Posts so far for parshat Naso

2013

1. Kehas and Gershon get a Vaydaber. Merari does not. Or HaChaim explains it as a special elevation to Gershon. I explain it as due to the interjection at the end of the instruction for Kehas.

2. May the Sotah take the bitter waters intravenously? I was in a bit of a fun mood, so I posted the following question (and subsequent answer) at Mi Yodea. Deleted, under the purim torah policy. :(

2012

1. Did Chazal know the meaning of Hebrew words? Given a Tannaitic dispute about the respective meaning of chartzan and zag, some Protestant scholar says no. Shadal says yes, and explains how something so basic can be a matter of dispute. Also, that Targum Onkelos is merely attributed to Onkelos.

2. YUTorah on Naso

3.  Naso sources, 2012 edition.

4. Haftarat Naso part i -- prophecy of Shimshon's conception and birth: Considering the haftara of parashat Naso, which is the story of Shimshon's miraculous birth. I present Malbim, and use his commentary as a jumping off point. In this first part, the malach's first communication.

5. Haftaras Naso part two, about the differences in the retelling of the story of the malach.

6. And part three, about the making of the goat for the malach.

2011

1. Naso sources -- further expanded. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
   .
2. Impure to the bone? Part ii. Continuing a topic from last year on parshat Naso, about whether לטמי means bone or impure, and whether דאינשא should be present.
   .
3. YU Torah on parashat Naso.
   .
4. How shall we pronounce the first וּבָאוּ in parashat Naso?  Is it mile'eil or mi'le-ra? I weigh in, considering the meaning of Minchas Shai.
   .
5. An explanation for that cryptic Minchas Shai on ובאו --  If marking a telisha on the place of stress is so rare, why does Minchas Shai note its absence? This on Naso.

2010

1. Naso sources -- revamped, with more than 100 meforshim on the parasha and haftara.
   a
2. If a man does not have a redeemer -- Why is Rashi inconsistent in his explanation of this phrase, between Naso and Behar?
   a
3. Sotah, and Identical Twin Sisters -- A statement about identical twin sisters, one of whom is a Sotah, seems oddly out of place. It is a taus sofer, as several meforshei Rashi explain? This is quite plausible. On the other hand, I give a reason why it might well not be, at least not in its entirety.
   a
4. Impure to the bone, or just Impure? Rashi explains Onkelos, who deviates from his usual manner and explains tamei lenefesh as tamei to the bones of a dead person. This sort of expansion is quite irregular. But maybe Rashi isn't really saying this. And even if Rashi says this, this may not be what Onkelos says, or what Onkelos means, as Shadal explains.
   .
5. Ibn Kaspi and the (poisonous?) bitter waters -- Ibn Kaspi, perhaps, sheds light on the Ibn Ezra I discussed last year, that the kohen put poisonous bitter herbs into the water.

2009

1. Naso sources -- links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos, and links to many meforshim on the parshah and haftarah.
   .
2. Thanks, DovBear, for the link and discussion! Check out this post and the comment section there, all about 2008's post on The Nature of the "Bitter" Waters. What precisely in Ibn Ezra's comment make Shadal and Avi Ezer draw their conclusions about Ibn Ezra's intent?
   .
3. As a followup to the above, in "Poisonous Sota Water?!", I carefully translate and parse Ibn Ezra and Avi Ezer, in an attempt to demonstrate exactly what Shadal saw in Ibn Ezra. Then, I relate another supercommentary on Ibn Ezra, namely Mechokekei Yehudah, and show how he says more or less the same thing -- that the kohen puts a potentially harmful agent in the water -- while disagreeing with Shadal's take on Ibn Ezra that it was always fatal and up to the kohen to decide whether to put it in.
   .
4. Then, as an additional followup, some more takes on Ibn Ezra's "sod" of the bitter waters (or waters of bitter substances), from another Ibn Ezra supercommentator, from a Karaite, and from Torah Temimah.
   .
5. The bitter waters operating with gender equality -- Baal Haturim's supplemental support to a midrash of it affecting both adulteress and adulterer, and whether the gematria is really the mechanism of derivation here.
   .
6. Amen | Amen; is the pasek meaningful as the Baal Haturim takes it, or is it something almost mechanical as a result of the duplication, which was anyway the source for the midrashic conclusion?
   .
7. Yaer Hashem as a revival of Yitzchak? The Baal Haturim connects this part of the famous priestly blessing to a midrash in Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer which has Yitzchak actually die at the akeida only to be resurrected.
   .
8. In the haftarah, questions about chronology. At what point were Shimshon's parents told about his birth? Was it during the forty year subjugation under the Philistines, or before it? And how the "missing" first pasuk might help resolve this.
   a
9. How can you have a nazir who runs after women? Ralbag resolves this by relating the two, that this is supposed to offset and restrict Shimshon's nature.
   a
10. Who spoke to Manoach and his wife? An angel or prophet? Ralbag interprets this as prophet, in a way that can have repercussions across Tanach.
    a
11. How is the birth of Shimshon connected to parashat Naso? Besides the obvious nazir connection. That Manoach did not suspect his wife of adultery.

2008

1. The trup on umichsei hatachash
• may be reversed. Trup charts and discussion to illustrate.
2. Ufkudav -- As Hashem Commanded Moshe
• Understanding Rashi on this pasuk, which may involve getting the correct girsa of Rashi. And an analysis of Sifsei Chachamim's analysis.
3. Venistera, And She Is Defiled
• Is this saying that she was secretly defiled? That there was a separate action of seclusion?
4. The meaning of "And She Was Not Seized"
• Does this refer to rape? Or to her being caught in the act? If the latter, by whom? By witnesses or by her husband?
5. The Nature of the "Bitter" Waters
• Were they merely bitter in (potential) effect? Or were they physically bitter? Or were they poisonous? And if poisonous, was this due to trickery of the kohen who made a private determination that she was guilty -- thus eliminating any Divine role in any of this? Is this similar to trickery in how the ketores saved the people in the mageifa? How will Avi Ezer try to save Ibn Ezra from this heresy? How will Shadal reject this Ibn Ezra as a matter of peshat?
6. The bitter waters of Sotah as a selective abortive agent for bastards
• a weird theory, I grant you, but read it to see if it makes any sense
7. "Sitting" in Taanis, and Critiquing Homiletic Divrei Torah
• In which I critique a homiletic interpretation of a gemara relating to nazir, then discuss whether it is legitimate to critique homily. Finally, I find a version of the devar Torah, attributed to the same source, which better (though not entirely) accords with the shakla veTarya of the gemara.
• As a quick followup, the Seforno on the relevant pasuk in Naso.
8. The segol of Pera
• Understanding Rashi's grammatical point that the segol in the word pera is only there because it is the construct form. Even in absolute form it would remain the same. Shadal notes a variant girsa of Rashi which has him potentially referring to the patach, but even so, Rashi is not correct. I suggest that Rashi differs as to the pattern in play, and is working off the form as it appears in Aramaic, in Targum Onkelos.
9. HaMearerim as Accursed, Causing Curse, or Something Else
• A discussion of what Rashi means in his assessment of the word -- prickly rather than causing curse (the latter is Onkelos); then as it occurs in the Samaritan Targum and in Targum Pseudo-Yonatan, discerning.

2007

• A midrash, and my expansion, on why converts are great. And I link it to Shavuot.

2006

• Naso roundup from other blogs

2005

• Healed at Sinai (Naso/Shavuot)
• A midrash that all were healed in order to receive the Torah. We look at the derivations, then suggest a vector for the genesis and development of the midrash.
• Na Only Connotes Please
• cross-listed from Behaalotecha. We consider the meaning of X only connotes Y, and cite in part a midrash in Bamidbar Rabba about Shimshon.

2004

• A Hair-Raising Experience
• eh. I tried to make a link from a nazir's consecrated hair, burned on the altar, with the Indian hair wigs.
• Count
• C++ code to count the sons of Gershon.

to be continued...

Posts so far for parashat Bemidbar

2012

1. Bemidbar sources, 2012 edition. And for 2013.

2. YUTorah on Bemidbar.

3. What was עַל פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם? Nadav and Avihu's death, or Eleazar and Itamar's service? One can parse the pasuk so that this phrase,  עַל פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם, goes on Nadav and Avihu's death. Or, we can parse it so that it goes on the service of Eleazer and Itamar. This is a case of trup vs. Divrei Hayamim.

From 2013: Daas Soferim and random sparked thoughts

2011

1. Bamidbar sources -- further expanded. For example, many more meforshei Rashi. I also just started restructuring the Targum section.
   .
2. The pesik after ועל -- And how these are not actually pesiks, but rather munach legarmeihs. As such, perhaps we should not be darshening them. See also the Bamidbar 2009 Baal HaTurim post, below, though.
   .
3. Ibn Caspi, and the dots over Aharon; also, a Torah Codes connection! See the two previous posts from Bamidbar 2009, on the dots over ואהרן. Ibn Caspi's note that plural and singular of pakad and pakdu would both be acceptable verbs might shed light on just how the variant of משה vs. משה ואהרן came about. Also, how Aharon's absence would mess up the Torah codes.
   .
4. YU Torah on parshas Bamidbar.
   .
5. Does Onkelos translate וַיִּקַּח as וּדְבַר or ונסב? The answer is that it is the latter, despite R' Meir Wolf's variant nusach. Shadal and Lechem Abirim explain.
   .
6. Why the trup alternation in Yisachar, Binyamin, and Naftali?  Congratulations to Mi Yodeya are in order for getting their proposal accepted. They are now part of StackExchange. Here is a question on the trup of Bamidbar I answered over there this morning. If we examine the trup in the beginning of parashat Bemidbar, we find some slight alternations on the first word of a more or less repeating clause, though the rest of the trup is the same:
   
   
   
   .
7. Elaborating מעמר's theory of נסיב vs. דבר --  Much as I intuited. Baruch Shekivanti! Basically, directing vs. every other usage.
   .
8. Further thoughts on translating ויקח as ונסיב vs. ודבר --  As discussed in two previous posts, there are two competing theories of when דבר and when נסב is due. Lechem Abirim vs. (the words of the printer in) Maamar. The former is, roughly, 'taking' humans vs. taking objects; the latter is, roughly, conveying people vs. every other use. We saw each side. Now, to consider further proof to either side, from some rather old Chumashim.
   .
9. Yet more on נסיב vs. ודבר --  Perhaps evidence from the Samaritan Targum and the Peshitta can put this matter to rest. Or perhaps not. This, BTW, on parashat Bamidbar.  Except I erred in thinking that a certain online source was the Peshitta. So most of the conclusions of this post should be disregarded.
   .
10. Can the Zohar teach us about acceptable Targumic Aramaic?  Maamar brings it as a counter-proof to Shadal, but would Shadal accept this as evidence?

2010

1. Bemidbar sources -- revamped, with over 100 meforshim on the parasha and haftara.
   a
2. What is bothering Rashi? Why specify nesiim? Rashi appears to make a rather simplistic statement, and so his supercommentators trip over themselves trying to explain just what is bothering Rashi, and why he should go out of his way to point out the obvious. But they arrive at an incorrect solution. Here, I offer just what is motivating Rashi, and how Rashi is very much a pashtan, rather than the darshan they end up making him.
   a
3. What is bothering Rashi? part ii -- After composing the previous post, I saw that Aish HaTorah posted a selection from Rabbi Dr. Avigdor Bonchek on the same topic, how to understand this particular Rashi, about the nesiim. My comments is interspersed with the text of his article. Much I like, but some I disagree with.
   a
4. How the Jews merited mattan Torah -- Trying to trace a midrash, and its meaning. As far as I can tell, the idea that they traced their lineage via sifrei yuchsin is a late midrash, and the midrash itself tells us the import.
   .
5. How should we spell vehachonim? A divergence among Masoretes about how to spell the word, in the context of the tribe of Shimon. That the Samaritan Torah, at odds with the masoretic text, is like one side in the dispute, does not really matter and is no evidence at all, for a reason I explain.

2009

1. Bamidbar sources -- links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos, and links to many meforshim on the parshah and haftarah.
   .
2. Was Nadav, or Aharon, the firstborn? An analysis of the role of a pasek. Baal Haturim claims that this is to associate habechor with Aharon, and not with Nadav, who died childless. I disagree with Baal Haturim as to its purpose, and I bring pesukim to prove it.
   .
3. Two faced humans -- as a quick followup to the two hundred foot tall, two-headed hermaphrodites envisioned for yemos hamashiach in a previous post, here a Zohar about Adam and Chava intially one.
   .
4. The dots over Aharon, the meaning of Rashi's explanation according to the supercommentaries, and how really their purpose is to mark the word's doubtful status. The Samaritan Torah omits the word veAharon. And in a followup post, the implications of such an approach, in terms of ikkarei emunah and in terms of the age of trup.
   .
5. The pasek between Moshe, and Aharon and his sons: Once again I disagree with Baal HaTurim. Simply put, that is no pasek. It is an entirely expected munach legarmeih, and so does not shout out darsheini!
   .
6. The krei of kru'ei. Baal HaTurim ascribes it to the presence of Zimri. Unsatisfied with that answer, I explore other possibilities.
   .
7. The kametz in the zakef on tikkach -- and why the variant nikkud makes so much sense.

2008

1. Bemidbar Sinai: Why mention it, and how is it different from Behar Sinai? Is it to date it, to distinguish it from Behar Sinai, just the standard way of beginning a Biblical book, or something else?
   .
2. How the sums of two separate censuses can be identical -- as per Shadal, and my expansion upon him.
   .
3. Eleph as military unit -- rather than thousand. And how this would shrink the number of Israelites in the desert to non-miraculous size. And in the comment section, why I don't find this necessarily compelling, nor am I troubled by the initial "problem".

2007

• In the presence of Aharon their father
• whether this phrase is connected to service or death, associated with the beginning or end of the pasuk, and how that interacts with trup. I was about to recreate this post in 2008, but then realized that I had already done it in 2007. One extra point is that the note about redrawing the trup appears to be based on Mendelssohn's Biur.
• Mah Inyan Shemitta Etzel Har Sinai
• cross-listed with Behar. I consider Rashi's explanation that this is just one example of many, and then cite Rashbam (echoed by Shadal) on Bamidbar that for the first year, it always said Behar Sinai, and this changes to beMidbar Sinai beOhel Moed once the Mishkan is constructed. Other Rashbams are that the count was to assemble an army to enter Eretz Yisrael.
• haftarat Bamidbar
• How the mashal in the haftara from Hoshea seems ahalachic; how "you will not call me 'my Baal' is a pun; the irregular word vayadaat.

2006

• The Duel Between Deuel and Reuel
• how to account for the discrepancy? Shadal and Cassuto both suggest the name had both letters, but one letter was dropped in different instances, and gives parallels to this. The letters are also similar, so one might intuit a scribal error. The fact that the Septuagint and the Samaritan Torah have opposites, but are consistent across the board, is evidence that these are not attestations of alternate girsaot but rather harmonizations. Finally, I suggest that this was a deliberate change from one theophoric name to another, to eliminate reference to the Egyptian deity Ra.
  I consider other evidence of this in a post on Shelach, about the names of the spies in the parsha.

2005

• Lift Up The Heads
• in its various connotations
• cross-listed from Parshat Pinchas: A Real Shlumiel
• Why is Shlumiel ben Tzurishaddai the namesake of all Shlumiels?

2004

• The count as an excel spreadsheet and as a graph

to be continued...

Posts so far for parshat Bechukosay

2012

1. Bechukosai sources

2. YUTorah on parashas Behar / Bechukosai; and for 2013 as well.

2011

1. B'chukosay sources -- further expanded. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
   .
2. The fear of war -- What is so terrible about a right of passage?
   .
3. Does the Zohar have mishpatai instead of mitzvotai in the first pasuk of Bechukotai? Maybe it is a careless error. That would be my guess. But there are other resolutions.
   .
4. YU Torah on parashat Bechukotai.

2010

1. Bechukosai sources -- revamped, with over 100 meforshim on the parasha and haftorah.
   a
2. No sword shall pass -- a derasha from Torsa Kohanim, cited by Rashi, and made / applied by King Yoshiyahu, to ill effect.
   a
3. The promise of erect posture -- Considering a Rashi, and midrash, about one of the rewards in parashat Bechukotai. Why Rashi would be "inconsistent" in interpreting an extraneous phrase here vs. in sefer Bereishit, and my guess as to some of the driving force of the local midrash.

2009

1. Altering, changing, good for bad, bad for good, and how they bind -- this has to do with some unusual trup on the pasuk, the parsing of the pasuk, they meaning of לֹא יַחֲלִיפֶנּוּ vs. , וְלֹא-יָמִיר אֹתוֹ, how Shadal resolves it, and my grappling to understand Shadal.
2. Do the physical rewards in Bechukosai imply a lack of Olam Haba? And how a Karaite, who maintains a literal reading of pesukim, still maintains a belief in the world to come.
3. In the days of mashiach, will we all be 200-foot tall hermaphrodites? And whether Rabbi Yonasan Eibeshitz intended this literally or figuratively.
4. And a followup, with two-faced humans, as found in the Zohar.

2008

1. What is the meaning of "Keri"? Rashi brings down some opinions, of Chazal, Menachem ben Saruk, and Onkelos. Shadal also brings down various contemporary positions and explains why he rejects them, eventually deciding in favor of Onkelos, that it denotes hardness.
   .
2. When the pasuk says vihirtzat, Rashi explains "to the King her Sabbaticals." This is difficult, and Mizrachi explains a bit. But why "to the King?" Shadal explains that this is a taut sofer, and has a manuscript with a girsa which makes more sense. Later, he explains how the word conveys the meaning it does.

to be continued...

posts so far for parshat Behar

2014

1. The unique trup on el-ha'aretz.

2. Onaas Mamon vs. Onaas Devarim -- how the derasha works

2012

1. Behar sources.

2. How much silver did Yirmeyahu weigh out, and why? Was it 17 or 7 X + 10 Y? And either way, was it coinage or weight?

3. The uprooted peshat in אַל תּוֹנוּ אִישׁ אֶת אָחִיו -- If Rashi maintains that peshat is referring to land, then how could Chazal darshen and restrict onaah to movable objects? Ramban answers and I also suggest something.

4. YUTorah on parashat Behar / Bechukosai. And for 2013.

2011


1. Behar sources -- even further improved.


2. Is it Rashi who says the krei should really have been לה?  Explaining one of Rashi's comments, and considering whether Rashi really said it.


3. The dagesh in leimor, etcetera, in Behar -- Expanding upon Minchas Shai on parashat Behar.


2010

1. Behar sources -- revamped. More than 100 meforshim on the parasha and haftora.
   a
2. Death and Life are in the power of the tongue -- presenting an interesting Midrash Rabba on Behar, which points all over the place to explain a pasuk in Mishlei.
   a
3. If a man does not have a redeemer: Analyzing why Rashi is inconsistent in explaining this phrase, between parashat Behar and parashat Naso. And what peshat of not having a redeemer might be.

2009

1. Behar sources -- links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos, and links to many meforshim on the parshah and haftarah.
2. Ger veToshav, Vechai Imach -- how Onkelos, and the trup, might take the first two as verbs, rather than nouns.
3. vechi timkeru -- what nusach in Onkelos, selling or buying? And the meaning of the Aramaic; and how I disagree with Shadal about the popular nusach.

2008

1. The connection between shemitta and har Sinai
2. Yovel, from cool idolaters shouting "Yo, Baal!" Seriously.
3. Land reverting to the father after the son redeems it. Rashi citing Torat Kohanim, but about selling a field, something which should be obvious in any case. Meshech Chochma correcting the text to refer to being makdish the field. But as my suggestion, if we follow the girsa in Rashi, how that derasha might work, and why it might be necessary.
4. The land which I give you, not the land which I sell you. Also from Meshech Chochmah. So as not to take sides in a Tannaitic dispute (!), such that Hashem gives it to us בעין יפה. Along this theme, perhaps shemitta in order to recognize the land as a gift.
5. Rabbenu Bachya, Sefirot, and Elilim -- would the Sefirot be considered Elilim? Why not? A surprising answer.
6. Bemidbar Sinai: Why mention it, and how is it different from Behar Sinai? As the beginning of a sefer (Bamidbar); for the sake of dating the instruction; and related ideas.

2007

1. Mah Inyan Shemittah Eitzel Har Sinai?

2004

• BeHar-BeChukotai, Shavuot, and Shevuot
• Shamor VeZachor BeDibbur Echad, as well as a number of other apparently conflicting statements which were said BeDibbur Echad, in Yerushalmi Nedarim 9b and Bavli Shevuot 20b. A false vs. unnecessary oath, Shabbat rest vs. Shabbat sacrifices, a the prohibition of a brother's wife vs. levirate marriage, daughters inheriting vs. keeping ancestral land within the tribe, shaatnez vs. tzitzit, Shamor vs. Zachor.
  
  "God hath spoken once, twice have I heard this: that strength belongeth unto God;"
  "Is not My word like as fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?"
  
  In other words, do not see contradictions so much as elaborations, or focus in certain sections on particular elements of mitzvot, and by looking at different sections with different focuses, you can reconstruct the full, complex idea.
  
  Acharei Mot: A ban on private altars - all must be brought to tent of meeting, vs. in Devarim: when far away, can eat meat as non-sacrificial offering.
  
  Behar: At Yovel, all returns to natural state, and so slaves go free.
  Mishpatim: And he serves forever.
  That is, until Yovel.
  
  In other words, he is a perpetual servant. There happens to be another law, in another location, of the Doron, where debts are forgiven and property and people revert to their original state, which happens to overlap somewhat with this law and impact it. We do not have to focus on every possible detail when we fist discuss the law, particularly when it is a different law which sometimes colors the current one.

to be continued...

Onaas Mamon vs. Onaas Devarim

Consider the following three pesukim regarding Onaah. The first is in Vayikra 19:33:

When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not taunt him.		לג. וְכִי יָגוּר אִתְּךָ גֵּר בְּאַרְצְכֶם לֹא תוֹנוּ אֹתוֹ:
you shall not taunt him: Heb. לֹא תוֹנוּ. [This refers to] tormenting with words [as opposed to torment through other means, e.g., financially (see Rashi Lev. 25:14)]. [For instance,] do not say to him, “Only yesterday you were an idol worshipper, and now you come to learn Torah, which was given over by the Almighty God Himself! ”. — [Torath Kohanim 19:82]		לא תונו: אונאת דברים. לא תאמר לו אמש היית עובד עבודה זרה ועכשיו אתה בא ללמוד תורה שנתנה מפי הגבורה:

The next is in parashat Behar, in Vayikra 25:14:

And when you make a sale to your fellow Jew or make a purchase from the hand of your fellow Jew, you shall not wrong one another.

יד. וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר לַעֲמִיתֶךָ אוֹ קָנֹה מִיַּד עֲמִיתֶךָ אַל תּוֹנוּ אִישׁ אֶת אָחִיו:

you shall not wrong: This means wronging through money (see verse 17 below and Lev. 19:33). - [Torath Kohanim 25:31]

אל תונו: זו אונאת ממון:

And the last is a few pesukim later, in Vayikra 25:17:

And you shall not wrong, one man his fellow Jew, and you shall fear your God, for I am the Lord, your God.		יז. וְלֹא תוֹנוּ אִישׁ אֶת עֲמִיתוֹ וְיָרֵאתָ מֵאֱלֹהֶיךָ כִּי אֲנִי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:
And you shall not wrong, one man his fellow-Jew: Here, [as opposed to the same expression in verse 14 above (see Rashi there),] Scripture is warning against wronging verbally, namely, that one must not provoke his fellow [Jew], nor may one offer advice to him that is unsound for him but according to the mode of life or the benefit of the advisor. And if you say, “Who can tell whether I had evil intentions [when I talked to my fellow in an insulting manner? Perhaps I did so in order to make him feel remorseful and repent his ways].” (see Be’er Basadeh). Therefore, it says, “and you shall fear your God.”-The One Who knows all thoughts-He knows. Concerning anything held in the heart and known only to the one who bears this thought in his mind, it says “and you shall fear your God!” - [B.M. 58b]		ולא תונו איש את עמיתו: כאן הזהיר על אונאת דברים, שלא יקניט איש את חברו לא ישיאנו עצה שאינה הוגנת לו לפי דרכו והנאתו של יועץ. ואם תאמר, מי יודע אם נתכוונתי לרעה, לכך נאמר ויראת מאלהיך, היודע מחשבות הוא יודע. כל דבר המסור ללב, שאין מכיר אלא מי שהמחשבה בלבו, נאמר בו ויראת מאלהיך:

Rashi's sources are the Sifra (that is, Torat Kohanim) and Bava Metzia 58b. Let us look at the Sifra on Vayikra perek 25:

If I might explain and endorse the derasha in a rather straightforward manner, let me say as follows. The pasuk in Vayikra 19 provides us with a definition of onaah which is personal rather than monetary - do not taunt him for being a ger. This might well be a derasha, rather than peshat, but it might readily be extracted from the context. Consider:

When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not taunt him.		לג. וְכִי יָגוּר אִתְּךָ גֵּר בְּאַרְצְכֶם לֹא תוֹנוּ אֹתוֹ:
34. The stranger who sojourns with you shall be as a native from among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord, your God.		לד. כְּאֶזְרָח מִכֶּם יִהְיֶה לָכֶם הַגֵּר | הַגָּר אִתְּכֶם וְאָהַבְתָּ לוֹ כָּמוֹךָ כִּי גֵרִים הֱיִיתֶם בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲנִי יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:

Note the focus on treating him like one of you, and loving him, rather than alienating him. Admittedly this might just mean don't cheat him, because of these considerations, but one might also argue that the peshat there in Vayikra 19 is that wronging is generally not accepting him into your society and reminding him of his outsider status.

Then, in Vayikra 25, the context is clearly a monetary one. Thus,

And when you make a sale to your fellow Jew or make a purchase from the hand of your fellow Jew, you shall not wrong one another.

יד. וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר לַעֲמִיתֶךָ אוֹ קָנֹה מִיַּד עֲמִיתֶךָ אַל תּוֹנוּ אִישׁ אֶת אָחִיו:

It refers to making a sale, and considering the time until Yovel in reckoning the price.

However, at the closing, there appears to be a needless repetition. In Vayikra 25:17:

And you shall not wrong, one man his fellow Jew, and you shall fear your God, for I am the Lord, your God.

יז. וְלֹא תוֹנוּ אִישׁ אֶת עֲמִיתוֹ וְיָרֵאתָ מֵאֱלֹהֶיךָ כִּי אֲנִי ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:

Now Onaah of money was already explicitly written as peshat of pasuk 14, so there must be a secondary meaning of Onaah in the closing of the section. And since we saw in Vayikra 19 this secondary meaning of wronging someone verbally, it means the same here.

Now, in Vayikra 19, the target of verbal wronging was a ger, whereas here it is amitecha in general. So here, states the Sifra, if he is a baal teshuva, don't remind him of his previous wrongdoing. If he is the descendant of converts, don't remind him of this yichus. If something bad happens to him, you should not say, like the 'friends' of Iyov, that they came upon him because of his bad deeds.

A similar idea would be at play even where we are looking to the gemara in Bava Metzia, which also operates on the idea that the second one in Vayikra 25 is Onaat Devarim, though defined as either provoking or giving bad advice.

This seems fairly straightforward to me. Here though is a question based on these Rashis, found in the sefer Prachei Rashi, quoted from Al HaTorah:

First, he cites the two Rashis in Vayikra 25, the first drawing from the Sifra on the pasuk and the second drawing from Bava Metzia. He writes:

"Where is it hinted to in Scriptures that the first verse (pasuk 25:14) refers to Onaah of money while the second verse (pasuk 25:17) refers to Onaah of speech? It is: in the first verse (pasuk 14) it states אִישׁ אֶת אָחִיו, and a person knows his brother, knowing well the man and his speech, and his is not able to to wrong him and lie (cheat) him with words alone. Therefore perforce the verse deals with Onaah of money. And later (pasuk 17), where it is written אִישׁ אֶת עֲמִיתוֹ, it is warning about the Onaah of speech, because an עמית, an acquaintance who does not know and recognize him, it is indeed possible to wrong and cheat him also with smooth speech, which mellifluous and fair words. And this is a matter of instruction to the heart, that he should not be one way in his mouth and another in his heart. And Onaah of speech is more severe than Onaah of money, for regarding the latter is written וְיָרֵאתָ מֵאֱלֹהֶיךָ, while the former does not have written וְיָרֵאתָ מֵאֱלֹהֶיךָ. Rabbi Eliezer said [it is more severe because], this is with his body and this is with his money. Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani said: This one can undo and this cannot be undone. (Bava Metzia 58b)."

An interesting take. I like my explanation better, though.

The unique trup on El-HaAretz

At the start of parashat Behar, we encounter the following masoretic note. The text is slightly blurry, so I'll explain that the circle is over אל-הארץ and the masoretic note states ג' בטעם, meaning that there are three instances in which this particular trup occurs on these particular words.

Rabbi Yehuda Leib Shilslowitz, in the sefer Masoret haKeriah, writes as follows:

el-haAretz: The masorah upon it is ג' בטעם, and this is difficult. If it applies to the two words אל הארץ, are there not many with the trup of [zakef] katon. And if it applies to the four words, כי תבאו אל הארץ, there is no other with this trup, for all the other כי תבאו אל הארץ have the trup of munach revia [while this one has mahpach pashta]. Therefore it appears to me that we need to emend this to state לית בטעם [where the לית would have been written as a ל, easily confused by a scribe for a ג], and it applies upon these four words, that there is no other with the trup of mahpach pashta katon, for the rest have munach revia.

End quote.

Update: Good spot by Aryeh S! He writes in the comments:

If you look at the Leningrad Codex up on archive.org - https://archive.org/stream/Leningrad_Codex/Leningrad#page/n145/mode/2up

are we so sure it says "gimmel b'taam"? It looks more like "gimmel b'SYPh", and if you look on the page before when the same phrase comes up, it says it again.

If thats correct, maybe it means to say "gimmel b'sefer", and in fact there are only 3 times in Sefer Vayikra that "ki tavo'u el haaretz" appears.

I dont know much about the Masoretic text so this is just a guess.

Here is the image from the Leningrad Codex, and that is what it looks like to me as well. The next page has items such as daled betaam besifra.