Halakhah sobre Êxodo 2:28

And you ought to understand now that is known, that because of Adam’s sin his height was diminished, as our rabbis z”l taught in a midrash:⁴³B. Sanhedrin 38b. “But when he sinned, the Holy One Blessed be He, set His eyes upon him and diminished him and reduced him to one thousand cubits,⁴⁴From his original height which originally stretched from one end of the earth to the other, according to this midrash! for it is written, ‘You hedge me before and behind; You lay your hand upon me.’⁴⁵Ps 129:5. You need not wonder that when the sin has been atoned for and the decree has been cancelled that his height will return to its original measure, for indeed the height was diminished only because of the sin, which caused the climate to go bad, but at this time the whole work of creation will be changed for the better, and return to its perfection and virtue, just as it was in the time of Adam before the sin, and then the heights will get bigger and return to their original measure, and all of Israel will be elated and enjoy the kingdom of Shaddai, and there will be a flow of perception and pleasure into the body and soul, a huge “King’s share” of blessing.⁴⁶Literally, “great as the hand of the King (may He be blessed)” [could give]. And now that I have explained all this to you, no rationalist ought to doubt from now on that the physical meal prepared for the righteous, because these things had been created back then with this intention – that from them would come in the future the reward for the righteous – that they will delight in these meals with their bodies. And already our sages z”l said that Moses Our Teacher (peace be upon him) will be with them serving these meals. You will find a hint of this matter in the Torah in the blessings of Jacob (peace be upon him) when he said, “Until Shiloh will come,”⁴⁷Gen 49:10. that is to say, until Moses will come. For he wanted to hint at the coming of the “nearer” redeemer by whom Israel would be redeemed from Egypt; and the last, more distant redeemer is included in this who will come at the future redemption And this is also: “Until Shiloh will come.”⁴⁸Ibid. The expression will serve to refer to the two redemptions: the first, which is nearer in time, and the last, which is more distant. And thus they said in a midrash about Moses our Teacher (may he rest in peace): “shihula kardona – the skinner for preparing a meal, who was pulled out,” – the explanation of “shihula,” is Moses, which is from the Aramaic [shihaltay] for the Hebrew, “I drew him out” (Ex: 2:10).⁴⁹The etymology which the Torah has Pharoah’s daughter give for Moses’ name: “Moshe because I drew him out [mashiti-hu] of the water.” However, the Aramaic for mashiti-hu, shihaltay, is related to the word shilulah, which sounds like “Shiloh;” hence Shiloh refers to Moses, according to the midrash. And a “skinner” (for preparing a meal) is a type of butcher or cook. So here the goal of the intention of these bodily meals is to be a device to refine the body and matter and to sharpen the mind so that it will attain knowledge of the Creator (May He be blessed) and meditate upon the purely intelligible beings, and then the souls by this looking of their bodies will become fit for the intellectual banquet from which the ministering angels themselves who are near the Shekhinah eat – for then the soul will perceive the brilliant light which it is impossible to perceive as long as it is stuck in matter.

This harsh approach to mesirah is quite understandable when one considers the history of mesirah. Classic examples include the Jews who informed Paroh of Moshe Rabbenu’s killing the Mitzri (see Rashi to Shemot 2:15 s.v. VaYishma Paroh) and the Jew who informed the Roman government of Rabi Shimon Bar Yochai’s mild criticism of the Roman government (see Shabbat 33b). Both Moshe Rabbeinu and Rabi Shimon bar Yochai were forced into hiding for very long periods of time to save their lives. The long and damaging history of Jewish informers through the twentieth century is chronicled in the Encyclopedia Judaica’s entry on “Informers.” Informers have done incalculable damage to individuals Jews as well as Jewish communities during the past two thousand years. They have cost lives and caused irreparable harm to countless individuals and communities. The moser is treated so harshly, explain the Gra (Bei’ur Hagra, C.M. 388:59) and the Sema (388:29), since he is classified as a rodeif (one who attempts to kill another).

Rav Hershel Schachter (B’ikvei Hatzon p. 105)⁴⁴. It is important to note that despite Rav Shlomo Zalman’s position, Rav Neuwirth nonetheless concedes that one should call the non-observant Jewish doctor if he is a bigger expert in the case at hand (32:45). Also see Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 2:34:35, where Rav Shlomo Zalman rules that an observant doctor may not switch a Shabbat shift with a non-observant Jewish colleague, as the latter violates Shabbat due to his apathy towards it rather than violating Shabbat for the express purpose of saving a life. Presumably, one who does not accept Rav Shlomo Zalman’s position would actually prefer to have non-observant Jews take the Shabbat shifts, since they would otherwise violate Shabbat for no valid reason. As we discuss later in this chapter, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:79) adopts such a position. Also see Teshuvot Vehanhagot (3:309). discusses whether the Halachah requires keri’ah only upon seeing Judean cities, as opposed to other Israeli cities, due to Judea’s political stature or her religious sanctity. The Bach (O.C. 561) writes that Judean cities are more “important” than the rest of Israel. He further comments that Judean cities are considered “destroyed” even when Jews continue to live in them, so long as non-Jews govern them.⁴⁵. As support for his view, Rav Shlomo Zalman cites the Beit Halevi’s commentary to Shemot 2:25. The Beit Halevi claims that one who commits a sin accidentally or under coercion, such as desecrating Shabbat, receives gentler treatment than a deliberate sinner only if one would not have willingly committed the same sin. However, one who would have committed the same act without any duress is viewed as a sinner regardless of the circumstances under which he actually does it. Rav Hershel Schachter (personal communication to Rav Ezra Frazer) questioned whether the Beit Halevi’s idea applies in the case of a non-observant doctor. Rav Schachter argued that the Beit Halevi's concern applies when one would have done this specific act anyway, such as a non-observant Jew who planned to drive to a specific place on Shabbat, and someone then forced him at gunpoint to drive to that same place. In such a case, the non-observant Jew would be considered a deliberate sinner, despite the fact that he was coerced to drive, because he intended to do the very same act of driving even before he was threatened. By contrast, a non-observant doctor is driving to a particular emergency only for the purpose of saving a life. Thus, even if the doctor might have driven elsewhere on Shabbat had he not been called to this emergency, the driving that he now does to the patient’s home or to the hospital is for the purpose of piku’ach nefesh. Rav Schachter thus interprets the special “importance” that the Bach attributes to Judean cities as their political significance. Since Judea includes Jerusalem, which served as the capital city during the First and Second Temple Periods, tearing upon seeing Judea’s ruins mourns the loss of Jewish political sovereignty.

Furthermore, is it not well known that exile had already been decreed upon us because of the act of the spies (viz. Tehillim 106:25-27): "And they murmured in their tents [against the land]. They hearkened not to the voice of the L–rd. And He lifted up His hand [in oath] against them… to scatter them in the lands," as Rashi and the Ramban explain there (Bamidbar 14). And the sin of the spies — was it not that of lashon hara! (viz. Arachin 15a). Therefore, it is imperative that we correct this sin before the redemption can take place.

And we find it explicitly stated that it was this sin which caused the Jews to be worked [by the Egyptians] with back-breaking labor (viz. Shemoth 2:14 and Rashi there). And (Devarim Rabbah 6:14): "The Holy One Blessed be He said: 'In this world, because there was lashon hara among you, I removed My Shechinah from you, but in the next world, etc.'" And (Devarim 33:5): "And He became a King in Yeshurun when the heads of the people were gathered together as one, the tribes of Israel," which Rashi interprets (as per Sifrei): "When is He a King in Israel? Specifically, when the tribes of Israel are united and not divided into factions" — which (factions) are well known to be the result of lashon hara.

"And we cried out to the Lord, the God of our ancestors" - as it is stated (Exodus 2:23); "And it was in those great days that the king of Egypt died and the Children of Israel sighed from the work and yelled out; and their supplication went up to God from the work."

"And the Lord heard our voice" - as it is stated (Exodus 2:24); "And God heard their groans and God remembered His covenant with Abraham and with Isaac and with Jacob."

"And He saw our affliction" - this [refers to] the separation from the way of the world, as it is stated (Exodus 2:25); "And God saw the Children of Israel and God knew."

Historically, the question first arose with regard to the Falashas, the black Jews of Ethiopia. The earliest reference to the Falasha community is contained in the diary of Eldad ha-Dani, a ninth-century merchant and traveler who professed to have been a citizen of an autonomous Jewish state in eastern Africa inhabited by the tribes of Dan, Naphtali, Gad and Asher. The reports of Eldad ha-Dani were given credence as a result of the endorsement of the then Ga'on of Sura, Zemach ben Chaim, who vouched for Eldad's reliability and trustworthiness. Although such scholars as Abraham ibn Ezra²Commentary on the Bible, Exod. 2:20. and Meir of Rothenberg³Teshuvot Maharam Rothenberg, no. 193. expressed reservations with regard to the veracity of Eldad's narrative, other rabbinic luminaries, such as Rashi, Rabad, and Abraham ben Maimon, cite Eldad as an unquestioned authority. Eldad ha-Dani speaks of the Falashas as Jews and describes the religious practices followed by the Falasha community. Since at that time, and for generations thereafter, there was little or no traffic between Abyssinia and the Jewish centers of Europe and Asia, the question of the Jewish identity of the Falasha community was entirely a matter of speculative curiosity.

Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (cited by Rav Yehoshua Neuwirth, Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah, Chapter 32 note 125) rules that it is preferable to call an observant doctor to a medical emergency on Shabbat rather than a non-observant one.⁶It is important to note that despite Rav Shlomo Zalman’s position, Rav Neuwirth nonetheless concedes that one should call the non-observant Jewish doctor if he is a bigger expert in the case at hand (32:45). Also see Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 2:34:35, where Rav Shlomo Zalman rules that an observant doctor may not switch a Shabbat shift with a non-observant Jewish colleague, as the latter violates Shabbat due to his apathy towards it rather than violating Shabbat for the express purpose of saving a life. Presumably, one who does not accept Rav Shlomo Zalman’s position would actually prefer to have non-observant Jews take the Shabbat shifts, since they would otherwise violate Shabbat for no valid reason. As we discuss later in this chapter, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:79) adopts such a position. Also see Teshuvot Vehanhagot (3:309). He argues that the non-observant doctor drives on Shabbat in any event, so his driving to an emergency desecrates Shabbat.⁷As support for his view, Rav Shlomo Zalman cites the Beit Halevi’s commentary to Shemot 2:25. The Beit Halevi claims that one who commits a sin accidentally or under coercion, such as desecrating Shabbat, receives gentler treatment than a deliberate sinner only if one would not have willingly committed the same sin. However, one who would have committed the same act without any duress is viewed as a sinner regardless of the circumstances under which he actually does it. Rav Hershel Schachter (personal communication to Rav Ezra Frazer) questioned whether the Beit Halevi’s idea applies in the case of a non-observant doctor. Rav Schachter argued that the Beit Halevi's concern applies when one would have done this specific act anyway, such as a non-observant Jew who planned to drive to a specific place on Shabbat, and someone then forced him at gunpoint to drive to that same place. In such a case, the non-observant Jew would be considered a deliberate sinner, despite the fact that he was coerced to drive, because he intended to do the very same act of driving even before he was threatened. By contrast, a non-observant doctor is driving to a particular emergency only for the purpose of saving a life. Thus, even if the doctor might have driven elsewhere on Shabbat had he not been called to this emergency, the driving that he now does to the patient’s home or to the hospital is for the purpose of piku’ach nefesh. According to this logic, summoning a non-observant doctor to an emergency situation on Shabbat violates lifnei iver (causing another to sin; see Pesachim 22b). Nevertheless, Rav Shlomo Zalman elsewhere writes that one may call a non-observant doctor, if necessary, for just as one may violate Shabbat in order to save a life, so too may he violate lifnei iver (Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 2:34:41).

That He prohibited the judge from striking the sinner with great lethal strikes. And the explanation of this is that the limit on all those who are liable for lashes is surely that he is lashed forty minus one, as it appears in the tradition; such that he not strike a person until he assesses the man that will be struck, according to his strength, his years, his condition and the form of his body. If he can withstand the entire striking of the punishment, he is struck [accordingly]. But if not, he is struck according to the measure of what he can withstand - [though] not less than three lashes, [based on] His saying, "according to his wickedness in number" (Deuteronomy 25:2). And the prohibition comes about adding - even one lash beyond the judge's assessment of what he can withstand - to his striking. And that is His saying, "according to his wickedness in number. Forty is he to strike him, he may not add" (Deuteronomy 25:2-3). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 286:10) is, "If he does add, he transgresses a negative commandment. I only know of his adding to the forty. From where [do we know the same for his going beyond] each and every assessment that the court assessed? Hence we learn to say, 'he may not add, lest he add.'" And from this prohibition is [derived] the prohibition to strike any Israelite - if we are prohibited from striking the sinner, all the more so do we not strike any [other] person. And He already prohibited us from hinting as if one will strike, even if he does not strike. They said (Sanhedrin 58b), "Anyone who raises his hand against his fellow is called, an evildoer - as it is stated (Exodus 2:13), 'and he said to the evildoer, "Why would you strike your fellow."'" (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 16.)

Its laws - such as that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Midrash Tanchuma 5:3) that just as the one who is fit to be a judge must know the laws of the Torah, so too must he be someone of [good] character traits and a proper man, so that the judged not say to him, "Take out the beam from between your eyes," meaning to say, "adorn yourself [first] and afterwards adorn others" (Sanhedrin 18a); that, behold, it states in the Torah concerning judges (Deuteronomy 1:15), "wise men," meaning to say, those that know the wisdom to judge truthfully, "and known to your tribes," [meaning] that the spirit of men derive pleasure from them, "men of strength," that they are valiant about the commandments, exacting upon themselves and suppress their [evil] inclinations to the point that they do not have any disgrace and any ugliness, and their teaching is beautiful, and [also] included in being men of strength is that they have a brave heart to save the oppressed from the oppressor, like the matter that is stated (Exodus 2:17), "and Moshe rose to save them," and just like our teacher Moshe, peace be upon him, was humble, so too must every judge be humble; and the rest of its details - are elucidated in Sanhedrin in [various] scattered places (see Tur, Choshen Mishpat 18).

And the Sages reduced one of the forty in the understanding of the negative commandment of 'do not increase.' So wrote Rambam, may his memory be blessed, (Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 17:1), and it is a wonder [to say such a thing], according to [that which is written in] the Gemara. And this prohibition is a warning to hit anyone of Israel. And if we are warned about not striking the sinner, is it not all the more so with all other people? And the sages, may their memory be blessed, prevented us from even hinting to strike. They said (Sanhedrin 58b), "Anyone who raises his hand against his fellow to hit him is called an evildoer, as it states (Exodus 2:13), 'and he said to the evildoer, "Why do you strike your fellow?"'"