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: Pizza, Uncrustables, and Stuff -- What Bracha?

Many years ago (in fact, more than two decades ago), I called R' Fuerst from my desk at work as I sat down to lunch.  I had a piece of (quite delicious) homemade pizza for lunch.  I nearly always eat at my desk as I am working (or writing TftD...), so my lunch at work cannot in any way be considered as sitting down to a formal meal; aka קביעת סעודה.  That being the case, I wasn't sure whether to wash, say ha'motzi, and bentch; or was the pizza downgraded to a m'zonos.  He told if it was a snack, then it's m'zonos; if a meal the ha'motzi.  Which what I have always done since then.  I recently found out how/why that works. The Shulchan Aruch, 168:17 discusses פשטיד''א, which is describes as a baked dough with meat or fish or cheese.  In other words: pizza.  Note: while the dough doesn't not need to be baked together with the meat/fish/cheese, it is  required that they dough was baked with the intention of making this concoction. ...
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 Sha...
Post a Comment
Read more

Thought for the Day: Why Halacha Has "b'di'avad"

There was this Jew who knew every "b'di'avad" (aka, "Biddy Eved", the old spinster librarian) in the book.  When ever he was called on something, his reply was invariably, "biddy eved, it's fine".  When he finally left this world and was welcomed to Olam Haba, he was shown to a little, damp closet with a bare 40W bulb hanging from the ceiling.  He couldn't believe his eyes and said in astonishment, "This is Olam Haba!?!"  "Yes, Reb Biddy Eved,  for you this is Olam Haba." b'di'avad gets used like that; f you don't feel like doing something the best way, do it the next (or less) best way.  But Chazal tell us that "kol ha'omer HaShem vatran, m'vater al chayav" -- anyone who thinks HaShem gives partial credit is fooling himself to death (free translation.  Ok, really, really free translation; but its still true).  HaShem created us and this entire reality for one and only one purpose: for use...
Post a Comment
Read more