Rashi-Is-Simple Mailing List
VISIT the RASHI DATABASE archives AT
http://www.shamash.org/rashi
(C) Dr Russell Jay Hendel, 2000
Volume 4 Number 25
Produced Jan, 20 2000
WARNING: USE FIX WIDTH FONTS (eg COURIER (NEW) 10)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^ THE GOLDEN ^^
^^ Rambam Rashi Series ^^
^^ Gold series #4 ^^
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Verses/Topics Discussed in This Issue with quicky explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------
v4-35-16
We align the five verses 4-35-16:21. The alignments show
a dozen differences which sheds light on 3 issues:(a)
object must be HEAVY, SHARP or FAST enough to kill (b)
Killing must be DIRECT or REMOVAL OF LIFE CONTINUANCE
(c)death must be INEVITABLE
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
RASHI IS SIMPLE
GOALS: To grammatically defend all 8000 Rashis on Chumash.
METHOD:Every Rashi will be defended with a LIST of comparable cases
INTENDED AUDIENCE: Laymen, Academicians, Rabbis, Yeshiva students
COMMENTS,QUESTIONS: EMail to address below; (minor edits may occur)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:Always given unless 'anonymous' is explicitly asked
(UN)SUBSCRIBE: Email to above with keyword "(UN)subscribe"
JOURNAL REFERECE: Pshat & Drash, TRADITION, Win 1980, R Hendel
NOTATION: eg v2b1-8 refers to Ex(Book 2) Chap 1 Verse 8 Rashi b(#2)
SPECIALS:...on Rambam,Ramban,Symbolism,Pedagogy,Daily Questions
EMAIL: RJHendel@Juno.Com,rashi-is-simple@shamash.org,
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v4-35-16
======
v4-35-16 if he hit him with an iron implement and he
dies he is a murderer (and gets the death
penalty)
v4b35-17 if he hit him with a HAND STONE THAT CAN KILL and
he dies he is a murderer (and gets the death penalty)
v4-35-18 if he hit him with a HAND WOODEN UTENSIL THAT CAN
KILL and he dies he is a murderer (and gets the death
penalty)
RASHI TEXT:
==========
v4-35-16 [Rashi makes 2 points]
First Rashi speaks about the overall structure
of this chapter, 4-35.
{LIST1} {Overall structure of 4-35}
VERSES TOPIC THEMES
========== ================= ==================================
4-35-9:15 Introduction Set aside 6 'Murder-refuge' cities
4-35-16:21 Willful murder Assess murder weapon,hatred etc
4-35-22:23 Accidental murder Assess accidentality
4-35-24:29 Court case Goes to refuge if accidental
Thus Rashi makes it clear that 4-35-16:21 is speaking about willful
murder (which required the refuge cities also---since both willful
and non willful murderers went to the refuge cities 1st--therefore
the chapter starts with an introduction on refuge cities which
covers both subsequent subsections of willful and inadvertent
murder.
In the second part of Rashi Rashi contrasts the language in
3 verses as follows
The verses say if he hit him
>4-35-16 with an IRON UTENSIL
>4-35-17 with a HAND STONE THAT CAN KILL
>4-35-18 with a HAND WOOD UTENSIL THAT CAN KILL
Rashi explains that the phrase
>THAT CAN KILL
is present by STONE and WOOD but not by IRON because an iron
object of any size can kill but an object of WOOD or STONE
can only kill if they are big enough. Rashi also notes
that UTENSIL is by IRON and WOOD since NEEDLE like utensils
can kill but stone which is usually not sharpened can only
kill if it is big enough
v4b35-17 Rashi contrasts 2 verses
>if he hit him with a HAND STONE THAT CAN KILL
>if he hit him with a STONE
The extra words "HAND stone THAT CAN KILL" show that we
must assess lethality before convicting with the death
penalty
v4-35-18 Rashi contrasts 2 verses
>if he hit him with a HAND WOODEN UTENSIL THAT CAN KILL
>if he hit him with A ROD
The extra words HAND UTENSIL THAT CAN KILL show that we
must assess lethality before convicting with a death
penalty.
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
=========================================
In this posting, part of the Golden-Rashi-Rambam series, we review
the Midrashic Halachik literature associated with Rambam Murder 3.
Rambam murder 3 is one of the dozen or so best topics in halacha
for illustrating halachik midrashic technique. Those students
(or even Rabbanim who ALREADY know quite alot about halachic
midrash) who wish to attain a full understanding of halachic
midrash should seriously study this posting. Also, this
posting shows the carefullness and detail with which the Rambam
payed attention to halachic midrash. Rambam is as detailed as
Rashi and Rashi was as analytic as Rambam.
It is our custom and suggestion in this email list to review the
issues BEFORE studying Chumash, halachah and Rashi. It is only with
a PRIOR understanding of issues that halachic midrash and Rashi can
be appreciated.
There are 3 issues in a murder case
>Did an ACT of murder take place
>Whose FORCE was involved
>How DIRECT was the killing
We first discuss each issue with examples and then show the
derivation from the VERSES.
Almost all derivation will be done thru the method of ALIGNMENT. In
this method we ALIGN similar verses and study the differences
between them. Even according to those opinions that the Torah spoke
in normal conversational style, nevertheless, when two verses are
identical in all but one or two aspects then those one or two
differences demand inferences. In the lists below you can read
each verse individually by going down any column. You can see
the differences in the verses by going across each row.
For an analogy to illustrate this method of alignment we can
think of 4 beds of Roses--the first has a vertical and
horizontal strip of roses cut out (looking like an L). The 2nd
has a circle of roses cut out (looking like an O). The 3rd has
two slanting strips of roses cut out (looking like a V). And the
4th has one vertical and 3 horizontal strips cut out (looking like
an E). We all perceive the garden as spelling LOVE. And this is
true even though it is normally silly to think of gardens and
gardeners as "talking" to you. Because the aligned rose beds
have conspicuous differences we consider this communication
and we consider this communication the simple "pshat"(meaning)
of the text.
So too the verses of the torah are like rose beds and its words
are like roses. If we find (as we do in chapter 4-35) 4 rose
beds(verses) with conspicuous roses (words) cut out then it is
the simple meaning of the text to see communication in these
cut out roses. (This view on SIMPLE MEANING seems to have been
overlooked by such people as Livni and others who have written
extensively on the subject of SIMPLE MEANING). We now go on
to discuss the 3 issues.
The first issue is whether an act of murder took place. Let me
illustrate with 4 examples
EXAMPLE 1-HEAVY STONE THROWN
----------------------------
>You throw a HEAVY stone on a person and he dies.
>Then there is a death penalty.
>Using halachic lingo we say that the court assesses
>that the heavy stone throw was LETHAL
EXAMPLE 2-PEBBLE THROWN
-----------------------
>But if you throw a PEBBLE on a person and he dies
>Then there is NO death penalty.
>Even if you say "I hate you, drop dead and he dies"
>The reason there is no death penalty is because the court
>does not assess or perceive you as the CAUSE of DEATH--
>your throw of a pebble is not a lethal act
EXAMPLE 3-PEBBLE SHOT
---------------------
>You shoot a PEBBLE (bullet) at a person & he dies
>There is a DEATH penalty.
>We assess that the bullet shot was lethal
>The difference between SHOOTING a pebble and THROWING a
>pebble is that the SPEED of the pebble (bullet) contributes
>to lethality.
EXAMPLE 4-KNIFE
---------------
>You throw not a PEBBLE but a SMALL IRON KNIFE and he dies
>There is a DEATH penalty. We assess the knife as lethal
>The difference between the PEBBLE and KNIFE is sharpness
EXAMPLE 4-continued
-------------------
>The reason SHARPNESS affects lethality is the following.
>Let us say I threw the pebble with 10 pounds of force
>In other words if I threw the pebble at a scale I could
>make it move to the 10 pound mark (thus I have 10 pounds
>of force). This 10 pounds of force is SPREAD over the
>area of the pebble (say 1 inch square). By contrast
>when I throw a knife then THE SAME 10 POUNDS OF FORCE
>is SPREAD over the surface area of the knife point!!!
>But the knife point may be a 1/100 inch square so that
>its area is 1/10000 of an inch. Therefore the
> PRESSURE = FORCE(MOMENTUM) per UNIT AREA
>is greater for the knife then for the pebble. The knife
>has 100 squared less area so the pressure is 10000
>times higher (10000 pounds per square inch). It would be
>similar to my putting(riding) a car on your chest--you
>would die. Thus we see that PRESSURE not FORCE or WEIGHT
>determines lethality.
This completes the examples for the first issue in murder--"was
the act lethal?"
>LETHALITY
is measured by
>PRESSURE.
PRESSURE in turn is a function of 3 attributes
>WEIGHT(BIGNESS) of object (eg the heavy stone)
>SHARPNESS (SURFACE AREA) of object (eg the knife)
>SPEED of object (eg the speeding bullet)
Furthermore PRESSURE is not dependent on
>MATERIAL
(There is a death penalty whether you threw a 50 pound stone or
a 50 pound ream of paper on someone). Lo and behold corresponding
to these five concepts---WEIGHT, SHARPNESS, SPEED, MATERIAL,
LETHALITY--there are exactly 5 differences in the 4 verses aligned
below.
We now derive this law that LETHALITY=PRESSURE from verses
{LIST2} {Alignment of 5 verses from which we derive the laws
related to the first issue of murder---was the act
lethal. Differences may be read across every row. The
five footnotes correspond to the 5 components of
PRESSURE that we just enumerated}
VERSE VERSE VERSE VERSE VERSE
NOTE 4-35-16 4-35-17 4-35-18 4-35-21 2-21-12 ISSUE
==== ======= ======= ======== ======= ======= =====
and if and if and if or (he who)
with a with a with a
*A hand hand SIZE/WEIGHT
*B utensil utensil NEEDLE
*C of iron stone of wood ANY MATERIAL
*D that can that can LETHALITY
kill kill
*E with FORCE
enmity
he hit he hit he hit he hit hits
him him him him a man
... ... ... .... ...
& he died & he died & he died & he died & he died
... .... .... .... ....
he(the he(the) he(the) he(the) he(the)
murderer) murderer murderer murderer murderer
dies dies dies dies dies
FOOTNOTES
----------
>NOTE *A: 2 verses have HAND--object must be BIG enough
Space does not allow us to add all the brilliancies of
Rashi who significantly added to the Sifray. Thus Rashi
brings in the verse pairs
>2-21-18 and he hits a friend with a STONE
>4-35-17 and he hits a friend with a HAND STONE
>2-21-20 and he hits with a ROD
>4-35-18 and he hits with a HAND WOOD
Further hilighting the emphasis on HAND}
>NOTE *B: 2 verses have UTENSIL--even a needle can kill
>NOTE *AB: Note that (4-35-18) has BOTH HAND & UTENSIL.
> If the object is pointed like a needle(UTENSIL)
> then you don't need to assess size. If the
> object is not pointed you do need to assess size
> (Brilliancy of the Rambam 3:4 which seems to
> have no clear source}
>NOTE *C: ANY MATERIAL can kill (iron,stone,wood)(Sifray)
>NOTE *D: 2 verses state "THAT CAN KILL"-this is the
> Biblical requirement for assessing LETHALITY.
> However iron needles need no assessment since
> they can always kill(hence IRON does not have
> the phrase THAT CAN KILL)
>NOTE *E: WITH ENMITY---you assess the FORCE of the blow.
> "There is a difference between a hit by someone
> who hates and a hit by someone who doesn't hate
> The person who hates has more FORCE
> (Rambam 3:6)
The second issue in murder is WHOSE FORCE was involved. We give
3 examples
EXAMPLE 1--The fist
-------------------
>I hit a person with my own fist till he dies(There is penalty
EXAMPLE 2--The wolf
-------------------
>I tie the person up before a wolf and the wolf kills him
>(Although this is considered murder there is no (death)
>penalty (by courts). We do not assess the person as having
>(fully and uniquely) committed the murder. The person has
a defense--"I just tied him up--it wasn't 100% clear that
the wolf would kill him"
EXAMPLE 3--The Cliff
--------------------
>You push a person off a cliff and he dies(There is penalty)
>Note that the CLIFF PUSHER also has a defense--"I just
>lightly shoved him---it was the force of gravity that killed
>him not me.
This completes the examples for the second issue in murder--"WHOSE
FORCE" was involved. We conclude that LETHALITY is assessed even
when other forces (such as gravity) are involved PROVIDED that
the death was 100% inevitable. (Death by gravity is inevitable;
death by a wolf is probable but not inevitable)
We now derive this from the verses.
{LIST3} {Alignment of 4 verses from which we derive the
2nd issue of murder--whose FORCE was involved}
VERSE VERSE VERSE VERSE
NOTE 4-35-16 4-35-17 4-35-18 4-35-20 ISSUE
==== ======= ======= ======== ======= =====
and if and if and if and if
*A he hit he hit he hit he pushed
him him him him
FOOTNOTES
-----
*A The verses clearly state
>he HITS him
or
>he PUSHES him
Thus whether the
>whole murder was done by him
>gravity contributed (another force)
there is a death penalty
Since the case
>tying him up before a wolf
is not mentioned there is no death penalty for it (though
it is considered murder)
The 3rd issue in murder is how DIRECT the killing was. Again
we give 3 examples
EXAMPLE 1-The stab
------------------
>I personally stab him in the heart. Then there is penalty
EXAMPLE 2-Shield removal
------------------------
>I remove a bullet proof vest AFTER a gun was shot.
>(Note that death is inevitable from my action)
>Nevertheless there is no penalty since I
> REMOVED A PREVENTOR of death
EXAMPLE 3-Choking/Starvation
----------------------------
>I tie a person up till he dies by starvation OR
>I smoke a room till he has no oxygen
>Even though I did not directly destroy his body
>but only prevented it from continuing life
>nevertheless there is penalty.
This completes the examples for issue 3. To assess lethality, we
need besides
>INEVITABILITY of death
also
>DIRECTNESS of killing
either thru
>destruction of the body (eg stabbing)
>preventing continuance (starvation, stabbing)
However removal of shields even though it is considered a violation
of THOU SHALL NOT KILL and even though there is INEVITABILITY of
death nevertheless there is no penalty.
We now derive this issue from the verses.
{LIST4} {Alignment of 4-5 verses from which we derive the 3rd
issue of murder---how DIRECT must the murder be in other
for it to be assessed as lethal. Details are contained
in the footnotes.}
VERSE VERSE VERSE VERSE VERSE
NOTE 4-35-16 4-35-17 4-35-18 4-35-21 2-21-12
==== ======= ======= ======== ======= =======
and if and if and if or (he who)
... ... ... ...
with iron with stone with wood with enmity
... ... ... ...
he hit he hit he hit he hit hits
him him him him a man
with his
*A hand
& he died & he died & he died & he died & he died
... .... .... .... ....
he(the he(the) he(the) he(the) he(the)
murderer) murderer murderer murderer murderer
dies dies dies dies dies
FOOTNOTES:
---------
*A From the one verse where it says WITH HIS HAND we
infer that there is an assessment of lethality whether
>the person directly killed him (hit with iron,stone..)
>the person deprived him of oxygen (chocked with his HAND)
On the other hand,
>removal of a shield
is not mentioned and hence there is no death penalty for it. Death
penalty does not occur for
>removal of a preventor of death
but does happen for
>direct killing (stabbing)
>removal of continuance (chocking,starvation)
We bring one last midrashic derivation which affects the
whole tone of the chapter 4-35.
{LIST5}{Verses displaying the repetitive phrase MURDERER MURDERER}
VERSE VERSE VERSE VERSE VERSE VERSE
NOTE 4-35-16 4-35-17 4-35-18 4-35-20 4-35-21 2-21-12
==== ======= ======= ======== ======= ======= =======
and if and if and if and if or he who
he hit he hit he hit he pushed he hit hits a
him him him him him man
with his
hand
& he died & he died & he died & he died & he died
he is a he is a he is a he is a
*A murderer murderer murderer murderer
the killer the killer the killer the smiter
gets death gets death gets death gets death getsdeath
FOOTNOTES
*A Note the double language
>MURDERER KILLER
in 3 of the 5 verses.
Recall {LIST6} that double nouns are always interpreted BROADLY.
Examples are presented in {LIST6}. Hence we are to assess
not only
>the lethality of the act of murder
but we also assess
>the murderer himself--was he strong or weak
(And just as we assess the murderer we assess the murdered
person and wound also).
This completes the review of the halachic midrash on this verse
For a summary of this chapter of Rambam see below {LIST7}.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
=========================
Note that both Rashi and Rambam only skim the surface
of aligning all verses. We suggest that both Rashi
and Rambam expected people to use workbook methods
and do further alignments themselves.
Indeed, Rashi brings 2 verses from Exodus which are
not brought by the Sifray thus illustrating the
workbook method.
Furthermore Rambam derives the distinctions 3:4 from
consequences of all these alignments (See below
for details). Again we warmly encourage students
practicing alignments if they want to master the
study of halachic midrash.
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
===========================================================
[Moderator: We reproduce LISTS 1-5 from above. LIST 6,7
are new]
{LIST1} {Overall structure of 4-35}
VERSES TOPIC THEMES
========== ================= ==================================
4-35-9:15 Introduction Set aside 6 'Murder-refuge' cities
4-35-16:21 Willful murder Assess murder weapon,hatred etc
4-35-22:23 Accidental murder Assess accidentality
4-35-24:29 Court case Goes to refuge if accidental
{LIST2} {Alignment of 5 verses from which we derive the laws
related to the first issue of murder---was the act
lethal. Differences may be read across every row. The
five footnotes correspond to the 5 components of
PRESSURE that we just enumerated}
VERSE VERSE VERSE VERSE VERSE
NOTE 4-35-16 4-35-17 4-35-18 4-35-21 2-21-12 ISSUE
==== ======= ======= ======== ======= ======= =====
and if and if and if or (he who)
with a with a with a
*A hand hand SIZE/WEIGHT
*B utensil utensil NEEDLE
*C of iron stone of wood ANY MATERIAL
*D that can that can LETHALITY
kill kill
*E with FORCE
enmity
he hit he hit he hit he hit hits
him him him him a man
... ... ... .... ...
& he died & he died & he died & he died & he died
... .... .... .... ....
he(the he(the) he(the) he(the) he(the)
murderer) murderer murderer murderer murderer
dies dies dies dies dies
FOOTNOTES
----------
>NOTE *A: 2 verses have HAND--object must be BIG enough
Space does not allow us to add all the brilliancies of
Rashi who significantly added to the Sifray. Thus Rashi
brings in the verse pairs
>2-21-18 and he hits a friend with a STONE
>4-35-17 and he hits a friend with a HAND STONE
>2-21-20 and he hits with a ROD
>4-35-18 and he hits with a HAND WOOD
Further hilighting the emphasis on HAND}
>NOTE *B: 2 verses have UTENSIL--even a needle can kill
>NOTE *AB: Note that (4-35-18) has BOTH HAND & UTENSIL.
> If the object is pointed like a needle(UTENSIL)
> then you don't need to assess size. If the
> object is not pointed you do need to assess size
> (Brilliancy of the Rambam 3:4 which seems to
> have no clear source}
>NOTE *C: ANY MATERIAL can kill (iron,stone,wood)(Sifray)
>NOTE *D: 2 verses state "THAT CAN KILL"-this is the
> Biblical requirement for assessing LETHALITY.
> However iron needles need no assessment since
> they can always kill(hence IRON does not have
> the phrase THAT CAN KILL)
>NOTE *E: WITH ENMITY---you assess the FORCE of the blow.
> "There is a difference between a hit by someone
> who hates and a hit by someone who doesn't hate
> The person who hates has more FORCE
> (Rambam 3:6)
{LIST3} {Alignment of 4 verses from which we derive the
2nd issue of murder--whose FORCE was involved}
VERSE VERSE VERSE VERSE
NOTE 4-35-16 4-35-17 4-35-18 4-35-20 ISSUE
==== ======= ======= ======== ======= =====
and if and if and if and if
*A he hit he hit he hit he pushed
him him him him
FOOTNOTES
-----
*A The verses clearly state
>he HITS him
or
>he PUSHES him
Thus whether the
>whole murder was done by him
>gravity contributed (another force)
there is a death penalty
Since the case
>tying him up before a wolf
is not mentioned there is no death penalty for it (though
it is considered murder)
{LIST4} {Alignment of 4-5 verses from which we derive the 3rd
issue of murder---how DIRECT must the murder be in other
for it to be assessed as lethal. Details are contained
in the footnotes.}
VERSE VERSE VERSE VERSE VERSE
NOTE 4-35-16 4-35-17 4-35-18 4-35-21 2-21-12
==== ======= ======= ======== ======= =======
and if and if and if or (he who)
... ... ... ...
with iron with stone with wood with enmity
... ... ... ...
he hit he hit he hit he hit hits
him him him him a man
with his
*A hand
& he died & he died & he died & he died & he died
... .... .... .... ....
he(the he(the) he(the) he(the) he(the)
murderer) murderer murderer murderer murderer
dies dies dies dies dies
FOOTNOTES:
---------
*A From the one verse where it says WITH HIS HAND we
infer that there is an assessment of lethality whether
>the person directly killed him (hit with iron,stone..)
>the person deprived him of oxygen (chocked with his HAND)
On the other hand,
>removal of a shield
is not mentioned and hence there is no death penalty for it. Death
penalty does not occur for
>removal of a preventor of death
but does happen for
>direct killing (stabbing)
>removal of continuance (chocking,starvation)
{LIST5}{Verses displaying the repetitive phrase MURDERER MURDERER}
VERSE VERSE VERSE VERSE VERSE VERSE
NOTE 4-35-16 4-35-17 4-35-18 4-35-20 4-35-21 2-21-12
==== ======= ======= ======== ======= ======= =======
and if and if and if and if or he who
he hit he hit he hit he pushed he hit hits a
him him him him him man
with his
hand
& he died & he died & he died & he died & he died
he is a he is a he is a he is a
*A murderer murderer murderer murderer
the killer the killer the killer the smiter
gets death gets death gets death gets death getsdeath
FOOTNOTES
*A Note the double language
>MURDERER KILLER
in 3 of the 5 verses.
Recall {LIST6} that double nouns are always interpreted BROADLY.
Examples are presented in {LIST6}. Hence we are to assess
not only
>the lethality of the act of murder
but we also assess
>the murderer himself--was he strong or weak
(And just as we assess the murderer we assess the murdered
person and wound also).
{LIST6a}{Of Repeated nouns in the same verse (Courtesy of Malbim)*1}
THE NOUN REFERS APPLICATION
TO TWO OBJECTS OF THIS
VERSE REPEATED NOUN THAT ARE SIMILAR PRINCIPLE
(Is in Caps) THESE 2 OBJECTS ARE OF TWO OBJECTS *2
----- ------------- ------- -----------
3-1-5 Offer BLOOD Blood in vessel Even spilled blood
Throw BLOOD Blood spilled on floor can be thrown
on altar (not just
blood properly
collected)
3-27-14 Sanctify HOUSE House=House These sanctify/
3-27-15 Redeem his HOUSE House=Possesions redeems laws apply
Either to a house
or a house with
possessions
3-23-32 On EVE of 9th Eve = After Sunset Don't eat on the
From the EVE Eve = During Sunset day prior to Yom
Kippur right up
to sunset. Rather
start the fast
prior to sunset
FOOTNOTES:
* 1
See Chapter 15 of Malbims beautiful Morning Star for a long list of
verses with double nouns--Morning Star occurs at beginning of his
commentary on Leviticus.
* 2
Nouns are never repeated if you can use a pronoun or suffix. There
are a variety of methods of treating double nouns. One of them being
that each noun refers to a DIFFERENT item (as shown in the list
below). In general repetition denotes EMPHASIS. The emphasis can
be by limitation or even by extension. For example, BLOOD BLOOD
denotes ANY blood even if it was spilled out of the temple vessel
HOUSE HOUSE denotes ANY aspect of the house (including its contents)
{LIST6b}{Of verses with A MAN A MAN. All attempts see the repetition
as denoting a more liberal interpretation. However the
details of this liberalness have no concensus. Thus Rashi
simply teaches us the general idea of liberal interpretation
but leaves out any mention of details}
VERSE A MAN A MAN means? SOURCE SUBJECT OF VERSE
====== ==================== ============ ==========================
3-17-8 2 men do it together Zevachim 108 Offerings outside temple
3-17-3 bisexual people Zevachim 66 Slaughter outside temple*1
3-18-6 Non Jews Sanhedrin 57 Incestuous relationships
4-5-12 Even men in prison Sotah 27 Suspect wife ceremony *2
FOOTNOTES:
*1 Note that even though 3-17-3 and 3-17-8 sound alike nevertheless
3-17-8 by law applies even if two men together offered up the
animal while 3-17-3 by law does NOT apply if two men offered
up the anaimal together. The attempt to apply 3-17-3 to
women is seen as weak since the general equivalence of men and
women is learned from more explicit verses in Baba Kama 15
*2 This is NOT the halachah. If the wife of a prison inmate is
behaving improperly the court does NOT have the right to make
her go thru the suspect-wife ceremony. The most reasonable
interpretation of 4-5-12 applies to varied social types...
the woman must go thru the ceremony whether her husband is
the possesive type or easy going type.
4-5-12 A MAN A MAN when his wife commits adultery.
Quite amusingly here the Talmud (Sotah 27) derives that
the repetition of A MAN A MAN means that the suspected wife
laws of 4-5 apply to ALL men (even eg men in prison or
marriages with deaf people etc). I say "amusingly" because
even though such a midrash is sound and logical it is NOT
the halacha. Again we can appreciate why Rashi left out
a midrash which is not accepted halachah.
{LIST6c}{List of verses that have double verbs (courtesy of
the Babelonian Talmud, Baba Metzia 31). Each verse
has some word repeated twice--one of the verbs is
an infinitive and the other is the normal form
of the verb. This list gives the lesson derived
from each: The infinitive means ongoing activity
and means it should be done even 100 times; the
double verb is interpreted like all double nouns
--the second verb is different than the 1st and
denotes that the activity of the verb is done
EVEN in other circumstances (See {LIST3} for the
treatment of double nouns)}
VERSE TOPIC DOUBLE
WORD INFINITIVE DOUBLE VERB
====== ============= ====== ========== ========================
5-22-1 Lost articles return 100 times without owner knowledge
5-22-7 Take birds*1 let-go 100 times even not for food *1
3-19-17 Rebuke sinner rebuke 100 times even a student to Rabbi
2-23-5 Help unload*2 unload 100 times even if owner can't help
5-22-4 Help reload*2 reload 100 times even if owner can't help
4-25-21 Death penalty die 100 times*3 even with other deaths*3
5-13-16 Hit city hit Long war*3 even with other deaths*3
5-24-13 Security return 100 times even if court sanctioned
2-22-25 Security return 100 times even if court sanctioned
5-15-8 Charity open up100 times even if from other cities
5-15-10 Charity give 100 times even if from other cities
5-15-14 Slave freeing Give Alot *4 even if you didn't profit
FOOTNOTES:
*1 This refers to finding birds in a nest. If you want the young
birds (for food) then you must let the mother bird go (and even
if she returns) you must repeatedly let her go. From the double
verb the talmud learns that this LETTING-GO law applies even
if you took it not for food but rather say for a sacrifice (I might
not think the mother has to be let go since she could be used for
a sacrifice also).
*2 The Biblical law requires that if you see a fellow Jews with
a loaded donkey then you must help him unload the donkey (to rest
it) and then you must also help him reload the donkey when he
wants to go back on his journey (So there are two obligations:
Loading and Unloading).
*3 There is no Talmudic derivation on the infinitive of placing
to death. But of my own accord I extended the "100 times" theme
to the death penalty---e.g. if you performed the execution and
he still didn't die you would have to perform the execution again
(till he dies)
*4 The Talmud notes that certain opinions did not hold this as
law. That is, if you lost money from the slave (during his work
by you) then you are NOT obligated to give him. This opinion
would hold by NONE of the laws in this list--they hold the
double verb form to be a Hebrew Idiom with no special meaning.
Nevertheless Rashi was faced with a problem. We use most of the
laws on this list. How then do the people who hold that the
infinitive and double verb have special meaning deal with these
verses. Rashi actually answers this question on the sister verse
to 5-15-14, which is 5-15-8.
It says there to GIVE GIVE to the the poor and then repeats
GIVE GIVE (HAAVAYT) his needs. Now the verse continues that you
only give him WHAT HE NEEDS (So if he doesn't need anything you
need not give him). Rashi therefore interprets the double-verb
to mean GIVE HIM ANY WAY YOU CAN... If you can't give him charity
then give him a loan (as e.g. a rich man who isn't eligible for
charity--he should be given a loan). This Rashi on 5-15-8 can
be applied to 5-15-14. According to those opinions that you only
give gifts to a slave when he leaves PROVIDED you didn't lose money
then you would still be obligated to give him a loan (so he can
start off in life).
{LIST7} {Chapter 3 of Murder, Rambam. Each law is listed with
the verses form which it is derived as well as whether
Rashi or Rambam cited it. In this particular chapter
Rambam was much more detailed than Rashi. Nevertheless
Rashi gives some new derivations not even found in the
Sifray}
Verse Is Is
From Verse Verse
Which Cited Cited
Paragraph By By
Par Text of Paragraph Note Is Inferred Rambam Rashi
=== ================================== ==== =========== ====== =====
1 DEATH PENALTY REQUIRES ASSESSMENT
A) WHAT he hit him with *1a 4-35-16:18 Yes Yes
B) WHERE he hit him *1b 4-35-16:18 Yes No
2 C) the FORCE of the hit *2 4-35-21 Yes No
3 D) the WOUND itself *1b
E) the MURDERER'S STRENGTH *1b 4-35-16:18 Yes No
F) the KILLED PERSON'S STRENGTH *1b
4 POINTED IRON always can kill *4 4-35-16:18 Yes Yes
However,IRON SLABS are assessed *4 4-35-16:18 No No
5 If PERSONAL MURDER(no weapon) *5 N/A
A)Assess MURDERER's strength
B)Assess KILLED PERSON'S STRENGTH
C)Assess WHAT he hit him with
D)Assess WHERE he hit him
6 Scriptural derivation of Par 2-5 *6 N/A
7 PUSHING FROM A ROOF: *7a 4-35-20 Yes No
A) Assess ROOF HEIGHT
(At least 10 handbreadths)
B) Assess KILLED PERSON'S STRENGTH
8 IN ASSESSING the object of MURDER 4-35-16:18 Yes No
--You do assess its WEIGHT *4
--You do not assess its MATERIAL *4
9 THERE IS A COURT DEATH PENALTY *9a 4-35-21 NA NA
a1)Abe shoved Bob into water
a2)Bob could not get out
(But if he could no court penalty)
b1)Someone shoved Bob into water
b2)Abe kept him under till death
c1)Abe pinched Bob's nose
c2)till he could't breath
d)Abe tied Bob up in lethal cold
e)Abe deprived Bob of air supply
f)Abe smoked Bob to death
10 NO COURT DEATH PENALTY but *7b N/A No No
HEAVENLY LIABILITY in ...
a1) Tie someone up
a2) He EVENTUALLY starved
b) Instigated a dog
c1) Tie him up
c2) Cold EVENTUALLY came
c3) He died from cold
11 d1)Abe shot an arrow at Bob *9b N/A NA NA
d2)Abe removed Bobs shield
e1)Abe shoved Bob into a pit
e2)Abe removed Bob's ladder
12 THERE IS A DEATH PENALTY if *7c N/A NA NA
Abe threw a ball at a wall
It rebounded and hit Bob
13 THERE IS A DEATH PENALTY FOR *7c N/A NA NA
a)A missle travelling a trajectory
b)Pouring water on a tied person
FOOTNOTES
*1a LAW: You must assess WHAT HE HIT HIM WITH
The verses say if he hit him
>4-35-16 with an IRON UTENSIL
>4-35-17 with a HAND STONE THAT CAN KILL
>4-35-18 with a HAND WOOD UTENSIL THAT CAN KILL
The words THAT CAN KILL emphasize that we must
assess if the IRON/STONE/WOOD can kill (eg if
you threw a pebble at a person and he didn't
die there is no death penalty).
The Rambam just emphasizes the words THAT CAN KILL
Rashi is more detailed and eg emphasizes the
word HAND STONE (has to be big enough).
*1b LAW: You must assess WHAT ORGAN he hit him with
The sifray learns this from the repeated word
>he is a MURDERER the MURDERER will die
which occurs in several verses. The repeated
word indicates a broad interpretation {LIST6}
which requires that we not only assess the act
but we also assess the person (murderer). Since
the same act may be lethal between one set of
two people and not between another set. In fact
we assess
>the person killing
>the person killed
>the place/organ he hit
>the wound
This is all derived from the repeated expression
>MURDERER MURDERER
Rambam does not cite this verse but the complementary
phrase
>THAT CAN KILL
The Rambam of course does not ignore the sifray but
rather the Rambam INTERPRETS the sifray--the Rambam
explain WHAT about the double word
>MURDERER MURDERER
is interpreted broadly--namely the murderers capacity
to inflict a wound
>THAT CAN KILL
It is for this reason that the Rambam cites
>THAT CAN KILL
throughout the chapter instead of each particular midrash.
*2 The verses emphasize assessing HATRED
>4-35-16 and if you hit
>4-35-17 and if you hit
>4-35-18 and if you hit
>4-35-20 and if with HATRED you hit
>4-35-21 and if with HATRED you hit
>5-19-11 and if with HATRED you hit
Here Rambam is more detailed then Rashi.
>The emphasis on HATRED indicates we assess the FORCE
>since a person who hates hits with more force
(Thus if a person dies after you tap him with a baseball
bat there is no death penalty; but if a person dies after
you vigorously hit him with a baseball bat you do get
the death penalty).
Note that the Rambam presents this derivation for the
laws in Paragraph 2, in Paragraph 6
*4 LAW:Pointed iron can kill; Iron slabs need assessment
The verses say if he hit him
>4-35-16 with an IRON UTENSIL
>4-35-17 with a HAND STONE THAT CAN KILL
>4-35-18 with a HAND WOOD UTENSIL THAT CAN KILL
Rashi notes that the phrase
>THAT CAN KILL
occurs by STONE and WOOD but not by IRON indicating that
ANY Iron utensil can kill (and needles do not need assessment
We could go further and note that
>UTENSIL
is
>used by IRON and WOOD
but not by stone since needles are usually made from IRON & WOOD
Finally I expressed my opinion above that it mentions
>BOTH HAND and UTENSIL by wood
to emphasize that
>utensils of wood (needles) need no assessment
>hand held wood (lumber) needs assessment of weight
I suggested that this verse with wood is the real source
of the law and that the law emphasizes both WEIGHT and SHARPNESS
The net effect of these 3 verses is that MATERIAL
>STONE, IRON, WOOD
does not determine LETHALITY. Rather
>WEIGHT
>SHARPNESS
determine LETHALITY.
Thus
>A big stone kills but not a small stone
>a small sharp stone kills but not a small blunt stone
(We further developed the idea of combining the above with
paragraph 2---the FORCE of the blow. As we showed above in
ISSUE ONE in {LIST2} the three components FORCE, WEIGHT,
SHARPNESS combine to form PRESSURE--and it is PRESSURE
that determines whether LETHALITY takes place)
*5 Par 5 is simply a consequence of the other paragraphs.
Consequently it needs no verses. The other paragraphs say that
you assess the WEAPON, PERSON, WOUND, ORGAN, FORCE. Rambam
simply says that if you personally kill you assess all of these
except the weapon which is not present.
*6 This paragraph gives the scriptural derivation for FORCE which
we listed earlier
*7a The verses explicitly state
>if you hit him with stone
>if you hit him with iron
>if you hit him with wood
>if you PUSH him
We have shown above that this includes
>killing by weapon (your force does the killing)
>killing by pushing (gravity aids in the killing)
We also explaind that the PUSHER has a defense
>I didn't kill him. I just pushed him. It was
>gravity that completed the killing. I didn't
>complete the murder.
This argument however is not accepted. By contrast the case of
>killing by tying up before a hungry wolf
does NOT get a death penalty
The underlying determinant for a death penalty if INEVITABILITY
Killing by a weapon or by gravity both inevitably lead to
death. But killing by an animal only probably leads to death
not inevitably.
*7b
*7c These are consequences of the law in Paragraph 7
>Direct killing or
>killing with gravity
get a death penalty.
Tying someone up before a wolf does not
Because they are consequences there is no new scriptural
derivation.
*9a LAW: Killing by HITTING, CHOKING has a death penalty
LAW: Killing by tying before a starving wolfe does not
The verses state
>if he hit him with IRON
>if he hit him with STONE
>if he hit him with WOOD
>if he hit him with his HAND (CHOKING)
Thus
>direct killing (eg stab with a knife)
>removing continuance of life (choke, starve)
both receive the death penalty.
But
>removing a preventor of death(eg removing a shield)
does not get a death penalty EVEN if death was inevitable
(So if you remove a shield after an arrow was shot there
is no death penalty).
These laws also imply that STARVING, FREEZING, are like
CHOKING (They prevent continuance of life).
*9b These are consequences of the law in Paragraph 9
>direct killing (stabbing)
>removing continuance of life (choking)
get a death penalty
>Removing a preventor of death does not get the death penalty
(Even if it was inevitable)
Since these are consequences no new scriptural derivation is
present.
CROSS REFERENCES:
=================
v1-21-12 in Volume 4 Number 23 cites several earlier
postings on repetition.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
=================
I believe the idea of distinguishing between a CAUSE and
>the removal of a preventor
was introduced by the alter rebbe in his shulchan aruch
in the laws of shabbath.
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
===============================================================
DOUBLE PARSHAS
DOUBLE PARSHAS
DOUBLE PARSHAS
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
End of Rashi-Is-Simple Digest
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*