Commento su Deuteronomio 22:21
וְהוֹצִ֨יאוּ אֶת־הנער [הַֽנַּעֲרָ֜ה] אֶל־פֶּ֣תַח בֵּית־אָבִ֗יהָ וּסְקָלוּהָ֩ אַנְשֵׁ֨י עִירָ֤הּ בָּאֲבָנִים֙ וָמֵ֔תָה כִּֽי־עָשְׂתָ֤ה נְבָלָה֙ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לִזְנ֖וֹת בֵּ֣ית אָבִ֑יהָ וּבִֽעַרְתָּ֥ הָרָ֖ע מִקִּרְבֶּֽךָ׃ (ס)
poi faranno uscire la fanciulla alla porta di suo padre's casa, e gli uomini della sua città la lapideranno con pietre che lei muore; perché ha compiuto un atto sfrenato in Israele, per recitare la meretrice in suo padre'casa di s; così allontanerai il male da te stesso.
Rashi on Deuteronomy
אל פתח בית אביה [THEN THEY SHALL BRING THE DAMSEL] TO THE ENTRANCE OF HER FATHER’S HOUSE — suggesting: “See what a child (lit., a plant) you have reared!” (Ketubot 45a).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rashbam on Deuteronomy
לזנות בית אביה, there were witnesses that she had sexual intercourse after being betrothed.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Siftei Chakhamim
In the presence of all the people of her city. It seems to me Rashi is citing a proof to his explanation that “her father’s house” actually means “in her father’s house,” i.e., the letter ב [and the word “in”] is missing. [He proves this] by explaining that “the people of her city” actually means “in the presence of all the people of her city.” The reason he says this is because the verse states, “The people of her city will stone her with stones,” which implies that they are the ones who begin [stoning], yet this cannot be because it is written (above 17:7), “Let the hand of the witnesses be against him first, etc.” Perforce the verse really means (באנשי עירה) “among the people of her city,” i.e. “in the presence of all the people of her city.” This proves that it is common for a verse to omit the letter ב [the word “in”]. Rashi is also answering another question: The verse implies that the reason she is liable for stoning is “because she committed a disgraceful act ... [in] her father’s house.” However, according to this, why does the Torah make someone liable for stoning if he had relations with a married girl [elsewhere] in the city? She did not behave promiscuously in her father’s house! To answer this question Rashi explains: “And a man encounters her in the city,” this is why he had relations with her. The breach summons the thief.” In other words, because she acted immorally by not remaining at home as is customary for virgins, then she certainly was also promiscuous in her father’s house, and therefore she is liable for stoning. Now we can understand why Rashi explains the verses out of order. [Note: In our text, Rashi explains the verses in their correct order]. This also answers Re”m [who asks this same] question, “I do not know a correct reason, etc.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy