Last year I discussed the rule of 'ד' וה in the Stream:
When discussing the din of daled v'heh, the super penalty imposed on a thief who is caught having slaughtered or sold an ox or a lamb that he stole, of four and five times the value of what was stolen,the most common question addressed is why there is a discrepancy between the ox and the lamb. Various explanations are offered, including a well known approach in Rashi. The more interesting questions to me are why this entire parsha exists to begin with. Why is stealing an ox or sheep worse than stealing any other animal, or any object for that matter? What makes selling or slaughtering the ill gotten animal more deserving of punishment than any other use? To answer these questions we must look back into our nation's history. Who is the shor who was sold? When was the seh not slaughtered? These seem to be clear references to the high and low points is Jewish history. Yitzchak, who was in place of the lamb, was spared at the last moment, but his and his father's willingness to sacrifice his life represent a peak of commitment to Hashem. The sale of Yosef, the ox, by his brothers was a monumental black spot on our people's collective blueprint. The reliving of this disaster for sin by selling the stolen ox is particularly egregious. Committing a crime that recalls the akeida, but perverting the ending so that the lamb is actually slaughtered is especially offensive, and they justify an added penalty. To go a bit further, perhaps these two stories represent the two major mitigating factors that help us all whenever we sin: z'chus avos (the Akeida) and the possibility of tshuva (m'chiras Yosef). By incorporating these two factors into the act of his sin, this particular thief loses some of their benefits and magnifies his own sin. Finally, as to the specific numbers of four and five times what he stole, perhaps this can be explained in the following manner. In the aseres hadibros, Hashem says He is "poked avon avos al banim, al shileishim v'al ribeim". Sins are recalled for three to four generations - or three to four times the amount "earned" by the sinner, while mitzvos remain for thousands. Perhaps the message here is that even that excess punishment of three to four generations is tempered by zchus avos - someone in the last thousand generations had some zchusim. Thus, when the thief shuns zchus avos, his retribution is more than the usual three to four times the value of the act, or four or five times as much.
When discussing the din of daled v'heh, the super penalty imposed on a thief who is caught having slaughtered or sold an ox or a lamb that he stole, of four and five times the value of what was stolen,the most common question addressed is why there is a discrepancy between the ox and the lamb. Various explanations are offered, including a well known approach in Rashi. The more interesting questions to me are why this entire parsha exists to begin with. Why is stealing an ox or sheep worse than stealing any other animal, or any object for that matter? What makes selling or slaughtering the ill gotten animal more deserving of punishment than any other use? To answer these questions we must look back into our nation's history. Who is the shor who was sold? When was the seh not slaughtered? These seem to be clear references to the high and low points is Jewish history. Yitzchak, who was in place of the lamb, was spared at the last moment, but his and his father's willingness to sacrifice his life represent a peak of commitment to Hashem. The sale of Yosef, the ox, by his brothers was a monumental black spot on our people's collective blueprint. The reliving of this disaster for sin by selling the stolen ox is particularly egregious. Committing a crime that recalls the akeida, but perverting the ending so that the lamb is actually slaughtered is especially offensive, and they justify an added penalty. To go a bit further, perhaps these two stories represent the two major mitigating factors that help us all whenever we sin: z'chus avos (the Akeida) and the possibility of tshuva (m'chiras Yosef). By incorporating these two factors into the act of his sin, this particular thief loses some of their benefits and magnifies his own sin. Finally, as to the specific numbers of four and five times what he stole, perhaps this can be explained in the following manner. In the aseres hadibros, Hashem says He is "poked avon avos al banim, al shileishim v'al ribeim". Sins are recalled for three to four generations - or three to four times the amount "earned" by the sinner, while mitzvos remain for thousands. Perhaps the message here is that even that excess punishment of three to four generations is tempered by zchus avos - someone in the last thousand generations had some zchusim. Thus, when the thief shuns zchus avos, his retribution is more than the usual three to four times the value of the act, or four or five times as much.
This year I finally found a source that addresses the question of why these to thefts have a special penalty. The מדרש says that the שור represents the חטא העגל, and the שה represents יוסף. I don't quite get that symbolism, but it's good to see the question discussed.
No comments:
Post a Comment