English translation — עמוד 150

1.

From the verse¹

"And the two sons of Jacob, Shimon and Levi, the brothers of Dinah, took each man his sword, etc." — where Shimon and Levi are called "man" because they were then thirteen years old²

— we learn³,

that when one becomes thirteen years old, one becomes a "man" and is obligated in all the commandments.

In the Torah, all matters are indeed with utmost precision.

One must understand: How is it that such a fundamental matter in Judaism — the time when the good inclination enters a Jew⁴,

the completion and essence of the entry of the holy soul into a person⁵,

when then begins for him the fulfillment of the commandments⁶

— should be learned from "And the two sons of Jacob etc. each man his sword",

which was seemingly an undesirable conduct?

True indeed: also in the simple meaning it is understood,

that with that which "they killed every male" they did not commit a prohibition G‑d forbid

(because they

(the men of Shechem)

had come [to] death"^*6,

therefore⁷

that they did not judge Shechem for his crime⁸,

or for their own sins that they committed even before the incident of Dinah⁹),

Nevertheless, we find however that this conduct of Shimon and Levi was not pleasing to Yaakov Avinu,

until he characterized it as a matter of "vessels of <b>violence</b>": that "this craft of murder",

although it was at that time permissible according to the law,

it came to them from <b>Esav</b>¹⁰

True,

one cannot demand from them,

that they should have consulted with Yaakov because he was greater than them in intellect,

advice etc. — because when it comes to the essence of the soul there is no place for taking advice; but it can be demanded from them,

that they should have taken advice from him because of that which "&lt;b&gt;His sons&lt;/b&gt; they were" — because of &lt;b&gt;honoring a father&lt;/b&gt;.

But it is still not understood:

— must seemingly come out,

that the "And they took etc. and killed every male",

was <b>not</b> according to the will of the Most High.

Then the question returns to its place: how could there have been at that time the manner of "

(they killed)

<b>man</b>"?

4.

In order to understand this,

one must first preface another question: it is stated in the Gemara³³,

that at Marah Jews were commanded regarding ten commandments: "Seven that the children of Noah accepted upon themselves <b>and they added</b> upon them laws and Shabbat <b>and honoring</b> <b>father and mother</b>".

From this³⁴

it is clear³⁵,

that the children of Noah were <b>not</b> commanded regarding honoring father and mother — so why was Yaakov punished because of his failing in honoring father,

and also why does the Torah need to inform regarding Avraham so that one should not say "he did not fulfill etc."?

Regarding that Ham was punished because of that which "he disgraced his father"³⁶,

and also that which Laban is called "wicked" for that which "he jumped to answer before his father"²⁷

— one can answer,

a Although children of Noah are indeed not commanded in honoring father and mother,

they have however the prohibition of <b>disgracing</b> a father³⁸.

that the source for this prohibition is³⁹

: in the nature of ravens is that "the eye that mocks a father etc., the ravens of the brook will peck it out etc."⁴⁰.

And since that even "if the Torah had <b>not</b> been given"

(heaven forbid⁴¹),

there exists the <b>obligation</b> to learn certain behaviors from animals which they possess by nature⁴²

– therefore also children of Noah are obligated

(to learn from ravens and)

to guard — not to mock and disgrace parents⁴³].

And although the verse "The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah, for it is great"⁸⁶,

interprets the Gemara⁴⁷

: "Concerning the matter of <b>riva</b>" — that there was found a girl who gave food to poor people,

and therefore the people of Sodom brought her up onto a roof, smeared her with honey, and left her for the bees until they bit her to death; and because of <b>that</b> sin with the "riva",

the Almighty punished them with the "overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah" etc.⁴⁸

— But this is not a contradiction to what was said earlier,

that the punishment came upon them because "the hand of the poor and needy they did not support" — for also the sin of bloodshed in the "matter of riva" has its root and originates from their not doing kindness and charity.

D.

H.

The conduct of "the hand of the poor and needy they did not support" was among them to such a terrible extent and reached so far,

that because of her doing an act of charity,

they refined the "riva" with an unusual death,

and because the "hand of the poor etc. they did not support" was in an extreme manner,

this⁴⁹

brought about the "destruction".

So it is difficult according to &lt;b&gt;both&lt;/b&gt; opinions: according to the opinion,

that Bnei Noach are obligated in charity — why are counted

(according to the simple understanding)

only the Seven Mitzvos of Bnei Noach and not eight mitzvos?

And according to the opinion,

that they are not obligated in charity — why is their conduct of "the hand of the poor and needy did not support"

(of Sodom)

a sin,

to punish them for this?

7.

Regarding the mitzvah of "dinin" — which is

(according to all opinions)

one of the 7 Mitzvos of Bnei Noach&lt;sup&gt;59&lt;/sup&gt;

— there is a dispute between the Rambam and the Ramban: the opinion of the Rambam is&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;,

that the mitzvah of "dinin means only the specific detail of "they are obligated to appoint judges and officers etc."; in contrast the Ramban&lt;sup&gt;60&lt;/sup&gt;

holds,

that with the mitzvah of "dinin" is meant not only "to appoint judges etc.",

but also "the laws of theft, fraud, extortion, wages of a hired worker, laws of bailees, seducer, seduced, fathers of damages, one who injures his fellow, laws of borrower and lender, laws of buying and selling, and the like of them.

4.

5.

That "dinin includes all kinds of matters

(between a person and his fellow)

that have to do with maintaining the settlement of the world.

The matter of "Is he to treat our sister like a harlot?" affected them so strongly,

that "they conducted themselves like other people who are not his sons"

(of Jacob)

; they were entirely taken up with <b>that</b> feeling, and consequently no room remained for them for any other thing except "and each man took his [sword] etc."⁷¹.

And this is also the reason that the time of the beginning of the obligation in mitzvos is learned

(as above at the beginning of the sicha)

from this same verse,

because this is a lesson for every bar-mitzvah,

i.

e.

for every Jew when he reaches the beginning of [divine] service,

that when it concerns "Is he to treat [our sister] like a harlot?"