Shemos
Book 2: Exodus
MISHPATIM - NOTES ON RASHI COMMENTARY
1 E.g., {Hebrew Ref} ---"These are
the children of Yaakov." (Bereishis 37, 1), thereby disqualifying the
chiefs of Eisov which are mentioned earlier. {Hebrew Ref} ---"And these are the names of the children of
Yisrael" (Shemos 1, 1) which is an added explanation to those
mentioned at the end of parsha {Hebrew Ref} . (Sh.Rab. 30, 3)
2 Mechilta.
3 If {Hebrew Ref} indicates a
continuation of the Ten Commandments, then why is there an interruption
dealing with laws of the altar? (M.)
4 This being symbolic of
the fact that just as the altar serves to bring peace between man and
G-d (See Rashi above, 20, 22). So too the Sanhedrin brings peace to
mankind by providing a system of justic.e (G.A. 5, 2.)
5 Ibid.
6 Why not " {Hebrew Ref} "---"That you shall
teach them"?
7 Ibid.; Eiruvin 54b.
8 Rashi (Gittin 88b) explains
{Hebrew Ref} as: before the seventy elders who went with
Moshe to Mount Sinai. Tosafos (ibid.) say that {Hebrew Ref} refers
to {Hebrew Ref} ---"the judges," mentioned below, 22,
8.
9 Devarim 32, 31.
10 Tanchuma 3.
11 Vayikra
25, 46. Which would then contradict the law that he goes free after six
years!
12 In other words: both the verse here and the one in Vayikra
deal with a gentile slave. The difference in their total years of
servitude depends on who the seller is. A gentile slave bought from a
Jew serves six years (this verse), whereas one bought from a gentile,
serves forever (the verse in Vayikra). This explanation is proved false
by what now follows.
13 Devarim 15, 12.
14 Hence, when
the Torah tells us in Vayikra that a gentile slave serves forever, it
does not matter who his previous owner was.
15 Mechilta.
16
Below, 22, 2. And the money paid for him is used to reimburse his
victim.
17 And maybe only in such a case does he go free after
six years.
18 And he would have to serve for as long as it takes
to reimburse his victim---even more then six years.
19 Vayikra
25, 39.
20 Obviously, if he came in alone he will go out alone. What
lesson is the Torah teaching here?
21 Kiddushin 20a.
22
Mechilta.
23 Her husband being sold into slavery in no way
subjugates her that she should require being freed!
24 Hence {Hebrew Ref} means that the wife "goes out" from being
supported by her husband's master. The fact that the slave's minor
children are supported by the master is derived from Vayikra 25, 41.
(S.C.)
25 Ibid., Kiddushin 22a.
26 Just as a Hebrew slave.
27 Devarim 15, 12.
28
Mechilta; Kiddushin 14b.
29 Which of his two wives? Might it be
the handmaid, who will remain with the master, or, rather, his Jewish
wife and {Hebrew Ref} refers to his concern that by
his going free she will lose the support that the master was obligated
to provide for her?
30 But there is no question of law that has
to be decided here!
31 And they would advise him to choose
freedom for, in freedom, serving G-d comes easier. (S.A.)
32
Mechilta.
33 Devarim 15, 17.
34 I.e., if it is away from its
proper place and horizontal to the ground it is not referred to as a
doorpost.
35 Though a door in storage may be referred to as "a
door," it is disqualified from use in piercing the slave's ear.
36
Mechilta; Kiddushin 22b.
37 {Hebrew Ref} ---one
of the thirteen methods of expounding the laws of the Torah, based on
the Torah's use of similar words in two places (Beraisa of R. Yishmael
at the beginning of Sifra).
38 Vayikra 14, 14.
39 Some
suggest that the proper text of Rashi is not {Hebrew Ref} (above,
20, 13) for that refers to {Hebrew Ref} ---"kidnapping"
but rather {Hebrew Ref} (Vayikra 19, 11) which refers to
theft of property.
40 Vayikra 25, 55.
41 {Hebrew Ref} literally
means: A bundle of jewels or aromatic spices (Rashi Kiddushin 22b.).
42 Kiddushin 22b.
43 {Hebrew Ref} . "You shall sanctify the fiftieth year,
and each man will return to his family" (Vayikra 25, 10).
44 The fiftieth year.
45 Mechilta; Kiddushin 15a.
46 V. 11.
47 Usually between the ages of 12 and 12
2.
48 Mechilta; Arachin 29b.
49 Or the loss of
any one of the twenty four limbs when inflicted by the master. See v.
26.
50 If the Jubilee year arrives before she has served six
years, she goes out free. If she shows signs of puberty before six
years and/or before the Jubilee year, she goes out free.
51 Mechilta.
52 Mechilta, Onkelos.
53 The written text ( {Hebrew Ref} ) is: {Hebrew Ref} ---"who has not
designated her as his wife," but it is read {Hebrew Ref} ---
"to whom she should have been designated as his wife."
54 The
indication that the Torah prefers that he marry her is based on: 1.
Since the Torah gives the cause of his not marrying her, viz., that he
finds her displeasing, inferring that were this not so, he should
marry her (M.; G.A, B.Y.; others). 2. The {Hebrew Ref} :
{Hebrew Ref} and the {Hebrew Ref} : {Hebrew Ref} indicate that he has not married her but he
should have done so. (See Tosafos Chullin 65a {Hebrew Ref}
).
55 {Hebrew Ref} "Money" is one of the three methods
which the Mishnah (Kiddushin 2a) enumerates as means by which marriage
is contracted.
56 See note 54.
57 Mechilta; Bechoros 13a.
58 Kiddushin 19b.
59 Since the text does not state {Hebrew Ref} ---"she shall be redeemed," but, rather {Hebrew Ref} (in the {Hebrew Ref} (causative) form---"he
shall cause her to be redeemed," it is an indication that he must be
actively involved in her redemption.
60 Though in reality he had
bought her outright and by all rights he should be entitled to a full
refund of his money if she is to leave his service before the allotted
time. However, {Hebrew Ref} teaches that regarding her
redemption she is like a hired worker who is compensated for whatever
work he has done. Here, too, the master must take the time she has
already worked for him into account when determining her redemption
price, thereby aiding in her redemption. (Kiddushin 16a, Rashi ibid.)
61 One hundred shekalim.
62 Kiddushin 14b.
63 Rashi renders {Hebrew Ref}
as: "to another man," but the Ramban explains it literally: "to an
alien nation."
64 The Gemara learns from this that an {Hebrew Ref} cannot be sold more than once.
65 Kiddushin 18a.
66 Mechilta. Since there is a mitzvah of {Hebrew Ref} ,
there is an assumption that the master will ultimately marry her. Not
doing so is therefore considered a betrayal. (Malbim)
67 Kiddushin
18b.
68 Unlike the latter part of the previous verse, where "he"
refers to the father as well as the master.
69 Kiddushin 18b.
70 Mechilta.
71 Ibid.
72 Ibid.
73 Ibid;
Kesubos 47b.
74 Could it possibly be {Hebrew Ref}
of the previous verse?
75 Devarim 15, 12.
76 Upon demonstrating the first
signs of puberty (at about the age of twelve) a girl attains the state
of {Hebrew Ref} ---"the onset of puberty" and is
referred to as a {Hebrew Ref} . Approximately six months later
signs of adulthood appear and she attains the state of {Hebrew Ref} and she is referred to as a {Hebrew Ref} . In the
former state she is still in the jurisdiction of her father and in the
latter state is lawfully independent of him.
77 Which seems
redundant once the Torah states {Hebrew Ref} ---"for
nothing."
78 Hence this leaves {Hebrew Ref} to
teach us an additional event in her life that sets her free, viz. {Hebrew Ref} . The question now arises: Then let the Torah just say {Hebrew Ref} , setting her free at {Hebrew Ref} and she
would then already necessarily be free when {Hebrew Ref} (which
is later) arrives! Rashi now goes on to answer this question.
79
I.e., had {Hebrew Ref} and {Hebrew Ref} been
written.
80 And she would not go free at {Hebrew Ref} .
81 Mechilta; Kiddushin 4a.
82 With some seemingly
redundant. (B.Y.)
83 I.e., there are other verses in the Torah
that indicate that a murderer is punishable by death!
84 Vayikra
24, 17.
85 For this verse does not tell us that the victim died.
86 Mechilta.
87 Ibid. The commentaries offer various
explanations as to how we could contemplate the possibility that the
murder of a woman or a minor might not be punishable by death. See
Moshav Zekenim, Riva, Mizrachi, etc. (R.M.)
88 For in the verse {Hebrew Ref} it does not
specify who the murderer is.
89 {Hebrew Ref} always
indicates an adult man.
90 The commentaries wonder why it is
necessary to stipulate that a minor, who is never held liable for any
transgressions that he might commit, is liable for murder. Rabbeinu
Ovadiah mi'Bertinoro suggests that the crime of murder, being so vile,
evil and vicious, might warrant that even a minor be held responsible.
See also Mizrachi.
91 Mechilta.
92 I.e., intent to kill
alone is sufficient to warrant the death penalty. It is not necessary
that the murderer actually lie in ambush for the victim. (D. D.)
93
Sifre Bamidbar 35, 22.
94 I Shmuel 24, 1.
95 Bereishis
27, 33. And {Hebrew Ref} would then take the meaning:
"If he did not pursue him in order to capture him."
96 And it
would then have said {Hebrew Ref} ---without the
letter hey at the end of {Hebrew Ref} .
97 See also Devarim 19, 11 where Onkelos translates {Hebrew Ref} as: {Hebrew Ref} , thereby showing that {Hebrew Ref} is the same as {Hebrew Ref} . (S.C.)
98 The
Machberes is a Biblical dictionary compiled by Menachem Ibn Saruk.
99 Yeshaiyahu 66, 12.
100 I Shmuel 20, 20.
101 Daniel
7, 25. In these three instances {Hebrew Ref} takes on the
meaning of side or direction.
102 Tehillim 91, 10.
103 Mishlei 12, 21.
104 II Melachim 5, 7.
105 I.e.,
why would G-d cause such a thing to happen?
106 I Shmuel 24, 14.
107 And deserves to be sent into
exile into one of the cities designated for this purpose. See Bamidbar
34, 11; Devarim 10, 1-10.
108 And deserves the death
penalty.
109 For both penalties, death and exile, require
witnesses.
110 Rashi means that he fell from the ladder while
descending, for the Mishnah states in Makkos 10b that only when the
accident takes place while descending is he liable to be exiled. (M.)
111 Some ask: but his first accidental killing has gone
unpunished, for he is exiled but once! and they answer: he is justly
exiled only once, for on the second occasion he killed a person who
deserved to die. (S.C.)
112 Mechilta; Makkos 10b.
113 To
this point the Torah speaks of the murderer in the third person viz. "
he did not lie in wait," "G-d brought to his hand."
Why, then, does it now revert to the second person? Also the command to
set up {Hebrew Ref} ---"cities of refuge," was first
issued later (Bamidbar 35, 11)!
114 The Sages derive this from
the fact that the second person reference {Hebrew Ref} ---"for
you" is addressed to Moshe.
115 The camp of Moshe (Makkos 12; Zevachim 112a.)
116 Has
it not already been stated: "If one strikes a man. . . ."
(v. 12)?
117 However, if he is in the midst of sacrificing a
korbon, he is allowed to complete it (Yoma 85a).
118 Below,
vv. 24-25.
119 There is controversy among the Rishonim and Acharonim
whether or not this wound must draw blood or if a bruise is sufficient
to make him liable. See Shaarei Aharon.
120 Mechilta. See Rashi
next verse {Hebrew Ref} .
121 It is already discussed
in great detail in Devarim 24, 7!
122 Devarim 24, 7.
123 But
now what is added by the verse in Devarim?
124 Mechilta; Sanhedrin 85b.
125 If he sold the victim
then how could he be found in his hand?!
126 Whereas if he sells
the victim before actually taking possession of him he is not liable.
Hence the witnesses must also testify that the kidnapper, had the
victim in his possession prior to selling him. (M., B.Y.)
127
Mechilta; Sanhedrin 84b.
128 And it would be expected that the
laws of transgressing against one's parents immediately follow one
another!
129 Whether striking one's parents after their death is
punishable by death as in the case when cursing them.
130 Since
the Torah interrupts between the two.
131 Sanhedrin 85b.
132
Vayikra 20, 9.
133 Mechilta.
134 Though Rashi in verses 15 and 16 has
stated that "wherever the Torah mentions an unspecified death penalty
it refers to strangulation, nevertheless here it is otherwise. .
.
135 A {Hebrew Ref} is one of the thirteen
methods of expounding the laws of the Torah enumerated in the Beraisa
of R. Yishmael at the beginning of Toras Kohanim.
136 Vayikra 20,
27.
137 Ibid. 9.
138 Mechilta; Sanhedrin 66a; Toras
Kohanim.
139 The obligation to compensate for damages is
discussed later in v. 24.
140 V. 24 I.e., one who gouges out
anothers eye must compensate the injured party for the full value of
his eye.
141 Which is derived by calculating the difference of
the value of the injured party (were he sold as a slave) with his
limb and without his limb.
142 Mechilta.
143 Ibid.
144 And he is released from prison.
145 And
he is not released from prison.
146 Kesubos 33b.
147
Work that can be performed without a hand or foot.
148 I.e., the
loss of the victim's ability to earn the wages that he earned prior to
his injury has already been calculated into the payment of "damages."
149 Below, v. 24. See Rashi.
150 Bava Kamma 86b.
151 Even if the one who caused the injury is himself a
physician the victim can demand to choose his own physician. (Bava
Kamma 85a)
152 I.e., a gentile slave, who is not freed after 6
years, nor during the Jubilee year, as is a Hebrew slave.
153 Above,
v. 12. And why is the death penalty repeated here specifically for the
killing of a gentile slave?
154 Mechilta.
155 Yet somehow
complications set in whereby the slave died.
156 Bamidbar 35, 17. The Torah stresses "whereby he would
die" to indicate that the stone must be capable of causing death.
157 I.e., the rule of "a day or two" does not apply and even were
he to die days later his murderer would be subject to the death
penalty.
158 I.e., If he survives "a day or two" his murderer
is not subject to the death penalty.
159 That the instrument used
in his murder must be capable of inflicting death for the murderer to
be subject to the death penalty.
160 Mechilta.
161 That
vengeance indicates death by the sword.
162 Vayikra 26, 25.
163 Mechilta; Sanhedrin 52b.
164 Had it said only {Hebrew Ref} ---"one day," I would have concluded that if he lived
till the end of the day when the master struck him it would be
considered it as "one day." However, comparing {Hebrew Ref} to
{Hebrew Ref} indicates that the slave must survive a full
day, even if it requires two days within which to complete the day,
viz., a twenty-four hour period.
165 Mechilta.
166 Who is not the slave's master.
167 Mechilta.
168
I.e., this should not be misconstrued as meaning that they intend to
fight against the woman. Rather, we are dealing with the case where a
person, aiming to kill one person, inadvertently kills another.
(Mechilta)
169 Sanhedrin 79a.
170 Tehillim 91, 12.
171
Yirmiyahu 3, 16.
172 Yeshaiyahu 8, 14.
173 But there is no
death penalty for the killing of the fetus.
174 Hence he must pay the difference between her value as a
pregnant slave and as one who is not pregnant.
175 Bava Kamma
49a.
176 Devarim 22, 19.
177 Mechilta.
178 Mechilta.
179 I.e., the one who struck the woman and killed her, though
inadvertently, is liable to the death penalty, for that blow was
intended to kill someone, albeit another person. This opinion follows
the rule: {Hebrew Ref} ---"If
he intended to kill this person and killed another he is liable to the
death penalty."
180 Mechilta; Sanhedrin 79a.
181 Viz. {Hebrew Ref} .
182 Bava Kamma 84a.
183 I.e., a wound which does not cause
{Hebrew Ref} ,---"damage," for the victim's value remains
the same, nor {Hebrew Ref} ---"loss of work," for he can
continue working, nor {Hebrew Ref} ---"medical costs,"
for it heals by itself.
184 And this would be the amount that the
one causing the injury would pay (ibid; Mechilta).
185 This is determined by how much a person, condemned by the
authorities to lose such a limb, would be willing to pay to be
anesthetized so as not to suffer the pain (Bava Kamma 84a). This is a
subjective decision, for the suffering of pain varies from person to
person. (Rambam Chovel U'mazik 2, 9)
186 . . . for the
obligations of paying for {Hebrew Ref} we
derive from elsewhere in the Torah: From {Hebrew Ref}
(v. 18ff.) we learn {Hebrew Ref} and {Hebrew Ref} ; from
{Hebrew Ref} (v. 24) we learn {Hebrew Ref} ; from
Devarim 25, 11 we learn {Hebrew Ref} . (B.Y.; R.M.)
187 Bava
Kamma 84a.
188 I.e., that his payment for the loss of the hand
"entitles" him to the hand.
189 And should therefore not be
held liable to compensate the victim for the pain he inflicts on him.
190 Bava Kamma 85a.
191 What is the difference between a
{Hebrew Ref} and a {Hebrew Ref} ?
192 Whereas {Hebrew Ref} is a wound where blood is drawn.
193 A spot or
discoloration.
194 Yirmiyahu 13, 23.
195 Bereishis 41, 23.
196 {Hebrew Ref} having the same root as {Hebrew Ref} , which is
Onkelos' translation for {Hebrew Ref} ; thus, {Hebrew Ref}
would mean struck or beaten.
197 Above, 12, 7.
198 Caused by the master.
199 Above, v. 7. There Rashi explains
that the {Hebrew Ref} is compared to {Hebrew Ref}
and neither goes free upon the master's knocking out an eye or a tooth.
200 The twenty-four limbs are derived by their similarity to the
tooth and the eye. They are all external and do not grow back.
(Mechilta)
201 Either alone would be sufficient to indicate all
the limbs!
202 I.e., the tooth first appears sometime after the
person's birth. I could therefore conclude that the master's severing
the tip of any limb with this characteristic (of the tooth) would not
go free. To avoid this misconception, the Torah had to specifically
list "the tooth."
203 To indicate that "the tooth" must have
the same characteristic as "the eye," viz., it does not replace
itself.
204 Kiddushin 24a, 25a.
205 Mechilta; Bava Kamma
54b.
206 Neveilah ( {Hebrew Ref} )=an animal that
died without shechitah---ritual slaughter.
207 I.e.,
he failed to carry out the court's sentence and slaughtered the animal
to prevent it from becoming nevielah.
208 I.e., he has gone bankrupt.
209 An ox that has gored
three consecutive times, whereby the owner in obligated to exercise
greater care.
210 Below, v. 40.
211 An animal who has
previously not been destructive i.e., it has gored less than three
times.
212 I.e., the two gorings prior to today's plus today's
goring (S.C.). This renders the ox a {Hebrew Ref} and the next
(fourth) time he gores he shall be liable for full damages, etc.
213
Mechilta; Bava Kamma 23b.
214 Bereishis 43, 3 See Rashi ibid.
215 This is seemingly redundant for in the previous verse it has
already been stated: "If an ox will gore a man or woman and the victim
dies"! (M.; see B.Y.)
216 Thereby indicating that he is liable for any manner by
which the ox killed.
217 Mechilta.
218 I.e., by the ruling
of the court.
219 Bamidbar 35, 21. Why would the Torah point out
the obvious fact that he is a murderer?
220 Sanhedrin 15b.
221
I.e., it does not have the meaning of "if."
222 Above, 22, 24.
See also above, 20, 22 where Rashi cites the statement of Rabbi
Yishmael that lists the three times in the Torah where the word {Hebrew Ref} is not conditional. Amazingly the {Hebrew Ref} here is
not listed. See M.; M.L.
223 Whose soul? the victim's or the
owner of the ox?
224 Rabbi Yishmael maintains that the owner of
the ox atones for his responsibility for the victim's death by
compensating the heirs for the loss of their father. (Rashi Makkos 2b)
225 Rabbi Akiva, on the other hand, maintains that the money
paid by the owner is, in effect, a substitute for his own life, since
he should according to Divine decree give up his life as atonement for
causing another's death. Therefore, it is the worth of the {Hebrew Ref} that should be paid out. (Rashi ibid)
226 Mechilta;
Makkos 2b; Bava Kamma 27a.
227 But why would the Torah need to
single out that one is responsible for the deaths of minors?
228
Above. v. 29.
229 Ramban explains that if an ox, whose nature it
is to fear grown-ups, gores a grown-up, the owner should realize that
this is potentially a killer-ox and should take proper precautions.
Therefore we might conclude that the owner is liable only for the ox's
killing of grown-ups.
230 Mechilta.
231 For were it an {Hebrew Ref} the owner of the ox would be liable to pay {Hebrew Ref} . (M.; S.C.)
232 Mechilta.
233 I.e., we are not
given the reason.
234 Rashi here gives the weight of the shekel customary
in his time and locale. Though this would seem academic since the
payment of the thirty shekalim is a {Hebrew Ref} ---"a
court-imposed fine" and the law is : {Hebrew Ref}
---"Fines are not collected in Bavel (i.e., outside of Eretz
Yisrael)." However, should the injured party seize the fine on his
own, then the court would allow him to keep it. It is, therefore,
necessary to know how much the fine imposed by the Torah is in
contemporary terms. Tosafos (Bechoros 49b) suggest that Rashi had this
information from his teachers to whom it was transmitted through the
generations.
235 Though he had no part in creating the pit.
236 E.g., person A dug a pit to the depth of nine tefachim,
which is deep enough to cause injury to an animal but not to kill it.
Then person B digs an additional tefach, thereby making it a pit
ten tafachim deep, which is sufficient to kill an animal that
might fall in. The Torah holds person B completely responsible for this
pit---even for the damages it causes animals. (S.C. from
Bava Kamma 51a)
237 I.e., there is no need for him to fill the
hole.
238 Or anywhere else where the damaged party's animal has a
right to be. The Torah only means to exclude from liability a pit dug
on the property of the one who caused the damage. There, he can say to
the injured party: "What was your animal doing on my property?" (S.C.
from Bava Kamma 49b)
239 Bava Kamma 55b.
240 Below. 23, 12.
241 Devarim 5, 14.
242 I.e., that should a man fall into
the pit and die, the one who dug the pit is not liable.
243 I.e.,
if an animal loaded with vessels falls into the pit and dies and the
vessels break, then the one who dug the pit is liable only for the
animal but not for the vessels. (Bava Kamma 10b)
244 This should
not be taken to mean that in order to be liable he must actually own
the pit.
245 Bava Kamma 29b.
246 {Hebrew Ref} ---"The owner of the pit shall pay to its owner"
seems perfectly sufficient; what is the need for the word {Hebrew Ref} ---"he shall compensate"?
247 I.e., he need not
use actual money as his payment but any object which is of equal value.
248 The quality of the commodity does not matter, provided that
the total value is equivalent to the amount necessary for compensation.
If, however, restitution to the damaged party is made with real-estate
then the best quality land must be used (Bava Kamma 7a).
249
Mechilta, Bava Kamma 10b.
250 Mechilta. See Rashi above, v. 29 and 7, 27.
251 If,
for example, the carcass is worth 50 zuz then the total loss to the {Hebrew Ref} is 150 zuz (since his animal was worth 200 zuz to begin
with). Hence, if each of the parties takes half the live animal, i.e.,
100 zuz, and half the dead animal, i.e., 25 zuz, then each receives 125
zuz rusulting in a net loss of 75 zuz for each of them. Now, the dead
animal was originally worth 200 and is now worth 50, the total loss
being 150. Thus each suffers half the loss. (R.M.)
252 {Hebrew Ref} =an animal that has gored less than three times.
253 If, for example, the goring animal is worth 150 zuz and the
victim was worth 400 zuz, and the dead carcass is worth 100 zuz,
whereby the net total damage is 300 zuz, then we do not rule that each
---the {Hebrew Ref} and the {Hebrew Ref} (the
damaged party)---take half the live and half of the dead animal.
But rather the {Hebrew Ref} will take the entire live ox of the
{Hebrew Ref} , which is worth 150, which also happens to equal
to half the damages. (R.M.)
254 If, for example, the goring ox is
worth 50 and the dead carcass 150, then, if each party will get half
the live and half the dead animal, the {Hebrew Ref} will
receive 100 zuz, resulting in a net profit for him of 50 zuz! (R.M.)
255 If, for example, the goring ox is worth 300 and the damaged
ox was worth 100 and the dead carcass is worth 50, then, if each party
would get half the live and dead animals, the {Hebrew Ref} would
receive 175, resulting in the {Hebrew Ref} receiving 75 more
than he had in the first place!
256 He does not get the living ox itself but money to make up
for half of his loss.
257 Bava Kamma 34a.
258 Though it is
worth only 100, the one causing the damage need not make up the
difference.
259 {Hebrew Ref} literally means "from
the best [of his properties]."
260 Bava Kamma 16b.
261
Mechilta.
262 Bava Kamma 53b.
263 Mechilta; Bava Kamma 79b.
264 Sanhedrin 72a.
265 Below, v. 8.
266 The former being an animate object
and the latter, an inanimate.
267 Bava Kamma 62b.
268 Though the word {Hebrew Ref}
has an {Hebrew Ref} beneath it, which would indicate that it
refers to {Hebrew Ref} and conveys that the stolen
item was found alive in the thief's possession, (the Rashbam's
explanation) nevertheless, Rashi explains it as referring to the
payment . . .
269 If the value of the theft diminished
between the time of the theft and when the case comes to the Beis Din,
the thief must pay its original worth. That is what Rashi means by:
"or with money that is equivalent to live ones." (S.A.)
270
Mechilta.
271 The root {Hebrew Ref} has two meanings: 1.
cattle 2. to consume or destroy.
272 Bamidbar 20, 4.
273 Bava Kamma 2b.
274 Mechilta; Bava Kamma 6b.
275 I.e., even if he started
the fire on his own property and it travelled to where it damaged
another's property.
276 Bava Kamma 22b.
277 How exactly
does fire damage the ground?
278 Bava Kamma 60a.
279 See
the Mishnah in Bava Kamma 23a.
280 We could not possibly know this as a fact for the watchman
must swear to this! (S.C.)
281 I.e., {Hebrew Ref} is
not a given fact, but, rather, the claim made by the watchman.
282
Bava Kamma 63b.
283 See Ramban.
284 Bava Kamma 63b.
285 Below, v. 10.
286
287 Of having stolen the item himself.
288 I.e., it
was discovered that at the time of which they testified, they were
elsewhere and therefore could not have possibly seen what they claim to
have seen. Hence they have attempted to wrongfully make the watchman
liable.
289 Thus, according to its plain meaning this verse is
explained as follows: {Hebrew Ref} ---about
which the witnesses will testify that the object, of which the watchman
took an oath that it was stolen, is still in the possession of the
watchman, then . . . {Hebrew Ref} ---
let this matter come before the Beis Din, who will investigate the
truthfulness of the witnesses . . . {Hebrew Ref} ---Then whomever the Beis Din finds
guilty shall pay twofold to his fellow-man, i.e., if the watchman is
guilty, he must pay twofold to the owner of the item; if the witnesses
wrongfully accused the watchman, they must pay the watchman double the
amount of which they testified.
290 Summary of the Sages'
explanation: The owner claims that he gave the watchman two items for
safekeeping and the watchman admits to the items. However, he says that
he has only one ( {Hebrew Ref} ) but the other was stolen
and, he, being a {Hebrew Ref} ---"a watchman who
receives no compensation," is not responsible for the theft (see next
Rashi). Hence the watchman admits to owing the owner the one item he
still retains. He must now swear that the other item was actually
stolen so as not to have to pay for it. Accordingly {Hebrew Ref} means: "that the watchman will claim that this is what
remains of the items."
291 Bava Kamma 106b.
292 I.e., v. 6
-8.
293 V. 6.
294 V. 9.
295 V. 9-12.
296 V.
11.
297 Bava Metzia 94b.
298 He takes two separate oaths.
299 If a {Hebrew Ref} uses without authorization the
item that he was hired to watch, he is deemed to be a {Hebrew Ref} ---"one who borrows without the owner's permission,"
who is considered a {Hebrew Ref} ---"a robber," and
thereby becomes responsible even for {Hebrew Ref} ---
accidents over which he has no control.
300 Bava Kamma 106a.
301 In these instances the watchman
could have taken precautions to prevent the animal in his charge from
being killed.
302 These are circumstances that are beyond the watchman's
control.
303 I.e., what is your basis for distinguishing between
different kinds of beasts? Does not the phrase {Hebrew Ref}
seem to include an animal torn apart by another animal? (S.C.)
304
V. 9. The Torah intends, by its juxtaposing all these ways of the
animal's death, to have you compare them to each other. The method of
expounding is called {Hebrew Ref} .
305 So that he not be
held responsible.
306 Mechilta.
307 Bava Metzia 95b. See
next Rashi.
308 The previous verse made it clear that the
borrower is held liable only where the lender is not employed in
the work of the borrower. What additional information does the
statement {Hebrew Ref} ---"if the owner is
employed by him, then he need not pay," impart to us?
309 Hence the hirer is not considered totally
benefitting. After all he does pay a fee. The owner also shares
in the benefits since he is paid the fee.
310 I.e., a watchman
who receives no compensation and is not liable for theft or loss.
311 I.e., a watchman who is compensated for his work and is
liable for theft or loss.
312 Bava Metzia 93a.
313 According
to Rashi {Hebrew Ref} refers to the {Hebrew Ref} ---
"the marriage contract." See Ramban.
314 Mechilta.
315 Since there are four zuzim to a
shekel, fifty silver shekels are therefore equal to 200 zuzim
which is the amount written into a kesubah. (R.A.K. from Sechel
Tov)
316 Kesubos 10a.
317 Vayikra 20, 16. And Rashi (above,
21, 17) explains that wherever the term {Hebrew Ref} and
the like appear, it refers to death by stoning.
318 Tehillim 86, 8.
319 The patach being in place
of the definite article {Hebrew Ref} ---i.e., "the
gods that were prohibited to you elsewhere."
320 Regarding one who worships idols. Summary: 1. The prefix
letters {Hebrew Ref} generally take a sheva ( {Hebrew Ref} ). 2. Before a sheva they take a chirik ( {Hebrew Ref} ). 3. Before the definite article--- {Hebrew Ref} , the {Hebrew Ref} is dropped and the prefix letter takes
whatever vowel the {Hebrew Ref} would take. ( {Hebrew Ref} in
place of {Hebrew Ref} . 4. Before {Hebrew Ref} they
take a tsere ( {Hebrew Ref} ) and before the definite
article--- {Hebrew Ref} , they take a komats ( {Hebrew Ref} ). (L.S.R.)
321 Devarim 17, 5.
322 When
performed for an idol where it is an unusual service.
323 However,
if any of these latter manners of worship are the usual form of worship
to that particular idol, then he is liable to the death penalty.
324
Mechilta; Sanhedrin 60b.
325 Yeshaiyahu 49, 26.
326 Mechilta.
327 Mechilta;
Bava Metzia 59b.
328 Which was also the condition of the B'nei
Yisrael when they came down to Egypt.
329 May anyone else be
mistreated?!
330 Mechilta.
331 The verse begins with "If
you do mistreat him" and then does not immediately tell us what will
happen.
332 Bereishis 4, 15.
333 I.e., in addition to the husbands' dying and widowing their
wives, the women will suffer an additional curse.
334 I.e.,
widows whose husbands are still alive.
335 Usually the word {Hebrew Ref} means "if"!
336 Where the word {Hebrew Ref} is
obligatory and takes on the meaning of "when", for there is an
obligation to lend money to someone in need of a loan.
337
Mechilta. The other two instances are, 1. {Hebrew Ref} (Vayikra 2, 14), 2. {Hebrew Ref} . (Above 20, 25)
338 Even where the gentile offers to pay interest, which the
Jew cannot do. (Bava Metzia 71a)
339 Mechilta; Bava Metzia 71a.
340 Tanchuma 15.
341 Tanchuma 9; Sh. Rab. 31, 6.
342 There are two kinds
of {Hebrew Ref} ---"security": 1. Security taken
at the time of the loan as insurance that the loan will be repaid. If
the borrower fails to repay the loan the lender may keep the security
in lieu of the loan. 2. Security taken when the loan comes due and
the borrower has not paid. This is done through the court even against
the will of the borrower. In this case the lender must intermittently
return the security, as the verse goes on to explain. This latter type
of {Hebrew Ref} is called {Hebrew Ref} .
343 Tanchuma 16; Bava Metzia 114b.
344 This could mean:
1. Return it to him before sunset. 2. Return it to him so that he
may have it till sunset. Rashi assumes the latter.
345 Regarding
a {Hebrew Ref} ---"a night garment," the Torah
writes (Devarim 24, 10-13): {Hebrew Ref} ---"Return the security to him at sunset."
346 Mechilta.
347 What is the distinction between {Hebrew Ref} and {Hebrew Ref} ?
348 Mechilta.
349 Judges
are referred to as {Hebrew Ref} . See above v. 8.
350
Sanhedrin 66a.
351 I.e., the mitzvah to bring the fruits to the Temple
and give them to the kohein.
352 Terumah 4a.
353 Rashi
ibid. ( {Hebrew Ref} ) explains {Hebrew Ref} as
"mixture," i.e., terumah that becomes mixed with other fruits
requires a ratio of 100 to 1 of terumah for the terumah to
be considered annulled. Gur Aryeh suggests that {Hebrew Ref}
refers to the grain after it separates from the chaff as a tear ( {Hebrew Ref} ) drops from the eye. It is at this point that the
mitzvah of separating terumah occurs. See also Ramban.
354 I.e., the {Hebrew Ref} and the {Hebrew Ref} .
355 The sequence of the separation of the various offerings from
grains and fruits: 1. {Hebrew Ref} ---the first fruits
are taken to the Temple and given to the kohein. 2. {Hebrew Ref} ---a fraction of the fruits (either 1/40, 1/50 or 1/60,
depending on the owner's magnanimity) is set aside and given to the
kohein. 3. {Hebrew Ref} ---a tenth of what remains
after the separating of the bikkurim and teruma is given
to the levi. 4. {Hebrew Ref} ---the levi
then takes 1/10 of the {Hebrew Ref} which he received and
gives it to the kohein.
356 Mechilta.
357 Above, 13,
13: {Hebrew Ref} ---"All the first born
of man you must redeem."
358 Bamidbar 18, 16.
359 Mechilta; Bechoros 26b.
360
This should not be taken to mean that the {Hebrew Ref} cannot
be given to the kohein before the eighth day. But rather
. . .
361 But, not to the owner, for it is the kohein,
and not the owner, who sacrifices the {Hebrew Ref} . (G.A.)
362 I.e., that the kohein must sacrifice the {Hebrew Ref} on the eighth day and no later.
363 Vayikra 22, 27. The
common use of "the eighth day" is intended as a {Hebrew Ref} .
364 I.e., of the words: {Hebrew Ref} .
365 Mechilta.
366 {Hebrew Ref} =a
non-ritually-slaughtered dead animal.
367 {Hebrew Ref} =an
animal with a wound to a vital organ.
368 Mechilta.
369 Only in the field?!
370 But the animal still lived to
be slaughtered. Otherwise, it would be neveilah. See note 65.
371 "And no one was there to help her" (Devarim 22, 27) and she
is not liable to any punishment since she was taken by force. Here,
too, if she was helpless within the city the same rule would apply. The
only reason "the field" is mentioned is because there it is common
for her to shout without anyone coming to her aid.
372 Devarim
23, 11.
373 Mechilta.
374 This prohibition is called {Hebrew Ref} ---"flesh from a living animal."
375
Devarim 14, 21.
376 Which is more lenient than neveilah.
377 The {Hebrew Ref} is formulated thus: If
neveilah which is more stringent than tereifah in that it
renders ritually unclean anyone touching, or even carrying it, yet may
be sold to a gentile, then, certainly, tereifah, which does not
cause ritual uncleanness, may be sold to a gentile.
378 For a gentile has to buy the neveilah, whereas the
dog gets his tereifah free. (S.A.)
379 Above 11, 7.
380
Mechilta.
381 Mechilta; Pesachim 118.
382 This
would constitute {Hebrew Ref} ---"a false report,"
because one is more brazen to lie when not in the presence of his
adversary. (Rashi Shvuos {Hebrew Ref} 31a)
383
Ibid.
384 Just for assuring someone that you will testify falsely
for him is a transgression of: {Hebrew Ref} . Actually testifying falsely is a transgression of: {Hebrew Ref} ---"Do not bear false witness against
your fellow man" (Above 20, 13).
385 In capital offenses, where a minimum of 23 judges are
required to sit in judgment.
386 E.g., if 12 judges voted for
conviction and 11 against, he is not convicted.
387 Sanhedrin
2a.
388 The younger judge states his opinion first so that he may
not be intimidated by an opinion of an elder who might precede him.
389 Sanhedrin 32a.
390 Since it is written {Hebrew Ref} , rather than {Hebrew Ref} , it can be interpreted as {Hebrew Ref} .
391 Since, ultimately, my opinion will make no difference.
392 However, Rashi does not explain it according to our English
translation.
393 The root {Hebrew Ref} more often means "to leave,
to abandon." Some commentaries (e.g. Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni) explain this
verse in that vein: {Hebrew Ref} ---Refrain from
abandoning him," {Hebrew Ref} ---Loosen the bonds
of the load so that the load "leave" the animal. Rashi disagrees with
this explanation.
394 Devarim 32, 36.
395 Nechemiah 3, 8.
396 Devarim 7, 17.
397 I.e., he would not unload the animal
even if it were his own. (Rambam, Hilchos Rotzeach 13, 3)
398
Mechilta; Bava Metzia 32a. This last ruling, concerning the animal of a
gentile, holds true only according to the opinion of the Mechilta that
there is no Biblical prohibition against causing pain to animals ( {Hebrew Ref} ). The poskim (Rambam, Hilchos Rotzeach 13, 9;
Shulchan Aruch C.M. 272), however, rule that it is Biblically
prohibited and, therefore, practically speaking, there is no
difference whether the animal is a Jew's or a gentile's---you must
help unload the animal in either case.
399 Mechilta.
400 1.
The prohibition against murder was already stated in the Ten
Commandments, above, 20, 13. 2. If this is intended as prohibiting
murder, then why only the innocent and the righteous? 3. From the
context here, it apparently is speaking of judges. (B.Y.)
401 So
that the court may hear the new evidence.
402 Mechilta; Sanhedrin 33b.
403 Even if in truth he may
be guilty.
404 For there is no way that accepting a bribe will
not affect the judge's impartiality. (Kesubos 105a)
405 Devarim
16, 19.
406 Kesubos 105a.
407 Rashi understands this in the
literal and the figurative sense.
408 Mechilta; Kesubos
105a.
409 Rashi, however, understands {Hebrew Ref} here
as defining {Hebrew Ref} , i.e., "words that are
just," because the plain meaning: "words of the just"
obviously cannot apply to someone who accepted a bribe. (Bertenoro)
410 This seems a repetition of {Hebrew Ref} ---"You must not abuse or oppress a stranger!" (22, 20)
411 1. {Hebrew Ref} is understood as {Hebrew Ref} or {Hebrew Ref} (lit. his yeast) because the {Hebrew Ref} ---the evil inclination---is compared to yeast;
they both sour their hosts. Hence do not provoke or antagonize the {Hebrew Ref} for he will easily be pushed into evil ways (G.A.). 2.
{Hebrew Ref} has the same root as {Hebrew Ref} ---
"the roots of the vineyard" (Yirmiyahu 2, 21). Do not antagonize the
{Hebrew Ref} because he will go back to his bad roots. (Moshav
Z'keinim)
412 Bava Metzia 59b.
413 Devarim 22, 2.
414
Once there was no food left in the fields for the cattle from the
seventh-year (shmittah) crops, all the shmittah crops
stored in the house had to be left out in the field so as to be
available to both man and animal. See Rashi Vayikra 25, 7.
415 Mo'ed
Kattan 3a.
416 Mechilta.
417 Is the vineyard not included in {Hebrew Ref} ---"You shall let it rest and abandon it"?!
418 {Hebrew Ref} , lit. a "white field", so called
because the grain turns bright (or white) as it ripens. Also, because
it is entirely covered by sunlight, having no shady areas, since there
are no trees. An orchard or any field of trees is called a {Hebrew Ref} .
419 Above, v. 10. Therefore the prohibition at the
beginning of the verse only included things that are sown, i.e., grains
and vegetables. Now fruits, too, are added to the prohibition.
420
What is the connection between the prohibition against working on
Shabbos and shemittah?
421 You might mistakenly think that
since both, the weekly Shabbos and the Shabbos-year of shemittah
represent G-d's creating of the world, observing the weekly Shabbos is
superfluous. Therefore the Torah makes it clear that this is not so.
(Malbim)
422 Mechilta.
423 {Hebrew Ref} ---
"rest," here should not be construed as not allowing the animal to do
{Hebrew Ref} ---"labors prohibited to man on Shabbos."
424 Ibid.
425 That a circumcised gentile slave must
rest was already stated above (20, 10).
426 A {Hebrew Ref}
is a gentile who renounces idolatry, as well as accepting the seven
Noachide mitzvos. He may do for the Jews on Shabbos only what a
Jew may do on Yom Tov---work done in the preparation of food; or,
according to another opinion, work permitted to a Jew on {Hebrew Ref} ---the intermediate days of Pesach and Succos
(Mechilta). On his own, the {Hebrew Ref} may do any
melachah. (Mishnah Brurah 104, 1)
427 Mechilta.
428 Though
in neither instance does he mention the particular idol for the purpose
of showing it respect.
429 Ibid.; Sanhedrin 63b.
430 Of the
juxtaposition of the two sections of this verse.
431 According to
this latter explanation {Hebrew Ref} actually
refers to all the mitzvos---not just to the {Hebrew Ref} , as according to Rashi's first explanation.
432 Ibid.
433 Bamidbar 22, 28.
434 Chagigah 7a.
435 It is the season of the wheat-harvest in Eretz Yisrael.
436
{Hebrew Ref} = the first fruits of the season which are
brought to the Beis Hamikdosh and given to the kohein, which
cannot be brought before the holiday of Shavuos.
437 When you shall bring the new meal-offering to G-d on your
Holiday of Shavuos" (Bamidbar 28, 26). Hence bikkurim are
brought after Shavuos, and since {Hebrew Ref} is the time
for {Hebrew Ref} , it follows that {Hebrew Ref}
refers to Shavuos.
438 Bikkurim 1, 3.
439 What is the
connection between the Three Festivals and shemittah---is
it not dealt with later (34, 18-26)?!
440 Mechilta.
441 Ibid.
442 I.e., any korbon whose blood was
sprinkled during the day must have its fats and intestines placed on
the altar for burning before the following morning. Otherwise they
become {Hebrew Ref} ---"unfit, due to having
remained overnight.
443 And by morning had not yet been comsumed.
Vayikra 6,2, i.e., the {Hebrew Ref} ---burnt-offering
---may be placed on the fire of the altar all night. Obviously, if
it were placed there close to morning it will not have been consumed by
morning. Yet it is a perfectly valid korbon.
444 Ibid.
445 Zevachim 87a.
446 The seven species with which Eretz Yisrael is praised.
(Devarim 8, 8)
447 Bikkurim 1, 3.
448 Bereishis 38, 17.
449 Ibid. v. 20.
450 Ibid. 27, 9.
451 Hence {Hebrew Ref} alone refers to any young animal whereas {Hebrew Ref}
refers specifically to a goat.
452 Chullin 113b; 115b.
453 By
worshipping the golden calf.
454 Below, 33, 2-3. {Hebrew Ref} ---
"I will send an angel before you . . . for I will not go up
among you." See Ramban.
455 But then it should have said: "that I have prepared for
you" (S.C.). Moreover, the promise that the angel will bring the B'nei
Yisroel to Eretz Yisroel is explicitely related below in v. 23.
(L.S.R.)
456 Yehoshua 1, 18.
457 Tanchuma 18.
458 This
is obviously not a reason for the preceding words: {Hebrew Ref} ---"for he cannot bear your transgression," for
why would G-d's Name make him unable to bear sin?!
459 Sanhedrin
38b. {Hebrew Ref} = the Almighty.
460 I.e., the root of {Hebrew Ref} is {Hebrew Ref}
with the letter {Hebrew Ref} appearing twice.
461 I.e., the
first-person singular in the past tense.
462 Yesihayahu 28, 28.
{Hebrew Ref} has the letter {Hebrew Ref} repeated in the
root. In the {Hebrew Ref} form one {Hebrew Ref} is
dropped while the remaining {Hebrew Ref} receives a cholom and
a dagesh. Hence, {Hebrew Ref} .
463 Koheles 2, 20.
464 I Shmuel 7, 16.
465 Tehillim 116, 6.
466 Yeshaiyah
19, 6.
467 Ibid. 49, 16.
468 Shoftim 5, 15.
469 I
Shmuel 12, 3.
470 Iyov 20, 19.
471 {Hebrew Ref} from
{Hebrew Ref} ---"death."
472 With a patach
under the {Hebrew Ref} and no dagesh.
473 Bamidbar
14, 15.
474 For it should have said {Hebrew Ref} .
475 Yehoshua 10, 12.
476 Koheles 3, 13.
477 Literally:
the back of the neck.
478 Which were on the east bank of the
Jordan.
479 Who occupied Eretz Yisrael at that time.
480 And
could therefore not be struck by the hornets, since the hornets did not
cross the Jordan!
481 36a.
482 Though {Hebrew Ref} is in the present-tense form,
nevertheless, the prefix letter {Hebrew Ref} changes to the
future tense.
483 Bereishis 1, 28.
484 See Rashi above, v.
27.
485 See Bereishis 15, 18.
486 {Hebrew Ref} has four meanings: "if, perhaps, but,
because." Which is the meaning of the word {Hebrew Ref} , here
mentioned twice?
487 I.e., {Hebrew Ref} ---"when."
488 However, the problem that confronts us is that {Hebrew Ref} is not among the four meanings of {Hebrew Ref} !
489
{Hebrew Ref} in Aramaic usually means if but sometimes has the
meaning: {Hebrew Ref} .
490 Vayikra 2, 14.
491 And
therefore {Hebrew Ref} could not mean "if" and must take the
meaning {Hebrew Ref} ---"when." Hence the use of {Hebrew Ref} to mean {Hebrew Ref} is not a fifth meaning of {Hebrew Ref} , but, rather a variant of {Hebrew Ref} , which can mean
"when." And {Hebrew Ref} is one of the four meanings of
{Hebrew Ref} .
492 I.e., verses 1-11. This
is based on {Hebrew Ref} ---"the
sections of the Torah are not necessarily in chronological order."
493 Rashi sees a number of things that indicate that this
parsha is not in its right chronological sequence. Two examples: 1.
The Sages tell us that the B'nei Yisrael prepared themselves to
enter the Covenant of Judaism as if they had been {Hebrew Ref} ---
proselytes. This procedure requires {Hebrew Ref} ---
circumcision, {Hebrew Ref} ---immersion in water, {Hebrew Ref} ---sprinkling of the blood of a sacrifice. In
v. 8, Moshe performs the {Hebrew Ref} on the nation. Hence,
it must have been before the giving of the Ten Commandments. (M., B.Y.)
2. The usual opening in the Torah for G-d speaking to Moshe is: {Hebrew Ref} ---"And G-d spoke to Moshe, saying."
Here the opening is {Hebrew Ref} ---"And to Moshe
He said." This has the connotation of something that had already been
said before, viz., the instructions that G-d gave Moshe before the
Giving of the Torah, above, Chapt. 19. (Bartenoro) The Ramban strongly
disputes Rashi and gives a number of proofs to support his own opinion.
494 Mechilta; Shabbos 88a.
495 See Rashi above, 10, 18.
496 I.e., the fourth of Sivan.
497 This cannot literally mean
the entire Torah for this occurred before Sinai.
498 See above
19, 12.
499 I.e., the entire gentile world.
500 Before
Sinai. See Rashi above, 15, 25.
501 Mechilta; Sanhedrin 56b.
502 Mechilta; Shabbos 88a.
503 Before the Mishkon the
sacrifice service was performed by the first-born (S.C.). See Ramban as
to why they are referred as {Hebrew Ref} ---"young men"
here.
504 Bam. Rab. 4, 8.
505 1. Something extraordinary
must have taken place here, for as the korbonos were bleeding.
How could Moshe have known at which point half the blood had come out
into the basins?! And there is no indication that Moshe waited for all
the blood to come out so as to divide it. (N.Y.)
506 Vayik. Rab.
6, 5.
507 Yevamos 46b; Krisos 9a.
508 Mechilta.
509 Literally {Hebrew Ref} means
"he threw" (or "poured"). Here this is not so.
510 Onkelos'
translation differs from Rashi's explanation on two counts: 1. {Hebrew Ref} does not mean: "he sprinkled," but: "he
poured." 2. {Hebrew Ref} , according to Rashi means
literally: "on the people," but according to Onkelos it means: "for
the sake of the people."
511 And therefore did not punish them
right then and there.
512 At which time: {Hebrew Ref} ---"A fire went out from before G-d and
consumed them and they died." (Vayikra 10, 2).
513 Lit. "at the edge."
514 Bamidbar 11, 1.
515
I.e., the elders.
516 Tanchuma Beha'alos'cha 16.
517 Vayik.
Rab. 23, 8.
518 See Rashi Bamidbar 11, 16.
519 Tanchuma Beha'alos'cha 16.
520 Onkelos interprets
everything in the verse in praise of Nadav, Avihu and the elders. They
rejoiced in the fact that their sacrifices were accepted---so much
so that they felt as if they had been eating and drinking.
521
Yeshayahu 41, 9.
522 Bamidbar 11, 25.
523 Yechezkel 41, 8.
524 See Rashi v. 1. However, the reference here to the stone
tablets could not be before the Giving of the Torah, for they were
first hewn afterwards. See below, 31, 18. (M.)
525 See below, v.
18.
526 But G-d Himself wrote only the Ten Commandments upon the
Tablets---the Torah itself, however, was dictated by G-d to be
written by Moshe. Then what is the explanation of G-d's statement here:
{Hebrew Ref} ---"the Torah and the
commandments which I have written?!" (M.)
527 Hence, by writing
the Ten Commandments, G-d, in effect, wrote down all the mitzvos
of the Torah.
528 A liturgical poem called {Hebrew Ref} that
is recited on the holiday of Shavuos.
529 After all, only Moshe
went up to the mountain of G-d!
530 Though Rashi has indicated that the narrative of this
section (from v. 12) took place after the Torah was given, when,
according to some, the Shechinah departed from Mt. Sinai, nevertheless,
Rashi elsewhere (Beitzah 56) gives his opinion that the Shechinah
remained on Mt. Sinai until the Mishkon was established.
531 Below,
32, 17.
532 And heard their voices from afar---from where he
had pitched his tent.
533 See Rashi above, 17, 10.
534 I
Divrei Hayomim 2, 19.
535 11b.
536 Yoma 4a.
537 In this case the {Hebrew Ref}
was the mountain. Ultimately it became the {Hebrew Ref} ---
"the Holy of Holies" in the Mishkon and in the Temple.
538 Ibid.
3b. However, a {Hebrew Ref} before Yom Kippur requires
seclusion for seven days for a special reason. See Yoma 6a. (S.C.)
539 This seems to contradict what is written later on: {Hebrew Ref} ---"Moshe could
not enter the Ohel Mo'ed because the cloud hovered over it."
(below, 40, 35). (Yoma 4b)
540 Ibid.
Return to Main Search Form
Sources