Skip to main content

Thought for the Day: The Ramban Explains the Depth of the Simplicity and the Simplicity of the Depth

I found the Ramban on this set of verses just so clear and really showed how much information is right there; one need only take the time to look. It is really beautiful.

I was finishing up a couple of verses from the weekly "verses twice, translation once" with the following verses as my chavrusa arrived. I finished with "hmm". He really should know better, but curiosity got the best of him and he asked what the "hmm" was all about. I read the verses and noted: pretty strange that after talking about giving lashes to a guilty criminal, the Torah then exhorts us to not muzzle an ox when he is threshing, don't you think? He said, "hmm."

(1) When there is a quarrel between men, and they approach the tribunal, and they judge them, and they affirm the righteousness of the righteous one and affirm the evil of the evil one.   א כִּי־יִֽהְיֶ֥ה רִיב֙ בֵּ֣ין אֲנָשִׁ֔ים וְנִגְּשׁ֥וּ אֶל־הַמִּשְׁפָּ֖ט וּשְׁפָט֑וּם וְהִצְדִּ֨יקוּ֙ אֶת־הַצַּדִּ֔יק וְהִרְשִׁ֖יעוּ אֶת־הָֽרָשָֽׁע:
(2) and it shall be, if the evil one has incurred lashes, the judge shall lean him over and flog his front, commensurate with his crime, to number   ב וְהָיָ֛ה אִם־בִּ֥ן הַכּ֖וֹת הָֽרָשָׁ֑ע וְהִפִּיל֤וֹ הַשֹּׁפֵט֙ וְהִכָּ֣הוּ לְפָנָ֔יו כְּדֵ֥י רִשְׁעָת֖וֹ בְּמִסְפָּֽר:
(3) forty he shall flog him; he shall not add, lest he flog him more than these, and your brother will be degraded before your eyes.   ג אַרְבָּעִ֥ים יַכֶּ֖נּוּ לֹ֣א יֹסִ֑יף פֶּן־יֹסִ֨יף לְהַכֹּת֤וֹ עַל־אֵ֨לֶּה֙ מַכָּ֣ה רַבָּ֔ה וְנִקְלָ֥ה אָחִ֖יךָ לְעֵינֶֽיךָ:
(4) You shall not muzzle an ox when it is threshing.   ד לֹֽא־תַחְסֹ֥ם שׁ֖וֹר בְּדִישֽׁוֹ:










The Ramban asks: What does it mean to "affirm the righteousness of the righteous one"? I understand the Ramban to be asking: Two people come to court. It is the job of the court to determine who is in the right, not to affirm righteousness! Therefore, concludes the Ramban, this is a case of עדים זוממים/conspiratorial witnesses. That is, the guilty charge was based on false testimony and the court -- upon learning of the conspiracy -- now affirms the righteousness of the righteous/falsely convicted one. Now the words fit perfectly into the case.

What does "if the evil once has incurred lashes" mean? Usually the conspiratorial witnesses get what they planned to give, but that cannot always be accomplished. (For example, if the conspiratorial  witnesses were accusing the defendant of being the issue of halichically forbidden marriage. The court cannot impose the same punishment on him, as it would also affect his descendants.) The Torah is telling us the punishment in that case: a flogging up to 40. (Which means no more than 39; but that is a shmuez for another day.)

Why 40? Says the Ramban (based on the midrash Tanchuma): Because he transgressed the Torah which was given in 40 days and caused death to himself, who was formed in 40 days; so a flogging of 40 will suffice for his punishment. (The Ramban doesn't explain what it means that "he caused death to himself". I have some thoughts about that, but I need to do some research before saying more.)

This is a beautiful Ramban to me. He starts off just asking how to understand a simple reading of the verse -- taking all the words seriously and according to their plain meaning. From there he explains the context so we see that the wording is not actually poetic, but dead accurate. Then, just for good measure, explains at the same time how even the number of lashes is related to the giving of the Torah and the creation of man. I think that's pretty cool.

What does all this have to do with not muzzling an ox at the threshing house? You should  look into that.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Thought for the Day: אוושא מילתא Debases Yours Shabbos

My granddaughter came home with a list the girls and phone numbers in her first grade class.  It was cute because they had made it an arts and crafts project by pasting the list to piece of construction paper cut out to look like an old desk phone and a receiver attached by a pipe cleaner.  I realized, though, that the cuteness was entirely lost on her.  She, of course, has never seen a desk phone with a receiver.  When they pretend to talk on the phone, it is on any relatively flat, rectangular object they find.  (In fact, her 18 month old brother turns every  relatively flat, rectangular object into a phone and walks around babbling into it.  Not much different than the rest of us, except his train of thought is not interrupted by someone else babbling into his ear.) I was reminded of that when my chavrusa (who has children my grandchildrens age) and I were learning about אוושא מילתא.  It came up because of a quote from the Shulchan Aruch HaRav that referred to the noise of תקתוק
Post a Comment
Read more

Thought for the Day: What Category of Muktzeh are Our Candles?

As discussed in a recent TftD , a p'sak halacha quite surprising to many, that one may -- even לכתחילה -- decorate a birthday cake with (unlit, obviously) birthday candles on Shabbos. That p'sak is predicated on another p'sak halacha; namely, that our candles are muktzeh because they are a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not  מוקצה מחמת גופו/intrinsically set aside from any use on Shabbos. They point there was that using the candle as a decoration qualifies as a need that allows one to utilize a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור. Today we will discuss the issue of concluding that our candles are , in fact, a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not מוקצה מחמת גופו. Along the way we'll also (again) how important it is to have personal relationship with your rav/posek, the importance of precision in vocabulary, and how to interpret the Mishna Brura.  Buckle up. After reviewing siman 308 and the Mishna Brura there, I concluded that it should be permissible to use birthday candles to decorate a cake on Shabbo
Post a Comment
Read more

Thought for the Day: Love in the Time of Corona Virus/Anxiously Awaiting the Mashiach

Two scenarios: Scenario I: A young boy awakened in the middle of the night, placed in the back of vehicle, told not to make any noise, and the vehicle speeds off down the highway. Scenario II: Young boy playing in park goes to see firetruck, turns around to see scary man in angry pursuit, poised to attack. I experienced and lived through both of those scenarios. Terrifying, no? Actually, no; and my picture was never on a milk carton. Here's the context: Scenario I: We addressed both set of our grandparents as "grandma" and "grandpa". How did we distinguish? One set lived less than a half hour's drive; those were there "close grandma and grandpa". The other set lived five hour drive away; they were the "way far away grandma and grandpa". To make the trip the most pleasant for all of us, Dad would wake up my brother and I at 4:00AM, we'd groggily -- but with excitement! -- wander out and down to the garage where we'd crawl
Post a Comment
Read more