parshat ki teze

Ki Tetze 5724
Alef.

1. “Rabboteinu”—The worker should be paid within twelve hours of his completing his employment. Therefore “Lo Tavo Alav HaShemesh”—a night worker must be paid within twelve hours of finishing working; “Ad Boker”—a day worker must be paid within twelve hours of finishing working.

   RaMBaN—The worker must be paid immediately upon completing his work. Therefore, “Lo Tavo Alav HaShemesh”—a day worker must be paid immediately upon finishing; “Ad Boker”—a night worker must be paid immediately upon finishing.

2.  It would appear that in this instance, the two approaches depend upon whether total consideration must be given to the worker (RaMBaN) without regard to any difficulties encountered by the employer in coming up with the compensation immediately, vs. being concerned with both the worker and the employer (“Rabboteinu”) which modifies the extreme position of immediate compensation with a finite time period of a number of hours within which payment must be made.

3.  RaMBaN views the issue of how an employer must pay a worker as part of a greater rubric of according to the Tora how those with means must treat the poor. Just as payment must be made immediately, so too in the case of collateral that a poor person must provide in order to receive a loan a special provision is made (Devarim 24:10-13); Shemitat Kesafim guarantees that there will not be a permanent debtor class (Devarim 15:1-6); Yovel guarantees that there will not be a permanent landless class (VaYikra 25:8-16); portions of fields must be set aside for the gleaning of the poor (VaYikra 19:9-10), etc.

4.  In VaYikra, the immediate context of the verse is not oppressing the poor but rather acting immorally regarding property:

ויקרא פרק יט

(יא) לֹא תִּגְנֹבוּ וְלֹא תְכַחֲשׁוּ וְלֹא תְשַׁקְּרוּ אִישׁ בַּעֲמִיתוֹ:

(יב) וְלֹא תִשָּׁבְעוּ בִשְׁמִי לַשָּׁקֶר וְחִלַּלְתָּ אֶת שֵׁם אֱלֹקיךָ אֲנִי יְקֹוָק:

(יג) לֹא תַעֲשֹׁק אֶת רֵעֲךָ וְלֹא תִגְזֹל לֹא תָלִין פְּעֻלַּת שָׂכִיר אִתְּךָ עַד בֹּקֶר:

(יד) לֹא תְקַלֵּל חֵרֵשׁ וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל וְיָרֵאתָ מֵּאֱלֹקיךָ אֲנִי יְקֹוָק:

The immediate preceding context in Devarim, on the other hand, is how the poor must be treated sensitively:

דברים פרק כד

(י) כִּי תַשֶּׁה בְרֵעֲךָ מַשַּׁאת מְאוּמָה לֹא תָבֹא אֶל בֵּיתוֹ לַעֲבֹט עֲבֹטוֹ:

(יא) בַּחוּץ תַּעֲמֹד וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה נֹשֶׁה בוֹ יוֹצִיא אֵלֶיךָ אֶת הַעֲבוֹט הַחוּצָה:

(יב) וְאִם אִישׁ עָנִי הוּא לֹא תִשְׁכַּב בַּעֲבֹטוֹ:

(יג) הָשֵׁב תָּשִׁיב לוֹ אֶת הַעֲבוֹט כְּבוֹא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְשָׁכַב בְּשַׂלְמָתוֹ וּבֵרֲכֶךָּ וּלְךָ תִּהְיֶה צְדָקָה לִפְנֵי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ: ס

(יד) לֹא תַעֲשֹׁק שָׂכִיר עָנִי וְאֶבְיוֹן מֵאַחֶיךָ אוֹ מִגֵּרְךָ אֲשֶׁר בְּאַרְצְךָ בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ:

(טו) בְּיוֹמוֹ תִתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ וְלֹא תָבוֹא עָלָיו הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ כִּי עָנִי הוּא וְאֵלָיו הוּא נֹשֵׂא אֶת נַפְשׁוֹ וְלֹא יִקְרָא עָלֶיךָ אֶל יְקֹוָק וְהָיָה בְךָ חֵטְא: ס

Beit.

דברים פרק כד

(טו) בְּיוֹמוֹ תִתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ וְלֹא תָבוֹא עָלָיו הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ כִּי עָנִי הוּא וְאֵלָיו הוּא נֹשֵׂא אֶת נַפְשׁוֹ וְלֹא יִקְרָא עָלֶיךָ אֶל יְקֹוָק וְהָיָה בְךָ חֵטְא: ס

In the same day thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it; for he is poor, and setteth his heart upon it: lest he cry against thee unto the LORD and it be sin in thee.

משלי פרק כב

(כב) אַל תִּגְזָל דָּל כִּי דַל הוּא וְאַל תְּדַכֵּא עָנִי בַשָּׁעַר:

(כג) כִּי יְקֹוָק יָרִיב רִיבָם וְקָבַע אֶת קֹבְעֵיהֶם נָפֶשׁ:

Rob not the weak, because he is weak, neither crush the poor in the gate; For the LORD will plead their cause, and despoil of life those that despoil them. 

משלי פרק א

(יט) כֵּן אָרְחוֹת כָּל בֹּצֵעַ בָּצַע אֶת נֶפֶשׁ בְּעָלָיו יִקָּח: פ

So are the ways of every one that is greedy of gain; it taketh away the life of the owners thereof.

.

1. The first interpretation is psychological. The great investment of the worker in receiving his pay is indicated by the risks to life and limb that he takes in order to deserve being compensated. To withhold wages after such sacrifice and commitment is immoral.¹ The second interpretation is metaphysical. The dispute over whether the phrase is referring to the employer or the employee has to do with who places himself in danger personal danger for Divine Retribution—the employer who fails to pay on time, as opposed to who has given heart and soul to the enterprise, literally identified himself with the entire undertaking, not so much for the eventual compensation, but simply as part of his dignity, competence and self-worth—the employee, and therefore it is the height of insensitivity for the employer not to acknowledge that by paying on time.

2.  The view that in Devarim 24:15, the person who is in the most danger when the employer does not pay on time is the employer would explain Mishlei 1:19 as warning that ill-gotten monetary gains, i.e., in this case keeping money that is owed to another, rather than improving one’s position, in fact consumes the individual’s soul. The view that in Devarim 24:15, we are talking about the employee who is endangered, would explain Mishlei 22:23 as reassuring the oppressed employee that HaShem will Take up his cause and punish the employer.

Gimel.

1.  RaShBaM believes the idiomatic construction “Nasa Et Nafsho El” connotes desiring something. The manner in which RaShI interprets the verse, it’s not a matter of desiring anything in particular as much as endangering one life, represented by the Nefesh. While RaShI does mention that the goal of the employee is to be compensated, the commentator is focusing upon the indicator of how much he desires being rewarded rather than the specific desire itself. Consequently, RaShBaM looks at Devarim 24:15 as reflecting the desire of the individual looking forward to and counting on receiving his wages, something that could be the case even were he not to endanger himself while carrying out his work.

2.  In the same manner as the employee looks forward to the wages that he will receive, so too the Kohanim look forward to the sacrifices that transgressors will bring to achieve atonement for their sins, and from which the Kohanim will be able to eat.

3.  At the end of the day, both RaShI and RaShBaM focus upon the employee who very much wishes to be paid. However, RaShI sees the verse as supporting the contention that the worker wishes to be paid by the degree to which he risks all to assure that the payment will be forthcoming, whereas RaShBaM only wants to emphasize that this is the employee’s desire without exemplifying how this desire might be measured.

Daled.

(דברים כד:טו) בְּיוֹמוֹ תִתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ וְלֹא תָבוֹא עָלָיו הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ כִּי עָנִי הוּא וְאֵלָיו הוּא נֹשֵׂא אֶת נַפְשׁוֹ וְלֹא יִקְרָא עָלֶיךָ אֶל יְקֹוָק וְהָיָה בְךָ חֵטְא: ס

(ויקרא יט:יג) לֹא תַעֲשֹׁק אֶת רֵעֲךָ וְלֹא תִגְזֹל לֹא תָלִין פְּעֻלַּת שָׂכִיר אִתְּךָ עַד בֹּקֶר:

Although as the RA”V points out, Shaveh Kesef (the equivalent value in objects as opposed to currency) is usually accepted as payment for a debt, the case of the indigent worker is different. If he has placed all of his hopes upon the payment, reflected in the usage of the term “Nafsho” (literally, his life), this indicates how desperate he is to realize the benefit of his labors. If he first has to take the objects that he received like straw and stubble, which animals can eat but not humans, and sell them for money so that he can in turn then purchase food for himself and his family, the length of the process will cause him additional grief. The employer has a responsibility to a poor employee to attempt to make life livable for him. Consequently, the only type of Shave Kesef that is allowed to substitute for currency within the context of paying wages to a poor worker is food  itself, that can be immediately consumed by those who are hungry.

Heh.

איכה פרק א

(ג) גָּלְתָה יְהוּדָה מֵעֹנִי וּמֵרֹב עֲבֹדָה הִיא יָשְׁבָה בַגּוֹיִם לֹא מָצְאָה מָנוֹחַ כָּל רֹדְפֶיהָ הִשִּׂיגוּהָ בֵּין הַמְּצָרִים: ס

Judah is gone into exile because of affliction, and because of great servitude; she dwelleth among the nations, she findeth no rest; all her pursuers overtook her within the straits.

The simple meaning of the verse would be that the impoverished conditions that the Jewish people experienced in Israel drove them to relocate, as predicted in the second paragraph of the Shema:

דברים פרק יא

(יז) וְחָרָה אַף יְקֹוָק בָּכֶם וְעָצַר אֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְלֹא יִהְיֶה מָטָר וְהָאֲדָמָה לֹא תִתֵּן אֶת יְבוּלָהּ וַאֲבַדְתֶּם מְהֵרָה מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ הַטֹּבָה אֲשֶׁר יְקֹוָק נֹתֵן לָכֶם:

and the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and He shut up the heaven, so that there shall be no rain, and the ground shall not yield her fruit; and ye perish quickly from off the good land which the LORD giveth you.

However the Midrash attributes the exile to the actions of individuals who illegally caused increased poverty of others, the three cases cited being: 1) someone who improperly held on to collateral belonging to a poor individual within the lender’s own home; 2) an employer who improperly withheld an employee’s wages; and 3) a farmer who kept portions of his produce which the poor had a right to glean.

Vav.

1. 

כד:כד מוֹצָ֥א שְׂפָתֶ֖יךָ תִּשְׁמֹ֣ר וְעָשִׂ֑יתָ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר נָדַ֜רְתָּ לַֽיקוָ֤ק אֱלֹקיךָ֙ נְדָבָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר דִּבַּ֖רְתָּ בְּפִֽיךָ׃

כד:ח הִשָּׁ֧מֶר בְּנֶֽגַע־הַצָּרַ֛עַת לִשְׁמֹ֥ר מְאֹ֖ד וְלַֽעֲשׂ֑וֹת כְּכֹל֩ אֲשֶׁר־יוֹר֨וּ אֶתְכֶ֜ם הַכֹּֽהֲנִ֧ים הַלְוִיִּ֛ם   כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוִּיתִ֖ם תִּשְׁמְר֥וּ לַֽעֲשֽׂוֹת׃

א. In order for RaMBaN to make the case that the phrase at the end of 24:24 should be understood to be transposed to come between the words Tishmor and VeAsita,² i.e., you should guard your lips to do that which you spoke with your mouth and do as you vowed to the Lord your God (to give) the gift, the cantillation should have placed the Etnachta (which is indicated under the word VeAsita) under the word Tishmor. In that way the original phrase beginning at the outset of the verse would pause and something else could be inserted. However, if the Etnachta is under VeAsita, it becomes difficult to justify separating these two words and interposing a phrase from the end of the verse in between them.

ב.  Paralleling 24:24, 24:8 could also be understood as splitting the words MeOd and VeLa’asot by transposing the final phrase KaAsher Tzivitim Tishmeru LaAsot to separate them and again indicate that “guarding” and “doing” are two separate stages. However, like in 24:24, the Etnachta in 24:8 would then be in the “wrong” place. The cantillation as is does not appear to allow for a separation of VeAsita from the first portion of the verse, which in turn suggests that these are not two separate steps, but a single action.

2.

כה:יח אֲשֶׁ֨ר קָֽרְךָ֜ בַּדֶּ֗רֶךְ וַיְזַנֵּ֤ב בְּךָ֙ כָּל־הַנֶּֽחֱשָׁלִ֣ים אַֽחֲרֶ֔יךָ וְאַתָּ֖ה עָיֵ֣ף וְיָ גֵ֑ עַ     וְלֹ֥א יָרֵ֖א אֱלֹקים׃ 

How he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, all that were enfeebled in thy rear, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God.

א.  The first part of the verse deals with Amalek. Then towards the end of the verse, the Jews who were attacked by Amalek are described. From a consistency point of view, the final phrase should be a continuation of the description of the victims of the attack rather than the attackers. Both RaShi and Ibn Ezra point out that we are once again talking about Amalek at the end of the verse.

ב.  If the final phrase would be part of the description of the victims, then the Etnachta should have appeared under Acharecha, thereby uniting the rest of the verse. By its appearing under VeYaGea, there is indication that there is a discontinuity between the description of the Jews until VeYagea, and the final phrase, which now can logically be associated with the subject of the first part of the verse, i.e., Amalek.