Cytowanie Komentarza do Powtórzonego Prawa 7:26

We have already elucidated and mentioned in the earlier chapters that humility is from the highest of traits. And it is the mean between pride and lowliness of spirit and it has no other name - just humility. But there are many names for pride: In the Hebrew language, high heart, elevated eyes, proud and high. And from the names of the sages, may their memory be blessed, [are] a high spirit, coarse-spirited and uppity. And across from them is lowliness of spirit. We have already explained in the fourth chapter (Eight Chapters 4:7) that a person needs to incline a little to one of the extremes until he establishes himself in the middle of, as a [type of] fence. But only in this trait from [all] the other traits - meaning to say with pride - due to the great deficiency of this trait for the pious ones and their knowledge of its damage, they distanced themselves to the other extreme and completely inclined towards lowliness of spirit, until there was no room for pride in their souls at all. And behold, I saw in a book from the books on characteristics that one of the important pious men was asked and told, "Which day is the one upon which you rejoiced more than any of your days?" He said [back], "The day that I was going on a boat and my place was in the lowest places of the boat among the packages of clothing, and there were traders and men of means on the boat [as well]. And I was laying in my place and one of the men of the boat got up to urinate and I was insignificant in his eyes and lowly - as I was very low in his eyes - to the point that he revealed his nakedness and urinated on me. And I was astonished by the intensification of the trait of brazenness in his soul. But, as God lives, my soul was not pained by his act at all and my strength was not aroused. And I rejoiced with a great joy that I reached the extreme that the disgrace of this empty one did not pain me and [that] my soul did not feel [anything] towards him." And it is without a doubt that this is the extreme of low spiritedness, to the point of being distanced from pride. And I will now mention a little of what the sages mentioned in praise of humility and [in] disgrace of pride. And it is because of this that this one commanded to come close to lowliness and said, "Be very, very lowly in spirit" - out of his fear that a person remain only in humility, all the more so that there be a trace of pride in him. As it is close to it, since modesty is the mean, as we mentioned. And they said (Talmud Yerushalmi Shabbat 1:3) in praise of humility [that like] that which wisdom made a crown for its head, humility made a sole for its heel - the explanation of which is its shoe - as it is written (Psalms 111:10), "The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God." This is a proof that fear of God is greater than wisdom, as it is a cause for its existence. And it states (Proverbs 22:4), "[At the] heel of humility is the fear of sin," which is to say that you will find the fear of God at the heels of humility. If so, humility is much greater than wisdom. And they said (Megillah 31a), "This thing is written in the Torah and repeated in the Prophets and tripled in the Writings; every place that you find the greatness of the Holy One, blessed be He, you find His modesty: It is written in the Torah (Deuteronomy 10:17), 'the great God, etc.' And it is written after it (Deuteronomy 10:18), 'Who does the judgment of the orphan and the widow.' And it is repeated in the Prophets, as it is written (Isaiah 57:15), 'So speaks He who high aloft forever dwells, whose name is holy, "I dwell on high, in holiness."' And adjacent to it is '"with the contrite and the lowly in spirit."' And it is tripled in the Writings, as it is written (Psalms 68:5), 'extol Him who rides the clouds; the Lord is His name.' And it is written after it (Psalms 68:6), 'the Father of orphans and the Judge of widows.'" And you should learn from our teacher, Moshe, peace be upon him, in whom the intellectual virtues and the dispositional virtues were perfected - all of them directed to the level of prophecy - the master of Torah, the master of wisdom. And [yet] God, may He be blessed, praised him over every man with the trait of humility and stated (Numbers 12:3), "and Moshe the man is very humble, more than any person." And His stating, "very" is a sign of his great modesty and his inclining towards the side of the far extreme. And so, you will find him state (Exodus 16:7) "and what are we?" And so [too[ with David, 'the anointed of the God of Yaakov, the pleasant singer of the praises of Israel.' And he was an honored king, whose kingdom grew great and sword grew strong and who God, may He be blessed, designated through our teacher Moshe, peace be upon him, since he is the star that proceeded from Yaakov (Numbers 24:17), as the sages, may their memory be blessed, elucidated. And he was a prophet and the greatest of of the seventy elders [of his time], as he stated (II Samuel 23:8), "who sat in the sitting of the wise." And with all of this, he stated [about himself] (Psalms 51:19), "and a heart broken and crushed, God will not disgrace." And he increased in these virtues that indicate extreme modesty. And [the following is from] what the rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said about pride. They said (Sotah 4b), "Any man that has coarse-spiritedness is like he worshiped idolatry. Here it is written (Proverbs 16:5), 'An abomination of the Lord is anyone of a high heart'; and there it is written (Deuteronomy 7:26), 'And do not bring an abomination into your house.'" And they said, "It is like he denied a fundamental [of faith], as it is stated (Deuteronomy 8:14), 'And your heart grow high and you forget the Lord.'" And they said that the sin of pride is like one who has forbidden sexual relations: It states [about the latter] (Leviticus 18:27), "As they did all of these abominations." And they said (Sotah 4b) that one who becomes uppity is he, himself - for God - like idolatry itself. And they brought a proof from the statement (Isaiah 2:22), "'Cease from man, whose soul is in his nose' - meaning to say, of a high (haughty) spirit - 'for by what (vameh) is he estimated?' - do not read it as vameh, but rather bamah (an altar, as both words are written with the same three letters)." And they said [about] one that becomes uppity that it is fitting to kill him. And they said (Sotah 5a) that anyone who has coarse spirit in him is fitting to be cut down like a tree-god. It is written here (Isaiah 10:33), "the ones of high stature cut down"; and there it is written (Deuteronomy 7:5), "and their tree-gods shall you cut down." And they said that God, may He be blessed, will not revive during the revival of the dead those that became uppity. [This was] their saying, "Any man that has coarse spirit in him, his dust will not be aroused; as it is stated (Isaiah 27:19), 'awake and shout for joy, you who dwell in the dust': he who was made dust in his life - meaning to say the humble ones - they are the ones that will be revived." And they emphasized this and said that any man that has coarse spirit in him, the Divine Presence cries out about him; as it is stated (Psalms 138:6), "and the high ones from afar, He makes known." And they elaborated with their words. They said in saying that tsaarat (a Biblical form of leprosy) is a punishment for the haughty ones, "For a swelling (seiat), for a rash, or for a discoloration" (Leviticus 14:56) - and a swelling is only height (haughtiness), as it is stated (Isaiah 2:14), "the elevated (nisaot) hills." It is as if it said to the one who becomes uppity is a swelling [of tsaarat]. And the end is what they said (Sotah 5a), 'In excommunication is the one that has it and in excommunication is the one that does not have it at all.'" [This] means to say that a person should not be humble in spirit to the final extreme, as it is not from the virtues. And they quantified it metaphorically - one in sixty four parts, meaning to say if we place pride in one corner and lowliness of spirit in another corner, there would be sixty four parts along the spectrum. And he should stand in the sixty-third section. He does not only want the mean with this trait, so as to escape from pride. As if he were to be missing [just] one section and [proportionately] come closer to pride, he would be put in excommunication. And that is the opinion of Rava about humility. But Rav Nachman decided and said that it is not fitting for a man to have from it - meaning to say from pride - not a large a section and not a small section, as its sin is not small. That which makes man into an abomination is not fitting to [even] approach. They said about this matter, "Rav Nachman bar Yitschak said, 'Not form it and not from part of it. And is it a small thing that which is written, 'An abomination of the Lord is anyone of a high heart?'" And to strengthen [precaution] from this cursed sin, [Rabbi Levitas] said, "Be very, very lowly in spirit for the hope of man is worms" - meaning to say that you need to force yourself until you have distanced yourself from pride, by your thinking of the end of the body, and that is its return to worms.

TO GO ASTRAY AFTER THE MOLECH. “This is intended to include any other idol that was worshipped in that way [i.e., by a person passing his children through the fire], even if that particular idol is ordinarily not worshipped that way.” This is Rashi’s language. Now Rashi has already written in the section of Acharei Moth²¹⁹Ibid. that the Molech is “an idol the name of which is ‘Molech,’ and this was the way in which it was worshipped: he would hand over his child to the priests etc.” But all this does not conform and agree properly with the Gemara’s conclusion²²⁰Sanhedrin 64 a-b. as it appears after deliberation. For according to the opinion of the Sage who says that Molech is an idol [and not a name for a form of witchcraft], the worship thereof was not by passing children through the fire, for if so there was no need at all for Scripture to mention this, [i.e., the passing through fire] since it would be included in the admonition against worshipping the idols [in the manner in which they are usually worshipped], of which there are many general prohibitions in the Torah, and it is also included in the punishment stated in the section If there be found in the midst of thee … man or woman, that doeth that which is evil in the sight of the Eternal thy G-d, in transgressing His covenant, and hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them.²²¹Deuteronomy 17:2-3. Rather, we must perforce interpret [if Molech is the name of a particular idol] that the essential purpose of Scripture in mentioning [this particular form of worship], was only to make one liable for passing one’s children [through fire] even if that particular idol is not ordinarily worshipped in that manner. And thus the Rabbis have said in the Gemara:²²⁰Sanhedrin 64 a-b. “And according to the Sage who is of the opinion that Molech is an idol, why did Scripture state [the punishment of] excision in the case of Molech [when it is already included in the general punishment for all idol-worship]? It is to apply it in the case of one who passes his son [through the fire in honor of any idol, even if that idol is] not ordinarily worshipped in that manner.” And the same reasoning applies to the punishment and the admonition which Scripture mentioned with reference to it [this particular form of worship], that they were only necessary [if we hold that Molech is an idol] for the case of one who passed his son [through fire] to an idol which is not normally worshipped in that manner.
It would appear that according to this opinion [that the Molech was idol-worship, and that the main reason why Scripture mentioned this particular form of worship was to prohibit and punish the practice thereof even as an abnormal manner of worship of all other idols], that the term “Molech” is not a name for a particular graven image or statute, but is a general name for anything that is worshipped, “anything which you accept as your king and take upon you as your god.” In accordance with this opinion, the children of Ammon called their abhorrence Molech,²²²I Kings 11:7. The word “abhorrence” is the term of the Rabbis for idols, which we are to abhor. See Deuteronomy 7:26. because he was their king, the term Molech thus being a general name for all things honored [as deities], for it is derived from the term malchuth (royalty). It is thus not like the Rabbi [Rashi] said [in the preceding section of Acharei Moth], that Molech is “an idol the name of which is ‘Molech,’ and the manner of its worship” was as mentioned. Similarly, that which Rashi wrote here that the phrase to go astray after the Molech “is necessary to include any other idol that was worshipped in that way, even if that particular idol is ordinarily not worshipped in that way” — this interpretation too, is impossible [to accept] for the reason that we have mentioned, namely, that the essential basis for the punishment of excision mentioned specifically in the case of the Molech, is to make one liable for practicing before an idol even if the idol is not ordinarily worshipped in that manner, and this includes all idols! [Hence it is not necessary to include them on the basis of the phrase before us in Verse 5 — to go astray after the Molech — when this point is already established the overall statement of excision mentioned in Verse 3 which essentially prohibits that kind of worship to any idol, even if it is not normally worshipped in that way]! It is also impossible to say that Scripture made one liable to excision in the case of that idol the name of which is “Molech,” although passing a child through the fire before it was not its usual mode of worship, and that then it reverts [in the verse before us, stating to go astray after Molech, in order, as Rashi said] to include in the punishment of excision he [who passes through the fire of his seed] to Peor or Merkulis [which was also an abnormal mode of worshipping them]. For why was it necessary for Scripture to mention it [i.e., Molech] altogether? Why was that idol [called “Molech” or “Peor” or “Merkulis”] different from all other idols [since the Torah has already prohibited passing one’s children through fire before any idol, under punishment of excision even if that particular idol is ordinarily not worshipped that way]? Moreover, if so you would need a special verse to include one who passes his child through the fire to Peor or Merkulis in the punishment of stoning [if there were witnesses to his act and he was given the proper warning], just as Scripture [according to Rashi] included him in the punishment of excision [when there were no witnesses]!
Rather, [we must conclude] that Scripture only mentioned the admonition, and the punishments of excision and stoning, in the case of Molech, with reference to one who passes his child through the fire to any idol whatsoever, even if that is not its usual mode of worship. Thus whether you say that the term Molech is a name for all idols [since the name is derived from the word malchuth, (royalty)] as we have explained, or whether you say [as Rashi does] that Molech is the name of a particular idol that was so called, [we must say, as explained above] that Scripture mentioned it [in order to prohibit this practice even] if it be an abnormal mode of worship [of that idol, i.e., Molech]; the same law applying to all idols, for this stringency is on account of the frightfulness of this mode of worship. All this is made clear in the Gemara of Tractate Sanhedrin²²⁰Sanhedrin 64 a-b. according to this opinion which the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote, that the Molech was an idol. But our Mishnah [which mentions first “the idolator” and then “he that offers of his seed to Molech,” thus indicating that Molech is not an idol, for otherwise this would have been included under the law of “the idolator”],²²³This point is clearly made in the Gemara in Sanhedrin 64 a, in commenting on the Mishnah. is taught in accordance with the opinion of the Sage who says that Molech was not an idol, meaning to say, it was not worshipped in a manner of being accepted as a god, but instead it was like a practice of witchcraft, to seek on behalf of the living unto the dead,²²⁴Isaiah 8:19. unto this dead dog.²²⁵II Samuel 16:9. According to this opinion, one who passed his seed through the fire to Peor or Merkulis, is not liable [since that form of witchcraft was performed only before Molech, and the Torah specifically mentioned that this practice of witchcraft was done before Molech].²²⁶If Molech is held to have been an idol, then, as explained in Ramban above, there was no need for the Torah to prohibit and punish its practice specifically, since it was included in the many general prohibitions against idolatry. We were therefore forced to say that the reason why the Torah specifically mentioned Molech and its practice, was to prohibit that practice to any idol, even if that particular idol was not normally worshipped in that way. Also, the term “Molech” must be an expression not for a particular idol, but for any idol, the word being of the root malchuth (royalty), as the act of idol worship meant that the idolator accepted the idol as his god. But if Molech is held to have been a form of witchcraft [and not a mode of idol worship], then if one is to perform that practice before Peor or Merkulis, it would not come under that specific prohibition which the Torah singled out, and hence he would be free from the punishment of death, although — needless to state — he has committed a heinous sin. Rashi’s words in his commentaries to Tractate Sanhedrin²²⁷Rashi, Sanhedrin 64 a. See my Hebrew commentary p. 129, where this text of Rashi is quoted. are also as we have written. And the Beraitha taught in the Torath Kohanim²²⁸Torath Kohanim, Kedoshim 10:15. [which was the source for Rashi’s comment mentioned at the beginning of this verse]: “And I will cut him off, and all that go astray after him, to go astray after Molech. This is intended to include the case of any other idol [which was worshipped in that way, that the worshipper is liable to the punishment of] excision” — the interpretation of this Beraitha is not based upon the redundant expression to go astray after Molech, as appears from the words of the Rabbi [Rashi]. Rather, the Beraitha is stating that this whole [Scriptural passage laying down the law of] excision is redundant, and therefore we are to apply it to any other idol that was worshipped in that way. It is this which the Rabbis have stated in the Gemara:²²⁹Sanhedrin 64 b. “Why is excision mentioned thrice [as the punishment] for idolatry?²³⁰Verses 3 and 5 here; Numbers 15:31. It is prescribed once for [worshipping an idol in] the customary manner; once for worshipping it in a non-customary manner,” that is, if he sacrifices, or burns incense, or pours a libation, or bows down before an idol,²³¹See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 4-6, that these four modes of worship are forbidden to be done before any idol, even if the idol is not ordinarily worshipped in that manner. which have been included under the punishment of death²³²Exodus 22:19: He that sacrificeth unto the gods shall be utterly destroyed. And see “The Commandments,” Vol. II, p. 6. even if the idol is not ordinarily worshipped in that manner, and here [in the verse before us] they are made liable to excision [in the absence of witnesses]. “And once excision is mentioned for [the worship of] Molech” [for Molech is not an idol, but a form of witchcraft which the Torah prohibited by means of this strong form of punishment]. And according to the Sage who says that Molech is an idol [we must perforce say that the reason why the Torah singled out the Molech is in order to prohibit and punish] passing a child through the fire before any idol whatever, even if the idol is not ordinarily worshipped in that manner, as we have mentioned.

Diese Gleichstellung von שביעית einerseits mit ע׳׳ז , andererseits mit קודש dürfte tief charakteristisch für dessen Bedeutung sein. Wie שבת בראשית in Parallele zu ע׳׳ז steht, so daß das Sabbatbekenntnis als positiver Gegensatz der in ע׳׳ז enthaltenen Gottesleugnung begriffen wird, so ist auch שביעית ein solcher positiver Gegensatz zu שביעית .ע׳׳ז ist ebenso positiver Ausdruck der Gotteshuldigung der Gottesherrschaft über den Boden des jüdischen Landes, wie ע׳׳ז eine Leugnung der ausschließlichen Gottesherrschaft ist. Alles, was der jüdische Boden im שביעית hervorbringt, ist ein Objekt, das die Idee der Gottesherrschaft trägt und dem Ausdruck und der Vergegenwärtigung dieses Gedankens heilig ist, sowie ע׳׳ז ein Objekt ist, das den Gegensatz dieses Gedankens vergegenwärtigt. Beide, פירות שביעית und ע׳׳ז, sind Bekenntnisobjekte in Beziehung zu der höchsten fundamentalen Wahrheit des jüdischen Bewußtseins, jenes der Huldigung, dieses der Leugnung der Gottesherrschaft, und scheiden sich damit scharf von allen übrigen Gesetzobjekten. Von ע׳׳ז , diesem Objekt, das eine Verirrung vergegenwärtigt, deren Verneinung unsere ganze geistige und sittliche Energie herausfordert, heißt es Dewarim 7, 26: ולא תביא תועבה אל ביתך והיית חרם כמהו d.h. dem, was du mit geistigem und sittlichem Abscheu aus deinem Gedankenkreise fern halten sollst, sollst du keinen Eintritt in den Kreis deiner Existenz gestatten, du könntest sonst verfallen werden wie es. Daran Kiduschin 58a die Lehre: כל שאתה מהייה הימנה הרי הוא כמהו, alles, dessen Dasein du durch ע׳׳ו ,vermittelst, wird ihm gleich d. h. wie ע׳׳ז für dich kein Dasein haben darf und daher אסור בהנאה ist, dir keinen Nutzen vermitteln darf, so ist auch alles das אסור בהנאה, was du dir durch seine Vermittlung erlangt hast, es ist תופס דמים und, wie bereits bemerkt, selbst חליפי חליפין ע׳׳ sind אסור. Selbst in wiederholter Vermittlung darf nichts von dem deinigen deine Gedanken auf ע׳׳ז zurückführen. Die Idee von ע׳׳ז ist חרם, ist eine wie ein "Fangnetz" zu meidende Vorstellung. Dem gegenüber ist alles, was der Boden im Schabbatjahr trägt, sind פירות שביעית Objekte, die die Gottesherrschaft über dein Eigentum, oder vielmehr, die dir Gott als den Ureigentümer des Bodens und seiner Produkte, die du dein nennst, vergegenwärtigen, und diese Urgehörigteit an Gott bekundet sich in dem der Weise und der Zeit nach (ביעור, siehe unten) nur beschränkten Benutzungsrecht, das dir an den Früchten zusteht, die dir im Schabbatjahr "dein" Boden erzeugt. Würdest du durch den Verkauf dieser Früchte dir eine unbeschränkte Benutzung ihres Wertes vermitteln können, so machte dies eben die Idee, die diese Früchte dir vergegenwärtigen, zu :einer Illusion. Daher spricht das Gesetz den für שביעית wie für יובל geltenden Satz: (V. 12) קודש תהיה לכם, ein der Gottesidee angehörendes Heiligtum sind seine Früchte und wie bei solchen Heiligtümern, קדש, überträgt der Verkauf diese Heiligkeit auf das Kaufobjekt. Alles, was für פירות שביעית gekauft wird, wird daher קודש, ihm wird durch die Dahingebung für פירות שביעית die קדושת שביעית erteilt, die aber wie alle קדושת דמים, wie alle "Werteiligung" ablösbar ist und ganz auf einen andern Wert übertragen werden kann. Die קדושה aber, die auf פירות שביעית ruht, ist keine bloße Wertheiligung, sie ist eine objektive, den Früchten durch das Faktum ihrer Erzeugung im Sabbatjahr innewohnende, sie ist nicht ablösbar, sie sind nicht יוצא לחולין von ihnen heißt es: בהויתה יהא ,קדש תהיה, sie bleiben קדש, selbst wenn man durch ihren Verkauf ihre קדושה auch dem dagegen erlangten Kaufobjekte erteilt hat (daselbst). Daher erklärt sich auch wohl der (Sukka 41a) als Halacha sich ergebende Satz, daß bei פרי ראשון, der eigentlichen שביעית-Frucht, eine Übertragung der קדושה auf anderes nur דרך מקח nicht aber דרך חילול möglich ist, bei פרי שני aber, den durch Verkauf der פירות שביעית erlangten Objekten, die Weiterübertragung der קדושה sowohl durch מקח, als durch חילול stattfinden kann. Der Begriff "חילול" Auslösung, setzt doch wesentlich voraus, daß das Ausgelöste יוצא לחולין sei.

לא תעשו עול במשפט YE SHALL NOT DO INJUSTICE IN JUDGMENT — This teaches us that the judge who perverts judgment is called an "unjust person" (עַוָּל), hateful and detested, doomed to destruction, and an abomination. He is rightly called thus for the unjust person (עַוָּל) is called by Scripture "abomination", as it is said (Deuteronomy 25:16) "For all that do [such things] all that do injustice (עַוָּל=עֹשֵׂה עָוֶל) are an abomination (תועבה) unto the Lord thy God”. The abomination (תועבה), on its part, is called by Scripture חרם and שקץ, as it is said (Deuteronomy 7:26) "Neither shalt thou bring an abomination (תועבה) into thine house, lest thou be a doomed thing (חרם) like it; but thou shall regard it as שקץ.