Ki Tetze 2nd Portion
Various Laws
22 If
someone guilty of a capital offense [the rationale of the juxtaposition: If the
rebellious son is pitied by his parents, in the end he will become corrupt and
commit transgressions for which he will be sentenced to death by the court], is
put to death and their body is exposed [i.e., his body, after stoning] on a
pole,
Rashi’s Commentary
If someone guilty of a capital
offense—The juxtaposition of these
sections (this and that of the rebellious son) tells us that if father and
mother spare him (the rebellious son), he will in the latter end turn to
mischief and commit sins for which he will become liable to the death penalty
by the court (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Tetze 1).
Sifrei Devarim 221:1
If a man guilty of a capital offense
is put to death and their body is exposed on a pole—A man is hanged (i.e., suspended after death) and not a
woman. R. Eliezer says: A woman, too, is hanged.
23 you must not leave the body hanging on the pole overnight. Be sure
to bury it that same day, because anyone who is [his remaining] hung [man being
God’s image, and the children of Israel, his sons] on a pole is under God’s
curse. You must not desecrate the land the Lord your God is giving
you as an inheritance.
Sanhedrin 46b:8
The mishna teaches that everyone, not
only an executed transgressor, must be buried on the day of his death, if
that is at all possible. Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar
Yoḥai: From where is it derived that one who leaves his deceased
relative overnight without burying him transgresses a prohibition?
The verse states: “Be sure to bury it” (Deu 21:23), doubling the verb for
emphasis. From here it is derived that one who leaves his deceased
relative overnight without burying him transgresses a prohibition.
1 If
you see your fellow Israelite’s ox or sheep straying, do not ignore it but be
sure to take it back to its owner.
Bava Metzia 30a:14
The mishna teaches: If a person found
a sack or a basket or any other item that it is
not his typical manner to take and carry because it
is beneath his dignity, he shall not take it.
The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It
is as the Sages taught in a baraita: It is stated
with regard to the return of a lost item: “If you see your fellow Israelite’s
ox or sheep wandering, do not disregard it; take it back to its owner”
(Deu 22:1). The tanna explains that the phrase “disregard it” means
that there are occasions in which you may disregard lost
items and there are occasions in which
you may not disregard them.
Bava Metzia 30b:15
MISHNA: Which
is the item that is considered lost property? If one
found a donkey or a cow grazing on the path, that is not lost property, as
presumably the owners are nearby and are aware of the animals’ whereabouts. If
one found a donkey with its accoutrements overturned, or a cow that ran
through the vineyards, that is lost property. In a case where one
returned the lost animal and it fled, and he
again returned it and it fled, even if this scenario repeats
itself four or five times, he is obligated to return
it each time, as it is stated: “If you see your
fellow Israelite’s ox or sheep wandering, do not disregard it; take it back
to its owner” (Deu 22:1).
Rashi’s Commentary
If you see . . . do not ignore it—“If you see it . . . but not ignore it!” (i.e. if you see it do
not ignore it), this is the plain sense of the verse. Our Rabbis, however, said
that although the verse clearly means that one must not ignore it,
nevertheless, the verse suggests: There are times when one is, in fact,
permitted to ignore them for example, if he is a priest, and the animals
have wandered into a cemetery, where priests may not enter, or if he is an
honored sage, and it it is beneath his dignity to lead animals or carry
packages in public places—he may “ignore” it, and he is not obligated to return
it to his brother (Bava Metzia 30a; Sifrei Devarim 225:4).
Ignore it—i.e. one, as it were closes his eyes tight as though one does not
see it.
2 If
they do not live near you or if you do not know who owns it, take it home with
you and keep it until they come looking for it [when he comes to claim it, to
ascertain that his claims are legitimate]. Then give it back. [It must
constitute a “return;” do not feed it as much as it is worth and then claim
that amount from the owner. But if its work can compensate for its food, then
let it work; if not, sell it and give that money to the owner.]
Bava Metzia 27b:4
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof
from a mishna (28b): “If they do not live near you or if you do not know who
owns it, take it home with you and keep it until they come looking for it.
Then give it back” (Deu 22:2). Would it enter your mind that he would give the
lost item to him before he claims it? How can the finder
return it if he does not know the identity of the owner? Rather, the
verb come looking is not referring to the claim of the owner; it is
referring to the scrutiny performed by the finder. Scrutinize him to
determine whether the claimant is a swindler or whether
he is not a swindler. Only then may you return the lost item to him.
Bava Metzia 28a:2
Rather, Rava said: Identification of an item on the basis of distinguishing
marks is by Law, as it is written: “If they do not live
near you or if you do not know who owns it, take it home with you and keep
it until they come looking for it. Then give it back” (Deu 22:2). Would
it enter your mind that he would give the lost item to him
before he claims it? How can the finder return it if he does not know
the identity of the owner? Rather, the verb come looking
is not referring to the claim of the owner; it is referring to the scrutiny
performed by the finder. Scrutinize him to determine whether the
claimant is a swindler or whether he is not a
swindler. Only then may you return the lost item to him. What, is
it not that the one who claims the lost item proves that he is not a
swindler on the basis of distinguishing marks that he
provides? Rava affirms: Conclude from it that identification
of an item on the basis of distinguishing marks is by Law.
Bava Metzia 28b:5
MISHNA: If
a claimant accurately stated what type of item the
lost item that was found by another is, but did not state, i.e.,
describe, its distinguishing marks, the finder shall
not give it to him. And in the case of a
swindler, even though he stated its distinguishing marks, the
finder shall not give the lost item to him, as it is
stated: “If they do not live near you or if you do not know who owns it,
take it home with you and keep it until they come looking for it. Then
give it back” (Deu 22:2). Would it enter your mind that the finder would give
it to him before he claims it? How can the finder return it if he does not know
the identity of the owner? Rather, the verb come looking is not
referring to the claim of the owner; it is referring to the scrutiny performed
by the finder. You shall not return the lost item until you scrutinize
your brother to determine whether he, the
claimant, is a swindler or whether he is not a
swindler.
Bava Metzia 28b:13
MISHNA: If
one finds any living being that works and generates
enough revenue to cover the costs of the food that it eats, it shall
work and eat while in the finder’s possession. And any living being
that does not work but it does eat shall be sold, as it is
stated: “Take it home with you and keep it until they come
looking for it. Then give it back” (Deu 22:2), indicating that the
finder must see how best to return it to him. Since
the owner must repay the finder for his expenditures, if feeding the animal
costs more than its value, the finder’s keep-ing the animal in his possession
will prevent the owner from recovering it.
Bava Metzia 28b:21
The mishna teaches: And any
living being that does not work but it does eat shall
be sold. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse
states: “Then give it back” (Deu 22:2), indicating that the finder
must see how best to return it to him, meaning that one shall
not feed the value of a calf to the lost calves that
he is tending, nor the value of a foal to the
lost foals that he is tending, nor the value
of a goose to the geese that he is
tending, nor the value of a rooster to the roosters that
he is tending. Were the finder to do so, ultimately, the owner would receive
nothing.
Rashi’s Commentary
And keep it until they come looking for it—But would
it ever enter your mind that one could give it back before he enquires for it
(Scripture distinctly states that you do not know to whom the animal belongs)?!
But the meaning of the verse is that you must keep the animal until
you make diligent enquiries of him that he should not be a fraudulent claimant
(Bava Metzia 27b, 28a; cf. Sifrei Devarim 223:4).
Then give it back—It is necessary that there be something left in it to give back—that
it (the animal) should not eat in your hometo its own value, and you claim this
from him (in which case there is no actual restoration of what has been lost).
From here, they (the Rabbis) derived the law: Whatever works and requires food
(as, for instance, oxen, etc., the cost of whose food is set off by the value
of its labour) should work and eat; whatever does not work but requires feeding
(as, for instance, sheep) should be sold and the money restored to the man who
lost it (Bava Metzia 28b).
3 Do
the same if you find their donkey or cloak or anything else they have lost. Do
not ignore it.
Bava Metzia 2a:7
The Gemara challenges this
explanation: But how can you say that what the
term: If you find anything, means is actually: I saw it? But
didn’t Rabbenai say in interpreting the verse: “Do the same if you
find anything else they have lost” (Deu 22:3), that “if you find anything” indicates
that it came into his possession? The term find in the Law refers exclusively
to a situation where the item is in the possession of the finder.
Bava Metzia 22b:5
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a
proof from that which Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael
ben Yehotzadak: From where is it derived with regard to a lost
item that the river swept away that it is permitted for its finder to
keep it? It is derived from this verse, as it is written: “Do the same
if you find their donkey or cloak or with every item they have lost” (Deu
22:3). The verse states that one must return that which is lost from
him, the owner, but is available to be found
by any person. Excluded from that obligation is that which is
lost from him and is not available to be found by any person; it
is ownerless property and anyone who finds it may keep it.
Bava Metzia 27a:4
GEMARA: When
the mishna says that the cloak was included in the generalization that
one must return all of these items, in what generalization
is it included? Rava said: It is included in the
generalization: “Do the same if you find their donkey or cloak or with every
item they have lost. You may not disregard it” (Deu 22:3).
Bava Metzia 31a:2
Rava says that the verse: “Do the same with every item they have
lost” (Deu 22:3), serves to include an obligation to
protect your brother from the loss of his land. Rav Ḥananya
said to Rava: There is a baraita that is taught
that supports your opinion. If one saw water that is flowing
and coming to inundate another’s field, he must establish a
barrier before the water in order to preserve the field.
Rashi’s Commentary
Do not ignore it—i.e. You must not cover your eyes, pretending not to see it.
Sifrei Devarim 224:1
And thus shall you do with their
donkey—It works and it eats.
4 If
you see your fellow Israelite’s donkey or ox fallen on the road, do not ignore
it. Help the owner [if he himself does not care to do so, you are exempt] get
it to its feet [raise the animal’s fallen load].
Rashi’s Commentary
Help the owner get it to its feet—i.e. with the owner. But if he goes aside and sits down and says
to him, “Since it is a duty for you to load it, if you want to load, go ahead
and load!”—I am not commanded to do it, he is exempt from doing it (cf. Bava
Metzia 32a).
Get it to its feet—This refers to the duty of loading—to re-load the burden that fell
from it.
If you see your fellow Israelite’s
donkey or ox fallen on the road, do not ignore it. Help the owner get it to its
feet.
5 A
woman must not wear men’s clothing [making her appear like a man, so that she
can mix with them, this being a ploy for promiscuity], nor a man wear women’s
clothing [in order to mix with them], for the Lord your God detests
anyone who does this [the Law forbade only clothing which leads to “abomination”].
Nazir 59a:2
The Gemara asks: And what does the
first tanna, who holds that the prohibition is by rabbinic
law, learn from this verse: “Nor a man wear women’s
clothing?” The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which is taught in
the baraita, where it states: “A woman must not wear that which
pertains to a man, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for
the Lord your God detests anyone who does this” (Deu 22:5). What
is the meaning when the verse states this? If it
teaches only that a man may not wear women’s clothing, and a woman may
not wear men’s clothing, it is already stated in explanation of this
prohibition that “the Lord your God detests it,” and there is no
abomination here in the mere act of wearing a garment.
Rashi’s Commentary
A woman must not wear men’s clothing—So that she look like a man, in order to consort with men, for
this can only be for the purpose of adultery (unchastity) (cf. Nazir 59a; Sifrei
Devarim 226:1).
Nor a man wear women’s clothing in order to go and stay unnoticed amongst women. Another
explanation of the second part of the text is: it implies that a man should not
remove the hair of the genitals and the hair beneath the arm-pit (Nazir 59a).
For the Lord your God
detests anyone who does this—This implies
that the Law forbids only the wearing of a garb that leads to abomination
(unchastity) (cf. Sifrei Devarim 226:1).
A woman must not wear men’s clothing,
nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone
who does this.
Sifrei Devarim 226:1
A woman must not wear a man’s
vestment—What does Scripture come to teach us? If
that she should not wear colored clothing, is it not written (Ibid.)
“for the abomination, etc.?” And this is not an abomination. It
means, rather, that a woman should not wear what a man wears and go among the
men (for licentious purposes), and a man should not wear colored clothing and
go among the women.
6 If
you come across a bird’s nest beside the road [this excludes what is already at
hand (i.e., domesticated fowl)], either in a tree or on the ground, and the
mother is sitting on the young or on the eggs, do not take the mother with the
young.
Chullin 139b:6
If the nest of a bird chance before
you—What do we learn to say from here?
Rashi’s Commentary
If you come across a bird’s nest—This excludes that which is always ready at hand (Chullin 193a; Sifrei
Devarim 227:1).
Do not take the mother so long as she is sitting on the young.
Sifrei Devarim 227:1
If you come across a bird’s
nest—To exclude what is normally found there.
7 You
may take the young, but be sure to let the mother go, so that it may go well
with you and you may have a long life [a fortiori, the granting of reward for
the observance of more difficult commands].
Bava Metzia 102a:23
And now that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It is prohibited to acquire the eggs
as long as the mother bird is upon them, as it is first stated:
“Let the mother go” and only then: “You may take the young”
(Deu 22:7), even if you say that the eggs fully
emerged and fell into his courtyard, he will not acquire them,
because in any case in which a courtyard owner is able
to acquire an item by himself,his courtyard can effect acquisition of
it for him, but in any case in which he is
unable to acquire an item by himself, his courtyard cannot
effect acquisition of it for him either.
Chullin 139b:7
Since it is stated (Deu 22:7), “You may
take the children, but be sure to send the mother”—it is possible that he
should go seek in the mountains and hills so that he find a nest.
Rashi’s Commentary
So that it may go well with you and
you may have a long life—If in the case of an
easy command which involves no monetary loss, Scripture states “Do this so that
it may go well with you and that you may have a long life,” it follows à
fortiori that this at least will be the grant of the reward for the fulfilment
of commands which are more difficult to observe (Chullin 142a).
Sifrei Devarim 228:1
Comments
Post a Comment