Ki teze answers

Ki Tetze 5730
Alef.

22:13-21 The laws of Motzee Shem Ra (when a wife is accused by her husband of having misrepresented herself as a virgin.

       22-29 Instances of adultery and rape

23:1-9      Individuals disqualified from being potential marriage partners for other Jews. 

• Cases where sexual intimacy is prohibited, aside from the prohibitions concerning blood relatives and particular aberrations (found in VaYikra 18.) 

Beit.

1.    Devarim 2:28-29 (The request to Sichon, King of Cheshbon) “Food for money provide for me so that I will eat, and water for money give to me that I may drink, just let me pass through with my feet. As the Children of Eisav did for me who dwell in Sei’ir and the Moavim who dwell in Ahr, until I cross the Jordan to the land that the Lord, our God is Giving to us.

   à The Edomim (Children of Eisav) and the Moavim  sold food and drink to the Jews  and allowed them to pass through their lands.

   Devarim  23:5 (The reason why male Amonim and Moavim cannot marry into the Jewish people until ten generations have passed after initial conversion to Judaism) Because of the matter that they did not take the initiative to come out to you with bread and water on the way when you were going out from Egypt, that he hired against you Bilaam son of Be’or from Petor Aram Naharaim to curse you.

• The Moavim are described as not having offered any food or drink to the Jews.

Which account is to be believed, or how can these two accounts be reconciled?

2.      a) “Rabbim” (many)—although the Moavim did not come out to offer food and drink, the Jews did in the end purchase these things from them after requesting such items.

          b) Ibn Ezra—When in 2:29 reference is made to what the Moavim did do on behalf of the Jews, the reference is not to the offering of food and drink, but rather that the Jews were allowed to pass through the lands of Moav and Amon.

3.        a) RaMBaN rejects the first proposal because either  i) as long as food and drink was sold, there is no reason to be additionally critical re who initiated the transaction, or  Ii) If the Jews did not enter the land of the Moavim, then if sales of food and drink took place, the Moavim must have gone out to sell these things to them. And if this was so, and the Moavim are nevertheless restricted re marrying into the Jewish people for ten generations. why is a similar restriction not imposed on the Children of Eisav who did the same? Or vice versa, why are the Moavim punished for ten generations and the Edomim only for three?

           b) The Ibn Ezra’s interpretation is rejected by RaMBaM because, according to him, the Tora states explicitly that the Jews requested passage through Moav and were rejected in the same manner that their request to traverse Edom was rejected (BaMidbar 20:14-21). In fact, there is no mention of such an interchange regarding Moav in the Tora. Yiftach, in his attempt to dissuade the King of Amon not to attack, rejects the latter’s accusation that the Jews not only passed through the land of Moav, but also captured it, when he states, (Shoftim 11:17) “…and also to the King of Moav he (Moshe) sent (messengers requesting safe passage through the land) and he did not acquiesce….(Ibid. 18) “And he travelled in the desert and circuitously avoided the land of Edom and the land of Moav, and he came to the east of Moav and camped in Ever Arnon, never entering the boundaries of Moav because Arnon is the boundary of Moav.” Perhaps this is at least suggested in the list of journeys of the Jews in the desert in BaMidbar 33. In v. 44 the Tora states that the people encamped at Iyai HaAvarim, at the boundary of Moav. Only in v. 48 does the Tora mention that they now encamped at Arvot Moav. Assuming that the places mentioned in between, i.e., Divon Gad, Almon Divlatayma, and Harai HaAvarim were not located in Moav proper, then we are being given a description of how the people scrupulously avoided entering into the territory of the Moavim. Additionally, RaMBaN remarks, if the Jews had passed through the land of Moav, it would have been highly unlikely for the Moavim not to have sold food and drink to the Jews, because this was the standard practice when one nation’s forces passed through another nation’s territory.

4. RaMBaN suggests that since the ancestors of Amon and Moav (Lot and his daughters—Beraishit 19:30-38) were the direct beneficiaries of a) Avraham’s saving of at least Lot, if not his entire family, when the kings kidnapped him/them from Sodom and Amora (Ibid. 14:14-16) and b) it was only the merit of Avraham that caused Lot and his family to be saved from Sodom and Amora prior to the destruction of these cities,¹ their descendents should have felt a debt of gratitude towards Avraham’s descendents.² However, not only did these peoples not do anything to benefit the Children of Avraham, they tried to harm and destroy them. The Moavim hired Bilaam to curse them (BaMidbar 22:5 ff.) While Devarim 2:29 mentions both Edom and Moav as providing food and drink to the Jews, Amon is glaringly omitted. RaMBaN posits that once Edom and Moav became aware that the Jews could not trouble them and if they refused to allow the Jews to enter their lands, that this demand would be honored, then they went out to at least sell (give?)³ food and drink to the passersby. Amon, however, did not extend even this convenience/kindness. Consequently, when the reason for male Amonim not being able to marry into the Jewish people for ten generations is mentioned, (Devarim 23:4-5) Amon is mentioned before Moav.⁴

5.  As was stated above, while Devarim 2:29 mentions both Edom and Moav as providing food and drink to the Jews, Amon is glaringly omitted.

6.  One answer is as stated above in 4) and 5).

      RaShBaM offers a creative interpretation:

רשב"ם דברים פרק ב פסוק כט

(כט) והמואבים היושבים בער - אבל בשאר מואבים כת' בהן אשר לא קדמו אתכם בלחם ובמים. וכן [בני עשו] היושבים בשעיר, כמו שפירשתי למעלה אבל בני עשו הקרויים אדום יצאו לקראתכם בחרב ויט ישראל מעליו ויסובו את הר שעיר ימים רבים:

        i.e., that only some of the Edomim and only some of the Moavim offered food and drink, while the rest did not. Perhaps if this would include only a minority of the Moavim but a majority of the Edomim, the reason for why one group was not penalized in terms of marrying into the Jewish people while the other group was can be more easily understood.

Gimel.

Bilaam had a reputation of being a powerful spiritual force. And therefore not only the Moavim, but the Jews themselves, were concerned that anything he would say, would come true. God Could have Allowed Bilaam to say whatever he wished, including curses, and not Permitted the words to have taken affect. But the lag time until it would become apparent that this had happened would have provided ample opportunity for the Jews to be disconcerted in the meanwhile. Therefore, to spare the Jews consternation over whether they had indeed been really cursed or not, God Changed Bilaam’s words from the get go to be blessings. In this manner, those who were more sophisticated would realize all along that they had nothing to fear from this man, and those who were more simple-minded would be spared the anxiety of worrying whether to take his words seriously or not.

Daled.

1.    Sifrei is looking at the issue in general, i.e., the Mitzriyim were encountered chronologically before the others; the Edomim have the same restriction as the Mitzriyim, so they are mentioned next, with the Moavim and Amonim bringing up the rear. The severity of the restriction of the latter is then explained according to the Machti vs. Rotzeach construct.

       RaShI is commenting on the structure and sequence found in the Biblical text. When Amon and Moav are first discussed, I have nothing to which to compare the ten generation limitation. However, when afterwards the Mitzriyim and Edomim are only limited for three generations, and, by implication, all other nations can immediately marry into the Jewish people (with the exception of converted women marrying Kohanim) I realize that Amon and Moav are being punished more severely, leading me to consider why. Then the Machti/Rotzeach lesson is offered as a means of explaining the difference.

2.    According to logic, it would appear that someone who has tried to murder you should be treated more severely than someone who simply did not extend kindness to you or even tried to have you metaphysically cursed by someone who would be unable to do so. Therefore RaShI has to explain that the true heinousness of Amon and Moav is the plot to involve Benot Midian in order to corrupt the Jews (that some attribute to Bilaam—see RaShI on BaMidbar 25:1), since this deprives a person of the World to Come, rather than just removing him from this world.⁵

3. Sifrei on BaMidbar 25:1⁶ states that Amon and Moav constructed the places where the daughters of Moav seduced the Jews into transgressing idolatry. Perhaps the Sifrei assumes that if the same consequence is given to the converts of Moav and Amon, i.e., ten generations have to elapse before being allowed to marry into the Jewish people, the same sin must have been committed. This implies that the biological closeness of the originators of Amon and Moav—sisters and a father were their forebearers—continued on down through their descendents. Consequently, even if Balak, King of Moav is prominently mentioned as the instigator of hiring Bilaam, and Bilaam in turn is credited with the plot involving the daughters of Moav, Amon were heavily involved as well.

4.    RaShI perhaps was dispelling the possibility of concluding that since there were no redeeming factors comparable to those informing the Mitzriyim—provided sojourning space during famine—and  the Edomim—they’re descendents of blood relatives—then perhaps converts of other nations should be precluded forever from marrying into the Jewish people, קא משמע לן!

Heh.

       Ibn Kaspi brings up the possibility that a true Mitzri, before Sancherev came and made it impossible to absolutely identify such an individual (Berachot 28a), may nevertheless not be an immediate descendent of those who had actually offered sanctuary to the Jews when Yaakov brought his family down to Egypt because of the famine affecting Canaan, since this civilization in turn may have been conquered by someone else. Consequently, Jews perhaps no longer have an obligation to honor that kindness of long ago. קא משמע לן the Tora teaches that such kindnesses should be eternally honored, regardless of the details that may surround them. Perhaps acknowledging debts of gratitude is more for the acknowledger than the acknowledge

Vav.

        According to the first interpretation presented by R. Yosef Bechor Shor, the rule of three generations is independent of those who actually enslaved the Jews. As long as three generations have passed, even if there are still alive some of the Egyptian oppressors, Egyptian converts can already marry into the Jewish people. The second interpretation of the prohibition is not simply a technical, numerical one, but rather it is a function of the elimination of the wrongdoers—the ban is lifted only once all those who perpetrated transgressions against the Jews, i.e., who enslaved them or did not subsequently treat them with kindness, e.g., offering food and drink  are no longer alive. 

2.    Sancherev’s theory of maintaining his empire was according to a form of the principle, “Divide and Conquer.” See II Melachim 17:24 ff.  He believed that by allowing native people to remain in their homelands, this will lead to nationalism and revolts against the central authority. Therefore he routinely would transplant conquered nations to other sites within his empire. There is no reason to assume that in the biblical world, large numbers of these individuals would have the ability to repatriate themselves to their original homelands. Consequently, when encountering a person from the geographical area that was Egypt in the ancient world, it cannot be assumed that such an individual is a true descendent of the original Egyptians described in Shemot.

3.    The principle כל דפריש מרובא פריש assumes that even if there might be a possibility that a slight minority of individuals are true descendents of the original inhabitants, since the majority are hardly likely to be so, we assume that this individual derives from the majority, i.e., a non-Egyptian.

4.    R. Yehoshua in Berachot 28a essentially states that all laws that are functions of a particular nationality have been rendered moot once Sancherev embarked on his program of resettling native populations in other countries.