Septuagint and Halacha on Parasha Mishpatim Part 3

Ex. 22:30

  וְאַנְשֵׁי־קֹדֶשׁ תִּהְיוּן לִי וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ לַכֶּלֶב תַּשְׁלִכוּן אֹתוֹ

 (You shall be a people sacred to me. Flesh torn to pieces in the field you shall not eat; you must throw it to the dogs)

καὶ ἄνδρες ἅγιοι ἔσεσθέ μοι καὶ κρέας θηριάλωτον οὐκ ἔδεσθε τῷ κυνὶ ἀπορρίψατε αὐτό

(And ye shall be holy men to me; and ye shall not eat flesh taken of beasts, ye shall cast it to the dog.)

This verse gives us the meaning of holiness, if you want to be holy, eat kosher ;-) Nevelah נְבֵלָה (carcass) and treif טרף (torn) are two terms referring to all kosher animals (ox, sheep, giraffe), that are not allowed to eat. The term nevelah נְבֵלָה refers to all kosher animals, that were slaughtered in a non-kosher way (shot by gun, or died naturally) therefore they are forbidden to eat. The term treif טרף refers to kosher animals, which were mortally wounded (by other animals, or by falling from roof etc.) but did not die yet (if the wounded animal dies it is a nevelah נְבֵלָה) Even they were slaughtered in a kosher way, they are still forbidden to eat, because before the slaughtering they were on the boundary to death.

Our verse is speaking about the טרף animals, torn to pieces. But there seems to be one condition in which the meat is forbidden to eat: וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה torn to pieces in the field. Maybe, if it is torn to pieces at home, it is kosher? This is the question of the Mechilta:

אין לי אלא בשדה

בבית מנין ת״ל נבלה וטרפה הקיש טרפה לנבלה

מה נבלה לא חלק בה בית בבית ובין בשדה אף

טרפה לא נחלוק בה בין בבית ובין בשדה הא מה

ת״ל ובשר בשדה טרפה דבר הכתוב בהווה כיוצא

בו

I thus know only about the field. How about the house? Scripture says: “That which died of itself or that which is torn of beasts” (Lev. 17:15), thus declaring an animal torn of beasts to be like an animal dying of itself. Just as in the case of an animal dying of itself, it makes no difference whether it dies in the house or in the field, so also in the case of an animal torn of beasts there is no difference whether it is torn in the house or in the field. Why then does it say: “Therefore any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field”? Scripture simply speaks of the usual case.

According to this statement, the field was chosen as a romantic environment of death, to give us just an example, because the Torah speaks in human language. The attacked animal would be also forbidden in any other locations (on a ship, on a beach etc.) 

Of course the Greek translators of the Septuagint in the 3^rd Century B.C. knew this issue, therefore they translated the verse in general, without the בַּשָּׂדֶה:

κρέας θηριάλωτον οὐκ ἔδεσθε and ye shall not eat flesh taken of beasts

And this is Halacha in Rambam:

רמב"ם הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק ד הלכה ח

וכשם שלא תחלוק במיתה בין מתה מחמת עצמה בין שנפלה ומתה בין שחנקה עד שמתה בין שדרסתה חיה והרגתה, כך לא תחלוק בנוטה למות בין שטרפתה חיה ושברתה בין שנפלה מן הגג ונשתברו רוב צלעותיה בין שנפלה ונתרסקו איבריה בין שזרק בה חץ ונקב לבה או ריאתה בין שבא לה חולי מחמת עצמה ונקב לבה או ריאתה או שיבר רוב צלעותיה וכיוצא בהן הואיל והיא נוטה למות מכל מקום הרי זו טרפה, בין שהיה הגורם בידי בשר ודם בין שהיה בידי שמים

Septuagint and Halacha on Parasha Mishpatim part 2

 Exodus 21:6

  וְהִגִּישׁוֹ אֲדֹנָיו אֶל־הָאֱלֹהִים וְהִגִּישׁוֹ אֶל־הַדֶּלֶת אוֹ אֶל־הַמְּזוּזָה וְרָצַע אֲדֹנָיו אֶת־אָזְנוֹ בַּמַּרְצֵעַ וַעֲבָדוֹ לְעֹלָם
(his master shall take him before God. He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall then remain his slave for life)

προσάξει αὐτὸν ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸ κριτήριον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τότε προσάξει αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν ἐπὶ τὸν σταθμόν καὶ τρυπήσει αὐτοῦ ὁ κύριος τὸ οὖς τῷ ὀπητίῳ καὶ δουλεύσει αὐτῷ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα
(his master shall bring him to the judgment-seat of God, and then shall he bring him to the door, --to the door-post, and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him for ever.)

We learn a Halacha about a Jewish thief, who was captured by the police. If he can´t repay what he has stolen, the court sells him as a slave for six years. After six years of work he returns to freedom. But if this slave does not want to leave his master after six years of work, he is allowed to stay forever as a slave at his master´s house. This decision requires a ritual, in which the ear of the slave is pierced. The verse tells us how it is done:

וְהִגִּישׁוֹ אֲדֹנָיו אֶל־הָאֱלֹהִים וְהִגִּישׁוֹ אֶל־הַדֶּלֶת אוֹ אֶל־הַמְּזוּזָה וְרָצַע אֲדֹנָיו אֶת־אָזְנוֹ בַּמַּרְצֵעַ וַעֲבָדוֹ לְעֹלָם

His master shall take him before God. He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall then remain his slave for life.

Now the Gemara asks a question on this verse:

תלמוד בבלי מסכת קידושין דף כב עמוד ב

דלת - שומע אני בין עקורה בין שאינה עקורה? ת"ל: מזוזה, מה מזוזה מעומד, אף דלת נמי מעומד

May I then infer that that is so whether it is removed from the hinges or not?

Scripture states, “unto the door or unto the doorpost” (Ex. 21:6): Just as the doorpost must be standing in place, so the door must be standing in place.

What does mean אל־הַדֶּלֶת אוֹ אֶל־הַמְּזוּזָה (to the door OR the doorpost)? You could think the door can lie on the ground, or you don’t need a door at all, just go to the doorpost and do it there. But the Talmud says, that the verse mentions the doorpost only in order to teach, that the door has to stand upright.

The same concept we find in the Septuagint, without the או between door and doorpost:

προσάξει αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν ἐπὶ τὸν σταθμόν (and then shall he bring him to the door, --to the door-post..)

And this is Halacha in Rambam:

רמב"ם הלכות עבדים פרק ג הלכה ט

ולא נאמר מזוזה אלא שיהיה עומד בין אצל דלת בין אצל מזוזה ומה מזוזה כשהיא עומדת אף דלת כשהיא עומדת

Septuagint and Halakha on Parasha Mishpatim

In this parasha we learn a halakha:

רמב"ם הלכות שכירות פרק א הלכה ב

ש"ח שנגנב הפקדון ממנו או אבד ואין צריך לומר אם נאנס הפקדון אונס גדול כגון שהיתה בהמה ומתה או נשבית ה"ז א נשבע ששמר כדרך השומרין ופטור שנאמר וגונב מבית האיש וגו' ונקרב בעל הבית אל האלהים

When an entrusted article is stolen from or lost by an unpaid watchman and - needless to say, when the entrusted article is destroyed by forces beyond the watchman's control - e.g., it was an animal and it died or was taken captive -the watchman must take an oath that he guarded the article in a manner appropriate for a watchman, and then he is freed of liability, as Exodus 22:6-7 states: "And it was stolen from the man's home... and the homeowner shall approach the judges."

According to Rambam the halakha, that the shomer hinam (the unpaid watchman) has to make an oath, is derived from this verse:

אִם־לֹא יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב וְנִקְרַב בַּעַל־הַבַּיִת אֶל־הָאֱלֹהִים אִם־לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ בִּמְלֶאכֶת רֵעֵהוּ  (Exo 22:7)

But the verse doesn’t say anything about making an oath. The Talmud in Bava Qama 63b makes a גזרה שוה:

תלמוד בבלי מסכת בבא קמא דף סג עמוד ב

ומנלן דבשבועה? דתניא: ונקרב בעל הבית אל האלהים - לשבועה; אתה אומר: לשבועה, או אינו אלא לדין? נאמר שליחות יד למטה ונאמר שליחות יד למעלה, מה להלן לשבועה, אף כאן לשבועה

N. And how on the basis of Scripture do we know that that is the rule only if he has falsely taken an oath?

O. It is in line with that which has been taught on Tannaite authority:

 P. “If a man shall deliver to his neighbor money or stuff to keep [without fee, that is, we deal with an unpaid bailee] and it be stolen … if the thief is not found, then the master of the house shall be brought to the judges” (Ex. 22:7)—to take an oath.

 Q. You say that it is to take an oath. But perhaps it is only for a trial [to enter the plea that the beast was stolen, and merely making that plea would suffice to impose upon the bailee the penalty of a twofold repayment]?

 R. Here we find a reference to unlawful use, and there we find the same matter [the paid bailee, Ex. 22:10, the unpaid bailee, Ex. 22:7]. Just as in the latter passage, the purpose is for the bailee to take an oath [the paid bailee: “then an oath of the Lord shall be between them both”], so in the former passage, it is for the purpose of taking an oath.

The Talmud is simply asking how do we know that אִם־לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ implies an oath? The purpose could be, that he just has to pay, like Rashi says: לפרעון דשומר חנם שטוען נגנבה ישלם. But since it is written about the שומר שכר in Ex. 22:10 שְׁבֻעַת ה' תִּהְיֶה בֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶם אִם־לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ בִּמְלֶאכֶת רֵעֵהוּ וְלָקַח בְּעָלָיו וְלֹא יְשַׁלֵּם so here in our verse it must imply an oath, that he guarded it.

We find the same concept in the Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael:

ונקרב בעל הבית אל האלהים לשבועה

אתה אומר לשבועה או אינו אלא בשבועה ושלא

בשבועה הרי אתה דן נאמר כאן שליחות יד ונאמר

להלן שליחות יד מה להלן שבועה אף כאן שבועה

Then the Master of the House Shall Come Near unto Elohim. For the purpose of taking an oath. You interpret it to mean, for the purpose of taking an oath. Perhaps this is not so but it means, for the purpose of making a declaration, whether with an oath or without an oath? Behold, you must reason: Here the expression “putting the hand” is used and there (v. 10) the expression “putting the hand” is used. Just as there the declaration is made under oath, so also here the declaration must be made under oath

Based on this understanding Targum Jonathan  translates:

תרגום יונתן שמות פרק כב פסוק ז

אִין לָא אִישְׁתַּכַּח גַּנְבָא וְיִתְקְרֵיב מָרֵיהּ בֵּיתָא לִקְדָם דַּיָינַיָא וְיוֹמֵי דְלָא אוֹשִׁיט יְדֵיהּ בְּעִיסְקָא דְחַבְרֵיהּ

If the thief be not found, the master of the house shall be brought before the judges, and shall swear that he hath not put forth his own hand upon the property of his neighbor.

But the oldest written evidence for this halakhic interpretation is about 3rd century B.C. (and this is amazingly old) from the Septuagint. It states:

ἐὰν δὲ μὴ εὑρεθῇ ὁ κλέψας προσελεύσεται ὁ κύριος τῆς οἰκίας ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ὀμεῖται ἦ μὴν μὴ αὐτὸς πεπονηρεῦσθαι ἐφ᾽ ὅλης τῆς παρακαταθήκης τοῦ πλησίον (Exo 22:7 BGT)

But if the thief be not found, the master of the house shall come forward before God, and shall swear that surely he has not wrought wickedly in regard of any part of his neighbor’s deposit.

The phrase בִּמְלֶאכֶת is rendered with παρακαταθήκη, what exactly means deposit. (Liddell&Scott)

Another interesting point is the translation of the phrase: אִם־לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ  (that he has not laid hands). The Septuagint renders it: ἦ μὴν μὴ αὐτὸς πεπονηρεῦσθαι (that surely he has not wrought wickedly) which is mostly the equivalent of זמם, מאס,רעע it is not attested, but it could also mean פשע.

Now look at this:

אמר ליה רב נחמן, והלא שלש שבועות משביעין אותו: שבועה שלא פשעתי בה, שבועה שלא שלחתי בה יד, שבועה שאינה ברשותי

Said to him R. Nahman, “But is it not the case that we impose upon an unpaid bailee [who claims that the animal has been lost] three distinct oaths: first, an oath that I have not deliberately caused the loss, that I did not put a hand on it, and that it is not in my domain at all?

One oath is שלא פשעתי which could be equal to πονηρεύομαι.

What we can see from all this? We see how well תורה בעל פה was transmitted and that the Septuagint translators were not  סתם אזוי peasants, but הכמים.