Parashat
Ki* Te’tzeh (“when you go out…”) consists of lists of commandments,
some of which we have encountered earlier in the Torah, others are repeated
in a modified form, while quite a few are mentioned here for the first time. Whereas
the previous Parasha (Shoftim) focused on national matters, here the focus is on
the individuals within the nation. It should be noted that even though, at first
glance, the various injunctions seem to be placed randomly, a closer study
reveals them to be organized in clusters wherein there is a common theme or
some other link that ties together each respective group. One such example,
where the rulings almost form a storyline, is found at the beginning of the
Parasha (21:10-23). The first one is a case of a man desiring and marrying a foreign
woman taken captive in war, but losing interest in her at a later stage. The
next ruling focuses on the rights of the firstborn son of (again) an unloved
wife, whose husband has another, favored, wife. From the firstborn son, we are
taken to a command regarding a rebellious son, whom some of the sages believe
to be the offspring of the foreign wife mentioned above. This son’s behavior makes
him a ‘candidate’ for stoning, while the following statute deals with a
criminal who is sentenced to hanging. At
the very end of the Parasha (in 25:13-16), to mention another example, we read
about unjust weights and measures which are detestable in YHVH’s sight (v. 16).
The concomitant ruling is a reference to the Amalekites, who are to be
completely wiped out because they ill-treated Yisrael during the
Exodus, which also places them under the category of: “Anyone doing these things
is hateful to YHVH your Elohim, everyone acting evilly” (v. 16 again), even though
“these things” is actually in reference to using unjust weights. Parashat Ki
Te’tzeh illustrates the extent of YHVH’s involvement in every aspect of the
Israelites’ life - the individuals as well as the community. In turn, Yisrael
is to live life in a manner that is worthy of Him.
Returning to the paragraph about the "unloved
woman" (literally, "hated"), it is made clear that it is incumbent
upon her husband to "bestow firstborn status" on her firstborn son if
she happens to have given birth to him (21:15-16). In Hebrew, the action of bestowing
this status is contained in a single word - "ba'ker" – b.ch.r (bet, kaf/chaf,
resh) – while "firstborn" is "b'chor", from which "first
fruits" – bikkurim - is derived. Interestingly, in Modern Hebrew, this
verb ("ba'ker" - "to instate a firstborn") is one of the
synonyms for "to prefer".
The stubborn
and rebellious son described in 21:18, 20, according to his own parents’
admittance “will not listen to his father's voice or his mother's voice; even
though they discipline him, he will not listen to them”. “Stubborn and rebellious”
is “sorer u’moreh”; “sorer” is of the root s.r.h (samech, resh, hey) and means
“turn aside, defect, or withdraw”. “Moreh” is of the root m.r.h (mem, resh,
hey) meaning, “contentious, defiant, or rebellious”. The type of attitude displayed
here issues from the heart and so in Yirmiyahu (Jeremiah) 5:23 we read: “To
this people there is a revolting/defiant and a rebellious – sorer u’moreh –
heart”. This son is further described as “a glutton and a drunkard”. The latter noun is “soveh”, the root being s.v.a.
(samech, bet/vet, alef), recalling, “sovah” (sin/shin, bet/vet, ayin) which is
not only close in sound but also in meaning (albeit employing a different
spelling). Thus, if one is not ‘satisfied’ - “sa’veh’ah” - and chooses to overindulge,
he becomes a “soveh”. By making use of similar sounds Hebrew typically points
to life’s fine demarcation lines. Proverbs 23:19-21 addresses the same
issue, using identical terminology ("soveh"). The rebellious son was
to be executed by stoning (ref. 21:21), the latter being the verb “ragom”, one of
several Hebrew terms used to denote this action.
Another
stoning was to occur in the event of a young woman who upon marriage was found
not to be a virgin (ref. 22:20-21), as well as when “a girl that is a virgin,
betrothed to a man, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her” (vs. 23-24).
In these cases, the stoning is “sakol” (s.k.l, samech, kof, lamed), which means
not only to “hurl rocks”, but also to “gather rocks” such as in Yishayahu (Isaiah)
5:2: “My Beloved has a vineyard in a fruitful horn. And He dug it, and cleared
it of stones” (italics added). This again illustrates the close proximity
between apparent contradictions, of which we shall see more examples later.
Following
the prodigal son in 21:20, the text goes on to speak of “a man [who] has
committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a
tree” (v. 22), appending to it: “he who is hanged is accursed of Elohim” (v.
23). The rabbinic explanation for a sin that incurs hanging is idol worship and/or
blaspheming. This is exactly what Yeshua was charged with, that is, he was accused
of blaspheming the Name of the Almighty (ref. Mat. 26:65; Mark 14:62-64). This is also how He
“redeemed us from the curse of [what is pronounced in] the Law [for breaking] its laws
[or redeeming us from the “laws of sin and death”], having become a curse for
us” (Gal. 3:13).
The
next set of injunctions, in chapter 22, focuses on concern for the property of one’s
fellow man and his welfare, as well as sensitivity toward YHVH’s creation. “You
shall not see your brother's ox or his sheep driven away, and hide yourself
from them. You shall surely turn them back to your brother” (v. 1). “You shall hide”
here is “hit’a’lamta”, of the root a.l.m (ayin, lamed, mem), and means “hidden
or concealed”, and in this context also “disregard, neglect” or “pretend not to
see”. It is from this root that we obtain “olam” or “ad olam” which in Biblical
Hebrew speaks mostly of “eternity” (future but also past), being indeed concealed
and uncharted from man’s vantage point (Deut. 23:3; Gen. 17:7; Ex. 12:24). One
of the Biblical terms for a young man is “elem” (and “alma” for a young woman),
issuing from the same root (e.g., 1Sam. 17:56; Gen. 24:43); this being the case
because their character is still unfolding and their future unknown.
At the
other end of this cluster of injunctions, we read: “If a bird's nest happens to
be before you in the way in any tree, or on the ground, with young ones, or
eggs; and the mother is sitting on the young, or on the eggs, you shall not
take the mother with the young. But in every case, you shall let the mother go,
and take the young for yourself, so that it may be well with you, and you may
prolong your days” (22:6,7 italics added). This somewhat obscure command holds
a great promise, like that of the 5th Commandment of the Decalogue, which says:
“Honor your father and your mother, as YHVH your Elohim has commanded you, so
that your days may be prolonged” (Ex. 20:12, Deut. 5:16). The fact that this
promise is common to both these injunctions has puzzled the sages all the way
back to Talmudic days. Some of them concur that YHVH’s ways are higher than
ours, and therefore various precepts are “passed finding out”, while others maintain
that one should not even try and discover whether the Divine commands have
reasons or not. On the other hand, Professor Yitzchak Heinemann contends that “it
is incumbent on us to detect the finger of God in the wonders of nature and the
events of our life, though they will still remain unsolved mysteries, so we
must endeavor, as far as possible, to appreciate the wisdom and justice of His
commands”. [1]
The identical reward for honoring parents and for shooing the
mother bird before taking her young may serve as a clue to a principle that applies to every word spoken in the Torah: “kala k’cha’mura”, meaning that each
precept (and/or word), whether insubstantial or weighty, is to be treated
equally. Thus, all the way from the weightiest precept to the least esteemed,
through those that are ‘in-between’, obedience is equally required, with the
result (of so doing) and the rewards being at times identical. Our Parasha, to
cite another such example, also exhorts us to “have a perfect and just ephah [a
measurement]; so that they prolong your days in the land” (25:15 italics
added). Applying this principle to YHVH’s commandments, each one is to be
‘weighed’ by the same scale, not denigrating one and estimating another.
"Letting go" of the mother bird is denoted
by the verb "sh'lach" – shin, lamed, chet, which also means "to
send away". This verb is found in several other instances in this Parasha,
all of them having to do with wives – the captured woman from the beginning of
the Parasha, once having lost favor with her captor-husband, is to be "let
go" of (21:14), as is the wife whose husband has found something unclean
about her, and who, therefore "sends her away", as does her second
husband who likewise dismisses her (24:1,3,4).
Right in between the lost ox and sheep and the nesting
bird, is the oft-quoted verse: "A woman shall not wear anything that
pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are
an abomination to YHVH your Elohim” (22:5). This injunction is especially used
to “prove” the Bible’s disapproval of women wearing what is thought to
be strictly male clothing. However, this
is not what the Hebrew text is expressing. “Lo yi-hi-ye kli gever al isha”
means “there shall not be a tool/implement of a man upon a woman”. This implies
that she is not to carry or wield a tool or an implement characteristic
of man’s responsibilities. In this case, therefore, Scripture is not concerned
with apparel or fashion, but with certain types of activities that distinguish men from women! As for the men, they are indeed
commanded, plain and simple, not to wear women’s garments. The noun "kli"
is found in another place in our Parasha. "When you come into your
neighbor's vineyard, you may eat your fill of grapes at your pleasure [lit. satisfaction],
but you shall not put any in your container" (23:24). The "container"
(or "vessel") here is "kli". Notice also that here the
"eater" partakes of the grapes until he is, literally, satisfied. It
is this "satisfaction" – sovah – that did not suffice in the case of
the son we read about above, turning him into a "so'veh", someone who
crossed the boundary lines and turned into a glutton and a drunkard (just as we
noted above, although similar in sound, there is a difference in the spelling between
"satisfaction" or "one who is satisfied" – which is the
case here – sa've'a - spelled sin/shin, vet/bet, ayin, and the dissatisfied glutton
is who is soveh, samech, vet/bet, alef).
Back to chapter 22:14, and 17, where we encounter a
woman whose husband charges or accuses her. These accusations are
"alilot" – a.l.l (ayin, lamed, lamed. In Mitzrayim YHVH is said to
have "hit'a'lel" with the Egyptians – that is, He performed deeds
that made a mockery of the enemy (Ex. 10:2). "Olal" is also a
toddler, and in 24:21, "le'olel" is "to glean" grapes: "afterward;
it [the leftover grapes] shall be for the stranger, the fatherless, and the
widow". Despite such a varied scale of meanings, all share a common root
that points to movement or development toward attaining a certain goal, be it
a positive or a negative one (such as in the case of the accused woman).
In 23:7-8
we read: “You shall not despise an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall
not despise an Egyptian, for you were an alien in his land, sons of the third
generation that are born to them may enter into the assembly of YHVH”. This directive
is in contradistinction to the one dealing with the Ammonites and Moabites, who
were not to enter the assembly of YHVH even after ten generations, that is,
never. Da’at Mikra ponders: “Why is it that the Torah deals this way with the
Edomites, not demanding from them what was demanded of the Moabites and
Ammonites, which was to greet Israel with bread and water when they had passed
by these peoples’ territories? Because Ya’acov tricked Esav and had wrested
from him the birthright and the blessings; while for having chased Ya’acov,
Esav and his progeny have already been punished by having been held off from
the assembly of Israel for two generations. The Egyptians are also forgiven for
their treatment of Israel, as [their reason for doing so was because] they were
afraid lest Israel would join their enemies.” [2]
*
The conjunction “ki” is
used very frequently in Dvarim. Many sections open up with “if” or “when”, in
both cases being a translation of “ki,” which at times is also translated as
“for.”
[1]
New Studies in Devarim, Nechama Leibowitz, trans. Aryeh Newman. Eliner Library,
Department for Torah Education and Culture in the Diaspora. Hemed Books Inc.,
[2] Devarim with Daat Mikrah Commentary,
Pub. Mossad Harav Kook, Jm. 2001.
No comments:
Post a Comment