Commentary for Bava Kamma 75:16

אזל הוא לחודאי גביה א"ל (דברים ב, ב) ויאמר ה' (אל משה) אל תצר את מואב ואל תתגר בם מלחמה וכי מה עלה על דעתו של משה לעשות מלחמה שלא ברשות אלא נשא משה ק"ו בעצמו אמר ומה מדינים שלא באו אלא לעזור את מואב אמרה תורה (במדבר כה, יז) צרור את המדינים והכיתם אותם

be [etymologically] explained to mean 'exile'? — Here it is written '"<i>wa-yatter" the nations'</i> and in another place it is [similarly] written, '"<i>le-natter" withal upon the earth</i>,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 21. ');">¹³</span> which is rendered in the <i>Targum</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Targum Onkelos, the Aramaic version of the Hebrew Bible; cf. J.E. s.v. ');">¹⁴</span> 'to leap withal upon the earth'. What was the statement made by R. Joseph [referred to above]? — It was this. R. Joseph said: <i>'He stood and measured the earth; he beheld'</i> etc. What did He behold? He beheld the seven commandments which had been accepted by all the descendants of Noah, and since [there were clans that] rejected them He rose up and granted them exemption. Does this mean that they benefited [by breaking the law]? And if so, will it not be a case of a sinner profiting [by the transgression he committed]? — Mar the son of Rabana<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Ms.M.: Rabina.] ');">¹⁵</span> thereupon said: 'It only means that even were they to keep the seven commandments [which had first been accepted but subsequently rejected by them] they would receive no reward.' Would they not? But it has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sanh. 59a; A. Z. 3a. ');">¹⁶</span> 'R. Meir used to say, Whence can we learn that even where a Gentile occupies himself with the study of the Torah he equals [in status] the High Priest? We find it stated:&nbsp;… <i>which if a man do he shall live in them</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 5. ');">¹⁷</span> it does not say "priests, Levites and Israelites", but "<i>a man</i>", which shows that even if a Gentile occupies himself with the study of the Torah he equals [in status] the High Priest.' — I mean [in saying that they would receive no reward] that they will receive reward not like those who having been enjoined perform commandments, but like those who not having been enjoined perform good deeds: for R. Hanina has stated:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 501. and Kid. 31a. ');">¹⁸</span> Greater is the reward of those who having been enjoined do good deeds than of those who not having been enjoined [but merely out of free will] do good deeds.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [For the idea underlying this dictum v. A.Z. (Sonc. ed.) p. 6, n. 1.] ');">¹⁹</span> Our Rabbis taught: The Government of Rome had long ago sent two commissioners to the Sages of Israel with a request to teach them the Torah. It was accordingly read to them once, twice and thrice. Before taking leave they made the following remark: We have gone carefully through your Torah, and found it correct with the exception of this point, viz. your saying that if an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 211, n. 6. ');">²⁰</span> whereas if the ox of a Canaanite gores the ox of an Israelite, whether <i>Tam</i> or Mu 'ad, compensation has to be paid in full. In no case can this he right. For if the implication of <i>'his neighbour'</i> has to be insisted upon, why then in the case of an ox of a Canaanite goring an ox of an Israelite should there also not be exemption? If [on the other hand] the implication of 'his neighbour' has not to be insisted upon, why then even in the case of an ox of an Israelite goring an ox of a Canaanite, should there not be liability? We will, however, not report this matter to our Government.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The same incident is related with some variations in J.B.K. IV, 4, and Sifre on Deut. XXXIII, 3, where R. Gamaliel (II) is mentioned as the Sage before whom the Commissioners appeared, Graetz, Geschichte, IV, 108, places this in the days of Domitian (81-96) whose distrust of the Jews led him to institute an inquisition into their beliefs and teachings; Halevy, Doroth I.e. 350, in the days of Nerva who wished to find out whether there was any truth in the slander against the Jews encouraged by Domitian.] ');">²¹</span> When R. Samuel b. Judah lost a dauther the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Babylonian Rabbis. ');">²²</span> said to 'Ulla: 'Let us go in and console him.' But he answered them: 'What have I to do with the consolation of the Babylonians,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Babylonian Rabbis. ');">²²</span> which is [almost tantamount to] blasphemy? For they say "What could have been done," which implies that were it possible to do anything they would have done it.' He therefore went alone to the mourner and said to him: [Scripture says,] <i>And the Lord spake unto me, Distress not the Moabites, neither contend with them in battle</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. II, 9. ');">²³</span> Now [we may well ask], could it have entered the mind of Moses to wage war without [divine] sanction? [We must suppose] therefore that Moses of himself reasoned <i>a fortiori</i> as follows: If in the case of the Midianites who came only to assist the Moabites<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Num. XXII, 4. ');">²⁴</span> the Torah commanded <i>'Vex the Midianites and smite them</i>,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid XXV, 17. ');">²⁵</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 75:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.