שור של ישראל שנגח שור של כנעני פטור: אמרי ממה נפשך אי רעהו דוקא דכנעני כי נגח דישראל נמי ליפטר ואי רעהו לאו דוקא אפילו דישראל כי נגח דכנעני נחייב
WHERE AN OX BELONGING TO AN ISRAELITE HAS GORED AN OX BELONGING TO A CANAANITE THERE IS NO LIABILITY etc. But I might here assert that you are on the horns of a dilemma. If the implication of 'his neighbour' has to be insisted upon, 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? — R Abbahu thereupon said: The Writ says, <i>He stood and measured the earth; he beheld and drove asunder the nations</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hab. III, 6.
');"><sup>2</sup></span>
Shenei Luchot HaBerit
The theme of the linkage between the sanctity of the land of Israel and the giving of the land of Israel to Abraham and his descendants is repeated no less than three times in this portion of the Torah. At the beginning of the פרשה Abraham is invited to move to the land of Canaan and to traverse it. Once he had done so G–d promises the land to Abraham's descendants in 12,7, without specifying any boundaries. We find the specification of the boundaries spelled out in the middle of the פרשה in 15,18: "On that day G–d concluded a covenant with Abraham saying: to your descendants I have given this land from the river of Egypt up unto the great river, the river Euphrates." The promise is reiterated a third time near the end of the פרשה in 17,8 where G–d says: "I have given to you and to your descendants after you the land in which you sojourn, the whole of the land of Canaan as an everlasting inheritance, and I shall be their G–d." Each of the three promises represents an "improvement," something additional.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
