Commentaire sur L’Exode 23:35

לא תשא שמע שוא THOU SHALT NOT HEAR A FALSE REPORT — Take it as the Targum renders it: thou shalt not accept (listen to) a false report. This is a prohibition addressed to one who is about to accept a slanderous statement, and it is addressed also to a judge — that he should not hear the pleadings of one party to a suit before the other appears (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 22:23:1; Sanhedrin 7b).

לא תשא...אל תשת ידך עם רשע. To sign with such people on the same document. According to Sanhedrin 23 the inhabitants of Jerusalem would not put their signature on any document unless they had satisfied themselves as to the integrity of co-signers on such documents.

לא תשא שמע שוא, this is parallel to the warning in the ninth of the Ten Commandments not to testify falsely against one’s fellow man. (Exodus 20,12) Just as the witness is warned not to perjure himself, the judges are warned not to accept such testimony. They must not listen to testimony which is patently a lie but make their own inquiries to determine if the testimony conforms to the facts. Even if there are two false witnesses already so that your testimony would not have any bearing on the outcome of the trial, you must not join them and reinforce their lies by testifying as they have done.

לא תשא שמע שוא, “Do not accept a false report.” The instruction of the Torah to judges is that they shall not accept an oath from people whom they suspect of being prepared to violate it. They must first investigate the matter under dispute to evaluate if an oath would amount to perjury. Another way of explaining these words: “do not accept testimony by one litigant as he may change his testimony when confronted by his antagonist” (Mechilta Kasspa section 20). If the first party testifying in the absence of his antagonist had lied, he might feel forced to deny this by repeating his original statement and confirming it by an oath. Solomon says something along these lines in Proverbs 18,17: “the first one to plead his case appears to be right, until his neighbor comes and examines him.”
Our sages (in the Mechilta already mentioned) understand our verse as a warning not to accept defamations from anybody concerning anybody else. This is also why Onkelos translates the words as: “do not accept untrue reports.”

You promise him that you will be a corrupt witness. [The case is that] the claimant already has one false witness [to support his claim]. And the verse is warning this [potential second] witness: Do not join with that false witness, who is “a wicked man.”

Kap. 23. V. 1. Der Gesamtinhalt der Verse 1 u. 2 spricht dafür, dass auch der erste Satz: לא תשא וגו׳ zunächst an das Gericht, die Repräsentanz der Gesamtheit, gerichtet ist. Die in beiden Versen enthaltenen Vorschriften verpflichten das Gericht zu einer solchen Prozedur, die es möglichst vor falschem Urteile sichert. Sie besprechen daher das Gerichtsverfahren in allen seinen Stadien: Aufnahme des Tatbestandes durch Aussage von Parteien oder Zeugen (V. 1), Schöpfung und Fällung des Urteils (V. 2).

לא תשא שמע שוא, “do not spread false rumours;” the expression תשא from the root נשא, ”to carry,” is used here as “carrying by mouth;” another example of the same expression being used in a similar context is found in Psalms 16,4: ובל אשא את שמותם על שפתי, “so that their names will not pass my lips.” In other words: “let me not utter a lie.”

אל תשת ידך עם רשע SET NOT THINE HAND WITH THE WICKED — with him who makes a false claim against his fellow-man: that you promise him to give evidence for him that will result in wrong being done (להיות עד חמס).‎

להיות עד חמס, to be the sole signatory seeing that the signature of wicked people is not worth anything. The result might be that the judge will confiscate money from the defendant based on a document with only one signature, something inadmissible under Jewish law.

אל תשת ידך עם רשע, “do not extend your hand with the wicked.” This refers to a trumped up charge, to which someone undertakes to act as a false witness.”

נשא .לא תשא שמע שוא, konkret: aufnehmen, heißt auf den Kreis des inneren Lebens übertragen: etwas in den Kreis seiner Gedanken, zur Berücksichtigung etc. aufnehmen. Daher ja auch נשא ראש: zählen, und speziell beim Gerichte: נשא פנים, das Gesicht, d. h. die Persönlichkeit der Parteien in den Kreis seiner Gedanken und Erwägungen aufnehmen, die Persönlichkeit und nicht bloß die Sache berücksichtigen. נשא שמע, das Gehörte, somit eine Aussage, in den Kreis seiner Gedanken aufnehmen, also sich einen Tatbestand berichten lassen. Im Zivilprozess kann ein Tatbestand in Abgang von Zeugen auch durch Aussage der Parteien mit Erfolg erhoben werden. Im Kriminalprozess ist aber nur die Aussage von Zeugen maßgebend. Hinsichtlich der Parteienaussage verpflichtet der erste Satz den Richter, sich selbst vor Aufnahme unrichtiger Aussagen möglichst zu schützen; so: אזהרה לבית דין שלא ישמע דברי בעל דין קודם שיבא בעל דין חברו, ist damit das Gericht gewarnt, keine Partei früher anzuhören, bevor nicht auch die Gegenpartei gegenwärtig ist (Sanhedrin 7 b), damit sich nicht beim Gerichte eine einseitige, leicht irrige Auffassung des Tatbestandes in vorhinein festsetze. Implizite ist darin auch für die Partei selber die Warnung gegeben, ihre Sache nicht ohne Gegenwart ihrer Gegnerin vorzubringen, um nicht eine irrige Auffassung zu ihren Gunsten zu veranlassen, אזהרה לבעל דין שלא יטעים דבריו לדיין קודם שיבא בעל דין חברו (das.) — (Obgleich sich dieses Verbot zunächst auf die Auffassung zur Bildung eines gerichtlichen Urteils bezieht, so findet es doch ebenso seine Anwendung auf die soziale Beurteilung des Nächsten und ist zugleich die Warnung sowohl für den מקבל לשון הרע, als den מספר לשון הרע, die Warnung, keine nachteilige Rede über einen Mitmenschen anzuhören, geschweige denn anzubringen [Makkoth 23 a], und wird dort, in Zusammenhang mit dem vorangehenden לכלב וגו׳, derjenige, der die Rede, diese Perle der Menschenhoheit, zum Verbrechen missbraucht, als der Menschenwürde beraubt, tief unter das Tier gesunken erklärt.)

אל תשת ידך עם רשע, “do not join hands with a wicked person.” It follows automatically that you must not join him in giving false testimony.

אל תשת ידך עם רשע וגו׳: zusammen sind die Faktoren einer Gerichtshandlung, und zwar ist der Zeuge der Hauptfaktor, er provoziert die Gerichtshandlung und bildet beim jüdischen Gerichte, zumal beim Kriminalprozess, die einzige Basis des Tatbestandes. Es soll daher das Gericht seine Hand, d. i. die ihm anvertraute Macht des Urteils, nicht mit einem רשע verbinden, sie von einem solchen Menschen zur Ausübung eines gewalttätigen Unrechts an einem Menschen (חמס) missbrauchen zu lassen. Es ist damit die Untüchtigkeit (פסול) eines רשע zum Zeugnis ausgesprochen (פסול מחמת עברה). Unter רשע (verwandt mit רשה, dem Ausdruck der Willensbefugnis, somit, seiner Grundbedeutung nach, die Willkür, die Gesetzlosigkeit, bezeichnend), wird allgemein ein Gesetzübertreter verstanden. Nach Auffassung des רמב׳׳ם (Hilch. Eduth 10), die auch von den meisten Autoritäten und auch im Ch. M. akzeptiert ist, ist hier der Begriff רשע auf Übertretung eines mit Strafe belegten Verbotes, עברה שיש בה מלקות oder ein Verbrechen aus Eigennutz, חמוד ממון :חמס, beschränkt.

לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעת THOU SHALT NOT FOLLOW THE MANY FOR EVIL — There are Halachic interpretations of this verse given by the Sages of Israel but the wording of the text does not fit in well with them. They derive from here that we must not decide a person’s guilt by a preponderance of one judge. And the end of the verse they explained thus: אחרי רבים להטות — but if the judges who declare the defendant guilty are two more than those who declare him innocent, then decide the matter as they declare — that he is guilty (Sanhedrin 2a). — The verse, they point out, speaks of capital cases. — The middle passage לא תענה על רב, they explained as though it were written על רַב, “thou shalt not speak against the chief of the judges, meaning that one should not give an opinion different from that given by the מופלא of the court (the most eminent among the judges, because this is disrespectful to the Presiding-judge). In consequence of this rule we begin to take the view of those in the side-benches first — we ask the youngest judges to express their opinion first (so that they may not be able to vote against the view expressed by the מופלא). Therefore the exegesis of the verse according to the words of our Rabbis is as follows: “thou shalt not follow a bare majority for evil” — to sentence a man to death on account of the one judge by whom those who condemn him are more in number than those who acquit him; “and thou shalt not speak against the chief inclining away” from his opinion. — They explained this latter phrase thus, because the word which is usually written רִיב is here written without and therefore may be read, אחרי רבים להטות — ;רַב, there is, however, a majority to whose view thou must incline. When is this the case? When there are two who preponderate amongst those who vote for condemnation over and above those who vote for acquittal. For from what is implied in, “thou shalt not follow a bare majority for evil”, I may infer: but thou shall follow it for good. Hence they (the Rabbis) said (i. e. they established the general rule): In capital cases we may decide by a majority of one for acquittal, but only by a majority of at least two to condemn. Onkelos translates the second phrase by: Do not refrain from teaching when you are being asked your opinion in a legal matter. The Hebrew text is to be explained according to the Targum as follows: לא תענה על רב לנטת If you are being asked your opinion in a legal matter do not give your answer just to incline to one particular side and so to withdraw yourself from the dispute, but decide the matter as truth requires. Such are the expositions that have been offered of this verse.

לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעות, as the tie-breaking vote in a trial involving capital punishment. One cannot declare someone guilty of the death penalty on the basis of a solitary judge. A majority of one would be equivalent to a conviction by a single judge.

לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעות, "Do not follow a multitude to do evil;" Our sages have offered a multitude of explanations on this verse none of which appear to address the plain meaning of the verse. I believe we need to understand this verse in terms of Numbers 35,24 and 25 ושפטו העדה…והצילו העדה. Our sages (Sanhedrin 4) comment there that when the court is to decide in matters which carry the death penalty there have to be a minimum of 23 judges in order that there could be a quorum (10) which indicts and a quorum which (may) exonerate. The extra number is designed to enable a majority to be present at all times. On folio 17 of the same tractate we are told that should all the judges indict unanimously the accused goes free.

לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעות, if, in your opinion, the majority are about to commit an error in judgment, do not remain silent because they are the majority, but state your view. This applies even if you know beforehand that they will not accept your viewpoint but that of the majority.

לא תענה על ריב, “do not respond to a grievance, etc.” The Torah speaks of a grievance that you are asked to get involved in as one of the arbiters, with the understanding that a majority opinion would be decisive. You must voice your opinion regardless of being outvoted. Some commentators understand the verse to mean that one must not decide such matters alone, but in a quorum in which the majority opinion is accepted.

לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעות, “do not be a follower of the majority for evil;” the plain meaning of these words is that even if you see a vast majority of people acting in a forbidden manner, do not make the fact that they constitute the norm an excuse to follow in their footsteps.
Our sages (Sanhedrin 20) explain the wording to mean that a majority of only a single vote in matters involving capital punishment is not sufficient to convict the accused. The meaning of the word לרעות, which is in the plural,- and a reference to the people voting “guilty”- is that such a verdict must be arrived at by a majority of at least two votes. However, a majority of one is sufficient to exonerate an accused. This is the meaning of the words following, i.e. אחרי רבים להטות.

And let the collar hang from the necks of the majority. Rashi means that you should not say: “What difference will it make if I judge the case truthfully? They are the majority and I am one person, and they will not heed me.” Rather, you should do your duty, “and let the collar. . .”

(Exodus 23:2) "You shall not incline (judgment), after many for evil": The implication is that you do not rule with them (beth-din) for evil, but you do rule with them for good. How so? If twelve (of the twenty-three judges) acquit and eleven incriminate, he is acquitted. If thirteen incriminate and ten acquit, he is incriminated. __ But perhaps if eleven acquit and twelve incriminate he is incriminated? It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "Do not speak (solitarily) in a quarrel" — Scripture states: Kill by witnesses; kill by incliners — Just as witnesses, (a minimum of) two, so, incliners, two (and not one). If eleven acquitted and eleven incriminated, and one said I do not know, another is to be added — an exhortation to the judge to incline (by one) only for acquittal. Thus "Do not speak (solitarily) in a quarrel."

V. 2. לא תהי׳ אחרי רבים לרעות. Schwerlich kann hier רעות im Sinne des moralisch Schlechten verstanden werden. Das ganze Gesetz gibt dem Gerichte Vorschriften, und eigentümlich wäre es, wenn dem Gerichte als solchem noch besonders verboten würde, nichts Schlechtes zu tun. Dazu kommt, dass ja die רבים, die Majorität, wie aus dem Schlusssatz erhellt, selbst das Gericht repräsentiert und deren Ausspruch als das Gerichtsurteil zu gelten hat. Will man es als Vorschrift für die Meinungsäußerung eines einzelnen Mitgliedes im Gerichtskollegium verstehen, so hätte eine solche Vorschrift noch weniger Sinn. Nicht nur לרעות, wenn die Majorität eine offenbare Schlechtigkeit begehen will, überhaupt, selbst in zweifelhaften Fällen, wo die Meinungen im Kollegium über das, was "Recht" ist, geteilt sind, darf ja kein Mitglied etwas anderes als seine eigene Ansicht der Sache äußern, mag diese mit der Ansicht der andern übereinstimmen oder von allen divergieren, wie dies noch im Verfolge der Vorschrift hervortreten wird. Offenbar vielmehr ist hier das רעות in dem Sinne wie להרע או להטיב (Wajikra 5, 4), נשבע להרע ולא ימיר (Ps. 15,4), in dem Sinne des Schadens, des Nachteils, des Unglücks zu verstehen, wie denn ja auch gerade רעות eben so oft als Leiden, Unglück, wie als Schlechtigkeiten vorkommt, und sind darunter, wie die Überlieferung (Sanhedrin 2 a) lehrt, Verurteilungen zu Todesstrafen verstanden, die nicht nach einfacher Majorität erfolgen sollen. Während zur Freisprechung die Majorität von einer Stimme genügt, ist zur Verurteilung eine Majorität von mindestens zweien erforderlich.

ולא תענה על ריב, “and do not ignore the majority view seeing you consider yourself as smarter than your colleagues, when this would result in perverting justice;”

But I think that if one wishes to explain the verse so that every thing should fit in properly, its exegesis must be as follows: לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעת, If you see wicked men wresting judgment do not say: since they are many I will incline after them;

ולא תענה על ריב, when your colleagues the other judges ask your opinion,

ולא תענה על (דברי) ריב לנטות אחרי רבימ להטות , contributing thereby to pervert justice. This rule applies even if because of your joining the majority the accused will be found innocent and saved from execution.

ולא תענה על רב, “and do not respond to a grievance, etc.” this is a warning to the judge not to argue on behalf of any of the litigants. It includes a warning to all other non-litigants present not to argue on behalf of either of the litigants. Only the actual litigant is allowed to present arguments on his own behalf. The claimant presents his arguments first and the accused replies to his arguments. Nobody else intervenes in a litigation to which he is not a direct party (Baba Kama 46). Sanhedrin 36 adds the comment that seeing the word for litigation, strife, ריב is spelled defectively, without the letter י so that it could also be read rav, i.e. a scholar, we derive from this that the customary courtesies of someone having to stand in front of a scholar, his Rabbi, etc., are dispensed with when both the Rabbi and the student are facing each other as litigants. The student does not have to display any deference for his opposite number. [Rabbi Chavell interprets our author to mean that junior members of the tribunal must not challenge a ruling made by senior members after it has been made. Ed.]

Our verse intends to remove two obstacles which may mislead a scholar when he ponders the meaning of this ruling. 1) When a judge sits in a collegium of judges and he notices that all his colleagues have made up their minds that the accused is guilty, whereas he feels that the accused is innocent, he may say to himself that by voting according to his conscience the accused will be executed seeing there are already two quorums, one which votes "guilty" and one which could vote "innocent;" this judge may say to himself that if he too votes "guilty" the accused would be freed seeing the guilty vote would be unanimous, the result he has been arguing for. He will justify his behaviour by recalling the dictum of the sages that when faced by a majority one must not insist on one's own opinion. The Torah instructs such a judge not to apply this dictum when voting to indict someone. One must only vote one's own conscience even if the result of such a vote does not correspond to one's wishes or convictions. The Torah uses the word לרעות advisedly, telling such a judge he would do something evil by voting with the majority in order to thwart their purpose. Such a judge is to remember that in the final analysis G'd is the judge; if G'd instructed the judges to let the accused go free in the event they agree unanimously that he is guilty, this does not give the dissenting judge the right to play G'd, i.e. to be the final arbiter of the fate of the accused.

ולא תענה על רב לנטת. Sollte hier unter ריב die zu entscheidende Prozesssache verstanden sein, so wäre dieser Begriff hier durch einen Ausdruck bezeichnet, der, zumal bei einem so bedeutsamen Gesetze, viel zu beschränkt, nur einer Kategorie entspräche. Unter ריב könnte nämlich nur der Zivilprozess verstanden werden, in welchem sich zwei Parteien gegenüber stehen, während beim Kriminalprozess nach jüdischem Begriffe nur eine Partei, der Angeklagte, vor dem Gerichte steht, dessen Ankläger die bei der Sache ganz unbeteiligten Zeugen sind. Es scheint daher ריב nur in der Bedeutung wie דברי ריבות בשעריך (Dewarim 17,8) zu nehmen sein, wo es den Meinungsstreit im Gerichte bedeutet; und ענה ist die Meinungsäußerung, die Abstimmung. נטה heißt: Abweichen von dem, was man als Recht erkannt hat. Sollte es nun heißen: gib keine von deiner Rechtsüberzeugung abweichende Stimme ab, so würde es heißen: לא .לא תטה לענות תענה לנטות sagt vielmehr: stimme nicht so ab, dass von der eigenen Überzeugung abgewichen werde. Der Sinn des Gesetzes ist demnach: wenn die Ansichten über eine Sache im Gerichte geteilt sind und das Urteil durch Abstimmung geschöpft werden soll, so soll die Abstimmung in einer Weise geschehen, dass keiner veranlasst werde, in der Stimmabgabe von seiner eigenen Meinung abzugehen. Die Überlieferung lehrt: דיני נפשות מתחילין מן הצד, dass man die Abstimmung über Kapitalfragen (über Todesstrafen und מלקות) von den jüngern Mitgliedern des Kollegiums anfange; würde man mit dem ältesten, autoritätsvollsten beginnen, so könnten die jüngeren bei so ernsten Fragen ihm zu widersprechen Anstand nehmen und nicht nach ihrer Überzeugung abstimmen. Geraten wird immer, auch bei Abstimmungen in zivilgerichtlichen Sachen mit den jüngeren zu beginnen. Diese Halacha wird auf unseren Text zurückgeführt und wird bemerkt, dass darauf auch die, sonst nicht wieder vorkommende mangelhafte Schreibung des Wortes ריב hinweise, in welchem das י fehlt und das daher auch als רַב gelesen werden könne: לא תענה על רב ,"lasse die Stimmabgabe des Ältesten nicht vorangehen." Wir haben gesehen, wie das לא תענה על רַב nichts als die unmittelbar praktische Befolgung des לא תענה על ריב לנטות ist. (Sanhedrin 36 a, siehe נמוקי יוסף das.)

אחרי רבים להטות, “but make certain that the verdict is based on a majority of the judges’ opinions.”

ולא תענה על רב לנטת וגו׳, and if the defendant asks you about that judgment do not give him as a reply concerning the dispute any statement which will incline after that majority, thereby wresting judgment from the truth, but pronounce the decision just as it should be and let the collar hang around the neck of the majority (i. e. if you be outvoted let them bear the responsibility).

לנטות אחרי רבים, do not be influenced by the fact that the majority thinks differently from you. Assuming that in a trial 10 of the 23 judges had expressed the view that the accused was innocent whereas eleven had expressed the view that the accused was guilty,

There is still a second obstacle that a judge may face in such situations. Assume that the judge in question is convinced of the guilt of the accused. He is aware that his opinion is shared by all his colleagues. The judge in question realises that if he votes his conscience, i.e. "guilty," this will make the vote unanimous and result in the accused (whom he thinks of as guilty) going free. In order to prevent this from happening our judge resolves to vote "innocent" in order to ensure that the accused will be convicted. By doing so our judge convinces himself that he merely ensures that the majority will prevail, a laudatory objective. However, morally speaking, this too is a way in which a single judge imposes the outcome of a trial on the majority. To prevent this from happening the Torah wrote לא תענה על ריב לנטות אחרי רבים, "neither shall you vote in a dispute so as to ensure the vote will be based on a majority (as opposed to unanimity)." The Torah explained the reason for this legislation as being להטות, i.e. that the individual judge in question attempts to pervert the outcome of the proceedings by not voting his conscience.

אחרי רבים להטות ist das Motiv des Vorangehenden. Absolut heißt es: nach der Majorität sind schließlich alle Ansichten zu neigen, d. h.: wenn einmal abgestimmt ist, so wird das Majoritätsvotum Gesetz und Gerichtsurteil, und es hat die dissentierende Minorität sich mit ihrer Ansicht dem Majoritätsvotum unterzuordnen. Diese Bestimmung, dass das Urteil auf der Ansicht einer Majorität und nicht einer Minorität beruhen soll, ist auch das Motiv der vorangehend gebotenen Vorsicht in der Abstimmungsordnung und ist daher durch den Akzent eng mit לא תענה וגו׳ verbunden. Würde man in der Abstimmung mit dem autoritätsvollen Ältesten beginnen, so würden leicht die Jüngeren aus Hochachtung, gegen ihre Meinung, ihm beistimmen, das schließliche Urteil könnte dann in Wirklichkeit nur von der Ansicht dieses Einzigen getragen sein und soll doch rein auf der Ansicht der Majorität beruhen. לא תענה על ריב לנטות, weil, oder damit: אחרי רבים להטות.

להטות, if you were to cast your vote with the majority there would then be a majority of 2 out of a total of 23 voting guilty, and that decision would have been arrived at by your single vote. You are not allowed to salvage your conscience by voting with the majority unless this represented your absolute conviction. You must explain the reason for your vote. Unless there is a majority of two votes in favour of guilty no one can be convicted of the death penalty.

Dieser Kanon אחרי רבים להטות, nach welchem die Minoritätsansicht in die der Majorität völlig aufgeht und das Majoritätsvotum das Gerichtsvotum wird, findet als "Majoritätsregel" אזלינן בתר רובא, in den verschiedensten Gebieten des Gesetzes eine fruchtbare Anwendung. Wie die Gerichtsmajorität für das ist, so trägt für die gesetzliche Beurteilung der verschiedensten Beziehungen das Ganze den Charakter der Mehrzahl seiner Glieder, die Eigentümlichkeit der Minderheit verschwindet im ganzen, und für jedes vorkommende einzelne gilt die Präsumtion, dass es den Charakter der Mehrzahl habe; und zwar ist nicht nur, wie hier bei סנהדרין, eine in Übersichtlichkeit vorliegende Mehrzahl. רובא דאיתא קמן, sondern auch eine nur erfahrungsmäßig vorauszusetzende Mehrheit, רובא דליתא קמן, maßgebend (Chulin 11 a). Wie tief dieser Kanon in der Natur des menschlichen Erkenntnisvermögens begründet ist, haben wir bereits im חורב (Kapitel 71) zu entwickeln versucht.

לא תהדר NEITHER SHALT THOU COUNTENANCE [THE INDIGENT IN HIS QUARREL] — You shall not pay regard to him by finding in his favour in the law suit, saying, “He is a poor man; I will find in his favour, and thus show him some measure of respect.”

ודל לא תהדר בריבו, "And do not favour the poor in his litigation." The extra word בריבו contains a moral/ethical message based on Vayikra Rabbah 34, that the poor is liable to engage in a confrontation with G'd asking Him why He supplies everyone else with their needs whereas he is hungry and naked. Everyone who gives even a copper coin to a poor and thereby stills his hunger prevents the poor from complaining to G'd and accusing Him that G'd is not gracious to the poor. On the other hand, at times when no one on earth is gracious to the poor, his argument is very powerful. The Torah therefore commands us not to contribute to strengthening the voice of the poor who accuse G'd of insensitivity to their fate.

ודל לא תהדר, as spelled out in greater detail in Leviticus 19,15 לא תשא פני דל ולא תהדר פני גדול, “do not favour the poor nor show deference to the rich.” The unvarying motto is בצדק תשפוט עמיתך, “judge your kinsman fairly.”

And say, “He is poor. I will find in his favor and show him regard.” Rashi had to explain that the regard shown the poor man is [not actually treating him with honor but] judging in his favor, because the natural tendency of a judge is to treat only a rich man with honor — as it says, “You shall not show regard to a prominent man” (Vayikra 19:15). Therefore, Rashi explains that the regard shown here [to the poor man] is by judging him favorably, and through this he will be looked upon with regard. For otherwise he would have to pay, and since he cannot, he will be disgraced.

(Exodus 23:3) "Do not honor a poor man in his quarrel": Why is this needed? (i.e., it is already written [Leviticus 19:15] "You shall not favor a poor man (in the verdict) and you shall not honor a great one.") (From that verse) I would know only these (i.e., favoring the poor and honoring the rich). Whence do I derive that they ("favoring" and "honoring") are interchangeable, (both applying to the rich and the poor)? From "Do not honor a poor man." Abba Chanan says in the name of R. Elazar: Scripture speaks of leket, shikchah, and peah (i.e., it is "in his quarrel" that you are not to honor a poor man, but you are to honor him by deciding in his favor in instances of doubt as to whether something is leket, shikchah or peah, [which revert to the poor] viz. Leviticus 23:22.)

V. 3. ודל. Wir haben die Ausdrücke für arm: דל .אביון ,עני ,דל, von דלל verwandt mit טלל, wovon טל, der Niederschlag, der Tau, תלל, wovon תֵל, die Trümmer. ist der Herabgekommene; עני, von ענה, entsprechen: der in seiner Existenz Unselbständige; אביון, von אבה, einwilligen: der in seinem Willen Unselbständige. הדר ist die äußere Ehrenbezeugung (vergl. 3. B. M. 19. 32). Nichts tut einem früher vermögend Gewesenen so wohl, als sich noch mit den alten Ehren begegnet zu fühlen, nichts ist so dem Geiste dieses Gesetzes gemäß, als zu zeigen, dass die Wertschätzung und Hochachtung eines Menschen nicht mit dem Vermögen und dessen Verlust steige und falle. Nichts dürfte außergerichtlich eine größere Mizwa sein, als להדר דל. Allein בריבו, wenn er im Rechtsstreite mit seinem Gegner vor dir steht, musst du selbst in bloßen Äußerlichkeiten beide ganz gleich behandeln, darfst auch in bloßen Äußerlichkeiten, und selbst aus menschlichster Rücksicht nicht, dem einen eine größere Aufmerksamkeit als dem andern erweisen.

ודל לא תהדר, “and do not favour the poor (because he is poor). This verse follows closely on the heels of not testifying falsely, in order that you do not think that it is your duty to assist a poor man in his dispute with a rich man.

V. 4 u. 5. כי תפגע, außergerichtlich aber musst du selbst deinem Feinde und Hasser Vermögen retten und Hilfe leisten. איב ,אויב (verwandt mit עקב: rücklings jemandem schaden, mit עכב, rabbinisch: hindern) bezeichnet die in Tat sich kundgebende Feindschaft, שנא jedoch mehr innere Feindseligkeit, den Hass. Darum steht bei dem שור תועה wo ein konkreter Verlust vorliegt: אויבך, obgleich der Eigentümer dir selbst schon offenbaren Schaden gebracht, sollst du ihn doch vor Schaden hüten. חמור רובץ תחת משאו ist aber zunächst nur eine Verlegenheit, dort heißt es שונאך, der Eigentümer will dir nicht wohl, würde sich freuen, wenn er dich in ähnlicher Verlegenheit sähe, auch in dir regt sich etwas von Schadenfreude, וחדלת, du darfst sie aber nicht bei dir aufkommen lassen. — עזוב תעזוב עמו, es kommt allerdings die Wurzel עזב in der Bedeutung "Festmachen" vor, d. h. etwas so herstellen, "dass es sich selbst überlassen bleiben kann", keiner Stütze bedarf, ויעזבו ירושלים עד החומה (Nehem. 3. 8). Da es jedoch hier nicht vom Aufladen, טעינה, sondern vom Abladen der Last, unter welcher das Tier liegt, handelt, פריקה, so empfiehlt sich die Auffassung des תרגום: du musst alle Feindschaft fahren lassen und ihm helfen.

השב תשיבנו לו, “make sure to restore it to him;” the Torah repeats this instruction to remind you that it may require that you perform this act for your enemy’s ox even repeatedly. (Compare Talmud, Baba Metzia folio 32.)

Die Halacha fasst die beiden Ausdrücke פגיעה des V. 4 und ראיה des V. 5 zusammen, und lehrt: die Pflicht beginne nicht erst, wenn man unmittelbar auf das Tier stößt, auch nicht, wenn man es ganz aus der Ferne erblickt, sondern bei ראיה שיש בה פגיעה d. h. bei einem nahen Erblicken. Es wird dies auf eine Strecke von etwa zweihundertsechsundsechzig Ellen bestimmt. Auch nach geleisteter Hilfe soll man ihn noch eine Strecke begleiten, um sich zu überzeugen, dass er einen ungehinderten Fortgang habe, — מדדה עמו עד פרסה darf sich jedoch hierfür vergüten lassen.

Es erkennt übrigens die Halacha in dem Abladen des Tieres nicht nur eine Pflicht gegen den in seinem Unternehmen gehinderten Menschen, sondern auch gegen das leidende Tier, צער בעלי חיים דאוריתא. Um des Menschen willen wäre er nur verpflichtet zu helfen, עמו: wenn er selbst nach Kräften mit Hand anlegt. Um des Tieres willen muss er jedoch Hilfe leisten, auch wenn der Herr rechtswidrig müßig dabei steht und ihm die Arbeit allein überlässt; hat aber dann den Anspruch einer Vergütung an den Herrn (B. M. 32 b). — אוהב לפרוק ושונא לטעון מצוה בשונא כדי לכוף את יצרו, obgleich פריקה, die Hilfeleistung zum Abladen, als Pflicht gegen Mensch und Tier, der טעינה, der Hilfeleistung beim Aufladen (Dewarim 22, 4), wo nur eine Pflicht gegen den Menschen geübt wird, sonst vorangeht, so ist doch dem aufladenden Feinde eher zu helfen, als dem abladenden Freunde, weil die Pflicht der Selbstüberwindung die höhere ist (daselbst).

כי תראה חמור שנאך וגו׳ IF THOU SEE THE ASS OF HIM THAT HATETH THEE etc. — כי here has the meaning of “possibly”, “perhaps”, which is one of the four meanings which the word כי serves to express. The sense of the verse is accordingly the following: Can you possibly see his ass crouching beneath his burden and forbear to help him? (The Hebrew word בתמיה in Rashi means “Say this in the intonation of a question”, and is nothing more than our question mark).

That is that we are commanded to serve Him. And this command is repeated several times: His saying, "And you shall serve the Lord, your God" (Exodus 23:25); and His saying, "and you shall serve Him" (Deuteronomy 13:5). And although this command is from the inclusive commands - as we explained in Principle Four (Sefer HaMitzvot, Shorashim 4) - it nevertheless has specificity, since it is the command to pray. The language of the Sifrei is, "'And to serve Him' (Deuteronomy 11:13) - that is prayer." And they also said, "'And to serve Him' - that is [Torah] study." And in the Mishnah of Rabbi Eliezer, the son of Rabbi Yose HaGelili, they said, "From where [do we know that] the essence of prayer is a commandment? From here - 'You shall fear the Lord, your God, and you shall serve Him' (Deuteronomy 6:13)." And they said, "Serve Him through His Torah; serve Him in His Temple." This means, direct [yourself] towards it, to pray [towards] there, as Shlomo, peace be upon him, explained. (See Parashat Mishpatim: Mishneh Torah, Prayer and the Priestly Blessing 1.)

חמור שנאך, the Torah uses the most likely scenario as its model. [Clearly, you are to do no less for the animal of a friend or relative.]

וחדלת מעזוב לו, “and you would refrain from assisting him;” this is a veiled warning that you must not dare abandoning him to his problems just because the owner of the beast has a record of being hostile to you. On the contrary, you must make every effort to assist such a person, provided he too does his share in enabling the overloaded beast to get rid of its burden.

עזוב תעזוב עמו, “you shall help him with it (even repeatedly).” This concerns the commandment to unload the beast (Baba Metzia 32). The interpretation is based on the verse being superfluous as we could have deduced this message from the words in Deut. 22,4 where the Torah writes about a similar situation הקם תקים עמו, “help him to stand it up.” If the Torah commands us to help someone load his beast, how much more would it be in place for the Torah to command us to help unload a beast which broke down under an overload! Nonetheless, the Torah writes both laws in order to teach that there are different considerations which determine the legislation in these two situations. Help in unloading must be extended without charge, whereas help in loading may be charged for. The reason one may not charge for helping to unload the beast in our verse is because alleviating pain of animals is a Biblical commandment, may have to be performed even without the assistance of the owner.

וחדלת מעזוב לו, “and you feel like refraining from raising it;” you are warned not to remain inactive when faced with the animal’s distress, even if its owner is your enemy. This is also the way the Onkelos understands the word לו, seeing that he describes the Torah’s reflecting the first reaction of the finder here being that he is not called upon to do for his enemy’s property what he himself has failed to do, but that he at least has to assist him. This interpretation is also hinted at in Rashi’s commentary on Deuteronomy 13,9, where he emphasizes that one’s enemy is exempt from the commandment: “to love your fellow man as yourself.” He quotes Sifrey as his source for his interpretation of the words; .לא תאבה לו

עזב תעזב עמו — The root עזב has here the meaning of “helping”. It has a similar meaning in, (Deuteronomy 32:36) “assisted and helped (עזוב)”. Similar also is, (Nehemiah 3:8) “ויעזבו Jerusalem up to the wall” — i. e. they filled it up with earth in order to help and to support the strength of the wall. A similar use of כי is, (Deuteronomy 7:17, 18) כי תאמר בלבבך רבים הגוים האלה וגו׳ which means “Canst thou possibly (כי) speak thus? לא תירא מהם, Do not be afraid of them and speak thus”. Our Rabbis expounded it in a Halachic sense as follows: … כי תראה וחדלת “If thou seest etc. …וחדלת” — there are occasions when you may forbear and there are occasions when you must help. How so? If it is an old man who sees the ass in this condition and it is not compatible with his dignity to intervene, then וחדלת “thou mayest forbear” holds good; or if the animal belongs to a heathen and its burden to an Israelite then, also, וחדלת may be applied (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 23:5:3).

עזוב חעזוב, an expression meaning assistance, support. The word occurs in this sense also in Nechemyah 3,8 ויעזבו ירושלים עד החומה, “they restored Jerusalem as far as the Broad wall.” We also find the word in this sense in Deuteronomy 32,36 ואפס עצור ועזוב, “and neither bond nor free is left.”

תעזוב עמו, these words have been interpreted in the Talmud Baba Metzia folio 32 as meaning that the Torah does not instruct the owner of that donkey to sit down while you alone attend to his donkey’s problem, but that you are called upon only not to abandon the animal but to assist the owner in relieving his donkey’s discomfort. If his owner has abandoned his beast, the enemy of his owner need not do the work by himself. [Torah legislation addresses human beings, not angels. Ed.]

עזב תעזב עמו THOU SHALT SURELY HELP HIM — to unload the burden (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 23:5:4). Onkelos also translates it in this sense: מלמשקל ליה which means, [Thou shalt not keep back] from taking the load from off it.

עמו, “with him;” it is impossible for one person alone to unload the burden carried by this animal while it is in a state of collapse. Two men have to work, one on each side of the animal.

אבינך — from the root אבה “to long for”, “to desire” — one who is poverty-stricken and longs for all the good things which he lacks.

לא תטה משפט אביונך בריבו, an example of being lenient with one category of person and harsh with another. When litigants are facing you, you must not take account of any differences in their social standing. Not only this, if one of the litigants is standing during the proceedings whereas the other one is seated, this is already a form of inadmissible discrimination.

לא תטה משפט אביונך, "Do not subvert the right of your needy, etc." Perhaps the emphasis is on the ending "your" in the word אביונך. We have learned in Baba Metzia 71 that the poor of your family take precedence in their claim to handouts over the unrelated poor of your city, whereas the local poor take precedence over the poor from other cities. The Torah warns here that we must not pervert this rule when setting out to do charity. "Your own needy" must always be the first on your list of charities.

(Exodus 23:6) "You shall not incline the judgment of your needy one in his quarrel": What is the intent of this? From (Ibid. 3) "You shall not honor a poor man in his quarrel," I would know only of a poor man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a needy pauper? (i.e., one who fell from his estate of wealth and now is in dire need [of almost everything])? From "You shall not incline the judgment of your needy one." Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: Scripture (here) speaks of an evildoer. Do not say: Since he is an evildoer I will incline the judgment against him. This is the intent of "You shall not incline the judgment of your needy one in his quarrel" — one who is "needy" in mitzvoth.

V. 6. V. 4 u. 5 haben gleichsam in Parenthese die Pflicht des Wohlwollens und der Hilfsbereitschaft dem sozialen, außergerichtlichen Verkehre überwiesen, dem Gerichte aber strenge Gerechtigkeit reserviert. V. 6 setzt die in V. 3 abgebrochenen gerichtlichen Vorschriften fort. Jeruschalmi, Pea IV. Ende, wird dieser Satz dahin verstanden: In seinem Rechtsstreite sollst du das Recht deines Armen nicht zu seinen Gunsten neigen, wohl aber außergerichtlich, wo der Anspruch des Armen auf irgend ein Objekt zweifelhaft ist, z. B. ob eine Ähre לקט, eine Garbe שכחה ist usw., auch aus bloßem Zweifel dasselbe dem Armen zukommen lassen, ספק לקט לקט ספק שכחה שכחה. Dem entspricht auch der Ausdruck אביונך, es ist dein Armer, er liegt als Armer dir zur Fürsorge ob, und als אביון fühlt er sich in seinem Wollen von dem Willen der Begüterten abhängig, muss also umsomehr auf die fürsorgende Vertretung der Gesamtheit rechnen, gleichwohl בריבו, wenn er im Rechtsstreite vor dir steht, darfst du noch um kein Haarbreit das Recht zu seinen Gunsten neigen.

לא תטה משפט אביונך בריבו; “do not subvert the rights of your destitute people in their disputes.” The Torah means not to rule in his favour when in fact he is in the wrong. This warning of the Torah is addressed to the judge or judges of the court dealing with his dispute, even though the Torah did not spell this out specifically. We find another example of such implied meanings in Deuteronomy 15,20, where the Torah writes: לפני ה' אלוקיך תאכלנו “you are to eat it in the presence of the Lord your G-d,” (i.e. on the sacred precincts of the Temple compound) an instruction that can only be fulfilled by a firstborn who is also a priest at the same time, seeing that non priests are forbidden in that compound. The Torah has warned earlier in verse 3 of our chapter that the judges must not rule in favour of the poor out of sympathy for them. Here it warns that the judges must also not rule against the poor (for fear of angering the rich).

ונקי וצדיק אל תהרג AND THE GUILTLESS AND RIGHTEOUS SLAY THOU NOT — Whence may we infer that in the case that one who left the court after being found guilty and one says, “I have something to plead in his favour”, he has to be brought back in order that the court may listen to this? From what Scripture states, “and the נקי thou shalt not slay”. Although he is not a צדיק — for he has not been acquitted by the court — he is however “free” (נקי) from the death penalty, for it is your duty to plead — as far as possible — in his favour. And whence may we infer, on the other hand, that in the case of one who left the court after having been acquitted and one says, “I have something to say against him” he is not to be brought back that the judges may hear this? From what Scripture states: “and the צדיק slay thou not” — and this man is a צדיק since he has been acquitted by the court (Sanhedrin 33b).

מדבר שקר תרחק, the Torah addresses the judge, telling him to stay clear of anything which could create the impression that he has dealings with something corrupt. Our sages enlarge on this, cautioning that the judge must be careful with all his utterances so that a liar cannot exploit his words for his own nefarious purposes. (Avot 1,9)

כי לא אצדיק רשע, "for I will not acquit the wicked." According to Sanhedrin 33 the term נקי refers to someone who testifies that he knows of evidence in favour of a person who has been convicted of a certain misdemeanour. In such a case the trial is re-opened. The expression צדיק in our verse, on the other hand, refers to a person against whom accusations are levelled after he has been acquitted. The Torah states therefore, that once a person has been acquitted of a certain crime he cannot be tried for it a second time. G'd reassures the reader that in the event the acquittal by the court was based on an error, He, G'd, will not allow the person who parades as a צדיק to go scot free. The Torah does not want us to think that seeing a person has been found guilty, "how can the verdict be overturned by fresh evidence?" The Torah answers simply: If the original conviction was fair and corresponded to the facts, I, G'd, will not allow such a person to get away with it even if he is found innocent in his second trial. The testimony on his behalf will not ultimately result in a perversion of justice. If, on the other hand, the original conviction was based on error, why should the person who can offer testimony on behalf of the convicted be ignored? Concerning the person who had been acquitted and against whom fresh evidence has been found, the Torah simply states that the fact that the court declared someone innocent does not necessarily mean that he is innocent in the eyes of G'd too. G'd has His own court and it is quite inconceivable that G'd would seal a decree by a human court which is erroneous. We are taught in Ketuvot 21 that it is forbidden for anyone to sign a document which appears to be fraudulent. You may well ask why we do not apply the same principle, i.e. that a court erred, and re-open the trial of someone who had been freed before new evidence against him had come to light? I believe we can best answer this by recalling that G'd "regrets" something evil on occasion. He does not, however, "regret" a decision which was favourable. As a result of this consideration, if a person has once been acquitted he is not subjected to a trial again for the same alleged offence. When a person has been found guilty in his first trial, the suffering he endured until he was finally exonerated in a second trial may even approximate the suffering experienced while he faced execution for a sin not comitted. He may therefore ultimately be exonerated by a Heavenly tribunal even for sins committed for which he had not been tried at all.

ונקי וצדיק אל תהרוג, “and do not execute the innocent or the righteous.” The word נקי, innocent, refers to a wicked person which the court was unable to convict. Subsequently, evidence turns up on the basis of which this person could be convicted on a second trial. The Torah prohibits a retrial. The Torah assures us that if a guilty person escapes human justice, not to be upset as he will not escape divine justice, i.e. כי לא אצדיק רשע, “I, G’d will see to it that the wicked will not wind up being considered as righteous.”

V. 7. מדבר שקר תרחק, es ist dies der fruchtbarste Satz für die gerichtlichen Pflichten. Er enthält im allgemeinen die Verpflichtung, alles zu vermeiden, wodurch nur im geringsten die Möglichkeit gegeben wäre, dass dadurch die Wahrhaftigkeit des Urteils alteriert werde. So daher: לדיין שלא יעשה סניגרון לדבריו, dass der Richter nicht sein eigener Anwalt zur Aufrechthaltung einer einmal von ihm ausgesprochenen Meinung werde, vielmehr sich nicht scheue, sein Wort zurückzuziehen, sobald ihm dessen Richtigkeit zweifelhaft geworden; daher: שלא ישב תלמיד בור לפניו, dass er über einen ihm vorliegenden Rechtsfall nicht einen Rechtsunkundigen zur Beratung heranziehe, durch dessen Äußerungen er irre geleitet werden könne; daher: לדיין שיודע לחברו שהוא גזלן שלא יצטרף עמו dass er nicht in Gemeinsamkeit mit einem Kollegen, dessen Charakter ihm als für einen Richter unzulässig bekannt ist, ein Zivilgericht bilde; daher: לדיין שיודע בדין שהוא מרומה שלא יאמר הואיל ועדים מעידים לפני אחתכנו ויהא קולר תלוי בצואר העדים, dass kein Richter, der die subjektive Überzeugung von dem Betrügerischen eines ihm zur Entscheidung vorliegenden Falles hat, ohne dies objektiv beweisen zu können, nicht etwa auf Grund der herangebrachten Zeugenbeweise ein Urteil gegen seine Überzeugung abgeben und dabei in seinem Gewissen den Zeugen die Verantwortung zuschieben dürfe, sondern in solchem Falle die Entscheidung von sich weisen müsse; daher: לשנים שבאו לדין אחד לבוש סמרטוט ואחד לבוש איצטלית בת מאה מנה שאומר לו לבוש כמותו או הלבישהו כמותך dass selbst bis auf die Kleidung der Richter die Parteien völlig gleich vor sich erscheinen lassen und es nicht dulden soll, dass der eine in Lumpen und der andere in luxuriöser Kleidung vor Gericht auftrete usw. usw. (Schebuoth 31 a u. b). Und wie für den Richter, so fließen auch für die Parteien und Zeugen aus diesem Satze die bedeutsamsten Verpflichtungen (siehe das.).

Distance yourself from a false matter - put distance between yourself and those who speak lies, and gossipers, since on this the text already warned: 'you must not carry false rumors' (Exodus 23:1) and then 'do not bring death on those who are innocent and in the right' (Ex. 23:7) because liars cause the killing of the ones in the right and of the innocent.

ונקי וצדיק, “and the ones free from sin, and the “just,” i.e. the ones who have been acquitted by the court;” according to the translation it is hard to see the difference between the נקי and the צדיק in this commandment. Our author understands the word נקי as applying to someone who had been free from sin, as opposed to the צדיק, someone who had committed the sin but could not be convicted through lack of witnesses acceptable by the Torah, or who had not been legally warned before committing the sin he had been accused of.

כי לא אצדיק רשע FOR “I” WILL NOT JUSTIFY THE WICKED — It is not your duty, in the latter case, to bring the man back to the court, for if he is really guilty, “I” will not acquit him in My court. Altough he has left your hands as innocent “I” have many agents (many means) to inflict upon him the death to which he has made himself liable (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 23:7:2).

נקי ,ונקי וצדיק אל תהרוג ist der objektiv Unschuldige, צדיק erklärt sich aus dem folgenden כי לא אצדיק רשע als der vom Gerichte Freigesprochene. Der Sinn ist: wenn nach gefällter Verurteilung noch ein neuer Verteidigungsgrund vorgebracht wird, so ist mit der Ausführung des Urteils innezuhalten und die Verteidigung anzuhören, damit kein נקי hingerichtet werde. Dagegen, wer einmal vom Gerichte freigesprochen, als צדיק erklärt worden ist, darf, selbst wenn sich hinterdrein seine Schuld als evident herausstellen sollte, deshalb nicht wieder zur Verurteilung gezogen werden, כי לא אצדיק רשע, das eigentliche Gericht ist Gottes, המשפט לאלקי׳ הוא. Das menschliche Gericht hat nur das ihm von Gott gleichsam Delegierte zu leisten. Hat es einen Schuldigen nach den ihm im Momente vorliegenden Beweismitteln frei sprechen müssen, so wird Gott in seinem Gerichte schon den Schuldigen zu treffen wissen.

ושחד לא תקח AND THOU SHALT TAKE NO GIFT, even if you mean to give a true judgment in favour of the giver, and it is a matter of course that you must not accept one to wrest judgment, and therefore there is no need for Scripture to forbid this, for with regard to wresting judgment, whether you take a bribe or not, it is distinctly stated, (Deuteronomy 16:19) “Thou shalt not wrest judgment” (Ketubot 105a).

יעור פקחים, the expression עור, blind, is appropriate as a contrast to someone with good vision. On the other hand, the opposite of the virtue of צדיק is סילוף, perversion, distortion.

Judgments of truth. . . In other words, Torah judgment, as it is written [about the Torah], “The judgments of Hashem are true. . .” (Tehillim 19:10).

(Exodus 23:8) "And a bribe you shall not take": Lest you say: I will take a bribe and not pervert judgment; it is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "for a bribe blinds the (eyes of) the wise" — in Torah. You say, the wise in Torah, but perhaps (the meaning is) "the wise," literally; it is, therefore, written "blinds pikchim" — the bright of mind, who rule clean or unclean by the power of their intellect. From here they said: Whoever takes money and perverts judgment does not leave the world until the light of his eyes dims. R. Nosson says: until one of these three things befalls him: failure of his mind in Torah, ruling clean what is unclean, or unclean what is clean; becoming beholden to men; dimming of the light of his eyes. R. Nathan says: (Ibid.) "and perverts the words of the righteous": He distorts the righteous words pronounced at Sinai.

V. 8. שחד, wohl verwandt mit שחט und שחת, lässt aus dieser Verwandtschaft auf die Grundbedeutung schließen: der geistigen und sittlichen Lebenskraft des andern eine Grube des Verderbens graben. Die Bestechung tötet die geistige und sittliche Kraft des Empfängers. Die geistige Kraft, die zum Richter befähigt, heißt: פקח, der klare, offene Blick zur richtigen Auffassung der Fakta und des Gesetzes, unter das sie zu subsumieren sind. Die sittliche Kraft heißt צדק, Gerechtigkeit, die nur das Rechte erkennen und aussprechen will. Die Bestechung blendet den Blick des sonst Klarschauenden, ihm unbewusst wird der Blick voreingenommen und verliert die Objektivität, und יסלף וגו׳. Vergleicht man die Wurzeln: שלף, aus der Scheide, aus dem Boden, also überhaupt: aus dem Halt ziehen, זַלֵף, chaldäisch sprengen, spritzen, צלב, chaldäisch henken, vielleicht auch das rabbinische כמצליף, Joma 53 b, so dürfte סלף nicht sowohl Krümmen und Verkehrtheit, als Schwanken und Haltlosigkeit bedeuten. Die Bestechung wird selbst einen gerechten und das Rechte wollenden Richter das Rechte nicht in der erforderlichen Entschiedenheit wid Schärfe der Unbefangenheit aussprechen lassen. Sein Blick wird trübe, sein Wort schwankend. Er wird nach Rawas treffendem Worte unwillkürlich חד, eins mit der Partei, darum heißt Bestechung: שהד, sie identifiziert den Richter mit der Partei. Es gewinnt nun aber der Begriff Bestechung unter dem Geiste des jüdischen Gesetzes die großartigste Ausdehnung. Nicht nur Geld, die leiseste, unbedeutendste Gefälligkeit, ein zuvorkommend vom Kleide abgehobenes Stäubchen, das zuvorkommende Austreten einer zufällig zu Füßen des Richters sich befindenden Speichelspur usw. hat jüdische Richter zu der Erklärung veranlasst: פסילנא לך לדינא, ich bin zu deinem Richter untauglich. Der jüdische Richter soll sich völliger Unbefangenheit bewusst sein, sonst darf er nicht richten. (Siehe Ketubot 105, 106 und Ch. M. 9.) Die jüdische Rechtssprechung war auch völlig unentgeltlich und durfte nicht bezahlt werden. Es galt mit Entschiedenheit der Grundsatz: הנוטל שכר לדון דיניו בטלין, wer für seinen Rechtsspruch Bezahlung nimmt, dessen Rechtssprüche sind null (das.). Wenn die Richter sonst keinen Erwerb hatten und ihre ganze Zeit den Rechtsfunktionen hingeben mussten, so durfte ihnen ein jährlicher Gehalt aus Gesamtmitteln gereicht werden, allein die Parteien hatten nichts zu zahlen und durften nichts zahlen (siehe תוספ׳ das.). Nur wenn sie einen Rechtskundigen aus seiner Erwerbstätigkeit herauszogen, um von ihm einen Rechtsstreit entscheiden zu lassen, durfte er sich eine offenbar darliegende Einbuße, בטילא דמוכחא, von ihnen ersetzen lassen (das.). Nur Gerichtsschreiber und Pedelle waren von den Parteien zu bezahlen, und wurde auch der Richter bitter getadelt und er selbst des Eigennutzes bezichtigt, der מרבה שכר סופרים וחזניהם, der nicht auch diese Sporteln auf das Minimum beschränkt. (Siehe Tur Ch. M. 9.)

ושחד לא תקח, “and you must not accept a bribe;” the reason why this has been repeated here is that even if the judge would accept a bribe in order to rule justly, he must not accept such a bribe. His decisions must not be influenced by a bribe. Although judges in Jewish jurisprudence did not receive salaries in order to make them independent, they were allowed to accept payment for the wages lost while sitting in court, each according to his respective vocation. [Three judges might receive three vastly different amounts of compensation according to the salary scale payable of people of his profession. Ed.] The reason why this subject came up here again is that the wealthy litigants are likely to bribe the judges to rule in their favour.

יעור פקחים [FOR THE BRIBE] BLINDETH THE OPEN-EYED — Even if he be well-versed in the Torah and takes a bribe, in the end his mind will become confused, what he has learnt will be forgotten, and the light of his eyes will become dim (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 23:8; Ketubot 105a).

ויסלף דברי צדיקים, “for bribes even blind the righteous judges.”

ויסלף — render it as the Targum does: ויקלקל “makes bad”, “perverts”. ...

דברי צדיקים means, the words which have been described by the term “righteous”, viz., the judgments of truth uttered on Sinai. Thus, too, does the Targum take it: words that are תריצין, upright.

וגר לא תלחץ AND THOU SHALT NOT OPPRESS THE STRANGER — In numerous passages (36 in number) does the Torah offer a caution about the ill-treatment of the stranger, because his original character is bad (Bava Metzia 59b).

ואתם ידעתם את נפש הגר, "and you are familiar with the way a stranger feels." Compare what I have written on 22,20 "you must not disadvantage the stranger." The present verse is proof of the truth of what I have written there.

Because סורו is bad. Some explain סורו as שְׂאוֹר (leaven), referring to his evil inclination — which is strong and bad, thus the stranger is easy to tempt [away from the path of the Torah]. Others explain [ סורו as סָר (stray). This means that] once he strays from the path [of the Torah], he cannot be [easily] persuaded to return.

V. 9. Offenbar blickt dieser Vers auf V. 20 des vorigen Kapitels zurück und nimmt den Gedanken wieder auf, um aus ihm eine neue Reihe von Gesetzen zu entwickeln. Mit jenem V. 20 des vorigen Kapitels wurde die Sanktion des zwiefachen Grundsatzes, auf welchem die jüdische Staatsgesellschaft beruhen soll, eingeleitet: des Grundsatzes der völligen Gleichheit vor dem Gesetze und der berücksichtigenden Milde gegen alle Hilfsbedürftigen in der Gesellschaft. Alle Gesetze von jenem Verse bis zu diesem V. 9 des gegenwärtigen Kapitels enthalten nichts, als die Konsequenzen dieses Grundsatzes für die Handhabung des Rechtes auf dem Prinzipe der Gleichheit und die Gestaltung der Gesellschaft auf dem Prinzipe der Milde. Dieser V. 9 stellt das Prinzip der Gleichheit und der Milde noch einmal an die Spitze, wie es sich namentlich in dem unbeschränkten Rechtsgenuss und der rücksichtsvollen Behandlung des Fremden im jüdischen Staate bewähren soll, die überall den sichersten Maßstab für die in einem Staate herrschende Rechtsachtung und Humanität abgeben, und leitet damit eine Reihe von Institutionen ein, die hier nur in allgemeinen Umrissen vorgeführt werden, die aber alle, außer den besonderen Wahrheiten, der eine jede speziell bestimmt ist, das Gemeinsame haben, dass sie, ihrem tiefinnersten Wesen zufolge, jenen Geist der Gleichheit und der Humanität in der Nation nähren, indem sie diese sich selber auch nur als an sich unberechtigte Fremdlinge in dem Gotteslande und auf der Gotteserde zu betrachten gewöhnen und sie von Überschätzung des materiellen Besitzes, die alle Rechtsungleichheit und Härte auf Erden erzeugt, zu einer gerechten, d. h. höheren Schätzung aller geistig sittlichen Momente führen, die als das eigentlich Menschliche im Menschen die Gleichheit aller Menschen im Rechte und die Liebe aller Menschen zu einander so bedingen, als erzeugen. Jahresschabbat (Schemita) und Tagesschabbat, Frühlings¬, Sommer- und Herbstfeste (Peßach, Schabuoth und Sukkoth), Chamez und Nothar, Bikkurim und Baßar bechalab werden hier alle unter diesem einen Gesichtspunkte skizziert vorgeführt und damit zum Schlusse der Grundzüge der sozialen Gesetzgebung, Mischpatim, gezeigt, nicht nur welche Bedeutung auch diese, nach moderner Anschauung spezifisch sogenannten "religiösen" Institutionen für das soziale Leben haben, sondern wie das soziale Leben eben in ihren seine eigentliche Seele und die nie versiegende Quelle zu finden hat, aus welcher es die ewig frische Nahrung seines Geistes und seiner Lebenskraft zu schöpfen vermag. Nur sie vermögen von innen heraus die Verwirklichung eines auf Recht und Humanität gegründeten Volkslebens zu erzeugen, welches ohne sie durch alle äußeren Rechts- und Staatsinstitutionen meist vergebens, und immer nur stümperhaft angestrebt wird.

וגר לא תלחץ, “and do not oppress the stranger.” Here too the Torah speaks about the treatment strangers may have to endure at court. In the earlier reference to the stranger, (22,2), the Torah referred to how we are not to treat the stranger in every day life, not when he is involved in litigation. It is repeated here as he is also one of the sections of society that is likely to be taken advantage of as they have no one to stand up on their behalf. It is easy to get away with taking advantage of them.

אח נפש הגר [FOR YE KNOW] THE SOUL OF A STRANGER — how hard it is for him when people oppress him.

ואתם ידעתם - לא תלחצנו die Gewährung unbeschränkten Rechtsgenusses wird , von der Gesamtheit als solcher (Singular), die rücksichtsvolle Behandlung von allen Gliedern der Gesellschaft (Plural) erwartet.

ואספת את תבואתה AND SHALT GATHER IN THE INCREASE THEREOF — אסף is a term denoting “bringing into the house”, like, (Deuteronomy 22:2) “thou shalt gather it (ואספתו) into thine house” (cf. Rashi on Genesis 49:29).

ושש שנים תזרע את ארצך, and for six years you will seed your land, etc. This commandment is connected to the previous one warning us how to avoid the taste of being an alien, i.e. an exiled person similar to what is written in Leviticus 26,34: "then the land will make up for its sabbaths, etc."

ואספת את תבואתה. Into your house, and you need not abandon it to all and sundry except in the seventh year of the cycle, the Sh’mittah year. In that year you must leave it untouched, neither sowing your field nor harvesting it.

ושש שנים תזרע את ארצך, “and for six successive years you will sow your land.” It would have seemed appropriate to phrase this in the third person, i.e. את הארץ, “the land,” instead of ארצך, “your land.” Similarly, in the reference to the vineyard and olive plantation we would have expected the words כן תעשה לכרמים ולזיתים instead of כן תעשה לכרמך ולזיתיך (verse 11). You will note that the Torah uses direct language when speaking about either the Sabbath (day) or the Sabbath (year), whereas when speaking of the Jubilee year יובל, it uses the third person, speaking in more general terms. Compare Leviticus 25,11: “you shall not sow, you shall not harvest its aftergrowth, and you shall not pick what was set aside of it.” Seeing that immediately after the Sabbath one may resume work and immediately after the shmittah year the farmer may recommence his usual activities of ploughing, sowing, etc., the Torah used direct language as the farmer considers the land as his own. After he seventh year preceding the Jubilee year which was also a shmittah year, i.e. a year when he did not work his field, the farmer must now wait another year before he can again treat the land as if it were his own. That is why the Torah hinted at this factor by using indirect language in speaking of the land in question.” Even the manner in which the Torah describes abandoning the land during the shmittah, i.e.תשמטנה ונטשתה , “leave it untended and leave it unharvested,” indicates that the land has ceased to belong to the farmer (during that year). The relationship between us and the land during the shmittah year is that whereas we abandon it, it does not abandon us. The reason is that we will once again resume our activities on it demonstrating that it is ours. The same is not the case in the case of the Jubilee year, as many fields will return to owners who had previously been forced to sell them for one reason or another. It is therefore appropriate to speak of such land in the third person, i.e. not addressing a specific owner.

V. 10 u. 11. שמיטה. Sechs Jahre hast du dein Land als dein Eigentum zu behandeln, aber während der Dauer eines jeden siebten Jahres השמטנה, wörtlich: hast du den Boden aus der Hand fahren zu lassen, darfst ihn nicht ackern und nicht säen, ונטשתה und was darauf wächst, musst du sich selbst überlassen, darfst es nicht als Eigentum behandeln; ungestört, und ohne dich zu fragen, sollen es die sonst von deinem guten Willen abhängigen Armen deines Volkes, und nach ihnen das Tier des Feldes genießen. Wajikra 25 wird dieses Gesetz ausführlicher bestimmt, und wissen wir von dort, dass auch der Eigentümer in Gemeinsamkeit mit den Armen und den Tieren die von selbst gewachsenen Früchte des siebten Jahres genießen darf, aber jede Gattung nur so lange, als von ihr noch auf dem Felde für das Tier vorhanden ist. כלה לחיה מן השדה, ist eine Gattung für das Tier nicht mehr auf dem Felde vorhanden, so muß sie auch aus den Häusern der Menschen schwinden, dieser Zeitpunkt heißt ביעור, und auch während der Zeit des gestatteten Genusses ist die Art der Benutzung eine beschränkte.

ושש שנים, “and for six consecutive years, etc.” the reason why this legislation is repeated here is because the Torah allocates the produce of the seventh year to the poor, the underprivileged (verse 11).

Dieses Schabbatjahr ist die große Bekenntnistat einer ganzen Nation, die Gott als den alleinigen, einzigen, wirklichen Eigentümer und Herrn ihres Landes proklamiert, indem sie es ihm huldigend zu Füßen legt und ihr Eigentumsrecht nicht an dem Boden ausübt. Sofort aber bekennt sie sich selbst damit als גרים ותושבים, als auch nur "Fremdlinge und von Gott geduldete Beisassen" auf eigenem Boden, es löst sich der Hochmut, der, auf den Besitz einer eigenen Hufe pochend, lieblos und gewalttätig gegen den Besitzlosen wird, und es übt sich die Gesinnung, die Fremdling und Armen, die auch das Tier als berechtigtes Gottesgeschöpf auf dem gemeinsamen Gottesboden in Liebe umfasst.

כן תעשה לכרמך לזיתך, die unverbundene Nebeneinanderstellung der beiden Substantive weist auf eine charakteristische Verschiedenheit hinsichtlich der betreffenden Gesetzbestimmungen hin (vergl. oben Kap. 22, 29). Sowohl hinsichtlich der Periode der ersten Fruchtbildung (חנטה ,עונת המעשרות) die über den Jahrgang (ob die Frucht dem sechsten oder siebten Jahre angehöre), als auch hinsichtlich der Zeit ihres Verbleibens am Baume, die über die Zeit ihres ביעור entscheidet, sind כרם und זית verschieden. (Siehe Peßachim. 53 b, Rambam Schemita VII. 11, כ׳׳מ das. und מכילתא z. St.)

תשמטנה THOU SHALT LET IT REST — by not tilling it (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 23:11:1),

BUT THE SEVENTH YEAR ‘TISHM’TENAH U’N'TASHTAH’ (THOU SHALT LET IT REST AND LIE FALLOW). “Tishm’tenah — by not tilling it. U’n'tashtah by not eating of its produce after ‘the time of removal.’³⁵⁸See Leviticus 25:6-7. The produce of the Sabbatical year which grows of its own accord may be eaten by humans and animals in the house, as long as the wild beasts are able to eat of that produce in the field. But when it is no longer found by the wild beasts in the field, the food has to be “removed” from the house and made available to all alike. Another interpretation: Tishm’tenah — from real work, such as plowing and sowing; u’n'tashtah — from hoeing or manuring it.” This is Rashi’s language. But it is not correct, for according to the law of the Torah we have only been warned against plowing and sowing in the seventh year, but hoeing and manuring, and even weeding, hoeing under the vines, and cutting away thorns, and all other forms of agricultural work, are not forbidden by law of the Torah. This is the conclusion that the Rabbis came to [after a discussion of this matter] at the beginning of Tractate Moed Katan in the Chapter Mashkin:³⁵⁹Literally: “We may water” [an irrigated field…]. — Moed Katan 2 b-3a. that the Merciful One forbade only plowing and sowing in the seventh year, but did not prohibit secondary kinds of work [such as hoeing, manuring, etc.], which are all forbidden only by Rabbinic ordinance, and the verse mentioned [there in the Talmud] in connection with these secondary kinds of work is a mere support in the Scriptural text.³⁶⁰See in Seder Yithro Note 449. Similarly, the law of “removal”³⁵⁸See Leviticus 25:6-7. The produce of the Sabbatical year which grows of its own accord may be eaten by humans and animals in the house, as long as the wild beasts are able to eat of that produce in the field. But when it is no longer found by the wild beasts in the field, the food has to be “removed” from the house and made available to all alike. is not derived from this verse [as Rashi explained here].
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: “Tishm’tenah means: every creditor ‘shamot’ (shall release) that which he hath lent unto his neighbor.³⁶¹Deuteronomy 15:2. — U’n'tashtah means that you should not sow your field.” But it is not a correct comment. Instead, [the true explanation is that] Scripture first said, six years thou shalt sow and gather in the increase thereof,³⁶²Verse 10. but the seventh year ‘tishm’tenah’ — you should not sow your land; u’n'tashtah — you should not gather in its increase, but instead you are to leave it so that the poor of your people and the beasts of the field may eat the fruits of the tree and the produce of the vineyard. In a similar sense is the verse, ‘v’nitash’ the seventh year,³⁶³Nehemiah 10:32. [which thus means: “and we will not gather in the increase of the field in the seventh year”].

תשמטנה, a reference to sh’mittat kessaphim, relinquishing outstanding overdue debts at the end of the agricultural Sh’mittah year. The legislation is spelled out in greater detail in Deuteronomy 15,2 .

לכרמך ולזיתך, parallel to what the Torah legislated concerning the grain harvest. It is a rule in the Torah to mention these agricultural products under the headings ofדגן, תירוש, יצהר, meaning different types of grain, orchard products, and oil produced by the olive trees. The legislation includes all food products grown from the soil.

תשמטנה ונטשתה, “you shall leave it untended and unharvested.” You must neither plough and seed it nor fertilise the earth for future use. Nachmanides questions that the only work prohibited by Biblical decree is ploughing and seeding. Other work in the field during that year is prohibited by Rabbinic decree. He therefore explains that what the Torah speaks about here, [seeing that the first mentioned prohibition of seeding and harvesting has been spelled out in Leviticus 25. Ed.] is the subject dealt with in the previous verse where seeding for 6 consecutive years has been permitted or even ordained. During the seventh year, neither seeding nor harvesting is allowed. Whatever has grown in the field during that year must be left for the poor, and if there are not enough poor it must be left for the beasts roaming the fields. Ibn Ezra understands the word תשמטנה to refer to the foregoing of seeding, planning, the root שמוט implying withdrawal from activity. This is the way in which an owner signals that ultimately his field is G’d’s.

From working. Rashi explains this way because שמיטה and נטישה always imply releasing a thing from something else. [Thus, the fields are released from working.]

ונטשתה, “you are to let it lie fallow;” in practice this means that you are not to collect the grain that has grown during that season in your field for your own use.

ונטשתה AND THOU SHALT ABANDON IT — by not eating of its produce (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 23:11:1) after “the time of removal” of the produce has arrived. Another explanation is: תשמטנה THOU SHALT LET IT REST, from what is real work, as, for example, ploughing and sowing, ונטשתה AND LEAVE IT ALONE — not even to manure and to hoe it.

ונטשתה ואכלו אביוני עמך, during the agricultural sh’mittah year the poor will also share in all the crops.

Hoeing. In Moed Katan (3a), Rashi explains לקשקש as hoeing under trees to make them grow. But in Bava Metzia (89b) Rashi explains it as covering tree roots with straw ( קש ) and manure, in the winter, so the cold will not damage them.

ואכלו אביוני עמך, “whereas the destitute people of your nation shall consume it.” In another verse the Torah writes in Leviticus 25,6: לך, ולעבדך ולאמתך ולשכירך ולתושבך, “for you, your male servant, your female servant, your hired hands and your residents.” How do we reconcile this? Answer: when there is an abundance of grain, etc., everyone is entitled to eat from it (so that it does not go to waste); when there is a scarcity only you and your household (servants male and female) (Mechilta on this verse.) An alternate interpretation: as long as the time for finally disposing of that crop has not arrived, both the poor and the rich may avail themselves of it. Once that time has expired, only the poor are allowed to avail themselves of it.

ויתרם תאכל חית השדה AND WHAT THEY LEAVE THE BEASTS OF THE FIELD (the wild animals) SHALL EAT — This cannot be a command that the wild animals shall eat it, viz., that you shall permit them to eat it. No such command is necessary since you have no control over wild animals; it intends by juxtaposition with the preceding words to place in the same category (more lit., to compare) the food of the poor with that of the beast. For how is it in the case of the wild animal? It eats food without the tithe having been separated from it! So too, the poor may in the seventh year eat food without the tithe having been separated from it. From this juxtaposition they (the Rabbis) derived the rule that the law of tithe is not to be observed in the seventh year (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 23:11:3).

ויתרם, after the poor have taken what they want,

So, too, do the poor eat without tithing. . . [Rashi explains it this way] because otherwise, why does it say, “What they leave over, the beasts of the field can eat”? It cannot be to permit the beasts to eat it in the seventh year, because these beasts are not under one’s control.

כך תעשה לכרמך IN LIKE MANNER THOU SHALT DO WITH THY VINEYARD — The first member of the verse, however, speaks of a “white field” (i. e. a bright, shadeless field — a grain field or a vegetable field — in contrast to a שדה אילן which casts shade), as it is said above, (v. 10) “thou shalt sow thy land”.

תאכל חית השדה, the poor people had first claim. We have been taught in Taanit 20 that one must not feed the dogs food which is fit for human consumption.

But the beginning of the verse deals with a grain-field. . . Rashi is explaining that the words “do the same” refer back to the beginning of the verse: just as you did with the grain-field, do the same with your vineyard.

וביום השביעי תשבת [SIX DAYS SHALT THOU DO THY WORK] AND ON THE SEVENTH DAY THOU SHALT LEAVE OFF — Even in the Sabbatical year you shall not abrogate the weekly Sabbath: you shall not say, “Since the whole year bears the name of ‘Sabbath’, the weekly Sabbath need not to be observed” (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 23:12:1).

L’MA’AN’ (THAT) THINE OX AND THINE ASS MAY HAVE REST. Because the word l’ma’an is like ba’avur (“in order that”), we must explain³⁶⁴Ramban’s intention is as follows: It cannot be said that the command here is directed to the owner himself, that he should rest on the Sabbath, since it says clearly ‘in order that’ thine ox… may have rest; neither can it be referring to a case where the owner works together with the animal, for if that were so, why does the Torah not mention that the reason is that he himself should have rest? Hence Ramban explains the verse in the following way: “Six days thou shalt do thy work in such a manner as if it were all completed by the Sabbath-day, so that the animal can have rest by itself on that day.” that the verse is stating: “Six days you shall do all your work in the house and in the field, in order that the ox and the ass may have rest on the seventh day. And the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed — in order that they all be witnesses to the Creation.” The verse here is then similar in meaning to: Bake that which ye will bake.³⁶⁵Above, 16:23. In other words, bake on the sixth day double in order that you should not have to bake on the Sabbath. Here likewise a similar thought is expressed: do all your work in six days so that the animal can have rest on the seventh day. Similarly He said, Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work,³⁶⁶Ibid., 20:9. as I have explained there.

תשבות, you must even refrain from doing things which are not prohibited under the heading of מלאכה, the kind of activity associated with construction of the Tabernacle, if these activities represent strenuous exertion customary on weekdays. We have been taught in Shabbat 113 that one of the ways of honouring the gift of the Sabbath is to refrain from engaging in activities that remind one of weekdays. The Talmud bases this on Isaiah 58,13 who defines proper Sabbath observance as distinct from merely formal Sabbath observance, with these words: “if you refrain from trampling the Sabbath, from pursuing your affairs on My holy day; if you call the Sabbath ‘delight,’ the Lord’s holy day ‘honored,’ and if you honour it and go not your ways nor look to your affairs nor strike bargains, then you can seek the favour of the Lord.”

תעשה מעשיך, "you shall do your work, etc." The Torah was careful not to write: "all your work" as in the Ten Commandments (concerning the Sabbath). The reason is that during the Shmittah year the farmer cannot do his regular work even on the six days of the week.

למען ינוח שורך וחמורך,“in order for your ox and your donkey to enjoy rest.” The meaning of the words: “so that your ox and donkey can rest,” is the tail end of the legislation that you shall work for six days and shall rest on the seventh day. As a result of your resting, your man-servants, maid-servants, oxen and donkeys will rest also, as well as your stranger. The objective of the legislation is not aimed at rewarding your donkeys, etc., with rest but if you do all your work during six days so that you will rest on the seventh day, then also your labourers and your beasts of burden will rest on that day. We find a similar construction in Deut. 16,3 למען תזכור את יום צאתך ממצרים, “on account (of this) eating of unleavened bread, etc., you will remember the day you went out of Egypt.”

Do not cancel the weekly Shabbos. . . [Rashi explains it this way] because otherwise, why is [this verse, speaking of Shabbos,] juxtaposed to [the previous verse, speaking of] the seventh year? Although this verse needed to be written for the new laws it contains, that an uncircumcised slave, a stranger and a settler must rest on Shabbos, nevertheless, we learn this matter (not to cancel the weekly Shabbos) as well.

V. 12. Und was das Schabbatjahr für die Stellung der Nation im Lande ist, das ist der Schabbattag für die Stellung des Menschen in der Welt. Es ist die Bekenntnistat des Menschen für die Hörigkeit der Welt und des Menschen an Gott, seinen und ihren Schöpfer und Herrn, dem er mit jedem siebten Tage sich und seine Welt huldigend zu Füßen legt und keine Herrscherkraft an irgend einem Gottesgeschöpf übt. Sofort ist aber der Schabbat zugleich wieder eine Schule der Achtung eines jeden Wesens neben sich als ebenbürtig in der Kindschaft Gottes, und diese Ausspannung aller Wesen aus der Menschenherrschaft ist Mitzweck des Schabbats, dieses Tages der Gotteshuldigung, למען, "damit" Arbeit- und Lasttier des Menschen zur Ruhe und auch das Kind der Leibeigenen und der Fremde "zu sich" komme, seiner Menschenwürde bewusst, sich Selbstzweck werde. — למען ינוח שורך וחמורך. In der מכילתא wird hier noch die besondere Pflicht deduziert, das Tier nicht nur am Schabbat unbeschäftigt sein zu lassen, sondern ihm dabei auch ungestörte Weide zu gewähren .הוסיף לו הכתוב נייח אחד להיות תולש מן הקרקע ואוכל

ששת ימים תעשה מעשיך, “during six days you may pursue your usual pursuits, etc.;” why is this verse inserted at this juncture? It is because of the commandment to allow also the son of your maidservant and the stranger to rest on the Sabbath, seeing that generally they are poor people.

למען ינוח שורך means, give it (the animal) some satisfaction (ניח) by permitting it to pull up and eat grass from the ground as it pleases. Or, perhaps, this is not the meaning but it means that is must rest: that one must tie it up in its stall so that it does no work in the field! You will, however, admit this is no satisfaction but a source of annoyance (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 23:12:2).

למען ינוח שורך וחמורך, as a result of your Sabbath observance also your beasts of burden will enjoy rest.

Allow it to relax, permitting it to tear up. . . [Rashi explains it this way] because otherwise, why is it said here, “So that your ox and your donkey may rest”? This was already said in the Ten Commandments. And if it is written in order that we will not say, “Since the entire year is called Shabbos. . .” then the phrase “But on the seventh day you must cease” would be sufficient.

בן אמתך והגר (siehe zu Kap. 20, 10). —

בן אמתך THE SON OF THY HANDMAID — Scripture speaks of an uncircumcised Canaanitish servant; (that the circumcised servant should rest is already mentioned in Deuteronomy 5:14: עבדך ואמתך כמוך) (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 23:12:3).

וינפש בן אמתך והגר, as a corollary of your own Sabbath observance also your personnel will enjoy physical respite from their weekday chores. The Torah describes the contrast with your own experience while you were slaves in Egypt, when you did not enjoy rest on your master’s holidays. We have proof of this in Exodus 5,9 when Pharaoh ordered a further intensification of the hard labour performed by the Israelites as a response to their request for a brief vacation in order to attend to their religious obligations. This is part of the national aspect of the Sabbath, stressed in Deuteronomy 5,14, as opposed to the universal aspect of Sabbath observance stressed in Exodus 20,11.

An uncircumcised slave. Before, in the Ten Commandments, it spoke of a gentile slave who is circumcised. Here, it speaks of one who is uncircumcised — but still within twelve months of being purchased. However, his master may not keep an uncircumcised gentile slave longer than this, if the slave does not want to undergo circumcision.

והגר means a גר תושב, a proselyte settler (one who renounces idolatry and thus acquires limited citizenship in Palestine).

גר תושב — “a settler.” [Rashi knows this] because if it was referring to a convert to Judaism, it is already written: “and the foreigner ( גר ) within your gates.” Alternatively, [Rashi knows this] because a convert is full Jew [and need not be mentioned separately].

ובכל אשר אמרתי אליכם תשמרו AND IN ALL THAT I HAVE SAID TO YOU TAKE HEED — This statement is intended to bring every positive command (מצות עשה) also under the category of a prohibition (לאו); for wherever the term שמר, “take heed”, is used in the Torah it is an admonition in the place of (having the force of) a prohibition (cf. Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 355).

AND IN ALL THINGS THAT I HAVE SAID UNTO YOU TAKE YE HEED. Rashi explained: “This verse is intended to bring every positive commandment also under the term of a prohibition,³⁶⁷So that if one fails to fulfill a positive commandment [as e.g. taking the Lulav on the festival of Succoth] he has also violated thereby a negative commandment as expressed in the verse before us. for wherever the term shmirah (taking heed) or shvithah³⁶⁸“Or shvithah” is not found in our Rashi. And correctly so, for the term shvithah can indicate a positive commandment, such as: and on the seventh day ‘tishboth’ (thou shalt rest) — Verse 12. is used in the Torah, it signifies an admonition in the place of an express prohibition.”
Now according to his explanation, Rashi will have to say that this verse is a lav sh’bichlaluth [a negative admonition expressed in general terms, so that violation of any or all of the prohibitions included under it does not render one liable to punishment].³⁶⁹This term is applied to a verse which covers many different prohibitions, none of which is specifically indicated, and therefore the court does not administer punishment for violation thereof. — See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, p. 11, Note 1, for full explanation of this term. For if that were not so, the court would have to administer whipping to anyone who fails to fulfill any of the positive commandments of the Torah; but in such a prohibition which includes many matters without mentioning specifically any particular transgression, everyone would agree that no whipping is incurred on account of its breach. But [if so, there is the following difficulty with Rashi’s explanation]: the Rabbis have already said³⁷⁰Erubin 96a. The opinion is that of Rabbi Ilai. that the term hishamer (take heed) used in connection with a positive commandment, carries the force of an additional positive commandment; in that case, He has added here [not a negative commandment as Rashi has it], but a mere positive one [since the statement, and in all things that I have said unto you ‘tishameru’ (take ye heed), refers to the positive commandments mentioned in the preceding Verses 10-12]! In the Mechilta the Sages differed as to the explanation of this verse and interpreted it in many ways.
In accordance with the plain meaning of Scripture, the explanation of the verse is: “and in all things that I have said unto you concerning other gods take ye heed,” for the verse is to be connected with its continuation, [which states: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth]. Thus He is stating: Of all the many admonitions that I have said to you concerning other gods, take great heed; do not worship them, nor bow down to them, condemn to death anyone who sacrifices to them, and make no graven image, nor any manner of likeness. Moreover, take heed not to mention the name of their gods, such as Chemosh the god of Moab, and Milkom the god of the children of Ammon,³⁷¹I Kings 11:33. and Ashima the god of Hamath.³⁷²II Kings 17:30. Neither let there be heard out of thy mouth their name, even without the epithet of deity, such as merely mentioning Milkom or Ashima; instead you are to mention them in a manner of condemnation: “the abhorrent thing of Moab,” “the abomination of the children of Ammon.” Or, the expression lo yishama (neither let there be heard), means: let it not be heard from its worshipper through your dealings with him, similarly to that which our Rabbis have said,³⁷³Sanhedrin 63b. that one should not make a business—partnership with an idolator, for it might lead to him swearing by his deity.
It is possible that lo tazkiru (make no mention) is transitive, meaning: do not mention the name of other gods to their worshippers, such as saying, “By your god! deal kindly with me.” Neither let there be heard out of thy mouth the mention of his name at all. It is this which is said in the Book of Joshua, Neither make mention of the name of their gods, nor cause to swear by them, nor serve them.³⁷⁴Joshua 23:7. He added prohibitions in that verse, in order to explain that the admonition here covers not mentioning or causing anyone whomsoever to swear by the foreign gods.

כל אשר אמרתי אליכם תשמרו, ושם אלוהימ אחרים לא תזכירו, the Israelites are cautioned not only not to violate G’d’s commandments, but to construct safeguards to ensure that they do not violate these commandments inadvertently. A prime example of this is the caution not to only not to worship idols, but not even to mention their names.

ובבל אשר אמרתי, "and in all things that I have said, etc." The reason the Torah writes ובכל ..תשמרו instead of simply וכל אשר…תשמרו, is connected to the statement of the sages (Makkot 23) that the number of positive commandments is 248, corresponding to man's limbs, whereas the 365 negative commandments correspond to the number of sinews in the human body (compare Zohar volume one page 78). A person should not say: "I am going to observe a sufficient number of commandments in order to safeguard the health of my body. By writing ובכל, the Torah hints strongly that our good health and well being will depend on our observing all of the commandments.

וככל אשר אמרתי אליכם, since the revelation at Mount Sinai until now, be careful to observe all these commandments. According to our sages in Shabbat 18 the reason for the apparent repetition is to include the need for one’s vessels (inert objects) to observe Sabbath rest. [a reference to those vessels which are used only on weekdays in connection with work prohibited on the Sabbath. Ed.]

ובכל אשר אמרתי אליכם תשמרו, “be careful concerning all that I have said to you.” According to Rashi this is a warning concerning every positive commandment, i.e. each positive commandment implies violation of a negative commandment if it is ignored. [based on Mechilta chapter 20 by Rabbi Eliezer. Ed.] Nachmanides questions this whole concept, claiming that contrary to the meaning of the word השמר when used in connection with a negative commandment, when used with a positive commandment it leaves the positive commandment intact as such. He adds that unless, according to Rashi, this would be a general negative commandment, it would follow that every violation, i.e. failure to observe a positive commandment would automatically be punishable by 39 strokes. According to the plain meaning of the text, this line covers all the words commencing with ושם אלוהים אחרים in our verse.

To make every positive precept as a negative precept. This is why a positive precept always overrides a negative precept ( עשה דוחה את לא תעשה ). For every positive precept includes a negative precept. Thus it has both, and therefore a positive precept overrides a single negative precept.

V. 13. ובכל אשר אמרתי וגו׳ kann nicht heißen: hütet euch vor Übertretung alles dessen, was ich euch verboten habe. Es müsste dann מכל אשר וגו׳ heißen. בכל אשר וגו׳ hat offenbar den Sinn: in allen den Geboten und Verboten, die ich euch erteilt habe, sollt ihr euch selber hüten, d. h. ihr sollt euch unter die eigene Hut stellen, sollt euch solche Bestimmungen und Vorsätze fassen, dass ihr nicht zur Übertretung meiner Worte kommet. Was Recht und Unrecht, Pflicht und Aufgabe sei, das sagt euch mein Gesetz. Solche Fürsorge zu üben, dass mein Gebot erfüllt und das von mir Verbotene gemieden werde, das ist die Arbeit, die ich von eurer Gewissenhaftigkeit erwarte. Damit ist denn das große Gebot der "Gesetzumzäunung und der Gesetzförderung", גזרות (סייגים ,גדרים) und תקנות, gegeben, dessen gewissenhafter Erfüllung allein wir die Erhaltung des göttlichen Gesetzes verdanken. Bezeichnend ist, dass, während vor und nachher die Gebote alle im Singular, somit an die Gesamtheit als solche sich wenden, diese Aufgabe im Plural, somit an alle einzelnen Glieder der Gesamtheit gerichtet ist. Es wird somit diese Aufgabe eine Pflicht der Gewissenhaftigkeit eines jeden Juden als solchen, und wenn diese Aufgabe des Gesetzesschutzes von den עיני הערה, von den "schauenden Leitern" der Nation in ihren Anordnungen gelöst worden, so haben sie damit nichts angeordnet, was nicht jeder einzelne im Volke nach einsichtsvoller Gewissenhaftigkeit sich selbst zu bestimmen und festzusetzen verpflichtet gewesen wäre. Haben sie doch auch diese Anordnungen dem Volke nicht oktrohiert, sondern nur als Ergebnis ihrer Einsicht empfohlen und haben die Sanktion von der freiwilligen und praktischen Annahme des Volkes abhängig gemacht. So wird dieser Satz auch in der מכלתא, und zwar im Zusammenhange mit dem vorangehenden Schabbatgesetze erklärt: אין לי אלא דברים שהן משום .במלאכה דברים שהן משום שבות מנין ת׳׳ל ובכל אשר אמרתי אליכם תשמרו.

ובכל אשר אמרתי אליכם, “concerning all that I have told you.” All the regulations pertaining to the Sabbath days in normal years also apply in the seventh year.”An alternate explanation: “I am not warning you only concerning that your servants and domestic beasts have to observe a rest on the Sabbath, but these are only examples; all the other rules concerning work prohibitions on the Sabbath apply, regardless of the fact that you do not work the field a whole week during the seventh year. Your vessels, stoves, vats, etc., have to observe rest on the Sabbath.”A third explanation: All the details that I have commanded you ever since the revelation at Mount Sinai concerning the observance of the Sabbath remain in force indefinitely without interruption. The verse is a repetition of warnings the Torah had issued on previous occasions. We have other examples of this type in Deuteronomy 27,26: ארור אשר לא יקים את דברי התורה הזאת לעשות אותם, “cursed be he who fails to observe the words of this Torah;”Yet another explanation of our verse: this is a warning concerning the meticulous observance of all the positive commandments. According to Rashi, this was necessary as the vast majority of the Sabbath regulations concern what is forbidden, and do not require us to actually perform an activity, only to desist from performing it. The verse also is a hint at the rule that when a positive and a negative commandment appear to be in conflict, the performance of the positive commandment takes precedence. (Talmud Yevamot folio 3.) The logic behind this is that by performing the positive commandment one automatically fulfils the negative commandment attached to it. A different interpretation: the verse applies only to negative commandments as the grammar in the verse, i.e. the word: תשמורו, warns against violating something by a contrary activity. This is what the Rabbis had in mind when they said in Eyruvin 96: “wherever the expression השמר פן, or אל appears, it is always a warning not to do something that the Torah had forbidden. These expressions only occur when a negative commandment had already been the subject of discussion.

לא תזכירו MAKE NO MENTION [OF THE NAME OF OTHER GODS] — This means that one must not say to another: “Wait for me near such-and-such an idol”, or, “Stay with me on the festival of such-an-such an idol’” (mentioning its name) (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 23:13:3; Sanhedrin 63b). Another explanation of verse 13 is: the juxtaposition of “Be heedful in respect of everything that I have spoken to you” with “and the names of other gods ye shall not mention” is intended to teach you that the practise of idol-worship is of equal heinousness as though one had infringed every command (cf. Horayot 8a); and that one who avoids it may be regarded as though he had observed every one of them (cf. Chullin 5a).

לא ישמע על פיך, you must not even be the cause of others mentioning the names of these idols. If they do mention these names it must not be with your approval.

ולא ישמע על פיך. “your mouth shall not cause it to be heard.” The Torah means that even if the name of such a deity is mentioned without any attribute identifying it as such, it is still prohibited to mention it as such in the presence of people who worship such a deity. These considerations prompted our sages to advise not to enter into a business partnership with a gentile, in order not to inadvertently violate this commandment. (Sanhedrin 63) It is possible to understand the word תזכירו here as a transitive verb, meaning that you must not mention the name of the deity to the person who worships such a deity anyway by, for instance, saying to him: “why don’t you pray to your god for help?”

Next to such and such an idol. . . [Rashi explains it this way] because otherwise, why is it necessary [to forbid this]? Is there any reason that a Jew would mention the name of an idolatry that he denies, and regarding which he is commanded to destroy?

ושם אלוהים אחרים לא תזבירו, "and you shall not mention the name of other deities, etc." The Torah means that just as the observance of all the commandments will help man to make all of his 248 limbs and 365 sinews function properly, so there is also an overall protection for man which results from his denial of any form of idolatry. Anyone denying idolatry is considered as if he had accepted the entire Torah and would actively assist all those who are engaged in observing Torah and its commandments. As a result, all the various parts of such a person's body will enjoy protection even if he had not performed certain commandments (because the opportunity did not arise), or he had not been able to demonstrate that he would not violate certain of the Torah's injunctions if given a chance to do so. Such "overall" protection of a person due to his denial of idolatry would not accrue to him if he had ignored or violated one or more of the commandments deliberately, however. The limb or sinew which is "connected" to fulfilment of that particular commandment may then experience pain or malfunction.

Das Gesetz erläutert sofort durch ein Beispiel den Begriff dieser Gesetzesumzäunungspflicht, und greift dazu gleich das erste Verbot der sinaitischen Gesetzgebung, das Verbot der Abgötterei heraus. Das Verbrechen an sich ist: Abgötterei. Den Namen eines Abgottes nennen oder gar bloß veranlassen, dass er von andern genannt werde, ist gewiss noch nicht Abgötterei. Gleichwohl haben wir sowohl dieses als jenes zu unterlassen, offenbar, um uns durch diese Selbsteinschränkung vor wirklicher Abgötterei zu schützen. Wir haben hier das prägnanteste Beispiel der Vermeidung nicht nur des wirklich Schlechten, sondern alles dessen, was nur daran grenzt oder zu ihm führen könnte.

ושם אלוהים אחרים לא תזכירו, “and you must not (even) mention the name of other deities.” The reason why this warning appears next to the previous laws is to remind us that G-d had already warned us about this also. In other words, “you are to remember all the other commandments except this one which is in essence something that must not be remembered.”

לא ישמע IT SHALL NOT BE HEARD from a heathen, THROUGH THINE AGENCY — i. e. you shall make no business partnership with a heathen through which it might happen that he will take an oath by the name of his god, for consequently you will have brought it about that it has been mentioned through your agency (cf. Sanhedrin 63b).

ושם אלהים אחרים לא תזכירו nicht einmal zum Behufe einer Ortsbezeichnung: ולא ישמע על פיך - .שלא יאמר אדם לחברו שמר לי בצד ע׳׳א פלונית, auch nicht einen Nichtjuden zu einer Eidesleistung bei dem Namen eines Abgottes zu veranlassen, ולא יגרום לאחרים שידרו ויקיימו בשמו (Sahedrin 639). Bis auf eine einzige Ausnahme — ותשא בריתי עלי פיך (Ps. 50, 16) — wird על פי nie von dem Aussprechen eines Wortes — das vielmehr בפי heißt — gebraucht, sondern heißt überall, wo es nicht eine konkrete räumliche Bedeutung, על פי הבאר u. dergl. hat: auf Befehl, durch Veranlassung. Das Verbot selbst gleichgültiger Nennung eines Abgottes findet bei ohnehin in der heiligen Schrift vorkommenden Namen keine Anwendung (Sanhedrin das.) und ist, nach הגהו׳ מיימוני׳ zu 9 .5 הל׳ ע׳׳ז, auf solche Namen beschränkt, die die Beilegung eines gottheitlichen Attributs involvieren, vorausgesetzt, dass sie auch nicht in einer anerkennenden Weise — ר׳׳מ) בלשון חשיבות zu 153 י׳׳ר) — genannt werden, woraus, wie הגהו׳ מיימוני׳ bemerken, sich auch das Vorkommen so mancher ע׳׳ז-Namen im Talmud erklärt.

רגלים means TIMES. Similar is, (Numbers 22:28) “that thou hast smitten me these three times (רגלים‎)”.

תחוג לי, as we find in Psalms 149,2 ישמח ישראל בעושיו, “the people of Israel rejoice in their Maker.” Such joy on the festivals legislated by G’d is to offset the joy displayed on the occasion of the making of the golden calf, when the Torah reported “when he saw the calf and the people dancing, etc.” (Exodus 32,19).

(Exodus 23:14) "Three festivals shall you celebrate for Me in the year": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 17) "Three times, etc.", I might think at whatever place or time that one wishes; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 16:16) "on the festival of Matzoth, and the festival of Shavuoth, and the festival of Succoth." (Exodus 23:17) "shall be seen" (yod, resh, alef, heh, [which can also be read as "shall see"]) — to exclude the blind. "your males": to exclude women. "all your males": to exclude tumtum (one of indeterminate sex) and a hermaphrodite. (Devarim 31:11) "You shall read this Torah in the presence of all of Israel in their ears" — to exclude the deaf. (Ibid. 16:11) "And you shall rejoice" — to exclude one who is sick or a minor. (Ibid.) "before the L rd your G d" — to exclude one who is unclean — whence they ruled: All are obligated "to be seen" except a deaf-mute, a retard, a tumtum, a hermaphrodite, one who is blind, or sick, or aged.

V. 14. רגלים. als Mal רגל Es liegt eigentlich kein Beweis für die Bedeutung in dem Sinne wie פעם vor. Außer hier finden wir רגלים nur noch Bamidbar 22, V. 28, 32 u. 33, in der Geschichte Bileams. Vergleichen wir die Worte רגל und פעם, so erscheint רגל, außer der allgemeinen Bedeutung des Fußes überhaupt, vorzugsweise als der Fuß in Bewegung, der gehobene Fuß, während פעם den niedergesetzten, auf den Boden anschlagenden Fuß bedeutet. Daher: לרגל הילדים ,לרגל המלאכה, nach dem Fortgange (Bereschit 33, 14), רַגֵל, kundschaften. פעם hingegen scheint wesentlich die Bedeutung: aufstoßen, auf etwas niederschlagen und anschlagen, inne zu wohnen. Daher ja auch פעם, der Amboss, פעמון, die Schelle, auch geistig von הִפָעֵם :רוח, wörtlich: Gemütsklopfen, d. h. Gemütsbeunruhigung haben. Es liegt daher nahe, daß auch רגלים hier nicht: dreimal, sondern: drei Wanderungen heiße und ebenso Bamidbar 22 שלוש רגלים die drei Wanderungen, die das Tier, den Weg immer mehr beengend, zurückgelegt hatte und dafür geschlagen wurde. So wird auch Chagiga 3 a רגלים als Wanderungen begriffen und daran der Ausschluss des חיגר, des Hinkenden, von der Pflicht des ראיה, des Festerscheinens im Heiligtume gelehrt; an dem Ausdruckswechsel V. 17: שלוש פעמים aber, der Ausschluss der בעלי קבין, der Stelzfüße, denen völlig das Glied zum Auftreten auf den Boden fehlt und die es künstlich ersetzt haben. — Die Wurzel חגג haben wir bereits (Kapitel 5, 1) ihrer Grundbedeutung nach als: Kreisbilden und ihre Bezeichnung für Fest, חג, als Ausdruck der Sammlung der Nation um ihren geistigen Mittelpunkt, um Gott und sein Gesetzesheiligtum, erkannt.

שלש רגלים, “three times (a year);” you need not exert yourself by coming to Jerusalem and the Temple more than three times a year, i.e. to have to “lose” valuable time from your agricultural activities by having to travel long distances, etc; other religions are far more demanding of their worshippers.

ג׳ רגלים תחוג לי בשנה heißt also wörtlich: drei Wanderungen sollst du mir kreisbildend veranstalten im Jahre. Das Fest heißt רגל, nach der Verpflichtung eines jeden männlichen, erwachsenen, vollsinnigen, gesunden, rüstigen Juden (siehe zu V. 17) zu dem Vorhofe, עזרה, des Gesetzesheiligtums hinaufzuwandern; חג, wegen der Allgemeinheit und Gleichzeitigkeit dieser Verpflichtung, wodurch die Nation in ihrer Gesamtheit sich dort um das gemeinsame Heiligtum zusammenfindet, und somit jeder sich da als Glied dieses großen Kreises erblickt. Indem, wie dies gleich weiter ausgeführt wird, diese Wanderfeste gerade in die Zeit der bedeutendsten landwirtschaftlichen Fürsorge treffen, so ist das Verlassen des Ackers in einer solchen Zeit, um sich im Gesetzesheiligtume Gott als Sohn und Diener dieses seines Gesetzes darzustellen, das Verlassen von Haus und Hof, um vor Gott im Heiligtume zu erscheinen, in der Zeit der drängendsten materiellen Sorgen, für jeden einzelnen eine große opfervolle Bekenntnistat, die die eisigen Bande des Materialismus von der Brust eines jeden Juden löst. Und indem er sich dort nur als Glied eines großen, eine Gesamtaufgabe gemeinsam tragenden Kreises erblicken und begreifen lernt, wird gerade in Zeiten, die sonst zur Fürsorge für das speziellste eigene Wohl am drängendsten laden, das nationale Gesamtgefühl in ihm geweckt, das, mit der ihm innewohnenden Kraft der Begeisterung, den Fluch des Egoismus aus der Brust des jüdischen Mannes bannt.

תחוג לי, “you will celebrate for Me.” You will mention My name in connection with your joyful celebration. On Passover you will celebrate the anniversary of your redemption from Egypt; on Pentecost you will celebrate the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai; and on the festival of huts you will celebrate in thanks for a bountiful harvest.

חודש האביב THE MONTH OF אביב — it is the month when the grain becomes full in its ripe state (באביה). The word אביב is connected with אַב which signifies maturity, and being the first of the fruit to ripen (cf. Rashi on Exodus 9:31).

את חג המצות תשמור, the word תשמור is meant in the same sense as שמור את חודש האביב ועשית פסח, “observe the month of spring to prepare the Passover.” (Deut. 1,1.)
למועד חודש האביב, a subtle hint to the authorities to ensure that the calendar dates given for this festival coincide with the season of spring. This may be accomplished by an extra day in certain months, or in more drastic situations by the insertion of a second month of Adar.

כאשר צויתיך, "as I have commanded you." These words refer to details of commandments which have not been spelled out in the written Torah, such as that Matzah must be made of dough which could rise if allowed to stand. If it is made made of flour made out of rice for instance, it could not be used to fulfil the commandment that we must eat unleavened bread on Passover night. There are many other examples of such details of commandments not spelled out in the written Torah.

למועד חודש האביב, “at the appointed time in the month of spring.” This wording prompted Pessikta Zutrata to state that the Passover must only be brought after the spring equinox. If the crops have not sufficiently advanced for the new barley offering of the Omer to be able to be offered the sages will have to insert an additional month of Adar. The words: “you shall not be seen before Me empty-handed,” refer to the sacrifice. Any pilgrim has to offer at least one burnt-offering and one peace-offering.

Bring Me burnt-offerings. We cannot say that the verse refers to [gifts of] money, because it says, “My Presence”. And one greets the Presence of the Master only with a sacrifice. But the Mechilta learns [that it means burnt-offerings and not money, as follows]: It says “joy” regarding people [i.e., that they should rejoice on the festivals by eating the meat of peace offerings.] And it says “joy” regarding Heaven. . . Just as the joy regarding people is with something fit for people [i.e., something they eat], so too the joy of Heaven is with something fit for Heaven, such as burnt-offerings [of which the entire sacrifice is consumed upon the Altar.] This is because it is not right that your table should be full, while the table [i.e., Altar] of your Maker is empty. (Re’m)

V. 15. Das erste Wanderfest ist das Mazzothfest, an welchem die ganze freie, selbständige Nation einen Kreis von sieben Tagen mit den Erinnerungsbroten der Knechtschaft in dem Umkreis des Heiligtums verlebt, sich somit ganz mit dem Bewusstsein der Gotteshörigkeit für den Dienst Gottes in Vollbringung seines im Gesetze geoffenbarten Willens auf Grund ihres Ursprunges (עבדות פרעה) und ihrer Bestimmung (עבודת ד׳) zu durchdringen hat (siehe oben Kap. 12 u. 13). תשמור: es hat die Nation dafür zu sorgen, dass dieses Fest in den חדש האביב, in den Halmmonat fällt (siehe zu שמור את Dewarim 16, 1), und wenn historisch und begrifflich der Frühlingsmonat :החרש האביב im tiefsten Zusammenhang mit dem Erlösungsfeste steht (siehe zu Kap. 13, 4 f.) so ist eben damit ja der Nation die Aufgabe gegeben, sich selbst dieses, und in Folge davon auch die beiden anderen Wanderfeste gerade in die Zeit der wesentlichsten Feldarbeiten eintreten zu lassen. Die opferfreudige Bekenntnistat, die in diesen Wanderfesten liegt, wird durch diese freie Regulierung derselben, durch den Charakter freier Hingebung, der sich in ihrer Feststellung selbst betätigt, nur noch bedeutsam erhöht. — ולא יראו פני ריקם, nicht mit leeren Händen kommen." Wenn ihr Haus und Hof verlasset, um euch vor mein Angesicht darzustellen, sollt ihr nicht in jenen Wahn verfallen, der den Tempel klüftet von Haus und Hof, der dem Tempel den Geist und den Himmel, und dem Haus und Hof die Erde und das Materielle reserviert, "Geist und Gemüt" im Tempel "Nahrung" gewährt, um so entschiedener Leib und Sinnliches leiblich und sinnlich in Haus und Hof zu pflegen, Tempel besucht, um so beruhigter Haus und Hof dem materiellsten Egoismus und dem egoistischsten Materialismus geweiht zu halten. Nicht also! Wenn wir vor Gott erscheinen, sollen wir mit unserer Habe vor Gott erscheinen, sollen wir mit זבח ונסכים ,עולה ומנחה (siehe Wajikra 23, 37), unsere ganze Persönlichkeit mit allen Gütern der Nahrung (סלת), der Gesundheit (שמן), und der Freude (יין), Gott zu Gebote stellend, in die im Tempel zu gewinnende Weihe mit begreifen. Dem dreifachen Charakter unserer Feste: רגל, dem sich Einstellen in dem Gesetzesheiligtum, חג, dem sich Zusammenfinden mit allen Nationalgenossen, und מועד, dem sich Zusammenfinden mit Gott (siehe oben Kap. 12, 14) entsprechend, sind die jedem einzelnen obliegenden Festopfer: חג=שלמי חגיגה ,רגל=עולת ראיה, und מועד=שלמי שמחה, welche letztere dem freudigen Bewusstsein der Gottesgegenwart im Familienkreise angehören, durch welche das Haus zum Tempel, der Familientisch zum Altare, und alle Genossen zu Priestern und Priesterinnen an dem heiligen Lebensdienste der Gottesaufgabe gehoben werden.

ולא יראו פני ריקם AND NONE SHALL APPEAR BEFORE MY FACE EMPTY — When you come to appear before My face on the festivals, bring Me burnt-offerings (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 23:15:2; Chagigah 7a).

שבעת ימים תאכל מצות, “you will eat unleavened bread for seven days.” This line refers back to the words: חודש האביב, “the month of spring;” the reason for this is to remind you that regardless of the fact that the festival commences on the fifteenth day of the month of Nissan you must make sure that this date occurs after the spring equinox, i.e. that in certain years you will have to add an extra month of Adar to ensure that this will occur. If you were not to do that the firstling offering of the new barley harvest on the 16th of that month would not be acceptable as such. You would then have to appear before the Lord ריקם, “emptyhanded,” without fulfilling the specific commandment connected to that date.

ולא יראו פני ריקם, “they shall not appear before Me emptyhanded;” the “they,” are the males who have been commanded to make these three annual pilgrimages. They and their sons are viewed by Me as “My children.”

וחג הקציר AND THE FESTIVAL OF HARVEST — this is the Feast of Weeks,

AND THE FEAST OF HARVEST, THE FIRST-FRUITS OF THY LABORS, AND THE FEAST OF INGATHERING AT THE END OF THE YEAR. I do not know why Scripture mentions the names of the festivals with the definite article since He has not yet commanded about or mentioned them at all till now, and it ought to have said first: “and you shall keep a feast of harvest, the first-fruits of your labors,” just as He said in the Book of Deuteronomy, And thou shalt keep a festival of weeks unto the Eternal thy G-d.³⁷⁵Deuteronomy 16:9. But perhaps because He had already said, Three times thou shalt keep a feast unto Me in the year,³⁷⁶Verse 14 here. and further explained, The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep… in the mouth of Aviv,³⁷⁷Verse 15. — Aviv [literally: “maturity”] means the month when the grain becomes full in its ripe state (Rashi). It is the month of spring. meaning that you are to make sure that the Passover festival is observed at the beginning of the month of Aviv, He referred back [to these verses] and said, “And as for the other festival, make sure that it be the feast of harvest, the first-fruits of thy labors, and as for the third one, make sure that it be the feast of ingathering, at the end of the year. Now all these festivals are thus named with reference to man’s activities in the field, in order that he give thanks for them to G-d who guards the ordinances of heaven,³⁷⁸Jeremiah 33:25. and brings forth bread out of the earth³⁷⁹See Psalms 104:14. to satisfy the longing soul, and the hungry soul He hath filled with good.³⁸⁰Ibid., 107:9. This is Scripture’s intention in using here the expression: el pnei Ha’adon Hashem (three times in the year shall all thy males appear — ‘before the Master, the Eternal’),³⁸¹Verse 17 here. for He is the Master who provides the needs of His servants, and when they take their part from before Him, they come to Him to see what He commands them to do. Thus the expression el pnei is like ‘liphnei’ (“before”) — before the Master. But by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], the word pnei is derived from the term panim [literally: “face”], and I have already alluded to the explanation of panim in the Ten Commandments.³⁸²Above, 20:3. This is why He said Ha’adon Hashem (the Master, the Eternal), just as He said the second time, the Master, the Eternal, the G-d of Israel.³⁸³Further, 34:23. — Ramban’s intention is to suggest that el pnei Ha’adon here is not in the grammatical form of construct with the word Hashem; this is evident from the same expression which occurs a second time [in 34:23] where it is written Hashem Elokei Yisrael, thus indicating that here too the word Hashem is not in construct with Ha’adon (Abusaula). Similarly: Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Master of all the earth;³⁸⁴Joshua 3:11. Tremble, thou earth, ‘miliphnei’ (at the presence) of the Master.³⁸⁵Psalms 114:7. The allusion is here to the word ‘miliphnei’ which is suggestive of panim, as mentioned above (Abusaula).

בצאת השנה. After all the harvests have been gathered in.

בכורי מעשיך, "the first fruits of your labours." This excludes crops raised by a Gentile. His work is not considered a Jew's accomplishment. We are taught in Rosh Hashanah 13 that if the crop has grown to one third of its final size while still under the care or ownership of a Gentile, it does not qualify as something from which this gift of בכורים can be presented to the Priest. This ruling is based on Leviticus 23,10: "the first of your harvests."

וחג הקציר, the Shavuot festival on which the sacrifices mentioned in Leviticus 23,16-20 including the offering of the two loaves of the first wheat harvest are listed.

חג הקציר. “the harvest festival.” Nachmnanides explains why the name of this festival has not been mentioned here. It is because all the legislation about festivals does not appear in the Torah until much later in Leviticus and in Numbers, at this point the Torah only alluded to it, without naming something we are not yet familiar with. Nonetheless, it was important to indicate that as soon as the harvest has begun, the duty to set aside for G’d or His representative on earth, i.e. the priest or Levite, whatever is due to Him. The command to “make” such a festival resurfaces in Deut. 16,10, i.e. ועשית חג שבועות לה', “you are to make a festival of weeks for Hashem.” Perhaps, in view of the fact that the Torah writes here already that there are to be three festivals involving pilgrimage to the place where G’d is in residence on earth, and the Torah had mentioned that the matzah festival occurs in the spring, the second such festival occurring during the harvest season, mention of the third such festival is related to the end of the harvest season, the Torah introduces already the first such festival with the warning, i.e. תשמור, meaning that we must make certain that all of these festivals are observed according to the seasons, i.e. the solar calendar. [with a certain degree of latitude. Ed.] They are named here in accordance with agricultural activities which predominate around the calendar dates when these festivals are being observed. Each progressive stage in food production from the earth which G’d has put at the farmer’s disposal, qualifies for an expression of thanksgiving by the farmer that he has been fortunate enough to reach that stage without his potential or actual crop having failed. To remind us of this aspect of farming, the Torah describes the address to which the gratitude is to be addressed as אל פני האדון ה', “in the presence of the Master i.e. Hashem.” It is in this capacity as the “boss” of nature that He has supervised your activities and blessed them with success.

This refers to the holiday of Shavuos. Rashi [knows this,] as he goes on to explain, because it states (Bamidbar 28:26): “On the Day of Bikkurim ( בכורים ) . . . on your Festival of Shavuos. . .” And here, too, it is written: “The Festival of Harvest, the first fruits ( בכורי ) of your labor.” Just as the בכורים there refers to Shavuos, so too the בכורי here refers to Shavuos.

(Exodus 23:16) "And the festival of the harvest (Shavuoth) the (time of bringing the) first-fruits of your labor": The three festivals are mentioned in the section of shevi'ith to teach that (in the shemitah year) the three festivals are not to be dislodged from their proper times (though these times correspond to those of planting, harvesting, etc., operations which are suspended in the shemitah year).

V. 16. חג הקציר בכורי מעשיך, die Wiederholung des חג ist wohl zu בכורי zu supplieren: das Fest des Schnittes, das Fest der Erstlinge. Es ist dies das zweite Wanderfest, שבועות, an welchem mit Darbringung der שתי לחם vom neuen Weizen die Darbringung der מנחות vom Jahresertrag eröffnet (Wajikra 23, 17) und überhaupt das Hinaufbringen der ביכורים und (V. 19 und 5. B. M. 26, 1f.) eingeleitet wird. חג האסיף ist סוכת (Wajikra. 23, 39). — באספך את מעשיך — מעשיך אשר תזרע: der Mensch "säet seine Tätigkeit", seine mit Einsicht und Umsicht geübte Kraft, in den Schoß der Erde, dort muss sie der Gottessegen gedeihen lassen, wenn er sie im Herbste ernten soll.

וחג הקציר, “and the festival of the harvest. (Wheat harvest around Shavuot)” The Torah spelled this festival out as especially intended as one of being joyful, (compare also Isaiah 9,2: כאשר יגילו בחלקם שלל, “as they exult when dividing spoil.”)

בכורי מעשיך which is the time for bringing the first-fruits, for the offering of the two loaves that were brought on the Feast of Weeks made it permissible for the first time during the year to use the new harvest of wheat for the meal offerings (Menachot 68b), and to bring the first fruits into the Temple, (Mishnah Bikkurim 1:3) for it is said, (Numbers 28:26) “And on the day of the first fruits etc., [בשבעתיכם on your weeks etc.]” (cf. Rashi on that verse).

בכורי מעשיך, in order to permit use of the new wheat harvest products in the Temple for the gift offerings.

Permit the new crop for meal offerings. . . Whereas the Omer meal offering, brought on the 16th of Nissan, was of barley. Yet the Sotah’s meal offering, also of barley, is not brought from the new crop until the offering of the “two loaves”, which are of wheat, are brought.

אשר תזרע, “which you will sow;” you are perceived by the Torah as sowing in G-d’s field; this is why He commanded you to donate the first ripe produce to Him, as a sort of tax.

וחג האסף AND THE FESTIVAL OF THE INGATHERING — that is the Feast of Tabernacles.

וחג האסיף, the Sukkot festival, a period immediately after the last harvest of the summer has been brought in. The Torah commanded us to sit in the huts in commemoration of the times when instead of having their own crops, the Israelites were in the desert depending on the daily ration of manna. Observance of the festival of חג האסיף, an aspect of the Sukkot festival therefore is a form of thanksgiving. We have learned therefore that all of the three pilgrimage festivals are directly related to the produce of the Holy Land.

וחג האסיף, "and the festival of ingathering (all the fruit of the orchards and vineyards)". When a person gathers in all his fruits, it makes him happy. When this happiness is directed toward My commandments, the entire festival becomes dedicated to My Name.

באספך את מעשיך WHEN THOU HAST GATHERED IN THY LABOURS — For during the whole summer-time the fruits are drying in the fields and about the Festival (הָחָג is a Talmudical term for the Feast of Tabernacles) they are gathered into the barns on account of the rain that is then due.

בצאת השנה, “at the conclusion of the year, which is the beginning of the following year.”

שלש פעמים וגו׳ THREE TIMES etc. — Because this section speaks mainly of the Sabbatical year, it was necessary to state that the sequence of the festivals should not be disturbed even in this year of agricultural rest (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 23:16; cf. Rashi on v. 12).

שלש פעמים בשנה יראה, to give thanks to the Lord for the attainment of freedom from bondage, in spring, in summer and in fall. All our achievements stem from Him.

'האדון ה, seeing that the whole earth is His, no one will covet your land when you come to Jerusalem to perform the commandment of making these pilgrimages. We have been promised this in Exodus 34,23, when the Torah speaks about expanding our territory, requiring that all the males come up to Jerusalem on three occasions. The names which the Torah attributes to G’d usually fit the subject matter under discussion, seeing that G’d has as many names as He has attributes. Wherever the attribute אדון is used it is connected with tenancy of the land of which G’d is the ultimate owner. We find the term אדון used for G’d also by Isaiah 10,33

אל פני האדון ה’. “before the Lord, Hashem.” These three festivals occur during three separate seasons. Passover occurs in spring, Pentecost in summer, and Tabernacles in fall. All three festivals are also in recognition of different harvests. On those festivals we are to express our gratitude for the bounty of the earth. We must thank the Lord who provides sustenance for His creatures, and the entire universe.
A Kabbalistic approach to the words את פני האדון (34,23): I have already explained this on 20,1.

It was necessary to state. . . Rashi is answering the question: It has already been stated elsewhere, “Three times a year. . .” [So why is the mitzvah repeated here?] (Nachalas Yaakov). But it seems to me that this is what Rashi means: Since the Festivals depend on working with the grain — חג האביב חג הקציר חג האסיף — and during shemittah, harvesting the grain and gathering it into the house are forbidden, we might think that the Festivals, too, do not apply. Thus, our verse tells us otherwise.

This appearance is accompanied by a burnt offering, as it says: "shall not be seen before My face empty-handed". The three times mentioned here are the festivals of Passover, Shavuot and Sukkot. The purpose of this appearance is to see the form of the Temple, which indicates the existence of God, and the great mysteries that exist, as we will explain in due course - if God decrees. It is for this reason that there is a commandment to sacrifice to God at the moment of appearance, and so too is the reason for the Chagigah sacrifice at that point, to show that one should be joyful and celebrate that he has merited to serve God and to comprehend Him according to his ability, because this is the essence of perfection, and the essence of joy, as was explained in its place[...] Now, the blind man is exempt from the sacrifice, as it says “Be seen before the face of the Lord your God”, and this word here implies [a mutual act], each one seeing the other. The fullness of seeing is with both eyes, and therefore even one who is blind in one eye is exempt from this offering. The text says ‘to be seen’, in the niphal form, rather than [the active] ‘to see’, to imply that as we see Him, so does He see us and notice us. In general, it is well-understood that we are not actually obliged to go to the Temple in order that God see us, for His “eyes range over the entire earth”! Rather, our pilgrimage is in order to see Him, inasmuch as is possible for us, and this in turn will be a cause for Him seeing us.

(Exodus 23:17) "in the presence of the Master, the L rd": What, then, is the intent of (Ibid. 34:23) "the G d of Israel"? It is with Israel that He especially unifies His name. Similarly, (Devarim 6:4) "Hear, O Israel, the L rd our G d, the L rd is One." Is it not already written "the L rd our G d." Why, then, "the L rd is One"? It is with us that He especially unifies His name. Similarly (II Kings 21:12) "Therefore, thus said the L rd the G d of Israel." Is it not already written (Jeremiah 32:27) "the "God of all flesh"? Why, then, "the G d of Israel"? It is with Israel that He especially unifies His name. Similarly, (Psalms 50:7-8) "Hear, My people, and I will speak; Israel, and I will exhort you. I am G d, your G d. I will not rebuke you for (remissness in) your sacrifices and (because) your burnt-offerings are (not) constantly before Me." I am G d to all who enter the world, notwithstanding which I have unified My name only with My people, Israel.

V. 17 פעם ist entschieden: Mal, wir haben schon oben V. 14 bemerkt, dass es zunächst den niedergesetzten Fuß bezeichnet, also: die Teilvollendung eines Weges, einen integrierenden Abschnitt. Somit kann es hier auf die drei Jahresabschnitte des Jahrganges sich beziehen, in welchen das Jahr in seinem fortschreitenden Gange jedesmal gleichsam einen Fuß niedergesetzt, einen Schritt vollendet hat. Mit jedem neuen Fortschritte im Gange des Jahres, mit Anfang des Frühlings, des Sommers und des Herbstes, soll etc. — זכורך: die Form זָכור, die nur in diesem Zusammenhange hier und 5. B. M. 16, 16 und außerdem (Dewarim 20, 13) vorkommt, in welcher letzteren Stelle es auch nicht nur das Geschlecht: die Männlichen, sondern zugleich die Reife der Selbständigkeit: die erwachsenen Männlichen begreift (siehe Sifri das.), scheint die passive Form des particip. praes. zu sein. Wie zu Bereschit 1, 17 bemerkt, glauben wir in der Bezeichnung des männlichen Geschlechtes durch זכר den Begriff desselben als desjenigen Geschlechtes zu erkennen, das זוכֵר, das bestimmt ist, die Traditionenkette des Menschengeschlechtes zu bilden, durch welches sich die Errungenschaften der Zeiten von Geschlecht zu Geschlecht tradieren. זָכָר ist eine Aktivform wie זָכור .חָכָם, passiv, wären demnach diejenigen, die bereits in dieser Reihe der Zeitenkette "gedacht" werden, bereits eine integrierende Stelle in ihrer Zeit einnehmen, schon durch ihre Tätigkeit sich in das Buch der Zeiten einzeichnen: die Erwachsenen, Mannhaften. In der Tat sind auch direkt nur die Erwachsenen, Vollsinnigen, Freien, Gesunden, Jungen, Kräftigen männlichen Geschlechtes zum Erscheinen im Tempel an den drei Wanderfesten verpflichtet; dagegen: Blödsinnige, Unmündige, Frauen, Sklaven, Taube, Stumme, Lahme, Blinde, Kranke, Greise, Verzärtelte, von dieser Pflicht befreit (Chagiga 2a), und scheidet auch diese Bestimmung die jüdischen Tempelversammlungen scharf ab von allem, was in anderen Kreisen Dem äußerlich ähnelnd an Wallfahrten etc. existiert. Der jüdische Tempel ist kein "wundertätiger Gnadenort", zu dem vor allem der Kranke und der Greis, der Blinde und der Lahme, die Schwachen und die Frauen, zu dem überhaupt das geschlagene, leidende, bemitleidenswerte Kontingent der Menschheit in diesem "Jammertale" hinaufpilgert, um wundertätige Tröstung und Heilung für die mancherlei Gebrechen und Leiden des irdischen Daseins zu suchen; der Tempel des lebendigen Gottes, das Heiligtum seines Gesetzes rangiert nicht in einer Reihe mit den Hospitälern, Siech- und Trosthäusern des schiffbrüchigen Lebens; die Elite der Nation, die Vollkräftigen, Männlichen, der Kern des Volkes, auf welchem alle Tat der Gegenwart und alle Hoffnung der Zukunft beruht, sie erwartet der lebendige Gott in dem Heiligtume seines Gesetzes; mitten aus der geschäftigsten Tätigkeit für Gegenwart und Zukunft werden sie herausgerufen, um sich erst vor Gott, dem Herrn, in dem Heiligtume seines Gesetzes für seinen, in Erfüllung dieses Gesetzes zu vollbringenden Dienst, mit jeder Gegenwart für jede Zukunft zu rüsten, auf dass die lebendige Tatkraft der Nation sein bleibe, nicht in der eigenen Kraft, sondern in dem damit zu lösenden Dienste seines Willens die Stärke ihrer Gegenwart und die Hoffnung ihrer Zukunft erblicke und in dem Tempel seines Gesetzes sich rüste, das ganze frischpulsierende, blüten- und fruchtreiche Leben einen Hymnus seiner Verherrlichung sein zu lassen. האדון: dem mit jedem gegenwärtigen Pulsschlage zu dienen ist, ד׳: der jeden kommenden Moment verleiht.

שלש פעמים בשנה, “three times during the year;” the reason this is repeated as it is part of the commandment for the males to make three pilgrimages to the Temple annually.

כל זכורך means all the male population among you.

אל פני האדון, to appear in the presence of the אדון. The term אדון is applied to someone who is in control of perishable things, mortals, etc. The Torah, by using this name of G’d, reminds us that He is the master of the people who present themselves each as an individual. When they make such an appearance before the Lord, they are as if each making an obeisance before his Master. This “Master” is simultaneously the master of the soil they toil which provides their livelihood, seeing that G’d is on record as כי לי כל הארץ כי גרים ותושבים אתם עמדי, “all of the earth is Mine for you are strangers or at best resident strangers with Me.” (Leviticus 25,23). In view of the above, it is clearly appropriate to express our gratitude to Him during the three aforementioned seasons. Therefore, (19) ראשית בכורי אדמתך, a reference to the choicest of our respective fruit. The word ראשית is used in the sense of “the choicest,” in Amos 6,6 וראשית שמנים ימשחו, “they anoint themselves with the choicest oils.” Similarly, Amos 6,1, נקובי ראשית הגויים, “you notables of the leading nation.” The products qualifying for this commandment are the 7 listed in Bikkurim 1,Mishnah 3

Before the Presence of the Master. Hashem is only referred to by this title in two places, here and in a similar context further on (34:23). It is a hint to those who are reluctant to leave their homes to make the pilgrimage that their continued prosperity is dependent upon receiving the blessing of the Master of the land during the festival.

The males among you. Rashi says הזכרים (males) to tell us that זְכוּרְךָ with a melupum has the same meaning as זָכָר with a kamatz (and both mean “male”). And he says “among you” to tell us that the suffix of זְכוּרְךָ is a substitute for בך (among you) rather than a substitute for שלך (belonging to you). [Rashi knows this] because a son does not “belong” to his father like ביתך ושדך . Thus, זְכוּרְךָ means the males who are among you and your nation.

יֵרָאֶה es ist ein tiefes Wort, das die jüdische Weisheit zur Erläuterung dieses Ausdrucks gesprochen: יִרְאֶה יֵרָאֶה כדרך שבא לראות כך בא ליראות מה לראות בשתי עיניו אף ליראות בשתי עיניו (Chagiga 22 a). Sie begreift die Form יֵרָאֶה nicht nur als ein Passivum: von Gott gesehen werden, sondern zugleich als ein Reflexivum: sich vor Gottes Angesicht, also: sich von Gott geschaut erblicken. Ist ja auch der Zweck eines jeden Erscheinens im Gottestempel nicht: um von Gott geschaut zu werden, sondern: um sich vor Gottes Angesicht zu schauen, um sich das "von-Gott-geschaut-werden" zum Bewusstsein zu bringen. Wird doch auch im Terte die ראיה nach beiden Beziehungen ausgedrückt: ראית פנים, das Schauen des Angesichtes Gottes (V. 15) und ראית כל זכור, das Geschautwerden des Erscheinenden (V. 17). Also erst לִרְאות und dann לֵרָאות, womit der Einwurf ר׳׳ת's gegen Raschis Erklärung, Chagiga 2 a beseitigt sein dürfte. Sie fügt daher erläuternd hinzu: "Nach dem Maßstabe wie du kommst zu schauen, in dem Maße kommst du geschaut zu werden, wie du dir Gott in der Fülle seines Schauens vergegenwärtigst und von der ganzen Fülle dieses Schauens geschaut werden möchtest, so musst du auch von ihm in der ganzen Fülle deines Schauens geschaut werden, musst mit der ganzen Vollkraft deines geistigen Auges gegenwärtig sein, wenn er die Fülle seines Schauens auf dich niedersenken soll." Dein Schauen bedingt sein Schauen; nicht ein passives Sich-sehen-lassen, die höchste Energie des Geistes, die geistigste Tat sei dein Erscheinen vor Gott. Auch konkret ist daher auch der Blinde und Einäugige frei von der Pflicht des Erscheinens im Tempelheiligtum. Unser "Gottschauen" spekuliert nicht auf den geblendeten Dämmerblick der Sterblichen. Das helle, scharfe Auge, das die sichtbare Welt in das Innere führt, erschließt eben damit dem Geiste die Pforten des Heiligtums, in welchem sich der unsichtbare Gott dieser sichtbaren Welt, jede Form der Erscheinung und jede Phase der Entwicklung schaffend und gestaltend, offenbart — כי לד׳ עין אדם (Secharja 9, 1) — nicht die Blindheit, das Auge der Menschen ist Gottes!

לא תזבח על חמץ וגו׳ means, you shall not sacrifice the Passover-lamb on the fourteenth day of Nisan before you have removed the leavened bread from your house (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 23:18:1). (This verse is to be connected with v. 15).

THOU SHALT NOT OFFER THE BLOOD OF MY SACRIFICE WITH LEAVENED BREAD. “You shall not slaughter the Passover-offering on the fourteenth day of Nisan before you have removed the leavened bread [from your possession].” This is Rashi’s language.
Do not interpret the meaning of this statement of Rashi to refer to the removal of unleavened bread, [and that the verse tells us] that this must take place before the time of slaughtering the Passover-offering, just as is mentioned in the first chapter of Tractate Pesachim:³⁸⁶Reference is to the question that was asked in the Gemara Pesachim [4 b-5 a]: how do we know that unleavened bread is forbidden by law of the Torah after six hours on the fourteenth day of Nisan? To this Rava answered that we derive it from the verse, Thou shalt not slaughter… (further 34:25), which means: “do not slaughter the Paschal-lamb while the leavened bread is still there.” And since the time for the slaughtering of the Paschal-lamb begins after the sixth hour, we therefore deduce that unleavened bread is forbidden from that time on. When the Gemara further asked: “Perhaps the Torah meant a separate time for each individual, [so that if he slaughtered it on the ninth hour of the day, he would not be in violation of the law against keeping unleavened bread till such time]? To this the answer is given: “The Merciful One has declared a time for the slaughtering of the Passover-offering [for all alike, and He did not distinguish between one person and another]. — Ramban is now writing that Rashi’s explanation was not prompted by this text of the Gemara, for reasons explained further on. “The Merciful One has declared a time for the slaughtering of the Passover-offering for all alike” — for this interpretation is not the real point of the verse in accordance with the final decision of the law mentioned there. For there is no prohibition³⁸⁷Ramban’s point is that the duty of removing from one’s possession unleavened bread on the fourteenth day of Nisan, is a matter of a positive commandment, thus one who failed to remove it from his possession after the sixth hour of that day, has thereby violated a positive commandment. But there is no negative commandment to cover this matter. Hence the verse before us which is a negative commandment cannot be establishing the time for the removal of unleavened bread, since that is covered only by a positive commandment. This is the intention of Ramban’s words. according to the law of the Torah requiring the removal of unleavened bread on the day before Passover, not even is there a prohibition against eating it [but the violation of a positive commandment].³⁸⁸Here too Ramban’s opinion is that there is no negative commandment of the Torah covering it, but one who eats it violates thereby a positive commandment, since he had failed to destroy the unleavened bread beforehand. See, however, “the Commandments,” Vol. II, p. 196, where Rambam differs on this point and counts a specific negative commandment, wherein we are forbidden to eat unleavened bread after the middle of the fourteenth of Nisan. But the subject of the verse as established according to the final decision of the law, is an admonition against slaughtering the Passover-offering with leavened bread, meaning that none of the company who have been counted to eat of this Passover-offering, may have leavened bread remaining in their possession at the time it is slaughtered. And so Rashi explained it in the section of Ki Thisa.³⁸⁹Further, 34:25. “This is an admonition addressed to him who slaughters the offering, as well as to him who sprinkles its blood [on the altar], or to one of the company [that joined together to eat the Paschal-lamb]” (Rashi). Now the verse should have read, “Thou shalt not slaughter with unleavened bread My sacrifice” [omitting the word: dam — blood], for the blood is not “slaughtered.” But in the opinion of our Rabbis³⁹⁰Mechilta here on the Verse. this comes to include the sprinkling, so that the priest who sprinkles the blood of the offering is also forbidden to have leavened bread in his possession. The verse thus states: “Do not slaughter the Passover-offering with unleavened bread, and neither [sprinkle] the blood of My sacrifice,” That is, and neither let the blood of My sacrifice be with unleavened bread. It is an elliptical verse.

לא תזבח על חמץ, the elimination of leavened products must take place before it is legally possible to slaughter the Passover, i.e. not later than the 6th hour, before noon. The seventh hour already qualifies for the description בין הערבים, (Exodus 12,6)

לא תזבח על חמץ דם זבחי, “do not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread.” Nachmanides queries why the Torah did not write לא תשחט על חמץ זבחי, “do not slaughter My sacrifice with unleavened bread,” seeing that blood is not being “slaughtered.” The formulation of the Torah teaches that the Passover must not be slaughtered at a time when consumption of leavened bread is still permitted, i.e. on the morning of the 14th of Nissan (compare Mechilta Kaspa 20). The verse has to be understood as follows: “do not slaughter while leavened bread abounds in order that the blood of My sacrifice not be offered at a time when your leavened things have not yet been destroyed or sold.”

Do not slaughter the Pesach korbon. . . Rashi says “Pesach korbon” where the verse says דם זבחי to tell us that here, זבחי (“My sacrifice”) refers only to the Pesach korbon and not the Chagigah korbon. And Rashi says “On the fourteenth day of Nisan” to tell us that this prohibition applies only on the 14th of Nisan and not the rest of the year. And he says “Until you remove your chametz” whereas the verse says על חמץ , because על חמץ literally means on top of the chametz. Therefore he explained, “Until you remove your chametz” [from your possession].

V. 18. Drei charakteristische Sätze schließen dieses Festkapitel und damit zugleich diese Grundzüge der sozialen Gesetzgebung, משפטים. Sie stehen in engster Beziehung zu den drei Wanderfesten und wahren den Geist derselben. לא תזבח und, damit eng verbunden (siehe unten), לא תלין in Beziehung zum חoפ-Feste, ראשית בכורי וגו׳ zum שבעות-Feste und לא תבשל גדי zum סוכת-Feste.

ולא ילין חלב חגי; “and the fat of My festival offering must not be allowed to be left lying until the morning.” This is applicable only to the Passover offering, the fat of which was destined for the altar.

ולא ילין חלב חגי NEITHER SHALL THE FAT OF MY SACRIFICE REMAIN away from the altar (cf. the Targum).

חלב חגי, a reference to the Passover; just as you are not allowed to leave over part of the meat which is yours to eat until morning, the parts which are consumed on the altar must likewise have been burned up before then.

Away from the Altar. Meaning, [do not leave the fat away from the Altar] when its blood was cast on the Altar during the day. For then, if the fats are left on the floor, i.e., away from the Altar until dawn, they become unfit because of לינה (remaining overnight). (Megillah 20)

לא תזבה על חמץ. Die Bedeutung des חמץ, des gegorenen Teiges, als Zeichen bürgerlicher Selbständigkeit, sowie des Vorhandenseins desselben in jüdischem Besitze am Peßach als verpönter Ausdruck der Unabhängigkeit von Gott und der Nichtunterordnung unter Gott hinsichtlich unseres Besitzes, ist bereits oben (Kap. 14, 8 u. 18 f.) aus der historischen Bedeutung desselben während der ägyptischen Sklaverei und der Erlösung aus ihr nachgewiesen. Hier wird nun das Verbot ausgesprochen, dass das mit Eintritt der Abendwende des vierzehnten Nissantages darzubringende Peßachopfer nicht vollzogen werden darf, wenn noch einer der dabei Beteiligten, also entweder einer der die Opferhandlungen הקטרה ,זריקה ,שחיטה vollziehenden Priester, oder einer der zu dem Opfer gehörenden Genossenschaft, אחד מבני חבורה, Chamez in seinem Besitze hat. Implizite ist damit die Aufgabe gesetzt, das Chamez bereits vor Mittag des 14. Nissan aus dem Besitze entfernt zu haben. Das Peßachopfer ist, wie ebenfalls bereits oben entwickelt, wesentlich Weihe und Hingebung des jüdischen Hauses; wie bei keinem anderen Opfer ist die אכילה, der Genuss desselben im häuslichen Familienkreise, der ausgesprochene, die ganze Bedeutung des Opfers von vornherein bedingende Zweck, שלא בא מתחלתו אלא לאכילה. Bedeutsam heißt es daher hier זבח und dessen Opferung זבות; denn זבה ist wesentlich ein Familienmahl und זבוח dessen Bereitung. זבחי ist daher das Gott geweihte Familienmahl. Ein solches im Tempel darbringen und dabei Chamez im häuslichen Besitz haben, hieße höchstens: die Menschen, die Personen des Familienkreises gotthörig Gott unterstellen und weihen, allein deren Geschick, die irdischen Mittel ihrer Subsistenz, ihres Daseins und Schaffens auf Erden, als von Gott nicht abhängig, weder Gott verdankt, noch Gott geweiht begreifen, wäre vielmehr die verderblichste Klüftung des Hauses vom Tempel, und es soll doch eben das Haus in dem Tempelopfer geopfert und geweiht erscheinen!

עד בקר, “until morning;” it has the same rule as the meat of the Paschal lamb, concerning the edible parts of which, the Torah had already written in Exodus 12,10 that none must be left over until morning, and if for some reason some was left over it must be burned forthwith.

UNTIL MORNING. One might think, however, that the meaning is, that it shall not remain overnight on the altar and that the sacrifice would therefore become invalid even through the fat remaining overnight on the “wood-pile” of the altar! Scripture, however, states, (Leviticus 6:2) “[This is the law of the burnt-offering; it is that which may go up] on the fire-place of the altar all the night, [any time until the morning]”(Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 23:18:2), —

All night. Rashi means that the verse, “It is the burnt-offering on the fireplace, on the Altar all night. . .” (Vayikra 6:2) does not teach that after morning arrives, one may no longer burn the offering on the Altar. Rather, it teaches that if the offering was brought onto the Altar even a moment before dawn, it is fit to be burnt there also after dawn. We need not ask: If so, why do we need two verses, [this verse and “. . .on the fireplace”]? The answer is: “. . .on the fireplace” comes mainly to teach a mitzvah: we should bring the offerings onto the Altar from the time of sunset and leave them there all night so they will be burnt well. By the way, we also learn that if they were up on the Altar’s wood-pile [before dawn], they are fit to be burnt on the Altar even after dawn — as is implied by this verse, “You must not allow to remain. . .” With this, all the difficulties of Re’m’s are resolved.

ולא ילין חלב חגי: was איסור חמץ an dem Feste der Schöpfung unserer bürgerlichen Selbständigkeit negativ zum besonderen Ausdruck für das allgemeine nationale Bewusstsein bringt, das findet bei allen Opfern, mit Ausschluss des עולה, das ganz Feuerspeise wird, im חלב, in den von ihnen dem Feuer zu übergebenden Teilen, אימורים, einen positiven Ausdruck. הֵלֶב, dessen Etymologie und Bedeutung bereits (Bereschit 4, 4) gegeben sind, ist das vom Tierorganismus zum künftigen Verbrauch gleichsam zurückgelegte Kapital. Es bildet, in Verbindung mit כליות, den Nieren, der Etymologie (כלה) und der konstanten Verbindung mit כליות ולב ,לב, zufolge, Organe der niederen Triebe und Reize, die dem אשדת des Altars zu übergebenden Opferteile. Während in דם die נפש, die ganze Individualität, die seelische Persönlichkeit ihr ewiges Hinanstreben zur Altarhöhe des jüdischen Berufes und das Verharren auf derselben in זריקה und נתינה angewiesen erhält, spricht הקטרת חלב וכליות die Wahrheit aus, dass auch das Streben nach Genuss verheißenden Gütern, dass auch "Besitz und Begierden" nicht ausgeschlossen seien von dieser von jeder Persönlichkeit anzustrebenden göttlichen Höhe, dass eben sie vielmehr in diesem Höhestreben und auf dieser Höhestufe selbst als "Speisung des Gottesfeuers", als Verwirklichung der Gotteszwecke auf Erden zum "göttlichen Wohlgefallen" umwandelt werden sollen, ja, dass diese Dahingebung der חלב וכליות an das Feuer des Gesetzes die notwendigste Folge und Bedingung der Hingebung der Seele, des דם, an ihre göttliche Bestimmung bilde. Die Übergabe des חלב und der כליות (gewöhnlich, wie auch hier, einfach חלבים ,חלב, als das Objekt der in כליות ausgedrückten Begierden) muss daher im engen Zusammenhange mit der Opferung des נפש=דם bleiben, somit an demselben Opfertage (der von Morgen zu Morgen zählt, siehe Kap. 12, 2) geschehen, ein Verschieben derselben spräche eine Gleichgültigkeit der irdischen Besitz- und Genussbeziehungen für unsere Erhebung und Hingebung an Gott aus, deren Läuterung und Weihe doch eben aus dieser "Hingebung der Seele" hervorgehen, und eben Blüte und Betätigung dieser Hingebung sein sollte! Daher: לא ילין חלב חגי עד בקר!

חגי, “My festival;” another word for “My offering,” the offering tendered to Me. This expression is not unique; we find it also in Psalms 118,27: אסרו חג בעבותים, “bind the festival offerings to the horns of the altar;” In chapter 12 the Torah had decreed this as applicable to the original Paschal lamb in Egypt. (Not allowing any to remain by morning) Here the Torah repeats the instruction as applicable to the annual Passover offering serving as a reminder of the original one.

Therefore the statement ולא ילין means, that this law of leaving the fat away from the altar overnight is infringed only if it has not been placed on the altar by the dawn of the morning, for it says, “[neither shall the fat remain] until morning”, but any time during the whole night one may lift it up from the pavement on to the altar (cf. Megillah 20b).

Was aber für jedes Opfer Vorschrift ist, wird hier ganz besonders für חגיגה hervorgehoben, mit welchem Opfer jeder einzelne sich in den Kreis der Gesamtheit einfügt und den nationalen Kreis, חג, um Gott in seinem Gesetzesheiligtum bilden hilft. Ist nämlich die Mahnung an sittliche Heiligung im Streben nach materiellen Gütern und in deren Verwendung als erste Betätigung der persönlichen Weihe an Gott wichtig für das Privatleben, so ist diese Mahnung für das Nationalleben von noch gesteigerter Wichtigkeit. Sind ja Staaten und Völker von dem Wahne befangen, als gelte der Kodex des Sittengesetzes nur für die Beziehungen des Privatlebens und als heilige das Nationalinteresse die Verletzung der heiligsten Sittengesetze zur Erlangung materieller Macht und Güter für den Nationalbesitz. Gottes Gesetz kennt eine solche Scheidung nicht. חלב חגי, spricht es, "materielles Gut und Streben eines nationalen Kreises, der sich meinen Kreis nennt" einer Nation, die meinen Namen trägt, darf ebenso wenig, wie das des einzelnen von der persönlichen Hingebung an Gott getrennt sein, muss ebenso wie das des einzelnen auf Grund der persönlichen Heiligung Läuterung und Weihe erhalten, muss mit derselben Notwendigkeit im אש דת, im Feuer des Gesetzes, zum göttlichen Wohlgefallen sich umwandeln, משפטים gelten für das Völkerrecht, wie für das Recht der Privaten.

ראשית בכורי אדמתך THE FIRST OF THE FIRST-FRUITS OF THY GROUND [THOU SHALT BRING etc.] — Even in the seventh year the offering of the first fruits is obligatory in some cases, therefore here also (where Scripture mainly deals with the laws of the Sabbatical year) it is stated: “the first of the first-fruits of thy land [shalt thou bring, etc.]”. How was the procedure at the setting apart of the first fruits? A man goes into his field and sees a fig which was the first to ripen; he ties a piece of reed-grass round it to distinguish it and so marks its sacred character (Mishnah Bikkurim 3:1). The law of the first fruits applies only to the seven kinds of produce that are mentioned in Scripture: (Deuteronomy 8:8) “a land of wheat and barley etc.”, for which Palestine is praised in that verse (Mishnah Bikkurim 3:1).

ראשית בכורי אדמתך, "The choicest first-fruits of your soil, etc." Perhaps the Torah hints here that one must not destroy one's seed (semen) and that the son born of one's first seminal emission should be dedicated to the service of the Lord (compare Yuma 2 according to which the word ביתו is an oblique reference to one's wife)

ראשית בכורי אדמתך, this includes the seven types of products (Deut. 8,8) considered as the land of Israel’s choicest as per Deuteronomy 26,2 where you are commanded to bring the respective first ripe specimen of these seven products to Jerusalem as a gift. Ascent to Jerusalem with these products is to be on foot.

לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו, do not practice these procedures which the idolaters believe are apt to improve the earth’s productivity. But, on the contrary, ראשית בכורי אדמתך תביא, if you really want to attract G’d’s blessing on your agricultural endeavours you will present G’d with a gift of the very first and finest of your respective crops. (compare Ezekiel 44,30 וראשית בכורי כל, וכל תרומת כל,...להניח ברכה אל ביתך, “all the choice first fruits of every kind, and all the gifts of every kind,- of all your contributions,- shall go to the priests,,,,that a blessing may rest upon your home.”

ראשית בכורי אדמתך,”The choicest first fruit of your soil.” These first fruit are forbidden for secular use by their owners. Our sages state that this is the reason that this legislation was written immediately prior to the prohibition of boiling a kid in the milk of its mother. Just as that legislation prohibits secular or any use by its owner of such a dish, so first ripe produce is also prohibited for profane purposes. Another reason offered for the aparently unrelated sequence of this verse and the one following it, is that first fruit must not be offered either when they have been boiled or in an unripe condition.

Even during the seventh year bikkurim is obligatory. In some texts of Rashi, [the obligation of bikkurim in the seventh year is not mentioned.] It is written only, “‘The first fruits of your land.’ A man who, upon entering his field. . .” And so write Re’m and Gur Aryeh that [those texts are correct, because] during the seventh year there is no mitzvah of bikkurim. This is because a person cannot declare, [as is required when bringing bikkurim]: “And now, I have brought. . . from the land that You have given me” (Devarim 26:10). For the land was not given to him in the seventh year; rather it is ownerless, for all [to eat its fruits].

V. 19. ראשית, die ersten Früchte deiner Äcker und Bäume, die dir den Erfolg deiner Arbeiten ankündigen, תביא, bringst du, nicht als תבואה, als "das dir Heimkommende" in dein Haus, sondern — am Feste der Gesetzgebung und von da an und weiter — in das Haus, das Gott, als dein Gott seinem Gesetze erbauen lässt. Ihm, diesem Gesetze, füllt sich jede Ähre und reift jede Frucht, seine תבואה, seine Ernte ist alles, was die Vermählung des Sonnenstrahls mit deiner Händearbeit zur Vollendung bringt, ja, nicht deiner physischen Sonne verdankst du den Segen, Gott verdankst du den Segen, weil du ihn als deinen Gott anerkennst und jedes Körnlein des dir reifenden Segens der Erfüllung seines Gesetzes wächst, und du diesem seinem Gesetze ein Haus auf Erden bauest. Darum nimmst du die Erstlinge dieses Segens und bringst sie zur huldigenden Anerkennung und Weihe in das Haus seines Gesetzes.

ראשית בכורי אדמתך, “the first choice fruits of your soil, etc.;” why did this verse have to be written? Seeing that in Deuteronomy 26,2, the Torah had written: ולקחת מראשית כל פרי האדמה, “you are to take from the first fruit of the soil, etc.,” I might have thought that the word פרי refers only to the actual fruit; how would I know that the commandment also applies to the liquids squeezed from the fruit? The word: תביא, “you are to bring,” is the clue. What is the difference between the fruit itself and its liquids? When bringing the fruit itself the benedictions written in the paragraph referred to from Deuteronomy are to be recited by the farmer, whereas when presenting only their liquids these benedictions do not have to be recited. This legislation has been written after the Torah had written in verse 18 that the Passover sacrifice must not be offered when it is still permissible to eat leavened matters, to tell us that the earliest possible time for offering such first ripened fruit is after the Passover, i.e. the day after when the first of the barley harvest is offered. (Compare Leviticus 23,914).

לא תבשל גדי THOU SHALT NOT COOK A KID — A calf and a lamb also are comprehended under the term גדי, for גדי means nothing more than a young tender animal, as you may gather from the fact that you will find in several passages in the Torah that the term גדי is used and that the writer felt it necessary specially to explain it by adding after it the word עזים, as, e. g., (Genesis 38:17) “I will send forth a גדי of the goats”; (Genesis 38: 20) “the גדי of the goats”; (Genesis 27:9) “two kids of the goats (גדיי עזים)”. This fact serves to show you that wherever גדי is mentioned without further description the term implies also a calf and a lamb. — In three different passages the law לא תבשל גדי is written: once for the purpose of prohibiting the eating of meat-food with milk-food, once to prohibit us from deriving any other benefit (besides eating) from such mixture, and once to prohibit the boiling of meat with milk (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 23.19.2; Chullin 115b).

לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו, it is usual for goats to give birth to two kids at the same time, and it was customary for people to slaughter one of them right away. Seeing that mother goats have an abundance of milk (expecting to nurse at least two young kids) they used the excess milk to boil the young kid in after it had been slaughtered. (Proverbs 27,27 “the goat’s milk will suffice for your food, the food of your household and the maintenance of your maids.”) It is something distasteful, revolting, something akin to gluttony, to consume the mother’s milk together with the young animal that this milk was intended to nourish. We find a parallel in the legislation not to slaughter mother animal and her young on the same day, as well as the prohibition not to take the young chicks while the mother bird is present. (Leviticus 22,25 and Deuteronomy 22,6-7) The Torah teaches you these matters as a matter of elementary culture, i.e. respecting life. Seeing that on the festivals many animals are consumed, the Torah included this legislation in the paragraph dealing with other aspects of these festivals. If the consuming of these animals is prohibited under such circumstances, how much more so are mixture of milk and meat prohibited as discussed in Chulin 113.

He ties a reed around it to identify it. . . [Rashi knows this] because if not, how can he know which are his first fruits and which are not?

The Torah emphasises "the house of the Lord your G'd," to exclude that such a son be brought to a brothel. Jacob performed this commandment as he said of himself when blessing Reuven: "you are my strength and the first fruit of my virility" (Genesis 49,3).

לא תבשל גד׳. Dass unter גדי nicht bloß ein Ziegenböckchen zu verstehen ist, das beweisen, wie Chulin 113 b bemerkt wird, die Zusammenstellungen גדי עזים zur Bezeichnung von jungen Ziegen; גדי an sich umfasst vielmehr junge Tiere der Gattung בהמה טהורה überhaupt. So auch רעי את גדיותיך (Cant. 1, 8), כשסע הגדי (Richter 14, 6), wohl auch: ונמר עם גדי ירבץ (Jes. 11, 6), in welchen sämtlichen Stellen nicht eben nur an junge Tiere des Ziegengeschlechts zu denken ist. Das Wort גדי selbst, Wurzel: גדה, trennen, scheiden (wovon גדות, die hohen Ränder eines Flussbettes), verwandt mit גדע, abhauen, umhauen, durchhauen, bezeichnet das Junge nach seinem früheren, jetzt getrennten Zusammenhange mit dem Mutterkörper, ähnlich wie גוזל von גזל, entreissen, den jungen Vogel nach einer ähnlichen, jetzt aufgehobenen Beziehung zum Muttervogel bezeichnet. Der junge Vogel war als solcher nie mit dem Mutterkörper verbunden, dass sein jetziger Zustand durch den Begriff des Durchschneidens, גדה, ausgedrückt werden könnte. Der Muttervogel hat ihn aus dem Ei gebrütet. Er ist Produkt, nicht Teil, des Muttervogels. Seine Hörigkeit zum Muttervogel stellt sich unter dem Begriff des Eigentums dar, und wenn er ausgebrütet und selbständig wird und bald den Muttervogel, dessen Produkt er ist, nicht einmal mehr kennen wird, entreisst er sich dem Muttervogel, der das größte Anrecht an ihn hätte, wird: גוזל, und doch schwebt der Vogel mit den Fittichen seiner Mutterliebe über den noch seiner Sorgfalt bedürfenden Jungen, wie wenig Dank diese ihm auch wissen werden, על גוזליו ירחף (Dewarim 32, 11), ein Bild, das durch die angedeuteten Beziehungen nur noch um so prägnanter erscheinen dürfte. —

לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו, “Do not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” The reason this verse has been inserted here is that generally speaking during the pilgrimage festivals a great amount is consumed, the Torah reminds us that this law is not to be ignored. [It has been written on two other occasions also. Ed.],

Only from the seven species. This is learned through the gezeirah shavah of ארץ ארץ (Menachos 84b). Rashi had to explain this so we will not object that people will have to constantly search the forests and fields for all species in order to find the fruit that ripened first, in order to bring it as bikkurim.

The conclusion of our verse in which the Torah directs us not to boil the kid in the milk of its mother contains another important moral/ethical lesson. When a man deliberately destroys his semen he is the cause of infants dying while they still suckle at the breast of their mother. I have explained this matter in connection with Michah 6,7: "Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for my sins?" When man destroys his semen he creates a destructive force. This destructive force gains control later over a son who is born to such a father. The souls of such children are considered as עשוקות, "oppressed or deprived," as explained in the Zohar volume one page 219. The reason for this is that their father failed to dedicate his first emission of semen for the creation of a life devoted to the service of the Lord.

Die Halacha lehrt, dass mit diesem Ausspruch verboten werde: Fleisch von בהמה טהורה, also Ochsen-, Schaf- und Ziegenfleisch, mit Milch von בהמה טהורה, also mit Kuh-, Schaf- oder Ziegenmilch zu kochen; dass aber חיה ,בהמה טמאה und עוף unter dieses Verbot nicht begriffen sei. Es begreift sich daher, weshalb unser Text, um die von diesem Verbot zu betreffenden Objekte zu präzisieren, גדי und חלב אמו gewählt. Schwerlich lässt sich בשר בהמה טהורה in חלב בהמה טהורה in gleicher Kürze und Präzision durch andere Ausdrücke wiedergeben. בשר und חלב an sich wären zu umfassend und schlössen Fleisch und Milch von jeder Gattung ein. Selbst der Zusatz בהמה, etwa בשר בהמה טהורה reichte nicht aus, da unter בהמה, z. B. Dewarim 14, 4 u. 5 offenbar auch חיה mit begriffen ist, hier aber חיה auszuschließen war. Wenn, wie Chulin 113 b. bemerkt ist, גדי, absolut, auch das Junge von פרה und רחל bedeutet, so gibt es daher wohl kaum ein Wort, das einerseits die Gattung בקר וצאן unter sich begreift, andererseits alle anderen Gattungen ausschließt als: גדי, und keinen kürzeren Ausdruck, um auch die Milch nur auf diese Gattungen zu beschränken, als: חלב אמו. Wenn dem hingegen durch גדי und חלב אמו die gesetzliche Bestimmung zu eng und nur auf das Fleisch des jungen Tiers und die Milch seiner Mutter beschränkt erscheint, so dürfte diesem schon die Erwägung begegnen, dass damit das fernstliegende Beispiel hervorgehoben ist: selbst dieses Fleisch und diese Milch, die sich doch so nahe gestanden, sind im Kochen von einander geschieden zu halten! Nicht einmal גדי בחלב אמו sollst du zusammen kochen! Für den Geist dieser Vorschrift dürfte sich die Wahl dieser Ausdrücke noch bedeutsamer herausstellen.

From the fact that you find in a number of places in the Torah. . . [Rashi explains this] so that you will not object: Since it is written גדי עזים , perhaps this constitutes a binyan av (prototype), and teaches that wherever it says גדי , it means גדי עזים (goat). Therefore Rashi explains that we find גדי עזים in other places, so it is a case of שלשה כתובים הבאים כאחד ואין מלמדין (three verses which teach the same thing, do not make a binyan av.) And even according to the opinion that two verses can make a binyan av, here since there are three verses [all would agree that] there is no binyan av.

According to the opinion that the legislation of mixing milk and meat results in a prohibition of any benefit from such a mixture, this would explain why this legislation adjoins that of the bringing of the first-fruits to the Temple seeing that such first-fruits are also totally prohibited to their owner (compare Chulin 114 and Maimonides Hilchot Bikkurim 2, who declares that one must not use בכורים which have become ritually defiled for heating the stove). I have written more about this in my book פרי תואר.

Wenn nämlich anderen Speiseverboten die zu vermeidende, stimulierende oder deprimierende Einwirkung auf Geist und Gemüt als Motiv zu Grunde liegen dürfte, wie dies die beigefügten Warnungen: ולא תטמאו את נפשתיכם ,אל תשקצו את נפשתיכם usw. ausdrücklich zu erkennen geben, so kann bei בשר בהלב an keinen solchen sittlich diätetischen Einfluss gedacht werden. Bei בשר בחלב ist nämlich selbst die bloße Herstellung einer solchen Mischung durchs Kochen verboten, ähnlich wie die כלאים- Mischungen zweier organisch geschiedener Pflanzen- oder Tiergattungen, zweier organisch geschiedener Tiergattungen in der Menschenarbeit, oder von Wolle und Flachs in der Menschenkleidung. ( — Bei letzterer ist allerdings nicht die Herstellung, sondern die Bekleidung verboten —). In allen diesen Fällen ist an einen direkten Einfluss auf den Menschenorganismus nicht zu denken. Ferner ist die Mischung von בשר בחלב der Halacha zufolge אסור בהנאה, sie darf nicht nur nicht gegessen werden — wobei an einen solchen Einfluss zu denken wäre — sie ist vielmehr auch für jede andere Benutzung, wo doch ein jeder solcher Einfluss wegfällt, wie die Mischung von כלאי הכרם untersagt, muss, wie diese durch Verbrennen, so durch Begraben außer dem Bereiche jeglicher Benutzung gebracht werden, und selbst wenn man sie verbrennen würde, bliebe die Benutzung der Asche untersagt, nach dem Grundsatze: כל הנקברין אפרן אסור והנשרפין אפרן מותר (Temura 33 a u. 34 b). Dass nicht nur das Essen, sondern auch die Herstellung einer solchen Mischung verboten ist, spricht schon der Wortlaut des Gesetzes לא תבשל וגו׳ aus, und dass eine solche Mischung nicht nur nicht gegessen, sondern auch nicht irgendwie benutzt, nicht verkauft, nicht verschenkt werden dürfe, dürfte wohl im Texte bei der Wiederholung des Gesetzes (Dewarim 14, 21) angedeutet sein, wo es unmittelbar zu der für נבלה gegebenen Benutzungserlaubnis im Gegensatz zu stehen scheint: נבלה darfst du verschenken oder verkaufen, בשר בחלב aber nicht einmal kochen! Die dreimalige Wiederholung des Gesetzes hier, Kap. 34, 26 und Dewarim 14, 21, wird daher (Chulin 115 b) in Beziehung zu dem dreifachen Verbote, איסור אכילה איסור הנאה ואיסור בישול, erklärt. Es muss aber בישול, die Herstellung dieser Mischung durch Kochen, den Kern des Gesetzes bilden, da alle drei Verbote unter dem Ausdruck לא תבשל auftreten.

Ist also bei diesem Verbote weder an einen direkten leiblich diätetischen, noch an einen solchen sittlich diätetischen Einfluss zu denken, so kann dasselbe nur symbolischer Natur sein, wie wir bereits ja in גיד הנשה und im אסור חמץ Speiseverbote von symbolischer Bedeutung kennen.

Als solches reiht es sich sofort jener großen Reihe von "Mischungen" verbietenden Gesetzen ein, die wie כלאי אילן und כלאי בהמה, das Zusammenpfropfen oder Zusammengatten von einander geschiedener (gegen einander "gesperrter" כלואים) Pflanzen- oder Tiergattungen als gewaltsame Störung des großen Gattungsgesetzes verbieten, das: ,,למינהו!" jedem Organismus bei seinem Werden zurief und damit alle Jahrtausende des Weltdaseins hindurch jedes Kleinste und Größte der Millionen organischer Wesen in Stoff und Kraft und Bildung ihrer Gattung erhält, oder — da בשר בחלב keine wirkliche Störung eines Schöpfungsgesetzes bewirkt — die, wie לא תחרוש בשור וחמור, כלאי זרעים ,כלאי בגדים und כלאי כרם, in allen Tätigkeiten des Menschen, mit welchen er die Wesen und Kräfte der ihm zu Füßen gelegten organischen Welt zu seinen Zwecken beherrscht und verwendet, im Ackerbau, in der Arbeit, in Kleidung — und hier nun auch im Genuss, ihm an den Wesen und Stoffen, die er benutzt und genießt, den großen Weltgesetzgeber vergegenwärtigen, dessen כלמינו-Geheiss alle Wesen bis in ihr eigenstes Innere beherrscht, jeglichem das Gesetz seines besonderen Daseins und seiner demgemäßen besonderen Entwicklung vorgeschrieben, dem sie alle unwandelbar treuen Gehorsam leisten, auf dass auch er als Mensch und Jude dem Gesetze treu und gehorsam bleibe, mit welchem derselbe Weltengesetzgeber ihm sein למינו! gedeutet und ihm damit seinen Willen kund getan, wie er die besondere Art seiner Aufgabe, als Mensch im Kreise der Schöpfung und als Jude im Kreise der Menschheit, zu begreifen und zu lösen habe, wie wir dies bereits zu Bereschit 1, 11 angedeutet.

Unter allen diesen Mahnungen an die treue Erfüllung des Gesetzes "als die einzige Lösung unserer מין-Aufgabe als Mensch und Jude, oder besser: als jüdischer Mensch", steht aber בשר בחלב oben an, weil es uns diese Mahnung an den Gesetzgeber aller Wesen und an unsere jüdisch- menschliche Bestimmung in dem Augenblicke bringt, in welchem wir im Begriffe sind, Tierwesen, und zwar solche Tierwesen in die innigste Aneignung mit unserm eigenen Wesen "essend" aufzunehmen, die der Schöpfer ganz eigentlich durch die Natur dem Menschen nahe gestellt und zur Nahrung überwiesen — בהמה טהורה —, wo uns also die Mahnung vor allem not tut, dieser gestatteten, mitunter sogar gebotenen Assimilierung von Tierstoffen mit unserem Wesen gegenüber, uns doch unseres höheren מין- Berufes bewusst zu bleiben, den Tierstoff zur Höhe der Menschenleibbestimmung zu heben, nicht aber den Menschenleib zur unfreien Stufe der Tierheit hinabsinken zu lassen, aus deren Bereiche wir gleichwohl unsern Leib reproduzieren.

So erscheint איסור בשר בחלב auch selbst auf diesem allgemeinen Standpunkte der Betrachtung als die eindringlichste und unmittelbar ad hominem redende Mahnung zur Heilighaltung des Gesetzes, als die Erinnerung, dass die Herrschaft des göttlichen Gesetzes nicht erst mit dem Juden beginne, dass die Herrschaft dieses Gesetzes in jeder Faser des organischen Lebens überall gegenwärtig, und die "Tora", unser Gesetz, nichts anderes als die Präzisierung seines למינו-Weltgesetzes für die "Art" des jüdisch menschlichen Lebens sei. Wir begreifen die Verwebung dieses Gattung-Scheidungsgesetzes in den ganzen Kreis unseres häuslichen Genusses, und wenn keines von allen Speisegesetzen also wie die Scheidung von Milch und Fleisch die jüdische Küche und den jüdischen Tisch beherrscht, so hat auch kein anderes also wie dieses die Bestimmung, Gottes Herold zu sein und Gottes Gesetz, jüdische Menschenpflicht und jüdische Menschenwürde uns in jedem Augenblicke gegenwärtig zu halten.

Wir begreifen auch, wie dieses Gesetz dreimal als Schlusssatz, gleichsam als Schluss und Siegel eines großen Gesetzkapitels, wie es vor allem bedeutsam als Schluss und als Siegel dieser Grundzüge der sozialen Gesetzgebung, als Schluss und Siegel der "Mischpatim" auftreten kann, fügen wir hinzu: auftreten muss. Bei weitem der allergrößte Teil dieser auf den Prinzipien des Rechts und der Milde gebauten sozialen Gesetzgebung ist nicht von Veranstaltungen einer Strafjustiz getragen und gesichert. Der inneren Gewissenhaftigkeit, der gottesfürchtigen Gesetzesachtung seiner Bürger wollte Gott vor allem die Beachtung seiner Rechtsdiktate anvertrauen. Nicht Legalität, Loyalität soll den Charakter des jüdischen Bürgers bilden. Nicht Offizianten der Justiz, die nur an den Bürger in der äußeren Öffentlichkeit herantreten, geistige Herolde der Gesetzlichkeit bestellte Gott zu den Wächtern und Schirmern seines Gesetzes, die den jüdischen Bürger in den abgeschlossensten Kreis seiner Häuslichkeit hinein begleiten, die schon das jüdische Kind unter dem Diktat "מותר ,אסור", "erlaubt!" "unerlaubt!" heranwachsen lassen, die überall Gott, den Weltengesetzgeber, auch als den Gesetzgeber des jüdisch-menschlichen Lebens vergegenwärtigen und das ganze Leben des Juden mit dem Geiste der Gesetzlichkeit durchdringen. Wir haben gesehen, wie sich das בשר בחלב-Gesetz als einen der ersten und erfolgreichsten dieser Gesetzesherolde ankündigt. Es ist die segensreichste Erziehungsinstitution für die Loyalität des jüdisch-sozialen Lebens, und steht nicht umsonst als Schlussstein der sozialen Gesetzgebung, Mischpatim, da.

Seine Bedeutsamkeit als Mahnung an die Gesetzlichkeit, d. h. an die freie Unterordnung des ganzen Menschenlebens unter das Gottesgesetz, somit an die Lösung des למינו-Gesetzes für den Menschen, an den Begriff und die Verwirklichung der Menschenbestimmung, dürfte jedoch noch an Inhaltsreichtum gewinnen, wenn wir uns die physiologische Bedeutung dieser in der jüdischen Menschennahrung von einander zu haltenden Stoffe im lebendigen Organismus vergegenwärtigen.

Ernährung und Fortpflanzung bilden den Typus der untersten Stufe des organischen Lebens, des Lebens der Pflanze, die mit ihrem ganzen Dasein diese beiden Funktionen passiv vollzieht. Tritt das Wesen aus der Passivität heraus und erhält zu den Funkionen der Ernährung und Fortpflanzung noch die Aktivität eines Sinnen- und Bewegungs- (Nerven- und Muskel-) Leibes, so wird es: ein Tier. In der Tat treten auch bei den höheren Tieren diese beiden im Tierorganismus verbundenen Systeme, das vegetative und das animalische, gleichsam in zwei gesonderten Gebieten hervor. Das Zwerchfell scheidet den Tierleib in ein vegetatives Reich der Ernährung und Fortpflanzung und in ein rein animalisches Reich der Bewegung und der Sinne. Es steht jedoch beim Tiere das Animalische, es stehen die Sinne und die Bewegung ganz im Dienste des Vegetativen. Die vegetativen Zwecke der Ernährung und der Fortpflanzung sind die einzigen Ziele, für welche der Tiersinn wahrnimmt und der Bewegungsmuskel des Tieres strebt. Das Tier ist nichts als lebendig gewordene Pflanze. Der Stoff nun, in welcher die vegetative Seite des Tierlebens sich am prägnantesten charakterisiert, ist: Milch — (sie ist ausgeschiedener Nahrungsstoff für den Fortpflanzungszweck) —, während Fleisch das spezifisch Animalische vergegenwärtigt. Das Animalische und animalisch Vegetative in innigster Durchdringung, wie es בשר מבושל בחלב darstellt, ist: Tierheit, es ist: Sinn und Bewegung in Unterordnung unter die Zwecke und Reize der Ernährung und des geschlechtlichen Lebens. Diese physiologische Bedeutung, in welcher die beiden Stoffe hier auftreten, erklärt noch eingehender deren Bezeichnung als: גדי und חלב אמו.

Anders der Mensch. Auch in seinem Wesen treten beide Systeme zusammen, auch ihm wurden die Ernährungs- und geschlechtlichen Zwecke der Pflanze, Sinne und Bewegung des Tieres, auch sein innerer Organismus zerfällt in ein vegetatives und ein animalisches Reich; ihm aber ward noch ein drittes zugeteilt, das ihn eben als Menschen charakterisiert: es ward ihm der Gotteshauch, der sich über die tierischen Sinne als "verstehender" und "vernehmender" Geist, und über die tierische Bewegung als sittlich "freie Willenskraft" erhebt, und beides, das Vegetative und das Animalische seines Wesens, "menschlich" zu beherrschen fähig und bestimmt ist. Im Menschen sollen Sinne und Bewegung nicht der Herrschaft der Ernährung und des geschlechtlichen Lebens verfallen.

Wie in seiner aufgerichteten Gestalt räumlich das Vegetative dem Animalischen untergeordnet erscheint, und über beiden sich das menschliche Haupt himmelwärts erhebt, also sollen auch seine animalischen Kräfte nicht "abwärts" den vegetativen Zwecken und Reizen verfallen. In ihm soll das Vegetative dem Animalischen und beide sollen dem Menschengeiste sich unterordnen, der sie und sich, mit göttlich freier Energie, im Dienste des freien einzigen Gottes, zu dessen Herrlichkeit sich sein Haupt erhebt und dessen Wollen zu verstehen und zu vernehmen er fähig ist, zu beherrschen und zu leiten berufen ist. In eine ganz andere Beziehung hat daher sowohl das Animalische: Fleisch, als das animalisch Vegetative: Milch, zu einander und zum Menschenorganismus bei ihrer Aufnahme in diesen zu treten, als sie im Tierorganismus inne hatten, dem sie bis dahin angehörten. Nicht sich gegenseitig zu durchdringen, sondern beide sich dem "Humanen" unterzuordnen und sich von dem geistig sittlichen Menschenwesen durchdringen und leiten zu lassen, ist fortan ihre Bestimmung. Zur Aufnahme in den Menschenorganismus geeignete Fleisch- und Milchstoffe, בשר בהמה טהורה und חלב בהמה טהורה, durch Kochen in einander verbunden, sprächen somit das Gegenteil der Menschenbestimmung, die schärfste Höhnung des למינו-Gesetzes für den Menschen aus, indem eine solche Mischung das sittlich freie Menschenwesen auf die unfreie Stufe der Tierheit herabsetzte; eine solche Mischung darf daher nicht nur nicht hergestellt werden, איסור בישול, sondern muss überhaupt außer der Existenz für Menschengenuss und Benutzung, איסור אכילה והנאה, gebracht werden.

Fassen wir den איסור בשר בהלב nunmehr im Zusammenhange mit dem ihm im Satze vorangehenden ראשית ביכורי אדמתך תביא וגו׳ auf, so spricht das Gesetz in diesem Zusammenhange sich dahin aus: Alles, was auf dem Acker und im Felde für den Genuss des Menschen reift, soll in Unterordnung unter und in Hingebung an das göttliche Gesetz seine Bestimmung und Weihe finden, nicht aber soll umgekehrt der genießende Mensch an diesen Genuss sich hingeben, in ihm seine Bestimmung und Aufgabe finden. Alles für den Genuss reifende Irdische soll zum Göttlich-Menschlichen gehoben werden, nicht aber das göttlich Menschliche zum tierisch Genießenden hinabsteigen. Eine Warnung, die endlich in innigster Beziehung zu dem חג האסיף, zu dem Erntefest, dem dritten der Wanderfeste, stehen dürfte. Nicht darum hat Gott den Kreislauf des Jahres geleitet und schüttet nun seinen Segen in den Schoß des harrenden Menschen, dass diesen nun der Genuss tierisch hinabziehe, sondern dass das, was unter der physischen Sonne gereift und gediehen, nun einzieht in den Kreis des Menschenlebens, aus dem Gebiete des unfreien physischen Seins hineingehoben werde in die Sphäre der sittlich freien Menschentat. Würde גדי, das durch den Segen der Natur erzeugte Animalische, auch in Händen des Menschen wieder מבושל בחלב אמו, wieder seine Bestimmung und Vollendung in der Dahingebung an das vegetative Ernährungs- und Geschlechtsleben finden, so würde der ganze Kreislauf des Jahres um seine Bestimmung gebracht, das ganze Erdenleben begönne und schlösse im unfreien physischen Zirkel, und es soll doch, wie die Altarhöhe und die Jakobsleiter, aus dem irdischen Grunde zur freien Höhe sittlicher Menschenvollendung emporblühen! —

הנה אנכי שלח מלאך BEHOLD, I SEND A MESSENGER [BEFORE THEE] — Here they were informed that they would once sin and that the Divine Majesty would have to tell them, (Exodus 33:3) “for ‘I’ will not go up among thee” (cf. Exodus Rabbah 32:3).

BEHOLD, I SEND AN ANGEL BEFORE THEE. “Here they were informed that they would sin [by worshipping the golden calf] and that the Divine Glory would be saying to them, For I will not go up in the midst of thee.³⁹¹Further, 33:3.

הנה אנכי שולח מלאך לפניך, "Here I am sending an angel ahead of you, etc." The author feels that the angel described here is not an intermediary, one of G'd's ministering angels, but the "great angel," the one who redeemed the patriarchs, a concept familiar to Kabbalists. He says that by definition we do not recognise a force as an intermediary, i.e. an independent power to whom we have to show respect and obeisance. [I believe that the reason for this statement is that reading verses 21 and 22 could lead one to believe that G'd inserted some angel between Himself and us. Ed.] Only at the end of time, will the world recognise that G'd and His name (those speaking in His name, such as angels) are One; compare Zachariah 14,9.

שולח מלאך, as we know from Joshua 5,14 where the angel introduced himself as having been sent to decisively assist Israel.

הנה אנכי שולח מלאך, “Behold I send an angel, etc.” According to Rashi the Torah hints at this point already that the Israelites will become guilty of a sin which will cause the present proximity of G’d the essence, to be replaced by an intermediary, an angel (compare Exodus 33,2). Rashi mentions this, although at the insistence of Moses, (Exodus 33,17) the presence of G’d eventually did accompany the people, until under Joshua, it was replaced by the angel mentioned here. (compare Joshua, 5,14)

For I will not go up among you. Although Moshe Rabbeinu nullified this decree, as it says, “My Presence will go [with you]” (Shemos 33:14), the decree nevertheless returned in Yehoshua’s time — as [the angel] said [to Yehoshua]: “I, the prince of Hashem’s legion, have now come” (Yehoshua 5:14). See Ramban.

הנה אנכי שולח מלאך לפניך, the angel of which the Torah speaks here is Michael, the great prince, the one of whom Gavriel said to Daniel: “at that time Michael the great prince who stands beside the sons of your people will appear.” (Daniel 12,1). It is also written in Daniel 10,21 ואין אחד מתחזק עמי על אלה כי אם מיכאל שרכם, ”No one is helping me against them except your prince Michael.” This is also the angel who said to Joshua “I am the prince of the hosts of the Lord, now I have come.” (Joshua 5,14)
Our sages explained in connection with this verse that the words כי שמי בקרבו, are equivalent to G’d saying that the name of the angel mentioned in our verse is “the prince (commander in Chief) of the Lord’s hosts.” We find another reference (oblique) to this when Solomon during his inaugural prayer of the Temple he had just completed, (Kings I 8,43) said: כי שמך נקרא על הבית הזה, “for Your name is attached to this house.”

V. 20 f. In mehrfacher Beziehung steht das Folgende zu dem Vorangehenden. Der letzte Abschnitt der Mischpatim von V. 20 des vorigen Kapitels bis zu Ende hat vor allem die Rechtsgleichheit aller und ihre gegenseitigen Pflichten im künftigen Gottesgesetzstaate auf Grund der Gotteshörigkeit des Bodens zum Inhalte, und es waren die Wochen- und Jahresschabbate, sowie die dreimaligen Wanderfeste zur Zeit der Frühlings¬, Sommer- und Herbstfortschritte des Jahres mit den sich ihnen anreihenden Bestimmungen als Pflegerinnen jenes Bewusstseins der Gotteshörigkeit, sowie des Geistes der Rechtsgleichheit und Brüderlichkeit, aufgeführt.

הנה אנכי שולח מלאך לפניך, “I am about to send an angel ahead of you, etc.” This is a departure from what had been the case up until now. G-d announces that as long as all the Israelites remain loyal to Him, He personally will lead them on their journey to the Holy Land; when they are guilty of trespassing, instead of leading them personally, He will assign that task to an angel. An alternate explanation of this verse: The “angel” referred to is Joshua, who after the Israelites’ 40 year stay in the desert and Moses’ death will, take over from him. In other words, G-d does not continue with a celestial creature after Moses’ death, but with a human one. [It is a hint that the period of the Israelites’ lives being guided by supernatural forces only, to wit the manna from heaven, will come to an end at that time. Ed.] Actually, G-d had not spoken of sending an angel until after the episode with the golden calf. (Exodus 33,2) Moses, i.e. the people were not content with this even then. (Exodus 33,12)

אשר הכנתי means, WHICH I HAVE PREPARED in order to give unto you. This is the literal meaning of the verse. The Midrash (taking the word as connected in meaning with the term כִּוֵן “to put a thing in a line with” or “to make it correspond with” another thing) explains אל המקום אשר הכנתי to signify “to the place opposite to which I have long since established the seat of my Glory” (“the place” therefore denotes the Temple; cf. Rashi on Exodus 15:17). This is, according to the Midrash, one of the verses which implicitly state that the Temple in Heaven is situated exactly opposite (מְכֻוָּן) that on the earth (Midrash Tanchuma, Mishpatim 18)

My Place has already been set up in line with it. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, it should say: “that I have prepared for you.” Whereas “I prepared” standing on its own means [that God prepared] for Himself.

כי לא ישא לפשעכם, this is a warning by G’d for the people to be especially careful not to commit any act which is offensive to G’d, as although G’d does send this angel ahead of the people, his task is not to forgive any trespasses, something reserved for G’d personally, exclusively. The prophet Isaiah 43,25 underlines this point when he quotes G’d as saying: אנכי, אנכי, הוא מוחה פשעיך, “It is I, only I, Who wipes out your transgressions.”

Hieran schließt sich das Folgende:

1) mit der Tatsache, dass Israel den Boden dieses Gottesgesetzstaates nicht der eigenen Tapferkeit verdanken, sondern, daß dieser ihm rein nur infolge gehorsamen sich Unterordnens unter den göttlichen Willen von Gott überantwortet werde;

2) dass dieser treue Gehorsam gegen das göttliche Gesetz auch das alleinige Mittel sein werde, das physische Gedeihen im Lande zu sichern, (wie dies ja eben durch die Hinaufwanderungen im Frühlinge, Sommer und Herbste und das Niederlegen der Erstlinge zu den Füßen dieses Gesetzes zum steten nationalen und individuellen Ausdrucke gelangen soll);

3) dass es daher durch die Berührung mit den bisherigen Bewohnern dieses Landes, das ihm nur nach und nach völlig eingeräumt werden werde, sich nicht zu dem entgegengesetzten heidnischen Wahn betören lassen solle, der das physische Gedeihen unabhängig von der Verwirklichung des Sittengesetzes begreift und in dieser Anschauung physische Naturgewalten selbst als Spenderinnen des physischen Gedeihens vergöttert;

4) dass vielmehr auf dem Boden dieses Gottesgesetzstaates keine Spur jener heidnischen Götterverirrungen geduldet werden, und, wenn die soziale Gesetzgebung auf dem Prinzipe der Rechtsgleichheit aller sich vor allem auch in der Gleichheit des "Fremden" vor dem Gesetze aussprechen soll, dies an die Bedingung sich knüpft, dass er aufgehört habe, heidnischer Götzendiener zu sein.

הנה אנכי שלח מלאך. Wir haben bereits zu המלאך הגואל (Bereschit. 48, 16) bemerkt, wie durch מלאך nicht immer ein individuelles, menschliches oder übermenschliches Wesen verstanden sein muss, sondern auch eine jede von Gott für einen Zweck gesendete Veranstaltung überhaupt darunter verstanden sein kann. Man würde es hier in der Bedeutung "Engel", oder in jener allgemeinen Bedeutung: "Fügung, Sendung", buchstäblich ja: "Schickung" verstehen können, wenn nicht V. 21 u. 22 von dem diesem מלאך zu leistenden Gehorsam und den durch ihn zu erteilenden Gottesbefehlen die Rede wäre. Wir finden nicht, dass Gott durch einen Engel dem Volke Befehle erteilen ließ, und müssten daher, selbst wenn man es in jener allgemeinen Bedeutung verstehen wollte, doch darunter speziell auch Mosche mit inbegreifen, der ja jedenfalls mit in bedeutendem Maße zu den Werkzeugen und Veranstaltungen gehörte, durch welche Gott Israels Geschick vollzogen werden ließ. Mit Beziehung auf die Stelle וישלה מלאך ויוציאנו ממצרים (Bamidbar 20), wo unter מלאך speziell Mosche verstanden wird (siehe ויקרא רבה, I., 1 wo auch auf Richter 2, 1 als auf eine Bezeichnung Pineas als מלאך hingewiesen wird), glauben wir, dass es nicht fern liegen dürfte, unter dem vor Israel hergesandten "Gottesboten" hier auch speziell Mosche zu verstehen. Jedenfalls ist hier gesagt, dass, so wie ihr Schutz auf der Wanderung durch die Wüste offenbar nur unmittelbares Werk göttlicher Allmacht ist, also auch die Einnahme des verheißenen Landes, אשר הכנתי, das Gott ganz speziell als Boden für das Volk seines Gesetzes vorbereitet hat, rein nur das Werk derselben Gottesmacht und nicht eine Errungenschaft menschlichen Schwertes sein soll. — מקום, hier für das ganze Land als Stätte (מ) des Volksbestandes (קום). Vergl. zu Bereschit 18, 26. — הכנתי, die dem Lande Palästina verliehene Bodeneigentümlichkeit und klimatische Beschaffenheit entspricht ganz der Bestimmung, dass sich darauf das vom Gottesgesetze und Gottesgeiste getragene Volksleben entwickele. (Vergl. Dewarim 11, 10.-—12 und im Zusammenhange damit: das. 13 ff. Jona 1, 3 [בא מכילתא Anfang] und Aussprüche wie: אוירא רא׳׳י מחכים. u.a.m..)

אל תמר בו EXASPERATE HIM NOT — This verb is a term denoting rebellion (המראה), similar to, (Joshua 1:18) “Whosoever he be that rebel (ימרה) against thy commandment”.

FOR MY NAME IS IN HIM. This is connected with the beginning of this verse: Take heed of him, for My Name is associated with him. Our Rabbis explained³⁹²Sanhedrin 38b. that the angel referred to is Mattatron³⁹³See Ramban above, 12:12 [beginning: I will execute judgments]. whose name in numerical value is equal to that of his Master, for the sum of the letter-numbers of the name Mattatron is equal to that of Sha-dai (Almighty).”³⁹⁴The number of each is three hundred and fourteen. All this is the language of Rashi. In Eileh Shemoth Rabbah³⁹⁵Shemoth Rabbah 32:7. I have likewise seen that one of the Sages interprets the verse in this way, referring to the worshipping of the calf.
But one must ask that [we find that] this decree of I send an angel before thee did not actually take place, for the Holy One, blessed be He, had said to Moses, And I will send an angel before thee… for I will not go up in the midst of thee,³⁹⁶Further, 33:2-3. but Moses pleaded for mercy on this and said, If Thy presence go not, carry us not up hence. For wherein now shall it be known that I have found grace in Thy sight, I and Thy people? is it not in that Thou goest with us?³⁹⁷Ibid., Verses 15-16. And the Holy One, blessed be He, consented to him and told him, I will do also this thing that thou hast spoken.³⁹⁸Ibid., Verse 17. Thus also did the Rabbis interpret it:³⁹²Sanhedrin 38b. “Even as a guide we refused to accept him, as it is written, If Thy presence go not, carry us not up hence.”³⁹⁷Ibid., Verses 15-16.
The answer according to this opinion of the Rabbis is that this decree was not fulfilled in the days of Moses, and it is with reference to this that Moses said, So that we are distinguished, I and Thy people,³⁹⁹Ibid., Verse 16. and G-d answered him, For thou hast found grace in My sight, and I know thee by name,³⁹⁸Ibid., Verse 17. and He further said, And all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the Eternal [that I am about to do];⁴⁰⁰Ibid., 34:10. however, after the death of Moses our Teacher He did send with them the angel. It is with reference to this that Scripture states: And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand, and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him: ‘Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? ‘And he said: ‘Nay, but I am captain of the host of the Eternal; I am now come.’⁴⁰¹Joshua 5:13-14. And there you will see that Joshua asked him, What saith my lord unto his servant?⁴⁰²Ibid., Verse 14. Now the angel did not command Joshua anything in connection with his appearance to him, but merely told him, Put off thy shoe from off thy foot,⁴⁰³Ibid., Verse 15. nor did he explain why he came. But the vision was for the purpose of informing Joshua that from now on there would be an angel sent before them to go out in the host in battle. It is with reference to this that he said, I am now come.⁴⁰¹Joshua 5:13-14. And so did the Sages say in the Tanchuma:⁴⁰⁴Tanchuma Mishpatim, 18. “The angel said to Joshua: ‘I am he who came in the days of Moses your master, and he pushed me away and did not want me to go with him.’” The Rabbis have also said expressly:⁴⁰⁵Shemoth Rabbah 32:4. “The promise that Israel would not be turned over to ‘a captain’ all the days of Moses now became void; thus as soon as Moses died ‘the captain’ returned to his position, for Joshua saw him, as it is said, And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho… And he said, ‘Nay, but I am captain of the host of the Eternal; I am now come.’⁴⁰¹Joshua 5:13-14. This is why it is said, Behold, I send an angel before thee.”
By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], this angel they were promised here is the redeeming angel⁴⁰⁶Genesis 48:16. See Ricanti (ibid., 31:13) where he quotes this text of Ramban, and explains that the reference is to the Shechinah (the Divine Glory). See in the text Note 419. in whom is the Great Name, for in Y-a-h the Eternal is an everlasting Rock.⁴⁰⁷Isaiah 26:4. This is [what He meant when] He said, I am the G-d of Beth-el,⁴⁰⁸Genesis 31:13. for it is the custom of the King to dwell in His Palace. He is called mal’ach (angel) because the whole conduct of this world is by that attribute. And our Rabbis have said³⁹²Sanhedrin 38b. that this is Mattatron, a name which signifies “the guide of the road” — I have already explained this in Seder Bo³⁹³See Ramban above, 12:12 [beginning: I will execute judgments]. — and this is the sense of the phrase here, [Behold, I send an angel before thee,] to keep thee in the way. — And to bring thee into the place which I have prepared, referring to the Sanctuary, as it is written, the Sanctuary, O Eternal, which Thy hands have established.⁴⁰⁹Above, 15:17. The meaning of the expression: which I have prepared, is “for Myself, to be My holy and beautiful house,”⁴¹⁰See Isaiah 64:10. for there the Throne is perfect. I will yet mention⁴¹¹Further, 24:1 (towards the end). the Rabbis’ meaning in saying that Mattatron’s name [in the sum of letter-numbers] is even as the Name of his Master. His voice is thus the voice of the living G-d, and it is mandatory upon us to hearken to His voice by the mouth of the prophets. Or the meaning may be that “they should not mutilate the shoots” of faith⁴¹²See Vol. I, p. 155. and thus come to abandon the Oral Torah, just as the Rabbis have interpreted:⁴¹³P’sichta Eichah Rabbathi, 2. “And they have spurned the word of the Holy One of Israel⁴¹⁴Isaiah 5:24. — this refers to the Oral Torah.” Thus the explanation of the expression, and hearken unto his voice,⁴¹⁵Verse 21. is “to My words.” Similarly He said, But if thou shalt indeed hearken unto his voice, and do all that I speak.⁴¹⁶Verse 22. Onkelos hinted at this, for he translated [‘ki sh’mi b’kirbo’ — for My Name is in him]: “for in My Name is his word,” as he speaks with it. He said, Then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies,⁴¹⁶Verse 22. for even with the attribute of mercy I will be an enemy to them; and an adversary unto thine adversaries — through him, [the angel], through the attribute of justice. Hence He explained, For Mine angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorite etc. and the Canaanite etc. and I will cut him off,⁴¹⁷Verse 23. when he will bring you to them, that we may know that it is He [through the attribute of justice] that will cut them off. He mentioned them in the singular [“and I will cut him off], for He will cut them all off as if they were one man. Now when this angel dwelled in the midst of Israel, the Holy One, blessed be He, would not have said, For I will not go up in the midst of thee⁴¹⁸Further, 33:3. — [for He said] for My Name is in him, so He was in the midst of Israel! But when they sinned by worshipping the golden calf He wanted to remove His Divine Glory⁴¹⁹See above Note 406. from their midst, and that one of His angels should go before them as His messenger, and Moses pleaded for mercy, and He again caused His Divine Glory to dwell amongst them as before. There I will explain the verses, with the help of G-d.
The Rabbis have also hinted to this in Midrash Rabbah⁴²⁰Shemoth Rabbah 32:8. in that section. Thus they said: “Behold, I send an angel. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: ‘The one who guarded the fathers will guard the children.’ And thus you find with Abraham, that when he blessed Isaac he said, He will send His angel before thee.⁴²¹Genesis 24:7. The words were actually addressed by Abraham to Eliezer — but the goal of Eliezer’s mission was for Isaac’s blessing. In the case of Jacob we find [that he blessed Joseph’s sons by saying], The angel who hath redeemed me etc.⁴²²Ibid., 48:16. He said to them: ‘He redeemed me from the hand of Esau; He redeemed me from the hand of Laban; He fed me and sustained me in the years of famine.’ Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moses: ‘Now too, the one who guarded the fathers will guard the children,’ as it is said, Behold, I send an angel before thee.” Again the Rabbis have said there clearly:⁴²³Shemoth Rabbah 32:4. “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel: ‘Be heedful of the messenger, for he does not go back on his mission; he is the attribute of justice, be not rebellious against him, etc.’”⁴¹⁵Verse 21.
In any case, according to all authorities the Midrash I have mentioned is true, that as long as Moses lived the angel who was captain of the host⁴⁰²Ibid., Verse 14. did not go with them, for Moses filled his place, similarly to that which is said, And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed.⁴²⁴Above, 17:11. And in the days of Joshua it was necessary that the angel captain of the host of the Eternal⁴⁰²Ibid., Verse 14. come to him to fight their battles, this being Gabriel who fights for them, and this was why Joshua saw him with his sword drawn in his hand,⁴²⁵Joshua 5:13. because he came to execute vengeance upon the nations, and chastisements upon the peoples.⁴²⁶Psalms 149:7.
For he will not pardon your transgression; for My Name is in him.⁴¹⁵Verse 21. He is saying: “Be not rebellious against him, for he will not pardon your transgression if you rebel against his word, for he who rebels against him, rebels against the Great Name which is in him, and he deserves to be cut off by the attribute of justice.” It is possible that the expression My Name is in Him, is connected to the above verses: hearken to his voice, for My Name is in him, and his voice is the voice of the Supreme One.

השמר מפניו, not to offend his dignity. The word is used in a sense similar to Joshua 5,9 (the angel speaking) “remove your shoe from your foot!”

השמר מפניו, "Take heed of him, etc." In this verse G'd defines our relationship with this angel as involving both a positive and a negative commandment. The negative commandment is contained in the words השמר מפניו, just as in all other places where the word השמר introduces a negative commandment. The positive commandment is contained in the words ושמע בקולו, "listen to his voice."

אל תמר בו, the word תמר is a derivative of the root המר as in המר ימירנו (Leviticus 27,33) When the same word appears without a dagesh in the letter מ, is derived from the root נמר as in Jeremiah 48,11 וריחו לא נמר, “and his fragrance is unspoiled.” The construction of אל תמר is parallel to the construction of אל תפל, “do not omit,” in Esther 6,10 an imperative in the transitive conjugation hiphil of the root נפל. It does not have anything to do with the “refusal” implied in the root מרה in the sequence מרה מריתי in Lamentations 1,3. If the construction תמר in our verse were related to that root the Torah should have written אל תמרה without the dagesh in the letter מ, just as it did in Joshua I,18 where it does have that meaning and the text reads אל ימרה את פיך, “let no one show disobedience to him,” without the dagesh in the letter מ of the word ימרה.

V. 21. חַמֵר Hiphil von מרר, also: Bitterkeiten erregen, d. h. lasse keine Unzufriedenheit mit seiner Führung, kein Murren gegen ihn aufkommen. — לא ישא לפשעכם: er kann eurem Ungehorsam keine Duldung zuwenden. Bedeutsam steht hier פשע im Singular, כם im Plural, die Gesamtheit in ihren einzelnen Gliedern begreifend, während in der ganzen übrigen Anrede, so auch in dem unmittelbar vorhergehenden אל תמר בו, die Gesamtheit als Einheit gedacht ist. Es soll die Gesamtheit auch nicht den Ungehorsam und die Auflehnung einzelner ihrer Glieder dulden. Diese Duldung macht die Schuld der einzelnen zur Gesamtschuld, und die ganze Gesamtheit büßt den Ungehorsam und die Auflehnung einzelner, wie sich dies ja im Verlaufe der Geschichte wiederholt gezeigt. — כי שמי בקרבו, er trägt meinen Namen in sich, hat mich zu vertreten, spricht und gebietet nur in meinem Namen. Es ist nicht sein Wille, seine Autorität, für die er Achtung und Geltung zu fordern hat, und deren Nichtbeachtung er allenfalls nachsehen könnte. Er ist selbst nur שליח, selbst nur מלאך, hat nur den Willen und die Autorität seines Senders und Auftraggebers zur Geltung und Beachtung zu bringen, denen er — weil es eben nicht seine Sache ist — nichts zu vergeben befugt ist.

כי לא ישא לפשעכם כי שמי בקרבו, “for he has no authority to forgive your deliberate sins, as My Name is within him.” G-d means that even though he (that angel) is a celestial creature, and therefore Divine, He cannot “forgive” any trespass against Him. Another place in the Bible where we encounter a similar thought is Psalms 25,11, למען שמך וסלחת לעוני כי רב הוא, “as befits Your name, o Lord, pardon my iniquity.” Other examples of “irregularities” in treatment, are Genesis 48,14, where Yaakov insisted in giving preferential treatment to Ephrayim although Menashe was the firstborn. Another example is found in Psalms 74,2021: הבט לברית כי מלאו מחשכי ארץ נאום חמס וגו', “Look to the covenant, for the dark places of the land are full of the haunts of lawlessness. Let not the downtrodden turn away disappointed, let the poor and needy praise Your name.” [Here the people ask to be promoted instead of being demoted. Ed.]

כי לא ישא לפשעכם FOR HE WILL NOT PARDON YOUR TRESPASS — He is not accustomed to it (to sin) for he is one of a class of beings who never sin. Besides he is only a messenger and only carries out the mission entrusted to him (i. e. he has no right to pardon you, for this is My prerogative: it is his only to insist upon obedience to My commands) (Midrash Tanchuma, Mishpatim 18).

ושמע בקולו, to follow in his footsteps, the reverse of what the Israelites had done (as reported) in Deuteronomy 1,28 when they were willing to listen and to follow the 10 spies who had declared that it was impossible to attain their objective, i.e. the conquest of the land of Canaan.

כי שמי בקרבו, whatever the angel commands you to do he does in My name. He does not have permission, however, to forgive anything wrong you do.

אל תמר בו, "do not rebel against him;" Here too the Torah contains a moral/ethical lesson in addition to the plain meaning of the words. The Torah hints that exchanging good for evil will result in the king being replaced by a slave and the maidservant inheriting the authority of the mistress (compare Proverbs 30,23). The message is that when Israel is sinful it will be subject to an attribute of G'd which takes "revenge" rather than elevates sins to a lesser level. The angel under discussion is not authorised to do this. When the Torah speaks of כי שמי בקרבו, this means that man has forfeited the presence of G'd in his midst because of his sins, and G'd's former presence within man is now centred in that angel. Sanhedrin 38 teaches that the numerical value of מטטרון, Mattaron (the angel G'd appointed in charge of running the universe), is the same as that of his Master, G'd's attribute שדי,=314. When man sins, G'd no longer considers Himself as "his" G'd, i.e. שדי. This is the mystical dimension of Isaiah 19,5: ונהר יחרב ויבש, "the river will fail and dry up." The intelligent reader will comprehend that the words כי אם שמוע תשמע בקולו, "if you will surely listen to his voice," sounds as if G'd is speaking about a third person, whereas the Torah continues: ועשית את אשר אדבר, "and you will do what I say." G'd was careful not to say אשר ידבר, "which he will say," in order to remind us that His name is in the midst of the Jewish people.

כי שמי בקרבו, seeing that My name is within him, he has the right to speak of himself by proclaiming: “'אני ה,” “I am the Lord,” meaning I am His general manager of the universe, known in kabbalistic parlance as Mattatron. That name can be understood as “chief of the angels,” or “G-d in miniature.” (Compare a book by Rabbi Reuben Margolies, in which all the names of the angels and their functions are listed, pages 73108.)

כי שמי בקרבו FOR MY NAME IS IN HIM — This passage must be connected with the beginning of the verse: Take heed of him etc. — for (כי) My Name is associated with his (i. e. whatever he does, he does in My Name). Our Rabbis said that he (the angel) is Mattatron (מטטרון) whose name is even as the name of his Master, for מטטרון has the numerical value of שדי “the Almighty” (Sanhedrin 38b).

אל תמר בו כי לא ישא לפשעכם, if even a single individual will sin, the punishment will include his fellow Jews. This is precisely what happened when Achan had stolen from the loot of Jericho and, because his sin had been covered up, Israel lost the first battle of Ai. (Joshua refers to this as a warning in Joshua 22,20. He reminds the people that Achan was not the only one punished for this sin but that G’d [presumably because He had invested His angel with such authority. Ed.] vented His anger at the entire nation.)

כי שמי בקרבו, and G’d does not have the power (right) to waive the honour which His angel is entitled to.

וצרתי — render this as the Targum does: I will distress.

כי אם שמוע תשמע בקולו...ואיבתי את אויביך, My relationship to you then will not be protective, defensive, i.e. that I need to protect you, but aggressive, by treating your enemies as My enemies. This is the reverse of G’d’s attitude to Nineveh in Jonah 4,11 where G’d asked Jonah: “how can I not relate protectively to a city of over 120.000 people?”

ואיבתי את אויביך, "For I will be an enemy unto your enemies, etc." Perhaps the Torah hints here that by means of busying oneself with Torah and the performance of its commandments G'd will uproot the source of the קליפה, i.e. Satan, as well as the various branches which are constantly active trying to seduce people and thereby to degrade and dishonour the banner of Torah. You are advised to read what I have written in connection with the confrontation between Cain and G'd in Genesis 4,9-15.

As Onkelos translates it: “I will oppress.” [Rashi says this so that] we will not explain it as in, “You will bundle ( וצרת ) the coins in your hand” (Devarim 14:25).

כי אם שמוע תשמע, “for if you will carefully obey his instructions, I will be the enemy of your enemies, etc.” A king expects that his subjects will treat his representative as if he himself were present.

ואיבתי את אויבך, “I will be an enemy to your enemies;” G-d does not refer here to the Canaanite tribes of whom He says He will annihilate them, as He will give their land to the Israelites, but He speaks of enemies upon whom the Israelites have no designs at all. Elsewhere, the Torah has instructed the Israelites not to leave a single soul alive in the Canaanite cities of the seven tribes mentioned. (Deuteronomy 20,16).

כי ילך מלאכי לפניך, who will not waive any of the sins of your enemies. [the angel, by definition, will not forgive, tolerate insubordination, but this would boomerang on the Jewish people to whom he will not show special favour either. Ed.]

והביאך…והכחדתיו, "and he will bring you there…and I will cut them off." The Torah means that the Jewish people will become the insrument by means of which these nations will be cut off. Please read what I have written on Numbers 14,9 in connection with the words: "their protective shadow has departed from them (while G'd is with us)." The reason is that sanctity will suck up the nutritients (of people who are wicked) so that those lacking sanctity will remain like defeated corpses. This is the mystical dimension of Shabbat 34 "he set his eye on him and the victim turned into a pile of bones." This happened as a result of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai "sucking" up the nutrients of the body of the person who had accused him of declaring cemeteries as ritually pure.

כי ילך, “for he will walk, etc.”

והביאך אל האמורי והחתי והפריזי והכנעני החוי והיבוסי, “and He will bring you to the Amorite, etc. etc.” The seventh tribe, the Girgashite, was not mentioned here as, according to our tradition recorded in Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 6,1 that tribe emigrated, nort waiting for a disastrous confrontation with Joshua and the Jewish people. There was therefore no need for the Israelites to campaign against them.

V. 23. והכחדתיו, jeden einzeln, מעט מעט "nach und nach", wie es V. 29 und 30 motiviert ist. Dieses nur allmähliche Schwinden der alten Bewohner hat eine längere Berührung mit ihnen und die Gefahr der Annahme und Nachahmung ihrer Anschauungen und Sitten zur Folge. Daher die Warnung im folgenden Verse. — כחד, verwandt mit יחד. Wir haben bereits in Betrachtung der Wurzeln דמה ,שוא, die eigentümliche Anschauung bemerkt, die den hebräischen Ausdrücken für Nichtigsein und Nichtigwerden zu Grunde liegt. Es wird in ihnen das Wirkliche als ein in seiner Eigentümlichkeit Gesondertes und jedes Nichtwirkliche als ein in die Eigentümlichkeit anderer Aufgehendes betrachtet. Daher die Verwandtschaft, ja die Identität der Ausdrücke für: Ähnlichsein, Gleichsein, und: Nichtsein. Wir haben hier dieselbe Erscheinung. יחד: sich vereinigen, eins werden, und כחד: Existenz verlieren.

כי ילך, for he will walk, etc.’”

'והאביאך אל האמורי ואל החתי וגו, “and He will bring you to the Emorite, the Hittite, etc.;” the Torah did not bother to include the smallest of these tribes i.e. the Girgashite.

הרס תהרסם [BUT] THOU SHALT UTTERLY OVERTHROW THEM — those gods.

THOU SHALT NOT BOW DOWN TO THEIR GODS, NOR SERVE THEM. The Torah has warned against idolatry in many places, and even though there are excessive verses on this subject, the redundancy is not a matter to be concerned about, for because the matter is so stringent — since he who acknowledges the divine nature of the idols, thereby denies the whole Torah⁴²⁷Sifre R’ei, 54. — therefore the Torah warns against it again and again, like one who says to his servant: “remember continually and do not forget the great principle which I have commanded you, since everything depends on it.” It is possible that in the Ten Commandments He warned against making an idol and worshipping it, and now He warned that if they find a ready-made idol which is worshipped by the nations in the land, that they should not worship it at all, but they should uproot it from the land.

לא תשתחוה לאלוהיהם, do not do what King Amatziah is reported to have done after he had conquered the land of Se-ir. It is reported in Chronicles II 25,14 that after having defeated the Edomites he installed their deities in Jerusalem bowed to them and offered sacrifices to them. He may have wanted to appease their feelings for having defeated the Edomites.

לא תשתחוה לאלוהיהם, "Do not bow down to their deities, etc." Why did the Torah have to record this prohibition once more when it has already been recorded several times? Seeing that the Torah just forbade even mentioning the name of these deities why was there any need to state once more that one must not bow down to them? Nachmanides writes that the more serious a sin the more frequently the Torah warns us not to commit it. This is not very satisfactory in light of the fact that Nachmanides has himself equated the sin of idol worship as equivalent to a violation of all the commandments of the Torah both with respect to the punishment due, and for the reward due for rejecting such idol worship. Seeing a person who bowed down to idols has already been guilty of violating 613 commandments, what point is there in adding one more commandment for such a person to violate?

כי הרס תהרסם, the author discusses the version taharssem or the version tehorssem, as we have it in our versions of the Torah, different, according to him from versions in France extant in his time, but different from the versions circulating in Germany and Spain. The difference in pronunciation derives from if the conjugation is strong (the author calls it with dagesh) or “weak (without such a dagesh) We have similar parallels in Deuteronomy 13,10 where the word tahargenu has a dagesh in the letter ג. Similar differences would also be shabber teshabber. The author argues that the correct vocalisation is the one based on the “strong” conjugation with the dagesh.

לא תשתחוה לאלוהיהם, “do not prostrate yourselves before their deities.” The warning not to become guilty of any form of idolatry is repeated in the Torah again and again, in spite of the Torah’s refraining from any unnecessary verbiage. This only proves how seriously any form of idolatry is considered by G’d, so much so that He repeats such warnings again and again to impress us with His great concern that we not become victims of such philosophies. The Torah, representing our Master, does what any human master does when he warns a servant repeatedly not to forget some basic task that he has to perform. The human master also does not like to have to repeat himself constantly, but he does so in light of the importance of the message he conveys. Perhaps, in the Ten Commandments G’d issued a general command, but now that the Israelites are liable to come face to face with the idolaters in the land of Canaan, they need especial reminders not only not to copy any of their practices but to completely uproot any residue of such idolatry.

Their idols. [Rashi is saying that תהרסם refers to their idols] but not to those who worship them — just as כמעשיהם , written just before it [which refers to the people’s deeds but not the people themselves].

V. 24. לאלהיהם, die Götter, von denen sie bisher ihr und ihres Landes physisches Gedeihen bedingt glaubten. לא תשתחוה וגו׳, von diesen vermeintlichen physischen Göttergewalten sollst du weder deine Zukunft abhängig, noch dich ihnen für Vergangenheit und Gegenwart verpflichtet glauben (השתחויה ועבודה) und sollst ihrem Wahn daher keinen Einfluss auf deine Handlungen gestatten. הרס, von einer Höhe herabreißen: ihre Embleme, die sie als die Gebieter über Geschick und Gedeihen des Landes verkünden, sollst du niederstürzen, und מצבתיהם, und die Gedenksteine, die Dankbarkeit für vermeintlich erwiesene Wohltaten ihnen errichtet hat, sollst du zertrümmern.

לא תשתחוה, “Do not prostrate yourself, etc.” in Exodus 20,5 the Torah had warned the Israelites not to prostrate themselves to their own deities, whereas now it warns them not to do so to the deities of these other nations.

מצבתיהם THEIR MONUMENTS — stones which they set up (root נצב) before which to prostrate themselves.

NOR DO AFTER THEIR DEEDS. This may possibly be an admonition against adopting the “ways of the Amorites” [i.e., superstitious practices] which the Sages have enumerated,⁴²⁸Shabbath 67a. See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 28-29. just as He warned against them in another place, saying, Neither shall ye walk in their statutes,⁴²⁹Leviticus 18:3. on which the Rabbis commented:⁴³⁰Sifra ibid. “These statutes refer to the ‘ways of the Amorites’ which the Sages have enumerated.” A more all acceptable interpretation is that He is warning here against worshipping an idol in the particular manner in which it is ordinarily worshipped, even if it is a disgraceful act [such as excreting to Baal Peor], just as the Rabbis have interpreted⁴³¹Sanhedrin 61b. the verse, Take heed… that thou enquire not after their gods, saying: ‘How used these nations to serve their gods? Even so will I do likewise.’⁴³²Deuteronomy 12:30. Thus the meaning of the verse here is as follows: He said, [in the Ten Commandments 20:5], Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, “serving” usually being an act of honor that a servant does to his master, and then He said, additionally that even if that act is not one of honor but is disgusting, such as in connection with Baal Peor which one worships by excreting before it, or throwing a stone at Merkulis,⁴³³I.e., Mercury, the Roman divinity, who was worshipped by throwing stones to his statue. nonetheless if that is the customary manner of worshipping them, you may not do such acts at all. Similarly the Rabbis have said:⁴³⁴Sanhedrin 64a. “Even if he intends to worship Peor in this ignominious way, and even if he intends to throw a stone to Merkulis in a contemptible manner [he is still liable].”

ולא תעשו כמעשיהם, “and do not act in accordance with any of their practices.” This is the basic law not to adopt symbols of any gentiles that identify the practitioners as idolaters, even if the practice does not appear to have a religious significance. Generally, these prohibitions are known as not to copy דרכי האמורי, “the customs of the Emorite.” Perhaps the Torah warns here not to copy these religious practices even if in our eyes the practice appears as the very opposite of an act of deference and worship, such as the custom of defecating in front of the “Baal Peor,” a revolting practice, in our eyes.

I believe there are three reasons why the Torah saw fit to write this verse. 1) The Torah warns us not to appear as comparable to the nations of the world in their deeds. Had the Torah not first mentioned that we must not bow down to and worship their deities, it would never have occurred to anyone that kneeling or prostrating oneself on the floor even for a perfectly secular activity would be forbidden. We would have been convinced that the Torah merely forbade a Jew to prostrate himself for idolatrous purposes. Now that the Torah writes: "Do not prostrate yourself and serve their deities" the Torah reveals what had been meant by the words: "do not act as they do." It refers to activities which were intended to be perfectly secular in character if such activities represented a religious rite for the pagans. We are not to wear the kind of garments idol worhipers wear (as a religious symbol) nor are we to sport the kind of haircut which they use in deference to some religious belief of theirs. The Torah here includes a variety of activities listed in Shabbat 67. The second reason why the words we have in verse 24 are necessary is because the Torah informs us that everything the pagans do contains an idolatrous element. G'd knows man's thoughts and the root of everything he does. If a Jew were to perform deeds which are exclusively the domain of the Gentiles he would unconsciously savour the taste of idol worship. The third reason why the Torah has to warn us here again is that G'd does not only want us not to practice any semblance of idol worship but He wants us to uproot its traces wherever and whenever we are able to do so. This is why He had to introduce the commandment to destroy all such deities by first forbidding us to prostrate ourselves in front of them. G'd implies that if a Jew does not prostrate himself in front of an idol but does not destroy it either, he is considered as if he had actually worshiped this idol. G'd is alert to our thinking, and He interprets the reasons for our not destroying such idols as a reluctance to uproot the philosophies symbolised by such deities from our hearts. You will find that the commandment to destroy such deities and their temples became operational only after the Israelites entered the Holy Land and began to conquer it. (compare Deuteronomy chapter 20).

AND YE SHALL SERVE THE ETERNAL YOUR G-D, AND HE WILL BLESS THY BREAD, AND THY WATER. The intention of this verse is as follows. Most idolators acknowledge and know that the revered G-d is G-d of gods, and Lord of lords,⁴³⁵Deuteronomy 10:17. and they do not intend to worship the idols themselves, but they think that because of these acts of worship they will have success in their endeavors. Thus when they worship the sun it is because they have found it to have a beneficial power over their crops, and they find the moon to have influence over fountains and all deep waters, and similarly [they attribute powers] to all the hosts of heaven. They are even more inclined to think that they will be greatly benefitted by worshipping the angels, since they are invested with dignity through ministering before the Great G-d. Therefore this verse states that only through the worship of the Holy One, blessed be He, can you have success and protection, and the uprooting of idolatry⁴³⁶As commanded in Verse 24. will not cause damage; on the contrary, it will add goodness and blessing to you, for the Holy One, blessed be He, will bless your “bread,” this being a term which includes all manner of food, and will bless your “water,” which is a generic term for all liquids that people drink. The blessing referred to means increase, so that you will have an exceeding abundance of them.

ועבדתם את ה' אלוקיכם, the manner in which you will demonstrate that you indeed serve Him is by destroying all the idols as mentioned in the previous verse. As a corollary of having destroyed idolatry and its representatives you will not need to worry about anyone in your midst trying to convert Jews to such alien religions and to thereby estrange them from serving Me.

ועבדתם את ה׳ אלוקיכם, "and you will serve the Lord your G'd, etc." Perhaps we should understand this verse as related directly to what the Torah wrote in 23,24. If Jews are careful to destroy all remnants of the idolatry practiced by the pagans in the Holy Land the result will be that they will serve the Lord with all their hearts and that G'd will bless them and protect them.

והסירותי מחלה, diseases caused by drinking polluted waters as I explained in connection with Marah (Exodus 15,25-26).

ועבדתם את ה' אלוקיכם, “You shall worship the Lord your G’d.” Nachmanides writes that seeing most of the idolaters are fully aware that the Creator in heaven is the supreme G’d, and they do not pay respects to such forces of nature as for instance the sun, except because they believe that some benefit will accrue to them on account of that, as they think that the sun influences the ripening of the respective crops in their fields, and that G’d has delegated some of His power to the sun for that purpose, the Torah is at pains to remind us that only exclusive dependence of the Creator directly is permissible. We are to realize that by wiping out traces of idolatry in the country this will not only not harm our interest, but, on the contrary will ensure that G’d’s blessing will be even more bountiful. This is why the Torah adds that our bread and our water will receive its blessing directly from Hashem, without recourse to any intermediary.

ועבדתם את ה' אלוהיכם, “and you will serve the Lord your G’d.” Seeing that the Gentiles believe that if they serve their various deities this in turn will assure them of success in their lives on earth, the Torah added the words: “but you will serve the Lord your G’d” as a contrast at this point. It is simply a reminder that it is not appropriate for the Israelites to serve any other deity which cannot grant them their desires anyway. The Torah adds: “for He blessed your bread and your water.”
והסירותי מחלה מקרבך, “and I will remove illness from amongst you.” There are certain sicknesses which result from the intake of certain foods, illnesses not visible on the surface of one’s body. There are other external illnesses which are due to changes in climate, etc. This is why the Torah assures the Jewish people that when they serve the Lord G’d will bless their food and water so that their bodies will be able to resist the sickness which may normally result from the consumption of food and drink containing invisible but harmful ingredients. This means that the righteous person will not have to have recourse to a physician. This is the meaning of Chronicles II 16,12: “but even though he (King Assa) was ill, he did not turn to the Lord but to physicians.” (This was sinful and the reason he was not cured.) The word מחלה, “sickness,” includes such deficiencies as sterility, propensity to not carry out an embryo for its full term, etc. Actually, the verse should have written the word והסיר, “and He will remove (in the third person) instead of והסירותי, “I will remove.” After all the previous reference to G‘d in that verse such as וברך, “and He will bless,” is in the third person. However, the correct interpretation of the whole verse is: “for the Lord will remove all manner of disease from our midst if we serve Him by addressing ourselves to His exclusive attribute, the tetragrammaton” (compare Nachmanides on the end of verse 25).

V. 25 u. 26. Nur ד׳, deinem Gotte, sollst du dich verpflichtet glauben und seinem Dienste, d. i. der Erfüllung seines Gesetzes dich weihen, und zwar, nicht ועבדת, nicht nur die Nation in ihrer Gesamtheitrepräsentanz, sondern ועבדתם, von allen einzelnen Gliedern der Nationalgesamtheit muss das Gesetz erfüllt werden, וברך את לחמך so wird das physische Gedeihen des Landes, das die Völker von der Verehrung der ,וגו׳ vermeintlichen physischen Gewalten erwarten, von Ihm gesegnet werden. והסרתי, das Überspringen in die erste Person spricht wohl den Gedanken aus: was die andern von dem Dienste der Natur erwarten, wirst du durch den Gesetzesdienst deines Gottes erhalten. Aber noch mehr. Ich werde diesen Segen in einer Weise und in einem solchen Grade gewähren, die weit den von andern erwarteten Segen übertreffen. Die natürlichen Erkrankungen und Schwächezustände, die man unter dem Regime der Natur als unzertrennlich von der Menschennatur betrachtet, werden unter dem Regime meines Gesetzes bei dir sich nicht zeigen. Krankheit, Kinderlosigkeit und frühzeitiger Tod werden in deinem Lande unbekannte Erscheinungen sein, nicht nur der Boden, die Menschen werden gesegnet sein.

וברך את לחמך ואת מימך, “He will bless your bread and your water.” A blessing of a general nature; the term לחם is a synonym for food of any kind, and the term מים for any drinkable liquids. Compare the use of these words in Hoseah 2,7: לחצי ומימי, “my food and drink.” In the same book in chapter 2,11, the prophet speaks of G-d retaliating by taking away from the sinful Israelites: ולקחתי בעתו את דגני ואת תירושי במועדי, “I will deprive them at the appropriate time of JMy grain (harvest) and My grape (harvest).” If only water had been meant, the prophet should have quoted G-d as saying: “My water.”

AND I WILL TAKE SICKNESS AWAY FROM THE MIDST OF THEE. That is to say, through them [the bread and water that I will bless], I will free you from disease, for when your food and drink are good and healthy, they do not cause sicknesses but, on the contrary, heal you. And He states⁴³⁷Verse 26. furthermore that there will not be amongst you a woman that miscarries, a miscarrying womb⁴³⁸Hosea 9:14. nor one barren of the womb and with dry breasts,⁴³⁸Hosea 9:14. for when food and drink and the air are blessed, human bodies become healthy and the organs of reproduction are able to function properly. The verse⁴³⁷Verse 26. singles out women because they are liable to miscarriage, and sterility too is more common amongst them than amongst men. It is possible that [male sterility] is included in the expression, and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee, for barrenness is a sickness in bodies. He addresses Himself without specifications to men, and afterwards He mentioned the women, as He said, there shall not be male or female barren among you.⁴³⁹Deuteronomy 7:14. The meaning of the expression in thy land, [None shall miscarry, nor be barren, in thy land],⁴³⁷Verse 26. is to include also the animals, just as He said there, or amongst your cattle.⁴³⁹Deuteronomy 7:14. The number of thy days I will fulfill⁴³⁷Verse 26. means that one will not die prematurely in battle, nor through an epidemic caused by a change in the atmosphere, but only at a ripe age, whatever happens to be the normal span of life during that particular generation, such as seventy or eighty years as in the generation of King David.⁴⁴⁰See Psalms 90:10. I have already mentioned⁴⁴¹Above at the beginning of Seder Va’eira, and on Genesis 17:1 (Vol. I, p. 215). that these are all miracles, G-d showing wonders in the heavens and in the earth⁴⁴²Joel 3:3. for the sake of those who do His will. And then He said that just as He will do on their behalf a sign for good,⁴⁴³Psalms 86:17. so will He do to their enemies for bad; He will give them a trembling heart,⁴⁴⁴Deuteronomy 28:65. — Ramban derives this from the phrase written here: I will send My terror before thee (Verse 27). and in the chambers terror.⁴⁴⁵Ibid., 32:25. — Ramban derives this from the expression here: And I will cause discomfort to all the people to whom thou shalt come. Moreover, He will send the tzir’ah amongst them,⁴⁴⁶Verse 28. this being a certain kind of hornet of the family of the bee. The Sages mention it continually:⁴⁴⁷Machshirin 6:4. “Bees’ honey, hornets’ honey.” The meaning of the verse is that He will send this plague through the atmosphere of their land, like the locust that He had sent in Egypt: the canker-worm, and the caterpillar, and the palmer-worm, His great army⁴⁴⁸Joel 2:25. which came in the days of Joel. The meaning of the expression, and she [the hornet] will drive out the Hivite etc.,⁴⁴⁶Verse 28. is that this will be the cause of their being driven out of the land, for since the hornets will cover the face of the earth⁴⁴⁹Above, 10:5. and darken it, they will not be able to go into battle. Moreover, it will eat up all their produce in the field, similar to that which is said in the imprecations, Thou shalt carry much seed out into the field, and shalt gather little in; for the locust shall consume it, etc.;⁴⁵⁰Deuteronomy 28:38. All thy trees and the fruit of thy land shall the locust possess.⁴⁵¹Ibid., Verse 42. Similarly He said here that He will do such things to our enemies.
Scripture mentioned here the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite,⁴⁴⁶Verse 28. [and not the other four nations as well], because it adopted here a shortened form, and the intention is to all those mentioned above.⁴⁵²Verse 23. See Ramban above, 3:8 as to why the Girgashite [the seventh one] is omitted. The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the majority of these three nations [mentioned here] did not go out to battle and thus avoided being killed by the sword, because they remained strongly enclosed in their fortified places. It is against them that He sent only this form of death [through the hornet], in a similar manner to that which is said of Egypt, And thy houses shall be filled, and the houses of all thy servants, and the houses of all the Egyptians.⁴⁵³Above, 10:6. It is this which He said in the Book of Deuteronomy: Moreover the Eternal thy G-d will send the hornet amongst them, until they that are left, and they that hide themselves, perish from before thee,⁴⁵⁴Deuteronomy 7:20. and it is this hornet that crossed the Jordon with Joshua.⁴⁵⁵Rashi’s statement that the hornets did not cross the Jordan but merely “placed themselves on the east bank of the Jordan and from there injected the poison against them” applies to the hornet of the days of Moses. The one in the days of Joshua did cross the Jordan. This distinction is made in Sotah 36a. So did the Rabbis conclude in Tractate Sotah,⁴⁵⁵Rashi’s statement that the hornets did not cross the Jordan but merely “placed themselves on the east bank of the Jordan and from there injected the poison against them” applies to the hornet of the days of Moses. The one in the days of Joshua did cross the Jordan. This distinction is made in Sotah 36a. saying that the hornet injected a poison into them which caused their death, and indeed there is nowadays also in the hornet a poisonous substance which harms or even kills the victim. And it is written in the Book of Joshua: And ye went over the Jordan, and came unto Jericho; and the men of Jericho fought against you, the Amorite, and the Perizzite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Girgashite, the Hivite and the Jebusite; and I delivered them into your hand,⁴⁵⁶Joshua 24:11. and it is further written there, And I sent the hornet before you, which drove them out from before you, even the two kings of the Amorites; not with thy sword, nor with thy bow.⁴⁵⁷Ibid., Verse 12. The phrase which drove them out⁴⁵⁷Ibid., Verse 12. refers to those that are left⁴⁵⁴Deuteronomy 7:20. amongst them, for after I delivered into your hand all the nations mentioned, I sent the hornet to drive out those that are left and they that hide themselves. He mentioned the two kings of the Amorites,⁴⁵⁷Ibid., Verse 12. meaning Sichon and Og whom He had referred to earlier. All this you have done not with thy sword, nor with thy bow.⁴⁵⁷Ibid., Verse 12.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that the tzir’ah refers to a disease in the body, the word being of the root tzara’ath (leprosy). But there is no need for this interpretation.
And ye shall serve the Eternal your G-d⁴⁵⁸Verse 25. means that service [by offering or prayer] is to be devoted to the Proper Name [i.e., the Tetragrammaton]. The verse stating and He will bless… and I will take, [thus changing from the third-person pronoun to the first-person pronoun], is similar to the verse and thou wilt keep all His statutes… for I am the Eternal that healeth thee.⁴⁵⁹Above, 15:26. In that case too the pronouns change. I have already explained it, and the person learned [in the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand the verse here from what I have written there.

וברך את לחמך, so that it will prove nutritious instead of the source of a variety of intestinal ailments.

והסירותי מחלה מקרבך, “I will remove disease from your midst.” This is a promise that the food and drink grown or taken from existing sources will not be contaminated and will be healthy.

The Torah writes ואת מימיך, "and your water;" seeing that water is the source of all weakness, carrier of bacteria and origin of most serious diseases, G'd promises that He will ensure that our water will be turned into a source of healthy growth. We all know the importance of מים חיים, i.e. springwater, and man's efforts to reside near the source of such water. For all these reasons G'd's blessing is of such importance here. You may do well to study what the Talmud (Berachot 59) has to say about the quality of the water in the river Euphratus.

והסירותי מחלה מקרבך, “I will remove sickness from your midst.” In other words, “you will be healthy;” for what good is food to a sick person who cannot enjoy it?”

והסירותי מחלה מקרבך, diseases caused by polluted air or climactic conditions.

והסרותי מחלה מקרבך. "And I will remove sickness from your midst." G'd characterised the blessing as composed of three components. 1) Man (the Israelites) will be healthy in order to enjoy G'd's bounty. The Torah speaks about: "I will remove sickness," i.e. G'd will do this as an act of providence. Unless there is physical health and wellbeing all food will become repulsive instead of enjoyable. 2) There will not be a woman who miscarries, i.e. nature will co-operate; 3) people will live out their allotted years. In all these matters G'd demonstrated His blessing; without these conditions G'd's usual gifts, i.e. health, food, etc., His blessings would not be recognisable as true blessings.

לא תהיה משכלה THERE SHALL NOTHING BE BEREAVED OF YOUNG, if you will act according to My will.

לא תהיה משכלה ועקרה, so that you will have an opportunity to teach the children that have been born to you.

לא תהיה משכלה, even when the baby has gown up it will not die in adolescence, but, את מספר ימיך אמלא, they will all reach ripe old age.

לא תהיה משכלה, ”there will not be a woman who prematurely loses her fetus.” Seeing that the water and other drinks will be healthy thanks to G’d’s blessing, the bodies of the people will be healthy, and the organs responsible for reproduction will be able to carry out their function without hindrance. The reason why the Torah singles out the female population for this promise is that premature abortions occur with women, while a dysfunction of impregnating a woman with healthy sperm occurs generally with men, hence if a woman is barren this may not be her dysfunction but her husband’s, although the visible effect is the fact that she does not bear children. It is also possible that premature death of a fetus is a disease, one that originated with the male sperm, so that the promise of לא תהיה משכלה may actually be addressed to the man who will not suffer disease, מחלה, whereas the promise that there will not be an עקרה is addressed to the mothers to be.

If you act according to My will. In other words, the whole verse refers back to “You must serve Adonoy, your God. . .” (v. 25). It is saying, so to speak: “Serve Adonoy, and then I will bless your bread and your water. . . and no woman will suffer miscarriage. . .” Otherwise, it would not make sense. For the Torah would not state that no woman will suffer miscarriage, without stating the condition of “if you do My will.” Thus, we must say that the whole verse refers back to “You must serve Adonoy. . .”

את מספר ימיך אמלא, “I will let you enjoy the full number of days of your lives.” You will die at a ripe old age, ready to do so as was described at the death of Avraham and Yitzchok [Genesis 25,8 and Genesis 35,29. Ed.] Concerning the lifetime of the wicked, Solomon quotes G-d as saying: ושנות רשעים תקצורנה, “but the years of the wicked will be shortened;” (Proverbs 10,27).

משכלה BEREAVED OF YOUNG — A woman who miscarries or who buries her children at a very early age is called משכלה.

את מספר ימיך אמלא, so that you will live as a result of the heavenly oil in the lamp of G’d. [the physical phenomenon perceived as sustaining life once it exists is a certain inherent source of moisture, described as celestial oil, as oil does not dry up on its own. Usually, life is cut short due to diseases caused by external causes which are not due to this vital oil having become depleted. When a person is granted a lifespan not cut short by disease caused by external causes, he will usually live long enough to pass on his aims in life to his children. This is the meaning of Deuteronomy 4,9 והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך, “you will make them known to your children and to your grandchildren.” A prominent example of such a blessing was the fact that Levi lived long enough to pass on his heritage to Kehot, his son, and Amram his grandson. They each became leaders of their generation.

בארצך, “in your land.” This includes the livestock.

את מספר ימיך אמלא, “I will fill the number of your days.” You will not die in war, through disease, through adverse climactic effects, but you will live out your years as envisaged at the time of your birth. These promises require supernatural intervention by G’d in your lives, i.e. miracles. G’d will perform these miracles on behalf of people who have made a point of living according to G’d’s revealed wishes. G’d adds that just as He will make plain that we are the beneficiaries of His goodwill, so will He make it plain that the sinners, i.e. His and our enemies, will become the victims of His wrath. They will be afflicted with a number of natural disasters, such as invasions of crop destroying insects, etc. These poisonous insects will even drive out the population of part of the land of Canaan in advance of your arrival there. The tribes mentioned are only representative of all the Canaanite tribes. Quite possibly, under ideal circumstances, there might not even be many Canaanite tribes left to make war against, after these plagues had afflicted them. According to Ibn Ezra the צרעה mentioned here is a disease afflicting the body, not an insect infesting the grain. The word would be related to the dreaded skin disease צרעת.

והמתי I WILL CONFOUND — This is equivalent to וְהָמַמְתִּי (i. e. the root is המם). Its rendering in the Targum is ואשנש “and I will confound”. Similar is every verb the root of which has its last letter doubled (verbs ע"ע): when it is changed (conjugated) to express the idea of “I have done something” (i. e. the first person singular perfect of the Kal; the same really applies to some inflected forms of other conjugations also) there are occasions when one omits the doubled letter (it is actually the first of the two similar letters) and dageshes the remaining letter of these two and vowels it with מלאפום (our חולם). Examples are: וְהַמֹּתִי which is of the same derivation as, (Isaiah 28:28) “and the wheel of his cart makes a confused noise (המם)”; (Ecclesiastes 2:20) וְסַבֹּתִי, “and I turned about” which is of the same derivation as, (I Samuel 7:16) “and he went round (וסבב) to Bethel”; (Psalms 116:6) דַלֹּתִי “I was low”, of the same derivation as, (Isaiah 19:6) “The waters shall become low (דללו) and dried up”; (Isaiah 49:16) “I have graven thee (חַקֹּתִיךְ) upon the palms of my hand”, of the same derivation as, (Judges 5:15) “things engraved (חקקי) in the heart”; (I Samuel 12:3) את מי רַצֹּתִי “whom have I crushed”, of the same derivation as, (Job 20:19) “because he hath crushed (רצץ) and hath forsaken the poor”. He, however, who translates it in the Targum by וְאֶקְטַל , is in error. For if it were derived from the root denoting death (מות), the ה in it would not be vowelled with Patach and its מ would not be dageshed nor vowelled with חולם, but it would read וְהַמַתִּי, as, (Numbers 14:15) “Now if Thou shalt kill (וְהַמַתָּ) this people”, the ת being dageshed because it would come in place of two ת’s, one being a root-letter — for no form of מות can be written without at least one ת (that in the root) — and the other being a servile letter (part of the suffix), just as תִּי in אמר-תי and חמא-תי and עשי-תי. Similarly with נתתי: the second ת is dageshed because it comes in the place of two ת’s — since it (the word) really requires three ת’s, two for the root, as in, (Joshua 10:12) “the day when the Lord giveth (תת)”, and in, (Ecclesiastes 3:13) “it is the gift (מתת) of God”, — and the third as a servile letter.

ונתתי את כל אויביך אליך עורף, they will turn their backs to you out of fear and the confusion in accordance with My promise

את אימתי אשלח לפניך, "I will send My terror before you, etc." Even though G'd had said in verse 23 that He would cut off the inhabitants of the land of Canaan, G'd tells the Israelites here that this would not happen immediately but that He would first terrorise the Canaanite population during the time required for the Israelites to increase in numbers sufficiently to take over the country without leaving large areas empty of human beings. G'd hinted here that the conquest of the land of Canaan would proceed gradually, something spelled out in greater detail in verse 29.

את אימתי, the fear of the Lord will take hold of those engaged in fighting you.

את אימתי, “the fear of Me, etc.” This is the attribute of Justice. The word is the same as in Exodus 15,16 תפול עליהם אימתה ופחד, “may fear and terror befall them.” The צרעה which verse 28 speaks of is a kind of flying insect similar but bigger than a bee. The term צרעה includes many species of a similar type all of which sting people. Just as there were many different kinds of locust during the plague of locust in Egypt, so there are many different kinds of צרעה. The Talmud Sotah 36 claims that this insect injected its poison into the Canaanites who became its victim, blinding them and killing them almost instantly. This insect entered the Holy Land together with Joshua, crossed the Jordan as is reported in Joshua 24,12: “I sent a plague ahead of you.”
The reason that in verse 28 only three of the Canaanite tribes are mentioned as being driven out by this צרעה is that these three tribes were the strongest ones amongst the seven tribes residing in tall fortresses and fortified towns. The Torah wanted to inform us that such mighty warriors in such protected habitats became the victims of such tiny creatures as the hornets. It is an object lesson for us demonstrating that G’d will bring down the strong by using the weakest of His creatures as His agent.

V. 27 f. Bedeutsam ist durch die Parascha-Abteilung der 26. Vers, der dem Sinne nach sich eng dem Vorigen anschließt, der folgenden Parascha, die mit V. 27. beginnt, zugeteilt. So wie die segensreich kräftigende Einwirkung auf eure leibliche Persönlichkeit sich als unmittelbare Gottestat ankündigen wird, so wird dieselbe Gottesmacht die vernichtende Schwächung der Bevölkerung bewirken, die vor euch aus dem Lande weichen soll. Beides, euer Aufblühen und ihr Vergehen, werdet ihr nur eurer sittlichen Unterordnung unter den Gotteswillen verdanken. Es scheint, dass, wenn Israel von Anfang an auf der Höhe seines Berufes gestanden und nicht durch wiederholten Ungehorsam sich noch erst einer erziehenden, und daher prüfungsvollen Führung bedürftig gezeigt hätte, es keinen Schwertstreich zur Eroberung seines Landes hätte zu führen gehabt. Vor dem Gottesverhängnis wären die durch ihre Entartung dem Untergange verfallenen Bewohner des Israel bestimmten Landes geschwunden, und Israel, das Volk des Gottesgesetzes, wäre in das Land hineingewachsen.

את אימתי, “the fear of Me;” this is G-d’s reply to Moses’ request in Exodus 15,16: תפול עליהם אימתה ופחד, “may fear and terror befall them!”כל העם אשר תבא בהם, “any nation that you will come upon;” even those nations that are not part of the seven Canaanite tribes. The end of this paragraph proves that this is the correct meaning, when the Torah writes (verse 33) “they must not live on your land lest they lead you into sin so that you would worship their deities.”

ערף NAPE OF THE NECK — i. e. they will flee before you and so turn the napes of their necks to you.

את אימתי אשלח לפניך והמותי, the same had happened when the Egyptians were at the bottom of the sea bed when the waves began crashing down on them, and they said” I will flee from the Israelites for G’d is fighting for them.” (Exodus 14,25)

והמותי, I will cause these people to become utterly confused by the overpowering noises they will hear which I cause. Such effects of sounds orchestrated by celestial forces are reported in Samuel I 7,10 as well as in Samuel II 22,15. The word is not related to מות, death; if it would mean “I will kill,” it would have to be vocalised differently, i.e veheymatti.”

הצרעה THE HORNETS — This is a kind of insect which wounded their eyes and injected poison in them, so that they died. The hornets did not cross the Jordan and the Hittite and the Canaanite whom Scripture mentions here as being driven out by them were the inhabitants of the land of Sichon and Og (on the east side of the Jordan). It is for this reason that Scripture enumerates here of all the seven nations that Israel fought against when entering Palestine only these two (cf. Joshua 24:12, where the text expressly states that the peoples driven out by the hornets were those of שני מלכי האמרי, “of the two kings of the Amorites” who are identical with Sihon and Og). But the Hivites lived on the other bank of the Jordan and somewhat beyond it and yet it states here that the hornets would drive them out! They were indeed driven out by the hornets, for our Rabbis have explained in Treatise Sotah 36a that the hornets placed themselves on the east bank of the Jordan and from there cast the poison against them.

The hornets did not cross. . . [Rashi says this] so you will not ask regarding what he explained, “It. . . would strike them. . . and they would die,” and say that this cannot be — for Yehoshua fought against them seven years! Thus Rashi explains that “the hornets did not cross. . .”

ושלחתי את הצרעה, “I will dispatch the hornets, etc.; according to Rashi, this is a category of stinging wasp which never crossed the river Jordan. Concerning what is written in the Talmud Sotah folio 36, that we read here that G-d will drive out the hornets from the land of the Chivi and the Canaanite, who lives on the West bank of the Jordan, so that they must first have been there or how else could be driven out from there?, The Talmud suggests two different solutions to this apparent contradiction; one that there were two different types of hornets, one in Moses’ time, another in Joshua’s time; (Joshua 24,12). one scholar in the Talmud claims that when the Israelites were on the east bank of the river Jordan ready to cross, the Lord caused the hornets on the other side to become frightened and to leave. Alternately, the entire verse is a simile telling the Jewish people that they will not have to expel the local inhabitants by fighting them with the sword, but that G-d will see to it that they need not worry about sustaining casualties when trying to conquer these lands.

שממה DESOLATE — empty of human beings, for you are but few and not sufficient to fill it all up.

Is to be understood as ותרבה עליך . You might ask: Why does Rashi not explain here as he does later in Parshas Eikev (Devarim 7:22) on the verse, “Lest the wild animals multiply against you”? [For there he said,] “But behold, if they do the will of God then they need not fear the beasts. . . Rather, [the verse implies that] God knew they are destined to sin.” It seems that [Rashi did not say so here because] it is written here, “Lest the land become desolate and the beasts of the field multiply.” This implies that the verse is explaining that the many beasts are a result of the desolation of the land, [rather than being an allusion that they are destined to sin]. Another answer: Here it is written (v. 20), “Behold, I will send an angel. . .” on which Rashi explained, “Here they are foretold that they are destined to sin.” So Rashi does not need to explain this point again here.

ורבה עליך means, [LEST THE ANIMALS OF THE FIELD] MULTIPLY AGAINST THEE.

עד אשר תפרה UNTIL THOU BE FRUITFUL — i. e. until you become many. תפרה is of the same root and meaning as no fruit, as, (Genesis 1:28) פרו ורבו “be fruitful and multiply”.

מעט מעט אגרשנו מפניך, “little by little will I drive them out before you.” The meaning of the verse is that the hornet will drive these people out due to the power of the attribute of Justice so that they will constantly decrease in numbers (in contrast with you who will steadily increase in numbers). This process will continue until you can take possession of the whole country.

ושתי is of the root שית or שות. The ת is dageshed, because it comes in place of two ת’s (ושת-תי) — one is necessary because no grammatical form of שות can be without the ת of the root, and the other is a servile letter (part of the suffix).

כי אתן בידכם את יושבי הארץ וגרשתמו, the matter is delivered into your hands, i.e. you have to carry it out. You must not display undue tardiness, laziness. We read in Joshua 18,3 that Joshua was complaining to his people about their being deliberately slow in carrying out the task of disposing of all the Canaanites. (“how long are you going to be dragging your feet to take possession of the land which the G’d of your fathers has given to you?” Joshua speaking to the people at a time when 7 tribes had not yet received portions of the land.).

ושתי, as if the Torah had written ושתתי (from the root שים, “to set, place.”) Similar constructions are found from the root כרת as וכרתי ברית, “I established a covenant” (Psalms 89,4) where the word כרתי is used instead of כרתתי.

מים סוף ועד ים פלשתים, “from the Sea of Reeds as far as the Sea of the Philistines.” The Sea of Reeds is in the South and the Sea of the Philistines is in the West (Mediterranean). We know this also from Joshua 1,4: “as far as the great Sea where the sun sets will be your borders.” The sea described as the “great Sea” is not the ocean (Atlantic or Indian ocean) as the ocean surrounds all land masses. The words וממדבר refer to the eastern side whereas the words עד הנהר refer to the river Euphrates in the north.

And you will drive them away. ותגרשם . In other words, [Rashi is explaining that] this is in future tense, and that [the suffix] is plural.

ושתי את גבולך מים סוף ועד ים פלשתים, “I will set your boundaries from the Sea of Reeds until the Sea of thePhilistines.” The “Sea of Reeds” is the eastern boundary and the “Sea of the Philistines, is the western boundary. This has also been expressed differently in Isaiah 9,11: as ארם מקדם ופלשתים מאחור “Aram in the front and the Philistines in the rear.”

עד הנהר UNTO THE RIVER — the Euphrates.

מים סוף, which is located at the beginning of the eastern boundaries of the land of Israel as we can prove from Deuteronomy 1,1.

וממדבר, “and from the desert;” this refers to the desert in the south which the Israelites were crossing for 40 years.

וגרשתמו means AND THOU SHALT DRIVE THEM OUT.

ועד ים פלשתים, which is situated on the western side as we know from Isaiah 9,11 ופלשתים מאחור “and the Philistines from behind.”

ועד הנהר, and as far north as the river Euphrates. Some commentators say that what is written from verse 10 in our verse i.e. שש שנים תזרע until verse 31 כי יהיה לך למוקש, “for it will become a snare for you,” has been added after Moses had returned from the Mountain the third time when G-d had forgiven the Jewish people for the sin of the golden calf, whereas what has been written in Parshat Ki Tissa: “here My angel will walk ahead of you,” all the way until verse 26,in chapter 34: “do not boil a kid in its mother’s milk had been written at the end of Moses’ stay on Mount Sinai during the first 40 days, whereas what has been written here is because Moses wished to conclude the subject with the legislation of the sh’mittah year and the pilgrimage festivals, followed by the injunction not to boil a kid in its mother’s milk, followed by the passage about the angel and the arrival in the Holy land. This is parallel to what he had done at the end of the first 40 days. From here on the paragraphs follow a haphazard pattern.

וממדבר, seeing that the Israelites were marching from the south.

עד הנהר, the river Euphrates in the north. Compare Jeremiah 1,14 מצפון תפתח הרעה, “disaster will break loose from the north.” Babylon is to the north of the land of Israel.

THOU SHALT MAKE NO COVENANT WITH THEM, NOR WITH THEIR GODS. He warned here against making a covenant with them [the seven nations] to save them and keep them alive; nor with their gods, this being a warning against making a covenant with the nations to leave them their idols, but instead we are to destroy them and break their pillars in pieces.⁴⁶⁰Verse 24. It is possible that the verse is stating that we are not to make a covenant with them and their gods together, but we are to destroy them and break their idols in pieces, and the intention is to state that as long as they worship their gods we are not to make any covenant with them, but if they accepted upon themselves not to worship the idols, we may leave them unharmed.

לא תכרות להם..ברית, "Do not enter into a covenant with them and their deities." Why does the Torah have to prohibit such covenants since G'd had already commanded the Jewish people (verse 24) to destroy these people? Besides, what would be the purpose of concluding a covenant with the deities rather than the people?

לא תכרות להם ולאלוהיהם ברית, “You must not enter into any covenant with them or their deities.” The plain meaning is that the inhabitants will not be promised that their lives will be spared if they surrender, and there will be no understanding that the Israelites will accept any part of their religious practices. Nachmanides writes that one could also interpret the Torah as meaning that no agreement of any kind with the local inhabitants must include retaining any of their religious practices. In other words, as long as the local inhabitants have not completely abandoned their idolatrous practices. In the event that the inhabitants convert to Judaism they may be allowed to survive.

Actually, we must understand the verse as teaching us that the entire prohibition of concluding treaties with the Gentile nations is applicable only as long as the Gentile nations still adhere to their deities. Once they have denied their former deities this prohibition becomes void. This is why the Torah linked the prohibition by the words להם ולאלוהיהם, "with them and their deities."

The wording of the prohibition also indicates that G'd views anyone who enters into a covenant with an idol worshiper as if he had made a covenant with idolatry. There are two reasons for this. 1) In the end the Jew will stumble and become guilty of idol worship as a result of obligations he took upon himself; the Torah spells this out in verse 33: "lest they will cause you to sin." 2) The second consideration is that the clothing worn by pagans reflects and symbolises their deities. When making a covenant with such people it appears as if one makes the covenant with their beliefs, G'd forbid. It is not sufficient that one had intended to conclude the deal only with the person and not with his beliefs. If the Torah had been content with that, the wording would have been: לא תכרות להם ברית ולאלוהיהם instead of the word ולאלוהיהם appearing before the word ברית, covenant. The mention of the word "covenant" at the end of the verse confirms our opinion that the prohibition is valid only when the Gentiles still recognise these deities. It is perfectly permissible to conclude a covenant with an atheist, for instance. This is why the covenant with the Gibeonites was perfectly admissible. If the Israelites subsequently felt cheated and had remorse about that covenant this is explained by the Jerusalem Talmud Shevi-it chapter 6. The Gibeonites originally were in a position of rebels against the Israelites and were guilty of death under the directive: "do not allow anyone to survive" (Deut. 20,16).

כי תעבד וגו׳ FOR IF THOU SERVE etc. — Both particles כי in this verse have the meaning of אשר “that”. It has this meaning in several passages. This is really the sense of the Aramaic word אי (Hebrew אם) which itself is one of the four meanings in which כי is used (cf. Gittin 90a. where the four usages of כי are given). In fact we find אם (‎אי) used in many passages in the sense of אשר, e. g., (Leviticus 2:14) ואם תקריב where it certainly should not be translated “if” — but ”when thou offer an offering of thy first-fruits”, for this offering is not optional but is obligatory (cf. Rashi on that verse).

KI’ (FOR) THOU WILT SERVE THEIR GODS, ‘KI’ (FOR) THEY WILL BE A SNARE UNTO THEE. “Both words ki here have the meaning of asher (that),⁴⁶¹Rashi’s interpretation of the verse is thus as follows: “The idolators shall not dwell in your land lest they make you sin against Me ‘that’ you serve their gods ‘that’ it be a snare against you.” Ramban will explain the word ki as meaning “for,” as explained further on. — The J.P.S. translation using the words “for” follows thus Ramban’s interpretation. and we find this in many places. This is the meaning of the [Aramaic word] ie which is one of the four usages of the word ki as we find in many places,⁴⁶²See Rosh Hashanah 3 a, Rashi, and Gittin 90a. and this [Aramaic word ie is the Hebrew] im which in many verses has the meaning of asher (that), etc.” Thus far is Rashi’s language. But it is not so.⁴⁶³For according to Rashi the first ki would mean “when that,” and the second ki would mean only “that” — thus: “lest they make you sin against Me when that you serve their gods that will be a snare against you” (Mizrachi). The two identical Hebrew words thus have different meanings in the same verse. Instead, the meaning of the verse is: “They shall not dwell in thy land for they will be a snare unto thee lest they make thee sin against Me, for you will serve their gods.” Similarly He said, Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest they be a snare in the midst of thee.⁴⁶⁴Further, 34:12. The meaning of this verse is that their dwelling in your land will be a snare unto you and a source of stumbling, lest they make you sin against Me through their evil ways and their corrupt doings, for you will serve their gods when they will persuade and beguile you to do so.

לא ישבו בארצך. In the area which you have conquered and take up residence in. Unfortunately, the Israelites ignored this warning of the Torah as we know from Judges 1,29 וישב הכנעני בקרבו בגזר, as well as Judges 1,33 וישב בקרב הכנעני יושבי הארץ, [the Israelites lived in mixed communities, in some they were the majority, in others even only the minority. Ed.]

פן יחטיאו אתך לי, "lest they make you sin against Me." The Torah reveals here that imperfection by the Jewish people impacts on the Creator. The logic is as follows: Seeing that the Israelites represent a certain amount of sanctity, they diminish that level of sanctity if they worship idols. Diminishing the amount of sanctity weakens the Israelites' ties with their holy roots, i.e. it impacts on the root of sanctity, i.e. G'd Himself.

This (the usage here) is actually אי . . . Rashi is answering the question: The word כי can convey only one of four meanings: אי (if), דלמא (perhaps), אלא (but), and דהא (because). But it does not convey אשר (that). [So why here does it convey אשר ?] Rashi answers that this כי conveys the meaning of אי , which is the same as אם . And we often find that אם conveys אשר , for example אם תקריב , “That you will offer. . .” (Vayikra 2:14).

V. 33. כי יהיה לך למוקש, es, ihr Verbleiben im Lande ohne Lossagung vom Götzentume, wird dir zum Fallstricke werden. Traue dir nicht bereits die lautere Höhe zu, dass du die Nähe des Unlautern und Unwahren nicht zu scheuen habest, dass im Zusammensein mit wahnumfangenen Völkern du sie zu deiner Wahrheit emporgewinnen könnest, und nicht sie vielmehr dich in ihren Wahn mit hineinreißen werden. Nur in der Isolierung kannst du für deine einstige geistige Besiegung der Völker erstarken. Bis dahin יהיה לך למוקש, wird dir das Zusammensein zur Falle werden.

כי יהיה לך למוקש, their very presence as inhabitants in that land will become a snare for you, i.e. you will begin to worship their deities.

כי יהיה לך למוקש, "for it will become a snare for you." The Torah explains why there is a suspicion that the Israelites could ever agree to trade their honour for such useless forms of religion as these Canaanite deities. G'd explains that it is in the nature of idols to mislead those who worship them into being trapped by them. Our sages in Avodah Zarah 55 explain that there are religions (oracles) which reveal the future to their adherents and which inform them about hidden treasures. G'd was afraid that Jews too would fall victim to such enticements as obtaining knowledge of the future by means of worshiping such oracles.

That is that He commanded us to ascend to the Temple three times a year. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "Three times a year shall you have a holiday for me" (Exodus 23:14). And it is already explained in Scripture that this holiday is that all who ascend do so with a sacrifice to offer. And behold that this command has been repeated twice. And their language (Chagigah 6b) is, "Three commandments are practiced on the festival - the festival-offering, the sight-offering and the joy-offering." And the content of this festival-offering is that it be offered as a peace offering. But women are not obligated to do it. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Chagigah. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Festival Offering.)

And that is that He commanded us to redeem the firstborn man, that we should give the money to the priest. And that is His saying, "you shall give me your firstborn sons" (Exodus 22:28). And He explained to us how this giving should be: And it is that we redeem him from the priest; and it is as if [the priest] already acquired him, and we purchase him from him for five sela - and that is His saying, "but surely redeem the firstborn man" (Numbers 18:15). And this commandment is the commandment of redeeming the son. And women are not obligated in it - indeed it is one of the commandments of the son that is upon the father, as it is explained in Kiddushin (Kiddushin 29a). And all of the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Bekhorot. However Levites are not obligated in it. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Firstlings.)