Paras
Parashat Ki Te’tzeh – “when you
go out”… consists of lists of commandments, some of which we have encountered
earlier on in the Torah. Others are repeated in a modified form, while quite a
few are mentioned here for the first time. It should be noted that even though
at first glance the various injunctions seem to be placed randomly, a closer
study reveals them to be organized in clusters wherein there is a common theme,
or some other link which ties them together within each respective group. One such
example, where the rulings almost form a story line, is right at the beginning
of the Parasha (21:10-23). The first one deals with a case of a man desiring
and marrying a foreign woman taken captive in war, but losing interest in her
at a later stage. The next ruling focuses on the rights of the firstborn son of
(again) an unloved wife, whose husband has another, favored, wife. From the
firstborn son we are taken to a command regarding a rebellious son, whom some
of the sages believe to be the offspring of the foreign wife mentioned above. This
son’s behavior makes him a “candidate” for stoning. The next ruling deals with
a criminal who is sentenced to hanging. At
the very end of the Parasha (in 25:14-16), to mention another example, we read
about unjust weights and measures which are detestable in YHVH’ sight. The
concomitant ruling is a reference to the Amalekites, who are to be completely
wiped out because of their ill treatment of Yisrael during the Exodus, which places
them under the category of: “Anyone doing these things is hateful to YHVH your
Elohim, everyone acting evilly” (25:16), even though “these things” is actually
in reference to using unjust weights. Parashat Ki Te’tzeh illustrates the
extent of YHVH’s involvement in every aspect of the Israelites’ life - the
individuals as well as the community. Therefore they, in turn, were to live their
lives and express themselves in a manner worthy of Him.
The stubborn and rebellious son, of
21:18, 20, according to his own parents’ admittance, “will not listen to his
father's voice or his mother's voice; even though they discipline him, he will
not listen to them.” “Stubborn and rebellious” is “sorer u’moreh”;
“sorer” is of the root s.r.h (samech, resh, hey) and means “turn
aside, defect, or withdraw.” “Moreh” is of the
root m.r.h (mem, resh, hey) meaning, “contentious, or
rebellious.” The type of attitude displayed
here issues forth from the heart, as we read in Yirmiyahu (Jeremiah): “To this
people there is a revolting and a rebellious – sorer u’moreh -
heart” (5:23). This son is further described as “a gluten and a drunkard.”
The latter noun is “soveh,” the
root being s.v.a. (samech, bet/vet, alef), recalling, “sovah” (sin/shin,
vet, ayin) which is not only close in sound but also in meaning (albeit employing
a different spelling). In Parashat Va’yera (see Gen. 21:27-31) we examined this
root and found that “satisfaction,” or to “have had enough” (especially in
reference to food) is “sovah,” relating to the number "seven" –
“sheva.” By calling the week
"shavua" the language points to the fullness and completeness of what
Elohim has achieved. "In Your
presence there is fullness ("sova") of joy; I will be satisfied
("es'be'ah") with Your likeness when I awake," (Ps. 16:11;
17:15). Thus, if one is not ‘satisfied’ with being “sa’veh’ah,” and therefore
chooses to overindulge, he becomes a “soveh.” By making use of similar sounds Hebrew,
typically, points to life’s fine demarcation lines. The rebellious son was to
be executed by stoning (ref. V. 21), which is the verb “ragom,”
one of several Hebrew terms used to denote this action.
Another stoning was to occur in the event
of a young woman who upon marriage was found not to be a virgin (ref. 22:21),
as well as when “a girl that is a virgin, betrothed to a man, and a man finds
her in the city, and lies with her” (v. 23-24). In these cases the stoning is “sakol”
(s.k.l, samech, kof, lamed), which means not only to “hurl rocks,” but
also to “gather rocks” such as in Yishayahu (Isaiah) 5:2: “My Beloved
has a vineyard in a fruitful horn. And He dug it, and cleared it of stones”
(italics added). This illustrates again the close proximity between apparent
contradictions, of which we shall see another example later on.
Following the prodigal son in 21:21, the text goes on to
speak of “a man [who] has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to
death, and you hang him on a tree” (v. 22), appending, “He who is hanged is
accursed of Elohim” (v. 23). This, of course, is how Yeshua “redeemed us from
the curse of [breaking] the Torah laws [or from the “laws of sin and death”],
having become a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13).
The next set of injunctions in chapter 22
focuses on concern for the property of one’s fellowman and his welfare, as well
on sensitivity toward YHVH’s creation. “You shall not see your brother's ox or
his sheep driven away, and hide yourself from them. You shall surely turn them
back to your brother” (v. 1). “You shall hide” here is “hit’a’lamta,”
of the root a.l.m (ayin, lamed, mem), and means “hidden or concealed,”
and in this context also “disregard, neglect or pretend not to
see.” It is from this root that we obtain “olam,” which in Biblical Hebrew
speaks mostly of “eternity” (future but also past), being indeed concealed
and uncharted from man’s vantage point (e.g. Gen. 17:7; Ex. 12:24). The
term for “young man” or “young woman” is “elem” and “alma
At the other end of this cluster of
injunctions we read: “If a bird's nest happens to be before you in the way in
any tree, or on the ground, with young ones, or eggs; and the mother is sitting
on the young, or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young. But
in every case you shall let the mother go, and take the young for yourself, so
that it may be well with you, and you may prolong your days” (22:6,7
italics added). This somewhat obscure command holds a great promise, like that
of the 5th Commandment of the Decalogue, which says: “Honor your
father and your mother, as YHVH your Elohim has commanded you, so that your
days may be prolonged” (Ex. 20:12, Deut. 5:16). The fact that this promise is
common to both these injunctions has puzzled the sages all the way back to
Talmudic days. Some of them concur that YHVH’s ways are higher than ours, and
therefore various precepts are “passed finding out,” while others maintain that
one should not even try and discover whether the Divine commands have reasons
or not. On the other hand, Professor Yitzchak Heinemann contends that “it is
incumbent on us to detect the finger of God in the wonders of nature and the
events of our life, though they will still remain unsolved mysteries, so we
must endeavor, as far as possible, to appreciate the wisdom and justice of His
commands”. [1] The identical reward for honoring parents and for shooing the
mother bird before taking her young, may serve as a clue to a principle which
applies to every word spoken in the Torah: “kala k’cha’mura,” meaning that each
precept (and/or word), whether insubstantial or weighty, is to be treated
equally. Thus, all the way from the weightiest precept to the least esteemed,
through those that are ‘in between,’ obedience is equally required, with the
result (of so doing) being the same. Our Parasha, to cite another such example,
also exhorts us to “have a perfect and just ephah [a measurement]; so that
they prolong your days in the land” (25:15 italics added).
Right in between the lost ox and sheep and the nesting bird, is the oft- quoted verse: " A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to YHVH your Elohim (22:5). This injunction is especially used in order to “prove” the Bible’s disapproval of women wearing pants, since in western societies pants are looked upon as being a man’s attire, while women are supposed to wear a dress of some kind. However, the original Hebrew text says something different. The literal meaning of “lo yi-hi-ye kli gever al isha” is “there shall not be a tool/implement of a man upon a woman,” implying that she is not to carry a tool or any implement which is characteristic of a man. So, in this case, Scripture is not concerned with women’s fashions but with certain types of activities that are to distinguish between men and women! As for the men, they are not to wear women’s garments, as such an act would indicate effeminization.
Right in between the lost ox and sheep and the nesting bird, is the oft- quoted verse: " A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to YHVH your Elohim (22:5). This injunction is especially used in order to “prove” the Bible’s disapproval of women wearing pants, since in western societies pants are looked upon as being a man’s attire, while women are supposed to wear a dress of some kind. However, the original Hebrew text says something different. The literal meaning of “lo yi-hi-ye kli gever al isha” is “there shall not be a tool/implement of a man upon a woman,” implying that she is not to carry a tool or any implement which is characteristic of a man. So, in this case, Scripture is not concerned with women’s fashions but with certain types of activities that are to distinguish between men and women! As for the men, they are not to wear women’s garments, as such an act would indicate effeminization.
In 23:7-8 we read: “You shall not despise an Edomite, for he
is your brother. You shall not despise an Egyptian, for you were an alien in
his land, sons of the third generation that are born to them may enter into the
assembly of YHVH.” This direction is in contradistinction to the one relating
to the Ammonites and Moabites, who were not to enter the assembly of YHVH for
ten generations. Da’at Mikra ponders: “Why is it that the Torah deals this way
with the Edomites, not demanding from them what was demanded of the Moabites
and Ammonites, which was to greet Israel Israel Israel , as [their reason for doing so was
because] they were afraid lest Israel
There are several commands regarding the
purity of Israel Israel shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any
of the sons of Israel
Before
examining the next cluster, let us pause and inspect a certain term which
appears in 23:20: “…that YHVH your Elohim may bless you in all that you set
your hand to in the land where you go to possess it” (emphasis added). “Set
your hand to” is literally the “sending of your hand” – “mish’lach yadeh’cha.”
In the past we saw that one’s work or occupation was called “m’la’cha” (of the
root l.a’a.ch - “to send,” and hence “messengers, angels, sent out ones”), which
by its very definition conveys the idea that one’s work is a goal or an
accomplishment that does not remain in confinement or within one’s own vicinity
only. Rather, it is something rendered or performed as a mission (for the
community), and therefore was not to be considered incidental or self serving.
Two weeks ago, in Parashat R’eh, we
discussed the noun “makom” – “place” - and the verb “kum” – “to rise or go up,”
which shares the same root. In our Parasha we encounter other derivatives of this
root (kof, vav, mem). In 23:24 we read: “When you come into your neighbor's
standing grain, then you may pluck heads with your hand; but you shall not wield
a sickle in your neighbor's standing grain.” The “standing grain”
is the ripe sheaves ready for harvesting, called “kama ”
(also in Exodus 22:6), stemming from the root to “rise up.” “Plucking heads”
is “m’lilot,” the verb being “malol” (m.l.l. mem, lamed, lamed) and
means “to scrape or to break into crumbs.” And so we read in Luke 6:1: “And it happened on
the second chief Sabbath, He passed along through the sown fields. And His
disciples plucked the heads and were eating, rubbing with the hands.” The
rabbis’ discussion as to whose right it is to partake of the above-mentioned,
is followed by a concluding comment by Nechama Leibowitz (spanning more than
just this particular commandment): “From all the opinions we have surveyed it
seems apparent that the Torah was not concerned with favoring one side or
according privileges to the other. It does not underwrite the privileges of a
particular class but is concerned with human welfare. It does not approve of
man conducting his life on the principles of strict justice alone, but calls
for consideration and lovingkindness in human relations”. [3]
Interestingly, the act of “wielding
of the sickle” (which one is forbidden to do in a neighbor’s field, 23:25, the
verse we just looked at above), recalls “felling” or “cutting off,” which is
“k’ritut.” Indeed “k’ritut” is where the next chapter (24) takes us. “When a man
has taken a wife and married her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his
eyes because he has found a thing of uncleanness in her, and he writes her a
bill of divorce and puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house” (v.
1). “A bill of divorce” is “sefer k’ritut,” literally “a book of cutting
off.” This bill, therefore, becomes
an instrument of severing the relationship, much like a hatchet. “A thing of uncleanness”
is “ervat davar,” literally “the nakedness/exposing [erva] of
something.” In a marriage relationship,
whatever has been covered up is naturally exposed and revealed just prior to
the time of severance. The root of “erva,”
literally nakedness, a.r.h (ayin, resh, hey), also lends itself to the
verb “pour out.” This usage is found, for example, in Yishayahu (Isaiah)
53:12, in the description of the Messiah: “And with the strong He shall divide
the spoil; because He poured out [he’era] His soul to
death” (italics added) – may we add, in order to cover up our proverbial
nakedness.
In the very beginning of
our Parasha we encountered a different type of man-woman relationship. It
involved a man who in the course of war has taken captive a woman whom he has
found desirable (21:10-14). If after having taken her as a wife, he no longer
desires her he is admonished not to sell her for money, nor “to treat her
brutally” (v. 14). Similarly, in chapter 24:7 we are told that, “if a man is
found kidnapping any of his brethren of the children of Israel
Nevertheless, the above precept has
caused quite a stir in rabbinical polemics, since it would hardly seem
plausible that this ‘forgotten sheaf’ could be a source of relief and provision
for the needy. Additionally, this injunction also raises another query. In the
Tosefta, Peah tract 3, 8 it says: …”The Omnipresent has given all the other
precepts in the Torah to be observed consciously. But this one is to be
unconsciously observed. Were we to observe this one of our own deliberate
freewill before the Omnipresent, we would have no opportunity of observing it.”
The conclusion therefore is that, “if a man has no deliberate intention of
performing a good deed [and] it is nevertheless reckoned to him as one… how
much more so he who deliberately performs a good deed!” [4] Verse 20 follows on
the heels of 19 and is similar to the former: “When you beat your olive tree,
you shall not search the bough behind you. It shall be for the alien, for the
orphan, and for the widow.” The word for “bough” is “pu’ara,” of
the root “p’er” (p.e.r, pey, alef, resh), which is also “beauty or glory.”
Yishayahu (Isaiah) 60:21 is very appropriate in this connection, reading as it
does: “And your people shall all be righteous; they shall possess the earth
forever, a branch of My planting, a work of My hands, to beautify [lehit’pa’er]
Myself” (italics added). And although the boughs have been broken, yet the
Olive Tree of Yisrael, when fully redeemed is destined to be a glory unto YHVH
(ref. Is. 44:23), especially if the people of Yisrael, with the Torah inscribed
on their hearts, will follow the above injunction of generosity and kindness to
the alien, orphan and widow. On the other hand, and yet in connection to verse
19 which featured forgetfulness, are the commands in verses 17-18 and
21-22 (of chapter 24). In both these verses
one is exhorted to remember having been a slave in Egypt
When dried up and dead, as Yisrael’s
stick/tree was, the collective outcry went forth: “Our bones are dried, and our
hope is perished; we are cut off to ourselves” (Ez. 37:11). Yet through
redemption Yisrael is to be resurrected. This principle is captured in the
precept delineated in 25:5-10, where if a man dies leaving no offspring, his
widow is to marry his brother and together they are to have a child who will be
considered the firstborn of the dead brother, in order to raise up “… the dead
brother's name, and his name shall not be wiped out of Israel” (v. 6). We have
already studied (above and in other places) the word “kum” (also “makom”,
place) - “to stand up, rise.” Here its usage, as the “raising up”
of a name for the dead brother, connotes “resurrection,” and in Modern
Hebrew “t’kuma” (of the same root). In Vayikra (Leviticus) 26:13 it says:
“I am YHVH your Elohim, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, so that you
should not be their slaves, and I broke the bars of your yoke and made you walk
erect – “ko’me’mi’yoot” (once again of the same root). In the
following verse, (Lev. 26:14), Yisrael is warned lest they “reject My statutes.”
Those engaged in such activities of rebellion and rising against
YHVH are called “te’komemim” in Psalm 139:21. Typically, this one root
epitomizes a wide range of situations that pertain to Yisrael, whom YHVH has
caused to rise and are therefore to walk uprightly and in
circumspection lest they find themselves rising against Him.
[1] New Studies in Devarim, Nechama Leibowitz, trans. Aryeh
Newman. Eliner Library,
Department for Torah Education and Culture in the Diaspora. Hemed Books Inc.,Brooklyn ,
N.Y.
[2] Davrim with Daat Mikrah Commentary, Pub. Mossad Harav Kook, Jm. 2001.
[3] New Studies in Devarim
[4] Ibid.
Department for Torah Education and Culture in the Diaspora. Hemed Books Inc.,
[2] Davrim with Daat Mikrah Commentary, Pub. Mossad Harav Kook, Jm. 2001.
[3] New Studies in Devarim
[4] Ibid.
[
No comments:
Post a Comment