Sotah 096

נושא: Sotah

BET MIDRASH VIRTUALI

I will not be afraid of tens of thousands of people who have set themselves against me on every side. Arise, God! Save me, my God! For you have struck all of my enemies on the cheek. You have broken the teeth of the wicked. Salvation belongs to God. Your blessing be on your people. [Psalm 3:7-9]

If it were found covered by rubble, or hanging from a tree, or floating on water, a calf is not decapitated, for it says 'in the ground' and not covered by a heap; 'fallen', and not hanging from a tree; 'in the field', and not floating on water. If it were found near to the border or to a township that is mostly non-Jewish or to a township that does not have a Bet Din, a calf is not decapitated. The measurement is only made from a town that has a Bet Din. It it is found to be exactly between two townships they must both provide two calves – according to Rabbi Eli'ezer. Jerusalem does not provide [for] a decapitated calf.

1:
During our studies we have often seen how the sages seem to use their power of hermeneutic interpretation to limit – sometimes very severely – the possible application of a Torah law. The case of the 'decapitated calf' is no exception. By rereading, and in one case possibly by deliberately misreading, the biblical text they reduce the application of the law considerably. Here is the relevant biblical verse [Deuteronomy 21:1] in the translation that we originally presented:

If a body be found slain in the land which God gives you as your possession, lying in the field, and it isn’t known who has struck him…

Now here is that same verse retranslated in order to make it fir the hermeneutic interpretation of the sages:

If a corpse be found in the ground which God gives you as your possession, fallen in the field, and it isn’t known who has struck him…

2:
Our mishnah teaches that two terms used by scripture limit the application of the law. The body must be found 'in the ground'. This excludes a body which might be found under rubble. (The Hebrew term used here indicates a mass of stones caused by the collapse of a stone structure, and not necessarily a heap of stones piled up deliberately over the corpse to hide it or bury it – but, of course, that may have been the case since what kind of stone structure would there have been in open country in mishnaic times? [However, see what I wrote in Explanation #3 to Tractate Pesachim, Chapter 2, Mishnah 3.])

3:
The term 'in the ground' is also understood to exclude a corpse found dangling from a tree. This certainly would suggest either murder or suicide – though I suppose that a body could be dragged into a tree by a wild cat. Thirdly, the term 'in the ground' obviously excludes a body found floating in water – presumably the result of drowning.

To be continued.

Concerning the consensus needed for a king to be able to embark on a political war Albert Ringer writes:

Chance being as it is, I found myself reading a reprint from an article by Geofry B. Levey called 'Judaism and the Obligation to Die for the state'. The article was originally published in 'Jewish and Roman Law', JTS 1966. Actually I will not recommend the article, I have (as always) a question about a not really important detail. Levey leaves out the role for the prophet, but writes that a king needs a decision by the Sanhedrin and the Urim ve-Tumim oracle before the start of a 'political' war. The purpose of the oracle is 'divine legitimization'. Milchamot Mizvah don't need Urim ve-Tumim, the legitimization is implicit. Is Levey correct?

I respond:

I am almost certain that I have missed something important in Albert's question here because it seems to me to be too obvious. The three situations which answer to Milĥemet Mitzvah (a religious war) are the war to wrest Eretz-Israel from the Canaanites and the eradication of their culture; the war to destroy Amalek; and the war to defend Jews who are under attack. All of these are already mandated by Heaven and therefore need no authorization: they are a duty – as, for example, Samuel implies to Saul concerning Amalek. In Mishneh Torah [Melakhim 1:2] Rambam makes this quite explicit: "For a religious war the king does not need to obtain permission from the Bet Din but embarks on his own initiative at all times and imposes this on the people…"

Political wars are wars that are initiated by the government for its own purposes and in which the people will become involved if it takes place. Therefore Rambam adds (to the quotation just cited), "but for a political war he may only muster the people with the consent of the Supreme Court of Seventy-One." Rambam, the supreme rationalist, omits any mention of the "Urim ve-Tumim" in connection with a political war – even though this is implied by the Gemara [Sanhedrin 16a-b]. (The Tosafists [Shavu'ot 15a] point out that there is no mention of the Urim ve-Tumim in the mishnah in this connection; nevertheless, they require them.) Rambam is also eager to point out that the use of the Urim ve-Tumim was limited to the First Temple period.

I hope this answers the import of the question.

Click here to return to Sotah archive catalogue.

Click here to access the BMV Home Page, which includes the RMSG archive.

To subscribe to the Rabin Mishnah Study Group email service
click here.

To unsubscribe send an email to nhis address

For information on how to support the Virtual Bet Midrash by making a donation or dedicating a shiur please click here.

Please use nhis address for discussion, queries, comments and requests.