Near the end of parashat Ki Tetzei we read: “Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small. Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small. But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the Lord thy God” (Deut. 25:13-16 (KJV)).

In context, verse 16 appears to be concerned with honesty in commerce. Fraudulent practices in regard to weights and measures are referred to as to’eva (abomination or abhorrence). We find a similar usage in Proverbs, where we read: “A false balance is an abomination to the Lord: but a just weight is his delight” (11:1), and so the verse is construed in the various translations. Pseudo-Jonathan renders the verse into Aramaic as:  "אֲרוּם מְרַחֵק קֳדָם ה' אֱלָהָכוֹן כָּל דְּעָבֵיד אִלֵּין נִיכְלַיָא כָּל דְּעָבֵיד שִׁיקְרָא בִּפְרַקְמַטְיָא" [Because abominable before the Lord your God are all that do such fraud, all that cheat in commerce]. The Jewish Publication Society translation renders the verse “For everyone who does those things, everyone who deals dishonestly, is abhorrent to the Lord your God” The Revised Standard Version is similar, and Robert Alter gives us: “For the abhorrence of the Lord your God is anyone who does all these things, who commits any fraud.” Each understands there to be a parallel that identifies the abhorrent ‘that do such things’ and ‘that do unrighteously’ with deceptive commerce.

However, in his commentary Meshekh Hokhmah, R. Meir Simhah HaKohen of Dvinsk (1843-1926) makes this surprising statement:

“For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously” applies to the chapter in its entirety: There is no one to defend the honor of a shamed person who is flogged more than his guilt deserves (25:1-3), and no one to stand up for him. And so it is when one muzzles an ox while it is threshing, and causes it suffering (25:4). And so it is when one is unwilling to perpetuate the name of a dead brother’s name who has no one to defend his honor (25:5-10). And so in regard to killing a pursuer who could be averted at the cost of a limb (25:11-12). And so it is with weights where one does not know to complain (25:13-15).

In other words, Meshekh Hokhma takes view that verse 16 is not a continuation and summary of verses 13-15. The verse stands alone, and refers to all the prohibitions in the preceding chapter, all of which express a common ethical concept.

The midrash suggests another connection, tying verse 16 not to what precedes it, but rather to what follows: “Remember what Amalek did to you on your journey, after you left Egypt — how, undeterred by fear of God, he surprised you on the march, when you were famished and weary, and cut down all the stragglers in your rear” (17-18):

If you see a generation whose measures are false, know that the dominion will persecute that generation. Why? “A false balance is an abomination to the Lord” (Proverbs 11:1), and this is followed by “When pride comes, then comes disgrace; but with the humble is wisdom” (11:2)… R. Levi said: Moses alluded to this in the Torah: “Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights”. Why?  They “are an abomination unto the Lord thy God,” and that is followed by “Remember what Amalek did to you” (Tanhuma (Warsaw), Ki Tetzei 8).

1. What does the term to’eva mean? Does it identify some inherent, objective or universally recognized quality, or does it define a subjective character that derives from social conventions? Do the various uses of the term in Ki Tetzei (22:5, 24:4, 25:16) share some common denominator [also consider Genesis 43:32, 46:34, Deut. 14:3, 17:1]?

2. Does the midrash hint at some direct causative link between the transgression and the punishment? Does the midrash reflect a conceptual or historical connection between the two? Why and in what sense does the midrash refer to “the dominion” (ha-malkhut)?

3. The Baalei HaTosafot also connect the two passages, interpreting the phrase “undeterred by fear of God” as referring to weights. Samuel David Luzzatto (Italy, 1800-1865, whose birth we marked last week), one of the first scholars of Wissenschaft des Judentums, also connects the two sections, seeing a common denominator in the ideas of deceit and the exploitation of the weakness of the other. The approach of Baalei HaTosafot emphasizes idea of lack of faith, whereas Luzzatto points to social and moral values. Is there textual support for these approaches? Compare the description of the Amalekite attack in Ki Tetzei with the description in BeShallah (Exodus 17). Do the different descriptions or contexts shed light on the different interpretive approaches?