English translation — תצא ד

1.

One has already many times spoken,

that Rashi in his commentary on the Torah answers <b>every</b> question that can arise in the study of the plain meaning of Scripture,

and there where Rashi finds no explanation

(according to the way of <b>the plain meaning</b>)

in a verse

(or a word)

— he says "I do not know" and the like¹.

And therefore,

when one comes to a verse where there is seemingly a difficulty and Rashi does <b>not</b> address it,

is from this itself a proof,

that according to <b>the plain meaning</b> it is from the outset no question; or,

that the question is answered according to a Rashi commentary <b>before this</b>.

one must accordingly have an explanation in our parshah,

where the Torah says²

"If there be a quarrel between men and they approach the court and they judge them and they justify the righteous and they condemn the wicked.

And it shall be if the wicked one is liable to be beaten and the judge casts him down etc." — that the words "and they justify the righteous and they condemn the wicked" are seemingly superfluous³

(It is

indeed obvious that "and they justify the righteous and they condemn the wicked")

— it should have said "If there be a quarrel etc. and they judge them and it shall be if the wicked one is liable to be beaten etc."! — why does Rashi not note the superfluous <b>language</b>?

Regarding the words "and they shall condemn the wicked" one could learn

(with difficulty at least),

that they are an introduction and preface to "and it shall be, if the wicked one is worthy of stripes".

d.

h.

The verse says: "for there will be a quarrel etc. and they shall condemn the wicked

(that is, if he is a wicked person who is liable for lashes&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;

and it shall be, if the wicked one is worthy of stripes —

(that is)

and the judge shall cause him to lie down etc.";

But

that this is a great difficulty: after all, it is superfluous to say "and they shall condemn the wicked",

because from "and it shall be, if the wicked one is worthy of stripes" one knows &lt;b&gt;automatically &lt;/b&gt;that there was "and they shall condemn the wicked"; &lt;b&gt;and on the contrary&lt;/b&gt;: the words "and they shall condemn the wicked" give a place for error

(as &lt;b&gt;Rashi&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;

says)

that "

(one might think)

all who are liable in judgment are flogged

(Scripture says etc.)

It remains indeed not understood: the words “והצדיקו גו׳״ —

(according to the plain meaning of Scripture)

Why do they stand?

And one cannot say

(according to the plain meaning of Scripture)

that here is

(still⁶)

a <b>commandment </b>and positive commandment that one should judge a true judgment⁷

(in the manner as

One finds several prohibitions regarding the matter of "Do not pervert judgment"

— because from the length of the language in the verse

("For there will be a quarrel etc. and they approach etc. and they judge them")

it implies,

that the Torah is here expressing a new matter.

2.

In Sifri

there is a teaching that learns from the words "and they justify the righteous" — "declare him righteous so that he will not be lashed",

and as commentators

explain this that one must open in his merit — that first of all one must seek for the litigant a merit "so that he will not be lashed" and only afterwards — a matter of wickedness — in the manner of capital cases where the law is that "we open in his merit".

But one cannot say that Rashi assumes the explanation,

because if so, Rashi would have had to say it <b>explicitly</b>,

since it is not within the realm that a "ben chamesh lamikra" will himself grasp the explanation

(and all the more so from that which the Sifri <b>explains</b> it).

And especially since the explanation is not so smooth in the language of the verse: the two matters in the verse — "and they shall justify the righteous and condemn the wicked" — speak simply about <b>separate</b> people

(the two litigants,

one of whom is a righteous person and the other — a wicked person)

; but not so according to the aforementioned explanation, the entire verse speaks about the same person: first one must seek a merit for him — "and they shall justify"

(the righteous one),

and if one cannot find,

then — and they shall condemn

(the wicked one).

that the verse speaks about a case where "conspiring witnesses" "condemned the righteous one" and afterwards "other witnesses came and vindicated the righteous one from the beginning and made those ones wicked"

(their law is — "

(and it shall be if)

the son of the wicked one is to be beaten",

that they are liable for lashes)

; and even more it is far-fetched to say that this is so simple that Rashi does not need to say it explicitly!].

3.

And one must say,

that that which Rashi does not need to protect the question

(because of what it says "and they justified the righteous and condemned the wicked"),

is because it is understood from Rashi on the beginning of the verse "for there will be a quarrel" — "their end is to come to judgment,

say from now on there is no peace that comes out of a quarrel,

what caused Lot to separate from the righteous, you must say this quarrel".

In this arises the question

(as the commentators ask¹³)

: what is here the deficiency that "their end is to come to judgment"?

And on the contrary: through their "coming to judgment" there will be among them <b>peace</b>¹⁴,

and as it is written¹⁵

"and they judged the people etc. and also all this people will come to its place in peace"¹⁶.

The wonder is even greater: the source of this Rashi is from Sifri&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;,

but there the wording is: "Peace does not emerge from strife..

What caused this &lt;b&gt;to be stricken &lt;/b&gt;? We must say it is strife"

(That

is,

that strife causes that one should &lt;b&gt;be stricken &lt;/b&gt;)

; Rashi, however, &lt;b&gt;changes &lt;/b&gt;from the Sifri,

and instead of "caused this to be stricken" he says "their end will be to draw near to &lt;b&gt;the judgment&lt;/b&gt;"!

The explanation in this is:

Rashi in his commentary comes to answer

(also¹⁷)

why the verse uses here the term <b>rivalry</b>.

One finds in several places,

that a dispute between two people

(which is brought before a judge)

is designated in the Torah with the word

"davar"¹⁸,

as in: "For¹⁹

they have a <b>matter </b>that has come to me, and I will judge between a man and his neighbor",

"Whoever²⁰

has a <b>matter </b>let him come to them."

But the term "rivalry" is used

(mostly²¹)

in connection with a <b>quarrel </b>which the litigants do not bring to court,

like: "And there was²²

a quarrel between the herdsmen of Abram's cattle etc.,

and they quarreled²³

the herdsmen of Gerar etc.,

and when²⁴

men quarrel <b>and strike </b>a man etc."²⁵

According to this, it would be more fitting that here it should stand "because there will be &lt;b&gt;a matter&lt;/b&gt;"

that Onkelos&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;

translates the word "strife" from our verse&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;

— not "contention"

(as in most places&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;)

— but "judgment"&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;].

Why then does the verse use here specifically the word "strife" and not "matter"?

Rashi explains: "because there will be &lt;b&gt;strife &lt;/b&gt;— their end is to come before the court, say

"Now there is no peace that comes out of &lt;b&gt;quarrel&lt;/b&gt;" — here it speaks about a conflict in a manner of &lt;b&gt;strife&lt;/b&gt;,

and from &lt;b&gt;this&lt;/b&gt; "there is no peace that comes out",

even not &lt;b&gt;through&lt;/b&gt; "&lt;b&gt;judgment&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;

In general,

when two people have between themselves a conflict that is &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; in the category of quarrel,

the conflict can be resolved and brings peace — either they come through between themselves alone,

or the court finds a compromise; and even in a case when the court decides that one side is entirely correct,

since they do not have any "strife" between themselves and they seek the truth,

will also &lt;b&gt;the&lt;/b&gt; verdict bring them to peace.

But when there is a &lt;b&gt;quarrel&lt;/b&gt;—that the conflict turns into a fight,

then peace cannot come.

They will come to judgment and the court will issue a &lt;b&gt;definitive&lt;/b&gt; verdict,

who is right and who is wrong,

but even after the verdict, "peace does not emerge"&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;.

And on this Rashi brings a proof and example from Lot — "What caused Lot &lt;b&gt;to separate&lt;/b&gt; from the righteous one, say it was this quarrel": For at first glance — the quarrel there was indeed

(not between Lot and

(Abraham)

the righteous one,

but)

only between the shepherds of Abraham and the shepherds of Lot.

Abraham and Lot themselves were "men, brothers"&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;.

Since

But when thereby a "quarrel" was created,

they could not remain in peace in one place,

and Lot had to separate "from the righteous one".

D.

Based on this it is answered automatically why the verse says "and they shall justify the righteous and condemn the wicked" — because according to Rashi,

this is the meaning of the verse³³,

that "when there will be a quarrel",

"no peace will emerge" — there will be no peace,

even through the judgment,

because here the judgment is in a manner of "and they shall justify the righteous and condemn the wicked":

Here it does not speak about litigants who seek the truth and consequently — a judgment that brings peace between them,

but rather — one is a <b>righteous</b> and the other a <b>wicked</b>,

and the purpose of the verdict is only to ascertain and <b>vindicate</b> the righteous <b>and condemn</b> the wicked.

5.

And one may add further,

that the verse warns here about another matter:

One might think that since this is a "quarrel",

that they are conducting a dispute,

that one of them,

or both of them are quarrelsome people

(wicked people³⁴)

— one must not judge them in their legal case,

but rather punish them for the dispute and

Afterwards one will see: nullification of the dispute can bring peace,

admitting to the truth etc.

etc.

etc.

— says the Torah: "When there will be a quarrel etc. &lt;b&gt;and you shall judge them&lt;/b&gt;": not looking at their "quarrel" there is an obligation upon the court to judge them,

to involve themselves in the conflict,

to delve into the details of the matter and issue a verdict.

Also afterwards — there is a place to think,

that since they conduct among themselves a &lt;b&gt;quarrel&lt;/b&gt;,

it is not possible that one should be entirely right,

entering into a dispute will eventually both exaggerate in their claims etc.&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;

; and consequently one comes to a conclusion,

that when the judge is one of them &lt;b&gt;declaring righteous &lt;/b&gt;

(literally — entirely),

is this a verdict in error —

the Torah continues: „and they shall justify the &lt;b&gt;righteous &lt;/b&gt;and condemn the &lt;b&gt;wicked&lt;/b&gt;": it can indeed be that in this detail of „quarrel"

are both guilty,

but regarding the actual law is "and they justified the righteous and condemned the wicked": in this the judges are correct that one is completely righteous,

and the second — completely wicked.

and it can be explained — that

(in the manner of the study of the Gemara)

thereby one further safeguards — "and they justified the righteous,

<b>from the outset</b>"³⁶

: when a court justifies someone completely,

one will see that regarding the "strife" and dispute,

he is also a righteous person,

is completely not guilty in it³⁷

; the "strife" came about from the <b>wicked</b>,

and remained the wicked's³⁸

but he is a righteous person — "and they justified the righteous from the outset".

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Teitzei 5741)