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 in 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 is 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, and the following statute deals with a criminal
who is sentenced to hanging. At the very
end of the Parasha (in 25:13-16), to mention another example, we read about
unjust weights and measures which are detestable in YHVH’s sight (v. 16). 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 too under the category of: “Anyone doing these things is hateful to YHVH
your Elohim, everyone acting evilly,” (v. 16 again), 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. In turn, Yisrael is to live life
in a manner that is worthy of Him.
The stubborn and rebellious son described in 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,
defiant, or rebellious.” The type of attitude displayed here issues from
the heart, and in Yirmiyahu (Jeremiah) 5:23 we read: “To this people there is a
revolting/defiant and a rebellious – sorer u’moreh – heart.” 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. 21:28-33) 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’ - “sa’veh’ah” - and 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. 21:21), 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. 22:20-21), 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 21:20,
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 [pronounced in the] Law [for breaking] it laws [or having
redeemed us 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 terms for “young
man” or “young woman” are “elem” and “alma”
respectively, issuing from the same root (e.g. 1Sam. 17:56; Gen. 24:43); this
being the case because their character is still unfolding and their future
unknown.
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). Thus, applying this also to YHVH’s
commandments, each one is to be ‘weighed’ by the same scale, not denigrating
one and estimating another.
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 part of a man’s
attire, while women are supposed to wear a dress of some kind. However, this is not what the Hebrew text is
expressing. 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 or wield a tool or any implement which is characteristic of man’s
responsibilities. In this case, therefore, 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, in their case they are indeed commanded not
to wear women’s garments.
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 directive is in contradistinction to the one relating to the
Ammonites and Moabites, who were not to enter the assembly of YHVH even after
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 with bread and water when
they had passed by these peoples’ territories? Because Ya’acov tricked Esav and
had wrested from him the birthright and the blessings; while for having chased
Ya’acov, Esav and his progeny have already been punished by having been held
off from the assembly of Israel
for two generations. The Egyptians are also forgiven for their treatment of Israel, as [their reason for doing so was
because] they were afraid lest Israel
would join their enemies.” [2]
There are several commands regarding the purity of Israel’s camp
and assembly. One of them is: “None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any
of the sons of Israel
be a cult prostitute” (23:17). The word used here for the female cult “prostitute”
is “k’desha,” while “male prostitute” is “kadesh.” This is
one more example of contradictory terms being closely linked in the Hebrew
language and mindset, since the word for “holy” is “kadosh” (and in feminine
gender – “kdosha”). In verse 18 we read: “You shall not bring the hire of a
harlot or the wages of a dog into the house of YHVH your Elohim for any vow,
for both of these are an abomination to YHVH your Elohim.” This type of “wage”
is “et’nan,” an unusual form of “natan” (noon, tav, hey) which is to “give,”
or to “offer.” Regret for betraying
Yeshua led Yehuda of Krayot - Judas Iscariot – to give back to the priests the
30 pieces of silver he had been handed for committing this act. “The chief
priests said, ‘It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is the
price of blood’. And taking counsel, they bought of them the potter's field,
for burial for the strangers” (Mat. 27:6). The priests acted this way based on
the above-mentioned ruling, to which they appended “price of blood.” Is it a
coincidence that “wages of a dog,” which is included in this category, is
followed by issues pertaining to usury (23: 19, 20), using “neshech” for
“usury or interest,” the literal meaning of which is “to
bite”?
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 hands” – “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 or task is more of a
goal or an accomplishment outside the confinement of one’s own vicinity.
Rather, it is something rendered or performed as a mission (for the greater 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 23:25
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 next chapter (24) takes us to a broken relationship between husband
and wife. “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 italics added). “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/exposure [erva] of
something” (the same term also appears in 23:14 as “unclean thing”). 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 to “pour out.” It
is used in this way 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) – and we may add, in
order to cover up our 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. 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” (21:14). Similarly, in chapter 24:7 we are told that,
“if a man is found kidnapping any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and
mistreats him or sells him, then that kidnapper shall die.” In both cases the terms “treat brutally”
and “mistreat” are translations of “hit’amer,” of the root
(a.m.r) ayin, mem, resh which is to “collect, glean, reap advantage.”
The Torah is very strict in regards to using humans as merchandize or
commodities for one’s advantage and monetary gain, hence the capital punishment
inflicted on the above kidnapper. By contrast, in the following verse we are
admonished (24:19): “When you reap your harvest in your field and have
forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it
shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow, in order that the
YHVH your Elohim may bless you in all the work of your hands” (italics added). The
“sheaf” mentioned is “omer,” of the same root that we have just encountered for
“treating brutally.” Thus, rather than “reap advantage” from someone else’s
life, you are to sustain the needy by letting him ‘take advantage’ of your
forgetfulness.
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 (chapter 24) 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 glorious 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 24:19
which featured forgetfulness, are the commands in verses 17-18 and 21-22. In both these excerpts one is exhorted to remember
having been a slave in Egypt,
and therefore having to consider the stranger, orphan and widow for justice and
provision. Thus, one’s memory, as well
as one’s forgetfulness is to be ‘harnessed’ for the purpose of manifesting
YHVH’s nature.
When dried up and dead - as Yisrael’s stick/tree had become - the
collective outcry went forth: “Our bones are dried, and our hope is perished;
we are cut off to ourselves” (Ez. 37:11). Yet redemption was to enable
resurrection. 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 who are
therefore to walk uprightly and in circumspection lest they find
themselves rising against Him.
* The
conjunction “ki” is used very frequently in Dvarim. Many sections open up with
“if” or “when”, in both cases being a translation of “ki,” which at times is
also translated as “for.”
[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.
[3] New Studies in
Devarim
[4] Ibid.
