Eicha (3:30)
יִתֵּ֧ן לְמַכֵּ֛הוּ לֶ֖חִי יִשְׂבַּ֥ע בְּחֶרְפָּֽה׃ {ס}
Let him offer his cheek to the smiter;
Let him be surfeited with mockery.
Ben Yehoyada on Sanhedrin 91a:2
אָמַר לֵיהּ: אִם אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה כֵּן, רוֹפֵא אֻמָּן תִּקָּרֵא, וְשָׂכָר הַרְבֵּה תִּטֹּל. נראה לי בס"ד על דרך מה שאמר הכתוב יִתֵּן לְמַכֵּהוּ לֶחִי יִשְׂבַּע בְּחֶרְפָּה (איכה ג, ל) וכתבו המפרשים ז"ל הכונה שלפעמים ימצא פוגע עכו"ם בישראל וסוטרו על לחייו, הנה כל זה נעשה לטובת ישראל והיינו שהיה באותו ישראל חלק רע הראוי לאותו עכו"ם והיה באותו עכו"ם חלק טוב שהוא ראוי לאותו ישראל ובאותה הכאה שסוטרו על לחייו יוצא אותו חלק הרע מישראל ונכנס בעכו"ם ויוצא חלק הטוב מן עכו"ם ונכנס באותו ישראל. וזהו שנאמר יִתֵּן הישראל לְמַכֵּהוּ זה העכו"ם לֶחִי לסוטרו אז אותו העכו"ם יִשְׂבַּע בְּחֶרְפָּה שיקבל חלק הרע מישראל ויוצא ממנו חלק טוב ונמצא הוא שבע בחרפה הוא הרע וכנזכר בגורי האר"י ז"ל.
וכן כאן אותו המין אמר דברים להלעיג ואך גְבִיהָה השיא דברי המין לענין אחר שהוא דבר טוב והגון ונכון והוא אחר שאמר לו 'בָּעִיטְנָא בָּךְ וּפַשִׁיטְנָא לְעַקְמוּתָךְ' אמר לו גביהה אם זאת הבעיטה תועיל שתפשיט בה עקמימותי שהם הסיגים של הנפש על דרך שאמר הכתוב 'יִתֵּן לְמַכֵּהוּ לֶחִי יִשְׂבַּע בְּחֶרְפָּה' הנה בודאי 'רוֹפֵא אֻמָּן תִּקָּרֵא' כי דרך הרופאים להסיר החולי מן האדם במשך כמה ימים לאט לאט ואם יזדמן רופא שיסיר החולי בשעה אחת לזה קורין אותו 'רוֹפֵא אֻמָּן' וכן האדם מסיר חולי הנפש מתיכו לאט לאט על ידי מצות ומעשים טובים במשך ימים רבים ואתה אם תסיר על ידי הבעיטה עקמימות הנפש בשעה אחת קלה תקרא 'רוֹפֵא אֻמָּן' ולכן אף על פי שאתה בועט בי ומצער אותי 'שָׂכָר הַרְבֵּה תִּטֹּל' ממני.
“Turn the other cheek” Interesting! Today’s daf hayomi Kiddushin Chapter Three 59b:
ReplyDelete“R. Johanan refuted Resh Lakish: If he (the owner) annuls (sending the agent), if he (the owner) does so before he [his agent] has made a separation, his (the owner) separation is invalid (surely not!)? Said Raba: Here the circumstances are, e.g., that the owner anticipated [his agent] by separating terumah for his stacks, so that it is action. ”
My theory MISHNAH. IF HE SAYS TO HIS NEIGHBOUR, GO FORTH AND BETROTH ME SUCH A WOMAN, AND HE GOES AND BETROTHS HER TO HIMSELF, SHE IS BETROTHED TO THE SECOND. LIKEWISE, IF HE SAYS TO A WOMAN, BE THOU BETROTHED UNTO ME AFTER THIRTY DAYS, AND ANOTHER COMES AND BETROTHS HER WITHIN THE THIRTY DAYS, SHE IS BETROTHED TO THE SECOND:
She’s a feminist, resents that he, theoretically can divorce her over her objections. He wants her to be his wife forever. To entice her he tells her BE THOU BETROTHED UNTO ME AFTER THIRTY DAYS. He gives her the option to annul/void the engagement (kiddushin) for 30 days. Wow, she agrees to marry a second man during the 30 days. Obviously the marriage with THE SECOND stands. She annulled the engagement with the first man.
Beautiful. Raba says the man at first did want the agent to separate terumah. Then the man separated terumah himself. He annulled appointing the agent. Yes that happens. Separating is easy, appointing an agent is easy. Getting a feministic beautiful sexy lady to be wife forever: difficult for the first man. Looks like he offers her a 30 trial marriage to entice her. This is how I read the Gamara.
“Turn the other cheek” Interesting! Today’s daf hayomi Kiddushin 61b:
ReplyDelete“ It was taught: R. Hanina b. Gamaliel said: For example, to what may this matter be compared? To a man who divided his estate among his sons, and directed, That son shall inherit that field, that son shall inherit that field, while that son shall pay two hundred zuz and inherit that field [which is worth more than his due share]. But if he does not give it, he shall inherit the rest of my estate together with his brothers.’ Now, what causes him to receive an inheritance together with his other brethren in the rest of the estate? His doubling [of the stipulation] effects it for him [For but for the second claim, it might be maintained that if he does not give the two hundred zuz he can claim a share only in the third field, but receives nothing from the other two fields assigned to his two brothers. Similarly, in the verses under discussion, but for the second claim, it would be assumed that the Gaddites and Reubenites in the case of their non-fulfilment of the condition would share with the rest of the tribes the district of Gilead, while forfeiting all claim to the land of Canaan.].”
I like this example of a man lovingly making a will for his 3 sons, A, B and C. A field one. B gets field two. C gets field three on condition he pays 200 zuz. Yes that condition is serious. If C doesn’t pay 200 zuz he won’t get field three, but will divide with A and B fields one and two. The man lovingly wants to marry her, an ardent feminist, who resents that men can marry many wives. The condition that man puts on the marriage is not serious when stated in positive only and not repeated in negative. The man is absolutely serious when the condition is stated in both positive and negative: R. HANINA B. GAMALIEL MAINTAINED: THE MATTER HAD TO BE STATED. FOR OTHERWISE IT IMPLIES THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE NO INHERITANCE EVEN IN CANAAN.17
Beautiful. Moses was angry Reuven and Gad said what they said at first. Moses was absolutely serious with them. In Kiddushin a condition with only positive is not serious. Why does a man do a not-serious condition? My theory to placate a feminist lady he wants to marry to be a good wife. Do you like my theory, KA?
“Turn the other cheek” Interesting! Today’s daf hayomi Kiddushin 63a:
ReplyDelete“Thou shalt not deliver unto his master a servant [which is escaped from his master] [Deut. XXIII, 16]: Rabbi said: The Writ refers to one who buys a slave on condition that he emancipates him [Or, for the purpose of emancipating him. If his master goes back on his word and the slave escapes, the Court must not deliver him up again.]. How so? Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: E.g., if he wrote for him, When I buy you, you belong to yourself from now[Thus he transmits to the slave something which, as far as he is concerned, is as yet non-existent, viz., his rights over him. (Such fall within the category of things which have not yet come into the world.) Since Rabbi applies the verse to such a case, he evidently holds such transmission valid.]”
Deuteronomy 23:16-17 “Thou shalt not deliver לא תסגיר unto his master a bondman עבד that is rescued ינצל from his master to thee. He shall dwell with thee, in your midst, in whatever the place he shall choose within one of thy gates, where he pleases בטוב לו: You must not ill treat him לא תונו.”
Governor Hochel in her recent ceremony installing the new head judge of the NYS Court of Appeals, mentioned how wonderful the court freed, in a NYS case about 200 years ago a runaway slave from the South who wanted to live in NYS My theory the Gamara is talking of a Jewish man who bought a Canaanite slave for the purpose of freeing him. The Torah warns us: that Canaanite man is free, can live where he wants and we must not taunt him. The problem in the Gamara here is that the rescuing of the runaway Canaanite slave involves formal manumission which is done in the future. IF HE SAYS TO A WOMAN, BEHOLD, BE THOU BETROTHED UNTO ME AFTER I BECOME A PROSELYTE, OR AFTER THOU BECOMEST A PROSELYTE, AFTER I AM LIBERATED, OR AFTER THOU ART LIBERATED, AFTER THY HUSBAND DIES. OR, AFTER THY SISTER DIES.10 OR AFTER THY YABAM PERFORMS HALIZAH FOR THEE; SHE IS NOT BETROTHED.
My theory. God is against intermarriage with Canaanites, God warns us not to make covenants with Canaanites for fear of intermarriage etc. Sages clearly won’t recognize BEHOLD, BE THOU BETROTHED UNTO ME AFTER I BECOME A PROSELYTE, The Torah repeatedly warns not to mistreat converts. Converts are Jews in every way. We love converts. We hate slavery. Beautiful.
“Turn the other cheek” Interesting! Today’s daf hayomi Kiddushin 63b-64a
ReplyDelete“It was taught as R. Hisda: [If a man declares,] This my son is thirteen years and a day, [Or] this my daughter is twelve years and a day [At these ages they are adults], .He is believed in respect of vows, haramim [V. Glos], sanctifications, and arakin [V. Glos. As they are of age, their vows, etc., are valid, and the father is believed on the question of age]; But not in respect of flagellation and [other] punishments.
My theory. Eye for an eye is money only never physical. Flagellation and [other] punishments such as stoning are extreme rarities. Rabbi Akiva etc could always find a way to stay the execution. Hey, the adulterer man was half a man etc.
The rules of evidence are strict on testimony in mattes of flagellation and [other] punishments but not otherwise. The Gamara seemingly allows the man to lie if his object is to convince her to marry him.
The Gamara has strict rules of evidence on matters of besmirching someone, such as a parent saying the offspring is a mamzer etc. This my son is thirteen years and a day, He’s believed to be called to the Torah. He’s not believed in an adultery trial. Beautiful.