פרשת כי תצא תש"ג - השבת אבידה

לא תראה … והתעלמת THOU SHALT NOT SEE … AND HIDE THYSELF [FROM THEM] — “thou shalt not see it, that thou hide thyself from it” (i.e. you see it only to hide thyself from it), this is the plain sense of the verse. Our Rabbis, however, said that the omission of the particle לא before the verb והתעלמת (one would expect כי תראה … לא תתעלם) suggests: There are times when you may hide yourself from it, etc. (Sifrei Devarim 225:4; Bava Metzia 30a).

Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ox or his sheep driven away, and hide thyself from them; thou shalt surely bring them back unto thy brother.

Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ass or his ox fallen down by the way, and hide thyself from them; thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again.

If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under its burden, thou shalt forbear to pass by him; thou shalt surely release it with him.

thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, but the young thou mayest take unto thyself; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.

The officer said to him: No.
The pious man continued: And if you would greet him, what would they do to you?
The officer said to him: They would cut off my head with a sword.
The pious man said to him: Isn’t this matter an a fortiori inference?
You who were standing before a king of flesh and blood,
of whom your fear is limited because today he is here but tomorrow he is in the grave,
would have reacted in that way;
I, who was standing and praying before the Supreme King of kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He,
Who lives and endures for all eternity,
all the more so that I could not pause to respond to someone’s greeting. When he heard this, the officer was immediately appeased and the pious man returned home in peace. We learned in the mishna that even if a snake is wrapped around his heel, he may not interrupt his prayer. In limiting application of this principle, Rav Sheshet said: They only taught this mishna with regard to a snake, as if one does not attack the snake it will not bite him. But if a scorpion approaches an individual while he is praying, he stops, as the scorpion is liable to sting him even if he does not disturb it. The Gemara raises an objection based on what was taught in a Tosefta: Those who saw one fall into a lions’ den but did not see what happened to him thereafter, do not testify that he died. Their testimony is not accepted by the court as proof that he has died as it is possible that the lions did not eat him. However, those who saw one fall into a pit of snakes and scorpions, testify that he died as surely the snakes bit him. The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. There, in the case of one who falls into a pit of snakes, it is different, as due to the pressure of his falling on top of them, the snakes will harm him, but a snake who is not touched will not bite. The Gemara cites another halakha stating that he must interrupt his prayer in a case of certain danger. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: One who saw oxen coming toward him, he interrupts his prayer, as Rav Hoshaya taught: One distances himself fifty cubits from an innocuous ox [shor tam], an ox with no history of causing damage with the intent to injure, and from a forewarned ox [shor muad], an ox whose owner was forewarned because his ox has gored three times already, one distances himself until it is beyond eyeshot. It was taught in the name of Rabbi Meir: While the head of the ox is still in the basket and he is busy eating, go up on the roof and kick the ladder out from underneath you. Shmuel said: This applies only with regard to a black ox, and during the days of Nisan, because that species of ox is particularly dangerous, and during that time of year Satan dances between its horns. With regard to the praise for one who prays and need not fear even a snake, the Sages taught: There was an incident in one place where an arvad was harming the people. They came and told Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa and asked for his help. He told them: Show me the hole of the arvad. They showed him its hole. He placed his heel over the mouth of the hole and the arvad came out and bit him, and died. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa placed the arvad over his shoulder and brought it to the study hall. He said to those assembled there: See, my sons, it is not the arvad that kills a person, rather transgression kills a person. The arvad has no power over one who is free of transgression. At that moment the Sages said: Woe unto the person who was attacked by an arvad and woe unto the arvad that was attacked by Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa. MISHNA: This mishna speaks of additions to the standard formula of the Amida prayer and the blessings in which they are incorporated. One mentions the might of the rains and recites: He makes the wind blow and the rain fall, in the second blessing of the Amida prayer, the blessing of the revival of the dead. And the request for rain: And grant dew and rain as a blessing, in the ninth blessing of the Amida prayer, the blessing of the years. And the prayer of distinction [havdala], between the holy and the profane recited in the evening prayer following Shabbat and festivals, in the fourth blessing of the Amida prayer: Who graciously grants knowledge. Rabbi Akiva says: Havdala is recited as an independent fourth blessing. Rabbi Eliezer says that it is recited in the seventeenth blessing of the Amida prayer, the blessing of thanksgiving. GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that one mentions the might of the rains in the second blessing of the Amida prayer, the blessing of the revival of the dead. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the might of the rains is mentioned specifically in that blessing? Rav Yosef said: Because the might of the rains is equivalent to the resurrection of the dead, as rain revives new life in the plant world (Jerusalem Talmud). And we also learned in the mishna that the request for rain is added to the blessing of the years. Here, too, the Gemara asks: What is the reason that the request for rain is recited specifically in that blessing? Rav Yosef said: Because rain is a component of sustenance, therefore it was inserted in the blessing of sustenance as part of our request for bountiful sustenance. We also learned in the mishna that havdala, distinguishing between Shabbat and the weekdays, is added in the blessing of: Who graciously grants knowledge. Here too the Gemara asks: What is the reason that havdala is recited specifically in that blessing? Rav Yosef said: Havdala is recited in that blessing because it requires wisdom to distinguish between two entities, they established it in the blessing of wisdom. The Rabbis say a different reason: Because havdala is the distinction between the sacred and the profane, the Sages established it in the blessing of weekdays. The first three blessings of the Amida prayer are recited both on weekdays and on Shabbat and Festivals. The blessing: Who graciously grants knowledge, is the first of the blessings recited exclusively during the week. Having mentioned the blessing of wisdom, the Gemara cites that which Rav Ami said with regard to knowledge: Great is knowledge that was placed at the beginning of the weekday blessings; an indication of its significance. And Rav Ami said in praise of knowledge: Great is knowledge that was placed between two letters, two names of God, as it is stated: “For God of knowledge is the Lord” (I Samuel 2:3). And since knowledge is regarded so highly, anyone without knowledge, it is forbidden to have compassion upon him, as it is stated: “For they are a people of no wisdom, so their Creator will have no compassion upon them and their Creator will not be gracious unto them” (Isaiah 27:11). If God shows no mercy for those who lack wisdom, all the more so should people refrain from doing so. Similarly, Rabbi Elazar said: Great is the Holy Temple, as it too was placed between two letters, two names of God, as it is stated: “The place in which to dwell which You have made, Lord, the Temple, Lord, which Your hands have prepared” (Exodus 15:17). Noting the parallel between these two ideas, Rabbi Elazar added and said: Anyone with knowledge, it is as if the Holy Temple was built in his days; knowledge was placed between two letters and the Temple was placed between two letters, signifying that they stand together. Rav Aḥa Karḥina’a strongly objects to this approach that being placed between two names of God accords significance: However, if so, the same should hold true for vengeance. Great is revenge that was placed between two letters, as it is stated: “God of vengeance, Lord, God of vengeance shine forth” (Psalms 94:1). He said to him: Yes. At least in its place, in the appropriate context, it is great. At times it is necessary. That is that which Ulla said: Why are these two vengeances mentioned in a single verse? One for good and one for evil. Vengeance for good, as it is written: “He shined forth from Mount Paran” (Deuteronomy 33:2) with regard to God’s vengeance against the wicked; vengeance for evil, as it is written: “God of vengeance, Lord, God of vengeance shine forth” with regard to the punishment of Israel. A tannaitic dispute is cited in the mishna with regard to the appropriate blessing in which to recite havdala within the Amida prayer. Rabbi Akiva says: Havdala is recited as an independent fourth blessing. Rabbi Eliezer says that it is recited in the seventeenth blessing of the Amida prayer, the blessing of thanksgiving. The first tanna says that it is recited in the fourth blessing of the Amida prayer: Who graciously grants knowledge. Regarding this, Rav Shemen, Shimon, bar Abba said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Now, since the eighteen blessings of the Amida prayer and the other prayer formulas for prayer were instituted for Israel by the members of the Great Assembly just like all the other blessings and prayers, sanctifications and havdalot; let us see where in the Amida prayer the members of the Great Assembly instituted to recite havdala. Rabbi Yoḥanan replied that that would be impossible, as the customs associated with havdala went through several stages. He said to him: Initially, during the difficult, early years of the Second Temple, they established that havdala is to be recited in the Amida prayer. Subsequently, when the people became wealthy, they established that havdala is to be recited over the cup of wine. When the people became impoverished, they again established that it was to be recited in the Amida prayer. And they said: One who recites havdala in the Amida prayer must, if he is able (Shitta Mekubbetzet, Me’iri), recite havdala over the cup of wine as well. Due to all these changes, it was not clear when exactly havdala was to be recited. It was also stated: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The members of the Great Assembly established for Israel blessings and prayers, sanctifications and havdalot. Initially, they established that havdala is to be recited in the Amida prayer. Subsequently, when the people became wealthy, they established that havdala is to be recited over the cup of wine. When the people again became impoverished, they established that it was to be recited in the Amida prayer. And they said: One who recites havdala in the Amida prayer must recite havdala over the cup of wine as well. It was also stated: Rabba and Rav Yosef who both said: One who recites havdala in the Amida prayer must recite havdala over the cup of wine as well. Rava said: We raise an objection to our halakha based on what was taught in a Tosefta: One who erred and did not mention the might of the rains in the second blessing in the Amida, the blessing on the revival of the dead, and one who erred and failed to recite the request for rain in the ninth blessing of the Amida, the blessing of the years, we require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it. However, one who erred and failed to recite havdala in the blessing: Who graciously grants knowledge, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, as he can recite havdala over the cup of wine. Apparently, havdala over the cup of wine is optional, not obligatory, at it says because he can recite and not that he must. The Gemara answers: Do not say as it appears in the Tosefta: Because he can recite havdala over the cup of wine. Rather, say: Because he recites havdala over the cup of wine. Proof that one must recite havdala over the cup of wine as well as in the Amida prayer was also stated: Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said that Rabbi Yosei asked Rabbi Yoḥanan in Sidon, and some say that Rabbi Shimon ben Ya’akov from the city of Tyre asked Rabbi Yoḥanan, and I, Binyamin bar Yefet, heard: One who already recited havdala in the Amida prayer, must he recite havdala over the cup of wine or not? And Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: He must recite havdala over the cup. Having clarified the question whether one who recited havdala during the Amida prayer must also recite havdala over the cup of wine, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: One who already recited havdala over the cup of wine, what is the ruling as far as his obligation to recite havdala in the Amida prayer is concerned? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: This can be derived a fortiori from the established halakha regarding havdala in the Amida prayer. Just as havdala in the Amida prayer, which is where the principal ordinance to recite havdala was instituted, the Sages said that it is not sufficient and one who recited havdala in the Amida prayer must recite havdala over the cup of wine as well, all the more so that one who recited havdala over the cup of wine, which is not where the principal ordinance to recite havdala was instituted, but was merely a later addition, did not fulfill his obligation and must recite havdala in the Amida prayer. Rabbi Aḥa Arikha, the tall, taught a baraita before Rav Ḥinnana: One who recited havdala in the Amida prayer is more praiseworthy than one who recites it over the cup of wine, and if he recited havdala in this, the Amida prayer, and that, over the cup of wine, may blessings rest upon his head. This baraita is apparently self-contradictory. On the one hand, you said that one who recites havdala in the Amida prayer is more praiseworthy than one who recites havdala over the cup of wine, indicating that reciting havdala in the Amida prayer alone is sufficient. And then it is taught: If one recited havdala in this, the Amida prayer, and that, over the cup of wine, may blessings rest upon his head. And since he fulfilled his obligation to recite havdala with one, he is exempt, and the additional recitation of havdala over the cup of wine is an unnecessary blessing. And Rav, and some say Reish Lakish, and still others say Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish both said: Anyone who recites an unnecessary blessing violates the biblical prohibition: “Do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain” (Exodus 20:7). Rather, emend this baraita and say as follows: If one recited havdala in this and not in that, may blessings rest upon his head. Rav Ḥisda asked Rav Sheshet with regard to these blessings: If one erred in havdala both in this and in that, what is the ruling? Rav Sheshet said to him: One who erred in this, the Amida prayer, and that, over the cup of wine, returns to the beginning of both the Amida prayer and the havdala over the cup of wine.

If the nest of a bird chances to be in front of you: Also this commandment is explained by "it and its son do not slaughter on one day" (Leviticus 22:28); since the reason in both of them is that we should not have a cruel heart and [then] not have mercy, or that the verse should not permit us to be destructive to destroy the species, even though it allowed slaughter within that species. And behold, one who kills the mother and the children on one day or takes them when they are 'free to fly' is as if he cuts off that species. And the teacher (Rambam) in the Guide for the Perplexed 3:48 wrote that the reason of sending [the mother away from] the nest and the reason of "it and its son do not slaughter on one day" is to prohibit killing the child in the eyes of the mother, as animals have great concern about this. And there is no difference between the concern of a person and the concern of animals for their children, since the love of a mother and 'the appeal of the children of its belly' does not stem from the intellect and the [faculty of] speech, but rather it is from the effects of the faculty of thought that is found in animals just as it is found in man. And if [it is as Rambam claims], the main prohibition of 'it and its son' is only [in the sequence] of its son and it, but [in other circumstances] it is all a distancing [from that main prohibition]. And more correct is [that the reason for the commandment is] so that we will not become cruel. And the teacher said: And don't answer me from the statement of the sages [that comes to explain] (Berakhot 33b), "We silence the one who says, 'Your mercy reaches the nest of the bird.' [is because this commandment is a decree that has nothing to do with mercy]," as this is one of two explanations - the explanation of the one to whom it appears that there is no reason for the commandments except for the will of the Creator - but we hold of the second explanation, [according to which] there should be an explanation for all of the commandments. And a further challenge to him is that which he found in Bereshit Rabbah 44:1, "And so what does the Holy One, blessed be He, care whether he slaughters from [the front of] the neck or slaughters from the back - behold, the commandments were only given to purify the creations through them, as it is stated (Proverbs 30:5), 'Every word of the Lord is purified.'" And this matter that the teacher asserted is very lucid regarding commandments that have a reason, as there is in each one a reason and a purpose and a refinement for the person, besides their reward from their Commander, may He be blessed. And the rabbis, may their memory be blessed, have already said (Sanhedrin 21b), "For what were the reasons of the Torah not revealed, etc." and they expounded (Pesachim 119a), "'Ancient covering' (Isaiah 23:18) - this is the one who reveals things that were covered by the One of ancient days; and what are they? The reasons of the Torah." And they already expounded about the red heifer (Bemidbar Rabbah 19:3-4), that Shlomo said, "I have mastered it all, but about the topic of the red heifer, I have investigated, I have asked, I have searched - 'I said I will become wise, but it is far from me' (Ecclesiastes 7:23)." And Rabbi Yose beRebbe Chanina said, "The Holy One, blessed be He said to Moshe, 'To you do I reveal the reason of the red heifer, but to others it is a statute (without explanation),' as it is written (Zechariah 14:6), 'And it shall be on that day there will be no light, but heaviness and solidity' - it is written 'will solidify' (even though it is read 'and solidity,' such that the verse expresses a secondary meaning which is now elucidated): That which is covered from you in this world, will be visible in the world to come, like that blind man that [finally] sees, as it is written (Isaiah 42:16), 'And I will guide the blind ones in the path they did not know.' And it is written (there), 'I have done these things and not forsaken them' - as I have already done them for Rabbi Akiva." Behold, they elucidated that the impediment to the reasons for the commandments is not from Him abut rather [from] the blindness of our intellects and that the reason of the most difficult one was already reveled to the sages of Israel. And there are many [statements] like this and many things in Torah and Scripture that indicate [it]. [And] those homiletical statements that were challenging to [Rambam], are about a different matter, according to my opinion. As they wanted to say that there is no gain in the commandment for the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself, may He be elevated; but [rather] the gain is for man himself - to prevent him from damage or a bad belief or a disgusting character trait, or to remember the miracles and wonders of the Creator, may He be blessed, and to know God. And this is [the meaning of] "to purify them" - that they should be like purified silver; as the action of a smelter is not without a reason, but [rather] to extract all the dross from it. And so [too] are the commandments to extract from our hearts every bad belief and to inform us of the truth and to always remind us of it. And this [idea] is mentioned by the homiletical statement itself in [Midrash] 'Yilamdenu' (Midrash Tanchuma, Shmini 8 on Parshat Shmini) on the section, 'This is the animal,' "And so what does it matter to the Holy One, blessed be He, whether one slaughters an animal and eats or stabs [it] and eats - do you benefit Him at all or damage Him at all; or what does He care whether one eats pure things or eats impure things. 'If you have become wise, you have become wise for yourself' (Proverbs 9:12) - behold, the commandments were only given to purify the creations through them, as it is stated (Psalms 12:7), 'The words of the Lord are pure words' and it is stated (Proverbs 30:5), 'Every word of the Lord is purified.' Why? So that it protect you" Behold, it is explicit in here that they only came to say that the gain is not for Him, may He be elevated; that He should require the light - as might be thought - from the menorah (the candelabra in the Temple) or that he should require the sacrifices for food and the smell of the incense as it would appear from the simple meaning of [the verses]; and even the memory of His wonders that He did, that He commanded to do [things] in commemoration of the exodus from Egypt and the story of Creation, there is no gain for Him - just that we know the truth and merit through it, until we become fit that He should protect us. As our speech and memory of His wonders are considered nothing and void for Him. And he brought a proof from one that slaughters from the [front] of the neck and [its] back, to say that they are all for us and not for the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is not likely to say about slaughter that there should be gain and honor to the Creator, may He be blessed, from the neck more than from the back or [from] stabbing; but rather they are for us to guide us in the paths of mercy, even at the time of slaughtering. And they brought another proof, "Or what does He care whether one eats pure things" - and these are the permitted foods - "or eats impure things" - and these are forbidden foods, that the Torah stated about them (Leviticus 11:28), "they are impure for you." And through this, he hinted that it is so that we be of clean souls, wise ones, that contemplate the truth. And their saying, "If you have become wise, you have become wise for yourself," they mentioned, because the active commandments - for example, slaughtering of the neck - are to teach us good character traits; and the commandments that are decrees that differentiate species are to purify our souls, as the Torah stated (Leviticus 20:25), "and you shall not make your souls disgusting with the animal and with the bird and with all that crawls on the ground, which I have separated for you as impure." If so, all of them are for our benefit alone. And this is like Elihu said (Job 35:6), "If you sin, how will you effect Him; and your transgressions are numerous, what will you do to Him?" and said (verse 7), "or what will He take from your hand?" And this is something that is unanimous in all of the words of our teachers. And they asked in the Yerushalmi Nedarim 9:1, whether we can open [an avenue of regret] for [vows] that are between him and the Omnipresent, with the [damage done to the] honor of the Omnipresent; and they responded to this question, "which is [the damage done] to the honor of the Omnipresent - for example, the sukkah that I am not doing, the lulav that I am not holding, the tefillin that I am not laying?" And it is implied that it is [only the person] that [a commandment] helps, like the [verses], "If you are righteous, what do you give to Him, or what will He take from your hand?" [and] "If you sin, how will you effect Him; and your transgressions are numerous, what will you do to Him?" Behold, they elucidated that even the lulav and the sukkah and the tefillin - that He commanded that they be 'a sign upon your arm and a memory device between your eyes, that the Lord took you out of Egypt with a strong hand' - are not for the honor of the Lord, may He be blessed, but [rather] to have mercy on our souls. And they already set this into the prayer of Yom Kippur, "You have separated man from the start and recognized him to stand in front of You, as who will say to You what to do, and if he is righteous, what will he give to You?" And so [too], it stated in the Torah (Deuteronomy 10:13), "for your good," as I have explained (Ramban on Deuteronomy 10:13); and so [too] (Deuteronomy 6:24), "And He commanded us to do all of these statutes to fear the Lord, our God, for our good all of the days." And the intention in all of them is that it be good for us and not for Him, may He blessed and elevated; but all that we are commanded is [so that] His creatures be purified and cleansed without the dross of evil thoughts and disgusting character traits. And so that which they said (Berakhot 33a), "[It is because] he makes the traits of the Holy One, blessed be He into mercy and they are only decrees," is to say that God did not worry about the nest of the bird and His 'mercy did not reach' it and its child; as His mercy does not extend to creatures with an animal soul, to prevent us from doing what we need to them. As were it so, slaughtering would be forbidden. But [rather], the reason for the proscription is to teach us the trait of mercy and that we not become cruel. Since cruelty spreads in the soul of a man, as it is known with butchers that slaughter large oxen and donkeys, that they are 'people of blood,' 'slaughterers of men' [and] very cruel. And because of this they said (Kiddushin 82a), "The best of butchers are the partners of Amalek." And behold, these commandments with animals and birds are not mercy upon them, but [rather] decrees upon us, to guide us and to teach us the good character traits. And so [too] all of the commandments - positive and negative - are called decrees; as they said (Mekhilta, Bechodesh 6) about a parable of a king that entered into a country: "His servants said to him, 'Make decrees upon them.' He said [back] to them, 'When they accept My kingship, I will make decrees upon them.' So did the Holy One, blessed be He, say; 'You accepted My Kingship - "I am the Lord, your God" (Exodus 20:2) - [now,] accept My decrees - "there shall be for you no, etc."' (Exodus 20:3)." But in the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunia ben HaKaneh, there is a midrash [that explains] that there is a secret in the commandment: "Rabbi Rechumai said, 'Why is it written, "Surely send away the mother" and it did not say, "the father?" But rather, "Surely send the mother" is in honor of that Discernment (Binah), the Mother of the world, as it is written (Proverbs 2:3), "But you will call discernment, Mother."' What is 'and the children take for yourself?' Rabbi Rechumai said, 'Those children that she grew.' And what are they? The seven days of the sukkah and the laws of the seven days of the week, etc." And behold, this commandment hints to a great matter, and therefore its reward is very large - "so that it will be good for you and you will lengthen your days."