Exodus: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13a 13b 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30a 30b 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38a 38b 39 40
N.B. With all of these legal ordinances, I have attempted to translate the words into phrasing that makes sense to a modern reader, and not necessarily taken the idioms of the day literally; the primary goal in these chapters being to understand the intention of the laws.
The King James version of this chapter begins with the verse that was Exodus 21:37 elsewhere. I have included it at the end of the last chapter, and again here, noting the alternate numbers in brackets. Given that the last verse of the previous chapter was a change of subject, and a change specifically to the one that now follows, it is definitely more logical to have the chapter change as per the KJ.
21:37 KI YIGNOV ISH SHOR O SEH U TEVACHO O MECHARO CHAMISHAH VAKAR YESHALEM TACHAT HA SHOR VE ARBA TSON TACHAT HA SEH
כִּי יִגְנֹב אִישׁ שׁוֹר אוֹ שֶׂה וּטְבָחוֹ אוֹ מְכָרוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה בָקָר יְשַׁלֵּם תַּחַת הַשּׁוֹר וְאַרְבַּע צֹאן תַּחַת הַשֶּׂה
KJ (22:1): If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.
BN: If a man steals an ox, or a sheep, and kills it, or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.
Note that all the laws in the previous chapter related to oxen, no mention anywhere - except this verse - of sheep or goats. The Bedou did not generally keep cattle. Those wandering in the desert normally do not either, for there is nowhere to graze them, and little water for them to drink. We were told (Exodus 12:32) that the Beney Yisra-El took cattle with them when they left Mitsrayim, but we had misgivings about that statement; and if they did take them, given the shortage of water and the absence of grazing land, how did the cattle survive? Sheep and goats are hard enough, but they will graze on thorns and thistles if need be; not cattle. Again, therefore, we can deduce that these laws were of later, or much earlier, origin.
end of chapter 21 in the Masoretic version.
22:1 IM BA MACHTERET YIMATS'E HA GANAV VE CHUKAH VA MET EYN LO DAMIM
samech break
This verse seems to me to have been misplaced; verse 10 completes the hypothetical incident of verses 6ff, and this should come after it, not before it.
Interesting. If I borrow something from you as a friend or neighbour, and it breaks (my fault or otherwise), I am responsible for its replacement; if I rent, lease or hire something from you as a client, and it breaks (my fault or otherwise), you are responsbible for its replacement.
samech break
Surely there are two laws here, or at least two different consequences for the same crime, though the 613 do not distinguish them. In one, the man is required to pay a mohar and marry the girl; in the other, because the father refuses to hand his daughter over for life to a man who [he may think] raped her (or maybe he just doesn't think it's a suitable husband for his daughter), he is required to pay "nezikin" - damages. The trouble is, for the latter, this presupposes the existence of such a "price", though that law is not given here, and no amount is stated.
Surah 107 of the Qur'an (Al-Ma'un - The Kindnesses) renders this in more detail.
Which is as emphatic as you can get; and very close to Islam in its intensity.
YITS'AK ELAI: The first occasion I believe on which we have had any sense at all that these laws are being dictated by the deity, in the first person, rather than minuted as the closing statement of a colloquium of human lawyers.
✡
22:1 IM BA MACHTERET YIMATS'E HA GANAV VE CHUKAH VA MET EYN LO DAMIM
אִם בַּמַּחְתֶּרֶת יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב וְהֻכָּה וָמֵת אֵין לוֹ דָּמִים
(KJ 22:2): If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.
BN: If a thief is found breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no blood-guilt for him.
Today you would be charged with manslaughter! With a self-defense option, in America, if the thief was armed.
Update April 2018: click here
22:2 IM ZARCHAH HA SHEMESH ALAV DAMIM LO SHALEM YESHALEM IM EYN LO VE NIMKAR BI GENEVATO
אִם זָרְחָה הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ עָלָיו דָּמִים לוֹ שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם אִם אֵין לוֹ וְנִמְכַּר בִּגְנֵבָתוֹ
KJ (22:3): If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
BN: If the sun has risen above him, the full price of blood-guilt shall be paid for him; he shall make restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold to pay his theft.
The varying 3rd person singulars make it difficult to determine who exactly is culpable, and of what. Is this about the thief who is struck, but is still alive in the morning? Or is it about the man who killed the thief, and waited until the morning to sound the alarm rather than doing so immediately - suggesting that he may have something to hide beyond self-defense? The idea of the sun having risen is amusing - the difference presumably being that what you do by light is different from what you do under the concealment of darkness.
Rashi's explanation is interesting: "This is nothing but a metaphor, meaning that if the matter is clear to you that he [the thief] is peaceably disposed toward you - similar to the sun, which represents peace in the world - so it is obvious to you that he has not come to kill you. Even if the owner of the money rises against him, for instance, if a father breaks in to steal his son's property, it is known that the father has mercy on his son, and he has not come with the idea of murdering him." (Sanhedrin 72a, Mechilta).
Interesting, but a touch inarticulate; he seems to mean that, if you know the robber only intended to take your goods, but not your life, and yet you strike him and he dies, then it is not murder, but there still needs to be a consequence. Or does he mean, if you know the man has only come to rob you, and is not threatening violence, let him rob you?
Most ironic all of this: a verse of clarification that actually obfuscates the matter even more!
Rashi's explanation is interesting: "This is nothing but a metaphor, meaning that if the matter is clear to you that he [the thief] is peaceably disposed toward you - similar to the sun, which represents peace in the world - so it is obvious to you that he has not come to kill you. Even if the owner of the money rises against him, for instance, if a father breaks in to steal his son's property, it is known that the father has mercy on his son, and he has not come with the idea of murdering him." (Sanhedrin 72a, Mechilta).
Interesting, but a touch inarticulate; he seems to mean that, if you know the robber only intended to take your goods, but not your life, and yet you strike him and he dies, then it is not murder, but there still needs to be a consequence. Or does he mean, if you know the man has only come to rob you, and is not threatening violence, let him rob you?
Most ironic all of this: a verse of clarification that actually obfuscates the matter even more!
22:3 IM HIMATS'E TIMATS'E VE YADO HA GENEVAH MI SHOR AD CHAMOR AD SEH CHAYIM SHENAYIM YESHALEM
אִם הִמָּצֵא תִמָּצֵא בְיָדוֹ הַגְּנֵבָה מִשּׁוֹר עַד חֲמוֹר עַד שֶׂה חַיִּים שְׁנַיִם יְשַׁלֵּם
KJ (22:4): If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double.
BN: If he is caught red-handed with the stolen goods about his person, whether it be an ox, or an ass, or a sheep, he shall pay double.
samech break; end of 2nd fragment.
22:4 KI YAV'ER ISH SADEH O CHEREM VE SHILACH ET BE'IROH U VI'ER BISDEH ACHER MEYTAV SADEHU U MEYTAV KARMO YESHALEM
כִּי יַבְעֶר אִישׁ שָׂדֶה אוֹ כֶרֶם וְשִׁלַּח אֶת בְּעִירֹה וּבִעֵר בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם
KJ (22:5): If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man's field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution.
BN: If a man causes a field or vineyard to be eaten, by letting one of his animals loose so that it feeds on another man's field; he shall make restitution from the best of his own field, and from the best of his own vineyard.
Yet again, with this and the three previous verses, and several more that follow, these are laws for a settled people, farmers and village-dwellers, and not for a desert-wandering band of refugees.
I have attempted, in my translation, to retain the ambiguity of the Yehudit, where the KJ is definite that the man did it on purpose; the text also allows for a stray animal that should have been tethered properly.
I have attempted, in my translation, to retain the ambiguity of the Yehudit, where the KJ is definite that the man did it on purpose; the text also allows for a stray animal that should have been tethered properly.
samech break
22:5 KI TETS'E ESH U MATS'AH KOTSIM VE NE'ECHAL GADISH O HA KAMAH O HA SADEH SHALEM YESHALEM HA MAV'IR ET HA BE'ERAH
כִּי תֵצֵא אֵשׁ וּמָצְאָה קֹצִים וְנֶאֱכַל גָּדִישׁ אוֹ הַקָּמָה אוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם הַמַּבְעִר אֶת הַבְּעֵרָה
KJ (22:6): If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.
BN: If a fire breaks out, and catches the thorns, so that the sheaves of corn, or the standing corn, or the field are consumed; he who started the fire shall be required to make restitution.
samech break
22:6 KI YITEN ISH EL RE'EHU KESEPH O CHELIM LISHMOR VE GUNAV MI BEYT HA ISH IM YIMATS'E HA GANAV YESHALEM SHENAYIM
כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵלִים לִשְׁמֹר וְגֻנַּב מִבֵּית הָאִישׁ אִם יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב יְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנָיִם
KJ (22:7): If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man's house; if the thief be found, let him pay double.
BN: If a man takes money or goods to his neighbour for safe-keeping, and it is stolen from the man's house, if the thief be found, he shall pay damages to both of them.
Who pays this, the thief or the safe-keeper? Presumably the thief, but the text is not clear - though the next verse will make it so.
SHENAYIM: And is it "double", or "both of them"? Logically the latter, because the former only makes sense if the man robbed is then expected to pay back the loss to the man whose goods he was safe-keeping; but the text doesn't require that, so he gets the safe-keeping fee, if there was one, and double compensation, while the first man loses his goods and gets no compensation. Verse 10 will confirm this, by negative inference.
SHENAYIM: And is it "double", or "both of them"? Logically the latter, because the former only makes sense if the man robbed is then expected to pay back the loss to the man whose goods he was safe-keeping; but the text doesn't require that, so he gets the safe-keeping fee, if there was one, and double compensation, while the first man loses his goods and gets no compensation. Verse 10 will confirm this, by negative inference.
22:7 IM LO YIMATS'E HA GANAV VE NIKRAV BA'AL HA BAYIT EL HA ELOHIM IM LO SHALACH YADO BIMLE'CHET RE'EHU
אִם לֹא יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב וְנִקְרַב בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים אִם לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ בִּמְלֶאכֶת רֵעֵהוּ
KJ (22:8): If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods.
BN: If the thief cannot be found, then the owner of the house shall approach Ha Elohim, and there will be an investigation, to see if he has been helping himself to his neighbour's goods.
Ha Elohim. We are still in a pantheistic world. But, as we saw in the previous chapter, coming before the gods in this case is really about being summonsed to court. The human "judges" represent the deity in this court, just as the king does in his secular court.
22:8 AL KOL DEVAR PESHA AL SHOR AL CHAMOR AL SEH AL SALMAH AL KOL AVEDAH ASHER YOMAR KI HU ZEH AD HA ELOHIM YAVO DEVAR SHENEYHEM ASHER YARSHIY'UN ELOHIM YESHALEM SHENAYIM LE RE'EHU
עַל כָּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע עַל שׁוֹר עַל חֲמוֹר עַל שֶׂה עַל שַׂלְמָה עַל כָּל אֲבֵדָה אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר כִּי הוּא זֶה עַד הָאֱלֹהִים יָבֹא דְּבַר נֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר יַרְשִׁיעֻן אֱלֹהִים יְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנַיִם לְרֵעֵהוּ
KJ (22:9): For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.
BN: For every matter of transgression, whether it be for an ox, for an ass, for a sheep, for clothing, or for anything at all that has gone missing, of which one of the parties contends: "This is it", the cause of both parties shall be brought before Ha Elohim; he who Ha Elohim finds guilty shall pay double to his neighbour.
KOL DEVAR PESHA: "Trespass" is an unhelpful translation - we understand the word today as being on land when you have no right to be there, which of course is true of a burglary, but that is not what is intended here. And the word is going to be central to an understanding of Yisra-Eli, and later Jewish concepts, of good and bad, with the terms of law and punishment and expiation that will then apply, so understanding it precisely is essential.
A PESHA is a higher level of sin than a CHET (see my notes to Exodus 9:27 for a brief explanation of the three levels of sin and repentance; or click here for the full Talmudic version); here it means "if he lies or perjures himself"; in other words, if the man who claims it was stolen was lying, or the man who says he did not steal it was lying...
A PESHA is a higher level of sin than a CHET (see my notes to Exodus 9:27 for a brief explanation of the three levels of sin and repentance; or click here for the full Talmudic version); here it means "if he lies or perjures himself"; in other words, if the man who claims it was stolen was lying, or the man who says he did not steal it was lying...
samech break
22:9 KI YITEN ISH EL RE'EHU CHAMOR O SHOR O SEH VE CHOL BEHEMAH LISHMOR U MET O NISHBAR O NISHBAH EYN RO'EH
כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ חֲמוֹר אוֹ שׁוֹר אוֹ שֶׂה וְכָל בְּהֵמָה לִשְׁמֹר וּמֵת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אֵין רֹאֶה
KJ (22:10): If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it:
BN: If a man brings an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any animal to his neighbour for safe-keeping, and it dies, or is hurt, or is driven away, and no man has witnessed the incident...
This verse seems to me to have been misplaced; verse 10 completes the hypothetical incident of verses 6ff, and this should come after it, not before it.
22:10 SHEVU'AT YHVH TIHEYEH BEYN SHENEYHEM IM LO SHALACH YADO BIMLE'CHET RE'EHU VE LAKACH BE'ALAV VE LO YESHALEM
שְׁבֻעַת יְהוָה תִּהְיֶה בֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶם אִם לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ בִּמְלֶאכֶת רֵעֵהוּ וְלָקַח בְּעָלָיו וְלֹא יְשַׁלֵּם
KJ (22:11): Then shall an oath of the LORD be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour's goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good.
BN: If the safe-keeper swears an oath to YHVH that he has not helped himself to his neighbour's goods, the owner of the goods shall accept this, and he shall not receive restitution.
Until now, all these injunctions have entailed coming before the gods for justice. The gods. Plural. On this occasion, however, it is YHVH. Note that the style of the wording is also very different, reinforcing the probability that these verses, these chapters, were anthologised from a number of different sources.
- which might also provide an explanation for the disordering of the verses: sloppy clerking!
- which might also provide an explanation for the disordering of the verses: sloppy clerking!
22:11 VE IM GANOV YIGANEV ME IMO YESHALEM LI VE'ALAV
וְאִם גָּנֹב יִגָּנֵב מֵעִמּוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם לִבְעָלָיו
KJ (22:12): And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof.
BN: But if he did indeed steal from him, then he shall make restitution to the owner.
22:12 IM TAROPH YITAREPH YEVI'EHU ED HA TEREPHA LO YESHALEM
אִם טָרֹף יִטָּרֵף יְבִאֵהוּ עֵד הַטְּרֵפָה לֹא יְשַׁלֵּם
KJ (22:13): If it be torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness, and he shall not make good that which was torn.
BN: If it has been torn in pieces, let him bring it as evidence; he is not required to make good that which was torn.
TAROPH YITAREPH: echoing the phrase in Genesis 37:33, "TAROPH TORAPH - טָרֹף טֹרַף", when Ya'akov was told by his sons that Yoseph had been killed by a wild beast. The point here being that, even if the animal got out because, say, the safe-keeper failed to lock the stable, he can't be held responsible for the wolf or jackal that then gets hold of the stray and ruins it.
But if TAROPH means "torn", how do we get from this to the Yiddish "treyph", or "tref", or "treif", as you prefer = "non-kosher"? Click here. And then see verse 30.
pey break
22:13 VE CHI YISH'AL ISH ME IM RE'EHU VE NISHBAR O MET BE'ALAV EYN IMO SHALEM YESHALEM
וְכִי יִשְׁאַל אִישׁ מֵעִם רֵעֵהוּ וְנִשְׁבַּר אוֹ מֵת בְּעָלָיו אֵין עִמּוֹ שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם
KJ (22:14): And if a man borrow ought of his neighbour, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good.
BN: And if a man borrows something from his neighbour, and it gets damaged, or destroyed, and the owner no longer has it, he shall be required to make restitution.
22:14 IM BE'ALAV IMO LO YESHALEM IM SACHIR HU BA BISCHARO
אִם בְּעָלָיו עִמּוֹ לֹא יְשַׁלֵּם אִם שָׂכִיר הוּא בָּא בִּשְׂכָרוֹ
KJ (22:15): But if the owner thereof be with it, he shall not make it good: if it be an hired thing, it came for his hire.
BN: But if the owner of the item still has the item, then he will not be required to make good; and if he is a paid employee, he will lose his employment.
Interesting. If I borrow something from you as a friend or neighbour, and it breaks (my fault or otherwise), I am responsible for its replacement; if I rent, lease or hire something from you as a client, and it breaks (my fault or otherwise), you are responsbible for its replacement.
samech break
22:15 VE CHI YEPHATEH ISH BETULAH ASHER LO ORASA VE SHACHAV IMAH MAHOR YIMHARENA LO LE ISHAH
וְכִי יְפַתֶּה אִישׁ בְּתוּלָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא אֹרָשָׂה וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ מָהֹר יִמְהָרֶנָּה לּוֹ לְאִשָּׁה
KJ (22:16): And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
BN: If a man entices a virgin, one who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall be required to pay a bride-price for her to become his wife.
BETULAH: Note the use of the word here and cf Isaiah 7:14, where the word most pointedly is not BETULAH, but ALMAH (עַלְמָה).
ORASA: It is extremely difficult to work out the calligration on this word, though the etymology is clear from its repeated usage in the Bible (Deuteronomy 20:7 and 28:30, Hosea 2:21, 2 Samuel 3:14 et al). "Betrothed" - in modern parlance "engaged".
MOHAR: Our culture requires this to be translated as "dowry", because it is the nearest that we have, though even in our culture there have been variations on who brings the dowry, the bride or the groom. But this is not really a dowry. This is a "bride-price", a payment to the parents for the acquisition of the daughter as a wife, the wife thereby becoming the property of the husband. Genesis 34:12 uses it, when Shechem asks his father to "acquire" Dinah for him as a wife. 1 Samuel 18:25 begins the tale in which David is required by Sha'ul to provide one hundred foreskins of the Pelishtim of Gat as an alternative to the Mohar, in order to acquire Michal; David, being David, brought two hundred.
22:16 IM MA'EN YEMA'EN AVIYHA LETITAH LO KESEPH YISHKOL KE MOHAR HA BETULOT
אִם מָאֵן יְמָאֵן אָבִיהָ לְתִתָּהּ לוֹ כֶּסֶף יִשְׁקֹל כְּמֹהַר הַבְּתוּלֹת
KJ (22:17): If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
BN: If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
Surely there are two laws here, or at least two different consequences for the same crime, though the 613 do not distinguish them. In one, the man is required to pay a mohar and marry the girl; in the other, because the father refuses to hand his daughter over for life to a man who [he may think] raped her (or maybe he just doesn't think it's a suitable husband for his daughter), he is required to pay "nezikin" - damages. The trouble is, for the latter, this presupposes the existence of such a "price", though that law is not given here, and no amount is stated.
samech break
22:17 MECHASHEPHA LO TECHAYEH
מְכַשֵּׁפָה לֹא תְחַיֶּה
KJ (22:18): Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
BN: You shall not allow a sorceress to live.
MECHASHEPHA: Just three words, dropped in, no context. But we need to be cautious with the translation; what we mean by a witch and what they meant by a sorceress may be entriely different.
We also have to go back to Exodus 7:11, where Mosheh showed off his serpent-tricks to Pharaoh, and Pharaoh called his CHACHAMIM (wise men) and MECHASHPIM (sorcerers) to perform the very same tricks (GAM HEM CHARTUMEY MITSRAYIM BE LAHATEYHEM KEN); standard religious derogation: if my priest does it, it's because god is guiding him, if your priest does it, it's the work of the devil. True religion versus paganism and heathenism. Very sad.
Deuteronomy 18:10 repeats this commandment.
We are not told how the sorceress should be killed, but the normal method was stoning by the general populace - whoever turned up, but bring your own stone. The practice of"swimming witches", which is to say holding them head down under water as a way of testing whether they were or not, on the principle that "if she drowns, she must have been a witch", belongs to the Christians of the Middle Ages.
We also have to go back to Exodus 7:11, where Mosheh showed off his serpent-tricks to Pharaoh, and Pharaoh called his CHACHAMIM (wise men) and MECHASHPIM (sorcerers) to perform the very same tricks (GAM HEM CHARTUMEY MITSRAYIM BE LAHATEYHEM KEN); standard religious derogation: if my priest does it, it's because god is guiding him, if your priest does it, it's the work of the devil. True religion versus paganism and heathenism. Very sad.
Deuteronomy 18:10 repeats this commandment.
We are not told how the sorceress should be killed, but the normal method was stoning by the general populace - whoever turned up, but bring your own stone. The practice of"swimming witches", which is to say holding them head down under water as a way of testing whether they were or not, on the principle that "if she drowns, she must have been a witch", belongs to the Christians of the Middle Ages.
22:18 KOL SHOCHEV IM BEHEMAH MOT YUMAT
כָּל שֹׁכֵב עִם בְּהֵמָה מוֹת יוּמָת
KJ (22:19): Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
BN: Whoever has intercourse with an animal shall be condemned to death.
This is unusually imprecise, even misleading, for a legal text, including the Bible. Let me be clear. SHOCHEV does indeed mean "to lie with", and is the verb used every night when you head for sleep. But do not worry, you will not be put to death if your pet cat or dog jumps on the blanket and snuggles up close. This is about intercourse with animals. In the Book of Leviticus, when sexual relations are dealt with in more detail, the legal phrasing is always "you shall not uncover the nakedness of...", which likewise does not explicitly state intercourse, but actually doesn't need to, if seeing a member of one's family naked is already sufficient for the taboo to be broken and the death penalty to apply.
samech break
22:19 ZOVE'ACH LA-ELOHIM YACHARAM BILTI LA YHVH LEVADO
זֹבֵחַ לָאֱלֹהִים יָחֳרָם בִּלְתִּי לַיהוָה לְבַדּוֹ
KJ (22:20): He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
BN: He who makes a sacrifice to any other gods but YHVH alone shall be excommunicated.
ELOHIM: even the Hertz Chumash translates this as "the gods"! This verse is crucially important for our understanding of this word, and hugely problematic for our dating of the text. It infers a conflict between Elohim worship and YHVH worship which we know is not there in the Ezraic redaction, but which became the standard form of Judaism at some later date, probably the Hasmonean era. References to Elohim continue through the entire Tanach, and are especially noteworthy in the last book of all, that of Nechem-Yah, who only refers to YHVH when he is referring to the Ezraic Torah, and even then, based on the Book of Ezra, means YHVH Tseva'ot, the head of the pantheon, and not the Omnideity who is clearly intended here.
YACHARAM: Does this mean destroyed? The root is CHARAM, not CHAMAS, and it is the same root that yields CHEREM, which may well be no more than ex-communication (though NICHRETAH is also used for that). The likelihood is that this is one of those terms that changed their meaning as society developed over the centuries, and that therefore it may well have meant the death penalty at one time, and mere ostarcism at another. The last person on whom the CHEREM was pronounced was the Enlightenment scholar of Amsterdam, Baruch Spinoza.
Given Rabbi Yishmael's hermeneutical ruling that a verse that follows or precedes impacts on the verse itself, can we assume that the next verse on this occasion over-rules the current verse, or at least one of the implications of the current verse, because we have been told that there has to be one and the same law for the Beney Yisra-El and for the stranger who is within their gate, which infers that a foreigner who makes sacrifice to his own god while in Yisra-El must also be put to death for it; but the next verse appears to counter that?
And yet, when the Golden Calf is made... and also, see verse 27, which doesn't actually make this verse a criminal offense, because this is about sacrifices and that is about derogation, one a positive the other a negative, but contradictory nonetheless.
22:20 VE GER LO TONEH VE LO TILCHATSENU KI GERIM HEYIYTEM BE ERETS MITSRAYIM
וְגֵר לֹא תוֹנֶה וְלֹא תִלְחָצֶנּוּ כִּי גֵרִים הֱיִיתֶם בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם
KJ (22:21): Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
BN: And you shall not wrong a stranger, nor oppress him; for you were strangers in the land of Mitsrayim.
The second time this important line has appeared (cf Exodus 20:9), though the first with this additional explanation. Does this law apply to the bulldozing of the homes of Palestinians?
22:21 KOL ALMANAH VE YATOM LO TE'ANUN
כָּל אַלְמָנָה וְיָתוֹם לֹא תְעַנּוּן
KJ (22:22): Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child.
BN: You shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child.
Surah 107 of the Qur'an (Al-Ma'un - The Kindnesses) renders this in more detail.
TE'ANUN: "fatherless child", or "orphan"; these may seem to us the same, but back then they were very different, because a man could take more than one wife.
22:22 IM ANEH TE'ANEH OTO KI IM TSA'OK YITS'AK ELAI SHAMO'A ESHMA TSA'AKATO
אִם עַנֵּה תְעַנֶּה אֹתוֹ כִּי אִם צָעֹק יִצְעַק אֵלַי שָׁמֹעַ אֶשְׁמַע צַעֲקָתוֹ
KJ (22:23): If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry;
BN: If you afflict them in any way at all - for if they cry at all to me, I will surely hear their cry...
Which is as emphatic as you can get; and very close to Islam in its intensity.
YITS'AK ELAI: The first occasion I believe on which we have had any sense at all that these laws are being dictated by the deity, in the first person, rather than minuted as the closing statement of a colloquium of human lawyers.
22:23 VE CHARAH API VE HARAGTI ET'CHEM BE CHAREV VE HAYU NESHEYCHEM ALMANOT U VENEYCHEM YETOMIM
וְחָרָה אַפִּי וְהָרַגְתִּי אֶתְכֶם בֶּחָרֶב וְהָיוּ נְשֵׁיכֶם אַלְמָנוֹת וּבְנֵיכֶם יְתֹמִים
KJ (22:24): And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.
BN: My wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.
In which case, YHVH, are you not also subject to this punishment?
This reads like an answer to the question: "daddy, why do wars happen?" But it also leaves open a question that has arisen several times before, and which always leads me back to the book of Yesha-Yahu (Isaiah), where the answer is given to what is really the question that we (well, theologians anyway) need to ask: How does YHVH effect a killing by the sword? Because surely that requires the intervention of a human hand?
This reads like an answer to the question: "daddy, why do wars happen?" But it also leaves open a question that has arisen several times before, and which always leads me back to the book of Yesha-Yahu (Isaiah), where the answer is given to what is really the question that we (well, theologians anyway) need to ask: How does YHVH effect a killing by the sword? Because surely that requires the intervention of a human hand?
The point here is - and we have to take it with us to every other instance - that YHVH does not kill directly, except when natural events take place; Yesha-Yahu regards the natural or accidental deaths of humans as an act of god (as do the insurance companies and the law courts today), but, the key difference between that epoch and ours, also as the consequence of unrighteousness, which is what he calls it, though we might use the word "sin". In other words, if you are in a plane crash and die, YHVH must have written you down for death, and so you must have sinned; but if you survive the crash, YHVH must have seen the good in you, and sustained your life. This does not work in the Christian world, where the former are mourned and memorial-serviced and still regarded as innocent, while God is praised and thanked for those who were saved, despite their no doubt continuing to be sinners. In Judaism, on the other hand, yisgadal ve yiskadash shemey raboh, the recital of Kaddish, no matter what, YHVH is great and Humans are expected to accept and revere the judgment, whichever way it falls.
pey break
22:24 IM KESEPH TALVEH ET AMI ET HE'ANI IMACH LO TIHEYEH LO KE NOSHEH LO TESHIYMUN ALAV NESHECH
אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה אֶת עַמִּי אֶת הֶעָנִי עִמָּךְ לֹא תִהְיֶה לוֹ כְּנֹשֶׁה לֹא תְשִׂימוּן עָלָיו נֶשֶׁךְ
KJ (22:25): If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.
BN: If you lend money to any of my people, even to the poor who are among you, you shalt not be to him as a creditor; nor shall you burden him with interest charges.
And upon this single verse rests the entire history of mediaeval Europe, 1060-1492, and a good deal of what followed, right up to the present day (for a much fuller picture, go to July 14th in my Book of Days blog).
IMACH: KJ translates this as "by thee", which could be misunderstood as meaning that they are poor "because of you" - and that, indeed, is one of the reasons given in Christian theology for the outlawing of usury and interest-loans. But the sense of the verse in the Yehudit is "among you".
IMACH: KJ translates this as "by thee", which could be misunderstood as meaning that they are poor "because of you" - and that, indeed, is one of the reasons given in Christian theology for the outlawing of usury and interest-loans. But the sense of the verse in the Yehudit is "among you".
22:25 IM CHAVOL TACHBOL SALMAT RE'ECHA AD BO HA SHEMESH TESHIYVENU LO
אִם חָבֹל תַּחְבֹּל שַׂלְמַת רֵעֶךָ עַד בֹּא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ תְּשִׁיבֶנּוּ לוֹ
KJ (22:26): If thou at all take thy neighbour's raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down:
BN: If you take so much as an item of your neighbour's clothing as a repayment-pledge, you must restore it to him by the time the sun comes up...
Some translations render this as "sunset", which it clearly is not. AD BO HA SHEMESH = "until the coming of the sun" = the sunrise. This is the second time we have seen this error (see Exodus 17:12), and therefore need to ask why, since once may be a misreading, but twice is less likely. I imagine a discussion around the editorial table of the translators, with references back to Genesis 1, where Creation is always by day, and there was evening, and then morning, another day; nothing is created between evening and morning, because the sun (YHVH) is not in the sky, and the moon (Yah) does not create, though she is responsible for fertility, which is not the same. This became a theological position (cf Shimshon and Delilah in Judges 16, or the words of the Lil (night spirit) who wrestled with Ya'akov at Penu-El). All of which makes translating this as sunset theologically comprehensible. But sadly the text isn't theological, but judicial. The text says sunrise, so we should translate it as sunrise. You took your neighbour's raiment as a pledge (and you could well have taken it in the lter afternoon); you have till the following morning to give it back to him; he can wait one night; he may well need that time to obtain the means of making the repayment.
The phrasing of the next verse confirms my reading.
The phrasing of the next verse confirms my reading.
22:26 KI HI CHESUTOH LEVADAH HI SIMLATO LE ORO BA MEH YISHKAV VE HAYAH KI YITS'AK ELAI VE SHAMA'TI KI CHANUN ANI
כִּי הִוא כְסוּתֹה לְבַדָּהּ הִוא שִׂמְלָתוֹ לְעֹרוֹ בַּמֶּה יִשְׁכָּב וְהָיָה כִּי יִצְעַק אֵלַי וְשָׁמַעְתִּי כִּי חַנּוּן אָנִי
KJ (22:27): For that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep? and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I am gracious.
BN: For that is his only covering; this is what he has to clothe his flesh. What will he weat to sleep? And it shall come to pass, when he cries out to me, that I will hear; for I am gracious.
HI or HU? Both are given, according to the pointing (not for the first time).
"That is his only covering" may well be true, but of course it may not; consideration in law is given to the poorest. "It is his garment for his skin?"; or maybe it isn't, maybe it's his ermine coat, over his Burberry suit, over his Armani shirt, over his Gucci vest. "Wherein shall he sleep?" So he'll sleep naked? Why should he? What right do you have to deprive a man of his comfort, let alone his dignity, just because you have lent him money? The fundamental values, ethics and principles of Judaism are defined here, and in doing so they provide a direct challenge to the American Bill of Rights.
CHANUN: "Gracious" is not a good translation, even though it is linguistically accurate, because no one uses the word accurately. "Gracious" means compassionate, merciful, even "altruistic" and "philanthropic", which might even lead to "in favour of socialised welfare services". This too provides a direct challenge to the American Bill of Rights!
samech break; end of third fragment
22:27 ELOHIM LO TEKALEL VE NASI VE AMCHA LO TA'OR
אֱלֹהִים לֹא תְקַלֵּל וְנָשִׂיא בְעַמְּךָ לֹא תָאֹר
KJ (22:28): Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.
BN: You shall not revile Elohim, nor curse a ruler of your people.
TEKALEL: Unlike verse 19, where only YHVH may be the recipient of sacrifices, and HA ELOHIM are implicitly overthrown, here the ELOHIM are most definitely reinstated, honoured indeed. Nor can we reject this by insisting that ELOHIM means "judges", because it doesn't; see my note on that at verse 7.
TA'OR: The kind of law that rulers always like to impose, of course.
22:28 MEL'E'AT'CHA VE DIM'ACHA LO TE'ACHER BECHOR BANEYCHA TITEN LI
מְלֵאָתְךָ וְדִמְעֲךָ לֹא תְאַחֵר בְּכוֹר בָּנֶיךָ תִּתֶּן לִי
KJ (22:29): Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.
BN: You shall not delay bringing the first fruits of your harvest to me, and that of the outflow from your wine and oil presses. The first-born of your sons you shall give to me.
MEL'E'AT'CHA: From the root MAL'E , meaning "full", it can be used for any crop that has reached ripeness - cf Numbers 18:27 where it is both the corn and the grapes, or Deuteronomy 22:9 where it is the generality of "seed".
DIM'ACHA: A DAM'A is really a teardrop (Psalm 6:7, 39:13, Jeremiah 13:17), but anything that drops in drips can be sourced here, in this case the drip-drop of grape juice being fermented to make wine.
This verse makes a statement about the nature of society which is fundamental to the nature of capitalism, by whatever means we choose to manage capitalism (I am taking it for granted that capitalism is as inevitable as the weather: even in troglodytic times, I live up the mountain and have the access to the berries and the bird-eggs, which you don't have down by the water, but you have access to the fish, which I don't, so we arrange exchanges, my capital for your capital, and that is Capitalism, even if the exchange is done using Socialist or Communist principles). In this view of the world, farmers do not farm for the purpose of personal profit, but to provide food and jobs for the people; retail stores and hair salons and holiday hotels and hospitals and schools and supermarkets and law offices and accountants, all likewise: society has these needs: individuals choose one if they have that option, or else work where it falls out that way: the whole of society needs to benefit from this, and not just you. Go tell that to the venture capitalists and the stock brokers!
If this law came in at Sinai, and after the deaths of the firstborn both at the time of the birth of Mosheh and as the tenth plague, how do we explain the Akeda? Answer: through the PIDYON HA BEN. But the PIDYON HA BEN has not been given yet. So the answer is simply a variation upon the same question. See my commentaries on the plagues in the early chapters of Exodus for a much fuller explanation, and my intro to Exodus 21 as well.
22:29 KEN TA'ASEH LE SHORCHA LE TSONECHA SHIV'AT YAMIM YIHEYEH IM IMO BA YOM HA SHEMIYNI TITNO LI
כֵּן תַּעֲשֶׂה לְשֹׁרְךָ לְצֹאנֶךָ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים יִהְיֶה עִם אִמּוֹ בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי תִּתְּנוֹ לִי
KJ (22:30): Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me.
BN: Likewise shall you do with your oxen, and with your sheep; seven days it shall stay with its dam; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.
Allowing each of the gods a day on which to bless the new-born, so that the sacrifice is made to all of them; the 8th day is also the day on which the Brit Milah, the ceremony of circumcision, takes place, and for the same reason.
22:30 VE ANSHEY KODESH TIHEYUN LI U VASAR BA SADEH TEREPHAH LO TO'CHELU LA KELEV TASHLICHUN OTO
וְאַנְשֵׁי קֹדֶשׁ תִּהְיוּן לִי וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ לַכֶּלֶב תַּשְׁלִכוּן אֹתוֹ
KJ (22:31): And ye shall be holy men unto me: neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs.
BN: And you shall be people set apart for me; and you shall not eat any meat that is the result of ravaging by wild beasts in the field; you shall throw it to the dogs.
TEREPHAH: Wasn't this already one of the No'achide laws? No, the sixth No'achide law speaks only of eating "live animals", which may prohibit some forms of Sushi, and definitely Steak Tartare, but is not the same as this. This is treyf - see verse 12, above.
samech break; end of chapter 22
Surf The SiteExodus: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13a 13b 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30a 30b 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38a 38b 39 40
Copyright © 2020 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
