신명기 21:7의 주석

ידינו לא שפכה [AND THEY SHALL ANSWER AND SAY,] OUR HANDS HAVE NOT SHED [THIS BLOOD] — But would it enter anyone’s mind that the elders of the court are suspect of blood-shedding?! But the meaning of the declaration is: We never saw him and knowingly let him depart without food or escort (if we had seen him we would not have let him depart without these) (Sifrei Devarim 210:2; Sotah 45b). The priests thereupon say (next verse): כפר לעמך ישראל FORGIVE UNTO THY PEOPLE ISRAEL.

ידינו לא שפכו את הדם הזה, we have not left a stone unturned in (making public) locating the murderer in the land.

The kohanim then say, “Forgive your people Yisroel.” Otherwise, for what purpose are the kohanim [coming] here? [The presence of elders] is understandable for it is written, “And all the elders of that town [those near the corpse, etc. will wash their hands.”] But why are the kohanim needed? They [are the ones who] recite, “Forgive your people Yisroel.”

V. 7. וענו ואמרו ידינו וגו׳. In der Mischna Sota 45 b werden diese Worte erläutert: ידינו לא שפכה את הדם הזה ועינינו לא ראו וכי על דעתינו עלתה שזקני ב׳׳ד שופכי דמים הם אלא שלא בא לידינו ופטרנוהו בלא מזון ולא ראינוהו והנחנוהו בלא לוייה, und erläutert Raschi: לא נהרג על ידינו שפטרנוהו בלא מזונות וחוצרך ללסטם את הבריות ועל ידי כך נהרג die städtischen Behörden bezeugen öffentlich, sie hätten niemanden, der dessen bedurfte, ohne Lebensmittel fortgehen lassen, dass er dadurch sich genötigt gesehen haben könnte, Straßenraub zu üben und dadurch, somit durch ihre indirekte Schuld, umgekommen sein könnte, und ebenso hätten sie niemanden, der des Geleites bedurfte, allein fortwandern lassen. Es ist aber aus Raschi ersichtlich, dass in der Mischna nur gestanden: אלא לא בא לידינו ופטרנוהו ולא ראינוהו והנחנוהו, die Worte בלא מזון und בלא לוייה sind aus einer ברייתא, die die Gemara zur Erläuterung anführt.

ידינו לא שפכה, “our hands have not spilled this blood;” it is peculiar that the last letter in the word ושפכה is the letter ה when we would have expected it to be the plural ending ו. [It is read as if it had been spelled with the letter ו. Ed.] Our sages drive from this spelling that there are five items=ה, that must be provided by a host worthy of that name. They are: food, drink, overnight lodging, accompanying the guest at his departure for a certain distance, and providing him with some food for the journey. (Talmud Sotah, folio 45) The Talmud raises the question of how could anyone have thought that the members of the elders of the town near which the body had been found could have been responsible for the death of the person described in our paragraph? Why would they have to publicly declare their innocence? What these Elders really declared was that they had never been remiss in providing the five items mentioned in the Talmud to anyone who had been their guest. In other words, if that person had been a guest in their houses, they could state categorically, that he would have been treated in the manner that is appropriate. We have a saying by Rav Yehudah who quoted in the name of Rav, that anyone who has enjoyed as little as even four cubits of accompaniment from his host on his way out will not come to harm on the journey on which he set out. This saying has been illustrated by an actual occurrence. The scholar Ravinah accompanied Rava bar Yitzchok, when he became involved in a dangerous, potentially fatal situation, and he was saved from it (Talmud, Sotah folio 46) The Talmud sets the distances that a guest has to be accompanied by the host on his departure, commencing with a relatively short distance when a teacher had hosted a student, and a much greater distance when the student had hosted a teacher. (1200 meters in the latter case) Rabbi Meir considers the subject of such accompaniment one that the host can be enforced by a court to observe. [Naturally, the assumption is that the host is able-bodied. Ed.] According to Judges 1,24 there is no fixed limit for this, and the Israelites who had been in the process of conquering parts of the Holy Land that had not yet been conquered while Joshua had been alive showed a Canaanite gratitude for his showing them the way, similar to the spies promising Rahav of Jericho complete protection including her family for having protected them while on their mission. [The prophet explains how many parts of the land of Canaan remained unconquered on account of this for hundreds of years. Ed.] [If I understand correctly, when gentiles, even those under decree of death by the Torah unless they left the land, saved Israelites, our gratitude takes tangible form. In the example quoted from the Book of Judges, the Canaanite had not even personally accompanied the Israelites in question but had merely showed them the way. Ed.] In verse 26 of the incident quoted, the person whom they saved went forth to another part of the land of the Canaanites and successfully built a new city which he named Luz, [the name of Beyt El, before Yaakov had renamed it in Genesis 28,19. [Yaakov had been totally exposed there and had been saved miraculously. Ed.]. According to Rabbi Yoshua, Mitzrayim, (Pharaoh, in Genesis chapter 12,20, who gave Avraham a military escort to protect him, since he had become so wealthy) who accompanied Avraham for a distance of only 4 cubits beyond the border was rewarded, so that the Israelites had to wait four hundred years before being redeemed from Egypt. (Compare Talmud, tractate Sotah, folio 46) According to another view in the Talmud, when mention is made of לוויה, escorting someone, without any further detail, the distance meant is approx 1,2 km. This is also supposed to be the meaning of Psalms 91,11: כי מלאכיו יצוה לך לשמרך בכל דרכיך, “for He will order His angels to protect you wherever you go.” The distance of 1,2 k.m. equal to the Hebrew word מיל, is based on the first letters in the three words מלאכיו יצוה לך. When enjoying this level of escort one is certain to be successful in all one’s undertakings. Nonetheless the sages said that giving a departing guest money without also giving him some bread, is not sufficient. They base themselves on Proverbs 28,21: ועל פת לחם יפשע גבר, “sin sometimes originates from the lack of a piece of bread.” Solomon means that having not ensured that a departing guest has access to some food immediately, may become the cause of his suffering from an attack of בולמוס, “ravenous hunger,” which if not dealt with immediately may result in the death of the afflicted person. Rabbi Yochanan went as far as to say that anyone who fails to escort a departing guest is guilty of bloodshed. He based himself on the fact that if the people of Jericho had escorted the prophet out of their city and provided him with basic necessities, he would not have caused the bears to kill 42 young people of that town. (Kings II 2,23) Rabbi Elazar in dealing with that incident, claims that the word ונערים in that verse should not be understood as teenagers, but as מן עורים persons who abstain from performing G–d’s commandments, and the word קטנים which follows, means as being “small” in that they had little faith in G–d. Elisha was supposed to have seen through prophetic insight that the mothers of all of these youngsters who had made fun of him had all become pregnant with them on Yom Kippur, on a day when having marital relations is strictly prohibited. This is why he felt free to curse them in the name of the Lord, as described there. Furthermore, the subject of escorting departing guests is of greater significance than handing out a gift. Handing out gifts is not something involving one’s body, whereas escorting a departing guest involves a physical effort, showing that one is personally involved. In fact the performance of this commandment is of such significance that the benefits promised for the recipient are also applied to the host who performs this act, who will be protected until he comes home again. This is based on Isaiah 57,19: שלום שלום לרחוק ולקרוב, “welcome, welcome both to the one as yet distant and to the one already closer to us.” The one described as “distant,” is the departing guest, and the one described as “near” is the host, who is on his way home. [Our author concludes with one or two additional blessings that is in store for people performing this commandment, which I have decided not to bother with. Ed.]

וענו ואמרו, “and they shall speak and say:” this verse addresses the elders who are taking leave from the ritual;.

ועינינו לא ראו, we are certain that the murderer did not commit this act where he could be seen. Had he been seen, he would have been challenged and prevented from committing the deed. At the very least, such witnesses would have come forward.

Im Jeruschalmi lautet auch der Text der Mischna nur: אלא שלא בא לידינו ופטרנוהו לא ראינוהו והנחנוהן und erläutert dort die Gemara: רבנין דהכא פתרין קרייא בהורג ורבנן דתמן פתרין קרייא בנהרג רבנן דהכא פתרין קרייא בהורג שלא בא לידינו ופטרנוהו ולא ראינוהו והנחנוהו ועימעמנו על דינו ורבנן דתמן פתרין קרייא בנהרג לא בא לידינו ופטרנוהו בלא הלוייה ולא ראינוהו והנחנוהו בלא פרנסה. Die palästinensischen Lehrer erläutern die Worte der Schrift in Beziehung auf den Mörder, die babylonischen Lehrer in Beziehung auf den Erschlagenen. Nach den palästinensischen heiße es: der Mörder ist nicht in unsere Hände gekommen und von uns freigelassen worden, wir haben ihn nicht gesehen und haben ein Auge über seine Schuld zugedrückt. Nach den babylonischen: der Erschlagene war uns nicht zu Händen gekommen und von uns ohne Geleit fortgelassen worden, wir haben ihn nicht gesehen und haben ihn ohne Nahrung gelassen.

ידינו לא שפכה את הדם הזה, “our hands have not spilled this blood;” it is unusual for the last letter in the word שפכה to be the letter ה instead of the appropriate letter ו, for the plural ending plural. According to our sages, a host is duty bound to provide his guest with five amenities: food, drink, accompany him a short distance when he leaves, provide with a bed for the night if he wishes to stay for the night, and to give him an ever so minimal gift on his departure. The letter ה would therefore be a veiled reference to that law. You may well ask if the Torah really thought that the priests and elders who lived many kilometers distant from where this murder occurred, had really been suspected of having had a hand in this foul deed; why should they need to have to declare that they were innocent of this crime? Rashi explains that the declaration by the elders and priests refers to the murdered person not having been seen by any of them and having been denied anything he had asked for. The Rabbis felt also that possibly the murdered person, after having been denied his needs in the last city he visited, turned to the first person whom he encountered who had some food on him and snatched it, as a result of which a fight developed during which he was killed. He may even have acted in selfdefense, and have become a victim.

Auf den ersten Blick würde man sich für die palästinensische Auffassung entscheiden; denn in der Tat ist doch der Mörder der Unbekannte, der Erschlagene kann ja ein ganz bekannter, auch nach seiner Heimat ganz bekannter Mensch sein, und doch wird durch Messung und Schätzung die Behörde derjenigen Stadt gesucht, zu deren Einwohnern wahrscheinlich der Mörder gehört. Nichtsdestoweniger spricht, näher erwogen, doch alles mehr für die babylonische Auffassung. Schon die Worte des Textes: ידינו ׳לא שפכה וגו sprechen dafür, dass es sich um Reinigung von irgend einer Mitschuld an dem Geschehen des Verbrechens handelt, nicht aber um Reinigung von pflichtwidriger Nachsicht mit dem Verbrecher nach geschehener Tat. Erwägen wir ferner, dass, wie wir aus den zu V. 1 behandelten Bestimmungen zu erkennen geglaubt, die ganze עגלה ערופה-Institution nur von einem solchen Falle handelt, in welchem der Erschlagenen, wie zum Hohn der öffentlichen Behörden liegen gelassen, gefunden ward, so gibt es doch nur einen Fall, in welchem ein solcher Hohn ein wirklich verdienter wäre, und das wäre eben der, dass der Erschlagene durch von den Stadtbehörden verschuldete Not zum Raubanfall auf der Landstraße getrieben und von dem Angefallenen im Verteidigungskampfe erschlagen worden wäre, ein Fall, in welchem der Totschläger völlig schuldlos, der Getötete wenigstens entschuldbar und der eigentlich wirklich Schuldige die Behörde der Stadt wäre, die der Not des Erschlagenen gegenüber die jüdische Gesamtheitspflicht verabsäumt hätte.

ועינינו לא ראו, “and our eyes have not seen;” i.e. have not seen this individual while he was alive so that we could have become guilty of not performing our duty toward him. The duty hinted at, according to Rashi, is to give him safe conduct. An alternate interpretation; there is a saying in the Talmud, according to which when someone extends a loan to a person he has to remain where they parted until the borrower is no longer within his field of vision.

Dieselbe Eventualität lässt sich auch in Beziehung auf den Totschläger aussprechen, dass er durch Pflichtversäumnis der Behörden in einer solchen Not gelassen worden wäre, die ihn zum Begehen eines Raubmordes getrieben hätte. Die babylonische Gemara dürfte aber den Fall zunächst in Beziehung auf den Getöteten ausgesprochen haben, weil da die Möglichkeit völliger Schuldlosigkeit des Täters gegeben wäre, und erscheint auch darin die babylonische Erläuterung in unserer Gemara präziser wiedergegeben, dass sie die Entlassung ohne Nahrung als Erklärung des ידינו לא שפכה, somit als Eventualität wirklicher Miturheberschaft am Verbrechen, und nicht wie im Jeruschalmi zum עינינו לא ראו ausspricht. Nach der babylonischen Gemara haben somit die Ältesten der Stadt das große Wort auszusprechen: Bei uns wird keiner in einer solchen Not gelassen, dass er aus Not zum Verbrechen greifen müsse!

Über die Schreibweise לא שפכה siehe Wajikra 21, 5. Hier dürfte vielleicht diese Schreibweise als Singularform wie ידנו לא שפכה den Gedanken einschließen, dass sie dies Bekenntnis nicht nur für ihre persönliche Vielheit, sondern für die Gesamteinheit aussprechen, die sie in engeren und weiteren Kreisen vertreten.