출애굽기 22:32의 Musar

The third level is the negative commandment that is rectified by a positive commandment: Our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 141a) [that] we do not give lashes for a negative commandment that is rectified by a positive commandment - for example (Deuteronomy 22:6), “you shall not take the mother from over the young,” is rectified by a positive commandment, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 22:7), “You shall surely send away.” But even though they would not give lashes through the court [in such a case], there were some with weighty punishments, such that it would reach the heavens and their judgement would be raised to the clouds. For example theft - as it is stated (Leviticus 19:13), “you shall not rob” (Leviticus 5:23) - is rectified by a positive commandment, as it is stated “and returned what he robbed.” Yet they said (Sanhedrin 108a), “The final judgement of the generation of the Flood was sealed only because of robbery, as it is stated (Genesis 6:13), ‘The end of all flesh has come in front of Me, for the earth is filled with extortion.’” And even though sexual immorality is weightier than robbery, it is the characteristic of the punishment of robbery to bring close its day and to quicken the future [consequences] to it. And they [also] said (Vayikra Rabbah 33:2), “[If you have] a seah full of iniquities, there is no prosecutor among all of them like robbery.” And King Solomon, peace be upon him, said about treasures [acquired] from dishonesty and fraud (Proverbs 21:6), “Treasures acquired by a lying tongue are like driven vapor, heading for death.” The explanation is [that] treasuries [acquired from] dishonesty and fraud are vanishing vapor, for their end is destruction. And while they are still in his possession, they are his enemies and seek the life of their master and cause his death - like the matter that is stated, (Habakkuk 2:9-11) “Ah, you who have acquired gains to the detriment of your own house, etc. For a stone shall cry out from the wall.” And in [the case of] robbing the poor, one is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens on account of it, as it is stated (Proverbs 22:22-23), “Do not rob the indigent for he is indigent; and do not crush the poor man in the gate. For the Lord will take up their cause and despoil those who despoil them of life.” Its explanation is, “do not rob from the indigent” because “he is indigent” and has no one to help him; “and do not crush the poor man in the gate,” with shame and disgrace. And “in the gate,” is to say, in public. And it is like the matter that is stated (Isaiah 3:15), “How dare you crush My people and grind the faces of the poor?” “For the Lord will take up their cause,” since they have no support, or someone to argue and take up their cause. “And despoil those who despoil them of life” - since the cry of the indigent has been brought to Him, He will not take money from you in place of the loot that you robbed, but rather God will remove your soul. And it is stated (Job 27:8), “For what hope has the impious man when he is cut down, when God takes away his life?” And it is also stated (Proverbs 1:19), “Such is the fate of all who pursue unjust gain; It takes the life of its possessor.” And one who torments and pains a widow or an orphan - whether with robbery, or fraud or shame or any type of pain - is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens. And likewise the judges who are able to rescue someone robbed from him who defrauded him, and do not judge [the case of an] orphan, have a death sentence upon them - as it is stated (Exodus 22:21-23), “You shall not ill-treat any widow or orphan. If you do oppress them, I will heed their outcry as soon as they cry out to Me. And My anger shall blaze forth and I will put you to the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children orphans.” Its explanation is, “and your wives shall become widows,” corresponding to the oppression of the widow; “and your children orphans,” corresponding to the oppression of the orphan - measure for measure. And even though these punishments are not written [about the following], one who pains any Israelite transgresses a negative commandment - as it is stated (Leviticus 25:17), “A man shall not oppress (tonu) his kinsman.” And our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Metzia 58b) the verse is speaking about verbal oppression. And that is from the contents of pain and torment, like the usage “(Isaiah 49:26), “I will make your oppressors (monayich) eat their own flesh.” And our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, [also] said (Bava Metzia 59a), “All the gates [of prayer] have been closed, except for the gates of [one who is praying as a result of his] oppression.” And where Scripture was speaking about financial oppression, it mentioned buying and selling, as it is stated (Leviticus 25:14), “When you sell property to your kinsman.” And they said (Bava Metzia 58b) [that] verbal oppression is greater than financial oppression, for this is upon his body and that is upon his money - and about [the former] it stated (Leviticus 25:17), “but you shall fear your God,” but about [the latter (25:14)], “but you shall fear,” is not stated.

The third level is the negative commandment that is rectified by a positive commandment: Our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 141a) [that] we do not give lashes for a negative commandment that is rectified by a positive commandment - for example (Deuteronomy 22:6), “you shall not take the mother from over the young,” is rectified by a positive commandment, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 22:7), “You shall surely send away.” But even though they would not give lashes through the court [in such a case], there were some with weighty punishments, such that it would reach the heavens and their judgement would be raised to the clouds. For example theft - as it is stated (Leviticus 19:13), “you shall not rob” (Leviticus 5:23) - is rectified by a positive commandment, as it is stated “and returned what he robbed.” Yet they said (Sanhedrin 108a), “The final judgement of the generation of the Flood was sealed only because of robbery, as it is stated (Genesis 6:13), ‘The end of all flesh has come in front of Me, for the earth is filled with extortion.’” And even though sexual immorality is weightier than robbery, it is the characteristic of the punishment of robbery to bring close its day and to quicken the future [consequences] to it. And they [also] said (Vayikra Rabbah 33:2), “[If you have] a seah full of iniquities, there is no prosecutor among all of them like robbery.” And King Solomon, peace be upon him, said about treasures [acquired] from dishonesty and fraud (Proverbs 21:6), “Treasures acquired by a lying tongue are like driven vapor, heading for death.” The explanation is [that] treasuries [acquired from] dishonesty and fraud are vanishing vapor, for their end is destruction. And while they are still in his possession, they are his enemies and seek the life of their master and cause his death - like the matter that is stated, (Habakkuk 2:9-11) “Ah, you who have acquired gains to the detriment of your own house, etc. For a stone shall cry out from the wall.” And in [the case of] robbing the poor, one is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens on account of it, as it is stated (Proverbs 22:22-23), “Do not rob the indigent for he is indigent; and do not crush the poor man in the gate. For the Lord will take up their cause and despoil those who despoil them of life.” Its explanation is, “do not rob from the indigent” because “he is indigent” and has no one to help him; “and do not crush the poor man in the gate,” with shame and disgrace. And “in the gate,” is to say, in public. And it is like the matter that is stated (Isaiah 3:15), “How dare you crush My people and grind the faces of the poor?” “For the Lord will take up their cause,” since they have no support, or someone to argue and take up their cause. “And despoil those who despoil them of life” - since the cry of the indigent has been brought to Him, He will not take money from you in place of the loot that you robbed, but rather God will remove your soul. And it is stated (Job 27:8), “For what hope has the impious man when he is cut down, when God takes away his life?” And it is also stated (Proverbs 1:19), “Such is the fate of all who pursue unjust gain; It takes the life of its possessor.” And one who torments and pains a widow or an orphan - whether with robbery, or fraud or shame or any type of pain - is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens. And likewise the judges who are able to rescue someone robbed from him who defrauded him, and do not judge [the case of an] orphan, have a death sentence upon them - as it is stated (Exodus 22:21-23), “You shall not ill-treat any widow or orphan. If you do oppress them, I will heed their outcry as soon as they cry out to Me. And My anger shall blaze forth and I will put you to the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children orphans.” Its explanation is, “and your wives shall become widows,” corresponding to the oppression of the widow; “and your children orphans,” corresponding to the oppression of the orphan - measure for measure. And even though these punishments are not written [about the following], one who pains any Israelite transgresses a negative commandment - as it is stated (Leviticus 25:17), “A man shall not oppress (tonu) his kinsman.” And our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Metzia 58b) the verse is speaking about verbal oppression. And that is from the contents of pain and torment, like the usage “(Isaiah 49:26), “I will make your oppressors (monayich) eat their own flesh.” And our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, [also] said (Bava Metzia 59a), “All the gates [of prayer] have been closed, except for the gates of [one who is praying as a result of his] oppression.” And where Scripture was speaking about financial oppression, it mentioned buying and selling, as it is stated (Leviticus 25:14), “When you sell property to your kinsman.” And they said (Bava Metzia 58b) [that] verbal oppression is greater than financial oppression, for this is upon his body and that is upon his money - and about [the former] it stated (Leviticus 25:17), “but you shall fear your God,” but about [the latter (25:14)], “but you shall fear,” is not stated.

“You shall not curse powers, nor revile a chieftain among your people” (Exodus 22:27); “You shall not curse a deaf man” (Leviticus 19:14). And we were warned with this not to curse [any] man of Israel with [God’s] name or one of all of [His] appellations. And [the reason] the Torah mentions not to curse powers; a chieftain; and a deaf man, is to come to warn one not to curse a judge (the power mentioned here) when he finds him guilty in the trial, nor a chieftain when he punishes him, to dispatch him for his transgression. And it was necessary to mention a deaf man, lest you say, “There is no punishment for cursing him - since he does not hear, no pain will reach him from his curse.” And “You shall not curse powers” is written at the end of Parshat Mishpatim (Statutes) to say that you should not curse a judge that judges with these statutes. But you may curse a judge that is not proper. And our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Shevuot 36a), “One who curses his fellow or himself with [God’s] name is lashed.” And his punishment at the hand of the Heavens is very great, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 28:58-59), “If you fail to observe all the words of this Torah in the book, etc., to reverence this honored and awesome name, the Lord, your God; The Lord will inflict extraordinary plagues upon you, etc.” And our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, explained (Temurah 3:2) the topic of this verse as one who curses his fellow or himself with [God’s] name.

“A man shall not oppress his countryman” (Leviticus 25:17) - the verse is speaking about verbal oppression, like we discussed above. And our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Metzia 58b), “[If] one is a penitent, [another] may not say to him, ‘Remember your earlier deeds.’ [If] one is the child of converts, [another] may not say to him, ‘Remember the deeds of your ancestors.’” And that which is stated (Exodus 22:20), “You shall not oppress a stranger or press him,” [is understood as] “You shall not oppress” him verbally; “or press him” with money. And the Torah warned in several places about oppression of the convert, for he forgot his [own] people and the house of his father, and came to seek refuge under the wings of the Divine Presence - like the matter that is stated (Ruth 2:11), “how you left your father and mother and the land of your birth and came to a people you had not known before”; and it is stated (Ruth 2:12), “May the Lord reward your deeds; may you have a full recompense from the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have sought refuge!” And there is a [relevant] parable about a gazelle that comes to a flock, and crouches with the sheep there. So the owner of the flock had compassion on it - since it left a broad pasture to stand in a narrow place.

“You shall not act towards him as a creditor” (Exodus 22:24). We were warned with this not to distress the borrower. And the creditor may not pass in front of him when he knows that the borrower does not have with what to pay him back. For he torments him and weakens his spirit with this. And our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Metzia 78b), “Behold, it is as if he is judging him with two [punishments], as it is stated (Psalms 66:12), ‘You have let men ride over us; we have endured fire and water.’”

“You shall not put usury upon him” (Exodus 22:24) - [this is a negative commandment] for the witnesses - as the creditor, the borrower and the witnesses [all] transgress a negative commandment. Therefore, it states, “you shall not put (tasimun),” in plural, after it stated, “you shall not act (singular) towards him as a creditor” - since it is a warning to the witnesses.

And there are some of them that our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, explained in the Talmud and in the Midrash, and most of them can be learned from the verse [itself]. For example, one who afflicts a widow or an orphan, as it is stated (Exodus 22:21-23), “you shall not afflict a widow or orphan. If you do mistreat them, etc., My anger shall blaze forth.” And our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Mekhilta D’Rabbi Yishmael, Mishpatim 18), “It is one if they cry out or they do not cry out.” [This is] meaning to say that when one who afflicts the widow or orphan is punished, it is the same doctrine whether the afflicted surely cries out under his hand or is surely silent. But when the orphan cries out to God, may He be blessed, the punishment comes quickly.

And there are some of them that our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, explained in the Talmud and in the Midrash, and most of them can be learned from the verse [itself]. For example, one who afflicts a widow or an orphan, as it is stated (Exodus 22:21-23), “you shall not afflict a widow or orphan. If you do mistreat them, etc., My anger shall blaze forth.” And our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Mekhilta D’Rabbi Yishmael, Mishpatim 18), “It is one if they cry out or they do not cry out.” [This is] meaning to say that when one who afflicts the widow or orphan is punished, it is the same doctrine whether the afflicted surely cries out under his hand or is surely silent. But when the orphan cries out to God, may He be blessed, the punishment comes quickly.

והיו לי הלוים . Anyone whose roots are in a holy domain must also sanctify himself in an increased measure. This is why the tribe of Levi who was chosen specifically underwent an additional sanctification. G–d had previously said in Exodus 22,30, of all the Israelites "ואנשי קודש תהיו לי," "you shall be holy people to Me!" Afterwards G–d sanctified the Levites and added "the Levites will belong to Me." Since G–d had done this at that time, it behooves the Levites to apply stricter rules of sanctity to themselves also in our times.

The reason is that the whole tribe of Levi did not share the exile experience properly, because it did not have to perform slave labour. The tribe wished to demonstrate its empathy with the rest of the tribes who were suffering, and they did this by way of the names they gave to their children. For instance, the name גרשון alluded to the fact that they considered themselves as aliens in a land which was not theirs. The name קהת is symbolic of קהות שניהם, that their teeth were on edge in frustration. The name מררי, alluded to the bitterness experienced by their brethren, as we know from Exodus 1,14.

There are several kinds of mercy and each rather far apart from the other. The mercy of a father on his child — this is a mercy that comes from the very nature of all creatures that live, as in the case of dogs and cattle. And then there is the case of the master who has mercy on his servant and the man who has mercy on his friend. Even though he expects some benefit from his act, nevertheless, it is very good that he should grasp and hold in his heart the quality of mercy. But the best and most lofty manifestation of the quality of mercy is when a man has mercy upon his son in order to bring him to the service of the Creator, may He be Blessed, as it is written; "The father shall make known Thy truth to his children" (Is. 38:19), and has more mercy upon his son's soul than upon his body. For it is necessary to strike him with the rod of chastisement in order to make him walk in the right path, yes, even if he chastises him harshly, for this apparently cruel conduct is in reality sublime mercy. And if he should withhold the rod of chastisement from his son because he feels too much pity for him to strike him and lets his son go on in the hardness of his evil heart — then this type of mercy drives out and destroys the son from life in the world to come. And even one who raises an orphan of whom it is said: "Ye shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child" (Exod. 22:21), it is a commandment to give stripes even to him in order to make him go upright in the upright path. Nevertheless he must, in spite of this command, (to correct the orphan) conduct himself with this orphan with more mercy than with all others, but he must not permit him to go on in the obduracy of his heart.

We find that before people engage in litigation, that the judges have to attempt to settle the dispute by arbitration first, and not immediately to explore the legal situation. All of this emulates the way of G–d Himself, who on occasion is exceedingly strict (see our sages' interpretation of Psalms 50,3, וסביביו נשערה מאד, "around Him it storms fiercely;" (compare Yevamot 121). On other occasions, He employs a large measure of the attribute of Mercy; this universe would otherwise be incapable of continuing. By modelling themselves after G–d, terrestrial judges are entitled to be referred to as אלוהים. Our sages have said that whenever the word אלוהים means a human being, these people can be said to enjoy ordination by G–d (Exodus 22,7 explained by Sanhedrin 56).

He also diminishes his stature as a human being thereby [(by speaking lashon hara)] until he emerges "worse than a dog," as Chazal have said (Pesachim 118a): "One who speaks lashon hara … deserves to be thrown to the dogs, it being written (Shemoth 23:1): 'You shall not receive a false report,' which is read as you shall not spread, which is preceded by (Ibid. 22:30): '…to the dog shall you throw it.'" The rationale is obvious, as written by the Maharal of Prague: "For the dogs guarded themselves when necessary, from 'sharpening their tongues,' as it is written (Ibid. 11;7): 'And against all the children of Israel, a dog shall not sharpen its tongue' — and he [(a human being)], whom the L-rd accorded understanding and knowledge could not restrain his yetzer from this [(lashon hara)] — wherefore he is 'worse' than a dog."

And in the general scope of cruelty is included him who robs his companion of anything and therefore caused him pain. And there is a great punishment in store for him who robs the poor — and one who does so is deserving of death as it is written: "Rob not the weak because he is weak" (Ibid. 22:22). And it is written: "For the Lord will plead their cause, and despoil of life those that despoil them" (Ibid. 22:23). And even though there be greater and more severe sins than robbery the punishment for robbing is very grievous, as it is written about the generation of the flood, "The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them" (Gen. 6:13). Our Rabbis said, "If there is a box filled with sins — there is no more severe accuser among them than robbery" (Sanhedrin 108a). And he who causes pain to an orphan or a widow through robbing them or shaming them or any kind of malicious pain is worthy of death through the power of Heaven. This is also true of judges who have the power to save them from the hand of their oppressors and do not fairly judge the case of the orphan or the widow — they are deserving of death as it is written: "You shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child" (Exod. 22:21). And it is further written: "If you afflict him in any way, for if he comes unto me I will surely hear his cry" (Ibid. : 22). And it is written : "My wrath shall burn and I will slay you with the sword and your wives will be widows and your children will be orphans" (Ibid.:23). Measure for measure: "Your wives shall be widows" for "afflicting widows" and "your sons shall be orphans" for afflicting orphans."

"You shall not deal with him as a creditor does" (Exodus 22:24), means not to cause pain to the borrower. And the lender should even avoid walking by the borrower when he knows that the borrower has no money with which to pay back the loan, (Baba Mezi'a 15) for the lender distresses the borrower with this kind of conduct. And we have been warned to remove from our souls the quality of cruelty, as it is written: "You shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child" (Exod. 22:21), and it is written: "And you shall not wrong one another and you shall fear your God" (Lev. 25:17). We are commanded to return to the poor his pledged article as is written: "If you take the garment of the poor in pledge you shall restore it to him before the sun goes down" (Exod. 22:25), as it is said: "And it shall be when he cries unto me that I will hear for I am gracious." And it is said : (Ibid. : 26) "And you shall not wrong nor oppress a stranger."

"You shall not deal with him as a creditor does" (Exodus 22:24), means not to cause pain to the borrower. And the lender should even avoid walking by the borrower when he knows that the borrower has no money with which to pay back the loan, (Baba Mezi'a 15) for the lender distresses the borrower with this kind of conduct. And we have been warned to remove from our souls the quality of cruelty, as it is written: "You shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child" (Exod. 22:21), and it is written: "And you shall not wrong one another and you shall fear your God" (Lev. 25:17). We are commanded to return to the poor his pledged article as is written: "If you take the garment of the poor in pledge you shall restore it to him before the sun goes down" (Exod. 22:25), as it is said: "And it shall be when he cries unto me that I will hear for I am gracious." And it is said : (Ibid. : 26) "And you shall not wrong nor oppress a stranger."

"You shall not deal with him as a creditor does" (Exodus 22:24), means not to cause pain to the borrower. And the lender should even avoid walking by the borrower when he knows that the borrower has no money with which to pay back the loan, (Baba Mezi'a 15) for the lender distresses the borrower with this kind of conduct. And we have been warned to remove from our souls the quality of cruelty, as it is written: "You shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child" (Exod. 22:21), and it is written: "And you shall not wrong one another and you shall fear your God" (Lev. 25:17). We are commanded to return to the poor his pledged article as is written: "If you take the garment of the poor in pledge you shall restore it to him before the sun goes down" (Exod. 22:25), as it is said: "And it shall be when he cries unto me that I will hear for I am gracious." And it is said : (Ibid. : 26) "And you shall not wrong nor oppress a stranger."

And, likewise, one who is accustomed to eat unkosher meat or to feed it to a Jew. And this is intimated in the Torah, it being written (Shemoth 23:1): "And men of holiness shall you be to Me, and flesh torn in the field you shall not eat. To the dog shall you throw it," after which it is written (Ibid. 23:1): "You shall not spread a false report." It emerges, then, that the verse of "To the dog shall you throw it" is found between these two sins — eating treifah [torn flesh] and speaking lashon hara, to teach us that for these two sins, a man may be reincarnated as a dog. And this is what King David, may peace be upon him, intimated in (Psalms 22:21): "Rescue from the sword, my soul; [rescue] from the dog, my soul," followed by "I will speak Your name to my brothers, etc." That is, I do not use my tongue to speak lashon hara, to be punished therefor by this dreadful reincarnation, but I use it to praise You and to exhort Israel, that they should fear You and praise You. And know that the Kabbalists have said that even though when a man is reincarnated in the form of another man he is unaware of his prior state, still when he is reincarnated as an animal or as a bird, he is aware of his prior state and suffers terribly at having descended from heaven from the form of a man to the form of a beast. Therefore, every man should fear and tremble and be soft of heart while he yet lives, while he yet has free will and knows his G-d, so that He forgives his sins and removes His wrath from him. And when his soul leaves him he will rest in peace and repose in His shade in Gan Eden. For He is gracious and merciful and abundant in lovingkindness. And (Berachoth 34b): "In the place where penitents stand, absolute Tzaddikim cannot stand." Until here, the words of the Sefer Charedim, in short.

He also brings himself to eminence in this world, as it is written in Mechilta, Parshath Mishpatim on Shemoth 32:30: "And flesh torn in the field you shall not eat. To the dog shall you throw it" — to teach us that the Holy One Blessed be He does not withhold reward from any creature, as it is written (Shemoth 11:17): "And to all the children of Israel a dog will not sharpen its tongue." Now is this not a kal vachomer [i.e., Does it not follow a fortiori]: If it is so [i.e., that He does not withhold reward] from an animal, how much more so from a human being!

(Ibid. 17): "For I heard them [the brothers] saying: 'Let us go to Dothan [nelchah dotainah],' which Rashi interprets: 'to seek against you nichlei datoth [legal devices (suggested by 'nelchah dothainah')] to kill you with." The explanation: It was decided by them that Joseph was a man of lashon hara, who provoked their father to hate them. And who knows how much contention he would stir up among them? They, therefore, sought some pretext to rid themselves of him in a way which would not make them "murderers" legally. As far as his being killed indirectly through them, this did not concern them. And as to their saying (Ibid. 60): "Let us go and kill him," this was meant in the same indirect sense. As stated in the well known Gemara, Makkoth 23a): "If one speaks lashon hara, he is fit to be cast to the dogs, it being written (Shemoth 23:1): 'You shall not bear a false report,' preceded by (Ibid. 22:39): 'To the dog shall you cast it.'" And we find in the Gemara (Bava Kamma 24b): "If one sicked a dog against someone, he is not guilty [of murder]." And even though by the law of Heaven, he is certainly liable for "indirection," too, they thought that in this instance they would not be liable by the law of Heaven because Joseph was a man of lashon hara and contention.

כי תצא אש ומצאה קוצים. When fire escapes and feeds on thistles, etc." The reason the Torah had to include this piece of legislation is that whereas one would have thought that if someone makes a fire within the confines of his own home, he is not responsible if his neighbours' property is accidentally damaged by this fire, the Torah imposes the duty to see to it that any hazardous activity, even within one's own house, must be accompanied by precautions to safeguard one's environment. This is a general rule, non-observance of which interferes with a person's principal aim in life, i.e. to attain a level of holiness.

And know further that one who desires to merit the quality of peace must guard himself also against the accepting of lashon hara and rechiluth. For aside from the punishment itself (Chazal having said (Pesachim 118a): "If one accepts lashon hara, he is fit to be thrown to the dogs, it being written (Shemoth 23:1): 'Do not bear a false report,' preceded by (Ibid. 22:30): 'To the dog shall you throw it'"), one further comes through it to vain hatred, quarrels, and contention. For since he accepts the thing at the outset as true, that Ploni spoke against him or did this and this to him, it is almost impossible for him afterwards not to cause his friend suffering or to quarrel with him because of this. And in the end, this results in their becoming great foes, each one wanting to "swallow the other's blood," and rejoicing in his misfortune. And all of this resulted from acceptance, his acceptance of the speaker's words at the outset as absolute truth. If he had followed the way of the Torah, he would not have come to this. For when someone comes to him and tells him what Ploni did or said to him, he should have thought: Perhaps the thing is an outright lie, or perhaps he added something that changed the complexion of the thing entirely. Or even if he added nothing, perhaps he did not relate the entire thing as it was, but left out several words. Or perhaps he varied his intonation, and thereby entirely changed things. Or perhaps he should have thought of something in defense of the one spoken of, that he did what he did unwittingly, or the like. And [if he had proceeded thus], as a matter of course, things would not have come to quarreling and contention and vain hatred.

And you already know the account of Hillel and Shammai (Shabbath 31a) that the three converts to Judaism said concerning them, "The short-temperedness of Shammai wanted to drive us out from the world, however, the modesty of Hillel brought us under the wing of the Divine Presence" As for Hillel, because of his great modesty, no man could make him angry, for he who holds himself back from anger, will acquire the qualities of modesty and compassion, while from wrath comes the quality of cruelty, as it is written : "And my anger shall blaze forth and I will put you to the sword" (Ex. 22:23). And always in the case of anger we find vengeance, "For the Lord's anger will flare up against you and He will shut up the skies" (Deut. 11:17).

לא תשתחוה להם. This means that when one prostrates oneself before a graven image or idol, though this may not be the normal way in which such an idol is worshipped, one is guilty of idol-worship, because prostrating oneself before G–d is the way of service in the Holy Temple before the Almighty. The act of השתחויה is a definite form of worship. We are told in Exodus 22,19: "Whoever sacrifices to a god other than the Lord alone shall be proscribed" [is subject to the death penalty by stoning. Ed]. While it is true that we learn from Exodus 22,19 that any acts that constitute normal worship such as slaughtering the animal, burning its flesh on the altar, pouring libations of wine on the altar, etc., are all actions punishable by death when performed in honour of other deities (regardless of whether such acts are part of the system in which that particular deity is worshipped), the question is why the Talmud did not derive the prohibition of prostrating oneself from this verse in Exodus. Prostrating oneself, which does not involve a sacrificial act, could not be derived from the words זובח in Exodus 22,19. Hence a special verse was needed for this prohibition. The act of prostrating oneself symbolises that one humbles oneself utterly and thus becomes culpable.

Commandment 56 deals with damages caused by one's livestock having destroyed property through trampling underfoot, or through consuming it. The relevant passage commences with the words יבער איש שדה (Exodus 22,4).

אם חבול תחבול שלמת רעך, Rashi explains that the subject matter is a garment worn by day. This is difficult, since the Torah continues "when he lies down at night, what will he (the indigent debtor) cover himself with?" From this it seems obvious that the Torah must have referred to a cover the debtor needs at night! Perhaps the bed the Torah has in mind is one which is used as a "table" at meal times. The verse may however contain a meaning in the mystical realm. Sometimes a person "grabs" the מצות, i.e. the reward for them which should by rights have accrued to someone else. The Zohar illustrates this in connection with כסוי חטאה in Psalms 32,1, and it is dealt with in Pardes Rimonim, in the seventh chapter dealing with the soul. The upshot is that even if a person has committed so many sins, i.e. is so indebted to G–d that his "clothing" (i.e. body) is pledged in payment, it is never too late to repent and to reverse the process of indebtedness to G–d. G–d says to the person who has sinned almost till the end of his life i.e. עד בא השמש, that his garment will be restored if he repents. The garment is a euphemism for the body. Were the person not to repent, his soul would be exposed, return "naked" to G–d once the body dies it had inhabited. The words והיה כי יצעק אלי ושמעתי כי חנון אני, "when he will cry out I will listen, for I am gracious," is a reference to the prayer for forgiveness of the repentant sinner.

מלאתך ודמעך לא תאחר. Do not delay to offer the fullness of your harvest." Rabbi Menachem Habavli explains that the Torah here tells us that when prayer is accompanied by tears, is the result of a broken heart, then G–d's response will not be delayed. It is our tradition that the "gates of tears," are never locked (Berachot 32).

We find two opinions in Bereshit Rabbah 22,12, as to the kind of "sign" G–d gave to Cain. Rabbi Yehudah says that G–d made the sun shine for him. Rabbi Nechemyah says that G–d certainly would not have gone out of His way to make the sun shine for such a sinner, rather the "sign" was a form of צרעת, skin excema, very visible. This comment is not to be understood as disagreement with Rabbi Yehudah. G–d said to Moses: "If they will not believe you, and not listen to the impact of the first "sign" (miracle), they will be convinced by the impact of the second miracle." The first sign was that Moses' face would shine like the sun, and Cain would benefit from this. Rabbi Nechemyah elaborates that Cain certainly would not benefit from this, until, when re-incarnated and his soul had been cleansed since he had accepted G–ds judgment, he had become Yitro. Only then would his sign be radiation of the face of Moses, rather than the sign of צרעת. We find a reference to this in Exodus 22,1: "If the thief is discovered in a hideout." The thief referred to is Cain who had tried to cheat G–d (גנבת דעת, see Rashi's comment on Genesis 4,9). The Torah in Exodus 22,1, continues: "If he is struck down and dies as a result, there is no blood (guilt)." However, if the sun shone upon him, (the thief) there is blood (guilt). What is meant is the גלגל החמה, i.e. after he had reformed and had become rehabilitated (galgal should be read gilgul metamorphosis).

Sometimes satisfaction and cheerfulness follow upon hearing: thus it is said (Lev. x. 20), "When Moses heard that he was content," just as anger ensues in the absence of assent and hearkening, as (Ex. xvi. 20), "Notwithstanding, they hearkened not unto Moses." ..."And Moses was wroth with them." Hatred also results from hearing, as thou must know from the case of Esau, of whom it is said (Gen. xxvii. 34), "When Esau heard," and then follows (id. xxvii. 41), "Esau hated Jacob." Mercy is known to result from "hearing"; thus God said (Ex. xxii. 26), "I will hear, for I am merciful." It is said of the righteous dead (Prov. i. 33), "Whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely." In contrast to this, it is said of the unrighteous (Job xv. 21), "A sound of fright is in his ears: in peace the despoiler shall come upon him," and so forth. Hard-heartedness results from the want of assent; thus it is said of Pharaoh in many places (Ex. ix. 12), "The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh and he hearkened not." A hard-hearted people is called (Deut. xxviii. 49), "A nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand, neither shalt thou hearken unto what it speaketh," and so forth.

The great sage Rabbi Moshe Nachmanides already alludes to the קרבן aspect of this meal when he writes as follows: "Perhaps Abraham knew that the part of the food offered first would disappear." One may infer from those words that just as Manoach experienced the sudden disappearance of his offering together with the angel (Judges 13,20), Abraham was aware of the procedure and expected the angels to disappear. It is quite clear that Manoach had not built an altar, he had only made use of an existing rock to offer an offering upon it. (ibid.) The "altar" mentioned there in the book of Judges refers to the Celestial Altar, the region the angel had descended from. This is why he had said to Manoach "do not detain me, since I cannot eat from your bread." The reason he could not do so was that it was פיגול, unacceptable in principle, seeing that one must not offer a sacrifice to one of G–d's angels or other agents. Offerings, even when acceptable, must be offered only to G–d directly. (Judges 13,16). We also have a specific verse in the Torah precluding the offering of sacrifices to an intermediary i.e. בלתי לה' לבדו, "only to G–d Himself" (Exodus 22,18)צ Assuming Abraham was aware of this, he could not have meant for this bread to be eaten, for he knew that angels do not eat. His intention had been that this bread would serve exclusively as a meal offering to G–d in recognition of the fact that G–d had appeared to him while he was awake and able to move around freely. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 48,4 take the view that G–d's appearance was in response to Abraham having circumcised himself. G–d reasoned that just as He appears to someone who builds an altar for him and offers a sacrifice (by allowing that sacrifice to be consumed by Heavenly fire), if someone performs circumcision on his own body, such an act certainly deserves to be acknowledged by G–d appearing to such a person. Abraham understood the fact that G–d had revealed Himself to him as an outpouring of G–d's bounty, as is normal when G–d accepts someone's offering. He now wanted to offer a real (additional) offering in order to draw down still more of G–d's blessings.

The great sage Rabbi Moshe Nachmanides already alludes to the קרבן aspect of this meal when he writes as follows: "Perhaps Abraham knew that the part of the food offered first would disappear." One may infer from those words that just as Manoach experienced the sudden disappearance of his offering together with the angel (Judges 13,20), Abraham was aware of the procedure and expected the angels to disappear. It is quite clear that Manoach had not built an altar, he had only made use of an existing rock to offer an offering upon it. (ibid.) The "altar" mentioned there in the book of Judges refers to the Celestial Altar, the region the angel had descended from. This is why he had said to Manoach "do not detain me, since I cannot eat from your bread." The reason he could not do so was that it was פיגול, unacceptable in principle, seeing that one must not offer a sacrifice to one of G–d's angels or other agents. Offerings, even when acceptable, must be offered only to G–d directly. (Judges 13,16). We also have a specific verse in the Torah precluding the offering of sacrifices to an intermediary i.e. בלתי לה' לבדו, "only to G–d Himself" (Exodus 22,18)צ Assuming Abraham was aware of this, he could not have meant for this bread to be eaten, for he knew that angels do not eat. His intention had been that this bread would serve exclusively as a meal offering to G–d in recognition of the fact that G–d had appeared to him while he was awake and able to move around freely. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 48,4 take the view that G–d's appearance was in response to Abraham having circumcised himself. G–d reasoned that just as He appears to someone who builds an altar for him and offers a sacrifice (by allowing that sacrifice to be consumed by Heavenly fire), if someone performs circumcision on his own body, such an act certainly deserves to be acknowledged by G–d appearing to such a person. Abraham understood the fact that G–d had revealed Himself to him as an outpouring of G–d's bounty, as is normal when G–d accepts someone's offering. He now wanted to offer a real (additional) offering in order to draw down still more of G–d's blessings.

According to the Rekanati even the prohibition to take the garments of a widow as a pledge for a loan (24,17) contains an allusion to transmigration of souls. He sees in the prohibition a device by the Torah not to subject the widow to two painful experiences, the loss of her husband and the loss of her garments. In order to understand how this alludes to transmigration of souls we need to refer to a similarly worded verse in Exodus 22,25: אם חבול תחבול שלמת רעך עד בא השמש תשיבנו לו, "If you have occasion to take your fellow man's garment as a pledge, you must return it to him by sunset." This verse alludes to the mystical dimension called סוד העבור. Kabbalists see in it a reference to the soul which has to return to the Celestial Spheres every night, a concept we are familiar with from our nightly payer המפיל in which we consign our soul to G–d till the following morning. The widow consigning her garment (="soul") to a creditor therefore is punished every night on two counts, her soul suffers its second reincarnation. A widow is metaphor for a soul which has been consigned to a second round of life on earth already. The lender must not become the cause of her having to live a third round on earth. Transgressing the physical commandment described here results in psychic harm to the soul of the person against whom one has sinned.

We shall expand somewhat on the severity of theft, which, when one reflects upon it, will make him tremble. The Midrash writes: "Lest you say that I have given you the Torah for your evil — I have given it to you only for your good." Now this obviously presents a question: How could one [even] suspect that the Holy One Blessed be He, the source of good and lovingkindness could give us the Torah for our evil? But the explanation is as follows. There are in the Torah several sections on punishing sinners — with death, stripes, or monetary payment — which might lead one to believe that the Holy One Blessed be He is angry with the sinner, wherefore He prescribed these punishments for his evil. But, in truth, this is not so. The Holy One Blessed be He brings punishments upon him to cleanse him. For our sages have said (Makkoth 23a) about one who is liable to stripes because he has transgressed a negative commandment of the Torah: (Devarim 25:3): "And your brother shall be demeaned before your eyes" — "Once he has been demeaned [by receiving stripes], he is like your brother." And, similarly, even with one liable to the death penalty, we tell him: "Confess, for all who confess have a share in the world to come." And this serves as a paradigm for all such things in the Torah, as in the instance of a thief (Shemoth 22:2): "If he lacks [the money to return], he should be sold for his theft," in order to return the money to the owner, so as to cleanse himself of the sin of theft, even though through this he descends from his sanctity. For ab initio, a Jew is forbidden by negative commandment to wed a handmaid, it being written (Devarim 23:18): "And there shall be no harlot from the sons of Israel"; but after he is sold by beth-din he descends from his sanctity and weds a handmaid, and his children are slaves forever. In any event, the Torah descends to "the end of the matter," that this is preferable for him rather than having the sin of theft remain upon him and returning and coming to Gehinnom as a gilgul [(a reincarnation)].

The Torah (19,14) continues with: "Do not curse the deaf." This should be understood in the sense of Kings II 24,14: וכל החרש והמסגר, "all the craftsmen and smiths." In the above mentioned context all the leading people of Jerusalem who could have enabled its continued existence as an independent nation were exiled. Here, too, the Torah means that one should not curse the judges, the leaders, etc., without whom the state could not continue to function properly.

The answer to this is that, although G–d is well aware of what goes on within the heart of man, man is nonetheless required to declare his innocence through prayer. By doing so he evokes the goodwill of the attribute of Justice. Ever since earth had become tainted the attribute of Justice can be reconciled only through the prayers of the righteous. The goodwill of that attribute is secured in direct proportion to the efforts of the righteous to lead exemplary lives. The Zohar describes that the state of guilt in which the world finds itself because of the deeds of the wicked, can be set right only through the removal from earth of a number of righteous people who will atone for the state of the world in the Celestial Regions. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 44,5) comment on Genesis 15,1: אנכי מגן לך, where G–d promises to act as shield for Abraham [after he had defeated the four most powerful kings with the help of supernatural intervention on his behalf. Ed.] that G–d said to Abraham that ever since the generation of Noach He had not used the righteous as protectors for their respective generation, but that starting with Abraham's generation He would do so. Moreover, whenever Abraham's descendants would become deeply involved in wickedness, G–d would focus on a righteous person in that generation who would confront the attribute of Justice calling out "enough" and offer himself as atonement for the sins of his contemporaries, [a synopsis of the principle of זכות אבות. Ed.].This is the meaning of the statement: "give Satan a limb as a bargaining chip." This is the meaning of Job 16,11: יסגירני א-ל אל אויל ועל ידי רשעים ירטני, "G–d hands me over to an evil one, thrusts me into the clutches of the wicked." It is considered better that a righteous person confront Satan rather than that the wicked should be the ones who goad him. Thus far the comment on Genesis 15,1. [I believe the author portrays Job as complaining that he the innocent has been treated as the scapegoat for the wicked. Ed.] This is also the meaning of the statement by our sages in Baba Kama 60 that "once G–d has given free rein to Satan to punish the guilty, Satan no longer distinguishes between the guilty and the innocent. At such a time the righteous are invariably his first victims." [Cf. Rashi on Exodus 10,22. Ed.] On the same folio Rav Joseph quotes biblical proof for this thesis from Ezekiel 21,8: "I shall cut off from you the righteous and the wicked alike." Additional support comes from Exodus 22,5: "If a fire is started and the stacked corn is consumed and it spreads to thorns, etc." The Talmud says that the only time a fire "spreads" beyond the confines of one's own property is when the גדיש, "stacked corn" (simile for the righteous) has already been consumed i.e. נאכל instead of ואכל. Afterwards the "thorns," i.e. the wicked, are also consumed by such a fire [seeing that there are no more righteous people to step into the breach. Ed.]. This is yet another description of the principle of בקרובי אקדש, "I will be sanctified by those who are closest to Me," which we discussed in connection with the death of Aaron's two sons Nadav and Avihu. Another occasion when our sages focus on this phenomenon of G–d's justice is Ezekiel 9,6: וממקדשי תחלו, "And begin from My Sanctuary." Rav Joseph suggests that the reading should be ממקדושי, from those that are holy to Me. This means that destruction will commence with the righteous. [In that connection the righteous are seen as guilty for not having sufficiently protested the wickedness. Ed.]

אם חבול תחבול (Exodus 22,25). The plain meaning of this legislation is clear, i.e. that when the owner of the pledge needs the object taken from him as a pledge he must not be denied its use. The Rekanati explains that the reason the Torah refers to עד בא השמש, is that the attribute of Justice is especially active at night, and the lender is more likely to be subject to it if he has not returned the garment to its owner for use during that period. Our Rabbis add another important thought pertaining to the סוד, the mystical dimension, underlying this, such as considerations of when to institute a leap year. They say that the verse refers to man's soul, which is returned to G–d nightly, as we say in the אדון עולם prayer: בידו אפקיד רוחי. The Torah also contains a hint of this when it says (Deut 24,17) that the garment of a widow must not be taken as a pledge at all. This is so that she does not suffer a צרה twice (See Rekanati).

Concerning this concept, Solomon says in Kohelet 3,21, מי יודע רוח בני אדם, העולה היא למעלה, ורוח הבהמה היורדת היא למטה לארץ, "Who knows under which conditions man's spirit rises on high, and when the animal spirit descends to the nether regions." Solomon means that there are occasions when the animal's spirit ascends, such as when man consumes בהמה טהורה, and such a בהמה is fit to eat according to the criteria of what is kasher according to Jewish dietary laws. On the other hand, when man indulges in animal food forbidden to him, his own spiritual force descends to the level of the animal instead of the spiritual level of the animal being raised to his level. All this is alluded to in our פרשה in the words לכלב תשליחון אותו, throw it to the dog; i.e. man is relegated to the "hard" קליפה. (a Kabbalistic term denoting forces in the universe not susceptible to sanctity)

The following is an excerpt of the סמ"ג’s introduction to the list of negative commandments: " Maimonides includes a widow and an orphan as a collective entity whenever the Torah enjoins us to treat the widow or orphan in a certain way, or not to treat them in a certain way. Similarly Maimonides lumps the Moabite and the Ammonite together. Whenever we read in the Torah that a Moabite or a member of the people of Ammon is prohibited from something, this constitutes a single prohibition in Maimonides' count. Maimonides also treats the prohibition of שאור ודבש, leaven and honey which are forbidden to constitute a smoke or incense offering on the altar, as a single negative commandment (cf. Leviticus 2,11). Maimonides similarly views the physical blemishes mentioned in Deut. 23,2 (someone whose member is cut off, or whose testes have been crushed and who is therefore prohibited from marrying a Jewish woman), as a single negative commandment. The same applies to someone eating the Passover sacrifice whether it is raw or boiled in water (Exodus 12,9). Because Maimonides has thereby reduced the number of negative commandments making up the required number of 365, he was forced to look for other negative commandments to make up the required number. We have already demonstrated in the name of Rashi that the prohibition of offering leaven or honey on the altar constitutes two separate Biblical prohibitions. Rashi also admits that though the widow and the divorcee that the High Priest is prohibited from marrying (Leviticus 21), are mentioned together we deal here with two separate prohibitions. When discussing these respective commandments in our book, we have demonstrated clear proof that this is so." So far the introductory comments of the סמ"ג.

This is the meaning of ובשר בשדה טרפה, "in the field," which is outside the confines of קדושה holiness, like the "field" of Esau who is described in the Torah as a man of the "field," as distinct from his brother, the איש תם (Genesis 25,27). We know of seventy categories of impurities corresponding to the seventy spiritual counterparts or "princes" of the seventy Gentile nations. This is why we must not consume any of these animals infested with "impurity," in order to maintain our destiny of אנשי קודש תהיון לי.

Although this parable describes the descendants of Esau as burning the Holy Temple, we must remember that no human being can burn G–d's building unless G–d wants it burned. To remind us of this, Jeremiah, in Lamentations 1,13, describes the Temple as being burned ממרום, "By Heavenly decree. This appears to make G–d guilty of the burning of the Holy Temple, in line with the example quoted in Baba Kama. Exodus 22,5 describes a situation where a fire is lit within one's private domain, the fire crosses that domains's boundary, ומצא קוצים, and "encounters stray thorns," as a result of which the neighbor's corn-stacks are burned. The Torah clearly holds the party that started the fire as liable for any damages arising from his action. Allegorically speaking, G–d assumes the blame for the destruction of the Temple, saying: "I have lit the fire." This is the meaning of Lamentions 4,11: ויצת אש בציון ותאכל יסודותיה, "G–d set fire to Zion and it consumed its foundations." G–d will also personally rebuild it, as we know from Zachariah 2,9: ואני אהיה לה נאום ה' חומת אש מסביב ולכבוד אהיה בתוכה "I, says the Lord, shall be a wall of fire surrounding it, and I shall be glory in her midst." When the Torah had said in Exodus 22,5 שלם ישלם המבעיר את הבערה, that the one who started the fire shalll surely pay for the damage, G–d says that it is He who has to pay for the damage caused by the fire.