Chumashחומש

כי יבער, את בעירה ובער. כֻּלָּם לְשׁוֹן בְּהֵמָה, כְּמוֹ אֲנַחְנוּ וּבְעִירֵנוּ (במדבר כ'):

כי יבער … בעירה ובער All these terms are connected with the word בעיר which signifies “cattle”, as in (Numbers 20:4) אנחנו ובעירנו “we and our cattle" .

כי יבער. יוֹלִיךְ בְּהֵמוֹתָיו בְּשָׂדֶה אוֹ בְכֶרֶם שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ, וְיַזִּיק אוֹתוֹ בְאַחַת מִשְּׁתֵי אֵלּוּ, אוֹ בְשִׁלּוּחַ בְּעִירוֹ אוֹ בְּבִעוּר, וּפֵרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ "וְשִׁלַּח" הוּא נִזְקֵי מִדְרַךְ כַּף רֶגֶל, "וּבִעֵר" הוּא נִזְקֵי הַשֵּׁן, הָאוֹכֶלֶת וּמְבַעֶרֶת (בבא קמא ב'):

כי יבער means accordingly, he takes his cattle into the field or the vineyard of his fellow-man and causes damage to him by one of these two ways: either by the mere fact that he lets his cattle go (tread) there (ושלח את בעירו), or by letting it graze there (ובער). Our Rabbis explained (Bava Kamma 2b), that ושלח refers to the damage done by “treading” (Rashi uses a Biblical phrase Deuteronomy 5:1. “treading of the hollow of the foot”) and ובער to the damage caused by the tooth that eats up and removes (מבערת) the crops (grazing).

בשדה אחר. בְּשָׂדֶה שֶׁל אִישׁ אַחֵר:

בשדה אחר means בשדה של אחר IN THE FIELD OF ANOTHER MAN (not “in another field”, when it would be punctuated בְּשָׂדֶה, for בִּשְׁדֵה is the construct form).

מיטב שדהו … ישלם. שָׁמִין אֶת הַנֶּזֶק, וְאִם בָּא לְשַׁלֵּם לוֹ קַרְקַע דְּמֵי נִזְקוֹ, יְשַׁלֵּם לוֹ מִמֵּיטַב שְׂדוֹתָיו – אִם הָיָה נִזְקוֹ סֶלַע, יִתֵּן לוֹ שְׁוֵה סֶלַע מֵעִדִּית שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ; לִמֶּדְךָ הַכָּתוּב שֶׁהַנְּזָקִין שָׁמִין לָהֶם בְּעִדִּית (מכילתא, בבא קמא ו'):

מיטב שדהו … ישלם THE BEST OF HIS FIELD SHALL HE PAY — We assess the damage, and if the defendant proposes to make restitution to him for the damage he has suffered with “land’” then he has to pay him with the best of his fields. If for instance the damage amounted to a Sela he has to give him a Sela-worth of the best of the fields he possesses). Scripture teaches you that in cases of damages (which it is proposed to pay with land) we assess and collect them from the best land of the defendant (Mekhilta; Bava Kamma 6b).

כי תצא אש. אֲפִלּוּ מֵעַצְמָהּ (בבא קמא כ"ב):

כי תצא אש IF A FIRE GOETH FORTH — i. e. even if it goeth forth (extends) by itself (Bava Kamma 24b) from the field in which it has been lit into another persons field.

ומצאה קצים. קרדו"נש בְּלַעַז:

ומצאה קוצים AND CATCH IN THORNS —chardons in old French

ונאכל גדיש. שֶׁלִּחֲכָה בַּקּוֹצִים עַד שֶׁהִגִּיעָה לַגָּדִישׁ אוֹ לַקָּמָה הַמְחֻבֶּרֶת בַּקַּרְקַע:

ונאכל גדיש SO THAT THE STACKS OF CORN [OR THE STANDING CORN] BE CONSUMED, because it (the fire) licked up the thorns and gradually reached the stacks of corn or the standing corn, i. e. corn that is still attached to the ground.

או השדה. שֶׁלִּחֲכָה אֶת נִירוֹ וְצָרִיךְ לָנִיר אוֹתָהּ פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה (בבא קמא ס'):

או השדה OR THE FIELD — because it (the fire) liked up his furrow (the newly broken soil), so that it became hard and he (the owner) has to plough it again (Bava Kamma 60a).

שלם ישלם המבער. אַעַ"פִּ שֶׁהִדְלִיק בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ, וְהִיא יָצְאָה מֵעַצְמָהּ עַל יְדֵי קוֹצִים שֶׁמָּצְאָה, חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם, לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמַר אֶת גַּחַלְתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תֵצֵא וְתַזִּיק:

שלם ישלם המבער HE THAT KINDLED [THE CONFLAGRATION] SHALL SURELY PAY — Although he has lit the fire on his own soil and it extended by itself through the thorns which it came across, he has to make restitution because he did not guard his fire (lit., burning coals) that it should not extend and cause damage.

וגנב מבית האיש. לְפִי דְבָרָיו (שם ס"ג):

וגנב מבית האיש AND IT BE STOLEN OUT OF THE MAN’S HOUSE — i. e. according to his statement),

אם ימצא הגנב ישלם. הַגַּנָּב שנים לַבְּעָלִים:

אם ימצה הגנב ישלם IF THE THIEF BE FOUND HE — the thief — SHALL PAY שנים DOUBLE to the owner (to the bailor not to the bailee) (Bava Kamma 63b).

אם לא ימצא הגנב. וּבָא הַשּׁוֹמֵר הַזֶּה, שֶׁהוּא בַּעַל הַבַּיִת:

אם לא ימצא הגנב IF THE THIEF BE NOT FOUND then this bailee — who is בעל הבית “the owner of the house” for the time being (since the bailment is then in his possession although he is not really its owner) — shall come.

ונקרב. אֶל הַדַּיָּנִין, לָדוּן עִם זֶה וְלִשָּׁבַע לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ בְּשֶׁלּוֹ (שם):

ונקרב אל AND SHALL APPROACH UNTO THE אלהים — the judges, to put his case against the other and to swear unto him that he has not put forth his hands against his property (Bava Kamma 63b).

על כל דבר פשע. שֶׁיִּמָּצֵא שַׁקְרָן בִּשְׁבוּעָתוֹ – שֶׁיָּעִידוּ עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא עַצְמוֹ גְּנָבוֹ – וְיַרְשִׁיעוּהוּ אֱלֹהִים עַל פִּי הָעֵדִים.

על כל דבר פשע FOR ALL MANNER OF TRESSPASS in which he (the bailee) is proved a liar in respect of his oath (i. e. is convicted of perjury), because witnesses testify that he himself has stolen it and the judges condemn him on the evidence of the witnesses,

ישלם שנים לרעהו. לִמֶּדְךָ הַכָּתוּב, שֶׁהַטּוֹעֵן בְּפִקָּדוֹן לוֹמַר נִגְנַב הֵימֶנּוּ, וְנִמְצָא שֶׁהוּא עַצְמוֹ גְּנָבוֹ, מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶּפֶל; וְאֵימָתַי? בִּזְמַן שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע וְאַחַ"כָּ בָּאוּ עֵדִים, שֶׁכָּךְ דָּרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ: וְנִקְרַב בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים, קְרִיבָה זוֹ שְׁבוּעָה הִיא, אַתָּה אוֹמֵר לִשְׁבוּעָה אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לַדִּין, שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁבָּא לַדִּין וְכָפַר לוֹמַר נִגְנְבָה, מִיָּד יִתְחַיֵּב כֶּפֶל אִם בָּאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא בְיָדוֹ? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן שְׁלִיחוּת יָד וְנֶאֱמַר לְמַטָּה שְׁלִיחוּת יָד – שְׁבוּעַת ה' תִּהְיֶה בֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶם אִם לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ – מַה לְּהַלָּן שְׁבוּעָה, אַף כָּאן שְׁבוּעָה (שם):

ישלם שנים לרעהו HE SHALL PAY THE DOUBLE TO HIS FELLOW-MAN — Scripture teaches you that in a case of a bailment where one pleads that it has been stolen from him and it is proved that he himself has stolen it he is liable to pay “kefel” (twice the value of the article) to the owner. When, however, does this law hold good? In the case that he has taken an oath that it has been stolen from him and witnesses afterwards appear and testify to the contrary. For our Rabbis expound this phrase as follows: (Bava Kamma 63b) “and the owner of the house shall approach unto the judges” — this “approaching the judges” is an expression signifying the taking of an oath. You say that it means approaching the judges in order to take an oath, but perhaps this is not so, and it means that he approaches them to put his case, and that the meaning of the verse is. that as soon as the bailee appears before the court and denies any liability, saying, “it has been stolen” from me, he at once becomes liable to pay double if witnessess appear who testify that the bailment is still in his possession? You certainly cannot argue thus! For “conversion” (שליחות יד) is mentioned here and later on (v. 10) it is mentioned again: “Then shall the oath of the Lord be between the two of them, if he hath not put his hand (אם לא שלח ידו) unto his fellow-man’s goods”. — Now, what is the meaning of the phrase in the latter case? It is evident from what precedes it that it is a matter of taking an oath! So also here it is a matter of taking an oath. (Bava Kamma 63b).

אשר יאמר כי הוא זה. לְפִי פְשׁוּטוֹ אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר הָעֵד כִּי הוּא זֶה שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּעְתָּ עָלָיו, הֲרֵי הוּא אֶצְלְךָ, עַד הַדַּיָּנִין יָבֹא דְּבַר שְׁנֵיהֶם, וְיַחְקְרוּ אֶת הָעֵדִים, אִם כְּשֵׁרִים הֵם וְיַרְשִׁיעוּהוּ לְשׁוֹמֵר זֶה, יְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנַיִם, וְאִם יַרְשִׁיעוּ אֶת הָעֵדִים, שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין, יְשַׁלְּמוּ הֵם שְׁנַיִם לַשּׁוֹמֵר. וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִ"לִ דָּרְשׁוּ כִּי הוּא זֶה לְלַמֵּד, שֶׁאֵין מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ שְׁבוּעָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת, לוֹמַר כָּךְ וְכָךְ אֲנִי חַיָּב לְךָ, וְהַמּוֹתָר נִגְנַב מִמֶּנִּי (שם ק"ז):

אשר יאמר כי הוא זה means, according to the literal sense, any article about which the witness will say: “this is the very article” about which you have taken an oath that it has been stolen from you; see, it is actually in your possession! — then the matter of dispute between the two of them shall come before the judges. These shall examine the witnesses, and if they prove to be trustworthy and they (the judges) condemn this bailee, then he has to pay double. If, however, they condemn the witnesses because these are found to be “plotting” witnesses (זוממין) then shall they (the witnesses) pay double to the bailee. Our Rabbis, of blessed memory, however, explained that כי הוא זה tells us that no oath can be imposed upon him (the defendant) except if he admits a part of the other’s claim asserting, “So-and-so much I owe you, and the rest has been stolen from me” (according to this explanation the phrase כי הוא זה is not a statement of the witnesses but that of the bailee himself; i. e. he says, כי הוא זה, “it is this only” that you have to claim and not as much as you say) (Bava Kamma 107b).

כי יתן איש אל רעהו חמור או שור. פָּרָשָׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה נֶאֶמְרָה בְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, לְפִיכָךְ פָּטַר בּוֹ אֶת הַגְּנֵבָה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (פסוק ו) וְגֻנַּב מִבֵּית הָאִישׁ, אִם לֹא יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב וְנִקְרַב בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לִשְׁבוּעָה, לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁפּוֹטֵר עַצְמוֹ בִּשְׁבוּעָה זוֹ. וּפָרָשָׁה זוֹ אֲמוּרָה בְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר, לְפִיכָךְ אֵינוֹ פָּטוּר אִם נִגְנְבָה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב (פסוק יא) אִם גָּנֹב יִגָּנֵב מֵעִמּוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם, אֲבָל עַל הָאֹנֶס, כְּגוֹן מֵת מֵעַצְמוֹ, אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה בְּחָזְקָה עַל יְדֵי לִסְטִים, וְאֵין רוֹאֶה שֶׁיָּעִיד בַּדָּבָר:

כי יתן איש אל רעהו חמור או שור IF A MAN GIVE UNTO HIS FELLOW-MAN AN ASS OR AN OX — The first section (v. 6—9) speaks of the gratuitous bailee and therefore (since the chattels are kept for the use of the bailor only) Scripture frees him of liability for theft, as it is written, (v. 6) “[If a man shall give … to keep] and it be stolen out of the man’s house, if the thief be not found, then the owner of the house shall approach the judges” to take an oath (cf. Rashi v. 7). You may learn from this that he (the bailee) frees himself from liability by this oath. This section (v. 9—12), however, speaks of a “bailee for payment” (שומר שכר) who is therefore not free from liability if the object has been stolen, as it is written, “but if it be certainly stolen from him, he shall pay [unto the owner thereof]” (Bava Metzia 94b). However, for any loss over which he has no control — if, for instance, the animal died a natural death or has been injured by a wild beast, or forcibly seized by robbers, and אין רואה NO ONE SEEING IT that could testify in this matter

שבעת ה' תהיה. יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁכֵּן הוּא כִדְבָרָיו, וְהוּא לֹא שָׁלַח בָּהּ יָד לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהּ לְעַצְמוֹ, שֶׁאִם שָׁלַח בָּהּ יָד וְאַחַ"כָּ נֶאֶנְסָה, חַיָּב בָּאֳנָסִים (בבא מציעא צ"ד):

שבעת ה׳ תהיה THEN SHALL THE OATH OF THE LORD BE BETWEEN THEM BOTH — i. e. he (the bailee) must take an oath that the case was as he says (that it died or was injured or captured), and also that he had not previously put forth his hand against it (the object), using it for his own purposes. For if he had thus “put forth his hand” and afterwards some accident, as described, happened to it he is held liable for loss by accident (Bava Metzia 94b), since he has broken the terms of the contract. —

ולקח בעליו. הַשְּׁבוּעָה:

ולקח בעליו AND THE OWNER OF IT SHALL ACCEPT IT — i. e. shall accept the oath (Bava Kamma 106a),

ולא ישלם. לוֹ הַשּׁוֹמֵר כְּלוּם (בבא קמא ק"ו):

ולא ישלם AND HE — the bailee — SHALL NOT PAY HIM (the bailor) anything, not even the capital (קרן).

אם טרף יטרף. עַ"יְ חַיָּה רָעָה:

אם טרף יטרף IF IT BE TORN IN PIECES — by wild beasts.

יביאהו עד. יָבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁנִּטְרְפָה בְאֹנֶס וּפָטוּר:

יביאהו עד THEN LET HIM BRING WITNESSES that it has been torn in pieces by accident and he shall be freed from liability.

הטרפה לא ישלם. אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר טְרֵפָה לֹא יְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא הַטְּרֵפָה, יֵשׁ טְרֵפָה שֶׁהוּא מְשַׁלֵּם וְיֵשׁ טְרֵפָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם; טְרֵפַת חָתוּל וְשׁוּעָל וּנְמִיָּה מְשַׁלֵּם, טְרֵפַת זְאֵב, אֲרִי, וְדֹב וְנָחָשׁ אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם; וּמִי לְחָשְׁךָ לָדוּן כֵּן? שֶׁהֲרֵי כָתוּב וּמֵת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה – מַה מִּיתָה שֶׁאֵין יָכוֹל לְהַצִּיל, אַף שֶׁבֶר וְשִׁבְיָה שֶׁאֵין יָכוֹל לְהַצִּיל (מכילתא):

הטרפה לא ישלם HE SHALL NOT PAY THAT WHICH HAS BEEN TORN — It does not say טרפה לא ישלם “one which has been torn he shall not pay for” — but it says “the torn one”, (the one mentioned here, viz., that which was torn without him being able to prevent it). Because there is a torn beast for which he has to pay and a torn beast for which he has not to pay. For an animal torn by a cat, a fox or a marten he has indeed to make restitution; but for one torn by a wolf, a lion, a bear or a serpent he is not liable to pay. But how do you come to make such a distinction (lit., who whispered to you to draw such a conclusion)? Because, you see, it states, “and if it die or be injured, or be captured”. Now what is the characteristic of natural death? One cannot save from it! Thus, also, the injury and the capture must be such that he was unable to save the animal from it (cf. Mekhilta).

וכי ישאל. בָּא לְלַמֵּד עַל הַשּׁוֹאֵל שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב בָּאֳנָסִין:

וכי ישאל איש AND IF A MAN BORROWS — The purpose of this verse is to tell you that the borrower is liable for loss from whatever cause even from accident.

בעליו אין עמו. אִם בְּעָלָיו שֶׁל שׁוֹר אֵינוֹ עִם הַשּׁוֹאֵל בִּמְלַאכְתּוֹ (בבא מציעא צ"ה):

בעליו אין עמו THE OWNER THEREOF NOT BEING WITH IT (lit., with “him”) — i. e. if the owner of the ox is not employed with the borrower in his work (Bava Metzia 95b).

אם בעליו עמו. בֵּין שֶׁהוּא בְּאוֹתָהּ מְלָאכָה בֵּין שֶׁהוּא בִמְלָאכָה אַחֶרֶת, הָיָה עִמּוֹ בִּשְׁעַת שְׁאֵלָה אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִהְיוֹת עִמּוֹ בִּשְׁעַת שְׁבִירָה וּמִיתָה (שם):

אם בעליו עמו BUT IF THE OWNER THEREOF BE WITH IT (lit., with “him”) — whether he be employed in the very kind of work for which the animal has been borrowed, or whether he be employed in any other work of the borrower — provided that he (the owner) was employed by the borrower when the loan was effected it is not necessary, in order to free him from restitution that he should be employed by the bailee at the time when the injury or death took place (Bava Metzia 95b).

אם שכיר הוא. אִם הַשּׁוֹר אֵינוֹ שָׁאוּל אֶלָּא שָׂכוּר, בָּא בִּשְׂכָרוֹ לְיַד הַשּׂוֹכֵר הַזֶּה, וְלֹא בִשְׁאֵלָה, וְאֵין כָּל הֲנָאָה שֶׁלּוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי עַ"יְ שְׂכָרוֹ נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ, וְאֵין לוֹ מִשְׁפַּט שׁוֹאֵל לְהִתְחַיֵּב בָּאֳנָסִין; וְלֹא פֵּרֵשׁ מַה דִּינוֹ, אִם כְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אוֹ כְשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר, לְפִיכָךְ נֶחְלְקוּ בוֹ חַכְמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שׂוֹכֵר כֵּיצַד מְשַׁלֵּם, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר כְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, רַ' יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר כְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר (בבא מציעא צ"ה):

אם שכיר הוא IF IT BE HIRED — i. e. if the ox has not been borrowed but hired, בא בשכרו THEN IT CAME FOR ITS HIRE into the hand of this hirer and not by way of loan. For he does not get the entire benefit of the transaction since he is using it only because he has paid hire for it and consequently the owner benefits also; therefore the law applicable to a borrower does not apply in his case — that he should be held liable for loss by accident. Scripture, however, does not state explicity what his (the hirer’s) law actually is — whether he has to be treated as the gratuitous bailee (שומר חנם) or as the bailee for payment (שומר שכר), and therefore the Sages in Israel differ in their opinion as to how the hirer (שוכר) has to make restitution. R. Meir says he is responsible only as a gratuitous bailee, whilst R. Judah says, even as a bailee for payment (Bava Metzia 80b).

וכי יפתה. מְדַבֵּר עַל לִבָּהּ עַד שֶׁשּׁוֹמַעַת לוֹ, וְכֵן תַּרְגּוּמוֹ וַאֲרֵי יְשַׁדֵּל, שִׁדּוּל בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲרַמִּי כְּפִתּוּי בִּלְשׁוֹן עִבְרִי:

וכי יפתה AND IF A MAN ENTICE [A VIRGIN] — i. e. if he speaks kindly to her until she submits to him. Thus does also the Targum take it: ארי ישדל “if a man persuades”, the root שדל (the Pael conjugation) in Aramaic being the equivalent of פִּתָּה in Hebrew.

מהר ימהרנה. יִפְסֹק לָהּ מֹהַר כְּמִשְׁפַּט אִישׁ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ – שֶׁכּוֹתֵב לָהּ כְּתֻבָּה וְיִשָּׂאֶנָּה (מכילתא):

מהר ימהרנה HE SHALL SURELY GIVE HER THE MARRIAGE PRICE — He shall assign her a marriage portion as is the practice of a man to do to his wife, i. e. he shall write her a Ketuba (marriage contract providing for a marriage portion) and shall marry her (Mekhilta).

כמהר הבתולת. שֶׁהוּא קָצוּב חֲמִשִּׁים כֶּסֶף אֵצֶל הַתּוֹפֵס אֶת הַבְּתוּלָה וְשׁוֹכֵב עִמָּהּ בְּאֹנֶס, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְנָתַן הָאִישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵב עִמָּהּ לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה חֲמִשִּׁים כָּסֶף (דברים כ"ב):

כמהר הבתולת AS THE MARRIAGE PRICE OF THE VIRGINS — which is limited to fifty shekels in the case of one who outrages a virgin, for it is said, (Deuteronomy 22:29) “Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver” (Mekhilta; Ketubot 10a).

מכשפה לא תחיה. אֶלָּא תּוּמַת בְּבֵית דִּין; וְאֶחָד זְכָרִים וְאֶחָד נְקֵבוֹת, אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב בַּהוֹוֶה, שֶׁהַנָּשִׁים מְצוּיוֹת מְכַשֵּׁפוֹת (סנהדרין ס"ז):

מכשפה לא תחיה THOU SHALT NOT SUFFER A WITCH TO LIVE — This does not mean that you may kill her but she shall be put to death by the court. Both men and women who practise witchcraft are included in this law but in using the feminine term מכשפה Scripture speaks of what is usually the case; for it is women who mostly practise witchcraft (Sanhedrin 67a).

כל שכב עם בהמה מות יומת. בִּסְקִילָה, רוֹבֵעַ כַּנִּרְבַּעַת, שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהֶם דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם (ויקרא כ'):

כל שכב עם בהמה מות יומת — All who have carnal connection with beasts, whether men or women, shall surely be put to death — by stoning, for it states of such, (Leviticus 20:16) “their blood is upon them” (cf. Rashi on Exodus 21:17) (Mekhilta)].

לאלהים. לַעֲ"זָ; אִלּוּ הָיָה נָקוּד לֵאלֹהִים, הָיָה צָרִיךְ לְפָרֵשׁ וְלִכְתֹּב "אֲחֵרִים", עַכְשָׁו שֶׁאָמַר לָאֱלֹהִים, אֵין צָרִיךְ לְפָרֵשׁ אֲחֵרִים, שֶׁכָּל לָמֶ"ד וּבֵי"ת הַמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת בְּרֹאשׁ הַתֵּבָה אִם נְקוּדָה בַּחֲטָף, כְּגוֹן לְמֶלֶךְ, לְמִדְבָּר, לְעִיר, צָרִיךְ לְפָרֵשׁ לְאֵיזֶה מֶלֶךְ, לְאֵיזֶה מִדְבָּר, לְאֵיזֶה עִיר, וְכֵן לִמְלָכִים וְלִרְגָלִים צָרִיךְ לְפָרֵשׁ לְאֵיזֶה, וְאִם אֵינוֹ מְפָרֵשׁ, כָּל מְלָכִים בְּמַשְׁמָע, כֵן לֵאלֹהִים כָּל אֱלֹהִים בְּמַשְׁמָע – אֲפִלּוּ קֹדֶשׁ, אֲבָל כְּשֶׁהִיא נְקוּדָה פַּתָּח, כְּמוֹ לַמֶּלֶךְ, לַמִּדְבָּר, לָעִיר, נוֹדַע בְּאֵיזֶה מֶלֶךְ מְדַבֵּר, וְכֵן לָעִיר נוֹדַע בְּאֵיזֶה עִיר מְדַבֵּר, וְכֵן לָאֱלֹהִים – לְאוֹתָן שֶׁהֻזְהַרְתֶּם עֲלֵיהֶם בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר; כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ אֵין כָּמוֹךָ בָאֱלֹהִים, לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא פֵּרֵשׁ, הֻצְרַךְ לִנָּקֵד פַּתָּח:

לָאֱלֹהִים means TO IDOLS — If the word (a noun) were punctuated לֵאלֹהִים, with Tzéré under the first ל it would be necessary to define it more closely by adding the adjective אחרים = strange (gods — idols); now, however, that it says לָאֱלֹהִים it is not necessary to define it more closely by adding the word אחרים. For wherever ל or ב are prefixed to a word if it (the prefix) be punctuated with Chataph (שוא), as e. g., לְמֶלֶךְ a king, לְמִדְבָּר, to a desert, לָעִיר, to a city, it must be explained to which king, to which desert, to which city. The same is the case if the ל or ב has a Chirik instead of a Sheva which happens when they are placed before a word beginning with Sheva, as e .g., in לִמְלָכִים for kings, לִרְגָלִים, for festivals, (quoted from Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 1:1) it is necessary to state for which kings or festivals, and if he does not state this, all kings and festivals are implied by these words. Similarly here: the word לַאלֹהִים “to gods”, would imply “all gods”, including even Him of Whom the term אלהים is used in a holy sense (i. e. the Most High God). When, however, it (the prefix) is vowelled with Patach (or Kametz if the following letter cannot take Dagesh), as לַמֶּלֶךְ and לַמִּדְבָּר and לָעִיר it is quite plain which king one is speaking of, and similarly in the case of לָעִיר “to the city”, it is quite plain of which city one is speaking. In the same way, לָאֱלֹהִים, to the gods, means to those gods which in another passage you have been forbidden to worship. A similar instance is, (Psalms 86:8) אין כמוך בָאֱלֹהִים, “there is none like unto Thee among the gods” — because he did not more closely define it by the addition of some word like אחרים, it was necessary for him to vowel the ל with Patach (Kametz).

יחרם. יוּמַת; לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר יָחֳרָם וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֶמְרָה בוֹ מִיתָה בְמָקוֹם אַחֵר וְהוֹצֵאתָ אֶת הָאִישׁ הַהוּא אוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה הַהִוא וְגוֹ' (דברים י"ז)? אֶלָּא לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא פֵּרֵשׁ עַל אֵיזוֹ עֲבוֹדָה חַיָּב מִיתָה – שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר כָּל עֲבוֹדוֹת בְּמִיתָה – בָּא וּפֵרֵשׁ לְךָ כָּאן "זֹבֵחַ" לָאֱלֹהִים, לוֹמַר לְךָ, מַה זְּבִיחָה עֲבוֹדָה הַנַּעֲשֵׂית בִּפְנִים לַשָּׁמַיִם, אַף אֲנִי מְרַבֶּה הַמַּקְטִיר וְהַמְנַסֵּךְ שֶׁהֵם עֲבוֹדוֹת בִּפְנִים, וְחַיָּבִים עֲלֵיהֶם לְכָל עֲ"זָ בֵּין שֶׁדַּרְכָּהּ לְעָבְדָהּ בְּכָךְ, בֵּין שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכָּהּ לְעָבְדָהּ בְּכָךְ. אֲבָל שְׁאָר עֲבוֹדוֹת, כְּגוֹן הַמְכַבֵּד וְהַמְרַבֵּץ וְהַמְגַפֵּף וְהַמְנַשֵּׁק אֵינוֹ בְּמִיתָה:

יחרם means SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH — Why is this verse with its predicate יחרם said at all? Was not the death penalty for him (the idolator) stated in another passage: (Deuteronomy 17:5) “Thou shalt bring forth that man or that woman [who have done that evil thing … and stone them]”? But the reason is: because Scripture does not specify there for what form of worship he (the idolator) is liable to death and it merely states, “and hath gone and served other gods” — now, in order that you might not say that any kind of worship offered to idols is punishable with death, Scripture comes and definitely tells you here: “one who sacrificeth unto any god [shall surely be put to death]”, to teach you that all kinds of worship which have a certain characteristic of “sacrifice” are meant here. What is this characteristic of sacrifice? It is an act of worship performed in honour of the Lord in the “Interior” (i. e. in the Temple)! So I mean to include as punishable by death anyone offering incense and libation since these are also acts of worship performed in the Temple, and that one is liable for these acts if he performed them in honour of any idol, whether this be the usual way of worshipping it or whether this be not the usual way of worshipping it. But other forms of adoration which are shown to some idols but which are not peculiar to the worship of the idol which one happens to be worshipping, — if, e. g., one sweeps the place before the idol in its honour, or one lays the dust in front of it by sprinkling water there, or one embraces or kisses it, — are not punishable by death (cf. Sanhedrin 60b).

וגר לא תונה. אוֹנָאַת דְּבָרִים, קונטרארי"ר בְּלַעַז, כְּמוֹ וְהַאֲכַלְתִּי אֶת מוֹנַיִךְ אֶת בְּשָׂרָם (ישעיהו מ"ט):

וגר לא תונה — means, do not vex him with words (referring to the fact that he is a stranger); contrarier in old French Similar is, (Isaiah 49:26) “And I will feed them that vex thee (מוניך) with their own flesh”.

ולא תלחצנו. בִּגְזֵלַת מָמוֹן:

ולא תלחצנו NOR OPPRESS HIM — by robbing him of money (Mekhilta).

כי גרים הייתם. אִם הוֹנִיתוֹ, אַף הוּא יָכוֹל לְהוֹנוֹתְךָ וְלוֹמַר לְךָ, אַף אַתָּה מִגֵּרִים בָּאתָ, "מוּם שֶׁבְּךָ אַל תֹּאמַר לַחֲבֵרְךָ"; כָּל לְשׁוֹן גֵּר אָדָם שֶׁלֹּא נוֹלַד בְּאוֹתָהּ מְדִינָה, אֶלָּא בָּא מִמְּדִינָה אַחֶרֶת לָגוּר שָׁם:

כי גרים הייתם FOR YE WERE STRANGERS — If you vex him he can vex you also by saying to you: “You also descend from strangers”. Do not reproach thy fellow-man for a fault which is also thine (Mekhilta). Wherever גר occurs in Scriptures it signifies a person who has not been born in that land (where he is living) but has come from another country to sojourn there.

כל אלמנה ויתום לא תענון. הוּא הַדִּין לְכָל אָדָם, אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב בַּהוֹוֶה, לְפִי שֶׁהֵם תְּשׁוּשֵׁי כֹחַ וְדָבָר מָצוּי לְעַנּוֹתָם (מכילתא):

כל אלמנה ויתום לא תענון YOU SHALL NOT AFFLICT ANY WIDOW, OR FATHERLESS CHILD — That is also the law regarding any person, but Scripture is speaking of what usually happens and therefore mentions these in particular, for they are feeble in defensive power (i. e. they have no one to protect them) and it is a frequent occurrence for people to afflict them (Mekhilta).

אם ענה תענה אתו. הֲרֵי זֶה מִקְרָא קָצָר, גָּזַם וְלֹא פֵּרֵשׁ עָנְשׁוֹ, כְּמוֹ לָכֵן כָּל הֹרֵג קַיִן (בראשית ד'), גָּזַם וְלֹא פֵּרֵשׁ עָנְשׁוֹ, אַף כָּאן אִם עַנֵּה תְעַנֵּה אוֹתוֹ לְשׁוֹן גִּזּוּם, כְּלוֹמַר סוֹפְךָ לִטֹּל אֶת שֶׁלְּךָ לָמָּה? כִּי אִם צָעֹק יִצְעַק אֵלַי וְגוֹ':

אם ענה תענה אתו IF THOU AFFLICT THEM IN ANY WISE — This is an elliptical phrase — the text threatens but breaks off and does not specify immediately the punishment which will fall upon those who do this. We have the same in, (Genesis 4:15) “Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain …” it threatens but does not specify the punishment. So, here, too: “If thou afflict them in any wise”, — this is a threat, as much as to say: “in the end you will get your deserts!” Why are you certain to get them? “Because (כי) if (אם) they cry at all unto Me, I will surely hear their cry”.

והיו נשיכם אלמנות. מִמַּשְׁמָע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְהָרַגְתִּי אֶתְכֶם אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁנְּשֵׁיכֶם אַלְמָנוֹת וּבְנֵיכֶם יְתוֹמִים? אֶלָּא הֲרֵי זוֹ קְלָלָה אַחֶרֶת, שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הַנָּשִׁים צְרוּרוֹת כְּאַלְמָנוֹת חַיּוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ עֵדִים לְמִיתַת בַּעְלֵיהֶן וְתִהְיֶינָה אֲסוּרוֹת לְהִנָּשֵׂא, וְהַבָּנִים יִהְיוּ יְתוֹמִים, שֶׁלֹּא יַנִּיחוּם בֵּית דִּין לֵירֵד לְנִכְסֵי אֲבִיהֶם, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין יוֹדְעִים אִם מֵתוּ אִם נִשְׁבּוּ (בבא מציעא ל"ח):

והיו נשיכם אלמנות AND YOUR WIVES SHALL BE WIDOWS [AND YOUR CHILDREN FATHERLESS] — From what is implied in the words, “I will kill you with the sword” do I not know that “your wives shall be widows and your children orphans”? But the explanation of the latter words is not that implied by your question; it is quite a different curse: that the wives will be “fettered” for life — “as living widows” (Rashi is imitating a Biblical phrase, II Samuel 20:3, used in a somewhat similar sense) — that there will be no witnesses who can testify to the death of their husbands, and so they will be forbidden to re-marry. In which case the children will be destitute orphans, for the court will not allow them to take possession of the chattels of their fathers, since they do not know whether they have died or have only been taken captives (Mekhilta; Bava Metzia 38b).

אם כסף תלוה את עמי. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר כָּל אִם וְאִם שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה רְשׁוּת חוּץ מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה, וְזֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן (מכילתא):

אם כסף תלוה את עמי IF THOU LEND MONEY TO ANY OF MY PEOPLE — R. Yishmael said: wherever אם occurs in Scripture it is used of an act the performance of which is optional, except in three instances, of which this is one (Mekhilta; cf. Rashi on Exodus 20:22 - the translation therefore is: “When thou lendeth etc.”).

את עמי. עַמִּי וְגוֹי עַמִּי קוֹדֵם, עָנִי וְעָשִׁיר עָנִי קוֹדֵם, עֲנִיֶּיךָ וַעֲנִיֵּי עִירְךָ עֲנִיֶּיךָ קוֹדְמִין, עֲנִיֵּי עִירְךָ וַעֲנִיֵּי עִיר אַחֶרֶת עֲנִיֵּי עִירְךָ קוֹדְמִין; וְזֶה מַשְׁמָעוֹ: אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה – אֶת עַמִּי תַּלְוֵהוּ וְלֹא לְגוֹי, וּלְאֵיזֶה מֵעַמִּי? אֶת הֶעָנִי, וּלְאֵיזֶה עָנִי? לְאוֹתוֹ שֶׁעִמָּךְ. (דָּ"אַ, אֶת עַמִּי, שֶׁלֹּא תִנְהַג בּוֹ בִּזָּיוֹן בְּהַלְוָאָה שֶׁהוּא עַמִּי:

את עמי TO ANY OF MY PEOPLE — If thou hast to choose between lending money to My people and a heathen, My people come first; if between a poor man and one who is better off, the poor man comes first; if between thine own poor (poor relatives) and other poor of thy city, thine own poor come first; if between the poor of thine own city and the poor of another city, the poor of thine own city come first (Mekhilta; Bava Metzia 71a). And this is how the above explanation is implied in the text: “If thou lend money” — את עמי “lend it to My people”, and not to a heathen; and to which one of My people? את העני, to the poor; and to which poor? עמך to him that is with thee (i. e. who is with thee in relationship and is with thee in thy city). [Another explanation of את עמי is: Thou shalt not treat him disrespectfully when lending him money, for he is עמי — though in need he is still “My people”!

את העני עמך. הֱוֵי מִסְתַּכֵּל בְּעַצְמְךָ כְּאִלּוּ אַתָּה עָנִי:

את העני עמך Look at thyself as though thou art the poor man (Midrash Tanchuma 6:15)].

לא תהיה לו כנשה. לֹא תִתְבָּעֶנּוּ בְּחָזְקָה. אִם אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ, אַל תְּהִי דּוֹמֶה עָלָיו כְּאִלּוּ הִלְוִיתוֹ אֶלָּא כְאִלּוּ לֹא הִלְוִיתוֹ, כְּלוֹמַר לֹא תַכְלִימֵהוּ:

לא תהיה לו כנשה THOU SHALT NOT BE UNTO HIM AS AN EXACTOR — you shall not demand the debt of him forcibly. The comparative כ of כנשה suggests thou shalt not be like a נשה: if you know that he has no money do not appear in your attitude towards him as though you had lent him, but as though you had not lent him — it means as much as, do not humble him.

נשך. רִבִּית, שֶׁהוּא כִנְשִׁיכַת נָחָשׁ שֶׁנוֹשֵׁךְ חַבּוּרָה קְטַנָּה בְּרַגְלוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מַרְגִּישׁ, וּפִתְאֹם הוּא מְבַטְבֵּט וְנוֹפֵחַ עַד קָדְקֳדוֹ, כָּךְ רִבִּית אֵינוֹ מַרְגִּישׁ וְאֵינוֹ נִכָּר עַד שֶׁהָרִבִּית עוֹלָה וּמְחַסְּרוֹ מָמוֹן הַרְבֵּה (תנחומא):

נשך is what is called in Rabbinical Hebrew רבית (from רבה to increase). It is called נשך “biting”, because it resembles the bite of a snake: it bites, inflicting a small wound in a person’s foot which he does not feel at first, but all at once it swells and distends the whole body up to the top of his head. So it is with interest: at first one does not feel the drain it makes on him and it remains unnoticed until the interest mounts up and suddenly makes the person lose a big fortune (Exodus Rabbah 31:6).

אם חבל תחבל. כָּל לְשׁוֹן חֲבָלָה אֵינוֹ מַשְׁכּוֹן בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָה, אֶלָּא שֶׁמְּמַשְׁכְּנִין אֶת הַלֹּוֶה כְּשֶׁמַּגִּיעַ הַזְּמַן וְאֵינוֹ פוֹרֵעַ; (חָבֹל תַּחְבֹּל – כְּפֹל לְךָ בַּחֲבָלָה עַד כַּמָּה פְעָמִים; אָמַר הַקָּבָּ"ה כַּמָּה אַתָּה חַיָּב לִי, וַהֲרֵי נַפְשְׁךָ עוֹלָה אֶצְלִי כָּל אֶמֶשׁ וָאֶמֶשׁ וְנוֹתֶנֶת דִּין וּמִתְחַיֶּבֶת לְפָנַי וַאֲנִי מַחֲזִירָהּ לְךָ, אַף אַתָּה טֹל וְהָשֵׁב טֹל וְהָשֵׁב):

אם חבל תחבל IF THOU TAKE TO PLEDGE — The root חבל never signifies “taking a pledge” at the time when the loan is transacted, but it means taking the goods of the debtor when the date of payment arrives and he does not pay (Bava Metzia 114b). [חבל תחבל — Scripture bids you take the pledge repeatedly — even many times (that is, repeatedly to defer the time of payment). The Holy One, blessed be He, says as it were: “How much do you owe Me! See, your soul ascends night by night to Me and renders account of its doing and so becomes My debtor, and should be kept as a pledge; and yet I return it to you every morning. Thus, too, you should do: take the pledge and restore it, take it again and again restore it!”) (Midrash Tanchuma, Mishpatim 16)].

עד בא השמש תשיבנו לו. כָּל הַיּוֹם תְּשִׁיבֶנּוּ לוֹ עַד בֹּא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, וּכְבֹא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ תַּחֲזֹר וְתִטְּלֶנּוּ עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא בֹּקֶר שֶׁל מָחָר; וּבִכְסוּת יוֹם הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ לָהּ בַּלַּיְלָה (מכילתא, בבא מציעא קי"ד):

עד בא השמש תשיבנו לו RESTORE IT UNTO HIM TILL THE GOING DOWN OF THE SUN — Restore it unto him for the whole day until the sun-set, and at night-fall you may take it again till the day-break of the next morning. Scripture speaks here of garment which is worn during the day and which is not required during the night (Bava Metzia 114b).

כי הוא כסותה. זוֹ טַלִּית:

כי הוא כסותה FOR THAT IS HIS RAIMENT — i. e. his upper garment;

שמלתו. זֶה חָלוּק:

שמלתו means HIS SHIRT (the שמלה for the skin);

במה ישכב. לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַמַּצָּע (מכילתא):

במה ישכב WHEREIN SHALL HE LIE DOWN — These words are used to include amongst the articles which must be returned to him during the day the couch and its coverings on which he rests during day-time (Mekhilta).