Ki-Tetzei

Pisqa’ 249

Pisqa’ 2491

1

“Neither an Ammonite nor a Moabite shall enter the Community of HASHEM” (Dt.23:4).

The verse is discussing males, not females.

 

“An Ammonite” (Dt.23:4)—

but an Ammonite woman is not excluded.

“A Moabite” (Dt.23:4)—

and a Moabite woman is not excluded:

Words of R. Judah.2

But sages say:

“In the matter of their failure to extend hospitality to you, with bread and water” (Dt.23:5)—

Now, who normally extends hospitality?

Isn’t it the men rather than the women?

[Thus, the Ammonite and Moabite women,

who are blameless for the sin of the males,

should not share their punishment]!

2

Well, I could have reasoned otherwise:

Just as a man carrying impaired lineage

is not said to be excluded from the community “forever” (Dt.23:4),

yet, the women among them are treated like the men—

[both subject to the same ten-year period of exclusion,]

shouldn’t it follow that

[in the case of male] Ammonites and Moabites—

who are excluded from the community “forever”—

the women among them are treated like the men—

[both subject to the same permanent period of exclusion?] 3

Or, perhaps, reverse the argument!

Just as Ammonites and Moabites,

who are said to be excluded from the community “forever” (Dt.23:4),

and, the women among them are treated like the men—

                       both being subject to an endless period of exclusion,

shouldn’t it follow that

[in the case of males] carrying impaired lineage,

yet, who are not said to be excluded from the community “forever,”

the women should not be subject to the same

[ten years of exclusion] as the men?

The Teaching states:

No one of impaired lineage shall enter the Community of HASHEM” (Dt.23:3)—

whether a man or a woman.

3

Now, when the verse expands the range of the rule (i.e., Dt.23:4),

[by permitting female Ammonites and Moabites

to enter the community immediately,]

it constricts [the range of a second rule (i.e. Dt.23:3),

by excluding impaired females for ten years]!

Look—

you only need reason in accord with

the conclusions of the former argument!4

Just as a man carrying impaired lineage

is not excluded from the community “forever” (Dt.23:4),

and the women among them are subject to the same

[ten-year period of exclusion],

shouldn’t it follow that

[in the case of male] Ammonites and Moabites,

who are said to be excluded from the community “forever,”

the women among them should be subject to

the same [permanent] exclusion?

The Teaching states:

“An Ammonite” (Dt.23:4)—

but not an Ammonite woman:

Words of R. Judah.

4

If the verse states:

“The tenth generation” (Dt.23:4),

why does it add: “Forever?” (Dt.23:4)

Forever is open-ended,

leaving it free for comparative exegesis

on the basis of analogical reasoning.

Here, the tenth generation is mentioned (Dt.23:4),

and elsewhere, the tenth generation is mentioned (Dt.23:3).

Just as the tenth generation, mentioned elsewhere (Dt.23:3) implies forever,

So, too, the “tenth generation” mentioned here implies forever.

  1. H:253; JN2:174-175.
  2. //M. Yev. 8:3.
  3. Cf. M. Yev. 8:3.
  4. At section 2, paralleled in M. Yev.8:3.