Showing posts with label behar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label behar. Show all posts

Friday, May 09, 2014

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 whyWas 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...

Wednesday, May 07, 2014

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:
34The 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.

Sunday, May 04, 2014

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.

Thursday, May 02, 2013

YUTorah on Behar / Bechukosai


parsha banner



Audio Shiurim on Behar-Bechukotai
Articles on Behar-Bechukotai
Parsha Sheets on Behar-Bechukotai
Haftorah shiurim on Behar-Bechukotai
Rabbi Jeremy WiederLaining for Parshat Behar-Bechukotai
See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Behar-Bechukotai
New This Week

Friday, May 18, 2012

posts so far for parshat Behar

2012

1. Behar sources.

2. How much silver did Yirmeyahu weigh out, and whyWas 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


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...

Thursday, May 17, 2012

The uprooted peshat in אַל תּוֹנוּ אִישׁ אֶת אָחִיו

Summary: 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.

Post: In parashat Behar, we read about Shemitta. Thus:

13. During this Jubilee year, you shall return, each man to his property.יג. בִּשְׁנַת הַיּוֹבֵל הַזֹּאת תָּשֻׁבוּ אִישׁ אֶל אֲחֻזָּתוֹ:
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:
15. According to the number of years after the Jubilee, you shall purchase from your fellow Jew; according to the number of years of crops, he shall sell to you.טו. בְּמִסְפַּר שָׁנִים אַחַר הַיּוֹבֵל תִּקְנֶה מֵאֵת עֲמִיתֶךָ בְּמִסְפַּר שְׁנֵי תְבוּאֹת יִמְכָּר לָךְ:
16. The more [the remaining] years, you shall increase its purchase [price], and the fewer the [remaining] years, you shall decrease its purchase [price], because he is selling you a number of crops.טז. לְפִי רֹב הַשָּׁנִים תַּרְבֶּה מִקְנָתוֹ וּלְפִי מְעֹט הַשָּׁנִים תַּמְעִיט מִקְנָתוֹ כִּי מִסְפַּר תְּבוּאֹת הוּא מֹכֵר לָךְ:

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:


Rashi (on pasuk 15) notes a linkage of these pesukim on a peshat level, though Chazal also darshen this pasuk in a different manner (as Rashi further explains).

According to the number of years after the Jubilee, you shall purchase: The following is its simple meaning, to explain the verse according to its context: [The text] comes to warn against wronging [by overcharging, thereby linking verses 14-16 together (Mizrachi)], [namely, that] when you sell or purchase land, you should be aware of how many years remain until the [next] Jubilee, and according to [that number of] years and the crops that it is fit to yield, the seller should sell and the buyer should buy. For indeed, he will eventually return it to him in the Jubilee year. Thus, if there are [only] a few years [left until the next Jubilee year], and this one sells it for a high price, the purchaser has been wronged. And if there are many years [left until the next Jubilee year], and he will eat many crops from it [until Jubilee-if the purchaser had purchased the land for a low price], the seller has been wronged. Therefore, it must be purchased according to the time [left until the next Jubilee]. And this is [the meaning of] what it says, תְבוּאֹת יִמְכָּרלָ בְּמִסְפַּר שְׁנֵי, “according to the number of years of crops, he shall sell to you.” “According to the number of years of crop yields that it will remain in the hands of the purchaser, you shall sell it to him.” Now, [the word שְׁנֵי can mean “years of” or can mean “two.” Thus,] our Rabbis have expounded from here (see end of this Rashi for clarification), that one who sells his field is not permitted to redeem it in less than two years, that it must remain in the purchaser’s possession for exactly two years to the day, even if there are three crops during those two years, for example, if he sold it to him with crop standing in it [and then the ensuing years brought two more yields of produce. In that case, the seller cannot redeem after one year, claiming that two years’ crops have been issued,] for the word שְׁנֵי [which could mean two, i.e., two yields] does not leave its simple meaning [that it means years,] referring to [the number of years that elapse and] specifically, years that elapse with a yield of crop, but not years of blight. [Now, if the word שְׁנֵי means “years” and not two, then how do our Rabbis expound it to mean “two years”?] Because [the term שְׁנֵי is plural, and] the minimum quantity implied by שָׁנִים is two. — [Arachin 29b; Mizrachi]במספר שנים אחר היובל תקנה: זהו פשוטו ליישב מקרא על אופניו על האונאה בא להזהיר, כשתמכור או תקנה קרקע דע כמה שנים יש עד היובל. ולפי השנים ותבואות השדה שהיא ראויה לעשות ימכור המוכר ויקנה הקונה, שהרי סופו להחזירה לו בשנת היובל. ואם יש שנים מועטות וזה מוכרה בדמים יקרים הרי נתאנה לוקח, ואם יש שנים מרובות ואכל ממנה תבואות הרבה ולקחה בדמים מועטים הרי נתאנה מוכר, לפיכך צריך לקנותה לפי הזמן. וזהו שנאמר במספר שני תבואות ימכר לך, לפי מנין שני התבואות שתהא עומדת ביד הלוקח תמכור לו. ורבותינו דרשו מכאן, שהמוכר שדהו אינו רשאי לגאול פחות משתי שנים, שתעמוד שתי שנים ביד הלוקח מיום ליום, ואפילו יש שלש תבואות באותן שתי שנים, כגון שמכרה לו בקמותיה. ושני אינו יוצא מפשוטו, כלומר מספר שנים של תבואות, ולא של שדפון, ומעוט שנים שנים:






The peshat meaning then is that there is onaah (wronging) lekarkaos (for land property). But, the problem with such a linkage is that Chazal explicitly maintain that there is no onaah lakarkaos!

First, then, how do Chazal understand the explicit pesukim that there is onaah lakarkaos? Simple. They sever the connection between the various pesukim here and understand onaah to refer to non-karka. Thus, the pasuk again:

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:


Who says we need to look at context?! Rather, let us take this to refer to metaltelin, moveable objects. Thus, Rashi writes on pasuk 14:

And when you make a sale to your fellow-Jew or make a purchase from your fellow-Jew: Its simple meaning is obvious. The verse can also be expounded [to teach us the following lesson]: How do we know that when you wish to sell, you should sell to your fellow-Jew? For Scripture says, “ וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר לַעֲמִיתֶךָ,” i.e., “And when you make a sale--sell to your fellow-Jew!” And how do we know that if you come to buy, you should buy from your fellow-Jew? For Scripture continues here: “אוֹ קָנֹה מִיַּד עֲמִיתֶךָ,” i.e., “or when you buy--buy from your fellow-Jew!” - [Torath Kohanim 25:29]
וכי תמכרו וגו': לפי פשוטו כמשמעו. ועוד יש דרשה מנין כשאתה מוכר, מכור לישראל חברך, תלמוד לומר וכי תמכרו ממכר לעמיתך מכור, ומנין שאם באת לקנות קנה מישראל חברך, תלמוד לומר או קנה מיד עמיתך:
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:

Its simple meaning is obvious -- Rashi writes. This simple meaning is perhaps that the topic is onaah for karkaos. Or maybe simple onaah in any context. But there is further a dersha about preferring to sell to a coreligionist. And then, on al tonu, Rashi states this is through money.

Rashi cited in other contexts the concept from Chazal of ain mikra yotzei midei peshuto, that the verse never leaves its simple meaning. Even if Chazal darshen a pasuk to mean something else, it means both what Chazal darshen it to mean and the simple peshat. So how could Chazal have cancelled out the simple peshat here?

I would put forth the following answers:
  1. When Chazal say ain mikra yotzei midei peshuto, they don't mean the same thing Rashi and others mean. A careful analysis reveals that this most basically means that when there is a mashal and nimshal based on the Biblical text, the mashal is describing true attributes even as the nimshal is the intended target. (Thus, a sword is described in Tehillim as a decoration, and the literal meaning of the mashal holds, even though Chazal understand that this is an allegory referring to Torah scholars and Torah learning.) In other instances, ain mikra is a general rule that the peshat of a pasuk will always rise to the level of practical halachic action -- except where it does not. Thus, it comes up in discussion where they say that though this is the general rule, it is not so here, in instant X. Rather, the derash comes and supersedes the peshat. I don't believe that they had a specific tradition about the instances where derash did and did not supersede peshat. Rather, they had traditions of interpretation, or innovated explanations based on derashot. And if there understanding (on occasion) would supersede the simple peshat, then so be it.
  2. Some Rishonim take ain mikra as a justification to explain the simple meaning, even where it is at odds with (or in many instances merely runs parallel to) the derasha of Chazal. How to resolve both to exist is not there concern. I think they generally understand that, as it applies to practical halacha, at least, the derasha is dispositive and the peshat is set aside. See Rashbam and the Vilna Gaon for example. So I am not sure that even if Rashi says this here, we need to break our heads to determine how to work this out lehalacha. Except of course that Rashi does explicitly talk (in terms of the word  ושני  meaning years vs. two) about ain mikra.

The Ramban grapples with this Rashi and this issue. Thus, he cites Rashi in full. And then he writes:
ובאמת שהוא הנכון בישוב המקרא.
אבל רבותינו אמרו (ב"מ נו א): 
שאין אונאה לקרקעות, שנאמר או קנה מיד עמיתך, דבר הנקנה מיד ליד.
והמקרא הזה כפי פשוטו ולפי מדרשו לדברי הרב בקרקעות הוא. 
"And in truth this is correct in settling the meaning of the verse. But our Sages said {in Bava Metzia 56a-b} that there is no onaah for karkaos, for it states in the verse {above, 14} אוֹ קָנֹה מִיַּד עֲמִיתֶךָ, namely that which is acquired from hand to hand.


Meanwhile, according to Rashi, in its peshat and derash, this verse refers to karkaos!"
אבל על כורחנו נצטרך להטות מקראות מפשוטן, ונאמר שיהיה כל פסוק עומד בעצמו. יאמר וכי תמכרו ממכר לעמיתך או קנה מיד עמיתך דבר הנקנה מיד ליד אל תונו איש את אחיו, ויחזור ויאמר, במספר שנים אחר היובל תקנה מאתו התבואות וכמספר שני התבואות ימכרם לך, כפי השנים תרבה ותמעיט כי על כל פנים תשיבנו לו ביובל. וכל זה אזהרה ביובל שיזהרו בו לעולם, וחזר ואמר ולא תונו איש את עמיתו, בדברים.

ואני חושב עוד סברא, שודאי המאנה את חברו לדעת עובר בלאו, בין במטלטלים בין בקרקעות, שבהן דיבר הכתוב אל תונו איש את אחיו במספר שנים אחר היובל, שהוא מזהיר שיקנו וימכרו לפי השנים ולא יונו איש את אחיו. אבל רבותינו חדשו באונאה תשלומים בשתות המיקח, וביטול מיקח ביותר משתות, ומזה בלבד מעטו הקרקעות לפי שהאונאה בהם אפילו ביתר משתות, מחילה, כמו שהיא מחילה במטלטלים בפחות משתות, אע"פ שהוא אסור להונות כן לדעת, אבל אין דרך בני אדם לבטל ממכרם מפני אונאה מועטת כזו.
"And this verse, according to its peshat meaning and according to its derash, according to the Rav {=Rashi} refers to karkaos


But against are will we must divert the verses from their peshat, and state that each verse stands on its own. 

  1. First it states that {verse 14} וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר לַעֲמִיתֶךָ אוֹ קָנֹה מִיַּד עֲמִיתֶךָ אַל תּוֹנוּ אִישׁ אֶת אָחִיו, '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'. 
  2. Then, it returns and says {verse 15}  בְּמִסְפַּר שָׁנִים אַחַר הַיּוֹבֵל תִּקְנֶה מֵאֵת עֲמִיתֶךָ בְּמִסְפַּר שְׁנֵי תְבוּאֹת יִמְכָּר לָךְ, according to the years you will increase or decrease, for in all instances, you will restore it to him at Yovel. And all of this is a warning regarding Yovel that warns him forever.
  3. And then it returns {to topic 1} and states {verse 17} וְלֹא תוֹנוּ אִישׁ אֶת עֲמִיתוֹ, in devarim {words}.
And I consider another sevara, that certainly one who wrongs {me'aneh} his fellow intentionally violates a prohibition, whether for metaltelin or karkaos, for in them did the Scriptures state אַל תּוֹנוּ אִישׁ אֶת אָחִיו, בְּמִסְפַּר שָׁנִים אַחַר הַיּוֹבֵל, that it warns that he should purchase and sell according to the years, and a man should not wrong his brother. But our Sages innovated by onaah the idea of payment in 1/6 of the purchased item, and the cancellation of the purchase in more than 1/6, and in this alone were karkaos excluded, since onaah in them even more than 1/6 is forgiven {and let go by the other party}, just as it is forgiven in metaltelin in less than 1/6, even though it is forbidden to wrong in such manner intentionally, but it is not the way of people to cancel their sale because of a minor onaah such as this."

ודרשו חכמים מפני שאמר הכתוב וכי תמכרו ממכר לעמיתך או קנה דבר הנקנה מיד ליד אל תונו איש את אחיו, למדנו שיש באונאה דין מיוחד במטלטלים שאינו נוהג בקרקעות, והוא חזרת הממון, אבל אזהרת הלאו נוהגת בכולן. ולכך אמר "וכי תמכרו ממכר" לשון רבים, למוכר קרקעות ולמוכר מטלטלין, "או קנה מיד עמיתך", היחיד מהם המוכר המטלטלין מיד ליד, ואמר לכולן "אל תונו", וכיון שייחד והפריש המטלטלין ריבה בהן דין אונאה, והיא בחזרת התשלומין. וזה דבר נכון כפי המדרשים שקבלו רבותינו ברמזי התורה.

ואולי יהיה כל זה אסמכתא, כי הלאו אזהרה בין בקרקע בין במטלטלין, וחזרת הממון בידם קבלה במטלטלין ולא בקרקעות כמו שאמרו (ב"ק יד ב): דבר השוה לכל כסף. כי השיעורים כולם בשתות ויתר על שתות כפי דעות בני אדם, ולמה לא יוציאו הקרקעות מן הדין הזה, והם הוציאו ממנו כלי בעל הבית.
"And the Chachamim darshened that since Scriptures states וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר לַעֲמִיתֶךָ אוֹ קָנֹה...[miyad], something which is acquired from hand to hand... אַל תּוֹנוּ אִישׁ אֶת אָחִיו. We learn that there is in onaah a unique law by metaltelin which is not practiced by karkaos, and this is return of the money. But the warning of the prohibition is applicable to all of them. And that is why it stated וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר in plural form, to the seller of land and the seller of movable objects. אוֹ קָנֹה מִיַּד עֲמִיתֶךָ, the single one of them, who is the seller of metaltelin from hand to hand. And it states for all of them אַל תּוֹנוּ. And since it singled out and separated the metaltelin, it included in it the law of onaah, namely the returning of the payment. And this matter is correct according to the midrashim that our Rabbis received in the hints of the Torah.

And perhaps all this is an asmachta {a hinting support rather than derivation} for the prohibition is a warning whether for karka or metaltelin, and the return of the money in their hands is a tradition for metaltelin and not in karkaos, as they said {in Bava Kamma 14b{ 'somehting which is equal to all kesef. For the measures in all of them are 1/6 and more then 1/6 according the thought of people, and why not exclude karkaos from this law, when they exclude from it the vessels of the baal habayis?"

ואמרו (ב"מ נא א): 
לא שנו אלא בלוקח מן התגר אבל בלוקח מבעל הבית אין לו אונאה, מפני שדרך בעלי בתים שלא ימכרו כלי תשמישן.

וגם יתכן לומר כי הכתוב יזהיר שידעו מספר השנים עד היובל, ולפיהם ימכרו ויקנו ולא יונו בהם איש את אחיו להטעותו במספר, או להטעותו במכירה שיחשוב בה שהיא לחלוטין ויטעהו בכך, אבל ידעו שניהם ויודיעו זה לזה המספר, כי המכירה היא במספר שנים עד היובל. שגם בקרקעות יש אונאה בטועים במידה ובמנין, ואפילו בפחות משתות, וכל שכן במטלטלין.
"And they said {in Bava Metzia 51a}: they only taught this regarding one who purchased from the merchant, but if one purchased from a homeowner, there is no onaah, since the manner of baalei batim are that they do not sell the vessels they use {except at a dear price}.

And it is also possible to say that the Scriptures warns that one should know the number of years until Yovel, and in accordance with them one should sell and purchase, and not wrong in them one man his fellow, to trick him as to the number, or to trick him in the sale, that he should think that he has it in the clear, and misguide him in this, but rather they both should know and inform one another of the number {of years}, that this sale is in the number of years until the Yovel. For also by karkaos is there onaah when they err in measure and number, and even in less than 1/6, and all the more so in metaltelin."

End quote of the Ramban.

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin