Comentário sobre Levítico 19:20

נחרפת לאיש [AND WHOSOEVER LIETH CARNALLY WITH A WOMAN THAT IS A HANDMAID] GIVEN OVER TO A MAN — נחרפת signifies: destined and designated to a man. I do not know of any similar use of it (the root חרף) in Scripture. — And it is of a Canaanitish handmaid who is partly a שפחה and partly a free-woman and who is betrothed to a Hebrew servant who is permitted to marry a שפחה, that Scripture is here speaking (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 5 2; Keritot 11a).

AND WHOSOEVER LIETH CARNALLY WITH A WOMAN THAT IS A BONDMAID, ‘NECHEREPHETH’ FOR A MAN — “‘Destined’ for a man. I know not of a similar usage of this root [choraph] in Scripture.” This is Rashi’s language. It appears to me that it is associated with the expression, as I was in the days of ‘chorpi,’¹³⁷Job 29:4. meaning, in the days of my youth. Similarly, my heart shall not ‘yecheraph’ me so long as I live,¹³⁸Ibid., 27:6. meaning that I will not have the heart of a youth [who has not yet matured in wisdom]. The days of youth are called “the days of choreph” [a term which means “winter”], since the winter is at the beginning of the year, while the days of old age correspond to the summer which are the days of gathering in. Scripture, then, is stating here that she is a bondmaid, a young girl designated for a certain man, for a concubine who ministers to a man and with whom he has sexual relations, is called “his maiden,” just as every ministering person is also called [the master’s] lad. It is very common in the language of the Sages to say of a woman who has sexual relations with a man, that she is “an attendant to him.” And it is this [relationship that is here called] necherepheth, meaning that she has become a maiden [— attendant] to a man, and is known to him, called in the vernacular [i.e., in Spanish] mancipada (designated to a man). In the language of the Sages likewise we find the expression:¹³⁹Sanhedrin 58 b. “that slave’s girl” [assigned to him by his master]. Thus the meaning thereof is that she is not completely as his wife, but he has betrothed her and she is to him a maiden-attendant.

It is a fact that most of the statutes listed appear to forbid only things which appear opposed to what we are familiar with as “laws of nature.” The prominent exception to this is the legislation involving the שפחה הנחרפת לאיש. Surely, the fact that the male partner does not become subject to the penalty of 39 strokes whereas the female partner does, appears hard to understand and to reconcile with what logic dictates. Furthermore, the fact that the male partner in the sin is required to offer a guilt offering, איל אשם, although he committed the sin knowingly, seems completely at variance with what we know about the function of such offerings.
Nonetheless, the Torah herself provides a partial answer to this unusual legislation by writing כי לא חופשה, his sin is viewed as somewhat less serious seeing that she had not been legally capable of entering a binding marriage, the requisite financial token signifying her betrothal to the man being legally meaningless as she could not “own” anything, still being enslaved to one of her former masters. His principal sin consists of desecrating the institution of marriage, a Divine institution, hence a desecration of G’d’s name when ignored. Engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman who is still partially a slave is a form of practicing promiscuity. [my words. Ed.] The scenario described by the Torah denigrates in the first instance the dignity of the active partner, the male, not that of the passive partner the female. It is most likely, that she, the “passive” partner had seduced him and is therefore deserving of the penalty decreed for her by the Torah. The deliberate nature of the sin, as far as the male is concerned, is the fact that he knowingly demeaned himself. This makes it akin to an inadvertent sin, qualifying for the guilt offering decreed.

נחרפת, exclusively assigned to a Hebrew servant, as we know from Exodus 21,4: “if his master will give him a wife.” An expression parallel to the wordנחרפת occurs in Judges 5,18 עם חרף נפשו למות, “a people that mocked at death.” It means there that Dan dedicated its life utterly. [a wife dedicates her life utterly to her husband. Ed.] Onkelos also understands the word as meaning that this woman is exclusive to the man mentioned in our verse.

ואיש כי ישכב את אשה, “If a man lies carnally with a woman, etc.” the reason why this verse follows the subject of forbidden mixtures of species is that lying carnally with a woman not one’s wife is another type of mixing forbidden species with one another.

I know of no similar term in Tanach. But there is a similar term in the Mishnah, such as, “If someone says, ’(You are hereby) my charufah,’ she is married, because in Yehudah etc.” (Kiddushin 6a). This is the plain meaning [of charufah]; the midrashic meaning [is found] in Krisus (11a).

ואיש כי ישכב את אשה, “and any man who lies carnally with a woman who is a bondmaid, etc.” Rabbi Elazar, son of Azaryah, says that seeing that all the various forbidden categories of carnal unions have already been recorded, we must conclude that here we deal with a woman whose legal status is subject to doubt, i.e. a woman owned by two masters jointly, only one of them has already released her into freedom. (Sifra)

והפדה לא נפדתה means, she is redeemed (הפדה) and not redeemed (לא נפדתה) (i. c. she is partly redeemed, but not fully redeemed; cf. Keritot 11a). An expression derived from the verb פדה, unless it be more closely defined, means redemption by money.

BIKORETH’ (AN INVESTIGATION) SHALL BE MADE. “It is for the court to investigate the matter in order not to make him liable to death [that is to say, if she were a free woman betrothed to a man, and she had committed adultery, the punishment would be death, but this is not the case in this instance]. BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT FREE, and her betrothal was not complete.” This is Rashi’s language, and so did all the commentators¹⁴⁰Ibn Ezra, R’dak in his Sefer Hashorashim, root bakeir. interpret the verse. And if so, Scripture then is warning the court to make this investigation because she is like a married woman, and they might [easily] make a mistake [in deciding his punishment]. But their interpretation does not please me, for it is a fact that is self-understood that the matter will be investigated, and that the court will not kill a person in vain. For they do such an investigation in all cases involving the death penalty!
Now it is my opinion that this [word bikoreth] is a unique one in Scripture, but it is a common term in the Aramaic language and in the expressions of our Rabbis, namely, the word hefkeir [“ownerless” — with the letter beth in bikoreth and the letter fei in hefkeir interchanging]. For the word is essentially hevkeir [with the letter veth, which is equivalent to the beth in bikoreth], just as the Rabbis have said [in a Mishnah]:¹⁴¹Peah 6:1. “The School of Shammai say: Hevkeir [produce that is proclaimed ownerless] for the benefit of the poor [only], is deemed hevkeir [and therefore the produce is free from the obligation to give tithes, since ownerless produce is exempt from tithes].¹⁴²Thus we find the Mishnah using the word hevkeir [with the letter veth] instead of hefkeir [with the letter fei]. And the School of Hillel say: [It is not valid] unless the owner makes it equally free for the rich, just as in the Sabbatical year” [when the produce of the field is free for poor and rich alike, and is exempt from tithes]. And again we have been taught [in a Mishnah]:¹⁴³Shevi’ith 9:4. “One may eat [produce of the Sabbatical year] which has been brought into the house al hamuvkar¹⁴⁴Here too, the Mishnah uses the term hamuvkar instead of hamufkar. In our text of the Mishnah the latter usage is found. [only as long as similar produce is still found ‘free’ in the field as food for the animals], but not as long as it is still found watched over in private ownership.” Yonathan ben Uziel also translated, vain and light fellows¹⁴⁵Judges 9:4. See my Hebrew commentary p. 124, Note 55, about a different version in our text of Yonathan. as “idlers uvakrin,” — “and ‘free’ men” [i.e., men defying the law]. By their lies and ‘by their wantonness’¹⁴⁶Jeremiah 23:32. [Yonathan ben Uziel translated] uvakrithon¹⁴⁷Here too Yonathan uses the veth [uvakrithon] instead of the fei [ufakrithon — “and their irreverence”]. (“and by their irresponsibility”). They also say¹⁴⁸It would seem that the Targum Yerushalmi quoted here was not before Ramban. Hence he quotes it by hearsay: “They also say …” that the expression, and the seventh year thou shalt let it rest ‘u’n'tashta’,¹⁴⁹Exodus 23:11. the Jerusalem Targum¹⁵⁰See in Vol. I, p. 371, Note 128. renders as uthevakarno [“and thou shalt renounce ownership thereof,” thus also using the root hefkeir in the form of hevkeir]. Similarly throughout the Mishnah [the term hefkeir] is written with a veth [i.e., hevkeir]. But in the Gemara they became used to saying hefkeir [with a fei], as these letters [the veth and the fei] were used interchangeably by them, just as from the expression the grains ‘ovshu’ (shrivel),¹⁵¹Joel 1:17. they used the word ‘ofshu’ (musty). This is likewise found in many places in the Scriptures, as I have mentioned on the verse Thou didst blow with Thy wind.¹⁵²Exodus 15:10. And the interpretation of this verse [before us] is as follows: He says concerning this bondmaid that “although she is ‘attending’ this man, she is not considered his wife because she is to him bikoreth, that is to say, she is treated by him as a loose person, and therefore they are not to be put to death as is the law of the adulterer and the adulteress when the woman is [properly] married; for freedom has not been given to her [from her status as a bondmaid] to be his real wife [and therefore he who lies carnally with her is not to be put to death], but instead he is to bring a guilt-offering because she is designated for a man.” And Onkelos who translated ‘bikoreth’ shall be made as “bikurto shall be made,” uses a language similar to that of Yonathan ben Uziel, in his rendition [of the Hebrew ufochazim¹⁴⁵Judges 9:4. See my Hebrew commentary p. 124, Note 55, about a different version in our text of Yonathan. (and light follows)] as uvakrin (men defying the Law).¹⁵³Ramban’s intention is to point out that Onkelos’ rendition here of the Hebrew bikoreth as bikurto is thus similar to Yonathan’s rendition of the Hebrew ufochazim as uvakrin, which is of the root hevkeir, or in its later form hefkeir, which denotes something ownerless, loose, etc. It thus corroborates Ramban’s interpretation that the word bikoreth in the verse before us is of the term hefkeir, as explained in the text.

לא נפדתה, on the one hand she has not been released from her vows, on the other hand she is not a true wife whose penalty would be death by strangulation.

והיא שפחה נחרפת לאיש, “she being a servant woman (gentile slave) designated for an Israelite man, etc.” The term נחרפת is subject to different interpretations, as is the status of the woman in question. [I am providing some background here not found in the author’s commentary, seeing the author concentrates more on the linguistic meaning of the word: נחרפת Ed.] According to some opinions, Rashi included, the woman is not originally Jewish, but on the way to being freed, which by itself is possible only if she converts to Judaism. At the time this intercourse occurs, apparently she is half slave, having been owned jointly by two masters, one of whom had not yet released her. She had been promised as a wife to a Hebrew slave (servant). Such a Hebrew servant, at the instruction of his master, would legally be allowed to sleep with her even while she had not begun any process of conversion. Some see in the word a comparison to זבולון, compare Judges 5.18 זבלון עם חרף נפשו למות, “Zevulun, a tribe that defied and risked death.” Zevulun’s chancing death at Devorah’s command is similar to this slave in our verse surrendering to a man’s advances. Nachmanides sees the word as related to חרפי, as in Job 29,4 כאשר הייתי בימי חרפי, “when I was still in my early youth.” The days of נעורים, adolescence, are compared to חורף, winter, seeing they are the beginning of the season, before summer, whereas the time of old age זקנה are considered as again as such as the summer of one’s life is already past and one approaches “winter.” Accordingly, the meaning of our verse is that the שפחה described here is a woman designated as a concubine, someone frequently described as נערה, i.e. “a wife of a junior status.” At any rate, the woman in question is not totally a married woman as yet. Ibn Ezra writes that the word is related to חרפה, inferior status, a woman who is not yet exclusively betrothed to a specific man seeing she is still a slave. She is however, still a virgin at the time the man in our verse sleeps with her.

Half maid-servant and half free woman. I.e., below, the verse writes והפדה לא נפדתה (lit. she is redeemed and she is not redeemed). This is a contradictory expression because if she is redeemed, why does it say, “she is not redeemed,” and if she is not redeemed, why does it say “she is redeemed”? Therefore it means “redeemed and not redeemed,” as Rashi soon explains.

נחרפת, betrothed, i.e. promised, to a man (as soon as she will have been released by her other owner) This status can be compared to Job, 29,4 בימי חרפי, “when I was in my prime, i.e. in a transitory stage. An alternate interpretation: the word נחרפת means something similar to מופקרת, “abandoned;” Compare Judges 5,18: עם חרף נפשו, “a people left at the threshold of death.”

או חפשה NOR FREEDOM [WAS GIVEN HER] through a document of release (שטר שחרור) (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 5 3).

בקורת תהיה, similar to Leviticus 13,36 לא יבקר הכהן, “the priest need not examine it.” In our verse the word there means “an indemnity,” (compensatory penalty payable,). according to Dugash) According to Menachem, the word refers to a legal examination to determine exactly what happened and to assess the guilt. If she had not been released from servitude the court will not condemn her as a wife who committed adultery.

בקורת תהיה, “there shall be an investigation.” According to Rashi it is up to the court to determine the status, as the woman is not guilty of the death penalty. [She would be if she were a married woman and had consented to infidelity. Ed.] Some interpret the need for this investigation as resulting from the fact that to many onlookers this woman does have the status of a married woman, so that some people would be in a hurry to put her to death. In order to prevent such a miscarriage of justice, the Torah orders an investigation. The word בקרת is related to the word יבקר in Leviticus 13,36 where the Torah declares an investigation by the priest as uncalled for, writing לא יבקר הכהן. Still other scholars see in the word בקרת the word בקר when it is used in the sense of administering physical punishments with a strap. Nachmanides views the words as indicating הפקרות, that the woman in question due to her dubious status was considered הפקר in the sense of unprotected by law. According to Nachmanides we encounter the expression הבקר in the Mishnah, when it always means the same as הפקר with the letter פ instead of the letter ב. (compare Peyah 6.1 et al) Still others consider the word as similar to פילגש, concubine, quoting Psalms 45,10 בנות מלכים ביקרותיך, “Royal princesses are your favorites.” Ibn Ezra categorically rejects this saying that on the contrary, the meaning of the word in Psalms is from יקר, the especially highly regarded ones. In other words, princesses who elsewhere are highly esteemed will be become lowly slave women for the Jewish people [remember Hagar who voluntarily became the slave of Sarah. Ed.]

Who is engaged to a Hebrew slave. I.e., she is certainly betrothed to someone since the verse requires the person who had relations with her to bring a guilt-offering. But if she is betrothed to a free Jew, he would be forbidden to have relations with her because of the “maidservant part” of her And if she is betrothed to a Canaanite slave, he would be forbidden to have relations with her because of the “free part” of her. Therefore one must say she is married to a Hebrew slave to whom she is permitted.

חופשה, “freed;” the letter ה at the end is weak, (without adot, )

בקרת תהיה INVESTIGATION SHALL BE MADE CONCERNING HER — she shall be punished with lashes but not he. It is for the court to investigate the matter (to discover that she is really not free) so that they should not make her liable to death (which would be the punishment of a free woman who committed adultery), כי לא חפשה BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT FREE and her marriage with the Hebrew slave was no marriage. Our Rabbis, however, (taking the word בקרת as though it were בקריאת “by reading”) learned from here that whoever is subject to lashes (the מלקות punishment) shall be subject to the recitation (קריאה) of Biblical verses — that the judges who pronounce the sentence of lashes shall recite, whilst standing by him who is lashed the verses (Deuteronomy 28:58, 59): "If thou wilt not observe to do [all the words of the law] etc… Then the Lord will distinguish thy plagues (מכותך which also implies thy "lashes") etc." (cf. Keritot 11a)

כי לא חופשה, “for she had not yet been set free completely.” She was not yet able to become the legal wife of the man designated for her. Nonetheless, the man who had slept with her has to bring a guilt offering as spelled out in verse 22.

By deed [of manumission]. Because it is written “Or her freedom was not given to her (לה), and we learn a gezeirah shavah, לה לה from the case of a wife where the verse writes (Devarim 24:3), “And writes for her (לה) a document of severance and places [it] in her hand.”

בקורת תהיה, an expression describing examination due to suspicion; the examination is designed to find a legal reason not to sentence her to death, as Rashi explained.

כי לא חופשה BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT FREE therefore he, also, is not liable to death because of her, since her marriage was no marriage. It follows therefore that if she were free her marriage would have been a marriage and he would be liable to the death penalty (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 5 5).

She suffers [lashes] and not he. You should not say that the verse reveals lashes by the woman and a guilt-offering by the man and one should learn one from the other, so that the woman is [punished] with lashes and a guilt-offering and so the man. Therefore it is written תהיה [a verb in the female form] to exclude the man from lashes.

[Is subject] to a proclamation. I.e., because it is written בקורת which is [also] an expression of קריאה (proclaiming), [this teaches] that they “call out to the one lashed.”

He is not liable. Because every כי in Scripture is giving a reason for what came before.

Thus, if she was freed. This deduction is required to teach that if she was freed even with money [and not with a document], she becomes free and is permitted to a free Jew, and her marriage is considered a marriage.

And that is that He commanded us that one who does certain sins must offer a guilt-offering sacrifice. And that is what is called a definite guilt-offering. And the sins for which one is liable for this sacrifice are misappropriation; theft; one who has sexual intercourse with a designated maidservant; and one who swears falsely with an oath over a deposit. And that is one who misappropriated in error and derived benefit worth a perutah (a small coin) from sanctified property - whether sanctified for Temple upkeep or whether sanctified for the altar; one who robbed the value of a perutah or more from his fellow and took an oath; one who had sexual intercourse with a designated maidservant, whether inadvertent or volitional. [In these cases,] he is obligated to offer a sacrifice for his sin, and it is not a sin-offering sacrifice; indeed, it is a guilt-offering, and it is called a definite guilt-offering. And He said regarding misappropriation, "and he sinned in error, etc. and he shall bring his guilt offering" (Leviticus 5:15). He [also] said, "and he denied his countryman [...] and swore falsely, etc. his guilt offering shall he bring." (Leviticus 5:21-25). And He said, "and she is a designated maidservant for a man [...]. And he shall bring his guilt offering" (Leviticus 19:20-21). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Keritot. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Unintentional Transgressions 9.)