Showing posts with label mishpatim. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mishpatim. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

The three sevirin וְלֹא

A) At the start of parshas Shofetim, we read (Devarim 16:19):

יט  לֹא-תַטֶּה מִשְׁפָּט, לֹא תַכִּיר פָּנִים; וְלֹא-תִקַּח שֹׁחַד--כִּי הַשֹּׁחַד יְעַוֵּר עֵינֵי חֲכָמִים, וִיסַלֵּף דִּבְרֵי צַדִּיקִם.19 Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons; neither shalt thou take a gift; for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.

Note that there are three instructions:

  • לֹא-תַטֶּה מִשְׁפָּט
  • לֹא תַכִּיר פָּנִים
  • וְלֹא-תִקַּח שֹׁחַד

It is more common, in such a list, for the second item to be introduced by a vav hachibbur, a connecting vav. But it is not an error for it to be missing.

Upon this pasuk, Minchas Shai explains just that:



"לֹא תַכִּיר פָּנִים -- there are three [such instances of לא] which are sevirin [has the meaning of such that we would expect it to be] ולא, as I wrote in parshas Mishpatim, perek 23 [pasuk 13], regarding לֹ֥א יִשָּׁמַ֖ע עַל־פִּֽיךָ."
B) Looking to parshas Mishpatim, we see the following pasuk [Shemos 23:13]:
יג  וּבְכֹל אֲשֶׁר-אָמַרְתִּי אֲלֵיכֶם, תִּשָּׁמֵרוּ; וְשֵׁם אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים לֹא תַזְכִּירוּ, לֹא יִשָּׁמַע עַל-פִּיךָ.13 And in all things that I have said unto you take ye heed; and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.

There, Minchas Shai says the following:

"לֹא יִשָּׁמַע עַל-פִּיךָ -- in the commentary of Ibn Ezra it is written: and this is לֹא יִשָּׁמַע עַל-פִּיךָ etc.. [Note: this is likely a typographical error in Minchas Shai, and he meant to cite Ibn Ezra as saying ולא.] And the Aruch, entry מטר [Note: couldn't find this] that until recent generations to now, they would mess up and read ולא ישמע על פיך, and the soferim taught not to read with a vav, end quote. Furthermore, in the masoret, three one would expect ולא and they are לא, and the mnemonic of לא תשימון עליו נשך, and לא ישמע על פיך, and לא תכיר פנים."

Because there seems to be a typographical error in Minchas Shai in a critical place, I will show the first printing as well.


Interestingly, in the linked Ibn Ezra at Daat, it has a vav:
[כג, יג]
ובכל אשר -
עתה הזכיר עבודת כוכבים, והטעם כל מה שאמרתי הם מצותי ומשפטי. ולא כן. משפטי אלוהים אחרים. 
ואמר: לא תזכירו - שלא תזכירו שמותם להישבע בהם גם שלא ישביעו בהם עובדיה. וזה ולא ישמע על פיך שתשביע בו אחרים. שלא תאמר לעובד כוכבים השבע לי באלהיך.

As well, in the printing in Mechokekei Yehuda
, he has Ibn Ezra's lengthy commentary which cites it as ולא, while in Ibn Ezra's short commentary,  he cites it as simply לא.

At first, I was unsure of Minchas Shai's purpose in citing Ibn Ezra here. (At this point, I assumed that he was citing him saying לא.) To establish the correct girsa of Ibn Ezra's commentary? To bring it as further evidence, from a Rishon, that this is the correct text? Perhaps the key is the word וזה, by which he shows how this phrase of לֹא יִשָּׁמַע עַל-פִּיךָ is a restatement of the immediately preceding idea, of וְשֵׁם אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים לֹא תַזְכִּירוּ. In this manner, we can understand why the connecting vav is not due here.

But in fact, I think there was a typographical error at a critical juncture here -- that Minchas Shai wished to cite a bad girsa in Ibn Ezra, but it was somehow encoded in accordance with the correct girsa.

Christian David Ginsberg also records this as לא with סביר of ולא. But he makes another interesting observation:


He writes: savir ולא, and in some other sefarim [ס"א is defined at the start of his work as "MSS. collated by C. D. G."] it is ולא as a krei and ketiv.

This seems to me like an encoding, in the MSS., of the practice Minchas Shai deemed erroneous.

 Naturally, the Samaritan Pentateuch (as it appears in Vetus Testamentum) adds the vav, in order to make the text smoother:



And in the bottom of that page, in lists many Hebrew Biblical texts that similarly have ולא.

C) The third instance is actually a bit earlier in Mishpatim, namely Shemos 22:24:

כד  אִם-כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה אֶת-עַמִּי, אֶת-הֶעָנִי עִמָּךְ--לֹא-תִהְיֶה לוֹ, כְּנֹשֶׁה; לֹא-תְשִׂימוּן עָלָיו, נֶשֶׁךְ.24 If thou lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay upon him interest.

Upon which, Minchas Shai says:

Friday, January 24, 2014

Mishpatim -- "Then his wife shall go out with him" -- when did she enter servitude?!

In the beginning of parashat Mishpatim, we see the following law:

ג  אִם-בְּגַפּוֹ יָבֹא, בְּגַפּוֹ יֵצֵא; אִם-בַּעַל אִשָּׁה הוּא, וְיָצְאָה אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ.3 If he come in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he be married, then his wife shall go out with him.
ד  אִם-אֲדֹנָיו יִתֶּן-לוֹ אִשָּׁה, וְיָלְדָה-לוֹ בָנִים אוֹ בָנוֹת--הָאִשָּׁה וִילָדֶיהָ, תִּהְיֶה לַאדֹנֶיהָ, וְהוּא, יֵצֵא בְגַפּוֹ.4 If his master give him a wife, and she bear him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

What does it mean that his wife goes out with him? When did she go into servitude? According to established halacha only a minor girl can be a maidservant. Thus the (perhaps midrashic) explanation that this means that the master is obligated in her support during the duration.

To bolster the idea, I would note that the function of pasuk 3 is as the general principle spelled out in more detail in pasuk 4. That is, there is a different type of wife his master may give him, namely a slavewoman. Such a woman is not his real wife but just functions as a breeder for permanent slaves. And so he must leave this wife, and by explicit extension, his children, to his master. However, if he comes in to servitude with a wife already, any children born to him during this duration are his own and are not slaves. And his wife is obviously his wife.

It is still not absolutely precise, since it gives the implication that in the duration of his servitude, his wife has the status of slave. But it might be argued that it is precise enough to convey the intended point. That she doesn't leave him, but is part of the eved's household, during which she gets support, and so she accompanies him as would be entirely expected.

If so, the midrash might be argued to be the peshat as well.

Shadal takes a different tack towards peshat and derash, and Written Law and Oral Law, and writes:


"If he be the husband of a wife -- according to the peshat, his wife also comes with him into the household of the master, and works in the house. And this would be correct regarding one who sells himself, for he is able to be sold together with his wife. However, according to the position of Rashi and some of Chazal, who explained this parasha regarding one [a thief] who was sold by Bet Din, it is not correct that the wife should be sold for the sin of her husband who stole. And therefore they said "now who brought her in that she should go out? Rather Scriptures is informing that one who acquires a Hebrew servant is required in sustaining the fellow's wife and children." And all this is to increase to trait of chessed and rachamim in Israel.

And also regarding one who sold himself, the Chachamim [J: rather than by Biblical fiat] did not permit that the woman comes to the household of the master, but rather they required the master to support her and her children, while she stayed in her own home, with her handiwork for herself and not for the master -- so rules the Rambam. (However according to the Ramban the master takes the handiwork of the wife and children, yet she is still is in her own home and does not come to his house to work his work.)

And therefore, upon the pasuk (Vayikra 25:41):
מא  וְיָצָא, מֵעִמָּךְ--הוּא, וּבָנָיו עִמּוֹ; וְשָׁב, אֶל-מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ, וְאֶל-אֲחֻזַּת אֲבֹתָיו, יָשׁוּב.41 Then shall he go out from thee, he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.

which without a doubt speaks about one who sells himself because of his poverty, Rabbi Shimon said (and Rashi brings him down) that "if he be sold, who sold his children?!" However, the Torah, just as it permits a father to sell his minor daughter, so too permits that he sells himself together with his wife and minor children.


And behold it is known that in days of old the father was ruler upon the members of his household and their lives were in his hand (as is apparent from the words of Yehuda, "Take her out and burn her!"). And the Torah cancelled from him this rulership and did not permit the death of the Ben Sorer UMoreh except via the decree of the judges. And so too the sale of the wife and chldren, the Written Torah permitted it, and it was forbidden in the Oral Torah. And further they added (Kiddushin daf 20) that the master cannot assign him a Canaanite maidservant [to procreate with to produce more slaves] unless he already has a wife and children, and this (like the words of my student Moshe Kohen Porto) is because it is not fitting that he father slaves for his master prior to his fulfilling the mitzvah of piryah verivyah and produce children to establish his name in Israel."

An interesting approach, in which Oral Law, or perhaps Rabbinic law, functions as a series of further ordinances and reforms on top of the Written Law, extended ideas, values and approaches already present in the Written Law. Perhaps as society progressed?

Thursday, January 23, 2014

YUTorah on parshat Mishpatim

parsha banner



Download the YUTorah Parsha Reader for Mishpatim 5774 Audio Shiurim on Mishpatim

Articles on Mishpatim
Parsha Sheets on Mishpatim
Rabbi Jeremy WiederLaining for Parshat Mishpatim
See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Mishpatim
New This Week












a

Monday, January 20, 2014

These are the ordinances

Parshat Mishpatim begins:

א  וְאֵלֶּה, הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים, אֲשֶׁר תָּשִׂים, לִפְנֵיהֶם.1 Now these are the ordinances which thou shalt set before them.
ב  כִּי תִקְנֶה עֶבֶד עִבְרִי, שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים יַעֲבֹד; וּבַשְּׁבִעִת--יֵצֵא לַחָפְשִׁי, חִנָּם.2 If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים, ordinances, is not the same as "good deeds", or even "optimal conduct". By this I mean that כִּי תִקְנֶה does not mean that one should go out of his way to acquire a Hebrew servant. The word כי means "if", or "when". Given that society has this concept of slavery, and there are people who are so poor that they will need to sell themselves into slavery, here is how to go about it: indentured servitude for only a limited timespan, with support for the indentured servant's family, protections in place to prevent abuse, gifts after the servitude to establish the servant as a self-sufficient member of a free society; and only at the servant's discretion, the ability to opt in to a longer period of servitude.

Elements within the Biblical description itself indicate that this is not the optimal. And certainly within Rabbinic literature this is understood to be the case.

One doesn't divorce one's wife every year before Rosh HaShanah in order to get another mitzvah. It is a regulation about how to go about divorce, if divorce is necessary. And it is understood, within the Chumra Song, that this is a joke:
I stole a diamond ring from my Tante Bailah, 
Just to be mekayem “Vehaishiv es hag’zailah”,



Of course, some would say that Biblical Commandment A is a "Mitzvah" that one should go out of his way to fulfill, while others would say that Biblical Commandment A is a statute or regulation. And Kabbalistic ideas that these commanded acts have some hidden positive spiritual effect would often weigh in, making some regard it as a mitzvah to go out of your way to fulfill.

For example, Shiluach HaKen, and whether one should disturb a nest and take the eggs if he has absolutely no need for the eggs. There are rabbinic voices, rationalists, who would regard this as an act of great cruelty such that obviously one should not do it. And there are rabbinic voices, non-rationalists, who would regard it as an important and positive act to do, with the cruelty of the act as part of its intent.

Or consider this "Geulah Update" from Rabbi Yekusiel Fish, on Yeranen Yaakov, with this surprising tale:
Also, during that period, Rav Kaduri's Havruta, the Gaon Mekubal Rav Shemuel Darzi ZT"L tried to perform the breaking of the neck of a Petter Hamor in order to cause the downfall of the Sharon government.  However, when people came to take pictures, he cried out to the donkey, "Rasha, they don't let me break your neck!"  And immediately after this incident, Rav Darzi ZT"L passed away.  And a few days after Rav Darzi ZT"L passed away, Sharon suffered a stroke, from which he had not recovered until he passed away.
He wanted to perform the act described in the second clause of this pasuk:

יג  וְכָל-פֶּטֶר חֲמֹר תִּפְדֶּה בְשֶׂה, וְאִם-לֹא תִפְדֶּה וַעֲרַפְתּוֹ; וְכֹל בְּכוֹר אָדָם בְּבָנֶיךָ, תִּפְדֶּה.13 And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break its neck; and all the first-born of man among thy sons shalt thou redeem.

I don't know if anyone would regard it as a mitzvah such that just as people gather en mass to carry out the rare ceremony of pidyon peter chamor, they would gather en mass to carry out ve'im lo sifdeh vaArafto. This should be regarded as a regulation of one does not do the act of redemption.

In the case above, it seems that the kabbalist was trying to perform the ceremony as a means of accomplishing something on the spiritual plane, "to cause the downfall of the Sharon government". Which isn't precisely the same thing.

Saturday, January 18, 2014

Posts so far for parshat Mishpatim

2013

1. Corpses all the way down.An attempt to answer this: "Thus, Hashem did bring about the killing to the accidental killer's hand -- as a way of bringing the accidental killer to justice for a prior accidental killing, and as a way of bringing about a death penalty to a prior deliberate killing. However, what about that prior accidental killing? Was that notalso וְהָאֱלֹהִים אִנָּה לְיָדוֹ, that God brought it to his hand? If so, why should he have any guilt in the matter, if it was Hashem's act even there? And why, in that prior incident, did God bring it to his hand? We are forced to say that there was an even prior accidental killing to that prior accidental killing. And so, there are corpses all the way down!"

2. YUTorah on parashat Mishpatim.

2012

1) Mishpatim sources -- further improved.

2) The dispute between Onkelos and Rashi over לַחָפְשִׁי --  Whether it is to freedom or to [be a slave] to a free man. I doubt such a dispute actually exists.

3) Calculations regarding stolen blessings and mitzvos --  an elaborate construction from the Chasam Sofer.

4) The severity of one who curses his parents --  Compared to one who strikes them. According to R' Yonasan Eibeshitz, it is because the curser admits to Hashem's hashgacha, yet tries to bring Him into this evil. Or, because the striker can be excused, since striking is the fault of a person's animal soul.

5) YU Torah on parashat Mishpatim.

6) Primary and secondary laws -- those that hold for all time, and those open to adjustment, to allow for changing conditions.


2011

  1. Mishpatim sources -- further improved. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
    .
  2. As easy as falling off a ladder, pt i -- I champion Rashi's girsa of oleh rather than yored, despite halachic challenges to details of his case.
    .
  3. As easy as falling off a ladder, part ii of ii -- Further analyses of the midrash of Divine justice presented by Rashi. If the meidiz was chayiv hereg, why should someone falling on him help, when it is more akin to sekilah?
    .
  4.  Asher lo ye'adah -- Some readings of the lo/lo by amah ivriyah.
    .
  5. Ibn Ezra's girsa of velo yishama al picha -- Ibn Ezra has a variant girsa of a pasuk in parshat Mishpatim, which lines up with a variant mentioned by the Aruch. It turns out it also matches the Samaritan Pentateuch. Yet I would still side with our Masoretic text.
    .
  6. Shema shav as false report and useless report --  according to Rashi. Does he get both interpretations from Onkelos?
    .
  7. Does Naaseh veNishma imply the former before the latter?  Presenting Ibn Caspi's take on this.
    .
  8. Five times penalty for the golden calf --  An interesting explanation of a midrash, and of a pasuk in Ki Tisa, according to the Gra. Are there other ways of explaining this midrash pliah? Related is this parshablog post.

2010

  1. Mishpatim sources -- revamped, with over 100 meforshim on the parsha and haftarah.
    .
  2. Mishpatim: The implications of refraining from commenting -- Several pashtanim pointedly refrain from offering commentary on the Torah's legal codes, despite their innovation elsewhere. Rather, they endorse the traditional halachic conclusions. Examples: Ibn Ezra, Ibn Caspi. What does this mean, hashkafically speaking? And what could this tell us about their divergence in the case of midrash aggadah?
    .
  3. Charoses and the authenticity of the Zohar -- If named Tannaim or Amoraim mentioned in the Zohar think the tapuach is the apple, but according to true Chazal the tapuach is the citron, then how could the Zohar be anything other than a forgery?
    .
  4. A boring dvar Torah about doors and doorposts --  Unlike some of pashtanim discussed in this previous post on Mishpatim, the Vilna Gaon is extremely willing to interpret a pasuk against the established halachah. Just how he does that. And what the Karaites think. Plus, the example under consideration, about the door and the doorframe, leads us to a girsological variation in Onkelos, which we may attempt to resolve.
    .
  5. Is Moshe's forty day (and night) fast super-miraculousSo says Ibn Ezra. And Ibn Caspi takes him to task. And besides speculating on Ibn Ezra's methodological motivation, I wonder if it is even so certain that the Torah describes a miraculous event.
    .
  6. What makes a gadol?
    .
  7. What was bothering Ibn CaspiContinuing the conversation on a post in Mishpatim. How Rashbam differing from Chazal is not the same as Rashi differing from Chazal. And considering how Ibn Caspi onegrof would potentially argue with the conclusions of Chazal.
    .
  8. What is tzirahHornet or sickness? Rashi, along with midrash, and Ibn Ezra.
    .
  9. Yet more on tzirah -- How the Maharsha explains the brayta's statement that the hornets did not pass over, in terms of tying it in with the pesukim; whether his problem is the same as ours; and thus, whether his solution works.

2009
  1. Mishpatim sources, with links to an online Mikraos Gedolos, and many meforshim on the parsha and haftarah. Great for preparing the parsha.
    .
  2. Now these are the laws ... Is there room and legitimacy for a peshat commentary? This as a preface to Mishpatim, and so is part of the running commentary.
    .
  3. When you purchase a Hebrew slave... Does leOlam mean until Yovel? Who is being spoken of here? How the theme is the balancing of the financial interests of the master and the human, personal interests of the servant. Also part of the running commentary.
    .
  4. Permission for a doctor to heal, based on Rabbenu Bachya -- is the permission only for external wounds? is psychological treatment being excluded here? Plus, some troubling approaches to the legitimacy of psychology.
    .
  5. The Satan dancing between the ox's horns, also based on a Rabbenu Bachya. What is the meaning of the statement in the gemara? And is that the same as Rabbenu Bachya's interpretation?
2008
  1. Was the "Malach" Metatron or Moshe? A machlokes. And who exactly is this "Metatron?"
    .
  2. Do not oppress the widow and the orphan -- the message in the threat being one of empathy.
    .
  3. Marriage as penalty -- for a man who seduces a virgin. And how Shadal explains it as a matter of social standing.
    .
  4. In Shadal's vikuach, a pasuk at the end of mishpatim with ambiguous parsing is used as a basis for showing that they did not have trup.
2007
2005
  1. Twice Betrayed: A Case Study in Multivalence - part 1
    • by her husband, by her father. how Rashi presents them as simultaneously correct.
  2. Implementing Biblical Law in Florida
    • an attempt at implementing ba bamachteret, such that homeowners can use lethal force on home intruders.
2004
  1. HaAm = Ziknei HaAm as synecdoche
    • in which the whole refers to the part. In Mishpatim, Moshe ascends with Aharon, Nadav and Avihu and the elders, and it subsequently refers to them as the Am. So too in Yitro, Moshe asks the elders a question and the Am responds.
  2. Ayin Tachat Ayin as metaphor
    • In which I argue that saying that it means monetary payment is actually peshat, because it actually is a metaphor in which the punishment fits the degree of the crime.
  3. From parshat Behar-Bechukotai, a discussion of serving LeOlam/until Yovel for the perpetual servant mentioned in the beginning of Mishpatim.
    • and how two apparently opposing verses actually show different facets of the same law.
  4. from parshat Ki Teitzei, Eshet Yefat To`ar As Progressive Feminist Legislation, where in the course of discussion, I compare it to Amah Ivriya, the Hebrew maidservant, mentioned in the beginning of Mishpatim.
    • how it represents a reform of existing practice, and implements protections for the captive woman. 

to be continued...

Tuesday, February 05, 2013

YUTorah on parashat Mishpatim



Audio Shiurim on Mishpatim

Articles on Mishpatim
Parsha Sheets on Mishpatim
Rabbi Jeremy WiederLaining for Parshat Mishpatim
See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Mishpatim
New This Week
photo

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin