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 that they are organized in clusters with a common theme or some other link that ties 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, according to his own parents’
admission, “will not listen to his father's voice or his mother's voice; even
though they discipline him, he will not listen to them” (21:18, 20). “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”. The root of “Moreh” is 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 [pronounced by] 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 to 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). 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 elsewhere 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 of
"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 variety 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 (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 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., Brooklyn, N.Y.
[2] Devarim with Daat Mikrah Commentary, Pub. Mossad Harav
Kook, Jm. 2001.
No comments:
Post a Comment