PARASHAT Mishpatim

This week's Torah Gems were prepared by

Anochi Atoncha

PARASHAT Mishpatim


Mishpatim - Dangerous Property



The tradition teaches us that every word of the Torah is chosen deliberately and purposefully. This rule applies even when a word's meaning changes from one verse to the next! In this week's parasha, words based on the root bet-ayin-resh appear in verses Shemot 22:4 and 22:5, but with different significations in each verse. What follows is verse 22:4 with all words translated into English except for those based on the root bet-ayin-resh, for reasons that will become clear further on.



"If a man shall ya-v-er a field or vineyard, or he either lets his bi-y-roh loose, or he oo-v-y-air it in another man's field, from the best of his field and the best of his vineyard shall he pay."



Rashi's interpretation: "ya-v-er, b-i-roh, oo-vi-ayr: these have the sense of 'animal', as in Bemidbar 20:4 ...we and our animals (oo-v-i-ray-nu)"



According to Rashi, a translation of verse 22:4 might sound like this: If a man shall let an animal graze a field or vineyard, or he either lets his animal run loose, or he grazes it in another man's field...



The Talmud provides the source of Rashi's interpretation. Much of the first chapter of Tractate Bava Kamma is derived from our verse. The ox is taken as the paradigmatic "dangerous property" that can damage another man's field or vineyard if not properly supervised.



But this interpretation presents a difficulty: Shemot 22:4 and Bemidbar 20:4 are the only places in Tanakh where bet-ayin-resh is understood to signify 'animal.' Elsewhere, the root usually signifies 'fire', either real or metaphoric. This is the sense of the root in Shemot 22:5:



"If a fire shall go forth and find thorns, and a stack of grain or a standing crop or a field is consumed, the one who kindled (ha-ma-vir) the fire (ha-b-ay-rah) shall make restitution."



Now read verse 22:4 using the more common signification of bet-ayin-resh:



"If a man shall kindle a field or vineyard - whether he sets the fire or allows his fire to burn another man's field - from the best of his field and the best of his vineyard shall he pay."



Why does the tradition hold that bet-ayin-resh means 'animal' when the verse makes sense with the common signification 'fire'?



Perhaps the difficulty could be resolved by tracing the derivation of the root bet-ayin-resh. According to Brown-Driver-Briggs, the earliest Hebrew signification of bet-ayin-resh was 'seek out, collect, glean.' From here significations emerged meaning 'consume' as a fire consumes. Simultaneously, the root branched into significations for animals that seek out and consume in the same unrestrained manner as fire.



Fire and oxen share the characteristic that they go out and destroy crops and vineyards because it is their nature to do so. They both travel to damage, and both must be watched carefully. But fire and oxen differ in that the latter possess ruach chayim (the breath of life) and the former does not. Oxen inadvertently do damage in the process of natural pleasurable activities such as eating and scratching. If the Torah had taught us only fire, and not oxen, we might have thought that we are liable only for damages done by inanimate objects and not by live animals (Bava Kamma 2a.)



In these two verses, the Torah explodes bet-ayin-resh into several pieces, each of which teaches us new insights as to the nature dangerous property. The English translations of verses 22:4 and 22:5 do not permit us to understand the nature of dangerous property as deeply unless we appreciate the Torah's deliberate choice of words based on bet-ayin-resh.



For further consideration:



On the night before Pesach, we perform the Bedikat Chametz, the search for any remaining crumbs of bread in our homes. The prayer we say is translated as follows:



"Blessed are You, Hashem, Sovereign of the universe, Who makes us holy with His mitzvahs, and commands us regarding the destruction (biur, using the root bet-ayin-resh) of chametz."



Why is the Bedikat Chametz sanctified with a blessing over destruction, when the ritual destruction of chametz (not coincidentally, by fire) does not occur until the next day?