IF THE SUN HAS RISEN UPON HIM.²⁰². 2. If the sun be risen upon him ‘damim lo’ (there shall be guilt of blood incurred for him). He shall make restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. “This is nothing but a metaphorical expression, [for did the sun rise upon him alone? Does it not rise upon the whole world? It means etc.]²⁰³ But Onkelos who rendered the phrase if the sun has risen upon him as: ‘if the eye of the witnesses fell upon him’ chose a different way of interpreting the verse, which is as follows: if the witnesses found the thief before the householder came, and when the householder came to resist the thief, they warned him not to kill the thief, then damim lo, he is liable if he killed him, for since there were witnesses watching him, the thief had no thought of taking human life, and he would not have killed the householder.” Thus is Rashi’s language. But I wonder! When He said above [in Verse 1], there shall be no guilt of blood incurred for him, thereby acquitting the householder for the murder of the thief, it must surely be speaking of a case where the witnesses warned him not to kill him, for no murderer is ever liable to death without prior warning. And if you say then that in stating: there shall be no guilt of blood incurred for him, Heaven permitted the thief’s blood to be shed, that is to say, it is permissible to kill him — that is not true!²⁰⁴ particular verse. For while the law itself is true [that the owner is permitted to kill him], but here the verse speaks of a case where he has already killed him! So how can you say that the intent of the verse is to give him permission to kill him, when he has already killed him! Moreover, since damim lo [in Verse 2] declares the householder culpable both by the court and at the hand of Heaven, then ein lo damim [in the preceeding verse, stating the opposite case], must as a counterpart free him from both, and the way Rashi interpreted Onkelos ein lo damim frees him only from punishment at the hand of Heaven! In other words, Verse 2 must be a case where there were witnesses, as is indicated by the phrase if the sun be risen upon him, as Rashi understands Onkelos. In contrast Verse 1 speaks of a case where there were no witnesses, and hence it cannot refer at all to freeing him from the death by the court, for the court can never act anyway without witnesses; but instead it refers only to freeing him from death by the hand of Heaven. But in that case, the ein lo damim [of Verse 1] and damim lo [of Verse 2] are not in exact contrast: ein lo damim frees him only from punishment by Heaven, and damim lo holds him guilty in both! (Mizrachi). Rather etc. Rather, the first verse acquits the householder under all circumstances from the hand of Heaven, [where he had no prior warning], and from the court if he had prior warning, and the second verse [dealing as it does with another set of circumstances], holds him guilty by the law of both. Perhaps the Rabbi’s intention [i.e., Rashi’s intention in interpreting Onkelos’ translation], was to say that if the witnesses found the thief before the householder came, and recognized him, and the thief knew of their presence, then the thief no longer could have intended to take human life, since he saw that the witnesses recognized him and knew that if he would kill, the witnesses would come to court and have him put to death. And this is the reason for the expression, if the sun has risen upon him, for at night, seeing that the witnesses did not recognize him, he would kill the householder and escape. In my opinion Onkelos intended to say that if the thief has left the break-through, and the householder comes to court to say that he has witnesses that he was found breaking through, damim lo [literally: “he has blood”] as other living people do, and it is not permissible to kill him, and if the householder did kill him, he is to be put to death; but the thief is to pay if he took anything from there. Scripture uses the expression, if the sun be risen upon him because it speaks of the usual manner, for those who break into homes generally do so at night when no one recognizes them, and the one who kills them there is free and may do so with impunity. But if the thief stayed there until the sun had risen upon him, and then left in a stealthy manner and ran for his life, then if the householder comes to bring a charge against him with the help of witnesses, he [i.e., the thief] is not liable to death, neither by the hands of the court nor by the householder. If this is so, then — according to the opinion of the Sage who says²⁰⁵ that a thief who broke into a house and took some of its vessels and went out, is free from paying for them, because he acquired them with “blood”²⁰⁶ — we must say that the second half of the verse which states, he shall make restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft, refers back to a previous verse [i.e., Verse 37 in the preceeding chapter]: if a man steal an ox etc. A similar case is the verse, And also unto thy bondwoman thou shalt do likewise.²⁰⁷ The plain meaning of the verse is known to be as follows: If a thief dug through into a home at dark, and was found there at night, he may be killed; but if the sun shone upon the thief and someone saw him and recognized him, he may not be killed, but he must pay for what he stole and took from there at daytime. The meaning of the term hashemesh (the sun) is “in the sight of those who saw him.” Similarly, in the sight of this sun²⁰⁸ means “openly.” The reason for this law is as we have mentioned, that one who comes at night will kill the householder, [and therefore the householder may kill him], whilst one who comes at daytime will flee from him [once he is recognized].

footnotes: ²⁰² The verses read: 1. If a thief be found breaking in, and be smitten so that he dieth ‘ein lo damim’ (there shall be no guilt of blood incurred for him) ²⁰³ The Hebrew text shortens here Rashi’s interpretation, since Ramban’s intention here is not to comment on Rashi’s own explanation, but upon Rashi’s understanding of Onkelos. ²⁰⁴ I.e., such an interpretation cannot be the true meaning of this ²⁰⁵ The opinion is that of Rav (Sanhedrin 72 a). ²⁰⁶ Had he been found by the householder while still in the house and he were killed by him, the householder would be free from punishment. ²⁰⁷ Deuteronomy 15:17. This is to be connected with Verse 14 there, which states that the master must present gifts to a manservant who goes out free, and here it states that the same must also be done to a maidservant. But it does not refer to the first half of that verse [17] which speaks of the piercing of the ear of a manservant, since that law does not apply to a woman. ²⁰⁸ II Samuel 12:11.

IF A MAN DELIVER UNTO HIS NEIGHBOR MONEY OR VESSELS TO KEEP. This section [Verses 6-8] speaks of an unpaid guardian, therefore He has freed him from payment in case the money or vessels are lost or stolen, as is the Tradition of our Rabbis.²⁰⁹ Scripture mentioned it without specifying what the case is because those who guard money or vessels generally do so without reward. The second section [Verses 9-12] speaking of a paid guardian mentions an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast,²¹⁰ because it is the customary way to give over cattle into the hands of shepherds who pasture them for payment.

footnotes: ²⁰⁹ Baba Metzia 94b. ²¹⁰ Verse 9.

AND IT BE STOLEN OUT OF THE MAN’S HOUSE. Rashi explained it as meaning that it was stolen out of the man’s house “according to his statement,” meaning that this is what the unpaid guardian claims.²¹¹ stolen, for then how could Scripture say in the next verse that if the thief was not found, the guardian must swear, since it is admitted that it was stolen from him? Hence the verse must mean that he claims it was stolen. Scholars have brought parallel cases in Scripture [as proof to Rashi’s explanation]. Thus: *If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet;*²¹² Hananiah the son of Azzur the prophet,²¹³ for he is not referred to by that epithet [“prophet”] as a true description, but only because he claimed to be so. But there is no need for this. For Scripture is stating that if it was really stolen out of the man’s house and the thief be found, he shall pay double; and if the thief be not found,²¹⁴ they shall come to court and the guardian shall swear concerning the stolen article whether he have not put his hand unto his neighbor’s goods,²¹⁴ and he whom the court condemns as the thief of this article shall pay double,²¹⁵ as the court will not convict anyone and make him pay double unless he stole it, since the law of twofold restitution applies only to a thief, as He said above, If the theft be found in his hand alive… he shall pay double.²¹⁶

footnotes: ²¹¹ It cannot mean that it was admittedly ²¹² Deuteronomy 13:2. The case there speaks of a false prophet. The term “prophet” must therefore be understood as “one who claims to be a prophet.” ²¹³ Jeremiah 28:1. [The reasoning is as in the previous Note.] ²¹⁴ Verse 7. ²¹⁴ Verse 7. ²¹⁵ Verse 8. ²¹⁶ Verse 3.

WHETHER HE HAVE NOT PUT HIS HAND UNTO HIS NEIGHBOR’S GOODS. In the opinion of Rashi this means that the guardian is to come before the judges to swear that he has not put his hand to his fellow-man’s goods [i.e., that he is not guilty of embezzlement]. The correct interpretation is that he is to come before the judges to swear that it was stolen and thus substantiate his claim, but he can only swear thus if he did not put his hand to make use of his neighbor’s goods, for he who puts to his own use what had been left in his keeping is answerable for it as if he were a robber, and is liable to make restitution even if it was lost through an unavoidable accident.²¹⁷

footnotes: ²¹⁷ Baba Metzia 41a.

WHEREOF ONE SAITH: ‘THIS IS IT.’ Rashi comments: “according to the literal sense it means: that which the witness will say ‘this is it — this is that article about which you have taken an oath [that it was stolen from you] but see, it is in your possession!’ And our Rabbis have explained that the phrase this is it teaches us that an oath cannot be imposed [by the court on a defendant] unless he admits part of the claim, saying ‘I owe you so and so much, but the rest was stolen from me.’”²¹⁸ But this principle of partial admission which the Rabbi [Rashi] has written here, is in accordance with the opinion of certain individual Rabbis [in the Talmud],²¹⁹ but is not the accepted decision of the law, for guardians [to incur liability to an oath] need not partially deny and partially admit the claim,²²⁰ but even if they claim that the whole article was stolen, they still have to take the oath of the guardians, [unlike debts, which, if the debtor denies completely, do not require an oath of the Torah]. Moreover, it has been explained in the Gemara²²¹ with convincing proofs, that when he denies the very fact that he ever became a guardian, such as where he says “you have never given me the object to keep,” in that case if he denied it totally, he is free from taking an oath, and if he admitted it partially he is obliged to take an oath, this being the opinion of all Rabbis in the Talmud,²²² even though the Rabbi [Rashi] has not written so in his commentaries to the Gemara.²²¹ If so, we may say that the phrase [this is it — from which we derive the principle of partial admission, as explained above], speaks according to the interpretation of the Sages of a case where the guardian’s defense is: “He never gave me anything to keep,” in which case if he denied it totally he is free of an oath, and if he partially admitted it and partially denied it, he is liable to take an oath.²²³ Thus the verses are to be explained as follows: If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall come near unto the judges²¹⁴ — for every claim of trespass which he may claim against him, such as: “You were negligent in your guarding it,” or where the guardian says: “this is it, — this is what you have deposited with me, and you did not deposit any more with me” — then the one with whom the article was deposited that the judges will condemn, [upon testimony given before them that he embezzled it], shall pay double unto his neighbor. Thus, both [the debtor and the guardian] pay, but double restitution is only where the guardian claims falsely that it was stolen, and the rule concerning the plea of partial admission applies to all claims, even to loans, robbery and other matters. In all these laws the verses of Scripture are few and the rules many. But there is no need to explain them here, except in order to interpret the verses.

footnotes: ²¹⁸ But if he denied the claim altogether, he is free from having to take an oath of the Torah. The Rabbis, however, instituted a consuetude oath in such cases (Shebuoth 40 b). ²¹⁹ Rabbi Chiya bar Aba in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, and Rami bar Chama (Baba Kamma 106-107 a). ²²⁰ In other words, while the principle of partial admission applies to claims of debts, in the case of claims in guardianship, the accepted decision of the law is that the guardians need not partially admit the claim in order to be liable an oath of the Torah. The above interpretation of Rashi agrees therefore only with the opinion of certain individual Rabbis, but is not the accepted opinion. ²²¹ Baba Kamma 107a. ²²² Ramban is here making an important distinction [in accordance with the teaching of the masters of the Tosafoth — see my Hebrew commentary, p. 430]: If the guardian sets up the kind of defense which can apply to cases of guardianship, such as where he says “an unavoidable accident happened to it” [such a defense has no place naturally where one is sued for a plain debt], then there is no distinction between total and partial admission — he is liable to an oath in either case. But where he puts up the kind of defense which can apply also to a debt, such as where he says, “You have never given me the object to keep” [which can apply to a debt as well: “You have never lent me”], then the law of partial admission applies to a guardian as well as to a debtor: if he denies it totally he is free of an oath, and if he admits it partially he is subject to an oath. — A re-reading of Ramban’s words [“Moreover, etc.”] will yield this thought clearly. ²²¹ Baba Kamma 107a. ²²³ Such as where the claimant said, “I gave you two vessels to keep,” and he replies, “You gave me one to keep, but the other you never gave to me.” Had the defendant claimed so on both vessels, he would be free of an oath of the Torah. However, if his defense had been that an unavoidable accident happened, even if he claimed so on both of them, he would have had to swear [see preceding Note]. ²¹⁴ Verse 7.

IF IT BE TORN IN PIECES — “by a wild beast. ‘Y’VIEIHU EID’ — let him bring witnesses that it has been torn in pieces by accident, and then he will be free from paying.” This is the language of Rashi. But one may wonder. Why did Scripture mention specifically here [in the case of the animal being torn to pieces by a wild beast], the necessity of having witnesses, since in this [very same section of the law of the paid guardian] it has already said above, [in the cases where the animal dies, or is hurt, or captured], The oath of the Eternal shall be between them both²²⁴ [i.e., between the owner of the animal and the guardian], and the law in all cases is alike: if there are witnesses that the animal died, or was hurt, or captured, he is free from paying and so also if it was torn in pieces by a wild beast, and if there are no witnesses he must take an oath in all cases, and if he does so, he does not pay? Perhaps Scripture speaks of the customary manner, for when an animal dies in his master’s crib²²⁵ or it goes up to the top of a crag and is hurt, there is usually no man seeing it; so also if it was captured by armed bandits who came upon it and took it from the flock and went away [there are usually no witnesses]. But when a lion or bear attacks, a multitude of shepherds is called forth against it,²²⁶, 31:4. and therefore Scripture says that he should bring the shepherds to court, and [upon their testimony] he will be freed from the liability of payment. Or we may explain that Scripture intends to establish the law enunciated by Isi ben Yehudah,²²⁷ who says, “No-one seeing it — he is free [from payment but he must swear]; but if there are witnesses who could testify in this matter, let him bring the witnesses and only then will he be free.” And the explanation thereof is as follows: If the accident happened [to the animal entrusted to his guardianship] in a place where people are present the whole day, we do not rely upon his oath but instead he must bring witnesses, and where an animal is torn in pieces by a wild beast, it is generally the case [that other people are present besides the guardian], and therefore Scripture required him to bring witnesses. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained: y’vieihu eid — “let him bring part of the torn animal as witness, two legs, or a piece of an ear²²⁸ in proof of his statement.” And I have seen it explained thus in the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai:²²⁹ “Aba Shaul said, he should bring the carcass, as it is said, Thus saith the Eternal, as the shepherd rescueth out of the mouth of the lion, two legs etc.”²²⁸

footnotes: ²²⁴ Verse 10. ²²⁵ Isaiah 1:3. ²²⁶ Ibid. ²²⁷ Baba Metzia 83a. ²²⁸ Amos 3:12. ²²⁹ In Hoffman’s edition of that Mechilta, p. 147. — See Vol. 1. p. 603, Note 245. ²²⁸ Amos 3:12.

AND IF A MAN ‘Y’FATEH’ — “speaks to her emotions [until she submits to him]. And so did Onkelos render it arei y’shadeil, the term shidul in Aramaic being like pitui [persuasion, seduction], in the Sacred Language. ‘MAHOR YIMHARENAH’ (HE SHALL SURELY PAY A DOWRY FOR HER) TO BE HIS WIFE — he shall assign her a marriage portion as is the manner of a man to his wife by writing her a kethubah (marriage contract), and he shall marry her.” Thus far is Rashi’s language. But this is not correct, for the term pitui [does not mean “speaking to her feelings,” as Rashi put it], but winning over another person’s will by falsehood. A similar usage of the term is found in these verses: *‘yifteh l’vavchem’ (your heart will be deceived);*²³⁰ *‘vayift’ (and he seduced) my heart secretly;*²³¹ if my heart ‘niftah’ (have been enticed) unto a woman.²³², 9. This is why people whose minds are not adroit in discriminating matters, and whose hearts can be easily bent by a few words at the beginning of a discussion, are called p’ta’im (simple-minded ones), just as it is said, ‘peti’ (the simple-minded) believeth every word,²³³ and he who seduces a virgin in order to have sexual relations with her, bends her will to his desire by words of falsehood, and is therefore called m’fateh (seducer). Onkelos, however, divided the term pitui into two meanings. Thus here he translated it: y’shadeil, which is an expression for cunning and effort that a person exercises towards another in order to do with him as he pleases, regardless of whether this effort is by means of words or deeds. Thus Onkelos translated: ‘vayei’aveik’ a man with him²³⁴ — v’ishtadeil (and a man ‘wrestled craftily’ with him). And Yonathan ben Uziel²³⁵ translated: ‘v’shovavticho’ (and I will turn thee about), and put hooks into thy jaws²³⁶ — ‘v’ishtadlinoch.’ And in the Targum of the Scroll of Ruth we find: *Where hast thou gleaned to-day? ‘v’anah asit’ (and where wroughtest thou)?*²³⁷ — ‘u’lan ishtadalt l’me’bad’ (and where have you ‘endeavored’ to work)? — And she said: The man’s name with whom ‘asithi’ (I wrought) to-day is Boaz,²³⁷ is translated in the Targum: ‘d’ishtadalith imei’ (with whom I ‘endeavored’). For all effort involving skill, with which a person attempts to achieve something, is called hishtadluth (endeavoring). Thus the Rabbis have said in the Mishnah:²³⁸ “And where there are no men, hishtadeil (strive) to be a man.” And in the Gemara²³⁹ we find: “A man should always yishtadeil (strive) to go out to welcome kings of Israel.” And in Scripture it is written: and he [i.e., the king] ‘mishtadar’ (labored) to rescue him,²⁴⁰ — employing every skill [to save Daniel]. In my opinion, associated with this term [hishtadluth — striving] is the expression, rebellion ‘v’eshtadur’ (and sedition) have been made therein,²⁴¹ meaning, rebellion and “much striving.” For even in the Sacred Language these letters [the lamed and the reish of y’shadeil, y’shadeir] interchange. Thus we find: mazaloth (constellations)²⁴² and *mazaroth;*²⁴³ niml’tzu (sweet),²⁴⁴ and nimr’tzu (forcible);²⁴⁵ ‘mifl’sei’ (the balancing of) the clouds,²⁴⁶, 37:16. and ‘mifr’sei’ (the spreadings of) the clouds.²⁴⁷, 36:29. Similarly in Aramaic: va’alu (and behold),²⁴⁸ and va’aru.²⁴⁹, Verse 7. Sharshereth (chain)²⁵⁰ is termed by the Sages shalsheleth.²⁵¹ There are Mishnaic texts where it is written, “hishtadeir [instead of hishtadeil — both terms meaning ‘strive’] to be a man.”²³⁸ It is for this reason that Onkelos renders ki y’fateh — arei y’shadeil (he will endeavor); he will attempt by devious means to invest the virgin with a sense of trust in him, by many ruses, until she submits to him. And since seduction may be achieved in many ways — sometimes with words, sometimes with money, sometimes by falsehood to mislead her, and sometimes even by truth, as when he really wishes to marry her — therefore Onkelos did not use a precise term for it, but rendered it as an expression of “endeavor.” However, in the verse, *lest your heart be ‘yifteh,’*²³⁰ he used the other meaning and translated it: ‘dilma yit’ei,’ for there it means, “perhaps you will be misled.” And that which the Rabbi [Rashi] explained: “‘Mahor yimharenah’ (he shall surely pay a dowry for her) to be his wife — he shall assign her a marriage portion as is the manner of a man to his wife, by writing her a kethubah (marriage contract)” — this is not correct, for if the seducer marries her, he pays no penalty,²⁵² and if he divorces her after the marriage, there is no monetary obligation upon him by law of the Torah, since a kethubah is a matter of Rabbinic ordinance. Rather, mohar means gifts — the gifts which a man sends to his betrothed, jewels of silver and jewels of gold²⁵³ and clothes for the wedding ceremony and marriage, these being called sivlonoth in the language of the Rabbis.²⁵⁴ Thus they said: “Mohari go back [upon the death of the wife].”²⁵⁵ And Onkelos rendered the verse, And Shechem said… Multiply upon me greatly ‘mohar’ and gift²⁵⁶ — “multiply upon me greatly moharin [in the plural] and gifts,” and Shechem would not have vowed to write Dinah many kethuboth. Instead, mohar means gifts, as I have explained. It is possible that the word is derived from the expression ‘m’heirah chushah’ (hasten, stay not),²⁵⁷ because the mohar is the first thing which hastens the wedding, as the groom hurries and sends these presents ahead of him in eager haste and then he comes to his father-in-law’s house to make the wedding or the feast, just as the Sages have spoken of “parties of sivlonoth” (when presents are presented to the betrothed).²⁵⁸ The meaning of ‘mahor yimharenah’ to be his wife is then, that the seducer should send her presents and necessities for the wedding in order to become his wife. There is thus a hint here that both the seducer and the seduced can prevent the marriage, since Scripture uses such language rather than saying expressly that he should take her to him as his wife; for there is no commandment upon him to marry her unless he so desires, and if he does not want her to begin with, he is to pay fifty shekels of silver.²⁵⁹ After that Scripture states²⁶⁰ that if the father refuses to give her unto him, he shall pay him money according to the ‘mohar’ which men give to virgins whom they marry. The reason for this fine is that the seducer has spoiled her reputation in the eyes of young men, thus the father will have to give her many presents and they will not give her any dowry, therefore it is right that the seducer should pay it. Our Rabbis have said²⁶¹ that the amount of this mohar was determined by Scripture in the case of the violator to be fifty shekels of silver,²⁶² the law of the violator and of the seducer being alike in this respect. Scripture, however, did differentiate between them in that in the case of the violator it says, and she shall be his wife… he may not put her away all his days,²⁶² the reason [for this distinction between the violator, who must marry the maiden whom he has raped, and is forbidden to divorce her ever, and the seducer, who does not have to marry the seduced girl, but may instead pay the penalty mentioned in the Torah], is that usually it is handsome young men²⁶³ who seduce virgins, and the beautiful daughters of prominent families, [in the hope of marrying them]. But since it is not proper that he should gain from his sin, [i.e., that the girl should have to marry the seducer], therefore He explained that he cannot marry her against their will [hers and that of her father], but instead must pay them. Also, because she too sinned in this matter, He did not impose it on him to have to marry her against his will, but instead it is enough if he pays the penalty [of the fifty shekels of silver], and if he marries her with her consent and that of her father, she has the same status in relation to him as all women, having no claim to a kethubah from him by law of the Torah [but only by Rabbinic ordinance]. Similarly, it is usually the sons of prominent families who rape the daughters of those less-known families who have no power against them. Therefore He said in the case of the violator, and she shall be his wife²⁶² — against his will. And in the opinion of our Rabbis,²⁶⁴ there too [in the case of the violator] the maiden and her father can withhold consent, as it would not be correct that he should marry her against her will, and thus do her two evils. Sometimes she may be of a more honorable family than he, and it is inconceivable that she should be further disgraced by his sinful act. The fair law is thus that the decision as to the marriage of the raped maiden be left to her discretion and that of her father, and not to the violator; instead, [if she desires it] he must marry her against his will,²⁶⁵, 39 a). in order that violent men should not take liberties with the daughters of Israel. Now this law of seduction only applies to a na’arah,²⁶⁶ is a maiden between the age of twelve years and a day and twelve and a half. After that she counts as a bogereth — past her maidenhood. The period of yalduth (childhood) is from three years and a day to twelve years and a day. as does the law of violation [which applies only to a girl between the ages of twelve years and a day, and twelve and a half], for there Scripture expressly stated, if a man find a ‘n’arah’ that is a virgin,²⁶⁷ but here He did not mention na’arah. The reason for this is that the term na’arah mentioned there [in the case of a violator], is used in order to exclude the bogereth [a woman who has passed the stage of maidenhood], who is considered an adult woman, whereas a girl who is a minor [between the ages of three years and a day and twelve years and a day], is also included under the terms of the law of violation. But here [in the case of seduction], it was not necessary to exclude a bogereth, for it is self-understood that one who seduces a bogereth pays nothing, as he did it with her mature consent. Besides, a father has no rights at all in his daughter after the days of her maidenhood, as it is written, ‘bin’ureihah’ (in her maidenhood) in her father’s house,²⁶⁸ and here He said, If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him,²⁶⁰ thus indicating that he [the father] can give her to him as a wife, seeing that he has the authority to take her betrothal-money, and this applies only when she is a minor or a na’arah,²⁶⁶ is a maiden between the age of twelve years and a day and twelve and a half. After that she counts as a bogereth — past her maidenhood. The period of yalduth (childhood) is from three years and a day to twelve years and a day. just as the Rabbis interpreted:²⁶⁹ “All benefits which accrue during maidenhood belong to her father.”²⁷⁰ to exclude a bogereth from the law of seduction, since the verse if her father utterly refuse etc. could not possibly speak of a bogereth. Hence it is self-understood that the section deals here with a na’arah, and there was no need to mention it. But in the case of violation etc. But in the case of a violation it was necessary to write na’arah, in order to exclude a bogereth²⁶⁶ is a maiden between the age of twelve years and a day and twelve and a half. After that she counts as a bogereth — past her maidenhood. The period of yalduth (childhood) is from three years and a day to twelve years and a day. from that law, because we might have thought that if she were a bogereth he should pay the fifty shekels of silver to her, [instead of to her father; it was therefore necessary to state] that it is a Scriptural decree [that if she is a bogereth he is free from that penalty], the reason being that since she is in full control of herself, she should guard herself against such a mishap. Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained mohar as being an expression of “binding” [that he should bind her to him as a wife], similar in usage to the verse, Let the idols of them be multiplied ‘acheir maharu’ (who bind themselves to another god).²⁷¹ But this is not correct; instead, the meaning of mohar is as I have explained it on the basis of the words of our Rabbis, of blessed memory. And in my opinion acheir maharu²⁷¹ means, “those who are ‘hasty’ in thought, [from the root maheir — fast] and follow another god precipitately, without consideration and without knowledge.” In the writings of the grammarians²⁷². [acheir maharu is explained as meaning]: “those who give mohar (gifts) to another god,” meaning that they bring him sacrifice and offering.

footnotes: ²³⁰ Deuteronomy 11:16. ²³¹ Job 31:27. ²³² Ibid. ²³³ Proverbs 14:15. ²³⁴ Genesis 32:25. See Vol. 1, pp. 404-405 where Ramban discusses in brief the same theme as here. ²³⁵ See Vol. 1, p. 127 Note 152. ²³⁶ Ezekiel 38:4. ²³⁷ Ruth 2:19. It is of interest to note that Ramban refers to “the Targum of the Scroll of Esther” instead of ascribing it as he had done in the preceding reference to the Targum on the Book of Ezekiel. This indicates that Ramban held them to be of different authorship. Such indeed is the prevailing opinion in modern scholarship (see P. Churgin, Targum Kethuvim, pp. 140-151). ²³⁷ Ruth 2:19. It is of interest to note that Ramban refers to “the Targum of the Scroll of Esther” instead of ascribing it as he had done in the preceding reference to the Targum on the Book of Ezekiel. This indicates that Ramban held them to be of different authorship. Such indeed is the prevailing opinion in modern scholarship (see P. Churgin, Targum Kethuvim, pp. 140-151). ²³⁸ Aboth 2:5. ²³⁹ Berachoth 58a. ²⁴⁰ Daniel 6:15. ²⁴¹ Ezra 4:19. ²⁴² II Kings 23:5. ²⁴³ Job 38:32. ²⁴⁴ Psalms 119:103. ²⁴⁵ Job 6:25. ²⁴⁶ Ibid. ²⁴⁷ Ibid. ²⁴⁸ Daniel 7:8. ²⁴⁹ Ibid. ²⁵⁰ Further, 28:14. ²⁵¹ Mikvaoth 10:5. ²³⁸ Aboth 2:5. ²³⁰ Deuteronomy 11:16. ²⁵² Verse 16, and Kethuboth 39a. ²⁵³ Genesis 24:53. ²⁵⁴ Kiddushin 50a. ²⁵⁵ Baba Bathra 145a. This applies to a case where the marriage was not consumated (Even Ha’ezer 50, 4). ²⁵⁶ Genesis 34:12. ²⁵⁷ I Samuel 20:38. ²⁵⁸ Pesachim 49a. ²⁵⁹ Deuteronomy 22:29. As explained further on in Ramban, this fine [stated in the case of a violator] applies also to a seducer — if he or she refuses marriage. ²⁶⁰ Verse 16 here. ²⁶¹ Mechilta here in the verse, and Kethuboth 10a. ²⁶² Deuteronomy 22:29. ²⁶² Deuteronomy 22:29. ²⁶³ Ezekiel 23:6. ²⁶² Deuteronomy 22:29. ²⁶⁴ Kethuboth 39b. ²⁶⁵ “Even if she be lame, even if she be blind, and even if she is afflicted with boils” (ibid. ²⁶⁶ A na’arah ²⁶⁷ Deuteronomy 22:28. ²⁶⁸ Numbers 30:17. ²⁶⁰ Verse 16 here. ²⁶⁶ A na’arah ²⁶⁹ Kiddushin 3b. ²⁷⁰ There was no need for Scripture here to write na’arah ²⁶⁶ A na’arah ²⁷¹ Psalms 16:4. It is generally translated: “that make suit unto another.” According to Ibn Ezra: “that bind (or connect) themselves with another god.” Ramban’s own interpretation of that verse follows later in the text. ²⁷¹ Psalms 16:4. It is generally translated: “that make suit unto another.” According to Ibn Ezra: “that bind (or connect) themselves with another god.” Ramban’s own interpretation of that verse follows later in the text. ²⁷² R’dak in Sefer Hashorashim, root acheir

THOU SHALT NOT SUFFER A SORCERESS TO LIVE. In connection with all those who are guilty of death, He has said above: moth yumoth (he shall be surely put to death),²⁷³ meaning he is liable to death, and it is a positive commandment upon us to slay him, based upon the verse which says, And thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee,²⁷⁴ commandment of the execution of all four modes of death penalties. Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam) counted them as four separate commandments. See my translation, “The Commandments,” Vol. I, p. 240. or it may be that this obligation on us is derived from the very expression yumoth (he shall be put to death) which He used in these cases.²⁷⁵ But here, however, He did not say, “a sorceress shall be put to death,” but in this case He warned us in a stricter manner by means of a negative commandment, that we should not suffer her to live.²⁷⁶, pp. 285-286. The reason for this is that the sorceress is defiled of name and full of tumult,²⁷⁷ and fools are mislead by her, therefore He was more stringent and admonished us with a prohibition. We find a similar severity in relation to all those who cause snares for many people, such as that which He said in the case of the misleader after idols, neither shalt thou spare, nor shalt thou conceal him,²⁷⁸ and in the case of a murderer He said, And ye shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer, that is guilty of death.²⁷⁹

footnotes: ²⁷³ Above 21:15-17. ²⁷⁴ Deuteronomy 17:7. Ramban is here intimating that this verse is the basis for the one ²⁷⁵ This opinion corresponds closely to that of the author of ‘Hilchoth Gedoloth’ which Rambam in his Sefer Hamitzvoth criticised, and Ramban in his notes to that work defended. See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, p. 420. ²⁷⁶ See ibid. ²⁷⁷ Ezekiel 22:5. ²⁷⁸ Deuteronomy 13:9. ²⁷⁹ Numbers 35:31.

HE THAT SACRIFICETH ‘LO’ELOHIM YOCHARAM’ (SHALL BE UTTERLY DESTROYED). “Lo’elohim means to the idols, for since the word is voweled with a patach,²⁸⁰ and kamatz are in this sense alike, as both indicate the definite article — “those gods which in another place you have been forbidden to worship.” The word lo’elohim is voweled with a kamatz. it means those gods which in another place you have been warned not to worship.” This is Rashi’s language. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that in accordance with the plain meaning of Scripture, this command is not directed to Israel, as they had already been warned in the second of the Ten Commandments against the worship of idols. Instead it was said to “the stranger” mentioned in the following verse, that he may live in our land only on condition that he should not sacrifice to his gods as he was wont to do. — But he [i.e., Ibn Ezra] openeth his mouth in vanity.²⁸¹ For in the Ten Commandments He warned against idolatry by a prohibition, and here He explained the punishment and the law that we are to apply to he who transgresses that commandment, just as He did in the case of Thou shalt not murder; Thou shalt not commit adultery,²⁸² for these are the ordinances which He set before them [with respect to these commandments].²⁸³ Thus He is hereby declaring that one who sacrifices to idols is guilty of death, for the term yocharam means death by the court. Similarly we find, All ‘cheirem’ that may be ‘yocharam’ of men may not be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death.²⁸⁴ signifies death by the court. He uses the term yocharam [of the root cheirem — unlawful, anathema], because he who sacrifices to that which is anathema, deserves destruction, similar to that which is said in the verse, And thou shalt not bring an abomination into thy house, and be ‘cheirem’ (accursed) like unto it; thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is an accursed thing.²⁸⁵ It is possible that the verse includes the slaughterer and the animal slaughtered, to tell us that they both go to cheirem (destruction), thus hinting that it is forbidden to derive any benefit from that which has been offered to the idols. It mentioned sacrificing, but the same law applies to bowing down before the idol, and to all other acts of worship performed in the Sanctuary,²⁸⁶ but other acts of worship — such as sweeping it, or besprinkling it, or putting his arms around it, or kissing it — are not punishable by death, provided that the idol is not usually worshipped in that manner, but if it is the customary way of worshipping it, he is liable to death under all circumstances, even if excreting to Baal Peor. The correct interpretation of the term lo’elohim with the lamed voweled with a patach, [or a kamatz as in this instance], is that it refers to the angels of above who are called elohim in many places of Scripture, as it is written: *There is none like unto Thee among ‘elohim,’ O Eternal;*²⁸⁷ *He is G-d of ‘elohim’ and Lord of lords;*²⁸⁸ *Bow down to him, all ye ‘elohim.’*²⁸⁹ They are also called eilim (the mighty ones),²⁹⁰ as I have already mentioned.²⁹⁰ And He said here, save unto the Eternal only, because those who sacrifice to His angels think that thereby they do His will, and that the angels will be the intermediaries to obtain His favor for them, and that it is as if they sacrifice to G-d and His ministers; therefore He said [that sacrifices must not be brought] save unto the Eternal only.²⁹¹ Inherent in this interpretation is also a profound secret, from which one can understand the concept of offerings, and the student learned in the secrets of the Cabala can understand it from that which we have written elsewhere.²⁹² 5:3. and Seder Yithro 18:13. Onkelos hinted at it here.²⁹³ Eternal only.” With this translation Onkelos indicated that the intention of the sacrifice is to the proper Name of G-d (Abusaulah, and Ma’or V’shamesh). We shall yet allude to it in Torath Kohanim²⁹⁴ see Seder Yithro Note 590. with the help of G-d, may His Name forever be blessed to all eternity.

footnotes: ²⁸⁰ The patach ²⁸¹ Job 35:16. Here in the sense of “worthless” or “unsubstantial.” ²⁸² Above, 20:13. ²⁸³ See Ramban above 21:12 (towards the end) for further explanation. ²⁸⁴ Leviticus 27:29. See Ramban there for full explanation. But here he merely brings proof from this verse that the word yocharam ²⁸⁵ Deuteronomy 7:26. ²⁸⁶ Such as offering incense and libation. Since these acts are performed in the worship of G-d, they come under the terms of this law, so that he who performs them in the worship of the idols is liable to death by the court. ²⁸⁷ Psalms 86:8. ²⁸⁸ Deuteronomy 10:17. ²⁸⁹ Psalms 97:7. ²⁹⁰ Above, 15:11. ²⁹⁰ Above, 15:11. ²⁹¹ See also Ramban above, 20:3. ²⁹² In Seder Shemoth ²⁹³ Onkelos rendered the verse thus: “save unto the name of the ²⁹⁴ Leviticus 1:9. — For the term Torath Kohanim

AND A STRANGER SHALT THOU NOT WRONG, NEITHER SHALT THOU OPPRESS HIM; FOR YE WERE STRANGERS IN THE LAND OF EGYPT. There is no reason why all strangers [from countries outside the land of Egypt] should be included here because of our having been strangers in the land of Egypt! And there is no reason why they be assured for ever against being wronged or oppressed because we were once strangers there! Now Rashi explained that this is a reason for the prohibition against annoying a stranger. G-d warned against vexing him with words, for “if you vex him he can also vex you, by saying to you, “You also descend from strangers.’ Do not reproach your fellow man with a fault which is also in you.” Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained the verses: “Remember that ye were strangers as he is now.” But there is in all these comments no real reason for the law. The correct interpretation appears to me to be that He is saying: “Do not wrong a stranger or oppress him, thinking as you might that none can deliver him out of your hand; for you know that you were strangers in the land of Egypt and I saw the oppression wherewith the Egyptians oppressed²⁹⁵ you, and I avenged your cause on them, because I behold the tears of such who are oppressed and have no comforter, and on the side of their oppressors there is power,²⁹⁶ and I deliver each one from him that is too strong for him.²⁹⁷ Likewise you shall not afflict the widow and the fatherless child,²⁹⁸ for I will hear their cry,²⁹⁹ for all these people do not rely upon themselves but trust in Me.” And in another verse He added this reason: for ye know the soul of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.³⁰⁰ That is to say, you know that every stranger feels depressed, and is always sighing and crying, and his eyes are always directed towards G-d, therefore He will have mercy upon him even as He showed mercy to you, just as it is written, and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto G-d by reason of the bondage,³⁰¹ meaning that He had mercy on them not because of their merits, but only an account of the bondage [and likewise He has mercy on all who are oppressed].

footnotes: ²⁹⁵ Above 3:9. ²⁹⁶ Ecclesiastes 4:1. ²⁹⁷ Psalms 35:10. ²⁹⁸ Verse 21. ²⁹⁹ Verse 22. ³⁰⁰ Further, 23:9. ³⁰¹ Above, 2:23.

ANY WIDOW — even a rich one of quite considerable wealth — YE SHALL NOT AFFLICT, for her tears are frequent and her soul is depressed. He states, *If thou afflict ‘otho’*²⁹⁹ [“him” in the singular], meaning any one [who is a widow or a fatherless child]. Therefore it is written after that, and your wives shall be widows,³⁰² in punishment for your causing the cry of the widow, and your children fatherless,³⁰² in punishment for the cry of the orphan. This punishment [And My wrath shall glow, and I will kill you with the sword etc.]³⁰² is not counted by our Rabbis amongst those brought upon people who are liable to death by the hand of Heaven, as listed in the Beraitha,³⁰³ Note 209. “These are the people who are liable to death by the hand of Heaven” taught in Tractate Sanhedrin.³⁰⁴ The reason for this is that the death mentioned here is unlike the usual death of people by the hand of Heaven, of whom it is said, *and they die therein, if they profane it;*³⁰⁵ and ye die not.³⁰⁶ But here the punishment is that they will die by the enemy’s sword, or he shall go down into battle, and be swept away³⁰⁷ without anyone knowing it, and their wives will thus have to remain forever widows, and their children always be fatherless.

footnotes: ²⁹⁹ Verse 22. ³⁰² Verse 23. ³⁰² Verse 23. ³⁰² Verse 23. ³⁰³ See Seder Bo ³⁰⁴ Sanhedrin 83a. ³⁰⁵ Leviticus 22:9. ³⁰⁶ Numbers 18:32. ³⁰⁷ I Samuel 26:10.

IF THOU AFFLICT HIM IN ANY WISE. “This is an elliptical verse; it threatens, but does not explain the punishment needed to complete the sense of the verse. It is like the verse, therefore, whosoever slayeth Cain,³⁰⁸ which does not explain what the punishment is. Here too, if thou afflict him in any wise, is an expression of determination to inflict punishment, as if to say: ‘In the end you will get your deserts. Why? For if he cry unto Me I will hear him, and I will avenge him.’” This is Rashi’s language. But it is not correct [to interpret a verse on the basis of such a long omission, in order to complete the sense]. The witness he brings [i.e., the verse about Cain] also does not testify to that [kind of long omission]. But it is possible that the word ki [generally translated “for”], here means “if,” for this is one of the usages of the word ki,³⁰⁹, and is generally translated: “for if he cry.” But with the word ki understood as “if”, the verse would read: “if if he cry,” as explained further on in the text. and the verse thus states: “if if he cry at all unto Me, I will surely hear his cry,” the repetition of the word “if” being used in order to show the gravity and importance of the matter, similar in usage to these phrases; hamiblie ein k’varim [generally translated: “Was it because there were no graves…?” — but literally: “was it because there were ‘no no’ graves…?”];³¹⁰ harak ach b’Mosheh [generally translated: “hath the Eternal indeed spoken only with Moses”, but literally: “‘only only’ with Moses].”³¹¹ The correct interpretation appears to me to be that He is stating: “If thou afflict him in any wise, if he will only just cry at all unto Me I will at once hear his cry: he does not need anything else at all, for I will save him and avenge his cause from you. And the reason for this is that you oppress him because [you think] he has no one to help him against you, but behold he has more help than anyone else. For other people will try to find saviors to save them, and helpers to avenge their cause, and perhaps they cannot profit nor deliver,³¹² while this one will be saved by the Eternal merely through his crying out, and He will take vengeance from you, for The Eternal is a jealous and avenging G-d.”³¹³ There are many verses to a similar effect. Thus, that which He said, Rob not the weak, because he is weak, neither crush the poor in the gate; for the Eternal will plead their cause,³¹⁴ means: “rob not the poor merely because he is poor and has no helpers, nor crush the poor in your gates, for the Eternal will plead on their behalf.” Similarly He said, *And enter not into the fields of the fatherless, for their Redeemer is strong;*³¹⁵, 23:10-11. the Eternal of hosts is His Name,³¹⁶. for they have a Redeemer Who is stronger and closer to them than all people have. Here also He said, that just by his cry, the fatherless will be saved. Likewise: For as the rain cometh down and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, except it water the earth, and make it bring forth and bud, and give seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so shall My word be that goeth forth out of My mouth; it shall not return unto Me void, except it accomplish that which I please.³¹⁷ In both phrases [except it water — except it accomplish] He is stating that they³¹⁸ will do nothing else other than to water the earth immediately, and so also will My word do that which I please. Thus the meaning of the word ki [ki im hirvah — ki im asah: except it water — except it accomplish] has the sense of “but.” And so also: ‘ki im’ (but) I will depart to mine own land, and to my kindred.³¹⁹

footnotes: ³⁰⁸ Genesis 4:15. ³⁰⁹ Rosh Hashanah 3a. The verse here reads: ki im tza’ok yitzak ³¹⁰ Exodus 14:11. ³¹¹ Numbers 12:2. ³¹² I Samuel 12:21. ³¹³ Nachum 1:2. ³¹⁴ Proverbs 22:22-23. ³¹⁵ Ibid. ³¹⁶ Jeremiah 50:34: Their Redeemer is strong, the Eternal of hosts is His Name ³¹⁷ Isaiah 55:10-11. ³¹⁸ I.e., the rain and the snow. ³¹⁹ Numbers 10:30.

THOU SHALT NOT BE TO HIM AS AN EXACTOR — that is, a creditor. He is saying that the lender should not behave to the borrower like a creditor who is a sort of lord over the borrower, as it is written, and the borrower is a servant to the lender,³²⁰ but instead you should behave to him exactly as if he had never borrowed from you; neither shall you lay upon him interest, whether interest of money, interest of victuals.³²¹ Rather, the loan to him should be an act of goodness; you should not take from him any mark of honor because of it, nor are you to derive any monetary benefit from it.

footnotes: ³²⁰ Proverbs 22:7. ³²¹ Deuteronomy 23:20.

AND I WILL HEAR FOR I AM GRACIOUS — showing favor and accepting everyone’s supplication even though he is unworthy, the word chanun (gracious) being derived from the word chinam (for nothing). And the meaning of the verse is that you should not think: “I will not take the righteous man’s garment as a pledge, but the garment of a man who is not righteous I will take as a pledge and not return to him, for G-d will not hear his cry.” Therefore He said, for I am gracious and I hear the cry of all who beseech Me.

THOU SHALL NOT CURSE ‘ELOHIM.’ Onkelos translated it as referring to a judge, that one is not to curse him if he should hold him guilty in a lawsuit. Lo takeil [Onkelos’ rendition of the Hebrew lo t’kaleil — thou shalt not curse], is the Aramaic expression for “cursing.” Thus: “Meikal l’hu (they curse him): May the Eternal cut off to the man that doeth this, him that calleth and him that answereth.”³²² There are many similar expressions, in the language of the Talmud Yerushalmi.

footnotes: ³²² Malachi 2:12. — Yerushalmi Shabbath III, 7.

NOR CURSE A ‘NASI’ OF THY PEOPLE — nasi means the one who is “lifted up” above his people, namely, the king. He thus mentioned that one is not to curse him in case he declares him guilty in a trial before him. In the opinion of our Rabbis in the Gemara,³²³ Thou shalt not curse ‘Elokim,’ constitutes an admonition against blaspheming the Name of G-d, even by one of the substituted names [such as: Gracious and Merciful etc.].³²⁴ Thus He warned against cursing the King on high, blessed be He, and also the monarch that reigns on earth. The Rabbis have also said in the Gemara³²³ that included in the term Elokim, is the Glorious Name,³²⁵ as well as the judge who sits in the seat of G-d³²⁶ on earth. But it has not been explained whether the term nasi includes the head of the Great Sanhedrin,³²⁷ who is called nasi in the Gemara.³²⁸ Harav Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon said³²⁹ that he is included under the term of this prohibition. And so it also appears to me, on the basis of a question that Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi³³⁰ so that [in the time of the Sanctuary] the law of a special sin-offering for the prince (see Leviticus 4:22-26) applied to him as well, since he was the nasi of the Sanhedrin, or perhaps because he had his counterpart in the Diaspora — the Exilarch — his authority was no longer unique as that of a king, and therefore his sin-offering is to be like that of any individual Israelite. It is thus obvious that the office of the Chief of the Sanhedrin as such is included under the term nasi. asked about himself:³³¹ “A person in my status, am I to bring a sa’ir³³², Verse 28). etc.?” If so, He is stating: “Do not curse any ruler of the people, who holds a position of supreme authority over all Israel, whether that position be in the secular sphere of government or in the rule of Torah,” for the head of the Sanhedrin is the highest position in the authority of the Torah.

footnotes: ³²³ Sanhedrin 66a. ³²⁴ See Mishneh Torah, Mada, Hilchoth Yesodei Hatorah 6:5. ³²³ Sanhedrin 66a. ³²⁵ Deuteronomy 28:58. — I.e., the Tetragrammaton. ³²⁶ Ezekiel 28:2. ³²⁷ The Great Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one judges, and sat in the court of the Sanctuary. A small Sanhedrin of twenty-three judges was to be found in every city. ³²⁸ Sanhedrin 19b. ³²⁹ In his Book of the Commandments, Negative Commandment 316 (See Vol. II of my translation, p. 290). ³³⁰ Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi, the redactor of the Mishnah, was Chief of the Sanhedrin of his generation. — The question he asked concerning himself was whether he had, in the eyes of the Law, the status of a nasi ³³¹ Horayoth 11b. ³³² A male goat. See Leviticus 4:23. The individual Israelite brings a female goat as a sin-offering (ibid.

M’LEIATHCHA V’DIM’ACHA’ (OF THE FULNESS OF THY HARVEST, AND OUT OF THE OUTFLOW OF THY PRESSES) THOU SHALT NOT DELAY TO OFFER. We find the word m’leiah with reference to seed, thus: lest there be forfeited ‘ham’leiah’ (the fulness) of the seed which thou hast sown,³³³ and again: ‘v’kamleiah’ (and as the fulness) of the winepress,³³⁴ meaning wine and oil, just as it is said, and the vats shall overflow with wine and oil.³³⁵ It appears to me in connection with these terms, that fruits of the field and vineyard are called t’vuah [of the root bo — come in] because the farmers “bring” the whole crop in together to the homes. It is also called asif (the ingathering): *‘osef’ (the ingathering) shall not come;*³³⁶ and the feast of ‘ha’asif’ (the ingathering).³³⁷ This is why produce is called m’leiah (fulness), because a gathering-together into one place of a mass of material or people is called milui (fulness): *though there be called forth against him ‘m’lo’ (a multitude of) shepherds;*³³⁸ *even they are ‘malei’ (in full) cry after you;*³³⁹ *together against me ‘yitmalo’un’*³⁴⁰ — they gather themselves and come. Similarly, and his seed shall become ‘m’lo’ nations³⁴¹ — means an assembly and multitude of nations. It is further possible that produce is called m’leiah (full) as a substitute term for a blessing — that the granaries shall be full of corn, and the vats shall overflow with wine and oil,³⁴² and the reaper fills his hands, and the binder of sheaves his bosom,³⁴³ and gathers grapes in the vintage. For when their portion is cursed³⁴⁴ Scripture says, Let them be as the grass upon the housetops, which withereth afore it springeth up; wherewith the reaper filleth not his hand, nor he that bindeth sheaves, his bosom,³⁴⁵ but when their portion is blessed, it is called m’leiah (full). And in that case dim’acha [literally: “your tear”] is an allusion to wine and oil, a usage borrowed from dim’ath ha’ayin (tear of the eye), because the drops from the grape and olive resemble the tear of the eye. Or it may be that all moisture that falls in globules — even drops of water — are called dim’ah (tear), such as: and mine eyes shall run down ‘dim’ah’ (with tear),³⁴⁶ and it is not a term used only for tears. And the intention of the verse is, that when you gather in the crops of the field, and the granaries will be full of corn,³⁴² and you press the grapes and olives to extract their juice, and the vats shall overflow with wine and oil,³⁴² you should not delay them in your possession, but right at the beginning you are to give your tithings to Me, just as He said, The first fruits of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil… shalt thou give him — [i.e., the priest].³⁴⁷ In the opinion of our Rabbis,³⁴⁸ of blessed memory, thou shalt not delay means that: “you are not to set aside last what should be first, [and set aside first what should be last].” Now here He did not explain [the correct order of the gifts], for here He mentions the commandments in a general way, and afterwards He explained them in detail. The Rabbis arranged the order of the gifts as follows: first-fruits, the heave-offering, the First Tithe, and the Second Tithe.³⁴⁹ This order they established on the basis of the following interpretation with reference to these gifts, just as we have been taught:³⁵⁰ “How do we know that first-fruits come before the heave-offering, being that this one is called by Scripture terumah (heave-offering) and reshith (the first), and the other is also called terumah and *reshith?*³⁵¹ (the heave-offering of your hand); they are called reshith in this Scriptural section (further 23:19). The heave-offering is called terumah in Numbers 18:8, and is called reshith in Deuteronomy 18:4. First-fruits have priority because they are the first [to grow] of all produce. The heave-offering comes before the First Tithe, because it is called reshith (the first),³⁵¹ (the heave-offering of your hand); they are called reshith in this Scriptural section (further 23:19). The heave-offering is called terumah in Numbers 18:8, and is called reshith in Deuteronomy 18:4. and the First Tithe comes before the Second Tithe because it contains in it reshith” [since the Levite who receives the First Tithe must give a tenth of it as terumah to the priest]. Onkelos translated m’leiathcha v’dim’acha: “bikurach (your first fruit), v’dim’ach.”³⁵² untranslated. As explained further it is a term denoting the priest’s share of the produce — in other words, the terumah [or the heave-offering]. According to Onkelos the verse thus refers to the first-fruits and the heave-offering. And Rashi explained: “M’leiathcha — this means the duty which falls upon you when your crop becomes fully ripened, and it refers to the first-fruits. V’dim’acha means the heave-offering. But I do not know what the term dim’a means.” It is similarly stated in the Mechilta:³⁴⁸ “M’leiathcha means the first-fruits which are taken from the full crop, and dim’acha means the heave-offering.” Perhaps in the same way that according to the Rabbis the first-fruits are called in this verse m’leiah (fulness), because they are taken from the full crop, so the heave-offering is called dim’ah [literally: “tear” or “outflow,” as explained above], because it is set aside from wine and oil, [as liquids], not from the fruit. Scripture mentioned only these two kinds of produce, [wine and oil], in order to hint at the law that the heave-offering only has to be set aside from them when in the form of wine and oil, there being no obligation upon the owner to anticipate and set it aside when they are still grapes and olives. Thus He only mentioned these commandments here by way of allusion, as if to say, “Be careful to keep these commandments about which I will command you further,” in a similar manner to that which He said above, and I will appoint thee a place whither he may flee.³⁵³ This was in order to write down these commandments in the book of the covenant³⁵⁴ which He mentions in a subsequent section, and Scripture explains them all again in another place, [each one in detail].

footnotes: ³³³ Deuteronomy 22:9. ³³⁴ Numbers 18:27. ³³⁵ Joel 2:24. ³³⁶ Isaiah 32:10. ³³⁷ Further, 23:16. ³³⁸ Isaiah 31:4. ³³⁹ Jeremiah 12:6. ³⁴⁰ Job 16:10. ³⁴¹ Genesis 48:19. ³⁴² Joel 2:24. ³⁴³ See Psalms 129:7. ³⁴⁴ Job 24:18. ³⁴⁵ Psalms 129:6-7. ³⁴⁶ Jeremiah 13:17. ³⁴² Joel 2:24. ³⁴² Joel 2:24. ³⁴⁷ Deuteronomy 18:4. ³⁴⁸ Mechilta here on the Verse. ³⁴⁹ The first-fruits are brought to the Sanctuary and then given to the priest. The heave-offering is given to the priest, the First Tithe to the Levite, and the Second Tithe is eaten by the owner in Jerusalem. See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 145-146, for full discussion of this commandment. ³⁵⁰ Terumoth 3:7. ³⁵¹ Deuteronomy 12:6 speaks of first-fruits as terumath yedchem ³⁵¹ Deuteronomy 12:6 speaks of first-fruits as terumath yedchem ³⁵² Onkelos thus left the Hebrew word v’dim’acha ³⁴⁸ Mechilta here on the Verse. ³⁵³ Above, 21:13. ³⁵⁴ Further, 24:7.

AND YE SHALL BE HOLY MEN UNTO ME. The reason for the expression in this verse is that until now He mentioned only the ordinances and admonished them about repulsive matters,³⁵⁵ but now when He is about to begin the law of forbidden food, He prefaced it by saying, And ye shall be holy men unto Me. For in order to preserve his physical life man should [be able to] eat anything which serves that purpose, and the prohibitions concerning certain foods are only a means of guarding the purity of the soul, in order that one should eat clean things which do not give rise to harshness and coarseness in the soul. Therefore He said, And ye shall be holy men unto Me, that is to say: “I want you to be holy men so that you will become suitable for Me, to cleave to Me, for I am Holy; therefore do not defile your souls by eating abominable things.” And similarly He said, Ye shall not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing that swarmeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby. For I am the Eternal your G-d; sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy; for I am Holy.³⁵⁶ Swarming things thus make the soul detestable, but the treifah³⁵⁷ is not detestable, however abstention from eating it adds holiness.

footnotes: ³⁵⁵ Such as those described above in Verses 17-21. ³⁵⁶ Leviticus 11:43-44. ³⁵⁷ See above, Note 189.