Ki Tetze 3rd Portion
8 [The
rationale of the juxtaposition of the verses that follow: If you fulfill the command
of sending away the mother bird, in the end, you will build a new house and
fulfill the command of making a parapet, (for one command brings another in its
train), and you will attain to a vineyard, and a field, and beautiful
garments.] When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that
you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from
the roof [he deserves to fall (in terms of God’s judgment) notwithstanding
which, let his falling not be occasioned by you, (merit being occasioned by the
meritorious one, and liability by him who is liable)].
Bava Metzia 101b:18
GEMARA: The
Sages taught in a baraita: If one rents out a house
to another, the landlord bears the responsibility to install doors
for it, to open windows in its walls to provide light for it,
to strengthen its ceiling, and to support its cross beam.
And the renter bears the responsibility to make a ladder for it to
provide access to the roof, to erect a parapet around its roof (see
Deu 22:8), to construct a gutter for it to carry away rain which
falls on the roof, and to plaster its roof so that rain does
not leak through it.
Rashi’s Commentary
A parapet—Heb. מַעֲקֶה, a
fence around the roof. Onkelos renders it by תְּיָקָא; the fencing is like a casing (תִּיק) which guards things
that are within it.
If someone falls—This man deserved to fall to his death (on account of some crime
he had committed), nevertheless his death should not be occasioned by your
agency, for meritorious things are brought about through the agency of good men
and bad things only through the agency of evil men (Sifrei Devarim 229:7).
9 Do
not plant two kinds of seed [wheat, barley, and grain kernels with one
hand-throw] in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops [i.e., the growth]
you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled.
Berakhot 22a:13
In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya with regard to diverse
kinds, as it is written: “Do not plant diverse kinds in your vineyard” (Deu
22:9). Rabbi Yoshiya says: This means that one who sows
diverse kinds is not liable by Law until he sows wheat and
barley and a grape pit with a single hand motion, meaning
that while sowing in the vineyard he violates the prohibition of diverse kinds
that applies to seeds and to the vineyard simultaneously.
Kiddushin 56b:5
The mishna stated that one may not
betroth a woman with diverse kinds in a vineyard. From where do we derive
that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from diverse kinds in a
vineyard? Ḥizkiyya said: The verse states: “Do not plant diverse
kinds in your vineyard; if you do, not only the growth of the seed that you plant
but also the fruit of the vineyard will be forbidden” (Deu 22:9). Ḥizkiyya
expounds “the growth of the seed that you plant will be forbidden” as: It
will be burned, indicating that the seed of diverse kinds must be destroyed
by fire, so that no benefit is derived from it.
Rashi’s Commentary
Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard—i.e. wheat and barley together with kernels of grapes with one and
the same hand-throw (Berakhot 22a; Chullin 82b; Kiddushin 39a).
The crops—This is the fullness and crops which the seed produces.
10 Do
not plow [the same applies to leading them tied together in the carrying of any
load] with an ox and a donkey yoked together [the same applies to any two
different kinds of animals].
Bava Metzia 8b:4
Rav Yosef said: Rav Yehuda said to
me: Although I do not remember what Shmuel
said, let us see if we can
analyze this ourselves, as we learned in a mishna concerning the
prohibition against leading animals of diverse kinds (Kilayim 8:3):
If two animals of diverse kinds, e.g., a horse and a donkey, are harnessed to
the same wagon, the one leading the animals incurs the
forty lashes for transgressing the prohibition of the Law: “Do not
plow with an ox and a donkey . . . together” (Deu 22:10), and the one
sitting in the wagon also incurs the forty lashes. Rabbi
Meir deems the one sitting in the wagon exempt, as he did not perform
any action.
Rashi’s Commentary
Do not plow with an ox and a donkey—The same law applies to any two different kinds of animals in
existence; the same law applies also to merely driving them together (when not
ploughing) whilst they are yoked together as a pair carrying any load (Sifrei
Devarim 232:1-2; cf. Bava Metzia 8b; Kilayim 8:2-3).
11 Do
not wear clothes of wool and linen woven [a mixture] together.
Nazir 41b:2
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi
Eliezer, from where does he derive the general principlethat a
positive command will come and override a prohibition? The
Gemara answers: He derives it from the command
of ritual tassels. As it is taught in a baraita:
This verse: “Do not wear diverse kinds of wool and linen” (Deu
22:11).
Nazir 58a:6
The Gemara answers: He derives it from
the case of ritual fringes. How so? As the verse
states: “You shall not wear diverse kinds of wool and linen . . . together”
(Deu 22:11), and it is taught in a baraita that
although the command “You shall not wear diverse kinds” applies to most
cases, the juxtaposed verse: “Make for you tassels” (Deu 22:12), teaches
that one may prepare ritual tassels even from diverse kinds of
wool and linen. This teaches that the positive command of ritual tassels overrides
the prohibition of diverse kinds.
12 Make
tassels [even from a mixture—hence the juxtaposition] on the four corners of
the cloak you wear.
Rashi’s Commentary
Make tassels—Be they even from a mixture of wool and linen; for this reason
Scripture puts them these two commandments: a mixture and tassels (Yevamot 4a).
Yevamot 5b:1
They learn this from the first
verse, which permits a mixture of diverse kinds of wool and linen in
ritual tassels. As for the previous claim that in the opinion of the Rabbis the
phrase “wool and linen” is not superfluous and therefore there is no cause to
derive from the juxtaposed verses, the answer is as follows: If so, that
no homiletical interpretation can be derived from this source, let the
verse say only: Make tassels. Why do I need the expression “tassels”?
(Deu 22:12) Conclude from this that this phrase is
free, i.e., a homiletical interpretation can be derived by the
juxtaposition of verses due to this superfluous phrase.
Marriage Violations
13 If a
man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her
Sifrei Devarim 235:1
If a man takes a wife and, after
sleeping with her, dislikes her—R. Yehudah says:
If he cohabits with her, he receives stripes (for libeling her viz. Deu
22:14); if not, he does not receive stripes.
14 and
slanders her and gives her a bad name [transgression brings transgression in
its wake—if he transgresses (Lev 19:17): “Do not hate,” in the end he comes to
slander], saying, “I married this woman [whence it is derived that the charge
must be made in the presence of the defendant], but when I approached her, I
did not find proof of her virginity,”
Rashi’s Commentary
This woman—Hence we derive the law that one must not speak
anything to the judge except in the presence of the opposing party (Sifrei
Devarim 235:6).
Sifrei Devarim 235:1
If a man takes a wife and, after
sleeping with her, dislikes her—R. Yehudah says:
If he cohabits with her, he receives stripes (for libeling her viz. Deu
22:14); if not, he does not receive stripes.
15 then
the young woman’s father and mother shall bring [“let the rearers of the evil
sprout be shamed by it” (had she been completely virtuous she would not have
been suspected)] to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin.
Rashi’s Commentary
The young woman’s father and mother shall
bring . . . proof . . .—Let those
who have reared this depraved child (lit., “evil plant”) be exposed to contempt
because of her (Sifrei Devarim 235:9).
16 Her
father will say to the elders [whence it is seen that a woman is not permitted
to speak up when her husband is present (to do so)], “I gave my daughter in
marriage to this man, but he dislikes her.
Rashi’s Commentary
Her father will say to the elders—Although both parents appear before them, yet the father alone
shall speak—this teaches that a woman is not allowed to speak in the presence
of her husband (if he, too, is concerned in the matter) (Sifrei Devarim
235:10).
17 Now
he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’
But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall
display the cloth before the elders of the town [i.e., they shall make her
innocence of the accusation as manifest as a spread-out cloth],
Ketubot 46a:23
The Gemara poses yet another question
on the same lines: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer
ben Ya’akov, this is at it is written: “Then her parents shall display
the cloth” (Deu 22:17). The father brings the sheet on which the couple had
intercourse and shows that it is stained with blood. However, according to
the opinion of the Rabbis, who claim that a husband can defame his wife
even if they have not engaged in intercourse, what is the meaning of the
phrase “Then her parents shall display the cloth”?
Rashi’s Commentary
Then her parents shall display the
cloth—This is a figurative
expression: they must make the matter as white (as clear) as a sheet (Ketubot
46a; Sifrei Devarim 237:1).
18 and
the elders shall take the man and punish him [with stripes].
Rashi’s Commentary
And punish him—i.e. with lashes (Ketubot 46a; Sifrei
Devarim 238:2; cf. Onkelos).
Sifrei Devarim 238:1
And the elders of the city shall
take the man and punish him—The man—and not
a minor.
19 They
shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young
woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She
shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
Ketubot 44b:4
Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: The
defamer of an orphan girl is exempt, as it is
stated: “The shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give
them to the young woman’s father” (Deu 22:19), which excludes this one
who does not have a father.
Ketubot 44b:7
Rava said, in contrast to Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina, that one who defames an
orphan is obligated to pay the fine. From where does he learn
this? He learns this from the fact that Ami taught that the fine
applies to one who defamed “an Israelite virgin” (Deu 22:19) and
does not apply to one who defamed a virgin who is a convert.
20 If,
however, the charge is true [witnesses and prior warning obtaining that she had
been adulterous after betrothal] and no proof of the young woman’s virginity
can be found,
Rashi’s Commentary
If, however, the charge is true—Proven by evidence of witnesses and after legal
warning that she had committed adultery after her betrothal (Ketubot
44b).
Sifrei Devarim 239:1
If, however, the charge is true and
no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found—This tells me only of natural coitus. Whence do I derive the same
for unnatural coitus? From If, however, the charge is true and no proof of
the young woman’s virginity can be found—i.e., if there were no witnesses
to refute the witnesses of the husband.
21 she
shall be brought to the door of her father’s house [“see the sprout that you
have reared”] and there the men of her town shall stone her [i.e., she shall be
stoned in the presence of all the men of the city] to death. She has done an
outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s
house. You must purge the evil from among you.
Rashi’s Commentary
She shall be brought to the door of her father’s house—Suggesting: “See what a child (lit., a plant) you have reared!” (Ketubot
45a)
The men of her town—This means, the witnesses shall stone her, all the
men of her town standing by (Sifrei Devarim 240:1;
cf. Rashi on Lev 24:14).
Her father’s house—The word בֵּית is equivalent to בְּבֵית.
Sifrei Devarim 240:1
And . . . the men of her town shall
stone her—Now do all the men of her town stone
her? (The intent is that she shall be stoned) in the presence of all the
men of her town.
22 If a
man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both [(“both”) excluding an act
of (self-) arousal (by the man), from which she derives no gratification, and
including those who come (and cohabit with them) after they had been sentenced]
the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from
Israel.
Rashi’s Commentary
Both . . . must die—The word “both” is intended to exclude a case of
unnatural intercourse from which the woman derives no gratification (Sanhedrin
66b; Sifrei Devarim 242:4).
Sanhedrin 86a:6
Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If that is
so, then the verse: “If a man shall be found
sleeping with another man’s wife, both . . . must die” (Deu 22:22), may also
be interpreted: “If a man shall be found,” to exclude one
who was already found. So too, would one say that adulterers are
exempt from liability if they commit adultery in, for example, the house
of so-and-so, where married women are commonly found and they have a
preexisting reputation for licentiousness?
Sifrei Devarim 241:1
If a
man is found (by witnesses) sleeping with another man’s wife—Including one who was cohabited with in her father's house—i.e.,
while betrothed (and not yet married).
23 If a
man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with
her [“the breach calls to the thief”—if she remained at home, this would not
happen],
Ketubot 48b:15
In answer to this question, Rava said:
The verse cannot be excluding that case, as Ami said to me that the case
where she already entered the wedding canopy is not derived by inference
from that verse; it is explicitly written in the following verse: “If
there is a young woman who is a virgin betrothed to a man” (Deu 22:23). The
terminology of the verse indicates that it applies to a “young woman” and
not to a grown woman; to a “virgin” and not to a
non-virgin; and to a “betrothed” woman and not to a
married woman.
Rashi’s Commentary
If a
man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps
with her—(Because he found her
outdoors) therefore he lay with her: a breach in the wall invites the thief; if
she had remained at home (as becomes a chaste Jewish girl) this would not have
happened to her (Sifrei Devarim 242:2-3).
24 you
shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the
young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man
because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
Sanhedrin 41a:4
The school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught a source for the requirement to
forewarn a transgressor from the verse concerning the court-imposed capital
punishment meted out to one who commits adultery with a betrothed young woman,
as it is stated: “For the matter that he has violated another man’s wife”
(Deu 22:24). They make a verbal analogy: For matters involving speech,
the punishment is given only if the witnesses issued a verbal forewarning.
25 But
if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married
and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.
26 Do
nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is
like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor [i.e., she was forced
and is, therefore, guiltless],
Sifrei Devarim 243:1
Do nothing to the woman; she has
committed no sin deserving death—We are hereby
taught that Scripture exempts her from the death penalty. Whence is it derived
that it exempts her from an offering as well? From “sin (deserving death).”
Whence is it derived that she is exempt from stripes as well? From “sin
deserving death,” (stripes being in place of death). We are hereby
taught that she is exempt from all the punishments in the Law.
27 for
the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed
woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
Sanhedrin 73a:6
The Gemara asks: And with regard
to the betrothed young woman herself, from where do we derive that she
may be saved at the cost of the rapist’s life? The Gemara explains: As it
was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: The verse states: “For the man
found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed young woman screamed,
there was no one to rescue her” (Deu 22:27). But if there was someone
to rescue her, he must do so by any means that can rescue her, even
by killing the potential rapist.
28 If a
man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and
they are discovered,
Ketubot 38a:7
GEMARA:What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? It is as the
verse states: “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin who is not
pledged to be married” (Deu 22:28), from which it may be inferred: If she
is pledged to be married she does not have a fine for rape. The
Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Akiva explain this verse? The
Gemara answers that the verse states: If it is a young woman who is not
pledged to be married, the fine is paid to her father, from which it
may be inferred: If she is pledged to be married, the fine is paid to
the betrothed woman herself.
29 he
shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young
woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Ketubot 38b:9
Abaye said: If one had intercourse with a young woman, and she died
before he was sentenced, he is exempt from paying the fine, as it is
stated: “And he shall pay the father of the young woman” (Deu
22:29), from which it is inferred, and not to the father of a dead girl.
The Gemara comments: This matter that was obvious to Abaye was raised
as a dilemma to Rava.
Ketubot 39b:6
Comments
Post a Comment