Deuteronomy 1 2 3a 3b 4 5 6 7a 7b 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16a 16b 17 18 19 20 21a 21b 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29a 29b 30 31 32 33 34
Sedra 6, Ki Tetse:
Deuteronomy 21:10 – 25:19
Chapter 21 (cont)
21:10 KI TETS'E LA MILCHAMAH AL OYEVEYCHA U NETANO YHVH ELOHEYCHA BE YADECHA VE SHAVITA SHIVYO
כִּי תֵצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה עַל אֹיְבֶיךָ וּנְתָנוֹ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּיָדֶךָ וְשָׁבִיתָ שִׁבְיוֹ
BN (BibleNet translation): When you go out to battle against your enemies, and YHVH your god delivers them into your hands, and you carry them away captive...
Chapter 20 was in the process of dealing with the rules of war, focused on sieges, and what happens afterwards; which is precisely where we are about to resume now. But the nine verses at the beginning of this chapter, which were the last nine verses of the previous sedra, were about the means liturgical of dealing with a murdered corpse in peacetime - a completely different type of response to a completely different context. So I think we can reasonably suggest that those nine verses were misplaced at the end of the sedra, and probably belong a chapter earlier, at the end of the piece about the asylum cities.
21:11 VE RA'ITA BA SHIVYAH ESHET YEPHAT TO'AR VE CHASHAKTA VAH VE LAKACHTA LECHA LE ISHAH
וְרָאִיתָ בַּשִּׁבְיָה אֵשֶׁת יְפַת תֹּאַר וְחָשַׁקְתָּ בָהּ וְלָקַחְתָּ לְךָ לְאִשָּׁה
KJ: And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
BN: And you see among the captives a woman of goodly form, and you have a desire for her, and would take her for your wife...
21:12 VE HAVEYTAH EL TOCH BEITECHA VE GILCHAH ET ROSHAH VE ASTAH
וַהֲבֵאתָהּ אֶל תּוֹךְ בֵּיתֶךָ וְגִלְּחָה אֶת רֹאשָׁהּ וְעָשְׂתָה אֶת צִפָּרְנֶיהָ
KJ: Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
BN: Then you shall bring her home to your house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails...
Why? Were they already wearing sheitls in those days? Or was this a matter of hygiene - in case she has lice? Or a mourning ritual? (Or is it, rather more shamefully: "These slave-women from inferior pagan sub-humanity, you have to be careful, you don't want to get a sexually-transmitted disease when you rape them"?)
21:13 VE HESIRAH ET SIMLAT SHIVYAH MEY ALEYHA VE YASHVAH BE VEITECHA U VACHTAH ET AVIHA VE ET IMAH YERACH YAMIM VE ACHAR KEN TAVO ELEYHA U VE'ALTAH VE HAYETAH LECHA LE ISHAH
וְהֵסִירָה אֶת שִׂמְלַת שִׁבְיָהּ מֵעָלֶיהָ וְיָשְׁבָה בְּבֵיתֶךָ וּבָכְתָה אֶת אָבִיהָ וְאֶת אִמָּהּ יֶרַח יָמִים וְאַחַר כֵּן תָּבוֹא אֵלֶיהָ וּבְעַלְתָּהּ וְהָיְתָה לְךָ לְאִשָּׁה
KJ: And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
BN: And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured, and stay in your house, and mourn for her father and her mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.
Thirty days is the sheloshim, the same for all mourners; by this means she is adopting his cultural customs.
But of course this law is all about the male, and not the female. Slaves captured in war are regarded as normative and acceptable.
21:14 VE HAYAH IM LO CHAPATSTA BAH VE SHILACHTAH LE NAPHSHAH U MACHOR LO TIMKERENAH BA KESEPH LO TITAMER BAH TACHAT ASER INITAH
וְהָיָה אִם לֹא חָפַצְתָּ בָּהּ וְשִׁלַּחְתָּהּ לְנַפְשָׁהּ וּמָכֹר לֹא תִמְכְּרֶנָּה בַּכָּסֶף לֹא תִתְעַמֵּר בָּהּ תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִנִּיתָהּ
BN: And it shall be, if you find no pleasure in her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall not sell her at all for money, you shall not deal with her as a slave, because you have humbled her.
Once again, laws of very considerable (if relative) humanity alongside the barbarism. Effectively she has been raped, by being taken captive and forced into a marriage against her will; we assume the man's lack of delight comes from her lack of willingness to provide the full range of services he expects from a wife. But she will find it hard to re-marry, being no longer a virgin and known to have been divorced, which limits her chances of having children, and deprives her of a family. She may be able to return to her native city/land, unless that was "obliterated". as per the other commandments relating to war...
samech break
21:15 KI TIHEYEYNA LE ISH SHTEY NASHIM HA ACHAT AHUVAH VE HA ACHAT SENU'AH VE YALDU LO VANIM HA AHUVAH VE HA SENU'AH VE HAYAH HA BEN HA BECHOR LA SENI'AH
כִּי תִהְיֶיןָ לְאִישׁ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים הָאַחַת אֲהוּבָה וְהָאַחַת שְׂנוּאָה וְיָלְדוּ לוֹ בָנִים הָאֲהוּבָה וְהַשְּׂנוּאָה וְהָיָה הַבֵּן הַבְּכֹר לַשְּׂנִיאָה
KJ: If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
BN: If a man has two wives, one of them loved, but the other hated, and they have borne him children, both the loved and the hated; and if the first-born son belongs to she who was hated...
At first glance this appears to reflect Av-Raham's story. Av-Raham did not hate Sarah and love Hagar, or vice-versa, and Hagar was never a wife, only a concubine. It is not Ya'akov and Esav's story either, because the rivalry was theirs, and a shared mother; though theirs needs mentioning, for reasons that will shortly become obvious. And for the same reasons it both is and is not Ephrayim and Menasheh's story, and ditto that of Zerach and Parets, where again there was only one mother, but still a key rivalry that applies to the text of the second part of this verse (below). In each of those tales the issue is about primogeniture versus ultimogeniture; and this law (see next verse) apparently confirms primogeniture in the matter of inheritance - and in so doing it amends the practice that we have witnessed throughout the Book of Genesis, because in all the tales I have just listed, the firstborn is disinherited, and the younger brother gets the full blessing and bequest (and add Shet and Kayin to that list).
At the same time we need to point out that it was Le'ah and Rachel's story - for which go to Genesis 30 - and Re'u-Ven, Le'ah's first-born, is definitely regarded as the rightful inheritor in all the texts that follow (even though he didn't actually inherit, because they went down to Egypt and ended up in slavery; and the land, later on, was shared between all the tribes).
So can we say that these verses, this amendment, must belong to a much later period.
SENU'AH: And just to be absolutely clear, this really is the word for "hatred"; not just "doesn't get on with", but true, complete, unequivocal hatred. I wonder how she feels about him.
21:16 BE HAYAH BE YOM HANCHILO ET BANAV ET ASHER YIHEYEH LO LO YUCHAL LEVAKER ET BEN HA AHUVAH AL PENEY VEN HA SENU'AH HA BECHOR
KJ: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
BN: Then it shall be, on the day that he bequeathes what he possesses to his sons, that he may not set the son of the one he loves above the first-born of the one he hates, for he is the true first-born.
21:16 BE HAYAH BE YOM HANCHILO ET BANAV ET ASHER YIHEYEH LO LO YUCHAL LEVAKER ET BEN HA AHUVAH AL PENEY VEN HA SENU'AH HA BECHOR
וְהָיָה בְּיוֹם הַנְחִילוֹ אֶת בָּנָיו אֵת אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה לוֹ לֹא יוּכַל לְבַכֵּר אֶת בֶּן הָאֲהוּבָה עַל פְּנֵי בֶן הַשְּׂנוּאָה הַבְּכֹר
BN: Then it shall be, on the day that he bequeathes what he possesses to his sons, that he may not set the son of the one he loves above the first-born of the one he hates, for he is the true first-born.
Nor does this apply to the paternal blessing - given by Yitschak to Ya'akov over Esav's head - or to the grandpaternal blessing - given by Ya'akov to Menasheh over Ephrayim's head. This is about the Will of a man, not the will of the god.
21:17 KI ET HA BECHOR BEN HA SENU'AH YAKIR LATET LO SHENAYIM BE CHOL ASHER YIMATS'E LO KI HU REYSHIT ONO LO MISHPAT HA BECHORAH
KJ: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.
BN: But he shall acknowledge the first-born, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion of all that he has; for he is the first-fruits of his strength, the right of the first-born is his.
All of which leaves us wondering whether the tales of Kayin and Havel etc were believed to be historical, and this a reform, or created later as allegorical, in order to remove the foreign mythological from the new cult?
samech break
21:17 KI ET HA BECHOR BEN HA SENU'AH YAKIR LATET LO SHENAYIM BE CHOL ASHER YIMATS'E LO KI HU REYSHIT ONO LO MISHPAT HA BECHORAH
כִּי אֶת הַבְּכֹר בֶּן הַשְּׂנוּאָה יַכִּיר לָתֶת לוֹ פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִמָּצֵא לוֹ כִּי הוּא רֵאשִׁית אֹנוֹ לוֹ מִשְׁפַּט הַבְּכֹרָה
BN: But he shall acknowledge the first-born, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion of all that he has; for he is the first-fruits of his strength, the right of the first-born is his.
All of which leaves us wondering whether the tales of Kayin and Havel etc were believed to be historical, and this a reform, or created later as allegorical, in order to remove the foreign mythological from the new cult?
samech break
21:18 KI YIHEYEH LE ISH BEN SORER U MOREH EYNENU SHOMEYA BE KOL AVIV U BE KOL IMO VE YISRU OTO VE LO YISHMA ALEYHEM
KJ: If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
BN: If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will heed the elightened teaching of his father tells him, or that of his mother, and though they punish him, he still will not listen to him...
MOREH: This is the keyword here. A Moreh is a teacher, and the root is OR, which means "light", and yields TORAH, which is the ultimate enlightenment of the human darkness, it being the only true Word of the deity... and if you do not accept that, then you are defined here as "a stubborn and rebellious son".
However, we need to read verse 20 alongside this, because the text there modifies the text here to some degree.
21:19 VE TAPHSU VO AVIV VE IMO VE HOTSI'U OTO EL ZIKNEY IRO VE EL SHA'AR MEKOMO
KJ: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
BN: Then his father and his mother shall take hold on him, and bring him out to the elders of his city, into the gate of the place [where they live]...
כִּי יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקוֹל אָבִיו וּבְקוֹל אִמּוֹ וְיִסְּרוּ אֹתוֹ וְלֹא יִשְׁמַע אֲלֵיהֶם
BN: If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will heed the elightened teaching of his father tells him, or that of his mother, and though they punish him, he still will not listen to him...
MOREH: This is the keyword here. A Moreh is a teacher, and the root is OR, which means "light", and yields TORAH, which is the ultimate enlightenment of the human darkness, it being the only true Word of the deity... and if you do not accept that, then you are defined here as "a stubborn and rebellious son".
However, we need to read verse 20 alongside this, because the text there modifies the text here to some degree.
21:19 VE TAPHSU VO AVIV VE IMO VE HOTSI'U OTO EL ZIKNEY IRO VE EL SHA'AR MEKOMO
וְתָפְשׂוּ בוֹ אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל זִקְנֵי עִירוֹ וְאֶל שַׁעַר מְקֹמוֹ
BN: Then his father and his mother shall take hold on him, and bring him out to the elders of his city, into the gate of the place [where they live]...
Which does not state overtly that you are forbidden to smack, cane or otherwise physically punish him, but definitely infers that you need to leave this with a higher authority, who of course has a much more humane way of dealing with the problem, using psychological counselling and spiritual guidance... as we shall see shortly.
21:20 VE AMRU EL ZIKNEY IRO BENEYNU ZEH SORER U MOREH EYNENU SHOMEYA BE KOLEYNU ZOLEL VE SOV'E
וְאָמְרוּ אֶל זִקְנֵי עִירוֹ בְּנֵנוּ זֶה סוֹרֵר וּמֹרֶה אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקֹלֵנוּ זוֹלֵל וְסֹבֵא
KJ: And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
BN: And they shall say to the elders of his city: "This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he refuses to do what he tell him; he is a wastrel, and a drunkard."
This is different from verse 18. "Stubborn and rebellious" just means he won't do what you tell him, and it may well be that he is right, because what you are telling him to do is itself wrong, or dangerous, or stupid, and so the judges might even rule in his favour if the matter was presented; but this is about his lifestyle, not his attitude.
ZOLEL: See Proverbs 23:20/21 is probably the best definition you will find, though 28:7 isn't far off. Jeremiah 15:19 is more generally "worthless".
21:21 U REGAMUHU KOL ANSHEY IRO VA AVANIM VA MET U VI'ARTA HA RA MI KIRBECHA VE CHOL YISRA-EL YISHME'U VE YIRA'U
וּרְגָמֻהוּ כָּל אַנְשֵׁי עִירוֹ בָאֲבָנִים וָמֵת וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ וְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁמְעוּ וְיִרָאוּ
KJ: And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
BN: And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, so that he dies. Thus shall you remove evil from your midst, and all Yisra-El shall hear, and fear.
See my note to verse 14, to which this adds another of those "barbaric" contrasts. I can imagine a parent making the threat, but I cannot imagine any parent carrying it out - and if they are the sort of parents who would carry it out, then no wonder the son has grown up to be stubborn and rebellious and has turned into a glutton and a drunkard. I wonder when was the last time this law was carried out - and ask only because YHVH repeatedly tells us that we must obey all of his laws or ourselves be regarded as stiff-necked, which surely is the same thing as "stubborn" and "rebellious", even if not as bad as "drunk" and "gluttonous".
samech break
21:22 VE CHI YIHEYEH VE ISH CHET MISHPAT-MAVET VE HUMAT VE TALITA OTO AL ETS
וְכִי יִהְיֶה בְאִישׁ חֵטְא מִשְׁפַּט מָוֶת וְהוּמָת וְתָלִיתָ אֹתוֹ עַל עֵץ
BN: And if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he be put to death, and you hang him from a tree...
21:23 LO TALIN NIVLATO AL HA ETS KI KAVOR TIKBEREYNU BA YOM HA HU KI KILELAT ELOHIM TALU'I VE LO TETAM'E ET ADMAT'CHA ASHER YHH ELOHEYCHA NOTEN LECHA NACHALAH
לֹא תָלִין נִבְלָתוֹ עַל הָעֵץ כִּי קָבוֹר תִּקְבְּרֶנּוּ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא כִּי קִלְלַת אֱלֹהִים תָּלוּי וְלֹא תְטַמֵּא אֶת אַדְמָתְךָ אֲשֶׁר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה
BN: His body shall not remain on the tree all night, but you must bury him the same day, for he who has been hanged is a reproach to Elohim, and you must not defile your land which YHVH your god is giving you for an inheritance.
Interesting that it is a "reproach to Elohim" not YHVH. Has the Redactor combined two texts, as the school of Bible Criticism believes, or is there in fact a difference between the two forms of the deity, of which this text allows us to glimpse a rare nuance?
And don't forget, if you are the scaffold-erector, the man who places the noose, or the man who pulls the spring to release it, that this counts as being in contact with the dead, so you need to go and purify yourself in the mikveh and say the appropriate blessings immediately afterwards, or you risk being stoned to death as a "stubborn and revellious son".
No comments:
Post a Comment