Click here to receive the weekly parsha by email each week.
YOU SHALL
NOT WITHHOLD THE WAGES OF A POOR OR DESTITUTE HIRED WORKER, OF YOUR BROTHERS OR OF YOUR STRANGERS WHO
ARE IN YOUR LAND WITHIN YOUR CITIES. YOU SHALL GIVE HIM HIS WAGE ON HIS DAY AND
NOT LET THE SUN SET OVER IT, FOR HE IS POOR, AND HE RISKS HIS LIFE FOR IT, SO
THAT HE SHOULD NOT CRY OUT TO THE LORD AGAINST YOU, SO THAT THERE SHOULD BE SIN
UPON YOU.
(Devarim
24:14-15)
You shall not withhold
the wages of a poor or destitute hired worker - Scripture speaks in realistic terms, for
it is the poor, the destitute, and the stranger who hire themselves out. Similarly:
When you lend money to My people, to the poor person [who is] with you (Shemot 22:24), and also it shall be for the stranger, the orphan, and the widow (Devarim 24: 19), for they make up the majority of the poor.
And so it speaks realistically in many places, such as, You shall not muzzle
an ox when it is threshing (25:4), You shall not
plow with an ox and a donkey together (22:10). And in Sifrei (Ki Tetze 145) they
said: "If so, why does it say poor or destitute? Because the poor
and destitute hasten to collect [their wages] more than others do."
(RaMBaN
Devarim 24:14)
Judah was exiled due to poverty - For they damaged the collateral of the
poor which they kept in their homes, as it is said, And if he is a poor man,
you shall not lie down [to sleep] with his security (Devarim 24).
Another statement: due to
poverty - that they withheld the pay of hired workers, as it is said, You
shall not withhold the wages of a poor or destitute hired worker (Devarim 24).
Another statement: due to
poverty - that they stole the gifts owed the poor, as it is said, leave
them for the poor and the stranger (ibid).
Another statement: due to
poverty - that they ate the tithe of the poor.
R. Bibi and R. Huna said in Rav's
name: He who eats food from which the tithe of the poor was not taken is
deserving of death.
(Eikha
Rabba 1)
"Scripture is referring to an optional war"
Pinchas Leiser
Lovingly
dedicated
To
my dear son Naty and to Ya'el, the chosen one of his heart
In
honor of their wedding this week.
Rashi,
following the Sages (Kiddushin 21b and Midrash Tanhuma), explains the juxtaposition of the passages of "the beautiful
[captive] woman," the "hated woman," and the "rebellious
son." He writes:
[and you desire her,] you may take [her] for yourself as a wife [Not that you are commanded to take this woman as a wife,] but the Torah [in permitting this marriage] is speaking only against the evil inclination [, which drives him to desire her]. For if the Holy One, blessed is He, would not permit her to him, he would take her illicitly. [The Torah teaches us, however, that] if he marries her, he will ultimately come to despise her, as it says after this, "If a man has [two wives-one beloved and the other despised]" (verse 15); [moreover] he will ultimately father through her a wayward and rebellious son (see verse 18). For this reason, these passages are juxtaposed. (Tanhuma 1) (Rashi Devarim 21:11, Judaica Press translation)
I think that the key phrase here is "the Torah is speaking only against the evil inclination." The Holy One blessed be He knows man's soul and inclinations, and so He is willing not to have the Torah "prohibit" something that many people are likely in any case to do in time of war. However, the juxtaposition of passages seems to teach us that all which follows (hate of the captive woman and the birth of the criminal son) result directly from the surrender to libidinous behavior that takes no account of any moral value. After all, Rashi, following the Sages, interprets beautiful woman as "even a married woman." Scripture does not explicitly tell us how what the beautiful woman's own position is towards all of this, how she feels about the enemy soldier who "took" her. However, since the Torah goes on to tell us that she shall stay in your house, and weep for her father and her mother for a full month, we may assume that this might even be a case of rape. The Torah also commands that if the man who took her in the storm of battle grows tired of her, he must release her and receive no compensation for his "loss" - You shall not keep her as a servant, because you have afflicted her. It is an affliction for a woman to be taken on the field of battle.
I think that the range of examples covered by Rashi's explanation of the juxtaposition of passages (as suggested by the Sages) can be extended on the basis of something Rashi writes in the beginning of the parasha, again following the Sages in Sifrei:
If you go out to war The verse here is referring to an optional war.
The
word if [Hebrew: ki] indicates a situation that is dependent upon
human decisions. This is not an obligatory war, but rather one initiated by the
nation's leadership.
RaMBaM
offers concise definitions of obligatory and optional wars:
At
first the king may only fight obligatory wars. Which wars are obligatory? The
war against the Seven Nations, the war against Amalek, and the
defense of
The
literal war against Amalek (rather than the eternal and symbolic war against
absolute evil) and the war against the Seven Nations are merely of historical
interest ("their memory is lost"). The only war that can be called an
"obligatory war" today is one fought in "the defense of Israel
against an enemy that has come upon them," i.e., a unavoidable war
intended to protect the nation from attack by an enemy that threatens its
existence. All other wars are "optional wars."
A halakhah
found in Mishnah Sanhedrin 1:5 states:
An
optional war is only waged with the permission of the Court of Seventy-One
[judges].
That
is to say: the highest judicial authority must oversee the political leadership's
decision to fight an "optional war," and they must not be dragged
into such a war by emotionalism and impulsivity.
The
very term reshut - "optional" may require study and
clarification. Certainly the Torah does not relate positively to the taking of
the "beautiful woman," and the explication cited by Rashi makes this
unambiguous. The word "optional" often refers to situations that are
not prohibited by the Torah but which are also not viewed as positive or desirable
by the Torah.
The
Mishnah and Gemara in tractate Makkot (chapter 2) deal with the case of a blood avenger who "murdered" an
accidental killer who had left the city of refuge. The halakhah adopts R. Akiva's
view, which states: the blood avenger has reshut [the option of
killing the accidental killer]. In his Commentary on the Mishnah and in
the Mishneh Torah, RaMBaM explains that this refers to a situation in which the
accidental killer deliberately left the city of refuge. The Torah uses the term
murdered [ratzah]: and the blood-avenger murdered the murderer.
True, the avenger will not stand trial for this murder, but his act is still
referred to as a murder.
Along
these lines, HaRAYaH Kook ztz"l sees a kind of "hidden rebuke"
in the Torah's formulation regarding the eating of meat: for it is your soul's
desire to eat meat.
A
similar idea is expressed by R. Yohanan's famous dictum regarding the reason
for Jerusalem's destruction:
R.
Yohanan said:
The
blanket command, and you shall do the right and the good, does not
relate to specific halakhic categories. I think that all the examples brought
have something clear to say about the spiritual and moral plane of meta-halakhah,
which stands beyond the concepts "permitted" and "prohibited."
The category of reshut is not identical with the desirable and the
moral, the straight and good in the eyes of God and man. Rather, it refers to a
certain region of human and social behaviors that are not prohibited by the
Torah in a formal, halakhic, sense.
The
Torah may be trying to relay to us an important message through the existence
of the zone of reshut. The Torah restricts human behavior with formal
and external limits; the "four cubits o the halakhah" represent a
legal-social framework that makes the minimal demands required of a Jew. However,
these demands do not command the good and the straight, the worthy, the moral,
and the spiritually exalted.
Everything
connected to this realm of "beyond the letter o the law" and "saintly
virtue" is given over to the prerogative of human individuals and
societies
I
think that we can extend the message arising from Rashi and the Sages'
explication of the juxtaposition of passages in terms of "the Torah is speaking only against the evil inclination"
to the very beginning of our parasha.
The
national leadership is apt to mobilize the people for an "optional war"
in order, as the RaMBaM says, "to expand Israel's borders and to
increase his greatness and fame." The motivation for war may be
politico-territorial or connected to considerations of personal prestige. If
such a decision is not ratified by an independent judicial authority (the
Sanhedrin of Seventy-One) there is a great danger of wars motivated by the
universal human drive for conquest.
The
Torah spells out for us what may happen when people choose to wage a war which,
while not "prohibited" - in as much as "the Torah is speaking
only against the evil inclination." That scenario teaches us that every
individual, every society, every nation and every state is granted the freedom
to choose between surrender to the drive for conquest and moral behavior
requiring self-control and moderation.
The
Torah also teaches us that each choice made by an individual or a society
influences their respective characters. "Our Father Who is in Heaven,
bless the State of Israel… send Your light and truth to its leaders, ministers,
and advisors, and help them with Your good counsel."
Pinchas
Leiser, editor of Shabbat Shalom, is a psychologist
The Cry of the Gentile Woman
The Rabbis ordained that the
mourner should observe some mourning customs for a full thirty days. What
textual support did the Sages find for the thirty days [as a period of
mourning]? From its saying, and [she shall] weep for her father and her
mother for a full month; this derives from the rule that the mourner is
troubled for a full thirty days.
(RaMBaM
Hilkhot Avel 6:1)
Sisera's mother peered
through the window; and said in a trembling voice, "Why is his chariot
late in coming? Why tarry the strides of his chariots?"
(Judges
5)
It says, It shall be a day
of terua [shofar sounding] for you (Bamidbar 29), and this is translated: "It shall be a day of trembling speech. And
by Sisera's mother it is written, Sisera's mother peered through the window;
and said in a trembling voice.
(Rosh
HaShana 33b)
Take Care
Against Anything Evil: Ethical
Behavior in Times of Ordeal
When a camp goes out to battle - Even though you
go out of the boundaries of routine family and civic life when you are in a
military camp prepared for war against you enemies (the Sifrei emphasizes against
your enemies - you wage war against your enemies". The Torah assumes
that you will fight only those who have shown themselves to be your enemies,
that you suffered from their animosity and anticipated hostile acts, therefore
even when you attack them, take care of yourself; these words negate all wars
of conquest), and therefore even when you are in a military camp, where moral
constraints are easily loosened and the goal of war itself contributes to
unbridled coarseness even then Take care
against anything evil - do not cease to check yourself as you practice
self-control, and be careful to protect yourself against
anything evil.
(Rabbi S. R. Hirsch, Commentary on Devarim 23:10)
The Good of Society is Dependent to a Great Degree Upon the Happiness
of the Individual
The following are exempt from joining the army and are not requisitioned
for any service whatsoever: he who built a house and dedicated it; he who
married his betrothed wife or the wife of his deceased brother; he who planted
a vineyard and used the fruit thereof - these do not go forth (to battle) till
the completion of one year, as it is said: He shall be free for his house
one year, and shall cheer his wife whom he has taken (Devarim 24:5). It has been learned by tradition that he
shall be free one year whether he acquired a house, or married a wife, or planted a vineyard the fruit whereof he has begun to use.
(RaMBaM, Hilkhot Melakhim
7:10, Hershman translation)
...And the Torah looks upon this duty of a husband for the happiness of
the marriage as being such a high one, and lays such importance to it, not only
for its individual happiness but also for national well-being that, for a whole year after marrying a wife, it
frees him from all public services and duties, yea, actually forbids him
undertake any of them so that he can give himself up entirely to his home life
and to laying the foundation of his wife's happiness...
Clearly at the root of these laws lies the point of view that a state,
the concept of a state as a whole, only has reality in the actual numbers of
all its individual members, but apart from them, or next to them, one cannot
consider the existence of a state as a concept in itself. So that the national
welfare can only be sought in the well-being and happiness of all the single
individuals, hence every flourishing and happy home is a contribution to the
realization of the goal set for the entire nation, hence has to be met by the
nation with careful, encouraging, and promoting consideration.
(Rabbi S.R. Hirsch on
Devarim 24:5, Levy translation)
Two different
ephah measures, two different weights: Social Justice as the Basis for
Secure Existence
You shall not keep in your house two different ephah measures After mentioning the means for maintaining the Divine Presence in Israel's midst, he warns that God hates not only miscarriage of justice, but He also hates one who posses instruments ready for committing injustice. One must keeps such instruments away from oneself lest He come to despise us, as He said, For whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord, your God.
(Seforno Devarim 25:14)
R. Tanhuma son of Rabbi began speaking in Rabbi's name: Two different weights, two different ephah measures; even both are an abomination of the Lord (Proverbs 20:10). Deceitful scales are an abomination of the Lord (11:1). What is written afterwards? When willful wickedness comes, then comes disgrace (11:2).
When
Deceitful scales are an abomination of the Lord and what it written afterwards? When willful wickedness comes, then comes disgrace.
(Pesikta Rabbati 13)
Remember what [Amalek] did to you - If you practiced deceit with measures and weights worry about the plundering enemy, for it is said, Deceitful scales are an abomination of the Lord and afterwards, When willful wickedness comes, then comes disgrace.
(Rashi Devarim 25:17)
But you shall not leave his body on the pole overnight. Rather, you shall bury him on that [same] day, for a hanging [human corpse] is a blasphemy of God, and you shall not defile your land, which the Lord, your God, is giving you as an inheritance.
(Devarim
21:23)
for a hanging [human corpse] is a blasphemy of God The death of the sinner makes an impression upon those who see it, And all the people shall listen and see, and they shall no longer act wantonly (17:13). However, dealing cruelly with the corpse is of no help - rather, it only hurts. If the body of the one put to death is left hanging on the pole to be eaten by the fowl of heaven, that will not serve to keep people from transgressing. Rather it will cause those who see it to feel compassion and pity, and they will come to curse the judges and God's law. Such is the opinion of the RaShBaM and it is correct.
(ShaDaL ad loc)