Cytowanie Komentarza do Wyjścia 22:14

If one borrowed a cow together with the service of its owner, or hired its owner together with the cow, or if he borrowed the service of the owner or hired him, and afterward borrowed the cow, and the cowed died he is not liable, for it is written, “If its owner was with it no restitution need be made” (Exodus 22:14). But if he first borrowed the cow and afterward borrowed or hired the service of its owner, and the cow died, he is liable, for it is written, “Its owner not being with it, he must make restitution” (Exodus 22:13). The Torah clearly states that if the owner of the animal was with the animal when it was borrowed and then it died or was injured the borrower is not obligated to make restitution. The assumption is that the owners should have taken care of the animal and therefore even though the borrower would normally be liable for the animal dying or being injured in this case he is not. Our mishnah clarifies two issues. First of all, it states that the services of the owner need not have been borrowed but may have been hired as well. As long as the cow is borrowed these laws will be applicable. Second, the services of the owner must have been borrowed or hired before the borrowing of the cow. The Rabbis interpret the Torah’s words “with it” or “not being with it” to mean that the owner was in service to the borrower at the time of the borrowing and not afterwards. If the borrower hired or borrowed the services of the owner after having borrowed the cow he will be liable if the cow dies, even if at that time the owner was with the cow.

בראשית ברא, “first of all, before any creatures were created, G-d created heaven and earth;” Our author compares this to Jeremiah writing in Jeremiah 26,1: בראשית ממלכות יהויקים בן יאשיהו, “at the beginning of the rule of Yehoyakim, son of Yoshiyahu, etc.” The author mentions that Onkelos also translates these two words as: “at the beginning He created.”'אלוקים וגו, if there is a person [Jewish believer, of course] who is baffled by the plural ending in the word for G-d in the Holy Tongue, (i.e. אלוקים, אלוקינו, אלוקי) thinking that this is utterly inappropriate in a Book teaching monotheism such as the Torah, such a person should reflect for a moment and consider that references to Divinity and addressed to the individual are generally phrased as the Divinity mentioned being in the plural mode. [as is the custom for earthly kings, who speak of themselves in the plural mode, something known as pluralis majestatis. It would border on blasphemy if the Torah would accord G-d alesser title than the one arrogated to themselves by earthly rulers. Ed.]. Examples quoted by the author are: Exodus 3,16אלוקי אברהם יצחק ויעקב, or Genesis 42,7: דבר האיש אדוני הארץ or Exodus 22,14: אם בעליו עמו; there are many more examples of this. Do not answer me by saying that the vocalization of the word אדני when written with the kametz is sacred, whereas when not it is profane. Are you going to argue the same for the roots: בנאי ,זכאי ,שדי (fool) אשמאי and others, [that when using the vowel kametz they are transformed into sacred words? Ed.] The truth is that that the Divine name for G-d is also used in the plural mode, and no one as a result disputes that He is unique and solitary! The deeper meaning of the word elohim is “majesty, authority.” When G-d proclaimed at the beginning of the Decalogue: אנכי “I” (singular) ה' אלוקיך, “am the Lord your G-d(s)” (plural), i.e. the meaning is that whereas every other ruler or king rules over a certain narrowly defined domain, “I am the One Who rules over everything, the entire universe.” [Surely this justifies the use of the plural mode! Ed.] Not only that, earthly rulers or kings, being mortal, have to worry about who will succeed them, and in the event that a king does not have a biological heir, or has otherwise become weak and unable to carry out his functions for the benefit of his subjects, he must be replaced. None of these problems, will ever face the G-d Who introduces Himself to His people at Mount Sinai at the beginning of the Decalogue. Furthermore, from the subject’s point of view, if a subject feels oppressed by a particular king whose domain he inhabits, he has the option (unless he is in jail) to move to the domain of a different earthly king. Not so with G-d’s, the Creator’s, subjects. There is no place in the universe to which they can flee to escape His rule. On the other hand, the subjects of G-d enjoy the advantage that they never have to worry that the successor of a benign king such as He, will be autocratic and make the lives of his subjects miserable.

AND ABRAHAM CAME. Rashi comments: “From Beer-sheba.” Now this does not mean to imply that Abraham remained in Beer-sheba — as is indicated in the verse, And Abraham abode at Beer-sheba,⁷Above, 22:19. for how then would Sarah have been in Hebron? Rather, the intent is to state that Abraham had gone to Beer-sheba for the day for some purpose, and while there he heard of the death of Sarah and came from there to Hebron to mourn and weep for her. However, the expression of our Rabbis is,⁸Bereshith Rabbah 58:5. “And Abraham came — from Mount Moriah.” This is in accord with the Midrash which the Rabbi [Rashi] previously cited⁹In his commentary to Verse 2. which states that hearing of the Binding [in which her son had been made ready for sacrifice and had indeed almost been sacrificed] her soul flew from her and she died.
It would appear that the Divine command concerning the Binding was delivered to Abraham in Beer-sheba for there he dwelt and he returned thereto after the Binding, for so it is written at the outset: And Abraham planted a tamarisk-tree in Beer-sheba and called there on the name of the Eternal, the Everlasting G-d.¹⁰Above, 21:33. It further states, And Abraham sojourned in the land of the Philistines many days.¹¹Ibid., Verse 34. This refers to his dwelling in Beer-sheba, which is in the land of the Philistines, and it is there that he was commanded concerning the Binding. It is for this reason that he expended three days on the journey to Mount Moriah,¹²Ibid., 22:4. for the land of the Philistines is distant from Jerusalem. On the other hand, Hebron is in the mountains of Judah, as Scripture testifies,¹³Joshua 20:7; 21:11. and is therefore near to Jerusalem. Thus, when coming from the Binding, he returned to Beer-sheba, as it is said, So Abraham returned to his lads and they rose and went together to Beer-sheba.¹⁴Above, 22:19. This teaches us that he tarried there and dwelled in Beer-sheba for a period of years. Now if this was the case, Sarah did not die during that period immediately following the Binding for it would not be that Abraham lived in Beer-sheba while Sarah dwelt in Hebron. And so it also appears since Isaac was born in Beer-sheba for it is previously written, And Abraham journeyed from there towards the land of the south and abode between Kadesh and Shur and sojourned in Gerar,¹⁵Ibid., 20:1. and Abimelech said to him, Behold, my land is before thee; abide where it is good in thine eyes.¹⁶Ibid., Verse 15. There in that land Abraham settled in the city of Beer-sheba, for so it is written, And it came to pass at that time that Abimelech and Phicol the captain of his host spoke unto Abraham, saying.¹⁷Ibid., 21:22. Though it is not written there that they came to him from Gerar, [as it is written in the case of Isaac],¹⁸Further, 26:26. from which you might infer that Abraham lived in Gerar, this is not the case. Scripture clearly states that it was in Beer-sheba that they made the covenant.¹⁹Above, 21:32. Similarly, you will see that when Hagar was sent away from the house of Abraham on the day that Isaac was weaned,²⁰Ibid., Verse 8. she walked in the desert of Beer-sheba,²¹Ibid., Verse 14. for it was there that they lived. However, after many days, he [Abraham] journeyed from the land of the Philistines and came to Hebron, and there the righteous woman Sarah passed away.
However, according to the Midrash [which states that Sarah died at the time of the Binding], we must say that Abraham and Sarah lived in Hebron at the time of the Binding, and there Abraham was commanded concerning it. The verse which states that On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes,¹²Ibid., 22:4. poses this difficulty: Since Hebron is near Mount Moriah, which is in Jerusalem, why did he not arrive at the mountain until the third day? The answer is as follows: The mountain which G-d had desired for His abode²²Psalms 68:17. A reference to the fact that in the future the Temple of Jerusalem was to be built on that mountain. See Ramban, above, 22:2. was not revealed to him until the third day. Thus for two days he wandered in the environs of Jerusalem, and it was not yet the Divine Will to indicate the mountain to him. After the Binding, Abraham did not return to his place in Hebron. Rather, he went first to Beer-sheba, the place of his tamarisk-tree, to give thanks for the miracle that befell him. It was there that he heard of the death of Sarah, and he came to Hebron. The two apparently divergent opinions — namely, that Abraham came from Mount Moriah and that he came from Beer-sheba — are thus one [since, as explained, on his way from Mount Moriah he went to the tamarisk-tree which was in Beer-sheba, there to give thanks for the miracle]. Accordingly, the verse which states, And Abraham abode at Beer-sheba,⁷Above, 22:19. is intended to indicate that upon his return from the Binding he went to Beer-sheba, and from there he went to bury Sarah. After the internment he immediately returned to Beer-sheba and settled there for years. Scripture, however, concludes the subject of Beer-sheba all at once, and following that it tells of the burial, [which explains the lack of chronology in the verse, And Abraham dwelt in Beer-sheba]. It was there in Beer-sheba that Isaac married Rebekah, as it says, For he dwelt in the land of the South,²³Further, 24:62. the locus of Beer-sheba. It is thus the opinion of all the commentators that Abraham was in another place, and it was from there that he came to the burial.
In my opinion, Sarah had a tent for herself and her attendants. And so it is written elsewhere into Jacob’s tent, and into Leah’s tent, and into the tent of the two maid servants.²⁴Ibid., 31:33. Sarah thus died in her tent, and Abraham came into her tent with a group of his friends to bewail her. [This is a simple explanation of the expression, and Abraham came.] It may be that the word vayavo (and he came) indicates that Abraham was bestirred to make this eulogy, and he began to make it, for all who bestir themselves to begin doing a certain task are spoken of in Hebrew as “coming to it.” This usage is quite common in the language of Sages, as we learn in Tractate Tamid:²⁵Tamid, IV, 3. “He came to the neck and left with it two ribs on either side…. He came to the left flank…. He came to the rump.” And also (you have) their expression,²⁶Bechoroth 20a. “I have not come to this principle.” In Scripture, likewise, you find, he came for his hire,²⁷Exodus 22:14. meaning that he came for the purpose of this work and did it for his hire. However, it does not appear to me feasible that Abraham came from another city to Hebron. If that were the case, Scripture would have mentioned that place and would have expressly written: “and Abraham heard, and he came from such and such a place.”

נגלו אליו האלהים GOD WAS REVEALED UNTO Him — In many passages terms denoting Divine Power and Lordship are used in the plural e. g., (39:20) “Joseph’s master (אֲדֹנֵי)” (construct plural), and (Exodus 22:14) “If its owner (בעליו) be with it”, where it does not say בַּעֲלוֹ (the singular form). Similarly, forms of אלהים denoting Judge or Authority are expressed in the plural, but you will find none other of the Divine Names in the plural.

But why [should be be obligated]? it is [a case of] watching with the owner: The owner of this object that was stolen was in the employ of the watchman, for also he [the guard] has a guard to him. And it is written: "If the owner is with him he shall not pay" (Shemos 22:14). And we expound later on "with him" [as] "in his employ". And even though this is written by a borrower, later we expound this also on every type of guard in Chapter "The Borrower" (Later, 95a)

כאשר התעו WHEN GOD (CAUSED ME TO WANDER — The verb is in the plural. Do not be surprised at this for in many passages words denoting Godship or denoting Authority are grammatically treated as plural, e. g., (2 Samuel 7:23) “Whom God went (הלכו plural) to redeem”; (Deuteronomy 5:23) “the living (חיים adjective, plural) God”; (Joshua 24:19) “a Holy (קדושים adjective, plural) God”. So, too, the idea of Authority is expressed by the plural form, as (39:20) “And the master of (אדני construct plural) Joseph took him” and as (Deuteronomy 10:17) “Lord of (אדני) lords (האדנים)”, and (42:30) “the lord of (אדני) the land”; as well as (Exodus 22:14) “if its owner (בעליו) be with it”, and (Exodus 21:29) “and warning has been given to its master (בעליו)”. If you ask why does it here use the term התעו, I reply, anyone who is exiled from his home and has no settled abode may be styled תועה a wanderer (or “one moving about aimlessly”), as (21:14) “And she, Hagar, went and strayed about (ותתע) in the wilderness”; (Psalms 119:176) “I have gone astray (תעיתי) like a lost sheep”, and (Job 38:41) “they wander (יתעו) through lack of food”, i.e. they go out and wander about to seek their food.

A holy God.⁶Why is this Name of God always in the plural form אל־הים instead of א־ל. In most places, every expression of rulership is found in the plural form, such as: “the ruler of the Land,”⁷ Bereishis 42:30. “The man the master of the land, אַדנֵי הָאָרֶץ spoke to us.” Here too, it should have been written אַדוֹן הָאֶָרֶץ in the singular. “the ruler of Yoseif,”⁸Bereishes 39:20. “if his master is with him,”⁹ Shemos 22:14. Here too it should have said אִם בַּעַל עִמוֹ in the singular referring to the owner. that God went to redeem¹⁰II Shmuel 7:23.. The reason for this is because this name is the name of power.

with the king The meaning is that the king stationed them in those towns because they were doing his work. An example (in Mishpatim) concerning a borrower (Exod. 22:14): “But if its owner was with it, he shall not pay,” i.e., with it, in its work.