וַיְהִי֩ כִשְׁמֹ֨עַ הַמֶּ֜לֶךְ אֶת־דְּבַ֣ר אִישׁ־הָאֱלֹהִ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֨ר קָרָ֤א עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֙חַ֙ בְּבֵֽית־אֵ֔ל וַיִּשְׁלַ֨ח יָרָבְעָ֧ם אֶת־יָד֛וֹ מֵעַ֥ל הַמִּזְבֵּ֖חַ לֵאמֹ֣ר ׀ תִּפְשֻׂ֑הוּ וַתִּיבַ֤שׁ יָדוֹ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר שָׁלַ֣ח עָלָ֔יו וְלֹ֥א יָכֹ֖ל לַהֲשִׁיבָ֥הּ אֵלָֽיו׃
Gdy tedy usłyszał król słowo męża Bożego, które wygłosił przeciw ołtarzowi w Bethel, wyciągnął Jerobeam rękę swą od ołtarza i zawołał: Pochwyćcie go! Ale uschła ręka jego, którą był wyciągnął przeciw niemu, tak że nie zdołał już ściągnąć ją do siebie.
Rabbeinu Bahya
It I also an important rule in the Hebrew language, or at least in Biblical Hebrew, that when the order of certain words is inverted there is an important message in such apparently arbitrary use of the sequence of these words. Let us consider the example of תפשום חיים or חיים תפשום, which we translate in English as “capture them alive” (compare Kings I 20,18 where both expressions are used in the same verse, and it appears at first glance as if there were no difference between the two instructions of Ben Haddad). Seeing that Ben Haddad commanded that the men in question be captured alive regardless of whether their intention had been peaceful or hostile, why did he change the wording, using the expression “capture them alive” in the event that they were peaceful, and the expression “alive you shall capture them” in the event that the men’s intentions were hostile? The meaning of the words תפשום חיים “capture them alive” is “do not only not kill them when attempting to capture them, but let them continue to live.” In the second command the emphasis on the word חיים first means that you are to “capture their lives,” i.e. to kill them.
Let us illustrate what is meant by G’d reacting more sternly to wrongs committed between people than to wrongs committed by His creatures against Himself. In Genesis 12,3 G’d states that “he who curses you (Avraham) I will curse,” i.e. G’d personally will avenge Avraham’s injured dignity. By way of contrast we read in Samuel I 2,30 that “those who honour Me I will honour whereas those who spurn Me shall be dishonoured.” G’d did not say that He, personally, will dishonour the people who spurn Him, whereas He, personally, will honour people who show Him respect. In connection with Jerobam, King of Israel, who had dared offer a sacrifice to an idol on the altar he had built illegally, we find that G’d punished him immediately, making his arm lame, because he had given orders to arrest the prophet who had spoken out against the altar. G’d had failed to take visible revenge on Jerobam who had built the altar and sacrificed to idols upon it. Again we have proof of how concerned G’d is with the dignity of his creatures, in this instance “the man of G’d.” [even the ones who spurn Him. Ed.] In Kings II 6,18 where the subject is war between Aram and Israel during the days of Elisha we find that while G’d never struck the soldiers of Ben Haddad’s army with blindness although they had been worshipping idols all their lives, when Elisha asked G’d to strike them with blindness G’d obliged so that they could not capture him. Here too you see that G’d’s concern for His creature, Elisha, was greater than His concern with insults the same people had heaped upon Him.
Concerning the payment of a penalty of 20% (25% respectively) for having violated another person’s trust, the Torah writes in verse 24 of our chapter וחמישתיו יסף עליו. We need to understand the sequence of the paragraph as follows: after the person to whom a deposit had been entrusted denies that he either received it or had not yet returned it, he aggravates his sin by swearing an oath that what he said was true, he ought by rights to pay many such extra 20% penalties. This explains the plural form of the word חמישתיו instead of חמישתו which we would have expected. The extra penalty would be imposed for the original refusal to pay a single extra 20%. Actually, in practice, the Torah does not impose the multiple penalty payments; however the Torah wants to be on record that strict Justice would have demanded that the guilty party now pay several times what he had to pay before he swore a false oath. [Here too we see that in practice G’d waived the penalty for the insult addressed to Him by means of a false oath, whereas the original denial vis-a-vis the wronged party did carry such a penalty. Ed].
Sifra Vayikra 21,3 commenting on the words 'ונפש כי מעלה מעל בה, where the word “against G’d” is peculiar seeing that the trespass was directed against a fellow human being, states in the name of Rabbi Akiva that all loans, etc., should have been executed with a document, witnessed, etc. The party who extended a loan without insisting on a written receipt is partly at fault for causing the borrower to be tempted to deny his liability seeing the lender could not offer proof of the borrower’s indebtedness to him. Seeing this happened, the borrower now has to have his denial of the debt witnessed by witnesses and a document.
The person who entrusted his belongings for safe-keeping to a third parry without witnesses did so precisely because he did not want a third party to know anything about the whereabouts of the object. This is why he is not criticised by the Torah as having trespassed against G’d in what he did and how he did it. The word 'בה therefore alludes to the third party to the transaction described, i.e. G’d. Only He knows about it in addition to the two parties directly involved.
Let us illustrate what is meant by G’d reacting more sternly to wrongs committed between people than to wrongs committed by His creatures against Himself. In Genesis 12,3 G’d states that “he who curses you (Avraham) I will curse,” i.e. G’d personally will avenge Avraham’s injured dignity. By way of contrast we read in Samuel I 2,30 that “those who honour Me I will honour whereas those who spurn Me shall be dishonoured.” G’d did not say that He, personally, will dishonour the people who spurn Him, whereas He, personally, will honour people who show Him respect. In connection with Jerobam, King of Israel, who had dared offer a sacrifice to an idol on the altar he had built illegally, we find that G’d punished him immediately, making his arm lame, because he had given orders to arrest the prophet who had spoken out against the altar. G’d had failed to take visible revenge on Jerobam who had built the altar and sacrificed to idols upon it. Again we have proof of how concerned G’d is with the dignity of his creatures, in this instance “the man of G’d.” [even the ones who spurn Him. Ed.] In Kings II 6,18 where the subject is war between Aram and Israel during the days of Elisha we find that while G’d never struck the soldiers of Ben Haddad’s army with blindness although they had been worshipping idols all their lives, when Elisha asked G’d to strike them with blindness G’d obliged so that they could not capture him. Here too you see that G’d’s concern for His creature, Elisha, was greater than His concern with insults the same people had heaped upon Him.
Concerning the payment of a penalty of 20% (25% respectively) for having violated another person’s trust, the Torah writes in verse 24 of our chapter וחמישתיו יסף עליו. We need to understand the sequence of the paragraph as follows: after the person to whom a deposit had been entrusted denies that he either received it or had not yet returned it, he aggravates his sin by swearing an oath that what he said was true, he ought by rights to pay many such extra 20% penalties. This explains the plural form of the word חמישתיו instead of חמישתו which we would have expected. The extra penalty would be imposed for the original refusal to pay a single extra 20%. Actually, in practice, the Torah does not impose the multiple penalty payments; however the Torah wants to be on record that strict Justice would have demanded that the guilty party now pay several times what he had to pay before he swore a false oath. [Here too we see that in practice G’d waived the penalty for the insult addressed to Him by means of a false oath, whereas the original denial vis-a-vis the wronged party did carry such a penalty. Ed].
Sifra Vayikra 21,3 commenting on the words 'ונפש כי מעלה מעל בה, where the word “against G’d” is peculiar seeing that the trespass was directed against a fellow human being, states in the name of Rabbi Akiva that all loans, etc., should have been executed with a document, witnessed, etc. The party who extended a loan without insisting on a written receipt is partly at fault for causing the borrower to be tempted to deny his liability seeing the lender could not offer proof of the borrower’s indebtedness to him. Seeing this happened, the borrower now has to have his denial of the debt witnessed by witnesses and a document.
The person who entrusted his belongings for safe-keeping to a third parry without witnesses did so precisely because he did not want a third party to know anything about the whereabouts of the object. This is why he is not criticised by the Torah as having trespassed against G’d in what he did and how he did it. The word 'בה therefore alludes to the third party to the transaction described, i.e. G’d. Only He knows about it in addition to the two parties directly involved.