Friday, August 31, 2012

posts so far for parshat Ki Teitzei

Printable version of each Ki Teitzei post here. (You might need to click on the right arrow to see more posts.)


1. Ki Teizei sources -- including dates, bios, and pics, of many of the meforshim.

2. YUTorah on parashat Ki Teizei.

3. Running commentary on Ki Teiztei, part one.


  1. Ki Teitzei sources -- links to pages in an online Mikraos Gedolos by perek and by aliyah. Then, greatly expanded to include a good number of meforshim on the parsha and haftarah. Each year, further improved. This year, for instance, many more meforshim, meforshei Rashikitvei yad, and meforshei Onkelos.
  2. Esnoga, and the Authenticity of the Zohar -- Many people discuss it, pro and con, but I get the sense that not even everyone discussing it has seen the relevant Zohar inside. And so, I present it in this post.
  3. The reformative laws of Ki Teitzei -- In inheritance law, in treatment of rebellious children, and in giving women a voice. HaMaamar on some of the laws and their details, in parashat Ki Teitzei.
  4. Not leaving an executed corpse hanging overnight as a reformative law -- to correct a practice prevalent in the general culture, according to HaMaamar.
  5. Was the naara betrothed at the timeAnd, is this required in order to apply the death penalty? Shadal, Ibn Ezra and Karaites, and Chazal, take different approaches as to when this occurs in the timeline, and the certainty of it.
  6. Abarbanel asks about yibum, Yehuda, and Boaz -- Abarbanel's 19th doubt in Ki Seitzei is about the incident with Yehudah and Tamar, and how that meshes (or does not) with the laws ofyibbum. Yehuda was a father to the deceased, not a brother! And how comehalacha does not recognize this as effective, patterned after Yehuda. Abarbenel's 20th doubt is about theyibbum described in sefer Rut. Was he a brother or a distant relative? Where was the spitting for Ploni Almoni? This all seems to contradict the laws ofyibbum and chalitza.
  7. Abarbanel on Yehuda and Tamar's "yibbum" -- As described in the aforementioned post, Don Yitzchak Abravanel asks some incisive questions about the nature of the apparent yibbum by Yehuda and Tamar. Here, he resolves those questions. It was certainly not a complete yibbum, for yibbum is for brothers, not fathers. (And he explains why.) Tamar took the steps necessary, but it was certainly not Yehuda's intent. And this particular joining does not form the pattern for subsequent yibbum.
  8. Abarbanel on Boaz and Ruth's "yibbum" --  On parashat Ki Teitzei, Abarbanel had asked about the nature of the apparentyibbum of Yehuda and Tamar, and the apparent one of Boaz and Rus. There are things which seem 'off' about the yibbum as it occurs in sefer Rus, as he explained in the question. Here, he gives his answer.
  9. Yehuda and Tamar, and Boaz and Rus, as performing real yibbum --  My own thoughts about the points raised by Abarbanel. Could we find a way for the actions of Yehuda and Tamar, and of Boaz and Ruth, to be actual yibbum, rather than just 'customary'yibbum, or no yibbum at all?
  10. Why did Amalek חותך מילות וזורק כלפי מעלהAn analysis by the Chasam Sofer. My own suggestion, plus an analysis of a bit ofgirsology. 
  11. YU Torah on parashat Ki Teitzei.
  1. Need the Eshet Yefat Toar be objectively, or even subjectively, beautifulNot on the level of derash, or even on the level of peshat. But to what degree?
  2. Distracting dress on the sidelines of battleDid the eshet yefat toar dress so beautifully to distract the enemy armies?
  3. Are the Taliban barbaric for executing the eloping loversHow we react to a modern-day reenactment of naarah hameorasah, and what that says about us.
  4. Ibn Caspi and Diber Torah BeHoveh -- He established this principle, as a signpost, by eshet yefat toar. Then, he uses it to explain other mitzvot, such as maakeh and divorce.
  5. Ibn Caspi, that Edom is not Rome or Christianity -- Offered in defense of the practice of lending for interest to local non-Jews, he asserts that even ifachicha does extend to Edom, they are not Edom. This has implications for all these modern predictors of the apocalypse who take as a given that Rome, or Christianity, or the US, is Edom.
  6. Ki Teizei: Could Bilaam's curse or blessing harm or helpAccording to Ibn Caspi, no. This was catering to the superstitions of the hamon am.
  7. Peshat in יָקוּם עַל שֵׁם אָחִיו הַמֵּת -- While Ibn Caspi and Rashbam says it means literal naming, something not even Karaites say, I agree with the gemara in Yevamos that it certainly doesn't mean this. I would rather call it bad peshat.
  8. Shiluach HaKein as a segulah for having sons -- A variant of it does have midrashic basis. But not precisely, I think. Furthermore, a little knowledge of statistics and Jewish fertility goes a long way.
  9. Length of days -- Does it refer to long life, or long dwelling in the land of Israel?

  1. Why one with crushed stones may not enter into the kahal. I suggest an alternate reading that we might have thought this was a matir. And ka mashma lan.
  2. .
  3. The milchemet yachid, with one's will, and whether such a derasha is justified. It does not seem to be so, despite the Baal HaTurim's assertion, because the word is malei, rather than chaser as he asserts. It is possible that he misreads and misapplies the masoretic note from the end of Shofetim, as Minchas Shai suggests. Or perhaps we can say there was a variant text.
  4. The first of his strength, and how Ibn Ezra becomes a darshan -- how he heeds smichut, and gives an interpretation as the first of his seed, even though elsewhere he appears to offer a peshat interpretation as opposite that one, given by Rashi.
  5. Is the Mamzer a bastard, or a nation? How Ibn Ezra explores this, and gives different impressions as to his peshat judgement in two separate places. And what in the world he means by his description of Targum taking the short, midrashic path.
  6. The mother's fault, according to Ibn Ezra, for the bad nature of her sons, as this applies to various Biblical characters, including the ben sorer umoreh who is the son of the eshet yefat toar. But was Elisheva, wife of Aharon, responsible for the good nature of Eleazar, or the wicked nature of Nadav and Avihu. Ibn Ezra is cryptic and while all the supercommentators I have seen suggest the former, I would suggest the latter as a possiblilty.
  7. What does it mean that they did not greet you with lechem? I would take it as idiomatic, but not the real cause for the pegam; and that this is poetic exaggeration to provide a contrast with their actual actions, of hiring against you Bilaam ben Beor to curse.
  8. Which naarah is plene? Did Rambam forget the gemara? Here, I attempt to rescue that Rambam from the questions of Kesef Mishnah and then Minchas Shai. I suggest that the Rambam understood the gemara to mean that several pesukim in context had naarah plene, and how one can parse the gemara this way. Which then explains why he would use the derasha rather than the alternate derivation -- in the new reading of the gemara, this is not an alternate derivation.
  1. Shadal on Shiluach haKen -- so that we do not look down on the trait of mercy, by penalizing the mother bird's mercy on her children.
  2. Zachor -- Why does it matter that they were faint and weary? In which I suggest that back then they were unable to stand up for themselves and their honor, but now they can.
  3. Shadal on the betrothed Naarah, that the Torah does not want the charge laid out against her, and that she is an entirely unmarried, and unbetrothed girl. And the Torah is acting to subdue certain tribal customs. Finally, why I don't like this explanation, for various peshat reasons.
  4. Cutting off her hand?! Different explanations of this shocking instruction. My own take, but also how the Karaites maintain that one actually cuts off her hand, and does not take kofer, unlike other maimings, such as in the case of ayin tachat ayin. And Ibn Ezra that this is only when she does not pay kofer. And Shadal like one Tannaitic position, that it is a case of rotzeiach, but later reverses himself to more resemble Ibn Ezra.
  5. Shoe-tossing as a sign of contempt, and how this might intersect with the laws of chalitza, as well as a midrash about Mordechai and Haman.

  1. Taking the Mill or Upper Millstone as Pledge -- In which I suggest that nefesh hu chovel is a pun.
  2. Collecting Interest -- In which taking interest in not a sin in and of itself, but this is an extra restriction to promote a society with the value of fraternity.
  3. Not Giving Up An Escaped Slave -- Yet you must help your fellow Jew recover his wandering sheep. Why the difference? There is law and there is what is morally right.
  4. When you go to war against your enemy -- Just because you win does not mean that you get to do whatever you like. The rules don't go out the window. Rather, you must behave in a prescribed, moral manner. Also, we can interpret this homiletically, in which the "enemy" is the evil inclination.
  5. Is Rudy Guliani an Adulterer? No, because the woman he was with was single. And even if married, he would not commit Biblical adultery. And it seems that he was possibly not really considered married.
  6. A Slightly Non-Normative Reading of Machzir Gerushato -- Based in part on a Bet Shammai reading, and somewhat supported by statements in Chazal. That her "defilement" was not her intervening marriage, but rather the adultery which broke up the first marriage in the first place.
  7. Request for Explanation of Naar/Naara -- With my own explanation offered, but more requested. And an explanation already given in the comments.


  1. VeKatzota et Kappa As Din Rodef: Within this relatively unknown opinion in Chazal that this is din Rodef, because the woman is still crushing and this can put the man's life in danger, and that this is an instruction to prevent a rodef with the minimum damage necessary (here her hand rather than her life), we point out an instance where a woman did just this and thus almost killed her husband, and could have been on trial for murder.
  2. Orthopraxy III - Remembering What Amalek Did -- How can you remember what Amalek did if you do not believe that Amalek did it?


  1. The Damsel's Father (and Not Her Mother, and Not the Damsel) - I point out an interesting Sifrei, but never got a chance to develop it. This Sifrei states אמר אבי הנערה אל הזקנים מכאן שאין רשות לאשה לדבר במקום האיש, which is one source text on Chazal's attitude towards women assuming public communal roles.
  2. In Motzi Shem Ra I suggest that the purpose of the further penalty that the man shouldn't divorce her afterwards is deterrence. I elaborate in the post.
  3. Three (Non-Contradictory) Explanations of וְהֶחֱזִיקָה בִּמְבֻשָׁיו: Chazal's payment of money for embarrassment; the Middle Assyrian Law and Ibn Ezra's attempt at reconciliation with halacha, and a new, not-well known one, which might even be said to be on the level of peshat - under the din rodef, in which she is still grabbed on.


  1. Eshet Yefat Toar As Progressive Feminist Legislation -- We examine the laws and language of the yefat toar, finding that the novelty of the law may actually be protection of captive women.
  2. Ben Sorer UMoreh - Why? I suggest something based on the root KLL.
  3. In Ben Sorer UMoreh I suggest that this was a reform intended to take honor killings for misbehavior out of the realm of family judgement and into the formal court system.

to be continued...

Running commentary on Ki Teitzei, part i

Ki Teitzei begins in the middle of perek 21:
י  כִּי-תֵצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה, עַל-אֹיְבֶיךָ; וּנְתָנוֹ ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, בְּיָדֶךָ--וְשָׁבִיתָ שִׁבְיוֹ.10 When thou goest forth to battle against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God delivereth them into thy hands, and thou carriest them away captive,

The Torah is given to all generations, but it is also given to the Hebrews who emerged from Egypt at just that time. One should not judge these laws entirely by modern sensibilities, but rather by ancient ones. No one is writing a Toras Hamelech nowadays to actually carry out these laws. And in social context, even the keeping of a slave for sexual purposes was not considered immoral or unethical. Nor was taking captives of war as slaves considered unethical.

Within this context, the laws of yefat toar are actually quite progressive in nature. They work to ensure the rights of the female captive, such that if she is taken captive and her captor decides to marry her (presumably even against her will), she is to become a full wife, rather than some sort of sexual slave.

Oh, and the Torah was not given to malachei hashareit, so indeed, the Torah assumes that people going to war have yetzers. At the same time, I am unconvinced that לא דברה תורה אלא כנגד יצר הרע, such that it was non-optimal or negative behavior, and that אם אין הקב"ה מתירה ישאנה באיסור.

כִּי-תֵצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה -- this taking of yefat toar is not a positive mitzvah that one must seek to fulfill. The 613 mitzvot are 613 regulations that govern how one conducts oneself in different situations. If one seeks to divorce his wife, this is how to do it. If one goes to war, takes captives, and happens to desire one of the female captives sufficiently to want her as a wife, then this is how to do it. Indeed, much like shiluach hakan. Thus, כִּי as when, if. Now that more chareidim are going into the army, I don't think that anyone is going to establish this as a segulah.

עַל-אֹיְבֶיךָ -- against your enemies. Yet in the end, he wants to marry one. Perhaps that they are oyvim, enemies, would make one think that one could maltreat the prisoners and make use of their bodies however one sees fit. Therefore the need for this parasha.

וּנְתָנוֹ ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, בְּיָדֶךָ -- it is not kochi ve'otzem yadi, the strength of your own hand, that performed this chayil. It is Hashem who gave them over into your hand. And it is Hashem who also demands that you treat them ethically and with some measure of human rights.

וְשָׁבִיתָ שִׁבְיוֹ -- thus, as Rashi writes, this is speaking of an optional war.
If you go out to war: The verse here is referring to an optional war [i.e., non-obligatory] (Sifrei 21:1), since in reference to the [obligatory] war [to conquer] the land of Israel, it would be inappropriate to say “and you take his captives” because it has already been stated [regarding the seven nations of Canaan],“[from these peoples’ cities…] you shall not allow any soul to live.” (Deut. 20: 16).כי תצא למלחמה: במלחמת הרשות הכתוב מדבר, שבמלחמת ארץ ישראל אין לומר ושבית שביו, שהרי כבר נאמר (לעיל כ טז) לא תחיה כל נשמה:

Next pasuk:
יא  וְרָאִיתָ, בַּשִּׁבְיָה, אֵשֶׁת, יְפַת-תֹּאַר; וְחָשַׁקְתָּ בָהּ, וְלָקַחְתָּ לְךָ לְאִשָּׁה.11 and seest among the captives a woman of goodly form, and thou hast a desire unto her, and wouldest take her to thee to wife;

וְרָאִיתָ, בַּשִּׁבְיָה -- the Torah is not speaking about going to war specifically for the sake of taking female captives. I'm thinking of the conduct of the tribe of Binyamin, in a very different context.

אֵשֶׁת, יְפַת-תֹּאַר -- Rashi says it means even a married woman:
a…woman: Heb. אֵשֶׁת, even a married woman (אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ). - [Kid. 21b]אשת: אפילו אשת איש:

Ibn Ezra, often a radical, contests with Karaites in this perek. Here he agrees with Rashi and Chazal:
אשת -כבר דרשוהו חז"ל.

Consider Tehillim 58:9:
ט  כְּמוֹ שַׁבְּלוּל, תֶּמֶס יַהֲלֹךְ;    נֵפֶל אֵשֶׁת, בַּל-חָזוּ שָׁמֶשׁ.9 Let them be as a snail which melteth and passeth away; like the untimely births of a woman, that have not seen the sun.

Or better, I Shmuel 28:7:
ז  וַיֹּאמֶר שָׁאוּל לַעֲבָדָיו, בַּקְּשׁוּ-לִי אֵשֶׁת בַּעֲלַת-אוֹב, וְאֵלְכָה אֵלֶיהָ, וְאֶדְרְשָׁה-בָּהּ; וַיֹּאמְרוּ עֲבָדָיו אֵלָיו, הִנֵּה אֵשֶׁת בַּעֲלַת-אוֹב בְּעֵין דּוֹר.7 Then said Saul unto his servants: 'Seek me a woman that divineth by a ghost, that I may go to her, and inquire of her.' And his servants said to him: 'Behold, there is a woman that divineth by a ghost at En-dor.'

Such that eshet, even in contruct form (of eshet instead of isha) needs not mean a married woman. The Karaites make this point:

Of course, they hold that this refers to the specific case of war against distant cities, such that the rebellious men who had been killed, and the women spared, such that "of course" these women would not be married.

At the end of the day, eshet as married is not peshat, but it can still stand as a derash. And one could readily say that the bonds of marriage are cancelled by captivity in war.

 יְפַת-תֹּאַר -- dibra haTorah behoveh. As Ibn Caspi writes, the same would be true if she was ugly.  So, sort of, is Ibn Ezra:
יפת תאר -בעיניו.

but that is that beauty is subjective. According to Ibn Caspi's reading, such subjectivity is not even required.

וְחָשַׁקְתָּ בָהּ -- Rashi notes that this is Chazal's evidence that לא דברה תורה אלא כנגד יצר הרע. This would then mean desire for the sexual act.

Ibn Ezra has a slightly different take, saying:
וחשקת בה -שתחשקנה לקחתה לאשה. כי אחר כן יאמר: ובעלתה, וכמוהו: ואקח אותה לי לאשה:

that you desire her for a wife.

וְלָקַחְתָּ לְךָ לְאִשָּׁה -- while one can understand this as biah rishona in the field, the peshat that seems more like peshat is that this is a comprehensive statement, that he shall take her not as a zonah, but as a full wife, according to all the conditions which will be spelled out in the next pesukim.

יב  וַהֲבֵאתָהּ, אֶל-תּוֹךְ בֵּיתֶךָ; וְגִלְּחָה, אֶת-רֹאשָׁהּ, וְעָשְׂתָה, אֶת-צִפָּרְנֶיהָ.12 then thou shalt bring her home to thy house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

וַהֲבֵאתָהּ, אֶל-תּוֹךְ בֵּיתֶךָ --  not as an act separate from bia rishona, but as the first step in the process of וְלָקַחְתָּ לְךָ לְאִשָּׁה. Thus, it is not in the field, but in the safety and security of a house. Is is not hidden from view, but it is widely known that she has entered his house.

And most importantly, she started out in a vulnerable position, of וְרָאִיתָ בַּשִּׁבְיָה. This is the first stage in setting the correct psychological tone for the marriage.

וְגִלְּחָה, אֶת-רֹאשָׁהּ -- It is amazing how the same words can be taken in such opposite directions. Is this an attempt to make her seem ugly, in case he was attracted to her hair? Is it, as Shadal suggests, part of mourning?

I say that it is part of the removal of her insecure, captive of war, status. וְגִלְּחָה does not need to mean complete shaving of the head. She gets a haircut, since her hair could have become unkempt and could have grown wild during the war and captivity. Compare to Yosef, when he was removed from prison, in Bereshit 41:14:
יד  וַיִּשְׁלַח פַּרְעֹה וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-יוֹסֵף, וַיְרִיצֻהוּ מִן-הַבּוֹר; וַיְגַלַּח וַיְחַלֵּף שִׂמְלֹתָיו, וַיָּבֹא אֶל-פַּרְעֹה.14 Then Pharaoh sent and called Joseph, and they brought him hastily out of the dungeon. And he shaved himself, and changed his raiment, and came in unto Pharaoh.

Note the changing of the garment as well.

וְעָשְׂתָה, אֶת-צִפָּרְנֶיהָ -- she "does her nails". Again, this is trimming not to remove beauty but to restore beauty or basic cleanliness. We compare with the act of giluach to know this means paring. Also, because of this example from II Shmuel 19:
כה  וּמְפִבֹשֶׁת, בֶּן-שָׁאוּל, יָרַד, לִקְרַאת הַמֶּלֶךְ; וְלֹא-עָשָׂה רַגְלָיו וְלֹא-עָשָׂה שְׂפָמוֹ, וְאֶת-בְּגָדָיו לֹא כִבֵּס, לְמִן-הַיּוֹם לֶכֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ, עַד-הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר-בָּא בְשָׁלוֹם.25 And Mephibosheth the son of Saul came down to meet the king; and he had neither dressed his feet, nor trimmed his beard, nor washed his clothes, from the day the king departed until the day he came home in peace.

in which asa means trimming.

Rashi and Ibn Ezra take this as making them grow long so as to make her disgusting in his eyes, so that he will not go through with taking her as a wife. Nowadays, long nails are considered more attractive.

Next pasuk:
יג  וְהֵסִירָה אֶת-שִׂמְלַת שִׁבְיָהּ מֵעָלֶיהָ, וְיָשְׁבָה בְּבֵיתֶךָ, וּבָכְתָה אֶת-אָבִיהָ וְאֶת-אִמָּהּ, יֶרַח יָמִים; וְאַחַר כֵּן תָּבוֹא אֵלֶיהָ, וּבְעַלְתָּהּ, וְהָיְתָה לְךָ, לְאִשָּׁה.13 and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thy house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month; and after that thou mayest go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

 וְהֵסִירָה אֶת-שִׂמְלַת שִׁבְיָהּ מֵעָלֶיהָ -- again to add to her emotional stability. She only had the one dress of captivity, because her city was captured. She only had the clothes on her back. Now she removes this tattered and dirty clothing and receives new clothing in its place.

Compare to the pasuk involving Yosef above,  וַיְגַלַּח וַיְחַלֵּף שִׂמְלֹתָיו, וַיָּבֹא אֶל-פַּרְעֹה.

וְיָשְׁבָה בְּבֵיתֶךָ -- again, stability. She stays in a normal home as a member of the household.

וּבָכְתָה אֶת-אָבִיהָ וְאֶת-אִמָּהּ -- and she is not thrown into this new marriage, but has gets a chance to grieve. And an acknowledgement that, as a fellow human being, who has lost loved ones, she has a right to grieve.

Rashi takes it as a further way that she becomes disgusting, compared to Israelite women, so that he will not go through with this.

Ibn Ezra writes:

יש אומרים: 
כי זה הבכי על אביה ועל אמה שלא התייהדו. 
ולפי דעתי שחייב כל אדם בשקול הדעת לכבד את אביו ואת אמו בחיים ובמות.

וטעם ובכתה - 
שתתאבל עליהם כמשפט ישראלית כי היא מתייהדת, אם נהרגו כאשר נשבת ואין צריך להזכיר תרחץ, כי היא צריכה למי נדה כי כבר נכתב אתם ושביכם. 

The reference is to this pasuk in Bemidbar 31:
יט  וְאַתֶּם, חֲנוּ מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה--שִׁבְעַת יָמִים:  כֹּל הֹרֵג נֶפֶשׁ וְכֹל נֹגֵעַ בֶּחָלָל, תִּתְחַטְּאוּ בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי--אַתֶּם, וּשְׁבִיכֶם.19 And encamp ye without the camp seven days; whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify yourselves on the third day and on the seventh day, ye and your captives.

יֶרַח יָמִים -- Is this a Biblical source for shloshim?

וְאַחַר כֵּן --
see Chazal, see meforshim such as Ibn Ezra. Does she wait 30 days before intercourse, in case she is already pregnant? Ibn Ezra also mentions:
וחז"ל אמרו: 
עד שלשה חדשים ואע"פ שאין צורך לחזוק, הנה העד: ויהי כמשלש חדשים והוא הזמן שיחל הולד להתנועע ואסור לשכב עם אשה בספק, אם היא הרה בעבור הולד, כי יש מי שיולד בחסרון שנים חדשים, כמנהג ג"כ ביתרון, רק הוא המעט.

This based on a Sifrei where this is Rabbi Akiva's position, that this wait is three months. Regarding this:
See Sifrei pisqa 213 line 10 and the list of manuscripts cited by Finkelstein in the apparatus. It is Finkelstein's opinion that this addition was not part of the original Sifrei text.
This three month period to determine pregnancy is mentioned in Tosefta Yevamot 6: 8 as well.
I don't know that this can necessarily be read into yerach yamim. Perhaps it can be read into veachar ken, with the yerach yamim being simply for mourning.

(The Karaites question how this could be, if the Pharisees hold that there was bia rishona. I have an nice answer, but am not at liberty to reveal it at present.)

תָּבוֹא אֵלֶיהָ, וּבְעַלְתָּהּ -- individually and as a unit, תָּבוֹא אֵלֶיהָ and וּבְעַלְתָּהּ  mean the act of intercourse.

וּבְעַלְתָּהּ carries the added connotation that you will be her baal, acting as a husband to her. And, in parallel to that,

וְהָיְתָה לְךָ, לְאִשָּׁה -- she shall be your wife. And this means a full wife, as opposed to some concubine or sexual slave.

Next pasuk:
יד  וְהָיָה אִם-לֹא חָפַצְתָּ בָּהּ, וְשִׁלַּחְתָּהּ לְנַפְשָׁהּ, וּמָכֹר לֹא-תִמְכְּרֶנָּה, בַּכָּסֶף; לֹא-תִתְעַמֵּר בָּהּ, תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִנִּיתָהּ.  {ס}14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not deal with her as a slave, because thou hast humbled her. {S}

This could either refer to after he has married her, or before marrying her, having changed his mind. I believe that it means after he has performed the full marriage with her, and is stressing her status here as a full wife.

וְהָיָה אִם-לֹא חָפַצְתָּ בָּהּ -- after some time of full marriage

וְשִׁלַּחְתָּהּ לְנַפְשָׁהּ -- she is divorced. But she is lenafshah, to herself, rather than to another.

וּמָכֹר לֹא-תִמְכְּרֶנָּה, בַּכָּסֶף -- she no longer has the status of captive. If she had been taken as a slave, then you could have sold her as property when you no longer desire her service. But since she is a full, freed, wife, she cannot be sold.

לֹא-תִתְעַמֵּר בָּהּ -- the translation above is that you shall not deal with her as a slave. To quote Rashi:
You shall not keep her as a servant: Heb. לֹא-תִתְעַמֵּר בָּהּ. [This means:]“You must not use her [as a slave]” (Sifrei 21:16). In the Persian language, the term for slavery and servitude is עִימְרָאָה [the term used here]. I learned this from the Yesod of Rabbi Moses the Darshan. לא תתעמר בה: לא תשתמש בה בלשון פרסי קורין לעבדות ושימוש, עימראה. מיסודו של רבי משה הדרשן למדתי כן:

This word is almost a hapax legomenon, occurring only one other time, notes Ibn Ezra:
לא תתעמר בה -כמו והתעמר בו ומכרו ואין להם שלישי ופירושו: לפי מקומו בטעם רמאות.

This is in this parasha:
ז  כִּי-יִמָּצֵא אִישׁ, גֹּנֵב נֶפֶשׁ מֵאֶחָיו מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְהִתְעַמֶּר-בּוֹ, וּמְכָרוֹ--וּמֵת הַגַּנָּב הַהוּא, וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ.  {ס}7 If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and he deal with him as a slave, and sell him; then that thief shall die; so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee. {S}

and he says it means dealing with someone with trickery / dishonesty.

Perhaps betraying.

Shadal writes to switch the ayin with an aleph to understand its meaning:
תתעמר: נ"ל בחילוף אל"ף בעי"ן מל' ( תהלים צ"ד ד') יתאמרו כל פועלי און, את ה' האמרת היום ( למטה כ"ו י"ז)..

which is a negative act of some sort.

תַּחַת -- because of your previous action, of אֲשֶׁר עִנִּיתָהּ.

The alternative would be tachat as "in place of, instead of," in which case אֲשֶׁר עִנִּיתָהּ would be the action you are not taking now.

אֲשֶׁר עִנִּיתָהּ -- this does not need to mean rape. You have humbled her; you have mistreated her. See Shemot 22:
כא  כָּל-אַלְמָנָה וְיָתוֹם, לֹא תְעַנּוּן.21 Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child.

Particularly if we wanted to say there was no bia rishona in the field, and that this is prior to marriage, one must say this, that it does not refer to unwillfull intercourse.

I say this was post marriage, with no bia rishona in the field. In which case either אֲשֶׁר עִנִּיתָהּ  is a condemnation of his previous action of intercourse in marriage, now that he has betrayed her by sending her off against her will, or better (IMHO), that  אֲשֶׁר עִנִּיתָהּ means that he has dealt overall with her in an improper manner. Once he takes her in this manner, he has some responsibility to her. The sending her off now is the betrayal. Compare to amah ivriyah, in parashat Mishpatim, Shemot 21, in divorcing an amah ivriyah, with an identical law:
ח  אִם-רָעָה בְּעֵינֵי אֲדֹנֶיהָ, אֲשֶׁר-לא (לוֹ) יְעָדָהּ--וְהֶפְדָּהּ:  לְעַם נָכְרִי לֹא-יִמְשֹׁל לְמָכְרָהּ, בְּבִגְדוֹ-בָהּ.8 If she please not her master, who hath espoused her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed; to sell her unto a foreign people he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

The words בְּבִגְדוֹ-בָהּ parallel the present  אֲשֶׁר עִנִּיתָהּ, because the situations and betrayal are parallel.

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

YUTorah on parashat Ki Teitzei

Audio Shiurim on Ki Teitzei
Rabbi Chaim Brovender: Divine Justice and Avot u-Banim 
Rabbi Avishai David: The Ben Sorer U'moreh and Yishmael 
Rabbi Ally Ehrman: Where Pshat And Drash Meet: The Case Of Shana Rishonah 
Rabbi Chaim Eisenstein: Kiddushin and Marriage
Rabbi Joel Finkelstein: The Jewish Attitude to Divorce 
Rabbi Yehuda Goldschmidt: Chip In and Make the Goblet 
Rabbi Shalom Hammer: The Holy War 
Rabbi Jesse Horn: Aspiring for religious greatness 
Rabbi Ari Kahn: Captive Wives Rebellious Sons and Palace Intrigue 
Rabbi Yisroel Kaminetsky: The Depth of the Power of Torah 
Rabbi Eliakim Koenigsberg: Turning Words into Action 
Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz: Hashem Will Help 
Rabbi Ben Leybovich: Nobody Knows Me
Rabbi Shmuel Marcus: Hashavas Aveida
Rabbi Yaakov Neuburger: Shiluach HaKan 
Rabbi Hershel Reichman: Do Mitzvos Have Rewards in this World? 
Rabbi Yonason Sacks: Milchemes Reshus vs. Milchemes Mitzva, What was the Issur of Eishes Yefas To'ar? 
Rabbi Hershel Schachter: Kilaim and Yefet Toar 
Shay Schachter: "Shanah Rishonah" - Myth or Minhag? 
R' Dr. Jacob J Schacter: Why is Moav forbidden to enter Klal Yisrael? 
Rabbi Avi Schneider: Constant Battles 
Rabbi Baruch Simon: Baruch Omer V'Oseh 
Mrs. Shira Smiles: The Ultimate Battle 
Rabbi Reuven Spolter: Fighting the Battle Within 
Rabbi Moshe Taragin: Physical attraction in a vacuum 
Rabbi Michael Taubes: Hashavas Aveidah 
Rabbi Moshe D. Tendler: Taamei HaMitzvos 
Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Weinberg: The Power of Ratzon - Where there's a Will, There's a Way
Rabbi Mordechai Willig: The Importance of Listening
Rabbi Andi Yudin: Chessed, the trademark of a Jew 
Rabbi Ari Zahtz: Yefas Toar 

Articles on Ki Teitzei
Rabbi Avraham Gordimer: Amalek and Dishonesty
Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb: Spiritual Warfare
Rabbi Maury Grebenau: Is Sensitivity for the Birds?
Rabbi Yehuda Henkin: Amalek and its Legacy
Rabbi David Horwitz: Mitzvot concerning Gifts to the Poor
Rabbi Yitzchak Korn: Amon and Moav - the Antithesis of the Torah
Rabbi Avigdor Nebenzahl: Defeating the Yetzer Hara
Rabbi Jeffrey Saks: Parenting Secrets of the Ben Sorer u-Moreh

Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Ki Teitzei
See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Ki Teitzei
New This Week

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Thoughts on Berachot 26-27

Cross-posted from Daf Yummy. I don't repost everything here that I post there, so you should check that other blog out.

Berachot 26b:

תנו רבנן טעה ולא התפלל מנחה בערב שבת מתפלל בליל שבת שתים טעה ולא התפלל מנחה בשבת מתפלל במוצאי שבת שתים של חול מבדיל בראשונה ואינו מבדיל בשניה ואם הבדיל בשניה ולא הבדיל בראשונה שניה עלתה לו ראשונה לא עלתה לו

למימרא דכיון דלא אבדיל בקמייתא כמאן דלא צלי דמי ומהדרינן ליה

ורמינהו טעה ולא הזכיר גבורות גשמים בתחיית המתים ושאלה בברכת השנים מחזירין אותו הבדלה בחונן הדעת אין מחזירין אותו מפני שיכול לאומרה על הכוס קשיא
Or, in English:
Our Rabbis taught: If a man erred and did not say the afternoon prayer on the eve of Sabbath, he says the [Sabbath] Tefillah1  twice on the night of the Sabbath. If he erred and did not say the afternoon Tefillah on Sabbath, he says the [weekday] Tefillah twice on the outgoing of the Sabbath; he says habdalah2  in the first but not in the second;3  and if he said habdalah in the second and not in the first, the second is counted to him, the first is not counted to him. 
This is equivalent, is it not, to saying that since he did not say habdalah in the first, it is as if he had not said theTefillah and we make him say it again. 
To this was opposed the following: If one forgot and did not mention the miracle of rain4  in the benediction for the resurrection of the dead5  and prayed for rain in the benediction of the years,6  he is turned back; if he forgot habdalah in 'who graciously grants knowledge',7  he is not turned back, because he can say it over wine! — This is indeed a difficulty.
The resolution of this difficulty may simply be one of context. Indeed, saying ata chonantanu [=havdalah] in Ata Chonen is not required, and we would not make him go back if he accidentally skipped it. In this instance, however, by omitting it in the first one and saying it in the second one, he is thus designating the second one as his maariv and the first one as the additional one. And if the first one is his additional one, then it is a tefillat nedava rather than a tashlumin for the missed mincha.

Next in the daf:
איתמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא אמר תפלות אבות תקנום רבי יהושע בן לוי אמר תפלות כנגד תמידין תקנום
It has been stated: R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: The Tefillahs were instituted by the Patriarchs. R. Joshua b. Levi says: The Tefillahs were instituted8  to replace the daily sacrifices.
As the gemara continues to point out, and as is obvious anyway, the tefillot do correspond to the daily sacrifices. Thus Mussaf corresponds to the Mussaf offering, and Mincha to the Mincha offering, etc., in time and perhaps in function.

But these are two differing philosophical stands. In the patriarchal period, prior to the Mishkan, yes, there were korbanot, but the relationship between the avot and Hashem was of a very personal nature. Forget about the specific derashot. Hashem spoke to them, and they spoke to Hashem. For instance, for Avraham, at the end of Lech Lecha:
א  אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, הָיָה דְבַר-יְהוָה אֶל-אַבְרָם, בַּמַּחֲזֶה, לֵאמֹר:  אַל-תִּירָא אַבְרָם, אָנֹכִי מָגֵן לָךְ--שְׂכָרְךָ, הַרְבֵּה מְאֹד.1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying: 'Fear not, Abram, I am thy shield, thy reward shall be exceeding great.'
ב  וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם, אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה מַה-תִּתֶּן-לִי, וְאָנֹכִי, הוֹלֵךְ עֲרִירִי; וּבֶן-מֶשֶׁק בֵּיתִי, הוּא דַּמֶּשֶׂק אֱלִיעֶזֶר.2 And Abram said: 'O Lord GOD, what wilt Thou give me, seeing I go hence childless, and he that shall be possessor of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?'
ג  וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם--הֵן לִי, לֹא נָתַתָּה זָרַע; וְהִנֵּה בֶן-בֵּיתִי, יוֹרֵשׁ אֹתִי.3 And Abram said: 'Behold, to me Thou hast given no seed, and, lo, one born in my house is to be mine heir.'

And as for Yitzchak, in Toledot:
כא  וַיֶּעְתַּר יִצְחָק לַיהוָה לְנֹכַח אִשְׁתּוֹ, כִּי עֲקָרָה הִוא; וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ יְהוָה, וַתַּהַר רִבְקָה אִשְׁתּוֹ.21 And Isaac entreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren; and the LORD let Himself be entreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.

and Yaakov, in Vayishlach:
י  וַיֹּאמֶר, יַעֲקֹב, אֱלֹהֵי אָבִי אַבְרָהָם, וֵאלֹהֵי אָבִי יִצְחָק:  יְהוָה הָאֹמֵר אֵלַי, שׁוּב לְאַרְצְךָ וּלְמוֹלַדְתְּךָ--וְאֵיטִיבָה עִמָּךְ.10 And Jacob said: 'O God of my father Abraham, and God of my father Isaac, O LORD, who saidst unto me: Return unto thy country, and to thy kindred, and I will do thee good;
יא  קָטֹנְתִּי מִכֹּל הַחֲסָדִים, וּמִכָּל-הָאֱמֶת, אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ, אֶת-עַבְדֶּךָ:  כִּי בְמַקְלִי, עָבַרְתִּי אֶת-הַיַּרְדֵּן הַזֶּה, וְעַתָּה הָיִיתִי, לִשְׁנֵי מַחֲנוֹת.11 I am not worthy of all the mercies, and of all the truth, which Thou hast shown unto Thy servant; for with my staff I passed over this Jordan; and now I am become two camps.
יב  הַצִּילֵנִי נָא מִיַּד אָחִי, מִיַּד עֵשָׂו:  כִּי-יָרֵא אָנֹכִי, אֹתוֹ--פֶּן-יָבוֹא וְהִכַּנִי, אֵם עַל-בָּנִים.12 Deliver me, I pray Thee, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau; for I fear him, lest he come and smite me, the mother with the children.

The avos had a personal relationship to Hashem, and if they needed something, they asked Hashem for it; and if they received it, they thanked Hashem for it.

The korbanot can be personal, but they were part of a larger, more impersonal, and structured, system. And the particular korbanot that the tefillot are patterned after are the korbanot of the tzibbur. Are we trying to recreate the national worship in our batei knisayot to give Hashem his daily due?

I think that at the end of the day, both approaches are true, to different levels, and in different ways.

איבעיא להו עד ועד בכלל או דלמא עד ולא עד בכלל תא שמע ר' יהודה אומר עד פלג המנחה אי אמרת בשלמא עד ולא עד בכלל היינו דאיכא בין ר' יהודה לרבנן אלא אי אמרת עד ועד בכלל ר' יהודה היינו רבנן
R. JUDAH SAYS: TILL THE FOURTH HOUR. It was asked: Is the point mentioned itself included in the UNTIL or is it not included?27  — Come and hear: R. JUDAH SAYS, UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF THE AFTERNOON. If you say that the point mentioned is included in the UNTIL, then there is no difficulty; this is where the difference lies between R. Judah and the Rabbis.28  O But if you say that the point mentioned is not included,29  then R. Judah says the same thing as the Rabbis?
If Rabbi Yehuda's ad is ad ve'ad bichlal, wouldn't the ad of the Rabbanan also be ad vead bechlal? If so, wouldn't ad ha-erev be inclusive of a later time, going into the evening as well?

Maybe they treat erev like chatzot, as a fixed instant. Still, I am not convinced of the strength of the question here.

On 27b:
א"ר חייא בר אבין רב צלי של שבת בערב שבת רבי יאשיה מצלי של מוצאי שבת בשבת רב צלי של שבת בערב שבת
R. Hiyya b. Abin said: Rab used to say the Sabbath Tefillah on the eve of Sabbath;13  R. Josiah said the Tefillah of the outgoing of Sabbath on Sabbath.
This is in fact related to the idea that maariv ain lo keva. Since it has no keva, any approximate time is good for it, and it may indeed intersect the zman of mincha. And therefore, contrary to those who say one must choose a time and be consistent in terms of end of mincha time and beginning of maariv time, they may even "conflict" on a single day, or be inconsistent from week to week.

This is the meaning of:
תפלת הערב אין לה קבע:
מאי אין לה קבע אילימא דאי בעי מצלי כוליה ליליא ליתני תפלת הערב כל הלילה אלא מאי אין לה קבע כמאן דאמר תפלת ערבית רשות
THE EVENING PRAYER HAS NO FIXED LIMIT. What is the meaning of HAS NO FIXED LIMIT? Shall I say it means that if a man wants he can say the Tefillah any time in the night? Then let it state, 'The time for the evening Tefillah is the 'whole night'! — But what in fact is the meaning of HAS NO FIXED LIMIT? It is equivalent to saying, The evening Tefillah is optional.
Tomorrow, considering the difference between the Bavli and Yerushalmi accounts of the conflict involving Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua. (See here for parallel Yerushalmi, and chech our gemara carefully for the switch from Hebrew into Aramaic.)

Monday, August 27, 2012

Ki Teitzei sources -- 2012 edition

by aliyah
rishon (Devarim 21:10)
sheni (21:22)
shlishi (22:8)
revii (23:8)
chamishi (23:25)
shishi (24:5)
shvii (24:14)
maftir (25:17)
haftara (Yeshaya 54; here with meforshim, on parshat Noach)

by perek
perek 22 ; perek 23 ; perek 24 ; perek 25


Geonim (589-1038)

R' Saadia Gaon(882-942) -- see Wikipedia entry:
  1. Arabic translation of Torah, here  at This is a beautiful PDF, with the Chumash text, Rashi, Onkelos, and Rav Saadia's Tafsir. All of these have nikkud, which is a very nice feature. It also designates the Temani and standard aliyah breaks, and two commentaries, Shemen HaMor and Chelek HaDikduk, on the kriyah, trupnikkud, and dikduk, on the basis of Yemenite manuscripts, which would be worthwhile even absent the other features. Quite excellent, overall.
  2. The same Arabic translation, the Tafsir, here at Google books. No nikkud, Chumash text, Rashi, or Onkelos. But there is a brief supercommentary by Yosef Direnburg at the bottom of each page. 
  3. Collected commentary of Saadia Gaon on Torah, selected from the writings of various Rishonim and from his commentaries on other works.
Rabbi Yona  Ibn Janach (Spain, 990-1050) -- see Wikipedia 

Rishonim (11th - 15th centuries)

Not really Abarbabel
Judaica Press  Rashi  in English  and Hebrew (France, 1040 - 1105) -- ואני לא באתי אלא לפשוטו של מקרא ולאגדה המיישבת דברי המקרא, דבר דבור על אופניו
Chizkuni (France, 13th century) -- see Wikipedia  
Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+, Gilyonot 
Rashbam -- and here (France, 1085-1158) -- see Wikipedia 
Abarbanel (Portugal, Italy, 1437-1508) -- see Wikipedia -- there is a section on his exegesis 
Baal HaTurim (Germany, Spain, 1269-1343) -- see Wikipedia entry:
  1. Baal Haturim - short, consisting of gematriot and the like
  2. Baal Haturim (HaAruch) , consisting of perushim, often drawn from Ramban
  3. Torat Hatur -- when the Tur (in his halachic work) cites pesukim from this parasha. Not very helpful, IMHO. Though the supercommentary on the Tur on the bottom is nice.
Rabbenu Ephraim -- (France, 12th and 13th century) -- see Jewish Encyclopedia entry --  "He was the author of "Perush 'al ha-Torah," which consists chiefly of gemaṭria and "noṭariḳon." He largely followed Eleazar of Worms."


Blog Widget by LinkWithin