The Weekly Shtikle - Mishpatim

Last Friday, 23 Shevat, marked the 3^rd yahrtzeit of my Oma Jakobovits. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasah, Chayah Sarah bas Zechariah Chaim, z"l.

 

This past Wednesday, 28 Shevat, marked the 11^th yahrtzeit of my wife's grandfather, R' Yitzchak Yeres. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Yitzchak Chaim ben Moshe Yosef HaLevi, z"l.

 

This coming Sunday, 2 Adar, marks the 18^th yahrtzeit of my Zadie, Rabbi Yaakov Bulka. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Chaim Yaakov ben Yitzchak, z"l.

 

Given the ongoing situation in Eretz Yisrael, with so many kidnapped hostages still in captivity, I felt it would be appropriate to examine the mentioning of kidnapping in this week's parsha. At the beginning of this week's parsha, we are taught a number of different offences for which the punishment is death. Among them are the striking of one's parents, as well as cursing them. One would certainly have expected to find the two pesukim next to each other. However, surprisingly, after the pasuk dealing with the hitting of a parent (21:15) we are taught that one who kidnaps an individual and sells him is also subject to the death penalty. Only after that are we taught the punishment for cursing a parent.

Ramban explains in the name of R' Sadia Gaon that the placement of the pasuk dealing with kidnapping gives us an insight into the gravity of the crime and why it is punishable by death. Kidnapping victims are often younger children. When a young child is kidnapped, he is taken from his family and forced to grow up away from the warmth of a loving family. He grows up not knowing his parents and thus is more likely to hit or curse them when he is older. This would have been a truly unfathomable act coming from a child who was the beneficiary of a full life of parental love and nurture. Since the kidnapper is responsible for robbing him of that upbringing, his act is punishable by death as well.

Another approach offered by the Rishonim is that the pesukim are actually following a logical progression of increasing novelty, commonly referred to as "lo zu af zu." First, we are taught (21:14) that someone who plans and premeditates the murder of his fellow Jew is to be put to death. This is understandable. The next pasuk, dealing with hitting a parent, teaches us that it is not only murder that warrants the death penalty. One may even be liable for capital punishment for merely hitting. The death penalty for kidnapping then teaches us that one can be guilty of a capital offence without causing any physical harm whatsoever. Finally, we are taught that one can even be put to death for the improper use of his words in the form of a curse.

Bechor Shor offers a fascinating approach. When the kidnapper stands before the court and is accused of his crime, he is likely to curse his parents and blame them in order to vindicate himself. That is why the pasuk dealing with kidnapping is inserted here to be juxtaposed to the pasuk dealing with cursing. (As to why a kidnapper would be more prone such action than any other criminal, perhaps it takes someone who does not appreciate the value of a nurturing home and loving parents to have the audacity to take that away from another.)

This idea teaches a very poignant lesson which is most applicable in our time. We live in a society where crimes are very often justified by outside causes. When a heinous crime is committed, too often we get wrapped up in the perpetrator's background, his upbringing, what kind of music he listened to, what he watched on TV or even what flag is flown in his state capital. Worse still, some might even go so far as to suggest that the perpetrator was in fact the real victim. What made him do this? The Torah teaches us - HE made him do this. Regardless of what influences might have played a part, one is always responsible for his own actions and must face the consequences thereof.

**********

It has been a while (16 years, to be exact) since I sent out this classic trivia question which R' Yaakov Moshe Kulefsky, zt"l, used to love to ask: The law of eidim zomemin states that a witness who attempted to make his friend pay a certain amount of money and is found to be lying and goes through the necessary process of hazama must pay the money himself. It is generally assumed that he pays the original defendant. But what is the source for this? Maybe it is a tax that he is required to pay Beis Din. [For a real challenge stop reading here.] Said R' Yisroel Salanter, the answer is in Rashi in this week's parsha. But you could go through the entire parsha and miss it. Happy hunting!

 

Have a good Shabbos and chodesh tov.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup

Dikdukian: Tricky Vowels

Dikdukian: Answer vs. Torture
Dikdukian: Give it to me
Dikdukian: Ha'isha viladeha

Dikdukian: Jewish Milk

Dikdukian: Three Strikes and you're out

Dikdukian: The Ox and his Friend

Al Pi Cheshbon: 10,000 Kikars

 

Please visit the new portal for all Shtikle-related sites, www.weeklyshtikle.com

The Weekly Shtikle and related content are now featured on BaltimoreJewishLife.com

 

 

--
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.