Commento su Deuteronomio 14:31

לא תתגדדו YE SHALL NOT CUT YOURSELVES — i.e. you shall not make cuttings and incisions in your flesh for the dead in the way the Amorites do (Sifrei Devarim 96:11), because you are children of the Lord and it is therefore becoming for you to be comely and not cut about and with hair torn out.

YE ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE ETERNAL YOUR G-D: YE SHALL NOT CUT YOURSELVES, NOR MAKE ANY BALDNESS BETWEEN YOUR EYES FOR THE DEAD. This also is an explanatory commandment of what He said in the Torah with reference to the priests, They shall not make baldness upon their head etc., nor make any cuttings in their flesh,¹⁹²Leviticus 21:5. and now he [Moses] will explain that it is not merely because of the distinction of the priests which He mentioned there, They shall be holy unto their G-d,¹⁹³Ibid., Verse 6. that they were thus commanded. Rather, all the congregation are holy, every one of them,¹⁹⁴Numbers 16:3. and all of you are the children of the Eternal your G-d like the priests; if so, you too, take heed to yourselves regarding this commandment like them. This explanation is in accordance with the opinion of our Rabbis¹⁹⁵Yebamoth 13b. that both verses [the one here and the one in Leviticus] relate only to the practice [of cutting and making baldness as signs of mourning] for the dead, [although “the dead” is not mentioned in the priestly injunction in Leviticus]. But it is possible that the first commandment [in Leviticus was stated] in relation to priests to state that if the priest had his hair torn out and his flesh cut, he was not fit for the Divine Service, just as He said, and they shall not profane the Name of their G-d,¹⁹³Ibid., Verse 6. and their Service is thus profaned [i.e., invalidated]. Here he explained that the commandment applies also to the Israelites, both prohibitions being necessary.¹⁹⁶By combining both statements we deduce that the prohibition against making baldness relates to the whole head and not only between the eyes, that it relates to the practice in connection with mourning for the dead, and finally that a separate penalty is incurred for each incision into the flesh (Makkoth 20 a-b).
And Rashi wrote: “Because you are the children of the Eternal it is becoming for you to be comely and not be cut about and bald [due to the tearing out of hair].” But it is not correct, for if so this commandment should be binding even [if the deeds were done] not for the dead! And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented: “Once you realize that you are the children of the Eternal and that He loves you more than a father loves his child, you should not cut yourselves [in bereavement] for anything that He does, because whatever He has done is for your good although you may not understand it, just as little children do not understand their father, yet rely on him. For thou art a holy people,¹⁹⁷Verse 2. and you are not like all the other nations; therefore you shall not do as they do.”
In my opinion the purport of the expression for thou art a holy people¹⁹⁷Verse 2. [is to state] an assurance of the eternal existence of the souls before Him, blessed be He. The verse declares: “Since you are a holy people and the treasure of G-d — neither doth G-d respect any person, but He deviseth means that he that is banished be not an outcast from Him¹⁹⁸II Samuel 14:14. — therefore it is improper for you to make incisions in your flesh and tear your hair for the dead even if he perisheth in youth.¹⁹⁹Job 36:14. Scripture, however, did not prohibit weeping for the dead since it is natural to cry when parting from beloved ones, and when they go on a journey even in life. From this verse, there is support for our Rabbis in prohibiting excessive mourning for the dead.²⁰⁰Moed Katan 27b.

בנים אתם לה' אלוקיכם, לא תתגודדו, it is bad manners to display excessive grief over the loss of a relative as long as a more relevant relative (G’d) is still alive. This is why G’d reminds us in this context that we are His children, i.e. that whatever relative we may mourn we have a father who is alive and well so that we are not really orphaned.

בנים אתם לה׳ אלוקיכם, "You are children to the Lord your G'd, etc." Why did the Torah write this statement next to the prohibition to make incisions on one's body? It appears that the reason is to teach us that if one loses a family member to death one should not look upon the deceased as having become lost. The true state of affairs can be understood by a parable. A father sent a son to a distant city to buy some merchandise. Seeing the son did not return, the father sends out someone after a while to try and locate him. The son's absence was felt only in his home town; this does not mean that he no longer exists. Moreover, the chances are that the reason he did not return is that he is better off in his new home as he is closer to the original father, i.e. G'd, who was the primary source of his having lived on earth in the first place. This is the reason we must not make incisions on our bodies, or to make bald spots on top of our heads in mourning for the deceased. This law would not apply to the Gentile nations as they are not in the category of being "children of G'd." The reason the Torah stresses the word אתם, "you," is to explain the difference between the death of a Gentile who does indeed cease to live in any world upon his physical death and the Jew who moves on to a higher world.

לא תתגודדו, as described in Kings I 18,28 ויתגודדו כמשפטם בחרבות וברמחים, “they gashed themselves with swords and daggers.” The word is also used for cutting down trees (Sanhedrin 110)

You are children: It is clear that this is an introduction and that the reason for the prohibition is after it. But it is difficult - if it is the reason, why did the Torah write another reason, "since you are a holy nation"... In the warning against lacerating yourselves there are two distinct meanings, as explained in Yevamot (13b): Do not lacerate your flesh in mourning for the deceased, and do not make separate groups. This is not an allusion, but the meaning of the text … including within this warning is that you should not have two Beit Din courts in a single city. For this reason the verse first gave the explanation that you are sons of Hashem, and since you are sons of Hashem it is not appropriate that you appear as different groups in the customs of your Torah, because the nature of children is to follow the same path.

בנים אתם לה' אלוקיכם, “You are children to Hashem your G’d;” Seeing that in Leviticus 21,5 the Torah had forbidden the priests to make bald spots on their heads and their flesh as signs of mourning because even in mourning they are not truly orphans, being holy unto G’d, Moses wants to assure the people at large that they are no less beloved by Hashem than are the priests. All the Israelites are holy, and all are Hashem’s children. As proof of this, they are to observe the same restriction spelled out for the priests already in Leviticus. According to the tradition cited by our sages (Sifri 89), the prohibition mentioned here applies only to such incisions when they are made as signs of mourning for a dead relative, both in the case of ordinary Israelites and in the case of the priests. (Although the prohibition in Leviticus did not mention the word למת.) Ibn Ezra writes that seeing that you have been told that Hashem considers you as His children and He loves you more than a mortal father loves his children, you must not register your dismay at what you perceive as something that Hashem has done to you by disfiguring the body He has lovingly given to you. Just as you know that a mortal father’s actions are always motivated by his love for his son, so G’d’s actions are even more definitely motivated by what He knows as being good for His children, even if at the time we, His children, are unable to understand this. We must always subscribe to the cliché of “Father knows best.” It is possible that the reason that this prohibition first appeared as if it applied only to the priests was that when a priest engages in such disfiguration he thereby disqualifies himself from performing his duties in the Temple until such a blemish has healed. Now the time had come to extend this prohibition also to the ordinary Israelites. Rashi explains that seeing that you are Hashem’s children it is incumbent upon you not to disfigure “His” property. Ultimately, your body belongs to Him. Nachmanides disagrees with Rashi, saying that if he were correct this prohibition would apply also if it did not involve mourning for a dead person.

בנים אתם לה' אלוקיך”You are children to the Lord your G’d.” The reason this paragraph follows immediately after the paragraph dealing with the עיר הנדחת is that it is forbidden to observe rites of mourning on behalf of any of the people of that city that have been executed, just as it is forbidden to observe mourning for anyone executed judicially by the court. The Torah continues to describe mourning rites which are forbidden to observe even for people for whom it is incumbent upon us to observe mourning under normal circumstances.
The Torah forbids incisions in one’s flesh, לא תתגודדו, as a pagan rite of mourning practiced by the Emorites. They did this because they considered life on earth as the principal life of a person; therefore, they had no reason to consider his departure from earth as a promotion to a higher form of life in the celestial regions. Emorites were therefore correct to mourn their family members as losses never to be restored.
The Torah tells us here that our whole outlook on life is so radically different that we have nothing in common with them seeing that “you are children of the Lord your G’d.” It is customary for a father to leave his son as a bequest something which was very dear to him. Seeing that we are G’d’s children and He is our father, He leaves us the bequest of the world to come as His portion for us. Seeing Jews who die have such a bright future to look forward to in the hereafter it would be most inappropriate to overreact to our loss and ignore their promotion by making painful incisions on our flesh. Pulling out one’s hair and other such symbols of our grief are equally out of the question. The Torah adds: “for you are a holy nation;” the meaning of קדוש is “separate, apart,” i.e. of all the nations of the world you have been set apart in that we receive the reward for good deeds performed in this life in another life, a life which commences with the death of our bodies.

Do not inflict lacerations and gashes on your flesh, etc. I.e., a prohibition only applies to a person carrying out an action, and not on the one to whom the action is carried out. Since the [hitpa’el verb form of] the term לא תתגודדו (do not lacerate yourself) usually emphasizes on whom the action is carried out, therefore Rashi explains, “Do not inflict lacerations on your flesh.” And Rashi says גדידה ושרט (lacerations and gashes) to let us know that גדידה is a type of gash — the two words are synonymous. See Parshas Emor (Vayikra 21:5), where this verse has been fully explained.

Kap. 14. V. 1. Das vorige Kapitel hatte den mißbräuchlichen Einfluss zum Gegenstande, den durch Geist oder soziale Stellung hervorragende Persönlichkeiten, נביא שקר ומדיחי עיר נדחת, oder durch Verwandtschaft und Freundschaft uns teure Personen auf unsere Gottestreue üben könnten. Geist, soziale Stellung, Verwandtschaft und Freundschaft — das ist die Summe dieses Kapitels — sollen für uns nicht vorhanden sein, sobald sie sich zu Werkzeugen des Abfalls von Gott uns gegenüber gestalten. Daran knüpfen sich in innigstem Zusammenhange die hier am Eingange des neuen Kapitels stehenden Gesetze, die wesentlich im 3. Buche (Kap. 19, 27. 28 u. 21, 5) gegeben sind, hier aber wegen ihrer erhöhten Bedeutung für die bevorstehende Vereinzelung des Volkes zur Wiederholung kommen. Wir haben schon im 3. Buche a. a. O. bemerkt, wie das שריטה וקרחה למת-Verbot die aus der unmittelbaren Gotteshörigkeit eines jeden einzelnen fließende Selbstschätzung einer jeden, auch der teuersten und zu verehrendsten Persönlichkeit eines andern gegenüber aufrecht halten soll. Keine Persönlichkeit darf uns so fesseln, so ganz in sich aufgehen lassen, dass bei deren Wegfall wir gleichsam ihr unsere Persönlichkeit als nunmehr wertlos nachwerfen dürften, wie dies das bleibende Schnitt- oder Glatzmal an unserem Körper zum Ausdruck bringen sollte. Im Vorhergehenden war nun die Gefahr gezeichnet, welcher eine maßlose Hingebung an uns Liebe und Achtung einflößende Persönlichkeiten selbst unser höchstes Verhältnis zu Gott aussetzen könnte, eine Gefahr, die um so leichter eintreten könnte, je mehr in der bevorstehenden Vereinzelung des Volkes kleine und kleinste, vom Zentraleinfluss entfernte Kreise durch Geist und Stellung imponierenden Menschen einen um so mächtigeren Einfluss gestatten könnten. Mit tiefer Bedeutsamkeit wiederholt daher das Gesetz שריטה- und קרחה-Verbote, die selbst den teuersten Wesen gegenüber die eigene Wertschätzung aufrechthalten wollen und durch alle Schichten des Volkes das große Wort hindurch dringen lassen: בנים אתם לד׳ אלקיכם, in allererster Linie seid ihr Gott verwandt, und das Band, das euch mit eurem Gotte verknüpft, geht allen anderen Banden, die Herz und Geister mit Geistern verknüpfen, voran (siehe zu Wajikra 19, 28).

בנים אתם לה' אלוקיכם, “You are (as) children for the Lord your G–d.” [This is an introduction to what follows. Ed.] If we are perceived as children of G–d when any Jew dies, the surviving children are not really orphans as G–d never dies, and therefore mourning rites have to take that into consideration. This is why certain mourning rites spelled out in this paragraph as being practiced by the gentiles are not appropriate for Jews. The prophet Jeremiah 2,27, refers to the gentiles as people who because they worship idols made of wood are in fact mourning the loss of their father, and are calling it as such, just as they treat a carved stone idol as if it had given birth to them.

בנים אתם, “you are the children, etc.;” this paragraph has been inserted here in order to warn you not to observe pagan methods of expressing mourning after the death of close relatives. Possibly, one of the inhabitants of the idolatrous city discussed in the previous paragraph was a close relative, and you might have had to observe mourning rites as he or she had been put to death as a result of that city’s destruction.

בין עיניכם [NOR MAKE ANY BALDNESS] BETWEEN YOUR EYES — i.e. adjoining the forehead. In another passage (Leviticus 21:5), however, it states, “They shall not make their head bald”! It, however, intends to make the entire head like between the eyes (בֵּין עֵינַיִם) [i.e., one must not make bald spots on any part of the head]. (Sifrei Devarim 96:13; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 21:5 and Note thereon).

ולא תשימו קרחה בין עיניכם על מת כי עם קדוש אתה, there is no reason to mourn excessively for the person who has passed as he, at least, has not experienced any loss, on the contrary, he has been promoted to the region of eternal life, something of which our sages in Avot 4,6-7 have said that a single hour of the serenity experienced in that life is worth all the combined delights ever experienced during one’s transient life on earth.

Makkot 21 a (und so auch Jebamot 13 b) wird zwar das למת unseres Textes auch auf לא תתגודדו bezogen, es wird dort jedoch, mit Hinblick auf Kön. 1, 8 ויתגודדו כמשפטם, auch eine גדידה לע׳׳ז, als eine allgemeine heidnischen Gottheiten zugewandte Kulthandlung besprochen, deren Bedeutung wir bereits zu Wajikra 19, 28 im Zusammenhange mit גדידה למת behandelt.

בנים אתם לה' אלוקיכם, “you are children of the Lord your G-d;” it is just because you are children of Mine that you must understand that the death of a family member whenever and wherever, is not an unmitigated disaster, though it appears to affect you as such, but that I, in My greater wisdom, have decided that the deceased’s place in the universe was no longer on earth, for his own greater benefit. Just as small children sometimes, or even often, do not appreciate that what their father does, even if it hurts them, is for their benefit, the same is true in your relationship to Me.

ולא תשימו קרחה בין עיניכם למת, “neither are you to make bald spots between your eyes for the dead.” Even if your father died, you are not as bereaved as would be one of the gentiles who lost his father, as you have a Father in heaven who will never die. The pagan who looks upon his idol as his father image, what does he have, a piece of wood or metal? When he loses his biological father, he suffers a great loss compared to you whose father in Heaven will continue to provide for him. Compare Jeremiah 2,27, who describes how ludicrous it is for the pagans to address their manmade idols as “my father!” Furthermore, you are a holy nation, and as such are not at liberty to desecrate your bodies.

כי עם קדוש אתה FOR THOU ART AN HOLY PEOPLE — You are holy — your actual holiness comes to you from your fathers, but, in addition, ובך בחר ה׳ THE LORD HAS CHOSEN YOU [so that you are for two reasons bound to keep away from these pagan customs] (cf. Sifrei Devarim 97:1).

סגולה מכל העמים, this is why G’d prohibits your disfiguring yourself. He did not prohibit this to the Gentiles, as they are not as special as you are.

For you are a sacred people to Hashem, your God. The verse gives two reasons for the prohibition of lacerating with a utensil or making a bald spot with your hand as a sign of mourning. 1. Because you are sacred people to Hashem, meaning separate and elevated. Therefore you must know that every pain or difficult event that happens to you is the will of Hashem, or to atone for sin, which is also part of the Glory of Hashem and His will. One who is set aside for service of Hashem should set aside his personal pain for the will of Hashem. However, crying and mourning according to the appropriate measures that the Torah gave is the will of Hashem, to give honor to the deceased, to the extent that the honor of the deceased overrides all the mitzvos in the Torah. But acting in a way which leaves a lasting mark after the time that the Torah gave for mourning is not honor for the deceased, but simply an expression of grief. It is not appropriate for those who are sacred to Hashem to act in this way. 2. Hashem chose you. You should gather all those who come to worship Hashem from the other nations. If so, it would not be giving glory to Hashem before the other nations of the world if His chosen people were lacerated or bald.

כי עם קדוש אתה, “for you are a holy nation.” Moses reminds the people that we, the Jewish nation, are not like other nations; therefore you must not conduct yourselves as they do. Some commentators phrase it thus: Moses, by reminding the people that they are all G’d’s children, explains that there would not be any point in disfiguring oneself even if one loses father or mother, as we always retain our immortal Father, Hashem. Personally, (Nachmanides writing) I believe that the principal meaning of the words כי עם קדוש אתה is an assurance that every Israelite basically is entitled to a life after the death of his body, i.e seeing that you are a holy nation, and that you are children of Hashem, you are not even the kind of creature that could die in the accepted sense of the word, i.e. that the death of your body would mean the end of your existence. Seeing that this is so, your parents when no longer “clothed” in a physical shell known as “body,” are not really dead, and therefore you did not suffer the kind of loss that gentiles suffered when they lose their parents. If, nonetheless, weeping, and other forms of mourning, were not outlawed for you by Hashem, this is a concession to the nature of human beings who upon being irrevocably being separated from their near and dear ones, express their grief in this fashion. Our sages, keeping in mind our verse, have decreed that such mourning must not exceed the limits prescribed by our sages.

Your own sanctity extends from your forefathers, etc. I.e., your sanctity does not stem from you but rather from your forefathers. Otherwise why is, “And Adonoy has chosen you,” needed afterwards? For this means, “And furthermore Adonoy has chosen you,” is a second reason. But their own sanctity [alone] would suffice why Hashem chose them!

V. 2. כי עם קדוש אתה וגו׳, nicht גוי קדוש in ihrer Einheit nach außen, sondern עם קדוש eins in ihrer inneren vielgliedrigen sozialen Gestaltung, jedes Glied dieses Gott hörigen Volksvereines gleich heilig, gleich unmittelbar zu Gott stehend, und eben diese ausschließliche Gotteshörigkeit eines Menschenvereins und der Aufbau eines ganzen sozialen Volkslebens auf der Basis dieser ausschließlichen Gotteshörigkeit, ist eben die Bestimmung, für welche Gott dich erwählte. סגלה (siehe Schmot 19, 5).

Jebamoth 13 b u. 14 a wird das Verbot לא תתגודדו, machet keine Schnitte in euren Körper, auch auf den Nationalkörper bezogen und daran die Lehre gelehrt: לא תעשו אגודות אגודות, auf dem Boden der Gesetzerfüllung die Einheit zu erhalten und Differenzen in Lehren und Entscheidungen nach dem Gesetze nicht zum Auseinandergehen in verschiedene Gemeinschaften, nicht zu "Spaltungen" führen zu lassen. In der Tat heißt ja auch ein gesonderter Haufe, eine detachirte Heeresabteilung: גדוד und לא תתגודדו kann ebensowohl heißen: sondert, teilt euch nicht in Parteien, Gruppen.

Wäre doch, wenn unsere Auffassung hinsichtlich der פ׳׳א-Wurzeln richtig ist, אגד selbst nichts anderes als א גד: zu einer besonderen Einheit sondern. Das Zeitwort sich in Haufen sammeln, in gesondertem Haufen auftreten, kommt nur im Kal von גור oder גדד vor:יגוד עקב ,גדוד יגודנו (Bereschit. 49, 19) und יגדו על נפש צדיק (Ps.94, 21). Darauf beruht, wie uns scheint (Jebamot 13 b), die Bemerkung: א׳׳כ לימא קרא לא תגודו und glauben wir לא תגודו, oder לא תגדו lesen zu müssen. Um bloß die Parteiung ל zu verbieten, hätte לא תגודו genügt.

Demnach wäre hier zugleich die Mahnung gegeben, durch Meinungsdifferenzen in Gesetzesauffassungen und Folgerungen aus dem Gesetze keine Spaltungen innerhalb eines einheitlichen Gemeinwesens entstehen zu lassen, dass sich nicht ein Teil desselben um die Vertreter der einen Ansicht und ein anderer Teil um die Vertreter der anderen Ansicht gruppieren, בגון ב׳׳ד בעיר אחת פלג מורין כדברי ב׳׳ש ופלג מורין כדברי ב׳׳ה, und dadurch die אגודה אחת des einheitlichen Gemeinwesens zu אגודות אגודות werde; vielmehr sollen alle derartigen Meinungsverschiedenheiten auf Grund der von dem Gesetze selbst für solche Fälle getroffenen Entscheidungsregeln zum Austrag gebracht und die Einheit der Gesetzespraxis erhalten werden, soweit dieselbe durch das Gesetz normiert ist.

Unter Verwirklichung der von diesem Gesetze geschaffenen Institutionen war im großen Ganzen für eine übereinstimmende Einheit der Gesetzespraxis gesorgt. Durch die Kap. 17. 18 f. eingesetzte oberste Gesetzesautorität war, wie wir dort zu entwickeln haben werden, eine endgültige Austragung einer jeden Meinungsdifferenz hinsichtlich der Interpretation oder Folgerung aus dem Gesetze gegeben. In der Tat war auch über zwölfhundert Jahre, bis in die ersten Jahrhunderte des zweiten Tempels, eine völlige Übereinstimmung in der Gesetzespraxis erhalten. Eine einzige Differenz war unausgetragen, und diese betraf nur die Tragweite einer rabbinischen Präventivbestimmung: משתמש בבעלי חיים für die Ausübung der סמיכה-Mizwa am י׳׳ט (siehe Chagiga 16 a u. b). Selbst Hillel und Schamai differierten nur hinsichtlich dreier Momente, wovon nur eines eine gesetzliche Maßbestimmung betraf, die beiden anderen aber ebenfalls nur auf rabbinische Präventivbestimmungen sich bezogen (siehe Schabbat 15 a). Erst als in den Zeiten ihrer Schüler mit den politischen Wirren Klarheit und Muße den Jüngern der Gesetzeswissenschaft schwand, und mit dem Hereinbruch der Katastrophe des staatlichen Untergangs Druck und Verfolgung und Zerstreuung den Zusammenhang von Jüngern mit den Meistern der Wissenschaft, den Zusammenhang zerstreuter Gemeinden mit dem Zentrum des nationalen Lebens unterbrachen, erst da mussten naturgemäss unausgetragene Zweifel und Meinungsverschiedenheiten in Überlieferung und Auslegung des Überlieferten, und ebensomit auch örtliche Verschiedenheit der Gesetzespraxis entstehen, Zustände, die erst wieder durch die Wirksamkeit des R. Jehudi Hanassi durch Sammlung, Sichtung, Austragung der vorhandenen Überlieferungs- und Meinungsverschiedenheiten und halachische Fixierung der Resultate in der Mischna ebenso einer Einheit entgegengeführt wurden, wie 250 Jahre später Rabina und R. Aschi dasselbe Werk der Einheit in der Gesetzespraxis bei der inzwischen noch größer gewordenen Trennung und Zerstreuung der Gemeinden und einzelnen in der Redaktion der Gemara zur Vollendung brachten. Für solche Zeiten des Mangels an einer jede Differenz austragenden obersten nationalen Gesetzesautorität, in welchen örtliche Verschiedenheiten der Gesetzespraxis unvermeidlich, oder wie 5 ,1 הל׳ ממרים רמב׳׳ם hinzufügt, auch während der Existenz derselben bis Einholung und Eingang ihrer Entscheidung, ist vor allem das לא תעשו ,לא תתגודדו אגודות אגודות gesagt und verlangt, dass innerhalb eines einheitlichen Gemeinwesens ב׳׳ד בעיר אחת nach רמב׳׳ם׳s Auffassung 12,14 הל׳ ע׳׳ז selbst zweier Gemeinwesen eines Ortes, ב׳ בתי בעיר אחת (siehe jedoch כ׳׳מ und ל׳׳מ daselbst) — jede Meinungsdifferenz hinsichtlich der Handhabung des Gesetzes nach dem für Gesetzeszweifel bestehenden Normativ zum Austrag gebracht und so einer größeren Zerfällung der Gesetzesverwirklichung vorgebeugt werde.

Erwägen wir, wie alle die vorangegangenen Gesetze die Nachteile zum Gegenstande hatten, welche aus dem überwiegenden Einflusse einzelner Persönlichkeiten inmitten ihrer nächsten Kreise entstehen können; erwägen wir, dass, wie wir glauben, das גדידה ושריטה לנפש-Verbot, eben einer ungerechtfertigten Überschätzung einzelner Persönlichkeiten entgegentreten soll; erwägen wir endlich, dass die אגודות אגודות, vor deren Entstehung die andere Auffassung des לא תתגודדו warnen soll, größtenteils durch Parteiergreifung für die eine und die andere zweier differierenden Persönlichkeiten ins Leben treten: so, glauben wir, dürfte sich der tiefe innige Zusammenhang begreifen lassen, in welchem die beiden gleichzeitig aus לא תתגודדו resultierenden Verbote zu einander stehen.

כל תועבה [THOU SHALT NOT EAT] ANY ABOMINATION — i.e. anything that I have declared to be an abomination to you (which in itself may not be an abominable thing) — as for instance if one deliberately makes a slit in the ear of a firstborn animal (thus making it unfit for sacrifice) so that one may slaughter it in the country (i.e. outside Jerusalem) and eat it there. Here you have a thing I declared to be an abomination to you, in that I commanded you (Leviticus 22:21) “one shall cause no blemish to be therein”. Scripture now comes and teaches you here that one should not slaughter such an animal and eat it, on account of that blemish. Another example: If one boils meat in milk — here you have a thing that I have declared to be an abomination to you (cf. Exodus 23:19; Exodus 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21), and here it lays down the prohibition about eating it (Chullin 114b).

THOU SHALT NOT EAT ANY ABOMINABLE THING. He wanted now to add an explanation [to the laws] pertaining to forbidden foods, and therefore he said, Thou shalt not eat an abominable thing, thus declaring that all things that are forbidden are abhorrent to the pure soul, for the meaning of every expression of “abomination” is “hatefulness and repugnance,” similar to, for the king’s word was abominable to Joab;²⁰¹I Chronicles 21:6. their soul abhorred all manner of food.²⁰²Psalms 107:18. For forbidden foods that are coarse generate a thickness and obstruction in the soul, as I have explained in its place.²⁰³Leviticus 11:13. See also Exodus 22:30 (Vol. II, p. 401). Therefore he said further, Of all clean winged things ye may eat²⁰⁴Verse 20. in order to declare that [only] those [foods] which He prohibited are “abominable,” and the rest are clean and fit for the pure soul. And in the Sifre the Rabbis have said:²⁰⁵Sifre, R’eih 103. “Rabbi Shimon says: Of all clean winged things ye may eat²⁰⁴Verse 20. — these are the clean locusts; and all winged swarming things are unclean unto you²⁰⁶Verse 19. these are the unclean locusts.” He has said well. Now this is the sense of these verses. He mentioned the prohibition of all winged swarming things, those that go upon all fours,²⁰⁷Leviticus 11:20. and then he said Of all clean winged things ye may eat²⁰⁴Verse 20. to permit those of them which have joined legs above their feet:²⁰⁸Ibid., Verse 21. the locust, the bald locust, the cricket, and the grasshopper.²⁰⁹See ibid., Verse 22. It was not necessary to explain this because it has already been stated.²⁰⁹See ibid., Verse 22. But he mentioned in general, briefly, Of all clean winged things ye may eat²⁰⁴Verse 20. that is to say, all those that have been mentioned are abominable foods, and the rest of the fowls, according their species and multitudes, you may eat of them all clean things which I have not prohibited. Thus he included all things that are forbidden to us, for they are all abominable. It was not necessary afterwards to detail [here] the swarming things and all that creep upon the earth, for it is known that any pure-minded person abhors them completely. But he mentioned the signs of beasts and wild animals,²¹⁰See Verses 6-8. fish,²¹¹See Verses 9-10. fowl,²¹²See Verses. 11-20. and carcass [of an animal that died without being properly slaughtered]²¹³See Verse 21. in order to inform you that they, too, are abominable to the soul. He did not mention treifah²¹⁴A clean animal or fowl suffering from a serious organic disease whose meat we are forbidden to eat even if ritually slaughtered. since it is not “abominable;” nevertheless, in order to prevent harm to those who would eat it, it is forbidden, because of its poison or mortal sickness. Our Rabbis have yet more interpretations on this section:²¹⁵Chullin 63b. “Why were [these laws of forbidden foods] repeated here? In the case of beasts [the laws were restated] on account of hashesuah (the cleft one)²¹⁶See Verse 7. “This is a certain animal which has two backs and two spinal columns” (Chullin 63b, and quoted by Rashi here). [which we are forbidden to eat, and is not mentioned in Leviticus], and in the case of birds the laws were restated because of the glede”²¹⁷See Verse 13. [which is not mentioned in Leviticus and is forbidden]. And there is yet another interpretation:²⁰⁵Sifre, R’eih 103. “Of all clean birds ye may eat²¹⁸Verse 11. — this is intended to permit [as food] the bird that is set free [at the purification rite of] the leper;²¹⁹Leviticus 14:7. But these are they of which ye shall not eat²²⁰Verse 12. — this is intended to prohibit the bird that is slaughtered” [at the purification rite of the leper].²²¹Leviticus 14:5. They [the Rabbis] received [this tradition that the expression] of ‘all’ clean birds²¹⁸Verse 11. hints that the [living] bird, not contracting the impurity [of the leper], is permissible as food. The impurity of the leper does not attach to the living [bird] — for no living things among beast or fowl are susceptible to impurity when touching a corpse or dead creeping thing. But the slaughtered [bird], being susceptible to uncleanness, the spirit of impurity which leaves the leper, attaches thereto, and is [therefore] not clean. Thus it becomes one of the “abominable” things, because eating it is abhorrent.

לא תאכל כל תועבה; before the Torah had been revealed, given, the Israelites as well as mankind generally were aware of the concepts “pure, טהור,” and “טמא, impure.” This is clear already from G’d’s command to Noach to take into the ark with him one pair each of the “impure” species,” and seven pairs each of the “pure” species of animals and birds. (Genesis 7,2) When G’d, after the deluge, permitted man to eat meat, He did not distinguish between meat from “pure” animals and meat from “impure animals.” However, now, after the giving of the Torah, when the Jewish people had become so special, it was no longer appropriate for them to ingest the remains of impure animals or birds (or even fish). Our sustenance should not be dependent on such inferior living beings. We should remain constantly aware of the gulf between man and beast, especially beasts which had never been suitable as sacrifices.

לא תאכל כל תועבה, “You must not eat anything that is an abomination.” Nachmanides writes that this wording [the additional word כל, all, Ed.] expands the prohibition we have been taught in Leviticus chapter 11 in the sense that it teaches that the reason why eating the foodstuffs mentioned is forbidden, is because their consumption would leave a spiritually negative effect on our pure, G’d-given souls. The meaning of the term תועבה whenever it appears, is “something hateful and despicable,” the common denominator of the forbidden foods being that if absorbed by our tissue they are apt to leave behind an effect of deadening our spiritual impulses. The reason why the Torah actively promotes the eating of the fowl labeled טהור, is to contrast them with the vast majority of birds that are טמא, ritually impure, the flesh not being suitable to feed a pure soul. It is therefore a general rule to be remembered that everything the Torah has forbidden us, -although it had expressly permitted it for the rest of mankind in Genesis 9,3- is an abomination. The Torah does not need to repeat this again and again when referring to low life such as creeping reptiles large and small, -as most civilized persons, even gentiles refrain from eating these creeping creatures;-but by giving us the details of how to recognize animals that are “pure”, as well as forbidding consumption of the flesh of even such animals when they have died from natural causes, as opposed to ritual slaughter, it delineates clearly the creatures and their respective condition before death, that do not fall under the heading of תועבה, abomination. The consumption of animals that are suffering from a terminal disease or injury is not specifically mentioned as forbidden under the same heading, as the reason is not that they confer negative spiritual influences when eaten, but that they infect the person eating them with something physically poisonous but not spiritually poisonous. Our sages (Kiddushin 57) derive from the wording כל צפור טהורה תאכלו, “you may to eat every ritually pure bird,” (verse 11) [and the apparent repetition, slightly amended in verse 20 of כל עוף טהור תאכל, Ed.] that the live bird which served as part of the offering of the person healed from the dreaded tzoraat skin disease (compare Leviticus 14,8) has not been infected and is therefore potentially fit for consumption by Jews (if caught without injury after having been released) The emphasis by the Torah on the word טהורה in verse 11 is to tell us that the ritual impurity from which the person afflicted with tzoraat is infected does not transfer to the bird, as no living creatures other than man is susceptible to that kind of disease. None of G’ds creatures other than man, is susceptible to transmittable ritual impurity before it dies.

לא תאכל כל תועבה, “Do not eat anything which is an abomination.” The reason the prohibition to eat certain creatures follows here is that this is part of the definition of maintaining a level of holiness. When the Torah spoke about the Jewish people being a holy nation (verse 2) this meant that this holiness has to be manifest both in deed and in the way one uses one’s mouth (Ibn Ezra). Our sages in Chulin 114 explain the above words to mean that G’d is saying: “anything which I described as abominable you must not eat.” This includes even matters which though permitted for consumption individually, separately, are forbidden as a mixture such as meat and milk. [This is an expansion of the meaning “abomination,” i.e. anything forbidden automatically comes under the heading “abominable.” Ed.]

Anything I made abominable to you, etc. You might ask: Why then are we permitted to eat castrated chickens and animals? For Hashem made them abominable to us — it is forbidden to castrate them. The answer is: Since we need a verse (Vayikra 22:24) to prohibit their acceptance as a sacrifice, we can then infer that they are permitted for non-sacrificial purposes.

V. 3. לא תאכל וגו׳. Die vorangehenden Gesetze gravitieren alle in dem einen zuletzt hervorgehobenen Gedanken der unveräußerlichen Dignität einer jeden Einzelpersönlichkeit und deren unmittelbaren göttlichen Stellung und Bestimmung, aus welcher erst die zusammengegliederte gottheilige Volksgesellschaft hervorgeht.

לא תאכל כל תועבה, “you must not eat anything that is abominable.” This subject is linked here to that of forbidden rites of mourning, as it too is part of your being a holy nation, as repeated in the last verse. Holiness, i.e. apartness, means, among other things, that your food is different from that of the pagans, who are not too distinguishable from the creatures which they choose to worship. You are to eat only what is ritually pure.

Im Anschluss an diesen Gedanken und von ihm aus folgt nun eine Fortsetzung der eben mit den erwähnten Gesetzen (V. 19, Kap. 12 f.) unterbrochenen Speisegesetze, die ja wegen der mit der bevorstehenden Dezentralisation eintretenden בשר תאוה-Gestattung ihre geeignete Stelle in dem Volkskompendium der Gesetze zu finden hatten. Ausführlich waren sie ja bereits (Wajikra Kap. 11) im Zusammenhange mit den Gesetzen der Heiligung und Wahrung der sittlichen, geistigen und sinnlichen Lauterkeit niedergelegt. Entsprechend der volkstümlichen Bestimmung dieses Kompendiums, genügt hier nicht die theoretische Angabe der die Genusserlaubnis bedingenden Merkmale, sondern es werden Verse 4 und 5 die zum Genuss erlaubten zehn Säugetierarten ausdrücklich genannt, denen gegenüber die Kenntnis der Merkmale nur theoretische Bedeutung hat (siehe .(מאכלות אסורות רמב׳׳ם 8, 1 Es werden überhaupt nur die größeren Tiergattungen besprochen, aus welchen gemeinhin Tiere zur Nahrung genommen werden, bei welcher Gelegenheit denn auch unter den Vögeln einige wie ראה und איה (V. 3) aufgeführt werden, für welche zwei abweichende Benennungen im Umlauf waren. Die niederen Kriechtiere jedoch, die ja ohnehin nicht zum Genuss genommen werden, ja deren Genuss gescheut wird, werden unter den allgemeinen Ausspruch לא תאכל כל תועבה mitbegriffen. (Daraus dürfte sich der Satz Jeruschalmi Schabbat IX, 1 erklären: כתיב תועבה בשרצים שרצים .לא תאכל כל תועבה sind jedoch gerade hier nicht genannt. Allein eben deshalb sind sie zunächst unter den allgemeinen Kanon: לא תאכל כל תועבה begriffen.)

לא תאכל כל תועבה die Tragweite dieses Satzes ist nicht ganz sicher. Wie das soeben angeführte Zitat aus dem Jeruschalmi erweist, sind eben die verbotenen Speisen, deren wiederholter Ausspruch damit eingeleitet wäre, der Gegenstand desselben. Dafür spricht ja auch am natürlichsten die Stellung dieses Satzes am Anfange des מאכלות אסורות-Kapitels. Die verbotenen Tierspeisen wären damit als תועבה, als solche bezeichnet, deren Genuss unserem Wesen eine unserer sittlichen Natur und Bestimmung entgegengesetzte, darum von uns "zu verabscheuende" Richtung bringen würde, analog dem Ausdruck שקץ in dem entsprechenden Kapitel 11 des 3. Buches, und würde sich dieser Begriff dem in den vorangehenden Gesetzen vorherrschenden Gedanken von der unmittelbar gottnahen Beziehung eines jeden Einzelwesens der jüdischen Gesamtheit vollständig anfügen. Schließt doch dieses Kapitel ganz mit demselben Motive כי עם קדוש אתה לה׳ אלקיך, welches auch in V. 2 den Schlussgedanken der vorangehenden Gesetzesgruppe bildete.

Allein weder im Sifri noch im Babli wird einer Beziehung dieses Satzes auf die hier folgenden Speisegesetze erwähnt. ר׳׳מ׳s Lehre 66 ע׳׳ז a. מנין לכל איסורין שבתורה שמצטרפין זה עם זה שנא׳ לא תאכל כל תועבה כל שתיעבתי לך הרי היא בבל תאכל ist nicht als Halacha rezipiert (siehe מאכלות אסורות רמב׳׳ם s4, 16). Nur רב אשי (Chulin 114 b) findet darin das Genussverbot des בשר בחלב, von dem der Wortlaut des Gesetzes nur das Verbot des Kochens enthält: מניין לבשר בחלב שאסור באכילה שנאמר לא תאכל כל תועבה כל שתיעבתי לך הרי הוא בבל תאכל, d. i. alles, dessen Herstellung dir verpönt ist, ist auch zum Genusse dir verboten. Nach allgemeinster Annahme ist aber der איסור אכילה für בשר בחלב in dem dreimaligen Ausspruch des בישול-Verbotes niedergelegt (Chulin 111 b), und wenn (daselbst 115 a) eine jede sonstige Anwendung des Satzes ׳כל שתיעבתי לך וגו zurückgewiesen, so entfiele dem Kanon: כל ׳שתיעבתי לך וגו׳ der gesetzliche Gegenstand. Die von Raschi im Kommentar aus dem Sifri gegebene Erläuterung בגון צרם אזן בכור וגו׳ ist, wie schon in Mischne zu הל בכורות 1, 4 erwähnt, nicht der (Bechorot 34 a u. b) rezipierten Halacha gemäß, der zufolge der איסור אכילה nur קנס דרבנן wäre. Eine andere Auffassung im Sifri בפסולי המוקדשין הכתוב מדבר, nimmt allerdings דמב׳׳ם פסולי המוקדשים, auf 3 ,18 und führt darauf den איסור und מלקות für אכילה aller קדשים שנפסלו zurück; allein, so weit unsere Einsicht reicht, beruht dieser איסור nach Mackot 18 b auf dem Satze: לא יאכל כי קדש הוא כל שבקדש פסול בא הכתוב ליתן לא תעשה על אכילתו, ein Satz, den auffallender Weise רמב׳׳ם selbst 10 הל׳, 18 für פגול und נותר anführt, der aber in seiner Allgemeinheit, כל שבקדש פסול, alle פסולי המוקדשין in sich zu begreifen scheint (siehe תוספו׳ Mackot 18 b) וצ׳׳ע.

Wir glauben nach allem dem, dass die vom Jeruschalmi zitierte Beziehung unseres Textes auf die folgenden מאכלות אסורות von allen unbestritten bleiben dürfte und die erwähnten verschiedenen Beziehungen auf andere gesetzliche Verhältnisse nur in dem generalisierenden כל תועבה ,כל, haben gefunden werden sollen. Dass aber gleichwohl ein לאו für בהמות טמאות im שמיני) ספרא) als גלוי מלתא durch ק׳ו gesucht, und nicht im direkten Verbotausspruch unseres Textes gefunden wird, dürfte sich vielleicht aus dem Umstande erklären, dass dann לא תאכל כל תועבה als לאו שבכללות nicht מלקות-schuldig machte, wogegen jedoch 66 ע׳׳ז ,תוספו׳a. וכל זה צע׳׳ע .ד׳׳ה כל שתיעבתי

זאת הבהמה … איל וצבי ויחמור THESE ARE THE BEASTS [WHICH YOU MAY EAT] THE HART AND THE GAZELLE AND THE FALLOW DEER — This (the fact that Scripture begins with זאת הבהמה and goes on to enumerate חיות) teaches us that חיה is included in the term בהמה (Sifrei Devarim 100:1; Chullin 71a; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 11:2, last sentence, and Note thereon). It further teaches us that there are more unclean beasts and wild animals than clean ones, for where two contrasted classes are spoken of it always enumerates by name the individuals of the smaller class (Sifrei Devarim 100:3; Chullin 63a.) (Since it enumerates here the clean animals these must be the minority.)

שור שה כשבים ושה עזים, “an ox, sheep, and goat.” The three mentioned so far are צאן, domesticated animals kept in flocks or herds. By adding איל, צבי, יחמור,אקו דישון, תאו and זמר we get an additional 7 species making a total of ten categories of animals fit for consumption by Jews. The last-named seven, while permitted for private consumption, are not permitted as offerings on the altar. (Zevachim 34) Any free-roaming animal, חיה, is by definition not permitted as a sacrifice. [How could it serve in lieu of man who has not tamed it and exercised his authority over it? Ed.] The names of the seven last named animals reveal that they are “pure” i.e. possess the physical features described by the Torah as making them fit to eat. In Song of Songs 2,7 the first word השבעתי if read with the dot on the left side of the letter ש means that G’d provided as food ample supplies of איל and צבי, proving these animals chew the cud and have split hooves. The יחמור is alluded to in Chabakuk 3,15 where it is compared to many waters, something which is ritually pure. [I confess I do not follow this since in that same verse horses are compared to the ocean which is equally pure, whereas horses do not have split hooves. I will leave untranslated the balance of this paragraph as I do not understand it. Ed.]

V. 4. זאת הבהמה וגו׳ איל וגו׳. Wir haben bereits zu Wajikra 11, 2 angemerkt, wie dadurch, dass bei den Speisegesetzen בהמה בכלל חיה und חיה בכלל בהמה begriffen wird, beide Ausdrücke, ihrer engeren Bedeutung entkleidet, eine Bezeichnung der Eigentümlichkeiten werden, welche die Genusserlaubnis von Tieren bedingen. Sie müssen ihrer Beschaffenheit nach חיה sein, ihre Lebensintegrität muss unangegriffen sein und ihre Natur muss sie als בהמה charakterisieren, ihrer Charakterrichtung nach muss das Tierische in ihnen sich dem Menschlichen im Menschen gefügig unterordnen. Es ist demnach vollkommen entsprechend, dass eben hier, wo die Speisegesetze von dem Gesichtspunkte der einem jeden innewohnenden göttlichen Dignität der Bestimmung aufgeführt werden, das Merkmal "בהמה" an der Spitze steht. — שור שה כשבים ושה עזים Es heißt nicht כבש ועז, sondern שה כשבים ושה עזים um darin die Lehre niederzulegen, dass hinsichtlich der Genusserlaubnis der Charakter der Abstammung, und zwar des Muttertieres, entscheidend ist, selbst wenn das Junge nicht die Merkmale der Reinheit hat, nach dem Kanon: היוצא מן הטמא טמא והיוצא מן הטהור טהור (Bechorot 5 b und 7 a אליבא דר׳ אליעזר; — vergl. zu Wajikra 11, 4).

ואקו AND THE אקו — This is rendered in the Targum by יעלא, the same term as the Hebrew יעל in the expression יעלי סלע (Job 39:1). This is what is called in German 'Steinbock'.

V. 5. איל וגו׳. Wie bereits oben bemerkt, ist die Verse 4 und 5 gegebene Aufzählung der reinen Säugetiere erschöpfend. Es gibt deren nicht mehr, als die hier genannten zehn Arten (Chulin 80 a), davon gehören die drei V. 4 enthaltenen der Klasse בהמה an, deren Chelew untersagt ist, die V. 5 genannten zu Klasse חיה, deren Chelew erlaubt und deren Blut כסוי-pflichtig ist (siehe Wajikra 7, 25 u. 17, 13). Hinsichtlich des תאו steht jedoch die Überlieferung nicht fest, ob es zu בהמה oder חיה zu rechnen wäre (Chulin daselbst).

איל, “the hart, etc;” [our author proceeds to translate the names of these seven species into medieval French, something of little use my readers. Ed.] In plain English, permitted species of mammals are: ox, sheep, goat; deer, gazelle, roebuck, wild goat, ibex, antelope and mountain sheep plus unnamed species (if there are such) displaying the identification marks listed by the Torah. They are: bringing up the cud, true hooves cleft in two;

ותאו — This is rendered in the Targum by תורבלא which is the same as תור יער, the ox of the forest (wild ox), for בלא means “forest״ in the Aramaic language.

מפרסת means split, as the Targum has it.

Split. The word מפרסת is not related to the word פרסה (hoof). Otherwise, the verse regarding the camel (Vayikra 11:4) ופרסה איננו מפריס, would mean, “It does not have a hoof with which to step on the ground.” But this is not so! Therefore Rashi explains that the word מפרסת denotes being “split.” In other words, the hoof is split.

VV. 6 — 8 (siehe zu Wajikra Kap. 11, 3 — 8). השסועה ist nach Chulin 60 b ein Tier mit doppeltem Rückgrat, und wird Nidda 24 a darüber verhandelt, ob ein solches Tier nur als Missgeburt oder als wirklich existierend vorkommt.

Any mammal that displays some of these identifying marks but not others are forbidden. [The Torah proceeds to name the most popular mammals kept as domestic beats, such as pigs, dogs, camels, hares and rabbits must not be eaten. The latter, including cats, must not be eaten because they have no hooves at all.

פרסה - plante in O. F. (English = hoof).

The inference it, ‘what is found within the animal, you may eat,’, etc. I.e., since it is written in the beginning of this verse, “And every animal whose sole is cloven...” then what does the phrase, “within the animals, it you may eat” teach us? Rather, put the first word, “animal” in front of the second one and explain it as follows: “Every animal that is found within an animal, you may eat.” Rashi uses the term, “fetus,” to exclude a case in which an animal is slaughtered and the likeness of a dove is found inside, for [in order to be permitted to eat the animal] hooves are required, but are lacking.

ושסעת AND HATH CLOVEN [HOOFS] — i.e. hoofs divided into two nails, for there are animals with hoofs split but not entirely divided into two nails (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 9:3), and such are unclean.

בבהמה [AND EVERY BEAST THAT PARTETH THE HOOF …] AMONG THE BEASTS [YE MAY EAT] — if one takes בבהמה to signify “within the animal”, it suggests: that which is found in the beast you may eat. From here, therefore, they (the Rabbis) derived the law that a שליל (a fully developed embryo) becomes permitted to be eaten through the slaughter of its mother without requiring ritual slaughtering itself (Chullin 69a; Chullin 74a).

השסועה — (lit., a cleft one) is a certain animal which has two backs and two spinal columns (Chullin 60b). — Our Rabbis asked, “Why are these (the clean and unclean beasts and fowls) here repeated” since the names have already been mentioned in Leviticus XI? They replied: the repetition was necessary so far as quadrupeds are concerned because of the שסועה, and so far as fowls are concerned because of the ראה, both of which are not mentioned in Torath Cohanim (i.e. Leviticus) (Chullin 63b).

השסועה, “which is split.” Our sages in Chulin 60 understand this word to refer to a species of animal having two spines and two backs. [I suppose the clue to this is the tone sign tipcha under the word הפרסה which precedes it and which separates it from the word השסועה. Ed.] This species chews the cud. Seeing that the list of animals permitted to eat, etc., has already been provided by the Torah in Leviticus chapter 11, why is it repeated here once more? The sages in Chulin 60 suggest it is because of the addition of the השסועה amongst the mammals and the ראה amongst the birds (Bechorot 6). On the other hand, the list of birds mentioned in Leviticus has a bird called דאה which is absent here. (Leviticus 11,14) The reason this bird is called ראה is supposedly because it has exceptionally good eyesight. According to Chulin 63 this bird can locate a carcass in the land of Israel while flying in the skies of Babylon. The Talmud also considers the names איה and דיה as two names for he same species of bird. Seeing this species is known by two names, the Torah repeated the entire list of birds here once more. Had it not done so, some people might consider the species not listed in Leviticus as permitted to eat, whereas others would reason that the species not mentioned in Deuteronomy is permitted to eat. The reason that the list of birds are the ones forbidden to eat, whereas the Torah listed the mammals which are permitted to eat is that there are far more species of “pure” birds, i.e. the ones we may eat than forbidden ones, whereas with mammals the situation is the reverse. Our sages base themselves on the model of the Torah when they say that when teaching people one should always endeavor to be concise, brief (Chulin 63). The species of bird known as שלך is called thus as it catches fish in the water with its beak while they are swimming (שלה, “to extricate, to draw out”). The דוכיפת is a form of wild turkey, apparently it has sort of a double “chin” (from the Hebrew כפות, “twin, double,” like כפות תמרים, the palm leaves which fold over).

ובנבלתם לא תגעו YE SHALL NOT TOUCH THEIR CARRION — Our Rabbis explained that this refers only to the festive seasons when every male Israelite was obliged to appear in the Sanctuary and should therefore be in a state of cleanness. One might think that they (the Israelites, i.e. non-priests) are prohibited from touching a carcass during the whole year! It, however, states, (Leviticus 21:1) in reference to the uncleanness of a corpse: “Say unto the priests … [there shall none be defiled by the dead] etc.”. Now you may draw a conclusion a fortiori: How is it in the case of uncleanness caused by a corpse which is a stringent kind of uncleanness? Priests only are prohibited regarding it but ordinary Israelites are not prohibited! Surely in the case of uncleanness caused by a carcass which is less stringent this is all the more so! (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 4 8-9; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 11:8 and Note thereon).

ובנבלתם לא תגעו, “and do not touch their carcasses.” If they had died of natural causes you must not touch their carcasses. According to the Talmud in tractate Makkot folio 14, the words לא תגעו must be understood as a prohibition to touch them in order to eat their flesh. The reason why the Torah uses this unusual way of making this point was to treat its status as equivalent to Leviticus 12,4 where we read a prohibition for the recent mother בכל קודש לא תגע, not to touch anything that is holy. If you were to ask why the Torah had to repeat something that had already been forbidden in the same verse? It is to teach us that the measurements for culpability are the same for eating as for touching. If one touched less than the size of an olive or egg, while it is forbidden, it is not punishable by a court. It still leaves the question that if even touching a carcass is forbidden it follows logically that eating of it must certainly be forbidden! This may be the reason why there is an opinion in the Talmud, tractate Z’vachim folio 32 that our verse has to be understood literally as not touching. It would be a warning to the ordinary Israelite when making the pilgrimage to Jerusalem on the festivals when he, like the priest, must not be in a state of ritual impurity so that he can offer the sacrifices that are mandatory for him to offer while there.

ובנבלתם לא תגעו "you are not to touch their carcasses" with a view to preparing them as food, just as the Torah forbade touching holy things in Leviticus 12,4 for people in a state of bodily ritual impurity. Touching such carcasses and eating them is considered pas part of the same prohibition. If touching these carcasses by itself were the prohibition, why would the Torah have to bother forbidding eating them?

VV. 9 u. 10 (siehe zu Wajikra 11. 9 — 12).

כל אשר יש לו סנפיר וקשקשת, “any maritime creature that possesses fins and scales;” our author asks why the details about fish had to be repeated here? [they had been given in Leviticus chapter 11. Ed.] Our author sees a reason for the repetition of the rules pertaining to which domesticated mammals and which birds could or could not be eaten, seeing that according to the Talmud tractate Chulin folio 61, that certain birds have a different name in Leviticus from the name given here by Moses, and in the case of the mammals the parted hooves are described slightly differently, so that we should know both categories are forbidden if the hoof is not split from front to rear.

טמא הוא לכם, “it is ritually impure for you.” The word טמא here is not to be understood in the ritual sense of impurity, the person having contacted such animals requiring to perform purification rites before handling matters that are holy, but is an expression for something detestable. The concept of ritual impurity does not exist concerning fish. The expression טמא as clearly meaning something detestable is found in Ezekiel 4,13: “shall the Israelites eat their bread unclean in a disgusting unappetizing manner (among the nations that banish them?)”

כל צפור טהרה תאכלו ALL CLEAN BIRDS YOU MAY EAT — 'All' — this is intended to permit as food also the bird that is set free in the case of a leper (i.e. at his purification rite; Leviticus 14:7) (Sifrei Devarim 103:1; Kiddushin 57a).

This permits the bird released by the metzora. I.e., the word כל (all) is an inclusive term [and here it comes] to include the bird released by the metzora.

V. 11. ׳כל צפור טהורה וגו. Chulin 63 b ist die Lehre gegeben, dass man für die Praxis hinsichtlich der zum Genuss erlaubten Vögel sich an die örtliche Überlieferung zu halten habe, עוף טהור נאכל במסורה (siehe zu Wajikra 11, 13. — 19). Es scheint uns nicht unmöglich, dass, verglichen mit V. 4 u. 5, hier eben diese Richtschnur für die Praxis gegeben sei. Die zum Genuss erlaubten Säugetiere konnten für den praktischen Zweck durch Nennung hinreichend kenntlich gemacht werden; die Zahl ihrer Arten ist eine beschränkte. Allein die Arten der reinen Vögel sind so großer Zahl, dass es dem Gesetze kürzer war, die vierundzwanzig Arten der unreinen aufzuzählen (Chulin 63 b); für die populäre Praxis gibt daher das Gesetz die Weisung, sich an begründete Überlieferung zu halten (siehe zu Wajikra 11, 13 — 19). Kiduschin 57 a wird aus ׳כל צפור וגו gelehrt, dass משולחת, der bei טהרת מצורע lebend fortgeschickte Vogel מותר באכילה sei (siehe Wajikra 14, 7).

כל צפור טהורה, “any ritually pure bird;” whenever the Torah uses the term צפור instead of עוף for “bird,” it is automatically referring to a ritually pure species of birds. The latter term, however, is used on different occasions for either category of birds. Ritually impure birds are always described as עוף. (Sifri)

וזה אשר לא תאכלו מהם BUT THESE ARE THEY WHICH YOU MAY NOT EAT — This again is intended to forbid as food the bird that is slaughtered in the case of a leper (Sifrei Devarim 103:1-2; Kiddushin 57a).

וזה אשר לא תאכלו, “this is the type of bird you may not eat;” this includes birds which have undergone ritual slaughter. The following had to be stated explicitly, as once no longer alive, such birds are susceptible to ritual impurity. One might have thought since the ritual impurity that had left the person stricken with tzoraat had been transferred to his offering, that offering had become contaminated. The Torah therefore indicates that this is not the case.

This prohibits the slaughtered bird [offered by the metzora]. Apparently it is expounded this way because the phrase, “This is what you may not eat,” is apparently superfluous. For below it is written (v. 19), “And all flying creeping creatures are ritually unclean for you, they may not be eaten.” Rather, the verse here intends to forbid the bird that is slaughtered by the metzora. The Gemora (Kiddushin 57a) asks, “I would say the opposite — forbid the [metzora’s] released bird and permit the slaughtered bird.” And the Gemora answers, “The Torah does not say to release the bird if eventually it may cause a liability” — that a person might unknowingly sin by taking and eating it. Re”m asks: If [this reasoning is] so, then why is the phrase, “[You may eat] any pure bird,” needed to permit the released bird? Re”m answers: The explanation, “Any pure bird — this permits the released bird,” is only an asmachta [a loose interpretation]. Also Rashi there says this explicitly (ibid.).

הנשר, contrary to common perception, this bird is not the one known to us as “eagle,” as it does not have a claw at the rear of its leg, one of the marks of identification for birds of prey. Forbidden birds listed are not supposed to possess any marks that the pure birds have in common. This is why the Talmud in tractate Chulin, folio 61.defines ythis bid as not possessing any of the marks that would suggest that it is a pure bird. There us a bird with by a similar name in Arabic [According to Mendelsohn, eagles in his time did not possess this extra claw at the rear of its leg. [Compare D. Hoffman in his discussion on the Book of Leviticus. Ed.]

וזה אשר לא תאכלו, “and these are the ones of which you may not eat;” Rashi explains that the word זה is meant to include that the prohibition includes if these birds had been of the permitted kind, but were used in a procedure prescribed as a sin offering. They must not be eaten even though slaughtered in the appropriate manner. (Compare Leviticus 14,4)

ראה — הראה וראיה and איה and דיה are names for the same bird. Why is it called ראה? Because it sees keenly. And why does Scripture prohibit it under each of its names? In order not to give an opponent occasion to argue, i.e. in order that he who regards it as forbidden may not say, “This is the ראה and is therefore forbidden”, and he who wishes to declare it as permitted will then reply, “But this is named דיה", or “this is named איה and this Scripture has not forbidden”. — In the case of birds, Scripture enumerates by name the unclean species, thus telling you that the clean birds are more numerous than the unclean (in contradistinction to quadrupeds; see vv. 4—5), for which reason Scripture mentions those by name which form the minority (Chullin 63b).

והראה ואת האיה, and the aforementioned birds, etc. It appears that every one of the 24 categories of unclean birds listed here has numerous sub-categories. This is the reason the Torah does not write למינה, "according to its kind," but למינהו, "according to their kind" (Chulin 63). When the bird mentioned is the only one of its kind or there are only a few variants of that category, the Torah speaks of למינו, "its kind." The proof for this theory is that the Torah does not write למינו in connection with the נשר (often translated as eagle), and the Talmud in Chulin 61 when not certain about a particular bird suggests that it may belong to the family of the נשר. Clearly, the sages of the Talmud considered the word נשר as a collective term for quite a variety of birds of its category.

Ayah, and dayah are one and the same, etc. Rashi’s proof is: The Mishnah Torah [i.e., the book of Devarim] only intends to add upon what was previously written above in Toras Kohanim [i.e., the book of Vayikra]. And if so, why is it not written here, “The da’ah and the ra’ah,” to [include what was said in Vayikra and merely] add [the ra’ah] to it? This would be similar to what is said in Chulin (63b), “Why are the animals repeated? Because of the dromedary, which is not mentioned in Vayikra.” If so, why does the verse (Vayikra 11:14) say, “da’ah,” yet here it says, “ra’ah,” but not, “da’ah”? Rather, this indicates that ra’ah and da’ah are one and the same. Therefore Scripture here does not write “da’ah.” For if it did, I would think that the ra’ah and the da’ah are different animals, and that the verse is coming to add [the ra’ah]. For this reason the verse here only says, “ra’ah,” to teach that the da’ah and ra’ah are one and the same. Furthermore, Rashi is answering the question: If so [that the da’ah and ra’ah are the same], then the verse should say, “and the ra’ah according to its kind,” to include the da’ah mentioned in Vayikra. For this reason Rashi explains, “The ra’ah, ayah, and dayah are one and the same.” The indication that they are all the same is because in the verse it is written, “according to its kind,” at the end to group them all together to teach that they are one and the same. Furthermore Rashi is answering the question: If they are all one and the same, why does the verse say, “The ra’ah and (ואת) the ayah and the dayah according to its kind”? Why is the word ואת, which interrupts between the words ra’ah and ayah, needed? Rashi answers: Why is it entitled “ra’ah”, etc. In other words, the verse interrupts [with the word ואת] to say that this name [that it has] is different from its other names. For it is called “ra’ah” because its vision is exceedingly powerful, as is taught in Chulin (ibid.), “While standing in Babylon it can see a carcass in the Land of Israel.” Re”m’s explanation is most difficult to understand. See the Gemora (ibid.).

.ראה, איה דיה, דאה “glede, falcon, buzzard and kite;” [none of these species can be indentified with certainty. This is why different translations use some of the names interchangeably. Ed.] According to our author, the four names mentioned here are really one. How is this to be understood? Seeing that we find the expression למינה, “according to its kind (species)”in the singular mode instead of in the plural mode at the end of this verse, they must have something important in common with each other. We find a similar verse in Leviticus 11,14, in connection with the bird called איה, this proves that איה and דיה are two names for the same species. Similarly, ראה and דיה are also the same species. [I have omitted the author’s somewhat convoluted method of proving this point. Ed.]

With the birds, the impure ones are specified. This teaches, etc. Rashi is answering the question: After having explained that all its names are specified, etc. so that one will not come to permit them, the question arises, why would one come to permit them? For perhaps they are from the impure birds and they were not specified — just as the pure birds were not specified. Rashi answers: “The impure ones are specified, etc.” If these names were not specified [among the impure birds], then certainly they would be pure. Therefore all its names are specified. Alternatively: Since the pure birds are more numerous than the impure ones, we would follow the majority — which is pure — and consider it pure. Therefore all its names are specified.

Therefore, those less numerous are specified. But regarding the animals, the pure ones are specified.

ואת כל עורב, “and any species or sub-species of raven.” This bird too is not what is generally known as corbeau. (French) Upon examination, that bird has only two of the marks that would make it a pure bird. The subject is discussed in the Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin folio 108.

בת היענה, “the ostrich;” the reason the word בת preceded the name of this bird is that it is edible only when very young. Afterwards its flesh becomes hard like wood.

ואת בת היענה, “and the little owl;” the same is true of the יענה, the great owl. The Torah mentions the little owl as it is not fit to be eaten except as long as it is very young. Its flesh is hard as wood when it matures. (b’chor shor)

ואת הנץ, “and the hawk;” here too the reader is referred to the Talmud in tractate Chulin folio 63, where we are told how to identify this species. Tossaphot on that folio goes into greater detail.

התנשמת — This is the chauve-souris in old French; (English = bat).

שלך is a bird that draws out (שלה = שלך) fish from out the sea (see Rashi on Leviticus 11:17).

דוכיפת is the wild cock, which is called in old French herupe, and which has a double comb (Chullin 63a; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 11:19).

שרץ העוף — These are the lowly creatures which move upon the ground: flies, hornets and the unclean species of grass-hoppers (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 11:20), come under the term of שרץ.

כל עוף תאכלו ALL CLEAN FOWLS, YOU MAY EAT — but not (as is implied by these words) the unclean. Scripture intends, by this statement, to attach to the negative command which forbids unclean fowls (v. 12), a positive one which implicitly contains a prohibition. And similarly, when in the case of clean cattle it states, (v. 6) “that you may eat”, it implies: not, however, the unclean ones. Now a prohibition which is not plainly expressed but can only be drawn by inference from a positive command, is itself regarded only as a positive command, so that one who eats such food transgresses thereby not two negative commands, but a positive and a negative command (Sifrei Devarim 101:10; and cf. Rashi on Leviticus 11:3).

V. 20 כל עוף טהור וגו׳. Wir wagen die Vermutung, dass hierunter die erlaubten Heuschreckarten verstanden sein dürften (vergl. Chulin 139 b).

כל עוף טהור תאכלו, “you may eat every ritually pure bird.” According to the plain meaning of the text this includes certain species of locusts and grasshoppers not listed here by name.

לגר אשר בשעריך [YE SHALL NOT EAT ANY CARRION: THOU SHALT GIVE IT] UNTO THE STRANGER THAT IS IN THY GATES — i.e. unto a stranger that is a sojourner (גר תושב) — one who has undertaken not to worship idols (i.e. one who has been converted to the fundamental tenet of Judaism) but who eats carrion (does not obey the other teachings of the Torah) (Sifrei Devarim 104:2; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 25:35).

FOR THOU ART A HOLY PEOPLE UNTO THE ETERNAL THY G-D. The purport thereof is connected with [the following prohibition], Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk. Although it is not an abhorrent food [for both meat and milk are permitted separately] He prohibited it because we are to be holy in [choice of] foods — or because we [ourselves] are holy — that we not become a cruel people that is not compassionate²²²See Jeremiah 6:23. by milking the mother and extracting its milk to seethe therein its kid. And although any meat [cooked] in milk is included in this prohibition [even though it is not its own mother’s milk, a situation without apparent cruelty, nevertheless it is forbidden] because any nursing animal is called “mother” and any suckling offspring is called “kid,” and if they are together in the process of cooking there is [an element of] cruelty in all [cases whether a kid in its own mother’s milk or not].
Now, Rashi wrote: “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk. This is stated three times²²³Here, and in Exodus 23:19, and 34:26. in order to exclude a wild beast, fowls,²²⁴However, the cooking and eating of a chayah (clean wild beast) or fowl with milk is forbidden though by the Rabbis (Yoreh Deiah 57:3). and unclean animals” [from this prohibition]. This interpretation is derived from the Scriptural use of the term kid [an expression that does not apply to any of the excluded categories]. However, the thrice repeated] prohibition itself [teaches the following:] one forbids eating [meat cooked with milk], one forbids deriving benefit from it, and one forbids cooking it. And so did the Rabbi [Rashi] write in the section of And these are the ordinances.²²⁵Exodus 23:19.

לא תאכלו כל נבלה, even of the pure species which you may eat after they have been slaughtered ritually.

לא תאכלו כל נבלה, "You shall not eat any carcass, etc." The reason that the Torah adds the word כל, "any" or "all kinds of," is justified according to the sages who hold that two types of prohibitions do apply to the same animal simultaneously (compare Chulin 113). [supposing you were to eat the carcass of an animal which even if ritually slaughtered would have been forbidden because it was already forbidden as an unclean animal during its lifetime. According to that view you would be culpable for two sins. Ed.] According to the sages who hold that one is not culpable for an additional prohibition, i.e. for the prohibition of eating the carcass of say a pig, the word כל, "all or every," is needed to forbid the carcass of either domestic animal, free-roaming animal, or birds. However, carcasses of unclean animals would not be included in this prohibition.

כי עם קדוש אתה, “for you are a holy nation.” Nachmanides writes that Moses deliberately wrote the prohibition of mixing milk and meat right next to the reminder that we are a holy nation, to remind us that although milk and meat cannot be considered abominable foods, else how could each by itself be perfectly acceptable, but in order to remind us that we are not merely not abominable, not despicable, but on a much higher spiritual level, one that needs to concern itself also with more refinement in matters physical and material. A holy nation does not display signs of inhumanity, ruthlessness, and insensitivity, even when relating to its domestic animals. Milking a mother animal in order to boil its young in that milk is considered an act of extreme insensitivity towards both of the animals involved. Even though mixing any kind of milk with any kind of meat is included in the prohibition listed here, so that in the vast majority of situations the element of insensitivity vis a vis specific animals is not involved, seeing that basically any nursing woman or animal is considered as a “mother,” first and foremost, and every suckling is considered as a גדי, “kid,” observing this law brings home the underlying motive contained in it to each one of us.

לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו, “Do not boil a kid in the milk of its mother.” I have explained the meaning of this verse in detail in Exodus 23,19. The reason it is written three times is that once it refers to the prohibition to eat such a mixture, once to the prohibition to merely boil it together, and once to the prohibition to derive indirect benefit from the result of boiling milk and meat together (Chulin 115). On folio 113 of Chulin the Talmud sees in the word גדי a restrictive clause, i.e. the prohibition does not apply to free-roaming beasts or to birds or to mammals of the kind which are forbidden for consumption by Jews. None of these are subject to this prohibition as a Biblical law though the Rabbis included the prohibition to cover all these cases (Maimonides Hilchot Maachalot assurot 9,4).

Sanctify yourselves by abstaining from that which is permitted, etc. Re”m writes: This prohibition, “Do not eat any carcass,” is not for the sake of beauty, as is, “Do not lacerate yourself (v. 1),” which is only for the sake of beauty — as Rashi explains there [and therefore it says there, “You are a sacred people” afterwards]. Rather, “Do not eat any carcass,” is required for the [well being of the] soul, and the phrase, “For you are a people sanctified, etc.,” does not apply to it. Therefore our sages explain: Since you are a sanctified people, it is fitting to sanctify yourselves even regarding that which is permitted to you, etc. But to me it seems that Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse here say differently from what is written at the end of Parshas Shmini (Vayikra 11:43). It should say here instead, “Do not eat any carcass and do not make yourselves repulsive, etc.” The reason why it is written, “For you are a people sanctified to Adonoy, etc.,” is to expound, “Sanctify yourselves, etc.”

V. 21. לא תאכלו כל נבלה. Jedes שחיטה-pflichtige Tier, also בהמה וחיה טהורה ועוף טהור, das nicht durch vorschriftsmässige שחיטה gestorben, ist: נבלה (Chulin 32 a). Bei טמאים ist שחיטה von keiner Bedeutung, בהמה טמאה שנשחטה ist gleichwohl נבלה und hat die טומאת נבלה in מגע und משא (Wajikra 11, 8 u. 26 f.) Allein in Beziehung auf אכילה tritt der איסור נבלה nicht ein, da das Tier bereits als טמאה vom איסור אכילה gefasst ist, nach dem Kanon אין חל על איסור, wenn es nicht איסור ,איסור כולל oder איסור בבת אחת ist (siehe Wajikra 7, 24; — 2 ,4 מאכלות אסורות רמב׳׳ם).

לא תאכלו כל נבלה, “you must not eat the carcass of any animal that died of natural causes.” This includes carcasses of normally ritually pure mammals, free roaming beasts birds and ritually not pure fish. Ritually pure fish are permitted to be eaten even if they died from natural causes. The reason why this appears to have been repeated is so that no one would have an excuse to say that only the carcasses of mammals, free roaming beasts and pure birds are forbidden if they died from natural causes.

כי עם קדוש אתה לה׳ FOR THOU ART AN HOLY PEOPLE UNTO THE LORD — This implies: show yourself holy (abstinent) in respect to things which are permitted to you — i.e. things that are actually permitted but which some treat as forbidden you should not treat as permissible in their presence (Sifrei Devarim 104:7).

כי עם קדוש אתה לה' אלוקיך, even though the dead carcass is in a state of being fit for human consumption, such as by strangers in your midst or residents who have not yet converted to embrace all of Judaism’s laws. עם קדוש, ready to achieve the perfection intended for it by its Creator. (this would be slowed down or impeded by eating lower forms of living creatures, not that eating them would be harmful, objectively speaking.)

Three times; this excludes wild animals, fowl, etc. Rashi’s explanation above in Parshas Mishpatim (Shmos 23:19), “This comes to forbid eating, cooking, and deriving benefit,” is based on the phrase, “do not cook,” which is written three times. But Rashi’s explanation here, “This excludes wild animals, fowl, and impure animals,” is based on the word, “kid,” which is written three times.

An additional meaning of the word כל may be related to what we have learned in Me-ilah 4,3 and which has been confirmed by a ruling of Maimonides in chapter four of his treatise Ma-achalot assurot. He writes: "all carcasses may be combined with one another. How does this work in practice? If someone takes a minute amount of the carcass of an ox plus a minute amount of the carcass of a deer, plus a minute amount of the carcass of a hen, if the three amounts combined are equal to the size of an olive then he who eats this combination is liable to thirty nine lashes." Thus far Maimonides. The statement: "you must not eat any carcass" therefore refers to the minimum quantity which is considered a violation, i.e. even if three separate animals were needed to make up the quantity of the size equal to an olive.

An der Tatsache, dass hier das Gesetz ausdrücklich die Gestattung des Verkaufs oder des Schenkens von נבלה an Nichtjuden auszusprechen veranlasst ist, wird Peßachim 21 b gelehrt, dass כל מקום שנאמר לא יאכל לא תאכל לא תאכלו אחד איסור אכילה ואחד איסור הנאה במשמע עד שיפרוט לך הכתוב כדרך שפרט לך בנבלה, dass überall unter das Verbot des "Essens" auch das Verbot sonstiger "Benutzung" begriffen sei, wenn nicht das Gesetz die Gestattung der Benutzung ausdrücklich, wie hier bei נבלה, erkläre. So ist, diese Gestattung der Benutzung ausdrücklich auch für טרפה (Schmot 22, 30) für חלב. (Wajikra 7, 24) und, wie Peßachim daselbst entwickelt, auch für שרצים ,חדש יין לנזיר ,תרומה ,אבר מן החי ,דם ausgesprochen.

כל נבלה, “any type of carcass that died of natural causes.” The use of the word כל to mean “any,” and not “all,” we have seen already in verse 3 in our chapter “כל תועבה,” anything abominable, as well as in Exodus 20,10: לא תעשה כל מלאכה,”you must not perform any work.”

לא תבשל גדי THOU SHALT NOT SEETHE A KID [IN ITS MOTHER’S MILK] — Three times the prohibition of seething meat in milk is mentioned in the Torah (here, and in Exodus 23:19 and Exodus 34:26) and each time in the form: “thou shalt not seethe a kid” thus excluding three species: a wild beast, fowls and unclean beasts from the prohibition (Sifrei Devarim 104:8; Chullin 113a).

לא תבשל גדי, as is the custom among the Gentiles who believe that by doing so they will increase the numbers of their livestock (compare Moreh Nevuchim, section three 3,48)

לגר אשר בשעריך, "to the stranger who is in your gates, etc." When the Torah speaks of the stranger it mentions giving it to him, whereas when speaking about the Gentile [who does not even observe the 7 Noachide laws. Ed.] the Torah mentions selling the carcass to him. In Chulin 114 we find a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah concerning the meaning of our verse. The former holds that our verse indicates a preference for giving the carcass to the stranger rather than selling it to him although both is permitted; however at the same time the Torah prefers you to sell the carcass to the Gentile rather than to give it to him as a gift. Rabbi Yehudah understands the wording to mean that to the Gentiles the carcass may only be sold, whereas to the stranger it may only be given as a gift. Rabbi Yehudah bases himself on the word או meaning "or." Had the Torah wanted to permit selling the carcass to the stranger it should have written ומכור, "and sell it," instead of או מכור, "or sell it." Rabbi Meir understands the sequence of "giving or selling" as an indication of which method the Torah prefers in each respective situation. In order to understand the approach of Rabbi Yehudah of why the Torah does not state unequivocally that the Gentile may not be given the carcass, etc., we have to refer to Avodah Zarah 67. [The subject under discussion in the Talmud there concerns matters whose substance as well as whose taste is prohibited. The question is whether the taste is prohibited even if it does not only not cause pleasure but has a distinctly negative influence on the palate. Ed.] Rabbi Shimon permits a substance which has become less enjoyable due to the addition of forbidden foreign matter, whereas Rabbi Meir forbids such a substance regardless of whether the taste enhances it or makes it unpalatable. Rabbi Shimon uses our verse to prove that anything which is fit as food for a stranger is called a carcass, i.e. falls under the prohibition that a Jew must not eat it. If it is not fit for a stranger to eat, it no longer rates as a carcass in Jewish law. Thus far the Talmud. From the above we may assume that Rabbi Shimon's exegesis is based on what is given to a stranger. A person would not make a gift of something to someone unless the recipient would enjoy such a gift. Needless to say that something which is unfit to give away is impossible to offer for sale either. From the above the Talmud seems to conclude that the definition of the word "carcass" depends on the suitability of the carcass as either a gift or its having a commercial value. This argument does not appear convincing. It appears to me that the word כל in our verse is meant to tell us that the condition of the carcass is immaterial to the question of whether it is forbidden or not. The mention of selling it or giving it away is totally unrelated to the status of the carcass as a forbidden substance.

Aboda Sara 67 b wird ferner an unserem Satze gelehrt, dass das Verbot לא תאכלו כל נבלה voraussetzt, dass die נבלה noch genießbar sei, und daran die Folgerung geknüpft, dass הראויה לגר קרויה נבלה שאין ראויה לגר אינה קרויה נבלה, dass hinsichtlich des Genussverbotes נבלה und so auch andere verbotene Speisen, nur so lange dem איסור unterliegen, als sie für einen Menschen genießbar sind, was denn (ebendaselbst) für Mischungen (Wajikra S. 206 f.) die Folge hat, dass נותן טעם לפגם מותר, eine solche sich dem Geschmack kundgebende Mischung schon dann nicht אסור ist, wenn sie geschmackswidrig ist (vergl. Wajikra 31, 23), ein Kanon, dessen Anwendung doch noch näheren Bestimmungen unterliegt (siehe daselbst).

או מכור לנכרי, or to be sold to a gentile.” The letter ל in the word לנכרי has the semi vowel sh’va.

If you accept my argument we need to understand Rabbi Shimon differently. He uses the fact that our verse is phrased in an unusual manner to prove his point. The Torah wrote the word "stranger" next to the word carcass," i.e. "every carcass is for the stranger," instead of writing it in the same way as it did later when speaking about selling the carcass to the Gentile. There the Torah uses the normal syntax, writing: "or to sell it to the Gentile." It is this unusual positioning of the respective words נבלה לגר which form the basis of Rabbi Shimon's exegesis. He most certainly did not fail to give due weight to the word כל. Had the Torah written תתננה לגר, "you are to give it to the stranger," Rabbi Shimon would not have had an "exegetical leg" to stand on.

אכל ist nach unserer Auffassung: Stoffzerstörung (כל (ה, zum Zweck der Selbstergänzung, א. Ungenießbares und, bei stofflich bis nur noch für den Geschmack wahrnehmbarer Vermischung, dem Geschmackssinn Widerstehendes, dürfte eben in dieser Ungenießbarkeit oder Geschmackswidrigkeit, von dem genießenden "Selbst" so zurückgewiesen sein, dass es den vorausgesetzten Zweck der Selbstergänzung verliert.

לא תבשל גדי, “do not boil a kid;” This was repeated here to teach that (its youth notwithstanding?) it is considered as meat. (Ibn Ezra)

We can now understand the reason of Rabbi Yehudah who holds like Rabbi Shimon in the discussion we quoted about נותן טעם לפגם, "when the taste of the forbidden substance is displeasing." Seeing that he holds that once the carcass is not suitable either commercially or as a gift and is therefore not forbidden to the Jew who owns it, we needed to be told that even if the carcass still has commercial value it may be sold or given away by its owner. According to Rabbi Meir who holds that even a commercially unsaleable carcass is forbidden, the whole subject of the suitability of the carcass did not arise so that the wording of the verse did not have to take this into account.

In Beziehung auf טומאה verliert eine נבלה erst den נבלה-Charakter, wenn sie selbst für ein Tier nicht mehr genießbar geworden, נפסל מאכילת כלב, allein סרוח מעיקרא, wenn sie von Anfang an nie genießbar war, so tritt auch dann טומאה nicht ein, wenn diese Ungenießbarkeit nur für Menschen gewesen (Bechorot 23 a u. b).

I have found that in Avodah Zarah 68 the Talmud raises the question of a carcass which is unsuitable either as a gift or as something saleable. Rabbi Meir claims that the word כל includes only carcasses which prior to the animal having died were fit to eat or to give as a gift, whereas animals which were badly diseased before death are not included under the prohibition of the word "carcass" even according to the view of Rabbi Meir! Rabbi Shimon replied that the Torah did not need to write a special word in order for me to know that a diseased animal could not ever become forbidden under the heading of "carcass." According to what we have argued so far, what kind of objection did the Talmud raise against the view of Rabbi Meir? We have already explained that there is no room for Rabbi Meir to use the wording of the verse as Rabbi Shimon does? Perhaps we need to say that the Talmud only elaborates (unnecessarily) when raising this question as if to say: "even assuming that Rabbi Meir could use the exegetical approach of Rabbi Shimon, he would be able to apply the word כל to exclude an animal which had been totally unsuitable as potential food already while it was alive, etc." The fact is however, that there is no real question against Rabbi Meir as we have already mentioned. At any rate, even according to the view of Rabbi Meir that when the taste of the carcass has been negatively affected it is still forbidden, if it had been unfit to eat for reasons of disease and the accompanying stench before its death, it is considered as plain earth and certainly does not fit the definition of "carcass." The two scholars then only disagree as to whether we need a word in the Torah to teach us this latter point.

לא תאכלו כל נבלה וגו׳ כי עם קדוש וגו׳ לא תבשל וגו׳. Wir haben zu Kapitel 12. 21 die Ansicht geäußert, der Akt der שחיטה sei ein Aneignungsakt abseiten des jüdischen Menschen in Beziehung auf das bis dahin dem Tierleben angehörige leibliche Wesen, sei ein Einverleiben, ein Hinauf- und Hineinheben eines Tierleibes in den Kreis der jüdischen Menschenpersönlichkeit. (צבה ,צבא ,שבע ,שפח-זבח. Ist doch sehr wahrscheinlich auch שחט nur das potenzierte שחד und dieses: jemanden sich zu eigen machen, jemanden gewinnen). Sein gerades Gegenteil ist: נבלה, das schechitalos gestorbene Tier, dessen Leib nicht nur wie טרפה bereits von der Elementarwelt ergriffen, sondern derselben, der Welt der Unfreiheit, völlig verfallen ist: נול = נבל (Trümmer), נפל.

Wir haben ferner bereits zu Schmot 23, 19 entwickelt, wie das בשר בחלבVerbot nicht nur bei der Speisebereitung die Mahnung an den Gesetzgeber unserer Artbestimmung überhaupt, sondern diese Bestimmung selbst in solchem Gegensatz zum Tiercharakter vergegenwärtigt, dass in unserem Wesen das Tierische, Wahrnehmung und Wille (Sinne und Bewegung) nicht dem Pflanzlichen, der Ernährung und dem geschlechtlichen Leben verfallen, sondern mit diesen dem sittlich Freien des geistigen Menschtums untertan, nicht abwärts zur Erde, sondern aufwärts zum Menschlichen und Göttlichen gehoben werde.

Diese Bestimmung macht uns zu ׳עם קדוש וגו, und spricht sich daher das נבלה und בשר בחלב-Verbot in tief innerlichem Zusammenhange begrifflich also aus: Der unfreien Elementarwelt verfallenes Tierwesen sollst du nicht als Nahrung deines persönlichen Wesens in dich aufnehmen; denn als Glied eines Gott heiligen Menschenkreises hast du vielmehr eine Bestimmung, welches alles Tierischleibliche in deinem Wesen nicht hinab an die Reize pflanzlicher Lebensfunktionen hingeben darf, sondern in den Bereich Gott dienender Menschensittlichkeit hinauf retten soll — nicht nur נבלה sollst du nicht essen, sondern selbst mit den dir erlaubten Tierspeisen und bei Bereitung derselben soll dir die sittlich heilige Bestimmung des Wesens, das du nähren willst, und die Anforderungen gegenwärtig sein, die durch diese Bestimmung bedingt sind. —

THOU SHALT TRULY TITHE [ALL THE INCREASE OF THY SEED] — What has this matter to do with that? (Why are they placed in juxtaposition)? But the Holy One, blessed be He, says in effect to Israel: “Do not compel Me to blast by heat the tender kernels of the grain, whilst they are yet in their mother’s womb (i.e. in the husks), for if you do not tithe your products as is proper, when they are near ripening I shall bring forth the east wind and it will blast them”, as it is said, (2 Kings 19:26) “[Therefore … they were] as the corn blasted before it be grown up” (Midrash Tanchuma, Re'eh 17). A similar reason may be given for בכורים (for its juxtaposition to לא תבשל גדי (Exodus 34:26).

THOU SHALT SURELY TITHE ALL THE INCREASE OF THY SEED. This also is a [previously stated] commandment that he [Moses] now explains. For He stated, And all the tithe of the Land, whether of the seed of the Land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Eternal’s; it is holy unto the Eternal,²²⁶Leviticus 27:30. and He further said, And if a man will redeem aught of his tithe, he shall add unto it the fifth part thereof²²⁷Ibid., Verse 31. Now these verses do not refer to the tithe of the Levites [i.e., the First Tithe], for of that it is said, And ye may eat it in every place,²²⁸Numbers 18:31. and it is unconsecrated food, and what reason is there for its redemption? And now he explained that He obligated [them] to tithe all the increase of thy seed [i.e., to set aside the Second Tithe] in order that he himself and his children eat it before G-d, that thou mayest learn to fear the Eternal.²²⁹Verse 23. “Corn” refers to five types of grain as explained further. For the priests and judges who stand there before the Eternal,²³⁰Further, 18:7. the teachers of the Torah, will instruct him in the fear [of G-d] and teach him the Torah and the Commandments. And he explained [here] the meaning of the redemption He mentioned there:²²⁷Ibid., Verse 31. it is because sometimes the [Second] Tithe will be abundant because the Eternal will have blessed you and the way will be too long for you, and [therefore] it is better to redeem it with money and to bring the redemption-money [to Jerusalem for use in buying food]. He did not mention [here] the fifth [that is added to the value of the Second Tithe when redeeming it] because it has already been mentioned [there in Leviticus].²²⁷Ibid., Verse 31.
The purport of the expression, that which is brought forth in the field is “‘and all’ that which is brought forth in the field,” [so that the phrase does modify ‘the increase of thy seed,’ and adds additional categories of produce to the requirement of the Second Tithe], just as He has said, whether of the seed of the Land, or of the fruit of the tree,²²⁶Leviticus 27:30. and the sense thereof is “that which comes forth ‘from’ the field.” Now the intent of the expression all the increase of thy seed is not that he is to tithe all produce from whatever he seeded, nor everything that is brought forth in the field year by year. The sense of the verse is that one is to tithe, of those species which are liable to the tithe, all of his produce [these being grain, wine, and oil, as will be explained] and all that was brought forth of them in the field. He is warning that he is not to tithe only a small part of that which cometh to his hand²³¹Genesis 32:14. and thus exempt only a small quantity of the produce, but instead he is to tithe both the measures of seed that he planted and the increase upon them [in the process of growing], all of it faithfully. Then he mentions the species which are obligated to be tithed: the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil,²²⁹Verse 23. “Corn” refers to five types of grain as explained further. and so he mentions in all places, as it is said, Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn, or of thy wine, or of thine oil etc.²³²Above, 12:17. And so He said in the section on the gifts to the priesthood, All the best of the oil, and all the best of the wine, and of the corn, the first part of them which they give unto the Eternal,²³³Numbers 18:12. for of these only we are obligated by the law of the Torah²³⁴By law of the Rabbis, other products of the earth must also be tithed, as will be explained further on. to set aside the heave-offering and the tithes. Similarly, what Scripture states, And all the tithe of the Land, whether of the seed of the Land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Eternal’s²²⁶Leviticus 27:30. [does not mean] that He commanded that one tithe all the seed of the Land and all the fruit of the tree, but rather the meaning thereof is as follows: “Whatever you tithe of the seed of the Land, which is corn, and of the fruit of the tree, which is wine and oil, are the Eternal’s.” In this identical language Rashi writes there: “Of the seed of the Land — corn. Or of the fruit of the tree — wine and oil.” Now Scripture abbreviates the matter there [in Leviticus] because it is not the place of the commandment obligating that one tithe, but it merely commands that the [Second] Tithe shall be holy unto the Eternal²²⁷Ibid., Verse 31. until he redeems it by adding a fifth thereto. But the commandment regarding the heave-offerings and the tithes applies everywhere [in the Torah] to corn, wine and oil [exclusively and to no other produce of field or tree]. Now the term dagan (corn) in the Sacred Language applies to the five well-known species of grain;²³⁵Wheat, barley, spelt, goatgrass, and oats (Challah 1:1). tirosh (wine) applies to the new wine in the overflowing vats,²³⁶See Joel 2:24. and yitzhar refers to the oil therein.²³⁶See Joel 2:24. No other kind of seedling or fruit of the trees at all, are obligated by law of the Torah neither in heave-offerings nor in tithes. Now, there are Beraithoth²³⁷See Vol. II, p. 133, Note 209 on meaning of the term. taught in the Torath Kohanim and in the Sifre that are Scriptural supports for Rabbinic ordinances, and they are misleading [because the Beraithoth indicate that Scripture requires heave-offerings and tithes from other produce as well]. However, the principle that emerges clearly from the Gemara of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud²³⁸On Jerusalem Talmud see Vol. III, p. 192, Note 44. and the plain meaning of Scripture is this: that even tithes of olives and grapes are not [required] by law of the Torah until they have been made into wine and oil. Be heedful of this matter, for some of the greatest authors²³⁹Reference is to Rambam who wrote that included in thy corn, thy wine, and thine oil are all products similar to these — that are used as food, and are guarded, and grow from the soil — that they too are to be tithed by law of the Torah (Hilchoth Terumoth 2:1). have erred concerning it.
And the meaning of the expression year by year is that we are to set aside this [Second] Tithe in two consecutive years, one after the other [i.e., in the first and second years of the Sabbatical cycle, and again in the fourth and fifth years]. Such is the interpretation accepted by our Rabbis. And afterwards he explained that at the end of three years²⁴⁰Verse 28. you shall bring forth the tithe of your increase of that [third] year and feed it to the poor, thus declaring that the third year [and the sixth year as well] the tithe is for the poor [unlike the Second Tithe which is to be eaten in Jerusalem, it is given to the poor anywhere in the Land]. He states thou shalt bring forth … and shalt lay it up within thy gates²⁴⁰Verse 28. in order to teach us concerning the removal thereof [from the house], and he will yet explain it in the section of When thou hast made an end of tithing.²⁴¹Further, 26:12.
The Midrash of the Sages relative to the expression aseir t’aseir (thou shalt surely tithe) is:²⁴²Taanith 9a. Tanchuma, R’eih 18. “Aseir (give tithes) so that tithasheir (you may become rich);²⁴³By giving charity one is assured of becoming rich. give tithe so that you may not be deprived [of your belongings]. This is a hint to those who make their way through the seas [i.e., to merchants who travel abroad] to set aside one tenth [of their profits] for those who toil in the Torah.”²⁴⁴See my Hebrew commentary p. 411.

עשר תעשר, for by tithing the crops of the fields and orchards as well as that of your livestock, you will actually increase their numbers (G’d will see to this) instead of decreasing the amount at your disposal. This is what our sages meant when they said in Shabbat 119 עשר בשביל שתתעשר, “give the tithes so that you will be enriched” (with the dot in the letter ש of the word תתעשר on the right hand side.).

היוצא השדה, “that emerges from the field, etc.” The Torah took it for granted that the reader mentally adds the word מן, “from,” after the word היוצא. Some commentators understand the words היוצא השדה as referring back to the word תבואת “yield of, harvest of,” in the earlier part of our verse. The message- i.e. what additional information does the expression היוצא השדה yield for us, would be that even the seed used in planting is also subject to the laws of tithing. Even though we read in the text the words כל תבואת זרעך “all the produce of your seeds,” this is not meant literally, as there are crops that do not require tithing, except for the categories of crop spelled out by the Torah in verse 23, i.e. grain, wine, and oil. The word דגנך, loosely translated as “your grain,” comprises five species of grain, the kinds subject to becoming fermented, i.e. wheat, barley, oats, spelt and rye. The meaning of the word תירוש is new wine that has not yet fermented. The word יצהר refers to the oil from olives. The meaning of the line עשר תעשר את כל תבואת זרעך therefore is: “make certain that you properly tithe all the types of harvests that are subject to the laws of tithing.” The words היוצא השדה are a warning not to be overly eager and give tithes of grain still in the ground or fruit still on the tree, seeing that the tithe is subject to being measured and even a generous “over”-tithing (giving by estimate but definitely more than the required 10%) would invalidate the whole procedure and leave the crop as טבל, untithed, and therefore forbidden food. The plain meaning of the text is designed to teach us that even grapes and olives do not become subject to the laws of tithing (from a Biblical perspective) until after the olives have been converted into oil, and the grapes into wine. The expression שנה, שנה, usually translated as “annually,” means [halachically speaking, Ed.] that the duty to tithe in the manner described applies during two successive years at the beginning of the shemittah cycle. At the end of the third year of that cycle any remaining tithes from the previous two crops plus the new crop’s tithes have to be distributed to the poor, the second tithe during the third and sixth year of the cycle is not consumed by the owner in Jerusalem, but instead is shared out among the poor, as distinct from the first tithe which is given to a Levite.

עשר תעשר, “pay both tithes.” According to the plain meaning of the text: “after you set aside and gave to the Levite the first tithe, set aside the second tithe for yourself and take it to Jerusalem to consume it there.

What is the relationship between the two subjects? etc. Although Rashi does not explain why subjects are juxtaposed unless they are written out of place, in Mishnah Torah he does — just as he explains below in Parshas Ki Seitzei regarding the verse (21:11), “...And take her for yourself as a wife, etc.”

V. 22. עשר וגו׳. Es hatten die vorangegangenen Speisegesetze die Verpflichtung wiederholt, bei der Nahrungswahl aus Tierstoffen der geistig sittlichen Heiligung des durch sie zu nährenden Menschenwesens Rechnung zu tragen und nur solche Speisen und diese nur in solchen Zuständen und Bereitungsweisen zu genießen, durch welche unsere geistig sittliche Integrität nicht gefährdet, vielmehr selbst bei der Speisebereitung tierischer Nahrungsstoffe die das Tier spezifisch überragende Bestimmung des geistig leiblichen Menschenwesens gegenwärtig gehalten werde. Damit steht in innigstem Zusammenhange das nun folgende מעשר שני-Gesetz, durch welches geradezu sinnlich leiblicher Nahrungsgenuss zu einer heiligen, im Anblick seines Gesetzesheiligtums Gott dienenden Pflichthandlung erhoben und "Essen vor Gott" — ואכלת לפני ד׳ אלקיך — geradezu das "Lehr- und Erziehungsmittel" wird zu einer uns durchs ganze Leben begleitenden Gottesfurcht — למען תלמד ליראה את ד׳ אלקיך כל הימים —. Es entspricht dies ganz dem Grundcharakter der jüdischen Gottesverehrung und des jüdischen Menschenideals. Beide wissen nichts von einer Gottesnähe und Menschenhoheit mit dem Geiste, die das Leiblichsinnliche sittlicher Entwürdigung überlassen. Das Judentum erfasst den ganzen Menschen für den Bereich seiner Veredlung und setzt die Heiligung im sinnlichen Leben als die allererste, unerlässliche Vorbedingung einer Erhebung des Menschen zu Gott, wie dies ja die Institution der Mila grundlegend ausspricht.

היוצא השדה שנה שנה, “which is brought forth from the field year after year. The apparently superfluous words ”year after year,” are interpreted by Sifri as meaning that tithes must be given from the current harvest year not two tithes from a single harvest. An alternate interpretation: the farmer is assured by the Torah that if he tithes this year’s harvest properly he will be assured of a bountiful harvest in the year following.

עשר תעשר, “you must surely tithe, etc.;” the reason why this paragraph was added at this point is that earlier we had read about not eating anything that is ritually impure, followed by meat that is forbidden to eat, followed now by agricultural products the eating of which is restricted to certain holy locations.

שנה שנה [THOU SHALT TRULY GIVE TITHE] YEAR BY YEAR — From here we may derive that one must not give tithe from the new grain for the old (Sifrei Devarim 105:1).

Do not cause Me to cook the young shoots of your crops, etc. The word לבשל (lit., to cook) here means, “to destroy.” The word גדיים (lit., kids) here refers to grain still in its stalks and nearly ripe.

מעשר שני ist bereits Wajikra 22, 6, wo es unter den Begriff קדשים verstanden ist, als ein Heiligtum besprochen, das nicht בטומאה genossen werden darf (siehe daselbst). Ebenso Wajikra 27, 30 u. 31, wo es als ממון גבוה, als קדש לד׳, als Gotteseigentum charakterisiert wird, das dem ursprünglichen Eigener von Gott nur mit beschränktem Verfügungsrecht zurückgegeben ist, und als solches dem dort besprochenen חרם sich anschließt (siehe daselbst). Hier folgt nun der eigentliche Ausspruch seiner Institution, welcher umsomehr hier, in dem Volkskompendium für die Dezentralisation, ihre Stelle vorbehalten bleiben konnte, als ja erst jetzt ihre Verwirklichung und Bedeutung bevorstand, während bisher ja aller Genuss im Umkreise des Heiligtums geschah, indem das ganze מחנה ישראל in der Bedeutung von ירושלים stand. Eine Ergänzung findet dieses Gesetz noch in dem וידוי מעשר-Gesetze (Kap. 26, 12 f.), wo für מעשר שני noch der איסור אכילתו בטומאה ובאנינות besprochen wird (daselbst 14).

עשר תעשר, “the command is repeated in order to also forbid trading in tithes, not only eating in the wrong location.” (Tanchuma, Reay section 18) An alternate interpretation: The words עשר תעשר, by themselves, could be understood as applying to anything that grows being subject to tithing. The fact that the Torah added the word: ואכלת, “and that you eat,” restricts the need to tithe to crops grown with the intent to serve as food. I might now have thought that such foods as honey and milk could be included also in the legislation to tithe; in order to tell us that this is not so, the Torah added the words: היוצא השדה, “which is the product of the field.” This excludes among other items plants that do not derive their nutrients from the moisture in the soil. Actually, the verse about not boiling a kid in the milk of its mother has been written in three separate parts of the Torah, and each time it has been repeated a new element has been added to this commandment as Rashi has explained. At this stage the new element is that of not desecrating the second tithe, as indicated by the need to convert (redeem) it if it is not capable of being transported to Jerusalem.

Similarly, with regard to the bikurim-gift. If you do not bring the first-fruit offering, then your fruits will be destroyed. In other words: We also learn from the juxtaposition of the first-fruit offering to the verse, “You must not cook a kid, etc.,” of Parshas Mishpatim (Shmos 23:19) and Ki Sisa (ibid. 34:26) where it is written, “The first fruits of your land bring to the House of the Adonoy your God. You must not cook a kid in its mother’s milk.” Therefore Rashi says, “Similarly.” In other words: Although Rashi usually does not explain why subjects are juxtaposed, nevertheless since, “...do not cook, etc.,” is expounded here, we also expound it there.

עשר, die Numeralia im Piel bezeichnen sonst eine Vervielfältigung um die Zahlengröße, שלש verdreifachen (Bereschit 15, 9; Kön. I. 18, 34 und Pred. 4, 12) רבע quadrieren, eine Maßeinheit an vier Seiten legen (Kön. I. 7, 31 und Ezech. 40, 46). Es ist aber nicht unmöglich, dass hier in עשר das Piel die entfernende Bedeutung wie in סקל ,דשן habe, und eigentlich: entzehnten heiße.

From here it is derived that one may not use the new crop, etc. Rashi’s explanation is not precise; the old crop also may not be used as tithe for the new. But Rashi is teaching us a greater novelty. Even the new may not be used as tithe for the old — the superior for the inferior. Then certainly the old may not be used as tithe for the new — the inferior for the superior.

עשר תעשר. Bamidbar 18, 21 f. ist bereits von einem Zehnten die Rede, welcher den Leviten von der "Scheuer und der Kelter" des Volkes als Lohn ihres Dienstes am Heiligtum zu geben ist, und dessen Verwendung, nach Aushebung der Zehntenteruma für den Kohen, dem Leviten ganz so wie Scheuer- und Kelterertrag zusteht und als völlig חולין überall genossen werden kann (siehe daselbst V. 30, 31). Hier heißt es nun עשר תעשר, außer jenem ersten an die Leviten zu gebenden Zehnten, soll noch ein Zehnte ausgeschieden werden (siehe ספרי z. St.) אין לי אלא מעשר שני שבו דבר הכתוב מנין לרבות שאר מעשרות ת׳׳ל עשר תעשר. Siehe רמב׳׳ן zu ספר המצות שורש י׳׳ב. — את כל תבואת זרעד wir haben schon in dem מעשר-Kapitel des vierten Buches bemerkt, Ö wie, abweichend von der Auffassung des רמ׳כ׳ם, nach allgemeinster Annahme die תרומה ומעשרות-Pflicht מו התורה nur für Getreide, Wein, und Öl ,דגן תירוש ויצהר, besteht die ja auch Bamidbar 18, 12 und Dewarim 12, 17 im nächsten V. 23 und auch Kap. 18, 4 allein ausdrücklich als diejenigen Objekte genannt sind, auf welche sich diese Pflicht bezieht. Dieser Auffassung steht der Ausdruck כל תבואת ורעך nicht entgegen. Es ist nämlich תבואה keineswegs ein Begriff, der alle Bodenerzeugnisse umfasst. Selbst die Ansicht, welche die תרומות ומעשרות-Pflicht über דגן תירוש ויצהר hinaus ausdehnt, findet diese Erweiterung nicht in dem Ausdruck תבואה, nicht einmal in dem verallgemeinernden ׳כל תבואת וגו (siehe zu Jeruschalmi תוספות I, 1 מעשרות Bechorot 54 a u.s.). Sind ja auch selbst nach dieser Ansicht jedenfalls ירקות, alle Krautarten, nicht darunter verstanden und wird in der Mischna mit תבואה speziell Getreide bezeichnet (siehe מעשרות l, 3, 6 u. s.). Es liegt daher sehr nahe, unter תבואת זרעך zunächst diejenigen Bodenerzeugnisse zu verstehen, die den eigentlichen Bodenreichtum bilden, auf welche die Hoffnung des Landmannes gerichtet ist, die er als Heimertrag, תבואה (von בוא heimkommen) erwartet von dem, was er als Aussaat auf das Feld hinaus gebracht hat (זרע היוצא השדה). Es ist eben תבואת גרן ותבואת יקב, wie es Bamidbar 18, 30 genannt ist. Verstehen wir doch auch unter "Frucht" speziell Getreide (vergl. 12 ר׳׳ה b, דש׳׳י und רמב׳׳ם .(ר׳׳ה התבואה ,תוספו im Kommentar erklärt כל תבואת זרעך dahin, dass damit) die Mahnung gegeben sei, den ganzen Ertrag aller zehntpflichtigen Bodenerzeugnisse zu verzehnten, nicht etwa sich mit der Erfüllung dieser Pflicht an einem Teil derselben zu begnügen.

Baba Mezia 88 b wird gelehrt: עשר תעשר ואכלת ולא מוכר תבואת זרעך ולא לוקח das מעשר-Gesetz spreche offenbar von solchen Getreide, welches derjenige, dem es gewachsen, zum Selbstverbrauch, nicht aber von solchem, das er zum Handelsgegenstand bestimmt habe; es spreche ferner von dem, dem es als Produzenten angehört, nicht aber von dem, dessen Eigentum es durch Kauf geworden. Daraus ergibt sich, dass sowohl מוכר als לוקח, sowohl Verkäufer als Käufer der Zehntpflicht מן התורה entgehen könne. Entscheidend ist dabei, in wessen Händen die Frucht das Stadium der Zehntpflicht erreichte. Diese tritt nämlich erst mit גמר מלאכה, mit dem Moment ein, in welchem die letzte Hand an die Frucht gelegt worden. Dieser Moment heißt גרנן למעשרות (Maßerot I, 5) — zu unterscheiden von עונת המעשרות, womit der Grad der Reife, das Gezeitigtsein der Frucht bezeichnet wird, wodurch ihre Zehntpflichtigkeit bedingt ist — dieses גרן למעשרות ist nach Früchten verschieden. Für Getreide ist es der Moment, in welchem es in "gestrichenen Haufen" steht, נתמרח בכרי. Diese Bestimmung ist schon in dem Ausdruck מעשר דגנך וגו׳ niedergelegt. דגן heißt nämlich das Getreide erst dann, wenn es in gestrichenem Haufen "fertig" steht (Berochot 47 a). Die Lautverwandtschaft mit תקן ,תכן weist damit übereinstimmend für רגן die Grundbedeutung des "in Ordnung sein", "entsprechend, fertig sein" auf. Demgemäss wird nur die für den Selbstverbrauch fertig gemachte Frucht zehntpflichtig und behält diese Pflicht, selbst wenn sie nachher durch Verkauf in andere Hände übergeht. Ebenso wird sie ביד לוקח zehntpflichtig, wenn sie ihm unfertig, קדם מירוח verkauft worden und von ihm, dem Käufer, zum Selbstverbrauch fertig gemacht wird. Frucht aber, die für den Verkauf fertig gemacht worden, bleibt für immer zehntfrei. Eine Bestimmung, die ebenso für תרומות wie für מעשרות gilt. (Siehe הל׳ מעשר רמ׳׳כם II, 1, 2; מ׳ל׳מ zu תרומות I, 11. Mit dieser Auffassung, des פטור לוקח stimmt auch ר׳׳ת Baba Mezia 88 a ריטב׳׳א und רשב׳׳א überein. Siehe ש׳׳מ daselbst, ריב׳׳ם und ראב׳׳ד haben andere Auffassungen.) מדרבנן werden aber auch zum Verkauf fertig gemachte Früchte zehntpflichtig und ist auch אכילת קבע, ein mehr als zufälliger עראי Genuss von Früchten auch in ihrem unfertigen Zustande nicht gestattet. Eine fernere Beschränkung der תרומה ומעשר-Pflicht liegt in der dieselbe bedingenden Art der Einbringung: אין הטבל מתחייב במעשר עד שיראה פני הבית. Nur was durch die offene Frontpforte des Hauses eingebracht wird, ist מן התורה zehntpflichtig, nicht aber, was auf Umwegen, wie wir sagen würden: durch die Hintertür, דרך גגות וקרפיפות eingebracht worden (Baba Mezia 88 a; — siehe zu Kap. 26, 13).

היצא השדה. Vergleiche וצא השדה (Bereschit 27, 3, נצא השדה ( (Sam. I. 20. 11 und Hohel. 7, 12) u.f. also: die als Aussaat auf das Feld hinausgeht.

שנה שנה der Ertrag eines jeden Jahres ist für sich gesondert zu verzehnten, אין תורמין ומעשרין לא מן החדש על הישן ולא מן הישן על החדש, man kann תרומה und מעשר weder von dem Diesjährigen für das Vorjährige, noch von dem Vorjährigen für das Diesjährige ausscheiden (Rosch Haschana 12 b). Die Jahrgänge zählen fürs Getreide vom ersten Tischri zu erstem Tischri und für Baumfrüchte vom fünfzehnten Schwat zum fünfzehnten Schwat und gehören die Früchte dem Jahrgange an, innerhalb dessen sie die für מעשר befähigende Größe erlangt שהניעו לעונת המעשרות, es ist dies ein Drittel der vollendeten Reife שהביאו שליש (siehe ׳תוספו daselbst ד׳׳ה תבואה). Für Baumfrüchte heißt diese Anfangsreife חנטה. Getreide also, das dieses Stadium vor ר׳׳ה und Baumfrüchte, die dieses Stadium vor dem fünfzehnten Schwat erreicht haben, gehören dem vorigen Jahrgange an, selbst wenn sie ihre volle Reife erst in diesem Jahre erreichen.

Wie Verse 28 und 29 anordnen, ist jedes dritte Jahr hinsichtlich der במעשר Pflicht von den beiden vorangehenden Jahren verschieden. מעשר ראשון, das dem Leviten zu gebende erste Zehnte ist in jedem Jahre Pflicht, הקישו הכתוב לנחלה מה נחלה אין לה הפסק אף מעשר ראשון אין לו הפסק (daselbst; — siehe zu Bamidbar 18, 24. Allein hinsichtlich des zweiten Zehnten tritt ein Wechsel ein. Im ersten und zweiten, vierten und fünften Jahre der Schemitaperiode wird außer מעשר ראשון noch das hier angeordnete, in Jerusalem zu verzehrende מעשר שני ausgeschieden. In jedem dritten und sechsten Jahre tritt statt desselben מעשר עני ein, es wird nämlich der zweite Zehnte an die Armen verteilt, die es überall genießen können. Auch hier ist der Eintritt עונת המעשרות vor oder nach ר׳׳ה, vor oder nach ט׳׳ו בשבט entscheidend, ob eine Frucht dem מעשר שני oder מעשר עני-Jahr angehört.

Die durch מעשר שני ,מעשר ראשון und מעשר עני zu pflegenden Zwecke entsprechen den Zielen, denen überhaupt unsere materiellen Mittel zugewendet werden können und sollen: es ist die Pflege des Geistes מ׳׳ר ללוי, die Pflege des Leibes מ׳׳ש בירושלים, die Pflege des Nächstenheiles, מ׳׳ע. Allein vergegenwärtigen wir uns die gesetzlichen Tatsachen, dass מן התורה nur רגן תירוש ויצהר, und nur dann מעשר-pflichtig sind, wenn sie נתמרח לאכילה, wenn sie zum Selbstgebrauch, nicht aber, wenn sie zum Verkauf fertig gemacht worden, dass sie überhaupt nur pflichtig werden, wenn sie in offenster Weise in Haus und Hof eingebracht worden כשראו פני הבית: so glauben wir uns sagen zu dürfen: keineswegs soll die Pflege dieser drei Strebensziele durch diese drei gegenständlich und formal so sehr beschränkten und bedingten Maßerspenden erschöpft werden. Die entsprechende und ausreichende Pflege dieser Ziele beruht auf unserem ganzen Vermögen (siehe zu Kap. 15, 8), ihm und seinen Zweckbestimmungen verbleiben ja alle die מן התורה nicht von der Maßerpflicht betroffenen Früchte und Güter, und es ist eben die Bestimmung, Weihe und Gott zugewandte Richtung unseres ganzen Vermögens, die durch diese drei מעשר zum Bewusstsein gebracht werden sollen, wie dies ja eben in unserem מעשר שני-Kapitel ausgesprochen ist: למען תלמד ליראה את ד׳ א׳ מעשר מן התורה .כל הימים ist eine die "Menschenarbeit für die Selbstexistenz" weihende Bekenntnistat. Für den Selbstverbrauch fertig gestellte Früchte ersten Ranges dürfen nicht dem Genusszweck überantwortet werden, bevor nicht der Existenz des ackerlosen Levitenstammes der Gesetzesi>geistespflege, bevor nicht der vor Gottes Angesicht zu lernenden Heiligung unseres ganzen eigenen Genusseslebens, und statt dessen in jedem dritten Jahre der Existenz der besitzlosen Brüder ein fürsorgender Tribut gezollt worden.

Und der vollen jüdischen Mizwafreudigkeit hat das göttliche Gesetz diese seine so bedeutsamen Zehntpflichthandlungen überantwortet. Es kann der Besitzer sich ihnen gesetzlich entziehen. Wenn er auf stillen Beiwegen, דרך גגות וקרפיפות, seinen Erntesegen einbringen will, so trifft ihn diese Mizwapflicht nicht. Er kann das für sich Eingeheimste verzehren, ohne davon des Levi und des Armen zu gedenken und ohne damit seines Genusses vor Gott in dem Umkreis des nationalen Gesetzesheiligtums froh zu werden. Allein, wenn er gottfroh seinen Erntesegen durch die geöffneten Hauses- und Hofespforten einziehen lassen will, dann trifft ihn die Mizwa, und es hat das Gesetz darauf gerechnet, dass dem jüdischen Besitzer der Erntesegen nicht schmecken werde, wenn er sich auf Umwegen dieser Mizwaverpflichtung entzogen. Daher könnte eine spätere Zeit klagend auf die bessere Vergangenheit hinweisen, in welcher man die Früchte durch die geöffneten Flügelpforten einfuhr, um sie zur Zehntpflicht zu bringen, und die Zeitgenossen brachten sie auf Umwegen ins Haus, um sie von dieser Pflicht frei zu halten. בא וראה שלא בדורות הראשונים דורות האחרונים דורות הראשונים היו מכניסין פירותיהן דרך טרקסמון כדי לחייבן במעשר דורות האחרונים מכניסים פירותיהן דרך גגות דרך הצרות דרך קרפיפות כדי לפטרן מן המעשר (ברכות ל׳׳ה ב). Und (Baba Mezia 88 a) wird der frühzeitige Untergang von Fruchthandlungen darauf zurückgeführt, dass sie ihren Geschäften die vom Gesetze an die Hand gegebene Basis zu Grunde legten, nach welcher Käufer und Verkäufer von der מעשר-Pflicht frei bleiben. מפני מה חרבו חניות של בית הינו שלש שנים קודם ירושלים מפני שהעמידו דבריהם על דברי תורה שהיו אומרים עשר תעשר ואכלת ולא מוכר תבואת זרעך ולא לוקח.

Indem aber jeder Jahrgang für sich und innerhalb eines jeden Jahrganges eine jede Fruchtart gesondert zu verzehnten ist, so dürfte damit die speziellste השגחה פרטית zum Bewusstsein gebracht sein, die die Menschenarbeit eines jeden Jahres und an jeder Fruchtgattung den besonderen Gegenstand ihrer segnenden Fürsorge sein lässt.

'ואכלת וגו AND THOU SHALT EAT [BEFORE THE LORD THY GOD, IN THE PLACE WHICH HE SHALL CHOOSE … THE TITHE OF THY CORN etc.] — This is the “Second Tithe”, for it (Scripture) has already taught us to give the “First Tithe” to the Levites — as it is said, (Numbers 18:26) “[And unto the Levite shalt thou speak …], when ye take of the children of Israel the tithes”, etc., — and besides it gave them permission to eat it in any place, as it is said, (Numbers 18:31) “and ye shall eat it in any place” — thus you must admit that this tithe mentioned here, (which is to be eaten by an ordinary Israelite in Jerusalem) must be another one, — the “Second Tithe”.

למען תלמד ליראה, for the site chosen by G’d for the Temple also houses the Supreme Court, Sanhedrin, from where knowledge and understanding is dispensed.

למען תלמד ליראה, when you are an eyewitness to the priests performing their service in the Temple, etc., the site at which G’d’s presence manifests itself.

Your grain, your wine. First we must explain the end of the verse, “In order that you learn to fear Hashem…” It is taught in Sifrei: The mitzvah of maaser sheini was only given in order that you will learn to fear Hashem. The explanation is that maaser sheini may only be eaten in Yerushalayim, and it is impossible for the owners to eat all of the tithes in the short time that they are there for the festivals. Therefore the owner must remain on his own in Yerushalayim after the festival, when he has nothing to do but to learn to fear Hashem, or he must leave the food to students in Yerushalayim, which is the purpose of maaser sheini, to increase Torah study. So this verse is speaking not about during the days of the festival, but all the other days of the year.

V. 23. ׳ואכלת לפני ד׳ וגו (siehe zu vorigem Verse). — ׳ובכרת בקרך וגו. Aus dem Folgenden ist klar, dass בכורות nicht das eigentliche Objekt dieser Gesetzesbestimmungen bilden kann. Vers 24 ff. wird angeordnet, dass im Fall das V. 23 besprochene Genussobjekt nicht in Natura zu der Heiligtumsstätte hinaufgebracht werden könne, es in Geld ausgelöst und statt seiner dieses Geld dort in Genussgegenständen angelegt werden solle. Nun gibt es aber für בכור בהמה טהורה in keinem Falle ein פדיון, wie 4. B. M. 18, 17 ausdrücklich ausgesprochen ist. Als תם sind seine אימורים auf dem מזבח darzubringen und das Fleisch wird von den Priestern als קדשים קלים innerhalb des städtischen Umkreises des Heiligtums gegessen; als בעל מום bleibt es ebenfalls Eigentum der כהנים, kann aber ohne פדיון überall von jedem gegessen werden. In keinem Fall sind auf ihn die hier folgenden Bestimmungen anwendbar. Es kann daher auch hier, V. 23, nurמעשר דגנך תירושך ויצהרך der eigentliche von dem Gesetze zu besprechende Gegenstand sein und בכורות בקרך וצאנך kann zu ׳מעשר וגו nur in einem nebengeordneten erläuternden Verhältnis stehen. בכור בהמה טהורה gehört zu jener allerersten Institution, mit welcher Gott sein לי" über das von ihm erlöste Volk aussprach, und aus diesem "לי" die Heiligung aller Personen und aller Güter in diesem Volke als Folgerung setzte, und für die Güter des menschlichen Genusses und der Nahrung dieser Heiligung eben den Ausdruck in בכור בהמה טהורה verlieh, durch welchen die Nahrung aller jüdischen Familien im Dienste des Gesetzesheiligtums begriffen, die Hingebung und das Aufgehen in die Pflege alles Göttlichen auf Erden (הקטרת אימורים) als Ziel alles Strebens und Wollens (חלב וכליות), und der priesterlich geweihte Familiengenuss vor Gottes Angesicht, — vorbildlich — durch den Genuss der כהנים und ihrer Familien נשיהם ובניהם ועבדיהם innerhalb der Gottesstadt gelehrt werden soll. Getragen ist die ganze Institution von dem steten Hinblick auf die Geburtsstunde des jüdischen Volkes, die an dem Untergange der Pharaonenmacht und der ägyptischen Familienblüte den Ernst des alles Aufblühen vor Gott bedingenden Gehorsams für ewig in Israel gegenwärtig halten soll. Was בכור בחמה טהורה priesterlich vorbildend symbolisch lehrt, das soll in מעשר שני von jedem im Volke in konkreter Wirklichkeit vollzogen werden. Von dem, was er von den edelsten Früchten des Gotteslandes für sich und die Seinen fertig gestellt, hebt ein jeder einen Zehnten als ממון גבוה, als Gotteseigentum, als קדש, als zur Heiligung geheiligt aus, nicht um es Priester und Leviten zuzuwenden, sondern um damit im Geiste selbst Priester und Levite zu werden, um es zum Selbstgenuss in die Gottesstadt des Gesetzesheiligtums hinaufzutragen und es dort in priesterlicher Reinheit und priesterlichem Lebensgefühl — שלא בטומאה ושלא באנינות (siehe Kap. 26, 14) — vor Gottes Angesicht, als dem Angesichte seines Gottes in dem Umkreise seines Heiligtums zu genießen und so zu lernen, wie die rechte Freude nur in der rechten Gottesfurcht wurzelt, die jeden Lebensmoment, auch den sinnlichsten, in Gottes Gegenwart zu verleben, und selbst Genussesheiterkeit zu einer heiligen und heiligenden Gottestat zu erheben weiß — למען תלמד ליראה את ד׳ אלקיך כל הימים.

מעשר דגנך תירושך ויצהרך, “the tithe from your corn harvest, your grape harvest and the harvest from your olive trees.” The personal pronoun “your,” at the end of these three words are to indicate that if you tithe each harvest properly, then you will be entitled to call the remainder as truly yours. If not, the Lord will consider these harvests as belonging to Him, as we know from the verse in Hoseah 2,11: לכן אשוב ולקחתי דגני בעתו ותירושי במועדו וגו', “assuredly I will take back My new grain in its time and My new wine at its season, etc. etc.” (Compare Tanchuma section 18 on our portion) If you wish to appreciate the power of tithing your produce meticulously, consider the following: concerning all other commandments the Torah wrote that you must not put the Lord to a test, to see if He keeps what He has promised; (Deuteronomy 6,16) there is only one exception to this rule which has been spelled out by the last of our prophets Malachi, 3,10: “Bring the full tithe into the storehouse; and let there be food in My House, and thus put Me to the test –said the Lord of Hosts. I will surely open the floodgates of the sky for you and pour down blessings on you. And I will banish the locusts from you so that they will not destroy the yield of your soil; and the vines in the field shall no longer miscarry-said the Lord of Hosts. And all the nations shall account you as happy for you shall be the most desired of lands, -said the Lord of Hosts. Our sages in the Talmud tractate Taanit, folio 9 ask about the meaning of the words: עד בלי די, in verse 10 of the quote from Malachi; they said that it means “until your lips will get tired of saying “enough.”

למען תלמד ליראה, “in order that you may learn to revere, etc.” This expression is meant to refer to reverence for the Lord becoming something natural, a daily occurrence, part of your everyday life, not something restricted to when one visits the synagogue and prays intently. When people observe the laws of the second tithe that apply to the average farmer being observed by huge crowds coming to Jerusalem and being exposed to priests in great numbers, this will make a deep impression upon them and be an unforgettable experience. Seeing the Supreme Court in session in Jerusalem will also be an experience that will increase the degree of reverence for the Lord your G-d.

In einem solchen gleichstellenden Verhältnis — היקש wird diese Verbindung von בכורות und מעשר שני in unserem Verse auch in Temura 21 a u. b gefasst und ebenso für מעשר שני, wie dies bei בכור der Fall ist, die Bedeutung von Jerusalem auf den Bestand des Tempels בפני בית, und der Rahon der Genusserlaubnis auf den Raum innerhalb der Mauern, לפנים מן החומה, durch diese Gleichstellung beschränkt, wie auch eben dadurch בכורות von חוצה לארץ von der Opferdarbringung im Tempel ausgeschlossen werden, indem ja auch מעשר רגן nur vom jüdischen Inlande nach Jerusalem zu bringen ist, ׳ממקום שאתה מעלה מעשר דגן אתה מעלה בכור וכו׳ וכו, und ebenso בכור nicht im zweiten Jahre seine Darbringungsfähigkeit verliert, wie auch מעשר דגן nicht נפסל משנה לחברתה.

היוצא השדה, “which the field produces.” Tanchuma Re'ey 18 comments that “if you merit it you will go out and sow your field. If not היוצא השדה, the one known as “going out into the field,” (the Torah’s description of Esau) will harass you (compare Genesis 25,29).

תבואת זרעך, “the produce of your sowing.” if you merit it the reason you go out to your field will be to examine if it needs rain and if so you will pray and G’d will respond. If you do not merit it the reason you will go out to the field will be to bury your dead. [The whole line is based on the words היוצא השדה really meaning “he who goes out to the field,” not “what comes out of the field.” Ed.].

מעשר דגנך תירושך, “the tithe of your grain harvest, your grape harvest, etc.” It is only “your” grain harvest, if you tithe it; if not it is “My” grain harvest. The same applies to the grape harvest and the “oil” harvest. This interpretation is based on Hoseah 2,11: “Assuredly I will take back My new grain in its time and My new wine in its season, etc.”
שנה שנה, “year after year.” This means that one may not tithe from one year’s harvest for the following or the previous year’s harvest. Each harvest has to be tithed separately.

כי יברכך WHEN [THE LORD THY GOD] HATH BLESSED THEE — so that your produce will be too much to carry [as far as Jerusalem].

So that the grain is too abundant to carry. The phrase, “For Adonoy ... has blessed you,” refers to, “If you will be unable to carry it,” for the blessing only applies to the abundance of grain. But it does not apply to, “because the place is distant,” which means the expansion of borders by conquering other lands. For the blessing does not apply to the conquest of other lands.

V. 24. ׳וכי ירבה וגו. Diese wiederholt verklausulierte Voraussetzung, unter welcher die Auslösung in Geld statuiert wird, כי ירחק ,כי לא תוכל וגו׳ ,וכי ירבה, scheint anzudeuten, dass dem Hinaufbringen der Früchte in Natura jedenfalls der Vorzug gegeben sei, und dass die Umwandlung in Geld selbst nur ein Beweis des Gottessegens sein möge, der sich in dem reichen Ertrag, vielleicht auch in den weiten Grenzen des Landesgebiets ausspricht, die beide diese Umwandlung motivieren. Gleichwohl ist nach der Halacha die Umwandlung in Geld in jedem Falle zulässig, so lange sich die Früchte an einem Orte befinden, wo, oder in einem Zustande, in welchem ihr Genuss in Natura gesetzlich nicht möglich ist, also so lange sie außerhalb der Gottesstadt, oder selbst innerhalb, aber im טומאה-Zustande sich befinden, in welchem sie als מעשר שני nicht gegessen werden können. Nach Mackot 19 b wäre darum im Texte der Ausdruck לא תוכל ,שאת שאתו gewählt, weil dieser Ausdruck (Bereschit 43, 33) auch vom Speiseauftragen vorkommt, es hier daher sowohl heißen könne, du kannst es nicht "hinauftragen", als auch du kannst es nicht auftragen (zum Speisen, weil es טמא geworden). מן התורה darf מעשר שני, selbst wenn es bereits לפנים מן החומה gewesen, wieder hinausgebracht und außerhalb ausgelöst werden, מדרבנן aber קלטוהו מחיצות לפדיון kann es, wenn es טהור ist, nicht wieder hinausgebracht und ausgelöst werden (daselbst 20 a).

V. 25. ונתת בכסף: so gibst du es in Geld hin, überträgst seinen Charakter und seine Bestimmung auf Geld. Es ist dies der bereits Wajikra 27, 31 vorgesehene Fall, für welchen bestimmt worden, dass wenn die Auslösung des Zehnten durch den Eigener selbst geschieht, חומש hinzuzufügen sei (siehe daselbst).

וצרת הכסף בידך, ”and bind up the money (silver coins);” the letter ד in the word of בידך, has the semi vowel sh’va.

וצרת הכסף בידך (vergl. Kön. II. 5, 23). Hier ist jedoch dieser Satz mit diesem Ausdruck: Du "nimmst das Geld zusammen in deiner Hand", mit wesentlicher, das Gesetz näher präzisierender Beziehung eingefügt. Heißt doch צור und צרר: zusammendrängen, einengen, etwas in einen möglichst kleinen Raum zusammenbringen. Nun spricht dies doch von dem Falle, dass die Zehntfrüchte zu viel und umfangreich sind, um sie in Natura hinaufzubringen. Dem gegenüber ist nun bezeichnend der Ausdruck וצרת gebraucht, um damit zu sagen: durch den Umsatz in Geld soll das Voluminöse auf einen so kleinen Umfang reduziert werden, dass du es in der Hand hinauftragen kannst. Darin liegt nun sofort die Bestimmung: dass es nur in Geld, und zwar in gangbares Geld umgesetzt werden könne, das in jedem Augenblick wieder in die entsprechende Frucht umwandelt werden kann, in welchem daher der ursprüngliche Gegenstand gleichsam gegenwärtig bleibt, so dass man sagen kann, man habe damit den ausgelösten Gegenstand in der Hand. In "Geld" lässt sich das Voluminöseste in kleinsten Raum konzentrieren. Daher וצרת" הכסף בידך" und lehrt die Halacha:

אין מחללין מע׳׳ש על אסימון ולא על מטבע שאינו יוצא ולא על המעות שאינן כרשותו, man löst מעשר שני nicht auf ungeprägte (— nach תוספו׳ B. M. 44 a: nicht recht geprägte —) und nicht auf nicht gangbare Münze aus und auch nicht auf Geld, das ihm zur Zeit nicht, zugänglich ist (Maaßer scheni 1, 2). Wenn B. M. 47 b ר׳ ישמעאל das וצרת הכסף בידך dahin erläutert: לרבות כל דבר שנצרר ביד: alles, was sich kompendiös in der Hand fassen lässt, also auch ungeprägte (oder nicht recht geprägte) Münzstücke, ר׳ עקיבא aber: לרבות כל דבר שיש עליו צורה, alles, was ein Gepräge hat, so dürfte letzteres nicht nur mnemotechnisch an וצרת anklingen, sondern in der Tat nur eine vollere Konsequenz aus dem נצרר ביד ziehen, indem in Wahrheit erst mit der geprägten Münze das Auslösungsobjekt kompendiös in Händen gehalten wird. Ebenso wird das Erfordernis der Gangbarkeit im Jeruschalmi ebenfalls auf die Forderung ׳וצרת וגו zurückgeführt: ר׳׳ש) .שיש לו צורה ויוצא על גב צורתו und רמב׳׳ם weisen dabei auf die Bestimmung (V. 26) ׳ונתת הכסף וגו hin, womit die Gangbarkeit vorausgesetzt ist. Wir haben diese דרשה weder im ספרי noch in den beiden Talmuden gefunden). So lange die Früchte noch nicht nach Jerusalem hinaufgebracht waren, ist deren Genuss ohne Auslösung durch dieses Auslösungsgebot, kraft לאו הבא מכלל עשה עשה, untersagt. Die Früchte sind in Natura oder in Auslösungsübertragung hinaufzubringen, dürfen somit ohne Auslösung außerhalb der Gottesstadt nicht genossen werden (׳תוספו Mackoth 19 b). Allein zu einem מלקות-verpönten Verbote steigert sich die Untersagung erst, wenn die Früchte sich innerhalb der Ringmauern der Gottesstadt befunden, מעשר שני מאימתי חייבין עליו משראה פני החומה, dann קלטוה מחיצות, dann sind sie von dem Nationalboden für das Gesetzesheiligtum aufgenommen, um in dessen Angesicht verzehrt zu werden. Dann heißt es von ihnen: לא תוכל לאכול בשעריך מעשר דגנך וגו׳ כי אם לפני ד׳ אלקיך תאכלנו Kap. 12. 17 u. 18 (Mackot 19 b u. 20 a), und ein Verzehren derselben außerhalb des Stadtraums ohne Auslösung wäre eine positive Leugnung der eben durch die ׳אכילה לפני ד zum Ausdruck und Bewusstsein zu bringenden Fundamentalwahrheit von dem Miteinschluss des sinnlichen Genusseslebens in die von dem Gesetzesheiligtum ausgehende Heiligung.

בכל אשר תאוה נפשך [AND THOU SHALT GIVE THAT MONEY] FOR WHATSOEVER THY SOUL LONGETH AFTER — this is a general statement,

And for anything that you wish. Every kind of pleasurable food that is possible to purchase with money, and you do not need to save your money to give to students after the festival.

The earth’s progeny [...and it grows upon the soil]. “The earth’s progeny,” [literally, “The produce of the earth’s produce”] refers to such items as grapevines from grape seeds, and excludes water, salt, truffles, and mushrooms. And, “grows upon the soil,” excludes fish.

V. 26. ׳ונתת הכסף בכל וגו. Durch das Anlegen dieses Geldes in Genussgegenstände gehet der auf dem Gelde ruhende מעשר שני-Charakter auf die dafür erworbenen Gegenstände über, die dann nur in der Gottesstadt und nicht בטומאה ואנינות genossen werden dürfen; das Geld aber wird חולין, verliert den Heiligtumscharakter. בכל אשר תאוה וגו׳ בבקר וגו׳ ובכל אשר תשאלך נפשך ist ein klassisches Beispiel für den hermeneutischen Kanon כלל ופרט וכלל, dessen verschiedene Auffassung: als רבוי מעוט ורבוי, oder כללא בתרא דוקא, oder כללא קמא דוקא wir bereits zu Wajikra 11. 9 entwickelt. Der hier durch בקר צאן יין ושכר gegebene פרט-Begriff hat, nach Eruwin 27 b, drei wesentliche Merkmale. גידולי קרקע פרי מפרי וולד וולדות הארץ: alle als פרט genannten Objekte haben die gemeinschaftlichen Merkmale: sie sind organische Produkte (פרי מפרי), nähren sich von der Erde (גידולי קרקע), stammen als Schöpfungsgattung von der Erde (וולד וולדות הארץ). Als רבוי מיעוט ורבוי gefasst, ergäbe das רבוי den weitesten Begriff, schlösse alles mit ein, das auch nur das eine Merkmal פרי מפרי trägt, also organisches Produkt ist. Es wären auch דגים, Fische mit inbegriffen und nur unorganische Stoffe, wie מים ומלח, Wasser und Salz, ausgeschlossen. Als כללא בתרא דוקא muss der zu erwerbende Gegenstand mindestens משני צדדים, zwei der פרט-Merkmale haben. דגים sind ausgeschlossen und nur עופות, Vögel mit eingeschlossen als sich von der Erde nährende organische Geschöpfe, פרי מפרי וגדולי קרקע, obgleich sie nach Chulin 27 b ihrem Schöpfungsursprung nach nicht rein dem Erdnaturreich angehören, sondern die Mitte zwischen Erdgeschöpfen תוציא הארץ und Wassergeschöpfen ישרצו המים halten, מן הרקק נבראו, und somit das Merkmal וולד וולדות הארץ entbehren. Als כללא קמא דוקא würden auch עופות ausgeschlossen sein, weil sie nicht דמי ליה משלשה צדדים, nicht in allen drei wesentlichen Merkmalen dem פרט gleichen (siehe Eruwin 27 b u. 28 a).

בבקר ובצאן וביין ובשכר FOR ANY OF THE HERD, OR ANY OF THE FLOCK, OR FOR WINE, OR FOR STRONG DRINK — this is a particularisation,

ושמחת אתה וביתך (Jebamoth 62 b) wird darauf hingewiesen, wie nach dem Gesetze Freude nur in der Ehe wohne, der Ehelose auch freudenlos sei, כל יהודי שאין לו אשה שרוי בלא שמחה דכתיב ושמחת אתה וביתך.

ובכל אשר תאוה נפשך OR FOR WHATEVER THY SOUL DESIRES — Scripture again includes them in a general statement. [The rule is that when a verse expresses a כְּלָל, a פְּרָט, and then a כְּלָל again, as in this case, we apply the characteristics of the פְּרָט to the whole matter. Therefore,] just as the particulars mentioned have the characteristic of being products (ולד) of things themselves produced by the earth during the week of Creation, and are fitted to be food for man, etc. [So, too, the money must be expended only on things of this character] (Eruvin 27b).

והלוי … לא תעזבנו AND THE LEVITE [THAT IS WITHIN THY GATES;] THOU SHALT NOT FORSAKE HIM by not giving him the “First Tithe” (מעשר ראשון).

והלוי אשר בשעריך לא תעזבנו, but let him share in your joy so that G’d in turn will have reason to be good to you.

By neglecting to give him the first tithe. This [verse, “You must not abandon,”] does not mean to invite the Levite to your table if he neither has first tithes nor tithes to the poor, as Rashi explained above regarding (12:18), “Before Adonoy, your God, are you to eat it ... you and your son ... [and the Levite], etc.” For the verse above refers to eating, as it is written, “Before Adonoy, your God, are you to eat it, etc.” But here the Levite is not included in eating with him. For it is written, “You will eat it there in the presence of Adonoy ... and you will rejoice, you and your household, etc.,” and the matter is concluded and another verse begins, “And the Levite who is in your city, you must not abandon” — by neglecting to give him his portion which is the first tithe.

V. 27. והלוי וגו׳ (siehe zu Kap. 12, 12 u. 19). Wir haben bereits bemerkt, wie die durchaus bedingte und beschränkte Weise, in welcher das Gesetz die מעשר-Pflicht statuiert, erkennen lassen dürfte, wie die Zwecke, welchen der Zehnte zugewendet wird, also auch die Levitenverforgung durch מעשר ראשון, keineswegs durch diese Zehnten ihre ganze Pflege finden sollen, diese vielmehr nur als Mahnung an die Verpflichtung für diese Zwecke im Momente der Selbsterhaltungstätigkeit zu begreifen wären. Die מעשר ראשון-Spende an den Lewi ist bereits in dem עשר תעשר, welches das מעשר שני eben als zweiten, wiederholten Zehnten bezeichnet, angedeutet und dürfte auch hier das והלוי אשר בשעריך לא תעזבנו, über die מעשר ראשון-Spende hinausgehen. So auch ספרי z. St. בכל מקום שאתה מוצא חלוי הזה תן לו מחלקו אין לו חלקו תן לו מעשר עני — (כן הוא גירסת חילקוט ,בספרי איתא מעשר שני ,ונראה דלפי דקימא לו [קידושין נ׳׳ד ב׳] ברבי מאיר דממון גבוה הוא ולא מצי יהיב ליה במתנה גרסת הילקוט עקר) — אין לו מעשר עני לו שלמים ,אין לו שלמים פרנסהו מן הצדקה.

והלוי אשר בשעריך, “and the Levite who is within your gates;” you are not to seek out Levites that do not live within your cities to give these tithes to. (Ibn Ezra)

כי אין לו חלק ונחלה עמך OR HE HATH NO PORTION NOR INHERITANCE WITH THEE — This excludes “Gleanings” (לקט), “the forgotten sheaf” (שכחה), the “corner of the field” (פאה), and ownerless things (הפקר) from the things that must be tithed — for he (the Levite) has a portion in them (is entitled to take of them) with you, just the same as you, and they are therefore exempt from tithes (Mishnah Challah 1:3; Bava Kamma 94a).

This excludes the gleaning, forgotten sheaves and edge of the field... Hence, they are exempt from tithing. I.e., why does the Levite have a portion in them? Because they — the gleaning, forgotten sheaves, edge of the field, and abandoned produce — are exempt from tithing. You might ask: Do we not find regarding the Levite in Parshas Korach (Bamidbar 18:29), “From all your gifts you must set aside all the terumah-gifts of Adonoy”? The answer is: Everything that it given to the Levites as a gift, tithes must be given from it. But these [the gleaning, forgotten sheaves, etc.] are not given to them as a gift. Rather, they are abandoned to all.

Das בכל מקום שאתה מוצא הלוי הזה des ספרי scheint eine Erläuterung des אשר בשעריך zu sein und unsere Auffassung (Kap. 12, 12) zu bestätigen, dass ungeachtet ihnen besondere Städte überwiesen waren, die Leviten doch im Lande zerstreut wohnten.

לא תעזבנו, “do not abandon him.” The Torah had already stated the same instruction in a positive formulation, i.e. to look after the Levites. (Deut. 12,12) Now it adds the negative aspect, forbidding us to abandon the Levite. The new angle here is that in the event that the tithes that the Levite in your town receives are not adequate, you must dig into your pocket to offer him additional support.

מקצה שלש שנים AT THE END OF THREE YEARS [THOU SHALT BRING FORTH ALL THE TITHE OF THY INCREASE THE SAME YEAR] — Scripture hereby intends to teach you that if one has delayed to give his tithes of the first and the second year of the Sabbatical period, he has to remove them from his house in the third year.

מקצה שלש שנים, the year in which the tithe for the poor is due.

מקצה שלש שנים, “at the end of three years, etc.” If a farmer had not allocated the tithes of the first and second year of the Shemittah cycle but had let them accumulate in his house, he has to remove them from there to Jerusalem in the third year, the year when the tithes for the poor are due (Rashi). Concerning the tithe of the first year he must recite the confession found in Deut. 26,28: “I have removed all sacred matters from my house.” The Levite may then help himself to the tithe from the first year, whereas the poor, etc., help themselves to the tithes which accumulated during the year of מעשר עני, the tithe for the poor was due (the third year). The owner is not permitted to eat the second tithe in Jerusalem as he had been allowed to do had he brought it there during the first or second year of the cycle. [The wording of our author in this paragraph is inaccurate, but I do not take it upon myself to correct it. Ed.]

V. 28. מקצה שלש שנים: jedes dritte Jahr der Schemitaperiode, also im dritten und sechsten derselben, wird der ganze im Vorigen besprochene zweite Zehnte, statt ihn für den Selbstgenuss in Jerusalem zu bestimmen, fortgegeben (תוציא) und für die Armen im Heimatsorte בשעריך gelassen, worauf Kap. 26, 12 noch wieder zurückgeblickt wird (siehe daselbst). Von diesem dritten Jahre heißt es dort: כי תכלה לעשר ׳וגו, mit jedem dritten Jahre geht ein מעשר-Turnus zu Ende. Die ersten beiden Jahre, also im ersten und zweiten, im vierten und fünften, sind מעשר ראשון und מעשר שני, in jedem dritten Jahre, also im dritten und sechsten, ist statt מעשר שני das מעשר עני Pflicht, und müssen, wie daselbst bestimmt, mit dem Schlusse eines jeden solchen dreijährigen Turnus alle während dieser drei Jahre pflichtgewordenen Zehnten ihrer Bestimmung gemäß zur Verwendung gekommen sein. Es darf sich dann nichts davon mehr im Besitze des pflichtigen Eigners befinden (daselbst 13). Auf diesen Turnusschluss weist der Ausdruck מקצה hin. Da, wie V. 22 bemerkt, die Jahreshörigkeit einer Frucht sich nach dem Jahrgange richtet, in welchem sie die עונת המעשר-Reife erlangt hat, so reicht der Turnusschluss des dritten Jahres bis über den Anfang des vierten hinüber, indem die Ernte des mit ר׳׳ה zu Ende gehenden dritten Jahrganges für manche Früchte bis gegen חנוכה reicht (siehe zu Kap. 26, 11), also noch bis dahin מעשר עני- pflichtige Früchte eingeheimst werden; weshalb auch das am Turnusschluss zu sprechende Zehntbekenntnis, ודוי מעשר, erst am ערב י׳׳ט אחרון של פסח des vierten Jahres stattfand (siehe daselbst 13).

תוציא את כל מעשר, “you shall bring forth all the tithes;” there are three years in the seven year sh’mittah cycle that the tithe instead of being deposited in your towns (your homes) awaiting Levites to ask for it must be brought out and not kept anymore. How does all this work? In the first and second year of the cycle the first tithe goes to a Levite, whereas the second tithe is taken to Jerusalem by the owner to be eaten there with his family. The same is true of the second year of the cycle. In the third year of the cycle the first tithe goes to the Levite, whereas the second “tithe” is to be distributed locally or as near as possible to the poor. The verse that is relevant to this is chapter Deut. 26,12. The Torah calls that year: “the year of the tithe,” as only the first tithe is given to the Levite in that year. The gifts given to the poor amounting to the same amount as the second tithe, is not called tithe, as it is designated for the poor at the full discretion of the grower of that produce. The second three years of the cycle are a repeat of the first three years.

והנחת בשעריך, nach dem Sifri, wenn man es nicht selbst verteilen konnte, in ein städtisches Armenmagazin.

והנחת בשערך, “and deposit it in your gates.” Whereas the second tithe is to be taken to Jerusalem, the tithe for the poor is to he kept locally, so as to be available conveniently for the local poor.

ובא הלוי AND THE LEVITE SHALL COME and take the “First Tithe” which you have failed to give him,

And take the first tithe. This verse is abridged. For without adding, “...and take the first tithe,” it seems that the Levite, proselyte, orphan, and widow are treated equally; that you are to give them [enough] food to eat their fill.

V. 29. ובא הלוי entweder als voraussetzlich mittellos auch zum מעשר עני berechtigt, oder es wird hier zugleich das ja jedes Jahr für den לוי auszuscheidende מעשר ראשון mit eingeschlossen.

והגר והיתום AND THE STRANGER AND THE FATHERLESS [SHALL COME] and take the “Second Tithe”, which belongs to the poor in that year, and you shall not eat it yourself in Jerusalem, as you were bound to eat the “Second Tithe” of the first two years,

You must bring to Jerusalem, etc. I.e., you must bring the second tithes of the first and second year in order to eat it in Jerusalem, and confess, “I have divested my home of the sacred produce.” In the first and second years of the Sabbatical cycle, the first and second tithes are separated each year. Likewise, in the fourth and fifth years [of the Sabbatical cycle]. In the third and sixth years the first tithes and tithes to the poor are separated. The tithes to the poor and the first tithes may be eaten anywhere, but the second tithes must be eaten in Jerusalem (as explained elsewhere).

An das wiederholt als Motiv der Zehntberechtigung der Leviten beigefügte: כי אין לו חלק ונחלה עמך knüpft sich die Halacha, dass הפקר, alle herrenlose Früchte und daher auch פטורין מן המעשרות ,לקט שכחה ופאה, nicht der Zehntpflicht unterliegen, nur ממה שיש לך ואין לו חייב אתה ליתן לו יצא הפקר שידך וידו שוין בו nur von Früchten, hinsichtlich derer du der Berechtigte, er aber der Nichtberechtigte ist, liegt dir die Zehntpflicht ob, nicht aber von solchen Früchten, die herrenlos wachsen und ihm wie dir zustehen (Jeruschalmi מעשרות I ,1).

ואכלו ושבעו AND THEY SHALL EAT AND BE SATISFIED — Give them sufficient to satisfy them. From here they (the Rabbis) derived the law: one must give the poor in the barn no less than half a kab of wheat or a kab of barley (Sifrei Devarim 110:3). As for you, go up to Jerusalem with the tithe (i.e. מעשר שני) of the first and the second years which thou hast delayed, and make the confession there: “I have removed the hallowed things from the house” — as it is stated in the section beginning with the words כי תכלה לעשר (Deuteronomy 26:12).