Exodus 20:1
\nRASHI
\nGod spoke. The word elohim, translated here as \u201cGod,\u201d represents Him in His aspect as judge (which this word can also mean in Hebrew). Since there are some things in the Torah for which one receives a reward for doing them but no punishment for not doing them, one might think the Ten Commandments falls into this category as well. Thus He spoke to them as \u201cGod,\u201d a judge who can punish, rather than as \u201cthe Lord\u201d who spoke with Moses in ch. 19. All these words. This teaches that He spoke all of the Ten Commandments in a single utterance, something no human could do. Why then are only \u201cI the Lord\u201d (v. 2) and \u201cYou shall have no other gods besides Me\u201d (v. 3) in the first person? Each utterance was subsequently spoken separately. Saying. Literally, \u201cto say.\u201d This teaches that God spoke them in such a way as to have the Israelites answer each positive commandment with \u201cYes\u201d and each prohibition with \u201cNo.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nGod spoke all these words, saying. According to all the commentators, \u201cI the Lord am your God\u201d (v. 2) is the first commandment and \u201cYou shall have no other gods\u201d (v. 3) is the second. I shall reveal my own opinion on the matter in my comment to Deut. 5:16. The commandments are all negative ones except for the first and the fifth (\u201cHonor your father and your mother,\u201d v. 12). For the essence of the fourth, Sabbath commandment is \u201cyou shall not do any work\u201d (v. 10). \u201cI the Lord\u201d is the root of all the commandments. Faith in God\u2019s existence must be in one\u2019s heart. \u201cYou shall have no other gods\u201d comes second, for one who has another god besides God essentially acknowledges that God exists, albeit in association with another god. Thus the first commandment is the essential one on which the subsequent nine are contingent, like the \u201c1\u201d of mathematics. The third commandment, \u201cYou shall not swear falsely by the name of the Lord your God\u201d (v. 7), comes next; it is at almost the same level as the second commandment. This contradicts the ideas of the sages of India, who say that God does not know particular details about the world. For if the swearer knew that God heard him, he would be afraid to swear falsely. The fourth commandment is that of resting on the seventh day, and this is near the level of the commandment against swearing falsely in God\u2019s name. Its point is to contradict the ideas of the Greek sages, who say that God is continuously creating; anyone who works on the Sabbath is essentially denying the one-time creation described in Genesis. The fifth commandment is honoring one\u2019s parents. For their honor is dependent on the honor of heaven, since the parents engendered the child through the power given them by God. They fed and clothed him as well, and it is a notion intrinsically planted in the heart that we ought to be good to those who have been good to us. Thus God is mentioned in all five of these commandments and not in the next five. For the first five deal with matters between man and the Creator.
\nThe next five commandments deal with matters between one person and another, starting with the commandment against murder, the destruction of the body. Then comes the commandment against adultery, violence against the body; then stealing, involving property that is external to the body; then bearing false witness, involving speech; then coveting, involving thought, which is the least grievous of them. All the subsidiary commandments deriving from these 10 are thoroughly explained in the Mishnah, Talmud, and Tosafot. Saadia too catalogued all the commandments under these 10 of the covenant. But let me tell you allusively that the least of the matters involving man\u2019s faith in the Creator is more significant than anything involving man and one of his fellow creatures. For all created things must die; the only difference between permitted and forbidden sex is that the former need not be hidden; money has wings; there is no man who does not sin with his tongue by adding to or subtracting from the truth; and every heart covets and desires except for the hearts of the faithful.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nGod spoke. This phrase also occurs only in 6:2 and Gen. 8:15 (Masorah). The late R. Joseph Kara explained the rabbinic saying that the Israelites heard only the first two commandments directly from God as being based on the fact that only they are spoken in the first person (Bekhor Shor). Not \u201cGod spoke \u2026 saying\u201d but \u201cGod spoke \u2026 to say.\u201d God spoke all of these words to Himself, like (as it were) a man who is arranging his thoughts in order to say them to others. \u201cHe measured it and probed it, and He said to man.\u2026\u201d (Job 28:27\u201328). One should think a thing over two or three times before saying it in public (Hizkuni). All these words. As Rashi explains, God said all of the commandments simultaneously\u2014but Israel could not understand them; then He uttered the first two individually, the people grew frightened, and Moses uttered the rest of the commandments individually (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 20:2\u20133
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 What is the meaning of the first commandment, \u201cI the Lord am your God\u201d (v. 2)?
\n\u2666 Why do some of the first five commandments mention \u201cthe Lord\u201d and some \u201cthe Lord your God,\u201d while none of the last five mention God at all?
\nExodus 20:2
\nRASHI
\nYour God. \u201cYour\u201d is in the singular in Hebrew, and why? To give Moses something to use in Israel\u2019s defense when they made the Golden Calf. He said, \u201cLet not Your anger, O Lord, blaze forth against Your people\u201d (32:11). You did not command them not to have other gods, you commanded it to me alone. Who brought you out of the land of Egypt. That alone is enough for you to be enslaved to Me. Another reading: He had to identify Himself because He appeared at the sea as a warrior, but here as an old man, full of mercy. \u201cThough I have changed My appearance, I don\u2019t want you to think that there are two powers in heaven. I am the one who brought you out of the land of Egypt and saved you at the sea.\u201d Another reading: \u201cThunder\u201d of v. 15 is literally \u201cvoices.\u201d Though you heard so many voices, coming from every direction, don\u2019t think that there are many divine powers. From the house of bondage. From the house of Pharaoh, to whom you were slaves. Or perhaps it means what the Hebrew literally says, \u201cfrom the house of slaves,\u201d and that the Israelites were the slaves of slaves? No, \u201cthe Lord \u2026 rescued you from the house of bondage, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt\u201d (Deut. 7:8). They were not the slaves of slaves, but of the king.
\nIBN EZRA
\nI. It is He whom one must know, love, and cleave to, be ever mindful of His presence, and the fear of Him must never leave one. Who brought you out of the land of Egypt. Judah Halevi (may he rest in peace) once asked me why God did not say here, \u201cWho created heaven and earth, and who created you.\u201d My reply (in brief) was that \u201cI the Lord\u201d was enough for the enlightened; but the unenlightened needed tangible proof of why they should serve Him. The house of bondage. For you were like a slave living in a house of slavery. Compare Lev. 26:13, \u201cI the Lord am your God who brought you out from the land of the Egyptians to be their slaves no more.\u201d
\nNAHMANIDES
\nI the Lord am your God. This is a positive commandment, both teaching and commanding them that they must know and believe that the Lord exists and that He is their God. He preexists everything, and everything comes from Him by His will and His power, and He is the God whom they must serve. Who brought you out of the land of Egypt. His bringing them out of Egypt teaches about His existence and His will, for we came out of Egypt through His knowledge and His providence. It also teaches about creation, for if the world had existed for all eternity, nature could not be changed and miracles would be impossible. It also teaches about His unlimited power, which teaches about His unity: \u201cIn order that you may know that there is none like Me in all the world\u201d (9:14). Those who came out of Egypt are the ones who know and can testify to all these things. The house of bondage. For they had been Pharaoh\u2019s captives. This reminds them that now it is the great, glorious, and awesome Lord whom they are obligated to serve as their God, for He redeemed them from Egyptian slavery: \u201cFor it is to Me that the Israelites are servants: they are My servants, whom I freed from the land of Egypt, I the Lord your God\u201d (Lev. 25:55).
\nI have already alluded in my comment to 19:20 to the True reason for the use of the two holy names. In rabbinic tradition this commandment is called \u201caccepting the sovereignty of heaven.\u201d For \u201cthe Lord\u201d and \u201cyour God\u201d are the qualities of a king with regard to his people. That is why the Mekilta opens its discussion by asking, \u201cWhat is the justification for \u2018You shall have no other gods besides Me\u2019? It is \u2018I the Lord am your God.\u2019 A parable: A king once entered a certain province. His courtiers said to him, \u2018Issue decrees for us to obey.\u2019 He replied, \u2018No. When you accept my sovereignty over you, then I will issue decrees for you. For if you do not accept my sovereignty, what will make you follow my decrees?\u2019 That is what God said to Israel. \u2018 \u201cI the Lord am your God\u201d\u2014I am the one whose sovereignty you accepted when you were in Egypt.\u2019 They replied, \u2018Yes.\u2019 \u2018Now that you have accepted My sovereignty, you must accept My decrees.\u2019 \u201d That is to say, having acknowledged that I am the Lord and that I have been your God since Egypt\u2014now, accept all My commandments. Note that\u2014unlike the way He began His address to them, \u201cYou have seen what I did to the Egyptians\u201d (19:4), where \u201cyou\u201d is in the plural\u2014all the commandments are given in the singular, to the individual \u201cyou,\u201d to warn them that each and every one of them will be individually punished for violating the commandments. They should not think that God will judge them as a group and that each individual will be saved along with the majority. Moses will explain this to them at the end of the Torah, in Deut. 29:17\u201319.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nI the Lord am your God. \u201cYour\u201d is singular. Just as an image can be made so that everyone thinks the eyes are looking directly at him, so too when God spoke, everyone thought He was talking directly to him. After all, if the taste of manna could have the taste best liked by every individual, how much more so God\u2019s word (Hizkuni). Do not think that our Sages are unanimous in their opinion of this utterance. I, for one, am not too shy to say that it is not a commandment, but an introduction to the commandments (Abarbanel). Who brought you out of the land of Egypt. God might have told them, \u201cI the Lord am your God who created you,\u201d but they could have answered, \u201cYou created everyone! Why put the burden of Your Torah on us?\u201d (Bekhor Shor). Judah Halevi asked Ibn Ezra why this does not say \u201cwho created heaven and earth.\u201d He himself had already provided the answer in the Kuzari: God wanted to identify Himself to them by an instance that they had seen with their own eyes (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 20:3
\nRASHI
\nYou shall have no other gods. I might take v. 4 to mean merely that they cannot make idols in the future; from this verse I know that ones that already exist must be destroyed. The other \u201cgods\u201d are not real gods, but ones whom others have made gods over them. The verse cannot be read to say, \u201cYou shall have no gods other than Me,\u201d for it would be an insult to God to call the others \u201cgods\u201d with respect to Him. Another reading: \u201cOther\u201d gods. They are \u201cother\u201d to their worshipers. When they pray to a god like this, he doesn\u2019t answer them, but acts as if he is someone \u201cother,\u201d who has never met them before. Besides Me. The OJPS translation is preferable here: \u201cBefore Me.\u201d More literally it is \u201cin My presence,\u201d that is, \u201cwhile I exist.\u201d This proviso was added so that you should not think the commandment against idolatry applied exclusively to the generation that heard it.
\nRASHBAM
\nYou shall have no other gods besides Me. For I alone brought you out of Egypt.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall have no other gods. One must not believe those who say that God has given the Angel of the Presence power over the world, nor make images to channel the power of the constellations. Negative commandments always involve the prohibition of actions; this is the only one in the Torah that prohibits a belief. The text uses the word \u201cgods\u201d here from the perspective of those who worship them. There are other verses that similarly repeat falsehoods, representing them from the perspectives of those who believed them. E.g., Jer. 28:10 calls Hananiah a prophet, though he was not one; Josh. 2:7 says the men of Jericho pursued the spies down to the fords of the Jordan, though they were really hidden on Rahab\u2019s roof; and 1 Sam. 28:15 says that the dead Samuel spoke to Saul, though it was not so (but this is not the place to explain that). Besides Me. Once you know that I created everything and My Glory fills all, you shall have no gods other than Me. It literally means \u201cbefore My face,\u201d but is to be interpreted as that phrase is used in Num. 3:4, where \u201cbefore the face of their father Aaron\u201d means \u201cin his lifetime.\u201d This follows the words of one of the wise\u2014\u201cDo not anger your master by defying him to his face.\u201d
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYou shall have no other gods besides Me. Rashi\u2019s comment (based on the Mekilta) that this statement demands the destruction of idols that already exist would make this a separate commandment from v. 5, which carries a more severe punishment. But would this less severe prohibition against owning idols be included here, before the prohibition of idol worship? In any case, this interpretation is the opinion of R. Jose alone. The correct interpretation, even according to the straightforward sense of the text, is that none of the angels or the divine host of heaven are to be our gods. This is the opinion of Onkelos, as well, who translates \u201cother gods\u201d literally here rather than as \u201cthe strayings of the nations,\u201d as he does in 23:19 and elsewhere. Know that when the text says \u201cother gods,\u201d it always refers to these beings; idols are never referred to as if they could be \u201cother\u201d gods (God forbid), but only as \u201cmolten\u201d gods\u2014gods only from the perspective of those who make them, \u201cfor they are not gods, but man\u2019s handwork of wood and stone\u201d (Isa. 37:19). Thus the second commandment is that we accept none other than the Lord as our God, and then that we should not worship graven images. The warnings against making idols come in v. 20 and elsewhere. Besides Me. Rather, \u201cto My face,\u201d as the expression is used in Job 1:11, \u201cBut lay Your hand upon all that he has and he will surely blaspheme You to Your face.\u201d \u201cDo not make other gods, for they are \u2018in My face\u2019\u2014I am looking and watching those who make them, at every moment and in every place.\u201d According to the True interpretation, you will understand the mystery of \u201cface\u201d from what we have written about \u201cface to face\u201d in our comment to 19:20, and you will understand the mystery of \u201cother gods\u201d; and the whole verse will come out in its straightforward, literal meaning, just as Onkelos has it.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nOther gods. Rabbi Eliezer says, They are \u201cother\u201d gods because, whatever substance they are made of, if necessary they can always be made of some \u201cother\u201d substance (Hizkuni). Besides Me. The Hebrew word should correctly be spelled with a patah under the yud, for one who is learned in the mysteries (Jacob b. Hayyim). Perhaps it means \u201cbefore Me,\u201d to deliberately anger Me, as in Deut. 32:21, \u201cThey incensed Me with no-gods\u201d (Kimhi).
\nExodus 20:4\u20135
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 How can a just God \u201cvisit the guilt of the parents upon the children\u201d (v. 5)?
\nExodus 20:4
\nIBN EZRA
\nA sculptured image. Whether of stone or wood. Nor shall you worship any likeness whatsoever, made by any form of art. What is in the heavens above. The planets, the constellations, the sun and the moon. On the earth below. In the form of any beast, creeping thing, or bird. Even birds are considered to be \u201con the earth,\u201d as we see from Gen. 1:22, \u201clet the birds increase on the earth.\u201d In the waters. In the form of a fish, using the word in the general sense of any sort of creature that is born and grows in the water. \u201cYou shall have no other gods\u201d refers to belief, and \u201cyou shall not make for yourself\u201d both to belief and to worship. You may not make a sculptured image that you believe is your god, nor may you bow down to one if someone forces you to do so, nor may you perform any sort of worship of it. Under the earth. For the earth and the waters together make up a single globe.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nIn the heavens above. The sun, moon, stars, and constellations, as well as the angels. This is what happened in the incident of the Golden Calf, as I shall explain, with God\u2019s help. The waters under the earth. This is to include the demons; as Job 26:5 says, \u201cThe shades tremble beneath the waters and their denizens.\u201d The Mekilta adds that it also includes one\u2019s image reflected in the water.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou shall not make for yourself a sculptured image. Even for use in worshiping the true God, as the Christians do (Bekhor Shor). Even if you do not intend to worship it (Sforno). Or any likeness. The reason is given in Deut. 4:15, \u201cyou saw no shape when the Lord your God spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire\u201d (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 20:5
\nRASHI
\nAn impassioned God. Impassioned to punish, refusing to waive His rights when it comes to idol worship. \u201cImpassioned\u201d always refers to the passion to punish. Visiting the guilt of the parents upon the children. As Onkelos continues, \u201cwhen the children cling to the deeds of their parents.\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nThose who reject Me. If the children reject Me.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall not \u2026 serve them. By sacrificing or offering incense to them. An impassioned God. \u201cA jealous God\u201d (OJPS). For I created humans so that they would serve Me: \u201cWhom I have created, formed, and made for My glory\u201d (Isa. 43:7). If he abandons Me and serves another of My creatures, he is doing the opposite of My will. In return I will take revenge on him and not clear him. That is the meaning of \u201ca jealous God.\u201d The text is speaking in human fashion, so those who hear it will understand. Lev. 20:5, about the man who idolatrously gives his offspring to Molech, is comparable: \u201cI Myself will set My face against that man and his kin.\u201d If his son is evil too, I will visit his father\u2019s guilt upon him. Visiting the guilt of the parents. Not \u201cvisiting\u201d it, and certainly not (as some think) \u201creckoning\u201d it, but \u201cremembering\u201d it. Having remembered all that the father did, He will not be patient with the son. Upon the children. The term \u201cchildren\u201d includes grandchildren. Upon the third and upon the fourth generations of descendants (see 34:7), but no farther. This is not the place to ask how the father\u2019s guilt is remembered against the son, for it adds: Those who reject Me. But if the son is one of those who love God, He will not remember his father\u2019s guilt against him. The sense is that God will not restrain His anger longer than four generations of those who continue to reject Him, though sometimes he will cut them off in the first, second, or third generation.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYou shall not bow down to them or serve them. This refers to everything listed in v. 4. We are to worship none of these in any way, even if there is no intent to remove oneself from the authority of the Holy One. As B. Sanh. 60b puts it, this expression \u201creserves such worship exclusively to the Ineffable Name.\u201d An impassioned God. Or, \u201ca jealous God\u201d (OJPS). You will never find this term used except in connection with idolatry. Maimonides (Guide 1:36) too says that nowhere in the Bible will you find expressions of God\u2019s anger or jealousy except in connection with idolatry. He is wrong about anger (see, e.g., Job 42:7), but it is true about jealousy. In my view, this \u201cjealousy\u201d applies only to Israel. Its point is that Israel is the Lord\u2019s treasured possession, as I explained in my comment to 19:5. Should the nation that serves Him turn to other gods, He would be as jealous as a man would be if his wife went off with someone else or his slave took another master. But this does not apply to the other nations, to whom He allotted the heavenly hosts as their gods. Visiting the guilt of the parents upon the children. Ibn Ezra takes it to mean \u201cremembering,\u201d in the sense that God remembers the evil done by the parents but does not punish it until the fourth generation. All the other commentators agree. But if that were so, the text should read, \u201cVisiting the guilt of the parents, the children, and the third generation upon the fourth generation.\u201d Perhaps they think it means that He reminds the children of their guilt\u2014\u201cYou and your parents have sinned\u201d\u2014and does this every generation until the fourth, when He finally stops merely \u201cremembering\u201d and punishes them. But this interpretation is not correct. For the text treats the children and the third and fourth generations equally, and does not speak of punishing only the fourth generation. Since the preposition \u201cupon\u201d is used, the verb cannot mean \u201cremember\u201d; it must mean \u201cvisit,\u201d as fire translations have it\u2014that is, punishing them. The verb is used this way in 32:34, as well as in Isa. 24:21 and Isa. 27:1. In my opinion, it means that He punishes the children for the father\u2019s sin, as in Isa. 14:21, \u201cPrepare a slaughtering block for his sons because of the guilt of their father.\u201d But if their iniquity is not complete (see Gen. 15:16) in two generations, He will do it to the third generation, and sometimes He waits even to the fourth generation. But someone in the fifth generation is never punished for the sin of his great-great-grandfather. Notice that Deut. 5:9 adds, \u201cand upon the third generation,\u201d which should really be translated \u201cor.\u201d Ibn Ezra takes \u201cchildren\u201d to refer to both children and grandchildren, stretching the chain to a fifth generation, but it is not so. The \u201cchildren\u2019s children\u201d of 34:7 are the third generation. Of those who reject Me. And only of these. For if one of them has a righteous son, his father\u2019s punishment is not visited upon him. This is all explained in Ezekiel 18 punishment is not visited upon him. This is all explained in Ezekiel 18. The rabbinic saying that God\u2019s merciful aspect is 500 times greater than His aspect of punishment (see Rashi\u2019s comment to v.6) confirms my explanation. For if God merely \u201cremembered\u201d the guilt, as the other commentators would have it, rather than visiting it upon them, the merciful aspect would be even greater if this \u201cremembering\u201d extended even farther, say to the 10th generation! It may be that the four generations applies only to the sin of idolatry, in which connection it is mentioned here, but that for the other commandments, \u201cevery one shall die for his own sins\u201d (Jer. 31:30). You will find the hidden mystery of \u201cvisiting the guilt of the parents upon the children\u201d at the beginning of Ecclesiastes, as I have explained in my comment to Gen. 38:8.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe fourth generation. God waits for the sinner to repent, but if the fourth generation of a family is still sinning, He stops waiting and punishes him (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 20:6
\nExodus 20:6
\nRASHI
\nShowing kindness. Watching over the kindness that a man does, in order to reward the thousandth generation. This word should be read not alafim, but alpayim\u2014two thousand. Thus you find God\u2019s favorable aspect 500 times stronger than His aspect of punishment. The latter lasts only four generations, the former 2,000.
\nRASHBAM
\nShowing kindness to the thousandth generation. To the third, fourth, fifth, tenth, hundredth, and thousandth. The word alafim is an adjective; Deut. 7:9 shows clearly that it means \u201cthe thousandth,\u201d not \u201ctwo thousand.\u201d The straightforward senses of the two verses are not contradictory. As the translations recognize, the \u201cthird,\u201d \u201cfourth,\u201d and \u201cthousandth\u201d \u201cchildren\u201d of vv. 5\u20136 correspond to the \u201cgenerations\u201d in the Deuteronomy verse\u2014a word that is not literally used in the Hebrew in our passage.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe thousandth generation. That is, forever. \u201cThe thousandth generation\u201d of Deut. 7:9, though the Hebrew is different, means the same thing. The proof is Ps. 103:17, \u201cBut the Lord\u2019s steadfast love is for all eternity.\u201d The spirits of the good will exist forever, and their descendants (as long as they are good) will continue forever also. This is a great and wonderful mystery. Those who love Me. Those who know God. There is no one higher than them. Keep My commandments. Because they fear Him. These are second in rank.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThose who love Me and keep My commandments. This would appear to refer to the commandments against idolatry. Those who \u201clove\u201d Him are those who give up their lives for Him, for they acknowledge that He alone is God and deny any alien god. These they will not worship even on pain of death. This is what loving God \u201cwith all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might\u201d (Deut. 6:5) means\u2014being willing to give up your life rather than replace Him or associate with Him any alien god. Those who \u201ckeep My commandments\u201d are the rest of the righteous. Many commentators have explained \u201cthose who love Me\u201d as those who fulfill the commandments without thought of reward, as in M. Avot 1:3. R. Nathan, in the Mekilta, follows the opinion that \u201clove\u201d means giving one\u2019s life in order to obey the commandments. The text certainly refers to idolatry, which we are always obligated to give up our lives rather than commit. But R. Nathan extended it to all the commandments, for in times of religious persecution we are obligated to give up our lives rather than violate any of them, on the basis of Lev. 22:32, \u201cYou shall not profane My holy name.\u201d The previous opinion in the Mekilta, that \u201cthose who love Me\u201d refers to Abraham and his like and \u201cthose who keep My commandments\u201d to the prophets and the elders, is incorrect. For this would imply that the prophets fulfill the commandments with reward in mind. But there is a mystery involved here. The implication is that Abraham risked his life out of love of God (for which reason Mic. 7:20 ascribes \u201cLoyalty to Abraham\u201d) but the rest of the prophets did so only with regard to Gevurah, \u201cPower.\u201d Understand this.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe thousandth generation. Good families can last for a thousand generations, but bad families never make it to the fifth generation; see Gen. 15:16 and 2 Kings 15:12 (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 20:7
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why are \u201cswearing falsely\u201d (v. 7) and \u201cbearing false witness\u201d (v. 13) not included together?
\n\u2666 Why are we warned that \u201cthe Lord will not clear one who swears falsely by His name\u201d\u2014as if we expected that He would?
\nExodus 20:7
\nRASHI
\nSwear falsely. Better, \u201cin vain\u201d (OJPS). The reference is to a worthless oath, swearing contrary to something everyone knows to be true, like swearing that a column of stone is really made out of gold.
\nRASHBAM
\nYou shall not swear falsely by the name of the Lord your God. All this is in honor of the Holy One; the same applies to the next commandment, keeping the Sabbath, and the following one, honoring your father and mother. They are to be honored, and so is God: \u201cHonor the Lord with your wealth\u201d (Prov. 3:9).
\nIBN EZRA
\nFalsely. Conceivably this word shav is connected with the word sho\u2019ah, \u201cdesolation,\u201d as in Job 30:3, \u201cdesolate wasteland.\u201d The letters aleph, heh, vav, and yud frequently interchange in this fashion. The sense here would be something void, of no substance, like a desolate area empty of inhabitants. Our Sages distinguish between this sort of \u201cvain\u201d oath and a false oath. The word oath, shevu\u2019ah, may be connected with shiv\u2019ah, \u201cseven,\u201d in the sense described by Sefer Yetzirah 4:4: \u201cSeven doubles: up and down, east and west, north and south, with the Holy Temple right in the center, supporting them all.\u201d In any case, one who invokes God and does not keep his promise is as if denying God\u2019s existence. For the point of mentioning God\u2019s name is to say, \u201cJust as God is truth, so is my word.\u201d God too \u201cswears\u201d a thing, making it an unconditional decree, \u201cby\u201d His right hand, or the Throne of Glory, or the heavens\u2014all of them things of permanence. So one who swears to a falsehood is desecrating God\u2019s name. After idolatry, there is no sin worse than a vain oath. For the Lord will not clear one who swears falsely by His name. This serves the same function here as \u201cI am an impassioned God\u201d does in v. 5. If this warning were not written in the Torah, it would still be perfectly clear by the light of reason, for it is planted in the conscience, and the wise condemn those who violate it to death. I have gone on at this length about the subject because I have seen that the children of our exile in the kingdoms of Ishmael and Edom swear by God\u2019s name at every moment. It has become such a rule for them that they do not even realize that they are swearing. If anyone tries to reprimand them, they swear that they have not sworn! A murderer kills no more than once or twice, and even an adulterer commits that sin only a few times, but some of these people swear every minute of every day, to the point where one who hears them simply cannot keep count of how many times they have done it. If this were the only sin found among the Jews, it would still be enough to keep the Redeemer from coming. Won\u2019t these people awake from their mental sleep? One who murders his enemy satisfies his desire by his act, as do the adulterer and the thief; but these people desecrate God\u2019s name for no reason, though the text says that God will not clear them.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYou shall not swear falsely by the name of the Lord. Our Sages have already explained this as swearing \u201cin vain,\u201d for example, swearing to people who are standing right in front of a marble column that it is made of gold\u2014or, for that matter, that it is made of marble. But the straightforward sense is that one should not pronounce the name of the Lord in vain for any reason. The Hebrew expression, literally to \u201craise\u201d the name, simply means to speak, as in \u201cto raise one\u2019s voice\u201d; see Zech. 9:1, where the noun form of this root means \u201ca pronouncement.\u201d As our Sages have said, one is not even permitted to say \u201cto the Lord, an offering,\u201d since the correct phrase is \u201can offering to the Lord\u201d (Lev. 1:2)\u2014how much the more so must one be careful not to take the Lord\u2019s name in vain. This commandment follows that against idolatry because, just as it is forbidden to give God\u2019s glory to another, one must give His name its proper glory\u2014and one who uses it in vain profanes it. \u201cYou shall not swear falsely by My name, profaning the name of your God: I am the Lord\u201d (Lev. 19:12). Just as the idolater was warned that God would \u201cvisit the guilt of the parents\u201d and so forth, here too the Lord will not clear one who swears falsely by His name. The one who takes God\u2019s name in vain might think it a less grievous sin than idolatry; hence he is assured that the Lord will not clear him. Ibn Ezra has spoken properly about this verse.
\nGod speaks the first two Commandments in the first person, and the rest are spoken about God by Moses, in the third person. This is why our Sages said that we heard only the first two Commandments\u2014the essence of them all\u2014directly from the mouth of the Almighty. But, as Ibn Ezra points out, v. 1 says that \u201cGod spoke all these words.\u201d It is written even more explicitly: \u201cThe Lord spoke those words\u2014those and no more\u2014to your whole congregation\u201d (Deut. 5:22). I will explain to you the tradition of our Sages. It is certain that all Israel heard all 10 of the Commandments from the mouth of God, as the text says in plain Hebrew. But with the first two Commandments, they both heard them and understood them, just as Moses did\u2014as when a master speaks with his slave. With the rest of them, they heard the Voice but could not understand it; Moses had to interpret each one for them. This is how the Sages understand v. 19. Thus the other Commandments were framed in the third person for Moses to repeat them that way. The intent was that all Israel should be prophets with regard to faith in God and to the prohibition of idolatry, for these are the essence of the whole Torah and commandments. As God says in Deut. 4:10, \u201cGather the people to Me that I may let them hear My words, in order that they may learn to revere Me as long as they live.\u201d But as long as they heard the sound of the other eight Commandments, they could get their meanings from Moses. With regard to the rest of the Torah\u2019s commandments, they simply believed what Moses told them.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou shall not swear falsely by the name of the Lord your God. Rather, \u201cneedlessly\u201d (Kimhi). One who is accustomed to swear needlessly by God\u2019s name will end up, out of familiarity, swearing falsely by it (Hizkuni). The switch from first person to third person is simply a feature of biblical style; the Israelites heard all Ten Commandments directly from God (Abarbanel). The Lord will not clear one who swears falsely. That is, He will not \u201cclear\u201d him of the oath he has taken but not fulfilled; the same usage is found in Josh 2:20, \u201cIf you disclose this mission of ours, we shall likewise be clear of the oath which you made us take\u201d (Bekhor Shor). One might have thought, \u201cThe Holy One could not care less about the mouthings of fools.\u201d On the contrary, one who denies any aspect of reality denies the reality of God (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 20:8\u20139
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why are the other festivals not mentioned, only the Sabbath?
\nExodus 20:8
\nRASHI
\nRemember the sabbath day. \u201cRemember\u201d and \u201cobserve\u201d (which replaces this word in Deut. 5:12) were said simultaneously. The same is true of the following apparently contradictory pairs: 31:14 and Num. 28:9, Deut. 22:11 and Deut. 22:12, Lev. 18:16 and Deut. 25:5. As it says in Ps. 62:12, \u201cOne thing God has spoken; two things have I heard.\u201d \u201cRemember\u201d means: Pay attention to make sure you always remember the Sabbath. If you should come across something beautiful, make sure you set it aside for use on the Sabbath.
\nRASHBAM
\nRemember the sabbath day. Remembering implies awareness of something in the past; e.g., \u201cRemember this day, on which you went free from Egypt\u201d (13:3)\u2014remember forever that in the past, on this day, you went free. See also Deut. 9:7 and Deut. 32:7, and Ps. 25:6. Here too the sense is \u201cRemember the sabbath day\u201d of the first week of creation. As the text goes on to explain, \u201cFor in six days the Lord made heaven and earth and sea, and all that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day\u201d (v. 11). Thus keep it holy means resting from work.
\nIBN EZRA
\nRemember the sabbath day. The Sabbath is symbolic of the fact that the world had a beginning in time. One must \u201cremember\u201d each day what day of the week it is in order not to forget when the seventh day comes, which one is obligated to keep holy. Our Sages have said that God said \u201cRemember\u201d and \u201cObserve\u201d (Deut. 5:12) simultaneously; see my comment to 19:17. These at least mean the same thing. But how could God say \u201chouse\u201d and \u201cwife\u201d in that order (v. 14) at the same time as He said \u201cwife\u201d and \u201chouse\u201d in that order (Deut. 5:18)? Such a statement is utterly irrational. Rather\u2014and God is my witness that if I did not have to explain the many such discrepancies between the two versions of the Ten Commandments, I would remain silent\u2014the Exodus 20 version is exactly what God spoke; Deuteronomy 5 presents the Ten Commandments in Moses\u2019 words. Keep it holy. To give it a higher status than other days, doing no work on it, just as God did not work on that day. The saying of our predecessors that \u201cremember the sabbath day to keep it holy\u201d means \u201cremember to sanctify it over wine\u201d is also correct to the extent that it is a scriptural support for the practice\u2014for one who has not sworn off wine. At least, this is true for one who lives in a place where wine is found. For one who lives in a place where there is no wine violates no commandment.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nRemember the sabbath day. After having commanded (1) that we believe that the Lord is the Existent, the Creator, the One who understands, and the One who is able; (2) that we focus our belief in all these, and our respect, on Him alone; and (3) that we respect the utterance of His name, He then commanded that we establish an eternal remembrance to announce symbolically that He had created everything\u2014the Sabbath. Our rabbis commented that \u201cObserve the sabbath day\u201d (Deut. 5:12) and \u201cRemember the sabbath day\u201d were spoken simultaneously. But they were not so particular as regards the other variations between Moses\u2019 repetition of the Ten Commandments and this one. Their reason is that, in their thinking, \u201cremembering\u201d the Sabbath is a positive injunction, but \u201cobserving\u201d it refers to the prohibition of profaning it, and they were not willing to believe that Moses changed a positive commandment into a negative one. But there is no such difference in meaning in the other changes. Only someone who is not at home in Talmud could find the explanation of the Sages irrational. Since women are not bound by positive commandments tied to a specific time\u2014yet they are obligated to \u201cremember\u201d the Sabbath\u2014we see that, in fact, what our Sages meant was that the Sabbath commandment is simultaneously a positive commandment and a prohibition. (One wonders why both words are not written here. But perhaps only \u201cremember\u201d was written on the tablets, and Moses explained that God had said \u201cobserve\u201d as well.) In the Mekilta, R. Isaac notes that \u201cremembering\u201d the Sabbath means not giving the days of the week individual names, as the other nations do, but numbering them with regard to the Sabbath. Keep it holy. It is clear from rabbinic sources that the commandment to sanctify the Sabbath by reciting a blessing over wine is derived from this phrase \u201ckeep it holy.\u201d \u201cRemember\u201d is the commandment to remember the Sabbath every day, as we have explained. But both \u201cremembering and sanctifying\u201d are combined in the one commandment to \u201cRemember the sabbath day\u201d in the traditional number of 248 positive commandments. Know this.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nRemember the Sabbath day. It is easy for you to remember it now, because the manna tells you which day is Sabbath; but once you get into the land and the manna ceases, that will not work any longer (Bekhor Shor). An explanation is given for the Sabbath commandment, which one must \u201cremember\u201d; reason is enough to persuade one to observe all the others. Since \u201cobserving\u201d is included in \u201cremembering,\u201d it is as if the two were spoken simultaneously (Hizkuni). Remember it by sanctifying it, orally, both when it begins and when it ends, to separate it from the other days of the week (Gersonides). Remember the Sabbath day all week so that you take care of your affairs well enough to be able to forget about them on the Sabbath (Sforno).
\nExodus 20:9
\nRASHI
\nDo all your work. When the Sabbath comes, you should feel that all your work is done, so that you need not worry about it.
\nIBN EZRA
\nSix days you shall labor. You may labor\u2014it is not a commandment to do so.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nSix days shall you labor and do all your work. \u201cLabor\u201d excludes work that is done for one\u2019s bodily pleasure, such as cooking and the like; it refers to the sort of tasks mentioned in 1:14, as I shall explain further (with the help of God) in my comment to Lev. 23:7. Thus both one\u2019s labors and one\u2019s personal \u201cwork\u201d must be done on the other six days, but no work must be done on the Sabbath.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nSix days you shall labor and do all your work. You shall not look for particular days or hours that are astrologically favorable, but do your work all during the six days (Abarbanel). One\u2019s labor is a form of servitude, being mostly directed toward things that are not one\u2019s own (Sforno).
\nExodus 20:10\u201311
\nExodus 20:10
\nRASHI
\nYour son or daughter. Who are still children. Perhaps it refers to them even after they are grown? No, they themselves are commanded personally about the Sabbath; \u201cson or daughter\u201d here is a command to adults about their young children. As it says in M. Shab. 16:6, \u201cIf a child tries to put out a fire, do not let him, for his Sabbath observance is your responsibility.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nA sabbath of the Lord. So called because He rested, shavat, on it. Your son. Who is still a minor. For if he is old enough to obey the commandments, he is commanded just like \u201cyou.\u201d Every Jew is obligated to keep an eye on his young son or daughter on the Sabbath to see that they do not do anything that is forbidden to him. The same is true with slaves and cattle, and with the stranger. He may only live in your land on condition that he do no work on the Sabbath. So the sense of the list in our verse is, \u201cyou and everyone who is under your authority.\u201d But there is a legal difference between the various categories in terms of the punishment they suffer for violating the Sabbath. As I have already explained, one who works on the Sabbath does not deny God, but he does deny God\u2019s creation of the world. We have seen in Jer. 17:19\u201327 that, though the prophet was extremely strict about Sabbath observance, he nonetheless said explicitly\u2014despite the fact that Jerusalem\u2019s destruction had already been decreed\u2014that if Israel would return to Sabbath observance, they would not be exiled, and the thrones of the Davidic dynasty would remain standing in Jerusalem.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYou, your son or daughter. Who are still children. They must not do any work to our knowledge or at our request. Your male or female slave. This refers to slaves who have been circumcised (if male) and have immersed in a ritual bath, who are obligated by all the rules of the Sabbath that apply to Jews. For as is explained in the words of our Sages, slaves are obligated to fulfill the same commandments that women are. They should have been commanded directly not to work on the Sabbath. But since they are under our authority, we were given the command, to tell us that their resting is our responsibility, and that it is we who are punished if we do not prevent them from working. Moreover, it is to Israel that God spoke the Ten Commandments\u2014not to their slaves. The stranger who is within your settlements. The straightforward explanation is that this \u201cstranger\u201d is the resident alien who has accepted the seven Noahide commandments. That is why it is not he who is commanded, but we\u2014to make sure that, like children and animals, he does no work on the Sabbath for our needs. But since the commandment does not apply to him, he may work on his own account on the Sabbath. But the \u201cstranger\u201d of the Sabbath commandment in 23:12 is the convert; this is the stranger of whom it is said, \u201cThere shall be one law for you, whether stranger or citizen of the country\u201d (Num. 9:14, and see also Num. 15:16). But we have found a rabbinic tradition that says our verse applies to the convert and 23:12 to the stranger.
\nExodus 20:11
\nRASHI
\nHe rested on the seventh day. He wrote in the Torah that He had, as it were, rested, so we might learn by inference that human beings, whose toil is wearisome, should rest on the Sabbath. Blessed the seventh day and hallowed it. He blessed it by means of the double portion of manna on the sixth day, and hallowed it by having no manna fall on it.
\nRASHBAM
\nTherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day. As I explained in my commentary to Genesis, it means \u201cbecause the Lord blessed the Sabbath.\u201d For by the time the first Sabbath arrived, the Holy One had already created everything necessary to nourish his creatures. Thus the Sabbath was blessed with everything good. Therefore, he hallowed it by having us rest on it in witness to the fact that the Holy One first created everything and then rested.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIn six days, etc. The text goes on to explain the reason for the Sabbath commandment. All that is in them. In the heavens (the sun, moon, and stars), the earth (all creeping things), and the water (all swarming things). Therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day. I have explained this in my comment to Gen. 2:3.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it. That is, He said that the sabbath day should be blessed and holy. For He commanded remembering it to make it blessed and beautify it, and He commanded resting on it so that it should be holy to us and we should do no work on it. Ibn Ezra understands the phrase to mean that God set this day aside for the soul to receive additional wisdom. I have explained the True interpretation in my comment to Gen. 2:3, from which you will be enlightened enough to understand that \u201cin six days\u201d at the beginning of our verse is a mistranslation; the word \u201cin\u201d is deliberately omitted from the Hebrew. God made six days \u201cand on the seventh day He ceased from work and was refreshed\u201d (31:17).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nHe rested on the seventh day. That is, He did not create anything new on that day, as He had on the first six, but let nature continue its course. That is why our Sages explain the verb as transitive: He \u201crested\u201d His world, left it alone (Gersonides).
\nExodus 20:12\u201313
\nExodus 20:12
\nRASHI
\nThat you may long endure. If you honor them, you will endure long; if not, only briefly. For the words of Torah are terse. One may deduce from a positive statement its corresponding negative, and vice versa.
\nIBN EZRA
\nHonor your father and mother. By doing so you honor God. Those who have passed down the traditions of the Torah have explained how one is to honor one\u2019s father and mother. Note that one who audibly curses his parents is put to death (21:17). But one may belittle one\u2019s parents without it being known. Hence this is included among the \u201ccurses\u201d of Deut. 27:15\u201326, with the other sins that are committed in secret. That you may long endure. Rather, \u201cthat they\u201d\u2014your parents\u2014\u201cshall make your days long.\u201d The verb is transitive. The commandment comes along with its reward, long life, just as \u201cThe fear of the Lord prolongs life\u201d (Prov. 10:27). On the land. One also gets the reward of not being exiled from the pure land. Know that the reward for fulfilling a positive commandment is twice as great as that for observing a negative commandment. (But with punishment the situation is exactly reversed, for the punishment for violating a prohibition is great.) One must go to some trouble to perform a positive commandment, which is not so with obeying a negative commandment. One merely receives reward for not violating one\u2019s Lord\u2019s command not to murder or commit adultery. But with a positive commandment there are two rewards\u2014the reward for not violating one\u2019s Lord\u2019s command, and also a reward for taking the trouble to perform it. And how precious is the proof that our Sages bring in M. Mak. 3:15 from Deut. 12:25, which says that one must not partake of blood \u201cin order that it may go well with you and with your descendants to come.\u201d
\nNAHMANIDES
\nHonor your father. Having finished all that we owe to the Creator, the text turns to deal with His creatures. It begins with one\u2019s father, who is like a co-creator with God in forming his descendants. For God is our first father, and the one who sired us is only our immediate father. That is why Deut. 5:16 adds \u201cas the Lord your God has commanded you\u201d to this commandment\u2014just as I commanded you about My own honor, so I command you about the honor of the one who participated with Me in your creation. Our verse does not make explicit the nature of this \u201chonor,\u201d for it can be derived from what we know about the honor due to God: A son must acknowledge that his father is his father, and not deny him and claim that some other man is his father, nor serve another man for his inheritance or something else that he expects to get from him; and he must not swear falsely by his father\u2019s name. Many other things are subsumed under the category of honor, all of which we are commanded, and they are spelled out in the words of our Sages, who say explicitly that one\u2019s father\u2019s honor is like God\u2019s honor. That you may long endure on the land. Since this commandment is one that deals with the lower world, its reward is given in long endurance on the land that God gave us. But our Sages take the phrase as a promise that our \u201cdays may be long\u201d\u2014we will live a full life\u2014in this world, and that they will be lengthened into the World To Come, which is unending. So we will dwell forever on the \u201cgood land\u201d that He will give us. Deut. 5:16 actually frames it as two separate promises.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nHonor your father and your mother. Even though I told you not to honor anyone but Me, you must still honor your father and your mother! (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 20:13
\nRASHI
\nYou shall not commit adultery. \u201cAdultery\u201d is restricted to cases where the woman is married to another man: \u201cIf a man commits adultery with a married woman, committing adultery with another man\u2019s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death\u201d (Lev. 20:10); \u201cthe adulterous wife who welcomes strangers instead of her husband\u201d (Ezek. 16:32). You shall not steal. Rather, \u201cyou shall not kidnap\u201d; it is Lev. 19:11 that supplies the commandment, \u201cyou shall not steal.\u201d\u2014Perhaps our verse prohibits stealing and the Leviticus verse prohibits kidnapping?\u2014No, one learns from the context. Murder and adultery are capital crimes, so the \u201cstealing\u201d implied here must also be a kind that is a capital crime, stealing a person: kidnapping.
\nRASHBAM
\nYou shall not murder. The Hebrew root translated \u201cmurder,\u201d \u05e8\u05e6\u05d7, always refers to unjustified killing; see Num. 35:16\u201318, 1 Kings 21:19, Isa. 1:21. The roots \u05d4\u05e8\u05d2 (\u201ckill\u201d) and \u05de\u05d5\u05ea (\u201cput to death\u201d) may refer to justified or unjustified killing. Deut. 4:42, \u201cone who unwittingly murdered a fellow man,\u201d uses \u05e8\u05e6\u05d7 because the law is a corollary to the law of murder: if the \u201cmurder\u201d is unwitting, he is not liable. The Christians admit that I am right about this. For even though in Christian Bibles \u201cI deal death and give life\u201d (Deut. 32:39) is translated with the Latin word corresponding to \u05e8\u05e6\u05d7, the Hebrew uses \u05de\u05d5\u05ea. They translated carelessly.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYou shall not murder \u2026 commit adultery \u2026 steal. He meant, I have commanded you to acknowledge in thought and deed that I am the Creator of all, and to honor your parents, who are participants with Me in creation. Do not, therefore, vandalize My creation by spilling human blood, for I created human beings to honor and acknowledge Me in all these ways. Do not vandalize parenthood by committing adultery, turning the truth into a lie, and creating children who will give their father\u2019s honor idolatrously to another. And do not steal anyone, for kidnapping would cause the same thing. The commandments are listed in decreasing order of severity: idolatry, murder, adultery, kidnapping, bearing false witness, and finally coveting, for one who merely covets does not actually harm his fellow in any way.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou shall not commit murder. Lest you think that My command to honor only Me permits you to kill your fellow (Bekhor Shor). Even by remaining silent when a murderer\u2019s plans become known to you. In fact, it really means \u201cyou shall not kill\u201d\u2014whether justly or unjustly (Hizkuni). The prohibitions of murder, adultery, and theft are undoubtedly not single commandments, but headings that contain many commandments under them (Abarbanel). You shall not commit adultery. Lest you think, \u201cI am forbidden to take life, but this is creating life!\u201d (Bekhor Shor). Since a man\u2019s wife is in some sense both \u201cflesh of his flesh\u201d and his possession, the prohibition of adultery falls in between those of murder and theft (Abarbanel). You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. This does not mean that you can do so against one who is not your neighbor; \u201cneighbor\u201d refers to anyone with whom one has dealings (Kimhi). Since the prohibitions of murder, adultery, and theft were given to all descendants of Noah, those commandments do not include the phrase \u201cyour neighbor,\u201d as this one does (Abarbanel).
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall not murder \u2026 commit adultery \u2026 steal. This is a case where we are in need of tradition, to explain why \u201cyour neighbor\u201d is not mentioned as it is in the remaining two commandments. Murder. Whether physically or by your speech\u2014by lying, gossiping, deliberately giving fatal advice, or failing to reveal a secret that might save a life. If you do not reveal it, you are like a murderer. Adultery. Saadia includes under this heading eight categories of increasingly illicit sex, ranging from sex with a virgin or a widow (which would be licit if only they would marry) up to sex with an animal, and his words are close to the truth. But he left out incest. Steal. This also applies to cheating and deception. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Literally, \u201cyou shall not testify against your neighbor, a false witness.\u201d Since this form of the verb can also be read as causative, the verse can also be read to say, \u201cYou shall not cause a false witness to testify against your neighbor.\u201d This teaches that it is equally forbidden to hire a false witness.
\nExodus 20:14\u201315
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why is \u201cyou shall not covet\u201d written twice?
\n\u2666 Why was such a unique revelation not devoted to matters that the intellect cannot solve, like the mysteries of the universe, instead of things like the prohibitions against murder and theft, which the most lightweight intellect could arrive at without thinking twice?
\nExodus 20:14
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall not covet. Many people cannot understand how someone can be expected not to covet something desirable. Let me give you an example. A peasant of sound mind who sees a beautiful princess will not even think of sleeping with her, knowing that it is impossible. It is not that he is mentally defective\u2014obviously one could imagine that one had wings and was flying, though this is even more impossible. Rather, it is the same as not wanting to sleep with one\u2019s mother (no matter how beautiful she is), because one has been raised knowing that this is forbidden. Since, as our Sages have pointed out, life, children, and sustenance are dependent not on one\u2019s merit but on one\u2019s stars, the enlightened person will (like the peasant in my example) not covet anything, but will rejoice in his own lot. The items one should not covet are listed in the order they are because an intelligent man will first acquire a house, then a wife, and then the other things. But Moses listed \u201cwife\u201d first (in Deut. 5:18) because this is what young men covet first.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYou shall not covet. This commandment completes everything people are commanded with respect to each other. Afterward, the specific laws will be explained. For anyone who is judged to owe something to his fellow based on one of those laws, but does not covetously desire something that is not his, shall simply pay what he owes. Your neighbor\u2019s house \u2026 your neighbor\u2019s wife. Ibn Ezra explains the order by saying that a wise man first acquires a house; then, once he has a house to bring her into, a wife; and finally all the other possessions, and that Deut. 5:21 puts the wife first, because young men want a wife first. But it may be first in that verse because this is the most severe of the coveting prohibitions
\nHere, then, are the Ten Commandments: five dealing with the honor of the Creator, and five for the benefit of humanity. For, as we observed, honoring one\u2019s father is part of honoring God. Only for the second, third, and fifth commandments does the text explain their consequences. But no reward or punishment is mentioned for the others. For the last five are simply for the welfare of humanity; observing them is its own reward. But idolatry is a sin so severe that its consequences needed to be spelled out. It seems to me that \u201cI \u2026 am an impassioned God\u201d (v. 5) corresponds to \u201cYou shall have no other gods besides Me\u201d (v. 3), while \u201cshowing kindness\u201d (v. 6) corresponds to \u201cI the Lord am your God\u201d (v. 2). For one is punished for violating a prohibition and rewarded for fulfilling a positive commandment. But since the first and second commandments constitute a single topic, the consequences of both were saved for the end. No consequences are listed for observing or failing to observe the Sabbath, for one who observes the Sabbath testifies to God\u2019s creation of the world and acknowledges that \u201cI the Lord am your God\u201d (v. 2), while one who profanes it violates that commandment by denying creation and proclaiming the preexistence of the world.
\nApparently the first five commandments, dealing with God\u2019s honor, were written on one tablet, and the last five on the other one\u2014five against five. This is described in Sefer Yetzirah 1:3, \u201cTen sefirot of nothingness like the ten fingers, five against five, with a single covenant between them.\u201d From this you can understand why there were two tablets. For the first five correspond to the Written Torah and the last five to the Oral Torah. Apparently it is this to which the rabbinic saying \u201cTwo tablets, corresponding to heaven and earth\u201d alludes. They also correspond to bride and groom, to the best man and the maid of honor, and to the two worlds. It is all a single allusion; one who is enlightened will understand the mystery.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou shall not covet your neighbor\u2019s wife. Since there is already a prohibition against adultery, this means you should not try to get your neighbor to divorce his wife so you can marry her (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 20:15
\nRASHI
\nAll the people witnessed. Rather, \u201csaw.\u201d This teaches that not one of them was blind. How do we know that not one of them was mute? \u201cAll the people answered\u201d (19:8). How do we know that not one was deaf? \u201cWe will do and we will hear\u201d (24:7). The thunder. The text literally says that they \u201csaw\u201d a sound, something impossible in any other situation. Moreover, the \u201cthunder\u201d is literally \u201cthe voices\u201d\u2014those that issued from the mouth of the Almighty. They fell back. Rather, \u201cthey trembled\u201d (OJPS). Stood at a distance. At each commandment, they were startled 12 miles backward, the full length of their camp. But the angels came and helped them return.
\nRASHBAM
\nWitnessed the thunder. Literally, \u201csaw\u201d the thunder; but it means that they saw the accompanying hailstones, as in \u201can end of God\u2019s thunder and of hail\u201d (9:28).
\nIBN EZRA
\nAll the people. Men, women, and children. Witnessed the thunder. Literally, \u201csaw the thunder.\u201d But there are many such verses\u2014e.g., 5:21, \u201cMay the Lord look upon you and punish you for making us stink in the eyes of Pharaoh\u201d; Gen. 27:27, \u201cSee, the smell of my son is like the smell of the fields that the Lord has blessed\u201d: Eccles. 11:7, \u201cHow sweet is the light.\u201d The reason is that all five senses gather in a single place, behind the forehead. They fell back. This is the correct translation of va-yanu\u2019u, matching the usage in the description of Cain as \u201ca ceaseless [na] wanderer\u201d (Gen. 4:12). It cannot mean \u201ctrembled,\u201d for if it did, how would they have ended up \u201cat a distance\u201d?
\nNAHMANIDES
\nFell back. Our Sages understood this as \u201ctrembled\u201d (OJPS), close to what it means in Isa. 24:20, \u201cThe earth is swaying like a drunkard: it is rocking to and fro like a hut.\u201d But this would not explain how they got to be \u201cat a distance.\u201d Those who base their comments on the straightforward sense of the text take it as does NJPS, based on the meaning the same root seems to have in Gen. 4:12, \u201cYou shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on earth,\u201d and Num. 32:13, \u201cHe made them wander in the wilderness.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nAll the people. This whole section, vv. 15\u201323, really belongs after v. 6, when God finishes speaking in the first person. But it was kept until now to avoid interrupting the Ten Commandments (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 20:15\u201318
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe commentators place this section after the giving of the Torah, corresponding to Deut. 5:23\u201325. But such is not my opinion. For they say, \u201cLet not God speak to us.\u201d Notice that they do not say, \u201cLet not God speak to us again.\u201d Here, Moses tells them, \u201cBe not afraid\u201d (v. 17), while in Deuteronomy 5:25, God says of the people, \u201cthey did well to speak thus.\u201d Here, it was the thunder and lightning and the mountain smoking that scared them; in Deuteronomy, it was the voice of God. Here, Moses \u201capproaches\u201d the cloud (v. 18), but he does not enter it. So, as I see it, the incident described in vv. 15\u201318 took place before the giving of the Torah. Having begun in ch. 19 with God\u2019s warning to Moses about setting bounds around the mountain and warning the people, it continued with the Ten Commandments. Now it goes back to tell of the people\u2019s reaction to Moses, and how, in their fright, they fell far back from the boundary he had made. Here is the order in which things happened: In the morning was the thunder and lightning and the blare of the horn, but the Shekhinah had not yet descended. As in the incident with Elijah at Horeb, \u201cThere was a great and mighty wind, splitting mountains and shattering rocks by the power of the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind\u201d (1 Kings 19:11). The people stayed trembling in their camp until Moses encouraged them and led them out toward God. When they had taken their places at the foot of the mountain, the Lord came down upon the mountain in fire, and its smoke went up \u201cto the very skies, dark with densest clouds\u201d (Deut. 4:11). The mountain shook as if in an earthquake, or even more so: \u201cThe mountains skipped like rams, the hills like sheep\u201d (Ps. 114:4). This is no more a metaphor than the previous verse, \u201cThe sea saw them and fled, Jordan ran backward\u201d (Ps. 114:3). The blare of the horn grew louder, the people fell back, and they asked that God not speak with them, for they had not the strength to hear God\u2019s word without dying. Only after Moses had told them not to fear did he approach the cloud, at which point God spoke the Ten Commandments. As the story continues in Deuteronomy, the tribal leaders and elders, thinking God wished to tell them all the commandments, asked Moses to transmit to them the rest of what God had to say\u2014for they did not think they could take any more direct exposure to God\u2019s voice. God approved of this, for He had only desired to speak the Ten Commandments directly to them. He considered their fear right. But here in Exodus the text wished to lay out all the commandments before resuming the story.
\nExodus 20:16\u201317
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why does v. 15 not mention the voice of God, which must have been much more frightening than the natural phenomena?
\n\u2666 What is the nature of the \u201ctest\u201d that Moses mentions in v. 17?
\n\u2666 Isn\u2019t it contradictory for Moses to tell the people \u201cbe not afraid\u201d and then go on to say that God has come \u201cin order that the fear of Him may be ever with you\u201d?
\nExodus 20:16
\nRASHBAM
\n\u201cYou speak to us,\u201d they said to Moses. After having heard the Ten Commandments. Had they not said so, one must think that the Holy One would have spoken all the commandments to them Himself.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThey said. It was the priests and the heads of the tribes, who were near him, that said this\u2014after the Ten Commandments were completed.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nLet not God speak to us. Maimonides (Guide 2:33) observes that Onkelos translates \u201cThe Lord spoke\u201d literally when God speaks to Moses, but he translates our phrase as, \u201cLet it not be spoken to us from before the Lord.\u201d In Maimonides\u2019 opinion, even though the whole people heard the first utterance of God, they did not hear in the superior way that Moses did. But if this is so, why does Onkelos translate \u201cI spoke to you from the very heavens\u201d (v. 19) literally? He translates Deut. 5:22 and other verses referring to the people literally as well, while he translates \u201cGod answered\u201d Moses (19:19) with a circumlocution! (So too with 33:9 and Num. 7:89.) The reason for Onkelos\u2019 translation of our verse is that they did not hear God speak directly, but \u201cfrom the very heavens\u201d (v. 19), which according to the True interpretation means \u201cfrom the midst of heaven,\u201d which is the equivalent of \u201cout of the fire\u201d (Deut. 5:19): see my comment to 19:20. In fact, it is remarkable that Onkelos does not use one of his regular euphemisms, like \u201cthe glory of the Lord\u201d or the \u201cword of the Lord\u201d (as he does elsewhere) but has God literally \u201creveal\u201d Himself in such verses as 19:9 and 19:11. All of this is comprehensible to one who pays careful attention to the explanations we have given.
\nExodus 20:17
\nRASHI
\nIn order to test you. Rather, \u201cto uplift you.\u201d To make you great in the world and give you a reputation among the nations\u2014for God Himself in His glory appeared to you. The word nasot is related to nes, a banner held high. That the fear of Him may be ever with you. Having seen Him, awesome and terrible, you will know that there is no God but He, and will fear Him.
\nRASHBAM
\nTo test you. Rather, \u201cto train you.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nTo test you. To see whether you will obey His word, as you said (in 19:8) that you would. That the fear of Him may be ever with you. That you will always remember this miraculous day on which \u201cyou stood before the Lord your God\u201d (Deut. 4:10).
\nNAHMANIDES
\nIn order to test you. Rashi\u2019s comment is incorrect. It would seem to mean something like \u201cin order to accustom you to faith in Him,\u201d as the verb is used when David tells Saul that he cannot wear armor: \u201cI cannot walk in these, for I am not used to them\u201d (1 Sam. 17:39). For when He revealed the Shekhinah to them, the faith to cleave to Him entered their hearts, a faith from which their souls will never part. Maimonides (Guide 3:24) says that the purpose was to make sure that \u201ctheir feet would not slip\u201d (Ps. 37:31) if God should send them a false prophet to test their faith by contradicting what they had heard; for they had seen the truth with their own eyes. But if he were right, it ought to have said, \u201cin order to be able to test you\u201d (in the future). In my opinion, this was a genuine test. Having removed all doubt from their hearts, He could now test them to see whether they would obey His commandments, and \u201cwhether you really love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul\u201d (Deut. 13:4). In truth, the verb used here always means \u201ctesting.\u201d Even in 1 Sam. 17:39, it really means \u201cI have never tested myself to see whether I can walk in them.\u201d Perhaps the test described in our verse was \u201ca test by doing good.\u201d For there are times when a master will test his servant to see whether he will bear a heavy burden for love of him, and other times when the master does something good for the servant to see whether he will repay him with more work and respect. As our Sages put it, \u201cHappy is the man who passes his test! For there is no one whom the Holy One does not put to the test\u2014the rich man, to see whether he will be openhanded with the poor, and the poor man, to see whether he will accept suffering.\u201d In effect, our text says, God has done good to you by showing you His glory\u2014a thing He has done for no other nation\u2014to see whether you will repay Him by becoming His people. As Deut. 32:6 puts it, \u201cDo you thus requite the Lord?\u201d Also, \u201cYou alone have I singled out of all the families of the earth\u2014that is why I will call you to account for all your iniquities\u201d (Amos 3:2). For the other nations do not owe Me what you do, whom I know face to face. In order that the fear of Him may be ever with you. When you see that He alone is God in heaven and on earth. Or it may mean: In order that the fear of this great fire be ever with you, which will prevent you from sin.
\nExodus 20:18\u201320
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 What good was it for the people to \u201cremain at a distance\u201d (v. 18), when they could still see and hear what had frightened them?
\n\u2666 Doesn\u2019t v. 20 replicate the second commandment?
\nExodus 20:18
\nRASHI
\nMoses approached the thick cloud. Literally, \u201cfog,\u201d the innermost of the three areas identified in Deut. 4:11, \u201cThe mountain was ablaze with flames to the very skies, with darkness, cloud, and fog.\u201d But NJPS is correct in identifying this \u201cfog\u201d with the \u201cthick cloud\u201d of 19:9.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe people remained at a distance. The literal phrase is an exact repetition of the end of v. 15, emphasizing the people\u2019s fear. But Moses did the opposite: Moses approached the thick cloud where God was. This mystery will be revealed to you in my comment to Deut. 5:5. The \u201ccloud\u201d is a strange word in Hebrew (from a four-letter root), implying a thick, cloudy darkness. The point of God\u2019s being in such a cloud was that \u201cHe made darkness His screen\u201d (Ps. 18:12). For human beings cannot look at Him. It is impossible for humans to look at the sun, a physical body\u2014how much more so at the One who created the sun.
\nExodus 20:19
\nRASHI
\nThus shall you say. In these very words. You yourselves saw. There is a difference between what a man sees and what someone else tells him. Sometimes he is of two minds about whether to believe what he is told. I spoke to you from the very heavens. Yet 19:20 says, \u201cThe Lord came down upon Mount Sinai.\u201d A third verse, Deut. 4:36, decides the conflict: \u201cFrom the heavens He let you hear His voice to discipline you; on earth He let you see His great fire; and from amidst that fire you heard His words.\u201d His Presence was in heaven, His fire and His power on earth. Another reading: He bent down the heavens and spread them on the mountain\u2014\u201cHe bent the sky and came down, thick cloud beneath His feet\u201d (Ps. 18:10).
\nIBN EZRA
\nI spoke to you from the very heavens. From My place.\u2014Do not be surprised at this merely because 19:20 says, \u201cThe Lord came down upon Mount Sinai, on the top of the mountain.\u201d Moses too says, \u201cFrom the heavens He let you hear His voice to discipline you; on earth He let you see His great fire\u201d (Deut. 4:36). It was God\u2019s \u201cPresence\u201d that came down on Mount Sinai. As Solomon said in 1 Kings 8:27, \u201cEven the heavens to their uttermost reaches cannot contain You.\u201d I have already explained to you in my comment to Gen. 11:5 why God is called \u201centhroned in heaven\u201d (Ps. 123:1)\u2014this is where the divine decrees come from. One who has the wisdom to understand will comprehend the situation from 33:21. For those without understanding, let me provide a simile. Think of the image of a man with his head in heaven and his feet on Mount Sinai. That is how one could \u201ccome down\u201d on the mountain and still speak from heaven. We know that God\u2019s Glory fills the heavens and the earth.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nI spoke to you from the very heavens. Rashi\u2019s comment is not precise. The harmonization of these verses is a rabbinic interpretation, and it is true, for God was in heaven and His Presence was on the mountain. \u201cThe Lord had come down upon it in fire\u201d (v. 18); \u201cYou came down on Mount Sinai and spoke to them from heaven\u201d (Neh. 9:13). The language of all these verses is quite clear to one who Knows. I have already explained it all in my previous comments. Ibn Ezra says that one who has the wisdom to understand will comprehend the situation from 33:21, and \u201cThe words of a wise man\u2019s mouth are gracious\u201d (Eccles. 10:12).
\nExodus 20:20
\nRASHI
\nWith Me. You shall not make any image of those who are \u201cwith Me,\u201d who serve before Me on high. Gods of silver. The cherubs that you make to stand with Me must not be of silver, for if you make them of silver (instead of gold, as I shall command) I will consider them idolatrous. Nor shall you make. You shall not say, \u201cI am going to make cherubs in synagogues and schools just as I do in the Temple.\u201d Gods of gold. You must not make more than two cherubs. If you make four, I will take them as idolatrous \u201cgods of gold.\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nGods of silver \u2026 gods of gold. Even as images of the God in heaven. For there are some who mistakenly think that there is some reality to them. Even though the Holy One commanded the Israelites to make cherubs for the Ark, they were made for Him to sit on, like the cherubs on the Heavenly Throne\u2014not to bow down to them.
\nIBN EZRA
\nWith Me. \u201cNow that I have spoken with you face to face, with no intermediary, you have no need to make gods of silver and gold.\u201d For to this day there are many idolaters who think, \u201cThis image will intercede for me and help me with God.\u201d \u201cI [God] have no need for you to make gods of gold, and you have no need either.\u201d (Knowing that the Israelites were going to make a Golden Calf, He warned them in advance not to do so.)
\nNAHMANIDES
\nGods of silver \u2026 gods of gold. Having seen that the Lord of heaven and earth \u201cspoke to you from the very heavens\u201d (v. 19), you have no need for any help other than what you get from Me. And see Ibn Ezra\u2019s comment. The two halves of the verse are not to be interpreted separately, but together: With Me, you shall not make for yourselves gods of silver or gold. The first part of the verse prohibits having faith in idols, the second prohibits even making them. The True interpretation of With Me is the same as \u201cbesides Me\u201d (v. 3), to which I have alluded in my comment there.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWith Me. In My temple (Gersonides). For yourselves. In your homes (Gersonides).
\nExodus 20:21\u201322
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why does v. 21 mention \u201cburnt offerings\u201d and \u201csacrifices of well-being,\u201d which they have not yet been commanded to make?
\nExodus 20:21
\nRASHI
\nMake for Me. You must make it specifically for Me. An altar of earth. Set on the ground. It must not be built on pillars or on a base. Another reading: They would fill the hollow copper altar (29:1\u20132) with earth whenever they encamped. Sacrifice on it. \u201cNext to\u201d it, as this Hebrew preposition is used in Num. 2:20 and elsewhere in that chapter. Animals are not slaughtered right on the altar. Or perhaps it literally means \u201con it\u201d? No, \u201cYou shall offer your burnt offerings, both the flesh and the blood, on the altar\u201d (Deut. 12:27), but the slaughtering itself is not done on top of the altar. Your sheep and your oxen. These are the burnt offerings and the peace offerings. In every place where I cause My name to be mentioned. Wherever I give you permission to mention My name, the Tetragrammaton, there I will come to you and bless you. I will rest My Shekhinah upon you. You learn from here that the Tetragrammaton is not to be pronounced anywhere but a place where the Shekhinah is found. That is the Temple, where the priests had permission to pronounce the Tetragrammaton when they lifted their hands to bless the people.
\nRASHBAM
\nMake for Me an altar of earth. Since the other nations make their sacred posts on their altars. As God told Gideon, \u201cPull down the altar of Baal which belongs to your father, and cut down the sacred post which is upon it\u201d (Judg. 6:25). If you make Me an altar, make it of earth, on which it is not usual to make pictures or images; rather, an earthen altar is made smooth.
\nIBN EZRA
\nAn altar of earth. My Glory will dwell with you and not move, on condition that you offer sacrifices to Me. I am not asking for an altar of gold and silver, just one of earth. Your sheep and your oxen. These are the species that are sacrificed on the altar. In every place where I cause My name to be mentioned. Wherever I put a remembrance of My name, such as Shiloh and Nob, where the Ark stood. If you come to such a place, I in turn will come to you and bless you. You will find Me in the place where I cause My name to be mentioned, the place of Glory. \u201cI will come to you\u201d is anthropomorphic language.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nMake for Me an altar of earth. The Sages take this passage to refer to the altars that would be built in the Tabernacle and the Temple, to say that they too must be built for God alone, and that sacrifices must be made there, and not to demons in the open. In every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come to you and bless you with \u201cblessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that couches below\u201d (Gen. 49:25). The verb translated \u201cmention\u201d is really used in the same sense as in Ps. 115:12, \u201cThe Lord is mindful of us. He will bless us.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nMake for Me an altar of earth. This refers to the sacrificial altar, not the incense altar (Abarbanel). There is no need for you to make Me a temple of gold, silver, and precious stones; an altar of earth is enough to bring Me close to you (Sforno). In every place. E. g., Gilgal, Shiloh, Nob, Gibeon, Jerusalem (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 20:22
\nRASHI
\nIf you make for Me an altar of stones. According to R. Ishmael, the word im means \u201cif\u201d everywhere in the Torah except for three cases where it means \u201cwhen\u201d: here, 22:24, and Lev. 2:14. For \u201cyou must build the altar of the Lord your God of unhewn stones\u201d (Deut. 27:6)\u2014building a stone altar is not optional, it is required. Hewn. With iron. By wielding your tool upon them. Rather, \u201clest you wield your sword upon them.\u201d You have profaned them. You learn that an iron tool profanes them. For the altar was created to prolong life, iron to shorten it. It is not right to wield the shortener against the lengthener. Moreover, the altar makes peace between Israel and their Father in heaven. So no implement of violence should be wielded against it. One can reason from minor to major: The stones of the altar, which neither see nor hear nor speak, make peace between Israel and God, and so the Torah prohibits wielding the sword against them. How much more so with a person who makes peace between man and wife, between family and family, between any two human beings, that no punishment should come upon him.
\nRASHBAM
\nIf you wish to make for Me an altar of stones. \u201cYou must build the altar of the Lord your God of [whole,] unhewn stones\u201d and \u201cnot wield an iron tool over them\u201d (Deut. 27:6,5). Do not build it of hewn stones. When they build something of stones hewn with iron, the stonecutters usually carve pictures and images into it. \u201cThe craftsman in iron, with his tools, works it over charcoal and fashions it by hammering.\u2026 The craftsman in wood measures with a line and marks out a shape with a stylus; he forms it with scraping tools, marking it out with a compass. He gives it a human form, the beauty of a man, to dwell in a shrine\u201d (Isa. 44:12\u201313).
\nIBN EZRA
\nIf you make for Me an altar of stones. This is the altar built by Moses in 24:4. Do not build it of hewn stones. Literally, \u201cdo not build them\u201d\u2014the stones. Use only stones that are complete as they were created. We are not supposed to search after reasons for the commandments, but it might make sense that God would not want chips from the same stones that were in the altar to be profaned. Some say the prohibition of hewn stones means not to put images on the stones. Perhaps they can instruct us why the Tabernacle and the Temple\u2014places much holier than the altar\u2014were full of cherubim and other images. By wielding. As stonecutters swing the ax in order to cut whatever they need off of the stone, in order to make it even. Your tool. You should know that this word, usually translated \u201csword,\u201d refers generically to any iron tool used for cutting.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nIf you make for Me an altar of stones. Not \u201cif,\u201d but \u201cwhen\u201d; this is a positive commandment. If the time comes that you win the land and you build Me an altar of stones in the Temple, do not build it of hewn stones, thinking this enhances the building. Ibn Ezra thinks this refers to the altar of 24:4. But according to the True interpretation, the text is written in the correct order: You saw that I spoke to you from heaven (v. 19); do not make gods of silver or gold with Me (v. 20); but I permit you to make an altar, for Me alone. By wielding your tool upon them. This forbids the use of iron tools on altar stones, as in Deut. 27:5\u20136. Iron is referred to literally here as \u201cyour sword,\u201d an expression for any iron tool with cutting edges. It is also used to mean \u201cdagger\u201d (Judg. 3:16), \u201cknife\u201d (Ezek. 5:1), and \u201cax\u201d (Ezek. 26:9), as well as a cutting tool for stone (here). The point of the commandment, in the words of our Sages, is that one should not wield the thing that shortens life over the thing that lengthens it. See Ibn Ezra\u2019s comment as well. Maimonides (Guide 3:45) connects it with the prohibition, \u201cYou shall not \u2026 place figured stones in your land to worship upon\u201d (Lev. 26:1), which is a custom of idolaters. But I say that the tool is called \u201csword\u201d here because iron is used destructively, as a weapon. The power of the sword succeeds under the influence of Mars and the astrological signs of bloodshed, and hence it must not be brought into the House of the Lord. By \u201cwielding your tool upon them\u201d you wield over them the murderous, corpse-creating sword, and you profane them. That is why no iron was used in the making of the Tabernacle; even the tent pegs were made of copper. In the Temple, only the knives were made of iron, for slaughtering the animal is not part of the service of God. But as Deut. 27:5 says, only \u201can iron tool\u201d is prohibited. One is permitted to hew them with tools made of silver or of the shamir that our Sages describe. This, of course, refutes Ibn Ezra, and it shows that Maimonides\u2019 explanation is also incorrect.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nDo not build it of hewn stones. Ibn Caspi says that stones in their natural state are preferred to worked stones because nature is more highly esteemed than artifice (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 20:23
\nExodus 20:23
\nRASHI
\nDo not ascend My altar by steps. You must build a ramp that is smooth and angled. That your nakedness may not be exposed. One has to take bigger strides because of the steps. Even though the priests\u2019 nakedness is not literally visible\u2014after all, \u201cYou shall also make for them linen breeches to cover their nakedness\u201d (28:42)\u2014still, the bigger strides are enough like exposing one\u2019s nakedness that one is treating the stones of the altar scornfully. Again, one can reason from minor to major. The Torah commands that stones, which have no awareness of being treated with scorn, must not be treated that way because they fulfill a need for us. Your fellow man, who is in the image of your Creator and does care whether you treat him scornfully\u2014how much the more must you be careful not to do so.
\nRASHBAM
\nDo not ascend My altar by steps. That is why the stone ramp is angled, 10 cubits high and 30 wide. Moreover, they sprinkle salt on it so the priests will not slip while they are ascending it.
\nIntellectuals should understand that my purpose here is not to explain the halakhot, the details of Jewish law that are derived from this section\u2014though they are its main point, as I have explained in my comment to Gen. 37:2. For Jewish law and legend reveal themselves through the superfluous words in the text. Some of the halakhot will be found in the commentary of R. Solomon, my mother\u2019s father (may the mention of the righteous be for blessing). But my purpose is to explain the straightforward sense of the text, and I shall explain the rules and laws according to common sense. Nonetheless, the halakhot are the essential part\u2014as our Sages said, \u201cHalakhah uproots Scripture.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nBy steps. One of the Sadducees derived this word ma\u2019alot not from alah, \u201cgo up,\u201d but from ma\u2019al, \u201cto commit a trespass,\u201d as in Lev. 5:21, \u201cWhen a person sins and commits a trespass against the Lord.\u201d This is indeed a trespass against the Lord! He explains the commandments in whatever way he wants, without even knowing the first thing about the Hebrew language. His own trespass upon the ladder of wisdom has exposed his grammatical nakedness. So may it happen to every heretic who does not believe in the words of our Sages! That your nakedness may not be exposed. The reason for this is obvious. This is why the altar used for burnt offerings cannot be more than three cubits high. Our Sages of blessed memory have passed down to us the tradition as to the dimensions of the ramp, and all their words are true. Before I explain this section, let me make the general statement that every rule and every commandment stands on its own. Nonetheless, there is an apparent rationale for the arrangement of the verses in this order. (Whenever we cannot find one, we shall blame the deficiency on ourselves.) The essential principle is that no one shall compel by violence one who is less powerful than he. The rules begin with the violence exerted on the body by enslavement, and continue with various rules that stem from this subject. This is followed by a section on criminality exerted against property. After all these come the rules about criminal actions that people perform in secret because they are afraid to do them in public.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nDo not ascend My altar by steps. Having begun the subject of altars, the text gives all the commandments involving them without waiting until they are commanded in Leviticus. This is a proof that the Sages are correct that this passage refers to the altars of the Tabernacle and the Temple\u2014but their words need no strengthening. The reason for the commandment is to promote fear of the altar, and its beautification as well, out of respect for God. There are many reasons for each of God\u2019s commandments, for each commandment provides many benefits to body and soul.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nDo not ascend My altar by steps. \u201cWalk modestly with your God\u201d (Mic. 6:8)\u2014not with chutzpah! (Bekhor Shor). That is, not by large steps, but toe to heel and heel to toe (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 21:1\u20132
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why do the laws begin (v. 2) with the law of the Hebrew slave? This cannot be a coincidence!
\n\u2666 Why is the slave to be released after six years, rather than, say, three or ten?
\nExodus 21:1
\nRASHI<\/p>\n
These are the rules. OJPS \u201cNow these are the ordinances\u201d; literally, \u201cand these.\u201d Everywhere the text says \u201cthese,\u201d it supersedes what came before it. Wherever it says \u201cand these,\u201d it supplements what came before it. Here it implies that, just as the Ten Commandments were given from Sinai, so were these. Why do these rules immediately follow the rules about the altar? To tell you that you must set up a High Court in the Temple. That you shall set before them. The Holy One told Moses: Do not think, \u201cI will simply repeat the rules two or three times until they have them memorized, and not trouble myself to explain the reasons for them.\u201d You must \u201cset\u201d the rules before them as one sets a table: ready to eat. Before them. The \u201cseventy elders\u201d of 24:1. Also, \u201cbefore them\u201d and not before gentiles. One must not bring a fellow Jew before a gentile court, even in a case where one knows that the gentiles enforce the same rule that the Jews do. For one who does so desecrates God\u2019s name and honors the name of idolatry by treating it with respect. \u201cFor their rock is not like our Rock, in our enemies\u2019 own judgment\u201d (Deut. 32:31). When our enemies sit in judgment over us, it is a testimony to the eminence of their god.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThese are the rules. Literally, \u201cand these are the rules.\u201d It is a direct continuation of the previous section, both opening (20:20) and closing (23:33) with the prohibition against idolatry. That you shall set before them. See 19:7 and Deut. 4:44; \u201cset before them\u201d may mean either in speech or in writing, or both.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThese are the rules that you shall set before them. Just as 20:19 expanded on the first commandment and 20:20 on the second, these rules expand on the commandment not to covet. For a man who does not understand these rules may covet and take other people\u2019s money or property, thinking it belongs to him. With clear rules operating among them, no one will covet what does not belong to him legally. As Exodus Rabbah says, \u201cThe whole Torah is dependent on the rule of law\u2014that is why the Holy One gave a set of laws after the Ten Commandments.\u201d Others of the Ten Commandments whose rules are explained here are the prohibitions of idolatry, murder, and adultery, and the commandment to honor one\u2019s father and mother. Since 15:25 says that God \u201cset for them a fixed rule,\u201d the fact that these rules are set before them is understood midrashically to imply \u201cbefore them, but not before the Canaanites.\u201d But really it implies that they should take their cases before the judges, for \u201cbefore\u201d refers to the system of justice (\u201cunless he has stood trial before the assembly,\u201d Num. 35:12; \u201cbefore the priests or magistrates in authority at the time,\u201d Deut. 19:17). Thus it should be interpreted to mean \u201cbefore them, the judges, not before lay persons.\u201d In fact, judges (whose ordination as such can be traced back to Moses) are referred to throughout this section (vv.7 and 22, 22:8). It is as forbidden to take a case to be judged on the basis of these laws before a layman (even if it is known that he knows the law and will judge fairly) as it would be to take it before a Canaanite. Though our Sages mention the two groups together, it is in fact permissible to bring a case before a lay Israelite if both parties agree. But it is absolutely forbidden to bring a case before a \u201cCanaanite\u201d judge, even if their laws on that particular matter are the same as ours.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThese are the rules that you shall set before them. Since Moses had appointed judges, the Holy One told him, \u201cThese are the rules that you shall set before the judges\u201d (Bekhor Shor). Unlike the Noahide laws or those of other nations, these are divine rules, whose deep mystery is based on a belief in the creation of the world (Abarbanel). Before them. Rashi says this means one must not bring a fellow Jew before a gentile court. But if he has been judged by a Jewish court and ignores its ruling, it is permissible to have gentiles force him to comply with the Jewish court (Hizkuni). These are not matters of \u201cdo\u201d or \u201cdon\u2019t do,\u201d but rules that must be laid before them to be available when the necessity arises to judge these kinds of cases (Sforno).
\nExodus 21:2
\nRASHI
\nAcquire. From a court who sells him because he stole and \u201clacks the means\u201d (22:2) to make restitution. Or does it apply only to one who is forced by poverty to sell himself into slavery, meaning that a thief sold by the court would not go free after six years? But the case of one who is forced by poverty to sell himself is covered by \u201cIf your kinsman under you continues in straits and must give himself over to you\u201d (Lev. 25:39). So our case must apply to one sold by the court. A Hebrew slave. Or does it mean, as the Hebrew could also be read, \u201ca Hebrew\u2019s slave,\u201d that is, a Canaanite slave whom one buys from a Hebrew? This would mean that \u201cyou may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property for all time\u201d (Lev. 25:46) would have to apply only to those bought from gentiles; those bought from a Hebrew would serve six years and then be freed. But Deut. 15:12 makes clear that it is \u201ca fellow Hebrew\u201d who is the slave that serves six years.
\nRASHBAM
\nWhen you acquire a Hebrew slave. The text is speaking of the case where he is sold by the court, as in 22:2. The case of a man who is forced by his poverty to sell himself is found in Lev. 25:39\u201346. The latter \u201cshall serve with you only until the jubilee year\u201d (Lev. 25:40), while the slave sold by the court shall serve six years. Some of our Sages combine the two rules and say that if the jubilee year comes before six years are up, the slave sold by the court goes free at that time. But there are others who distinguish the two cases. In the seventh year. This means the seventh year after he was sold, not the seventh, sabbatical year. He shall go free. This should be translated \u201che shall go out to freedom.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nWhen you acquire. From a court that sells him because he is unable to repay his theft; or, following Lev. 25:39, from himself\u2014except that tradition teaches us that one who sells himself may do so until the jubilee, not just for six years. A Hebrew slave. Deut. 15:12 makes clear that the translations are correct, and that this phrase is not to be read as \u201ca Hebrew\u2019s slave.\u201d There is nothing in the world more difficult than for a man to be under the authority of someone like himself, which is why this is the first of the rules. Now, even though the truth is that this slave is an Israelite, according to the tradition transmitted by our Sages, I will give the arguments of those who deny it. Some say that \u201cHebrew\u201d means a descendant of Eber. \u201cAbram the Hebrew\u201d (Gen. 14:13) might follow this meaning; others says he is so called because he came from eber ha-nahar, \u201cbeyond the river.\u201d Josh. 24:3, \u201cBut I took your father Abraham from beyond the Euphrates,\u201d would support this view. Every descendant of Abram could then be called a \u201cHebrew.\u201d So the Ishmaelites, Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites would all be Hebrews; if we connect the name to Eber, then the 13 sons of Joktan (Gen. 10:25\u201329) would all be Hebrews! Others say that \u201cHebrew\u201d refers to people who speak the language of Eber. This amounts to saying that the Canaanites were Hebrews, for they spoke the Hebrew language. Thus Joseph says, \u201cI was kidnapped from the land of the Hebrews\u201d (Gen. 40:15). But it is correct to say that they are called \u201cHebrews\u201d after Eber, for this name applies to \u201call the descendants of Eber\u201d (Gen. 10:21). Eber, however, was a worshiper of God. Abraham was a \u201cHebrew\u201d both in his descent and in his religion; Moab and Ammon, who were also descended from Eber, are never called Hebrews. In fact, none of those descended from Eber are called Hebrews except for the descendants of Jacob. If this \u201cHebrew\u201d slave were not an Israelite, it would mean that non-Israelites serve only six years as slaves, while Israelites have to serve until the jubilee! The reason this confusion arose is because of the wife and children in v. 4; the enslavement for life in v. 6; and the slave that is gored in v. 32; all of which (they think) refer to the \u201cHebrew slave\u201d of our verse. But they do not; our Sages have shed light on all these matters. We shall rely on their interpretations of all the commandments, which they received from their ancestors. Six years. See my comment to Deut. 15:18. Free. Either the last letter of the Hebrew word translated this way is superfluous (as Ibn Janah says), and it means \u201cto freedom,\u201d or the first letter is superfluous (as Ibn Hayyuj says), and it does mean \u201cfree.\u201d I think one of the two letters would have been enough; but Ibn Hayyuj is correct\u2014it is an adjective. Without payment. E.g., if he was ill and his master paid for his cure, he need not repay him. Or it may be mentioned because one who is sold to a stranger must pay to be redeemed; one who is sold to a Hebrew is redeemed without payment
\nNAHMANIDES
\nWhen you acquire a Hebrew slave. The rules begin with those about the Hebrew slave because letting him go free in the seventh year is a reminder of the exodus from Egypt mentioned in the first Commandment. \u201cBear in mind that you were slaves in the land of Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I enjoin this commandment [to free the slave] upon you today\u201d (Deut. 15:15). In addition, it is reminiscent of the seventh day of creation, on which God rested. Not only are the seventh day of the week and the seventh year of a slave\u2019s service significant, but so is the year after seven sets of seven \u201cyears of remission,\u201d which is the jubilee year\u2014for seven is a special number. The secret of all these sevens is the same, and it is the secret of the duration of the world, in Gen. 1:1\u20132:4. Hence this rule about the slave deserved to be first, for it alludes to great matters involving the history of creation. That is why Jeremiah chastised the Judeans so severely: \u201cThus said the Lord, the God of Israel: I made a covenant with your fathers when I brought them out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage, saying: \u2018In the seventh year each of you must let go any fellow Hebrew who may be sold to you; when he has served you six years, you must set him free\u2019 \u201d (Jer. 34:13\u201314). As punishment for this violation, He decreed that they be sent into exile\u2014just as the Torah would decree exile for violation of the sabbatical years, as I will explain elsewhere, with the help of the Rock. Once these rules about the Hebrew slave are finished, the text then turns to the other Commandments: the prohibition of murder (which is the most serious of them), honoring one\u2019s parents, the prohibition of theft, and so forth, everything in its proper order.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nIn the seventh year he shall go free. Because there is no plowing, planting, or harvesting in the seventh year, not much work needs to be done (Bekhor Shor). Not the \u201cseventh year\u201d during which the land rests, but the seventh year of his enslavement (Hizkuni). At the beginning of the seventh year (Gersonides). Without payment. He does not give the master anything. But the master must provide for him \u201cout of the flock, threshing floor, and vat\u201d (Deut. 15:14) (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 21:3\u20134
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why does the text present the case of a slave who \u201ccame single\u201d (v. 3) when it is obvious that all slaves enter slavery with nothing and leave with nothing?
\nExodus 21:3\u20134
\nRASHBAM
\nIf he came single, he shall leave single. This is a general statement, whose details are made clear afterward. If he comes into his master\u2019s house without yet having a wife to come in with him, even if his master subsequently gives him a wife, \u201che shall leave single,\u201d for the wife his master gives him remains the master\u2019s possession. Now the text explains the details: If he had a wife, then he shall not leave single, but his wife shall leave with him. But if his master gave him a wife, then just as he came in single, he shall leave single. The reference is to a Canaanite slave-woman that his master provides to him.
\nExodus 21:3
\nRASHI
\nIf he came single. This translation, based on that of Onkelos, is correct. The unusual Hebrew word begappo indicates that he came \u201cunder the cloak\u201d, that is, just as he is\u2014he is alone inside his clothes, in the cloak of his garment. He shall leave single. This tells us that if he was unmarried to begin with, his master may not provide him with a Canaanite slave-woman to make him propagate slaves from her. If he had a wife. An Israelite wife. His wife shall leave with him. Who \u201cbrought her in,\u201d that she should \u201cleave\u201d with him? This teaches us that one who buys a Hebrew slave is responsible for feeding the slave\u2019s wife and children.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIf he came single. The unusual word begappo is the equivalent of saying begufo: He came to his master\u2019s house \u201cwith (only) his body\u201d and not with anybody else al gabbo, \u201con his back.\u201d
\nNAHMANIDES
\nHis wife shall leave with him. Rashi\u2019s comment is based on a rabbinic midrash. Though our verse mentions only the wife, the children are also included, based on Lev. 25:41, \u201che and his children with him shall be free of your authority.\u201d It is not clear to me whether the wife and children are obligated to work for the master as long as he is feeding them. It seems to me that he essentially takes the husband\u2019s place. For the Torah took pity on the wife and children, whose lives are precariously dependent on the husband, and who (now that he is sold) might utterly perish. So the master, who now takes what the husband produces, is commanded to take on his obligations, being entitled to whatever work his wife and children do and obligated to support them. In return, the wife too becomes essentially a slave to the master, except that she is permitted to leave and go off on her own. Similarly, the master is obligated to feed the children only while they are still minors, as the father would have; this is how Rashi explains it in his comment at the bottom of B. Kid. 22a. All of this is the result of God\u2019s taking pity on them, and on the slave himself, so he will not die of sorrow knowing that his wife and children have been abandoned. Even though (according to B. Ket. 49) a father is under no obligation from the Torah to support his children, nonetheless, since it is the way of all the world that fathers do support their wives and children, God in His mercy ordained that the master who buys the father should do the same. The wife and children are not literally the master\u2019s slaves, for they can reject his support and do no work for him. But the rabbinic discussion shows that, if the slave marries a woman against his master\u2019s will, the master is not obligated to support that woman or her children\u2014for the master has the right to give the slave a Canaanite woman as his wife. However, he does not have the right to tell him to sleep with her rather than his Jewish wife. That is up to the slave.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nSingle. With just the shirt on his back, gappo, a form of gabbo\u2014for b and p are phonetically similar (Kimhi). His wife shall leave with him. Until then, the master is obligated to feed their children\u2014at least until the age of six, the minimum age up to which a father is responsible (Gersonides).
\nExodus 21:4
\nRASHI
\nIf his master gave him a wife. If the slave already has an Israelite wife, then it is within the master\u2019s authority to provide him a Canaanite slave-woman as well, in order to have him propagate slaves for the master from her. Or could this refer to an Israelite wife? No, the wife and her children shall belong to the master. This shows that the \u201cwife\u201d must be a Canaanite, for according to Deut. 15:12 a Hebrew slave-woman must also be released after six years, or even earlier if she was a minor who has now reached puberty.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIf his master gave him a wife. This shows that she is a Canaanite. For one cannot \u201cgive\u201d what is not under one\u2019s authority, which in this case must be a slave-woman from one of the other nations. It is, of course, not necessary that she be literally a \u201cCanaanite\u201d: she could be an Egyptian, an Edomite, or from any of the other nations surrounding Canaan. \u201cIt is from the nations round about you that you may acquire male and female slaves\u201d (Lev. 25:44). The same seed may produce something different if it grows in a different place, which is why the descendants of Aaron were chosen for eternal priesthood.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nIf his master gave him a wife. Rashi\u2019s comment is not precisely correct. The reason an Israelite girl whose father has sold her as a slave cannot be given to another slave as wife is that her master is only entitled to marry her himself or give her to his son (vv.8\u20139). The wife and her children shall belong to the master. This is the decisive phrase in settling the question: the children of a Canaanite slave-woman follow their mother\u2019s status. But an Israelite woman, even if she were of age to be given to him as a wife, and even if we agree (for the sake of argument) that a woman may sell herself into slavery \u2014her children would nonetheless belong to the father, not the master. So the wife the master gives the slave must be a Canaanite.
\nExodus 21:5\u20136
\nExodus 21:5
\nRASHI
\nMy wife. The Canaanite slave-woman.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIf the slave declares. Those who have passed down the traditions of the Torah say that the slave\u2019s ear may not be pierced unless all of the conditions are precisely fulfilled: He must love his master and his household (that is, his wife and his children) and be happy with him (see Deut. 15:16). (The same stricture applies to the stoning of the \u201cwayward and defiant son\u201d of Deut. 21:18\u201321.) And what they say is correct.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nBut if the slave declares. The doubling of the Hebrew verb implies that he must say it twice: once during the six years, while he is still a slave, and again at the end of the six years (Hizkuni). If he wishes to remain with his family, he must face the public shame of accepting eternal slavery\u2014something no intelligent man could bear (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 21:6
\nRASHI
\nBefore God. Rather, \u201cbefore the judges.\u201d The master must take counsel with those who sold him the slave. The door or the doorpost. But Deut. 15:17 says explicitly, \u201cYou shall take an awl and put it through his ear into the door.\u201d Why then does our verse add \u201cor the doorpost\u201d? Just as a doorpost is no doorpost if removed from its place, so too, for this purpose, the door must be on its hinges in place, not simply a door lying on the ground. His master shall pierce his ear. His right ear. Or perhaps it could be his left ear? The specification that the blood of the guilt offering in Lev. 14:14 is to be put on the right ear of the one being cleansed shows that \u201cear\u201d implies the right ear. And why is it the ear that is pierced rather than any other part of the body? Said R. Johanan b. Zakkai: This ear that heard \u201cYou shall not steal\u201d (20:13) at Mount Sinai, and then went and stole anyway, shall be pierced. If the slave was one who sold himself into slavery, then the ear that heard \u201cIt is to Me that the Israelites are servants\u201d (Lev. 25:55) at Mount Sinai, and went and acquired himself another lord anyway, shall be pierced. R. Simeon used to explain this verse symbolically: How are the door and doorpost any different from the other parts of the house? Said the Holy One: \u201cThe door and doorposts, who were witnesses in Egypt when I passed by the two doorposts and the lintel (12:7) and said, \u2018It is to Me that the Israelites are servants,\u2019 not to other servants\u2014this one who went and acquired another lord for himself should be pierced before them.\u201d He shall then remain his slave for life. \u201cUntil the jubilee year,\u201d as in Lev. 25:40. Or perhaps it really means \u201cfor ever\u201d (OJPS), literally \u201cfor eternity\u201d? \u201cYou shall hallow the fiftieth year.\u2026 It shall be a jubilee for you: each of you shall return to his holding and each of you shall return to his family\u201d (Lev. 25:10). Thus we learn that a jubilee of 50 years is considered an eternity. And it is not that he must serve him for 50 years. He serves him until the jubilee, whether it is soon to come or far removed.
\nRASHBAM
\nBefore God. Rather, \u201cbefore the judges.\u201d The door or the doorpost. His ear is pierced publicly as a sign of his enslavement. Even in a stone house, the door and doorpost are made of wood, so that one can \u201ctake an awl and put it through his ear into the door\u201d (Deut. 15:17). For life. This is indeed the straightforward sense of the literal \u201cfor ever\u201d (OJPS). For Hannah says of Samuel, the son God has given her, \u201cWhen he has appeared before the Lord, he must remain there for ever\u201d (1 Sam. 1:22), which obviously means \u201cfor life.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nBefore God. Rather, \u201cbefore the judges\u201d\u2014that is, the priests or the rulers (i.e., the kings). For the Torah is in the hands of the priests, and \u201ca copy of this Teaching\u201d (Deut. 17:18) is in the hands of the king. The judges are called elohim\u2014the same as the word for \u201cGod\u201d\u2014because they are God\u2019s representatives on earth. He shall be brought. Literally, \u201cshall bring him\u201d (OJPS); but this second time it is the judges who \u201cshall bring him.\u201d The door or the doorpost. According to Saadia, the point of this is as a reminder of the blood on the doorposts when God passed over the houses of the Israelites and redeemed them from \u201cthe house of bondage.\u201d Why should this particular Israelite love his bondage so much? Others say it is because the slave must guard his master\u2019s door. But in my opinion, the piercing is to mark the slave. We know from the story of Boaz in Ruth 4, not to mention Deut. 21:19 and Deut. 22:24, that Israelite judges sat at the city gates, in order to carry out their business in public. The slave too has his ear pierced publicly at the \u201cdoor\u201d of the city, for the same reason. Deut. 3:5 proves that \u201cdoor\u201d is sometimes used for \u201cgate.\u201d He shall then remain his slave for life. Our Sages say that the word l\u2019olam means \u201cfor the life of the jubilee period,\u201d i.e., 50 years, since Lev. 25:40 says, \u201cHe shall serve with you only until the jubilee year.\u201d The word is used in Eccles. 1:10 to mean \u201can age.\u201d Certainly if his master dies he goes free, for the text says that he remains his slave for life. When Hannah says Samuel must remain before the Lord \u201cfor life\u201d (1 Sam. 1:22), that is certainly not \u201cfor life\u201d\u2014Samuel did not spend his life in Shiloh\u2014but a defined period. Since there was no calendrical period in ancient Israel longer than the jubilee, l\u2019olam must refer to that. Olam literally means \u201cworld,\u201d and freedom means a new world to the slave. Or perhaps it means he returns to his original world, of freedom.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nHis master shall take him before God. Rather, \u201cbefore the judges.\u201d The master must take counsel with those who sold him the slave. Ibn Ezra explains that the judges are called elohim, which ordinarily means \u201cGod,\u201d because they uphold God\u2019s law on earth. In my opinion they are called so, here and in 22:8, to hint that God should be with them when they decide a case. As Moses said, \u201cjudgment is God\u2019s\u201d (Deut. 1:17). King Jehoshaphat told his judges, \u201cConsider what you are doing, for you judge not on behalf of man, but on behalf of the Lord, and He is with you when you pass judgment\u201d (2 Chron. 19:6). Ps. 82:1, which NJPS translates as \u201cGod stands in the divine assembly; among the divine beings [elohim] He pronounces judgment,\u201d really means that He pronounces judgment \u201camong the judges,\u201d for He is the Judge. Exodus Rabbah says, \u201cWhen a judge sits in judgment and judges truthfully, it is as if (so to speak) the Holy One leaves the highest heaven and rests His Shekhinah at the judge\u2019s side: \u2018When the Lord raised up judges for them, the Lord would be with the judge\u2019 (Judg. 2:18).\u201d He shall then remain his slave for life. Our Sages interpret the phrase le-olam (translated in NJPS as \u201cfor life\u201d) to mean \u201cuntil the jubilee year.\u201d And see the comments of Ibn Ezra. One who is enlightened will understand that le-olam, which can also be translated as \u201cfor ever,\u201d means just what it says, for one who is a slave until the jubilee has been a slave \u201call the days of old\u201d (Isa. 63:9). R. Judah the Prince says in the Mekilta that \u201cever\u201d means 50 years, based on just this verse. Ibn Ezra has forgotten the comment he was intelligent enough to make on a different verse.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nBefore God. The commentators take this to mean \u201cbefore the judges,\u201d but (as I have explained in my comments to Genesis) the word elohim in this kind of context does not mean \u201cjudges\u201d but the place where God\u2019s rules are enforced (Abarbanel). With an awl. The Hebrew word has a numerical value of 400, matching the 400 years of slavery decreed by God in Gen. 15:13 (Hizkuni). He shall then remain his slave. But not his son\u2019s or daughter\u2019s slave (Hizkuni). For life. For the master\u2019s life\u2014unless the jubilee year intervenes (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 21:7
\nExodus 21:7
\nRASHI
\nWhen a man sells his daughter as a slave. The text refers to a girl who is still a minor. Could it refer to a girl who has already reached puberty? You can reason from minor to major: If a girl who has already been sold \u201cshall go free, without payment\u201d when she reaches puberty (v. 11; see my comment to that verse), is it not obvious that if the same girl had not yet been sold, she could not be sold at that time? She shall not be freed as male slaves are. That is, Canaanite slaves, who are freed if their master destroys their eye or knocks out a tooth (vv.26\u201327). She is not freed for this reason, but must nonetheless work either for six years, or until the jubilee, or until she reaches puberty (whichever comes first). But her owner must reimburse her for the loss of her eye or tooth. Or perhaps our verse means that \u201cshe shall not be freed\u201d at the end of six years, or at the jubilee? No, for Deut. 15:12 says, \u201cIf a fellow Hebrew, man or woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall set him free.\u201d Thus the only way to interpret our verse is with regard to the loss of an eye or tooth. In fact, since Deut. 15:12 equates the male and female Hebrew slaves, the male Hebrew slave too is not freed for the loss of an eye or a tooth.
\nRASHBAM
\nShe shall not be freed as male slaves are. At the end of six years. Rather, as the text goes on to explain, her master takes her as his wife.
\nIBN EZRA
\nA man. An Israelite man. His daughter. Who is a minor and still under his control, just as she is with regard to taking an oath (Num. 30:4\u20136). She shall not be freed as male slaves are. Not only as they are freed, but also when she reaches the age of maturity and comes under her own authority
\nNAHMANIDES
\nShe shall not be freed as male slaves are. Rashi\u2019s comment follows the rabbinic interpretation. It is true that the word \u201cslave\u201d by itself (as it is here) refers to a non-Israelite slave. But I am surprised the text thought it necessary to say this at all. Perhaps it was so that we would not mistakenly think, \u201cIf a Canaanite woman is freed in compensation for the loss of an eye or a tooth, how much more so should an Israelite woman be freed!\u201d In fact, her master must pay her the value of her eye or her tooth and keep her until it is time for him to fulfill his promise of marriage. It would be a great evil if her master could angrily knock out her tooth and then just get rid of her\u2014once he had disfigured her\u2014without marrying her as she had hoped. Often, the compensation payments for her eye or tooth are more than the value of the time remaining for her to serve, when it is short. So the text is strict with the master to make sure he does not cheat her out of her compensation payment, even if he wants to get rid of her. It may be that the text is forbidding him to free her under any circumstances before she is of age, requiring him to house and feed her\u2014perhaps she may end up striking his fancy and becoming his wife. That is why this prohibition is included among the 365 negative commandments.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nShe shall not be freed as male slaves are. That is, without her children. If you want children out of her, you must marry her (Bekhor Shor). Literally, \u201cshe shall not go out as the men-servants do\u201d (OJPS)\u2014she shall not be sent on errands at all hours of the day and night, in town and outside of town, but shall work only in the home (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 21:8
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why isn\u2019t the female slave (v. 7) \u201cacquired\u201d just as the male slave in v. 2 is? What does it have to do with her father?
\n\u2666 How can the text say \u201cshe shall not be freed as male slaves are\u201d when Deut. 15:12 explicitly says, \u201cIf a fellow Hebrew, man or woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years\u201d?
\nExodus 21:8
\nRASHI
\nIf she proves to be displeasing to her master. So that he does not wish to marry her. Who designated her for himself. The written text reads, \u201cwho did not designate her.\u201d For he ought to have designated her and brought her into his household as his wife. The money he paid for her is the equivalent of the money by which a groom acquires his bride. Our verse implies that such designation is a commandment, and that no additional marriage ritual is required. He must let her be redeemed. He must give her the opportunity to be redeemed and go free, to the extent that he himself must assist in her redemption. What is the \u201copportunity\u201d that he gives her? That he reduces her redemption price by the number of years that she has worked for him, just as if he had hired her. How would this work? Suppose he bought her for one mina and she worked two years for him. He is told, \u201cSince you knew she would go free at the end of six years, you valued her work at one-sixth of a mina per year. Since she worked two years for you, you have gotten one-third of a mina\u2019s worth of work out of her. So take two-thirds of a mina and let her go free.\u201d He shall not have the right to sell her to outsiders. Neither her master nor her father is authorized to sell her to another. Since he broke faith with her. That is, if he tries to break faith with her by not fulfilling the commandment of designating her as his wife. It applies to her father as well, who broke faith with her by selling her to this guy.
\nRASHBAM
\nIf she proves to be displeasing to her master. And he does not want to fulfill the commandment of v. 7 that he is supposed to marry her. \u201cDispleasing\u201d means that he finds her so unattractive that he does not want to designate her for himself. He must let her be redeemed. He must discount her redemption price, so that she goes free at a price based on the number of years remaining for her to serve. Since he broke faith with her. By not designating her to be his wife. As Mal. 2:14 puts it, \u201cthe wife of your youth with whom you have broken faith, though she is your partner and covenanted spouse.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nDesignated her. According to our Sages, this rule assumes that the master acquired her in order to have sex with her when she comes of age. (For if she was already of age, she would no longer be under her father\u2019s authority and he could not sell her.) Literally, he \u201cappointed\u201d her or \u201cpromised\u201d her, in the sense that she is \u201cpromised\u201d to himself or to his son, or promised that her father or another member of her family can redeem her. For himself. Ibn Hayyuj points out that lo with a vav (meaning \u201cfor himself\u201d) and lo with an aleph (meaning \u201cnot\u201d) are indistinguishable in pronunciation. But whenever we are instructed to read it as \u201cfor himself\u201d (as here and in Ps. 100:3), that meaning, and not the other, is to be considered correct. He must let her be redeemed. This is framed in the passive since it is not known which family member will be able to redeem her; but it is \u201che,\u201d her master, who must \u201clet her be redeemed,\u201d in the sense that he must be willing to accept a redemption price based on the number of years remaining until she comes of age. Outsiders. Literally, \u201ca foreign people\u201d (OJPS). According to Onkelos it means \u201ca foreign person,\u201d that is, \u201canother man,\u201d and Saadia points out that Abimelech in Gen. 20:4 also mentions \u201ca people\u201d where he means \u201ca person.\u201d But let me give you a general principle. We have well-known places in the Torah that the Sages used to help us remember the laws, which they did not derive from those places but knew via tradition; e.g., \u201cIf his father had no brothers, you shall assign his property to his nearest relative in his own clan, and he shall inherit it\u201d (Num. 27:11), where the Sages translate ultraliterally, \u201che shall inherit her,\u201d as a reminder of the law that a man inherits from his wife\u2014when every Jew understands that \u201cit\u201d in this verse refers to the property. The Sages added the other meaning to the verse as a matter of tradition. They do the same sort of thing with Deut. 25:6. In our verse, too, they attach to the phrase \u201ca foreign people\u201d the rule that she cannot be sold twice. But it means what OJPS says. An Israelite may sell himself as a slave either to an Israelite or to a stranger, but he may sell his daughter only to another Israelite, and not to \u201ca foreign people.\u201d The phrase \u201che shall not have the right to sell her\u201d really refers to the \u201cman\u201d of v. 7, her father. There are many such \u201cdelayed\u201d phrases, such as the one in v. 11, where \u201cif he fails her in these three ways\u201d refers to designating her for himself or his son, or letting her be redeemed. I have gone on at such length because there are three kinds of nouns: proper nouns, common nouns, and collective nouns. \u201cA foreign people\u201d is a collective noun, which cannot possibly refer to any individual member of the group. Let the one full of hot air, who says that Moses meant to write \u201cperson\u201d but wrote \u201cpeople\u201d instead, be hanged from those pillars of the Torah who contradict him! He says the same about 19:12, the \u201cseventh\u201d day of Judg. 14:14\u201315, \u201cDavid the seventh\u201d son in 1 Chron. 2:15 when 1 Sam. 16:10 makes it look as though he is the eighth, and many others. I have already explained all of them without resorting to \u201clexical substitution.\u201d His book ought to be burnt! Since he broke faith with her. Since her father \u201cbroke faith\u201d with her by selling her to outsiders, we do not abandon her to her fate, but remove her from her father\u2019s authority.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nHe shall not have the right to sell her to outsiders. If Rashi is correct, then \u201ca foreign people\u201d (OJPS) would have to mean \u201ca foreign person\u201d\u2014a usage we have not found anywhere else in the Bible, though grammatically it is not impossible. But it may well mean \u201coutsiders,\u201d for in Prov. 5:10 the same word simply means \u201canother.\u201d My point is that this supports the rabbinic statement that a man cannot sell his daughter into slavery twice, which is based on interpreting since he broke faith with her as referring to her father. The language of the Mekilta suggests that the father may not sell her to a foreigner\u2014that is, an idolater\u2014even the first time. Since according to Lev. 25:47, a male can be sold to a non-Jew, it was necessary to make clear that a female could not be (for obvious reasons). And this is certainly the straightforward sense of the text, as it is that she is not freed in the seventh year or the jubilee year, but remains with her master (if he has married her). But the fact that she is \u201cnot freed as male slaves are\u201d also means that her father must redeem her from her master if the master decides he does not want to marry her. For the automatic assumption is that a Jew who buys a Jewish woman is doing so in order to marry her. The father cannot leave her in his hands once he has announced that he will not marry her\u2014but he may also not sell her to a non-Jew for a year or two in order to get the money to redeem her. It is \u201cbreaking faith\u201d for a man to sell his daughter to anyone except a man who is going to marry her. Or perhaps it means that anyone who sells his daughter is breaking faith with her.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nDispleasing. Ugly (Hizkuni). Who designated her for himself. The text is to be read this way, rather than \u201cwho designated her not\u201d as written (Masorah). To sell her to outsiders. That is, to give her to a non-Jewish slave to breed more slaves for him. \u201cSell\u201d is metaphoric for handing someone over: \u201cfor then the Lord will sell Sisera into the hands of a woman\u201d (Judg. 4:9) (Bekhor Shor). Literally, \u201ca foreign people.\u201d \u201cPeople\u201d is a collective noun; so the sense here is that he must not sell her to another household (Gersonides). Since he broke faith with her. By refusing to marry her. We know from Mal. 2:14 that \u201cbreaking faith\u201d applies to a man leaving a woman: \u201cthe wife of your youth with whom you have broken faith, though she is your partner and covenanted spouse\u201d (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 21:9\u201310
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why does v. 9 say \u201coutsiders\u201d (OJPS, \u201ca foreign people\u201d) rather than \u201ca foreigner\u201d?
\nExodus 21:9
\nRASHI
\nIf he designated her for his son. This teaches that the son can designate her instead of the father, if his father so wishes, and he too requires no other ritual in order to acquire her as his wife. All he has to do is say to her, \u201cBehold, you are designated to me by the money that your father received as your price.\u201d As is the practice with free maidens. Being responsible for her food, her clothing, and her conjugal rights.
\nIBN EZRA
\nHe shall deal with her. He or his son. As is the practice with free maidens. Literally, \u201cafter the manner of daughters\u201d (OJPS)\u2014after the manner of daughters of Israel, virgin daughters who have not been sold.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nAs is the practice with free maidens. According to the straightforward sense, this could mean that a man who designates a slave girl for his son should give her a dowry as he would for his own daughter, just as the freed slave must be furnished \u201cout of the flock, threshing floor, and vat\u201d (Deut. 15:14)\u2014all out of the kindness of God, may He be exalted. But according to the interpretation of our Sages\u2014and it is the truth\u2014\u201che shall deal with her\u201d refers to the son, and \u201cthe practice with free maidens\u201d is what is described in v. 10.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nHe shall deal with her. The son (Sforno). As is the practice with free maidens. A nice wedding in a nice hall\u2014not a slave-woman\u2019s wedding (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 21:10
\nRASHI
\nIf he marries another. Along with her. This one. The slave-woman whom he had already designated for himself. Her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. The JPS translations of these unusual Hebrew words are all correct.
\nRASHBAM
\nHer food. The same somewhat rare Hebrew word is used in Mic. 3:3, \u201cYou have devoured my people\u2019s flesh.\u201d Her conjugal rights. Rather, \u201cher housing.\u201d This word onah is related to the noun ma\u2019on, \u201chabitation,\u201d where the m is a prefix, not part of the root.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIf he or his son marries another. Whether or not the new one was also purchased for money. Her food. Literally, \u201cher flesh,\u201d but the phrase \u201ckneading bowls\u201d of 7:28, which comes from the same root, shows that it may refer to bread as well as meat. Or it may refer to her flesh, that is, the food that will become her flesh. Her clothing. This is straightforward. The quantities that he is required to provide are known from tradition. Her conjugal rights. Some interpret this word onatah as \u201cher housing,\u201d on the basis of the word m\u2019onah (Deut. 33:27, \u201cthe ancient God is a refuge\u201d) and anah (Isa. 13:22, \u201cjackals shall abide in its castles\u201d). But our predecessors understood it as an allusion to conjugal rights. For onah is etymologically related to \u201ctime,\u201d implying her \u201ctime for love\u201d (as Ezek. 16:8 puts it)
\nNAHMANIDES
\nIf he marries another. It is not necessary to add that he must not withhold them if he does not marry another. The text speaks of common behavior. Food. It is hard to believe they would not have said lehem, \u201cbread,\u201d if what they meant was food. Ibn Ezra\u2019s explanation that it literally means withholding the flesh of her body by cutting down on her food makes no sense. What I think it means is \u201cher flesh\u201d as the word is used in the expression \u201cone\u2019s flesh and blood\u201d\u2014her husband and his flesh, to which she is entitled in the sense that husband and wife \u201cbecome one flesh\u201d (Gen. 2:24). Clothing. The same word is used in 22:26, \u201cIt is his only clothing, the sole covering for his skin. In what else shall he sleep?\u201d It means her bed covering. Conjugal rights. Literally, \u201cher time\u201d\u2014the time he comes to her for love. The point of the verse is that \u201cif he marries another,\u201d the other one should not \u201cbecome one flesh\u201d with him \u201con a grand couch\u201d (Ezek. 23:41), while he has sex with the original one casually, on the ground, as if she were a concubine or a prostitute. Our Sages understand \u201cher flesh\u201d to mean the nearness of flesh to flesh\u2014that he should not treat her after the fashion of the Persians, who have sex while fully dressed. And this is a correct interpretation, for it is the way of the text to always mention sex euphemistically and tersely. So all three of the things mentioned here involve copulation, an understanding that fits nicely with the ruling that the husband\u2019s responsibility to feed and clothe his wife was established rabbinically.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nHe must not withhold from this one. Rather, \u201cfrom her\u201d\u2014the \u201cother\u201d woman that he marries (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 21:11\u201313
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why does v. 12 specify a fatal \u201cstrike\u201d rather than \u201cspilling blood\u201d or killing in general?
\n\u2666 What is to be done if the murder was not premeditated\u2014\u201che did not do it by design\u201d\u2014but also not \u201can act of God\u201d (v. 13)\u2014what if he struck him deliberately but did not mean to kill him?
\nExodus 21:11
\nRASHI
\nIf he fails her in these three ways. Literally, \u201cif he does not do for her these three things\u201d\u2014if he does not do any of the three. And what are the three? (1) designating her for himself, (2) designating her for his son, (3) reducing her redemption price and letting her go free. If he did not designate her either for himself or his son, and she did not have the wherewithal to redeem herself, then she shall go free, without payment. Here she is given one extra way of obtaining freedom than are male slaves. And what is it that sets her free? Reaching puberty. She stays with him until she reaches puberty. Deut. 15:12 has already taught us that she is to be set free after six years. So what is taught in our verse? That if she reaches puberty before the end of the six years, she goes free then.\u2014Or perhaps it refers not to puberty but to adulthood? \u2014No, it explains \u201cfree\u201d by adding \u201cwithout payment.\u201d If only one of these terms was included, the verse might be interpreted to say that she is freed only at adulthood. But since both are included, one of them must refer to the early stage of maturation, teaching us that she must be freed then, at puberty. Both possibilities are stated explicitly to make sure not to give her master any legal argument against her.
\nRASHBAM
\nIf he fails her in these three ways. Not marrying her, not designating her for his son, and not letting her be redeemed. She shall go free. By court order. Our Sages interpret it to mean that she goes free when she reaches puberty, even if neither the six-year period nor the jubilee has been completed.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThese three ways. This cannot refer to food, clothing, and conjugal rights, since it is not \u201cthe practice with free maidens\u201d (v. 9) to \u201cgo free without payment\u201d on this basis. The fact that the reference is not to the immediately preceding verse is not a problem; \u201cdo the same with your female slave\u201d of Deut. 15:17 refers back to Deut. 15:14. She shall go free. Once she is of age. Without payment. Suppose her father sold her five years before she came of age, but she matured some months early. The one who bought her cannot request payment from her father for the remaining months.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThese three ways. Designating her for himself, or for his son, or letting her be redeemed. Free, without payment. Like the male slave of v. 2.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThese three ways. Her food, her clothing, and her housing (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 21:12
\nRASHI
\nThe following passage says a number of things about putting murderers to death; I will explain as best I can why each of them is included in the text. He who fatally strikes a man. Since Lev. 24:17 says, \u201cIf anyone kills any human being, he shall be put to death,\u201d why is our verse necessary? Because the Leviticus verse literally says \u201csmites\u201d a human being, which might be understood as merely striking him. Our verse makes clear that the smiter is put to death only if the blow is fatal. But if only our verse was included, one might think it applied only to the killer of a man, not a woman or child; hence the Leviticus verse says \u201cany human being.\u201d One might think from our verse that even a child \u201cwho fatally strikes a man\u201d earns death; but the Leviticus verse literally says, \u201cA man who kills any human being\u201d\u2014an adult who kills, not a minor. Finally, \u201cany human being\u201d might be taken to include one born prematurely; our verse says \u201ca man\u201d to make clear that it only applies to a viable human being, who can live and grow into a person.
\nRASHBAM
\nHe who fatally strikes a man shall be put to death. Having already issued the commandment, \u201cYou shall not murder\u201d (20:13), the text specifies the punishment for violating it. The same is true with the commandments to honor one\u2019s parents (20:12; see vv. 15 and 17) and not to steal (20:13; see v. 16). For our Sages interpret that commandment to refer to stealing a person (which is indeed the phrase that NJPS translates as \u201ckidnaps\u201d in v. 16, where OJPS has \u201cstealeth a man\u201d). This interpretation is based on context. Kidnapping, like murder and adultery, is a capital crime; but stealing is not.
\nIBN EZRA
\nHe who fatally strikes a man. This is mentioned in the midst of the slave laws to provide a context for vv. 20\u201321. Shall be put to death. At the discretion of the court. Every time this expression is used, death is at the discretion of the court, with one exception, which you will see shortly.
\nExodus 21:13
\nRASHI
\nIf he did not do it by design. Literally, if he did not \u201clie in wait\u201d for him (OJPS), and thus \u201cdid not do it by design.\u201d The same verb is used in 1 Sam. 24:12, when David tells Saul, \u201cyou are bent on taking my life.\u201d The grammatical form of the verb shows that it is from tsadah, \u201clie in wait,\u201d and not from tsad, \u201chunt.\u201d I say that the correct solution is as Onkelos translates it, \u201che did not hide,\u201d that is, lie in wait for him. Menahem ibn Saruq classifies the word as if it were tsad, but I disagree with him. If one must classify it as does Menahem, it could fit with the noun tsad, \u201cside,\u201d as in Isa. 66:12, 1 Sam. 20:20, and Dan. 7:25. In this case it would mean, \u201cHe did not turn aside to find some side from which he could kill him.\u201d But even this explanation is suspect. The sum of the matter: it means \u201cto lie in wait.\u201d It came about by an act of God. Literally, \u201cGod cause it to come to hand\u201d (OJPS). The passive form of this verb, meaning \u201cto befall,\u201d is found in Ps. 91:10 and Prov. 12:21. And why would such a death as this befall him? David explains, \u201cAs the ancients\u2019 saying has it: \u2018Wicked deeds come from wicked men!\u2019 \u201d (1 Sam. 24:14). The \u201cancients\u2019 saying\u201d referred to by David is the Torah, that is, \u201cthe saying of the Ancient One,\u201d the Holy One, who is more ancient than the world itself. And where does the Torah say \u201cWicked deeds come from wicked men\u201d? Here in our verse. What situation is being referred to? It is the case of two men, one a deliberate killer and one an accidental killer. Because of a lack of witnesses, the first has not been executed and the second has not been exiled to a \u201ccity of refuge.\u201d The Holy One arranges that they both come to the same inn. He has the murderer sit at the bottom of a ladder, where the accidental killer, climbing it, falls and kills him. Thus both get what they deserve: The murderer is dead, and there are plenty of witnesses to send the accidental killer to a city of refuge. I will assign you a place. Even now, while you are in the wilderness, I will assign you a place to which he can flee. And what is that place? The camp of the Levites.
\nRASHBAM
\nIf he did not do it by design. As the verb tzadah is used in 1 Sam. 24:12\u2014if he did not hide in order to kill him. It came about by an act of God. For the victim was someone who deserved \u201cdeath at the hands of heaven.\u201d I will assign you a place. Once you have cities to settle in.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIf he did not do it by design. The verb means \u201cto do something on purpose\u201d; contrast Num. 35:20. It came about by an act of God. OJPS \u201cGod cause it to come to hand\u201d; that is, God arranged things so that he killed him even though it was not his purpose, in order to have him exiled for some other transgression he had committed deliberately\u2014for \u201cno harm befalls the righteous\u201d (Prov. 12:21). I will assign you a place. The cities of refuge.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nIt came about by an act of God. Since the deliberate murderer\u2019s head is to be cut off, the man who falls from a ladder and kills him (in Rashi\u2019s example) must be carrying a knife, which cuts off his head (Hizkuni). As the Sages say on B. Hul. 7b, no one so much as hurts his finger here below unless it has been decreed against him on high (Abarbanel). The killer was not someone who had committed a sin so bad that he was deserving of death, but (as they say on B. Sanh. 8a) \u201cit is arranged to have the penalty executed by one who himself deserved to be penalized\u201d\u2014that is, as Prov. 16:4 has it, \u201cThe Lord made everything for a purpose, even the wicked for an evil day\u201d (Sforno). I will assign you a place to which he can flee. To atone for his sin by exile (Sforno).
\nExodus 21:14\u201315
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Is a man who \u201cschemes against another\u201d (v. 14) one who premeditates murder, or does it refer specifically to someone who betrays his fellow\u2019s trust in him?
\n\u2666 Why is striking one\u2019s father or mother (v. 15) put with the laws against killing?
\nExodus 21:14
\nRASHI
\nWhen a man schemes. Why is this necessary, once v. 12 has already been written? I might think it includes one who kills a gentile, a doctor whose patient dies, a court official who kills a criminal while giving him 40 lashes, a father disciplining his son, or a teacher disciplining his student, as well as one who kills completely by accident. Hence our verse says, \u201cWhen a man schemes\u201d\u2014not \u201cWhen he kills by accident.\u201d Against another. OJPS \u201cupon his neighbor\u201d\u2014not upon a gentile. Kills him treacherously. Thus it does not apply to a court official, or one who disciplines a son or a student. For even though they performed their actions deliberately, there was no treachery involved. From My very altar. Even if he was a priest who wanted to perform the Temple service, you shall take him to die.
\nIBN EZRA
\nAnd kills him. Literally, \u201cto kill him\u201d (see OJPS); \u201cand kills him\u201d follows Saadia\u2019s suggestion. Treacherously. On purpose, by design. Whether it was he or another who performed the actual killing, if he flees to Me to escape, you shall take him from My very altar to be put to death. This is the opposite of v. 13, where God, since it was He who \u201ccaused it to come to his hand,\u201d provided the killer with a place to flee. But the deliberate killer has no such place, for he may be taken even from a holy place to die. \u201cMy very altar\u201d is an example of such a holy place. There was no need to mention the Holy of Holies, for even the priests do not go in there, let alone someone who is not a descendant of Aaron. It has another sense as well: Even if the killer was a priest, he should not be let alone while he is serving Me and taken only afterward. At least, this is what it would mean if we had no contradictory tradition.
\nIBN EZRA
\nTreacherously. OJPS \u201cwith guile.\u201d The killer must have sufficient mental capacity to kill someone \u201cwith guile\u201d\u2014so he cannot be a deaf-mute, a madman, or a minor; nor can he be someone who did not kill treacherously, like a physician or someone administering discipline (Gersonides). From My very altar. This obviously applies all the more so to the cities of refuge (Abarbanel). \u201cDo you consider this House, which bears My name, to be a den of thieves?\u201d (Jer. 7:11) (Sforno). To be put to death. But not to be lashed or exiled (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 21:15
\nRASHI
\nHe who strikes his father or his mother. Since we learn from v. 25 that one who injures another is punished by a fine and not by death, it is necessary to specify that one who injures his father is put to death. He is not liable except for a blow that causes a wound. Shall be put to death. By strangulation.
\nRASHBAM
\nHe who strikes his father or his mother. Our Sages interpret this to refer to one who causes a wound.
\nIBN EZRA
\nHe who strikes his father. The general principle given in v. 12 is followed by qualifying details; e.g., v. 13 discusses the inadvertent killing. Here, unlike in v. 12, the \u201cstriking\u201d is not said to be fatal. Our Sages say that, in this case, he is not to be put to death unless the blow creates a visible wound by drawing blood.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nHe who strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death. The Sages deduced that he is to be strangled. V. 16 immediately follows because that is the punishment for kidnapping as well, while v. 17 is separated from v. 15 because insulting one\u2019s father or mother is punished by stoning. (Lev. 20:9 says of one who has insulted his father and his mother that \u201chis bloodguilt is upon him,\u201d and Lev. 20:27 associates that phrase with death by stoning.)
\nExodus 21:16\u201318
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why is the law against kidnapping (v. 16) put in between two laws about parents?
\nExodus 21:16
\nRASHI
\nHe who kidnaps a man. Why is this included? Deut. 24:7, \u201cIf a man is found to have kidnapped a fellow Israelite, enslaving him or selling him,\u201d might be thought to apply only to a man who kidnaps. How do we know the same applies to a woman, a hermaphrodite, or one of doubtful sex? From our verse. Similarly, our verse refers to kidnapping a man; how do we know the same applies to one who kidnaps a woman? From the Deuteronomy verse, which literally says, \u201cIf a man is found to have kidnapped anyone from among his Israelite brothers.\u201d Hence both verses were necessary. What the one lacks, the other reveals. Whether he has sold him or is still holding him. Literally, \u201cand he has sold him, and he was found in his hand.\u201d The correct interpretation of the law is that witnesses saw him kidnap the man and sell him, and they saw that, before the sale, he was holding him. Shall be put to death. By strangulation. Whenever the Torah indicates that someone is to be put to death, strangulation is assumed unless there is some other specification.
\nIBN EZRA
\nHe who kidnaps a man. An Israelite, whether adult or child. If a child, literal kidnapping is meant; if an adult, then it refers to a case of \u201cstealing\u201d (see OJPS) his \u201cheart\u201d\u2014the Hebrew idiom for deception. Saadia says that this verse comes between the two verses about striking and insulting one\u2019s parents because ordinarily it is little children who are kidnapped. A kidnapped child who is subsequently sold might not recognize his parents if he encountered them, and might strike or insult them unwittingly. In such a case, the sin is on the head of the kidnapper.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nStill holding him. \u201cBefore the sale,\u201d according to Rashi. (The Hebrew literally says not \u201cwhether \u2026 or\u201d but \u201cand \u2026 and.\u201d) But I do not understand this. The fact that witnesses saw him holding the man is no proof that he was going to sell him. The point of this expression is to teach us what we learn in M. Sanh. 11:1, that the kidnapper is not liable until he actually takes possession of the victim. The Gemara there, B. Sanh. 85b, adds that the kidnapper is not subject to the death penalty if he does not sell the victim or if he has sold him but the victim is still under his control. (The same rule applies to a regular thief.) But once the kidnapper picks the child up off the ground and puts him on his shoulder, technically he is \u201cin his hand\u201d (as OJPS translates our phrase), and he is subject to the death penalty. It is not clear to me whether the text is saying that the standard rules for acquisition of an object apply even when the \u201cobject\u201d is a person\u2019s body, or not. It would appear to be a special decree that, even if the purchase is complete, the kidnapper is not liable to the death penalty until the one to whom he sells the victim physically removes him. But if Rashi\u2019s commentary on this subject in the Talmud is correct, then the rules would be no different than for one who takes possession of an object, which would leave us without an explanation for the addition of the words \u201cstill holding him.\u201d In any case, what the verse really means is, \u201cHe who kidnaps a man, and has him in his possession, and sells him, shall be put to death.\u201d But it may be that the verse can be explained in the order in which it is written, with the meaning that it is the purchaser of the victim who \u201chas him in his possession,\u201d meaning that the thief is not liable until the deal is completed, or even afterward (as I said) until the victim is physically removed.
\nExodus 21:17
\nRASHI
\nHe who insults his father or mother. Since Lev. 20:9 says, \u201cIf anyone insults his father or his mother, he shall be put to death; he has insulted his father and his mother\u2014his bloodguilt is upon him,\u201d why is this verse necessary? The Leviticus verse literally says, \u201cAny man who insults,\u201d excluding a woman who does so; our verse says literally, \u201cone who insults,\u201d man or woman. (Why then is the Leviticus verse necessary at all? To exclude minors from the rule.) Shall be put to death. By stoning. Any crime for which the expression \u201chis bloodguilt is upon him\u201d is used implies death by stoning. The case from which this principle is derived is Lev. 20:27, \u201cA man or a woman who has a ghost or a familiar spirit shall be put to death; they shall be pelted with stones\u2014their bloodguilt shall be upon them.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nHe who insults his father. Literally \u201ccurses\u201d (see OJPS); here, too, our Sages say that the curse must go so far as to invoke God\u2019s name, as when Elisha cursed the children \u201cin the name of the Lord\u201d (2 Kings 2:24). The verse applies whether or not the parent who is insulted is still alive.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nHe who insults his father or his mother shall be put to death. Insulting one\u2019s parents is punished more severely than striking them, by stoning rather than strangulation, because insulting them is a much more widespread sin. For the fool \u201cshall rage and revolt against his king\u201d (Isa. 8:21) and against his father and his mother all day long. Being more frequent, this transgression requires a more severe punishment. Or it may be that insulting (literally \u201ccursing\u201d; see OJPS) is a greater sin because it invokes the name of God. He is punished simultaneously for insulting his parents and for taking God\u2019s name in a sinful way.
\nExodus 21:18
\nRASHI
\nWhen men quarrel. Why is this verse necessary? V. 24 would seem to cover the case. But that verse teaches only that one is recompensed for one\u2019s bodily loss. This passage is necessary for the information that \u201cthe assailant \u2026 must pay for his idleness and his cure\u201d (v. 19). Has to take to his bed. As Onkelos puts it, \u201cfalls into idleness,\u201d into a sickness that keeps him from his work.
\nRASHBAM
\nFist. Onkelos understands this word to mean some kind of rock or brick, based on the context, for the other item is clearly a stone. I have found the same Aramaic word used here by Onkelos in the Sifra\u2019s discussion of Lev. 14:40, \u201cthe priest shall order the stones with the plague in them to be pulled out.\u201d The word in Isa. 58:4, \u201cstrike with a wicked fist\u201d (NJPS), really means the same thing\u2014a large rock, with which one could or would kill.
\nIBN EZRA
\nFist. The word egrof refers to something strong and hard; it occurs in rabbinic literature in the phrase \u201cmen of power.\u201d If (as Ibn Janah thinks) the aleph at the beginning of the word is not part of the root, it may be connected with the \u201cclods\u201d (megrofoteihem) of Joel 1:17 and mean \u201ca clump of dirt.\u201d Take to his bed. Ill, as in Ps. 41:4, where the same word is translated \u201csickbed.\u201d
\nNAHMANIDES
\nWith stone or fist. \u201cFist\u201d is what the word means in rabbinic Hebrew. The text mentions two types of blows, a hard blow with a stone, and a softer blow, with a fist, which ordinarily is not fatal, to say that both cases must be evaluated to see whether the blow is likely to prove fatal; so the assailant is taken into custody. If the victim dies, then the other, having struck him a fatal blow, is a murderer and must be put to death; if he does not die, then the one who struck the blow must pay for his idleness and his cure. Others think the word means not \u201cfist\u201d but \u201ca clump of dirt\u201d (see Joel 1:17), in which case the aleph of egrof would not be part of the root, as with the word z\u2019roa, \u201carm,\u201d which appears twice as ezroa. This is the opinion of Onkelos. In this case the meaning is that even if he hit someone with a mere clump of dirt, if he hit him in a place that was likely to cause fatal injury, he must be put to death. But this sort of blow is differentiated from a blow with a sword, which is always assumed to be potentially fatal no matter which part of the body it strikes, and therefore does not require evaluation.
\nExodus 21:19
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why must we be told that an assailant is not punished (v. 19) if the blow does not kill?
\n\u2666 How can an assailant be called \u201cunpunished\u201d if in fact \u201che must pay for his idleness and his cure\u201d?
\nExodus 21:19
\nRASHI
\nUpon his staff. With his normal strength. The assailant shall go unpunished. Would it occur to you that someone who did not kill should be put to death? The verse teaches you that the assailant is kept under arrest until it is clear whether or not the victim is going to recover. What it literally means is: When the victim gets up and walks about as he used to do, the assailant is cleared; until he does so, the assailant is not cleared. His idleness. From work, because of his illness. If his hand or foot was mutilated, his idleness is valued as if his profession were that of a watchman in a cucumber bed. For even after he recovers, he is not fit for any work requiring the use of his hand or foot, and the assailant has already compensated him for his hand or foot, based on the rule given in v. 24. His cure. As Onkelos puts it, \u201che shall pay the doctor\u2019s fee.\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nIf he then gets up and walks outdoors \u2026 the assailant shall go unpunished. But if he does die, no matter how long afterward, the assailant is put to death, except that if the victim is the assailant\u2019s slave, he is not liable unless he dies \u201cthere and then\u201d (v. 20).
\nIBN EZRA
\nUpon his staff. The translations are correct; the word is used the same way in Zech. 8:4, \u201cThere shall yet be old men and women in the squares of Jerusalem, each with staff in hand because of their great age.\u201d But the Sages understand the expression to mean that he is walking \u201con his own leaning,\u201d and not on that of another. So we shall abandon the former explanation, because the latter explanation has reliable witnesses. The assailant shall go unpunished. They shall release him from prison. His idleness. Literally, shivto, \u201chis sitting\u201d\u2014the time when he must sit at home and not work at his occupation. Saadia takes it to mean his \u201cresting,\u201d shvitato, from his trade; but grammatically the first explanation is the correct one. The assailant must compensate the victim for the money he loses by being unable to work. His cure. The fees he must pay for medicines and for a doctor. To these two categories for which the assailant must pay, the tradition passed down by our ancestors has added three more: embarrassment, pain, and damage. The rabbinic saying that the Hebrew phrase rapo y\u2019rapei, \u201che shall cause him to be thoroughly healed\u201d (OJPS), is authorization for physicians to practice medicine is to be ignored as the opinion of a single individual. In my opinion, the truth is that he should \u201clean\u201d directly on his Creator, not on his own understanding, whether astrological or medical. \u201cI the Lord am your healer\u201d (15:26), and there is no need to make another healer His partner. \u201cI will remove sickness from your midst\u201d (23:25) and, by contrast, if He chooses, \u201cThe Lord will strike you with the Egyptian inflammation, with hemorrhoids, boil-scars, and itch, from which you shall never recover\u201d (Deut. 28:27). King Asa died because he \u201cdid not turn to the Lord but to physicians\u201d (2 Chron. 16:12). \u201cI wounded and I will heal\u201d (Deut. 32:39); \u201cHe injures, but He binds up; He wounds, but His hands heal\u201d (Job 5:18). Since the blow inflicted here was inflicted by a man, it can be cured by a man; who, though, can cure a blow inflicted by God? But \u201cHe wounded, and He can bind us up\u201d (Hosea 6:1). In fact, physicians are permitted to cure external injuries, but internal ones must be cured by God
\nNAHMANIDES
\nUpon his staff. Rashi understands the Hebrew word to mean that he can rely on \u201chis normal strength.\u201d Ibn Ezra takes it to mean that he walks not with the assistance of an aide, as sick people do, but on his own\u2014in which case the one who struck the blow is \u201cunpunished\u201d in the sense that he is released from prison. But in my opinion the word is used in the ordinary sense, as in Zech. 8:4, \u201cThere shall yet be old men and women in the squares of Jerusalem, each with staff in hand because of their great age.\u201d If the victim gets strong enough to walk around in the streets and the squares using a cane, as people do who have been weakened by illness, then the assailant shall go unpunished. Even if he eventually becomes careless of his health and dies of his weakened state, the assailant is not put to death. The text speaks of ordinary circumstances, in which victims who must take to their beds do not get up and walk around until they are out of danger. That is why he must walk \u201coutdoors\u201d\u2014if he gets up and walks around his house, this is not enough to leave the assailant unpunished. The Mekilta correctly points out that he must both \u201cget up\u201d and \u201cwalk outdoors,\u201d meaning that when he goes home he cannot go back to bed as those who are ailing do. All of this is to be taken as a general rule that, in order for the assailant to go unpunished, the injury must be evaluated as nonfatal. That is why Onkelos translated it as \u201con his normal strength.\u201d He must pay for his idleness and his cure. This is not what it says at all, but \u201che shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed\u201d (OJPS). The assailant must pay the doctors and let them cure him. The victim cannot sue the assailant for the money and then spend it on other things.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWalks outdoors. According to Ben Asher, hithalekh is accented on the last syllable, which has a long vowel; according to Ben Naphtali, it is accented on the second to last syllable and the last syllable has a short vowel (Masorah). His cure. He must pay someone else to cure him. If he claims that he will cure him himself, this is not permitted (Kimhi).
\nExodus 21:20\u201322
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 If a man kills his slave (v. 20), why must the slave be avenged, if \u201che is the other\u2019s property\u201d (v. 21)?
\n\u2666 If the slave must be avenged, why does survival for \u201ca day or two\u201d (v. 21) make a difference?
\nExodus 21:20
\nRASHI
\nWhen a man strikes his slave, male or female. The text speaks of a Canaanite slave. Or perhaps it refers to a Hebrew slave? No, v. 21 calls the slave his \u201cproperty,\u201d meaning a permanent possession. This case would have been included under v. 12, had not this verse specifically excluded it for the sake of the \u201cday or two\u201d (v. 21) rule, saying that one who kills a slave is not punished unless the slave dies under his hand. With a rod. The kind of rod that could be a deadly weapon. Or perhaps it applies even if the rod was not a deadly one? Num. 35:17 tells us, about the killing of a free Jew, \u201cIf he struck him with a stone tool that could cause death, and death resulted, he is a murderer.\u201d If one is not liable for killing a free Jew unless one wields a weapon \u201cthat could cause death,\u201d against a part of the body whose injury could cause death, then in the case of a slave, it certainly must be a rod \u201cthat could cause death.\u201d He must be avenged. \u201cAvenged\u201d indicates beheading by the sword, according to the expression used in Lev. 26:25, \u201ca sword against you to wreak vengeance.\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nHis slave. His Canaanite slave. A Hebrew slave is not his \u201cproperty\u201d: \u201che shall remain with you as a hired or bound laborer\u201d (Lev. 25:40). He is treated as an ordinary Jew in all respects except that his master may provide him with a Canaanite slave-woman as his wife. With a rod. With anything that a man ordinarily uses to discipline a slave. But if he strikes him with a sword, according to the straightforward sense of the verse, even \u201cif he survives a day or two\u201d the assailant is subject to the death penalty. For striking a slave with a sword is not discipline, but murder.
\nIBN EZRA
\nWhen a man strikes his slave. Those who deny rabbinic tradition say that this slave is a Hebrew slave, or a convert. But there is no doubt that Jewish law makes no distinction between a Jew who is a slave and one who is free. So this law must apply only to a slave acquired \u201cfrom the nations round about\u201d (Lev. 25:44), i.e., a non-Jew. According to Saadia, the verse discusses the case of a man who strikes his slave but not that of a man who strikes his son because a man has tender feelings for his son and could never be suspected of killing him deliberately. Must be avenged. By his master\u2019s being struck. But the tradition of our Sages is that the stricken slave\u2019s revenge is taken by having the master killed by the sword, and, having found Lev. 26:25, \u201cI will bring a sword against you to wreak vengeance,\u201d we have abandoned the previous interpretation. Note that even the Karaites must rely on tradition here whether they like it or not, for the text merely says that the slave must be avenged, but does not specify which of the many possible ways this should be done.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nWhen a man strikes his slave. Our Sages deduced from \u201che is the other\u2019s property\u201d (v. 21) that the slave must be a Canaanite, not an Israelite. And the plain sense of the text really is what they say. For \u201cslave\u201d without any other identification never means a Hebrew slave. With a rod. Literally, \u201cwith the rod.\u201d For slave owners carry such a rod with them. The text warns that, even though it is merely a disciplinary rod and not a heavy staff, the slave owner must be careful with it, and not hit even a Canaanite slave \u201cwith stroke unceasing\u201d (Isa. 14:6). There and then. Literally, \u201cunder his hand\u201d (OJPS). The implication is that he hit him excessively. He must be avenged. By being put to death, as with any killer. There would have been no need even to mention this if it were not for the fact that the slave was his property.
\nExodus 21:21
\nRASHI
\nBut if he survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged. If the killer is not put to death when the victim survives \u201ca day,\u201d he is certainly not going to be put to death if the victim survives two days. The expression indicates a \u201cday\u201d that is two daytimes long, that is, from the time he was struck until the same time on the next day. He is not to be avenged, since he is the other\u2019s property. But if it was someone other than his owner who struck him, even if he survives a day or two, the killer is liable.
\nRASHBAM
\nHe is the other\u2019s property. And he is subject to being disciplined by beating.
\nIBN EZRA
\nA day. A full day of 24 hours. I will have more to say about the word \u201cday\u201d in my comment to 35:3. Or two. The 24 hours can stretch over two calendar days. The Karaites think this implies that the longer the slave survives, the less vengeance is to be taken: but if we examine the way the word \u201cvengeance\u201d is used in Biblical Hebrew, we find that it always implies killing. He is the other\u2019s property. Literally, \u201chis money\u201d (OJPS); having spent good money on him, he must discipline him. But some say it means that the slave is not avenged because the master would certainly not have tried to destroy his own property. This is indeed the assumption, but the intent of the law is to prevent unusually cruel discipline. For the Lord has mercy upon all His creatures.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nIf he survives a day or two. Literally, \u201cif he stands\u201d\u2014if he gets up and stands on his feet. That is also the explanation for \u201ca day or two,\u201d which is the same as saying \u201cif he survives for a day or two\u201d or \u201cif he stands up in a day or two.\u201d If the slave stands up either on that day or on the day after, he is not to be avenged. But if he dies on the second day without ever standing up, then the master is to be punished even though the slave did not die \u201cthere and then\u201d (NJPS to v. 20), since that is also considered dying \u201cunder his hand\u201d (OJPS translation of the same phrase). But if the slave dies on the third day, whether or not he ever stood up, one would not call this dying \u201cunder his hand.\u201d Our Sages interpret the phrase to say that \u201cthere and then\u201d means \u201cwithin 24 hours.\u201d The use of \u201cstand\u201d to mean \u201csurvive\u201d can be found in Jer. 32:14, \u201cTake these documents, this deed of purchase, the sealed text and the open one, and put them into an earthen jar, so that they may last a long time,\u201d and this interpretation is true and correct.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nHe is the other\u2019s property. And he has a right to strike him (Hizkuni). But the Torah does not wish Jews to become used to excessive cruelty (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 21:22
\nRASHI
\nWhen men fight. With each other. The situation involves a man who is trying to hit another man but hits the woman by mistake. Pushes. OJPS translates this verb as \u201churt,\u201d but it means \u201cpushing\u201d or \u201cstriking\u201d; see Isa. 8:14, \u201ca stone men strike against.\u201d No other damage ensues. To the woman. Fined. He must pay the husband the value of the fetus, calculated by the difference a woman\u2019s pregnancy makes in her value if sold as a slave. In later Hebrew the word means \u201cpunished,\u201d but Deut. 22:19, \u201cthey shall fine him a hundred shekels,\u201d shows that in Biblical Hebrew the word means \u201cfined.\u201d According as the woman\u2019s husband may exact from him. Rather, when the woman\u2019s husband \u201cexacts from him,\u201d that is, takes him to court. Based on reckoning. By the judges.
\nIBN EZRA
\nA pregnant woman. Since a pregnant woman is in particular danger, we might have thought that the rule concerning her is different from that concerning anyone else who is killed. A miscarriage results. Even if there was more than one fetus. No other damage ensues. To the woman. According as the woman\u2019s husband may exact from him. If he is willing to fulfill the husband\u2019s request, he does so, and need not go to the Temple for the priests, or to the place of the judge. But if he is not willing to give what the woman\u2019s husband \u201cshall lay upon him\u201d (OJPS), then he must go to court and pay whatever they say.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nAccording as. Rashi\u2019s comment is correct. The word means \u201cwhen\u201d rather than \u201caccording as\u201d in many places, e.g., Gen. 40:14. \u201cAccording as\u201d follows the translation of Onkelos. The woman\u2019s husband. It is the woman\u2019s husband, not the woman herself, who may exact this payment from him. The woman has no rights to the fetus. May exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. Ibn Ezra thinks this means he must pay either what the husband demands or the value of the fetus as determined by a court. But this cannot be right\u2014what point would there be in saying so? In my opinion, the problem the text is solving is that a fetus has no recognized monetary value\u2014for who can say whether it would have survived anyway? So the text says that the one who pushed the mother must pay punitive damages, an amount that he is forced to pay without reference to the actual monetary value of the damage he caused. The amount he must pay is to be determined by the father, who wants his children and cares for them, but must be \u201cbased on reckoning\u201d so that the punitive damages do not exceed the greatest possible value of the fetus. But the Mekilta takes the latter phrase as does OJPS, \u201cas the judges determine.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nAnd one of them pushes a pregnant woman. In the belly; the rule does not apply if he hits her on the head or on one of her limbs (Hizkuni). No other damage ensues. She does not die (Kimhi). With regard to murder, children are treated the same as adults; but the Torah does not regard unborn children as warranting such treatment (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 21:23\u201324
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 When a \u201cwoman with child\u201d is pushed, resulting in a miscarriage (v. 22), why is the one responsible punished \u201clife for life\u201d (v. 23) if something happens to the woman, but not for what happened to the child? All human life is of equal value!
\nExodus 21:23
\nRASHI
\nIf other damage ensues. To the woman. Life for life. Our Sages disagree on this subject. Some take it literally. Others understand it to mean \u201cthe value of a life for a life,\u201d but not literally \u201clife for life,\u201d for we know that one who intended to kill someone but killed someone else is not liable for the death penalty, but pays the dead man\u2019s heirs the amount they would have gotten if he had been sold in the slave market.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe penalty shall be life for life. But he is exempt from paying compensation for the fetus.
\nIBN EZRA
\nBut if other damage ensues to the woman, he shall be put to death. Since they were \u201cfighting\u201d (v. 22), he intended to do some evil to his fellow, which means that, even if he did not mean to kill the woman, if he does so he is killed. But this does not apply to her fetus, for it is not considered to be alive until it comes forth into the air of the world. He is merely fined for it.
\nExodus 21:24
\nRASHI
\nEye for eye. If he blinded someone\u2019s eye, he must pay him the value of the eye, as determined by how much his value in the slave market is lessened by the loss of an eye. The same applies to all the other organs mentioned. As our Sages explain in ch. 8 of tractate Bava Kamma, his own eye or other organ is not removed.
\nRASHBAM
\nEye for eye. That is, the price of a comparable eye. This entire verse deals with injuries involving loss of a body part; the Sages have explained why it was necessary for each of these to be mentioned individually.
\nIBN EZRA
\nEye \u2026 tooth \u2026 hand \u2026 foot. The reason they all must be mentioned is that their value is different. A man can get along much better with one eye (if he loses the other) than he can with one hand. Similarly, the loss of a hand does not incapacitate him as much as does the loss of one foot. Note that there is a case where the punishment for a tooth is extremely little\u2014when the tooth is that of a boy under the age of seven years, for another will grow in its place. Some say that the organs listed here are the ones that are easily damaged because they are external to the body, to serve man\u2019s needs. The eye is necessary for seeing, on which most occupations depend; the hands are the artisans; the feet carry the body; and the teeth are mentioned because the absence of teeth destroys speech and damages the ability to chew one\u2019s food. Moreover, there are some occupations that are dependent on speech. The ear is not mentioned because it is on the side of the face, its inner workings are difficult to get to, and it is not easily damaged by external causes. On the other hand, the nose is not mentioned because if it is damaged the man dies. I think, however, that the eye, the tooth, the hand, and the foot are mentioned specifically because they are the most likely to be permanently damaged in a fight.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nEye for eye. It is well known that rabbinic tradition understands this to mean \u201cthe monetary value of an eye for an eye.\u201d Lev. 24:18, \u201cOne who kills a beast shall pay for it: life for life,\u201d actually speaks of monetary payment with just such a phrase. Ibn Ezra thinks the phrase means that he deserves to have his own eye put out if he does not reimburse the other man. The text tells us that \u201cyou may not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of a capital crime; he must be put to death\u201d (Num. 35:31), but we are allowed to accept ransom in the case of one who ought to have one of his organs cut out. Since accepting ransom is allowed, we must never cut him, but make him pay. If he does not have the money, the obligation remains on him until he gets the money together and redeems himself. The proof of our Sages\u2019 words is v. 19, \u201cHe must pay for his idleness and his cure.\u201d If we were to do to every assailant what he had done to his victim, why would he then have to pay something also? He himself would need payment \u201cfor his idleness and his cure\u201d! There is no escaping from this dilemma, based on the straightforward sense of the text, unless we assume that our verse refers to permanent damage to the body, in which \u201chis idleness and his cure\u201d do not apply, and v. 19 refers to injuries from which one completely recovers, in which case there is no loss of an eye or any other organ. A wound or a bruise (v. 25) can heal completely without leaving a mark, and therefore would also have to be considered included under v. 19. The same analysis given here would apply to Lev. 24:19\u201320. But the general rule is that the tradition is always true.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nEye for eye. So it ought rightfully to be, measure for measure; but the tradition says that he must pay him the value of an eye, because of our inability to insure that the exact measure, and not more, is taken (Sforno).
\nExodus 21:25\u201327
\nExodus 21:25
\nRASHI
\nBurn for burn. V. 24 describes injury that lowers the market value of the person\u2019s body. In the cases described in this verse, injuries that do not lower the body\u2019s monetary value but cause pain (like burning someone on his fingernail, which would leave no mark), they estimate how much money a person would demand to be willing to suffer such an injury. Wound. The result of a blow that draws blood. Etymologically it refers to \u201csplitting\u201d the flesh. Everything depends on the nature of the injury. If there is a diminution of value, the one who is responsible pays for the damage. If the victim takes to his bed, the perpetrator pays for his idleness and his cure, as well as damages for shaming him and causing him to suffer. Our verse, then, would seem to be unnecessary for defining the extent of the law. So in Bava Kamma ch. 8, our Sages interpret it to mean that one has to pay for causing pain even if one has already paid for the damage itself. For even though he paid the value of the victim\u2019s hand, one does not say: It is as if he bought the victim\u2019s hand and could hack it off however he wanted to. At the very least he would have to cut it off using some sort of drug that would lessen the pain. But the injury, of course, was not caused in this painless way. Bruise. A wound that does not draw blood, but changes the color of the skin. An etymologically related word is used for the \u201cspots\u201d of a leopard in Jer. 13:23. Onkelos translates it as a \u201cknock.\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nBurn for burn. Even though none of the injuries in this verse involve the loss of a body part, and so there is no \u201creplacement value,\u201d the one who caused them is still responsible for reimbursing the victim for his pain, his embarrassment, and his cure. Wound. Made with a sword. Bruise. This too is a wound, but a lesser one, made with the fingernails.
\nIBN EZRA
\nWound. This Hebrew word really refers to the breaking of a bone. Bruise. This is the word for \u201cwound,\u201d the result of a blow on the flesh that breaks the skin. Etymologically, the word is related to \u201cjoining,\u201d since all the noxious fluids and the clotting blood join together there. Some explain these two words as do the translations, but I have given Saadia\u2019s interpretation.
\nThe deniers understand all these expressions literally. But those who transmit the traditions of the Torah say that there is instead a ransom for each one of them. So \u201ceye for eye\u201d means that, though the one who caused the damage deserves to have his own eye put out, he is permitted to pay the man the appropriate amount for putting out his eye. Similarly, the owner of the habitually goring ox should \u201cbe put to death\u201d (v. 29), but may instead \u201cpay whatever is laid upon him to redeem his life\u201d (v. 30). I will expand on this somewhat in my comment to Lev. 24:19, \u201cIf anyone maims his fellow, as he has done so shall it be done to him.\u201d If we took the verse literally, the attempt to inflict the exact punishment might end up killing the person\u2014an unbearable thought. Ben Zuta the Karaite objects that, if \u201ceye for eye\u201d refers to a monetary payment, a poor man could not be expected to pay it. To which Saadia responds that a poor man might one day grow rich and be able to pay, but (if the expression were to be taken literally) a blind man who put out someone\u2019s eye will never be able to \u201cpay\u201d for it with an eye of his own. The long and short of it is that we cannot fully explicate the commandments of the Torah unless we rely on our Sages: Just as the Written Torah was transmitted to us by them, so too the Oral Torah\u2014there is no difference between them.
\nExodus 21:26
\nRASHI
\nThe eye of his slave. His Canaanite slave. For a Hebrew slave is not freed for losing an eye or a tooth, as we have explained in our comment to v. 7. On account of his eye. The same applies to the 24 \u201cextremities\u201d: the fingers, the toes, the two ears, the nose, and the penis. Why does it say both \u201ceye\u201d and \u201ctooth\u201d? If it said only \u201ceye,\u201d I would think it applied only to parts of the body that exist at birth, which the teeth do not. If it said only \u201ctooth,\u201d I would think it applied even to children\u2019s teeth, which all are eventually replaced; thus the irreplaceable \u201ceye\u201d is also mentioned.
\nRASHBAM
\nHis slave. His Canaanite slave.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe eye of his slave. The ancients say that this does not apply to an Israelite slave, for the eyes of all those who are the apple of Jacob\u2019s eye are treated like the eyes of a free man. Thus the slave mentioned here must be a Canaanite slave who has converted to Judaism. But the deniers of rabbinic tradition say it refers to the Hebrew slave. If one were to weigh both interpretations in a balance and find them equal, tradition would declare the truth.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nHe shall let him go free on account of his eye. Since everything that belongs to the slave belongs to the master, simply reimbursing him for the loss of his eye or his tooth would be useless (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 21:27
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe tooth of his slave. Saadia says the reason the eye and the tooth are mentioned is as a reminder of Ham, who \u201csaw his father\u2019s nakedness and told his two brothers\u201d (Gen. 9:22). But, in my view, the text merely speaks about what is common. For when someone hits someone else in the face, the two organs that are in danger are the eye and the tooth, whether the blow is made with a stone, a stick, or the hand. It also serves as an admonition to the master not to discipline his slave too much, fearing that if he strikes him he might end up losing him forever. Since tradition applies this rule not just to the eye and tooth, but also to the 24 extremities, this confirms my assertion that the text is meant to clarify the more common situation, relying for the others on the Oral Torah. Certainly in a case where two contradictory interpretations seem to be equally balanced, tradition determines which is the truth.
\nExodus 21:28\u201330
\nExodus 21:28
\nRASHI
\nWhen an ox gores. It makes no difference whether it is an ox or any other kind of animal or bird. The text merely describes the kind of situation most likely to happen. Its flesh shall not be eaten. Since the ox has been stoned, do I not already understand that it has not been ritually slaughtered and its meat is therefore not fit to be eaten? But even if it is ritually slaughtered before it can be stoned, its meat shall not be eaten. How do I know that one may derive no benefit at all from it? The owner of the ox is not to be punished. Literally, \u201cthe owner of the ox is clean\u201d\u2014midrashically, he has been \u201ccleaned out\u201d of his possessions and not gotten a sou\u2019s worth of benefit from them. But the straightforward meaning is the literal sense. Since v. 29 tells us that the owner of an ox that has been in the habit of goring is put to death along with the animal, it was necessary to make clear that the owner of an ox that was not a habitual gorer is not to be punished.
\nRASHBAM
\nIts flesh shall not be eaten. The straightforward sense is that after it is stoned, its meat shall not be eaten, either by a non-Jew or by a dog. Even though, according to Deut. 14:21, an animal that has died a natural death may be sold to a non-Jew, and 22:30 says of \u201cflesh torn by beasts\u201d that \u201cyou shall cast it to the dogs,\u201d these (unlike our case) are situations in which one may derive benefit from the animals even though they have not been ritually slaughtered. But the Sages explain our verse to mean that once its fate has been legally determined, the flesh of the goring ox may not be eaten even if, instead of being stoned, it is ritually slaughtered. But the owner of the ox is not to be punished. As long as he has not been warned.
\nIBN EZRA
\nOr a woman. In some places, it is the custom for women not to go to places like fields, where oxen are found; \u201ca woman\u201d is specified here\u2014though the meaning would have been the same even if this word were omitted\u2014so that no one might be able to say, \u201cShe brought herself into danger by violating custom.\u201d The same applies to v. 29. Note that this whole section is introduced corollary to the slave law of v. 32. Shall not be eaten. If someone slaughters it properly before it can be stoned. For instance, its owner might slaughter it before finding out that it had gored someone. Our predecessors have passed along the tradition that wherever the text says \u201cit shall not be eaten,\u201d any benefit from the carcass is also prohibited.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWhen an ox gores a man. After dealing with injuries caused by humans to humans, the text turns to injuries caused to humans by animals (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 21:29
\nRASHI
\nHas been in the habit. OJPS \u201cin time past\u201d; literally, \u201cthe day before the day before yesterday.\u201d The implication is that it has already gored three times. Its owner, though warned. The Hebrew word implies \u201cwarned in front of witnesses.\u201d It kills a man or a woman. V. 28 refers only to death by goring. This verse uses the more general term \u201ckills\u201d to include such other forms of killing as biting, pushing, crushing, and kicking. Its owner, too, shall be put to death. At the hands of heaven. Perhaps he should be put to death at the hands of man? No, for Num. 35:21 says, \u201cThe assailant shall be put to death; he is a murderer.\u201d You put him to death if he is a murderer, not if his ox is a murderer.
\nRASHBAM
\nIts owner, too, shall be put to death. At the hands of heaven.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIn the habit of goring. OJPS \u201cwas wont to gore in time past\u201d\u2014not on that very day. The explanation of Saadia, that the owner must have been warned three times, is unnecessary. Though warned. Officially and by qualified witnesses. Its owner, too, shall be put to death. Those who have passed down the tradition of the Torah say he is to be put to death \u201cby the hands of heaven,\u201d and that is correct. For the \u201cransom\u201d laid upon him in v. 30 never applies in the case of someone condemned to death by the court. Hence in my opinion the same rule as with \u201ceye for eye\u201d applies here\u2014he deserves death if he does not pay the ransom.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nIts owner, too, shall be put to death. The tradition received by our Sages is that this is \u201cdeath at the hands of heaven.\u201d The same applies to Lev. 22:9 and Num. 18:7. I have noticed that death by a human court is always marked not by the simple word yumat, as here, but by the emphatic phrase mot yumat, \u201che shall surely be put to death\u201d (OJPS includes the crucial word, which NJPS omits). The omission of \u201csurely\u201d in 35:2 (Sabbath violation), Lev. 24:21 (killing), and Deut. 13:6 (one who entices others to commit idolatry) does not refute this observation, since all of those crimes are mentioned elsewhere with the emphatic phrase. I cannot understand why Onkelos has translated it as \u201che shall be killed.\u201d Perhaps he means \u201che should be killed\u201d (but we lay ransom upon him instead). Or perhaps he means \u201che will be killed\u201d just as surely as the man who was gored\u2014either \u201chis time will come and he will die, or he will go down to battle and perish,\u201d but in any case, God will not clear him. This would mean Onkelos understands the verse to say that he will be killed by someone, not die a natural death.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nIts owner, too, shall be put to death. At the hands of heaven\u2014if there are no witnesses to testify against him and invoke the procedure outlined in v. 30 (Sforno).
\nExodus 21:30
\nRASHI
\nIf ransom is laid upon him. Not \u201cif,\u201d but \u201cwhen\u201d\u2014it is not discretionary. (The same is true in 21:24.) The court must lay a ransom upon him. He must pay \u2026 to redeem his life. \u201cHis\u201d life is the life of the person who was killed, according to R. Ishmael; but according to R. Akiva it is the life of the owner of the ox.
\nRASHBAM
\nIf ransom is laid upon him. Then he is not liable to death at the hands of heaven.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIf ransom is laid upon him. This does not contradict Num. 35:31, \u201cYou may not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of a capital crime; he must be put to death,\u201d for the owner of the ox is not an intentional murderer, merely negligent. But he must be punished. For it is hard for God to watch someone created in His image be killed by an animal. (That is why the ox is stoned.)
\nNAHMANIDES
\nIf ransom is laid upon him. This ransom, kofer, is in the nature of an atonement, kapparah, like the sacrifices. So if he does not want to pay it, he is not forced to go to court and have this obligation laid upon him. Even if it is laid upon him, the money is not seized by the court. That is why it says \u201cif.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nIf ransom is laid upon him. This is permissible because he did not kill him with his own hands. Whether he is killed or has ransom laid upon him is at the discretion of the heirs (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 21:31\u201333
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why does v. 33 refer to \u201can ox or ass\u201d but not to a person?
\nExodus 21:31
\nRASHI
\nIf it gores a minor. Literally, as OJPS has it, \u201ca son \u2026 or a daughter\u201d; but NJPS is correct. Since v. 29 refers to \u201ca man or a woman,\u201d it was necessary to specify that he is equally responsible if it is a minor that is killed.
\nIBN EZRA
\nA minor. No one should say, \u201cWhy didn\u2019t the boy\u2019s parents keep an eye on him?\u201d on the assumption that, had he not been a minor, he could have fled and escaped.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nSo, too, if it gores a minor, male or female. The sense is \u201cIf \u2026 it kills a man or a woman\u201d (v. 29) \u201cor gores a minor, male or female.\u201d The same rule applies in all four cases. But some take this \u201cor\u201d (which is the literal translation) to mean \u201cif,\u201d citing many examples that they think are comparable. But all of these examples are false witnesses; examine each of them closely (this is not the place for it). According to our Sages, just as the purpose of v. 29 is to make clear that \u201cman\u201d in every case of damages in the Torah is really \u201cperson,\u201d applying to both males and females, so too \u201ca minor, male or female\u201d shows that such laws apply equally when the injured person is a child. But the straightforward sense of the text is as follows: An ox that can gore a grown man to death is as vicious as a bear in the wild, robbed of her young. If its owner is warned and does not guard it, he has committed a terrible crime, for which he certainly deserves death or a fine. But an ox that gores a child need not be so vicious, since most oxen are not afraid of children. One might think, therefore, that the owner is not guilty at all. But the text makes clear that he is.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nIf it gores a minor. Since a distinction is made between a free man and a slave, the text must make clear that there is no distinction between an adult and a child, which in cases of murder is a general Torah principle (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 21:32
\nRASHI
\nA slave. A Canaanite slave. He shall pay thirty shekels. This is a decree of the text. It makes no difference whether he is worth 1,000 dinars or only a single dinar. A shekel weighs the same as four gold coins, which is half an ounce according to the honest weight of Cologne.
\nRASHBAM
\nIf the ox gores a Canaanite slave. This refers to the habitual gorer. But an ox that is not a habitual gorer is not liable.
\nIBN EZRA
\nA slave. The Sages say this refers to a Canaanite slave. In my opinion it refers to a slave from any of the nations. But it is not implausible that he might literally be a Canaanite. Thirty shekels. This was the average price of a slave in those days. The Karaites say it applies to a Hebrew slave, and that the 30 shekels is arrived at by figuring 5 shekels for each of the six years he must serve.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThirty shekels. Since slaves commonly work with the herds and are thus frequently killed by animals, a precise monetary figure\u2014the equivalent of an adult woman (Lev. 27:4)\u2014is given to prevent argument over the slave\u2019s value (Bekhor Shor). In order to distinguish Israelites (who, according to v. 30, are evaluated as individuals) from slaves, the same price applies no matter whether the slave is one who drills holes in pearls, who is worth a great deal, or someone stricken with boils, who is worth nothing (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 21:33
\nRASHI
\nWhen a man opens a pit. That is, uncovers a pit that had been covered. Or digs a pit. Why was it necessary to add this phrase? If he is liable for opening a pit that already exists, he is certainly liable for a pit that he digs himself. The phrase is used to make one who deepens an already existing pit liable. And does not cover it. But if he does cover it he is not liable. The text speaks of someone who is digging in a public place. An ox or an ass. Or any other animal. Wherever an ox or an ass is mentioned, it is simply a way of referring to any animal. We learn this from 23:12, \u201cSix days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall cease from labor, in order that your ox and your ass may rest,\u201d which the Sabbath commandment in Deuteronomy applies to every animal: \u201cyour ox or your ass, or any of your animals\u201d (Deut. 5:14). \u201cAn ox or an ass\u201d implies: \u201cAn ox, not a man; an ass, not an object.\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nWhen a man opens a pit, one that is deep, and it is already finished, but he negligently leaves it uncovered; or if he digs a pit and does not cover it every day in the evening when he goes home from work since he is going to need to go into it in the morning anyway and dig some more, and he does not want to take the trouble to cover it every night, nonetheless, he is liable.
\nIBN EZRA
\nWhen a man opens a pit. Which someone else has dug. Or digs a pit. Starting it himself. Our predecessors say the pit must be 10 handbreadths deep. An ox or an ass. Or any animal. The ox and ass are mentioned specifically because they are the most common. Besides the loss to the owner, God does not want an animal to die for no reason. And of course the owner of the animal suffers loss as well. (Again, this whole section about oxen is introduced corollary to 22:2, where the thief who steals an ox is sold into slavery.)
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nAn ox or an ass. But not a person, who is presumed to be able to notice it and avoid it (Bekhor Shor). This applies to any animal; but oxen and asses often walk on their own, without being led (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 21:34\u201335
\nExodus 21:34
\nRASHI
\nThe one responsible for the pit. Literally \u201cthe owner of the pit\u201d (OJPS); but it means the one who is responsible for the problem. No one \u201cowns\u201d a pit that is dug in a public place, but the text makes the one responsible for the problem the \u201cowner\u201d of the pit in order to obligate him to pay damages. He shall pay the price to the owner. Literally, he shall \u201creturn\u201d the price\u2014to permit repayment not just in money, but in kind, even with bran. He \u2026 shall keep the dead animal. The Hebrew says only \u201cthe dead beast shall be his\u201d (OJPS), implying (contra NJPS) that it remains the property of its original owner. The carcass is given a monetary value, the original owner takes it at that value, and the one responsible for the damage pays him the difference between that amount and the original value.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe one responsible for the pit. The one who opened it or dug it. But shall keep the dead animal. The straightforward sense of the verse is that, having paid full price to the owner, it is only right that the one who caused the damage gets to keep the dead animal. But our Sages explain the literal phrase \u201cshall be his\u201d (OJPS) to mean that it continues to belong to the original owner, who absorbs any decrease in the value of the carcass.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe one responsible for the pit. Literally, \u201cthe owner of the pit\u201d (OJPS), since he dug it for his own purposes. He shall pay the price to the owner, but shall keep the dead animal. Some follow this interpretation, but our tradition says that \u201cthe dead beast shall be his\u201d (OJPS) means that it shall continue to be his, the original owner\u2019s. It does not mean that he gets the price of the animal and gets to keep the carcass, but the value of the carcass is deducted from the price that he is paid. Similarly, if the animal is merely injured, he keeps the animal and receives the difference in the animal\u2019s value caused by the injury, so that the original owner too has some small share in the loss by having to deal with the carcass or the injured beast. And this is the truth.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nShall keep the dead animal. Rashi\u2019s comment does not make the law here completely clear. There is no need to say that the owner of the dead ox must take the carcass as part payment when he brings it before the court to demand that his loss be made good. For if the responsible party had other carcasses and torn beasts at home, he could pay the damages with them, since we have already agreed that he may pay in kind. The point of the verse is to say that the dead animal belongs to its former owner, and is considered his property. If its value subsequently went down, or it was stolen, the responsible party only has to pay the loss caused by the killing of the animal. If, when it was alive, it was worth 100 dinars, but when it was dead it was worth 50 dinars, then he owes 50 dinars. And the original owner must deal with the carcass and keep it for himself. This is the rule in every case of damages; it is the rule called by the Sages \u201ca decrease in the value of the carcass,\u201d and it is explained on B. BK 34a.
\nExodus 21:35
\nRASHI
\nWhen a man\u2019s ox injures his neighbor\u2019s ox and it dies. Whether it pushes him, gores him, kicks him, or bites him. They shall sell the live ox and divide its price; they shall also divide the dead animal. This applies when both animals are of equal value: e.g., an ox worth 200 dinars kills another ox worth 200 dinars. No matter whether the dead ox is worth a lot or a little, if each gets half the value of the live animal and half the value of the dead animal, then each ends up losing half the value of the damage caused. So we learn from the example in which both are of equal value that the owner of an \u201cinnocent\u201d ox that kills another ox pays half the value of the damage, no more and no less.\u2014Or perhaps the text means that, if the two animals (when both were alive) were not of equal value, they should still divide the two?\u2014If you think so, you will find that there are times when the owner of the goring ox would actually make a profit\u2014when the carcass of the ox that was gored could be sold to non-Jews for much more than his live ox was worth. It cannot be that the text is telling us that the ox that did the killing actually turns a profit for its owner. There could even be a case where the owner of the dead ox would be paid more than he lost\u2014when the live ox is worth more than twice as much as the dead one. If you think this is what the verse means, then you are saying that the owner of an \u201cinnocent\u201d ox could be punished more heavily than that of a habitual gorer! You are forced to admit that our text refers only to two oxen of equal value, teaching by this means that the owner of an \u201cinnocent\u201d ox always pays half the value of the damage it caused. A value is established for the carcass, this value is subtracted from the value of the ox when alive, and the owner of the dead ox receives half this amount and goes on his way. Why does the verse read as it does, rather than simply saying, \u201cHe shall pay half\u201d? To teach you that the owner of the \u201cinnocent\u201d ox cannot be made to pay more than his own ox is worth, so that if the goring ox should himself die, the owner of the ox that was gored gets nothing more than the carcass of the ox that did the goring. If that does not come to half the damage, he loses. Suppose an ox worth 100 dinars gores an ox worth 500 dinars. The owner of the gored ox gets nothing but the live ox, for the owner of the goring ox (if it was not a habitual gorer) is not obligated to pay damages greater than the value of his own ox.
\nRASHBAM
\nDivide its price. The Sages explain this whole verse to mean that the responsible person pays half damages, and they explain the values of the live one and of the dead one according to this rule of half damages.
\nIBN EZRA
\nHis neighbor\u2019s ox. Not \u201chis neighbor ox,\u201d as Ben Zuta the Karaite would have it; an ox has no neighbor except Ben Zuta himself! As far as dividing its price and that of the dead animal, this applies when the two animals are of equal value. The text does not discuss the situation when they are of different values; this was left for tradition. It is not necessary for us to mention everything that is inscribed in the Order of Damages.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWhen a man\u2019s ox injures his neighbor\u2019s ox. Except on the first man\u2019s property, where he can say to the other, \u201cWhat was your ox doing on my property?\u201d (Hizkuni). Having concluded the rules that fall under the category of \u201cYou shall not murder,\u201d the text begins with those that fall under \u201cYou shall not steal\u201d (Abarbanel). Divide. They share the damages equally, since no one was at fault, but fate caused it to happen to the two of them (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 21:36\u201322:1
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why is the payment for an ox (v. 37) five oxen, but for a sheep only four sheep?
\nExodus 21:36
\nRASHI
\nThe ox was in the habit of goring. See the comment to v. 29; \u201chabit\u201d implies three times. He must restore ox for ox. That is, full damages. But shall keep the dead animal. Again, the literal Hebrew says, \u201cthe dead one shall be his\u201d\u2014it shall remain in the possession of its original owner; on top of which, the owner of the goring ox adds enough to make up the full amount of damages.
\nIBN EZRA
\nShall keep the dead animal. In the opinion of the Mighty Ones of the World, this phrase is to be interpreted the same as it is in v. 34
\nNAHMANIDES
\nIts owner has failed to guard it. It is obvious that when an ox not known to be a habitual gorer should happen to break loose and gore someone, if its owner had guarded it, he is not liable at all. There are, therefore, two views in the Talmud about the meaning of \u201cguard\u201d in our verse. One view says that a habitual gorer requires extremely careful guarding; if the owner has not guarded it in this careful manner, he pays full damages. The other view says that an equal level of guarding is required no matter whether the ox is a habitual gorer or not; but not guarding a habitual gorer is such a great crime that the owner pays full damages. Shall keep the dead animal. Again, Rashi\u2019s comment follows rabbinic tradition. If this is correct, we must explain it as \u201che must restore ox for ox, along with the dead animal, which shall remain his\u201d (the original owner\u2019s). But it might be explained more straightforwardly as do the translations, that the responsible party keeps the dead animal, which he may give to the original owner as part payment. In either case, the result is the same\u2014the original owner deals with the carcass, whose value at the time of death makes up part of his payment, as our Sages say.
\nExodus 21:37
\nRASHI
\nFive oxen for the ox, and four sheep for the sheep. R. Johanan b. Zakkai says, \u201cGod takes pity on the honor of those created in His image. An ox walks on its own, and the thief need not degrade himself by carrying it; hence he pays five oxen. But the thief who degrades himself by carrying a sheep need only pay four sheep.\u201d Says R. Meir, \u201cCome and see how great is the power of work. When a thief prevents an ox from doing its work, he must pay five oxen; for a sheep, which does no work, only four.\u201d \u201cOx\u201d and \u201csheep\u201d are specified twice in the verse to make clear that these special amounts apply only in these particular cases.
\nRASHBAM
\nFive oxen. Our Sages say, \u201cSince he prevents the ox from doing his work, he must pay five.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nWhen a man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it. If they are found alive (22:3), he only pays double. Perhaps he will fear the extra punishment, repent, and return what he stole. Five oxen for the ox, and four sheep for the sheep. The punishment for the ox is steeper for two reasons: First, it is easier to steal a sheep, and it can be carried away secretly; only an experienced thief can steal an ox. Second, oxen are used for plowing, so when a man\u2019s ox is stolen, he suffers great damage.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nFive oxen for the ox, and four sheep for the sheep. Only a hardened criminal steals oxen; but a lesser penalty is enough for a sheep-stealer, who may not yet be a habitual thief (Hizkuni). According to Maimonides (Guide 3:41), the reason the ordinary double fine does not apply is that oxen and sheep are herded far from inhabited places, and an extra deterrent is needed; fourfold repayment for sheep, which graze in large groups, and fivefold for oxen, which graze scattered in the forest. But in fact tying and slaughtering these animals involve extra criminal actions, for which the extra punishment is prescribed (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 22:1
\nRASHI
\nWhile tunneling. Mahteret\u2014literally \u201cbreaking in\u201d (OJPS) to the house. There is no bloodguilt in his case. Literally, \u201che has no blood.\u201d It is not considered murder; the thief is essentially considered dead to begin with. Here Torah teaches you: If someone is coming to kill you, kill him first. And this thief is coming to kill you. For it is obvious that no one will stand by silently while others take his property. It is a given, therefore, that the thief has determined to kill the property owner if he resists.
\nRASHBAM
\nWhile tunneling. And at night\u2014to kill or be killed. For which reason there is no bloodguilt in his case. One who kills him has no bloodguilt and is not liable.
\nIBN EZRA
\nWhile tunneling. The word is mahteret, which is derived from the verb hatar: \u201cIn the dark they break into houses\u201d (Job 24:16). From \u201cif the sun has risen\u201d of v. 2, we know that the break-in mentioned here must occur during the night. For during the day, people would see him, but at night there is no rescuer around, and the thief might kill the homeowner. So there is no bloodguilt in his case. Literally, \u201cno blood\u201d\u2014that is, there is no redeemer to avenge the spilling of his blood. The Hebrew word for \u201cblood\u201d is sometimes used in the singular and sometimes in the plural (as here) because the blood actually carries all four of the bodily humors (black bile, yellow bile, phlegm, and blood), as medical experts will tell you. One has to wonder at the commentators who take the Hebrew phrase to mean \u201cthere is no life in him.\u201d Do they think when Shimei calls David a \u201cman of blood\u201d in 2 Sam. 16:8 that he means that he is alive?!
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThere is no bloodguilt in his case. Because he knows that if the homeowner finds him, in the heat of the moment he will take his life in his hands to get back his money (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 22:2\u20134
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why is the punishment different (v. 3) if the ox or sheep is found in the thief\u2019s possession, which is not true (21:16) if it is a human who was kidnapped?
\nExodus 22:2
\nRASHI
\nIf the sun has risen on him. This is merely a kind of metaphor: \u201cIf it is clear to you that his intentions toward you are peaceful, as the sun brings peace to the world\u201d\u2014if it is obvious to you that he has no intention of killing, even if the property owner resists him. For example, if a father breaks in to steal his son\u2019s property, everyone knows that the father loves his son and has not come with murder in mind. There is bloodguilt in that case. \u201cHe has blood.\u201d The thief is considered a live person, and if the homeowner kills him, it is considered murder. He must make restitution. The thief must restore the amount that he stole. But he is not subject to death. Onkelos, however, translates \u201cIf the sun has risen on him\u201d as \u201cIf the eye of the witnesses has fallen upon him.\u201d So he interprets it differently, to say that if witnesses find the thief before the homeowner shows up, and when the homeowner shows up they warn him not to kill the thief, then \u201cthere is bloodguilt in that case.\u201d He is liable if he kills him. For when there are witnesses, the thief is not going to kill the homeowner. He shall be sold for his theft. \u201cFor his theft\u201d teaches that women cannot be sold for theft.
\nRASHBAM
\nIf the sun has risen on him. Meaning that he was stealing during the day.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIf the sun has risen on him. If the homeowner kills the thief during the day, he may rightly be asked, \u201cThere are people passing by everywhere\u2014why did you not let them know that this fellow was breaking in?\u201d He must make restitution. This refers to the thief of v. 30 under the assumption that he has not been killed, but caught. With regard to the distant reference, see my comment to v. 11. He shall be sold. By the court. It would be correct to say that he should be sold for the amount of his theft, if there were not a tradition in the hands of our ancestors that he should not be sold unless the value of his theft comes to at least the amount that he himself could be sold for. This is correct, and it is the truth.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nIf the sun has risen on him. See Rashi\u2019s comment, as well as his remarks about Onkelos. I find them surprising. When v. 1 says, \u201cthere is no bloodguilt in that case,\u201d it must refer to a situation where the homeowner was warned not to kill the thief, since it is a principle of Jewish law that a murderer never incurs the death penalty unless he has been warned not to commit the killing. If you suggest that the phrase merely means that from the divine perspective it is permissible to kill the thief in that situation, that is simply not true. Rather, v. 1 acquits him from both the legal and the divine perspectives, and v. 2 makes him liable from both perspectives. Perhaps what Rashi means is that, if the thief sees that he is observed, he is no longer considered a threat to life, whereas in the dark the thief is likely to kill the homeowner and flee. In my opinion, what Onkelos meant was \u201conce the thief came out of the tunnel and was seen.\u201d In that situation, there is bloodguilt in that case just as for any other person. It is forbidden to kill him, and if he does kill him he is put to death. But the thief must certainly pay if he took something. The text is speaking about what is usual. Thieves ordinarily come at night when no one can recognize them, and in that situation there is no punishment for killing them. But if the thief lingers until daylight, sneaks away, and flees for his life, he can be identified by witnesses and is no longer subject to death, either by the court or by the homeowner. He must make restitution; if he lacks the means, he shall be sold for his theft. According to Rav, who says on B. Sanh. 72a that a thief who broke into a house does not have to repay what he stole\u2014having \u201cpurchased\u201d it at the risk of his life\u2014this phrase must refer back to the thief of 21:37. But the straightforward sense of the verse is obvious: If the thief breaks in at night, he may be killed. If he does so in daylight, when he can be recognized, he must not be killed, but must make restitution for what he stole. \u201cThe sun\u201d simply means that he did it in the light, in public. The thief who breaks in in the dark is liable to kill the homeowner, but the one who breaks in during the day will flee from him.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nIf he lacks the means, he shall be sold for his theft. Before the giving of the Torah\u2014according to the evidence of Gen. 44:10\u2014the thief was enslaved whether or not he had the means to make restitution (Bekhor Shor). The upper limit of six years has already been set in 21:2; logically, if repayment of the theft would not require six years\u2019 work, the thief should be sold for a lesser period, a year or two (Abarbanel). If not for this provision, most of the poor people would be thieves (Sforno).
\nExodus 22:3
\nRASHI
\nIf what he stole \u2026 is found in his possession. OJPS \u201cin his hand\u201d is more literal, but NJPS has the sense. It must be \u201cin his possession\u201d in that he has not slaughtered or sold it. Whether ox or ass or sheep. As v. 8 makes clear, he must pay double for whatever he steals, whether or not it has the breath of life in it. Alive \u2026 he shall pay double. The Hebrew text juxtaposes these words to indicate that the thief cannot pay for his theft with dead animals, but only with ones that are alive, or their equivalent value.
\nRASHBAM
\nAlive. Meaning that he has not slaughtered it. In his possession. Meaning that he has not sold it. He shall pay double. But not four or five, as in 21:37.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIf what he stole \u2026 is found alive in his possession. This verse applies to any animal he might have stolen. But rabbinic tradition is that the four-fold and five-fold restitution applies only to oxen and sheep.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nHe shall pay double. One ought not raise questions about these punishments; the rules of the Torah are completely based on truth and right (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 22:4
\nRASHI
\nTo graze. The word is etymologically connected with the word translated \u201clivestock.\u201d The same root is found in this meaning in Num. 20:4, \u201cus and our beasts.\u201d The implication is that the field or vineyard is damaged in either of two ways: (1) merely by the presence of the animals; (2) by their grazing. As our Sages explain, \u201cletting loose\u201d as a reference to the damage the animals do by trampling the crops, and \u201cgrazing bare\u201d as a reference to the damage they do by eating. The impairment of that field or vineyard. Here OJPS \u201cthe best of his own field \u2026 and the best of his own vineyard\u201d is correct. The value of the damage is calculated, and if the responsible party is going to make restitution in land, he must do so from the best of his own fields. If a sela\u2019s worth of damage was done, he must give him a sela\u2019s worth of the best land that he has. The text teaches you that damages are assessed from the best land of the responsible party.
\nRASHBAM
\nFor the impairment of that field or vineyard. Rather, \u201cof the best\u201d (OJPS). He must pay from the choicest of his property, whether land or its equivalent in money; that is how our Sages explain it. But the straightforward sense is that the violator must pay according to the best of his field or vineyard\u2014the one whose property was damaged. For it might have been the best of his property that the animals destroyed.
\nIBN EZRA
\nWhen a man lets his livestock loose to graze. This unusual verb meaning \u201cgraze,\u201d yav\u2019er, is from a root found also in the word used for \u201cbeasts\u201d in Num. 20:4, but used here in the causative verbal conjugation. For the impairment of that field. Rather, \u201cof the best of his own field\u201d (OJPS). Since he let his livestock in deliberately, he must repay the other from the best of his own field. If he has no field, then he must pay the other the value of a field better than the one that was grazed bare.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nFor the impairment of that field. Rather, \u201cof the best of his own field\u201d (OJPS)\u2014for a man would rather have a bushel of his own produce than two bushels of his neighbor\u2019s (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 22:5\u20137
\nExodus 22:5
\nRASHI
\nWhen a fire is started. OJPS is preferable: \u201cIf fire break out\u201d\u2014even on its own. And spreads to thorns, so that stacked, standing, or growing grain is consumed. Because the fire spread to them from the thorns. The \u201cstanding\u201d grain is grain still standing in the earth; the \u201cgrowing\u201d grain, in Hebrew, is simply \u201cthe field\u201d\u2014the flames have licked the plowed field, and it must be plowed over again. He who started the fire. Even though he started it on his own property, and it broke forth on its own by the thorns catching fire, he is still obligated to pay. For he did not watch his blaze to make sure that it would not break out and cause damage.
\nRASHBAM
\nWhen a fire is started. Rather, when it \u201cbreaks out\u201d (OJPS)\u2014because the one who started it did not pay close enough attention to it\u2014and does damage because of the prevailing winds. Stacked. Grain that has already been harvested. Standing. Grain that is still growing from the ground. Growing grain. Rather, \u201cthe field\u201d itself (OJPS)\u2014even if the flames licked the field or scorched its stones.
\nIBN EZRA
\nWhen a fire is started. Rather, when it \u201cbreaks out\u201d (OJPS). Because the one who started the fire was not careful to clear away the thorns, he is punished. The phrase \u201cbreaks out\u201d is used because in this case the punishment applies even though he did not act deliberately. Stacked. These are the sheaves. Standing. Before it is harvested. Growing grain. Literally \u201cthe field\u201d (OJPS); this covers the destruction of seed that has been planted but has not yet started to grow. But the ancient tradition says that it indicates everything that it is customary to find in a field. He who started the fire. The Hebrew word is mav\u2019ir, another causative from the same root used in v. 4, but with a different meaning. It is a feature of Hebrew style to use similar sounding words with different meanings (e.g., Judg. 10:4 and Judg. 15:16).
\nExodus 22:6
\nRASHI
\nStolen from the man\u2019s house. According to him. If the thief is caught, he shall pay double. The thief shall pay double, to the owner of the goods.
\nRASHBAM
\nWhen a man gives money or goods to another for safekeeping. This passage, vv. 6\u20138, says that the one who is guarding the property is not liable if it is lost or stolen; the next passage, vv. 9\u201312, says that he is. Our Sages explain the first passage as dealing with an unpaid guard and the second with a paid guard. But according to the straightforward sense of the text, the first passage deals with \u201cmoney or goods\u201d that are stolen from the man\u2019s house. The owner took them to the other man\u2019s home, to have the man keep them there with his own property. If they are stolen, the man is not liable, since he took as good care of them as he did of his own property. But the second passage deals with animals, which graze in the fields. In such a case the owner certainly put them in the other man\u2019s charge specifically so that he would watch them to make sure that they were not stolen. So if they were stolen, he is liable.
\nIBN EZRA
\nWhen a man gives money or goods to another for safekeeping. This refers to an unpaid guard. They are stolen. Either they are really stolen, or the guard says so. He shall pay double. To the one to whom the money belongs. If the guard has already given the owner his money, then he shall take double from the thief.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nWhen a man gives money or goods to another for safekeeping. This section, vv. 6\u20138, refers to an unpaid guard. According to rabbinic tradition, he is not liable if the goods are stolen. It was not necessary to mention that he is unpaid because ordinarily one who takes someone else\u2019s goods for safekeeping is not paid. Vv. 9\u201312, which deal with the paid guard, talks about animals because one who takes care of animals usually is paid. And they are stolen from the man\u2019s house. Rashi says, \u201caccording to him\u201d\u2014that is, the guard claims that they have been stolen. Some compare this verse to texts where a false prophet is simply called \u201cprophet,\u201d e.g., Deut. 13:2 and Jer. 28:1, which are not saying it as an established fact but on the false prophet\u2019s own say-so. But this is not necessary here; the continuation shows that the verse is indeed speaking of a situation where the goods were really stolen
\nExodus 22:7
\nRASHI
\nThe owner of the house. Who had the things for safekeeping. Shall depose before God. Rather, \u201cshall come near to the judges,\u201d going to court with the owner of the goods to swear to him that he did not touch his property.
\nRASHBAM
\nIf the thief is not caught. Our Sages explain this passage to deal with a case where the guard is lying about the goods having been stolen; if the judges find him guilty, he must pay double. But I will explain it according to the straightforward sense. The owner of the house shall depose before the judges that he has not laid hands on the other\u2019s property, but that it was stolen, and he is then not liable.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe owner of the house shall depose before God. Literally, \u201cthe owner of the house shall be brought near the judges\u201d\u2014by the owner of the property. That he has not laid hands. The phraseology makes clear that this must be an oath. The other\u2019s property. The word melakhah, which ordinarily means \u201cwork,\u201d is also found used for property (which one accumulates by one\u2019s work) in Gen. 33:14, \u201cat the pace of the cattle before me\u201d; see my comment to that verse.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThat he has not laid hands on the other\u2019s property. NJPS follows Rashi. But the text really says \u201cIf he has not laid hands on the other\u2019s property.\u201d He can only swear that it was stolen as long as he himself has not used the other\u2019s property for his own needs. For one who does so is considered dishonest, and becomes liable if anything beyond his control happens to the property.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nIf the thief is not caught. And so the one to whom the goods belong begins to suspect the homeowner (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 22:8
\nExodus 22:8
\nRASHI
\nIn all charges of misappropriation. Literally \u201cof trespass\u201d (OJPS). The trespass is that he was found to have lied under oath, by the testimony of witnesses that he himself stole the property. He whom God declares guilty. Rather, \u201cthe judges find him guilty\u201d on the basis of the witnesses\u2019 testimony. Shall pay double to the other. The text teaches you that one who claims to have had a pledge stolen from him, but turns out to have stolen it himself, must pay double, like a plain thief. When is this so? When the witnesses come after he has sworn. That is the conclusion to which our Sages come in the following discussion: The \u201cdrawing near\u201d of v. 7 is indeed \u201cdeposing,\u201d that is, swearing.\u2014Perhaps it merely means coming to court, and once he denies, in court, that he has it, and says that it was stolen, if witnesses come to say that it is still in his possession he is immediately obligated to pay double.\u2014No, the expression \u201claying hands\u201d (v. 7) also appears in v. 10, which explicitly mentions \u201can oath before the Lord.\u201d Hence such an oath must be involved in v. 7 as well. One party alleges, \u201cThis is it.\u201d \u201cParty\u201d is not in the Hebrew; it is merely \u201cone alleges.\u201d The straightforward sense is that a witness says: \u201cThis\u201d that you swore was stolen, here \u201cit is\u201d in your possession. The case of both parties shall come before the judges. They shall examine the witnesses to see whether they are legitimate and, if they are, the judges shall declare the one who had the goods for safekeeping guilty. He shall pay double. But if the witnesses are found to have perjured themselves, they must pay double to him. But our Sages (of blessed memory) explained \u201cThis is it\u201d to mean that he is not made to take an oath unless he admits, \u201cI owe him this much, but this is it\u2014the rest of it was stolen from me.\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nIn all charges of misappropriation. In any case of loss. Whether the lost object is an ox, a sheep, a garment, or anything else, if he identifies it and says, This is it (the property that was stolen from him), then whomever the judges declare guilty on the testimony of witnesses, whether it be the thief or the guard, shall pay double.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIn all charges of misappropriation. Literally, \u201cfor every matter of pesha.\u201d There are two possible interpretations for this phrase, depending on the correct meaning of the word pesha. If it refers to the man, it would mean \u201cin every case where a man might trespass\u201d (by stealing). But if it refers to the missing object, it would mean \u201cin every case where something passes out of the owner\u2019s possession.\u201d The second meaning derives from the use of this root in 2 Kings 8:22, \u201cThus Edom fell away [yifsha] from Judah.\u201d An ox, etc. Having begun in v. 6 by mentioning \u201cmoney or goods,\u201d the text makes clear here that it refers as well to \u201can ox\u201d or \u201cany other loss.\u201d Whereof one party alleges. \u201cOne party\u201d is not in the Hebrew (see OJPS). The phrase refers to a witness who identifies the object and says, \u201cThis is it.\u201d He whom God declares guilty. Whether a thief or the owner of the house. Shall pay double. If the stolen object is found in the hands of the guard, he still pays double, for he has made himself into a thief. The same applies to one who finds a lost object and does not try to find out to whom it belongs.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nOne party alleges, \u201cThis is it.\u201d Rashi understands this as an accusation that the guard actually still has the property in his possession. Our Sages understand it to mean that he need not take an oath unless he admits that he still has some of the property, and that only part of it was stolen. What Rashi wrote is the opinion of an individual sage, and is not Jewish law. He must swear even if he claims it was entirely stolen. As the Talmud proves, the provision Rashi describes applies in a situation where the dispute is over whether the guard was given the goods in the first place. If he admits to being given some of them, he takes an oath that he was not given the others; but if he denies getting any of them, he need not swear. Although Rashi does not say this in his Talmud commentary, everyone agrees on it. So according to the exegesis of our Sages, that must be the situation to which this verse refers. In that case, v. 7 applies to \u201cevery matter of trespass\u201d (as OJPS translates the beginning of our verse). The guard whom God declares guilty shall pay double whether he was negligent in guarding or lied about how much of the goods he was given. The provision about admitting to a partial amount applies not only in this case but also to loans, embezzlement, and so forth (though violators in the other cases do not pay double). This provision is one of the cases where the texts are few and the laws are many. But there is no need to explain all the laws here, other than what is necessary to explicate the biblical text.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nMisappropriation. OJPS \u201ctransgression\u201d is closer; it essentially means \u201crebellion\u201d by failure to obey a legitimate command. Here, the homeowner \u201crebels\u201d by his failure to properly guard what he was given (Kimhi).
\nExodus 22:9\u201313
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 When a borrowed animal dies or is injured (v. 13), why is it necessary to specify that the owner is not present, which he obviously isn\u2019t if it is borrowed?
\nExodus 22:9
\nRASHI
\nWhen a man gives to another an ass \u2026 or any other animal to guard. Vv. 6\u20138 deal with an unpaid guard, so, as v. 7 explains, he is not liable if what he was guarding is stolen. But our passage deals with a paid guard, who is liable if it was stolen; see v. 11. But he is not liable for incidents beyond his control, e.g., if an animal that he is guarding dies or is injured or is carried off forcefully by bandits, with no witness about.
\nRASHBAM
\nInjured. Rather, torn to death by a lion or other wild beast. Just as the whole animal is lost when it dies or is carried off, \u201cinjured\u201d must refer to a case where the animal is a total loss, having been killed by a lion or wild beast. In the case of the prophet who was killed by a lion, the same word is translated \u201cmauled\u201d (1 Kings 13:28).
\nIBN EZRA
\nWhen a man gives to another an ass \u2026 to guard. This refers to a paid guard. Notice that the unpaid guard of v. 6 is assumed to be guarding money or goods, which require little looking after. And it dies. According to the guard. Or is carried off. Forcefully, by a gang.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWith no witness about. There was no need to mention this in the case of vv. 6\u20138, since no one steals with witnesses about (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 22:10
\nRASHI
\nAn oath before the Lord shall decide. He shall swear that he is telling the truth, and that he has not laid hands on the property of the other for his own use. For if he had done so, and afterward the unavoidable incident occurred, he is nonetheless liable. The owner must acquiesce. Literally, the owner \u201cshall take\u201d\u2014that is, \u201cshall accept\u201d (OJPS) the oath, and no restitution shall be made.
\nRASHBAM
\nAn oath before the Lord. He is not liable in case of circumstances beyond his control.
\nIBN EZRA
\nAn oath before the Lord shall decide between the two of them. Literally, \u201cshall be between them\u201d (OJPS); but NJPS has the sense. Must acquiesce. Literally, \u201cshall accept it\u201d (OJPS), or even \u201ctake it.\u201d In the case of the dead or injured animal, he takes it; if the animal was carried off, he accepts the oath.
\nExodus 22:11
\nIBN EZRA
\nIf the animal was stolen from him, he shall make restitution. This proves that the guard here is a paid guard, for if an animal is stolen from an unpaid guard, he simply swears that he did not lay hands on the other\u2019s property (v. 7) and he is clear.
\nExodus 22:12
\nRASHI
\nIf it was torn by beasts. He shall bring it as evidence. Rather, \u201che shall bring it a witness.\u201d He shall bring witnesses that it was torn under circumstances beyond his control, and shall not be liable. He need not replace what has been torn by beasts. Literally, \u201cthat which has been torn.\u201d Notice that it does not say, \u201canything torn,\u201d but \u201cthat which has been torn.\u201d There some torn things that he must replace and others that he need not. If it was torn by a cat, a fox, or a mongoose, he must replace it; if by a wolf, a lion, a bear, or a snake, he need not.\u2014And who whispered to you to come to that conclusion?\u2014V. 9 says, \u201cdies or is injured or is carried off\u201d\u2014Just as he cannot be expected to save the animal from death, so too the animal\u2019s being injured or carried off must be of a kind that he could not prevent.
\nRASHBAM
\nHe shall bring it as evidence. He must bring part of the torn beast as evidence, \u201cas a shepherd rescues from the lion\u2019s jaws two shank bones or the tip of an ear\u201d (Amos 3:12).
\nIBN EZRA
\nIf it was torn by beasts. This is what he was being paid to try to prevent. He shall bring it as evidence. He shall bring part of the torn animal to be his witness, \u201cas a shepherd rescues \u2026 the tip of an ear\u201d (Amos 3:12).
\nNAHMANIDES
\nIf it was torn by beasts. See Rashi\u2019s comment. It is odd that the text should require witnesses here, when in v. 10 \u201can oath before the Lord\u201d was considered sufficient. The cases are actually equivalent. If he has witnesses in the situation of vv. 9\u201310, he need not swear, and if he has no witnesses in this situation, he swears. Perhaps the text was speaking about the more common situation in both cases. An animal may die or be injured or carried off \u201cwith no witness about\u201d (v. 9), but when \u201ca lion\u2014a great beast\u2014growls over its prey \u2026 the shepherds gather in force against him\u201d (Isa. 31:4). The guard simply brings the others to court with him, and is relieved of the necessity to take an oath. Perhaps our verse can be explained as teaching what Issi b. Judah said, that if there is a witness he must bring him in order to be cleared. In other words, if the incident happened in a place where there are people around all day, we do not rely on his oath but demand that he bring witnesses. In the case of an animal torn by beasts, this is likely. He shall bring it as evidence. The understanding that he must bring part of the torn beast follows the interpretation of Ibn Ezra; there is a comparable comment in the Mekilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nIf it was torn by beasts, he shall bring it as evidence. This rule explains why the shepherd in Amos 3:12 \u201crescues from the lion\u2019s jaws two shank bones or the tip of an ear.\u201d Shepherds would exert themselves to retrieve a piece of the animal in order not to be liable (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 22:13
\nRASHI
\nWhen a man borrows an animal. This comes to teach that the borrower is responsible even for circumstances that are beyond his control. Its owner not being with it. Rather, \u201cwith him\u201d\u2014if the owner of the ox is not with the borrower as he works.
\nRASHBAM
\nWhen a man borrows an animal. In order to do his own work with it. Injured. Mauled to death. Its owner not being with it. The straightforward sense is that the owner was not there while the animal was working. According to the midrashic interpretation, even if the owner was doing some other work for the borrower, if he came along with the animal, the borrower is not liable.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIts owner not being with it. Logically, this should mean what it says; if the owner was not there, he could claim that the borrower overworked his animal. But when we look at the tradition passed down by the ancients, we see that it too is correct.
\nExodus 22:14\u201316
\nExodus 22:14
\nRASHI
\nIf its owner was with it. Again, this should be \u201cwith him.\u201d Whether he was working with the animal or doing some other job. As long as the owner of the animal was working with the borrower at the time the animal was borrowed, the borrower is exempt from paying restitution; he need not be with him when the animal dies or is injured. He is entitled to the hire. Rather, \u201cit came by hire\u201d to the man who hired it, not by borrowing. So the benefit of the transaction is not entirely his. Since he is paying a fee for its use, its owner benefits as well. He is therefore not treated like a borrower, and is not liable under circumstances beyond his control. The text does not make clear whether he is supposed to be treated like a paid guard or an unpaid guard, with the result that the Sages disagree about which circumstances require him to make restitution. R. Meir says he is to be treated like an unpaid guard; R. Judah says he is to be treated like a paid guard.
\nRASHBAM
\nIf it was hired. If he hired the other man\u2019s animal, in order to do his own work with it. He is entitled to the hire. Literally, \u201cit comes by hire.\u201d The first man hires the other man\u2019s animal and is therefore not a borrower, meaning he is not liable in case of circumstances beyond his control; but in case of theft or loss, he is responsible just as if he were a paid guard. There is, however, another opinion, that he is not liable even in these cases, but only in a case of misappropriation, like an unpaid guard. This is in dispute between R. Meir and R. Judah on B. BK 45b.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIf its owner was with it. And saw for himself how the animal was injured or died. He is entitled to the hire. Rather, \u201cit comes with his hire\u201d\u2014that is, the loss comes to him on account of the fee that he took. This ends the section on the stealing of property. The text continues with the \u201cstealing\u201d of the mind by deception.
\nExodus 22:15\u201316
\nNAHMANIDES
\nIf a man seduces a virgin. Rashi\u2019s comment is incorrect. The Hebrew verb translated here as \u201cseduces\u201d really means to bend someone\u2019s will to your own by deceit, as the verb is used in Deut. 11:16, \u201cTake care not to be lured away to serve other gods.\u201d One who entices a virgin to sleep with him bends her will to his desires by lying to her. Onkelos takes the word to mean \u201cstruggle,\u201d using the same Aramaic word as he does in Gen. 32:25, \u201ca man wrestled with him until the break of dawn.\u201d Since virgins are sometimes seduced by words and sometimes by money, sometimes by falsehoods and sometimes by the truth (the man may lead her astray because he really does want to marry her), Onkelos, followed by NJPS, chose a more general word than is used in the Hebrew text, which he did not do in Deut. 11:16. By payment of a bride-price. Rashi\u2019s comment is not right. If the seducer does marry her, he does not pay a fine. If he marries her and then divorces her, the Torah puts no obligation upon him\u2014for the marriage contract is a rabbinic institution. The Hebrew word refers to the silver, gold, and cloth that a man sends to his fianc\u00e9e for use in the marriage canopy and the wedding ceremony. Perhaps this word mohar is derived from the word maher, \u201churry,\u201d since the groom hurries to send this gift ahead, after which he goes to his future father-in-law\u2019s house for the wedding celebration. Our verse refers to these gifts rather than saying explicitly that he must marry her, because he is not required to do so if he does not want to. Only if he does not want to marry her must he pay. Moreover, if her father refuses to give her to him, he must still weigh out silver in accordance with the bride-price for virgins. For he has spoiled her in the eyes of the other young men. Her father will have to pay out a dowry rather than getting a bride-price for her, so the seducer must pay it. Our Sages identify this price with the 50 shekels of Deut. 22:29, but the rapist is punished with the additional requirement that \u201che can never have the right to divorce her.\u201d The reason for this difference is that it is the way of the world for attractive young men to seduce the pretty, virgin daughters of the rich, and it is not right that the sinner should be permitted to gain by his sin. So he cannot marry her if either she or her father opposes it, and must pay instead. Since she sinned, too, he is also not required to marry her. But if he does marry her, she and her father both being willing, then she is his wife just as much as any other woman is her husband\u2019s wife. However, it is also the way of the world for the sons of the rich to force lower-class girls\u2014who are powerless against them\u2014to have sex. This is why the rapist is required to marry the girl whether he wants to or not. According to our Sages, even in case of rape either the girl or her father can refuse, for it is not right that she should be forced to marry the rapist against her will and have him do two wrongs to her instead of just one. Sometimes she is more respectable than he, and it cannot be that she should be made despicable by his sin. True justice demands that the decision to marry be in her hands, not his. If the rapist could not be forced to marry her, it would be open season on Jewish women. The rule about the rapist specifically mentions a young woman; but that is self-evident in this case and did not have to be mentioned. For one who seduces a grown woman pays nothing; it is assumed that she slept with him willingly. And the father has no rights involving his daughter except \u201cwhile in her father\u2019s household by reason of her youth\u201d (Num. 30:17). The fact that the seduced woman\u2019s father can refuse to give her to the seducer alludes to the fact that it is the father who gets the money from the marriage contract if the girl is not yet of age. As B. Kid. 3b puts it, \u201cAll profit that she acquires during her youth belongs to her father.\u201d In the case of rape, the \u201cyoung woman\u201d is specifically mentioned because otherwise we would think that the payment of 50 shekels applies even to an adult woman, which the text decrees that it does not. For a woman who remains self-possessed can protect herself from rape. Ibn Ezra, in his comment to v. 15, takes the word mohar to refer to the marriage connection, basing himself on the use of that root in Ps. 16:4, \u201cthose who espouse another god.\u201d But that is not correct; it is as I have explained it, based on the words of our Sages. In my opinion, the Psalms verse means that they hurry mindlessly after another god. The grammarians take it to mean that they give a \u201cbride-price\u201d to the other god, that is, sacrificial offerings.
\nExodus 22:15
\nRASHI
\nSeduces. Speaks intimately to her until she heeds him. As Onkelos says, he \u201centices\u201d her. By payment of a bride-price. He must give her the same bride-price that a man gives his wife. That is, he writes a marriage contract and weds her.
\nRASHBAM
\nFor whom the bride-price has not been paid. If it has, then according to Deut. 22:24 he is subject to stoning.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIf a man seduces a virgin. For young girls are easily seduced, not yet being intellectually mature. For whom the bride-price has not been paid. If someone else has paid the bride-price for her, she is considered that man\u2019s wife even if she has not yet had sex with him. He must make her his wife by payment of a bride-price. Rather, \u201cHe must espouse her to himself as wife.\u201d The verb implies attachment. See my comment to Ps. 16:4, \u201cThose who espouse another god may have many sorrows.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nIf a man seduces a virgin. Having finished with outright theft, the text turns to deception (Hizkuni). The rules that fall under \u201cYou shall not commit adultery\u201d begin here (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 22:16
\nRASHI
\nThe bride-price for virgins. Of whom it is written, \u201cthe man who lay with her shall pay the girl\u2019s father fifty shekels of silver\u201d (Deut. 22:29).
\nRASHBAM
\nIn accordance with the bride-price for virgins. Like one who rapes a virgin, who \u201cshall pay the girl\u2019s father fifty shekels of silver\u201d (Deut. 22:29). The same rule applies to the seducer.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe bride-price for virgins. Since Deut. 22:29 establishes 50 shekels as the payment made by one who rapes a virgin, the Sages established this as the amount of \u201cthe bride-price for virgins.\u201d There is a midrash that the text says \u201cin accordance with the bride-price [k\u2019mohar] for the virgins [ha-betulot]\u201d (though the italicized words are syntactically unnecessary) because the extra letters, kaf and heh, have a numerical value of 25, and (since 8 rabbinic zuzim equal 1 Tyrian zuz) the 200 zuzim of a standard Jewish marriage contract can be \u201cfound\u201d in the Torah (8 \u00d7 25 = 200). But there is a much better midrash for it than that. Simply reread \u05db\u05de\u05d4\u05e8 (\u201cin accordance with the bride-price\u201d) as \u2018\u05db\u05de\u05d4? \u05e8 (\u201chow much? 200). But our Sages have the tradition that he owes additional sums for shaming her and for devaluing her.
\nExodus 22:17\u201318
\nExodus 22:17
\nRASHI
\nYou shall not tolerate a sorceress. More literally, \u201cThou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live\u201d (OJPS). Instead, a court must have her put to death. This applies to both males and females, but the text speaks of the more common occurrence, for there are more sorceresses than sorcerers.
\nRASHBAM
\nYou shall not tolerate a sorceress. Rather, you shall not \u201csuffer a sorceress to live\u201d (OJPS). Sorceresses perform their deeds in secret, in hidden caves, like the 80 women in Ashkelon whom Simeon b. Shetah hanged. That is why it says, \u201cDo not suffer them to live.\u201d Do not despair of searching them out and so allow them to live by your laziness, but search for them and kill them.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall not tolerate a sorceress. OJPS says (more literally) \u201cyou shall not suffer a sorceress to live.\u201d The sense is that (if an Israelite) she deserves death. If she is not an Israelite, it is forbidden for a Jew to sell any food to her. The principle is that she may not benefit from a Jew in any way. Jonah ibn Janah says that the word means \u201csorcerer,\u201d and that the heh at the end of the word does not change the gender. But he is wrong, for the phenomenon to which he refers does not shift the accent to the end of the word\u2014but this heh does shift the accent, and the word is therefore grammatically feminine. Now all Hebrew words have gender. But when the Torah gives us a rule about the \u201csacrificer\u201d to other gods, we know that it also applies to the \u201csacrificeress.\u201d The same is true here. The rule speaks of a \u201csorceress,\u201d but applies to a \u201csorcerer\u201d as well. The feminine form of the word is used here because women are more occupied with magic than men, as I shall explain in my comments to Ki Tets\u00e9, where the \u201csorcerer\u201d is mentioned. This follows the rule about seduction of a virgin because the one who is in love with the girl might turn to magic to fulfill his desires.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYou shall not tolerate a sorceress. When the text tells us that someone \u201cshall surely be put to death,\u201d then it is a positive commandment for us to do this, in order to \u201csweep out evil from our midst\u201d (as Deuteronomy says). But to \u201cnot suffer a sorceress to live\u201d (OJPS) is a prohibition, and violation of a prohibition is more serious than failure to perform a positive commandment. Because she is \u201cbesmirched of name\u201d and \u201claden with iniquity\u201d (Ezek. 22:5), and fools are easily lured after her, the text is more severe with her. Similar prohibitions apply to all who multiply offense, e.g., the enticer (\u201cShow him no pity or compassion, and do not shield him,\u201d Deut. 13:9) and the murderer (\u201cYou may not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer,\u201d Num. 35:31).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou shall not tolerate a sorceress. That is, you shall not \u201csuffer her to live\u201d (OJPS), but kill her at once without due process of law\u2014for she might bewitch the court (Bekhor Shor). This applies to the practice of magic, not to tricks done by sleight of hand (Gersonides).
\nExodus 22:18
\nRASHI
\nWhoever lies with a beast shall be put to death. By stoning\u2014whether male or female\u2014since Lev. 20:16 says of them, \u201ctheir bloodguilt is upon them.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nWhoever lies with a beast shall be put to death. The same applies to one who has sex with a bird; but the text speaks of what is more common. The text follows the seduction of a girl who is considered too young to give rational consent to a seducer with that of an animal who cannot even cry out; the case of the woman who can cry out is discussed in Deut. 22:27.
\nExodus 22:19\u201320
\nExodus 22:19
\nRASHI
\nWhoever sacrifices to a god. Literally, as the vowels indicate, \u201cto the gods\u201d\u2014the ones you have been warned elsewhere against worshiping. You will find the same phenomenon in Ps. 86:8, \u201cThere is none like You among the gods, O Lord.\u201d Shall be proscribed. Put to death. Deut. 17:5 says it clearly: \u201cYou shall take the man or the woman who did that wicked thing out to the public place, and you shall stone them, man or woman, to death.\u201d Why then is our verse necessary? The Deuteronomy verse does not specify what act of idolatrous worship makes one liable for death, but our verse does\u2014sacrifice. But since sacrifice is a form of worship performed inside the Temple, I include in the proscription burning incense, pouring libations, and prostrating oneself, which are similarly performed inside the Temple. One is liable for doing this to any idol, whether or not that idol is usually worshiped in that particular way. But other forms of idolatrous worship, such as sweeping, sprinkling, embracing, and kissing are not punishable by death.
\nRASHBAM
\nA god. One of those of whom I told you, \u201cYou shall have no other gods besides Me\u201d (20:3).
\nIBN EZRA
\nWhoever sacrifices to a god. Literally, \u201cto the gods\u201d\u2014those well known in the world, such as Molech and Chemosh \u2014or even to the angels. Other than the Lord alone. He must not follow the practice of the Cutheans, who \u201cworshiped the Lord, while serving their own gods according to the practices of the nations from which they had been deported\u201d (2 Kings 17:33). Shall be proscribed. If it is an assembly that sacrifices, they and all that belongs to them shall be proscribed. If an individual does so, tradition says that he is to be killed. Since v. 20 says, \u201cYou shall not wrong a stranger,\u201d Saadia explains our verse as referring specifically to an Israelite, but in fact the case of an Israelite who worships other gods is covered in the Second Commandment (20:3). Actually, our verse does refer to the \u201cstranger\u201d (like Naaman, who worshiped the Lord but also \u201cbowed low in the temple of Rimmon,\u201d 2 Kings 5:18), as does v. 18 about lying with a beast (which is their custom). They can live in the land of Israel only on condition that they do not lie with beasts or sacrifice to other gods.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nWhoever sacrifices to a god other than the Lord alone shall be proscribed. See Rashi\u2019s comment. Ibn Ezra, who says that this applies only to the stranger permitted to live in our land as long as he does not sacrifice to his god, is mouthing empty words. In the Ten Commandments we are prohibited from worshiping other gods, and this verse explains the punishment for doing so, just as was done with the commandments against murder and adultery; see my comment to 21:1. \u201cProscribed\u201d means that he is condemned to death; \u201cno human being who has been proscribed can be ransomed: he shall be put to death\u201d (Lev. 27:29). Deut. 7:26 explains why the text says he is \u201cproscribed\u201d rather than simply saying that he should be put to death: \u201cYou must not bring an abhorrent thing into your house, or you will be proscribed like it; you must reject it as abominable and abhorrent, for it is proscribed.\u201d The text might mean that the sacrifice too is proscribed, to hint that it is forbidden to gain benefit from the sacrifice in any way. But bowing down or any other form of worship performed in the Temple is equally proscribed. Such observances as sweeping, sprinkling, embracing, and kissing are not punishable by death as long as this is not the normal form of worship for that particular god. But if it is, he is condemned to death, even for evacuating his bowels before Baal Peor. But in fact the grammatical form of the word \u201cgod\u201d in this verse shows that it refers to the angels, who are regularly called \u201cgods,\u201d e.g., \u201cThere is none like You among the gods, O Lord, and there are no deeds like Yours\u201d (Ps. 86:8). That is why our verse mentions \u201cthe Lord alone.\u201d For those who sacrifice to His angels think they are doing His will, and that the angels are intermediaries who can get for them what they want from God\u2014as if they were sacrificing to a god and his servants. There is a deep mystery here as well, from which the meaning of the sacrifices can be understood. One who is enlightened will be able to know it from what we have written elsewhere. Onkelos alludes to it by translating \u201cother than the name of the Lord alone.\u201d We shall allude to it further in our comments to Leviticus, with the help of God, may His name be blessed forever and ever.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWhoever sacrifices to a god other than the Lord alone shall be proscribed. Since Israelites have already been warned against this, our verse must refer to converts. V. 18 is also directed at them, since lying with a beast is a gentile habit (Hizkuni). Because idolatry is regarded as harlotry, our verse falls under the category of \u201cYou shall not commit adultery\u201d; but it may also be taken as introductory to v. 20, beginning the rules that fall under \u201cYou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor\u201d (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 22:20
\nRASHI
\nYou shall not wrong a stranger. By words. Etymologically, the verb is connected to the word used in Isa. 49:26, \u201cI will make your oppressors eat their own flesh.\u201d Or oppress him. By robbing him of money. For you were strangers. If you taunt him, he can taunt you back and say, \u201cYou, too, come from strangers.\u201d Do not chastise your fellow for the very flaw you have yourself. \u201cStranger\u201d in the Bible is derived from the verb \u201cto sojourn\u201d; it refers to someone who was not born in that country, but comes there from some other country to \u201csojourn\u201d there.
\nRASHBAM
\nYou shall not wrong a stranger. That is, you shall not wrong a convert by your words. For \u201cwhen you sell property to your neighbor, or buy any from your neighbor, you shall not wrong one another\u201d (Lev. 25:14) covers the case of wronging him financially. Of course one must not wrong any Israelite in this way. But the text speaks of what is common. A convert is easily wronged by taunting him about what his non-Jewish ancestors did, or what he himself did when he was a gentile. Or oppress him. Rather, \u201cor pressure him\u201d into doing your work, knowing that he has no Jewish relative to take his part. Remember how in our own case God said, \u201cI have seen how the Egyptians oppress them\u201d (3:9). For you were strangers. And, as 23:9 points out, \u201cyou know the feelings of the stranger, having yourselves been strangers.\u201d Since his pain is extreme, the punishment for causing it is also extreme.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall not wrong a stranger. As a resident alien, he has no family roots in the land, so it would be easy for the citizen to wrong him, whether with regards to money or to housing, and even to oppress him by means of false testimony\u2014for the text previously warned only, \u201cYou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor\u201d (20:13). But you must not wrong a stranger either, merely because you have more power than he. Remember that you were once strangers like him.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nFor you were strangers in the land of Egypt. But this does not provide a reason for us not to wrong strangers from countries other than Egypt, or not to wrong even Egyptian strangers forever, when we were strangers in their country for a limited time. Rashi\u2019s explanation is that if we wrong a stranger, he can say, \u201cYour ancestors were strangers once, too.\u201d He adds, \u201cDo not chastise your fellow for the very flaw you have yourself.\u201d Ibn Ezra says, \u201cRemember that you were once a stranger like him.\u201d But none of this touches the essence of the commandment. In my view, we are being told, \u201cDo not wrong or oppress a stranger thinking that he has no one to rescue him from you. For you were strangers in Egypt, and I saw how the Egyptians oppressed you and took revenge on them. For I see \u2018the tears of the oppressed, with none to comfort them; and the power of their oppressors\u2019 [Eccles. 4:1], and I \u2018save the poor from one stronger than he\u2019 [Ps. 35:10]. I hear the cry of the widow and orphan as well\u2014for all three of these cannot rely on themselves, but must rely upon Me.\u201d A later verse adds an extra reason: \u201cyou know the feelings of the stranger\u201d (23:9). You know how low he feels, how he groans and cries, how his eyes are always turned toward God, who will take pity on him as He did on you. Remember that the Israelites\u2019 \u201ccry for help rose up to God by reason of the bondage\u201d (2:23)\u2014He took pity on them by reason of the bondage, not because of any merit of theirs.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou shall not wrong a stranger. Since he does not know the way things work locally, it is easy to take advantage of him (Bekhor Shor). That is, a convert, by reminding him that he was once a non-Jew; similarly one cannot remind the children of converts that their parents were once non-Jews, and one cannot even remind a penitent Jew that he was once a sinner (David Kimhi). Having directed vv. 18\u201319 at converts, the text now emphasizes how much God loves the convert who has left his former practices (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 22:21\u201324
\nExodus 22:21
\nRASHI
\nYou shall not ill-treat any widow or orphan. No one should be ill-treated. But the text speaks of those who are weak, whom it is common to mistreat.
\nRASHBAM
\nIll-treat. The word is the same used in 1:11, \u201cto oppress them with forced labor.\u201d Again, one must not ill-treat anyone; the text speaks of widows and orphans because they are so commonly ill-treated.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall not ill-treat any widow or orphan. The verse about the powerless stranger is followed by one about widows and orphans\u2014powerless Israelites. Unlike the other verbs in this section, the verb translated \u201cill-treat\u201d is plural\u2014those who see the ill-treatment and are silent receive the same punishment as the one who performs it. The punishment is all in the plural, as well: \u201cI will put you to the sword, and your own wives shall become widows and your children orphans\u201d (v. 23).
\nNAHMANIDES
\nAny widow. Even a rich, propertied one. For even she cries easily and feels low.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou shall not ill-treat any widow or orphan. Having dealt with the stranger, who is powerless, the text moves to the powerless among the Israelites (Hizkuni). Literally, you shall not \u201cafflict\u201d them\u2014not just for the sake of afflicting them. But if you \u201cafflict\u201d the orphan in order to discipline and improve him, this is not ill-treatment, but kindness (Sforno).
\nExodus 22:22
\nRASHI
\nIf you do mistreat them. The verse threatens without indicating the punishment; it is an abridged verse. But \u201cif you do mistreat them\u201d is a threat. It is as much as to say, \u201cIf you do mistreat them, you\u2019ll get yours.\u201d And why? Because I will heed their outcry.
\nIBN EZRA
\nAs soon as they cry out to Me. Literally, \u201cif he cries out to Me,\u201d with reference to the orphan. The same applies to the widow, but the text says \u201cif\u201d the orphan cries out because he might be a child who does not know how to speak for himself as a widow can.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nIf you do mistreat them. Rashi\u2019s comment is not correct. This is probably a case where ki is to be translated \u201cif\u201d\u2014\u201cIf you do mistreat them, if they cry out to Me\u201d\u2014the purpose of the repetition being to emphasize the statement. In my view, the NJPS translation \u201cas soon as\u201d has it right. God is saying, \u201cAll they have to do is cry out to Me, and they will not need anything else at all\u2014I will save them and take revenge on you. For you are ill-treating them under the impression that no one can save them from you.\u201d But widows and orphans are more easily helped than anyone. For others search desperately for a savior and find no help. But all the widow and orphan need to do is to cry out to God, and He will take revenge on you for them. For \u201cthe Lord is vengeful and fierce in wrath\u201d (Nah. 1:2). There are many similar verses showing that God protects the weak, e.g., Prov. 22:22\u201323 and Prov. 23:10\u201311. In fact, ki here really means \u201cbut if.\u201d
\nExodus 22:23
\nRASHI
\nYour own wives shall become widows. Once it says \u201cI will put you to the sword,\u201d doesn\u2019t it automatically follow that \u201cyour own wives shall become widows and your children orphans\u201d? But in fact this is a separate curse, that your wives shall go into \u201cliving widowhood\u201d (like David\u2019s concubines in 2 Sam. 20:3). For there will be no witnesses to the deaths of their husbands, and they will be forbidden to remarry. Your children orphans. No court will permit them to take possession of their fathers\u2019 property, since no one knows whether the fathers are dead or captured.
\nRASHBAM
\nYour own wives will become widows and your children orphans. Tit for tat.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYour own wives shall become widows and your children orphans. Our Sages do not enumerate this punishment in their discussion (beginning at B. Sanh. 83a) of those who earn \u201cdeath at the hands of heaven,\u201d for it does not fall into that category. For in those cases the punishment is ordinary death. But here the punishment is that He will kill them by means of the enemy\u2019s sword: They will \u201cgo down to battle and perish\u201d (1 Sam. 26:10) without their bodies being found, leaving their wives widows and their children orphans in perpetuity.
\nExodus 22:24
\nRASHI
\nIf you lend money. R. Ishmael says, Every \u201cif\u201d in the Torah is discretionary except for three\u2014and this is one of them. To My people. If it is a question of lending to \u201cMy people\u201d or a gentile, \u201cMy people\u201d take precedence; to a poor man or a rich man, the poor man takes precedence; to your own poor or the poor of your city, your own poor take precedence; to the poor of your city or those of some other city, those of your city take precedence. What it literally says is, If you lend money, lend it to \u201cMy people\u201d and not to a gentile. And to which of My people? To the poor. And which of the poor? Those who are among you. Another reading: My people. Do not treat him scornfully when you lend to him, for he is one of My people. The poor among you. Literally, \u201cthe poor with you\u201d\u2014look at yourself as if you were the poor one. Do not act toward them as a creditor. Do not demand repayment forcibly if you know that he cannot repay you. Do not act as if you had loaned him money. That is to say, do not embarrass him. Interest. The word is from the same root as the word that means \u201cbite.\u201d For interest is like the bite of a snake, which makes a little wound on someone\u2019s foot, which he does not even feel, and suddenly the swelling goes up to the top of his head. Interest is the same\u2014he does not feel it or even notice it until it mounts up and costs him a huge amount of money.
\nRASHBAM
\nDo not act toward them as a creditor. When it comes time for the loan to be paid back, do not press him for the collateral as did the creditor in the case of the wife of one of the disciples of the prophets, who cried out to Elisha, \u201cA creditor is coming to seize my two children as slaves\u201d (1 Kings 4:1). A \u201ccreditor,\u201d when the time arrives, comes to seize the collateral for the loan. Exact no interest from them. In return for an extension.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIf you lend money to My people. This does not apply to other peoples, that is, non-Jews. To the poor. The text says literally \u201cto My poor people.\u201d The rich man ought not to think that God made him rich because He loves him more. The poor are \u201cMy\u201d people because the pious do not seek wealth in this world, as is proved by the examples of Elijah, Elisha (who would not accept Naaman\u2019s gift; see 2 Kings 5:16), and Samuel. But \u201cif\u201d God has given you wealth, you can lend it to the poor. Among you. Whom you know. Do not act toward them as a creditor. Expecting a payoff from him to prevent you from embarrassing him. Exact no interest from them. Do not \u201clay upon him interest\u201d (OJPS). The verb is in the plural, showing that not only the lender, but also the scribe and the witnesses transgress in this case. The Hebrew word for \u201cinterest\u201d comes from a root meaning \u201cto bite\u201d\u2014for interest takes a bigger and bigger bite out of you minute by minute.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nDo not act toward them as a creditor. \u201cThe borrower is a slave to the lender\u201d (Prov. 22:7). But you must act in every way as if he had never borrowed a penny from you. Moreover, \u201cyou shall not deduct interest from loans to your countrymen, whether in money or food or anything else\u201d (Deut. 23:20). You must loan to him as a matter of generosity, getting no profit from him either in honor or in money.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nIf you lend money to My people. When you lend, for according to Deut. 15:8, \u201cyou must open your hand and lend him sufficient for whatever he needs\u201d; it is an obligation (David Kimhi). The rules that fall under \u201cYou shall not covet\u201d begin here; note that lending is not an obligation, since it is preferable (in my opinion) to give an outright gift, unless the poor man refuses it (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 22:25\u201326
\nExodus 22:25
\nRASHI
\nIn pledge. This does not refer to security given when the loan is made, but to taking a pledge from the borrower when the time comes to repay the loan but he does not do so. The double form of the verb indicates that you must take such a pledge over and over again. The Holy One says: How much you owe Me! Your soul comes up to me night after night, gives its report, and is held accountable, yet I return it to you. So you too must take and return, take and return. You must return it to him before the sun sets. Rather, until the sun sets. You return it to him all day, and at sunset you come back and get it until the next morning comes. The text is speaking, of course, of a \u201cgarment\u201d that one wears during the day, which is not needed at night.
\nRASHBAM
\nIf you take your neighbor\u2019s garment in pledge\u2014by court order\u2014\u201cyou must remain outside, while the man to whom you made the loan brings the pledge out to you\u201d (Deut. 24:11). But \u201cyou must not enter his house to seize his pledge\u201d (Deut. 24:10). This describes how not to \u201cact toward them as a creditor\u201d (v. 24). Before the sun sets. That is, you must return it to him for use all day, for the Sages interpret this garment as daytime wear.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIf you take your neighbor\u2019s garment in pledge. If you are wondering what good it would do for the creditor to take this garment in pledge every day, this verse teaches us that if he has other garments, they should be sold to pay his debts. Saadia explains that the creditor takes the garment every day, so that the borrower cannot give it to someone else to get another loan. But at night, a Jew is forbidden to take it from him.
\nExodus 22:26
\nRASHI
\nIt is his only clothing. This refers to the outer garment. The sole covering. This refers to the undergarment. In what else shall he sleep? This phrase is used to include the mattress.
\nRASHBAM
\nI will pay heed, for I am compassionate. Since the deposit legally belongs to the creditor, and returning it would be beyond the call of duty, God would not have heeded the borrower\u2019s cry, except that \u201cI am compassionate.\u201d But \u201cI will surely heed\u201d (v. 22, cf. OJPS) the outcry of the widow and orphan whom you ill-treat, because good treatment of them is within the call of duty. It is only just for the Holy One to heed their cry, which is why that verse does not add, \u201cfor I am compassionate.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nIf he cries out to Me. When an orphan cries out to God about ill-treatment, the one who ill-treated him is punished by having his children become orphans. So when the borrower is forced to cry out to God, the lender is punished by being made needy himself, and having his garment taken in pledge by a creditor. The sole covering for his skin. This confirms that salmah, the \u201cgarment\u201d of v. 25, refers to a specific piece of clothing that is the most basic covering\u2014unlike simlah, which is a more general word for clothing of any kind. There is one verse that contradicts this, but it is not determinative. The enlightened will understand.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nI will pay heed, for I am compassionate. And I accept anyone\u2019s plea, even if he is not deserving. The word translated \u201ccompassionate,\u201d hanun, comes from the root meaning \u201cgrace,\u201d as in the word hinam, \u201cfree, gratuitous.\u201d The point is that you should not think, \u201cI will not take a righteous person\u2019s garment in pledge, but I can certainly take the garment of a man who is not righteous, and not return it\u2014for God will not hear his plea.\u201d So God makes a point of saying that He is \u201cgracious\u201d (OJPS) and will accept the plea of anyone who seeks His grace.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nIt is his only clothing. The text literally says, \u201cwhen\u201d it is his only clothing. But if it is not, you need not return it each day (Hizkuni). It is forbidden to take interest even from a rich man; but one need not return a pledge every day unless \u201cit is his only clothing.\u201d Most people have not only this garment, but a linen undergarment and bedding on which to sleep (Abarbanel). If he cries out to Me. In prayer, asking that you be rewarded for returning his garment (Hizkuni). He may be too intimidated to cry out to you, but he will be able to cry out to Me! (Sforno).
\nExodus 22:27\u201328
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why does v. 26 say \u201cI will pay heed, for I am compassionate\u201d rather than \u201cfor I am righteous\u201d or \u201cfor I am the judge of all the earth\u201d?
\n\u2666 Why are priests, Levites, and judges not included with the \u201cchieftain\u201d of v. 27?
\nExodus 22:27
\nRASHI
\nYou shall not revile God. This simultaneously commands against reviling God and against cursing a judge, both of which are indicated by the Hebrew word elohim.
\nRASHBAM
\nYou shall not revile God. Rather, \u201cthe judges.\u201d Nor put a curse upon a chieftain among your people. The text speaks of what is common. Since kings and judges deal with court cases, both civil and criminal, people regularly curse them. Such expressions are common: \u201cDon\u2019t curse a king even among your intimates\u201d (Eccles. 10:2).
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall not revile God. Rather, \u201cthe judges\u201d\u2014you shall not revile them either in private or in public, neither they nor the levitical priests with whom is the Torah. The ge\u2019onim distinguish between \u201creviling\u201d and cursing. The context from v. 20 all the way to 23:13 seems to deal with the poor. Japheth b. Ali says the implication is that the poor man (if the lender does not return his pledge) might call out in pain during the night, cursing the judge who ruled that the lender could repossess the pledge. Nor put a curse upon a chieftain. That is, the \u201cking\u201d of Deut. 17:14\u201320; the judges are the levitical priests, with whom Torah is found.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYou shall not revile God. Onkelos takes this to refer to judges: One must not curse a judge who finds one guilty. Nor put a curse upon a chieftain among your people. That is, the king. He too must not be cursed when, in his role as chief judge, he finds someone guilty. But in the Talmud our Sages understand the verse to refer to \u201creviling God,\u201d as the translations have it. One must not do so even by some other name than the Tetragrammaton. The verse covers both the king and the King of Kings. Similarly, the Sages say that the word elohim includes not only the Judge on high but also the judge who sits on earth in place of God. It is not clear whether the head of the Sanhedrin, who is called in the Talmud by the word translated here as \u201cchieftain,\u201d falls into this category; Maimonides says that he does. It would seem from the question of R. Judah the Prince to R. Hiyya on B. Hor. 11b that this is so. For he asked him, \u201cIs someone in my position to bring \u2018a male goat without blemish\u2019 [Lev. 4:23], like a biblical chieftain?\u201d Thus apparently it refers to one who is either a political or a religious leader. For the head of the Sanhedrin falls into the latter category.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou shall not revile God. This is the middle verse of the book (Masorah). Nor put a curse upon a chieftain. For cursing the king, and the evil he does, generally causes great damage to the body politic (Sforno).
\nExodus 22:28
\nRASHI
\nYou shall not put off. Literally, \u201cyou shall not make it later.\u201d You shall not change the order in which these are separated from your crop, separating the later one first and the first one later. One must not separate the priest\u2019s share before the first fruits, or tithe before separating the priest\u2019s share. The skimming of the first yield. OJPS \u201cthe fullness of thy harvest\u201d and \u201cthe outflow of thy presses.\u201d The \u201cfullness\u201d refers to the obligation that is incumbent upon you when your produce \u201cfills out\u201d and has ripened; this is \u201cthe first yield.\u201d The \u201coutflow\u201d refers to the priest\u2019s share. But I don\u2019t know why the Hebrew word used here should mean this. You shall give Me the first-born among your sons. In order to redeem him, with five selas, from the priest. This is commanded in Num. 18:16 as well, but is included here in order to juxtapose it to v. 29. Just as the human first-born in the Numbers verse is redeemed after 30 days, so, too, one takes care of a first-born lamb or kid for 30 days and then gives it to the priest.
\nRASHBAM
\nYou shall not put off the skimming of the first yield of your vats. \u201cYou shall also give him the first fruits of your new grain and wine and oil\u201d (Deut. 18:4). The \u201cfullness of thy harvest\u201d (OJPS) refers to the priest\u2019s share of the produce; see the expression \u201cthe fullness of the seed\u201d in Deut. 22:9. Dim\u2019akha, \u201cthe outflow of thy presses\u201d (OJPS), refers to the new wine and the olive oil, which are as clear and refined as a tear, dim\u2019ah. (Menahem ibn Saruq explained it the same way.) You shall not put these off, but shall offer them first of all the tithes.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall not put off. You shall not put off giving them to God. The details of what this means are given in the words of our Sages. The skimming of the first yield of your vats. \u201cThe fullness of thy harvest \u2026 the outflow of thy presses\u201d (OJPS) expands on the literal \u201cyour fullness and your outflow.\u201d The first refers to wine, the second to oil. \u201cFullness\u201d refers to the harvest of new grapes, which are so full of moisture that as soon as one treads on them, the vats are full: \u201cthe flow from the vat\u201d (Num. 18:27). \u201cOutflow\u201d refers to oil, which (by contrast) flows out drop by drop, as tears flow from the eye. The first-born among your sons. They are the \u201cfirst\u201d of one\u2019s strength, just as the \u201cfullness\u201d and the \u201coutflow\u201d are the first of the new wine and oil. The Karaites relate the entire verse to the commandment \u201cbe fruitful and multiply,\u201d saying that one should not \u201cput off\u201d taking a wife, and that \u201cfullness\u201d refers to pregnancy and \u201coutflow\u201d to semen. (A pregnant woman is called \u201cfull\u201d in Eccles. 11:5.) Of course, if they were correct, the two terms should be reversed. There is no need to respond to them.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYou shall not put off the skimming of the first yield of your vats. OJPS \u201cthe fullness of thy harvest\u201d and \u201cthe outflow of thy presses.\u201d In Deut. 22:9, \u201cfullness\u201d refers to a crop sown in the field, and in Num. 18:27, to the overflowing vat of wine or oil. The word translated \u201cfullness\u201d is apparently a reference to harvest and gathering, which is what it means in \u201cwhen the shepherds gather in force\u201d (Isa. 31:4). It may be a reference to blessing as well, as in Joel 2:24, \u201cAnd threshing floors shall be full of grain, and the vats shall overflow with wine and oil.\u201d The \u201coutflow\u201d of our verse, too, would then refer to wine and oil. The image is borrowed from the word to which \u201coutflow\u201d is etymologically related, dim\u2019ah, \u201ca drop\u201d (not necessarily a \u201cteardrop,\u201d though that is how the word is commonly used). The point of the verse is: When you gather your crop and fill your threshing floor with grain, and when you tread the grapes and olives to let their drops flow, filling your vats with wine and oil, do not let them linger in your hand, but give the first of them to Me: \u201cthe first fruits of your new grain and wine and oil\u201d (Deut. 18:4). Our Sages of blessed memory take it to mean that offerings should be given in their proper order\u2014which is not given here, because this is just the general statement. The Sages have given the proper order of all the offerings. But the specifics are only hinted at in the text, in order to have them mentioned in the \u201crecord of the covenant\u201d (24:7), after which they would each be clarified elsewhere.
\nExodus 22:29\u201330
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 What is the meaning of \u201cYou shall be holy people to Me\u201d (v. 30)?
\nExodus 22:29
\nRASHI
\nSeven days it shall remain with its mother. This commandment is directed at the priest. If he wishes to sacrifice the animal before the 30 days are up, he must not do so before the eighth day, because it is too young. On the eighth day you shall give it to Me. One might hear this as an obligation, as NJPS did by translating \u201cshall.\u201d Since Lev. 22:27 says \u201cfrom the eighth day on it shall be acceptable as an offering,\u201d our verse must mean \u201con the eighth day you may give it to Me,\u201d which is how it should be translated.
\nRASHBAM
\nYou shall do the same with your cattle and your flocks. These all refer to the first-born, like \u201cthe first-born among your sons\u201d in v. 28.
\nIBN EZRA
\nOn the eighth day you shall give it to Me. In the wilderness camp this applied to all of Israel. Once they entered the land, it applied to those who were close enough to the Temple to give it on the eighth day. But according to tradition one who is far from there has until a specified time to bring it. The same applies to the first fruits of the soil.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nSeven days it shall remain with its mother. Having come from the place of defilement, it is not fit for offering to God until the passage of seven days has made it pure (Bekhor Shor). In line with the statement of B. Shab. 135b, \u201cA child that survives 30 days is viable \u2026 the young of animals that survives 8 days is viable\u201d (Sforno).
\nExodus 22:30
\nRASHI
\nYou shall be holy people to Me. If you are holy people and separate yourselves from eating carcasses and torn animals (which are disgusting), then you are Mine\u2014but if you do not, then you are not Mine. Flesh torn by beasts in the field. Or in the house; but the text speaks of the place where it is more likely to happen. Flesh is torn by animals in the country, not indoors. The same is true of the girl who is raped \u201cin the open\u201d (Deut. 22:27) and the \u201cnocturnal\u201d emission of Deut. 23:11. The same rule applies if he had an emission during the day\u2014but the text speaks of the more usual occurrence. You shall cast it to the dogs. And a gentile is like a dog. Or perhaps it literally means a dog? No, in the case of an animal \u201cthat has died a natural death \u2026 you may sell it to a foreigner\u201d (Deut. 14:21). If this is true of something that has died a natural death (which renders one who touches it impure), it must certainly be true that flesh torn by beasts (which does not render one impure) may be sold to a foreigner or used in any way other than for food. Why then does the text say \u201cYou shall cast it to the dogs\u201d? To teach you that a dog is more respectable, and to teach you that the Holy One does not withhold any creature\u2019s reward. \u201cNot a dog shall snarl at any of the Israelites\u201d (11:7)\u2014said the Holy One, \u201cGive him his reward!\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nHoly people. Not eating anything unclean, like flesh torn by beasts. Similarly, Deut. 14:21 says, \u201cYou shall not eat anything that has died a natural death.\u2026 For you are a holy people.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nHoly people. For there are individuals who eat carcasses and \u201ctorn\u201d flesh. One might be forced by poverty to do this. Flesh torn by beasts in the field. The previous verse has told us that we are forbidden to eat the first-born animal. Now we learn that the later-born animals are permitted as long as their flesh is not \u201ctorn.\u201d It does not matter whether it was torn \u201cin the field\u201d or within the city limits; the text speaks of what commonly occurs. You shall cast it to the dogs. \u201cThe\u201d dogs who watch the herd and the flock. Torn flesh is not fit to be eaten except by dogs. It contains a poisonous substance, which is why the carcass of an animal that dies may be given to a convert or sold to a non-Jew (Deut. 14:21), but not torn flesh.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYou shall be holy people to Me. Up to this point the rules have been discussed and various forms of ugly behavior prohibited. Now, introducing the subject of forbidden foods, it opens with the instruction to be holy. In physical terms, people ought to be able to eat whatever will keep them alive. But the food prohibitions are a matter of purity of the soul. One should eat clean things that do not produce thickness and coarseness in the soul. God\u2019s saying \u201cyou shall be holy people to Me\u201d means, \u201cI want you to be holy people so that you are worthy of cleaving to Me, who am Holy. So do not make your souls disgusting by eating abominable things.\u201d As Lev. 11:43\u20134 has it, \u201cYou shall not draw abomination upon yourselves through anything that creeps; you shall not make yourselves unclean therewith and thus become unclean. For I the Lord am your God: you shall sanctify yourselves and be holy, for I am holy.\u201d For things that creep make the soul creepy. It is true that flesh torn by beasts in the field is not creepy, but there is holiness in keeping away from it.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou shall be holy people to Me. Having finished the rules that fall under the last five commandments, those dealing with relations between people, the text sums up all the rest of the rules relating to them, not given here, with the instruction to be \u201choly people\u201d (Abarbanel). You shall cast it to the dogs. The dogs\u2014those who guard the flock (Hizkuni). Since \u201cin the field\u201d there is not likely to be a non-Jew to sell it to, but dogs are common (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 23:1\u20133
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why is it necessary to give so many warnings (vv. 1\u20133, 6\u20138) to judges?
\nExodus 23:1
\nRASHI
\nYou must not carry false rumors. As Onkelos puts it, \u201cYou must not accept false rumors.\u201d It is a commandment not to listen to gossip. And it is a warning to judges, as well, not to listen to one party in a dispute unless the other party is present. You shall not join hands with the guilty. Rather, you shall not join hands with \u201cthe wicked\u201d man (OJPS) who is presenting a false claim, by promising to act as a false witness.
\nRASHBAM
\nYou must not carry any false rumors. Just as the witnesses are warned, \u201cYou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor\u201d (20:13), so, too, the judges are warned not to accept testimony that may be false, but to \u201cinvestigate and inquire and interrogate thoroughly\u201d (Deut. 13:15). You shall not join hands with the guilty. Even if there are two false witnesses, do not join their testimony, even though there is no one to contradict them, leaving the case to be decided on their word.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou must not carry false rumors. One must neither invent something false nor repeat something that he is not sure about. You shall not join hands with the guilty to act as a malicious witness. One must not be an accomplice with someone wicked who knows that he needs a second witness because the testimony of a single witness is not accepted. (Again, it is something one might be driven to by poverty.) Others say it means that a witness is forbidden to ask someone to testify with him to a lie.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou must not carry false rumors. You must not \u201ccarry\u201d them on your lips (Bekhor Shor). Having finished with the commandments on the second tablet, the text continues with further commandments based on the first tablet, beginning with \u201cYou shall not swear falsely by the name of the Lord your God\u201d (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 23:2
\nRASHI
\nThe Sages of Israel have many midrashim on this verse, but they do not fit the language of the verse, each word precisely as it is written. For example, they interpret it to mean that a one-vote majority is not enough to convict. Then they took the end of the verse out of context\u2014\u201cpervert it in favor of the mighty\u201d\u2014and interpreted it to mean that a two-vote majority is enough to convict. Then they took the middle of the verse, \u201cyou shall not give perverse testimony in a dispute,\u201d and read the word riv, \u201cdispute,\u201d which is spelled without a yud, as rav, which would make it mean that one must not disagree with the \u201cmaster,\u201d that is, the most distinguished of the judges. For this reason, in a capital case, they begin at the end of the row and ask the most junior judges their opinion first. And when do you \u201cpervert\u201d toward \u201cthe mighty\u201d (the majority)? When there are at least two more of them than of those who would acquit. \u201cYou shall not side with the mighty to do wrong\u201d\u2014but you may side with them to do right. Onkelos explains the text to mean, \u201cIf you are asked for a judgment, do not give an answer that is biased in favor of one side in order to get out of having to decide the dispute, but judge it honestly.\u201d But I think that, in order to settle the meaning of the verse precisely as it is worded according to the straightforward sense, it must be interpreted as follows: You shall neither side with the mighty to do wrong. If you see the wicked perverting justice, do not say, \u201cSince they are a majority anyway, I will follow them.\u201d You shall not give false testimony in a dispute. And if the one who is on trial asks you about the case, do not answer him in a way that leans after that wicked majority, perverting the judgment from its honest outcome. But give your judgment as it really is, and let the collar of responsibility be shackled around the neck of the majority.
\nRASHBAM
\nYou shall neither side with the mighty to do wrong. If, in your opinion, your fellow judges\u2019 decision is an unjust one. You shall not side with them even if you know that people will follow the majority and not believe you. You shall not give perverse testimony\u2014better, \u201cyou shall not rule\u201d\u2014in a dispute so as to pervert justice, even when the majority is acquitting someone so that he does not face death.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall neither side with the mighty to do wrong. With the \u201cmultitude\u201d (OJPS), the majority. If you see a majority testifying to something you know nothing about, do not think, \u201cThey would not lie about it.\u201d But by the same token it is a commandment to side with them when they do right. You shall not give perverse testimony in a dispute. This applies to every Jew. How much more so must the judge before whom the dispute is heard help his fellow get a fair trial. To pervert it. The simple conjugation of this verb means \u201cto stretch out\u201d or \u201cto lean,\u201d but the causative form used here always carries a negative connotation. Our Sages interpret the phrase \u201cto turn aside after a multitude\u201d (OJPS) to mean that Jewish legal decisions always follow the majority ruling. Their tradition is the truth, but they attached it to this verse only as a reminder, as I have explained in my comment to 21:8.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou shall neither side with the mighty. \u201cFollow a multitude\u201d (OJPS). Even though it is right to follow the majority, if you think they are wrong, it is better to side with the minority, since the majority will do what it wants anyway (Bekhor Shor). You shall not give perverse testimony. But when you see a man so ignorant that he is convicting himself wrongly with his own words, you may help him guide his testimony into \u201cright paths\u201d (Ps. 23:3) (Abarbanel). To pervert it in favor of the mighty. \u201cTo turn aside after a multitude to pervert justice\u201d (OJPS). This is a repetition, but it emphasizes that you should always say what you think\u2014for the majority might change its mind, follow your opinion, and make things come out right (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 23:3
\nRASHI
\nNor shall you show deference. By acquitting him, thinking: He is a poor man, and I will acquit him and show him some respect.
\nRASHBAM
\nNor shall you show deference to a poor man. \u201cDo not favor the poor or show deference to the rich; judge your kinsman fairly\u201d (Lev. 19:15).
\nIBN EZRA
\nNor shall you show deference to a poor man. The \u201cmighty\u201d or the \u201cmultitude\u201d of the previous verse are likely to be for the rich, for the rich have many friends. Just as I told you not to pervert justice in favor of the rich, you must not pervert justice toward the poor man either.
\nExodus 23:4\u20138
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why are vv. 4\u20135 inserted in the middle of the warnings to judges?
\nExodus 23:4
\nIBN EZRA
\nWhen you encounter your enemy\u2019s ox or ass wandering. Our Sages have already enlightened us about this verse. This section may be included here because the ox or ass might be that of a poor person. Your reward then would be very great\u2014you would be both fulfilling God\u2019s command and doing a kindness to a poor person.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYour enemy\u2019s ox. Even your enemy\u2019s ox. But it is a greater commandment to do it for your enemy than for your friend, in order to crush the evil impulse (Bekhor Shor). Since Lev. 19:17 says, \u201cYou shall not hate your kinsfolk in your heart,\u201d this \u201cenemy\u201d cannot be an ordinary Israelite but must be one who is a sinner (Gersonides).
\nExodus 23:5
\nRASHI
\nWhen you see the ass of your enemy lying under its burden. \u201cIf\u201d you see it; this is one of the four meanings of the Hebrew word ki. And would refrain from raising it. This should be translated as a question: \u201cWould you refrain from raising it?\u201d You must nevertheless raise it with him. Rather, \u201cassist\u201d him. The word (which ordinarily means \u201cleave\u201d) is used in a similar way in Neh. 3:8, \u201cThey restored Jerusalem as far as the Broad Wall,\u201d meaning that they filled it with dirt in order to help and assist in strengthening the wall. How does one assist? By unloading the animal in order to lighten its burden; this is how Onkelos translates it. But our Sages interpret the verse as follows: \u201cWhen you see \u2026 you refrain.\u201d Sometimes you refrain and sometimes you help. How is that? If you are old and dignified, you refrain. Or if the animal belongs to a gentile and its load to a Jew, you refrain.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe ass of your enemy. The particular animal presented in the text is simply a common example of a more general rule. Raise it. The nuance of the verb more precisely involves assistance and strengthening, as in Neh. 3:8.
\nIBN EZRA
\nWould refrain from raising it. Rather, \u201cyou must stop to \u2018leave\u2019 with him.\u201d That is, you must keep from abandoning the job to your enemy by himself and help him unburden the animal. The way it is done is that you untie the load with him so that the straps \u201cleave\u201d the load and it falls to the ground on either side, so the ass can get up. Others take the meaning from the usage of the same verb in Neh. 3:8, \u201cThey restored Jerusalem,\u201d to mean that one must reload the animal. But I find this implausible.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWould refrain from raising it. Literally, \u201cWould you refrain from leaving it?\u201d\u2014the hatred in your heart (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 23:6
\nRASHI
\nYour needy. Etymologically, one who is \u201cin want\u201d\u2014he is just hanging on, in want of every good thing.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall not subvert the rights of your needy. This is directed to judges, whether they are priests or magistrates.
\nExodus 23:7
\nRASHI
\nDo not bring death on those who are innocent and in the right. How do we know that when the defendant is convicted and then someone says, \u201cI have evidence that he is innocent,\u201d the trial is reopened? \u201cDo not bring death on those who are \u2026 in the right.\u201d And this is so even though he was not \u201cinnocent\u201d (in the judgment of the court); he is free of the death penalty anyway, because you have evidence to clear him. And how do we know that if the defendant is acquitted and then someone says, \u201cI have evidence that he is guilty,\u201d the trial is not reopened? \u201cDo not bring death on those who are innocent.\u201d He is innocent by virtue of having been found so by the court. I will not acquit the wrongdoer. You do not need to put him back on trial; I will not acquit him in My court. Even if he gets away from you with a verdict of innocent, I have plenty of operatives to give him the death that he deserves.
\nRASHBAM
\nKeep far from a false charge. Rather, any \u201cfalse matter\u201d (OJPS). If the judgment seems contrived to you, and the witnesses deceitful, but you cannot refute them, keep yourself far from that case and offer no decision in it. Even so, if the accused is found innocent and in the right\u2014if the case has already been decided in his favor, you may not try him again and kill him once you have concluded the trial, having not realized that the witnesses were deceitful until it was too late. \u201cFor even though you have acquitted him, I will not acquit him.\u201d If he deserves death, his death will come about \u201cby an act of God\u201d (21:13).
\nIBN EZRA
\nKeep far from a false charge. Rather, from any false \u201cmatter\u201d (OJPS). This, too, is directed at the judges, insisting that they question the witnesses closely. Do not bring death on those who are innocent and in the right in that particular case. Do not do violence to him because you have proof that he committed a similar crime and think, \u201cSeeing that he is such a hard case, I will kill him and get this obstruction out of the way.\u201d For I will not acquit the wrongdoer. If he is guilty of the crime, I the Lord will take revenge on him.
\nExodus 23:8
\nRASHI
\nDo not take bribes. Even to judge according to the truth, and how much the more so not to pervert justice, which has already been forbidden in v. 6. Bribes blind the clear-sighted. Even one who is wise in Torah\u2014if he takes bribes, he ends up losing his mind, forgetting his Torah, and losing his sight. The pleas of those who are in the right. Rather, \u201cthe words of the righteous\u201d (OJPS), to be understood as \u201cthe words of the righteous laws of the Torah.\u201d This is how Onkelos translates it, as well.
\nRASHBAM
\nBlind the clear-sighted. \u201cBlind\u201d applies to \u201cclear-sighted,\u201d and \u201cupset\u201d to \u201cthe pleas of the righteous.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nUpset the pleas of those who are in the right. Rather, \u201cthe words of the righteous\u201d (OJPS), that is, the judges. Saadia felt it odd to think that a \u201crighteous\u201d judge could be bribed, and took it as \u201cthe words that are right.\u201d However, we have no need for this interpretation, which is in any case grammatically impossible. The sense is that the bribe does to the soul of the (otherwise) righteous judge whatever the bribe giver wants. A righteous judge is supposed to speak justice, and bribery brings the opposite of justice out of his mouth. If NJPS is correct that it refers to the defendants, then it means \u201cright\u201d in that particular case, not \u201crighteous\u201d in general terms.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nDo not take bribes. But one may take a fee for one\u2019s time, as long as one takes the same fee from both sides, as did Karna on B. Ket. 105a (Bekhor Shor). It is unnecessary to say that one must not take monetary bribes; this means one must not even take bribes of words (David Kimhi).
\nExodus 23:9\u201312
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Isn\u2019t \u201cyou shall not oppress a stranger\u201d (v. 9) simply a repetition of 22:20?
\nExodus 23:9
\nRASHI
\nYou shall not oppress a stranger. The Torah warns about the \u201cstranger\u201d\u2014the convert\u2014in many places, because his beginnings were evil and he might be easily pushed back in that direction. The feelings of the stranger. How hard it is for him when he is oppressed.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall not oppress a stranger. This, too, is directed at the judge, not at all Israel; the verb is in the singular, not the plural. The judge should not expect to support a Jew against a stranger. As Moses charged the magistrates, \u201cHear out your fellow men, and decide justly between any man and a fellow Israelite or a stranger\u201d (Deut. 1:16).
\nExodus 23:10
\nRASHBAM
\nGather in its yield. Gather it into your house, and do not leave it unclaimed. But in the seventh year, \u201cLet it rest\u201d (v. 11).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nSix years you shall sow your land. This begins the section falling under \u201cRemember the sabbath day and keep it holy\u201d; as OJPS notes, the Hebrew begins with \u201cand,\u201d to point out that not merely the seventh day but also the seventh year must be remembered (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 23:11
\nRASHI
\nYou shall let it rest. From being worked. And lie fallow. Rather, \u201clet it rest from being eaten\u201d after the time when (according to the law of the seventh year) all crops must be removed from one\u2019s home and brought out to the fields to make sure the animals in the field have enough to eat. Another reading: Let it rest from full-fledged work like plowing and planting, and lie fallow from secondary tasks such as manuring and hoeing. What they leave let the wild beasts eat. The text equates the food of the poor to the food of animals. Just as animals eat without tithing, so do the poor. This is the source of the rule that there is no tithe in the seventh year. You shall do the same with your vineyards. The beginning of the verse refers to a field that is sown, as in v. 10.
\nRASHBAM
\nLet it rest. In that you do not plant on it. Lie fallow. Rather, do not gather in what it produces. You shall do the same with your vineyards and your olive groves. That is, the same as you do with your crops; the Bible ordinarily refers to three kinds of agricultural products: grain, wine, and oil. As is shown by Lev. 25:1\u20137, however, the rule here refers to any food that grows from the ground.
\nIBN EZRA
\nLet it rest. Rather, \u201cyou shall remit it.\u201d This is how the verb is used in Deut. 15:2, \u201cEvery creditor shall remit the due that he claims from his fellow.\u201d Lie fallow. Leave it as it is, as if it were not yours.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nLet it rest and lie fallow. Rashi\u2019s comment is incorrect. We are prohibited by the Torah only from plowing and planting. As the beginning of Tractate Moed Katan points out, we are prohibited from the subsidiary agricultural tasks of hoeing and manuring, and even weeding and clearing away the undergrowth, only rabbinically; the verse is simply a reminder of them. The rule about removal of the crops from one\u2019s home is not learned from this verse either. Ibn Ezra explains the phrase as \u201cYou shall remit it and not plant it,\u201d which is meaningless. This verse about the \u201cseventh year\u201d is obviously connected with the previous verse, \u201cSix years you shall sow your land and gather in its yield.\u201d The first verb of our verse means that you must not \u201csow your land,\u201d the second that you may not \u201cgather in its yield,\u201d but must leave it in the field so that the needy among your people and the beasts of the field may eat of the fruit of the tree and the produce of the vineyard. The second verb is used with the same meaning in Neh. 10:32, \u201cWe will forgo the produce of the seventh year.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nLet it rest and lie fallow. According to Lev. 25:2, \u201cWhen you enter the land that I assign to you, the land shall observe a sabbath of the Lord,\u201d this commandment applies only within the land of Israel, and only once each of them has gotten the land allocated to him (Gersonides). \u201cLet it rest\u201d really means something more like \u201clet it go\u201d\u2014it refers to the remission of debt in the seventh year prescribed by Deut. 15:2 (Sforno). The needy among your people. This explains why the rule is listed in this context (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 23:12
\nRASHI
\nOn the seventh day you shall cease from labor. That is, even in the seventh year, you must not uproot the Sabbath from its place, thinking, \u201cSince this whole year is a sabbath, the Sabbath of the seventh day is not in effect during it.\u201d In order that your ox and ass may rest. Give them rest, to be untied so they can eat grass that they munch from the ground. Or perhaps they should be \u201crested\u201d from the field by keeping them tied up at home? Think about it: For them, that is not rest but torture. Your bondman. The text refers to an uncircumcised slave.
\nIBN EZRA
\nSix days you shall do your work. In context, this refers to working the land. The proof is that it is your ox and your ass who are to rest. The stranger. The farm laborer who is hired for plowing, planting, or harvesting. Thus he is listed after the bondman, who works permanently.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nIn order that your ox and your ass may rest. \u201cIn order\u201d connects to the beginning of the verse. That is, you must do all your work in six days so that your ox and your ass may rest on the seventh. Your bondman and the stranger. They must all bear witness to creation. The same applies to the manna. And see my comment to 20:9.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou shall cease from labor. And from anything toilsome that one would do during the rest of the week (Sforno). That your bondman and the stranger may be refreshed. Again, this explains why Sabbath rest is mentioned in this context (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 23:13\u201314
\nExodus 23:13
\nRASHI
\nBe on guard concerning all that I have told you. This expression gives every positive commandment the same legal force as a prohibition. For the expression \u201cbe on guard\u201d serves the function of prohibiting one from not fulfilling the positive commandment. Make no mention. One must not pronounce the names of idols even to say, \u201cMeet me at the statue of Such-and-Such,\u201d or \u201cStay at my house for So-and-So day.\u201d Another reading: The juxtaposition of \u201cBe on guard concerning all that I have told you\u201d and \u201cMake no mention of the names of other gods\u201d teaches you that idolatry is as serious as all the other commandments put together; one who is careful not to commit idolatry is like one who is \u201con guard\u201d to observe all the others. They shall not be heard on your lips. Rather, \u201cthey shall not be heard\u201d from a gentile \u201con your say-so.\u201d That is, you must not go into partnership with a gentile who might swear by his god as part of his dealings with you. In effect, this would mean that you had caused that idolatrous name to be mentioned.
\nRASHBAM
\nBe on guard concerning all that I have told you. From the day on which I began to give you the Ten Commandments until now. The text repeats and reiterates its warnings. But the Sages interpret this remark, in connection with the previous verse, to say that the inanimate objects in one\u2019s house that are ordinarily used for work must also rest on the Sabbath.
\nIBN EZRA
\nMake no mention of the names of other gods. Do not swear by them. They shall not be heard on your lips. Do not tell an idolater, \u201cSwear to me by your god.\u201d As Josh. 23:7 says, \u201cDo not utter the names of their gods or cause others to swear by them.\u201d
\nNAHMANIDES
\nBe on guard concerning all that I have told you. Rashi\u2019s comment would have to mean that it would be a prohibition so general as to have no practical legal effect, for otherwise one would have to be whipped for every violation of a positive commandment. But everyone agrees that one is not whipped for violating a prohibition that includes a wide range of behavior but does not mention any specific commandment. Our Sages, however, have already stated that the warning to \u201cbe on guard\u201d regarding a positive commandment is treated like a positive commandment itself. So our verse cannot be a prohibition, but must be another positive commandment. The Mekilta offers a number of different explanations of this verse. But the straightforward sense is, \u201cBe on guard concerning all that I have told you about other gods.\u201d For the two halves of this verse are connected. Be very careful not to worship them, not to bow down to them, to proscribe one who sacrifices to them, not to make any images, and, moreover, to make no mention of the names of other gods such as \u201cChemosh the god of Moab,\u201d \u201cMilcom the god of the Ammonites,\u201d or \u201cAshima the god of Hamath.\u201d They shall not be heard on your lips. Even if you do not call them gods, you must not mention Milcom or Ashima at all. Instead, you must call them by some insulting name such as \u201cthe abomination of Moab\u201d (1 Kings 11:7), or \u201cthe detestable thing of the Ammonites\u201d (2 Kings 23:13). Or it might mean, you may not say anything that causes one of their worshipers to pronounce their names. As our Sages have said, one may not go into partnership with an idolater and have him swear by his idol. But \u201cmake no mention\u201d might be used transitively to mean that one may not mention them to their worshipers, to say (for example), \u201cBy your god, do me a favor.\u201d In this case \u201cthey shall not be heard on your lips\u201d would be the general prohibition, as in Josh. 23:6, \u201cDo not utter the names of their gods or swear by them; do not serve them or bow down to them.\u201d The prohibitions added there make clear that no one may mention or cause anyone to swear by foreign gods.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nBe on guard concerning all that I have told you. Even though you must be kind to the \u201cstranger\u201d of v. 12, do not talk with him about his god (Bekhor Shor). Everything I have told you about the Sabbath also applies to the Sabbaths of the sabbatical year (Hizkuni). They shall not be heard on your lips. Since the text is about to mention the holidays, when people get boisterous and say all kinds of things they should not, the text warns that even at times of rejoicing one must be careful of what one says (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 23:14
\nRASHI
\nTimes. The unusual Hebrew word is used the same way in Num. 22:28, when the ass asks Balaam, \u201cWhat have I done to you that you have beaten me these three times?\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nThree times a year. The unusual word for \u201ctimes\u201d is also used, in Ps. 74:3, for \u201csteps.\u201d It is as if to say, \u201cthree walkings a year\u201d; these are the pilgrimage festivals. You shall hold a festival. That is, \u201csacrifice.\u201d See Ps. 118:27, where this noun is translated as \u201cfestival offering.\u201d For Me. The text says this because it is the custom of idolaters to sacrifice at certain specific times during the year. The Israelites are told to do the same, but \u201cfor Me.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThree times a year you shall hold a festival for Me. Since you only have to take the trouble to worship Me three times a year, why would you bother with other gods? (Hizkuni). Like the unusual word for \u201ctime\u201d used here, regel, even the regular word, pa\u2019am, literally means \u201cfoot\u201d; see Song 7:2, \u201cHow lovely are your feet in sandals\u201d (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 23:15\u201317
\nExodus 23:15
\nRASHI
\nThe month of Abib. In which month produce reaches the fully ripened state of its development, ibeha. Or it may be connected with ab, \u201cfather,\u201d as the month that is the first of them all in terms of the ripening of fruit. None shall appear before Me empty-handed. When you come to appear before Me on the pilgrimage festivals, you must bring Me sacrifices.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe Feast of Unleavened Bread. The most important holiday is listed first. At the set time in the month of Abib. When the barley is abib, \u201cin the ear\u201d (9:31). None shall appear before Me empty-handed. The Hebrew looks as if it could be read \u201cMy face shall not be seen [if you are] empty-handed.\u201d But v. 17, \u201cThree times a year all your males shall appear before the Sovereign, the Lord,\u201d where the subject and the preposition are explicit, make clear that the translations are correct.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nNone shall appear before Me empty-handed. Literally, \u201cMy faces shall not appear empty-handed\u201d\u2014the faces of the pilgrims, who belong to Me (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 23:16
\nRASHI
\nThe Feast of the Harvest. That is, the Feast of Weeks. This is the time of the bringing of first fruits. For the bringing of two loaves as offerings on the Feast of Weeks authorizes both using the new harvest for grain offerings and bringing the first fruits to the Temple. The Feast of Ingathering. That is, the Feast of Tabernacles. When you gather in the results of your work. For all summer long the produce stays in the field to dry out, and at the time of the Feast of Tabernacles, when the rainy season begins, they bring it indoors.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe Feast of the Harvest. On which the offerings described in Lev. 23:16\u201319 are made. The first fruits of your work. This permits the new harvest\u2019s grain to be used in the Temple. The Feast of Ingathering. The Feast of Booths, at the time of ingathering, when \u201cthe threshing floors shall be piled with grain, and vats shall overflow with new wine and oil\u201d (Joel 2:24). The text commands them to live in booths as a reminder that in the wilderness they lived in tents, and had no land, and no grain, wine, or oil, as they would afterward in the land of Israel. So they were to give thanks to the Holy One for this. So the three pilgrimage festivals\u2014Abib (ripening), Harvest, and Ingathering\u2014are all connected to the fruits of the land of Israel.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe Feast of the Harvest. The first fruits of the wheat harvest. The Feast of Ingathering. In Tishrei, when the agricultural year concludes; for in the following month, Heshvan, planting begins again.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe Feast of the Harvest. I do not understand why this is referred to as \u201cthe\u201d Feast of the Harvest, since it has not previously been mentioned. The text ought to have said, \u201cYou shall observe a Harvest Feast,\u201d just as Deut. 16:10 says, \u201cYou shall observe a Feast of Weeks.\u201d Perhaps it is \u201cthe\u201d second of the three festivals mentioned in v. 14, and the same applies to \u201cthe\u201d Feast of Ingathering at the end of the year. All three of them involve giving thanks to God for the results of one\u2019s work in the fields. For He is the guardian of \u201cthe laws of heaven\u201d (Jer. 33:25), and helps man \u201cget food out of the earth\u201d (Ps. 104:14), to \u201csatisfy the thirsty, and fill the hungry with all good things\u201d (Ps. 107:9).
\nExodus 23:17
\nRASHI
\nThree times a year. Since the context deals with the sabbatical year, this verse was necessary to make clear that even during that year the three festivals are not uprooted from their place.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe Sovereign, the Lord. For the land is His, so \u201cno one will covet your land when you go up to appear before the Lord your God three times a year\u201d (34:24). There, too, in 34:23, He is called \u201cthe Sovereign Lord,\u201d for 34:24 immediately says, \u201cI will drive out nations from your path and enlarge your territory.\u201d This is the context in which the Holy One is referred to as \u201cSovereign\u201d (for each text refers to Him by a name appropriate to the context). The Sages interpreted Isa. 10:33 similarly: \u201c \u2018The Sovereign Lord of Hosts will hew off the tree-crowns with an ax.\u2019 Wherever you find God called by this name, He is expelling the inhabitants of a land and bringing in new ones.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nAll your males. Having presented the three festivals, the text now makes clear that this commandment is for the males\u2014those who are of age to be bound by the commandments, and who are not too ill to come. The sovereign. The males must go on these pilgrimages like a slave going to his master. In Re\u2019eh I will allude to the mystery behind this.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nBefore the Sovereign, the Lord. As v. 16 makes clear, He is the Sovereign Lord who provides for those who serve Him. Having gotten their reward from Him, they come to Him to see what He will command them. According to the True interpretation, \u201cbefore,\u201d lifnei, is derived from the word panim, \u201cface.\u201d I have already alluded to the explanation of the Face in my comment to 20:3, which is the reason for the use of the word \u201cSovereign\u201d (literally, \u201cLord\u201d) in conjunction with the Tetragrammaton. The same applies to the slightly different repetition of this verse in 34:23, as well as to Josh. 3:11 and Ps. 114:7.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThree times a year all your males shall appear before the Sovereign, the Lord. Unlike v. 14, this verse makes clear that the festivals cannot be celebrated in whatever countries they may be living (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 23:18\u201319
\nExodus 23:18
\nRASHI
\nYou shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with anything leavened. You shall not slaughter the passover offering on the 14th of Nisan until all leaven has been removed. The fat of My festal offering shall not be left lying anywhere but on the altar until morning. Could the text mean that even on the altar, lying there until morning would invalidate the sacrifice? No, \u201cthe burnt offering itself shall remain where it is burned upon the altar all night until morning\u201d (Lev. 6:2). Our verse provides the definition of the verb \u201cto remain all night\u201d (see OJPS) when it says \u201cuntil morning\u201d: \u201cto remain all night\u201d means until dawn. So the fat may be picked up off the ground and put back on the altar at any time during the night.
\nRASHBAM
\nYou shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with anything leavened. All leaven must be removed before noon on the 14th of Nisan, before the time of the passover offering, which is from noon on. The fat of My festal offering. The passover offering. Shall not be left lying until morning. Of the passover offering the text says, \u201cYou shall not leave any of it over until morning\u201d (12:10), and the same rule applies to those parts that are not eaten but burnt.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with anything leavened. \u201cMy sacrifice\u201d refers to the passover offering. So all leaven must be gone by the time it is slaughtered. It is \u201cMy\u201d sacrifice in the sense that it is offered to Me, for its blood is dashed against the altar. The fat of My festal offering shall not be left lying until morning. Because there is such a short time to get everything done, the fat may be burnt at any time until morning.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYou shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with anything leavened. Do not understand from Rashi\u2019s comment that the verse is telling you the time before which all leaven must be removed, as discussed on B. Pes. 5a. This interpretation is not the main point of the verse. For removing leaven on the day before Passover is a positive commandment, not a prohibition as in our verse. (Even one who eats leaven on the afternoon before Passover is violating not a prohibition but the positive commandment to remove leaven.) Contextually, our verse is a prohibition of slaughtering the passover sacrifice \u201cwith\u201d anything leavened. That is, none of the members of the group for whom the offering is being sacrificed shall own leaven at the moment of slaughtering. This is just how Rashi explains it in his comment to 34:25. The text literally says, \u201cYou shall not sacrifice the blood of My sacrifice,\u201d when it ought to have said, \u201cYou shall not sacrifice My sacrifice.\u201d For of course blood is not sacrificed. But in the opinion of our Sages, the word \u201cblood\u201d occurs in this verse to include the priest who sprinkles the blood among those who may not own leaven at the moment of slaughter. It is an abbreviated verse, really meaning, \u201cYou shall not offer My sacrifice, or sprinkle its blood, while owning anything leavened.\u201d
\nExodus 23:19
\nRASHI
\nThe choice first fruits of your soil. Even the seventh year requires bringing the first fruits, which is why \u201cthe choice first fruits\u201d are mentioned here. How does this work? A man goes into his field and sees a fig tree that has fruited. He ties some reed-grass around it to mark it, and sets it aside as the first fruits. I give the example of a fig tree because the first fruits must come only from the seven species mentioned in Deut. 8:8, \u201ca land of wheat and barley, of vines, figs, and pomegranates, a land of olive trees and honey.\u201d You shall not boil a kid in its mother\u2019s milk. This applies to a calf or a lamb as well. The Hebrew word gedi, usually translated \u201ckid,\u201d refers to any animal of tender age. This is readily apparent from the fact that in such verses as Gen. 27:9 and Gen. 38:17 and Gen. 38:20, where a goat-kid is specifically meant, the Hebrew text must specify \u201ca kid of the goats.\u201d When this qualifying phrase is not added, the word refers to a calf or lamb as well. \u201cYou shall not boil a kid in its mother\u2019s milk\u201d occurs three times in the Torah (here, 34:26, and Deut. 14:21): once to prohibit eating it, once to prohibit deriving any benefit from it, and once to prohibit cooking it.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe choice first fruits of your soil. From the \u201cseven species.\u201d \u201cYou shall take some of every first fruit of the soil, which you harvest from the land that the Lord your God is giving you, put it in a basket and go to the place where the Lord your God will choose to establish His name\u201d (Deut. 26:2). When you go up to that place on the pilgrimage festivals, that is when you bring your first fruits. You shall not boil a kid in its mother\u2019s milk. Goat kids are born two at a time, and it was customary to kill one of the two. Since goat milk is so plentiful\u2014\u201cThe goats\u2019 milk will suffice for your food\u201d (Prov. 27:27)\u2014they would cook it in its mother\u2019s milk. Thus the text speaks of a common practice. But it is obscenely gluttonous to eat the mother\u2019s milk with her young ones. The prohibition of slaughtering an animal on the same day as its young (Lev. 22:28) and of taking a mother bird from her nest \u201ctogether with her young\u201d (Deut. 22:6) are similar examples. The text is teaching you how to be civilized. The rule applies to the eating of any meat with milk, as our Sages have explained in tractate Hullin. The passage is included with the rules for the pilgrimage festivals because a lot of animals were eaten at those times.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall not boil a kid. The idiotic Karaites relate the word gedi, \u201ckid,\u201d to megadim, \u201cchoice fruits\u201d (but that is impossible, for the first m is part of the root of that word) and the word t\u2019vashel, \u201cboil,\u201d to vashal, \u201cripe,\u201d as in Joel 4:13 (which also cannot be right, for fruit is ripened by the sun, not by people). Moreover, if this verse had something to do with ripening fruit, what would in its mother\u2019s milk have to do with it? They go to all that trouble to fit this part of the verse to the other part, \u201cthe choice first fruits of your soil.\u201d But the season of first fruits is when goats mature. And haven\u2019t they read Deut. 14:21, \u201cYou shall not eat anything that has died a natural death.\u2026 You shall not boil a kid in its mother\u2019s milk,\u201d where the context has to do with eating meat? I will explain that verse in its place. The straightforward sense of the word is that a gedi is a kid: \u201cThe leopard shall lie down with the kid\u201d (Isa. 11:6). (Rashi is incorrect that the phrase \u201ca kid of the goats\u201d shows that \u201ckid\u201d may refer to any young animal. As in Arabic, gedi applies only to a goat. But a \u201ckid\u201d is independent, whereas a \u201ckid of the goats\u201d is younger and must still be with the flock at all times.) The Ishmaelites of today are accustomed to cook a kid in milk, and they say that it is a delicious dish. Don\u2019t be surprised just because people in these parts don\u2019t eat the meat of a goat-kid. For all the physicians admit that there is no meat like it, and they even let sick people eat it. It is eaten in Spain, Africa, Israel, Persia, and Babylonia, and was eaten in ancient times as well (see Gen. 27:9). We have no need to seek the reason that it is prohibited, for this is hidden even from those of understanding. But perhaps God commanded us not to do it because it demonstrates a certain cruelty. The commandments \u201cno animal from the herd or from the flock shall be slaughtered on the same day with its young\u201d (Lev. 22:28) and \u201cdo not take the mother together with her young\u201d (Deut. 22:6) are similar. Just as it is clear that the Leviticus verse means you cannot eat them (though all it says is \u201cslaughtered\u201d), so too you cannot eat the kid in its mother\u2019s milk even if it were not \u201cboiled.\u201d But in these cases even one who slaughters or boils without subsequently eating has already violated a commandment. Since the dairy does not sell the milk of each goat separately, but mixes it all together, it is impossible to tell which goat\u2019s milk you have bought. (One goat does not give very much milk.) So it is forbidden to boil a kid in milk at all, because some of the milk might be from its mother. From the text\u2019s mention of a \u201ckid,\u201d we can learn that it applies to full-grown animals as well. For the text mentions a \u201ckid\u201d merely because of the common practice\u2014the meat of a full-grown goat does not go well with milk. The tradition that any meat with milk is prohibited is correct. I will explain in each place, as appropriate, why this commandment is repeated twice more.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe choice first fruits of your soil. Just as v. 18 applies to the Feast of Unleavened Bread, this applies to the Feast of Weeks (Abarbanel). You shall not boil a kid in its mother\u2019s milk. The word translated \u201cboil\u201d really means \u201cripen, grow to maturity\u201d (see Gen. 40:10). So the straightforward sense of this verse is, \u201cdo not let a kid grow to maturity on its mother\u2019s milk,\u201d but offer it to God when it is still young, like the \u201cfirst fruits\u201d at the beginning of the verse (Bekhor Shor). At the mesta, the twice-yearly gathering of shepherds in Spain, our investigations have determined that a kid in its mother\u2019s milk is considered the choicest of foods; and I have confirmed that the same is true in the island at the end of the world, England. So this is clearly meant to warn against non-Jewish customs at the pilgrimage Feast of Booths (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 23:20
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why does God suddenly (v. 20) decide to remove His personal providence from Israel, providing instead an angel to govern them?
\n\u2666 Why does Moses not protest against this, as he does in 32:32 after the sin of the Golden Calf, when Israel actually deserved it?
\n\u2666 If God made this decision, and Moses did not protest against it, why did it not actually happen?
\n\u2666 Was this angel the kind of intermediary between God and human who fulfills the divine will automatically, or the kind that operates with independent judgment?
\nExodus 23:20
\nRASHI
\nI am sending an angel. Here they are informed that eventually they will sin, and that the Shekhinah will then say to them, \u201cI will not go in your midst\u201d (33:3). To the place that I have made ready. The place that I have designated to be given to you. That is the straightforward sense. The midrash reads it as follows: \u201cto the place that I have aligned\u201d opposite My place, taking this as one of the verses that say that the Temple on high is directly opposite the Temple below.
\nRASHBAM
\nI am sending an angel before you. \u201cI am captain of the Lord\u2019s host. Now I have come!\u201d (Josh. 5:14)\u2014to save Israel.
\nIBN EZRA
\nI am sending an angel before you. Behold, I, Abraham the Sephardi, send my tongue before thee against R. Saadia the Ga\u2019on, who uses this verse to prove that human beings rank higher than angels, who were created on their account. For this he brings proofs from rabbinic literature. But they spoke only of that variety of angels who are being created constantly at every moment\u2014and their words are true. God is instructing Moses to tell Israel that, if they accept everything He has told them from 20:19 to this point, He will lead them to the land of Israel.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nI am sending an angel before you. See Rashi\u2019s comment. Exodus Rabbah too thinks it has to do with the Golden Calf. But that is questionable, since this decree was never carried out. Later, God again announces that He \u201cwill send an angel before you, and \u2026 will not go in your midst\u201d (33:3), but Moses persuades Him not to do this. As B. Sanh. 38b says, \u201cWe would not accept him even as a messenger, for Moses said, \u2018Unless You go in the lead, do not make us leave this place\u2019 [33:15].\u201d According to this opinion, the solution is that this decree of sending an angel was not carried out during Moses\u2019 lifetime (see 33:16\u201317), but after his death God did send them an angel, the \u201ccaptain of the Lord\u2019s host\u201d mentioned in Josh. 5:14. Joshua\u2019s response is to ask, \u201cWhat does my lord command his servant?\u201d But the angel was not revealed to him in order to give him a command; he simply told Joshua, \u201cRemove your sandals from your feet, for the place where you stand is holy\u201d (Josh. 5:15). But he did not tell him why he had come. The purpose of this vision, however, was to inform Joshua that the angel was sent to go into battle before them. According to the Tanhuma, when the angel says, \u201cNow I have come!\u201d he means, \u201cI am the one who came during the days of your master Moses, who did not want me to go with him.\u201d Once Moses was dead, this angel could return to his position.
\nBut the True interpretation of the angel whom they are promised here is that he is the \u201credeeming angel\u201d of Gen. 48:16, who has God\u2019s name \u201cin him\u201d (v. 21)\u2014\u201cFor in Yah the Lord you have an everlasting Rock\u201d (Isa. 26:4). It was this angel who told Jacob, \u201cI am the God of Beth-el\u201d (Gen. 31:13), for it is the way of the King to dwell in His House, though the text calls him an angel because this world is managed entirely under the particular divine aspect that he embodies. Our Sages call him Metatron, the one who shows the way, as I have already explained in my comment to 12:12.
\nThe place that I have made ready. The Temple\u2014\u201cThe sanctuary, O Lord, which Your hands established\u201d (15:17). That is, \u201cthe place that I have made ready for Myself, to be My holy house\u2014My pride.\u201d For there the Throne is complete. I will explain this further, with God\u2019s help, in my comments to 24:1 and to ch. 33. In any case, everyone agrees on the truth of the midrash that the angel did not accompany them during Moses\u2019 lifetime. For Moses took his place; see 17:11. But in the days of Joshua they needed this angel (it was Gabriel) to fight for them.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nI am sending an angel. That is, a messenger (as the word literally means), a prophet, not a real angel (Bekhor Shor). The messenger-prophet referred to is Joshua (Hizkuni). Just as the Israelites were not able to hear God\u2019s words directly, so too the wilderness could not bear contact with the Highest or with divine providence. Since substituting an angel for God in these conditions was a matter of kindness, not a punishment, and since he knew they would soon be at rest in their promised possession, Moses did not protest as he did elsewhere (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 23:21\u201324
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Doesn\u2019t putting an angel in charge of Israel who \u201cwill not pardon your offenses\u201d (v. 21) as God Himself would do contradict 33:3, where the purpose of God\u2019s removing Himself from the midst of the people is so that He not \u201cdestroy you on the way\u201d?
\n\u2666 Why does the beginning of v. 23 (as literally translated in OJPS) repeat the information of v. 20?
\n\u2666 Why does v. 24 issue a warning that is both not relevant to its context and already included in the Ten Commandments?
\nExodus 23:21
\nRASHI
\nHe will not pardon your offenses. He has no experience in doing so, for he is a member of the class of beings that never sins. Moreover, he has been sent on a specific mission and can only perform that mission. Do not defy him. The JPS translations are correct; the root is \u05de\u05e8\u05d4, as in Josh. 1:18, \u201cAny man who flouts your commands.\u201d Since My Name is in him. This belongs with the beginning of the verse: Pay heed to him, since My Name is embodied in him. Our Sages say: This is Metatron, whose name is like that of his Master. (The numerical value of \u201cMetatron\u201d is the same as that of \u201cShaddai.\u201d)
\nRASHBAM
\nDo not defy him. The verb does not mean \u201cdefy,\u201d for the root is not \u05de\u05e8\u05d4 but \u05de\u05d5\u05e8 or (if the dagesh in the Masoretic text is correct) \u05e0\u05de\u05e8 (as in Jer. 48:11). He will not pardon your offenses, since My Name is in him. He commands you in My Name, but he has no authority to pardon offenses.
\nIBN EZRA
\nPay heed to him. Every angel does exactly what God tells him, no more and no less\u2014even Satan in the book of Job. So one who obeys such an angel is obeying God Himself. Do not defy him. The verb is difficult. The meaning would seem to be the same as with the root \u05de\u05e8\u05d4, but the form is wrong. So the Spanish scholars have been forced to derive it from \u05de\u05e8\u05e8. Don\u2019t be surprised at two similar roots having the same meaning; this is not the only such occurrence. Since My Name is in him. This is not connected to \u201che will not pardon,\u201d but to \u201cdo not defy him.\u201d This angel was Michael, the \u201cgreat prince\u201d (Dan. 12:1); the suggestion that it was Enoch is midrashic. Others are so confused as to read it \u201cMy Name is in it,\u201d meaning that the \u201cangel\u201d was the Torah or the Ark. In fact, God\u2019s Name is \u201cin\u201d the angel in the same way that the center of a circle is equally close to every point on its circumference. It is not only in that angel.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nDo not defy him, for he will not pardon your offenses, since My Name is in him. If you defy him, he will not pardon you. For one who defies him defies the great Name that is in him, and deserves to be destroyed by God\u2019s aspect of justice. Or perhaps it means, \u201cPay heed to him and obey him \u2026 since My Name is in him,\u201d and to heed him is to heed the One on high.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nHe will not pardon your offenses. Literally, \u201cyour [pl.] transgression [sg.]\u201d (OJPS)\u2014you may all end up being punished for the sin of a single person (Sforno). Since My Name is in him. Since My word is in his (the prophet\u2019s) mouth (Gersonides).
\nExodus 23:22
\nRASHI
\nI will be \u2026 a foe to your foes. As Onkelos translates it, \u201cI will trouble those who trouble you.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nIf you obey him and do all that I say. There is no contradiction between obeying him and doing all that I say, any more than there is between calling the light of the moon \u201cmoonlight\u201d or (what it really is) \u201csunlight\u201d that has been reflected.
\nExodus 23:23
\nRASHBAM
\nWhen My angel goes before you. Rather, \u201cFor he will go before you.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nI annihilate them. The Girgashites, the smallest of the seven nations of Canaan, who are not otherwise mentioned in this verse. For the six nations that are mentioned would be driven out \u201clittle by little\u201d (v. 30).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWhen My angel goes before you. He will not pardon the offenses of your enemies, either (Sforno).
\nExodus 23:24
\nRASHI
\nTear them down. Those gods. Their pillars. The pillars are \u201cstanding\u201d stones (matzevot) that they set up (matzivin) to bow down to.
\nRASHBAM
\nTear them down. Ever since I was young, I have conjectured that the vowels of this word should be emended to read t\u2019harsem, in the intensive conjugation, rather than taharsem, in the simple conjugation, which is the reading of the French manuscripts (which I considered corrupt). Eventually I found that all the manuscripts of Spain and Germany follow my opinion.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall not bow down to their gods. Both the beginning of the book of the covenant (20:20) and its end (23:33) warn against idolatry. But the warning at the end is much stronger\u2014that idolatry should be entirely uprooted. For one who worships idols violates all the prohibitions in the Torah. And obeying the positive commandments will not help him, either in this world or in the World To Come.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYou shall not bow down to their gods in worship. The Torah warns against idolatry in many places. From a technical standpoint, most of these warnings seem superfluous, but that does not mean that each warning must be understood to convey a separate, distinct nuance. Because idolatry is so serious\u2014everyone who acknowledges it thereby denies the entire Torah\u2014the Torah warns about it again and again, like a man warning his slave, \u201cAlways remember, never forget, the great principle that I have commanded you, on which everything depends.\u201d It could be that the Ten Commandments warn against making an idol and serving it, while this verse warns against worshiping an idol that was already made and worshiped by the nations mentioned in v. 23. Follow their practices. This may be a warning against the \u201cpractices of the Amorites\u201d enumerated by the Sages; see also \u201cYou shall not copy the practices of the land of Egypt where you dwelt, or of the land of Canaan to which I am taking you\u201d (Lev. 18:3). But more likely it is a warning not to worship an idol in the way appropriate to it even if that method of worship is intrinsically disrespectful. \u201cWorship\u201d in Hebrew is literally \u201cservice\u201d (see OJPS); it is the respect that the slave pays to his master. But even idolatrous practices that smack of disrespect, like moving one\u2019s bowels before Baal Peor or tossing a stone at a roadside Hermes, are completely forbidden if that is the practice of their worshipers. One may not perform these practices even if one intends real disrespect by them.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nFollow their practices. Do not worship Me as they do their gods (Gersonides). Do not worship the angel who is leading you as they are permitted to worship the angels who lead them (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 23:25\u201327
\nExodus 23:25
\nRASHBAM
\nI will remove sickness. Which comes from bad water, as I explained in my comment to 15:26.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall serve the Lord your God. By doing all that He commands, loving Him, cleaving to Him, swearing by His name, praying to Him, sacrificing to Him, and tithing to Him. The four remaining clauses of vv. 25\u201326 are the rewards for such service. Since there are great scholars of the two Torahs, the Written and the Oral, who have never studied natural philosophy, I cannot explain these rewards without a brief discussion of the sciences.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYou shall serve the Lord your God. Most idolaters accept that the Holy One is \u201cGod supreme and Lord supreme\u201d (Deut. 10:17). They only worship (for example) the sun because they think it has some power over the crops; the moon, over springs and the deeps of the sea; and so forth with all the host of heaven. It is all the more natural that they would want to worship the angels, out of respect for those who serve the great God. So this verse warns that one may worship the Holy One alone. Uprooting idols will not only not harm you, it will convey additional goodness and blessing. He will bless your bread and your water. \u201cBread\u201d refers in general to all kinds of food, and \u201cwater\u201d to whatever one might drink. \u201cBlessing\u201d them means that you will have large amounts of them. I will remove sickness from your midst. Good, healthy food and drink will not cause disease, but will rather cure one of disease. The removal of sickness is also a blessing; \u201cI the Lord am your healer\u201d (15:26). The intelligent reader will understand this, and that such service is restricted to the ineffable Name alone, from my comment to that verse.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou shall serve the Lord your God. God does not need an attendant, and the temple \u201cservice\u201d is performed only by priests, while this is a commandment to all of Israel. It means praying to Him to fulfill our needs, as a slave prays to his master (Gersonides). I will remove sickness from your midst. The blessings of bread and water are worthless to one who is too sick to eat (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 23:26
\nRASHI
\nNo woman in your land shall miscarry. If you do My will. The word applies not only to a woman who miscarries, but to any woman who must bury her child.
\nRASHBAM
\nNo woman in your land shall miscarry. Even children grown to adulthood shall not die, but I will let you enjoy the full count of your days. \u201cYou will come to the grave in ripe old age\u201d (Job 5:26).
\nIBN EZRA
\nNo woman in your land. Rather, \u201cNone\u201d (OJPS)\u2014whether human or animal. I will let you enjoy the full count of your days. God has given each person\u2019s body the strength to last for a certain length of time. If the person cleaves to God, on whom everything is dependent, God will arrange to keep the body in health and strengthen the spirit that keeps him alive. The opposite happens when he distances himself from the Source of life. \u201cThe fear of the Lord prolongs life, while the years of the wicked will be shortened\u201d (Prov. 10:27). Though God knows in advance, before a person is born, everything that he will choose to do, God\u2019s foreknowledge does not force him to choose evil and abandon the good, for God has given over into his hand the power of self-determination.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nNo woman in your land shall miscarry or be barren. When their food, drink, and air are blessed, their bodies will be healthy and the generative organs will perform their functions properly. The text specifies the females since they are more often the cause of miscarriage or barrenness than are the males. Or perhaps the male causes of barrenness are referred to in the general removal of sickness mentioned in v. 25. The text does not say \u201cno woman\u201d but \u201cnone\u201d (OJPS), though it is grammatically feminine. So the addition of \u201cin your land\u201d indicates that it applies not merely to women, but to female animals as well. I will let you enjoy the full count of your days. They will not be killed in war, nor die by plague caused by an alteration of the air, but in old age, with the full count of days expected by everyone in that particular generation (e.g., 70 or 80 in the days of King David ).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nNo woman in your land shall miscarry or be barren. So that you will be able to teach your children (Sforno). The full count of your days. You will not die before your time, as do the wicked according to Prov. 10:27, \u201cThe fear of the Lord prolongs life, while the years of the wicked will be shortened\u201d (Bekhor Shor). In which case you will be able to \u201cmake them known to your children and to your children\u2019s children\u201d (Deut. 4:9) (Sforno).
\nExodus 23:27
\nRASHI
\nI will throw into panic. One who translates it \u201cI will kill\u201d is mistaken; it is not from \u05de\u05d5\u05ea Moreover, the vowels show that it is a geminate verb, \u05d4\u05de\u05dd, not the hollow verb \u05d4\u05d5\u05dd. The dagesh in the mem indicates a doubling of that letter. I will make all your enemies turn tail before you. Literally, \u201cI will give all your enemies \u2018napewise\u2019 to you.\u201d They shall flee from you and turn the napes of their necks to you.
\nRASHBAM
\nMy terror. Like the \u201cterror from God\u201d that fell on the cities round about in Gen. 35:5, My terror will fall on those with whom you do battle. I will throw into panic. With My voice, as when \u201cthe Lord thundered mightily against the Philistines that day and threw them into confusion\u201d (1 Sam. 7:10).
\nNAHMANIDES
\nI will send forth My terror before you. I have already mentioned that all these miracles that God performs, in heaven and on earth, are signs for those who do His will. Here He promises to match the good He does for them with the evil He will do to their enemies, giving them \u201can anguished heart\u201d (Deut. 28:65) and \u201cterror within\u201d (Deut. 32:25).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nI will send forth My terror before you. As you requested in 15:16, \u201cTerror and dread descend upon them\u201d (Hizkuni). All the people among whom you come. Including those who may not belong to any of the seven nations (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 23:28\u201331
\nExodus 23:28
\nRASHI
\nA plague. Rather, \u201cthe hornet\u201d (OJPS). It is a kind of flying insect that would sting them in the eyes, inject poison, and kill them. But it did not cross the Jordan. The Canaanites and the Hittites inhabited the land of Sihon and Og, on the east bank of the Jordan, which is why these two of the seven nations of Canaan are mentioned here. As for the Hivites, they lived on the west side of the Jordan, but (as our Sages explain at B. Sotah 36a) the hornets stayed on the east bank of the Jordan and hurled the poison across the river at them.
\nIBN EZRA
\nA plague. This is indeed a disease of the body; v. 27 has already referred to mental confusion. The word tzir\u2019ah is related to tzara\u2019at, a skin disease. The Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites. The reference to only three of the seven nations may mean that the plague would hit them more severely, but it would hit all of them.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nI will send a plague ahead of you. This is a reference to a particular species, the \u201chornet\u201d of OJPS; their honey is regularly mentioned in rabbinic literature. God will send the hornets into the air of their land as he sent the locusts into Egypt and the \u201cgreat army\u201d of \u201cswarms \u2026 hoppers \u2026 grubs and locusts\u201d in Joel\u2019s time (Joel 2:25). Drive out. When the hornets cover the entire land, blocking out the sun, they will not be able to fight and will evacuate the country. Moreover, the hornets will eat all that their toiling in the field has produced, as in the curse, \u201cThough you take much seed out to the field, you shall gather in little, for the locust shall consume it.\u2026 The cricket shall take over all the trees and produce of your land\u201d (Deut. 28:38,42). The Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites. This is a shorthand reference to all the nations mentioned in v. 23. In my opinion, most of these three nations did not die in battle, but remained fortified in their strongholds, where only this form of death could reach them. The threat is repeated in Deut. 7:20, \u201cThe Lord your God will also send a plague against them, until those who are left in hiding perish before you.\u201d These hornets crossed the Jordan with Joshua. According to B. Sotah 36a, the hornets injected poison into the Canaanites and killed them. (The truth is, even today the venom of hornets is dangerous, even fatal.) \u201cI sent the hornets ahead of you, and they drove them out before you\u201d (Josh. 24:12)\u2014whoever was left of them. Ibn Ezra takes this word tzir\u2019ah not as \u201chornet\u201d but as representing some sort of disease, like the skin disease called tzara\u2019at in the Torah; but this interpretation is not necessary.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nI will send a plague ahead of you. This is a metaphor for the divine help that would accompany the Israelites in subduing the seven nations (Gersonides).
\nExodus 23:29
\nRASHI
\nDesolate. Empty of people. For there are few of you, not enough to fill it.
\nIBN EZRA
\nLest the land become desolate. For Israel would be too extensive for those who left Egypt to settle it all at once. And the wild beasts multiply to your hurt. Saadia reads the last phrase of the verse to say that the multiplying of the beasts \u201cupon you\u201d (as it literally says) would be a signal of the moment when God would send the plague. He reasoned, God could prevent the wild beasts from multiplying. But we find this explanation unnecessary. For God does not perform miracles except to confirm that a certain person is His messenger, as I will explain in my comment to Deut. 13:3.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nI will not drive them out before you in a single year. A few of them were to remain among them as laborers; only when the Israelites increased enough to settle the land did God command that none of them be left alive (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 23:30
\nRASHI
\nUntil you have increased. Literally, \u201cbecome fruitful,\u201d as in \u201cBe fruitful and increase\u201d (Gen. 1:22).
\nIBN EZRA
\nLittle by little. Until you are fruitful enough to settle the land\u2014whose length and breadth the text now goes on to outline.
\nExodus 23:31
\nRASHI
\nThe Euphrates. Literally, \u201cthe River\u201d (OJPS); but NJPS is correct.
\nRASHBAM
\nFrom the Sea of Reeds. Which is at the extreme east of Israel, as I shall show in my comment to Deut. 1:1. To the Sea of Philistia. Which is in the west; \u201cPhilistia from the west\u201d (Isa. 9:11). From the wilderness. In which the Israelites were traveling, from the south. To the Euphrates. In the north; when God warns Jeremiah about Babylonia, he says, \u201cFrom the north shall disaster break loose upon all the inhabitants of the land!\u201d (Jer. 1:14).
\nIBN EZRA
\nI will set your borders. As Ps. 72:8 says of the king, \u201cLet him rule from sea to sea, from the river to the ends of the earth.\u201d To the Euphrates. OJPS \u201cunto the River\u201d is literal, but NJPS has the correct meaning.
\nExodus 23:32\u201324:1
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Since the Torah has already been given, what need is there for Moses and the others to \u201ccome up to the Lord\u201d (v. 1)?
\nExodus 23:32
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall make no covenant with them. For \u201cI will drive them out before you little by little\u201d (v. 30) until they are finished off; in the meantime, make no covenant with them to keep them alive. And their gods. If they should say, \u201cWe will give you the land on condition that you not break down the stone pillars of our gods.\u201d But kill those of them you can kill, and those you cannot kill, drive them out.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYou shall make no covenant with them. To let a single soul of them live. And their gods. The Israelites must not agree to leave the idols alone, but must \u201ctear them down and smash their pillars to bits\u201d (v. 24). Or it may mean, \u201cwith them and their gods\u201d\u2014while they are still worshiping their gods, you shall make no covenant with them, but if they agree not to worship idols, you may let them live.
\nExodus 23:33
\nRASHI
\nFor you will serve their gods\u2014and it will prove a snare to you. Rather, \u201cin that you will serve their gods, and in that it will prove a snare to you.\u201d This is one of the four meanings of the Hebrew word ki.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThey shall not remain in your land\u2014once you have grown populous enough\u2014lest they cause you to sin. By worshiping their gods. This verse concludes the \u201crecord of the covenant\u201d (24:7); everything up to this point was the conditions of the covenant that Moses was to repeat to the people in 24:3.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nFor you will serve their gods\u2014and it will prove a snare to you. The verse is not to be read as Rashi suggests, but as follows: They shall not remain in your land, for they will be a snare to you\u2014lest they cause you to sin against Me by serving their gods. (See also 34:12.) It is their dwelling in your land that would prove a snare and a stumbling block to you, causing you to sin against Me by their \u201cevil ways and corrupt acts\u201d (Ezek. 20:44). For they will beguile you into serving their gods.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThey shall not remain in your land. Vv. 10\u201333 were said at the end of the second 40 days that Moses spent on the mountain, after God was reconciled with the people following the Golden Calf incident; the material in Ki Tisa was said at the end of the first 40 days (Hizkuni). That is, \u201cThey must not remain in the part of the land that you conquer\u201d\u2014the exact opposite of what the Israelites actually did, for \u201cthe Canaanites dwelt in their midst at Gezer \u2026 they settled in the midst of the Canaanite inhabitants of the land\u201d (Judg. 1:29,33) (Sforno). It will prove a snare to you. It will undoubtedly prove a snare to you; so not letting them remain in your land was not a mere act of cruelty (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 24:1
\nRASHI
\nThen he said to Moses. This was said to Moses before the Ten Commandments. It was on the 4th of Sivan that he was told, Come up.
\nRASHBAM
\nChapter 24
\nEverything from \u201cMoses approached the thick cloud where God was\u201d (20:18) up to this point took place on the day that they heard the Ten Commandments. When Moses was about to go down the mountain on that day, he (alone) was told, \u201cCome up to the Lord\u201d (v. 1) tomorrow, you and Aaron, and so forth. Immediately afterward, \u201cMoses went and repeated to the people all the commands of the Lord\u201d (v. 3). The next day, he built an altar (v. 4), offered sacrifice (v. 5), and immediately went up the mountain, where the cloud covered him for six days (v. 16).
\nThen an angel said to Moses, \u201cCome up to the Lord.\u201d Since it does not say \u201cCome up to Me,\u201d as it does in v. 12, \u201che\u201d must be an angel, not God.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThen He said to Moses. NJPS \u201cHe,\u201d referring to God, is correct. The fact that He refers to Himself in the third person is not unique; see Ezek. 24:24, where Ezekiel says, \u201cAnd Ezekiel shall become a portent for you,\u201d and 1 Sam. 12:11, where Samuel tells Israel, \u201cThe Lord sent \u2026 Samuel.\u201d Come up to the Lord. God told him this after the revelation at Sinai. Seventy elders of Israel. The first-born; it was they who were \u201cthe priests \u2026 who come near the Lord\u201d (19:22). When 19:13 says \u201cThey may go up on the mountain,\u201d it is this episode that it refers to. From afar. Not up to the top of the mountain, but at a distance from it.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nChapter 24
\nRashi takes vv. 1\u20132 to have occurred before the giving of the Ten Commandments, on the 4th of Sivan, and v. 12, after the giving of the Torah, meaning that this chapter did not take place in the chronological sequence it appears to have in the text. Now, the \u201crules\u201d of v. 3 cannot refer to the Noahide commandments and the rules given at Marah, as Rashi says, but must mean \u201cthe rules that you shall set before them\u201d (21:1), that is, those of 21:2\u201323:19. For v. 3 does not say that Moses \u201crepeated\u201d them (as in NJPS), but that he \u201ctold\u201d them (OJPS), which must refer to something new. Ibn Ezra has perceptively explained these chapters as taking place, in sequence, on the day of the giving of the Torah. God immediately began with a second warning against idolatry (20:20), explained all the rules of the covenant, and concluded with a final warning against idolatry. He then told Moses, \u201cAfter you tell all this to the people, come up to the Lord, with Aaron\u201d and so forth\u2014which he did. The people responded joyfully, saying, in effect, We will do all that God has spoken to you, for we believe in your words. \u201cYou go closer and hear all that the Lord our God says, and then you tell us everything that the Lord our God tells you, and we will willingly do it\u201d (Deut. 5:24). Then Moses wrote them down. Early the next morning, he set up an altar (v. 4), offered sacrifice (v. 5), and dashed half the blood against the altar (v. 6). He took the record of the covenant that he had written down the previous evening, read it to them, and they accepted it (v. 7). Then he dashed the other half of the blood on the people (v. 8), for such equivalence is the mark of a covenant. Then he went up the mountain, as he had been told (v. 9). The making of the covenant and Moses\u2019 ascent of the mountain both took place on the day after the giving of the Torah, from which day he \u201cremained on the mountain forty days and forty nights\u201d (v. 18). All of this is explained as it ought to be. There is a dispute in the Mekilta about when the covenant described in ch. 24 was made. Some say it was made on the 5th of Sivan\u2014in which case Moses essentially said to them, \u201cNow you are caught and bound; come tomorrow and receive all the commandments.\u201d But R. Jose b. Judah says that everything took place on the same day\u2014that is, after the giving of the Torah, just as I have explained it. \u201cAnd we listen to this one, for he has spoken fittingly.\u201d
\nThen He said to Moses. All the commandments given in the previous chapters were for all the Israelites, but these commands\u2014to set the other commandments before the Israelites and then come up the mountain\u2014were for Moses alone. He fulfilled the first of these commandments on the 6th of Sivan, got up early on the morning of the 7th and made the covenant with them, and then went up the mountain, as commanded, with the others who had been summoned. Come up to the Lord. The fact that the Lord says \u201cCome up to the Lord\u201d is not a problem. There are other verses where either the speaker or the listener is referred to in the third person instead of by use of the pronoun. For example, Lamech addresses Adah and Zillah as \u201cO wives of Lamech\u201d (Gen. 4:23), and Daniel asks God to show favor \u201cfor the Lord\u2019s sake\u201d (Dan. 9:17); see also 1 Sam. 12:11. But on B. Sanh. 38b they take the fact that it does not say, \u201cCome up to Me,\u201d to be a reference to Metatron, \u201cwhose name is like that of his Master.\u201d That is, the Lord said to Moses, \u201cCome up to Metatron, who is called by My name Lord.\u201d Moses was supposed to go up to the place of the Presence where the \u201cgreat angel\u201d was. The intent was for Moses to go into the cloud where the Presence of God was, not that he should approach the Lord Himself, \u201cfor man may not see Me and live\u201d (33:20). Our Sages did not mean that it was Metatron who said \u201cCome up to the Lord,\u201d as Rashi thinks. (He has it backward in his comment to the passage in Sanhedrin, as well.) I have already explained what they meant by the name Metatron in my comment to 12:12, and all their words are true. In the midrash on B. Sanh. 38b (which Rashi misunderstood) they spoke guardedly, for R. Idi did not, God forbid, reveal the great mystery of Metatron to the heretic. He merely reminded him that the text speaks of \u201cthe angel who shows the way\u201d in the lower world, for which reason he told him, \u201cEven as a messenger we did not accept him.\u201d I have already explained the mystery of the Face and the whole subject in my comment (for the enlightened) to 20:3.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThen He said to Moses. The Hebrew, which has no capital letters, merely has \u201che said\u201d; it was an angel who spoke to Moses. This section, through \u201call the commands of the Lord\u201d in v. 4, was said on the 4th of Sivan (Hizkuni). The French scholars take this to have occurred before the giving of the Torah; those of Spain, reading the text in order, take it to have occurred after the giving of the Torah\u2014a fitting and widely accepted interpretation (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 24:2\u20133
\nExodus 24:2
\nRASHI
\nMoses alone shall come near. To the cloud.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe others. Aaron and his sons and the elders. Moses alone shall come near. Do not wonder why it does not say \u201cYou alone shall come near.\u201d As I explained in the previous comment, such switching is a standard feature of the language. Nor shall the people come up with him. With Moses, who is the central figure. But it also means that they should not come up with Aaron and his sons and the elders. That is why 19:13 says \u201cthey\u201d may go up, not \u201call the people may go up.\u201d
\nNAHMANIDES
\nMoses alone shall come near the Lord. Here, too, Ibn Ezra thinks this is a case where a name is used rather than a pronoun: \u201cYou alone shall come near.\u201d As I have pointed out, Biblical Hebrew frequently does this; see Gen. 19:24, Num. 10:29, and 1 Kings 8:1. But in my opinion, Aaron too was listening to this command, and that is why Moses\u2019 name had to be specified. The pronoun alone would not be enough to make it clear. For the same reason, it was necessary to add that Moses alone should come near. And perhaps it was an allusion to the utterance of the Exalted One who commanded that Moses be told to approach God. One who is enlightened will understand.
\nExodus 24:3
\nRASHI
\nMoses went and repeated to the people. On that same day, the 4th. All the commands of the Lord. About avoiding women and setting bounds around the mountain. And all the rules. The seven Noahide Laws, as well as the rules about the Sabbath, honoring father and mother, the red heifer, and the establishment of a court system, all of which had been given at Marah.
\nIBN EZRA
\nMoses went. There was no need to explain that Moses came down from the mountain. All the commands of the Lord. This refers to 20:19\u201323 and 23:20\u201333. For the two of them were a single pronouncement. All the rules. \u201cThese are the rules\u201d\u201421:2\u201323:19.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nMoses went and repeated to the people. At the time of the utterance in vv. 1\u20132, Moses was at the place where he had \u201capproached the thick cloud where God was\u201d (20:18). Now he moved farther away from there, to the place where the people had been during the giving of the Torah. He told them all that he had been commanded, and they heeded him. It does not say here that Moses went down, for they were all at the foot of the mountain, not at the top, where the Presence was. But Moses had been near the thick cloud, while they stood at a distance, as I have explained. When Moses left his position and began to move toward the people, all the tribal leaders and elders came closer, to the place where \u201cthe priests \u2026 who come near the Lord\u201d (19:22) were standing. They said to him, \u201cLet us not die, then, for this fearsome fire will consume us.\u2026 You go closer and hear all that the Lord our God says\u201d (Deut. 5:22,24). For they were convinced that the Lord was going to tell them all the commandments just as he had the Ten Commandments. Moses went with them to the place where the people were standing and \u201ctold\u201d them (OJPS) all the commands of the Lord and all the rules, and they replied, \u201cWe will do all the Ten Commandments that God has commanded us, and we will also heed all that you have commanded us, or will command us, in His exalted name.\u201d When Moses went back up to the edge of the mountain with the elders, as God had commanded him, God told him a second time, \u201cCome up to Me on the mountain and wait there\u201d (v. 12). At that time God informed him, \u201cI have heard the plea that this people made to you; they did well to speak thus\u201d (Deut. 5:25), and commanded him, \u201cGo, say to them, \u2018Return to your tents.\u2019 But you remain here with Me, and I will give you the whole Instruction\u2014the laws and the rules\u2014that you shall impart to them\u201d (Deut. 5:27\u201328)\u2014or, as it is phrased in our passage, \u201cI will give you the stone tablets with the teachings and commandments\u201d (v. 12). For to you alone will I give the teachings and commandments, to teach them how to do what they have sworn they would do.
\nExodus 24:4\u20136
\nExodus 24:4
\nRASHI
\nMoses then wrote down. From Genesis up to the giving of the Torah, including the commandments given at Marah. Early in the morning. On the 5th of Sivan.
\nRASHBAM
\nFor the twelve tribes of Israel. To bear witness that all of them were in agreement about establishing the covenant.
\nIBN EZRA
\nMoses then wrote down all the commands of the Lord. After repeating them aloud, he wrote them down; this was the \u201crecord of the covenant\u201d (v. 7). According to tradition, this took place on the day of the giving of the Torah. He set up an altar at the foot of the mountain. Where the Israelites were standing during the giving of the Torah. With twelve pillars for the twelve tribes. Not \u201cfor\u201d them, but \u201caccording to\u201d (OJPS) their number, as when Elijah built an altar with \u201ctwelve stones, corresponding to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob\u201d (1 Kings 18:31).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nEarly in the morning. From here to the end of v. 11 took place on the 5th of Sivan (Hizkuni). With twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel. Three on the east, three on the south, three on the west, and three on the north, just as the tribes would encamp around the Tabernacle (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 24:5
\nRASHI
\nSome young men. The first-born.
\nIBN EZRA
\nHe designated some young men. He had designated them before going up the mountain. I have already showed you many such cases. They were \u201cdesignated\u201d to atone for all Israel. The \u201cyoung men\u201d were the youngest of the first-born, who had the strength to present the burnt offerings; for the elders went higher up the mountain than did the young men. Bulls. This is the last word of the verse in Hebrew; it applies to both the burnt offerings and the offerings of well-being. In my opinion there were 24 of them, one per tribe for each kind of offering. So it may be that the pillars were set up \u201cfor\u201d the 12 tribes (v. 4) after all.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nSome young men among the Israelites. They were the first-born, as Onkelos says. For it was the first-born who performed the sacrifices. I do not know why the first-born should be called \u201cyoung men.\u201d Perhaps because v. 11 describes the elders as the \u201cleaders\u201d of Israel, the first-born were called \u201cyoung\u201d in contrast to them, in allusion to the fact that they were designated not for their wisdom, as \u201celders\u201d would be, but because of their birth status. But the straightforward sense would be that they were men so young that they had not tasted sin (having never come near a woman), for it was they who were the select and the sanctified ones among the people. As B. Ber. 43b says, \u201cThe young men of Israel, who have not tasted sin, will one day yield a fragrance like that of Lebanon.\u201d Bulls. For all the time that they were in the wilderness, the Israelites were afraid of God\u2019s aspect of justice. This was exactly their mistake with the Golden Calf. Their sacrifices were all done with bulls, just like the bull of the anointed priest and that involving the sin that has escaped notice (both in Leviticus 4) or the bull of idolatry, for this is how God\u2019s aspect of justice is appeased. Even the red heifer (Numbers 19) falls into this category. I will discuss this in my comments about the Golden Calf episode.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nSome young men among the Israelites. In order to inaugurate them into observance of the commandments (Hizkuni). They offered burnt offerings. To fulfill 3:12, \u201cyou shall worship God at this mountain\u201d (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 24:6
\nRASHI
\nMoses took one part of the blood. Literally, \u201ctook half of the blood\u201d (OJPS). But who divided the blood in half? An angel came and did it. In basins. Two basins: one for half the blood of the burnt offerings, and one for half the blood of the sacrifices of well-being, to dash it on the people. From this our Sages learned: Our ancestors entered the covenant by means of circumcision, ritual immersion, and dashing of blood\u2014for the dashing of blood may not take place without ritual immersion.
\nIBN EZRA
\nBasins. This Hebrew word is not found anywhere else in the Bible. The only word it is even related to is found in Song 7:3, \u201cYour navel is like a round goblet,\u201d which suggests that these containers were round. The other part of the blood he dashed against the altar. For the Lord. This part of the blood, too, was put in basins, in order to be dashed against the altar.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nPut it in basins. These are not the same as the \u201cbasins\u201d of 27:3, which were to be made specifically for the Tabernacle. For he intended to dash this part of the blood on the people. The rest of the blood, which was dashed against the altars, was put in the kind of basins used for the Tabernacle, as with any sacrifice. But Ibn Ezra thinks the same kind of basins were used for both, and Onkelos translates both with the same Aramaic word.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nIn basins. In contrast to the rabbinic comment cited by Rashi, B. Yev. 46a says that our ancestors were circumcised, but did not ritually immerse; \u201cancestors\u201d in the latter text must mean Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Hizkuni). The other part of the blood he dashed against the altar. Which represented God in the making of the covenant (Sforno).
\nExodus 24:7\u201310
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 When \u201cthey saw the God of Israel \u2026 Yet He did not raise His hand against the leaders of the Israelites\u201d (vv. 10\u201311), was this \u201cseeing\u201d an action for which they deserved (but did not receive) divine punishment, or was it a gift from God?
\nExodus 24:7
\nRASHI
\nThe record of the covenant. From Genesis up to the giving of the Torah, as well as the commandments given at Marah.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe record of the covenant. Which we are told in v. 4 that he had written down. We will faithfully do! Literally, \u201cWe will do and we will heed.\u201d We will do what He has already spoken, and we will heed what He commands us from now on and fulfill it.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThen he took the record of the covenant. The one he had written (v. 4). And read it aloud to the people. First he told them the covenant, \u201cand all the people answered with one voice, saying, \u2018All the things that the Lord has commanded we will do!\u2019 \u201d (v. 3). Then he read them the entire text, and they repeated, All that the Lord has spoken we will faithfully do! Literally, \u201cWe will do, and we will hear,\u201d adding \u201cwe will hear\u201d to what they had already said in v. 3\u2014we will do everything that is written down, and we will constantly hear them in that they will never be forgotten from our mouths. Saadia says that it is another case where the Torah is written out of chronological order, and what they really said was \u201cWe will hear and we will do.\u201d Or it might mean, \u201cWe will do\u201d the commandments that are planted in our hearts, and \u201cwe will heed\u201d the commandments that have been revealed to us. Or, \u201cWe will do\u201d all the commandments He has given us so far, and \u201cwe will heed\u201d the commandments that we will be given in the future. Or, \u201cWe will do\u201d the positive commandments, and \u201cwe will heed\u201d the prohibitions and not do them.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nHe took the record of the covenant and read it aloud to the people. What he read was Leviticus 25\u201326; the Torah is not written in chronological order (Hizkuni). It was what he had written the night before (v. 3); he gave them a chance to sleep on it (Abarbanel). We will faithfully do! \u201cWe will do, and obey\u201d (OJPS)\u2014we will \u201cdo\u201d the ones that involve actually doing something, and \u201cobey\u201d those that involve not doing something (Gersonides).
\nExodus 24:8
\nRASHI
\nDashed it on the people. Onkelos translates, \u201cHe dashed it (on the altar to make atonement) on behalf of the people.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nMoses took the blood that was in the basins and dashed it on the people. Similarly, when Moses ordained the priests, he \u201ctook some of the anointing oil and some of the blood that was on the altar and sprinkled it upon Aaron and upon his vestments\u201d (Lev. 8:30). This constituted their sanctification. Others explain our verse to mean that Moses dashed the blood on account of the people, as in Num. 17:12, where Aaron burns incense to make expiation \u201con\u201d (account of) the people. Saadia takes it as an allusion, as if to say \u201cYour blood may be spilled with impunity, just as this blood is, if you do not keep the covenant.\u201d But that is a midrash.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nMoses took the blood and dashed it on the people. He could not have dashed it on each one of them, but only on some of them\u2014on the leaders, or (more likely) on those where the crowd was greatest (Gersonides). I think what this means is that he dashed it on the \u201ctwelve pillars\u201d described in v. 4 (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 24:9
\nIBN EZRA
\nAscended. There was no need to add \u201cthe mountain.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nSeventy elders. Undoubtedly Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron\u2019s other sons, as well as Hur, Phinehas, Joshua, Caleb, Bezalel, Oholiab, and the like, were among them (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 24:10
\nRASHI
\nThey saw the God of Israel. They looked and they peeked, which earned them the death penalty. But the Holy One did not wish to adulterate the joy of receiving the Torah. So He delayed the deaths of Nadab and Abihu until the day the Tabernacle was dedicated (Lev. 10:2), and those of the elders until \u201cthe people took to complaining bitterly before the Lord. The Lord heard and was incensed: a fire of the Lord broke out against them, ravaging the outskirts of the camp\u201d (Num. 11:1). The words translated \u201coutskirts of the camp,\u201d k\u2019tzeh ha-mahaneh, really mean k\u2019tzinei ha-mahaneh, the chiefs of the camp\u2014that is, the elders. The likeness of a pavement of sapphire. This \u201cpavement,\u201d livnah, was before Him during slavery-time, to remind him of the pain of Israel, who were enslaved at the making of bricks, levenim. Like the very sky for purity. Rather, as Onkelos translates, \u201cLike a vision of the sky for brightness.\u201d Once they were redeemed, there was light and joy before Him.
\nRASHBAM
\nThey saw the God of Israel. They \u201csaw\u201d Him as Moses was promised, \u201cYou will see My back; but My face must not be seen\u201d (33:23). Pavement. Livnah comes from loven, \u201cwhiteness.\u201d Like the very sky. Rather, \u201cthe look of the sky.\u201d For purity. When the sky is cloudless and clear.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThey saw the God of Israel. They did not see Him literally, but in a prophetic vision. The same is true of Isaiah\u2019s vision, \u201cI beheld my Lord seated on a high and lofty throne\u201d (Isa. 6:1), even though Isa. 6:5 says, \u201cMy own eyes have beheld the King Lord of Hosts.\u201d This is made clear in Ezekiel\u2019s vision, when he says, \u201cThey were the same creatures that I had seen below the God of Israel at the Chebar Canal\u201d (Ezek. 10:20), saying that he had \u201cseen\u201d what he originally called merely \u201cvisions of God\u201d (Ezek. 1:1). \u201cThe God of Israel\u201d refers to the Creator, \u201cin whose hand is every living soul\u201d (Job 12:10). One who is enlightened will understand. Under His feet there was the likeness of a pavement of sapphire. This is the Throne. In Ezek. 1:26 it is \u201cthe semblance of a throne, in appearance like sapphire.\u201d In my opinion, this sappir is a red stone, as is demonstrated by the parallel halves of Lam. 4:7, which says, \u201cTheir limbs were ruddier than coral, their bodies were like sappir.\u201d The fact that there is a second red stone, a camelian, in Aaron\u2019s breastpiece (28:17) is not a problem for this interpretation; there is a blood red and a greenish red, and it is the latter that is \u201csapphire.\u201d Saadia says that sapphire is white, basing himself on the phrase livnat ha-sappir, but livnah has nothing to do with lavan, which means \u201cwhite.\u201d Livnah means \u201cbrick,\u201d as it is translated in Ezek. 4:1, \u201cAnd you, O mortal, take a brick and put it in front of you, and incise on it a city, Jerusalem.\u201d Like the very sky for purity. The sapphire pavement was as pure and clear as the sky. And this is the Throne, which is planted on the visible sky. The \u201ccreatures\u201d seen by Ezekiel were underneath the icy firmament, which is underneath the Throne, all of which is underneath God.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThey saw the God of Israel. Ibn Ezra says they saw him in a prophetic vision; see his comment. The straightforward sense of the expression \u201cthe God of Israel\u201d is that the merit of their father Israel was with them, giving them the privilege of seeing this vision. But according to the True interpretation, since at the giving of the Torah it says \u201cGod spoke\u201d (20:1)\u2014which they report as \u201cthe Lord our God has just shown us His majestic Presence, and we have heard His voice out of the fire\u201d (Deut. 5:21)\u2014the text here makes clear that they saw \u201cthe God of Israel\u201d and not \u201cthe Lord God of Israel\u201d (as it says many other places). It is saying that the elders saw more in this vision than the rest of the people, down on the ground, who saw the \u201cgreat fire\u201d (Deut. 4:36), but only through \u201cthe dense clouds\u201d (Deut. 5:19). Onkelos alludes to it by translating, \u201cThey saw the Presence of the God of Israel\u201d rather than \u201cthe Presence of the Lord appeared to them\u201d as he does elsewhere.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThey saw the God of Israel. They saw that He was Lord of the entire universe, not just of the lower, material world (Gersonides). So they would not mistake for God the angel that was to be assigned to Israel (Abarbanel). Under his feet. On the earth\u2014for in Isa. 66:1 God says, \u201cthe earth is My footstool\u201d (Sforno). The likeness of a pavement of sapphire, like the very sky for purity. Since not everyone knows what sapphire looks like, the text gives a second image that can be understood by everyone (Bekhor Shor). The sapphire is a metaphor for the sphere of the separate intelligences; but the sky is literally the sky, albeit the highest and mightiest of the heavens (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 24:11
\nExodus 24:11
\nRASHI
\nHe did not raise His hand. Though they deserved to have His hand raised against them. The leaders. That is, the \u201cgreat\u201d ones: Nadab, Abihu, and the elders. They beheld God. They looked at him while engrossed in eating and drinking, according to the Tanhuma. But Onkelos did not translate this way.
\nRASHBAM
\nHe did not raise His hand. Even though they \u201csaw the God of Israel\u201d (v. 10), for which they might be expected to die, as we learn from Num. 4:20, \u201cLet not the Kohathites go inside and witness the dismantling of the sanctuary, lest they die,\u201d and 1 Sam. 6:19, \u201cThe Lord struck at the men of Beth-shemesh because they looked into the Ark of the Lord.\u201d Even Moses \u201chid his face, for he was afraid to look at God\u201d (3:6). Here, for the sake of making the covenant, God did them the honor of appearing to them, as I explained in my discussion of the covenant \u201cbetween the pieces,\u201d in my comment to Gen. 15:17; note that \u201con that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram\u201d (Gen. 15:18). When Moses is promised he will see God\u2019s back, there, too, God announces \u201cI hereby make a covenant\u201d (34:10). The leaders. That is, the elders. They ate and drank. They offered up the \u201cburnt offerings\u201d and ate the \u201cofferings of well-being\u201d (v. 5).
\nIBN EZRA
\nHe did not raise his hand. Except for Moses (who had prophesied countless times), none of them had ever prophesied before, or seen God; but they lived, and felt no fear. Since the text literally says, \u201cHe did not send forth his hand to\u201d them, some think it means that they saw God, but He did not stretch forth His hand to them, as He had to Moses to give him the tablets. The leaders of the Israelites. Saadia thinks the text says \u201cleaders\u201d to include Moses; otherwise it could have just said \u201cthe elders.\u201d But in my opinion it is just the opposite. For Moses was elderly himself. The \u201cleaders\u201d\u2014literally, \u201cthe rams\u201d\u2014refers to the first-born who went up the mountain. But \u201cleaders\u201d was used instead of \u201cfirst-born\u201d to include Nadab and Abihu in the group. Notice that a similar word is used in Isa. 41:9 for the \u201cfar corners\u201d of the earth. They beheld God. This rare word for seeing is connected with the word for \u201cvisions,\u201d confirming my explanation. They ate and drank. This proves that, as I said, they \u201csaw\u201d God only in a vision. For it was the \u201cleaders\u201d who ate and drank, not Moses. Moses saw God at the same time and did not have to eat or drink for 40 days and 40 nights, but as soon as the leaders got down, they had to eat. (It may have been the offerings of well-being that they ate.) Onkelos writes that they saw \u201cthe Presence\u201d of God\u2014which the text itself says in v. 17\u2014and says that it was \u201cas if\u201d they were eating and drinking, being nourished by the Presence. Judah Halevi thinks it means that they had to eat despite being nourished by the Presence. Others say that they made a feast just as the High Priest did every year after the Day of Atonement, when he came safely forth from the Holy of Holies.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nHe did not raise His hand. Having stated, \u201clet not the priests or the people break through to come up to the Lord\u201d (19:24), the text makes clear that the leaders of the Israelites\u2014Nadab, Abihu, and the elders mentioned in v. 9\u2014were in fact authorized to see the vision that they saw, of God, and had not broken through to see \u201cthe Lord.\u201d The unusual word for \u201cleaders,\u201d atzilei, refers to the fact that these were the men upon whom God would put the spirit that he \u201cdrew\u201d (from the verb atzal) from Moses in Numbers 11. They ate. That is, they ate the offerings of well-being there at the foot of the mountain, in front of God, before returning to their tents. For offerings of well-being must be eaten within a separate domain\u2014in temple times, within the walls of Jerusalem; in the days when sacrifices were offered at Shiloh, they were eaten anywhere within sight of Shiloh. Here, they were eaten in front of the altar at the foot of the mountain, but not within the Israelite camp. And drank. They rejoiced and made it a holiday\u2014for it is an obligation to rejoice at receiving the Torah: \u201cAs soon as you have crossed the Jordan into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall set up large stones. Coat them with plaster and inscribe upon them all the words of this Teaching.\u2026 You shall build an altar to the Lord your God \u2026 and you shall sacrifice there offerings of well-being and eat them, rejoicing before the Lord your God\u201d (Deut. 27:2\u20133,5,7). Similarly, as soon as wisdom and knowledge were granted to Solomon, \u201cHe went to Jerusalem, stood before the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented offerings of well-being; and he made a banquet for all his courtiers\u201d (1 Kings 3:15). R. Eleazar says, \u201cWe know from this that one must make a banquet for the completion of reading the Torah.\u201d It says of Solomon\u2019s father, David, as well, \u201cThey offered sacrifices to the Lord and made burnt offerings to the Lord on the morrow of that day: 1,000 bulls, 1,000 rams, 1,000 lambs, with their libations; they made sacrifices in great number for all Israel, and they ate and drank in the presence of the Lord on that day with great joy. They again proclaimed Solomon son of David king, and they anointed him as ruler before the Lord, and Zadok as high priest\u201d (1 Chron. 29:21\u201322). So here, on the day of our \u201cwedding\u201d to the Torah, they did exactly the same.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nHe did not raise His hand against the leaders of the Israelites. Literally, \u201cHe did not send His hand\u201d\u2014He did not extend his prophecy to them, since they were busy eating and drinking (Hizkuni). I think these \u201cleaders\u201d were not the elders, but the leaders who remained with the people; \u201craising the hand,\u201d as we know from Ezek. 37:1, \u201cThe hand of the Lord came upon me,\u201d refers to prophecy, which the elders achieved but these leaders did not (Abarbanel). They ate and drank. They enjoyed a marvelous pleasure from their spiritual attainment, as if they had eaten and drunk (Gersonides). Since they did not achieve prophecy (but attained a realization of God\u2019s existence by means of their own intellect), they did not need to avoid food, but could eat and drink as they celebrated (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 24:12
\nExodus 24:12
\nRASHI
\nThe Lord said to Moses. After the giving of the Torah. Come up to Me on the mountain and wait there. Forty days. The stone tablets with the teachings and commandments which I have inscribed to instruct them. All 613 commandments are included in the Ten Commandments. Saadia, in his liturgical poem about the commandments written for the festival of Shavuot, laid out for each of the Ten Commandments all of the 613 commandments that depend on it.
\nRASHBAM
\nWhich I have inscribed. These are the \u201ctablets [with] God\u2019s writing\u201d (32:16) that He would give Moses at the end of the 40 days.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe Lord said to Moses, \u201cCome up to Me.\u201d This tells us that he went down the mountain with the elders, and afterward God told him, \u201cCome back up by yourself.\u201d The stone tablets. Many have been confused by the fact that the text says here \u201ctablets of stone\u201d whereas in ch. 34 it says \u201ctablets of stones,\u201d leading them to think that the first set of tablets was on a single stone and the second set on two stones. But 34:1 says, \u201cCarve two tablets of stone like the first ones.\u201d The singular here merely describes what they were made of: They were stone tablets, not cedar tablets or the like. Or perhaps \u201ctablets of stone\u201d means that there was originally a single stone and God decreed that it should be cut into two tablets. The teachings and commandments. More literally, \u201cthe Torah and the commandment,\u201d which some interpret to mean, \u201cThe (written) Torah and the (oral) commandment.\u201d But rightly He is speaking only about the tablets. The proof of this is that He calls them \u201cthe teachings and the commandments which I inscribed.\u201d For God did not \u201cinscribe\u201d the Torah; Moses did that, at God\u2019s dictation. Others say \u201cthe teaching\u201d refers to the First Commandment, \u201cI the Lord am your God,\u201d and \u201cthe commandment\u201d to the other nine. Others say the \u201cteachings\u201d are the eight prohibitions, and \u201cthe commandments\u201d are \u201cRemember the sabbath day\u201d and \u201cHonor your father and your mother.\u201d In my opinion, it is the First Commandment, \u201cI the Lord am your God\u201d (20:2), and the Fifth, \u201cHonor your father and your mother\u201d (20:12), that are the Torah, and the other eight are the \u201ccommandments.\u201d But \u201cthe teachings\u201d and \u201cthe commandments\u201d lead one along the straight path. For God inscribed both of them to instruct them, literally, \u201cto teach them\u201d\u2014to show them the way. And both words are singular, as OJPS has it, and not plural, as NJPS translates them, because it is really a single \u201cteaching\u201d that is being referred to. It is similarly used in the singular in verses like \u201cSuch is the procedure for eruptive affections\u201d (Lev. 13:59), \u201cThis shall be the ritual for a leper\u201d (Lev. 14:2), and so forth.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe Lord said to Moses, \u201cCome up to Me on the Mountain.\u201d This is the commandment that He had given him the night before (v. 1). Now, on the 7th of Sivan, He added, Wait there, and I will give you the stone tablets. Moses was to stay on the mountain until he was given the tablets. The teachings and the commandments which I have inscribed. This is a reference to the tablets. To instruct them. This refers to the \u201cteachings and commandments.\u201d The sense of the verse is as follows: \u201cI will give you the stone tablets which I have inscribed, and the teachings and the commandments for you to instruct them.\u201d See Deut. 5:28, \u201cI will speak unto you the whole Instruction\u2014the laws and the rules\u2014that you shall impart to them.\u201d Rashi takes \u201cthe stone tablets with the teachings and the commandments\u201d to mean that all 613 commandments are included in the Ten Commandments. Ibn Ezra says that the \u201cthe teachings\u201d are the first and the second of the Ten Commandments, and \u201cthe commandments\u201d are the remaining eight, which is senseless. For Deut. 5:28 proves that the reference is to all of the commandments. According to our Sages, the words \u201cwhich I have inscribed\u201d might be a hint that the entire Torah was before God, in writing, before the creation of the world, as I have mentioned in the introduction to my commentary on Genesis.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWait there. Literally, \u201cbe there\u201d (OJPS)\u2014be something new there, receive there a new nature, like that of the beings on high (Abarbanel). The teachings and commandments. The stories, which are of value for developing the character and the intellect, and the rules by which to achieve success (Gersonides). The theoretical part and the practical part (Sforno). Which I have inscribed. If not for the sin of the Golden Calf, they would have received the entire Torah sealed by the hand of the Creator, just like the Ten Commandments (Sforno).
\nExodus 24:13\u201315
\nExodus 24:13
\nRASHI
\nMoses and his attendant Joshua arose. I do not understand Joshua\u2019s role here. But I think he is the student who is accompanying his master to the bounds of the mountain. For he was not authorized to go any farther than the boundary, from which point Moses ascended the mountain of God alone. Joshua pitched a tent and stayed there all 40 days. For when Moses descended, we find that \u201cJoshua heard the sound of the people\u201d (32:17), from which we learn that he was not with them.
\nIBN EZRA
\nSo Moses and his attendant Joshua arose. Logically, it would seem that Moses went up the mountain and left Joshua next to the mountain. For when Moses comes back down, before reaching the camp he speaks with Joshua, who does not yet know about the Golden Calf (32:17\u201318). There is no reason to ask what Joshua ate; he gathered the manna that fell in the vicinity of the camp and ate it every day.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nSo Moses and his attendant Joshua arose. See Rashi\u2019s comment. In my opinion, Joshua was one of the 70 elders. For there could not have been 70 elders in Israel more worthy of drawing near to God than he. When Moses bid farewell to them, Joshua accompanied his master as far as the boundary. Do not argue with me on the basis of the midrash that the fire at Taberah (Num. 11:1\u20133) burned the elders to death for their presumption in seeing God and then eating and drinking. For they meant this of all the elders other than Joshua, who was worthy of visions of God and every other kind of prophecy.
\nExodus 24:14
\nRASHI
\nTo the elders he had said. When he left the camp. Wait here for us. Stay behind in the camp with the rest of the people, to be ready to judge any disputes. Hur. He was Miriam\u2019s son, and his father was Caleb son of Jephunneh. For according to 1 Chron. 2:19, \u201cCaleb married Ephrath, who bore him Hur,\u201d and Ephrath was Miriam, as B. Sotah 11b explains.
\nIBN EZRA
\nTo the elders he had said. These are the 70 first-born elders of v. 1, not the 70 mentioned in Num. 11:24. Wait here for us. \u201cHere\u201d meant outside the camp, in Moses\u2019 tent. Until we return to you. \u201cWe\u201d meaning himself and Joshua. You have Aaron and Hur with you. They would judge the people while Moses was gone, in his tent, which was called the Tent of Meeting, and the elders would be together with them. Aaron was a first-born, of course, and perhaps Hur was as well, which would make him one of the 70 first-born elders. Some of the ancients say that Hur was Miriam\u2019s husband, others that he was her son. An individual voice in the rabbinic writings claims that he is the son of Caleb son of Jephunneh, that Hur was the father of Uri who was the father of Bezalel (31:2), and that therefore Bezalel was 13 years old when he built the Tabernacle\u2014which is highly implausible. But I will give you proof that this is not the road and that is not the city! What our ancient predecessors have said (passed down to them by tradition) about being able to father children at age eight is true, and does not need to be proved from this verse. Let anyone who has a legal matter approach them. Saadia explains this to mean that they should be approached if the chiefs appointed (at Jethro\u2019s suggestion) in 18:25\u201326 did not know what to do. But this, as I have explained in my comment to 18:1, is impossible\u2014for Jethro did not arrive until after the giving of the Torah.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nTo the elders he had said, \u201cWait for us here until we return to you.\u201d \u201cWe\u201d refers to himself and his attendant. The text merely states that he \u201csaid\u201d this (OJPS), not that he \u201chad\u201d said it. He certainly did not mean that the elders should stand there all day and night until he and his attendant got back. For it goes on to say, You have Aaron and Hur with you; let anyone who has a legal matter approach them. Anyone who had a legal matter would be in the camp, and the place of judgment was there as well. He had already told them, \u201cReturn to your tents,\u201d as he was commanded in Deut. 5:27. What he meant by \u201cWait here\u201d was that they should stop at that place and come no farther, rather than breaking through to go up the mountain, even as far as Joshua\u2019s spot. In my opinion, it might mean what it literally says, \u201cSit here\u201d\u2014sit in judgment in the camp instead of us. He specified that anyone with a legal matter should approach Aaron and Hur to indicate their special status in the legal system during Moses\u2019 absence: \u201cAny matter that is too difficult for you\u201d (Deut. 1:17), you shall bring to Aaron and Hur instead of to me. Moses is telling the elders to sit with Aaron and Hur as a court above the officers of thousands and hundreds until he came back. For he knew he would be delayed on the mountain. \u201cWait for us\u201d was an expression of honor for his student, as when Moses told Joshua, \u201cPick some men for us\u201d (17:9). And this is the correct interpretation. But Rashi wrote that Moses said this to the elders when he left the camp, and that \u201cWait for us here\u201d meant that they should wait with the rest of the people to be ready to judge whatever cases should arise. But this cannot be. For they were not in the camp at this point. And what point would there be in saying this to them if they were in the camp, where they were already sitting as judges?
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nHur. From this point in the Torah on, he is never mentioned; rabbinic tradition says he was killed during the Golden Calf affair, for reproving the Israelites (Gersonides). Anyone who has a legal matter. Anyone seeking to get money from his fellow. For the one who has possession of the money keeps silent (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 24:15
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe cloud covered the mountain. Saadia also says that the cloud covered the mountain only now, as a sign of Moses\u2019 stature. For if the mountain had been covered by a cloud when the elders went up, they would not have seen the Presence; but it did not prevent Moses from doing so. However, he is forgetting that \u201cthe cloud hid it for six days\u201d (v. 16). For according to the Sages and to Saadia as well, the six days began on the day they arrived at Mount Sinai. In fact, the cloud remained until the day Moses broke the tablets, which was the 17th of Tammuz. So this ruins his explanation that the cloud was not there when the elders went up, and the tradition of the Sages is correct. The verse is telling us that the cloud had already covered the mountain (20:18), and the Presence had already taken up its abode on it (19:20), when Moses ascended. The text then repeats that the cloud covered the mountain in order to include the information about the six days.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe cloud covered the mountain. This had already happened on the 6th of the month (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 24:16\u201318
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why did Moses have to wait six days outside the cloud (v. 16)?
\n\u2666 Why did Moses have to spend \u201cforty days and forty nights\u201d (v. 18) with God while the Israelites were building the Golden Calf?
\n\u2666 Why is there no mention of the fact that Moses \u201cate no bread and drank no water\u201d during the 40 days, as there is in Deut. 9:9 and Deut. 9:18?
\nExodus 24:16
\nRASHI
\nThe cloud hid it for six days. Our Sages disagree on the understanding of this verse. Some think the six days are the days Moses waited before the giving of the Torah; what the cloud hid was the mountain; and on the seventh day He called to Moses in order to tell him and all the people the Ten Commandments, though the text here mentions Moses alone as a mark of respect. Others read it to say that the cloud covered him, Moses, for six days after the giving of the Ten Commandments, at the beginning of the 40 days during which Moses went up to receive the Torah, which teaches you that anyone who enters the domain of the Shekhinah is first required to isolate himself for six days.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe cloud hid it. Rather, it hid Moses so that no one could see him. On the seventh day. The seventh day of Sivan, the day after the giving of the Torah. Saadia points out that the six days could not have taken place after the revelation at Sinai, for it would have looked like God was mad at Moses, not calling him up the mountain until the seventh day. As for his question about why Moses did not immediately go all the way up the mountain\u2014he could not do this without permission.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe cloud hid it for six days. Rather, \u201chid him\u201d\u2014Moses\u2014to give him time to purge all the material remnants from his body, matching the six days of the original creation. Only after achieving this higher than human spiritual level was Moses prepared to receive prophecy at any moment (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 24:18
\nRASHI
\nInside the cloud. This cloud was like smoke, and the Holy One made a path through the middle of it for Moses.
\nIBN EZRA
\nMoses went inside the cloud. That is, he went up the mountain and disappeared, and remained on the top of the mountain where the Presence was for forty days and forty nights. These are the first set of 40 days. In Deut. 9:9 Moses observes, \u201cI stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights, eating no bread and drinking no water,\u201d a great miracle unlike anything that had happened before.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nMoses went inside the cloud. This was originally reported in 20:18, when he was told Leviticus 25\u201326. The laws about the land of Israel given there served to let the Israelites know that they would be given the land as a reward for accepting the Torah (Hizkuni). Forty days and forty nights. From dawn on the 7th of Sivan to dawn on the 17th of Tammuz (Hizkuni). Like the 40 days it takes an embryo to develop into a recognizably human fetus. For during this period the greatest of the prophets evolved from the human level to a separate, spiritual level. Moreover, he required 40 days to absorb knowledge of all the secrets of reality, for there are 10 elements to each of the four realms: the lower, the heavenly, that of the intelligences, and that of the 10 sefirot (Abarbanel).
\nNahmanides\u2019 Introduction to Parashat Terumah
\nWhen God spoke the Ten Commandments to Israel face to face, and gave them (through Moses) a few other commandments that serve as underlying principles for the rest of the commandments\u2014the same practice that our Sages observed with regard to those who wished to convert to Judaism\u2014and Israel accepted upon themselves the observance of whatever else He might command them through Moses, He made a covenant with them on this basis. This made them His people and Him their God, in accordance with the conditions He had originally established: \u201cIf you will obey Me faithfully and keep My covenant, you shall be My treasured possession among all the peoples\u201d (19:5). If they were to be \u201ca holy nation\u201d (19:6), it behooved them to have a holy place, a sanctuary, in their midst, where God\u2019s Presence could rest among them. So He first commanded them about the Tabernacle in order to have a home among them, sanctified for His name, where He could speak with Moses and give commandments to the Israelites. The essential thing God wanted from the Tabernacle was a place for the Shekhinah to rest, and that is the Ark (25:22). Thus the Ark and its cover are mentioned first, because their status is the highest. The table and the lampstand come next, being utensils that, like the Ark, demonstrate for what purpose the Tabernacle was made. When Moses transmitted the commandments about the Tabernacle, however (in 35:11\u201319), and when Bezalel actually made it (in chs. 36\u201338), the Tabernacle itself is mentioned first, since in practical terms it had to be made first.
\nThe mystery behind the Tabernacle is that God\u2019s Presence, which \u201cabode\u201d (shakhan) publicly on Mount Sinai (24:16), would discreetly do the same in the Tabernacle (mishkan). Note that in 40:34\u201335 the phrase \u201cthe Presence of the Lord filled the Tabernacle\u201d appears twice, matching the double phrase \u201cHis Presence and His Greatness\u201d of Deut. 5:21. The Presence that Israel saw at Sinai would always be with them in the Tabernacle. The same utterance that communicated with Moses on Mount Sinai would come to him when he entered the Tabernacle. Just as at Sinai \u201cfrom the heavens He let you hear His voice to discipline you; on earth He let you see His great fire; and from amidst that fire you heard His words\u201d (Deut. 4:36), so \u201cwhen Moses went into the Tent of Meeting to speak with Him, he would hear the Voice speaking to him from above the cover that was on top of the Ark of the Pact between the two cherubim; thus He spoke to him\u201d (Num. 7:89). The repetition in this verse of the verb \u201cto speak\u201d confirms what tradition says, that each utterance would first come down from heaven to the Ark cover and then speak to Moses from between the two cherubs. For every communication with Moses took place not in a dream but during the day. Both the cherubim were of fiery gold so that the Voice could come \u201cfrom amidst that fire\u201d (Deut. 4:36). One who carefully examines the verses describing the giving of the Torah, and understands what we have written concerning them, will understand the mystery of the Tabernacle and the Temple. One can comprehend it from the fact that Solomon, in his prayer at the inauguration of the Temple, used the name \u201cO Lord God of Israel\u201d (1 Kings 8:23), just as the elders at Mount Sinai saw \u201cthe God of Israel\u201d (24:10). But Solomon added the Tetragrammaton to make clear that prayers were addressed to God\u2019s merciful aspect.
\nExodus 25:1\u20133
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why was the entire construction of the Tabernacle\u2014involving a number of different commandments\u2014commanded by a single divine utterance, beginning (v. 2) \u201cTell the Israelite people to bring Me gifts\u201d? This is the opposite of what happens in ch. 30, where a number of less important objects are each commanded in a separate divine utterance. This is an extremely important subject, and my research into it is unprecedented.
\nExodus 25:1
\nRASHI
\nThe Lord spoke to Moses. The Torah is not written in chronological order. The Golden Calf episode took place long before the commandment to bring gifts for the sanctuary. For the tablets were broken on the 17th of Tammuz; on the Day of Atonement God forgave Israel; and the next day, the 11th of Tishrei, they began to bring gifts for the Tabernacle. It was set up on the 1st of Nisan.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe Lord spoke to Moses. When he went up to the top of the mountain, God spoke to him about the Tabernacle. The point was that the Israelites should make a sanctuary for God where He could dwell so that He could speak with Moses without his having to go up the mountain.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nDo not think that the commandments about the Tabernacle, which do not apply to us here in the exile, or the laws that are valid only in the land of Israel, or the laws of priestly purity, have no value for us today. The Torah is a book of elevated wisdom and divine teaching. What we understand of these matters today, in terms of their allusions to higher things, is of as much value as when they were in practice. The same is true of all Torah matters. The Torah is a tool to prepare the way for us to become \u201clike God, knowing good\u201d (Gen. 3:5), to keep us alive in every place and at all times (Abarbanel).
\nThe Lord spoke to Moses. This passage was said during the second set of 40 days, while Moses was waiting for the new set of tablets (Bekhor Shor). Some think this passage was said during the first 40 days, when Moses went up to get the tablets and the rest of the Torah; God commanded him to build a Tabernacle for the Ark in which he would put the tablets (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 25:2
\nRASHI
\nTell the Israelite people to bring Me gifts. Not \u201cfor Me,\u201d as OJPS translates the literal Hebrew, but for My name. The \u201coffering\u201d (OJPS, again more literal) refers to setting aside their own property as a contribution. You shall accept gifts for Me. As in the beginning of the verse, the literal verb here is \u201ctake\u201d (OJPS), implying that not all of these offerings are voluntary. According to our Sages, the three occurrences of \u201cgifts\u201d in vv. 2\u20133 refer to three separate gifts: (1) the \u201chalf-shekel a head\u201d (38:25\u201326) used for the sockets; (2) a half-shekel a head to be used for the purchase of the public sacrifices; and (3) the voluntary contribution made by each and every one of them for the Tabernacle. When you analyze it, you will find that there were 13 different materials necessary for the construction of the Tabernacle or the preparation of the priests\u2019 garments. Whose heart so moves him. The Hebrew verb implies a voluntary, goodwill contribution.
\nRASHBAM
\nIf I am brief in my explanations of the Tabernacle, the breastpiece, and the ephod, you will find them in the comments of my mother\u2019s father, R. Solomon \u2014may the mention of the righteous be for blessing.
\nGifts. The Hebrew word implies something that is set aside from their own property.
\nIBN EZRA
\nTo bring Me gifts. Saadia\u2019s comment to this verse mentions all the contributions to the Tabernacle and their amounts. But this is not necessary. The contribution mentioned here was a voluntary gift. Since there were some contributions that were obligatory, this section begins by saying (as it literally does) \u201cTake for Me an offering\u201d (OJPS), and then goes on, beginning in v. 3, to enumerate the 16 kinds of gifts that were needed. It is true that the contribution of silver was obligatory, not voluntary, but the text does not always bother to be precise about such matters. For example, Gen. 35:26 includes Benjamin among \u201cthe sons of Jacob who were born to him in Paddan-aram,\u201d though Benjamin was born in Canaan.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nTell the Israelite people to bring Me gifts. Literally, \u201cthat they\u201d (the treasurers) \u201cshall take\u201d\u2014but not by force (Bekhor Shor). On the one hand, the gifts were not to be brought only by the chieftains and leaders; on the other, no one was to be forced to give (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 25:3
\nRASHI
\nGold, silver, and copper. All of these were contributed voluntarily, from each of them as his heart moved him, except for the silver that was the proceeds of the \u201chalf-shekel a head.\u201d The half-shekels provided all the silver that was necessary in the construction of the Tabernacle. Whatever silver was offered voluntarily was made into various \u201cservice vessels.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nGold. To be used for those parts of the work that were of highest distinction. Gold itself is so highly regarded because its nature is incorruptible, and it does not deteriorate. Afterward comes silver for things of intermediate regard, since silver is second to gold. Then comes copper for external work, since it is below silver. No iron was used in the construction of the Tabernacle; the idea behind this is well known. With Solomon\u2019s Temple too \u201cno hammer or ax or any iron tool was heard in the House while it was being built\u201d (1 Kings 6:7). As Deut. 27:5 instructs about the stones for the altar that was to be built after they crossed the Jordan, \u201cDo not wield an iron tool over them.\u201d
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThese are the gifts. Literally, \u201cthis is the offering\u201d (OJPS). According to the True interpretation, \u201cthis\u201d refers to the Shekhinah and the wisdom provided by it, as when God said to Solomon in 2 Chron. 1:11, \u201cBecause you want this, and have not asked for wealth, property, and glory \u2026 but you have asked for the wisdom and the knowledge to be able to govern My people.\u2026\u201d The word is used the same way in Gen. 49:28, Deut. 33:1, and Ps. 118:23. Genesis Rabbah alludes to this interpretation as well. One who understands will comprehend. From them. According to Exodus Rabbah, the gifts are offered \u201cfrom\u201d themselves; that is, the Assembly of Israel is the gift given to God: \u201cIsrael was holy to the Lord, the first fruits of His harvest\u201d (Jer. 2:3). The Holy One told Israel, \u201cI have sold you My Torah, and I (as it were) am included in the sale. The gift will be Mine and I will be with it, as in \u2018My beloved is mine and I am his\u2019 [Song 2:16].\u201d Similarly, \u201cas I show you\u201d (v. 9): it is I who shows you. \u201cAs you were shown on the mountain\u201d also alludes to \u201cI.\u201d David too, with reference to the plan of the Temple, said, \u201cAll this \u2026 the Lord made me understand by His hand on me\u201d (1 Chron. 28:19).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThese are the gifts that you shall accept from them. In other cases, one might contribute anything, and it would be sold and the money applied to the temple expenses. In this case, only the materials actually used for the Tabernacle were accepted (Bekhor Shor). The gifts were to be of the 13 materials out of which the Tabernacle would be built (Sforno). The 16 materials out of which the Tabernacle was made fall into four groups: four are mineral, four are vegetable, four are animal, and four are colors (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 25:4\u20135
\nExodus 25:4
\nRASHI
\nBlue. This yarn was dyed using the blood of a snail called the hillazon, which is green. Purple. This too refers not to a color, but to a yarn of a particular color. Goats\u2019 hair. The Hebrew literally says merely \u201cgoats\u201d; the translations, correctly, follow Onkelos.
\nRASHBAM
\nCrimson yarn. In this phrase, the word tola\u2019at means \u201cred-dyed wool,\u201d while the word shani refers to the color \u201ccrimson.\u201d This is proved by how they are used in Isa. 1:18: \u201cBe your sins like crimson [shani], they can turn snow-white; be they red as dyed wool [tola], they can become like fleece.\u201d Shani and \u201csnow\u201d both symbolize colors, the one red and the other white; while tola and \u201cfleece\u201d both refer to types of wool, the one dyed and the other not dyed. Linen. This is made of flax; the other materials in the verse are dyed wool. Goats\u2019 hair. That is, goats\u2019 wool.
\nIBN EZRA
\nBlue. The Hebrew word denotes a shade close to black, yet a little bit like the color of the sky. This is what the \u201ccord of blue\u201d on the fringes (Num. 15:38) is supposed to remind us of. It could be that this color, tekhelet, has that name because it is the takhlit, the ultimate, of all the colors, for there is none after it (white comes at the beginning). So says Japheth b. Ali, but we rely on the rabbinic saying that it was a green-dyed wool. Purple. This is a shade that is close to red. Interestingly, this word argaman is found in 2 Chron. 2:6 in its Aramaic form, argavan, which resembles the Arabic form as well. This color-name is used only in reference to wool or silk. Crimson. This too refers to a color shade; it is the color of a berry, and its source, as the name tola\u2019at implies, is a worm. The word shani that is part of the name may imply that crimson is sheni, second to white among the colors. For crimson is somewhat intermediary between white and black. Besides this phrase tola\u2019at shani, we find the two terms switched in Lev. 14:6, where \u201cthe crimson stuff\u201d is sh\u2019ni ha-tola\u2019at. In Lam. 4:5, \u201cThose who were reared in crimson,\u201d we find another form of the word, tola, used by itself. Shani is used by itself as well, as in Isa. 1:18, \u201cBe your sins like crimson [shanim].\u201d Yarn. It seems plausible that the \u201cblue\u201d mentioned here refers to dyed linen (though there are those who say it is cotton), \u201cpurple\u201d to wool, and \u201ccrimson\u201d to silk (as the \u201cworm\u201d reference implies). Fine linen. This is the cloth made out of flax; but it is white, not dyed. Saadia translates shesh by a word that indicates a type of linen found only in Egypt, which is especially fine, and he translates well. Note that Pharaoh has Joseph \u201cdressed in robes of fine linen\u201d (Gen. 41:42); Ezekiel observes that the King of Tyre\u2019s sails were made of \u201cembroidered linen from Egypt\u201d (Ezek. 27:7). Goats\u2019 hair. Literally it just says \u201cgoats\u201d; but the reference is to goats\u2019 wool. The wool of the \u201cpurple\u201d mentioned above is from sheep.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nBlue, purple, and crimson yarns. Gersonides thinks these were all wool, but he is wrong\u2014they were silk (Abarbanel). Fine linen. Shesh, which also means \u201csix,\u201d is fine linen, with six-fold threads; bad is ordinary linen, where each strand is lebad, by itself (Gersonides). Goats\u2019 hair. This is the extremely soft hair at the roots of the coarser hair (Gersonides). In Egypt and the other countries of the east, this is more prized than ewe\u2019s wool (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 25:5
\nRASHI
\nTanned. The tanning left them red, which is the connotation of the Hebrew word used here. Dolphin. The Hebrew word actually refers to a kind of multicolored animal (Onkelos calls it a \u201cjoy-color\u201d because it was so proud of its many colors) that was created specially for this purpose and no longer exists. Acacia wood. Where did they get this in the wilderness? R. Tanhuma explains: Our ancestor Jacob foresaw, through the Holy Spirit, that the Israelites would one day build the Tabernacle in the wilderness. So he brought cedars down to Egypt with him, planted them, and instructed his children to take them along when they left.
\nIBN EZRA
\nTanned ram skins. More literally, \u201creddened rams\u2019 skins\u201d (see OJPS). That is, they are not naturally red but are dyed to make them so. Dolphin skins. These skins must be a kind of thick leather. For in Ezek. 16:10 God tells Israel, about her time in the wilderness, \u201cI clothed you with embroidered garments, and gave you sandals of tahash-leather to wear,\u201d and shoes can only be made from a thick leather like that of an ox. Ezekiel\u2019s use of the word indicates that this animal was still known in his day. In my opinion, this word tahash does refer to a kind of ox. Acacia wood. Some say that they cut this wood in the wilderness. In my opinion, they brought it along when they came out of Egypt. Note 35:24, \u201cEveryone who had in his possession acacia wood.\u201d They brought it along to use in setting up tents. It was used only for the tents of the great ones among them, since acacia wood planks are 10 cubits long. The real surprise is the bars used in the Tabernacle, which were even longer than this; but some say they were assembled out of shorter pieces. There are those who say that the word translated \u201cacacia\u201d here is really another name for \u201ccedar\u201d; the evidence for this is Isa. 41:19, \u201cI will plant in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia-tree.\u201d But this does not stand up.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nDolphin skins. This is an extremely beautiful leather, from which the wealthy have elegant shoes made (Bekhor Shor). I think this word must refer to the skins of large goats, tougher than that of rams, since it is used for shoe leather (Gersonides). Acacia wood. We know from Num. 25:1, \u201cWhile Israel was staying at Shittim,\u201d that acacia forests grew in the wilderness, for shittim is the Hebrew word for \u201cacacia.\u201d It is an extremely light, smooth, and beautiful wood. We know it was light, because Num. 7:8 says that \u201cfour carts and eight oxen\u201d carried all 48 planks of the Tabernacle and 60 posts of the enclosure (Bekhor Shor). This wood is a variety of cedar. They must have cut it down in one of the places they passed through, to make furniture, and now donated whatever of it they had (Gersonides). Most probably this wood, like the oil and spices, was purchased from the neighboring peoples who came to the Israelite camp to sell things (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 25:6\u20137
\nExodus 25:6
\nRASHI
\nOil for lighting. Pure olive oil for kindling the lamps (see 27:20). Spices for the anointing oil. Which was to anoint the Tabernacle and the various objects in it in order to sanctify it. The necessary spices are specified in 30:23\u201325. The aromatic incense. Which was burned every evening and every morning, as is explained in 30:7\u20138. The word translated \u201cincense\u201d carries the connotation of raising columns of smoke.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe anointing oil. This is explained in 30:23\u201325. The aromatic incense. Rather, \u201cfor the aromatics, incense.\u201d See 30:34.
\nIBN EZRA
\nOil for lighting. At night. Spices for the anointing oil. There were four of them: myrrh, cinnamon, aromatic cane, and cassia. Incense. These samim (as the Hebrew has it) are also called besamim, \u201cspices,\u201d because of their pleasant aroma. Hence the translations are correct. The scholars of this generation think the last phrase should be translated \u201cfor the aromatics, incense,\u201d but why are all the other phrases not inverted as well?
\nNAHMANIDES
\nSpices for the anointing oil and for the aromatic incense. Some say that this is an abbreviated verse, really meaning \u201cspices for the anointing oil and aromatics for the aromatic incense.\u201d Others think the last phrase is grammatically reversed: \u201cspices for the anointing oil and, for the aromatics, incense,\u201d the reference to \u201cthe\u201d aromatics implying that the best aromatics should be used\u2014for even in 30:34 they are not specified. Ibn Ezra reads \u201cspices\u201d with both phrases, as do the translators, for according to our Sages the spices spikenard, saffron, and cinnamon all go into the aromatic incense. There was no need to mention the aromatics that go into the aromatic incense any more than there was to mention that there is oil in the anointing oil. And this is correct. All of this exegesis is necessary because, according to the linguists, the word translated \u201caromatic\u201d denotes herbs that are medicinal, such as frankincense and galbanum, while \u201cspices,\u201d besamim, refers to those that are eaten as food and that are considered healthful because of their bisum, their invigorating aroma. In Rashi\u2019s opinion, however, samim, \u201caromatics,\u201d are the same as besamim, \u201cspices,\u201d which would seem to be the implication of the rabbinic statement that \u201cMoses at Sinai was told about 11 aromatics.\u201d Notice that Onkelos too translates both with the same Aramaic word, which is correct for this verse. But since the Hebrew uses a different form of the word, this may be meant to indicate that besamim, \u201cspices,\u201d are the choicest be-samim, \u201camong the aromatics.\u201d Notice that besamim are called \u201cchief\u201d spices in 30:23 and Ezek. 27:22. It may also be correct to say that besamim is a compound word indicating bah samim, \u201cthere are aromatics in it.\u201d The proof of our Sages\u2019 words that aromatics are also spices is that myrrh is called one of the \u201cchief spices\u201d in 30:23, though it is a medicinal herb, not a food. Song 4:14 too identifies \u201cnard and saffron, fragrant reed and cinnamon \u2026 myrrh and aloes\u201d as \u201call the choice spices.\u201d Moreover, \u201cAnd the chieftains brought \u2026 spices and oil for lighting, for the anointing oil, and for the aromatic incense\u201d (35:27\u201328) makes clear that the \u201cspices\u201d they brought were for the incense as well as the anointing oil; they are not said to have brought \u201caromatics.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nOil for lighting. This would seem to be the only one of the materials used for service in the Tabernacle, rather than for building it. But in fact the Tabernacle had to be lit (as well as anointed and made fragrant) before the King of Kings could enter it for the first time (Bekhor Shor). This was pure olive oil, so fine that only the chieftains had it; see 35:27\u201328 (Gersonides).
\nExodus 25:7
\nRASHI
\nLapis lazuli. The Hebrew has the plural \u201cstones\u201d (see OJPS), for two of them were necessary for the ephod (see 28:9\u201312). For setting. Literally, \u201cfilling.\u201d A kind of receptacle is made out of gold, into which the stone is set to \u201cfill\u201d it. The receptacle is referred to as a \u201cframe\u201d (28:11). For the ephod and for the breastpiece. The lapis was for the ephod and the other stones for the breastpiece. The ephod and the breastpiece are explained in ch. 28; they are ornamental objects.
\nRASHBAM
\nFor setting. Literally, \u201cfilling.\u201d The stone fills the hole in its frame as does the stone in a ring.
\nIBN EZRA
\nLapis lazuli. For the ephod. Other stones for setting. For the breastpiece. According to Joseph the Babylonian, the latter are literally called \u201cstones for filling,\u201d since the breastpiece was doubled over and the stones \u201cfilled in\u201d the space in the middle. Others say the term is used simply because the breastpiece was filled with stones, while the ephod, which was much larger, had only two, one on each shoulder. Saadia thinks it refers to the way the stones are attached to the breastpiece in orderly rows.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nLapis lazuli and other stones for setting, for the ephod and for the breastpiece. Rashi explains that the stone that is set \u201cfills\u201d an empty space, accounting for the literal Hebrew \u201cstones of filling.\u201d He explains the \u201cmountings\u201d (again, literally \u201cfillings\u201d) of 28:20 the same way, just as he does every other occurrence of \u201cfilling\u201d in such a context. But in my view he is completely wrong to explain them as stones for \u201cfilling\u201d because they are going to eventually be placed into a setting. The lapis lazuli is also going to be set, but is not called a \u201cstone for setting.\u201d (\u201cOther\u201d is not in the Hebrew text; see OJPS.) In any case, our Sages have already explained them as \u201cstones of fullness,\u201d meaning that they cannot be engraved because that would remove some of the stone and they would no longer be \u201cfull.\u201d Moreover, the stones were not set in a frame, as Rashi explains, but (as is implied by Onkelos\u2019 translation of 28:20) held in a setting the same size as the stone by three prongs that extend from it. This is how precious stones are set into rings to this very day. In this way, none of the beauty of the stone is hidden inside a receptacle; instead, it is visible from all sides. Know that it is so. For the two golden chains in the rings of the breastpiece are fastened in frames on the shoulders of the ephod. If the frames were settings into which stones could be placed, how could chains be fastened into them? Rather, they are prongs, as we have said, and the links of the chain fit over them. And what \u201cstones of fullness\u201d means is that they are fully used, just as they were created, without being cut or physically diminished in any way. Moreover, it is known scientifically that the powers of precious stones, and their properties, are not complete unless they are polished\u2014like the \u201csmooth stones\u201d David used to kill Goliath\u2014by natural processes only. Onkelos too does not use the Aramaic word for \u201cfill\u201d here, but that for \u201ccomplete.\u201d (He does the same in 35:35, \u201cHe filled them with wisdom,\u201d since wisdom is after all not a substance that can \u201cfill\u201d a container. Rather, God made them completely wise.) There were three lapis lazuli stones, two for the ephod and one for the breastpiece; the other, \u201cfull\u201d unworked stones, were all for the breastpiece. But if our Sages are to be understood as saying that unworked stones were required for the ephod as well, then both types of stones refer to both objects.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nStones for setting. Nahmanides is correct in his criticism of Rashi, but his own answer is also wrong, for precious stones have no luster until they are polished and carved (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 25:8\u201310
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why does God say \u201clet them make Me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them\u201d (v. 8) as if He were a physical being who could be limited in place\u2014the opposite of the truth, and in flat contradiction to Isa. 66:1 and 1 Kings 8:27?
\nExodus 25:8
\nRASHI
\nMake Me a sanctuary. Make a sanctified home for My Name.
\nRASHBAM
\nA sanctuary. The word implies a place set aside for meeting; \u201cI will sanctify and prepare Myself for them, to speak from within it.\u201d See 29:43, \u201cThere I will meet with the Israelites, and it shall be sanctified by My Presence.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nSanctuary. A \u201csanctuary\u201d is a \u201csanctified,\u201d holy place, the Tabernacle of the holy God.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nLet them make Me a sanctuary. This is a positive commandment, and must be carried out during the day, not at night. It is called a sanctuary because it is a place sanctified to the service of God, and serves as proof of His reality (Gersonides).
\nExodus 25:9
\nRASHI
\nExactly as I show you. This is connected with the previous verse. The sense is \u201cMake me a sanctuary exactly as I show you.\u201d So shall you make it. This is an additional commandment, extending the obligation of building the Tabernacle to future generations. If one of the objects is destroyed, or when you make Me objects for the permanent Temple (as did Solomon), you shall make them exactly according to this pattern. \u201cEven so shall you make it\u201d (OJPS) shows that this is the correct interpretation; otherwise, the phrase would belong with v. 10, referring to the Tent of Meeting and its utensils.
\nRASHBAM
\nExactly as I show you. The Holy One literally showed Moses images of all the utensils and all the construction, just like the \u201cvisions of God\u201d (Ezek. 40:2) in which Ezekiel, in Babylonia, was shown the Second Temple. It was explained to him by means of words as well: \u201cMortal, look closely and listen attentively and note well everything I am going to show you\u201d (Ezek. 40:4). V. 40 here, \u201cthe patterns \u2026 that are being shown you on the mountain,\u201d proves that Moses was shown images as well as words; if he was \u201cshown\u201d only in speech, there would have been no need to say that they were shown to him \u201con the mountain.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nAs I show you. In \u201cvisions of God\u201d (Ezek. 1:1,8:3,40:2); but he saw them with his eyes, unlike Ezekiel, who saw them in a dream. The Tabernacle. The Tabernacle is the \u201csanctuary\u201d commanded in v. 8. So shall you make it. Literally, \u201cAnd you shall so make.\u201d \u201cLet them make\u201d (v. 8) refers to the Tabernacle, this phrase to its furnishings.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nSo shall you make it. See Rashi\u2019s comment. But I do not know how it could be true that Solomon had to make all the objects for the Temple exactly to the pattern of those specified here, if the bronze altar that Solomon made was \u201c20 cubits long, 20 cubits wide, and 10 cubits high\u201d (2 Chron. 4:1). Ibn Ezra thinks that \u201cso shall you make\u201d (for \u201cit\u201d is not in the Hebrew) refers to the utensils, matching the commandment in v. 8 to make the Tabernacle. But in a straightforward reading there is no need to go to such lengths. The repetition serves as encouragement and exhortation. \u201cMake me a sanctuary\u201d (v. 8)\u2014including the furnishings inside it\u2014as a king\u2019s sanctuary and a royal palace, \u201cthat I may dwell among them\u201d (v. 8) in the House, and on the Throne of Glory, that they make for Me there. \u201cSo shall you make it\u201d means that they must all do it diligently and with alacrity. There is a comparable repetition in 39:32, \u201cThe Israelites did so; just as the Lord had commanded Moses, so they did.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nExactly as I show you. \u201cThat I may dwell among them\u201d (v. 8) exactly as I show you here on the mountain\u2014to receive their prayer and their service (Sforno). This implies that the construction of the Tabernacle alludes to the form of the world. It is implausible that all of this could be specified just for the sake of ornamentation\u2014though the allusions that Gersonides imagines he has found here are so absurd that I will not even dignify them with a response (Abarbanel). So shall you make it. In such a way that I dwell among you, and not as it was before the Golden Calf episode, when the plan was that \u201cin every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come to you and bless you\u201d (20:21) (Sforno).
\nExodus 25:10
\nRASHI
\nThey shall make an ark. Like the sort of chest that is made without legs, constructed like a box. It rests flat on its bottom.
\nRASHBAM
\nThey shall make an ark of acacia wood. When Bezalel actually makes them, he constructs the Tabernacle first and the utensils (Ark, lampstand, table) later\u2014after all, where would he put them before the Tabernacle was constructed? But when they are commanded, the first step in fulfilling \u201cMake Me a sanctuary\u201d (v. 8) had to be the commandment to make the Ark. The Ark is the whole reason the sanctuary must be made.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThey shall make an ark. The ark was four-sided and rested on four feet (see v. 12). Two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high. We do not know whether these are the internal or external dimensions. If external, we may presume that the half cubit of each dimension accounted for the thickness of the sides. In which case, the internal dimensions were two cubits by one cubit and (since the tablets completely filled it) the tablets were each one cubit by one cubit. If they were each one cubit high, as would seem to be the case, then they were extremely heavy. Perhaps God gave Moses\u2019 arms special strength so that he could carry them down. Such a tablet would have six sides, but 32:15 tells us that the tablets \u201cwere inscribed on the one side and on the other,\u201d and perhaps that is how it was. In any case, the Ark seems surprisingly heavy. Now, the 29 talents and 730 shekels used for the Tabernacle (38:24) is less than 1\/3400 of the 100,000 talents of gold used in Solomon\u2019s Temple (1 Chron. 22:14). Yet Solomon made even the cherubim of olive wood (1 Kings 6:23). Hence we conclude that, in the Tabernacle, there were not two gold arks with a wooden one in between, but a wooden ark with a thin overlay of gold for appearance\u2019s sake. Only the lampstand was of solid gold.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThey shall make an ark. \u201cThey\u201d refers to the Israelite people, mentioned in v. 2. The imperatives that follow (\u201coverlay,\u201d v. 11; \u201ccast,\u201d v. 12; and so on) revert to the singular, addressing Moses as representative of the Israelites. Or perhaps \u201cThey shall make\u201d hints that all Israel should participate in the making of the Ark, since it is \u201cthe holy dwelling-place of the Most High\u201d (Ps. 46:5), and that therefore they would all deserve the Torah. Exodus Rabbah similarly asks, \u201cWhy is Moses told about all the other utensils \u2018you\u2019 shall make, but about the Ark \u2018they\u2019 shall make? Says R. Judah the son of R. Shalom: The Holy One said, \u2018Let them all come and occupy themselves with the making of the Ark so that they might deserve the Torah.\u2019 \u201d The way in which they \u201coccupied themselves\u201d was that each of them should contribute at least one bit of gold to the Ark, or give Bezalel a little bit of help, or at least intend to do so.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nAn ark. The straightforward sense of the verse makes clear that the Ark had no feet (Gersonides). The Ark was set at the far west to distance them from worship of the sun (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 25:11\u201312
\nExodus 25:11
\nRASHI
\nOverlay it inside and out. Bezalel made three arks, two of gold and one of wood. Each of them had four sides and a bottom, but was open on top. He put the wooden ark inside one of the golden ones and the other golden one inside the wooden one, then plated the upper edge with gold. The result was that it was \u201coverlaid inside and out.\u201d A gold molding. A kind of crown, surrounding and above the upper edge of the ark, making the outer ark taller than the two inner ones, matching the thickness of the cover and somewhat above it. When the cover rested on the upper rims of the two inner arks, the molding would extend somewhat higher than the cover. It was symbolic of the \u201ccrown\u201d of Torah.
\nRASHBAM
\nPure gold. Refined.
\nIBN EZRA
\nUpon it. For the molding is higher than the ark proper. Pure gold. Unmixed with anything else\u2014just gold by itself. A gold molding. This unusual word is found in a verbal form as well: \u201cYou measure my walking and reclining\u201d (Ps. 139:3).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nOverlay it with pure gold. The Ark ought to have been made of solid gold, but it would have been too heavy to carry (Bekhor Shor). It is clear that the Ark was not plated with gold as one does silver plating\u2014for the gold would not stick to the wood\u2014but that there were three arks, two of gold and one (in between them) of wood. But the gold arks cannot have been a full handbreadth thick, as our Sages said, for not even one ark so thick could have been made from the amount of gold that was collected, as anyone who studies the engineering of the thing will see. But they said this to indicate that the gold overlay was not a thin layer but two arks with substantial thickness (Gersonides).
\nExodus 25:12
\nRASHI
\nIts four feet. Rather, as Onkelos translates, \u201cits four corners\u201d\u2014the upper corners. There were two rings on the upper edge of the Ark on either side, into which the poles were inserted. The length of the Ark, 2\u00bd cubits, separated the two poles, making room for two people to walk between them and carry the Ark. This is how it is explained on B. Men. 98b. Two rings on one of its side walls and two on the other. These are the four rings of the first part of the verse; this part explains how they were arranged. OJPS literally translates \u201cand\u201d to begin this phrase, but this \u201cand\u201d is superfluous. Understand it as if it said, \u201ctwo of the rings on one of its side walls and two of the rings on the other.\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nCast \u2026 for it. They must project from the body of the Ark, not be attached to it. Two rings. Two of the four. One of its side walls. That is, one of the two short sides. The poles stuck out into the sanctuary. You must admit that the long sides of the Ark were oriented north-south and that the poles ran east-west.
\nIBN EZRA
\nCast. Literally, \u201cpour\u201d; the word is used this way in Ezek. 24:3, \u201cPut the caldron on the fire \u2026 and then pour water into it.\u201d For hot gold is poured like water into a mold. Four gold rings. Since the verse literally continues, \u201cand two rings on one of its side walls and two on the other,\u201d there must have been eight rings altogether. One of the scholars of our generation has understood this, explaining that the poles were placed in the rings at the feet of the Ark, and moved from the lower to the upper rings when it was time to pick it up. Its side walls. One troublemaker thinks that the word used here cannot refer to the side walls, but only to the long sides. He cites 26:20, where it is used for the long, north side of the Tabernacle. But his refutation is right next to him, in 26:27, where the word is also used for the short, west side. Its four feet. I looked through the entire Bible and could not find a single time when pa\u2019am means \u201ccorner.\u201d It means \u201cfeet,\u201d as in Isa. 26:6, Ps. 85:14, Song 7:2, and many others. I was forced to conclude that the Ark had feet. For it would have been demeaning for the Ark to sit on the ground.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nIts four feet. Rashi explains nicely that this really means \u201cfour corners,\u201d with a ring on each corner. But I do not understand why he assumes that the rings were on the upper corners, under the cover, where the weight would be much greater. In any case, the respectful way to do it would be to have the Ark borne aloft above the shoulders of the priests, not below them. Ibn Ezra insists that the Hebrew word translated here never means anything but \u201cfeet\u201d anywhere in the Bible. He further explains that our verse describes eight rings, four on the bottom (for carrying the Ark) and four on the top (for decoration). But he is completely wrong. If he were right, that the Ark stands on four \u201cfeet,\u201d then our verse is commanding that the rings be placed on the four bottom corners, on which the Ark sits; \u201cfeet\u201d would simply be a metaphor. Hebrew frequently refers to objects in human terms, the top being the \u201chead\u201d and the bottom the \u201cfoot.\u201d In fact, this is just how it was: The rings were on the four lower corners of the Ark, which was carried above the shoulders of the priests, as I have explained. In my opinion, however, the word does not mean \u201cfeet\u201d but \u201cpaces.\u201d This meaning works as well in Song 7:2 as does \u201cfeet\u201d (in fact B. Av. Zar. 18a uses a similar expression) and makes more sense in Judg. 5:28. The \u201cpaces\u201d referred to in our verse are those of the priests carrying the Ark. The implication of the rings being attached next to the \u201cpaces\u201d is two-fold: (1) That the rings should be right at the bottom of the Ark, on which it rests, and (2) that the rings should be at the very corners, a pace\u2014one ark-length\u2014apart from each other. For the Ark was set with its long sides on the east and west, two rings on the north side (one on the east and one on the west) and two on the south side. The paces of the priests would go between the rings, two behind the Ark and two in front of it.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nIts four feet. It would not be seemly for the Ark to sit right on the ground (Hizkuni). Two rings. Literally, \u201cand two rings,\u201d implying that there were eight altogether\u2014four small rings attached to the Ark, and four large rings inserted into them, so that when the Ark was set down, the poles would hang down at its side, not parallel with its top (Bekhor Shor). On one of its side walls. The word translated \u201cside wall\u201d here refers only to the long sides (Sforno).
\nExodus 25:13\u201318
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 How could God command them to make cherubim (v. 18), in apparent violation of \u201cYou shall not make for yourself a sculptured image\u201d (20:4)?
\nExodus 25:13
\nIBN EZRA
\nPoles of acacia wood. The word is used here as in Ezek. 17:6, \u201cIt became a vine, produced branches, and sent out boughs\u201d\u2014they \u201cbranched out\u201d from the Ark on either side. Notice that the dimensions of the poles are not given.
\nExodus 25:15
\nRASHI
\nThey shall not be removed from it. Ever.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThey shall not be removed from it. Except when the sanctuary is dismantled, as I shall explain in my comment to Num. 4:6.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThey shall not be removed. But Num. 4:6 says that Aaron and his sons \u201cshall put [the Ark\u2019s] poles in place.\u201d So they must have been removed once, so that they could be put back in place, permanently, by the priests (Bekhor Shor). The poles were thicker at the ends than in the middle, so that once inserted (by force) they could not slide out. It is obvious that the poles must have sat tightly in the rings, so that when the porters climbed up a hill or down into a valley the Ark would not slide into their shoulders. Since no one went near this Ark except for the High Priest, on one single day of the year, the poles could be left where they were; but the poles for the copper altar, out in the courtyard, would have been constantly in everyone\u2019s way and were put in only to carry it (Hizkuni). The point was that the priests should be able to lift it on their shoulders without touching it (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 25:16
\nRASHI
\nThe Pact. Literally, the \u201ctestimony\u201d (OJPS)\u2014the Torah, which is testimony between Me and you that I commanded you to perform the commandments written within it.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe Pact. The tablets, which are the \u201cpact\u201d (literally, with OJPS, \u201cthe testimony\u201d) and the covenant between the Holy One and Israel. That is why they are called \u201cthe Tablets of the Covenant\u201d (Deut. 9:9).
\nIBN EZRA
\nDeposit in the Ark the tablets of the Pact. As when one entrusts someone with something extremely valuable. The Hebrew text does not mention \u201ctablets\u201d (see OJPS), but NJPS is correct\u2014the reference is to the tablets of the covenant. They serve as written \u201ctestimony\u201d to the covenant. It cannot refer to the Torah, which Moses had not yet written. There was no need to mention where the tablets were kept before the Ark was constructed.
\nExodus 25:17
\nRASHI
\nA cover. It would rest on the Ark (which was open at the top) like a plank. Two and a half cubits long. The same length as the Ark. A cubit and a half wide. The same width as the Ark. The cover would rest on the upper rims of the two inner arks on all four sides. Even though no thickness is given for it, our Sages have explained that it was one handbreadth thick.
\nRASHBAM
\nTwo and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. The same dimensions as the Ark.
\nIBN EZRA
\nA cover. The meaning of this Hebrew word, kapporet, is evident both from the context and from its etymology. When a priest \u201cmakes expiation [kipper]\u201d for sin (Lev. 4:26), that means that the \u201csin is covered over\u201d (Ps. 32:1). Note that the thickness of the cover is not given.
\nExodus 25:18
\nRASHI
\nCherubim. They had the faces of children. Make them of hammered work. Do not make them separately and then solder them onto the cover after you have made them, but put in extra gold when you begin to make the cover, and hit it with a hammer or a mallet so that its ends protrude, and form the cherubim from the protrusions. The word mikshah, \u201chammered work,\u201d is from the same root as the verb in Dan. 5:6, \u201chis knees knocked together.\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nCherubim. Birds. Note Ezek. 28:14, \u201cI created you as a cherub with outstretched shielding wings.\u201d It is a large bird with wings. But the Sages explain it as having the face of an infant. Hammered work. Hammered out of the thickness of the gold of the cover. It was hammered out with a mallet so that a cherub protruded from it, and was not simply attached there.
\nIBN EZRA
\nCherubim. I have already explained this word in my comment to Gen. 3:24. The Sages, comparing this word to Aramaic che-rabya, \u201clike boys,\u201d said the cherubim had faces of boys. If they had this as a tradition, and were merely using the Aramaic word as a memory device, fine. But etymologically, there is no connection. Comparing Ezek. 1:10 and Ezek. 10:14, we find that a cherub\u2019s face could be the same as that of an ox. The verse here does not explain what form they are to take, but we understand from v. 22 that these cherubim were in human form. Hammered work. The word literally means \u201ceven work,\u201d in the sense of being evened off. It is used for the flatness of a cucumber field in Isa. 1:8. The cherubim were to be evenly spaced, each an equal distance from the end of the cover.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nMake two cherubim. This does not violate the prohibition against graven images, since they were made not to bow down to, but for Him to sit upon, like the cherubim on the Throne of Glory; the Torah is full of exceptions (Hizkuni). These were the \u201cseraphs [who] stood in attendance upon him\u201d (Isa. 6:2) that were seen by the prophets (Sforno).
\nExodus 25:19\u201321
\nExodus 25:19
\nRASHI
\nMake one cherub at one end. It was necessary to make this explicit lest you think there were two cherubim at each end of the cover. Of one piece with the cover. This explains \u201cMake them of hammered work\u201d (v. 18)\u2014they are not to be made separately and then attached to the cover.
\nRASHBAM
\nAt one end. In the middle of the short side of the cover, so that the Shekhinah (which appears there) could face the sanctuary.
\nIBN EZRA
\nMake one cherub. These are not additional cherubim; the verse explains how the two cherubim of v. 18 are to be made. At one end. Rather, \u201cat one end of it.\u201d The dot that should be in the final heh of this word to indicate \u201cof it\u201d is not always included: see the word lah in Num. 32:42. Or perhaps katzah is, as NJPS takes it, simply another form of the word katzeh (\u201cend\u201d). Its two ends. The suffix is masculine, though the Hebrew word for \u201ccover\u201d is feminine in gender. Perhaps the suffix refers to the phrase \u201cof one piece,\u201d indicating \u201cof itself\u201d in the abstract. Or perhaps it refers to the masculine word mizzeh, translated by NJPS as \u201cone\u201d and \u201cthe other.\u201d That is what I think is correct.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nOf one piece with the cover shall you make the cherubim. Unlike those in Solomon\u2019s Temple (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 25:20
\nRASHI
\nShall have their wings spread out. They shall not be folded, but spread out slightly above the level of their heads, with a space of 10 handbreadths between the wings and the cover, as explained on B. Suk. 5b.
\nRASHBAM
\nAbove. Slightly above the level of their heads. They shall confront each other. This is explained by the faces of the cherubim being turned toward the middle of the cover.
\nIBN EZRA
\nToward the cover. That is, with their heads slightly bowed. There were two cherubim, as I have shown you, because the mystery of the One could not appear except through two. That is why the Lord is called \u201cEnthroned on the Cherubim\u201d (1 Sam. 4:4). The Ark is referred to this way as well; see 1 Chron. 13:6. The Ark is also referred to as God\u2019s \u201cMight\u201d (see Ps. 132:8 and 2 Chron. 6:41); that is what \u201cTurn to the Lord, to His Might; seek His presence constantly\u201d (Ps. 105:4) is about.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nShall have their wings spread out. In the Tabernacle sections (here and in 37:9), the phrase is a noun, \u201cwing-spreaders,\u201d while in the temple section (1 Kings 8:7) it is a verb, \u201cspreading wings\u201d (Masorah). Like birds, which spend most of their time in the air, far above the filth of the ground (Hizkuni). As if they wished to fly upward (Gersonides). They shall confront each other. This proves that they were not meant as an image to be worshiped (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 25:21
\nRASHI
\nAfter depositing inside the Ark the Pact that I will give you. I don\u2019t know why this repetition of v. 16 is necessary. One might say it comes to teach that the Pact must be put into the Ark before it has a cover, and afterward the cover is placed on it: \u201cHe took the Pact and placed it in the ark; he \u2026 placed the cover on top of the ark\u201d (40:20).
\nNAHMANIDES
\nDepositing inside the Ark the Pact. Rashi wonders why this repetition of v. 16 is necessary. If this is indeed a command, then it means to put the Pact into the Ark after the Ark cover is put on (the opposite of the NJPS translation); it is just as much an ark once it has a cover. Rashi might just as well have asked why v. 22 had to amplify the words \u201cfrom above the cover\u201d by adding \u201cfrom between the two cherubim that are on top of the Ark of the Pact.\u201d If God speaks \u201cfrom above the cover,\u201d then obviously He is speaking \u201cfrom between the two cherubim.\u201d The explanation is that God had commanded that the cherubim must have their wings spread out and so forth (v. 20), but the text has not yet explained why they must be made at all, or what purpose they serve in the Tabernacle, or why they are made in this particular way. So it now adds that the cover, with its cherubim, should be placed on the Ark\u2014for the whole cover is a single piece atop the Ark, and the Pact that I will give you should be placed inside it so that it can be a Throne of Glory for Me. For I will meet with you there, cause My Shekhinah to dwell upon them, and will speak with you.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe Pact that I will give you. The second set of tablets\u2014for this passage was said during the second set of 40 days (Hizkuni). As 1 Kings 8:9 puts it, \u201cThere was nothing inside the Ark but the two tablets of stone which Moses placed there at Horeb\u201d (Gersonides).
\nExodus 25:22\u201324
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 What is the point of having bread sit for a week, uneaten on a table (vv. 23\u201330)?
\nExodus 25:22
\nRASHI
\nThere I will meet with you. When I set a fixed time to speak with you, this is the place that I fix for the time when I come to speak with you. I will impart to you\u2014from above the cover. Literally, \u201cspeak\u201d with you (OJPS). But Lev. 1:1 says, \u201cThe Lord called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting,\u201d which would seem to refer to the Tabernacle outside the curtain, contradicting our verse. According to the 13th of R. Ishmael\u2019s rules for interpretation, in such a situation one seeks a third verse that resolves the difficulty: \u201cWhen Moses went into the Tent of Meeting to speak with Him, he would hear the Voice addressing him from above the cover that was on top of the Ark of the Pact between the two cherubim; thus He spoke to him\u201d (Num. 7:89). Moses would go into the Tabernacle, and as soon as he entered, a voice would come from heaven to the space between the cherubim. From there it would go forth and be heard by Moses in the Tent of Meeting. All that I will command you concerning the Israelite people. The vav that begins this phrase in the Hebrew is superfluous, of secondary importance. There are many such in the Bible. But it could be interpreted as follows: \u201cAnd what I shall speak with you there will be \u2018all that I will command you concerning the Israelite people.\u2019 \u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nFrom above the cover. I do not see how Lev. 1:1 contradicts this verse; \u201cthe Tent of Meeting\u201d there implies the Tabernacle and everything in it. There is no need for a third verse to resolve the difficulty.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nFrom above the cover, from between the two cherubim\u2014for the very reason that it is atop the Ark of the Pact. It is like the Chariot that Ezekiel saw: \u201cIt was the same creature that I had seen below the God of Israel at the Chebar Canal; so now I knew that they were cherubim\u201d (Ezek. 10:20). That is why God is called the One who is \u201cEnthroned on the Cherubim\u201d (1 Sam. 4:4). Their wings were spread out to show that they were the Chariot, the ones who carry the Presence. Thus 1 Chron. 28:18 describes \u201cthe figure of the chariot\u2014the cherubim\u2014those with outspread wings screening the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord,\u201d as I said. But in the opinion of our Sages, the cherubim are human forms, the word being derived from the Aramaic che-rabya, \u201clike a child.\u201d If you think for a bit about why they were facing each other, and why they had to be made of \u201chammered work,\u201d you will understand why they had to \u201chave their wings spread out above\u201d (v. 20). For they are the Throne of the One on High, which covers the Pact\u2014which is \u201cGod\u2019s writing\u201d (32:16). This is the meaning of \u201cthe figure of the chariot\u201d (1 Chron. 28:18). For the cherubim that Ezekiel saw carrying the Presence were a figure for the real cherubim, which are Glory and Splendor. The cherubim in the Tabernacle and the Temple were figures of the cherubim on the Chariot, for \u201cone who is higher than the high watches, and there are higher than they\u201d (Eccles. 5:7). This is why Ezekiel said that he \u201cknew\u201d they were cherubim. He saw the one creature and \u201cknew\u201d about the other, heavenly creature; that is why he said \u201cthey\u201d were cherubim. One who is enlightened will understand.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nI will impart to you\u2014from above the cover. Lev. 1:1 is to be interpreted as follows: When Moses was outside the Tent, he would hear the Voice coming from inside it; once inside, he would hear it coming from above the cover (Bekhor Shor). That is, the cloud of the Lord will appear there when I speak with you, as if I were speaking to you from that place\u2014just as the cloud appeared on Mount Sinai when prophecy came to Moses (Gersonides).
\nExodus 25:23
\nRASHI
\nA cubit and a half high. This includes the height of the legs as well as the thickness of the table.
\nIBN EZRA
\nA table. Notice that the thickness of the tabletop is not given; the cubit and a half undoubtedly include it as well as the legs. Notice also that Moses was commanded to make the Ark and the cover, but a table. For the Ark and its cover were the most exalted of all the furnishings of the Tabernacle, being the only ones inside the curtain, in the Holy of Holies. After the Ark, at a lesser degree of holiness, came the table, the lampstand, the golden altar, and the curtain.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nA table. It is a mark of courtesy that His servants and His priests should eat from His table (Bekhor Shor). After the Ark, which is like a throne for the Shekhinah, He commanded them to make a table and a lampstand, as was the custom for princes\u2014as when the Shunammite woman told her husband, \u201cLet us make a small enclosed upper chamber and place a bed, a table, a chair, and a lampstand there\u201d (2 Kings 4:10) for Elisha (Sforno). A cubit and a half high. So that it should be navel-high to a man, since people are three cubits tall. God\u2019s table was not to be on the ground, the way they eat in the East, but high off the ground, as we do here (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 25:24
\nRASHI
\nA gold molding. This symbolizes the crown of royalty. The table represents wealth and greatness, as in the expression \u201cfit for a king\u2019s table.\u201d
\nNAHMANIDES
\nA gold molding around it. Rashi\u2019s comment about the \u201croyal crown\u201d is exactly right. This is the mystery behind the table. For God\u2019s blessing, since the world has existed, is not created out of nothing; the world goes on in its ordinary way. \u201cGod saw all that He had made, and found it very good\u201d (Gen. 1:31). But wherever the essence of a thing exists already, blessing can settle upon it and add to it. As Elisha said to his disciple\u2019s widow, \u201cWhat can I do for you? Tell me, what have you in the house?\u201d (2 Kings 4:2). Blessing settled on the only jar of oil she had and with it she filled every vessel in the house. In the case of the woman of Zarephath, who had \u201cnothing but a handful of flour in a jar and a little oil in a jug \u2026 the jar of flour did not give out, nor did the jug of oil fail\u201d until the famine was over (1 Kings 17:12,16). It is the same with the bread of display on the table. Blessing would settle upon it, and from that, abundance would come to all Israel. Thus the rabbinic saying that every priest who got a piece of the bread of display as big as a bean ate it and his appetite was satisfied.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nOverlay it with pure gold above and below and make a gold molding around it to cover the wood that remains visible (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 25:25\u201329
\nExodus 25:25
\nRASHI
\nA rim. This translation, following Onkelos, is correct. But the Sages disagree on this subject. Some say it was above the top of the table, like the rim around the surface of an official\u2019s desk; others, that it went from leg to leg below the tabletop on each of the four sides, with the top of the table sitting on top of the rim. Make a gold molding for its rim. This is the molding mentioned in v. 24; our verse explains that the molding \u201caround\u201d the table was on its rim.
\nRASHBAM
\nRim. Like the kind of rim that is made to go around the top of a table. But some of our Sages say it was below the tabletop.
\nIBN EZRA
\nMake a rim. On top. This is clear; everyone knows this is how tables are made. Make a gold molding. This is the same molding that is mentioned in v. 24.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nMake a rim \u2026 around it. So the bread should not fall off in case someone should knock into it (Bekhor Shor). A hand\u2019s breadth. The difference between this biblical word and that translated as \u201ca span\u201d (e.g., 28:16) is that a \u201cspan\u201d measures the hand with the fingers spread out, while a \u201chand\u2019s breadth\u201d measures the four fingers held close together. A span equals three handbreadths (Kimhi).
\nExodus 25:26
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe four corners. Literally, the four \u201csides,\u201d east, west, north, and south.
\nExodus 25:27
\nRASHI
\nThe rings shall be next to the rim. At the legs, fastened opposite the edge of the rim.
\nRASHBAM
\nNext to the rim. The rings were to be fixed to the table below the rim, not to the rim itself.
\nIBN EZRA
\nAs holders. Literally, as \u201chousings\u201d\u2014a place for the poles to go, as a house is a place for a person.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe rings shall be next to the rim. If they were on the table itself, when they lifted it, the tabletop would come off and the rim and the legs would remain on the ground (Gersonides).
\nExodus 25:28
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nShall be carried. This word occurs six times in the book of Isaiah and only six times in the whole rest of the Bible (Masorah).
\nExodus 25:29
\nRASHI
\nBowls. These were molds in which the bread was shaped; the bread was made in the shape of a box with two of its sides broken out. The bottom of the \u201cbox\u201d was folded up on either side like two \u201cwalls,\u201d which is why the Hebrew term for the \u201cbread of display\u201d is \u201cface bread\u201d\u2014it had a \u201cface\u201d looking toward either side of the Temple. Its length stretched across the width of the table and its \u201cwalls\u201d went straight up parallel to the edge of the table. There were two molds made for the bread, one of gold and one of iron. It was baked in the iron mold, and when it came out of the oven it was put into the golden mold until the next day, the Sabbath, when it was arranged on the table. This golden mold is the one referred to here as a \u201cbowl.\u201d Ladles. Dishes in which they put frankincense. There were two of them, one for each of the two handfuls of frankincense: \u201cWith each row you shall place pure frankincense\u201d (Lev. 24:7). Jars. The word indicates a kind of hollow tube, split in half lengthwise, made of gold. Three of them would be arranged on top of each loaf, and the next higher loaf sat on top of them. They would separate the two loaves so that air could circulate between them and they would not get moldy. The Hebrew word is etymologically related to an Arabic word that means \u201chollow.\u201d Jugs. Onkelos\u2019s translation indicates that the word used here really refers to the attachments that propped up the loaves. They were a sort of golden peg that stood on the ground, much taller than the table, reaching up to the height of the bread arranged there. There were six notches on them, one above another, and the ends of the tubes that were between each loaf would rest on these notches, so that the weight of the upper layers of bread would not crush the lower layers. The word used by Onkelos refers to something that is weight-bearing, but it is not clear to me how the word used in the biblical text could carry this meaning. Some of our Sages say that it is the word translated \u201cjars\u201d by NJPS (etymologically related to the word \u201chard\u201d) that refers to these attachments, which keep the bread \u201chard\u201d and unbroken; and the word translated \u201cjugs\u201d (etymologically related to \u201cclean\u201d) that refers to the tubes which prevent the bread from getting dirty with mold. But Onkelos\u2019s translation follows the opinion given here. With which to offer libations. This word yusakh really refers to the tubes, and it does not refer to offering libations, but to covering. Read it as if its Hebrew letters were reversed: yekhuseh, \u201cwith which the bread could be covered.\u201d The tubes \u201ccovered\u201d the bread as sekhakh covers the booths used on the holiday of Sukkot. The same interpretation applies to the similar word nesekh in Num. 4:7; both are coverings, not \u201clibation jugs.\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nBowls. Rather, molds in the shape of a broken box, in which to make the bread. Ladles. For the two dishes of frankincense: \u201cWith each row you shall place pure frankincense\u201d (Lev. 24:7). Jars and jugs. These are explained on M. Men. 11:6. The bread was placed two loaves to a row, in six rows one above the other, by means of vertical projections on either side of the table. The \u201cjars\u201d of the translation were really tubes, running from projection to projection, on which the bread sat. These tubes ran between each pair of loaves, for all six that sat one on top of the other. For this reason they are called in Num. 4:7 \u201cthe covering tubes,\u201d because they \u201ccover\u201d the bread, being placed between each pair of loaves. With which to offer libations. Rather, which are used for covering, as I have explained.
\nIBN EZRA
\nBowls. The meaning given to this word in rabbinic literature is well known. Ladles. As in \u201cone gold ladle \u2026 filled with incense\u201d (Num. 7:14), the word refers to a small utensil shaped like a human hand. Jars. These are the cups with which to offer libations; see Num. 4:7, where they are referred to as \u201cthe libation jars.\u201d (Some think the \u201cwriting case\u201d of Ezek. 9:2, keset, spelled with a samekh, is related to our word kesotav, spelled with a sin, since the two letters often interchange.) Nathan b. Jehiel says in his talmudic lexicon, the Arukh, that they are \u201ctubes,\u201d which are called by this word in Arabic. The Arabic of whoever told him this is laughable. The root of the Arabic word is not \u05e7\u05e9\u05d5 but \u05e7\u05e6\u05d1.
\nThere is a mistake in 1 Chron. 28:17, which has forks, basins, and bowls instead of bowls, ladles, and jugs (it does have jars, just like our verse). Or perhaps David ordered them to have different utensils put on the tables that Solomon would make for the Temple.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nJars. This word kesotav denotes both the tubes separating the loaves from each other and the notched attachments on which the tubes rested. Jugs. Rashi\u2019s understanding of what Onkelos meant by his translation of this word does not sit well with me. The word Onkelos uses ordinarily means \u201cmeasures.\u201d But Onkelos\u2019 understanding of the verse is not clear. Perhaps he thinks the Hebrew word refers to a measure holding two-tenths of an ephah, enough for one loaf; but this would contradict M. Men. 9:1, which says that they used only measures for one-tenth and one-twentieth of an ephah. In my opinion, he takes the Hebrew word to refer to the mold in which the bread was baked\u2014a mold made to the exact measure necessary. The Hebrew word used here would thus be a name, not a descriptive term. But perhaps, like the \u201chonest ephah\u201d and \u201chonest hin\u201d of Lev. 19:36, it is a \u201cclean\u201d measure (as the name etymologically indicates) because it is \u201cclear\u201d of falsehood and clears its owner of sin and dishonesty.
\nIbn Ezra says, \u201cThere is a mistake in 1 Chron. 28:17\u201d\u2014but the mistake is his. The Chronicles verse does not refer only to the \u201ctables\u201d of 1 Chron. 28:16, but to \u201call the vessels of the service of the House of the Lord\u201d of 1 Chron. 28:13.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nBowls. In which the dough for the bread was kneaded (Bekhor Shor). These bowls and jars were such things as were known in those days to be on the tables of kings (Sforno). Jars. To keep the water with which the flour was mixed (Bekhor Shor). Jugs. Rather, \u201ccleaners\u201d with which the ashes were cleaned out of the oven and the table was cleaned before the bread was put on it (Bekhor Shor). With which to offer libations. Rather, \u201cwith which to fix it,\u201d as the smith fixes the idol (excuse the expression) in Isa. 40:19. As for Rashi\u2019s explanation \u2026 well \u201cthe Torah has seventy faces,\u201d but I have explained this verse according to the Hebrew language (Bekhor Shor). Make them of pure gold. Do not think that they are merely useful objects and can be made out of some stronger material (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 25:30\u201331
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 What is the purpose of the lamp (vv. 31\u201340), which is to be lit even when it is broad daylight?
\n\u2666 Why must the lamp be constructed in that particular way?
\nExodus 25:30
\nRASHI
\nThe bread of display. Literally, \u201cface bread,\u201d as I explained in my previous comment. The number of loaves and the order of their arrangement are specified in Lev. 24:5\u20137.
\nRASHBAM
\nBread of display. Literally, \u201cface\u201d bread. The straightforward sense is that it is bread that is fit to \u201cface\u201d high officials, fine bread: \u201cYou shall take choice flour and bake of it twelve loaves\u201d (Lev. 24:5). Note that the special portions served to Joseph\u2019s brothers in Gen. 43:34 are served to them \u201cfrom his face.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe bread of display. Literally, \u201cface bread\u201d; the straightforward explanation for this name is what follows in the verse, for \u201cbefore Me\u201d is literally \u201cto My face.\u201d But what our predecessors said about the molds giving this bread a \u201cface\u201d looking toward either end of the Temple is true.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe bread of display. Literally, \u201cface bread\u201d; see Rashi\u2019s comment to v. 29. Ben Zoma, on M. Men. 11:4, takes it to mean that the bread shall show its \u201cface\u201d on every side. Both of these remarks follow the opinion that the bread of display was shaped like a broken box, not the opinion that it was shaped like the keel of a ship. Ibn Ezra says it is called \u201cface\u201d bread because it is always before the face of God. But according to the True interpretation, when you understand the word \u201cbefore\u201d\u2014literally \u201cto the face of\u201d\u2014you will understand its name and its underlying mystery. That is why the table was placed on the north side of the Tabernacle, for \u201cit is the blessing of the Lord that enriches\u201d (Prov. 10:22), as in the verse, \u201cIn every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come to you and bless you\u201d (20:21). I have already alluded to this.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe bread of display. This is one of 12 biblical expressions where the word \u201cthe\u201d is inexplicably omitted from the Hebrew text (Masorah). Literally, \u201cface bread\u201d; perhaps because (being less than a fingerbreadth thick) it was all surface, with no interior (Gersonides).
\nExodus 25:31
\nRASHI
\nThe lampstand shall be made of hammered work. It shall not be made of segments. That is, its branches and its lamps must not be made separately and then soldered onto the lampstand, but it must all be made from a single piece of metal by striking it with a mallet and cutting it with various tools to separate the branches one from another. Onkelos translates the word given here as \u201chammered\u201d by a word that means \u201cstretched\u201d\u2014that is to say, each of the parts of the lampstand must be \u201cstretched\u201d out from the original block of metal. But it actually means \u201cknocked,\u201d as in Dan. 5:6. The text uses the passive voice, saying the lampstand \u201cshall be made,\u201d to imply that it would be made of its own accord. Since Moses had difficulty understanding what was to be done, the Holy One said to him, \u201cJust throw the bar of metal into the furnace and it will be made on its own.\u201d That is why the text here does not say \u201cYou shall make,\u201d as it does at the beginning of the verse. Its base. It was made like a kind of box with three feet coming out of it below. Its shaft. That is, the middle branch, coming straight up from the base. At the top of it was the middle lamp, made like a kind of dish, where the oil could be poured and a wick placed. Its cups. Like the long, narrow glasses we call maderins in French. But these were made of gold, projecting from each branch according to the numbers recorded in vv. 33\u201334. They were there only for decoration, however. Calyxes. These were spherical objects like apples (pommes), sticking out around the central shaft, like the lamps placed before princes, which are called pommels in French due to their applelike shape. The passage goes on to explain how many of them there should be, and how much space there should be between them. Petals. Engravings of flowers were made on the lampstand. Shall be of one piece. Literally, \u201cthey shall be from it.\u201d It must all be hammered out of the original piece of metal, not made in separate segments and assembled.
\nRASHBAM
\nYou shall make a lampstand. To light the table: \u201cPlace the table outside the curtain, and the lampstand \u2026 opposite the table\u201d (26:35). Hammered work. He was to take a bar of gold and split it into shafts and cups with a mallet. Its base. The broad foot on which the entire lampstand stood. Its shaft. The middle shaft, from which three shafts split off on either side. Its cups, calyxes, and petals shall be of one piece. \u201cIt\u201d refers to the central shaft. From every calyx, two branches issued; see v. 35.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe lampstand shall be made. The translation is correct. The interpretation that the lampstand miraculously makes itself without human intervention is midrashic. (Similarly, the meal offering of Lev. 7:9 that is to be \u201cprepared in a pan or on a griddle\u201d does not prepare itself.) The proof is Num. 8:4, \u201cThis is how the lampstand was made.\u2026 According to the pattern that the Lord had shown Moses, so he made the lampstand.\u201d It was simply that everyone who looked at it was amazed that a human being could make such a thing. Those who know nothing about the language think that the verb te\u2019aseh, \u201cshall be made,\u201d is supposed to be spelled with a yud, having found in the midrash that this yud (which is numerically equivalent to 10) represents the 10 lampstands made by Solomon (see 1 Kings 7:49). But linguistically this spelling is impossible. The midrash rests on the way the word is pronounced. I have seen scrolls checked by Tiberian scholars, where 15 of the most experienced of them swore that they had looked not only at every word but at every dot three times\u2014and this word is spelled with a yud. I have not found it so in the scrolls of Spain, France, or across the sea in England. Its base. On which it stands. Its shaft. The central one, with the designs of the cups, calyxes, and petals. Calyxes. Saadia explains this to mean \u201capples.\u201d
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYou shall make a lampstand. The wisdom of the lampstand, with its cups, calyxes, and petals\u2014where will you find it? It is hidden indeed. But its being hammered out of a single piece of gold, with six branches issuing from a seventh and the lamp of God atop them all, giving the light \u201con its front side\u201d (v. 37)\u2014all this you will be able to understand from the words we have written in another place. This is what is implied by the rabbinic saying that Moses had trouble understanding the lampstand.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou shall make a lampstand. Moses\u2019 difficulty was that its height is not given in the text (Hizkuni). The lampstand represents the epicycles of the planets\u2014which is why Moses had such difficulty in understanding it (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 25:32\u201334
\nExodus 25:32
\nRASHI
\nShall issue from its sides. Diagonally from either side, extending up to the height of the lamp\u2014that is, the central shaft. These branches issue from the central shaft one above the other. The lowest ones are the longest, the middle ones somewhat shorter, and the top ones the shortest of all, so that their height matches that of the seventh, middle shaft, from which the other six issue.
\nExodus 25:33
\nRASHI
\nShaped like almond-blossoms. Rather, \u201cengraved\u201d (as Onkelos has it) as is done nowadays to gold and silver vessels in the style called \u201cniello.\u201d Three cups protrude from each branch.
\nRASHBAM
\nThree cups. Hollow like goblets, one hollow above another up the shaft. Shaped like almond-blossoms. They were formed in relief on the outside of the cups, as spoons or apple designs are formed in relief on silver vessels in our day. I have heard that in Narbonne too they explain it with reference to almonds. Each with calyx and petals. In the middle of each shaft, for ornamentation.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThree cups shaped like almond-blossoms, each with calyx and petals. The straightforward sense is that the cups were decorated with almond-blossoms, calyxes, and petals. The cups surrounded the branch in such a way as to catch the overflow of oil if the lamp was too full (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 25:34
\nRASHI
\nOn the lampstand itself there shall be four cups. One below the branches, and three others above where each pair of branches issues from it. Shaped like almond-blossoms, each with calyx and petals. This is one of the five verses listed in B. Yoma 52 as being of uncertain grammatical construction; the translations take \u201cshaped like almond-blossoms\u201d (that is, \u201cengraved\u201d; see my comment to v. 33) as referring to the cups, but the cantillation marks group it with the latter phrase: \u201cits calyxes and petals shaped like almond-blossoms.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nFour cups shaped like almond-blossoms. Since there were seven branches, there were a total of 22 cups (three on each of the side branches and four on the central shaft). Some think the word translated \u201clike almond-blossoms\u201d (which is how Saadia explains it) is not that word but its homonym, used in Jer. 1:12 to mean \u201cwatchful.\u201d Calyx and petals. Some commentators understand it not that each cup has a calyx and petals, but that the calyx and petals constitute the cup.
\nExodus 25:35\u201338
\nExodus 25:35
\nRASHI
\nA calyx \u2026 under a pair of branches. The branches would come out of opposite sides of the calyx. In The Construction of the Tabernacle we read: \u201cThe height of the lampstand is 18 handbreadths: The feet and the petal are three handbreadths. [The reference is to the \u201cpetal\u201d of Num. 8:4, \u201chammered from base to petal.\u201d] The next two handbreadths are unadorned. The next handbreadth contains one of the four cups, as well as one of the two calyxes and petals that are on the lampstand itself [we learn from the plurals in v. 34 (see OJPS) that there were two calyxes and two petals on the middle branch, in addition to the three calyxes and petals out of which the other branches issued.] The next two handbreadths are unadorned. Then a handbreadth containing a calyx with branches issuing from it on either side, going up to the full height of the lampstand. Then one handbreadth unadorned. Then another handbreadth containing a calyx with branches issuing from it. Then an unadorned handbreadth. Then another handbreadth containing a calyx with branches issuing from it on either side, going up to the full height of the lampstand. Then two handbreadths unadorned. There remain three handbreadths containing three cups, a calyx, and a petal. This yields 22 cups [three on each of the six branches making 18, plus four on the body of the lampstand itself], 11 calyxes [one on each of the six branches, three on the central shaft of the lampstand, from each of which two branches issue, and two others on the lampstand itself, one at the base and one on the upper three handbreadths with the three cups], and 9 petals [one for each of the branches, two on the body of the lampstand itself, and the additional one mentioned in Num. 8:4].\u201d If you check this passage from The Construction of the Tabernacle carefully, you will find each of them counted, exactly in its place. It looked like this:<\/p>\n
RASHBAM
\nA calyx, of one piece with it, under a pair of branches. More literally, \u201ca calyx, under a pair of branches, [coming out] from it\u201d\u2014\u201cit\u201d being the central shaft, which is the main part of the lampstand. So for all six branches. NJPS has added \u201cso,\u201d as in v. 33; see OJPS. The Hebrew text left it out deliberately, since it was unnecessary; all six branches have been explicitly mentioned in the verse.
\nExodus 25:36
\nIBN EZRA
\nShall be of one piece with it. That is, it is all molded as a single piece.
\nExodus 25:37
\nRASHI
\nIts lamps. The \u201clamp\u201d is something like a dish, in which one puts the oil and the wicks. To give the light on its front side. Rather, \u201cover against it\u201d (OJPS)\u2014against the central shaft. The openings of the six lamps on top of the branches that came out from its sides were turned toward the middle, so that the lamps, when lit, would \u201cgive the light over against it.\u201d Their light would be turned toward the central shaft, which was the main body of the lampstand.
\nRASHBAM
\nLamps. The places where the oil and wicks would be put. The lamps shall be so mounted. Rather, \u201che\u201d\u2014the priest\u2014\u201cshall mount the lamps,\u201d one on each of the seven shafts. To give the light on its front side. He shall light the wicks on the front of the lampstand, the side facing the table: \u201cPlace \u2026 the lampstand by the south wall of the Tabernacle opposite the table\u201d (26:35). In Num. 8:2, Aaron is to be told, \u201cWhen you mount the lamps, let the seven lamps give light at the front of the lampstand.\u201d All seven lamps are to give light at the front of the lampstand, on the table side.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIts seven lamps. The ancients said that one lamp was in the center and the other six were arranged one after another around it in a half circle. Since the verse says that the lamps are to be mounted as to give the light on its front side, this arrangement is clear.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nMake its seven lamps. The commandment to \u201cmake\u201d them shows that they were not of one piece with the lampstand, but removable; they are seven to match the seven days of the week and the seven planets (Hizkuni). It did not mention that they were of pure gold, since they were of one piece with the lampstand, which was of pure gold (Gersonides). To give the light on its front side. Since the lampstand is symmetrical, it would not appear to have a front or back; its \u201cfront\u201d was the side from which it was lit, facing the thing it was to light, which was the Holy of Holies, on its west side (Gersonides).
\nExodus 25:38
\nRASHI
\nIts tongs. These were used to adjust the wicks in the openings of the lamps. The Hebrew word for tongs is literally \u201ctakers,\u201d since one \u201ctakes\u201d hold of things with them. Fire pans. These were a sort of little dish with which one would scoop out the ashes left in the lamps every morning from the wicks that had burnt out at the end of the night. Literally, the word means \u201cscoopers,\u201d from the same verb used in \u201cTo scoop coals from a brazier\u201d (Isa. 30:14).
\nRASHBAM
\nIts tongs. Literally, \u201cits takers,\u201d with which the wicks are taken and placed in the lamps. Fire pans. Literally, \u201cscrapers.\u201d When the lamps are tended in the morning, the residue remaining from the burnt wicks and the oil is scraped out.
\nIBN EZRA
\nFire pans. In my opinion, there were seven little fire pans. The tongs were to adjust the wicks, and there was a fire pan under each lamp. But if the fire pans were used to light the lamps, as many commentators think, then we have no idea how many of them there were.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nIts tongs. This Hebrew word, melkahayim, does not mean \u201ctongs.\u201d It refers to thin pieces of gold that lie on top of the lamps and can be opened or closed to prevent anything from falling into the oil. The lamps of kings are made the same way today. The word is comparable to malkohayim, the upper and lower parts of the mouth, which \u201ctake\u201d (lakah) the tongue in between them. Fire pans. These were dishes set under each lamp to catch the sparks that might fall from it. Both of these were made out of the talent of gold (see my comment to v. 39). But the tongs and the snuffers, as well as the cups, calyxes, and flowers, were not.
\nExodus 25:39\u201326:2
\nExodus 25:39
\nRASHI
\nA talent of pure gold. The weight of the lampstand, with all its \u201cfurnishings,\u201d must be exactly a talent of gold, no more and no less. The regular talent is 60 minas, but the one used for sacred things was double that, 120 minas. The mina is equivalent to the \u201cpound\u201d with which silver is weighed in Cologne, or to 100 dinars, or (since a shekel weighs the same as four dinars) to 25 shekels.
\nIBN EZRA
\nA talent of pure gold. A specific amount of gold is specified (unlike for the Ark and the table) because it is solid gold and its size is determined by the amount. The Ark and table used whatever amount was required to cover their dimensions, which are given. So are those of the Ark cover (except for its thickness, which is negligible). The moldings too are of the same dimensions as the Ark and the table. Saadia\u2019s comment to 38:26, on the total amount of gold used in the Tabernacle, will give you a good laugh.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nA talent of pure gold. Rashi\u2019s comment that the weight of the lampstand and its furnishings must be exactly a talent of gold, no more and no less, is certainly the straightforward sense of the text. But it would be quite surprising for the text not to specify how much of the amount should be used for the lampstand itself. One would be free to use half a talent of gold, or more, for the tongs and fire pans, leaving less than half for the lampstand itself, or just a single mina for all the furnishings and all the rest for the lampstand. Moreover, why should all the separate utensils be added to the lampstand to make up such a precise weight? On B. Men. 88b, our Sages taught quite differently. Note that Num. 4:9 mentions an additional set of furnishings\u2014oil vessels\u2014that are not included in our passage. Num. 8:4, \u201cNow this is how the lampstand was made: it was hammered work of gold, hammered from base to petal,\u201d would seem to indicate that only the lampstand itself, but not the lamps, was of \u201chammered work of gold.\u201d It may be that these additional vessels were made on the Israelites\u2019 own initiative, being made and contributed to the public by other individuals, not Bezalel. In any case, all agree that it is the lampstand and nothing external to it that was made from the talent of gold.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nIt shall be made \u2026 out of a talent of pure gold. In truth, any metal was permissible, just not wood; some say even wood, but not clay (Bekhor Shor). The height of the lampstand is not given, only its weight; but our Sages figured out empirically that it had to be three cubits high (Gersonides).
\nExodus 25:40
\nRASHI
\nNote well, and follow. Literally, \u201cSee that thou make\u201d (OJPS): See, here on the mountain, the pattern that I am showing you.\u2014This tells us that Moses had trouble understanding how the lampstand was to be made until the Holy One showed him a lampstand of fire.
\nRASHBAM
\nThat are being shown you. Literally, \u201cthat you are being shown.\u201d Moses was literally shown the blueprint of the lampstand.
\nIBN EZRA
\nNote well. Literally, \u201csee.\u201d The making of the lampstand required the wisdom to visualize how all the utensils were to be made from one talent of gold. That are being shown you. Literally, \u201cthat you are being shown,\u201d which is most unusual, for it is not Moses that is being shown. Grammatically the form is the passive causative of the verb \u201cto see.\u201d There is, however, no real passive of \u201csee,\u201d since one who sees is not performing an action but receiving an impression, as anyone who is versed in the natural sciences will understand.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nFollow the patterns. It did not have to be made of gold, only of some pure metal; and if made of some other metal, it would not be a talent\u2019s worth, but whatever the appropriate weight for the pattern based on the differing weights of the metals. The same goes for the table and its furnishings and the other things that were mentioned. It is the pattern that was commanded, not the incidentals. Even the cups, calyxes, and petals were required only if the lampstand was made of gold, for they are not part of ordinary lampstands (Gersonides).
\nExodus 26:1
\nRASHI
\nAs for the Tabernacle, make it of ten strips of cloth. To be a roof for it and to mark its limits. The cloth was hung over the planks, to cover them on the outside. Of fine twisted linen, of blue, purple, and crimson yarns. Thus there are four materials woven into each thread: one of linen and three of wool. Since each material is spun of six strands\u2014shesh means \u201csix\u201d as well as \u201clinen\u201d\u2014there are 24 separate strands in each thread. A design of cherubim. The design was woven directly in\u2014not embroidered on it afterward with a needle, but woven on both sides, one design on one side and another on the other: e.g., a lion on one side and an eagle on the other, like the silk cummerbunds made here in France.
\nRASHBAM
\nAs for the Tabernacle, make it of ten strips of cloth. The 10 lower strips are called \u201cTabernacle,\u201d since the Ark, where the Shekhinah rests, is under them.
\nIBN EZRA<\/p>\n