אם במחתרת ימצא הגנב, “If the thief is found while in hiding.” The word מחתרת suggests that he was tunneling his way into the house in the dark of night. אין לו דמים, “there is no blood-guilt on his account.” If the owner killed the thief believing his life to be in danger he is not accused of manslaughter. The Torah presumes that if someone breaks into a house at night he is also prepared to kill if discovered by the owner who would defend his property.

אם זרחה השמש עליו, “if the sun shone upon him, etc.” If the thief entered in broad daylight or remained in the house of the victim till morning,

דמים לו, “there is blood guilt on his account.” Anyone who kills unless his own life was in danger is subject to the penalty for murder or manslaughter. In this instance, when the identity of the thief has become known, he would not threaten his victim with death as he would be aware that he would suffer the penalty for murder. Seeing that the owner of the house was not in danger he must not kill the intruder. The reason why the Torah describes the sun shining by using the feminine form of the word זרחה, rather than the customary זרח (compare Kohelet 1,5 or Genesis 32,32) is that the Bible usually does so when it describes the sun spreading its rays over the earth during the day. Examples are: Samuel II 12,11 לעיני השמש הזאת, “in view of this bright sunlight.” The sun is described as masculine in the Bible when it is only at the beginning of its daily journey across the sky. Example: השמש יצא על הארץ, “the sun had risen over the earth” (Genesis 19,23). The author quotes additional examples. At any rate, the meaning is that if the sun has already spread its light all over the earth and it is clear that the thief will be caught and cannot escape, דמים לו, anyone killing him will be guilty. The words have a dual meaning, i.e. they also mean that the thief has to pay compensation to the victim failing which the court will sell his labor for the next 6 years to the kind of master described in 21,2 so that the owner of the stolen property can be compensated.

מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו ישלם, “from the best of his field or the best of his vineyard he shall make payment to him (restitution).” The Talmud (Gittin 48) uses this wording to arrive at the general ruling that when compensation is assessed by the court for damages caused willfully or through negligence, the guilty party’s most valuable agricultural property is used. If the court would be content to take comparable produce grown on inferior soil belonging to the party causing the damage this would encourage such a party to openly steal the best quality of produce of his neighbor and have the court replace it with inferior quality from his own field or vineyard. In such cases the guilty party would profit by his crime. In order to discourage a farmer from engaging in this kind of pilfering, the law is slanted in favor of the potential victim so that the potential thief will realize that it will not pay him to steal from his neighbor as the court’s order will soon result in his losing instead of profiting by his crime. When money is owed by a borrower who has failed to repay it on time, (an interest-free loan) the court assesses average quality of the debtor’s produce to be used to repay his debt. When a husband has to pay a wife whom he has divorced her marriage settlement, he is entitled to compensate her from the most inferior quality produce which his fields produce. Actually, if we were to proceed strictly according to Biblical law, the borrower would also have to be assessed only to make repayment from his most inferior produce. (They wanted to base this on Deut. 24,11 where the lender is not permitted to enter the borrower’s house to pick himself the kind of security he wants to hold onto until the debt has been paid. It is reasoned that just as in that instance the debtor will surely volunteer only the cheapest of his possessions as a pawn, so here too the Torah would take only from his most inferior produce to satisfy his creditor). However, if the sages had applied this ruling the lenders would have refused to extend loans to impecunious borrowers in the future. In order to forestall such a possibility and to help future borrowers to obtain loans, the sages decided to upgrade the kind of produce from which such a defaulting borrower has to make repayment. The sages also advance a reason based on psychology of women to explain why if her marriage settlement becomes due she is presumed as satisfied with unfavorable conditions. It is presumed that a woman’s desire to be married (and to enjoy that status) is greater than the comparable desire of her husband to marry her (Kidushin 49).

כי תצא אש, “if a fire is started and spreads, etc.” by itself; שלם ישלם המבעיר את הבערה, “the party who started the conflagration must pay compensation.” The party who had started the fire is the root-cause of the damage. Had he not started it the fire could not have spread and burned standing corn or stacked, harvested grain. The sages in Baba Kama 60 use this verse to see an allusion in it to the destruction by fire of the Holy Temple. They quote G’d as saying that He Himself must compensate the Jewish people for the burning down of the Temple as He had started the fire. The sages quote Isaiah 64,10: “our Holy Temple, our pride, where our fathers praised You, has been consumed by fire; all that was dear to us has been ruined.” Seeing that the Jews attribute the destruction to their own faults, G’d was willing to describe Himself as the root-cause and assumes the burden of compensating the Jewish people as if He had started the fire (compare Rashi there).

כי יתן איש אל רעהו כסף או כלים, “if a man shall give money or vessels to his fellow to safeguard, etc.” Our sages (Baba Kama 93) describe four categories of people who keep other people’s property for them. The first category is known as שומר חנם “a keeper who does not receive compensation.” The second category is a paid guardian known as שומר שכר. The third category is known as שואל, a borrower of someone else’s utensils. The fourth category is known as שוכר, someone who rents other people’s tools, etc. The laws applying to these various שומרים differ in relation to the use they get out of the items for whose safekeeping they have made themselves responsible. The paragraph commencing here speaks of someone who does someone else a favor by accepting something in trust by neither receiving nor asking compensation for his trouble. It is after all something quite common for neighbors to do each other such a favor. The next paragraph commencing with the words: “if someone gives his fellow a donkey or an ox, etc.,” speaks about a keeper who is being paid for his trouble. After all, animals have to be fed and cared for; most people expect to be compensated for their trouble in taking care of them. The third paragraph commencing with the words: “when someone borrows from his fellow, etc.,” clearly speaks of borrowers who use their relationship with the owner to borrow his tools or domestic beast for free. Finally, the last part of that same paragraph: “if he is a renter,” describes use of other people’s property against payment of a fee.

You should know that as a general rule the שומר חנם is not liable to make good the loss of the item under his care if it was stolen or became lost, and most certainly not if some unforeseeable accident happened to it such as an earthquake, etc. After all, he had done the owner a favor accepting a responsibility without charging for it. The exact opposite is the case in the case of a person who had borrowed a neighbor's tools or animal and made use of it as if they were his own. He is liable not only for theft and disappearance of the borrowed object but also if it became damaged or lost through accident. Instead of having done a favour to the owner, the owner had done him a favor by loaning the object in question to him for his use. Our sages summed up the reason for the borrower’s comprehensive liability by saying דכל הנאה לדידיה הוא “the borrower enjoys total use of this property (like the owner).” By using this logic it is clear that he who enjoys the rights of ownership is responsible for the well being of the item under discussion. In the case of both a person who hires the object or who rents it out, the responsibility for loss is shared depending on the nature of the loss and the manner in which it occurred seeing that both parties share in the usefulness of the item in question. One party receives financial benefit; the other party, the one using the animal or tool enjoys its use. Damages arising from theft or loss accrue to the party under whose care the animal or object was at the time such damage occurred. Accidental damage that could not be foreseen and is not attributable to negligence accrues to the owner rather than to the user (based on Maimonides Moreh Nevuchim third volume chapter 42). All the above demonstrates the fairness of Torah legislation in regulating the way righteous people ought to live their lives.

ונקרב בעל הבית אל האלוהים,...עד האלוהים יבא דבר שניהם. אשר ירשיעון אלוהים, “then the householder shall approach the court.....to the court shall come both their claims....whomever the court shall find guilty shall pay.” In this short paragraph the word Elohim appears three times. This prompted our sages in Sanhedrin 3 to rule that a court must consist of a minimum of three judges. You will note that in the whole portion commencing with chapter 21 up until here the four-lettered name of G’d has not appeared even once. The reason for this is spelled out in Deut. 1,17 כי המשפט לאלוהים הוא, “for justice is a matter which is the domain of (the attribute) Elohim.” The only time the tetragrammaton is mentioned is in connection with the oath where the Torah defines such an oath as שבועת י-ה-ו-ה; we have already explained that theקו האמצעי is the principal emanation associated with an oath. It is therefore logical that such an oath should be described as sworn in the name of the attribute Hashem. The word שבעה is spelled without the letter ו, to show its connection with the lower seven emanations as we have explained repeatedly in Yitro 20, 7 as well as in Genesis 21,23.

אם לא שלח ידו במלאכת רעהו, “that he did not lay his hand on the property of his fellow;” the Torah refers to the object held in trust for his fellow (compare Ibn Ezra). This is also the opinion of Onkelos who translates these words as לא יושיט ידה במא דמסר ליה חברה, “he did not stretch out his hand against what his friend had given him.” The reason such a deposit is described by the Torah as מלאכה, is that a person’s wealth is often referred to as his מלאכה; one example is found in Genesis 33,14 where Yaakov explains that he has to travel more slowly than his brother Esau due to his “wealth” moving slowly. His wealth consisted primarily of his flocks and herds. The major point our verse makes is that the person to whom the deposit has been entrusted must not make any use of it whatsoever. If the deposit consists of beasts of burden the trustee must not use them for his own purpose; if they consist of vessels he must not use them for his own purposes either. Using such vessels would also fall under the heading מלאכה. Vessels have been manufactured for precisely the use called מלאכת תשמיש. Our sages in Baba Metzia 41 stated that the trustee who made any kind of use of deposits of vessels entrusted to them even if they did not deteriorate in value by such use, will henceforth be liable for anything which happens to such vessels. Two scholars, Rav and Levi disagree with one another on that subject, one saying that the word שלח ידו implies that the item under discussion loses value as a result of such use. The other scholar says that it does not need to lose value in order to fit the description in our verse. The decision in the Talmud is that it does not need to lose value in order for the trustee to become liable for any damage from that point on.

מכשפה לא תחיה, “You must not let a sorceress live.” The whole subject of sorcerers and their activities centers around the linking of phenomena which ought to be separate and distinct from one another. Sorcerers preoccupy themselves with establishing a link between phenomena reserved for our terrestrial world and phenomena from a higher world. When such phenomena are linked (illegally) the result represents a challenge and danger to the continued functioning of G’d’s universe.

The חרטומים of Egypt, the Egyptian sorcerers, engaged in such activities and their principal knowledge consisted of producing miraculous phenomena based on their intricate knowledge of the laws of nature. When the Torah forbade the joining of linen and wool and the wearing of such products by Jews (except the fringes with the blue wool thread in a four-cornered garment) this is a small hint that there are elements which Torah law wants to keep apart (compare Nachmanides on Leviticus 19,19). The Talmud Sanhedrin 67 explains that the reason these people are מכשפים and the products of their activities are called כשפים is that they deny the פמליא של מעלה, the existence and effectiveness of celestial forces. A denial of such forces consists of combining elements in our terrestrial world which were clearly meant not to be joined together. The orbit of the various celestial spheres and their failure to collide are proof of things existing in the universe which are meant to remain apart. It is appropriate for human beings to allow the world to function as it was meant to function as this clearly reflects the will of the Creator. Interference with G’d’s blueprint for the functioning of the universe is an act of heresy and insurrection (compare Nachmanides on Deut. 18,9).

Rabbeinu Chananel in his commentary on that folio in Sanhedrin explains the matter of מכשפים differently. He claims that such sorcerers cannot perform any supernatural feats unless G’d specifically wants them to succeed. He bases his view on a reply given by Rabbi Chaninah to a woman who was trying to extract soil from beneath the feet of that Rabbi in order to perform acts of sorcery. Rabbi Chaninah told her that in the event she would enjoy help from G’d in her efforts and succeed he would still not be concerned as there is no one beside the Lord (Deut. 4 4,35). Rabbi Yochanan questioned this saying that the reason these sorcerers are called מכשפים is because they deny the power of celestial forces. In that case, Rabbi Chaninah did have something to be concerned about! The answer given by the Talmud is that Rabbi Chaninah had so many merits that he personally did not have what to worry about. Concerning the above, Rabbeinu Chananel writes that although the Talmud gave such an answer it is not to be taken seriously.

If you were to ask that assuming, as Rabbi Chaninah said, these activities of the sorcerers can succeed only if especially approved by G’d, why does the Torah bother to outlaw these activities and to make their practitioners subject to the death penalty? The answer is simply that by doing so, or even attempting to do what they have in mind they commit an act of rebellion against G’d and the rules He has established for His universe. Consider simply this: if an act of rebellion against a mortal king of flesh and blood is punishable by death, surely an act of rebellion against the King of Kings must carry the death penalty! Thus far Rabbeinu Chananel. Seeing that during their long stay in Egypt the Israelites had been constantly exposed to acts of sorcery and it was likely that some of them at least would have a tendency to credit these sorcerers with knowledge of matters of substance, the Torah had to come out explicitly forbidding such practices and legislating the death penalty for people ignoring the Torah’s prohibition. In order to show us how seriously the Torah views these activities the Torah was not satisfied with the usual command to execute such practitioners of sorcery but it wrote: “you must not allow a sorceress to remain alive!” In other words, inactivity, not bringing such a sorceress to justice, is an additional sin committed by anyone who is aware of such people practicing their nefarious art. The only other place where the Torah uses such strong language is in connection with the seven nations occupying what was to be the land of Israel. There too the Torah writes: לא תחיה כל נשמה, “you must not allow a single soul to remain alive” (Deut. 20,16). The reason the Torah writes not to let a sorceress live instead of writing “do not let a sorcerer live,” is that most of the people practicing this art are women. Certain activities such as those attributed to אוב are carried out exclusively by women. This is what the Torah writes (Leviticus 20,27) “and any man or woman in whom there shall be the sorcery of Ov or of Yidoni shall be put to death, etc.” [Apparently a man cannot perform these tricks unless he is assisted by a woman. Ed.] According to information available to us from books dealing with such practices a woman is required to stand over (in) the grave of the dead person above his head whereas her male partner takes up his position at the feet of the deceased. A youth must stand in the middle; the lad holds a kind of rattle with which he makes rattling sounds. In previous ages this appears to have been a widespread practice. The rattles (church bells) which are common in the Kingdom of Edom (Roman Empire) and which are pealed in their towers (cathedrals) appear to have their origin in that practice.

זובח לאלוהים יחרם, “anyone bringing a sacrifice to the gods shall be put to death.” Seeing that in the second of the Ten Commandments this prohibition has already been mentioned in general terms, the Torah now spells out the penalty. The expression יחרם is similar to Leviticus 27,29 כל חרם אשר יחרם מן-האדם לא יפדה מות ימות, “any condemned person who has been banned from mankind shall not be redeemed, he shall be put to death.” The word יחרם has been chosen by the Torah to demonstrate the principle of “the punishment matches the crime.” The guilty party has offered a sacrifice to something which is condemned to be destroyed; hence he will himself be subject to destruction. The fact that the Torah speaks of actual slaughter of a sacrifice to such idols is not to be construed as limiting the death penalty for idol worship. If the person in question had merely prostrated himself in front of that idol or had kindled incense, etc., etc., he is subject to the same penalty. We have already explained that even if an obeisance made to an idol appears in our eyes as an affront rather than as an act of paying homage, the perpetrator is subject to the death penalty (Mechilta Nezikin section 17). Rashi explains that the vowel patach [actually kametz, but meaning the same as a patach in words where the first letter is not followed by the letter א. Ed.] under the first letter ל in לאלוהים makes it unnecessary to add the word אחרים after the word לאלוהים. The definite article which this kametz represents is a reference to the second commandment (20,3) where idolatry, even if the obeisance is made to an angel in his capacity as the Lord’s angel has been forbidden.

A kabbalistic approach: the word לאלהים is an allusion to the mystical dimension of animal sacrifice. Consider Numbers 28,2 את קרבני לחמי לאשי , “My offering, My food, My fires.” Our sages said that in the event someone thought that the Torah speaks of G’d consuming actual food (לחמי), the Torah corrects such an impression by adding the word לאשי as “My fires.” This teaches that the animal (or other) sacrifices the Jewish people present are given to an attribute He calls “fire.” The truth of the matter is that whereas the offerings will be consumed by G’d’s “fire,” they were addressed to G’d’s essence, to Hashem. This is why the verse adds בלתי לי-ה-ו-ה- לבדו, “exclusively to Hashem alone.” This is also reflected in Onkelos translating these last three words as לשמא דיי בלחודוהי, “to the name of the unique G’d only.”

וגר לא תונה, “and you must not take advantage of a stranger.” The word תונה refers to disadvantaging him with words, whereas the following word ולא תלחצנו refers to physically taking advantage of his status such as robbing him of money which is his (Mechilta Nezikin section 18). The Torah writes many times about the need to treat a proselyte fairly seeing that he is alone in a country in which he has no roots, no family who could protect him. The word גר for a stranger is derived from גרגיר, an isolated berry at the far end of a solitary branch. People have a habit of insulting strangers and belittling them. G’d therefore warns us not to think that such a stranger has no one who takes up his complaints. The Lord Himself will fight his fight for him. The Torah reminds us that we of all people should have empathy for strangers seeing we had been taken advantage of in Egypt because we were strangers. G’d implies that just as He took pity on us as we had no one else to turn to, He will do the same for such strangers if the need arises. Interestingly, the Torah (23,9) did not write אתם ידעתם את הנר, but ואתם ידעתם את נפש הגר. “you know the soul (feelings) of a stranger,” You are aware that every stranger has low self-esteem, and he has no one to turn to except Me.” The Torah mentions immediately afterwards that we must not oppress widows or orphans, both of whom have been bereaved of their human protectors. Both categories are often taken advantage of by callous people. Baba Metzia 59 describes them as prone to weeping. Seeing that the “gates of weeping are never locked,” i.e. G’d is ready to respond to people who feel so wretched that they turn to G’d with their tears, G’d warns offenders that He, personally, will exact retribution from people who exploit the weakness of either widows or orphans. To avoid becoming the object of such retribution we must be especially careful not to give widows or orphans cause to complain to G’d against us. Isaiah 58, 7 and 10 warns: “share your bread with the hungry, take the wretched poor into your home, when you see the naked clothe him....offer your compassion to the hungry and satisfy the famished creature.” He means that if you have bread you can give the poor do this; if you do not have what to share at least display some sympathy for the suffering creatures so that they will regain hope and confidence. The reason the Torah speaks about כל אלמנה, “every widow,” is to include wealthy widows in the commandment not to take advantage of them. She too is prone to shedding tears and is liable to feel embittered.

אם ענה תענה אותו, “if you were really to cause him pain,” The Torah goes to the trouble to again spell out each group of potentially affected people such as the widow, the orphan, although they had been mentioned in verse 21 as people that were not to be oppressed. [The repetition ענה תענה is perceived as applying to widow and orphan individually. Ed.]

The reason the Torah repeats so many words in this legislation (ענה תענה, צעק יצעק, שמע אשמע), is that most such people when they suffer indignities endeavor to obtain redress by appealing to a variety of socially responsible organisations. Being widows or orphans however, they do not rely on such organisations but appeal to G’d at the same time. The Torah reflects this situation by describing them as appealing for help on two different levels. The Torah assures them that G’d too will respond on two different levels, i.e. שמע אשמע את צעקתו, “I will hear (respond) his outcry repeatedly.” If G’d is faced with appeals from a variety of people which He will respond to, the appeals by widows and orphans will enjoy priority. This is similar to what Solomon said in Proverbs 23,11: “for they have a powerful redeemer; He will fight their battles against you.” Seeing that unfortunately it is the way of people to constantly oppress the widows and orphans the Torah informed us that G’d will help these people more than anyone else. We would have expected that the words ענה תענה would be followed by the word אותם, “them,” not אותו, “him,” as the Torah writes here. The reason is that the Torah warns not to oppress the same widow or the same orphan again and again. Were this to happen, if even only one victim would appeal to Me צעק יצעק אלי שמע אשמע צעקתו, “I will surely listen to the outcry of each one of these people who have been abused.” We usually find the response by G’d to appeals to Him described in a manner reflecting the urgency or intensity with which they were presented to G’d. Example: Psalms 39,13 שמעה תפלתי ה’ ושועתי האזינה, “hear my prayer O Lord, give ear to my cry.” A prayer which is uttered by lips is referred to as requiring שמיעה in response, whereas a prayer which reflects deeper anguish by the petitioner and which is described by the psalmist as שועה, requires a correspondingly more profound attention and response, hence the psalmist says of it האזינה, “give ear.” Such a type of listening goes beyond mere שמיעה, which registered merely the sound of the prayer. Finally, in that same verse, David adds: אל דמעתי אל תחרש, “do not remain silent in response to my tears!” Tears are an expression of a human being having humbled himself before the one to whom they are addressed, in this instance, of course, to G’d. The meaning of אל תחרש is that that the petitioner wants to secure G’d’s goodwill. From the above you can appreciate how meticulous G’d is in dealing with different nuances of human behaviour, responding to each person in accordance with his individual level of piety, distress, etc.

There is a Midrash which expresses a similar sentiment. Job 33,23, (Elihu speaking), אם יש עליו מלאך מליץ אחד מני-אלף להגיד לאדם ישרו, “if he has a representative, one advocate against a thousand to declare man’s uprightness.” [The speaker goes on to demonstrate how easily G’d will respond to favorable data about the petitioner. Ed.] The Midrash draws attention to the fact that Elihu did not say מלאך אחד מני אלף, but מליץ אחד מני אלף, not “one agent (angel) amongst a thousand,” but “one advocate among a thousand.” Elihu meant that if a single merit can be shown on behalf of a person against whom there may be one thousand demerits this suffices to elicit a positive response from G’d. Another way of explaining the words שמוע אשמע צעקתו could be that the first word (שמוע) means “I, the Lord, will compensate you for the harm done to you by your fellow;” the word אשמע then would mean that “I, the Lord, will deprive the one who slighted you of an amount equivalent to that which he has stolen from you.” This would be in line with the last verse (26) in this paragraph והיה כי יצעק אלי ושמעתי כי חנון אני, “it will be when he cries out to Me, I shall listen, for I am compassionate.” The word חנינה is a reference to the attribute of Justice being employed against the one who caused the petitioner to cry out to G’d, and G’d as a result suppressing His compassion with such a person.

וחרה אפי, “and My anger shall blaze forth.” This is the same attribute of Justice which smote the Egyptians because they maltreated you taking advantage of the fact that you were strangers. The words והרגתי אתכם בחרב are aimed at those guilty of abusing the stranger whereas the words והיו נשיכם אלמנות are the warning to the people taking advantage of widows. The words ובניכם יתומים, are aimed at people abusing orphans. Each offense will be punished by the מדה כנגד מדה principle, punishment fitting the crime. All the time you are careful not to offend the sensibilities of any of the three groups of naturally sensitive people, any part of the attribute of Justice which would be turned against you (for other sins) will be reversed and will express itself instead as an arm of the attribute of Mercy (Sotah 16). This will enable you to enjoy many years on the land, both you and your children in the presence of your G’d. Practice of righteousness saves from death as we know from Proverbs 10,2. We also have a promise in chapter 12,28 of Proverbs: “there is life in the path of righteousness, there is no death on its path.” Practicing charity is considered a greater ethical/moral achievement than offering of sacrificial animals to G’d as we read in Proverbs: 21,3 “G’d prefers the performance of righteousness to the presentation of sacrificial offerings.”

אם כסף תלוה את עמי, “when you lend money to My people, etc.” Proverbs 21,14 extols the virtue of people doing charity anonymously. Solomon says: מתן בסתר יכפה אף, “a gift in secret pacifies anger.” On the other hand, ושוחד בחיק חמה עזה, “a bribe in private makes G’d very angry.” Solomon set out to extol the virtue of people practicing the attribute of charity which deflects many problems which we might otherwise have to face and which altogether cancels negative decrees if such charity is practiced with discretion. The ideal way of fulfilling the concept to give charity anonymously is to ensure that the recipient is unaware of the donor and the donor remains unaware of who the recipient of his charity is. This avoids embarrassment to both parties. It is well known that there are eight different ways of giving charity (as listed in Maimonides’ tractate of Matanot La-aniyim chapter 10). These eight variants represent eight different levels of piety in ascending order. The lowest form of giving charity is to respond to a direct request by the recipient while making plain that one gives reluctantly. The next higher level is that one gives gladly in response to such a direct appeal but one does not give adequately. The third level is to give to the poor person before he has a chance to actually ask for the handout. The fourth level is to give to the poor in such a way that he knows from whom he receives but the donor does not know who the recipient is. This is the level employed by many scholars in the period of the Talmud who dispensed charity by letting the coins drop behind their prayer shawls as they were walking the streets. The poor would pick it up. The scholars did not disdain contact with the poor but they wanted to remain unaware of the identify of the recipients. The fifth level involves people who are aware of who receives their money but the recipient is not aware of who the donor is. This was a method of people known as חסידי עליון, (definition found in Maimonides describing very pious individuals). These people would throw their contributions into the doorways of the recipients’ houses. The sixth level of dispensing charity is to preserve the mutual anonymity of both donor and recipient. This is what can be described as performing a commandment for its own sake. This was the purpose of the collection boxes in the Holy Temple into which donations were thrown which eventually were distributed by officials appointed for the purpose (compare Shekalim 5,6). Nowadays contributions to a charity fund administered by trustees who keep the names of the recipients a secret are of a similar level. This level of charity is capable of warding off impending disasters. This is what Solomon was talking about in Proverbs 21,14 and 17,8. This level is precisely the reverse of what Solomon described in that latter verse, i.e. bribing someone secretly in order to pervert the course of justice. The positive message of Solomon’s statement is that if someone deprives himself of part of his wealth by giving it to charity, this very deprivation is what keeps away disaster that had already been lurking around the corner for him. As a result of his good deed he can turn in any direction and be successful. Solomon tells us that he who imagines that he will profit by bribing someone secretly to pervert justice in his favor will ultimately deprive himself as he thereby angered G’d exceedingly. To sum up: what may be perceived as a financial setback at first glance, i.e. the giving away of money, will in fact turn out to have been the cause of financial gain while the reverse is the case when one thought one had profited by illegal and deceptive ways. The eighth method of performing the commandment of charity, the most laudable of them all, is to extend a loan to the needy; a person who receives a loan has no cause to feel embarrassed or to lose his self-respect as the one extending the loan has proved to him that he thinks he will be repaid. This is why the Torah legislates in our verse that it is a positive commandment to extend such loans. Our sages have stated unequivocally that the word אם in this verse is not conditional but an exhortation similar to Exodus 20,28 where the Torah introduces the law not to use iron tools to build an altar with the word אם. Similarly, the word אם in Exodus 21,30 אם כופר יושת עליו does not mean “if an atonement payment has been assessed against him,” but “when an atonement payment has been assessed against him.” The meaning of our verse then is: “when you extend loans of money to fellow Jews, certain categories of people enjoy priority claims to such loans.” The words את עמי, for instance, mean that if a Jew has a good friend who is a Gentile and a fellow Jew whom he hardly knows who both request a loan then the Jew takes precedence if he is unable to extend loans to both men. The words את העני עמך mean that if a request for a loan is received by the same party from a wealthy Jew and from a poor Jew, the request from the poor Jew takes precedence. Similarly, a local Jew’s request takes precedence over that by a Jew from a different town. This is based on the meaning of the word עמך, i.e. the one who resides with you, near you. The words את העני, mean “with the poor,” i.e. if someone who is in a position to extend a loan refuses to do so he may wind up poor himself, i.e. “the poverty will be with you” (compare Tanchuma Mishpatim section 15). The words לא תהיה לו כנושה, “do not be to him like a creditor,” mean “do not behave as if the recipient of the loan is socially inferior to you because he is in your debt.” The typical relationship between lender and borrower has been described in Proverbs 22,7 as “the borrower is a slave to the lender.” The Torah deplores this and forbids lenders to behave in that fashion. The words לא תשים עליו נשך, ”do not impose interest upon him,” refer to interest in its various forms whether as monetary payments, food, or in any other form (compare Deut. 23,20). The loan is supposed to be an act of loving kindness; one is not even to exploit it in order to secure some intangible advantage such as receiving honours not normally accruing to one. Even being greeted first by the borrower is considered such an intangible form of prohibited interest. This is why in Deuteronomy Moses added the words כל דבר, “in any shape or form.” (compare Baba Metzia 75).

A Midrashic approach to our verse based on Shemot Rabbah 31,15. The words: “when you lend money to My people,” are a reminder that all of G’d’s creatures are constantly borrowing from each other as well as lending to one another. The day borrows from the night and the night borrows from the day. They did not need to resort to litigation on account of this, ever. This is the meaning of Psalms 19, 3-4: “Day to Day makes utterance, Night to Night speaks out; there is no utterance, there are no words whose sound goes unheard.” The moon borrows from the stars and the stars borrow from the moon; whenever G’d so desires He does not display either of them. This is the meaning of Job 9,7: “Who commands the sun not to shine; who seals up the stars.” Light borrows from the Sun and the Sun borrows from Light; this is the meaning of: “sun and moon stand still on high;” (Chabakuk 3,11). Wisdom borrows from Understanding, and Understanding borrows from Wisdom as we know from Proverbs 7,4: “Say to Wisdom “you are my sister and call Understanding a kinswoman.” Heaven borrows from Earth and Earth borrows from Heaven. This is the meaning of Deut. 28,12: “The Lord will open for you His bounteous store, the heavens, to provide rain for your land at its appropriate season.” His creatures borrow from each other and repay each other. Contrast this with the behaviour of man who lends only if he can swallow the borrower through charging him interest. This is why the psalmist described an upright individual, as someone “who does not lend his money by charging interest nor accepting bribes against the innocent” (Psalms 15,5). Please note that anyone who is wealthy and who gives charity to the poor and does not charge interest on the loans he extends is considered as if he personally had kept all the recipients alive. This is what David meant when he said (Psalms 15,5) “he who does all these will never be shaken.” Who was an individual who fitted the description mentioned by the psalmist? This was Ovadiah, who was both wealthy and a supervisor of the treasury of King Achav, King of Israel. We read in Kings I 18,3: “Achav called Ovadiah who was in charge of his palace.” He was exceedingly wealthy, spending all his money on charitable deeds as we know from verse 13 in that same chapter in Kings where he told the prophet Elijah: “I have hidden one hundred of G’d’s prophets, fifty and fifty in two different caves each. I have supplied all of them with bread and water (food and drink).” When the famine decreed by Elijah materialized this man was forced to borrow from Yehoram, Achhav’s son, (paying him interest) in order to ensure the continued survival of these prophets. Actually, Ovadiah had not meant to pay the interest to Yehoram. This is the meaning of כספו לא נתן בנשך, “he did not give his money as interest”. Yehoram had a different idea, however. He had every intention of collecting the interest agreed upon. This is why G’d dispatched Yehu to kill him. This is the true meaning of (Kings II 9,24) “Yehu drew his bow and hit Yehoram between the shoulders so that the arrow pierced his heart and he collapsed in his chariot.” In this way we can understand the statement of Ezekiel 18,13: “he has lent at advanced interest or exacted accrued interest—shall he live?” To warn us of all this the Torah here exhorts us by writing: “when you lend money to My people you must not charge interest.” An alternate approach (based on Shemot Rabbah 31,10) the unusual formulation in our verse where the Torah writes עמי, “My people,” is a hint that G’d considers the poor as “My people” by excellence. The word עמו “His people,” is found in Scripture repeatedly in reference to the poor. Examples: Isaiah 49,13 “for the Lord has comforted His people and has taken His afflicted ones in love.” Or, Isaiah 14,32: ”that Zion has been established by the Lord. In it the needy of His people shall find shelter.” It is a characteristic amongst people not to want to be saddled with poor relatives. This is what Proverbs 19,7 describes as: “all the brothers of a poor man hate him;” in chapter 14,20 Solomon expands on this further when he writes: “the poor man is hated even by his own neighbor, but the rich has many friends.” Contrast the way G’d relates to the poor. He is certainly wealthy as testified to by Chronicles I 29,12: “Riches and Honor are Yours to dispense; You have dominion over all.” Or, Chagai 2,8: “Silver is Mine and gold is Mine- says the Lord of Hosts.” Nonetheless He extends His cover and protection only to the poor as we know from Isaiah 14,32: “that Zion has been established by the Lord. In it the needy of His people shall find shelter.” This is the message of the verse commencing with the words: “when you lend money to My people.”

אם חבול תחבול שלמת רעך עד בא השמש תשיבנו לו, “If you take your neighbour’s garment in pledge you must return it to him before the sun sets.” The verse speaks of a garment worn by day (Mechilta Nezikin 19). [The meaning is that if you took such a garment (as collateral, with the court’s approval) but during the day, you have to give it back and take it only after sunset when the owner does not need it. Ed.] Shemot Rabbah 31,10 writes as follows on our verse: here the Torah describes the meaning of Jeremiah 6,30: “they are called ‘rejected silver,’ for the Lord rejected them.” You find that when the Israelites were exiled from Jerusalem that their captors led them in iron collars. Their enemies said: “their G’d has already despised them as He said concerning them that they are rejected silver.” Just as silver needs refinement before it can be trans-formed into usable vessels, and it has to be melted down and be refined again in order to make a different vessel out of it, eventually it will be used up and returned to the soil as it is of no further use, this is what happened to Israel who are of no further use.” As soon as Jeremiah heard this he exclaimed: “Have you then rejected Yehudah? Have You spurned Zion?” (Jeremiah 14,19) The matter is best explained by means of a parable. A king punished his wife, striking her; her friend said to him: ‘how long will you keep on hitting her? If you want to divorce her, go on striking her until she dies; if however, you intend to take her back eventually, why are you so exact in your demands of her?” The king replied: “even if my entire palace were nothing but a sword, I would still not divorce her.” This is what Jeremiah said to G’d: “If You want to divorce us, keep hitting us until our memory is wiped out.” This is what he meant with the words “Have you utterly despised us, etc.?” If not, why do You inflict punishments for which there is no cure?” G’d answered him: “I will not divorce Israel until the time comes when I will destroy My Universe.” This is what is reflected in the words of Jeremiah 31,37: “Thus said the Lord: ‘if the heavens above could be measured and the foundations below could be fathomed, only then would I reject all the offspring of Israel for all they have done- declares the Lord.’ In spite of their being wayward I have made a pledge to them when I said: “I will give My sanctuary to be amongst you.” Instead of reading the word משכני to mean “My sanctuary,” you can also read it to mean משכוני, “My pledge, My collateral.” This is what Bileam had in mind when he referred to the Tabernacle saying מה טובו אהליך יעקב משכנותיך ישראל, “how goodly are your tents o Yaakov, your “pledges” o Israel” (Numbers 24,5). When the Tabernacle (Temple, Sanctuary) is in ruins its concept remains as the pledge that Israel is not permanently out of favour with its G’d. G’d, so to speak, said to Israel: “I do not offer you as a collateral, (captive) to the Gentiles because I love them but because your sins against Me.” This is what the prophet meant when he quoted G’d as saying: “where is the document of divorce of your mother whom I dismissed? And which of My creditors was it I sold you off to? You were only sold off for your sins, and your mother dismissed for your crimes.” The Midrash continues elaborating on the words אם חבול תחבול, saying: “when the Israelites transgress the commandments I will sell them as two pledges. (this is a reference to the destruction of both the first and the second Temple). How long will they be in the pawnshop? עד בא השמש, “until the Messiah will arrive.” Of that Messiah it is written (Maleachi 3,20) “a sun of victory will shine to bring healing to those who revere My name.” It has also been written (Psalms 72,17) ”while the sun lasts may his name (Messiah) endure.” When that time arrives the Jewish people will be taken back by G’d as His “wife.” Thus far the Midrash. It is well known that the people of Israel have been described as ריעים, “companions” of the Lord as we read in Psalms 122,8: “for the sake of My kin and friends.” The Holy Temple has been compared to G’d’s “mantle” (reading the word Shlomoh as Salmoh instead, i.e. with the letter ש having the dot on its left side). By the same token Solomon himself referred to the Temple as יריעות, (Song of Songs 1,5) a word which can mean either “draperies” or be a reference to this companionship we mentioned. Moses has referred to it asלבנון in Deut. 3,25 where he says: “this good mountain and the Lebanon.” Onkelos translates the word לבנון as בית מקדש, “the Holy Temple.” Yuma 39 understands the words “this good mountain” as a reference to Jerusalem whereas “Lebanon” is a reference to The Temple Mount and the Sanctuary.

.ושמעתי כי חנון אני , “I shall listen for I am compassionate.” Nachmanides interprets these words to mean: “in order that no man should reason that the poor man whose garment was taken as a pledge was not worthy in the eyes of G’d and taking his garment would therefore not be sinful even if he did not return it to him at the time he is need of it.“ This person might reason that G’d would not answer his outcry seeing he was not worthy. G’d therefore goes on record that He would listen to such an outcry not because it was necessarily justified or that the petitioner was worthy, but because G’d Himself is compassionate. The word חנון is derived from חנם, “for free, without recompense.” It is similar to Exodus 33,19 וחנותי את אשר אחון, “I will show grace to whoever I decide to show grace.” According to Berachot 7 this means that G’d reserves the right to listen to people who entreat Him regardless of merits we are aware of.

אלוהים לא תקלל, “you shall not curse a judge.” This is a warning for the party who has been convicted of a crime or sin not to curse the judge who convicted him. This subject follows the subject of the need to extend loans to fellow Jews as on occasion disputes arise over whether a loan has been repaid, the debtor either denying he had received it or the lender claiming that he had not been repaid. Such disputes are submitted to judgment. It is quite possible that the party whose claim is rejected (if he feels that he has been wronged) will curse the judge who has wronged him. This is why the Torah has to warn that one must not engage in such conduct.

ונשיא בעמך, “nor a prince amongst your people, etc.” This refers to the legally appointed king who has thereby been elevated above the people. The Torah warns his subjects that if the king found them guilty they must not curse him. Solomon issues a similar warning (Kohelet 10,20) “do not revile a king even amongst your intimates! Do not curse a rich man even in your bedchamber, for a bird of the air may carry the utterance, and a winged creature may report a word.” The reason the Torah first lists the prohibition against cursing a judge is because by reason of his position he must be wise and should not have erred in judgment. We also have this order of precedence in Horiot 13 where the Talmud ranks a scholar ahead of a king. The Talmud in Sanhedrin 66 interprets our verse as a warning not to curse G’d even by not referring to Him by His holy names. The word elohim is understood as a reference to the Supreme King, i.e. the Almighty, whereas the word נשיא בעמך refers to the mortal king appointed by the people. This too would be in accordance with Proverbs 24,21 where Solomon writes: “fear the Lord my son and the king.”

A Midrashic approach (based on Shemot Rabbah 31,8): there is a conceptual linkage between verse 27 not to curse people in authority and the following verse which deals with the setting aside and handing over of the various tithes, etc. If people will fall into the habit of cursing their judges and their king the result will be crop failure, i.e. they will not have any tithes to set aside. The Midrash cites as a case in point the beginning of the Book of Ruth which commences with the words ויהי בימי שפוט השופטים, which is understood to mean that the period during which this story occurred was one when the common people “judged” the judges, i.e. were openly disdainful of them. In the verse following we are told of a major famine in Eretz Yisrael which led to the emigration of Elimelech and his family. This is an illustration of how one sin results in other sins. From verse 28 in our portion we are to learn that it is not enough to set aside the various gifts for the priest, the Levite, the poor and the destitute, but they must be set aside in their proper sequence commencing with Terumah, followed by the first tithe, followed by the second tithe. The Torah promises reward for setting these tithes aside on time and in their proper sequence by implying that he who does so will have a first born son, i.e. בכור בניך תתן לי, “the firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me.” Clearly, this commandment applies only if you do have firstborn sons. The Torah follows this promise with “so you shall do to your ox, to your flock.” The message is that if the Jewish farmer sets aside what he is supposed to set aside in accordance with Torah legislation, these gifts far from depriving him will actually result in his giving away what is G’d’s as G’d has already blessed him with produce and flocks and herds. As a result of complying with these various regulations the Torah writes (verse 30) ואנשי קודש תהיו לי, “and you will be people of holiness to Me.” G’d will make the Jewish people into the תרומה, the symbolic heave-offering of the world. This is the meaning of Jeremiah 2,3: קדש ישראל לה’ ראשית תבואתו, “Israel was holy to the Lord, the first fruit of His harvest.” Seeing that the Jewish people are Terumah, G’d’s heave, they are not allowed to consume animals which are diseased or mutilated, i.e. טרפה, as is stated in verse 30 of our chapter. G’d furthermore decreed that we must give such animals to the dogs in acknowledgment of the fact that during the fateful night preceding the Exodus all the dogs kept silent and did not take up a hostile attitude towards the Israelites (compare 11,7). This is why the Torah legislates here “throw it to the dogs!” Thus far the Midrash.

מלאתך ודמעתך לא תאחר, “do not delay your fullness-offering and your priestly heave-offering. This verse is a warning concerning the heave-offerings of liquids, i.e. oil and wine. The word מלאתך refers to the liquid made from grapes as described by Numbers 18,27 וכמלאה מן היקב, such as the “flow from the vat,” whereas the word דמעתך describes the liquid secured from the olives which are being squeezed much as tears are the product of one’s squeezing one’s eyes. This is why the product of the olives is called דמעך, “your tear.”

ואנשי קדש תהיון לי, “and people of holiness shall you be for Me.” Actually we would have expected to find the word קדושים, “holy” in the plural, seeing the subject are אנשים, “men,” in the plural. The verse alludes to the fact that the spiritual concept כנסת ישראל, the community of Israel as a collective unit, is the true strength of Israel. The reason this concept is called קדש, holy, is that it is a direct derivative of the emanation חכמה which has its origin in the letter י of the tetragrammaton, the name י-ה-ו-ה. This is the reason the Torah had to add the word לי, “for Me,” The meaning of the word לי in this verse is similar to the meaning of the word לי in Exodus 25,2 ויקחו לי תרומה, “they shall take a heave-offering for Me,” (i.e. bring contributions for the construction of the Holy Tabernacle.”) Israel are considered as if sanctified for the Holy Name of Hashem. Seeing that their spiritual level is so high, they are not to eat meat of diseased or mutilated animals as that meat is the product of the destructive powers rampant in the universe, the power which opposes sanctity and holiness. The Torah adds the word בשדה, “in the field,” in order to underline the origin of such treifah meat. Esau’s predominantly evil nature had been described by the Torah as איש שדה, “a man of the field,” i.e. he represented the murderous instincts of Kayin the first murderer, whose evil deed was described by the Torah as occurring בשדה, “in the field” (Genesis 4,8). This is another reason that the dogs are entitled to eat this meat as their characteristic is close to that of Esau’s.