed up the reason for the borrower’s comprehensive liability by saying דכל הנאה לדידיה הוא “the borrower enjoys total use of this property (like the owner).” By using this logic it is clear that he who enjoys the rights of ownership is responsible for the well being of the item under discussion. In the case of both a person who hires the object or who rents it out, the responsibility for loss is shared depending on the nature of the loss and the manner in which it occurred seeing that both parties share in the usefulness of the item in question. One party receives financial benefit; the other party, the one using the animal or tool enjoys its use. Damages arising from theft or loss accrue to the party under whose care the animal or object was at the time such damage occurred. Accidental damage that could not be foreseen and is not attributable to negligence accrues to the owner rather than to the user (based on Maimonides Moreh Nevuchim third volume chapter 42). All the above demonstrates the fairness of Torah legislation in regulating the way righteous people ought to live their lives.

כי יתן איש אל רעהו כסף או כלים, “When a man entrusts his neighbour with silver or chattels for safe-keeping;” the first paragraph in this sequence deals with someone who does not receive compensation for looking after his friend’s valuables in his own house. The reason why the Torah singled out money or vessels is that these are the most common items a person asks his neighbour to keep for him during his absence from home. The next paragraph deals with a situation where the guardian of his friend’s property is compensated for his trouble. This is why the Torah chose domestic animals as the example of what is to be guarded, as these require time-consuming care, not like money or vessels. It may therefore be presumed that the owner offered to compensate his neighbour for his trouble.

כי יתן איש אל רעהו כסף או כלים, in this paragraph the Torah releases the guardian of responsibility for loss by natural causes or thievery when the custodian in question does not receive compensation for his looking after the items in question. In the second paragraph the custodian of whom the Torah speaks is a שומר שכר, a paid trustee. According to the plain meaning of the text, in the first paragraph the Torah speaks of chattels which are to be kept in the house of the trustee just as his own chattels. He is supposed to treat them with no less care than he treats his own chattels. This is why if they were stolen from his house he is free from responsibility, as he had guarded them as well as he guards his own property. In the second paragraph the Torah lists as examples of what had been given to the trustee animals, objects requiring to be tended, to be fed, etc. Moreover, such animals are usually grazing in the pasture and not under the constant supervision of their owners. If the trustee undertook to look after them, something involving a lot of attention and time, he would not do this unless he would receive compensation for such an undertaking. Seeing the trustee is being paid, he is liable for restitution if any of these animals are stolen while under his care.

If the thief is not found, the owner of the house shall approach before the judges, to determine whether he did not lay his hand upon what his neighbor had entrusted to him.

אם לא ימצא הגנב IF THE THIEF BE NOT FOUND then this bailee — who is בעל הבית “the owner of the house” for the time being (since the bailment is then in his possession although he is not really its owner) — shall come. ונקרב אל AND SHALL APPROACH UNTO THE אלהים — the judges, to put his case against the other and to swear unto him that he has not put forth his hands against his property (Bava Kamma 63b).

WHETHER HE HAVE NOT PUT HIS HAND UNTO HIS NEIGHBOR’S GOODS. In the opinion of Rashi this means that the guardian is to come before the judges to swear that he has not put his hand to his fellow-man’s goods [i.e., that he is not guilty of embezzlement]. The correct interpretation is that he is to come before the judges to swear that it was stolen and thus substantiate his claim, but he can only swear thus if he did not put his hand to make use of his neighbor’s goods, for he who puts to his own use what had been left in his keeping is answerable for it as if he were a robber, and is liable to make restitution even if it was lost through an unavoidable accident.

"If he has not put out his hand" — this indicates that the bringing-near of the householder [for an oath] is at the discretion of the judges. Therefore what follows it is: "for every matter of transgression" — transgression committed by the one who takes the oath. R. Yeshuah said that פֶּשַׁע [transgression] means something that went out of one's possession, as in "then Edom broke free from under the hand of Judah" (II Kings 8:22). Hence "for every matter of transgression" encompasses what follows it — anything that left the owner's possession, whether it was stolen, or was lost and he denied it and did not confess.

אם לא שלח ידו, if the trustee had done anything illegal with the object entrusted to him for safekeeping he is responsible even for accidents happening to said items.

ונקרב בעל הבית, “the owner has to come to court for the purpose of confirming his claim by an oath;” This rule is applicable if he had claimed not to have misappropriated said object or objects which had disappeared. If he had claimed that the object or animal had become the victim of wild beasts, etc. he is only asked to produce evidence supporting his claim before a court. במלאכת רעהו, a somewhat strange sounding expression; it means: “something belonging to his fellowman;” we find a similar construction in Genesis 33,14: לרגל המלאכה, Yaakov referring to his livestock.

ונקרב בעל הבית אל האלוהים,...עד האלוהים יבא דבר שניהם. אשר ירשיעון אלוהים, “then the householder shall approach the court.....to the court shall come both their claims....whomever the court shall find guilty shall pay.” In this short paragraph the word Elohim appears three times. This prompted our sages in Sanhedrin 3 to rule that a court must consist of a minimum of three judges. You will note that in the whole portion commencing with chapter 21 up until here the four-lettered name of G’d has not appeared even once. The reason for this is spelled out in Deut. 1,17 כי המשפט לאלוהים הוא, “for justice is a matter which is the domain of (the attribute) Elohim.” The only time the tetragrammaton is mentioned is in connection with the oath where the Torah defines such an oath as שבועת י-ה-ו-ה; we have already explained that the קו האמצעי is the principal emanation associated with an oath. It is therefore logical that such an oath should be described as sworn in the name of the attribute Hashem. The word שבעה is spelled without the letter ו, to show its connection with the lower seven emanations as we have explained repeatedly in Yitro 20, 7 as well as in Genesis 21,23.

'אם לא ימצא הגנב ונקרב וגו, the words אם לא ימצא are understood by our sages (Baba Kamma 63) as meaning that the trustee claimed the animals had been stolen, while in effect he himself had stolen them. If he swore an oath before the judges that he was not involved in their disappearance and he is found afterwards to have perjured himself then he must compensate the owner by paying him twice the value of the “stolen” animals. Personally, I will explain the verse in terms of the plain text, although this does not reflect the halachah. The words אם לא ימצא הגנב ונקרב בעל הבית אל האלוהים, refer to the trustee. שלא שלח ידו במלאכת רעהו, he swears that he personally had not been guilty of appropriating any of his fellow man’s goods but that those that are missing were stolen. On the basis of such an oath he is exonerated from all responsibility.

In every matter of wrongdoing — regarding ox, donkey, sheep, garment, or any lost item of which one says, 'This is it' — the case of both parties shall come before the judges; whomever the judges find liable shall pay double to his neighbor.

על כל דבר פשע FOR ALL MANNER OF TRESSPASS in which he (the bailee) is proved a liar in respect of his oath (i. e. is convicted of perjury), because witnesses testify that he himself has stolen it and the judges condemn him on the evidence of the witnesses, ישלם שנים לרעהו HE SHALL PAY THE DOUBLE TO HIS FELLOW-MAN — Scripture teaches you that in a case of a bailment where one pleads that it has been stolen from him and it is proved that he himself has stolen it he is liable to pay “kefel” (twice the value of the article) to the owner. When, however, does this law hold good? In the case that he has taken an oath that it has been stolen from him and witnesses afterwards appear and testify to the contrary. For our Rabbis expound this phrase as follows: (Bava Kamma 63b) “and the owner of the house shall approach unto the judges” — this “approaching the judges” is an expression signifying the taking of an oath. You say that it means approaching the judges in order to take an oath, but perhaps this is not so, and it means that he approaches them to put his case, and that the meaning of the verse is. that as soon as the bailee appears before the court and denies any liability, saying, “it has been stolen” from me, he at once becomes liable to pay double if witnessess appear who testify that the bailment is still in his possession? You certainly cannot argue thus! For “conversion” (שליחות יד) is mentioned here and later on (v. 10) it is mentioned again: “Then shall the oath of the Lord be between the two of them, if he hath not put his hand (אם לא שלח ידו) unto his fellow-man’s goods”. — Now, what is the meaning of the phrase in the latter case? It is evident from what precedes it that it is a matter of taking an oath! So also here it is a matter of taking an oath. (Bava Kamma 63b). אשר יאמר כי הוא זה means, according to the literal sense, any article about which the witness will say: “this is the very article” about which you have taken an oath that it has been stolen from you; see, it is actually in your possession! — then the matter of dispute between the two of them shall come before the judges. These shall examine the witnesses, and if they prove to be trustworthy and they (the judges) condemn this bailee, then he has to pay double. If, however, they condemn the witnesses because these are found to be “plotting” witnesses (זוממין) then shall they (the witnesses) pay double to the bailee. Our Rabbis, of blessed memory, however, explained that כי הוא זה tells us that no oath can be imposed upon him (the defendant) except if he admits a part of the other’s claim asserting, “So-and-so much I owe you, and the rest has been stolen from me” (according to this explanation the phrase כי הוא זה is not a statement of the witnesses but that of the bailee himself; i. e. he says, כי הוא זה, “it is this only” that you have to claim and not as much as you say) (Bava Kamma 107b).

WHEREOF ONE SAITH: ‘THIS IS IT.’ Rashi comments: “according to the literal sense it means: that which the witness will say ‘this is it — this is that article about which you have taken an oath [that it was stolen from you] but see, it is in your possession!’ And our Rabbis have explained that the phrase this is it teaches us that an oath cannot be imposed [by the court on a defendant] unless he admits part of the claim, saying ‘I owe you so and so much, but the rest was stolen from me.’”But this principle of partial admission which the Rabbi [Rashi] has written here, is in accordance with the opinion of certain individual Rabbis [in the Talmud], but is not the accepted decision of the law, for guardians [to incur liability to an oath] need not partially deny and partially admit the claim, but even if they claim that the whole article was stolen, they still have to take the oath of the guardians, [unlike debts, which, if the debtor denies completely, do not require an oath of the Torah]. Moreover, it has been explained in the Gemara with convincing proofs, that when he denies the very fact that he ever became a guardian, such as where he says “you have never given me the object to keep,” in that case if he denied it totally, he is free from taking an oath, and if he admitted it partially he is obliged to take an oath, this being the opinion of all Rabbis in the Talmud, even though the Rabbi [Rashi] has not written so in his commentaries to the Gemara. If so, we may say that the phrase [this is it — from which we derive the principle of partial admission, as explained above], speaks according to the interpretation of the Sages of a case where the guardian’s defense is: “He never gave me anything to keep,” in which case if he denied it totally he is free of an oath, and if he partially admitted it and partially denied it, he is liable to take an oath. Thus the verses are to be explained as follows: If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall come near unto the judges — for every claim of trespass which he may claim against him, such as: “You were negligent in your guarding it,” or where the guardian says: “this is it, — this is what you have deposited with me, and you did not deposit any more with me” — then the one with whom the article was deposited that the judges will condemn, [upon testimony given before them that he embezzled it], shall pay double unto his neighbor. Thus, both [the debtor and the guardian] pay, but double restitution is only where the guardian claims falsely that it was stolen, and the rule concerning the plea of partial admission applies to all claims, even to loans, robbery and other matters. In all these laws the verses of Scripture are few and the rules many. But there is no need to explain them here, except in order to interpret the verses.

"That he shall say" — the witness that "this is it." "Whom God condemns" — if God [i.e., the judges] condemn the guardian himself, finding that he stole the item himself, or that he denied the lost object he had found, thereby becoming a thief with regard to it.

אשר יאמר כי הוא זה, also if the accused says “this is the truth,” implying that only part of the accusation is true. This is what is called in Talmudic parlance מודה במקצת, a partial admission. עד האלוהים יבא דבר שניהם, both claimant and defendant are to render an oath. It does not matter whether the subject matter under dispute is a loan and whether it has been repaid, or something entrusted for safekeeping; in either case the claim being admitted partially. אשר ירשיעון אלוהים ישלם שנים, when the judges convict the guilty party this is equivalent to a conviction for theft, and the penalty is restitution of twice the amount under dispute. A false claim that something had been stolen is equivalent to the person making the claim being judged a thief.

על כל דבר פשע, Concerning any matter of trespass, etc. Our sages in Baba Metzia 57 understand the first words על כל as an inclusive rule, whereas they consider the subsequent details, i.e. שור, חמור, etc., as exclusions of categories not fitting the details mentioned; the final words על כל אבדה are again nterpreted as an all inclusive rule covering any movable object which represents money. This excludes landed property which cannot be moved, slaves which are compared to land, as well as documents which are not viewed as constituting money. Maimonides rules similarly in chapter two of his Hilchot Geneyvah. The plain meaning of this ruling appears to be that if the שומר חנם was negligent in guarding either a slave or documents he would not be liable seeing that he would not even be liable for the disappearance of either money or utensils unless he had been negligent. I have found the following statement by Maimonides in chapter two of his Hilchot Sechirut: "It appears to me that if the unpaid keeper was negligent in his supervision of slaves entrusted to him for safe-keeping, or in similar situations, he is liable to make restitution. The only reason we find an exemption to such liability in the case of slaves, documents, and lands, is when they have been stolen or lost and the keeper does not have to render an oath as to his not having been negligent. If, however, there is evidence of the keeper having committed a trespass, we follow the rule that everyone who commits a trespass is treated as if he had caused actual damage and has to make restitution. There is no distinction in such a situation between lands, documents, and movable objects considered as equivalent to money. Anyone examining this will find that this ruling is absolutely correct. Thus far Maimonides on the subject. Various commentators disagree with Maimonides on this, however. Their argument is that if the keeper (also a borrower) had indeed committed an actual trespass in the presence of the owner, he would not have been considered as guilty as the Torah states specifically that if the animal he borrowed died while the owner was present (i.e. had approved of the activity to which the borrower put such animal) the borrower does not have to pay (22,23). This includes a situation when the borrower was clearly guilty of trespass. Maimonides himself writes in chapter one of his Hilchot Sechirut that "even if he was guilty of trespass, i.e. negligent guardianship, as long as he had obtained permission for the activity the borrowed animal performed, the borrower is free from paying compensation. Maimonides cites Exodus 22,23 as proof for his ruling. Clearly, we cannot compare the law applicable to someone who is merely guilty of negligence to someone who has caused damage with his own hands. The פושע, negligent person, is neither in the category of a guardian nor is he an actual מזיק, spoiler. He is a person who had absented himself from his task of guarding an object, as a result of...

על כל דבר פשע...אבדה, concerning any matter entrusted to him involved in an accusation that he had abused his fellow man’s trust, כי הוא זה, identifying it as the very thing he claims had been stolen from him either by a thief or by the trustee; those declared guilty by judges will have to pay double the value of the stolen goods to the person owning it.

על כל דבר פשע, “concerning any matter of trespass, such as, etc.;” concerning this unusual wording, the Midrash points out that the numerical value of the words: כל דבר, “any matter,” is the same as the numerical value of the letters in the name of Aaron, אהרן=256. The Torah continues with the words: על שור, “on account of an ox (calf),” a hint at the damage caused by Aaron who had produced a golden calf from the crucible into which he had thrown the golden jewelry given to him. The word: חמור, “donkey,” is understood by that Midrash as applying to the mixed multitude who had joined the Israelites’ bandwagon at the Exodus, and who had been the first to clamour for a replacement of Moses, who had not returned from the Mountain after 40 days and forty nights without food and drink. (Exodus chapter 32). The word שה in this verse is understood by that Midrash as applying to the Jewish people in Jeremiah 50,17 where he called them שה פזורה, “scattered sheep.” The words: על שלמה, “for a raiment,” are a metaphor for idolatry, a variant of the word צלם idolatrous image, the letter ש substituting for the letter צ, and the vowel patach for the vowel tzeyreh. Both the letter צ and the vowel patach are used interchangeably in the Bible on other occasions. The words: על כל אבדה, “every type of lost object,” are also a metaphor for idolatry. In Deuteronomy 12,2 the Torah commands us to destroy any kind of idolatry which we will find in the land of Canaan. The word used for “destroying” is the word used for “losing” something, i.e. אבד תאבדון. To continue with the interpretation of our verse: the words: אשר יאמר כי הוא זה, of which he says: “this is it,” are a reminder of what the people said of the golden calf when it emerged from the crucible into which Aaron had thrown the men’s gold in Exodus 32,4, when they proclaimed of the golden calf: אלה אלוהיך ישראל אשר העלוך מארץ מצרים, “these are your gods Israel which have taken you out of Egypt.” The words: עד האלוהים, normally translated as “to a judge,” refer to Moses whom G–d had described as being an elohim compared to Aaron (Exodus 7,1) who would be his interpreter in his dealings with Pharaoh. The words: יבא דבר שניהם, “shall the matter of their litigation be presented,” refer to G–d and Aaron respectively, whereas the words: אשר ירשיעון, “whom they condemn” refer to Moses, whereas the words:ישלם שנים, “he will repay twofold,” refer to the two sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu, who paid with their lives for having brought alien fire on the censers on which they presented incense. (Leviticus 16,1) Thus far Tanchuma on section eight of his commentary on Parshat Acharey Mot.

If a man gives his neighbor a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep, or any animal to keep, and it dies, or is injured, or is taken captive, with no one seeing —

כי יתן איש אל רעהו חמור או שור IF A MAN GIVE UNTO HIS FELLOW-MAN AN ASS OR AN OX — The first section (v. 6—9) speaks of the gratuitous bailee and therefore (since the chattels are kept for the use of the bailor only) Scripture frees him of liability for theft, as it is written, (v. 6) “[If a man shall give … to keep] and it be stolen out of the man’s house, if the thief be not found, then the owner of the house shall approach the judges” to take an oath (cf. Rashi v. 7). You may learn from this that he (the bailee) frees himself from liability by this oath. This section (v. 9—12), however, speaks of a “bailee for payment” (שומר שכר) who is therefore not free from liability if the object has been stolen, as it is written, “but if it be certainly stolen from him, he shall pay [unto the owner thereof]” (Bava Metzia 94b). However, for any loss over which he has no control — if, for instance, the animal died a natural death or has been injured by a wild beast, or forcibly seized by robbers, and אין רואה NO ONE SEEING IT that could testify in this matter.

"When he gives" — this [refers to] a paid guardian.

חמור או שור או שה, under normal circumstances the poor people assume guardianship of such animals against payment of a fee.

חמור או שור או שה, “a donkey, an ox or a lamb;” this paragraph speaks of guarding a neighbour’s belongings in return for payment. This obligates the guardian to accept additional responsibility for keeping it safe. The animals mentioned need to be fed by its keeper, so that it is normal for him to charge a fee for this. If the purpose of his accepting this assignment is to protect these animals against marauding wild beasts such as wolves, he is expected to prevent this. ומת, “and it died {from natural causes;” או נשבר, or it was seriously injured by marauding beasts; או נשבה, “or it was kidnapped by force;”all these examples are listed as categories of force majeure, an act of G-d, against which the keeper of these animals had been powerless. If the keeper is willing to swear before a court that he had not been negligent and thereby contributed to the loss, he is considered as having exonerated himself. If he had not been paid for his “safekeeping,” all he had to do was to claim it had been stolen, and he would not have had to render an oath. אין רואה, “there had not been a witness,” (to substantiate the keeper’s claim). These words apply only to the claim of the animals having been kidnapped by armed robbers. The reason these words were not used in verse 6 is that the expression “stealing,” is only used when the act had not been witnessed.

ומת או נשבר, when death or injury was caused by ferocious beasts. Just as the verse speaking of מתה or נשבה speaks of the entire animal being lost (destroyed), the same applies to the word נשבר as the entire animal becoming useless, seeing it had been killed by another beast. We find something parallel in Kings I 13,28 where a donkey and lion are described as standing beside the carcass of the prophet without violating it. The relevant words in our verse are אין רואה, that no one witnessed what happened.

an oath by Hashem shall be between them both, that he did not lay his hand upon what his neighbor had entrusted to him; and its owner shall accept the oath from him, and he shall not make restitution.

שבעת ה׳ תהיה THEN SHALL THE OATH OF THE LORD BE BETWEEN THEM BOTH — i. e. he (the bailee) must take an oath that the case was as he says (that it died or was injured or captured), and also that he had not previously put forth his hand against it (the object), using it for his own purposes. For if he had thus “put forth his hand” and afterwards some accident, as described, happened to it he is held liable for loss by accident (Bava Metzia 94b), since he has broken the terms of the contract. — ולקח בעליו AND THE OWNER OF IT SHALL ACCEPT IT — i. e. shall accept the oath (Bava Kamma 106a), ולא ישלם AND HE — the bailee — SHALL NOT PAY HIM (the bailor) anything, not even the capital (קרן).

"In his neighbor's work" — like "at the pace of the work before me" (Genesis 33:14). And he [the guardian] is required to give nothing beyond the oath.

בין שניהם, between them both. The Torah implies that both the person rendering the oath and the one causing the oath to be sworn are punishable should the owner be aware that the keeper plans to swear falsely.

שבועת ה' תהיה בין שניהם, “the oath of the Lord shall be between the two of them;” that death occurred accidentally and not through negligence by the keeper. If the death had occurred in a place where there are people, the keeper would have to pay as his oath is not accepted in such circumstances. Had he told the truth, witnesses would have come forward to support his claim of innocence. בין שניהם, “in order to release the keeper from responsibility.” אם לא שלח ידו, “if he (the keeper) had not done something inappropriate, but that death had occurred by accident.

אם לא שלח ידו במלאכת רעהו, “that he did not lay his hand on the property of his fellow;” the Torah refers to the object held in trust for his fellow (compare Ibn Ezra). This is also the opinion of Onkelos who translates these words as לא יושיט ידה במא דמסר ליה חברה, “he did not stretch out his hand against what his friend had given him.” The reason such a deposit is described by the Torah as מלאכה, is that a person’s wealth is often referred to as his מלאכה; one example is found in Genesis 33,14 where Yaakov explains that he has to travel more slowly than his brother Esau due to his “wealth” moving slowly. His wealth consisted primarily of his flocks and herds. The major point our verse makes is that the person to whom the deposit has been entrusted must not make any use of it whatsoever. If the deposit consists of beasts of burden the trustee must not use them for his own purpose; if they consist of vessels he must not use them for his own purposes either. Using such vessels would also fall under the heading מלאכה. Vessels have been manufactured for precisely the use called מלאכת תשמיש. Our sages in Baba Metzia 41 stated that the trustee who made any kind of use of deposits of vessels entrusted to them even if they did not deteriorate in value by such use, will henceforth be liable for anything which happens to such vessels. Two scholars, Rav and Levi disagree with one another on that subject, one saying that the word שלח ידו implies that the item under discussion loses value as a result of such use. The other scholar says that it does not need to lose value in order to fit the description in our verse. The decision in the Talmud is that it does not need to lose value in order for the trustee to become liable for any damage from that point on.

שבועת ה' תהיה בין שניהם, as a result, the trustee is not held responsible for accidents, i.e. superior force against which he could not have prevailed. ולקח בעליו, the owner of the dead animal must accept the trustee’s oath, and he is free from paying any damages to the owner.

'שבועת ה, “the oath of the Lord, etc.;” Rashi explains this verse as follows: if the party in charge of the animal entrusted to him for safe keeping has illegally made use of it, as a result of which this animal came to harm, he is liable although normally anyone who looks after a friend’s property without being paid compensation is not liable for anything but the result of his negligence. Elsewhere, in the Talmud, tractate Baba Metzia folio 41, Rashi adds that even if the safe keeper had already returned the animal in question to its owner, seeing that he had illegally made use of it while it was under his care, any accident that will befall that animal will be considered as the result of that offense he had committed. According to Rabbeinu Tam, -Rashi’s grandson,- this presents a difficulty, seeing that in our verse the Torah had written that no one had witnessed the accident that had happened to said animal, i.e. we de do not even know if the circumstances were such that they could be attributed to the safe-keeper’s illegal actions. [All we know is that it occurred while the safe-keeper had not been present, as he should have been. Ed.] According to Rabbeinu Tam, the wording of the Torah implies that if the safe-keeper had witnesses who had seen that he had not been negligent or done something illegal as a result of which the accidents had become possible, he is not held responsible. According to Rashi what use would it be for the safe-keeper if there even was “proof” that he had not been at fault, seeing that the Torah requires the safe-keeper to swear an oath that he had not done anything which according to Torah law was not permissible? According to Rashi, even a true oath would not be helpful for the person who had sworn it, so why should he use the name of the Lord in vain? Besides, how could the “witnesses” know if the accused had ever committed an illegal use of what had been entrusted to him for safekeeping, if that person had in the meantime replaced the animal in the pen where he had kept it locked up? Considering all this, Rabbeinu Tam concludes that in such situations the safe-keeper is considered as innocent of wrongdoing.

But if it is indeed stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner.

ואם גונב יגנב מעמו ישלם, “but if that animal had (only) been stolen from him (the keeper)” [and no violence or threat of violence had been involved] he has to compensate the owner.

If it was torn apart by a wild beast, he shall bring witnesses that it was torn; he shall not make restitution for what was torn.

אם טרף יטרף IF IT BE TORN IN PIECES — by wild beasts. יביאהו עד THEN LET HIM BRING WITNESSES that it has been torn in pieces by accident and he shall be freed from liability. הטרפה לא ישלם HE SHALL NOT PAY THAT WHICH HAS BEEN TORN — It does not say טרפה לא ישלם “one which has been torn he shall not pay for” — but it says “the torn one”, (the one mentioned here, viz., that which was torn without him being able to prevent it). Because there is a torn beast for which he has to pay and a torn beast for which he has not to pay. For an animal torn by a cat, a fox or a marten he has indeed to make restitution; but for one torn by a wolf, a lion, a bear or a serpent he is not liable to pay. But how do you come to make such a distinction (lit., who whispered to you to draw such a conclusion)? Because, you see, it states, “and if it die or be injured, or be captured”. Now what is the characteristic of natural death? One cannot save from it! Thus, also, the injury and the capture must be such that he was unable to save the animal from it (cf. Mekhilta).

IF IT BE TORN IN PIECES — “by a wild beast. ‘Y’VIEIHU EID’ — let him bring witnesses that it has been torn in pieces by accident, and then he will be free from paying.” This is the language of Rashi. But one may wonder. Why did Scripture mention specifically here [in the case of the animal being torn to pieces by a wild beast], the necessity of having witnesses, since in this [very same section of the law of the paid guardian] it has already said above, [in the cases where the animal dies, or is hurt, or captured], The oath of the Eternal shall be between them both [i.e., between the owner of the animal and the guardian], and the law in all cases is alike: if there are witnesses that the animal died, or was hurt, or captured, he is free from paying and so also if it was torn in pieces by a wild beast, and if there are no witnesses he must take an oath in all cases, and if he does so, he does not pay? Perhaps Scripture speaks of the customary manner, for when an animal dies in his master’s crib or it goes up to the top of a crag and is hurt, there is usually no man seeing it; so also if it was captured by armed bandits who came upon it and took it from the flock and went away [there are usually no witnesses]. But when a lion or bear attacks, a multitude of shepherds is called forth against it, and therefore Scripture says that he should bring the shepherds to court, and [upon their testimony] he will be freed from the liability of payment. Or we may explain that Scripture intends to establish the law enunciated by Isi ben Yehudah, who says, “No-one seeing it — he is free [from payment but he must swear]; but if there are witnesses who could testify in this matter, let him bring the witnesses and only then will he be free.” And the explanation thereof is as follows: If the accident happened [to the animal entrusted to his guardianship] in a place where people are present the whole day, we do not rely upon his oath but instead he must bring witnesses, and where an animal is torn in pieces by a wild beast, it is generally the case [that other people are present besides the guardian], and therefore Scripture required him to bring witnesses. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained: y’vieihu eid — “let him bring part of the torn animal as witness, two legs, or a piece of an ear in proof of his statement.” And I have seen it explained thus in the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai: “Aba Shaul said, he should bring the carcass, as it is said, Thus saith the Eternal, as the shepherd rescueth out of the mouth of the lion, two legs etc.”.

"If" — for this [the torn animal] he received his wages. "He shall bring it as witness" — he shall bring a portion of what was torn, to serve as evidence for him, in the manner described: "as the shepherd rescues from the mouth of a lion two legs or a piece of an ear" (Amos 3:12).

יביאהו עד, we already explained that whenever the Torah uses the word עד in the singular mode what is meant are two witnesses who are acceptable to the court. אם טרוף יטרף, by some wild beast; presumably someone did witness the occurrence seeing there must have been other shepherds in the vicinity. What kind of testimony is expected of these witnesses? הטרפה, that the situation in which the animal had been mauled or eaten was the kind of accident which the shepherd guarding it could not have been prevented by exercising greater care. לא ישלם, the shepherd does not have to make restitution. If, however, the predators had eaten the animal under discussion due to insufficient supervision on the part of the shepherd, the shepherd has to make restitution. (compare Baba Metzia 93) In determining a reasonable fight which the shepherd has to put up against predators, Rashi quoting the Mechilta says that a solitary wolf is not something against which the shepherd is defenseless, neither are two dogs. Naturally, smaller animals and rodents are not considered as posing a threat to man.

אם טרוף יטרף יביאהו עד, “if it had sustained fatal injuries, he must produce the torn animal as proof (in order to be exonerated) The “proof” referred to are the remains of the animal or animals in question. The condition of these remains will speak for themselves. This is what the shepherds do when having to account for animals missing from the flocks under their care. We have proof of this from Amos 3,12, 'כאשר יציל הארי מפי הדוב שתי כרעים או בדל אוזן וגו, “as the shepherd saves from the mouth of the bear, or a leg or part of the ear, etc.” If this was not what is meant, why would the prophet mention such small parts of an animal?

אם טרוף יטרף, “if it is thoroughly torn;” the Torah describes the animal’s death as due to the kind of accidental death that the guardian could neither have foreseen nor prevented. This frees him from the need to compensate the owner, if his claim can be substantiated. The same rule applies if that beast had been kidnapped by armed thugs, or if it died of natural causes. In the event that the custodian claims that the animal in his charge had been killed by a predator, and there are no witnesses, he has to swear an oath in support of his claim. The Torah describes a scenario of, say, a lion attacking a sheep in a flock. Usually, there are more than one shepherd in the vicinity who can testify to what occurred. If the animal sustained a fracture or died of natural causes, this would likely have happened in the privacy of the custodian’s house so that there is hardly a chance to produce a witness testifying to the innocence of the custodian. Hence the Torah writes: אין רואה, there is no outside witness. Ibn Ezra understands the line יביאהו עד, “let him bring a witness,” not as an unreasonable demand, but as referring to part of the mutilated animal. It can be determined by examining the remains how this animal met its death.

יביאהו עד, any part of the carcass of the animal which had been devoured by a predator is acceptable as evidence of what had happened to it. We have a verse in Amos 3,12 describing the situation, כאשר יציל הרועה מפי הארי שתי כרעים או בדל רוזן, “as a shepherd rescues from a lion’s jaws two shank bones or the tip of an ear.”

And if a man borrows from his neighbor and it is injured or dies, its owner not being with him, he shall make full restitution.

וכי ישאל איש AND IF A MAN BORROWS — The purpose of this verse is to tell you that the borrower is liable for loss from whatever cause even from accident. בעליו אין עמו THE OWNER THEREOF NOT BEING WITH IT (lit., with “him”) — i. e. if the owner of the ox is not employed with the borrower in his work (Bava Metzia 95b).

"And when one borrows" — according to the plain sense: "its owner not being with it" — and he can claim against the borrower that he overworked the animal.

וכי ישאל איש וגו, “and if someone borrows, and it is injured or dies, ”while its owner is not present. שלם ישלם, the borrower has to pay the lender for the value of that animal. The reason for this all encompassing responsibility of the borrower is that he had the complete use of the animal while it was under his care. The lender could claim that the death or harm occurred while the borrower had overworked that animal.

וכי ישאל, an animal to perform work for him. ונשבר או מת, it suffers either death or becomes otherwise defunct. בעליו אין עמו, according to the plain meaning of the text: “its owner is not present supervising the work the animal performed.” According to Baba Metzia 95 even if the owner was engaged with different work, as long as the owner is present while the death or injury occurred, the borrower is not liable for damages.

If its owner is with him, he shall not make restitution; if it is a hired animal, the loss is covered by its hire.

אם בעליו עמו BUT IF THE OWNER THEREOF BE WITH IT (lit., with “him”) — whether he be employed in the very kind of work for which the animal has been borrowed, or whether he be employed in any other work of the borrower — provided that he (the owner) was employed by the borrower when the loan was effected it is not necessary, in order to free him from restitution that he should be employed by the bailee at the time when the injury or death took place (Bava Metzia 95b). אם שכיר הוא IF IT BE HIRED — i. e. if the ox has not been borrowed but hired, בא בשכרו THEN IT CAME FOR ITS HIRE into the hand of this hirer and not by way of loan. For he does not get the entire benefit of the transaction since he is using it only because he has paid hire for it and consequently the owner benefits also; therefore the law applicable to a borrower does not apply in his case — that he should be held liable for loss by accident. Scripture, however, does not state explicity what his (the hirer’s) law actually is — whether he has to be treated as the gratuitous bailee (שומר חנם) or as the bailee for payment (שומר שכר), and therefore the Sages in Israel differ in their opinion as to how the hirer (שוכר) has to make restitution. R. Meir says he is responsible only as a gratuitous bailee, whilst R. Judah says, even as a bailee for payment (Bava Metzia 80b).

"If" — that is, he [the owner] saw with his own eyes how it was injured or died. Likewise the hired laborer who traveled together with the hirer in the same journey. Having completed the laws of theft of property, it now speaks of seduction of the heart — that is, the enticement of a woman, for it is common to seduce young women, whose judgment is not fully formed.

אם בעליו עמו, during the time the animal performs the work for which it has been loaned out. לא ישלם, the borrower. The reason is that under most circumstances, the animal has been loaned after both parties had agreed what kind of work it would be used for. Its status therefore is similar to that of a gift on the understanding that it would be returned. When one makes this kind of gift one does not draw up a list of conditions pertaining to the precise use the gift may be made of. If such a list of conditions had indeed been drawn up the nature of the entire transaction would have been nullified, it would no longer be classified as a temporary gift at all, but the owner would remain effectively the owner, so that non return, even deliberately, would not constitute a dereliction resulting in his being entitled to compensation from the “borrower.” The presence of the owner during any accident which had befallen the loaned animal is taken by the Torah as proof that he had never relinquished any part of his ownership, hence he is not entitled to compensation. One does not get compensation for losing what belongs to one.

אם בעליו עמו לא ישלם, if its owner be present he does not have to pay. We have to consider whether the party exonerated by the Torah in this paragraph is free from restitution only by a human tribunal or whether he is exonerated also vis-a-vis Heaven, i.e. in the Hereafter. Suppose the owner of the universe, G'd, Who has entrusted the soul He has planted in a human body for safe-keeping in his body will demand an accounting from the body when He reclaims an unsullied soul at the death of the person to whom He has entrusted the soul. We read in Deut. 4,9: "you shall guard your soul very carefully." When G'd will reclaim His souls He may find that they have either been "stolen," or "broken," or "captured," or "died." All of these four kinds of "damages" are applicable to souls and may be the result of the person equipped with the respective soul committing various transgressions. [In order to understand what the author refers to the reader has to remember that the author has adopted the concept that each commandment in the Torah corresponds to a specific organ, bone, or sinew of the human body. Non-performance of a commandment is equivalent to maiming that part of the body. Ed.] Some people have their souls "stolen" from them when the person is involved in an encounter with impurity; others lose their soul when involved in a deliberate act of transgression; in such an instance the person is considered as having destroyed the limb or organ charged with performance of that particular commandment. Sometimes a person is guilty of a transgression for which the penalty is כרת, premature death and/or permanent severance from his people. Still others may commit violations punishable with death by a human tribunal. Such sins cause the death of the soul (compare Genesis 17,14). In other cases the soul is merely taken "captive" as per Zohar volume two page 95. When G'd -the owner of the deposit- demands its return in the condition He has deposited it, the spirit is supposed to return to G'd as stated by Solomon in Kohelet 12,7. Our sages in Shabbat 152 interpret this to mean as G'd saying: "give it to Me as it was given to you." Can the keepers, i.e. human beings, decline liability for damage to their soul by basing themselves on the wording in our verse: "if its owner was present, the keeper does not have to pay?" The sages in Baba Metzia 97 state that it is possible for the borrower to escape liability for what he has borrowed if he asks the owner of the article he wishes to borrow to first let him drink some of his water. If the owner agrees, he is considered as in the category described in our verse as having worked with the consent of the owner. The same ruling is applicable to "keepers" (seeing their liability is generally on a lower level than that of the borrower). Seeing that G'd has provided man with his food and drink before man begins to be active on earth, He should be considered as in the category of the lender described in the Talmud, and ma...

אם בעליו , “if its owner” was present at the time his animal died (and was aware that it had not been overworked) the borrower is free from paying any compensation. אם שכיר הוא, “if said borrower had paid for the use of the animal while under his care,” the plain meaning of the text is that the subject of the word: שכיר, is that the party who had lent the animal was himself not the owner but had rented it. Our sages, however, understand the meaning to be that the borrower had paid a fee to the owner for using the animal. The Torah decrees that the liability for death or disabling harm is that of the owner must bear the burden of the loss as he had received compensation for letting the borrower use it. He had used his animal for his own purposes by lending it out.

אם שכיר הוא, if the animal in question had been hired by the one working it בא בשכרו, the risks involved were accepted by the party renting out the animal for work. The situation is not comparable to the case of the party who had received the animal on loan as a friendly gesture. As a result of this difference the party hiring such an animal is not responsible for accidents. He shares the same degree of responsibility which the Torah imposed on the trustee who gets paid for looking after other people’s property. If the animal had been stolen or disappeared due to negligence, the fact that the man who hired it had paid for this does not relieve him of responsibility for preventing theft or disappearance. There are differences of opinion regarding the degrees of liability between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah in Baba Kamma 45.

And if a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall establish the marriage covenant and take her as his wife.

וכי יפתה AND IF A MAN ENTICE [A VIRGIN] — i. e. if he speaks kindly to her until she submits to him. Thus does also the Targum take it: ארי ישדל “if a man persuades”, the root שדל (the Pael conjugation) in Aramaic being the equivalent of פִּתָּה in Hebrew. מהר ימהרנה HE SHALL SURELY GIVE HER THE MARRIAGE PRICE — He shall assign her a marriage portion as is the practice of a man to do to his wife, i. e. he shall write her a Ketuba (marriage contract providing for a marriage portion) and shall marry her (Mekhilta).

AND IF A MAN ‘Y’FATEH’ — “speaks to her emotions [until she submits to him]. And so did Onkelos render it arei y’shadeil, the term shidul in Aramaic being like pitui [persuasion, seduction], in the Sacred Language. ‘MAHOR YIMHARENAH’ (HE SHALL SURELY PAY A DOWRY FOR HER) TO BE HIS WIFE — he shall assign her a marriage portion as is the manner of a man to his wife by writing her a kethubah (marriage contract), and he shall marry her.” Thus far is Rashi’s language. But this is not correct, for the term pitui [does not mean “speaking to her feelings,” as Rashi put it], but winning over another person’s will by falsehood. A similar usage of the term is found in these verses: ‘yifteh l’vavchem’ (your heart will be deceived); ‘vayift’ (and he seduced) my heart secretly; if my heart ‘niftah’ (have been enticed) unto a woman. This is why people whose minds are not adroit in discriminating matters, and whose hearts can be easily bent by a few words at the beginning of a discussion, are called p’ta’im (simple-minded ones), just as it is said, ‘peti’ (the simple-minded) believeth every word, and he who seduces a virgin in order to have sexual relations with her, bends her will to his desire by words of falsehood, and is therefore called m’fateh (seducer). Onkelos, however, divided the term pitui into two meanings. Thus here he translated it: y’shadeil, which is an expression for cunning and effort that a person exercises towards another in order to do with him as he pleases, regardless of whether this effort is by means of words or deeds. Thus Onkelos translated: ‘vayei’aveik’ a man with him — v’ishtadeil (and a man ‘wrestled craftily’ with him). And Yonathan ben Uziel translated: ‘v’shovavticho’ (and I will turn thee about), and put hooks into thy jaws — ‘v’ishtadlinoch.’ And in the Targum of the Scroll of Ruth we find: Where hast thou gleaned to-day? ‘v’anah asit’ (and where wroughtest thou)? — ‘u’lan ishtadalt l’me’bad’ (and where have you ‘endeavored’ to work)? — And she said: The man’s name with whom ‘asithi’ (I wrought) to-day is Boaz, is translated in the Targum: ‘d’ishtadalith imei’ (with whom I ‘endeavored’). For all effort involving skill, with which a person attempts to achieve something, is called hishtadluth (endeavoring). Thus the Rabbis have said in the Mishnah: “And where there are no men, hishtadeil (strive) to be a man.” And in the Gemara we find: “A man should always yishtadeil (strive) to go out to welcome kings of Israel.” And in Scripture it is written: and he [i.e., the king] ‘mishtadar’ (labored) to rescue him, — employing every skill [to save Daniel].In my opinion, associated with this term [hishtadluth — striving] is the expression, rebellion ‘v’eshtadur’ (and sedition) have been made therein, meaning, rebellion and “much striving.” For even in the Sacred Language these letters [the lamed and the reish of y’shadeil, y’shadeir] interchange. Thus we find: mazaloth (constellations) and mazaroth; niml’tzu (sweet), and nimr’tzu (forc...

"Who is not betrothed" — for a betrothed woman, even if she has not had conjugal relations, is called "his neighbor's wife." "He shall surely pay her bride-price" — [מֹהַר] is like מוֹהַר, in the sense of a bond, comparable to "after those who hasten" (Psalm 16:4), for the root מְהֵרָה does not appear in verbal forms anywhere in Scripture except in the intensive conjugation [Pi'el].

.כי יפתה איש, “if a man seduces, etc.” having concluded dealing with the subject of stealing animals or chattel, the Torah turns next to the subject of “stealing someone’s heart;” such a thief is called: .מפתה אשר לא אורשה, “who had not been betrothed.” If the girl had been betrothed the penalty would be death by stoning. מהור ימהרנו לו, “he must make her his wife by paying the accepted price for brides. The reason for this is in order to restore her dignity in the eyes of her peers, so that she will not be married by another man at bargain basement prices reducing her status permanently, and being permanently reminded of her inferiority. Since she had not reached the age of 12 and a half, she had been too young to realise the consequences of being seduced. After having gone through the formalities, her husband can divorce her, seeing he had not raped her but she had consented.

מהר ימהרנו לו לאשה, “he shall make all the preparations required to marry her.” Nachmanides understands this as the seducer (groom) sending the girl the customary gifts סבלונות, a groom sends prior to the wedding. These are expensive gifts, not boxes of chocolate or a bunch of flowers. They are items that the bride needs as part of her outfits to prepare her for a dignified wedding ceremony. The wedding canopy would usually be erected after the bride had received these gifts from her husband to be. The reason why the Torah phrased this procedure in the way it did, instead of writing: “he must marry her forthwith,” is because it is not the seducer’s duty to marry her unless she has indicated her willingness to become his wife. If she does not agree to marry her seducer, the latter must still send her these gifts, as by seducing her he has greatly diminished the chances that another young man would want to marry this girl whose virginity has been jeopardized. Such a girl‘s father would have to tempt prospective suitors with a much larger dowry in order to make them consent to marry his daughter. Our sages say that the value of the mohar described in our verse is 50 shekel (Ketuvot 38), similar to the amount payable by a rapist to the father of the girl whom he had raped. The difference in law between the rapist and the seducer is merely that the former cannot ever divorce his wife (whom he had raped before she became his wife) against her will The seducer has a choice both in marrying his “victim” and eventually divorcing her if he so desires. The reason suggested for this rule is that it is not uncommon for young men to seduce girls who are of marriageable age. It would not be appropriate that the sinner should benefit by his deed in forcing marriage of his “victim” against her will. We must not forget that the girl who allowed herself to be seduced had been guilty of frivolous conduct also. This is why the Torah did not apply the same harsh rules to him that it applied to the rapist who forced himself on his victim. It suffices that he is made to pay a hefty financial fine. Moreover, rapists, as a rule, force their attentions on girls who are minors, and it would not be fair to force such a victim to be married to her violator against her will. If we were to do this she would become a victim of the same person a second time. Both she and her father can object to the rapist marrying her, whereas the rapist himself has no choice in the matter. In both situations the Torah limits these rules to when the girl in question is not yet older than 12 and a half years. In the verses dealing with rape this is spelled out in detail, i.e. הנערה (Deut. 22,28) Fully adult girls, (12 and a half+ receive the compensation themselves, not their father). In our verse here the Torah does not need to write the word נערה to indicate that this is the oldest girl to whom this legislation applies, seeing that if she were older the father would not be in the picture as the recipient of the fine stipulated by the Torah. She would not herself qualify as a potential recipient of a fine, seeing no crime had been committed against her interests. All she had had to do was to decline the invitation to engage in intimacies with the man in question.

אשר לא ארשה, for if the girl had been betrothed to someone the penalty would be death by stoning as spelled out in Deuteronomy 22,24. מהר ימהרנה כמהר הבתולות, 50 shekel, just like someone raping a virgin. The penalty money is to be given to the victim’s father as spelled out in Deuteronomy 22,29. Seduction results in the same compensation as rape.

If her father firmly refuses to give her to him, he shall weigh out silver according to the bride-price of virgins.

כמהר הבתולת AS THE MARRIAGE PRICE OF THE VIRGINS — which is limited to fifty shekels in the case of one who outrages a virgin, for it is said, (Deuteronomy 22:29) “Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver” (Mekhilta; Ketubot 10a).

"He shall pay in silver" — on account of the seduction.

אם מאן ימאן אביה לתתה לו – I might think that only the father has the right to refuse but our sages indicate that the repetition of מאן ימאן means that the girl also has the right to refuse the marriage. (See Ketuvot 39b) If the father or the girl refuse the marriage, if her father steadfastly refuses to let her be married to her seducer, her seducer must nonetheless pay the price paid for virgins who become married for the first time. That price is 50 shekel, and this is the reason why the word: ישקל “he must weigh it,” is used here. This is also the amount of compensation paid for having raped a virgin. (Ketuvot 38b) and the amount that is required to be written in the marriage contract for a virgin (Ketuvot 10a) [We are familiar with this expression from when Avraham weighed the silver pieces to Efron in Genesis 23,16 in order to acquire Sarah’s burial plot, the cave and field of Machpelah. Ed.]

כמהר הבתולות, “according to the dowry customary for virgins.” Rabbi Yehudah hachassid concludes from this verse that we have a hint that the ketuvah, document of financial security given to a virgin by her bridegroom, at the wedding, in the event that she is divorced without having given cause, or is widowed, amounts to two hundred zuz. He based himself on the defective spelling of the word: כמהר which should have been spelled כמוהר, with the letter ו in the middle. As it is written it could serve as initials for the words כמה מהר הבתולות ר, “how much does the dowry of a virgin amount to? 200 (zuz)”

A sorcerer you shall not let live.

מכשפה לא תחיה THOU SHALT NOT SUFFER A WITCH TO LIVE — This does not mean that you may kill her but she shall be put to death by the court. Both men and women who practise witchcraft are included in this law but in using the feminine term מכשפה Scripture speaks of what is usually the case; for it is women who mostly practise witchcraft (Sanhedrin 67a).

THOU SHALT NOT SUFFER A SORCERESS TO LIVE. In connection with all those who are guilty of death, He has said above: moth yumoth (he shall be surely put to death), meaning he is liable to death, and it is a positive commandment upon us to slay him, based upon the verse which says, And thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee, or it may be that this obligation on us is derived from the very expression yumoth (he shall be put to death) which He used in these cases. But here, however, He did not say, “a sorceress shall be put to death,” but in this case He warned us in a stricter manner by means of a negative commandment, that we should not suffer her to live. The reason for this is that the sorceress is defiled of name and full of tumult, and fools are mislead by her, therefore He was more stringent and admonished us with a prohibition. We find a similar severity in relation to all those who cause snares for many people, such as that which He said in the case of the misleader after idols, neither shalt thou spare, nor shalt thou conceal him, and in the case of a murderer He said, And ye shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer, that is guilty of death.

"A sorceress" — the reason this is mentioned after the young woman is that those who lust often pursue their desires through sorcery. The female is specified because she is found in sorcery more than the male.

מכשפה לא תחיה, “You must not allow asorceress to remain alive.” The reason why this apparently unrelated subject follows on the heels of how to deal with seducers is that people who seek ways and means to gratify their illegal sexual urges, turn to sorceresses to help them do so. לא תחיה, an unusual way of describing the death penalty, has to be understood as translated by Onkelos, i.e. instead of only violating a positive commandment when allowing a sorceress not to be executed, any court failing to execute her is also guilty of transgressing a negative commandment, a much greater sin. If someone reads this word as tichyeh, with the vowel chink, [when the line would mean “she shall not live,”] he errs. We must be active in preventing her from living, i.e. the court must execute her. The death penalty of stoning is applied. The Torah compliments anyone who takes the first step in bringing about the legal execution of a sorceress. The longer she is allowed to remain alive, the longer she can practice her nefarious trade.

מכשפה לא תחיה, “You must not let a sorceress live.” The whole subject of sorcerers and their activities centers around the linking of phenomena which ought to be separate and distinct from one another. Sorcerers preoccupy themselves with establishing a link between phenomena reserved for our terrestrial world and phenomena from a higher world. When such phenomena are linked (illegally) the result represents a challenge and danger to the continued functioning of G’d’s universe. The חרטומים of Egypt, the Egyptian sorcerers, engaged in such activities and their principal knowledge consisted of producing miraculous phenomena based on their intricate knowledge of the laws of nature. When the Torah forbade the joining of linen and wool and the wearing of such products by Jews (except the fringes with the blue wool thread in a four-cornered garment) this is a small hint that there are elements which Torah law wants to keep apart (compare Nachmanides on Leviticus 19,19). The Talmud Sanhedrin 67 explains that the reason these people are מכשפים and the products of their activities are called כשפים is that they deny the פמליא של מעלה, the existence and effectiveness of celestial forces. A denial of such forces consists of combining elements in our terrestrial world which were clearly meant not to be joined together. The orbit of the various celestial spheres and their failure to collide are proof of things existing in the universe which are meant to remain apart. It is appropriate for human beings to allow the world to function as it was meant to function as this clearly reflects the will of the Creator. Interference with G’d’s blueprint for the functioning of the universe is an act of heresy and insurrection (compare Nachmanides on Deut. 18,9). Rabbeinu Chananel in his commentary on that folio in Sanhedrin explains the matter of מכשפים differently. He claims that such sorcerers cannot perform any supernatural feats unless G’d specifically wants them to succeed. He bases his view on a reply given by Rabbi Chaninah to a woman who was trying to extract soil from beneath the feet of that Rabbi in order to perform acts of sorcery. Rabbi Chaninah told her that in the event she would enjoy help from G’d in her efforts and succeed he would still not be concerned as there is no one beside the Lord (Deut. 4 4,35). Rabbi Yochanan questioned this saying that the reason these sorcerers are called מכשפים is because they deny the power of celestial forces. In that case, Rabbi Chaninah did have something to be concerned about! The answer given by the Talmud is that Rabbi Chaninah had so many merits that he personally did not have what to worry about. Concerning the above, Rabbeinu Chananel writes that although the Talmud gave such an answer it is not to be taken seriously. If you were to ask that assuming, as Rabbi Chaninah said, these activities of the sorcerers can succeed only if especially approved by G’d, why does the Torah bother to outlaw these activities and to make their practitioners subject to the death penalty? The answer is simply that by doing so, or even attempting to do what they have in mind they commit an act of rebellion against G’d and the rules He has established for His universe. Consider simply this: if an act of rebellion against a mortal king of flesh and blood is punishable by death, surely an act of rebellion against the King of Kings must carry the death penalty! Thus far Rabbeinu Chananel. Seeing that during their long stay in Egypt the Israelites had been constantly exposed to acts of sorcery and it was likely that some of them at least would have a tendency to credit these sorcerers with knowledge of matters of substance, the Torah had to come out explicitly forbidding such practices and legislating the death penalty for people ignoring the Torah’s prohibition. In order to show us how seriously the Torah views these activities the Torah was not satisfied with the usual command to execute such practitioners of sorcery but it wrote: “you must not allow a sorceress to remain alive!” In other words, inactivity, not bringing such a sorceress to justice, is an additional sin committed by anyone who is aware of such people practicing their nefarious art. The only other place where the Torah uses such strong language is in connection with the seven nations occupying what was to be the land of Israel. There too the Torah writes: לא תחיה כל נשמה, “you must not allow a single soul to remain alive” (Deut. 20,16). The reason the Torah writes not to let a sorceress live instead of writing “do not let a sorcerer live,” is that most of the people practicing this art are women. Certain activities such as those attributed to אוב are carried out exclusively by women. This is what the Torah writes (Leviticus 20,27) “and any man or woman in whom there shall be the sorcery of Ov or of Yidoni shall be put to death, etc.” [Apparently a man cannot perform these tricks unless he is assisted by a woman. Ed.] According to information available to us from books dealing with such practices a woman is required to stand over (in) the grave of the dead person above his head whereas her male partner takes up his position at the feet of the deceased. A youth must stand in the middle; the lad holds a kind of rattle with which he makes rattling sounds. In previous ages this appears to have been a widespread practice. The rattles (church bells) which are common in the Kingdom of Edom (Roman Empire) and which are pealed in their towers (cathedrals) appear to have their origin in that practice.

מכשפה לא תחיה, “Do not allow a witch to remain alive. Contrary to other examples of people guilty of the death penalty, where the Torah describes their fate in positive terms, i.e. “you must execute them,” in this instance the Torah chooses a negative way of describing its objective writing “must not be allowed to live.” In practice this appears to mean that failure to execute someone guilty of a capital offence is accounted merely as the failure to observe a positive commandment, i.e. negligence by the court, whereas here failure to execute a witch is described as the violation of a negative commandment, i.e. an act of insubordination against G’d. The reason the practice of witchcraft is so abhorrent in the eyes of G’d, is that these people not only sin but cause all those whom they mislead into believing in their powers to abandon their faith in the true G’d; in other words they present themselves as G’d’s competition. Another such category of sinner is the מסית, the person who actively solicits others to abandon the faith of his fathers. There the Torah categorically demands that no possible ameliorating circumstances be allowed to be presented in defense of the accused. (compare Deut. 13,7-12) In our case, the wording of the Torah implies that all means of killing such a witch must be employed if it proves impossible to convict her by the normal legal processes and the stringent demands of testimony normally applied in prosecutions that can result in the death penalty.

מכשפה לא תחיה. Seeing that it is the custom of women engaging in witchcraft to practice their art in hidden places such as caves as we find in the case of the 80 witches executed by Shimon ben Shetach in Ashkelon on a single day. (Sanhedrin 45). The unusual formulation לא תחיה is meant to tell the authorities not to despair of bringing these culprits to justice in spite of their practicing their craft in hideouts. They should be hunted down until found.

Whoever lies with an animal shall surely be put to death.

כל שכב עם בהמה מות יומת — All who have carnal connection with beasts, whether men or women, shall surely be put to death — by stoning, for it states of such, (Leviticus 20:16) “their blood is upon them” (cf. Rashi on Exodus 21:17) (Mekhilta)].

"Whoever" — the text first mentioned the enticement of a young woman who lacks judgment; it also mentioned the animal, which has no mouth to cry out as a woman does; and then it mentioned the woman, who does have a mouth to cry out.

כל שוכב עם בהמה מות יומת, “anyone indulging in carnal relations with an animal must be executed legally.”After dealing with a minor girl who had been too young to understand what she had been guilty of, the Torah turns to animals which have no mouth with which to protest being raped. מות יומת, that person will be executed by stoning. In Leviticus 20,16 the Torah elaborates further by decreeing that both parties involved in such an activity will be killed. The Torah there spells out that both the human being and the animal are perceived as having forfeited their lives, i.e. דמיהם בם.

Whoever sacrifices to the idols of the nations shall be put to death — except to the Name of Hashem alone.

לָאֱלֹהִים means TO IDOLS — If the word (a noun) were punctuated לֵאלֹהִים, with Tzéré under the first ל it would be necessary to define it more closely by adding the adjective אחרים = strange (gods — idols); now, however, that it says לָאֱלֹהִים it is not necessary to define it more closely by adding the word אחרים. For wherever ל or ב are prefixed to a word if it (the prefix) be punctuated with Chataph (שוא), as e. g., לְמֶלֶךְ a king, לְמִדְבָּר, to a desert, לָעִיר, to a city, it must be explained to which king, to which desert, to which city. The same is the case if the ל or ב has a Chirik instead of a Sheva which happens when they are placed before a word beginning with Sheva, as e .g., in לִמְלָכִים for kings, לִרְגָלִים, for festivals, (quoted from Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 1:1) it is necessary to state for which kings or festivals, and if he does not state this, all kings and festivals are implied by these words. Similarly here: the word לַאלֹהִים “to gods”, would imply “all gods”, including even Him of Whom the term אלהים is used in a holy sense (i. e. the Most High God). When, however, it (the prefix) is vowelled with Patach (or Kametz if the following letter cannot take Dagesh), as לַמֶּלֶךְ and לַמִּדְבָּר and לָעִיר it is quite plain which king one is speaking of, and similarly in the case of לָעִיר “to the city”, it is quite plain of which city one is speaking. In the same way, לָאֱלֹהִים, to the gods, means to those gods which in another passage you have been forbidden to worship. A similar instance is, (Psalms 86:8) אין כמוך בָאֱלֹהִים, “there is none like unto Thee among the gods” — because he did not more closely define it by the addition of some word like אחרים, it was necessary for him to vowel the ל with Patach (Kametz). יחרם means SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH — Why is this verse with its predicate יחרם said at all? Was not the death penalty for him (the idolator) stated in another passage: (Deuteronomy 17:5) “Thou shalt bring forth that man or that woman [who have done that evil thing … and stone them]”? But the reason is: because Scripture does not specify there for what form of worship he (the idolator) is liable to death and it merely states, “and hath gone and served other gods” — now, in order that you might not say that any kind of worship offered to idols is punishable with death, Scripture comes and definitely tells you here: “one who sacrificeth unto any god [shall surely be put to death]”, to teach you that all kinds of worship which have a certain characteristic of “sacrifice” are meant here. What is this characteristic of sacrifice? It is an act of worship performed in honour of the Lord in the “Interior” (i. e. in the Temple)! So I mean to include as punishable by death anyone offering incense and libation since these are also acts of worship performed in the Temple, and that one is liable for these acts if he performed them in honour of any idol, whether this be the usual way of worshipping it or whether this be not t...

HE THAT SACRIFICETH ‘LO’ELOHIM YOCHARAM’ (SHALL BE UTTERLY DESTROYED). “Lo’elohim means to the idols, for since the word is voweled with a patach, it means those gods which in another place you have been warned not to worship.” This is Rashi’s language. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that in accordance with the plain meaning of Scripture, this command is not directed to Israel, as they had already been warned in the second of the Ten Commandments against the worship of idols. Instead it was said to “the stranger” mentioned in the following verse, that he may live in our land only on condition that he should not sacrifice to his gods as he was wont to do. — But he [i.e., Ibn Ezra] openeth his mouth in vanity. For in the Ten Commandments He warned against idolatry by a prohibition, and here He explained the punishment and the law that we are to apply to he who transgresses that commandment, just as He did in the case of Thou shalt not murder; Thou shalt not commit adultery, for these are the ordinances which He set before them [with respect to these commandments]. Thus He is hereby declaring that one who sacrifices to idols is guilty of death, for the term yocharam means death by the court. Similarly we find, All ‘cheirem’ that may be ‘yocharam’ of men may not be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death. He uses the term yocharam [of the root cheirem — unlawful, anathema], because he who sacrifices to that which is anathema, deserves destruction, similar to that which is said in the verse, And thou shalt not bring an abomination into thy house, and be ‘cheirem’ (accursed) like unto it; thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is an accursed thing. It is possible that the verse includes the slaughterer and the animal slaughtered, to tell us that they both go to cheirem (destruction), thus hinting that it is forbidden to derive any benefit from that which has been offered to the idols. It mentioned sacrificing, but the same law applies to bowing down before the idol, and to all other acts of worship performed in the Sanctuary, but other acts of worship — such as sweeping it, or besprinkling it, or putting his arms around it, or kissing it — are not punishable by death, provided that the idol is not usually worshipped in that manner, but if it is the customary way of worshipping it, he is liable to death under all circumstances, even if excreting to Baal Peor. The correct interpretation of the term lo’elohim with the lamed voweled with a patach, [or a kamatz as in this instance], is that it refers to the angels of above who are called elohim in many places of Scripture, as it is written: There is none like unto Thee among ‘elohim,’ O Eternal; He is G-d of ‘elohim’ and Lord of lords; Bow down to him, all ye ‘elohim.’ They are also called eilim (the mighty ones), as I have already mentioned. And He said here, save unto the Eternal only, because those who sacrifice to His angels think that thereby they do His will, and ...

"He who sacrifices" — according to the plain sense, this does not speak of an Israelite, for he has already been warned about idolatry in the Second Commandment. Rather, it is said on account of the resident alien [ger], and the verse that follows it is said for his sake as well: for on account of him it is said that whoever lies with an animal, or sacrifices to a foreign deity — for this is the custom of a foreign people — on this condition he shall sojourn in the Land of Israel: he must not lie with an animal. "To God" — he was accustomed to worship him [a deity] previously, and the word אֱלֹהִים includes even the angels. "To Hashem alone" — only to the Glorious Name alone, which is the essential Name [shem ha-'etzem], with no other mixed in with Him.

זובח לאלוהים, to all the deities simultaneously. This is forbidden even though the worshipper includes Hashem in the address to which the sacrifice is tendered. יחרם, the person will be executed and the offering itself is prohibited for any use whatsoever. Just as the false deities are to be banished totally, so those who believe in them. (compare Deuteronomy 7,26 ) לה' לבדו, excluding any possible partner.

זובח לאלוהים; according to the plain meaning of the text, the Torah does not speak of an Israelite, as the Israelites had all been warned repeatedly against offering sacrifices to deities. Exodus 20,3, had made this abundantly clear. The Torah refers here to a convert to Judaism who is mentioned subsequently in verse 20 in a different context. Concerning such a person the legislation against having carnal relations with animals applies also. It was necessary to spell this out as it was a common practice among Arameans. (Syrians) בלתי ה' לבדו, offerings may only be offered to the Lord, (His attribute of the fourlettered ineffable name). This teaches that if one were to serve both Hashem and another deity as did the people who converted having been transplanted after the destruction of the kingdom of the Ten Tribes by the Assyrians (Sancheriv), [conversion inspired by fear of the Jewish G-d, did so without abandoning their former deities. They are referred to in the Talmud as Kutim, or geyre arayot, converts afraid of lions which ravaged the region to which they had been transplanted. Ed.] (Compare Kings II 17,33) The Torah decrees that anyone following such a practice is to be treated as a fully fledged idolater, and punished accordingly. This is why the Torah stresses the word: לבדו, “Him exclusively.”

זובח לאלוהים יחרם, “anyone bringing a sacrifice to the gods shall be put to death.” Seeing that in the second of the Ten Commandments this prohibition has already been mentioned in general terms, the Torah now spells out the penalty. The expression יחרם is similar to Leviticus 27,29 כל חרם אשר יחרם מן-האדם לא יפדה מות ימות, “any condemned person who has been banned from mankind shall not be redeemed, he shall be put to death.” The word יחרם has been chosen by the Torah to demonstrate the principle of “the punishment matches the crime.” The guilty party has offered a sacrifice to something which is condemned to be destroyed; hence he will himself be subject to destruction. The fact that the Torah speaks of actual slaughter of a sacrifice to such idols is not to be construed as limiting the death penalty for idol worship. If the person in question had merely prostrated himself in front of that idol or had kindled incense, etc., etc., he is subject to the same penalty. We have already explained that even if an obeisance made to an idol appears in our eyes as an affront rather than as an act of paying homage, the perpetrator is subject to the death penalty (Mechilta Nezikin section 17). Rashi explains that the vowel patach [actually kametz, but meaning the same as a patach in words where the first letter is not followed by the letter א. Ed.] under the first letter ל in לאלוהים makes it unnecessary to add the word אחרים after the word לאלוהים. The definite article which this kametz represents is a reference to the second commandment (20,3) where idolatry, even if the obeisance is made to an angel in his capacity as the Lord’s angel has been forbidden. A kabbalistic approach: the word לאלהים is an allusion to the mystical dimension of animal sacrifice. Consider Numbers 28,2 את קרבני לחמי לאשי , “My offering, My food, My fires.” Our sages said that in the event someone thought that the Torah speaks of G’d consuming actual food (לחמי), the Torah corrects such an impression by adding the word לאשי as “My fires.” This teaches that the animal (or other) sacrifices the Jewish people present are given to an attribute He calls “fire.” The truth of the matter is that whereas the offerings will be consumed by G’d’s “fire,” they were addressed to G’d’s essence, to Hashem. This is why the verse adds בלתי לי-ה-ו-ה- לבדו, “exclusively to Hashem alone.” This is also reflected in Onkelos translating these last three words as לשמא דיי בלחודוהי, “to the name of the unique G’d only.”

זובח לאלוהים, “someone offering sacrifices to gods, etc.” The use of the vowel patach (kametz) under the letter ל is proof that the Torah refers to known deities, the ones which had been previously mentioned, and whose worship had already been forbidden. יחרם, “he shall be destroyed.” The individual is to be executed. The reason why the Torah chose the unusual term יחרם here is a play on words, seeing that the individual has seen fit to deify “dead” gods, he too is to be equated to the deities whom he had worshipped. We find that the Torah indulges in such play on words, for instance when describing how we are to relate to certain forbidden foods, living creatures of a lower order; or the offering of such creatures as sacrifices. In Deut. 7,26 the Torah forbids the presentation of such living creatures as sacrifices to the Lord, the reason being given כי חרם הוא, ”it is something that is viewed as slated for destruction.” People who are so misguided will wind up exactly where these sacrifices wind up, i.e. יהיה חרם כמוהו. He who deifies these creatures as substantive will wind up losing his own substance, just as these gods that never had any substance. The verse also implies that such gods are totally out of bounds, i.e. one must not derive direct or indirect benefit from them. Nachmanides writes that actually the vowel ל under the latter ל before the word אלוהים frequently indicates that the word אלוהים following is a celestial being such as an angel. He quotes numerous examples. Offering a sacrifice to an angel, as was the intention of Manoach in Judges 13,15 is equally prohibited. The only address for sacrifices is the attribute Hashem. The Torah had to make this plain, as many well meaning people believe that by honouring angels they also honour their Creator. They consider the angel as being a go-between man and G’d, whose task it is to inform man of what is pleasing to G’d. Their error consists in their assumption that by presenting gifts to intermediaries they are actually serving G’d. In order to prevent such errors from being practiced by Jews, the Torah had to make plain that Hashem is the only address for such offerings.

זבח לאלוהים, the vowel patach under the letter ל makes it clear that an alien deity is meant. If the meaning were a sacrifice to G’d, the vowel under the letter ל would be a tzeyreh לאלוהים, to the ones concerning which I said in the Ten Commandments לא יהיה לך אלוהים אחרים, “you must not have any other deities.” (20,2) (3) SHALL BE PROSCRIBED. Shall be killed.

You shall not wrong a sojourner, nor oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.

וגר לא תונה — means, do not vex him with words (referring to the fact that he is a stranger); contrarier in old French Similar is, (Isaiah 49:26) “And I will feed them that vex thee (מוניך) with their own flesh”. ולא תלחצנו NOR OPPRESS HIM — by robbing him of money (Mekhilta). כי גרים הייתם FOR YE WERE STRANGERS — If you vex him he can vex you also by saying to you: “You also descend from strangers”. Do not reproach thy fellow-man for a fault which is also thine (Mekhilta). Wherever גר occurs in Scriptures it signifies a person who has not been born in that land (where he is living) but has come from another country to sojourn there.

AND A STRANGER SHALT THOU NOT WRONG, NEITHER SHALT THOU OPPRESS HIM; FOR YE WERE STRANGERS IN THE LAND OF EGYPT. There is no reason why all strangers [from countries outside the land of Egypt] should be included here because of our having been strangers in the land of Egypt! And there is no reason why they be assured for ever against being wronged or oppressed because we were once strangers there! Now Rashi explained that this is a reason for the prohibition against annoying a stranger. G-d warned against vexing him with words, for “if you vex him he can also vex you, by saying to you, “You also descend from strangers.’ Do not reproach your fellow man with a fault which is also in you.” Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained the verses: “Remember that ye were strangers as he is now.” But there is in all these comments no real reason for the law. The correct interpretation appears to me to be that He is saying: “Do not wrong a stranger or oppress him, thinking as you might that none can deliver him out of your hand; for you know that you were strangers in the land of Egypt and I saw the oppression wherewith the Egyptians oppressed you, and I avenged your cause on them, because I behold the tears of such who are oppressed and have no comforter, and on the side of their oppressors there is power, and I deliver each one from him that is too strong for him. Likewise you shall not afflict the widow and the fatherless child, for I will hear their cry, for all these people do not rely upon themselves but trust in Me.” And in another verse He added this reason: for ye know the soul of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. That is to say, you know that every stranger feels depressed, and is always sighing and crying, and his eyes are always directed towards G-d, therefore He will have mercy upon him even as He showed mercy to you, just as it is written, and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto G-d by reason of the bondage, meaning that He had mercy on them not because of their merits, but only an account of the bondage [and likewise He has mercy on all who are oppressed].

"And a stranger" — when the resident alien agrees not to worship a foreign deity, you shall not wrong him in your land, because you have much greater power than he, and you must remember that you were strangers like him. Having mentioned the stranger who has no power, Scripture likewise mentions the orphan and the widow, who are Israelites yet also have no power. And after saying "you shall not afflict them" in the plural, it says "if you afflict" — for anyone who sees a person oppressing an orphan or a widow and does not help them, he too is reckoned as one who oppresses.

וגר לא תונה, "You shall not wrong a stranger, etc." Rashi says that if the Jew were to remind the stranger of his idolatrous past, he has to be prepared to be reminded by the stranger of his own unsalutary past. Ibn Ezra says that we must remember that we were once no better than the stranger. Nachmanides disagrees with both these interpretations and says that we must remember that G'd will respond to the oppressed just as He responds to our own outcries when warranted. Once we remind ourselves that the souls of the Jewish people are the very root of sanctity seeing that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their offspring were part of G'd's heritage, we can understand that Jews do not react to insults heaped upon them by the Gentiles. We do not even view such people as in the category of אדם. It is this attitude vis-a vis the Gentiles that provides the background for Jews belittling Gentiles, even those Gentiles who have ceased worshiping idols. As a result the Torah saw fit to tell us why we must not remind strangers of their idolatrous past. We are not to tell such people that they are rooted in the domain of the קליפות, i.e. that their intrinsic worth is inferior to ours. When the Torah reminds the Jewish people: "for you were strangers in the land of Egypt," this should be understood according to my comment on Genesis 46,3 and Exodus 20,2. I have demonstrated there that while the Jewish people resided in Egypt their own souls were mired deeply in the same moral morass that the souls of the Egyptians found themselves in.

וגר לו תונה, “and you must not oppress a convert;” the reason why this verse follows that about converts serving both Hashem and their previous deities, is that G-d wishes to go on record that although He finds serving another deity as something repulsive, He does love converts and appreciates that they distanced themselves from their former religion. לא תלחצנו, “do not abuse him.” We must not abuse the converts by using them to perform menial labour. Seeing that by definition they are unfamiliar with the ways of the Israelites, our culture, etc., it would be too easy to take advantage of their ignorance by assigning to them degrading work.

וגר לא תונה, “and you must not take advantage of a stranger.” The word תונה refers to disadvantaging him with words, whereas the following word ולא תלחצנו refers to physically taking advantage of his status such as robbing him of money which is his (Mechilta Nezikin section 18). The Torah writes many times about the need to treat a proselyte fairly seeing that he is alone in a country in which he has no roots, no family who could protect him. The word גר for a stranger is derived from גרגיר, an isolated berry at the far end of a solitary branch. People have a habit of insulting strangers and belittling them. G’d therefore warns us not to think that such a stranger has no one who takes up his complaints. The Lord Himself will fight his fight for him. The Torah reminds us that we of all people should have empathy for strangers seeing we had been taken advantage of in Egypt because we were strangers. G’d implies that just as He took pity on us as we had no one else to turn to, He will do the same for such strangers if the need arises. Interestingly, the Torah (23,9) did not write אתם ידעתם את הנר, but ואתם ידעתם את נפש הגר. “you know the soul (feelings) of a stranger,” You are aware that every stranger has low self-esteem, and he has no one to turn to except Me.” The Torah mentions immediately afterwards that we must not oppress widows or orphans, both of whom have been bereaved of their human protectors. Both categories are often taken advantage of by callous people. Baba Metzia 59 describes them as prone to weeping. Seeing that the “gates of weeping are never locked,” i.e. G’d is ready to respond to people who feel so wretched that they turn to G’d with their tears, G’d warns offenders that He, personally, will exact retribution from people who exploit the weakness of either widows or orphans. To avoid becoming the object of such retribution we must be especially careful not to give widows or orphans cause to complain to G’d against us. Isaiah 58, 7 and 10 warns: “share your bread with the hungry, take the wretched poor into your home, when you see the naked clothe him....offer your compassion to the hungry and satisfy the famished creature.” He means that if you have bread you can give the poor do this; if you do not have what to share at least display some sympathy for the suffering creatures so that they will regain hope and confidence. The reason the Torah speaks about כל אלמנה, “every widow,” is to include wealthy widows in the commandment not to take advantage of them. She too is prone to shedding tears and is liable to feel embittered.

כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים, “for you had remained strangers in the land of Egypt.” Nachmanides writes that not all proselytes have become potentially fit for conversion because we, the Israelites, were strangers only in the land of Egypt. Personally, (Nachmanides speaking) I think that the moral/ethical message here is that we must not taunt the proselyte, reminding him of his lack of illustrious ancestors, seeing that we ourselves not so long ago were no better than he while we were idol worshipping aliens in Egypt. I, the Lord, have saved you from there because I took note of your pitiful state. Similarly, any proselyte will certainly also enjoy My full protection a soon as he turns to Me complaining about being discriminated against. G’d promises similar immediate attention to the pleas of widows and orphans. Their claim for Divine assistance is based on the circumstances in their lives preventing them from taking the kind of initiatives that promise to improve their social and economic status among their peers. Elsewhere the Torah writes:ואתם ידעתם את נפש הגר “you know the mental state of the stranger,” meaning that his mentality is devoid of self-confidence, and that he is therefore liable to cry out to G’d for help at frequent intervals. (compare Exodus 23,9)

לא תונה, do not wrong him with words. In Leviticus 25,14 the Torah refers to similar legislation when applying to monetary matters. The same legislation applies to not wronging fellow Jews who are not converts, of course. The reason the Torah chose the convert as the example of the victim in our verse is that converts have much less of a chance to protect themselves against abuse of any kind, seeing they have no family to stand up for them if a wrong has been committed against them. Not only this, it is so easy to wrong a convert by mentioning what his parents do and what he himself used to do before he converted. ולא תלחצנו, to perform work for you seeing he has no “redeemer” who looks out for his interest. G’d mentioned this to remind the Israelites who also had no one in Egypt to plead their case. (Exodus 3,9) כי גרים הייתם, due to your personal experience of such a status, you, better than anyone else, know that seeing that the oppression of strangers is a great wrong, the punishment for violating such a commandment is equally harsh. (compare Exodus 23,9)

You shall not afflict any widow or orphan.

כל אלמנה ויתום לא תענון YOU SHALL NOT AFFLICT ANY WIDOW, OR FATHERLESS CHILD — That is also the law regarding any person, but Scripture is speaking of what usually happens and therefore mentions these in particular, for they are feeble in defensive power (i. e. they have no one to protect them) and it is a frequent occurrence for people to afflict them (Mekhilta).

ANY WIDOW — even a rich one of quite considerable wealth — YE SHALL NOT AFFLICT, for her tears are frequent and her soul is depressed. He states, If thou afflict ‘otho’ [“him” in the singular], meaning any one [who is a widow or a fatherless child]. Therefore it is written after that, and your wives shall be widows, in punishment for your causing the cry of the widow, and your children fatherless, in punishment for the cry of the orphan. This punishment [And My wrath shall glow, and I will kill you with the sword etc.] is not counted by our Rabbis amongst those brought upon people who are liable to death by the hand of Heaven, as listed in the Beraitha, “These are the people who are liable to death by the hand of Heaven” taught in Tractate Sanhedrin. The reason for this is that the death mentioned here is unlike the usual death of people by the hand of Heaven, of whom it is said, and they die therein, if they profane it; and ye die not. But here the punishment is that they will die by the enemy’s sword, or he shall go down into battle, and be swept away without anyone knowing it, and their wives will thus have to remain forever widows, and their children always be fatherless.

לא תענון אם ענה תענה אותו; if, in the process of oppressing an orphan your intention was only to oppress him alone; if your “oppressing” him was in the nature of disciplining him in order to ultimately bestowing loving kindness on him after he responded to your rebuking him, your disciplining him is considered an act of loving kindness. [the author interprets verse 22 starting with the word אם as an alternative, moderating what has been written in verse 21. Ed.]

כל אלמנה ויתום לא תענון, “Do not oppress any widow or orphan.” The word כל in this verse has to be understood as in Exodus 20,10: לא תעשה כל מלאכה, not as meaning: ”do not do all the work,” but as: “do not do any work.” [Compare also Exodus 20,4: תמונה, “do not make for yourself any likeness;” it does not mean that you are only forbidden to make for yourselves a likeness of all that is on heaven or earth.”] The Torah mentions the proselyte as he has no family in Israel and therefore no one who can advise him or protect him. He belongs to the weakest members of society. Next the Torah mentions widows and orphans, who though natural born Israelites either have lost their protectors or had never had any. לא תענון, the reason why the Torah used the plural mode when exhorting us not to exploit this group of people, while in the rest of this chapter it used the singular mode, is because so many people are in the habit of doing just that when they face weak people. The Torah includes in this prohibition therefore all the people who witness such exploitation and do not protest it. This is why also the penalty for people guilty of this has been written in the plural mode. וחרה אפי והרגתי אתכם, “My anger will flare up and I will kill you;” (verse 23)

כל אלמנה ויתום לא תענון, “Do not oppress any widow or orphan.” The word כל, “every,” is meant to include wealthy widows and well to do orphans. It teaches that contrary to appearances, such people are keenly aware of the loss of companionship and moral support they have sustained, and that cannot be compensated for simply by earthly possessions. The Torah addresses people generally, society, hence the word תענון, is in the plural mode. Ibn Ezra comments that the penalty for someone witnessing such oppression without protesting the behaviour of the party guilty of it, is the same as the person actually guilty of such oppression of the orphan and widow.

לא תענון, as in Exodus 1,11. The Torah employs the most likely scenarios as the examples it chooses.

If you afflict him at all, and if he indeed cries out before Me, I will surely accept his cry.

אם ענה תענה אתו IF THOU AFFLICT THEM IN ANY WISE — This is an elliptical phrase — the text threatens but breaks off and does not specify immediately the punishment which will fall upon those who do this. We have the same in, (Genesis 4:15) “Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain …” it threatens but does not specify the punishment. So, here, too: “If thou afflict them in any wise”, — this is a threat, as much as to say: “in the end you will get your deserts!” Why are you certain to get them? “Because (כי) if (אם) they cry at all unto Me, I will surely hear their cry”.

IF THOU AFFLICT HIM IN ANY WISE. “This is an elliptical verse; it threatens, but does not explain the punishment needed to complete the sense of the verse. It is like the verse, therefore, whosoever slayeth Cain, which does not explain what the punishment is. Here too, if thou afflict him in any wise, is an expression of determination to inflict punishment, as if to say: ‘In the end you will get your deserts. Why? For if he cry unto Me I will hear him, and I will avenge him.’” This is Rashi’s language. But it is not correct [to interpret a verse on the basis of such a long omission, in order to complete the sense]. The witness he brings [i.e., the verse about Cain] also does not testify to that [kind of long omission]. But it is possible that the word ki [generally translated “for”], here means “if,” for this is one of the usages of the word ki, and the verse thus states: “if if he cry at all unto Me, I will surely hear his cry,” the repetition of the word “if” being used in order to show the gravity and importance of the matter, similar in usage to these phrases; hamiblie ein k’varim [generally translated: “Was it because there were no graves…?” — but literally: “was it because there were ‘no no’ graves…?”]; harak ach b’Mosheh [generally translated: “hath the Eternal indeed spoken only with Moses”, but literally: “‘only only’ with Moses].”The correct interpretation appears to me to be that He is stating: “If thou afflict him in any wise, if he will only just cry at all unto Me I will at once hear his cry: he does not need anything else at all, for I will save him and avenge his cause from you. And the reason for this is that you oppress him because [you think] he has no one to help him against you, but behold he has more help than anyone else. For other people will try to find saviors to save them, and helpers to avenge their cause, and perhaps they cannot profit nor deliver, while this one will be saved by the Eternal merely through his crying out, and He will take vengeance from you, for The Eternal is a jealous and avenging G-d.” There are many verses to a similar effect. Thus, that which He said, Rob not the weak, because he is weak, neither crush the poor in the gate; for the Eternal will plead their cause, means: “rob not the poor merely because he is poor and has no helpers, nor crush the poor in your gates, for the Eternal will plead on their behalf.” Similarly He said, And enter not into the fields of the fatherless, for their Redeemer is strong; the Eternal of hosts is His Name, for they have a Redeemer Who is stronger and closer to them than all people have. Here also He said, that just by his cry, the fatherless will be saved. Likewise: For as the rain cometh down and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, except it water the earth, and make it bring forth and bud, and give seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so shall My word be that goeth forth out of My mouth; it shall not return unto Me void, except it accomplis...

"If you afflict" — here is the punishment: if one person afflicts them and no one helps, the punishment falls upon all of them. That is why what follows says, "My anger will blaze and I will kill you all." And it says: "If he cries out to Me" — on behalf of the orphan, and the same rule applies to the widow. But it is particularly fitting for the orphan, who may be young and unable to speak as the widow can.

אם ענה תענה אותו, If you afflict them in any way, etc." Why did the Torah have to write the word אותו, "him," and did not merely write אם תענהו, using the pronoun ending? We would have known that the subject of the verse is the orphan just mentioned. Perhaps we can best explain this with the help of the Mechilta on the words לא תענון. The author writes that but for the word לא תענון in verse 21, I would have thought that this injunction applies only to widows and orphans. Whence do I know that one must not treat people generally in an exploitative manner? This is why the Torah writes לא תענון. Thus far the Mechilta. Since the words לא תענון apply to people as a whole, the word אותו in verse 22 is needed to tell us that the special penalty in store for people transgressing this commandment spelled out in verse 23 applies only if the violation was committed against either a widow or an orphan.

אם ענה תענה אותו, “if you nonetheless oppress him, etc;” Rashi points out that at this point the penalty for such behaviour has not been spelled out, but it is spelled out when the victim complains to G-d about the treatment that he had to endure. The next verse does mention: “your wives will become widows, etc.” כי אם צעוק יצעק, “but if you do mistreat them;” this is a reference to the orphan, as he, being a minor does not even have a concept of what such discrimination means and he does not know how to show people what he feels, as opposed to the widow who had not always been mistreated while her husband had been alive. שמוע אשמע צעקתו, “I will most certainly respond to his outcry;” for people guilty of oppressing him should have been punished by the court; the Torah proceeds to describe that G-d will apply penalties which reflect the sin of the sinner so that he will know why he has been punished. (Rash’bam)

אם ענה תענה אותו, “if you were really to cause him pain,” The Torah goes to the trouble to again spell out each group of potentially affected people such as the widow, the orphan, although they had been mentioned in verse 21 as people that were not to be oppressed. [The repetition ענה תענה is perceived as applying to widow and orphan individually. Ed.] The reason the Torah repeats so many words in this legislation (ענה תענה, צעק יצעק, שמע אשמע), is that most such people when they suffer indignities endeavor to obtain redress by appealing to a variety of socially responsible organisations. Being widows or orphans however, they do not rely on such organisations but appeal to G’d at the same time. The Torah reflects this situation by describing them as appealing for help on two different levels. The Torah assures them that G’d too will respond on two different levels, i.e. שמע אשמע את צעקתו, “I will hear (respond) his outcry repeatedly.” If G’d is faced with appeals from a variety of people which He will respond to, the appeals by widows and orphans will enjoy priority. This is similar to what Solomon said in Proverbs 23,11: “for they have a powerful redeemer; He will fight their battles against you.” Seeing that unfortunately it is the way of people to constantly oppress the widows and orphans the Torah informed us that G’d will help these people more than anyone else. We would have expected that the words ענה תענה would be followed by the word אותם, “them,” not אותו, “him,” as the Torah writes here. The reason is that the Torah warns not to oppress the same widow or the same orphan again and again. Were this to happen, if even only one victim would appeal to Me צעק יצעק אלי שמע אשמע צעקתו, “I will surely listen to the outcry of each one of these people who have been abused.” We usually find the response by G’d to appeals to Him described in a manner reflecting the urgency or intensity with which they were presented to G’d. Example: Psalms 39,13 שמעה תפלתי ה’ ושועתי האזינה, “hear my prayer O Lord, give ear to my cry.” A prayer which is uttered by lips is referred to as requiring שמיעה in response, whereas a prayer which reflects deeper anguish by the petitioner and which is described by the psalmist as שועה, requires a correspondingly more profound attention and response, hence the psalmist says of it האזינה, “give ear.” Such a type of listening goes beyond mere שמיעה, which registered merely the sound of the prayer. Finally, in that same verse, David adds: אל דמעתי אל תחרש, “do not remain silent in response to my tears!” Tears are an expression of a human being having humbled himself before the one to whom they are addressed, in this instance, of course, to G’d. The meaning of אל תחרש is that that the petitioner wants to secure G’d’s goodwill. From the above you can appreciate how meticulous G’d is in dealing with different nuances of human behaviour, responding to each person in accordance with his individual level of piety, distress, etc. There is a Midrash which expresses a similar sentiment. Job 33,23, (Elihu speaking), אם יש עליו מלאך מליץ אחד מני-אלף להגיד לאדם ישרו, “if he has a representative, one advocate against a thousand to declare man’s uprightness.” [The speaker goes on to demonstrate how easily G’d will respond to favorable data about the petitioner. Ed.] The Midrash draws attention to the fact that Elihu did not say מלאך אחד מני אלף, but מליץ אחד מני אלף, not “one agent (angel) amongst a thousand,” but “one advocate among a thousand.” Elihu meant that if a single merit can be shown on behalf of a person against whom there may be one thousand demerits this suffices to elicit a positive response from G’d. Another way of explaining the words שמוע אשמע צעקתו could be that the first word (שמוע) means “I, the Lord, will compensate you for the harm done to you by your fellow;” the word אשמע then would mean that “I, the Lord, will deprive the one who slighted you of an amount equivalent to that which he has stolen from you.” This would be in line with the last verse (26) in this paragraph והיה כי יצעק אלי ושמעתי כי חנון אני, “it will be when he cries out to Me, I shall listen, for I am compassionate.” The word חנינה is a reference to the attribute of Justice being employed against the one who caused the petitioner to cry out to G’d, and G’d as a result suppressing His compassion with such a person.

“If you afflict him.” It should have said “them” [plural form], and what is the double language afflict afflict, cry cry, hear hear? By way of the simple understanding, we can say that sometimes a person afflicts the orphan alone, and his mother, the widow, sees and is consumed with sorrow but is powerless to save her son. And through the affliction of one of them, both are afflicted and both cry out, and the Holy One, blessed be He, hears both of them and punishes the offender doubly, so that his children become orphans and his wife a widow. And by way of allusion, we can say that since the Holy One, blessed be He, is the father of orphans, then certainly in all their troubles He feels their pain, as it were. Therefore it says if you afflict then you also afflict “Him”, who is the father of orphans. And indeed both cry out: The attribute of judgment criticizes him above, and the orphan cries out below, and the Holy One, blessed be He, the Merciful One, receives the cry of both.

אם ענה תענה אותו, “if you as an individual will be guilty of oppressing such an unfortunate person, etc.” the Torah addresses every such individual not only as a member of society, but in his capacity as a heartless individual.

My anger will blaze and I will slay you by the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children orphans.

והיו נשיכם אלמנות AND YOUR WIVES SHALL BE WIDOWS [AND YOUR CHILDREN FATHERLESS] — From what is implied in the words, “I will kill you with the sword” do I not know that “your wives shall be widows and your children orphans”? But the explanation of the latter words is not that implied by your question; it is quite a different curse: that the wives will be “fettered” for life — “as living widows” (Rashi is imitating a Biblical phrase, II Samuel 20:3, used in a somewhat similar sense) — that there will be no witnesses who can testify to the death of their husbands, and so they will be forbidden to re-marry. In which case the children will be destitute orphans, for the court will not allow them to take possession of the chattels of their fathers, since they do not know whether they have died or have only been taken captives (Mekhilta; Bava Metzia 38b).

שמוע אשמע צעקתו וחרה אפי. I will have pity with the one who cries out to Me complaining against the harsh and unfair treatment he has to endure. G’d’s reaction to a Jewish individual guilty of such behaviour will be similar to His reaction to the prolonged abuse suffered by the Israelites at the hands of the Egyptians. Anyone guilty of such oppression of orphans or widows will bring about this kind of suffering for his own family members.

“Your wives will become widows and your sons, orphans” – the punishment you receive will fit your deeds.

וחרה אפי, “and My anger shall blaze forth.” This is the same attribute of Justice which smote the Egyptians because they maltreated you taking advantage of the fact that you were strangers. The words והרגתי אתכם בחרב are aimed at those guilty of abusing the stranger whereas the words והיו נשיכם אלמנות are the warning to the people taking advantage of widows. The words ובניכם יתומים, are aimed at people abusing orphans. Each offense will be punished by the מדה כנגד מדה principle, punishment fitting the crime. All the time you are careful not to offend the sensibilities of any of the three groups of naturally sensitive people, any part of the attribute of Justice which would be turned against you (for other sins) will be reversed and will express itself instead as an arm of the attribute of Mercy (Sotah 16). This will enable you to enjoy many years on the land, both you and your children in the presence of your G’d. Practice of righteousness saves from death as we know from Proverbs 10,2. We also have a promise in chapter 12,28 of Proverbs: “there is life in the path of righteousness, there is no death on its path.” Practicing charity is considered a greater ethical/moral achievement than offering of sacrificial animals to G’d as we read in Proverbs: 21,3 “G’d prefers the performance of righteousness to the presentation of sacrificial offerings.”

והיו נשיכם אלמנות, “your own wives will become widows, etc.” This will be the penalty exacted as a result of widows complaining to G’d. ובניכם יתומים, “and your children will become premature orphans.” This will be the result of an orphan complaining to G’d about being treated unfairly. This type of retribution is quite different from death sentences handed out by a heavenly court of law. Concerning such penalties the Torah employs such syntax as ומתו בו כי יחללוהו, “they will die on account of having profaned it or Him.” (Leviticus 22,9) Examples of how such decrees are carried out would be soldiers dying in battle, (i.e. before having completed a normal life cycle). אם ענה תענה אותו, Rashi comments on that line in verse 22 that it contains an abbreviated dire warning without spelling out the kind of penalty resulting. The penalty mentioned in verse 23 refers only to G’d’s response to a complaint by the injured party, whereas no mention is made of the penalty imposed when the injured party did not complain to G’d about being maltreated. Nachmanides writes that Rashi is not correct, but that the words אם ענה תענה אותו, have to be understood as in lieu of the words “if he will complain to Me” preceding the punishment of the offender in time, that G’d threatens that He will immediately respond to the complaint if the oppressed orphan even before he has finished complaining. The apparently illogical sequence of this line underlines the immediacy of G’d’s response. The reason for G’d’s “haste” in responding to the outcries of widows and orphans is that whereas ordinary people try to mobilize their social contacts or their wealth to help them over temporary difficulties, the orphans and widows have no such means to fall back on. Only G’d will avenge the wrong done to them.

'והיו נשיכם וגו a warning of the punishment being made to fit the crime.

If you lend money to My people, to the poor person who is with you, you shall not be to him as a creditor; you shall not place interest upon him.

אם כסף תלוה את עמי IF THOU LEND MONEY TO ANY OF MY PEOPLE — R. Yishmael said: wherever אם occurs in Scripture it is used of an act the performance of which is optional, except in three instances, of which this is one (Mekhilta; cf. Rashi on Exodus 20:22 - the translation therefore is: “When thou lendeth etc.”). את עמי TO ANY OF MY PEOPLE — If thou hast to choose between lending money to My people and a heathen, My people come first; if between a poor man and one who is better off, the poor man comes first; if between thine own poor (poor relatives) and other poor of thy city, thine own poor come first; if between the poor of thine own city and the poor of another city, the poor of thine own city come first (Mekhilta; Bava Metzia 71a). And this is how the above explanation is implied in the text: “If thou lend money” — את עמי “lend it to My people”, and not to a heathen; and to which one of My people? את העני, to the poor; and to which poor? עמך to him that is with thee (i. e. who is with thee in relationship and is with thee in thy city). [Another explanation of את עמי is: Thou shalt not treat him disrespectfully when lending him money, for he is עמי — though in need he is still “My people”! את העני עמך Look at thyself as though thou art the poor man (Midrash Tanchuma 6:15)]. לא תהיה לו כנשה THOU SHALT NOT BE UNTO HIM AS AN EXACTOR — you shall not demand the debt of him forcibly. The comparative כ of כנשה suggests thou shalt not be like a נשה: if you know that he has no money do not appear in your attitude towards him as though you had lent him, but as though you had not lent him — it means as much as, do not humble him. נשך is what is called in Rabbinical Hebrew רבית (from רבה to increase). It is called נשך “biting”, because it resembles the bite of a snake: it bites, inflicting a small wound in a person’s foot which he does not feel at first, but all at once it swells and distends the whole body up to the top of his head. So it is with interest: at first one does not feel the drain it makes on him and it remains unnoticed until the interest mounts up and suddenly makes the person lose a big fortune (Exodus Rabbah 31:6).

THOU SHALT NOT BE TO HIM AS AN EXACTOR — that is, a creditor. He is saying that the lender should not behave to the borrower like a creditor who is a sort of lord over the borrower, as it is written, and the borrower is a servant to the lender, but instead you should behave to him exactly as if he had never borrowed from you; neither shall you lay upon him interest, whether interest of money, interest of victuals. Rather, the loan to him should be an act of goodness; you should not take from him any mark of honor because of it, nor are you to derive any monetary benefit from it.

"If you lend money" — if Hashem has given you wealth so that you are able to lend to the poor. He mentions this passage here because the poor man is like the stranger, the orphan, and the widow. He calls the poor "My people," for the pious do not seek wealth in this world — as evidenced by Elijah and Elisha, who refused to accept Naaman's gift, and Samuel of Ramah. The meaning of "with you" is: someone who lives in the same place where you live. "You shall not be to him as a creditor" — so that he defers to you on account of your beneficence. And it says "you shall impose" [plural] — for the lender, the scribe, and the witnesses all transgress.

אם כסף תלוה, if this is an Israelite on whom the promise that “there will not be a destitute person among you” has not been fulfilled. (compare Deuteronomy 15,4) The individual in need of a loan is the one who became subject to another promise (threat) written in the Torah in Deuteronomy 15,11 כי לא יחדל אביון, “there will never be a total absence of destitute people, etc.” When such a situation arises the victim will require a loan.

אם כסף תלוה, If you lend money, etc. Rabbi Yishmael says in the Mechilta that the word אם in any other verse in the Torah means that something is optional. In this case the word אם means "when" and not "if." We need to understand the whole concept of G'd employing the word אם to describe things which may or may not occur. Why does G'd not phrase legislation in a definitive manner? Perhaps the Torah wants to provide an answer also to those who ask why some people seem to enjoy far more riches than they can possibly need in their lives. Such a questioner may well point to our patriarch Jacob (Genesis 28,20) who asked G'd for the necessities of life, i.e. bread to eat, and clothes to wear." While we can understand that depriving man of his necessities may have morally rewarding results seeing that the person so deprived may be punished for wrongdoing and may turn to prayer in order to expiate his guilt, what is the educational value of giving someone excess wealth? Our verse provides the answer to this question. Generally speaking, G'd in His great kindness provides generously for the needs of all His creatures. He allocates a fixed amount for these needs. When a person has not qualified for receiving his needs at the hands of G'd directly because he is guilty of sinful conduct, G'd does not recall the amount that would have been allocated to such a person, but He redirects it to someone else. As a result, the person who does not receive his livelihood from G'd directly, either suffers deprivation or is forced to receive his livelihood through another channel. Receiving one's livelihood by means of a fellow human being instead of at the hands of G'd is demeaning for the recipient. When G'd re-allocates the channels by which such a sinful person receives his livelihood, He practices two virtues. 1) By punishing the person in question in this world for his sins, the sinner is encouraged to rehabilitate himself. 2) G'd gives the wealthy person an opportunity to use his wealth constructively by performing charitable deeds. This is the true meaning of: "when you lend money to My people, the poor who is with you." The Torah suggests that if we find ourselves in possession of more than we need, we are to lend it to someone whom the Torah, i.e. G'd, describes as עמי, "My people." The meaning of this verse is that if you become aware that you have more money than you need for your personal requirements it is clear that the excess had originally belonged to someone else, i.e. "the poor amongst you." This is a clear hint that you should open your hand to lend to the poor part of what used to be his, or had been intended for him. Perhaps the Torah even hinted to the wealthy person that when he extends a loan to the poor he should not credit himself with being a superior person seeing that the loan only represents a partial return to the poor of what had originally been intended for him by G'd Himself. This may also be the reason why the Torah says: "do not ...

אם כסף, the reason why the law to extend loans to the needy has been written here is that the three categories of people mentioned previously, i.e. the proselyte, the orphan and the widow are the ones most in need of borrowing money. לא תהיה לו כנושה, “do not treat him (the borrower who is tardy in repaying same) like a creditor;” some commentators understand the expression נשה as “forgetting,” as when Joseph said in Genesis 41,51: כי נשני אלוקים, “for G-d has enabled me to forget, etc.;” the meaning of our verse then would be that you are not allowed to “forget” the loan for a long time and then pressure the borrower to pay interest payments for the overdue period. לא תשימון עליו נשך, “you must not impose interest payment on him (the borrower). The reason that here the Torah again uses the plural mode, is that loans always involve several people, the lender, the borrower, and the witnesses to the transaction. All of these are guilty of the transgression to charge or pay interest for loans from Israelites to other Israelites if they are silent parties to it.

אם כסף תלוה את עמי, “when you lend money to My people, etc.” Proverbs 21,14 extols the virtue of people doing charity anonymously. Solomon says: מתן בסתר יכפה אף, “a gift in secret pacifies anger.” On the other hand, ושוחד בחיק חמה עזה, “a bribe in private makes G’d very angry.” Solomon set out to extol the virtue of people practicing the attribute of charity which deflects many problems which we might otherwise have to face and which altogether cancels negative decrees if such charity is practiced with discretion. The ideal way of fulfilling the concept to give charity anonymously is to ensure that the recipient is unaware of the donor and the donor remains unaware of who the recipient of his charity is. This avoids embarrassment to both parties. It is well known that there are eight different ways of giving charity (as listed in Maimonides’ tractate of Matanot La-aniyim chapter 10). These eight variants represent eight different levels of piety in ascending order. The lowest form of giving charity is to respond to a direct request by the recipient while making plain that one gives reluctantly. The next higher level is that one gives gladly in response to such a direct appeal but one does not give adequately. The third level is to give to the poor person before he has a chance to actually ask for the handout. The fourth level is to give to the poor in such a way that he knows from whom he receives but the donor does not know who the recipient is. This is the level employed by many scholars in the period of the Talmud who dispensed charity by letting the coins drop behind their prayer shawls as they were walking the streets. The poor would pick it up. The scholars did not disdain contact with the poor but they wanted to remain unaware of the identify of the recipients. The fifth level involves people who are aware of who receives their money but the recipient is not aware of who the donor is. This was a method of people known as חסידי עליון, (definition found in Maimonides describing very pious individuals). These people would throw their contributions into the doorways of the recipients’ houses. The sixth level of dispensing charity is to preserve the mutual anonymity of both donor and recipient. This is what can be described as performing a commandment for its own sake. This was the purpose of the collection boxes in the Holy Temple into which donations were thrown which eventually were distributed by officials appointed for the purpose (compare Shekalim 5,6). Nowadays contributions to a charity fund administered by trustees who keep the names of the recipients a secret are of a similar level. This level of charity is capable of warding off impending disasters. This is what Solomon was talking about in Proverbs 21,14 and 17,8. This level is precisely the reverse of what Solomon described in that latter verse, i.e. bribing someone secretly in order to pervert the course of justice. The positive message of Solomon’s statement is that if someone deprives himself of part of his wealth by giving it to charity, this very deprivation is what keeps away disaster that had already been lurking around the corner for him. As a result of his good deed he can turn in any direction and be successful. Solomon tells us that he who imagines that he will profit by bribing someone secretly to pervert justice in his favor will ultimately deprive himself as he thereby angered G’d exceedingly. To sum up: what may be perceived as a financial setback at first glance, i.e. the giving away of money, will in fact turn out to have been the cause of financial gain while the reverse is the case when one thought one had profited by illegal and deceptive ways. The eighth method of performing the commandment of charity, the most laudable of them all, is to extend a loan to the needy; a person who receives a loan has no cause to feel embarrassed or to lose his self-respect as the one extending the loan has proved to him that he thinks he will be repaid. This is why the Torah legislates in our verse that it is a positive commandment to extend such loans. Our sages have stated unequivocally that the word אם in this verse is not conditional but an exhortation similar to Exodus 20,28 where the Torah introduces the law not to use iron tools to build an altar with the word אם. Similarly, the word אם in Exodus 21,30 אם כופר יושת עליו does not mean “if an atonement payment has been assessed against him,” but “when an atonement payment has been assessed against him.” The meaning of our verse then is: “when you extend loans of money to fellow Jews, certain categories of people enjoy priority claims to such loans.” The words את עמי, for instance, mean that if a Jew has a good friend who is a Gentile and a fellow Jew whom he hardly knows who both request a loan then the Jew takes precedence if he is unable to extend loans to both men. The words את העני עמך mean that if a request for a loan is received by the same party from a wealthy Jew and from a poor Jew, the request from the poor Jew takes precedence. Similarly, a local Jew’s request takes precedence over that by a Jew from a different town. This is based on the meaning of the word עמך, i.e. the one who resides with you, near you. The words את העני, mean “with the poor,” i.e. if someone who is in a position to extend a loan refuses to do so he may wind up poor himself, i.e. “the poverty will be with you” (compare Tanchuma Mishpatim section 15). The words לא תהיה לו כנושה, “do not be to him like a creditor,” mean “do not behave as if the recipient of the loan is socially inferior to you because he is in your debt.” The typical relationship between lender and borrower has been described in Proverbs 22,7 as “the borrower is a slave to the lender.” The Torah deplores this and forbids lenders to behave in that fashion. The words לא תשים עליו נשך, ”do not impose interest upon him,” refer to interest in its various forms whether as monetary payments, food, or in any other form (compare Deut. 23,20). The loan is supposed to be an act of loving kindness; one is not even to exploit it in order to secure some intangible advantage such as receiving honours not normally accruing to one. Even being greeted first by the borrower is considered such an intangible form of prohibited interest. This is why in Deuteronomy Moses added the words כל דבר, “in any shape or form.” (compare Baba Metzia 75). A Midrashic approach to our verse based on Shemot Rabbah 31,15. The words: “when you lend money to My people,” are a reminder that all of G’d’s creatures are constantly borrowing from each other as well as lending to one another. The day borrows from the night and the night borrows from the day. They did not need to resort to litigation on account of this, ever. This is the meaning of Psalms 19, 3-4: “Day to Day makes utterance, Night to Night speaks out; there is no utterance, there are no words whose sound goes unheard.” The moon borrows from the stars and the stars borrow from the moon; whenever G’d so desires He does not display either of them. This is the meaning of Job 9,7: “Who commands the sun not to shine; who seals up the stars.” Light borrows from the Sun and the Sun borrows from Light; this is the meaning of: “sun and moon stand still on high;” (Chabakuk 3,11). Wisdom borrows from Understanding, and Understanding borrows from Wisdom as we know from Proverbs 7,4: “Say to Wisdom “you are my sister and call Understanding a kinswoman.” Heaven borrows from Earth and Earth borrows from Heaven. This is the meaning of Deut. 28,12: “The Lord will open for you His bounteous store, the heavens, to provide rain for your land at its appropriate season.” His creatures borrow from each other and repay each other. Contrast this with the behaviour of man who lends only if he can swallow the borrower through charging him interest. This is why the psalmist described an upright individual, as someone “who does not lend his money by charging interest nor accepting bribes against the innocent” (Psalms 15,5). Please note that anyone who is wealthy and who gives charity to the poor and does not charge interest on the loans he extends is considered as if he personally had kept all the recipients alive. This is what David meant when he said (Psalms 15,5) “he who does all these will never be shaken.” Who was an individual who fitted the description mentioned by the psalmist? This was Ovadiah, who was both wealthy and a supervisor of the treasury of King Achav, King of Israel. We read in Kings I 18,3: “Achav called Ovadiah who was in charge of his palace.” He was exceedingly wealthy, spending all his money on charitable deeds as we know from verse 13 in that same chapter in Kings where he told the prophet Elijah: “I have hidden one hundred of G’d’s prophets, fifty and fifty in two different caves each. I have supplied all of them with bread and water (food and drink).” When the famine decreed by Elijah materialized this man was forced to borrow from Yehoram, Achhav’s son, (paying him interest) in order to ensure the continued survival of these prophets. Actually, Ovadiah had not meant to pay the interest to Yehoram. This is the meaning of כספו לא נתן בנשך, “he did not give his money as interest”. Yehoram had a different idea, however. He had every intention of collecting the interest agreed upon. This is why G’d dispatched Yehu to kill him. This is the true meaning of (Kings II 9,24) “Yehu drew his bow and hit Yehoram between the shoulders so that the arrow pierced his heart and he collapsed in his chariot.” In this way we can understand the statement of Ezekiel 18,13: “he has lent at advanced interest or exacted accrued interest—shall he live?” To warn us of all this the Torah here exhorts us by writing: “when you lend money to My people you must not charge interest.” An alternate approach (based on Shemot Rabbah 31,10) the unusual formulation in our verse where the Torah writes עמי, “My people,” is a hint that G’d considers the poor as “My people” by excellence. The word עמו “His people,” is found in Scripture repeatedly in reference to the poor. Examples: Isaiah 49,13 “for the Lord has comforted His people and has taken His afflicted ones in love.” Or, Isaiah 14,32: ”that Zion has been established by the Lord. In it the needy of His people shall find shelter.” It is a characteristic amongst people not to want to be saddled with poor relatives. This is what Proverbs 19,7 describes as: “all the brothers of a poor man hate him;” in chapter 14,20 Solomon expands on this further when he writes: “the poor man is hated even by his own neighbor, but the rich has many friends.” Contrast the way G’d relates to the poor. He is certainly wealthy as testified to by Chronicles I 29,12: “Riches and Honor are Yours to dispense; You have dominion over all.” Or, Chagai 2,8: “Silver is Mine and gold is Mine- says the Lord of Hosts.” Nonetheless He extends His cover and protection only to the poor as we know from Isaiah 14,32: “that Zion has been established by the Lord. In it the needy of His people shall find shelter.” This is the message of the verse commencing with the words: “when you lend money to My people.”

“If you lend money to My people, to the poor among you.” There appears to be a redundancy here, for it should have said “If you lend money to the poor.” Initially, it calls them My people, then poor, and afterward your neighbor, as it says, If you take your neighbor’s garment as security. But since it wanted to command about two things, it prefaced with two introductions, showing that from two perspectives you are obligated to lend to him. The first perspective is that he is among My people, and it is the way of a king that when his people and servants lack provisions, anyone can lend to them with confidence that the king will repay the debt. For it is the king’s responsibility to provide for his people, and whoever gives to them is as if giving to the king himself, and thus is assured of repayment. Similarly, this poor person dwells among My people, and casts his burden upon God, and one who is gracious to the poor lends to God — for one who is gracious to the poor lends to God, not to the poor person himself. The second perspective is that the poor person does more for you than you do for him, as stated (in Bava Batra 10a): “It was taught: Rabbi Meir used to say, etc.” And it concludes there: “If your God loves the poor, why doesn’t He support them?” You should reply, “So that through them we may be saved from the judgment of Gehenna.” If so, you provide him with temporary life, while he provides you with eternal life; you give him a coin, and the Holy One, blessed be He, repays you double. Therefore it is said which I have done with him today — Boaz (Ruth 2:19) and our Rabbis said (Leviticus Rabbah 34:8): “The poor person does more for the householder than the householder does for the poor person.” Therefore it says here, the poor among you, and the phrase among you implies that he is with you; therefore, he has come to poverty in order to give you merit. And corresponding to these two things, He commanded him on two matters. Corresponding to what is said, If you lend money to My people, He said, you shall not be to him as a creditor, as if to say, “you shall not be as a creditor to him,” because you are not lending to him but to the Holy One, Blessed be He. For one who is gracious to the poor is called a lender to God, not to him. And your Employer is faithful to pay you on behalf of His people. Therefore, do not pressure him by demanding forcefully, as Rashi explains, for why would you pressure him, since you did not lend to him but to his King, the Blessed One. And corresponding to what is said, the poor with you — this is the poor person who does more for you than you do for him — regarding this He said, you shall not impose upon him interest in order to profit from your money. Is it insignificant in your eyes what the poor person does for you, many times over? Both from the perspective that your reward is very great and yet you seek additional profit from him, and from the perspective that this poor person became poor because of you, for in order to save you from the judgment of Gehenna, the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not support him directly, as explained above. And if he endures all this poverty and distress with you, for your sake, to give you merit, how could it enter your mind to seek additional profit? This is nothing but wickedness of heart. And the reason it says “you shall not place” in plural form, is to warn all of them — the lender, the borrower, the guarantor, and the witnesses — they all transgress the prohibition of you shall not place [interest]. And if you take a pledge [from a poor person] because you lack faith and do not believe that you will be repaid from the heavenly treasury that is reserved for those who perform charity in the midst of the earth, then this is your punishment: that eventually you will take your neighbor’s garment as a pledge — for you too will come to poverty and will become the neighbor and companion of the poor person in poverty. And you will be forced to take a pledge from him since you will be poor like him. This is the meaning of the doubled expression if you take a pledge, you will take a pledge. Nevertheless, I warn you that you shall return it to him before the sun sets, because if you have strayed from the path of righteousness and have already taken a pledge from him, then see to it that you return the pledge before sunset. And it appears that this is referring to a night garment, as it says in what shall he sleep? And as a hint, [the text] mentions the sun, to say, look at the sun that I created to serve you as an act of kindness and charity, for the Holy One, blessed be He, renews in His goodness every day, continually, the work of creation. And all the commandments that God-fearing people who contemplate His name perform in this world are not sufficient to repay this great kindness that the Holy One, blessed be He, does by making the sun shine for them every day, as it is written, But unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise (Malachi 3:20). For even for those who fear God, the sun shines as an act of charity. And therefore, Solomon aptly said, There is no profit under the sun (Ecclesiastes 2:11), meaning that in all of man’s deeds there is not enough to repay the Holy One, blessed be He, for this great kindness. And therefore it says, Return it to him before the sun sets. For you should look at the sun of charity that I do with you, and then you will learn a lesson, and from Me you shall see and likewise do — just as I make the sun shine for you, so should you shine light for this poor person who walks in darkness with no brightness, as it is written, Is it not to share your bread with the hungry (Isaiah 58:7-8), and adjacent to it, Then shall your light break forth as the morning, and Your light shall shine in the darkness. There is yet another hint in the saying “until the sun sets, you shall return it to him.” It refers to the wealthy among the Hebrew camp who have pledges of the poor and who command their heirs to return them to the poor after their death, meaning after their sun has set, as it is written Before the sun darkens, etc. (Ecclesiastes 12:2). Therefore it says, “until the sun sets, you shall return it to him.” For who is so foolish to turn aside here and not fulfill the commandment during his lifetime when he is commanded to do it, but instead performs the commandment after his death when he is no longer commanded to do so, as it is said Among the dead who are free (Psalms 88:6) — once a person dies, he becomes free from the commandments. And those who act this way undoubtedly receive no reward for their labor, since they did not fulfill the commandment in its proper time when they were obligated to do so, but wish to fulfill it after death when they see that they can no longer use their wealth at all. What advantage is there for one who gives charity at that time? Whether from the perspective that his wealth is no longer under his control, or from the perspective that he no longer needs it, or from the perspective that he is free from the commandments — yet in his lifetime his hands refused to act, while in his death he wants to be righteous. And as a hint, we can interpret also the verse for it is his only covering, it is his garment for his skin, in what shall he sleep? as referring to a person whose eye is evil toward the poor and does not want to give charity during his lifetime, before the sun sets. If so, in what shall he sleep in the grave? For it, meaning charity, is his only covering, because when he dies, he is buried naked without this mitzvah, and he has no other covering except charity, as it is said I put on righteousness, and it clothed me (Job 29:14). And our Sages of blessed memory said (Bava Batra 9b) that charity is compared to a garment, for every single thread combines to make a large garment, so too with charity, every penny combines into a great account. Therefore it says, in what shall he sleep, and therefore it is written kesutah [his covering is written as if it were her covering] with a heh to teach that it is the covering of the soul [neshamah, which is feminine] of the lender. We can further say that this entire verse is according to its simple meaning, and nevertheless it specifies these details so that the giver or the non-giver may learn from them that whatever one does with the poor is also done with them [in return]. For the warning until sunset you shall return it to him implies both a general return in this world and a return to the poor, until the coming of evening — his time of freedom and liberty, which is before the time of death, as stated. And afterward it says that if one does not give to the poor before sunset, then the poor person has nothing to lie upon; similarly, he [the non-giver] will not have anything to lie upon in the grave, because charity alone is his covering and his garment for his skin, and without it he has no other garment and lies naked in the valley of the shadow of death. As he did to this poor person at night, so will be done to him as well. This is a correct and very precious allusion, all the more so for those groups who do not even command their heirs to return [what they borrowed], and behold, the heirs will take their money and they [the deceased] will bear their iniquity. Woe to such humiliation and shame, for I have seen in our generation many wealthy people who sit in lowliness because they stumble in this and similar matters, and they do not take moral instruction during their lives. The stinginess of the eye becomes a trait that clings to them in their lives, and in their deaths they are not separated [from it]. And this small observation is sufficient.

לא תהיה לו כנושה, when the time comes to repay the loan do not press the creditor to accept a pledge as collateral instead of repaying it, (compare Kings II 4,1) or Isaiah 50,1 who describes מי מנושי אשר מכרתי אתכם לו? “which of the creditors was it to whom I sold you off?” Every creditor who faces an insolvent debtor takes a pledge as collateral to secure the loan owed him. The Torah compares such a procedure to imposing interest on an overdue loan; therefore, לא תשימון עליו נשך as a device to extend the period for repayment.

אם כסף תלוה, “if you lend money, etc.;” Rabbi Yehudah hachassid says that the reason this verse commences with the word אם, “if,” instead the word כאשר, “when,” is that there are occasions when this is not a commandment but something that is voluntary, such as when the borrower has a reputation of not repaying a loan.

If you take your neighbor's garment as a pledge, you shall return it to him before sunset.

אם חבל תחבל IF THOU TAKE TO PLEDGE — The root חבל never signifies “taking a pledge” at the time when the loan is transacted, but it means taking the goods of the debtor when the date of payment arrives and he does not pay (Bava Metzia 114b). [חבל תחבל — Scripture bids you take the pledge repeatedly — even many times (that is, repeatedly to defer the time of payment). The Holy One, blessed be He, says as it were: “How much do you owe Me! See, your soul ascends night by night to Me and renders account of its doing and so becomes My debtor, and should be kept as a pledge; and yet I return it to you every morning. Thus, too, you should do: take the pledge and restore it, take it again and again restore it!”) (Midrash Tanchuma, Mishpatim 16)]. עד בא השמש תשיבנו לו RESTORE IT UNTO HIM TILL THE GOING DOWN OF THE SUN — Restore it unto him for the whole day until the sun-set, and at night-fall you may take it again till the day-break of the next morning. Scripture speaks here of garment which is worn during the day and which is not required during the night (Bava Metzia 114b).

"If you take a pledge at all" — after the text said שַׂלְמַת רֵעֶךָ ["your neighbor's garment"], which is a feminine form, and likewise "for it alone is his covering" uses the feminine, it then says תְּשִׁיבֶנּוּ ["return it"] — with the meaning referring to the pledge, which is masculine. The Gaon [Saadia] asked: what is the point of taking the pledge during the day and returning it at night? And he answered: it is so that the borrower should not fear and go borrow from someone else and give it to him as a pledge in its place.

אם חבול תחבול שלמת רעך, "If you take your neighbour's garment as a pledge, etc." The moral/ethical message of this verse may be to awaken a person in whose hand the garment of the king (G'd) has been entrusted. Proverbs 27,10 states: רעך ורעת אביך אל תעזב, "do not forsake your friend or the friend of your father." The person in question is supposed to relate to said garment in the manner described in Shabbat 152. The return of the soul to G'd is compared there to a king who had distributed Royal garments to his servants. The intelligent ones folded these garments and placed them in a chest for safe-keeping. The fools wore them and performed their daily routines while wearing them. When the day came when the king asked that his gaments be returned, the intelligent servants returned them in good condition, ironed, etc. The fools returned the garments soiled, crumpled, etc. The king rejoiced when he observed the care taken by his intelligent servants, while he was angry at the foolish servants. He sent the former back to their homes in peace whereas he made the fools spend a long time in jail while the garments were being cleaned. We have already explained that man's soul is part of G'd's light. The Psalmist describes G'd as garbed in light (Psalms 104,2). G'd ordered that if the item (soul) He had given man as a pledge had become soiled, i.e. that man had committed sins while "wearing" the soul, there would come a time when he has to return this pledge (i.e. his death, described in our verse as "sunset"). Psalms 90,3 speaks about "the soul returning to dust, or broken-hearted." Our sages in Kohelet Rabbah 2, understand the word דכא as the dismay of death; man was given an opportunity to repent until the day he died, i.e. until the day his sun set. The reason the Torah repeated the words חבול תחבול, is that every Israelite has three levels of soul known in ascending order as נפש, רוח, נשמה. Our verse refers to all three levels of his soul. When the Torah speaks of אם חבול, it refers to the נשמה. The word תחבול refers to the רוח; whereas the words שלמת רעך refer to the נפש. The Torah repeats this division when it defines the nature of these respective levels of pledges, i.e. the words כי היא כסותה לבדו, "for that is his only covering," refer to the נשמה. The words היא שמלתו לעורו, "it is the garment of his skin," refer to the רוח level of man's soul; finally, the words במה ישכב, "wherein he shall sleep," refer to the נפש level of man's soul. The latter is the remnant of the soul which remains with man even while he is in the grave as we know from Job 14,22: ונפשו עליו תאבל, "and his soul will mourn him." The Torah goes on to say: "it will be if he cries out to Me;" here the Torah returned to the requirement to give back the soul to G'd in the condition it had been received and assures man that he does not need to despair. If he cries out to G'd, i.e. if he is truly penitent, ושמעתי, G'd assures him: "I will listen for I am gracious." G'd assures m...

אם חבול תחבול, “if you have taken as a pledge,” (security for overdue loan) the pawn had been collected by the court’s messenger with the court’s permission. This is clear from Deuteronomy 24,11, where the Torah commands the creditor to remain outside the borrower’s house when collecting or returning it. This is an example of what has been discussed in verse 24: “do not treat him like a creditor.” תשיבנו לו, “you have to restore it to him;” you may argue that if this is the procedure to be followed then the borrower can drag out repayment until the day he dies? We therefore have to understand this verse as follows: the agent of the court did not secure this pledge until after the loan had already become overdue, and he had handed it to the lender. The rule of restoring such a pledge for immediate use by the borrower is valid only for thirty days. This is the period that the court intervenes in the matter. When the thirty days have elapsed and the loan has not been repaid, the lender is entitled to sell this pledge. The words: תשיבנו לו, “restore it to him,” the subject is the pledge, seeing that the word חבול is masculine.

אם חבול תחבול שלמת רעך עד בא השמש תשיבנו לו, “If you take your neighbour’s garment in pledge you must return it to him before the sun sets.” The verse speaks of a garment worn by day (Mechilta Nezikin 19). [The meaning is that if you took such a garment (as collateral, with the court’s approval) but during the day, you have to give it back and take it only after sunset when the owner does not need it. Ed.] Shemot Rabbah 31,10 writes as follows on our verse: here the Torah describes the meaning of Jeremiah 6,30: “they are called ‘rejected silver,’ for the Lord rejected them.” You find that when the Israelites were exiled from Jerusalem that their captors led them in iron collars. Their enemies said: “their G’d has already despised them as He said concerning them that they are rejected silver.” Just as silver needs refinement before it can be trans-formed into usable vessels, and it has to be melted down and be refined again in order to make a different vessel out of it, eventually it will be used up and returned to the soil as it is of no further use, this is what happened to Israel who are of no further use.” As soon as Jeremiah heard this he exclaimed: “Have you then rejected Yehudah? Have You spurned Zion?” (Jeremiah 14,19) The matter is best explained by means of a parable. A king punished his wife, striking her; her friend said to him: ‘how long will you keep on hitting her? If you want to divorce her, go on striking her until she dies; if however, you intend to take her back eventually, why are you so exact in your demands of her?” The king replied: “even if my entire palace were nothing but a sword, I would still not divorce her.” This is what Jeremiah said to G’d: “If You want to divorce us, keep hitting us until our memory is wiped out.” This is what he meant with the words “Have you utterly despised us, etc.?” If not, why do You inflict punishments for which there is no cure?” G’d answered him: “I will not divorce Israel until the time comes when I will destroy My Universe.” This is what is reflected in the words of Jeremiah 31,37: “Thus said the Lord: ‘if the heavens above could be measured and the foundations below could be fathomed, only then would I reject all the offspring of Israel for all they have done- declares the Lord.’ In spite of their being wayward I have made a pledge to them when I said: “I will give My sanctuary to be amongst you.” Instead of reading the word משכני to mean “My sanctuary,” you can also read it to mean משכוני, “My pledge, My collateral.” This is what Bileam had in mind when he referred to the Tabernacle saying מה טובו אהליך יעקב משכנותיך ישראל, “how goodly are your tents o Yaakov, your “pledges” o Israel” (Numbers 24,5). When the Tabernacle (Temple, Sanctuary) is in ruins its concept remains as the pledge that Israel is not permanently out of favour with its G’d. G’d, so to speak, said to Israel: “I do not offer you as a collateral, (captive) to the Gentiles because I love them but because your sins against Me.” This is what the prophet meant when he quoted G’d as saying: “where is the document of divorce of your mother whom I dismissed? And which of My creditors was it I sold you off to? You were only sold off for your sins, and your mother dismissed for your crimes.” The Midrash continues elaborating on the words אם חבול תחבול, saying: “when the Israelites transgress the commandments I will sell them as two pledges. (this is a reference to the destruction of both the first and the second Temple). How long will they be in the pawnshop? עד בא השמש, “until the Messiah will arrive.” Of that Messiah it is written (Maleachi 3,20) “a sun of victory will shine to bring healing to those who revere My name.” It has also been written (Psalms 72,17) ”while the sun lasts may his name (Messiah) endure.” When that time arrives the Jewish people will be taken back by G’d as His “wife.” Thus far the Midrash. It is well known that the people of Israel have been described as ריעים, “companions” of the Lord as we read in Psalms 122,8: “for the sake of My kin and friends.” The Holy Temple has been compared to G’d’s “mantle” (reading the word Shlomoh as Salmoh instead, i.e. with the letter ש having the dot on its left side). By the same token Solomon himself referred to the Temple as יריעות, (Song of Songs 1,5) a word which can mean either “draperies” or be a reference to this companionship we mentioned. Moses has referred to it as לבנון in Deut. 3,25 where he says: “this good mountain and the Lebanon.” Onkelos translates the word לבנון as בית מקדש, “the Holy Temple.” Yuma 39 understands the words “this good mountain” as a reference to Jerusalem whereas “Lebanon” is a reference to The Temple Mount and the Sanctuary.

אם חבל תחבל, even when you take such a pledge with the approval of the court, (compare Deuteronomy 24,11 according to which even the official of the court overseeing such a procedure is not allowed into the house of the debtor, and the debtor must himself bring you such a pledge to serve as collateral) the pledge must not consist of chattels which the debtor cannot do without. All of these considerations are included in the words “do not be like creditor to him.” עד בא השמש, you may hold on to this garment only during the night when the wearer has no need for it. (based on Baba Metzia 114).

אם חבול תחבול, “if you will take a pledge,” (as a security for an overdue loan) the repetition of this verb is to tell the lender that the value of the pledge is not to exceed the value of the debt; G–d is telling the lender that he must remember how much he himself owes G–d at any given time. If he is conscious of that, He in turn, will remember this every evening when his soul rises to heaven and He restores that soul to him in the morning. If he fails to deal fairly with the borrower, G–d will remember this in His dealings with the lender and treat his soul as a pledge.

For it is his only covering — it alone is the covering for his skin; in what else shall he sleep? And it shall be that when he cries out before Me, I will accept his cry, for I am gracious.

כי הוא כסותה FOR THAT IS HIS RAIMENT — i. e. his upper garment; שמלתו means HIS SHIRT (the שמלה for the skin); במה ישכב WHEREIN SHALL HE LIE DOWN — These words are used to include amongst the articles which must be returned to him during the day the couch and its coverings on which he rests during day-time (Mekhilta).

AND I WILL HEAR FOR I AM GRACIOUS — showing favor and accepting everyone’s supplication even though he is unworthy, the word chanun (gracious) being derived from the word chinam (for nothing). And the meaning of the verse is that you should not think: “I will not take the righteous man’s garment as a pledge, but the garment of a man who is not righteous I will take as a pledge and not return to him, for G-d will not hear his cry.” Therefore He said, for I am gracious and I hear the cry of all who beseech Me.

"For" — the meaning is: you ought to have compassion on him. Regarding the meaning of "for I am gracious [חַנּוּן]": in the opinion of the Gaon this is like "be gracious to me, be gracious to me" (Job 19:21), the meaning being that I will give him money and remove what is yours. But in my opinion the word חֲנִינָה does not work that way, for what would David mean by saying "be gracious to me, O God, in accordance with Your steadfast love" (Psalm 51:3)? Rather it is like רַחוּם ["compassionate"], even though there is a distinction between them, as I will explain in the portion of Ki Tissa. And "and I will hear" — since this comes after "and it shall be, when he cries out to Me" — is like what is written above: "if he cries out to Me, I will surely hear his cry; and My anger will blaze" — and by what sign will it be known that I have heard his cry? By the blazing of My anger that follows.

ושמעתי כי חנון אני, even though the debtor cannot complain to Me about you, seeing he owes you repayment for a loan, if he nonetheless cries out to Me complaining about his economic situation which causes him to be practically naked seeing you took his clothing as security for his overdue loan, I will give him part of what I had intended to give you as recognition of your supplying his needs. If you had been granted more financial means than you needed, the only reason was so that you could use your excess to assist the needy. כי חנון אני, I will therefore display My compassion for anyone who has no one else to turn to. It is in your own interest then to demonstrate your compassion by returning his pledge to him when he is in need of it. If you will do this you will ensure that I will not withdraw My compassion from you. This, in turn, will enable you to extend loans to other needy people.

כי היא כסותה לבדה “for it is her only blanket to cover herself with (at night).” The same is the case if she has only one garment to wear during the daytime. If she possesses more than one of each of those items, the lender need not return the pledge every evening and morning for exchanging one against the other. והיה כי יצעק אלי, “it will be that if the borrower will cry out to Me in prayer,” (accusing you of inhuman conduct) if the borrower had died from frost during the night because you had not given him or her back her only blanket then I will pay the lender back for such harshness. An alternate explanation of the line כי חנון אני: even though it cannot be expected that the lender, who had demonstrated empathy by lending the poor borrower his money in the first place, should now be expected to restore the security deposit to the borrower who had not repaid him,I will pay heed to his prayer because I am compassionate; you, on the other hand, instead of emulating My attributes, have acted brutally. The Torah had not used this statement of G-d reminding the reader of His being compassionate in connection with the treatment of orphans and widows, as their mistreatment had been forbidden by law, not merely by an appeal to the people’s good nature.

.ושמעתי כי חנון אני , “I shall listen for I am compassionate.” Nachmanides interprets these words to mean: “in order that no man should reason that the poor man whose garment was taken as a pledge was not worthy in the eyes of G’d and taking his garment would therefore not be sinful even if he did not return it to him at the time he is need of it.“ This person might reason that G’d would not answer his outcry seeing he was not worthy. G’d therefore goes on record that He would listen to such an outcry not because it was necessarily justified or that the petitioner was worthy, but because G’d Himself is compassionate. The word חנון is derived from חנם, “for free, without recompense.” It is similar to Exodus 33,19 וחנותי את אשר אחון, “I will show grace to whoever I decide to show grace.” According to Berachot 7 this means that G’d reserves the right to listen to people who entreat Him regardless of merits we are aware of.

“And it will be when he cries out to Me.” This means that if the wealthy person blocks his ears from the cries of the poor, he should not imagine that because of this the poor person’s hope is lost. Rather, “when he cries out to Me, I will hear him.” For if the wealthy person is cruel, I am not like him; instead, “I will hear him because I am compassionate.” Alternatively, it may mean, “Look to Me and follow My example with all the more reason [kal vachomer].”

ושמעתי כי חנון אני, “I shall listen for I am compassionate.” G’d is concerned that the reader should not conclude that G’d’s concern for the property and comfort of the righteous does not also extend to the not so righteous, such as in the legislation not to take as a pawn for a loan which is overdue certain necessities. (compare Deut. 24,17) Some commentators interpret the line והיה כי יצעק אלי to mean that if the individual in question was in the habit of thanking the Lord for the acts of kindness he had experienced that had been performed by you, such as not taking your bedclothes as a security for a loan, He in turn would respond to the prayer when he asks for help.

ושמעתי כי חנון אני, even though the creditor has obtained the pledge legally, and he does not have to return it except in exchange for payment of the loan it secures, the Torah expects you to do more than the law requires, something known in Talmudic parlance as לפנים משורת הדין. G’d warns that although from a legal standpoint He should ignore the pleas of the debtor, He will nonetheless listen to his plea as He is compassionate by nature. When discussing G’d’s attitude to the pleas of a widow or orphan in verse 22 the Torah describes this as not only based on His compassion but on legal considerations. Hence the words: “for I am compassionate” do not appear in that context.

והיה כי יצעק אלי, “and it will come to pass that if the borrower cries out to Me,” (complaining about unfair treatment) the borrower’s complaint to Me will sound as follows: “we have both been created by You as equals. Why should the lender sleep comfortably each night with a pillow to rest his head on, while I have to rest my head on a stone?” At first glance the wording of the Torah describing G–d’s response, i.e. “I will listen for I am gracious,” to the borrower’s complaint does not appear to fit his complaint; This is why I, (author) have decided to interpret the verse differently. It appears to relate to what was written previously in verse 25, where the Torah commanded the lender to restore the pledge (pillow) by nightfall, so that he can also rest his head on a pillow. G–d’s response is to be understood as follows: “if the borrower in his prayers mentions that you have treated him with consideration, I too will consider your own problems having due regard for the empathy you have shown the borrower.” This is spelled out clearly in Deuteronomy 15,10, where the subject of how to relate to destitute people is discussed at greater length.

A judge you shall not treat with contempt, and a leader among your people you shall not curse.

אלהים לא תקלל THOU SHALT NOT EXECRATE GOD — Here you have the prohibition of blasphemy (the penalty being stated in Leviticus 24:16) and the prohibition of cursing a judge (who is also termed אלהים, cf. Exodus 22:7) (cf. (Mekhilta and Sanhedrin 66a).

THOU SHALL NOT CURSE ‘ELOHIM.’ Onkelos translated it as referring to a judge, that one is not to curse him if he should hold him guilty in a lawsuit. Lo takeil [Onkelos’ rendition of the Hebrew lo t’kaleil — thou shalt not curse], is the Aramaic expression for “cursing.” Thus: “Meikal l’hu (they curse him): May the Eternal cut off to the man that doeth this, him that calleth and him that answereth.” There are many similar expressions, in the language of the Talmud Yerushalmi. NOR CURSE A ‘NASI’ OF THY PEOPLE — nasi means the one who is “lifted up” above his people, namely, the king. He thus mentioned that one is not to curse him in case he declares him guilty in a trial before him. In the opinion of our Rabbis in the Gemara, Thou shalt not curse ‘Elokim,’ constitutes an admonition against blaspheming the Name of G-d, even by one of the substituted names [such as: Gracious and Merciful etc.]. Thus He warned against cursing the King on high, blessed be He, and also the monarch that reigns on earth. The Rabbis have also said in the Gemara that included in the term Elokim, is the Glorious Name, as well as the judge who sits in the seat of G-d on earth. But it has not been explained whether the term nasi includes the head of the Great Sanhedrin, who is called nasi in the Gemara. Harav Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon said that he is included under the term of this prohibition. And so it also appears to me, on the basis of a question that Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi asked about himself: “A person in my status, am I to bring a sa’ir etc.?” If so, He is stating: “Do not curse any ruler of the people, who holds a position of supreme authority over all Israel, whether that position be in the secular sphere of government or in the rule of Torah,” for the head of the Sanhedrin is the highest position in the authority of the Torah.

"You shall not curse God" — these are the judges, as well as the Levitical priests with whom the Torah rests. "And a ruler among your people you shall not execrate" — whether in private or in public. The Geonim distinguished between קְלָלָה [curse] and מְאֵרָה [execration]. This ruler is the king mentioned in Deuteronomy. When we examined the verses that follow in sequence until "and in all that I have said to you, be careful" (23:13), we found that most of them concern the poor, as though they are connected to the section "if you lend money." Yefet gave a reason for mentioning "you shall not curse God" here: perhaps the poor man, in his great anguish at night — if the lender passes by and does not return his pledge — will curse the judge who ruled that his pledge be taken.

אלוהים לא תקלל, even though you may feel that the judge has judged you unfairly, you must not curse him. The reason is that no individual can judge his own guilt or innocence objectively. ונשיא בעמך לא תאור, cursing the legitimate authority of a country, its official rulers, will frequently result in the whole population experiencing the negative fallout of such curses. Compare what Solomon has to say on this in Proverbs 24,21 “fear the Lord my son, and the king; do not associate with those who keep changing.” [the author appears to read into above verse that hereditary royalty is to be obeyed in preference to elected rulers who are elected only for a limited period of time, and can be replaced by the will of the people even during their term of office. Ed.]

אלוקים לא תקלל, “Do not curse G-d or a judge;” the reason why this verse has been inserted here is because maybe the lender transgressed the law to restore a pledge under the circumstances defined in the Torah, and in his frustration, the borrower curses the judge who had permitted him to take that pledge as security for the loan, even though the judge had acted according to the law. ונשיא בעמך לא תאור, “neither shall you put a curse on legitimately installed authorities in your land.” Usually only wealthy people rise to the position of chieftain, and usually such people are prepared to extend loans to the needy. It stands to reason that the legislation about pledges is directed at them therefore. The borrower is warned not to forget that he has been a beneficiary of that rich man’s possessions when he obtained the loan. It would be the reverse of gratitude if he were now to curse that chieftain.

אלוהים לא תקלל, “you shall not curse a judge.” This is a warning for the party who has been convicted of a crime or sin not to curse the judge who convicted him. This subject follows the subject of the need to extend loans to fellow Jews as on occasion disputes arise over whether a loan has been repaid, the debtor either denying he had received it or the lender claiming that he had not been repaid. Such disputes are submitted to judgment. It is quite possible that the party whose claim is rejected (if he feels that he has been wronged) will curse the judge who has wronged him. This is why the Torah has to warn that one must not engage in such conduct. ונשיא בעמך, “nor a prince amongst your people, etc.” This refers to the legally appointed king who has thereby been elevated above the people. The Torah warns his subjects that if the king found them guilty they must not curse him. Solomon issues a similar warning (Kohelet 10,20) “do not revile a king even amongst your intimates! Do not curse a rich man even in your bedchamber, for a bird of the air may carry the utterance, and a winged creature may report a word.” The reason the Torah first lists the prohibition against cursing a judge is because by reason of his position he must be wise and should not have erred in judgment. We also have this order of precedence in Horiot 13 where the Talmud ranks a scholar ahead of a king. The Talmud in Sanhedrin 66 interprets our verse as a warning not to curse G’d even by not referring to Him by His holy names. The word elohim is understood as a reference to the Supreme King, i.e. the Almighty, whereas the word נשיא בעמך refers to the mortal king appointed by the people. This too would be in accordance with Proverbs 24,21 where Solomon writes: “fear the Lord my son and the king.” A Midrashic approach (based on Shemot Rabbah 31,8): there is a conceptual linkage between verse 27 not to curse people in authority and the following verse which deals with the setting aside and handing over of the various tithes, etc. If people will fall into the habit of cursing their judges and their king the result will be crop failure, i.e. they will not have any tithes to set aside. The Midrash cites as a case in point the beginning of the Book of Ruth which commences with the words ויהי בימי שפוט השופטים, which is understood to mean that the period during which this story occurred was one when the common people “judged” the judges, i.e. were openly disdainful of them. In the verse following we are told of a major famine in Eretz Yisrael which led to the emigration of Elimelech and his family. This is an illustration of how one sin results in other sins. From verse 28 in our portion we are to learn that it is not enough to set aside the various gifts for the priest, the Levite, the poor and the destitute, but they must be set aside in their proper sequence commencing with Terumah, followed by the first tithe, followed by the second tithe. The Torah promises reward for setting these tithes aside on time and in their proper sequence by implying that he who does so will have a first born son, i.e. בכור בניך תתן לי, “the firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me.” Clearly, this commandment applies only if you do have firstborn sons. The Torah follows this promise with “so you shall do to your ox, to your flock.” The message is that if the Jewish farmer sets aside what he is supposed to set aside in accordance with Torah legislation, these gifts far from depriving him will actually result in his giving away what is G’d’s as G’d has already blessed him with produce and flocks and herds. As a result of complying with these various regulations the Torah writes (verse 30) ואנשי קודש תהיו לי, “and you will be people of holiness to Me.” G’d will make the Jewish people into the תרומה, the symbolic heave-offering of the world. This is the meaning of Jeremiah 2,3: קדש ישראל לה’ ראשית תבואתו, “Israel was holy to the Lord, the first fruit of His harvest.” Seeing that the Jewish people are Terumah, G’d’s heave, they are not allowed to consume animals which are diseased or mutilated, i.e. טרפה, as is stated in verse 30 of our chapter. G’d furthermore decreed that we must give such animals to the dogs in acknowledgment of the fact that during the fateful night preceding the Exodus all the dogs kept silent and did not take up a hostile attitude towards the Israelites (compare 11,7). This is why the Torah legislates here “throw it to the dogs!” Thus far the Midrash.

אלוקים לא תקלל, “You shall not revile G’d; nor shall you curse a legally appointed dignitary of your people.” This is a warning not to curse a judge who has found you guilty in litigation. ונשיא בעמך לא תאור; not to curse the king if he imposed some penalty on you. Not only the king, any legitimate official is meant. Even a member of a religious court, i.e. one dealing with ritual matters, is included in this prohibition.

אלוהים לא תקלל ונשיא בעמך לא תאר. The Torah again selected the most likely scenario of someone cursing people in authority. People who lose in litigation are apt to curse the judge ruling against them. We find a similar verse in Kohelet 10,20 where Solomon writes: “don’t revile a king even among your intimates.” Another verse in which the Torah refers to a spectacle arousing curses is found in Deuteronomy 21,23 where the Torah refers to the body of a judicially executed person being buried by nightfall. The reason given is that seeing such a body evokes curses against the judges who had convicted the victim.

Your first-fruits and your first-pressing you shall not delay; the firstborn of your sons you shall set apart before Me.

מלאתך [THOU SHALT NOT DELAY TO OFFER FROM] THY FULLNESS — The duty which falls upon you as soon as your crop becomes fully ripened: this refers to the first fruits (בכורים). ודמעך means THE HEAVE OFFERING, — thus do our Rabbis explain it (cf. Mekhilta), but I do not know what the expression דמע means (i. e. I do not know how it comes to have the meaning of (תרומה). לא תאחר THOU SHALT NOT DELAY — i. e. thou shalt not alter the prescribed sequence of separating them from the crops, setting aside last what should be first and setting aside first what should be last — i. e. that one should not set aside the heave-offering before the first fruit nor the tithe before the heave-offering (Mekhilta). בכור בניך תתן לי THE FIRST BORN OF THY SONS SHALT THOU GIVE UNTO ME — by redeeming him from the priest by the payment of five Sela’im. Scripture, it is true, has already given an ordinance concerning him (the firstborn) in another passage (Numbers 18:16), but it is stated here again in order to bring it into juxtaposition with the next verse: “Likewise shalt thou do with that of thine ox”, and to illustrate the latter command by the former. How is it in the case of a human being? He (the father) redeems it after thirty days, for it is said, (Numbers 18:16) “and those that are to be redeemed, from a month old shalt thou redeem”! So, too, has the owner of small cattle to look after it for 30 days and only afterwards must he give it to the priest (cf. Mekhilta and Bekhorot 26b).

M’LEIATHCHA V’DIM’ACHA’ (OF THE FULNESS OF THY HARVEST, AND OUT OF THE OUTFLOW OF THY PRESSES) THOU SHALT NOT DELAY TO OFFER. We find the word m’leiah with reference to seed, thus: lest there be forfeited ‘ham’leiah’ (the fulness) of the seed which thou hast sown, and again: ‘v’kamleiah’ (and as the fulness) of the winepress, meaning wine and oil, just as it is said, and the vats shall overflow with wine and oil. It appears to me in connection with these terms, that fruits of the field and vineyard are called t’vuah [of the root bo — come in] because the farmers “bring” the whole crop in together to the homes. It is also called asif (the ingathering): ‘osef’ (the ingathering) shall not come; and the feast of ‘ha’asif’ (the ingathering). This is why produce is called m’leiah (fulness), because a gathering-together into one place of a mass of material or people is called milui (fulness): though there be called forth against him ‘m’lo’ (a multitude of) shepherds; even they are ‘malei’ (in full) cry after you; together against me ‘yitmalo’un’ — they gather themselves and come. Similarly, and his seed shall become ‘m’lo’ nations — means an assembly and multitude of nations. It is further possible that produce is called m’leiah (full) as a substitute term for a blessing — that the granaries shall be full of corn, and the vats shall overflow with wine and oil, and the reaper fills his hands, and the binder of sheaves his bosom, and gathers grapes in the vintage. For when their portion is cursed Scripture says, Let them be as the grass upon the housetops, which withereth afore it springeth up; wherewith the reaper filleth not his hand, nor he that bindeth sheaves, his bosom, but when their portion is blessed, it is called m’leiah (full). And in that case dim’acha [literally: “your tear”] is an allusion to wine and oil, a usage borrowed from dim’ath ha’ayin (tear of the eye), because the drops from the grape and olive resemble the tear of the eye. Or it may be that all moisture that falls in globules — even drops of water — are called dim’ah (tear), such as: and mine eyes shall run down ‘dim’ah’ (with tear), and it is not a term used only for tears. And the intention of the verse is, that when you gather in the crops of the field, and the granaries will be full of corn, and you press the grapes and olives to extract their juice, and the vats shall overflow with wine and oil, you should not delay them in your possession, but right at the beginning you are to give your tithings to Me, just as He said, The first fruits of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil… shalt thou give him — [i.e., the priest].In the opinion of our Rabbis, of blessed memory, thou shalt not delay means that: “you are not to set aside last what should be first, [and set aside first what should be last].” Now here He did not explain [the correct order of the gifts], for here He mentions the commandments in a general way, and afterwards He explained them in detail. The Rabbis arrange...

"Your fullness" — a reference to the new wine [tirosh], and "your dripping" is a reference to the oil [yitzhar]. The Gaon R. Saadia said that the word מְלֵאָתְךָ encompasses the fullness from grain and the fullness from the vat, and that דִּמְעֲךָ alludes to the oil — for when the olive is pressed it descends in drops like a tear. The meaning of this verse is thus [equivalent to] what is stated elsewhere: "the firstfruits of your grain, your wine, and your oil" (Deuteronomy 18:4), which is why alongside it: "the firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me" — for he is the firstfruits of his vigor. Ben Zuta said that "your fullness" refers to pregnancy and "your dripping" alludes to semen — the drop — and that "you shall not delay" means he should not delay from taking a wife. Hence what follows: "the firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me." But this is nonsense: why would it mention "your fullness" before "your dripping," since the emission of seed — in his view — comes before pregnancy? Moreover, the matter of pregnancy is not in human hands, only in the hands of Hashem alone. Yefet said: this verse was mentioned so that the poor man should not delay giving what he owes — just as you must give the firstborn to the priest.

מלאתך, the heave for the priest of your grain harvest. The word מלאה appears to be borrowed from Genesis 41,22 where the good ears of corn in Pharaoh’s dream are described as such. ודמעך, the parallel heave from your oil and grape harvest. בכור בניך תתן לי, to perform all kinds of sacred duties. This includes service in the Temple, teaching Torah, something which in later periods became the foremost occupation of the priests, commented upon by Maleachi 2,7 with the line כי שפתי כהן ישמרו דעת והתורה יבקשו מפיהו, “for the lips of a priest guard knowledge, and men seeking rulings from his mouth, for he is a messenger of the Lord of Hosts.”

מלאתך, “your fullness;” a difficult word to translate; our sages understand it as “the first tithe, t’rumah for the priest, to be lifted from your harvest.” The word also occurs in Deuteronomy 22,9: פן תקדש המלאה הזרע אשר תזרע, “lest the seed you have sown will not be allowed for your use.” (grain harvest) ודמעך, “and the corresponding t’rumah of the harvest of your liquid crop (grapes and olives) will be denied you for use.” The word דמע, literally meaning: “tear,” is applicable to olives and grapes as they release their insides in drops, like tears, when being squeezed in the vat. We also find the expression תירוש used for grain products in Numbers 18,12, כל חלב יצהר וכל חלב תירוש ודגן, “all the best of the new oil, wine and grain’” where the Torah instead of speaking of grapes and olives, lumps them all together under one heading, the heading being: something liquid. [Whisky and other alcoholic ג rinks are made from grain. Ed.] When the offering of firstling fruits is discussed, seeing that these fruit are offered “as is,” in their original state, any expression hinting at liquids would be inappropriate. לא תאחר, “Do not put off;” to give Me My share. The Torah speaks of giving G-d the respective firstling offerings which are due Him seeing that He treats the Jewish people as His firstborn son. They are: ראשית אדמתך, the first ripened parts of produce grown from the earth (23,19), the first produce of your kneading bowls, (bread or cake, Numbers 15,20). An alternate explanation of this phrase: “do not be late in offering Me what is legally Mine, even if you are still poor;” this is why the commandment of “giving” G-d the first born son and the firstborn males of his ritually pure livestock, followed immediately, as they represent the first results of his virility. (compare Deuteronomy Numbers 21,17). בכור בניך תתן לי, “you are to give Me the firstborns of your sons.” The emphasis is here on the word: “your firstborn,” as opposed to one of the sons born later. The same principle that applies to the first of your harvests applies to the first products (male) of your virility. The Torah repeats that the same applies to the firstborn of your domestic animals, i.e. cattle and sheep. At the same time, you must not be in such a rush that you slaughter these animals during the first seven days of their lives, as during those days they have not yet shed the ritual impurity status that applies to any creature that has undergone the traumatic experience of having to leave its mother’s womb. Prematurely born animals do not qualify for the purposes of this legislation as they are treated as if blemished. (B’chor shor)

מלאתך ודמעתך לא תאחר, “do not delay your fullness-offering and your priestly heave-offering. This verse is a warning concerning the heave-offerings of liquids, i.e. oil and wine. The word מלאתך refers to the liquid made from grapes as described by Numbers 18,27 וכמלאה מן היקב, such as the “flow from the vat,” whereas the word דמעתך describes the liquid secured from the olives which are being squeezed much as tears are the product of one’s squeezing one’s eyes. This is why the product of the olives is called דמעך, “your tear.”

מלאתך, “your fullness offering, etc.” Nachmanides writes that this word is applied also to seed as in פן תקדש המלאה הזרע, (Deut. 22,9) “lest the growth of the seed that you plant become forbidden.” The expression is also found in connection with the יקב, the winery, i.e. the wine press or the oil press. Apparently, produce from field or vine is called both תבואה because it is “brought” home to be stored, and it is also called מלאה as it has to be gathered and collected, to wit סוכות is the festival called חג האסיף the holiday of ingathering. We encounter the expression מלא רועים referring to a gathering of shepherds. (Isaiah 31,4) It is also possible that they are called מלאה as an expression symbolizing the blessing represented by the farmer filling his granaries and vats. ודמעך, “your priestly heave-offering.” A reference to grape and olive harvests, the juice of which is perceived as flowing out like tears, a little at a time. Ibn Ezra understands the word מלאתך as the grape harvest that due to its abundant moisture needs to be transferred to vessels for storage before irretrievable loss of juice occurs. The word דמעך, refers to the olive harvest in his opinion, as oil drips very slowly, drop by drop similar to tears. לא תאחר, “do not delay in offering.” Our sages understand this to mean that they are not to be offered in reverse order. (Terumot 3,6) [such as tithes being given before the terumah to the priests. Ed.] According to the plain meaning of the text the Torah simply warns not to eat of any of these fruit before the requisite gifts have been set aside enabling the farmer and ordinary individuals to eat from all this. The reason why the Torah speaks about redeeming the firstborn, calling it a gift to G’d, in the same breath, is that just as the harvest of what grows in the field and orchard must be freed for secular use only after the various tithes have been set aside, the same rule applies to the “harvest” of the union of husband and wife, the first born male child.

מלאתך ודמעך אל תאחר, a reference to Deuteronomy 18,4 where the Torah warns not to be tardy in bringing the first fruit to Jerusalem as a gift to G’d. In chapter 22,9 such crops are called מלאה. ודמעך, a reference to the harvest of the olive groves and the vineyards, the drops of the fruit being compared in appearance to human tears. לא תאחר, do not be tardy in discharging this obligation but offer them as the first of all your tithes. The same applies to the redemption of the first born males for which the Torah stipulated that this be done at the completion of the first month after the baby is born.

So shall you do with your ox and with your flock: seven days it shall be with its mother; on the eighth day you shall set it apart before Me.

שבעת ימים יהיה עם אמו SEVEN DAYS IT SHALL BE WITH ITS DAM — This is an admonition for the priest (for the Israelite himself does not sacrifice the firstborn animal) that if he wishes to bring his offering of this at an earlier date (i.e. in the case of the Israelite having given it to him before the thirtieth or fiftieth day) he is not allowed to offer it before it is eight days old because it is then “short in time” (i. e. too young for sacrifice; cf. Leviticus 22:27). ביום השמיני תתנו לי ON THE EIGHTH DAY THOU SHALT GIVE IT ME — One might think that it is obligatory to offer it on that day! Scripture, however, uses here the words “eighth day” and uses them again later on, (Leviticus 22:27) “and from the eighth day and henceforth it shall be favourably accepted”, in order to suggest an analogy. Now what is the meaning of the “eighth day” mentioned in the latter passage? It intends to declare the first-born fit for sacrifice from the eighth day and henceforth (i. e. it is intended to fix the earliest possible time on which it may be sacrificed). This, too, in the purpose of the word שמיני used here: to declare it fit for sacrifice from the eighth day and henceforth. The text therefore implies: “on the eighth day thou mayest give it to Me” (and not “thou shalt give it to Me”) (Mekhilta).

כן תעשה לשורך לצאנך, that you shall give to Me the firstborn which is not a prematurely aborted fetus. Our sages have said (Shabbat 135) that “a human baby which remains alive for 30 days is considered viable, not in the category of נפל, prematurely aborted. In the case of animals the parallel period is eight days.”

And you shall be holy people before Me; flesh torn from a living beast you shall not eat — you shall cast it to the dog.

ואנשי קדש תהיון לי AND YE SHALL BE MEN OF HOLINESS UNTO ME — If you will be holy and keep yourselves aloof from the loathsomeness of carrion and Trefa you are Mine, if not you are not Mine (cf. Mekhilta). ובשר בשדה טרפה [NEITHER SHALL YE EAT] ANY FLESH THAT IS TORN IN THE FIELD – The same holds good in case the animal has been torn in the house, only that Scripture speaks of what usually happens mentioning the field because it is the place where it is usual for cattle to be torn. A similar instance is, (Deuteronomy 22:27) “for he found her in the field”, but the same law would apply if he found her elsewhere. Another example is, (Deuteronomy 23:11) “Any man that is unclean by reason of uncleanliness that chanceth him by night”; the same law, however, applies to an uncleanliness that happens by day, but night is mentioned because Scripture speaks of what usually happens (Mekhilta). The Targum renders ובשר בשדה טרפה by ובשר תליש מן חיוא חיא “flesh that is torn off from a living animal”, i. e. flesh that has been torn off through a laceration caused by a wolf or a lion, from a living beast which is permitted to be eaten (e. g., a stag), or from cattle permitted to be eaten. לכלב תשלכון אתו YE SHALL CAST IT TO THE DOGS — You may give it to a heathen as well as to the dog. Or, perhaps this is not so, but כלב is to be taken literally? Scripture, however, states with regard to carrion, (Deuteronomy 14:21) “Thou shalt give it to a stranger or sell it unto an alien”, from which it follows by a conclusion à fortiori that you may derive whatever benefit you like from the Trefa (and so you also may give it to heathen). But if this be so, what is the force of Scripture expressly saying “to the dog”? It is to teach you that the dog is to be given preference in this respect and Scripture tells you at the same time that God does not withhold the reward due to any of His creatures. The dog is entitled to reward because it is stated, (Exodus 11:7) “But against the children of Israel shall not a dog move its tongue”, and this happened. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Give it the reward it deserves (Mekhilta).

AND YE SHALL BE HOLY MEN UNTO ME. The reason for the expression in this verse is that until now He mentioned only the ordinances and admonished them about repulsive matters, but now when He is about to begin the law of forbidden food, He prefaced it by saying, And ye shall be holy men unto Me. For in order to preserve his physical life man should [be able to] eat anything which serves that purpose, and the prohibitions concerning certain foods are only a means of guarding the purity of the soul, in order that one should eat clean things which do not give rise to harshness and coarseness in the soul. Therefore He said, And ye shall be holy men unto Me, that is to say: “I want you to be holy men so that you will become suitable for Me, to cleave to Me, for I am Holy; therefore do not defile your souls by eating abominable things.” And similarly He said, Ye shall not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing that swarmeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby. For I am the Eternal your G-d; sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy; for I am Holy. Swarming things thus make the soul detestable, but the treifah is not detestable, however abstention from eating it adds holiness.

"And men of holiness" — since it just mentioned your ox and your flock, which are permitted for eating, it now warns about flesh that has been torn — lest the poor man eat it on account of his poverty. It specifies "in the field" because that is where this most commonly happens, though the same law applies to an animal torn within the city — just as "a nocturnal occurrence" (Deuteronomy 23:11) [implies yet is not limited to] night. The meaning of "to the dog" — the lamed is vocalized with a patah — is: to the dog that guards your ox and flock, for it is fitting to give it to none other than the dog. R. Moses the Priest [R. Moses ibn Gikatilla] said that the torn animal is more severe than a carcass, for in a torn animal there is something like a harmful substance that damages human offspring. Therefore it is not permitted to give it to the resident alien within your gates, nor to sell it to a foreigner, as one may do with a carcass.

ואנשי קודש תהיון לי, the manner in which you will prove that you all are men of holy purpose is that you will allow your firstborns to be devoted to the service of Me and you will hand over the tithes, etc., stipulated as “My gifts,” [in matters of specific ritual, seeing that every Jew has to serve Hashem. Ed.] Initially, it was the task of the firstborn to teach the common people the details of Jewish law and ritual. When they do this the result will be והתקדשתם והייתם קדושים, “you will sanctify yourselves and remain holy” (Leviticus 20,7). ובשר בשדה טרפה, even the kind of treifah which is neither ritually impure nor confers impurity at all. [if this is forbidden, נבלה, animals which die of other causes than ritual slaughter are certainly forbidden as food. Ed.]

ובשר בשדה טרפה, “flesh from animals that were found in the field torn,” you must not eat; eating such flesh is an even greater sin than eating the flesh of animals that died of natural causes but had not undergone ritual slaughter. The probable reason is that such torn carcasses may have become infected by harmful bacteria transmitted by the marauding beast that had caused their death. It is therefore to be left untouched on the field where found. Animals that died a natural death may be sold by you to human beings, as opposed to the dogs to which you may feed the remains of animals which had died a violent death. By selling the carcass of an animal which died from natural causes to human beings blessed with a brain, you do not expose such a human being to potential poisoning. The reason why the Torah inserted this verse here is because it had previously been speaking of animals which are fit for you to eat. לכלב תשליכון אותו, “you may throw the remains of such torn animals to the dogs.” The first letter ל in the word לכלב has the vowel patach, indicating that the Torah does not speak of just “any dog.” It speaks of dogs which guard your flocks and which therefore have earned this privilege. This is the plain meaning of the verse. The word: אותו, refers to the flesh of said animal, seeing that it is in the masculine singular mode.

ואנשי קדש תהיון לי, “and people of holiness shall you be for Me.” Actually we would have expected to find the word קדושים, “holy” in the plural, seeing the subject are אנשים, “men,” in the plural. The verse alludes to the fact that the spiritual concept כנסת ישראל, the community of Israel as a collective unit, is the true strength of Israel. The reason this concept is called קדש, holy, is that it is a direct derivative of the emanation חכמה which has its origin in the letter י of the tetragrammaton, the name י-ה-ו-ה. This is the reason the Torah had to add the word לי, “for Me,” The meaning of the word לי in this verse is similar to the meaning of the word לי in Exodus 25,2 ויקחו לי תרומה, “they shall take a heave-offering for Me,” (i.e. bring contributions for the construction of the Holy Tabernacle.”) Israel are considered as if sanctified for the Holy Name of Hashem. Seeing that their spiritual level is so high, they are not to eat meat of diseased or mutilated animals as that meat is the product of the destructive powers rampant in the universe, the power which opposes sanctity and holiness. The Torah adds the word בשדה, “in the field,” in order to underline the origin of such treifah meat. Esau’s predominantly evil nature had been described by the Torah as איש שדה, “a man of the field,” i.e. he represented the murderous instincts of Kayin the first murderer, whose evil deed was described by the Torah as occurring בשדה, “in the field” (Genesis 4,8). This is another reason that the dogs are entitled to eat this meat as their characteristic is close to that of Esau’s.

ואנשי קודש, “and “holy” people, etc. The reason that the Torah suddenly refers to the status of holiness, sanctity, is that up until now in this portion when we spoke about laws governing interpersonal relations this consideration did not enter the ordinances revealed in our chapter. Now, when forbidden foods are mentioned, the rationale which serves as the background to such legislation is the fact that Jews are spiritually on a higher level than gentiles, i.e. they are in varying degrees “holy.” A person is to eat the kind of food that not only assures his physical health, but also that which contributes to his spiritual health. This “spiritual health” is referred to generally as טהרה, ritual purity. Avoidance of the foods mentioned by the Torah is intended to forestall the body of Jews becoming gross, uncouth, something which the intake of certain animals prohibited by the Torah would facilitate, even if the same animal when healthy, unblemished, is fit to be consumed. The Torah’s message is that Hashem desires us to maintain a level of spirituality that enables us to cleave to Him in the desired manner.

ואנשי קודש, do not eat matters which are proscribed [טמא not strictly in a halachic sense, Ed.] such as something treifah. The Torah in Deuteronomy also links the prohibition of eating animals which died of causes other than ritual slaughter (נבלה) as linked to your being עם קדוש “a holy nation.”

And the meat in the field that is torn. Since the dog risked its life over the torn prey when the wolf came to tear it, it should not seem like an imposition of good will towards it that when you have torn prey, you should throw it to the dog as reward for having guarded it until now so it would not be torn, and also to continue guarding the other animals, for thus is the way of the world to appoint dogs to guard the flocks from wolves.