Halakhah su Esodo 4:38

(Aleph)⁶Starting from here, each paragraph begins with a letter from an acrostic that sequentially includes all of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, followed by the author’s name. The Rabbis said (Bereishit Rabbah 8:5), “At the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to create man, He created a group of angels, etc. And they said (Ps. 8:5), ‘What is man that you should consider him’ [and so, they opposed his creation].” At first glance, [we would wonder] why the angels would care about man’s creation. [To answer this, we must understand the nature of man:] As the essence of man’s creation is [that he be] upon the earth. Even though the [human] soul benefits from the radiance of the glory from [the One from] which it has been hewn, and there is nothing lacking in the house of the King; [nevertheless] the Divine Wisdom, may His name be blessed, decreed that [the human soul] should be brought down [to the world], in order to test it with the performance of His commandments and the keeping of His Torah. And when ‘it is very righteous,’ ‘so will it multiply and so will it expand’ and ‘grow upwards,’ until ‘it returns to God who gave it’ ‘with great strength’ and ‘with abundance of power.’ And it is written in the Zohar 1:60a [to explain the verse in Prov. 5:15], “Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well”; [that] when the soul is above, it only has the aspect of a cistern, which does not [produce its own water], but is rather filled from others. In of itself, however, it is empty. But when it comes down to this lowly world and achieves what it is supposed to achieve – like the wisdom of His decree, may His name be blessed – then it has the aspect of a well, which is an overflowing spring and is emanating from itself. And in this way it will not [acquire] the bread of shame.⁷The roots of this this idea – that unearned reward is a source of shame – are from several places in the Zohar. See, for example Zohar 1:4a. The basis for the metaphor, however is found in Talmud Yerushalmi Orlah 1:3, 61b. And the first well-known use of the actual phrase is only found later in R. Yosef Karo’s Maggid Mesharim 2:8, which was written in the 1500’s. As the essence of the matter is that anyone who has nothing from himself is a poor person that is considered as if dead.⁸Zohar 2:119a, Nedarim 64b. This is as is written in Gur Aryeh,⁹Maharal, Gur Aryeh on Exod. 4:19:2. that the water of a well is called living waters because it [produces water] from itself (meaning, its underground spring) – which is not the case with the water of a cistern. And so this is why a poor person is considered as if dead. [Hence (as in Prov. 15:27)], “and the one who hates gifts, lives.” See there. And if so, the whole time that the soul is in its source, it has the aspect of a cistern that has no life; as it is empty from itself, besides from what is given to it. [This is] until it descends here and emanates from itself with the aspect of a well and has life. And this is why it states (Gen. 2:7), “He blew into his nostrils a living soul.” That is because the main aspect of the creation of man on the earth was so that the soul could have the aspect of “a living soul.” And this is [the meaning of], these are the commandments, “that a man should do and live through them” (Lev. 18:8).

But this was already missed by someone besides us to the point that he counted, "she does not go out like the release of slaves" (Exodus 21:7) - and he did not know that this was a negation and not a prohibition. And the explanation of this is as I will explain. And that is that since God already determined about someone who struck his [gentile] slave or maidservant - and at the time of the strike, caused him to lack one of his main limbs - that [the slave or maidservant] goes out to freedom, it would enter our minds that if the matter is like this with a gentile slave, all the more so would it be the case with a Jewish maidservant and that she would go out to freedom if she loses one of her main limbs. And He negates this conception from us, by His saying, "she does not go out like the release of slaves" - as if to say, there is no obligation for her to be sent out to freedom with the loss of her limbs. So this is the negation of a law about her, and not a prohibition. And the masters of the tradition also explained it like this: And they said in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Bar Yochai 21:7), "'She does not go out like the release of slaves' - she does not go out with the main limbs in the way that [gentile] slaves go out." Behold that it is hence already clear to you that it is the negation of another law, which He is negating from her - not that He prohibited anything to us. And there is no difference between His saying, "she does not go out like the release of slaves," and His saying (Leviticus 13:36), "the priest does not examine the yellow hair, he is impure" - it is only a negation, not a prohibition. And that is that it is explaining to us that he does not require quarantine because of this indication (of impurity), and that there is no doubt about him - he is impure. And likewise is His saying (Leviticus 19:20), "they are not put to death, since she has not been freed," a negation and not a prohibition. For He is saying that they are not liable for the death penalty, since [her] freedom is not complete. And it would be inappropriate to explain this as if it were stated, "you shall not put them to death" - such that it would go from a matter of negation to a matter of prohibition. For His saying, "they are not put to death, since she has not been freed," is like His saying (Deuteronomy 22:26), "the girl has no sin worthy of death" - which negates the death penalty from her because of the rape. And likewise [here], He negated the liability of death from them because of [her] slavery - as if to say, they have no sin worthy of death. And likewise is His saying (Numbers 17:5), "and not be like Korach and like his congregation," a negation. And the Sages clarified that it is a negation: They explained its content and said (Midrash Tanchuma, Tzav 13:1) that He, may He be exalted, was telling us that anyone who argues about and challenges the priesthood will not have what happened to Korach and his congregation happen to him with regards to being swallowing up or burned; but rather his punishment will truly be like that which the Lord said through Moshe - meaning to say, tsaraat. For He, may He be elevated, had said to him (Exodus 4:6), "Put your hand into your bosom." And they brought a proof [for this] from what happened to King Uzziah of Judah (II Chronicles 26:19). And even though we find a different expression in the Gemara in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 110a) - and that is their saying, "Anyone who maintains an argument, transgresses a negative commandment, as it is stated, 'and not be like Korach and like his congregation" - this is by way of an asmakhta (homiletic support), and not that their intention in this is the simple meaning of the verse. However the prohibition about this is included in a different negative commandment, which I will explain in its place.

"And with signs" - this [refers to] the staff, as it is stated (Exodus 4:17); "And this staff you shall take in your hand, that with it you will preform signs."

The same author, in his novellae on the Pentateuch, Meshekh Hokhmah, Exodus 4:19, finds an intriguing allusion to this principle in the verse "Go, return to Egypt for the people who sought your life have died." Since God explicitly commanded Moses to return to Egypt, all other considerations would appear to be immaterial. Why, then, does Scripture expressly tell us that Moses was informed that the danger had passed? Meshekh Hokhmah comments that God's command to Moses was inherently no different from any other commandment of the Torah and, despite the fact that Moses' mission was designed to rescue the lives of the children of Israel, Moses was under no obligation to risk his own life in fulfilling a divine command. Hence Moses might legitimately have declined to undertake the mission of rescue.¹⁷Similarly, when God directed Samuel to anoint David as king, Samuel responded, “How can I go? If Saul hears he will kill me” (I Samuel 16:2). In both instances, self-endangerment serves not simply as exemption from performance of a statutory commandment but even as grounds for avoidance of an ad hoc command. See R. Yitzchak of Vilna, Bet Yiẓḥak (Jerusalem, 5733), Parashat Bo. Only divine assurance that the danger no longer existed made it impossible for him to decline on a plea of self-endangerment.¹⁸The comments presented in Or Sameaḥ and Meshekh Ḥokhmah serve to establish that self-endangerment is not required even if the entire community of Israel, rather than a single individual, is endangered. Cf., however, R. Abraham I. Kook, Mishpat Kohen, nos. 142–144; Klei Ḥemdah, Parashat Pinḥas; R. Isaac ha-Levi Herzog, Teshuvot Heikhal Yiẓḥak, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 34; R. Ovadiah Yosef, Dinei Yisra’el, VII, 38–40; and R. Pinchas Baruch Toledano, Barka’i, III, 32.

That He prohibited us from making a laceration for the dead in our flesh, like the idol worshippers do. And this is His, may He be exalted, saying, "you shall not gash yourselves (titgodedu)" (Deuteronomy 14:1). And the prohibition about this was already repeated with His saying, "You shall not make any lacerations in your flesh for the dead" (Leviticus 19:28). And it has already been explained in the Gemara, Yevamot (Yevamot 13b), that the essence of the verse, "you shall not gash yourselves," is, you shall not make a wound. And there it also says, "'You shall not gash yourselves,' is required for itself, as [the Torah] is saying, 'Do not make a wound for a corpse." And in the Gemara, Makkot (Makkot 21a), they said, "A laceration and a gash are the same." And there it is explained [that] one who makes a gash for a corpse is liable whether it was [done] with the hand or with a tool; but for idolatry, one is liable with a tool, but by hand, one is exempt - as appears explicitly in prophecy, "and they gashed themselves according to their practice with knives" (I Kings 18:28). And they have already said (Yevamot 13b) that included in this is the prohibition of disunity in the religious practices of a city and division [into] groups. And they said, "'You shall not titgodedu' - you shall not make agudot, agudot (many groups)." But the essence of the verse is as we explained - do not make a wound for a corpse - whereas this is like a homily (drash). And likewise that which they said in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 110a) - "One who maintains a disagreement transgresses a negative commandment, as it is stated, 'and not be like Korach and his congregation' (Number 17:5)" - is also from a homiletic angle. However the essence of [that] verse is [simply] to deter [from this]. And according to what the Sages explained, it is surely a negation, not a prohibition. For they explained that the content of this statement is that God, may He be exalted, is saying that one who will disagree and challenge the priesthood at some future time will not be punished with that which Korach was punished. Indeed he will be [punished], "Like the Lord spoke through Moshe to him" - meaning, tzaraat - as that which He said to Moshe, "Place your hand in your bosom," (Exodus 4:6) and as is made clear with King Uzziah (II Chronicles 26). And I will [now] return to the [primary] intention of the commandment and say that the regulations of this commandment have already been explained at the end of Makkot and that one who transgresses this negative commandment is lashed. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 12.)